Tony Thurmond: “I rise to oppose the Reid amendment and point out to my colleagues that the Savannah River site has had the tritium…”

“I rise to oppose the Reid amendment and point out to my colleagues that the Savannah River site has had the tritium production mission for over 40 years. Why change? The U.S. Government has invested heavily in a unique infrastructure at the site for handling that naturally decaying radioactive gas and for recycling tritium throughout the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. For this reason, it would not be cost effective for the new tritium source to be placed at any other location regardless of the technology used for production. The taxpayer, who is frequently mentioned here on the floor, would have to duplicate the recycling infrastructure required to handle the radioactive tritium and the gas bottles which contain it in our nuclear weapons. Additionally, transporting this radioactive gas across the land from separated production and recycling sites does not make sense either. The colocation of tritium recycling facilities and the new tritium production facility is the only solution that makes economic sense for the American taxpayer. I wish to point out to the Senate that the Savannah River site is located on the border between the States of Georgia and South Carolina.”