Jan. 10—As Los Alamos National Laboratory takes on a starring role in a plan to update the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the National Nuclear Security Administration is looking at what future operations of the lab might look like for the environment.
On Friday, NNSA released a draft site-wide environmental impact statement about LANL’s ongoing operations, the first since 2008. In the 17 years since, LANL’s budget has more than doubled and hundreds of new employees have been added, according to the statement.
The draft statement includes three visions for LANL’s future: a no action plan, a plan to modernize operations and a plan to expand operations. NNSA’s preferred choice is to grow operations; questions sent to the agency were not immediately returned.
Major projects
The report addresses several major and controversial projects, including the lab’s plan to build a 14-mile power line through parts of the Caja del Rio. This is included in the no-action alternative, under which average electric usage is expected to jump from 451 million kilowatt-hours per year to 621. Under the modernized operations plan, it’s expected to increase to 658 average, and under the expanded operations plan, the average is expected to be 810 million kilowatt-hours per year.
The cleanup of a hexavalent chromium plume in the area is also part of the no-action alternative, and the impact statement delves into the potential impact of noise and visual pollution on the San Ildefonso Pueblo. And so is a controversial plan to beef up plutonium pit production to at least 30 pits per year.
“Implementation of the increased pit production mission will introduce notable operational changes compared to existing operations,” the statement says. “For example, there will be changes in employment, radiological doses to workers and the public, radiological waste quantities, and transportation of nuclear materials/wastes. There will also be an increase in wastes,” including construction and demolition debris and radioactive and asbestos-contaminated wastes.
The expanded operations alternative includes wildfire mitigation.
“New standards would be designed to more aggressively address an increasing wildfire threat due to changing climate and a history of fire suppression that has led to overgrown forests,” the statement says. “… The desired conditions for each project would be approximately 60 — 80 stems (mature trees) per acre to create a mosaic landscape.”
Lab critics respond
Despite the name, even the no action plan means growth for LANL — just a smaller amount. Given already-approved projects, the lab’s footprint is estimated to grow 4% under the no action plan and include increased demands for water and energy.
That has Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, feeling like the process is “rigged” — and too late, given that the plan to restart pit production was approved before a site-wide environmental impact statement was drafted to weigh the impacts.
“It’s a choice between expanded nuclear weapons programs, yet more expanded nuclear weapons programs, or far more expanded nuclear weapons programs,” Coghlan said. “And all the while, these are for new designs. None of this is to maintain the safety and reliability of the existing, extensively tested stockpile. It’s this is all about new design nuclear weapons.”
The modernizing and expansion plans would increase LANL’s physical footprint by 29% and 31%, respectively. Currently, the lab’s footprint is about 40 square miles, encompassing hundreds of individual facilities, according to the draft statement. Building that out comes with increase greenhouse gas emissions — construction for the expansion alternative comes with about 5% more emissions per year than the no action plan.
About half of LANL’s buildings and trailers are in “poor or very poor condition,” according to the statement, with one in three more than 60 years old. Those buildings are inefficient and need more upkeep, the statement says.
“Although the Laboratory maintains these facilities and conducts operations safely with appropriate environmental and safety controls, there is a need to both maintain and reinvest in a modern infrastructure for the future,” it states.
The modernization alternative includes efforts to replace and upgrade older facilities and pursue greenhouse gas and other emission reductions. The expanded operations alternative would include all the projects listed in the no-action alternative, along with several utility and infrastructure projects and a revised wildfire mitigation plan.
Los Alamos Study Group executive director Greg Mello called the provisions “sweeteners” for plans to grow LANL’s operations.
“It is especially an insult that the waste-producing parts of LANL are being amplified while there is so much legacy was and cleanup to go,” Mello said.