Comments From Erica Gray: Hi All. It's a cold and windy day...conducive to contacting legislators via email!!! List of Delegates and Senators at end of this email.
SB 1138 (The Nuclear Energy Consortium) still needs to be read 3 times on the House floor before passing on to the Governor. We have the weekend to make sure they get lot's of emails from the public and then let's get those phones ringing again on Monday Morning 2/18/13. We want to STRESS the lack of transparency,details/specifics and that the consortium will NOT be held accountable to FOIA as the main point!!!!
.
The Nuclear Energy Consortium would give the Nuclear Industry carte blanche in using Virgin...ia's colleges and resources for any aspect of the cradle to grave development of Nuclear Technology. This fuzzy piece of legislation is veiled in secrecy and has been strongly defended by it's supporters who claim that any scrutiny or transparency would hinder their agenda. What is their agenda? We are not sure, it's secret.
Cathy France, head of the Governor's Uranium Work Group, is the facilitator of this bill, and seems to have too much personal interest in seeing it become law. She vociferously opposed any non government or non industry involvement and resists even allowing FOIA access to the doings of this "think tank".
There are too many questions and not enough answers to allow this furtive commingling of public and corporate funds to go through this year. The public has been far too trusting, relying on the Nuclear Industry's claims of safety and accountability. This would possibly give this industry access to unlimited funding with no citizen oversight. Stop it, if this is such a good bill, it deserves the chance for more citizens to read it and either endorse it or reject it.
Look up your House representative here ~
http://conview.state.va.us/who
Here is the Bill ~ SB1138
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-
.
The Nuclear Energy Consortium would give the Nuclear Industry carte blanche in using Virgin...ia's colleges and resources for any aspect of the cradle to grave development of Nuclear Technology. This fuzzy piece of legislation is veiled in secrecy and has been strongly defended by it's supporters who claim that any scrutiny or transparency would hinder their agenda. What is their agenda? We are not sure, it's secret.
Cathy France, head of the Governor's Uranium Work Group, is the facilitator of this bill, and seems to have too much personal interest in seeing it become law. She vociferously opposed any non government or non industry involvement and resists even allowing FOIA access to the doings of this "think tank".
There are too many questions and not enough answers to allow this furtive commingling of public and corporate funds to go through this year. The public has been far too trusting, relying on the Nuclear Industry's claims of safety and accountability. This would possibly give this industry access to unlimited funding with no citizen oversight. Stop it, if this is such a good bill, it deserves the chance for more citizens to read it and either endorse it or reject it.
Look up your House representative here ~
http://conview.state.va.us/who
Here is the Bill ~ SB1138
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-
Comments: The issue of the carbon footprint that Coles Hill mining, milling and wastes disposal would create has been discussed in the past. Claims by VUI and advocates that the Coles Hill deposit could fuel US reactors for two years pale when you consider the carbon footprint for the 35 years the complex would operate. The list below does not take appear to take into account the construction phases and maintenance aspects. Has anyone found figures that might address these issues? If so, please share.
By Priscilla Star
NUCLEAR POWER’S CARBON FOOTPRINT
People that claim nuclear power is carbon-neutral are considering only the direct emissions of the plant itself. In fact, it has the largest carbon footprint of any energy source other than fossil fuels. An incomplete list:
1. MINING - Uranium (or thorium)
2. MILLING - Transportation to millworks, converting ore to “yellowcake” uranium
3. CONVERSION - Construction of the uranium (U) conversion facility, transportation of “yellowcake”, conversion to UF6
4. ENRICHMENT - Construction of the U enrichment facility and the cylinders used to transport UF6, transportation of UF6 to the enrichment facility, enrichment. The Paducah, KY plant uses 3,040 megawatts of coal energy at peak power.
5. FUEL PELLETS - Formation & transportation of uranium fuel pellets 6. NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION (NPP) - Takes years and uses heavy
construction equipment. Steel and concrete production are carbon-intensive.
7. SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE NPPs - Construction of roads, transmission lines, barge canals
8. GENERATORS - Heavy-duty diesel generators run the cooling system during routine maintenance, refueling, other normal shut downs, SCRAMs, and power outages
9. WASTE STORAGE - Building Radioactive Waste (radwaste) storage facilities and storage containers. Transportation of radwaste, sometimes across the country or the ocean.
10. WASTE PROCESSING - Building reprocessing plant, transportation of radwaste, reprocessing, building storage for the remaining radwaste
11. WASTE INCINERATION - Building radwaste incineration facilities, transporting the waste to the incineration facility, incineration
12. WASTE VITRIFICATION - Building vitrification plants, transporting waste to the plant, vitrifying the waste (involves heating the materials to very high temperatures)
13. MONITORING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE - Carbon pollution generated by moni- toring and guarding the radwaste for eternity
14. DECOMISSIONING AND DECONTAMINATION - NPPs, other reactors, enrichment facilities, and other support infrastructure
15. ACCIDENTS - Mitigation and clean-up efforts have a huge carbon footprint
16. DAMAGED REACTORS AND ACCIDENTS - Building sarcophagus structures, monitoring, securing and periodically re-entombing failed NPPs for eternity
People that claim nuclear power is carbon-neutral are considering only the direct emissions of the plant itself. In fact, it has the largest carbon footprint of any energy source other than fossil fuels. An incomplete list:
1. MINING - Uranium (or thorium)
2. MILLING - Transportation to millworks, converting ore to “yellowcake” uranium
3. CONVERSION - Construction of the uranium (U) conversion facility, transportation of “yellowcake”, conversion to UF6
4. ENRICHMENT - Construction of the U enrichment facility and the cylinders used to transport UF6, transportation of UF6 to the enrichment facility, enrichment. The Paducah, KY plant uses 3,040 megawatts of coal energy at peak power.
5. FUEL PELLETS - Formation & transportation of uranium fuel pellets 6. NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION (NPP) - Takes years and uses heavy
construction equipment. Steel and concrete production are carbon-intensive.
7. SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE NPPs - Construction of roads, transmission lines, barge canals
8. GENERATORS - Heavy-duty diesel generators run the cooling system during routine maintenance, refueling, other normal shut downs, SCRAMs, and power outages
9. WASTE STORAGE - Building Radioactive Waste (radwaste) storage facilities and storage containers. Transportation of radwaste, sometimes across the country or the ocean.
10. WASTE PROCESSING - Building reprocessing plant, transportation of radwaste, reprocessing, building storage for the remaining radwaste
11. WASTE INCINERATION - Building radwaste incineration facilities, transporting the waste to the incineration facility, incineration
12. WASTE VITRIFICATION - Building vitrification plants, transporting waste to the plant, vitrifying the waste (involves heating the materials to very high temperatures)
13. MONITORING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE - Carbon pollution generated by moni- toring and guarding the radwaste for eternity
14. DECOMISSIONING AND DECONTAMINATION - NPPs, other reactors, enrichment facilities, and other support infrastructure
15. ACCIDENTS - Mitigation and clean-up efforts have a huge carbon footprint
16. DAMAGED REACTORS AND ACCIDENTS - Building sarcophagus structures, monitoring, securing and periodically re-entombing failed NPPs for eternity
To: Virginia Lawmakers, Citizens, and the Media
From: Deborah and Ken Ferruccio
NC Citizens Against Uranium Mining and Against the VA
Nuclear Energy Consortium Authority
Subject: Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium Authority Poses Threat to
Eastern Seaboard
One of the gravest threats to more than fifty million people who live
along the Eastern Seaboard is the newly formed VIRGINIA NUCLEAR ENERGY
CONSORTIUM AUTHORITY (VNECA), a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth appointed by the Governor and granted broad, undefined
powers to promote nuclear industries. While the stated purpose of the
Authority is to make Virginia a national and global leader in nuclear
energy and a resource for study and research, the VNECA is in also
“granted all powers necessary or convenient for the carrying out of
its statutory purposes.”
According to the Daily Progress, the Virginia Nuclear Energy
Consortium Authority “would be exempted from a whole raft of laws that
are designed to protect the public – the Freedom of Information Act,
as well as provisions of the State and Local Government Conflict of
Interests Act, Investment of Public Funds Act, Government Data
Collection and Dissemination Practices Act, [and] Public Procurement
Act.”
Citizens and environmental advocates are extremely concerned that the
general wording and the lack of transparency and public accountability
that have deliberately been written into the bill will give VNECA
unchecked powers, including giving the Authority the power to promote
and expand cradle to grave nuclear industries, including uranium
mining and radioactive waste disposal. Citizens have good reasons to
suspect that the creation of the VNECA could be a mechanism for
legislators and/or the Governor to side-step taking direct
responsibility for getting uranium mining regulations written.
At the February 14 Virginia Legislative Commerce Committee meeting,
suspicions about the overreaching powers of the Authority were in fact
confirmed when lawmakers finalized the VNECA bill. During the public
comment period, after Sierra Club Virginia Chapter Director Glen Bese
addressed the Authority's “silent” language in the bill and how the
overreaching powers described in the bill could permit the Authority
to involve itself with uranium mining, Chairman Terry Kilgore argued
that the Consortium Authority would not write uranium mining
regulations. Yet Mr. Bese argued that there was nothing in the bill
that would prevent the Authority from promoting the uranium mining
industry. Chairman Kilgore became impatient with Mr. Bese then
declared that subsequent speakers could not address the uranium mining
issue, or they would be ruled out of order. So, Mr. Kilgore in effect
put a gag order on public participation and implicitly revealed just
how the VNECA will operate – without public input and with impunity.
Should we accept that this legislative chicanery is just politics as
usual? We should not because uranium mining in Virginia -- approved
by any legislative or executive means -- puts the Eastern Seaboard in
peril. No matter the claims that uranium mining, processing, and
radioactive waste disposal methods have improved, no modern practices
can stop Mother Nature from spreading radioactive contamination. Even
under the best of circumstances, earthen dams erode; liners leak;
impoundments overflow; contaminated waste-water evaporates and becomes
rain and snow; and radioactive dust particles are carried thousands of
miles in days. Under the worst of circumstances – floods, hurricanes,
and earthquakes -- uranium mining in Virginia would be catastrophic,
and the water supply to millions would be undrinkable and unusable.
Because so much is at stake for so many, the public along the Eastern
Seaboard should view the establishment of an unchecked Virginia
Nuclear Energy Consortium Authority that is veiled in secrecy and
“exempted from a whole raft of laws that are designed to protect the
public” as a direct threat to their persons and properties. What’s
more, because the Authority is a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and because the Commonwealth of Virginia is
subject to the laws of the United States, it follows that the
exemptions granted the Authority are in fact illegal and should be
considered as an arbitrary and capricious disregard of state and
federal laws.
From: Deborah and Ken Ferruccio
NC Citizens Against Uranium Mining and Against the VA
Nuclear Energy Consortium Authority
Subject: Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium Authority Poses Threat to
Eastern Seaboard
One of the gravest threats to more than fifty million people who live
along the Eastern Seaboard is the newly formed VIRGINIA NUCLEAR ENERGY
CONSORTIUM AUTHORITY (VNECA), a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth appointed by the Governor and granted broad, undefined
powers to promote nuclear industries. While the stated purpose of the
Authority is to make Virginia a national and global leader in nuclear
energy and a resource for study and research, the VNECA is in also
“granted all powers necessary or convenient for the carrying out of
its statutory purposes.”
According to the Daily Progress, the Virginia Nuclear Energy
Consortium Authority “would be exempted from a whole raft of laws that
are designed to protect the public – the Freedom of Information Act,
as well as provisions of the State and Local Government Conflict of
Interests Act, Investment of Public Funds Act, Government Data
Collection and Dissemination Practices Act, [and] Public Procurement
Act.”
Citizens and environmental advocates are extremely concerned that the
general wording and the lack of transparency and public accountability
that have deliberately been written into the bill will give VNECA
unchecked powers, including giving the Authority the power to promote
and expand cradle to grave nuclear industries, including uranium
mining and radioactive waste disposal. Citizens have good reasons to
suspect that the creation of the VNECA could be a mechanism for
legislators and/or the Governor to side-step taking direct
responsibility for getting uranium mining regulations written.
At the February 14 Virginia Legislative Commerce Committee meeting,
suspicions about the overreaching powers of the Authority were in fact
confirmed when lawmakers finalized the VNECA bill. During the public
comment period, after Sierra Club Virginia Chapter Director Glen Bese
addressed the Authority's “silent” language in the bill and how the
overreaching powers described in the bill could permit the Authority
to involve itself with uranium mining, Chairman Terry Kilgore argued
that the Consortium Authority would not write uranium mining
regulations. Yet Mr. Bese argued that there was nothing in the bill
that would prevent the Authority from promoting the uranium mining
industry. Chairman Kilgore became impatient with Mr. Bese then
declared that subsequent speakers could not address the uranium mining
issue, or they would be ruled out of order. So, Mr. Kilgore in effect
put a gag order on public participation and implicitly revealed just
how the VNECA will operate – without public input and with impunity.
Should we accept that this legislative chicanery is just politics as
usual? We should not because uranium mining in Virginia -- approved
by any legislative or executive means -- puts the Eastern Seaboard in
peril. No matter the claims that uranium mining, processing, and
radioactive waste disposal methods have improved, no modern practices
can stop Mother Nature from spreading radioactive contamination. Even
under the best of circumstances, earthen dams erode; liners leak;
impoundments overflow; contaminated waste-water evaporates and becomes
rain and snow; and radioactive dust particles are carried thousands of
miles in days. Under the worst of circumstances – floods, hurricanes,
and earthquakes -- uranium mining in Virginia would be catastrophic,
and the water supply to millions would be undrinkable and unusable.
Because so much is at stake for so many, the public along the Eastern
Seaboard should view the establishment of an unchecked Virginia
Nuclear Energy Consortium Authority that is veiled in secrecy and
“exempted from a whole raft of laws that are designed to protect the
public” as a direct threat to their persons and properties. What’s
more, because the Authority is a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and because the Commonwealth of Virginia is
subject to the laws of the United States, it follows that the
exemptions granted the Authority are in fact illegal and should be
considered as an arbitrary and capricious disregard of state and
federal laws.
Federal officials say a tank at the Hanford nuclear reservation is leaking up to 300 gallons a year of radioactive liquids — the latest problem in a long-troubled
effort to clean up the site.
A single-shell tank at Hanford is leaking up to 300 gallons a year of radioactive liquids, a disclosure that raises broader questions about the integrity of
more than 140 other tanks that hold tens of millions of gallons of waste left over from decades of processing nuclear materials at the federal site in southeast Washington.“We were told this problem was dealt with years ago, and was under control,” said Gov. Jay Inslee, who met with reporters Friday afternoon.
The leak disclosed Friday by the Energy Department is the latest setback in a long-troubled effort to clean up a federal site that ranks as one of the most contaminated places on Earth, according to a 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
The tank under scrutiny was assumed to be leaking in past decades, so in 1995 pumpable liquids were removed in what was termed an “interim stabilization,” according to the Energy Department.
The tank currently holds about 447,000 gallons of sludge.
Inslee said that federal government needs to come up with funding to deal with the leaking tank, check the conditions of other tanks and build more interim storage with double-shelled tanks.
Long term, a $12 billion effort is under way to build a plant to treat high-level waste. The plant is designed to turn radioactive waste into glass logs through a vitrification process, but that effort has been beset by big technical challenges and repeated delays.
Inslee says the new leak lends added urgency to the cleanup at a time when budget cutting in Congress could make funding much harder to obtain.
“We will not tolerate any leaks of this material to the environment,” Inslee said.
In past decades, Hanford was a virtual dumping ground for wastes from the nuclear-processing effort. The new leak is minuscule compared to the site’s history.
The 2008 GAO report noted that the federal managers of the Hanford site intentionally discharged 121 million gallons of radioactive liquid waste directly into the ground between 1946 and 1966.
The storage tanks have leaked about 1 million gallons of waste into the ground over the years, according to the GAO report.
But a major stabilization effort completed in 2005 was supposed to curb the leaks by pumping out liquids and leaving behind thicker sludge.
Inslee said this is the first confirmed leak of a single-shelled tank since that stabilization effort was completed.
Inslee acknowledged there is no immediate threat from the leak, since it would likely take years to reach the groundwater.
Due to past pollution, there already are large radioactive plumes making their way through the soil and groundwater.
There is an extensive effort to monitor the plumes and a groundwater-treatment system also is in place, according to the Department of Ecology.
Overall, about 10 percent of the 586-square-mile site has radioactive or chemical contamination.
Some materials from Hanford — including tritium, chromium, nitrate and strontium-90 — have entered the river, according to the state Department of Ecology.
But no unsafe levels of radionuclides have been found in farm crops in the region and there are no advisories against swimming or eating salmon, steelhead or other popular fish species from the Columbia River, according to the Ecology Department.
Comments From Erica Gray: Hi All. It's a cold and windy day...conducive to contacting legislators via email!!! List of Delegates and Senators at end of this email.
For your convenience:
<district39@senate.virginia.
> <district14@senate.virginia.
> <district29@senate.virginia.
> <district30@senate.virginia.
> <district31@senate.virginia.
> <district24@senate.virginia.
> <district32@senate.virginia.
> <district18@senate.virginia.
> <district16@senate.virginia.
> <district04@senate.virginia.
> <district08@senate.virginia.
> <district05@senate.virginia.
> <district03@senate.virginia.
> <district26@senate.virginia.
> <district38@senate.virginia.
> <district17@senate.virginia.
> <district35@senate.virginia.
> <district20@senate.virginia.
> <district28@senate.virginia.
> <district07@senate.virginia.
"Del. David Albo" <DelDAlbo@house.virginia.gov>; "Del. Kenneth
> Alexander" <DelKAlexander@house.virginia.
> <DelRAnderson@house.virginia.
> <DelMBaCote@house.virginia.gov
> <DelDBell@house.virginia.gov>; "Del. Robert Bell"
> <DelRBell@house.virginia.gov>; "Del. Robert Brink"
> <DelRBrink@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelKByron@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelBCline@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelBComstock@house.virginia.
> <DelJCox@house.virginia.gov>; <DelKCox@house.virginia.gov>;
> <DelACrockett-Stark@house.
> <DelMDudenhefer@House.
> <DelDEnglin@house.virginia.gov
> <DelPFarrell@house.virginia.
> <DelSGarrett@house.virginia.
> <DelTGreason@house.virginia.
> <DelCHead@house.virginia.gov>; <DelGHelsel@house.virginia.gov
> <DelCHerring@house.virginia.
> <DelPHope@house.virginia.gov>; <DelAHowell@house.virginia.gov
> <delwhowell@house.virginia.gov
> <DelSIaquinto@house.virginia.
> <DelMJames@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelCJones@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelTKilgore@house.virginia.
> <DelKKory@house.virginia.gov>; <DelSLandes@house.virginia.gov
> <DelJLeMunyon@house.virginia.
> <DelSLingamfelter@house.
> <DelMLoupassi@house.virginia.
> <DelDMarshall@house.virginia.
> <DelJMassie@house.virginia.gov
> <DelJMcClellan@house.virginia.
> "Donald W Merricks" <DelDMerricks@house.virginia.
> <DelJMiller@house.virginia.gov
> <DelJMorefield@house.virginia.
> <DelJMorrissey@house.virginia.
> <delioquinn@house.virginia.gov
> <DelCPeace@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelBPogge@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelBPurkey@house.virginia.gov
> <DelDRamadan@house.virginia.
> <DelRRobinson@house.virginia.
> <DelTRust@house.virginia.gov>; <DelEScott@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelJScott@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelMSickles@house.virginia.
> <DelCStolle@house.virginia.gov
> <DelBTata@house.virginia.gov>; <DelLTorian@house.virginia.gov
> <DelDToscano@house.virginia.
> <DelRVillanueva@house.
> <DelOWare@house.virginia.gov>; <DelLWare@house.virginia.gov>;
> <DelMWatson@house.virginia.gov
> <DelMWebert@house.virginia.gov
> <DelTWright@house.virginia.gov
> <DelJYost@House.virginia.gov>
The leak disclosed Friday by the Energy Department is the latest setback in a long-troubled effort to clean up a federal site that ranks as one of the most contaminated places on Earth, according to a 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
The tank under scrutiny was assumed to be leaking in past decades, so in 1995 pumpable liquids were removed in what was termed an “interim stabilization,” according to the Energy Department.
The tank currently holds about 447,000 gallons of sludge.
Inslee said that federal government needs to come up with funding to deal with the leaking tank, check the conditions of other tanks and build more interim storage with double-shelled tanks.
Long term, a $12 billion effort is under way to build a plant to treat high-level waste. The plant is designed to turn radioactive waste into glass logs through a vitrification process, but that effort has been beset by big technical challenges and repeated delays.
Inslee says the new leak lends added urgency to the cleanup at a time when budget cutting in Congress could make funding much harder to obtain.
“We will not tolerate any leaks of this material to the environment,” Inslee said.
In past decades, Hanford was a virtual dumping ground for wastes from the nuclear-processing effort. The new leak is minuscule compared to the site’s history.
The 2008 GAO report noted that the federal managers of the Hanford site intentionally discharged 121 million gallons of radioactive liquid waste directly into the ground between 1946 and 1966.
The storage tanks have leaked about 1 million gallons of waste into the ground over the years, according to the GAO report.
But a major stabilization effort completed in 2005 was supposed to curb the leaks by pumping out liquids and leaving behind thicker sludge.
Inslee said this is the first confirmed leak of a single-shelled tank since that stabilization effort was completed.
Inslee acknowledged there is no immediate threat from the leak, since it would likely take years to reach the groundwater.
Due to past pollution, there already are large radioactive plumes making their way through the soil and groundwater.
There is an extensive effort to monitor the plumes and a groundwater-treatment system also is in place, according to the Department of Ecology.
Overall, about 10 percent of the 586-square-mile site has radioactive or chemical contamination.
Some materials from Hanford — including tritium, chromium, nitrate and strontium-90 — have entered the river, according to the state Department of Ecology.
But no unsafe levels of radionuclides have been found in farm crops in the region and there are no advisories against swimming or eating salmon, steelhead or other popular fish species from the Columbia River, according to the Ecology Department.
Comments From Erica Gray: Hi All. It's a cold and windy day...conducive to contacting legislators via email!!! List of Delegates and Senators at end of this email.
For your convenience:
<district39@senate.virginia.
> <district14@senate.virginia.
> <district29@senate.virginia.
> <district30@senate.virginia.
> <district31@senate.virginia.
> <district24@senate.virginia.
> <district32@senate.virginia.
> <district18@senate.virginia.
> <district16@senate.virginia.
> <district04@senate.virginia.
> <district08@senate.virginia.
> <district05@senate.virginia.
> <district03@senate.virginia.
> <district26@senate.virginia.
> <district38@senate.virginia.
> <district17@senate.virginia.
> <district35@senate.virginia.
> <district20@senate.virginia.
> <district28@senate.virginia.
> <district07@senate.virginia.
"Del. David Albo" <DelDAlbo@house.virginia.gov>; "Del. Kenneth
> Alexander" <DelKAlexander@house.virginia.
> <DelRAnderson@house.virginia.
> <DelMBaCote@house.virginia.gov
> <DelDBell@house.virginia.gov>; "Del. Robert Bell"
> <DelRBell@house.virginia.gov>; "Del. Robert Brink"
> <DelRBrink@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelKByron@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelBCline@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelBComstock@house.virginia.
> <DelJCox@house.virginia.gov>; <DelKCox@house.virginia.gov>;
> <DelACrockett-Stark@house.
> <DelMDudenhefer@House.
> <DelDEnglin@house.virginia.gov
> <DelPFarrell@house.virginia.
> <DelSGarrett@house.virginia.
> <DelTGreason@house.virginia.
> <DelCHead@house.virginia.gov>; <DelGHelsel@house.virginia.gov
> <DelCHerring@house.virginia.
> <DelPHope@house.virginia.gov>; <DelAHowell@house.virginia.gov
> <delwhowell@house.virginia.gov
> <DelSIaquinto@house.virginia.
> <DelMJames@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelCJones@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelTKilgore@house.virginia.
> <DelKKory@house.virginia.gov>; <DelSLandes@house.virginia.gov
> <DelJLeMunyon@house.virginia.
> <DelSLingamfelter@house.
> <DelMLoupassi@house.virginia.
> <DelDMarshall@house.virginia.
> <DelJMassie@house.virginia.gov
> <DelJMcClellan@house.virginia.
> "Donald W Merricks" <DelDMerricks@house.virginia.
> <DelJMiller@house.virginia.gov
> <DelJMorefield@house.virginia.
> <DelJMorrissey@house.virginia.
> <delioquinn@house.virginia.gov
> <DelCPeace@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelBPogge@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelBPurkey@house.virginia.gov
> <DelDRamadan@house.virginia.
> <DelRRobinson@house.virginia.
> <DelTRust@house.virginia.gov>; <DelEScott@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelJScott@house.virginia.gov>
> <DelMSickles@house.virginia.
> <DelCStolle@house.virginia.gov
> <DelBTata@house.virginia.gov>; <DelLTorian@house.virginia.gov
> <DelDToscano@house.virginia.
> <DelRVillanueva@house.
> <DelOWare@house.virginia.gov>; <DelLWare@house.virginia.gov>;
> <DelMWatson@house.virginia.gov
> <DelMWebert@house.virginia.gov
> <DelTWright@house.virginia.gov
> <DelJYost@House.virginia.gov>
2/16 u-news
Governor not taking action on uranium
Virginia’s governor appears to have shoved the hot topic of uranium mining to the back burner.Five Southside legislators met with Gov. Bob McDonnell on Friday morning to ask him not to move forward with regulations for uranium mining and milling. The group had asked for the meeting after sending McDonnell a letter outlining their position on uranium mining.Delegate Danny Marshall, R-Danville, said the issue has stalled at the governor’s desk for now.
“The governor says he’s got a lot on his plate with transportation and education, and it’s not a burning issue, and he’s not worried about it at this time,” he said.
State Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, has called for the governor to use the Administrative Process Act to proceed with uranium mining. In January, Watkins withdrew a bill to set up the industry’s regulatory framework for lack of support.
The governor’s office said it has received no formal request to use the Administrative Process Act and that McDonnell has not met with Watkins regarding the issue.
The 30-minute meeting Friday at the governor’s office included Marshall; Sen. Frank Ruff, R-Clarksville; Delegate Don Merricks, R-Pittsylvania County; Delegate James Edmunds, R-South Boston; and Delegate Thomas Wright Jr., R-Victoria.
Marshall said the Southside delegation asked the governor not to bypass the system, which they say worked.
“We asked him to respect the legislative process,” he said.
Marshall said he told McDonnell that it would be a bad idea to leave the decision up to Pittsylvania County alone, calling the decision to mine uranium “a General Assembly issue.”
“If Pittsylvania County votes yes, and Virginia Uranium makes a mistake, the who pays the consequences?” he said. “Everybody downstream who doesn’t have a vote.”
Merricks said he doesn’t expect McDonnell to resurrect the issue when session reconvenes in April. That’s when the governor’s amendments and vetoes are considered.
“You never say never, but I think that would be rather difficult to happen,” Merricks said.
He added, “I don’t see anything happening before we come back, and I don’t see anything happening before we leave. For this time, it’s a moot issue.”
McDonnell did not give any indication where he stands on uranium mining, Merricks said. He has remained mum as the legislature dealt with the issue and continues to do so.
“He’s keeping a good poker face,” Merricks said. “He’s holding his cards close.”
Ruff said McDonnell committed that the Nuclear Consortium bill would not be used to bypass the legislative process, and that he wouldn’t use the budget process to write regulations, either. He made no guarantees past the immediate future, though, Ruff said.
“He said that he will continue to evaluate the various studies acknowledging that there are concerns that have been raised,” Ruff said. “He made the statement that science and technology do advance and, therefore, he would not commit into the future. He did, however, assure us that before he takes any action in the future he will have further discussions with us.”
Virginia Uranium Inc. courted legislators for years in hopes of winning legislation in the 2013 session that would allow it to tap a 119-million-pound uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County
Opponents have argued that full-scale uranium mining and milling has never occurred on the East Coast and the new industry would create unacceptable risks to the environment and public safety. Virginia Uranium has said the concerns are overstated, and that mining and milling can be done safely using the latest industry practices.
“The governor says he’s got a lot on his plate with transportation and education, and it’s not a burning issue, and he’s not worried about it at this time,” he said.
State Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, has called for the governor to use the Administrative Process Act to proceed with uranium mining. In January, Watkins withdrew a bill to set up the industry’s regulatory framework for lack of support.
The governor’s office said it has received no formal request to use the Administrative Process Act and that McDonnell has not met with Watkins regarding the issue.
The 30-minute meeting Friday at the governor’s office included Marshall; Sen. Frank Ruff, R-Clarksville; Delegate Don Merricks, R-Pittsylvania County; Delegate James Edmunds, R-South Boston; and Delegate Thomas Wright Jr., R-Victoria.
Marshall said the Southside delegation asked the governor not to bypass the system, which they say worked.
“We asked him to respect the legislative process,” he said.
Marshall said he told McDonnell that it would be a bad idea to leave the decision up to Pittsylvania County alone, calling the decision to mine uranium “a General Assembly issue.”
“If Pittsylvania County votes yes, and Virginia Uranium makes a mistake, the who pays the consequences?” he said. “Everybody downstream who doesn’t have a vote.”
Merricks said he doesn’t expect McDonnell to resurrect the issue when session reconvenes in April. That’s when the governor’s amendments and vetoes are considered.
“You never say never, but I think that would be rather difficult to happen,” Merricks said.
He added, “I don’t see anything happening before we come back, and I don’t see anything happening before we leave. For this time, it’s a moot issue.”
McDonnell did not give any indication where he stands on uranium mining, Merricks said. He has remained mum as the legislature dealt with the issue and continues to do so.
“He’s keeping a good poker face,” Merricks said. “He’s holding his cards close.”
Ruff said McDonnell committed that the Nuclear Consortium bill would not be used to bypass the legislative process, and that he wouldn’t use the budget process to write regulations, either. He made no guarantees past the immediate future, though, Ruff said.
“He said that he will continue to evaluate the various studies acknowledging that there are concerns that have been raised,” Ruff said. “He made the statement that science and technology do advance and, therefore, he would not commit into the future. He did, however, assure us that before he takes any action in the future he will have further discussions with us.”
Virginia Uranium Inc. courted legislators for years in hopes of winning legislation in the 2013 session that would allow it to tap a 119-million-pound uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County
Opponents have argued that full-scale uranium mining and milling has never occurred on the East Coast and the new industry would create unacceptable risks to the environment and public safety. Virginia Uranium has said the concerns are overstated, and that mining and milling can be done safely using the latest industry practices.
Southside Va. lawmakers, McDonnell discuss uranium
By Steve Szkotak
The Associated Press
February 15, 2013
RICHMONDThe Associated Press
February 15, 2013
Gov. Bob McDonnell is focused on his big proposals in the General Assembly and won't be taking up the issue of uranium mining anytime soon, a legislator who met with the governor today said.
Delegate Donald Merricks was among six Southside lawmakers who met with McDonnell to get a read on where he stands after proposals to end a decades-old prohibition on uranium mining went nowhere in the General Assembly this session. The leading mining advocate in the Legislature, Sen. John Watkins, then asked McDonnell to direct state agencies to draw up regulations.
McDonnell has said he has not formed a position on mining and may not take one. He didn't reveal anything today, Merricks said.
"He's got a good poker face. He doesn't show his hand," he said of McDonnell, a fellow Republican.
McDonnell told the delegation he is focusing on his legacy transportation funding proposal and an education reform package, not uranium mining.
"He's got too many other things on his plate to be thinking about uranium," Merricks said. "I don't even think it's on his radar screen right now. Not saying it won't be down the road."
McDonnell spokesman J. Tucker Martin confirmed the meeting and said the governor's top policy people were in attendance. "The governor appreciated the opportunity to hear directly from local legislators on this issue," he wrote in an email.
The six legislators pressed for the meeting with McDonnell to underscore what they said was the General Assembly's wishes on uranium. Companion bills in the House and Senate establishing uranium mining regulations failed to even get a hearing in committee amid near-certain defeat.
Virginia Uranium Inc. has pushed the issue in hopes it can mine a 119-million-pound deposit
Opponents argue the job creation is not worth the environmental risks.
Besides Merricks, the other members of the delegation meeting with McDonnell were: Sens. Frank M. Ruff Jr. and William M. Stanley and Delegates James E. Edmunds, Danny Marshall III and Thomas C. Wright Jr.
VERI 2/15 news release
NR:13-03
Virginia Energy Resources Inc. (TSX.V: VUI; OTCQX: VEGYF) ("Virginia Energy" or the "Company") would like to provide an update on the status of efforts to lift the moratorium on uranium mining in the state of Virginia. Legislation to lift the moratorium was scheduled for debate this past month in the Virginia state senate. Unfortunately the bill was assigned to a committee whose composition was not favorable toward mining legislation. Due to the apparent lack of votes in that particular committee, the bill was subsequently withdrawn by its chief patron, Senator John Watkins.
Senator Watkins has now requested that the Governor of Virginia direct his agencies to proceed under the Administrative Process Act to develop regulations for uranium mining. Some opposing legislators have argued that the moratorium should not be lifted before final regulations are available for review. Senator Watkins' suggested course of action would ensure that members of the General Assembly would have the benefit of all possible information on this issue before casting a vote on lifting the moratorium. Having these additional regulatory details should engender confidence in the excellent safety record of uranium mining over the last 30 years. We hope the Governor will give Senator Watkins request due consideration.
The Company has gone to great lengths over the last several years to educate elected leaders and the public they serve about the strict regulations, science and technology used in modern uranium mining. Our efforts to address the concerns with facts and science have been sincere. We will continue to do that work as we know that the more people understand about the project, the economic opportunity it represents and the modern industry's outstanding record of safety and environmental protection, the more they support our project in Virginia.
We have been encouraged by the supporters of the project both locally and in the Virginia General Assembly and will spare no effort in earning the trust and support of even more of them. The need for good jobs and investment in Southside Virginia and the need for domestic sources of fuel in the U.S. to power clean reliable nuclear power are compelling reasons why we will continue to make our case to the people and the legislature for as long as it takes to succeed.
Virginia Energy Resources Inc. (TSX.V: VUI; OTCQX: VEGYF) ("Virginia Energy" or the "Company") would like to provide an update on the status of efforts to lift the moratorium on uranium mining in the state of Virginia. Legislation to lift the moratorium was scheduled for debate this past month in the Virginia state senate. Unfortunately the bill was assigned to a committee whose composition was not favorable toward mining legislation. Due to the apparent lack of votes in that particular committee, the bill was subsequently withdrawn by its chief patron, Senator John Watkins.
Senator Watkins has now requested that the Governor of Virginia direct his agencies to proceed under the Administrative Process Act to develop regulations for uranium mining. Some opposing legislators have argued that the moratorium should not be lifted before final regulations are available for review. Senator Watkins' suggested course of action would ensure that members of the General Assembly would have the benefit of all possible information on this issue before casting a vote on lifting the moratorium. Having these additional regulatory details should engender confidence in the excellent safety record of uranium mining over the last 30 years. We hope the Governor will give Senator Watkins request due consideration.
The Company has gone to great lengths over the last several years to educate elected leaders and the public they serve about the strict regulations, science and technology used in modern uranium mining. Our efforts to address the concerns with facts and science have been sincere. We will continue to do that work as we know that the more people understand about the project, the economic opportunity it represents and the modern industry's outstanding record of safety and environmental protection, the more they support our project in Virginia.
We have been encouraged by the supporters of the project both locally and in the Virginia General Assembly and will spare no effort in earning the trust and support of even more of them. The need for good jobs and investment in Southside Virginia and the need for domestic sources of fuel in the U.S. to power clean reliable nuclear power are compelling reasons why we will continue to make our case to the people and the legislature for as long as it takes to succeed.
BBC: Meteorite Injures Hundreds in
Chelyabinsk Region of Central Russia
"The Chelyabinsk region, about 1,500 km
(930 miles) east of Moscow, is home to
many factories, a nuclear power plant
and the Mayak atomic waste storage
and treatment centre."
==============================
Chelyabinsk: The Most Radioactively
contaminated Spot on Earth
