Government Study: Elevated Uranium Levels in Grand Canyon's Watershed

Grand Canyon:  No to uranium mining!

For Immediate Release, February 18, 2010

Contact: Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, (602) 999-5790
Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust, (928) 774-7466

Exploration and Mining Sites Consistently Exceed Background Levels

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK— A series of studies released today by the United States Geological Survey show elevated uranium levels in wells, springs, and soil in and around uranium exploration and mining sites within the watershed feeding Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River. The agency conducted the monitoring to provide information for an environmental impact statement that is analyzing a proposed 20-year mineral withdrawal that would protect nearly 1 million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park from future mining activities.

“These reports demonstrate unequivocally that uranium mining should not proceed in these environmentally sensitive lands,” said Stacey Hamburg of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “Contaminated lands and waters around the Grand Canyon are not what we want for the future of northern Arizona. Cleaning up contaminated sites should be the government’s first priority.”

Elevated uranium levels consistently exceed natural background levels in and around exploration and old mining sites – sometimes, as in the case of the Kanab North mine, by as much as 10 times.

Elevated uranium levels were also detected near the old “Hack” uranium-mine complex, which the Bureau of Land Management actively promotes on its Web site as a model of good mine reclamation. Reclaimed in the 1980s, the mines are located in Hack Canyon, a tributary to Kanab Creek and the Grand Canyon and Colorado River.

Uranium mining has already contaminated lands and waters in and around Grand Canyon, and today’s research confirms that new uranium mining would threaten aquifers that feed Grand Canyon’s springs, the Colorado River, and nearly 100 species of concern,” said Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity. “These risks aren’t worth taking – and they’re risks neither the government nor industry can guarantee against.”

Elevated uranium levels were also detected at another nearby old mine that the Bureau has said it will allow to reopen without updating 1980s-era federal environmental reviews. The first such opening, of Denison Mines’ Arizona 1 mine, provoked a lawsuit in November from conservation groups seeking updated reviews.

Fifteen springs and five wells exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water; hydrogeologists have warned that new mining could deplete and pollute water in aquifers and connected springs. Today’s report concludes that: “Uranium mining within the watershed may increase the amount of radioactive materials and heavy metals in the surface water and groundwater flowing into Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River, and deep mining activities may increase mobilization of uranium through the rock strata into the aquifers. In addition, waste rock and ore from mined areas may be transported away from the mines by wind and runoff.”

“The USGS research confirms that mining uranium within Grand Canyon watersheds risks permanently polluting waning water supplies for 25 million people and arid ecosystems. There are some places where mining should not occur, and the Grand Canyon is one of them,” said Roger Clark of the Grand Canyon Trust.

Last week 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 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” (see Obama’s Freedom of Information Act memo to federal agencies here).

All of today’s reports can be downloaded here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5025/

Summary of Research Findings (From USGS)

• The area proposed for withdrawal is estimated to contain about 163,000 tons (about 326 million pounds) of uranium oxide (U3O8), which is about 12 percent of the estimated total undiscovered uranium in northern Arizona (1.3 million tons or 2.6 billion pounds). For comparison, the United States consumes about 27,550 tons (55 million pounds) of uranium oxide each year in its reactors; most of it comes from Canada, Australia, and Russia.
• Soil and sediment samples were analyzed for six sites that experienced various levels of uranium mining in Kanab Creek area north of Grand Canyon National Park, including mined and reclaimed sites, mined sites currently on standby, and sites that were exploratory drilled but not mined. Uranium and arsenic were two elements consistently detected in the areas disturbed by mining in values above natural background levels.
• Analysis of historical water-quality data for more than 1,000 water samples from 428 sites in northern Arizona shows that dissolved uranium concentrations in areas without mining were generally similar to those with active or reclaimed mines. Sixty-six percent of the sampled sites showed low dissolved uranium concentrations (less than 5 parts per billion). Ninety-five percent of the sampled sites had dissolved uranium levels of less than 30 parts per billion, the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water.
• Samples from 15 springs and 5 wells exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water. These springs and wells are close to or in direct contact with mineralized ore bodies, and concentration levels are related to natural processes, mining, or a combination of both factors.
• Almost 100 plants and animals identified by the State of Arizona or other land managers as species of concern inhabit the area proposed for withdrawal. Because uranium and its byproducts such as radon can affect survival, growth, and reproduction of plants and animals, USGS scientists identified exposure pathways (for example, ingestion or inhalation) for these species of concern.

Read more:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/grand-canyon-02-19-2010.html

More groups join protest of uranium mill

In the Paradox Valley, a question of water

By Matthew Beaudin
Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uranium contamination from Kakadu mine 5,400 times background levels – water contaminated

Comment:  Modern uranium mining at work and when the miners says uranium mining is safe, do not believe them!  No to uranium mining and milling!

February 9, 2010
tony serve

Environmental regulators for the office of the Supervising Scientist admitted to a Senate Estimates committee today that water with uranium concentrations

5400 times background and a cocktail of other radionuclides are seeping from beneath the tailings dam at the Ranger Uranium Mine in Kakadu National Park.

The Office of the Supervising Scientist acknowledged to Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam that the contamination was occurring, and said that the estimated amount of 100,000 litres per day was based on modelling and not measurement.

"The biggest surprise is that despite knowing about this leakage for years, the regulators don’t know how much is seeping, where it is going, or how highly contaminated it is.

The regulator suggested that directly sampling this contaminated water would be ‘impractical.’ I suggest that it is now essential."

"The regulator also admitted it would be impossible to completely rehabilitate the site, suggesting instead it would be cleaned up to some undefined ‘reasonable’ standard.

"The mining company ERA booked a 2009 profit in excess of $270 million dollars, and yet the regulator won’t compel them to undertake any water quality sampling under the tailings dam. That has to change."

Note: Uranium is only one of a number of radioactive elements present in the tailings dam – a more complete list is shown below.

Symbol Element Radiation Half-Life Decay Product
U-238 Uranium-238 alpha 4,460,000,000 years Th-234
Th-234 Thorium-234 beta 24.1 days Pa-234
Pa-234 Protactinium-234 beta 1.17 minutes U-234
U-234 Uranium-234 alpha 247,000 years Th-230
Th-230 Thorium-230 alpha 80,000 years Ra-226
Ra-226 Radium-226 alpha 1,602 years Rn-222
Rn-222 Radon-222 alpha 3.82 days Po-218
Po-218 Polonium-218 alpha 3.05 minutes Pb-214
Pb-214 Lead-214 beta 27 minutes Bi-214
Bi-214 Bismuth-214 beta 19.7 minutes Po-214
Po-214 Polonium-214 alpha 1 microsecond Pb-210
Pb-210 Lead-210 beta 22.3 years Bi-210
Bi-210 Bismuth-210 beta 5.01 days Po-210
Po-210 Polonium-210 alpha 138.4 days Pb-206
Pb-206 Lead-206 none stable (none)

Based on process water uranium concentrations of 27,000 parts per billion compared to 3-5 parts per billion in Coonjimba Billabong

Fernando de Freitas
Media Advisor
Office of Scott Ludlam & Rachel Siewert
Australian Greens Senators for Western Australia
Suite S1.36 Parliament House, Canberra ACT
P: 02 6277 3467
Fernando.defreitas

Read more:
http://tonyserve.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/uranium-contamination-from-kakadu-mine-5400-times-background-levels-water-contaminated/

‘Hot’ drinking water near uranium mine in Brazil

Comment: Yeah, the nukes and uranium mining corporations always says, "Not my fault, prove it!" Well, it seems strange that the wells were fined before uranium mining or drilling takes place and the wells are tested after the mining or drilling and the water has high concentration of uranium or lead. Remember, most countries, states and the federal governments make monies from mining so when the government tells you, it is naturally occurring uranium, they are not telling us the truth!

 In October 2008, Greenpeace published data showing that drinking water around the Caetité uranium mine in the state of Bahia, Brazil was contaminated with uranium levels up to seven times higher than the World Health Organisation’s recommendations.

The Bahia Institute of Water Management and Climate (Ingá) opened its own investigation in the matter. In November 2009 they suspended the use of water from six wells preventively, because radioactivity in the wells was found to be above allowed limits.

On 21 January 2010, Ingá and the Department of Health of Bahia notified local authorities in Caetité that another three wells need to be closed, and clean water should be supplied to the local community.

Radioactivity was again found to be too high.

Greenpeace went to the uranium mining area yesterday, and discovered that the wells had not been closed yet. The mining company INB (Industrias Nucleares Brasileiras) as well as the Brazilian nuclear regulator CNEN (note: also shareholder of the mining company (!)) shamelessly claim the Ingá results to be false…

Greenpeace offered a bottle of water from one of the contaminated wells to the Secretary of the Water Resources, the local body responsible for the supply of safe drinking water. Surprisingly, Mr. Nilo Joaquim de Azevedo did not drink the water labelled “INB water: deadly delicious”….

INB claims that even if the water is indeed contaminated, this would not be caused by the uranium mining. Indeed, naturally present uranium could cause raised levels of contamination in ground water. Théy should do regular checks of the drinking water used by surrounding communities. Théy should warn the population if the water contains unsafe levels of uranium!

But INB has so far denied there is a problem. The Bahia Water Agency Ingá clearly disagrees.

Why do nuclear companies always start by denying there is a problem when there is a problem, only admitting it when there is a lot of pressure hoping the issue is already forgotten?

For years AREVA denied the problems in Niger and now in Brazil! With such track record do they really expect us to believe anything they say?

Read more:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2010/01/hot_drinking_water_near_uraniu.html

Nailed: EPA finally ties toxic water to old mine (Uranium)

Comment: Looks so pretty, an old copper mine leaking uranium and other bad minerals into people's water supply! Will this be Virginia's future with uranium mining ruining our wells, it may be happening now with the uranium drilling holes!

BP, which acquired the Nevada site, now acknowledges some impact

updated 4:54 p.m. ET, Sat.,

Nov . 21, 2009

YERINGTON, Nev. - Peggy Pauly lives in a robin-egg blue, two-story house not far from acres of onion fields that make the northern Nevada air smell sweet at harvest time.

But she can look through the window from her kitchen table, just past her backyard with its swingset and pet llama, and see an ominous sign on a neighboring fence: "Danger: Uranium Mine."

For almost a decade, people who make their homes in this rural community in the Mason Valley 65 miles southeast of Reno have blamed that enormous abandoned mine for the high levels of uranium in their water wells.

They say they have been met by a stone wall from state regulators, local politicians and the huge oil company that inherited the toxic site — BP. Those interests have insisted uranium naturally occurs in the region's soil and there's no way to prove that a half-century of processing metals at the former Anaconda pit mine is responsible for the contamination.

That has changed. A new wave of testing by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that 79 percent of the wells tested north of the World War II-era copper mine have dangerous levels of uranium or arsenic or both that make the water unsafe to drink.

And, more importantly to the neighbors, that the source of the pollution is a groundwater plume that has slowly migrated from the six-square-mile mine site.

The new samples likely never would have been taken if not for a whistleblower, a preacher's wife, a tribal consultant and some stubborn government scientists who finally helped crack the toxic mystery that has plagued this rural mining and farming community for decades.

"They have completely ruined the groundwater out here," said Pauly, the wife of a local pastor and mother of two girls who organized a community action group five years to seek the truth about the pollution.

"It almost sounds like we are happy the contamination has moved off the site," she said. "But what we are happy about is ... they have enough data to now answer our questions."

"Prior to this, we didn't really have an understanding of where water was moving," said Steve Acree, a highly regarded hydrogeologist for the EPA in Oklahoma, who was brought in to examine the test results. "My interpretation at this stage of the process is yes, you now have evidence of mine-impacted groundwater."

100 times above standard at mine site

The tests found levels of uranium more than 10 times the legal drinking water standard in one monitoring well a half mile north of the mine. Though the health effects of specific levels are not well understood, the EPA says long-term exposure to high levels of uranium in drinking water may cause cancer and damage kidneys.

At the mine itself, wells tested as high as 3.4 miligrams per liter — more than 100 times the standard. That's in an area where ore was processed with sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals in unlined ponds.


She said the new evidence doesn't change the state's opposition to Superfund listing. Nevada has a long tradition of supporting mining and now produces more gold than anywhere in the world except China, South Africa and Australia.

Copper first was discovered around Yerington in 1865. Anaconda bought the property in 1941 and — fueled by demand after World War II — produced nearly 1.75 billion pounds of copper from 1952-78.

A mineral firm launched a then-secret plan to produce yellowcake uranium from the mine's waste piles in the 1970s. An engineer reported in 1976 that they weren't finding as much uranium as anticipated in the processing ponds. "Where could it be now?" he wrote. "Should we continue to look for it?"

Had they continued the search outside the processing area, Wyoming Mineral Corp. likely would have detected the movement of the contamination. But the market for uranium dipped and the company scuttled the venture.

Pauly never suspected the mine was leaking contamination when she and her husband finished building their home in 1990. They drank water from their well until 2003 — and used it to mix formula for a baby from 1996-98 — before becoming suspicious as rumors swirled about the contaminated mine.

"Everybody said it was fine," she said. "Legally they didn't have to disclose anything because technically there was nothing definitive then that showed the contamination was moving off the site."

BP acknowledges 'an impact'

BP and Atlantic Richfield, which bought Anaconda Copper Co. in 1978, have stopped claiming there is no evidence the mine caused any contamination, but they aren't conceding anything about how much.

So who will pay for the cleanup?

"That is the million-dollar question," Dixon said. "Every Superfund site needs an advocate or two or three and in my view there are none for Yerington except for Peggy Pauly."

Regardless of who pays, Acree said, it likely will take decades to clean up.

Click Title or Link to whole:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34081733/ns/us_news-environment/

King Coal: Wise Monarch or Cruel and Ruthless Despot?

Comment:  Why does our government allow this to happen to her people?  Greed, pure greed!  Most of the Mt. Top Removal is shipped overseas! 

by LJFurman on November 12, 2009

According to Mortality Rates in Appalachian Coal Mining Counties: 24 Years Behind the Nation, by Michael Hendryx, of the Department of Community Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, http://www.sludgesafety.org/health/Mortality_Coal.pdf,

mortality is 10.21 % higher in Appalachia than elsewhere in the US, and 18.45 % higher in in coal mining counties where 4 million tons or more of coal are mined. (See also Coal Tattoo.)

Part of the problem is poverty, lack of education, smoking, and other factors, but these are all related to the coal economy.

This “may reflect the unique relationship of mining activity to topography and population centers characteristic of Appalachia. ... Coal contains mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, manganese, beryllium, chromium, and many other toxic and carcinogenic substances and the mining and preparation of coal at local processing sites releases tons of annual ambient particulate matter and contaminates billions of gallons of water.”

In another study, “with co-author Melissa Ahern of Washington State University, Hendryx reports that the coal industry generates a little more than $8 billion a year in economic benefits for the Appalachian region.

But, Hendryx and Ahern put the value of premature deaths attributable to the mining industry across the Appalachian coalfields at -- by one of their most conservative estimates -- $42 billion.

"The human cost of the Appalachian coal mining economy outweighs its economic benefits," they wrote. The costs are 5.25 times higher than the benefits. And that's only in terms of premature deaths. It doesn't discuss environmental degradation.

Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://popularlogistics.com/2009/11/king-coal-wise-monarch-or-cruel-and-ruthless-despot/

Uranium dust a problem

Comment: Great Letter, Mr. Stanhope!  Please read comments after the letter. The nukes are blogging our papers when we write letters against uranium mining! Joffan is a nuke; just go on web and google his name. This blog thinks it is amazing that the nuke bunch feels so threaten by everyday normal people who just want to protect our homes against huge uranium corporations and expose the liars they tell! The nuke bunch feels so threaten that they have huge conferences to teach other little nukes how to debunk the anti-nuke people! No to uranium mining, No to nuke plants!

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 10:06 AM EST

Over the last 2 1/2 years I have been talking about the dust problem that would accompany the opening of an open-pit uranium mine in Pittsylvania County.

I have spoken about the low-level radioactive dust that would come with the blasting and the tailing piles.

(Low-level radiation accumulates in the body).

I have spoken to the supervisors probably a dozen times, with absolutely no results.

Phil Lovelace has spoken more often than I have about leakage of radioactive water from the holding ponds.

He also has received dumb looks from the supervisors.

In fact, one of them sometimes looks as if he is asleep.

In my opinion five of the supervisors have paid so little attention that it appears they work with Virginia Uranium.

On Sept. 25, 2009, Australian Broadcasting Corp. News ran a story on the dust problem that is now happening in South Australia.

From the area of and around the Olympic Dam Uranium Mine Site, dust is blowing for several hundred miles.

There is some low-level radioactive material in this dust.

If we allow a mine what will stop us from having the same problem?

On March 15, 2009, Northwest Territory Government (Australia) spoke to the mining company ERA about the contaminated water leaking from the Ranger Uranium Mine's tailing pond.

Here at the Ranger Mine we are talking about 100,000 liters a day.

I believe this comes to about 25,000 gallons of contaminated water a day.

These are basically new mines with the latest technology.

This is not something from the past; this is today's technology and today's problem.

Hopefully this information will help get the people of this county to become more aware of what is happening elsewhere and stop "our" mine before it happens here.

George Stanhope
Chatham, VA

Board of directors
Southside Concerned Citizens


Comments:

jp andrews
wrote on Nov 6, 2009 7:07 AM:

" apparently "joffan" is another nuke employee, towing the radioactive company line, trying to
discredit anyone who raises concerns about an industry which has had one of the most disgraceful safety and environmental records of any industry since time began.

"joffan and his nuke peers talk down to those of us who have legitimate concerns about the dangers of uranium mining (which are thoroughly documented)as if we are children afraid of the boogie man. well, go to colorado or new mexico and ask the people living near uranium mines about that boogie man.

We who have real, hard questions about this ridiculous idea are not paid for our time or our efforts to stop uranium mining in virginia. when the nuke lovers can show us even ONE uranium mine that has been operated without destroying the environment for miles around it and causing cancer rates to spike up
in that area, then i might begin to lend them some creedence.

otherwise i see them as people who are afraid to tell their real names and who are in the pocket of coles or areva or some other corporation who will reap billions in profits from coles hill. i could hide behind some made up name as well, but i am not afraid to say what i think and sign my name to it. "

MaxTheDog
wrote on Nov 6, 2009 1:32 AM:

" Well, there are problems in Australia (and American West) not only with Dust but leakage with tailings ponds which are listed below!

Also review the fines of uranium mining and watch the film, Hard Rain about uranium mining!

Uranium mining will ruin America!

Please review the list below:

Dust is a concern in Australia:
Uranium mine told to address dust risks
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/25/2696047.htm

Leakage in Australia uranium mines and other mines:
Mine spill sparks call for farm talks (Australia)
Probe into uranium mine leak continues
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/20/2719474.htm

Waste leak site clean: BHP Billiton,
BHP Billiton says it has cleaned up the site of a radioactive waste leak at its Olympic Dam uranium mine in South Australia.

Uranium mine water leak concerning, govt says
About 100,000 litres of contaminated water is seeping from a tailings dam at the mine every day: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/15/2516584.htm

Uranium mine water leaking into Kakadu
Tens of thousands of litres of contaminated water is leaking into Kakadu National Park every day from the Ranger Uranium Mine (AAP: Tara Ravens):http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/13/2515907.htm

Cloncurry creek 'caustic' after mine leak,
Residents of the north-west Queensland community of Cloncurry are being warned to stay clear of a creek running through the town which has been contaminated by mine water:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/21/2576607.htm

Green group says Govt knew of radioactive leak:
Friends of the Earth says it has known about a radioactive leak at Olympic Dam for three months, but only released the information to the media yesterday:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/24/2524910.htm

Rio Tinto to be prosecuted for uranium disaster:http://www.minesandcommunities.org//article.php?a=7207&highlight=uranium,mining,fines

Environmental Problems and Violations Accumulate for Uranium Mining and Processing:
http://www.nunnglow.com/latest/violations-accumulate-for-uranium-isl-mining.html

Please watch the following film about the problems of uranium mining:
A Hard Rain (problems with nuclear power and uranium mining)

If you want vital and factual information to debate the issue intelligently and overthrow the myths that the nuclear and pro uranium mining lobby has so successfully implanted in the media:
http://www.frontlinefilms.com.au/videos/hardrain.htm "

Joffan
wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:58 PM:

" Dear Mr Stanhope
I applaud your willingness to keep citizen's oversight on industrial projects, but a number of your concerns about uranium mining are misplaced or just flat-out wrong.

Dust is an issue that needs control at any open-cast mining, but the radioactivity from a uranium mine is negligible, and your simple assertion that low-level radiation accumulates in the body is wrong.

Similarly tailing ponds need to be carefully controlled and maintained, but the concerns are general to all mines, with no special radioactive threat from uranium mines, despite the noises from anti-nuclear-power groups.

Your mention of dust storms in South Australia is a piece of deception. These are nothing to do with mining activity, at Olympic Dam or elsewhere. http://www.ga.gov.au/remote-sensing/basics/gallery/natural-disasters/dust-east-australia-2009.jsp
The characterization of Ranger is also disingenuous; the "leakage" is into the underlying rock, which is more of an exchange process, and the geophysics surveys determined that any contamination will remain localized.

Olympic Dam, principally a copper mine, opened in 1987. Ranger opened in 1980. While they use modern technology, I would not call either of them "new".

with regards. "

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/11/06/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

Uranium Mine Issue Is A Piece Of Cake

Comments: Thanks Karen for your reponse about the article and thanks to Mr. Swiggett for helping us fight the problems of uranium mining in Virginia!

I have spoken with Swiggett on several occasions. He seems the epitome of the "NO FEAR" bumper stickers we see on cars.

We applaud the courage and audacity of the athlete that goes the extra mile to win the game. Why can't we do the same when an individual goes to bat for our health and safety?

Swiggett is a businessperson and developer. He seems, as best I can tell, to have been reluctantly cast into the role of "whistleblower" having seen and experienced corruption first hand. Having accepted that role, he performs it with gusto.

He has guts enough to go to the Guilford County commissioners to try to bring public discussion on the prospect of uranium mining and milling 50 miles from Danville. As a businessperson, he knows that the mining/milling will may affect NC. He also knows that if mining/milling occur on the VA/NC line (the first mine and mill of this magnitude on the east coast) that NC will be likely to look for uranium mining opportunities as well. NC already has phosphate mining affecting the Albemarle Sound. If U mining is permitted @ Coles Hill, subsequent contamination will ultimately exacerbate those problems in NC.

U mining and milling will change the face of Virginia...Virginia is for lovers. Forget that logo. Virginia, can you dig it? Yes, you will be able to dig everywhere in VA. If the moratorium on mining uranium is lifted. Be careful buying your home.

Historic uranium leases are everywhere in Pittsylvania County, not just Coles Hill but Dry fork, Cascade, Gretna, Chatham...all could be open for purchase of mineral rights. What a perfect opportunity to make a few bucks and get the heck out of Dodge.

You can even sell your rights on the internet. Even the Danville Pittsylvania Regional Industrial Facilities Authority made sure it received the mineral rights of properties it bought at the site of the Berry Hill Mega Park. Are they going into the mining/milling business as well? Alternatively, perhaps they want to assure future tenants of the park that their industries will not have the ground dug from under them.

Instead of chastising Swiggett and his attempt to bring uranium mining and milling issues to the Guilford County commissioners, we should be asking ourselves here in Pittsylvania County, why have not we pressed our supervisors and Danville city council members to openly discuss the issue. Why have we allowed them to hide behind the veil of a bogus study?

In addition, folks call Swiggett crazy.

Karen

Fri, Oct 30, 2009 07:38 PM October 29, 2009 issue

Articles:

Uranium Mine Issue Is A Piece Of Cake

by Scott D. Yost
County Editor
October 29, 2009

This week the big topic in Guilford County government is whether or not the State of Virginia should allow uranium mining near Danville.

Well, actually the discussion among Guilford County commissioners and county officials is whether the Board of Commissioners should place the item on the agenda for its next meeting and hear a presentation about uranium mining just north of Danville – and the answer is … no.

The Waterfront Sportsman Movement, founded by Dale Swiggett, is attempting to get the commissioners to discuss a moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia and related topics for 45 minutes at its Thursday, Nov. 5 meeting. Right now, there seems to be only one man, Swiggett, pushing for the commissioners to hear the presentation, but that one man is trying really, really hard.

After several previous unsuccessful attempts to get the item on the agenda, Swiggett sent an angry email.

he email also went to just about every television, print or other media outlet from Winston-Salem to Asheville, and to way too many local and state elected officials to mention.

The email had 9 pages of attachments that included news stories of uranium mines contaminating water supplies in other parts of the world.

The gist of the email is that Swiggett is concerned uranium mining north of Danville will contaminate water in North Carolina including Guilford County's water supply.

Perkins said he had informed Swiggett that he could come speak for three minutes from the floor on any issue, as everyone is entitled to do.

The item will not be on the agenda at the Nov. 5 meeting, which will be held at High Point University. Perkins said that might not be the best setting for the discussion anyway. "It's a light agenda at a largely ceremonial meeting to honor High Point," Perkins said.

It should also be mentioned that no water in Guilford County's watershed comes from the Danville area.

Swiggett could not be reached because his voice mailbox is full and is not accepting new messages.

Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-i-2009-10-29-201309.112113_Uranium_Mine_Issue_Is_A_Piece_Of_Cake.html

Environmental expert not sold on mining technique

By Nate A. Miller,

Northern Colorado residents have a good reason to worry about the impact of a proposed uranium mine near Nunn, an environmental and mining expert said Tuesday.

“If I was living in this area, I would certainly have concerns about groundwater,” he said.

“Knowing the extent of problems they've had at mines in Wyoming and Texas, for example, I would certainly be concerned about protecting my groundwater quality,” Gavin Mudd said after a press conference Tuesday in Fort Collins.

Mudd holds a Ph.D in environmental engineering and is an assistant lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering at Monash University in Clayton, Australia.

Mudd's assessment was the highlight of a press conference and lecture Tuesday in Fort Collins put on by Environment Colorado, Clean Water Action, Sierra Club, Poudre Canyon Group and Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction (C.A.R.D.)., that focused on the effects of in-situ leach mining, a process in which a fluid is pumped into the ground to extract a mineral.

Mudd addressed questions in relation to an effort by Denver-based mining company Powertech Uranium Corp. to locate a controversial uranium mine near Nunn. The project, which would use in-situ leach mining, is still in the exploratory phase.

Powertech President and CEO Richard Clement said if he could he would gladly live next to the project.

“I would be very happy to live next to one of those things,” he said. “Believe me, if I could move the project next to my house in New Mexico I would be more than happy to live there. I've been around these projects 30 some-odd years. There are no concerns.”

Clement said long-standing experience with projects in Texas that were much closer to residential areas than would be the case in Nunn shows there would be no problems.

Mudd, who is traveling to Canada to present several papers on mining at a conference, said while he doesn't have an opinion on whether the project near Nunn should go forward, environmental concerns shouldn't be brushed aside easily.

“We often hear that in-situ leach mining is benign, it's fine, it's actually a low-impact method, and in some respects it is — and there's no doubt about that — but that doesn't mean that we should be treating our groundwater as a bit of a sacrifice zone,” he said.

New legislation — House Bill 1161 — regulating mining, which Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law last year, is a good start because it requires that ground water be returned to its original, or baseline condition, after mining is completed, Mudd said.

“There's one clause in there that I think is the most fundamental and that is groundwater must be restored to baseline conditions,” he said. “If we look at the evidence elsewhere, the evidence is not very clear that you can actually achieve that. And it's actually more in favor of the fact that you can't restore it to baseline.”

Clement said there is no reason groundwater can't be restored to its original condition.

“There's always a tradeoff of how much water is consumed versus how clean you make the water. You can make water into essentially distilled water by removing ions,” he said. “There's no reason why you can't achieve that. It's just going to take more water consumption to achieve that. It won't be significantly more, maybe 10 percent more than would normally be done under normal restoration conditions. It's more costly, but that's what the state of Colorado has decided to make the standard for restoration so consequently those are the standards that companies will meet.”


http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090819/NEWS/908199984/-1/rss06&template=printart
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090819/NEWS/908199984/-1/rss06

Udall Hearing Examines 1872 Mining Law; Pites Reid Against Salazar/Obama Admin.

Comment: The article is admitting that Hard Rock Mining ruins watersheds and provides toxic pollution according to EPA! WELL, WELL!

Friday, July 17, 2009
By David O. Williams
The Colorado Independent

Unlike oil and gas extraction, pulling hard-rock minerals like uranium, gold and copper out of the ground is a royalty-free proposition in the United States, despite the often enormous costs of cleaning up public lands after the fact.

The Environmental Protection Agency in a filing on Monday noted that hard-rock mining has impacted 40 percent of all western watersheds and that nationwide 28 percent of the toxic pollution generated in the United States comes from the mining industry –- the most of any sector. The EPA also concluded mining represents a major taxpayer burden because of cleanup costs.

The EPA filing was presented during a hearing Tuesday of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chaired by Colorado Sen. Mark Udall. Former Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, now Secretary of the Interior, testified the Obama administration wants to see the 1872 Mining Law reformed in the current Congress.

Mining reform legislation has been introduced in both the House and the Senate, and both versions would set up some sort of royalty structure for hard-rock mining on federal lands. The 137-year-old system of filing for relatively inexpensive and easy-to-acquire “patents” would be scrapped, and a fund would be set up to pay for massive cleanup efforts that for decades have been passed off to taxpayers when mining companies go bankrupt.

The Summitville gold mining disaster in Colorado, for instance, has cost taxpayers more than $200 million in cleanup costs. Reform advocates say the law passed in 1872 by the Grant administration was designed to encourage settlement of the West but is now antiquated and dangerous for the descendants of those settlers....(Rem

http://aliberals-hitlist.blogspot.com/2009/07/udall-hearing-examines-1872-mining-law.html

Lead levels OK in water near uranium deposit

Comment: Question, why did it take the Virginia Department of Health so long to test the water? They tested the water 6-7 months later and now the lead is gone. Water moves and the lead were washed down the stream. The leads level was up after the drilling of bore holes. According to local uranium company, they have plugged the holes. Now the Gross's water is okay which is good but this happen 7 months ago and it took the Virginia Department of Health, 7 months to check the water! Why, will it take the state of Virginia that long to test the rivers after a hurricane dumps 21 inches of rain on a uranium-tailing pond? Will it take the state of Virginia, 7 months to check on the open pit mining and the radon releases? Does this make us feel safe in Virginia for future uranium mining? NO! Demand the local leaders to ban uranium mining now!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:41 AM EDT

Allen Gross can drink his water again, but still wonders if exploratory drilling for uranium caused the lead that tainted his well.

After repeated pleas, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors voted in April to ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Virginia Department of Health to investigate high lead levels around the Coles Hill uranium deposit.

According to Gross, the health department took samples from his well on June 24. He received the results July 1.

The first test showed lead at 0.08 parts per billion. In the second, lead was "undetectable."

The maximum lead allowed for drinking water is 15 parts per billion.

Concerns about well testing around the uranium deposit, about six miles northeast of Chatham, were first raised in March.

Virginia Uranium Inc. was required to collect and test 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.

It also was required to monitor 15 locations in surrounding creeks and tributaries for heavy metals.

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 in the vicinity of Coles Hill.

More than 80 wells were voluntarily tested.

Gross, who lives on Motley Road, about a mile from Coles Hill, said when the first test was done in 2007 the lead in his well water was 2.8 ppb.

When the last test was done late last year, it had risen to 17.9.

Gross has been drinking bottled water since January.

Virginia Uranium said it is not responsible for high lead levels.

The company released the following statement:

"In response to media reports of concerns over lead levels in some residential wells in the general vicinity of the Coles Hill uranium deposit, we have reviewed the data and can state categorically that our permitted drilling activities have nothing to do with these lead levels."

"Wells with reported lead levels in the water are all in geologically and hydrologically isolated areas that are unaffected by activities conducted by our company.

"While none of the residential wells are located in a watershed that could be affected by our activities, the simple laws of gravity and hydrology preclude water running uphill - whether in the ground or on the surface - as it would have to do to reach these sites."

Virginia Uranium pointed out high lead levels may be caused by any number of possibilities, including household plumbing.

Gross is convinced Virginia Uranium's exploratory drilling contaminated his well and endangered his family's health.

"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 told supervisors Monday night.

"Maybe the good Lord is trying to show us all what will happen if we allow uranium mining and milling to come to our county," he said.

Gross urged supervisors to ban uranium.

"You can do it if you want to," he said.

Phillip Lovelace of Gretna agreed, calling the decision a "no-brainer."

"The guy's water was fine before the test drilling, and it got worse when they were drilling. How hard is that to see?" he said.

Lovelace urged supervisors to continue testing for heavy metals in water around the uranium deposit.

"Let's go to the bottom of it," he said. "Let's see where it came from."

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
434-432-2791

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/08/chatham/news/news50.txt

No hearing set on mine water dumping in Schuylkill

The Schuylkill River is at the center of a project that would see contaminated water from an upriver coal mine dumped into the river to supply water to the Limerick Generating Station.

Comment: Can you believe the article? They are making decisions about water that will benefit Corporate America and the health of the people is set aside! Remember the article when laws are made in Virginia to benefit the Canadian Uranium Corp that wants to mine uranium mining in all of Virginia!

By Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com

POTTSTOWN — Eight months after promising a Pottstown-area public hearing on a project in which contaminated water from an upriver coal mine is dumped into the Schuylkill to provide water for the Limerick nuclear power plant, there is still no date set for the hearing.

However, the Delaware River Basin Commission, which has oversight authority of the project, will be discussing the matter next month as part of its bi-annual review of the project, which is being pursued by Exelon Nuclear to benefit the Limerick Generating Station.

"We currently do not have a date yet for the public hearing," said DRBC spokeswoman Katherine O'Hara. She said the staff is continuing to work on analyzing the data collected over the last six years, and the last six months, in order to make a recommendation to the full commission.

"It's still going to happen," she said of the hearing.

She said the agency is cognizant of the need to make the final recommendation available to the public in plenty of time to make any public hearing on the issue worthwhile.

"We want to have it out to the public to give them plenty of time" to understand it and thus bring informed questions and comments to the hearing, she said.

The meeting set for July 29 in the agency's Trenton, N.J. headquarters is one of two held each year to discuss the latest data collected from the river and to share information among the DRBC, Exelon and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, which may also issue a recommendation in support or opposition to the project.

At the crux of the matter is water pumped from a Schuylkill County coal mine which, unlike water from many other Pennsylvania coal mines, is not acidic.

For the past six years, the water has been pumped from the Wadesville mine to augment the river's flows as a way to allow the power plant to draw more water from the Schuylkill, particularly during the summer months when flow is low.

Currently, when the water level in the Schuylkill drops too low, the plant must draw water from a series of pipelines and water flows in the Perkiomen Creek and Delaware River.

As part of its application, Exelon has agreed to make annual contributions to a watershed improvement fund that is based on the amount of water it has avoided pumping in from the Delaware.

Pottstown has become a focus for the project because the Pottstown Water Treatment plant in Stowe, 70 miles downstream from Wadesville, is the first place downstream of the river from the mine that water is drawn in for public consumption.

Exelon asked the Pottstown Borough Authority, which owns the plant, to endorse the project, while the Alliance for a Clean Environment, which points to the high levels of iron and manganese in the water, has argued for the opposite.

The authority has, to date, issued no endorsement.

The water pumped from the mine shows 80 times the safe drinking water level for manganese and 20 times the standard for iron.

However, 2005 tests at the Pottstown intake showed those levels to have been diluted down to 17 times the safe standard for manganese and 1.5 times for iron. Those contaminants are removed by processing at the water treatment plant, but may add to the cost of plant maintenance.

The mine water has been added under the authority of the DRBC as a "demonstration project," and Exelon has filed an application to make the permission permanent.

In December, the agency extended for one year permission to continue to conduct the project as a demonstration while it continues its review of Exelon's request to make the permission permanent.

O'Hara said the granting of extensions such as the one used in this case is unusual for the DRBC, but not unheard of.

Data on the project is available at www.state.nj.us/drbc/wadesville.htm — which is the DRBC Web site dedicated to sharing the information with the public.

URL: http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2009/07/06/news/srv0000005681596.prt

http://pottsmerc.com/articles/2009/07/06/news/srv0000005681596.txt

In-situ mining remediation not as reliable as you think

Comment: State gov't are it's worse, GREED!!!

Howard Williams

It’s not over, but there is good news in the battle to keep our water resources from being contaminated by in-situ leach (ISL) uranium mining.

Hydrologist B.K. Darling, Ph.D., is the author of a comprehensive report on 27 ISL uranium mines in Texas. He was commissioned by the Houston law firm of Blackburn and Carter to compile a report on the condition of these mines and their impact on groundwater quality.

The full report and summary can be found at the Web site listed below. Five of the mines on the report (listed in red on the summary) are mines that Powertech Uranium Co. identifies on its Web site as ISL uranium mines that have successfully restored groundwater.

The Darling report proves that statement is misleading because those mines are (as you will see in the report) as polluted as the other Texas ISL mines. In fact, the report indicates that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has on 51 occasions approved mining company requests to lower water quality requirements for the restoration phase of these mining operations.

The Environmental Protection Agency standard for water quality as it pertains to uranium is that it not exceed 0.03 parts per million. The TCEQ has allowed mining companies to leave as much as 5.0 ppm of uranium in the aquifer after mining has been completed.

That uranium level is 167 times the EPA standard. That water quality may have satisfied the TCEQ standard, but it does not change the fact that the ground water is no longer safe for household use or for livestock.

The Blackburn and Carter law firm is representing landowners in Goliad County, Texas, in a lawsuit against a mining company for, among other issues, their losses of land value and future ranching and farming income due to the contamination of their water wells from recent uranium exploration drilling.

No matter the outcome of this and other legal battles, the groundwater will still be contaminated.

The negative economic impact of the proposed ISL mine near Wellington should be reason enough to deny all land-use permits for uranium mining, to say nothing of the potential negative health effects associated with this toxic process.

Up until now, uranium mining has been conducted in very remote places. Proposing an ISL mine 11 miles from Fort Collins, with a population of 130,000, Windsor, population 15,000, and four miles from Wellington, with a population of 4,500, is unprecedented. Remember, if they are allowed to mine here, they will have set the precedent and could mine anywhere in Colorado, perhaps right next to your expensive subdivision.

The answer to this very real problem is for you to contact your elected representatives. Encourage them to oppose all permits for uranium mining in eastern Colorado, preserve our environment and aquifers, and retain the status of “best place in America to live.”

Even the Canadians are placing more and more restrictions on uranium mining and prospecting. For instance, New Brunswick, Canada, on July 4, 2008, banned uranium prospecting and mining in designated watersheds and well fields.

They said the residents of that region were entitled to clean drinking water. The citizens of eastern Colorado are also entitled to clean drinking water. We need to stop in-situ leach mining before it starts.

To see Dr. Darling’s full report and the summary, there are several Web sites posting it, including www.PowerTech exposed.com. View a 10-minute video of uranium mining and milling in Colorado at www.downtheyellowcakeroad.org.

Howard Williams is a retired federal manager for Veterans Affairs who has lived in Weld County for the past nine years and owns land near Wellington.

http://www.greeleytribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090521/READERS/905209957/-1/rss07&template=printart

http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090521/READERS/905209957/-1/rss02