Works Cited

NNSA Projects: A True and Cautionary Tale of Underestimating & Overspending

Works Cited

Weapons Activity vs # of Nuclear Warheads

1. Increasing Transparency in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile.  Fact Sheet.  www.defense.gov/news/d20100503stockpile.pdf

2. Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris.  Global nuclear weapons inventories, 1945-2013.  Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.  Sept 2013.  http://bos.sagepub.com/content/69/5/75.full.pdf+html

3. Hans M. Kristensen. Trimming Nuclear Excess.  Options for Further Reductions of U.S. and Russian Nuclear Forces.  Special Report No 5. Dec, 2012.  Federation of American Scientists.  http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/publications1/TrimmingNuclearExcess.pdf

4. Civiak, Bob. “Fewer Warheads – More Spending – 2014.” May 2014. Page 1.

Post Cold War DOE Weapons Activities Vs NNSA Weapons Activities Since Its Founding in 2000

1. Schwartz, Stephen, ed. Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1998. Page 562.

2. United States. Department of Energy. DOE FY 1999 Appropriations. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-1999-APP/pdf/BUDGET-1999-APP-1-9.pdf

3. Civiak, Bob. “Fewer Warheads – More Spending – 2014.” May 2014. Page 1.

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility

1. United States. Department of Energy, Office of Fissile Materials Disposition. Plutonium Disposition Life Cycle Costs and Cost-Related Comments Resolution Document. Pages 2 – 6. Nov. 1999.

2. United States. Department of Energy, CFO. National Nuclear Security Administration. FY 2004 Budget Request: Volume 1. Page 780. http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/04budget/content/defnn/nn.pdf

3. United States. Department of Energy. FY 2014 Congressional Budget Request. Page 119. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/04/f0/Volume1.pdf

4. United States Congress. House Committee on Energy & Water Development. Hearing, Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. Witness: Acting Administrator NNSA Bruce Held: 31 minutes, 30 seconds. April 3, 2014. http://appropriations.house.gov/calendararchive/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=373932

B61 Life Extension Program

1. National Priorities Project. Interactive Data: Trade-Offs. Accessed May, 4th, 2014. http://nationalpriorities.org/tradeoffs/041713/

2. Hans M. Kristensen. Federation of American Scientists. B61-12: NNSA’s Gold-Plated Nuclear Bomb Project. Accessed May, 6th, 2014. http://blogs.fas.org/security/2012/07/b61-12gold/

3. Union of Concerned Scientists. The B61 Life Extension Program. Accessed May, 6th, 2014. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/B61-life-extension-program-FS.pdf

W78 Life Extension Program

1. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. Stockpile Stewardship Report FY2014. http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/06-13-inlinefiles/FY14SSMP_2.pdf

2. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. Stockpile Stewardship Report FY2012. http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/SSMP-FY2012.pdf

Uranium Processing Facility

1. Project on Government Oversight. Uranium Processing Facility: When You’re in a Hole, Just Stop Digging. September 25, 2013. Accessed May 7, 2014. http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/2013/20130925-uranium-processing-facility.html#fn53

2. Department of Energy, OMB/CFO. Department of Energy FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request: National Nuclear Security Administration: Volume 1. P. 233. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/FY06Volume1.pdf

3. Frank Munger, “UPF to be redesigned because equipment won’t fit; $500M already spent on Y-12 project.” Knoxville News Sentinel, October 2, 2012. http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2012/10/upf-to-be-redesigned-because-e.html

4. Frank Munger, “Only one hand at Y-12 all-hands.” Knoxville News Sentinel, February 21, 2014. http://knoxblogs.com/atomiccity/2014/02/21/one-hand-y-12-hands/

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility

1. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2012. Modernizing the nuclear security enterprise: New plutonium research facility at Los alamos may not meet all mission needs, GAO-12-337. Washington, DC.

2. Union of Concerned Scientists. The CMRR-Nuclear Facility: Why a Delay Makes Sense. April 2012. Accessed on May 7th, 2014. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/cmrr-nuclear-facility-delay.pdf

ANA’s “Billion Dollar Boondoggles” Report