Redux, with the correct link:

The lucky among us have extra time to read, so why not read:

@NNSANews' draft environmental impact statement about making plutonium pits at @SRSNews.

http://bit.ly/ActualSRSpitEIS 

NNSA presser about it

I never thought I'd be doing dueling threads about the environmental impacts of plutonium pit production, but here we are.

Following below, some nuggets I noticed in the document linked above.

1 - On page 1-7, the NNSA says what we all already knew, but which the agency hasn't before written (and published) in words quite so clear:

"if pit production at LANL were paused for some reason, overall pit production requirements could be satisfied at SRS."

So, the planned Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility (the pit plant to be built from the cancelled MOX facility) can handle the future pit mission by itself.

You might've noticed the figure 125 pits per year in the above screen cap.

That's 75 more pits annually than the NNSA currently requires SRPPF to make.

NNSA doesn't say SRPPF could make 125 pits a year, but the agency went ahead and analyzed the effects of doing so, anyway.

Also, it still looks like SRPPF would produce dramatically more transuranic waste (has elements heavier than uranium) than the @LosAlamosNatLab pit plant planned at the lab's PF-4 Plutonium Facility.

That's accounting, even, for aqueous recovery of Pu at SRS.

Paging @WIPPNEWS

Here's a picture of a table I made, displaying estimated TRU waste volumes for the two pit plants.

Sources are the 4/2/20 doc linked at the start of this thread ( https://bit.ly/ActualSRSpitEIS ), and a separate environmental review, 12/10/19, of pits at LANL, ( http://bit.ly/LANLpitSupplement)