Resources from Greg Mello, Los Alamos Study Group

May 9, 2019

Dear colleagues --

Here is a short paper providing talking points and recommendations on some nuclear weapons policies and some aspects of their wider background, starting with pit production: Bulletin 256: The Great Transformation: Nuclear Weapons Policy Considerations for Congress.

It is tempting to offer a down-selection of pivotal issues for your consideration, especially with the announcement yesterday of delays in two LEPs, which really is more likely all four pending LEPs. The entire stockpile management program needs reassessment, in our view.

If we made such a list, the ill-considered and entirely unnecessary W87-1 LEP would be at or near the top of the list. It may be splitting into two variants due to expected pit production delays (from an arbitrary schedule), one with a new pit and one with pit reuse, as NNSA Administrator Lisa Gordon-Hagerty may have distantly hinted yesterday. The W87-1 occupies a pivot point for many issues of management and policy, which is another way of saying it butters a whole lot of toast. From that perspective, the more programs it requires, and the more problems and crises it generates, the better.

We are hearing that LLNL doesn't want peer review for this program. We don't know if that approach has any precedent.

The idea that LANL can be an enduring, reliable pit production facility inexplicably persists. Perhaps in the back of some peoples' minds there is a semi-conscious notion that LANL can somehow build some above- or below-ground outbuildings or modules or whatever at Technical Area (TA-) 55 to compensate for the inherent failings and age of the main plutonium facility PF-4.

As an antidote for this you might want to look at the 3 summary slides attached, or at: Bulletin 254: Preview of problems to come with Los Alamos pit production, Jan 28, 2019.

In case you missed it, there was an important study by DOE's Enterprise Assessment team regarding Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL's) followup on safety issues. The press picked up on it:

• Report: LANL nuclear safety falls short, Albuquerque Journal, Apr 29, 2019
• Safety problems remain at Los Alamos National Laboratory, report finds, Santa Fe New Mexican, Apr 30, 2019
• Regulators: Los Alamos lab nuclear safety effort falls short, Associated Press, Apr 30, 2019

The recent DoD/IDA pit production study came to these conclusions:

We agree with all of these but the first.

If pit production is possible, it won't be at LANL. As we touch upon in the "great transformation" talking points, if there is no clear and present need for pits AND ALSO no sound, deliberate management, pit production may not be possible at all. There is no indication so far that NNSA or DoD understand any of this.

NNSA and DoD are trying to keep their plans and analyses secret because they fear outside scrutiny. Congress will not be able to do its job if this trend continues. We seek redacted versions of key reports, like the two recent IDA studies.

Finally, if there is a Continuing Resolution -- or, better, invocation of Budget Control Act limits -- I hope there is no NNSA anomaly. NNSA does not need the money.

Let Trish or I know if we can answer any questions.

Best wishes,

Greg