Permit delay worries uranium hopefuls

Remember that old saying when we were all kids in high school..."Gee, I'm so sorry my heart bleeds purple kool-aid for you"? Well, here's a crowd that's eliciting that sentiment. U prices are way down, the NRC just might be responding to the ground-swell of citizen protest, investors losing patience...all of these things make my heart bleed purple Kool-Aid.


By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER
Casper Star-Tribune

Several proposed uranium mining projects in Wyoming and across the West will be delayed due the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's recent decision requiring a more thorough site-specific analysis for each project.

The NRC will require a supplemental environmental impact statement for each mining project rather than a more simplified environmental assessment, which the agency had considered.

Some officials in the uranium industry claim the NRC overreacted to a groundswell of public concern that they say comes from either ignorance of the in-situ leach mining process or a desire to block uranium mining.

Industry officials have also told the Star-Tribune they worry that investors are losing patience.

However, those who scrutinize the emerging next generation of uranium mining say both the industry and government regulators have a history that deserves skepticism. Shannon Anderson, community organizer for the Powder River Basin Resource Council, said she has researched dozens upon dozens of spills and excursions documented by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

The Star-Tribune has also reviewed DEQ documentation describing dozens of violations related to in-situ recovery of uranium in the state.

Most recently, a 2007 DEQ investigation documented yearslong, regular violations at Cameco Corp.'s Smith Ranch-Highland in-situ uranium mine in Converse County. It resulted in a $1 million settlement, although Cameco and DEQ insist no one was injured as a result of the violations, and there was no long-lasting environmental damage.

"Asking questions isn't necessarily opposition to these projects. We are citizens of Wyoming, and we want to promote development that is beneficial to the state. But we also want to protect citizens and the environment," Anderson said.

Industry officials counter that there have been at least 15 commercial-scale in-situ uranium well-fields successfully restored in Wyoming, and not one documented case of damage to human health or contamination of drinking water.

NRC's caution

Uranium One controls more than 100 million pounds of historically identified uranium resources in Wyoming, and says it has 61 potential mine projects in the state.

The predecessors of Uranium One first filed applications with the NRC and DEQ in October 2007 for the proposed Moore Ranch in-situ mine and processing plant near the Pumpkin Buttes in Campbell County. Company officials said the NRC's decision to require a more thorough environmental analysis means production will begin in 2011 rather than 2010.

"We have been told various firm dates by the NRC, yet every time we get close to ending the process, something changes," said Donna Wichers, senior vice president of Uranium One, Americas.

In moving to the supplemental environmental impact statement requirement, NRC reportedly told some in the uranium industry that the extra analysis makes the new mining projects less susceptible to lawsuits and legal delays.

Wayne Heili, president of mining for UR Energy, said he's obviously disappointed with the delay. However, he said it's hard to blame the NRC for doing its best to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Heili said he believes the NRC's move toward a supplemental environmental impact statement has more to do with public comments insisting on more public involvement in the licensing process, and less about the industry's past track record.

"To the NRC's credit, they're being cautious and making sure these licenses are being issued on solid legal grounding," Heili said.

Anderson said the Powder River Basin Resource Council's membership is pleased with the NRC's decision. However, the group remains concerned that neither the federal nor state government has addressed the "legacy" issues of the industry's past, nor have they addressed the cumulative impacts of possibly dozens of new mines.

Although the in-situ recovery process is supposed to be contained within uranium ore-bearing aquifers that never have been sources of drinking water, individual landowners still deserve to know details about what's taking place underground, Anderson said. There's still no estimate of how much groundwater might be consumed cumulatively.

"(In-situ uranium recovery) can reduce aquifer pressure and affect artesian wells, and it can create draw-down in areas already impacted by coal-bed methane or other industrial development," Anderson said.

Fletcher Newton, executive vice president for marketing and strategic affairs for Uranium One, said the uranium industry is much more sophisticated than it was in the 1970s and 1980s.

"(The industry) certainly learned a lot about safe practices and protecting the environment. There's a big difference between today and the way things were 25 years ago," Newton said. "Nobody wants to go back and repeat the mistakes of the past."

White House uncertainty

Some uranium mining officials say they feel the Obama administration isn't as supportive of domestic uranium development as the previous administration. As evidence, they say the U.S. Department of Energy hasn't made good on loan guarantees promised to the industry under the Bush administration.

While there were 19 applications made to the DOE under the Bush administration, so far the DOE under the Obama administration has issued only $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to four companies that plan to build new nuclear reactors for electrical generation.

"I think this administration is moving very carefully," Newton said. "If they impose a carbon tax on utilities, then that would be an indirect way of supporting nuclear power because, suddenly, nuclear power becomes much more cost competitive."

Last week, the DOE announced it will provide $2.9 million in scholarships and fellowships to 86 U.S. nuclear science and engineering students, and will offer $6 million in grants to 29 U.S. universities for nuclear research infrastructure. None of the grant money was allocated to the University of Wyoming, according to a DOE press release.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, about half of the nuclear industry's work force will be eligible to retire during the next 10 years.

Energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer can be reached at (307) 577-6069 or dustin.bleizeffer@trib.com. Check out Dustin's blog at tribtown.trib.com/DustinBleizeffer/blog.

* The energy derived from 1 pound of uranium is equivalent to 20,000 pounds of coal.

Source: Wyoming Mining Association

* More than 200 million pounds of uranium has been mined in Wyoming since 1954. More than 300 million pounds of "historic" reserves remain.

Source: Uranium One

About in-situ mining

The conventional method of uranium mining involves carving large pits into the earth to recover ore-bearing material. In-situ recovery involves a series of wells to flush oxygen and carbon dioxide (and sometimes sodium bicarbonate) into a uranium ore-bearing aquifer, which breaks down the uranium ore.

The solution is brought to the surface through production wells where the uranium is recovered. From there, the uranium is isolated through a drying process and trucked to market in secure containers.

This ongoing circulation between injection wells and production wells takes place for two to three years in order to produce about 85 percent of the uranium resource. Monitor wells surround the production zone -- in the formations above and below -- to detect any leaks.

After production is complete, a yearslong remediation process begins. Using the same injection and production wells, the water is circulated through an ion-exchange facility

-- Dustin Bleizeffer

Uranium boom

The price for uranium neared $140 per pound in 2007, sparking renewed interest in the mining industry. The Nuclear Regulator Commission received notice of more than 20 in-situ uranium mine proposals across the West, mostly in Wyoming.

In response, the NRC launched a "generic" environmental impact statement to provide analysis of the in-situ leach mining process. A final version of the document was issued in May.

Today, uranium is selling for about $52 per pound, but companies are still planning many new mining operations.

-- Dustin Bleizeffer

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/06/21/news/wyoming/50d1a9a79c1f0a19872575db005f0300.txt

South Dakota Uranium Mine Request Deficient

By Carson Walker
Sioux Falls, South Dakota (AP) 6-09

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has told the Canadian developer of a planned uranium mine in southwest South Dakota that it must fix several deficiencies in its application or the proposal will be rejected.

Powertech Uranium Corp. is operating under a state permit to drill exploratory holes and hopes to start mining in 2011 near Edgemont if it can get all the required federal and state permits.

NRC spokesman David McIntyre said the agency met with the company. He said Powertech indicated that within a week, it will indicate if it plans to withdraw the application, fix the problems and resubmit it or wait for the NRC to reject the current request.

It’s not a fatal blow, but it could delay the project that seeks to take advantage of higher uranium prices, he said.

“This is by no means the NRC saying, ‘You can never recover uranium at this site.’ This is us saying, ‘You haven’t given us enough information,”’ McIntyre said.

Powertech has a corporate office in Vancouver, British Columbia, and operations Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico, as well as the Dewey Burdock project in South Dakota.

The company wants to inject chemically treated water into holes to dissolve the uranium, then pump out the solution and collect the uranium for processing. Company representatives said the so-called in situ leach-mining process is safe and does not cause contamination.

But some environmental and American Indian groups oppose the project for fear it would harm underground aquifers and disturb archaeological sites. The land is about 60 miles from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and lies on the southern edge of the Black Hills, which Indians consider sacred.

McIntyre said two of the four primary deficiencies deal with water. Powertech must show more clearly that the rock formations in the area would protect groundwater from chemical contamination through the drilling process or seismic faults, he said.

“Anything that could affect the flow of the water or how the drilling could affect the flow of the water,” McIntyre said. “The application doesn’t address it fully.”

The company also must give more specifics on how it would dispose of waste at the mining site and how the mine would operate, he said.

Mark Hollenbeck, project manager of the Dewey Burdock project, said the company’s management is studying the NRC’s request for more information and plans to release the company’s decision on how to proceed early next week.

“But we don’t anticipate any significant delay in the process,” he said.

http://indiancountrynews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6772&Itemid=116

Underground Movement

In northern Colorado, newcomers to the area lead the charge against planned uranium mining.

Updated Sept. 28, 2007

High Country News

NUNN, COLORADO

Early last year, Robin and Jay Davis bought 80 acres of rolling prairie in north-central Colorado. As is often the case in Western states, the "split estate" property included only the surface rights, not the rights to any minerals that might lie beneath the land. So before they signed the deal, the couple carefully researched potential mineral development. "We looked into oil, gas and coal," Robin Davis says. "Even diamonds." Deciding that the risk was negligible, they bought the land, planning to board horses and open a riding school.

Then, last fall, a Canadian-owned energy company informed the Davises and their neighbors that it wanted to extract not coal or natural gas, but uranium from beneath their property. "When we got a letter about it, we thought it was a joke," Robin Davis says. "Uranium mining? Here? Yeah, right."

But Powertech (USA) Inc. is serious. The company recently bought 5,760 acres of mineral rights near the high-tech mecca of Fort Collins. Powertech hopes to extract about 8 million pounds of uranium, worth nearly $700 million at current market prices, mostly through in-situ recovery, which involves injecting a solution underground to dissolve uranium.

In-situ uranium projects are on tap for other places in the West as well, including New Mexico, and Powertech is exploring for uranium in South Dakota and Wyoming. But in many ways, Powertech's Colorado proposal is different. The West's uranium mining has historically taken place in sparsely settled deserts, not near booming urban centers. Affected residents have been mostly poor and rural, and opposition has often been slow to develop. About 300,000 people live within 30 miles of Powertech's proposed operations; Weld County, in which the project is located, is one of the 50 fastest-growing counties in the nation. Universities and computer companies in Fort Collins and nearby Greeley have attracted well-educated academics and scientists, some of whom own homes and land near the project site, and they've organized a robust grassroots resistance.

Their biggest fear? Contamination of the area's groundwater. Powertech plans to drill deep into an aquifer that supplies local homes and farms. In-situ processing, say critics, could do more than just ravage the surface of the land: It could permanently taint groundwater with heavy metals and radioactivity. "We can live without a lot of things," says Robin Davis, "but water is not one of them."

The countryside around Powertech's planned operation is mostly shortgrass prairie, dotted with sagebrush and golden blooms of rabbitbrush. Swainson's hawks soar overhead; meadowlarks and red-winged blackbirds perch on fenceposts. A few old farmhouses stand amid corn and wheat fields, but most of the homes are new, tidy and moderately sized, on 40- to 80-acre plots. The occasional fencerow, house or pickup sports a bright yellow sign with a black radiation symbol and the words "No Uranium Mining in Colorado. www.nunnglow.com." (The closest town is the farming hamlet of Nunn, whose water tower displays the slogan "Watch Nunn Grow." Opponents have suggested changing the last word to "Glow.")

Powertech's project would be the first use of in-situ extraction techniques in Colorado, beyond a few tests in the 1970s, and the state is scrambling to get up to speed before Powertech submits permit applications in late 2008.

The company is also considering some open-pit mining, but the geology of the Nunn area is mostly suited to in-situ recovery. Many of the uranium ore deposits lie beneath the water table in sandstone and are confined above and below by impermeable mudstone. Workers would drill a grid of wells 50 to 150 feet apart and pipe a sodium bicarbonate solution into the underground ore. The alkaline solution dissolves the uranium, and is then pumped to the surface and piped to a mobile processing facility. The pure uranium adheres to resin beads, which are trucked to a mill. Then the uranium is stripped off and processed into "yellowcake," the raw material for the fuel rods used in nuclear power plants.

In groundwater, the sodium bicarbonate solution dissolves not only uranium, but also heavy metals such as molybdenum and selenium. Uranium can cause kidney problems and increase cancer risk. In minute doses, molybdenum and selenium are essential nutrients. In higher amounts, molybdenum can cause joint pain and liver dysfunction in humans and birth defects in animals. Selenium can damage the nervous system, and in livestock it can cause reproductive failure and "blind staggers," marked by impaired vision, aimless wandering and even paralysis.

Although in-situ recovery is more economical and safer than traditional open-pit mining, it "tend(s) to contaminate the groundwater," according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report. That's why the government will not permit in-situ projects in drinking water aquifers. Powertech plans to drill into the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, which supplies local drinking and irrigation water. The company says that the portions of the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer it wants to use are already unsafe for drinking due to high mineral levels. It plans to seek exemptions from the Environmental Protection Agency; the project can't proceed unless the agency officially declares those parts of the aquifer undrinkable.

Even if Powertech gets exemptions, it still must prove that its operations won't cause lasting harm to any groundwater, drinkable or not. But that may not be easy: No in-situ uranium project has ever succeeded in restoring the surrounding groundwater to its original baseline condition. Last fall, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times examined 32 permits for south Texas in-situ projects, most closed in the '80s and '90s, and reported that none were able to meet all of the groundwater restoration goals in their original permits. Some met the specification for one mineral but found ten- and twenty-fold increases in others.

In Wyoming and Nebraska, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission relaxed some restoration goals for in-situ well fields after the operations could not meet all of the water-quality standards specified in the original permits. "Those (lower) standards are still protective of human health and the environment," says William von Till, chief of the Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch. And, he adds, the relaxed standards applied only to the exempted portions of the aquifers. The drinkable water outside those areas remained safe: "We are not aware of any instance where in-situ uranium milling has impacted a water well user."

The history of in-situ recovery, though, provides many examples of accidents and unexpected results: pump failures, breaks in underground pipes, wastewater pond failures, water movement within aquifers. "There are lots of problems associated with any well operation that could breach the integrity of an aquifer and spread contamination," says Eric Eidsness, a Reagan-era appointee to the EPA who was assistant administrator for water programs. "It just happens."

Continue reading this article here

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

Moves on Licensing For American Leach Mines

05 June 2009

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has published its final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for in-situ leach (ISL) uranium operations in western USA. In addition, it has changed its approach for environmental reviews of new ISL facilities.

Cameco's Crow Butte ISL mine in Nebraska (Image: Cameco)

The NRC expects around 17 licence applications for ISL milling facilities by 2010, including new facilities and the expansion or restart of existing operations. The ISL technique works by pumping an acidic or alkaline solution directly into sandstone-hosted uranium deposits to dissolve the uranium, which is then processed for extraction.

The commission noted, "Given that the large majority of these potential license applications would involve use of the ISL process and would be submitted over a relatively short period of time, NRC decided to prepare a GEIS to support an efficient and consistent approach to reviewing site-specific license applications for ISL facilities."

The NRC said that the GEIS will "improve the efficiency of the agency’s environmental reviews of these applications by serving as a starting point for site-specific environmental reviews of these applications." It added that it expects to complete most licensing reviews within two years, "subject to available resources."

The NRC said the purpose of the GEIS is "to identify and evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of in-situ leach (ISL) uranium recovery facilities. Based on discussions between uranium mining companies and the NRC staff, these facilities potentially could be located in portions of Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, and New Mexico, which are States where NRC has regulatory authority over the licensing of uranium recovery facilities."

The draft GEIS was published in July 2008 and was open to public comment until 26 September.

Greater public participation

Meanwhile, the NRC will require more detailed environmental studies of proposed new in-situ uranium mines in the western United States. It has announced a change in its approach for environmental reviews of new ISL facilities, giving the public greater chance to be involved in the process.

It said that instead of issuing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a new ISL operation, as originally planned, it will now issue full a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). It said that, under the National Environmental Policy Act, "an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the most thorough review of potential impacts of a proposed licensing action on the environment." An EIS involves extensive opportunities for public participation.

The NRC will continue to prepare EAs, which are generally not issued for public comment, for applications to expand or renew the licences of existing uranium recovery operations.

Gregory Jaczko, NRC chairman, commented: "This new approach responds to public concerns that our reviews of generic impacts common to all uranium recovery actions would overlook unique characteristics of each individual site." He added, "Citizens may have confidence in the certainty of our regulatory decisions, because our reviews will be as comprehensive and transparent as possible, with maximum opportunity for the public to participate in the process."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-NRC_moves_on_licensing_of_ISL_facilities-0506095.html