Can Los Alamos National Laboratory easily ramp up pit production to reach Department of Defense requirements for 50 to 80 pits without the now-deferred Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility? That was the suggestion made by retired Gen. James Cartwright, the former commander of U.S. Strategic Command, at a Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee hearing yesterday, but the lab quickly moved to counter Cartwright’s comments. Cartwright helped lead a Global Zero study that recently suggested the United States could move to a stockpile of 900 total nuclear weapons, and in response to questions from Sen. Lamar Alexander at yesterday’s hearing about whether CMRR-NF was needed, he suggested that Los Alamos could produce 70 to 80 pits a year at its existing Plutonium Facility (PF-4) by going to two production shifts. “If you increase the number of shifts it is believed that the floor space would become the constraint and that constraint limits you to somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 [pits] per year in running the plant, so to speak, full up,” Cartwright said.
Cartwright’s statement appeared to contradict the position taken by Los Alamos National Laboratory since the deferment of CMRR-NF. In February, lab Director Charlie McMillan said that without the facility, significant investments in existing infrastructure would only allow the lab to reach an interim capability of 20 to 30 pits per year, and he reiterated that stance in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee in April. Bret Knapp, the head of Los Alamos’ weapons program, said in a statement to NW&M Monitor yesterday that adding more shifts at PF-4 would not enable the lab to substantially increase production. “In the past, we have examined the possibility of running additional shifts to increase production, but we found that that approach was inadequate because of the lack of required analytical chemistry support,” Knapp said. “Increased production requires increased analytical capabilities which we do not have, but would be provided by the CMRR-NF. We are not aware of any new or additional analysis which would change this conclusion, and we look forward to continuing to provide answers to the technical questions informing the nation’s plutonium strategy.”