Niger’s uranium, poverty and France’s growing wealth

Comment:  No to uranium mining all over the world! 

Niger to get the world’s 2nd largest uranium mine

Tuesday 5 May 2009
by Konye Obaji Ori, Patrick K.

According to estimates, Niger will become home to the world’s second largest uranium mine by 2012.

But will the mines profit Nigeriens?

The $1.5bn mine is expected to yield 5,000 tonnes of uranium per year once it opens in three years’ time.

Areva, French nuclear energy giant formerly known as Cogema, is building the mine and will take a majority share in it. France has kept close ties with its former colony for its uranium; a relationship which is vital to France’s nuclear energy program.

Areva’s uranium mines have helped in shaping France’s place as the world’s fourth uranium producer and the first producer of nuclear power which represents 80% of its electric power.

In 2007, anti-Areva protests rocked the country as thousands of Nigeriens marched on the streets against the presence of the French company, following a nearly 40 year Areva operation in Niger that had yielded little development in the lives of the local people and the country.

Niger is one of the world’s poorest countries and the export of uranium provides one of its few sources of foreign currency. Other than uranium mining, Niger’s population relies on subsistence farming and livestock production.

The country suffered a severe famine between 2005 and 2006 in a backdrop of highly productive uranium mines. Little development has been seen in the last 50 years.

Activists from the local branch of the Greenpeace lobby group claim that the potential pollution from the Uranium mines will bring about the forced displacement of the local people. The open pit mine would employ 1,400 people and more than double Niger’s current uranium exports.

The price of Uranium in the world market is determined by the heavy consumers amidst other factors.

 France as a heavy consumer has great influence of the products price on the world stage.

However, the fluctuating price in uranium created by the big consumers in a profit maximization system, has brought repeated instability to Niger’s economy as the world’s fourth biggest producer of uranium.

According to the French journal Le Canard enchainé (03/08/2005), with profits from its mines running to the tune of "428 million annually", Areva’s aid to Niger’s starved population in 2005 "only amounted to 0.05% of its annual profits".

The question is, will the Nigerien people benefit from this new project and be spared from another famine?

And will Areva take on more moral responsibilities in developing the country’s agricultural sector to benefit the Nigerien population at large?

Read more:
http://en.afrik.com/article15648.html

A Comparison: The (so call) Safe Mining of Uranium: Bessines, France/ Uranium Mines Limousina and Bessines site, France/ A region at risk

Comment: Okay, compare the so reclaim area of Bessines by the nukes and the statement of reclaimed sites that was just filled from mine waste! Now as Americans, we are just as guilty as the French, US has not cleaned their past uranium sites. However, the US does not brag about the cleanup but Nukes claims France was safe at uranium mining which is not true. Just proof to prove the Nukes are making false truths! Plus, the nukes compare France as the same climate as Virginia, again not true. Does France have hurricanes, no but Virginia’s weather is more extreme because of the location of Virginia, to oceans, mountains and plains.

The Safe Mining of Uranium: Bessines, France (according to Nukes)

Uranium has been mined throughout France. More than 50 percent of the uranium needed to power the
country was domestically mined. The Bessines mine was operational from 1948 to 1995, during which time it produced more than 59 million pounds of U3O8.

Read more : http://www.virginiauranium.com/pdf/Coles_Hill_Progress_Fall_Winter2009.pdf

Uranium Mines Limousin/ Bessines:  A region at risk  (According to Studies)

Results of radio-ecological study conducted by the laboratory of CRIIRAD

Study Objectives

For thirty years, COGEMA has operated north of Limoges, in Haute-Vienne, fifty uranium mines. Become less profitable, this activity is now being terminated.

It is in this context that the Regional Council of Haute-Vienne entrusted to the laboratory CRIIRAD for a radio-ecological study on the mining division of Crouzille.

The samples were taken from January to August 1993. Given the extent of the division of Crouzille and the large number of mining sites, there could be no question of a comprehensive review. The study was primarily to enable:

1. assess the nature and activity of radioactive waste stored on site

2. identify key risks in view of the closure of sites and their redevelopment.

Bessines to 1965.

3. characterize the radiological status of Bessines site, mining site which had operated since 1958 (until 1993) a processing plant (plant SIMO).

A region at risk

The analysis carried out influence of mine sites have shown that populations of the region are already exposed to natural radioactivity well above average. The exhibition is primarily related to inhalation of radon and external exposure from soil.

In this context, the additional radiation induced by mining activities should be rigorously controlled. The study showed that this is not the case. This is instead used by the operator to trivialize the increments due to his exposure activities.

A. Mining operations have generated huge quantities of radioactive waste

Mining leads to the extraction and accumulation of waste rock and tailings. The sterile match blocks much more radioactive than normal rock, but whose uranium content is insufficient for profitable extraction.

Residues correspond to uranium ore, as it stands after the uranium has been extracted: the rock has been reduced to the sand. It is important to note that the extraction of uranium deprives at most, only 20% to 25% of the radioactivity. Once the rock mined and finely ground, they instead become particularly mobile: emanation of radon, dust off, leaching by water, while these transfers are facilitated. The risks of radiation and contamination of people are not commensurate with the status quo.

The tests performed showed that activity levels are generally higher than the limit of 100 000 Bq / kg set by the regulations for radioactive substances other than natural substances. These materials must be identified and monitored as radioactive waste. Several samples have the same concentrations of several million becquerels per kilogram.

The management of these wastes must be especially careful that these radionuclides with high health risk. It should be emphasized that 9 of 24 radionuclides identified in Class 1, which includes the products most radiotoxic nomenclature.

Analysis revealed several anomalies: activity levels higher than those reported by the operator; samples presented as sterile (activity less than 4 000 Bq / kg) while they were engaged residues s 'raises several million becquerels per kilo; impossible to access most of burial (and therefore unable to verify the presence of prohibited wastes), etc..

B. No storage center for mining waste

If you believe the statements of the operator, more than 20 million tons of radioactive waste are stored at the mining division of Crouzille.

Nearly 6 million tonnes of waste were dumped into the old pit mine to open Brugeaud near Bessines.

We can estimate that the total radioactivity of this "storage" of students to over 70 000 curies: 70 times the limit for the storage of the most dangerous is to say, the INB (Basic Nuclear Installations). In addition, there are 8 million tons piled on the verses.

The storage Bellezanes can be estimated at 8 000 curies. Again the limit of 1000 curies set for the INB is largely outdated.

None of these sites do not have the status of GNI, the tailings were never officially considered as radioactive waste and therefore no development has been made to receive them and ensure their containment.

In some cases, the tailings were:

- Piled on the floor to be paid huge conducive to the diffusion of radon and radioactive dust flights.

- Discharged in excavations of ancient open pit mines: the analysis carried out Bellazane showed that such storage is not waterproof and mud seeping into the tunnels beneath.

- Injected into some underground tunnels.

The tests performed on raw water showed that water in contact with the residue, is responsible for radionuclides. As water is pumped and treated, the problem is under control but once the site is closed, the galleries are flooded and the radioactive water can flow at depth.

Whatever the case, nothing has been done to isolate the groundwater and preserve, not least in the short term risk of contamination. However, the radioactive products present in mine wastes will remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years: he is 75 and 000 years for the radioactivity of thorium-230 is divided by two, 4.5 billion years for uranium 238.

* The chemical, linked to the presence of heavy metals, arsenic and various chemicals have been performed in this study but should also be taken into account.

C. The study shows that the impact of mining on the environment was not properly monitored

The extraction and processing of uranium increases the exposure of local residents. The study identified the different routes of exposure and found that regulatory requirements are often ignored.

1. External Radiation

The requirement to measure the prefectural radiation site boundary is not respected: the monitoring stations are often located several hundred meters from the boundary, that is to say outside influence of radiation. Often, moreover, the sites are not properly closed and allow access to hazardous areas.

The radiometric measurements made around the site and SIMO Road Lavaugrasse show exceedances of the prescribed limit in France to 5 mSv / yr (1 mSv / year at the international level).

Furthermore, the control device does not include sources of radiation: including the radiation caused by the reuse of waste rock or tailings for construction or public works.

2. Inhalation of radon

Measurements taken around the site of SIMO Bessines show that the impact extends to several hundred meters, with values ranging from 3 to 25 times the natural background of the region.

Given these values, the doses received by local residents are likely to exceed the regulatory limits (these limits set the level at which the carcinogenic and genetic risk is too high to be tolerated).

The results of the operator (no impact) due to a methodological error: network and inappropriate choice of a reference station-Rilhac-Rancon-located outside the division but characterized by high levels of radon can to erase the impact sites).

3. Inhalation of radioactive dust

Again, while the official controls are negative, tests performed on foam (dust collectors) show the mark of flights of radioactive dust from the site.

Measures of CRIIRAD have also identified the impact of transport of ore and waste along the routes used by trucks. Again this route of contamination was not taken into account in the controls, the operator calling for "significant" and "undetectable" contamination caused by passing trucks.

4. Contamination of the aquatic

Mining activities have generated large quantities of liquid effluents. These effluents must be treated before discharge into streams to reduce their radioactivity. The few checks have to show exceedances of contamination limits (the operator was warned, however dates and locations of samples).

These figures are from the operator ...

Again, the results presented by the operator does not reflect reality. In the letter of the Crouzille the results compared to the statutory limits does not correspond to radioactivity release, as required by the decrees, but the courses water, that is to say the samples obtained after dilution!

The impact of these discharges on streams Bellezane, Small Magnelli and the course of Gartempe is very clear. The sediments in the two streams have similar levels of contamination at some mine tailings and should be treated as radioactive waste. The regime of more torrential Gartempe promoted the dispersion of radionuclides: the levels are lower but the contamination is measurable for all items checked, to the confluence with the Brame.

Conclusion

The regulations require assess radiation doses that a person may receive as a result of mining activities.

Regulatory controls are carried out by the CPMR (Center for Radio-Protection in the Mining Algade now called), laboratory chosen by the operator and created within it. The study showed that these controls do not allow the Administration to ascertain the impact sites on the environment or to assess the doses received as such by the people.

The literature review conducted on the records held by DRIRE revealed that for years, the operator remained supervisor's control over its activities. At no time did he have to account for the failures of his administration and infringements of the law: the zones of influence sites have never been determined, nor for atmospheric pollution or contamination to the groundwater system exhibits added calculation is incorrect; measuring stations are placed and removed without justification, etc..

D. Becoming sites

Redevelopment sites perfectly fits in this context: no File scientific, specifications, basic rule of safety, no ad hoc regulation, not consulting the people and their representatives on the establishment of storage sites, etc..

The operator appears to have had carte blanche and proceeds to redevelop the sites as and when they closed.

These operations are summarized mainly to cover the waste.

Nothing is planned for pollution related to water infiltration. The movement of groundwater is not known, the water system has not been properly studied. We have no record on the stability of structures, the choice of radiation protection, management, maintenance and control sites after closure, status, etc..

At least react very quickly people will find themselves being faced with a fait accompli.

It is important to require:

- The further studies, both in terms radiological, chemical, allowing a diagnosis on the entire division of the Crouzille.

- A preliminary consultation on the future of mining sites and the establishment of final storage locations: under what circumstances, with what controls and what guarantees?

- The definition, by the authorities of the fundamental rules of safety and a precise specification to which the operator must comply.

- The creation of scientific records to assess the risks associated with the presence of waste and determine the best methods to limit transfers to people.

- Full transparency of all files that will condition the protection of existing populations and their descendants.

- The participation of scientists independent operators.

The current state of neglect is particularly worrying.

The administration has a heavy responsibility and it is urgent to define the minimum rules of the game

 As for the people and their representatives, it is essential that they needed in the process of making, otherwise c is a purely economic redevelopment to decide where they live and their protection against pollution.

Nuclear Gazette No. 137/138, November 1994.
References:
- The entire study by the CRIIRAD (5 volumes) is available from the documentation department of the Limousin Regional Council (27 Corderie Boulevard, 87031 LIMOGES) and the General Council of Haute-Vienne (43 Avenue Liberation, 87000 LIMOGES)
- A summary of some fifteen pages can be accessed at the above addresses or applied to the CRIIRAD, 471 Avenue V. Hugo, 26000 Valencia.
Read: - The consequences of uranium mining in France (CRIIRAD)

Read more:  (Great Pictures, need to look)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/uranium_limousin_criirad.html&ei=uqM7S9jnKMTllAfglrSqBw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcontamination%2Bd%2527uranium%2Bbessines%26hl%3Den

Niger: AREVA confirms Greenpeace's alarming radiation findings in Niger - Greenpeace response

Comment:  So the so call leaders of Virginia says VA should be like France when it comes to Nuke Power and uranium mining!  I mean really, duh, don't think so!  Ban uranium mining now!

Greenpeace International (Amsterdam)
5 January 2010

press release

Following Greenpeace's report of radioactive hotspots in the uranium mining city Akokan in Niger, AREVA has confirmed that the radioactivity in the streets of Akokan was unacceptably high.

Under pressure from civil society the French nuclear company has taken action to clean up the spots indicated by Greenpeace

"Areva's reaction supports our call for a comprehensive, transparent and independent environmental assessment of the area," said Dr. Rianne Teule of Greenpeace International.

"We are glad that the streets of Akokan have been partly cleaned up, but remain very concerned that other problems cannot be ruled out without a comprehensive study.

Decades of uranium mining have created radioactive dangers to the people of Akokan.
A Greenpeace team visited AREVA's two uranium mines in Niger at the beginning of November 2009.

During this visit Greenpeace identified dangerous levels of radiation in the streets of Akokan, at one location up to 500 times higher than the normal background levels.

AREVA had earlier declared the streets safe.

Read more:
http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/201001050945.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn2JjavSuPc
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2010/01/areva_confirms_greenpeaces_ala.html

Two million without power in southeast France

Comment:  France, is Nuke Power working for ya?  Virginia, do you really want to be like France?  Don't think so!
22/12/2009

The French electricity grid was forced to cut off power to around two million people in the southeast of the country Monday in order to avoid a massive regional blackout, the operator RTE said.

PARIS, December 21, 2009 (AFP) - France had to import power earlier than normal this winter and had warned that cold weather could force cuts because of near record consumption and delays to maintenance in its network of nuclear power stations.

"RTE has put in place a programme of controlled load-shedding in order to avoid a complete black-out in the region," an RTE spokesman told AFP, referring to the Provence Alpes Cote d'Azur region.

This area includes the major Mediterranean port of Marseille, the cities of Nice and Toulon, the resorts of the French Riviera and major Alpine ski stations. It is home to 4.7 million people and is vulnerable to power shortages.

The spokesman said that the problem was caused by increased power use due to freezing temperatures and a "technical incident" at a power sub-station in Tavel, near Avignon, in the southern Rhone valley.

Read...
http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/community_focus/Two-million-without-power-in-southeast-France.html

Radiation level high at Gabon uranium mine (France mining in Africa)

Comment:  The French are always the post child of the nukes it is because Nukes do not care about the people lives they destroy, only the free money from nation's government taxpayers!
WATCHDOG WARNS:Radiation level high at Gabon uranium mine.

A former uranium mine at Mounana in southeast Gabon is putting out radiation levels markedly higher than normal, a French association said.The Newest Articles Where will Bandic be distributing the gifts? See his schedule here..

LIBREVILLE, December 9, 2009 (AFP) - A former uranium mine at Mounana in southeast Gabon is putting out radiation levels "markedly higher than normal," a French association said in a report Wednesday.

The radiation levels at the mine, run for 40 years by a subsidiary of the French nuclear giant Areva, are "in numerous areas accessible to the public, markedly higher than normal. Some values at ground level are between twice and 50 times higher."

The report came from the Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD), which surveyed the Mounama site last May, and found millions of tonnes of radioactive material dumped in water or the forest.

The association said that the Uranium Mining Company of Franceville (COMUF), which operated the mine between 1958 and 1999, had "produced 7.5 million tonnes of radioactive mud, of which more than two million tonnes were dumped" in a river.

"The measurements taken in 2009 also confirm that the homes of the managers and the workers of COMUF were constructed with radioactive materials. People were thus subjected without knowing it to totally unjustified doses of radiation."

Since 2007, the population of Mounana has been at odds with COMUF and Areva over radioactive waste and non-governmental organisations have become involved in the issue.

In June, Areva announced that it would set up a health safety observatory around sites in Gabon and Niger in collaboration with the French NGOs Sherpa and Medecins du Monde (Doctors of the World).
Oglas.

Read more at:
http://www.javno.com/en-world/radiation-level-high-at-gabon-uranium-mine_285540

Areva trying to block TV documentary on residual contamination left around former uranium mine sites in France

Comments:   According to web page of the local, Canadian uranium corporation, uses France as example of the perfect uranium mining, well, duh, France has ruin their land, air and water with uranium mining and nuke power! Thanks KM!

Areva trying to block TV documentary on residual contamination left around former uranium mine sites in France

Areva, once again, spares no efforts to prove that it rightly received the 2008 Public Eye Award as one of "the world's most irresponsible companies":

On Feb. 11, 2009, public service TV chain France 3 plans to air a programme on the residual contamination found at former uranium mine sites all over France.

The broadcast titled "Uranium : le scandale de la France contaminée" (Uranium: the scandal of contaminated France) is to be aired in the monthly programme Pièces à conviction (Incriminating evidence).

According to the programme's investigators, 300 million tonnes of radioactive waste have been left at 210 former uranium mining sites in France without any protective measures nor surveillance.

Areva announced on Jan. 29, 2009, to call the regulatory authority Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (CSA) to prevent the airing of the programme. (AFP/Le Républicain Lorrain Jan. 30, 2009)

Wednesday, February 11 - 20h35
Pièces à Conviction n°72 Exhibits No. 72

Uranium : le scandale de la France contaminée Uranium: the scandal of contaminated France

Discreetly in the countryside, nearby villages or towns, highly dangerous radioactive waste have been scattered or buried methodically for decades.

Pire encore, ils ont parfois servi à construire des routes, des parkings, et même des logements, des écoles ou des aires de jeu pour les enfants... Worse, they sometimes used to build roads, parking lots, and even homes, schools or play areas for children ... Sans aucune mise en garde sur les risques encourus ! Without any warning about the risks!

Car entre 1945 et 2001, la France a exploité 210 mines d'uranium sur son territoire. For between 1945 and 2001, France has operated the 210 uranium mines on its territory. Elles ont produit 300 millions de tonnes de déchets radioactifs qui ont été abandonnés sans mesure de protection ou de surveillance particulière. They have produced 300 million tons of radioactive waste were left unprotected or special monitoring.

Qui sont les responsables ? Who is responsible? Pourquoi ceux qui ont tenté de donner l'alerte n'ont-ils jamais été écoutés ? Why those who tried to raise the alarm they have never been heard? Pourquoi l'Etat n'at-il pas alerté les riverains ? Why the State Has not alerted the residents?

Elise Lucet et l'équipe de Pièces à conviction ont mené l'enquête sur ce scandale, au coeur des campagnes et des villes françaises. Elise Lucet and team Exhibits led the investigation into the scandal at the heart of town and country French.

Read more at:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://programmes.france3.fr/pieces-a-conviction/51415247-fr.php&ei=PuMSS6jtK9CUtgeZwbTDBA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBQQ7gEwAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3DUranium%2B:%2Ble%2Bscandale%2Bde%2Bla%2BFrance%2Bcontamin%25C3%25A9e%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1I7DMUS_en

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/378/3709.html

Britain's nuclear strategy threatens destruction of Kalahari (Uranium Mining)

Comment:  No to Nuke Plants, No to Uranium Mining, corporate greed is pushing the Nuke plants, solar and wind can provide clean power!
Namibian environmentalists warn expansion of uranium mining could devastate spectacular natural landscape

John Vidal The Observer
Sunday 8 November 2009

The hidden cost of Britain's new generation of nuclear power could be the destruction of the Kalahari desert in Namibia and millions of tonnes of extra greenhouse gas emissions a year, the Observer has discovered.

The desert, with its towering sand dunes and spectacular lunar-like landscapes, is at the centre of an international uranium rush led by Rössing Uranium, a subsidiary of the British mining giant Rio Tinto, and the French state-owned company, Areva, which part-manages the nuclear complex at Sellafield and wants to build others in Britain.

Tomorrow, Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, will release a batch of plans covering every aspect of Britain's strategy to replace its ageing nuclear power stations.

It is not expected to consider the source of the fuel needed for the new reactors. But Rössing is expanding its existing giant mine – which already provides nearly 8% of the world's uranium – into the Namib-Naukluft national park. Areva has leased hundreds of square kilometres of the desert near Trekkopje, where it plans to build one of the world's largest uranium mines.

At least 20 other mining companies from the UK, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere have also been given licences to explore thousands of square kilometres of the national park and its surrounds, and six new mines, several of which would be in the park, are at the development stage.

Namibia has some of the planet's richest uranium deposits and expects to become the third largest uranium producer and largest exporter within five years.

The mines are all expected to be in open pits up to 200 metres below the desert sands. With their waste heaps, acid plants and giant slurry ponds, they will extend over hundreds of square kilometres. "Large areas of the desert will be inevitably devastated," says Bertchen Kohrs, director of the Namibian environment group Earthlife. "They will do immense damage. We fear that there will be major contamination of the ground water supplies."

Documents seen by the Observer suggest the mines would initially consume about 53 million cubic metres of water a year, more than 75% of the water presently supplied by the Namibian state water company. The water will need to be pumped more than 56km to the mines from the coast. The proposed expansion of the uranium mining would create mountains of waste radioactive sand.

But an Areva spokesman said: "Our post-mining decommissioning plan will ensure that most of the Trekkopje mining area will return to its former wilderness state. The technical process applied to extract the ore will not cause any pollution to the underground water. The desalination plant will be powered by electricity produced from different sources, including non-CO2-emitting sources such as hydroelectricity."

Rio Tinto said it was addressing the carbon emissions of the mining operations. "Rössing has a greenhouse gas management plan to minimise emissions through improved energy efficiency," said a spokesman.

Additional reporting by Damian Carrington

Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/08/nuclear-power-namibia-mining

REPEAT-Areva shares fall over nuclear safety concerns

Comment: State of Virginia, do you really, really want to be like France? Don't think so! No to Nuke Plants, No to bomb making low-grade uranium mining in Virginia!

Wed Nov 4, 2009 4:52am EST
* New reactor design criticised by French politicians

* Follows calls for modification by nuclear safety bodies

* Shares close almost 4 percent down

By Nina Sovich

PARIS, Nov 3 (Reuters) - A new generation of French nuclear power reactors came under attack on Tuesday as opposition parties called for an inquiry into their security systems, after three nuclear safety bodies asked for changes to their design.

In a rare joint statement, nuclear safety bodies in France, Britain and Finland on Monday ordered France's Areva to modify the safety features on its European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) due to insufficient independence between the day-to-day systems and the emergency systems.

Opponents to nuclear power latched on to the news, with France's opposition socialist party calling for a parliamentary inquiry.

CAP21, a political party founded by Corrine Lepage, a former environment minister, also said more investment should be made in renewable energy rather than nuclear.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has championed nuclear power, both at home and abroad, where he hopes French companies will benefit from a global drive to find ways of generating electricity that produce less CO2 emissions and are independent of oil price fluctuations.

The design problems come as a blow to Areva, which has staked its export growth on the EPR and is hoping that it will beat out American rival Westinghouse, owned by Japan's Toshiba , to become the standard-bearer for a new generation of nuclear plants.

Areva said on Monday it was in talks to modify the design of the EPR plants before the end of the year and insisted the safety of the EPR plants was not in question.

EDF, which operates all of France's 19 nuclear power plants, said on Tuesday it had been asked to conduct a closer study of secondary systems at its Flamanville EPR reactor and would respond by year-end.

Areva has started building two EPRs in China's Guangdong province and in January Sarkozy gave approval for the construction of a second EPR plant in France.

Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSL448115720091104?sp=true

Desert Residents Pay High Price for Lucrative Uranium Mining

Comment:  Don't you love the French, love to ruin people's lives!

After a visit in late March from French President Nicholas Sarkozy to Niger, residents in the uranium-exporting desert country continue questioning whether AREVA, a company primarily owned by the French government, will honour its promise to protect communities from mining hazards.

Studies and residents' testimonies have pointed to health and environmental dangers from mining operations owned and operated by both AREVA's subsidiaries and the Niger government.

Salifou Adifou, 67, worked for 40 years as a driller at Niger's SOMAÃèR (Aïr Mountains Mining Company), a public-private venture with AREVA owning 63 percent.

The retiree told IRIN he has undiagnosed health problems. "I have stomach and chest pains, but since retirement [in 1999], I cannot afford health care." Adifou said his friend who had worked as a miner is now bedridden.

Neither knows the cause of his health problems, Adifou told IRIN.

Air

The AREVA majority-owned mine called COMINAK (Mining Company of Akouta) commissioned an environmental study of its operations in Arlit in 2006, which reported that the number of deaths linked to respiratory infections was twice as high in the mining town (16 percent) as in the rest of the country.

"The wind carries dust contaminated with the long-lasting radium [time required for it to lose toxicity is more than 1,600 years] and lead...Samples taken from 5km within site...Sandstorms [and] atmospheric waste from mines could be aggravating factors for pulmonary [illnesses] in the region," the researchers wrote in COMINAK's environmental study.

But AREVA dismisses the link between mining and elevated health problems in its January 2009 report on mining activities in Niger. "These problems are typical in desert zones...they are not linked to mining activities."

Nevertheless AREVA directors have agreed to set up health diagnostic centres in all countries where it extracts uranium, starting with Gabon, according to the Paris-based human rights legal association Sherpa. "It has been two long, difficult years to get to this point with the company to give workers a voice," Sherpa director Yann Queinnec told IRIN.

Soil

The Paris-based Commission of Research and Independent Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD) has written of "serious safety lapses" in and near AREVA mining sites in Niger.

In 2007 CRIIRAD researchers said they found locals selling contaminated scrap metal from mining sites and the materials were eventually used in housing construction, kitchen utensils and tools. In 2003 CRIIRAD had recommended that AREVA identify and dispose of contaminated metals.

Water

In response to criticism that mining has contaminated increasingly scarce drinking water in northern Niger, AREVA published a statement in January 2009 that "monthly bacterial, bi-annual radiological, and annual chemical analyses show the absence of [water] contamination."

But environmental studies carried out by CRIIRAD and Sherpa in 2005 in mining communities showed water radiation levels up to 110 times higher than World Health Organization (WHO) safe drinking water standards in industrial areas and 10 times higher in urban areas.

Uranium extraction requires water to clean the mining site, treat the mineral and cover workers' and their families' water needs, according to AREVA.

Pastoralists have also accused AREVA of depleting the region's water.

Hydrologists estimate that rain-fed groundwater sources - similar to the aquifer AREVA is tapping 150m beneath the desert - can take some 200 years to replenish.

Corporate responsibility

Though the Niger government owns one-third of the uranium mines, Almoustapha Alhacen - head of the Arlit-based environmental NGO Aghir In'Man - told IRIN he holds AREVA wholly responsible for the north's environmental and health problems. "AREVA is in Canada, but does it exploit uranium as savagely as it does here? Have Canada's cattle also died?"

Pastoralists have blamed a number of cattle deaths on contamination of wells from which animals drink.

AREVA extracted an estimated 3,200 metric tons of uranium in northern Canada in 2007, slightly more than in Niger for the same period. In a May 2007 survey of 1,000 residents living near AREVA's uranium mining operations in Canada, 80 percent responded they supported uranium exploration.

Mines in Canada are "heavily regulated" by some 30 government agencies, from fisheries to nuclear safety, he added.

Half the work force is hired from the local community, Richards told IRIN. "It is just as important that we maintain our social obligations and community standing as it is [that we] meet environmental and health regulations," Richards said.

Even though AREVA France invests $1 million a year for community development in northern Niger, according to its records, NGO leader Alhacen said most mining community residents have "generally negative" views about the industry.

Niger's living conditions - as measured by health, education and income - are among the worst worldwide, according to the UN.

AREVA France has said its approach is not to dispense "charity" but rather to engage locals in running projects and to increase coordination with donors. Alhacen said damages from mining far outweigh the benefits in Niger. "AREVA [France] publicises that it pays for 200,000 medical visits a year. We do not see that here. Even so, that is admitting that tens of thousands are getting sick every year," said Alhacen.

Government responsibility

Since June 2007 the Niger government has placed more than half the country under a state of alert as a result of a decades-long rebellion that re-erupted in February 2007. Hundreds have died and thousands have been displaced in the last two years as a result of fighting.

Rebels who have attacked military posts and water and electricity plants that feed AREVA operations are demanding more mining profits for community development and more protection from mining's hazards. They have accused the government of overlooking what they call AREVA's environmental non-compliance in exchange for mining royalties.

The government dismisses the rebellion as a front for smuggling.

But leader of the rebel front that launched the February 2007 attack, Aghaly Ag Alambo, told IRIN that mining communities are still not safe. "AREVA is not the main problem. It is not AREVA's job to provide for Nigeriens. It is the government that has failed its people."

Click Title or Link to Read whole post :
http://www.somalipress.com/news/2009-mar-31/desert-residents-pay-high-price-lucrative-uranium-mining.html

Jordanian Uranium Discoveries Could Devastate Fragile Ecosystem

Comment: NO to Uranium Mining all over the World!

Posted By Green Prophet On October 23, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

The news that Jordan “strikes it rich” by recent discoveries of high-grade uranium ore only five feet below the surface may come as a mixed blessing for this energy strapped country of 6 million inhabitants.

In a recent article by the Jerusalem Post [1], the amount of uranium deposits said to be available for mining, and of course its easy proximity for open pit mining operations [2], may wind up being a environmental nightmare for a country that already has a severe water shortage problem and a very delicate ecological balance in regards to its plant and animal life; as has often been noted by representatives of Jordan [3]Environmental Society established back in 1948 to preserve Jordan’s unique desert and mountain environment.

Jordan has entered into agreements with the French energy giant AREVA [4], which specializes in nuclear energy plants in Europe and other parts of the world, including Asia.

The Kingdom has also made agreements with Canada [5], the USA and France for the peaceful development of nuclear energy.

Read Whole Article:http://www.greenprophet.com/2009/10/23/12952/nuclear-energy-jordan-uranium/print/

Emotions run high in debate on uranium mining in east of Finland

Comment: Yes, people of the world, we are all fighting against uranium mining! We have the right to show our emotions in protecting our homes from greedy, uranium mining corporations! No To Uranium Mining!

Friday 23.10.2009

Is it OK for people to show their emotions when defending their homes and residential areas?

Of course they can” say residents of the eastern communities of Kontiolahti and Eno in the east of Finland, who have come out against proposals for mining uranium in the area.

The residents are not having a very easy time, as they face a large international corporation, the French-owned Areva, which is armed with an array of facts, legislation, money, and power.

However, opponents of Areva’s uranium prospecting in the area are pulling out all the stops in their effort to derail the project.

The ultimate goal of the movement is to end the use of uranium on a global scale.

They feel that the risk of accidents, and of the misuse of nuclear energy are too big to be foisted on the coming generations.

Read whole article: http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Emotions+run+high+in+debate+on+uranium+mining+in+east+of+Finland/1135250212100

Welcome funding (uranium mining in Virginia)

So France is chasing Virginia's uranium and I guess paying their people to write letters to counter the anti-uranium letters! Yes sir. those are the facts but they are too chicken to put their organization on the letter! If the Nukes like NAS, I will not trust the study at all! Go back to France; we do not want in our county or my state!

Heather Newcomb -
Lynchburg, Virginia Area -at AREVA NP

Welcome funding

By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: September 24, 2009

To the editor:

Katie Whitehead’s column, “State study? State money” (Sept. 20, page A11), questioned why the state government isn’t footing the bill for a National Academy of Sciences study of uranium mining.

Virginia is currently facing a $1.5 billion budget shortfall, which may grow over the coming months, and budget cuts include plans to lay off hundreds of state workers. At a time when the state is faced with eliminating jobs to balance the budget, decision makers are wise to engage the National Academy to study an issue that could bring hundreds of well-paying jobs to a region that badly needs them. Unemployment numbers in Southside Virginia (Danville, Martinsville and Pittsylvania County in particular) are among the state’s highest.

The National Academy of Sciences is an institution of Nobel Laureates and our country’s most esteemed academic and scientific experts.

The reputation of the National Academy is beyond reproach, and their research is conducted independently regardless of the source of funding. Virginians should welcome having the experts study the public health and environmental effects of uranium mining in Virginia, and trust that their findings will provide unbiased guidance to decisions of great importance to our energy future — and our economy.

HEATHER NEWCOMB

Lynchburg

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/welcome_funding/14100/

European Expert: U.S. Policymakers Are 'As Wrong As They Can Be' About The French...

Comment: Virginia future governors, GA, wake and smell the nuke coffee! Never, I mean never say "We Want to be like France"! France has problems with their Nukes! NO to Nukes! No to uranium mining!

Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:00am EDT

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

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- U.S. policy makers are in the grips of "dangerous and costly illusions" if they think that France is a model showing how nuclear power could be implemented aggressively in the United States, according to Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues and the executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris.

In visits this week with state and federal officials, Marignac is debunking the myth of the so-called "French nuclear model" that is being touted as a blueprint for the revival of the embattled nuclear power industry in the U.S.

His visit comes at a particular key time, as the U.S. Senate considers additional subsidies to the nuclear industry in its version of pending climate legislation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks public comment on weakening the rules for loan-guarantee bailouts of proposed new reactors.

Yves Marignac said: "I am at a loss to understand how the United States could be so far off the mark in its understanding of the French experience with nuclear power.

The so-called 'success story' of the French nuclear program, which is being promoted so assiduously by the U.S. nuclear industry, is a complete disconnect with the stark reality of the 50-year history of rising costs, steadily worsening delays, technological dead-ends,failed industrialchallenges and planning mistakes.

If American policymakers are going to weigh the example of France, they need to get the facts instead of settling for the fantasy being sold to them by the US nuclear industry."

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

-- French nuclear technology is deeply flawed.

The French EPR Reactor is a new reactor design developed by the company Areva in cooperation with the German firm Siemens. British and Finnish nuclear regulators have also raised significant safety questions, in particular about the computerized command and control
system proposed for these reactors.

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

-- French nuclear reactor costs are just as out of control as they are in
the U.S. The EPR has been promoted as a technology that makes nuclear energy cheaper and more competitive. When the decision was made to build an EPR in Finland in 2002, the government promised that it would cost Euro 2.5 billion and take only four years to build. The final contract, three years later, put the price at Euro 3 billion and construction time was set at 4.5 years. Since construction began in summer 2005, a variety of technical problems have led to a three and a half-year delay, extending the construction period to at least 7 years.

-- Nuclear power in France has not promoted energy independence. Nuclear
power in France is a major presence, providing 76 percent of electricity produced in 2008. However, electricity accounted for only 20.7 percent of the final energy consumption in France that year. Nuclear power cannot provide energy security, as it only has a marginal effect upon oil consumption, which is dominated by the transport sector. France consumes more oil per capita than the European average, and despite its long-term objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three-quarters, it seems incapable of bucking an upward trend. This is due largely to the weak policies on energy efficiency and new energy sources, influenced by the lock-in of nuclear power.

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

-- Nuclear power in France is not popular.

The pursuit of the nuclear program in France is a permanently undemocratic choice. Contrary to the image presented in the United States, the French population is no more in favor of nuclear power than the European average - indeed a majority is opposed to the building of new plants. Surveys repeatedly show that the public lacks confidence in the institutional promoters of nuclear power.

-- The "nationalized" nuclear model in France is completely incompatible with the market-driven U.S.

In 2001, Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires (Cogema - General Company for Nuclear Materials), a private company established in 1976, merged with Framatome, the nuclear reactor builder, to create the Areva group. Currently, 96 percent of the share capital of the Areva group is held by the French state and large French industries.
-- State ownership of French nuclear power means that the true costs are hidden.

Though largely in an indirect fashion, French taxpayers bear a large part of the nuclear costs. ABOUT YVES MARIGNAC

Yves Marignac is executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris, which he joined in 1997, after four years shared between academic research at Paris-XI University and applied studies in the French nuclear institute CEA and the nuclear company STMI. (go to link to read all his great works against Nukes)SOURCE Yves Marignac, WISE-Paris, and Nuclear Information and Resource Service Ailis Aaron Wolf, +1-703-276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com, for Yves Marignac

Leading European Industry Expert to Debunk Myth of 'French Nuclear Model' For U.S.

Mon Sep 14, 2009 11:00am EDT

50 Years of French Failings in Nuclear Power Seen As Poor Model for U.S.; Nation's Nuclear Woes Seen Escalating in Huge Cost Overruns at Finnish, Flamanville Reactor Projects

Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues and the executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris, will hold a major U.S. news media briefing at 11 a.m. EDT on September 15, 2009 to challenge the myth of the so-called "French nuclear model" that supposedly could serve as a blueprint for the revival of the embattled industry in the U.S.

As the U.S. Senate considers additional subsidies to the nuclear industry in its version of pending climate legislation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) seeks public comment on weakening the rules for loan-guarantee bail-outs of proposed new reactors, Marignac is visiting the United States to meet with federal and state officials, among other groups.

He will outline how the "nuclear success story" myth that is being promoted by the U.S. nuclear industry is far removed from the reality of France's 50-year history of technological dead-ends, failed industrial challenges and planning mistakes. Marignac will highlight how these problems have accelerated in recent years with the design flaws, construction problems and ever-escalating cost overruns now plaguing the troubled reactor projects at Olkiluoto 3 in
Finland and Flamanville-3 in France.

Yves Marignac is executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris, which he joined in 1997, after four years shared between academic research at Paris-XI University and applied studies in the French nuclear institute CEA and the nuclear company STMI.

His consultant work covers a wide range of nuclear issues for various institutional bodies and NGOs at the national and international level. In 1999-2000, Marignac participated in the economic evaluation of the nuclear option commissioned by French Prime Minister (known as Charpin-Dessus-Pellat report), and in 2001 he was a co-author of a report to the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (STOA) Panel on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In 2005, he acted as consultant to the Commission that organized the
institutional public debate on the project of the new French reactor, EPR (Flamanville-3).

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

TO PARTICIPATE: You can join this live, phone-based news conference (with full, two-way Q&A) at 11 a.m. EDT on September 15, 2009 by dialing 1 (800) 860-2442. Ask for the "debunking the French 'nuclear model'" news event.

CAN'T PARTICIPATE?: A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.nuclearbailout.org as of 5 p.m. EDT on September 15, 2009.
CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, +1-703-276-3265, aawolf@hastingsgroup.com, for Yves
Marignac, of WISE-Paris /PRNewswire-USNewswire -- Sept. 14/ SOURCE Yves Marignac, of WISE-Paris

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS148422+15-Sep-2009+PRN20090915

French nuclear workers see risks as conditions worsen

Comment: Attention people in Virginia do not make the statement, "We need to be more like France about Nuclear Power"! Well, duh, I hope not because French Nuke Bunch are not honest or a nice bunch! Just review the following articles on this web site and never say that Virginia wants to be like France!

Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:38pm EDT
By Muriel Boselli

PIERRELATTE, France (Reuters) - Worsening working conditions, inadequate pay rises, pressure to work faster and safety concerns -- these are the familiar grievances of a disaffected work force.

When such complaints arise in France's most sensitive industry -- nuclear power -- alarm bells start ringing.

Cyril Bouche and his colleagues at the Tricastin nuclear plant in the rolling hills of the Drome region say the state-owned utility EDF, which runs France's 58 nuclear reactors and has been expanding into the United States and Britain, is not only cutting costs, but also cutting corners.

The 39-year old, who works for one of EDF's many subcontracting firms, says working conditions at the plant -- hit by a series of incidents that shook public trust in 2008 -- have deteriorated over the past five to 10 years.

"Today France is selling reactors abroad but it should first put its own house in order," said Bouche, the only one of 10 workers interviewed by Reuters who was prepared to be identified.

The French government has put forward state ownership of its nuclear sector as a guarantee of its safety, but former monopoly EDF subcontracts 80 percent of the maintenance at its nuclear reactors to firms such as Vinci, Areva, GDF Suez or Bouygues.

EDF denies the suggestion that subcontracting implies it is skimping, pointing to plans to more than double investments to 8 billion euros in 2009 from 2005 levels to build and modernise nuclear, fuel-fired power plants and hydraulic plants.

"We subcontract because we have very specialized activities. When we change the reactor's fuel, this is a very sophisticated activity," said Philippe Gaestel, head of industrial strategy at EDF.

"We prefer to use subcontractors rather than do it ourselves. This means we have specialists and competencies that we couldn't have internally."

But independent experts including Yves Marignac, executive director of the information agency Wise-Paris, say safety margins in French nuclear power plants are shrinking as plants age, economic pressure mounts and trained staff retire.

"Even if it remains very unlikely, the probability of a serious nuclear incident is rising because of the way things are evolving, and this in itself is very worrying," he told Reuters by telephone.

France's nuclear safety record worsened in 2008.

Last year there was an increase of nearly one-third in nuclear incidents reported by the French nuclear safety watchdog at level one of the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), which runs from 0 to 7.

The French nuclear safety board ASN said there had been 72 incidents at level one in 2008, up from 56 in 2007.

NOUGAT

Nuclear is the main industrial sector of the Drome region famous for the nougat delicacy made in the city of Montelimar.

"All in all nuclear must make up between 75 and 80 percent of the region's employment," said Guy Durand, deputy mayor to the town of Pierrelatte, one the three cities which share the nuclear site of Tricastin.

"It's enormous...today there are around 5,000 permanent jobs on the industrial site," Durand added.

For Bouche and others, good pay was the lure to an industry that requires working long hours in dark and confined spaces with the constant risk of exposure to radiation.

A former car mechanic on the minimum wage, Bouche said he doubled his salary when he entered the nuclear sector 18 years ago but that pay had not increased with inflation.

France generates 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and is keen to export its expertise, which stretches back three decades, as other countries turn to nuclear to cut carbon emissions and boost their energy independence.

It opted for nuclear after the 1973 oil crisis pushed oil to then-record levels, although the choice was political: the costs of nuclear and fossil fuels are not easy to compare.

Thanks to state intervention in pricing, French consumers pay one of the cheapest rates for electricity in Europe. The French public continued to back the expansion of the industry after the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine in 1986, as other countries turned their back on the technology.

But as media attention mounts on atomic energy and France plans to extend its reactors' lifespans and build new ones, public acceptance is diminishing.

A 20-country survey earlier this year by Accenture showed that while public resistance to nuclear power had eased in many countries in the last three years, French consumers had become more negative.

CHOICE TO SUBCONTRACT

The Tricastin workers say they are worried about mounting numbers of small incidents, and point to a lack of oversight.

"In the past we used to work hand-in-hand with EDF on maintenance operations, but little by little EDF has withdrawn to let subcontractors take over," said one of Bouche's colleagues, speaking on condition of anonymity because he feared he may lose his job.

"Now EDF has lost its knowledge," he said, adding that EDF agents now merely played a monitoring role.

Annie Thebaud-Mony, head of research at the French health institute Inserm, said jobs in nuclear power plants were becoming less secure due to privatization and competition.

EDF partially floated its stock in 2005. Core profit for 2008 fell by more than 6 percent to 14.24 billion euros, and the company pledged in February to focus on organic growth after acquisitions in Britain and in the United States inflated its debt to nearly 25 billion euros.

But the company denies it has gradually pulled out from maintenance, saying it chose to subcontract from the outset.

"This was the optimal option to have quality work with specialists who operate permanently on our sites," said EDF's Gaestel. He said the company spent some 1.5 billion euros annually on maintenance, a relatively stable sum for some years.

Bouche and his colleagues say maintenance periods have considerably shortened. Each planned outage costs EDF around 1 million euros per day, the company has confirmed.

"Before, it took two months to do standard refuelling maintenance against three to four weeks now," said a logistics manager who heads a team of 30 and has been in the sector for 22 years.

EDF, which sells electricity to its neighbors, is under pressure to increase the availability of its aging reactors.

EDF's Gaestel said it was important for the operator to stick to its maintenance program drawn up in advance.

"What can be a problem though is when the planning drifts because of technical problems, like at the Tricastin nuclear site in 2008," he said.

France's nuclear watchdog ASN said in its 2008 report that maintenance operations were not always satisfactory because of inappropriate documentation, insufficient protective equipment and too tight a schedule.

It said subcontractor training should be improved.

For the workers, the tight maintenance schedules are adding to the risk of accident.

"We work on top of each other in the nuclear reactor which is very narrow and where it's hard to operate," said a 53-year-old worker. "We can be hit on the head by a hammer or be contaminated. Before, those risks did not exist because we used to take it in turns to work," he said.

While EDF agents have public sector contracts, which means a job for life, subcontractors fall in the private sector, making them vulnerable to job cuts. Their firms risk losing their contracts with EDF every three years.

EDF said not just any company could work in the nuclear sector.

"You have to produce your credentials to work in the nuclear field," Gaestel said. "Before a company can apply to our tenders there is a six-month long audit," he said, adding EDF planned to extend current contracts with subcontractors to six years.

(Editing by Andrew Dobbie and Sara Ledwith)

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE57U07K20090831?sp=true

Safety procedures in disarray at Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 nuclear construction site

COMMENT: Please review the two articles about the problems of the so call "New Nuke Plant Design" and the problems with the French Nuke Bunch! Demand Virginia to stop doing business the French Nuke Connection before they ruin our state with high price nuke plants and their further goals of uranium mining!

Posted by Justin on August 13, 2008 9:00 AM

Documents seen by Greenpeace show that French company Areva is failing to implement vital safety procedures in the troubled construction of its prototype European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) in Olkiluoto, Finland. As well as being 2-3 years behind schedule, 70 per cent over budget, and experiencing 1,500 construction defects along with a damaging fire, the reactor’s safety cannot be guaranteed.

The documents show that, during the construction of the steel framework in the base of the the world's largest nuclear reactor, welders had no specifications as to how the welding should be properly performed for an entire year and, furthermore, tests to ensure the quality of the welding have not been carried out.

Bouygues, an Areva sub-contractor, has had no qualified welding supervisors at the site for over a year and still does not have any. Staff are given a mere two weeks’ training instead of having the international standard university degree. The company also listed people who had not worked in the role as welding supervisors.

Areva, the Finnish nuclear safety authority STUK, and the country’s electricity generator TVO have all been aware of these problems and yet the necessary vital safeguards have not been implemented. Poor welding could cause or exacerbate a nuclear accident – both the reactor cooling system and the reactor itself are mounted on the steel framework. If this is how the construction has proceeded so far, what can we expect when it comes to the installation of reactor components or electronic safety systems?

Nuclear safety expert Dr Helmut Hirsch states that there is a ‘bad safety culture’ at the Olkiluoto 3 site, calling into question the durability of the steel structure and its ability to withstand electrochemical corrosion.

Parts of Olkiluoto 3 affected by the violations

To make matters worse, this is history repeating itself. Lessons have not been learned. Inspections on the construction of the other EPR at Flamanville in France found that a quarter of the welding in the reactor’s steel lining was substandard. Cracks were also found in the reactor’s concrete base. When the problem was discovered, it was sub-contractor Bouygues again at the root of the shortcomings and construction was halted by French nuclear watchdog ASN.

How has all this happened? It looks as if these potentially catastrophic shortcomings in Finland have arisen from the parties seeking to cut corners on rocketing construction costs. Quality standards agreed in contracts between Areva and TVO are poor. Contractual requirements for the competence of welding staff look to have been breached. STUK and TVO have failed to deal with safety violations. TVO has also failed to use sanctions such as stopping construction so that failures could be addressed. It all adds up to a recipe for disaster.

It is clear that there can be little public confidence in the construction of the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor. How and why are we to believe assurances on matters of safety from the likes of Areva now and in the future? This is yet another blow to the public relations distortion that nuclear energy is safe. The industry has shown itself - again - to be anything but open and honest in its dealings with the public.

None of us would dream of flying in a plane, driving a car, or living in a house which we knew to be built to such shockingly poor standards of construction, supervision and safety. So why should we tolerate or allow such attitudes, incompetence and deception in the construction of a nuclear facility which, in the event of an accident, could cause massive, unquantifiable damage to our health and the environment? The answer is simple: we can not and we should not.

Areva and its sub-contractors should be reminded whose interests they truly serve. Public safety should always be put before profit and poor procedures. Those responsible for this misconduct should be held to account. The construction of Olkiluoto 3 must be halted.

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2008/08/breaking_news_safety_procedure.html

In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble

Published: May 28, 2009

OLKILUOTO, Finland — As the Obama administration tries to steer America toward cleaner sources of energy, it would do well to consider the cautionary tale of this new-generation nuclear reactor site.

Henna Aaltonen for The International Herald Tribune

After four years of construction and thousands of recorded defects and deficiencies, the price tag on the reactor in Olkiluoto, Finland, has climbed at least 50 percent.

Henna Aaltonen for The International Herald Tribune

Jouni Silvennoinen, the project manager of the ambitious Olkiluoto nuclear plant. The reactor’s design was supposed to make it cheaper and faster to build, and safer, than older plants.


A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.

Go to Blog » The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too.

But things have not gone as planned.

After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online.

While the American nuclear industry has predicted clear sailing after its first plants are built, the problems in Europe suggest these obstacles may be hard to avoid.

A new fleet of reactors would be standardized down to “the carpeting and wallpaper,” as Michael J. Wallace, the chairman of UniStar Nuclear Energy — a joint venture between EDF Group and Constellation Energy, the Maryland-based utility — has said repeatedly.

In the end, he says, that standardization will lead to significant savings.

But early experience suggests these new reactors will be no easier or cheaper to build than the ones of a generation ago, when cost overruns — and then accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl — ended the last nuclear construction boom.

In Flamanville, France, a clone of the Finnish reactor now under construction is also behind schedule and overbudget.

In the United States, Florida and Georgia have changed state laws to raise electricity rates so that consumers will foot some of the bill for new nuclear plants in advance, before construction even begins.

“A number of U.S. companies have looked with trepidation on the situation in Finland and at the magnitude of the investment there,” said Paul L. Joskow, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a co-author of an influential report on the future of nuclear power in 2003. “The rollout of new nuclear reactors will be a good deal slower than a lot of people were assuming.”

For nuclear power to have a high impact on reducing greenhouse gases, an average of 12 reactors would have to be built worldwide each year until 2030, according to the Nuclear Energy Agency at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Right now, there are not even enough reactors under construction to replace those that are reaching the end of their lives.

And of the 45 reactors being built around the world, 22 have encountered construction delays, according to an analysis prepared this year for the German government by Mycle Schneider, an energy analyst and a critic of the nuclear industry. He added that nine do not have official start-up dates.

Most of the new construction is underway in countries like China and Russia, where strong central governments have made nuclear energy a national priority. India also has long seen nuclear as part of a national drive for self-sufficiency and now is seeking new nuclear technologies to reduce its reliance on imported uranium.

By comparison, “the state has been all over the place in the United States and Europe on nuclear power,” Mr. Joskow said.

The United States generates about one-fifth of its electricity from a fleet of 104 reactors, most built in the 1960s and 1970s. Coal still provides about half the country’s power.

To streamline construction, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington has worked with the industry to approve a handful of designs. Even so, the schedule to certify the most advanced model from Westinghouse, a unit of Toshiba, has slipped during an ongoing review of its ability to withstand the impact of an airliner.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has also not yet approved the so-called EPR design under construction in Finland for the American market.

This month, the United States Energy Department produced a short list of four reactor projects eligible for some loan guarantees. In the 2005 energy bill, Congress provided $18.5 billion, but the industry’s hope of winning an additional $50 billion worth of loan guarantees evaporated when that money was stripped from President Obama’s economic stimulus bill.

The industry has had more success in getting states to help raise money. This year, authorities permitted Florida Power & Light to start charging millions of customers several dollars a month to finance four new reactors. Customers of Georgia Power, a subsidiary of the Southern Co., will pay on average $1.30 a month more in 2011, rising to $9.10 by 2017, to help pay for two reactors expected to go online in 2016 or later.

But resistance is mounting. In April, Missouri legislators balked at a preconstruction rate increase, prompting the state’s largest electric utility, Ameren UE, to suspend plans for a $6 billion copy of Areva’s Finnish reactor.

Areva, a conglomerate largely owned by the French state, is heir to that nation’s experience in building nuclear plants. France gets about 80 percent of its power from 58 reactors. But even France has not completed a new reactor since 1999.

After designing an updated plant originally called the European Pressurized Reactor with German participation during the 1990s, the French had trouble selling it at home because of a saturated energy market as well as opposition from Green Party members in the then-coalition government.

So Areva turned to Finland, where utilities and energy-hungry industries like pulp and paper had been lobbying for 15 years for more nuclear power. The project was initially budgeted at $4 billion and Teollisuuden Voima, the Finnish utility, pledged it would be ready in time to help the Finnish government meet its greenhouse gas targets under the Kyoto climate treaty, which runs through 2012.

Areva promised electricity from the reactor could be generated more cheaply than from natural gas plants. Areva also said its model would deliver 1,600 megawatts, or about 10 percent of Finnish power needs.

In 2001, the Finnish parliament narrowly approved construction of a reactor at Olkiluoto, an island on the Baltic Sea. Construction began four years later.

Serious problems first arose over the vast concrete base slab for the foundation of the reactor building, which the country’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority found too porous and prone to corrosion. Since then, the authority has blamed Areva for allowing inexperienced subcontractors to drill holes in the wrong places on a vast steel container that seals the reactor.

In December, the authority warned Anne Lauvergeon, the chief executive of Areva, that “the attitude or lack of professional knowledge of some persons” at Areva was holding up work on safety systems.

Today, the site still teems with 4,000 workmen on round-the-clock shifts. Banners from dozens of subcontractors around Europe flutter in the breeze above temporary offices and makeshift canteens. Some 10,000 people speaking at least eight different languages have worked at the site. About 30 percent of the workforce is Polish, and communication has posed significant challenges.

Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, double the price offered to the Finns. But Areva said it was not cutting any corners in Finland. The two sides have agreed to arbitration, where they are both claiming more than 1 billion euros in compensation. (Areva blames the Finnish authorities for impeding construction and increasing costs for work it agreed to complete at a fixed price.)

Areva announced a steep drop in earnings last year, which it blamed mostly on mounting losses from the project.

In addition, nuclear safety inspectors in France have found cracks in the concrete base and steel reinforcements in the wrong places at the site in Flamanville. They also have warned Électricité de France, the utility building the reactor, that welders working on the steel container were not properly qualified.

On top of such problems come the recession, weaker energy demand, tight credit and uncertainty over future policies, said Caren Byrd, an executive director of the global utility and power group at Morgan Stanley in New York.

“The warning lights now are flashing more brightly than just a year ago about the cost of new nuclear,” she said.

And Jouni Silvennoinen, the project manager at Olkiluoto, said, “We have had it easy here.” Olkiluoto is at least a geologically stable site. Earthquake risks in places like China and the United States or even the threat of storm surges mean building these reactors will be even trickier elsewhere.

Matthew L. Wald contributed reporting from Washington.

Desert Residents Pay High Price for Lucrative Uranium Mining

Comment: Please tell Virginia's leaders that we do not want the French in our state ruining our lives, ruining our land, ruining our air and ruining our water with their Nuke Plants and maybe in the future, Virginia's uranium mining!

2009-mar-31

After a visit in late March from French President Nicholas Sarkozy to Niger, residents in the uranium-exporting desert country continue questioning whether AREVA, a company primarily owned by the French government, will honour its promise to protect communities from mining hazards.

Studies and residents' testimonies have pointed to health and environmental dangers from mining operations owned and operated by both AREVA's subsidiaries and the Niger government.

Salifou Adifou, 67, worked for 40 years as a driller at Niger's SOMAÃèR (Aïr Mountains Mining Company), a public-private venture with AREVA owning 63 percent.

The retiree told IRIN he has undiagnosed health problems. "I have stomach and chest pains, but since retirement [in 1999], I cannot afford health care." Adifou said his friend who had worked as a miner is now bedridden.

Neither knows the cause of his health problems, Adifou told IRIN.

Air

The AREVA majority-owned mine called COMINAK (Mining Company of Akouta) commissioned an environmental study of its operations in Arlit in 2006, which reported that the number of deaths linked to respiratory infections was twice as high in the mining town (16 percent) as in the rest of the country.

Arlit's population is 110,000.

"The wind carries dust contaminated with the long-lasting radium [time required for it to lose toxicity is more than 1,600 years] and lead...Samples taken from 5km within site...Sandstorms [and] atmospheric waste from mines could be aggravating factors for pulmonary [illnesses] in the region," the researchers wrote in COMINAK's environmental study.

But AREVA dismisses the link between mining and elevated health problems in its January 2009 report on mining activities in Niger. "These problems are typical in desert zones...they are not linked to mining activities."

Nevertheless AREVA directors have agreed to set up health diagnostic centres in all countries where it extracts uranium, starting with Gabon, according to the Paris-based human rights legal association Sherpa. "It has been two long, difficult years to get to this point with the company to give workers a voice," Sherpa director Yann Queinnec told IRIN.

Plans are still being finalised, said Queinnec, but the agreement is that each centre would have an advisory board with representation from workers, local officials, non-profit organisations and AREVA.

Queinnec said it took years "to craft an agreement that will be different from other accords signed in the name of protecting workers," of which key components, the lawyer said, remain unfulfilled.

Soil

The Paris-based Commission of Research and Independent Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD) has written of "serious safety lapses" in and near AREVA mining sites in Niger.

In 2007 CRIIRAD researchers said they found locals selling contaminated scrap metal from mining sites and the materials were eventually used in housing construction, kitchen utensils and tools. In 2003 CRIIRAD had recommended that AREVA identify and dispose of contaminated metals.

Radioactive waste - possibly used in road construction - may be responsible for the abnormally high levels of radiation, according to CRIIRAD. In 2007 CRIIRAD researchers wrote that radiation levels were up to 100 times above average in front of the AREVA-funded hospital near the COMINAK mine.

Water

In response to criticism that mining has contaminated increasingly scarce drinking water in northern Niger, AREVA published a statement in January 2009 that "monthly bacterial, bi-annual radiological, and annual chemical analyses show the absence of [water] contamination."

But environmental studies carried out by CRIIRAD and Sherpa in 2005 in mining communities showed water radiation levels up to 110 times higher than World Health Organization (WHO) safe drinking water standards in industrial areas and 10 times higher in urban areas.

Uranium extraction requires water to clean the mining site, treat the mineral and cover workers' and their families' water needs, according to AREVA.

Pastoralists have also accused AREVA of depleting the region's water.

By AREVA's calculation the company has pumped 270 million cubic metres of groundwater during the past 40 years from its two mines in Arlit, of which 35 percent has been for mining activities and the rest for the town's use.

AREVA spokesperson Yves Dufour said recently in the French media that AREVA's future water needs in Imouraren, 80km south of Arlit, will be only a fraction of the eight billion cubic metres of desert groundwater available in the area. AREVA is investing US$1.5 billion in Imouraren in what is expected to be the country's largest uranium mine.

Hydrologists estimate that rain-fed groundwater sources - similar to the aquifer AREVA is tapping 150m beneath the desert - can take some 200 years to replenish.

Corporate responsibility

Though the Niger government owns one-third of the uranium mines, Almoustapha Alhacen - head of the Arlit-based environmental NGO Aghir In'Man - told IRIN he holds AREVA wholly responsible for the north's environmental and health problems. "AREVA is in Canada, but does it exploit uranium as savagely as it does here? Have Canada's cattle also died?"

Pastoralists have blamed a number of cattle deaths on contamination of wells from which animals drink.

AREVA extracted an estimated 3,200 metric tons of uranium in northern Canada in 2007, slightly more than in Niger for the same period. In a May 2007 survey of 1,000 residents living near AREVA's uranium mining operations in Canada, 80 percent responded they supported uranium exploration.

AREVA Resources Canada's spokesperson Alun Richards told IRIN his company rents daily charter planes to transport 350 employees from their remote northern homes to the mining site in Saskatchewan province explaining how workers, mostly nomads, "need to be near their extended family networks". In addition, the Canadian mine gives local communities $80,000 per year to carry out their own environmental impact studies. "People do not read studies. They trust results more if they test their own food and rivers they fish from," said Richards.

Mines in Canada are "heavily regulated" by some 30 government agencies, from fisheries to nuclear safety, he added.

Half the work force is hired from the local community, Richards told IRIN. "It is just as important that we maintain our social obligations and community standing as it is [that we] meet environmental and health regulations," Richards said.

Even though AREVA France invests $1 million a year for community development in northern Niger, according to its records, NGO leader Alhacen said most mining community residents have "generally negative" views about the industry.

When asked why a private company that shares ownership with the Niger government should bear most of the burden of community development, Alhacen said multinationals working in Africa should recognise their corporate responsibility.

Niger's living conditions - as measured by health, education and income - are among the worst worldwide, according to the UN.

AREVA France has said its approach is not to dispense "charity" but rather to engage locals in running projects and to increase coordination with donors. Alhacen said damages from mining far outweigh the benefits in Niger. "AREVA [France] publicises that it pays for 200,000 medical visits a year. We do not see that here. Even so, that is admitting that tens of thousands are getting sick every year," said Alhacen.

Government responsibility

Since June 2007 the Niger government has placed more than half the country under a state of alert as a result of a decades-long rebellion that re-erupted in February 2007. Hundreds have died and thousands have been displaced in the last two years as a result of fighting.

Rebels who have attacked military posts and water and electricity plants that feed AREVA operations are demanding more mining profits for community development and more protection from mining's hazards. They have accused the government of overlooking what they call AREVA's environmental non-compliance in exchange for mining royalties.

The government dismisses the rebellion as a front for smuggling.

Minister of Information Mohamed Ben Omar told IRIN: "The government has made every effort to protect local populations from harmful mining practices. Just because of profits, we are not looking the other way," he said. "We have ratified every international relevant convention [on mining] and taken all necessary control measures."

But leader of the rebel front that launched the February 2007 attack, Aghaly Ag Alambo, told IRIN that mining communities are still not safe. "AREVA is not the main problem. It is not AREVA's job to provide for Nigeriens. It is the government that has failed its people."

http://www.somalipress.com/news/2009-mar-31/desert-residents-pay-high-price-lucrative-uranium-mining.html