UPF Lawsuit

Atomic Histories & Nuclear Testing

LANL’s Central Mission: Los Alamos Lab officials have recently claimed that LANL has moved away from primarily nuclear weapons to “national security”, but what truly remains as the Labs central mission? Here’s the answer from one of its own documents:

LANL’s “Central Mission”- Presented at: RPI Nuclear Data 2011 Symposium for Criticality Safety and Reactor Applications (PDF) 4/27/11

NNSA’s Nuclear Weapons Programs Slated for 53% Increase

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, June 3, 2025

Contact: Jay Coghlan – 505.989.7342 | Email

Santa Fe, NM – Topline budget figures for the Department of Energy (DOE) have been released under the headline of “Unleashing a Golden Era of Energy Dominance and Energy Innovation and Protecting the Nation.” But as a baseline, 65% of the Department’s proposed $46 billion budget is earmarked for its semi-autonomous nuclear weapons agency, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In turn, more than 80% of NNSA’s proposed FY 2026 funding is for its nuclear weapons research and production programs, with a 25% funding increase over FY 2025.

But that is not all. The Trump Administration is adding another $4.8 billion from so-called “reconciliation” funding, bringing NNSA’s “Total Weapons Activities” to just under $30 billion. Taken together, this is a 53% increase above FY 2025 for NNSA’s nuclear weapons research and production programs. To help pay for this, nonproliferation and cleanup programs are being cut by 5%, science by 14%, cybersecurity and emergency response by 25%, and energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by 74%.

Continue reading

NukeWatch Compilation of the DOE/NNSA FY 2020 Budget Request – VIEW

LANL FY 2020 Budget Request – VIEW

Sandia FY 2020 Budget Request – VIEW

Livermore Lab FY 2020 Budget Chart – Courtesy TriValley CAREs – VIEW

UPF Lawsuit Documents & Resources

Memo from David Jackson on Seismic Risks at UPF

"I have reviewed the relevant documents associated with NNSA’s analysis of seismic risks at the Y-12 National Security Complex, and I find the agency’s analysis to be badly lacking. In my expert opinion, NNSA’s review is not a scientifically based review of seismic risks."

Memo from Robert Alvarez on Inadequacy of Existing DOE/NNSA UPF & Y-12 Site Analyses

"In my expert opinion, the NNSA's current methodology for reviewing the environmental impacts of its modernization of the Y -12 National Security Complex falls far short of what is logically or legally required, in large part because the NNSA is failing to consider its actions as a unified whole."


2019


 Reply to Government RE: Motion to Enforce November 2019

 Government’s Response to Motion to Enforce


 Motion to Enforce October 2019


 NNSA Amended Record of Decision, Oct 2019


Ruling of Judge Pamela Reeves in legal challenge to UPF bomb plant


Response to Government Motion for Summary Judgement and Reply


Exhibit RE: Earthquake Activity


Motion for Summary Judgment


Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment


2017


September 2017

 Answer to Complaint for Relief


September 28, 2017

 Motion to Transfer Venue


September 28. 2017

 Memo Supporting Change of Venue Motion


September 28. 2017

 Declaration by Geoffrey Beausoleil

[embeddoc url="https://nukewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/UPF-Fact-sheet-6.17.pdf" download="all" viewer="google"]