1 day ago
(AP:CHARLESTON, W.Va.) A Massey Energy subsidiary has been cited after regulators determined part of a southern West Virginia coal slurry dam didn't meet safety standards.
The state Department of Environmental Protection says there's no risk to downstream communities that Massey's Brushy Fork dam is going to fail. Mining director Tom Clarke said Monday the agency issued the citation out of caution and sensitivity to communities below the Raleigh County dam.
Spokesman Jeff Gillenwaters says the dam's already been repaired.
Read more:
http://news.ino.com/headlines/?newsid=68968796667600
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Aquifer mysteries hold key to effects of uranium mining
Comment: If think the EPA or the USGS will protect our water from uranium mining, think again, just read the extremely confusing article below where the EPA will let the uranium corporation perform the water test for situ leach mining! No to uranium mining and milling!
February 7, 2010
Tests could offer insight on potential for contamination
BY BOBBY MAGILL
BobbyMagill@coloradoan.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday a decision about whether Powertech USA will be permitted to conduct an aquifer pump test for its proposed Centennial Project uranium mine northeast of Fort Collins will be announced by mid-April.
If approved, Powertech will be allowed to test the feasibility of in situ leach mining for uranium at the Centennial Project site. The test could help regulators find answers to questions about how the underlying aquifer works and how any contamination from the mine could move through it and affect groundwater elsewhere.
Powertech's in situ leach mining method would pump a baking-soda-like fluid into the ground, which would loosen uranium from the underground rock formation, then pump the fluid back out of the ground, taking the uranium with it. The proposed pump test would allow Powertech to pump water out of the uranium-containing aquifer, store it and reinject it.
The mining could have the greatest impact on the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, which many surrounding landowners have tapped for their well water.
The councils of most of the surrounding cities and towns, including Fort Collins and Greeley, have said they oppose the mine, partly for fear it could pollute the groundwater.
How far any pollution from the mine could spread within the aquifer and how that could affect water wells in the area isn’t well understood, but the pump test could shed some light on the matter, according to the EPA.
“If this project moves forward, the technical data collected will generate a geologic and aquifer model that can accurately predict groundwater movement at the site,” said EPA spokesman Richard Mylott.
Information sparse
Information about the hydrogeology of the aquifer is sparse, and few people have studied how fast water moves in the aquifer to determine how pollutants could spread. The EPA’s expert on the Centennial Project site, Valois Shea, was unavailable last week for comment.
For their part, neither the state nor the U.S. Geological Survey has studied the area extensively enough to say how the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer works.
Vincent Matthews, state geologist and director of the Colorado Geological Survey, pointed only to a 1980 CGS study of hydrogeology and uranium resources northeast of the Centennial Project site, written at a time when Unocal and other companies were planning uranium exploration projects near Keota in Weld County.
The state sampled 104 water wells — many of which tapped the Fox Hills formation — near uranium deposits in northern Weld County. The study showed that the well water quality was extremely poor and much of the water contained high levels of uranium and vanadium.
The closer a well was to a uranium deposit, the more contaminated it was.
But, Matthews said, the study doesn’t say much about what’s happening in the same aquifer and rock formations near Nunn.
“One would need a lot of study, data and modeling to understand the intricacies of a particular area,” he said.
Jay Davis, whose property abuts the Centennial Project site, said his well water is good now, but he doesn’t want to see it contaminated.
“We’ve got fairly clean water, in a sense,” Davis said. “When we’ve had our water tested for uranium in the past, it’s actually below standard.”
The USGS has no specific data on the Fox Hills aquifer near the Centennial Project, and any other studies conducted in the area wouldn’t apply to that spot because each site has its own unique characteristics, said James K. Otton, a USGS geologist specializing in uranium.
Attracting attention
The potential for groundwater contamination beneath in situ leach uranium mines in Colorado has attracted the attention of Denver Water, which in 2008 voiced concern about the mines’ potential impact on groundwater quality while the Legislature was debating House Bill 1161.
The bill, signed into law the same year, requires companies doing in situ leach mining to prevent any mine contaminants from polluting the groundwater beyond the life of the mine.
“It’s essentially a no degradation standard,” said Jim Miller, a water treatment engineer for Denver Water, who testified before the Legislature partly about the agency’s fear that exploitation of uranium mining claims in Park County could pollute the headwaters of one of its primary water sources.
He said the potential for water pollution from in situ leach mines could affect water suppliers across the state.
“There’s a reason for water suppliers to watch this, besides which, we happen to be sitting on the Rocky Mountains, which are full of uranium,” he said.
Read more:
http://www.coloradoan.com/print/article/20100207/NEWS01/2070332/Aquifer-mysteries-hold-key-to-effects-of-uranium-mining
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
EPA reports on community meeting - address the environmental legacy from uranium mining and milling in the Grants Mineral Belt.
Inside this geometric mound, with a skin of coarsely crushed rock, is a demolished uranium mill and its radioactive tailings. The mill was buried in 1992 by the Department of Energy, one of 24 uranium mill tailings sites in the US that are being remediated as part of the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project (UMTRA). The site covers approximately 196 acres of this remote valley north of Grants, New Mexico. The uranium mining district around Grants was the most productive in the nation, operating from the 1950s to the 1980s. As at some other UMTRA sites, the DOE has installed carved granite warning monuments (resembling tombstones) around the unfenced mound.
Comment: Demand the leaders of Virginia to keep the BAN on uranium mining or we may have the title down the road of “the environmental legacy from uranium mining and milling in Virginia". Southside VA will be only the beginning if uranium mining is allowed," U R NEXT"!
Beacon staff writer
GRANTS - Region 6 of the U.S. Environmental Agency has issued a report on the community meeting held in Grants on Oct. 20, 2009, to address the environmental legacy from uranium mining and milling in the Grants Mineral Belt. The area extends along the southern border of the San Juan Basin within Cibola, McKinley, Sandoval and Bernalillo Counties as well as on tribal lands.
Part of the Ambrosia Lake sub-district of the Grants Mining District, as well as the Laguna and Marquez sub-districts, contain uranium legacy sites that are under the jurisdiction of EPA Region 6 and the State of New Mexico.
The October public meeting was between the EPA, the New Mexico Environment Department, and the tribal, federal, state and local partners.
It was the first in a series of planned collaborative activities in which communities can provide input to long range planning activities for the Grants Mineral Belt five-year plan, which identifies the goals, objectives, and tasks to assess the health risks and environmental impacts that could have resulted from legacy uranium mining and milling extraction, processing and waste disposal.
The report included a representative sample of questions, which were asked by the public at the community meeting.
Q. What structures in the area will be evaluated?
A. The EPA will assess structures on land likely to be contaminated with radiation from uranium waste rock or debris. Based on data gathered by aerial over flights, this effort will focus on the area of San Mateo, Poison Canyon, Spanish Land Grant and Laguna Pueblo. Impacted structures could include homes, barns, sheds, fences and freestanding shelters that may have been built with uranium waste or waste rock.
Q. Will there be an aquifer study throughout the Grants Mineral Belt?
A. The EPA, working with its partners, began a sampling effort in 2009 to determine impacts to private wells in the San Mateo Basin. Results from this sampling will be shared with NMED, residents and public health officials to determine appropriate future actions.
Q. Are comprehensive health studies planned for the Grants Mineral Belt?
A. At this time, the New Mexico Department of Health has no funds to conduct comprehensive health studies. However, if funds become available, the DOH will conduct water and/or urine sampling and analysis for uranium in the Grants Mineral Belt region. It has been reported that by the end of the year Indian Health Service will begin medical monitoring clinics across the Navajo Nation to screen individuals for non-job related exposure to uranium.
Q. Did industry funding for the N.M. Mining and Minerals Division cause a conflict of interest?
A. Since the Mining and Minerals Division directed the contract; we did not have concerns about the industry funding. MMD drafted the scope of the contract, approved the contractor and oversaw the fieldwork and report preparation.
Q. Is the EPA complying with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income populations?
A. EPA is complying with the Order. In April, June and August of 2009, EPA began communications with the Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment, the Southwest Network for Economic and Environmental Justice, the Indigenous Environmental Network, and the Bluewater Valley Downstream Alliance and other organizations concerned with issues of environmental justice. The October meeting was the first in a series of large community meetings to open up the collaboration process to the wider community.
Q. What work has been done by the Department of Heath to evaluate human exposure to uranium contamination?
A. The New Mexico Department of Health's Environmental Health Epidemiology Bureau has been active in a six state Rocky Mountain Biomonitoring Consortium to address environmental health problems. The goal was to assess the extent of human exposure to environmental contaminants through the testing of drinking water and urine. In New Mexico, about 850 volunteer participants had their drinking water and urine tested for a number of chemicals, including uranium. With respect to uranium, the 90th percentile exposure among New Mexicans was higher than the 90th percentile for the nation.
All New Mexico participants whose uranium drinking water concentrations exceeded the EPA maximum contaminant level of 30 micrograms per liter were contacted and advised to utilize reverse osmosis filtration or to drink bottled water to avoid this exposure.
Future community meetings to discuss the issue will be announced in the Beacon.
Read more:
http://www.cibolabeacon.com/articles/2010/02/01/news/doc4b67672e9a2da496908818.txt
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
New uranium 'technology' doesn't inspire confidence
Comment: Great Letter, Mr. Lovelace, No to Uranium mining!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:52 AM EST
The Nuclear Regulator Commission (NRC) reported several unusual events in the last four to five weeks concerning uranium use. Don't we just love this "new state of the art technology?"
My point is, if they cannot get this new technology to work safely in a controlled environment, we should know they cannot control radiation, dust or radon gas in an open environment.
This new technology is just words like "monitor"; it is nothing more than a word to make us think they are doing it safely and to make us feel good.
Let's go on facts and not Mr. Coles' or Mr. Wales' words about jobs.
The U.S. government facts state in all of the uranium industry in the United States there are 1,563 jobs in 17 uranium mining production and sources in 2008. (www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/umine.html)
Let's divide 1,563 jobs by 17 operations, which is about 92 jobs per operation.
I would like to know how Virginia Uranium Inc. is going to work a third of the work force for the entire United States at this one site?
I think we need to forget $4 billion to $5 billion worth of uranium (today's prices since the price per pound has dropped) over a period of 30 years versus $79 billion dollars "a year" from our agriculture and forestry (which is Virginia's number one industry) and thousands of jobs that will be lost possibly if uranium contamination is let to happen over the entire state of Virginia.
That's right. If the moratorium is lifted, the entire state will be open to uranium mining.
The Danville Register and Bee recently published a story about the incidents of contamination of modern-day facilities that George Stanhope brought to the newspaper's attention.
This article quotes statements about NRC and EPA and what they will do after your air, water and land become contaminated from radioactive releases.
EPA and NRC stated they may face penalties and fines so the governmental agencies walk away with money and the people of Pittsylvania County and the state sit here with a destroyed environment from uranium mining and milling.
I hope the people of Virginia and Pittsylvania County feel better knowing EPA and NRC are going to look out for you.
Mr. Coles spoke about a picture in the paper of the flood and said it was two miles below him, but what he did not say was his pasture borders White Thorn Creek that flooded a few hundred feet from the proposed north hole uranium pit.
On a private tour, Mr. Coles told my wife and me his pasture went all the way to White Thorn Creek. This flood was when Pittsylvania County was declared a state of emergency just a few weeks ago and the schools were closed.
I hope people understand God gave us two great gifts: life and a clean environment.
It was just published in Hampton Roads that Virginia's waterways ranked second dirtiest in the country. Why are the environmental agencies letting this go on?
It is because they are making big money off of fines and penalties? No!
These agencies were created to protect us and our environment. Why are they letting this happen?
Just an opinion: your state and federal government might let uranium mining and milling operate for big tax revenue they hope it will generate to balance their wasteful budget.
Their thinking may be: let's allow uranium mining and milling, maybe that will fix Virginia's $3 billion over budget problem.
But let's cut off more state employees and raise taxes so the state or Virginia Uranium can pay $1.5 million to the National Academy of Sciences, the last I heard in installment, for only part of the study that will study regulations among other things.
Mr. Coles of Virginia Uranium stated that he would not mine uranium, "if" it was going to harm the people or the environment, but he refuses to pay for the second part of the study that will address these very issues.
What happened? Did he have a change of heart?
There are a lot of questions not answered yet.
Why did Patrick Wales say that water does not run uphill to the Gross home when in fact the Gross home is lower than the drill test wells proven on topographical maps?
The state health director, Charles Devine, stated that the lead came from interior plumbing, when all five tests were done from an outside faucet, which bypassed the interior plumbing.
Are they trying to make you feel safe? Do you feel safe?
If you have doubts, call or write your representatives and let them know you want to be protected not only now but for future generations.
Phillip Lovelace
Gretna
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/01/20/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt
Clean Air Act Case Settled with O-N Minerals
Contact: Bonnie Smith, EPA, 215-814-5543, smith.bonnie@epa.gov
William Hayden, VaDEQ, 804-698-4447, william.hayden@deq.virginia.gov
Strasburg lime kiln will pay penalty, monitor SO2 ‘round the clock
PHILADELPHIA (Jan. 20, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality announced consent agreements today with O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company, a lime production facility in Strasburg, Va. The agreements resolve alleged violations of the company modifying its rotary kiln - - increasing air pollution emissions - - without installing the necessary pollution control equipment or obtaining required permits. O-N Minerals will pay two penalties, one of $158,980 to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and another of $121,829 to the United States Treasury.
In addition to paying the EPA penalty, O-N agreed to install and operate a sulfur dioxide (SO2) continuous emissions monitoring system to monitor SO2 emissions 24/7. The company agreed to meet the state’s permit limits for SO2 two years earlier so the emissions will not limit visibility at a nearby national park. As a part of this settlement, O-N Minerals will also perform visible emissions readings, limit the sulfur content of any coal or fuel oil burned in the rotary kiln, and achieve a lower SO2 emission rate from the rotary kiln. These requirements are estimated to reduce O-N’s sulfur dioxide emissions by 425,000 pounds per year.
In the separate state-issued action, Virginia’s DEQ issued O-N Minerals a consent order for SO2 and other clean air violations. In addition to assessing the state penalty, DEQ is requiring a revised state permit. EPA and Virginia’s DEQ closely coordinated on these clean air act enforcement cases.
Emissions of sulfur and sulfur dioxide contribute to smog and acid rain. Sulfur dioxide pollution has been linked to serious human health effects, including respiratory function and cardiovascular illnesses.
Read more:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/90829d899627a1d98525735900400c2b/bc0bd401fe79d486852576b10063c2c9!OpenDocument
William Hayden, VaDEQ, 804-698-4447, william.hayden@deq.virginia.gov
Strasburg lime kiln will pay penalty, monitor SO2 ‘round the clock
PHILADELPHIA (Jan. 20, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality announced consent agreements today with O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company, a lime production facility in Strasburg, Va. The agreements resolve alleged violations of the company modifying its rotary kiln - - increasing air pollution emissions - - without installing the necessary pollution control equipment or obtaining required permits. O-N Minerals will pay two penalties, one of $158,980 to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and another of $121,829 to the United States Treasury.
In addition to paying the EPA penalty, O-N agreed to install and operate a sulfur dioxide (SO2) continuous emissions monitoring system to monitor SO2 emissions 24/7. The company agreed to meet the state’s permit limits for SO2 two years earlier so the emissions will not limit visibility at a nearby national park. As a part of this settlement, O-N Minerals will also perform visible emissions readings, limit the sulfur content of any coal or fuel oil burned in the rotary kiln, and achieve a lower SO2 emission rate from the rotary kiln. These requirements are estimated to reduce O-N’s sulfur dioxide emissions by 425,000 pounds per year.
In the separate state-issued action, Virginia’s DEQ issued O-N Minerals a consent order for SO2 and other clean air violations. In addition to assessing the state penalty, DEQ is requiring a revised state permit. EPA and Virginia’s DEQ closely coordinated on these clean air act enforcement cases.
Emissions of sulfur and sulfur dioxide contribute to smog and acid rain. Sulfur dioxide pollution has been linked to serious human health effects, including respiratory function and cardiovascular illnesses.
Read more:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/90829d899627a1d98525735900400c2b/bc0bd401fe79d486852576b10063c2c9!OpenDocument
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
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
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
Use of potentially harmful chemicals kept secret under law
Comment: Do you really think the EPA and the federal governor is going to protect Virginian's against the problems of uranium mining and milling! They love to protect corporations and not our health!
By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 4, 2010; A01
Of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States -- from flame retardants in furniture to household cleaners -- nearly 20 percent are secret, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, their names and physical properties guarded from consumers and virtually all public officials under a little-known federal provision.
The policy was designed 33 years ago to protect trade secrets in a highly competitive industry.
But critics -- including the Obama administration -- say the secrecy has grown out of control, making it impossible for regulators to control potential dangers or for consumers to know which toxic substances they might be exposed to.
At a time of increasing public demand for more information about chemical exposure, pressure is building on lawmakers to make it more difficult for manufacturers to cloak their products in secrecy.
Congress is set to rewrite chemical regulations this year for the first time in a generation.
Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers must report to the federal government new chemicals they intend to market. But the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could harm their bottom line.
Government officials, scientists and environmental groups say that manufacturers have exploited weaknesses in the law to claim secrecy for an ever-increasing number of chemicals.
In the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy, according to the Government Accountability Office. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually.
Some companies have successfully argued that the federal government should not only keep the names of their chemicals secret but also hide from public view the identities and addresses of the manufacturers.
"Even acknowledging what chemical is used or what is made at what facility could convey important information to competitors, and they can start to put the pieces together," said Mike Walls, vice president of the American Chemistry Council.
"You have thousands of chemicals that potentially present risks to health and the environment," said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that documented the extent of the secret chemicals through public-records requests from the EPA. "It's impossible to run an effective regulatory program when so many of these chemicals are secret."
Of the secret chemicals, 151 are made in quantities of more than 1 million tons a year and 10 are used specifically in children's products, according to the EPA.
The identities of the chemicals are known to a handful of EPA employees who are legally barred from sharing that information with other federal officials, state health and environmental regulators, foreign governments, emergency responders and the public.
The White House and environmental groups want Congress to force manufacturers to prove that a substance should be kept confidential.
They also want federal officials to be able to share confidential information with state regulators and health officials, who carry out much of the EPA's work across the country.
Walls, of the American Chemistry Council, says manufacturers agree that federal officials should be able to share information with state regulators.
Industry is also willing to discuss shifting the burden of proof for secrecy claims to the chemical makers, he said. The EPA must allow a claim unless it can prove within 90 days that disclosure would not harm business.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to reduce secrecy.
A week after he arrived at the agency in July, Steve Owens, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, ended confidentiality protection for 530 chemicals. In those cases, manufacturers had claimed secrecy for chemicals they had promoted by name on their Web sites or detailed in trade journals.
"People who were submitting information to the EPA saw that you can claim that virtually anything is confidential and get away with it," Owens said.
The handful of EPA officials privy to the identity of the chemicals do not have other information that could help them assess the risk, said Lynn Goldman, a former EPA official and a pediatrician and epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"Maybe they don't know there's been a water quality problem in New Jersey where the plant is located, or that the workers in the plant have had health problems," she said. "It just makes sense that the more people who are looking at it, they're better able to put one and one together and recognize problems."
Independent researchers, who often provide data to policymakers and regulators, also have been unable to study the secret chemicals.
Duke University chemist Heather Stapleton, who researches flame retardants, tried for months to identify a substance she had found in dust samples taken from homes in Boston.
Then, while attending a scientific conference, she happened to see the structure of a chemical she recognized as her mystery compound.
The substance is a chemical in "Firemaster 550," a product made by Chemtura Corp. for use in furniture and other products as a substitute for a flame retardant the company had quit making in 2004 because of health concerns.
Stapleton found that Firemaster 550 contains an ingredient similar in structure to a chemical -- Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP -- that Congress banned last year from children's products because it has been linked to reproductive problems and other health effects.
Chemtura, which claimed confidentiality for Firemaster 550, supplied the EPA with standard toxicity studies. The EPA has asked for additional data, which it is studying.
"My concern is we're using chemicals and we have no idea what the long-term effects might be or whether or not they're harmful," said Susan Klosterhaus, an environmental scientist at the San Francisco Estuary Institute who has published a journal article on the substance with Stapleton.
Chemtura officials said in a written statement that even though Firemaster 550 contains an ingredient structurally similar to DEHP does not mean it poses similar health risks.
They said the company strongly supports keeping sensitive business information out of public view. "This is essential for ensuring the long-term competitiveness of U.S. industry," the officials said in the statement.
Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
Read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/03/AR2010010302110_pf.html
By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 4, 2010; A01
Of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States -- from flame retardants in furniture to household cleaners -- nearly 20 percent are secret, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, their names and physical properties guarded from consumers and virtually all public officials under a little-known federal provision.
The policy was designed 33 years ago to protect trade secrets in a highly competitive industry.
But critics -- including the Obama administration -- say the secrecy has grown out of control, making it impossible for regulators to control potential dangers or for consumers to know which toxic substances they might be exposed to.
At a time of increasing public demand for more information about chemical exposure, pressure is building on lawmakers to make it more difficult for manufacturers to cloak their products in secrecy.
Congress is set to rewrite chemical regulations this year for the first time in a generation.
Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers must report to the federal government new chemicals they intend to market. But the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could harm their bottom line.
Government officials, scientists and environmental groups say that manufacturers have exploited weaknesses in the law to claim secrecy for an ever-increasing number of chemicals.
In the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy, according to the Government Accountability Office. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually.
Some companies have successfully argued that the federal government should not only keep the names of their chemicals secret but also hide from public view the identities and addresses of the manufacturers.
"Even acknowledging what chemical is used or what is made at what facility could convey important information to competitors, and they can start to put the pieces together," said Mike Walls, vice president of the American Chemistry Council.
"You have thousands of chemicals that potentially present risks to health and the environment," said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that documented the extent of the secret chemicals through public-records requests from the EPA. "It's impossible to run an effective regulatory program when so many of these chemicals are secret."
Of the secret chemicals, 151 are made in quantities of more than 1 million tons a year and 10 are used specifically in children's products, according to the EPA.
The identities of the chemicals are known to a handful of EPA employees who are legally barred from sharing that information with other federal officials, state health and environmental regulators, foreign governments, emergency responders and the public.
The White House and environmental groups want Congress to force manufacturers to prove that a substance should be kept confidential.
They also want federal officials to be able to share confidential information with state regulators and health officials, who carry out much of the EPA's work across the country.
Walls, of the American Chemistry Council, says manufacturers agree that federal officials should be able to share information with state regulators.
Industry is also willing to discuss shifting the burden of proof for secrecy claims to the chemical makers, he said. The EPA must allow a claim unless it can prove within 90 days that disclosure would not harm business.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to reduce secrecy.
A week after he arrived at the agency in July, Steve Owens, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, ended confidentiality protection for 530 chemicals. In those cases, manufacturers had claimed secrecy for chemicals they had promoted by name on their Web sites or detailed in trade journals.
"People who were submitting information to the EPA saw that you can claim that virtually anything is confidential and get away with it," Owens said.
The handful of EPA officials privy to the identity of the chemicals do not have other information that could help them assess the risk, said Lynn Goldman, a former EPA official and a pediatrician and epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"Maybe they don't know there's been a water quality problem in New Jersey where the plant is located, or that the workers in the plant have had health problems," she said. "It just makes sense that the more people who are looking at it, they're better able to put one and one together and recognize problems."
Independent researchers, who often provide data to policymakers and regulators, also have been unable to study the secret chemicals.
Duke University chemist Heather Stapleton, who researches flame retardants, tried for months to identify a substance she had found in dust samples taken from homes in Boston.
Then, while attending a scientific conference, she happened to see the structure of a chemical she recognized as her mystery compound.
The substance is a chemical in "Firemaster 550," a product made by Chemtura Corp. for use in furniture and other products as a substitute for a flame retardant the company had quit making in 2004 because of health concerns.
Stapleton found that Firemaster 550 contains an ingredient similar in structure to a chemical -- Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP -- that Congress banned last year from children's products because it has been linked to reproductive problems and other health effects.
Chemtura, which claimed confidentiality for Firemaster 550, supplied the EPA with standard toxicity studies. The EPA has asked for additional data, which it is studying.
"My concern is we're using chemicals and we have no idea what the long-term effects might be or whether or not they're harmful," said Susan Klosterhaus, an environmental scientist at the San Francisco Estuary Institute who has published a journal article on the substance with Stapleton.
Chemtura officials said in a written statement that even though Firemaster 550 contains an ingredient structurally similar to DEHP does not mean it poses similar health risks.
They said the company strongly supports keeping sensitive business information out of public view. "This is essential for ensuring the long-term competitiveness of U.S. industry," the officials said in the statement.
Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
Read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/03/AR2010010302110_pf.html
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
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
Monday, December 21, 2009
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
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
Saturday, December 19, 2009
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
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Groups Challenge Weak Air Pollution Standard
Comment: Remember the local baby face uranium dude always telling us the EPA and the NRC will protect us from the problems of uranium mining because of the strong rules they maintained! People of Virginia, the state of VA and the EPA are not protecting our families in the coal mining area and they will not protect Virginia against the problems of uranium mining! Demand that Virginia to ban uranium mining now!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 8, 2009, 4:58 PM
CONTACT: Earthjustice
Raviya Ismail, (202) 667-4500, ext. 221
Would allow coal dust from roads at coal processing plants
WASHINGTON - December 8 - Clean air advocates filed a legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency late Monday for refusing to adopt air pollution standards to limit coal dust pollution from roads at coal preparation and processing plants.
Earthjustice, representing the Sierra Club, Appalachian Voices and the Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards is challenging revised air pollution standards that do not require coal preparation and processing plants to take any measures to limit the dangerous coal dust kicked up by trucks travelling on plant roads.
"While the EPA has declared carbon emissions as dangerous there is a little-known issue affecting people in Appalachia," said Tim Ballo, attorney with Earthjustice.
"Communities breathing in coal dust also contend with trucks that release these dangerous particles into the air. Even simple measures like washing trucks or wetting down roads to help clean up the air around these coal plants would help communities.
Knowing what we know about how dangerous it is to inhale these particles we urge the EPA to revisit this standard and enforce policies that prioritize public health."
Tim Bailey, of Clinchfield, Virginia, lives next door to a coal preparation and processing plant and sets aside four days a year to pressure wash coal dust from his home.
"Trucks from the prep plant kick up so much dust that a doctor has told me not to let my grandchildren play outside," said Bailey, of the Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards.
"The EPA needs to put a stop to this so that we can enjoy our homes again."
Coal prep plants crush, sort, clean and dry coal to prepare it for combustion.
There are more than 250 coal prep plants in operation nationwide, with a high concentration of facilities found in the Appalachian coal fields where many communities are often in close proximity to the operations.
EPA projects that the industry will experience significant growth in the next five years, with 22 new, modified, or reconstructed plants coming into existence.
Every day, the hundreds of trucks servicing such plants track fine coal particles onto roads and then drive over them, kicking coal dust up into the air.
Coal dust is an especially dangerous contaminant that contains traces of the same hazardous compounds that are released when coal is combusted, such as arsenic, mercury, and uranium.
"The ill-effects of breathing coal dust can and do impact communities as well as those employed in the mining industry," said Willa Mays, Executive Director of Appalachian Voices.
"Miners, truckers and other employees at prep plants are also endangered by breathing these air pollutants.
The Clean Air Act requires that EPA and coal companies do more to protect the health of people from the harmful effects of coal dust."
"The EPA has to address all sources of dust coming from these coal prep plants, including the significant amount of dust that comes from trucks and roads," said Mary Anne Hitt, Deputy Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.
"By failing to provide limits on road dust, the EPA has not satisfied its duty to protect public health."
.###
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
Read more at:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/12/08-14
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 8, 2009, 4:58 PM
CONTACT: Earthjustice
Raviya Ismail, (202) 667-4500, ext. 221
Would allow coal dust from roads at coal processing plants
WASHINGTON - December 8 - Clean air advocates filed a legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency late Monday for refusing to adopt air pollution standards to limit coal dust pollution from roads at coal preparation and processing plants.
Earthjustice, representing the Sierra Club, Appalachian Voices and the Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards is challenging revised air pollution standards that do not require coal preparation and processing plants to take any measures to limit the dangerous coal dust kicked up by trucks travelling on plant roads.
"While the EPA has declared carbon emissions as dangerous there is a little-known issue affecting people in Appalachia," said Tim Ballo, attorney with Earthjustice.
"Communities breathing in coal dust also contend with trucks that release these dangerous particles into the air. Even simple measures like washing trucks or wetting down roads to help clean up the air around these coal plants would help communities.
Knowing what we know about how dangerous it is to inhale these particles we urge the EPA to revisit this standard and enforce policies that prioritize public health."
Tim Bailey, of Clinchfield, Virginia, lives next door to a coal preparation and processing plant and sets aside four days a year to pressure wash coal dust from his home.
"Trucks from the prep plant kick up so much dust that a doctor has told me not to let my grandchildren play outside," said Bailey, of the Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards.
"The EPA needs to put a stop to this so that we can enjoy our homes again."
Coal prep plants crush, sort, clean and dry coal to prepare it for combustion.
There are more than 250 coal prep plants in operation nationwide, with a high concentration of facilities found in the Appalachian coal fields where many communities are often in close proximity to the operations.
EPA projects that the industry will experience significant growth in the next five years, with 22 new, modified, or reconstructed plants coming into existence.
Every day, the hundreds of trucks servicing such plants track fine coal particles onto roads and then drive over them, kicking coal dust up into the air.
Coal dust is an especially dangerous contaminant that contains traces of the same hazardous compounds that are released when coal is combusted, such as arsenic, mercury, and uranium.
"The ill-effects of breathing coal dust can and do impact communities as well as those employed in the mining industry," said Willa Mays, Executive Director of Appalachian Voices.
"Miners, truckers and other employees at prep plants are also endangered by breathing these air pollutants.
The Clean Air Act requires that EPA and coal companies do more to protect the health of people from the harmful effects of coal dust."
"The EPA has to address all sources of dust coming from these coal prep plants, including the significant amount of dust that comes from trucks and roads," said Mary Anne Hitt, Deputy Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.
"By failing to provide limits on road dust, the EPA has not satisfied its duty to protect public health."
.###
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
Read more at:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/12/08-14
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Markey, Bennet call on EPA to give public a say in proposed uranium mine
Comment: State of Virginia, take notice of US Rep. Ms. Markey and Sen. Monday, they are listening to their people, not the Nuke Bunch! Also, local Virginia people need to be on the Uranium Subcommittee and whatever study accepts money from Virginia Uranium Inc!
By David O. Williams 12/1/09 8:51 AM
U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey and Sen. Michael Bennet Monday released a letter they sent to the Environmental Protection Agency calling for more public involvement in any federal regulation of a proposed uranium mine 15 miles northeast of Fort Collins in Weld County.
The EPA is reportedly giving the public until Dec. 24 to comment on Powertech’s proposed Centennial Project, which has been formally opposed by the nearby cities and towns of Fort Collins, Greeley, Nunn, Wellington, Ault and Timnath.
“There is fear that this process can jeopardize water quality and may well be inappropriate for use in an area so close to a population center of 300,000,” Markey and Bennet wrote in their letter to a regional EPA administrator. Markey and Bennet would like to see the surrounding populace involved in a possible rule making by the EPA that would provide federal oversight under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
Denver-based Environment Colorado Monday issued a release claiming that the EPA “has failed to consult with the public and communities and to engage in a public rulemaking on its regulatory program.” The group praised the letter from Markey and Bennet.
“The risks of the Powertech uranium mine are too great to leave citizens, physicians, and public health experts out of the decision-making process,” Dr. Cory Carroll, a past president of the Larimer County Medical Society and a practicing family physician in Fort Collins, said in the release. “This is a complicated process that needs transparency and must be conducted openly with the community.”
An editorial in the Los Angeles Times over the weekend called nuclear too costly and too time-consuming to be a reasonable solution to global climate change.
Read more at:
http://coloradoindependent.com/43262/markey-bennet-call-on-epa-to-give-public-a-say-in-proposed-uranium-mine
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Time to Speak Out Against the Biggest Polluters
This is the weekly post from Bruce Nilles, director of Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.
Wednesday and Thursday of this week are big days if you live in Arlington, Virginia, or Chicago, Illinois.
Those are the two days of public hearings on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Big Polluters” rule. But of course, this whole issue is huge whether you live in Virginia, Illinois, or anywhere else in the U.S. – it affects everyone.
Right now only a handful of pollution sources, including coal-fired power plants, are responsible for more than half of all of the global warming pollution in the United States.
Cleaning these up is a large step towards stopping global warming, so EPA is proposing a new rule to start cleaning up these Big Polluters under the Clean Air Act. By targeting the worst offenders, the Big Polluters rule is an important step that will cut global warming pollution while still helping our economy grow.
That’s why we’ve helped organize crowds of folks to turn out to the Wednesday and Thursday hearings: These mega-polluters should be held responsible for their share. (You can also check in on the hearings by following the #bigpolluters hashtag on twitter. We’ll have lots of folks tweeting from inside the hearing rooms)
This rule will bring the most bang for the buck—resulting in real pollution reductions and helping spur growth and development of clean energy technologies.
Again, this proposed EPA rule uses the time-tested Clean Air Act, which has already succeeded at cleaning up other sorts of pollution all over the country, to help control global warming pollution.
The sources that EPA will focus on under this rule already have decades of experience with this process. Having used best available control technology to reduce many other types of pollution, they have the engineering expertise to work with EPA and community groups to select appropriate, cost-effective controls.
Global warming pollution controls will also reduce emissions of other pollutants, including those that cause smog, heart attacks, and lung disease.
By focusing on these big sources, EPA is spending its resources wisely. Although global warming pollution comes from many places, EPA can cut down on the lion’s share by taking on the largest sources first.
The Big Polluters Rule marks one of EPA’s most important commitments yet to moving us towards a clean energy economy and away from dirty power sources like coal.
If you can’t make it in person to the hearings Wednesday and Thursday, you can still send in your comments to EPA on this important rule – simply use our Big Polluters website:
And don’t forget to follow along with the #bigpolluters hashtag on Twitter for tweets from inside the hearing.
For a recap of how these hearings went, be sure to check in on my colleague Greg Haegele’s column later this week for photos and a wrap-up.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2009/11/time-to-speak-out-against-the-biggest-polluters.html
Wednesday and Thursday of this week are big days if you live in Arlington, Virginia, or Chicago, Illinois.
Those are the two days of public hearings on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Big Polluters” rule. But of course, this whole issue is huge whether you live in Virginia, Illinois, or anywhere else in the U.S. – it affects everyone.
Right now only a handful of pollution sources, including coal-fired power plants, are responsible for more than half of all of the global warming pollution in the United States.
Cleaning these up is a large step towards stopping global warming, so EPA is proposing a new rule to start cleaning up these Big Polluters under the Clean Air Act. By targeting the worst offenders, the Big Polluters rule is an important step that will cut global warming pollution while still helping our economy grow.
That’s why we’ve helped organize crowds of folks to turn out to the Wednesday and Thursday hearings: These mega-polluters should be held responsible for their share. (You can also check in on the hearings by following the #bigpolluters hashtag on twitter. We’ll have lots of folks tweeting from inside the hearing rooms)
This rule will bring the most bang for the buck—resulting in real pollution reductions and helping spur growth and development of clean energy technologies.
Again, this proposed EPA rule uses the time-tested Clean Air Act, which has already succeeded at cleaning up other sorts of pollution all over the country, to help control global warming pollution.
The sources that EPA will focus on under this rule already have decades of experience with this process. Having used best available control technology to reduce many other types of pollution, they have the engineering expertise to work with EPA and community groups to select appropriate, cost-effective controls.
Global warming pollution controls will also reduce emissions of other pollutants, including those that cause smog, heart attacks, and lung disease.
By focusing on these big sources, EPA is spending its resources wisely. Although global warming pollution comes from many places, EPA can cut down on the lion’s share by taking on the largest sources first.
The Big Polluters Rule marks one of EPA’s most important commitments yet to moving us towards a clean energy economy and away from dirty power sources like coal.
If you can’t make it in person to the hearings Wednesday and Thursday, you can still send in your comments to EPA on this important rule – simply use our Big Polluters website:
And don’t forget to follow along with the #bigpolluters hashtag on Twitter for tweets from inside the hearing.
For a recap of how these hearings went, be sure to check in on my colleague Greg Haegele’s column later this week for photos and a wrap-up.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2009/11/time-to-speak-out-against-the-biggest-polluters.html
Thursday, November 5, 2009
EPA refuses to investigate alleged well contamination at Coles Hill; Federal agency cites state health department study (Uranium Drill Holes)
Comment: Now look at the following statement made by a VA paid Water dude and think about it: "I find that implausible. Drilling is drilling. If that were the case, every time someone sinks a well, we'd see higher lead levels. It just doesn't work that way." Mr. Dude, our wells in this county does not crack the granite that surrounds the uranium, which is 1500 feet in the earth! Most wells in our county goes down as little as 40 feet to 200 feet, depends where you live! No to uranium mining! More thought, it took VA water dude six months to go to the well! Another thought, water was fine before the uranium drilling and high lead after drilling, six months later, water was fine again! The lead problem went to Virginia Beach and North Carolina!
By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 10:05 AM EST
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will not investigate complaints of well contamination near the Coles Hill uranium deposit and instead cited state health department tests that determined exploratory drilling is not responsible for high lead levels in drinking water.
In an Oct. 22 letter to Pittsylvania County Administrator Dan Sleeper, EPA Acting Regional Administrator William C. Early said the agency only regulates public drinking water supply systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
"EPA does not regulate the drinking water quality of private household drinking water wells and does not have data on the groundwater quality of the private wells in the Coles Hill area," Early said.
Early said EPA contacted the Virginia Department of Health, which sampled private wells around the uranium deposit and did not find any "exceedances" of EPA's lead action level for lead in drinking water.
Concerns about well testing around the Coles Hill uranium deposit, about six miles northeast of Chatham, first surfaced in March.
Virginia Uranium Inc. collected and tested water samples at four ponds and four residential wells as part of an exploratory drilling permit from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy in 2007.
Although not required by the permit, the company sought permission to test wells at homes within about a mile of the site to determine the general water quality.
More than 80 wells were voluntarily tested.
Allen Gross, who lives on Motley Road, about a mile from the uranium, said when the first test was done in 2007 the lead in his water was relatively low.
When the last test was done late last year, it had risen significantly and exceeded the maximum allowable level for drinking water, which is 0.015 milligrams per liter.
Gross began drinking bottled water.
He and others took their concerns to the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, which voted in April to ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Virginia Department of Health to investigate lead levels around the uranium deposit.
After tests in June, Dr. Charles J. Devine III, director of the Danville-Pittsylvania County Health District, said plumbing and faulty testing were likely to blame for elevated lead levels in Gross's water.
The health department took its own samples. The first was taken without flushing the water system.
It tested .008 milligrams per liter, which is a "significant amount," but not an actionable level, said the director.
The second sample was taken after the plumbing was thoroughly flushed. Tests for lead were below detectible limits.
"Our interpretation is that the source water was fine at the initial test and fine at our test," said Devine. "The implication is the elevated lead levels came from some place other than the source water."
The most likely culprit is Gross's plumbing. Although he has replaced the metal pipes with plastic, Devine said lead may still be present in the well pump and faucets.
The health department advised Gross to let the tap run in the morning to flush water that has been sitting in pipes overnight.
Patrick Wales, project manager for Virginia Uranium, said the health department confirmed what the company has said all along.
"We have always said we had nothing to do with it," said Wales. "There was never any reasonable connection to be made between our activities and something upstream a mile and a half away."
Gross isn't satisfied.
"It is strange my water was safe to drink before they started drilling, unsafe during the drilling, and safe again now that they've stopped and sealed the holes," he said.
Gross obtained statements from two licensed plumbers certifying the high lead levels came from his water, not his plumbing.
"This isn't a one-person issue," he said. "It's going to be the whole county."
Devine said the health department has no plans for additional testing at this time.
Devine said he doesn't understand the connection Gross and others are trying to make between exploratory drilling and high lead levels.
"I am at a loss to know how drilling for uranium or anything causes lead levels to fluctuate," he said.
"I find that implausible. Drilling is drilling. If that were the case, every time someone sinks a well, we'd see higher lead levels. It just doesn't work that way."
tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/11/04/chatham/news/news50.txt
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
EPA responds to county letter on lead levels
Comment: Is this the same EPA who wants to raise the radiation level for humans and workers in the nuke cycle, they care so much for us!
By Staff
Published: November 2, 2009
The Environmental Protection Agency offered guidelines for water well management in response to a Pittsylvania County inquiry into elevated lead levels near where a uranium company conducted exploratory drilling.
County Administrator William Sleeper said he sent a letter to the EPA back in April to ask what could be done about lead levels in wells and its role in regulation. The agency responded on Oct. 26.
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors asked both the EPA and the Virginia Department of Health to investigate lead levels after Sheva resident Allen Gross said that a well water sample showed more than the maximum safe level of lead in drinking water, according to past Danville Register & Bee reports.
Testing showed a rise in lead levels compared to past samples. Gross lives about a mile from Coles Hill, where Virginia Uranium Inc. conducted exploratory drilling.
The state health department tested the well water in the area, and found safe lead levels. The department determined the source of the lead is not the source water, according to past reports.
The EPA does not regulate domestic water wells.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/epa_responds_to_county_letter_on_lead_levels/15193/
By Staff
Published: November 2, 2009
The Environmental Protection Agency offered guidelines for water well management in response to a Pittsylvania County inquiry into elevated lead levels near where a uranium company conducted exploratory drilling.
County Administrator William Sleeper said he sent a letter to the EPA back in April to ask what could be done about lead levels in wells and its role in regulation. The agency responded on Oct. 26.
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors asked both the EPA and the Virginia Department of Health to investigate lead levels after Sheva resident Allen Gross said that a well water sample showed more than the maximum safe level of lead in drinking water, according to past Danville Register & Bee reports.
Testing showed a rise in lead levels compared to past samples. Gross lives about a mile from Coles Hill, where Virginia Uranium Inc. conducted exploratory drilling.
The state health department tested the well water in the area, and found safe lead levels. The department determined the source of the lead is not the source water, according to past reports.
The EPA does not regulate domestic water wells.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/epa_responds_to_county_letter_on_lead_levels/15193/
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Uranium News:LEGACY ISSUES
Comment: People of Virginia, demand our state to ban uranium mining and milling because we do not want to be the future SuperFund Site! No to uranium mining!
GRANTS - On Oct. 20 agencies from the state, nation and tribes focused on some of what was left behind because of little regulation - abandoned mines and issues involving the environment, people's health and water.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency is the primary agency that is organizing the effort to gather legacy information in the Grants Mineral Belt from a variety of sources, including the public. A listening session, a first of many more to come, according to EPA Superfund Division Project Manager John Meyer of Dallas, Texas, was held at the Cibola County Complex on Tuesday at 6:30 p.m.
Nearly 30 state, federal and tribal agencies are joining the EPA to assess the legacy - the damage, what should be done, who's paying for what, and other concerns.
Head had many specific questions in regard to the legacy. “Why is it that migratory birds do not land in the clean-up ponds at the Homestake site?” Head asked in which no specific answer was given.
Components of the five-year plan are: assess and remediation of contaminated residential structures; water contamination sources assessment; assessment and remediation of abandoned area mines (130, according to the EPA) in the area; assessment and long term management of mills; and assess impact to human health and the environment.
A five-year plan is scheduled to be released in the spring of 2010, according to the EPA.
Bill Brancard of the state Mining and Minerals Division was also at the meeting. “In regard to the legacy,” Brancard said, “there are 259 uranium mines in the state, 95 percent of them are within the Grants Mineral Belt.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency is the primary agency that is organizing the effort to gather legacy information in the Grants Mineral Belt from a variety of sources, including the public. A listening session, a first of many more to come, according to EPA Superfund Division Project Manager John Meyer of Dallas, Texas, was held at the Cibola County Complex on Tuesday at 6:30 p.m.
Nearly 30 state, federal and tribal agencies are joining the EPA to assess the legacy - the damage, what should be done, who's paying for what, and other concerns.
Head had many specific questions in regard to the legacy. “Why is it that migratory birds do not land in the clean-up ponds at the Homestake site?” Head asked in which no specific answer was given.
Components of the five-year plan are: assess and remediation of contaminated residential structures; water contamination sources assessment; assessment and remediation of abandoned area mines (130, according to the EPA) in the area; assessment and long term management of mills; and assess impact to human health and the environment.
A five-year plan is scheduled to be released in the spring of 2010, according to the EPA.
Bill Brancard of the state Mining and Minerals Division was also at the meeting. “In regard to the legacy,” Brancard said, “there are 259 uranium mines in the state, 95 percent of them are within the Grants Mineral Belt.
Some have been reclaimed, some not. There are 130 mines that we have no record of reclamation.” The Grants Mineral Belt is described by the EPA as being from Prewitt on the west to Tohajillee on the east and from the Cibola/McKinley County line to the southern border of Acoma Pueblo.
A representative of the BLM announced at the meeting that the agency has $400,000 for assessment and can possible invest $3 million the following year to actually help cleanup.
Kelly Gallagher from the state Department of Health informed attendees that a recent study done by her department indicated that there are several spots in the state that have a high level of uranium in their water and it is affecting person's kidneys. However, only 1,000 people were tested and no one within the Grants Mineral Belt. (See next week's Beacon for more information on this study.)
Head asked if another study can be done specifically in Cibola County and asked if the EPA could pay for it? The question raised a discussion between agencies as to how the study can be paid for.
"Every agency has its own purpose and they do not work together. So, to see them, the EPA, the health department, BLM, NMED, tribal representatives, the Mining and Minerals Division, and so on… all here, to find solutions to the uranium mining legacy issue, it is great.”
Brancard noted during his speech that local legislators Ken Martinez, David Ulibarri and Linda Lovejoy need to be recognized for raising the importance of the legacy issue. “They are the leaders that are working behind the scenes saying that something needs to be done,” he said.
A date for the next public meeting has not yet been scheduled.
http://www.cibolabeacon.com/articles/2009/10/22/news/doc4ae0eab6e6c6b652488716.txt
A representative of the BLM announced at the meeting that the agency has $400,000 for assessment and can possible invest $3 million the following year to actually help cleanup.
Kelly Gallagher from the state Department of Health informed attendees that a recent study done by her department indicated that there are several spots in the state that have a high level of uranium in their water and it is affecting person's kidneys. However, only 1,000 people were tested and no one within the Grants Mineral Belt. (See next week's Beacon for more information on this study.)
Head asked if another study can be done specifically in Cibola County and asked if the EPA could pay for it? The question raised a discussion between agencies as to how the study can be paid for.
"Every agency has its own purpose and they do not work together. So, to see them, the EPA, the health department, BLM, NMED, tribal representatives, the Mining and Minerals Division, and so on… all here, to find solutions to the uranium mining legacy issue, it is great.”
Brancard noted during his speech that local legislators Ken Martinez, David Ulibarri and Linda Lovejoy need to be recognized for raising the importance of the legacy issue. “They are the leaders that are working behind the scenes saying that something needs to be done,” he said.
A date for the next public meeting has not yet been scheduled.
http://www.cibolabeacon.com/articles/2009/10/22/news/doc4ae0eab6e6c6b652488716.txt
Monday, July 13, 2009
EPA to develop rule to ensure hardrock miners will pay for environmental cleanup
The Environmental Protection Agency, complying with a court order,” is made to charge Huge Foreign Corporation for ruining the environment! EPA answers to Corporations and does not protect people from hard rock mining companies! Uranium mining is hard rock, so look out Virginia; they are going to ruin our land and our lives!
Sandy Shore, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 13, 2009
DENVER - The Environmental Protection Agency, complying with a court order, will develop a rule to guarantee companies that mine everything from copper to uranium will pay for needed environmental cleanup, not taxpayers.
The announcement on Monday comes in the wake of a federal judge's order in February requiring the EPA to close loopholes that allow some companies to get out of paying for such costly cleanups when they file bankruptcy.
The agency said it will develop similar financial responsibility requirements for other types of operations but started with hardrock mining because of the size of the operations, the amount of waste and the number of mining sites on its Superfund's national priorities list.
The EPA did not release specifics on how it will establish financial assurance requirements but said it will propose the rule by spring 2011. An email message asking the agency for more details was not answered.
The National Mining Association trade group said the industry already is regulated by other state and federal laws establishing financial responsibility for cleanup.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored critical facts and used inappropriate data in singling out U.S. hardrock mining for financial assurance requirements under Superfund," association CEO Hal Quinn said in a statement.
The EPA's announcement came a day before a Senate hearing on proposed changes to a 137-year-old hardrock mining law that would bolster environmental restrictions and implement royalties.
Under the existing law, private companies haven't paid royalties to taxpayers for an estimated $245 billion worth of minerals extracted from public lands in more than a century. It also allows companies to buy public land for as little as $2.50 an acre.
In 2008, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups sued the EPA, arguing it failed to establish financial responsibility mandates as required under the Superfund act.
Among the cases they cited were 94 Superfund sites in 21 states operated by Asarco, which filed bankruptcy in 2005; the Smoky Canyon Mine in southeastern Idaho, and a molybdenum mine near Questa, N.M.
Earthjustice Attorney Jan Hasselman, who handled the lawsuit, called the EPA's decision "an important first step."
http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/news/businessnews/article.aspx?cp-documentid=20740053
July 13, 2009
DENVER - The Environmental Protection Agency, complying with a court order, will develop a rule to guarantee companies that mine everything from copper to uranium will pay for needed environmental cleanup, not taxpayers.
The announcement on Monday comes in the wake of a federal judge's order in February requiring the EPA to close loopholes that allow some companies to get out of paying for such costly cleanups when they file bankruptcy.
The agency said it will develop similar financial responsibility requirements for other types of operations but started with hardrock mining because of the size of the operations, the amount of waste and the number of mining sites on its Superfund's national priorities list.
The EPA did not release specifics on how it will establish financial assurance requirements but said it will propose the rule by spring 2011. An email message asking the agency for more details was not answered.
The National Mining Association trade group said the industry already is regulated by other state and federal laws establishing financial responsibility for cleanup.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored critical facts and used inappropriate data in singling out U.S. hardrock mining for financial assurance requirements under Superfund," association CEO Hal Quinn said in a statement.
The EPA's announcement came a day before a Senate hearing on proposed changes to a 137-year-old hardrock mining law that would bolster environmental restrictions and implement royalties.
Under the existing law, private companies haven't paid royalties to taxpayers for an estimated $245 billion worth of minerals extracted from public lands in more than a century. It also allows companies to buy public land for as little as $2.50 an acre.
In 2008, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups sued the EPA, arguing it failed to establish financial responsibility mandates as required under the Superfund act.
Among the cases they cited were 94 Superfund sites in 21 states operated by Asarco, which filed bankruptcy in 2005; the Smoky Canyon Mine in southeastern Idaho, and a molybdenum mine near Questa, N.M.
Earthjustice Attorney Jan Hasselman, who handled the lawsuit, called the EPA's decision "an important first step."
http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/investing/news/businessnews/article.aspx?cp-documentid=20740053
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Frieda Berryhill Writes: The Front End Of The Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Comment: Is this Virginia's Future if Uranium mining and milling is approved?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
This September 2008 picture provided by the Environmental Protection Agency shows the demolition of a home in Red Valley area of the Navajo Nation that was found to be contaminated by uranium.
The EPA is prepared to demolish and rebuild uranium-contaminated structures across the Navajo Nation, where mining left a legacy of disease and death. (AP Photo/EPA)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its Navajo counterpart are focusing on homes, sheds and other buildings within a half-mile to a mile from a significant mine or waste pile. They plan to assess 500 structures over five years and rebuild those that are too badly contaminated……..The U.S. EPA estimates it will cost $ 550.000 to demolish each structure, haul away the debris and rebuild.
With more than 500 abandoned uranium mines across the vast reservation, EPA officials acknowledge contamination is bigger than assessing and rebuilding structures.
This has been a long time coming. Remember my testimony to the Government in 1978 forcing them it to admit on record that the deaths from uranium mining were underestimated by a factor of 100.000 (FB)
None of the scandals emerging FROM THE FRONT END and THE BACK END OF THE NUCLEAT FUEL CYCLE ARE CALCULATED INTO THE COST OF “CHEAP” NUCLEAR POWER.
This has been a long time coming. Remember my testimony to the Government in 1978 forcing them it to admit on record that the deaths from uranium mining were underestimated by a factor of 100.000 (FB)
None of the scandals emerging FROM THE FRONT END and THE BACK END OF THE NUCLEAT FUEL CYCLE ARE CALCULATED INTO THE COST OF “CHEAP” NUCLEAR POWER.
Now, after all these years, there is an understanding of the consequences
Uranium mining hits resistance
Uranium mining hits resistance
Residents of Nucla, Naturita split on wisdom of proposed mill
by Joe Hanel, Herald Denver Bureau ~
MONTROSE - A proposed mill that could help restart Colorado 's uranium industry drew heated debate at a public hearing Wednesday night.
The Montrose County Planning Commission delayed its decision on a special-use permit for Energy Fuels Inc., which wants to build the Piñon Ridge uranium mill 12 miles west of Naturita in the Paradox Valley . Commissioners favored the mill, but they needed more time to craft language for the permit. The commission will make its decision July 1.
Posted by Nancy Willing at 6/16/2009
http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2009/06/frieda-berryhill-writes-front-end-of.html
by Joe Hanel, Herald Denver Bureau ~
MONTROSE - A proposed mill that could help restart Colorado 's uranium industry drew heated debate at a public hearing Wednesday night.
The Montrose County Planning Commission delayed its decision on a special-use permit for Energy Fuels Inc., which wants to build the Piñon Ridge uranium mill 12 miles west of Naturita in the Paradox Valley . Commissioners favored the mill, but they needed more time to craft language for the permit. The commission will make its decision July 1.
Posted by Nancy Willing at 6/16/2009
http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2009/06/frieda-berryhill-writes-front-end-of.html
Monday, May 11, 2009
Navajos Await Decision On Churchrock Cleanup - Words From Kevin Arnett On 'Canadian Genocide'
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Navajos Await Decision On Churchrock Cleanup - Words From Kevin Arnett On 'Canadian Genocide'
Navajo EPA Awaiting Decision On Churchrock Cleanup
By Kathy Helms
Dine Bureau
By Kathy Helms
Dine Bureau
WINDOW ROCK – It's been two long years since U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, began cleanup of radioactive soils at residences near the Northeast Churchrock Mine, but a decision is expected any week now on further cleanup options.
“We're anticipating that the U.S. EPA will go through a public review and comment on a document called an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis for the mine cleanup. We are awaiting the decision,” said Stephen B. Etsitty, executive director of Navajo EPA.
“There are about five cleanup options, and several of those cleanup options have sub-options, so I think out of the entire array, there are about eight or nine ways to go on cleaning up the mine. Our preference has always been stated that we would like to have the contaminated materials removed out of Navajo Indian Country, but we realize there are costs – most notably transportation costs that make that a very big challenge,” he said.
Navajo EPA made a presentation in February before U.S. EPA's National Remedy Review Board which reviewed proposed cleanup by EPA regional offices across the country. “We were able to make a presentation to the board on our preferred option,” Etsitty said.
“They are going to make a recommendation to EPA Region 9 and once that process is completed, EPA Region 9 will be ready to put the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis document out for public review and comment to get the public's perspective and recommendation on the cleanup. Once we go through a 30 to 45 day review and comment period, then they'll make a final decision,” he said.
Navajo is hoping to take advantage of this construction season to begin the actual cleanup of the mine site and some areas around the homes that weren't addressed initially, such as an unnamed arroyo that drains northward off the mine site and toward Teddy Nez's and other residents' homes.
In April 2007, EPA initiated removal of radium-contaminated soils from residences and side yards nearest the mine site. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of radioactive soil were removed and transported to a site in Idaho.
Navajo EPA, U.S. EPA, United Nuclear Corp., and General Electric will be combining resources to address the mine site. “It's still our top priority and we're hoping for a good recommendation from the Remedy Review Board and a good selection of a remedy by EPA,” Etsitty said.
“I think the focus should be on cleaning up many, if not all of the abandoned uranium mines that are actually contaminating ground water, soil, and leading to problems with radon accumulation in homes or high levels of windblown dust that also has radioactive particles in it. All of those issues need to be examined.
“The decisions that were made decades ago about proper closure and restoration of these mine sites, they all deserve to be reviewed again, because our experiences here over the last five to six years at Navajo EPA is that simple weatherization can really do a lot of damage to caps that were designed in the '70s and the '80s and as late as the '90s. Other processes like subsidence can open up these old mine sites that were enclosed and you have direct exposure pathways once again.”
Resources Committee Chairman George Arthur, who sponsored legislation which led the Navajo Nation in 2005 to ban further uranium mining and processing, said the Nation is still in the process of getting some positive response on cleanup of the Northeast Churchrock Mine.
“We are making small progress and hoping that we would get to the end result in the next few months. I know that we are scheduled to make the update report to Rep. (Henry) Waxman. I understand that even though he transferred to a different committee, he still has a major role in the discussion that affects the Churchrock cleanup.”
In October 2007, under Waxman's chairmanship, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform directed five federal agencies to develop a five-year plan to address uranium cleanup issues on the Navajo Nation, calling it “a modern American tragedy.”
“Our government leased the lands for uranium mining, purchased the uranium yellowcake produced from the mines to supply our nuclear weapons stockpile, and then allowed the operators of the mines and mills to walk away without cleaning up the resulting contamination,” Waxman said.
“When the U.S. EPA took readings at one mine site, the radium levels were over 270 times the EPA standard,” he said, and that was in 2006, years after the mines had closed.
Teddy Nez, whose home is in the shadow of the Northeast Churchrock Mine, said the legacy waste needs to be taken care of before there is talk of further uranium mining. “Within the last 50 years they have not touched it. That's why we're saying no.”
Northeast Churchrock was operated by United Nuclear Corp. from 1967 to 1982. Mining activities resulted in a legacy of waste piles, sediment settling ponds, abandoned building pads and mine equipment debris. EPA has detected widespread radium contamination in 14 areas on and off-site.
At present, there is an elevated health risk for people who frequent the site from inhaling radium-contaminated dust particles, associated radon gas ,or utilizing contaminated rainwater and runoff that has pooled in the ponds. There is an elevated risk associated with livestock that may graze and water on the site. Elevated concentrations of radium-226 have been detected throughout the 125-acre mine permit boundary and contiguous surface areas.
Exposure to high levels of radium-226 over a long period of time may result in anemia, cataracts, fractured teeth, cancer – especially bone cancer – and death. Exposure to high levels of uranium can cause kidney disease and can decay into other radioactive materials that may cause cancer, according to EPA.
Words From Rev. Kevin Arnett
“We're anticipating that the U.S. EPA will go through a public review and comment on a document called an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis for the mine cleanup. We are awaiting the decision,” said Stephen B. Etsitty, executive director of Navajo EPA.
“There are about five cleanup options, and several of those cleanup options have sub-options, so I think out of the entire array, there are about eight or nine ways to go on cleaning up the mine. Our preference has always been stated that we would like to have the contaminated materials removed out of Navajo Indian Country, but we realize there are costs – most notably transportation costs that make that a very big challenge,” he said.
Navajo EPA made a presentation in February before U.S. EPA's National Remedy Review Board which reviewed proposed cleanup by EPA regional offices across the country. “We were able to make a presentation to the board on our preferred option,” Etsitty said.
“They are going to make a recommendation to EPA Region 9 and once that process is completed, EPA Region 9 will be ready to put the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis document out for public review and comment to get the public's perspective and recommendation on the cleanup. Once we go through a 30 to 45 day review and comment period, then they'll make a final decision,” he said.
Navajo is hoping to take advantage of this construction season to begin the actual cleanup of the mine site and some areas around the homes that weren't addressed initially, such as an unnamed arroyo that drains northward off the mine site and toward Teddy Nez's and other residents' homes.
In April 2007, EPA initiated removal of radium-contaminated soils from residences and side yards nearest the mine site. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of radioactive soil were removed and transported to a site in Idaho.
Navajo EPA, U.S. EPA, United Nuclear Corp., and General Electric will be combining resources to address the mine site. “It's still our top priority and we're hoping for a good recommendation from the Remedy Review Board and a good selection of a remedy by EPA,” Etsitty said.
“I think the focus should be on cleaning up many, if not all of the abandoned uranium mines that are actually contaminating ground water, soil, and leading to problems with radon accumulation in homes or high levels of windblown dust that also has radioactive particles in it. All of those issues need to be examined.
“The decisions that were made decades ago about proper closure and restoration of these mine sites, they all deserve to be reviewed again, because our experiences here over the last five to six years at Navajo EPA is that simple weatherization can really do a lot of damage to caps that were designed in the '70s and the '80s and as late as the '90s. Other processes like subsidence can open up these old mine sites that were enclosed and you have direct exposure pathways once again.”
Resources Committee Chairman George Arthur, who sponsored legislation which led the Navajo Nation in 2005 to ban further uranium mining and processing, said the Nation is still in the process of getting some positive response on cleanup of the Northeast Churchrock Mine.
“We are making small progress and hoping that we would get to the end result in the next few months. I know that we are scheduled to make the update report to Rep. (Henry) Waxman. I understand that even though he transferred to a different committee, he still has a major role in the discussion that affects the Churchrock cleanup.”
In October 2007, under Waxman's chairmanship, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform directed five federal agencies to develop a five-year plan to address uranium cleanup issues on the Navajo Nation, calling it “a modern American tragedy.”
“Our government leased the lands for uranium mining, purchased the uranium yellowcake produced from the mines to supply our nuclear weapons stockpile, and then allowed the operators of the mines and mills to walk away without cleaning up the resulting contamination,” Waxman said.
“When the U.S. EPA took readings at one mine site, the radium levels were over 270 times the EPA standard,” he said, and that was in 2006, years after the mines had closed.
Teddy Nez, whose home is in the shadow of the Northeast Churchrock Mine, said the legacy waste needs to be taken care of before there is talk of further uranium mining. “Within the last 50 years they have not touched it. That's why we're saying no.”
Northeast Churchrock was operated by United Nuclear Corp. from 1967 to 1982. Mining activities resulted in a legacy of waste piles, sediment settling ponds, abandoned building pads and mine equipment debris. EPA has detected widespread radium contamination in 14 areas on and off-site.
At present, there is an elevated health risk for people who frequent the site from inhaling radium-contaminated dust particles, associated radon gas ,or utilizing contaminated rainwater and runoff that has pooled in the ponds. There is an elevated risk associated with livestock that may graze and water on the site. Elevated concentrations of radium-226 have been detected throughout the 125-acre mine permit boundary and contiguous surface areas.
Exposure to high levels of radium-226 over a long period of time may result in anemia, cataracts, fractured teeth, cancer – especially bone cancer – and death. Exposure to high levels of uranium can cause kidney disease and can decay into other radioactive materials that may cause cancer, according to EPA.
Words From Rev. Kevin Arnett
Hi everyone.
I just found out today that the National Film Board of Canada was allowed in to film the pope's so-called "private audience" with government Indians like Phil Fontaine, as part of the "apology" to Canadian residential school survivors. (An apology is a defense of one's actions, in the dictionary, by the way)
It turns out that the National Film Board is planning a big movie showing how "progressive" the pope is and how this whole thing is "settled" now. It wants to interview rez school survivors about their story and use them as part of this latest propaganda film.
The film starts full shooting in the fall, and will probably be released in the new year of 2010.This is the kind of big publicity spin that the government and church need to do, now that the story of genocide in Canada is getting out to the world - and the pope is personally implicated in ordering the cover up of these crimes.
We need to get the real story out even more now, reject these "apologies", and bring the criminals to justice ourselves.
And ... warn residential school survivors and their families NOT to agree to any interview by anyone representing the National Film Board of Canada.Spread the word.
Kevin Annett
TO SUBMIT an ARTICLE, OPINION PIECE, COMMENTS to the Native Unity Digest, e-mail bobbieo@digitaldune.net.
NATIVE UNITY - A place for Native American Peoples to solidify their tribes to make a positive impact on the cultural, social, economic and political fabric of American society and a place for non-Natives to better understand the ways of the American Indian.
ATT: NEW - News Blog - American Indian Report - AIR BLOG
http://falmouth-air.blogspot.com
'Seminole Museum Earns Coveted National Accreditation'
or Robert J. Miller
http://lawlib.lclark.edu/blog/native_america/
Check Out Native Pride - It's a great site!
http://letstalknativepride.blogspot.com
FOR ANNIE'S NATIVE CELEBRITY NEWS - go to www.nativecelebs.com
CATCH COLORADAN PETER JONES AT:
http://indigenousissuestoday.blogspot.com
SUPPORTING NATIVE AMERICAN/FIRST PEOPLE - ARTISTS, FILM MAKERS, ENTERTAINERS, ETC. http://www.krystynmedia.blogspot.com
http://nativeunity.blogspot.com/2009/05/navajos-await-decision-on-churchrock.html
I just found out today that the National Film Board of Canada was allowed in to film the pope's so-called "private audience" with government Indians like Phil Fontaine, as part of the "apology" to Canadian residential school survivors. (An apology is a defense of one's actions, in the dictionary, by the way)
It turns out that the National Film Board is planning a big movie showing how "progressive" the pope is and how this whole thing is "settled" now. It wants to interview rez school survivors about their story and use them as part of this latest propaganda film.
The film starts full shooting in the fall, and will probably be released in the new year of 2010.This is the kind of big publicity spin that the government and church need to do, now that the story of genocide in Canada is getting out to the world - and the pope is personally implicated in ordering the cover up of these crimes.
We need to get the real story out even more now, reject these "apologies", and bring the criminals to justice ourselves.
And ... warn residential school survivors and their families NOT to agree to any interview by anyone representing the National Film Board of Canada.Spread the word.
Kevin Annett
TO SUBMIT an ARTICLE, OPINION PIECE, COMMENTS to the Native Unity Digest, e-mail bobbieo@digitaldune.net.
NATIVE UNITY - A place for Native American Peoples to solidify their tribes to make a positive impact on the cultural, social, economic and political fabric of American society and a place for non-Natives to better understand the ways of the American Indian.
ATT: NEW - News Blog - American Indian Report - AIR BLOG
http://falmouth-air.blogspot.com
'Seminole Museum Earns Coveted National Accreditation'
or Robert J. Miller
http://lawlib.lclark.edu/blog/native_america/
Check Out Native Pride - It's a great site!
http://letstalknativepride.blogspot.com
FOR ANNIE'S NATIVE CELEBRITY NEWS - go to www.nativecelebs.com
CATCH COLORADAN PETER JONES AT:
http://indigenousissuestoday.blogspot.com
SUPPORTING NATIVE AMERICAN/FIRST PEOPLE - ARTISTS, FILM MAKERS, ENTERTAINERS, ETC. http://www.krystynmedia.blogspot.com
http://nativeunity.blogspot.com/2009/05/navajos-await-decision-on-churchrock.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
