By Ella Nilsen, CNN
(CNN) — A Democratic senator is raising concerns that the Trump administration’s plans to let several private energy companies access weapons-grade plutonium could set a new and dangerous precedent globally.
The federal government announced last week it is pursuing a deal with five private companies that would, for the first time, allow them to use the federal government’s plutonium stockpile. The plutonium was originally used to create a Cold War-era fleet of weapons. Now, companies want it as a bridge fuel to power small modular nuclear reactors and generate electricity.
The Energy Department’s Office of Nuclear Energy announced last week it had selected advanced nuclear companies Oklo, Exodys Energy, SHINE, Standard Nuclear and Flibe Energy to begin “advanced negotiations” over whether the companies could access its Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program. The negotiations aren’t yet finalized.
But the move has rattled nuclear nonproliferation advocates like Sen. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts. In a letter written to President Donald Trump and shared with CNN, Markey wrote of his concern that the move could set a dangerous example for the rest of the world and be extremely expensive.
“For five decades, the United States has avoided the commercial use of plutonium and opposed the spread of technology to separate plutonium from used reactor fuel,” Markey wrote to Trump. “We did so to prevent nations with nuclear power plants (such as Iran) from being able to extract plutonium from that fuel, which they — or terrorists into whose hands it could fall — could use to make nuclear weapons.”
A White House spokesperson declined to comment on Markey’s letter and referred questions to the Department of Energy.
Energy Department spokesperson Ben Dietderich said in a statement that the agency is “evaluating opportunities to responsibly use government-owned surplus plutonium materials, which have no identified weapons programmatic use and do not fall into any of the national security reserve categories.”
Dietderich said any potential use of the federal government’s surplus plutonium “is subject to rigorous safety, security, and nonproliferation requirements.”
“No material would be transferred unless all federal safeguards are met,” he added. “Participating companies undergo extensive vetting, including foreign ownership reviews, security clearance requirements, and detailed plans for handling, transportation, storage, and protection of nuclear materials.”
In his letter, Markey said using surplus plutonium to produce energy would be significantly more expensive than diluting and disposing of it — the method the federal government was previously using to deal with the waste. It’s so far unclear whether private companies or taxpayers would foot part or all of the bill for reprocessing it.
Prior to pursuing a strategy of repurposing old plutonium for nuclear power fuel, the first Trump and Biden administration had sought to dilute and bury the plutonium deep underground in New Mexico, which Markey said would cost $29 billion less than repurposing it.
“Due to this major difference in cost, DOE opted to dispose of the plutonium instead,” Markey wrote. “To be clear, commercial nuclear energy does not require separated plutonium, and today there is no global demand for plutonium to make civilian nuclear reactor fuel.”
Markey also raised concerns about Energy Sec. Chris Wright’s past ties to California-based company Oklo, where Wright was previously a board member.
“Secretary Wright’s close ties to the company present an appearance of impropriety,” Markey wrote.
Oklo has been outspokenly in favor of the potential deal to access plutonium, saying US stockpiles are a