Petition against New Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Plants in India

Comment: We are fighting against uranium mining and nuclear power all over the world!

Posted by Radical Notes October 18, 2009 at 12:06 am in Petition

To Smt. Pratibha Patil,
The President of India,
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.

Copy to:

Sri Manmohan Singh,
The Prime Minister of India,
New Delhi – 110 001.

Sri Jairam Ramesh,
The Minister of Environment & Forests,
New Delhi – 110 001.

Madam,

We are writing to you on behalf of the National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements.

It is to protest against the reported decision of the government of India to take a quantum leap in installed capacity for nuclear power generation, from the current level of 4,120 MW to 63,000 MW by 2032. This decision is but an invitation to disaster.

In this context, we will like to submit the following.

Nuclear power, contrary to orchestrated hypes, is actually costlier than power from conventional sources like coal, gas and hydro. And once all the hidden costs are factored in, it would be costlier than even from renewable sources, like wind, in particular.

More importantly, it is also intrinsically hazardous, as large amount of radiation is routinely released at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. An even more intractable problem is that of safe storage of nuclear waste and safe disposal of outlived power plants, given the fact that the half-lives of some of the radioactive substances involved are over even millions of years.

Even more disconcerting is, considering the complexity of the technology of a nuclear reactor; there is no way to ensure that a major accident at a nuclear power plant will never take place. And a major accident, given the nature of things, will just turn catastrophic affecting a very large number of people, over a large territory, over a very long period. The disastrous accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, in the Ukraine province of the then USSR, on April 26 1986 is a chilling illustration.

The promise of nil greenhouse gas (GHG) emission is also nothing more than a myth if the entire fuel cycle – including mining, milling, transportation and construction of the power plant – is considered.

Moreover, nuclear energy with its highly centralized power production model would only further aggravate the problem by accentuating the current development paradigm reliant on mega-industries and actively blocking any possibility towards ecologically benign decentralized development.

The strong linkage between nuclear power and weapons – in terms of large overlaps in technology, in turn triggering strong political push – of which India itself is a graphic illustration can also be overlooked only at our own peril given the genocidal, and suicidal, character of the nuclear weapon.

As nuclear power is economically unattractive and socially unacceptable, on account of radiation hazards and risks of catastrophic accidents, no order for new nuclear reactors was placed in the USA and most of West Europe during the last 30 years, since the Three Mile Island accident in the US in 1979.

The US and European companies in nuclear power plant equipment and nuclear fuel business are thus looking to Asia for markets – India, China and Japan spearheading the current expansion programme.

It is unfortunate that the Indian government is becoming their willing collaborator in this in pursuit of its megalomaniac hunt for nuclear power and weapon. It has thus, over a period of just one year, rushed to enter into agreements with as many as seven countries, viz. the US, France, Russia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Mongolia and Argentina.

So far, nuclear power production capacity in India is very small, only about 3 percent of the total electricity generation capacity; and the veil of secrecy surrounding the existing nuclear power plants in the country, and absence of any truly independent monitoring agency, has seriously hindered dissemination of information on accidents – large and small – at these plants and their public scrutiny. That explains the current low level of popular awareness as regards the grave threats posed by the nuclear industry.

Taking advantage of this, the government of India is now set to steamroll its massive expansion program.

The contention that nuclear power is indispensable to meet future energy needs is false; for energy demand, and “need”, is obviously a function of the development paradigm chosen and pursued. And “energy security” is not an autonomous entity or objective, but must be in alignment with other chosen objectives which must include equitable growth and concerns for ecology.

Viewed thus, “energy security” may be achieved by: (I) Increasing efficiency of electricity generation, transmission and distribution. (II) Doing away with extravagant and wasteful use of energy. (III) Pursuing a path of low-energy intensity and decentralised development. (IV) Making optimum use of alternative energy options. (IV) Radically raising investment in development of sustainable and renewable energy sources and technologies, especially wind and solar energy.

As a part of its expansion program, the government of India has announced plans to expand the nuclear power plant coming up at Koodankulam (Tamil Nadu). Additional four reactors from Russia of 1,200 MWe each, in the immediate or near future, are to come up over and above the two of 950 MWe each, presently under construction. The process for setting up a nuclear plant at Jaitapur (Ratnagiri district, Maharashtra) has also reached an advanced stage. The French company Areva is set to supply two new generation reactors of 1650 MWe each, to be followed by another two. Land acquisition notices have been served on the local people to acquire 981 hectare of land.

The government has reportedly already approved 15 new plants at eight sites. These sites are Kumharia in Haryana – meant for indigenous reactors; Kakrapar (indigenous reactors) and Chhayamithi Virdi (reactor from US) in Gujarat; Kovvada (reactor from US) in Andhra Pradesh; Haripur (reactor from Russia) in West Bengal; Koodankulam (reactor from Russia) in Tamil Nadu; and Jaitapur (reactor from France) in Maharashtra.

Similarly, the mad rush for more and more power plants is matched by an accelerated drive for uranium mining in newer areas: Andhra and Meghalaya, in particular. And this, despite the horrible experience of uranium mines in different parts of the world, as also in our own Jadugoda – where appalling conditions continue despite strong popular protests, spanning decades.

In view of all these facts enumerated above, we the undersigned demand that the government of India put a complete stop to the construction of all new uranium mines and nuclear power plants, and radically jack up investments in renewable and environmentally sustainable sources of energy.

We also earnestly urge you to intervene immediately.

Sincerely,

Please Sign

http://radicalnotes.com/journal/2009/10/18/petition-against-new-uranium-mining-and-nuclear-power-plants-in-india/

A Nuclear Family Vacation: Travels in the World of Atomic Weaponry

by Nathan Hodge

Synopses & Reviews
ISBN13: 9781596913783
ISBN10: 1596913789

Review-a-Day (What is Review-a-Day?)

"In their new book, A Nuclear Family Vacation, Nathan Hodge and Sharon Weinberger quote Tom Vanderbilt's aphorism that 'all wars end in tourism.' Because World War III may leave no tourists behind, Hodge and Weinberger, a husband-and-wife journalistic team, wisely decide to get their nuclear tourism in beforehand by visiting nuclear sites in 10 U.S. states and 5 countries. The idea that they are tourists is something of a conceit, though: They visit many sites that would be closed to the rest of us, prepare for road trips by reading government reports rather than Fodor's travel guides, and score interviews with senior officials everywhere they go." Hugh Gusterson, American Scientist (read the entire American Scientist review)

Synopses & Reviews
Publisher Comments:

Two Washington, D.C., defense reporters do for nukes what Sarah Vowell did for presidential assassinations in this fascinating, kaleidoscopic portrait of nuclear weaponry.

In A Nuclear Family Vacation, husband-and-wife journalists Sharon Weinberger and Nathan Hodge hit the open road to explore the secretive world of nuclear weaponry. Along the way, they answer the questions most nuclear tourists dont get to ask: Are nuclear weapons still on hair-trigger alert? Is there such a thing as a suitcase nuke? Is Iran really building the bomb?

Together, Weinberger and Hodge visit top-secret locations like the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility in Iran, the United States Kwajalein military outpost in the Marshall Islands, the Y-12 facility in Tennessee, and “Site R,” a bunker known as the “Underground Pentagon,” rumored to be Vice President Cheneys personal “undisclosed location” of choice. Their atomic road trip reveals plans to revitalize the U.S. nuclear arsenal, even as the United States pushes other countries to disarm. Weaving together travel writing with world-changing events, A Nuclear Family Vacation unearths unknownand often quite entertainingstories about the nuclear world.

Review:

"With the end of the Cold War, a drastically downsized nuclear weapons establishment has suffered an antiapocalypse — missile silos abandoned and crumbling, shell-shocked industry survivors bereft of a reason to go on. In this adventure in 'nuclear tourism,' the husband-and-wife authors, both defense journalists, poke through the rubble for signs of life. Their itinerary includes deserted test sites in Nevada and Kazakhstan; a West Virginia hotel whose basement conceals a blast-proof bunker once intended to house Congress; an Iranian uranium-processing facility; and an active missile-launch site in Wyoming.

They interview weapon scientists and generals to understand why aging nuclear arsenals are retained and revamped without a rival superpower, and uncover a gamut of rationales: national paranoia in Russia, at the Pentagon mystifying world-is-flat globalization theory. Framing this inquiry as a travelogue is a bit gimmicky: nuclear installations are functional, drab and unevocative, so for color the authors often fall back on Borat-esque culture-clash comedy or the absurdist security rigmaroles they endure. But they do convey an acute sense of the incoherence of latter-day nuclear strategizing. (June)" Publishers Weekly (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)

Review:

“[Hodge and Weinberger] succeed admirably in reminding us that nuclear weapons have "never really gone away" and in calling attention to the crucial public debates that are not taking place. The questions they pose are significant and overdue; the answers they receive unsettling…They remind us that the purpose and future of our nuclear arsenal are too important to be left to those whose jobs remain dependent upon its perpetuation.”

Chicago Tribune “A Nuclear Family Vacation is an eye-opening read for anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons are a thing of the past.” Nerve

“How are you spending your next holiday? Tired of the same old thing? You might want to pick a different destination from A Nuclear Family Vacation, a new book and travel guide by veteran defence reporters Nathan Hodge and Sharon Weinberger.

This husband-and-wife team take the reader on a rapid, darkly comic tour of nuclear weapons sites across the world. A rare achievement in a nuclear policy book, their narrative demystifies an intimidating topic for a broad audience without sacrificing substance. Instead of pontificating on thermonuclear war, Hodge and Weinberger give us an eye-level view, often through their car window…the book sparkles with anecdotes and insights. It is well worth the trip.” Nature

“Some people trek to Machu Picchu, some dive on the Great Barrier Reef. Those of us interested in nuclear issues visit the monuments and precincts of the Bomb. Such are husband-and-wife journalists Nathan Hodge and Sharon Weinberger.” New Scientist

“In A Nuclear Family Vacation, a husband-and-wife duo of Washington, DC-based defense reporters takes a journey deep into the nation's nuclear weapons complex. But waitthis turns out to be a surprisingly fun road trip.” Mother Jones

“In this off-the-uncontaminated-path adventure, Sharon Weinberger and Nathan Hodge make nuclear vacationing seem fun, in a weirdly exhilarating way. They are the slightly obsessed tour guides holding the microphones at the front of the security-cleared bus. Together, the experts lead us across a neglected, mismanaged, and forgotten past, pointing out the history of doomsday weaponry along the way. A Nuclear Family Vacation is a shocking reminder that the Cold War isnt over; its just transformed into something else that we dont have a name for yet.”Robert Sullivan, author of Cross Country and Rats

“A vacation for some, a nightmare for others. Either way, well worth reading.” Kirkus Reviews

“Exhibiting dark humor, defense journalists Hodge and Weinberger take a tour of Americas nuclear-weapons infrastructure, visiting labs, plants, bunkers, missile silos, and ground zeros of nuclear explosions.”

Booklist

“In this adventure in ‘nuclear tourism, the husband-and-wife authors…convey an acute sense of the incoherence of latter-day nuclear strategizing.”Publishers Weekly

“Nuclear tourism is an effective and interesting way of canvassing issues we face today. Reading A Nuclear Family Vacation is a good way to learn more about the history of nuclear weapons and become conversant with our current situation.

Hodge and Weinberger have done the legwork to back up their common-sense conclusions.”Defense Technology International “Under­lying their journey into our nuclear past is an earnest and thoughtful discussion of our nuclear presentand future…They identify a troubling lack of a cohesive national nuclear policy and remark that “much of the infrastructure supporting nuclear weapons continues to exist merely because no one has come up with a compelling reason to shut it down.” One can imagine an updated version of A Nuclear Family Vacation in which the two visit sites in Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, Israel, Russia, France, Great Britain, and heaven knows where else. The itinerary is not as finite as one would like; in fact, it seems to be growing. But there would be some comfort in having these sober and subtle observers as our guides.”Bookforum

Synopsis:
Journalists Hodge and Weinberger hit the open road to explore the secretive world of nuclear weaponry. Weaving together travel writing with world-changing events, "A Nuclear Family Vacation" unearths unknown--and often quite entertaining--stories about the nuclear world.
back to top

About the Author

Sharon Weinberger is a contributing writer for Wireds national security blog, Danger Room. She was previously editor in chief of McGraw-Hills Defense Technology International and a writer for Aviation Week & Space Technology, a leading aerospace and defense magazine. She is the author of the recently published Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagons Scientific Underworld, and writes frequently on national security and science for the Washington Post Magazine, Slate, and Discover.

Nathan Hodge is a Washington, D.C.-based writer for Janes Defence Weekly. A frequent contributor to Slate, he has reported extensively from Afghanistan, Iraq, and the former Soviet Union. His work has appeared in the Financial Times, Foreign Policy, and Details, among many other newspapers and magazines.

http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9781596913783

Spent fuel could remain at VY for 100 years or more

By BOB AUDETTE

Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series of stories dealing with the issue of spent fuel stored at the nation’s nuclear power plants.

BRATTLEBORO -- With spent fuel piling up at commercial nuclear power plants around the country and no permanent disposal site on the horizon, many power plant operators are hoping the federal government might soon endorse the interim storage of the waste at one or two locations in the nation.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry-funded organization that promotes nuclear power around the world, is suggesting just that.

"An interim facility wouldn’t have to be huge," said Thomas Kauffman, senior media relations manager for NEI. If you were to put the 60,000 tons of spent fuel currently being stored in dry casks into one location, he said, "They would fit onto an area of about a square half-mile."

No site has been identified yet for interim storage.

"The industry has had some dialogue with volunteer communities," said Kauffman.

Those communities include the sites of decommissioned power plants.

One benefit of having centralized interim storage would be the removal of spent fuel from the sites of decommissioned power plants. By removing the spent fuel, clean up at those sites could be completed.

There are 21 decommissioned nuclear reactors in the United States, said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"Some of the plants that were permanently shut down have been totally dismantled, as in the case of Maine Yankee and Connecticut Yankee," he said. "If you go to those sites today, all you will find still there from the nuclear operations are the dry cask storage facilities. Other decommissioned plants, like Millstone, are mothballed, awaiting the shutdown of the other units still operating at the site."
More important than finishing the decommissioning of the sites, said Kauffman, safety and security would be improved if all the dry casks from every power plant site, active and decommissioned, were moved to an interim storage facility.

While centralizing the waste makes good common sense, said Jim Riccio, Greenpeace’s nuclear policy analyst, there is the worry that transporting the spent fuel more times than is necessary would increase risks to the communities that it is passing through.

"This stuff is going to be at reactor sites for the foreseeable future," said Riccio. "We should be taking steps to improve the security of this waste."

There is really only one solution to the nation’s nuclear waste problem, said Riccio.

"Stop producing it," he said. "There is no solution that is going to last longer than it takes to keep it out of the biosphere."

Spent fuel is stored at nuclear power plants either in spent fuel pools or in dry casks. Forty-five power plant sites around the country have dry cask storage.

At the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, there are now 2,819 spent fuel assemblies in its spent fuel pool, a 39-foot deep pool of water located in the reactor building.

Each of Yankee’s fuel assemblies is 6 feet square, approximately 12 feet long and weighs about 700 pounds. The reactor core holds 368 fuel assemblies, each of which remains in the reactor for 4 1/2 years before being moved to the spent fuel pool.

The capacity of the spent fuel pool is 3,355 assemblies and room must be maintained to keep space for the full-core offload of the reactor’s 368 assemblies.

Last year, 340 of the oldest fuel assemblies were moved from the spent fuel pool and placed into five dry casks, which were themselves placed on a concrete storage pad just outside the reactor building.

Each cask weighs about 100 tons and contains 68 fuel assemblies.

By 2012, another seven to eight canisters will need to be filled and if the plant is closed that year, 55 to 60 dry casks will be needed.

If Vermont Yankee receives approval to continue operation for 20 years past its original license expiration date of 2012, five to six dry casks will need to be loaded every five to seven years to maintain full-core offload.

"Dry cask storage is proven," said Kauffman. "It’s safe. These things are designed to take anything that the plant can take," he said, including floods, fires, hurricanes, high and low temperatures and even impacts from aircraft. "They’re very tough."

Even if the storage pad at Vermont Yankee, which is located at an elevation of 254 feet above sea level, is flooded, he said, "The casks aren’t going anywhere. They wouldn’t be approved if they couldn’t handle that."

The storage pad is 1 1/2 feet higher than the location’s 500-year-flood level.

If storage outlasts the life of the casks, about 100 years, the spent fuel can be moved into new casks, he said.

"Because these are transferable, dry cask storage can last indefinitely," said Kauffman.

Even if Yucca Mountain or some other permanent site opens, it will take 100 years or more to move the spent fuel, meaning the waste at Vermont Yankee will probably be there for a long, long time.

Dry cask storage is also costly for electricity consumers, according to a document produced by Vermont Yankee.

"Each year of delay in the federal program for removing used nuclear fuel from reactor sites will add an estimated $1 billion in temporary storage costs," according to the document.

"We will need a federal repository at a minimum for the spent fuel in existence," said Ed Lyman, senior staff scientist for the United States branch of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "There’s really no alternative at this point. The one course of action that is not reasonable is to simply do nothing and proceed with building a large number of building new nuclear power plants."

Speaking for himself and not the Union of Concerned Scientists, Lyman said there is one option no one is talking about.

"States that want nuclear power plants should take more responsibility for final disposal of the spent fuel," he said.

On Thursday: Is the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel the answer to the nation’s spent fuel woes?

Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com, or at 802-254-2311, ext. 273.

Anti-mining rally in Delhi

OUR CORRESPONDENT

Shillong, Oct. 2: The National Alliance of Anti-Nuclear Movements today organised a rally in Delhi, widening the ambit of the Khasi Students Union’s anti-uranium mining crusade.

The decision to take out the rally from Rajghat to Jantar Mantar on the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of peace, was not without reason.

Nearly 200 NAAM activists carrying placards and banners were joined by some Khasi students led by KSU president Samuel Jyrwa. They blended anti-nuclear power plant protests with the uranium mining issue.

At Jantar Mantar, speakers from Meghalaya, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand highlighted the ill effects of uranium mining and the dangers of setting up of nuclear power plants.

The co-ordinator of NAAM, S.P. Udayakumar, said over phone that on reaching the samadhi site of the Mahatma, the activists shouted slogans against uranium mining in India and then proceeded towards Jantar Mantar.

Later, near Teen Murti Bhavan, the NAAM activists staged How to Kill a Man, a play that showed how uranium mining could kill thousands of people.

It was followed by passing of a resolution by NAAM members urging the government to prevent uranium mining projects in Meghalaya, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and stop the projects at Jaduguda in Jharkhand.

“We also vowed to say no to nuclear power plants in the country,” Udayakumar said.

“Uranium mining and nuclear power plants will do great harm to the people of the country; if America wants to carry out uranium mining, let it do so in that country and India should not succumb to the pressure of America.”

Talking over phone, Jyrwa said uranium mining and setting up of nuclear power plants go against the very ideals that Mahatma Gandhi stood for.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091003/jsp/northeast/story_11567822.jsp

Ask Pablo: Is Nuclear Power Really "Carbon Neutral?"

by Pablo Paster, San Francisco
on 09.28.09

Dear Pablo: Too often I hear politicians, lobbyists, and others advocating for nuclear power, but doesn't the processing of the fuel take a huge amount of energy? So how can they call it carbon neutral?

The short answer is that nuclear energy is not "carbon neutral." Wind and solar can also not be said to be entirely without greenhouse gas emissions. But with truly renewable energy sources such as solar and wind we are talking about a one-time "investment" of greenhouse gas emissions when the solar panels or windmills are built. The energy payback period for solar panels is less than two years according to some sources, and even less for wind.

Nuclear energy cannot be considered truly renewable because it relies on a fuel. One that is not only highly processed and refined, but also one that is not replenished by incoming solar energy or biological processes, like wind, solar, tidal, and biomass are.

Where Do Greenhouse Gas Emissions Come From In the Nuclear Power Lifecycle?
Construction

Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear power lifecycle begin with the construction of the nuclear power plant. Containment domes and redundant systems make the environmental impact of building a nuclear power plant much bigger than a conventional power plant. But because nuclear power plants have a significantly higher electricity output, the impact per kWh is lessened, but still significant at 2.22 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt-hour (GWh), compared to 0.95 tons per GWh for combined-cycle natural gas.

Milling, Mining, and Enrichment

Nuclear fuel, Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239, begin as ore in a giant pit mine (75%) or an underground mine (25%). The ore has a uranium concentration around 1.5%, which needs to be further refined. Processing that includes crushing, leaching, and acid baths produces a more concentrated U3O8 called yellowcake. The U3O8 is processed into UO3, and then into UO2, which is manufactured into fuel rods for nuclear power plants. From mine to power plant, the greenhouse gas emissions can add up to another 0.683 tons of greenhouse gas emissions for every GWh.

Heavy Water Production

An important component of many types of nuclear power plants is heavy water, which is a water with a higher than normal concentration of Deuterium Monoxide D2O, which is just like water in which the Hydrogen atom has been replaced by a Deuterium atom. I was surprised to learn that the production of this heavy water is actually on of the biggest contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear energy lifecycle. In fact it can result in up to 9.64 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per GWh.

So, What is the "Carbon Footprint" of nuclear power?

According to my sources the entire lifecycle emissions of nuclear power are as high as 15.42 tons per GWh. But how does that compare to other electricity sources? A typical nuclear power plant is around 1 GW. Assuming 100% uptime (nuclear power plants do go offline for maintenence), a 1 GW power plant, running 8760 hours per year, will produce 8760 gigawatt-hours, or 8.76 billion kilowatt-hours per year. The average US household uses 11,232 kWh per year, so the average nuclear power plant services 780,000 households. Now, 15.42 tons per GWh translates into 15.42 kg per megawatt-hour (MWh). For comparison, California's mixture of electricity sources, including nuclear, creates 328.4 kg of CO2 per MWh and Kansas tops out the nation at 889.5 kg per MWh. The lifecycle emissions of wind power are around 10 kg per MWh.

Sure, nuclear power has lower greenhouse gas emissions than any combustion-based fuel source but it still has many other problems. We all know about the dangers of nuclear accidents and the issues around nuclear waste. If politicians were technology agnostic, removed subsidies for the coal and nuclear industry, and set a price on carbon with a national cap and trade system, there would be no debate. The free market would choose the path to the most cost effective and cleanest sources of energy which would include wind, solar, small-scale hydro, geothermal, energy efficiency, tidal, and certainly not nuclear or "clean coal."

Additional Resources on Nuclear Power:
The Next Nuclear Renaissance is Already Underway
Green Nuclear Waste?
Life Cycle Analysis of Nuclear Power

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/is-nuclear-power-really-carbon-neutral.php?dcitc=th_rss

Hanford nuclear reservation takes next step on waste cleanup

By Scott Learn, The Oregonian
September 28, 2009, 12:58PM

RICHLAND, Wash. - Workers at the Hanford nuclear reservation have removed a 1.2 million gallon basin that once held 1,100 tons of spent uranium fuel roads, the U.S. Department of Energy says, and are beginning to clean up contaminated soil underneath the basin.

Contractor CH2M Hill's Plateau Remediation Company started excavating the contaminated soil on Sunday, meeting a deadline under DOE's agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state of Washington.

Earlier this month, workers finished years of work removing the K East Basin that once stored highly radioactive materials underwater, one of the greatest hazards at the former plutonium production site.

The basin held spent nuclear fuel from Hanford's nine reactors beneath 20 feet of water for shielding. Soil underneath the concrete basin was contaminated by leaks in the 1970s and 1990s, DOE says.

From October 2008 to early September, workers filled more than 2,000 large containers with low-level radioactive waste from inside the basin. It was disposed of in a lined landfill on site.

Cleanup of contaminated soil under the basin could be completed as early as next spring, DOE officials said, depending on the type of contamination found and the extent of its spread.

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/09/hanford_nuclear_reservation_ta.html

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE MIX - Consider impact first

September 27, 2009

THERE ARE at least five strong arguments against nuclear power being more than a minor part of the response to climate change (“Nuclear must be part of energy equation,’’ Op-ed):

There is no current or imminent plan for permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste in the United States.

Addressing climate change through nuclear power means spreading nuclear technology worldwide. We already see how this leads to nuclear proliferation in places such as Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. This also may heighten the risk of nuclear terrorism.

Unintended releases of radiation from nuclear power plants, while rare, can be catastrophic (witness Chernobyl), and may be more likely as nuclear spreads to countries with less experience with the technology than the United States.

Nuclear is not really carbon neutral. The mining and processing of uranium, the building of power plants, and their decommissioning release carbon. A full accounting must consider the complete life cycle.

Finally, but not least important, mining and processing uranium ore has had devastating consequences for workers and nearby communities, often indigenous peoples.

Before we jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we need to appraise all the impacts and consider other alternatives, such as solar and wind, that have substantially less downside.

Doug Brugge
Cambridge

The writer was co-editor of the book “The Navajo People and Uranium Mining.’’

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/09/27/consider_impact_first/

European Expert: US policymakers wrong about French experience with nuclear power

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 15, 2009

European Expert: U.S. Policymakers Are "As Wrong As They Can Be" About the French Experience With Nuclear Power

Marignac Says "Far From Being a Model, France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power".

WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. policy makers are in the grips of "dangerous and costly illusions" if they think that France is a model showing how nuclear power could be implemented aggressively in the United States, according to Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues and the executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris.

In visits this week with state and federal officials, Marignac is debunking the myth of the so-called "French nuclear model" that is being touted as a blueprint for the revival of the embattled nuclear power industry in the U.S. His visit comes at a particular key time, as the U.S. Senate considers additional subsidies to the nuclear industry in its version of pending climate legislation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks public comment on weakening the rules for loan-guarantee bailouts of proposed new reactors.

Yves Marignac said: "I am at a loss to understand how the United States could be so far off the mark in its understanding of the French experience with nuclear power. The so-called 'success story' of the French nuclear program, which is being promoted so assiduously by the U.S. nuclear industry, is a complete disconnect with the stark reality of the 50-year history of rising costs, steadily worsening delays, technological dead-ends, failed industrial challenges and planning mistakes. The United States could make few worse mistakes than embracing France's sorry nuclear legacy. If American policymakers are going to weigh the example of France, they need to get the facts instead of settling for the fantasy being sold to them by the US nuclear industry."

In his remarks today, Marignac noted the following key problems:

• French nuclear technology is deeply flawed. The French EPR Reactor is a new reactor design developed by the company Areva in cooperation with the German firm Siemens. Serious doubts have been raised about the safety and cost of the EPR. Experience in the construction at the two sites where EPRs are being built, in Finland (Olkiluoto 3) and France (Flamanville 3), has revealed serious and fundamental weaknesses in design, problems during construction phases and soaring costs. British and Finnish nuclear regulators have also raised significant safety questions, in particular about the computerized command and control system proposed for these reactors.

• French nuclear reactor construction delays are getting steadily worse, not better. Alongside increasing costs, construction times have proven to be problematic. The last four reactors that were built in France, two units in Chooz and two in Civaux, were only connected on average 10.5 years after construction work began, and subsequent safety problems caused further delays. Their official industrial service only started in 2000 and 2002 respectively, some 15.5 and 12.5 years after construction started.

• French nuclear reactor costs are just as out of control as they are in the U.S. The EPR has been promoted as a technology that makes nuclear energy cheaper and more competitive. When the decision was made to build an EPR in Finland in 2002, the government promised that it would cost Euro 2.5 billion and take only four years to build. The final contract, three years later, put the price at Euro 3 billion and construction time was set at 4.5 years. Since construction began in summer 2005, a variety of technical problems have led to a three and a half-year delay, extending the construction period to at least 7 years. The currently estimated additional cost is Euro 2.3 billion, raising the current price tag to Euro 5.3 billion, almost 75 percent over the initial estimate. More problems, delays and cost overruns are likely to occur before the project is completed. In September 2008, Nucleonics Week quoted an Areva official, saying that Euro 4.5 billion will be a minimum price for any new EPR — almost twice the initial estimate. The other EPR being built in Flamanville, France, was approved in 2005 on the basis of a 2.8 c€/kWh cost estimate, which was increased by EDF in December 2008 to 5.4 c€/kWh, although EDF itself estimated that it should be below 4.6 c€/kWh to guarantee profitability.

• Nuclear power in France has not promoted energy independence. Nuclear power in France is a major presence, providing 76 percent of electricity produced in 2008. However, electricity accounted for only 20.7 percent of the final energy consumption in France that year. Excluding electricity exports, the overall contribution of nuclear power to France's final energy consumption is only in the range of 14 percent. If the real aim of the nuclear programme was to reduce oil dependence, then it has clearly failed in its objectives. Over 70 percent of France's final energy is provided by fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), with oil accounting for 49 percent of the energy consumption in 2007. Nuclear power cannot provide energy security, as it only has a marginal effect upon oil consumption, which is dominated by the transport sector. France consumes more oil per capita than the European average, and despite its long-term objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three-quarters, it seems incapable of bucking an upward trend. This is due largely to the weak policies on energy efficiency and new energy sources, influenced by the lock-in of nuclear power.

• French nuclear power is not "safer" ... and the nation does not have a long term solution to waste storage. The operators of the 200 nuclear facilities in France declare a very large number of events — considered relevant for safety — every year. EDF alone declares between 10,000 and 12,000, of which 700 to 800 are deemed "incidents" or "significant events". Large amounts of radioactive waste arise from the French nuclear programme. In total, close to 890,000 cubic meters (m3) of radioactive waste had been produced by the end of 2004. Almost 40 percent of this amount is linked to reprocessing. This total does not account for some 12,000 m3 of waste from the reprocessing plant in Marcoule that was dumped into the sea in 1967 and 1969. While reprocessing is presented as a means to reduce the volume of highly-radioactive long-lived wastes in final disposal, it actually increases the complexity of waste management, and thereby the danger for the population and environment. Reprocessing comes with numerous extra nuclear facilities and transports, each creating extra safety risks. But also 'normal' radiation exposure arising from routine operations increases, for example by the radioactive discharges of La Hague reprocessing plants, with authorized discharge levels up to 1000 times higher than those applying to the nearby Flamanville nuclear power station. And even France, supposedly the country of nuclear expertise, has no long-term solution for its nuclear wastes.

• Nuclear power in France is not popular. The pursuit of the nuclear program in France is a permanently undemocratic choice. Contrary to the image presented in the United States, the French population is no more in favor of nuclear power than the European average — indeed a majority is opposed to the building of new plants. Surveys repeatedly show that the public lacks confidence in the institutional promoters of nuclear power.

• The "nationalized" nuclear model in France is completely incompatible with the market-driven U.S. In 2001, Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (Cogema — General Company for Nuclear Materials), a private company established in 1976, merged with Framatome, the nuclear reactor builder, to create the Areva group. Currently, 96 percent of the share capital of the Areva group is held by the French state and large French industries. Electricité de France (EDF), the French electric utility, was established in 1946 through nationalization of a number of state and private companies. First and foremost responsible for overseeing development of the electricity supply across France, today EDF operates all 59 nuclear reactors in service in France. EDF was partly privatized in 2005-2006, but the French government still retains control 84.9 percent of its shares.

• State ownership of French nuclear power means that the true costs are hidden. Though largely in an indirect fashion, French taxpayers bear a large part of the nuclear costs. The French government, as both the regulator of electricity prices and the owner of the utility EDF, has been able to overcome the main obstacle to nuclear power by planning, at liberty, the return of capital costs from nuclear investments. French public funding is widely provided to the nuclear industry, from financing extensive R&D programs to guaranteeing low-rate loans. Official cost estimates for nuclear power tend to neglect or downplay hidden costs from the fuel cycle, waste management, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, security, infrastructural changes and state guarantees for liabilities. All in all, nuclear power is highly subsidized by the French taxpayer.

ABOUT YVES MARIGNAC

Yves Marignac is executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris, which he joined in 1997, after four years shared between academic research at Paris-XI University and applied studies in the French nuclear institute CEA and the nuclear company STMI. His consultant work covers a wide range of nuclear issues for various institutional bodies and NGOs at the national and international level. In 1999-2000, Marignac participated in the economic evaluation of the nuclear option commissioned by French Prime Minister (known as Charpin-Dessus-Pellat report), and in 2001 he was a co-author of a report to the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (STOA) Panel on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In 2005, he acted as consultant to the Commission that organized the institutional public debate on the project of the new French reactor, EPR (Flamanville-3).

Marignac is the author or co-author of a number of books and other publications, including Nuclear Power, the Great Illusion - Promises, Setbacks and Threats (October 2008) and Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France (April 2008).

CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event is available on the Web at http://www.nuclearbailout.org.

Energy executive admits 'nuclear not safe'

2009-04-15
With UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband set to deliver a speech promoting nuclear energy on a visit to Hunterston tomorrow, SNP Westminster Energy spokesperson Mike Weir MP has seized on an admission of the dangers of nuclear power by a senior British Nuclear Fuels Ltd executive.

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, David Bonser said … "the Government have decided to go ahead with nuclear power here in the UK. Now, of course, there’s lots of risks around that…"

Mr Weir said:

"David Bonser’s assessment underlines exactly why Scotland is right to reject the development of dangerous, unnecessary and costly new nuclear power stations.

"Nuclear is unreliable as well as unnecessary. Installed capacity of renewables in Scotland already exceeds installed capacity of nuclear power. We can achieve secure, clean, low carbon energy by harnessing Scotland's vast green potential, tackling climate change without adding to the burden of toxic radioactive waste.

"The risks and uncertainties of nuclear power, in terms of waste disposal, decommissioning, security and health concerns, or cost, are far too great.

"Without nuclear power, Scotland has the natural resources to generate clean, green power. Harnessing that potential can meet our future energy demands several times over, while tackling climate change.

"There is more than enough green and renewable potential in Scotland to provide a diverse, low carbon electricity supply, so the argument that we need nuclear is totally redundant.

"Ed Miliband is wasting his breath on his nuclear lecture tour, and he should recognise that the Scottish Government has made clear that it will not allow unwanted and unnecessary new nuclear stations in our country."

Note:

1. Transcript from BBC Today Programme:

DAVID BONSER: "the Government have decided to go ahead with nuclear power here in the UK. Now, of course, there’s lots of risks around that, and what we will be doing, together with the Government, through the planning permissions and so on, is to make sure that new designs are designed properly to deal with all sorts of hazards, including the potential risk of sea level rises.

2. Bonser Biography:

David Bonser has spent his career with British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) since 1971 in design, construction, commissioning and operations, working in both the enrichment and reprocessing businesses. He has been Director of BNFL's Thorp Division, Company Development Director, and Director of Engineering, Waste Management and Decommissioning. He was appointed to BNFL's board of directors in October 1999. In 2000 he was appointed Transformation Director, in which post he is working to transform BNFL to position the company for a future "Public-Private Partnership" (the UK government's initiative to introduce private sector finance into public sector enterprises). He has also retained responsibility for BNFL's engineering functions

http://www.snp.org/node/15137

Lake Anna residents react to 3rd nuclear reactor in Louisa

Posted: Sep 18, 2009 5:16 PM EDT
Updated: Sep 18, 2009 6:01 PM EDT
By Matt Butner - bio email
Posted by Phil Riggan - email

LOUISA, VA (WWBT) - Plans to build a nuclear reactor in Louisa county have overcome opposition to win government approval. But the Dominion Power project may not be a done deal just yet.

The new reactor would join the two already operating at the North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Louisa county officials have embraced the idea since it first came to their attention several years ago.

"We all along have been very supportive. After all, we've had two here for several decades, so it's just a continuation of the same," said Willie Gentry, Louisa county supervisor.

But Gentry insists the board has not simply rubber stamped the proposal.

"We have agreed from the board level to approve and accept, but at the same time, when there were concerns from citizens, we made sure that was known as well," he said.

One of the primary concerns of residents near Lake Anna has been the water level of the lake. A third reactor would accelerate the process of evaporation, which is a by-product of the nuclear reactions at the plant.

Doug Smith is the vice president of the Lake Anna Civic Association. His group has been among the most vocal in their concerns about the lake.

"Dominion has agreed to raise the lake level three inches, so if we start out at a higher level, we don't end up at quite so low a level by the end of the summer," Smith said.

But despite these concerns, and ongoing opposition from environmental and alternative energy groups, the project has cleared every regulatory hurdle it has faced so far.

For now, the project's biggest roadblock is a financial one. Dominion has been in negotiations with General Electric to design and build the reactor, but the two sides haven't been able to agree on a price tag. So, Dominion is exploring other options.

A Dominion spokesman says the company hopes to have that issue resolved by the end of the year. If it stays on schedule, the new reactor will be up an running by 2018.

http://www.nbc12.com/Global/story.asp?s=11158418&clienttype=printable

Nukes mean mines

URI Kingsville Dome uranium mine

Are we digging a new toxic legacy before the last one’s filled in?

by Greg Harman
SAN ANTONIO CURRENT 9/16/2009News

A string of lakes across Karnes County sparkle as blue as any found in the resort towns of Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Each is graced with the gentle slope of a nearby hill, where wildlife forages on its way to and from the waterline.

These former mine sites were blasted open during the uranium boom that swept South Texas in the 1950s and '60s, when the U.S. military was racing to keep pace with the growing Soviet atomic-bomb program and the newborn Atomic Energy Commission was struggling to develop beneficial uses for the monstrously destructive power we had tapped.

Today, 17 of Texas' earliest open-pit mines remain abandoned on private property. Land owners like to fish these man-made water features. More than a few have learned to water-ski here, despite the fact that the Texas Railroad Commission has found the sites to be emitting abnormally high levels of cancer-causing radiation.

In a recent letter to one area landowner, an official of the Railroad Commission’s Surface Mining & Reclamation Division wrote that uranium mill tailings at the edge of his lake emit “up to” 850 micro-Rem of radioactivity per hour.

In the time it takes you to thread a worm on a hook and reel in a catch, your body would receive dozens of times the natural level of background radiation.* Like other abandoned mines nearby, this site on the western edge of Karnes County also contains elevated levels of arsenic, selenium, and molybdenum, according to the commission’s letter.

The lakes are only the most glaring reminder of South Texas’ uranium-mining history. Dozens of more modern, underground “in-situ” mining sites are scattered from Karnes County all the way to Laredo, along with uranium mills and processing plants, where mined uranium is treated with acid to leach out a refined “yellow cake.”

Karnes County is also home to a string of disposal pits outside Panna Maria and Hobson used by the energy companies that mined South Texas through the 1980s. Today, these pits are filled with more than 20-million tons of radioactive tailings and processing wastes that will remain toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. They have leaked into area groundwater, and one spoiled aquifer in western Karnes has been tagged by the U.S. Department of Energy with an estimated cleanup cost of $350 million.

The Texas Mining & Reclamation Association estimates more than 76- million pounds of uranium have been produced in Texas, but there’s plenty more where that came from. Should the so-called nuclear rennaissance pan out and new reactors be built, a demand for fuel will certainly follow.

“Assuming nuclear energy is the energy of the future, we’re going to have to have a feedstock to provide it with,” says Art Dohman, president of the Goliad County Groundwater District.
---

San Antonio’s utility has been pushing hard for an expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear complex, 200 miles to the southeast at Bay City. A partner with NRG Energy at the existing reactors, CPS Energy wants to maintain a controlling interest in the proposed two new reactors at 40- percent ownership.

Public hearings have become a form of popular entertainment, as the merits and demerits of nuclear power are picked apart and challenged by an array of local leaders — with a few notable exceptions: The environmental and public-health costs associated with nuclear power have largely been brushed aside with an optimistic nod to the future.

In a meeting with members of the political-accountability group COPS-Metro Alliance on Sunday, San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro repeated that he was “comfortable” with the environmental impact of nuclear power.

While critics evaluate uranium mining and radioactive waste disposal in “moral terms — leaving something to future generations we really don’t have a handle on,” Castro said, “I believe in the decades to come there will be a safe way to deal with that waste.” Like the nonexistent dumps that proponents hope will one day safely store our nuclear waste for what amounts to eternity, the risks involved in uranium mining and processing should be a starting point for any debate about the promise and peril of nuclear power, yet it has received scant attention in San Antonio’s decision whether or not to partner in the expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear complex.

The plants, the dumps, the mines — perhaps they’re simply too far from San Antonio to register. But the aftermath of our last uranium boom still echoes loudly in South Texas.
---

Florence Bodine is waiting for a call back from the Railroad Commission about the water-filled pit on her western Karnes County property. First contacted by the agency in 1998, Bodine signed the paperwork granting the state permission to clean up the site — even with the disclaimer that the work “cannot be warranted … and may not achieve the intended result.” She’s already waved off one offer to purchase water from the lake for irrigation (“I said no, I didn’t want to be liable for that.”).

Ramona Nye, spokesperson for the Texas Railroad Commission, insists that since these defunct mines were dug prior to the creation of federal laws governing them, it is not the state’s responsibility to repair the damage. As federal money trickles in — siphoned from the coal companies’ profits via a mine-reclamation tax — the Railroad Commission pumps the water from another abandoned pit, pushes the tailings back into the hole, and covers it over with a few inches of uncontaminated soil. To date, cleanup per site has run between $224,000 and $2 million.

A.C. McAda, city attorney for Falls City and Kenedy, grew up observing the impact mining had on area livestock. Back when uranium trucks on the road meant thriving downtowns and auto dealerships, his father, a local veterinarian, was documenting marked declines in local livestock reproduction. His father also recorded a rare type of heavy-metal poisoning that robbed black Angus cattle of their pigment, turning them white.

“They never really found a way to get that reversed,” McAda said.

But agricultural anomalies were soon dwarfed by public-health fears. Father Frank Kurzaj was the priest of the small Polish community of Panna Maria in the 1980s when the fight over waste disposal at an unlined pit a few miles west of town exploded. He counseled parishioners stricken with cancer and couples unable to conceive, labored over the faith-challenging questions that can follow birth defects, and worked with two families living near the dump whose children were born as hermaphrodites. He helped organize the Panna Maria Concerned Citizens to give the community standing at the public hearings held about the toxic hill, which was owned by energy giant Chevron and later sold to Rio Grande Resources.

“The dumping was done over there and people were not aware of the consequences of being in this area. They were lied to, simply by telling them everything is under control,” Kurzaj said.

It wasn’t under control. Mines, trucks, and processing mills all spread contamination, exposing residents. Lawsuits followed, as did confidential settlements that keep firsthand tales out of the headlines.

While Kurzaj doesn’t object to uranium mining or nuclear power on principle, he says the toxic nature of uranium combined with the destabilizing power of greed should motivate communities to fight for the strongest possible oversight. “Money’s important, we need money to live,” Kurzaj said. “But there are some more important things than money. If we have plenty of money but we don’t have health, why do you need the money? You cannot use it.”

---


When it comes to open-pit carnage, some of the worst damage has been done to indigenous lands, like the Navajo territory in New Mexico, where workers dug uranium ore in underground mines without the benefit of safety equipment. As in Karnes, the land around Church Rock, New Mexico, outside Gallup, is marked by abandoned mines and milling sites, but this area has the unwelcome distinction of also being the site of the second-largest non-weapons-related radiological release in history, the largest being the Chernobyl meltdown of 1986. It happened just a few months after the Three Mile Island accident of 1979. An estimated 90-million gallons of liquid radioactive waste burst through a dam wall at a uranium-processing mill owned by United Nuclear Corps, flooding farmland, arroyos, and fields, and permanently contaminating the Rio Puerco River.

Despite adamant resistance from the Navajo and other nearby tribes, a subsidiary of one prominent Texas mining outfit, Uranium Resources, Inc., is petitioning the state of New Mexico to gain access to Church Rock for another go. Recently, tensions between the Navajo’s objection to mining and those anxious for jobs in the area spilled over in an attack on five Navajo men in Grants, New Mexico.

“Just because they’re Navajo, these men got beat up, very severely. One man had to have his eye put back in,” said Anna Rondon, who since 1987 has served as a volunteer organizer for the Southwest Indigenous Uranium Forum, a series of gathering intended to shed light on the environmental and health impacts of uranium mining.

Native American communities throughout the Southwest have experienced high levels of kidney diseases and cancer thought to be related to uranium mining. While cancer was once something of an anomaly among the Navajo, after 30 years of heavy mining activity, cancer rates in Navajo Country began to shoot upward, doubling by the late ’90s, according to Indian Health Service data. Still, no study of the residents around Church Rock has ever been performed, according to Linda Gunter from the non-profit organization Beyond Nuclear.

By contrast, at least two studies have been performed in Karnes County. The Texas Department of Health carried out a single population-based study of cancer occurrences in Karnes County and reported no statistical abnormalities. That was followed by another study by researchers from the International Epidemiology Institute in Rockville, Maryland, who reached a similar conclusion in 2002. Both of these studies were well reported in the media.

However, research conducted through the early 1990s by a team from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston took a different approach and found cause for concern. Instead of simply relying on the number of cancer cases reported, the group took physical samples from residents living within 1.5 miles of uranium-waste pits in Karnes County and looked for cellular damage. In 1995, the team reported in the highly regarded journal Environmental Health Perspectives that the DNA of the Karnes County residents had more “chromosome aberrations” than a similar number of people who did not reside near toxic-waste sites. The UTMB team then exposed the cell samples to a dose of radiation and observed that the cells had an “abnormal DNA repair response.”

With the benefit of improved evaluation methods, one of the UTMB study’s chief researchers, Dr. William Au, returned to the Karnes County issue in a report published this year in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. This time, he showed that residents near those waste sites “could have been exposed to a level of radiation that is similar to those for nuclear workers [and] … have increased risk for cancer over the non-exposed residents.” The National Council on Radiation Protection estimates that the average American is exposed to about 300 micro-Rem of radioactivity each year, mainly from radon gas in the air. But, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows workers within the nuclear industry to receive as much as 5,000 micro-Rem a year. The National Academy of Science maintains that no level of radiation exposure can be considered safe.

Au, a 20-year veteran of UTMB who is moving to China to take over an environmental-health program at a medical school there, is critical of the state’s statistical approach.

“They were forced to do a study,” he said, “but the population is too small to do that kind of study … The result was predictable to be negative because [the population] is too small to do anything meaningful.”
---

Of course, when mining returns to Karnes and any number of former uranium-mining sites in South Texas, it won’t be done in open pits under a cloud of yellow dust. During the past 20 years, South Texas has served as a staging ground for the development of a new mining technology that leaves the Earth’s surface relatively unmarred. Ore trapped in underground aquifers can be “mined” through a complex system of injection and extraction wells. In the uranium-bearing water sands of South Texas, virtually all of the uranium particles are anchored in underground rock and sand formations, not floating freely in the water. By pumping heavily oxygenated solution through an ore deposit these particles can be released in a chemical exchange not unlike salt dissolving in water. With the uranium broken out into the water column, it can be pumped to the surface and stripped out at a processing plant.

In-situ is not as effective as strip mining. It tends to leave more uranium behind. It also releases more radon gas into the air and other radioactive elements into the water, including thorium, radium, and radon. Exposure to these radioactive elements is dangerous on two levels: As a heavy metal, uranium in drinking water can damage liver and kidney function; exposure to the radiation via the mineral dust or radon gas it produces is known to cause cancer and birth defects, as well as damage human DNA. This DNA damage can be passed along genetically, increasing the susceptibility of future generations to certain diseases.

Largely developed in Texas, in-situ uranium mining has been exported and used at a variety of sites around the world with varying degrees of success. In Eastern Europe, the use of harsh solvents to strip out the uranium deposits coupled with weak environmental oversight led to the contamination of drinking-water supplies in communities in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. When in-situ mining proposals reached Australia a decade ago, the Australian Conservation Foundation hired Gavin Mudd of the Victoria University of Technology to conduct an environmental assessment.

“The environmental impacts are generally underground and therefore, on the surface, it would appear that such negative impacts are minimal. However, the quality of groundwater and the mined aquifer are permanently altered as a result of ISL mining,” Mudd wrote in 1998. “The industry will continue to claim that the ISL technique is ‘environmentally benign,’ but the reality of the depressed world uranium supply simply dictates that future uranium production will come from ISL merely due to its lower overall production costs.”

If the in-situ method represents an improvement over the old dig-and-dump uranium mines, it’s worth noting that Texas regulators didn’t get any such upgrade. Take, for instance, this May 24, 1999, communication from the Texas Department of Health’s Incident Investigations Program in the Bureau of Radiation Control concerning a spill of 2,000 gallons of uranium-polluted water by Cogema Mining at a site outside Bruni, Texas — considered by some the birthplace of industrial in-situ mining:

“This is in reference to your facsimile (FAX) to the Agency dated May 11, 1998, concerning the spill of U3O6 at the West Cole Wellfield III by well 627. I am sorry to be responding after nearly a year but the facsimile was evidently lost in the paper shuffle for over a year. After review of your report, I have a couple of questions concerning the spill that should be clarified for future reference … ”

Such spills are not unheard of in the in-situ mining world. In fact, the same company had already reported three other spills that same year: 2,500 gallons in February 1998, 20,000 gallons in May 1998, and 8,000 gallons in July 1998.

Three years earlier, Manuel Longoria sued Uranium Resources, Inc. at another Bruni site for dumping “massive amounts of wastewater” into a spring-fed pool known as Arroyos de los Angeles and fouling his groundwater, according to a lawsuit filed in district court in Duval County.

Like the Australian researcher, public-health advocates aren’t as concerned about the visible spills topside as they are about what may be happening beneath the surface. So far, only a handful of the mine operators have managed to return the groundwater to the same quality it was before mining got underway, a survey of state data shows. The amount of water consumed by in-situ mining should also set off alarms in drought-prone, water-poor South Texas, says Mark Walsh, who has dogged the URI Kingsville mine for years as a member of South Texas Opposes Pollution.

“All of the billions of gallons of water used to mine this, and then we end up destroying the aquifer in so many places,” Walsh said. “We’re in the biggest drought since the 1950s. Whatever we have in the aquifer we have to protect, but we want to protect the uranium companies.”

According to data from the South Texas Water Authority, last summer URI was using about a million gallons per month mining at Ricardo, Texas. About one-fourth of that water was ultimately shot down deep disposal wells as waste. URI officials say that while mining stopped in June due to the collapse of uranium prices, a skeleton staff continues running roughly 20-million gallons per month minimum through reverse-osmosis units in an attempt to clean up contamination at its three Kingsville mine fields.

The company also hasn’t ruled out applying for an amendment to its permit that would increase the amount of contaminants they would be able to legally leave behind, according to URI Executive Vice President Rick Van Horn.

“That’s certainly something we can look at doing if we feel we’ve done everything that we can as far as cleaning the groundwater up, but that’s something that is going to be the subject — if we do that — will be the subject of public hearings and the state would have to sign off on that,” Van Horn said. “It’s not just something we could do unilaterally.”
---

URI has also started funding promising research at Texas A&M Kingsville into the ability of hydrogen to remove heavy-metal pollution from water. So far, injecting and circulating hydrogen at the Kingsville Dome site has succeeded in reducing uranium contamination in the groundwater from around 5,000 parts per billion to 70 ppb, according to lead researcher Lee Clapp, associate professor of environmental engineering. The EPA’s threshold for uranium in drinking water is 30 ppb.

But Clapp and his team have had trouble circulating the hydrogen widely enough through the well field to reach all of the existing contamination. And no one knows how long the treatment will successfully keep the uranium out of the water column. After a period of time, the leftover uranium could start to migrate again.

“Those are absolutely critical research questions we’re looking into,” Clapp said. So far, he adds, “I think the results are pretty encouraging.”

Clapp is in communication with researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey who are keen to apply the research at contaminated federal waste sites, but Kleberg County officials are interested as well. In recent years, heavy groundwater pumping by the city has reversed the flow of subsurface water so that it no longer flows toward the Gulf of Mexico south of Kingsville but instead flows back toward the city. Since URI’s mine is located several miles south of the city, some observers are concerned that the contamination could migrate upstream to city wells. Even if URI abandoned their operations and shut down all of their pumps, the Texas Water Board estimates it would take more than 1,000 years for the contamination to reach Kingsville. But slow-moving water is still poisoned water.

“The fact of the matter is, they have these applications, they say they’re going to return the water to such-and-such a level when they know they can’t, and the state knows they can’t,” says Ann Ewing, of South Texas Opposes Pollution. “So why do they even put that in there?”

It’s doubly instructive to consider that when Kleberg County tried to stop the expansion of mining operations by URI until the existing contamination was cleaned up, they gained the support of an administrative law judge with the State Office of Administrative Hearings, who ruled the expansion request should be approved “contingent upon URI’s restoriation of [Production Area] 1 and substational progress toward the completion of PA 2.” Turned out the company had bigger friends, and backed by three members of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality it moved forward anyway.

Up the road in Goliad County, Uranium Energy Corp is working hard to open an in-situ operation. The groundwater district and the county government charge that the company has already fouled the local aquifer by punching nearly 100 exploratory holes in the subsurface water sands. Instead of closing these holes within 48 hours as state law demands, many of them were left open to the elements for several weeks. With air and rainwater shooting down the shafts, Groundwater District president Dohman says the uranium reacted to the oxygen and began to dissolve out of the water sands, polluting the Evangeline Aquifer.

The fight over uranium mining in Goliad is significant, because it may represent the first time a South Texas community has been organized enough to take a thorough assessment of its water quality before uranium-exploration drilling got underway. State law requires companies to sample the water to establish its quality prior to mining, but this is often done after exploration drilling takes place, a process that inevitably stirs up some contaminants in the water and skews subsequent baseline samples. A contested case hearing over the UEC permit applications will be held before the State Office of Administrative Hearings early next year.

Recently, a former Kingsville Dome employee surfaced in nearby Yorktown to help fight off UEC’s advance. Roland Burrows worked as a well-field operator for URI for five months in 1996, and says he witnessed the company routinely flushing the well field with far more water than allowed by the terms of its permit. He claims to have witnessed the falsification of monitoring-well data by company employees, which must be submitted regularly to TCEQ to show that contaminated water is contained at the mine site.

After more than one confrontation with his supervisors over these alleged practices, Burrows says he was out shutting down some of the offending injection wells about 45 minutes before sunrise on July 27, 1996, when a crop duster spraying an adjacent field crossed over the mine and dropped a load of malathion on him. He quickly showered, changed his clothes, and returned to work, where he promptly passed out. Within a week, doctors at South Texas Cost Containment cleared him to return to work despite a diagnosis of exposure to pesticide spray.

Harry Anthony, the URI engineering manager at the time, who is now an employee of UEC, did not return repeated phone calls from the Current, but Van Horn provided a document that showed an investigation by the TNRCC (now the TCEQ) was carried out the following year that cleared the company of any wrongdoing associated with Burrows’s charges.

---
From the vantage point of a refurbished uranium mill in Karnes County, Greg Kroll feeds mesquite wood into a small cooker. His company, South Texas Mining Venture, is watching uranium values, and a number of potential future mining sites.

Well over 6 feet tall and broad-chested, Kroll laughs off suggestions that elevated uranium levels at abandoned mining sites in the area could be hazardous to human health. “Look what it did to me! It probably stunted my growth!” he says goodnaturedly.

City Attorney McAda understands the pull uranium mining can have in a community of limited means. “It’s an interesting dynamic,” he says “You probably know there’s something wrong there, you just don’t want to know about it. You don’t want to ask. You don’t want to know too much.

“When I grew up in Kenedy and Karnes City, they were thriving little towns. We still had stores downtown, car dealerships. They were really going. They were driven by uranium mining and oil and gas services.” After he returned from college and law school eight years later, everything had changed. “Those towns had just died. The mines had shut down … When it shut down, it killed those towns.”

Like URI, Mining Ventures is waiting for the economy to recover, and for uranium prices, at $45 dollars a pound today, down from a high of nearly $140 a pound in 2007, to rebound. With the early signs of a uranium-mining revival now apparent, a counterbalancing vigilance is also on the rise.

Donald Dugosh lives across the street from Rio Grande Resource’s unlined dump at Panna Maria. Though the waste from the pit has already leaked into the underground aquifer, Rio Grande Resources wants to reopen its uranium mill to process the ore from the new generation of in-situ sites. If a permit pending with the state is approved, operators would be allowed to shoot the resulting toxic mill waste down deep injection wells nearby. The draft permit allows for 131 million gallons of radioactice and toxic waste to be shot down the holes each year, to a depth of 6,000 feet — just over a thousand feet beneath the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer, considered the deepest underground source of drinking water in the area.

“They’re supposed to take the waste back and re-inject it back into the formation,” Dugosh says. “But these folks here want to be cheap and just deep inject it here.”

And therein lies the crux of the dilemma: How much will Texans be willing to risk for another injection of mining income. With much of the nuclear debate in San Antonio focused on the water needs of the two proposed new reactors, what are we to do with the wasted waters already bequeathed to us from decades of uranium mining, processing, and dumping? Are we ready for another round?

In white shirt and clerical collar, Father Kurzaj still serves as a reminder of the impacted families and fouled aquifers of Karnes County. He speaks in hope that past actions won’t be repeated, that the hunger of distant power plants and the pursuit of profit won’t poison the waters again. After all, Kurzaj asks: “If the water is contaminated and the cattle and people cannot drink it, what is this land for? For nothing.”

http://www.sacurrent.com/news/story.asp?id=70530

Nuclear power Only problems No solutions

Sometimes, it is important to restate the obvious.

Why is smoking bad for you? Because it causes cancer.

Why is it not a good idea to drive drunk? Because it can lead to serious accidents.

Why should we get rid of nuclear power? Because it is dangerous, expensive, dirty and not helpful.

Although for decades the arguments against nuclear power have been –and still are- strong and valid, there is an increasing group of nuclear companies supported by scientists and politicians, who say we need nuclear power to fight climate change and to be independent. They also claim that all the problems associated with nuclear power are almost solved or solved.

Why do they say this? Because for them, nuclear power means profits, power and politics. In March 2007 on the 50th birthday of the Euratom Treaty, more than 600,000Europeans and 800 European organisations demanded that European leaders phase out nuclear power, end the Euratom Treaty and massively invest in energy saving, efficiency and renewable energy.

Why do they say this? Because for them safety, sustainability and social behaviour are important.

In this booklet, we restate the obvious by listing many hard, recent and Europe-related facts on the failures and dangers of nuclear power.

All information comes from renowned and/or independent sources.

We look at the impossibilities of permanent storage of nuclear waste, the financial and technical problems of building new nuclear power plants, the impacts of dirty uranium mining, the numerous and serious nuclear accidents that have taken place recently, the dangers of proliferation, and the data that show that nuclear power does not help to save the climate.

To us, these facts lead to one obvious conclusion: nuclear power has no future…

Download Nuclear power Only problems No solutions.Pdf

http://www.ebookoo.net/nuclear-power-only-problems-no-solutions.html

Water helps fuel debate on the STP

Web Posted: 09/13/2009 12:00 CDT
Water helps fuel debate on the STP
By Anton Caputo, Express-News- and Asher Price, Austin American-Statesman

During the intense Southeast drought of 2007, when the region desperately needed to power its air conditioners, the Browns Ferry nuclear complex in Alabama had to shut down one of its reactors for more than a day and significantly reduce power from two more.

In the deadly European heat wave of 2003, many of the French nuclear plants were in a similar bind and were forced to power down as thousands were overcome by heat-related illnesses.

The culprit in both cases was a lack of water in the rivers used to operate and cool the reactors.

Situations like these have many questioning if there possibly can be enough water in fast-growing, drought-prone South Texas to meet the needs of two more nuclear reactors being proposed at the South Texas Project plant outside Bay City.

But San Antonio’s CPS Energy and partner New Jersey-based NRG Energy, which want to build the reactors, contend they have the legal rights to all the water they need. Those rights, negotiated with the Lower Colorado River Authority, give the plant access to some 102,000 acre-feet of water a year, a massive amount equivalent to roughly half of San Antonio’s water needs in a dry year.

That figure includes 20,000 acre-feet of guaranteed, drought-ready water from the Highland Lakes. If two more reactors are built, the guaranteed amount — already reserved by South Texas Project Operating Company — doubles to 40,000 acre-feet each year.

Those Highland Lake rights are firm rights, meaning that during dry times, the LCRA must cut off the farmers and all others who own lesser rights to supply the nuclear facility.

This ready supply of water helps makes the site one of the best in the country for new reactors, boast energy company officials. But with the state in the midst of a drought rivaling the infamous dry period of the 1950s and more people and businesses eyeing the Colorado River’s water, many fighting against the reactors claim that water is a potential Achilles heel.

“Sure, they have the rights,” said Karen Hadden of the Austin-based SEED Coalition. “But that doesn’t mean the water is going to be there.”

Reservoir protects river

Water, in many ways, is the lifeblood of a nuclear power plant. It’s heated into steam to turn the turbines that create electricity as well as used to cool the reactors. Most of the water is not consumed in the process, but instead returned to the river or reservoir it came from.

Still, vast amounts need to be available for the reactors to operate. This water dependence is shared by many energy sources, including plants that use coal and concentrated solar.

Mike Kotara, CPS Energy’s vice president in charge of energy development, said most of those painting nightmare scenarios of the STP’s reactors running out of water either don’t understand or ignore the plant’s plans to guarantee water is available, even during drought.

The Colorado River serves as the main water supply for the two reactors that have been operating on site since the 1980s, just as it would for the two proposed reactors.

However, the plant doesn’t pull water directly from the river; nor does it discharge directly into the river. Water is pulled via massive pumps into a 7,000-acre reservoir, where it’s held for the plant’s use.

This distinction is important, Kotara said. That’s because it eliminates the problem faced by the reactors in Alabama and France. Drought caused those shutdowns, but it wasn’t a lack of water to operate the plant that forced the issue. It was because the heated water the reactors were discharging back into the already depleted rivers raised the water temperatures higher than environmental laws allowed.

“We avoid that completely because we don’t discharge into the river,” Kotara said.

Lauren Ross, an environmental engineer hired by groups fighting the proposed reactors, acknowledged they likely could avoid the problems that plagued Browns Ferry and the French reactors in past droughts. But her questions have more to do with the supply of water to serve the reservoir and whether it’s the best use for the resource in growing South Texas.

Any potential interruption of the water supply, she said, makes the investment — estimated at $13 billion by CPS Energy – more questionable.

If a water shortage were to occur, the plant’s operators would be forced to choose between potentially expensive backup plans to supply water, or simply cut down the plant’s output, probably at a time when the area needs the power the most.

“If you build a facility and there is not an adequate water supply to cool it, basically it increases the cost of electricity,” Ross said. “What’s the cost per kilowatt hour? They have not given us any information about that.”

Water rights may be cut

The sprawling reservoir that serves the STP can hold slightly more than 200,000 acre-feet of water and originally was engineered to serve four reactors.

On average, STP pulls a bit more than 37,000 acre-feet of water a year into its reservoir. That’s expected to roughly double if two new plants are built, Kotara said.

STP is allowed to suck out 55 percent of the river’s flow above 300 cubic feet per second to fill its reservoir. This means it can act the glutton during a deluge and gets nothing when the river runs low.

In recent years, water pulled from the river peaked at roughly 60,000 acre-feet and fell to as low as zero in 2003. This year, STP has drawn only about 14,000 acre-feet.

The LCRA’s guarantee of 40,000 acre-feet from the Highland Lakes means that backup should be available even during a repeat of the ’50s drought, LCRA officials said. That drought is the worst on record and generally used as the standard for water planners.

Some, like Ross, argue that climate change or even natural variation in climate necessitates that water planners consider preparing for droughts worse than that of the ’50s. There’s a chance she could be proven right soon.

LCRA officials say there is a 10 percent probability the current drought could eclipse that of the 1950s by May.

If that were to happen, the agency would consider cutting back firm water rights across the board until the drought let up. That would mean the STP would have to depend on its reservoir to hold out and, essentially, pray for rain.

“If the drought become worse than the drought of record, then we are still likely to have enough water in the reservoir to allow operation of the units,” said Kotara. “But we may elect to modify operation of the units in order to preserve water in the cooling reservoir to ensure that we can operate the units at full output during the summer months when it is needed the most.”

STP officials said that during severe drought, they would consider pumping brackish water into their facilities, but history has shown they are loath to do so.

Salt vs. fresh water

STP depends on rights negotiated when the plant was proposed in the 1970s. But the process to obtain them was far from smooth and acts as an insight into how valuable water is considered in the region.

The water supply contract between LCRA and the nuclear power plant was born in litigation and was mired in it again recently. The reason for the litigation, at bottom, was the difference between fresh and salt water.

STP sits beside a fluctuating line known as the “salt water wedge,” where upstream fresh river water meets downriver brackish gulf water, said Lyn Clancy, a lawyer for the LCRA.

The nuclear plant operators are reluctant to pull in salt water because it’s corrosive and damages expensive intake equipment. In a pinch, the reactors can use salt water, said Kotara, but in general, the plant’s operators want to keep as much fresh water in the river in possible to push the saltwater wedge downriver of the facility.

What began as a legal battle over fresh water during STP’s original planning erupted again in 2004 when plant operators began to worry that a project being pushed by the San Antonio Water System might harm its water rights, said Karen Bondy, manager of river services for the LCRA.

STP was concerned that the proposed LCRA-SAWS project, which would have piped tens of thousands of acre-feet of water each year from the Colorado River to San Antonio, would rob it of fresh water. The operator claimed LCRA was in breach of contract because it was threatening to change the way the river was operated.

In a settlement reached in 2006, the LCRA agreed to clarify its water rights, to ask San Antonio to invest in a project on studying water quality in the Matagorda County area, to communicate routinely, and to cut a break on water rates after 2030, when the current contract (signed in 1976) runs out.

STP pays $800,000 a year now, under the 1976 contract, to have access to 102,000 acre-feet, including 20,000 acre-feet of firm supply.

After 2030, the operator of the South Texas Project will pay 67 percent of the standard firm water rate for every drop of firm water it uses, and 52 percent of the normal reserve rate for every bit of firm water it reserves but doesn’t use.

The LCRA-SAWS project has since fallen apart and spawned a lawsuit between the two utilities.

Given all the competition for water, Ross questions whether it’s smart to tie up such vast amounts for power production for decades to come.

Kotara, though, sees the issue from a drastically different angle.

“The issue here that is being overlooked is what happens if CPS is not a partner in STP 3 and 4,” he said. “Some other community in Texas would benefit from the water rights that already exist, and some other community would benefit from the power derived from those water rights. And San Antonio would have to look for another place to build a power plant and we would have to find water.”

Asher Price is a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/Water_helps_fuel_debate_on_the_STP.html

2 Fla. PSC staffers resign, 2 more suspended as panel mulls rate hikes to pay for nuke plants

Comment: We the people of Virginia need to look at all our state and local leaders and their affiliation with the local or Canadian Uranium Company! If we find problems, fire them or reprimand the leaders!

By: BILL KACZOR
Associated Press
09/09/09 5:10 AM PDT

TALLAHASSEE, FLA. — Two top Public Service Commission staffers resigned Tuesday and two others went on administrative leave as alleged ethics lapses again overshadowed a hearing on proposed rate increases — this time to pay for new nuclear power plants.

At least the appearance of a too-cozy relationship with Florida Power & Light Co., one of two utilities seeking higher nuclear rates, led to the resignation of Ryder Rudd as director of strategic analysis and governmental affairs.

Rudd, whose duties included lobbying the Legislature, last month acknowledged he and his wife attended a Kentucky Derby Party at the home of an FPL executive. That disclosure came as the commission began hearings on a separate FPL request to raise its base rates.

Commissioner Nancy Argenziano's chief adviser, Larry Harris, also resigned at her request after admitting he gave the private messaging code for his smartphone to an FPL executive.

Argenziano questioned Harris after reading an online report over the Labor Day weekend posted by the Miami Herald/St. Petersburg Times Tallahassee Bureau saying at least three commission staffers had given smartphone codes to an FPL lawyer. That potentially allowed utility officials to communicate directly with commissioners outside public view.

Commission spokeswoman Cynthia Muir confirmed both resignations. Muir said Commissioner Lisa Edgar also put her top aide, Roberta Bass, on administrative leave pending further review. The Herald/Times later Tuesday reported William Garner, chief adviser to commission Chairman Matthew Carter, also had been placed on administrative leave. Garner had given the private code for instant messaging from his smartphone and Bass had done so for Edgar's smartphone, the newspapers reported.

State Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, dashed off a letter to Senate President Jeff Atwater, R-North Palm Beach, asking him to let the chamber's Ethics and Elections Committee question the commissioners and their staffers.

"It is unfortunate that the agency tasked to make certain that a proper balance between the needs of the business community and the utility customer is maintained is so obviously skewed toward the utilities," Fasano wrote.

Last week, Fasano also urged Gov. Charlie Crist to hold up a decision on whether to reappoint two of the commissioners, until after rate cases involving FPL and Progress Energy Florida are resolved.

While the internal turmoil was going on behind the scenes, an environmental group urged the five-member commission in public session to put plans for new and upgraded nuclear plants on hold because they no longer are economically feasible.

Gary Davis, a lawyer for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, cited such factors as falling demand for power, declining natural gas prices, rising nuclear plant construction costs and federal legislation requiring more efficient appliances and setting higher renewable energy standards.

"When utilities bet the farm on an $18 billion project the rate payers suffer if the bet goes bad," Davis said.

FPL lawyer Bryan Anderson emphasized the utility's proposal would add only 67 cents to a monthly bill for 1,000 kilowatt hours, which is fairly typical. Anderson said feasibility studies show adding two more units to FPL's Turkey Point complex and upgrading the rest of the facility would be "solidly cost-effective."

Joseph McGlothlin of the state's Office of Public Council said FPL is relying on an outdated 2007 forecast.

Progress Energy wants an increase of $2.38 per 1,000 kilowatt hours a month to help pay for a new plant in Levy County. That request is expected to come up later in the hearings scheduled through Friday.

The commission is expected to rule on both requests in December. If the increases are approved they would be in effect throughout 2010. The nuclear cost recovery requests are on top of proposals by both companies to raise base rates.

FPL's base rate proposal would raise it by $12.40 for 1,000 kilowatt hours. Progress Energy is seeking a $13 increase for 1,000 kilowatt hours.

FPL is Florida's largest electric utility and serves 4.5 million homes, businesses and other customers in South Florida and along the east coast.

Progress Energy has about 1.7 million Florida customers mostly in the Tampa Bay area, Orlando suburbs and Big Bend region.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/economy/ap/58033407.html

US - Russia to Promote Community Partnership Programs

2009-09-07 12:50:15 - Russia's Tenex plans to partner with US Nuclear Power Plant Operators to improve the quality of life for the people who live and work in operators service territory and around their nuclear generating stations through contributions, sponsorships, volunteerism, executive involvement on nonprofit boards and in-kind donations.


Gainesville, FL, September 07, 2009 --

Sigma Transnational today announced that Russia's Tenex plans to partner with US Nuclear Power Plant Operators to improve the quality of life for Americans who live and work in operators service territory and around their nuclear generating stations through contributions, sponsorships, volunteerism, executive involvement on nonprofit boards and in-kind donations.

Sigma Transnational outlined Russia's Tenex community strategy in a move to bolster Tenex’s corporate image in the eyes of their customers. US utilities: Constellation Exelon, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., AmerenUE; and Luminant. These companies signed contracts with Russia's Techsnabexport (Tenex) for delivery of enriched uranium between 2014 and 2020. These six (6) contracts with US utilities are the first to be signed since the conclusion of the Amendment to the Russian Suspension Agreement of February 2008. Under the amended agreement, the USA will import Russian commercial uranium products from 2011 under new legislation. The amendment allows Russian companies to sell low-enriched uranium (LEU) to US nuclear generators. Russia will be able to supply limited amounts of nuclear fuel for reactor reloads from 2011, while the supply of initial fuel loads for new reactors would be unlimited. All limits are to be phased out by 2021.

The Constellation Energy contract and two (2) Exelon Contracts have already been approved by the U.S. Dept of Commerce. The remaining three (3) contracts Pacific Gas & Electric Co., AmerenUE; and Luminant will also go through the U.S. Dept. of Commerce Review process.

About Constellation Energy
Constellation Energy (NYSE: CEG), headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, generates, trades, supplies, and distributes energy. The company operates over 35 power plants in 11 states (mainly Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, and California) under its operating company Constellation Commodities Group and/or Constellation Generation Group. Constellation NewEnergy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Constellation Energy, is a leading competitive supplier of electricity, natural gas and energy-related services to commercial, industrial and institutional customers throughout North America. Constellation NewEnergy serves more than 19,000 commercial, industrial and institutional customers throughout 31 states and three Canadian provinces representing nearly 14,000 megawatts of peak load and more than 354 billion cubic feet (1.00×1010 m3) of annual natural gas consumption. Constellation Energy also manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive industries and utilities. It owns a diversified fleet of 83 generating units located throughout the United States, totaling approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity. The company delivers electricity and natural gas through the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE), its regulated utility in central Maryland.

About Exelon:
Exelon Corporation has one of the industry’s largest portfolios of electricity generation capacity, with approximately $19 billion in annual revenues. Exelon distributes electricity to approximately 5.4 million customers in Illinois (ComEd) and Pennsylvania (PECO), and gas to 485,000 customers in the Philadelphia area (PECO) and the third largest commercial nuclear fleet in the world.

About Tenex in North America:
Techsnabexport» — brand name TENEX — is owned by Atomenergoprom, which has a 40% share in the world’s uranium enrichment services, 17% in nuclear fuel production, 8% in uranium mining, and 28% in NPP construction (10 reactors). Tenex is the world’s largest exporter of Russian nuclear fuel cycle and delivers uranium products to meet reactor requirements of Nuclear Power Plants in the USA. Tenex product to the USA is low-enriched uranium down-blended from highly enriched uranium extracted from dismantled warheads (HEU-LEU Agreement). To obtain more information on Tenex www.sigmatran.com/tenex.htm

About Sigma Transnational Inc.:
Sigma Transnational is a global professional consulting company focused in Energy, Telecommunications, Pharmaceutical and Transportation sectors. Sigma Transnational is an advocate their clients and provides the following functions, which includes but not limited to: Project Management, Business Development, Executive Account Management, Public Relations, Marketing, Promotions and Strategic Positioning, Market Research and Intelligence, Liaison between private enterprise and government agencies, Relationship Management and Leveraging, Advice, Interpretation and Positioning of news events, and Crisis Management. Sigma Transnational is the JSC Techsnabexport (Tenex) North American Associated Partner.
To obtain more information on Sigma Transnational www.sigmatran.com

Contact:
Dale Forrester
Sigma Transnational Inc
Gainesville, FL
404-583-7775
press@sigmatran.com
sigmatran.com
Kontaktinformation:
Sigma Transnational Inc
Gainesville, FL
Kontakt-Person:
Dale Forrester
Phone: 404-583-7775
E-mail: e-mail
Web: http://sigmatran.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presse-Information:
Sigma Transnational Inc
Gainesville, FL
Kontakt-Person:
Dale Forrester
Phone: 404-583-7775
E-mail: e-mail

Web: http://sigmatran.com
http://www.pr-inside.com/us-russia-to-promote-community-r1468679.htm