By ROGER SNODGRASS, Monitor Editor
A government watchdog group wrote to Energy Secretary Bodman on Friday questioning the reliability of nuclear pit manufacturing efforts at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
A letter by the Project on Government Accountability Executive Director Danielle Brian expressed the group’s concern about the number of waivers granted to LANL in its current work fashioning plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons.
LANL took over the pit-making job from the Rocky Flats plant that closed in 1989.
On Saturday, a story by H. Josef Hebert, a national correspondent who covers energy, environment and nuclear issues for the Associated Press, said POGO was raising questions about whether the lab’s new replacement nuclear triggers for W88 warheads in Trident missile are as trustworthy as the ones currently used in the submarine’s arsenal.
Specifically, POGO’s information states that the plutonium pit production program at LANL required 72 waivers in the production process, 7 administrative exceptions, 5 product exceptions and 53 engineering authorization changes.
Among other changes from the Rocky Flats process, LANL’s pits are “cast,” while the previous pits were “wrought.”
Hebert said he talked to “a scientist indirectly involved in the production process,” who “spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject.”
A spokesman for Los Alamos National Laboratory said the waivers were fully approved, a normal part of the process and in no way an indication of an inferior product.
“It has been peer-reviewed and independently evaluated through engineering and scientific and administrative reviews,” said Kevin Roark of the lab’s Communication Office. “There hasn’t been a product that has come out of here that has been more scrutinized than this product.”
The laboratory celebrated the acceptance of its first nuclear pit for inclusion into the nuclear stockpile last summer.
The first pit produced by the United States in nearly two decades was followed by another eight pits before the end of the fiscal year.
A pit that is fully certified for acceptance and use in the stockpile is given a special “diamond stamp” by the agency in charge of the nuclear weapons complex, the National Nuclear Security Administration.
LANL was authorized to produce as many as 20 pits per year in 1999, and under a new proposal by NNSA would be allowed to manufacture up to 80 pits a year.
The pit-manufacturing issue has been a dividing line between weapons advocates who see a need to maintain the manufacturing capability for the foreseeable future and opponents who claim that the U.S. has enough plutonium pits to last for years to come.
13 comments:
In other news, it has been discovered that bears defecate in the woods.
One test is worth a thousand expert opinions.
Testing is the sure way to find out if one will work. Problem is, the "safety" paperwork needed would now be so complex, a test couldn't be performed even if the staff and the specialized equipment needed could be found, which is questionable.
"The pit-manufacturing issue has been a dividing line between weapons advocates who see a need to maintain the manufacturing capability for the foreseeable future and opponents who claim that the U.S. has enough plutonium pits to last for years to come."
Not every weapons advocate is satisfied with the current state of manufacturing.
The Democrats own both sides of Congress are are about to take the political Trifecta on Nov 2008.
There will be no underground testing. There will be no nuke design work after 2008. Even pit production may not be allowed after 2008.
Some of the weapon scientists in the crowd need to put down the crack pipe and come back to reality. Whether they like it or not, the old days are long gone.
The Republicans had the tifecta for most Bush's term. Hobson is a Republican. I don't recall much growth in design and testing. What is your point?
(I don't mean to take a political side. I'm just noting that your snippy comment about Democrats is irrelevant).
11:19 am:"Some of the weapon scientists in the crowd need to put down the crack pipe and come back to reality. Whether they like it or not, the old days are long gone."
So, you're happy with unilateral nuclear disarmament by the US when a plethora of other countries are just climbing on the bandwagon? Or are you of the ilk that believes that if only the US would disarm, all other contries would follow?
Let me know when you get confirmation of that from China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India, who all couldn't care less about the state of the US nuclear stockpile.
From "Pre-emtive nuclear strike a key option, NATO told," from The Guardian, Tuesday, January 22, 2008:
"The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emtive nuclear attack to try to halt the ´imminent´spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new NATO by five of the west´s most senior military officers and strategists.
Calling for root-and-branch reform of NATO and a new pact drawing the US, NATO and the European Union together in a ´grand strategy´to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US [Ret. Gen. John Shalikashvili, JCS], Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a ´first strike´nuclear option remains an ´indispensable instrument´since there is ´simple no realistic prospect of a nuclear free world.´
The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to NATO´s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a NATO summit in Bucharest in April.
´The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible,´the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. ´The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.´"
/---/
(www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2244766,00.html)
And further, from FOX News, Tuesday, January 22, 2008:
"Manifesto:NATO Must Strike to Stop Spread of Nukes
The West must be prepared to carry out pre-emptive nuclear strikes to halt the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new NATO by five of the West´s most senior military officers and strategists.
Calling for reform of NATO and a new pact drawing the U.S., NATO and the European Union together in a ´grand strategy´to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the U.S., Britain, Germany, France and The Netherlands insist a ´first strike´nuclear option remains an ´indispensable instrument´since there is ´simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.´"
/---/
(www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324648,00.html)
Waivers in common sense gave us Bush. Or was it lapses? Either way, whether it be the Lab or Bush, we're stuck.
1:07 am: "The West must be prepared to carry out pre-emptive nuclear strikes to halt the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new NATO by five of the West´s most senior military officers and strategists."
Try this: AP, 1/20/08:
"MOSCOW - Russia's military chief of staff said Saturday that Moscow could use nuclear weapons in preventive strikes to protect itself and its allies, the latest aggressive remarks from increasingly assertive Russian authorities."
Want to choose sides??
At the highest levels, it appears they are all nuts. I'll still take this side. The citizens still have guns here, with the exception of NYC and DC.
10:37 pm "At the highest levels, it appears they are all nuts. I'll still take this side. The citizens still have guns here, with the exception of NYC and DC."
Well, the citizens there have lots of old, rusted Kalashnikovs that may or may not work, that the government doesn't know about. The citizens here have fancy 9mm pistols, 12-gauge shotguns, or 30-caliber hunting rifles that the government does know about. Who's better off, if the government turns against them?
The citizens here are still better off for a lot of reasons. The government doesn't know about all of the small arms, although that may not matter as much as some people worry about. The Afghans threw the Russians out, and they'll eventually throw the Americans out. Fighting on your home soil gives you a big advantage. Actual American defense from enemies within or without is not as much a problem as American offense taking place offshore.
Post a Comment