Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Uranium-Coles Hill

Interesting letter, Mr. Motley, especially the dairy farm part. Do you know how far away a grazing pasture must be from a uranium mining and milling operation so that the radon doesn't poison the milk or the beef or kill the animals outright? I'd consider it an example of your letter's apparent sincerity if you could answer that question for us. It's an excellent question! I'm sure lots of folks would like to know the answer. And maybe the people who know that answer will be more willing to share that info with you than with us. Thank you so much!

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Letter to editor:

I have lived in the Sheva community all of my life except time in the Merchant Marines during World War II.

I would like to relate some of my experiences.

I was raised on a tobacco farm in the Mill Creek community.

My three sons operate the dairy on my home place.

I now live in the old Sheva Church of Christ building at Sheva.

Much of the land that is used by the dairy is within a three mile radius of Coles Hill where the deposit of uranium is located.

My family owns stock in Virginia Uranium. This gives us some voice in future developments.

We are now directly involved in the nuclear industry. We have members of our family that work at B&W, a nuclear facility in the Lynchburg area, and the energy used to operate the dairy comes from a nuclear power plant.

There is no place that I would rather live than in the Sheva community.

I have taken no position for or against the mining.

As I recently celebrated my 84th birthday I realize that I know less and less about more and more things.

I don't have answers to the many problems facing our community and nation. I will try to meet the challenges in a positive way.

If and when the uranium is mined, I would like to see the money used to replace the tobacco money.

The issue of growing tobacco has been an issue for most of my life. All of my family including myself have raised tobacco.

My parents and grandparents that I knew raised tobacco. They thought it was all right to grow but wrong to use it.

I have heard my parents pray for rain for the tobacco crop and also pray for the Lord to heal people suffering from the use of tobacco. I also heard similar prayers at church.

There are some questions that I would like to have answered.

What other sources of energy on the large scale provided by nuclear energy are available to us in the area?

How much damage would other sources do to the environment. I know solar energy and wind power are available but are they available to this area in the quantity now provided by nuclear energy.

There are contradictions in my own life. I used money from tobacco to develop the dairy. We have been producing Grade A milk at the homeplace since 1947.

What kind of an example are we setting for our young people?

I have never heard a person encourage their young people to use tobacco.

How do we want people to remember us?

Our record of how we used resources will follow us beyond the grave.

I have misused resources. I have asked the Lord to forgive me.

J. Fuller Motley

Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/10/07/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

Monday, September 28, 2009

Consider impact first

Dr. Brugge is an expert in the field. He was a featured speaker in Danville, VA last fall re: dangers of uranium mining.


September 27, 2009


THERE ARE at least five strong arguments against nuclear power being more than a minor part of the response to climate change (“Nuclear must be part of energy equation,’’ Op-ed):

There is no current or imminent plan for permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste in the United States.

Addressing climate change through nuclear power means spreading nuclear technology worldwide. We already see how this leads to nuclear proliferation in places such as Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. This also may heighten the risk of nuclear terrorism.

Unintended releases of radiation from nuclear power plants, while rare, can be catastrophic (witness Chernobyl), and may be more likely as nuclear spreads to countries with less experience with the technology than the United States.

Nuclear is not really carbon neutral. The mining and processing of uranium, the building of power plants, and their decommissioning release carbon. A full accounting must consider the complete life cycle.

Finally, but not least important, mining and processing uranium ore has had devastating consequences for workers and nearby communities, often indigenous peoples.

Before we jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we need to appraise all the impacts and consider other alternatives, such as solar and wind, that have substantially less downside.

Doug Brugge
Cambridge

The writer was co-editor of the book “The Navajo People and Uranium Mining.’’


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/09/27/consider_impact_first/

Friday, August 14, 2009

Town Ceases to Exist After Superfund Cleanup

Notice the names of these former uranium mining/milling towns: Naturita...Nucla...Uravan. Don't they sound happy? Patriotic? Owned by the uranium industry?

Uravan no longer exists. Exxcept for one building, the entire town was declared part of the Uravan SuperFund site and destroyed.

Could this happen in Virignia?


Uravan once vital to security of United States


Herald Denver Bureau

URAVAN - The sign outside Naturita reads "Uravan 15."

The town still appears on official Colorado maps. But 15 miles north of Naturita, there's no sign on the road and few clues this once was a hopping town with a community center, a soda fountain and a swimming pool. The childhood memories of many residents of Nucla and Naturita were made here.

All that's left now is a flat spot on the ground surrounded by a barbed-wire fence, overflown by sparrows and serenaded by crickets.

The only clue to the labors of the men and women who used to live here is the barbed wire that surrounds the whole site and the metal signs with the universal symbol for radiation, reading: "ANY AREA OR CONTAINER ON THIS PROPERTY MAY CONTAIN RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS."

Other than one office building across the San Miguel River, the rest is gone.

Uravan once was vital to national security. Standard Chemical founded the town as the Joe Jr. Camp, a center of radium mining and milling.

In World War II, the military moved in to scour the tailings piles for uranium to build the first atomic bombs.

The camp was so secret that a young man from Nucla, just 20 miles away, was stationed there, but he wasn't allowed to tell his family until after the war, said Marie Templeton of the Rimrocker Historical Society.

After the war, Uravan boomed until the 1980s as a company town run by United States Vanadium and later by Union Carbide.

Production ended in 1984, and Umetco - a local subsidiary of Union Carbide - began a government-supervised cleanup. The whole town became a federal Superfund site. (emphases mine...SB)

The cleanup formally ended last year, although monitoring continues.

What It Took...

To clean up the former town of Uravan, the following work was done, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Demolition and removal of about 50 major mill facility structures and buildings, including the process systems and circuits, and removal of more than 260 buildings.

Removal and cleanup of dispersed materials and contaminated soil from approximately 400 acres.

Relocation of more than 3 million cubic yards of mill wastes and contaminated materials.

Construction of waste and tailing repository covers, liquid evaporation and retention ponds, and permanent runoff control structures – using more than 1.7 million cubic yards of earthen materials.

Construction of five double-lined ponds (totaling 40 acres) for the evaporation of hillside seepage, tailing-pile seepage and extracted groundwater.

Construction and use of a new repository capable of disposing more than 1.8 million cubic yards of evaporative pond demolition debris and radioactive waste.

Collection of more than 70 million gallons of hillside and tailing seepage, containing approximately 6,000 tons of contaminated inorganic compounds.

Extraction of about 245 million gallons of contaminated liquids from the groundwater with the removal of about 14,500 tons of contaminated inorganic compounds.

Removal of contaminated materials from the dumps.

http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/08/09/Town_ceases_to_exist_after_Superfund_cleanup/

(This article, and a few above and below it, are parts of a current series by Joe Hanel, Durango Herald.)

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Who will protect Virginia from uranium mining?

A cogent argument against mining Virginia uranium and an invitation to every Virginian to help stop it.

The Virginian-Pilot

August 2, 2009

Sunday Forum

by Shireen Parsons

URANIUM MINING has never been done safely anywhere in the world. It cannot be done safely. Logically, that should end this discussion, but it will not, because a few individuals, shielded from liability behind Virginia Uranium Inc. — a U.S. corporation wholly owned by Canadian corporations — would reap huge profits from mining and milling uranium on more than 2,000 acres in rural Pittsylvania County .

The Coles Hill mine would be merely the first mine in eastern Virginia, as our entire Piedmont is strewn with uranium deposits, and Virginia Uranium’s corporate mandate is to explore and develop them. If, as it surely will, the legislature lifts the moratorium, the Piedmont would become a uranium mining corridor, just as Eastern Kentucky, Southern West Virginia and Southwest Virginia are coal mining corridors.

As planned, the Coles Hill uranium mine would cover an area equal to 55 square city blocks and would be 800 feet deep. Through the blasting, extracting and crushing of uranium-bearing rock, all open-pit mines and their waste piles release into the environment heavy metals, including arsenic, lead and mercury, and radioactive materials.

The radioactive contaminants persist in the environment anywhere from hundreds of thousands of years to 4 billion years. They are taken up and retained by plants and animals, and they become part of the food chain forever. In animals and humans, the radioactive toxins cause lung, kidney and liver damage, cancers, leukemias and genetic mutations. In mammals, these contaminants are passed on to future generations in utero and via breast milk.

Once released into the environment, the heavy metals and radioactive contaminants travel great distances. Leached into ground and surface water in Pittsylvania County , they would contaminate the Roanoke River watershed to Virginia Beach , North Carolina ’s Albemarle Sound and the Atlantic Ocean . The wind-borne particulates would travel thousands of miles — every way the wind blows — in a few days.

Virginia Uranium’s public relations team tells us that, this time, uranium mining would be done safely, because the mining and milling of uranium in Virginia would be according to a regulatory program developed by the Virginia Department of Mining, Minerals and Energy (DMME).

But monitoring and oversight by our regulatory agencies are inadequate to nonexistent. Since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970, one-third of Americans live in areas with unhealthy ozone levels. Forty percent of our rivers, lakes and tributaries aren’t safe for swimming or fishing. Deforestation, excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers — and a 60 percent increase in the amount of refuse generated in the past 25 years — have further contaminated the soil and water.

Virginia's DMME presides over one of the most devastating mineral extraction processes in the world — mountaintop- removal coal mining, which, in the Appalachian coal states, has razed hundreds of thousands of acres of once-forested mountains, buried thousands of miles of streams under the rubble and destroyed hundreds of coalfield communities. This is a legal activity permitted by the EPA and DMME. Can we rationally expect regulatory agencies to protect us from the catastrophic effects of uranium mining in Virginia?

Those who would profit from uranium mining in Virginia say it would be an economic boon, with jobs and money pouring into the economically depressed Piedmont region. Virginia Uranium says miners would make $68,000 a year in a county where the 2000 median household income was $35,000, the unemployment rate was 9.4 percent and 12 percent of the population lived below the poverty line.

What the corporate spin fails to mention, however, is that hard-rock mining requires skilled labor, and that experienced miners would be imported from other states to earn those salaries and risk their health and lives. And that, wherever hard-rock mining occurs, surrounding communities become ghost towns and regional economies implode. The economic rewards are enjoyed only by the corporate owners and officers.

In Virginia ’s Piedmont , as in all regions cursed with hard-rock mining, the blasting, heavy truck traffic, environmental contamination and impacts to human health would cause real property values to evaporate. Local businesses would shut down, and the regional economy would collapse outward in every direction. The Banister River , a source of Virginia Beach ’s water, is less than a mile from the Coles Hill mine site, and there is absolutely no doubt that the Banister would be contaminated.

The relevant question, then, is who decides what Virginia communities look like, how safe they are, what quality of life they enjoy? Who decides whether the Virginia Piedmont and beyond will be sacrificed for a uranium mining corporation’s profits? Is it We, the People, or is it a handful of corporate executives, aided and abetted by the state legislature and regulatory agencies?

An ever-increasing number of citizens in Pittsylvania County and beyond, understanding the catastrophic effects uranium mining would wreak upon their communities and future generations, declare that they will not consent to this corporate assault, and that they will exercise their inherent local governing authority to enact binding local laws that will protect and preserve the health, safety and well-being of their communities and the ecosystem upon which all life depends.

Like Virginia Beach , the Town of Halifax is downstream from the planned uranium mine in Pittsylvania County . In February 2008, the Halifax Town Council voted unanimously to enact the Halifax Corporate Mining, Bodily Trespass and Community Self-Government Ordinance, drafted at the council’s request by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Pennsylvania- based nonprofit law firm. The ordinance asserts the town’s inherent local governing authority bans

mining within the town and criminalizes chemical and radioactive bodily trespass.

Halifax Town Council member Jack Dunavant said of the decision, “This is an historic vote. We, the people, intend to protect our health and environment from corporate assault. It’s time to invoke the Constitution and acknowledge the power of the people to protect our own destiny and end this era of corporate greed and pollution.”

Citizens and elected officials of every community downstream and/or downwind from the planned Pittsylvania County mine site would do well to follow Halifax ’s lead and exert their inherent governing authority to protect themselves.

Shireen Parsons is the Virginia organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund in Christiansburg.

We regret that the Virginian Pilot does not publish all of its Opinion online. We have no link to the VP as source. The editorial was circulated by the author; we are privileged to publish it here.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Families win legal fight over ‘toxic soup’ deformities

Granted, this is about the effects of unabated pollution from a steel plant, not a uranium mine or mill. But we believe it points out, once again, how future generations suffer when current contamination is not contained efficaciously.

Raw Story
July 29, 2009

LONDON — A group of young people who claimed their birth defects were caused by a “soup of toxic materials” in a former steel town won a legal action against the local authority on Wednesday.

The 18 claimants, aged nine to 22, said the defects were caused by their mothers’ exposure to pollution in Corby, a former steel town.

Corby Borough Council (CBC), which was responsible for the reclamation of a former British Steel plant, one of the largest in western Europe, was found liable at London’s High Court.

The council denied it was negligent during the works at the former British Steel plant between 1985 and 1999, and that there was a link between the removal of waste to a quarry and deformities affecting hands and feet.

Judge Robert Akenhead said Wednesday there was a “statistically significant” cluster of birth defects between 1989 and 1999, and the type of contaminants which could cause the birth defects were present on the site.

“There was an extended period between 1983 and August 1997 in which Corby Borough Council was extensively negligent in its control and management of the sites,” he said.

“That negligence and, as from April 1, 1992, breach of statutory duty on the part of CBC permitted and led to the extensive dispersal of contaminated mud and dust over public areas of Corby and into and over private homes, with the result that the contaminants could realistically have caused the types of birth defects of which complaint has been made by the claimants.

Corby Borough Council chief executive Chris Mallender said: “We are obviously very disappointed and very surprised at the outcome of this trial.”

The steelworks closed in 1980 with the loss of 10,000 jobs.

Council leader Pat Fawcett said: “There were mistakes at that time and we can understand why mistakes were made.

“British Steel closed and there were God knows how many unemployed in Corby, and it was trying to get industry into the town and things were done quickly — maybe more quickly than they should have been done.

“But I think people were acting in the best interests of the town at the time.”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/29/families-win-legal-fight-over-toxic-soup-deformities/

Auditor: TVA Lawyers Limited Ash Spill Report in Kingston, TN Coal Sludge Catastrophe

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — The Tennessee Valley Authority failed for more than 20 years to heed warnings that might have prevented a massive coal ash spill in Tennessee, then allowed its lawyers to stifle a $3 million study into the disaster's cause to limit its legal liability, an inspector general's report said Tuesday. (emphasis mine...SB)

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and chairman of the TVA congressional caucus, said the report "raises major concerns which must be taken seriously ... to ensure that such a coal ash spill never happens again."

The 111-page report from TVA Inspector General Richard Moore came as officials from the nation's largest public utility made a third appearance before a congressional panel since the spill last Dec. 22.

TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore was among those scheduled to testify Tuesday before the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure's subcommittee on water resources and environment.

The breach of 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic-laden coal ash from the earthen dams and holding ponds at TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant into the Emory River and lakeside homes has raised questions about the risks and lack of regulation of hundreds of similar sites around the country.

In the wake of the disaster, an estimated $1 billion cleanup and several pending lawsuits from residents, Knoxville-based TVA hired consulting firms to analyze what happened at Kingston and offer recommendations for handling coal byproducts there and at 10 other TVA coal-fired power plants in Tennessee, Alabama and Kentucky.

"TVA had a clear but difficult choice to make in the aftermath of the Kingston spill," Moore's report said.

"One choice was to conduct a diligent review of TVA management practices as well as to conduct a technical physical examination of the failed structure and then to publish whatever was discovered to the world.

"The second choice was to 'circle the wagons,' carefully craft press releases to project TVA in the most favorable light and to tightly control any reports done by TVA of the failure to minimize legal liability."

The inspector general said management's decision to allow TVA's lawyers, the Office of General Counsel, to hire the consultant and narrow his focus for a critical "root cause" study of the disaster "predetermined the choice that would be made between accountability and litigation strategy."

"The OGC did what good lawyers do; they defend their client," Moore's report said.

Moore's report praises subsequent actions by TVA's Board of Directors on July 21 to publicly acknowledge "that mistakes were made" and to accept a study more critical of management by McKenna Long and Aldridge.

But Moore, using his own engineering consultant, Marshall Miller & Associates, ripped a 6,000-page, 10-volume, $3 million study by AECOM USA Inc. on the cause of the disaster released June 25.

Moore criticized the report for failing to consider management practices and for giving too much weight to a hard-to-find "slime layer" of watery ash deep below the ash pile as the trigger for the collapse. The slime layer explanation tended to lessen the "culpability" and "legal liability" of TVA management, he wrote.

The Marshall Miller study said the spill "could have possibly been prevented" if TVA had heeded concerns about the stability of the Kingston ash pond raised by TVA employees and consultants as early as 1985 and again in 2004.

Barry Thacker, an independent engineering expert in Knoxville, has said leaks in 2003 and 2006 also were signs of growing problems from water pressure deep within the facility. Thacker has discounted the slimes, though the inspector general's study suggested they are plausible.

The main problem, Moore suggested, is a long-held view among those running TVA's coal-fired power plants that "ash was relegated to the status of garbage at a landfill rather than treating it as a potential hazard to the public and the environment."

"For TVA to be successful in avoiding another Kingston spill," Moore wrote, "... employees must be educated to think differently about ash management than they have over several generations."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-f_GmtTyvPi4DPV7Y9IrZkxc8wwD99NGNA84

Uranium Contamination Haunts Navajo Country

Published: July 26, 2009

TEEC NOS POS, Ariz. — It was one year ago that the environmental scientist showed up at Fred Slowman’s door, deep in the heart of Navajo country, and warned that it was unsafe for him to stay there.

The Slowman home, the same one-level cinderblock structure his family had lived in for nearly a half-century, was contaminated with potentially dangerous levels of uranium from the days of the cold war, when hundreds of uranium mines dotted the vast tribal land known as the Navajo Nation. The scientist advised Mr. Slowman, his wife and their two sons to move out until their home could be rebuilt.

“I was angry,” Mr. Slowman said. “I guess it was here all this time, and we never knew.”

The legacy wrought from decades of uranium mining is long and painful here on the expansive reservation. Over the years, Navajo miners extracted some four million tons of uranium ore from the ground, much of it used by the United States government to make weapons.

Many miners died from radiation-related illnesses; some, unaware of harmful health effects, hauled contaminated rocks and tailings from local mines and mills to build homes for their families.

Now, those homes are being demolished and rebuilt under a new government program that seeks to identify what are very likely dozens of uranium-contaminated structures still standing on Navajo land and to temporarily relocate people living in them until the homes can be torn down and rebuilt.

Stephen B. Etsitty, executive director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, and other tribal officials have been grappling for years with the environmental fallout from uranium mining.

“There were a lot of things people weren’t told about the plight of Navajos and uranium mining,” Mr. Etsitty said. “These legacy issues are impacting generations. At some point people are saying, ‘It’s got to end.’ ”

After a Congressional hearing in 2007, a cross-section of federal agencies committed to addressing the environmental and health impacts of uranium mining on the reservation. As part of that commitment, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Navajo Nation began working together to assess uranium levels in 500 structures through a five-year plan set to end in 2012.

Using old lists of potentially contaminated structures, federal and Navajo scientists have fanned out to rural reaches of the 27,000 square mile reservation — which includes swaths of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah — to measure levels of radium, a decay product of uranium that can cause lung cancer. Of 113 structures assessed so far, 27 contained radiation levels that were above normal.

“In these situations, you have contamination in somebody’s yard or in their house,” said Harry Allen, the E.P.A.’s section chief for emergency response in San Francisco who is helping lead the government’s efforts. “To us, that is somewhat urgent.”

Many structures that showed high levels of radiation were vacant; some families had already moved out after hearing stories of contamination in their homes. But eight homes still had people living in them, and the E.P.A. and Navajo officials have worked to convince residents that it would be unsafe to stay.

“People had been told they were living in contaminated structures, but nobody ever did anything about it,” said Will Duncan, an environmental scientist who has been the E.P.A.’s main representative on the reservation. “They would tell us, ‘We don’t believe you are going to follow through.’ ”

But with a budget of nearly $8 million, the E.P.A. has demolished all 27 contaminated structures and has begun building ones to replace those that had been occupied. Typically, the agency pays a Navajo contracting company to construct a log cabin or a traditional hogan in the structure’s stead, depending on the wishes of the occupants. Mr. Allen said the cost, including temporarily relocating residents, ran approximately $260,000 per dwelling and took about eight months.

The agency also offers $50,000 to those who choose not to have an old home rebuilt.

Lillie Lane, a public information officer with the Navajo Nation E.P.A. who has acted as a liaison between the federal government and tribal members, said the program held practical and symbolic importance given the history of uranium mining here.

Ms. Lane described the difficulty of watching families, particularly elders, leaving homes they had lived in for years. She told of coming upon two old miners who died before their contaminated homes could be rebuilt. “In Navajo, a home is considered sacred,” she said. “But if the foundation or the rocks are not safe, we have to do this work.”

Some families, Ms. Lane said, complained that their children were suffering from health problems and had wondered if radiation were to blame.

The E.P.A. has started sifting through records and interviewing family members to figure out whether mining companies that once operated on the reservation are liable for any damages, Mr. Allen said.

On a recent summer day, Fred and Clara Slowman proudly surveyed their new home, a one-level log cabin that sits in the quiet shadows of Black Rock Point, miles away from the bustle of Farmington, N.M., where the family has been living in a hotel.

Mr. Slowman said he suspected that waste materials from a nearby abandoned mine seeped into his house. The family plans on having a traditional Navajo medicine man bless their dwelling before they move in.

“In our traditional way, a house is like your mom,” he said. “It’s where you eat, sleep, where you’re taken care of. And when you come back from the city, you come back to your mom. It makes you feel real good.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/us/27navajo.html?_r=1

Don't Drink The Uranium

August 1, 2009

by Ann Garrison


Havasupai Guardians of the Grand Canyon.
Photo credit: Brenda Norrell

On July 21, 2009, Obama Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a two year "time out" on new uranium mining claims on nearly a million acres of federal land near the Grand Canyon, in response, it seemed, to the protest of environmentalists, and, Native Americans, who still suffer cancers and other illnesses at rates many times higher than the general population, consequent to uranium mining on or near tribal lands.

Cause for celebration? Not in the least. Salazar's announcement is straight out of Orwell's 1984. This two year "time out" is no time out at all, because new mining claims are not the issue. More than 10,000 uranium claims have been staked on federal land immediately surrounding the Grand Canyon in the last three years. According to Roger Clark, Air and Energy Director of the Grand Canyon Trust, if even 1% of these claims become mines, they could seriously contaminate both ground and surface water surrounding the Grand Canyon, which drains into the Colorado River and contributes to the drinking water of 30 million people in the Lower Colorado River Basin, in Arizona, Colorado, and California.

On the day that Salazar announced his faux time out, the Native Havasupai, who make their home at the base of the Grand Canyon's South Rim, began gathering to host a weekend teach-in and speak-out against uranium mining at Red Butte, a Havasupai sacred site they hope to defend from contamination and desecration by Denison Mines' plan to reopen its nearby Arizona One uranium mine. Denison, a collaboration of Dennison Mines, Inc. and Uranium International, was then reported to be only one Arizona air quality permit away from reopening the mine closed 20 years ago.

In November 2008, the Motley Fool stock adviser, in "A Fresh Jolt for Uranium," said that Denison's prospects, like those of other small players in uranium mining were benefiting from increased demand created by uranium mining giant Cameco's ongoing difficulty getting its jet bore uranium mine into operation at Cigar Lake, on Native Canadian land in northern Saskatchewan. In October 2006, while Cameco's Cigar Lake mine was still under construction, a wall of water knocked it into Cigar Lake and adjacent waterways.

The Fool also pointed out that uranium supplies from decomissioned nuclear warheads, a.k.a., "the bomb mine," are running out:

"As it stands, uranium usage routinely exceeds global mine production. We can tap decommissioned warheads and other stockpiles to fill the gap, but that won't last forever. The longer Cigar Lake is delayed, the faster we blow through above-ground supply. That would do wonders for the spot price of uranium."

On July 30th, 2009, nine days after Salazar's announcement, and, four days after the Havasupai concluded their protest, the Motley Fool named Denison as their favorite "penny stock" of the week, meaning, the cheap stock most likely to take off from a very low price. and, maybe even make you rich, on a very small investment:

''Uranium was recently at its lowest price level. With brent price increase, uranium and fossil fuels tend to follow the price increase,'' wrote CAPS investor jajege in June. ''New nuclear power plants are planned and will require more uranium production, especially after the stock of uranium from the nuclear weapons are running out.''

It's still a very risky stock, though, the Fool warned, but only because of its low capitalization of only $2.5 million, its heavy debt load of $100 million, and, the risky nature of mining ventures.

Not because of Interior Secretary Salazar's ''time out,'' and, not because of environmentalist and native resistance, although, in November 2008, the Fool did warn of ''delays in permitting and other pesky problems'':

'None of these companies is immune to mining mishaps. Delays in permitting and other pesky problems have pushed back production schedules pretty much across the board. Still, the growth outlook is very favorable for Denison, which makes it the sort of stock you should own.'

In 2006, the Navajo Nation Tribal Council passed a ban on uranium mining, the first native claim to sovereignty, over natural resources of its kind. Navajo environmentalists have been defending the ban, against enormous pressure, ever since. At Red Butte, members of the Havasupai Tribe said that they hope to enact a ban as well.

As with the Navajo ban, a fundamental question would then be whether uranium mining which endangers the water table well beyond the mining claim itself, violates a Havasupai ban, and/or, the environmental rights of wider communities, including the 30 million people of Arizona, Colorado, and California, who depend on the Colorado River's contribution to the drinking water in the Colorado River Basin.

Free Speech Radio News (FSRN) reported on the gathering at Red Butte, and Censored News writer/editor Brenda Norrell captured video: "Havasupai: Singing away uranium mining."

http://www.examiner.com/x-8257-SF-Energy-Policy-Examiner~y2009m8d1-Uranium-the-Havasupai-and-drinking-water-in-the-Colorado-River-Basin

Monday, July 20, 2009

Interior to halt uranium mining at Grand Canyon

The land is being "segregated" for two years so that the department can study whether it should be permanently withdrawn from mining activity, said the official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

The announcement comes ahead of Tuesday's congressional hearing on a bill to set aside more than 1 million acres of federal lands north and south of the canyon. The bill's sponsor, Democratic U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, and environmental groups had been looking to Salazar for temporary protections at the Grand Canyon while the legislation is pending.

The Interior Department under President George W. Bush was unresponsive to efforts to ban new uranium mining claims. The House Natural Resources Committee invoked a little-used rule to stop any new claims for up to three years, but Interior officials refused to recognize the action and continued to authorize additional mining claims.

A coalition of environmental groups sued, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management later rescinded Congress' right to withdraw lands from mining and other activities in emergencies.

Since then, environmentalists and Grijalva have been hanging their hopes on Salazar for temporary protections.

Any companion bill to Grijalva's in the Senate is unlikely to come from Arizona's two U.S. senators. Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl told Grijalva in a letter last month that adequate protections already exist.

Conservationists contend mining leaves the Grand Canyon vulnerable to environmental damage and that no new operations should be proposed when the old mining sites haven't been cleaned up.

There are as many as 10,000 existing mining claims on BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands near the Grand Canyon for all types of hard-rock exploration. Some 1,100 uranium mining claims are within five miles of the Grand Canyon National Park.

The protections offered by Salazar won't include uranium mining claims already filed near the Grand Canyon, the official said. It's not possible to prevent existing claims under the General Mining Act of 1872 unless Congress was to appropriate money for the department to buy up the claims, he said.

Former Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Rob Arnberger said he would welcome any protection that Salazar offers, but permanent withdrawal is the goal.

"Are we prepared to allow the landscape to be torn up adjacent to the park, to threaten the hydrological and the natural resources of that park?" Arnberger said. "My answer to that is no. Don't open it up to exploration."

___

Associated Press Writer Felicia Fonseca reported from Flagstaff, Ariz.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090720/ap_on_bi_ge/us_grand_canyon_mining

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Company on Mission to Fuel the Future With Biofuels

BY DAVID YOUNG
July 19, 2009

It may sound like something out of a science fiction film, but the fields of algae growing in plastic bags submerged in water in Southern Colorado are a reality and could be the future of biofuels.

Solix Biofuels Inc. launched its first full-scale biofuels demonstration facility, the first of its kind in the world, last week by inoculating its photobioreactor system to start growing algae.

The 2-acre facility, named Coyote Gulch, is southwest of Durango on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. The inception of the new plant is a monumental step for the CSU startup company in its quest to deliver biofuels to the masses at an affordable price.

Founded in 2006, Solix is developing low-cost scalable photobioreactors where algae grows inside plastic bags suspended in the sunlight in place of open-pond conditions. The goal is to cheaply mass produce oil derived from algae and convert it to biodiesel that could fuel vehicle and planes.

On Tuesday at Solix's Fort Collins offices at Colorado State University's Engines and Energy Conversions Laboratory, Solix's Chief Financial Officer David Maytubby said the new plant will produce 2,000 gallons per-acre per-year of biofuel in 2009, and expand to about 3,000 gallons per-acre per-year by 2010.

To be commercially viable, Maytubby said the facility would need to produce between 3,000 and 4,000 gallons of biofuel per-acre per-year on 150 to 200 acres. He anticipates the Coyote Gulch facility could reach that point within the next three years. Solix broke ground on the site Feb. 18 and begins production this week.

For now, Solix has three large water basins on the plant site, each filled with plastic bags in which the algae grows. The project, dubbed "Gemini Reactors," is 25-times the size of its pilot project outside its Fort Collins' office known as the "Mercury Reactors."

Eventually, Solix intends to expand to commercial capacity at its Southern Colorado facility, which is referred to as the "Apollo Reactor."

The process of creating algae biofuel requires land, CO2 and water, something that Solix's partners at the Southern Ute Alternative Energy LLC have plenty of. Currently, the facility, which has photobioreactors on one acre and a harvesting plant in the works on another, has surveyed 14-acres and has an additional 180 acres to expand its Coyote Gulch Demonstration Facility if Solix meets certain benchmarks.

Read this complete article about Solix and its biofuel innovations here:

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20090719/BUSINESS/907190301
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jiffy Facts About Solix Biofuels Inc.
(source above)

Overview: The world's largest algae-to-energy technology development company.

Mission: To be the world's leading producer of algal fuels, algal co-products and production technology systems.

CEO: Doug Henston

Founded: 2006

Headquarters: Fort Collins

Demonstration facility: Coyote Gulch Demonstration Facility in Southwestern Colorado inoculated its first photobioreactor system to start growing algae last week.

Employees: 75

Investors: Bohemian Investments, Infield Capital, I2BF, SAIL Ltd., Southern Ute Alternative Energy, Valero Energy Corp.

U.S. Cabinet officials visit Pittsylvania County

By Matt Tomsic

July 18, 2009

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu stressed the importance of government support for rural Americans during the recession while in Pittsylvania County on Saturday.

The two secretaries said farmers need to explore production of alternate energy sources and that the government will financially help those taking on such innovation. They hosted a community forum, allowing citizens the chance to ask them questions. Earlier in the day, they visited Piedmont Bioproducts, which is a cooperative that is exploring petroleum replacement products and environmental enhancement.

More than 250 people packed onto Buddy Mayhew’s farm in Blairs for a community forum with Vilsack and Chu. Some sat in brown folding chairs under a tin roof held up by steel crossbeams. Others sat under a white tent behind the structure. Some residents leaned against the crossbeams or the tent’s supports after seating filled up.

A single podium stood in front of a stage.

Rep. Tom Perriello, D-5th District spoke first.

“I’ve been bragging about you an awful lot up in Washington,” he said. “Telling everyone that we are at the cutting edge of Southside Virginia.”

Perriello said he has learned a lot about the opportunities that are available. He said the community will survive the tough times and lead “the commonwealth and lead the country in areas that we’re frankly better at than anybody else.”

He introduced Vilsack, who spoke about federal aid and government programs that are available to rural areas.

“This has been a difficult time, and so the president was very insistent on putting together a stimulus program,” he said. “In the short term, one goal was to allow people to transition during tough times.”

He said that’s why the government extended unemployment benefits and gave tax relief to working families.

Vilsack also said the government will be installing broadband access into rural communities that lack it.

“That’s the kind of infrastructure that people want built,” he said.

He also spoke about the climate change bill that Congress passed. The bill helps farmers transition to the use and production of alternate energy forms. He said the USDA has analyzed the problem and found that increased costs will be offset by income opportunities.

“In my lifetime I have not seen this kind of investment,” Vilsack said.

He also stressed the importance of keeping rural farms in business.

“It’s about the values system that is represented in areas and communities just like this,” Vilsack said. “I think it’s at the heart of what makes America a special place.”

Vilsack then introduced Chu, who talked about energy alternatives for the country and the importance of investing in those alternatives soon.

“What this country has, perhaps more than any other country in the world, is an agricultural resource,” Chu said.

The country can use extra agricultural products to grow energy sources and decrease the dependence on imported oil, which accounts for 60 percent of the oil we use, he said.

Chu also spoke about weatherization, which would make homes more energy efficient and save consumers money on their utility bills.

The Department of Energy also is investing in centers that research the technology and science behind alternative energy sources, Chu said.

He finished his speech with a hockey analogy about Wayne Gretzky.

“He’s not a rough and tumble kind of guy,” Chu said. “He’s a skinny guy. So how is he arguably the world’s best hockey player? He said, ‘It’s how I positioned myself on the ice. I skated to where the puck is going to be, not where it’s been.’”

The United States needs to be doing the same thing. Chu said, “Let’s figure out where the world is going, let’s recognize this, use our ingenuity, use our resources, and let’s take advantage of it.”

After the secretary of energy’s speech, the three politicians took questions.

Constituents asked about ways to streamline governmental bureaucracy, the future of nuclear power, uranium mining and solar power.

The three politicians answered the questions thoroughly, saying they were trying to make interaction with their departments and the government easier. Chu and Vilsack also stressed the need for innovation and investment in nuclear and solar energy as long as both could be done safely.

Throughout the speeches and questions, a breeze blew in from the audience’s back, and a nearby rooster crowed.

Afterward, Coy Harville, the chairman of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, gave Chu and Vilsack Pittsylvania County afghans and Jefferson cups.

The community forum marked the end of the cabinet members’ day in Pittsylvania County.

Earlier, they toured Piedmont Bioproducts. Both politicians talked about their tour during their speeches, saying that the business is doing the work of the future. Both were impressed with its operations.

Ken Moss, the president of the business, led the tour. He showed them the company’s farmland and plant. Chu and Vilsack asked Moss questions throughout the tour. And Chu even offered some advice at the end.

The men were in the plant looking at the production equipment when Chu made a comment about the silver pipes that turned at right angles. He said the sharper angles required more energy to push the contents through the turns.

“The bends cost the most amount of money,” Chu said. “Big circles reduce the resistance a lot. These are all the wrong bends.”

“They’re the only ones we could afford at the time,” Moss replied, laughing.

Residents said they were impressed with the politicians’ visit after the community forum.

Carter Elliott and his son, Tres, said they both learned a lot about energy and especially solar panels. They came because Carter, 63, is a dairy farmer in Rustburg, which is outside of Lynchburg. Vilsack devoted the beginning of his speech to the particularly tough times dairy farmers were having and what the government was doing to help. Both men said they were impressed with the two secretaries and that it was the first time anything like that had happened in the area.

Marvin Moss, 51, of Pittsylvania County, said he thought Vilsack and Chu were “absolutely great.

“I think it will have a lasting effect on the community,” he added.

President Barack Obama named Vilsack as the leader of his administration’s Rural Tour, which is visiting communities in states throughout the country. Vilsack will visit Alaska, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina and Ohio in the next few months.

The tour is an attempt by the Obama administration to tell local citizens how it’s revitalizing and rebuilding rural America. Another goal is to give those citizens a way to tell his administration their concerns.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/article/u.s._cabinet_officials_visit_pittsylvania_county/12552/

Friday, July 17, 2009

The history of uranium mining: doomed to repeat itself

To the nuke-advocate who, several months ago, accused me of relying on Greenpeace articles for this blog, here it is...the first Greenpeace article.

Nuclear fuel production – the mining, milling and enriching of uranium – is one of the nuclear industry’s dirty secrets. Very little attention is paid to it by industry propagandists and pro-nuclear politicians and for very good reason. It’s dirty, dangerous, incredibly damaging to the environment and endangers the health of those people unfortunate enough to live close to uranium mines.

To hear some supporters of nuclear energy talk, you’d think the whole process of generating electricity begins with the throwing of a reactor’s ‘on’ switch. But there’s a long story before we even get that far. It’s also a long, sad story that often goes untold in the wider media. Pick any uranium mine around the world and it will invariably be surrounded by stories of pollution, contamination and the exploitation of local communities. Niger, Namibia, Brazil, Canada, Kazakhstan. And Australia.

The country’s ‘Environment Minister Peter Garrett has formally approved the new Four Mile uranium mine in South Australia, saying it poses no environmental risks’. The premier of South Australian, Mike Rann, welcomed the decision saying operations at the state’s nearby Beverley mine ‘show that uranium can be mined without damaging the surrounding environment’.

Which means neither man can have read the South Australian governments own figures into spills at the Beverley mine. Here are just a few

Apr. 22, 2006: spill of 14,400 litres of solution containing approx. 0.5% uranium

Oct. 31, 2005: spill of 23,700 litres of mining solution, containing approx. 0.06% uranium
Aug. 8, 2005: spill of 13,500 litres of extraction fluid containing approx. 0.01% uranium

Mar. 7, 2005: spill of 50,000 - 60,000 litres of injection fluid

Dec. 8, 2004: spill of approx. 2,300 litres of mining solution, containing 0.028% uranium

June 13, 2002: spill of 1,750 litres of brine solution

June 7, 2002: spill of 1,500 litres of injection fluid in the well field

May 5, 2002: spill of 14,900 litres of water containing 0.0018% uranium

May 1, 2002: spill of almost 7,000 litres of brine solution containing some uranium

January 11, 2002: spill of 60,000 liters of groundwater containing acid and uranium, after pipe rupture

Fancy the premier of South Australia being so ignorant of such worrying safety violations going on in his own state. Scandalous.

In fact, that’s the word to sum up the whole Four Mile story: scandalous. Peter Garrett is a former campaigning rock star who fought doggedly against nuclear power before entering politics (‘Why would Australians support an industry that produces radioactive waste, toxic waste?’ he said just three years ago), And with the local Aboriginal communities being (yet again) left out of the negotiations and decision-making over Four Mile, this all has a horribly familiar ring to it.

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/07/the_history_of_uranium_mining.html

Media Advisory: Grand Canyon Rally to Focus on Uranium Threats

A July 25-26 Gathering at the Sacred Red Butte Will Host Traditional Havasupai Ceremonies, Concerts, and Forums to Stop Uranium Mining Near the Grand Canyon and Havasupai Traditional Lands

GRAND CANYON, Ariz.— Conservation groups today announced support of the Havasupai tribe in its convening of a traditional gathering at Red Butte, a sacred site just south of the Grand Canyon. The gathering will include prayers, ceremonies, concerts, and forums focused on protecting the Grand Canyon and traditional Havasupai lands from uranium mining. Members of the public are invited to attend and add their voice in support of saying no to uranium mining. The media are invited to attend the entire event, which will include a press conference at 3 p.m. on Saturday, July 25.

The rally responds to sharp increases in new uranium mining claims, exploration, and permitting to reopen old mines on public lands surrounding Grand Canyon National Park. Uranium development threatens to damage wildlife habitat, industrialize iconic wildlands, and contaminate surface water and groundwater feeding regional seeps and springs, including Havasu springs and waterfalls near the Supai Village in Grand Canyon. The Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Grand Canyon Trust have mounted legal challenges against new uranium exploration in the area and have urged the Obama administration to protect those lands, which are sacred to the Havasupai and other tribes.

The Havasupai tribe and conservation groups have also been actively opposing efforts of the Denison Mine Company to reopen the Canyon Mine, an old mine located on the Kaibab National Forest near Red Butte, the site of the upcoming rally. Denison is seeking groundwater aquifer permits from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to operate the Canyon Mine and extract uranium. The tribes’ sources for drinking water, as well as sources for other communities along the South Rim and Colorado River, lie directly downstream from the site of these proposed operations.

This gathering will be held south of the Grand Canyon National Park near Red Butte, a sacred site for the Havasupai tribe. On Friday, members of the Havasupai tribe will hold a private ceremony meant to use prayers to focus positive change towards ending uranium mining. On Saturday, members of the public will be invited to join the Havasupai at a free public concert at 6 p.m. with performances by traditional Havasupai, Hopi, and Aztec dancers; bands like Burning Sky, joined by John Densmore, drummer for the Doors; Casper from Hopi Land; and Navajo songwriter Clarence Clearwater.

The media are welcomed to attend at any time during the events on Saturday and Sunday and a news conference will be held Saturday afternoon at 3 p.m. at the conclusion of the private Havasupai ceremony. A map to the gathering can be found at www.arizona.sierraclub.org.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/grand-canyon-rally-7-17-09.html

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Abandoned uranium mines pose health risk to New Mexicans

Study: Increased likelihood of kidney disease and diabetes among people who live close to mines

By Marjorie Childress 5/7/09

ALBUQUERQUE — New Mexico legislators are in Washington D.C. this week to press the federal government to help clean up hundreds of abandoned uranium mines that dot the state’s landscape.

The trip comes on the heels of an appropriation of $150,000 included in this year’s state budget to help complete the painstaking work of assessing the extent of the problem, said Bill Brancard, director of the state’s Mining and Minerals Division of the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department.

So far, his agency has listed 259 mines that have reported uranium production at some point. And there may be many more than that, he said.

The agency has a second list of 400 “uranium occurrences,” where uranium mines saw “significant exploration” but from which no production was ever reported to the state, Brancard said.

According to Jon Goldstein, deputy secretary of the state Environment Department, the mines cover a wide variety in scale, but most operated without regulation.

“These mines range from full-scale mines to what’s commonly known as a dog hole, where a prospector was going out and trying to do it on his own,” he said. “And when most of these ‘legacy’ mines were operating, there weren’t the rules there are today. The Clean Water Act hadn’t been passed and the New Mexico Environment Department didn’t exist.”

The abandoned mines are found literally all over the state. But the overwhelming concentration is in the “Grants uranium belt” in western New Mexico. Uranium mining began in earnest on Navajo land in the 1950s and lasted until the late 1980s. This was the “Grants uranium boom,” Brancard explained.

The uranium, or “yellow cake,” was produced for the federal government’s nuclear program in the early decades then became an important fuel source for electricity producers.

Of the 259 mines that reported uranium production to the state, 137 have no record of any kind of clean up or restoration work. Those mines are the targets of the assessment being undertaken by the mining and minerals agency.

The agency is visiting the sites to assess the condition of the physical landscape–whether there are open mine shafts or waste piles, for instance — and to do radiology surveys. These surveys take readings of mining features and compare them with background readings to determine a mine’s radioactivity.

Data on the health impacts of uranium mining on communities is hard to come by. While studies have been done on miners themselves, studies looking at the effects on entire communities have been limited in scope.

Dr. Johnnye Lewis, director of the Community Environmental Health Department in the College of Pharmacy at UNM’s Health Sciences Center, is currently heading up an effort to assess the health impact of uranium mines in 20 chapters of the Eastern Agency of the Navajo Nation.

Thirty percent of the people who live in those Navajo chapters don’t have access to regulated drinking water, Lewis said. Since many haul their water, one goal is to find out which sources are clean.

In addition to proximity, Lewis’s research is also looking at how people come into contact with mines.

“Some of the mines don’t even look like mines,” Lewis explained. “You’d never know they’re there or might not recognize them for what they are.”

“No wonder then that people use abandoned ore in their homes, that kids swim in contaminated water or play around mine waste, or that people shelter livestock in abandoned mines,” she added.

Lewis’s team has only finished the first stage of the study, but initial findings show an increase in likelihood of kidney disease and diabetes among people who live close to mines, she said.

The findings have to take into account a higher prevalence of these health problems among Navajo and Hispanic populations in general, she said. However, a longterm medical monitoring program conducted in Fernald, Ohio has also shown an increase in kidney disease among people living near and drinking water contaminated by uranium. The initial findings in New Mexico support those results, she added.

Return of uranium mining?

There’s currently no uranium mining in the state, but in recent years there’s been renewed interest by industry to dig back in. This is due to a surge in prices in response to increased global demand. Between 2003 and 2007, the price skyrocketed from under $25 a pound to over $175, and then fell back down to around $50 a pound today.

Goldstein said the “amount of chatter has decreased” since the drop from the high in 2007, but that there is currently one active mine permit in the works.

The Mount Taylor Uranium Mine is owned by Rio Grande Resources, and is located northeast of Grants, just outside the Mount Taylor Traditional Cultural Property boundary, which was established last year. The company’s website says the mine site contains the “largest uranium resource” in the U.S., with an estimated 100 million pounds of uranium.

Goldstein said when the mine was closed in the late 1980’s, it flooded with water which the company will now have to pump out and treat in order to resume mining, something the mine owners are trying to figure out how to do now.

“It was operated in the 1970s up to the late 1980s,” Goldstein said. “A lot of mines have to pump ground water to keep dry. They turned the pumps off in this mine in 1989, and let it flood. That water is contaminated, so we’re waiting to hear from them how they intend to treat it.”

The mine also faces a lot of scrutiny from the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the pueblos of Zuni, Acoma, and Laguna, which consider Mount Taylor a sacred site and pushed for its designation by the state last year as a traditional cultural property, as a direct result of the increased interest in uranium mining.

One of the primary leaders in getting the mine assessment funds appropriated this year, state Sen. Lynda Lovejoy, D-Crownpoint, said that the prospect of new uranium mining in the state is concerning given the many mines that haven’t been cleaned up.

While the federal government has shouldered the responsibility for cleaning up uranium mills, they’ve paid little attention to the mines themselves, she said.

“Over the last few years during the interim [Senate] Indian Affairs Committee has held joint sessions at which we’ve discussed the renewed interest by industry in uranium mining,” Lovejoy said.

“But in these places where the mining might resume, like the Ambrosia Lake area near Grants, or the Churchrock and Crownpoint areas, a lot of sites haven’t been cleaned up.”

Lovejoy said she’s toured the areas to see some of the abandoned sites.

“It’s appalling, and we want to know why the state and the federal government haven’t made it a priority to clean them up.”

Lovejoy carried a Senate Memorial urging the federal government to clean up the mines, and this week she joins the delegation of five other legislators in Washington to drive the point home.

In addition to speaking with members of Congress about the problem, the legislators are making the rounds at federal agencies, including the Departments of Interior and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

http://newmexicoindependent.com/26823/abandoned-uranium-mines-pose-health-risk-to-new-mexicans

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Church Rock Contemplations: Uranium Mine Disaster Anniversary

Today, the Church Rock accident is acknowledged as likely the largest single release of radioactive contamination ever to take place in U.S. history (outside of the atomic bomb tests). A few weeks after it occurred, the mine and mill operator, United Nuclear Corporation, was back in business at Church Rock as if nothing had happened.

by Stuart Heady
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Daily Kos

On the morning of July 16, 1979, Church Rock (just east of Gallup, NM and north of I-40) was a small sun baked community of mainly Navajo (Dine') people, herding sheep or growing a little corn amidst red dirt and sagebrush. Clusters of traditional hogans (eight sided cabins) and mobile homes can be seen from the roads throughout the region, marking family land allotments.

Behind an earthen pond dam, ninety million gallons of liquid radioactive waste, and eleven hundred tons of solid mill wastes were sitting in a pond waiting for evaporation to leave behind solids. Suddenly, the dam gave way and the waters burst through, flowing out across the red land, and down the washes to permanently contaminate the Rio Puerco, known to traditional Dine' as To' Nizhoni (beautiful water.)

Today, the Church Rock accident is acknowledged as likely the largest single release of radioactive contamination ever to take place in U.S. history (outside of the atomic bomb tests). A few weeks after it occurred, the mine and mill operator, United Nuclear Corporation, was back in business at Church Rock as if nothing had happened.

I lived on the Navajo Nation for several years, at Tsaile, near Lukachukai - over the mountains to the north and west of Church Rock by maybe 80 miles as the crow flies. I came to know several families that had been affected by uranium mining.

The reason that the Navajo Nation banned uranium mining a couple of years ago was primarily because of the complete and utter disregard for Navajo people that mining has brought with it. That doesn't seem to have changed, as companies with recent proposals seem to think that just ghastly after-effects will be much more tolerated among Navajos than anywhere else.

Recently, there have been proposals to use volumes of water and settling ponds as a way of getting uranium out of the ground. Local meetings are held and the company dismisses concern that this will contaminate the water supply - in an area where water is terribly precious. If they proposed this with a straight face in any large urban community in the country they would get laughed out of there. Rural areas are in a terrible bind, due to lack of jobs and lack of information resources. There is also a dearth of effective advocacy on the part of elected officials, who are also from the same financially desperate environment and who may depend on mining companies for information.

One of the more amazing things I learned from being in the neighborhood was that children of the original "dog hole" miners from the 1960s and before believe that they experience second generation health impacts and worry about passing genetic damage on. The health care provider in the area is the Indian Health Service. I checked with the IHS and discovered that the federal government never did any studies assessing this.

Consistently, Indian people are treated to a great amount of disregard. If there are no studies, than the prospect that people can complain about such effects is effectively muted. That is completely consistent with the history of disregard and disrespect that Indian people have suffered at the hands of government, missionies and loads of well meaning others. These are very family oriented people. They remain closely connected with aunts and uncles, cousins, and in-law relations across the region. Experience is shared.

There are some 700 small mines still unclosed. A "dog hole" basically means one man, one shovel. The piles of dirt from these are still right where they were left. Rain causes local water to be contaminated, which is taken up by plants and eaten by sheep and cows. Only recently has cleanup begun to be addressed, since interest in uranium was renewed by 4.00 per gallon gasoline.

These are not people who can move away. The land has been inherited down Dine' family lines since at least the 1868 treaty, and possibly before that, as far back as about 1500 (maybe earlier). A legacy like that cannot be replaced.

I think the Navajo Nation was right to ban uranium mining outright. I can foresee a future in which some mining might be done again, but the problem that needs to be addressed is sufficient respect for the land and the people. What is more likely is mining companies looking for ways to force their way in, through lawsuits, and overpower local concerns just like in the old days.

Mining seems to be accompanied by a psychology that disregards and disrespects local people and the local environment and is dishonest to boot. Indian people are the last ethnic group to be considered when it comes to progress against racial discrimination. It is hard to believe it until you develop friends who are Indian and then see it through their eyes. It is just shameful that this should still be the case in 21st Century America.

That is why Church Rock needs to be remembered.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/15/753791/-Church-Rock-Contemplations-Uranium-Mine-Disaster

Monday, July 6, 2009

Commemoration set for uranium spill site

Published Monday, July 6, 2009 4:27 PM MDT

The Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment, a coalition of community groups affected by uranium mining and committed to renewable energy development, announces the 30th anniversary commemoration of the Church Rock uranium tailings spill on July 16.

The purposes of the event are to remember and honor the Dine communities that were affected by the largest release of radioactive waste in U.S. history, and to reaffirm the Navajo Nation's ban on uranium mining and processing, as set forth in the Dine Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005.

A prayer walk will be held on State Route 566 from Red Water Pond Road next to the Northeast Church Rock Mine to the site of the spill across from the United Nuclear Corp. mill site and ending at the King Family Ranch on Old Churchrock Mine Road at SR 566 - a distance of about five miles. Prayers for healing will offered at the start of the walk and at the spill site. The walk will end at the King Ranch with a press conference where Navajo Nation elected officials will reaffirm the Navajo Nation ban on uranium mining.

The Church Rock Spill occurred when an earthen tailings dam at the UNC Church Rock Uranium Mill spilled on the morning of July 16, 1979. The mill's radioactive fluids spilled into the Puerco River in New Mexico and traveled downstream to Chambers, Ariz. According to MASE, more radiation was released in the spill than in the Three Mile Island reactor accident, which occurred in March of that same year, and the spill ranks second only to the 1986 Chernobyl reactor meltdown in the amount of radiation released. The spill, combined with more than 20 years of discharges of untreated and poorly treated uranium mine water, has contributed to long-term contamination of the Puerco River in New Mexico and Arizona.

Commemorating the Church Rock spill is a reminder that the burden of the uranium legacy is still being carried by the Dine people and communities throughout the Grants Mineral Belt. A formal cleanup plan for the Northeast Church Rock Mine was issued in June, 27 years after the mine closed. Red Water Pond Road residents living next to the mine will have to move temporarily this later this year as more work is done to remove contamination from their community. Full reclamation of the Old Church Rock Mine across from the King Ranch remains to be done. MASE groups from Laguna Pueblo to Milan to Church Rock continue to press federal and state agencies for a comprehensive plan to address the uranium legacy.

http://www.cibolabeacon.com/articles/2009/07/06/news/doc4a526ab32b8bf380862945.txt

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Gazette-Virginian Poll on Safety Issues and Study

Uranium Poll

Will the uranium mining study as outlined by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission sufficiently address the safety and enviromental questions associated with the issue?

Right now the voting is 60% "yes" and 40% "no".

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Uranium mining firm asks for appeals court review

June 6, 2009

Written by HEATHER CLARK

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) – A uranium mining company has asked a federal appeals court to review an April decision that a proposed uranium mine site in western New Mexico is on American Indian land.

Lewisville, Texas-based Uranium Resource Inc. said Monday it asked the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver for an “en banc review” of the decision that sided with the Environmental Protection Agency. Monday was the deadline for making the request.


A 2-1 decision made on April 17 by a three-judge panel requires URI subsidiary Hydro Resources Inc. to obtain a groundwater injection permit from the Environmental Protection Agency, which delays the company’s plans to mine for uranium near Church Rock. The company already has a state groundwater injection permit.


Hydro Resources Inc. had challenged an EPA ruling that the mine site was on Indian land. The site is surrounded by the Navajo Nation.


“Our objective remains to resolve issues with the Navajo Nation regarding uranium mining in New Mexico, so we can be well positioned to begin production as quickly and as safely as possible,” URI president and chief executive, Dave Clark, said in a news release.


An en banc review would bring the case before 12 circuit court judges, but the court could always reject the request.


Rick Van Horn, vice president of URI, said the company hopes the judges will reconsider the April ruling.


“The way the opinion was written, it looked like we had a chance of doing something with it,” Van Horn said in a telephone interview from Kingsville, Texas.


If the court fails to review the case, Van Horn said his company’s plans are to obtain the EPA permit, but doing so would delay the project by six to 18 months. It is the last permit needed before mining can begin.


URI, which has a license to mine 15 million pounds of uranium, could be producing within 18 months to two years using the state groundwater injection permit it already has, he said, if the Navajo Nation would lift a ban on uranium mining.


“We would much rather settle this with the Native Americans and go forward so we can just start mining,” he said.


Many Navajos oppose renewed uranium mining in northwestern New Mexico because they suffered health and environmental problems during previous uranium mining booms in the 1960s and 1970s.


But Van Horn has maintained methods of mining have improved in recent decades and his company is committed to environmental protection and the safety of its employees.


“We continue to meet with members of the Nation and I believe we are making some progress” on resolving their concerns, he said.


Telephone calls to a spokesman for Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. were not immediately returned Monday.


A senior attorney with the Navajo Department of Justice’s Natural Resources Unit who has previously commented on the case has said the tribe wants the EPA rather than the state to have jurisdiction over groundwater at the proposed mine because the federal government has a higher obligation to protect the interests of American Indians.


Hydro Resources, which owns the surface and mineral rights, wants to inject chemicals into the ground to release uranium and pump the solution to the surface in a process called in-situ leaching.


The company had sought a permit from New Mexico in 2005 to operate the mine, but the state asked the EPA to make a decision on the status of the land.


Hydro Resources has argued the site, known as Section 8, isn’t legally part of the Navajo reservation and is private land. But the appellate panel determined that the EPA was correct in designation the land as Indian Country.


The Church Rock chapter was set aside by the federal government, which bought land from the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company in the 1920s and gave some parcels to individual Navajos and placed others into a trust for the Navajo Nation.


http://nativetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1900&Itemid=&Itemid=29

Friday, June 5, 2009

Mining the Grand Canyon

June 4, 2009 by chrisgraham

Dear EarthTalk: Are plans to mine uranium near the Grand Canyon, as proposed by the Bush administration in 2008, still underway?
- Denton Chase, Half Moon Bay, Calif.

The Obama administration has been quick to overturn several anti-environmental moves ushered in during the 11th hour of George W. Bush’s presidency, but halting uranium exploration and mining near the Grand Canyon has not been one of them.

Last fall, Bush’s Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, circumvented a prohibition on mining activities by authorizing uranium exploration within a million acre buffer zone around Grand Canyon National Park. Recent spikes in the price of uranium—perhaps due to renewed interest in nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels as global warming makes its presence felt—have led to a surge in applications for new uranium mining permits on otherwise protected federal lands.

Green groups fear that once mining starts near the Grand Canyon, similar destructive plans will also get the green light in and around other protected areas, including Arches National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, Canyonlands National Park and the proposed Dolores River Canyon wilderness area.

When Kempthorne first proposed opening up the land to uranium mining, several concerned parties—including dozens of elected officials, public utilities and Native American tribes—complained about potential threats to surface and ground water from such activities. They fear that uranium mining in the area could lead to the release of radioactivity and heavy metals like selenium into the Colorado River and its watershed, including within Grand Canyon National Park.

In lieu of federal action on the issue, green groups have taken up the cause. Some, like the Pew Environment Group, are lobbying President Obama to overturn the mining allowances; others are working the judicial angle. Three organizations—the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club—filed suit in federal court in October 2008 to block the Bureau of Land Management, which manages the area, from allowing uranium mining in what they consider risky and nationally significant areas. “This is an agency in dire need of leadership from the new administration,” says Taylor McKinnon, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Grand Canyon deserves it.”

The battle over uranium mining near the Grand Canyon sheds light on an even larger issue: the 1872 Mining Law, enacted under President Ulysses S. Grant and still in effect today. Long a bone of contention along partisan lines, the law has so far opened up of some 350 million acres of public land across the western U.S. to virtually unchecked mining. Green groups maintain that the law, put in place to encourage westward expansion, no longer makes sense in the modern era of dwindling natural resources.

“Current federal policy that allows the mining industry to operate next to America’s national icons and against the will of local communities must be changed,” said Jane Danowitz, Pew’s U.S. public lands program director. “It’s time to modernize the nation’s 1872 mining law.”

http://augustafreepress.com/2009/06/04/earth-talk-mining-the-grand-canyon/

Canada's Uranium Mining

The Yellowcake Trail tracks all aspects of uranium in Canada from the mining and milling, to processing and use, throughout its eighty-year history. The story begins with the history of uranium in Canada, from its initial discovery to the rapid development of mines that placed Canada as the prominent world leader in uranium production. Each mine has a story and each story has a common thread and legacy.

Fatal Attraction

Yellowcake is the bright yellow uranium powder produced when raw uranium ore is crushed and purified. It is actually a mixture of uranium oxides, mostly U3O8 (urania), and ranges in colour from yellow to orange to dark green. It is this yellowcake that is packaged in steel drums, traded and sent across the world to be further processed, converted to different forms, enriched and used in the manufacture of nuclear fuel or bombs.

The Yellowcake Trail is lined with environmental devastation, sickness and death. The nuclear industry has always been a law unto itself, sheltered by governments promoting the industry as a safe and clean means of satisfying the insatiable demand for energy. Yet no insurance company in the world will sell liability insurance to a nuclear power plant. Nuclear scientists and engineers strongly endorse nuclear power, caught up in their fascination with the unique properties of uranium and the power it unleashes.

Nuclear (radioactive) waste is deadly to human beings in amounts as small as a millionth of a gram, and we have produced it in hundreds of thousands of tonnes. It is already leaking out of totally inadequate containment, not only from mine sites, refineries and nuclear power plants, but also from nuclear weapons programs. There is no way to get rid of it and it remains lethal for millions of years.

For decades, Canada has been the world’s largest producer of uranium, home to the richest ore deposits, the largest uranium mine in the world, and the largest publicly traded uranium mining company – CAMECO (Canadian Mining and Energy Corporation).

As Canadians, we need to understand the detrimental impacts of uranium mining, processing and use to our country and to the health and environment of communities affected by these operations. At every stage there is polluted air, land, and water, wreaking permanent destruction on the health and environment of communities – especially, native communities, their food sources, and their natural habitat.

Once exploration and mining starts, there is no end – the mines can be closed and abandoned as often is the case, but the radioactive tailings remain.

http://www.greenmuze.com/climate/energy/1184-canadas-uranium-mining.html