August 23, 2009
Powertech's request to modify uranium mining water quality measures raises concerns
BY BOBBY MAGILL
BobbyMagill@coloradoan.com
If Powertech is allowed to open the Centennial Project uranium mine northeast of Fort Collins, a 2008 law requires the company to clean up the site and return the groundwater there to the condition it was in before mining begins.
But in a move uranium-mine opponents fear might prove Powertech is trying to skirt around clean-water standards, the company Wednesday asked state Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, or DRMS, officials to allow it to change original water-quality information for the mine site while uranium is being mined.
As the state writes rules governing how the 2008 state law, HB-1161, will be implemented and asks the public for input, the possibility the mine could pollute the region's groundwater has emerged as a major concern among some who live near the proposed mine site.
Powertech wants to build the mine on several thousand acres between Wellington and Nunn, less than 15 miles northeast of Fort Collins, the closest major population center to the proposed mine.
Before mining begins, the law requires Powertech to collect "baseline" water quality data, or information on the state of the water before it is contaminated by mining, then restore the water to that same quality after mining ends.
In comments sent to the state Aug. 12, Powertech officials wrote it should be able to revise its baseline water quality data during the mining process "if new water-quality information comes to light" as an effect of mining.
Powertech President Richard Clement said Thursday geology varies in a mining area, and it might be necessary to present the state with new information about the original water quality at the mine that could change the company's groundwater restoration plan.
"Powertech is still making arguments to undermine groundwater quality protections," said Matt Garrington of Environment Colorado. "They asked the Mining Division yesterday to be able to move the standard for groundwater during the mining project. They're still making that argument in this process, and it's crazy."
State officials held their ground.
"I'm not sure of their intent in the long term," said Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Office Director David Berry. "Our intent would be information can no longer be baseline if it's disturbed by an operation. We're pretty steadfast in that."
A day after making its argument, Powertech reversed its opinion.
"It was made very clear by the DRMS that they determined that the issue has been established, so we have no further objection," Clement said Thursday.
Powertech also quibbled with the state's definition of the surface and groundwater the company might affect with its uranium mining.
The rule the state is writing says potentially affected surface and groundwater includes the water found on the land at the mining site and "in surrounding areas."
In its comments to the state, Powertech called that definition "amorphous."
The company, it said, could wind up having to test the water quality on hundreds of square miles of land outside the mine site.
"This is precisely the sort of outcome that certain opponents of ISL (in-situ leach) mining would like to see," Powertech said. "Anything that might cause an applicant to have to waste money and time is desirable to them because it advances their goal of stopping projects altogether."
http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20090823/NEWS01/908230319
Showing posts with label isl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label isl. Show all posts
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Australia’s threatened water resources, and the uranium mining risk
Comment: Uranium mining will and has ruined our water and water all over the world. Modern uranium mining is not any different from the polluting ones over 30 years ago!
What impact is uranium mining having on our water?
What impact is uranium mining having on our water?
The Advertiser, by Jim Green, 25 july 09
ENVIRONMENT Minister Peter Garrett buttressed his decision last week to approve in situ leach (ISL) uranium mining at Beverley Four Mile with the claim that he is “certain this operation poses no credible risk to the environment”.
Thus Mr Garrett adds another chapter to the history of spin surrounding ISL mining.
Environmental debates typically revolve around differing assessments of the possibility of environmental contamination.
But with ISL mining, environmental pollution – specifically contamination of groundwater with radionuclides, heavy metals and acid – is a certainty.
ISL mining involves pumping an acidic solution into an aquifer, dissolving the uranium ore and other heavy metals and pumping the solution back to the surface.
After the uranium has been separated, liquid radioactive waste is simply dumped in the aquifer.
ENVIRONMENT Minister Peter Garrett buttressed his decision last week to approve in situ leach (ISL) uranium mining at Beverley Four Mile with the claim that he is “certain this operation poses no credible risk to the environment”.
Thus Mr Garrett adds another chapter to the history of spin surrounding ISL mining.
Environmental debates typically revolve around differing assessments of the possibility of environmental contamination.
But with ISL mining, environmental pollution – specifically contamination of groundwater with radionuclides, heavy metals and acid – is a certainty.
ISL mining involves pumping an acidic solution into an aquifer, dissolving the uranium ore and other heavy metals and pumping the solution back to the surface.
After the uranium has been separated, liquid radioactive waste is simply dumped in the aquifer.
Isolation and containment of the pollutants would not be difficult or expensive, but the mining companies will take the cheaper option of polluting groundwater for as long as the politicians let them……………………
A 2003 Senate References and Legislation Committee report recommended banning the discharge of radioactive liquid mine waste to groundwater. ISL uranium mining is used at the Beverley uranium mine and it is the mining method proposed for Beverley Four Mile, Oban and Honeymoon.
The future of this mining technique is plain to see: short-lived mines leaving SA with a legacy of polluted aquifers.
Spills and leaks are common at ISL mines. The SA Department of Primary Industry and Resources lists 59 spills at Beverley from 1998 to 2007.
Serious questions must be raised as to BHP Billiton’s capacity to safely manage radioactive tailings at Olympic Dam if, as planned, tailings production increases sevenfold to 68 million tonnes annually and water consumption increases to more than 250 million litres daily.
BHP Billiton pays nothing for its massive water take for the Olympic Dam mine, despite recording a $17.7 billion profit in 2007-8. That arrangement is enshrined in the Roxby Downs Indenture Act 1982………
……… The Indenture Act provides a raft of exemptions and overrides from the SA Natural Resources Act 2004, the Environment Protection Act 1993, the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 and even the Freedom of Information Act 1991.
BHP Billiton and the Rann Government are currently engaged in secret discussions over the future of the Indenture Act.
http://antinuclear.net/2009/07/25/australias-threatened-water-resources-and-the-uranium-mining-risk/
A 2003 Senate References and Legislation Committee report recommended banning the discharge of radioactive liquid mine waste to groundwater. ISL uranium mining is used at the Beverley uranium mine and it is the mining method proposed for Beverley Four Mile, Oban and Honeymoon.
The future of this mining technique is plain to see: short-lived mines leaving SA with a legacy of polluted aquifers.
Spills and leaks are common at ISL mines. The SA Department of Primary Industry and Resources lists 59 spills at Beverley from 1998 to 2007.
Serious questions must be raised as to BHP Billiton’s capacity to safely manage radioactive tailings at Olympic Dam if, as planned, tailings production increases sevenfold to 68 million tonnes annually and water consumption increases to more than 250 million litres daily.
BHP Billiton pays nothing for its massive water take for the Olympic Dam mine, despite recording a $17.7 billion profit in 2007-8. That arrangement is enshrined in the Roxby Downs Indenture Act 1982………
……… The Indenture Act provides a raft of exemptions and overrides from the SA Natural Resources Act 2004, the Environment Protection Act 1993, the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 and even the Freedom of Information Act 1991.
BHP Billiton and the Rann Government are currently engaged in secret discussions over the future of the Indenture Act.
http://antinuclear.net/2009/07/25/australias-threatened-water-resources-and-the-uranium-mining-risk/
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Permit delay worries uranium hopefuls
Comment: In-situ leach mining is not a new mining method! This type of uranium mining was done in Eurpope during the Cold War, it left the land, air and water in ruins!
By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER
Star-Tribune energy reporter
Sunday, June 21, 2009 12:26 AM MDT
Several proposed uranium mining projects in Wyoming and across the West will be delayed due the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's recent decision requiring a more thorough site-specific analysis for each project.
The NRC will require a supplemental environmental impact statement for each mining project rather than a more simplified environmental assessment, which the agency had considered.
Some officials in the uranium industry claim the NRC overreacted to a groundswell of public concern that they say comes from either ignorance of the in-situ leach mining process or a desire to block uranium mining.
Industry officials have also told the Star-Tribune they worry that investors are losing patience.
However, those who scrutinize the emerging next generation of uranium mining say both the industry and government regulators have a history that deserves skepticism. Shannon Anderson, community organizer for the Powder River Basin Resource Council, said she has researched dozens upon dozens of spills and excursions documented by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.
The Star-Tribune has also reviewed DEQ documentation describing dozens of violations related to in-situ recovery of uranium in the state.
Most recently, a 2007 DEQ investigation documented yearslong, regular violations at Cameco Corp.'s Smith Ranch-Highland in-situ uranium mine in Converse County. It resulted in a $1 million settlement, although Cameco and DEQ insist no one was injured as a result of the violations, and there was no long-lasting environmental damage.
"Asking questions isn't necessarily opposition to these projects. We are citizens of Wyoming, and we want to promote development that is beneficial to the state. But we also want to protect citizens and the environment," Anderson said.
Industry officials counter that there have been at least 15 commercial-scale in-situ uranium well-fields successfully restored in Wyoming, and not one documented case of damage to human health or contamination of drinking water.
NRC's caution
Uranium One controls more than 100 million pounds of historically identified uranium resources in Wyoming, and says it has 61 potential mine projects in the state.
The predecessors of Uranium One first filed applications with the NRC and DEQ in October 2007 for the proposed Moore Ranch in-situ mine and processing plant near the Pumpkin Buttes in Campbell County. Company officials said the NRC's decision to require a more thorough environmental analysis means production will begin in 2011 rather than 2010.
"We have been told various firm dates by the NRC, yet every time we get close to ending the process, something changes," said Donna Wichers, senior vice president of Uranium One, Americas.
In moving to the supplemental environmental impact statement requirement, NRC reportedly told some in the uranium industry that the extra analysis makes the new mining projects less susceptible to lawsuits and legal delays.
Wayne Heili, president of mining for UR Energy, said he's obviously disappointed with the delay. However, he said it's hard to blame the NRC for doing its best to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Heili said he believes the NRC's move toward a supplemental environmental impact statement has more to do with public comments insisting on more public involvement in the licensing process, and less about the industry's past track record.
"To the NRC's credit, they're being cautious and making sure these licenses are being issued on solid legal grounding," Heili said.
Anderson said the Powder River Basin Resource Council's membership is pleased with the NRC's decision. However, the group remains concerned that neither the federal nor state government has addressed the "legacy" issues of the industry's past, nor have they addressed the cumulative impacts of possibly dozens of new mines.
Although the in-situ recovery process is supposed to be contained within uranium ore-bearing aquifers that never have been sources of drinking water, individual landowners still deserve to know details about what's taking place underground, Anderson said. There's still no estimate of how much groundwater might be consumed cumulatively.
"(In-situ uranium recovery) can reduce aquifer pressure and affect artesian wells, and it can create draw-down in areas already impacted by coal-bed methane or other industrial development," Anderson said.
Fletcher Newton, executive vice president for marketing and strategic affairs for Uranium One, said the uranium industry is much more sophisticated than it was in the 1970s and 1980s.
"(The industry) certainly learned a lot about safe practices and protecting the environment. There's a big difference between today and the way things were 25 years ago," Newton said. "Nobody wants to go back and repeat the mistakes of the past."
White House uncertainty
Some uranium mining officials say they feel the Obama administration isn't as supportive of domestic uranium development as the previous administration. As evidence, they say the U.S. Department of Energy hasn't made good on loan guarantees promised to the industry under the Bush administration.
While there were 19 applications made to the DOE under the Bush administration, so far the DOE under the Obama administration has issued only $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to four companies that plan to build new nuclear reactors for electrical generation.
"I think this administration is moving very carefully," Newton said. "If they impose a carbon tax on utilities, then that would be an indirect way of supporting nuclear power because, suddenly, nuclear power becomes much more cost competitive."
Last week, the DOE announced it will provide $2.9 million in scholarships and fellowships to 86 U.S. nuclear science and engineering students, and will offer $6 million in grants to 29 U.S. universities for nuclear research infrastructure. None of the grant money was allocated to the University of Wyoming, according to a DOE press release.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, about half of the nuclear industry's work force will be eligible to retire during the next 10 years.
* The energy derived from 1 pound of uranium is equivalent to 20,000 pounds of coal.
Source: Wyoming Mining Association
* More than 200 million pounds of uranium has been mined in Wyoming since 1954. More than 300 million pounds of "historic" reserves remain.
Source: Uranium One
About in-situ mining
The conventional method of uranium mining involves carving large pits into the earth to recover ore-bearing material. In-situ recovery involves a series of wells to flush oxygen and carbon dioxide (and sometimes sodium bicarbonate) into a uranium ore-bearing aquifer, which breaks down the uranium ore.
The solution is brought to the surface through production wells where the uranium is recovered. From there, the uranium is isolated through a drying process and trucked to market in secure containers.
This ongoing circulation between injection wells and production wells takes place for two to three years in order to produce about 85 percent of the uranium resource. Monitor wells surround the production zone -- in the formations above and below -- to detect any leaks.
After production is complete, a yearslong remediation process begins. Using the same injection and production wells, the water is circulated through an ion-exchange facility
-- Dustin Bleizeffer
Uranium boom
The price for uranium neared $140 per pound in 2007, sparking renewed interest in the mining industry. The Nuclear Regulator Commission received notice of more than 20 in-situ uranium mine proposals across the West, mostly in Wyoming.
In response, the NRC launched a "generic" environmental impact statement to provide analysis of the in-situ leach mining process. A final version of the document was issued in May.
Today, uranium is selling for about $52 per pound, but companies are still planning many new mining operations.
-- Dustin Bleizeffer
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/06/21/news/wyoming/50d1a9a79c1f0a19872575db005f0300.txt
By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER
Star-Tribune energy reporter
Sunday, June 21, 2009 12:26 AM MDT
Several proposed uranium mining projects in Wyoming and across the West will be delayed due the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's recent decision requiring a more thorough site-specific analysis for each project.
The NRC will require a supplemental environmental impact statement for each mining project rather than a more simplified environmental assessment, which the agency had considered.
Some officials in the uranium industry claim the NRC overreacted to a groundswell of public concern that they say comes from either ignorance of the in-situ leach mining process or a desire to block uranium mining.
Industry officials have also told the Star-Tribune they worry that investors are losing patience.
However, those who scrutinize the emerging next generation of uranium mining say both the industry and government regulators have a history that deserves skepticism. Shannon Anderson, community organizer for the Powder River Basin Resource Council, said she has researched dozens upon dozens of spills and excursions documented by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.
The Star-Tribune has also reviewed DEQ documentation describing dozens of violations related to in-situ recovery of uranium in the state.
Most recently, a 2007 DEQ investigation documented yearslong, regular violations at Cameco Corp.'s Smith Ranch-Highland in-situ uranium mine in Converse County. It resulted in a $1 million settlement, although Cameco and DEQ insist no one was injured as a result of the violations, and there was no long-lasting environmental damage.
"Asking questions isn't necessarily opposition to these projects. We are citizens of Wyoming, and we want to promote development that is beneficial to the state. But we also want to protect citizens and the environment," Anderson said.
Industry officials counter that there have been at least 15 commercial-scale in-situ uranium well-fields successfully restored in Wyoming, and not one documented case of damage to human health or contamination of drinking water.
NRC's caution
Uranium One controls more than 100 million pounds of historically identified uranium resources in Wyoming, and says it has 61 potential mine projects in the state.
The predecessors of Uranium One first filed applications with the NRC and DEQ in October 2007 for the proposed Moore Ranch in-situ mine and processing plant near the Pumpkin Buttes in Campbell County. Company officials said the NRC's decision to require a more thorough environmental analysis means production will begin in 2011 rather than 2010.
"We have been told various firm dates by the NRC, yet every time we get close to ending the process, something changes," said Donna Wichers, senior vice president of Uranium One, Americas.
In moving to the supplemental environmental impact statement requirement, NRC reportedly told some in the uranium industry that the extra analysis makes the new mining projects less susceptible to lawsuits and legal delays.
Wayne Heili, president of mining for UR Energy, said he's obviously disappointed with the delay. However, he said it's hard to blame the NRC for doing its best to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Heili said he believes the NRC's move toward a supplemental environmental impact statement has more to do with public comments insisting on more public involvement in the licensing process, and less about the industry's past track record.
"To the NRC's credit, they're being cautious and making sure these licenses are being issued on solid legal grounding," Heili said.
Anderson said the Powder River Basin Resource Council's membership is pleased with the NRC's decision. However, the group remains concerned that neither the federal nor state government has addressed the "legacy" issues of the industry's past, nor have they addressed the cumulative impacts of possibly dozens of new mines.
Although the in-situ recovery process is supposed to be contained within uranium ore-bearing aquifers that never have been sources of drinking water, individual landowners still deserve to know details about what's taking place underground, Anderson said. There's still no estimate of how much groundwater might be consumed cumulatively.
"(In-situ uranium recovery) can reduce aquifer pressure and affect artesian wells, and it can create draw-down in areas already impacted by coal-bed methane or other industrial development," Anderson said.
Fletcher Newton, executive vice president for marketing and strategic affairs for Uranium One, said the uranium industry is much more sophisticated than it was in the 1970s and 1980s.
"(The industry) certainly learned a lot about safe practices and protecting the environment. There's a big difference between today and the way things were 25 years ago," Newton said. "Nobody wants to go back and repeat the mistakes of the past."
White House uncertainty
Some uranium mining officials say they feel the Obama administration isn't as supportive of domestic uranium development as the previous administration. As evidence, they say the U.S. Department of Energy hasn't made good on loan guarantees promised to the industry under the Bush administration.
While there were 19 applications made to the DOE under the Bush administration, so far the DOE under the Obama administration has issued only $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to four companies that plan to build new nuclear reactors for electrical generation.
"I think this administration is moving very carefully," Newton said. "If they impose a carbon tax on utilities, then that would be an indirect way of supporting nuclear power because, suddenly, nuclear power becomes much more cost competitive."
Last week, the DOE announced it will provide $2.9 million in scholarships and fellowships to 86 U.S. nuclear science and engineering students, and will offer $6 million in grants to 29 U.S. universities for nuclear research infrastructure. None of the grant money was allocated to the University of Wyoming, according to a DOE press release.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, about half of the nuclear industry's work force will be eligible to retire during the next 10 years.
* The energy derived from 1 pound of uranium is equivalent to 20,000 pounds of coal.
Source: Wyoming Mining Association
* More than 200 million pounds of uranium has been mined in Wyoming since 1954. More than 300 million pounds of "historic" reserves remain.
Source: Uranium One
About in-situ mining
The conventional method of uranium mining involves carving large pits into the earth to recover ore-bearing material. In-situ recovery involves a series of wells to flush oxygen and carbon dioxide (and sometimes sodium bicarbonate) into a uranium ore-bearing aquifer, which breaks down the uranium ore.
The solution is brought to the surface through production wells where the uranium is recovered. From there, the uranium is isolated through a drying process and trucked to market in secure containers.
This ongoing circulation between injection wells and production wells takes place for two to three years in order to produce about 85 percent of the uranium resource. Monitor wells surround the production zone -- in the formations above and below -- to detect any leaks.
After production is complete, a yearslong remediation process begins. Using the same injection and production wells, the water is circulated through an ion-exchange facility
-- Dustin Bleizeffer
Uranium boom
The price for uranium neared $140 per pound in 2007, sparking renewed interest in the mining industry. The Nuclear Regulator Commission received notice of more than 20 in-situ uranium mine proposals across the West, mostly in Wyoming.
In response, the NRC launched a "generic" environmental impact statement to provide analysis of the in-situ leach mining process. A final version of the document was issued in May.
Today, uranium is selling for about $52 per pound, but companies are still planning many new mining operations.
-- Dustin Bleizeffer
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/06/21/news/wyoming/50d1a9a79c1f0a19872575db005f0300.txt
Saturday, June 13, 2009
SD uranium mine request deficient
Comment: How can the uranium group say they will not ruin the water? Because of weak EPA rules, ISL messed up the water in overseas!June 12, 2009
Associated Press
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has told the Canadian developer of a planned uranium mine in southwest South Dakota that it must fix several deficiencies in its application or the proposal will be rejected.
Powertech Uranium Corp. is operating under a state permit to drill exploratory holes and hopes to start mining in 2011 near Edgemont if it can get all the required federal and state permits.
NRC spokesman David McIntyre said the agency met with the company on Thursday. He said Powertech indicated that within a week, it will indicate if it plans to withdraw the application, fix the problems and resubmit it or wait for the NRC to reject the current request.
It’s not a fatal blow, but it could delay the project that seeks to take advantage of higher uranium prices, he said.
“This is by no means the NRC saying, ’You can never recover uranium at this site.’ This is us saying, ’You haven’t given us enough information,”’ McIntyre said.
Powertech officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
Powertech has a corporate office in Vancouver, British Columbia, and operations Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico, as well as the Dewey Burdock project in South Dakota.
The company wants to inject chemically treated water into holes to dissolve the uranium, then pump out the solution and collect the uranium for processing.
Company representatives said the so-called in situ leach-mining process is safe and does not cause contamination.
But some environmental and American Indian groups oppose the project for fear it would harm underground aquifers and disturb archaeological sites. The land is about 60 miles from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and lies on the southern edge of the Black Hills, which Indians consider sacred.
McIntyre said two of the four primary deficiencies deal with water.
Powertech must show more clearly that the rock formations in the area would protect groundwater from chemical contamination through the drilling process or seismic faults, he said.
“Anything that could affect the flow of the water or how the drilling could affect the flow of the water,” McIntyre said. “The application doesn’t address it fully.”
The company also must give more specifics on how it would dispose of waste at the mining site and how the mine would operate, he said.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20090612/UPDATES/90612019/1001/news
The company also must give more specifics on how it would dispose of waste at the mining site and how the mine would operate, he said.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20090612/UPDATES/90612019/1001/news
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
