Panel says foreign ownership an issue in mine's expansion

By GEORGE LEDBETTER, Record Editor Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The ownership of the Crow Butte Resources uranium mine near Crawford by a Canadian mining company is a legitimate issue for argument in deciding whether the mine should be allowed to expand its operation to a nearby site, a three-member panel of Nuclear Regulatory Commission judges has ruled.

In a decision issued Jan. 27, the NRC judges also said that questions of the impact of low levels of arsenic in water returned to aquifers during mining operations, the relationship between arsenic exposure and diabetes and information about an alleged cluster of pancreatic cancer in the Chadron area can also be raised during hearings on the mine’s proposed North Trend expansion.

The panel, which heard arguments on those issues at a hearing in Chadron in July, had previously granted two organizations-the Western Nebraska Resource Coalition and Owe Aku/Bring Back the Way, a Lakota Indian cultural group based on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota-and one individual-Debra White Plume-the right to take part in hearings on the expansion project.The Crow Butte mine has been in operation since 1991 and now produces about 800,000 pounds of yellowcake uranium a year.

It is seeking NRC approval to mine on a 2,100 acre site north of Crawford, about seven miles from the existing mine.

Crow Butte has also announced its intention to mine other areas near Crawford, including south of Fort Robinson State Park and northeast of Marsland.Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based Cameco, the world’s largest uranium producer, owns the Crow Butte Resources mine.

It uses an in-situ leach process to remove uranium from underground sandstone by pumping a sodium bicarbonate solution into the ground, where it dissolves the uranium and then is pumped to the surface for processing into uranium oxide. Water from the process is recycled during mining, and eventually returned to the ground.

Opponents of the mine’s expansion have argued that the process contaminates water under the mine, and that cracks and faults in underground rocks could allow that water to mix with other aquifers that are used by livestock and people.

The same issues have been raised in connection with renewal of the existing mine’s license, a process that has brought a different panel of NRC judges to Chadron for hearings as well.

Administrative judge Ann Marshall Young chairs the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel that issued the memorandum decision on the expansion permit. The other judges are Fred Oliver and Richard Cole.In their ruling on the expansion project, the NRC judges said that foreign ownership of the mine is a legitimate subject for argument, even though the same owner already holds a permit, and did not attempt to conceal that it is a foreign corporation in the application for expansion.

That’s because of an NRC rule that “issuance of the license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public,” the latest ruling states, and because foreign ownership is key to determining whether the operation is “within the best interests of the US general public.”

One important aspect of foreign ownership, the panel said, is how the NRC could enforce its rulings. “Whatever Crow Butte mine personnel may do with regard to NRC requirements, ultimate control of the Licensee/Applicant appears to rest with Cameco personnel, who are based in Canada, not the United States,” the judges wrote. “These circumstances highlight the significance of the question of the extent to which it is realistic to expect that relevant regulatory requirements could be enforced with Crow Butte if the need ever arose.”

The judges also noted that, although the Crow Butte has applied for an expansion permit, there appears to be no set criteria for judging if a satellite facility such as the North Trend is a part of an existing operation or is actually a new mine.

And since it is acknowledged that the uranium produced at Crow Butte is exported to Canada, the opponents should be allowed to argue whether its use might be harmful to national security, the panel said.“Clearly, if the applicant in even a license amendment proceeding were controlled by foreign nationals who presented some security risk to the United States...this would be within the scope of the proceeding.

It does not logically follow that the identity of the nation in question should affect the issue of scope,” the ruling says. “Very much in dispute are questions of the factual and legal ramifications of Cameco’s ownership of Applicant Crow Butte Resources, Inc. And these include...the fundamental question of the ability to assure compliance with NRC rules relating to the proposed expansion site.”

The admission of what opponents called new evidence regarding the link between arsenic and diabetes into its arguments against the mine expansion required less explanation by the judges.

That issue is related to a previously admitted contention that mixing of contaminated groundwater in the mined aquifer with water in other aquifers and drainage into the White River could result in harm to public health, they said.

Other decisions included in the January memorandum included:•allowing the Black Hills Delegation of the Great Sioux Nation Treaty Council to participate in the license proceedings and• denial of a request to conduct the license hearing under ‘Subpart G’ rules, which have rules of evidence, discovery and questioning of witnesses similar to a courtroom trial.

Although that request was denied, the judges recommended that the NRC order a Subpart G hearing in the matter. “Opening the proceeding up to the greater transparency associated with a Subpart G hearing would be entirely appropriate,” the memorandum says.

Dates for further action in the license application process have not been set.