Uranium study faces premature doubts [hunh?]

Let's review:

Nowhere on this earth has uranium mining been done safely.

The entity with the most to gain is paying for the study; the state of Virginia hasn't ante'd up one dime.

VUI and Virginia Energy are contributing to every conceivable politician and cause to further their position that Coles Hill should be mined.

Big-name pols are advertising Virginia as being "nuclear friendly" and are touting VA's "nuclear renaissance".

The relationships between politicians, lobbyists, company officials, some Va Tech faculty, and investors are so intertwined that they would appear as a big spider web if reduced to a chart.

So why is expecting that the study will favor mining in Virginia such a leap as to be called "premature"?

The Virginian-Pilot
© September 30, 2009

The respected National Research Council hasn't yet voted on whether to take on a study of uranium mining in Virginia, but the second-guessing has already started.

Some mining opponents in Pittsylvania County dismiss the results - which won't be available for nearly two years - because the study would be underwritten by Virginia Uranium Inc. The company stands to make billions if state officials allow it to tap the estimated 119 million pounds of ore in the county.

Residents are right to feel protective of their community. That's equally true of Virginia Beach leaders, who are concerned that mining could contaminate the city's water supply in Lake Gaston.

But no one has legitimately questioned the integrity of the NRC, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, or suggested a better alternative.

It would be preferable for the state to pay the $1.2 million to $1.4 million for the study, but that's not a realistic option this year. Gov. Tim Kaine recently announced budget cuts that will cost nearly 600 salaried state workers their jobs. Core public safety and mental health services face funding reductions.

The only way to determine whether uranium can be safely mined in Virginia's rainy climate is to allow Virginia Uranium to pay for that assessment. It's an uncomfortable arrangement but one that can work with appropriate safeguards.

The mining company should be required to pay the full amount for the study up front, eliminating any temptation to retract its support if preliminary findings aren't favorable. It should also disclose the source of its money, identifying the investors who are fronting the funds for the study. That's important because no scientists should be permitted to participate in the study if they are employed by a mining company with a financial interest in the project.

William Kearney, a spokesman for the National Academy of Sciences, noted that the organization has a strict conflict-of-interest policy for participating scientists. But state officials must be full partners in preserving the integrity of the study, and they should require VUI to publicly identify its investors before work begins.

The governing board of the NRC is expected to vote on the study proposal in October or November. If it agrees to the project, it will then begin contract negotiations with Virginia Tech's Center for Coal and Energy Research, chosen by state lawmakers to coordinate the study.

The details of that contract, particularly its financial provisions, must be made public. Further, state legislators should hold a meeting to explain the contract and take comments. They should ensure that the scope of the assessment includes an examination of claims by Pittsylvania residents that exploratory drilling at the site has contaminated local wells. Equally important, the state should guarantee that a separate study on the mine's economic impact does not begin until questions of safety are fully addressed.

Opponents who repudiate a study before it even exists risk marginalizing themselves before the real debate begins. But that doesn't negate the fact that many thousands of Virginians who have been less vocal still want and deserve an open, transparent process that puts their health and safety above all other interests.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/09/uranium-study-faces-premature-doubts

Letter: Consider the Sources

by Letter to the editor

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Regarding the letter "Nuclear engineering graphic bombs," (CT, Sept. 22) by alumni Eric Danner and J. Carrington Dillon, the Collegiate Times staff and your readers should know what motivated the authors to criticize that ingenious and appropriate graphic.

Danner and Dillon are employed by AREVA, a multi-billion-dollar, multinational mega-corporation primarily owned by the French government. According to its corporate Web site, AREVA, with its uranium mines and uranium processing plants, is "ranked first in the global nuclear power industry." Danner and Dillon's AREVA job descriptions also include creating and managing Clean Energy Insight (www.cleanenergyinsight.org), a propaganda tool for the nuclear industry.

And, of course, Danner and Dillon are supporters of the planned uranium mine in Pittsylvania County, which would be the first of many in eastern Virginia, bringing devastation to the environment and human communities throughout the region and beyond. And AREVA and Virginia Tech stand to make millions off the deal.

So, what kind of corporate footprint does AREVA have on the environment and human communities where it operates? According to Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), the humanitarian news and analysis service of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in Niger, mining operations owned and operated by AREVA in partnership with the Nigerian government have contaminated the air, soil and water, resulting in sickness and death for local residents and depleting regional groundwater supplies.

And the Paris-based Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity, which specializes in the analysis of radioactivity in the environment, found "serious lapses" in and near AREVA mining sites in Niger. In 2005, CRIIRAD environmental studies found water radiation levels in mining communities up to 110 times higher than the World Health Organization safe drinking water standards for industrial areas. You can read about AREVA's mining impacts in Niger at www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=83706.

Uranium mining corporations profit from environmental devastation and human suffering wherever they operate. Eric Danner and J. Carrington Dillon are a couple of their minions. Consider the source.

Shireen Pansoms
Va. community organizer
Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
Christiansburg, Va.

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14307

Virginia Tech rejects conflict of interest allegations in uranium study

What did we expect Va Tech to say? "Oh, snap...how did we miss that"?

By John Crane

Published: September 30, 2009

The director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research says its role to administer funding for a uranium mining study poses no conflict of interest.

At least one mining opponent contends Virginia Tech stands to benefit from the excavation of uranium at Coles Hill by expanding its nuclear engineering program.

“… (Virginia) Tech’s having a domestic supply of uranium ore in its backyard would complement its nu-clear engineering program in no small measure,” said Anne Cockrell, a Danville resident and member of Southside Concerned Citizens, a group that opposes uranium mining, via e-mail Wednesday.

During an interview Wednesday, Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, called Cockrell’s allegations “a very silly argument.” The nuclear engineering program at the school has nothing to do with Coles Hill, Karmis said.

A lack of engineering capabilities in the work force to run nuclear power plants and nuclear programs at military bases is prompting schools like Virginia Tech to revive their engineering departments, Karmis said. Industries did not hire engineers in the 80s and 90s, leaving a generation gap among nuclear and other types of engineers, Karmis said. Nuclear engineering has become almost extinct and engineers about to retire need to be replaced, he said. In addition, demand for nuclear power is increasing, he said.

“That’s what the universities are responding to,” Karmis said.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining. Delegate Terry Kilgore, head of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, sent a written request in August to the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct the study. NRC officials say the proposed study is worth pursuing.

Mining supporters say an operation at Coles Hill would bring economic benefits to Southside and supply hundreds of jobs. Opponents believe the project would destroy the environment and threaten public health in Pittsylvania County.

Cockrell said the nuclear-power industry, including Areva, Dominion Power and Oakridge National Laboratories, is working with schools like Virginia Tech to help train more nuclear engineers to run planned nuclear-power plants. Also, Cockrell said professor and graduate students of Virginia Tech’s departments of geosciences and hydrogeosciences have conducted on-site studies and tests of unmined uranium at Coles Hill.

“Clearly Virginia Tech’s studies at Coles Hill are contributing to the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, the mining and milling of uranium,” Cockrell said in her e-mail.

William Kearney, a spokesman for the NRC, said the organization operates independently of sponsors, who have no role in the study’s results

“Nobody knows the outcome of the study which hasn’t even started,” Kearney said of opponents’ allega-tions. “The study still needs to be approved by our governing board.”

Kearney said the NRC’s governing board will likely discuss the study request at the board’s regular meeting this month or in November. In the meantime, NRC staff will prepare a prospectus, or study proposal, that will include a scope, timeline, likely costs and sponsorship, Kearney said. The board would review the prospectus before deciding whether to approve the request.

The study’s first portion would cost $1.2-$1.4 million. Virginia Tech’s Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will handle the money and work with the NAS for the study. The second part of the study, dealing with the socioeconomic aspects of mining, still needs to be worked out by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission. VUI will not fund the second part.

Katie Whitehead, a member of the Dan River Basin Association, said a detailed draft contract should be open to the public.

“A draft contract with details regarding such things as financial provisions, public hearings, interim reports, and release of information needed for the socioeconomic study should be made available for public comment,” Whitehead said in a statement. “For transparency, a meeting to explain the draft contract and take comments is essential.”

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/virginia_tech_rejects_conflict_of_interest_allegations_in_uranium_study/14270/

"Incident" at B&W (Areva) Facility - July 2009-U in reservoir Campbell Co VA

By BryAN GENTRY

Published: September 28, 2009

A Babcock & Wilcox Company official explained how uranium got into an unchecked container at a local nuclear fuel facility in Julyduring a public review of the company’s safety record Monday night.

Federal regulators’ annual review of B&W focused somewhat on that incident, which prompted a low-level emergency declaration, though it occurred after the official review period ended in June.Roger Cochrane, general manager of the B&W Nuclear Operations Group, called the July incident “a disappointing event that’s not indicative of our typical performance.”

The annual public review officially covered Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspections at B&W from June 2008 through June 2009.

In those inspections, “we found that there were no areas needing improvement,” said Charles Payne, branch chief of the NRC Division of Fuel Facility Inspection.Because of the clean inspections, the NRC plans to conduct its basic 1,700 hours of inspections at B&W this year. In the last inspection year inspectors spent an additional 88 hours inspecting B&W’s Campbell County facility because of previous problems, Payne said.

Once the NRC finishes its report on the July 15 alert, it could increase the inspection hours at B&W this year. “If we do so, we will obviously be in touch with you,” Payne said. “We will document it in a letter and it will be publicly available.”

Cochrane said that the July 15 incident that led to an alert was caused by an oversight.

In that incident, uranium was discovered in the cooling reservoir of a saw that cuts nuclear fuel components.

Cochrane said that B&W used to check that reservoir regularly to make sure it did not contain uranium or too much fluid. In 2004 the company installed a new cooling system that does not use the reservoir. B&W stopped monitoring the reservoir, not realizing fluid could still get into it, he said.

The reservoir should have been “disabled” by filling it with concrete or putting holes in it so it would not collect liquid, but it was not disabled, he said.

He said that the discovery of uranium in the reservoir shows that B&W does train its employees to keep an eye out for problems. “It didn’t appear right, so the operator did the right thing and brought it to his management’s attention,” Cochrane said.

Once the uranium was discovered, B&W declared an alert, the NRC’s lowest emergency level. The alert was active for about five hours until B&W concluded there was not enough uranium there to cause an explosion.

Since then, B&W has reinstated its program of checking that reservoir regularly, Cochrane said. After verifying how the uranium got into it, the reservoir will be disabled, he said.

B&W has also checked its documentation on other equipment changes to make sure there have been no similar oversights in other areas, Cochrane said.

Gene Cobey, the deputy director of the NRC’s Division of Fuel Facility Inspection, said the agency’s report on the July incident should be released in mid-October.

The meeting was held at Lynchburg City Hall. About 20 people attended, mostly B&W and NRC officials.

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/bw_explains_incident_during_public_safety_review/19888/

State Money [for uranium study] Must Be Part of Equation

Katie's message is right-on!

Danville Register & Bee
September 29, 2009

To the editor,

The author of, “Welcome funding,” (Sept. 24, page A8) is quite right that these are hard times in Virginia, and hard times call for a wise investment in the future so that things will improve. That’s exactly why it could make sense for the legislature to invest in a thorough and unbiased study of uranium mining. If the legislature wants to consider opening the [entire] state to uranium mining and milling, it should know whether uranium mining in Virginia is sure to lead to safe and sustainable economic development or might cause harm, regional stigmatization and boom-bust economic instability.

The author repeats the assertion frequently made by Virginia Uranium Inc. that the National Academy of Science is “beyond reproach.” The NAS does not make this claim. Rather, as a matter of policy, the NAS does not do studies for private, for-profit corporations or accept money directly from them. The NAS takes the appearance of influence seriously.

While acknowledging great respect for the National Academies, the Center for Science in the Public Interest in a 2006 report “found serious deficiencies in the NAS’ committee-selection process” and instances of “blatant conflicts of interest.” CSPI doesn’t write off NAS, but rather offers constructive recommendations to improve the study committee selection process to ensure independence and objectivity. The report is available at http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/nasreport.pdf. [emphasis mine...SB]

This isn’t a matter of “reproach”; it’s a matter of accountability — accountability for avoiding influence and the appearance of influence. It is appropriate that all participants in the study process, whether legislators, citizens, or the esteemed National Academies hold themselves and each other accountable.

Accountability will be equally important in the socioeconomic study.

Virginia needn’t cover the entire cost of a uranium study; any contribution by the commonwealth would have significance. Securing any state funds would involve an approval process that would confirm that the commonwealth wants the study and increase confidence that all evidence will be weighed fairly.

KATIE WHITEHEAD
Chatham

anriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/state_money_must_be_part_of_equation/14205/

Nuclear grant has more to it

VA Tech Collegiate Times

by Letter to the editor

Monday, September 28, 2009; 7:41 PM

Are there really no conflicts of interests here?

According to the article "Tech receives nuclear grant" (CT, Sept. 15), Virginia Tech is slated to "implement" the money Virginia Uranium, Inc. will pay to the National Academy of Sciences for its services in performing a research study, which is to determine if uranium mining and milling can be done safely in Virginia.

Tech's newspaper, Collegiate Times, recently featured a picture of a mushroom-shaped atomic bomb blast cloud with the title "Virginia Tech's History of Nuclear Energy" with the chronological dates of the program's inception (1953), its disbanding (1990s) and its revival (2007). Strangely included are the dates of the Three Mile Island disaster in Pennsylvania (1979) and the Chernobyl disaster in Russia (1986). It also lists the $850,000 nuclear grant money (2009) received from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The article by Liana Bayne relates the NRC nuclear grant money, $850,000, which will go toward hiring new professors to "revitalize" Tech's nuclear engineering program.

Now, I shudder to think what the school's newspaper was thinking to post such a photograph, but it should cause more than an uneasy pause for the members of the NAS governing board, which is currently deliberating whether its prestigious institution should contract with Tech to do a study when the school, as the above article states, is clearly enjoying "a taste of the nuclear renaissance."

Let's recap: VUI wants to excavate an $8 billion to $10 billion uranium ore body at Coles Hill in Chatham, Va., and is the only entity that has offered to pay for the proposed NAS study. Tech wants to revitalize its nuclear engineering program and is well on track in doing so by receiving nuclear grant money ($850,000) from the NRC. (This is on top of a $300,000 grant it received last year for this program.) Tech will utilize VUI's north and south mines at Coles Hill, and its milling facility, as field laboratories for its students, which will be part of the curriculum of the nuclear engineering program. (In the past, Tech graduate students have already been on the site doing various studies on the un-mined uranium ore body at Coles Hill.) Tech will be the conduit to "implement" the estimated $1.2 million to $1.4 million VUI plans to pay NAS for doing the research study - a study it needs in order to overturn Virginia's moratorium on the mining and milling of uranium.

I have to ask, are there really no conflicts of interest here? And what does a mushroom-shaped atomic bomb blast cloud have to do with Tech's revival of its nuclear engineering program? Will NAS disregard the obvious connection between the revival of Tech's nuclear engineering program and its role to "implement" the money VUI will pay the NAS to do a research study?

Does NAS have blinders on?

Anne Cocknell [sic]
Danville, Va.

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14276

Consider impact first

Dr. Brugge is an expert in the field. He was a featured speaker in Danville, VA last fall re: dangers of uranium mining.


September 27, 2009

THERE ARE at least five strong arguments against nuclear power being more than a minor part of the response to climate change (“Nuclear must be part of energy equation,’’ Op-ed):

There is no current or imminent plan for permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste in the United States.

Addressing climate change through nuclear power means spreading nuclear technology worldwide. We already see how this leads to nuclear proliferation in places such as Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. This also may heighten the risk of nuclear terrorism.

Unintended releases of radiation from nuclear power plants, while rare, can be catastrophic (witness Chernobyl), and may be more likely as nuclear spreads to countries with less experience with the technology than the United States.

Nuclear is not really carbon neutral. The mining and processing of uranium, the building of power plants, and their decommissioning release carbon. A full accounting must consider the complete life cycle.

Finally, but not least important, mining and processing uranium ore has had devastating consequences for workers and nearby communities, often indigenous peoples.

Before we jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we need to appraise all the impacts and consider other alternatives, such as solar and wind, that have substantially less downside.

Doug Brugge
Cambridge

The writer was co-editor of the book “The Navajo People and Uranium Mining.’’

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/09/27/consider_impact_first/

Steven Chu Provides Clear Statements About The Importance of Nuc

You sort of have to understand where A-Rod is coming from. He's major-league pro-nuke guy although his arguments sometimes fall flat at which time he changes the subject and goes in another direction, still pro-nuclear. He lives in Annapolis but works in VA. He goes on and on at times about his modest lifestyle and his deep respect for the nuclear industry. Sometimes it sounds like he hung his hat on something that didn't quite pan out for him but he's in so deep, he can't get out. Just my humble opinion, of course, having sparred with him before. Here's his latest. I do appreciate his brinigng us Steven Chu's recent statements about Virginia's eager receptiveness toward nuclear power..."clean power". Looks like we've got lots of work to do!


On the Atomic Insights Blog, Rod Adams discusses energy supplies, energy technology, and energy politics from an atomic point of view. This blog is closely associated with Atomic Insights at www.atomicinsights.com

On the Atomic Insights Blog, Rod Adams discusses energy supplies, energy technology, and energy politics from an atomic point of view. This blog is closely associated with Atomic Insights at www.atomicinsights.com

by Rod Adams [aka Atomic Rod]

Sunday, September 27, 2009

I learned a lot time ago that it can be difficult, but not impossible to change the course of a very large vessel that has momentum going in a particular direction. Even when someone determines the necessity of a course change, the safe rate of change for the turn will be dependent upon the speed of travel. If the person on the helm wants to allow his passengers to maintain their balance, he will have to be judicious in the use of rudder orders so that the turn can be made gradually.

If done correctly, the turn can be almost imperceptible to the people on board. In order to make a smooth turn at high speed, the people who have determined that the turn is necessary have to pick a spot where there is sufficient space in which to complete the turn without colliding with other ships or with underwater hazards. The people who decide how to maneuver large vessels often put themselves into protected control rooms so that their actions do not get a lot of interference or distractions from people who do not have the full picture of the overall situation.

It is with that knowledge that I am a bit less worried than some of my colleagues or even some of my regular readers and Atomic Insights contributors about the direction that America is heading with regard to effectively using nuclear energy as a primary tool in the war against pollution, poverty, and partisan politics.

A couple of days ago, I found some important words from the man who has been assigned part of the task of helping to make a big turn in direction. Those words were in a publication that would have been relatively inaccessible and probably overlooked in a less connected time in our history. You can find Chu's comments on the web site of the Lynchburg (VA) News and Advance at Virginia to receive federal funds for energy projects. Here is what Steven Chu told some people in Virginia when the Department of Energy announced some relatively minor federal block grants for energy projects (totaling just $16.1 million).

“Virginia is a perfect example of having real economic opportunities in clean energy,” Chu said. “The University of Virginia and Virginia Tech are at the forefront of clean-energy engineering,” he said.

In addition, “Virginia is a national leader in nuclear power,” and one-third of the state’s electrical energy comes from nuclear power, he said.

“We are eager to restart the nuclear program in the United States and we look forward to Virginia being part of that,” Chu said.

“We are in the final negotiations” for the federal government’s $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for the first utility companies that build new reactors, Chu said, “and I would personally like to see that loan guarantee program extended or renewed with additional money.”
(Emphasis added.)

It is certainly possible to be impatient about the length of time that it has taken to award loan guarantees. It can also be a bit discouraging to think about the amount of money now available from the federal government for nuclear energy projects compared to the amount given for home improvements, solar panels and wind turbines. That can be especially true if you happen to think that direct federal money is the prime enabler for nuclear energy deployment.

Read the rest of A-Rod's blog article here: http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/09/steven-chu-provides-clear-statement.html

WVTF's Weekend in Virginia Misinforms About VA Uranium Mining

Good grief! You'd think that as ensconced in Coles Hill as Va Tech is, they'd at least have the basic facts about the study right but they don't. Naturally, they don't have lots of other information right either. Frankly, this is a HUGE disservice to the citizens of VA and the supporters of VA's public radio. WVTF should be strongly encouraged to retract all of the misinformation and offer those of us with some understanding of the basic facts equal time to try to offset the damage WVTF has done.

Some of the "facts" reported are that the study has begun, that it's been paid for, that no one wanted to pay for the study within the state government (I know...sort of true, but we've been told it was a matter of no funding, not a matter of no desire) the mining will only be done in Pittsylvania Co, and the NAS is entirely professional and won't be swayed by politics or money.

Listen for yourself...and then send an email stating the correct info to Rick Mattioni, News Director, at mattioni@vt.edu or by calling him at (540) 989-8900.

To listen:

http://www.wvtf.org/news_and_notes/audio/200909211722120.0919bloggers.mp3

Uranium Mining in Pittsylvania County - 9.21.09

Our Weekend Virginia political bloggers exchange views on whether the General Assembly should lift the ban on uranium mining so a huge deposit in Pittsylvania County can be recovered.

http://www.wvtf.org/news_and_notes/weekendva.php

France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 15, 2009

CONTACT Alis Aaron Wolf, NIRS 703-276-3265

European Expert: U.S. Policymakers Are "As Wrong As They Can Be" About the French Experience With Nuclear Power Marignac Says "Far From Being a Model, France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power". WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. policy makers are in the grips of "dangerous and costly illusions" if they think that France is a model showing how nuclear power could be implemented aggressively in the United States, according to Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues and the executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris. In visits this week with state and federal officials, Marignac is debunking the myth of the so-called "French nuclear model" that is being touted as a blueprint for the revival of the embattled nuclear power industry in the U.S. His visit comes at a particular key time, as the U.S. Senate considers additional subsidies to the nuclear industry in its version of pending climate legislation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks public comment on weakening the rules for loan-guarantee bailouts of proposed new reactors. Yves Marignac said: "I am at a loss to understand how the United States could be so far off the mark in its understanding of the French experience with nuclear power. The so-called 'success story' of the French nuclear program, which is being promoted so assiduously by the U.S. nuclear industry, is a complete disconnect with the stark reality of the 50-year history of rising costs, steadily worsening delays, technological dead-ends, failed industrial challenges and planning mistakes. The United States could make few worse mistakes than embracing France's sorry nuclear legacy. If American policymakers are going to weigh the example of France, they need to get the facts instead of settling for the fantasy being sold to them by the US nuclear industry." In his remarks today, Marignac noted the following key problems: • French nuclear technology is deeply flawed. The French EPR Reactor is a new reactor design developed by the company Areva in cooperation with the German firm Siemens. Serious doubts have been raised about the safety and cost of the EPR. Experience in the construction at the two sites where EPRs are being built, in Finland (Olkiluoto 3) and France (Flamanville 3), has revealed serious and fundamental weaknesses in design, problems during construction phases and soaring costs. British and Finnish nuclear regulators have also raised significant safety questions, in particular about the computerized command and control system proposed for these reactors. • French nuclear reactor construction delays are getting steadily worse, not better. Alongside increasing costs, construction times have proven to be problematic. The last four reactors that were built in France, two units in Chooz and two in Civaux, were only connected on average 10.5 years after construction work began, and subsequent safety problems caused further delays. Their official industrial service only started in 2000 and 2002 respectively, some 15.5 and 12.5 years after construction started. • French nuclear reactor costs are just as out of control as they are in the U.S. The EPR has been promoted as a technology that makes nuclear energy cheaper and more competitive. When the decision was made to build an EPR in Finland in 2002, the government promised that it would cost Euro 2.5 billion and take only four years to build. The final contract, three years later, put the price at Euro 3 billion and construction time was set at 4.5 years. Since construction began in summer 2005, a variety of technical problems have led to a three and a half-year delay, extending the construction period to at least 7 years. The currently estimated additional cost is Euro 2.3 billion, raising the current price tag to Euro 5.3 billion, almost 75 percent over the initial estimate. More problems, delays and cost overruns are likely to occur before the project is completed. In September 2008, Nucleonics Week quoted an Areva official, saying that Euro 4.5 billion will be a minimum price for any new EPR — almost twice the initial estimate. The other EPR being built in Flamanville, France, was approved in 2005 on the basis of a 2.8 c€/kWh cost estimate, which was increased by EDF in December 2008 to 5.4 c€/kWh, although EDF itself estimated that it should be below 4.6 c€/kWh to guarantee profitability. • Nuclear power in France has not promoted energy independence. Nuclear power in France is a major presence, providing 76 percent of electricity produced in 2008. However, electricity accounted for only 20.7 percent of the final energy consumption in France that year. Excluding electricity exports, the overall contribution of nuclear power to France's final energy consumption is only in the range of 14 percent. If the real aim of the nuclear programme was to reduce oil dependence, then it has clearly failed in its objectives. Over 70 percent of France's final energy is provided by fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), with oil accounting for 49 percent of the energy consumption in 2007. Nuclear power cannot provide energy security, as it only has a marginal effect upon oil consumption, which is dominated by the transport sector. France consumes more oil per capita than the European average, and despite its long-term objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three-quarters, it seems incapable of bucking an upward trend. This is due largely to the weak policies on energy efficiency and new energy sources, influenced by the lock-in of nuclear power. • French nuclear power is not "safer" ... and the nation does not have a long term solution to waste storage. The operators of the 200 nuclear facilities in France declare a very large number of events — considered relevant for safety — every year. EDF alone declares between 10,000 and 12,000, of which 700 to 800 are deemed "incidents" or "significant events". Large amounts of radioactive waste arise from the French nuclear programme. In total, close to 890,000 cubic meters (m3) of radioactive waste had been produced by the end of 2004. Almost 40 percent of this amount is linked to reprocessing. This total does not account for some 12,000 m3 of waste from the reprocessing plant in Marcoule that was dumped into the sea in 1967 and 1969. While reprocessing is presented as a means to reduce the volume of highly-radioactive long-lived wastes in final disposal, it actually increases the complexity of waste management, and thereby the danger for the population and environment. Reprocessing comes with numerous extra nuclear facilities and transports, each creating extra safety risks. But also 'normal' radiation exposure arising from routine operations increases, for example by the radioactive discharges of La Hague reprocessing plants, with authorized discharge levels up to 1000 times higher than those applying to the nearby Flamanville nuclear power station. And even France, supposedly the country of nuclear expertise, has no long-term solution for its nuclear wastes. • Nuclear power in France is not popular. The pursuit of the nuclear program in France is a permanently undemocratic choice. Contrary to the image presented in the United States, the French population is no more in favor of nuclear power than the European average — indeed a majority is opposed to the building of new plants. Surveys repeatedly show that the public lacks confidence in the institutional promoters of nuclear power. • The "nationalized" nuclear model in France is completely incompatible with the market-driven U.S. In 2001, Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (Cogema — General Company for Nuclear Materials), a private company established in 1976, merged with Framatome, the nuclear reactor builder, to create the Areva group. Currently, 96 percent of the share capital of the Areva group is held by the French state and large French industries. Electricité de France (EDF), the French electric utility, was established in 1946 through nationalization of a number of state and private companies. First and foremost responsible for overseeing development of the electricity supply across France, today EDF operates all 59 nuclear reactors in service in France. EDF was partly privatized in 2005-2006, but the French government still retains control 84.9 percent of its shares. • State ownership of French nuclear power means that the true costs are hidden. Though largely in an indirect fashion, French taxpayers bear a large part of the nuclear costs. The French government, as both the regulator of electricity prices and the owner of the utility EDF, has been able to overcome the main obstacle to nuclear power by planning, at liberty, the return of capital costs from nuclear investments. French public funding is widely provided to the nuclear industry, from financing extensive R&D programs to guaranteeing low-rate loans. Official cost estimates for nuclear power tend to neglect or downplay hidden costs from the fuel cycle, waste management, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, security, infrastructural changes and state guarantees for liabilities. All in all, nuclear power is highly subsidized by the French taxpayer. ABOUT YVES MARIGNAC Yves Marignac is executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris, which he joined in 1997, after four years shared between academic research at Paris-XI University and applied studies in the French nuclear institute CEA and the nuclear company STMI. His consultant work covers a wide range of nuclear issues for various institutional bodies and NGOs at the national and international level. In 1999-2000, Marignac participated in the economic evaluation of the nuclear option commissioned by French Prime Minister (known as Charpin-Dessus-Pellat report), and in 2001 he was a co-author of a report to the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (STOA) Panel on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In 2005, he acted as consultant to the Commission that organized the institutional public debate on the project of the new French reactor, EPR (Flamanville-3). Marignac is the author or co-author of a number of books and other publications, including Nuclear Power, the Great Illusion - Promises, Setbacks and Threats (October 2008) and Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France (April 2008). CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com. EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event is available on the Web at http://www.nuclearbailout.org.

NOTICE OF MEETING

To: Members, Renewable Energy Subcommittee, of the Energy and Environment
Commission

From: Angi Murphy, Senate Committee Operations

Re:Meeting Date/Time/Location

Meeting Date: 10/22/2009

Meeting Time: 10:00:00 AM

Meeting Location: Pittsylvania County Public Library--Gretna Branch at 207
Coffey Street, Gretna VA 24557



FOR INFORMATION, PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING LINK -->

http://dela.state.va.us/Dela/ComOpsStudy.nsf/82965f555b18a72185256c330058a983/11D8A24A68C83B088525763C006011F1?OpenDocument

Virginia's FY 2010 Budget Reductions

FYI...COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FY 2010 REDUCTION PLAN

http://www.pittgov.org/documents/Reductions2010.pdf

VOTE! "Is It OK for VUI to Indirectly Fund a $2 Million

state study on the benefits and dangers of uranium mining?" Click here and register your answer.

http://www.wpcva.com/chatham/

Nuclear Power in France: Setting the Record Straight

France sees the light re: nuclear power.

A COSTLY MISTAKE

► The state-owned French nuclear industry has
cost taxpayers billions, including huge export
losses, construction and shutdown costs.

►The breeder reactor – on which the French
nuclear hopes were based – was an expensive
gamble. The Superphenix breeder averaged a
7% capacity factor over its 14 years of operation.

FRENCH PUBLIC OPPOSITION

►60,000 people rallied in five cities in March
2007 in opposition to a proposed new European
Pressurized Reactor (EPR) in Northern France.

►Annual polls show at least 60% of French
citizens would like to see nuclear power phased
out and a shift made to renewable energy.

► In 2007, 50,000 French citizens signed a
petition demanding a referendum on radioactive
waste dumping in their communities.

FRENCH CORPORATIONS IN THE U.S.

► Two majority French-government-owned
corporations – Areva and Électricité de France –
would reap huge U.S. taxpayer funds if nuclear
power is expanded in the U.S.

► Areva would be the beneficiary of U.S. tax
dollars should a proposed uranium enrichment
facility – owned by Areva – go forward in Idaho.

► EDF, a partner with Constellation, is applying
to build EPR reactors in Maryland and in upstate
New York. At least five additional EPRs are also
under consideration in the US.

AREVA IN NIGER

► In Niger – as in many countries – uranium mining
has disproportionately affected indigenous peoples
who have seen none of the economic benefits but
have suffered from health and environmental impacts.
Proposed new mines across northern Niger have
sparked opposition from tribespeople who have been
arbitrarily arrested, tortured and executed without trial.

► Areva has mined uranium for 40 years in Niger,
West Africa, creating radioactively-contaminated air,
soil and water. Discarded radioactive metals from the
mining operation are sold in public marketplaces.

► Areva has signed a deal for a huge new uranium
mine in Niger that, if opened, would be the second
largest in the world. Uranium mining threatens to
deplete the Sahara Desert area water supply.

France gets nearly 80% of its electricity
from its 58 nuclear reactors. However, its
heavy reliance on nuclear power creates
safety and environmental risks, including an
unresolved radioactive waste problem.

REPROCESSING

► France reprocesses its own, and some
foreign, irradiated reactor fuel. That is, the
fuel is cut up and soaked in acid to extract
plutonium and fissile uranium. This results
in massive releases of radioactive gases,
solids, and liquids into the environment.

► One hundred million gallons of
radioactively contaminated liquids are
discharged annually into the English
Channel from the La Hague reprocessing
center. Dumping these same wastes into
the sea in containers would violate the
1970 London Dumping Convention.

► The claim that France “recycles” its
irradiated nuclear fuel is a major
exaggeration. Only about 1% of the
reprocessed fuel is used as reactor fuel
while 99% remains as radioactive waste.

► A plane crashing on a La Hague
irradiated fuel storage pond could release
radioactivity more than six times the
equivalent released at Chernobyl.

► Radioactive discharges from La Hague
have contaminated area beaches and
waters as far as the Arctic and beyond.
These discharges likely caused the
elevated rates of leukemia near La Hague
found by two independent medical studies.

► La Hague routinely releases radioactive
gases including concentrations of krypton-
85 found at levels 90,000 times higher than
in nature.

►Aerial discharges of carbon-14,
considered to be one of the most damaging
radioactive isotopes to human health, have
also been detected in the La Hague area.
Radioactive carbon dioxide — the leading
climate change culprit, is also released.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROBLEMS

► France has no high-level radioactive waste
repository and faces public opposition to the
only one it is exploring, at Bure.

► Reprocessing has created large quantities of
solid waste contaminated with plutonium that
will need to be isolated permanently.

► Much of the waste remaining in France from
the reprocessing of foreign fuel has never been
returned to the country of origin, rendering
France a de facto international dump site.

► The so-called low- and intermediate-level
radioactive waste dump sites that do exist –
including in the important Champagne region –
are leaking radioactivity into the groundwater.

► Radioactive tailings from the 210
abandoned uranium mines in France have
been used in public areas, including school
playgrounds and public parking lots.

PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

► After plutonium and uranium are extracted
during reprocessing, they can be combined into
mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel. This is used in fewer
than 20 MOX reactors which generate less
than 10% of French nuclear electricity.

► MOX reactors, like all reactors, also
generate plutonium. There is no significant net
reduction of plutonium from using MOX fuel.

► Dangerous plutonium oxide powder is
transported regularly from La Hague to the
MOX fuel fabrication plants in Belgium and
Southern France.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS LINK

►The 80-plus metric tons of plutonium
stockpiled at La Hague in hundreds of
vulnerable containers are enough to make
at least 10,000 bombs.

►France has exported civilian nuclear
technology and training to, or assisted in
the nuclear programs of, Pakistan, Israel,
India and South Africa, all of which
developed nuclear weapons.

►France exported nuclear technology to
Iran, now the subject of international
controversy about whether Iran is also
developing nuclear weapons.

► France has sent shipments of
plutonium fuel overseas, risking hijacking,
accident or diversion.

► France delivered and helped build
Iraq’s Osirak reactor that was
subsequently bombed by Israel in 1981.

►French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has
toured the globe promoting nuclear power
as a “bridge to the Islamic world.” France
is marketing nuclear technology to much
of the Middle East and North Africa.

FLAWED REACTOR TECHNOLOGY

►The French European Pressurized
Reactors (EPR) under construction in
France and Finland have encountered
serious technical flaws including
substandard parts.By July 2009, the
Finnish reactor was already at least three
years behind schedule and 60% over
budget.

► The summer of 2008 saw a cascade of
nuclear accidents in France. Drinking and
bathing in the water was banned after
radioactive spills at the Tricastin nuclear
complex contaminated rivers.

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/France_pamphlet_July09.pdf

The Face of Things to Come?

From our friends at "Wake the Hell Up!" comes this chilling set of photographs. I can't do them justice here...you need to see them yourself.

http://www.chernobylvermont.com/

http://wakethehellup.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/syfy-video-ghosts-of-chernobyl/

From Virginia Tech's college newspaper, The Collegiate Times

Naaa...there's no conflict of interest with Va Tech, VUI, NAS, the NRC and the upcoming study. They're all one big happy family!

The Mohawk Council of Kanesatake demands full Environmental Assessment on proposed mining operation

KANESATAKE, Quebec City, Sept. 24 /CNW Telbec/ - The Kanesatake Mohawk Council is demanding a full Environmental Assessment be conducted immediately by the Federal Government in regard to a niobium mine planned for the area. Federal involvement is essential due to the safety concerns, Aboriginal rights and fiduciary responsibility issues.

Niocan, Inc. seeks to build and operate a mine on lands which are within the old Seigneury of the Lake of Two Mountains over which the Mohawks have aboriginal and treaty rights. The land upon which the old Saint Laurence Columbium Mine rests is situated within the ongoing Kanesatake land claim.

Some compounds of niobium are known to be toxic. As well, isotopes of radium and polonium exist in high concentrations in the ore body that Niocan proposes to mine. These and other radioactive materials (including Radium 226, Lead 210 and Thorium 230) will be left behind in the significant volumes of radioactive wastes left over from the mining operations in slag and tailings. There are 36 different radioactive by-products in existence.

On February 14, 2002 the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake passed a resolution to defend their traditional territory from the operation of a niobium mine that would affect their waters and lands. The mining project would impact over 25 square kilometres of land in a vibrant agricultural area, which markets directly from the farms to the population of Montreal. This area includes the traditional territory of the Mohawks of Kanesatake.

The Niocan project would undoubtedly have a powerful effect on the area's natural water systems and could destroy the agricultural capability of the surrounding areas.

"We must guard and protect this land for our future generations, both environmentally and health wise, and we remain steadfast in the preservation of our territory," stated Grand Chief Sohenrise Paul Nicholas. "Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl has stated that access to clean drinking water and wastewater systems for First Nations people is a priority of his government. Canada must hold true to its word and proceed with an independent and unbiased assessment."

For further information: Grand Chief Sohenrise Paul Nicholas, (450) 479-8373

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2009/24/c8280.html

7 Drawbacks To Using Nuclear Power

by Brett Stephens on September 23, 2009

by Tim McDonald

People may argue that 25% of the world’s energy is produced through nuclear power, but what they do not understand is all the problems it brings:

1 – It costs a lot of money to setup:

Nuclear power plants are definitely not a cheap investment. At around six to twelve billion dollars each – just for installation – taxpayers have subsidized billions of dollars to keep the utilities afloat. This money could have been invested in cleaner renewable energies instead.

2 – It causes global warming:

Once seen as the solution to global climate change, nuclear power is far from it. Everywhere along the nuclear chain – from the mining of uranium to its transportation to the construction of the power plant – greenhouse gases are emitted.

What’s more is these reactors take years to be fully operational – wasting precious time in our fight against global warming. We could have used that time and money more wisely, such as improved research and development in solar and wind power.

3 – The bi-product is radioactive waste:

Each reactor creates a lot (twenty to thirty tonnes) of highly toxic radioactive waste per year. Not to mention the so-called “low” level radiation emitted in the rest of the supply chain – such as during the mining and milling process.

4 – It is a nuclear bomb just waiting to be detonated:

Nuclear power plants are not as safe as they are said to be. They could easily be attacked and even if an accident happened, there are no realistic evacuation measures in place. Furthermore, thanks to the Price-Anderson Act, a utility company is liable for only $10.8 billion as opposed to the real potential damage of $600 billion! Who will be picking up the rest of the bill? The working-class taxpayers – that’s who!

5 – Low-level radiation causes cancer:

The levels of radiation released in the air, water and soil are considered “safe”. However, this standard is based on how it impacts healthy, white males and does not take consideration for children that are sensitive to cancer-causing radiation.

We have also been misled about how safe it really is to “dispose” of all this radioactive waste. There is no scientific proof to show where the safest place to dump the waste is. And more nuclear plants would make the problem worse. There are only so many “safe” storage facilities. Any additional waste would have to be either burned or dumped in landfills – leading to air and water pollution.

6 – Nuclear development aids terrorism:

A country’s national security always feels at threat when extremist countries start harnessing nuclear power. Just think about Israel attacking Syria’s so-called nuclear site back in 2007, and how uneasy America was when Iran was developing its own nuclear program. Nuclear power sets the stage for the production of atomic bombs, so as long the number of reactors increases, the likelihood of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons increases.

7 – There are better power options:

What frustrates us is that we we should rather be spending our time and money on the development of safer, cleaner, renewable energy solutions, such as erecting more solar plants and wind farms. Hopefully with Obama’s administration, nuclear energy will be phased out and largely replaced with the implementation of renewable energy.

But while we wait, it is possible to start harnessing renewable energy at home. What’s more is, it does not cost very much and is rather simple to implement. Various solar and wind power guides have already become available, which you can see in our reviews section.

About the Author:

So stop relying nuclear power and learn to make your own power at home. But before you get ripped off, have a look inside the best diy energy manual – Earth4Energy – for free NOW! You should also have a look at the in-depth Earth4Energy Review here.

http://thetechedition.com/7-drawbacks-to-using-nuclear-power/

States completes final draft permits for two UEC wells

GOLIAD - Uranium Energy Corp. has forged one step closer to mining in Goliad County.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality completed final draft permits for two non-hazardous disposal wells, the uranium company announced Wednesday. The company would use the wells as part of its in-situ recovery operations.

"Uranium Energy Corp. is roughly 95 percent through the permitting process," said Harry Anthony, the uranium company's chief operating officer.

So far, the company received from the state final draft for its:

Mine permit.

Production area permit.

Disposal wells permit.

The company submitted its radioactive material license application to the state a year ago. The radioactive materials license represents the final permit the state reviews in this sequence of permitting. Already, the uranium company prepares a response to the state's technical review of its application, and plans to submit the response within 30 days.

"The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is well along with their review," Anthony said.

Goliad County sued Uranium Energy Corp. in March 2008. The county claims the company contaminated well water when it failed to properly plug many of its 1,100 exploratory wells. Both sides say science supports their arguments.

Goliad County Commissioner Jim Kreneck, who opposes uranium mining, said the state permitting process remains slanted in favor of big business.

"The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is funded 85 percent by permitting fees. Who wouldn't push a permit through to get a paycheck?" Kreneck said. "That's been one of my concerns all along. Permits are pushed through without proper evaluation and to keep their operations going."

Anthony disagreed. He called the state review process "thorough."

A follow-up remark by our friend Mark Krueger:

..."unexpected geological or hydrological conditions" is part of the disclosure on the mining company's website.

This is a transcribed account of a recent conversation (today) with a local water well driller.

“I’m not gonna tell you they can control it. When you pressure down and lose circulation in the formation, it could be going anywhere. Sometimes you find it in an old well 100 yards away,(drilling mud) or sometimes you don’t find it at all.”

“It’s very simple when you are drilling a hole in the ground 400-500 feet deep, as you build up weight pushing down, wherever you are, under sand, whatever formation, maybe a dry formation of sand, then it’s gonna go into it. It will follow the path of least resistance. When you hit a cavity or honeycomb caliche, everything goes south on ya. Simple as it is. Especially if you weight it up, lose return, sometimes you just have to abandon the hole.”

What this water well driller is referring to is what the scientific world calls "heterogeneous fabric", meaning that many variations of the soil beneath us exist, including the well known water-bearing gravel beds of Victoria County. If an unknown gravel bed were to exist adjacent to an injection zone, the fluid under pressure could migrate to and saturate the gravel bed. If this were to happen, the probability of recovery would be greatly reduced. In other words, once it's gone then it's gone. To whose well? Your guess is as good as anyone's.

...still looking for good news regarding uranium mining, still haven't found any.

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/sep/23/gs_uec_update_092409_67219/?news&goliad-county

A Simple Statement On Nuclear Power and Climate Change

Sign the Statement | Invite Your Friends to Sign | View the Signers | Print the Statement

We're getting a little tired hearing nuclear industry lobbyists and pro-nuclear politicians allege that environmentalists are now supporting nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis. We know that's not true, and we're sure you do too. In fact, using nuclear power would be counterproductive at reducing carbon emissions. As Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute points out, "every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar..."

The simple statement below will be sent to the media and politicians whenever they misstate the facts. We hope you and your organization will join us and sign on in support here.

"We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."

http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php

River watchdogs hold board meeting

It would be beneficial to all (and everything) connected to the Roanoke River for this group to come down on the side against mining the uranium at Coles Hill. One would think that the group could learn vital lessons from all the water contamination caused by uranium mining in the US and world-wide and take every step to keep Virginia's waters safe.

By Della Batts
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 12:54 PM ED

ROANOKE RAPIDS — The Roanoke River is one of the most vital resources to the Roanoke Valley. The water it provides daily is vital for maintaining current levels of development for future growth. The Roanoke River Basin Association has been working to protect this valuable resource since 1945. It is a coalition of members from Virginia and North Carolina who work to protect the river’s development, use, preservation and enhancement.

Instrumental in the fight against the Virginia Beach Pipeline, lately the RRBA has tackled concerns of possible interbasin water transfers in the lower Roanoke and possible uranium mining in the upper Roanoke River. The formation of the Bi-State Commission between Virginia and North Carolina has members hopeful the two states will work together for the betterment of the basin. The RRBA was instrumental in the formation of that commission. In a recent meeting of the board they discussed these and other issues.

According to a news release from Vice President Gene Addesso, the board was updated on the formation of the Lower Roanoke Inter-Basin Transfer of water (IBT) coalition. The group is organizing as a non-profit organization and will address the issue of interbasin water transfer from the Roanoke River. This is in response to a recent request from Kerr Lake Regional Water System to more than double its daily interbasin water transfer levels. The RRBA voted to formally recognize the organization.

In a similar forum, Addesso congratulated Bi-State Commission Director John Fields who was elected chair. The commission works to make recommendations to Virginia and North Carolina government concerning issues involving the Roanoke River. Addesso said, “It took the North Carolina side six years to get organized. Virginia has been organized and has been meeting over those years. The issue was eventually addressed with Rep. Lucy Allen and Sen. A.B. Swindle who got things moving in North Carolina.”

The commission has held three meetings with Addesso and RRBA Director Rick Seekins facilitating. “During the initial meetings an Ad-Hoc Water Allocation Committee was set up to develop a protocol by which Virginia and North Carolina could agree and advise the Corps of Engineers regarding allocation of water supply from Kerr Lake. This committee is made up of experts in the field of water management and is active,” said Addesso.

The organization hasn’t made up its mind yet concerning proposed uranium mining in Virginia, by Virginia Uranium Ltd., an issue that’s becoming major in Southside Virginia. After looking at the scope of a proposed study by the National Academy of Sciences the organization joined the Dan River Basin Association in saying “the current scope of the study is too general and does not really address the potential danger to the environment and health of the resources and citizens of the basin.”

Addesso said, “The irony now is the study will be funded by the Virginia Uranium Mining Company due to the lack of the State of Virginia funds to do so. It is naturally in the best interest for them to get the study complete. This makes the study suspect relative to objectivity. It is felt a total ‘neutral’ body should be setting the parameters and conducting the study.”

At the meeting, Rives Manning said he felt the study should be conducted by a group with no special or biased interest and made a motion the Bi-State Commission present specific parameters for the study.

Virginia Uranium Ltd, recently merged with Santoy Resources Ltd., to form Virginia Energy Resources Inc. Santoy is described by Alpha Trade Finance, a digital media and marketing company at finance.alphatrade.com, as a “junior Canadian mineral exploration company focused on discovering and developing high-grade uranium deposits,” out of Vancouver.

Alpha Trade said, “Santoy has actively been acquiring strategically located uranium properties within four main geographic locations for uranium occurrences ... These projects are located on favorable geological trends and are in close proximity to known deposits. The price of uranium has been steadily increasing due to a growing demand in the energy sector, which has been brought forth by dwindling supplies of uranium, increased life expectancy of current reactors, announced plans for many new reactors worldwide and an increased acceptance of nuclear power worldwide. With Santoy's significant uranium holdings, well over 1 million acres, the company has positioned itself to leverage from the current and continuing appeal of this valuable commodity.”

The board got an update on the grass carp situation in Lake Gaston. Manning said legislation was recently passed to prevent killing of the carp in the lake because they were introduced for specific purposes. The hybridized fish is designed specifically to eat hydrilla and costs the Lake Gaston Weed Control Council more than $4 per fish.

Addesso said guest speaker, Tom Fransen, deputy director of N.C. Division of Water Resources, held a discussion on key projects in his division. “Their main objectives presently are water supply planning, water allocation and drought management in North Carolina,” said Addesso.

Reportedly, Co-chair Fransen also updated the board on the status of the Kerr Lake Regional Water System’s IBT request and the work being done by the Bi-State Commission Ad Hoc Committee on water allocation from Kerr Lake.

http://www.rrdailyherald.com/articles/2009/09/23/news/doc4aba522a8fe7c493215966.txt

National Research Council Agrees to [Consider] Uranium Study

By John Crane

Danville Register & Bee
Published: September 23, 2009

A National Research Council official says a formal request for a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in Virginia is worth pursuing.

Delegate Terry Kilgore, head of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, sent a written request to the NRC on Aug. 20. The NRC responded Sept. 8, saying the proposed study merits consideration.

“The fact that the request comes from a body created by the Virginia General Assembly … is a strong indication to us of the importance of this study to the commonwealth and one that deserves our serious attention,” wrote E. William Colglazier, chief operating officer of the NRC, in a letter to Kilgore.

The NRC is an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining.

Mining supporters say an operation at Coles Hill would bring economic benefits to Southside and supply hundreds of jobs. Opponents believe the project would destroy the environment and threaten public health, turning Pittsylvania County into a sacrifice zone.

As for the NRC’s response, Kilgore said he thinks the study will happen.

“I get a good feeling they’re going to do it,” Kilgore said Tuesday. “I think we can expect a positive outcome.”

VUI, through Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, will pay for the study’s first phase focusing on the technical and public-safety aspects of mining.

The study’s first portion will cost $1.2 to $1.4 million. Virginia Tech’s Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will implement funding and will contract with the NAS for the study. Kilgore said the second part of the study, dealing with the socioeconomic aspects of mining, still needs to be worked out by the commission. VUI will not fund the second part.

William Kearney, an NRC spokesman, said the group’s Governing Board has not approved the study request, and will likely discuss it at the board’s regular meeting in October or November. In the meantime, NRC staff will prepare a prospectus, or study proposal, that will include a scope, timeline, likely costs and sponsorship, Kearney said. The board would review the prospectus before deciding whether to approve the request.

If the board approves the request, the next step would be the NRC negotiating and entering into a contract with Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research. The board would then appoint a provisional committee of about a dozen scientific experts to perform the study and write its report, Kearney said. There will be public comment regarding the makeup of the committee, Kearny said.

The committee’s members would make a site visit to Coles Hill and possibly hold a public meeting, Kearney said.

Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, which opposes mining, said there needs to be citizen input during the study.

“To ignore the people makes no sense at all,” Nenon said Tuesday. The study needs local viewpoint, which is different than that of scientists from outside the area, she said.

VUI spokesman Patrick Wales praised the NRC’s response to Kilgore’s request.

“I think this is another important step in getting the nation’s preeminent independent scientific institution to evaluate this energy resource in Pittsylvania County,” Wales, a geologist with VUI, said.

http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/local/southside/article/national_research_council_agrees_to_uranium_study/49146/

Groups Help Test Private Water Sources

Here's a great idea!


Posted: Sep 22, 2009 6:00 PM EDT Updated: Sep 22, 2009 6:01 PM EDT

Augusta County wants to help people find out for sure if the water coming out of their taps is safe to drink. Half the households in Augusta County -- some 35,000 people -- rely on private water sources, such as wells, cisterns and springs

Most of them don't get their water tested nearly as often as they should, says the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. The service is offering water tests for more than 200 homeowners who signed up for it.

The testing will reveal bacteria like coliform and e-coli, and show levels of iron, sodium and other chemicals. Then it's up to each property owner to take the next step.

Cristin Sprenger with the Virginia Cooperative Extension said, "They can choose to make changes to their water source...You know, put a system in that would kill bacteria or whatever they want. But they're under no obligation to do so. No one's going to come in and tell them they can't use their water."

The rotary club, which works on drinking water projects all over the world, co-sponsored the testing program in their home county. That allows Augusta County homeowners to get their water screened for less than $50 and they can ask for financial aid if they need it.

The results will be back in early November.

Reported by Ken Slack

http://www.nbc29.com/global/story.asp?s=11178873

Pittsylvania County residents speak out on comprehensive plan

Oh, Mr. Sides! You've just divulged that you're most likely a mine investor! That means you have a serious conflict of interest with what's best for Pittsylvania Co. and should resign from the BOS immediately! How the prospect of a uranium mine can be left out of a comprehensive plan is stupefying to me! (Having served on a Planning and Zoning Commission that had to do a comprehensive plan every 5 years, I know a bit about the process.) You really said, "We honestly don’t know what’s going to happen" regarding the mine?? Where have you been for the past 2 years? There have been several presentations in your county telling you, and others, exactly what's going to happen if a mine is situated in PittCo. If I'm not mistaken, you were provided a DVD with the complete presentation on it just so you and other elected officials could see what's going to happen if you permit the uranium mine! You've had it a year...have you not watched it yet?? Geez, Mr. Sides...what have you been doing?

To ignore the possibility of something as devastating to the area as a uranium mine is utterly irresponsible. Frankly, PittCo needs to develop 2 comprehensive plans...one including the mine and the other not including the mine. They will be radically different. Much of PittCo will no longer be habitable if a mine is premitted. There will be no need for a "Cultural Heritage/Tourism Commission" since no one will be able to (or want to) tour the area once the mining commences and deadly radon gas begins to permeate everything in its path. The rich heritage of the area will be lost. Mr. Giles will be left with nothing to do! Awww! But he's drunk the VUI Kool-Aid...we've commented on it here. He knows that what he proposes is foolish in the face of a uranium mine!

Sooo, Mr. Sides...it's time for you to move on. It's apparent you have no interest in preserving or protecting what's good about Pittsylvania Co. if you've gotten to the point that you can exclude a uranium mine's presence from a comprehensive plan.

By John Crane

Published: September 22, 2009

BLAIRS — Pittsylvania County officials heard from residents during a public-input meeting on the update of its comprehensive plan Tuesday night, with one person recommending that the county form a Cultural Heritage Commission.

The 18-year-old plan covers an array of topics and provides a guideline for county development. It would be the first time the county has revamped its plan since adopting it in 1991.

The Pittsylvania County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will use the plan as a guide for making future land-use decisions, including those for rezonings and special-use permits, transportation improvements, public facility and economic development investments and utilities enhancements.

The document covers a plethora of subjects relating to the county including quality-of-life, economic development, the natural and cultural environment, demographics, health care, housing, education, zoning, land use and growth management, transportation, public safety and other issues. State law mandates that the county review its comprehensive plan every five years.

Glenn Giles, a Mount Hermon resident with the Pittsylvania Historical Society, said a Cultural Heritage Commission would benefit the county economically and would be tasked with developing a strategy for future programs focusing on the county’s heritage.

“…It will provide an economic development resource through the long overlooked benefits of a Cultural Heritage Tourism initiative,” Giles said during the meeting held at Chatham Middle School on Tuesday night.

A commission would also “promote the interests of culturally-endowed citizens” and coordinate “the activities of current cultural and heritage organizations,” Giles said. It would also promote county pride and knowledge among citizens and young people, Giles said.

It’s paramount that the county have a commission in place for its 250th anniversary in 2017, less than eight years away, Giles said.

Attendance at the meeting was sparse, but attendees were outspoken about their viewpoints.

George Stanhope, a Chatham resident, told county planner Greg Sides he wondered what uranium mining would do to the Chatham-Gretna area. Sides said the plan will not take a position on uranium mining and that the topic was talked about in 1991, the last time the county had a new plan.

“We honestly don’t know what’s going to happen,” Sides said.

Charles Miller, a member of the Pittsylvania County Planning Commission, said during an interview residents in the Hurt and Sycamore areas have to cross the county line into Altavista to shop because businesses have left Hurt. Also, area young people who go to college must leave the region to find a career to match their skill sets, Miller, a father of four, said.

“I’d like very much to see my family to be able to come back here and find positions commensurate with their skills and training,” Miller said.

Miller, who also serves on the Pittsylvania County School Board, said the county school district’s high-quality education system makes this area ripe for economic development.

“Pittsylvania County needs to be marketed,” Miller said.

The plan will include six goals and other strategies in a rough draft. The goals include:

• Stimulating economic activity and encouraging development supporting a healthy, stable and diverse economy.

• Anticipating and planning for population change and accommodating it in an orderly and efficient manner.

• Promoting the preservation of the natural and cultural environment for present and future residents of the county.

• Providing public services and community facilities necessary to support development as economically and efficiently as possible.

• Encouraging aesthetic, health-promoting residential communities, and providing choices in housing so that all residents may find affordable, comfortable, safe and sanitary housing.

• Promoting the efficient and financially sound operation of the county government and minimizing the financial burden on county taxpayers.

More public input meetings will be held, beginning at 7 p.m. and ending by 9. The remaining meetings are Monday at Dan River Middle School, Tuesday at Tunstall Middle School and Oct. 1 at Gretna Middle School.

The draft plan will be posted later on Pittsylvania County’s Web page at http://www.pittgov.org with another opportunity for public comments online. When the draft is finalized, the Planning Commission will vote whether to recommend the plan to the Board of Supervisors. The board will hold a public hearing before voting on the matter, Sides said.

Sides the plan will go before the board by the end of the year.

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/pittsylvania_county_residents_speak_out_on_comprehensive_plan/14082/

VUI cares nothing about us

Amen, Jesse...amen.

By Published by The Editorial Board

Published: September 22, 2009

To the editor:

The announcement that Virginia Uranium Inc. will be paying for the “study” of the feasibility of mining and milling uranium in Virginia only goes to point out how ridiculous this process has been up to this point. Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Gate City, sounded almost giddy with delight that this boondoggle has found a backer, even though having VUI pay for its own study is an obvious conflict of interest.

A look at the events leading up to this announcement is a textbook example of how big business controls government. In 2007, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors caved into Walter Coles’ request that they do nothing and ask no questions about his uranium-mining plan. Only Hank Davis and Marshall Ecker had the courage to raise doubts about what this might mean to the county. The rest of them bowed down and agreed to do nothing. They passed on their responsibility to the citizens of Pittsylvania County.

They and the county administrator sold us down the river to Richmond.

Then Chatham Town Council agreed to do nothing as well. Even though Mayor George Haley tried valiantly to persuade them to consider the consequences of acceding to the uranium interests, they as well chose the head-in-the-sand option. They sucked up Coles’ fairy tale of “a glorious new era for Southside” and were blinded by his promises of billions of dollars being thrown around like free candy at the Christmas parade.

As soon as the local politicians were dealt with, VUI focused its attention on the “study.” The Uranium Mining Subcommittee, appointed by the Coal and Energy Commission, set off on its own trip to Oz, with Del. Kilgore in the role of Dorothy. And that meant that we were not in Kansas anymore. The push for uranium mining had moved to Richmond and the bigger arena of the state legislature, where politics as usual dictates that what is done or not done is directly proportionate to the amount of lobbying dollars being thrown at the legislators.

So now we are at the mercy of the Coal and Energy Commission, the entity that has overseen the virtual destruction of much of Southwestern Virginia with mountain top removal coal mining, including in Del. Kilgore’s own Scott County. Now they are looking at Southside and licking their chops over the proposed uranium mine and mill. They finally have the money they need to set in motion a “study” of that mining that can only reach one logical conclusion, that uranium can in fact be mined safely with certain regulations in place — regulations that would be written with a large portion of help from the mining industry itself.

We don’t have to look far to see what a dismal record the mining conglomerates have regarding the environment and public safety. If they will allow the mountains of Southwest Virginia to be destroyed and the toxic waste products bulldozed into the streams and rivers of that part of the state, why would they care about what happens to Southside?

VUI paying for this “study” and the uranium industry crafting the regulations is akin to handing a 3-year-old a shotgun at the family reunion. Someone is likely to get hurt. In this case, what VUI is planning (“away from everything”) as Del. Kilgore claims in his ignorance of geography, a great many people stand to suffer, both near the proposed mine site and as far away as Virginia Beach. Obviously no one is paying much attention to the folks living within a mile, or five miles or 50 miles of Coles Hill.

If Coles is willing to destroy his own home and the land his family has owned for hundreds of years, it is foolishness to imagine that he or the Canadian mining conglomerate he sold out to would give even a passing thought to what might happen to the rest of us. This will not be the hometown business VUI has claimed it would be.

The Canadian speculators who would destroy Pittsylvania County do not care one way or another. To them, the people on the periphery are simply expendable.

And so it will be interesting indeed to see how this greatly anticipated and heavily burdened “study” will turn out now that we know who is putting up the big bucks. It is also interesting that the National Academy of Sciences has yet to agree to anything concerning uranium mining in Virginia.

But as Del. Kilgore said, “We’re hoping to get everything signed, sealed and delivered on the scientific, technical study.” That is exactly right — signed, sealed and delivered straight to VUI’s mailbox.

JESSE PYRANT ANDREWS

Halifax

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/writer_vui_cares_nothing_about_us/14040/

State study? State money

By Katie Whitehead
Published: September 20, 2009

The Virginia General Assembly’s failure to secure state and other non-industry funding is jeopardizing the credibility — and perhaps the execution — of its proposed uranium mining studies. A study paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc. does nothing to avoid the appearance of influence.

After a uranium mining study bill failed in the General Assembly last year, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, chaired by Del. Terry Kilgore, voted in November to initiate its own uranium studies. The commission enlisted the assistance of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, headed by Dr. Michael Karmis, a mining engineer. Kilgore appointed a Uranium Mining Subcommittee with Del. Lee Ware as chairman.

The subcommittee should question not just whether uranium mining and milling might be done safely, but also whether introducing this stigmatized industry into our communities is a good idea. Even if uranium can be mined safely under certain conditions, it still might not be an industry we want in Virginia.

In spring meetings, the subcommittee focused on defining a technical study that it wants the National Research Council of The National Academies to undertake. (The National Research Council is the staffing organization for the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.)

The subcommittee postponed discussion of a separate socioeconomic study, arguably the more important of the two studies. Kilgore recently wrote to NRC to request the technical study.

As proposed, the technical study will attempt to address the safety question by gathering available evidence regarding whether uranium mining, milling and tailings storage are being done safely elsewhere under conditions comparable to those in Virginia. The socioeconomic study has yet to be defined, funded or negotiated with any research organization. It should address the desirability question by providing real-life evidence about how introducing the uranium industry affects the long-term health, economic well-being and quality of life in communities. Currently, the commission’s failure to secure state and other non-industry funding is jeopardizing both studies.

In the absence of other funding, VUI has offered to pay the entire cost of the technical study (estimated $1.2 million to $1.4 million). The funds would be contributed to the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, which would then pass them on to NRC. This indirectness may conform to the written policy of NRC and reduce the appearance of influence to some eyes, but it does nothing to change the fact that an interested party — a private, for-profit corporation with something to gain from the results of the study — is paying NRC for it. It’s not a pretty picture.

Many people have assumed that NRC will definitely do the technical study. NRC has expressed interest in the study and, according to its policy, may accept the proposed funding. Will NRC in fact accept?

The group that will decide is the National Research Council Governing Board, which is responsible for safeguarding the unique reputation of NRC for independent, unbiased scientific research. The members of the governing board will have to determine whether accepting 100 percent of the funding — however indirectly — from a uranium mining company is consistent with that responsibility. We don’t know how they will weigh the fact that no one other than a uranium company has demonstrated support for the study by offering funding.

No one knows how the governing board will ultimately respond to Kilgore’s request. They’ve not officially discussed it, much less made a decision.

One might argue that the National Research Council is beyond reproach and that one needn’t care who pays NRC to do a study — that one can be sure NRC will be objective and independent regardless. NRC has a hard-earned reputation for thoughtful, thorough, independent, unbiased research. This reputation depends not only on avoiding actual influence by parties that might profit from NRC study results, but also on avoiding even the appearance of such influence.

If an unbiased assessment of the safety and the desirability of uranium mining is of value to the commonwealth, then the commonwealth should be willing to pay for it, at least in significant part. The commission should request funding from the legislature to pay the majority — if not all — of the cost of both the technical study and the socioeconomic study. Securing public financial support would confirm that Virginians want this research, ensure that both studies go forward and increase confidence that the studies will fairly evaluate all available evidence.

* Whitehead lives in Pittsylvania County and chairs the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force. Contact her at mkwhitehead@yahoo.com

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/community_voices/article/state_study_state_money/13996/