As the United States prepares to spend as much as $38 billion to produce hundreds of new explosive cores, called plutonium pits, to arm new nuclear weapons, a new analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) argues new pits aren’t necessary to maintain the existing U.S. nuclear arsenal. While the age of existing pits is cited as a primary reason for new production, a subset of existing pits can safely and reliably be re-used, according to UCS.
In October 2024, Los Alamos National Laboratory produced the first warhead-ready plutonium pit in over a decade for use in a new nuclear warhead to be mounted on the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile. But Sentinel is both over budget and behind schedule. The UCS report calls for cancellation of the unnecessary and troubled Sentinel nuclear missile that is driving demand for new pits and instead extending the life of existing warheads or re-using existing pits. It also calls for a new independent assessment of plutonium pit lifetimes, an inventory of the condition of existing pits, and a comprehensive and cumulative assessment of the environmental impacts of pit production on surrounding communities.
“The production of nuclear bomb cores has the potential to be the United States’ largest ever expenditure on nuclear weapons,” said Dr. Dylan Spaulding, senior scientist at UCS and author of the report. “The new pits are being produced first and foremost to arm new nuclear weapons. Shifting the U.S. nuclear weapons program back into ‘production mode’ feeds a global arms race and shows that the U.S. is doubling down on its reliance on nuclear weapons for generations to come.”
The claim that the U.S. needs new pits to maintain a safe and reliable arsenal just doesn’t hold water, according to the report. “The reality is the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has thousands of existing plutonium pits in reserve and should investigate options for re-use before one more pit is produced,” said Spaulding.
NNSA is pursuing plans to produce 80 new plutonium pits per year by 2030, 30 per year at Los Alamos and the remainder at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The NNSA has admitted it cannot meet this deadline. Construction is behind schedule and over budget, particularly for the Savannah River Site. Rushing to meet this deadline unnecessarily increases the risk to workers and sidelines environmental cleanup to address the historical release of radioactive waste into the air, water and soil.
“Despite its poor history of executing large projects, the NNSA has already invested billions of dollars on this unwieldy and unnecessary program without having to predict or disclose the total costs,” said Spaulding. “In an attempt to meet a frankly unrealistic goal, the Los Alamos lab has pursued 24/7 production, hiring thousands of new and temporary workers and cutting corners on safety. All of this increases the risk of accidents that could put workers in real danger.”
The Los Alamos lab has a troubling record of safety violations and worker exposure to plutonium. Expanding pit production also poses a risk to the surrounding areas, including frontline communities such as Indigenous Pueblos in New Mexico. Transportation and storage of waste from the labs is of particular concern.
“Our land-based communities continue to be sacrificed in the name of 'safety,’” said Chenoa Scippio, Environmental Justice Project Coordinator for Tewa Women United, an Indigenous women-led organization which advocates for environmental, reproductive and gender justice. “Nothing is safe about living with contaminated waters, land and air. Increased plutonium pit production poses a great risk to all who surround Los Alamos National Laboratory. From mining to production to waste, the nuclear industry does not take into account the negative health impacts experienced by the most vulnerable – pregnant women, children and our Earth Mother. It is our shared responsibility to protect all who give us life, and we look forward to expressing our concerns in the upcoming public comment period this summer.”
Neighboring communities already bear the burden of environmental pollution from the labs from past release of contaminants and radioactive waste. During the early operation of Los Alamos, radioactive waste was often disposed of in surrounding canyons and radioactive releases into the air and waterways were largely uncontrolled. Today, the Savannah River Site is one of the most contaminated sites within the U.S. nuclear complex because of the high-level waste that remains onsite, putting the Tuscaloosa aquifer and the Savannah River at risk of contamination. The Los Alamos lab is just 25 miles from Santa Fe. More than half a million people live within 50 miles of the Savannah River Site.
The UCS report points out that NNSA is committing itself to a huge expansion of the nuclear arsenal without a comprehensive, long-term plan for its nuclear waste. Studies suggest that the existing waste storage site, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), may not be able to absorb new pit waste. The Los Alamos lab is estimated to generate more than 2,000 barrels – or more than 100,000 gallons – of hazardous and radioactive waste per year once it reaches its target production rate. Savannah River could produce another 3,300 barrels – or an additional 180,000 gallons – annually. This could be avoided if NNSA simply cancelled plans at the Savannah River Site, which has never been used for pit production and is still a decade away from production. Startup of Savannah River Site alone is estimated to cost $25 billion.
The priority for NNSA should be cleaning up and remediating both sites, according to the report.