Bike Delaware Writes ~ A Revolution For Bicycling In Delaware

From the inbox ~ Delaware General Assembly Votes Millions for Bicycling

Nine months ago, Bike Delaware began a campaign to increase state funding for walking and bicycling. Early Friday morning, the Delaware General Assembly voted $5.1 million in new dedicated funding for bicycling in Delaware for FY2012, more money than the state has ever allocated before.To paraphrase Delaware's former senior Senator, "this is a big deal!"We at Bike Delaware owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our coalition allies, including Delaware Greenways, the Delaware Bicycle Council and, especially, Nemours Health and Prevention Services; and to the co-sponsors of "Walkable, Bikeable Delaware", especially its prime sponsors Senator Catherine Cloutier, Representative Deborah Hudson and Representative David Wilson. We'd also like to salute the two truly indispensable individuals whose visionary leadership made this revolution for bicycling happen: Robert Venables and Jack Markell. Senator Venables is the author of "Walkable, Bikeable Delaware" and secured its unanimous passage in the General Assembly in May. And Governor Markell - the only governor to ever speak at a National Bike Summit - seized the opportunity that Senator Venables and the General Assembly offered. In other words, Bob Venables loaded the bases. And Jack Markell hit a grand slam.

Photo - June 23, 2011 - Governor Markell endorses "Walkable, Bikeable Delaware"

One of the reasons that Friday's vote is a big deal is that these state funds can be used to leverage federal matching funds at a ratio of 4:1. If we are able to leverage the entire $5 million (a big if, but we are going to try), this would mean not $5 million, but $25 million for bicycling in Delaware. We are enormously proud of our state, impressed by its visionary leadership and optimistic about Delaware's future. We can't wait to see what happens next.

Sincerely, James Wilson, Executive Director, 722-4591, ext 6 - PS - If you like what we're doing and haven't already, would you consider joining Bike Delaware? We will need all the help we can get to both defend and build on our success.

Bike Delaware a finalist for Advocacy Advance matching grant

Advocacy Advance (AA), a partnership of the the League of American Bicyclists and the Alliance for Biking & Walking, supports local and state bicycle and pedestrian advocacy efforts. By tracking the performance of bike advocacy groups throughout the county, AA identifies winning strategies and best practices and shares the resulting knowledge with local and state groups. In it's Capacity Building grant application process, AA looks to identify those local and state advocacy groups who, with a little support, could make a quantum leap in their advocacy initiatives.Out of a large pool of applicants from throughout the United States, the partnership selects just two or three grantees each year. This year, Bike Delaware along with 7 other groups, was picked to compete in a final grant round.As supporters of bicycling in Delaware, we hope you will consider helping us to raise the necessary matching funds should Bike Delaware be awarded an Advocacy Advance partnership grant.

Sincerely, Gail Robillard, Treasurer, 722-4591, ext. 4

Of the two projects that will benefit first from this money, one is in Sussex County and one is in New Castle County. Here's the New Castle County one (Wilmington-to-New Castle): http://www.bikede.org/newcastle_wilm.pdf

~*~

"Save Our County" Spokesperson Makes The Case For Denying The Stoltz Request For A Rezoning At Barley Mill Plaza

(WNJ - Delaware Voice) Christy McEvilly writes ~ Don't let Del. 141 become another U.S. 202 - County department is wrong to support Barley Mill Plaza plan

In recently voting down the rezoning application for a major regional shopping center at Barley Mill Plaza, the New Castle County Planning Board did its due diligence. It followed the law of the NCC Code. The Rt. 141 corridor has never had any regional retail presence -- its land uses are residential and corporate/business. The Board recognized that fact. Then why does the County Department of Land Use support the rezoning? Why won't it follow the zoning laws that serve to protect residents from spot zoning and the intrusion of land uses that do not mirror those that already exist in a certain area? The 141 corridor was built to provide residents and commuters a smooth ride between U.S. 202 and Kirkwood Highway. These established retail oriented roads provide plenty of shopping and chain restaurant opportunities. Despite that fact, at Barley Mill Plaza, the Stoltz organization wants to build eight PAD sites for restaurants and other high traffic-generating businesses, a four-story hotel, and about 454,000 square feet of shopping (one half the size of the Christiana Mall). That does not include all the multilevel parking garages and 1.2 million square feet of office and support businesses also planned. Stoltz is banking on attracting regional traffic and, in fact, its own marketing material for Barley Mill touts its "proximity to PA communities" and "its historic scale." Is this project to benefit those from Delaware or from Pennsylvania? In addition, Stoltz has applied for commercial zoning changes at 20 Montchanin (formerly MBNA) at the 141/100 intersection, where there are already backups to get across the bridge. If these rezonings are approved, it would set a precedent for further rezonings on other parcels along 141 and adjacent 48. Rt. 141 will look and feel like 202. Given the hundreds of empty storefronts in northern New Castle County, can the County leadership really justify the need for another major shopping center along a roadway that was initially created and subsequently funded with $231 million in taxpayer dollars to maintain an important business commuter route, "Delaware's Corporate Corridor"?

Section 40.11.120 of the NCC Code "requires traffic analysis for all major plans and rezonings so the County can meet its obligation to fully determine a project's significant impacts on roads, intersections and bridges." The Code also says it is the County's duty to maintain the level of service within the "area of traffic related influence" of any major development plan. And yet, there are several surrounding intersections -- including Tyler McConnell Bridge -- that are failing during peak traffic hours and in need of attention from DelDOT now. Since the Stoltz project is touted as regional, both the County and DelDOT should conduct traffic studies from a regional perspective. If they address only surrounding intersections, they fail to do their job. A major regional shopping center thrown into the current residential/corporate office land use mix along 141 will create a 24/7, stop/start retail traffic nightmare. The taxpayer money spent to date to fix the road for commuters and area residents will have been wasted.

Why won't the County Department of Land Use do its job, as the Code describes, to protect residential roads from nonresidential traffic and reduce the danger and congestion of traffic on roads and highways? This is planning at its worst! And we, the taxpayers, will again be the ones to pay for all the road improvements and suffer the consequences. Area residents need to be able to count on our County and State leadership to follow the laws that are in place. The County and State must do better. Regardless of what is built at Barley Mill, there will be plenty of construction jobs. Let's work together to attract good, above minimum wage jobs within Barley Mill's existing office-oriented land use, ones that truly benefit the residents of Delaware.

Christy McEvilly is a founding member of Save Our County, a community group formed to reject bad planning.
View Comments (3)

Plus, an earlier DE Way post ~ Just Say No To The Stoltz Rezoning - "10 Football Field-Long Strip ..., Tom Lehman's Barley Mill: From Both Sides and an oldie but goodie from the Community News (2008) ~ Barley Mill Plaza redevelopment plan unveiled with more from Bob Weiner's archive ~ http://www.bobweiner.com/stoltz.asp

I am betting that Stoltz will have to go back to square one on his plan. Here's a look: Barley Mill Plaza Major Land Development Plan - Department of Land Use Exploratory Plan Report - Application Number - 2008-0275-S - Proposed 2,940,000 sq. ft. mixed use development - June 19, 2008

Status of Project Review - General Compliance for the Public Hearing - The Department will issue an additional review report after the Public Hearing that will find the plan acceptable to proceed to preliminary after you address all comments and/or studies or unacceptable, submit a revised exploratory plan to address all comments and/or studies.

Planning:
1. The applicant must demonstrate compliance with Section 40.03.318 of the NCCC for the proposed mixed use development. Plan notes must clearly reflect the proposed Gross Floor Area (GFA) for all uses shown on this plan. Residential units must comprise a minimum of 25% or a maximum of 50% of the total gross floor area on the site. Demonstrate compliance with the required residential outdoor areas. Additionally, demonstrate that a minimum of 67% of the nonresidential gross floor area consists of office uses. Finally, please note that single use (stand-alone or pad site) restaurants are not permitted in a mixed use development. The plan must be revised accordingly;
2. The provided cover letter indicates that a rezoning is no longer proposed as part of this project. Please remove all references to a rezoning from the plan details and notes. As you are aware, the site capacity calculations and open space requirements must be met exclusive of the S zoned parcel. The applicant has indicated that they intend to utilize the density bonus as outlined in the redevelopment ordinance. As part of the review process, the applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with Section 40.25.410 of the NCCC;
3. Please note that there are several locations where additional buildings and or paving is proposed within the Riparian Buffer Area (RBA). Please revise the plan to remove proposed RBA encroachments. Please note that if the applicant intends to pursue this additional RBA disturbance, a RPATAC recommendation and Board of
Adjustment approval would be required;
4. The applicant must clearly label all streams and locate the top of stream banks in order to verify the accuracy of the RBA delineation. As you are aware, a nondelineated floodstudy will be required for this project;
5. Revise the plan to include a limits of disturbance;
6. Note that Table 40.08.130.B (as submitted) must be revised. The following comments relate directly to issues associated with the proposed percentage(s) of improvement:
a) Renderings were not submitted for the existing or proposed structures, so it is impossible to evaluate the improvement. Regardless, the judgment of architectural improvement is highly subjective; therefore, the 100% credit (as proposed) may need to be reduced. Provide a rationale with the revised plan submittal. Additional, more quantitative, improvements should be explored.
b) In accordance with Section 08.130,B,6,e of the NCCC, improvements toward further code compliance shall be made with emphasis on improved landscaping and buffers particularly around parking lots;
c) In accordance with Section 08.130,B,6,e of the NCCC, the applicant should investigate RBA restoration and reforestation;
d) As you are aware, many of the existing building are already multistory. The applicant may not obtain full credit for proposing multistory structures;
e) It appears that the applicant may propose a proportional improvement for improving the street paving setbacks;
f) The current proposed credit for bufferyard widths is incorrect. It appears that the plan currently meets the width requirements. The applicant may investigate if planting deficiencies exist;
g) Please note that the Engineering Section will need to verify compliance with the proposed percentage of improvements for stormwater management;
h) Please provide details of the proposed circulation improvements;
i) Please note that the current total percentage of improvements does not achieve the minimum 400% requirement. Additional areas of improvement must be explored. Please provide a revised Table 40.08.130 for review. Once finalized, the Record Plan must contain notes outlining the proposed improvements to the site. The plan should indicate that it is being proposed as a redevelopment plan;
7. The provided Gross Floor Area (GFA) note should clearly reflect the existing GFA, GFA to be removed, and proposed GFA. Please be advised that the proposed GFA is not the net increase. It shall reflect everything being constructed with this plan. Additionally, please note that garages count toward GFA. Revise the plan to provide the total GFA of the garages on the plan. Plan review fees are based on proposed GFA. In accordance with Section 40.05.050K the floor area of parking
structures are excluded from site capacity calculations;
8. The proposed parking rationale does not appear to identify all of the uses proposed by this project. Parking should be based on the individual uses. The applicant should consider utilizing the shared use parking Table 22.616;
9. The proposed dead end parking facility located at the daycare center has been found unacceptable. Please note that this type of use should accommodate full circulation without backing. Additionally, demonstrate compliance with Section 40.03.309 of the NCCC for the proposed use;
10. The plan must be revised to provide adequate loading areas for all buildings. Loading bays and dumpsters must be adequately screened;
11. Show the location of handicapped parking and depressed curbing for access;
12. On sheet 2 of the plan, provide a sidewalk connection on the southerly side of the garages toward the fitness center. On sheet 2 of the plan, block out several parking spaces with a pedestrian crosswalk, at the mid-way point in the 33 space aisles (between the fitness center and retail building). An additional crosswalk should be provided at the mid-way point of the 32 space aisles north of this location (sheet 5). The long parking rows adjoining right-of-ways should be broke up with additional landscape islands. One sheet 3 of the plan, provide additional landscape island breaks in the long parking aisles. On sheet 5 of the plan, Clearly designate pedestrian crosswalks between parking spaces at regular intervals along the retail frontage;
13. Please note that a detailed phasing plan will need to be provided for this project. The plan will need to demonstrate that the requirements of Section 40.03.318 of the NCCC for mixed use development will be provided as each phase of project proceeds. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate adequate parking will be provided with each phase of the project;
14. Please note that the Record Plan version should not contain existing improvements or topography;
15. Provide detailed floor plans of the proposed parking garages;
16. Please identify if any specimen trees exist on this parcel;
17. Please note that new areas of paving can not encroach into the required 20 foot bufferyard adjoining the northerly property line. Remove the minimum bufferyard setback note from the plan notes. The note is not accurate;
Engineering:
In accordance with Section 10.3.4.4 of the Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations,...For any increase in volume that cannot be recharged, infiltrated, or re-used, volume management may be achieved by modifying the release rate for the increase in volume so as not to increase the flood elevation for all storms up to and including the 100-year return period.
...Provide supportive documentation the channel on the eastern side of the site the flows under the Dorjul Apartments in not considered a Non-delineated Floodplain pursuant to the definitions in Article 33 of the UDC. As alluded to in paragraph I of the Narrative, a stormwater quantity variance will be requested. The Department may not support a variance from
Section 3.2.2 of the Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations. Further information with adequate justification and rationale will be required prior to review of a variance request. The Department is aware of a proposed design
within the existing channel to manage downstream flooding issues within Dorjul Apartments. Investigate the full impact the proposed design will have on this application.
Transportation:
A Traffic Operational Analysis was scoped May 27. It will examine various intersections, including Route 48 with the eastern site access. As discussed during the April 15 Pre-Exploratory meeting, right-of-way there is limited. The Plan can relieve that access and facilitate local travel, by providing for future vehicular cross-access with the nearby
shopping center.
...Standard Approvals and Comments before Recordation
1. Please note that approval from DelDOT will be required;

~*~

Changes To The NCC Redevelopment Ordinance And Acierno's Rezoning For Box Stores Near Newark Are Up For Discussion At 7PM In New Castle

This will be an interesting evening for County Land Use Policy wonks and those who follow DelDOT, traffic, the state debt and the Office of State Planning. Bob Weiner's 11-026 Sub 2 version of changes to the Redevelopment code will be heard before the Planning Board at 7PM tonight in New Castle. http://www2.nccde.org/landuse/PlanningBoard/PublicHearingAgenda/Default.aspx?MeetingDate=2011-07-05T04:00:00Z Acierno's bid for a big box commercial rezoning across from Holy Angels' on Possom Park Road at Kirkwood Highway is also on the NCC Planing Board agenda tonight. A HUGE crowd is expected for that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Reda/Tackett/Clark Redevelopment Ordinace 11-020 was on the agenda for NCC Council Land Use Committee today and slated for a vote next week but was suddenly pulled this morning. Most of the comments below stem from the PLUS comments for 11-020. http://stateplanning.delaware.gov/plus/comments/2011-03-02_response.pdf The NCC Planning Board also has minutes posted from their decision to reject 11-020

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the PLUS comments, DelDOT says it has problems with changes Reda's Ordinance, 11-020 makes to section 40.08.130.B(6)(e)(vii) including where: "TOA or TIS shall only be required if requested by DelDOT". I don't know how this rewrite fundamentally differs from the current law but DelDOT didn't seem to like being put in this position.

These are four of DelDOT's questions for Mr. Culver in the PLUS comments for 11-020:
- Without a TOA or TIS study, how will NCC measure LOS?
- Doesn't NCC even WANT to know the LOS impact for a given record plan?
- LOS changes over time; If NCC uses an old traffic study, how old may that study be?
- Why is there a different standard for areas that have not been studied?
DelDOT also suggested that is would be prudent for NCC to clarify the phrase "below LOS D" such that if LOS is at D than the plan shall not cause LOS to fall to F. And if LOS is at F then language is needed to ensure that the measurement of F is not allowed to worsen by an unlimited amount (LOS being measured by delay at an intersection).

{cough, cough} To my knowledge, neither Culver, Clark, Tackett nor Reda have answered DelDOT's questions above. Maybe that's why they took it off of today's Land Use Committee agenda..but this article by Adam Taylor today is probably the real reason they yanked it: Dueling redevelopment ordinances on table
New Castle County to hear plans to reform law today.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My questions regarding 11-020:

- Is NCC withdrawing its role in requiring that traffic impact be studied for Redevelopment plans?
- Will this come into play with properties whose plans will suddenly be brought to Land Use as Minor Plans and thus escape all public scrutiny?
- Is even DelDOT out of that loop?
- Is that legal under the 2008 MOU between NCC and DelDOT?

I fear that the answer is yes to each of these questions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I saw David Culver shrug and dismiss what the Planning Board had deliberated in rejecting 11-020 as "nothing important" when a NCC Councilman sponsoring the bill asked "How did it go?" So I piped in to remind Mr. Culver that the Planning Board did, in fact, have something valuable to say - that they strongly felt that all three of the Redevelopment Ordinances should be considered together - not separately.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The hubris in all of the changes to the UDC found in Redevelopment Ordinance 11-020 is unbounded as Bob Weiner has pointed out in several letters and charts. NCC Council must be compelled to really examine how the scope of these changes to the UDC could negatively effect residents (and the state debt) before they vote. They should all do their homework and read the PLUS and PB comments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is interesting to read David Culver's draft "annual" CPU report to the Office of State Planning where he claims that a "careful review of investment dollars" by NCC, State and Federal agencies allows Land Use to assist in directing growth and improvements to promote greater social justice and economic development opportunities for all income levels". I guess that might indicate that Mr. Culver thinks that the fat cat developers deserve their fair share of "social justice" too.....by not having to conform to concurrency - adequate facility law?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My take on 11-020 is that this is much more than simply a way for owners of non-conforming properties to get around the admitted difficulties the UDC presents to them. With all of the focus in 11-020 on unbuiltgross floor area (GFA), it does seem to be written expressly for the Governor's Square property owners. When pressed, Mr. Culver admitted to Mr. Inden at the PLUS meeting that there are only a tiny handful of recorded properties with unbuilt GFA that these changes will apply to. It begs the question of why such an extravagent altering of the UDC was necessary for just a few properties.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The concept of Redevelopment began as a way to bring properties into conformity with a community's Character and soon morphed into a Brownfields abatement program. It is beyond the pale to now use this Ordinance to give the owners of non-conforming properties the same magnitude of give-aways associated with the properties which fit the original intention of the law. During the PLUS meeting, Mr. Culver did agree with DelDOT's idea that --at the very least--there should be a sliding scale for incentives for unbuilt GFA along with the idea written in the Ordinance that there "may" be a greater percentage of "Design Element Improvements" required of such properties.

So, where is the amended 11-020 Ordinance with Culver's agreed upon changes? Are Culver or Reda going to discuss the concerns brought by PLUS and PB? I hope so and I hope that NCC Council is interested in really listening to these concerns and convincing Reda and Tackett to table their version until 11-026 is brought to the table as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: Bob Weiner- Weiner Redevelopment Reform legislation shunned by County officials/Come to Tuesday July 5 Planning Board Hearing !

Should the Reda Redevelopment law be enacted, the motivation to re-file the Governor Square application as a redevelopment plan would be fairly overwhelming because the applicant would avoid expensive improvements the TIS would demand. The applicant would also get a break on impact fees. Under the Reda draft as circulated, the word "development" is being changed to "recorded plan". Thus there would no longer be any dispute about whether Governor Square III is qualified for redevelopment status. Additionally, the Reda ordinance does not call for demolition of any existing structures like current law does. In other words, Governor's Square would dodge a possible successful appeal of the plan if were processed as a redevelopment under the Administration’s redevelopment proposal.

Dear friends and civic leaders, I ask for your support to help me demand that our County government enact my proposed common sense reform of the current "redevelopment" plan approval process. The current land use approval process has resulted in irregular preliminary approvals, including the Barley Mill Plaza and Governor's Square proposals, which are exempted from having to pay for critically needed traffic improvements --- simply by being dubbed “redevelopment” by the County Land Use Department!

The current county law is not only poorly written, but excessive unchecked interpretative liberties have been taken by the Land Use Department. You can make a difference! Come to the New Castle County Planning Board/Land Use Department Hearing on Tuesday JULY 5, 2011 at 7 pm at the Gilliam Building Multi-Purpose Room, 77 Reads Way, New Castle, DE. I especially need your personal help because the Department of Land Use has drafted a competing ordinance 11-020, which unbelievably allows even more breaks for redevelopment plans.

Linked here is my legal memo, which was recently published in the League of Women Voters newsletter, containing a comparison of these two competing draft ordinances, along with a comparison matrix. My proposed redevelopment ordinance incorporates specific positive ideas that the Delaware Department of Transportation offered during the State review process to assure that developers pay for needed traffic improvements. The State Planning Office review process is called “PLUS”. The reviewers are State employed professional land use planners and traffic engineers. The PLUS review process endorsed my redevelopment draft ordinance while rejecting the County Land Use Department redevelopment draft. Then the Planning Board voted 8 to 1 against the Land Use Department draft. The Planning Board is scheduled to consider on my draft tonight. The Land Use> Department is also supposed to review and comment upon my draft at the same hearing, but is relying upon flawed legal rationale to avoid its legal responsibility to officially comment on my draft legislation. For details, see my
linked legal analysis and this Community News article.

I seek your support for my draft Redevelopment Ordinance 11-026 Sub 2. I also seek your support to protect my legislative prerogative to independently introduce legislation on your behalf. The County Law and Land Use Departments are attempting to deny me this right. This denial attempts to deny YOU an independent voice on County Council. I am prepared to stand up against abuse of power. But I need your help to help restore “checks and balances” in county government. Bottom line: projects like Governor Square III and Barley Mill Plaza should be required to implement government mandated roadway improvements. Under the current Land Use Department draft [officially entitled the Reda/Tackett draft ordinance 11-020], no roadway improvements would be required beyond nominal ingress/egress improvements.

~*~

Theo Gregory To Run For President Of The Wilmington City Council!

(WNJ image at Moyer)
Let me give a shout out (and a Happy Birthday) to Theo Gregory today - City Councilman Mike Brown just announced on Channel 28 that Theo is planning on running for Wilmington City Council President! And I just telephoned him to confirm and told him that he is always one of the smartest people in any room he is in so I am throwing my full support behind his bid for a seat on Council.

Speaking of elections, I have been recently told that there is at least one other family in Delaware that was regularly doing what Chris Tigani has admitted - illegally bundling campaign funds to be distributed for quid pro quo favors for the family's business (and what EVERYBODY knew was going on with Charlie Cawley and MBNA- BoA). It came as a result of hearing Norman Oliver mention on his show, Community Crossfire, last week that Tom Wagner was suspected of holding a part interest in a big hotel in Dover --owned by this family that allegedly bundled funds for Minner, Carper and other DEMs through Sherman Tribbitt (One term Sherm worked for this influential mid-state family as a company employee). I called the Hotel and they confirmed that yes, Tom Wagner is a partner. Now, is there a new pattern to look for on the GOP side of the aisle? I have my work cut out for me this summer: looking through the online campaign finance reports. And what I can't find online I will look for by going down to the Dept. of Elections to see what they have in their paper files.

~*~

Frieda Berryhill Writes: Nuke Power News!

Emergency Evacuation - Its all SPECULATION !!!!

Emergency plans are kind of unique to nuclear power plants; coal plants don't have them, oil plants don't have them, windmills and solar farms don't need them either. Way back when nuclear regulations were started, the people recognized that nuclear plants were different, and there would be a need to evacuate lots of people in the event of a nuclear accident. So they came up with a law to implement those concerns.
There is a thing called a Code of Federal Regulations. Every agency has their own Code of Federal Regulations. And the nuclear one is part 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. So 10CFR is nuclear law. Within that, is a part 100. Part 100 talks about how to site a nuclear plant. Within that is a Chapter 11 that talks about emergency planning. So it's 10CFR nuclear law 100.11 is what we are going to talk about today. That law says really, really simply that there is only one criteria for emergency planning. And that is that nobody in the population get more than 25 rem of radiation during the course of a nuclear accident. That is how the law is written. That is the number, that is the goal that the utilities must stay below. Now Chairman Jaczko has said that he is confident that 10 mile plans are adequate, and yet, in Japan, Chairman Jaczko recommended to the White House to evacuate out to 50 miles. But there is no basis in the law in 10CFR to discuss what that distance is. It is just whatever it takes to stay below 25 rem of radiation. So, Congress then told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they have to come up with a way to calculate that exposure. And this is where it gets interesting. The law is clear: 25 rem is the most somebody can get. But it is based on a lot of speculation about what is released from a nuclear power plant. Now all that speculation is put into something called a NUREG and that is a regulation that implements the bigger law. There are two NUREGs that apply, NUREG 0654 and NUREG 0396 are the two. But anyway they are just a compilation of all of the speculation that the that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assumes when they try to implement 10CFR100.
Now let's talk about how this ten mile zone came to be. The NRC was allowed to make some assumptions about how much radiation got out of a nuclear power plant. It is just speculation.The NRC and the industry got together and they said let's speculate that 1% of the nuclear fuel fails in the event of an accident. And of that 1%, let's speculate that 95% of THAT gets stuck on the inside of all of the containment boundaries that are inside of there.
And so, of the 1% of the 95% of that, all of the remainder is inside the nuclear containment.And the NRC says lets assume that the containment then leaks at a half percent per day. So this speculation that only 1% of the fuel fails and
that 95% of that gets stuck on the walls, and that then only a half a percent of what remains is released everyday, is the basis that the nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission come up with when they determine the emergency planning zones around a nuclear reactor.
When you apply all those assumptions, you come up with a very small emergency planning zone, a couple miles. So the NRC said, lets go out to 10 miles, and that is in NUREG 0396. It appears as an assumption in a regulation, but it is really NOT part of nuclear law. And it is based on a whole series of speculations that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear industry agreed to
http://fairewinds.com/content/white-house-nrc-recommend-50-mile-fukushima-evacuation-yet-insist-us-safe-only-10

No wonder that public hearings on the plan are hard to come by
The Hill: Sanders blocks nuclear ageny official’s confirmation over Vermont reactor - By Ben Geman Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is blocking Senate confirmation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) member William Ostendorff to another term due to NRC efforts to extend operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant over the opposition of state officials.
Now the fight is on ! Does the State have a right after voting 26 to 4 to stop license renewal for a nuclear plant within its Border

Sanders Expects U.S. to Stay Out of Vermont Yankee Court Fight
WASHINGTON, June 30 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) learned today that the U.S. Department of Justice has no plans to intervene in a legal fight over the fate of the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor at this time. Sanders had urged Attorney General Eric Holder to stay out of a lawsuit filed in federal court in Vermont by Entergy Corp. The plant owner sued after the Vermont Senate last year voted 26-to-4 not to renew a state license for the 40-year-old, problem-plagued reactor.
“While I recognize that it is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to monitor developments in all ongoing litigation, I am pleased that they have no plans to intervene and I am confident that the Department will see no reason to intervene in the future,” Sanders said.
Sanders is a member of the U.S. Senate committee that oversees the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
He criticized the NRC earlier this month after learning that commissioners secretly voted 3 to 2 to urge the Department of Justice to intervene in the Vermont case. The senator also spoke with the attorney general and other top officials at the Justice Department.
“If Vermont chooses an energy future that does not include a 40-year-old, problem-ridden nuclear power plant and that emphasizes energy efficiency and sustainable energy, it is certainly our right and the federal government has no role to play in that decision,” Sanders said.

also read: Atomic Energy Unsafe in the Real World" -- http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/30-1
140 Lawmakers from Virginia get to see France...why not. money does not matter for the pushers of nukes !!!!!

Virginia lawmakers flying to France as part of lobbying push for uranium mining
RICHMOND — More than a dozen Virginia legislators are flying to France this month on all-expenses paid trips as part of an aggressive lobbying effort by a company pushing lawmakers to lift a ban on uranium mining in the state......
Virginia Uranium invited nearly all 140 state lawmakers to France as it looks to mine what is thought to be the largest deposit of uranium in the United States, in south central Virginia, despite concerns about unearthed radioactive material that could contaminate the area’s land, air and drinking water.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/virginia-lawmakers-flying-to-france-as-part-of-lobbying-push-for-uranium-mining/2011/06/15/AG0BDxXH_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews
Whets the use !
In 1976 the Government held hearings in Boston on the damages and health effects of uranium mining. I traveled to Boston, I reminded them that the official numbers of these effect were underestimated by a factor of 100.000 (text available) Not one Official on the panel refuted my figures ! Yes, no typo . Onehundredthousand ! But who cares.
Have a nice trip !

Go Grandma!!! wow age 90 92 and 94 - Fifteen Women Arrested after Advocating for Solar Power at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant

Photo by Cindy Stahler. At the police station after their release pending a July 19 court appearance in Brattleboro’s Windham County Court.
Fifteen women, the largest ever contingent of the Shut It Down Affinity Group to date, were arrested Thursday afternoon, June 30, at the Entergy Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The women were charged with trespass after advocating for replacing nuclear power with solar power.
Shut-It-Downers included three women in their nineties: Valerie Mullen, 90, of Vershire, Vermont; Frances Crowe, 92, of Northampton, Massachusetts, and Lea Wood, 94, of Montpelier, Vermont.

LOL a News Journal Quote (Ya just never know what they find interesting) Frieda Berryhill, a New Castle County resident and longtime critic of the nuclear power industry, was dubious.- "Well, another nuke in the neighborhood is getting their license renewed," Berryhill said in an email. "All the plants that surround us here in Wilmington-Philadelphia (Peach Bottom, Salem, Hope Creek and Limerick) have outlived what was originally intended to be a 'safe' lifespan. From now on we are going to wing it by the seat of our pants." - for the whole story
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110701/NEWS/107010339/Lifespan-extended-Salem-reactors?odyssey=tabtopnewstextLocal
Subject: NRC Renews Operating Licenses for Salem Nuclear Power Plant for an Additional 20 Years - for an additional 20 years !!!!!!!!!! - Here it is folks, done !!! THEIR RUBBER STAMP WORKED AGAIN !!! Get ready for a bumpy ride from now on. I will report on every "incident" for as long as I can.
But here it is from an expert
How long can nuclear reactors last? US, industry extend spans - 'What they're saying is really a fabrication,' retired reactor designer says

ROCKVILLE, Md.— When commercial nuclear power was getting its start in the 1960s and 1970s, industry and regulators stated unequivocally that reactors were designed only to operate for 40 years. Now they tell another story — insisting that the units were built with no inherent life span, and can run for up to a century, an Associated Press investigation shows.
By rewriting history, plant owners are making it easier to extend the lives of dozens of reactors in a relicensing process that resembles nothing more than an elaborate rubber stamp............ And endangering all of us
span >http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43556350/ns/us_news-environment/

~*~

Join America’s National Let Freedom Ring Celebration At 1:30PM On July 4th In Old New Castle

4th of July, 2011 in Historic New Castle - National Bell-Ringing Ceremony

LET FREEDOM RING -- created in 1972 -- begins nationally with tapping the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia at 2:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time on the 4th of July each year. This year over 100,000 Americans will participate at sites that include the Betsy Ross House, the USS Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor, the USS Missouri, the Alamo in San Antonio, churches in Philadelphia (Christ Church and St. Peter's) and New York (St. Patrick’s and St. John the Divine) and Washington DC (the National Cathedral and the Immaculate Conception), and the carillons of Yale and Princeton and the Washington Memorial Chapel at Valley Forge.

This is the sixth year that Historic New Castle has participated in this ceremony.

This July 4th children, families, friends and patriots of all ages are cordially invited to celebrate our ancestors' decision, made by 18th century Delawareans right here in historic New Castle, to achieve liberty and independence. At 2:00 Eastern Daylight Time, bells across New Castle and across the Nation will peal, officially commemorating the birth of American Independence, all participating in America’s National Let Freedom Ring Celebration.

All are invited to attend the local opening ceremonies at 1:25PM sharp at Immanuel Church on the Green. David Schrader, PhD, Chaplain, Delaware Society SAR; The Rev. John deWitt Stonesifer, Chaplain of the Major Peter Jaquett Society and Interim Pastor Immanuel Church on the Green; and Mayor Donald Reese will officially greet the guests. Mr. Greg Austin will once again lead the music. The Major Robert Kirkwood Chapter SAR Color Guard will open and close the program.

This year’s keynote speaker will be the Reverend John Stonesifer, whose talk is entitled: “Making the Past Present.”

Guests will remained seating for the pealing of the church bells. Following the main bell ceremony, thirteen children, representing the thirteen colonies, will ring a smaller bell, donated to the day’s event by the Old Courthouse Museum. Ken Oppenheimer and Nancy Parker of New Castle will help coordinate the childrens’ bell-ringing. If your child would like to participate, please let Nancy know. Re-enactors, docents, and all who love wearing 18th century garb are invited to come dressed in period attire. Participants are requested to be seated inside the church by 1:25PM as the program will begin at 1:30PM sharp.

~*~

Delaware Riverkeeper Writes "Today The Legislature Said No Fracking Way In NJ" But Will Governor Christie Sign The Bill?

From the inbox ~ New Jersey Legislature Bans Fracking

NJ is First in the U.S. to Ban the Dangerous Gas Drilling Technique Trenton, NJ

- On Wednesday, in an unprecedented and pioneering move, New Jersey’s state legislature became the first in the nation to pass a bill to enforce a statewide ban on a controversial gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing or "fracking". The bill passed the Senate 32-1 and the Assembly 58-11.

"Today, New Jersey sent a strong message to surrounding states and to the nation that a ban on fracking is necessary to protect public health and preserve our natural resources," said Senator Bob Gordon (D-BERGEN). "Any benefits of gas production simply do not justify the many potential dangers associated with fracking such as pollution of our lakes, streams and drinking water supplies and the release of airborne pollutants. We should not wait until our natural resources are threatened or destroyed to act. The time to ban fracking in New Jersey is now."

Fracking involves injecting water, toxic chemicals and sand deep underground to break up dense rock formations and release natural gas. Opponents of fracking cite the high potential for water and air pollution as a leading reason to ban the practice. The Delaware River provides drinking water to approximately 3 million people in New Jersey and this supply could be contaminated if fracking moves forward in the Delaware River Basin. Over 200,000 acres of land in the Upper Delaware River Watershed in Pennsylvania and New York are already under lease for gas drilling.

“Fracking is a man-made disruption to the environment, many times on large-scale proportions,” said Assemblywoman Connie Wagner (D-Bergen). “We’ve already seen a number of eco-casualties from this practice in surrounding states. It would be irresponsible to leave the door open for this practice to be pursued in New Jersey.”

Public opposition to fracking has escalated in recent months, with concerned residents and environmental and consumer advocacy groups campaigning against the practice in New Jersey and the surrounding states, where a gas drilling frenzy has taken hold or is ramping up to begin in the Marcellus Shale, a rock formation which extends up the East Coast. Pennsylvania alone is producing a glut of millions of gallons of fracking wastewater that is being shipped out of state. Gas drilling there is resulting in more than 11 violations of environmental permits per day at well sites, according to PADEP records, causing growing pollution and health problems.

"The New Jersey Legislature is taking the pro-active step of preventing contamination of our drinking water and environment, the only sure way to protect our residents from fracking pollution. This is a great day for the State's present and future generations," said Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director, Delaware Riverkeeper Network.New Jersey contains gas bearing shale formations, notably the Utica Shale in northern New Jersey, that could be targeted by energy companies in the new "gas rush", threatening the State's drinking water and resident's health.

In Texas and western states, where fracking has been used for some time, air and water pollution are leading to degraded environmental conditions and reported health problems from residents – concerns which led those living in Dish, Texas, a town located near 11 natural gas compression stations, to hire a private environmental consultant to sample the air. The consultant found that it contained high levels of neurotoxins and carcinogens, including benzene.

A 2011 Cornell University study found that the process of fracking also releases methane, which according to the EPA, is 21 times more damaging as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Similarly, a study released by researchers at Duke University in April found methane levels in drinking water wells near active gas drilling sites at a level 17 times higher than those near inactive ones.

Earlier this year, the U.S. House and Energy Commerce Committee determined that 14 oil companies had injected 780 million gallons of fracking chemicals and other substances into U.S. wells between 2005 and 2009. This included 10.2 million gallons of fluids containing known or suspected carcinogens. The companies, however, are not required to disclose the chemicals in fracking fluid, which they claim should be protected as a “trade secret”. They are also exempt from portions of seven major federal environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act. Scientists at the Endocrine Disruption Exchange who tested fracking fluids found that 25 percent can cause cancer; 37 percent can disrupt the endocrine system; and 40 to 50 percent can affect the nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems.

“New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s signature is all that is necessary now for this critical and timely statewide ban to go into effect,” said Jim Walsh, New Jersey Director of the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch. “If he approves it, New Jersey will be the first state to stand up against the devastating environmental and public health impacts of fracking, which have wreaked havoc on other states across the U.S.”

Earlier this month Food & Water Watch released a report entitled The Case for a Ban on Fracking. The report reveals how the natural gas industry’s use of water-intensive, toxic, unregulated practices for natural gas extraction are compromising public health and polluting water resources across the country.

“Today the Legislature said No Fracking Way in NJ. This bill is a great victory for clean water and we believe it will be a national model," said Jeff Tittel, Director NJ Sierra Club. “Under this bill we not only ban fracking in New Jersey but send a message to other states like Pennsylvania that they need to protect New Jersey from fracking pollution from their states. We hope this bill sends a message to the Governor to oppose fracking in the Delaware River Basin and protect New Jersey's waters."

~*~