Nuclear weapons

Complex 2030
Updated 3/3/07

32,000-plus Commentors Provide Input for Complex 2030 Scoping Process - "The majority of comments asked DOE to add an alternative that assumes continued reduction in the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile."

Myth vs. Fact: The Truth about “Complex 2030” and the Reliable Replacement Warhead - Nuclear Watch New Mexico

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency within the Department of Energy, has recently posted a fact sheet called “Myth vs. Fact: The Truth about Plutonium Aging.”1 This is in response to a November 2006 study by independent experts that concluded plutonium pits2 have reliable lifetimes of a century or more.3 That finding directly contradicts NNSA’s claimed needs for new nuclear weapons designs under the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Program4 and “Complex 2030,” the future nuclear weapons complex it wants by that year. These two issues are inextricably linked, as the agency has declared that RRW is the “enabler” for transformation of the present nuclear weapons complex into a future “responsive infrastructure” capable of producing new-design nuclear weapons for unspecified future “changing military requirements.”5 Because of the significance of the related issues, NNSA’s unsubstantiated claims deserve challenge (its verbatim “Myth vs. Fact” language is italicized below).

Over the past 3 months, the Department of Energy (DOE) has held hearings across the United States allowing the public to weigh in on DOE’s Notice of Intent for Complex 2030 (The Bombplex). The Bombplex is intended to create a nuclear weapons infrastructure capable of developing and maintaining a new generation of nuclear weapons under the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. At every hearing Americans have overwhelmingly opposed this expensive, dangerous and unnecessary overhaul of the current nuclear complex. Through Turn the Tide, over 2,700 letters voicing opposition to the Bomplex have been sent to DOE.

Time is running out! Now more than ever, we need to let DOE know that we oppose the BOMBPLEX ! On Wednesday, January 17, the public comment period for Bombplex proposal will end. There are five days left to send comments about the current proposal before the DOE begins their Programmatic Environmental Impact Study.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has set up an excellent site where you can send a letter easily expressing your opposition.

More information below on Bombplex 2030

April 22-25th, 2007.
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability's D.C. Days - “Clean Up the Complex, Don’t Build the Bombplex: No New Nukes” More info soon.

State of Nevada comments on DOE’s Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplement to the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement – Complex 2030 (Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 202, October 19, 2006, p. 61731 – 61736) :

Coalition Opposes Bush Administration Plan for New Nuclear Weapons

"Bombplex" Promises New Cold War Scale Nuclear Weapons Industry
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability press release October 19, 2006

The Department of Energy (DOE) has released a Notice of Intent to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) for a massive reorganization and refurbishment of the nuclear weapons complex. This giant shift in operations is being offered as a supplemental environmental impact statement to the 1996 Stockpile Stewardship and Management PEIS in an attempt to mask the scale of the proposed changes.

Take action and add your voice. Public comments are due by January 17, 2007.

What is Complex 2030

Nuclear Proliferation steps into high gear with the announcement of Complex 2030. (Material for this page was provided by Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety.)

In reality, Complex 2030 is a bizarrely inappropriate Dr. Strangelove-esque plan to revitalize the United States’ nuclear weapons production capability in order to manufacture the new Reliable Replacement Warhead, which will potentially drive a new nuclear weapons arms race. Despite the end of the Cold War almost two decades ago, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which manages DOE’s nuclear weapons programs, is aggressively pursuing new military missions and designs to carry out the expanded first strike options envisioned in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.

Bombplex 2030 essentially seeks to replace old nukes with new and more usable nukes. They are proposing to consolidate and renovate nuclear weapons facilities that are located all around our country. The plans will lessen the number of nukes currently on hand, however, it will give the U.S. the power to build new nukes at an astonishing rate. Is this your vision of the world in 2030?

Bombplex 2030 is a complete overhaul of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex with the goal of continuously producing new nuclear weapons, with the Reliable Replacement Warheads being the first off the production line. It is being sold by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as a smaller, more efficient, more modern, “safer” nuclear weapons complex than the current one. The available details tell a different story. All of the existing nuclear weapons sites will still be in operation, supporting a “responsive infrastructure” with increased design and production capabilities that could spark a new nuclear arms race.

National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) website Future of the Nuclear Weapons Complex

In his testimony before Congress in April 2006 discussing nuclear weapons infrastructure, Thomas D’Agostino, NNSA’s Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs stated, “we seek an ability to design, develop, certify and begin production of refurbished or replacement warheads within 48 months of a decision to begin engineering development… these timelines would restore us to a level of capability comparable to what we had during the Cold War.”

The stated goals of Complex 2030 include:

* Production of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), a series of new weapons claimed to perform reliably without ever needing nuclear testing
* Increasing the dismantlement of retired warheads
* Consolidation of special nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons to fewer sites in the complex and fewer locations within the sites to reduce the cost of security and the establishment of a consolidated plutonium research and production center
* Introducing more uniformity in technical and business practices to reduce risk and increase efficiency

DOE/NNSA’s past activity has always moved in the direction of increased complexity at greater costs than anticipated. A “curatorship” approach could accomplish the major stated goals of Complex 2030: ensured safety/reliability of the stockpile (consisting of previously tested designs), no return to testing, increased dismantlement, removal of dangerous/vulnerable nuclear materials from many sites, and economic/programmatic efficiency.

By taking such a step towards diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. military doctrine and foreign policy, this country could take the lead in moving all nuclear nations toward the goals of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty.

NNSA is required by law to analyze possible alternatives to the Bombplex 2030. NNSA’s vision of a “transformed” stockpile is not the only alternative. How about analyzing the alternative where the U.S. meets its NPT commitments by the year 2030, if not before? Nukes forever is not an option.

We are at a pivotal moment in history, folks. The U.S. has a leadership opportunity to meet the goals of the NPT, setting an example for other nuclear States. Furthermore, recent events in North Korea and Iran are a prime example of the U.S.’s failed diplomacy. Do you really feel safer knowing that we have nukes and that in pursuing new nukes we are creating more enemies? It’s time to do something different.

The nuclear weapons complex consists of the eight major facilities across the country. The facilities include: Los Alamos National Laboratory (NM), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (CA), Sandia National Laboratories (NM and CA), Pantex Plant (TX), Y-12 National Security Complex (TN), Kansas City Plant (MO), Savannah River Site (SC) and Nevada Test Site (NV).

THE BOMBPLEX
NNSA prefers the Complex 2030 plan, which is referred to as the Proposed Action in the Notice of Intent. Broadly, this is what DOE wants out of the new Bombplex:

-Plutonium manufacturing, research and other work would be consolidated at a single facility
This giant, costly facility would include a bomb plant with the capacity to produce 125 plutonium pits, annually. Plutonium pit production is a threat to the environment and to U.S. nonproliferation goals. It is particularly unwise to go forward with pit production before the release of DOE’s plutonium aging study which could find that the current stockpile of pits will be effective for several decades longer than originally though.

-Consolidation of large quantities of plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, known as Category I/II Special Nuclear Materials (SNM)
This means the eventual removal of these materials from some sites altogether, as is the case at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. At sites where Category I/II SNM work continues (Los Alamos, Y-12, Savannah River, Pantex, Nevada Test Site), fewer locations on those sites will house SNM. This would allow for more effective security around these dangerous materials. Although ANA feels that further nuclear weapons research is unnecessary, consolidation of such materials does reduce the risk of theft and contamination. (We’ll need to discuss this kind of statement)

-Consolidation and relocation of redundant facilities and capabilities across the complex
Claims that Complex 2030 will result in a smaller complex are spurious. The Bombplex would only reduce the square footage of nuclear weapons operations after a huge construction binge. NNSA would consolidate from eight sites to… eight sites. Not a single one of the eight current NNSA sites will be closed and new construction is planned for most (all?) of those eight sites, costing billions.

-Acceleration of Dismantlement Activities
Dismantlement of nuclear weapons is a step in the right direction and increasing this activity is the sole positive attribute to the otherwise provocative, expensive, and environmentally dangerous Bomplex plan.

Bombplex in the news

Coming soon

Web resources

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability is a national network of more than 30 groups, most of whom live downwind and downstream from the U.S. nuclear weapons complex sites. These groups have been working collaboratively for nearly two decades to clean up the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production and stop new nuclear weapons programs.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's web page Stop Complex 2030! Say No to New Nuclear Weapons! On this page you can use their suggested talking points and send an email directly from their action center.

Take Action

Public comments are due by January 17, 2007.

Written comments can be emailed to:
Complex2030@nnsa.doe.gov

or by snail mail to:

Theodore A. Wyka
Complex 2030 SEIS Document Manager
Office of Transformation
U.S. Department of Energy, NA-10.1
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20585

Get the Draft SEIS:
Let DOE know that you are serious about your comments and ask for a copy of the draft SEIS of your very own. They aren’t expecting many to request it and it’s a concrete way of making them deal with your thoughts. Even more than our sass, this will get their attention. Send an email or letter to the address to your left requesting that a hard copy of the full document be sent straight to you.

Talking points provided by Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, 107 Cienega St. Santa Fe, NM 87501, 505.986.1973, www.nuclearactive.org November 2, 2006

Reduced Stockpile – AKA Fewer Nukes…
“Rock on DOE! Why not try complete abolition on for size? Along these lines the SEIS must analyze an alternative in which the U.S. does away with nukes by the year 2030, or sooner, and deals with the mess it made in the past. Such a transformed world is possible.”

Consolidated Plutonium Center – AKA Nuke Mega Store…
“No New Bombplex! No Where! No Way! The production of nuclear weapons sucks for everyone. It costs ridiculous amounts of money (NNSA’s weapons budget is $6.4 billion annually). This kind of money could be used in way hipper ways, like free health care, free education and cool doodads like cars that run on air.”
International Implications

The Bombplex proposal talks about meeting the changing international security threats of the 21st century, but does not talk about getting rid of these threats and completely neglects to acknowledge how U.S. policies created these threats in the first place. “The SEIS must analyze how the proposed Bombplex will create new international security threats, how the DOE can get rid of those threats and why those threats are there in the first place.”

Environmental Justice
“We are sick and tired of the poorest, most vulnerable people locally and internationally getting the shaft. Why doesn’t DOE propose nuke activities to take place at DOE headquarters in DC? ‘Nuff said.”

Alternatives
“Well, you are the Department of Energy right? Why not transform the Bombplex into a Renewable Energyplex? We live in the middle of a desert right? It’s a more than a little windy and sunny pretty much year round. Give you any ideas?” And remember folks… NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION IS DA BOMB!

NO ACTION –THE NUCLEAR STATUS QUO
Under this proposal, NNSA continues to operate the current nuclear weapons complex with the possible implementation of changes already being planned for Y-12 and Los Alamos.

The status quo, it should be pointed out, contains several tremendously expensive weapons design programs, the over-budget, underachieving National Ignition Facility, for example. The current complex still poses a threat to the environment. Even without a huge, costly series up upgrades, the current nuclear weapons complex can support projects like the Life Extension Programs that continue to upgrade the military capabilities of the U.S. nuclear stockpile and would be able to produce the provocative Reliable Replacement Warhead. (is this true?).

REDUCED OPERATIONS AND CAPABILITY-BASED COMPLEX – INCREASING CURRENT BOMB-MAKING CAPACITIES
This option retains the plans to consolidate sites with large quantities of Special Nuclear Materials and the “consolidation” of redundant facilities and capabilities from the Complex 2030 scenario. The only important difference between Complex 2030 and “Reduced Operations” is the withdrawal of the “plutonium center.” Under this option, pit production would remain at Los Alamos with output increased to 50 pits, annually.

The “Reduced Operations” plan actually increases capabilities beyond the current complex. Under this option, NNSA would “maintain a basic capability for manufacturing technologies for all stockpile weapons.” Such a capability does not currently exist at the proposed levels (50 pits/year). WILL THIS SUPPORT RRW?

Conclusion
Improvements over the Bombplex, the status quo, and the “capability-based complex” could be achieved through an approach that truly reduced operations. A “curatorship” approach (maintaining the current stockpile through surveillance, non-nuclear testing and repair) could accomplish the major stated goals of Complex 2030: ensured safety/reliability of the stockpile (consisting of previously tested designs), no return to testing, increased dismantlement, removal of dangerous/vulnerable nuclear materials from many sites, and economic/programmatic efficiency.

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's web page Stop Complex 2030! Say No to New Nuclear Weapons! On this page you can use their suggested talking points and send an email directly from their action center.