Nuclear Industry Spent Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Over the Last Decade to Sell Public, Congress on New Reactors, New Investigation Finds
The nuclear industry claims that there is increased public support for nuclear power as a solution to climate change, and some members of Congress are arguing that massive incentives for new nuclear reactors are critical to passing a climate and energy bill. Today, the Obama administration is expected to propose tripling the amount of loan guarantees to the industry to $54 billion and there are proposals in Congress to add billions more through a new "clean" energy fund and other incentives to support nuclear power expansion.
Where did all this support for new nuclear reactors come from? Let's follow the money.
Growing support for new nuclear power comes after an extensive decade-long campaign in which companies and unions related to the industry have spent more than $650 million on lobbying and campaign contributions from 1999 through 2008, according to a new analysis by former Los Angeles Times reporter Judy Pasternak, now with the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. In the first three quarters of 2009 alone, the nuclear energy industry spent $84 million lobbying Congress.
read more... www.ucsusa.org/news/media_alerts/nuclear-industry-spent-millions-to-sell-congress-on-new-reactors-0343.html
Proponents back legislation requiring radioactive site clean-up
By Diana Armstrong
Citizen staff writer
January 28th, 2010
CLEAN WATER, CLEAN IMAGE – Royal Gorge Anglers owner Bill Edrington addresses the crowd gathered at the Fremont County Courthouse Tuesday. Edrington said his business in Canon City is just one of the many businesses that are dependent on keeping the river, and its image, clean. For story, click on “News” button at left. (Citizen staff photo by Diana Armstrong)
A new state legislation campaign that prevents uranium processing facilities from starting new milling operations while still cleaning up past contamination sites was announced by its proponents outside of the Fremont County Commissioners Office Tuesday, Jan. 26.
The proposed Uranium Processing Accountability Act requires operators to comply with all cleanup orders before new applications are processed.
Rep. Buffie McFadyen (D-Pueblo West) and Senators Ken Kester (R-Las Animas) and Bob Bacon (D-Fort Collins) are sponsoring the state legislation, which is expected to be introduced in the house later this month.
Under the new legislation, operators also would be required to notify residents about threats to their water if residents have registered wells in close proximity to known groundwater contamination.
If a facility is considering accepting new sources of alternate feed such as radioactive toxic waste from other industrial or medical operations, it would have to amend its operating license.
Fremont County has been the site of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s superfund cleanup site at the Cotter Corporation’s uranium milling facility since 1984. Last year, Cotter announced it is planning to start milling uranium again and be fully operational by 2014.
Fremont County Commissioner Mike Stiehl spoke in support of the new legislation.
“We need to be protecting long-term investment opportunities in Fremont County like tourism and recreation,” he said. “Having a uranium facility with ongoing pollution problems can harm other parts of our economy.”
Stiehl said he has worked for a long time with Cotter on clean-up plans, and although he appreciates their efforts, there needs to be a high standard when it comes to radioactive, toxic uranium pollution.
Sharyn Cunningham of Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste (CCAT) spoke about her experiences living in Lincoln Park about a mile from Cotter’s uranium mill.
She said that for eight years she and her family were drinking and bathing in well water that was being contaminated by uranium from Cotter Corporation. Even though Cotter is a superfund cleanup site, the wells are still contaminated.
“I have two wells that are as contaminated today as they were in 1989,” she said.
According to U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in Colorado alone, taxpayers have spent more than $1 billion cleaning up past uranium milling sites from uranium milling facilities that have gone bankrupt.
Matt Garrington, an advocate with Environment Colorado, said, “Taxpayers have given uranium companies a $1 billion bailout. If uranium companies want to operate in Colorado, it can’t be at the expense of taxpayers and our air and water.” read more... www.florencecitizen.com/news.htm
Environmentalists push for uranium cleanup legislation
Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste seeks to preserve clean air, pure water and scenic landscapes.
By TRACY HARMON
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN
CANON CITY - Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste has teamed with other state conservation groups to push for 2010 legislation that would require the cleanup of Cotter Corp.'s uranium mill.
Jeff Parsons of the Western Mining Action Project said he believes Colorado taxpayers should not foot the bill for cleanup of "bad uranium operations."
"It is common sense to require all uranium operations to clean up their toxic messes. Period," Parsons said.
read more... www.chieftain.com/articles/2010/01/16/news/local/doc4b517b0292247389283014.txt
'Pre-emptive strike' against uranium
1/13/2010
Inspired by a proposed new uranium mill in western Montrose County - the first of its kind in a quarter-century - another bill targets uranium mill operators who pollute the groundwater.
If passed, the bill could have a direct impact on Powertech USA's Centennial Project should the company decide to construct a uranium mill near its proposed in situ leach uranium mine between Wellington and Nunn, said the bill's Senate sponsor, Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins.
The bill, sponsored in the House by Rep. Buffie McFadyen, D-Denver, would prevent a Cotter Corp. uranium mill in Fremont County from further polluting the groundwater. Mill operators would be required to prove they won't contaminate groundwater before they can begin or continue uranium milling.
Bacon said the Cotter mill has been polluting the water near Cañon City for years and the bill will prevent the contamination from getting worse.
"Should they receive any additional (uranium) shipments, then they need to ensure they don't have a Superfund site forever," he said.
He called the bill a "preemptive strike" against the Montrose County mill and any effort on the part of Powertech to build a mill as part of the Centennial Project northeast of Fort Collins.
"If a milling operation would be at Nunn after they have leached the uranium out of the soil, then this would be the requirement," Bacon said.
read more... www.coloradoan.com/article/20100110/NEWS01/1100304/Politicos-choose-priorities-as-new-legislative-session-begins-Wednesday
EXPERTS: THREE LATEST INDUSTRY SETBACKS FURTHER DIM NUCLEAR “RENAISSANCE,” TAXPAYER-BACKED LOAN GUARANTEES CAN’T FIX FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH NEW REACTORS
Rejection by Private Financing, Skyrocketing Cost Projections, Falling Demand, and Faulty Reactor Designs Can’t Be Solved With U.S. Shifting to “Nuclear Socialism” to Bail Out Industry.
WASHINGTON, DC.///December 16, 2009///The beleaguered nuclear power industry is now the “public option” of U.S. energy, unable to move forward without a bailout in the form of taxpayer-backed loan guarantees involving a high risk of default.
Citing three recent negative developments for the nuclear power industry, that warning was issued today by a group of leading experts: Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, and author of “The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse?” (2009); Stephen Thomas, professor of energy studies, University of Greenwich, London, and member of the editorial boards of Energy Policy, Utility Policy, Energy and Environment, and International Journal of Regulation and Governance; and Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, and author of Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free:A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy (2007).
Cooper, Thomas and Makhijani held a news conference today amidst speculation that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) could announce its first loan guarantee for a new reactor before the end of 2009.
The expertshighlighted three recent setbacks for the industry: the recent $4 billion price hike for two proposed new reactors in Texas; a major new report from the financial world that concludes that only nuclear socialism (in the form of massive government financing) will allow the industry to expand; and major safety concerns cited by U.S. and European regulators about the two most popular proposed reactor designs in the United States.
Though $18.5 billion in loan guarantees are currently authorized and under discussion for new reactors, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S.1462), which has been passed out of the Energy Committee, authorizes unlimited loan guarantees. The recently unveiled Kerry-Graham-Lieberman "framework" for climate legislation also includes nuclear loan guarantees. The Alexander-Webb bill calling for 100 new nuclear reactors features $4 billion in new nuclear subsidies and an additional $10 billion that could leverage between $100 billion and $1 trillion in loan guarantees, depending on the subsidy cost. The nuclear power industry is on record calling for a miniscule 1 percent subsidy cost, which would result in the $1 trillion scenario.
Cooper, Thomas and Makhijani also stressed that the enthusiasm and optimism shared by some in Washington for nuclear power is not borne out by the facts on the ground.
Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School: “2009 was the seventh year of the so-called ‘Nuclear Renaissance,” but it looks a lot like the U.S. nuclear industry of the 1980s, a decade of no new orders, multiple delays and cancellations, hefty defaults, and emerging cheaper alternatives.Of 26 new nuclear reactor license applications submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2007, 19 have been cancelled or delayed and every private sector project has suffered a downgrade by credit rating agencies. The reality is that capital markets will not finance new reactors because demand growth has slowed, reactors cost much more than available alternatives and they face too many technology, marketplace, and policy risks; so nuclear advocates have demanded a massive increase in direct federal subsidies to bail the industry out. What we are looking at is the prospect of ‘nuclear socialism’ that could only go farther if it involved outright state ownership of the industry.”
Stephen Thomas, professor of energy studies, University of Greenwich, London, said: “Reactor design and construction problems have vexed the industry for years. In Finland, the Olkiluoto plant was expected to take four years to build but after four years of construction in May 2009, it was still nearly four years from completion and about 75 percent over budget. The vendor and the customer were countersuing each other for compensation for these delays. In France, the country often held up by nuclear advocates as the example others should follow, its Flamanville EPR was more than 20 percent over budget after only a year of construction ... It is now clear that unless electricity consumers are required, as they were in the 1970s and 1980s, to bear all the economic risk – if costs went up, consumer electricity bills went up – nuclear power plants will only be built if governments grant major taxpayer subsidies, such as a guarantee on the electricity price nuclear power plants will receive and loan guarantees so that if the project goes wrong, taxpayers will ensure banks do not lose their money. Paradoxically, the worse the economic case gets for nuclear power, the more determined governments seem to be to force nuclear programmes through and the higher the level of taxpayer support is promised.”
Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said: “No one should be surprised to see the latest accounts of multi-billion-dollar projected cost increases for the South Texas Project. In fact, in March 2008, I estimated costs two to almost three times higher than those advertized by NRG, the project’s developer; and my estimates are the projected costs today, even if there are no delays and other problems. In the late 1970s and early 1980s when the industry consistently overstated likely demand and underestimated costs, which resulted in dozens of cancelled plants and huge debts. The difference today is that the government is willing to underwrite this risky nuclear adventure that is likely to come to no good and waste billions of taxpayer dollars.”
RECENT COST OVERRUNS IN TEXAS
Plans for two new nuclear reactors are in jeopardy in Texas due to a projected $4 billion cost overrun. As the Wall Street Journal reported: “Spooked by escalating costs, a city-owned utility in San Antonio is considering backing out of a venture with NRG Energy Inc. to build two next-generation nuclear reactors in Texas. CPS Energy is expected to make a final decision next month, after it gets an updated cost estimate from Toshiba Corp., which will oversee construction of the two reactors. The project is one of the furthest along in a new crop of nuclear proposals, but it is proving unpopular with city officials. The cost of the reactors, estimated at $10 billion to $12 billion before financing costs, is causing concern at a time when the utility is making big investments in renewable energy and pollution controls. Nuclear-reactor costs also look high right now against competing types of generation, such as gas-fired plants.”
The Journal continued: “The San Antonio city council was poised to approve a $400 million bond issuance in late October, but held back when new numbers came to light that indicated the nuclear project could cost more than expected. Like most municipal utilities, CPS has an appointed board that reports to elected city officials, whose approval is needed for rate changes or bond issuances ... City officials say the cost estimate from Toshiba for the two-reactor project ballooned to $12.1 billion last summer from a preliminary estimate of $8.6 billion in 2007, catching them off guard. Utility documents show its board was working with a figure of $10 billion. NRG says that it is confident it will be able to get the cost below $10 billion, before about $3 billion in financing costs are added. … Even if the final cost is about $10 billion, some city officials feel the project is too costly. ‘Based on the numbers I've seen, I don't think it's the right decision to proceed,’ said Councilman Reed Williams. He said it made economic sense for CPS to build gas-fired plants or buy electricity from others … CPS's skittishness about the cost of nuclear energy is understandable. The first two units at South Texas Project were supposed to cost less than $1 billion but ended up costing more than $5 billion. With that history seared into its memory, San Antonio officials have been sensitive to anything suggesting they could, again, get blindsided by escalating costs.” (See Wall Street Journal, December 5, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125997132402577475.html.)
A similar cost overrun situation is now unfolding in Georgia, at the Vogtle nuclear plant project, which is a finalist for the current round of DOE loan subsidies. Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB) reports: “The proposed construction of two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro could likely have cost overruns and possibly face delays, according to testimony released by the Georgia Public Service Commission. The group monitoring the progress of the new reactors is also being denied access to crucial information about the process, and Georgia Power is not revising economic evaluations based on a variety of factors that include a reduced demand for electricity and cheaper alternatives to nuclear energy, the document says.”
The GBP account continues: “The testimony, dated December 2, comes from PSC staffers and an independent monitor assigned to review Vogtle in advance of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, the second in a semi-annual review of the construction timeline and budget of the reactors. The PSC reviews are required by a state law written after construction of Plant Vogtle's first two reactors in the 1980s skyrocketed from a projected cost of $660 million to $8.87 billion. ‘This project should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny due to higher financial risk to the ratepayer,’ says William Jacobs, an engineering consultant who also serves as the independent monitor for the Vogtle project.” (See Georgia Public Broadcasting, December 14, 2009, http://www.gpb.org/news/2009/12/14/psc-staffers-criticize-georgia-power.)
FINANCIAL MARKET REPORTS: THUMBS DOWN FOR NUCLEAR POWER
A new November 9, 2009 report by Citi Investment Research & Analysis, a division of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is titled “New Nuclear – The Economics Say No.” The report identifies “The Three Corporate Killers”: “Three of the risks faced by developers — Construction, Power Price, and Operational — are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially. This makes new nuclear a unique investment proposition for utility companies. Government policy remains that the private sector takes full exposure to the three main risks; Construction, Power Price and Operational. Nowhere in the world have nuclear power stations been built on this basis. We see little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built in the UK by the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks. Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and / or government-backed power off-take agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built …”
The Citi report continues: “Both Westinghouse and Areva claim to be able to construct a new third generation plant (AP-1000 and EPR, respectively) in 3 years from first pouring of concrete. However, evidence to date suggests this is not necessarily the case, as Olkiluoto and Flamanville projects have both suffered delays, while the first AP-1000 unit under construction, in SanMen China, is running significantly over its $1,000/KW construction cost target and is expected to be over $3,500/KW target on current estimates … We believe that if governments want new nuclear to be part of their energy policy, they will need to provide some support as either these plants will not be built or once they are, won’t be economically viable. (See the full 14-page Citi Investment report at
The Citi report echoes other current financial analyses focusing more narrowly on the U.S. On June 23, 2009, Moody’s Investor Services issued a report titled “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing.” The summary to the report included the following: “Moody's is considering “taking a more negative view for those issuers seeking to build new (U.S.) nuclear power plants … Rationale is premised on a material increase in business and operating risk … most utilities now seeking to build nuclear generation do not appear to be adjusting their financial policies, a credit negative. First federal approvals are at least two years away, and economic, political and policy equations could easily change before then …” See the Moody’s report summary at http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/moodys/PBC_117883.
“The Economics of Nuclear Reactors,” a report released on June 18, 2009 by Dr. Mark Cooper found that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables. The Cooper analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry’s so-called “nuclear renaissance” at the beginning of this decade – a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the “Great Bandwagon Market” of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.
MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT REACTOR DESIGN SAFETY
In November, European safety regulators raised major concerns about both of the designs for new U.S. reactors – the AP1000 and the EPR.
As New Civil Engineer (NCE) reports: “The (UK) Government’s plans to increase the country’s reliance on nuclear power have been thrown into doubt after experts raised a raft of safety concerns about two proposed reactors. Britain’s main safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive, said it could not endorse the use of French and American designed reactors because of wide-ranging concerns about their safety. … in reports on the assessment of the French EPR and US AP1000 reactor designs, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said there was a much more ‘detailed work’ to do before they could be approved for use. The HSE said of both units: ‘We have identified a significant number of issues with the safety features of …that would first have to be progressed. ‘If these are not progressed satisfactorily then we would not issue a design acceptance confirmation.’”
The NCE account continues: “Among the criticisms raised, experts said there were significant concerns about EPR’s proposed architecture, and that improvements were required for ‘hazard barriers’. Other issues relating to the reactor’s structural integrity were also addressed, with the report saying it was ‘too early to say whether they could be resolved solely with additional safety case changes or whether they may result in design modifications being necessary’. The safety case of the AP1000’s internal hazards also showed “significant shortfalls.” (See New Civil Engineer, November 27, 2009,
The European concerns were even broader than those voiced in October by the US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which objected to major problems in the AP1000 reactor design, proposed for use in 14 of 25 proposed new U.S. reactors. Two of the four new nuclear projects that the DOE is reported to be considering for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are AP1000 designs proposed by the Southern Company at the Vogtle site in Georgia and the South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) V.C. Summer site.
The NRC has made it clear that there are grave doubts if the AP1000 nuclear reactor structure can withstand hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and other external impacts, as required by the NRC’s regulations. The NRC said that its “staff has informed Westinghouse that the company has not demonstrated that certain structural components of the revised AP1000 shield building can withstand design basis loads,” and also stated that the unsuccessful efforts to secure information had gone on for a year. The NRC announced: “This is a situation where fundamental engineering standards will have to be met before we can begin determining whether the shield building meets the agency’s requirements.” (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 15, 2009 news release, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-173.html.)
EDITOR’S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on the Web at www.nuclearbailout.org as of 5 p.m. on December 16, 2009.
THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS "THE LARGEST MANAGERIAL DISASTER IN HISTORY."
The driving force of the ‘nuclear renaissance’ is a claim that nuclear power, once up and running, is a carbon-free energy source. The assertion is that a functioning nuclear reactor creates no greenhouse gases and thus contributes nothing to global warming or chaotic weather. That part is almost true, but the claim ignores the total environmental impact of nuclear energy, which includes a long and complicated chain of events known in the industry as the ‘nuclear cycle’. The cycle begins with finding, mining, milling and enriching uranium, then spans through plant construction and power generation to the reprocessing and eventual storage of nuclear waste, all of which creates tons of CO2.
By Mark Dowie
read more... userfiles/file/SriLankaDailyMirror-NukeIndustryDisaster7-30-09.pdf
EUROPEAN EXPERT: U.S. POLICYMAKERS ARE “AS WRONG AS THEY CAN BE” ABOUT THE FRENCH EXPERIENCE WITH NUCLEAR POWER
WASHINGTON, D.C. September 15, 2009
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.
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”. read more... userfiles/file//091509_Marignac_news_release_FINAL1.pdf
EARTHWORKS ENDORSES FEINGOLD/CANTWELL/FEINSTEIN/SANDERS INITIATIVE
Statement of Lauren Pagel, EARTHWORKS Policy Director
Washington, D.C., August 6th -- "S 1570, The Elimination of Double Subsidies for Hardrock Mining Industry Act, is legislation, like 1872 mining law reform, that is long overdue. We applaud Senators Feingold, Cantwell, Feinstein and Sanders for introducing it earlier this week.
Passage would generate $50 million per year, half of which would fund abandoned mine reclamation. This money is sorely needed. The EPA estimates that 40% of the headwaters of western watersheds are polluted by mining, and they also estimate that abandoned mine reclamation will cost $50 billion.
When companies operating in the United States deplete assets, the federal government permits them to deduct a fixed percentage of gross income, thereby reducing their taxes and encouraging investment.
However, in the case of hardrock mining on federal lands, the "depleted" mineral assets are never purchased by mining companies. That's because the 1872 Mining Law enables the mining industry to extract minerals on federal land without paying for them. Because the mining industry gets the minerals for free on federal lands, the percentage depletion allowance is actually a double subsidy.
In these difficult financial times, this bill will save taxpayers millions of dollars while cleaning up our nation's polluted waters." FOR MORE INFORMATION: EARTHWORKS press statement: http://www.earthworksaction.org/PR_PDArepeal.cfm
Feingold press release:
http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=316730
S 1570 bill text:
http://www.earthworksaction.org/pubs-others/111_s1570_text.pdf
EARTHWORKS is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the destructive impacts of mineral development, in the U.S. and worldwide.
Bulgaria needs investors to save nuclear plant plan
By Anna MudevaPosted 2009/07/30 at 10:57 am EDT
SOFIA, July 30, 2009 (Reuters) — Bulgaria's new center-right government must find private investors for its majority stake in the planned Belene nuclear power plant or abandon the project, parliamentarians said on Thursday.
RWE CEO: Company Stands By Bulgaria Nuclear Plant Commitment
August 13, 2009, Thursday, From The Wall Street Journal
German utility RWE AG "is ready to live up" to the commitment it has made as a partner in the consortium that plans to build a nuclear power plant in Bulgaria, but financing needs to be arranged by its partner, the Bulgarian government, Chief Executive Juergen Grossmann said Thursday.
"I can't say that the project is already financed," Grossmann told analysts in a conference call.
RWE owns a 49% stake in a joint venture with Bulgaria's state-owned National Electricity Co. that seeks to build the 2-gigawatt EUR4 billion reactor near the town of Belene. The power plant is planned to begin operations in 2014.
The new Bulgarian government recently said it would review the justification for big energy projects, including Belene, because of the economic crisis.
The government's comments were followed by media reports that said the Belene project is on the brink of failing due to lack of financing. read more... www.novinite.com/view_news.php
13. MYTH: Nuclear energy is the optimal low-carbon energy solution.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has said the United States must “build 100 new nuclear power plants during the next 20 years ... [they produce] more than 70 percent of our pollution-free, carbon-free electricity.”
The California Public Utility Commission found that a new nuclear power plant was more expensive than every other power option except a coal plant with carbon capture and storage. The latest cost estimate for a 1,600 gigawatt nuclear plant is up to $8 billion. Construction of 100 plants could cost at least $800 billion. This same investment would buy four times more wind power capacity.
New nuclear plants would also require copious amounts water—more than any other electricity source. Doubling the fleet of reactors would significantly add to the 57,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste that lacks permanent storage. Nuclear power would not increase energy independence since we import 90 percent of our uranium, while having only 6 percent of the world supply.
RADON EMISSION RATE INCREASES AS COTTER IMPOUNDMENTS DRY, June 30th EPA PUBLIC MEETING on RADON EMISSION REGULATIONS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in conjunction with Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste (CCAT) and Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action (RMCAA), will hold a public meeting on June 30, 2009. A review of radon emission regulations for uranium mill tailings impoundments will be discussed. The meeting will be held at:Quality Inn and Suites, Hwy 50 & Dozier, Canon City, CO, from 6 – 9 pm.
Uranium milling produces large quantities of tailings placed in impoundments. ISL uranium mines utilize evaporation ponds, as well, and are being considered for compliance under these regulations. Tailings contain large amounts of radium, and therefore, they emit large quantities of radon. Radon is a dangerous radioactive gas, and it attaches to dust particles. The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Subpart W is the radon emission standard for operating uranium mill tailings. Over twenty years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was recommending that the limit or standard be set at 2 picocuries per square meter per second. Instead, EPA set the limit at 20.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required EPA to review this standard and, if appropriate, revise it within ten years. By 2001, EPA had still not performed this non-discretionary duty. Because of concerns over air emission violations at the Cotter Uranium Mill, CCAT and RMCAA began discussions in 2006 with the EPA. Failure to reach agreement on this issue led to the filing of a lawsuit. CCAT and RMCAA requested the radon standard review from EPA, and public participation during the review through public meetings, teleconferences, and an internet Webinar. The lawsuit is nearing final settlement. In the meantime, EPA has begun the review of the standard. The June 30th meeting in Canon City is the first of three meetings to be conducted to allow participation from affected communities.
WHY SHOULD YOU CARE? ISL uranium mining is moving forward in Colorado. In 2007, CDPHE confirmed leakage from the Cotter Uranium Mill tailings impoundment. Radon emissions from tailings in the impoundments have been stopped by water coverage, so we are facing a no-win situation. The weight of water covering the tailings threatens the liner and will increase leakage of contamination into groundwater, while drying the impoundments and exposing tailings to the air increases the rate of radon emissions. CDPHE has directed Cotter to dry the Primary and Secondary Impoundments.
EPA regulations require once a year tests for radon at uranium mill tailings impoundments, but EPA can require more frequent testing when a facility nears the radon emissions rate limit. Between 2006 and 2008, as Cotter has been drying the Primary Impoundment, tests showed a 230% increase in the radon emissions rate. In 2008, Cotter’s test results were just a fraction below the NESHAPS limit. CCAT believes the current unusual circumstances warrant more frequent tests. CCAT also has requested proof that alternative measures used to control radon emissions, such as sprinkling the tailings, are supported by scientific research and evidence.
If you care about the air you breathe, or the dust blowing in our winds, participate in this hard-won opportunity for our community to have a voice in decisions that are being made in far-away places. Join us in voicing our concerns and offering our personal experience and knowledge for this review.
Public Meeting: Quality Inn and Suites, Hwy 50 & Dozier, June 30th, 6 – 9 pm.
Sharyn Cunningham, Co-Chair
Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste, Inc.
EPA to rebuild Uranium-polluted Navajo Homes
Cold War-era contamination may affect more than 500 structures.
Flagstaff, Arizona - The federal government plans to spend up to $3 million a year to demolish and rebuild uranium-contaminated structures across the Navajo Nation, where Cold War-era mining of the radioactive substance left a legacy of disease and death.
EPA Reinstates Stricter Toxic Substances Reporting Requirements
From Environmental Leader, April 23, 2009 - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reinstated stricter reporting requirements, under the direction of President Obama, for industrial and federal facilities that release toxic substances that threaten human health and the environment...Under the Bush policies, companies were allowed to file less detailed information to government regulators...The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, signed by President Obama on March 11, 2009, mandated that prior TRI reporting requirements be reestablished. These changes will apply to all TRI reports due July 1, 2009...More than a dozen states sued the EPA over the reduced disclosure requirements and said the easier rules put their citizens at risk of danger from exposure to the chemicals, according to the legal website...the EPA will be in a far better position to ensure that potentially deadly industrial chemicals are handled properly and legally, said AttorneyAtLaw.com. LINK TO FULL ARTICLE: www.environmentalleader.com/2009/04/23/epa-reinstates-stricter-toxic-substances-reporting-requirements/
NRC racing to answer questions on depleted uranium
By BROCK VERGAKIS Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press
March 25, 2009, 11:12AM
SALT LAKE CITY — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is rushing to meet an April 2 deadline to turn over stacks of internal documents that could shed light on why it recently decided to classify large quantities of depleted uranium as the least hazardous type of low-level radioactive waste.
The NRC's decision, which still must undergo a rule-making process that could take up to two years, would open the door for federal facilities and companies around the country to dispose of more than 1 million tons of depleted uranium in Utah and Texas.
Democratic Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who is chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the NRC, have demanded the documents because they believe the agency's March 18 decision disregards the risk depleted uranium poses to public health and safety.
Areva’s application for Idaho uranium facility approved
From staff reports
Published: March 24, 2009
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has accepted an application from Areva to build a multi-billion dollar uranium enrichment facility in Idaho.
Areva NC, a sister company to Areva NP Inc. in Lynchburg, at one time considered putting the facility in the Lynchburg region, but eventually chose Idaho. The Idaho government provided incentives to the company by exempting nuclear fuel facilities from sales tax and capping the facility’s tax assessed value at $400,000.
The company last year expected the facility to cost $2 billion.
Areva submitted an application to build and operate the facility in December. The NRC conducted a preliminary review before accepting the application for formal review. The agency expects the formal review process to take 30 months, according to a news release issued Tuesday. - The News & Advance
Va. panel gives tentative green light to study on uranium mining
JEFF E. SCHAPIRO TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Published: March 24, 2009
A Virginia panel this afternoon tentatively gave a green light to a study on opening the state to uranium mining. A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy endorsed an initial outline of the inquiry, which would examine health, environmental and technical issues, as well as the social and financial implications of mining. Uranium mining has been illegal in Virginia since the early 1980s. But two families in Southside Virginia own property that contains a giant deposit of uranium, potentially worth billions of dollars.
The study pegged to the proposed mine in Pittsylvania County could last at least a year and a half. It would be conducted by the National Academy of Science and could be paid for by industry proponents. Residents of the area fear that a study bankrolled by advocates will be weighted in favor of the proposed mine. But Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech's Coal and Energy Research Center, says the foundation relies only on scientific and technical information. Karmis is serving as a liaison between the commission and the National Academy of Science. - Richmond Times ~ Dispatch
NRC plans Rapid City hearing on Neb. uranium mine
Mar 24 2009 5:22AM
KXNewsTeam
AP-SDUranium Hearing,0120 NRC plans Rapid City hearing on Neb. uranium mine Eds: APNewsNow.
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) Three Nuclear Regulatory Commission administrative judges will hear arguments Tuesday in federal court in Rapid City on the Crow Butte Resource uranium mine near Crawford, Neb.
At issue for the hearing that was prompted by opponents is the mine's request for continued and expanded uranium mining near the South Dakota-Nebraska border and its foreign ownership. - LINK TO FULL ARTICLE - (KXnet.com)
NRC decision on depleted uranium draws rebuke on Hill
By KATHERINE LING, Greenwire
Published: March 20, 2009
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision classifying depleted uranium as the least hazardous type of radioactive material is "unsupportable," the chairman of the House Environment and Energy Subcommittee said yesterday.
Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and subcommittee member Jim Matheson (D-Utah) told the NRC in a letter (pdf): "The arbitrary and capricious mischaracterization of depleted uranium as Class A waste will undermine public confidence in the waste classification system, may increase risks to public health and safety and raises the possibility that additional, uncharacterized and possibly even more dangerous materials could be similarly treated in the future."
Japan Joins the Race for Uranium Amid Global Expansion of Nuclear Power
By Hisane MASAKI
TOKYO - Energy-hungry Japan is revving up its drive to secure uranium abroad as global demand for nuclear power rises amid stubbornly high oil and gas prices and growing environmental concerns.
Itochu, a major Japanese trading firm, announced this month that it and Dallas-based Uranium Resources will conduct a joint assessment of production potential at the Churchrock, New Mexico uranium mine. Itochu will spend as much as 4 billion yen ($34 million) for a 50% stake in the project being developed by Uranium Resources. The mine may produce 400 tons a year, or 4% of Japan's uranium demand, from as early as 2009. - LINK TO FULL ARTICLE - (The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus)
The French Nuclear Industry Is Bad Enough in France; Let's Not Expand It to the U.S.
By Linda Gunter, AlterNet. Posted March 23, 2009.
Areva, France's nuclear industry, has a solid reputation, but a trail of radioactive waste and deaths in Africa follow its wake.
"Why can't the Americans be more like the French?" It's the prevailing pro-nuclear refrain, the latest in the nuclear industry's efforts at fictional reinvention. And until the collapse of his ill-fated and poorly orchestrated presidential run, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was the choirmaster, saying: "If France can produce 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?"This clarion call to newfound Francophilia (remember "freedom fries?") is based on a number of false assumptions, the most obvious being that if France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy, this equates with success.A poodlish U.S. press corps has largely lapped up the spoon-fed propaganda that everything nuclear French is magnifique, conveniently forgetting its post 9/11 self-flagellation after it meekly buckled to the Bush administration's misjudged bellicosity. - LINK TO FULL ARTICLE - (AlterNet)
France's Nuke Power Poster Child Has A Money Melt-down
Harvey Wasserman, Monday, March 23, 2009
The myth of a successful nuclear power industry in France has melted into financial chaos.
With it dies the corporate-hyped poster child for a "nuclear renaissance" of new reactor construction that is drowning in red ink and radioactive waste.
Areva, France's nationally-owned corporate atomic façade, has plunged into a deep financial crisis led by a devastating shortage of cash. - LINK TO FULL ARTCLE - (The Free Press)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ignores Depleted Uranium Risks
CONTACT: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Arjun Makhijani, IEER, 301-270-5500
TAKOMA PARK, Md. - March 18 - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted today to declare that depleted uranium (DU) from enrichment plants is a Class A low-level radioactive waste -- the least dangerous kind that supposedly consists mainly of short-lived radionuclides. In 2005, the NRC had concluded that large amounts of DU were not covered by its existing low-level waste rule and directed its staff to develop recommendations regarding DU classification. The Commission's action also opens the door to classification of other dangerous radioactive wastes in the least hazardous category -- Class A. Commissioner Jaczko dissented and voted in favor of a rulemaking process to determine the classification of DU within the existing low-level waste framework. - LINK TO FULL ARTICLE - (Common Dreams.org)
Government buys back radioactive home
Ben Cubby, Environment Reporter - The Sydney Morning Herald
March 5, 2009
The State Government reached an in-principle agreement to pay a Hunters Hill family $3.4 million to buy their radioactive home, built on the site of a uranium dump, in an out-of-court settlement that raises safety and compensation questions for past and current residents of the street.
The Government has been fighting the purchase for more than six months and has maintained that the land has only low levels of contamination.
But independent tests paid for by Peter and Michelle Vassiliou on their Nelson Parade home contradicted the Government's assurances and found radiation many times the recommended safe levels, including a dangerous hot spot in the ground beneath a bedroom. - LINK TO FULL ARTICLE -
Groundwater Testing Sets Stage for Missouri Uranium Project
Posted: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:30:15 GMT
Author: Gustavson Uranium Systems
BOULDER, CO -- 03/10/09 -- Gustavson Uranium Systems has completed the testing of 66 existing water wells in its exploration program for possible uranium deposits in the Bootheel region of Missouri. The company is now in the planning stages for an exploratory drilling program to help identify what its geologists believe may prove to be a significant deep uranium system underlying portions of Missouri, Tennessee and Kentucky. - LINK TO FULL ARTICLE - (The Earth Times)
The methods and technology used in open-pit mining operations causes the destruction and exhaustion of the planet’s ecosystems. Removing forest cover, destroying soils, contaminating both running water and underground reservoirs, dividing communities, bribing officials, threatening, blackmailing, and violating human rights.
Exelon delays plan for Texas nuclear plant
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Power generator Exelon says it's calling off plans to build a new nuclear plant in Texas.
The Chicago-based company said Tuesday that worries over the economy and limited availability of federal loan guarantees are the reasons behind putting the project at Victoria, Texas, on hold.Exelon has become the second power company in two months to postpone work on a new nuclear plant. St. Louis-based AmerenUE said in April that it was suspending work on a project in Missouri, also because of cost issues.Exelon is the largest nuclear power generator in the U.S.
|
.png)
