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

Los Alamos Lab’s Future at a Crossroads: Cleanup or More Nuclear Weapons? NukeWatch Applauds NM State Rejection of Fake Cleanup

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, September 18, 2023
Jay Coghlan – 505.989.7342, c 505.470.3154 | Email
Scott Kovac – c. 505.316.4148 | Email

Santa Fe, NM – In an important win for genuine cleanup at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has rejected the Lab’s plans for so-called cleanup through “cap and cover.” LANL’s plan would leave existing radioactive and toxic wastes uncharacterized and forever buried in unlined pits and trenches as a permanent threat to groundwater. At issue is remediation of the Lab’s “Material Disposal Area C” waste dump that has 7 pits and 108 shafts of radioactive and toxic wastes. Area C is located in the heart of nuclear weapons production at LANL, contiguous to the Lab’s main plutonium facility which is expanding production of plutonium “pit” bomb cores.

In a September 7, 2023 “Public Notice of Statement of Basis,” the Environment Department ruled:

“For maximum protection of human health and the environment and to ensure that the drinking water resource can be conservatively protected, NMED has determined that the selected [cleanup] remedy for MDA C must consist of waste excavation, characterization, and appropriate disposal of the buried waste… Excavation will ensure that the source of contamination at MDA C is removed…”

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”]