Searchlight NM: Plutonium just had a bad day in court
In a major decision whose consequences are still being assessed, a federal judge declared that plutonium pit production — one ingredient in the U.S. government’s $1.5 trillion nuclear weapons expansion — has to be performed in accordance with the nation’s strongest environmental law
“…The court found that the agencies charged with reviving the nuclear weapons complex have not properly evaluated the perils that could come with turning out plutonium pits at two different sites, thousands of miles apart. For the plaintiffs in this case — which include Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Savannah River Site Watch, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment and the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition — Lewis’s decision to intervene is a milestone.”
“We’ve had a pretty significant victory here on the environmental front,” said Tom Clements, the director of Savannah River Site Watch. “Nonprofit public interest groups are able to hold the U.S. Department of Energy accountable.”
Over the past twenty-plus years, there have been four attempts by NNSA to expand pit production through the NEPA process. All failed. According to Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, this string of defeats could have led to the NNSA’s circumvention of the NEPA process during this round of planning for pit production. Adhering to the rules of the NEPA process, he added, “benefits both the public and the government.”
By , Searchlight New Mexico | October 17, 2024 searchlightnm.org
Most Americans don’t seem aware of it, but the United States is plunging into a new nuclear arms race. At the same time that China is ramping up its arsenal of nuclear weapons, Russia has become increasingly bellicose. After a long period of relative dormancy, the U.S. has embarked on its own monumental project to modernize everything in its arsenal — from bomb triggers to warheads to missile systems — at a cost, altogether, of at least $1.5 trillion.
Los Alamos National Laboratory plays a vital role as one of two sites set to manufacture plutonium “pits,” the main explosive element in every thermonuclear warhead. But as a recent court ruling makes clear, the rush to revive weapons production has pushed environmental considerations — from nuclear waste and increases in vehicular traffic to contamination of local waterways, air and vegetation — to the wayside.
Court Rules U.S. Nuclear Weapons Production Plan Violates Federal Law
On September 30, United States District Court Judge Mary Geiger Lewis ruled that the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”) and its semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency, the National Nuclear Security Administration (“NNSA”), violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by failing to properly consider alternatives before proceeding with their plan to produce plutonium pits, a critical component of nuclear weapons, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (“LANL”) in New Mexico and, for the first time ever, at the Savannah River Site (“SRS”) in South Carolina.
The Court found that the plan’s purpose had fundamentally changed from NNSA’s earlier analyses which had not considered simultaneous pit production at two sites. These changes necessitated a reevaluation of alternatives, including site alternatives, which Defendants failed to undertake prior to moving forward while spending tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars. Therefore, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, the nonprofit public interest groups Savannah River Site Watch, Nuclear Water New Mexico and Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs); the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition; and Tom Clements as an individual plaintiff.
As a result of this ruling, the Defendants are required to newly assess pit production at a nation-wide programmatic level which will mean undertaking a thorough analysis of the impacts of pit production at DOE sites throughout the United States, including radioactive waste generation and disposal. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this will provide the opportunity for public scrutiny of and formal comment on their assessments.
Court Rules U.S. Nuclear Weapons Production Plan Violates Federal Law
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, October 3, 2024
Media Contacts:
Ben Cunningham, Esquire, SCELP, 843-527-0078, [email protected]
Tom Clements, Savannah River Site Watch, 803-834-3084, [email protected]
Jay Coghlan, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, 505-989-7342, [email protected]
Scott Yundt, Tri-Valley CAREs, 925-443-7148, [email protected]
Queen Quet, Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition, 843-838-1171, [email protected]
AIKEN, S.C. — On September 30, United States District Court Judge Mary Geiger Lewis ruled that the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”) and its semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency, the National Nuclear Security Administration (“NNSA”), violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by failing to properly consider alternatives before proceeding with their plan to produce plutonium pits, a critical component of nuclear weapons, at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (“LANL”) in New Mexico and, for the first time ever, at the Savannah River Site (“SRS”) in South Carolina.
The Court found that the plan’s purpose had fundamentally changed from NNSA’s earlier analyses which had not considered simultaneous pit production at two sites. These changes necessitated a reevaluation of alternatives, including site alternatives, which Defendants failed to undertake prior to moving forward while spending tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars. Therefore, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, the nonprofit public interest groups Savannah River Site Watch, Nuclear Water New Mexico and Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs); the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition; and Tom Clements as an individual plaintiff.
As a result of this ruling, the Defendants are required to newly assess pit production at a nation-wide programmatic level which will mean undertaking a thorough analysis of the impacts of pit production at DOE sites throughout the United States, including radioactive waste generation and disposal. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this will provide the opportunity for public scrutiny of and formal comment on their assessments.
The Energy Department just made one plutonium pit. Making more is uncertain
Coinciding with NNSA’s announcement of the first diamond-stamped pit, a US District Court ruled that the Energy Department and the NNSA violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to properly consider alternatives before proceeding with pit production, requiring the agency to conduct a programmatic environmental impact assessment.
This was a victory for transparency and the community groups—among them, Savannah River Site Watch, Nuclear Watch New Mexico, Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs), and the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition—who, for years, have been asking for such an assessment.
By Dylan Spaulding, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists | October 10 thebulletin.org
Two conflicting developments arose this month in US efforts to produce new plutonium pits for its nuclear weapons: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced it had produced a warhead-ready pit—the explosive core of a nuclear weapon—for the first time in decades, and a federal court ruled that NNSA will be required to consider the cumulative environmental and health impacts of its pit production program.
Overshadowing these events is a vigorous debate over the necessity for new pits at all. Previous analyses have found that plutonium pits have viable lifespans well beyond the expected service life of the current stockpile, whereas production of pits for new weapons is part of a sweeping US nuclear modernization that raises concern over the future of arms control and any possibility for stockpile reductions at a time of deteriorating international relations.
Continue reading
Judge finds plutonium production plans violated environmental laws
Both sides of the case are ordered to present a joint plan to address violations by Oct. 25
One of the plaintiffs, Jay Coghlan, the executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico called that a “pretty large hurdle to overcome,” for both parties. It’s unclear what happens if the parties fail to present a joint solution.
Source NM | October 8 sourcenm.com
U.S. energy officials illegally neglected to study impacts to the environment in efforts to increase plutonium production for nuclear weapons in New Mexico and South Carolina, a federal judge has ruled.
South Carolina District Court Judge Mary Geiger Lewis sided with environmental, anti-nuclear proliferation and community groups last week who sued the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which oversees the nuclear weapons stockpile as part of the U.S. Department of Energy.
The U.S. is investing billions into restarting the manufacture of plutonium “pits,” the grapefruit-sized spheres developed for nuclear weapons. The federal government halted its manufacturing program at the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado in 1989 after an FBI raid due to safety concerns and environmental crimes.
The stated goal has been to produce 80 pits per year starting in 2030, split between Savannah River facility proposed in South Carolina and at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The project has faced safety concerns and delays. The Government Accountability Office, a federal watchdog agency, found the NNSA had no comprehensive timeline or cost estimate for pit production, but estimates it’s in the tens of billions of dollars.
Community, environment and anti-nuclear groups brought the lawsuit in 2021, alleging that the NNSA failed to consider alternatives to its two-site proposal and violated the law by not reviewing or changing its last analysis from 2008, when it approved the decisions to move forward in 2020.
Continue reading
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Sites Violated Rules, Judge Finds
In a statement Jay Coghlan, the director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico and a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, said, “These agencies think they can proceed with their most expensive and complex project ever without required public analyses and credible cost estimates.”
By , Newsweek | October 4 newsweek.com
A federal judge ruled this week that some nuclear weapons sites in the U.S. do violate environmental regulations.
On Thursday, a federal judge ruled that the National Nuclear Security Administration violated environmental regulations by failing to adequately assess the environmental impact of its plan to expand plutonium pit production at facilities in South Carolina and New Mexico.
The case involves a lawsuit that targeted a 2018 plan to establish two plutonium pit production sites—one at South Carolina’s Savannah River and the other at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Plaintiffs argued the plan was based on an outdated environmental impact study, which failed to properly assess the implications of simultaneous production at both locations. They also insisted the plan weakened safety and accountability measures for the multibillion-dollar nuclear weapons program and its associated waste disposal.
In the ruling on Thursday, Judge Mary Geiger Lewis said, “Defendants neglected to properly consider the combined effects of their two-site strategy and have failed to convince the court they gave thought to how those effects would affect the environment.”
‘Significant Victory’: Court Rules Planned Plutonium Pits for New Nukes Violate US Law
“Public scrutiny is especially important because the activities at issue here, by their very nature, result in the production of dangerous weapons and extensive amounts of toxic and radioactive waste,” a plaintiffs’ lawyer said.
By Olivia Rosane, CommonDreams | October 3 commondreams.com
In what advocates called a major win for frontline communities and the rule of law, a U.S. district court judge ruled on Monday that the federal government could not move forward with producing plutonium pits—”the heart and trigger of a nuclear bomb“—at two proposed sites in New Mexico and South Carolina.
Instead, Judge Mary Geiger Lewis agreed with a coalition of nonprofit community groups that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to fully consider alternatives to producing the pits at New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory and South Carolina’s Savannah River Site (SRS). Now, the federal government must conduct a full environmental impact statement of how pit production would work at sites across the U.S.
“This is a significant victory that will ensure NEPA’s goal of public participation is satisfied,” attorney for the plaintiffs Ben Cunningham, of the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, said in a statement. “Public scrutiny is especially important because the activities at issue here, by their very nature, result in the production of dangerous weapons and extensive amounts of toxic and radioactive waste. I hope the public will seize the upcoming opportunity to review and comment on the federal agencies’ assessment.”
New Mexico ‘birth to grave state’ for nuclear, critics say
Jay Coghlan at Nuclear Watch New Mexico read a letter to officials from Archbishop of Santa Fe John Wester, a critic of nuclear proliferation advocating for disarmament. He called for a sitewide environmental review of Los Alamos National Laboratory before the government expands the lab’s activities.
“Nuclear weapons were invented here in my arch dioceses, and thus I feel a responsibility to address this threat,” Coghlan read. “Nuclear disarmament is a right to life issue. The very possession of nuclear weapons is immoral. What does this say about expanded pit production without providing the public the opportunity to review and comment?
“You’re very good at creating them, now show us how smart you are by showing us how to get rid of nuclear weapons. Let’s preserve New Mexico’s potential to manifest God’s love for all of his creations.”
By Adrian Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus | July 24, 2024 currentargus.com
New Mexico was a fixture in the federal government’s plans to develop more nuclear weapons in the northern part of the state, and that could mean more nuclear waste being sent the southeast corner.
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant outside Carlsbad disposes of transuranic (TRU) nuclear waste, made up of clothing materials, equipment and other debris irradiated during nuclear activities at federal sites around the country. It’s trucked into the site and buried in a salt deposit about 2,000 feet underground.
Meanwhile, the Department of Energy through its National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is planning to build up to 30 plutonium pits – triggers for nuclear warheads – per year by 2030, along with 50 a year at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
Candice Robertson, senior adviser at the DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) said during a Monday townhall in Santa Fe that WIPP did have enough space for “planned TRU waste,” as officials estimated the repository could remain active until about 2083.
NNSA Town Hall July 22nd – Hruby: “We have to limit the growth of Los Alamos Laboratory…”
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) Los Alamos Field Office held a Town Hall event hosted by the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and EM on Monday, July 22, in Santa Fe. The Town Hall was led by NNSA’s Jill Hruby and EM’s Senior Advisor Candice Robertson. The intent according the event flier was to “engage with the community, provide updates, and address concerns related to the DOE’s activities and initiatives.”
The public comment period began with Jay Coghlan, executive director of NukeWatch NM, reading aloud a statement from Archbishop John C. Wester to the DOE, NNSA and EM.
“Nuclear disarmament is a right to life issue. No other issue can cause the immediate collapse of civilization. In January 2022 I wrote a pastoral letter in which I traced the Vatican’s evolution from its uneasy conditional acceptance of so-called deterrence to Pope Francis’ declaration
that the very possession of nuclear weapons is immoral. https://archdiosf.org/living-in-the-light-of-christs-peace “Therefore, what does this say about expanded plutonium pit production at the Los Alamos Lab? And what does it say about the obscene amounts of money that are being thrown at pit production, often excused as job creation?
“What does this say about the fact that the [NNSA] is pursuing expanded pit production without providing the public the opportunity to review and comment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act? I specifically call upon NNSA to complete a new LANL Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement.
“I have a simple message for NNSA and the nuclear weapons labs. You’re very good at creating them. Now show us how smart you are by demonstrating how to get rid of nuclear weapons. Stop this new arms race that threatens all of civilization. Let’s preserve humanity’s potential to manifest God’s divine love toward all beings.
READ FULL STATEMENT
NNSA adminstrator Jill Hruby began the event with a spiel about Russia continuing their nuclear saber rattling and China aquiring over 1500 nuclear weapons by 2025. She said NNSA is putting the pressure on to develop 7 weapons
Jill Hruby intro:
A lot has changed in the last 15 months. At the highest level Russia continues its full scale invasion of Ukraine including nuclear Saber rattling and the takeover of the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant. It has violated most nuclear norms and most recently seems to be exploring using nuclear weapons in space. China is projected to have 1500 nuclear warheads by the year 2035 and continue to express an intent to take over Taiwan, their technology advancement is significant, and the combination of China and Russia now means that parity in the number of nuclear weapons doesn’t make any sense. In addition, we have North Korea and Iran that are still players in this world and the cooperation between all of them is also advancing. But what I want to say is despite these advances, we do not want an arms race, this administration doesn’t want a new arms race, the NNSA doesn’t want an arms race. We’re trying to exercise leadership and transparency, but we also can’t sit on our hands, and so we’re trying to find the balance.
Continue reading
2018 & Earlier
NNSA: Plutonium Pit Production at Both Los Alamos and Savannah River Site
"To achieve DoD's 80 pits per year requirement by 2030, NNSA's recommended alternative repurposes the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to produce plutonium pits while also maximizing pit production activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. This two-prong approach with at least 50 pits per year produced at Savannah River and at least 30 pits per year at Los Alamos is the best way to manage the cost, schedule, and risk of such a vital undertaking."
-Joint Statement from Ellen M. Lord and Lisa E. Gordon-Hagerty on Recapitalization of Plutonium Pit Production, May 10, 2018 (See full NNSA statement)
NB: Lisa Gordon-Hagerty is the Administrator of the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration); Ellen Lord is a DOD Under-secretary and Chair of the Nuclear Weapons Council (Gordon-Hagerty is also an NWC member).
For immediate release, May 10, 2018:
What's Not in NNSA's Plutonium Pit Production Decision
NukeWatch Press release excerpts:
- There is no explanation why the Department of Defense requires at least 80 pits per year, and no justification to the American taxpayer why the enormous expense of expanded production is necessary.
- NNSA did not mention that up to 15,000 "excess" pits are already stored at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, TX, with up to another 5,000 in "strategic reserve." The agency did not explain why new production is needed given that immense inventory of already existing plutonium pits. (In 2006 independent experts found that pits last a least a century. Plutonium pits in the existing stockpile now average around 40 years old.)
- NNSA did not explain how to dispose of all of that plutonium, given that the MOX program is an abysmal failure. Nor is it made clear where future plutonium wastes from expanded pit production will go since operations at the troubled Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are already constrained from a ruptured radioactive waste barrel, and its capacity is already overcommitted to existing radioactive wastes.
- NNSA did not make clear that expanded plutonium pit production is for a series of speculative future "Interoperable Warheads", meant for new ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles... Altogether the three planned "Interoperable Warheads" will cost at least $40 billion, despite the fact that the Navy doesn't want or support them.
- The independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has expressed strong concerns about the safety of plutonium operations at both the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Savannah River Site, particularly regarding potential nuclear criticality incidents.
(there's more: read the full press release)
Jay Coghlan, Nuclear Watch Director, commented, "NNSA has already tried four times to expand plutonium pit production, only to be defeated by citizen opposition and its own cost overruns and incompetence. But we realize that this fifth attempt is the most serious. However, we remain confident it too will fall apart, because of its enormous financial and environmental costs and the fact that expanded plutonium pit production is simply not needed for the existing nuclear weapons stockpile. We think the American public will reject new-design nuclear weapons, which is what this expanded pit production decision is really all about." (View/download press release)
Background:
- Dossier: Plutonium Pit Production at LANL
- Fact Sheet: Plutonium Pit Production
- History: Successful Citizen Activism Against Expanded U.S. Plutonium Pit Production
Press coverage, NNSA announcement:
- Public Integrity: Los Alamos would lose some future bomb production under new
Trump administration plan
- Los Alamos Monitor: NNSA announces decision on pit production
- SF New Mexican: Feds: Los Alamos lab to share plutonium work with South Carolina site
- Albuquerque Journal: Feds split 'pit' work between LANL and S.C.
- Public News Service: Los Alamos to Build Part of Next-Gen Nuclear Weapons
- Albuquerque Journal: New 'Pit' Plan May Mean More Waste at WIPP
34 metric tons of plutonium that were to be processed at the Savannah River Site may be headed to WIPP in New Mexico, after it has been diluted and mixed with inert material. NM Senator Udall: "I have serious questions about whether there is enough room at WIPP to store additional waste from Savannah River, given the clear legal limits in the Act, which were negotiated following a lawsuit New Mexico won against DOE when I served as Attorney General... If DOE is asking New Mexico to take on additional waste missions beyond what is authorized by current law, unilateral action (by DOE) is absolutely not an option." (ref)
Three of several cost overrun charts from the POGO report: the UPF, CMRR, and MOX facilities. Click to enlarge.
May 7, 2018:
POGO Report: NNSA Needs Budgetary Oversight and Accountability
Highlights:
- "Five recent projects by NNSA show that costs are significantly increasing- sometimes by nearly 8 times more than the initial estimates. These five programs have a combined total of $28 billion in cost overruns over the last 20 years."
- "Unsurprisingly NNSA contract management has been on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) list of high-risk program areas for issues stemming from mismanagement since 1990, when the list was created."
- Despite its long and well-documented record of budget-busting projects (One mistake at the UPF cost taxpayers $540 million), the NNSA is not subject to the same kind of cost reporting requirements as the Department of Defense.
- "Part of the reason Congress hasn't applied similar standards to the NNSA could be that the agency and its contractors have successfully captured Congressional attention, and appropriations. In 2016, a Project On Government Oversight (POGO) investigation into Congressional fellowships found that the nuclear laboratories, and the contractors running them, had been placing Fellows in key Committees and offices for decades. It's the kind of access most industry professionals can only dream about."
- "NNSA's project management problems will only be compounded by an aggressive plan to upgrade existing nuclear warheads and infrastructure and to develop new nuclear weapons." (read more at POGO)
Our related files: CMRR dossier; MOX dossier; Lawsuit v. UPF
April 26, 2018:
LANL Rad Lab: Formal Comments Under Nat'l Environmental Policy Act
Against raising plutonium limit at LANL Rad Lab
See NukeWatch's critique of these plans - our official 'public comments' as submitted: (PDF)
** Addendum to Watch comments as submitted April 27: (PDF)
Excerpt:
"This Draft Rad Lab EA is deficient. There are major omissions, for example the lack of analyses of potential beryllium hazards and Intentional Destructive Acts. Moreover, safety, occupational and seismic risks are explained away in "preliminary analyses." All this should be corrected in a more complete environmental impact statement, including final and transparent analyses of safety and seismic risks...
"NNSA should proceed with a broader environmental impact statement after its May 11 decision on the future of expanded plutonium pit production."
- NNSA is planning a 10-fold increase in plutonium at the LANL Rad Lab with a view to ramping up the production of plutonium pits for new nuclear weapons.
- NNSA wants to re-categorize the Rad Lab from a "radiological facility" to a "Hazard Category-3" nuclear facility. - (See details in our press release)
- Info: National Environmental Policy Act
- Note: NNSA is expected to announce its decision on May 11 regarding where plutonium pits will be produced: at Los Alamos, or at Savannah River Site... or both.
- See Patrick Malone's in-depth article for the Center for Public Integrity (May 2):
Safety concerns plague key sites proposed for nuclear bomb production
- May 4, 2018: Jay Coghlan Op-Ed, Albuquerque Journal: Assessment of LANL Rad Lab premature, incomplete
For Immediate Release, February 22, 2018:
NNSA Releases Draft Environmental Assessment for LANL Rad Lab;
Raises Plutonium Limit 10 Times for Expanded Pit Production
Santa Fe, NM. Today the National Nuclear Security Administration announced an Environmental Assessment to increase the amount of plutonium used in the Radiological Laboratory Utility and Office Building (aka the "Rad Lab") at the Los Alamos National Laboratory from 38.6 grams of plutonium-239 equivalent to 400 grams. This 10-fold increase is significant because it will dramatically expand materials characterization and analytical chemistry capabilities in the Rad Lab in support of expanded plutonium pit production for future nuclear weapons designs. It also re-categorizes the Rad Lab from a "radiological facility" to a "Hazard Category-3" nuclear facility. (See all the details in the full press release)
- Albuquerque Journal, February 22: NNSA wants more plutonium in Los Alamos facility
- Al Jazeera, February 23: US takes steps to resume plutonium pit production for nukes
For immediate release, October 27, 2017:
Santa Fe City Council: LANL Cleanup Order Must Be Strengthened & Expanded
and Plutonium Pit Production Suspended Until Safety Issues Are Resolved
Santa Fe, NM. On the evening of Wednesday October 25, the Santa Fe City Council passed a resolution requesting that the New Mexico Environment Department strengthen the revised Los Alamos National Labs cleanup order to call for additional characterization of legacy nuclear wastes, increased cleanup funding, and significant additional safety training. The resolution also called for the suspension of any planned expanded plutonium pit production until safety issues are resolved. (view/download full press release) (view/download City Council resolution)
More Doubts on Los Alamos as a Safe Venue for Plutonium Pit Production
"The ability of the Los Alamos Lab to safely carry out expanded plutonium pit production is increasingly in doubt."
- Jay Coghlan, NukeWatch
"State inspectors and Los Alamos National Laboratory officials may have known about an unlabeled hazardous waste container two days before the material ignited at the lab's plutonium facility during a cleanup operation, causing a worker to suffer second-degree burns... The violations are among a continuing stream of issues that have called into question the lab's ability to operate safely... The problems also have called into question the lab's ability to handle increasing quantities of plutonium to build the softball-sized atomic cores of nuclear weapons as part of a growing demand to modernize the nation's nuclear arsenal." (read more: Santa Fe New Mexican, August 4, 2017)
For immediate release: June 19, 2017:
Some Background on Plutonium Pit Production at the Los Alamos Lab
Santa Fe, NM. "Why expand plutonium pit production when apparently it can't be done safely and may decrease, not increase, our national security? One strong reason is the huge contractor profits to be had under the one trillion dollar-plus 'modernization' of the nuclear weapons stockpile and production complex initiated under Obama, which Trump promises to expand. Far from just 'modernization', existing nuclear weapons are being given new military capabilities despite denials at the highest levels of government..."
- View/download the full press release
- NukeWatch Fact Sheet: Plutonium Pit Production
- Jay Coghlan, ABQJournal: Why new nuclear 'pit' production at LANL is unnecessary
"Ironically, new-design pits for the Interoperable Warhead may hurt national security..."
Defense Nuclear Safety Board review
Understanding the Safety Posture of the Plutonium Facility at Los Alamos National Lab.
See archived video of public hearing June 7, 2017
See comments submitted by NukeWatch here.
Is Los Alamos safe for pit production?
Nuclear Negligence: Center For Public Integrity's 6-Part Report
- June 18, 2017: "Nuclear Negligence" Part 1
Repeated Safety Lapses Hobble Los Alamos National Laboratory's Work On The Cores Of U.S. Nuclear Warheads
- June 20: "Nuclear Negligence" Part 2
Safety Problems at a Los Alamos Laboratory Delay U.S. Nuclear Warhead Testing and Production
- June 26: "Nuclear Negligence" Part 3
Light Penalties and Lax Oversight Encourage Weak Safety Culture at Nuclear Weapons Labs
- June 27: "Nuclear Negligence" Part 4
More Than 30 Nuclear Experts Inhale Uranium After Radiation Alarms at a Weapons Site Are Switched Off
- June 28, "Nuclear Negligence" Part 5:
Repeated radiation warnings go unheeded at sensitive Idaho nuclear plant
- August 1, 2017, "Nuclear Negligence" Part 6:
Nuclear weapons contractors repeatedly violate shipping rules for dangerous materials
Successful Citizen Activism Against Expanded U.S. Plutonium Pit Production
This is the unsung story of successful citizen activism against repeated government attempts to expand the production of plutonium pit cores, which has always been the choke point of resumed U.S. nuclear weapons production. This history is a critical part of the march toward a future world free of nuclear weapons.
(View/download full report- PDF)
July 14, 2016:
Debate Is On Over Making More Nuclear Triggers At Los Alamos Lab
"The National Nuclear Security Administration is under orders from Congress to produce as many as 80 new nuclear weapons triggers a year by around 2030, and Los Alamos National Laboratory is the only place in the country that is equipped to make them now... The plans for a higher-capacity plutonium pit production facility make Los Alamos key - some call the lab 'ground zero'..." (ref: Albuquerque Journal)
Updated March 2017: NukeWatch Fact Sheet:
"Plutonium Pit Production at LANL"
(View/download PDF)
2012 and before: Ups and Downs of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility
CMRR Public Meeting Update
The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMMR) Project is the Lab's $6 billion dream facility that would enable expanded production capabilities for plutonium nuclear weapons components. The Obama Administration has recently proposed deferring the project for 5 years, which will likely lead to its termination.
April 25th was the 13th semi-annual public meeting required as part of a 2005 settlement between DOE/LANL and an network of community groups.
- View Scott Kovac's presentation to the meeting: download PDF
- See the Los Alamos Monitor coverage of the event
- Proceedings of the April 25, 2012 CMRR Public Meeting (PDF)
- 2005 Settlement Agreement requiring the CMRR public meetings (PDF)
Funding Eliminated for Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Plutonium Lab
Press Release: The NNSA FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request
Feb 13. Santa Fe, NM - "The Obama Administrations new fiscal year 2013 Congressional Budget Request has zeroed out funding for the controversial Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project (CMRR)-Nuclear Facility at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). While todays budget says that the CMRR-NF is being simply deferred for 5 years, that likely terminates the project given ongoing fiscal constraints and its lack of clear need.
For the past five years Nuclear Watch New Mexico has argued that the existing plutonium infrastructure at LANL was more than sufficient to meet the needs of our nuclear weapons stockpile, which official studies should confirm. NNSA now appears to be agreeing with us. While zeroing out CMRR the agency states in its budget request:
Construction has not begun on the nuclear facility. NNSA has determined, in consultation with the national laboratories, that the existing infrastructure in the nuclear complex has the inherent capacity to provide adequate support for these missions. Studies are ongoing to determine long-term requirements. NNSA will modify existing facilities, and relocate some nuclear materials..."
View/download the full Nuclear Watch press release (PDF) on the budgetary request here.
View/download NukeWatch's detailed tabulation of the NNSA's FY 2013 Budget Request here.
View/download FY2013 Los Alamos Labs Spending Chart here
Crystal Ball Budget Predictions for NNSA FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request
"We predict that FY 2013 will be a rough year for the National Nuclear Security Administration. This will be due to (among other things) its failure to achieve ignition at the ~$5 billion National Ignition Facility, the effective termination of the CMRR-Nuclear Facility (even after more than $400 million has been spent on its design), and growing Congressional doubts over its MOX Program. Added to this, the Department of Energy (NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within DOE) will likely fail with its ~$13 billion Waste Treatment Plant at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State. DOE will remain on the GAO's high risk list for the 20th consecutive year. Public and Congressional exasperation with DOE and NNSA wasteful spending will grow, leading to increasing budget cuts in FY 2014."
Read the full list of budgetary predictions at the Watchblog.
The NNSA FY 2013 Congressional Budget Request is expected to be released early afternoon (EST) Monday, February 13.
New Defense Guidance Undermines Need for new LANL Plutonium Facility
Pentagon President Barak Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta released a new defense strategy reflecting the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the need to achieve more than $450 billion in budget savings over the next decade. While specific military programs were not marked for cuts, the strategy document "U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense" notes that "It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy."
Jay Coghlan, NukeWatch Director, commented, "We welcome the Administration's acknowledgment that massive budget savings much be achieved and that our nuclear forces could be further reduced. Canceling the CMRR-Nuclear Facility is one way to begin to achieve both, immediately saving around 5 billion dollars. More importantly, canceling the CMRR-Facility is also a decision to not expand plutonium pit production, when expansion is simply not needed and would be inconsistent with America's global nonproliferation goals. Hundred's of billions of dollars could be saved over the next half-century by not expanding plutonium pit production to produce new nuclear weapons, when that money is badly needed for true national priorities."
U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense is available here.
Our Press Release is here.
Safety Board Gives Green Light For Unneeded New Plutonium Facility at LANL
On August 26th, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), an independent safety Board chartered by Congress to monitor nuclear safety at Department of Energy defense facilities, signed off on ongoing seismic and safety issues concerning Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL's) proposed new $2 billion-plus plutonium facility. This allows around $50 million in funding to be released for its further design. The 2009 National Defense Authorization Act required the DNFSB and DOE to submit certification to the congressional Armed Services Committees that safety and seismic concerns raised by the Board were resolved before these funds were made available. The Board had identified five certification findings ranging from structural and equipment seismic concerns to safety-related document and controls issues.
The construction of a proposed new "Nuclear Facility" for LANL's "Chemical and Metallurgical Research Replacement Project" (CMRR) is not yet funded, but its design to date has cost over $200 million. This facility, whose originally stated purpose was to directly support expanded nuclear weapons production, should not be built because it is oversized, over budget, over sold, and plain not needed. Instead of a new nuclear weapons facility, major investments at LANL should be directed toward nonproliferation programs, global nuclear threat reduction, energy efficiency, environmental research, and cleanup.
New Defense Guidance Undermines Need for new LANL Plutonium Facility
Pentagon President Barak Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta released a new defense strategy reflecting the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the need to achieve more than $450 billion in budget savings over the next decade. While specific military programs were not marked for cuts, the strategy document "U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense" notes that "It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy."
Jay Coghlan, NukeWatch Director, commented, "We welcome the Administration's acknowledgment that massive budget savings much be achieved and that our nuclear forces could be further reduced. Canceling the CMRR-Nuclear Facility is one way to begin to achieve both, immediately saving around 5 billion dollars. More importantly, canceling the CMRR-Facility is also a decision to not expand plutonium pit production, when expansion is simply not needed and would be inconsistent with America's global nonproliferation goals. Hundred's of billions of dollars could be saved over the next half-century by not expanding plutonium pit production to produce new nuclear weapons, when that money is badly needed for true national priorities."
U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense is available here.
Our Press Release is here.
NNSA issues Record Of Indecision for Nuclear Facility
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has posted its Amended Record Of Decision (AROD) for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project (CMRR)-Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. What all this means is that the Department of Energy has rubber stamped the final step in the SEIS process.
The NNSA offered no real alternatives to building the Nuclear Facility, and continues to push a modification of the 2004 design, mostly to meet increasing (and still unresolved) seismic concerns. The AROD still leaves undecided whether to use a 'Deep Excavation' or 'Shallow Excavation' option for construction of the Nuclear Facility, which was the only substantial choice NNSA offered.
As the AROD states, 'NNSA will select the appropriate Excavation Option (Shallow or Deep) for implementing the construction of this building after initiating final design activities, when additional geotechnical and structural design calculations and more detailed engineering analysis will be performed to support completing the facility design'.
It's more like a Record Of Indecision because nothing new was decided. True alternatives were not analyzed in the SEIS. The pre-determined outcome to build the Nuclear Facility was predictably chosen and the hard choice between the options of shallow or deep construction was kicked down the road. This indecision is a blatant attempt to snowball the project and start pre-construction activities that alone could cost up to three-quarters of a billion dollars. This is despite the fact that the actual elevation, type of structure, and total estimated costs are still unknown. Hopefully Congress will quit writing a blank check and demand more details before starting to spend any more money on this 6 billion dollar bamboozle that won’t produce a single new permanent job.
For further background please see our CMRR fact sheet here.
And see our LANL Primer here.
The CMRR Amended Record Of Decision is here.
Thanks To Those Who Attended the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project (CMRR)
12th CMRR Project Update Public Meeting, Tuesday, September 20, 2011: Our presentation from that evening is here (September 20, 2011, 5.2 MB)
See our new fact sheet
NNSA Hides Behind Final Enviro Statement To Press On With Unneeded And Exorbitant Plutonium Facility
Without public notice this late Friday afternoon the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has posted online its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project (CMRR)-Nuclear Facility. While providing materials characterization and analytical chemistry for "special nuclear materials" the Nuclear Facility will be the keystone to an expanded plutonium pit production complex at Los Alamos, quadrupling the Lab's manufacturing capability from 20 radioactive nuclear weapons cores per year to 80. The Nuclear Facility is also slated to have a vault that can hold up to six metric tons of plutonium that it will share via underground tunnels with the Lab's plutonium pit production plant.
Read Our Press Release here.
Find the Final SEIS in Volumes on the DOE Site here.
Download Our Handy Combined SEIS here. (August 26, 2011, 25MB)
NukeWatch Comments on Draft CMRR-NF Environmental Impact Statement
Nuclear Watch New Mexico Comments on the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Facility Portion of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building Replacement Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico.
We appreciate public involvement in the NEPA process. We also support safe, monitored storage of radioactive wastes as a matter of national security and environmental protection. However, these should not be interpreted as support for more nuclear weapons, pit production, nuclear power, or the generation of more nuclear wastes. In our view, the best way to deal with the environmental impacts of nuclear waste is to not produce it to begin with.
We look forward to the agency's withdrawal of this draft for the reasons stated in the linked document, and look forward to further comment once NNSA puts out a serious draft without an un-predetermined outcome.
summary of comments / full comments
Environmental Impact of Nuclear Facility
A System Out of Control- The Department of Energy and Los Alamos National Lab are gaming the National Environmental Policy Act process for a proposed new Nuclear Facility. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is premature, the narrow range of alternatives considered is bogus, the final designs are not mature and seismic issues are still outstanding. The NEPA process is being subverted.
It would be unsafe for northern New Mexico if LANL were to proceed with this building.
Public Hearings on the Environmental Impact of LANL's Proposed Expansion of its Plutonium Production Complex
The Public Comment period for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project can be used as an opportunity to challenge the need for the facility as well as voice concerns about the narrow range of alternatives the Department of Energy is evaluating in it's plans. Additionally, comments are a way to express specific environmental issues about the consequences of building and operating this addition to the plutonium complex at LANL, as well as to point out deficiencies in the analysis of environmental impacts. Going on record in written or oral comments during this process sets up the condition for future actions.
NWNM Sample Comments on the draft SEIS (.doc) -June 16, 2011
Comments on the Draft CMRR-NF SEIS can be submitted by email at: [email protected]
See NWNM Talking Points on the draft SEIS: here -May 25, 2011
NWNM Full Comments on the CMRR-NF draft SEIS -July 5, 2011
NWNM Sample Comments on the CMRR-NF draft SEIS (.doc) -June 16, 2011
NWNM Talking Points on theCMRR-NF draft SEIS -May 25, 2011
Brief Background
The main purpose of the CMRR Project is to create an expanded plutonium pit production complex at LANL capable of quadrupling the current production level of ~20 pits per year to 80. In the recent past, proposed expanded plutonium pit production was all about producing newdesign nuclear weapons, the so-called Reliable Replacement Warheads (RRWs). Congress decisively rejected RRWs, and we assert that no RRWs equals no need for the CMRR-Nuclear Facility. However, the U.S. nuclear weapons labs are still pushing for new "replacement" components, including plutonium pits that could be heavily modified from originally tested designs. This too should be avoided because it would inherently undermine confidence in the extensively tested reliable stockpile. It therefore follows that the CMRR-Nuclear Facility is still not needed.
Backgrounder on Early Construction of the Nuclear Facility
More Background information on Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project
The Supplemental EIS and its Reference Documents are available here.
30 Non-Governmental Organizations Oppose Short Schedule and Inadequate Number of Public Hearings for Controversial Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos
Following the release this week of the Department of Energy's (DOE) draft Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project-Nuclear Facility Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement thirty non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from New Mexico and around the country wrote to DOE calling for three additional public hearings, and an extension of 75 days for the comment period past the proposed June 13 Deadline. New Mexico Senators and Representatives have been approached for assistance with the requests.
Press Release -May 5, 2011
Letter to DOE -May 5, 2011
CMRR SEIS Hearing Schedule
Monday May 23 – 5 to 9 pm ABQ at the Albuquerque Marriott, Louisiana and I-40
Tuesday, May 24 – 5 to 9 pm Los Alamos at the Holiday Inn Express, 60 Entrada Drive.
Wednesday, May 25 – 5 to 9 pm Espanola at the Santa Claran Hotel
Thursday, May 26 – 5 to 9 pm Santa Fe Community College, Jemez Rooms
Please come to at least one hearing and give oral comments!
New Mexicans Must Again Say No to DOE's Proposals for Commercial Radioactive Waste Disposal.
The Department Of Energy has plans to ship more radioactive waste to New Mexico. But three sites under consideration are in New Mexico of the seven sites in new plans for disposal of nuclear power plant waste and disused radioactive sealed sources that are used in medical treatments and other applications. This includes the possibility of adding it to the inventory of waste headed for WIPP outside Carlsbad. A second site near WIPP is also on the list of possible locations, as well as Los Alamos National Laboratory. We can stop wasting NM!
See our general fact sheet
See our LANL and NM specific Fact Sheet
Los Alamos Lab to Release Plans for Plutonium Bomb Plant on Good Friday and Earth Day
Friday, April 22, is both Earth Day and Good Friday. During this extended Easter weekend some 10,000 pilgrims walk many miles to the famous Catholic Santuario in Chimayo as both penance and in celebration of the Peacemaker's resurrection. Twenty-five miles to the west and a 1,000 feet higher sits the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). An official has stated that on Good Friday and Earth Day the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will release an environmental impact statement for a huge new plutonium facility at LANL. This facility will be the keystone of an expanded production complex for plutonium pit "triggers" for nuclear weapons.
This Friday is not a good Friday for either the earth or world peace. During this holy week it is fitting to remember that "blessed are the peacemakers" and work to end nuclear weapons production and contamination rather than increasing them.
Nuclear Watch Scoping Comments for CMRR Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
NWNM CMRR SEIS Scoping Comments (full version) -November 16, 2010
To assist in preparing your written comments NukeWatch has provided shortened language in this letter (doc). Information about where to submit your comments is at the head of this letter.
NNSA Extends Public Scoping Period for CMRR Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
In response to requests from interested parties the National Nuclear Security Administration has extended the public scoping period for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) Supplemental Environmental Impact Study through November 16, 2010.
Additionally, Energy Secretary Chu has called for an independent review of the requirements for both the CMRR-NF at Los Alamos and the Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12 in Oak Ridge, TN. This process will begin November 22 and is intended to inform the Department of Energy on accurate cost estimates for these projects in time for fiscal year 2012 Budget Request. We suggest that the budgetary belt-tightening felt by many federal programs could be applied here as well.
More at the NNSA site for the SEIS
Environmental Impacts of Proposed Plutonium "Nuclear Facility" at Los Alamos to be Reconsidered - No-Build Alternative is Back on the Table
Santa Fe, NM- On October 1, 2010 the Energy Department's semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency, the NNSA, will issue a formal Notice of Intent that it will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement for its expanded plutonium pit production complex at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). At issue now is a massive "Nuclear Facility" that in combination with LANL's existing plutonium facility will quadruple production capability from the currently approved level of 20 pits per year to 80. The first legally-required environmental review of the CMRR Project was completed in 2003. Since then the project has grown 50% larger while estimated costs have increased seven-fold from $660 million in 2004 to $4.5 billion and still climbing today. Because of that, on May 4 Nuclear Watch asked NNSA to begin the process of preparing a supplemental EIS. On June 4 NNSA agreed in writing to Nuclear Watch that it would review the 2003 CMRR EIS for current relevance. NNSA has now correctly concluded that a very substantial supplement is needed, a positive decision that we believe is the only legal choice possible.
In its Notice of Intent the NNSA lists three alternatives for the Nuclear Facility: 1. To proceed with construction as currently planned; 2. To not build it and use the old Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Building without upgrading it; and 3. Not build the Nuclear Facility but upgrade the old CMR Building to sustain operations for 20-30 years. Nuclear Watch advocates a fourth alternative – stop operations at the dangerous CMR Building and do not build the Nuclear Facility.
Notice of Intent in Federal Register
NPR Calls for Surge Weapons Production Capacity, Funding for CMRR and Full Range Life Extensions
April 6, 2010- The first unclassified Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), released today, sets the direction of U.S. nuclear weapons policy and plans for maintaining the stockpile. Of importance to northern New Mexico is the intention to fund the $4.5 billion Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Apparently bowing to pressure from the weapons laboratories and holdovers from the previous administration, the NPR states that the CMRR is needed to sustain the nuclear arsenal. But it also goes past that and calls for "some modest capacity [that] will be put in place for surge production in the event of significant geopolitical "surprise." Once that capacity is installed we believe the door remains open for expanded plutonium pit production at LANL.
The NPR also falls short of the conservative approach to maintaining the existing arsenal with minimum modifications to original tested design specifications. NukeWatch advocates "curatorship" of the nuclear stockpile, which involves robust surveillance and maintenance of the stockpile but avoids new-design components and obviates expanded production capacity or new facilities to make them. The NPR calls for a full range of Life Extension Programs, including refurbishment of existing warheads, reuse of nuclear components from different warheads, and replacement of nuclear components. NukeWatch is deeply concerned that these Life Extension Programs will be used to endow existing nuclear weapons with new military capabilities, as has been done in the past, despite claims made to the contrary in the NPR.
Nuclear Watch Press Release -April 6 2010
Safety Board Gives Green Light For Unneeded New Plutonium Facility at LANL
On August 26th, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), an independent safety Board chartered by Congress to monitor nuclear safety at Department of Energy defense facilities, signed off on ongoing seismic and safety issues concerning Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL's) proposed new $2 billion-plus plutonium facility. This allows around $50 million in funding to be released for its further design. The 2009 National Defense Authorization Act required the DNFSB and DOE to submit certification to the congressional Armed Services Committees that safety and seismic concerns raised by the Board were resolved before these funds were made available. The Board had identified five certification findings ranging from structural and equipment seismic concerns to safety-related document and controls issues. The construction of a proposed new "Nuclear Facility" for LANL's "Chemical and Metallurgical Research Replacement Project" (CMRR) is not yet funded, but its design to date has cost over $200 million. This facility, whose originally stated purpose was to directly support expanded nuclear weapons production, should not be built because it is oversized, over budget, over sold, and plain not needed. Instead of a new nuclear weapons facility, major investments at LANL should be directed toward nonproliferation programs, global nuclear threat reduction, energy efficiency, environmental research, and cleanup.