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

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

NRC to discuss apparent Babcock & Wilcox violations today

By Bryan Gentry
Published: November 6, 2009

Today federal regulators will meet with Babcock & Wilcox Company officials to discuss “apparent violations” surrounding an event at the company’s Mt. Athos facility in July.

The event involved the discovery of uranium in a reservoir where it was unexpected, where there were no procedures for making sure it was safe.

Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/business/local/article/nrc_to_discuss_apparent_babcock_wilcox_violations_today/21126/

Uranium hopefuls trim plans

By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER
Star-Tribune energy reporter
Monday, May 11, 2009 2:04 AM MDT

A few prospective uranium mine developments across the West and in Wyoming have lost their glow since spot prices for the mineral tumbled to about $40 per pound, down from a radioactive high of $150 in 2007.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has tracked more than two dozen proposed mine start-ups and restarts in recent years and has already received five new applications. But with the downturn in the economy and the wallowing spot price for uranium, the agency recently asked prospective developers to restate their hope for the future.

“Companies were asked to submit revised plans to the NRC. Some projects have been delayed, some dropped off,” said Bill von Till, branch chief of NRC’s uranium recovery licensing branch.

The NRC said projects no longer under consideration include:

* Strathmore Minerals Corp.’s “Sky” and “Reno Creek” in-situ leach projects and the “Gas Hills” conventional mine proposal, all in Wyoming.

* The addition of a resin elution circuit at Rio Tinto’s Sweetwater conventional mill, which has remained idle for several years in south-central Wyoming.

* Rio Algom’s restart of the Abrosia Lake conventional mill in New Mexico.

* Bayswater Uranium Corp.’s “Alzada” in-situ leach project in Montana.

The uranium mining industry mounted a comeback several years ago, dusting off land records and geologic mapping of ore deposits from the 1970s and 1980s in preparation to launch more than 20 in-situ leach mine operations across the West -- most of them in Wyoming.

So far, the NRC has already received applications for five such operations. Based on updated letters from prospective operators, the agency expects to receive an additional 15 applications by 2012.

“The downturn in the economy has had some effect,” von Till said.

Yet uranium hopefuls are still planning for an invigorated energy market in the long term. Bayswater Uranium Corp. spokesman John Gomez said his company will retain its interest in the Alzada project, for example, and has since acquired a large database of drilling logs in the area so the project can be revisited when the market recovers.

Bayswater continues to compile resource data for another in-situ leach project, Elkhorn in northeast Wyoming.

In response to the wide interest in new in-situ leach uranium mining, the NRC is preparing a generic environmental impact statement. The NRC expects to issue the final document in June, which will initiate another public comment period.



Contact energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer at 307-577-6069 or {M7dustin.bleizeffer@trib.com. Read his blog at tribtown.trib.com/DustinBleizeffer/blog.





BREAKOUT

Wyoming uranium proposals

(As of March)



Uranerz Energy Corp.

* Main Wyoming properties: Powder River Basin

* Mine type: In-situ

* Projected number of employees: between 65 and 80



Uranium One/Energy Metals Corp.

* Main Wyoming properties: Powder River Basin, Sheep Mountain, Shirley Basin, greater Green River Basin

* Mine type: Mostly in-situ, and some conventional

* Projected number of employees: 200



Strathmore Minerals Corp.

* Main Wyoming properties; Powder River Basin, Gas Hills

* Type of mining; Conventional, in-situ



Ur-Energy Inc.

* Main Wyoming properties: Powder River Basin, Crook County

* Type of mining: In-situ

* Employees: 10 now, 60-80 when fully operational.



COGEMA Mining Co., subsidiary of international uranium companies AREVA NP Inc. and Electricity de France

* Main Wyoming properties: Powder River Basin, Christensen Ranch mine

* Type of mining: In-situ

Wyo uranium in operation

Cameco Corp.

* Main Wyoming properties: Powder River Basin

* Type of mining: In-situ

* Employees: 140

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/05/12/news/wyoming/989283f63512d850872575b20020f8e0.txt