Pu Research and Security Increases at LLNL
https://www.livermorevine.com/livermore/2026/06/17/environmental-group-opposes-increased-plutonium-research-at-llnl-as-feds-seek-to-expand-nuclear-weapons-production/
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2026-05/arod-eis-0547-s1-llnl-site-wide-2026-05.pdf
1 comment:
Of note… “ The LLNL SEIS analyzes two alternatives: the No-Action Alternative and the Enhanced Plutonium Facility Utilization Proposed Action. The LLNL SEIS tiers from and uses the 2023 LLNL SWEIS as the baseline data for the No-Action Alternative and analyzes the potential environmental impacts for the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would:
(1) enhance utilization of Building 332 to allow an increase in R&D activities and a corresponding increase in the amount of fissile materials
(2) upgrade the security categorization of the Plutonium Facility from Security Category (CAT) III to Security CAT II,
(3) conduct security and other infrastructure construction activities at the Superblock to support Security CAT II operations in the Plutonium Facility,
(4) increase materials shipments and waste generation/shipments,
(5) add operational and security personnel to support Security CAT II operations, and
(6) construct a new office building to support additional personnel.
Although NNSA proposed a change to the security category of the facility in the LLNL SEIS, NNSA did not propose changes to the hazard categorization of the facility or changes to the administrative limit in the Plutonium Facility in that document. The only action proposed at Site 300 in the LLNL SEIS would be an upgrade to an existing live fire shoot house…
…Approximately 245 additional personnel would be added at the Livermore Site, which would be an increase of 2.2 percent over the No-Action Alternative. Therefore, there would be no impact on fire protection, police protection services, medical services, and school enrollment… At the Livermore Site, there would be no change to the public radiation doses from radiological emissions compared to the No-Action Alternative… There would not be any additional accident risks over the No-Action Alternative. The accident analysis is based on the material at risk, which does not change under the proposed Security CAT II operations. Therefore, there are no changes in accident impacts from the impacts discussed in the No-Action Alternative… NNSA prepared a Conceptual Security Vulnerability Assessment (CV A) to determine physical mitigative features for the Superblock based on potential terrorist threats for Security CAT II operations. The CV A provides security mitigations that would not result in consequences relative to environmental concerns different from the No-Action Alternative. The CVA contains sensitive information related to security concerns and is not publicly releasable.
NNSA is constrained in plutonium R&D capacity and capability and the Plutonium Facility R&D capabilities at LLNL could be better optimized in support of mission areas. The increased amount of experimental data that would be developed through plutonium R&D is necessary to continue NNSA's science-based stewardship of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
NNSA has decided to implement the Proposed Action, which would enable NNSA to fulfill its statutory missions and other responsibilities, considering economic, environmental, technical, and other factors.”
Post a Comment