Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: US SIGN ON - URGENT! DOE COMMERCIAL/MILITARY LINK
- ---
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:02:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Peace Action - National Office <panukes@igc.apc.org>
Sender: owner-abolition-caucus@igc.org
Subject: US SIGN ON - Urgent!
To: abolition-caucus@igc.org
To : Abolition caucus
From: Brad Morse <bmorse@igc.apc.org> and Bruce Hall <panukes@igc.org>
Please respond to Brad
Subject: tritium sign-on letter
Status: RO
Dear folks
The DOE decision on renewing
production of tritium for nuclear weapons is imminent. As such, Peace
Action and ANA have drafted this letter, asking one more time that
Secretary
Richardson have the courage to recognize our (hopefully) shrinking
nuclear
arsenal and the lack of any real need for tritium, and choose not to
produce
tritium at all. As it appears more and more that DOE is going to make
SOME
decision, and perhaps leaning in the direction of the commercial
reactor
option, we are asking specifically that he not choose that particular
method, on the grounds that doing so would cross the line between
commercial
and military uses of nuclear technology, and would diminish the
position of
the US to further the cause of nuclear non-proliferation.
Because there will be a "public meeting" on Monday night in Tennessee
(see
my earlier message of today) to discuss the commercial production of
tritium
at the Watts Bar or Sequoyah plants, we are looking for sign-ons from
any
and every group by Monday Dec. 14 at noon. We will fax the letter to
Secretary Richardson on Monday, so that it is at DOE Headquarters by
the
time they are having the "meeting" in Tennessee. In addition, we are
looking for ways to get it to Tennessee in time for the "meeting" as
well.
That's it. Please let me know if you can sign on. Thanks all.
Brad
>>>
>>>December xx, 1998
>>>
>>>The Honorable Bill Richardson
>>>Secretary of Energy
>>>Washington, DC
>>>
>>>Dear Secretary Richardson:
>>>
>>>The undersigned organizations, representing thousands of concerned
>>>citizens throughout the country, strongly oppose U.S. plans to
>>>utilize commercial nuclear power plants to produce tritium for
>>>nuclear weapons. In our view, such a plan would blur the line
>>>between civilian and military applications of nuclear power and
>>>thus sets a dangerous precedent from a non-proliferation
>>>standpoint. In addition, further reductions in nuclear arsenals,
>>>supported by your administration and increasingly likely, would
>>>make a new source of tritium unnecessary.
>>>
>>>As you are aware, it has been the long-standing policy of the
>>>United States to separate military and civilian uses of nuclear
>>>technology. We stand behind that policy and continue to believe
>>>that in this area, the United States must make non-proliferation
>>>concerns paramount. Recent revelations that the Indian government
>>>procurred tritium for its nuclear weapons program from Western-
>>>built 'civilian' reactors reinforces our view.
>>>
>>>Section 56e of the Atomic Energy Act forbids special nuclear
>>>material produced in a commercial reactor from being used "for
>>>nuclear explosive purposes." While definitions of "special nuclear
>>>material" do not include tritium, this technicality does not mask
>>>the fact that the Department of Energy plans to use a source of
>>>civilian electricity as a source of materail to boost the
>>>destructive power of the nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. As
>>>a former Ambassador to the United Nations you must be able to
>>>appreciate how apparent contradictions in our nuclear weapons
>>>policies undercut our ability to champion the cause of nuclear non-
>>>proliferation abroad.
>>>
>>>The U.S. timeline for securing a new source of tritium is
>>>based on out-dated thinking in terms of the size of the U.S.
>>>nuclear arsenal. The United States still bases its planning on
>>>maintaining a START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) I arsenal.
>>>Implementation of START II, now pending ratification in the Russian
>>>Duma, will delay the "need" for new tritium until at least
>>>2011 since the tritium from nuclear weapons being retired under the
>>>provisions of the START treaties can be recycled into the nuclear
>>>weapons slated to remain in the arsenal. The lower force levels
>>>envisioned under the broad outlines of START III agreed to by
>>>Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin last year would delay the "need" for
>>>new tritium even further into the 21st Century.
>>>
>>>We are particularly concerned about the prospect of using tax payer
>>>dollars to complete the construction of the Tennessee Valley
>>>Authority's Bellefonte nuclear reactor to produce nuclear weapons
>>>tritium. In addition to the substantial burden this proposal would
>>>present for taxpayers, bringing Bellefonte on-line would add to the
>>>ever growing amount of nuclear waste in the United States. A
>>>problem for which there is no adequate solution.
>>>
>>>We understand that your office is under considerable pressure to
>>>choose between a number of potential tritium sources, each of which
>>>has considerable fiscal or non-proliferation drawbacks. At a time
>>>of emerging consensus on the desirability of significantly reducing
>>>the U.S. nuclear arsenal we urge you to make the courageous
>>>decision of "none of the above" regarding tritium sources. We
>>>stand ready to work with your office on the removal of legislative
>>>language forcing the United States to maintain a massive Cold War-
>>>sized arsenal.
>>>
>>>The United States does not need to move forward with a new tritium
>>>program that will waste further taxpayer dollars and has the
>>>potential to undercut long-standing non-proliferation policy.
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>>
********************************
Brad Morse
Program Assistant
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
1801 18th St., NW
Suite 9-2
Washington, DC 20009
www.ananuclear.org
ph:(202) 833-4668 fax:(202) 234-9536
- -
To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com"
with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
"help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 20:18:02 -0600 (CST)
From: smirnowb@ix.netcom.com (Robert Smirnow)
Subject: (abolition-usa) Fwd: FLOATING CHERNOBYLS[?] IN SAN DIEGO BAY
- ----
To: Robert Smirnow <smirnowb@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: S.D./nukenavy
Subject:
Floating Chernobyls in San Diego Bay
Date:
Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:24:17 -0800
From:
Laura Hunter <ehcoalition@igc.apc.org>
Organization:
Environmental Health Coalition
To:
envirovideo@earthlink.net
ACTION ALERT AND STATUS REPORT ON
THE NUCLEARIZATION OF SAN DIEGO AND THE FUTURE AIRCRAFT CARRIER FLEET
Environmental Health Coalition (EHC ) would like to raise the following
recent Nuclear Navy activity to the attention of activists in the
country and seek your support. The continued strangle-hold of the
Naval
Reactors Office over the Navy is being played out in San Diego in form
of the Nuclear Megaport Project in San Diego Bay. As devastating as
this project is for San Diego, it also has serious implications for the
nation. The construction of multiple nuclear repair facilities,
dredging of San Diego Bay, construction of what are essentially two
in-bay waste landfills (one with hazardous waste), the siting of
combined nuclear power that far exceeds a commercial reactor in the
middle of a densely populated area (up to 18 separate reactors), and
construction of multiple waste treatment and storage facilities
including a mini-Ward Valley complete the picture of San Diego as the
nation's newest Naval Nuclear Sacrifice Zone.
Add to this, the recent decision of the Defense Acquisition Board that
the next generation of aircraft carriers, the CVX generation, will be
nuclear powered and the problem expands to impact many communities.
All
of this because Naval Reactors has the Navy is on a nuclear treadmill
and refuses to let it off, even when the opportunity to do so presents
itself.
We are requesting that supporters call Secretary Richard Danzig.
Please request that he:
1) direct his staff and project directors to conduct a new DEIS and
environmental analysis that fully, accurately, and comprehensively
assesses the entire Nuclear Carrier Megaport Project and,
2) stay the decision of the Defense Acquisition Board to make the CVX
generation of carriers nuclear-powered until a full environmental and
economic assessment can be completed on the entire nuclear home porting
program, and a solution is determined for current and future
generations
of carriers?a solution that meets the Navy mission and poses the least
threat to human health and the environment.
3) meet with local San Diego community members to hear directly about
their concerns.
Please call or write:
Secretary Richard Danzig
Secretary of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon
Room 4E686
Washington D.C. 20350-1000
(703) 695-3131
BACKGROUND
1. A new complete, accurate, and comprehensive environmental analysis
should be conducted prior to the final nuclear home porting and
propulsion decisions.
Current Status of the Nuclear Megaport in San Diego
The Navy has already successfully implemented many of the necessary
elements of the Nuclear Megaport. It strategically divided the
environmental impacts of the project into 5 different assessments,
severely segmenting the impacts. Only one of seven public hearings was
held in San Diego. None of the hearings was attended by the official
that made the decision on the document or the permit i.e. the public
has
yet to speak to a decision-maker about any aspect of this project. A
clear violation of democratic principles. The Navy self-certifies its
NEPA documents and then self-regulates the most dangerous aspects of
the
project from afar (Puget Sound Naval Shipyard regulates the
radiological
aspects of the project). We are left as an occupied community without
access to decision makers or any voice in our future. The most recent
environmental document was the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Developing Home Port Facilities for Three NIMITZ-Class Aircraft
Carriers
in Support of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (DEIS). The public comment period
closed on November 12, 1998.
Seven Independent Technical Experts agree?the DEIS is fatally flawed
The DEIS is a highly flawed document and is unsuitable for determining
impacts on the community. Both EHC and the City of Coronado hired
multiple technical experts to conduct an independent review of the
DEIS. All came to the same conclusion?the DEIS is fatally flawed and
needs to be redone and reissued.
To quote from the City of Coronado's letter "...the City of Coronado
has determined that the Navy's DEIS is so inadequate as to preclude
meaningful analysis, and therefore demands that a revised DEIS be
prepared..." Our technical experts' review supported this conclusion.
In general, the all of the consultants that reviewed other aspects of
the DEIS all found that the information was deficient and did not allow
for independent verification.
Unfortunately, the Navy certifies its own environmental documents.
The DEIS should be redone and recirculated before any final decision is
made.
2. The recent decision for a nuclear CVX places San Diego and other
communities at additional risks without benefit of any environmental
analysis.
The recent decision of the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) that the
next generation of aircraft carriers, the CVX generation will be
nuclear
powered expands and extends the impact to ours and other communities.
There has been no environmental review process of this significant
decision of which we are aware or have been notified. The development
and construction of new, long-term nuclear technology has a myriad of
environmental impacts, all of which impact communities and all of which
need to be analyzed in the public arena.
The GAO report, Navy Aircraft Carriers: Cost-Effectiveness of
Conventionally and Nuclear Powered Carriers, finds nuclear propulsion
costly and unnecessary to meet Navy mission
One of the largest failings of the DEIS is that it did not assess the
impacts of the entire nuclear home porting project or reflect current
information. In the DEIS the Navy concludes that "Nuclear propulsion
significantly enhances the military capability of aircraft carriers" .
However, this has recently been disproved. An August, 1998 Government
Accounting Office (GAO) report revealed that nuclear powered carriers
(CVN) offer no discernible advantages compared to conventionally
powered
carriers (CV). This report contains significant new information that
should be reflected in the environmental analysis. The GAO report
considered several issues related to the CVN nuclear propulsion and
found, after very thorough analysis, that the CVNs are far more
expensive to operate and maintain, costing in excess of $8 billion
more,
and could cause problems with forward deployment of carriers in the
Pacific region. The $8 billion figure is very understated. For
example, the GAO admits that waste will be dangerous for thousands of
years yet it only included the cost of 100 years of waste storage on
the
nuclear tab.
The GAO also found that conventional carriers spend less time in
maintenance and can be available sooner for a large scale crisis
because
it is easier to accelerate or compress their maintenance schedules.
The
GAO's analysis also demonstrates that a force of 12 conventional
carrier
groups can provide a greater level of overseas presence than can a
larger nuclear carrier force of 13 carriers.
Further, acquisition costs of a nuclear carrier are twice as expensive
and mid-life modernization (refueling/refurbishing) is at least three
times as expensive (compare $866 million with $2.4 billion).
Deactivation is almost 20 times more costly ($52 million compared to
$955 million) due to the costs of removing nuclear contaminated
equipment and spent fuel. We would also add to the list all the other
associated health and environmental problems of nuclear reactors.
The bottom line is that the GAO's analysis shows that conventionally
powered carriers can meet the Navy's mission and strategic needs at a
significantly lower life-cycle cost. It is clear that the pursuit of
non-nuclear propulsion for the next generation of carriers would avoid
significant costs and could protect public health and the
environment--all without compromising military readiness.
But, the DAB has sealed our fate without any public input
In spite of the findings of this study, in September, just one month
after the release of the GAO report, the Defense Acquisition Board met
and sealed our fate with a single decision about the CVX carriers?that
they would be nuclear (Jane's Defence Weekly October 8,1998, US future
carriers will be nuclear-powered) . As far as we know, this commitment
of (at a minimum) $40 billion tax dollars and related health and
environmental costs was made without any public input. The
considerable
cost of mining, hauling, operations, and thousands of years of waste
storage of the deadly nuclear materials was not even considered or
debated in a public forum. This action on the part of the DAB appears
to continue the Naval Reactors' pursuit of a larger nuclear program
than
we need at the expense of democracy and public and environmental
health. There is no reason why San Diego and the rest of the nation
should have to support naval reactors that we can't afford, don't need,
and that, in fact, put our lives and the health of our communities at
risk. This decision impacts not only San Diego where the carriers may
ultimately end up, but also the many communities that are impacted by
the mining, transport of dangerous waste, construction of nuclear
reactors, re-fueling and de-fueling, and storage of the waste.
The Navy has an option, and an obligation, to turn away from a nuclear
propulsion in the future carriers
It is clear that the Navy could turn away from nuclear-propulsion in
aircraft carriers without sacrificing military readiness or storage.
One such credible design for a new conventional carrier can be found in
a document from the Defense Technical Information Center titled A Short
Take Off, Vertical Landing Carrier, S-CVX.(DTIC # ADA345638). This
carrier design holds 60 aircraft while using a smaller personnel group
with smaller size and conventional power. The recent Defense
Acquisition Board decision to pursue a nuclear CVX should be set aside
so that other alternatives should be analyzed and so should recent
decisions by DOD to put more money into research and development for a
nuclear CVX. An environmental impact study of this decision should be
conducted. Use of conventionally powered CVX carriers could greatly
reduce the threat to public safety and the environment in the future
from this project, could save money, and is a reasonable alternative.
Community Opposition in San Diego
EHC continues to strongly fight the Navy's plans to home port three
nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with related repair and waste storage
facilities in San Diego Bay. As the Navy's plans have expanded people
have become increasingly concerned about the impacts of this project.
On October 28, the Navy held its first public hearing in San Diego on
the project which was attended by an overflow crowd of almost 300
people. In addition, over 1000 people from residents in 31 different
communities have requested that they be on the record as opposing the
project.
In addition, the Navy paid no attention to the environmental justice
issues of this project, preferring rather to confine the "area of
impact" to Coronado, a wealthy, white community directly adjacent to
the
base. This exclusionary strategy was borne out in the public hearings.
Although almost 100 of those in attendance at the hearing were from the
primarily Spanish-speaking, downwind communities of Barrio Logan,
National City, and Sherman Heights, there was no translation available
at the hearing and none of the documentation was produced in Spanish,
even though it had been requested by San Diego Mayor Susan Golding.
The
DEIS dismisses the idea that downwind communities will be impacted and
continues to consider Coronado the only impacted community. The DEIS
does little to address the issues of exposure through fish consumption
or toxic or radiological air releases.
The day after the hearing, several hundred people called the office of
the Secretary of the Navy requesting an audience with him in San Diego
to hear our concerns about the project. Although he visited San Diego
two days after his appointment, no contact with community residents was
made.
We urge supporters to help us by writing and calling
Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig
Secretary of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon
Room 4E686
Washington D.C. 20350-1000
(703) 695-3131
Please request that he:
1) direct his staff and project directors to conduct a new DEIS that
fully, accurately, and comprehensively assesses the entire Nuclear
Megaport Project and,
2) stay the decision if the Defense Acquisition Board to make the CVX
generation of carriers nuclear-powered until a full environmental and
economic assessment can be completed on the entire nuclear home porting
program, and then a solution is determined for current and future
generations of carriers?a solution that meets the Navy mission and
poses the least threat to human health and the environment.
3) meet with local community members to hear from the community
directly about their concerns.
This is issue is being significantly under covered in the media.
Compared to the massive opposition by California elected officials and
extensive media coverage on Ward Valley, this presence of up to 18
nuclear reactors and a mini-Ward valley (self-regulated no less) in the
middle of the nation's 6th largest city goes, apparently, unnoticed.
Elected officials, for the most part, will not get involved.
This nuclearization of San Diego will ensure a continued nuclear
future
for the nation with all the attendant risks. We are seeking your help
so
that we can break the choke-hold of Naval Reactors over the Navy and
turn back the nuclear CVX decision.
We would greatly appreciate hearing from any one who has information on
these or related issues.
Please call or email me with any questions or information. We will
keep
you posted.
Laura Hunter, Director
Clean Bay Campaign
Environmental Health Coalition
ehcoalition@igc.org
(619) 235-0281
FAX (619) 232-3670
- -
To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com"
with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
"help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 22:15:32 -0800
From: Shundahai Network <shundahai@shundahai.org>
Subject: (abolition-usa) U.S. Subcritical conducted at 2pm, 12/11
Dear friends, we are sad to announce that the U.S. Subcritical Nuclear Weapons Test "Cimerron" was conducted today, Dec 11, at 2pm Pacific Standard Time. Thank you to all those around the world that have demonstrated and sent letters against these tests.!
