Anti-nuclear weapons demonstrator Bobbe Besold watches in April as a panel of representatives from Los Alamos National Laboratory answers questions at the Santa Fe Community Convention Center on the lab’s pit production program. The lab took a key step toward producing its first bomb core when a prototype performed well in recent testing in California.
Artemis Yanez plays on a phone Tuesday as he waits for a town hall meeting to start at the Santa Fe Community Convention Center to discuss a controversial plan for Los Alamos National Laboratory to increase its production of nuclear warhead triggers. Protesters asked tense questions of Jill Hruby, the head of the federal National Nuclear Security Administration. “We live in the third-most impoverished state in the nation, and yet we’re throwing away money to build weapons of war rather than take care of our own people,” said Rikki Farrell, a member of the anti-war ANSWER coalition.
Jill Hruby, head of the federal National Nuclear Security Administration, faced sharp questions Tuesday from anti-nuclear weapons advocates during a town hall at the Santa Fe Community Convention Center to discuss Los Alamos National Lab’s nuclear pit production mission.
Anti-nuclear weapons demonstrator Bobbe Besold watches in April as a panel of representatives from Los Alamos National Laboratory answers questions at the Santa Fe Community Convention Center on the lab’s pit production program. The lab took a key step toward producing its first bomb core when a prototype performed well in recent testing in California.
Anti-nuclear advocates showed up in force Tuesday to grill the head of the federal nuclear security agency at a town hall about plans to have Los Alamos National Laboratory make 30 plutonium pits for warheads a year, a pursuit that has generated heated controversy in Northern New Mexico since its inception.
A standing-room-only crowd filled the meeting room at the Santa Fe Community Convention Center, plus about 200 people attended remotely, almost all of them opponents of the lab producing the bomb core triggers, or pits, that the president, military leaders and other federal officials say are necessary for global nuclear deterrence.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, an Energy Department branch, wants the lab to produce 30 pits yearly by 2026 and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to make an additional 50 pits by the mid-2030s.
Agency Administrator Jill Hruby repeated what has become a familiar refrain among defense and nuclear officials — the aging arsenal must be modernized and new pits are required because no significant quantity has been produced since the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado shut down in 1989.
“We’ve made incredible strides in the last 30 years at maintaining what we have,” Hruby told the crowd. “But the stockpile of nuclear weapons as it exists today won’t last forever, and neither will the plutonium inside of them. We know as plutonium pits age, they decay and they lose their performance.”
Jill Hruby, head of the federal National Nuclear Security Administration, faced sharp questions Tuesday from anti-nuclear weapons advocates during a town hall at the Santa Fe Community Convention Center to discuss Los Alamos National Lab’s nuclear pit production mission.
Hruby sat on a stage facing the audience of critics. On one side of her was Santa Fe County Commissioner Anna Hansen, acting as moderator, and on the other was William “Ike” White, senior adviser for the Energy Department’s environmental management.
A group brandished signs that said “Shut down LANL,” while a woman wearing a death mask walked around the room carrying a staff with a paper skull attached. Anyone calling for a halt to nuclear weapons or pit production at the lab drew cheers and spirited applause.
Many people made clear through their statements and questions they think new pits are unnecessary and a waste of money, which they feel could be better spent elsewhere.
Under President Joe Biden’s proposed budget for the coming fiscal year, the nuclear agency would receive $23.8 billion, a significant bump from the $22.1 billion it received this year.
The proposal also calls for increasing the lab’s funding for plutonium modernization and operations to $1.76 billion from this year’s $1.55 billion.
Rikki Farrell of the ANSWER coalition, an anti-war organization, said the money being spent on nuclear weapons could end homelessness in New Mexico, build schools and hospitals and make communities healthier and safer.
“We live in the third-most impoverished state in the nation, and yet we’re throwing away money to build weapons of war rather than take care of our own people,” Farrell said.
The U.S. must be the one to end the nuclear arms race because only then will other nations follow, she said.
Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, said new pits will be used to equip two new warheads being developed. He asked whether these new designs could lead to a return to explosive nuclear testing underground.
Hruby replied emphatically there are no plans to resume underground testing and federal agencies are doing all they can to develop more advanced technology for subcritical — or nonexplosive — testing.
Artemis Yanez plays on a phone Tuesday as he waits for a town hall meeting to start at the Santa Fe Community Convention Center to discuss a controversial plan for Los Alamos National Laboratory to increase its production of nuclear warhead triggers. Protesters asked tense questions of Jill Hruby, the head of the federal National Nuclear Security Administration. “We live in the third-most impoverished state in the nation, and yet we’re throwing away money to build weapons of war rather than take care of our own people,” said Rikki Farrell, a member of the anti-war ANSWER coalition.
Paul Gibson, co-founder of Santa Fe-based Retake Our Democracy, criticized the agency’s reluctance to conduct a full sitewide environmental review of the lab as it moves toward pit production.
Such a review, which hasn’t been done in 15 years, would allow the public to weigh in, Gibson said. He questioned how the agency could invest so much money in pit production without analyzing the potential impacts.
“We ask that you cease all implementation until you’ve completed the environmental impact study,” Gibson said.
Hruby said the agency is doing the sitewide review and will seek public comment in the fall.
Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group, said it was a mistake of the previous administration to create a pit mission at the lab.
He questioned the established timeline of producing 30 pits by 2026.
“This rushing, this ramping up — I know these schedules are something you’ve inherited,” Mello said. “But somebody has to say, ‘Slow down.’ We don’t want to be shutting down the facilities — as it’s happened here — for years.”
Mello noted a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, which said time and cost estimates to produce pits are severely lacking and could make it difficult to avoid cost overruns, delays and other problems.
Hruby agreed the agency shouldn’t go too fast, but she also contended going too slow would cost a lot of money.
There’s a balance or “sweet spot” she believes the agency has achieved in working toward the objective while being safe and environmentally responsible, she said.
The agency inherited the 80-pit mandate from the Trump administration, she said, but given “world conditions” such as a more aggressive Russia, and China and North Korea increasing their nuclear capabilities, she agrees with the policy.
Kathy Sanchez, co-founder of Tewa Women United, said production of nuclear weapons has degraded tribal lands, contaminated waters and put women’s reproductive health at risk.
