|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Delays Plans for New Plutonium Pit Facility
U.S. plans to build a new nuclear weapon production facility were set back yesterday when the National Nuclear Security Administration announced it would delay issuing a final environmental impact statement for constructing a controversial new site (see GSN, June 3, 2003). The Bush administration has sought to build a new facility to manufacture plutonium “pits,” the core components of U.S. nuclear weapons, but some Republicans in Congress have resisted the push. “While there is widespread support in Congress for this project, I believe we need to pause to respond to concerns that some committees have raised about its scope and timing,” said NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks. Following a cautionary report from a House of Representatives subcommittee, Congress provided only $11 million of the $23 million the administration requested to design the facility (see GSN, Nov. 6, 2003). The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development said it was “premature” to design the pit facility until more precise plans are made regarding the size of the future U.S. nuclear arsenal (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, Jan. 29). “I think some people in Congress have really been asking the [Energy] Department questions about how many pits we need, what the size of the stockpile is going to be and some of those overall questions, which need to be answered before you know exactly what sort of facility you want to build,” said Representative Mac Thornberry (R-Texas). “I think that’s what has caused the delay,” he added (Jim McBride, Amarillo Globe-News, Jan. 29) Brooks promised to consult with Congress before proceeding. “We are taking a conservative, prudent course to develop a capability that will enable the nation to be ready for future contingencies without wasting tax dollars on excessive capacity,” he said (Lobsenz, Energy Daily). Brooks had originally intended to issue the environmental assessment in April and to then announce the location of planned facility. Five possible host sites are under consideration, including Carlsbad, Calif., Los Alamos, N.M., Amarillo, Texas, the Nevada Test Site and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina (see GSN, Aug. 1, 2003). He did not say when he now plans to make the site decision or release the environmental assessment (Associated Press, Jan. 29)
| ||||||||||
Back to top
