Issue fraught with science and emotion (uranium mining)

Canada coming south(America)

Comment:  A great letter, we hear the same comments from the pro uranium group in VA!  No to uranium mining!

February 25, 2010

Supporters of in situ leach uranium mining in Weld County claim that opponents of uranium mining are too emotional and do not know "the science."

Do they mean ...

The "geological" science that the U.S. Geological Survey used to determine "to date, no ISR uranium mine in the U.S. has successfully restored the aquifer to baseline conditions."

The "groundwater" science that geoscientist B. K. Darling used to evaluate restoration of ISL mines in Texas, reporting, "The Texas commission on Environmental Quality routinely grants requests for relaxed restoration standards that allow operators to depart from original groundwater cleanup objectives ... as a result of the inability of the operators to reduce uranium concentration."

The "medical" science that the Larimer County and Colorado medical societies used to decide their opposition to uranium mining, stating, "there are documented increases in rates of testicular and ovarian cancer, leukemia, childhood bone cancer, miscarriages, infant death, congenital defects and genetic abnormalities in populations living near uranium mining sites."

The "meteorological science" that the past president of the American Meteorological Society used saying, "Weld County is windy. Surface soil contaminated by radionuclide and heavy metals has the potential to become airborne and be ingested by surrounding humans and animals for miles."

Opponents too emotional?

Were Fort Collins, Greeley, Nunn, Timnath, Wellington, Ault and New Raymer too emotional when they all wrote resolutions opposing uranium mining, or were they acting on behalf of public health and safety?

Fort Collins was voted best place to live. A uranium mine nearby could negate this area's desirability.

Real estate values could plummet. Local college enrollment could decrease. Businesses could vacate. Reduction in quality of life, job losses and the inability to sell your house are emotional.

The mining company projects using a million gallons of groundwater per month for 20 to 25 years. This could affect availability of fresh groundwater.

Weld County is the eighth-most-productive agricultural county in the United States.

Contaminated or reduced volumes of water could adversely affect this industry. Loss of local business income and at-risk agricultural products are emotional.

Abandoned uranium mine sites historically become superfund sites that use tax dollars to clean up.

With ISL mines, it is the aquifer that needs restoration, and if it can't be restored, what do we use? There are more than 250 wells of record within one mile of the mine site. Contaminated water is emotional.

A Canadian mining company proposes to mine uranium 10 miles from Fort Collins, make a lot of money and take it back to Canada. In return, it says it will create maybe 100 jobs and residual business.

Having a foreign company mine U.S. resources, possibly contaminate our environment and leave us with the bill is emotional.

So, is it an issue of science or emotion? It's a little of both, with many promises and projections from an industry that has historically contaminated the area where it operates.

Do they have new, "safe" science?

Will they protect our environment?

We'll just have to trust them ... or not.

More groups join protest of uranium mill

In the Paradox Valley, a question of water

By Matthew Beaudin
Editor

Published: Monday, February 8, 2010 8:37 PM CST

The list of opposition to a proposed uranium mill in Paradox Valley keeps growing.

Last week, two Utah-based conservation groups took up arms against Energy Fuels’ planned uranium mill to be built on a swath of western Colorado’s high farmland.

Moab-based groups Red Rock Forests and Living Rivers are challenging the company’s application to pump groundwater from the Dolores River basin, and in doing so join local group Sheep Mountain Alliance and a coalition of groups in opposition of the would-be mill. Living Rivers Conservation Director John Weisheit says the Dolores River is one of the West’s most scenic and a popular river for whitewater rafting.

The Dolores is a 250-mile tributary of the Colorado River that drains into Utah, and Energy Fuels needs the water to process uranium ore. The river cuts across the Paradox Valley, a lofty piece of land between towering red walls an hour northwest of Telluride.

The debate over the mill and the possible resurgence of Uranium mining in a region where it once boomed has proven paradoxical; opponents have questioned the environmental record of the industry while those in support say they need the jobs a revived industry pledges.

Currently, the Colorado Department of Health and Environment is reviewing the project and could take up to 18 months to make a decision.

Other environmental groups are protesting the very approval from Montrose County the project hinges upon, disputing how the permit was obtained.

Sheep Mountain Alliance, a local environmental group, filed a lawsuit against the Montrose County Commissioners and its land use director, alleging a hopscotch of missteps in the board’s approval of the uranium mill to be built six miles outside of Paradox, Colo.

The problems in the approval, they say, are far-reaching and systemic: At the heart of the matter is the notion that a uranium mill — heavy in both regulation and stigma — could be plopped down in the middle of the lofty and stark valley, which is zoned for agricultural uses. The complaint alleges inappropriate meetings, abuses of discretion when approving a special use permit for Energy Fuels.

The groups say that the federal government failed to consider the cumulative effects of increased leasing.

Recently, a judge ruled that environmental groups can obtain information on given federal leases to challenge the program.

Read more:
http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2010/02/08/news/doc4b70c73680b63735642660.txt

Colo. officials mull new rules on uranium mining

Comment: Look at this statement, it is overwhelming: "People who want to participate in the rule-making must submit requests by Feb. 23"!  The state of Virginia appointed a committee called the "URANIUM SUB-COMMITTEE of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, with only one citizen who worked for the mining group but No citizens from Pittsylvania County are on the Commission, why? 
The URANIUM SUB-COMMITTEE are listed below, email them and ask them why the citizens of our county are not part of the Sub-Committe:
 Chairman: Delegate R. Lee Ware (804)598-6696 dellware@house.state.va.us, Senator Phillip Puckett (276)979-8181 district38@sov.state.va.us
, Senator Frank Wagner (757)671-2250 district07@sov.state.va.us, Senator John Watkins (804)379-2063 jnwatkins@aol.com, Delegate Watkins Abbitt, Jr. (434)352-2880 delwabbitt@house.state.va.us, Delegate Kristen Amundson (703)619-0444 delkamundson@house.state.va.us, Delegate Charles Carrico (276)773-9600 delccarrico@house.state.va.us, Delegate W. R . “Bill” Janis (804)726-5856 elbjanis@house.state.va.us, Delegate Terry Kilgore (276)386-7011 delegate@mounet.com, Delegate Clarence Phillips (276)762-9758 delbphillips@house.state.va.us, Citizen Harry D. Childress former head of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Dr. Michael Karmis, Liaison (540) 231-7057 or (540)231-5273 mkarmis@vt.edu,

The Associated Press
2010-02-01 23:38:00.0

DENVER -
The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board will consider tightening oversight of uranium mining.

The board in April will consider new regulations proposed by the state Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The rules would implement 2008 laws amending standards for reclamation, water quality and other areas.

The regulations would cover both hard-rock and in-situ mining, which hasn't been used in Colorado.

People who want to participate in the rule-making must submit requests by Feb. 23.

On the Net: Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety:

http://mining.state.co.us/

Read more:
http://www.examiner.com/printa-2452557~Colo._officials_mull_new_rules_on_uranium_mining.html

Uranium drilling still poses health risks

Comment:  Great letter!  People of Virginia, read the letter below, Colorado had uranium mining in the past which left deserted mines and tailings ponds and the federal government was a huge part of uranium mining and the feds did not protect the miners or their families. So demand the leaders to ban uranium mining and milling now!
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Do people move to Grand Junction to be a part of “energy alley” or to be immersed in the on-going legacy of boom-and-bust uranium mining and milling?

We moved here because Mesa County was promoted as a fruit-growing region with great natural beauty and a friendly community offering recreational opportunity and diversified employment. During the ten years we have lived here, I have learned that most of this advertising is true.

It is also true that in a book titled “Warm Sands,” Grand Junction’s story of involvement in uranium milling unveiled a legacy of health problems and concerns that continue to plague our citizens. Note the advertisements in The Daily Sentinel to apply for recompense for uranium damage.

When Grand Junction’s water was tested in the 1970s, it was considered unfit to drink. When Colorado Avenue was renovated in 2009, the tailings from yellowcake milling found in the roadbed had to be removed and carried away for protection of the people because it was highly radio-active. Colorado taxpayers have paid over $1 billion in clean up costs for past uranium operations and there is still need for more.

Now, Energy Fuels wants to open a new uranium mill in the Paradox Valley that would likely transport yellowcake through Mesa County. Gateway recreation area could be affected by concerns with air and water pollution causing sustainable economic opportunities to be seriously hampered.

Hopefully, people from Grand Junction will attend the public hearing on health and economic issues regarding Energy Fuels’ intention to open Piñon Ridge Uranium Mill. It will be held Wednesday, Feb. 17, at 6:00 p.m. in the Montrose Pavilion on the Montrose County Fairgrounds.

FRAN DIDIER
Grand Junction, CO

http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/opinion/stories/2010/01/26/012610_email_letters.html

Good turnout reported at (uranium) mill hearing

Comment:  Ban uranium milling and mining now!

Staff Report

Published/Last Modified on Sunday, January 24, 2010 4:11 AM MST

NUCLA - Severe weather didn’t keep people away from the state’s first public hearing on Energy Fuels’ proposed uranium mill.

More than 300 people braved winter weather to attend the hearing at Nucla High Thursday, and 73 spoke, county officials said.

Read more:
http://www.montrosepress.com/articles/2010/01/24/news/doc4b5bcb58dbc96623319421.txt

Green groups battling uranium boom in SW Colorado laud district court ruling

Comment:  No to Uranium and Milling!
By David O. Williams 1/20/10 8:30 AM

A U.S. District Court judge late last week gave opponents of a looming uranium mining boom in Southwest Colorado some more fuel, if you will, in their legal fight to nuke a Department of Energy mine leasing program along the scenic Dolores and San Miguel rivers.

Judge Wiley Daniel ruled Thursday that a coalition of conservation groups suing the DOE could now question officials and obtain leasing records for a 42-square-mile uranium mining program environmentalists claim threatens water quality and wildlife habitat near the Dolores and San Miguel rivers in southwestern Colorado and eastern Utah.

“This is a big victory for the Dolores and San Miguel rivers and a good sign for our litigation,” Travis Stills of the Durango-based Energy Minerals Law Center said in a release. His organization is representing the Colorado Environmental Coalition, Information Network for Responsible Mining, Center for Native Ecosystems and Center for Biological Diversity in a lawsuit filed against the DOE and the Bureau of Land Management in July of 2008.

“Chief Judge Daniel took a thorough look at the filings and agreed that this lawsuit brings a comprehensive challenge to the DOE’s failure to take a hard look at the effects of the uranium lease program, the issuance of uranium leases, and the approval of exploration and mining activity.”

But uranium mining and milling in Colorado have a dirty past, and many conservationists are concerned with going back down that road in some of the state’s most scenic wild places. A proposal for a new uranium mill in western Montrose County has been hotly contested and is largely seen as linked to the nearby mining lease program.

Read more:
http://coloradoindependent.com/46139/green-groups-battling-uranium-boom-in-sw-colorado-laud-district-court-ruling

Court Decision Aids Uranium Lawsuit

by Karen JamesJan 20, 2010

Efforts Also Underway For More Industry Accountability

TELLURIDE – A U.S. District Court judge ruled last week that conservation groups suing the U.S. Department of Energy for its decision to expand uranium mining on public lands near the Dolores River Canyon may question agency officials and obtain records related to its Uranium Leasing Program through the process of discovery in order to build their lawsuit.

“I find that some limited discovery is appropriate but reject the full range of discovery sought by Plaintiffs,” wrote U.S. District Court Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel, who both affirmed and rejected parts of a previous finding issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe that denied discovery.

While Daniel agreed that limited discovery was appropriate for the purpose of identifying site-specific actions taken by the DOE concerning leases, mining approvals or other activity to implement the program, he rejected a request for discovery concerning unspecified, non site-specific actions.

“This discovery request is too broad and would essentially constitute a fishing expedition on the part of Plaintiffs,” he wrote.

The groups, which include the Colorado Environmental Coalition, the Information Network for Responsible Mining, the Center for Native Ecosystems and the Center for Biological Diversity, welcomed the decision.

“This is a big victory for the Dolores and San Miguel rivers and a good sign for our litigation,” said Travis Stills of the Durango-based Energy Minerals Law Center, who is leading the litigation in a press release.

“Our main request was granted; it gives us the ability to conduct discovery and requires the government to answer our questions under oath and moves our comprehensive challenge forward,” he later explained in an interview.

In 2008 the groups sued the DOE for what they alleged was its failure to consider the environmental impacts of expanding the active leasing of 27,000 acres of public lands from 13 to as many as 38 individual lease tracts.

They maintained that uranium mining and milling resulting from the lease program will deplete Colorado River basin water and could pollute streams and rivers with toxic and radioactive waste products, potentially threatening downstream communities and fish and wildlife.

“Even small amounts of some of these pollutants, like selenium, can accumulate in the food chain and cause deformities and reproductive problems for endangered fishes, ducks, river otters and eagles,” said Josh Pollock of the Center for Native Ecosystems in a press release.

“It is irresponsible for the Department of Energy to put fish and wildlife at risk by rushing to approve numerous uranium mines without adequate protections to prevent pollution.”

The agency arrived at its decision in July 2007 after preparing an environmental assessment to evaluate its management alternatives for the future of the leasing program that included maintaining it at its existing level, expanding it, or discontinuing it.

At that time the DOE issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on the action, however the conservation groups’ lawsuit charges that the decision, and the analysis upon which it was based, inadequately evaluated soil, water, and habitat contamination threats as required by federal law.

“It basically says that the federal government failed to apply federal environmental laws when they took action to expand this program,” said Stills.

“It’s not only a decision on the probable impact of the leases themselves but a decision by the District Court to challenge the federal government’s ruling that there are no significant impacts,” said Hilary White of the Telluride-based conservation organization Sheep Mountain Alliance.

SMA is at the forefront of an opposition effort against the establishment of the nation’s first uranium mill in three decades near the lease program lands in Paradox Valley.

DOE representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Even as the expansion of uranium mining in Colorado is being challenged, conservation and citizen groups and elected officials are working to ensure that taxpayers do not pay to clean up contamination left behind by the uranium industry in the event of a new boom cycle.

The legislation would: require operators to comply with all cleanup orders before new applications are processed; strengthen pubic oversight of cleanup and decommissioning bonding requirements; require operators to inform residents with registered wells in close proximity to groundwater contamination about threats to their water; and require operators to amend their operating license before accepting new sources of “alternate feed.”

“A company should clean up its toxic mess before being allowed to renew or expand its operations,” said Matt Garrington of Environment Colorado, which is spearheading the legislation with the Cañon City-based Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste.

The act is inspired in part by a March 2009 announcement by the Cotter Corp. of plans to resume processing yellowcake uranium at its uranium mill in Freemont County just south of Cañon City in 2014.

“There has not been a legal tool for the state to require a more thorough cleanup on an ongoing basis,” said Freemont County Commissioner Mike Stiehl, whose own irrigation well has been contaminated by the mill operations, he said.

“You need to clean up your activities while you’re going.”

“It’s creating some accountability so we don’t leave taxpayers on the hook and pollution in the communities,” said Garrington.

At press time a call to the Cotter Corp. seeking comment had not been returned.

Read more:
http://www.telluridewatch.com/view/full_story/5614070/article-Court-Decision-Aids-Uranium-Lawsuit?instance=News_page

Uranium mining should get attention

Comment:  No to Uranium Mining!

January 7, 2010
Opinion:

On Dec. 22, in the opening sentence of the lead "Local" story on a Powertech test permit hearing, the Coloradoan had me saying I didn't think it mattered if a proposed uranium mine pollutes the water.

Now this is attention-getting, but not the kind I had intended when giving testimony the night before in Nunn to the EPA.

What I'd said was that it didn't matter how pristine Powertech's operation was, when people hear there's any uranium mine only 10 miles away from this population center, they won't want to move here.

If you're concerned about this issue, and you should be, excellent information is available at http://www.nunnglow.com/.

C.A.R.D. is a dedicated and hard-working organization of volunteers working to illuminate the damaging effects of Powertech's proposed uranium mine.

It would also help if in future coverage, each article, the Coloradoan published the details of when and where these public meetings are to be held and how to contact the EPA with comments if unable to attend.

Diane Marschke,
Fort Collins, CO

Read More:
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20100107/OPINION03/1070316/1014/OPINION

Nunn area residents tell EPA to stop uranium mining permit process

Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Jakob Rodgers

More than 100 people gathered Monday night in Nunn to plead with representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency to put a stop to a permitting process that marks the initial stages of a proposed uranium mine near the town.

Several people spoke at the event, which was the second — and final — meeting to gather public comment concerning a class V permit for Canadian-based Powertech Uranium Corp.

The permit up for discussion Monday night would allow the mining company to conduct tests to determine the geologic and hydrologic makeup of the site, according to Rich Mylott, spokesman for the EPA.

Should the EPA grant the permit, Mylott said Powertech hopes to draw water up through a pipe and store it in containers. After testing it to determine the quality of the water and how the aquifer recharges, the water would then be placed back into the aquifer unprocessed.

The company has yet to file for a class III permit to actually mine uranium at the site, Mylott said. Once it does, Mylott said there would be another public comment period before a final decision is made.

Still, nearly everyone who spoke at the meeting implored the agency to strike down the permit.

Ken Tarbett, who said he owns property that borders the proposed test drilling site, said he was “very disturbed” by fears that his well water would be contaminated from the testing process.

“This is not an exact science,” Tarbett said of the process of removing the water and then re-injecting it back into the ground to conduct the tests. “Mathematics is an exact science. This pumping test and the complexity of these geological formations are anything but exact.”

Robin Davis, who has helped lead the fight against the uranium mine, also asked the EPA to take heed of its own mission statement, which calls for it to protect the environment and human health — which, she said, includes psychological health. She said concerns about past uranium mining sites that proved unsafe have created feelings of distrust.

“Living in this ... state of fear and anxiety and operating from the place of mistrust does not promote or protect health; in fact, just the opposite,” Davis said. “I cannot begin to fathom how the EPA could justify permitting this kind of threat to human health and environmental safety.”

Meg Corwin, the regional director for U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., also spoke at the meeting. She read a letter sent by Bennet and U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo., to the agency noting their constituents' concerns and urging the agency to make the rule-making process public.

The meeting was the second public comment meeting concerning the class V permit — the first meeting was held in July. The comment period is open through Thursday, Mylott said. Comments gathered until then will factor into the agency's decision on whether to grant the permit, he said.

Read more:
http://www.mywindsornow.com/article/20091222/NEWS/912229999/1040&ParentProfile=1001

Residents voice uranium project concerns

Comment:  No to uranium mining!

Speakers at Nunn meeting share opinions about proposed uranium mine and pump test

BY BOBBY MAGILL
BobbyMagill@coloradoan.com
December 22, 2009

NUNN - Standing before a crowd of more than 100 people Monday night, Fort Collins resident Diane Marschke said she doesn't think it matters if Powertech USA's proposed Centennial Project uranium mine pollutes the water.

"When people hear there's a uranium mine 10 miles away, they aren't going to come here," she said.

Marschke and about 15 others confronted U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency officials at the Nunn Community Center with their opinions about a proposed water pump test that will tell Powertech if its in situ leaching method of uranium mining is viable in the area.

To conduct the test, the company needs a "Class V" permit from the EPA, which will allow Powertech to pump water out of the uranium-containing Fox Hills aquifer, store it, then reinject the water back into the aquifer. The permit will not allow the company to mine for uranium.

Powertech will be responsible for doing its own tests on the integrity of the well hole and casing, which are meant to ensure the water will not contaminate aquifers above the area where the water is being reinjected, said Valois Shea of the EPA Underground Injection Control Program.

The company is required to report its findings to the EPA.

Most who spoke Monday night spoke passionately against the pump test and proposed mine, most of them fearing the pump test will stir up contaminants and harm drinking water quality.

"Powertech is testing their own wells," Fort Collins resident Scott Horak said. "They're monitoring their own situation. It's like the fox guarding the hen house. It isn't gonna work."

Robin Davis, who lives adjacent to Powertech's property, gave an emotional speech, saying she lives in a constant state of fear that every drilling rig that drives past her place could drill a hole leading to the contamination of her well water.

Randy King, a former miner at the Climax molybdenum mine near Leadville who said he is now a water quality professional for a local utility, said he fears toxic waste as bad as that left behind at the Climax mine could end up in Fort Collins' backyard.

"If Powertech happens, I'll be one of many people who will up and go," he said, imploring the EPA to "save my beautiful Colorado."

Read more:
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20091222/NEWS01/912220314/1002/CUSTOMERSERVICE02/Residents-voice-uranium-project-concerns

Residents get chance to voice their concerns about proposed uranium mine in northern Colorado

Comment:  No to uranium mining, wake up EPA, protect American's citizens, not corporations!

Residents get chance to voice their concerns about proposed uranium mine in northern Colorado

Associated Press
12/21/09 11:23 AM ESTNUNN, COLO. — Residents will get a chance to voice their concerns about a proposed uranium mine in northern Colorado.

The Environmental Protection Agency is set to hold a public meeting on the subject Monday evening in Nunn.

Denver-based Powertech wants to mine uranium using technology that injects a solution underground to dissolve and extract the mineral. The company needs permission to reinject groundwater from an aquifer pump test.

Activists have accused the EPA of working behind closed doors to draft regulations for the proposed mine.

Read more:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/79823322.html

EPA accused of illegally rewriting uranium mining rules for northern Colorado proposal

Comment:  The so call local/Canadian uranium mining talks about modern uranium mining and between the NRC and the EPA would take care of us!  Don't think so, the little slimmy bunch!  No to uranium mining!

Associated Press,

DENVER (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency is violating laws requiring public input by working behind closed doors to draft regulations for a proposed uranium mine in northern Colorado, activists said, citing agency documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The EPA said Thursday it isn't violating any laws but is collecting information in anticipation of a permit application from Powertech USA, which wants to mine uranium using technology that injects a solution underground to dissolve and extract the mineral.

Attorney Jeff Parsons of the Western Mining Action Project, which obtained the EPA documents, and Matt Garrington of Environment Colorado say any rules for so-called "in-situ" uranium mining should be devised publicly and on a national level.

"It's a national precedent they're setting here," Parsons said.

Many states have their own regulations for in-situ, or "in place," uranium mining. Colorado does not. Neither does South Dakota, where Powertech USA, based in suburban Denver, also wants to mine uranium.

The regional EPA office in Denver, which oversees both states, acknowledges in e-mails between the agency and a Powertech consultant that any permits for the projects "will be the first nationally that EPA would issue and directly regulate under a direct implementation program."

Powertech already has applied for an EPA permit to mine near Edgemont, S.D. It would need state permits and licenses and the approval from Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well to operate.

Colorado residents are concerned about what the mine could do to groundwater quality in the quickly growing area. The Colorado Medical Society issued a resolution in 2007 opposing the mine because of possible health risks.

"We can't allow this to be done behind closed doors," said Cory Carroll, a Fort Collins doctor who promoted the resolution. "Things that get accomplished there are not always in the best interest of the public."

Richard Blubaugh, Powertech's vice president of environmental health and safety, insisted no decisions are being made in private.

The company has been talking to the EPA for about two years, and Blubaugh said he is unaware of any rule drafting that would guide the process of obtaining a permit.

"It's not about rules, it's about the interpretation of the rules," Blubaugh said of Powertech's meetings with the EPA.

An Oct. 28, 2008, agency memo on the permit process conceded that federal regulations "tend to be very general and do not provide detailed information helpful to companies developing permit applications."

He said the problem is that the EPA appears to be fleshing out regulations while talking to Powertech, state officials and industry experts — in private. He pointed to an e-mail from Valois Shea, an official with the EPA's underground injection permit program, to a Powertech consultant as proof.

In the April 14, 2008, e-mail, Shea said Powertech gets to be "the pioneering guinea pig that will make life easier for others following in your path."

Parsons also said drafts of criteria the EPA could use to review mining sites address substantive issues. A June 6, 2008, draft includes descriptions of how to determine the area to be reviewed, and where groundwater would be affected.

"It defines the scope of the EPA's review, the area they're going to take a look at to determine where to mine," Parsons said. "They've embarked on a substantive review and update of their regulations without public involvement."

U.S. Sen. Mike Bennet and Rep. Betsy Markey, both Colorado Democrats, asked the regional EPA director in a letter last month to involve the public in any rulemaking because of concerns about mining and groundwater "near a population center of 300,000 people."

"The public has raised serious concerns over contamination and they deserve to be heard in public forums," Markey said in a statement Thursday.

EPA spokesman Mylott said the agency takes its commitment "to transparency seriously and will continue to do so."

Read more:
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20091217/NEWS/912179973/-1/rss

Sheep Mountain Alliance challenges Energy Fuels’ application to state

Comment: No to Uranium Mining and Milling!

By Matthew Beaudin, Editor
Published: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:08 PM CST

Early this fall, those opposed to a uranium mill in the far western reaches of the state said they would fight at every turn.

After two filings since a contentious approval from Montrose County Commissioners, their threats have proven anything but idle.

Local environmental group Sheep Mountain Alliance continues to take the fight to a company that hopes to build a large uranium mill in the Paradox Valley, this time in a memo that questions an application by the would-be developers to the State of Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment.

Energy Fuels Inc., as part of the state’s review process, just filed an application; Sheep Mountain Alliance’s newest paperwork disputes the completeness of that application, questioning its social, economic and technical findings and foundations.

The Paradox Valley Sustainability Association is also a party in the filing.

“The way in which they do it, and the completeness of it, according to the state statues, is severely lacking,” Sheep Mountain Alliance’s Executive Director Hilary White said of Energy Fuels’ review.

As an example, White says the company addresses mines that would feed its mill but doesn’t delve into the impacts of expanded mining operations.

The application, opponents say, is too vague for its potential consequence.

“This thing is not 21st century material; this is certainly not the way these kind of things should be done, should they be done,” said Travis Stills, an attorney for Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango. “According to the highest standards.... what we see is a ‘cost cutting measure.’”

On Friday, the state will accept or deny the Energy Fuels’ application.

Should it accept, it will trigger a succession of legally mandated steps: The first public meeting would occur 45 days from then, and Montrose County, the county in which the mine would be built, will have 90 days to review the proposal.

All told, there will be four public meetings in the region and the process will take a year, White said.

Read more:
http://telluridenews.com/articles/2009/12/18/news/doc4b299f708f329713501115.txt

Congressional members express concerns about Weld uranium mine proposal

Comment: The only thing Virginia leaders says is wait for the uranium mining study, Senator Webb is selling us down the Nuke River with the taxpayers paying for the nuke plants and even our Junior senator makes the same wimpy statement, wait for the study! The people of Pittsylvania County demanded our local supervisors to ban uranium mining and milling with an ordinance, they gave us a weak resolution and the so call Gov. McDonnell cries, “Virginia is a Dillon Rule State”! So people of Colorado, please thank the two wonderful Congress people for standing up for you! Our Virginia leaders are just going to ruin our state with uranium mining and are not listening to their people to ban uranium mining and milling! Our Virginia leaders are lining their pockets with Nuke Lobbyists money!
Monday, November 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — Two Colorado members of Congress have sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency urging the agency to listen to concerns of northern Colorado citizens before taking any action on a proposed uranium mining operation in northern Weld County.

Sen. Michael Bennet and Rep. Betsy Markey told the EPA in a letter sent Monday that many northern Colorado residents and government entities are raising “serious concerns” that in-situ leaching, a mining technique proposed, could jeopardize water quality and that it may be inappropriate for use in an area near a population center of 300,000 people.

The Democrats said the proposal, put forth by Powertech (USA) Inc., should not be rushed.

“There's no reason to rush forward with this proposal when Colorado's water and a way of life could be at risk,” Bennet said in a press release. “Coloradans deserve to have their voices heard at every step of the process.”

Markey, noting water is the lifeblood of the west, said there are “serious concerns over contamination raised by local governments and private citizens alike deserve to be heard in public forums, and the EPA's rulemaking process should be entirely transparent and take place in the light of day."

Six area city councils — Fort Collins, Greeley, Wellington, Nunn, Ault and Timnath — have passed resolutions in opposition to the proposed mining project.

Read More at:
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20091130/NEWS/911309991/-1/RSS

Sheep Mountain files suit against uranium mill approval

Comment:  No to Uranium Mining and Milling!

Attorney: ‘The only people who seem to think a uranium mill and a uranium mine are the same thing are the county commissioners and county staff.’

By Matthew Beaudin,Editor
Published: Sunday, November 8, 2009 8:09 AM CST

After garnering a Montrose County approval heavy with conditions and contention, an energy company now faces another challenge: A local environmental group fired a legal salvo disputing that permit and how it was obtained.

Sheep Mountain Alliance, a local environmental group, recently filed a lawsuit against the Montrose County Commissioners and its land use director, alleging a hopscotch of missteps in the board’s approval of a uranium mill to be built six miles outside of Paradox, Colo.

The problems in the approval, they say, are far-reaching and systemic: At the heart of the matter is the notion that a uranium mill — heavy in both regulation and stigma — could be plopped down in the middle of the lofty and stark Paradox Valley, which is zoned for agricultural uses.

The complaint alleges inappropriate meetings, abuses of discretion when approving a special use permit for Energy Fuels Inc., the company hoping to build the mill, and more.

Historically, the area in the west ends of Montrose and San Miguel counties belongs to mining; ore from the area went toward the Manhattan Project and the culture of mining is the very stitching of communities like Nucla and Naturita.

But: “Economic activity regarding uranium mining and milling has not played a significant role in the region’s economy over the past 30 years, except the economic activity generated by several uranium mill closures and decontamination projects carried out…” the complaint, filed in Montrose County District Court, reads. “Unlike the San Miguel River Valley where Nucla and Naturita are located, there has never been a uranium mill in the Paradox Valley.”

Montrose County Attorney Bob Hill said the county hadn’t yet been served with the suit and wouldn’t comment on any accusations therein.

“It’s relatively narrow, but it does focus in on sort of the issues that do run throughout their process and their approval,” said Travis Stills, an attorney at the Energy Minerals Law Center who is working on behalf of SMA.

Flatly, he said the land’s zoning “doesn’t have room for an industrial facility with toxic, hazardous emissions and a permanent waste facility.”

And, he says, the Montrose commissioners acted outside of their authority when issuing the special use permit.

The crux of the debate may hinge on the differences in mining, which is permitted on agricultural land, and milling.

“A mill and a mine are radically different,” Stills said. “You start into a very heavy industrial process [with a mill].” Uranium mills, unlike some other processing sites, have their own special sets of regulations and oversight.

“The only people who seem to think a uranium mill and a uranium mine are the same thing are the county commissioners and county staff,” Stills said.

The issue now finds itself in the badminton of land use disputes, with Montrose County expected to reply in the near future.

The suit asks the process begin anew.

Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2009/11/08/news/doc4af633c7777f0169999327.txt

Help fight proposed uranium mining bill

Comment: Yes, we all need to fight uranium mining in Virginia, Colorado and all over America and the world! Sign their petition! No to Nuke Power, No to Uranium mining!

October 14, 2009

The results are in. Every city and town around has passed resolution against Powertech Uranium Corporation. Many prominent special interest groups have as well.

The petition against Powertech (www.nunn glow.com) keeps growing. Nearly 20,000 strong.

Yet, Powertech continues to fly under the radar, boring 3,000 holes into the aquifer, and preparing to file permits to begin the mining process early next year. They lurk around in unmarked trucks (sometimes at night) and operate from buildings and offices that have no signs. They know they are not wanted.

The information regarding uranium mining (of any kind) and power plant waste storage is overwhelming. It can't be, never has been and never will be done safely. Get the facts for yourself, and then sign the petition. It needs to grow into the 100,000s before the permits are presented to Weld County and the state of Colorado. Only we can stop it.

Randy King,

Wellington

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20091014/OPINION03/910140333/1014/OPINION