FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 11, 2010
1:13 PM
CONTACT: Center for Biological Diversity
Taylor McKinnon, (928) 310-6713, tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.org
Agency Ignores Obama's Freedom of Information Directive
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK - February 11 - Today the Center for Biological Diversity sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for illegally withholding public records relating to uranium mines immediately north of Grand Canyon National Park. The suit asserts that the Bureau violated the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to disclose records pursuant to a July 30, 2009 request submitted by the Center. The Bureau is withholding the vast majority of eight linear feet of responsive records despite directives from the Obama administration requiring the agency to respond to information requests "promptly and in a spirit of cooperation" and to adopt a "presumption of disclosure."
"The chasm between Obama's policies and the Bureau's practices are as wide as the Grand Canyon itself," said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director with the Center. "We've spent months giving the Bureau every opportunity to fulfill our requests, but this is an agency that, even with the Grand Canyon and endangered species hanging in the balance, refuses to voluntarily comply with open government or environmental laws."
Some of the records being withheld relate to the Arizona 1 mine. In November, the Center for Biological Diversity and other plaintiffs sued the Bureau of Land Management for refusing to undertake new National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act reviews prior to allowing Denison Mines to resume mining. The Bureau insists that 1988 compliances are adequate for the mine, which operated for a short period prior to closing in the early 1990s. Despite a host of new circumstances since 1988, including the listing of threatened and endangered species, Bureau officials refuse to update analyses for any of the mines near Grand Canyon National Park.
"The Bureau of Land Management has painted a caricature of itself at the Grand Canyon," said McKinnon. "The agency is acting as a secretive surrogate for the mining industry that views open government, endangered species, and environmental laws as a nuisance rather than a priority."
The Bureau of Land Management has failed to produce any documents demonstrating the establishment of valid existing rights for the Arizona 1 mine or other mines around Grand Canyon.
Bureau officials have stated that many of the records requested by the Center for Biological Diversity would be made available on a Bureau Web site relating to the segregation order and proposed mineral withdrawal. However, to date the Bureau has only posted Federal Register notices, a few maps, fact sheets, and - perhaps speaking to its orientation toward Interior's proposed mineral withdrawal - an antiquated video promoting uranium mining that the Bureau developed in conjunction with the uranium industry in the late 1980s.
"The legacy of past uranium mining still lingers as deadly radiological contamination of land and water near and within Grand Canyon National Park," said McKinnon. "To think that new mining will yield different results is foolish and irresponsible."
Amy Atwood, senior attorney and public lands energy director at the Center, wrote and will argue today's lawsuit.
Background
The Park Service warns against drinking from several creeks in the canyon exhibiting elevated uranium levels in the wake of past uranium mining.
These threats have provoked litigation; legislation; public protests and statements of concern and opposition from scientists, city officials, county officials - including from Coconino County - former Governor Janet Napolitano, state representatives, the Navajo Nation, and the Kaibab Paiute, Hopi, Hualapai and Havasupai tribes, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority, among others. Polling conducted by Public Opinion Strategies shows overwhelming public support for withdrawing from mineral entry the lands near Grand Canyon; Arizonans support protecting the Grand Canyon area from uranium mining by a two-to-one margin.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature - to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law, and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters, and climate that species need to survive.
Read more:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/11-5
Showing posts with label Lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawsuit. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Environmental group plans to sue over coal ash at San Juan mine
Comment: Modern mining so safe according the local uranium mining corporations in VA! Don't think so!
EPA expected to issue new rules on coal ash in early 2010
By Marjorie Childress 12/29/09 12:01 AM
Groundwater near the San Juan coal mine in northwestern New Mexico is polluted.
That’s something that both the Sierra Club and New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division Director Bill Brancard agree on. What’s in dispute is how the water came to be contaminated.
The Sierra Club alleges that the San Juan Coal Company has improperly dumped more than 40 million tons of coal ash and sludge into unlined pits, resulting in the contamination of waterways and wells near the mine.
The group says that the waste, and the contaminated water, pose a danger to livestock, wildlife and families in the area, and in early December, the Sierra Club announced that it intends to sue the owners of the San Juan Coal Company.
The company denies responsibility for the contamination.
“San Juan Coal Company is confident that allegations of water contamination as a result of coal combustion by-product (CCB ) placement at the San Juan Mine are incorrect and are not supported by water monitoring data,” Charles Roybal, senior counsel for the coal company’s parent company, BHP Billiton, told The Independent in an email.
Just after the spill, attention focused on storage of wet coal sludge near rivers, and recommendations that risk be minimized by “putting dry ash into landfills with caps, linings and collection systems for contaminated water,” as the New York Times noted.
The disposal of combustion waste is currently unregulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but that may soon change. The EPA has been working to develop a regulatory framework for coal ash disposal since the Tennessee spill, and is expected to issue new disposal rules in early 2010.
At issue: Unlined pits
San Juan Coal Company disposes of the waste from the San Juan Generating Plant in unlined pits at the San Juan coal mine, which is allowed under current state regulations. There are three wells in place to monitor the groundwater in the area.
According to the Sierra Club’s notice of intent to sue, coal waste has been used to fill pits upgrade of “well L” and adjacent to “well D.” Both wells were placed by the coal company to monitor the water going into the Shumway and Westwater arroyos, which exit the mine boundaries and travel downstream.
A representative of BHP Billiton said the monitoring program has been in place for over 30 years, and that data from the wells is given to the state’s Mining and Mineral Division and subsequently made available to the public on a quarterly basis.
According to the data supplied in the Sierra Club’s notice of intent to sue, there are excessive levels of boron and selenium in water from Well D, and selenium, chloride and sulfate from Well L. The environmental group says it will present additional data in its suit concerning other pollutants, like uranium, arsenic, and lead.
“The only possible cause of the increasing pollutant concentrations in ground water drawn from Well L is leaching of pollutants from CCW [coal combustion waste], followed by transport off the permit area either by ground water movement, diffusion, or both,” the group states on page 15 of the notice.
Brancard agrees with the group’s analysis of the water data itself, but says the cause of the pollution isn’t necessarily the disposal of the coal ash in the unlined pits at the San Juan mine.
“The data they have is our data,” he said, “and there are some levels [of pollutants] that go beyond state standards. But it’s unclear what the source of the pollution is.”
The culprit could be a number of things, Brancard told the Independent.
But Jeff Stant, the director of the Environmental Integrity Project and a consultant with the Sierra Club, said that both geography in the area and the preponderance of one metal in particular—boron–makes it clear where the contamination comes from.
The geography places the monitoring wells lower than the waste pits at the San Juan mine with coal ash and “scrubber sludge,” he said.
Of three monitoring wells, one is close to the power plant and coal ash pits, while the other two are six to eight miles from the power plant. The power plant is in a location that wouldn’t be able to intercept the flow of water in a way that would lead to the kind of contamination that exists at those two wells, he said.
“[Due to this geography] the idea that the power plant causes the leaching of the metals into the water is crazy,” he said.
That assessment, in conjunction with high levels of metals like boron, leads Stant to believe that the contamination is due to coal waste disposal back at the mine, not the power plant itself.
“Boron is a very good signifier of coal combustion waste leaching,” he said. “If you look at ash sites throughout the country where there is water contamination, you’ll see high levels of boron.”
New Mexico groundwater quality standards call for no more than 0.75 milligrams of boron per liter of water. The data shows boron well over that standard consistently present in the water going back to 1979, typically ranging from 1.3 to 2 milligrams per liter.
“We feel strongly there is no other way to explain the contamination,” Stant continued.
Read...
http://newmexicoindependent.com/43620/environmental-group-plans-to-sue-over-coal-ash-at-san-juan-mine
EPA expected to issue new rules on coal ash in early 2010
By Marjorie Childress 12/29/09 12:01 AM
Groundwater near the San Juan coal mine in northwestern New Mexico is polluted.
That’s something that both the Sierra Club and New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division Director Bill Brancard agree on. What’s in dispute is how the water came to be contaminated.
The Sierra Club alleges that the San Juan Coal Company has improperly dumped more than 40 million tons of coal ash and sludge into unlined pits, resulting in the contamination of waterways and wells near the mine.
The group says that the waste, and the contaminated water, pose a danger to livestock, wildlife and families in the area, and in early December, the Sierra Club announced that it intends to sue the owners of the San Juan Coal Company.
The company denies responsibility for the contamination.
“San Juan Coal Company is confident that allegations of water contamination as a result of coal combustion by-product (CCB ) placement at the San Juan Mine are incorrect and are not supported by water monitoring data,” Charles Roybal, senior counsel for the coal company’s parent company, BHP Billiton, told The Independent in an email.
Just after the spill, attention focused on storage of wet coal sludge near rivers, and recommendations that risk be minimized by “putting dry ash into landfills with caps, linings and collection systems for contaminated water,” as the New York Times noted.
The disposal of combustion waste is currently unregulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but that may soon change. The EPA has been working to develop a regulatory framework for coal ash disposal since the Tennessee spill, and is expected to issue new disposal rules in early 2010.
At issue: Unlined pits
San Juan Coal Company disposes of the waste from the San Juan Generating Plant in unlined pits at the San Juan coal mine, which is allowed under current state regulations. There are three wells in place to monitor the groundwater in the area.
According to the Sierra Club’s notice of intent to sue, coal waste has been used to fill pits upgrade of “well L” and adjacent to “well D.” Both wells were placed by the coal company to monitor the water going into the Shumway and Westwater arroyos, which exit the mine boundaries and travel downstream.
A representative of BHP Billiton said the monitoring program has been in place for over 30 years, and that data from the wells is given to the state’s Mining and Mineral Division and subsequently made available to the public on a quarterly basis.
According to the data supplied in the Sierra Club’s notice of intent to sue, there are excessive levels of boron and selenium in water from Well D, and selenium, chloride and sulfate from Well L. The environmental group says it will present additional data in its suit concerning other pollutants, like uranium, arsenic, and lead.
“The only possible cause of the increasing pollutant concentrations in ground water drawn from Well L is leaching of pollutants from CCW [coal combustion waste], followed by transport off the permit area either by ground water movement, diffusion, or both,” the group states on page 15 of the notice.
Brancard agrees with the group’s analysis of the water data itself, but says the cause of the pollution isn’t necessarily the disposal of the coal ash in the unlined pits at the San Juan mine.
“The data they have is our data,” he said, “and there are some levels [of pollutants] that go beyond state standards. But it’s unclear what the source of the pollution is.”
The culprit could be a number of things, Brancard told the Independent.
But Jeff Stant, the director of the Environmental Integrity Project and a consultant with the Sierra Club, said that both geography in the area and the preponderance of one metal in particular—boron–makes it clear where the contamination comes from.
The geography places the monitoring wells lower than the waste pits at the San Juan mine with coal ash and “scrubber sludge,” he said.
Of three monitoring wells, one is close to the power plant and coal ash pits, while the other two are six to eight miles from the power plant. The power plant is in a location that wouldn’t be able to intercept the flow of water in a way that would lead to the kind of contamination that exists at those two wells, he said.
“[Due to this geography] the idea that the power plant causes the leaching of the metals into the water is crazy,” he said.
That assessment, in conjunction with high levels of metals like boron, leads Stant to believe that the contamination is due to coal waste disposal back at the mine, not the power plant itself.
“Boron is a very good signifier of coal combustion waste leaching,” he said. “If you look at ash sites throughout the country where there is water contamination, you’ll see high levels of boron.”
New Mexico groundwater quality standards call for no more than 0.75 milligrams of boron per liter of water. The data shows boron well over that standard consistently present in the water going back to 1979, typically ranging from 1.3 to 2 milligrams per liter.
“We feel strongly there is no other way to explain the contamination,” Stant continued.
Read...
http://newmexicoindependent.com/43620/environmental-group-plans-to-sue-over-coal-ash-at-san-juan-mine
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Sheep Mountain Alliance challenges Energy Fuels’ application to state
Comment: No to Uranium Mining and Milling!
By Matthew Beaudin, Editor
Published: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:08 PM CST
Early this fall, those opposed to a uranium mill in the far western reaches of the state said they would fight at every turn.
After two filings since a contentious approval from Montrose County Commissioners, their threats have proven anything but idle.
Local environmental group Sheep Mountain Alliance continues to take the fight to a company that hopes to build a large uranium mill in the Paradox Valley, this time in a memo that questions an application by the would-be developers to the State of Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment.
Energy Fuels Inc., as part of the state’s review process, just filed an application; Sheep Mountain Alliance’s newest paperwork disputes the completeness of that application, questioning its social, economic and technical findings and foundations.
The Paradox Valley Sustainability Association is also a party in the filing.
“The way in which they do it, and the completeness of it, according to the state statues, is severely lacking,” Sheep Mountain Alliance’s Executive Director Hilary White said of Energy Fuels’ review.
As an example, White says the company addresses mines that would feed its mill but doesn’t delve into the impacts of expanded mining operations.
The application, opponents say, is too vague for its potential consequence.
“This thing is not 21st century material; this is certainly not the way these kind of things should be done, should they be done,” said Travis Stills, an attorney for Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango. “According to the highest standards.... what we see is a ‘cost cutting measure.’”
On Friday, the state will accept or deny the Energy Fuels’ application.
Should it accept, it will trigger a succession of legally mandated steps: The first public meeting would occur 45 days from then, and Montrose County, the county in which the mine would be built, will have 90 days to review the proposal.
All told, there will be four public meetings in the region and the process will take a year, White said.
Read more:
http://telluridenews.com/articles/2009/12/18/news/doc4b299f708f329713501115.txt
By Matthew Beaudin, Editor
Published: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 9:08 PM CST
Early this fall, those opposed to a uranium mill in the far western reaches of the state said they would fight at every turn.
After two filings since a contentious approval from Montrose County Commissioners, their threats have proven anything but idle.
Local environmental group Sheep Mountain Alliance continues to take the fight to a company that hopes to build a large uranium mill in the Paradox Valley, this time in a memo that questions an application by the would-be developers to the State of Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment.
Energy Fuels Inc., as part of the state’s review process, just filed an application; Sheep Mountain Alliance’s newest paperwork disputes the completeness of that application, questioning its social, economic and technical findings and foundations.
The Paradox Valley Sustainability Association is also a party in the filing.
“The way in which they do it, and the completeness of it, according to the state statues, is severely lacking,” Sheep Mountain Alliance’s Executive Director Hilary White said of Energy Fuels’ review.
As an example, White says the company addresses mines that would feed its mill but doesn’t delve into the impacts of expanded mining operations.
The application, opponents say, is too vague for its potential consequence.
“This thing is not 21st century material; this is certainly not the way these kind of things should be done, should they be done,” said Travis Stills, an attorney for Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango. “According to the highest standards.... what we see is a ‘cost cutting measure.’”
On Friday, the state will accept or deny the Energy Fuels’ application.
Should it accept, it will trigger a succession of legally mandated steps: The first public meeting would occur 45 days from then, and Montrose County, the county in which the mine would be built, will have 90 days to review the proposal.
All told, there will be four public meetings in the region and the process will take a year, White said.
Read more:
http://telluridenews.com/articles/2009/12/18/news/doc4b299f708f329713501115.txt
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Court Victory Forces Canada to Report Pollution Data for Mines
Apr 24 2009
TORONTO – Great Lakes United, MiningWatch Canada and Ecojustice are hailing a landmark decision from the Federal Court of Canada released late yesterday that will force the federal government to stop withholding data on one of Canada’s largest sources of pollution – millions of tonnes of toxic mine tailings and waste rock from mining operations throughout the country.
The Federal Court sided with the groups and issued an Order demanding that the federal government immediately begin publicly reporting mining pollution data from 2006 onward to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). The strongly worded decision describes the government’s pace as “glacial” and chastises the government for turning a “blind eye” to the issue and dragging its feet for “more than 16 years”.
“This is a huge decision for environmental justice in Canada,” said Ecojustice lawyer Justin Duncan. Fellow lawyer Marlene Cashin added, “The court has unequivocally upheld the right of Canadians to know when the health of their communities and the environment is under threat from one of the country’s largest sources of toxic pollution.”
The lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in 2007 on behalf of MiningWatch Canada and Great Lakes United by Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal Defence Fund). The lawsuit alleged that the Minister of Environment broke the law when he failed to collect and report this pollution information from mines in Canada under the NPRI.
“This is a victory that should be celebrated from Smithers to Voisey’s Bay,” said MiningWatch Canada spokesman Jamie Kneen. “The public has a right to know what kind of toxic liabilities are being created every day. It’s always been bizarre to us that the mining industry should not face the same reporting requirements as every other industrial sector, and we’re pleased that the Court agreed with us.”
In stark contrast, since 1998, the U.S. government has required mining companies to report all pollutants under the American equivalent of the NPRI, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). In 2005, the 72 mines reporting to the TRI released more than 500 million kilograms of mine tailings and waste rock – accounting for 27% of all U.S. pollutants reported. With yesterday’s court decision, pollution data from Canada’s 80 metal mining facilities will now similarly have to be reported under the NPRI.
“With this decision, the blindfold comes off and citizens can truly hold these companies to account for their pollution and the environmental and health dangers they pose.”
For further information please visit www.ecojustice.ca or contact:
Justin Duncan, Ecojustice (416) 573-4258 (cell)
Marlene Cashin, Ecojustice (416) 368-7533 ext. 31
John Jackson, Great Lakes United (519) 744-7503
Jamie Kneen, MiningWatch Canada (613) 761-2273 (cell)
Read more at:
http://www.miningwatch.ca/en/court-victory-forces-canada-report-pollution-data-mines
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Judge sides with environmental groups in coal case
Comment: Look at the years the Corps broke the Clean Water Act, Public Notice and other problems but they still can mine for 60 days! People of Virginia do not trust the Uranium Corps and the untruths about how safe uranium mine is because the NRC and the EPA will protect us! The EPA did not protect our Mountain Families!
By TIM HUBER (AP)
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated federal environmental laws by failing to give the public enough of a say before issuing permits for mountaintop removal coal mines in West Virginia, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Chuck Chambers involves permits issued to subsidiaries of Consol Energy and Penn Virginia Resources. But it could have far-reaching implications for the ongoing debate over mountaintop removal coal mining.
Environmental groups have been pushing the Obama administration to ban the highly efficient practice as too damaging. The coal industry argues that would devastate parts of Appalachia by eliminating thousands of jobs and cut coal supplies, pushing up electricity prices for American consumers.
"Most of the pending permits in West Virginia may need to go back through the public process," said Oliver Bernstein, a spokesman for the Sierra Club, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
The corps, Penn Virginia, Consol and the National Mining Association had no immediate comment. Approximately 23 applications for West Virginia surface mines are pending before the corps.
Chambers held that the corps violated the Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act when it issued permits for Penn Virginia's Nellis surface mine and Consol's Ike Fork mines. He ruled that public notices for the permits failed to provide a clear understanding of the nature and magnitude of the mines or allow the public to be involved sufficiently in the permitting process.
Chambers ordered the corps to correct the problem with the permits, though he allowed both companies to continue "limited" mining for 60 days.
"The Court realizes that the procedural flaw identified by Plaintiffs did not stem from any wrong-doing on the part of the mining companies," Chambers wrote.
Click Title or Link to whole:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilNqXcMDBLf-ayRrvcQm9sSC04hgD9C66B9G0
By TIM HUBER (AP)
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated federal environmental laws by failing to give the public enough of a say before issuing permits for mountaintop removal coal mines in West Virginia, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Chuck Chambers involves permits issued to subsidiaries of Consol Energy and Penn Virginia Resources. But it could have far-reaching implications for the ongoing debate over mountaintop removal coal mining.
Environmental groups have been pushing the Obama administration to ban the highly efficient practice as too damaging. The coal industry argues that would devastate parts of Appalachia by eliminating thousands of jobs and cut coal supplies, pushing up electricity prices for American consumers.
"Most of the pending permits in West Virginia may need to go back through the public process," said Oliver Bernstein, a spokesman for the Sierra Club, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
The corps, Penn Virginia, Consol and the National Mining Association had no immediate comment. Approximately 23 applications for West Virginia surface mines are pending before the corps.
Chambers held that the corps violated the Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act when it issued permits for Penn Virginia's Nellis surface mine and Consol's Ike Fork mines. He ruled that public notices for the permits failed to provide a clear understanding of the nature and magnitude of the mines or allow the public to be involved sufficiently in the permitting process.
Chambers ordered the corps to correct the problem with the permits, though he allowed both companies to continue "limited" mining for 60 days.
"The Court realizes that the procedural flaw identified by Plaintiffs did not stem from any wrong-doing on the part of the mining companies," Chambers wrote.
Click Title or Link to whole:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilNqXcMDBLf-ayRrvcQm9sSC04hgD9C66B9G0
Friday, November 20, 2009
Pa. Residents Sue Gas Driller for Contamination, Health Concerns
by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica -
November 20, 2009 10:00 am EST
Dimock resident Julie Sautner, seen here in her basement with her water filtration system, flushed her toilet one day to find a rush of earth-brown water.
Tests showed her drinking water was high in aluminum, iron and methane.
She is now part of a lawsuit against driller Cabot Oil and Gas. (Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica)Pennsylvania residents whose streams and fields have been damaged by toxic spills and whose drinking water has allegedly been contaminated [1] by drilling for natural gas are suing the Houston-based energy company that drilled the wells. A worker at the company is among the 15 families bringing suit.
The civil case, filed Thursday in U.S District Court in Scranton, Pa., seeks to stop future drilling in the Marcellus Shale by Cabot Oil and Gas near the town of Dimock. It also seeks to set up a trust fund to cover medical treatment for residents who say they have been sickened by pollutants. Health problems listed in the complaint include neurological and gastrointestinal illnesses; the complaint also alleges that at least one person's blood tests show toxic levels of the same metals found in the contaminated water.
The suit alleges that Cabot allowed methane [2] and metals to seep into drinking water wells, failed to uphold terms of its contracts with landowners, and acted fraudulently when it said that the drilling process, including the chemicals used in the underground manipulation process called hydraulic fracturing [3], could not contaminate groundwater and posed no harm to the people who live there.
"We've been lied to, we've been pushed around, and enough is enough," said Julie Sautner, whose drinking water began showing high levels of methane, iron and aluminum in February and who is receiving fresh water deliveries from Cabot. "We need to push back."
Ely's relatives, who have lived in Dimock for generations, own several properties where Cabot has wells. In January a well at the home of Michael Ely, one of Nolan Ely's relatives who is also part of the lawsuit, caught fire after methane leaked underground into the water supply. At the top of the hill near Michael Ely's home is Cabot's Ely 6H well, which is among the most productive horizontal wells drilled in the Marcellus Shale. Cabot has touted Ely 6H as being one of the company's most profitable.
Click Title or Link to whole:
http://www.propublica.org/feature/pa-residents-sue-gas-driller-for-contamination-health-concerns-1120
November 20, 2009 10:00 am EST
Dimock resident Julie Sautner, seen here in her basement with her water filtration system, flushed her toilet one day to find a rush of earth-brown water.
Tests showed her drinking water was high in aluminum, iron and methane.
She is now part of a lawsuit against driller Cabot Oil and Gas. (Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica)Pennsylvania residents whose streams and fields have been damaged by toxic spills and whose drinking water has allegedly been contaminated [1] by drilling for natural gas are suing the Houston-based energy company that drilled the wells. A worker at the company is among the 15 families bringing suit.
The civil case, filed Thursday in U.S District Court in Scranton, Pa., seeks to stop future drilling in the Marcellus Shale by Cabot Oil and Gas near the town of Dimock. It also seeks to set up a trust fund to cover medical treatment for residents who say they have been sickened by pollutants. Health problems listed in the complaint include neurological and gastrointestinal illnesses; the complaint also alleges that at least one person's blood tests show toxic levels of the same metals found in the contaminated water.
The suit alleges that Cabot allowed methane [2] and metals to seep into drinking water wells, failed to uphold terms of its contracts with landowners, and acted fraudulently when it said that the drilling process, including the chemicals used in the underground manipulation process called hydraulic fracturing [3], could not contaminate groundwater and posed no harm to the people who live there.
"We've been lied to, we've been pushed around, and enough is enough," said Julie Sautner, whose drinking water began showing high levels of methane, iron and aluminum in February and who is receiving fresh water deliveries from Cabot. "We need to push back."
Ely's relatives, who have lived in Dimock for generations, own several properties where Cabot has wells. In January a well at the home of Michael Ely, one of Nolan Ely's relatives who is also part of the lawsuit, caught fire after methane leaked underground into the water supply. At the top of the hill near Michael Ely's home is Cabot's Ely 6H well, which is among the most productive horizontal wells drilled in the Marcellus Shale. Cabot has touted Ely 6H as being one of the company's most profitable.
Click Title or Link to whole:
http://www.propublica.org/feature/pa-residents-sue-gas-driller-for-contamination-health-concerns-1120
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Lawsuit Challenges Uranium Mine That Threatens Water and Wildlife of the Grand Canyon
Comment: People of Virginia, please take notes of the lawsuit for future reference of proposed uranium mining’s throughout Virginia!
For Immediate Release, November 16, 2009
Contacts: Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust, (928) 774-7488
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, (602) 999-5790
Lawsuit Challenges Uranium Mine That Threatens Water and Wildlife of the Grand Canyon
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz.— Today the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, and Sierra Club filed suit in an Arizona federal court challenging the Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the restart of a defunct uranium mine just north of Grand Canyon National Park.
The conservation groups are suing over the Bureau’s failure to update 1980s-era environmental reviews and mining plans prior to allowing Denison Mines Corporation to begin mining at the “Arizona 1” mine. The mine was partially constructed in the late 1980s and early 1990s but was closed due to market conditions in 1992 without producing any uranium ore.
The Bureau of Land Management did not respond to a September legal notice from conservation groups urging the agency to correct course in order to avoid today’s litigation. The mine is within the same area that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar placed off-limits to new mining claims and operations in an order issued in July of this year.
Today’s suit cites violations of National Environmental Policy Act provisions that require the land-management agency to consider new information regarding the hydrology, spring ecology, and biodiversity of the area in order to accurately evaluate the impacts of the mine.
An update to an outdated 1988 environmental assessment, as well as a more thorough analysis, is warranted given new information, circumstances, and public controversy about renewed uranium mining near Grand Canyon.
The suit also cites violations of the Endangered Species Act in the federal government’s failure to ensure that new mining will not jeopardize threatened and endangered species or their critical habitat — including Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, razorback sucker, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Mexican spotted owl.
“The Bureau of Land Management’s refusal to redo outdated environmental reviews is as illegal as it is unethical,” said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It should be eager to protect the Grand Canyon and its endangered species; instead, it has chosen to shirk environmental review on behalf of the uranium industry.”
The suit also cites violations of mining laws and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act over the agency’s failure to require validity exams for the mine’s claims and a new plan of operations for the mine; the old plan expired with the mine’s 1992 closure. The Interior Department’s July 2009 one-million-acre land segregation order, now in force, and its proposed 20-year mineral withdrawal prohibit new mining claims and the exploration and mining of existing claims for which valid existing rights have not been established. Although the Arizona 1 mine falls within the segregation boundary, valid rights have not been established for the mine’s claims.
“Arizona 1’s original mine owners went bankrupt and thus never established an economically viable uranium deposit required to establish a valid and existing right,” noted Roger Clark with the Grand Canyon Trust. “It’s time for the BLM to serve the public interest by complying with the law.”
“The Grand Canyon, other public lands, and native peoples are still suffering from the impacts of past uranium mining activities,” said Sandy Bahr, chapter director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “We need to ensure that we do not repeat that history and allow harm to one of our nation’s treasures or to the millions of people who enjoy the lands and rely on the water.”
Attorneys representing the plaintiff groups in today’s litigation are Amy Atwood of the Center for Biological Diversity, Neil Levine of Grand Canyon Trust, and Roger Flynn of the Western Mining Action Project.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/uranium-mining-11-16-2009.html
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sheep Mountain files suit against uranium mill approval
Comment: No to Uranium Mining and Milling!
Attorney: ‘The only people who seem to think a uranium mill and a uranium mine are the same thing are the county commissioners and county staff.’
By Matthew Beaudin,Editor
Published: Sunday, November 8, 2009 8:09 AM CST
After garnering a Montrose County approval heavy with conditions and contention, an energy company now faces another challenge: A local environmental group fired a legal salvo disputing that permit and how it was obtained.
Sheep Mountain Alliance, a local environmental group, recently filed a lawsuit against the Montrose County Commissioners and its land use director, alleging a hopscotch of missteps in the board’s approval of a uranium mill to be built six miles outside of Paradox, Colo.
The problems in the approval, they say, are far-reaching and systemic: At the heart of the matter is the notion that a uranium mill — heavy in both regulation and stigma — could be plopped down in the middle of the lofty and stark Paradox Valley, which is zoned for agricultural uses.
The complaint alleges inappropriate meetings, abuses of discretion when approving a special use permit for Energy Fuels Inc., the company hoping to build the mill, and more.
Historically, the area in the west ends of Montrose and San Miguel counties belongs to mining; ore from the area went toward the Manhattan Project and the culture of mining is the very stitching of communities like Nucla and Naturita.
But: “Economic activity regarding uranium mining and milling has not played a significant role in the region’s economy over the past 30 years, except the economic activity generated by several uranium mill closures and decontamination projects carried out…” the complaint, filed in Montrose County District Court, reads. “Unlike the San Miguel River Valley where Nucla and Naturita are located, there has never been a uranium mill in the Paradox Valley.”
Montrose County Attorney Bob Hill said the county hadn’t yet been served with the suit and wouldn’t comment on any accusations therein.
“It’s relatively narrow, but it does focus in on sort of the issues that do run throughout their process and their approval,” said Travis Stills, an attorney at the Energy Minerals Law Center who is working on behalf of SMA.
Flatly, he said the land’s zoning “doesn’t have room for an industrial facility with toxic, hazardous emissions and a permanent waste facility.”
And, he says, the Montrose commissioners acted outside of their authority when issuing the special use permit.
The crux of the debate may hinge on the differences in mining, which is permitted on agricultural land, and milling.
“A mill and a mine are radically different,” Stills said. “You start into a very heavy industrial process [with a mill].” Uranium mills, unlike some other processing sites, have their own special sets of regulations and oversight.
“The only people who seem to think a uranium mill and a uranium mine are the same thing are the county commissioners and county staff,” Stills said.
The issue now finds itself in the badminton of land use disputes, with Montrose County expected to reply in the near future.
The suit asks the process begin anew.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2009/11/08/news/doc4af633c7777f0169999327.txt
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Pennsylvania Town Fights Big Coal on Mining Rights
Attilia Shumaker, an environmental activist, stands on the porch of an abandoned house that she said was abandoned because coal mining caused the land beneath it to shift, cracking the house's foundation and basement in Blaine Township, Pennsylvania May 12, 2009.Comment: Good Luck to the PA community in fighting Corporate Greed! Virginia needs to ban uranium mining and milling now! In addition, open pit mining is blasting, so fly rock and tremors will cause foundation problems around the uranium site. In addition, the blasting will disrupt the wells and ponds in the area.
Published on Monday, June 15, 2009 by Reuters
by Jon Hurdle
TAYLORSTOWN, Pennsylvania - A small Pennsylvania town is trying to ban coal mining in a battle being played out across the state as rural communities try to assert control over mining, gas drilling and other businesses.
Attilia Shumaker, an environmental activist, stands on the porch of an abandoned house that she said was abandoned because coal mining caused the land beneath it to shift, cracking the house's foundation and basement in Blaine Township, Pennsylvania May 12, 2009.
A small Pennsylvania town is trying to ban coal mining in a battle being played out across the state as rural communities try to assert control over mining, gas drilling and other businesses. Blaine Township, a community of 600 about 40 miles (65 km) southwest of Pittsburgh, hopes to trigger a legal battle that could determine the rights of municipalities throughout the United States to control corporate activity.
Blaine Township, a community of 600 about 40 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, hopes to trigger a legal battle that could determine the rights of municipalities throughout the United States to control corporate activity.
Some legal experts say the township is highly unlikely to win that fight. For now the dispute is in federal district court, where major energy companies have sued the township over three ordinances that would ban coal mining and require companies in any business to disclose their activities to local officials.
Penn Ridge Coal LLC, a unit of Alliance Resource Partners, and Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co., a unit of Allegheny Energy, say Blaine's laws violate their corporate rights.
The companies say the ordinances would prevent them from mining 10.6 million tons of recoverable coal beneath the township -- enough to supply electricity for 2 million people for a year.
The township has gone further than any of the 120 U.S. municipalities -- most of them in Pennsylvania -- that have passed ordinances to curb corporate activity such as factory farming or spreading sewage sludge, said its lawyer, Tom Linzey of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund [1].
Of three townships sued by corporations over their ordinances, only Blaine has refused to back down, Linzey said.
Elsewhere in Pennsylvania, towns are resisting efforts by energy companies to extract natural gas from the massive Marcellus Shale formation amid fears that toxic chemicals used in drilling are contaminating ground water and endangering human health.
CREEKS DIVERTED
In Blaine, residents are seeking to prevent coal mining -- which they expect to begin there in 2011 -- because they fear it will ruin their houses and disrupt water supplies, as they say it has in surrounding areas.
They want to block longwall mining, a technique that rips tons of coal from underground without putting anything in its place, causing the land above to sag. The practice, which has been used in coal-rich southwest Pennsylvania since the 1970s, has cracked the walls, roofs and basements of homes and opened fissures in the land, diverting or draining creeks and ponds.
In neighboring Morris Township, Tammy Bowman pointed to a pile of broken wood and concrete -- all that's left of an outbuilding she said was destroyed by shifting ground from mining beneath her 19th century farmhouse.
"It just started to drop and drop," she said. "It got so bad, you couldn't even walk in the door."
One section of her house is held up with mechanical jacks.
Near the village of Graysville, the 62-acre (25-hectare) Duke Lake, once used for fishing and boating, now sits empty after the shifting ground opened a crack in its retaining wall, environmentalists say.
Blaine's three ordinances, passed in 2006, 2007 and 2008, also assert that communities have a right under the U.S. Constitution to control business within their boundaries and that corporations do not have constitutional rights as "persons" to sue municipalities for passing laws that would hurt corporate interests.
"This illegitimate bestowal of civil and political rights upon corporations prevents the administration of laws within Blaine Township and usurps basic human and constitutional rights guaranteed to the people of Blaine Township," says the township's Corporate Rights Ordinance of 2006.
To implement the ordinances, township supervisors are now campaigning for "home rule," a legal code that transfers some powers from state to local control and is commonly used to raise taxes or increase the number of supervisors on a board.
ESTABLISHING HOME RULE
Blaine supervisors want to use home rule to establish what they say is the township's constitutional right to control corporate activity. Voters on May 19 approved a plan to set up a commission to study the proposal and recommend whether to adopt it.
A third lawsuit has been brought by Range Resources, a natural gas company, asking the court to invalidate Blaine's demand that corporations disclose their activities.
Penn Ridge Coal and Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal are asking U.S. Judge Donetta Ambrose of the Western District of Pennsylvania to declare Blaine's ordinances invalid and unenforceable.
In April, Judge Ambrose denied the township's motion to dismiss the case. She is expected to rule late this year.
Linzey predicted the case will eventually go to the U.S. Supreme Court because it pits energy companies who want to exploit one of America's richest coal seams against residents who are determined to resist what they see as rapacious mining.
He conceded the court is unlikely to overturn more than 100 years of established law that gives corporations rights as "persons" under the constitution, but he said the expected outcome would become a springboard for a popular campaign for a constitutional amendment to strip corporations of those rights.
Blaine's supervisors said they want to establish a principle of local self-government that will inspire other communities.
"Who dictates how we are going to live here?" asked Board spokesman Michael Vacca. "Should it not be us?"
(Editing by Daniel Trotta and Cynthia Osterman)
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/15-1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
