Published May 16, 2026 - 12:25 p.m. Modified May 18, 2026 - 9:33 a.m.
Archbishop of Santa Fe John Wester has urged the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration to halt the production of plutonium pits — the triggers inside nuclear weapons — at a public comment hearing in the state’s capital city.
Wester did not appear at the hearing in person or over video. In his stead, a Catholic priest from Hiroshima, Japan — where the U.S. conducted the world’s first nuclear attack on Aug. 6, 1945, killing up to 140,000 people — read a written statement by Wester that called nuclear weapons “immoral” and “genocidal.”
NNSA’s assertion that increasing plutonium pit production would not violate the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is “not true,” Wester said.
“The essential bargain of the NPT was that the nuclear weapons states try to negotiate nuclear disarmament,” he said. “The nuclear weapons powers have never upheld that part of the bargain.”
More than 100 people packed the Santa Fe Farmers’ Market Pavilion on Thursday evening. Most, if not all, of them sided with Wester in opposition to plans laid out by the NNSA in what is called a draft programmatic environmental impact statement.
Behind the dais stood a screen with an NNSA slogan: “Peace through atomic strength.”
“That quote is Orwellian,” said Pat Leahan of the Las Vegas Peace and Justice Center. “The Catholic Church has always taught us that the production of nuclear weapons is wrong.”
Asked about it, Toni Chiri, spokesperson for NNSA’s Los Alamos field office, said in an email that the phrase represents a “return to mission fundamentals for NNSA: atomic strength and atomic science.”
“Together, these form the foundation of our mission and capabilities,” Chiri said. “We make weapons that deter our adversaries. Atomic strength is essential for U.S. nuclear deterrence and national security.”
The NNSA, a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, hosted a series of public comment hearings about the draft statement in four states affected by its proposal to generate at least 80 plutonium pits annually by 2030, as required by the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. Asked how many pits are currently produced annually at LANL, Chiri said the figure is classified.
Options laid out in the draft statement to meet that 80-a-year national target include increasing pit production at Los Alamos, at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, or at both locations. NNSA said in the draft environmental impact statement that it prefers to produce up to 80 pits per year at Los Alamos in addition to 125 annually at the Savannah River Site. NNSA estimates the production ramp-up would require an additional 2,000 operations staff to LANL.
Many commenters panned the public hearing as purposeless because NNSA is required by statute to manufacture the pits.
“Where is the no-action alternative?” asked Amanda Champion with Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety. “Why haven’t we been given this option?”
Greg Mello, executive director of Los Alamos Study Group, a LANL watchdog, in an email said that NNSA “will do as the agency believes it must according to law and management practicalities, regardless of what people say tonight, at least in the short run.”
But he showed up to comment regardless.
“And that’s the kicker,” Mello said. “Local attitudes — support, or lack of support — definitely do affect what happens in the long run. This is as true for nuclear weapons factories as it is for AI data centers.”
Chiri said the agency will review the comments for relevancy.
“If we have some good ideas that are workable and that would make this better, we would further consider that,” Chiri said. “And there have been instances where comments have led to changes in NEPA and the final document. This is just a draft.”
Chiri later cited a NEPA review of Los Alamos’ Electrical Power Capacity Upgrade Project as an example of the NNSA listening to suggestions from commenters, who had urged NNSA to change the route of a transmission line for the major electric grid project.
A lawsuit forced the review.
Nuclear Watch New Mexico, a Santa Fe nonprofit, in 2021 sued NNSA along with other nonprofit co-plaintiffs in South Carolina, California and Georgia. The public interest groups alleged the agency violated NEPA.
In 2024, a U.S. judge ruled the NNSA violated the law. In January 2025, the public interest groups announced a settlement with the NNSA and DOE. Under it, NNSA must complete an environmental assessment, hold public hearings and open public comment periods.
Jay Coghlan, executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, the second speaker of the night, said, “Pit production is going to actively block cleanup” of legacy nuclear waste still leftover from the Manhattan Project.
“We don’t need more nuclear weapons, which after all is simply overkill at this point in time,” Coghlan said. “So what this programmatic environmental impact statement should really be pursuing is a viable alternative where the lab cleans up — instead of threatening more contamination of our groundwater with plutonium pit production.”
A final hearing on the draft statement will be held in Washington on Wednesday, May 20.
The NNSA is taking comments on it until midnight, July 16, after which the agency will review the comments and release a record of decision — expected in early 2027.
Justin Horwath covers tech and energy for the Journal. He can be reached at jhorwath@abqjournal.com.
