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

[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

Gazette-Virginian Poll on Safety Issues and Study

http://www.gazettevirginian.com/

Uranium Poll

Will the uranium mining study as outlined by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission sufficiently address the safety and enviromental questions associated with the issue?

Right now the voting is 60% "yes" and 40% "no".

NC Utility Improving Nuclear Plant Near Raleigh

AP 05.22.09

A North Carolina utility is making progress in upgrading equipment at a nuclear plant in order to meet federal safety standards.

The News & Observer of Raleigh reported Friday that Progress Energy is working to improve its Shearon Harris nuclear plant southwest of Raleigh.

Progress is making 45 safety changes at the nuclear plant as part of a five-year, $32 million project that is to be completed late next year.

Some of the changes are designed to meet new fire safety standards approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The newspaper reported one of the main problems concerns the material used to wrap electrical conduits, to ensure it can withstand fire damage.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/22/ap6455893.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a41:g26:r9:c0.000878:b24681688&partner=loomia

No money worth destroying air, water

From the Chatham Star-Tribune
May 20, 2009

This is a reply to a letter to the editor by Frank Cole from Sheva (Hats off to Virginia Uranium).

His statement that VUI said if mining and milling can't be done safely, it won't be done at all, is untrue.

If it was true, VUI and Mr. Coles would have told me that my drinking water had became unsafe to drink during their test drilling.

They got copies of my test just like I did. I wonder if they even looked at them.

VUI has all these high-paid people that don't care about my water, because if it did get contaminated by the drilling, they might lose their jobs.

You stated before the study even started the naysayers declared it bogus and publicly accused the Uranium Mining Sub-Committee of taking bribes. You said this is untrue.

Mr. Frank Cole, you and the rest of VUI members need to check the facts at www.vpac.org.

Since the naysayer brought this out, two of the sub-committee members admitted taking donations from VUI or the lobbyists they pay.

You also stated that in the next decade the supply for domestic energy will nearly double.

So why is it Mr. Walter Coles and VUI investors are spending all their time and money on uranium mining and milling.

They only have enough ore to last the United States for two years and it will take 30 or 40 years to get it out of the ground. That is a lot longer than 10 years, don' you think?

If Mr. Walter Coles or VUI were really concerned over the energy crisis, they would have invested their time and money on alternate energy.

They have 3,000 acres. How many solar panels or wind mills would that handle?

They could be up and running long before 30 or 40 years and would keep on producing energy for more than two years, and it would not harm the environment.

VUI, Mr. Walter Coles, and the sub-committee "cannot" guarantee that there won't be an accident at the mine or mill that could harm the environment and our way of life in Pittsylvania County.

Mr. Frank Cole, you did not mention that your wife works for VUI. Could that be the reason for your letter?

I wrote this letter because my water is contaminated, and I love this county, and no money is worth destroying life, water, air, or any living thing.

Allen Gross

Sheva

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/05/20/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt

Uranium mining: After Safety, What’s Next?

Interesting question, Mr. Crane. My guess is that, given that the safety issues are at the bottom of the list of things the study will address, we'll never get there.

The question of mining uranium in Virginia...the list document says that the study will address nothing specific to individual sites (like Coles Hill or Southside)...will be decided on money issues alone.

But...should a miracle happen and the scientists realize/admit early on that U mining in VA cannot be done safely, then there is no reason at all to study the economic aspects. No amount of money can be generated by this mining to override any danger. Period.

By John Crane

Published: May 13, 2009

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee meets next week in Richmond to mull a proposed final draft of a study that would determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth.

But even if the draft — which addresses mining’s technical and public-health aspects — gets a thumbs-up, the subcommittee’s job will only be half done.

Its members must decide on the study’s second part, which would analyze the socio-economic aspects of uranium mining. Members disagree on when to proceed with the second part of the study.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining since 1982.

Subcommittee member Sen. Phillip Puckett, D-Russell County, said he opposes conducting the study’s second portion if mining is found to be unsafe.

“If that is a ‘no,’ we don’t have to answer any more questions,” Puckett said Wednesday. “To me, the safety part is more important.” Delegate Bud Phillips, D-Sandy Ridge, agrees, calling the socio-economic aspects “secondary.” The most vital question is whether mining can be done in a manner safe for citizens and the environment, Phillips said Wednesday. Puckett’s and Phillips’s districts are in coal-mining areas. Phillips once worked in the coal-mining industry, like his father.

Subcommittee Chair Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, wants to see the second phase begin quickly.

“My own preference would be for the Uranium Mining Subcommittee … to authorize as soon as possible a study of the socio-economic implications of uranium mining generally, the proposed mining at Coles Hill specifically,” Ware said via e-mail Monday.

During the subcommittee’s meeting in March, Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, said the economic part of the study is important. “I think we have to ensure there is a market for it (uranium)” he said.

Other members expressed concerns similar to Puckett’s and Phillips’s during the subcommittee’s March meeting. Delegate Kristen Amundson, D-Mount Vernon, questioned giving the economic aspects of the issue priority when safety and environmental matters should be the main focus. Delegate Watkins Abbitt, I-Appomattox, said the marketing aspects of uranium mining should be left for the private sector to study and if mining uranium is found to be unsafe, examining its costs and benefits would be a waste of time.

Amundson and Abbitt could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Patrick Wales, VUI spokesman and geologist, said he would like to see the second part of the study address the economic benefits, including high-paying jobs for the area’s available work force uranium mining would bring to Southside.

Eloise Nenon, a board member of Southside Concerned Citizens, which opposes uranium mining, said the practice’s possible detrimental effects on agritourism and other types of tourism must be examined in the study’s socio-economic part. Other sources of energy, including solar, should be looked at, she said. Nenon questions whether Virginia Uranium’s plan would bring employment to locals, who likely have no mining experience. She said transient mine workers from West Virginia and other areas farther west would take those jobs.

Wales said Southside has hardworking people capable of working in uranium mining and milling, and that anytime a new industry locates to an area, local workers are trained in that field.

The subcommittee unanimously approved in March the first draft of the study’s first phase outlining the technical and scientific aspects of the analysis that Michael Karmis, director of the Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech, said would take about 18 months.

The technical phase includes 11 aspects, such as reviewing global and national uranium market trends and public health and safety considerations.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_mining_after_safety_whats_next/10984/

Water Safety & Quality of Life Dominate Lake Gaston Concerns

VUI now knows, and is telling others, that "the bedrock in that area is so close to the surface there would be relatively no effect on groundwater" in the Dan River basin by uranium mining at Coles Hill. Interesting. But is it true? Can we see their research?

by Della Batts, Daily Herald Staff Writer
Published/Last Modified on Friday, May 8, 2009

LAKE GASTON — A flurry of activities involving the safety of the community and continued value of Lake Gaston was on the minds of folks attending the May meeting of the Lake Gaston Association. President John Cataldo reported North Carolina Senate Bill 43, concerning mandatory boater education, passed second and third readings in the Senate this week and transferred to the House.

Former Director Pete Deschenes said there were some changes in the wording before the bill would pass. The changes mean that anyone over the age of 25 at the time the bill becomes law, is considered a safe boater. They will not be required to take boater safety classes. “I think this weakens the bill tremendously,” said Deschenes. “But if you go by the hunters education laws, it reduced accidents by 25 percent, so if it works the same, I’ll be happy.”

Executive Director Moira Underwood reported sending a letter to CH2M Hill, consulting firm for the Kerr Lake Regional Water System, declaring the LGA’s opposition to their proposed interbasin water transfer.

Director Vernon Wilson attended meetings to discuss possible uranium mining in the Dan River (upper Roanoke River) in Pittsylvania County, Va., by Virginia Uranium, Inc. There were major concerns that mining efforts might contaminate the aquifer and the river downstream. Wilson said he was pleased to discover the bedrock in that area is so close to the surface there would be relatively no effect on groundwater. However, he wasn’t so pleased with the “radiological effects of the runoff” report.

Wilson said the report focused more on the laws and what they allow, and not on the possible effects. No uranium mining can occur until Virginia allows the creation of a regulatory framework and an associated permitting process is complete. It is anticipated this could take several years.

Virginia Uranium will employ 300 to 500 people with average income of around $68,000 per year, according to a comparison to Nevada miners. Unemployment in Pittsylvania County is currently double the state average. Wilson said other organizations voiced their opinions on the mining possibilities at the meeting. For more information on this issue visit virginiauranium.com.

The LGA is receiving a $2,500 grant, through Friends of Lake Gaston Association, from Halifax County to present a public forum on clean water and the effects of storm water runoff. Directors said they believe education on what’s being put into the river basin could help with curbing pollution and help with preserving the natural environment.

Read the rest of this article here: http://www.rrdailyherald.com/articles/2009/05/08/news/doc4a0477f11bdb5230665075.txt

Commonwealth Water Supply Planning Program

The Commonwealth of Virginia is rich in water resources, both in terms of number and diversity. However, as the impacts of the recent drought have demonstrated this resource cannot be taken for granted. The Commonwealth and its localities must work together to manage and protect our water resources to meet long term human and environmental needs. Improved coordination of drought response and water resources management activities at the local, regional and state levels are essential to guaranteeing the adequacy of Virginia’s water supplies to meeting the current and future needs of Virginia’s citizens in an environmentally sound manner.

The Code of Virginia, as amended by Senate Bill 1221 in 2003 (Section 62.1-44.38:1) requires the development of a comprehensive statewide water supply planning process to (1) ensure that adequate and safe drinking water is available to all citizens of the Commonwealth, (2) encourage, promote, and protect all other beneficial uses of the Commonwealth's water resources, and (3) encourage, promote, and develop incentives for alternative water sources, including but not limited to desalinization. In addition the amended Code Section provides that local or regional water supply plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Environmental Quality in accordance with criteria and guidelines developed by the Board. Such criteria and guidelines shall take into account existing local and regional water supply planning efforts and requirements imposed under other state or federal laws. The Local and Regional Water Supply Planning Regulation (9 VAC 25-780) was developed to implement the mandates of this section of the Code.

The Code of Virginia was futher amended by House Bill 552 in 2006 (Section 62.1-44-38:1) which clarified the requirements of the Code by providing that the criteria and guidelines established by the Board shall not prohibit a town from entering into a regional water supply plan with an adjacent county.

This regulation establishes the planning process and criteria that all local governments are to use in the development of local or regional water supply plans. The regulation also established a schedule for submittal of those plans.

Local Water Supply Plans are due by:

• November 2008 for Local Governments with Populations in Excess of 35,000
• November 2009 for Local Governments with Populations in Excess of 15,000 but No More Than 35,000
• November 2010 for Local Governments with Populations Less Than or Equal to 15,000
• Deadlines for Towns Based on 2000 Census Population Estimates
• November 2011 for Regional Water Supply Plans

Local Governments electing to participate in the submittal of Regional Water Supply Plans must notify DEQ of the intent to participate in a Regional Plan by November 2008. Regional Water Supply Plans are water plans developed and submitted by two or more cities or counties or both. A town and an adjacent county may develop a regional water plan. Two or more towns may develop and submit a regional water plan where the plan results in the proposed development of future water supply projects that supply the water supply demands of the affected towns. Such plans developed by two or more towns mat be included in regional water plans developed and submitted by counties or cities. Regional water plans shall be developed and submitted in conjunction with all public service authorities operating community water systems within the regional planning unit, if applicable.

This web site is being provided as part of the State's role in program development and preparation to facilitate acquisition of resource information (9 VAC 25-780-60).

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/watersupplyplanning/homepage.html

Oldest US Nuclear Plant Gets a New 20-Year License

By WAYNE PARRY –

April 9, 2009

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) — The nation's oldest nuclear power plant has been granted a new license allowing it to operate for another 20 years.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dismissed objections from anti-nuclear and environmental groups and issued the license Wednesday to the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey Township, N.J., about 50 miles east of Philadelphia and 75 miles south of New York City.

Opposition centered on corrosion to a metal enclosure that keeps superheated radioactive steam within a containment building at the 39-year-old plant.

The NRC says the enclosure is safe despite previous water leaks. Chicago-based plant operator Exelon Corp. has made repairs.

Oyster Creek's boiling-water reactor is considered obsolete by today's standards.

But the plant generates enough electricity to power 600,000 homes a year. It provides 9 percent of New Jersey's electricity.

It went online Dec. 1, 1969.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZq8-ntYHqHjtQ6QY7FWoye9hXDQD97EJ51G0

The Politics of Mining Uranium [in VA]

JEFF E. SCHAPIRO TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST

Published: April 5, 2009

The water that originates in Lake Gaston slakes the thirst of sailors, Marines and their families at bases across South Hampton Roads. Bouchard's command from 2000-03, the Norfolk Naval Base, is home to 65,000.

Should harm come to the water supply, that "would be a severe threat to national security," says Bouchard.

As a former commander of Norfolk Naval Base and a nuclear weapons officer who worked on Russian atomic secrets at the National Security Council, Joe Bouchard knows something about uranium.

As a Ph.D. and Democratic delegate from Virginia Beach who works on environmental and scientific issues on two important House committees, Bouchard also knows something about the politics of uranium.

Bouchard is a skeptic on a proposed uranium mine in Pittsylvania County that foes fear will, among other things, poison the water supply of Virginia Beach, about 100 miles downstream. He favors a study of the proposal but insists it be free of influence by either side.

Bouchard has no doubts what could drive a decision by the General Assembly to lift a 27-year prohibition on uranium mining: money. He is sharing this view with an opposition that seems to believe outrage alone is sufficient to stop the project.

About three weeks ago, Bouchard met in Virginia Beach with mine opponents, some of whom had motored east from Pittsylvania, more than 200 miles away. He prepared a PowerPoint presentation that neatly captures the obstacles they face.

While not intended as such, Bouchard's talking points could have been those of industry:

Mining promotes energy independence. It could hold down electric rates. It complements existing nuclear design and construction operations in Lynchburg and Newport News.

Mining is potentially hugely profitable, and, by extension, a potent source of local and state tax revenue. A mine would generate jobs in a region rapidly losing them to the collapse of manufacturing.

"These are powerful arguments that will carry great weight with the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, General Assembly and probably a majority of the voters in Virginia," warns one slide in italics that call attention to the hearts-versus-pocketbook nature of the uranium debate.

That Virginia's government, because of the right-to-work law and sky's-the-limit political contributions, is gamed for big business is old news.

So, too, is the occasional result: Virginia can be an inattentive steward of the environment. A reminder these days is the slow suffocation of the Chesapeake Bay.

In his presentation, Bouchard touches on environmental and safety concerns, including disposal of radioactive detritus and the peril to water pumped through a pipeline from Lake Gaston to Virginia Beach.

Virginia Beach, population 425,000, opposes the mine until scientific authorities -- independent of an industry willing to pay $1 million for a state study -- can prove there is no threat to the public.

Neighboring Chesapeake, with 215,000 souls, is leery about the mine. Norfolk may yet take a position, worrying for its 235,000 residents.

But the health-and-environmental argument that is dismissed as the preoccupation of greens in jeans plays into an issue that perhaps only a Joe Bouchard, a man schooled in war and peace, could appreciate.

The water that originates in Lake Gaston slakes the thirst of sailors, Marines and their families at bases across South Hampton Roads. Bouchard's command from 2000-03, the Norfolk Naval Base, is home to 65,000.

Should harm come to the water supply, that "would be a severe threat to national security," says Bouchard.

And so another front opens in the battle over uranium mining.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/columnists_news/article/JEFF05_20090404-220007/249158/

Report Praises Renewable Energy Over Nuclear; Renewable Safer, Less Expensive

Thursday, April 2, 2009

A report released Tuesday by Maryland PIRG, a consumer advocacy and environmental group, says that renewable energy sources can make more electricity for less money than nuclear power plants.

Members of the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition presented the report to the Maryland Public Service Commission, which is considering a request by UniStar to build a third nuclear reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Lusby. UniStar is a joint venture between Constellation Energy and European energy giant Electricite de France.

The PSC should make its decision based on reliability and the effects on ratepayers and the environment, said Johanna Neumann, Maryland PIRG's state director.

"Especially given the tough economic times . . . we should get the most bang for our buck. Right now, nuclear power is at the bottom of the totem pole. We should be doing what is most cost effective first," Neumann said in an interview Tuesday.

The report can be found at http://www.marylandpirg.org.

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting an open house Tuesday at which representatives will discuss the Lusby plant's safety record. The session will be held from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Express in Solomons. Information about the plant's safety record is available at http://www.nrc.gov.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033104619.html