Nuclear watchdogs warn against blurring energy, military uses at Ohio fuel plantNuclear watchdogs warn against blurring energy, military uses at Ohio fuel plant, Energy News, BY Kathiann M. Kowalski, 13 Feb 19,
Combining the capability to make fuel for nuclear reactors and material for weapons undercuts nonproliferation efforts, critics say.
A planned nuclear fuel plant in Ohio could help enable the nation’s next wave of carbon-free electricity, a fleet of small reactors providing continuous power to the grid.
The U.S. Department of Energy fuel facility would be unique in part because it could also produce material for use in nuclear weapons. That crosses a potentially dangerous line, nuclear watchdog groups say — one that could undercut efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
The Department of Energy announced plans last month to contract with Centrus Energy Corp.’s American Centrifuge Operating subsidiary to reopen a nuclear fuel plant in Piketon, Ohio, about 70 miles south of Columbus where Appalachia’s foothills start rising from sprawling farmland.
The new project would likely resemble an earlier pilot program there that ended in 2015, but with various updates and technical fixes. It would also require U.S.-only sources, in lieu of some foreign components and technology.
Dual uses envisioned
DOE is proposing the company as the sole source for the work, and the agency’s notice suggests the demonstration project’s fuel could be used for both civilian and military purposes.
On the civilian side, the project’s fuel would be used for research and development of next-generation nuclear reactors. Designs for those smaller reactors call for fuel known as HALEU, which stands for high assay low-enriched uranium.
HALEU can have between 5 and 20 percent of uranium’s U-235 isotope. That’s the form that undergoes fission readily. In contrast, most U.S. commercial reactors use fuel with 3 to 5 percent U-235. Natural uranium is about 99 percent U-238.
On the defense side, HALEU could be used for small mobile reactorsto power on-the-go military operations. Beyond that, DOE’s requirement for U.S.-only technology could also let the plant’s fuel be used to make tritium. That radioactive isotope of hydrogen is used innuclear weapons.
Foreign policy fears
The possible crossover uses for the Piketon plant’s fuel could conflict with the country’s positions on nuclear nonproliferation.
The United States signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in1968 in hopes of curbing the risk of global nuclear war. The treaty recognizes the rights of countries to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes but forbids countries that didn’t already have nuclear weapons from building or obtaining them. Supplemental treaties apply to transfers of goods and technology and other matters.
Those treaties account for the “U.S.-only” requirement for any facility or technology that would produce nuclear fuel that could be used for the country’s nuclear weapons program. But critics see a problem in blurring the lines of civilian and military uses of Piketon’s fuel.
“Our entire nonproliferation endeavor where our reactors are concerned has been to prevent our civilian programs from being used in support of military bomb-making programs,” said Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who later taught at Vermont Law School. “One of the pillars of that undertaking has been to keep them separate in the U.S.”
A dual use for the Piketon plant would expand the fuel supply for those or similar operations. But it would also add another site blending civilian and military uses of nuclear technology…………
Conceptually, I think that is a very bad image for the U.S. to project at this point when the U.S. is trying to dissuade other countries from building their own facilities,” said Edwin Lyman, acting director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Nuclear Safety Project. ……
“The proposed demonstration is very good news for the entire U.S. nuclear industry,” said Centrus Energy spokesperson Jeremy Derryberry. “If America wants to be competitive in supplying the next generation of nuclear reactors around the world, we need an assured, American source of high-assay low-enriched uranium to power those reactors. We stand ready to work with the department to get the proposed project underway as quickly as possible.” The Nuclear Energy Institute likewise hailed the news. …….
However, Piketon isn’t the only option for supplying smaller, new nuclear reactors. “There is actually an enrichment facility in the United States in New Mexico that would be capable of supplying any civilian nuclear power plant,” said Lyman at the Union of Concerned Scientists……..
That “midnight-hour resurrection” of production at Piketon raises “a lot of questions about not only the viability of the project, but the need for it, and the consequences of getting it restarted at this point after this has been shut down for three years,” Lyman said.
THE Soviet Union used its own population as “guinea pigs” to tests the effects of its secret nuclear weapons as tensions rose with the United States, a former member of the European Parliament for Scotland revealed. By CALLUM HOARE, Feb 13, 2019 The Semipalatinsk Test Site, also known as The Polygon, was home to at least 456 nuclear tests between 1949 and 1989, during the height of the Cold War. These top-secret missions were carried out with little regard for human or environmental impact in the surrounding area, just 11 miles away. Locals were told their area had been selected to help counter the threat from the US but were not aware of the full extent of the radiation damage.
“They were not told these weapons were nuclear and there would be the question of radioactive fallout that would affect all of them.
“The KGB doctors would wait until the wind was blowing towards the villages, then detonate the bombs and spend days afterwards checking the effects on the locals.
“They were being used as human guinea pigs.”
Mr Stevenson claimed the KGB manipulated locals so they could test the full potential of their nuclear weapons.
He continued: “The KGB ordered them to pack books and bedding behind the windows of their houses and actually stand outside.
“The women were there holding their babies and the KGB told them ‘you will witness the might of Soviet technology’ and they were actually celebrating this massive bomb, not knowing it would make them severely ill.
“Igor Kurchatov and Andrei Sakharov were the fathers of the Soviet nuclear weapons.
“[Joseph] Stalin gave an order that if the bomb did not explode, the professors and all their team would be executed.”
In 1989, the anti-nuclear movement was started in Kazakhstan called “Nevada Semipalatinsk”, led by poet Olzhas Suleimenov.
The site was officially closed by the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev on 29 August 1991, denuclearising the country.
It has now become the best-researched atomic testing site in the world and is open to the public to visit.
Final mission: Keep anti-nuke message at site of Tsukiji market, http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201902130004.html, By NAOMI NISHIMURA/ Staff Writer, February 13, 2019 Busy construction workers and fast-walking passers-by pay little notice to a metal plate that symbolizes one of the darker periods in the postwar history of the now-closed Tsukiji fish market in Tokyo.
The continuing dismantling work and the future of the iconic former market has gained much of the public’s attention. The plate, measuring 42 centimeters tall and 52 cm wide, will remain on a fence surrounding the site at least until the project is complete.
The plate, marking the fallout of nuclear bomb tests carried out in the 1950s, carries a message that many people hope will remain in one form or another at the site.
“We have set up this plate out of the wish that there will be no suffering again from nuclear weapons,” the plate says in part.
A Tokyo metropolitan government official said “nothing has been decided on what objects will be installed” afterward at the Tsukiji site.
The plate is witness to the “A-bomb tuna” that arrived 65 years ago at the Tsukiji market in the capital’s Chuo Ward.
“Nearly 460 tons of contaminated fish were found from more than 850 fishing boats across Japan … and fish consumption dropped sharply,” another part of the plate’s inscription reads.
The radioactive “A-bomb” fish were actually exposed to radiation from hydrogen-bomb tests.
The text on the plate refers to the Daigo Fukuryu Maru (Lucky Dragon No. 5), a fishing vessel caught in the fallout of a U.S. H-bomb test near the Bikini Atoll in March 1954.
Some of the tuna and other fish caught by the Daigo Fukuryu Maru ended up at the Tsukiji market.
“There was a real panic” when the haul tested positive for radiation, said Takuji Adachi, 92, who was a metropolitan government official at the time in charge of hygiene on the market grounds.
Radiation was also found in other tuna hauls that arrived later from different parts of the country.
Workers sat up all night testing fish with radiation detectors borrowed from a university lab and elsewhere before their early-morning auctions, sources said.
Tuna lost half to two-thirds of their prices, and the values of other fish species also dropped. The radiation tests continued through the year-end, with 3,000 tuna going to waste.
The names of 856 Japanese fishing boats were identified as having been contaminated by radioactive fallout from a series of hydrogen-bomb tests conducted between March and May 1954, according to officials of the Daigo Fukuryu Maru Exhibition Hall.
The plate was installed at the Tsukiji fish market 45 years later.
PETITION FOR RELOCATING STONE MONUMENT
Matashichi Oishi, who was a crew member on the Fukuryu Maru involved in freezing the catch, wanted to set up a physical testimony to peace.
The now 85-year-old had asked the Tokyo metropolitan government to allow the installation at Tsukiji of a stone monument engraved with “Maguro Zuka” (tuna memorial).
He called for donations in units of 10 yen ($0.09) each time he gave a public speech. He ended up collecting 3 million yen, and the stone monument was completed.
However, opinion was divided at the time over whether the Tsukiji market should be relocated or redeveloped on the same site. Authorities said there was no space available for the stone monument, but they allowed the plate to be attached by the side of the main gate.
The stone monument currently stands in an open space on the grounds of the exhibition hall in Tokyo’s Koto Ward, where the hull of the Daigo Fukuryu Maru remains preserved.
The plate has since served as a memento for about two decades, but the Tsukiji market was relocated to the Toyosu district of Koto Ward in October last year.
With the future of the plate unknown, Oishi has collected 5,622 signatures over three years for a petition to have the stone monument relocated to a corner of the former Tsukiji market.
“Words engraved in stone will stay 50 years and 100 years down the road,” Oishi said last September during a meeting on the possible uses of the stone monument. “History could be repeated unless someone keeps talking about the horror of nuclear weapons.”
He said he hopes to hand the signatures to Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike to coincide with the March 1 Bikini Day, the anniversary of the Fukuryu Maru’s nuclear exposure.
Oishi said setting a path for the stone monument’s relocation is his “final mission in life.”
“The Fukuryu Maru later symbolized calls for eliminating nuclear weapons,” he said. “Tsukiji must also have the role of being a witness to the nuclear exposure incident.”
The Red Cross shared an anti-nuclear weapons video on social media on Monday. “We do this to get more awareness about nuclear weapons”, spokesperson Iris van Deinse explained to the broadcaster. “And especially of the effect of such a nuclear weapon.”
The video focuses on the question: Would you rather die in a nuclear attack, or survive it? “It’s certainly an intense video. But the effects of a nuclear weapon are also very intense. It is something you sometimes do not realize, if that’s what the discussion is about. We therefore find it important to show it. Our relief workers in Japan are still helping people after the nuclear disaster in 1945. Because they get cancer, or children are born with mutations. Help remains necessary.”
According to Van Deinse, providing aid after a nuclear attack is virtually impossible. People in a wide area are affected by extreme heat, shock waves and radiation. “We can not help in such a catastrophe. Relief workers can’t even go there because of radiation.” The aid organization also points out the environmental consequences of a nuclear attack – the large amounts of soot that end up in the atmosphere can lead to failed crops, falling temperatures and starvation.
Earlier this month both te United States and Russia withdrew from the INF treaty dating from the Cold War. The treaty, signed in 1987, bans the development of cruise missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Shortly before the two countries withdrew from this treaty, the Dutch government’s advisory council for international affairs AIV said that the number of new nuclear weapons and the increased tensions between countries that own such weapons pose a major risk for international security. The AIV advised the Netherlands to raise this issue with the UN.
Secret Underground Nuclear City In The Arctic | A Potential Threat
WW3 FEARS: Pentagon’s secret underground tunnels of MOBILE NUCLEAR bases REVEALED THE US government built a fully-functioning mobile nuclear base below the ice ofGreenland in preparation for war, it was revealed during a documentary. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1084951/ww3-fears-pentagon-mobile-nuclear-base-greenland-sptIn 1960, the United States ran a highly publicised project known as Camp Century on the island to study the feasibility of working below the ice. However, declassified files show it was actually a cover-up for a top-secret Cold War programme. Project Iceworm was the code name for the United States Army’s mission to build a network of mobile nuclear missile launch sites.
The ultimate objective was to place medium-range missiles under the ice — close enough to strike targets within the Soviet Union.
YouTube series “The Real Secrets of Antarctica” revealed how the project came to light in January 1995.
The 2017 documentary detailed: “Some very interesting disclosures were declassified about US military installations in Greenland which took place in the 1960s.
“They fed the American people a highly publicised story about advances in research and building an underground city below Greenland called Camp Century.
Only later did the truth about Project Iceworm surface.
“The Pentagon was attempting to put in place mobile nuclear launching sites to utilise thousands of miles of tunnels.”
Project Iceworm was to be a system of tunnels 2,500 miles in length, used to deploy up to 600 nuclear missiles, that would be able to reach the Soviet Union in case of nuclear war.
The missile locations would be under the cover of Greenland’s ice sheet and were supposed to be periodically changed.
A total of 21 trenches were cut and covered with arched roofs within which prefabricated buildings were erected.
These tunnels also contained a hospital, a shop, a theatre, and a church and the total number of inhabitants was around 200.
From 1960 until 1963 the electricity supply was provided by means of the world’s first mobile nuclear reactor, named PM-2A.
Water was supplied by melting glaciers and tested to determine whether germs were present, including tests for the plague virus.
However, just three years after it was built, ice core samples taken by geologists demonstrated that the glacier was moving much faster than anticipated and would destroy the tunnels and planned launch stations in about two years.
The facility was evacuated in 1965, and the nuclear generator removed.
Project Iceworm was canceled, and Camp Century closed in 1966.
Bill Kidd will be at the Global Peace Forum in Pyeongchang to renew calls for Scotland to become a nuclear-free zone.
He will be among parliamentarians, anti-nuclear campaigners and experts in the field from the USA, Belgium, Japan and the Philippines, who are joining together to discuss the development of the UN’s Agenda for Disarmament by 2030.
Mr Kidd, co-president of the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament group in Scotland, said: “At a time of such grave uncertainty across the world, Scotland is a leading voice on nuclear disarmament – leaving the UK looking badly out-of-touch with the vast majority of nations.
“The SNP, the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland firmly reject the hosting of weapons of mass destruction on Scottish soil, and Westminster should heed those calls.
“By taking a stand on immoral nuclear weapons, we can set a powerful example to the world, influence others and help shape the global agenda.”
He added that in an independent Scotland the SNP would remove all nuclear weapons “as quickly and safely as possible”.
WW3: France to build ‘unstoppable’ HYPERSONIC NUKES to replace ageing nuclear armoury
FRANCE is set to build a state-of-the-art armoury of hypersonic weapons capable of travelling more than 3,800mph, in a bid to upgrade their ageing nuclear arsenal as they fall behind other world military powers., By THOMAS MACKIE, Express UK :11, Sat, Feb 9, 2019The French Defence Ministry has promised to test a prototype hypersonic glider missile device in just two years time. “We have decided to issue a contract for a hypersonic glider demonstrator,” Defense Minister Florence Parly said during the unveiling of the V-MaX project. France has already carried out studies on propulsion systems for hypersonic flights as part of a £32 billion overhaul of its nuclear arsenal.
Hypersonic gliders would be carried to the edge of the earth’s atmosphere by a launch vehicle and would then “glide” back to a target on the ground.
France’s main nuclear-tipped air-to-surface cruise missile, the ASMP, is capable of flying up to Mach 3, which is 2,300 mph.
To be deemed hypersonic, the new device must be capable of flying at least five times the speed of sound (3,800mph).
However many hypersonic weapons can travel much faster, with Russia’s latest glider reaching speeds of 20,700mph.
The French Directorate General of Armaments (DGA) admitted the country had “relatively little experience” in the hypersonic field.
Hypersonic weaponry is fast becoming the nuclear weapon of choice among the world superpowers.
In March last year Russia unveiled a new range of weapons, including two hypersonic devices, the Kinzhal air-launched missile and the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle.
The threat of nuclear war fills people with fear. Yet the increasingly blurred line between nuclear and conventional weapons is heightening the danger.
Nuclear and non-nuclear weapons have never been entirely separate from each other.
Seventy-four years later, nine countries now possess thousands of nuclear weapons, which are becoming increasingly entangled with non-nuclear weapons.
The global stockpile of nuclear weapons is down from an all-time high of about 64,000 in 1986 – but some contemporary weapons are about 300 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Apart from the UK, all nuclear-armed states possess dual-use weapons that can be used to deliver nuclear or conventional warheads.
These include missiles of ever-longer ranges.
Russia, for example, has recently deployed a new ground-launched cruise missile, the 9M729.
Capable of travelling more than 2,500km (1,553 miles), it appears to be the world’s longest range dual-use missile capable of a precision strike.
There are a number of scenarios in which such missiles could inadvertently increase the chance of a nuclear war.
The most obvious is that in a conflict, they might be launched with conventional warheads but mistaken for nuclear weapons.
This ambiguity could prompt the adversary to launch an immediate nuclear response.
It is difficult to know whether it would choose this course of action – or wait until the weapons had detonated and it became clear how they were armed.
In practice, the greatest danger with dual-use missiles may lie elsewhere: misidentification before they have even been launched.
Imagine that China dispersed lorry-mounted DF-26 missiles loaded with nuclear warheads around its territory.
The US, wrongly believing them to be conventionally armed, might decide to try to destroy them.
By attacking them, it could inadvertently provoke China into launching those nuclear weapons it still had before they could be destroyed.
Satellite systems
Dual-use missiles are not the only way in which nuclear and non-nuclear weapons are increasingly entangled.
For example, all nuclear forces need a communication system – which could include satellites.
But, increasingly, these nuclear command-and-control systems are also being used to support non-nuclear operations.
The US, for example, operates satellites to provide warning of attacks with nuclear-armed or conventionally armed ballistic missiles.
If this strategy was successful, Russia could decide to attack the US early-warning satellites in response.
But blinding US early-warning satellites would not simply undermine its ability to spot conventionally armed missiles.
It would also compromise the ability of the US to detect nuclear-armed ballistic missiles and could raise fears that Russia was planning a nuclear attack on the US.
Indeed, the latest US Nuclear Posture Review – the key official statement of US nuclear policy – explicitly threatens to consider the use of nuclear weapons against any state that attacks its nuclear command-and-control systems.
This threat applies whether or not that state has used nuclear weapons first.
Weapons ban
The governments of nuclear-armed states are presumably aware of the growing entanglement between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons.
They are also aware of at least some of the associated dangers.
However, working to reduce these risks does not seem to be a priority.
The focus remains on enhancing their military capabilities, to deter one another.
One option could be for countries to try to agree a ban on weapons that could threaten nuclear command-and-control satellites.
But for the moment, governments of nuclear-armed states are reluctant to sit around the same table.
As a result, the prospects of such cooperation appear to be bleak.
Brazil to start detail phase on first nuclear-powered submarine, Victor Barreira, Lisbon – Jane’s Defence Weekly, 07 February 2019The Brazilian Navy is scheduled on 11 February to begin initial detailing activity, or Phase C, of its first nuclear-powered submarine, SN Álvaro Alberto , the service told Jane’s .A preliminary adjustment document between the General-Coordination of the Nuclear-Propelled Submarine Development Program (COGESN) and Naval Group was signed on 14 December 2018, the navy confirmed to Jane’s on 31 January. Work will be undertaken by the Submarines Development Center (CDS).
Russia is open to considering new proposals for a broader treaty including other countries to replace a suspended Cold War-era nuclear pact with the US. Russia says it would be prepared to consider new proposals from the United States to replace a suspended Cold War-era nuclear pact with a broader treaty that includes more countries.Russia suspended the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty at the weekend after Washington announced it would withdraw in six months unless Russia ends what it says are violations of the pact, allegations rejected by Moscow.
The 1987 treaty eliminated the medium-range missile arsenals of the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, but leaves other countries free to produce and deploy them.
US President Donald Trump last week said he would like to hold talks aimed at creating a new arms control treaty.
“We of course saw the reference in president Trump’s statement to the possibility of a new treaty that could be signed in a beautiful room and that this treaty should also include other countries as its participants,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Thursday.
“We look forward to this proposal being made concrete and put on paper or by other means…” Ryabkov said at a news conference in Moscow.
Ryabkov said the US had not sent Moscow any concrete proposals for a new pact.
Across this nuclear triad, the takeaway for investors is, there’s a lot of money on the table up for grabs………Definitely going to be a bullish sign for these defense contractors going forward.
The $500 Billion Push to Modernize the Nuclear Triad, Cold War-era technology is due for replacement, but the cost is out of this world.,Motley Fool Staff, (the_motley_fool), Feb 5, 2019 .
On this segment of Industry Focus: Energy,The Motley Fool’s Nick Sciple and Fool.com contributor Lou Whiteman discuss a Congressional Budget Office report that estimates the U.S. needs to invest nearly $500 billion to modernize its nuclear weapon systems. That includes new submarines, bombers, and rockets, as well as the systems that support them.
A full transcript follows the video…..
Lou Whiteman “……..The CBO just updated a study on the triad. They determined almost $500 billion, $494 billion, needs to be spent in the next 10 years on nuclear triad modernization. That’s up considerably, 20% or more, from their 2017 estimate. Part of that is, we have a road map for some of this spending. Part of it is, now, we’re getting into the years where hopefully, those investments will be made. So, some of that increase was expected. But it’s a massive amount, half $1 trillion is going to go into new bombers, new subs, new rockets, new warheads to put on them, plus all the support. It’s a huge area. The details, some of them have to be worked out, but it’s almost guaranteed revenue for some of these companies, the lucky winners of these, because it’s a huge priority for the United States…….
Sciple: Let’s talk about some of these items. Northrop Grumman is developing a new bomber, the B-21. The number that I saw is, between now and 2028, the Pentagon is expected to spend $49 billion on that program. Can you talk about the significance of that aircraft for Northrop Grumman, as well as for our defense arsenal as a country?
Whiteman: That’s the keystone project for Northrop Grumman. They won that bomber. It’s been a slow road……. This is a huge expense. They’re doing their best to modernize it. It’s replacing an aircraft that isn’t that old…….
Whiteman: Naval is a big part of the bull story on General Dynamics ……….
Whiteman: ………The Minuteman is our go-to rocket. It needs to be replaced. That’s the only part of this triad that we don’t know who the eventual winner is. It’s going to be a big deal for either Northrop or Boeing.
………Sciple: Across this nuclear triad, the takeaway for investors is, there’s a lot of money on the table up for grabs………Definitely going to be a bullish sign for these defense contractors going forward.
The Cost to Clean Up America’s Cold War Nuclear Waste Jumps to $377 Billion, The bill for a half century of nuclear weapons production is growing fast. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26145608/nuclear-waste-cleanup-cost-377-billion/By Kyle Mizokami.Feb 5, 2019. The United States developed and built tens of thousands of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. A new report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates the total cleanup cost for the radioactive contamination incurred by developing and producing these weapons at a staggering $377 billion, a number that jumped by more than $100 billion in just one year.
Most people think of the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and think of oil rigs, coal mines, solar energy panels, and wind farms. While the DoE does handle energy production—including nuclear power—it also handles the destructive side of nuclear energy. A large part of the DoE’s portfolio over the past several decades has been the handling of nuclear weapons research, development, and production. The DoE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for cleaning up radioactive and hazardous waste left over from nuclear weapons production and energy research at DoE facilities.
In 1967 at the height of the U.S.–Soviet nuclear arms race, the U.S. nuclear stockpile totaled 31,255 weapons of all types. Today, that number stands at just 6,550. Although the U.S. has deactivated and destroyed 25,000 nuclear weapons, their legacy is still very much alive. Nuclear weapons were developed and produced at more than one hundred sites during the Cold War. Cleanup began in 1989, and the Office of Environmental Management has completed cleanup at 91 of 107 nuclear sites, Still, according to the GAO, “but 16 remain, some of which are the most challenging to address.” Those sites include Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, the Hanford site in Washington, and the Nevada National Security Site.
The Department of Energy’s cleanup responsibilities are a tall order and include, “(1) storing and treating about 90 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous waste located in nearly 240 large underground tanks at three sites across the country; (2) remediating millions of cubic meters of soil and more than 1 billion gallons of groundwater; (3) preparing and disposing of 2,400 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and about 21 metric tons of surplus highly enriched uranium materials; and (4) deactivating and decommissioning about 1,700 excess facilities, some of which are highly contaminated.”
In 2017, the GAO estimated its Environmental Management office’s “environmental liability” at $268 billion. That number ballooned to $377 billion in 2018. That includes radioactive tank waste treatment, soil and groundwater remediation, the cost of closing and decommissioning older facilities, nuclear waste management, and the cost of disposing of surplus nuclear material—including plutonium, uranium, and spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants.
By far the most expensive site to clean up is the Hanford site, which manufactured nuclear material for use in nuclear weapons during the Cold War. In 2017, the DoE estimated site cleanup costs at $141 billion.
What’s driving cost growth? Cleaning up nuclear weapons and dealing with radioactive materials in particular is extremely complex. Not only is it expensive work to begin with, accidents happen, regulations change, cleanup “remedies” change, project-management issues crop up, and the scope of a project could suddenly grow as officials get a grasp on the problem.
Meanwhile, the Department of Energy is underfunding cleanup operations. Between 2011 and 2017, the Department of Energy spent $41.4 billion on cleanup costs. During that same time, the GAO estimates the EM’s “environmental liability grew by almost $105 billion, from $163 billion to $268 billion.” (That doesn’t even include the $109 billion spike between 2017 and 2018.) That’s the equivalent of taking one step forward and then being pushed seven steps back.
The Department of Energy’s job cleaning up nuclear waste is underfunded and will take decades more to complete. The Hanford site, for example, needs $4 billion a year to hit cleanup milestones but is only receiving $2.5 billion. What’s more, if arms-control treaties continue to unravel, the U.S. could act to boost its nuclear stockpile, adding to the DoE’s environmental woes.
North Korea trying to keep its nuclear missiles safe from US strikes, says UN report, Guardian, Justin McCurry and agencies,5 Feb 2019 Measures said to include using civilian facilities to make and test missiles North Korea is trying to ensure its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities are safe from US military strikes, a UN report has said, as officials from both countries prepared to meet to discuss a second summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.Trump is expected to meet the North Korean leader, possibly in Vietnam, at the end of the month to discuss measures that would lead to Pyongyang giving up its nuclear weapons in return for US security guarantees and other assurances.
But the report, seen by Reuters on Monday, suggested the regime was doing everything possible to protect its nuclear and missile programmes.
My Turn: New Hampshire must say no to nuclear war, https://www.concordmonitor.com/NH-must-say-no-to-nuclear-war-23265489By MINDI MESSMERFor the Monitor 2/6/2019 School children are no longer participating in duck-and-cover drills, but Americans and the public officials who represent them are becoming increasingly aware that the risks of a nuclear war, which could be started intentionally or accidentally, have not gone away.
Events here at home and abroad have brought renewed attention to this issue. Americans have suddenly realized that U.S. presidents have authority to order a nuclear weapon strike without consulting anyone. Just one phone call and hundreds of U.S. nuclear missiles can be launched in less than 10 minutes. Meanwhile, national security experts are speculating about a renewed nuclear arms race as the U.S. and Russia develop new nuclear weapons and the U.S. prepares to withdraw from arms control treaties, including the landmark 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that President Ronald Reagan signed with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Both sides accuse the other of violating the treaty.
Cities and towns across New Hampshire and the country – including Durham and New London, N.H., Baltimore, Los Angeles and Portland, Maine – are passing resolutions calling on the United States to limit the risk of nuclear war by changing U.S. policies. About a dozen other New Hampshire cities are considering following suit. California and the U.S. Conference of Mayors have passed similar resolutions. Organizations including the Unitarian Universalist Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, Federation of American Scientists and Physicians for Social Responsibility have joined the call.
The resolutions recommend a number of steps that would make nuclear war less likely. Most importantly, they call on the U.S. to state that it will never use a nuclear weapon first; no U.S. president should ever start a nuclear war.
The N.H. General Court may be the next to take a position on this issue. The State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee in the N.H. House will hold a hearing today on HCR 7, a resolution introduced by Rep. Chuck Grassie that calls on the U.S. to establish a “no first use” policy.
If enacted, the measure would throw New Hampshire’s support behind legislation, introduced in Congress last week by House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith and Senate Armed Services Committee member Elizabeth Warren, to make it U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first.
As the world’s most powerful country, the only reason the U.S. needs nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack on America or its allies. The threat that the U.S. may use its nuclear weapons first is counterproductive and could prompt a pre-emptive strike from a nuclear-armed adversary if it feared a U.S. nuclear launch was imminent.
Knowing that the U.S. could respond to a nuclear attack with its own nuclear strike, however, is a real deterrent; that is the message a no-first-use policy would send to the rest of the world.
When cities and states enact resolutions like the one before the N.H. Legislature, it sends a strong message to Washington decision-makers, both in Congress and the White House, that they must act for the safety of all Americans.
(Mindi Messmer of Rye is an environmental scientist working with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a former N.H. state representative.)
nuclear-news 