Moratorium sought in Utah on depleted uranium

Associated Press, 07.13.09

SALT LAKE CITY -- An environmental group will make its case Tuesday for a moratorium on the disposal of depleted uranium in Utah.

The radioactive waste watchdog group Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah will tell the state's radiation control board that no more depleted uranium should come into the state until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission finishes studying whether its current rules are adequate.

Meanwhile, EnergySolutions Inc. will tell the board why it believes it can safely dispose of the material at its facility about 70 miles west of Salt Lake City.

Depleted uranium is unique from other low-level radioactive waste because it becomes more radioactive over time. The NRC has said developing new rules for disposing the material could take years.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/07/13/ap6648147.html

WCS Sues New Mexico Attorney Over Ground Water Pollution

By Sarah Snyder

July 07, 2009

ANDREWS - Waste Control Specialists is pulling a New Mexico attorney into a courtroom in Andrews claiming he lied about the company. The lawsuit targets the President of a group that says the company's disposal site in Andrews County will pollute the ground water in West Texas.

"We just can't stand to have someone outright lying to the public and have no facts, no proof," Tom Jones, VP of Community Relations at Waste Control Specialists, said. "It was just time to put a stop to it."

WCS is taking attorney Adam Greenwood into an Andrews courtroom. He's behind the group "Save the Ogallala Aquifer" and WCS says he's spreading nasty rumors. The aquifer stretches across eight states and the organization claims that WCS' operation in Andrews County will pollute the aquifer and the drinking water for millions.

"We've been trying to get some publicity out there, get the word out so that Texans can decide if this is something they really want to do or not," Adam Greenwood with "Save the Ogallala Aquifer" said. "As far as I'm concerned, this lawsuit is a part of that process. It's helping us to spread the word. We're welcoming the scrutiny. It's the people at the dump that should be concerned."

Greenwood tells NewsWest 9, WCS never made an attempt to contact him and the announcement of the lawsuit came as a bit of a surprise. He says these charges against the radioactive waste procedures are public record and backed by the TCEQ.

"They have no ground to stand on," Greenwood said. "You can't be prosecuted in this country for speaking the truth and raising questions. A lot of questions, a lot of problems that they've managed to hide away in a corner are now going to have to be dragged out and discussed in public, and I don't think they're going to like that."

WCS defends the Andrews site is in no way connected to the Ogallala and will not pollute the ground water. They believe the group "Save the Ogallala" is focused on damaging their company, not protecting the environment.

"When he started telling people in places like Lubbock that there was a possiblity we were going to contaminate their drinking water supply," Jones said. "That is ludacris, it's false, and we reached the point where we have to fight back."

WCS is seeking an unknown amount in damages and they want to know who is funding Greenwood. Greenwood says this lawsuit and the publicity will ultimately benefit their cause, not WCS. The suit was filed in the 109th District Court at the Andrews courthouse.

NewsWest 9 will continue to follow all the latest developments.

http://www.kwes.com/global/story.asp?s=10652871

[CO] Uranium Mill Issue Will Set National Precedent

MONTROSE – Deep divisions in the Paradox Valley community may well remain after the Montrose Planning Commission’s vote Wednesday night on whether to recommend a special use permit for a uranium mill in Paradox Valley.

Friendships have been severed, with some on the side of agriculture in the valley and some who want to hearken back to the good old days of uranium mining their parents and grandparents enjoyed decades ago.

Whatever the decision of the planning commission, Energy Fuels’ request to build a huge mill on 800 acres will be the first built in the United States in almost 30 years, and will have national implications, some say.

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said recently that nuclear energy is “the wave of the future” and is encouraging nuclear energy development.

The proposed mill would set a precedent for the rest of the country, said Travis Stills of the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango, but for the wrong reasons.

“They’re trying to claim it’s the resurgence of the uranium industry and trying to tie it into the nuclear equation,” he said. “It could be a national story because it could be the place where all the stuff goes. It could be looked at as a disposal facility.”

As originally proposed, the mill would only process raw uranium ore from nearby mines. But at a public hearing in Nucla last month, Energy Fuels CEO George Glasier said the mill could also extract uranium from radioactive groundwater.

After Glasier spoke, Stills went to the podium and expressed his displeasure with what he called “a major shift” in policy on what would be processed at the mill.

Only two uranium mills are operating in the U.S. at this time, the White Mesa and Shootaring Canyon mills in Utah, Stills said, both process radioactive wastes.

“A major source of income (for the mills) is waste disposal fees from various folks who have radioactive waste to get rid of,” he said.

The proposed Paradox Valley mill also wants to take in mine waste, not just tailings, he said.

“They should send that to a low level facility, not to a mill tailings cell, which is hazardous enough,” he said.

But Glasier and his many associates have decried health risks of exposure to radioactive materials in the air and water that opponents say could occur because of the mill. Glasier says the industry has made enormous safety advances since the near meltdown of a reactor core at Three Mile Island in 1979.

Glasier said he never had plans for the mill to become a waste disposal facility for nuclear and other radioactive wastes, but was only trying to help the state because of tighter laws on uranium content in drinking water.

New state laws require a new limit on the amount of uranium in drinking water, but in western Colorado, naturally occurring water has higher than those limits, Glasier said.

The mill could have treated municipal water by supplies by loading resin beads with uranium extracted from the water, sending the beads to a disposal facility, after which the beads could be reused.

Without the mill, the water treatment plants will have to install their own resin extraction columns, which is expensive, he said.

“They’ll have no place to dispose of it so they’ll have to ship it to a waste disposal site and they can’t reuse the beads,” he said. “The state wants us to do it, and it would save all these municipalities a great deal of money.”

But Glasier said he dropped the idea of extracting water from uranium because of objections raised at the public hearings.

“Some people were objecting to what would have been a real benefit,” he said. “But those environmental kooks come up with this stuff…They’re saying we’ll process waste, but we have no plans to process anything else but raw uranium ore and the water that comes right out of our mines.”

Other objections to the mill have come from the agricultural community. On to their Web site for Paradox Valley Community Supported Agriculture, William and Vernie Lynn DeMille wrote about how they moved to the valley from Missouri after farming there for 35 years.

“We love farming and we were thrilled when we discovered the Paradox Valley,” DeMille wrote. “Because of its outstanding soil, great climate and protected valley, it is the perfect place to grow excellent crops, both vegetable and fruit.”

Food grown in the valley will be packed with nutrition because of high mineral content of the soil, DeMille said.

During public forums, farmers in the valley objected to the mill, saying they will lose their organic agriculture status because the mill has the potential to pollute the air and water.

Paradox Valley proponents of the mill, most from families who remember the heyday of mining in the area decades ago, scoffed at farmers’ concerns, even displaying a sign at the last public meeting that read, “Uranium dust helps your organics grow” along with “We need jobs on the West End.”

However the planning commission votes, which occurred after the Watch printing deadline, the divisions in the Paradox Valley will apparently not soon heal.

http://www.telluridewatch.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Uranium+Mill+Issue+Will+Set+National+Precedent%20&id=2867706-Uranium+Mill+Issue+Will+Set+National+Precedent&instance=secondary_stories_left_column

Can county's zoning ordinance protect against uranium?

Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Chatham Star-Tribune

On Feb. 17, I went before the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors to ask that the board update the zoning ordinance and explore the possibility of banning uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.

On May 28, Pittsylvania County Administrator Dan Sleeper asked Sen. Robert Hurt to request an "opinion" from the attorney general.

It read specifically: "On behalf of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, I am requesting an Attorney General's opinion on whether or not the County of Pittsylvania can pass an ordinance that would ban mining of uranium in its local jurisdiction."

Senator Hurt's letter of June 3 responds to Sleeper, stating that he had contacted the attorney general's office regarding "the question of whether the County of Pittsylvania can adopt an ordinance that would ban uranium mining in its local jurisdiction."

The attorney general's office returned an opinion that had been rendered earlier regarding the adoption of a "chemical trespass ordinance," a newly adopted ordinance by Halifax County.

This is not the question for which an answer is sought.

Our supervisors either missed the mark or aimed 180 degrees from the target regarding the question that should have been asked.

We have an existing local zoning ordinance. Can this ordinance be amended to better protect us regarding the mining and milling of uranium?

Karen B. Maute

Danville

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/01/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt
and http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/countys_uranium_question_ignored/12193/

Goliad County -vs- Uranium Energy Corp.

Whether Goliad should re-file its lawsuit against Uranium Energy Corp. to protect its water is causing quite a stir...and split...amongst area residents. This post is in 2 parts...a PRO argument and a CON argument. Both are posted here with a link to the original article in the Victoria Advocate after each argument. Both articles have interesting comments accompanying them, one from our friend Mark Krueger, all worth a read.


Goliad County sued Uranium Energy Corp. in March 2008 on allegations of groundwater contamination. A judge dismissed the case in federal court just weeks ago, stating the case belongs in a state court. Now, commissioners debate whether they should re-file its case there.

Pro: County must sue again to protect water

• By Gabe Semenza •
• Originally published June 28, 2009 at 10:51 p.m., updated June 29, 2009 at 8:29 a.m

Charlie Faupel wants Goliad County to re-file its lawsuit against Uranium Energy Corp. in state court.

"Too many cities and counties sell out for industry to gain tax base and money while leaving the environment out to dry," the rancher, who lives downstream from the proposed uranium mine, said. "I don't deny we need power. I think we should use technology in place now without having to use these dangerous uranium plants."

Goliad County claims Uranium Energy Corp. contaminated the county's water supply when it didn't cap dozens of exploratory drill holes. The county wants to sue to protect its water, prevent future contamination and recoup some of its hefty legal fees.

Goliad County Commissioner Jim Krenek wants to take the fight to court again.

"Since they have quit messing around over there, the water has cleared up some," Krenek said. "If they don't disturb the aquifer with bore holes, it settles down. What do we do, just roll over and play dead? Let them do what they want? Why do we want to risk them coming in and ruining our groundwater?

If a uranium mining company wanted to operate on your land, Krenek asks, would you feel safe drinking your well water?

"Groundwater is everything to Goliad. It's our livelihood. I don't like spending county tax dollars, but I feel like we have to fight the company. If we don't, who will?"

Faupel agreed.

"My livelihood, ranch and ability to live healthy in an area where my family's lived for generations is worth it," Faupel said. "I think that right now it looks like an awful big mountain, but this mountain may be a mole hill if the uranium company destroys all that land out there."

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/28/gs_pro_lawsuit_062906_55939/?news

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Con: Taxpayer money wasted on losing battle

• By Gabe Semenza •
• Originally published June 28, 2009 at 10:57 p.m., updated June 29, 2009 at 8:24 a.m.

Gentry Powell said Goliad County is unwise to throw hundreds of thousands of tax dollars at a losing fight.

Individual landowners and not county officials signed exploratory mining leases with Uranium Energy Corp.

"Why would the county intervene on the behalf of private landowners?" Powell said. "If I had a fight with an oil company over damaging my land or water, could I ask the county to pay thousands of dollars for my legal fees?"

Goliad County should not file suit against the company in state court because it can't win, it can't afford to lose and because a federal judge already tossed its case once.

Jerry Rodriguez, a Goliad County commissioner, said the county should object to uranium mining by following state protocol - and not by trying to win landmark environmental cases.

"The federal judge ruled there wasn't a case there. Instead of trying to fight with these people anymore, the county should work with UEC," Rodriguez said. "Ultimately, they're going to get the permit. The way we're going, we're going to lose and we won't have a say-so."

The Texas Railroad Commission has deemed the uranium company did not contaminate well water.

"What more proof do the other stubborn commissioners need?" Rodriguez asked.

In addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars incurred in legal fees, the county now faces the potential of paying the uranium company's legal tab. Uranium Energy Corp. just filed paperwork demanding $200,000 from the county.

"We shouldn't gamble with taxpayers' money," Rodriguez said. "Now, if individuals want to sue them, that's fine and dandy. I'm not saying uranium is the best for Goliad County. We're just not going to be able to stop them."

Powell said the company already passed state inspection to receive its draft mining permit.

"I do believe no matter how much money they spend, they're going to lose," Powell said. "I think the commissioners mean well, but they've taken this thing and it's become a personal vendetta."

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/28/gs_con_lawsuit_062909_55938/?news&goliad-county

Opinions Split on Uranium Lawsuit

Goliad has been on our radar for the past several months as there are myriad instances of severe well-water contamination caused by drilling for uranium, much like what's happening in the vicinity of Coles Hill. Our friend Mark Krueger has kept us informed re: the developments in Goliad and has sent several videos that we've posted upon receipt. The link to the Victoria Advocate (below the article) has been unstable over the past several hours so we're fortunate to have the article here.

By JULIAN CAVAZOS

Originally published June 28, 2009 at 2:54 p.m.

Open bore holes blamed

Of the more than 900 bore holes drilled in northern Goliad County, 136 of them were left open longer than 48 hours, which is a violation, said Jim Blackburn, Goliad County's environmental attorney.

Goliad ...

Of the more than 900 bore holes drilled in northern Goliad County, 136 of them were left open longer than 48 hours, which is a violation, said Jim Blackburn, Goliad County's environmental attorney.

Goliad County contends the open bore holes allowed rainwater to cause contamination to the subsurface, also known as illegal injection, Blackburn said.

Blackburn said the county would take another month or so to decide if they will re-file the case in state court.

GOLIAD - Goliad County commissioners presented their case against Uranium Energy Corp. to the public on Saturday.

County residents attended so that they could become more informed and offer input on whether the county should re-file its legal case in state court.

The county sued the uranium company in March 2008. The lawsuit contends the company failed to cap exploratory bore holes, which they county says contaminated the water supply.

A federal judge dismissed the case a few weeks ago. Now, commissioners are debating whether they should re-file the case in state court.

"We're going to have this public meeting before we come up with a solution," said Goliad County Commissioner Jim Krenek.

Some residents who attended supported re-filing the lawsuit, while others opposed the costly move and think uranium mining should continue unimpeded.

Brad Moore, a uranium company exploration and land manager, said the county should avoid spending money on the case.

"It's really amazing that the citizens of Goliad County who support the opposition are supporting the expenditure of their funds to fight their own rights," Moore said. "The federal judge dismissed the groundwater suit, and they want to continue to spend money."

Sherilyn Arnecke, a Goliad landowner, supports the mining. Her family has been in the area for eight generations.

Mining will bring more jobs and pump more money into the county, Arnecke said.

"I just heard yesterday that in the next 20 years, they're going to build 100 more nuclear power plants in the United States," Arnecke said. "This is concerning the climate bill that's before Congress right now. And where is this uranium going to come from?"

All the money the county would spend on the re-filing in state court would cause financial neglect for the rest of the county, Arnecke said.

"They're fighting for one little part of the county," she said. "And what about the rest of the county that's being totally ignored? They're putting half a million dollars into one, little-bitty area of Goliad County, but then you have all these citizens in other parts of Goliad that are going to suffer. (The county) needs to spend their money on something Goliad County needs."

County Commissioner Jerry Rodriguez said the contaminated water was not caused by the open bore holes, but is naturally occurring.

"Muddy water there was supposedly clogged by uranium mining. It just happened to happen when those guys were out doing their drilling," he said. "It's basically one of the reasons federal judge threw the lawsuit out."

The county should negotiate with the company on a cleaning agreement, because the Uranium Energy Corp. is going to mine anyway, Rodriguez said.

"These people are here to stay," Rodriguez said. "We should work with them and put sanctions in place so they can put money in a savings account. That way if they contaminate it, they're responsible to clean it."

On the other hand, other residents oppose mining and support the lawsuit.

Susan Orr's home in Ander is near the proposed mining site.

"I live out there," Orr said. "I don't want it in my backyard. There's too many environmental issues that could come up over the years."

Contaminated water would cause Orr to lose her cattle, she said.

"I don't want to see my property value go down. We have cattle. I don't want to have to end up getting rid of our livestock because of issues of water."

Water is precious and cannot be contaminated," said Julie Fritz, a Goliad county resident.

"Water is water. It's all our water," Fritz said. "It affects everybody in the county, and in other places. Victoria should care."

Krenek agreed. He is unsure what the county will do without water.

"My position has been opposed to the uranium mining since the very first day I heard about it," Krenek said. "It has everything to do with our drinking water. Without drinking water, what do you do? Would you have to import it?"

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/28/jc_uraniummeeting_062809_56225/

Court OKs dumping gold mine waste in lake

This is outrageous!!

WASHINGTON – A mining company was given the go-ahead by the Supreme Court on Monday to dump waste from an Alaskan gold mine into a nearby 23-acre lake, although the material will kill all of the lake's fish.

The court said that the federal government acted legally in declaring the waste left after metals are extracted from the ore as "fill material" allowing a federal permit without meeting more stringent requirements from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called the decision "great news for Alaska" and said it "is a green light for responsible resource development." The Kensington gold mine 45 miles north of Juneau will produce as many as 370 jobs when it begins operation.

But environmentalists feared the ruling could lead to a broader easing of requirements on how companies dispose of their mining waste.

"If a mining company can turn Lower Slate Lake in Alaska into a lifeless waste dump, other polluters with solids in their water can potentially do the same to any water body in America," said Trip Van Noppen, president of Earthjustice, which had participated in the litigation.

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court said a federal appeals court wrongly blocked on environmental grounds the Army Corps of Engineers' waste disposal permit for the mine project. The Alaska mine, which had been closed since 1928, now plans to resume operation and will dump about 4.5 million tons of mine tailings — waste left after metals are extracted from the ore — into the lake located three miles away in the Tongass National Forest.

The court, in its majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said that the Army Corps was correct in agreeing with the mining company that the waste should be considered "fill material" and not subject to the more stringent EPA requirements.

The 2005 permit was issued three years after the Bush administration broadened the definition of fill material so that waste, including some contaminated materials, can be dumped into waterways.

"We conclude that the Corps was the appropriate agency to issue the permit and that the permit is lawful," wrote Kennedy. He said the court should "accord deference to the agencies' reasonable decision" on the matter.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it is "neither necessary or proper" to interpret the waterway protection law "as allowing mines to bypass EPA's zero-discharge standard by classifying slurry as fill material." She argued the lower court had been correct in concluding that the use of waters as "settling ponds for harmful mining waste" was contrary to the federal Clean Water Act.

Environmentalists said dumping 200,000 gallons a day of mining waste water — containing aluminum, copper, lead, mercury and other metals — has dire implications not only for the Alaska lake, but possibly other lakes and waterways.

Rob Cadmus of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council said there were better ways to dispose of the mine waste such as dry land storage. But the mining company argued that the alternative would have been to put the material into nearby wetlands, which it maintained was more environmentally harmful.

Officials of the Idaho-based Coeur d'Alene Mine Co., owner of the Alaska mine, said the decision was the last hurdle to building the tailings facility so that mining activities can begin.

The court ruling "confirms that this thoroughly studied permit and plan is the best environmental choice" for disposal of the mine's waste, said Tony Ebersole, the company's director of corporate communications. Company lawyers said in court arguments that after mining activities are halted the lake will be restocked.

"The lake will be as good or better as a fishery than it is today," Ebersole said. The waste deposits are expected to raise the lakebed 50 feet to the current lake surface level and eventually triple its size to 60 acres. The lake contains a variety of common fish that are not expected to survive, according to court documents.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, welcomed the court ruling and said it "resolved the most significant obstacle to the creation of hundreds of direct and indirect jobs and a major boost for the economy of Juneau and Southeast Alaska."

The disposal plan had been approved by various state agencies. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in 2007 blocked the permit.

Joining Kennedy in approving the disposal plan were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito Jr. In addition to Ginsburg, dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_gold_mine

Colorado's Summit County again seeks ban on uranium mining and cyanide

Despite a setback in Colorado's Supreme Court, Summit County is again seeking a way to stringently regulate mining at the local level.

Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: Monday , 22 Jun 2009

RENO, NV -

Despite a Colorado Supreme Court decision that overturned Summit County's cyanide heap-leach mining ban, Summit County planners are still pursuing tightening mining regulations.

A January Colorado Supreme Court ruling found the county could not ban a mining technique the state of Colorado allows.

The Colorado Mining Association successfully challenged Summit County's ban on cyanide processes for gold mining. The CMA contends existing state laws adequately regulate mining and the local mining bans could result in conflicting state and local regulations that would negatively impact mining companies.

However, this past week, the county introduced a first draft of new mining regulations during a work session of the Summit County Commission. The county may consider designating mining areas and implement tough performance standards in them,

The draft suggests performance standards that would require mining companies to enhance planning for emergency operations, including the clean-up of any potential cyanide spill. Under its existing land use powers, the county could designate certain areas are inappropriate for mining.

Summit County Planning Director Jim Curnutte told the Summit Daily News that the county would also consider applying its 1041 powers to review and regulate mining operations. Local 1041 powers come from a 1974 Colorado state law allowing local governments to "designate certain geographic areas and specified activities as matters of state interest."

Curnutte suggested Summit County may look at designating specific mining or mineral zones that would be subject to local 1041 permitting authority. These regulations could also force mining companies to disclose their exploration activities.

The overall changes in the local mining regulations would make it easier for local planning boards to review proposed mining projects and to issue stringent conditional use permits, the Summit Daily News reported.

http://www.mineweb.net/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72068?oid=85286&sn=Detail

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

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/

Uranium mining firm asks for appeals court review

HEATHER CLARK

Associated Press Writer

June 1, 2009

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - A Dallas-area uranium mining company said Monday it will ask 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. says in a news release it will ask 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.

Such a review would bring the case before the entire 10th Circuit Court.

A three-judge panel denied a petition from URI subsidiary Hydro Resources Inc., which challenged an EPA ruling that the site near Church Rock where it hoped to develop uranium mines was on Indian Country.

The ruling makes it harder for Hydro Resources to get the necessary groundwater injection permits.

HEATHER CLARK

Associated Press Writer

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - A Dallas-area uranium mining company said Monday it will ask 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. says in a news release it will ask 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.

Such a review would bring the case before the entire 10th Circuit Court.

A three-judge panel denied a petition from URI subsidiary Hydro Resources Inc., which challenged an EPA ruling that the site near Church Rock where it hoped to develop uranium mines was on Indian Country.

The ruling makes it harder for Hydro Resources to get the necessary groundwater injection permits.

http://www.dailymail.com/ap/ApTopStories/200906010373

US [Congressional Panel] Rejects Nuclear in Renewable Power Goal

By Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON, May 20 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers pushing to include greater recognition for existing nuclear power in a national renewable energy standard failed to win new breaks for the industry when a U.S. congressional panel on Wednesday voted down an amendment to a controversial climate change bill.

The sweeping bill, which seeks to cap greenhouse gas emissions, includes a renewable energy mandate that would require utilities to generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar by 2020.

Under the legislation sponsored by Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, utilities' renewable mandate would be reduced in proportion to the portion of any electricity sales from new nuclear plants, but not existing nuclear plants.

Republican Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida, who offered the failed amendment, said the measure would have helped states meet the renewable electricity standard with a source that has no carbon emissions.

Waxman argued that the bill was not discriminating against nuclear power, but that nuclear was not renewable energy because it requires uranium, a limited resource. Also, he said the renewable standard was aimed at promoting new power sources and technology.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is in its third day of debate of a nearly 1,000-page climate change bill, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

The panel approved a measure that would require the State Department and U.S. Trade Representative to annually prepare and publicize a report on whether China and India have adopted greenhouse gas emission reduction programs as stringent as those found in the United States.

An amendment requiring the Energy Department to develop rules for enforcing any national energy efficiency building code established through this legislation was also approved.

Republicans have blasted the legislation, warning that it could drastically curb the United States' economic growth by making U.S. companies less competitive internationally with countries such as China and India that will likely not have strong climate change regulations.

"A cap and trade program will never be made to work in an economy as diverse and complex as the United States. It's just not possible. It's going to cost a lot of money and a lot of jobs," Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas told reporters on the sidelines of the hearing.

A poll conducted by Reuters found that Democrats have the votes to get the climate legislation passed by the committee. Of the 59 members on the House committee, 30 lawmakers, all of them Democrats would definitely vote "yes" or were likely to support the bill, according to the survey.

Barton predicted, however, that the Waxman-Markey bill would not make it into law.

"This cap and trade exercise that we're about to engage in, is an exercise in futility on their side. Even if they muscle it out of committee, it's not going anywhere."

The heart of the historic bill would set up a system limiting carbon dioxide and other pollutants by gradually reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that utilities, steelmakers, oil refineries and other companies can emit. Businesses would be required to acquire an ever-decreasing number carbon pollution permits.

A separate report from the Energy Information Administration on Wednesday said U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels fell by 2.8 percent in 2008, the largest drop since the agency began reporting greenhouse gases. The agency said high oil prices and the slowing economy were factors in the decline.

(Additional reporting by Tom Doggett, Richard Cowan; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN20533760

Keeping Agriculture Alive in the Shadow of a Uranium Mine: Potential Effects and Regulatory Solutions for Virginia

ELPR {William & Mary: Environmental Law & Policy Review}

By admin | May 20, 2009

This is a preview of one of the upcoming Volume 34 notes

by Maggy J. Lewis

This Note deals with the emerging regulatory controversy over the potential mining of a uranium deposit located in rural Southern Virginia. The “Coles Hill” deposit is thought to be the largest deposit of uranium in the United States, but has been largely ignored since the Virginia General Assembly instituted a moratorium on uranium mining in the early 1980’s. The increase in the price of uranium in recent years has revived the debate on uranium mining. There is potential for the moratorium to be lifted in the near future and for uranium mining to be introduced to Virginia for the first time.

[...]

This Note addresses the potential implications for agricultural production if uranium mining becomes a reality for Virginia by looking at scientific and sociological data at other mine sites, as well as public perception of food safety threats. There are gaps to be filled in both regulation and enforcement mechanisms as they apply to uranium mining’s effects on agricultural crops and livestock. This Note provides suggestions for means of regulating the output of agricultural products from the potentially affected regions of Virginia under the current statutory framework for developing state and site-specific protocols to ensure safety and preserve the public confidence in the food supply. By taking the proactive regulatory approach proposed by this Note, agriculture can continue to be a successful economic base of the Southern Virginia both during the uranium mining process and after it has come to an end.

Read the complete abstract here: http://elpr.org/2009/05/20/keeping-agriculture-alive-in-the-shadow-of-a-uranium-mine-potential-effects-and-regulatory-solutions-for-virginia/

Read more about the full Volume34 Note at the same site. It promises to be excellent.

Despite Three KOs, Uranium fight is On [in Goliad, TX]

May 12, 2009

GOLIAD - The fight by Goliad County and residents against uranium mining just became more divided.

A vocal family, which for a year cried foul, dropped its name from a federal lawsuit.

Then, two county commissioners voted Monday to accept a settlement offer to end this expensive, oft-nasty battle.

Despite the turn of events, the lawsuit will go forward. Three members of the commissioners court, or the majority, voted that same day to fight it out.

As a July court date nears, some worry the cost to tussle will drill too deep into the county's budget.

A split decision

Craig and Luann Duderstadt attached their name to the lawsuit in March 2008. They contended Uranium Energy Corp. contaminated their well water. Goliad County makes similar claims.

The uranium company drilled more than 1,100 exploratory wells dating back to June 2006 - and didn't plug those holes in a proper and timely manner, the lawsuit contends.

Heavy rains forced surface contamination into those uncapped holes, dirtying the aquifer, the county claims.

On May 1, though, the Duderstadts dismissed their allegations and agreed to never re-file those claims, according to the uranium company.

"No money or other consideration was paid to the Duderstadts for this dismissal," a company statement notes. "Expert geologist and hydrologist testimony by representatives of the Railroad Commission of Texas and by the Duderstadts' own expert witness, as well as others, could not find any basis for their claim."

Luann Duderstadt declined comment on Tuesday.

Jim Blackburn, the Houston environmental attorney who represents Goliad County in the lawsuit, said the uranium company threatened the Duderstadts with legal fees and financial sanctions.

"It seemed like the wise move to drop them from the suit," Blackburn said. "I wanted to protect them. We're in the midst of a dogfight."

About the same time the Duderstadts dropped from the suit, the uranium company offered to settle with the county. Neither side would discuss details of the offer.

Those on the commissioners court who voted against taking the offer say protecting groundwater fueled their decision.

"It's the right thing to do," said Commissioner Jim Kreneck.

"I think these people have not done what they should in regard to their exploration in Goliad County," said County Judge Harold Gleinser.

Water isn't the only commodity at stake, though. If Goliad County loses its court battle, Uranium Energy Corp. will likely seek to recoup its legal fees, which some estimate will grow to more than $1 million.

Goliad County's legal costs already top $300,000, said County Commissioner Jerry Rodriguez.

"I just feel that this federal lawsuit is an expenditure we don't need to pursue anymore," Rodriguez said. "Paying for their legal fees really made me think twice about it. I don't want to take a chance and lose the lawsuit."

Rodriguez said he sees no proof the company contaminated water. Commissioner Julian Flores agrees with him.

Kreneck, Gleinser and Commissioner Ted Long voted otherwise.

The uranium company views this split as a pivotal moment in its bid to drill for profit.

"In earlier decisions, the vote had been 5-0 in favor of the lawsuit," the company said in a statement. "The commission is now divided. Uranium Energy Corp. firmly believes that the commissioners court claims, like the Duderstadts' claims, lack any valid basis, and the company will continue to vigorously oppose their efforts. We continue developing our internal planning for the successful development of the Goliad project in 2010."

Blackburn says not so fast.

"It is undisputed that Uranium Energy Corp. on at least 147 occasions violated the plugging requirements," Blackburn said. "Those violations occurred and the litigation is strong. I think it is fair to say that we're entering a new phase in the fight with regard to uranium mining in Goliad County."

Comments

xoxallace

Be aware that Jim Blackburn does not have a high batting average on environmental issues. He was the lead in the fight to prevent the construction of the Bayport Container Terminal adjacent Shoreacres, TX. He lead the effort for about three years then left them with a disaster. You Should see the quality of life in Shoreacres after Hurricane IKE and the Container Port going full blast.

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/may/12/gs_uranium_051309_50126/

Uranium Mine Battle Set in Goliad, TX

(May 14, 2009)

GOLIAD--One Coastal Bend county is contesting plans for a new uranium mine. Today, a court hearing was held in Goliad county for residents to voice their opinions.

The Coastal Bend is the second biggest area in the nation for uranium mining. This is the first time a Coastal Bend county is challenging a permit application.

This 1100 acres of land in Goliad County is the latest battleground over uranium mining. County leaders are challenging the Texas Commission on Environment Quality over its initial decision to approve a permit for Uranium Energy Corporation to mine here.

The county is concerned about the future of ground water in the area.

"If there are going to issue a permit that they have checked everything that they possibly can to get it right," said Goliad County Judge Harold Gleinser.

So a public hearing was held in Goliad where residents issued their own verdict on the matter.

"What's the long term effect to livestock both as food source and a genetic source to drinking that water that's contaminated with a heavy metal," said Pat Calhoun of the Goliad County Farm Bureau, who is opposing the uranium mine.

"We also feel the water quality during the mining and cleanup will be harmful to our health as well as the livestock and wildlife," Richard Vettee, a Goliad County resident who lives near the proposed site of the uranium mine

Uranium Energy attorneys contend they will make sure the ground water isn't contaminated.

"I' saying I'm very confident that we have a permit that meets all of the regulatory requirements, which includes safety requirements to protect the environment and human health and everything else," said Monica Jacobs, an attorney for Uranium Energy Corporation.

Some landowners are behind the mining company. Raymond Carter even went to Kleberg County to investigate it, himself.

"Those people aren't glowing green," said Carter, a Goliad property owner. "They're not dying of cancer, so I am not afraid of it."

But attorneys for the Goliad County disagree with Carter and those in favoring the uranium mine.

"They're going to try to prove they can contain that contamination within a narrow area," said Jim Blackburn, who is working for Goliad County. "We don't think they can. We don't think they should be given the opportunity to do that."

Next January, a trial will be held and a judge will decide if this land will become the next uranium mine in the Coastal Bend.

--Manuel De La Rosa, Area 3 News, mdelarosa@kiiitv.com

http://www.kiiitv.com/news/area3news/45049147.html

Vermont Sues Over Nuclear Waste

Montpelier, Vermont - May 5, 2009

The state of Vermont is suing the federal government over nuclear waste at Vermont Yankee.

Highly-radioactive spent fuel from the reactor is stored at the nuclear plant in Vernon. The safety of spent fuel is governed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but it is not one of the factors the NRC will review as it considers whether to grant Vermont Yankee a license extension. The state wants to change that and is joining a federal lawsuit to force the NRC to consider spent fuel safety in the relicensing process.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10308613

Animal Claims May be Added to Uranium Lawsuit [in CO]

DENVER (Map, News) - Conservation groups say they may add endangered species claims to a lawsuit seeking to stop uranium mines in western Colorado.

The groups are suing the U.S. Department of Energy over a leasing program that could clear the way for uranium mining on 42 square miles near Dolores River Canyon in southwest Colorado.

The lawsuit has been pending since last summer. The environmentalists said Wednesday they may add endangered species claims to the lawsuit. The groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, say uranium mining would release poisons that could hurt protected fish and waterfowl living on the Delores and Colorado rivers.

Southwest Colorado was a major uranium-producing area in the 1940s and 1950s.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1962705~Animal_claims_may_be_added_to_uranium_lawsuit.html

EPA bills Chesapeake $1 million for Wingfield clean-up

By Mike Saewitz
The Virginian-Pilot
© April 2, 2009

CHESAPEAKE

In 2005, a contractor for the Environmental Protection Agency dug up and removed more than 100 buried drums and 40 yards of contaminated soil at a property in the Wingfield Pointe subdivision. The drums contained elevated levels of two hazardous substances, and the soil had high levels of another, arsenic.

Now, the federal agency has slapped Chesapeake with a nearly $1 million bill for the clean-up. It says the city operated a dump there for years, failed to safely close it in the late 1960s, and allowed a residential development to be built directly over it .

The city is refusing to pay. Attorneys for the city say some of the EPA’s clean-up was unnecessary. One lawyer wrote to the EPA in January that the city should have been given an opportunity to do the removal work itself.

The attorney called it “shameful” that the EPA spent thousands of dollars tracking down evidence of Chesapeake’s role in running the landfill, when the “city’s historic involvement in the operation of the site has not been denied, and was well known.” She said that the claim has “discouraged, to say the least,” the relationship between the city and EPA.

Nevertheless, the city has put $965,323 in a reserve account in case it has to pay. Both Chesapeake and EPA officials say negotiations are ongoing.

“We will do what is right,” said Chesapeake City Attorney Ron Hallman. “If we owe anything, we will pay it. We think the claim is excessive.”

The EPA is declining to comment on details of the case. But the agency has pushed to recover the money from Chesapeake for more than six months, city and federal documents show.

In September, the agency laid out its entire liability case against Chesapeake, which was compiled after several years worth of interviews with witnesses whose names were being protected.

“The city and its predecessor, Norfolk County, operated a municipal dump for decades, freely allowing anything and everything to be dumped there,” wrote Cynthia T. Weiss, assistant regional counsel for the EPA. “Years later, the city allowed a residential development to be built directly atop the dump.”

According to EPA documents, Norfolk County operated the Wingfield Pointe site as a dump from the early 1940s to the 1960s. Chesapeake took over the operations of the dump after it became a city in 1963, federal documents claim.

The EPA said Chesapeake operated the dump even though it did not own any of the property. The city entered into no written agreements for the property except one six-month lease in 1967, according to the federal documents.

Read the rest of this article here: http://hamptonroads.com/2009/04/epa-bills-chesapeake-1-million-wingfield-cleanup It's an interesting read.

SC Regulators Deny Appeal Over Nuclear Reactors

By MEG KINNARD
03.25.09

An environmental group said Wednesday it may go to court to try to stop South Carolina's largest private utility from building two nuclear reactors after state regulators threw out the group's petition to block the project.

Bob Guild, an attorney who represents Friends of the Earth, said he would review the ruling by the Public Service Commission and could decide to appeal the issue to a circuit court. Guild said he did not know how long the group would have to file an appeal of the panel's decision.

Last month, commissioners approved a request by Scana Corp.-owned South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. to build the two 1,100-megawatt reactors along with Santee Cooper at the same site where the utilities currently run a reactor. The V.C. Summer Nuclear Station is near Jenkinsville, about 25 miles northwest from Columbia.

The utilities say the new reactors will be needed to meet future power demand. If the state approval stands, then the request will go to federal regulators, a process that could take several years.

SCE&G has said it wants to have the first reactor generating power by 2016, and the second in 2019. Rates have been projected to rise an average of 2.5 percent a year for the next 10 years to help pay the financing cost for SCE&G's portion of the $10 billion project.

Earlier this month, Friends of the Earth filed a request that the commission reconsider its approval, arguing that the law regulators used to approve the project is unconstitutional. In its petition, the group said SCE&G failed to demonstrate a need for the reactors or fully detail their environmental impact.

"The PSC's denial of the Friends of the Earth's petition ... reflects an underlying attitude by the Commission that is tilted in favor of utilities and against rate payers," Friends of the Earth spokesman Tom Clements said in a statement issued after the hearing."

Eric Boomhower, a spokesman for SCE&G, said the company expected the commission's decision would be upheld.

"We demonstrated through a comprehensive public hearing process that the need for new power is real and that our evaluation of generation options was thorough," Boomhower said.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/03/25/ap6213881.html

Uranium Ban a Wasted Effort

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:27 AM EDT

Chatham Star-Tribune

Opinion

The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors is being urged by many people to adopt ordinances to prevent uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.

I do not believe there is any citizen of Pittsylvania County more opposed to uranium mining in our county and state than I am.

I am also opposed to the Board of Supervisors taking such actions as it will most surely cause Pittsylvania County to be brought into court to answer for ordinances which have been passed.

I wonder if the Board of Supervisors would consider sponsoring an educational meeting for the public on the differences between the powers of local governments in Dillon Rule states and home rule states? This might prevent a great deal of misunderstanding in the future.

For speaker, I would suggest Professor Jesse J. Richardson Jr., an attorney and faculty member in Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University supplemented by any other persons the board would care to have participate.

I think our local efforts should be devoted to the realm of the possible, and changing Virginia from a Dillon rule state to a home rule state is not in such a set of actions at this time.

We need all of our efforts to bring pressure on the members of the General Assembly.

I personally do not care if the much touted "study" says mining uranium here will be as safe as eating an ice cream cone.

I still want this ore kept in the ground, just as it is now, forever even if Walter Coles and his descendents become paupers.

Hildred C. Shelton

Danville

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/03/25/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt