Current:Home > MyUS nuclear weapon production sites violated environmental rules, federal judge decides -RiskWatch
US nuclear weapon production sites violated environmental rules, federal judge decides
View
Date:2025-04-13 09:52:28
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — The National Nuclear Security Administration failed to properly evaluate its expansion of plutonium pit production at sites in South Carolina and New Mexico in violation of environmental regulations, a federal judge has ruled.
Plaintiffs challenged a plan consummated in 2018 for two pit production sites — at South Carolina’s Savannah River and New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory — that they say relied on an outdated environmental impact study. They also say it didn’t truly analyze simultaneous production, and undermined safety and accountability safeguards for a multibillion-dollar nuclear weapons program and related waste disposal.
“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,” Judge Mary Geiger Lewis said in her ruling.
The decision arrives as U.S. authorities this week certified with a “diamond stamp” the first new plutonium pit from Los Alamos for deployment as a key component to nuclear warheads under efforts to modernize the nation’s weapons.
Hollow, globe-shaped plutonium pits are placed at the core of nuclear warheads. Plutonium is one of the two key ingredients used to manufacture nuclear weapons, along with highly enriched uranium.
The new ruling from South Carolina’s federal court says nuclear weapons regulators violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to properly analyze alternatives to production of the nuclear warhead component at Savannah River and Los Alamos.
“These agencies think they can proceed with their most expensive and complex project ever without required public analyses and credible cost estimates,” said Jay Coghlan, director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, which is a co-plaintiff to the lawsuit, in a statement Thursday that praised the ruling.
The court order gives litigants two weeks to “reach some sort of proposed compromise” in writing.
A spokesperson for the the National Nuclear Security Administration said the agency is reviewing the court’s ruling and consulting with the Department of Justice.
“We will confer with the plaintiffs, as ordered,” spokesperson Milli Mike said in an email. “At this point in the judicial process, work on the program continues.”
The ruling rejected several additional claims, including concerns about the analysis of the disposal of radioactive materials from the pit-making process.
At the same time, the judge said nuclear weapons regulators at the Department of Energy “failed to conduct a proper study on the combined effects of their two-site strategy” and “they have neglected to present a good reason.”
Plutonium pits were manufactured previously at Los Alamos until 2012, while the lab was dogged by a string of safety lapses and concerns about a lack of accountability.
Proposals to move production to South Carolina touched off a political battle in Washington, D.C., as New Mexico senators fought to retain a foothold for Los Alamos in the multibillion-dollar program. The Energy Department is now working to ramp up production at both Savannah River and Los Alamos to an eventual 80 pits per year, amid timeline extensions and rising cost estimates.
Plaintiffs to the plutonium pit lawsuit include environmental and nuclear-safety advocacy groups as well as a coalition of Gullah-Geechee communities of Black slave descendants along the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina.
Outside Denver, the long-shuttered Rocky Flats Plant was capable of producing more than 1,000 war reserve pits annually before work stopped in 1989 due to environmental and regulatory concerns. In 1996, the Department of Energy provided for limited production capacity at Los Alamos, which produced its first war reserve pit in 2007. The lab stopped operations in 2012 after producing what was needed at the time.
veryGood! (98621)
Related
- Working Well: When holidays present rude customers, taking breaks and the high road preserve peace
- Parents pushed to their limits over rising child care costs, limited access to care
- Fossil Fuel Allies in Congress Target Meteorologists’ Climate Science Training
- Colorado Court Strikes Down Local Fracking Restrictions
- 'Most Whopper
- The rate of alcohol-related deaths in the U.S. rose 30% in the first year of COVID
- Could this cheaper, more climate-friendly perennial rice transform farming?
- Climate prize winner empowers women in India to become farmers and entrepreneurs
- Kylie Jenner Shows Off Sweet Notes From Nieces Dream Kardashian & Chicago West
- The Fate of Vanderpump Rules and More Bravo Series Revealed
Ranking
- Arkansas State Police probe death of woman found after officer
- Today’s Climate: August 5, 2010
- Justice Department unseals Donald Trump indictment — and reveals the charges against him
- FDA gives safety nod to 'no kill' meat, bringing it closer to sale in the U.S.
- Man can't find second winning lottery ticket, sues over $394 million jackpot, lawsuit says
- Play explicit music at work? That could amount to harassment, court rules
- Teen Activists Worldwide Prepare to Strike for Climate, Led by Greta Thunberg
- Warren Buffett Faces Pressure to Invest for the Climate, Not Just for Profit
Recommendation
McKinsey to pay $650 million after advising opioid maker on how to 'turbocharge' sales
Harry Potter's Miriam Margolyes Hospitalized With Chest Infection
Robert De Niro Speaks Out After Welcoming Baby No. 7
Prospect of Chinese spy base in Cuba unsettles Washington
Travis Hunter, the 2
Meeting abortion patients where they are: providers turn to mobile units
What Donald Trump's latest indictment means for him — and for 2024
The bear market is finally over. Here's why investors see better days ahead.