A committee kerfuffle over plutonium pits foreshadows bigger battles

• By Colin Demarest cdemarest@aikenstandard.com
• September 11, 2021

An exchange between three congressmen earlier this month provided a distilled look at the ongoing plutonium pit production debate, as the Department of Energy presses forward with its plans to craft the nuclear weapon cores in South Carolina and New Mexico.

Questions of price, timing and usefulness have for years dominated the plutonium-core discourse in Washington, D.C., and beyond. Lawmakers representing states with seemingly the most to gain – federal investment, jobs and, arguably, cachet – have coalesced and presented a bipartisan front. Others have pushed back, a skeptical cohort warning of government excess, incompetence and saber-rattling.

Such a clash played out in miniature Sept. 1, as the House Armed Services Committee worked through its version of the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, a bundle of defense spending and policy. Suggestions made by Rep. John Garamendi, a California Democrat, sparked a back and forth with Rep. Joe Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, and Rep. Adam Smith, the Washington Democrat at the helm of the committee.

Garamendi questioned the need for a second plutonium pit factory – namely the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site – when a far cheaper option [sic] is already in the works at Los Alamos National Laboratory, near Santa Fe, New Mexico.

“If you work the math out, we do not need to spend somewhere between $11 billion and $15 billion on an additional pit production facility in Savannah, and we would have sufficient pits [sic], should we ever decide to build the 87-1, which is questionable at the moment,” he said, referencing the W87-1 warhead, which is slated for use on the contested Ground Based Strategic Deterrent.

The National Nuclear Security Administration has estimated the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility could cost some $11 billion, a price tag that has ruffled congressional feathers, and could come online years after it’s actually due. In contrast, the pit project in New Mexico could cost $3.9 billion [sic].

“So,” Garamendi asked, “why are we spending this money to build pits that we don’t need in a pit facility that we don’t need?”

Wilson, whose district includes the Savannah River Site and all of Aiken County, responded: “Having two sites eliminates a single-point failure. Los Alamos and the Savannah River Site work together to create a resilient production of our nuclear weapon cores,” he said. “Both sites are crucial, and critical, for deterrence for peace.”

It’s a rebuttal leaning on the greatest hits; if one facility goes down, officials have said time and again, another can pick up the slack. But exactly how much slack can be picked up, and when, is unclear.

“Pit manufacturing risks for warheads are mitigated with both Los Alamos and the Savannah River Site, especially with the capacity constraints at Los Alamos,” Wilson continued. “This was verified by the NNSA in a PowerPoint three weeks ago.”

As federal law currently stands, 80 plutonium pits – triggers – are required by 2030 and beyond. Gen. John Hyten, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said his greatest infrastructure-related concern is “any delay” that would hobble pit fabrication. The leader of U.S. Strategic Command, Adm. Charles Richard, has expressed similar worries.

But nobody, Smith said this month, “thinks that we’re going to produce 80 pits a year by 2030. It is, currently, a complete impossibility.” While production benchmarks in 2024, 2025 and 2026 are “achievable” in New Mexico, the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Michael Thompson explained in August, “current planning” shows the production deadline in South Carolina will be missed. And Los Alamos can’t handle all 80 on its own, complicating the calculus.

“The estimate is that at the earliest, Savannah River would be able to be online and begin producing pits by 2034,” said Smith, who distrusts the South Carolina complex after the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility fiasco. “So that’s four years after our 2030 requirement.”

Biden administration officials support the tandem approach, which was launched and massaged under President Donald Trump. Both Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm and National Nuclear Security Administration boss Jill Hruby have endorsed the Savannah River Site-Los Alamos split, despite lingering questions and uncertainties.

“There is bipartisan support for the two-site solution,” Wilson said during the NDAA markup. “I am really grateful that I actually represent the Savannah River Site along with my colleague, Congressman Jim Clyburn, who is a strong supporter of plutonium pit production at the Savannah River Site.”

Clyburn is the House majority whip – a formidable force. His district, the state’s 6th, includes a portion of the Savannah River Site. Some in Aiken County have described Clyburn as instrumental to the site’s health as a behind-the-scenes powerbroker.

“He has always been strong with finding funding for us,” Aiken Chamber of Commerce President and CEO J. David Jameson said in a November 2020 interview. “So it’s the same deal. His knowledge of the site. His ability to produce. And his staff’s knowledge.”

Once the full House approves its fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, differences will need to be hashed out with the Senate. In the coming months, Smith suggested, lawmakers should “take a serious look at what our pit production needs are and how we are going to achieve them.” As he put it, “There’s a lot in play here.”