Congress’s failure to debate and vote on our current wars has led to a total abdication of its duties to declare war. As a result, many Americans are unclear about our objectives, and the 2001 authorization following 9/11 has been used to justify military operations in 14 different countries at least 37 times. Questions surrounding U.S. actions in Yemen—currently being challenged in Congress by Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Chris Murphy (D-CT)—are raising additional questions about how the White House and the Department of Defense are using that authorization for endless war. “The blank check just got bigger,” Center for Defense Information Military Advisory Board Member and Defense Priorities Senior Fellow Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, USA (Ret.) recently told Members of Congress.
Leadership in both parties have continually resisted calls to hold a vote on our current wars. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the need to revise the authority for our current wars—known as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF)—last year, but there’s been no similar debate in House. So for the first time that I can remember the Progressive Caucus and the Liberty Caucus, led by Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Justin Amash (R-MI) respectively, held a joint ad-hoc hearing on whether the 2001 AUMF needs to repealed or revised.
Lt. Col. Davis was deployed into combat zones four times in his career, beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and then to Iraq in 2009 and Afghanistan twice (2005, 2011). In 2012 he published a report showing that military leaders were misleading Congress and the American public about conditions on the ground in Afghanistan. His testimony about the need for Congress to have the integrity to do their job and vote on our current wars is compelling, and I hope you’ll watch it in full below.
Davis, opening remarks 27 February 2018 before members of Congress
BY DAVID KRIEGER,OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/03/18In Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis’ preface to the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), he describes its purpose as “to ensure a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent that protects the homeland, assures allies and, above all, deters adversaries.” These are worthy goals, but likely impossible to achieve so long as nuclear weapons exist.
Of course, it is preferable that nuclear weapons be safe in the sense that they will not detonate accidentally, and that they be secure in the sense that they cannot be stolen by others or triggered by a cyber attack. These are basically physical problems which can be engineered and guarded against, although surely not perfectly.
Despite the desire to achieve perfection, it is not possible for humans to do so, as demonstrated through the years of the Nuclear Age by many accidents, miscalculations and close calls.
The nuclear deterrent force of a country relies instead on creating psychological barriers. If a nuclear deterrent force is effective in protecting a country and its allies, an adversary would refrain from attacking due to fear of retaliation. Since nuclear deterrence operates at the psychological level, one can never be sure it is effective. Or, it may only appear to be effective until it fails and failure could be catastrophic.
Mattis also refers to a “credible” nuclear deterrent. Presumably, to be effective, a nuclear deterrent force would need to be credible to an adversary, but credibility is also a psychological term. It encompasses not only the size and power of a nuclear arsenal, but a belief in a particular leader’s willingness to actually use the nuclear weapons should deterrence fail.
It is interesting that in the 2018 NPR (the Trump NPR), as with previous NPRs, there is allowance for the possible failure of nuclear deterrence. This should not be reassuring to anyone. Mattis ties the need to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal to the credibility of the nuclear deterrent force. He also ties credibility to “ensuring that our diplomats continue to speak from a position of strength on matters of war and peace.”
The 2018 NPR points the finger at Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Russia and China are accused of modernizing their nuclear arsenals, making it necessary for the U.S. to do the same. It points out that Russia, in addition to its seizure of Crimea, has military strategies reliant on nuclear escalation. It talks about China “expanding its already considerable forces,” but fails to mention that China has a policy of minimum deterrence and has made a pledge of No First Use of nuclear weapons.
Nor does the 2018 NPR mention that both Russia and China have reacted to the U.S. placing missile defense installations strategically near their borders, or that this has only been possible due to the 2002 U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which severely limited ABM deployments.
Despite the promising interactions between North and South Korean athletes at the 2018 Winter Olympics, Trump has imposed tough sanctions on North Korea and upped his threats toward the country. Personalizing his message, Trump menacingly stated, “If the sanctions don’t work, we’ll have to go to Phase 2. Phase 2 may be a very rough thing. May be very, very unfortunate for the world.” This is the dangerous and threatening rhetoric of a madman.
Trump has also failed to certify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal, leaving open the possibility of killing the deal and increasing the odds of yet another war and Iran’s return to its previous nuclear program.
Mattis concludes his preface to the Trump NPR by acknowledging the vital role played by U.S. servicemen and civilians “in maintaining a safe, secure, and ready nuclear force.” The fact that the U.S. nuclear deterrent force is “ready” is not necessarily a blessing and should be of little comfort to Americans or anyone else. We are all part of “the world” that Trump is threatening to punish if North Korea does not submit to his will. He should be impeached now, before he does something “very, very unfortunate for the world.”
The 2018 NPR calls for new and smaller nuclear weapons, those that would make it easier to cross the barrier into nuclear war. The NPR also chooses to keep all three legs of the nuclear triad: intercontinental ballistic missiles, bomber aircraft and submarine launched ballistic missiles.
There can be little doubt that the U.S. nuclear posture will spur other nuclear-armed countries to do the same, thus assuring new arms races and increased nuclear dangers ahead. One has to wonder if the expensive and provocative technological modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and other nuclear policies set forth in the 2018 NPR will be what takes us from the Nuclear Age back to the dark ages.
The biggest problem with a nuclear deterrent force arises from any attempt to determine its effectiveness. How can possessors of nuclear weapons assure that their nuclear weapons are effective in providing a deterrent to another nuclear-armed country? The answer is that they cannot do so in any physical sense.
Under the law, when a foreign government buys U.S. weapon systems through the Department of Defense those governments are required to reimburse the Department for research, development, and other one-time costs for those systems. A recent audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the Department has waived $16 billion it could have recovered for taxpayers on $250 billion worth of weapons sold under the Foreign Military Sales program from 2012 to 2017.
Under the law, foreign governments can request a waiver from repaying these costs, which the Department can grant for factors like interoperability or to avoid the loss of a sale. Defense contractors argued this requirement for foreign governments to repay the U.S. taxpayers raises the price of our weapon systems, making it more difficult to complete a sale. When the Department waives these repayments, that usually gives a competitive edge that defense contractors benefit from enormously.
The contractors invest very little of their own money in research and development—those costs are generally paid by the taxpayers as part of the original acquisition process. The contractors are then able to sell these weapons, developed at taxpayer expense, to foreign governments at a significant profit and only a minimal corporate investment. Allowing foreign governments to skate on the legally required repayments is little more than welfare for defense contractors, and this audit makes a compelling case for why Congress should close this loophole.
Under the Arms Export Control Act the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the Pentagon’s “point person” for all foreign military sales, evaluates waivers. As Bill Hartung, the Director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy explains, that office has perverse financial incentives to prioritize sales over what’s best for taxpayers or U.S. national security:
In a typical sale, the US government is involved every step of the way. The Pentagon often does assessments of an allied nation’s armed forces in order to tell them what they “need”—and of course what they always need is billions of dollars in new US-supplied equipment. Then the Pentagon helps negotiate the terms of the deal, notifies Congress of its details, and collects the funds from the foreign buyer, which it then gives to the US supplier in the form of a defense contract. In most deals, the Pentagon is also the point of contact for maintenance and spare parts for any US-supplied system. The bureaucracy that helps make all of this happen, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, is funded from a 3.5 percent surcharge on the deals it negotiates. This gives it all the more incentive to sell, sell, sell.
Given DSCA’s incentives to promote foreign military sales, it’s unsurprising DSCA approved 810 of the 813 waivers it reviewed from 2012 to 2017—an approval rate of 99 percent. When it came to waivers for loss of sale, the GAO found “none included any additional information on competing offers or spending limits” as evidence that the sale would be lost if the payment wasn’t waived. As Hartung notes, the Obama Administration brokered more weapons sales than any other administration since World War II.
For most of the duration of the GAO’s audit, the head of DSCA was Vice Admiral Joseph Rixey. Before he left that position, The Intercept reported he was the guest of honor at a reception co-hosted by the Senate Aerospace Caucus and the Aerospace Industries Association, the latter representing contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. “Thank you admiral for all that you do…in helping us to sell our products,” Lockheed Martin CEO Marilyn Hewson said at the event. Perhaps unsurprisingly, shortly after his retirement Rixey joined Lockheed Martin as Vice President for International Program Support for Lockheed Government Affairs.
The Trump Administration may be on track to increasing foreign military sales even more. The Security Assistance Monitor found that foreign military sales in the first year of the Trump Administration slightly surpassed sales in the last year of the Obama Administration. Waivers cost taxpayers approximately $1.3 billion in 2016 and $6 billion in 2017.
Costs to taxpayers may increase further without more oversight. In January Reutersreported plans to increase the role of diplomats and military attaches to promote U.S. weapons sales. As part of that effort the State Department sent Ambassador Tina Kaidanow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs and the top diplomat for overseeing arms sales, to the Singapore Airshow to promote U.S. weapons, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Congress shares plenty of blame for betraying taxpayers, as well, by continually revising the Arms Export Control Act to further subsidize weapon sales. For instance, the law didn’t always allow loss-of-sale waivers from recouping research and development costs. But in 1996—at the urging of the Aerospace Industries Association—the law was changed to allow such waivers if not recouping those costs could result in the loss of a sale. The Project On Government Oversight fought the change and other efforts to get rid of recoupment payments, calling it “corporate welfare at its worst.” The GAO found that change alone resulted in substantial losses for taxpayers, since 338 loss-of-sale waivers totaling almost $9.2 billion were given under that authority between 2012 and 2017.
In POGO’s 2017 Baker’s Dozen of recommendations to Congress we noted more must be done to make the Pentagon financially accountable. Reimbursing taxpayers must be part of the equation. Taxpayers invest a lot of money in the research and development of weapon systems—the Pentagon’s most recent budget request asks for $92.4 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation—and they deserve a fair return on their investment. It’s time to revise the Arms Export Control Act to get rid of this multi-billion crony-capitalism loophole.
How much nuclear waste has gone into dry storage at San Onofre? Here are the latest numbers, Orange County Register, 4 Mar 18, After “safely and successfully” loading the first multi-purpose spent fuel canister into its new home inside a concrete monolith at San Onofre in early February, Southern California Edison continues to move spent fuel into containers just a short distance from where surfers take on waves at the world-famous surf break.
The most recent fuel tally as of Feb. 20 shows that:
The reactor known as Unit 2 had 1,207 fuel assemblies in its spent fuel pool. Three canisters, containing 111 fuel assemblies, had been moved to dry storage.
Unit 3 had 1,350 fuel assemblies in its pool, with none yet moved to dry storage.
Dry storage is far safer than pools, nuclear experts say. All of the spent fuel is slated to be moved into the “concrete bunker” that is the Holtec HI-STORM UMAX dry storage system by the middle of 2019, Edison said.
Opponents fear it will remain there for decades and pose grave danger to people and the environment.
The most recent fuel tally as of Feb. 20 shows that:
The reactor known as Unit 2 had 1,207 fuel assemblies in its spent fuel pool. Three canisters, containing 111 fuel assemblies, had been moved to dry storage.
Unit 3 had 1,350 fuel assemblies in its pool, with none yet moved to dry storage.
Dry storage is far safer than pools, nuclear experts say. All of the spent fuel is slated to be moved into the “concrete bunker” that is the Holtec HI-STORM UMAX dry storage system by the middle of 2019, Edison said.
Opponents fear it will remain there for decades and pose grave danger to people and the environment………
The most recent fuel tally as of Feb. 20 shows that:
The reactor known as Unit 2 had 1,207 fuel assemblies in its spent fuel pool. Three canisters, containing 111 fuel assemblies, had been moved to dry storage.
Unit 3 had 1,350 fuel assemblies in its pool, with none yet moved to dry storage.
Dry storage is far safer than pools, nuclear experts say. All of the spent fuel is slated to be moved into the “concrete bunker” that is the Holtec HI-STORM UMAX dry storage system by the middle of 2019, Edison said.
You would not have these arsenals, in the US or elsewhere, if it were not the case that it was highly profitable to the military-industrial complex, to the aerospace industry, to the electronics industry, and to the weapons design labs to keep modernizing these weapons, improving accuracy, improving launch time, all that. The military–industrial complex that Eisenhower talked about is a very powerful influence. We’ve talked about unwarranted influence. We’ve had that for more than half a century.
………. What’s it all for? It is for [military] service share of the budget. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Grumman, Northrop. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, as one after another official has put it, from James Baker to others. Profits, as I say, jobs, and campaign donations.
Daniel Ellsberg on dismantling the doomsday machine, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, John Mecklin , 26 FEBRUARY 2018
More than 45 years after he became famous for leaking the Pentagon Papers and earning the wrath of President Richard Nixon and his plumbers, Daniel Ellsberg is again a focus of public consciousness. The hit movie The Postreprises part of the Pentagon Papers story, reminding older Americans (and explaining to younger viewers) how Ellsberg’s decision to reveal a top-secret history of duplicitous US policy in Indochina changed the course of the Vietnam War and American history.
In the book, Ellsberg chronicles his early career as a RAND Corporation analyst deeply involved in the crafting of American nuclear war plans in the 1960s—plans that were meant to be more controlled and discriminating than earlier versions but, he came eventually to understand, were actually blueprints for the obliteration of civilization.
“Working, conscientiously, obsessively, on a wrong problem, countering an illusory threat, I and my colleagues at RAND had distracted ourselves and helped distract others from dealing with the real dangers posed by the mutual superpower pursuit of nuclear weapons—dangers which we were helping make worse—and from real opportunities to make the world more secure,” Ellsberg writes. “Unintentionally, yet inexcusably, we made our country and the world less safe.”
Since the 1970s, Ellsberg has been deeply involved in efforts to reduce world nuclear arsenals and eventually eliminate them altogether. He and I spoke at length earlier this year about how the danger of nuclear weapons might be conveyed more effectively to the general public. What follows is an edited transcript of parts of that wide-ranging conversation……….
John Mecklin: The major media tend to almost never actually confront or describe the actual effects of a major nuclear war. Why do you think that is?
Daniel Ellsberg: That’s hard for me to say, really. I certainly agree with you. I would say they have been shockingly derelict in reporting this. I can’t give an answer. I haven’t been able to ask their editors what’s going on
But it’s a very interesting question. My speculative answer would have to be that the major media have always supported basically—until quite recently perhaps—our basic nuclear arsenals. Insane as they are; they’re unjustifiable, if you really look at them critically. And yet they’re treated as though they are reasonable responses to the nuclear era, which they are not. Nothing reasonable about them at all.
You would not have these arsenals, in the US or elsewhere, if it were not the case that it was highly profitable to the military-industrial complex, to the aerospace industry, to the electronics industry, and to the weapons design labs to keep modernizing these weapons, improving accuracy, improving launch time, all that. The military–industrial complex that Eisenhower talked about is a very powerful influence. We’ve talked about unwarranted influence. We’ve had that for more than half a century.
………. What’s it all for? It is for [military] service share of the budget. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Grumman, Northrop. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, as one after another official has put it, from James Baker to others. Profits, as I say, jobs, and campaign donations. It’s embedded in all 50 states of the union, one way or another, in the various expenditures, and very hard to get rid of. Almost impossible. I just don’t see that you can say it’s impossible……….I would also say that no significant change has occurred at all, and we are maintaining this mad policy. But it is being done, again, in the absence of almost any public awareness or debate. In the last several elections—but let’s take the last one in particular—nuclear winter, of course is not mentioned. But there’s really no dispute that came up significantly about the arms budget, about the nuclear budget, or any of the rest of it. That’s hardly an excuse, but it’s an explanation in a way for no media discussion of it, except in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, thanks a lot. Your role is essential but not sufficient, it would seem. ………. https://thebulletin.org/daniel-ellsberg-dismantling-doomsday-machine11539
After a seven-year respite, it appears that the federal government wants to take another crack at opening the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository in southern Nevada, a project that state leaders have opposed since it was first pitched in the early 1980s.
The RGJ Editorial Board urges its state leaders and congressional representatives to keep the fight going — because once again, Nevada is being kept on the sidelines of the discussion.
In 2011, federal funding for the site was cut off by the Obama administration. The government at the time noted that shutting down work at Yucca was a political decision and not based on safety concerns. (Of course, this is the same federal government that assured 20th-century Nevada that nuclear testing posed no health problems.) But the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission has blindsided the state by asking for $150 million this year to pursue licensing for the shuttered facility.
At first glance, Nevada looks to be outnumbered in this fight. Spent fuel has been piling up for decades at 61 nuclear power plants around the country, and about one in three Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant, according to 2010 census data.
A new proposal to store nuclear waste underground in southern New Mexico — this time from nuclear reactors across the country — has cleared an initial regulatory hurdle and can now be vetted for detailed safety, security and environmental concerns, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced Thursday.
Federal nuclear regulators said the proposal from Holtec International to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel in southeastern New Mexico is sufficiently complete to begin the technical review process that eventually involves expert testimony and public comment.
Holtec is seeking an initial 40-year license for an underground storage facility that could accept radioactive used fuel piling up at reactors across the United States.
Southern New Mexico already is the site of the nation’s only underground nuclear waste repository that handles radioactive material from decades of bomb-making nuclear research. A 2014 radiation release at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project caused by an inappropriately packed container of waste forced the closer of that facility for three years, with extended repairs estimated to cost more than half a billion dollars.
For the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility, safety advocates have warned of transportation risks associated with moving massive casks of used fuel thousands of miles to New Mexico, and urged the public to speak up about the proposal.
“Up to now, it’s been Holtec talking to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the last 11 months,” said Don Hancock, nuclear programs director for the Southwest Research and Information Center, an Albuquerque-based environmental protection group. “Now the public is going to be able to get involved.”
Many local residents and politicians including New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinezhave voiced support for Holtec’s plans.
In a written notice to Holtec, federal nuclear regulators outlined a series of reviews that could be completed by July 2020 — or be delayed and suspended, based on responses from the company and safety determinations.
Federal officials have long acknowledged that the future of nuclear energy in the U.S. depends on the ability to manage used fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
Since President Donald Trump took office, some members of Congress have shown renewed interested in the mothballed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada as a long-term solution. But the industry has shown support for temporary storage as part of the storage equation because of the amount of time it would take to license a facility at Yucca Mountain.
PSEG canceling nuclear plant spending due to stalled bailout, By: MICHAEL CATALINI, Associated Press
Public Service Enterprise Group said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing dated Wednesday that it will halt the projects at the Salem nuclear plant in southern New Jersey. A spokesman said the spending covered efficiency and reliability maintenance.
PSEG says the decision comes after “recent postponements” of a vote on legislation to provide the financial rescue. The bill, which has undergone several changes and was held during a recent session, includes clean-energy requirements that lawmakers say were sought by Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.
Santee Cooper execs get big bonuses, pay hikes, while nuclear debt mushrooms, The Nerve, February 27, 2018, By RICK BRUNDRETT
As state-owned utility Santee Cooper was racking up billions in debt – which ratepayers are expected to shoulder – for the failed V.C. Summer nuclear project, the company’s top executives were raking in huge bonuses and salary hikes.
More than $4 billion in bonds that were sold to finance the biggest financial flop in the Berkeley County-based utility’s history will have to be paid back with interest over years – to the tune of $200 million to $300 million annually.
But those I.O.U.’s are only part of the company’s overall debt load, which company records show stands at more than $15 billion. That tab will be paid back over 40 years, starting last year with payments totaling nearly a half-billion dollars.
And that means Santee Cooper’s customers likely will face rate hikes – how much is unknown – in the coming years.
Meanwhile, from 2009 through 2016 as the V.C. Summer project costs were escalating and construction deadlines were missed, the utility paid out a total of $5.6 million in bonuses to 15 executives, company records show.
Of the total bonus pool, $70,648 over the eight-year period was directly tied to the nuclear project, more than half of which was paid to recently retired president and CEO Lonnie Carter.
Carter received the highest total annual bonuses; in 2015 and in 2016 he was paid more than $330,000 in bonuses, which represented more than 60 percent of his salary for those years. During the 2009-16 period in which the V.C. Summer project was active, his yearly salary jumped 34 percent, from $404,756 to $540,929.
Besides bonuses, Santee Cooper’s top executives also received, according to a company spokeswoman, annual car allowance and life insurance benefits, which made up their total compensation. The additional perks brought Carter’s total 2016 total compensation to $894,369, a hike of about $377,000 from his 2009 compensation.
The total compensation of seven other top executives in 2016 ranged from $282,811 to $552,133, with nearly all of them receiving increases from the previous year, records show.
And Carter also received a golden parachute with his retirement last year: In addition to receiving $344,572 for life from the state retirement system, he will be paid up to $455,192 annually for 20 years through a separate executive retirement plan with the company, plus had had $858,577 in a 401(k)-type retirement plan through Santee Cooper, according to media reports…….https://thenerve.org/santee-cooper-execs-get-big-bonuses-pay-hikes-while-nuclear-debt-mushrooms/
South end of WIPP to be sealed. But how? Adrian C Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus March 1, 2018 Officials are hoping to seal off the south end of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s underground salt mine, where radiation was accidentally released in 2014, to allay safety concerns and ensure workers have clean air and stable ground in the future.
“Lack of ground control during WIPP’s recovery from incidents in 2014 led to concerns regarding mine stability in this area, reinforced by several rocks falls over several years,” said WIPP spokesman Donavan Mager. “DOE made a decision in late 2016 to close the south end to reduce potential worker risks.”
For better efficiency in sealing off the area, which includes six filled waste disposal panels and supporting access areas, the Department of Energy, which owns WIPP, and Nuclear Waste Partnership, which oversees the facility’s operations, proposed a permit modification through the New Mexico Environment Department to redefine how panels are permanently closed.
A public notice on the proposed modification was issued Friday by NMED, opening a 60-day public comment period until April 23.
The DOE and NWP first submitted a revised modification request to NMED on Nov. 10, 2016, records show, which included adjustments to WIPP’s Panel Closure Plan.
“This permit modification will allow DOE to deliberately and safely withdraw and seal the south end of WIPP,” Mager said. “The change greatly simplifies the process of closing these areas, isolating them from personnel access and eliminating the need for ongoing maintenance, ventilation and ground control.
“The goal is to redefine what has to be done in order to permanently close filled waste disposal areas.”
Originally, WIPP’s permit to seal the panels required the use of 12-foot-thick concrete walls to block off each panel, with a larger structure to prevent any additional airflow or ground movement.
Mager said recent testing indicated the walls were not needed for future closures, and that mined salt could be reused in the disposal process.
Democratic Senator Ed Markey, of Massachusetts, says any deal is “almost certain” to require a non-proliferation accord, known as a “123 agreement,” of the type the United States has previously signed with South Korea and India, and which is designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
“Previous US efforts to conclude a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia have been unsuccessful because of its long-standing refusal to commit to foregoing any uranium enrichment or spent-fuel reprocessing on its territory — the so-called… ‘gold standard’ for 123 agreements,” Markey, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
AFP on Tuesday obtained a copy of the letter, which is dated February 26.
Riyadh plans to announce at the beginning of March its short list of firms which will bid to build its nuclear reactors.
Besides the US company Westinghouse, Russian, French, Chinese and South Korean firms are in the running.
A nuclear accord between Riyadh and Washington would allow US corporations to export their nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, while tensions are high surrounding the civil nuclear program of Riyadh’s regional rival Iran.
US President Donald Trump has threatened to tear up a 2015 global pact under which Iran — facing suspicions it was working towards a nuclear bomb — agreed to curb its nuclear program in exchange for a lifting of sanctions.
Both Washington and Riyadh have complained of Iran’s “destabilizing” acts in the Middle East.
Markey says Saudi Arabia’s “unwillingness” to commit to a “gold standard” 123 agreement “is particularly concerning in light of comments made by Saudi officials and members of the royal family suggesting that a nuclear program may be as much for geopolitical purposes as for electricity generation.”
According to several US media reports, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — the main driver of a more aggressive regional push by the kingdom — is to visit the United States in early March to meet with Trump.
The visit has not been officially confirmed by either country.
Ties between the kingdom and Washington have strengthened since Trump assumed office early last year. His first official trip abroad was to Saudi Arabia, which is trying to diversify its oil-based economy and energy sources.
Talks come as U.S. considers allowing Saudi uranium enrichment
· Energy Secretary Perry delays India trip for visit to London
Energy Secretary Rick Perry will travel to London to discuss nuclear energy with officials from Saudi Arabia on Friday as the Trump administration pursues a deal to build reactors in the kingdom, according to two people familiar with the plans.
Perry scrapped a trip to New Delhi to accommodate meetings at the White House this week, creating an opening for him to lead an inter-agency delegation to London, said the people, who asked not to be named to discuss administration strategy.
The administration is considering permitting Saudi Arabia to enrich and reprocess uranium as part of a deal that would allow Westinghouse Electric Co. and other American companies to build nuclear reactors in the Middle East kingdom.
The meetings in London between Perry and Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Energy and Industry Khalid Bin Abdulaziz Al-Falih are seen as a critical step in months of ongoing discussions over a potential nuclear cooperation agreement, bringing together key deal makers from each country.
Some American agreements with other countries have prohibited the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium in exchange for the use of nuclear technology, and that had scuttled negotiations for Saudi projects during the Obama administration.
16 Power Plants
The administration is mulling whether to ease that requirement now as a way to help Westinghouse and other companies win Saudi contracts. Saudi Arabia plans to construct 16 nuclear power reactors over the next 20 to 25 years at a cost of more than $80 billion, according to the World Nuclear Association.
The Energy Department confirmed the cancellation of Perry’s India trip but a spokesman did not reply to a question about the London talks.
Any agreement they reach must be approved by Congress, which will have 90 days to weigh in. The potential deal has drawn opposition from anti-nuclear proliferation advocates and some lawmakers, such as Senator Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat.
On Monday, Markey asked the Trump administration to detail its efforts to sign a nuclear cooperation agreement with the Saudis and share information about U.S. negotiations with the country.
“Congress remains in the dark about what exactly is being considered, why we may be re-evaluating our nonproliferation objectives and standards, and how and when this information is being conveyed to Saudi Arabia and other countries around the world,” Markey said in a letter to Perry and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is expected to visit the U.S. in March.
By Williams-Grand Canyon News, 27 Feb 18, SUPAI, Ariz. – Vice President Jonathan Nez joined Arizona State Rep. Eric Descheenie and six other runners on a run to the village of Supai Feb. 14 to collect handwritten letters from the students of Havasupai Elementary School.
The letters are addressed to U.S. President Donald Trump in response to speculation that he plans to lift a 20-year ban on uranium mining in the greater Grand Canyon region, which was established by the Obama administration in 2012.
“We came to support the efforts of Representative Eric Descheenie and the Havasupai tribe to elevate the voice of the Havasupai youth.” Vice President Jonathan Nez said. “Their voice needs to be heard, especially on issues that impact their health and way of life.”
“Uranium has killed fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers across the Navajo Nation. It has contaminated the water supply in numerous areas poisoning plants, animals and people. For this reason, mining and transportation of uranium are banned on Diné Bikéyah, said Vice President Nez.
At an assembly held at the school Rep. Descheenie said, “We are going to make sure your words are received and read by the president of the United States so when he makes decisions that impact your lives he does so with you in mind. You have a powerful voice and it must be heard.”
Preparations for a potential reboot of the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository will gather steam this week at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, even though Congress has not funded the storage project.
Kilowatt nuclear reactor could play role in powering manned missions on Mars, Las Vegas Now Patrick Walker Feb 26, 2018 “…….As humans prepare to venture out farther into the final frontier, the name of the game is nuclear fission.
“We had to show NASA that we could do this affordably within a schedule that’s reasonable for them, and that’s the whole basis of this project,” Dr. Poston said.
Dr. Poston is the chief designer of a kilowatt nuclear reactor……..
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5 From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
nuclear-news 
As state-owned utility Santee Cooper was racking up billions in debt – which ratepayers are expected to shoulder – for the failed V.C. Summer nuclear project, the company’s top executives were raking in huge bonuses and salary hikes.
More than $4 billion in bonds that were sold to finance the biggest financial flop in the Berkeley County-based utility’s history will have to be paid back with interest over years – to the tune of $200 million to $300 million annually.
But those I.O.U.’s are only part of the company’s overall debt load, which company records show stands at more than $15 billion. That tab will be paid back over 40 years, starting last year with payments totaling nearly a half-billion dollars.
And that means Santee Cooper’s customers likely will face rate hikes – how much is unknown – in the coming years.
Meanwhile, from 2009 through 2016 as the V.C. Summer project costs were escalating and construction deadlines were missed, the utility paid out a total of $5.6 million in bonuses to 15 executives, company records show.
Of the total bonus pool, $70,648 over the eight-year period was directly tied to the nuclear project, more than half of which was paid to recently retired president and CEO Lonnie Carter.
Carter received the highest total annual bonuses; in 2015 and in 2016 he was paid more than $330,000 in bonuses, which represented more than 60 percent of his salary for those years. During the 2009-16 period in which the V.C. Summer project was active, his yearly salary jumped 34 percent, from $404,756 to $540,929.
Besides bonuses, Santee Cooper’s top executives also received, according to a company spokeswoman, annual car allowance and life insurance benefits, which made up their total compensation. The additional perks brought Carter’s total 2016 total compensation to $894,369, a hike of about $377,000 from his 2009 compensation.
The total compensation of seven other top executives in 2016 ranged from $282,811 to $552,133, with nearly all of them receiving increases from the previous year, records show.
And Carter also received a golden parachute with his retirement last year: In addition to receiving $344,572 for life from the state retirement system, he will be paid up to $455,192 annually for 20 years through a separate executive retirement plan with the company, plus had had $858,577 in a 401(k)-type retirement plan through Santee Cooper, according to media reports…….https://thenerve.org/santee-cooper-execs-get-big-bonuses-pay-hikes-while-nuclear-debt-mushrooms/