By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: May 30, 2009
To the editor:
Denison Mines Corp., according its first-quarter report for 2009, showed a loss of $1.3 million and a loss of $80.6 million for the year according, to its 2008 annual report.
Why is that of interest to the residents of Danville and Pittsylvania County? Because Denison runs the only operating uranium milling plant in the United States. That mill, White Mesa, has been put on standby for the rest of 2009.
Denison Mines Corp., according to its corporate Web site, is also putting a number of its U.S. uranium mines on standby. The president and chief operating officer of Denison Mines Corp., Ron Hochstein, is quoted on various Web sites as stating the cost of processing conventional uranium ore is higher than the current spot price of uranium.
Hochstein is also chairman of the board of directors of Santoy Resources Ltd. which is the Canadian venture capital company currently in the process of merging with Virginia Uranium.
Some people have commented about the mining expertise the Canadian association would bring to the Coles Hill operation along with financing? A look at the financial reports on the Santoy site showed statements resembling those of Denison. Expertise does not necessarily bring financial rewards.
HILDRED SHELTON
Danville
http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/more_on_mining/11351/
Sunday, May 31, 2009
It's Gone, Baby, Gone for More Appalachian Mountains
Comment: Sad that Mt Top Removal will not be stop by 4th Circuit Court and they contribute to our sad Cheaspeake Bay D + grade water grade. Of course, the D + will be a F - when each headwaters of Virginia Rivers (all dumps into the bay) will have an uranium mining on them if the State of Virginia approves Uranium Mining & Milling!
Here we go again: Today the federal appeals court (4th Circuit) in Richmond rejected a request by public interest groups to reconsider its decision last month to overturn a lower court ruling that had curtailed mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia. With a 4-3 majority ruling against a rehearing, it looks like the Army Corps of Engineers can proceed with its plans to issue permits that will result in coal companies filling more valleys (and burying more headwater streams) with mining waste.
rperks's diary :: ::
Of the judges who favored a new review of the case, Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson hit the nail on the head by writing in his dissent:
"...West Virginia is witnessing in the Appalachian headwaters the long, sad decline that Virginia and Maryland have seen with the Chesapeake Bay. Once the ecologies of streams and rivers and bays and oceans turn, they cannot easily be reclaimed. Most often than not, the waterway is simply gone for good."
Sad to say, but with the U.S. Court of Appeals continuing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the prospect of stopping mountaintop removal once and for all in the courts appears to be a long shot
Since the legal system seems to provide little or no recourse these days, it's up to our elected officials to finally do the right thing. All the more reason to wonder (and worry over) why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently opted to allow more than three dozen mountaintop removal permits in West Virginia to proceed.
The current situation is more than a bit muddled and I certainly don't presume to know what's going on at the moment. But let's step back and assess where we find ourselves in this fight right now...
First off, there is no doubt that the Obama administration is infinitely better than the Bush administration on this issue -- that's primarily because the previous administration was so horrible. Clearly, the new administration has taken a couple of positive steps forward. Carefully examining the environmental impact of proposed mountaintop removal operations, as EPA has done in some cases, is necessary. It is also heartening that the Interior Department has moved to rescind the Bush administration's weakening changes to the long-standing stream buffer zone rule. But these necessary and appropriate steps fall far short of what is sufficient.
The Obama administration seems to be assuming that some mountaintop removal mining -- perhaps even a lot of it -- is okay. But the people who live in Appalachia know better. Mountaintop removal, the world's worst strip mining, is unacceptable. Period. Objecting to some proposed mining permits, but green-lighting others, does not recognize this basic fact. Nor does reinstating the old, more stringent buffer zone rule without committing to enforce it, as prior administrations had unfortunately done.
To do right by the people of Appalachia, President Obama needs to end mountaintop removal. There are bi-partisan bills in Congress right now -- the Clean Water Protection Act in the House and the Appalachia Restoration Act in the Senate -- that target the practice, and the president can announce his intent to sign legislation that ends mountaintop removal once and for all.
Similarly, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers can immediately take steps to reverse the administrative regulation they adopted in 2002 that gave the Corps the authority to permit the dumping of waste in surface waters, which also would curtail mountaintop removal coal mining.
You'd think that halting the Appalachian Apocalypse would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the false perception still holds that coal is the economic engine of the region's downtrodden economy. This is a myth perpetuated by the politically powerful coal industry. Consider West Virginia as an example. Jobs from mining account for just 3.3% employment in the Mountain State -- we're talking less than 20,000 jobs total, compared to the halcyon days back in 1940 when there were more than 130,000 coal miners in the state.
It's important to note that back then practically all coal miners worked underground. Whereas an underground operation might employ hundreds of miners for several years, the typical mountaintop removal operation -- which is far more environmentally destructive -- is largely mechanized and therefore employs only a handful of miners for several months or a few years at most. Think about it this way: banning mountaintop removal would actually INCREASE jobs because more miners would be needed to go back inside the mountain to dig out the coal rather than blowing the top off the mountain with high explosives and filling the valleys and streams down below with toxic debris.
I encourage everyone to consider the compelling -- and common sense --economic case against mountaintop removal.
Simply put, if we're banking our country's energy future on the dirty energy of the past -- particularly that which is produced by sacrificing Appalachia's mountains, streams, forests, wildlife, and fellow Americans living in the coalfields -- then we risk undermining the Obama administration's investments in 21st Century clean energy solutions that will protect our planet, produce more jobs and preserve our natural resources.
http://www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4498
Here we go again: Today the federal appeals court (4th Circuit) in Richmond rejected a request by public interest groups to reconsider its decision last month to overturn a lower court ruling that had curtailed mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia. With a 4-3 majority ruling against a rehearing, it looks like the Army Corps of Engineers can proceed with its plans to issue permits that will result in coal companies filling more valleys (and burying more headwater streams) with mining waste.
rperks's diary :: ::
Of the judges who favored a new review of the case, Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson hit the nail on the head by writing in his dissent:
"...West Virginia is witnessing in the Appalachian headwaters the long, sad decline that Virginia and Maryland have seen with the Chesapeake Bay. Once the ecologies of streams and rivers and bays and oceans turn, they cannot easily be reclaimed. Most often than not, the waterway is simply gone for good."
Sad to say, but with the U.S. Court of Appeals continuing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the prospect of stopping mountaintop removal once and for all in the courts appears to be a long shot
Since the legal system seems to provide little or no recourse these days, it's up to our elected officials to finally do the right thing. All the more reason to wonder (and worry over) why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently opted to allow more than three dozen mountaintop removal permits in West Virginia to proceed.
The current situation is more than a bit muddled and I certainly don't presume to know what's going on at the moment. But let's step back and assess where we find ourselves in this fight right now...
First off, there is no doubt that the Obama administration is infinitely better than the Bush administration on this issue -- that's primarily because the previous administration was so horrible. Clearly, the new administration has taken a couple of positive steps forward. Carefully examining the environmental impact of proposed mountaintop removal operations, as EPA has done in some cases, is necessary. It is also heartening that the Interior Department has moved to rescind the Bush administration's weakening changes to the long-standing stream buffer zone rule. But these necessary and appropriate steps fall far short of what is sufficient.
The Obama administration seems to be assuming that some mountaintop removal mining -- perhaps even a lot of it -- is okay. But the people who live in Appalachia know better. Mountaintop removal, the world's worst strip mining, is unacceptable. Period. Objecting to some proposed mining permits, but green-lighting others, does not recognize this basic fact. Nor does reinstating the old, more stringent buffer zone rule without committing to enforce it, as prior administrations had unfortunately done.
To do right by the people of Appalachia, President Obama needs to end mountaintop removal. There are bi-partisan bills in Congress right now -- the Clean Water Protection Act in the House and the Appalachia Restoration Act in the Senate -- that target the practice, and the president can announce his intent to sign legislation that ends mountaintop removal once and for all.
Similarly, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers can immediately take steps to reverse the administrative regulation they adopted in 2002 that gave the Corps the authority to permit the dumping of waste in surface waters, which also would curtail mountaintop removal coal mining.
You'd think that halting the Appalachian Apocalypse would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the false perception still holds that coal is the economic engine of the region's downtrodden economy. This is a myth perpetuated by the politically powerful coal industry. Consider West Virginia as an example. Jobs from mining account for just 3.3% employment in the Mountain State -- we're talking less than 20,000 jobs total, compared to the halcyon days back in 1940 when there were more than 130,000 coal miners in the state.
It's important to note that back then practically all coal miners worked underground. Whereas an underground operation might employ hundreds of miners for several years, the typical mountaintop removal operation -- which is far more environmentally destructive -- is largely mechanized and therefore employs only a handful of miners for several months or a few years at most. Think about it this way: banning mountaintop removal would actually INCREASE jobs because more miners would be needed to go back inside the mountain to dig out the coal rather than blowing the top off the mountain with high explosives and filling the valleys and streams down below with toxic debris.
I encourage everyone to consider the compelling -- and common sense --economic case against mountaintop removal.
Simply put, if we're banking our country's energy future on the dirty energy of the past -- particularly that which is produced by sacrificing Appalachia's mountains, streams, forests, wildlife, and fellow Americans living in the coalfields -- then we risk undermining the Obama administration's investments in 21st Century clean energy solutions that will protect our planet, produce more jobs and preserve our natural resources.
http://www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4498
Friday, May 29, 2009
Statement of Task
Thanks UraniumHeadComment: articles from the State of VA, Uranium Subcom. & TDE
Uranium Mining in Virginia and The Department of Energy has issued a draft environmental assessment (EA) on proposed methods to manage uranium
Statement of Task
Uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been prohibited since 1982 by a state moratorium, although approval for restricted uranium exploration in the state was granted in 2007.
Statement of Task
Uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been prohibited since 1982 by a state moratorium, although approval for restricted uranium exploration in the state was granted in 2007.
A National Research Council study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of assisting the Commonwealth to determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens.
In particular, the study will:
1) Assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health risks from exposure to “daughter” products of radioactive decay of uranium.
2) Review global and national uranium market trends.
3) Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.
4) Analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health, safety, and the environment at sites with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic, and population characteristics to those found in the Commonwealth. Such analysis shall describe any available mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts from uranium operations.
5) Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6) Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments (“cells”).
7) Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
8) Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.
9) Identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.
10) Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
11) Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
12) Briefly characterize a potential public education and outreach program in the Commonwealth of Virginia for a uranium mining operation (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).
2) Review global and national uranium market trends.
3) Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.
4) Analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health, safety, and the environment at sites with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic, and population characteristics to those found in the Commonwealth. Such analysis shall describe any available mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts from uranium operations.
5) Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6) Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments (“cells”).
7) Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
8) Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.
9) Identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.
10) Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
11) Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
12) Briefly characterize a potential public education and outreach program in the Commonwealth of Virginia for a uranium mining operation (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).
By addressing these questions, the study will provide independent, expert advice that can be used to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia; however, the study will not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted nor will the study include site-specific assessments.
Another piece of uranium stuff from The Depart of Energy:http://www.deq.virginia.gov/eir/descriptions/1Q2009.html
09-002F The Department of Energy has issued a draft environmental assessment (EA) on proposed methods to manage uranium that would involve the transportation of uranium (depleted, natural or low-enriched) by truck, rail or barge via nonspecific routes in the United States and exportation to France via a U.S. port. This EA focuses on (a) health and safety impacts, (b) impacts associated with accidents and intentional destructive acts (terrorism, sabotage) and (3) economic impacts of the proposed action on the domestic uranium industry. It is conceivable that uranium may be transported through or exported from Virginia during this process.
The Time is Now for Planning Decision
The Daily RecordWednesday, May 27 was the first “stakeholder” meeting in the rulemaking process for The Land and Water Stewardship Act of 2008, that made open pit uranium mining a “Designated Mining Operation” (DMO). It’s kind of like raising the terrorist level from orange to red. It puts uranium mining in with other toxic mining methods.
Is there any doubt left in this county that uranium mining is hazardous? If there is, then you’ve drunk the mining company’s “Koolaid.”
It’s dangerous and this rise in danger designation level deserves the attention of the Planning Commission.
It’s time Fremont County made some land use decisions, instead of avoiding them. Actually, it’s about 10 years too late. Had previous Planning Commissions set aside a “mineral district” like Gilpin and other counties did in the late 1990s, there wouldn’t have been the current land-use conflict, mining would be away from neighborhoods. But no land use decision was made and here we are.
People are waiting to build their homes: their lives are in limbo. The county should make a decision once and for all. Which will it be? Because you can’t have it both ways. Not near a neighborhood with urban density like Cottonwood River Ranch. It’s so tempting to pass the buck, but the buck stops with the Planning Commission. It’s time to decide. We call on you to do the right thing now that many people did and many people intend to build their homes here. Dewatering and contamination of water wells makes uranium mining incompatible. That’s not a DRMS decision to make — it’s a Planning Commission decision to make.
We are begging you to make it so that people can get on with their lives once and for all. (By the way no new rules will be made for DMOs in the meetings.)
Kay Hawklee
Cañon City
http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Opinion-story.asp?ID=10723
People are waiting to build their homes: their lives are in limbo. The county should make a decision once and for all. Which will it be? Because you can’t have it both ways. Not near a neighborhood with urban density like Cottonwood River Ranch. It’s so tempting to pass the buck, but the buck stops with the Planning Commission. It’s time to decide. We call on you to do the right thing now that many people did and many people intend to build their homes here. Dewatering and contamination of water wells makes uranium mining incompatible. That’s not a DRMS decision to make — it’s a Planning Commission decision to make.
We are begging you to make it so that people can get on with their lives once and for all. (By the way no new rules will be made for DMOs in the meetings.)
Kay Hawklee
Cañon City
http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Opinion-story.asp?ID=10723
German City Emerges as a World Class Energy-Saver
Comment: State of Virginia, we need to go the true Green Way for energy, not the dirty coal, Nuke way, the old fashion ideas, get with the program!! No to Nuke Plants and uranium mining & milling!!
For Release Sunday, May 31, 2009
FREIBURG — Tucked into a sunny corner of southwestern Germany, this old university town was best known until the 1970s for its massive cathedral dome, its tie to the Black Forest, and its craft of intricately carved cuckoo clocks.
Who would have thought then that early 21st century Freiburg could claim to be a world-class eco-city, leading in solar and wind power, energy-conserving home construction, rain-water management, public transit and carless neighborhood development?
Blame, if you will, authorities of the regional (state) government of Baden-Wuerttenberg. In 1975 they announced they’d build a nuclear power plant near Freiburg. No choice, they decreed, the power was needed for growth, and nuclear power was the smart modern choice.
The government had failed to reckon with local opposition — not just university faculty and students, but denizens of all ages, as well as local farmers, residents of nearby small towns. They mobilized around the construction site, tore down perimeter fences, used church bells to warn when the police were coming.
Even after the plant was cancelled, they stuck together, agreeing it wasn’t enough to say what they opposed — they had to explore where they would get their future electricity, power, heat. Would it be solar, or wind, or geothermal? Could it happen with no nuclear power, with radically less oil and coal?
It was an open debate. Professors came to the town plaza to discuss arrays of energy strategies. Special research institutes were founded — among them an EcoInstitute to look into such issues as reduced household consumption through energy-efficient construction and appliances. Also founded in Freiburg: the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, now Europe’s largest solar research energy body with a 500-person staff.
A visitor is exposed to exciting solar razzle-dazzle in Freiburg today — some 1,000 solar panels on building rooftops and facades, 2,400 square meters of solar cells atop a city stadium, and a solar tower at the railway station, its mixture of glass and 240 embedded solar panels glistening in the sun.
It’s taking time for solar to satisfy more than a fraction of Freiburg’s city energy demands. But it keeps growing because of a crucial incentive — the legal right of homeowners and businesses to feed excess power back into the local power grid, at an attractive rate of return, on a multi-year basis.
Germany as a whole is following the Freiburg lead, investing billions in photovoltaic research to become one of the world leaders in solar panel production and installation.
“We do trips into the future,” says Juergen Hartwig, a founding partner of “Freiburg Futour” which explain’s Freiburg’s breakthroughs to visitors. Environmentalists like himself, he notes, are no longer scoffed at as impractical idealists who wear two sweaters in winter; today not only Germany’s “Greens” but the main political parties have come around to support solar and other energy alternatives, because they’re profitable, and because they provide the county with some 250,000 jobs.
Freiburg keeps expanding its energy saving alternatives. Town center is an expansive vehicle-free pedestrian zone, one of Germany’s first, with refreshing foot-wide fresh water canals running along the streets to provide natural cooling and add ambiance. There’s a robust, growing public transit system of electric trams and buses. The city’s advanced water systems include grassy swales to percolate rain water into the aquifer while sewage waste is collected in a biogas plant together with organic household waste for electric power generation.
But perhaps the biggest wonder is Freiburg’s Vauban district — site of post-World War II French military barracks that’s been transformed into the world’s model for a zero-street parking, totally eco-friendly neighborhood or suburb.
Solar power, streets downsized to accommodate people instead of cars, cycling paths, rain water management — Vauban has them all. Seventy percent of Vauban’s 5,000 residents don’t own an automobile at all; many sold a car to move into the neighborhood and now rely on a car-sharing scheme (like ZipCar in the United States) for excursions.
Vauban’s theme is walkability — not just auto-free walkways but a variety of stores a stroll from home. There’s a tram direct into the center of Freiburg. Residences consist of a series of handsome four-story buildings, attractively detailed with balconies — all designed to maximize energy efficiency. Free-standing homes, our American model of the four-walled house with yard around, simply aren’t permitted.
Could this be the model of future development in the United States and elsewhere? The break from our generally broad streets and minimum parking requirements is dramatic. Few American zoning laws would tolerate such a development. But the convenience, the freedom for children to wander about, the informal and livable atmosphere, provide high quality of life.
Combine that with world-standard energy efficiency — standards that may become mandatory in a post-oil, carbon-strained world — and the Vauban art of development may spread a lot more rapidly than anyone would now predict.
Neal Peirce’s e-mail is npeirce@citistates.com.
http://citiwire.net/post/973/
For Release Sunday, May 31, 2009
FREIBURG — Tucked into a sunny corner of southwestern Germany, this old university town was best known until the 1970s for its massive cathedral dome, its tie to the Black Forest, and its craft of intricately carved cuckoo clocks.
Who would have thought then that early 21st century Freiburg could claim to be a world-class eco-city, leading in solar and wind power, energy-conserving home construction, rain-water management, public transit and carless neighborhood development?
Blame, if you will, authorities of the regional (state) government of Baden-Wuerttenberg. In 1975 they announced they’d build a nuclear power plant near Freiburg. No choice, they decreed, the power was needed for growth, and nuclear power was the smart modern choice.
The government had failed to reckon with local opposition — not just university faculty and students, but denizens of all ages, as well as local farmers, residents of nearby small towns. They mobilized around the construction site, tore down perimeter fences, used church bells to warn when the police were coming.
Even after the plant was cancelled, they stuck together, agreeing it wasn’t enough to say what they opposed — they had to explore where they would get their future electricity, power, heat. Would it be solar, or wind, or geothermal? Could it happen with no nuclear power, with radically less oil and coal?
It was an open debate. Professors came to the town plaza to discuss arrays of energy strategies. Special research institutes were founded — among them an EcoInstitute to look into such issues as reduced household consumption through energy-efficient construction and appliances. Also founded in Freiburg: the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, now Europe’s largest solar research energy body with a 500-person staff.
A visitor is exposed to exciting solar razzle-dazzle in Freiburg today — some 1,000 solar panels on building rooftops and facades, 2,400 square meters of solar cells atop a city stadium, and a solar tower at the railway station, its mixture of glass and 240 embedded solar panels glistening in the sun.
It’s taking time for solar to satisfy more than a fraction of Freiburg’s city energy demands. But it keeps growing because of a crucial incentive — the legal right of homeowners and businesses to feed excess power back into the local power grid, at an attractive rate of return, on a multi-year basis.
Germany as a whole is following the Freiburg lead, investing billions in photovoltaic research to become one of the world leaders in solar panel production and installation.
“We do trips into the future,” says Juergen Hartwig, a founding partner of “Freiburg Futour” which explain’s Freiburg’s breakthroughs to visitors. Environmentalists like himself, he notes, are no longer scoffed at as impractical idealists who wear two sweaters in winter; today not only Germany’s “Greens” but the main political parties have come around to support solar and other energy alternatives, because they’re profitable, and because they provide the county with some 250,000 jobs.
Freiburg keeps expanding its energy saving alternatives. Town center is an expansive vehicle-free pedestrian zone, one of Germany’s first, with refreshing foot-wide fresh water canals running along the streets to provide natural cooling and add ambiance. There’s a robust, growing public transit system of electric trams and buses. The city’s advanced water systems include grassy swales to percolate rain water into the aquifer while sewage waste is collected in a biogas plant together with organic household waste for electric power generation.
But perhaps the biggest wonder is Freiburg’s Vauban district — site of post-World War II French military barracks that’s been transformed into the world’s model for a zero-street parking, totally eco-friendly neighborhood or suburb.
Solar power, streets downsized to accommodate people instead of cars, cycling paths, rain water management — Vauban has them all. Seventy percent of Vauban’s 5,000 residents don’t own an automobile at all; many sold a car to move into the neighborhood and now rely on a car-sharing scheme (like ZipCar in the United States) for excursions.
Vauban’s theme is walkability — not just auto-free walkways but a variety of stores a stroll from home. There’s a tram direct into the center of Freiburg. Residences consist of a series of handsome four-story buildings, attractively detailed with balconies — all designed to maximize energy efficiency. Free-standing homes, our American model of the four-walled house with yard around, simply aren’t permitted.
Could this be the model of future development in the United States and elsewhere? The break from our generally broad streets and minimum parking requirements is dramatic. Few American zoning laws would tolerate such a development. But the convenience, the freedom for children to wander about, the informal and livable atmosphere, provide high quality of life.
Combine that with world-standard energy efficiency — standards that may become mandatory in a post-oil, carbon-strained world — and the Vauban art of development may spread a lot more rapidly than anyone would now predict.
Neal Peirce’s e-mail is npeirce@citistates.com.
http://citiwire.net/post/973/
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Navajos join waste cleanup lawsuit
Comment: Uranium Milling in Tuba City, AZ has left everything around it, in ruins: water, land and air. Please notice both articles on the blog, the lawsuit and the history of the mill! This will be the county's future unless everyone demand the county to ban uranium mining & milling NOW!! Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Navajo Nation joined a lawsuit against the federal government on Tuesday, hoping to find a party responsible for cleaning up a dump near Tuba City found to be leaching waste into a shallow aquifer.
The tribe is arguing that uranium millers at a mill five miles from Tuba City that was authorized to operate by the Department of Energy pitched milling waste into the unlined dump, and at two or more other locations in the area.
The tribe asserts that drinking water and the health of nearby residents is jeopardized by uranium waste in the dump, and they want all of the contents of the Bureau of Indian Affairs-run dump removed and groundwater pumped for contamination.
The tribes oppose any partial attempts at cleanup.
Congress has appropriated $5 million this year for cleanup at the dump, but that is unlikely to cover all of the projected costs.
The Hopi Tribe filed a notice last week that it intended to sue over the same issue after each of the tribes has been in talks with federal agencies for more than a decade but seen no action.
The lawsuit the Navajo Nation joined was initially filed by El Paso Natural Gas after the company purchased the Rare Metals Corporation and became an owner of a uranium mill near Tuba City.
El Paso was seen by the Navajo and Hopi tribes as a potential party responsible for cleanup, along with the Department of Energy.
So El Paso Natural Gas filed sued against the federal government, hoping to put the responsibility for cleanup on the federal agencies that authorized and regulated Cold War uranium mining.
http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/05/27/news/local/20090527_local_197045.txt
Tuba City Mill Site Coconino County, Arizona
Location: The former Tuba City mill site is located approximately 5 miles east of Tuba City, Coconino County, Arizona, south of U.S. Highway 160 on the Navajo Indian Reservation. It is 85 miles north of Flagstaff, Arizona, and near the Hopi Indian Reservation.
Background: The uranium ores processed at the Tuba City mill came largely from sites in Arizona: the Orphan Lode mine within the Grand Canyon National Park, mines in the Cameron area and adjacent areas, mines in the Monument Valley district, and ores purchased by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) at the Tuba City ore buying station and at other AEC ore buying stations1, including the Globe ore buying station, Gila County, Arizona.2 3
Orphan Lode mine - Uranium mineralization was identified by a U.S. Geological Survey geologist in April 1951 in old copper mine workings at the Orphan mining claim, a lode claim located in 1893 and patented as a copper prospect in 1906. 4 5The mine site is near Grand Canyon Village and about 1,100 feet below the south rim of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. Private exploration drilling in 1955 confirmed a high-grade uranium-copper deposit on the claim. The Orphan Lode deposit was in the upper reaches of a vertical, nearly circular, solution-collapse breccia-pipe structure. It is exposed on the canyon wall near the Coconino Sandstone-Hermit Shale (Permian) contact. 6 The pipe structure extends downward from outcrop through sedimentary rocks of Permian and Pennsylvanian ages and bottoms near the middle of the Redwall Limestone (Mississippian age), a vertical distance of about 1,660 feet. 7 The collapse material in the pipe consists of poorly consolidated sand fill, sandstone and claystone breccias with varying calcite cementation, and limey siltstone. 8 9 Uranium ore bodies associated with the pipe occurred as irregular masses in the collapsed material that fills the pipe and in rocks associated with the pipe's peripheral, annular-ring shear zone that defines the border of the pipe. 10 11 Some ore also extended outside the lode claim boundary and onto land belonging to the National Park Service.12 The ore was mined to a depth of about 585 feet, but uranium mineralization associated with the pipe structure is present below that mine level.
Development work at the Orphan Lode mine began in 1953. A three-tower, aerial tramway was completed in March 1955 from the canyon rim to service the mine site. A new 1,800-foot tramway with eight-towers replaced the old one in May 1956. The tramways had limited capability for moving materials to and from the mine. To expand ore production, a 1,590-foot, 2½ compartment mine shaft was sunk on the claim behind the canyon rim from May 1958-January 1959. The shaft was connected to the mine through a 1,200-foot crosscut at the 400 level. Mine development costs at the Orphan were high, as all mined materials had to be transported off site. Cut and fill methods, which involved handling and rehanding waste rock in the underground mine, were used when possible to save on costs for hoisting and surface storage. Mine waste rock could not be stored on National Park Service (NPS) land. Some waste rock excavated during mine-shaft and crosscut construction was used by the NPS for road projects in the park.
The first shipment of Orphan Lode ore went to the AEC's ore buying station at the Tuba City mill in April 1956. Most of the ore mined from the Orphan was hauled to the Tuba City mill for processing. Some ore was shipped in 1958-1960 to mills in Utah and New Mexico, when the Tuba City mill could not take the ore. In 1959 and 1960, some Orphan Lode ore was also shipped to an Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico, alkaline-leach mill that could treat the high-lime ore. 13
Throughout its life the Orphan Lode mine was operated by several owners.14 Cotter Corporation, the last owner, shipped and processed ore from the mine at its Canon City, Colorado, mill from late 1967-early 1969. In April 1969 the Orphan Lode mine was permanently closed due to the high cost of shipping the ore to the Canon City mill. 15
The total Orphan Lode mine ore production (April 1956-April 1969) was 500,432 tons ore containing 4,286,254 pounds U3O8. 16 About 32 percent of the total uranium produced was recovered from ore mined on National Park Service land. The highest grade monthly ore shipment was 726 tons that averaged 2.29 percent U3O8. 17 Some 6.68 million pounds of copper and about 107,000 ounces of silver also were recovered from the Orphan Lode ore .18
Cameron uranium area - Uranium deposits occur in the Cameron area in an area that extends about 30 miles north-south and 12 miles east-west near the town of Cameron, Arizona. 19 The area extends across parts of the Painted Desert and Ward Terrace in the western part of the Navajo Reservation. In the Ward Terrace area east of Cameron, uranium minerals were discovered in 1950 on an outcrop of the Kayenta Formation (Lower Jurassic). 20 From mid 1951 to the spring of 1952, several shipments of uranium ore from small deposits in this area were sent to the AEC ore buying station at Monticello, Utah. In early 1952 ore was also shipped to the AEC buying station at Shiprock, New Mexico. 21
In 1952, uranium was discovered on Chinle Formation (Upper Triassic) outcrops near Cameron by a Navajo prospector who was conducting surface radiometric reconnaissance on behalf of the AEC. 22 Other discoveries were soon made at sites on Chinle outcrops. In 1952, shipments of uranium ore from Cameron deposits were sent to the AEC's ore buying station at Bluewater, New Mexico. 23 By 1954, six operators were shipping ore from several Cameron area mines. 24
In December 1954, the Navajo uranium leases held by the Arrowhead Uranium Company, which had become a major player in the Cameron area, were acquired the Rare Metals Corporation of America.25
The deposits in the Cameron area occurred mainly in the lower 60 feet of the Petrified Forest Member and the upper 30 feet of the underlying Shinarump Member of the Chinle Formation. 26 The ore occurred mainly in poorly consolidated sandstone and in clay-pellet sandstone and conglomerate beds in intraformational channel and scour structures. 27 Ore-grade material occurred in pod- and lens-shaped tabular bodies up to 10-15 feet thick at depressions and bends along ‘channel and scour' trends and was often associated with bentonitic clay. Higher grade ore was associated with carbonaceous trash. 28 Uranium-mineralized fossil logs were mined in some deposits. The deepest open pit mine was 130 feet deep. The average depth for mines in the area ore was about 60 feet. The largest ore body mined contained about 40,000 tons of ore, and the average size for the mined deposits was reported to be about 7,000 tons of ore. The ‘channel and scour' environment accounted for over 95 percent of the ore mined from the Cameron area.
During 1951-1963 about 289,300 tons of ore mined in the Cameron area averaged 0.21 percent U3O8and 0.04 percent V2O5. 29 The ore was classified as ‘low vanadium and low lime.' At depth the ore consisted of uraninite with some sulfide minerals. Ore nearer the surface was oxidized.
In the Cameron area, the deposits generally were of small size, which limited the depth for economical stripping of the ore. Mines were mainly open pits: some underground mining was done via adits driven into pit walls to follow ore trends. The deepest open pit mine was 130 feet deep. The average depth for mines in the area ore was about 60 feet. Four vertical mine shafts were dug to reach deposits. The largest ore body mined contained about 40,000 tons of ore, and the average size for mined deposits was reported to be about 7,000 tons of ore. The small mines depended on the AEC production bonus for profitable operation. 30 At the Riverview mine, uranium ore was mined from down-dropped blocks of sandstone found in a solution-collapse breccia-pipe structure that penetrated the Moenkopi Formation (Upper Triassic). 31
Tuba City ore buying station and uranium mill - In July 1955 Rare Metals Corp. signed a contract with the AEC to produce uranium concentrate at a new mill to be built near Tuba City, Arizona. Construction of the mill began in August 1955. 32 The Tuba City mill operated from June 1956-November 1966. 33
In February 1956, the AEC opened a uranium ore buying station at the mill construction site. 34 Rare Metals leased the mill's ore sampling plant to the AEC pending the mill's completion. The AEC purchased ores at the Tuba City site through June 1957, when Rare Metals began buying the ore. From February 1956 to June 1957, 40,782 tons of uranium ore averaging 0.22 percent U3O8and 0.05 percent V2O5were purchased at the buying station. Rare Metals purchased the AEC's ore stockpiled at Tuba City as well as ore from other AEC ore-buying stations. 35
The original Tuba City mill was designed to process the clayey, low-lime, high-slime, ores obtained from Cameron area mines. 36 After its initial startup period, the mill was rated at 300 tons of ore per day. The milling process for the low-lime ores included ore crushing and grinding, sulfuric-acid leaching, sand-slime separation, and the basket resin-in-pulp ion exchange process for uranium recovery. 37
By the early 1960s, many mines in the Cameron area that had shipped low-lime ores to the Tuba City mill were depleted, and the area’s ore production was in decline. Shipment of Orphan Lode ore to the Tuba City mill began in early 1956. The Orphan ore had higher lime content than Cameron-type ores, and for the mill’s acid-leach process the Orphan ore was blended at the mill with lower lime ores. Cameron area mine production had fallen to only a few hundred tons per year by 1962, and Orphan Lode ore was then set to become the main feed for the mill.38
After an accident closed the Orphan Lode mine in December1961, the Tuba City mill was forced to temporarily suspend operations. At the Orphan mine, hoisted ore was stored in an ore bin attached to the head frame, which was erected over the 2½-compartment mine shaft. The ore bin collapsed in late December 1961 and dumped ore back down the mine shaft. The mine was forced to shut down for several months for repairs. By January 1962, the ore on hand at the mine at the time of the accident was shipped to the Tuba City mill. With Orphan Lode ore temporarily not available and declining ore production in the Cameron area (less than 300 tons of ore in 1962), there was not enough ore feed to keep the mill supplied. In May 1962 the mill closed.39
In July 1962 Rare Metals Corporation was merged into the El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG). EPNG signed a new contract in November 1962 with the AEC for the sale of uranium concentrates produced from Orphan Lode ore at the Tuba City mill through December 1966. 40
The need to convert the milling process at the Tuba City mill to handle the higher lime Orphan Lode ore was foreseen as early as 1961, and planning was begun for an alkaline-leach capability at the mill. 41 Addition of the new circuit was completed during the 1962 mill-closure period. Some ‘used' equipment obtained for the conversion was purchased under competitive bidding when the AEC's Monticello, Utah, mill was dismantled. 42 In April 1963, the Tuba City mill was again operational with a new design capacity of 200 tons ore per day. 43
The conversion to alkaline-leach included installation of new ore grinding equipment, a flotation circuit to separate sulfides after grinding, pressure-leach vessels, liquid-solids separation equipment, precipitation tanks, and re-carbonation equipment for leach-solution recycle. 44 Sulfide flotation tailings were sent to the alkaline circuit and the bulk flotation concentrate was processed in an acid-leach circuit. 45 Uranium was recovered from the flotation concentrate by ion exchange. 46
From June 1956-September 1966 the Tuba City mill processed a total of 796,489 tons of uranium ore with an average grade of 0.33 percent U3O8. 47 The mill recovered 4,696,402 pounds U3O8in concentrates, a 90 percent recovery rate. 48 All uranium concentrate produced was delivered under contract to the AEC.
Copper products from the Tuba City mill were shipped to the smelter at Inspiration, Arizona. 49
When the Tuba City mill was closed in September 1966 control of the mill site reverted to the Navajo Nation. Three connected mill-tailings piles containing some 800,000 tons of material and three evaporation ponds remained on the mill site. 50 Earthen dikes protected the tailings510 piles from surface water runoff.
In 1968, under a cooperative program with the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the surface of the tailings piles was treated with a chemical-binder material to prevent the wind transport of fine tailings materials onto the surrounding grazing lands. By 1974, the crust formed on the piles by the binding agent had become damaged, and it was no longer effective.51
A gamma-radiation survey of the Tuba City mill site and adjacent area was made in 1972 by an AEC contractor under an interagency agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Anomalous gamma radioactivity was identified at 14 sites. Seven of these were found to have uranium tailings materials. The contamination was attributed to dispersal of tailings material by wind action rather than by human intervention. Anomalous gamma radiation was found to decrease to background levels at a distance of 0.25 miles from the piles. Along the prevailing wind direction, the gamma radiation decreased to background levels 0.7 miles from the piles. 52
The former Tuba City mill site is situated on a natural terrace about 5,100 feet above sea level. The natural soil cover is unconsolidated sand and gravel overlying the Navajo Sandstone (Lower Jurassic). Natural vegetation is sparse in the area. Southward from the site, the ground surface descends about 400 feet in elevation over a distance of about 1.5 miles towards the Moenkopi Wash drainage. This stream provides some water for livestock and agricultural use. Occasional livestock grazing is the main land use nearby the mill site, and some land nearby is used for dry and irrigation farming. The supply of surface water available from natural precipitation in the area is limited and highly variable. The Navajo Sandstone contains an extensive multiple aquifer system that is an important regional water resource. The aquifer system is vast and encompasses all of the Navajo Sandstone units. 53
UMTRA Surface Remediation: DOE began the surface remediation work at the former Tuba City mill site in 1988 and it was completed by December 1990. Demolition of the remaining buildings and site preparation began in 1986. All of the residual radioactive materials at the mill site, the contaminated windblown materials from surrounding properties, and debris from the demolished buildings were placed in a disposal cell over the existing uranium mill tailings materials and stabilized by compaction. 54
Disposal Cell: The disposal cell covers an area of about 50 acres, is generally triangular in shape, and rises to a height of about 45 feet above the surrounding ground. About 2.3 million tons of contaminated materials with a total activity of 940 curies of 226 Ra are entombed in the cell. 55 The cover encapsulating the disposal cell is an engineered, multiple-layer structure. A low-permeability radon barrier composed of clayey soil was placed directly on the contaminated, radioactive cell contents. The 42-inch thick soil layer is designed to minimize the emission of radon to the air and the downward percolation of water through the cell and potentially into the underlying aquifer. A layer of granular bedding material overlies the radon barrier and is designed to promote the rapid runoff from any precipitation that falls on the cell structure. Two layers of rip-rap material totaling 18 inches in thickness cap the disposal cell to protect it against erosion from wind and storm water. A rock apron surrounds the cell to control runoff water that is shed from the encapsulating cover. On its up-slope sides, the cell is protected by a drainage ditch that collects surface-runoff water and directs it away from the completed cell structure. 56
Responsibility for Remediation: U.S Department of Energy, 100 percent
Stewardship: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for long-term stewardship at the former Tuba City mill site, including the groundwater cleanup program and the subsequent long-term site monitoring. In 1996, the NRC included the Tuba City Disposal Cell under a general license. Under this license, the DOE has long-term custody, monitoring, and maintenance responsibilities at the remediated site. The DOE maintains data relating to site characterization, design parameters for site restoration, and historical and current site monitoring. The Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program at the DOE's Grand Junction Office will assure the disposal site's safety and integrity.57 The Navajo Nation retains title to the land and tailings.58
Ground Water Program: Groundwater contamination in the Navajo Sandstone aquifer at the Tuba City site resulted from the milling of uranium ores. The water used by the mill to process uranium ore was discharged with the tailings slurry into the original tailings impoundment structures at the Tuba City mill site. The water contained high concentrations of dissolved materials, such as nitrate, sulfate, sodium, calcium, and low amounts of uranium resulting from the ore-milling process. The original tailings impoundment structures were not lined with an impermeable material to prevent the downward percolation of pore water from the pile, and the tailings materials are directly in contact with the natural soil cover. The soil cover is composed mainly of permeable eolian sand that formed on the underlying strata of the Navajo Sandstone.
The contaminated groundwater plume identified by the DOE covers an area of about 320 acres and extends downgradient to the south and southwest from the former mill site. It is estimated that some 3.8 million cubic yards of groundwater are contaminated. 59 Of 18 contaminants identified in the groundwater at the Tuba City mill site, the concentrations for 13 do not exceed the maximum limits established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and do not pose a risk to human health or the environment. No remediation for these 13 is planned by the DOE. The groundwater concentrations for four contaminants (molybdenum, nitrate, selenium, and uranium) exceed the respective EPA maximum concentration limits. In addition, the contaminant sulfate is present in the groundwater plume at levels that can cause a potential health risk. The DOE groundwater remediation strategy includes active remediation to reduce the concentrations of these five contaminants in the groundwater plume. 60
The DOE designed program for clean-up of the Navajo Sandstone aquifer at the former Tuba City mill site includes the extraction of contaminated groundwater from the plume and removal of the contaminants by distillation. About 90 percent of the treated groundwater will be returned to the aquifer via injection wells and infiltration ditches. The extraction of contaminated water from the aquifer and re-injection of clean water will contain the further spreading of the five contaminants. A monitoring program will continue throughout the groundwater cleanup phase to assure that the aquifer restoration standards established for the project are met. 61
TO SEE FOOTNOTES: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/umtra/tubacity_title1.html
In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble
Comment: So the Rep want to build 100 nuke plants in the US, wants to give them fed'l loans (means taxpayers will pay for the plants), so call new (untested) reactor, duh - wake up Rep - Look at Finland, Maryland gov - pay attention, Virginia pay attention .....cost too high, uranium mining & milling are dangerous, ---we want true green power, solar, wind, tide, thermal~!!!!!!!May 29, 2009
By JAMES KANTER
OLKILUOTO, Finland — As the Obama administration tries to steer America toward cleaner sources of energy, it would do well to consider the cautionary tale of this new-generation nuclear reactor site.
The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too.
But things have not gone as planned.
After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online.
While the American nuclear industry has predicted clear sailing after its first plants are built, the problems in Europe suggest these obstacles may be hard to avoid.
A new fleet of reactors would be standardized down to “the carpeting and wallpaper,” as Michael J. Wallace, the chairman of UniStar Nuclear Energy — a joint venture between EDF Group and Constellation Energy, the Maryland-based utility — has said repeatedly.
In the end, he says, that standardization will lead to significant savings.
But early experience suggests these new reactors will be no easier or cheaper to build than the ones of a generation ago, when cost overruns — and then accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl — ended the last nuclear construction boom.
In Flamanville, France, a clone of the Finnish reactor now under construction is also behind schedule and overbudget.
In the United States, Florida and Georgia have changed state laws to raise electricity rates so that consumers will foot some of the bill for new nuclear plants in advance, before construction even begins.
“A number of U.S. companies have looked with trepidation on the situation in Finland and at the magnitude of the investment there,” said Paul L. Joskow, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a co-author of an influential report on the future of nuclear power in 2003. “The rollout of new nuclear reactors will be a good deal slower than a lot of people were assuming.”
For nuclear power to have a high impact on reducing greenhouse gases, an average of 12 reactors would have to be built worldwide each year until 2030, according to the Nuclear Energy Agency at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Right now, there are not even enough reactors under construction to replace those that are reaching the end of their lives.
And of the 45 reactors being built around the world, 22 have encountered construction delays, according to an analysis prepared this year for the German government by Mycle Schneider, an energy analyst and a critic of the nuclear industry. He added that nine do not have official start-up dates.
Most of the new construction is underway in countries like China and Russia, where strong central governments have made nuclear energy a national priority. India also has long seen nuclear as part of a national drive for self-sufficiency and now is seeking new nuclear technologies to reduce its reliance on imported uranium.
By comparison, “the state has been all over the place in the United States and Europe on nuclear power,” Mr. Joskow said.
The United States generates about one-fifth of its electricity from a fleet of 104 reactors, most built in the 1960s and 1970s. Coal still provides about half the country’s power.
To streamline construction, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington has worked with the industry to approve a handful of designs. Even so, the schedule to certify the most advanced model from Westinghouse, a unit of Toshiba, has slipped during an ongoing review of its ability to withstand the impact of an airliner.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also not yet approved the so-called EPR design under construction in Finland for the American market.
This month, the United States Energy Department produced a short list of four reactor projects eligible for some loan guarantees. In the 2005 energy bill, Congress provided $18.5 billion, but the industry’s hope of winning an additional $50 billion worth of loan guarantees evaporated when that money was stripped from President Obama’s economic stimulus bill.
The industry has had more success in getting states to help raise money. This year, authorities permitted Florida Power & Light to start charging millions of customers several dollars a month to finance four new reactors. Customers of Georgia Power, a subsidiary of the Southern Co., will pay on average $1.30 a month more in 2011, rising to $9.10 by 2017, to help pay for two reactors expected to go online in 2016 or later.
But resistance is mounting. In April, Missouri legislators balked at a preconstruction rate increase, prompting the state’s largest electric utility, Ameren UE, to suspend plans for a $6 billion copy of Areva’s Finnish reactor.
Areva, a conglomerate largely owned by the French state, is heir to that nation’s experience in building nuclear plants. France gets about 80 percent of its power from 58 reactors. But even France has not completed a new reactor since 1999.
After designing an updated plant originally called the European Pressurized Reactor with German participation during the 1990s, the French had trouble selling it at home because of a saturated energy market as well as opposition from Green Party members in the then-coalition government.
So Areva turned to Finland, where utilities and energy-hungry industries like pulp and paper had been lobbying for 15 years for more nuclear power. The project was initially budgeted at $4 billion and Teollisuuden Voima, the Finnish utility, pledged it would be ready in time to help the Finnish government meet its greenhouse gas targets under the Kyoto climate treaty, which runs through 2012.
Areva promised electricity from the reactor could be generated more cheaply than from natural gas plants. Areva also said its model would deliver 1,600 megawatts, or about 10 percent of Finnish power needs.
In 2001, the Finnish parliament narrowly approved construction of a reactor at Olkiluoto, an island on the Baltic Sea. Construction began four years later.
Serious problems first arose over the vast concrete base slab for the foundation of the reactor building, which the country’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority found too porous and prone to corrosion. Since then, the authority has blamed Areva for allowing inexperienced subcontractors to drill holes in the wrong places on a vast steel container that seals the reactor.
In December, the authority warned Anne Lauvergeon, the chief executive of Areva, that “the attitude or lack of professional knowledge of some persons” at Areva was holding up work on safety systems.
Today, the site still teems with 4,000 workmen on round-the-clock shifts. Banners from dozens of subcontractors around Europe flutter in the breeze above temporary offices and makeshift canteens. Some 10,000 people speaking at least eight different languages have worked at the site. About 30 percent of the workforce is Polish, and communication has posed significant challenges.
Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, double the price offered to the Finns. But Areva said it was not cutting any corners in Finland. The two sides have agreed to arbitration, where they are both claiming more than 1 billion euros in compensation. (Areva blames the Finnish authorities for impeding construction and increasing costs for work it agreed to complete at a fixed price.)
Areva announced a steep drop in earnings last year, which it blamed mostly on mounting losses from the project.
In addition, nuclear safety inspectors in France have found cracks in the concrete base and steel reinforcements in the wrong places at the site in Flamanville. They also have warned Électricité de France, the utility building the reactor, that welders working on the steel container were not properly qualified.
On top of such problems come the recession, weaker energy demand, tight credit and uncertainty over future policies, said Caren Byrd, an executive director of the global utility and power group at Morgan Stanley in New York.
“The warning lights now are flashing more brightly than just a year ago about the cost of new nuclear,” she said.
And Jouni Silvennoinen, the project manager at Olkiluoto, said, “We have had it easy here.” Olkiluoto is at least a geologically stable site. Earthquake risks in places like China and the United States or even the threat of storm surges mean building these reactors will be even trickier elsewhere.
Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting from Washington.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html?_r=1
Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Malfunction
Comment: The Nuke Plant is very old and very dangerous!!!!Buchanan, NY -- The Indian Point power plant experienced the second malfunction within the past two weeks this morning; the third over the past three months.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) officials advised the 5:30 a.m. occurrence took place when "a high vibration condition was detected on a main feedwater pump" in reactor Unit 3 which triggered a "high-level alarm," thereafter the shutdown.
"All equipment performed as designed in response to the shutdown," said Indian Point spokesman Jerry Nappi. "There was no release of radioactivity and no threat to the safety of workers or the public."
These issues are taking place during the same New Orleans based Entergy Nuclear, operator of the Indian Point facility has filed application for a 20 year licensing renewal. Its current license expires in 2015.
http://yonkerstribune.typepad.com/yonkers_tribune/2009/05/indian-point-nuclear-power-plant-malfunction.html
These issues are taking place during the same New Orleans based Entergy Nuclear, operator of the Indian Point facility has filed application for a 20 year licensing renewal. Its current license expires in 2015.
http://yonkerstribune.typepad.com/yonkers_tribune/2009/05/indian-point-nuclear-power-plant-malfunction.html
Staunton River supervisor to hold meeting on land use, mining
Comment: Everyone in the county and city needs to attend this meeting!
From staff reports
Published: May 27, 2009
HURT — Staunton River Supervisor Marshall Ecker will hold his second quarterly meeting with citizens Tuesday.
The meeting will be held from 5:45 p.m. to 7 p.m. on June 2 at Hurt Town Hall on Pocket Road.
Ecker will discuss issues and concerns important to citizens. Topics covered will include land use and uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.
From staff reports
Published: May 27, 2009
HURT — Staunton River Supervisor Marshall Ecker will hold his second quarterly meeting with citizens Tuesday.
The meeting will be held from 5:45 p.m. to 7 p.m. on June 2 at Hurt Town Hall on Pocket Road.
Ecker will discuss issues and concerns important to citizens. Topics covered will include land use and uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.
Alarm bells ring for foreign uranium miners in Kazakhstan
Comment: Only one thing to say, are we really surprised, I say no I am not, uranium mining is a cut throat business!!! Everyone should email this story to the illegal study bunch and the local leaders of this county!!! Remember, Virginia is welcoming the French with open arms to VA!!
URANIUM ONE CITED
The arrest of the former head of Kazatomprom, and some of his aides, on grounds of fraudulent sale of Kazakhstan's uranium resources, is ringing alarm bells among foreign investors in the country's uranium sector.
Author: Lawrence Williams
Posted: Wednesday , 27 May 2009
LONDON -
The recent arrest by Kazakhstan's security service of the former head of the country's state uranium company is raising alarm bells among foreign companies which have invested in uranium development there.
Mukhtar Dzhakishev, the head of the state uranium mining company KazAtomProm, along with seven of his senior executives was arrested on the grounds of making illegal sales of the country's uranium resources to overseas entities, and Canadian headquartered Uranium One (TSX and JSE: UUU), which has a 70% interest in a Joint Venture in Kazakhstan that owns the Akdala Uranium Mine, which is currently in operation and the South Inkai Uranium Project, which commenced pre-commercial production in 2007, has been named as one of the companies concerned. Uranium One also has a 30% interest in another Joint Venture in Kazakhstan that is developing the Kharasan-1 uranium project which was officially opened last month.
These projects were primarily negotiated by UrAsia Energy which merged with SXR Uranium One to form the present Uranium One in 2007.
Other overseas companies involved in Kazakh uranium which could be affected by the fallout from the arrests include Areva , Cameco and a consortium of Japanese companies which are co-owners with Uranium One and KazAtomProm of the Kharasan project, as well as Chinese and Russian organisations.
Meanwhile Kazakhstan's opposition Communist Party has claimed the arrests are politically-motivated. Kazakh Communist Party leader Serikbolsyn Abdildin is reported by Radio Free Europe as saying that the arrest of Dzhakishev and his KazAtomProm associates is connected with the case of businessman Mukhtar Abliyazov whose BTA bank was nationalised by the government and a criminal case was launched into his alleged financial misdeeds earlier this year. Abliyazov and other bank officials left Kazakhstan to avoid arrest.
Kazakhstan has been estimated to hold around 20% of currently known global uranium resources and may well become the world's No. 1 uranium producer this year.
KazAtomProm's dealings with foreign uranium miners/developers have resulted in rapid growth in the country's uranium production sector. The biq question now is whether subsequent investigations will show whether fraudulent transactions have taken place and if so what will be the potential effects on current uranium mining agreements.
So far no comments have been forthcoming from any of the western companies which may be affected by the fallout from the arrests
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72103?oid=83898&sn=Detail
URANIUM ONE CITED
The arrest of the former head of Kazatomprom, and some of his aides, on grounds of fraudulent sale of Kazakhstan's uranium resources, is ringing alarm bells among foreign investors in the country's uranium sector.
Author: Lawrence Williams
Posted: Wednesday , 27 May 2009
LONDON -
The recent arrest by Kazakhstan's security service of the former head of the country's state uranium company is raising alarm bells among foreign companies which have invested in uranium development there.
Mukhtar Dzhakishev, the head of the state uranium mining company KazAtomProm, along with seven of his senior executives was arrested on the grounds of making illegal sales of the country's uranium resources to overseas entities, and Canadian headquartered Uranium One (TSX and JSE: UUU), which has a 70% interest in a Joint Venture in Kazakhstan that owns the Akdala Uranium Mine, which is currently in operation and the South Inkai Uranium Project, which commenced pre-commercial production in 2007, has been named as one of the companies concerned. Uranium One also has a 30% interest in another Joint Venture in Kazakhstan that is developing the Kharasan-1 uranium project which was officially opened last month.
These projects were primarily negotiated by UrAsia Energy which merged with SXR Uranium One to form the present Uranium One in 2007.
Other overseas companies involved in Kazakh uranium which could be affected by the fallout from the arrests include Areva , Cameco and a consortium of Japanese companies which are co-owners with Uranium One and KazAtomProm of the Kharasan project, as well as Chinese and Russian organisations.
Meanwhile Kazakhstan's opposition Communist Party has claimed the arrests are politically-motivated. Kazakh Communist Party leader Serikbolsyn Abdildin is reported by Radio Free Europe as saying that the arrest of Dzhakishev and his KazAtomProm associates is connected with the case of businessman Mukhtar Abliyazov whose BTA bank was nationalised by the government and a criminal case was launched into his alleged financial misdeeds earlier this year. Abliyazov and other bank officials left Kazakhstan to avoid arrest.
Kazakhstan has been estimated to hold around 20% of currently known global uranium resources and may well become the world's No. 1 uranium producer this year.
KazAtomProm's dealings with foreign uranium miners/developers have resulted in rapid growth in the country's uranium production sector. The biq question now is whether subsequent investigations will show whether fraudulent transactions have taken place and if so what will be the potential effects on current uranium mining agreements.
So far no comments have been forthcoming from any of the western companies which may be affected by the fallout from the arrests
http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72103?oid=83898&sn=Detail
Tennessee's sick nuclear workers get $1 billion
Comment: Well uranium mining & milling will bring money down the way with federal compensation program for sick uranium miners, if you live long enough to see it!!
By Frank Munger (Contact)Wednesday, May 27, 2009
OAK RIDGE — Tennessee residents have collected more than $1 billion from the federal compensation program for sick nuclear workers — far more than any other state.
The Department of Labor announced the milestone Tuesday, saying it had paid more than $1 billion in compensation and medical benefits to 9,134 Tennessee residents under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act.
Congress passed the act to compensate workers who were exposed to radioactive materials and other toxic hazards in the workplace while producing nuclear weapons during the Cold War.
Matt Murray, associate director of the University of Tennessee’s Center for Business and Economic Research, said the compensation to sick workers and their families has a significant impact on the East Tennessee economy.
“In some ways, it’s like having another large employer in our region,” Murray said. “That’s a huge amount of money that is intended to make up, in part, for the income they can no longer receive.”
Nationwide, since the act was implemented in 2001, the Department of Labor has paid 51,331 claimants more than $4.8 billion in compensation and medical benefits.
In a statement released Tuesday, Rachel Leiton, director of the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, noted several of the facilities covered by the compensation program were in Oak Ridge — including Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, and the former K-25 uranium-enrichment plant.
“Individuals who worked at these and other covered facilities … sacrificed their health to build this nation’s nuclear defense programs,” Leiton said.
While saying she was proud to announce the benefits paid, Leiton said the Labor Department believes there may be others eligible in Tennessee who have not yet filed claims for compensation.
She encouraged potential claimants to call this toll-free number: 1-866-481-0411.
Glenn Bell, a former Y-12 machinist who developed chronic beryllium disease from his workplace exposures, said he viewed the $1 billion milestone as both a negative and a positive.
“First of all, the negative part is that there was a need for it to begin with,” Bell said. “The positive part is that a lot of people have gotten compensation.”
Bell said much more money has been spent on compensation than on medical benefits. That probably means the program came too late to help many sick workers when they really needed it and it went to their survivors instead, he said.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
By Frank Munger (Contact)Wednesday, May 27, 2009
OAK RIDGE — Tennessee residents have collected more than $1 billion from the federal compensation program for sick nuclear workers — far more than any other state.
The Department of Labor announced the milestone Tuesday, saying it had paid more than $1 billion in compensation and medical benefits to 9,134 Tennessee residents under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act.
Congress passed the act to compensate workers who were exposed to radioactive materials and other toxic hazards in the workplace while producing nuclear weapons during the Cold War.
Matt Murray, associate director of the University of Tennessee’s Center for Business and Economic Research, said the compensation to sick workers and their families has a significant impact on the East Tennessee economy.
“In some ways, it’s like having another large employer in our region,” Murray said. “That’s a huge amount of money that is intended to make up, in part, for the income they can no longer receive.”
Nationwide, since the act was implemented in 2001, the Department of Labor has paid 51,331 claimants more than $4.8 billion in compensation and medical benefits.
In a statement released Tuesday, Rachel Leiton, director of the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation, noted several of the facilities covered by the compensation program were in Oak Ridge — including Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, and the former K-25 uranium-enrichment plant.
“Individuals who worked at these and other covered facilities … sacrificed their health to build this nation’s nuclear defense programs,” Leiton said.
While saying she was proud to announce the benefits paid, Leiton said the Labor Department believes there may be others eligible in Tennessee who have not yet filed claims for compensation.
She encouraged potential claimants to call this toll-free number: 1-866-481-0411.
Glenn Bell, a former Y-12 machinist who developed chronic beryllium disease from his workplace exposures, said he viewed the $1 billion milestone as both a negative and a positive.
“First of all, the negative part is that there was a need for it to begin with,” Bell said. “The positive part is that a lot of people have gotten compensation.”
Bell said much more money has been spent on compensation than on medical benefits. That probably means the program came too late to help many sick workers when they really needed it and it went to their survivors instead, he said.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Jaduguda residents object to renewal of uranium mining lease
By admin on May 27th, 2009
Jamshedpur, May 27 (ANI): Residents of Jaduguda and nearby areas of Jamshedpur in Jharkhand staged a mass protest on Tuesday against the renewal of lease of uranium mining rights by the Uranium Corporation of India (UCIL).
People protested on the sidelines of a public hearing of the UCIL held in Jamshedpur to discuss renewal of lease of mining areas in Jadugoda.
Locals and members of Jharkhand Organisation against Radiation (JOAR) shouted slogans to register their protest against renewal of mining and alleged they had been harmed by uranium radiation in a lot of ways.
Members and supporters of JOAR have been spearheading the anti-radiation movement and voicing their objection to the renewal of mining.
“There are a lot of problems here. Women are not able conceive. Handicapped children are born. A lot of people are dying because of cancer and tuberculosis caused due to radiation and other odd affects of Uranium,” said Manoj Kumar, a resident.
However, the UCIL dismissed the allegations of the NGOs that people were suffering from radiation effects of uranium mining.
S B Momik, General Manager, Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL), Jaduguda said that the grade of mining done by the corporation is not the cause of illness of the people.he uranium deposits at Jaduguda in Singhbhum district of Jharkhand, has been under exploitation since 1962.
The uranium deposits at Bhatin and Narwapahar are currently being explored and mined.re from the three deposits is treated in a mill at Jaduguda and the annual yield of uranium is 300 tonnes which is more than sufficient to meet expected requirements of Atomic Energy Commission for decades. (ANI)
http://silverscorpio.com/jaduguda-residents-object-to-renewal-of-uranium-mining-lease/
Jamshedpur, May 27 (ANI): Residents of Jaduguda and nearby areas of Jamshedpur in Jharkhand staged a mass protest on Tuesday against the renewal of lease of uranium mining rights by the Uranium Corporation of India (UCIL).
People protested on the sidelines of a public hearing of the UCIL held in Jamshedpur to discuss renewal of lease of mining areas in Jadugoda.
Locals and members of Jharkhand Organisation against Radiation (JOAR) shouted slogans to register their protest against renewal of mining and alleged they had been harmed by uranium radiation in a lot of ways.
Members and supporters of JOAR have been spearheading the anti-radiation movement and voicing their objection to the renewal of mining.
“There are a lot of problems here. Women are not able conceive. Handicapped children are born. A lot of people are dying because of cancer and tuberculosis caused due to radiation and other odd affects of Uranium,” said Manoj Kumar, a resident.
However, the UCIL dismissed the allegations of the NGOs that people were suffering from radiation effects of uranium mining.
S B Momik, General Manager, Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL), Jaduguda said that the grade of mining done by the corporation is not the cause of illness of the people.he uranium deposits at Jaduguda in Singhbhum district of Jharkhand, has been under exploitation since 1962.
The uranium deposits at Bhatin and Narwapahar are currently being explored and mined.re from the three deposits is treated in a mill at Jaduguda and the annual yield of uranium is 300 tonnes which is more than sufficient to meet expected requirements of Atomic Energy Commission for decades. (ANI)
http://silverscorpio.com/jaduguda-residents-object-to-renewal-of-uranium-mining-lease/
Urgent questions remain regarding the two uranium studies
By Katie Whitehead
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:57 AM EDT
News reports regarding the work and responsibilities of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee do not begin to inform the public about the true status and complexity of the uranium study process.
There may not be a market for such information, yet there is certainly a need. Urgent questions remain unanswered.
Contrary to some reports, the uranium mining study has not started.
We need to remember, as well, that "the study" is now two studies - a technical study and a socio-economic study.
The subcommittee is negotiating the technical study with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Before NAS can call for nominations for a study committee, both parties must agree on the scope of work, the NAS has to draw up a budget and timeline, and someone has to come up with money and sign a contract.
Subcommittee members have yet to discuss the equally important, complicated, and challenging socio-economic study.
Will there be a socio-economic study?
If a technical study is done, a socio-economic study should also be done.
Some people have gotten the impression that the Uranium Mining Subcommittee sees the socio-economic study as secondary and perhaps unnecessary.
The Danville Register and Bee reported on May 13 that subcommittee member Sen. Phillip Puckett opposes conducting a socio-economic study if mining is found to be unsafe in the technical study: "If that is a 'no,' we don't have to answer any more questions."
One could make the same argument for the socio-economic study: if uranium mining is undesirable for social and economic reasons, we don't have to know absolutely whether it is safe or not.
Contrary to what we have been led to believe, the technical study will not make a final judgment on whether mining is safe or unsafe. A socio-economic study might provide greater clarity.
The stigma associated with uranium mining and tailings has real social and economic impacts, as does the volatility of the market for uranium.
We need to understand how uranium mining might influence perception of a region for current residents, as well as for business executives, farm product consumers, families, students and their parents, retirees, tourists, and others contemplating coming to the area to live or to visit.
We should look at available evidence about whether uranium mining harms or enhances a region's character, quality of life, and economic well-being.
The only way to ensure that the socio-economic study is done and done adequately is to identify an independent and objective research institution, get budget estimates, and secure full funding for both studies before either study begins. This is not happening.
Who will do the socio-economic study? Will it be objective?
The Coal and Energy Commission chose as its advisor Dr. Michael Karmis, a world-renowned mining engineer and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research (VCCER).
Whether he is an appropriate advisor regarding a socio-economic study is a valid and important question that implies no disrespect.
Dr. Karmis, in his rough draft scope for the socio-economic study, recommended a site- and region-specific study, not a study anticipating statewide consequences of lifting the moratorium.
He envisioned a smaller, shorter, less complicated, less costly study than the technical study.
He also advised that the National Academy of Sciences would not likely be interested in undertaking the socio-economic study.
We should ask the academy. The National Academy of Sciences does socio-economic studies and some original research and is, of course, known for its independence and objectivity.
The NAS might well be willing to study by analogy how introduction of a controversial industry can influence the perception of a region and its economy.
The academy is also able to study the potential for boom-bust cycles in mining communities and their effects on regional economic activity and quality of life.
Real-life examples of uranium mining communities and regions with analogous industrial activities can help researchers tell us what we might be facing.
An alternative approach would specifically identify businesses, institutions, schools, government bodies, and other entities in a region of interest and study in detail how each might be affected by the potentially disruptive introduction of a stigmatized industry.
Two entities have been named in private conversations as perhaps being capable of this sort of socio-economic study, but one of these institutions may have been suggested by industry lobbyists after prior contact with researchers.
Such contact could inappropriately influence the framing of a study and compromise the independence of the research.
Who is paying for the studies? Who should pay? Will adequate funds be available?
According to various members of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee, Del. Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission and ex-officio subcommittee member, is responsible for finding money to do the two studies.
Del. Kilgore listened to the May 21 subcommittee meeting by telephone. He did not participate in discussion or respond to questions or comments about funding.
Kilgore has asked for donations to pay for the studies. No other information is publicly available.
The National Academy of Sciences cannot perform a study directly for a private industry.
The Virginia General Assembly has not budgeted money for a study.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission cannot accept contributions to spend on a study.
The Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research can accept donations and use them to contract for a study, though Dr. Michael Karmis said recently that he, as director of the center, has no more information than the general public about who will pay for the two uranium studies or how much money will be available.
Dr. Karmis has also made clear that the work of the VCCER will be complete once study entities are identified and study plans defined.
Whether he will sign a contract with the National Academy of Sciences is unclear.
Citizens have emphasized to the subcommittee the need to consider the whole study process, secure appropriate funding, and ensure independent experts give adequate time and attention to both studies.
Even the best study process does not ensure a sound public policy decision. The current process raises serious doubts.
Katie Whitehead of Chatham is chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force.
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/05/27/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:57 AM EDT
News reports regarding the work and responsibilities of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee do not begin to inform the public about the true status and complexity of the uranium study process.
There may not be a market for such information, yet there is certainly a need. Urgent questions remain unanswered.
Contrary to some reports, the uranium mining study has not started.
We need to remember, as well, that "the study" is now two studies - a technical study and a socio-economic study.
The subcommittee is negotiating the technical study with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Before NAS can call for nominations for a study committee, both parties must agree on the scope of work, the NAS has to draw up a budget and timeline, and someone has to come up with money and sign a contract.
Subcommittee members have yet to discuss the equally important, complicated, and challenging socio-economic study.
Will there be a socio-economic study?
If a technical study is done, a socio-economic study should also be done.
Some people have gotten the impression that the Uranium Mining Subcommittee sees the socio-economic study as secondary and perhaps unnecessary.
The Danville Register and Bee reported on May 13 that subcommittee member Sen. Phillip Puckett opposes conducting a socio-economic study if mining is found to be unsafe in the technical study: "If that is a 'no,' we don't have to answer any more questions."
One could make the same argument for the socio-economic study: if uranium mining is undesirable for social and economic reasons, we don't have to know absolutely whether it is safe or not.
Contrary to what we have been led to believe, the technical study will not make a final judgment on whether mining is safe or unsafe. A socio-economic study might provide greater clarity.
The stigma associated with uranium mining and tailings has real social and economic impacts, as does the volatility of the market for uranium.
We need to understand how uranium mining might influence perception of a region for current residents, as well as for business executives, farm product consumers, families, students and their parents, retirees, tourists, and others contemplating coming to the area to live or to visit.
We should look at available evidence about whether uranium mining harms or enhances a region's character, quality of life, and economic well-being.
The only way to ensure that the socio-economic study is done and done adequately is to identify an independent and objective research institution, get budget estimates, and secure full funding for both studies before either study begins. This is not happening.
Who will do the socio-economic study? Will it be objective?
The Coal and Energy Commission chose as its advisor Dr. Michael Karmis, a world-renowned mining engineer and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research (VCCER).
Whether he is an appropriate advisor regarding a socio-economic study is a valid and important question that implies no disrespect.
Dr. Karmis, in his rough draft scope for the socio-economic study, recommended a site- and region-specific study, not a study anticipating statewide consequences of lifting the moratorium.
He envisioned a smaller, shorter, less complicated, less costly study than the technical study.
He also advised that the National Academy of Sciences would not likely be interested in undertaking the socio-economic study.
We should ask the academy. The National Academy of Sciences does socio-economic studies and some original research and is, of course, known for its independence and objectivity.
The NAS might well be willing to study by analogy how introduction of a controversial industry can influence the perception of a region and its economy.
The academy is also able to study the potential for boom-bust cycles in mining communities and their effects on regional economic activity and quality of life.
Real-life examples of uranium mining communities and regions with analogous industrial activities can help researchers tell us what we might be facing.
An alternative approach would specifically identify businesses, institutions, schools, government bodies, and other entities in a region of interest and study in detail how each might be affected by the potentially disruptive introduction of a stigmatized industry.
Two entities have been named in private conversations as perhaps being capable of this sort of socio-economic study, but one of these institutions may have been suggested by industry lobbyists after prior contact with researchers.
Such contact could inappropriately influence the framing of a study and compromise the independence of the research.
Who is paying for the studies? Who should pay? Will adequate funds be available?
According to various members of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee, Del. Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission and ex-officio subcommittee member, is responsible for finding money to do the two studies.
Del. Kilgore listened to the May 21 subcommittee meeting by telephone. He did not participate in discussion or respond to questions or comments about funding.
Kilgore has asked for donations to pay for the studies. No other information is publicly available.
The National Academy of Sciences cannot perform a study directly for a private industry.
The Virginia General Assembly has not budgeted money for a study.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission cannot accept contributions to spend on a study.
The Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research can accept donations and use them to contract for a study, though Dr. Michael Karmis said recently that he, as director of the center, has no more information than the general public about who will pay for the two uranium studies or how much money will be available.
Dr. Karmis has also made clear that the work of the VCCER will be complete once study entities are identified and study plans defined.
Whether he will sign a contract with the National Academy of Sciences is unclear.
Citizens have emphasized to the subcommittee the need to consider the whole study process, secure appropriate funding, and ensure independent experts give adequate time and attention to both studies.
Even the best study process does not ensure a sound public policy decision. The current process raises serious doubts.
Katie Whitehead of Chatham is chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force.
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/05/27/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Uranium Study Set
Comment: The two articles are about the illegal uranium mining study in Virginia!
Uranium study set
The News & Record / May 25, 2009
More than a year after first being proposed, a scientific study of uranium mining in Virginia will soon get under way.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee on Thursday adopted a 11-point “Statement of Task” that set formal terms for a review of the environmental, economic and safety impacts of the proposed Coles Hill uranium mine near Chatham. The study, to be conducted by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, is expected to take two years.
The subcommittee vote broke a political logjam that had held up movement on a study, the first step in possibly overturning Virginia’s 25-year moratorium on uranium mining. After a study bill died in the General Assembly last year, legislators asked the Coal and Energy Commission to take over the task of setting the parameters for a review. Left unanswered after Thursday’s vote is who will pay for the study, expected to cost in excess of $1 million.
Advocates say the Coles Hill project will pump billions of dollars into the Southside economy and create hundreds of new jobs, but opponents warn that uranium mining will have devastating environmental and health impacts in the region and across Virginia.
About 100 people, mostly mining opponents, attended the subcommittee meeting in Richmond to express their concerns to legislators who make up the subcommittee. After listening to their input, the panel reordered the list of tasks to be presented to the National Research Council, asking that the group make public safety and health impacts the top priority of its study.
Previously, the lead topic on the subcommittee’s 11-point priority list was an analysis of global and national uranium market trends. But speakers implored members to make their first order of business determining whether mining can be done safely, without harm to Pittsylvania County and other parts of the Commonwealth.
“Your decisions will affect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the citizens of Virginia forever,” said Marshall Ecker, a Pittsylvania County supervisor who spoke at the meeting.
The subcommittee made a number of other changes defining the scope of the study, including adoption of a motion by Del. Watkins Abbitt (R-Appomattox) to review the public health and safety impacts of uranium mining operations similar to what is being proposed in Pittsylvania County.
However, the subcommittee rejected an Abbitt motion to study methods for storing uranium tailings, designed to keep mining wastes from leaking into nearby water sources.
Abbitt and Del. William Janis dissented in the 8-2 vote adopting the framework for the study. Janis opposed the motion after missing most of the debate due to a scheduling conflict. Abbitt said he could not vote for the study after his motion to analyze methods for tailings storage failed.
Reaction to the subcommittee’s decision was mixed. Patrick Wales, chief geologist for Virginia Uranium, Inc., which is seeking to mine the Coles Hill site, told subcommittee members Thursday that VUI is committed to mining uranium only if can be shown that it can be done safely.
In a follow-up interview with the Danville Register & Bee, Wales said VUI was “very gratified” after Thursday’s vote. “An independent study of uranium mining and milling has been the one thing we’ve been proposing since the inception of our company,” Wales told the newspaper.
Katie Whitehead, chair of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, issued a follow-up statement saying that “(t)he best news of the day was unanimous approval of Del. Abbitt’s amendment” to study uranium deposits elsewhere in the world similar to the Pittsylvania County site.
Whitehead also said it was “noteworthy” that “subcommittee members expressed concern about potential government ownership and financial liability after closure of a mining operation or in the event of a business failure,” although members did not include that concern in the written list of study topics.
An outspoken opponent of uranium mining, Karen Maute of Chatham, said she skipped the subcommittee meeting because “everything I’ve read ... says this just brings us a step closer to mining, and I believe that.
“I think it’s being used as a way to legitimize uranium mining in Virginia,” said Maute. “It’s stupid to even consider mining uranium in Virginia ... The facts are out there that this is not going to beneficial — it’s not been beneficial anywhere it’s been done,” she said.
Uranium study set
The News & Record / May 25, 2009
More than a year after first being proposed, a scientific study of uranium mining in Virginia will soon get under way.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee on Thursday adopted a 11-point “Statement of Task” that set formal terms for a review of the environmental, economic and safety impacts of the proposed Coles Hill uranium mine near Chatham. The study, to be conducted by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, is expected to take two years.
The subcommittee vote broke a political logjam that had held up movement on a study, the first step in possibly overturning Virginia’s 25-year moratorium on uranium mining. After a study bill died in the General Assembly last year, legislators asked the Coal and Energy Commission to take over the task of setting the parameters for a review. Left unanswered after Thursday’s vote is who will pay for the study, expected to cost in excess of $1 million.
Advocates say the Coles Hill project will pump billions of dollars into the Southside economy and create hundreds of new jobs, but opponents warn that uranium mining will have devastating environmental and health impacts in the region and across Virginia.
About 100 people, mostly mining opponents, attended the subcommittee meeting in Richmond to express their concerns to legislators who make up the subcommittee. After listening to their input, the panel reordered the list of tasks to be presented to the National Research Council, asking that the group make public safety and health impacts the top priority of its study.
Previously, the lead topic on the subcommittee’s 11-point priority list was an analysis of global and national uranium market trends. But speakers implored members to make their first order of business determining whether mining can be done safely, without harm to Pittsylvania County and other parts of the Commonwealth.
“Your decisions will affect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the citizens of Virginia forever,” said Marshall Ecker, a Pittsylvania County supervisor who spoke at the meeting.
The subcommittee made a number of other changes defining the scope of the study, including adoption of a motion by Del. Watkins Abbitt (R-Appomattox) to review the public health and safety impacts of uranium mining operations similar to what is being proposed in Pittsylvania County.
However, the subcommittee rejected an Abbitt motion to study methods for storing uranium tailings, designed to keep mining wastes from leaking into nearby water sources.
Abbitt and Del. William Janis dissented in the 8-2 vote adopting the framework for the study. Janis opposed the motion after missing most of the debate due to a scheduling conflict. Abbitt said he could not vote for the study after his motion to analyze methods for tailings storage failed.
Reaction to the subcommittee’s decision was mixed. Patrick Wales, chief geologist for Virginia Uranium, Inc., which is seeking to mine the Coles Hill site, told subcommittee members Thursday that VUI is committed to mining uranium only if can be shown that it can be done safely.
In a follow-up interview with the Danville Register & Bee, Wales said VUI was “very gratified” after Thursday’s vote. “An independent study of uranium mining and milling has been the one thing we’ve been proposing since the inception of our company,” Wales told the newspaper.
Katie Whitehead, chair of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, issued a follow-up statement saying that “(t)he best news of the day was unanimous approval of Del. Abbitt’s amendment” to study uranium deposits elsewhere in the world similar to the Pittsylvania County site.
Whitehead also said it was “noteworthy” that “subcommittee members expressed concern about potential government ownership and financial liability after closure of a mining operation or in the event of a business failure,” although members did not include that concern in the written list of study topics.
An outspoken opponent of uranium mining, Karen Maute of Chatham, said she skipped the subcommittee meeting because “everything I’ve read ... says this just brings us a step closer to mining, and I believe that.
“I think it’s being used as a way to legitimize uranium mining in Virginia,” said Maute. “It’s stupid to even consider mining uranium in Virginia ... The facts are out there that this is not going to beneficial — it’s not been beneficial anywhere it’s been done,” she said.
Virginia OKs uranium mining study
A proposal to mine uranium in south-central Virginia advanced this week when a key state body approved a study of the matter. The targeted site is in Virginia’s Pittsylvania County just north of the city of Danville and close to the border with North Carolina’s Rockingham and Caswell counties.
A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy OK’d the study yesterday after deciding on exactly what issues should be examined, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports:
Some opponents asked the panel to vote against the study, hoping that would kill the mining proposal.
But state Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, a member of the subcommittee, said approval of the study did not mean approval of mining in Pittsylvania.
“That decision is a long way down the road,” Watkins said.
The panel will look at mining’s effects on people’s health and ecosystems, identify pollution issues and review current mining regulations. But it denied a request by Del. Watkins M. Abbitt Jr. (I-Appomattox) to consider how water pollution specifically might be prevented. The subcommittee’s chair, Del. Lee R. Ware Jr. (R-Powhatan) argued that the study already included that issue.
The study, which will be conducted by the U.S. National Research Council, is expected to cost $1.5 million and last about 18 months. It remains unclear how the work will be funded, according to the paper.
As Facing South reported previously, Virginia has banned uranium mining for the past 25 years. Virginia Uranium—a privately-held company formed several years ago by the owners of the land where the uranium was found—has been pressing to get the ban lifted. To that end, Virginia Uranium contributed almost $30,000 to state lawmakers last year alone.
The Pittsylvania County site is believed to hold the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the United States and the seventh-largest in the world. It holds an estimated 60,000 tons—enough uranium to power all the commercial nuclear plants in the country for about two years. The company estimates its value at about $10 billion.
While the company has maintained that the uranium could be mined safety, uranium mining has a history of causing serious environmental health problems, having been linked to chromosome abnormalities, birth defects and cancer in communities from Texas to Germany.
Uranium mining also poses a serious threat to drinking water. In 1979, for example, a dam holding uranium mining waste at a New Mexico facility owned by the Virginia-based United Nuclear Corp. burst, sending more than 1,100 tons of toxic discards and 90 million gallons of contaminated water into the Rio Puerco. Once an important drinking water source for nearby Navajo communities, the river remains dangerously contaminated today.
Officials in Virginia Beach are among those opposing the uranium mining plans. They have noted that a tropical storm or hurricane could breach the mine’s waste impoundment and pollute downstream water bodies including Lake Gaston, the city’s drinking-water source.
(This story originally appeared at Facing South) http://www.grist.org/article/virginia-oks-uranium-mining-study/
A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy OK’d the study yesterday after deciding on exactly what issues should be examined, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports:
Some opponents asked the panel to vote against the study, hoping that would kill the mining proposal.
But state Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, a member of the subcommittee, said approval of the study did not mean approval of mining in Pittsylvania.
“That decision is a long way down the road,” Watkins said.
The panel will look at mining’s effects on people’s health and ecosystems, identify pollution issues and review current mining regulations. But it denied a request by Del. Watkins M. Abbitt Jr. (I-Appomattox) to consider how water pollution specifically might be prevented. The subcommittee’s chair, Del. Lee R. Ware Jr. (R-Powhatan) argued that the study already included that issue.
The study, which will be conducted by the U.S. National Research Council, is expected to cost $1.5 million and last about 18 months. It remains unclear how the work will be funded, according to the paper.
As Facing South reported previously, Virginia has banned uranium mining for the past 25 years. Virginia Uranium—a privately-held company formed several years ago by the owners of the land where the uranium was found—has been pressing to get the ban lifted. To that end, Virginia Uranium contributed almost $30,000 to state lawmakers last year alone.
The Pittsylvania County site is believed to hold the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the United States and the seventh-largest in the world. It holds an estimated 60,000 tons—enough uranium to power all the commercial nuclear plants in the country for about two years. The company estimates its value at about $10 billion.
While the company has maintained that the uranium could be mined safety, uranium mining has a history of causing serious environmental health problems, having been linked to chromosome abnormalities, birth defects and cancer in communities from Texas to Germany.
Uranium mining also poses a serious threat to drinking water. In 1979, for example, a dam holding uranium mining waste at a New Mexico facility owned by the Virginia-based United Nuclear Corp. burst, sending more than 1,100 tons of toxic discards and 90 million gallons of contaminated water into the Rio Puerco. Once an important drinking water source for nearby Navajo communities, the river remains dangerously contaminated today.
Officials in Virginia Beach are among those opposing the uranium mining plans. They have noted that a tropical storm or hurricane could breach the mine’s waste impoundment and pollute downstream water bodies including Lake Gaston, the city’s drinking-water source.
(This story originally appeared at Facing South) http://www.grist.org/article/virginia-oks-uranium-mining-study/
Ritter to receive letters of concern about mining operation
Staff reports,
Clean Water Action, a Colorado environmental group, on Wednesday will deliver 1,500 hand-written letters from Fort Collins residents to Gov. Bill Ritter in support of a strict rulemaking process for mining.
The residents are concerned about safety because they live near the site of a proposed uranium mining operation. The mine is proposed by Canadian company Powertech, which has been actively drilling test holes and plans to apply for a uranium mining permit in 2009.
Colorado’s rulemaking process on mining was enacted into law during the 2008 legislative session. The first “stakeholders meeting for the rulemaking process will be Wednesday afternoon in Denver.
“The governor needs to know that Fort Collins citizens are seriously threatened by this uranium mine,” Gary Wockner, of Clean Water Action, said in a statement. “He needs to see the letters and feel the concern of the people who wrote them.”
Residents are concerned about potential groundwater contamination, negative impacts to property, long-term impacts of nuclear energy and other issues related to the leach uranium mine.
http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090526/NEWS/905269981/1051&ParentProfile=1001&template=printart
Clean Water Action, a Colorado environmental group, on Wednesday will deliver 1,500 hand-written letters from Fort Collins residents to Gov. Bill Ritter in support of a strict rulemaking process for mining.
The residents are concerned about safety because they live near the site of a proposed uranium mining operation. The mine is proposed by Canadian company Powertech, which has been actively drilling test holes and plans to apply for a uranium mining permit in 2009.
Colorado’s rulemaking process on mining was enacted into law during the 2008 legislative session. The first “stakeholders meeting for the rulemaking process will be Wednesday afternoon in Denver.
“The governor needs to know that Fort Collins citizens are seriously threatened by this uranium mine,” Gary Wockner, of Clean Water Action, said in a statement. “He needs to see the letters and feel the concern of the people who wrote them.”
Residents are concerned about potential groundwater contamination, negative impacts to property, long-term impacts of nuclear energy and other issues related to the leach uranium mine.
http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090526/NEWS/905269981/1051&ParentProfile=1001&template=printart
Santoy Announces Virginia Uranium Plan of Arrangement Approved
Comment: No uranium mining & milling!!!Santoy Announces Virginia Uranium Plan of Arrangement Approved
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Santoy Resources Ltd. (TSX.V: SAN): is pleased to announce that shareholders have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a business combination by way of a statutory plan of arrangement involving the Company and Virginia Uranium Ltd. at the Company's Annual & Special Meeting on May 21st in Vancouver ((initial transaction announced in a news release dated Dec. 22, 2008). Virginia Uranium Ltd. owns an interest in the Coles Hill Uranium Deposit, located in southern Virginia. Coles Hill is considered to be one of the largest undeveloped uranium deposits in the United States. It has an estimated measured and indicated resource of 119 million pounds of U308 at a cut-off grade of 0.025 per cent U308 based on a National Instrument 43-101 technical report on the Coles Hill property prepared for Santoy by Behre Dolbear and Company Ltd., Marshall Miller and Associates Inc., and PAC Geological Consulting Inc., dated Feb. 2, 2009 and revised April 29, 2009. This report is available on SEDAR and on Santoy's website at www.santoy.ca
Virginia Uranium Ltd. shareholders have also simultaneously voted overwhelmingly in favour of the business combination with Santoy. The final closing of this transaction is expected mid-June, 2009.
At this same meeting, Santoy shareholders also voted in favour of management's proposed slate of directors, being Ron Hochstein, P. Eng. (chairman); Ron Netolitzky, M.Sc. (CEO); Pat Barry, CFP; Robert Ingram, CA; William James, B.Sc.; and Robert Matthews, CA. The ratification of the Company's "rolling" stock option plan, re-appointment of Smythe Radcliffe as auditors, a potential consolidation of the outstanding shares at the discretion of the Board of Directors and a continuance of the corporation from the Province of Alberta to the Province of British Columbia were also approved.
http://www.yournuclearnews.com/santoy+announces+virginia+uranium+plan+of+arrangement+approved_33176.html
Virginia Uranium Ltd. shareholders have also simultaneously voted overwhelmingly in favour of the business combination with Santoy. The final closing of this transaction is expected mid-June, 2009.
At this same meeting, Santoy shareholders also voted in favour of management's proposed slate of directors, being Ron Hochstein, P. Eng. (chairman); Ron Netolitzky, M.Sc. (CEO); Pat Barry, CFP; Robert Ingram, CA; William James, B.Sc.; and Robert Matthews, CA. The ratification of the Company's "rolling" stock option plan, re-appointment of Smythe Radcliffe as auditors, a potential consolidation of the outstanding shares at the discretion of the Board of Directors and a continuance of the corporation from the Province of Alberta to the Province of British Columbia were also approved.
http://www.yournuclearnews.com/santoy+announces+virginia+uranium+plan+of+arrangement+approved_33176.html
15 people arrested for protesting Virginia Congressman Boucher’s efforts to gut climate bill
Rep. Boucher’s Handouts to Coal Lobby Hurt Working Families15 people arrested for protesting Virginia Congressman Boucher’s efforts to gut climate bill
WASHINGTON, May 21, 2009-Fifteen concerned citizens were arrested today for peacefully blocking the entrance to Virginia Congressman Rick Boucher’s office protesting his efforts to gut strong climate legislation at the expense of American families. Congressman Boucher has driven efforts in Congress to give away billions of dollars worth of free permits directly to coal, oil and other dirty fossil fuel companies under a cap and trade bill.
“The problem is Rick Boucher, the victims are American families, and the solution, as proposed by President Obama during his campaign, is a simple and fair polluter-pays cap that solves the climate crisis while rebating consumers,” said Mike Tidwell, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, who was among those arrested today.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) co-authored the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which regulates greenhouse gases. The Energy and Commerce Committee released the 946-page bill last Friday and has spent this week marking it up. Congressman Boucher, who received $176,000 from the coal industry during his most recent re-election campaign, has led efforts to weaken the bill in committee.
Instead of making polluters pay for the permits to dump carbon into the atmosphere, an approach President Obama supported during his campaign, Rep. Boucher negotiated a deal where 35 percent of the allowances will be given away directly to utilities, also called local distribution companies. Allowances given to these companies would be worth $20.8 billion a year starting in 2012.
In April, the Environmental Protection Agency conducted an analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (in discussion form) and found that giving free allocations to utilities under a cap and trade program would raise the total cost of the program and hurt poor Americans the most.
“Returning the allowance value to consumers of electricity via local distribution companies… makes the cap-and-trade policy more costly overall,” the EPA concluded in its analysis. “Freely distributed allowances to firms tends to be very regressive. Higher income households may actually gain at the expense of lower income households under this policy.”
More than fifty people gathered outside Congressman Boucher’s office at noon today to highlight how Boucher’s handouts to the coal industry will hurt working families and diminish efforts to fight global warming. They said they hoped their efforts would send a message to other members of Congress that now is the time for bold, urgent action to solve global warming and that they will be held accountable for their stance on the bill.
Virginia Tech student Joshua Deutschmann traveled to Capitol Hill to join the protest.
“As a student and a voter in Southwest Virginia, I was deeply disappointed by Representative Boucher’s response to the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” he said. “It appears he has played a key part in dismantling the core of the bill, emphasizing dirty coal instead of clean renewable technology and jobs in Southwest Virginia.”
Protesters compared the polluter giveaways to the government’s recent bailout of Wall Street and American Insurance Group. Except, unlike Wall Street, utility companies are not failing. Last year alone, America’s 48 largest utilities earned profits of $28 billion. Dominion Resources, a major campaign contributor to Congressman Boucher, made a whopping $1.8 billion last year.
Today’s protest was endorsed by Southern Appalachian Mountain Steward, a conversation group based in Wise County, Virginia. Participants stood outside the doorway holding statements of support sent in by southwest Virginians.
“I’ve been a supporter of yours since your first race, but it’s time to put the health of the planet ahead of short-term profits,” read a statement from Chris Prokosch of Floyd, Virginia. “The coal industry will have to clean up sooner or later — later may be too late for all of us.”
Click here to view article on CCAN website.
http://ecoclub.umwblogs.org/2009/05/25/543/
Monday, May 25, 2009
Effects of uranium mines – photo exhibition at the Parliament
Uploaded on authorSTREAM by Alexan
published in issue 4437 page 12 at 2009-05-26
The photo exhibition “Overview of the last active uranium mines in Europe,” that tries to draw the authorities’ attention on the mission to reach proper decisions for a long-term management of resources, was opened on Monday at the “Constantin Brancusi” Hall of the Parliament Palace.
The approximately 20 photographs presenting residue decantation lakes, uranium-contaminated containers, processing factories and mines present the vision of the Czech photographer Vaslav Vasku on the Czech uranium mines and are presented in a touring exhibition in five countries of Central and Eastern Europe: The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Austria and Romania. The exhibition will be opened until June 12 and it is part of a project initiated by the Terra Millennium III Foundation, entitled “Education Regarding Nuclear Threats that Concern the Young Generation,” supported by the “Miercurea Ciuc” Foundation for Partnership.
Other activities included in the project refer to the organization of workshops in five attending cities: Bucharest, Calarasi, Constanta, Galati and Moreni, of a march commemorating the victims of the nuclear accident in Chernobyl, and of specialized documentaries.
by Nine oClock
(C) 2000-2007 Nine o'Clock,
The Web Edition - Your English Language Daily [e]Newspaper
Thank you for visiting us, and do come back tomorrow for fresh news and entertainment.
Last update: 26-05-2009
http://www.nineoclock.ro/index.php?page=detalii&categorie=culture&id=20090525-506842
NUCLEAR POWER: No More Reactors at North Anna
Comment: This is a scary article; the State of Virginia did not enforce the law for a corporation!!!Why??? Because Corporations dictate to the most States!!! So if uranium mining is approved, will the country of Canada dictate to the State of Virginia??? Will Virginia let Canada ruin our water, air & land ......it looks like to me....... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
LOUIS ZELLER TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
Published: May 24, 2009
The recent ruling of the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond was short and to the point:
Published: May 24, 2009
The recent ruling of the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond was short and to the point:
"Virginia law requires regulation of Dominion's thermal pollution discharge because the exception for waste treatment simply doesn't apply here." With this ruling, a decades-old viola tion of the law was ended. The impact of the decision could benefit the many thousands of people who use Lake Anna annually.
Dominion's permit violated the law.
In 2007 the Virginia Water Control Board approved a permit for Dominion Virginia Power to discharge hot water from its North Anna nuclear power plant into Lake Anna. The permit was illegal for several reasons.
First, under the U.S. Clean Water Act, Virginia must protect water quality of the lake, but the state failed to limit hot water discharges flowing from the North Anna nuclear reactors directly into Lake Anna.
Second, heat is a pollutant and the maximum water temperature in cooling lakes is set by federal law: 89.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Lakeside residents report that water temperatures reach dangerous levels in the summer, as high as 104 degrees. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and others have documented the serious harm to Lake Anna caused by excessive heat levels.
Third, the state water board applied the wrong law and analysis in concluding that part of Lake Anna was entitled to an exemption for waste treatment facilities. Dominion can no longer rely upon this error to exceed water quality standards at Lake Anna.
Finally, the state water board violated federal law when it applied a less protective Virginia law. The granting of federal authority to any state to enforce the Clean Water Act and issue permits comes with a floor below which no state may go. Virginia's environmental agencies are no exception.
Dominion has tried to argue that since it built the dam years ago, it should be able to do whatever it wants with the "hot side" of the lake. But it does not matter who created the lake. Lake Anna is public "waters of the United States" and is governed by the Clean Water Act.
It does not matter that the permit has been granted many times before. Committing an error more than once does not justify the original error. What matters is that Virginia is bound to enforce water quality standards. These standards include the limitation of heat pollution to all of Lake Anna.
So, what next? Once the court enters an order, Dominion's permit will be set aside and the Virginia State Water Control Board will have to evaluate the adverse impacts of hot water discharges to Lake Anna from two nuclear reactors. The board will have to bring the permit into compliance with the law. Meanwhile, the plant will continue to operate, producing electric power. Plant workers will continue to draw paychecks. Dominion will continue to pay taxes to Louisa County. The people living on Lake Anna will continue about their business.
What will not happen? Dominion will not put a fence around the lake. Such a move would be impractical, counterproductive, and would not address the problem of hot water in the lake. Dominion can continue to monitor lake conditions and maintain lake water levels. Nothing in the court's decision prohibits the company from acting in a responsible manner, working for the common good, and doing the right thing.
Indeed, if Dominion were to do something rash, that would be purely Dominion's decision. It would not result from the court's ruling. Dominion can and should continue both to operate its facility and to comply with the law. There should be no disruption of residents' and visitors' ability to enjoy all of Lake Anna.
Dominion's proposal to add a third nuclear reactor to the North Anna plant is not directly affected by the court's decision; it was not part of the lawsuit.
However, one question is inescapable: If two reactors on Lake Anna strain its ability to provide enough cooling water, what would a third reactor do? In response to water quality problems, Dominion has already trimmed its proposal by eliminating its plans for a fourth unit. This decision was smart, practical, and necessary. If Dominion cannot operate two nuclear reactors within federal requirements, a third is out of the question.
Armed with the Richmond Circuit Court's decision, Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality and the State Water Control Board now have the opportunity to improve conditions at Lake Anna.
Dominion Virginia Power may appeal this decision, but the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League plans to continue its campaign to end Virginia's breach of the law, to protect public health, and to improve environmental quality.
Louis Zeller is science director of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. Contact him at bredl@skybest.comor
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/commentary/article/ZELLER524_20090522-203709/269405/
In 2007 the Virginia Water Control Board approved a permit for Dominion Virginia Power to discharge hot water from its North Anna nuclear power plant into Lake Anna. The permit was illegal for several reasons.
First, under the U.S. Clean Water Act, Virginia must protect water quality of the lake, but the state failed to limit hot water discharges flowing from the North Anna nuclear reactors directly into Lake Anna.
Second, heat is a pollutant and the maximum water temperature in cooling lakes is set by federal law: 89.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Lakeside residents report that water temperatures reach dangerous levels in the summer, as high as 104 degrees. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and others have documented the serious harm to Lake Anna caused by excessive heat levels.
Third, the state water board applied the wrong law and analysis in concluding that part of Lake Anna was entitled to an exemption for waste treatment facilities. Dominion can no longer rely upon this error to exceed water quality standards at Lake Anna.
Finally, the state water board violated federal law when it applied a less protective Virginia law. The granting of federal authority to any state to enforce the Clean Water Act and issue permits comes with a floor below which no state may go. Virginia's environmental agencies are no exception.
Dominion has tried to argue that since it built the dam years ago, it should be able to do whatever it wants with the "hot side" of the lake. But it does not matter who created the lake. Lake Anna is public "waters of the United States" and is governed by the Clean Water Act.
It does not matter that the permit has been granted many times before. Committing an error more than once does not justify the original error. What matters is that Virginia is bound to enforce water quality standards. These standards include the limitation of heat pollution to all of Lake Anna.
So, what next? Once the court enters an order, Dominion's permit will be set aside and the Virginia State Water Control Board will have to evaluate the adverse impacts of hot water discharges to Lake Anna from two nuclear reactors. The board will have to bring the permit into compliance with the law. Meanwhile, the plant will continue to operate, producing electric power. Plant workers will continue to draw paychecks. Dominion will continue to pay taxes to Louisa County. The people living on Lake Anna will continue about their business.
What will not happen? Dominion will not put a fence around the lake. Such a move would be impractical, counterproductive, and would not address the problem of hot water in the lake. Dominion can continue to monitor lake conditions and maintain lake water levels. Nothing in the court's decision prohibits the company from acting in a responsible manner, working for the common good, and doing the right thing.
Indeed, if Dominion were to do something rash, that would be purely Dominion's decision. It would not result from the court's ruling. Dominion can and should continue both to operate its facility and to comply with the law. There should be no disruption of residents' and visitors' ability to enjoy all of Lake Anna.
Dominion's proposal to add a third nuclear reactor to the North Anna plant is not directly affected by the court's decision; it was not part of the lawsuit.
However, one question is inescapable: If two reactors on Lake Anna strain its ability to provide enough cooling water, what would a third reactor do? In response to water quality problems, Dominion has already trimmed its proposal by eliminating its plans for a fourth unit. This decision was smart, practical, and necessary. If Dominion cannot operate two nuclear reactors within federal requirements, a third is out of the question.
Armed with the Richmond Circuit Court's decision, Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality and the State Water Control Board now have the opportunity to improve conditions at Lake Anna.
Dominion Virginia Power may appeal this decision, but the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League plans to continue its campaign to end Virginia's breach of the law, to protect public health, and to improve environmental quality.
Louis Zeller is science director of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. Contact him at bredl@skybest.comor
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/commentary/article/ZELLER524_20090522-203709/269405/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
