• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

  • Policy Issues
    • 25 Years Since September 11
    • Fact Sheets
    • Biological & Chemical Weapons
    • Countries
    • Defense Spending
    • No First Use
    • Non-Proliferation
    • Nuclear Security
    • Nuclear Testing
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Missile Defense
  • Nukes of Hazard
    • Podcast
    • Blog
      • Next Up In Arms Control
    • Videos
  • Join Us
  • Press
  • About
    • Staff
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Archives for Security Spending / Nuclear Weapons Spending

January 20, 2011

Dueling Quotes of the Day, Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) Edition

Note: Sorry for the lite blogging as of late.  Expect it to pick up over the next couple of weeks.

Asked if the final cost [of the UPF] will be somewhere between $4.2 billion and $6.5 billion, [John] Howanitz [B&W Y-12’s senior vice president for transformation and projects] replied: ‘That’s the question of the day. If you ask me today, I will tell you that based on the information we have acquired, the pricing we have on hand, I’m very confident that this is a good estimate. But I’m not at 90 percent design. …Will it go down? I don’t know. Will it go up? I don’t know. But, if someone were to say, can someone come in and validate this, I would welcome anyone to come in and look at our product — in fact, the government has — and we have a good product.”

Via Frank Munger, January 18, 2010

NNSA is developing 10 new technologies for use in the UPF and is using a systematic approach—Technology Readiness Levels (TRL)—to gauge the extent to which technologies have been demonstrated to work as intended….However, NNSA does not expect all 10 new technologies to achieve the level of maturity called for by best practices before making critical decisions….In addition, DOE’s guidance for establishing optimal TRLs prior to beginning construction is not consistent with best practices or with our previous recommendations. As a result, 6 of 10 technologies NNSA is developing are not expected to reach optimum TRLs consistent with best practices by the time UPF construction begins. If critical technologies fail to work as intended, NNSA may need to revert to existing or alternate technologies, possibly resulting in changes to design plans and space requirements that could delay the project and increase costs.

GAO Report on the UPF, November 2010

Posted in: Nuclear Weapons Spending, Nukes of Hazard blog

December 7, 2010

Fissile Material Working Group calls for Congress to fully fund non-proliferation programs

Earlier this year, both relevant House and Senate subcommittees decided to fully fund non proliferation programs despite competing funding demands. However, the Continuing Resolutions passed to keep the government running through December funded most government programs, including non-proliferation programs, at last year’s levels. In response, the Fissile Materials Working Group (FMWG) put together a letter […]

Posted in: Issue Center, Non-Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons Spending, Press & In the News on Non-Proliferation, Press & In the News on Nuclear Weapons Spending

February 1, 2008

Highlights of Congressional Action on National Security in 2007

by Kingston Reif Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Program (Click here for more) Administration Request: $88.8 million for the Department of Energy; $30 million for the Department of Defense Final Action: $0 for the Department of Energy; $15 million for the Department of Defense Reprocessing Nuclear Waste (Click here for more) Administration Request: $405 million Final […]

Posted in: Middle East, Nuclear Weapons Spending, Pentagon Budget, Security Spending

February 1, 2008

Highlights of Congressional Action on National Security in 2007

by Kingston Reif Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Program  Administration Request: $88.8 million for the Department of Energy; $30 million for the Department of Defense Final Action: $0 for the Department of Energy; $15 million for the Department of Defense Reprocessing Nuclear Waste  Administration Request: $405 million Final Action: $179 million (as part of Department of […]

Posted in: Factsheets & Analysis on Nuclear Weapons Spending, Factsheets & Analysis on Pentagon Budget, Nuclear Weapons Spending, Pentagon Budget, Security Spending

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 46
  • Page 47
  • Page 48

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Introducing: Neighbors Against Nukes October 1, 2026
  • BONUS Episode: The Costs of False Security – Live Audience Question & Answer Session September 30, 2026
  • Time To Fund the OPCW September 29, 2026
  • The Costs of False Security: The Fallacy of National Missile Defense, the Golden Dome and Nuclear Weapons in Space September 28, 2026
  • 2026 Annual Conference: $1 Trillion and Counting: The Pentagon Budget Squeezing Our Real Security September 16, 2026

Footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.546.0795

Issues

  • 25 Years Since September 11
  • Fact Sheets
  • Biological and Chemical Weapons
  • Countries
  • Defense Spending
  • No First Use
  • Non-Proliferation
  • Nuclear Security
  • Nuclear Testing
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Missile Defense

Countries

  • China
  • France
  • India and Pakistan
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • North Korea
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom

Explore

  • Nukes of Hazard blog
  • Nukes of Hazard podcast
  • Nukes of Hazard videos
  • Front and Center
  • Fact Sheets

About

  • About
  • Meet the Staff
  • Boards & Experts
  • Press
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Council for a Livable World
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2026 Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Privacy Policy

Charity Navigator GuideStar Seal of Transparency