Administration Continues Uranium Development near Grand Canyon

Conservation Groups Challenge Kempthorne to Protect Grand Canyon and Enforce Uranium Mining Ban

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz— The Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter today filed suit against Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne for authorizing uranium exploration near Grand Canyon National Park in defiance of a congressional resolution prohibiting such activities across 1 million acres of public lands in watersheds surrounding the Park.

On June 25th the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Natural Resources voted 20-2 in favor of a resolution that requires the Secretary to withdraw public lands surrounding Grand Canyon from new uranium claims and exploration. The Secretary, acting through the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, has defied the resolution and continued to initiate and authorize new uranium exploration within the withdrawal area north of Grand Canyon. The suit claims that in so doing, the Secretary violated the Federal Land Management and Policy Act, National Environmental Policy Act and other laws.

“The Secretary has defied laws and Congress to continue uranium development that threatens the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River,” said Taylor McKinnon, public lands program director for the Center for Biological Diversity “Short of putting the Secretary before a judge, nothing — not laws, not Congress, and not the Grand Canyon itself — will impede the Bush administration’s accommodation of industry on our public lands.”

Recent spikes in the price of uranium have caused thousands new uranium claims, dozens of exploratory drilling projects, and movement to open several uranium mines on public lands immediately north and south of Grand Canyon. Concerns about surface- and ground-water contamination of Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River have been expressed by Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano; the Los Angeles Water District; the Southern Nevada Water Authority; the Arizona Game and Fish Department; the Navajo, Hopi, Havasupai, Hualapai and Kaibab Paiute nations; and Coconino County.

“Congressmen Nick Rahall, Raúl Grijalva, and other members of the Committee on Natural Resources recognized the immediate threat that uranium mining posed to Colorado River watersheds and took the lead in demanding bold, emergency action,” said Roger Clark with the Grand Canyon Trust. "It's unacceptable to allow this Administration to abuse their power by ignoring the resolution and putting the Grand Canyon, our nation's most beloved national park, at risk."

Emergency withdrawals have been enacted four times prior to this, most recently in 1981 and 1983 by the late Arizona Congressman Mo Udall and the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee to halt public lands mineral- and energy-leasing programs pursued by Interior Secretary James Watt.

“Grand Canyon is a national treasure and something we should protect not just for today, but for future generations,” said Sandy Bahr, chapter director for the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “It is irresponsible for this administration to sacrifice this area, threaten the Park, and risk the water supply for millions of people, all for a few narrow special interests.”

In March, Congressman Raul Grijalva introduced the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act, legislation that would permanently withdraw from mineral extraction the same 1 million acres encompassed by the Committee resolution.

In April, the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Grand Canyon Trust won a preliminary injunction against the Kaibab National Forest for allowing the first of five exploration projects south of Grand Canyon to proceed under a categorical exclusion from detailed environmental review.

In that suit’s settlement last week the Kaibab National Forest and British mining firm VANE Minerals must repeal the exploration project and prepare a full environmental impact statement should they choose to propose it a second time.

Today’s case against Kempthorne is being argued by attorneys Marc Fink of the Center for Biological Diversity, Neil Levine of Grand Canyon Trust, and Roger Flynn of Western Mining Action Project.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2008/uranium-exploration-09-29-2008.html

Click links below to view the following documents:
Conservationist’s lawsuit against Kempthorne
Map of Uranium Exploration Authorized in Violation of Emergency Withdrawal
Map of Uranium Claims, Seeps and Springs in Withdrawal Area
Letter by Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano
Letter by Los Angeles Water District
Coconino County Grand Canyon Uranium Resolution
Testimony of Dr. Larry Stevens
Testimony of Dr. Abe Springer
Testimony of Robert Arnberger, former Grand Canyon National Park superintendent
Testimony of Roger Clark
Testimony of Chris Shuey
Supplement to Chris Shuey Testimony
Letter dated July 15th from Department of Interior
Letter dated July 16th by Congressman Rahall

Cleanup of Historic Uravan Uranium Mill Completed

And it only took 20 years!


Release date: 09/29/2008

Contact Information: Rebecca Thomas, EPA, 303 312-6552 Richard Mylott, EPA, 303 312-6654

EPA closes 20-year, $120-million effort to remove and contain radioactive waste along San Miguel River

(Denver, Colo. -- September 29, 2008) A chapter in the history of the uranium industry in western Colorado closed today when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified the completion of the 20-year cleanup of the Uravan Mill Superfund Site.

Uravan, a former uranium and vanadium mine and processing site located along the San Miguel River in western Montrose County, had long been contaminated with radioactive residues, metals, and other inorganic materials. The 680-acre site dates to the dawn of the atomic age, and its closing coincides with renewed interest in uranium mining and milling in the area. Umetco, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, has operated the facility since 1984.

“The final completion of this massive and challenging cleanup reflects a successful partnership among Umetco, the State of Colorado, and EPA," said EPA’s Acting Regional Administrator, Carol Rushin. "We have achieved several key goals at the Uravan site. Wastes have been removed and safely contained, the area has been restored, and the threat of impacts to the San Miguel River has been eliminated. In addition, a portion of the area will be dedicated as a campground and a museum focused on the history of uranium mining in Colorado.”

Today's announcement brings final closure to a cleanup effort that removed more than 13 million cubic yards of mill tailings, evaporation pond precipitates, water treatment sludge, contaminated soil, and debris from more than 50 major mill structures on the site. These wastes were collected and disposed of in four on-site disposal cells. The cells also contain wastes from a nearby abandoned mill in Gateway, Colorado, and mill tailings from the Naturita millsite. In addition, more than 380 million gallons of contaminated liquid collected from seepage containment and groundwater extraction systems were treated at the mill site. The cleanup cost more than $120 million. [emphasis mine...SB]

The Uravan mill site was designated a Superfund site in 1986 and cleanup took place from 1987 to 2007. Cleanup work was performed by Umetco, with oversight from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and EPA. The site and surrounding area will be used in the future for recreation and as wildlife habitat. A portion of the site will be transferred to the Department of Energy for long-term management.

“The lessons learned from the successful cleanup at Uravan will provide invaluable guidance for decisions about possible future uranium development in Colorado,” said Gary Baughman, Director of the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. “Our growing body of knowledge about uranium, improved technology and methods, and environmental protections can lead to cleaner, safer mills with less impact on surrounding communities and the environment.”

The Uravan facility is located along the San Miguel River in Montrose County, Colorado, southwest of Grand Junction on State Highway 141. The site is characterized by an arid climate, sparse vegetation, and rugged topography.

Historic mining and milling at Uravan included the production of radium, vanadium and uranium. The site was contaminated by radioactive residues resulting from the processing of vanadium- and uranium-containing ores from the early 1900s through the mid-1980s. From the time Uravan began operating in the 1920s until it was shut down, the mill processed over ten million tons of uranium-vanadium ore. During this time, operations produced in excess of ten million tons of tailings, 38 million gallons of waste liquid residue, and other milling wastes containing radioactive materials, metals, and inorganic contaminants. [emphasis mine...SB]

Materials produced at the site were used for various purposes. An early mill on the site provided radium for Madam Curie’s research efforts. In 1942, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built facilities to process uranium in Uravan and during the 1940s the mill processed uranium for the Manhattan Project. Later, uranium produced from the Uravan mill was used to fuel nuclear power plants. The mill shut down in 1984.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OPA/ADMPRESS.NSF/dc57b08b5acd42bc852573c90044a9c4/de321

6b095602308852574d3006e8c12!OpenDocument

Bailouts: First the Banks, Then Wall Street...Is the Nuclear Industry Next ?

Loan guarantees sought by nuclear industry for reactor construction amount to ‘preemptive bailout,’ with expected default rate of 50 percent or higher

WASHINGTON - September 29 - A new ad from Friends of the Earth accuses nuclear industry lobbyists of seeking a “preemptive bailout” from Congress in the form of risky, taxpayer-backed loan guarantees from Congress.

“First the government bails out the banks, now all of Wall Street, at a cost of over 1 trillion dollars. So why would taxpayers ever risk billions to build nuclear power plants?” the ad asks. “With cheaper, safer alternatives, why is Congress even considering a preemptive bailout for nuclear power?”

Nuclear industry executives admit that nuclear power is so financially risky that federal loan guarantees are the only way new plants will get built. For example, Michael J. Wallace, the co-chief executive of UniStar Nuclear, told the New York Times last year that “without loan guarantees we will not build nuclear power plants.” Unfortunately, the Congressional Research Service says such guarantees could leave taxpayers with “potentially large losses.” The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the risk of default on a nuclear loan guarantee is “very high-well above 50 percent.”

“The fact that we’re already looking at a trillion-dollar bailout for the financial services industry ought to take an additional bailout for the nuclear industry off the table,” Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder said. “There are cleaner, safer, more affordable ways to address the energy crisis. A multibillion-dollar preemptive bailout for the nuclear industry in the form of risky loan guarantees is not the answer.”

Friends of the Earth is encouraging Americans who don’t want billions of their tax dollars to be spent bailing out the nuclear industry to join our campaign at http://www.foe.org.

The ad can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK_cOCu1hrQ

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2008/09/29-5

Editorial: For Better or Worse

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/editorials/danville_editorials/article/for_better_or_worse/6457/

This picture was taken at Coles Hill for the anti-mining group Southside Concerned Citizens on the morning of Sept. 6 after the area received nearly 4 inches of rain.

T

By Published by The Editorial Board of the Danville Register & Bee and the Madison Messenger

Published: September 28, 2008

Southside Concerned Citizens brought the uranium mining debate to Danville on Thursday.

For too long, Virginia Uranium Inc.’s interest in mining and milling uranium ore has been framed as a Pittsylvania County issue. It’s obvious that uranium mining and milling six miles outside of Chatham will — if allowed by the state — affect the entire Dan River Region.

Already, the region has felt an economic impact from VUI, as local people and subcontractors have been hired to work at the Coles Hill site.

But members of Southside Concerned Citizens think the lasting legacy of uranium mining will be the spread of radioactivity in the air and water.

They believe uranium dust will enter the air we breathe as the rock at Coles Hill is broken apart by controlled demolitions. Those demolitions are a first step toward pulverizing the rock to get at the valuable ore locked inside.

Environmentalists also have been circulating photos of pooled rainwater and water flowing over public roads near the Coles Hill site to demonstrate how radioactivity from the mine site could work its way into local waters.

Uranium has been mined and milled (processed) all over the world. But in this country, it hasn’t been mined in a place like Pittsylvania County.

Our wet and sometimes windy climate, mixed with the area’s population density, is in stark contrast to most of the uranium mining and milling sites found in this country.

Virginia Uranium Owner Walter Coles Sr. said earlier this week that uranium was milled safely in Canonsburg, Pa., not far from Pittsburgh (no mining was done at the site).

While it’s true that uranium and other ores were milled at Canonsburg from 1911 until 1957, uranium still persists in the groundwater — as does the need for the federal government to watch over the wastes buried there.

“The encapsulated materials will remain potentially hazardous for thousands of years,” according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Legacy Management. “… The disposal cell is designed to be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years. However, the general license has no expiration date, and DOE’s responsibility for the safety and integrity of the Canonsburg Disposal Site will last indefinitely.”

That underscores the need for a state study of current uranium mining and milling technology.

For better or worse, mining and milling uranium in Pittsylvania County would affect the entire community. The people of Danville, Chatham, South Boston, Halifax and Gretna must pay attention to Virginia Uranium, the environmentalists, the health experts, the politicians, the industry’s historical record and the state of mining and milling technology today.

Guess Who Doesn’t Live in Our County?

This letter is in response to the snarky op-ed piece by Jeff Shapiro that appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on Sept. 14, 2008 and was reprinted in other area papers subsequent to that. Mr. Wilburn makes some salient points and asks some pertinent questions. Excellent letter!

Published by The Editorial Board of the Danville Register & Bee and the Madison Messenger

September 23, 2008


To the editor:

Jeff Schapiro, in his column, “Uranium is a hot topic for the GOP,” (Sept. 19, page A8), was grossly negligent in not referring to the fierce opposition of homeowners, Republican and Democrat alike, to the mining of uranium in Pittsylvania County. His political arm-chair quarterbacking would lead one to believe that he knows what is good for regional Republican delegates in particular and those of us who live here in general.

At a recent forum about the uranium mining, I asked if anyone could show me studies of the economic impact mining the site at Coles Hill would have on our area. Although a number of proponents — some of whom are major shareholders in Virginia Uranium Inc., were in attendance — no one was willing to provide data demonstrating that homeowners would not be negatively affected by the “fallout” (metaphorically and realistically speaking) of this mining. Some will privately tell you that jobs will be created and county revenue will soar. If that is the case, show me a proposal that does away with county taxes, because I suspect real estate values are going to drop so sharply that reassessments will have to follow.

More often than not, perception is reality. If potential homebuyers in the county think property values will decline, they will decline. If parents of potential students at Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall perceive there is a danger to their children, they will not send them to those respective schools.

I don’t know whether Schapiro has stock in Virginia Uranium or not, but I’m guessing he doesn’t own property in Pittsylvania or Halifax counties. He did sidestep the greater argument and took the easy way out when he advised the Republicans to “circumvent the House and Senate next year and wire up a study by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission.” Perhaps he will purchase my home as an investment in energy futures.

LARRY WILBURN

Danville

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/the_boat_ramp_the_column_a_dogs_life_and_obama/6349/

Alarm Bells [re: uranium mining] Are Going Off, If We Listen

Excellent Letter to the Editor of the Danville Register & Bee by SCC member Anne Cockrell:

Published: September 26, 2008

To the editor:

Before Virginia considers lifting its moratorium on the mining and milling of uranium, critical questions need to be asked and thoroughly answered.

Will radiation emanating from the huge piles of tailings — those produced by a uranium mining and milling facility and operating over a 30-year period — create health risks for Virginia residents? Will the health risks be mine site-specific — or a statewide concern?

Will a uranium mining and milling facility require large volumes of water to operate? How much, and from where? Will the Banister River, running east of the proposed Coles Hill site, be utilized as the mine’s main water supply? Will downstream Raleigh, N.C., (Kerr Lake reservoir) and Virginia Beach (Lake Gaston) residents mind sharing their drinking water with a uranium mine? Considering the drought conditions the South experiences most years during the summer, will there be enough water for all on the receiving end? Will it be safe to drink?

One last question: Should all Virginia residents be concerned about the proposed Coles Hill mine — or just those living in close proximity, namely in the quaint town of Chatham?

According to the Canadian IPO of Virginia Uranium Ltd: “Holdco is focused on the exploration and development of significant uranium deposits located in the southern part of the commonwealth of Virginia, United States ... Holdco’s goal is to become a significant producer of uranium through the development and construction of a mining and milling operation at the Coles Hill Property. If developed and permitted, the Coles Hill property would be the first uranium mine in the commonwealth of Virginia. Holdco will commence a regional exploration and acquisition program to target and acquire both new and historic uranium prospects in Pittsylvania County, Virginia.”

Taking Virginia Uranium at its word, not only will the Coles Hill mine be its “first” uranium mine in Virginia, but it will “target and seek both new and historic prospects in Pittsylvania County.”

Pittsylvania is a big county — Virginia’s largest land mass county. Where will VUI explore next? Once the state’s moratorium is lifted, what’s to keep other mining companies (foreign or domestic) from following Virginia Uranium Inc.’s lead and opening additional mines, since we’re reportedly uranium-rich in Southside Virginia?

Even if the old mineral leases Marline held with Virginia landowners in the early 1980s have expired, does this mean uranium is no longer under those properties?

Folks, alarm bells are ringing. Will Virginia residents heed their warning?

A proposed uranium mine isn’t just Chatham’s little problem, it’s a statewide issue that should be given grave consideration.

ANNE COCKRELL

Danville

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/alarm_bells_the_bailout_and_choices/6418/

Mined/Milled Uranium Health Risks -- Tailings and Radon Gas EPA States

By far, the by-product of mining uranium is the tailings. U has to be extracted from rock during the mining process since there amount of uranium per pound of rock is miniscule. Tailings are radioactive. This info is from the EPA.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/radwaste/402-k-94-001-umt.html

Sources and Volume

Uranium mill tailings are the radioactive sandlike materials that remain after uranium is extracted by milling ore mined from the earth. Tailings are placed in huge mounds called tailings piles which are located close to the mills where the ore is processed.

The most important radioactive component of uranium mill tailings is radium, which decays to produce radon. Other potentially hazardous substances in the tailings are selenium, molybdenum, uranium, and thorium.

Uranium mill tailings can adversely affect public health. [emphasis mine...SB]


There are four principal ways (or exposure pathways) that the public can be exposed to the hazards from this waste. The first is the diffusion of radon gas directly into indoor air if tailings are misused as a construction material or for backfill around buildings. When people breathe air containing radon, it increases their risk of developing lung cancer.


Second, radon gas can diffuse from the piles into the atmosphere where it can be inhaled and small particles can be blown from the piles where they can be inhaled or ingested.


Third, many of the radioactive decay products in tailings produce gamma radiation, which poses a health hazard to people in the immediate vicinity of tailings.


Finally, the dispersal of tailings by wind or water, or by leaching, can carry radioactive and other toxic materials to surface or ground water that may be used for drinking water.

Figure 6
Uranium Mill Tailings Piles

(the one lone dot on the map in the eastern US is Canonsburg, PA which Mr. Coles says, erroneously, has been safely reclaimed. SB)


The NRC and some individual states that have regulatory agreements with the NRC have licensed 26 sites for milling uranium ore. However, most of the mills at these sites are no longer processing ore. Another 24 sites have been abandoned and are currently the responsibility of DOE.

All the tailings piles except for one abandoned site located in Canonsburg, PA, are located in the West, predominantly in arid areas (Figure 6). The licensed tailings piles contain a combined total of approximately 200 million metric tons (MT), with individual piles ranging from about 2 million MT to about 30 million MT. (A metric ton is 2,200 pounds.) The 24 abandoned sites contain a total of about 26 million MT and range in size from about 50 thousand MT to about 3 million MT.

It is unlikely that there will be much additional accumulation of mill tailings in the U.S., because foreign countries now produce uranium much more cheaply than can domestic producers. [This statement pre-supposes that US mining efforts are not being expanded. Obviously the EPA's information pre-dates the recent surge in mining applications in the US, including Coles Hill]

Setting Environmental Protection Standards

The EPA issued two sets of standards controlling hazards from uranium mill tailings in 1983, under the authority of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. These standards provide for the cleanup and disposal of mill tailings at abandoned sites and the disposal of tailings at licensed sites after cessation of operations. They are implemented by DOE, NRC, and some states through agreements with NRC, and require a combination of active and passive controls to clean up contaminated ground water as well as tailings that have been misused at off-site locations, and to dispose of tailings in a manner that will prevent misuse, limit radon emissions, and protect ground water.

Active controls include building fences, putting up warning signs, and establishing land use restrictions. Passive controls include constructing thick earthen covers, protected by rock and designed to prevent seepage into ground water, over the waste. Earthen covers also effectively limit radon emissions and gamma radiation and, in conjunction with the rock covers, serve to stabilize the piles to prevent dispersion of the tailings through erosion or intrusion. In some cases, piles may be moved to safer locations.

The standards were amended in 1993 to require that all licensed sites that have ceased operation undergo remedial action as soon as possible. The EPA is in the process of enacting revised ground-water protection standards that will require the same treatment of ground water at the abandoned sites as is now required at the licensed sites. In addition, EPA enacted Clean Air Act standards in 1989 limiting radon emissions and restricting the length of time that abandoned piles may remain uncovered with no controls on radon emissions. EPA also requires that any piles that may be constructed in the future meet requirements that limit radon emissions and inhibit ground-water contamination during their operational phase. Licensed mills also are subject to the Uranium Fuel Cycle standard which regulates radionuclide emissions other than radon.

And from the RADON page at the same EPA site comes this tidbit:

How can radon affect people's health?

Almost all risk from radon comes from breathing air with radon and its decay products. Radon decay products cause lung cancer. The health risk of ingesting radon, in water for example, is dwarfed by the risk of inhaling radon and its decay products. They occur in indoor air or with tobacco smoke. Alpha radiation directly causes damage to sensitive lung tissue. Most of the radiation dose is not actually from radon itself, though, which is mostly exhaled. It comes from radon's chain of short-lived solid decay products that are inhaled on dust particles and lodge in the airways of the lungs. These radionuclides decay quickly, producing other radionuclides that continue damaging the lung tissue.

There is no safe level of radon--any exposure poses some risk of cancer. [emphasis mine...SB] In two 1999 reports, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded after an exhaustive review that radon in indoor air is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. after cigarette smoking. The NAS estimated that 15,000-22,000 Americans die every year from radon-related lung cancer.

When people who smoke are exposed to radon as well, the risk of developing lung cancer is significantly higher than the risk of smoking alone.

The NAS also estimated that radon in drinking water causes an additional 180 cancer deaths annually. However almost 90% of those projected deaths were from lung cancer from the inhalation of radon released to the indoor air from water, and only about 10% were from cancers of internal organs, mostly stomach cancers, from ingestion of radon in water.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/radionuclides/radon.html

Temper Mining Expectations

Expert: Temper mining expectations Dr. Thomas Power, a research professor from the University of Montana, addresses the crowd at UNM-Gallup Tuesday evening. Power gave a presentation warning against having unreasonable expectations of uranium mining’s economic impact. — © 2008 Gallup Independent / Brian Leddy
Copyright © 2008Gallup IndependentBy Elizabeth Hardin-BurrolaStaff writer

GALLUP — An economist from Montana has a message for any community considering mining — particularly uranium mining — as an option for economic development: There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Dr. Thomas Michael Power, a research professor from the University of Montana’s Department of Economics, presented a public talk before a small audience at UNM-Gallup on Tuesday evening. Power’s presentation, “A Revival of Uranium Mining in New Mexico: Reasonable Expectations Versus Irrational Exuberance,” was sponsored by the New Mexico Environmental Law Center of Santa Fe.

Power stressed the idea that all economic development projects have a cost, and that communities need to take a realistic view of both the proposed benefits and the real costs of proposed projects. As an economist, Power said, he has tried to “take a hard-nosed view” of the benefits and costs involved in proposals to revive uranium mining in the American West.
Power said the enthusiasm for a return to uranium mining in New Mexico stems from a spectacular rise in uranium prices from 2002 to 2007. Based on a formula of multiplying the market price for uranium by the quantity of uranium in the ground in New Mexico, he explained, mining proponents have predicted that a return to uranium mining would provide “an economic bonanza” for the state in terms of billions of dollars worth of sales, and huge boosts to state employment, payroll, and taxes figures.

However, calling that formula “folk economic analysis,” Power said some important factors are missing from that picture. According to Power, the formula fails to take into account the labor-displacing technologies that have developed in the mining industry that cause the number of jobs to drop, it fails to include a realistic discussion of the costs of extracting and processing the mineral, and it fails to factor in the public costs of cleaning up the environment and providing public services.

The formula also fails to consider the “boom or bust” economic instability inherent in the mining industry, Power said. “Metal mining is notoriously unstable,” he said.
Booms and high mineral prices don’t last long, he added.Although mining jobs involve high-paying wages, he said, mining communities tend to not be prosperous. He attributed that to the unstable global mineral market, labor-displacing technology, environmental damage and pollutants, and the “boom or bust” nature of the industry.

New Mexico has about one-third of the uranium reserves in the United States, Power said, but the U.S. only has 7 percent of the world’s reserves, leaving the state with only about 2 percent of the world’s reserves. “New Mexico certainly doesn’t have a corner on the uranium market,” he said.

As for the labor-displacing technology, Power said today’s in situ leaching process is much less labor intensive than the uranium mining of the past. As a result, Power believes the level of employment and potential company payrolls will be much lower than in the past.
Power also discussed the issue of communities promoting economic prosperity without mining. “The New Mexico economy barely blinked,” he said about the state’s loss of 10,000 mining jobs over the last two decades. With economic diversification as the key, Power claimed jobs expanded statewide by 80 percent, real per capital income grew by 38 percent, and New Mexico’s population grew by 40 percent.

“There is life after mining,” Power said, if communities promote a diversified economy.
Although Power admitted the local economy of Cibola County took a serious dive during its last mining bust, he argued that the economies of both Cibola and McKinley Counties have improved in recent years through diversification.

As an economist, Power said, he believes caution is called for before people sacrifice “permanent, unique, and irreplaceable” characteristics of their home communities in exchange for “common and temporary” benefits of economic development projects like uranium mining.

Information: tom.power@mso.umt.edu

SCC Informational Forum in Danville Thursday, 9/25 @ 7pm

SAVE THE DATE!

Uranium Educational Seminar

Thursday, September 25, 2008

7:00 p.m.

Stratford Inn Conference Center, 149 Old Piney Forest Road, Danville, Virginia

Sponsored by Southside Concerned Citizens (SCC)

Contact Numbers:

(434) 791-4930 or (434) 250-5437

SCCChatham.blogspot.com

Veterans Must Stop This [Uranium Mine] Now

A military veteran's Letter to the Editor of the Danville Register & Bee calls on his brothers and sisters in arms, and all citizens, to work to stop the mine. Thanks, Allen!

Published: September 24, 2008

To the editor:

There are a lot of veterans like myself in Chatham and throughout Pittsylvania County that have put their lives on the line in foreign lands to protect their families from harm’s way. Then you have things happen that you have no control over, like 9/11, that kills thousands.

But there are things happening now in Pittsylvania County that veterans and everyday people can do something about. Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill uranium in an open pit mine. It will have to be done by blasting with dynamite. The dust and tailings — which is rock containing uranium crushed to dust that will be left behind at the mining site, never to be cleaned up — from the mining and the milling is radioactive and can get into the air we breathe and the water we drink. Tens of thousands of Virginians can be affected by this if this company gets the OK to mine.

We need to stand together and say no! It won’t only affect us as adults, but our children, grandchildren and our great-grandchildren.

VUI says it can do it safely, but it can’t control Mother Nature and accidents. Like at any job, accidents happen — no matter how safe you are. Most of the time, those accidents will only hurt one or two people. But if an accident happens in mining and milling, there is no telling how many people will be affected.

There is a group of people called Southside Concerned Citizens and other citizens that are giving educational seminars in Virginia. This group is trying to teach people about the hazards of uranium mining.

VUI has a lot of money backing them and lobbyists in Richmond trying to get the mining and milling approved.

So I am asking veterans and good hard-working people of Chatham and Pittsylvania County to say no to the mining and milling of uranium in Virginia for the good and safety of this generation — and generations to come.

ALLEN E. GROSS

Chatham

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article
/the_big_bailout_thugs_and_stopping_the_mine/6366/

Uranium Educational Seminar to be Held in Danville; An Investor 'Comments'

At least Mr. Crane has identified Mr. Hurt as an investor in the local mine site. That being said, one hopes that readers will take Mr. Hurt's statements with a grain...no, make that a mountain...of salt.

By John Crane

Published: September 22, 2008

A local environmentalist group plans to hold a uranium educational seminar Thursday in Danville.

The Chatham Pittsylvania County Chapter of Southside Concerned Citizens will sponsor the meeting, which will be held at 7 p.m. at the Stratford Conference Center at 149 Old Piney Forest Road. (emphasis mine...SB)

Speakers will give a history of how uranium mining started in Virginia, show a video on what open-pit mining looks and sounds like, discuss alternatives to nuclear energy, like wind power, and host a question-and-answer session, said Gregg Vickrey, chairman of the SCC’s Chatham Pittsylvania County Chapter.

“It surprises people how big the explosions are and how much dust is thrown into the air,” Vickrey said.

The dust has radioactive particles and settles on land and in the water, affecting fish, cattle and crops, making the water and food dangerous to consume, he said.

Uranium mining has been banned in Virginia since the early 1980s, but Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a uranium deposit at Coles Hill about six miles northeast of Chatham. A proposed study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely in the county was tabled by a legislative committee in the General Assembly earlier this year.

Henry Hurt, an investor in Virginia Uranium, said blasting from Coles Hill would take place once or twice a day at most, and state laws mandate that exploratory drilling be done under a head of water to contain dust.

Hurt, who has attended SCC’s seminars, said the open-pit mining videos shown are unfair since the pits are refilled and replanted when they’re later reclaimed.

“It’s inflammatory,” he said.

While Vickrey also has expressed concern that drilling at Coles Hill would be done on an earthquake fault line, Patrick Wales, Virginia Uranium geologist, said the fault line is inactive and the chance of mining activity triggering a quake would be about one in a trillion.

Vickrey said alternatives to nuclear energy are available and need to be used.

Hurt agreed, but said nuclear energy also is a valuable resource.

“Everything needs to be explored, but nuclear energy is tried and true all over the world,” he said.

Virginia gets about a third of its electricity from nuclear energy and Coles Hill has about 119 million pounds of uranium ore – enough to create a two-year supply of nuclear power for the entire United States, Hurt said.

Contact John R. Crane at jcrane@registerbee.com or (434) 791-7987.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/

uranium_educational_seminar_to_be_held/6355/

Virginia debates uranium mining - North Carolina waits downstream

The information below has been submitted to several area and regional newspapers as a guest editorial. It was recently published in the Halifax Gazette-Virginian and will be published in others in upcoming editions. Katie presents well-reasoned, well-documented opposition to uranium mining and earnestly challenges the mine proponents to provide accurate, well-documented information to support mine safety. EXCELLENT article!

By Katie Whitehead

Virginia’s uranium mining debate is and should be about the health and well-being of Virginians and North Carolinians. Citizens of either state serious about clean energy and energy independence would do well to review uranium mining experience elsewhere and to insist on a mining plan from the company that wants to start mining in the Roanoke River Basin just north of the North Carolina border.

Virginia legislators, wary of what appeared to some to be a fast-track effort to lift Virginia’s uranium mining moratorium, tabled a 2008 study bill requesting a State-sanctioned study framed by industry lobbyists. They called for a more cautious approach. Virginia Uranium Inc. is welcome to contract for a study and propose a mining, milling, and hazardous tailings disposal plan for review by the State of Virginia.

Touting the safety of uranium mining, Manhattan Institute’s Max Schulz has stated, “It is not as if we have no experience with uranium mining, which is in fact relatively harmless.” Heritage Foundation’s Jack Spencer and Nicholas Loris have exclaimed, “We’re not even talking about new technology. Uranium has been mined safely for decades in many global spots.” If that’s true, show us where these spots are.

There may be communities where uranium mining, milling and tailings disposal are done in a way that protects the well-being of people and the environment and will protect them for the necessary thousands of years. There may be communities where uranium mining sustains economic well-being beyond a boom-bust cycle. There may be communities where mine dust, heavy metals and other contaminants in groundwater, and the stigma of radiation and mining do no harm to health, recreation and tourism, established businesses and schools, and economic development. Show us these communities if they really exist.

One doesn’t have to look far to find reports that contradict oversimplified statements about uranium mining safety. Recent news articles from Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado are clear examples:

On September 3, the Chadron Record described a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hearing in Chadron, Nebraska: “Among the details to emerge from the meeting was acknowledgment by the NRC that, although ISL (in situ leaching) mine permits call for returning groundwater to its original condition when mining is done, some of the “baseline parameters” have proved unachievable by mining companies,” in particular, the water quality standards for uranium and radium.

On August 24, the Casper Star-Tribune cited regulatory violations at the Smith Ranch-Highland mine, the largest active in situ uranium mine in the United States, often lauded as a model in situ leaching operation. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality fined Cameco Corporation $1 million.

On August 13, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported that the Cotter Corp. uranium mill was cited for radioactive contamination at the adjacent Shadow Hills Golf Club: “Until now, all contamination from Cotter was believed to be from before 1979. … ’The theory was the new mill wasn't contributing to any material off-site,’ said Steve Tarlton, head of the Radiation Management Unit at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.”

On August 6, GateHouse News Service reported on a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Energy (DOE), in awarding16 mining leases, did not follow the National Environmental Policy Act requirement that DOE consider environmental consequences of the whole mining program, including the proposed uranium mill. When the same area - Uravan, CO - hosted mining and milling several decades ago, many workers were poisoned by the radiation. They have since won two big class action lawsuits against Union Carbide; however, the reclamation of the old mill site is still unfinished. Attorney Travis Stills commented, “The DOE has taken the position they don’t have to look at the past problems. But if you don’t look at the history, how can you avoid this happening again?”

If we don’t fully recognize the past problems and current risks presented by the uranium industry, how can we make a sound decision about proposed mining in Virginia and diligently protect our air, water, rural heritage, and quality of life?

If we don’t see actual evidence that supports proponents’ claims about safe mining, how can we consider such a possibility in Virginia? (emphasis original)

Show us evidence. And let us review it thoroughly while we have the peace of mind of knowing that Virginia’s uranium moratorium is securely in place and will remain in place unless we decide that the benefits of mining really do outweigh the risks for our families and communities and for our friends and neighbors downwind, downstream, and down through the years.

* * *

Katie Whitehead, of Chatham, VA, and Durham, NC, is a member of the Mining Task Force of the Dan River Basin Association (danriver.org), and former information officer for the Uranium Administrative Group, which studied uranium mining for the Virginia General Assembly in the 1980s. Contact her at mkwhitehead@yahoo.com.

References:

http://www.thechadronnews.com/articles/2008/09/04/chadron/headlines/news905.txt?show_comments=true#commentdiv

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2008/08/24/news/wyoming/626aea80a4056114872574ae0073e935.txt

http://www.gazette.com/articles/cited_39287___article.html/contamination_mill.html

http://www.norwoodpost.com/archive/x27201783/Uranium-mining-lawsuit-filed

http://www.pecva.org/anx/ass/library/19/coleshill_water.pdf

CONTAMINATED WASHINGTON STATE SITE FACES 'CATASTROPHIC' NUCLEAR LEAK

This nuclear waste dump has been permitted and regulated by state and federal policies, regulations and governmental agencies, just like we're being promised (and some local uranium proponents want you to believe) a uranium mine in Pittsylvania County would be. Read this...and then ask yourself if you feel safe or protected.


14 July 2008
From New Scientist Print Edition

One of "the most contaminated places on Earth" will only get dirtier if the US government doesn't get its act together -- clean-up plans are already 19 years behind schedule and not due for completion until 2050.

More than 210 million litres of radioactive and chemical waste are stored in 177 underground tanks at Hanford in Washington State. Most are over 50 years old. Already 67 of the tanks have failed, leaking almost 4 million litres of waste into the ground.

There are now "serious questions about the tanks' long-termviability," says a Government Accountability Office report [2.1 Mbytes PDF], which strongly criticises the US Department of Energy for delaying an $8 billion programme to empty the tanks and treat the waste. The DoE says the clean-up is "technically challenging" and argues that it is making progress in such a way as to protect human health and the environment.

The DoE's plan, however, is "faith-based" , says Robert Alvarez, an authority on Hanford at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. "The risk of catastrophic tank failure will sharply increase as each year goes by," he says, "and one of the nation's largest rivers, the Columbia, will be in jeopardy."

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19926642.900-contaminated-us-site-faces-
catastrophic-nuclear-leak.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news6_head_mg19926642.900

Uranium Mining Tailings Disastrous to Water

It seems that Southside has a lot in common with Nova Scotia. Let's hope the gov't here follows the will of the people like the gov't of Nova Scotia did. That gov't refused to lift the anti-uranium moratorium.


Source: Netawek Ikjikum Vol. 4 - Issue 1 June 2008

By MAARS Director Roger Hunka

APRIL, 2008, WOLFVILLE, NOVA SCOTIA. Uranium as a pure element exists naturally in three forms: uranium 238, uranium 235 and uranium 234. Each of these forms, called isotopes, acts chemically similar for the most part, but has a different number of neutrons in the nucleus of the atom.

Each of these three isotopes is radioactive. Radioactive decay is a spontaneous process in which an atom of one element decays or breaks down into a different element or isotope by losing atomic particles. The decay process releases energy in the form of gamma radiation which is similar to x-rays.

The mining of uranium leaves a large environmental footprint. It takes about 55 tonnes of tailings to produce one tonne of a fairly rich grade of uranium. In a mining operation, huge quantities of radon gas are released into the air and dissolved in surface waters. This leads to all kinds of prospects for cancer of the lungs and other tissues exposed to radon gas.

Several decades ago, Nova Scotia passed a moratorium against uranium mining for the safety and well being of Nova Scotians. A new generation of young politicians, preoccupied with a false sense of empowerment and never witnessing or understanding the magnitude of mass destruction of lands, waters, air and life, raised the idea of lifting the moratorium. That idea sparked Nova Scotians of all walks of life to stand up and say NO.

A series of public meetings was sponsored throughout Nova Scotia, and one was held in Wolfville. The Native Council of Nova Scotia was invited and the Director of MAPC attended and shared with the audience the position of the Council Community, as confirmed in a community report produced several years ago. “No, we don’t want the mining of the black rock or money rock which kills.” Aboriginal People are too familiar with uranium mining in the North and across the United States.

The final word to consider as citizens: members of the Nova Scotia Legislature are elected to govern under principles which Canadians have formulated for the Federation of the Peoples of Canada throughout Canada. That is, “we desire to be better citizens” living with the belief in a God, the rule of Law, Peace, Order and Good Government. In short, to govern for our well being, life, safety and security. Only a traitor or tyrants would govern against those values.

Happily, the Executive Council of the Government of Nova Scotia chose to work for the well being of its citizens and reaffirmed to keep the moratorium in place. British Columbia has taken the same position and is placing a moratorium on uranium mining. Maybe the government of New Brunswick will start to respect its citizens and their well being and stop the insane dream of wasting billions of dollars to mine and build a nuclear reactor - a reactor which uses billions of gallons of water to cool its reactor core. That water is then flushed into the Bay of Fundy. Where have all the salmon gone? Can you think of one reason?

We must always remain vigilant and remind our governments that they are no more or no less than us citizens when it comes to life and respect for life.

Uranium has and continues to cause harm to life. For the small level of good uses, sadly there are thousands of bad uses and killer sisters activated by uranium put through a reactor. Human kind wishes it had never discovered it, or hopes that humanity will learn that it is very weak, frail, and unable to deal with this element.

Let us all put our minds and imaginations to look at using other sources or forms of energy which move with our life giving earth and not against it.

http://www.mapcmaars.ca/theblog/2008/09/19/uranium-mining-tailings-disastrous-to-water/