In Uranium Mining Study, Ensure Independence

The Virginian-Pilot
© April 1, 2009

Every aspect of a study on uranium mining is going to be radioactive, and that's particularly true for the money needed to fund the project.

The best option would be for the state to underwrite the $1 million-plus needed to guarantee a thorough analysis by the respected National Academy of Sciences. But a 119-million-pound deposit of uranium in Pittsylvania County was too hot for state legislators, who refused to fund a study determining whether it could be mined safely.

Virginia Uranium Inc., a firm established by two families whose properties contain the deposit, has offered to stroke a check, raising concerns that the study's outcome would be tainted by a less-than-objective sponsor.

Environmental and citizens groups that object to the project have been criticized because they won't contribute to the cause. That's a cynical ploy to discredit organizations with legitimate interests in the process.

Those groups aren't sitting on a pile of uranium ore with an estimated value of at least $7 billion. They have no financial stake in a mine, just a reasonable concern over its effect on public safety. And they certainly aren't the ones pressing the state to allow uranium mining after a 25-year ban.

The reality is there's only one stakeholder with the means and the motivation to make this study happen, and that's Virginia Uranium Inc. That should make state officials uncomfortable, but they can at least put safeguards in place to preserve some semblance of propriety.

The company should be required to turn over the full amount for the study up front, rather than parsing it out over the course of the research. There should be no potential for funds to dry up if preliminary results aren't to Virginia Uranium's liking.

The awkward financial arrangement demands a careful step-by-step analysis to ensure that public safety is paramount. If mining and milling of the ore pose a threat to local wells and nearby Lake Gaston, the primary source of drinking water for Virginia Beach, that danger should be identified and disclosed before researchers begin examining the mine's economic viability.

That doesn't mean economics should be ignored. Under current market conditions, the Pittsylvania deposit may be the only feasible site for a mine. If ore prices skyrocket, however, communities as far away as Fauquier County could become candidates for mining operations. If the state were to end its moratorium on uranium mining, the decision would affect the entire commonwealth, not just Pittsylvania, and the study must recognize that fact.

Questions about the financing and scope of the study are making for an uneasy start to what will be at least an 18-month process. The only way to soothe those anxieties is for state officials to make sure the analysis is thorough and transparent.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/uranium-mining-study-ensure-independence

New Proposal Would Help Sick Nuclear Workers

Mar 31, 2009 2:39 PM
By KRISTEN WYATT, AP

DENVER (Map, News) - A Colorado senator is taking another crack at helping sick nuclear workers who say they were poisoned from their jobs at Cold War-era nuclear weapons sites.

But the bill introduced Tuesday by Democratic Sen. Mark Udall expected to cost $2 billion, and with few federal dollars to go around it's unclear whether the long-proposed idea will succeed.

Udall insists it's time to revive attempts to cut red tape for thousands of people sickened after working at nuclear sites such as Rocky Flats northwest of Denver, which made plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads until it was closed almost 20 years ago.

"It's a new time, and there's a new focus on doing the right thing here," Udall told reporters when asked whether the proposal he'd brought unsuccessfully while in the House had a shot.

Udall's proposal would lessen the burden for sick workers to prove their cancers were caused by work at the sites, instead forcing the government to defend claims. Estimates say the changes could cost $2 billion.

Families of sick nuclear workers complain that despite federal promises to assist them, victims face too many roadblocks trying to prove their claims. Some 167,000 claims have been filed to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, most of them unpaid or still pending.

"It was just on and on and on, and it seemed to be never-ending," said Kathy Wolf, whose husband Charlie worked at Rocky Flats and died of brain cancer.

Kathy Wolf is an engineer who also worked at Rocky Flats, though she hasn't gotten sick. She told reporters Tuesday that getting money from the program requires too much from sick workers.

For example, she said, workers are asked to prove levels of exposure or give detailed lists of what they touched over the years, something workers themselves may not have known on classified projects.

"Think about the poor widow who had no clue because of the secrecy [about] what her spouse was doing," Kathy Wolf said.

Similar proposals to speed payment to sick workers, though, have stalled for years. Bills were pushed unsuccessfully by former Colorado Sens. Ken Salazar and Wayne Allard, and several congressional hearings have been held on the problem. Congress moved the fund from the Department of Energy to the Department of Labor in 2004, but worker complaints persist.

Udall and other proponents are hoping the new administration and fresh plea for justice will improve the bill's chances.

"You're talking about a group of workers who are really Cold War veterans. They defended our nation," said Marissa Padilla, spokeswoman for Democratic New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall, cousin to Mark Udall and a co-sponsor of the bill.

Another attempt to reform the payouts to nuclear workers is also likely this year in the House. Despite years of failure, Mark Udall seemed optimistic Tuesday that this would be the year the nuclear payout system is finally reformed.

"It's time to act," he said. "Enough is enough."

http://www.examiner.com/a-1935191~New_proposal_would_help_sick_nuclear_workers.html

The Nuclear Goliath: Confronting Industrial Energy

Written by Frank Joseph Smecker

Monday, 30 March 2009

Lately, many may have heard the affable radio jingles for nuclear energy as a clean and reliable candidate to supplant the U.S.’s reliance on foreign fossil fuels. This is sheer, malignant propaganda. Nuclear energy, along with its requisite mining, is not only unsustainable to a high degree, but is, in all aspects, violently rapacious as it dissolves the planet’s fecundity and ultimately encumbers the creation of life for generations to come. It is imperative that nuclear is removed from the lexicon of domestic energy policy and that we, as a people, consider alternative energy options while significantly reducing our consumption levels.

From its inception through mining processes to enrichment, fission, and post-fission, nuclear energy supplies the human race with more destructive waste than energy. A typical 1,000 megawatt plant produces roughly 500 pounds of plutonium and 20-30 tons of high-level radioactive waste annually. There is no known safe and secure way to dispose of the waste. The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life (e.g., the half-life of Plutonium-239 is 24,000 years). The hazardous life of a radioactive element--that being the amount of time needed before the element stops posing a significant risk to people’s mortal health--is at least 10 half-lives; that means plutonium-239 will remain deadly for at least 240,000 years.

DU (depleted uranium, U-238) has a half-life of 4.5 billion years--its hazardous life is uncertain. Despite there being no known safe and secure riddance of the material, the U.S. has made over 1 billion tons of DU for its own "practical" use. DU is used in armor-piercing incendiaries and has been released over Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia. According to research done by the World Health Organization (WHO), DU emits an ionizing radiation responsible for irreversible DNA and genetic damage, and ultimately cancer, an assortment of lethal lung/kidney diseases, and/or death; not to mention its fallout rings the globe by way of the jet streams above.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis have been maimed and infants born with deformed limbs or without heads--by the incessant U.S. aerial deployment of DU since the first Gulf War and beyond. Despite the Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI) egregious claim that nuclear energy is safe and "green" with zero emissions, analysis proves otherwise. In fact, the nuclear industry is a large contributor to the greenhouse gas aggregate and global warming. The mining of uranium is especially intensive in emitting CO2, alongside a stringent reliance on diesel fuel to operate the machinery. Considering as well the mining of uranium, fuel enrichment, and plant construction combined to culminate an operating facility, the equivalent of 34-60 grams of CO2 are emitted per kilowatt of energy (from each operational facility).

In 2007 the U.S.’s total generation of energy from nuclear fission was 806.5 billion kWh (kilowatt hours). That equals anywhere from 27,421 billion to 48,390 billion grams of CO2 released into the atmosphere in that year alone. The global emissions are much starker, ranging anywhere from 90,429.8 billion to 159,582 billion grams of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Once again, these numbers will only climb drastically with demand. In order to replace the entire world’s fossil fuels, more than 2,000 new nuclear facilities would have to be built--an endeavor that would assail the ecology of the planet and its people.

Right alongside critical postulations are the potential concerns surrounding spent fuel cooling pools. According to information attained from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCSUSA), these 45-feet deep, 100,000 gallon lead and/or steel-lined concrete pools are necessary for retaining the high-level radioactive spent fuel rods that generate intense heat. Powered by diesel generators, the pools are continually cooled while pumps circulate the water from the spent fuel pools to heat exchangers back to the spent fuel pools, and round and round. There is also the monitoring of the air and water in order to prevent radiolysis (the dissociation of molecules) so that hydrogen gas will not escape, threatening explosion. Without cooling, the pool water will heat up and boil. If that water boils away, the spent fuel assemblies will overheat, melt, or catch fire. If this is all maintained by diesel generators, then peak-oil presents a more precarious than anticipated situation for us all.

In addition, the deleterious effects of uranium mining imposed on the environment have been felt worldwide--from Saskatchewan all the way to Rum Jungle in Australia, which is perhaps the world’s worst case of negligent mining.

Uranium mining is culpable for radiological contamination of the environment and for impacting groundwater systems. It requires approximately a ton of ore to extract two pounds of uranium. The leftover debris is known as uranium tailings ("for each ton of uranium oxide approximately 40,000 tons of tailings remain behind") and they contain 85 percent of the original radioactivity of the ore. These tailings are comprised of alpha-emitting substances such as thorium-230 (half-life of 80,000 years), radium-226, radon-222, lead-210, polonium-210, etc. The tailings emit at least 10,000 times more radon gas than does the undisturbed ore. Radon gas can travel 1,000 miles in a day and can deposit on vegetation, soil, and water.

The above mentioned radium-226, ubiquitous in uranium tailings, is a highly lethal "bone-seeking" alpha-emitting carcinogen with a half-life of 1,600 years. This element is "blown in the wind, washed by the rain, and leached into waterways" from the tailings. It concentrates by factors of thousands in aquatic plants and by the hundreds in terra plants. Radon gas from inoperative mines and abandoned tailings can be culpable for radioactive contamination not only on a continental level, but on a global basis as well. The rate of cancer deaths in Windham County in Vermont has risen to 5.7 percent above the national average. Entergy’s Yankee nuclear plant is situated alongside the Connecticut River in Vernon, which is in Windham County.

It is, by far, the indigenous peoples of the world who have most felt the encroaching and damaging effects of the nuclear industry. The aboriginals of Australia, perhaps the oldest human cultures of any still in existence, are threatened daily by the encroachment of uranium mining and the deadly legacy of uranium tailings.

In the U.S., the land surrounding Yucca Mountain (a proposed nuclear waste repository and current weapons testing site) is not U.S. territory, but legally belongs to the Shoshone Nation (despite U.S. gold-mining in the area, which is destructive of the land and people).

In Canada, ten lakes within the Lake Huron region are now radioactive waste sites due to uranium mining. Uranium mined from Elliot Lake in Ontario was used for U.S. nuclear weapons and the area is now infecund, emitting dangerous levels of radiation, immiserating the Northern Ojibwa peoples.

Read the rest of this lengthy but informative article here: http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1552/1/

Energy Dept. Boosts Clean up of Uranium Tailings

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

The U.S. Energy Department has allocated $108 million in economic stimulus aid for removing the 16 million ton radioactive tailings pile on the Colorado River near Moab, Utah.

Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, said Tuesday the funding commitment shows that the Energy Department is trying to meet a 2019 cleanup deadline. As recently as February, the department maintained the cleanup would not be finished before 2028, he said.

The money will help remove an extra 2 million tons of tailings by 2011 — the end of the current five-year removal contract. That will be accomplished by adding more rail cars and more rail shipments from the former Atlas Mineral Corp. site near Moab to a disposal site about 30 miles away.

Shipments are set to begin in April.

The waste is part of a Cold War legacy in Moab, where rich uranium deposits were mined during the 1950s for nuclear weapons. The Atlas Minerals Corp. bought the mill in 1962. It closed in 1984 but left behind the heap of tailings on the banks of the Colorado River.

Matheson and other lawmakers worked to convince the Energy Department that the massive pile should be moved away from the river's banks, rather than capped. The final environmental impact decision adopting that action was issued in 2005.

The overall cost of the cleanup is estimated at $1 billion.

"There is overwhelming scientific evidence that this site is unstable and that the contamination already migrating under the river towards the town of Moab could, with one major flood event, be dumped into the Colorado (River)," Matheson said in a statement.

The river is a source of drinking water for 50 million people, including residents of Arizona, California and Nevada.

Despite the legacy of the Atlas tailings pile, there has been renewed interest in uranium mining and processing, driven by speculation that efforts to combat climate change will reinvigorate the nuclear power industry.

The first application since 1988 for a uranium processing facility was filed in October with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Since then, the NRC has received at least 27 applications for facilities in Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, Arizona and New Mexico. Utah, Colorado and Texas have their own oversight agencies.

More than 1,100 uranium mining claims have been filed for sites within five miles of the Grand Canyon in recent years.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/31/state/n101516D82.DTL&type=science

Dr. Toohey’s Column Missed a Lot of Important Facts, Problems

Dr. Brugge spoke at a public presentation in Chatham on the evening of Saturday, Nov. 8, 2008 regarding studies, including his own, on the effects of uranium mining and milling on human health. That morning, he spoke at an invitational event in Danville to a group of community leaders and officials. His appearances were sponsored by the Dan River Basin Association. More information on those events can be found here: http://www.uranium2008.blogspot.com/

Now he's written a response to Dr. Richard Toohey's remarks that appeared in the Danville Register & Bee on March 8, 2009. That Guest Editorial can be found here:

http://sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com/2009/03/understanding-uraniums-benefits-and.html

Published: March 29, 2009

Danville Register & Bee

To the editor:
I would like to respond to some of the comments recently published in your newspaper by Richard E. Toohey, president of the Health Physics Society, “Understanding the benefits, balancing the risks,” (March 8, page A11).

In his column, Toohey makes a number of claims that, while narrowly true, manage to distort a fair discussion of the issues.

The first example is his claim that nuclear energy is “carbon free.” In fact, this is true only if you look at the nuclear reaction itself. The mining, milling and processing of uranium into fuel for use in a nuclear power plant produce plenty of carbon dioxide. So does the building of a nuclear plant. And, of course, the remediation of the mines and mills and the disassembly of the plant itself and long-term disposal and storage of the high-level radioactive waste also consume energy and produce greenhouse gases. The level of this problem is less than with coal, but is not non-existent; and, should we have to mine lower and lower grade ore as we deplete higher grade deposits, the problem could increase dramatically.

A second example is his claim that no new radioactivity will be produced at the site. Technically this is true. The uranium and other isotopes in the ore are already there. If anything, mining will remove some of them. But that is not the real concern. Mining the ore will bring radioactive materials currently underground to the surface and has the potential, as has been the case elsewhere in the United States and around the world, to spread those materials around in the environment to an extent that they would not be if they were left alone. To date I have never seen a mining operation that did not leave copious contamination and environmental impact.

Third, Toohey talks a lot about trade-off of benefits and costs and cites power generation and production using U.S. natural resources as benefits. My understanding is that the nuclear industry has only been viable in the United States because of huge subsidies from taxpayers. But that aside, and addressing aspects I know more about, nuclear power is not clean in the sense of producing no toxic waste. In fact, the biggest problem that nuclear energy currently faces in the U.S. is that there is no approved storage site for the large qualities of high-level waste that are produced already. The Yucca Mountain site may never be approved.

What are we going to do with all this high-level waste we already have, let alone tons more that could be generated? Perhaps we could reprocess it, but there are problems that come with that option, including fears of contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation. And, if reprocessing is the answer, then it is an alternative to mining, not an argument for more mining. The bottom line is that nuclear energy has been neither cheap nor clean.

Finally, let me point out, as I did when I gave a talk in Pittsylvania County on the subject, that the focus solely on radiation hazards is misguided.

There are numerous chemical hazards associated with uranium mining, as well as radioactive concerns. While radon is a highly potent lung carcinogen, uranium itself is primarily a heavy metal toxin, more similar to lead or mercury. Perhaps it is not as exotic as radiation, but uranium is quite capable of causing kidney damage, birth defects and possibly estrogenic (feminizing) effects. Uranium ore also frequently contains other highly toxic, though non-radioactive, contaminants.

The upshot, from my perspective, is that the history (which some people want to forget or have you forget) is that uranium mining has left a miserable record of damage to workers, communities and the environment for more than 50 years. The onus is on the proponents of uranium mining to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will not continue the legacy from the past into the future. Arguments such as those ofToohey that seem to play with words to sound reassuring are, if anything, quite the opposite.

DOUG BRUGGE

Associate Professor

Tufts University Boston

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/letters_to_the_editor_for_monday_march_29_2009/10025/

Get Wired for Progress! Virtual March for Green Energy!

It's time to get serious about energy! Congress is working on proposals to rebuild our energy infrastructure, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and invest heavily in green energy. This is good news for our economy, for our planet, and for each and every one of us. There are three things you can do to help: 1. Mobilize for Action - Sign up TODAY Pickens Plan Virtual March on Washington. Join millions April 1-3 Tell Congress and the White House to take real action now. 2. Learn the Facts - Read Wired for Progress and learn why a smart grid is needed to solve our energy and climate problems. 3. Spread the Word - Tell everyone you know to join the march and read the report by posting the web badge below onto your website, profile or blog, or on your friends' profiles or blogs.
Thanks for fueling the new progressive movement, Alan and the I Am Progress team

I Am Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the sister advocacy organization of the Center for American Progress. CAP Action transforms progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world. The Action Fund is also the home of the Progress Report and Think Progress, the blog that pushes back daily.

Unsubscribe | Donate

http://www.iamprogress.org/page/page/show?id=2210265%3APage%3A6901

Nuclear Regulators to Review Environmental Modelling for Radiation Safety

While this is not a brand-new article, it was sent to us just today by a reader. It seems pertinent. Thus we are publishing it.

Source: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Published Jan. 26, 2009

Issues of radiation safety and environmental protection go hand in hand. At the IAEA last week, experts from 40 countries examined the transfer of radionuclides to plant and animal life, to improve how risks are assessed and ultimately reduced. 'All nuclear facilities and uranium mines, in their day-to-day activities, release some amount of radioactive effluents into the environment, transferring to the food chain, the air you breathe or to the water you drink,' says Didier Louvat, Head of the IAEA´s Waste and Environmental Safety Section. ”Of course, before governments give authorisation for a nuclear power plant to operate or for mining to take place, they have to assess the risk these releases can pose to the public and to the environment.'

The IAEA has been working with nuclear safety organizations from various countries for decades to streamline the way such risks are assessed. It regularly hosts sessions through a programme called Environmental Modelling for Radiation Safety (EMRAS). It builds on work that began shortly after the 1986 Chernobyl accident, which released radionuclides over large areas of the former Soviet Union and Europe, and prompted a reassessment of the way risks associated with nuclear facilities are determined.

Environmental modelling involves a series of complicated mathematical calculations designed to forecast the effect that various events will have on particular environments and organisms living in those environments. For example, modelling is used to predict weather patterns on earth and in space. And when it comes to radiation safety, environmental models determine the likely effect that releases of radionuclides from nuclear facilities and uranium mines will have on the public, on plants and animals as well as on the land, sea and air.

The latest EMRAS meetings, which began 19 January 2009, with 110 participants from 40 countries at the IAEA´s Vienna Headquarters, will result in further harmonization on modelling radionuclide transfer to the environment. 'The overall objective of the EMRAS programme is to help states build up their national capabilities to model the movements of radionuclides in the environment,' explains Mr. Louvat. 'In that way, they can better assess exposure levels of the public, plants and animals to ensure the right level of protection from harmful effects of ionizing radiation.' To date, EMRAS has also focused on accident assessments, waste management and disposal, and uranium mining activities.

'EMRAS meetings attract many people,' says Mr. Louvat, 'because it’s one of the most effective opportunities they have to check the validity of the assessment models they use every day in their countries.'

At these gatherings nuclear safety assessors test their models with different scenarios, compare results and eventually refine their mathematical calculations to better estimate the true impact of radionuclide releases. 'The importance of a harmonised approach is that, if you have nuclear facilities bordering other countries, then it is important that assessments made in one country are compatible with assessment methods in the other country,' he says.

Already produced and published is a safety guide on the control of radioactive discharges from nuclear facilities, technical reports, and other guidance. It includes a generic model that any country can use to assess the probable impact of nuclear-related activities. And it also includes technical reports on how transfer parameters are used to assess the impacts on land and on the marine environment.

http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachPressRelease.aspx?cid=7374&codi=44095&idproducttype=8&level=0

Editorial: Three Mile Island - - Nuclear Challenges

Readers of this blog know the serious issues France's nuclear power industry has presented (and continues to present). We also know of the massive extent of Babcock & Wilcox's continued presence in the nuclear industry in this country and that one of their their huge nuclear facilities is in Lynchburg. We're acutely aware that watch-dog agencies are far more 'dog' than 'watch' and that quite often, their 'watching' is just that...passive observation, not pro-active vision or timely intervention to protect those they are charged with protecting.

We need to remember Three Mile Island and be aware that something similar, or worse, could easily happen here again...we could have our own Chernobyl. It is indeed time for a "brighter idea"...and that idea is alternative, renewable energy. Now. ...SB

Posted on Sun, Mar. 29, 2009

Three Mile Island. The China Syndrome. Thirty years later, it's still hard for some people to separate the reality of the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history from a fictional depiction of an eerily similar event in a popular movie.

In a way, the movie made the after-effects of Three Mile Island worse.

The China Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, and Jack Lemmon, warned what could happen if the core of a power-plant nuclear reactor overheated and melted clear through the earth to Asia. Twelve days after its release, the film almost proved prescient.

On March 28, 1979, Unit 2 at the Three Mile Island plant near Middletown, Pa., overheated. The core began to melt. Toxic gases escaped into the air before the situation was controlled. More than 200,000 nearby residents were evacuated. There were no injuries. No loss of life.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said two million people were likely exposed to low levels of radiation, but that the effects on them and the environment were negligible.

The same could not be said for the nuclear power industry in America. It was crippled by Three Mile Island, which became the rallying cry for activists who had long pointed out the danger in using radioactive material to generate electricity.

But the industry didn't die. In fact, although Unit 2 has remained out of service, Unit 1 at Three Mile Island provides power to Pennsylvania homes and businesses to this day.

The expansion of nuclear power, however, has been stalled nationally, largely on the basis of the justified fear spawned by Three Mile Island and linking it to the possibility of a real "China Syndrome" occurring. Subsequent lesser incidents at other plants have perpetuated that fear.

The utilities that operate nuclear power plants have greatly improved safety procedures since Three Mile Island. Nine months after that event, they banded together to form the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations to share best practices.

But troubling incidents continue to occur; like the security guards caught sleeping at Peach Bottom, or the sabotage discovered at Turkey Point in Florida. These events don't exactly boost confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the industry's watchdog.

Then there's the overarching concern of the public, that in the 30 years since Three Mile Island, this nation has yet to develop a viable alternative to storing nuclear waste on-site at the power plants.

The Obama administration has indicated that it doesn't support locating a national repository at Yucca Flats, Nevada. But with nuclear energy being touted as a better option to our expensive foreign-oil habit, the waste question must be answered.

Utilities have submitted applications to the NRC to build up to 26 new nuclear reactors, including one at the Bell Bend plant in Luzerne County.

Worldwide, more than 400 reactors are being planned, as other nations also attempt to become less oil-dependent. Even Sweden, which banned any new nuclear power plants after Three Mile Island, has new plants on the drawing board.

Thirty years ago, the rest of the world might have looked to this country at this point. General Electric, Westinghouse, and Babcock & Wilcox were the leaders in building nuclear reactors. But today, it's Electricite de France. Indeed, 75 percent of France's electricity is derived from nuclear power compared with 20 percent in the United States.

France handles its nuclear waste by reprocessing most of it to be used again. That has been resisted here, because it requires separating uranium from plutonium, which could be used to make nuclear weapons.

But if reprocessing isn't the answer, and Yucca Flats is out of the question, so should be new nuclear plants - until someone has a brighter idea.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20090329_Editorial__Three_Mile_Island.html

Nuclear's Role in Energy Policy Debated

By Adam Testa, The Southern

Saturday, March 28, 2009 11:07 PM CDT

Illinois finds itself in the hot seat of the debate over nuclear energy - an understandable position given the facts.

It all began Dec. 2, 1942, when a group of scientists led by Enrico Fermi initiated the first controlled nuclear chain reaction at the University of Chicago, and from there, the field expanded greatly.

Now, Illinois houses 14 reactors at six of the nation's 68 nuclear power plants, more than any of the other 29 states with at least one nuclear power plant. In 2005, nuclear power accounted for 48 percent of the state's electricity generation, putting it equal to electricity generated from coal, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Advocates of nuclear energy tout its production potential, benefits to surrounding communities and environmental advantages, while opponents challenge its safety, security and production of waste.

Worst-case scenarios

Dave Kraft, director of the Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service, said his organization has 27 years advocating the phasing out of nuclear energy, responsible handling of waste and implementation of alternative, renewable energy sources.

Reflecting on the 30-year anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident March 28, 1979, near Harrisburg, Penn., when radiation leaked from the nuclear generation station, Kraft said the world has seen firsthand what can happen when nuclear energy goes wrong.

"We can see what can go wrong when the genie gets out of the bottle many times," he said, also referencing the Chernobyl disaster in April 1986 in the Soviet Union. A 2005 report estimated upward of 4,000 people may die as a result of the incident, when a meltdown released severe levels of radiation into the atmosphere.

Ray Crawford, chairman of the Center for Reactor Information, said those disasters were horrible experiences but the industry has changed in the years since and they are unlikely to be repeated.

Three Mile Island did not result in any loss of life and was "probably one of the worst things we ever postulated could happen," Crawford said, adding it also created a financial disaster.

"It clearly was a traumatic event and it clearly indicated the nuclear industry had to make major changes," he added. In the past 30 years, the industry has seen drastic modifications in design, safety and training, he said.

The design of the Chernobyl plant was unstable from the beginning since it was designed to create weapons-grade materials in addition to generating electricity, Crawford said. No plant of this design has been constructed in the United States.

Kraft contends, however, there are other problems than a worst-case scenario disaster.

"Is that your only criterion - that someone has to drop dead in front of you from radiation poisoning?" he said.

Storing waste

Disposal and storage of waste has long been an issue surrounding nuclear energy, and a recent decision by the administration of President Barack Obama will add difficulties to the process, Kraft said.

Obama's administration has shut down a long-standing plan to develop a storage facility at Yucca Mountain, located in the desert about 90 miles from Las Vegas. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has ordered the formation of a committee to "chart a new path" for nuclear waste management.

Kraft said continuing to expand nuclear usage without a designated storage facility would be like building a skyscraper with no bathrooms.

"There's no place for the waste to go," he said. "That's essentially what the nuclear industry is doing."

About $30 billion has been collected from nuclear generators to be used for storage facilities, with about $8 billion of that going toward the Yucca Mountain project before Obama's administration shut down that proposal, Crawford said, adding he believes the project may still continue or another option will be pursued.

Future use

The amount of energy nuclear power contributes to the nation's electrical grid would be nearly impossible to duplicate with renewable sources, Crawford said.

Using wind power to produce electricity levels currently offered by nuclear would require a wind farm the size of West Virginia, he said. Delivery would also be a costly venture to develop infrastructure to transport energy from its point of production to the electrical grid.

George Stanford, a retired reactor physicist at the Argonne National Laboratory, said new technology exists that can greatly improve efficiency of nuclear generation.

Current nuclear power plants use thermal reactors, which slow down neutrons in the process, but it's also possible to use fast reactors, which would not slow these neurons down, he said. Thermal reactors use 1 percent of the energy stored in mined uranium, whereas fast reactors would be able to harness 100 percent of the energy.

"There's enough uranium already mined that with fast reactors we could power the country and the world for hundreds of years," Stanford said.

http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2009/03/28/front_page/28817263.txt

Searching for Connections

Water certainly can flow uphill if there's enough force behind it and it's in a channel of some sort. How else can you take a shower in an upstairs bathroom? Water can also flow south to north...ask the folks in ND currently fighting flood waters from the Red River. I don't believe I've read anything yet that speaks to the rock formations and subsequent water-flow patterns as far underground as VUI drilled its exploratory holes that would preclude either possibility. .

We agree that VUI should seek outside investigation of its neighbors' well contamination ASAP. We agree that the source of the contamination needs to be identified. But we're not so sure that VUI will be exonerated and it's that possibility which will prevent VUI from being the "good neighbor" it claims it wants to be. ...SB

Published By The Edtorial Board
Danville Register & Bee:
March 29, 2009

Uranium mining opponents scored a victory of sorts this week when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it would study and review up to 200 applications for surface coal mines, including controversial mountaintop removal mines.

The EPA wants to know if the proposed mines will harm streams and wetlands.

To those opposed to uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, mountaintop removal mines are an example of what can happen when something that is legal and done within the framework of government rules and regulations still causes problems for people, their communities and the environment.

By extension, those opposed to uranium mining believe a similar thing could happen if Virginia eventually lifts its moratorium. Virginia Uranium Inc. could follow state and federal rules and regulations and still wind up creating problems for local people and the environment of the Dan River Region.

Virginia Uranium Inc. is years away from being able to mine the Coles Hill site in Pittsylvania County and it’s already being accused of causing environmental problems.

Sheva resident Allen Gross believes that the company’s exploratory test drilling has caused lead levels in his well water to rise. The test drilling has been used to “map” the underground deposits of uranium at Coles Hill, helping VUI determine the quantity and quality of the underground ore deposit.

“Wells with reported lead levels in the water are all in geologically and hydrologically isolated areas that are unaffected by activities conducted by our company,” said VUI geologist and spokesman Patrick Wales. He pointed out that VUI’s test drilling and the Gross family well were separated by creeks and ridges of land.

“Water doesn’t flow uphill,” Wales said.

It certainly doesn’t, and it’s unfair to blame VUI for something that it hasn’t done wrong.

At the same time, though, the company shouldn’t miss an opportunity created by this accusation. Since VUI believes that it’s not responsible for increased lead levels in the Gross family well, it should call on the state to find the source of the pollution — if that can be determined.

That would allow Virginia Uranium to publicly exonerate its test drilling program using a third-party investigation, and to teach the community that a lot of different things can affect the quantity and quality of well water.

Virginia Uranium should ask the state to study rising lead levels in a nearby water well. The company certainly shouldn’t have to bear the burden of bad publicity and negative perceptions for something it did not do.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/editorials/danville_editorials/article/searching_for_connections/10026/

Author: Utah Paid Huge Price for Uranium

March 27th, 2009 @ 6:40pm

By John Hollenhorst

SALT LAKE CITY -- An author who crisscrossed the planet tracing the history of uranium says Utah plays a central role in the story. Utahns shared in the early benefits and paid a huge price in the end: it's a reversal of fortune documented in a new book called "Uranium."

Recreationists in southeastern Utah generally don't realize many of their roads and trails were laid down by uranium prospectors in the 1950s. "Probably no state in the country has had more of an experience with uranium than Utah," author Tom Zoellner said.

Zoellner has traced the uranium story all around the world. His book "Uranium" gives Utah a key role, for good or ill.

"This was home of the last true mineral rush in the American West, and it was infused with kind of these Utopian ideas, and kind of a strong sense of patriotism, and also a strong profit motive," he said.

He says the world has had an uncomfortable relationship with uranium ever since its power was unleashed in 1945. "In some ironic way, the earth was seeded with the means of its own destruction," Zoellner said.

And there was a dirty little secret: miners started dying from cancer. "Additionally, Utah suffered greatly from the nuclear tests at the Nevada Proving Ground, and as many as 10,000 people across five mountain states, primarily Utah, may have died early deaths of cancer because of it," Zoellner said.

The author documents an awakening interest in the potential benefit of nuclear power, but he worries that too much enriched uranium is unaccounted for and could fall into the hands of terrorists and rogue governments.

"Making an atomic bomb, once you have highly-enriched uranium, is not a terribly difficult mechanical project," Zoellner said. "We're talking about a device the size of a softball, which could take out half of a city."

He says controlling uranium will be one of the greatest challenges of this century.

By the way, Zoellner was a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune in the 1990s. He co-authored the book that inspired the movie "Hotel Rwanda." His latest, "Uranium," is currently in bookstores.

E-mail: jhollenhorst@ksl.com

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5984930&autostart=y

Uranium Mining Study Draft OK’d; Tentative Draft Headed To NRC

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee on Tuesday approved the tentative uranium study draft, described as a working document on the technical aspects.

Dr. Michael Karmis, director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech, is to enter into preliminary discussions with the National Research Council.

How long the study will take and its funding are among outstanding questions.

Before uranium can be mined in Virginia, the General Assembly would have to lift the state’s moratorium established in 1982.

In the early 1980s, a large uranium deposit with an estimated worth of between $7-$10 billion was discovered near Chatham. Virginia Uranium seeks to mine the uranium deposits located on land owned by the Walter Coles and Henry Bowen families.

The Tuesday meeting was open for public comment with over two dozen names listed.

Katie Whitehead, chair of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force and a member of the Halifax Chamber Uranium Study Group, cited two important questions during the Tuesday meeting.

“Previously Nancy Pool of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce submitted a report that includes questions we believe a study should address,” said Whitehead, naming the following:

• Is it safe to mine and mill uranium and storage the tailings in Virginia?

• Whether or not it is safe, how do people’s perceptions of uranium mining affect the region?

“Local interest in a study focuses on these two questions,” said Whitehead. “The central study question is whether mining, milling, and tailings storage pose a risk of increasing exposures to uranium and its decay products above current background levels,” she added.

“The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) may not be able to answer this question by reviewing scientific studies,” Whitehead noted. “Dr. Doug Brugge, a public health expert, has commented that the necessary research has not been done to determine the health risks of exposure to heavy metals from living near uranium operations. Preliminary results from new studies are reinforcing health concerns,” she added.

“In the past, committee officials have estimated such a study could take up to two years,” noted Delegate Lee Ware Jr., R-Powhatan, and chairman of the subcommittee, earlier this month.

“Dr. Karmis would be our agent on that score,” Ware previously explained. “Part of his role is to interact with the academy and see that the questions we want answered are covered.”

In November, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission approved a study to determine whether uranium can be safely mined and milled in the state.

The subcommittee held a public hearing in Richmond in December and at Chatham High School in January to receive questions from area residents concerning the scope of study.

In addition to Ware, subcommittee members include Del. Watkins Abbitt of Appomattox, Sen. John Watkins of Midlothian, Del. William R. Janis of Glen Allen, Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr. of Galax, Sen. Phillip P. Puckett of Tazewell, Del. Clarence E. Phillips of Castlewood, Del. Kristen J. Amundson of Fairfax County, Sen. Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach and citizen appointee Harry D. Childress.

http://www.gazettevirginian.com/archivesfolder.html/03-25-2009.html

Is Uranium DOA? Official: HRI’s Churchrock Uranium Project on Hold

Copyright © 2009
Gallup Independent
By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau

CHURCHROCK — A proposed in-situ leach uranium mining project near Churchrock is on hold, according to Rick Van Horn, chief operating officer of Uranium Resources Inc.

With spot uranium prices down, Uranium Resources Inc., parent company of HRI-Churchrock Inc., is still awaiting a decision from the 10th Circuit Court in Denver regarding an underground injection control permit.

On Dec. 5, 2006, Hydro Resources Inc, or HRI, entered into a joint venture with a wholly owned subsidiary of Itochu, one of Japan’s largest trading companies, to develop its Churchrock property in New Mexico. Under terms of the joint venture, both parties had until April 2, 2007, to make a preliminary investment decision and over the past two years, mutually agreed to extend the date for the decision.

However, earlier this month URI received notification that Itochu had terminated the joint venture.

“We decided mutually that it was in both of our best interests for them to, at this time, pull out. Uranium prices are depressed, we’re still awaiting the court decision, and right now the project is on hold until we get that decision,” Van Horn said Wednesday.

“It basically gives us the whole project back. Instead of having a partner in there, we’ve got the whole thing back and we look at it as a positive,” he said. The company could seek other investors.

Asked whether uranium prices and the lawsuit were factors in Itochu’s decision, Van Horn said, “It might have, but I can’t speak for them. I think the big thing is that it was not going anywhere, mostly because of the uranium prices and the general malaise in the market, and the inability of anybody to get financing for anything.

“The only two industries that are going well are Walmart and McDonalds,” he said jokingly.

Approximately 70 million pounds of uranium reserves are known to exist on the Navajo Reservation, Van Horn said.

“Right now, it’s a very valuable asset for the Nation. The thing that we have to get around is the ban that the Nation has on uranium mining.”

Through legislation sponsored by Resources Committee Chairman George Arthur, the Navajo Nation imposed a ban on uranium mining and milling within Navajo Indian Country in April 2005. The same year, New Mexico Environment Department received a request from HRI for an underground injection control permit to operate a uranium in-situ leach mine in Section 8.

As a result, NMED formally requested U.S. Environmental Protection Agency make a decision on the Indian Country status of Section 8 land, with the underlying issue being which was the appropriate agency to consider the permit application.

On Feb. 6, 2007, EPA found that Churchrock Chapter, which includes Section 8, is a “dependent Indian community” and that EPA was the proper authority to issue the permit. The case was appealed to the 10th Circuit in Denver, which has yet to rule on oral arguments heard last May from attorneys for HRI and attorneys for Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining.

According to URI’s year-end report for 2008 released March 10, revenue for the fourth quarter was $2.2 million, a $6 million decrease compared with $8.2 million during the fourth quarter of 2007, as significantly fewer pounds of uranium were sold at a lower price per pound. The net loss for the fourth quarter was $7.5 million.

During the quarter, URI sold 38,700 pounds of uranium, a 65.8 percent decrease from the 113,000 pounds sold in last year’s fourth quarter. URI received an average selling price per pound of $56.76 in the fourth quarter, down from an average per pound price of $72.72 in the 2007 quarter.

Uranium spot prices, or short-term, were at $42.50 Wednesday. “There’s also a long-term price and that’s at $70 right now. It depends on what your contracts are like.

We have no contracts for New Mexico. We are currently producing in Texas and we produce into an average of the long-term and short-term price,” Van Horn said.

“We are only producing at the Kingsville site. Rosita has been shut in and is under restoration, and Vasquez has been shut in and is under restoration. All three are in Texas.

Kingsville, we are currently producing out of some well fields and restoring in others.”

URI has closed an exploration office in Corpus Christi, Texas, and has consolidated it into the Kingsville operation.

The company’s Albuquerque office also has been closed.

“The good news is we’re still here. We have cash enough to last for two years without any additional infusions of cash and to continue the restoration activities we are conducting here in Texas. We are also working with Navajo EPA to do some work on Section 17 in Churchrock as far as some characterization of possible legacy contamination,” Van Horn said.

Though HRI/URI did not put the contamination there, “We are funding a study to see what is there. I think that’s an important thing with all of these legacy issues. There are a lot of numbers that are flying around and a lot of supposed facts. We need to get out and get the facts: What is the contamination? What is critical? What needs to be done to protect the health and safety of the people in community, and the people in New Mexico in general.”

Van Horn said HRI applied for and was issued the permit by the state, but the project can’t proceed until they get a court decision on who has the authority to issue the permit, the state or EPA, based on whether the proposed site is in Indian Country or not Indian Country.

“We have our NRC license. The only permit we’re lacking right now is the underground injection control permit. We have been issued one but we couldn’t act on it,” he said.

http://www.gallupindependent.com/2009/03March/032709isuraniumdoa.html

VUI Hires Yet Another Lobbyist Firm; Firm Also Represents City of Norfolk

It's clear that VUI thinks that at least part of its success depends on the General Assembly. Mining opponents must keep the heat on the GA as well as at least part of its strategy. Southside can't afford hire a herd of lobbyists like VUI has done but we, as citizen lobbyists, constitute a much larger herd than VUI could ever afford. Don't hesitate to contact members of the GA, regardless of where their electorate resides. You are a Virginian...the GA should work for you (even if we know that many times they don't).

Lobbying firms certainly appear to have no compunction about accepting clients with conflicting interests...we've seen that already. First Virginia Beach and VUI shared a lobbying firm which, when asked to choose between the two, chose VUI and dropped Virginia Beach. Now Kemper Consulting has accepted VUI as a new client while representing the City of Norfolk and the company seeking to take over Virginia's port terminals in Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Newport News. How might this indirectly affect Norfolk's position on uranium mining at Coles Hill?

From "Norfolk Needs a Lobbyist Free of Distractions", published in The Virginian-Pilot, March 27, 2009:

A $3.5 billion proposal to privatize the state's port operations could have a far-reaching impact on many of the region's local governments and businesses. That's provoked questions about how a lobbying firm with close ties to many of the key players in the deal will sort out its potential conflicts of interest.

Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim is correct to broach the issue now, before his city finds itself at a disadvantage in delicate financial negotiations.

Kemper Consulting represents Norfolk on issues before the legislature and state agencies. But CenterPoint Properties, the Illinois company seeking to take over operations of the state's three port terminals in Norfolk, Portsmouth and Newport News, is also a client.

CenterPoint's proposal is likely to be one of several pitched to the state this year. State officials will compare the merits of all bids, while also weighing whether Virginia would be better off maintaining control of its most valuable asset.

Norfolk's desires can't and won't be the only factor in the negotiations, but as the host city for the largest terminal it can't afford to get lost in the jockeying. It must have an advocate whose interests are in complete alignment.

CenterPoint is offering to pay Norfolk $3 million annually to cover lost tax revenues, road repairs from truck traffic and other services. That's nearly triple the pittance now paid by the state, but well short of the costs now borne by the city.

Fraim is reasonably giving Kemper time to propose a solution that could satisfy his concerns, but a resolution could be complicated by other clients of the firm. Kemper also represents the Virginia Maritime Association, a group of more than 400 companies that promotes commercial growth at the port.

In an unrelated matter, Kemper has taken on a new client in Virginia Uranium, a company seeking state approval to mine in Pittsylvania County. Virginia Beach opposes the mine until it receives assurances that the project will not contaminate Lake Gaston, the city's primary source of drinking water.

Norfolk has taken no position on the matter but is monitoring the issue because it stores and treats Beach water supplies.

The port is properly Norfolk's top concern. Strong commercial growth at the waterfront could assure the city's economic prosperity, but hasty deals will bring high costs and years of regret.

Given those stakes, city officials must demand a lobbyist free of distractions.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/norfolk-needs-lobbyist-free-distractions

A Clean, Energy-Driven Economy Will Create New Opportunities for Virginia

Oh, yeah...this guy's been paying attention. What is it with some of these folks? They can write but they can't read? One more time...uranium is NOT clean.

March 27, 2009 12:50 AM
by Bernie Niemeier, Publisher

The public’s acceptance of environmental sustainability is past the tipping point. The temporary retreat of $4 per gallon gasoline has done little to diminish the lines of consumers carrying reusable shopping bags or postpone the need to develop better alternative fuels.

Many business leaders are among those promoting sustainability. That’s a fact you would not expect given current stereotypes. Business executives are a maligned bunch. Too often they are portrayed as fat cats, interested in little more than spending time on the golf course and in private jets or, particularly of late, collecting big bonuses.

Like most stereotypes, these fit too easily to be true. It’s been awhile since many executives have seen bonuses. In fact, business has been pretty tough lately. The Wall Street Journal reports that 61 companies in the S&P 500 index replaced their CEOs last year. In the first five weeks this year, 11 more were added to those ranks.

In coping with the stress of managing in a difficult economy, many business leaders that I know take advantage of Virginia’s wealth of outdoor recreational opportunities. We have a set of robust state and national parks; one of the best trout stocking programs in the country; and easy access to mountains, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay. Business leaders understand that these natural resources contribute to the Virginia’s outstanding quality of life.

Virginia also is a state of diverse energy resources. Coal and nuclear power provide the vast majority of our energy needs. Despite opposition in some quarters, these sources are being continually improved. The development of clean-coal technology, for example, is a major opportunity for Virginia to leverage the research of its outstanding universities.

After a 30-year wait on new construction, expansion of nuclear facilities in Virginia and around the country appears likely. Despite its detractors, nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient source of energy available. Companies like Areva in Lynchburg are poised to become global suppliers of the latest nuclear equipment and technology.

In addition, alternative fuel projects such as wind turbines and biodiesel are increasingly common around the state.

Although controversial, natural-gas drilling off the Atlantic coast and uranium mining in Pittsylvania County are also possibilities for Virginia to create economic opportunities in the emerging new-energy landscape.

Smart-grid technology, which would distribute all available energy sources efficiently to consumers, is another area where our university research can excel.

Energy will be the driver of future growth. The good news is that energy production helps all sectors of our economy. Power is a real product. Research provides the kind of jobs that Virginia is well positioned to provide.

The emphasis placed on the energy sector by the Obama Administration presents an opportunity. Virginia’s record of benefiting from federal investment is an asset we hold in abundance compared to other states.

The prospect of an energy-based economic revival is more than welcome after the failure of an economy characterized by financial manipulations, many of which had more in common with casino gambling than with job-producing industries.

At Virginia Business, our view is that investments in energy production and green technologies will be good for the environment.

Today’s executives understand the full value of sustainable business practices. We enjoy a green environment and all it has to offer, as a resource for recreation and as a new business opportunity for Virginia.

http://www.virginiabusiness.com/index.php/opinion/article/a-clean-energy-driven-economy-will-create-new-opportunities-for-virginia/199614/

SC Regulators Deny Appeal Over Nuclear Reactors

By MEG KINNARD
03.25.09

An environmental group said Wednesday it may go to court to try to stop South Carolina's largest private utility from building two nuclear reactors after state regulators threw out the group's petition to block the project.

Bob Guild, an attorney who represents Friends of the Earth, said he would review the ruling by the Public Service Commission and could decide to appeal the issue to a circuit court. Guild said he did not know how long the group would have to file an appeal of the panel's decision.

Last month, commissioners approved a request by Scana Corp.-owned South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. to build the two 1,100-megawatt reactors along with Santee Cooper at the same site where the utilities currently run a reactor. The V.C. Summer Nuclear Station is near Jenkinsville, about 25 miles northwest from Columbia.

The utilities say the new reactors will be needed to meet future power demand. If the state approval stands, then the request will go to federal regulators, a process that could take several years.

SCE&G has said it wants to have the first reactor generating power by 2016, and the second in 2019. Rates have been projected to rise an average of 2.5 percent a year for the next 10 years to help pay the financing cost for SCE&G's portion of the $10 billion project.

Earlier this month, Friends of the Earth filed a request that the commission reconsider its approval, arguing that the law regulators used to approve the project is unconstitutional. In its petition, the group said SCE&G failed to demonstrate a need for the reactors or fully detail their environmental impact.

"The PSC's denial of the Friends of the Earth's petition ... reflects an underlying attitude by the Commission that is tilted in favor of utilities and against rate payers," Friends of the Earth spokesman Tom Clements said in a statement issued after the hearing."

Eric Boomhower, a spokesman for SCE&G, said the company expected the commission's decision would be upheld.

"We demonstrated through a comprehensive public hearing process that the need for new power is real and that our evaluation of generation options was thorough," Boomhower said.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/03/25/ap6213881.html

NRC to Hold Public Meetings [in VA] on Nuclear Plants

By the Associated Press

March 25, 2009

RICHMOND, Va. - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding public meetings to discuss safety assessments for the North Anna and Surry nuclear power plants in Virginia.

The agency will be available to answer questions on the safety performance of the plants, as well as the NRC's role in ensuring safe plant operation.

Both plants are operated by Dominion Virginia Power.

An open house meeting regarding the Surry plant is scheduled for April 6 at 6 p.m. at the Surry Government Center's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The meeting about the North Anna plant is scheduled for April 7 at 6 p.m. at the North Anna Nuclear Information Center in Mineral.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--nuclearpowerplant0325mar25,0,37127.story

Impact EPA Mining Permit Review : Coal Mining Companies Worried About Mine Permit Reviews

March 27th, 2009

The Obama administration’s decision to hold coal mining permits to a high environmental standard has struck a note of economic fear in Appalachia, where mining — including the kind of mining that blows up mountaintops — has been a shield against hard times afflicting the rest of the nation.

On Tuesday, the EPA announced it will take a closer look at 150 to 200 coal mine permit applications under review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. EPA singled out two proposed surface mines in West Virginia and one in Kentucky as a start.

In a break from Bush administration policies, EPA is asserting its authority under the federal Clean Water Act to scrutinize plans to dump mine waste into streams and wetlands.

The National Mining Association estimates EPA’s reviews could threaten 77,500 coal mining jobs and 385 million tons of annual production in southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, southwest Virginia, Ohio and the Illinois Basin.

But environmentalists see EPA’s decision as an opportunity to end mountaintop removal mining and the region’s dependency on coal, and to spark new jobs by developing renewable energy sources.

Mountaintop removal mining is an efficient but destructive practice where ridgetops are blown up to expose multiple coal seams. Tons of rock, dirt and debris are typically dumped in fills that bury valleys and streams.

Destroying the mountains “also destroys the economic potential of Appalachia,” said Matthew Wasson of North Carolina-based Appalachian Voices. “This decision rekindles hope for a new economy in Appalachia built around green jobs and renewable energy.”

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin met with White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday to clarify EPA’s intentions.

“I told them we are looking for a balance between the environment and the economy, and they assured me that they will work with us to find that balance,” the Democratic governor said in a prepared statement. Manchin said state officials would meet with EPA and coal companies to seek agreements on the applications.

West Virginia is the nation’s second largest coal producer and mine operators like to say coal keeps the lights on. More than 90 percent of the state’s electricity and about half of the nation’s comes from burning coal.

Coal helps keep West Virginia state government in business.

Despite its long history of poverty, West Virginia has largely avoided the budget deficits facing other states because of soaring coal prices that exceeded $120 a ton last year. Coal prices are now declining, but state budget planners still predict total severance tax collections will surpass $400 million this year. The state is expected to receive $320 million of that, or about 8 percent of West Virginia’s total general revenue collections.

Elsewhere in Appalachia, Kentucky and Virginia — which are less dependent on energy production — haven’t fared as well. Both have been dealing with large budget deficits.

Of the estimated 550 mines in West Virginia, 44 percent are surface mines. The importance of surface mining has increased in recent decades as thick underground seams have been mined out. Rock and dirt not used to reclaim the mines are dumped in valley fills.

“There isn’t very much coal production that can be done in a state without a valley fill,” said Randy Huffman, secretary of West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection.

Rory McIlmoil, an activist with West Virginia’s Coal River Mountain Watch, said environmentalists now have at least a six-month window to strengthen arguments for the creation of green jobs in alternative energy industries.

Restoring former mine lands, building wind farms and developing sustainable forestry jobs are all part of the solution — and all jobs that strip miners can be trained to take, McIlmoil said.

Kentucky Coal Association President Bill Caylor predicts economic devastation for the eastern half of his state, the nation’s third-largest coal producer behind Wyoming and West Virginia.

“We would lose half our production in east Kentucky,” Caylor said. That adds up to more than 46 million tons from mines that employ more than 6,000 miners earning $354 million in direct wages.

Kentucky’s Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear said he too is seeking to clarify EPA’s intentions so permits could be reviewed and issued more quickly.

Retired underground coal miner Chuck Nelson said coal mining and environmental protection are not an either-or proposition.

“We worked underground before mountaintop removal. We had 68,000 coal miners in West Virginia, and that was in 1977,” said Nelson, 53, a member of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. “They don’t have to blow the mountaintops off and destroy the communities to get the coal.”

The coal industry has been bracing for tougher permitting standards since March 2007 when a federal judge in West Virginia ruled the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hadn’t done enough to determine if valley fills would damage water resources downstream. The ruling was later overturned.

Mountaintop mining became a topic of debate during last year’s presidential elections when both candidates said they opposed the practice. John McCain said he would ban it. Then-candidate Barack Obama said he had concerns but stopped short of calling for a ban.

Industry executives have consistently told Wall Street that opening new underground mines and other actions would largely stave off production problems until 2010. And they’ve insisted mountaintop mining will continue in the region, even if it takes more time and money to get permits — and raises the price of coal and electricity.

U.S. Senators Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) moved Wednesday to end the practice. Their Appalachia Restoration Act on Wednesday that would amend the Clean Water Act to prohibit mining wastes from filling streams.

http://paguntaka.org/2009/03/27/impact-epa-mining-permit-review-coal-mining-companies-worried-about-mine-permit-reviews/

Longtime Indigenous Activists Honored by International Indian Treaty Council For Their Work to Protect Sacred Sites

By Staff reports

Story Updated: Mar 25, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO – On March 7, two longtime indigenous activists, Carrie Dann, Western Shoshone and Manny Pino, Acoma Pueblo, were honored by the International Indian Treaty Council for their lifelong work to protect sacred places. Both received the Human Rights Defenders award during the Indigenous Peoples Struggles to Defend Sacred Places training and symposium at San Francisco State University.

Dann and her sister Mary (now deceased) have been on the forefront to protect the traditional lands of the Western Shoshone for more than 40 years. She has worked diligently through litigation and civil disobedience to defend Western Shoshone lands, treaty rights and sacred places such as Mt. Tenabo from international gold mining corporations, the nuclear industry and the U.S. government. Both the United Nations and the Organization of American States have supported the Western Shoshone struggle and most recently the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination condemned the actions of the U.S.

Pino has worked many years to protect traditional indigenous lands and peoples from the destruction caused by uranium mining and defending sacred places such as Mt. Taylor and the San Francisco Peaks. Uranium mining has had a lasting effect on the indigenous peoples from the southwestern part of the U.S. where mines were opened to aid in the production of the world’s first nuclear weapons. Most of its victims, including Diné (Navajo) and Pueblo miners and their families, were unaware of the dangers of exposure. Pino has played a key role in raising awareness of this issue including the impacts of uranium and other types of mining on sacred sites.

Radley Davis, Pit River Nation, Calif., IITC board member and activist, presented the awards on behalf of the IITC. Opening words by IITC Executive Director Andrea Carmen, Yaqui Nation, affirmed the importance of recognizing and honoring indigenous peoples for their dedication and heroism, as examples for our younger generations of what brave and dedicated individuals can accomplish. The All Nations Drum from Oakland provided an honor song for the recipients, their families and friends.

The awards ceremony closed the daylong training on human rights and protection of sacred sites from mining and other forms of imposed development. The IITC’s “Human Rights and Capacity Building Program” trains indigenous activists to use international standards and mechanisms to defend their human rights and increase direct, effective participation in international fora.

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/southwest/41839407.html

NRC Racing to Answer Questions on Depleted Uranium

By BROCK VERGAKIS Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press

March 25, 2009, 11:12AM

SALT LAKE CITY — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is rushing to meet an April 2 deadline to turn over stacks of internal documents that could shed light on why it recently decided to classify large quantities of depleted uranium as the least hazardous type of low-level radioactive waste.

The NRC's decision, which still must undergo a rule-making process that could take up to two years, would open the door for federal facilities and companies around the country to dispose of more than 1 million tons of depleted uranium in Utah and Texas.

Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who is chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the NRC, have demanded the documents because they believe the agency's March 18 decision disregards the risk depleted uranium poses to public health and safety.

They called the NRC's decision an "arbitrary and capricious mischaracterization" of the waste.

NRC spokesman David McIntyre said it's possible the guidelines could still change.

"It's not a closed door at all. This is the direction that the commission told the staff to take, and part of that is to develop this guidance and to hold a public workshop promptly to get public input," he said. "The commission itself will be looking at this at least twice more."

Depleted uranium is unique in that unlike other waste, it becomes more radioactive over time, leading to criticism from environmental groups that the NRC is downplaying the long-term risks of radiological exposure.

"It's kind of like saying someone isn't a drunk driver because he passed a breathalyzer test before he started drinking," said Christopher Thomas, public policy director for the nuclear waste watchdog group Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah.

Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions Inc. operates the only low-level radioactive waste dump available to 36 states. It's only authorized to take Class A waste, traditionally considered the least hazardous.

Waste Control Specialists LLC also wants to dispose of low-level radioactive waste in Andrews County, Texas, a few miles from the southeastern New Mexico border.

Both companies have expressed interest in disposing of depleted uranium, which is a uranium enrichment byproduct. About 740,000 tons of depleted uranium is currently being stockpiled at Department of Energy sites at Paducah, Ky.; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tenn.

Licenses for enrichment plants are also being sought in Piketon, Ohio; Areva, Idaho; and Wilmington, N.C.

By default, depleted uranium has long been considered Class A waste by the NRC and small amounts of it have been accepted in Utah. That's because the NRC never specifically categorized depleted uranium when it developed its guidelines in the early 1980s — a result that so little needed to be disposed of at the time.

The issue of whether large volumes of depleted uranium should still be classified as Class A waste arose when a consortium of primarily European companies that own Louisiana Energy Services applied for a license in 2005 to open a uranium enrichment facility near Eunice, New Mexico, in the southeastern part of the state.

NRC staff proposed, and commissioners approved last week, continuing to classify depleted uranium as Class A waste, but they also required additional safeguards for its disposal in an acknowledgment that it is different from other Class A waste.

Environmental groups contend the 3-1 ruling by the NRC's Republican-controlled commission is an attempt to appease corporate interests searching for the least expensive option possible to dispose of the waste.

"The reason for all these shenanigans, in my opinion, is they've already granted a license saying you can dispose of depleted uranium in shallow landfill areas," Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Takoma Park, Md., said of the New Mexico site.

Among the documents Matheson and Markey are requesting are all e-mails, phone call logs, meeting notes, memoranda and analyses related to the depleted uranium decision, including any records related to EnergySolutions.

"We're trying to find out the basis for this decision. It seems to be an odd course to take," Matheson said in a telephone interview from Washington.

McIntyre said NRC staff are working tirelessly to track down all of the information requested.

"We want to accommodate their request to the fullest extent," he said.

Matheson and Markey's letter questioned how the NRC could make the ruling when in the 1980s it was considering higher classification.

"The depleted uranium waste stream which will flow from commercial uranium enrichment facilities is expected to be ... ten times greater than what the commission believed was safe," the letter says.

What effect turning over the documents will have is unclear. It is possible, although unlikely, that the NRC could reverse course on its decision if Matheson and Markey continue to pressure them.

The congressmen could also ask President Barack Obama to appoint new commissioners to the NRC to give it a Democratic majority. One seat on the five member commission is already vacantand a Republican member's term is set to expire July 1. One Democrat already sits on the NRC.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6340665.html

Senator Deeds Doubts Science Behind Uranium Study

March 26, 2009

Star City Harbinger

"Senator Deeds has serious reservations about whether uranium can be mined in Virginia. He looks forward to reviewing the study, but he believes that our top priorities must be to ensure the protection of our water supply and the safety of all workers. He is not convinced that uranium mining can meet either of these requirements."

Earlier this week, Terry McAuliffe waffled on the issue of whether “he’d back uranium mining in Virginia as he expanded what he calls his business plan for the state,” according to The Associated Press. A Virginia commission study on the impacts of uranium mining first reported in The Washington Post last November is ongoing.

Today, Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining linked up an article from The Richmond Dispatch on the latest action at the commission:

A Virginia panel is giving the go-ahead to a study on opening the state to uranium mining and likely bankrolled by the industry — raising fears that the research will be weighted in favor of proponents.

McAuliffe had an opportunity to take a strong and principled whack at a serious issue, but he bunted.

The overwhelming consensus is that uranium mining is not worth the risk.

Virginia Beach officials recognized this a few months ago when they came out strongly against the proposed study, citing concerns over the possible effects of a uranium mine nearly 200 miles away from the coast.

It is no secret that the land containing the hard sought stash is in the hands of two families and is largely pursued by one corporation, Virginia Uranium Inc., which claims that lifting the Commonwealth’s longstanding ban on uranium mining will create jobs for southside Virginia.

The health hazards of uranium mining have been known for quite some time and thankfully the industry suffered some serious shrinkage as nuclear power fell out of vogue over the past few decades.

The folks at a NFNB have a great summary of the reasons why the estimated $10 billion at stake from Virginia Uranium, Inc., is a fool’s wager . . .

Scientific evidence and history tells us that uranium mining and exploration represents irreversible consequences to the health of our ecosystems, watersheds, wildlife, agriculture and recreation, and communities nearby, downstream or down-wind. Uranium mining and milling produces huge volumes of long-lived radioactive tailings. Radioactive by-products including thorium-230, radium-226 and radon-222 are formed as uranium atoms slowly disintegrate over billions of years. These radioactive elements can easily enter the environment from unstable uranium mill tailings where they can stay for 100,000 years. People living near uranium tailings receive significant increases to exposure to radioactive elements that are linked to serious health conditions such as various cancers and reproductive health conditions.

President Obama succinctly defined what I’ve called the progressive trifecta–health care, education and sustainable energy–Virginians need a governor who understands that the points of this triangle intersect and are interrelated.

So, with all the emerging technological options available to an innovative nation with a well-developed higher education system like the United States and a state like Virginia, why spend time and resources (either public or private) on the dubious science of a by-gone era?

After the story broke regarding McAuliffe’s non-answer on the issue of uranium mining, I wondered what Senator Deeds (D-Bath) thought about an issue that is arguably closer to his neck of the woods (I’ve long since given up on trying to contact the Moran Campaign . . . it’s cool, whatever . . . sniff . . . sniff).

Southside, like southwest Virginia, is hemorrhaging jobs. Impatient politicians clamor for quick solutions. This is understandable, but unwise.

I asked Deeds Campaign Communications Director Brooke Borkenhagen to pass a question along to her boss. I wanted to know if Deeds was willing to conjecture on the record about the long-term efficacy of uranium mining in Virginia before the results of the study are released.

Deeds shares the intuition of the bulk of the scientific community. Borkenhagen told me:

Senator Deeds has serious reservations about whether uranium can be mined in Virginia. He looks forward to reviewing the study, but he believes that our top priorities must be to ensure the protection of our water supply and the safety of all workers. He is not convinced that uranium mining can meet either of these requirements.

Better-known blogs have suggested Deeds is a tool of the coal industry. I wouldn’t know.

Last Fall, I heard candidate Obama talk favorably about clean coal; Joe Biden may have thought otherwise.

Confused? Sure. But the science that says uranium mining is a hazard we can’t afford is clear.

Deeds understands that, and that may speak volumes about how he will approach the entire spectrum of issues related to energy and the environment, both human and ecological.

Disclaimer: SCH does not endorse candidates for elected office. The opinions of the contributors to SCH are theirs and theirs alone.

http://starcityharbinger.com/?p=4057

(Contrasting font colors in text = active links per original SCH article...SB)