Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
In 2015, a group of prominent former arms negotiators and senior diplomats drafted a letter to the Obama Energy Secretary saying that the MOX fuel plan was a threat to nuclear nonproliferation efforts. Many nuclear arms control advocates say that using plutonium to produce fuel for nuclear power plants is unnecessary and uneconomical.
As might be expected, the Congressional delegates from South Carolina harshly criticized the idea of cancelling the MOX project because jobs would be lost in South Carolina. They accused the Secretary of Energy of walking away from what they said was “one of the most important nonproliferation programs in the history of the world.” They claim that the new plan to dispose of the plutonium has not been approved by the state and that it goes against the spirit of the deal that the U.S. and Russia struck for disposal of plutonium.
Now the Pentagon and the NNSA have proposed that plutonium pits be manufactured at both sites that were being considered. The rationale is that, from a national security point of view, it would be best not to have only one site making the pits. The undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment issued a joint statement with the NNSA administrator that said, “This two-prong approach — with at least 50 pits per year produced at Savannah River and at least 30 pits per year at Los Alamos — is the best way to manage the cost, schedule, and risk of such a vital undertaking.”
The South Carolina Congressional delegation are in favor of producing pits at Savannah River. This would replace some of the jobs that will be lost from shutting down the MOX plant construction. The New Mexico Congressional delegation wants Los Alamos to construct all the needed pits. Some critics of the Savannah River production of plutonium pits fear that extensive conversion of the existing facility could run behind schedule and over budget.
Regardless of where new pits could be produced, there is the question of whether or not the U.S. military really needs that many plutonium pits. Critics of the whole enterprise of pit production claim that the U.S. has enough plutonium pits from dismantled weapons that can be used to make new weapons and does not need to go into major production of new pits. The supporters of the plan say that old plutonium pits might not be reliable and need to be replaced.
Both Savannah River and Los Alamos have questionable records on safety and competence in the handling of nuclear materials. They are improving but still have a way to go. If their facilities are not run carefully, the production of so many plutonium triggers at either or both facility could be a threat to public health and the environment around the production facilities.