When I recently heard that the US was planning to create more nuclear bombs and produce more plutonium pits for them, I couldn’t believe we would go down that road again. Didn’t we learn that we have enough nuclear bombs to destroy the Earth many times over? Didn’t we learn that the risks far outweigh the benefits?

Then I learned about the lawsuit directed at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) because they made the decision to move forward with this plan without doing an environmental impact report. This seems like a reckless decision and I am grateful that the result of the lawsuit was that the NNSA was required to do a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIS) and allow for public comment. I wrote a comment and outlined several concerns.

Risk of another cold war is top of my list. Possible risk of Earth’s destruction is obviously an environmental impact and I wonder how the US will mitigate this risk. What if other countries also ramp up their nuclear weapons production? Some say that we are simply replacing aging equipment, but the Union of Concerned Scientists conclude that existing plutonium pits could be used in new ICBMs if they are designed properly, eliminating the need for more pits and nuclear refinement.

Nuclear waste never becomes safe, and any place where it is disposed of becomes toxic for generations. I am concerned that existing nuclear waste sites will not be cleaned because resources are diverted from that task. Where and how will nuclear waste from the production of plutonium pits be disposed of and cleaned up so it’s not toxic to the environment or humans?

The PEIS does not seem to take into consideration reasonable alternatives or even “no-action” alternatives where no plutonium pits would be created. Scenarios could include: Existing pits used in new ICBMs, aging ICBMs and pits are still safe and will work for years to come, or negotiations with other nuclear countries could eliminate the need for nuclear weapons at all, or supplies could be drawn down by all parties. Why are these not on the table?

Lawrence Livermore Lab, just over the hill, is working on designing ICBMs for the new plutonium pits. But there is no mention in the PEIS of the environmental impact to our region. There is agricultural land, wildlife habitat (including endangered species), the Delta and other waterways, and, most importantly, people. There are about 335,000 living in the near vicinity, including us. Even with the Altamont range in between, our town could be at risk of severe environmental impacts.

I am also concerned about the environmental impact of plutonium pit production on vulnerable populations, especially workers and communities around Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Savannah River site where pit production will happen. There are women, children, low-income families, people with disabilities that could be affected by the impacts, and indigenous communities with little to no protection from radiation or the effects of possible fires, meltdowns, or other crises. These people should not have to bear the brunt of the health and mental consequences of pit production.

The production of plutonium pits will require more resources, such as water, electricity, and fossil fuels. At this time, when these resources are already stretched to the limit and data centers are being built in many parts of the country, there is no capacity for more consumption of them. How will more of these resources be produced to provide what the labs need? How will water be cleaned and safe to drink after being expelled from the labs?

I am glad to have been able to send this comment to the NNSA and encourage anybody else who is concerned to do the same. By law all public comments must be addressed in the next draft of the PEIS. If you have concerns, please see pitpeis.com to learn more and find out how to comment before July 16.

Hopefully our comments will urge the US not to move forward with this very risky venture or at least take greater care in it.

At this time, we must prioritize people. And while it may seem that protecting us through increasing our nuclear program does that, there are far too many risks to the environment, vulnerable populations, and all communities to move forward without completely understanding those risks and explaining how they will be mitigated as much as possible.

SRS Watch comments of May 5 & June 24, 2026 are posted here:

Comments SRS Watch on draft PEIS May 5 2026

PEIS comment by SRS Watch RCRA TRU June 24 2026

Images: Groups opposing pit production for preparation for nuclear war & April 22, 2026 gathering to oppose pit production at SRS, South Carolina State House, April 22, 2026