Comments: The NRC admits to ISL mining pollutes the water, so underground or open pit will alsor ruin our water! Mining company lied: "After an area has been "mined" with the wells, water underground will be restored to condition similar to before it was mined, Hollenbeck said" However, according to NRC: "Environmental pollution from ISL: inevitable The primary problem with ISL regulation: the NRC acknowledges that, although ISL permits require complete restoration of groundwater conditions after mining operations, some of the “baseline parameters” have proved to be unachievable by mining companies."
November 27, 2012 5:30 am •
HOT SPRINGS | After a three-hour meeting marked by sharp exchanges between a project official and opponents, the Fall River County Commission voted Monday to oppose a proposed uranium mine near Edgemont.
But the five-member commission left open the possibility it could drop its opposition if Canadian-based Powertech Uranium Corp. and its U.S. affiliates provide assurances on water issues and other concerns. And Commission Chairman Mike Ortner of Hot Springs expects that to happen.
"I think four of the commissioners would not oppose it if a number of conditions are met," said Ortner, noting that the commission hasn't yet finished its list of stipulations.
Meanwhile, opponents at the meeting gave a glimpse of things to come on the controversial project.
They ranged from ranchers worried about their water supplies to a Native American cultural resource specialist who said Powertech has not adequately surveyed the project area for important artifacts.
Critics made emotional speeches and fired questions at rancher Mark Hollenbeck, a former Edgemont mayor and past state legislator now working for Powertech on the proposed Dewey Burdock Project, who made the presentation to the commission.
Jim Petersen of Rapid City spoke for the South Dakota Peace and Justice Center, which has intervened in opposition to Powertech's application for state water-rights permits for the project.
Petersen said the maximum water sought by Powertech would be twice the volume used in Rapid City.
That's an especially dangerous idea given the drought has returned to western South Dakota and could well mean declining groundwater that would be compounded by withdrawals by Powertech, Petersen said.
"We are going to give a foreign company our water when the bottom might drop out in the next decade or so," he said.
Petersen also worried about pollution caused by the mining process and how it might spread in underground water systems.
Hollenbeck said private and state engineers have determined there is more than enough water to meet Powertech's needs without hurting other users or contaminating other water resources.
Groundwater in the portion of the formation to be mined for uranium is already of very poor quality, Hollenbeck said. The injection-extraction well systems used to dissolve and recover uranium from that formation will be designed to prevent water from escaping the system, he said.
After an area has been "mined" with the wells, water underground will be restored to condition
similar to before it was mined, Hollenbeck said.
The operation will be regulated by the state, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and bonded to cover potential damages, Hollenbeck said.
The Fall River County Commission hoped to intervene as a neutral party in the water-rights process so it could be more involved without taking a position either way. But the process requires interveners to take a position, so commissioners voted to petition for intervener status as opponents, at least until their concerns are answered, Ortner said.
Hollenbeck said he is confident that Powertech can give the commission the assurances it wants
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/fall-river-commission-opposes-powertech-uranium-project-until-conditions-met/article_fa21a6f0-cd19-592d-899a-9bbaf62e342d.html
Environmental pollution from ISL: inevitable
The primary problem with ISL regulation: the NRC acknowledges that, although ISL permits require complete restoration of groundwater conditions after mining operations, some of the “baseline parameters” have proved to be unachievable by mining companies.
While the uranium mining industry insists that ISL mining methods are environmentally safe, numerous fines and violations by regulatory agencies have shown just how problematic ISL operations can be.
The increase in ISL environmental violations in recent years has led many states to relax environmental standards rather than impose stricter regulations against the mining companies.
Of the 8 currently operating ISL operations in the United States, only one has not had any reported environmental violations (Alta Mesa, Texas). Most ISL projects have had numerous spills, contaminated underground aquifers, and have failed to reclaim non-operating on site wells.
http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/in_situ_leach_uranium_mining
Consideration of Geochemical Issues in Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In-Situ Leach Mining Facilities
Although these "in-situ" leach mining techniques are considered more environmentally benign then traditional mining and milling practices they still tend to contaminate the groundwater. For this reason, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires licensees to ensure that sufficient funds are maintained by the licensee for restoration of the site to initial conditions following cessation of in-situ leach mining operations. Because groundwater restoration represents a substantial portion of these costs, a good estimate of the necessary volume of treatment water is important for approximating the overall cost of decommissioning. This report discusses the in-situ leach mining process, common restoration methods, historical information on in-situ leach mine restoration, and analytical techniques that may be used for estimating the future costs for restoring these sites.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6870/
But the five-member commission left open the possibility it could drop its opposition if Canadian-based Powertech Uranium Corp. and its U.S. affiliates provide assurances on water issues and other concerns. And Commission Chairman Mike Ortner of Hot Springs expects that to happen.
"I think four of the commissioners would not oppose it if a number of conditions are met," said Ortner, noting that the commission hasn't yet finished its list of stipulations.
Meanwhile, opponents at the meeting gave a glimpse of things to come on the controversial project.
They ranged from ranchers worried about their water supplies to a Native American cultural resource specialist who said Powertech has not adequately surveyed the project area for important artifacts.
Critics made emotional speeches and fired questions at rancher Mark Hollenbeck, a former Edgemont mayor and past state legislator now working for Powertech on the proposed Dewey Burdock Project, who made the presentation to the commission.
Jim Petersen of Rapid City spoke for the South Dakota Peace and Justice Center, which has intervened in opposition to Powertech's application for state water-rights permits for the project.
Petersen said the maximum water sought by Powertech would be twice the volume used in Rapid City.
That's an especially dangerous idea given the drought has returned to western South Dakota and could well mean declining groundwater that would be compounded by withdrawals by Powertech, Petersen said.
"We are going to give a foreign company our water when the bottom might drop out in the next decade or so," he said.
Petersen also worried about pollution caused by the mining process and how it might spread in underground water systems.
Hollenbeck said private and state engineers have determined there is more than enough water to meet Powertech's needs without hurting other users or contaminating other water resources.
Groundwater in the portion of the formation to be mined for uranium is already of very poor quality, Hollenbeck said. The injection-extraction well systems used to dissolve and recover uranium from that formation will be designed to prevent water from escaping the system, he said.
After an area has been "mined" with the wells, water underground will be restored to condition
similar to before it was mined, Hollenbeck said.
The operation will be regulated by the state, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and bonded to cover potential damages, Hollenbeck said.
The Fall River County Commission hoped to intervene as a neutral party in the water-rights process so it could be more involved without taking a position either way. But the process requires interveners to take a position, so commissioners voted to petition for intervener status as opponents, at least until their concerns are answered, Ortner said.
Hollenbeck said he is confident that Powertech can give the commission the assurances it wants
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/fall-river-commission-opposes-powertech-uranium-project-until-conditions-met/article_fa21a6f0-cd19-592d-899a-9bbaf62e342d.html
Environmental pollution from ISL: inevitable
The primary problem with ISL regulation: the NRC acknowledges that, although ISL permits require complete restoration of groundwater conditions after mining operations, some of the “baseline parameters” have proved to be unachievable by mining companies.
While the uranium mining industry insists that ISL mining methods are environmentally safe, numerous fines and violations by regulatory agencies have shown just how problematic ISL operations can be.
The increase in ISL environmental violations in recent years has led many states to relax environmental standards rather than impose stricter regulations against the mining companies.
Of the 8 currently operating ISL operations in the United States, only one has not had any reported environmental violations (Alta Mesa, Texas). Most ISL projects have had numerous spills, contaminated underground aquifers, and have failed to reclaim non-operating on site wells.
http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/in_situ_leach_uranium_mining
Consideration of Geochemical Issues in Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In-Situ Leach Mining Facilities
Although these "in-situ" leach mining techniques are considered more environmentally benign then traditional mining and milling practices they still tend to contaminate the groundwater. For this reason, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires licensees to ensure that sufficient funds are maintained by the licensee for restoration of the site to initial conditions following cessation of in-situ leach mining operations. Because groundwater restoration represents a substantial portion of these costs, a good estimate of the necessary volume of treatment water is important for approximating the overall cost of decommissioning. This report discusses the in-situ leach mining process, common restoration methods, historical information on in-situ leach mine restoration, and analytical techniques that may be used for estimating the future costs for restoring these sites.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6870/
