Utah won't take a stand on national foreign nuke waste ban

By Judy Fahys

Salt Lake Tribune

Updated: 10/09/2009 06:06:23 PM MDT

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert objects to Utah being a disposal site for foreign radioactive waste, but he will not be throwing his support behind federal legislation to ban waste imports.

The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL) asked the Republican governor to write a letter last week in support of the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act, dubbed "RID," a bill co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, to outlaw the importation of foreign waste nationally. Next Friday a House plans a hearing on the bill.

"He is not taking a position on the RID Act," said Herbert spokeswoman, Angie Welling. "But his position on the storage of foreign waste has been made repeatedly: He's opposed to it."

The flap over foreign waste began two years ago, after Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions Inc. applied for a federal permit to import 20,000 tons of waste from Italy's nuclear reactor cleanups, process the waste at a company-owned plant in Tennessee and bury the remainder at a company-owned disposal site in Tooele County, about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City.

Not only is the largest foreign waste-import request the nation's ever seen, but it also has become the most controversial, triggering thousands of letters in opposition and a federal lawsuit that is on appeal.

Last year the Utah Radiation Control Board urged members of Congress and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish a consistent national policy on waste imports, noting "any country that has the technological capability of producing nuclear power within its borders should not seek to dispose of its waste outside them. Development of nuclear power should go hand in hand with development of disposal options."

Neither of Utah's U.S. senators is a cosponsor of the foreign waste ban. Nor is U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, a former lobbyist for the Utah waste site. Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Matheson, a Democrat, support the move.

HEAL Director Vanessa Pierce knocked Herbert for a "nuanced position on the issue" at a time when the company has taken a multi-pronged approach to winning support for its foreign waste plans -- efforts that include a profit-sharing deal with the state that is supported by some House leaders.

"It's hard to understand how you can oppose foreign waste," said Pierce, "and yet not support a bill to ban foreign waste."

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13526004

Bulky waste prompts EnergySolutions to seek license updates

By Judy Fahys

The Salt Lake Tribune

Updated: 10/09/2009

EnergySolutions Inc. wants to bring in large pipes and other discards from the cleanup of an old Manhattan Project site that are contaminated with Special Nuclear Material.

And federal nuclear regulators don't see why the company shouldn't. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a formal "finding of no significant impact" for the proposal and are seeking public comment on the project through Nov. 6.

The regulators say not only is the project in line with the company's existing state and federal permits, but it also could reduce the risk of accidents and injuries by allowing fewer cross-country trips of the radiation-tainted waste. They want to clear the way for the state Division of Radiation Control to allow the shipments.

"Our analysis basically says it looks like [the latest proposal] would have no significant environmental impact," said NRC spokesman David McIntyre.

The Special Nuclear Materials, or SNM, EnergySolutions wants to take is waste from the government-owned K-25 gaseous diffusion plant, which was built to enrich uranium for atomic bombs at Oak Ridge, Tenn. The waste has its own class of rules because certain forms of the uranium and plutonium in it can, if too concentrated, cause a spontaneous nuclear explosion.

EnergySolutions originally made its request on SNM in 2006. The Salt Lake City nuclear services company needs to change its governing agreement with the NRC because the pipes and other large pieces of SNM-contaminated waste are bigger than currently allowed.

NRC engineers have been studying the request to make sure the larger packages won't put excessive amounts of SNM in too-close proximity. They also wanted to check that the special disposal practices proposed by EnergySolutions will indeed keep the water-soluble contamination from leaking off the grounds of the company's Tooele County disposal site, about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City.

Once federal regulators sign off on the proposal, state regulators also will have to review it and agree to change EnergySolutions' license before the shipments would be allowed.

A public hearing is possible in Utah, said state radiation officer John Hultquist, whose office already has seen and commented on the company's plans.

"We trust the system that develops the rules and regulations for the nuclear industry and EnergySolutions fully complies with these rules and regulations," said Mark Walker, a company spokesman. "EnergySolutions is a world leader in the processing, transportation and disposal of nuclear material and the company safely manages these materials."

The EnergySolutions site began accepting SNM waste in the 1990s, even before its state license allowed it. In 1997, regulators fined the company -- then called Envirocare of Utah -- $80,000 over the lapse. The company obtained a Radiation Control Division license soon after to dispose of the material, and state legislators passed a bill in 2004 that further raised the limits for the concentration of the SNM allowed.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13527069

South Carolina Depleted Uranium Shipments Set For Dec.

By BROCK VERGAKIS , 10.06.09

SALT LAKE CITY -- An official with a U.S. Department of Energy site in South Carolina says shipments of nearly 15,000 drums of depleted uranium slated for disposal in Utah are set to start in December - two months later than originally estimated.

The department estimated this summer that the low-level radioactive waste should start to move this month.

The delay may give Energy Secretary Steven Chu more time to consider a request from a Utah congressman to halt the shipments.

Savannah River Site spokesman Jim Giusti said Tuesday the DOE site is preparing to pack and load the roughly 10,000 metric tons of waste. The material will be shipped to EnergySolutions' disposal facility 70 miles west of Salt Lake City via rail car.

Giusti says the shipments will likely be completed by July.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/10/06/general-us-depleted-uranium_6972038.html

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/

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

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/

Town Ceases to Exist After Superfund Cleanup

Notice the names of these former uranium mining/milling towns: Naturita...Nucla...Uravan. Don't they sound happy? Patriotic? Owned by the uranium industry?

Uravan no longer exists. Exxcept for one building, the entire town was declared part of the Uravan SuperFund site and destroyed.

Could this happen in Virignia?

Uravan once vital to security of United States

by Joe Hanel
Herald Denver Bureau

URAVAN - The sign outside Naturita reads "Uravan 15."

The town still appears on official Colorado maps. But 15 miles north of Naturita, there's no sign on the road and few clues this once was a hopping town with a community center, a soda fountain and a swimming pool. The childhood memories of many residents of Nucla and Naturita were made here.

All that's left now is a flat spot on the ground surrounded by a barbed-wire fence, overflown by sparrows and serenaded by crickets.

The only clue to the labors of the men and women who used to live here is the barbed wire that surrounds the whole site and the metal signs with the universal symbol for radiation, reading: "ANY AREA OR CONTAINER ON THIS PROPERTY MAY CONTAIN RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS."

Other than one office building across the San Miguel River, the rest is gone.

Uravan once was vital to national security. Standard Chemical founded the town as the Joe Jr. Camp, a center of radium mining and milling.

In World War II, the military moved in to scour the tailings piles for uranium to build the first atomic bombs.

The camp was so secret that a young man from Nucla, just 20 miles away, was stationed there, but he wasn't allowed to tell his family until after the war, said Marie Templeton of the Rimrocker Historical Society.

After the war, Uravan boomed until the 1980s as a company town run by United States Vanadium and later by Union Carbide.

Production ended in 1984, and Umetco - a local subsidiary of Union Carbide - began a government-supervised cleanup. The whole town became a federal Superfund site. (emphases mine...SB)

The cleanup formally ended last year, although monitoring continues.

What It Took...

To clean up the former town of Uravan, the following work was done, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Demolition and removal of about 50 major mill facility structures and buildings, including the process systems and circuits, and removal of more than 260 buildings.

Removal and cleanup of dispersed materials and contaminated soil from approximately 400 acres.

Relocation of more than 3 million cubic yards of mill wastes and contaminated materials.

Construction of waste and tailing repository covers, liquid evaporation and retention ponds, and permanent runoff control structures – using more than 1.7 million cubic yards of earthen materials.

Construction of five double-lined ponds (totaling 40 acres) for the evaporation of hillside seepage, tailing-pile seepage and extracted groundwater.

Construction and use of a new repository capable of disposing more than 1.8 million cubic yards of evaporative pond demolition debris and radioactive waste.

Collection of more than 70 million gallons of hillside and tailing seepage, containing approximately 6,000 tons of contaminated inorganic compounds.

Extraction of about 245 million gallons of contaminated liquids from the groundwater with the removal of about 14,500 tons of contaminated inorganic compounds.

Removal of contaminated materials from the dumps.

http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/08/09/Town_ceases_to_exist_after_Superfund_cleanup/

(This article, and a few above and below it, are parts of a current series by Joe Hanel, Durango Herald.)

Ore From Last Uranium Boom Still Scattered on Colorado Land

By Joe Hanel
Herald Denver Bureau

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

PARADOX - From the road, it looks like a pile of gray rocks. But a closer inspection reveals flakes of yellow and lime green - telltale signs of uranium ore.

The pile and others like it make up some of the 5,000 tons of uranium ore that remains on the surface from Colorado's last boom, according to a Department of Energy environmental study.

Five thousand tons of rock is only a few months of production from a mid-sized mine, but it's enough to concern Travis Stills, a Durango lawyer leading the legal challenge to the Energy department's plan to lease Colorado land for uranium mining.

The Office of Legacy Management, which issues leases on federal uranium lands, cleaned up all its old mine sites by 2001, according to court filings by Andrew Smith, a Justice department lawyer who is representing the OLM.

Piles of waste rock at uranium mines could cause trouble if water runs off them into creeks, said Angelique Diaz, an environmental engineer for the Environmental Protection Agency's Denver office. The piles are radioactive and give off radon gas, but not in significant quantities, Diaz said.

The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety cleans mines that were abandoned before 1977, using mostly federal dollars but also money from state taxes on gas, oil and coal production.

With 17,000 abandoned mines in Colorado, the priority goes to open mine shafts that might be dangerous for hikers, said Loretta Pineda, director of the abandoned mines program.

"I do have some environmental funding, but it's pretty limited," Pineda said.

The BLM has asked the state to put several old mines in the Paradox Valley on its list, Pineda said. She had a project on tap near Uravan a few years ago, but it was put on hold when people started staking claims in the area. Anyone who opened a new mine would have to clean up the old pollution first.

For Stills, the cleanup of the old mines should happen now.

"Five thousand tons of uranium ore sitting on the surface should be somebody's priority," he said.

http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/08/11/Ore_from_last_uranium_boom_still_scattered_on_Colorado_land/

Big Crown [sic] Turns Out For McDonnell Town Hall Meeting

Tara Bozick/Register & Bee

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell (right) learns how giant reed could be a source product for biofuels in the region during Monday’s biofuel demonstration site tour guided by Kenneth Moss, chief operating officer of Piedmont BioProducts.

By Catherine Amos

Published: August 10, 2009

After a day of touring the Dan River Region’s success stories in technology and economic development, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell spoke with area residents at a town hall meeting in Danville Monday night.

About 200 people gathered at the Institute for Advanced Learning & Research for an hour and a half question-and-answer session after McDonnell gave a few opening comments on his platform, focusing heavily on job creation and improving Virginia’s economy, especially in Southside.

The former attorney general spoke about the staggering unemployment figures facing the Dan River Region — more than 20 percent in Martinsville — and the need for a state government that cultivates entrepreneurship and small business through low regulation and litigation.

“The most important thing facing Virginia is to grow jobs, grow opportunities,” McDonnell said. “That really is what I believe this election is all about. To me it starts with keeping a strong basis for economic development.”

McDonnell was greeted with a round of applause when he mentioned his plan to be “on the ground” in Southside Virginia at least once a month, meaning either he or the lieutenant governor will meet with local leaders on a regular basis.

After praising the technology and innovation at the Piedmont BioProducts plant in Gretna and indoor fishery Blue Ridge Aquaculture in Martinsville, McDonnell thanked Delegate Danny Marshall and the Tobacco Commission for “having the foresight to support” those ventures.

“Unbelievable,” McDonnell said of the biofuel plant. “You’ve got incredible biotechnology here. They’re using crops like switchgrass and hearty sugar cane in a process that is revolutionary and only here in Southside Virginia and turning that into green oil.”

In addition to promoting green and alternative energy, McDonnell supports Virginia being the first state to drill off the Atlantic coast in 2011, a position the crowd enthusiastically commended. If elected, he wants to use 80 percent of the state’s tax revenue from off-shore drilling for transportation and 20 percent for green energy research.

During the question-and-answer portion, McDonnell fielded more than a few questions about whether he would support uranium mining. He told the crowd multiple times that he would not vote on anything without the proper research and studies done on the safety and viability of mining, although he acknowledged the economic value for Virginia.

“I’ve been following the situation here at Coles Farm and I think there’s an estimated $10 billion in the market value in uranium,” he said. “Obviously there are any number of issues that need to be considered before uranium mining is permitted.”

Two people, including Danville Vice Mayor T. Wayne Oakes, asked about how McDonnell plans to attract more local students to local colleges and keep them working here after graduation. McDonnell supported local colleges opening more spots for Virginia students and improving economic development incentives to provide better jobs.

President Barack Obama’s cap and trade legislation was only mentioned once by McDonnell, who opposes it, and no one mentioned the controversial health care reform proposal. A few residents asked about illegal immigration; McDonnell supports stronger civil immigration laws.

Toward the end of the event, a teenage boy asked about the future availability of the green gas made in Gretna, and McDonnell applauded his participation in the event.

“I really appreciate seeing several young people that are here,” he said. “We cannot take democracy as a spectator sport … You have to care, you have to get involved.”

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/big_crown_turns_out_for_mcdonnell_town_hall_meeting/13119/

Perhaps the R&B reporter didn't hear all of the comments or questions regarding the proposed uranium mining or the proposed study. We're including contemporaneous notes taken during the meeting by one of the audience members, Karen Maute. Apparently Mr. McDonnell isn't staying current with the mining issue. We have edited the remarks for clarity and removed names of the individual speakers:

McDonnell's opening remarks were fairly generic and echoed what he's been quoted as saying at various venues. He stated that he felt Virginia should encourage tourism and the film industry as well as promoting agriculture. I found myself wondering how well we could promote these things if we were best known as the only uranium mining state east of the Mississippi?

He stated we need to be an "energy leader", mentioning Areva and Northrop Grumman (vpap.org shows a sizable donation to his campaign of $25,000.00) which he says includes drilling off the coast and for gas, clean coal and nuclear power and that we should use every resource to become an "energy leader".

Somewhere in the Q&A period he spoke of drilling off the coast and the ride we would have being the first eastern state to do so. He pointed to the Gulf Coast as an area where it had been done with little environmental impact.

Also mentioned need for research and tax credits re: energy.

He mentioned his transportation plan and protection of private property rights.

The first question came from the facilitator of the meeting. The facilitator asked about uranium mining in Virginia. McDonnell praised the General Assembly for authorizing the study and said that was underway and said we should have their findings soon. He said that decisions should be made on the findings of the study.

Others spoke re: uranium. Deborah Dix stated her opposition to uranium mining and read from a document that stated that no level of radioactive exposure could be deemed as safe. Again, McDonnell said he would look at the study committee's findings and any other credible studies that he might have before coming to a decision re: uranium mining.

[Another] told McDonnell that the Coal & Energy Commission (not the General Assembly) had authorized the study, that it was not underway, and there is no indication as to who is going to conduct the study or pay for it. She then asked him who he thought should pay for it. He said he guessed she was asking if the industry paid for it that, perhaps, it would be perceived as a tainted study. He seemed to favor the state and/or private entities paying for the study. He was clearly taken aback by this speaker's information re: how the study was authorized and that there was no one under contract to conduct the study. He did not appear to be aware of these facts about the study.

I asked about the low level radioactive waste compact of which VA is a member and whether, if we were mined, that would increase VA's chances of being the next host state for low level radioactive wastes since SC is no longer accepting it and NC [the state which was to become the next host for the region] reneged since its citizens did not want the dump situated there? This too (the LLRW Compact info) seemed to be something of which he was not very aware.

Push is on for mine cleanup funds to go to uranium sites

By Sue Major Holmes, Associated Press Writer

Updated: 08/06/200

GALLUP, N.M. » The name Poison Canyon offers a hint of what's faced by those trying to clean up abandoned uranium mines in the West.

The area north of the village of Milan contains some of the 259 abandoned uranium sites in New Mexico that need cleanup. State officials are pressuring the federal government to direct more money to those areas because of their unique hazard of radioactivity.

"In this case, a pile of rocks is more than just a pile of rocks," said New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division Director Bill Brancard.

There are hundreds of thousands of safety issues at abandoned hardrock mines in 13 western states, according to the Government Accountability Office. Thousands of sites, many dating to the 19th century, also are considered environmentally damaged.

The GAO lists about 800 abandoned hardrock mine sites in New Mexico and says at least one-fourth have environmental problems such as radioactivity or chemical contamination. Half of Wyoming's 956 sites are environmentally degraded, as are 9,900 of Arizona's 50,000 abandoned sites and 5,200 of California's 47,000-plus sites.

Exposure to uranium dust can cause kidney toxicity, which can lead to acute kidney failure; exposure to radiation from uranium increases the chances of developing cancer, according to the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois.

Until two years ago, states could use abandoned mine cleanup grants on any site considered a serious threat to public health and safety, but the Bush administration interpreted changes Congress made in the law to mean most money should go to cleaning up coal mines.

New Mexico is more interested in abandoned mines for hardrock -- such as gold, lead or uranium -- and wants Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to reverse the solicitor general's opinion.

Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Salazar, called the matter "an important issue that has many implications for the West," and said Salazar was reviewing it.

New Mexico received $3.8 million this year from an expected $20 million over the next six years for abandoned mines and mills. Only $800,000 of this year's appropriation can go to hardrock sites.

"A lot of what we're doing now is trying to get a grasp on how big the problem is, how much disturbance is there, how high are the radiological readings, and ultimately try to figure out how much work needs to be done at these mines," Brancard said.

But, he said, "The scope of concerns related to hardrock and uranium mines is pretty vast," and $20 million isn't enough.

The Navajo Nation, which lists 520 abandoned uranium sites in Navajo country, is worried about an Obama administration proposal to eliminate a $142 million program for states and tribes certified as having completed coal mine remediation.

"We can't just do away with this program. Our (Navajo) Nation, we still have concerns with abandoned uranium mine sites," said Madeline Roanhorse, department manager for the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Program and Uranium Mill Tailings Removal Action Program.

According to her agency, without the federal program no one will be closing old mines on the reservation.

Stephen Etsitty, executive director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, said the tribe was certified several years ago to use the funds for such purposes as uranium cleanup.

Etsitty said it's in the tribe's best interest to work with the state to get continued funding because of the amount of work left.

The focus of the Abandoned Mine Lands Program is reclamation, and "in a lot of instances reclamation is not the same as remediation," he said. Reclamation removes physical hazards, but remediation looks at environmental problems, such as removing contaminated soil or studying groundwater concerns.

"That's the other shoe that still hasn't dropped yet," Etsitty said. "We know now a lot more about the contaminants in the soil and the ground. But we don't know how this is now potentially impacting our groundwater resources."

Robinson Kelly, vice president of the tribe's Church Rock Chapter in New Mexico, complained at a public hearing in June about a federal government proposal to cover but leave radioactive uranium tailings at one site.

"We don't want it just covered," he said during a demonstration last month marking the 30th anniversary of a tailings spill that sent millions of gallons of acidic water into the Rio Puerco.

"How long is that cover going to last? When it deteriorates, it's going to start emitting radiation," Kelly said.

Uranium has become a focus partly because of concern that new mines are being considered when old ones have never been cleaned up.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., introduced legislation this spring that would establish a fund to reclaim abandoned hardrock mines in the West, partly supported by a fee based on the value of production.

The measure was heard by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month. A committee vote is expected this fall.

The abandoned mines were opened before 1977, when the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act required owners to put up financial assurance that an area would be reclaimed once mining ended.

New Mexico was a leading uranium producer from the 1950s to the 1980s. Until the 1970s, uranium went to defense.

That history obligates the federal government to help with reclamation, said Brancard and Democratic Rep. John Heaton of Carlsbad, vice chairman of the New Mexico Legislature's radioactive and hazardous materials committee.

"There's a national responsibility," Heaton said.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13007900

Battle Looms Over Relaxing Nuclear Regulations

The Global Warming Task Force recommends weakening the state’s rules

By Bill Christofferson

As a quiet but concerted effort is under way to weaken state laws regulating nuclear power plant construction in Wisconsin, a battle is brewing.

State utilities and the nuclear industry have zeroed in on Wisconsin as a key, symbolic target in their national campaign to reopen the door to expansion. On the other side, a coalition of 14 public interest and environmental groups has formed in opposition to any new reactors, and in support of a 100% renewable energy policy for the state.

The debate is more nuanced than pro-nukes versus no-nukes. But at stake is whether Wisconsin will ease the restrictions on new reactors and, if it does, whether the state would actually allow more reactors to be built.

Nuclear Rules Are One Part of a Larger Package

Legislation is being drafted for introduction in the Legislature in the fall, based on a package of recommendations from the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming. That task force included consumer and environmental groups as well as utility representatives, and all agreed that task force members would support the entire package, which contains many solid recommendations to reduce Wisconsin’s carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. But it also relaxes the rules on nuclear plants.

So a number of traditionally anti-nuclear groups, who still oppose expanding nuclear power, will find themselves conflicted—supporting the task force package that relaxes the rules, while working as part of a coalition that wants Wisconsin to be both carbon free and nuclear free.

Opponents of the nuclear changes will face a formidable challenge if they attempt to separate that recommendation from the rest of the package.

For a quarter century, Wisconsin has had a sensible law in place that has prevented the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the state.

It is commonly referred to as a nuclear moratorium. In fact, it does not forbid construction of new plants, but sets two requirements that must be met to win approval of the Public Service Commission (PSC):

1. That a federally licensed facility be available at which to dispose of the dangerous high-level radioactive waste that the plant produces.

2. That the PSC determine that the plant facility is economically advantageous to the people of the state.

The law has acted as a de facto moratorium because the industry has not been able to meet either of the requirements. Now, instead of meeting these two requirements, the nuclear industry wants to relax the rules, and eliminate the condition that there be a federal disposal site.

PR vs. Reality

Despite the industry’s heavy lobbying and PR efforts, nuclear advocates’ claims aren’t supported by reality.

The nuclear industry sees an opening by offering itself as a solution to climate change problems, claiming it is “clean.” But there are significant carbon emissions at every step of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to decommissioning old plants.

Safety is an ever-present issue for nuclear reactors. Wisconsin has not suffered a major accident. But only five “red findings”—the highest safety failure warnings in the industry—have ever been issued by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and three of the five went to Wisconsin’s Point Beach plant, near Two Rivers.

After more than 50 years of producing highly radioactive waste, there is still no safe way to dispose of it permanently. Some of the byproducts of generating nuclear power are so dangerous to human health and the environment that the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules requiring a disposal site be able to protect the public from radiation released by the waste for up to one million years.

A million years. To put that into some perspective, 15,000 years ago Wisconsin was covered by glaciers.

Because there is no federally approved site for nuclear waste, the three commercial reactors in Wisconsin have been accumulating three decades’ worth of waste in temporary storage facilities next to the reactors at Point Beach and Kewaunee, near Lake Michigan.

To build more reactors to produce more dangerous waste while we have no safe means of disposal is beyond irresponsible. It is unconscionable.

Then there’s cost. It doesn’t make economic sense to build new nuclear plants, which is why the nuclear industry is asking Congress for $50 billion in subsidies in the form of loan guarantees. Taxpayers already heavily subsidize nuclear power, and in the event of a major accident, taxpayers will foot most of the bill.

Nuclear power makes no more sense to day than it did when the nuclear moratorium was passed in 1984. Wisconsin must address the climate crisis, but renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power. The choice between coal and nuclear power is a false one. Wisconsin can be both carbon free and nuclear free. That should be our goal.

Bill Christofferson, of Milwaukee, is co-chair of the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, a statewide coalition of 165 organizations working for social change. For more information, visit www.wnpj.org or www.carbonfreenuclearfree.org.

http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-7292-battle-looms-over-relaxing-nuclear-regulations.html

Decision tabled on uranium disposal [Utah]

By Amy Joi O'Donoghue

Deseret News

Published: Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Members of the state's Radiation Control Board have tabled for now any decision to impose a moratorium on the storage of depleted uranium at EnergySolutions' Clive facility.

The 6-4 decision to further delay giving a definitive answer on the issue came after more than three hours of presentations on the ability — or inability — to safely dispose of the Class A radioactive material at the Tooele County site.

Instead, the majority of board members want to wait until a Sept. 22 meeting with representatives from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who will be in town that week for two days of public hearings.

Those hearings are designed to solicit input on, among other things, what type of site-specific restrictions could be incorporated into a new rule governing the storage of massive quantities of depleted uranium.

Such storage has largely been a non-issue over the years because no facilities have been engaged in the uranium-enrichment process for decades.

With the country's attention turned toward nuclear power as alternative to reliance on fossil fuels, two applications for large-scale facilities are pending before the commission.

That kick-started an investigation into what possible disposal restrictions could be put in place because depleted uranium has evolving properties that make it "hotter" over time.

EnergySolutions has its eye on a possible contract to dispose of depleted uranium from South Carolina's Savannah River nuclear processing center.

Now defunct, the reactors were built during the 1950s to refine materials for use in nuclear weapons.

Such a possibility galvanized the environmental watchdog group HEAL Utah to request the moratorium and kicked into motion the fact-finding mission embraced by the board the past couple of months.

Under review is if the board has the authority to enact such a moratorium, if such a move is premature given the commission's own review of the issue or if enough urgency exists to propel action now.

It was clear from both sides — among the disagreeing board members and presenters — that the issue is far from being resolved and that September's meeting with commission representatives doesn't necessarily guarantee a solution.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705316910,00.html

[CO] Uranium Mill Issue Will Set National Precedent

MONTROSE – Deep divisions in the Paradox Valley community may well remain after the Montrose Planning Commission’s vote Wednesday night on whether to recommend a special use permit for a uranium mill in Paradox Valley.

Friendships have been severed, with some on the side of agriculture in the valley and some who want to hearken back to the good old days of uranium mining their parents and grandparents enjoyed decades ago.

Whatever the decision of the planning commission, Energy Fuels’ request to build a huge mill on 800 acres will be the first built in the United States in almost 30 years, and will have national implications, some say.

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said recently that nuclear energy is “the wave of the future” and is encouraging nuclear energy development.

The proposed mill would set a precedent for the rest of the country, said Travis Stills of the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango, but for the wrong reasons.

“They’re trying to claim it’s the resurgence of the uranium industry and trying to tie it into the nuclear equation,” he said. “It could be a national story because it could be the place where all the stuff goes. It could be looked at as a disposal facility.”

As originally proposed, the mill would only process raw uranium ore from nearby mines. But at a public hearing in Nucla last month, Energy Fuels CEO George Glasier said the mill could also extract uranium from radioactive groundwater.

After Glasier spoke, Stills went to the podium and expressed his displeasure with what he called “a major shift” in policy on what would be processed at the mill.

Only two uranium mills are operating in the U.S. at this time, the White Mesa and Shootaring Canyon mills in Utah, Stills said, both process radioactive wastes.

“A major source of income (for the mills) is waste disposal fees from various folks who have radioactive waste to get rid of,” he said.

The proposed Paradox Valley mill also wants to take in mine waste, not just tailings, he said.

“They should send that to a low level facility, not to a mill tailings cell, which is hazardous enough,” he said.

But Glasier and his many associates have decried health risks of exposure to radioactive materials in the air and water that opponents say could occur because of the mill. Glasier says the industry has made enormous safety advances since the near meltdown of a reactor core at Three Mile Island in 1979.

Glasier said he never had plans for the mill to become a waste disposal facility for nuclear and other radioactive wastes, but was only trying to help the state because of tighter laws on uranium content in drinking water.

New state laws require a new limit on the amount of uranium in drinking water, but in western Colorado, naturally occurring water has higher than those limits, Glasier said.

The mill could have treated municipal water by supplies by loading resin beads with uranium extracted from the water, sending the beads to a disposal facility, after which the beads could be reused.

Without the mill, the water treatment plants will have to install their own resin extraction columns, which is expensive, he said.

“They’ll have no place to dispose of it so they’ll have to ship it to a waste disposal site and they can’t reuse the beads,” he said. “The state wants us to do it, and it would save all these municipalities a great deal of money.”

But Glasier said he dropped the idea of extracting water from uranium because of objections raised at the public hearings.

“Some people were objecting to what would have been a real benefit,” he said. “But those environmental kooks come up with this stuff…They’re saying we’ll process waste, but we have no plans to process anything else but raw uranium ore and the water that comes right out of our mines.”

Other objections to the mill have come from the agricultural community. On to their Web site for Paradox Valley Community Supported Agriculture, William and Vernie Lynn DeMille wrote about how they moved to the valley from Missouri after farming there for 35 years.

“We love farming and we were thrilled when we discovered the Paradox Valley,” DeMille wrote. “Because of its outstanding soil, great climate and protected valley, it is the perfect place to grow excellent crops, both vegetable and fruit.”

Food grown in the valley will be packed with nutrition because of high mineral content of the soil, DeMille said.

During public forums, farmers in the valley objected to the mill, saying they will lose their organic agriculture status because the mill has the potential to pollute the air and water.

Paradox Valley proponents of the mill, most from families who remember the heyday of mining in the area decades ago, scoffed at farmers’ concerns, even displaying a sign at the last public meeting that read, “Uranium dust helps your organics grow” along with “We need jobs on the West End.”

However the planning commission votes, which occurred after the Watch printing deadline, the divisions in the Paradox Valley will apparently not soon heal.

http://www.telluridewatch.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Uranium+Mill+Issue+Will+Set+National+Precedent%20&id=2867706-Uranium+Mill+Issue+Will+Set+National+Precedent&instance=secondary_stories_left_column

Kaine predicts wave of environmental action on horizon

It's so apparent to me that this man has no interest in Virginia. His heart is elsewhere...maybe from whence he came...but it's certainly not in Virginia.

By Scott Harper
The Virginian-Pilot
© May 7, 2009

NORFOLK

About 10 minutes into his speech Wednesday night, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine stripped off his suit jacket, rolled up his white sleeves and jumped squarely from his prepared remarks.

"I'm getting warmed up," he told a crowd of about 300 people inside Old Dominion University's Webb Center. "I always do when I talk about this subject."

That subject is the environment, an issue he has put a focus on this year, his final year in office.

The environmental and energy initiative has its own name - Renew Virginia - and despite a cash crunc h in Richmond and an economic crisis nationwide, the governor said he still has big plans for going green in 2009.

Kaine hinted at some major changes coming to the Chesapeake Bay cleanup, steps that he and other mid-Atlantic governors will announce next week at a summit at Mount Vernon.

That suggestion brought a smile to the face of Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Baker has been pressing Kaine and the Obama administration to make the Bay a national priority and speed up its restoration, which began in 1983 and still is struggling.

The Bay Foundation co-sponsored Wednesday night's lecture as part of its Blue Planet Forum on environmental issues facing Virginia.

Kaine ticked off a list of state programs that soon will receive federal stimulus money - $75 million for energy efficiencies and green buildings; $39 million in incentives for solar, thermal and small wind projects; $5 million for alternative energy research - all dedicated to environmental progress.

He predicted that, as money trickles out of Washington over the next two years, Virginia and other states will experience "one of the greatest unleashings of American ingenuity" on new energy technology since the dawn of the combustion engine.

The governor said he intends to push ahead against two big pollutants affecting the Bay and impairing hundreds of Virginia streams - farm runoff and urb an stormwater.

The state is rewriting its stormwater regulations and hopes to complete this year these "extremely innovative" rules against tainted rainwaters that wash off parking lots, roofs, lawns, streets and gardens and pass oil, fertilizers and chemicals into the Bay.

In response to questions, Kaine said developing an offshore wind farm off Virginia Beach "is a spectacular idea."

Oil and gas drilling in those same waters should be confined to exploration only, "to see what resources are really out there," he said.

He urged expansion of nuclear energy in Virginia and defended his position to support a new, major coal-fired power plant in southwestern Virginia over objections from environmentalists.

The governor also said that if a study shows that uranium mining cannot be done safely in Virginia's wet climate, "maybe we ought to keep the ban in place and move on."

Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/05/kaine-predicts-wave-environmental-action-horizon

Vermont Sues Over Nuclear Waste

Montpelier, Vermont - May 5, 2009

The state of Vermont is suing the federal government over nuclear waste at Vermont Yankee.

Highly-radioactive spent fuel from the reactor is stored at the nuclear plant in Vernon. The safety of spent fuel is governed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but it is not one of the factors the NRC will review as it considers whether to grant Vermont Yankee a license extension. The state wants to change that and is joining a federal lawsuit to force the NRC to consider spent fuel safety in the relicensing process.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10308613

Tons of tainted tailings are on the move -- finally

Uranium waste » Ceremony launches years of 30-mile trips with truckloads of uranium-processing waste

By Judy Fahys

The Salt Lake Tribune

Updated: 05/04/2009 10:16:21 PM MDT

Moab » For Grand County residents who lobbied Washington for years to remove tons of tainted tailings from the banks of the Colorado River, it was a long haul.

But it paid off and now the long hauls have begun.

On Monday, onlookers watched with a mixture of delight and disbelief as a specially built crane lifted a container filled with uranium-processing waste -- the first official shipment of thousands planned for the 30-mile trip from just outside Moab to a permanent disposal site just north of Interstate 70 near Crescent Junction.

Many on hand said the heavy lifting really began almost a decade ago, when community leaders began prodding federal leaders to move the 16-million-ton pile, roughly eight times the rubble left from the World Trade Center collapse.

At Monday's ribbon-cutting, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said the community "went nuclear" through the years, practically haranguing any one in a position to do something about the massive pile.

"That's what it takes to get the wheels of government to move on their own," he said. "It takes people, it takes people who care, who are passionate about their communities to get things going."

Representatives of Utah's three congressional offices attended Monday's ceremony, as did officials of the U.S. Energy Department, the Utah Legislature, the Department of Environmental Quality and the contractors, EnergySolutions Inc., S&K Aerospace and Union Pacific Railroad. So did U.S. Rep. Grace Napolitano, a Democrat who represents a Southern California district whose residents are among the 30 million people who rely on Colorado River water.

"I never thought I would see the day," said former Grand County Council member Joette Langianese, one of a series of county lawmakers who dogged politicians to deal with the pile.

Local leaders had to convince Washington that the bankrupt Atlas Corp. would not be able to take care of the tailings, which threatened to slide into the Colorado River along with the toxic chemicals and hazardous heavy metals they contain. They had to persuade the Energy Department to assume responsibility for the 439-acre site.

Then they had to make the case for moving the pile, that it wouldn't remain in place during a large flood even if capped by large rocks. And, as recently as last summer, they had to prove that reviving an old rail spur on the mesa top would be a safer and cheaper way to move the pile to new digs: a 25-foot deep, 40-acre landfill at Crescent Junction.

"As a community," Langianese said, "we just did not want 'no' to be the answer."

A local steering committee even succeeded in getting cottonwood trees to screen the site and requiring brick-red heavy equipment to better blend with the area's famous red rock.

And now the $1 billion project, which got an added $108 million infusion through the recent stimulus package, will bring more jobs to the area.

"What a perfect time for our community," Langianese said.

Grand County Council member Pat Holyoak noted that the pile has been an eyesore at the gateway to Moab, across the highway from the entrance to Arches National Park. Her husband worked at the uranium mill from the year it opened in 1956 to the time it shut down in 1984. Dust would blow off the pile and into the community. And people worried about the pile sloughing into the river.

"It's a big day," she said.

"Yes, it's a big day," agreed Holyoak's daughter, Kammy Wells, director of the Moab Area Chamber of Commerce. "It's been a part of my whole life. And I'm not sad to see it go."

The Energy Department has projected the cleanup will take until 2028. But Michael Moore, the agency's acting director of environmental management, said Monday the timeline probably will be shorter, closer to the 2019 completion date set by Congress. The deciding factor, he said, is money.

"We're hoping it will be before 2022," he said.

Napolitano, now head of the House Water and Power subcommittee, told the group she began working on the problem soon after being elected 12 years ago, when a local water manager explained the importance of the Colorado River to her own community.

"It took a concerted effort of a lot of people," she said, noting that it was a "hard sell" in the beginning. "It really was a haul."

As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a letter read to the crowd by a representative: "The finish line is visible from here."

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12292230

Rethinking Nuclear Power

ABC Unleashed has recently featured an article by environmentalist Geoffrey Russell; Rethinking Nuclear Power.

It’s worth reading.

I like the idea of closing down uranium mines, and using existing stocks of mined uranium efficiently.

Uranium mining is far less environmentally intensive than mining coal, of course, but it’s basically inevitable that all mining is fairly environmentally intensive, and it’s always an appealing prospect if we can mine less material (whilst still maintaining our energy supplies and our standards of living, of course.)

I have to admit, when I first saw Geoff’s claim that we could completely eliminate uranium mining, I was skeptical. So I took a more detailed look.

A nuclear reactor which is efficiently consuming uranium-238 and driving a relatively high efficiency engine (typically, a Brayton-cycle gas turbine) will require approximately one tonne of uranium input for one gigawatt-year of energy output. This high efficiency use of U-238 could be best realized something like an IFR or a liquid-chloride-salt reactor (the latter is essentially the fast-neutron uranium fueled variant of a LFTR). This figure of one tonne of input fertile fuel per gigawatt-year is also comparable for the efficient use of thorium in a LFTR.

There are about one million tonnes of already mined, refined uranium in the world, just sitting around waiting to be put to use, which is termed so-called “depleted uranium”.

According to one source, the exact worldwide inventory of depleted uranium is 1,188,273 tonnes [1].
The total electricity production across the world today is about 19.02 trillion kWh [2].

Therefore, total worldwide stocks of depleted uranium, used efficiently in fast reactors, could provide every bit of worldwide electricity production for about 550 years.

That’s not forever, but it’s a surprisingly long time. And that’s just “depleted uranium” stocks; not including the stocks of HEU and plutonium from the arsenals of the Cold War, and not including the large stockpile of uranium and plutonium that exists in the form of “used” LWR fuel.

I know some thorium proponents aren’t going to like this; but there’s a strong case to be made here that uranium-238 based nuclear energy has a clear advantage over thorium, simply became of these huge stockpiles of already-mined uranium, for which there exists no comparable thorium resource already mined. The 3,200 tonnes of thorium nitrate at NTS is tiny compared to the uranium “waste” stockpile, but they’re both really useful energy resources which can replace the need for more mining.

Any type of breeder or burner reactor utilising ²³⁸U, or ²³²Th, as fuel requires an initial charge of fissile material to “kindle” it; however this requirement for fissile material is quite small; and personally, I think the inventories of HEU and weapons-grade plutonium recovered from the gradual dismantlement of the arsenals of the Cold War are perfectly suited to this purpose - destroying those weapons materials, whilst putting them to a valuable use.

Then again, with the means to completely replace the use of coal and fossil fuels in a way that requires very little or no uranium mining, I really hope the rest of the world keeps buying that iron and copper and bauxite. Alternatively, we’re going to have to start developing a more technologically based economy in this country to make up the reduction in exports of these commodities - perhaps developing and selling reactor technology?

Developing uranium enrichment technology, such as SILEX, is of limited usefulness because the relatively inefficient thermal-neutron fission of ²³⁵U, and hence the need for enrichment, will not supply any large portion of world energy demand in a sustainable fashion over the long term. The small amount of ²³⁵U in nature is of limited significance, over the long term.

Alternatively, perhaps a shake up of agriculture, using extensive desalination to supply fresh water requirements, might be used to replace Australia’s income from coal and uranium. I’m not sure.

Tip ‘o the hat to Barry at Brave New Climate for pointing out this article.

[1]: http://www.wise-uranium.org/eddat.html
[2]: From the World Factbook, 2008 ed. (jokes about the integrity of CIA’s intelligence aside…)

http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/rethinking-nuclear-power/

---

BHP to 'dump mine tailings on ground'

Gavin Lower | May 01, 2009

BHP BILLITON plans to store radioactive mine tailings from its proposed Olympic Dam expansion on the surface, rather than return the material to the pit as the Northern Territory's Ranger uranium mine is required to do, a key environmental group says.

Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear-free campaigner David Noonan said yesterday the company's plan, coming on the eve of the public release of the 3750-page draft environmental impact statement for the expansion, could see the company create the world's largest radioactive tailings pile over the life of the mine.

"I understand the BHP EIS will set out the company plan to accumulate and store the radioactive mine tailings on the surface and to leave those tailings on the surface in perpetuity," he said.

"BHP have told me that what they intend to do with their tailings is not put it back into the pit."

A company spokesman said yesterday he could not comment on the contents of the EIS.

BHP Billiton proposes to turn its Olympic Dam copper, gold and uranium mine, 560km north of Adelaide, from an underground mine into an open-cut operation.

Mr Noonan said the BHP plan would be in contrast to existing regulations governing the Ranger mine and a Labor Party pledge before the last election to follow world best practice for uranium mining.

He said tailings, the waste product of mining operations, at Ranger are required to be returned to the pit at the end of the mine's life, expected to be 2021, and then steps taken to ensure the tailings did not have a detrimental impact on the environment for at least 10,000 years.

According to figures publicly available, Mr Noonan said the proposed expansion of Olympic Dam would produce 70 million tonnes of radioactive mine tailings each year, significantly more than the 10 million tonnes of radioactive tailings now produced each year.

"If they're simply left at the surface, that material would be prone to erosion and spread into the environment," he said.

BHP Billiton stores its tailings above ground at Olympic Dam.

Mr Noonan said the ACF expected the commonwealth to require BHP Billiton to return the radioactive tailings from the expanded Olympic Dam to the pit.

"We'd expect the commonwealth to set at least the same standard (as the Ranger mine) to isolate tailings from the environment for 10,000 years and expect BHP to say through the EIS how to isolate those tailings for 10,000 years to prevent detrimental environmental impacts," he said.

Mr Noonan said the mine tailings were a cocktail of radioactive elements and heavy metals, which have been processed to the consistency of powder.

"Why should the Big Australian be given a special dispensation to dispose of their radioactive tailings and leave it as a hazard for all future generations," he said.

A BHP Billiton spokesman said: "We have been operating safely for 20 years.

"Tailings contain extremely low levels of radiation and they are stored in accordance with very strict licensing conditions and fully regulated by the Environmental Protection Authority."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25411908-5006790,00.html

A Key Energy Industry Nervously Awaits Its 'Rebirth'

Governor Kaine appears quite misguided...do we need to start sending him educational materials?

By PETER BEHR, ClimateWire

Published: April 27, 2009

One of the biggest question marks in the nation's energy and climate policy is the future of nuclear power. In the past, the United States has made a major commitment to it. The U.S. nuclear power industry is the world's largest. The nation's 104 operating plants produce 20 percent of its electricity, making them, by far, the largest source of electricity that does not result in greenhouse gas emissions.

If a cap and a price are imposed on carbon dioxide emissions, these plants could be among the biggest economic winners in the vast economic shifts that would be created by greenhouse gas regulations.

But the future of the industry may still hang precariously on decisions made by the Obama administration, in which multiple issues remain unsettled. While former President George W. Bush joined the industry's chorus proclaiming that a "nuclear renaissance" is under way, President Obama has approached the issue with his lawyer's penchant for nuance, caution and opacity as he listens to conflicting voices within his administration.

"The president needs to show his cards on nuclear energy," said energy consultant Joseph Stanislaw, a Duke University professor. "He cannot keep this industry, which must make investments with a 50-year or longer horizon, in limbo for much longer."

To be sure, the "limbo" he refers to isn't just a policy matter. The industry faces political, legal and technological issues in the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The economics of nuclear power, including the future costs of new plants, appear to be the biggest current hurdle.

The most-cited evidence for the "renaissance" is that U.S. energy companies have filed 17 applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for 26 new reactor operating licenses. On Friday, the first of these fell by the wayside. A Missouri utility, AmerenUE, said it was suspending plans to build its proposed plant because the state Legislature would not allow it to charge consumers for some of the project's costs before the plant's completion. Without that "financial and regulatory certainty," the company said it couldn't proceed.

On the other hand, the industry's political acceptance has improved since the 1990s, when new power plant construction stopped as if dead. A shift in the policy debate to climate change mitigation has helped the industry make its case. The availability of nuclear power reduces U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 680 million tons a year, says Paul Genoa, policy director for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the industry. "It's a big number -- roughly equivalent to all the CO2 emissions from our passenger [vehicle] fleet," Genoa says.

An industry with a new, international face

The new face of the U.S. nuclear industry that is emerging will have a number of foreign players eager to stake their claim. Virginia officials rolled out the carpet in October for the French energy company Areva and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, which plan to build a $363 million manufacturing plant in Newport News to make nuclear reactor components. More than 500 employees would be at work by 2012, the companies said. "This joint venture project is tremendous news for Virginia," said Gov. Tim Kaine (D), whose state holds large uranium deposits. (emphasis mine...SB)

Today, 40 nuclear plants are under construction in 11 countries, led by China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, according to the World Nuclear Association. "Nuclear energy is going to be used," asserted William Magwood IV, a physicist who directed nuclear programs in the Department of Energy under both former Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. "People underestimate how quickly this is going to happen." Internationally, more than 100 nuclear reactors are planned and more thans 250 have been proposed.

Climate concerns led Congress to approve $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees in 2005 to support construction of perhaps a half-dozen new nuclear plants that are meant to demonstrate new, safer and more efficient reactor designs. The guarantees would cover up to 80 percent of project costs. The 2005 Energy Policy Act also provided a limited production tax credit for a few new nuclear facilities. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is following a new licensing process designed to speed the review process and prevent recurring environmental challenges.

The first few new plants, aided crucially by the 2005 financial incentives, could be in operation by 2015-17, industry officials say. But the industry's U.S. 'renaissance' could well stop there unless more favorable economic and political conditions appear. "The industry's success in the coming years will turn largely on money, attention to detail, and an ability to earn and retain the trust of all its stakeholders," said Roland Frye Jr., a senior NRC appellate attorney, writing in the Energy Law Journal last year.

Obama's 'agnosticism': maybe, maybe not

Perhaps the most critical issue is whether President Obama will be among those stakeholders. Obama called himself an "agnostic" on the issue during the 2007 presidential primary campaign. "I'm not somebody who says nuclear is off the table no matter what, because there's no perfect energy source," Obama told editors of New Hampshire's Keene Sentinel newspaper.

Read the rest of this most interesting article here: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/04/27/27climatewire-a-key-energy-industry-nervously-awaits-its-r-10677.html

Addressing the Uranium Mining Hype (Guest Post)

"Drew" does an interesting blog called "Dem Bones". You can find an excellent guest post to his blog on the "hype" surrounding the potential uranium mining in VA here:

http://dembones-dembones.blogspot.com/2009/04/addressing-uranium-mining-hype-guest.html

It starts out, "I hope one day to meet Joe Bouchard and hear more about what he says to answer the questions that were posed in this article. In the meantime, I have my own answers and a few questions about points made in that article."

Take a look...it's thought-provoking!