Jan. 17—The National Nuclear Security Administration and anti-nuclear advocates have reached agreement in a lawsuit over the National Environmental Protection Act that could temporarily halt plutonium pit production efforts at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
If approved, the proposed agreement, reached Thursday, would leave Los Alamos National Laboratory as the agency’s only pit production site until a far-reaching environmental impact statement can be completed, which is expected to take at least 2 1/2 years.
Nuclear Watch New Mexico and other groups around the country alleged in a 2021 lawsuit the federal government had violated the National Environmental Protection Act in the course of deciding to produce plutonium pits, the trigger device for nuclear weapons, at both Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Savannah River Site.
In September, a federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on one claim, agreeing the law required NEPA to draft an analysis of alternatives to the two-site production.
But U.S. District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis punted on a solution, proposing instead the federal government and plaintiffs propose their own agreement.
That kicked off months of back and forth between the agency that oversees nuclear weapons production and groups that oppose it. After several deadline extensions, the parties released a proposed agreement Thursday.
“We’re generally satisfied [with the terms],” said Nuclear Watch New Mexico executive director Jay Coghlan.
But what about the other half of the two-site plan?
“The fish that got away is Los Alamos,” Coghlan said.
What does the settlement propose?
The settlement agreement mandates that the National Nuclear Security Administration produce a new Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement within 2 1/2 years. That process includes public hearings around the country, first to determine determine the scope of the statement, then to allow public comment on the draft.
The required impact statement should include information not just about impacts near Los Alamos and the Savannah River site but also in Kansas City, Mo.; Livermore, Calif.; and Washington, D.C., said Scott Yundt, executive director of Tri-Valley CARE, one of the plaintiffs.
“This includes the impacts of shipping plutonium in trucks on highways around major metropolitan areas across the country,” he said in a statement.
Until the new environmental impact statement is completed and a decision is made, NNSA won’t be able to bring or process any nuclear material in the main processing building at Savannah River’s plutonium facility. The agency also won’t be able to install classified equipment into the facility until a decision is finalized.
“The terms of this settlement agreement address plaintiffs’ concern that no nuclear pits should be produced at Savannah River until a new PEIS and Record of Decision is completed while also addressing Defendants’ concern … that halting the pit production mission would likely pose grave risks to national security,” the settlement agreement states.
What about LANL?
Coghlan said there were fewer opportunities to press pause at the New Mexico site, which is further along with pit production; LANL completed its first diamond-stamped plutonium pit in October.
Allowing pit production to continue at Los Alamos drew the ire of another Land of Enchantment anti-nuclear group.
“Upon further review, we don’t see that the plaintiffs got anything of substance, policy-wise,” wrote Los Alamos Study Group executive director Greg Mello in an email to The New Mexican. “On pit production at LANL, in this settlement we hear only crickets.”
But plaintiff Tom Clements, director of the Savannah River Site Watch, called the agreement a “major legal victory” in a statement.
“The public will now have the opportunity to formally comment on not only the environmental and health impacts of plutonium pit production but also the costly and troubling policies that are pushing us into a new, dangerous nuclear arms race,” Clements said.
What’s next?
Although the National Nuclear Security Administration and plaintiffs have reached an agreement, it is still pending Lewis’ approval.
In exhibits attached to the settlement agreement, federal officials argued a full delay to pit production would threaten national security as other global nuclear powers stir.
In a declaration attached to the settlement, NNSA Deputy Administrator Marvin Adams wrote the Savannah River Site project had already experienced delays based on problems with workforce and supply.
“Nuclear construction and operations are complicated processes and were not made easier by the pandemic,” Adams wrote. “The delays already incurred have eliminated any schedule margin we had. Further delays would pose serious risk to the nation’s nuclear deterrent.”