River Flood Warning for Pittsylvania County, VA

Right now, Virginians don't have to worry about radioactive flood waters or contamination from such waters in the rivers, streams, lakes, etc. Mine Coles Hill and the whole picture becomes a lot more dangerous and frightening.

River Flood Warning until 6:13 am EST, Sat., Nov. 14, 2009

Issued by The National Weather Service

Roanoke/Blacksburg, VA

3:10 pm EST, Thu., Nov. 12, 2009

THE FLOOD WARNING CONTINUES FOR THE DAN RIVER NEAR DANVILLE. * UNTIL SATURDAY MORNING.

* AT 01PM THURSDAY THE STAGE WAS 23.3 FEET.

* MODERATE FLOODING IS OCCURRING AND MAJOR FLOODING IS FORECAST.

* FLOOD STAGE IS 17.0 FEET.

* THE RIVER WILL CONTINUE RISING TO NEAR 26.4 FEET BY AROUND MIDNIGHT TONIGHT. THE RIVER WILL FALL BELOW FLOOD STAGE TOMORROW EVENING.

* THIS CREST COMPARES TO A PREVIOUS CREST OF 25.4 FEET ON JAN 1 2007.

EPA responds to county letter on lead levels

Oh...corrosion and old plumbing cause elevated lead levels in water even when uranium mining is closeby. Epic fail, EPA.

The Environmental Protection Agency offered guidelines for water well management in response to a Pittsylvania County inquiry into elevated lead levels near where a uranium company conducted exploratory drilling.

County Administrator William Sleeper said he sent a letter to the EPA back in April to ask what could be done about lead levels in wells and its role in regulation. The agency responded on Oct. 26.

The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors asked both the EPA and the Virginia Department of Health to investigate lead levels after Sheva resident Allen Gross said that a well water sample showed more than the maximum safe level of lead in drinking water, according to past Danville Register & Bee reports. Testing showed a rise in lead levels compared to past samples. Gross lives about a mile from Coles Hill, where Virginia Uranium Inc. conducted exploratory drilling.

The state health department tested the well water in the area, and found safe lead levels. The department determined the source of the lead is not the source water, according to past reports.

The EPA does not regulate domestic water wells, but offers guidance on management:

• The agency recommends all private well owners have their well tested once a year for coliform bacteria, nitrates and other contaminants.

• Naturally occurring radioactivity can be treated with reverse osmosis.

• Lead is rarely found in source water, but enters tap water through corrosion of plumbing materials. The most common problem is with brass or chrome-plated faucets and fixtures that can leach lead into the water.

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/epa_responds_to_county_letter_on_lead_levels/15193/

Nuclear energy is not clean energy

We’re once again grateful to Areva’s North America blog for pointing us towards yet another piece of nuclear hype, spin and propaganda. This time it comes from Jim Prentice, Canada’s Minister for the Environment.

Nuclear will play a key role in our clean energy strategy. And the reality is: nuclear is non-emitting.

Let’s be blunt here. This isn’t just misleading. This isn’t just misinformation. This is a lie.

Nuclear energy is not clean energy. One need only look at the environmental destruction caused by uranium mining. In his book ‘Wollaston: People Resisting Genocide’, Miles Goldstick details the damage brought to the lives of the people living around the uranium mines in Canada’s Saskatchewan province. The accumulation of radioactive isotopes in edible plants. The lead, arsenic, uranium and radium found downstream from the mines. The spills that J.A. Keily, then Vice President of Production and Engineering for Gulf Minerals Rabbit Lake, described in 1980 as ‘probably too numerous to count’.

These are stories found wherever uranium mining takes place. The ruined lives, the contamination, the cover-ups, and the deception. And that’s before we even consider what happens to the waste produced by generating nuclear energy.

As for ‘nuclear is non-emitting’, it takes just five seconds to Google for ‘nuclear power’ and ‘emissions’ to show that statement for the ridiculous falsehood that it is.

May we remind you that Jim Prentice is Canada’s Minister for the Environment?

This is, unfortunately, a deception that the whole nuclear industry wants you to believe. A child could see through it and yet the industry and its supporters persist. When the US’s EPA - that’s the Environmental Protection Agency – is filing nuclear energy under ‘clean’ energy, you know how far this deception has spread. Look again what EPA stands (or is supposed to stand) for. You begin to wonder it these people think you’re a moron.

The nuclear industry does not want you to look at where uranium comes from or where it goes to afterwards. To do so would destroy the myths that have supported it this long. ‘Look, our hands are clean,’ it says, while trying to hide its dirty fingers.

Posted by Justin on October 28, 2009 1:33 PM

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/10/nuclear_energy_is_not_clean_en.html

Even Rabbit Droppings Count in Nuclear Cleanup

We've left the links live so readers can explore more deeply the huge disconnect between mining uranium in VA and continuing agri-business in VA. Those mining proponents, including the pols, who seem to think they can have it both ways in Southside should be able to see, from this article, the folly of this idea.

By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: October 14, 2009

WASHINGTON — Anything that hops, burrows, buzzes, crawls or grazes near a nuclear weapons plant may be capable of setting off a Geiger counter. And at the Hanford nuclear reservation, one of the dirtiest of them all, its droppings alone might be enough to trigger alarms.

A government contractor at Hanford, in south-central Washington State, just spent a week mapping radioactive rabbit feces with detectors mounted on a helicopter flying 50 feet over the desert scrub. An onboard computer used GPS technology to record each location so workers could return later to scoop up the droppings for disposal as low-level radioactive waste.

The Hanford site, overseen by the federal Department of Energy, produced roughly two-thirds of the plutonium used in the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal, beginning in World War II and ending in the 1980s. Today it is the focus of the nation’s largest environmental cleanup, an effort that has cost tens of billions of dollars and is expected to continue for decades.

Yet the helicopter flights, which covered 13.7 square miles and were paid for with $300,000 in federal stimulus money, took place in an area that had never been used by the bomb makers.

The area had, however, been used by rabbits that had also burrowed into other areas that were contaminated. Many of the contaminants were in the form of salts, which attract wildlife. The rabbits carried strontium and cesium, which emit gamma rays, back out of the area in their digestive tracts.

The flights were far less expensive than other strategies, said Dee Millikin, a spokeswoman for the contractor, a subsidiary of the engineering and environmental consulting company CH2M Hill.

Walking through the area with radiation detectors would have taken eight months longer and cost $1 million, she said.

The flights were first reported by The Tri-City Herald newspaper of Kennewick, Wash.

The rabbits themselves are not a target of the operation: the area from which they picked up the contamination was paved over years ago, so the source was sealed off, Ms. Millikin said.

Rabbits were not the only biological vectors contaminated by the nuclear residue. Mice and badgers also picked it up, she said, and coyotes feed on the contaminated smaller animals. “It’s basically a circle-of-life situation,” she said, adding that researchers have also found traces of radioactive materials in fish of the adjacent Columbia River.

Yet roaming rabbits appear to account for the overwhelming bulk of the radioactive excrement located in the flights, Ms. Millikin said.

Technicians have monitored rodents and waterfowl at Hanford for radiation since 1947, and have identified about 5,400 incidents of “biological intrusion.” It is not only animals; tumbleweeds have roots deep enough to pull up radioactive material and then carry it as they blow away, said John Price, who monitors conditions at Hanford for the Washington State Department of Ecology.

Marylia Kelley, the executive director of a California group called Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, said the rabbit cleanup was “kind of funny, in a sick way.”

Hanford is not the only reactor site that has prompted concern about contamination spreading to animals, Ms. Kelley said. For environmentalists focusing on the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Laboratory in California, for example, she said, the priority is to keep endangered or threatened species like the California tiger salamander and the red-legged frog out of contaminated areas.

At that site, she said, contamination has been somewhat harder to track because it is mostly plutonium, whose main emission is alpha particles that travel only a few inches in air, unlike the gamma rays from cesium and strontium at Hanford.

Radiation is also a concern at the Savannah River nuclear site in South Carolina, where neighbors can enter a lottery every year to be allowed to hunt deer. “All harvested animals are tagged and brought to our check station, where they are monitored for cesium-137,” the site’s Web site advises.

“If they find something that was above the limit, they take out that part of the carcass and allow the guy to go on his merry way with the rest of it,” said Robert Alvarez, an environmental expert and former Energy Department official.

In the 1980s, researchers found turtles contaminated with radioactive materials on a hog farm near the Savannah River plant. The discovery briefly prompted concern that the radioactivity could move into the human food chain, although such a pattern was not detected.

As the federal government pursues cleanups at various nuclear sites, experts have deliberately contaminated a species to further their efforts: honeybees. The Environmental Protection Agency says honeybees have been used to map radioactive materials on five federal nuclear reservations, including Hanford, as well as heavy metal pollutants.

Workers position a hive at a suspect area and wait to see what the bees come back with. Researchers can measure the radioactive content of the bees’ honey or wax, but “the recommended sample is the bee itself,” the agency said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/science/earth/15rabbit.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=nuclear&st=cse

Is this what you want?

Oct 13, 2009 - 09:39:06 pm CDT

Virginia Uranium Inc. assures the people of Southside Virginia it will mine safely, and perhaps the mining company will mine in the most safest manner possible, but the end result will still be contamination of the air, water and land, leading to millions of dollars being spent on post-mining reclamation activities and the maintenance of a Superfund site around Coles Hills and other sites if more mines open.

Is this really what we want for the people of Virginia? Will we, as peoples in other lands, hear mining companies' assurances of safe mining practices along with the promise of jobs, be left to deal with the contamination of air, water, land and people? (Uranium Corporation of India Limited: Wasting Away Tribal Lands by M. Basu, Oct. 7, 2009. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15450)

Anne Cockrell
Danville, Virginia

http://www.caswellmessenger.com/articles/2009/10/13/opinion/opinion02.txt

John Redhouse: Hate crimes and uranium mining

When longtime Navajo activist John Redhouse speaks of the hate crimes against American Indians in northwest New Mexico, he knows what he is talking about. He has lived it.

Redhouse, who has lived with the racism in the Navajo bordertown of Farmington, N.M., writes about the recent hate crimes by non-Indians against homeless Indians in Grants. Redhouse said the recent racially motivated beatings began after Mount Taylor was designated as a Traditional Cultural Property.

As Native Americans prepare for the Indigenous Uranium Forum at Sky City on Acoma Pueblo to battle new uranium mining in Indian country, Oct. 22-24, Redhouse points out that the new wave of hate crimes in the Uranium Belt of Grants, west of Albuquerque, is not the first.

"As an old civil rights activist and veteran of the bordertown wars in Gallup and Farmington in the early 1970s, I don't think these beatings are an isolated incident. I think they are directly related to a non-Indian backlash against the TCP designation and what it means in terms of protecting and defending our sacred mountain from more uranium mining and milling," Redhouse said.

When Redhouse was on the New Mexico State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in the late 1970s, the Commission made a similar connection with the rise of anti-Indian groups in Grants and northwestern New Mexico and growing Indian resistance. At that time, leading the resistance in the Grants Mineral Belt were the American Indian Environmental Council, First Mount Taylor Gathering and Mt. Taylor Alliance.

Now, American Indians are taking action to halt more uranium mining and destruction to their sacred mountains and homelands. The Ninth Circuit Court first took action to protect sacred San Francisco Peaks from snowmaking from sewage water for tourists, then the Ninth Circuit reversed its decision, allowing the defilement of the places and plants used by medicine people of at least thirteen Indian Nations for ceremonies.

At the same time, Navajo, Pueblo, Ute, Hopi, Hualapai, Havasupai, Yavapai and Apache, in this region of northern Arizona and New Mexico, are beaten and killed in hate crimes.

Redhouse remembers Clint John, Navajo, shot and killed by a Farmington police officer in a Wal-Mart parking lot in 2006. Farmington police officer Shawn Scott was exonerated by the police department and found not guilty of using excessive force in court.

Redhouse said it is time for action.

"And now in light of the recent outcomes of the Clint John and San Francisco Peaks cases, I think we need to put these recent anti-Indian developments in context and start a regional intertribal movement to deal with all this shit because it is getting more violent and deadly as we are still fighting the continuing Indian Wars as we have since 1492."

"We need another Pueblo Revolt, a Navajo revolt, a general uprising among our people and nations."

Redhouse's words are more in demand now than ever.

Within minutes of Redhouse's comments appearing online, Bahe Katenay of Big Mountain, publisher of Sheep Dog Nation Rocks, responded. "It is so nice and uplifting to hear from John. He may call himself an 'old activist' but only if we, the current indigenous movements, can truly rely on 'old' wise activism, we can all be so empowered. Yes, Viva Pueblo / Dineh Revolt! Hokahey! Thanks."

Redhouse said, "Bahe, Roberta Blackgoat, and other youth and grandmother warriors were at the First Mount Taylor Gathering. They walked all the way from Big Mountain."

Read more by John Redhouse at http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com

Southside could lead bioenergy future

A. Things don't grow in the shadow of a uranium mine.

B. Things don't live in the shadow of a uranium mine.

Keeping these things in mind, how can Southside become a leader in bio-energy if Coles Hill is mined?

And, Mr. VanDerHyde, perhaps you can tell us how close beef cattle and/or milk cows be kept to a uranium mine before the animals and their milk become poisonous to humans? Radon will permeate the grazing fields, water, and the animals themselves.

We'd like to see Southside become a bio-energy leader as long as that precludes mining Coles Hill.

By Tara Bozick
Published: October 8, 2009

With Virginia and the country on the cusp of a bioenergy future, Southern Virginia has the opportunity to lead the way, industry experts say.

“Southern Virginia has everything to offer,” said Ken Moss of Piedmont BioProducts in Gretna. “We have location to population centers north and south. We’ve got the agricultural heritage of the people and we’ve got the political wheel to support the development of bioenergy.”

Moss and 175 people attended the “Southern Virginia Bioenergy: Making Innovation Work” conference at the Institute for Advanced Learning & Research in Danville on Tuesday.

The conference brought area stakeholders together to focus on Virginia’s renewable energy agenda. Entrepreneurs shared bioenergy projects and business models to educate and garner interest and support for a regional bioenergy future.

Charles R. Hawkins, chair of the Virginia Tobacco Commission, started the morning in a public forum on the viability of such an industry in Southside. Moss and Kimble Reynolds Jr., regional director of the Martinsville office of Rep. Tom Perriello, D-5th District, also participated in the panel.

“This is an opportunity for us to replace some of the income that tobacco used to produce,” Hawkins said. “The main thing is everybody understanding the importance of it. It’s not going to be easy. It’s going to require some effort. It’s going to take years.”

Pittsylvania County already has a bioenergy history with Dominion’s Pittsylvania Power Station in Hurt, fuel procurement manager Roy Byrd said. The 80-megawatt power station has burned wood chips or biomass to produce electricity for the past 17 years.

The station uses “waste wood” and produces low levels of sulfur dioxide for an environmentally friendly operation. As one of the largest biomass stations on the East Coast, producing enough power for more than 20,000 houses, it serves as part of Dominion’s commitment to reaching the Virginia target of getting 12 percent of energy from renewable generation by 2022.

Dean Price of Red Birch Energy in Martinsville reinforced the idea that the energy supply needs to be decentralized, with small-scale refineries serving the communities that supply them with feedstock.

Price said such a system could be replicated anywhere, including Danville.

“This is not something we need to debate. We’ve got to do something,” Price said. “What the president has before him is a very daunting task. He’s got to change our energy usage.”

Owners of VanDerHyde Dairy near Chatham thought more seriously about capitalizing on the release of cow manure’s methane gas when the recession hurt milk prices, co-owner Roy VanDerHyde said. Currently, manure stored in pits releases methane gas to the atmosphere.

“Now, we’re trying to do something productive with it,” VanDerHyde said. “Sustainability — that’s the name of our game of trying to stay in business.”

Using an anaerobic digester to separate solids and liquids in the manure for electricity generation could also be beneficial in that those liquids could be used for crop applications, he said.

VanDerHyde estimates the manure from more than 900 cows could produce power for 600 homes. That’s more than the number of houses in Chatham (554).

Additionally, the process would burn off pathogens and reduce pathogens in bedding, which would mean increased milk quality, he said.

“A lot of other dairies are watching to see how I make out with this,” VanDerHyde said.

Conference speakers and industry experts also agreed that “green” technology and bioenergy could provide incentive for young people to stay or come back to rural communities.

That’s why tree farmers and brothers Clark and Joe Graves, of Graves Family Forests in Halifax County, came to the conference. They already established conservation easements on their land to keep it undeveloped, but both wanted to know what options the next generation would have in an agricultural endeavor.

“We have to all be positive about it,” Clark said. “There’s not just one product or answer.”

Liam Leightley, executive director of the Institute, encouraged everyone interested in bioenergy to keep tabs on legislation.

“What we saw today was a significant amount of innovation. People who aren’t just sitting, but are actually doing,” Leightley said, ending the conference. “We have the potential here in Southern Virginia to lead.”

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/southside_could_lead_bioenergy_future/14442/

Uranium-Coles Hill

Interesting letter, Mr. Motley, especially the dairy farm part. Do you know how far away a grazing pasture must be from a uranium mining and milling operation so that the radon doesn't poison the milk or the beef or kill the animals outright? I'd consider it an example of your letter's apparent sincerity if you could answer that question for us. It's an excellent question! I'm sure lots of folks would like to know the answer. And maybe the people who know that answer will be more willing to share that info with you than with us. Thank you so much!

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Letter to editor:

I have lived in the Sheva community all of my life except time in the Merchant Marines during World War II.

I would like to relate some of my experiences.

I was raised on a tobacco farm in the Mill Creek community.

My three sons operate the dairy on my home place.

I now live in the old Sheva Church of Christ building at Sheva.

Much of the land that is used by the dairy is within a three mile radius of Coles Hill where the deposit of uranium is located.

My family owns stock in Virginia Uranium. This gives us some voice in future developments.

We are now directly involved in the nuclear industry. We have members of our family that work at B&W, a nuclear facility in the Lynchburg area, and the energy used to operate the dairy comes from a nuclear power plant.

There is no place that I would rather live than in the Sheva community.

I have taken no position for or against the mining.

As I recently celebrated my 84th birthday I realize that I know less and less about more and more things.

I don't have answers to the many problems facing our community and nation. I will try to meet the challenges in a positive way.

If and when the uranium is mined, I would like to see the money used to replace the tobacco money.

The issue of growing tobacco has been an issue for most of my life. All of my family including myself have raised tobacco.

My parents and grandparents that I knew raised tobacco. They thought it was all right to grow but wrong to use it.

I have heard my parents pray for rain for the tobacco crop and also pray for the Lord to heal people suffering from the use of tobacco. I also heard similar prayers at church.

There are some questions that I would like to have answered.

What other sources of energy on the large scale provided by nuclear energy are available to us in the area?

How much damage would other sources do to the environment. I know solar energy and wind power are available but are they available to this area in the quantity now provided by nuclear energy.

There are contradictions in my own life. I used money from tobacco to develop the dairy. We have been producing Grade A milk at the homeplace since 1947.

What kind of an example are we setting for our young people?

I have never heard a person encourage their young people to use tobacco.

How do we want people to remember us?

Our record of how we used resources will follow us beyond the grave.

I have misused resources. I have asked the Lord to forgive me.

J. Fuller Motley

Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/10/07/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

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/

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.

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/

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

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

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

Uranium Mining Whistle Blower

Is this the shape of things to come for VA? This is pretty incredible...and it's going on in TX.

Roland Burrow worked as a well-field operator for Uranium Resources, Inc., outside Kingsville a decade ago. He objected to the way things were being run, tried unsuccessfully to get the TNRCC and FBI involved, and was fired. He moved a couple counties over, but now a URI offshoot wants to mine in his backyard, and he's decided to fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7BcnzLOFCQ&feature=channel

Reactor opponents challenge law funding work

By Walter C. Jones | Morris News Service

Monday, September 07, 2009

ATLANTA --- The question of a controversial law's constitutionality could halt new nuclear reactors in Georgia.

A group opposed to reactors on environmental grounds is using a legal challenge to the financing mechanism granted to Georgia Power during the past legislative session as a way to prevent what it considers to be an ecological mistake.

Senate Bill 31 violates the state and federal constitution on several points, argue lawyers for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

The group, which is based in Tennessee but has members and offices in Georgia, has often spoken out against nuclear power and in favor of solar and wind power. Sara Barczak, of the group's Savannah office, relied on environmental arguments in December when she testified against the plant in front of the Public Service Commission.

"Downstream communities should be concerned about project water consumption at the proposed Vogtle site because consumptive water loss, especially during low river flows, can pose significant negative impacts to water quality and aquatic resources," she said.

She also raised concerns about the environmental impact of dredging the nearby Savannah River to allow reactor components to be shipped by barge, as they were when the first two reactors were built.

The group didn't succeed in convincing the commission, so now it's using a different tactic.

The Southern Alliance's 16-page lawsuit argues that when the legislation granted Georgia Power permission to charge its customers the construction costs before power generation begins, it amounted to a tax that gives the company something for nothing.

"The adoption of the nuclear tariff by the Georgia General Assembly creates an unconstitutional gratuity in favor of Georgia Power and its stockholders, for, among other reasons, paying such stockholders of Georgia Power a return on equity in excess of $1 billion before Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle are even put into service, i.e., for services which have not been rendered," the lawsuit states.

Though Southern Alliance is suing the state and not the utility, Georgia Power filed a brief with Fulton County Superior Court asking for the case to be dismissed.

"We still feel like SB 31 was good for the people of Georgia, and we think it is a win-win," said company spokeswoman Carol Boatright.

The bill was controversial when it was debated in the General Assembly. Consumer groups such as Georgia Watch and AARP joined environmentalists in fighting it. The company and its allies carried the day by arguing that more electric generating capacity was needed and that nuclear was the best source. They said consumers would benefit from paying in advance rather than having interest charges mount.

The company also stressed that having a guaranteed funding stream during construction was necessary to attract investors who would lend the money for the work. That funding guarantee was vital, and many other utilities across the country without a similar guarantee haven't been as aggressive about new reactors, according to William Tucker, author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power will lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey .

Winning a judgment against the law could halt the project with more finality than many environmental considerations might. For example, a victory for environmentalists on dredging would merely force the utility to go to the added expense of shipping by rail or truck.

One thing power companies and environmentalists agree on is they don't want to see the history of nuclear power plants repeated.

Neither side wants the long, expensive battles that cost taxpayers and utility customers and still ended in the operation of 104 reactors across the country..

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has replaced the two-step licensing process used in the 1960s and 1970s that granted one license for construction and a second one for operating. At the time, there were many fights at each stage, with some second-stage skirmishes duplicating issues that had been debated at the first stage. Resolving concerns after the plants were built and awaiting an operating license proved to be costly and time consuming.

Now the NRC will issue one combined construction and operating license in an attempt to contain the fights to one stage.

Tom Kauffman, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, said opposition won't disappear.

"We expect that there will be contentions as new plants enter the application process," he said. "That's as it should be, to allow concerns to be aired."

The Vogtle application is still pending before the NRC, even as basic construction is under way in Waynesboro.

Southern Alliance's lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court represents a new venue. A critical early decision will be whether the judge grants a restraining order that prohibits Georgia Power from charging its customers until the case is settled.

So far, no hearings have been scheduled or witnesses deposed. And with the likelihood that its outcome will be appealed, its resolution could be slow.

Reach Walter Jones at (404) 589-8424 or walter.jones@morris.com.

THE LEGAL ARGUMENT

An environmental group that wants to stop construction of two nuclear reactors has filed a lawsuit that's not based on ecological arguments. Instead, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy challenges the constitutionality of a state law that allows Georgia Power to pay for construction by charging its customers before the reactors begin generating power.

The suit says Senate Bill 31 is unconstitutional on six grounds:

- It bypasses the Public Service Commission, which has responsibility in the state constitution for electric utilities.

- The law takes money away from Georgia Power customers and gives them no immediate benefit, an alleged violation of the U.S. Constitution's right to due process.

- By exempting large commercial and industrial customers of Georgia Power, the law discriminates.

- Because customers pay while getting no electricity, the charges amount to an illegal gratuity to Georgia Power.

- A government-ordered fee is essentially a tax, and only governments can benefit from a tax.

- The fee strengthens Georgia Power financially, but because the company is a monopoly, the state can't pass laws that benefit it.

Source: Lawsuit filed by the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/09/07/met_547261.shtml

Reed Hayes: One false step, 41 years of pain

by Joe Hanel
Herald Denver Bureau

Monday, August 10, 2009

July 1967. Graveyard shift at the Atlas uranium mill in Moab, Utah. A light bulb is out on the second level over one of the vats of yellowcake - sludge of concentrated uranium ore.

Reed Hayes eases himself down the walkway, a replacement bulb in hand. But someone on the swing shift forgot to put up a rope to block off the yellowcake tank. Suddenly Hayes falls. He splashes into the tank.

He's a strong swimmer, and he swims out through the sludge. The shift boss tells him to go home, shower, change clothes and get back to work.

A month later, shortly after he left his job, painful rashes break out all over his body, "head to toes." It's an affliction Hayes has carried to his retirement home, a tidy ranch house with an immaculate garden at the western tip of the Paradox Valley.

Hayes' words come slowly, with long pauses between sentences, as he describes dozens of different drugs and tests he's endured over the decades.

"I've got it today. I've got parts of it on my body right now," Hayes says.

He wears a thick, long-sleeved shirt, sunglasses and a hat every time he goes outside to work in his garden and orchard. For some reason, this year, he's been able to grow apricots - 56 of them, to be precise - while many of the Western Slope crops failed.

Atlas was no help to him. The company is defunct. He applied to the government for compensation for sick nuclear workers, but he couldn't get it because the program was for only lung disease. He's applied to another program, and his case has been pending since last fall.

"I think I'm on the back burner, basically," he says.

"I've been in misery, sometimes literally hell, for 41½ years," Hayes says. "My wife has taken me to the emergency room probably seven or eight times. Sometimes it breaks out and gets in my mouth, starts choking me. Sometimes it gets in my eyes. It moves around."

Steroid balms help a bit, along with antihistamines.

"It never does get rid of it. It just calms it down. It's just a Band-Aid," Hayes says. "That's my story."

http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/08/10/Reed_Hayes_One_false_step_41_years_of_pain/