Test Site considered for nuclear weapons plant

Mary Manning and Benjamin Grove

Tuesday, June 3, 2003 | 9:57 a.m.

Federal officials are planning a July 2 hearing in Las Vegas to discuss a proposal to establish a nuclear-bomb pit plant at the Nevada Test Site, although observers doubt the site is the leading contender for the new facility.

The Test Site ranked third in an Energy Department analysis of five sites now under consideration for the new plant, according to an environmental impact statement released Monday by the National Nuclear Security Administration. The NNSA is an arm of the Energy Department that operates the Test Site.

Plutonium pits are softball-sized spheres that act as triggers in nuclear weapons. Pits were formerly produced at the now-closed Rocky Flats plant in Colorado. A new plant may be needed to maintain the nation's nuclear stockpile, in large part because some pits are aging and may need replacing in the next few decades, plant proponents say.

In an Energy Department analysis conducted last year, the test site ranked higher than the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico and the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. But it ranked lower than Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the Savannah River site in South Carolina.

The Test Site scored well on two criteria: its distance from population and its "safety/security." But the site scored low on several other factors: infrastructure, mission compatibility and transportation issues. Much of the plutonium that would be used in the pit production would be hauled in from the Texas site.

The Test Site's remoteness in the desert northwest of Las Vegas also would require the construction of a fuel pipeline or rail line, the report said.

"It's no higher than three or four by the DOE's own criteria," said Don Hancock, Southwest Research and Information Center administrator, who closely monitors the pit plant proposal.

The report evaluated the five sites under consideration, but did not select a preferred site.

Ultimately the decision may come down to which community wants the new plant, which would create new jobs and economic benefits, Hancock said. Officials in South Carolina and New Mexico have been lobbying for their sites, Hancock said.

"From a political standpoint, it appears those are the two viable sites," Hancock said. "Politically, the state of Nevada has not been saying, 'Bring it on.' "

Critics say the United States does not need the facility because there is not enough evidence that the pits need immediate replacing and because the nation has taken steps to scale back its nuclear weapons.

"There still is not a clear need defined for this stockpile," said Jim Bridgman, director of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. "We're still hoping the administration decides to dismantle a lot of these weapons."

There is no justification for a new bomb factory, said Tom Clements, of the Nuclear Campaign of Greenpeace International.

"Planning for this large-scale facility is frightening as it appears that the (Bush) administration was developing plans to fight a large scale nuclear war."

Advocates for the Test Site call it the most secure of the five locations. The pit factory, which the Energy Department hopes to open by 2020, could employ hundreds of people.

Troy Wade, chairman of the Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business, said the trade group is pursuing the factory to bring it to Nevada site. He said the Nevada location would be best for nation and would benefit the state economy and the Nevada university system.

"I still think and I have said so before, that a facility like this as important as it is to the nation, needs a place like the Test Site," Wade said.

"It's a high-tech business and a economic staple for two or three decades if it comes to Southern Nevada," Wade said.

The NNSA will be conducting public meetings near the five potential sites, including a 7 p.m. hearing July 2 in room 201 of the Student Union at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.