[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: P2 and National Security



Burt, et al.--

The discussion of hazardous materials safety and security is probably the 
most acute and direct connection to national security and should probably be 
a major focus Burt's colleague and their workshop.  Also mentioned was 
national vulnerability to energy shocks.

Let me add a couple of other items.

1) DOD has an interest in energy efficiency and clean energy not only for 
reasons of environmental stewardship (and compliance with laws, regs, and 
Executive Orders) but also for logistical and tactical reasons.

Logistical reasons: Fuel represents something like 70% of the weight for 
resupplying a heavy Army division or about 40% for a lighter division.  
Although the Navy has at-sea replenishment capability, fuel is an important 
limiting factor for deployment length (part of why USS Cole was in Yemen when 
it was attacked). And of course Air Force activities are fuel-intensive.  So 
DOD is interested in fuel cells, hybrid vehicles, some end-use efficiency and 
the like in order to reduce its logistic "tail."

Tactical reasons:  There's some DOD work on fuel cells, hybrids,and low 
emissions vehicles in order that they be more stealthy--reduced noise and 
emissions and, perhaps, thermal signature.  Same with field generation of 
power for field hospitals, headquarters units, etc.  The Navy and Coast Guard 
are thinking about future all electric vessels, which could avoid some of the 
shafts, hydraulics, and other mechanical systems that may stand in the way of 
optimal placement of weapons, sensors, and other systems.  Also, distributed 
power generation onboard improves survivability of systems--if one part of a 
ship is hit, systems in another section may still be functional if they have 
their own power.

There's more but that's a thumbnail sketch of why P2 in the form of energy 
efficiency is of defense interest.

2)  Like the civilian industrial sector, the DOD industrial sector benefits 
from P2.  Many or most of you probably know the cases better than I do and 
have consulted the Joint Service P2 Library, the Joint Group-Pollution 
Prevention (JG-PP) project, SERDP/ESTCP, and other DOD P2 resources.  The 
benefits of P2 are not only environmental and monetary but at times (but not 
always, and not inherently so) can include productivity/throughput and, thus, 
readiness.  
	One example is from an Army depot that overhauls vehicles.  By moving from 
lengthy chemical baths and a couple of hours of manual buffing to sodium 
bicarbonate blasting and aqueous powerwashing, the depot reduced time needed 
to clean up an engine block by half or more, thus making vehicles more 
quickly available for use in the field.

Anyway, my 2 cents on an interesting topic.  I hope it's helpful Burt.

Rodney Sobin
Innovative Technology Manager
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10009				629 E.Main St.
Richmond VA 23240-0009		Richmond VA 23219-2429
rsobin@deq.state.va.us
Tel. 804-698-4382	
Fax 804-698-4264
http://www.deq.state.va.us
---------- Original Text ----------

From: "Illig, Richard" <rillig@state.pa.us>, on 12/11/2001 8:11 AM:
To: SMTP@RCHMD.01@Servers["'Shupe, Kevin'" <KSHU461@ECY.WA.GOV>]
Cc: SMTP@RCHMD.01@Servers["'P2TECH'" 
<p2tech@great-lakes.net>],SMTP@RCHMD.01@Servers["Foreman, William" 
<wforeman@state.pa.us>],SMTP@RCHMD.01@Servers["Young, James" 
<jamyoung@state.pa.us>]

Kevin,
 
In your response to Burt you mentioned the following..."The Anarchists
Cookbook provides a checklist for raids on high school labs;"
 
Is this a figurative expression (I'm hoping), or have you actually seen some
publication or website where that specific topic is discussed?  Although
many of us may have heard this sort of thing, I never looked for
documentation to prove the point.
 
Schools are hesitant to acknowledge that chemical storerooms could be an
issue for students let alone a tool for radical groups.  Any publication or
website that discusses the potential, or provide an actual chemical
"shopping list", could actually serve as a tool in educating school
personnel that a very real danger does exist and, to some extent, exactly
what chemicals to avoid.  In other words, perhaps the "terrorists-types"
have performed some useful work which we can use to our advantage.  
 
I hesitate to use or advertise negative examples to make a case for
improvement, but in this instance I think I'd re-consider.  If terrorist
websites or publications can serve to pave the way for more schools to get
involved in the program, maybe it would be good to arm ourselves with a few
of the terrorist's "tools" for a change.  Studying their websites may
provide much of what we need to know.
 
Comments from others would be appreciated.  Thanks, Ric 
 
   
 
    
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shupe, Kevin [mailto:KSHU461@ECY.WA.GOV]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:59 PM
To: Burton Hamner; p2tech; ECDM; AP CP List
Subject: RE: P2 and National Security


Hey Burt, I agree that reducing toxics and other hazardous materials is
probably one of the biggest advantages to reconcile P2 with security issues.
Along with reducing the materials is knowing what you have.  Maintaining an
inventory of your hazardous materials is another way of being proactive in
maintaining good security.  The Anarchists Cookbook provides a checklist for
raids on high school labs; one of the reasons this is suggested, is that
school labs don't know what they have.  An active inventory can provide some
advance that something may be amiss. 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Burton Hamner [mailto:bhamner@cleanerproduction.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 5:06 PM
To: p2tech; ECDM; AP CP List
Subject: P2 and National Security
 
Hello all.  I am doing some thinking about Pollution Prevention and national
security at request of a colleague and also for a workshop in March.  Is
there an obvious connection?  Or some more subtle ones?  Here are some of my
thoughts:
 
- Toxics reduction:  P2 can mean fewer toxic chemicals around for people to
make trouble with.
 
- Minimum requirements for resources:  P2 can reduce the amount of water and
energy that people need to get by, so they are less vulnerable perhaps in
event of disruption of supply.  Reducing use also makes distributed
generation of power and clean water more feasible so systems have fewer
vulnerable points.
 
- Carbohydrate chemistry and chemical substitutions and reduction can reduce
the need for imported oil (tho this is hardly likely to make any
difference).
 
Does anyone have other ideas to share?  It may be that this is all just
reaching a little too far for relevance to national security.  But that's
what listservs are for - reaching way far!
 
Thanks
Burt Hamner
bhamner@cleanerproduction.com <mailto:bhamner@cleanerproduction.com>