Paul Coverdell: “the Savannah River site has been the site for weapons tritium production for nearly half a century--specifically 40…”

“the Savannah River site has been the site for weapons tritium production for nearly half a century--specifically 40 years. Obviously, given the importance of the production of that plant in terms of our nuclear policy, a very large capital investment has already been made by the taxpayers of the United States on the Savannah River site's unique, extensive tritium handling, tritium bottle recycling and production infrastructure--a huge capital investment. If the new tritium production facility which DOE was planning were to be located at another site other than Savannah River, the large tritium bottle recycling facilities and the tritium production handling facilities would have to be replicated, rebuilt at a new site. This would be very expensive, cost-ineffective, and not wise. Another alternative, I guess, would be to transport radioactive tritium to the Savannah River site bottle recycling from a distant new production site. This would require expensive, unique transportation, and would be perceived as a potential negative public health risk in the States transversed. On this basis, it is both logical and cost-effective for the Congress to designate this longstanding facility, a facility uniquely prepared to deal with this production as the location for the tritium production facility.”