USA’s International Development Finance Corp will remove its ban on financing exports of US nuclear technologies.
US agency plans to lift nuclear power plant financing ban: spokeswoman S and P Global 
Platt’s, Author, Joniel Cha 10 June 20 Washington — International Development Finance Corp., a US federal agency, will end its ban on financing nuclear power plant projects, a spokeswoman said June 10, a move that follows the Trump administration’s support for US reactor exports.
Allen declined to provide a timeline for when she expects DFC could begin financing exports of US nuclear technologies.
Industry sources said in May that DFC lacks the personnel and expertise to properly evaluate the financing of nuclear projects.
DFC was created in 2019 through the consolidation of Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the US Agency for International Development’s Development Credit Authority. DFC has a total investment limit of $60 billion, more than double OPIC’s $29 billion investment cap, according to DFC’s website.
OPIC and USAID both had bans in place prohibiting them from supporting nuclear reactor projects.
To “empower U.S. export competitiveness,” the federal government should “level the playing field versus foreign competitors, expand the arena of competition space, and challenge our rivals,” the Nuclear Fuel Working Group said in an April report.
A White House working group report released April 23 by the Department of Energy recommended the removal of a financing ban on US nuclear energy technologies. The Nuclear Fuel Working Group was formed in July by President Donald Trump to provide recommendations to revive and expand the US nuclear energy sector.
The working group said the US has not sold reactors overseas recently and “is missing out on a nuclear reactor market” the Commerce Department estimates is valued at $500 billion-$740 billion over the next 10 years.
Six US senators wrote the DFC in October, saying the agency should overturn the “categorical prohibition” against supporting civil nuclear energy projects.
ClearPath, a “conservative, clean energy” group, supports lifting the US ban on financing nuclear projects, Rich Powell, executive director, said June 10.
“By lifting the previous restrictions on the U.S. nuclear energy industry to develop internationally, America is taking a huge step to truly offer a competitive product – similar to the incentives China and Russia provide when they approach other countries with offers to develop infrastructure and energy,” Powell said in a statement. https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/podcasts/focus/060520-hydrogen-aviation-future-energy-transportation-decarbonisation
USA offers to build Britain’s nuclear reactors
US offers to build UK’s 5G and nuclear stations to end ‘coercive’ relationship with China
Mike Pompeo said the United States ‘stands ready to assist our friends in the U.K’ Telegraph UK , By Danielle Sheridan, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT10 June 2020 • America has offered to build Britain’s 5G and nuclear power stations so that the “coercive and bullying” relationship with China can end, Mike Pompeo has said.
In a statement released yesterday the US Secretary of State said America stood with its “allies and partners against the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) coercive bullying tactics”, as he sighted reports that Beijing had threatened to punish HSBC and “break commitments to build nuclear power plants in the United Kingdom unless London allows Huawei to build its 5G network”.
HSBC is understood to have claimed that it could face reprisals in China if Huawei was blocked from selling equipment to the next generation of networks being built by Britain’s mobile operators…. (subscribers only) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/10/us-offers-build-uks-5g-nuclear-stations-end-coercive-relationship/
In U.S. Congress, a Bill to prohibit Trump’s possible plan to use nuclear weapons on hurricanes
Trump’s plans to use nuclear weapons on hurricanes challenged in new Democratic bill, President repeatedly floated ‘really dumb idea’, according to reports, Independent UK, Maddie Stone 10 June 20,
In August, Donald Trump reportedly asked top national security officials to consider using nuclear bombs to weaken or destroy hurricanes. Now, one member of Congress wants to make it illegal for Mr Trump, or any president, to act on this idea, which experts say would be both ineffective and extremely dangerous.
On 1 June, Sylvia Garcia, Democratic representative for Texas, introduced the Climate Change and Hurricane Correlation and Strategy Act, a bill that explicitly prohibits the president, along with any other federal agency or official, from employing a nuclear bomb or other “strategic weapon” with the goal of “altering weather patterns or addressing climate change”.
Ms Garcia said that the bill was drafted as a direct response to last year’s report that Mr Trump has floated the idea of nuking hurricanes. Mr Trump denied ever making such a suggestion in a tweet shortly after Axios published the initial report.
The bill, which has no co-sponsors and no hearing date, appears unlikely to make it out of committee anytime soon. It has been referred to three committees: Armed Services; Energy and Commerce; and Science, Space and Technology.
With no companion bills in the Senate, the chances of it appearing on the president’s desk, much less being signed into law, are slimmer. But after hearing Mr Trump’s alleged comments on nukes and hurricanes and researching the issue further, Ms Garcia felt she had to at least get the idea of a ban on using nuclear weapons to disrupt the weather on the table…….
The bill comes at the start of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, which is off to a quick start, with Tropical Storm Cristobal, the earliest-recorded third named-storm of any season, striking Louisiana on Sunday. The season is expected to bring above-average storm activity, with 14 to 19 named-storms, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOOA). ……
Climate studies show that warming seas and air temperatures are making hurricanes more damaging by increasing their rainfall output and favouring higher-end, “major” storms of Category 3 intensity or greater. Scientists have also been seeing a small increase in storms that rapidly intensify from weak to major hurricane status, which is enabled by warm sea surface temperatures, among other factors…….
Axios’s report noted that Mr Trump raised the idea not once, but at multiple points in time, including with top national security and intelligence aides.
Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at MIT, sees things a bit differently.
“If we have a leader who would contemplate using a nuclear weapon on a hurricane,” he said, “we have a much more extensive and serious problem than could be covered by a specific bill like this one”. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-nuke-hurricane-bill-climate-change-sylvia-garcia-a9555746.html
USA – resuming nuclear tests would wreck the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), with no military or strategic benefit
 The Trump Administration’s Nuclear Test Delusions, Just Security, by Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr. June 10, 2020 Even as the Trump administration continued to struggle to contain the coronavirus in mid-May, White House officials preoccupied themselves with manufacturing a wholly unnecessary threat. On May 15, senior national security officials at an interagency meeting reportedly discussed the possibility of abandoning the longstanding U.S. moratorium on nuclear-weapons testing that has been in place for nearly three decades and is now accepted by the entire world, even North Korea. According to a May 22 report in the Washington Post, the proponents of ending the moratorium argued in the meeting that the United States should resume testing because Russia and China were conducting low-level nuclear-weapons tests, allegations that appear to be based on no evidence.Such tests would bring no military or strategic benefit to the United States. Instead, they would undermine the foundational global agreement that has curbed the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide for more than 50 years, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Such low-level tests would be of little military benefit to Russia and China either, as there is scant information for them to gain that they do not already possess. Thus, even if such tests occurred, they would not represent any kind of significant security threat to the United States. The only conceivable benefit for the United States of resuming a nuclear-weapons testing program would be to create an opportunity for President Donald Trump to somehow distort the value of it and use it as another meaningless political ploy to bolster his campaign for re-election in November……. In 1961, the United Nations unanimously passed the “Irish” Resolution (introduced by Ireland), which called on all states to conclude an international agreement prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional countries. In 1965, another resolution was passed by the U.N. General Assembly calling on nations to negotiate an international treaty to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, which became the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). China had just completed an initial nuclear-weapons test program, bringing the number of declared nuclear weapon states to five: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China. This new treaty would be based on five principles, among them a commitment to ultimately abolish nuclear weapons and, in the interim, a balance of obligations among the five nuclear-weapons states and other state parties that thus far had no nuclear weapons. This balance required interim steps toward nuclear disarmament, short of elimination — seen in the depths of the Cold War as a distant objective — in exchange for a commitment that all parties would be permitted to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The principal interim step was considered to be the worldwide termination of nuclear-weapons tests. (Although the Limited Test Ban Treaty had been negotiated in 1962, led by President John F. Kennedy, and nuclear-weapon tests were prohibited everywhere except underground, by 1968, many tests were being conducted underground.) The NPT was signed in 1968. It was to last for 25 years, after which on a one-time basis, the parties would decide by majority vote how much longer it would exist. The non-nuclear-weapons states in the treaty negotiations had urged the inclusion of a reference to interim steps in the agreement, especially an accord to ban nuclear testing, which became the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). The CTBT was looked upon by the non-nuclear-weapons states as the price to be paid by the five states holding nuclear weapons for the others giving up their rights to develop such armaments. Thus, a ban on nuclear testing was essential to the strategic bargain of the NPT. The United States and the Soviet Union would not agree to any interim step in the text of the NPT, with one exception: a reference to the CTBT in the preamble. The two nations also promised that interim steps, including the CTBT, would be negotiated at the treaty review conferences that were required under the agreement every five years……. U.S. President Bill Clinton was the first to sign, and ultimately, the CTBT was signed by 184 states, of which 168 have ratified it. But the Treaty requires that all 44 of those states that had nuclear facilities of any kind on their territories in 1996, called Annex 2 states, must ratify the treaty before it enters into force. Of these Annex 2 states, 36 have ratified—states such as Germany, Japan, Britain, France, and Russia. The eight that have not ratified are the United States and seven others that are more or less waiting for the United States to move forward. Despite having led the negotiations, the United States has been unable to ratify the treaty. The reason is that the Republican Party turned against arms control and disarmament and, ultimately, against peace and diplomacy themselves. . This from a party that once stood at the forefront of arms control and disarmament, with major initiatives such as President Ronald Reagan agreeing with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik to eliminate all nuclear weapons and President George H.W. Bush concluding four such agreements, more than any other president. The Clinton administration submitted the CTBT to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification in 1997. Two years later, in 1999, it was rejected by the Republican-led Senate—led by two senators from the right—Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Ever since, Republicans in the Senate have blocked ratification, but the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations informally observed the treaty’s terms. The United States also has abided by Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which obligates a state not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty that it has signed and that is pending ratification unless and until such state has made its intention clear not to become a party. The United States is not a party to the convention, but has recognized its authority. Thus, it is obligated not to do nuclear-weapons testing of any kind unless it clearly states its intention not to ratify. Doing such a test would certainly defeat the object and purpose of the CTBT, and the United States has made no indication that it intends never to ratify the CTBT. Republican Party, Once Leading on Arms Control, Backs Away In the last decade, elements in the Republican Party have tried to promote the elimination of this obligation and reopen the door to an underground nuclear-weapons testing program. First, Republicans made an argument for years that the United States was observing a CTBT standard of not testing weapons of any yield even though Russia and China never agreed to do the same. But the negotiating record showed Russia and China stating clearly that they recognize the CTBT is a “zero-yield treaty,” and the strength of that record wore down this argument. ……. Now Republicans are back again with a similar argument, only this time adding China. They allege — once again without evidence — that both Russia and China are doing low-level nuclear-weapons tests and benefiting from doing so. Perhaps someone will also bring up again the non-argument that Russia and China have the capability to do this. Apparently one senior official at the recent White House meeting asserted that a demonstration by the United States that it could “rapid test” could be useful in a trilateral nuclear negotiation with Russia and China, a seemingly fruitless position that Trump is trying to pursue in withholding an extension of the New START agreement between the United States and Russia that expires early next year. China has made it clear that it will not participate in such a negotiation. Biden found the idea “delusional.” Notably, the reaction to the report that the Trump administration is considering a resumption of testing was not positive in significant domestic circles either. In its editorial, the Las Vegas Sun also said, “The state endured four decades of nuclear tests – more than 1,000 in all, before testing ceased in 1992 via an international moratorium. We and our downwind neighbors in Utah endured nuclear fallout in above-ground tests during the 1950s and 1960s, and our desert remains irradiated by underground tests conducted later. “We will fight any effort to reopen the door to that dark era…” It is difficult to imagine a greater threat to U.S. national security than for the United States to pursue a nuclear-weapons test program at the present time. Such action would defeat the object and purpose of the CTBT, which means the United States would be turning its back on the essential glue that holds the NPT together. The likely result would be that the NPT would gradually come apart. Other states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Turkey, and Egypt would use the U.S. tests as an excuse to develop their own test programs and to acquire nuclear weapons for a national arsenal. Eventually, in an era when many countries may feel less and less secure as climate change erodes their remaining national assets such as arable land and fresh water, they might see nuclear weapons as more and more attractive. Once the door kept closed by the NPT is opened, we would enter a nightmare world, a risk foreseen by past American statesmen. https://www.justsecurity.org/70654/the-trump-administrations-nuclear-test-delusions/ |
|
Continuing court battle against proposed nuclear waste site near Carlsbad
|
Legal battle continues against proposed nuclear waste site near Carlsbad, Carlsbad Current Argus, Adrian Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus June 10, 2020 A planned nuclear waste repository near Carlsbad was challenged in federal court, as opponents sought to appeal a decision by the federal government to reject contentions to the project that would see spent nuclear fuel rods stored temporarily at a location near the Eddy-Lea county line. Beyond Nuclear filed its appeal on June 4 in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, questioning the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s April 23 decision to reject challenges to Holtec International’s application for a license to build and operate a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) that would hold nuclear waste at the surface until a permanent, deep geological repository was available to hold the waste permanently. The facility would store up to 173,000 metric tons of the waste. Such a permanent repository does not exist, and Beyond Nuclear — a non-profit organization that addresses nuclear issues nationwide — worried one wouldn’t be available until 2048. The group also pointed to another NRC order in October 2018 where the NRC deemed contentions inadmissible but argued against both decisions that it said upheld a regulatory process that violated federal law. The licensing process itself was illegal, read NRC’s court filing, because it considered the possibility that the U.S. Department of Energy would take ownership of the waste — a move illegal under federal law unless a permanent repository is available to hold the waste. “This NRC decision flagrantly violates the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which prohibits an agency from acting contrary to the law as issued by Congress and signed by the President,” said Mindy Goldstein, an attorney for Beyond Nuclear. “The Commission lacks a legal or logical basis for its rationale that it may issue a license with an illegal provision, in the hopes that Holtec or the Department of Energy won’t complete the illegal activity it authorized. The buck must stop with the NRC.”…….. https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2020/06/10/federal-appeal-filed-against-nuclear-waste-site-proposed-near-carlsbad/5317995002/ |
|
Delay to community vote on nuclear waste dump for South Bruce, Ontario
 South Bruce council says no to immediate vote on nuclear waste plan, CTV News, Scott Miller, CTV News London Videographer 10 June 20,
TEESWATER, ONT. — South Bruce Mayor Robert Buckle says now is not the time to have a community vote on the possibility of burying nuclear waste near Teeswater.
“Due to the medical crisis we have right now, we cannot have a referendum. Furthermore, we have to make sure that people in South Bruce are familiar with all the pros and cons, because this project is going to have a tremendous effect on our community, not only now but for generations,” he says. The decision on where to bury Canada’s high-level nuclear waste is down to the Municipality of South Bruce, near Teeswater, and Ignace, in Northern Ontario. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is looking for a home for 5.2 million used nuclear fuel bundles, that remain dangerously radioactive for centuries. About 1,300 acres of land north of Teeswater has been optioned by the NWMO, as a potential site to bury the waste, forever. Michelle Stein is a local farmer who lives directly beside the proposed site. She is leading a local group opposed to the plan. Protect our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste presented a petition to South Bruce council with 1,500 local signatures against the project Tuesday night. They’re asking council for a community vote on the nuclear waste plan as soon as possible. “We’re trying to let them know that it’s time for them to listen to their constituents. There’s a lot of us who are not willing to host the nuclear dump. And it’s time the community gets a vote to decide what’s going on,” Stein says. Hundreds took part in a rolling protest of the nuclear waste plan after presenting the petition Tuesday night……. Stein says an online petition in opposition of the project. has garnered over 10,000 signatures from across Canada. https://london.ctvnews.ca/south-bruce-council-says-no-to-immediate-vote-on-nuclear-waste-plan-1.4977788 |
|
Russia has nuclear-powered icebreakers. Trump wants USA to have them, too
 Trump Orders Coast Guard To Look Into Building Nuclear-Powered Icebreakers Like Russia. The memo also calls for examining possible defensive armament options to protect these ships against near-peer threats. The Drive, BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK, JUNE 9, 2020 US. President Donald Trump issued a memorandum on Arctic and Antarctic security today that called on the U.S. Coast Guard to explore the possibility of buying nuclear-powered icebreakers, a type of ship that only Russia operates. The same document orders an assessment of what kind of defensive weapons any future icebreakers might carry, specifically to defend against possible threats from “near-peer competitors,” such as Russia or China. The Coast Guard’s tiny existing icebreaking fleets have been in increasingly desperate need of replacement for years now and the service finally awarded a contract for its first new heavy icebreaker, a conventionally-powered design, in decades just over a year ago.
Trump issued the new Memorandum on Safeguarding U.S. National Interests in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions on June 9, 2020. Despite its more general name, the document is centered entirely on buying icebreakers and related issues. The memo directs the Department of Homeland Security, by way of the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Energy, to conduct a study of the “benefits and risks of a polar security icebreaking fleet mix that … are appropriately outfitted to meet the objectives of this memorandum.” This is part of a larger assessment of icebreaking requirements that the Secretary of Homeland Security, with help from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, is now also instructed to conduct……..
nuclear propulsion is costly and complex, and employing it on icebreakers could raise concerns about potential operational and environmental risks for ships that will be primarily operating in regions well known for experiencing extreme weather. Environmental activists have long expressed these concerns with regard to Russia’s nuclear icebreaking fleets, as well as its new floating nuclear powerplants. Taymyr alone has suffered a number of radiation leaks over the years. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33971/trump-orders-coast-guard-to-look-into-building-nuclear-powered-icebreakers-like-russia
|
|
The last major treaty for nuclear weapons control now hangs in the balance
|
Nuclear might crux of push for new pact. Treaty expiration would end caps on arms; U.S. envoy says Russia meeting set Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette by PAUL SONNE AND ROBYN DIXON, 10 June 20, THE WASHINGTON POST The last major treaty limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear might hangs in the balance as the Trump administration pushes to replace it with an arms-control pact that also includes China five months before the U.S. presidential election.The New START accord, which restricts the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads and certain launch platforms, is set to expire in February. If the Trump administration declines to extend it and the caps disappear, the United States and Russia will be left without any significant limits on their nuclear forces for the first time in decades.
Russia has said it is willing to extend the New START pact unconditionally. But the Trump administration has balked, saying the treaty signed by former President Barack Obama in 2010 is outdated, insufficient and overly advantageous for Moscow. …….. The result is a game of nuclear brinkmanship in the waning days of the Trump administration’s first term…… https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2020/jun/10/nuclear-might-crux-of-push-for-new-pact/ |
|
USA’s failing nuclear industry will not be saved by new plan to stockpile uranium
Will More Uranium Really Solve America’s Nuclear Crisis? Oil Price, By Haley Zaremba – Jun 10, 2020, “…….. Even though the United States is responsible for a whopping third of all nuclear energy production worldwide, the country is quickly losing ground as nuclear plants struggle to turn a profit. Hit hard by the influx of cheap oil and natural gas from the domestic shale revolution, the nuclear energy industry in the U.S. is now being pummeled once again by COVID-19, and this time, many experts are wondering whether the industry can weather the storm.Trump’s dangerous idea on nuclear testing – top Democrats demand answers
Top Democrats demand answers on Trump administration’s ‘unfathomable’ consideration of nuclear testing The Hill BY REBECCA KHEEL – 06/08/20 A group of top House Democrats is demanding answers from the Trump administration on reported conversations within the administration on whether to resume nuclear testing.“It is unfathomable that the administration is considering something so short-sighted and dangerous, and that directly contradicts its own 2018 Nuclear Posture Review,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter Monday to Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette and Defense Secretary Mark Esper
The posture review, the lawmakers wrote, “which this administration often cites as inviolable, makes clear that ‘the United States will not resume nuclear explosive testing unless necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.’
The letter was signed by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), along with Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces; Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), chairwoman of the Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water; and Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
The Pentagon declined to comment………
The lawmakers demanded answers to questions by June 22, as well as a briefing by June 25. Questions include under what legal authority and funding testing is being considered, whether the intelligence community is analyzing what the effects of a test would be on U.S. allies and adversaries, and whether there has been any independent assessment requested by the Energy or Defense departments on the need, cost and effect of resuming nuclear testing. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/501687-top-democrats-demand-answers-on-trump-administrations-unfathomable
Nuclear testing ban to be introduced in U.S. Congress
Reps. Steven Horsford and Dina Titus announce nuclear testing ban legislation, 8 NewsNow by: Kaitlyn Olvera Jun 8, 2020, LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Congressman Steven Horsford and Congresswoman Dina Titus have introduced a nuclear testing ban. The Preserving Leadership Against Nuclear Explosives Testing (PLANET) Act, introduced Monday, would prevent President Donald Trump from restarting nuclear weapons testing in Nevada.This legislation “would prevent the Trump administration from restarting explosive nuclear weapons testing by restricting funds for fiscal year 2021 and all previous years from being used for such a purpose,” a release about the legislation stated.
The Washington Post reported the Trump administration had a discussion about conducting a nuclear test with top security officials on May 15, in response to accusations that Russia and China were performing low-yield nuclear tests. This is a claim both countries have denied.
Specifically, the PLANET Act would, according to Rep. Horsford’s office:
- Prohibit the use of funds appropriated in Fiscal Year 2021 or from any previous year to prepare for or to conduct an explosive nuclear test that produces any yield
- Allow for stockpile stewardship activities that are consistent with U.S. law – such as certifying the safety, security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile – so long as those activities are consistent with the “zero-yield” scope of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)…… https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/reps-steven-horsford-and-dina-titus-announce-nuclear-testing-ban-legislation/
Number two executive of the defunct SCANA Corpto plead guilty to fraud conspiracy in nuclear plant failure
|
Top SCANA ex-official to plead guilty to fraud conspiracy in nuclear plant failure https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article243356621.html, BY JOHN MONK
JUNE 08, 2020 The number two executive of the defunct SCANA Corp. — whose top officials engineered the biggest business failure in South Carolina history: the $10 billion V.C. Summer nuclear plant fiasco — has agreed to plead guilty to criminal conspiracy fraud charges in connection with the nuclear failure, according to a document filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Columbia.
The upcoming guilty plea of Stephen A. Byrne, 60, is a centerpiece of a Monday filing involving his alleged criminal actions. He will need to have his guilty plea formally accepted by a U.S. District Court judge before it becomes official. Byrne is charged with conspiring to commit mail fraud, the document said. The document is a motion requesting a stay in a Securities and Exchange civil fraud lawsuit against Byrne and SCANA’s former CEO, Kevin Marsh. That civil lawsuit was filed in February. One big difference between civil and criminal proceedings is that in a criminal proceeding, a defendant can be subject to a prison term. The document alleges that “through intentional and material misrepresentations and omissions, Byrne and others deceived regulators and customers to maintain financing for the (nuclear) project and to financially benefit SCANA.” The Monday filing said there is “an ongoing criminal investigation” and indicated more criminal charges against other former SCANA top officials may be in the offing. |
|
|
Top Democrats promote bill to ban live nuclear tests
Lead Dems back bill to ban live nuclear tests, Defense News, By: Joe Gould 5 June 20, WASHINGTON ― The Senate’s top Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer, is co-sponsoring legislation meant to prevent the Trump administration from restarting explosive nuclear weapons testing.
The Preserving Leadership Against Nuclear Explosives Testing, or PLANET, Act, announced Thursday, would bar any funds from being used for such tests. It follows a Washington Post report of high-level discussions around the possibility of doing a “rapid test” ― potentially America’s first live nuclear test since 1992.
The bill is led by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and a longtime arms control advocate on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. While a key administration official has said tests could begin within months if ordered by the president for technical or geopolitical reasons, critics say it could incentivize Russia and China to openly test with little valuable data to show for U.S. tests…….. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/06/04/lead-dems-back-bill-to-ban-live-nuclear-tests/
If he wins election, Joe Biden would restore Iran nuclear deal
Biden would restore nuclear deal if he wins elections: George 
Washington University professor, By Javad Heirannia Tehran Times, June 7, 2020
Professor Askari, who served as special advisor to Saudi finance minister, also says a Democratic president “would set about undoing Trump’s foreign policy errors.”
Following is the text of the interview:…………………..
Q: If Joe Biden is elected the next president of the United States, will he change his approach toward China? Also, what would be his approach to Iran and the nuclear deal in general?
A: I think a Biden, or for that matter any Democratic President, would set about undoing Trump’s foreign policy errors. Yes, he would try to chart a new course with China. Tough but with a plan that is step by step to restore workable relations. Not a series of disjointed reactions to the moment in time. He would restore, or rejoin, the nuclear agreement with Iran. But now he would want an extension of the time that Iran could resume for nuclear research and have breakout capabilities. In this way, he would appear as tough but at the same time reduce tensions in the Persian Gulf and America’s military exposure around the world. https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/448604/Biden-would-restore-nuclear-deal-if-he-wins-elections-George
Trump tells Iran they should get “a better deal” with him now, before the U.S. election
Urging Iran to ‘Make the Big Deal,’ Trump Ties Nuclear Negotiations to Election, The president’s invitation came as international inspectors were said to have found that Iran had boosted its stockpile of low-enriched uranium in the past three months.
Aides to Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Trump declined to explain why, if the United States was negotiating in its own national interest, Iran might get preferential treatment for negotiating with Mr. Trump before the election……
“We had a deal when you entered office,” Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, responded to Mr. Trump in a tweet on Friday. Iran and the other participants in the 2015 agreement — Britain, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia and China — “never left the table,” he said. “Your advisers — most fired by now — made a dumb bet. Up to you to decide *when* you want to fix it.”
Hesameddin Ashena, the top policy adviser to President Hassan Rouhani of Iran also responded. “You are going down on November 3rd and we know that,” he tweeted. “So you’ll need to offer much more than Obama did!”…….. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear.html
1 This Month
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (94)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
