An analysis of the potential impacts of the next 15 years of Los Alamos National Laboratory operations is expected to be signed "any day now," according to officials from the local National Nuclear Security Administration field office.

A draft of the sitewide environmental impact statement was released early last year and offers three futures for the laboratory. One would continue existing operations and finish already approved projects, another would modernize lab infrastructure and a third would see an expansion of lab facilities and operations.

The National Nuclear Security Administration is suggesting the third, although NNSA officials presenting at a Tuesday meeting of the Los Alamos County Council stressed it's more of a choose-your-own adventure: While approving the expanded plan would allow for additional growth, not every project on the list will be completed based on need and funding availability.

A spokesperson for the Los Alamos Field Office confirmed Thursday the document had not yet been signed by NNSA Administrator Brandon Williams. 

Growth at LANL

The lab has been experiencing a growth spurt in recent years. During Tuesday's update to the Los Alamos County Council, Ted Wyka, manager of the NNSA's Los Alamos office, said the lab would have a "solid and stable" budget of roughly $5.3 billion in federal appropriations — about 33% higher than the $4 billion operating budget for fiscal year 2022.

Wyka said the lab also expects to hire between 1,000 and 1,400 employees this year. 

That doesn't include the loss of roughly 900 workers every year, Wyka said, so the number of employees will only grow from between 100 and 500.

About three years ago, the lab hired a record number of workers. The growth has slowed since, with the number of employees plateauing over the past two years. Since fiscal year 2021, the number of employees, excluding contractors, has increased around 28%.

That comes after Sandia National Laboratories announced last year it planned to cut between 1% and 3% of its workforce with a voluntary reduction program.

When the draft was announced last year, some LANL critics decried that even the "no action alternative" would still mean expansion for the lab. Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, told The New Mexican the process felt "rigged."

“It’s a choice between expanded nuclear weapons programs, yet more expanded nuclear weapons programs or far more expanded nuclear weapons programs,” Coghlan said at the time.

Stephanie Stringer, an associate deputy manager for the field office, said Tuesday at the very least, modernizing lab facilities is "really important." A chart shown to the council said the average age of LANL's buildings was 42 years, with many built between 60 and 70 years ago. About 85% of the buildings are in "fair" or "poor" condition. 

"Most of our facilities are over 50 years old," Stringer said. "A lot of them are in the fair and poor category. So these upgrades are really needed — this is an old facility and we want to modernize it.”

Changing times

Coghlan said Thursday he expects the final version will be similar to the draft released last year. But he expects some references to climate change and environmental justice will be struck.

"It's more what I expect to not be there, that was in the draft," Coghlan said.

Slides presented Tuesday listed Trump administration executive orders reversing the Biden administration's initiatives on climate change and environmental justice as some of the changes between the two versions. But in response to a comment from Councilor Suzie Havemann, who said she was "disappointed" in the rescission of those executive orders, Wyka said work to analyze the impact wasn't necessarily for naught — but it might be in a different location and under a different name.

"We include all those impacts, environmental justice impacts and cultural impacts," Wyka said. "It's just in appendices and covered under different titles."

The last full sitewide environmental impact statement was completed in 2008 when the lab's budget and workforce were much smaller, although there have been supplemental analyses since then.

This analysis is underpinned by a requirement that the lab produce at least 30 plutonium pits, the trigger devices for nuclear weapons, per year, with surge production capabilities of up to 80 pits per year. A Feb. 11 memorandum sent by an NNSA administrator, however, indicates the lab may be expected to produce at least 60 plutonium pits per year, although details were scarce about the timeline.

County Councilor Randall Ryti asked what an increase in production would mean for the sitewide environmental impact statement.

"We don't set policy," Wyka said. "We implement whatever is defined by the president, as well as the Department of War."

He added: "So this [impact statement] is based on a nuclear posture review … which had up to 30 pits per year here at Los Alamos by 2028, with a surge capacity of 80, as well as including Savannah River for its 50. And if our requirements are increased or changed, then we would do a supplemental analysis to confirm whatever numbers we're supposed to go to."