nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

USA and South Korea cancel big war games – in a conciliatory gesture to North Korea

US, S. Korea officially call off annual military exercises amid nuclear talks with N. Korea, By KIM GAMEL | STARS AND STRIPES March 2, 2019

SEOUL, South Korea — The United States and South Korea canceled key war games in favor of low-profile drills, the allies said Sunday, in a major concession to North Korea days after its nuclear summit with President Donald Trump collapsed without agreement.

The springtime exercises known as Key Resolve and Foal Eagle, along with their autumn counterpart Ulchi Freedom Guardian, have long been the lynchpin of the alliance between Seoul and Washington.

The drills, which include computer simulations and live-fire bombing runs, also have been a touchstone for tensions as the North considers them a rehearsal for an invasion.

The decision to cancel Key Resolve and Foal Eagle had been widely expected after Trump reiterated his own antipathy for the drills, which he has called “very expensive” and “provocative.”

Rebranding exercises

A rebranded “combined command post exercise” will be held from Monday to March 12, according to a separate statement issued Sunday by the top U.S. and South Korean commanders on the divided peninsula.

Commanders and other military officials insisted they can maintain a strong defensive posture with scaled-back training…… https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/us-s-korea-officially-call-off-annual-military-exercises-amid-nuclear-talks-with-n-korea-1.571119

March 4, 2019 Posted by | politics international, South Korea, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, helping Saudi Crown Prince towards getting nuclear weapons?

Jared and the Saudi Crown Prince Go Nuclear? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/opinion/sunday/saudi-arabia-jared-kushner-nuclear.html

There are too many unanswered questions about the White House’s role in advancing Saudi ambitions. By Nicholas Kristof, March 2, 2019

Jared Kushner slipped quietly into Saudi Arabia this week for a meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, so the question I’m trying to get the White House to answer is this: Did they discuss American help for a Saudi nuclear program?

Of all the harebrained and unscrupulous dealings of the Trump administration in the last two years, one of the most shocking is a Trump plan to sell nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Even as President Trump is trying to denuclearize North Korea and Iran, he may be helping to nuclearize Saudi Arabia. This is abominable policy tainted by a gargantuan conflict of interest involving Kushner.

Kushner’s family real estate business had been teetering because of a disastrously overpriced acquisition he made of a particular Manhattan property called 666 Fifth Avenue, but last August a company called Brookfield Asset Management rescued the Kushners by taking a 99-year lease of the troubled property — and paying the whole sum of about $1.1 billion up front.

Alarm bells should go off: Brookfield also owns Westinghouse Electric, the nuclear services business trying to sell reactors to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi swamp, meet American swamp.

It may be conflicts like these, along with even murkier ones, that led American intelligence officials to refuse a top-secret security clearance for Kushner. The Times reported Thursday that Trump overruled them to grant Kushner the clearance.

This nuclear reactor mess began around the time of Trump’s election, when a group of retired U.S. national security officials put together a plan to enrich themselves by selling nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia. The officials included Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser, and they initially developed a “plan for 40 nuclear power plants” in Saudi Arabia, according to a report from the House Oversight and Reform Committee. The plan is now to start with just a couple of plants.

As recently as Feb. 12, Trump met in the White House with backers of the project and was supportive, Reuters reported.

These are civilian nuclear power plants, and Saudi Arabia claims it wants them for electricity. But the Saudis insist on producing their own nuclear fuel, rather than buying it more cheaply abroad. Producing fuel is a standard way for rogue countries to divert fuel for secret nuclear weapons programs, and the Saudi resistance to safeguards against proliferation bolsters suspicions that the real goal is warheads.

Trump may be vigilant (destructively so) about Iran’s nuclear plants, but in the Saudi case his response seems to be: There’s money to be made! When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu raised objections to the transfer last year, Axios reported, “Trump and his advisers told Netanyahu that, if the U.S. does not sell the Saudis nuclear reactors, other countries like Russia or France will.”

Trump seems to believe that the Saudis have us over a barrel: If we don’t help them with nuclear technology, someone else will. That misunderstands the U.S.-Saudi relationship. The Saudis depend on us for their security, and the blunt truth is that we hold all the cards in this relationship, not them.

Why on earth would America put Prince Mohammed on a path to acquiring nuclear weapons? He is already arguably the most destabilizing leader in an unstable region, for he has invaded Yemen, kidnapped Lebanon’s prime minister, started a feud with Qatar, and, according to American intelligence officials, ordered the murder of the Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

The prince has also imprisoned and brutally tortured women’s rights activists, including one who I’m hoping will win the Nobel Peace Prize, Loujain al-Hathloul. As Representative Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, has noted, “A country that can’t be trusted with a bone saw shouldn’t be trusted with nuclear weapons.”

There’s another element of Trump’s Saudi policy that is simply repulsive: the fawning courtship of a foreign prince who has created in Yemen the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, murdered a journalist and tortured women’s rights activists. The White House genuflections are such that Prince Mohammed had a point when, according to The Intercept, he bragged that he had Kushner in his “pocket.”

No one knows whether Prince Muhammed will manage to succeed his father and become the next king, for there is opposition and the Saudi economic transformation he boasts of is running into difficulties. Trump and Kushner seem to be irresponsibly trying to boost the prince’s prospects, increasing the risk that an unstable hothead will mismanage the kingdom for the next 50 years. Perhaps with nuclear weapons.

March 4, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, politics international, Saudi Arabia, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Cold War-like arms race is likely to follow the collapse of a historic nuclear treaty

Why the collapse of a historic nuclear treaty could lead to a Cold War-like arms race, ABC News, 

By Tasha Wibawa  3 Mar 19 The United States and Russia have ripped up a Cold War-era nuclear missile treaty, leaving analysts fearing a potential arms race with global ramifications.

Key points:

  • The landmark INF treaty was integral to ending the Cold War
  • Short and intermediate range missiles were banned because of the short flight time
  • Analyst say it’s unlikely to be renegotiated within the six-month notice period

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia was ready for a Cuban Missile-style crisis if the US wanted one, referring to the 1962 standoff that brought the world to the edge of nuclear war.

Decades later, tensions between the two nations are heating up again.

Mr Putin warned that Moscow would retaliate if the US placed new missiles closer to Russia, telling local media that Moscow could deploy hypersonic missiles on ships and submarines outside US territorial waters.

The comments were made after the Trump administration announced it would officially abandon a historic nuclear pact that had kept nuclear missiles out of Europe for three decades.

Here’s a look at what the treaty is, what may come next, and why analysts believe its demise could lead to a 21st-century arms race.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) bans the US and the Russian Federation, previously the Soviet Union, from developing, testing and possessing short- and intermediate-range missiles that could be launched from the ground, as opposed to the sea or sky.

The treaty — signed by former US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1987 — declared that “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought” and took seven years to negotiate.

Both sides agreed to destroy a total of 2,692 short-, medium- and intermediate-range missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometres that were stationed in, or aimed at Europe.

The treaty is credited with helping to ending the Cold War.

Maria Rublee, a former US intelligence officer and nuclear politics expert at Monash University, told the ABC these missiles were seen as a “hair trigger for nuclear war” due to how quickly they could strike a target.

“You don’t have time to talk, to pick up the phone, the red hotline, to say what’s going on and ask if this is a mistake.”

Washington and its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies claim Moscow has been violating the terms of the treaty by developing missiles within the range for years, but Russia has repeatedly denied the allegations.

Earlier this month the Trump administration declared it would suspend US obligations under the treaty, with the intention of withdrawing because of Russia’s alleged non-compliance.

The day after the announcement, Russia also said it would withdraw from the treaty, and accused the US of fabricating the allegations so it could develop new missiles.

The treaty is not dead just yet — both parties must give six months notice before they can officially withdraw — but Dr Rublee said the chances of the treaty being revived were low, although there was some hope.

“[The first step] is not going to come from the Trump administration and it’s not going to come from Russia,” she said.

“It would need to come from NATO because the countries most at risk are European countries.”…….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-03/collapse-of-treaty-could-lead-to-new-arms-race/10845950

March 4, 2019 Posted by | politics international, Russia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

It was easy enough to build U.S army’s nuclear stations – but difficult to get rid of them

Kerr: Army planning to demolish Fort Belvoir’s nuclear plant Inside Nova, BY DAVID KERR 3 Mar 19″……

Fort Belvoir’s SM-1 nuclear power plant in 1957.  The plant was in operation for 16 years. It was shut down in 1973 and its nuclear core was removed.  …..

The Army built another working nuclear plant at Fort Greely in Alaska that at the time was serving as an interceptor missile launch site. They also built one on a Liberty Ship called the U.S.S. Sturgis.  That plant, built at Fort Belvoir, in Gunston Cove, was used as a floating power source for facilities in the Panama Canal Zone.

There was also one at the South Pole’s McMurdo Station.  It ran for almost 12 years. Alas, all of these sites ran up against two problems.  First, they turned out to be more expensive to operate than expected. Secondly, by the early 1970s anxiety was growing over nuclear power.  Was it such a good idea to have small nuclear plants? It didn’t sound safe.

The Army built another working nuclear plant at Fort Greely in Alaska that at the time was serving as an interceptor missile launch site. They also built one on a Liberty Ship called the U.S.S. Sturgis.  That plant, built at Fort Belvoir, in Gunston Cove, was used as a floating power source for facilities in the Panama Canal Zone.

There was also one at the South Pole’s McMurdo Station.  It ran for almost 12 years. Alas, all of these sites ran up against two problems.  First, they turned out to be more expensive to operate than expected. Secondly, by the early 1970s anxiety was growing over nuclear power.  Was it such a good idea to have small nuclear plants? It didn’t sound safe.

As for the South Pole nuclear facility, unlike its counterparts in the U.S., that was demolished almost immediately.  Roughly 12,000 pounds of radioactive material were shipped to a secure nuclear waste site in the United States.

Just how safe this procedure was, given the site’s remoteness and the absence of guidelines for handling radioactive debris at the time, remains an open question.

As for the SM-1, when the core was removed, Army engineers decontaminated the underground liquid radioactive waste tanks and filled them with concrete.  They then sealed the reactor dome, removed the underground piping, tore down some uncontaminated structures and began a decades-long effort to monitor and continually assess the site.

They did the same at Fort Greely.

Now, the facilities are getting old and since they’re still radioactive, the Army wants to go ahead and demolish these facilities. But this is not your average construction contract or your average hazardous waste management project. These are nuclear facilities; everything about them has special requirements.  …….

The SM-1 and its sister facilities were a part of our country’s early commitment to nuclear power and all that it might accomplish.  Our nuclear industry learned a lot from their operations. However, while they were relatively easy to build, it’s turned out to be a lot more difficult to get rid of them than anyone ever would have imagined in the 1950s.  https://www.insidenova.com/opinion/columnists/kerr-army-planning-to-demolish-fort-belvoir-s-nuclear-plant/article_f8b43228-3d4d-11e9-8098-eb75c50b06d9.html

March 4, 2019 Posted by | decommission reactor, USA | Leave a comment

U.S. army wants risky small modular nuclear reactors

The Army wants mobile nuclear reactors for FOBs, but some scientists say that’s ‘naive’, Army Times By: Todd South  3 Marc 19, The Army wants to bring back mobile nuclear reactors to power forward bases and is asking industry how to make that happen.

A collection of scientists that closely monitor nuclear issues thinks that the concept is “naive,” dangerous and describes the chances for the current technology to accomplish what the Pentagon wants as “vanishingly small.”

In January, the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office posted a request for information on the government website fbo.gov asking for information from industry on how companies might provide a less than 40-ton small mobile nuclear reactor design, capable of operating for three years or more and putting out 1 to 10 megawatts of power.

Dubbed “Project Dilithium,” a nod to the fictional dilithium crystal, a fuel source that powered warp drives in the Star Trek films and television series…….

But Edwin Lyman, acting director of the Nuclear Safety Project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that the Army’s own study showed the devices would “not be expected to survive a direct kinetic attack.”

Lyman acknowledges the Army’s need to save fuel, reduce convoys and transports and minimize attacks on those elements of the force. But, he also argues that adding reactors to the battlefield could create more problems than it solves.

In a lengthy response to the program posted on the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists website, Lyman outlines the scientific, safety and policy problems with developing and deploying a small mobile nuclear reactor.

But he closes with his analysis that the nuclear ambitions of the ground forces are part of a “patient, decade-long effort by nuclear lobbyists” aimed at gaining the interest of both the Pentagon and Congress to be “the savior small nuclear reactor vendors need: deep-pocketed and unbeholden to return-seeking investors.”

He implores defense officials to “pull the plug on this misguided effort.” ……….

The Army Nuclear Power Program, which ran from 1954 to 1977, developed eight small nuclear reactors. Those reactors ranged in power production from 1 to 10 megawatts.

How five of the eight reactors were used:

  • The PM-1 reactor was used in Sundance, Wyoming, from 1962 to 1968.
  • The PM-2A was used at Camp Century, Greenland, from 1961 to 1964.
  • The PM-3A was used at McMurdo Base, Antarctica, from 1962 to 1972.
  • The ML-1 was used in developmental testing from 1962 to 1966.
  • The MH-1A Panama Canal Zone from 1965 to 1977.

Lyman notes a major failure with one of the original eight designs in 1961 when a core meltdown and explosion of the ML-1 reactor in Idaho killed three operators.

The three deployed to Antarctica, Greenland and Alaska proved “unreliable and expensive to operate,” Lyman wrote.

The idea was resurrected by the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014, in which Congress asked for a report on a “small modular reactor” to power forward or remote operating bases.

A Defense Science Board task force then published a detailed report in 2016 outlining the power requirements that could be met with such hardware. Last year, the Army’s deputy chief of staff, G-4, published a 148-page study on the use of mobile nuclear power plants for ground operations, adopting the recommendations of the 2016 Defense Science Board and further advocating, as the board did, that the Army manage ground nuclear reactor programs and pursue existing or near-to-maturity technologies.

Last year’s Army G-4 report outlined a dozen existing locations that officials think could have power provided by the type of mobile reactor they’re seeking:

March 4, 2019 Posted by | business and costs, spinbuster, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Is it safe to keep ageing nuclear stations running until 2054?

Peach Bottom, other U.S. nuclear power plants could be running until 2054. Is it safe? The Inquirer, by Andrew Maykuth,  February 28, 2019   …….. The Peach Bottom plant, 60 miles west of Philadelphia near the Maryland border, is operating under a 20-year extension from its original 40-year license, like many of America’s aging fleet of nuclear reactors. Last year it became one of the first plants to apply for what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission calls a “Subsequent License Renewal” — that would permit the reactors to run through 2053 and 2054, when they turn 80 years old.

As the construction of new nuclear power plants fell off after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 — the average age of a U.S. reactor is nearly 40 years old — older units like Peach Bottom are being pressed into longer service, and some worry that safety will suffer. …….

skeptics say that nuclear plant owners, ever alert to degradation from a harsh operating environment, will be challenged to keep geriatric power plants operating into their seventh and eighth decades. Market forces, driven by competition from inexpensive natural gas plants and renewable power, are not working in nuclear energy’s favor.

“There is this rush of license-renewal applications for the 60-to-80-year period that are pushing beyond our knowledge of the impact of aging,” said Paul Gunter, director of the reactor oversight project for Beyond Nuclear, an antinuclear group that has challenged Peach Bottom’s license extension.

Edwin Lyman, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is wary of nuclear power, said reactor owners will be required to conduct more frequent inspections, maintenance, and repairs of aging reactors while facing increasing pressure to keep costs low. “It’s not clear to me that can be done at the same time compatibly,” he said………

Is it safe?

Critics say they’re particularly worried about cracking, embrittlement, and corrosion of critical plant components in place for 60 years that can’t be inspected, such as hidden electric cables, structural concrete, and the reactor vessel itself, which contains the uranium fuel that creates heat that is converted into electricity.

The NRC rejected a suggestion that it should order a closer post-mortem of older nuclear power plants that are being decommissioned to measure the effect of prolonged operations, said Gunter of Beyond Nuclear. He suggested that Exelon should be forced to conduct an “autopsy” on the decommissioned reactor vessel at Oyster Creek, which is the same make and design as the Peach Bottom units.

“It would behoove the public health and safety for the cost of doing the autopsy to be borne by the operator that wants to extend the operation of a plant with the same design,” Gunter said. “We’re questioning the licensing process as if it’s some kind of crystal ball that they can manage aging.” …….

The NRC will also not consider changes in conditions since the plants were originally licensed, such as an increase in population density, or the effects of climate change, said Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“All you can look at is whether there is an appropriate aging management program for those components that can’t be replaced, and you have to justify why they aren’t going to fall apart by the end of the extended period,” he said.

Lyman also questioned Peach Bottom’s method of storing spent fuel in a water pool, citing a 2016 study he coauthored that estimated if a catastrophic earthquake caused the pool to drain, the densely packed fuel assemblies could overheat and catch fire, spreading radioactive material into the atmosphere.

“A spent fuel fire at Peach Bottom could force Boston to relocate, not to mention Philadelphia — that’s how bad it could be,” said Lyman.  https://www.philly.com/business/energy/aging-nuclear-power-plants-safe-three-mile-island-peach-bottom-us-future-20190228.html

March 4, 2019 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Major presidential candidate in USA running on climate action policy

Think Progress 1st March 2019 , For the first time in history, a major presidential candidate is putting
climate change center stage in their campaign. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee
(D) announced on Friday he will seek to challenge President Donald Trump in
2020. “This is our moment, our climate, our mission — together, we can
defeat climate change. That’s why I’m running for president,” Inslee
said on Twitter. In a video announcing his presidential campaign, he called
climate change “the most urgent challenge of our time,” adding,
“we’re the first generation to feel the sting of climate change. And
we’re the last that can do something about it.”

https://thinkprogress.org/washington-governor-jay-inslee-running-for-president-climate-change-6cd8755ed1d7/

March 4, 2019 Posted by | climate change, politics, USA | Leave a comment

USA officials worried about Saudi Arabia’s nuclear plans

Middle East Monitor 2nd March 2019 , Doubts have been raised about Saudi Arabia’s plans for its nuclear
capabilities, which it maintains are for peaceful purposes, to meet its
population’s energy needs. However a US body charged with looking in to
Saudi’s nuclear plans has warned that “many whistleblowers have warned
against conflicts of interest that could fall within the scope of the
Federal Criminal Law.” The Committee on Oversight and Reform issued the
warning after President Donald Trump announced he intended to sell
“sensitive nuclear technology” to Saudi Arabia to benefit US companies.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190302-us-officials-question-saudis-nuclear-plans/

March 4, 2019 Posted by | Saudi Arabia, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

A BIG boondoggle – Nuclear And Emerging Technologies For Space

Nuclear In Space — The NETS Meeting, Forbes 28 Feb 19 James Conca  The NETS meeting is wrapping up today at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington. The Nuclear And Emerging Technologies For Space is an annual gathering of people from NASA, National Laboratories, industry, and academia to discuss space nuclear power and propulsion as well as new and emerging technologies that make further space exploration possible…….

The space market, now about $400 billion/year, is set to grow to between $1 trillion and $4 trillion per year by 2040). Last year, the market for electricity in the United States was only $400 billion. So the economic push is great to evolve these systems. Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin) and Elon Musk (SpaceX) started their companies with the mission of enabling millions of people to live and work in space. SpaceX launch vehicles have dropped the cost of spaceflight by a factor of 15, and that should continue to drop by another factor of 5. …….
So the gateway to space is open in the way that the internet was opened in the 1990’s. And nuclear energy is the power that will get us through that gate. When humans are ready to live and work in space, nuclear energy must be ready as well. That nuclear poweris the safest energy source on Earth doesn’t hurt.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/02/28/nuclear-in-space-the-nets-meeting/#1929eb8e465a

March 4, 2019 Posted by | technology, USA | Leave a comment

Destructive power of nuclear explosions documented as never before

March 4, 2019 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Kim Kardashian West demands Trump, Newsom, lead cleanup of Santa Susana Nuclear Site

Kim Kardashian West demands Trump, Newsom, lead cleanup of Santa Susana Field Lab

Her tweet has sparked hope among nearby residents that the government will act more quickly to clean up the old Cold War site. https://www.dailybulletin.com/2019/03/01/kim-kardashian-west-demands-trump-newsom-lead-clean-up-of-santa-susana-field-lab/ By OLGA GRIGORYANTS | ogrigoryants@scng.com | Los Angeles Daily News  March 1, 2019 

Celebrity Kim Kardashian West is calling on President Donald Trump and other government leaders to lead a cleanup of the contaminated Santa Susana Field Laboratory in the hills above San Fernando and Simi valleys, sparking enthusiasm among residents who have long demanded the action.

Kardashian, who lives in nearby Hidden Hills, demanded via Twitter Wednesday that Trump, Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry help push for the clean up the former nuclear and rocket engine testing site near many Valley schools and homes.

“(The California Department of Toxic and Substance Control, or DTSC, the federal Department of Energy and NASA) promised to clean up contaminated Santa Susana Field Lab by 2017, but the job hasn’t even begun!” Kardashian West shared with nearly 60 million followers. “Time to reform DTSC, and for (the federal agency) to keep its promises.”

March 4, 2019 Posted by | environment, USA | Leave a comment

New report highlights the inability of USA to deal with nuclear waste

March 2, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Making nuclear summits great again 

The Saturday Paper, Jonathan Pearlman 2 Mar 19,  Vietnam: In Hanoi this week, Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un met for a second summit to address North Korea’s nuclear program. Trump revels in the theatrics of these summits, apparently overlooking that he is lending stature to a despot who holds power through mass enslavement, torture, imprisonment and murder.

“[You are] a great leader,” Trump told Kim after their dinner on Wednesday at the Metropole Hotel. “I think you will have a tremendous future with your country.”

Before the formal talks began on Thursday, journalists covering the event were advised of the expected outcome: there would be an “agreement signing ceremony” at the Metropole at 3.50pm.

By Thursday afternoon, the ceremony had been cancelled as the realities of trying to resolve this decades-old conflict overcame Trump’s apparent belief that a deal would flow from a “wonderful dialogue”.

The success of a potential deal will depend on detail, and on Kim’s predilections, not Trump’s jubilant tweets. This became clear in Hanoi, as the talks faltered over Kim’s demands that international sanctions should be entirely lifted.

“It wasn’t a good thing to sign anything,” Trump said. “Sometimes you have to walk.”

The Trump–Kim encounters, reminiscent of the great Soviet–American summits, are designed to be spectacles, yet the Hanoi meeting was quickly overshadowed by events in Washington……..https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/world/north-america/2019/03/02/making-nuclear-summits-great-again/15514452007564

March 2, 2019 Posted by | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Bipartisan pair of Michigan congressmen aim to limit any USA deal to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia

Levin, Amash say Saudi Arabia must not be allowed to build a nuclear bomb https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/03/01/saudi-arabia-nukes-andy-levin/3017833002/

Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press, March 1, 2019, WASHINGTON — A bipartisan pair of Michigan congressmen are proposing to limit any nuclear deal between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to make sure it doesn’t lead to a bomb. U.S. Reps. Andy Levin, D-Bloomfield Township, and Justin Amash, R-Cascade Township, introduced a resolution Thursday calling for any deal the Trump administration may be pursuing with the Saudis to include the highest nonproliferation standard possible.

“We cannot allow a civilian nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia to create a pathway to a nuclear bomb, period,” Levin said. “Recent events, including the horrific murder of Jamal Khashoggi, have made it all the more clear why we must insist on the highest possible nonproliferation standard.”

The House resolution mirrors one already introduced in the Senate by Sen. Jeff Merkley,  D-Ore. Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist, was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last year.

In February, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a report indicating that Trump administration officials had pushed for a plan to build nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia despite concerns that doing so could violate federal law.

The committee report suggested some people involved in the effort were interested in financial gain.

The transfer of nuclear technology is typically approved through a closely regulated process and a nuclear cooperation agreement signed off on by Congress.

Levin, who is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that if such a deal is developed, it must include rules that prohibit Saudi Arabia from enriching uranium or separating plutonium or any other activities that could result in weapons-grade material.

March 2, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Political push for small modular nuclear reactors in Utah

March 2, 2019 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »