Comment: So we can block the State of Virginia!
$1.9 billion project would boost profits for dirty old coal plants and hamper clean energy efforts
July 27, 2009
Richmond, VA – The Sierra Club is intervening in Virginia State proceedings to consider approval of a $1.9 billion high-voltage transmission line project that would bring coal-fired power to new markets in the Northeast. The Sierra Club, represented by Earthjustice, will try to block construction of these new, unnecessary power lines which would only help dirty coal plants in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Ohio to ramp up production and dangerous emissions of air pollution, including carbon dioxide (CO2). The power lines are proposed by two of the country’s most powerful coal producers: American Electric Power and Allegheny Energy.
“This is the worst possible investment we could make in energy development at this moment,” said Earthjustice attorney Abigail Dillen. “We need new investments to help develop wind, solar, and other renewable energy resources – not a hugely expensive project that helps polluting old coal plants to make even more money.”
The Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) calls for construction of high-voltage transmission lines starting in West Virginia near the John E. Amos coal-fired power plant, which is ranked as one of the dirtiest coal plants in the country for mercury, sulfur dioxide, and CO2 pollution. The lines would extend east for 275 miles, cutting through Virginia to end up in Maryland.
In papers filed today with the Virginia State Corporation Commission, Sierra Club and Earthjustice stressed that the proposed power lines are not needed to satisfy any unmet needs for electricity. Instead, the lines will only give coal a greater market share of the power mix in the Northeast. According to a recent statement from the West Virginia Coal Association, the new lines will help “preserve the future” of aging coal plants, encourage development of new coal plants, and increase coal mining in Appalachia. All of this increased coal use would mean more dangerous air pollution and more environmental devastation from mountaintop removal mining, which already has transformed the landscape and historically rich natural system in West Virginia and Virginia, leveling and deforesting an area the size of Delaware and burying an estimated 1,200 miles of streams.
“This country can no longer afford to depend on dirty fossil fuel sources to generate energy,” said Glen Besa, Director of the Sierra Club-Virginia Chapter. “Instead of building a giant extension cord that links the East Coast with distant coal plants, eastern states could be developing clean, renewable — and profitable — energy sources closer to home.”
http://climateofourfuture.org/groups-intervene-to-stop-transmission-lines-for-coal-plants/
Showing posts with label State of VA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State of VA. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Kaine Comments on Obama MTR Proposal
Comment: He is a Lame Duck and he has double standards when it comes to Virginia Mountains and Southside. He has not stop Mt. Top Removal and he would start blowing up the hillsides of Virginia for uranium if there was not a Moratorium on uranium mining but he will give the Green Jobs for Northern and Eastern Virginia!
June 11th, 2009 · No Comments
Gov. Tim Kaine issued the following statement today in response to President Barack Obama’s proposal to impose increased restrictions on mountaintop removal mining:
“I applaud the new guidelines announced by the administration, which will impose tighter restrictions on mountaintop mining.
“In Virginia, we’ve always taken a commonsense approach to how we meet our energy needs. At the same time—for the sake of this generation of Virginians and the next—we have made conserving the natural beauty of our Commonwealth and protecting our environment more broadly a real priority.
“The improved coordination inherent in the review process proposed by the Obama administration today will ensure we address both our energy and our environmental needs. Moving forward, it is critical we maintain transparency in the review process to ensure all stakeholders—including our citizens and representatives of the coal-mining industry—have faith that their concerns are taken into account.
“As we continue to meet the challenges of the global financial downturn, we have an obligation to permit the recovery of traditional energy sources that fuel our economy. However, we also have a responsibility to discourage the use of mining methods that exploit our mountains and valleys. While we continue investing in and developing renewable energy sources, we must focus on using those mining methods that complement our conservation goals instead of moving our nation backwards.
“Along with the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy and the Department of Environmental Quality in Virginia, I look forward to working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of the Interior as we move towards a new process for implementing the proper environmental protection around mining operations.”
http://newrivervoice.com/archives/2846
June 11th, 2009 · No Comments
Gov. Tim Kaine issued the following statement today in response to President Barack Obama’s proposal to impose increased restrictions on mountaintop removal mining:
“I applaud the new guidelines announced by the administration, which will impose tighter restrictions on mountaintop mining.
“In Virginia, we’ve always taken a commonsense approach to how we meet our energy needs. At the same time—for the sake of this generation of Virginians and the next—we have made conserving the natural beauty of our Commonwealth and protecting our environment more broadly a real priority.
“The improved coordination inherent in the review process proposed by the Obama administration today will ensure we address both our energy and our environmental needs. Moving forward, it is critical we maintain transparency in the review process to ensure all stakeholders—including our citizens and representatives of the coal-mining industry—have faith that their concerns are taken into account.
“As we continue to meet the challenges of the global financial downturn, we have an obligation to permit the recovery of traditional energy sources that fuel our economy. However, we also have a responsibility to discourage the use of mining methods that exploit our mountains and valleys. While we continue investing in and developing renewable energy sources, we must focus on using those mining methods that complement our conservation goals instead of moving our nation backwards.
“Along with the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy and the Department of Environmental Quality in Virginia, I look forward to working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of the Interior as we move towards a new process for implementing the proper environmental protection around mining operations.”
http://newrivervoice.com/archives/2846
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Hydroelectric doesn't compare to uranium mining
Comment: Great Letter Mr. Stuart!! The Nuclear Power people has formed groups to respond to local areas about uranium mining and nuclear power letters. The Nuke people are blogging our local papers and writing their yellow journalism explaining nuclear power, uranium mining, and milling are wonderful!! We need to expose the Nuke bunch and write the truth about the problems of uranium mining and milling, Nuke power is not clean or green!Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:37 AM EDT
In response to the letter by Mr. Donelson, who lives in northern Virginia, I can understand his viewpoint living in McLean, 200 miles away.
Mr. Donelson failed to mention that he is vice president of marketing and sales for USEC Inc.
He basically is responsible for the company's revenue generating from the sale of enriched and natural uranium.
How can you compare a hydroelectric plant to open-pit uranium mining?
If Mr. Donelson can name one uranium mine in the world that has not contaminated people or the environment, he needs to bring this information to our attention.
And also, if can he find a mine where people are living within a five-mile radius, not to mention contamination of a 75 mile radius through air and water, which will be traveling through our streams up into Lake Gaston and on to Virginia Beach, that would interest us also.
It's easy for people who live 200 miles away to dictate to those who will have to endure radioactive open pits, let alone the dust from the explosions when they start blasting.
People have to remember that this is a statewide moratorium. If this ban is lifted it will be state wide.
If Mr. Donelson bothered to look at the state map containing potential uranium resources in Virginia, and I'm sure he has, he would find it goes through Northern Virginia, Maryland and in to Delaware.
And as far as that economic engine goes, it's under your feet, too, in Northern Virginia.
So when they start talking about mining in NOVA, I'm sure you will welcome it with open arms.
I want to apologize to Mr. Jack Wyatt and his company for using his store in an article in my letter to the editor.
I did not realize there was gold down here, and I apologize for any inconvenience this may have come to him personally or to his company.
Timothy Stuart
Chatham
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/10/chatham/opinion/opinion04.txt
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.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Dirty Plans of France to Nuke the US - Starting With DC!
April 8, 2009 at 20:34:42
Permalink
Diary Entry by Cathy Garger
French radioactive disasters at home render an abysmal nuclear safety record - and now they are being helped to bring the same disasters here to the US!
::::::::
The article below states that ASN, (Autorite de Surete Nucleaire) the French nuclear safety authority, yesterday came out with a report which states that 5 out of 19 of their nuclear power plants are "underperforming." The report is online in French, and an English translation of the summary appears at the end of this piece.
In the report, the French nuclear safety inspectors explain their concerns about nuclear safety within their country.
None of this safety report gives any comfort to this reader who lives only a bit more than 50 miles away from Calvert Cliffs, the site of the first reactor France is intent on building in the US.
For those who have not been following this issue, the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) design has never before operated anywhere in the world.
Judging from the nuclear track record of the French state, the operation of this over-sized, unproven reactor will unquestionably ensure the further toxic and radioactive contamination of the MD-DC-VA area, surrounding the nation's capital with deadly discharges - thermal, toxic, and radioactive - into the already heavily oxygen-depleted, Chesapeake Bay.
Despite many local citizens’ disdain for France's ambitious and greedy visions for the US, however?
The far greatest sin is absolutement not France's blatant disregard for the certain worsened contamination of the United States of America - demonstrated by its callous disregard shown both its own environment and own people.
No, French's troubling aims for the US are not America’s greatest concern.
Rather, the blame and focus must instead be placed squarely where it belongs... in the very laps of the US (s)elected officials themselves, as manifested by their enthusiastic and unanimous dedication to these experimental double-size nuclear monsters, originating with the radioactive French “christening” of the greater Washington, DC area.
To demonstrate our national zeal to welcome in the proliferation of French nuclear construction and its accompanying contamination, this nuclear drive was even conveyed as a "moral imperative" by Democrat MD Governor Martin O'Malley, and echoed with similar reverberations of warm embraces by the rest of the complicit power holders in all levels of government in the state of Maryland.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103244.html
Not one (s)elected public official in the state of Maryland known to this writer has come out vocally and publicly against the AREVA French monster, EPR, now encroaching upon the Maryland-DC-VA Chesapeake region like Godzilla in the dark and sleazy shadow of the national District of Crime.
The Calvert Cliffs unit 3 reactor deal, half the product of local Constellation Energy and the other half EDF (i.e., by and large the French state) is awaiting approval by the Maryland Public Service Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission both, getting poised to release its life-destroying, heated, dirty discharges into the rapidly dead-and-dying Chesapeake Bay.
But tales of the use of Maryland and the national capital area as the state of France’s “guinea pig” aside, let’s first go back to the matter of a track record of 5 out of 19 French nuclear power plant “underperformers."
So, what's in the word "underperforming"... and just what does it mean to us here at home?
My guess is most would agree that "underperforming" is an acceptable term for use in describing a gourmet chef not at the top of her game when preparing duck a l'orange.
“Underperforming” would also be a fine way to describe the waning athletic prowess of a 30 year old aging Major League shortstop who just does not have the same ol' bounce in his step like back in the day, when he was brought into the club as a rookie draft pick.
Most would agree that it might affect a farmer’s bottom line - but that it’s probably still okay - when old farm tractors plowing corn fields “underperform.”
It is most definitely *not* okay, by anyone’s stretch of the imagination, however, when nuclear power plants do.
Let’s put it another way. Five (5) out of nineteen (19) French "underperformers" equates to a rate of 26 percent of nuclear power plants identified as sub-standard performers.
In other words, France itself admits its own nuclear power plants have a measly 74% acceptable performance (think “safety”) rate. Now can you just imagine what that rate might be if Germany (and not French) officials had performed the nuclear plant inspections Francais?
A grade of 74 when it comes to nuclear safety is just *not* acceptable in the US!
For as many Americans who remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl already know... when only 74 percent of French nuclear power plants are performing to the satisfaction of their own inspectors (who, undoubtedly, are encouraged to let things slide a little bit here and there) this is a FAILING grade in terms of assurance of safety for America's future!
Another article on the ASN inspections (below) provides some important information on the 2008 "incidents," such as radioactive leaks… leaks that contaminated not one, not two, but three French rivers, including the highly publicized, media-broadcasted Tricastin leaks into the Rhone River, which flows into the Mediterranean Sea.
Now I ask all sane, working minds reading this to contemplate why in the world would US government officials agree to allow a French nuke-builder - one with a miserable grade of 74% (in SAFETY, of all things!) to build several of their untested, unproven, experimental reactors here? Well, to help connect the dots, we must backtrack just a bit.
It is necessary to understand that many of our own slimy power holders around the US have already been enabling France to get its stinky, dirty foot inside America's nuke-welcoming door.
French AREVA has been methodically putting its roots down throughout the US in many smaller ventures for years, donating mega-amounts of money to local communities, establishing its presence in forty-five (45) US locations from coast to coast. (Our friends to the North of us!)
Now, with plans to build its experimental pressure reactors in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York and Missouri (for starters) http://www.areva-np.com/us/ plus a $360 million construction project now slated to begin in Newport News, VA, courtesy of defense contractor Northrop Grumman?
Home grown production of the primary components for the experimental pressure reactor is being cheerfully extended to the French, who are being invited to bring their pathetically poor nuke safety record here… to unsuspecting America - who does not yet have the slightest clue as to what's coming!(Well, know we Know, No to Nuke Stuff!)
With advertising and lobbying dollars that would make even Warren Buffet blush, the purpose for bringing these French reactors to the US is being sold to the public as a source of electricity that is clean, safe, will not pollute the air, and even promises to save polar bears from extinction.
To counter these lies, Americans who know differently need to tell the story of swimmers prohibited from swimming and boating in French rivers and lethal radioactivity so great that the French people were advised to no longer to eat the fish!
Greenpeace has done a good job of cataloging the gross French environmental contamination here:http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/nuclear_leaks_and_accidents/
It’s important to realize the French nuclear invasion is being welcomed with open arms by those in power in our very own government.
AREVA's big plans to take a colossal slice of what I’ve termed the US "nukuler insurgency" pie has been accomplished by AREVA’s Congressional lobbying efforts to the tune of over $5.2 million in the years 2005 to 2008 alone.
In other words, French AREVA has been buying its way into the hearts… or, more to the point, into the wallets - actually one and the same with regard to US Congress - perhaps so they’ll "overlook" the fact that France will soon be bringing its abysmal “safety” record to America, too!
The articles and French safety report below all point to one thing and one thing only. The government of France has consistently been "good to go" with allowing nuclear power, which comprises nearly 80 percent of its country’s electric supply, to result in the gross radioactive contamination of its air, soil (think grape and wine production) and rivers, while operating these death traps at a recent *un*safety record of only 74 percent.
Americans from coast to coast must realize that AREVA's commitment to building the nuclear power plant components in Virginia clearly demonstrates France’s desire to build over-sized reactors and, no doubt, to continue in the French tradition of operating them at unacceptable safety levels - as the truly dedicated and long-term, lucrative investment commitment it promises to be here inside the US.
Yet there is no way France can do this here alone.
We must realize that when AREVA, an international conglomerate and leader in the nuke industry owned primarily by the state of France, decides to build the largest parts for its new reactors near a major US Nuclear Naval city in conjunction with one of the nation's largest military contractors?
This is a sure and certain sign the US has developed a cozy-close, solid partnership with a nation declared our enemy only six short years ago, just prior to the start of the second war on Iraq.
Our outrage over the planned construction of these behemoth French nuclear poison gas factories must be aimed, focused, and fired, not at the French, therefore, but rather at our very own (s)elected officials right here at home.
Those in power, our (s) elected officials now giving the thumb’s up to these unproven French reactors… deadly disasters waiting to happen that spew toxic, lethal radionuclides into our air and water with their routine venting and purging all the time… are the real, true villains in the beginning chapter of the meticulously planned US “nuclear renaissance."(we need to stop this now!!!)
With their greased and greasy palms, America’s political leaders [sic] are now heartily welcoming Europe's international nuclear giant – and most deadly polluter - to now further destroy US air, water and soil... just as they have clearly demonstrated via their long term nuclear track record across the Atlantic.
In the words of the late Dr. John Gofman, “Licensing a nuclear power plant is in my view, licensing random premeditated murder. First of all, when you license a plant, you know what you're doing--so it's premeditated.
You can't say, "I didn't know." Second, the evidence on radiation-producing cancer is beyond doubt. I've worked fifteen years on it, and so have many others. It is not a question any more: radiation produces cancer, and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest doses.”http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html
By AREVA’s nuclear involvement in America growing ever stronger, American political leaders have most clearly proven once and for all beyond any shadow of a doubt that critical things like safety, environmental protection, and the health and well-being of Americans are not their genuine concern. (Corporate American is talking, no concern for the human life!)
Thus, in order to save America’s environment and countless lives for many generations to come, we must all do what we can to stop this “nukuler insurgency” being thrust domestically upon us now… at the very hands of those in positions of power throughout all levels of US government. **************************************************************************************************************
From an April 8, 2009 AP article:
"EdF and Areva both operate with "satisfactory" safety, the ASN report concluded, but both were lightly chided to further improve their security measures and those of their subcontractors.
The ASN said last year's incidents, which received widespread attention in the French media, were "of limited importance".
Still, the report said "all nuclear operators must pay more attention to maintenance of pipes, whether they carry products that are radioactive, toxic, flammable, or explosive".
The 2008 incidents included a leak of unenriched uranium on July 7, and the low-level exposure to radiation of 100 employees of nuclear plant operator EdF on July 23.
In May, the ASN halted the building of a new generation reactor being built by EdF at Flamanville in Normandy for several weeks because of problems with the construction.
Areva pledged to invest about $30 million to improve health and environmental monitoring at the Tricastin reactor complex, which was the site of several of the 2008 incidents." http://tinyurl.com/ca5ud3 orwww.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20090407T190000-0500_149082_OBS_FRANCE_S_NUCLEAR_INDUSTRY_GETS_CLEAN_BILL_OF_HEALTH_.asp
Five French nuclear plants underperformed in 2008
Wed Apr 8, 2009 5:35am EDT PARIS, April 8 (Reuters) -
Five of France's 19 nuclear plants fell behind in terms of safety and management standards in 2008, France's nuclear safety watchdog ASN said.
The plants are Belleville in central France, Paluel in the northwest, Cruas in the southeast, Fessenheim in eastern France and Flamanville in the northwest, the ASN said late on Tuesday in its second public yearly report on nuclear safety.
Flamanville and Fessenheim were behind for the second year running, it added.
Fessenheim's reactor 1, France's oldest nuclear reactor, will undergo its third once-a-decade inspection in the autumn, after which the ASN will determine whether or not the plant can run for another 10 years.
The ASN said its negative rating would not have an impact on its decision to allow the reactor to run for another 10 years because the situation could easily be improved.It said the ratings of the plants related to the way they applied its demands at a given moment in time.
"This situation is not permanent," the head of the ASN, Andre-Claude Lacoste, told a parliamentary hearing.
The proof was that Gravelines, France's largest nuclear plant with six reactors, which was described as the worst performer in 2007, was not singled out anymore.
The best performers in terms of safety were the nuclear power plants of Bugey in southeastern France and Dampierre in central France, while the top plants in terms of radiation protection were Civeaux in central France and Chooz in the east.
The ASN carries out regular planned and unplanned checks on EDF's (EDF.PA) 58 working nuclear reactors and decides whether they can restart after outages. It has the power to withdraw operating licences in case of serious safety breaches. (Reporting by Muriel Boselli; editing by James Jukwey)
www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL839518820090408
2008 Annual Report by ASN
March 2, 2009
The year 2008 was rather satisfactory in the plan of nuclear safety, but a strong action was necessary so that the owners maintain the rigour necessary.
The situation remained delicate in the field of the nuclear power of proximity: the inspections of the ASN continued, the majority of the medical establishments made real efforts, but the situation remains very heterogeneous.
In the field of nuclear safety, the year was marked by the strong media repercussion of certain incidents.
These events of limited importance related to drains of radioactive wastes failing leading to the diffusion of radioactivity in the environment.
The ASN considers that all the nuclear power station operators must pay an increased attention to the transporting maintenance of the drains of the products, that they are radioactive, toxic, flammable or explosive and, in a general way, with all the supports installations of the INB.
The year was also remembered by the establishment of an official report by the ASN and the sending of an injunction at EDF concerning the nuclear site of Cruas, pursuant to law TSN, for non-observance of the regulation concerning the transport pipes of explosive fluids.
In the field of protection against radiation, the ASN remains worried by the situation of the safety of the treatments in certain centers of external radiotherapy where manpower as people specialized in medical radiological physics (PSRPM) remain insufficient.
It is up to the public authorities to rectify this situation and to define the transitional provisions clearly to set up to face this shortage.
The ASN estimates that it will be necessary approximately ten years so that the level of manpower in PSRPM is satisfactory.
In addition, the professionals must continue the committed efforts to reinforce the procedures of preparation and realization of the treatments, to organize in-house the collection and the analysis of the dysfunctions and to declare with the ASN the significant events. In the field of the nuclear installations exploited by EDF, the ASN considers that the level of safety of these installations remains satisfactory, but that EDF should not slacken its effort as regards rigour of exploitation and improvement of the radiological cleanliness of these power stations.
At the time when the third decennial visits begin from the engines of 900 MW, the ASN also awaits EDF that it specifies in 2009 its intentions over the duration of exploitation of its park (card 2).
Finally the ASN is particularly vigilant on the quality of the realization of the building site by EDF of an engine of the type EPR in Flamanville.
This vigilance caused besides a stop of the building site during 3 weeks at the request of the ASN because of nonconformities noted at the time it concreting of the foundation raft (card 5) and led EDF to reinforce the control of the building site notably and of its subcontractors.
Being AREVA, the ASN judges that it exploits its installations in a satisfactory way, but estimates that AREVA must take care of the level of the safety of auxiliary installations such as SOCATRI and continue its efforts of rigour in the declaration of the events.
The ASN also estimates that AREVA must intensify its effort to take again old waste on the site of La Hague.
AREVA, as an operational owner, respected the decision of the ASN forcing to him to before June 30, 2008 withdraw all the radioactive materials of the ATPu installation of Cadarache.
Within the framework of the construction of the engine of the type EPR of Flamanville, the ASN noted into 2008 of the difficulties in the application of the regulation by AREVA NP and the unusual variations in the manufacture of the nuclear equipment under pressure by AREVA NP and its under treating.
She asked AREVA NP to cure these various points.
The ASN carries a rather positive glance on the exploitation of nuclear installations of the ECA and notes that this one progresses on the subjects related on the control of the operations of civil engineering and criticality.
However, the ASN awaits ECA which it reinforces the capacities and the independence of its nuclear general inspection.
Finally it matters that the ECA respects its great engagements as regards nuclear safety and protection against radiation.
The ASN considers in a positive way the way in which the ANDRA exploits its centers of waste and prepares for appointments envisaged by the law of June 28, 2006.
The ASN is attentive with the good progress of the step of search for a site for the storage of waste FA-VL.
It also estimates that the ANDRA must maintain its capacity of control of the parcels of waste which it has vocation to deal with, by carrying out destructive examinations in particular.
In the medical field, the ASN notes that the health professionals start to adhere to the new system of declaration events suitable for affect the health of the patients or workers, created in July 2007. In radiotherapy, 30% of the centers declared at least an event with the ASN; in nuclear medicine and interventionnelle radiology, first declarations were recorded in 2008.
The effort must be continued and intensified in order to develop the experience feedback and to make progress protection against radiation in medical environment and the safety of the treatments in radiotherapy.
In order to improve the transparency of its action, the ASN publishes from now on on its Internet site the letters of continuation of its inspections of the centers of radiotherapy, following the example what is made in the field of basic nuclear installations. The ASN also adapted the scale of communication relating to the incidents in radiotherapy (card 4) after one year of application on an experimental basis.
The ASN stresses that the majority of the events declared in radiotherapy (98%) were classified on level 1 of scale ASN/SFRO (not of effect on health of the patients) and that the other events were classified on level 2 (effects moderate on a body or a function). In 2008, several territorial divisions of the ASN carried out inspections targeted in a hundred cabinets of radiology.
This countryside showed that the regulation is respected overall in the majority of the cases, but that certain cabinets will have to implement corrective measures in order to cure the noted variations quickly.
In 2008, the ASN, at the request of the Government, worked with the extension of its field of competence to the safety of the radioactive sources. This not yet succeeded reform has the aim of entrusting to the ASN the delivery authorizations and the control of the radioactive sources to the title of safety, i.e. within the framework of the prevention of the malevolent actions.
This reform should make it possible the ASN to increase its role on the questions of security (card 3), following the example majority of the other Authorities of safety in the world.
In 2008, the ASN, carrying the shutter transparency law TSN (card 1), attempted to follow an active policy in this field.
Thus, in addition to the publication of the letters of continuations of inspections, the ASN delivers from now on public the opinions of the Groups permanent of experts that she consults.
The ASN also put in public consultation on its Internet site its general policy as regards dismantling of the INB (card 8).
In order to improve information of the public on the operation of the INB, the ASN, for the owners, a guide enabling them prepared to better write the annual reports which they must prepare in accordance witharticle 21 of law TSN. Lastly, the ASN continues its effort of support to the CLI and with the ANCLI, for which the statute and the responsibilities were largely reinforced and who are actors of ground impossible to circumvent. In 2008, the ASN continued to be based on the expertise of quality of the IRSN to give its opinions. In addition, the result of the reflexions of the IRSN aiming to the publication of the opinions that the
Institute gives with the ASN within the framework of the analysis of the dossiers submitted to the Groupspermanent of experts will allow to reinforce the transparency of the processes by which the ASN makes its decisions.
With the international level, the ASN specified and made public its doctrines relating to the initiatives of development of nuclear plants in the countries which are not equipped with it (card 7).
The ASN estimates that, for these countries, a first nuclear plant should not reasonably be brought into service before 15 or 20 years.
Indeed, nuclear safety being a national responsibility, this time must make it possible each country to obtain with a capable local owner to ensure his responsibilities and a Controlling authority qualified and having a strong autonomy.
These initiatives also constitute an occasion to promote the French doctrines as regards nuclear safety (card 6). Thus, in 2008 the ASN consolidated its new statute of independent Administrative authority, in particular for the implementation of the new administrative mode framing basic nuclear installations and of its system of coercion and sanctions.
All that was not possible that thanks to the reactivity and with the competence of the personnel of the ASN. Jean-Christophe NIELManaging director of the ASNhttp://www.asn.fr/rapport-annuel-2008 In fact, AREVA's current propaganda campaign is quite stunning and a must-see for all concerned: http://advertising-s.areva.com/locations.php .
www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL839518820090408
Permalink
Diary Entry by Cathy Garger
French radioactive disasters at home render an abysmal nuclear safety record - and now they are being helped to bring the same disasters here to the US!
::::::::
The article below states that ASN, (Autorite de Surete Nucleaire) the French nuclear safety authority, yesterday came out with a report which states that 5 out of 19 of their nuclear power plants are "underperforming." The report is online in French, and an English translation of the summary appears at the end of this piece.
In the report, the French nuclear safety inspectors explain their concerns about nuclear safety within their country.
None of this safety report gives any comfort to this reader who lives only a bit more than 50 miles away from Calvert Cliffs, the site of the first reactor France is intent on building in the US.
For those who have not been following this issue, the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) design has never before operated anywhere in the world.
Judging from the nuclear track record of the French state, the operation of this over-sized, unproven reactor will unquestionably ensure the further toxic and radioactive contamination of the MD-DC-VA area, surrounding the nation's capital with deadly discharges - thermal, toxic, and radioactive - into the already heavily oxygen-depleted, Chesapeake Bay.
Despite many local citizens’ disdain for France's ambitious and greedy visions for the US, however?
The far greatest sin is absolutement not France's blatant disregard for the certain worsened contamination of the United States of America - demonstrated by its callous disregard shown both its own environment and own people.
No, French's troubling aims for the US are not America’s greatest concern.
Rather, the blame and focus must instead be placed squarely where it belongs... in the very laps of the US (s)elected officials themselves, as manifested by their enthusiastic and unanimous dedication to these experimental double-size nuclear monsters, originating with the radioactive French “christening” of the greater Washington, DC area.
To demonstrate our national zeal to welcome in the proliferation of French nuclear construction and its accompanying contamination, this nuclear drive was even conveyed as a "moral imperative" by Democrat MD Governor Martin O'Malley, and echoed with similar reverberations of warm embraces by the rest of the complicit power holders in all levels of government in the state of Maryland.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103244.html
Not one (s)elected public official in the state of Maryland known to this writer has come out vocally and publicly against the AREVA French monster, EPR, now encroaching upon the Maryland-DC-VA Chesapeake region like Godzilla in the dark and sleazy shadow of the national District of Crime.
The Calvert Cliffs unit 3 reactor deal, half the product of local Constellation Energy and the other half EDF (i.e., by and large the French state) is awaiting approval by the Maryland Public Service Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission both, getting poised to release its life-destroying, heated, dirty discharges into the rapidly dead-and-dying Chesapeake Bay.
But tales of the use of Maryland and the national capital area as the state of France’s “guinea pig” aside, let’s first go back to the matter of a track record of 5 out of 19 French nuclear power plant “underperformers."
So, what's in the word "underperforming"... and just what does it mean to us here at home?
My guess is most would agree that "underperforming" is an acceptable term for use in describing a gourmet chef not at the top of her game when preparing duck a l'orange.
“Underperforming” would also be a fine way to describe the waning athletic prowess of a 30 year old aging Major League shortstop who just does not have the same ol' bounce in his step like back in the day, when he was brought into the club as a rookie draft pick.
Most would agree that it might affect a farmer’s bottom line - but that it’s probably still okay - when old farm tractors plowing corn fields “underperform.”
It is most definitely *not* okay, by anyone’s stretch of the imagination, however, when nuclear power plants do.
Let’s put it another way. Five (5) out of nineteen (19) French "underperformers" equates to a rate of 26 percent of nuclear power plants identified as sub-standard performers.
In other words, France itself admits its own nuclear power plants have a measly 74% acceptable performance (think “safety”) rate. Now can you just imagine what that rate might be if Germany (and not French) officials had performed the nuclear plant inspections Francais?
A grade of 74 when it comes to nuclear safety is just *not* acceptable in the US!
For as many Americans who remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl already know... when only 74 percent of French nuclear power plants are performing to the satisfaction of their own inspectors (who, undoubtedly, are encouraged to let things slide a little bit here and there) this is a FAILING grade in terms of assurance of safety for America's future!
Another article on the ASN inspections (below) provides some important information on the 2008 "incidents," such as radioactive leaks… leaks that contaminated not one, not two, but three French rivers, including the highly publicized, media-broadcasted Tricastin leaks into the Rhone River, which flows into the Mediterranean Sea.
Now I ask all sane, working minds reading this to contemplate why in the world would US government officials agree to allow a French nuke-builder - one with a miserable grade of 74% (in SAFETY, of all things!) to build several of their untested, unproven, experimental reactors here? Well, to help connect the dots, we must backtrack just a bit.
It is necessary to understand that many of our own slimy power holders around the US have already been enabling France to get its stinky, dirty foot inside America's nuke-welcoming door.
French AREVA has been methodically putting its roots down throughout the US in many smaller ventures for years, donating mega-amounts of money to local communities, establishing its presence in forty-five (45) US locations from coast to coast. (Our friends to the North of us!)
Now, with plans to build its experimental pressure reactors in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York and Missouri (for starters) http://www.areva-np.com/us/ plus a $360 million construction project now slated to begin in Newport News, VA, courtesy of defense contractor Northrop Grumman?
Home grown production of the primary components for the experimental pressure reactor is being cheerfully extended to the French, who are being invited to bring their pathetically poor nuke safety record here… to unsuspecting America - who does not yet have the slightest clue as to what's coming!(Well, know we Know, No to Nuke Stuff!)
With advertising and lobbying dollars that would make even Warren Buffet blush, the purpose for bringing these French reactors to the US is being sold to the public as a source of electricity that is clean, safe, will not pollute the air, and even promises to save polar bears from extinction.
To counter these lies, Americans who know differently need to tell the story of swimmers prohibited from swimming and boating in French rivers and lethal radioactivity so great that the French people were advised to no longer to eat the fish!
Greenpeace has done a good job of cataloging the gross French environmental contamination here:http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/nuclear_leaks_and_accidents/
It’s important to realize the French nuclear invasion is being welcomed with open arms by those in power in our very own government.
AREVA's big plans to take a colossal slice of what I’ve termed the US "nukuler insurgency" pie has been accomplished by AREVA’s Congressional lobbying efforts to the tune of over $5.2 million in the years 2005 to 2008 alone.
In other words, French AREVA has been buying its way into the hearts… or, more to the point, into the wallets - actually one and the same with regard to US Congress - perhaps so they’ll "overlook" the fact that France will soon be bringing its abysmal “safety” record to America, too!
The articles and French safety report below all point to one thing and one thing only. The government of France has consistently been "good to go" with allowing nuclear power, which comprises nearly 80 percent of its country’s electric supply, to result in the gross radioactive contamination of its air, soil (think grape and wine production) and rivers, while operating these death traps at a recent *un*safety record of only 74 percent.
Americans from coast to coast must realize that AREVA's commitment to building the nuclear power plant components in Virginia clearly demonstrates France’s desire to build over-sized reactors and, no doubt, to continue in the French tradition of operating them at unacceptable safety levels - as the truly dedicated and long-term, lucrative investment commitment it promises to be here inside the US.
Yet there is no way France can do this here alone.
We must realize that when AREVA, an international conglomerate and leader in the nuke industry owned primarily by the state of France, decides to build the largest parts for its new reactors near a major US Nuclear Naval city in conjunction with one of the nation's largest military contractors?
This is a sure and certain sign the US has developed a cozy-close, solid partnership with a nation declared our enemy only six short years ago, just prior to the start of the second war on Iraq.
Our outrage over the planned construction of these behemoth French nuclear poison gas factories must be aimed, focused, and fired, not at the French, therefore, but rather at our very own (s)elected officials right here at home.
Those in power, our (s) elected officials now giving the thumb’s up to these unproven French reactors… deadly disasters waiting to happen that spew toxic, lethal radionuclides into our air and water with their routine venting and purging all the time… are the real, true villains in the beginning chapter of the meticulously planned US “nuclear renaissance."(we need to stop this now!!!)
With their greased and greasy palms, America’s political leaders [sic] are now heartily welcoming Europe's international nuclear giant – and most deadly polluter - to now further destroy US air, water and soil... just as they have clearly demonstrated via their long term nuclear track record across the Atlantic.
In the words of the late Dr. John Gofman, “Licensing a nuclear power plant is in my view, licensing random premeditated murder. First of all, when you license a plant, you know what you're doing--so it's premeditated.
You can't say, "I didn't know." Second, the evidence on radiation-producing cancer is beyond doubt. I've worked fifteen years on it, and so have many others. It is not a question any more: radiation produces cancer, and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest doses.”http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html
By AREVA’s nuclear involvement in America growing ever stronger, American political leaders have most clearly proven once and for all beyond any shadow of a doubt that critical things like safety, environmental protection, and the health and well-being of Americans are not their genuine concern. (Corporate American is talking, no concern for the human life!)
Thus, in order to save America’s environment and countless lives for many generations to come, we must all do what we can to stop this “nukuler insurgency” being thrust domestically upon us now… at the very hands of those in positions of power throughout all levels of US government. **************************************************************************************************************
From an April 8, 2009 AP article:
"EdF and Areva both operate with "satisfactory" safety, the ASN report concluded, but both were lightly chided to further improve their security measures and those of their subcontractors.
The ASN said last year's incidents, which received widespread attention in the French media, were "of limited importance".
Still, the report said "all nuclear operators must pay more attention to maintenance of pipes, whether they carry products that are radioactive, toxic, flammable, or explosive".
The 2008 incidents included a leak of unenriched uranium on July 7, and the low-level exposure to radiation of 100 employees of nuclear plant operator EdF on July 23.
In May, the ASN halted the building of a new generation reactor being built by EdF at Flamanville in Normandy for several weeks because of problems with the construction.
Areva pledged to invest about $30 million to improve health and environmental monitoring at the Tricastin reactor complex, which was the site of several of the 2008 incidents." http://tinyurl.com/ca5ud3 orwww.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20090407T190000-0500_149082_OBS_FRANCE_S_NUCLEAR_INDUSTRY_GETS_CLEAN_BILL_OF_HEALTH_.asp
Five French nuclear plants underperformed in 2008
Wed Apr 8, 2009 5:35am EDT PARIS, April 8 (Reuters) -
Five of France's 19 nuclear plants fell behind in terms of safety and management standards in 2008, France's nuclear safety watchdog ASN said.
The plants are Belleville in central France, Paluel in the northwest, Cruas in the southeast, Fessenheim in eastern France and Flamanville in the northwest, the ASN said late on Tuesday in its second public yearly report on nuclear safety.
Flamanville and Fessenheim were behind for the second year running, it added.
Fessenheim's reactor 1, France's oldest nuclear reactor, will undergo its third once-a-decade inspection in the autumn, after which the ASN will determine whether or not the plant can run for another 10 years.
The ASN said its negative rating would not have an impact on its decision to allow the reactor to run for another 10 years because the situation could easily be improved.It said the ratings of the plants related to the way they applied its demands at a given moment in time.
"This situation is not permanent," the head of the ASN, Andre-Claude Lacoste, told a parliamentary hearing.
The proof was that Gravelines, France's largest nuclear plant with six reactors, which was described as the worst performer in 2007, was not singled out anymore.
The best performers in terms of safety were the nuclear power plants of Bugey in southeastern France and Dampierre in central France, while the top plants in terms of radiation protection were Civeaux in central France and Chooz in the east.
The ASN carries out regular planned and unplanned checks on EDF's (EDF.PA) 58 working nuclear reactors and decides whether they can restart after outages. It has the power to withdraw operating licences in case of serious safety breaches. (Reporting by Muriel Boselli; editing by James Jukwey)
www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL839518820090408
2008 Annual Report by ASN
March 2, 2009
The year 2008 was rather satisfactory in the plan of nuclear safety, but a strong action was necessary so that the owners maintain the rigour necessary.
The situation remained delicate in the field of the nuclear power of proximity: the inspections of the ASN continued, the majority of the medical establishments made real efforts, but the situation remains very heterogeneous.
In the field of nuclear safety, the year was marked by the strong media repercussion of certain incidents.
These events of limited importance related to drains of radioactive wastes failing leading to the diffusion of radioactivity in the environment.
The ASN considers that all the nuclear power station operators must pay an increased attention to the transporting maintenance of the drains of the products, that they are radioactive, toxic, flammable or explosive and, in a general way, with all the supports installations of the INB.
The year was also remembered by the establishment of an official report by the ASN and the sending of an injunction at EDF concerning the nuclear site of Cruas, pursuant to law TSN, for non-observance of the regulation concerning the transport pipes of explosive fluids.
In the field of protection against radiation, the ASN remains worried by the situation of the safety of the treatments in certain centers of external radiotherapy where manpower as people specialized in medical radiological physics (PSRPM) remain insufficient.
It is up to the public authorities to rectify this situation and to define the transitional provisions clearly to set up to face this shortage.
The ASN estimates that it will be necessary approximately ten years so that the level of manpower in PSRPM is satisfactory.
In addition, the professionals must continue the committed efforts to reinforce the procedures of preparation and realization of the treatments, to organize in-house the collection and the analysis of the dysfunctions and to declare with the ASN the significant events. In the field of the nuclear installations exploited by EDF, the ASN considers that the level of safety of these installations remains satisfactory, but that EDF should not slacken its effort as regards rigour of exploitation and improvement of the radiological cleanliness of these power stations.
At the time when the third decennial visits begin from the engines of 900 MW, the ASN also awaits EDF that it specifies in 2009 its intentions over the duration of exploitation of its park (card 2).
Finally the ASN is particularly vigilant on the quality of the realization of the building site by EDF of an engine of the type EPR in Flamanville.
This vigilance caused besides a stop of the building site during 3 weeks at the request of the ASN because of nonconformities noted at the time it concreting of the foundation raft (card 5) and led EDF to reinforce the control of the building site notably and of its subcontractors.
Being AREVA, the ASN judges that it exploits its installations in a satisfactory way, but estimates that AREVA must take care of the level of the safety of auxiliary installations such as SOCATRI and continue its efforts of rigour in the declaration of the events.
The ASN also estimates that AREVA must intensify its effort to take again old waste on the site of La Hague.
AREVA, as an operational owner, respected the decision of the ASN forcing to him to before June 30, 2008 withdraw all the radioactive materials of the ATPu installation of Cadarache.
Within the framework of the construction of the engine of the type EPR of Flamanville, the ASN noted into 2008 of the difficulties in the application of the regulation by AREVA NP and the unusual variations in the manufacture of the nuclear equipment under pressure by AREVA NP and its under treating.
She asked AREVA NP to cure these various points.
The ASN carries a rather positive glance on the exploitation of nuclear installations of the ECA and notes that this one progresses on the subjects related on the control of the operations of civil engineering and criticality.
However, the ASN awaits ECA which it reinforces the capacities and the independence of its nuclear general inspection.
Finally it matters that the ECA respects its great engagements as regards nuclear safety and protection against radiation.
The ASN considers in a positive way the way in which the ANDRA exploits its centers of waste and prepares for appointments envisaged by the law of June 28, 2006.
The ASN is attentive with the good progress of the step of search for a site for the storage of waste FA-VL.
It also estimates that the ANDRA must maintain its capacity of control of the parcels of waste which it has vocation to deal with, by carrying out destructive examinations in particular.
In the medical field, the ASN notes that the health professionals start to adhere to the new system of declaration events suitable for affect the health of the patients or workers, created in July 2007. In radiotherapy, 30% of the centers declared at least an event with the ASN; in nuclear medicine and interventionnelle radiology, first declarations were recorded in 2008.
The effort must be continued and intensified in order to develop the experience feedback and to make progress protection against radiation in medical environment and the safety of the treatments in radiotherapy.
In order to improve the transparency of its action, the ASN publishes from now on on its Internet site the letters of continuation of its inspections of the centers of radiotherapy, following the example what is made in the field of basic nuclear installations. The ASN also adapted the scale of communication relating to the incidents in radiotherapy (card 4) after one year of application on an experimental basis.
The ASN stresses that the majority of the events declared in radiotherapy (98%) were classified on level 1 of scale ASN/SFRO (not of effect on health of the patients) and that the other events were classified on level 2 (effects moderate on a body or a function). In 2008, several territorial divisions of the ASN carried out inspections targeted in a hundred cabinets of radiology.
This countryside showed that the regulation is respected overall in the majority of the cases, but that certain cabinets will have to implement corrective measures in order to cure the noted variations quickly.
In 2008, the ASN, at the request of the Government, worked with the extension of its field of competence to the safety of the radioactive sources. This not yet succeeded reform has the aim of entrusting to the ASN the delivery authorizations and the control of the radioactive sources to the title of safety, i.e. within the framework of the prevention of the malevolent actions.
This reform should make it possible the ASN to increase its role on the questions of security (card 3), following the example majority of the other Authorities of safety in the world.
In 2008, the ASN, carrying the shutter transparency law TSN (card 1), attempted to follow an active policy in this field.
Thus, in addition to the publication of the letters of continuations of inspections, the ASN delivers from now on public the opinions of the Groups permanent of experts that she consults.
The ASN also put in public consultation on its Internet site its general policy as regards dismantling of the INB (card 8).
In order to improve information of the public on the operation of the INB, the ASN, for the owners, a guide enabling them prepared to better write the annual reports which they must prepare in accordance witharticle 21 of law TSN. Lastly, the ASN continues its effort of support to the CLI and with the ANCLI, for which the statute and the responsibilities were largely reinforced and who are actors of ground impossible to circumvent. In 2008, the ASN continued to be based on the expertise of quality of the IRSN to give its opinions. In addition, the result of the reflexions of the IRSN aiming to the publication of the opinions that the
Institute gives with the ASN within the framework of the analysis of the dossiers submitted to the Groupspermanent of experts will allow to reinforce the transparency of the processes by which the ASN makes its decisions.
With the international level, the ASN specified and made public its doctrines relating to the initiatives of development of nuclear plants in the countries which are not equipped with it (card 7).
The ASN estimates that, for these countries, a first nuclear plant should not reasonably be brought into service before 15 or 20 years.
Indeed, nuclear safety being a national responsibility, this time must make it possible each country to obtain with a capable local owner to ensure his responsibilities and a Controlling authority qualified and having a strong autonomy.
These initiatives also constitute an occasion to promote the French doctrines as regards nuclear safety (card 6). Thus, in 2008 the ASN consolidated its new statute of independent Administrative authority, in particular for the implementation of the new administrative mode framing basic nuclear installations and of its system of coercion and sanctions.
All that was not possible that thanks to the reactivity and with the competence of the personnel of the ASN. Jean-Christophe NIELManaging director of the ASNhttp://www.asn.fr/rapport-annuel-2008 In fact, AREVA's current propaganda campaign is quite stunning and a must-see for all concerned: http://advertising-s.areva.com/locations.php .
www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL839518820090408
Clean energy advocates extremely disappointed that Virginia lawmakers vote down key energy-efficiency target
MEDIA STATEMENTApril 9, 2009
Groups Applaud Lawmakers for Taking Other Steps to Promote Energy Efficiency
Richmond, VA - In the one-day veto session yesterday, the General Assembly rejected a critical amendment from Gov. Tim Kaine on SB 1248 that would have set a voluntary goal of reducing energy use 19% by 2025, a primary recommendation of the Governor's Commission on Climate Change.
The Wise Energy for Virginia coalition and other clean-energy advocates strongly criticized lawmakers for rejecting the Governor's amendment to the bill.
The Senate narrowly passed the amendment by a 22-18 vote but the House rejected it by a 50-47 vote.
The coalition was encouraged that the legislature addressed energy efficiency during the 2009 legislative session, saying that the efficiency bills passed this session will further the Commonwealth's much-needed shift toward smarter, green energy.
Clean energy advocates also lauded lawmakers for passing Governor Kaine's amendment to HB 2506, which encourages investments in energy efficiency.
Currently, Virginia ranks 45th in the country in percentage of utility revenues spent on efficiency - a total of just $84,000 statewide in 2006.
In comparison, utilities in Alabama and Mississippi spent more than $400,000, and North Carolina energy providers spent $3.8 million.
The bills passed this session help make efficiency competitive by moving efficiency measures closer to being on a level playing field with new generation such as coal-fired power plants.
They stop short of setting even a voluntary target, which clean energy advocates say is necessary to counter subsidies in Virginia for coal power.
The bills establish a framework for Virginia utilities to develop and promote cost-effective energy efficient programs and grant utilities a fair rate of return for efficiency programs.
They allow utilities to propose energy efficiency programs to the State Corporation Commission, which is instructed to approve only cost-effective energy efficiency programs that are in the public interest.
The amended legislation that passed both houses yesterday - HB 2506 sponsored by Del. Albert Pollard - included the same provisions as SB 1248 except for the 19% target.
During the session, this bill was changed to require the Attorney General to study the costs of energy efficiency, but not the benefits, adding unnecessary bureaucracy and distorting the true costs and benefits.
Governor Kaine's amendment struck down that change.
The Governor's amendment also added a provision to require the SCC to consider the goals of energy efficiency and environmental protection before allowing some industrial ratepayers to opt out of energy efficiency programs.
Energy efficiency includes measures such as weatherizing homes and buildings, improving industrial processes, and advanced heating and lighting programs.
These measures reduce energy consumption, lower consumer costs and delay the need for new coal-fired power plants.
Reducing electricity consumption 19% by 2025 would directly create nearly 10,000 jobs for small businesses working to improve the efficiency of homes, offices, and manufacturing facilities.
From the Wise Energy for Virginia coalition members:
"While we applaud the General Assembly for taking action this session to move energy efficiency closer to being on a par with new generation, we are disappointed that legislators passed up the chance to set a voluntary target of 19% that would have made the policy stronger," said SELC Staff Attorney Sarah Rispin.
"The Governor's amendment would have given citizens a great opportunity to hold the utilities accountable for progress on energy efficiency initiatives, and it's too bad that they shied away from that," said Jayme Hill with the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club.
"The bills passed this legislative session help level the playing field for efficiency, but unfortunately do nothing to ensure that utilities will invest in energy efficiency measures.
We look forward to working with the legislature next year to make real progress on reducing harmful global warming emissions and improving our economy here in the Commonwealth," said
Chelsea Harnish with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
"We are disappointed that some in the General Assembly chose to say "No" to the Governor's amendment to set the 19% goal.
But this only means we have more work to do before next session," said Kathy Selvage with the Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards in Wise County, which has lost over a quarter of its mountains to mountaintop removal coal mining.
Groups Applaud Lawmakers for Taking Other Steps to Promote Energy Efficiency
Richmond, VA - In the one-day veto session yesterday, the General Assembly rejected a critical amendment from Gov. Tim Kaine on SB 1248 that would have set a voluntary goal of reducing energy use 19% by 2025, a primary recommendation of the Governor's Commission on Climate Change.
The Wise Energy for Virginia coalition and other clean-energy advocates strongly criticized lawmakers for rejecting the Governor's amendment to the bill.
The Senate narrowly passed the amendment by a 22-18 vote but the House rejected it by a 50-47 vote.
The coalition was encouraged that the legislature addressed energy efficiency during the 2009 legislative session, saying that the efficiency bills passed this session will further the Commonwealth's much-needed shift toward smarter, green energy.
Clean energy advocates also lauded lawmakers for passing Governor Kaine's amendment to HB 2506, which encourages investments in energy efficiency.
Currently, Virginia ranks 45th in the country in percentage of utility revenues spent on efficiency - a total of just $84,000 statewide in 2006.
In comparison, utilities in Alabama and Mississippi spent more than $400,000, and North Carolina energy providers spent $3.8 million.
The bills passed this session help make efficiency competitive by moving efficiency measures closer to being on a level playing field with new generation such as coal-fired power plants.
They stop short of setting even a voluntary target, which clean energy advocates say is necessary to counter subsidies in Virginia for coal power.
The bills establish a framework for Virginia utilities to develop and promote cost-effective energy efficient programs and grant utilities a fair rate of return for efficiency programs.
They allow utilities to propose energy efficiency programs to the State Corporation Commission, which is instructed to approve only cost-effective energy efficiency programs that are in the public interest.
The amended legislation that passed both houses yesterday - HB 2506 sponsored by Del. Albert Pollard - included the same provisions as SB 1248 except for the 19% target.
During the session, this bill was changed to require the Attorney General to study the costs of energy efficiency, but not the benefits, adding unnecessary bureaucracy and distorting the true costs and benefits.
Governor Kaine's amendment struck down that change.
The Governor's amendment also added a provision to require the SCC to consider the goals of energy efficiency and environmental protection before allowing some industrial ratepayers to opt out of energy efficiency programs.
Energy efficiency includes measures such as weatherizing homes and buildings, improving industrial processes, and advanced heating and lighting programs.
These measures reduce energy consumption, lower consumer costs and delay the need for new coal-fired power plants.
Reducing electricity consumption 19% by 2025 would directly create nearly 10,000 jobs for small businesses working to improve the efficiency of homes, offices, and manufacturing facilities.
From the Wise Energy for Virginia coalition members:
"While we applaud the General Assembly for taking action this session to move energy efficiency closer to being on a par with new generation, we are disappointed that legislators passed up the chance to set a voluntary target of 19% that would have made the policy stronger," said SELC Staff Attorney Sarah Rispin.
"The Governor's amendment would have given citizens a great opportunity to hold the utilities accountable for progress on energy efficiency initiatives, and it's too bad that they shied away from that," said Jayme Hill with the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club.
"The bills passed this legislative session help level the playing field for efficiency, but unfortunately do nothing to ensure that utilities will invest in energy efficiency measures.
We look forward to working with the legislature next year to make real progress on reducing harmful global warming emissions and improving our economy here in the Commonwealth," said
Chelsea Harnish with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
"We are disappointed that some in the General Assembly chose to say "No" to the Governor's amendment to set the 19% goal.
But this only means we have more work to do before next session," said Kathy Selvage with the Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards in Wise County, which has lost over a quarter of its mountains to mountaintop removal coal mining.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
New Kansas law aims to attract green energy firms
Comment: The below article is something the State of VA and our County should do, attract true green jobs, not uranium mining!
(AP:TOPEKA, Kan.)
A new Kansas law taking effect next week is designed to attract firms manufacturing equipment for solar and wind energy production.
The new law will permit the state to issue up to $5 million in bonds to help such firms.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius pushed the measure as a way to make Kansas a center of research and development for renewable energy technology.
Legislators passed a bill unanimously, and she signed it Monday.
It takes effect April 16.
Companies will be eligible for the state's help if they expect to invest at least $30 million in Kansas and have at least 200 full-time workers within five years.
Also, a company will have to pay an average salary of $32,500 to its Kansas employees.
(AP:TOPEKA, Kan.)
A new Kansas law taking effect next week is designed to attract firms manufacturing equipment for solar and wind energy production.
The new law will permit the state to issue up to $5 million in bonds to help such firms.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius pushed the measure as a way to make Kansas a center of research and development for renewable energy technology.
Legislators passed a bill unanimously, and she signed it Monday.
It takes effect April 16.
Companies will be eligible for the state's help if they expect to invest at least $30 million in Kansas and have at least 200 full-time workers within five years.
Also, a company will have to pay an average salary of $32,500 to its Kansas employees.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
The politics of mining uranium
Comment: Well, it took only 3 weeks for the paper to report the Meeting by Virginia Interfaith Center at Virginia Beach , Del. Bouchard told us the truth, Virginia is for money and we must fight the uranium mining with science and proof and not our heart!
JEFF E. SCHAPIRO TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
Published: April 5, 2009
As a former commander of Norfolk Naval Base and a nuclear weapons officer who worked on Russian atomic secrets at the National Security Council, Joe Bouchard knows something about uranium.
As a Ph.D. and Democratic delegate from Virginia Beach who works on environmental and scientific issues on two important House committees, Bouchard also knows something about the politics of uranium.
Bouchard is a skeptic on a proposed uranium mine in Pittsylvania County that foes fear will, among other things, poison the water supply of Virginia Beach, about 100 miles downstream.
He favors a study of the proposal but insists it be free of influence by either side.
Bouchard has no doubts what could drive a decision by the General Assembly to lift a 27-year prohibition on uranium mining: money. (Remember, from history lesson, Virginia Co was the first corporation, therefore, Virginia is Corp. Greed!!!)
He is sharing this view with an opposition that seems to believe outrage alone is sufficient to stop the project.
About three weeks ago, Bouchard met in Virginia Beach with mine opponents, some of whom had motored east from Pittsylvania, more than 200 miles away.
He prepared a PowerPoint presentation that neatly captures the obstacles they face.
While not intended as such, Bouchard's talking points could have been those of industry:
Mining promotes energy independence. It could hold down electric rates. It complements existing nuclear design and construction operations in Lynchburg and Newport News.
Mining is potentially hugely profitable, and, by extension, a potent source of local and state tax revenue. A mine would generate jobs in a region rapidly losing them to the collapse of manufacturing.
"These are powerful arguments that will carry great weight with the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, General Assembly and probably a majority of the voters in Virginia," warns one slide in italics that call attention to the hearts-versus-pocketbook nature of the uranium debate.
That Virginia's government, because of the right-to-work law and sky's-the-limit political contributions, is gamed for big business is old news.
So, too, is the occasional result: Virginia can be an inattentive steward of the environment.
A reminder these days is the slow suffocation of the Chesapeake Bay.
In his presentation, Bouchard touches on environmental and safety concerns, including disposal of radioactive detritus and the peril to water pumped through a pipeline from Lake Gaston to Virginia Beach.
Virginia Beach, population 425,000, opposes the mine until scientific authorities -- independent of an industry willing to pay $1 million for a state study -- can prove there is no threat to the public.
But the health-and-environmental argument that is dismissed as the preoccupation of greens in jeans plays into an issue that perhaps only a Joe Bouchard, a man schooled in war and peace, could appreciate.
The water that originates in Lake Gaston slakes the thirst of sailors, Marines and their families at bases across South Hampton Roads. Bouchard's command from 2000-03, the Norfolk Naval Base, is home to 65,000.
Should harm come to the water supply, that "would be a severe threat to national security," says Bouchard.
And so another front opens in the battle over uranium mining.
Contact Jeff E. Schapiro at (804) 6496814 or jschapiro@timesdispatch.com
Information about the meeting:http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/opponents-uranium-mine-find-allies-beach
JEFF E. SCHAPIRO TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
Published: April 5, 2009
As a former commander of Norfolk Naval Base and a nuclear weapons officer who worked on Russian atomic secrets at the National Security Council, Joe Bouchard knows something about uranium.
As a Ph.D. and Democratic delegate from Virginia Beach who works on environmental and scientific issues on two important House committees, Bouchard also knows something about the politics of uranium.
Bouchard is a skeptic on a proposed uranium mine in Pittsylvania County that foes fear will, among other things, poison the water supply of Virginia Beach, about 100 miles downstream.
He favors a study of the proposal but insists it be free of influence by either side.
Bouchard has no doubts what could drive a decision by the General Assembly to lift a 27-year prohibition on uranium mining: money. (Remember, from history lesson, Virginia Co was the first corporation, therefore, Virginia is Corp. Greed!!!)
He is sharing this view with an opposition that seems to believe outrage alone is sufficient to stop the project.
About three weeks ago, Bouchard met in Virginia Beach with mine opponents, some of whom had motored east from Pittsylvania, more than 200 miles away.
He prepared a PowerPoint presentation that neatly captures the obstacles they face.
While not intended as such, Bouchard's talking points could have been those of industry:
Mining promotes energy independence. It could hold down electric rates. It complements existing nuclear design and construction operations in Lynchburg and Newport News.
Mining is potentially hugely profitable, and, by extension, a potent source of local and state tax revenue. A mine would generate jobs in a region rapidly losing them to the collapse of manufacturing.
"These are powerful arguments that will carry great weight with the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, General Assembly and probably a majority of the voters in Virginia," warns one slide in italics that call attention to the hearts-versus-pocketbook nature of the uranium debate.
That Virginia's government, because of the right-to-work law and sky's-the-limit political contributions, is gamed for big business is old news.
So, too, is the occasional result: Virginia can be an inattentive steward of the environment.
A reminder these days is the slow suffocation of the Chesapeake Bay.
In his presentation, Bouchard touches on environmental and safety concerns, including disposal of radioactive detritus and the peril to water pumped through a pipeline from Lake Gaston to Virginia Beach.
Virginia Beach, population 425,000, opposes the mine until scientific authorities -- independent of an industry willing to pay $1 million for a state study -- can prove there is no threat to the public.
But the health-and-environmental argument that is dismissed as the preoccupation of greens in jeans plays into an issue that perhaps only a Joe Bouchard, a man schooled in war and peace, could appreciate.
The water that originates in Lake Gaston slakes the thirst of sailors, Marines and their families at bases across South Hampton Roads. Bouchard's command from 2000-03, the Norfolk Naval Base, is home to 65,000.
Should harm come to the water supply, that "would be a severe threat to national security," says Bouchard.
And so another front opens in the battle over uranium mining.
Contact Jeff E. Schapiro at (804) 6496814 or jschapiro@timesdispatch.com
Information about the meeting:http://hamptonroads.com/2009/03/opponents-uranium-mine-find-allies-beach
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Radford plant is state's biggest polluter
Comment: Loose environmental standards from the EPA are ruining our Waters!!
Wastewater emissions from the Radford Army Ammunition Plant are within guidelines.
By Laurence Hammack The Roanoke Times
From the DataSphere
Polluters map and database
Find the top polluters in your part of Virginia for 2006 and 2007
For the second year in a row, the Radford Army Ammunition Plant is the state's biggest polluter.
The plant, which manufactures propellant for the U.S. armed forces, released about 13 million pounds of emissions into the New River in 2007, according to a Toxics Release Inventory produced Thursday by the state Department of Environmental Quality.
That's more than twice the amount from the facility that placed second on the list, the Chesterfield Power Station in central Virginia.
Despite the large numbers, the Radford plant is in compliance with limits set by the EPA and DEQ for wastewater emissions, according to DEQ spokesman Bill Hayden.
"Even though we're in compliance, and even though this is part of what we do, it is still something we want to reduce," said Rob Davie, the plant operations chief.
The plant has spent millions trying to reduce its emissions in recent years, he said.
Also known as the Radford Arsenal, the plant is run by ATK Alliant Techsystems. For years, it had fared much better on the Toxics Release Inventory, an annual list that tracks emissions from more than 400 factories, utilities and power plants across the state.
But last year, arsenal officials discovered they had been underreporting their numbers. After correcting the calculations used to make reports to DEQ, the arsenal more than quadrupled its totals -- and rose to the top of the list.
In 2006, the plant released 13.7 million pounds of toxins, according to the inventory. In 2007, the most recent year for which figures are available, the level rose to 13.8 million pounds.
More than 99 percent of the releases from the plant are nitrates, a byproduct of a manufacturing process that relies heavily on acids.
While the plant may have ranked higher in previous years had it not been for the underreporting, Hayden said it would be difficult to reconfigure past lists.
Because the arsenal reported such higher numbers last year, the statewide total of all on-site emissions rose by 16 percent in 2006. This year's report, which tracked emissions from 2007, showed a 4 percent decease in on-site emissions.
The trend in recent years -- not counting the quirk from 2006 -- has shown reduced emissions, Hayden said.
The DEQ's list of polluters is based on estimates submitted by the facilities; it does not measure the public's exposure to chemicals or make assessments of the risks associated with them.
Other Western Virginia facilities that ranked high on the list include the MeadWestvaco plant in Covington, which ranked third, and the Glen Lyn power plant in Giles County, which came in at 15th.
Maria Bowling, head of the Sierra Club's New River Valley chapter, said environmentalists have been concerned about the arsenal's emissions for years.
"It's mind-boggling to me," Bowling said. "Our DEQ gives them permission to dump all of these millions of pounds of stuff into the water and the air."
Arsenal officials say they are committed to protecting the environment. But Bowling wonders what can be done to hold them more accountable.
Even the bad publicity that comes with being labeled the state's biggest polluter may not be enough, she said.
"There is no stigma if people don't pay attention," Bowling said. "So if people don't press them, nothing will happen."
Wastewater emissions from the Radford Army Ammunition Plant are within guidelines.
By Laurence Hammack The Roanoke Times
From the DataSphere
Polluters map and database
Find the top polluters in your part of Virginia for 2006 and 2007
For the second year in a row, the Radford Army Ammunition Plant is the state's biggest polluter.
The plant, which manufactures propellant for the U.S. armed forces, released about 13 million pounds of emissions into the New River in 2007, according to a Toxics Release Inventory produced Thursday by the state Department of Environmental Quality.
That's more than twice the amount from the facility that placed second on the list, the Chesterfield Power Station in central Virginia.
Despite the large numbers, the Radford plant is in compliance with limits set by the EPA and DEQ for wastewater emissions, according to DEQ spokesman Bill Hayden.
"Even though we're in compliance, and even though this is part of what we do, it is still something we want to reduce," said Rob Davie, the plant operations chief.
The plant has spent millions trying to reduce its emissions in recent years, he said.
Also known as the Radford Arsenal, the plant is run by ATK Alliant Techsystems. For years, it had fared much better on the Toxics Release Inventory, an annual list that tracks emissions from more than 400 factories, utilities and power plants across the state.
But last year, arsenal officials discovered they had been underreporting their numbers. After correcting the calculations used to make reports to DEQ, the arsenal more than quadrupled its totals -- and rose to the top of the list.
In 2006, the plant released 13.7 million pounds of toxins, according to the inventory. In 2007, the most recent year for which figures are available, the level rose to 13.8 million pounds.
More than 99 percent of the releases from the plant are nitrates, a byproduct of a manufacturing process that relies heavily on acids.
While the plant may have ranked higher in previous years had it not been for the underreporting, Hayden said it would be difficult to reconfigure past lists.
Because the arsenal reported such higher numbers last year, the statewide total of all on-site emissions rose by 16 percent in 2006. This year's report, which tracked emissions from 2007, showed a 4 percent decease in on-site emissions.
The trend in recent years -- not counting the quirk from 2006 -- has shown reduced emissions, Hayden said.
The DEQ's list of polluters is based on estimates submitted by the facilities; it does not measure the public's exposure to chemicals or make assessments of the risks associated with them.
Other Western Virginia facilities that ranked high on the list include the MeadWestvaco plant in Covington, which ranked third, and the Glen Lyn power plant in Giles County, which came in at 15th.
Maria Bowling, head of the Sierra Club's New River Valley chapter, said environmentalists have been concerned about the arsenal's emissions for years.
"It's mind-boggling to me," Bowling said. "Our DEQ gives them permission to dump all of these millions of pounds of stuff into the water and the air."
Arsenal officials say they are committed to protecting the environment. But Bowling wonders what can be done to hold them more accountable.
Even the bad publicity that comes with being labeled the state's biggest polluter may not be enough, she said.
"There is no stigma if people don't pay attention," Bowling said. "So if people don't press them, nothing will happen."
Saturday, March 21, 2009
In Virginia, We are Only Lacking the Political Will
Comment: Tell the State of Virginia, we want true green power, No Nukes, No Mountain Top Removal and Coal!
Submitted by ArticleXI on Fri, 03/20/2009 - 09:31.
It's a simple question that needs to be posed to our gubernatorial candidates. "How do you propose Virginia gets from Point A to Point B?"
As far as I can tell, none of the candidates disagree that we do indeed need to migrate away from Point A. But do they propose perhaps a Point C? What is Point C? Whether Point B or C, how exactly do we arrive there?
By 2030, total growth in energy consumption will be 31%. The increase comes mainly from the residential, commercial and transportation sectors, driven by a 30% increase in the state's population.
Point A is Virginia's current business as usual where our fossil fuel use continues to grow strongly, particularly for coal and petroleum. Coal consumption in particular increases to 68%, due to construction of new coal power plants in Virginia to meet electricity demand. (A chart showing CO2 emissions for Point A is below the fold.)
Point B is outlined in the Sierra Club's Citizens Energy Plan [1] where "a new energy future integrates energy conservation, more efficient energy use and significant substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuel based energy".
Total energy use is reduced 14% by 2020 over the business as usual approach. By 2030 it is reduced by 27%. In absolute terms, energy use is reduced by only 5% from 2005 levels due to the 30% growth in population. However this is offset by a per capita consumption decrease of 56%.
Reduced demand for electricity due to efficiencies makes it possible to halt construction of new coal-fired power plants. As renewable sources such as wind energy grow, older (dirtier and less efficient) coal-fired power plants can be phased out.
The candidates are each very smart cookies. And each have produced energy plans that only talk in generalities.
We need to demand more specifics.
That said, life could be made easier by pledging to just adopt Point B if elected.
Anybody game?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Judge: Nuclear plant's wastewater discharge was wrong
Comment: The State of VA allowed this to happen, where was the NRC?
By Scott HarperThe Virginian-Pilot© February 24, 2009
The state for 30 years has wrongly allowed Dominion Virginia Power to discharge hot wastewater into Lake Anna from its nuclear power plant near Richmond, a judge has ruled.
Environmentalists hailed the decision Friday by Richmond Circuit Court Judge Margaret P. Spencer.
They said it should lead to first-ever regulations of atomic wastewater and cool parts of Lake Anna, a central Virginia landmark known to eclipse 100 degrees on summer days.
"This is huge," said Louis Zeller, science director for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.
"We and lakeside residents have long believed that Dominion is guilty of thermal pollution."
Such pollution, he said, threatens human health, property values and aquatic life.
The court ruling also could complicate a billion-dollar proposal from Dominion to expand its North Anna nuclear power plant by building a third reactor on Lake Anna in Louisa County.
While Dominion has recommended an air-cooling system for the new reactor, the project still would influence lake levels and temperatures, said Harry Ruth, president of Friends of Lake Anna, a conservation group.
Since 1978, the state has considered a 3,400-acre section of the lake closest to the nuclear plant a "waste treatment facility," not a public body of water. As such, this westerly section, known as "the hot side," has been exempt from state water-quality rules.
Spencer turned this interpretation on its ear. The judge instructed the State Water Control Board to draft a new discharge permit for the nuclear station so that the lake never exceeds 89.6 degrees, said Robert Wise, a Richmond attorney representing the environmentalists.
Bill Hayden, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, said Monday that state regulators soon will meet with the attorney general's office to discuss a possible appeal.
Jim Norvelle, a spokesman for Dominion, the state's largest electric utility, said the court ruling will be challenged to the Virginia Court of Appeals.
"The cooling lagoons are private water bodies," Norvelle said. "The whole reason for building them was to cool the steam that creates electricity at the power station. We wouldn't have built them otherwise."
Dominion sculpted the lake for the North Anna nuclear plant from piney forests between Richmond and Charlottesville in the 1970s. Since then, Lake Anna has grown into a tourist attraction and a popular residential area.
About two-thirds of the lake - "the cool side" - is regulated as a public waterway and hosts a state park. The other third, separated from the main lake by earthen berms, is not.
Wise, the environmental attorney, said federal law exempts small lagoons and flood ponds from water-quality regulations - but not a large body of water such as the "hot side," where people fish, boat and swim.
"We are thrilled the court agrees with us that the 'hot side' of Lake Anna is entitled to and deserves the full protection of Virginia and federal law," said Wise, a partner with Bowman and Brooke LLP.
By Scott HarperThe Virginian-Pilot© February 24, 2009
The state for 30 years has wrongly allowed Dominion Virginia Power to discharge hot wastewater into Lake Anna from its nuclear power plant near Richmond, a judge has ruled.
Environmentalists hailed the decision Friday by Richmond Circuit Court Judge Margaret P. Spencer.
They said it should lead to first-ever regulations of atomic wastewater and cool parts of Lake Anna, a central Virginia landmark known to eclipse 100 degrees on summer days.
"This is huge," said Louis Zeller, science director for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League.
"We and lakeside residents have long believed that Dominion is guilty of thermal pollution."
Such pollution, he said, threatens human health, property values and aquatic life.
The court ruling also could complicate a billion-dollar proposal from Dominion to expand its North Anna nuclear power plant by building a third reactor on Lake Anna in Louisa County.
While Dominion has recommended an air-cooling system for the new reactor, the project still would influence lake levels and temperatures, said Harry Ruth, president of Friends of Lake Anna, a conservation group.
Since 1978, the state has considered a 3,400-acre section of the lake closest to the nuclear plant a "waste treatment facility," not a public body of water. As such, this westerly section, known as "the hot side," has been exempt from state water-quality rules.
Spencer turned this interpretation on its ear. The judge instructed the State Water Control Board to draft a new discharge permit for the nuclear station so that the lake never exceeds 89.6 degrees, said Robert Wise, a Richmond attorney representing the environmentalists.
Bill Hayden, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, said Monday that state regulators soon will meet with the attorney general's office to discuss a possible appeal.
Jim Norvelle, a spokesman for Dominion, the state's largest electric utility, said the court ruling will be challenged to the Virginia Court of Appeals.
"The cooling lagoons are private water bodies," Norvelle said. "The whole reason for building them was to cool the steam that creates electricity at the power station. We wouldn't have built them otherwise."
Dominion sculpted the lake for the North Anna nuclear plant from piney forests between Richmond and Charlottesville in the 1970s. Since then, Lake Anna has grown into a tourist attraction and a popular residential area.
About two-thirds of the lake - "the cool side" - is regulated as a public waterway and hosts a state park. The other third, separated from the main lake by earthen berms, is not.
Wise, the environmental attorney, said federal law exempts small lagoons and flood ponds from water-quality regulations - but not a large body of water such as the "hot side," where people fish, boat and swim.
"We are thrilled the court agrees with us that the 'hot side' of Lake Anna is entitled to and deserves the full protection of Virginia and federal law," said Wise, a partner with Bowman and Brooke LLP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
