URGENT! SIGN ON TO SUPPORT TRANSPARENT AND OBJECTIVE STUDY ON URANIUM MINING! DEADLINE IS TUESDAY 5 PM EASTERN TIME

Map of Radon:  lots of uranium!

Please email Mary at maryo@nirs.org  about the NAS Study of Uranium in Va which is paid for by the Virginia Uranium Inc who is partly own by the Canadians. The study has several members with ties with uranium mining and nuclear power, so VUI got what they paid for because the study is flawed. Email Mary now!

Today's Topics:


1. Urgent: Sign on now for objective U-mining study
(Michael Mariotte)




----------------------------------------------------------------------


URGENT! SIGN ON TO SUPPORT TRANSPARENT AND OBJECTIVE STUDY ON URANIUM MINING! DEADLINE IS TUESDAY 5 PM EASTERN TIME


August 16, 2010


Dear Friends,


Your support is needed to ensure that a National Academy of Sciences' study of URANIUM MINING in Virginia is conducted in the most transparent and objective manner. Your response is needed by COB Tuesday, August 17, 2010. REPLY to maryo@nirs.org

A study of uranium mining of this magnitude has never been undertaken before. The scope of the study is vast and complex; it includes issues from legal framework to public health and safety to mining methods to reclamation and waste management to cultural issues to geology, climate
and water management. The findings will be relied upon by the Virginia General Assembly in deciding whether to allow uranium mining in Virginia.

But it will also set precedent for the entire uranium mining industry in the United States and the rest of the world.

If Virginia allows uranium mining, it may spur exploration and mining in other states on the East Coast, as potential uranium deposits have been detected in many locations, from New Jersey all the way to Florida.

The National Academy of Sciences is currently forming the study committee and has recently released the names of the provisional committee members selected to conduct the uranium mining study. Four of the proposed committee members appear to have conflicts of interest due
to their ties with uranium mining companies. In addition, the proposed study committee lacks a number of experts needed to examine specific issues included in the scope of the study.

Please help us bring these problems with the study committee composition to the National Academy of Sciences' attention by signing the joint comments on the composition of the provisional committee, which are below.

To sign on, please send your name, organization (if one), city and state
to maryo@nirs.org
.

You can view the Statement of Task of the uranium mining study at:
http://dels.nas.edu/global/besr/Uranium
You can read the provisional committee members' bios at:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/committeeview.aspx?key=49253


Thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

August 18, 2010

Dr. David Feary
Study Director
Board on Earth Sciences and Resources
Division on Earth and Life Studies

National Academy of Sciences
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Re: The Composition of Provisional Committee for the Study of Uranium Mining in Virginia, DELS-BESR-09-06
Dear Dr. Feary:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the composition of the provisional study committee on uranium mining in Virginia, established    to examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health,
safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and
processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The
committee's work is extraordinarily important, as the findings of the
study will assist the Commonwealth in determining whether uranium
mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that
safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural
lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens.



Proposed uranium mining has been a controversial issue in the
Commonwealth of Virginia since late 1970s when the uranium mining
deposits were first discovered. For years, this matter has been an
issue of outmost concern for the communities that may potentially be
affected by uranium mining. For these reasons, it is very important
that this uranium mining study be performed by a well-balanced and
objective panel of scientists and experts who are free of any
obligations to the entities that may either benefit or be disadvantaged
by the findings of this study.



Unfortunately, it appears that several members of the provisional
committee have conflicts of interest that could significantly impair
their objectivity and further damage the credibility of this study in
the eyes of the public. As more fully discussed below, we respectfully
request that the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources (thereafter,
BESR) conduct a review of Dr. Corby G. Anderson, Dr. Lawrence W.
Barnthouse, and Dr. Michel Cuney for a potential conflict of interest,
and remove Mr. Henry Schnell from the study committee due to an apparent
conflict of interest.



It has been widely reported in the Virginia local press that the funding
for this study is coming from Virginia Uranium, Inc., the company
seeking to lift Virginia's 1982 ban on uranium mining, and that the
Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University is serving as a mere conduit for
funneling the study funds to the National Research Council. The
Governing Board Executive Council of National Academies was apprised of
this situation in an October 2, 2010 letter signed by over 30 concerned
citizens. Because of the nature of the end source of funding, the
study's credibility is already being questioned by the public.



Under these circumstances, it is especially important that the study
process be conducted in a manner ensuring transparency and an ample
opportunity for public comment.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the BESR extend the comment period until August 30, 2010. Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (thereafter,FACA), the National Academy of Sciences "shall ... provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment on ... appointments before they are made or... in the period immediately following the appointments."

While a 20-day comment period has been the National Academies'
long-standing practice, limiting it to 20 days is not required by law.
In this particular case, given the controversial nature of the issue to
be examined in the uranium mining study, and the fact that most of
Virginia residents received either no notice or insufficient notice of
the commencement of the comment period, the BESR should extend the
public comment period until August 30, 2010 to allow all interested
parties to comment on the composition of the provisional committee.



In addition, we urge the BESR to conduct public hearings to provide an
open public forum for interested parties to participate in the study
committee discussions in accordance with Section 15(b)(3) of FACA, and
to promptly make available to the public a summary of any committee
meetings and any materials provided to the study committee in compliance
with Sections 15(b)(3)-(4). The general public should also be provided
with a sufficient notice of at least thirty (30) days prior to the date
of the public meeting and an opportunity to submit written comments on
the public committee discussions.



We believe that public meetings should be conducted so as to include all
the locations in the Commonwealth of Virginia that may potentially be
affected by uranium mining. Historically, uranium companies have shown
interest in uranium in Culpeper, Fauquier, Franklin, Floyd, Henry,
Madison, Nelson, Orange, Patrick, and Pittsylvania Counties and leased
mineral rights on approximately 50,000 acres in the 1980s. Downstream
from these areas, there are counties and municipalities whose drinking
water could be affected by uranium mill tailings. These counties
include Brunswick, Fairfax, Halifax, Mecklenburg, Virginia Beach,
Chesapeake, and others. If the uranium mining ban is lifted, we would
likely see exploration for uranium in the black shale of Southwest
Virginia, in crystalline granite throughout the Blue Ridge, and in
sedimentary rock in the Coastal Plains, as well as further exploration
in the Northern and Southern Piedmont. Conducting public meetings at
multiple locations will ensure the utmost degree of transparency of the
study process for such a controversial issue as uranium mining.



Potential Conflict of Interest

The National Academies have established policies and procedures for
addressing potential conflicts of interest to be used by committees in
the development of its reports. This policy states that "[i]t is
essential that the work of committees of the institution used in the
development of reports not be compromised by any significant conflict of
interest. For this purpose, the term "conflict of interest" means any
financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the
individual because it (1) could significantly impair the individual's
objectivity or (2) could create an unfair competitive advantage for any
person or organization. Except for those situations in which the
institution determines that a conflict of interest is unavoidable and
promptly and publicly discloses the conflict of interest, no individual
can be appointed to serve (or continue to serve) on a committee of the
institution used in the development of reports if the individual has a
conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed."

We wish to bring the following matters of concern to the attention of
the National Academies and the BESR regarding employment, existing
fiduciary duties, consulting services, and promotional activities of Dr.
Corby G. Anderson, Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse, Dr. Michel Cuney, and Mr.
Henry Schnell that to the best of our knowledge have not been publicly
disclosed as potential conflicts of interest in regard to the uranium
mining study.

Dr. Corby G. Anderson currently serves as s trustee for the Northwest
Mining Association, a trade association, whose stated purpose is to
represent and inform members on legislative, regulatory and technical
issues, to support and advance the mineral resource and related
industries, and to foster and promote economic opportunity. Among the
members of the Northwest Mining Association are Denison Mines Corp., a
publicly traded company operating three uranium mines and two uranium
mills in North America, and Uranium One Inc., one of the world's largest
publicly traded uranium producers. As a trustee of this trade
association, Dr. Anderson has a fiduciary duty to the association and
its members to act in their best interests. Although the study is
designed to examine the feasibility of uranium mining in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the outcome of this study, similar to all
studies completed by the National Academies, will set precedent for the
entire uranium mining industry here in the United States and possibly
around the world. The study findings will serve as the basis for the
Virginia General Assembly's determination of whether to lift the 28-year
ban on uranium mining. The Virginia General Assembly's action on the
uranium mining ban has a potential of impacting economic opportunities
for many uranium mining companies, including the companies that are
corporate members of the Northwest Mining Association.

In addition, to the best of our knowledge, Dr. Anderson routinely
undertakes contracted projects for global industrial client projects,
including serving as an expert witness in mining litigation. Under the
National Academies' Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and
Conflicts of Interest, a consulting relationship, such as serving as an
expert witness in litigation, constitutes a potential financial conflict
of interest.



Furthermore, Anderson also serves on the Board of Directors of Phoenix
Minerals, Inc. and is President and COO of Getty Copper Inc. Both are
publicly traded mining companies. In connection with this, we
respectfully request that BESR investigate whether any of the two
companies currently operate a uranium mine or mill and whether they
presently have plans to mine or mill uranium.



Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse is an owner of LWB Environmental Services,
Inc., a consulting company that provides ecological risk assessments and
risk-based environmental restoration planning. Among Dr. Barnthouse's
clients are large law firms that represent clients from all over the
country in environmental litigation and environmental regulatory
proceedings. This appears to indicate that Dr. Barthhouse serves as an
expert witness for those law firms and their companies on the issues
that are the subject matter of the uranium mining study. The National
Academies' policy on conflicts of interest provides that serving as an
expert witness is a type of consulting relationship that may constitute
a financial interest. Accordingly, we request that BESR further
investigate Dr. Barnthouse for a conflict of interest based on the
nature of the consulting services he provides to his clients. BESR's
review should address whether Dr. Barnthouse serves as an expert witness
on issues that will be examined in the uranium mining study and whether
he provides expert testimony on behalf of uranium mining companies,
regardless of whether they are his direct clients or clients of his
clients.



Dr. Michael Cuney's industry consultation includes work for major
uranium mining companies, such as Areva and Uranor Inc. The findings of
the uranium mining study will determine future economic opportunities
for Dr. Cuney's corporate clients in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Thus, Dr. Cuney's consulting relationship with uranium mining companies
constitutes a potential conflict of interest and warrants review by
BESR.



In addition, as stated in Dr. Cuney's biography, he has visited and/or
worked on most major uranium deposits of the world. BESR should
investigate in what capacity Dr. Cuney traveled to all those mining
sites, who funded his trips and whose interests he represented during
those trips and to which companies he provided the services in
connection with the trips, and whether these companies continue to use
his services.



Furthermore, Dr. Cuney participates in numerous international
conferences. In fact, he was a speaker at the Global Uranium
International Conference held in Colorado in May 2009, where the Coles
Hill, VA deposit was discussed at length. We, therefore, request that
BESR require Dr. Cuney to disclose whether he received any honorarium or
travel expense reimbursements for his participation in these activities
and any other uranium mining conferences and who sponsored his trips to
such conferences.



Mr. Henry Schnell has an apparent conflict of interest based on his
employment. Mr. Schnell holds a senior position in the Mining Business
Unit with Areva NC Inc., a multinational company that owns and operates,
either directly or through its subsidiaries, uranium mines in many parts
of the world, including North America. Specifically, Areva's subsidiary
Pathfinder Mines Corporation operates large uranium mines in Wyoming
that are currently undergoing reclamation. As stated above, the study's
finding will set precedent for the entire uranium mining industry and
will have a potential to affect economic opportunities for many uranium
mining companies, including Mr. Schnell's employer, Areva.



In addition, we would like to bring to BESR's attention the fact that
Areva Inc. is actively involved in promoting uranium mining in Virginia.
Virginia Energy Independence Alliance (thereafter, VEIA), whose two out
of three corporate members are Areva Inc. and Virginia Uranium, Inc.,
has been very outspoken and pro-active in its campaign to support
uranium mining in the Commonwealth. The VEIA Chairman Ray Ganthner has
just retired from his position of Senior Vice President with Areva.
Most recently Mr. Ganthner appeared on behalf of VEIA at the June 22,
2010 public hearing conducted by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission
on uranium mining and spoke publicly on behalf of VEIA in favor of
uranium mining. Because VEIA at this time has only three corporate
members, one of which is Areva Inc., it is reasonable to conclude that
when the VEIA Chairman speaks on the subject of uranium mining, it
represents Areva's views and promotes Areva's best interests.



This demonstrates that Mr. Schnell's employer Areva may directly benefit
or may be disadvantaged by the findings of the uranium mining study.
Because of his employment and his employer's particular interest in
uranium mining in Virginia, Mr. Schnell's objectivity may be
significantly comprised. Mr. Schnell's participation in this study may
create an unfair competitive advantage for Areva. Accordingly, we
request that Mr. Schnell be removed from the study committee due to his
apparent conflict of interest.



Balance of the Study Committee



Under the Statement of Task for the uranium mining study, the study
committee is called upon to examine 12 questions covering a wide range
of areas from legal framework to public health and safety to mining
methods to reclamation and waste management to cultural issues to
geology, climate and water management, etc. Despite the fact that the
scope of the uranium mining study is vast and complex, the study
committee is comprised of only 13 experts. It appears that some of the
issues included in the study will be examined by only one expert. A
committee that has only one expert per issue cannot be characterized as
balanced because the study process will fail to ensure peer review on
one or more issues. For this reason, we believe that the committee
membership must be expanded to include more experts, especially in the
areas highlighted below.



The first item of the Statement of Task directs the study committee to
"assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public
health ... considerations ... including the potential human health
risks." Item 4 directs to "analyze the impact of uranium mining,
milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health."
Comprehensive examination of items 1 and 4 of the Statement of Task
requires an expert in occupational and public health, as well as a
medical doctor. The provisional committee currently includes public and
occupational health experts and epidemiologists but no medical doctor.
We, therefore, request that the BESR appoint an expert with the medical
doctor degree to the study committee.



Pursuant to item 4 of the Statement of Task, the study committee is to
"analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and
reclamation operations ... at sites with comparable .. hydrologic ...
characteristics to those found in the Commonwealth." In addition, item
9 directs the study committee to "identify the issues that may need to
be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and
surface water... As relevant, water and waste management ... may also be
considered." The potential impact of uranium mining on water supply has
been of utmost concern for the communities where uranium mines may be
developed and to the communities, like Fairfax and Halifax Counties and
the City of Virginia Beach, and all the communities in the Roanoke River
Basin including those in North Carolina whose sources of drinking water
are located in areas where uranium mining is likely to occur should the
uranium mining ban is lifted. For this reason, we respectfully request
BESR to ensure that the study committee includes a sufficient number of
experts with the expertise in hydrology and water-related issues.



Item 5 of the Statement of Task directs the study committee to "review
the ... cultural settings ... in the Commonwealth of Virginia." A
comprehensive analysis of the cultural settings requires an expertise in
environmental justice. Unfortunately, it is not apparent from the
information posted on the credentials of the provisional committee
members whether the committee includes experts in environmental justice.
Because uranium mining is likely to affect many communities with
relatively low socioeconomic status and very little influence over
legislative decisions and limited access to the legal system, it is very
important that the issue of environmental justice be examined thoroughly
in the study. To this end, the study committee should be expanded to
include at least two experts in environmental justice with experience of
addressing these issues in the communities affected by uranium mining.
We would welcome an opportunity to provide nominations for all
above-mentioned areas of expertise.



In addition, it appears that the majority of questions under the
Statement of Task require global expertise in uranium mining and broad
knowledge of world-wide trends and experiences of other U.S. states and
foreign nations with uranium mining. Unfortunately, the provisional
committee does not include experts with such level of expertise. We,
therefore, respectfully request that BESR expand the committee to
include at least four experts who have studied the effects of uranium
mining world-wide.

It is also unclear from the published bios of the provisional committee
members whether anyone of them has an expertise required for evaluating
post-mining impacts of tailings impoundments. We, therefore,
respectfully request that BESR ensure that an expert in this very
specific area is included in the committee.

Thank you very much for your time and attention. We hope that BESR will
give sufficient consideration to the concerns raised in these comments
and will ensure that this very important study proceeds in a most
transparent manner.
Sincerely,

Olga Kolotushkina, Annandale, VA
Karen B. Maute, Danville, VA
Annette G. Ayres, Summerfield, NC
Valentin Lukashuk, Fairfax, VA
Linda Worsley, Chatham, VA
Winnie Pruitt, Danville, VA
Wm. and Barbara Winn, Martinsville, VA
Andrew Lester, Keeling, VA
Sergey and Dina Lukashuk, Harrisonburg, VA
Carolyn A. Gibson, Ringgold, VA
Deborah Quinn Lovelace, Gretna, VA
Andrey and Larisa Lukashuk, Mount Solon, VA
Barbara Hudson, Chatham, VA
Terry H. Andrews, Halifax, VA
Ann M. Rogers, Boones Mill, VA
Nancy Gillespie, Roanoke, VA
Deborah Dix, Blairs, VA
Tony Dix, Blair, VA
Robert Pruitt, Danville, VA
Barbara Bass Thompson, Chatham, Virginia
Frank H. (Jesse) Andrews, Jr., Halifax, VA
Kenneth D. And Karen H. Schneider, Caswell County, NC
Phillip Lovelace, Gretna, VA
Ricky Simpson, Altavista, VA

Uranium Mining is a Sham (and Nuke Power)!

August 13, 2010
by warresisters

.“Uranium Mining is a Sham!” is one of the chants sung by over 100 anti-nuclear and anti-mining activists gathered together at the Los Alamos national laboratory, the birthplace of the nuclear bomb.

WRL organizers have just returned home from New Mexico after spending time at the Disarmament Summer encampment in Chimayo, New Mexico, organized by the youth-led anti-nuclear network Think Outside the Bomb, along with TEWA Women United, the Indigenous Uranium Forum, and the Multicultural Alliance for Safe Environments. Eight activists were arrested during a sit-in in front of the doors to the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) building, the home of nuclear weapons planning.

At the action at the Los Alamos lab, activists together carried a bright blue cloth deemed “the living river” as we entered the ground of the lab, symbolizing the power of water as a life-giving force and the destruction of the nuclear fuel cycle of many of our waters. For the group of us who agreed before the march to do a direct action on the grounds of the lab, we were inspired to see 120 people behind us in our symbolic march on paved-over Native land towards the CMR building.

For people who don’t know much about the current status of the global nuclear arms race and have only heard tales of the Obama administration focusing on disarmament, particularly as it pertains to those “dangerous” countries of Central and South Asia, know this: the Obama administration’s talk about disarmament is a sham. Activists on the ground have been calling the U.S. government’s strategic shifts towards more “advanced” nuclear weapons capabilities and increased federal investment in nuclear power contracts a “nuclear renaissance,” as bomb-making remains front-and-center of our strategy for national defense and global domination.

The U.S. government has proposed the largest nuclear weapons budget ever for fiscal year 2011, which includes plans for the creation of “Prompt Global Strike” a conventional weapon system that, like nuclear weapons, could strike anywhere in the world within a hour through the use of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

In addition, the federal government has pledged $54 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear power facilities, which has direct affects on communities that are targeted for their construction. The nuclear fuel cycle results in some of the most serious health and environmental impacts the world has known. People living in Albuquerque drink purified and bottled water because what comes out of the tap is laced with plutonium. Communities near the test sites, processing plants, and uranium mines are living with the long-term effects of exposure to uranium and plutonium, which includes cancer, birth defects, and many chronic health problems.

After a 30 year hiatus, the uranium industry has now applied to open or re-open 22 New Mexican mines on Native land, many on sacred sites, in direct opposition to a Navajo ban on mining operations. There are still hundreds of abandoned uranium mines in New Mexico, largely located on Navajo and Pueblo lands, and state and federal agencies are only now beginning to inventory those mines and begin the cleanup process.

We must stop the cycle of destruction of uranium mining now before contracts are given to new companies and end the disastrous effects of the nuclear fuel cycle as the Obama administration moves forward with its “nuclear renaissance.”

Read more:
http://warresisters.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/uranium-mining-is-a-sham/

Oconee Nuclear Plant Workers Found With Weapons

Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2010

The firm Duke Energy could fire two employees for carrying unspecified weapons to work at a nuclear power plant in South Carolina, the Anderson Independent Mail reported Monday.

Security personnel spotted the weapons as the workers tried to enter the Oconee Nuclear Station. The arms were uncovered on different days in what were thought to be separate incidents.

Read more:
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100811_6807.php

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2010/aug/10/oconee-nuclear-plant-workers-found-weapons-ar-691575/

Russian Wildfires Reach Chernobyl Site, Recontamination Likely / Freon Leak in Reactor Building Results in 'Alert' Declaration at Susquehanna Nuclear Plant

Russian Wildfires Reach Chernobyl Site, Recontamination Likely

posted by: Beth Buczynski

Over 500 wildfires have been raging across Russia for the past week, and now forest service officials are reporting that blazes have reached lands already contaminated by radioactive waste from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster (Deutche Welle).

"According to data from August 6, in the Bryansk region alone 28 fires covering an area of 269 hectares (664 acres) were recorded on these radioactive lands," an official told Russia's Interfax news agency.

This is a change from statments made earlier this week, in which Russian officials denied any knowledge of wildfires in the Bryansk region.

Read more:
http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/russian-wildfires-reach-chernobyl-risking-dangerous-recontamination/


Freon Leak in Reactor Building Results in 'Alert' Declaration at Susquehanna Nuclear Plant

BERWICK, Pa., Aug. 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Workers at PPL's Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Luzerne County, Pa., near Berwick are taking actions to stop a leak of Freon vapor from a chiller system in the Unit 1 reactor building.

Because Freon is leaking in an area that contains plant safety systems, PPL Susquehanna declared an "alert" at 9:22 a.m. EDT. An alert is the second lowest of the four emergency classifications established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear power plants.

Read more:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/freon-leak-in-reactor-building-results-in-alert-declaration-at-susquehanna-nuclear-plant-100350509.html

Obama administration sued over secrecy surrounding nuclear power subsidies

Comment:  The President of Change is the same old same old, nuke enabler paid for by tax payers monies!  Too bad his nose cannot grow when he changes his stories!  No to nukes!

By Sue Sturgis
August 11, 2010 10:39 AM

After President Obama announced back in February that his administration would provide $8.3 billion in taxpayer-financed loan guarantees to the Southern Company to build two new nuclear reactors at its Plant Vogtle in Georgia, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy sought details about the deal under the Freedom of Information Act.

The watchdog group submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Energy on March 25, asking for details on the loan application, the offer the government made to the company, and any correspondence between the parties.

Under FOIA( Freedon of Information Act), the DOE had until April 22 to respond -- but it missed the deadline by more than two months.

When DOE finally did release some documents to SACE on July 6, they were heavily redacted, with critical details blacked out. One document had a total of 244 redactions, with a half-dozen pages -- one of which is pictured above -- nearly or entirely obscured. DOE and Southern Company finalized the loan guarantee deal on June 11.

So yesterday SACE announced that it was suing the DOE for failure to comply with FOIA in a meaningful way.

"This is too large a sum of taxpayers' money, being spent on too risky a project for there to be this much cover-up and secrecy," said SACE Executive Director Stephen Smith. "This is the first award of what could be tens of billions of dollars more in new federal subsidies for the nuclear industry -- setting the precedent of hiding the financial ball from the public in round one is a bad start."

The loan guarantee program, created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, authorizes DOE to use taxpayer money to back projects that "avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases" and "employ new or significantly improved technologies." The reactors being planned for Vogtle are Westinghouse AP1000s, a new design that's been having difficulty getting federal approval due to safety concerns.

DOE now has the authority to give out an estimated $77 billion in loan guarantees and wants to increase that amount. It's already asked Congress to OK an additional $9 billion in loan guarantees this year. There was speculation the money might be added to the Senate climate bill, but members went on summer recess without taking action on that legislation.

SACE opposes allocating more money to the troubled loan guarantee program. It points to a report issued last month by the Government Accountability Office that found the program is inadequately planned and executed, lacks objective performance goals and gives preferential treatment to nuclear projects.

The group has also raised concerns about the permitting process for the Vogtle reactors. In response to another SACE lawsuit, a judge in Georgia recently ruled that the state's Public Service Commission failed to detail why the plant's expansion is in the public interest, as required by law.

SACE's latest legal action over Vogtle targets DOE for missing the deadline to respond under FOIA. It asks the court to declare unlawful DOE's failure to respond to parts of the request, to order DOE to search for and produce any and all non-exempt requested items within five days, and produce a list of records being withheld under FOIA exemptions. It also seeks reimbursement for attorneys' fees and other litigation costs.

"It's odd for this administration that prided itself on being the most transparent administration ever," said Sanders. "This is the opposite of transparent."

For a copy of SACE's complaint against DOE, click on link: http://www.cleanenergy.org/images/testimony/SACE_DOEVogtleFOIAComplaint_080610.pdf

Read more:
http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/08/obama-administration-sued-over-secrecy-surrounding-nuclear-power-subsidies.html

Energy Dept. faces suit over nuclear plant docs

By Ben Geman - 08/10/10 02:48 PM ET

A group that promotes renewable energy is suing the Energy Department (DOE) to compel disclosure of documents related to federal loan guarantees for an Atlanta-based utility giant to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia.

The Obama administration in February announced its intent to provide $8.3 billion worth of loan guarantees to Southern Co. to help launch what the nuclear industry hopes will be the first wave of new plants in decades.

But in a lawsuit filed in federal court on Monday, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said DOE has stonewalled a Freedom of Information Act request about the loan guarantees that the group filed in March.

“This is too large a sum of taxpayer's money, being spent on too risky a project for there to be this much cover-up and secrecy. This is the first award of what could be tens of billions of dollars more in new federal subsidies for the nuclear industry — setting the precedent of hiding the financial ball from the public in round one is a bad start,” said Stephen Smith, the group’s executive director.

The group asked for a series of documents including the application, correspondence between DOE and the company, environmental evaluations and many others.

The lawsuit contends that DOE’s response — consisting of three “heavily redacted” documents in July addressing just a small fraction of the request — is inadequate under the information freedom law.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/113563-energy-dept-faces-foia-lawsuit-over-nuke-plant-financing

Nuclear plant discharge killing coral in Kenting area

Comment:  Nuke plants suck in million of sea life all the time and that kills them too!  Also I have seen plenty of fish kills after the nuke release water too hot!  Nuke plants kills!

2010/08/11 22:50:14

Taipei, Aug 11 (CNA) Thermal discharge from a nuclear power plant in southern Taiwan is behind the rapid destruction of Kenting National Park's coral reef, a marine researcher said Wednesday, and he warned the reef's disappearance would jeopardize Taiwan's fishing industry and national security.

Allan Chen, a research fellow with Academia Sinica's Research Centre for Biodiversity, said the Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant owned by state-run Taiwan Power Company has sped up the deterioration of corals by emitting thermal discharge that has driven local seawater temperatures 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius higher over the past 26 years.

Because of this and other anthropogenic disturbances, the number of coral types has fallen from 20-30 26 years ago to three today, Chen said.

Read more:
http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?ID=201008110045&Type=aSOC

Freon Leak Puts Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant On Alert

Freon apparently leaked from a chiller, or air-conditioning, system used to maintain certain temperatures inside the Reactor Building.

- Source NRC -

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is monitoring PPL's response to an "Alert" declared Tuesday morning at the Susquehanna nuclear power plant, which is located in Salem Township (Luzerne County), Pa. The Alert - the second-lowest of four emergency classifications used by the NRC - was declared at 9:22 a.m. after toxic gas - believed to be Freon - was identified by workers in the Unit 1 Reactor Building. As a precaution, PPL, which owns and operates the two-reactor plant, has evacuated that building. No injuries have been reported.

Freon apparently leaked from a chiller, or air-conditioning, system used to maintain certain temperatures inside the Reactor Building. That structure houses safety systems used to support the operation of the reactor, but those systems have not been impacted by the event.

Read more:
http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/08/11/Freon-Leak-Puts-Susquehanna-Nuclear-Power-Plant-On-Alert-081103.aspx

"Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive"- Nuclear Power

new Enviro

Close-Up interview with Kevin Kamps - "Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive"-

Kevin explodes the myths now being promulgated by those promoting nuclear power. He tells of the insoluble problems of nuclear waste, how nuclear power plants routinely emit radioactive poisons, how catastrophic accidents can happen, how nuclear power plants are pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction for terrorists, and the enormously high costs of nuclear power.

65th anniversary of Hiroshima bombing

Comment:  America dropped the Nuke Bomb as a experiment on Japan plus to scare Russia according to lot a news media.  The American government said they dropped the bomb to save miltary lives but brought the same people home and made them watch nuke bombs without protection.  Nukes love to experiment on human being, they are evil.  No to nukes!

Million Pleas campaign launched on the 65th anniversary of Hiroshima bombing

Media Release, Australia: August 6, 2010: Australians are being urged to help create the world’s longest video chain letter to appeal to world leaders to abolish nuclear weapons.

The unique grassroots ‘Million Pleas’ campaign, initiated in Australia, is being launched to mark the 65th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.

Sign up to be a part of the growing worldwide movement to abolish nuclear weapons:

http://icanw.org/

THE NUCLEAR "RENAISSANCE" STARTS TO CRUMBLE

CONGRESS TO TAKE SUMMER BREAK WITHOUT ACTION ON ENERGY BILLS

NO NEW NUKE LOAN MONEY ENACTED SO FAR THIS YEAR!

MEANWHILE, THE NUCLEAR "RENAISSANCE" STARTS TO CRUMBLE....
August 5, 2010

Dear Friends,

First the good news from Washington, then the good news from elsewhere.

The Senate will go on its summer break tomorrow without taking action on an energy bill. Actually, it's absolutely pathetic that a bill to place unlimited corporate liability on offshore drilling operations and make some modest energy efficiency improvements can't pass the Senate in about an hour, but that's the way it is.

At least there was no opportunity for nuclear power's backers to try to add more taxpayer money for new reactor construction.

Note: the House will come back briefly from its recess (which started this week) to approve a Senate-passed bill to save the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, police and firefighters; it's not expected that the House will take up any other business.

Back in February, President Obama asked Congress for a $36 Billion increase in nuclear construction loans. So far, Congress has provided exactly Zero. Thanks to all of you for helping make that happen.

We're not out of the woods yet, of course. The House Appropriations Committee has approved $25 billion, the Senate Appropriations Commitee has approved $10 billion. And some Senators are still looking for ways to increase that number. But nothing will happen before September and we'll keep you posted.

In the meantime, your elected officials are now back home; many are running for re-election and conducting public events. The best thing you can do is attend town hall meetings, campaign rallies and the like and ask them directly if they think taxpayers should bail out the nuclear power industry. Keep the issue alive!

Meanwhile, the nuclear "renaissance" is crumbling....

There have been some stunning developments in the past two weeks: the over-hyped nuclear "renaissance" is simply falling apart.

The two leading candidates for the next nuclear loan, Calvert Cliffs and South Texas, have both slashed their modest spending on these projects and increasingly neither one looks viable for the entire list of reasons that always have plagued the nuclear industry: safety, cost, waste, etc.

I wrote a long piece today on DailyKos about this, focusing on Calvert Cliffs. You can read it (and comment on it) here. We also put out a press release, which you can find here.

Thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirsnet@nirs.org
http://www.nirs.org/

Don’t Be Fooled: Nuclear Power Kills

Published on Thursday, July 29, 2010
by CommonDreams.org
by John LaForge

Two of the nuclear industry's talking points these days are that "nuclear power hasn't killed anyone" and that "no one died at Three Mile Island."

The 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe puts the lie to such bull, but the deliberate denial of thousands of other deaths is also part of the industry's effort.

There is no safe dose of radiation, and any exposure no matter how little increases the risk of cancer and other diseases.

A quick look at the record of some of the deadliest radiation accidents counters efforts by the Nuclear Energy Institute, and some in Congress, to whitewash their poisoned nuclear power and win another $32 billion in taxpayer giveaways for building new reactors.

What follows is a sampling -- a completely footnoted version of the list is available from Nukewatch.

January 3, 1961: Three killed in Idaho

The experimental boiling-water reactor called SL-1 (Stationary Low-Power Plant No.1) in Idaho blew apart killing three technicians. Two Army Specialists, John Byrnes, age 25 and Richard McKinley, age 22, and Richard Legg, a 25 year old Navy Electricians Mate died in the explosion. According to Arlington National Cemetery Records, "One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins."

July 27, 1972: Two killed at Surry reactor

At the Surry Unit 2 pressurized water reactor in Virginia, pressurized steam burst through a corroded pipe and scalded two workers to death.

March 28, 1979: Three Mile Island and infant mortality

Exposure to radioactive fallout and contaminated water released by the meltdown at Three Mile Island may have caused thousands of deaths. Among many, two books, "Deadly Deceit: Low Level Radiation High Level Cover-up" by Jay Gould and Ben Goldman, 1990, and Joe Mangano's "Low-Level Radiation and Immune System Damage: An Atomic Era Legacy," 1999, document these fatalities.

Infant deaths in surrounding counties soared 53 percent in the first month after TMI; 27 percent in the first year. As originally published, the federal government's own Monthly Vital Statistics Report shows a statistically significant rise in infant mortality rates shortly after the accident.

Studying 10 counties closest to TMI, deaths from birth defects were15-to-35 percent higher afterward than before the accident; breast cancer incidence rose seven percent higher; these increases far exceeded those elsewhere in Pennsylvania. Gould suggests that between 50,000 and 100,000 excess deaths occurred after the TMI accident.

In counties downwind of the accident, leukemia deaths among kids under 10 (1980-to-1984) jumped almost 50 percent compared to the national rate. From 1980-1984 death rates in the three nearest counties were considerably higher than 1970-74 (before the reactor opened) for leukemia, female breast, thyroid and bone and joint cancers.

March 26, 1986: From 4,000 to 125,000 Chernobyl deaths

Estimates of deaths caused by Chernobyl vary widely. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported April 27, 1995 that Ukrainian Health Minister Andrei Serdyuk had announced the latest Ukrainian estimate of Chernobyl's death toll at 125,000 from illnesses traced to radiation.

The United Nations reported Sept. 6, 2005 that its scientists predicted about 4,000 eventual radiation-

related deaths among 600,000 people in the affected area. CNN reported April 26, 1997, "Ukrainian authorities say over 4,000 died of radiation-related illnesses.

The Wisconsin State Journal noted on April 15, 1991 that "The most senior scientist at the Chernobyl nuclear power station says the disaster claimed up to 10,000 lives, thousands more than Soviet authorities have admitted, a London newspaper reported on Sunday.

December 9, 1986: Four more killed at Surry

Again at the Surry Reactor Unit 2, a similar pressurized steam burned four people to death after an unchecked and corroded 18-inch steel feed-water pipe broke and spewed 30,000 gallons of extremely hot pressurized water.

March 11, 1997: Cancer deaths unknown at Tokaimura

Japan's Tokaimura reprocessing facility suffered explosions and fire at this experimental waste treatment site. At least 37 people were seriously contaminated, 34 internally through inhalation. Experts said, "a massive amount of heat and energy was released" in the explosion at the state-run facility. A lack of medical follow-up for the contaminated workers has allowed the industry to deny that deaths resulted.

September 30, 1999: Two killed at Tokaimura

Workers at Japan's Tokaimura uranium processing complex caused a "uranium criticality burst" that killed two men, exposed at least 600 residents in the surrounding community to a burst of neutron radiation, and caused the evacuation of thousands. One worker died of radiation poisoning after 82 days of agonizing pain, the other took 210 days to die.

August 9, 2004: Five killed at Mihama

At the Mihama reactor in Japan, a burst of highly pressurized steam at 390° F, killed five workers and severely burned 11 others when a corroded pipe ruptured and burned them to death. The accident was Japan's deadliest at a nuclear reactor. About 800 tons of water escaped from the large pipe that had not been inspected in 28 years.

John LaForge is on the Nukewatch staff and edits its Quarterly.

Read more:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/29-0

Nuclear Projects Looking for a Savior

Comment: No to Nukes, write your senators and tell them not to bail the nuclear power but really not support the French or the Japanese nuke cycle with taxpayer’s monies@!! Of course my VA Senators, Webb and Warner are nuke lovers and are willing to give them monies but heck they are giving money to everybody! No to Nukes!

Written by Zachary Shahan
Published on August 1st, 2010

It was just a few hours ago when I wrote that I thought I’d be delving into the topic of nuclear energy a little more soon. Well, soon is now.

This post is about two nuclear reactors that are an urgent matter to some (in the nuclear industry and politics) and also, potentially, the source of a very big bill for U.S. taxpayers.

On July 30 (Friday), the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) wrote:

Less than ten days ago, the Senate rejected a House-passed emergency supplemental funding bill that included $9 Billion in new loans for nuclear reactor construction. Now, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison R-Texas) is trying to attach that $9 Billion to any bill that might get through the Senate. She offered it to a bill to assist small businesses (never mind that no nuclear utility qualifies as a small business), but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to let this amendment (and dozens of others) take up valuable Senate floor time.

Now we have growing concern that Sen. Hutchison, or another nuclear proponent, may try to attach it to Senator Reid’s modest energy bill, which is expected to be considered on the floor of the Senate next week and which currently contains no support for nuclear power.

What’s all the haste about? Two nuclear projects — UniStar Nuclear’s Calvert Cliffs-3 in Maryland and NRG’s South Texas two-unit reactor proposal — are in serious trouble and need a guarantee from the public sector (i.e. taxpayers) to bail them out if things get worse.

UniStar Nuclear’s Calvert Cliffs-3 in Maryland

Earlier this week, one UniStar partner, Maryland’s Constellation Energy, said it needs a loan guarantee by the end of summer or it might end the project; while the other partner, Electricite de France, yesterday took a $1 Billion+ write-off of its investment in UniStar. These developments come on top of growing concern over serious safety deficiencies in the Areva EPR reactor design chosen for the project.

Yes, safety concerns about the technology come up and the massive companies building the project want loan guarantees to make sure they don’t have to worry about anything if things go wrong.

NRG’s South Texas Nuclear Project

NRG’s South Texas project has been in trouble for many months. Its main partner, the City of San Antonio, essentially dropped out of the project. Its investment has been only partially replaced by a group that is primarily the Japanese company Toshiba. NRG also has warned it needs a loan guarantee quickly or it will give up.

Again, a nuclear project needs a massive loan guarantee or the risk of the project isn’t worth it.

Taxpayers to the Rescue?

The Department of Energy, which has been exceptionally supportive of nuclear energy of late, is now under pressure to save both of these projects, but it only has $10 billion to give out in nuclear loans.

$9 billion more would help them from having to decide which failing nuclear project to save.

NIRS nails the ridiculousness of this (but also the easy practicality for these nuclear power players). Couldn’t word it better:

Why U.S. taxpayers should support giant foreign corporations (Electricite de France is the world’s largest electric utility, for example), especially ones that already have written off their investments in these projects or will simply drop out if the taxpayers don’t pick up their tab now, is beyond us.

Make no mistake: these nuclear loans are taxpayer bailouts for nuclear power projects that cannot and will not succeed on their own.

Not because companies like Electricite de France and Toshiba can’t afford to build nuclear reactors, but because they don’t want to use their own money to do so. They want us to take their risks.

If you want to do something to address this matter (if don’t want your taxes to go up to pay for these unnecessary and over-hyped nuclear projects, or would rather that $9 billion go into something that benefits you more), you can write your Senators easily (just by adding your zip-code) and share this info with your friends on NIRS’ website.

I encourage you to do so.

Read more:
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/08/01/nuclear-projects-looking-for-a-savior/

ActNow! Don't React Later! (No to Nukes and Uranium Mining)

ActNow! Don't React Later!

ActNow! is a new campaign of Beyond Nuclear designed to avert an atomic catastrophe similar - or possibly even worse - than the oil disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. Just like the U.S. Minerals Management Service that failed to oversee Big Oil, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows the nuclear industry to cut safety margins. Lax oil industry oversight is destroying the Gulf. Lax nuclear industry oversight could cost countless lives today, threaten human health for generations, and leave vast areas of our country uninhabitable indefinitely.

That’s exactly the outcome we work every day at Beyond Nuclear to prevent.

And that's why we've created our new ActNow! campaign.

Please join ActNow! today. Call the White House (202-456-1111) and Congress (202-224-3121) and ask them to:

Block all funding for new nuclear facilities and uranium mines!

Phase out existing reactors!

Conduct a full investigation of the NRC!

Then write to your Congresspeople enclosing our Common Dreams oped on this issue.

Links: Article printed from http://www.commondreams.org/

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/04-8

The article cites specific examples where the NRC has overtly supported industry safety shortcuts, failed to enforce its own safety regulations or allowed industry self-reporting.

Finally, please sign the petition below which will be delivered to the White House and every House and Senate office on September 7.

And please forward this link and ask your friends and colleagues to sign, too.

Thank you.

The Beyond Nuclear team

Yes, I want to see an investigation of NRC! No loan guarantees or taxpayer subsidies for more nuclear facilities! Phase out the existing U.S. nuclear reactors! Our country needs clean, safe renewable energy and energy efficiency, not dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear power.

Please the link below and send the message:

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/actnow/?SSLoginOk=true

Project Information : Uranium Mining in Virginia / Division on Earth and Life Studies: Make Comments about the picks

Comment: Please write the NAS with your ideas, to me it looks like a pro uranium mining and pro nuclear power group with the a couple of EPA workers which in the past has not protected our mountains in Virginia by letting coal companies dump 2,000 miles of wasted rock in our streams which destroyed the streams, the EPA has not enforced the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act consistently in the past. The nuclear industry dictates to the NRC therefore we do not know the full pollution history of nuke plants. To me, the local, Canadian company who paid for the Uranium Study is jumping for joy right now, I guess you really do get what you pay for in most cases! 

Committee Membership Information

Project Title: Uranium Mining in Virginia
PIN: DELS-BESR-09-06

Major Unit:
Division on Earth and Life Studies

Sub Unit: Board on Earth Sciences & Resources
Water Science and Technology Board

RSO: Feary, David

Subject/Focus Area: Earth Sciences

Committee Membership
Date Posted: 07/29/2010

Dr. Joaquin Ruiz - (Chair):  Geosciences ?????
University of Arizona

JOAQUIN RUIZ is Executive Dean of the Colleges of Letters, Arts and Science, Dean of the College of Science, and a Professor of Geosciences at the University of Arizona. Prior to being appointed as Dean of the College of Science, Dr. Ruiz served as the Head of the University of Arizona’s Department of Geosciences from 1995 to 2000. Dr. Ruiz is an expert in radiogenic isotopes applied to the study of regional tectonics, origin of magmas, and hydrothermal ore deposits. He was elected to the Mexican Academy of Science in 2006. He has served as a member of the U.S. National Committee for the International Association for Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth’s Interior; a member of the National Science Foundation’s Instrumentation Panel with the Division on Earth Sciences; and was a panel member of the Facilities Program and Centers for Excellence in Science and Technology Program with the Directorate of Education. Dr. Ruiz is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and of the Society of Economic Geologists. He received a B.Sc. in Geology and a B.S. in Chemistry from the University of Miami and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Corby G. Anderson :  Loves Uranium Mining: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Colorado School of Mines

CORBY ANDERSON is the Harrison Western Professor of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. Dr. Anderson is an expert in the fields of mineral processing, waste minimization and recycling, has an extensive background in industrial-oriented research, and has more than 30 years of academic and applied experience in mining, chemical, and materials engineering. In 2008 he received the Milton Wadsworth Award from SME for his contributions to advance the field of chemical metallurgy. Dr. Anderson holds a Ph.D. in Mining Engineering - Metallurgy from the University of Idaho, as well as a Bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering and a Masters degree in Metallurgical Engineering.

Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse:  demonstrations for nuclear????
LWB Environmental Services, Inc.

LAWRENCE W. BARNTHOUSE is the President and Principal Scientist of LWB Environmental Services, Inc. His consulting activities include 316(b) demonstrations for nuclear and non-nuclear power plants, Superfund ecological risk assessments, Natural Resource Damage Assessments, risk-based environmental restoration planning, and a variety of other projects involving close interactions with regulatory and resource management agencies. Dr. Barnthouse has authored or co-authored more than 90 publications relating to ecological risk assessment. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Hazard/Risk Assessment Editor of the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and Founding Editorial Board Member of the new journal Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. He has served on the National Research Council Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology and on several National Research Council committees, and was a member of the peer review panel for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Dr. Barnthouse holds a PhD in biology from the University of Chicago.

Dr. Scott C. Brooks
Oak Ridge National Laboratory - Loves Nukes = Loves Uranium Mining:CONFLICT OF INTEREST

SCOTT C. BROOKS is Senior Scientist in the Environmental Sciences Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dr. Brooks’ research focuses on the biogeochemistry of advecting fluids in the subsurface and the geochemical factors influencing the fate and transport of solutes. He has conducted numerous experiments at the laboratory and field scale studying the fate and transformation of radionuclides in the environment. He has Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia.

Dr. Patricia A. Buffler :  Committee on Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation
University of California, Berkeley

PATRICIA BUFFLER (IOM) is professor of epidemiology and holds the Kenneth and Marjorie Kaiser Chair in Cancer Epidemiology in the School of Public Health at University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Buffler’s research interests include the environmental causes of cancer, especially gene-environment interaction and childhood cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, brain cancer, and breast cancer; epidemiologic research methods; and the uses of epidemiologic data in health policy. She has served on numerous committees of the National Research Council, including the Committee on Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, and Committee on Emerging Issues and Data on Environmental Contaminants. Dr. Buffler was elected to the Institute of Medicine in 1994. She received a Ph.D. in epidemiology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Michel Cuney:  Nancy, France : invaluable insights concerning mining techniques (loves uranium mining): CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CNRS

MICHEL CUNEY is director of the research team, Genesis and Management of Mineral Resources for the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) at the Henri Poincaré Universite in Nancy, France. He has worked mainly on the geochemistry of uranium in various geological environments since 1972. He has visited and/or worked on most major uranium deposits of the world, and has published about 180 scientific papers in this disciplinary area. Dr. Cuney is one of the world's experts on the genesis of uranium deposits and uranium geology, and he will provide invaluable insights concerning mining techniques that would be used to extract uranium from deposits in Virginia as well as the possible effects on the local environment. Dr. Cuney received his Docteur es Sciences (Ph.D.) degree from Henri Poincaré Universite.

Dr. Peter L. deFur : University of Calgary (that means Canada.....!!!!)
Environmental Stewardship Concepts

PETER L. DEFUR is President of Environmental Stewardship Concepts, LLC (ESC), an independent private consulting firm in Richmond, Virginia. He is also an affiliate Associate Professor at the Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University where he conducts research on environmental health and ecological risk assessment. Dr. deFur has over thirty years’ experience providing technical services regarding the cleanup of contaminated sites to community organizations across the country. Dr. deFur received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the College of William and Mary, and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Calgary.

Dr. Mary R. English:  familiar with the environmental effects of mining and related regulatory issues. (From TN, TVA area????
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

MARY ENGLISH is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment, The University of Tennessee in Knoxville. She is a social scientist who is Her work has focused on energy and environmental policy and has included research on mechanisms for involving stakeholders in public policy decisions, how "the community" should be defined within the context of community-based environmental efforts, information-gathering and analytic tools to improve environmental decision making, and guidance on conducting socioeconomic impact assessments. She previously served on the NRC Board on Radioactive Management as well as the NRC Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. Dr. English has a M.S. from the University of Massachusetts and a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Dr. R. William Field :  international collaborative radiation-related epidemiolgic
University of Iowa College of Public Health

R. WILLIAM FIELD is a Professor in the Department of Occupational and Environmental Health and in the Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health. He also serves as Director of the Occupational Epidemiology Training Program, at the NIOSH-Heartland Center for Occupational Health and Safety, and Director of the Pulmonary Outcomes Cluster, NIEHS - Environmental Health Sciences Research Center (EHSRC). Dr. Field has been active in numerous national and international collaborative radiation-related epidemiolgic projects for many years and has served on the editorial boards of several national and international scientific journals.. His research interests fall into the broad categories of environmental epidemiology, occupational epidemiology, radioepidemiology, cancer epidemiology, immune-mediated disease epidemiology, health physics, biomonitoring, risk perception, and novel methods of retrospective exposure assessment. Dr. Field received his Ph.D. in preventive medicine and environmental health from the University of Iowa.

Dr. Jill Lipoti :  radiation exposure (EPA???)
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

JILL LIPOTI is Director of the Division of Environmental Safety and Health at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Prior to assuming this position, she was an Assistant Director with responsility for directing the state’s radiation protection programs. Dr. Lipoti also serves as adjunct assistant professor, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey - School of Public Health, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, specializing in radiation exposure, and preparedness for chemical and radiological emergencies. She has provided advice to the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding radiation safety and security, and has served on the Radiation Advisory Committee of EPA’s Science Advisory Board. She has M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in environmental science from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Dr. Paul A. Locke : evaluating radiation protection initiatives
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

PAUL A. LOCKE, an environmental health scientist and attorney, is an Associate Professor at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Division of Toxicology. He holds an MPH from Yale University School of Medicine, a DrPH from the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and a JD degree from Vanderbilt University School of Law. Dr. Locke’s research and practice focus on how decision makers use environmental health science and toxicology in regulation and policy-making and how environmental health sciences influence the policy-making process. His areas of study include designing and evaluating radiation protection initiatives and radiation policies, especially in the areas of low dose radiation science, radon risk reduction, safe disposal of high level radioactive waste, and use of CT as a diagnostic screening tool. Dr. Locke directs the School’s Doctor of Public Health program in Environmental Health Sciences. Dr. Locke was a member of the National Academy of Sciences Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board from 2003 to 2009, and has served on five National Research Council committees. He is also a member of the editorial boards of Risk Analysis: An International Journal and the International Journal of Low Radiation and is on the Board of Directors of the NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements).
Mr. Henry Schnell  ---BIG FAT NO TO THE NUKES OF FRANCE:specializing in uranium metallurgy, operations, and mining projects-CANADA: conflict of interest
Areva, Inc.



HENRY A. SCHNELL holds the position of Technical Authority (Senior Expert) in the Expertise & Technical Department, Mining Business Unit, with AREVA NC Inc., In his role as Technical Authority for uranium, he is responsible for review and support of existing operations and new projects world wide, and for final technical authorization of plant design and modifications. Mr. Schnell has 41 years of experience in management, plant operations, plant design, engineering, and research and development in mining and ore treatment, and 21 years of this has been specializing in uranium metallurgy, operations, and mining projects. He has a B.S. (Honours) degree from the University of Alberta, Edmonton and other extensive training in metallurgy and project management.

Dr. Jeffrey J. Wong : environmental measurements, biological and exposure monitoring, toxicology and risk assessment....ANOTHER EPA????
California Environmental Protection Agency

JEFFREY J. WONG is Deputy Director of the Science, Pollution Prevention and Technology Program for the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) at the California EPA and serves as DTSC's Chief Scientist. This program's activities include environmental measurements, biological and exposure monitoring, toxicology and risk assessment, and green chemistry and pollution prevention. Before his current appointment Dr. Wong served as chief of DTSC's Human and Ecological Risk Division. He served by presidential appointment on the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board from 1996 until 2002. Dr. Wong has served on several National Academies committees, including the Committee on Risk-Based Approaches for Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste, the Committee on Environmental Remediation at Naval Facilities, the Committee on Remedial Action Priorities for Hazardous Waste Sites and the Panel for Review of the DOE Environmental Restoration Priority System. Dr. Wong received his Ph.D. in pharmacology and toxicology from the University of California at Davis.

Comment on Provisional Committee Appointments


Viewers may communicate with the National Academies at any time over the project's duration.

In addition, formal comments on the provisional appointments to a committee of the National Academies are solicited during the 20-calendar day period following the posting of the membership and, as described below, these comments will be considered before committee membership is finalized. We welcome your comments (Use the Feedback link below).

Please note that the appointments made to this committee are provisional, and changes may be made.

No appointment shall be considered final until we have evaluated relevant information bearing on the committee's composition and balance.

This information will include the confidential written disclosures to The National Academies by each member-designate concerning potential sources of bias and conflict of interest pertaining to his or her service on the committee; information from discussion of the committee's composition and balance that is conducted in closed session at its first meeting and again whenever its membership changes; and any public comments that we have received on the membership during the 20-calendar day formal public comment period.

If additional members are appointed to this committee, an additional 20-calendar day formal public comment period will be allowed.

It is through this process that we determine whether the committee contains the requisite expertise to address its task and whether the points of views of individual members are adequately balanced such that the committee asa whole can address its charge objectively.

You have 20 day(s) remaining after today to provide comments during the formal comment period.

Please click below to make your comments:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/FeedBack.aspx?key=49253&type=committee

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/committeeview.aspx?key=49253