Nuclear power’s weapons link: Cause to limit, not boost exports https://thebulletin.org/2018/09/nuclear-powers-weapons-link-cause-to-limit-not-boost-exports/By Victor Gilinsky, Henry Sokolski, September 20, 2018 The criticism that supporters of US nuclear exports have found most difficult to counter has been that their wares give an importing country a big leg up on getting a bomb. For decades the exporters’ response has been to pretend this was not so. Now comes Michael Shellenberger, a prominent nuclear power advocate, who casts all this aside. Yes, he writes, there is a strong link between nuclear electricity and weapons, and in fact most countries that built nuclear power plants did so with weapons at least partly in mind. But this is not so much a confession as a sales pitch. He thinks the weapons potential of nuclear power plants actually prevents war—the weapons shadow cast by nuclear plants itself deters enemies—and that this attribute should be exploited as a sales advantage by US nuclear exporters.
Shellenberger’s assessment of the nuclear power-weapons link is important rhetorically because it comes from the nuclear side of the house. He has been celebrated by the nuclear industry and the conservative
press as one of the new breed, “pro-technology,” environmental activists who joined the nuclear ranks and are not afraid to do battle with their colleagues over nuclear power. So, his admission about the closeness of civilian and military nuclear technology—realistically what lawyers call a declaration against interest—carries a certain weight and may convince people who have up to now resisted the notion.
But Shellenberger goes on. He was always a bit unrestrained in his advocacy of nuclear power, and in speaking of nuclear weapons he surpasses himself. In an earlier piece, he presents an anecdotal case on why nuclear weapons were a cure-all for world conflict.
He said if only “weak” France had nuclear weapons in 1940 then “strong” Germany would not have attacked. But what if Germany was the one with the bomb?
He also points to India and Pakistan: They had three large wars before they armed themselves with nuclear weapons but none afterwards, only “border skirmishes” with relatively low casualties. And if such conflicts got out of hand and led to nuclear weapon use, well, not to worry—Shellenberger cites an academic “expert” who claims that the nuclear conflict would surely be contained at the “tactical” level. In truth, of course, no one has any idea.
That the presence of nuclear weapons has reduced the frequency of war is an arguable proposition. But one only has to consider the experience of the Cuban Missile Crisis to realize it comes at the price of gambling on nuclear war. Most people have forgotten about them, but our nuclear forces are still on alert, and their use is not ruled out. The “experts” speak of deployment for deterrence only, but deterrence is predicated on use in certain circumstances.
All these inescapable uncertainties apparently got swept away in Shellenberger’s mind by the “Eureka” moment he describes in the latest article: Based on a paper by a couple of political science professors, he asserts that a nuclear power program itself provides a significant level of “deterrence-related” benefits—“a bomb isn’t even required.” He says that when he thought of this, he almost fell off his chair. Why, he wondered, was this fact “not being promoted as one of nuclear power’s many benefits?”
One reason is that it’s a ridiculous proposal based on half-baked ideas.
But there is a serious side to this too. Unfortunately, his views, foolish as they are, are not so different from primitive views privately held in high official and semi-official nuclear circles. It is useful to bring them out of hiding, and we have to thank Shellenberger for that.
Take the Bush Administration’s 2005 nuclear deal with India. It tore a gaping hole in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and yet was described as promoting nonproliferation. Is there anyone so foolish as to believe that hypocrisy? Or to doubt that India’s interest in the arrangement was mainly fortifying its nuclear weapons? And wasn’t the notion of supporting India as a strategic foil to China at the core of US interest?
Consider also the current administration’s efforts to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia to facilitate nuclear exports to that country. One doesn’t even have to speculate about the Saudis’ interest in bombs—the Crown Prince famously made that clear. And from the US side, it is also clear that a reason to put nuclear technology in the hands of the Saudis is to frighten Iran.
The immediate nuclear issue now is what controls, if any, our government should impose on the proposed US-Saudi nuclear cooperative agreement. The sensible course from the security point of view, which Secretary of State Pompeo has publicly backed, is to make sure Saudi Arabia will not have the capacity to produce nuclear explosives—a controlling condition called the gold standard. But the Saudis are pushing back on that—for obvious reasons—and their supporters in the administration would like to relax the export controls that would apply, in part to get the business but also to have another stick to shake at Iran.
We should have none of this. It has been settled US policy for decades that we don’t want more countries with nuclear weapons or countries threatening to make them. Where we haven’t been consistent in applying that policy regarding nuclear power exports, we need to make corrections, not by exporting more, but less.
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
spinbuster, USA, weapons and war |
1 Comment
Cost of Georgia nuclear plant draws scrutiny from lawmakers, https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/cost-of-georgia-nuclear-plant-draws-scrutiny-from-lawmakers Financial Post, The Associated Press, Ben Nadler, 21 Sept 18, ATLANTA — A group of ranking Georgia lawmakers is sounding the alarm about cost overruns from construction at a nuclear power plant near Augusta.
The two additional reactors being built at Plant Vogtle, approximately 30 miles (50 kilometres) south of Augusta, are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. The lawmakers said they want a “cost cap” established to protect Georgians from getting gouged on their electricity bills.
In August, the plant’s owners, which include Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power Corporation and Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, learned that the plant would require an additional $2.3 billion, bringing the total cost estimate to $27 billion.
That new overage initiated a clause in the ownership agreement where ninety per cent of ownership must agree to move forward. A down vote from any one of those organizations would mean the multibillion-dollar project is abandoned.
Georgia Power’s parent company, Southern Company, pledged that its shareholders would absorb its share of the costs. That leaves Oglethorpe Power and MEAG with a decision: pay up or pull out.
The letter lawmakers sent Wednesday was signed by 20 members of the Georgia General Assembly, including Rep. Terry England, chairman of the House appropriations committee, and Sen. Butch Miller, president pro tempore of the Senate. It said that unlike Georgia Power, the other organizations “don’t have the luxury of shareholders to absorb these additional costs and will have to increase rates even higher.”
They asked the owners to “ensure prior to voting in support of moving forward … that a cost cap is established to protect all Georgia electric ratepayers from this and future overruns.”
But Gov. Nathan Deal took a different stance. A day before the lawmaker’s letter was sent, Deal sent a letter to Oglethorpe Power encouraging completion of the project.
“Given the project’s critical economic impact to the State of Georgia, I strongly encourage (the project’s) co-owners to continue work and complete the construction,” Deal said. “I am counting on the project co-owners to follow through on the commitments you made to the citizens of Georgia, ratepayers and myself.”
The plug was pulled on a similar project in neighbouring South Carolina in July 2017 when the V.C. Summer plant was abandoned after going billions of dollars over.
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics, USA |
Leave a comment
Beyond Nuclear 20th Sept 2018 , The two-unit coastal Brunswick nuclear power station in South Port, NC was
powered down to zero power shortly in advance of the September 14th arrival
Hurricane Florence with Category 1 winds (sustained < 75 mph), storm surge
and torrential rainfall. Operators maintained the Brunswick units in “hot
standby” (reactor cooling water at 212O F and capable of steam powering
onsite turbines for emergency electricity) to provide an added measure of
power supply for reactor safety and cooling systems in the event of loss of
offsite power and backup emergency diesel generators.
However, throughout the storm, Duke Energy reported that the nuclear power station was in
“stable” condition and never lost offsite electricity power from the
grid providing primary power to safety systems and cooling.
A low-level emergency was declared September 15th when the reactor site was completely
surrounded by rising flood waters making it inaccessible by road. Two
shifts of workers were already housed onsite and supplied in advance for
the storm’s duration. Offsite access by road to the Brunswick units was
restored on September 18th and the “Unusual event” emergency was
terminated.
The continued flooding has damaged many of the bridges and
roads within the ten-mile radius that encompasses the radiological
evacuation planning zone for the Brunswick nuclear power station. As the
flooding recedes, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will
assess the damage to the infrastructure and will provide its recommendation
to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) before Brunswick is allowed
to restart.
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-reactors-whatsnew/2018/9/20/brunswick-nuclear-plant-remains-shut-down-following-hurrican.html
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, USA |
Leave a comment
Even if the optimism of the scientists and engineers is well-founded, it will still take almost two more decades for the vitrification plant to run at full bore. So it may be 2047—or later—before the ghosts of plutonium are finally laid to rest.
illustration by Abigail Malate, Staff Illustrator, American Institute of Physics
|
Plutonium Waste Continues to Haunt Nuclear Site https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2018/09/plutonium-waste-continues-haunt-nuclear-site 09/20/2018 – by Valerie Brown, Inside Science Nearly 30 years ago, the state of Washington and two federal agencies agreed to clean up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a 586-square-mile chunk of sagebrush desert where the U.S. produced plutonium for nuclear weapons starting 75 years ago. In the process, half a trillion gallons of chemically toxic and radioactive waste was dumped on the ground or injected into groundwater. Some of it has reached the Columbia River. Another 56 million gallons of concentrated, radioactive sludge and crystallized salts sit corroding within 177 steel-and-concrete underground tanks.Although the tank waste is only a fraction of the total, its safe disposal is one of the site’s most urgent priorities, especially to the policymakers and residents of Washington and Oregon. Eighteen years ago, workers began constructing a plant for “immobilizing” the remaining waste by vitrifying it—a process whereby it is mixed with molten glass, cooled and encased in stainless steel canisters for long-term storage underground in an as yet undesignated location.
Today the task remains unfinished. Prominent among the reasons for this is that designing, building and operating the infrastructure to treat the waste may be the most complicated project of its kind ever attempted. And that’s because the waste itself is, well, complicated. Although plutonium is no longer being created at Hanford this most peculiar element continues to loom ghostlike over the government’s efforts to mitigate the damage its creation caused and prevent any further environmental and human risk for centuries to come. Continue reading →
|
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
- plutonium, Reference, USA |
Leave a comment
|
Duke Energy lifts emergency at Brunswick nuclear plant; relief workers start to arrive https://www.heraldsun.com/news/state/north-carolina/article218633480.html
Duke Energy began ferrying workers by boat out of the Brunswick nuclear plant Tuesday as the 1,200-acre complex, about 4 miles inland, remains largely inaccessible by land.
The Charlotte-based electric utility also notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday to lift an emergency notification that Duke had filed Saturday when the Brunswick plant, 30 miles south of Wilmington, was cut off by rising water and workers could not get to the site in their cars.
Nearly 300 Duke employees, and two NRC “storm riders,” had spent days at the facility, sleeping on cots, using portable toilets and drinking bottled water because county water service is not available. Duke’s aviation service used a helicopter to bring in extra food on Monday.
Duke spokeswoman Rita Sipe said the company is bringing in fresh crews to relieve the workers on site; some hadn’t left the complex since the middle of last week. Sipe said the company would not disclose details about transporting workers by boat or discuss its plans to restart Brunswick’s twin nuclear reactors, which were untouched by flood waters.
Duke’s emergency notice alerted NRC of an “unusual event,” the lowest level of emergency at a U.S. nuclear facility, and did not indicate a threat to public safety.
The reactors were never at risk of flooding inside the facility, according to Duke and the NRC, but Duke shut them down as a precaution when Florence, then a Category 4 hurricane, approached the state.
|
|
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
safety, USA |
Leave a comment
Anti-nuclear waste rally in Montpelier, 18 Sept 18 MONTPELIER, Vt. (WCAX) An anti-nuclear waste campaign visited Montpelier Tuesday night, delivering a replica radioactive waste cask. The event was organized by the “Citizens Awareness Network” as part of a multi-stop tour throughout New England.
Activists say they are responding to a bill now in the U.S. Senate that would establish Anti-nuclear waste rally in Montpelier, 18 Sept 18 MONTPELIER, Vt. (WCAX) An anti-nuclear waste campaign visited Montpelier Tuesday night, delivering a replica radioactive waste cask. The event was organized by the “Citizens Awareness Network” as part of a multi-stop tour throughout New England.
Activists say they are responding to a bill now in the U.S. Senate that would establish temporary mobile storage for high-level nuclear waste. The storage casks would travel from places like the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant and would be transported to southwestern states like Texas and New Mexico. The group’s goal is to leave the waste where it is, but better protected.
“We have to find a responsible way to deal with this waste and what the industry is trying to do is just get this waste off of their hands as quickly as possible,” said Tim Judson of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
“In New Mexico, we are concerned about not just our communities because of the storage, but the transport would impact everyone across the nation. Anywhere between a nuclear power plant and the waste site,” said Leona Morgan of the Nuclear Issues Study Group.
The nuclear cask will stop Wednesday night in Brattleboro at the Congregational Church.
. The storage casks would travel from places like the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant and would be transported to southwestern states like Texas and New Mexico. The group’s goal is to leave the waste where it is, but better protected.
“We have to find a responsible way to deal with this waste and what the industry is trying to do is just get this waste off of their hands as quickly as possible,” said Tim Judson of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
“In New Mexico, we are concerned about not just our communities because of the storage, but the transport would impact everyone across the nation. Anywhere between a nuclear power plant and the waste site,” said Leona Morgan of the Nuclear Issues Study Group.
The nuclear cask will stop Wednesday night in Brattleboro at the Congregational Church.
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
opposition to nuclear, USA |
Leave a comment
Growing Opposition Threatens Completion of Last U.S. Nuclear Plant
Primary owners of Georgia’s Vogtle power plant are set to vote on the project—already years behind schedule, billions over budget, WSJ, By Russell Gold
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
Democrats trying to ban low-yield nuclear warhead https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/09/20/democrats-trying-to-ban-low-yield-nuclear-warhead/
By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON – A group of Democratic lawmakers have introduced a bill to ban the Defense Department from developing a new
low-yield nuclear warhead, arguing it could fuel a dangerous arms race and hasten nuclear war.
The new warhead, for submarine-launched ballistic missiles, would also siphon money from other military needs, said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and four other lawmakers who co-sponsored the bill. Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, is a frequent critic of nuclear modernization costs and an opponent of this weapon in particular.
The move comes after Congress passed, and President Donald Trump signed, an appropriations package this month that applies $65 million to the program. The money pays to modify the W76-1 warhead for the Navy’s Trident II D5 ballistic missile into a W76-2 warhead. (The measure also orders a study of the weapon’s long-term costs.)
“We should not fund President Trump’s request for new low-yield nuclear weapons. His proposal dangerously lowers the threshold to nuclear use and siphons money away from genuine military readiness needs.” Smith said in a statement.
“We already have a nuclear deterrent that is more than adequate to achieve our national security goals. Funding new, low-yield weapons would only draw us further into an unnecessary nuclear arms race and increase the risks of miscalculation.”
The bill would prohibit the research, develop, production, and deployment of a low-yield nuclear warheads for submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
Sponsored by Smith, and Reps. Ted Lieu, D-Calif.; John Garamendi, D-Calif.; Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., it’s called the Hold the LYNE (Low-Yield Nuclear Explosive) Act. It’s just the latest push from Democrats in an ongoing battle.
The requirement for the weapon is part of the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review—meant to deter Russia from using its own arsenal of low-yield nuclear weapons. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and others have said Russia might attempt to use a tactical nuclear weapon to win a conventional war quickly.
The Defense Department requested $22.6 million for FY19 and $48.5 million spread over the life of the Future Years Defense Program, or FYDP, a series of projected numbers that cover through FY23, meaning the combined cost for the development in FY19 will be $87.6 million.
The lawmakers pointed to a Congressional Budget Office estimate last year that upgrading America’s nuclear weapons at $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years.
The bill has been endorsed by Arms Control Association, Global Zero, Union of Concerned Scientists, Ploughshares, Win Without War, and other nonproliferation advocates.
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
California Gov. Brown Signs Historic Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Bill, https://www.powermag.com/press-releases/california-gov-brown-signs-historic-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-bill/Power Magazine, 09/20/2018 SACRAMENTO, CA – California Gov. Jerry Brown today signed into law a bill to protect the environment, workers, and local communities during the closure of California’s last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo.Senate Bill 1090, which had wide bipartisan support, will help to ensure that the electricity generated by the giant plant is replaced with zero-carbon options led by energy efficiency and renewable energy. The new law also mandates full funding of a $350 million employee retention program and the $85 million community impact mitigation program, which are needed to ensure that the plant is adequately staffed and essential emergency services are provided through the end of the plant’s license period in 2025.
Plant owner Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), citizen and environmental groups including NRDC, and labor organizations in June 2016 announced an agreement to close the two reactors by August 2025 and replace their generation with lower-cost, zero-carbon alternatives. Their joint proposal asked the California Public Utilities Commission to authorize the replacement of the electricity being generated by the plant 250 miles south of San Francisco with emissions-free options led by energy efficiency, wind and solar power, and included protections for plant workers and surrounding communities during the transition. When the CPUC rejected much of the historic joint proposal in January, supporters turned to the Legislature.
Following is a statement from Ralph Cavanagh, energy program co-director at the Natural Resources Defense Council:
“Governor Brown made climate history again today when he signed this legislation to specifically authorize that Diablo Canyon’s electricity generation be replaced with carbon-free resources like energy efficiency and wind and solar power. This groundbreaking legislation also ensures that we account for the full impact of the plant’s closure on the workers and surrounding communities.”
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
employment, USA |
Leave a comment
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson told reporters that the agreement represents a major win for hundreds of workers who have been getting sick for years while cleaning up the nation’s nuclear waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington.
“Those workers deserve to be protected,” Ferguson said.
He added that the U.S. Department of Energy did not take the issue seriously and resisted putting protections in place.
“There’s no way to sugar coat this,” Ferguson said.
The Energy Department will for the first time test a new technology that Ferguson called “game-changing” that would protect workers from the vapor exposures.
Under the agreement, the agency will pay $925,000 in fees and costs to the state and Hanford Challenge, a watchdog group that has for decades been warning about worker safety. The agency will also install a new vapor monitoring and alarm system and maintain safety measures that are currently in place, including supplying air and respirators.
The Department of Energy said in an emailed statement that the agreement “acknowledges the extensive actions” that the agency, and its contractor, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC, have taken to protect workers from potential exposure to chemical vapors.
The agency said they continue to “take a very conservative approach to protecting workers from potential exposures to chemical vapors” and that agreement reinforces the ongoing effort.
The state, Hanford Challenge and the pipefitters union Local 598 sued the Energy Department in 2015 and its contractor for tank farms containing nuclear waste, seeking better protection for workers at risk of inhaling vapors or gases that leaked from underground storage tanks.
The agreement puts that federal lawsuit on hold while the Energy Department tests and implements a new system to capture and destroy vapors escaping waste tanks. Ferguson said if the federal agency doesn’t meet its obligations, legal action could resume.
“Hearing and documenting dozens of stories of sick workers was heartbreaking,” said Meredith Crafton, a lawyer representing Hanford Challenge, whose voice broke as she spoke to reporters.
The agreement protects workers in the interim but also creates incentives to find better technology to protect workers in the future, she said.
The 586-square-mile (943-square-kilometer) Hanford nuclear site located along the Columbia River in Eastern Washington state produced up to 70 percent of the plutonium for the U.S. nuclear arsenal since it was established in World War II.
Hanford has 177 underground tanks made of steel that contain more that 54 million gallons (204 million liters) of radioactive and chemical wastes.
Ferguson said studies over the last 20 years, including by the Energy Department and other government agencies, have shown workers falling ill after being exposed to the vapors. They’ve experienced dizziness, nausea and other issues.
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
employment, safety, USA |
Leave a comment
Big research payments in radiation oncology are distributed only to a few, Radiology Business, September 19, 2018 | Subrata Thakar |New research in the Journal of the American College of Radiology suggests an association between disclosed payment from the healthcare industry and increased individual productivity metrics.
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA |
Leave a comment
FT 18th Sept 2018 , As President Donald Trump weakens one environmental rule after another, the
deep green state of California has found a way to fight back: with a
rocket. “With science still under attack and the climate threat growing, we
are launching our own damn satellite,” declared Governor Jerry Brown,
explaining that the craft will track emissions and share the results. One
of the pollutants the satellite will measure is methane, a potent
greenhouse gas. Mr Brown’s declaration on Friday in San Francisco, came
just two days after the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington said
it wanted to relax methane rules. For California and Mr Brown, the
satellite is not only about monitoring methane monitoring but also shows
how much states can do themselves to fight climate change.
https://www.ft.com/content/aae5fe16-b91b-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, USA |
Leave a comment
Vogtle’s Escalating Costs Concern Lawmakers, Stakeholders, Power magazine, 09/20/2018 | Sonal Patel, The Vogtle nuclear expansion’s “ever-escalating” cost is concerning several members of Georgia’s General Assembly, according to a letter sent to partners building the much-delayed project.
Twenty lawmakers from both houses of state government—19 Republicans and one Democrat—sent a letter to the board of directors at Georgia Power Co., Oglethorpe Power Co. (OPC), and Municipal Electric Authoity of Georgia (MEAG Power), lamenting continuing cost increases, and their impact on local utility rates, despite a change in project management eight months ago.
The lawmakers urged the utilities to ensure a cost cap is established before the utilities vote in support of moving forward with the project, as required by the amended co-owners agreement, before September 24. Georgia Power holds a 45.7% stake in the two-unit Plant Vogtle expansion, while OPC (30%), MEAG Power (22.7%), and Dalton Utilities (1.6%) hold the remaining shares. MEAG Power could vote as early as today (September 20). A 90% vote for the project is required for the project to continue……….
Legal Complications
As the fate of project grows murky, a legal battle is also brewing that involves the City of Jacksonville, Florida, and JEA, the city’s municipal utility that serves about 458,000 electric customers. The entities on September 11 asked a federal appeals court for a declaratory judgment on a power purchase agreement (PPA) the utility entered into with MEAG in 2008 for power from Vogtle Units 3 and 4, which were originally scheduled for completion in April 2016 and April 2017.
Completion dates have since been extended by five years: Unit 3 is expected to come online in November 2021, and Unit 4 in November 2022. “A new unlimited cost-plus reimbursement agreement was implemented without JEA’s approval in June 2017 after the project’s initial general contractor, Westinghouse, declared bankruptcy. The amended agreement has increased JEA’s liability from $1.4 billion to more than $2.9 billion—an uncapped and rising amount,” the company noted.
MEAG Power on September 11 filed its own lawsuit in the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta, claiming that the Florida entity became “irreversibly obligated” when the company entered into the PPA to pay its share regardless of “whether or not the project is completed or is operating or operable.”………https://www.powermag.com/vogtles-escalating-costs-concern-lawmakers-stakeholders/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTnpFNFpXUmpZbVJqWWpCbCIsInQiOiJOTXhEekNRSSszWDdKcEd5eWFKWm5YN3JpUjVPQXRWNm9ZVkJLbXNjbzF4M1o0Z2hBOHFRc2pucjBLS29xTVV5QW
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, USA |
Leave a comment
Now’s the time for Utahns to comment on EnergySolutions’ dangerous exemption request, https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/letters/2018/09/20/letter-nows-time-utahns/ By Benjamin Silberman | The Public Forum
·EnergySolutions is requesting exemption from a law that prohibits the amount of depleted uranium (DU) that can come into Utah. When laws governing the disposal of nuclear waste were developed in the 1980s, byproducts like DU weren’t yet considered. So how can EnergySolutions ensure the safety of future generations from hazards like DU?
Currently, there are limits on DU concentrations and masses allowed in Utah, and any shipments above the limit require safety evaluations. EnergySolutions hopes to exceed these limits by bringing in DU munitions. While EnergySolutions insists that DU is less of a hazard in this form, advocacy groups like HEAL Utah and Utah Sierra Club have raised legitimate concerns.
Most concerning is that DU becomes “hotter” over time. While it begins as a low-level waste, its radioactivity increases for thousands of years. EnergySolutions’ Clive disposal site, just off Interstate 80, is in a particularly vulnerable area, is subject to flooding and will look vastly different in even 100 years. It’s unsettling that EnergySolutions thinks it has the power, and knowledge, to evade the law for something this capricious and uncertain.
There is a public comment period Sept. 6-Oct. 6 regarding EnergySolutions’ exemption request.
|
|
|
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
depleted uranium, USA, wastes |
Leave a comment
Air Force: Space Force would cost $13 billion over 5 years, SF Chronicle, Sep. 17, 2018 WASHINGTON (AP) — Creating a Space Force as a separate military service, as proposed by President Donald Trump, would cost an estimated $12.9 billion in its first five years, according to a detailed Air Force plan for how to go about it.
This is the first publicly available cost estimate. When the White House announced plans to establish a Space Force in August, Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan declined to give a figure but said it would be in “the billions.”
The Air Force’s estimate is contained in a Sept. 14 memo from Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, who proposed that the Pentagon ask Congress for the authority and money to establish a Space Force headquarters in 2020……..
In an indication of the complexities of creating a new military service, the Air Force says the proposed U.S. Space Force would be a separate department organized under a civilian secretary appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, along with an undersecretary, four assistant secretaries, a chief lawyer, an inspector general and a legislative liaison. A four-star general would serve as chief of staff.
The proposal said the missions of Space Force would include missile defense. More broadly, it would be “responsible for the preparation of forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war.”
In June, Trump directed the Pentagon to create a “separate but equal” space force. In August, Vice President Mike Pence announced that the administration will work with Congress to come up with a workable approach. The last time the U.S. created a new military service was in 1947 when the Air Force was established as an independent service. https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/Air-Force-Space-Force-Would-Cost-13-Billion-13236410.php?utm_campaign=twitter-premium&utm_source=CMS%20Sharing%20Button&
September 21, 2018
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 