June 3, 2023

LANL plutonium safety violations; Russophobia in the antiwar "left,"; any pit production is "expanded" pit production

Friends --

Good afternoon. Some of you may be interested in these two news articles about NNSA's recent enforcement action about some egregious safety violations at LANL:

• Triad Hit By DOE With Preliminary Notice Of Violation [PNOV] For 5 Nuclear Safety Issues At Plutonium Facility PF4 In 2021, Los Alamos Reporter, May 31, 2023
• This article has lots of details about the incidents if you want to avoid reading the actual PNOV.

• Los Alamos National Lab contractor cited for 2021 violations, Santa Fe New Mexican, Jun 2, 2023
• I (Greg) added a comment, quoted below at the *. People need to know that being against "expanded" pit production at LANL isn't being against much if anything, as all non-zero pit production is "expanded." See below.
  

The first to briefly report on this important story, by the way, was Dan Parsons at Exchange Monitor ("LANL contractor cited by NNSA for series of plutonium facility safety violations in 2021").

Re Ukraine, the US continues to do its best to prolong the war forever under the deluded theory that this will exhaust Russia and eventually some Yeltsin-like person will become president there. ("Blinken Dismisses Calls for a Ceasefire, Says US Must Build Up Ukraine’s Military," Kyle Anzalone, Antiwar.com, Jun 2, 2023). One of two featured articles on our Ukraine page today.

Also featured is an interesting piece by Scott Ritter ("'Waging Peace': How a tour of Russia showed me that propaganda perverts reality in the minds of Americans," RT, Jun 2, 2023), containing this important observation:

   " Upon my return home, I was able to access my email account, which I was not able to do while in Russia, and immediately stumbled upon an intramural discussion among people I respect, who possess similar professional backgrounds and anti-war inclinations. It revolved around the issue of whether there was anything more Russia, and in particular Putin, could have done to avoid a war in Ukraine. Some amongst this group insisted that Putin had no choice but to act, while others argued that there were always options short of war that could have been pursued.
    What struck me about this debate was the reality that, save for very few exceptions, the underlying analysis was conducted from an American point of view, with little or no regard as to what would be politically possible in Russia, or what the factual foundation of the problems being discussed were. The mirror-imaging of American perspectives onto Russian reality resulted in the creation of a counter-narrative that was as fundamentally flawed as it was factually challenged. For those who argued that Putin could have avoided war, their arguments lacked any grounding in Russian reality or the facts of the case.
    The lack of insight into how Russia functions created artificial expectations of Russian behavior which, when not met, generated angst among the participants about the irresponsible actions of Putin and his government that in turn helped feed an overall anti-Russian narrative. As this debate underscored, even among well-meaning people inclined to have an open mind about the country, Russophobia and an overall ignorance of the Russian reality creates pre-conceived intellectual obstacles which are difficult to overcome."

As Steve Starr remarked to some of us the other day, Russophobia is a species of racism. It's ugly as well as being a mental disease. There are many who say, "Oh, I love the Russian people but I hate Putin (or, the Russian government)." These people haven't thought enough yet about Putin's consistent, high popularity and what it says about his policies, including those involving Ukraine.

Greg

*Published comment by Greg Mello in today's New Mexican:

Thanks for the important article, Scott and editors.

Yes, all investment in pit production at LANL should be halted. That is our preferred policy takeaway. I don't think Jay is saying that -- up to now Jay has argued that LANL should be the ONLY pit production site in the nation -- but perhaps he can clarify that apparent contradiction in this space. It's important for this to happen, because many people far away perceive that his organization and many others want pit production at LANL, as long as it is not "expanded."

The problem centers on the word "expanded," as in "expanded pit production." It implies there is some pit production, or some capability to do pit production, right now. But there isn't. Pit production is not being "expanded" at LANL. There IS no pit production at LANL, or even the capability for any. LANL, and NNSA itself, foster this confusion, pretending there is more capability at LANL than there is.

There has never at any time since the early 1950s been any "reliable" pit production at LANL. ("Reliable" production is NNSA's term for industrial production, production that goes beyond technology demonstration and can be used as the basis for a warhead production program.)

There has not been any stockpile pit production AT ALL at LANL since 2007-2012, when LANL made 30 pits that were fed into an existing warhead maintenance program over those 6 years in what amounted to a technology demonstration. After that, LANL's entire pit program was shut down for safety violations, and because there was neither the need nor the capability to make pits.

This is much more than semantics. Changing LANL over from technology "sustainment" to "reliable" production at even 30 pits per year is expected to be a $16-$19 billion dollar effort lasting well past 2031 and possibly (i.e. probably) until 2033-2035, according to NNSA. To reliably produce as few as 20 pits per year, NNSA will need essentially all the people, infrastructure, and equipment needed for 30 pits per year.

So it's the FIRST step that's the real doozy -- creating ANY actual, reliable pit production capability, not "expanding" something. It's the FIRST step that will cost more than $15 billion and commit the entire region to be the home of a plutonium-based complex, with all the nuclear waste and the economic, social, and moral impacts that implies.

The lab never wanted that job starting in 1946, when Norris Bradbury and other senior managers issued a report begging to be rid of it. Much later, Domenici and Bingaman didn't want it when they were senators. In their time, pit production was not really needed and it STILL is not needed. Up to 2018, even NNSA didn't want pit production in LANL's old PF-4 facility at ANY permanent level and made a formal decision to never do what NNSA is doing today.

Nationally, many people -- including ostensible "antinuclear" folks -- are saying, "Let's have LANL make all the pits, but let's not have EXPANDED pit production at LANL." This formulation is at odds with reality and in effect -- contrary to most people's intent -- quietly endorses the status quo program ("the program of record") at LANL. Because of the huge infrastructure investment and the hiring necessary to staff 3 work shifts and drive LANL's old, small plutonium R&D facility well past its usual operational pace (and as we see in this report, past safety "red lines"), pit production at LANL is a job where if you are in for a dime, you're in for a dollar.

Let's oppose ALL pit production at LANL and ALL pit production for the coming decade, which is we believe the best policy for the country as well as the region and the world.

A better way to clarify what "expanded" pit production means is with numbers (why didn't I think of this earlier?). So making 10 usable ("war reserve") pits per year, reliably, is "expanded" pit production. LANL has never done that (since, possibly, a couple of years plus or minus 1950). Who is for 10 pits per year at LANL and who is against it? Twenty pits per year is REALLY expanded.

So Jay, do you oppose 10-20 pits per year at LANL? Are you willing to write an open letter to Frank von Hippel, Marylia Kelley, and Tom Clements in South Carolina, or better still to congressional committees, saying you oppose all pit production at LANL?