Reclaiming Sacred Dakota Land in Minnesota

Reclaiming Sacred Dakota Land in Minnesota

September 7, 2008 |

On September 2nd, members of the Oceti Sakowin (Seven Council Fires) of the Dakota Oyate (Dakota Nation) reclaimed a sacred site known as Coldwater Spring, in the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Regarded by the Dakota people as integral to their Spiritual life, Coldwater Spring has been “littered with dilapidated structures and the soil… polluted from the former Bureau of Mines”, notes a recent press statement.

What’s more, the Dakota say that according to an 1805 treaty, they have rights to the spring as well as to the land that surrounds it.

“As Dakota people who consider the spring as essential to our spiritual lifeway and the surrounding land as a part of our homeland of Bdote, we believe that we will be better stewards of the land than either the United States or the State of Minnesota has been,” the statement continues.

“[...] We have both a legal and a moral right to the spring and the surrounding land. We are calling on the Department of the Interior to fully restore Dakota rights to the land and to conduct a clean-up of the site, including removing dilapidated structures and restoring the land to its previously pristine condition.”

“We intend to make use of the site as was meant for Dakota and other Native Nations. We intend to conduct ceremonies as have been previously done at this sacred site. We intend to establish a youth camp and a space for cultural teaching, including transmission of the Dakota language. And we intend to establish gardens to distribute traditional foods to our elders once a clean-up of the site has occurred.”

For further information, contact: Jim Anderson (612-910-0730), Chris Mato Nunpa (320-981-0206), or Waziyatawin (320-444-5643).

Request for Assistance

As the Dakota are planning to maintain a permanent presence at the site, “until Dakota rights to the land are fully restored and the federal government conducts a clean-up of the site, removing the toxic structures and restoring the land its previously pristine condition“, they are asking for help in the way of supplies and support:

  • We are requesting assistance from Native Warriors and Veterans to maintain the occupation.
  • We are calling on support from our Native youth to help out with security.
  • We are requesting assistance from Drum Groups.
  • We are requesting supplies including: dry foods, walkie-talkies, batteries, firewood, toilet paper, hardware/tools, medicines, tobacco, sage, cedar, sweetgrass, money, volunteers, support

For information on support and supplies, contact Diane Elliott (651-983-6363)

Day Four – Dakota Reclaim Coldwater

http://intercontinentalcry.org/reclaiming-sacred-dakota-land-in-minnesota/

The Honey Bucket Governor’s Record…

The Honey Bucket Governor’s Record…


Sarah Palin “governs” a state with over 40 billion dollars in the bank, but that’s if you call “governing” allowing your constituents to live in abject poverty. Rural Alaska has the highest rates of suicide, alcoholism, tuberculosis (yes – TB!), rape, incest, and domestic abuse in America. She “governs” over all of this, while turning a blind overly-eye-shadowed eye to Alaskans who aren’t in the oil, gas, or mining industry.
In a state with tens of billions of dollars, many people in Sarah Palin’s great state of Alaska have no running water. This means they have no flush toilets and must resort to using “honey buckets,” perhaps one of the most unsanitary household “appliances” ever. The ancient romans had better sanitation than many Alaskan Native villages.
She has made tough decisions. Decisions that community organizers haven’t made —- she made the tough decision not to help those in her state who needed it most.

http://sarahmerica.blogspot.com/

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability in Oak Ridge

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability in Oak Ridge

The national network of 35 groups, including the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, is meeting in Oak Ridge next week. (Interesting that it coincides with a nuclear security summit taking place at Y-12.)

The organization was originally called the Military Production Network. It focuses on issues related to production of nuclear weapons (decidedly against), nuclear waste and other concerns in communities near the government facilities.


Comments

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability has been working collaboratively for 21 years bringing together grassroots groups from around the nuclear weapons complex. Most of our groups live down wind and down stream from the Department of Energy production and dump sites. One of our major accomplishments is that we pushed for environmental cleanup at all the DOE sites and continue to monitor the cleanup of the radioactive contamination legacy of nuclear weapons production.

Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean

Reprinted from:

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/

***********************************************

Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”

September 5, 2008

sarah_palin_2.jpgby Charley James –

“So Sambo beat the bitch!”

This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.

“It was kind of disgusting,” Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48” about life near the North Pole.

Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.”

Racial and ethnic slurs may be “just Alaska” and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.

Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N’-Fetch-It, “darkie musical” swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs” – how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description – as well as the more colourful “mukluks” along with the totally unimaginative “f**king Eskimo’s,” according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.

But being openly racist is only the tip of the Palin iceberg. According to Alaskans interviewed for this article, she is also vindictive and mean. We’re talking Rove mean and Nixon vindictive.

No wonder the vast sea of white, cheering faces at the Republican Convention went wild for Sarah: They adore the type, it’s in their genetic code. So much for McCain’s pledge of a “high road” campaign; Palin is incapable of being part of one.

Tough Getting People Who Know Her to Talk
It’s not easy getting people in the 49th state to speak critically about Palin – especially people in Wasilla, where she was mayor. For one thing, with every journalist in the world calling, phone lines into Alaska have been mostly jammed since Friday; as often as not, a recording told me that “all circuits are busy” or numbers just wouldn’t ring. I should think a state that’s been made richer than God by oil could afford telephone lines and cell towers for everyone.

On a more practical level, many people in Alaska, and particularly Wasilla, are reluctant to speak or be quoted by name because they’re afraid of her as well as the state Republican Party machine. Apparently, the power elite are as mean as the winters.

“The GOP is kind of like organized crime up here,” an insurance agent in Anchorage who knows the Palin family, explained. “It’s corrupt and arrogant. They’re all rich because they do private sweetheart deals with the oil companies, and they can destroy anyone. And they will, if they have to.”

“Once Palin became mayor,” he continued, “She became part of that inner circle.”

Like most other people interviewed, he didn’t want his name used out of fear of retribution. Maybe it’s the long winter nights where you don’t see the sun for months that makes people feel as if they’re under constant danger from “the authorities.” As I interviewed residents it began sounding as if living in Alaska controlled by the state Republican Party is like living in the old Soviet Union: See nothing that’s happening, say nothing offensive, and the political commissars leave you alone. But speak out and you get disappeared into a gulag north of the Arctic Circle for who-knows-how-long.

Alright, that’s an exaggeration brought on by my getting too little sleep and building too much anger as I worked this article. But there’s ample evidence of Palin’s vindictive willingness to destroy people she sees as opponents. Just ask the Wasilla town administrator she hired before firing him because he rebelled against the way Palin demanded he do his job, or the town librarian who refused to hold the book burning Walpurgisnach Mayor Palin demanded.

Ironically, Palin was pushed into hiring the administrator by the party poobahs who helped get her elected after she got herself into trouble over a number of precipitous firings which gave rise to a recall campaign.

“People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day,” states Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident and one of the few Alaskans willing to speak on-the-record, for attribution, about Palin. In fact, Kilkenny actually circulated an e-mail letter about Palin that was verified and printed by The Nation.

For good measure, Palin booted the Wasilla police chief from office because, she told a local newspaper, he “intimidated” her.

Running on Extreme Fringe Evangelical Views
Sarah Palin drew early attention from state GOP apparatchiks when, during her first mayoral campaign, she ran on an anti-abortion platform. Normally, political parties do not get involved in Alaskan municipal elections because they are nonpartisan. But once word of her extreme fringe evangelical views made its way to Juneau, the state capitol, state Republicans tossed some money behind her campaign.

Once in office, Palin set out to build a machine that chewed up anyone who got in her way. The good, Godly Christian turns out to be anything but.

“She’s doesn’t like different opinions and she refuses to compromise,” Kilkenny notes. “When she was mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t hers. Worse, ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits but on the basis of who proposed them.”

Sound familiar? Palin may well be Dick Cheney’s reincarnate.

Something else has a familiar Republican ring to it: Her tax policies, and a “refund surpluses but borrow for the future” attitude.

According to Kilkenny and others in Wasilla as well as Juneau, Palin reduced progressive property taxes for businesses while mayor and increased a regressive sales tax which even hits necessities such as food. The tax cuts she promoted in her St. Paul speech actually benefited large corporate property owners far more than they benefited residents. Indeed, Kilkenny insists that many Wasilla home owners actually saw their tax bill skyrocket to make up for the shortfall. Two other Wasillian’s with whom I spoke said property taxes on their modest, three bedroom homes rose during the Palin regime.

To an outsider, it would seem hard to do, but an oil-rich town with zero debt on the day she was inaugurated mayor was left saddled with $22 million of debt by the time she moved away to become governor – especially since nothing was spent on things such as improving the city’s infrastructure or building a much-needed sewage treatment plant. So what did Mayor Palin spend the taxpayer’s money on, if not fixing streets and scrubbing sewage?

For starters, she remodelled her office. Several times over, as a matter of fact.

Then Palin spent $1 million on an unnecessary, new park that no one other than the contractors and Palin seemed to want. Next, Sarah doled out more than $15 million of taxpayer money for a sports complex that she shoved through even though the city did not own clear title to the land; now, seven years later, the matter is still in litigation and lawyer fees are said to be close to at least half of the original estimated price of the facility.

She also worked hard to get voters approval of a $5.5 million bond proposal for roads that could have been built without borrowing. Anchorage may not be the center of the financial universe but, like good Republicans everywhere, Sarah Palin knows how to please Alaskan bankers and bond dealers.

For good measure, she turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots.

Sarah Barracuda
En route to the governor’s igloo, Palin managed to land what Anne Kilkenny says is the plumb political appointment in the state: Chair of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (OGCC), a $122,400 per year patronage slot with no real authority to do anything other than hold meetings. She took the job despite having no background in energy issues and, as it turned out, not liking the work.

“She hated the job,” an OGCC staff member who is not authorized to speak with the news media told me. “She hated the hours and she hated what little work there was to do. But she couldn’t figure out a way to get out of the thing without offending Gov. Murkowski” and the state Republican Party regulars, some of whom were pissed off they didn’t get appointed.

But ever the opportunist, Palin quickly concocted a way. First, she waged a campaign with the local news media claiming that the position was overpaid and should be abolished – despite the fact that she lobbied Murkowski hard to get it. Then, mounting what she saw as a white horse, Palin raised a cloud of dust by resigning from the OGCC and riding away with an undeserved reputation as a “reformer.”

But when a local reporter dared to suggest that the reformer Empress has no clothes, Palin tried to get her fired.

“She came at me like I was trying to steal her kids,” said the targeted reporter, who now works for an oil company in Anchorage. “I heard she had a wild temper and vicious mean streak but it’s nothing like you can imagine until she turns it on you.”

Not surprising since some of her high school classmates still openly call her “Sarah Barracuda,” Kilkenny insists.

Still, as a Republican Party hack Palin managed to get herself elected running under the false flag of a “reformer.”

And what did she bring to the job? No legislative experience other than a city council of a village of 5,000 people, which is smaller than some high schools in Chicago. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; after all, she needed to hire a city administrator to run Wasilla. No executive experience, except for almost being recalled as mayor. A philosophy of setting public policy based on one word: No.

And what has she done since winning the job?

According to Kilkenny, nothing. Well, nothing other than suggesting the state’s multi-multi-million dollar, oil-generated surplus be distributed to residents and finance future state needs by borrowing money. Gee, doesn’t that sound precisely what George Bush did with the surplus he inherited from Bill Clinton in 2001 and we all know in what great shape Bush’s economic policies left the nation.

It may explain why, when asked by reporters, including me, what she thought about Palin being picked to be McCain’s running mate, her mother-in-law replied with a sardonic, “What has Sarah done to qualify her to be vice president?” Of course, when the woman – said by many I spoke with to be well-respected in Wasilla – was running to succeed Palin as mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her, so that may explain the family tension.

As Governor, Palin gave the legislature no direction and budget guidelines, according to the chair of a legislative committee. But then she staged a huge grandstand play of line-item vetoing countless projects, calling them pork. “They were restored because of public outcry and legislative action,” the aide said. “She vetoed them mostly because she had no idea what they were or why they were important.”

But it was enough to get the McCain, who is mostly unobservant of the world around him anyway, to think Palin has a reputation as being “anti-pork”.

In fact, Juneau observers note that Palin kept her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork ladled out by indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be politically unwise to keep supporting it, these same insiders assert. Then, Palin fell back on her old habits and publicly humiliated him for pork-barrel politics.

As for being “ready on day one” to be commander in chief, despite the repeated public claims she’s made, the Alaska National Guard commander said that, “she has made no command decisions, other than sending some troops to help fight a few brush fires and march in parades at county fairs.”

“Sambo Beat the Bitch”
“Palin is a conniving, manipulative, a**hole,” someone who thinks these are positive traits in a governor told me, summing up Palin’s tenure in Alaska state and local politics.

“She’s a bigot, a racist, and a liar,” is the more blunt assessment of Arnold Gerstheimer who lived in Alaska until two years ago and is now a businessman in Idaho.

charley-james.jpg“Juneau is a small town; everybody knows everyone else,” he adds. “These stories about what she calls blacks and Eskimos, well, anyone not white and good looking actually, were around long before she became a glint in John McCain’s rheumy eyes. Why do I know they’re true? Because everyone who isn’t aboriginal or Indian in Alaska talks that way.”

“Sambo beat the bitch” may be everyday language up in the bush. Whether it – and the outlook, politics and worldview Palin reflects when she says such things in public – should be part of a presidential campaign is another thing altogether. The comment says as much about McCain as it does about Palin, and it says a lot of things about Americans who overlook such statements (as well as her record) and vote anyway for McCain.

by Charley James

Charley James is an American journalist, author and essayist who lives in Toronto.

N. Korea Has Begun to Restore Nuclear Facility

N. Korea Has Begun to Restore Nuclear Facility


Kim Kye-gwan
North Korean nuclear negotiator

By Michael Ha
Staff Reporter

North Korea has begun reassembling its nuclear facilities in Yongbyon, according to reports from the U.S. media Saturday.

But the South Korean government said that officials are looking into these reports from overseas, adding that they have not yet been able to confirm these findings.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade stated that it is aware of these overseas news accounts concerning the alleged reassembly and the removal of safety seals placed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

According to the Associated Press and Fox News, a U.S.-based news outlet, Pyongyang has begun to put its Yongbyon nuclear facility back together, after stopping its disassembly process just days before.
This latest move is a clear violation of the terms and conditions that have been established to improve relations between North Korea and the United States, according to U.S. reports.

U.S. officials said Pyongyang may be protesting Washington’s delay in taking the North off its list of terrorism-sponsoring states.

One American official was quoted as saying that North Korea has been “threatening this move for some time” and that the reassembly of the Yongbyon facility may be seen as a way for North Korean officials “to express their anger.”

There are questions on how much of a real threat the move represents, however. Reports noted that with so much of the nuclear facility already disassembled and its cooling tower demolished, the reassembling at this stage may represent more of a “symbolic gesture” than any genuine threat.

Pyongyang had earlier announced that it had stopped the disabling process because Washington had failed to remove it from the list.

The United States, for its part, has said that it would remove the North from the list only when the communist state fully agrees to a verification procedure for its denuclearization that meets international standards.

It appears unlikely that there could be any major breakthrough agreement concerning the verification process. The Choson Sinbo, a newspaper published by an association of pro-North Korean residents in Japan, reported over the weekend that Pyongyang has no intention of agreeing to an onsite inspection by outsiders.

Kim Kye-gwan, North Korea’s chief nuclear envoy, did not show up for multinational talks in Beijing, reports said. Kim failed to attend scheduled meetings with representatives from South Korea, the United States and Japan to discuss ways for the North to return to the denuclearization path, according to the reports.

michaelha@koreatimes.co.kr

Atomic Club Votes to End Restrictions on India

Published: September 6, 2008

The worldwide body that regulates the sale of nuclear fuel and technology approved a landmark deal on Saturday to allow India to engage in nuclear trade for the first time in three decades, after a pressure campaign by the Bush administration and despite concerns about setting off an arms race in Asia.

Only one hurdle now remains for the deal: final approval by the United States Congress. But passage is likely to be difficult, considering both political opposition and dwindling time in the Congressional calendar before November’s elections.

If the agreement ultimately goes through, it would stand as a symbol of the deepening strategic ties between the United States and India, seen as a potential balancing power to a rising China. It would also be enormously lucrative for sellers of nuclear fuel and technology all over the world; India plans to import at least eight nuclear reactors by 2012, according to projections by the State Department.

State Department officials were ecstatic about the vote Saturday by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, or N.S.G. “I don’t think a lot of people thought we’d be able to get this through the N.S.G. this weekend,” said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was in Algiers.

Both President Bush and the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, have cast the nuclear agreement as a legacy issue. The White House said the two leaders spoke to each other on Saturday.

Indian and American proponents of the deal hailed Saturday’s agreement as a historic opportunity to meet India’s growing energy demands and allow New Delhi to come into what Mr. Singh called “the nuclear mainstream.” Its critics warned that such a sweeping exemption for India, which has developed an atomic weapons program but steadfastly refused to sign the global nonproliferation treaty, sets a dangerous precedent.

Several members of the N.S.G. had in recent days proposed several amendments that would terminate nuclear trade and the sale of secret technologies if India conducts more nuclear tests. The Bush administration had pressed N.S.G. members not to impose such restrictions on India. The exact terms of the agreement were unclear on Saturday night.

Because any agreement requires consensus among the member nations, administration officials had to lean hard on the holdouts, principally Austria, China, and New Zealand.

Ms. Rice made at least two dozen calls over the last two days to push allies to allow for the India-specific waiver, as she traveled across North Africa, according to administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. They said she also called the Chinese foreign minister early Saturday morning to urge Beijing not to block the deal.

After three days of fierce debates in Vienna, where they met, the N.S.G. approved the accord. It allows India to buy nuclear fuel and technology for its civilian nuclear power program. India has already agreed to separate civilian reactors from those used in its strategic nuclear weapons program. It has also agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the reactors used in its energy program.

Although a senior State Department official said the White House has only two weeks to get the deal through Congress, Ms. Rice told reporters traveling with her that she had been talking to Congressional leaders and was hopeful it could be done.

Representative Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview on Saturday that he would not consider any expedited timetable for considering the agreement until the Bush administration provides him with more information about the negotiations in Vienna.

Mr. Berman said that he wants to check that the Bush administration did not cut any side deals with N.S.G. member countries to get their votes. He wants to ensure, for instance, that the United States did not say any countries could sell nuclear technology to India that the United States is currently prohibited from selling.

Ultimately, he said, the burden was on the White House to convince Congress that the nuclear pact needed to be authorized in a “rushed” fashion.

Indian advocates for the deal were elated.

“Most countries have realized the logic of the United States in arguing that it is better to have India inside the tent instead of treating India as an outcast,” said Lalit Mansingh, a retired Indian ambassador to the United States.

Indians were celebrating Saturday night: small groups of revelers set off fireworks in honor of the deal in the nation’s capital, and groups gathered to dance outside the headquarters of Mr. Singh’s Congress Party.

A deal is considered important for India’s continued economic growth and increased demand for electricity. Since it conducted its first nuclear test decades ago, India has not been able to buy nuclear fuel or technology on the world market.

The country is now running short of uranium for existing nuclear reactors because it does not have enough of a domestic supply to feed them. India’s leaders also want to substantially grow the civilian power program.

But even in India, the deal has been dogged by intense political opposition, so much so that Mr. Singh’s opponents sought to bring down his government this year over this issue.

They have said the agreement would impinge on India’s right to advance its strategic weapons program. The United States has said that it could stop supplying nuclear fuel if India conducts a weapons test.

On Saturday, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party assailed the deal as a “nonproliferation trap.” In defense, Mr. Singh’s government has said India can do what it wants with its weapons program, and that if India tests another weapon, the United States can decide whether it will cut off nuclear trade. In practical terms, officials and analysts in both countries acknowledge that the United States reaction would depend, in large part, on how and when India tests. If it came on the heels of tests by Pakistan or China, New Delhi hopes that American officials might be persuaded to feel that India was facing a threat and needed to move its nuclear program forward.

Under current law, Congress must be in session a full 30 days to consider the nuclear deal. Congressional officials said Saturday that the White House might be able to work with lawmakers to circumvent this provision and expedite a vote.

A potentially more significant hurdle for the White House is that a Democratic Congress might not want to give President Bush a significant victory during his waning days in office. White House officials have long hoped that the deal could be part of Mr. Bush’s foreign policy legacy.

Lawmakers in late 2006 voted overwhelmingly to support the White House’s plan to sell the civilian reactors to India, but that was when Congress was still in Republican hands. Congress granted provisional approval at that time and was required to vote again after a nod from the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat and a vocal opponent of the deal, said in a statement on Saturday that with only a few weeks left in the Congressional session, “It is highly questionable whether such a complex and controversial agreement can be thoroughly examined before the House and Senate adjourn for the elections.”

Still, even some opponents of the deal acknowledged that should the White House manage to force a vote in September, the pact was likely to be approved.

Representative Ellen O. Tauscher, a California Democrat, said by telephone on Saturday that the nuclear agreement was a “very, very bad deal,” but said that since the 2006 vote indicated that a large part of the House of Representatives was inclined to approve the pact and that it would be difficult to scuttle the deal at this point.

In the end, if the deal is approved, India will be forced to decide what kind of nuclear program it aspires to develop. If it wants to be a major nuclear power in the world — significantly increasing the country’s arsenal and improving its sophistication — India has to conduct tests sooner rather than later, and face the potential consequences, said Stephen Cohen, a South Asia specialist at Brookings Institution.

Or it could actively negotiate with its rivals, Pakistan and China, to negotiate what he called a “nuclear restraint agreement.”

“This is the time for the Indian government to declare what kind of nuke capability they will have and negotiate with the other Asian powers to avoid a nuclear arms race,” Mr. Cohen said.

Somini Sengupta reported from New York, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington. Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Algiers, and Heather Timmons from New Delhi.

The great nuclear power debate

The great nuclear power debate

SCE&G’s plan to build two reactors goes before state regulators Wednesday

By CHUCK CRUMBO

Thirty years after the commercial nuclear power industry appeared dead, South Carolina is on the leading edge of its rebound.

Nationwide, applications to build a dozen nuclear power reactors — four in South Carolina — have been filed with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

While there is growing public support for nuclear power, its resurgence also has touched off a firestorm of debate.

Advocates say nuclear power is a safe, clean and economical way to meet South Carolina’s future power needs. It also can help end U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Opponents say nuclear power is inherently unsafe and a public health risk. They say utilities should instead explore solar and wind power, and promote conservation.

South Carolina could take its next step in nuclear power’s resurgence Wednesday. That’s when state regulators plan to hear SCE&G’s request to rebuild a rail spur line and begin site preparation for two new reactors at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in Fairfield County.

SCE&G and its partner in the project, the state-operated Santee Cooper utility, figure they’ll spend about $10 billion to add two reactors to Summer, whose lone reactor went online in 1984.

“Financially, this is a big risk,” said Bill McColl Jr., executive vice president of Santee Cooper. “The price of the plant is almost the company’s value.”

But the two utilities need a way to provide more power to the state’s growing population.

“It’s the need that’s driving that decision” to build two new reactors, McColl said. “No one really wants to build a $10 billion plant.”

Approval by the state Public Service Commission of the request to start site work won’t guarantee the commission will approve building the reactors. A hearing on that issue is scheduled to start Dec. 1. Later, federal officials will weigh in.

However, if SCE&G, a subsidiary of Columbia-based SCANA Corp., and Santee Cooper win state and federal approval, the first new reactor at V.C. Summer — near Jenkinsville, population 75 — could be online by 2016.

Also on the drawing board for the Palmetto State are two reactors that Charlotte-based Duke Energy plans to build at its W.S. Lee Nuclear Plant in Cherokee County.

Nuclear power has to be considered as a possible solution to U.S. energy needs alongside solar and wind energy, said U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C.

“We must develop a smorgasbord of energy choices,” said the No. 3-ranking Democrat in the House. “Nuclear has to be a significant part of the smorgasbord.”

The renewed interest in nuclear power comes three decades after the last license for a U.S. reactor was approved, in 1978.

A year later, the partial meltdown of a reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania alarmed an already jittery public. Just months earlier, Americans had gone to theaters to watch “The China Syndrome,” a movie about a nuclear plant accident.

Responding to the Three Mile Island accident, federal regulators ratcheted up their scrutiny of nuclear power plant operations, and plans to build new commercial reactors were shelved.

In 1986, the industry was dealt what seemed to be a final blow. More than four dozen people, including children, were killed and tens of thousands more exposed to a lethal radioactive cloud after a fire at a reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine.

GROWING DEMAND

South Carolina finds itself at the front of nuclear power’s revival because of history and geography.

Four nuclear power facilities — in Fairfield, York, Oconee and Darlington counties — already generate 52 percent of the electric power South Carolina uses.

But the demand for power is expected to surge as the state’s population grows.

For example, Santee Cooper, based in Moncks Corner, expects a 16 percent increase in demand by 2020. The utility has 160,000 customers in three coastal counties and provides power to 685,000 more customers through 20 electric cooperatives.

SCE&G, which serves 639,000 customers in 26 S.C. counties, said it needs to increase its capacity 16 percent by 2020 to keep up with the added demand.

To meet the demand for more energy, nuclear power must be considered, advocates say.

They note:

Nuclear plants don’t belch out carbon dioxide and mercury, like coal-fired plants.

Nuclear power plants can generate electricity more cheaply and efficiently than those that burn coal and natural gas.

The uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant is mined in countries friendlier to the United States and more stable politically than the Mideast’s oil-producing nations.

However, Tom Clements of the Friends of the Earth environmentalist group says utilities are choosing nuclear without considering other options.

“SCE&G’s application … is lacking as it doesn’t consider cheaper alternatives such as conservation and efficiency,” said Clements, the group’s Southeastern nuclear campaign coordinator.

“Alternatives such as wind and solar, which are booming in more receptive parts of the country, were eliminated in SCE&G’s filing with a perfunctory wave of the hand.”

Considering the safety issues surrounding nuclear power, utilities need to look harder at other options, said the Sierra Club’s Susan Corbett of Columbia.

CHANGING VIEWS

SCE&G president Kevin Marsh said his company explored the use of solar and wind power. But the utility ruled them out because of the expense and the difficulty of harnessing the sun and wind.

To generate enough power to match the 2,234 megawatts the proposed nuclear reactors would produce, you would need to cover 62,000 acres — an area about the size of Columbia — with solar panels, according to the utilities’ application filed with the state.

To use wind power would require erecting wind turbines, three deep, along the entire S.C. coast, the power companies said. (There’s not enough of a breeze inland to produce wind power, they say.)

Also, neither solar nor wind power is as reliable as nuclear energy, Marsh said. Energy from the wind would be available only 31 percent of the time; solar would be available only 19 percent of the time.

Advocates also say the nuclear power plants that would be built today are safer than those already in operation in the United States, adding the safety record of those plants still is the best of any U.S. industry.

Politicians — regardless of party — have lined up to support the new push for nuclear power.

Since the 1970s, “our country has had an irrational view of nuclear power,” said U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Other countries safely have adopted nuclear power as their primary source of electricity, Graham says. France, for example, gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear.

Also, France, Japan and Great Britain recycle “spent” nuclear fuel rods, something the U.S. government won’t allow.

“For decades, the French, Japanese and British have all been recycling spent fuel,” Graham said. “Surely, this is an instance where we can be as bold as the French.”

While there have been anti-nuclear protests, the public appears open to a nuclear revival.

With memories of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl fading, polls show 63 percent of Americans favor nuclear power. That compares with 33 percent support in the 1980s.

Still, nuclear power is just part of the solution to the country’s energy needs, said Frank Bowman, president of the industry-backed Nuclear Energy Institute.

“There is no single silver bullet,” Bowman said.

Crumbo at (803) 771-8503.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.