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

LANL Prioritizes Plutonium “Pit” Bomb Core Production Over Safety

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, November 6, 2025

Contact: Jay Coghlan, 505.989.7342, c. 505.470.3154 | Email

Contact: Scott Kovac, 505.316.4148 | Email

 Santa Fe, NM – The independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recently released its Review of the Los Alamos Plutonium Facility Documented Safety Analysis. It concluded that:

“While LANL facility personnel continue to make important upgrades to the Plutonium Facility’s safety systems, many of those projects have encountered delays due to inconsistent funding and other reasons. DOE and LANL should consider prioritizing safety-related infrastructure projects to ensure that the Plutonium Facility safety strategy adequately protects the public, as the facility takes on new and expansive national security missions.” (Page 24)

In early October 2024, the Department of Energy’s semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced with great fanfare that the Los Alamos Lab had produced its first “diamond stamped” plutonium pit for the nuclear weapons stockpile. Tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars have been sunk into LANL’s long delayed and over budget pit production program. Given no further announcements, it is not currently known whether or not the Lab is meeting its congressionally required production goals. Endemic nuclear safety problems have long been an intractable issue, at one point even forcing a three-year halt to plutonium operations at LANL’s Plutonium Facility-4 (“PF-4”).

In its recent Review, the Safety Board reported:

“The [2009] Plutonium Facility safety basis described very large potential [radioactive] dose consequences to the public following seismic events…. DOE committed to upgrade and seismically qualify the ventilation system, with a particular focus on a specific ventilation subsystem…”

“As the only facility in the DOE complex that can process large quantities of plutonium in many forms, [PF-4] represents a unique capability for the nation’s nuclear deterrent. The Board has long advocated for the use of safety-related active confinement systems in nuclear facilities for the purposes of confining radioactive materials…Passive confinement systems are not necessarily capable of containing hazardous materials with confidence because they allow a quantity of unfiltered air contaminated with radioactive material to be released from an operating nuclear facility following certain accident scenarios. Safety related active confinement ventilation systems will continue to function during an accident, thereby ensuring that radioactive material is captured by filters before it can be released into the environment…  (Page 2, bolded emphases added)

Continue reading

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

It seems we can’t find what you’re looking for. Perhaps searching can help.

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"]

Declarations

It seems we can’t find what you’re looking for. Perhaps searching can help.