SANTA FE, N.M. — Residents, advocates and technical experts said here last week that a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) environmental review on plutonium pit production understates risks to water resources, worker safety and communities along transport routes.
Some speakers at a Thursday May 14 public hearing in Santa Fe also said NNSA is failing to fully assess wildfire risks, seismic hazards and cleanup obligations tied to legacy waste.
The NNSA public hearing was on its draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for plutonium pit production, outlining a proposed dual-site strategy centered on Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina.
Dylan Spaulding, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, warned the pit-production push is “a retroactive rubber stamp … driven by policy mandates and political choices rather than technical requirements.” Spaulding added that the plan increases impacts on communities that already “bear the so-called cradle to grave burdens from nuclear weapons production.”
Greg Mello, director of Los Alamos Study Group, said that LANL alone cannot sustain required pit production and that completing SRPPF is necessary to provide an enduring, adequate pit production capability. If pit production must go forward, Mello said it should be done at one adequate site, not split between two sites, because that would be safer, cheaper, and lower‑risk to other NNSA programs and the environment.
Former Santa Fe County Commissioner Anna Hansen called for stronger oversight, urging the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to regain a quorum and criticizing DOE’s separation of environmental management from the NNSA as “one of the biggest mistakes” it has made.
Greg Mello, director of Los Alamos Study Group, said that LANL alone cannot sustain required pit production and that completing SRPPF is necessary to provide an enduring, adequate pit production capability. If pit production must go forward, Mello said it should be done at one adequate site, not split between two sites, because that would be safer, cheaper, and lower‑risk to other NNSA programs and the environment.
Pat Moss, deputy manager of the NNSA Los Alamos Field Office, who hosted the hearing, described the proposed action as necessary to produce plutonium pits at levels needed to meet national security requirements by 2030. This was the fourth public comment opportunity in a series of hearings intended to gather input from interest groups, businesses, Native American tribes and other stakeholders on the draft PEIS.
The final one was scheduled this Wednesday in Washington, D.C.