Carpetbaggers seeking uranium from America are from Canada, France, Australia & more just for Greed!
Comment: CO's story is our Story in VA if the state lifts the uranium ban. Look at the following statement, this is being harp on by VA Governor, Energy Independence which is being spurred by the French web sites using VA name in their web site: "Aside from the irony of an Australian company altruistically telling American citizens how to meet our energy needs, the fact is, there is, as yet, no nuclear renaissance in this country and no nuclear reactors in Colorado." Tell the carpetbaggers to go back to their countries and stay out of America. America people want true green energy not nuke power!Prepared for Tallahassee Area Community, Inc.
By Minard Hamilton, M.A. and Marvin Resnikoff, Ph.D.
Radioactive Waste Management Associates
May 23, 2008
1. The proposed action
Black Range Minerals Colorado is a subsidiary of the Australian mining company, Black Range Minerals. It is seeking a permit to explore for uranium on 8,169 acres on the Taylor Ranch Project in Fremont County. The proposed action would involve about 800 drilling sites. The drilling permit is for a period of 5 years, “with continuing exploration as results are evaluated and new targets to explore established.”[1] In other words, the requested time permit is essentially unlimited. If drilling is successful, then a full-blown mining and milling operation would take place, with major changes to Fremont County.
According to the company, drilling for uranium would normally proceed for 12 hours a day with 10 days on and 4 days off. Over an 8 week period each year there would be 24-hour diamond core drilling, 7 days a week. This means continual noise and lights at night.
Black Range Minerals has argued that there is a compelling need for uranium. Aside from the irony of an Australian company altruistically telling American citizens how to meet our energy needs, the fact is, there is, as yet, no nuclear renaissance in this country and no nuclear reactors in Colorado. Since the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975, and the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, the U.S. nuclear industry has been in a steady decline.
There is, however, a vigorous effort by friends of the nuclear industry to revive nuclear power in the U.S. Applications for 11 new nuclear power plants are pending before the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And a bill in the US Congress would make generous loans to nuclear utilities. Despite huge loan guarantees from Congress, it is questionable whether any utility or financial institution will be willing to take the considerable financial risk.
Taylor Ranch ore has an average grade of 0.12% uranium (2.4 lbs per ton).The presence of low-grade uranium could be a key factor in what type of mining operation Black Range Minerals might run at Taylor Ranch. Ore from Canada typically is considerable higher.
In order for Black Range Minerals to be financially competitive with Canadian and other ores they are likely to cut corners on the safety of the mining and milling operation, as well as on decommissioning costs.
Black Range Minerals, however, makes clear in public statements and company documents that Black Range is already quite certain regarding the existence of high-quality uranium deposits at Taylor Ranch.
As a result of the unpermitted exploratory drilling of 62 holes in 2007, Black Range has “already delineated” what they describe as a “substantial high-grade resource” of 22.2 million pounds of uranium at Taylor Ranch.[4] The company has also completed a scoping study for the development of the Taylor Ranch project which assumes the production of 2.2 million pounds per annum with an initial capital cost of $160,000,000. (Interestingly, the same report shows that the company has cash reserves of a mere $12.4 million.)[5]
2. What sort of protective measures does Black Range Minerals say it will use during the exploratory drilling phase of activities?
Black Range states that “the proposed drilling will not change the natural quality of groundwater in the area.” Because of the existing uranium deposits, uranium is already present in the groundwater in the vicinity of the project. Sixteen domestic water sources sampled in 1979 and within 10 miles of the uranium deposit had ranges of 4.2 to 160 picocuries per liter.[8]
The federal and state drinking water standard is 15 picocuries per liter. Thus, in some places, uranium levels are already 10 times higher than federal standards. Even before drilling and/or mining, there is a potential hazard due to the presence of uranium. As noted in Section 6., all exposures to radiation are potentially hazardous; there is no threshold, no safe level.
There has not been any recent water monitoring. Black Range says the company would install water monitors wells, but it is not known how many wells are planned, where they would be located or how frequently sampled. These are all key questions in terms of the efficacy of the monitoring program. These are exactly the type of safety measures that Black Range Minerals might skimp on to make their uranium operation cost competitive with other companies mining richer bodies of ore. Once approved by Fremont County, it is not clear how much regulatory authority, if any, the County would have over Black Range’s exploratory and mining operations.
Residents near the Taylor Ranch should not wait for Black Range to install monitoring wells; it would be wise to test tap water now, before a full scale exploration and mining program gets underway.
It is not currently known where and how Black Range disposed of the radioactive materials uncovered during its unpermitted drilling program last year.
This would definitely be an improvement over past policy, but not a guarantee regarding the protection of local aquifers. Aquifers have complicated configurations and are extremely difficult to map with precision. Ms. Susan Wyman, Consulting Hydrologist for Black Range Minerals in a recent meeting underscored the company’s lack of precise knowledge regarding local aquifers. She said Black Range Minerals will be cutting through 5 aquifers at the “maximum,” though more likely it would 2-3 distinct aquifers.[9]
Regulatory oversite will be minimal: The State intends to visit the site only once a year and the County may have no regulatory power once the drilling permit is granted.
3. What are the health hazards associated with Black Range’s proposed drilling program?
The drilling program will bring radioactive materials from the ore bodies up onto the surface, where surface water and winds can carry uranium and its decay products onto residences adjacent to the Taylor Ranch. These radioactive materials can also be carried into nearby streams and rivers or leach down into aquifers. The streams potentially impacted by the drilling program are the North Tallahassee Creek, Squaw Creek and Cottonwood Creek. Also most of the project is in the watershed of the Arkansas River. The local creeks are shown in the attached map. As noted in Section 4. and 5., radioactive dust generated in both exploratory drilling and full-scale mining is extremely hazardous both to humans and animals that breath or ingest the toxic materials.
In a program involving 800 drill holes, we estimate over 1500 pounds of uranium will be brought to the earth’s surface. From the exploratory drilling program, we estimate 0.2 Ci of uranium-238 and its decay products, such uranium-234, thorium-230, radium-226, and on down the chain, through polonium, bismuth, radioactive and stable lead will be exposed to the environment. All these radionuclides have the same radioactivity and are hazardous. Within the body, many emit alpha radiation and can concentrate in the lung, bone, liver and kidney, causing cancer and non-cancerous diseases.
Although these amounts of radiation may seem minor, given the longevity, mobility and toxicity of the radioactive materials, any releases are of concern. For further discussion of health impacts of radiation see Section 6.
4. If Black Range Minerals initiates a full-scale uranium mining operation in Fremont County what would that involve?
It is not yet clear exactly what type of operation Black Range would open at Taylor Ranch. In a recent quarterly report Black Range states that it will construct what’s known as an acid leach processing plant at Taylor Ranch.[11] Whether the ore would be then shipped off-site for further processing at a site such as Cotter Mill near Canon City is not known at this time. However, Black Range Mineral’s plans for an acid leach plant or mill will greatly increase the health and environmental impacts of a full-scale mining operation.
Uranium mining involves several steps: mining, milling and deposition of the wastes. The uranium is mined, either in an open- pit or an underground mine. During mining, significant quantities of dust contaminated with uranium may be produced.
Uranium mining also results in large quantities of waste rock because much of the mined material will be below ore grade. The waste is produced during open pit mining when overburden is removed and during underground mining when tunnels are driven through non-ore or low-uranium content ore. Piles of so-called waste rock often contain hazardous amounts of uranium and its daughter products and therefore will pose a significant health hazard – virtually forever. Long after the mining and milling operation has shutdown waste rock will release radon gas and seepage water containing toxic materials.
An acid leach processing plant is a uranium mill, not different from the Cotter mill, where the mined ore is crushed and leached. In most cases, sulfuric acid is the leaching agent, though sometimes alkaline leaching is used. The leaching agent will not only extract the uranium from the ore, it will also separate other constituents in the rock, such as molybdenum, vanadium, selenium, lead and arsenic. From this solution, the uranium is removed and made into what is known as “yellow cake.” Whether the uranium slurry would be heated and made into the standard yellowcake at the Taylor Ranch site is not yet known.
It also important to note that a uranium mill requires large amounts of water to operate, millions of gallons a year would be drawn out of the local aquifers, potentially affecting all drinking water wells within miles of the proposed mill.
The waste materials or tailings left over after the leaching process are extremely toxic. At site after site throughout the US tailings piles have caused major health and environmental problems. The tailings are normally dumped as slurry into special ponds or piles. The amount of slurry produced is more than the volume of the original ore because the ore contains only 0.12% uranium, and chemicals are added in the milling process.
Apart from the portion of uranium removed, the slurry contains all of the constituents of the ore, including extremely long-lived radioactive elements. In fact, the slurry contains 85% of the initial radioactivity of the ore, primarily in the form of radium-226 (half-life, 1,600 years) and thorium-230 (half-life, 75,400 years).[13] Radionuclides in the uranium tailings can contain 20 to 100 times as much gamma radiation as natural background radiation. This toxic material will continuously emit radon gas and if the slurry dries out, wind will carry the radioactively contaminated dust for miles. Tailings also contain heavy metals and other contaminants, such as arsenic.
Here’s how a tailings pile develops: The toxic slurry is poured into a bowl. As the tailings dry out, either by evaporation or seepage, the tailings become the consistency of sand. The sand is then moved by bulldozers into dams, and more slurry is poured into the center of the bowl and dried. And the dams grow higher and higher. Generally, the evaporation and drainage process is not rapid enough, so companies employ spray evaporators to enhance the drying process.
We estimate for the entire Black Range Minerals mining program, a tailings pile, comprising an area 43 acres and a height 120 feet high, will be formed. Depending on the State requirements, Black Range may not have enough money set aside to decommission the operation, tailings pile and mill. The State of Colorado does not have a good regulatory record in this regard. Cotter Mill (see below) is the closest example, but a more egregious example is Union Carbide’s Uravan mill, where the entire town was evacuated and ordered bulldozed by the Colorado Department of Health (not by the Dept of Mines).
To limit the health hazard, tailings are sometimes kept underwater. Or a lining of several layers can be installed for protection against the emission of radium and thorium. Given the longevity of the radioactive materials in tailings piles, these protective measures are inadequate. The covering materials will break, tear, develop cracks and holes and degrade long before the 200-1000 years the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency regulations require for the reclamation of uranium mill tailings. (Note: these regulations fall far short of the many thousands of years these materials will be toxic.)
Even if the protective coverings were adequate, groundwater pollution from tailings still will remain a major problem. Regulations require mine operators to install a plastic lining or multi-layer liners underneath the tailings – if no natural impermeable layer is present. Unfortunately, the linings often tear. No liner can last the many centuries required. Extensive groundwater monitoring is necessary to monitor the migration of contaminants. Mill operators are not interested in this type of long-term commitment.
Additionally, tailings deposits are subject to many kinds of erosion. After rainfall erosion gullies can form; floods can destroy the whole deposit; mill tailings dams can collapse and underground seepage occurs.
Mill tailing dams, since they are usually made of a sand-like material, are not of stable construction. Strong rain or snow storms can cause dam failures. Dams can settle, crack and then are subject to collapse.
Some of the many failed tailings dams include the Grants site in New Mexico, where 50,000 tons of slurry was released and the Church Rock site also in New Mexico where a spill released 1000 tons of slurry and 94 millions gallons of contaminated waste water into the nearby Rio Puerco.[14] The Church Rock release severely degraded the Rio Puerco for use as a water supply. The spill resulted in toxic metals being carried at least 70 miles downstream.[15] Six years after the spill the Arizona Department of Health Services detected high levels of radium 30 miles downstream from the spill site.[16]
Other uranium tailings dam failures have occurred at mines in or near Grand Junction, Colorado, Milan, New Mexico, Jeffrey City, Wyoming, and various locations in Canada, Germany, Australia and Kyrgyzstan.
Seepage poses a major risk to both surface water and to underground aquifers. One of the daughter products of uranium, radium-226, is water soluble. Thus, it poses a special risk to drinking water supplies, to livestock and to ingestion by fish that are subsequently eaten by humans. In 1986, the Environmental Improvement Division in New Mexico discovered high radionuclide levels in the kidneys and bones of cattle raised near uranium mines and/or mills.[17]
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, at almost all US mill sites, tailings have contaminated the groundwater.[18] And the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission states “the chance of returning an aquifer to premining water quality is minimal.”[19]
Underground water contamination has been mapped at several operating and closed-down sites. This has been a serious problem at the Cotter Mill near Canon City. Contaminated groundwater has moved offsite to nearby communities such as Lincoln Park. Local citizens have brought several lawsuits against the company. Severe health problems, including the symptoms of molybdenum poisoning, learning disabilities in local children and various cancers have plagued nearby residents.
Because of leakage from old, un-lined tailings ponds on site, Cotter Mills was required by the state of Colorado to build new lined impoundments, remove contaminated sediments from the nearby Sand Creek and build a groundwater intercept system. Despite these remediation efforts groundwater contamination is still a problem.
Underground contamination has also been found at the Church Rock uranium mill tailings site in New Mexico. At Church Rock an underground plume of contamination has moved 3000 feet away from the original tailings pond in just a few years.[21]
The potential health hazards associated with uranium mining caused the Colorado Medical Society on November 16, 2007, to vote unanimously to oppose a proposed uranium mine near Fort Collins.[23] Nationally, many groups are opposed to uranium mining including the Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends of the Earth, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and Beyond Nuclear.
Because of the serious health impacts from previous mining operations, recently the Navajo Nation in New Mexico has banned uranium mining on reservation land and is urging the US Congress to put a moratorium on uranium mining on all American Indian land administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.[24]
5. But wouldn’t a new facility built by Black Range avoid some of the environmental problems at older uranium mines and mills?
Such improvements as impoundments lined with synthetic liners are slightly better than un-lined impoundments. Yet the technology for stabilizing these extraordinarily long-lived contaminants for the thousands of years required has not yet been developed. Further, in the case of a company like Black Range there is a distinct risk that the company will cut corners to cut down costs. As noted previously, Black Range states that the ore available at Taylor Ranch has a concentration of 0.12% uranium. Since the company will be competing against much higher yield and therefore more valuable ores, Black Range may try to keep down costs by such measures as fewer water monitoring wells, less expensive dust suppression techniques, shoddy mill tailings dam construction, inadequate safety measures for workers, etc.
6. A brief description of health hazards associated with radioactive materials
A radioactive element is unstable. This means it disintegrates spontaneously. As it does so, it emits what’s called ionizing radiation. This radiation can shake, move or breakdown molecules inside the human body.
Ionizing radiation comes in different types: waves or particles. The waves are similar to the electromagnetic radiation generated by X-ray machines. These waves can penetrate the body. This is why an X-ray technician drapes a lead apron over your chest before taking dental X-rays.[25]
The particles in ionizing radiation are known as alpha or beta particles. Most of these particles are stopped by the skin. Yet, if inhaled or ingested they can pose a serious health hazard.[26]
Each of the different types of radiation has the potential to cause havoc in a human or animal body. Radioactive materials are, to varying degrees, energetic. Even though, these materials cannot be seen, smelt or felt, they can damage or destroy living cells.
What happens inside the body? Ionizing radiation can rip through a delicate cell membrane, break chemical bonds, and attack sensitive regulatory mechanisms found in the DNA and RNA. They can delete or damage chromosomes in a cell’s nucleus. They can cause abnormal cell division and/or damage reproductive function.[27]
The father of the science of Health Physics (the study of the impact of radiation on human health) was Dr. Karl Morgan. He described the chaotic state induced in a living cell exposed to ionizing radiation as akin to a “madman loose in a library.”[29]
7. Isn’t radiation already present in the environment with no attendant harm to people?
Natural background radiation is all around us. All types of radiation exposure are potentially hazardous whether it involves existing natural background radiation or additional sources added through uranium mining. No one knows just how many cancers, mutations and other diseases are already being caused by natural background radiation. Any additional exposure above natural background radiation is a cause for concern.
It also should be noted that throughout the 20th century, the understanding regarding the hazards of radiation have shifted as long-term epidemiological studies have been completed. One indicator of this shift: previously the medical community recommended that everybody should receive an annual chest X-ray. Now, given the risks of any additional exposure to radiation, annual chest X-rays are not recommended.
8. What are the health hazards associated with the radioactive material, uranium?
There are several different types of uranium with all of them having extremely long half-lives. A half-life is the amount of time it will take for half of the atoms in any sample to decay. Uranium-238 has a staggering long half-life -- of 4.46 billion years. In other words it is toxic virtually forever. If uranium-238 remains outside the body, it poses a minimal health risk. However, once the U-238 is dug up out of the ground (as in exploratory drilling or full-scale uranium mining) it becomes potentially accessible to human beings and the environment in several ways.[31]
If a pile of U-238 is left uncovered on the ground, the U-238-contaminated dust can blow around and be inhaled or ingested by humans. The dust can also blow into nearby streams and eventually end up in someone’s drinking water. The result? Increased risks of lung and bone cancer. Inside the body uranium can also damage internal organs, particularly the liver, increase the risk of leukemia and other soft tissue cancers, and affect reproduction.
Another way radioactive materials travel is via gases. Uranium-238 is always found in the presence of what are known as “daughter products,” such as radium-226. This element, in turn, produces the gas radon-222. As a gas, radon will waft wherever the wind blows. Radon has a relatively short half-life of only 3.8 days so the distance it travels will be limited by the strength of the wind.
Radon, however, is the by-product of radium which has a half-life of 1600 years. Thus, this toxic gas will be present in the environment for hundreds of years after a uranium mine has closed-down. Radon can collect in homes, particularly basements, and is known to cause lung cancer. Furthermore, radon also breaks down to other long-lived elements. Once deposited on the ground or into water these toxic materials can migrate significant distances.[32]
Several of radon’s daughter products are various types of lead. This heavy metal toxicity is another potential health hazard associated with uranium mining.[33]
9. Are there other health hazards associated with non-radioactive materials generated in uranium mining?
In addition to the problem of lead-contamination, molybdenum and vanadium are two metals that are a health threat at many sites. At other uranium mining and milling sites in Colorado, including the Cotter Mill site, high levels of molybdenum and arsenic has been reported both in water and soil.
10. Won’t new nuclear power plants help solve global warming and help US energy independence by making uranium available for new nuclear power plants?
Although the nuclear industry is pushing new plants as a “solution” to global warming and energy independence, many experts oppose the building of new nuclear power plants because of safety issues and their exceptionally high cost.
If the billions it would cost to build each new nuclear power plant were spent on energy efficiency, housing retrofits, increased mass transportation, hybrid cars and renewables, the US could solve our energy problems considerably faster and more safely than the long and uncertain process of building new nuclear power plants. In addition, these safe energy alternatives would generate far more jobs than the construction of nuclear power plants. For further information on this issue read an article by Hunter and Amory Lovins at http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E01-05_CanNucPowerSolve.pdf
An excellent summary of this topic can also be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/07/ING95E1VQ71.DTL
11. Where will we get the energy?
It is ironic that Fremont County is being asked to make major sacrifices on behalf of nuclear power, when its residents live in Colorado. This state is considered to be the 5th best state in terms of solar potential in the US. Colorado boasts of 300 days per year of sunshine and it has been estimated that solar could heat and power over 250,000 homes within the next two decades.[36] The solar companies, First Solar and Solar Power, will each soon be able to produce one gigawatt of electrical capacity per year, i.e. one nuclear power plant’s worth of energy.
12. Won’t new jobs and increased tax revenues help the County?
One other matter that should be considered by local residents: the standard boom and bust cycle caused by exploration and mining. Black Range will bring in specialized workers during the mining phase. That brings business, employment and taxes to the County. But that also brings the need for additional taxpayer-supported services, such as housing, new sewers, ambulances, schools and stores. But following the 8-year mining operation, when workers leave, the County is left with road and school bonds to pay off, and a tax base that has shrunk. This is the bust part of the proposed exploration and mining operation. No permanent jobs remain. What’s left are costly long-term health impacts, costly environmental degradation, taxes to pay and empty schools and stores. And with the parent company for Black Range being located in Australia it will be extremely difficult for local residents to bring pressure to bear to recoup costs or assure adequate decommissioning procedures.
________________________________________
[1] Black Range Minerals, Fremont County Application for Conditional Use Permit 12-12-07, p. 4.
[2] Cigar Lake Technical Report 2007, Cameco Corporation, NI-43-101, Table 1-2
[3] www.investcom.com/moneyshow/uranium_athabasca.htm
[4] Blackrangeminerals.com/pdfs/ProgressReportTaylorRanch2008DrillingPermit3Apr08.pdf
[5] Blackrangeminerals.com/pdfs/ProgressReportTaylorRanch2008DrillingPermit3Apr08.pdf
[6] Fremont County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes,” 4/1/2008
[7] Blackrangeminerals.com/pdfs/QuarterlyActivitiesReportMarch08Quarterly30Apr08.pdf
[8] A curie is a measure of the radioactivity of a substance. It is a large number and means 37 billion disintegrations per second, or in the case of uranium-238, 37 billion alpha particles emitted per second. A picocurie is one trillionth of a curie.
[9] Fremont County Planning Commission Meeting, Vol 4, p.30
[10] Fremont County Planning Commission Minutes, p.31
[11] www.blackrangeminerals.com/pdfs/QuarerlyActivitiesReportMarch2008Quarter30April08.pdf
[12] USA’s Drought Begins to Ease, USA Today, May 21,2008
[13] Makhijani, Arjun, Nuclear Wastelands: A Global Guide to Nuclear Weapons Production and Its Health and Environmental Effects, the MIT Press, 2000, p. 34
[14] www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html 2004
[15] Interview with Edwin Swanson, author of “Water Quality Problems in the Puerco River,” paper presented at the American Water Resources Association Symposium, Tucson, Arizona, 1980 cited in Killing Our Own: The disaster of American’s Experience with Atomic Radiation by Harvey Wasserman.
[16] www.sric.org/uranium/Puerco92.html#july
[17] Lapham, M and Samet, J., “Radionuclide levels in cattle raised near uranium mines and miles in northwest New Mexico,” New Mexico Environmental Division, 1086, cited in Makijani, Arjun, Nuclear Wastelands, p. 121
[18] US EPA, “Environmental standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings at licensed commercial processing sites: Final rule,” 40 CFR, Part 192, Federal Register, vol 48, October, 7,1983
[19] US NRC, Uranium Recovery Field Office, Uranium Recovery Facility Detection Monitoring Program, May 29, 1985, cited in Makijani, Arjun, Nuclear Wastelands, p. 121
[20] http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/HM/cotter/LetterFromCotter/2006perfrpt/section7.pdf, p.2
[21]www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html 2004
[22] Draper, Heather, “Uranium Fallout,” Rocky Mountain News, Feb 28,04
[23] www.nunnglow.com
[24] Brosnan, James, “Navajos Spurn Uranium Mining,” The Albuquerque Tribune, Oct 24, 2007
[25] Dr. Bertell, Rosalie, No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth, 1985, p.23
[26] Ibid, p.23, [27] Ibid, p.22, [28] Ibid, p.23
[29] Morgan, Karl Z, “Reducing Medical Exposure to Ionizing Radiation,” American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, May 1975, pp 361-2.
[30] Tamplin, Arthur R, and Gofman, John W., Poisoned Power, Rodale Press, 1971, pp64-65
[31] Makhijani, Arjun, Howard Hu and Katherine Yih, Nuclear Wastelands, , MIT Press, 2000, p.29
[32] Mahkijani, Op Cit.,pp34-35
[33] National Research Council, Board of Radioactive Waste Management, Scientific Basis for Risk Assessment and Management of Uranium Mill Tailings, National Academy Press, 1986 pp1-37
[34] Smith, M.T., “Molybdenum toxicity in people living near a uranium mill in southern Colorado,” paper presented at International Society for Environmental Epidemiology Annual Conference, Sweden, 1993
[35] Smith, Rebecca, New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs, Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2008
[36] www.environmentcolorado.org
Read more:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:uFBU3v4iQjgJ:www.downtheyellowcakeroad.org/userfiles/file/Fremontfactsheet1,May23.doc+swanson+uranium+deposit&cd=23&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
