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