The environmental review was required by the federal National Environmental Policy Act and the U.S. Department of Energy’s procedures for implementing the act. It was also a condition of the January 2025 settlement with Nuclear Watch New Mexico and other groups, which temporarily halted the process for kickstarting plutonium pit production at the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility — a Department of Energy industrial complex project in South Carolina estimated to be completed in 2035 — and left Los Alamos National Laboratory as NNSA’s sole pit-production site.

The lawsuit in 2021 alleged the federal government had violated the National Environmental Protection Act during the course of its decision to produce plutonium pits at the two sites. The settlement, in turn, required the development of a new programmatic environmental impact statement involving public hearings around the country by July 2027.

Until a new decision in response to the environmental review is recorded under the National Environmental Policy Act, nuclear material can’t be processed or introduced at the main building at the Savannah River site.

In a Friday statement, the director of the Los Alamos Study Group, which seeks nuclear disarmament, said plutonium pit production is not necessary for at least the next decade.

“NNSA’s pit production program is out of control,” Greg Mello said. “This country doesn’t need new pits right now, and it certainly doesn’t need two factories to build them. Until 2018, having one factory was always considered the only prudent and responsible choice.”

Two-site option

The draft programmatic environmental impact statement presents the projected environmental impact over the next 50 years of the three options. NNSA described the two-site option as important for meeting its goals.

“The Multi-Site Alternative would enable NNSA to meet statutory requirements and improve the resiliency, flexibility, and redundancy of the NSE by not relying on a single production site,” the draft reads. “This alternative is considered the best way to manage the cost, schedule, and risk of such a vital undertaking.

Los Alamos National Laboratory has been directed to produce at least 30 pits per year, the draft states, but it has the surge capability to produce up to the required 80 pits per year. The lab has been ramping up pit production since it produced a diamond-stamped pit in fall 2024, but additional production numbers have not been made available to the public.

The New Mexican reported in February the lab may be expected to begin producing 60 pits per year according to a memorandum by David Beck, NNSA’s deputy administrator for defense programs.

“Our adversaries are advancing their capabilities in key nuclear domains, eroding traditional sources of the United States’ strategic advantage,” that memo reads. “To ensure continued supremacy of America’s deterrence posture, we must urgently accelerate the modernization of the nuclear weapons stockpile and the revitalization of its associated facilities and infrastructure.”

At the maximum annual production rate NNSA analyzed in the draft environmental review, the multi-site pit production option would yield up to 80 pits per year at Los Alamos National Laboratory and up to 125 pits per year at the Savannah River site.

One-site option

The single-site production option would mean producing pits at either Los Alamos National Laboratory or the Savannah River site. Although the lab could produce up to 80 pits per year without the construction of another facility, “it is not considered sustainable for long periods,” the draft states.

The Savannah River site, under the single-site production, would produce 50 to 125 pits per year. NNSA would not produce pits for Los Alamos National Laboratory’s stockpile, but the agency would maintain the lab’s existing pit production capabilities “in standby,” according to the draft. Plutonium research and development, surveillance, testing and other plutonium missions would continue at the lab.

There would be minimal additional environmental impacts for many areas — like land use and geology and soils — if the multi- or single-site pit production option were implemented, according to the draft. But production at both sites would involve the increased transportation of waste and nuclear materials and increased nuclear waste overall.

Other considerations

The draft programmatic environmental impact statement also considers potential “enhancements” to both production sites to improve production efficiency and capability. At Los Alamos National Laboratory, these include increasing the hazardous material inventory limit above the current 400 grams of plutonium equivalent; installing a portable radioactive waste supercompactor, which is also possible at the Savannah River site; and moving two programs out of the lab’s plutonium facility to make room for more pit production — though NNSA is not considering this option in the short term, as it could disrupt current production.

Public comment on the draft will be accepted until the end of the day July 16. The public comment period will begin when the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a notice of availability for the draft in the Federal Register, which had not yet appeared online Friday afternoon.

Comments will be taken into account when preparing the final version of the statement, according to the draft.

In May, the NNSA will hold hearings on the draft in New Mexico, South Carolina, Missouri, California and Washington, D.C. The hearing in Santa Fe will take place May 14 at the Santa Fe Farmers Market Institute.