February 13, 2009
FEARS that radioactive material taken from France’s old uranium mines has been used in construction have been raised by a TV documentary.
According to investigators for the programme Pièces à Conviction (Incriminating evidence), there are many sites where radioactive material is a potential health risk including schools, playgrounds, buildings and car parks.
Very little uranium is now mined in Europe, but France carried out mining from 1945 – 2001 at 210 sites which have now been revealed by IRSN, the Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety on its website - click here.
Uranium is naturally weakly radioactive and emits a radioactive gas, radon.Problems stem from millions of tonnes of reject rock which contained small amount of uranium which are still stocked at some of the sites along with 50 million tones of waste from extraction factories.
The documentary on France 3 also revealed that some reject rock has also been used as construction rubble in areas used by the public, that there have been some radioactive leaks into the environment from waste and that some “rehabilitated” areas where building has been taken place had been contaminated with radon.
Reject rock has been used at sites including carparks, buildings, roads and even schools and children’s playgrounds, the programme said.
Volunteers with Geiger counters have found that some sites where it was used have worryingly high radiation levels.The programme makers said they had “opened a national debate on uranium waste in France”.
Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo has admitted that uranium extraction had little state regulation and has called on the firm which was responsible for most of the sites, Areva, to “do its job” and to take better safety measures regarding the waste.
Before the programme went out Areva had lodged a complaint about it with the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel concerned that its intention was to make accusations against the firm.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Taking a stand
Comment: The people of our County need to take a lead and tell our leaders we do not want uraniium mining!! The people of our County need to tell Richmond, we do not want uranium mining! Most local people oppose uranium mining and the so call "study"!
By Published by The Editorial BoardPublished: February 15, 2009
Uranium mining and milling is one of the biggest issues facing Pittsylvania County’s political leaders.
But it’s also an issue over which they have little direct control. Richmond has the power, not the town councils in Chatham, Gretna and Hurt or the Board of Supervisors.
Still, that hasn’t stopped discussions, debates and even the passage of non-binding resolutions.
What good is a non-binding resolution? Those resolutions will help to speak for the people who live closest to the proposed mine and mill.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee is developing the state’s official study of uranium mining and milling.
But the uranium ore locked in the rocks beneath Coles Hill can’t be mined today because of a moratorium put in place by the General Assembly a quarter-century ago. The state study is important because it’s the first important step toward trying to get that moratorium lifted.
So, where do local governments come in? They are closest to the people, and they are their constituents’ voice on this issue. Their discussions, debates and resolutions have already yielded some surprises.
The town councils in Gretna and Hurt not only want to be included in the state study, their resolutions oppose lifting the moratorium “… unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …”
Chatham Town Council is being asked to go beyond that by detailing what kinds of plans it would have for an emergency at Coles Hill, as well as the operation’s impact on the community’s history and heritage and Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall.
“We need something more than what the town of Hurt has done,” said Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens.
The Board of Supervisors, at the request of Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis, could take another look at their previous work on this issue. Davis is concerned about what a uranium mining operation would do to real estate values, businesses and educational and financial institutions.
“I think the Board of Supervisors needs to make a statement or two about how it feels about uranium mining,” Davis said this week.
Eventually, most local people will take a side in the uranium mining and milling debate.
But for today, most Pittsylvania County residents appear willing to wait out the state’s study.
That’s a luxury their elected leaders don’t have.
County leaders have to lead on the uranium mining issue.
By Published by The Editorial BoardPublished: February 15, 2009
Uranium mining and milling is one of the biggest issues facing Pittsylvania County’s political leaders.
But it’s also an issue over which they have little direct control. Richmond has the power, not the town councils in Chatham, Gretna and Hurt or the Board of Supervisors.
Still, that hasn’t stopped discussions, debates and even the passage of non-binding resolutions.
What good is a non-binding resolution? Those resolutions will help to speak for the people who live closest to the proposed mine and mill.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee is developing the state’s official study of uranium mining and milling.
But the uranium ore locked in the rocks beneath Coles Hill can’t be mined today because of a moratorium put in place by the General Assembly a quarter-century ago. The state study is important because it’s the first important step toward trying to get that moratorium lifted.
So, where do local governments come in? They are closest to the people, and they are their constituents’ voice on this issue. Their discussions, debates and resolutions have already yielded some surprises.
The town councils in Gretna and Hurt not only want to be included in the state study, their resolutions oppose lifting the moratorium “… unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air …”
Chatham Town Council is being asked to go beyond that by detailing what kinds of plans it would have for an emergency at Coles Hill, as well as the operation’s impact on the community’s history and heritage and Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall.
“We need something more than what the town of Hurt has done,” said Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens.
The Board of Supervisors, at the request of Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis, could take another look at their previous work on this issue. Davis is concerned about what a uranium mining operation would do to real estate values, businesses and educational and financial institutions.
“I think the Board of Supervisors needs to make a statement or two about how it feels about uranium mining,” Davis said this week.
Eventually, most local people will take a side in the uranium mining and milling debate.
But for today, most Pittsylvania County residents appear willing to wait out the state’s study.
That’s a luxury their elected leaders don’t have.
County leaders have to lead on the uranium mining issue.
Stimulus bill expected to restart mine cleanup
Perhaps mine cleanup will eventually produce the hundreds of jobs that VUI/Santoy claim their mine will bring to the area? GV
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy, Associated Press Writer – Sun Feb 15, 8:18 am ET
WASHINGTON – When the Beal Mountain mine opened in 1988 near Butte, Mont., its owner promoted open-pit cyanide leaching for extracting gold from ore as modern and environmentally friendly.
Pegasus Gold Corp., a Canadian company, extracted nearly 460,000 ounces of gold over a decade before closing the mine and declaring bankruptcy in 1998.
It left behind a 70-acre, cyanide-contaminated leach pond with a leaky liner and tons of rubble that sends selenium-laced runoff into streams, threatening cutthroat trout and other fish. The $6.2 million reclamation bond posted by the company doesn't come close to covering the full cost to clean up the mine, which could total nearly $40 million.
"There is a real ticking time bomb up there," said Josh Vincent, president of a Trout Unlimited chapter near the mine, which sits on U.S. Forest Service land.
Efforts to clean up one of the West's most enduring and dangerous legacies — tens of thousands of abandoned hardrock mines, many dating to the 19th century — should get a boost from the economic stimulus bill awaiting President Barack Obama's signature.
The final bill, approved by the House and Senate on Friday, contains more than $1.5 billion for construction and maintenance projects in the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the Forest Service. That includes addressing pollution and safety hazards caused by abandoned mines on public lands.
The three agencies together spent about $25 million on mine cleanup in the budget year that ended last Sept. 30, according to the staff of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of the lawmakers who sought the money.
Projects ranging from repairing trails to replacing equipment also are eligible for the money, so there is no guarantee the money will be spent on mine cleanup. The bill says preference is supposed to go to projects that generate most jobs.
Advocates for cleaning up abandoned mines say the work is a strong job-generator.
"These much needed funds will create thousands of jobs, reduce water pollution, eliminate public safety threats, and restore fish and wildlife habitat in rural communities across the country," said Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks, an environmental group focused on mining issues.
The Government Accountability Office estimates there are at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock mines in Alaska and 11 other western states, plus South Dakota. Open mine shafts and decaying structures pose safety hazards, contaminants are polluting streams and groundwater, and piles of tailings tinged with arsenic have been left behind.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates it could cost as much as $50 billion to clean up all the nation's abandoned hardrock mines.
Anti-tax groups questioned whether mine clean up merits funds at all, considering that the bill is intended to jump-start the economy. Cleanups are temporary and unlikely to have any lasting economic effect, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, which advocates for less government spending.
"It's not like anyone is going to dig in these mines ever again," he said.
A report last year by the Interior Department's inspector general said abandoned mines on BLM and National Park Service land are exposing people to dangerous contaminants such as arsenic, lead and mercury. Other dangers include deadly gases, collapsing mine walls and explosive chemicals.
Among the dangers outlined in the report: all-terrain vehicle riders falling into abandoned mine shafts.
In 2007, a 13-year-old girl was killed and her 10-year-old sister seriously injured when the all-terrain vehicle they were riding ran off a trail and fell into a 125-foot mine shaft a short distance from a BLM campground near Chloride, Ariz.
At the Mojave National Preserve in California, investigators found mine shafts along roads that were large enough to swallow cars.
"The potential for more deaths and injuries is ominous," the report said.
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy, Associated Press Writer – Sun Feb 15, 8:18 am ET
WASHINGTON – When the Beal Mountain mine opened in 1988 near Butte, Mont., its owner promoted open-pit cyanide leaching for extracting gold from ore as modern and environmentally friendly.
Pegasus Gold Corp., a Canadian company, extracted nearly 460,000 ounces of gold over a decade before closing the mine and declaring bankruptcy in 1998.
It left behind a 70-acre, cyanide-contaminated leach pond with a leaky liner and tons of rubble that sends selenium-laced runoff into streams, threatening cutthroat trout and other fish. The $6.2 million reclamation bond posted by the company doesn't come close to covering the full cost to clean up the mine, which could total nearly $40 million.
"There is a real ticking time bomb up there," said Josh Vincent, president of a Trout Unlimited chapter near the mine, which sits on U.S. Forest Service land.
Efforts to clean up one of the West's most enduring and dangerous legacies — tens of thousands of abandoned hardrock mines, many dating to the 19th century — should get a boost from the economic stimulus bill awaiting President Barack Obama's signature.
The final bill, approved by the House and Senate on Friday, contains more than $1.5 billion for construction and maintenance projects in the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the Forest Service. That includes addressing pollution and safety hazards caused by abandoned mines on public lands.
The three agencies together spent about $25 million on mine cleanup in the budget year that ended last Sept. 30, according to the staff of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of the lawmakers who sought the money.
Projects ranging from repairing trails to replacing equipment also are eligible for the money, so there is no guarantee the money will be spent on mine cleanup. The bill says preference is supposed to go to projects that generate most jobs.
Advocates for cleaning up abandoned mines say the work is a strong job-generator.
"These much needed funds will create thousands of jobs, reduce water pollution, eliminate public safety threats, and restore fish and wildlife habitat in rural communities across the country," said Lauren Pagel, policy director for Earthworks, an environmental group focused on mining issues.
The Government Accountability Office estimates there are at least 161,000 abandoned hardrock mines in Alaska and 11 other western states, plus South Dakota. Open mine shafts and decaying structures pose safety hazards, contaminants are polluting streams and groundwater, and piles of tailings tinged with arsenic have been left behind.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates it could cost as much as $50 billion to clean up all the nation's abandoned hardrock mines.
Anti-tax groups questioned whether mine clean up merits funds at all, considering that the bill is intended to jump-start the economy. Cleanups are temporary and unlikely to have any lasting economic effect, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, which advocates for less government spending.
"It's not like anyone is going to dig in these mines ever again," he said.
A report last year by the Interior Department's inspector general said abandoned mines on BLM and National Park Service land are exposing people to dangerous contaminants such as arsenic, lead and mercury. Other dangers include deadly gases, collapsing mine walls and explosive chemicals.
Among the dangers outlined in the report: all-terrain vehicle riders falling into abandoned mine shafts.
In 2007, a 13-year-old girl was killed and her 10-year-old sister seriously injured when the all-terrain vehicle they were riding ran off a trail and fell into a 125-foot mine shaft a short distance from a BLM campground near Chloride, Ariz.
At the Mojave National Preserve in California, investigators found mine shafts along roads that were large enough to swallow cars.
"The potential for more deaths and injuries is ominous," the report said.
Friday, February 13, 2009
They know what it’s about
To the editor:
How stupid does the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors think we, the county citizens, are?
When the board voted not to discuss the proposed uranium mining study at its meeting Feb. 2, it showed an utter lack of courage and a more than frightening absence of knowledge.
Dan River Supervisor James Snead stated, “I don’t know what it’s about. … I don’t know how we can consider anything when there’s no information.”
How could anyone who is an elected county official not know “anything” about this topic?
Moreover, that there were enough votes to postpone the discussion indicates a majority of the supervisors are, at best, woefully uninformed or at worst in collusion to prevent the citizens from expressing their concerns about uranium mining.
It appears that our board would rather the Uranium Mining Subcommittee take the heat by simply passing on the problem to the group where we have no representation.
This action by the board mirrors those of County Administrator Dan Sleeper, who disclosed the leachate leak at the landfill 10 months after the leak was discovered.
He did not think the amount of the leak warranted informing the citizens!
What our officials can learn from this is that they must become better informed about the mining of uranium, be willing to open the discussion to the citizens and be forthcoming with the truth.
What we the county citizens can learn from this is vigilance is of the utmost importance because it seems that our elected representatives are asleep at the wheel.
It is never too early to inform ourselves about the process of a recall — let’s not wait for the next election to show our disgust!
LARRY WILBURN
Pittsylvania County
How stupid does the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors think we, the county citizens, are?
When the board voted not to discuss the proposed uranium mining study at its meeting Feb. 2, it showed an utter lack of courage and a more than frightening absence of knowledge.
Dan River Supervisor James Snead stated, “I don’t know what it’s about. … I don’t know how we can consider anything when there’s no information.”
How could anyone who is an elected county official not know “anything” about this topic?
Moreover, that there were enough votes to postpone the discussion indicates a majority of the supervisors are, at best, woefully uninformed or at worst in collusion to prevent the citizens from expressing their concerns about uranium mining.
It appears that our board would rather the Uranium Mining Subcommittee take the heat by simply passing on the problem to the group where we have no representation.
This action by the board mirrors those of County Administrator Dan Sleeper, who disclosed the leachate leak at the landfill 10 months after the leak was discovered.
He did not think the amount of the leak warranted informing the citizens!
What our officials can learn from this is that they must become better informed about the mining of uranium, be willing to open the discussion to the citizens and be forthcoming with the truth.
What we the county citizens can learn from this is vigilance is of the utmost importance because it seems that our elected representatives are asleep at the wheel.
It is never too early to inform ourselves about the process of a recall — let’s not wait for the next election to show our disgust!
LARRY WILBURN
Pittsylvania County
Dirty energy loan guarantees stripped from compromise stimulus bill
Clean energy advocates scored a victory yesterday when a provision to provide $50 billion worth of taxpayer loan guarantees for new nuclear and high-tech coal plants was stripped out of the final version of the economic stimulus bill negotiated by the House and Senate.
The guarantees were not in the version of the bill originally approved by the House, but they were added to the Senate version by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah). Bennett has long fought efforts to move the country toward more sustainable energy by opposing vehicle fuel standards, pushing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and opposing efforts to factor global warming into government planning.Experts had warned that the provision would not create any new jobs over the next four years and could in fact actually kill jobs.
As Climate Progress reported following a discussion with former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Peter Bradford: The capital markets are not swimming in credit.
If you have billions in taxpayer backed loans for your project, even for a project that will take years to finalize and see actual jobs, you may well suck up money that might be otherwise be available for, say, wind projects that are shovel ready now. Bradford called the nuke loans "straw ready.
"Worse, utilities that actually use these loans to build a nuclear plant would face an all but certain drop in their credit rating -- see "Warning to taxpayers, investors -- Part 2: Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings." That means we are setting ourselves up to take over more trouble assets, since the Congressional Budget Office estimates the likely default rate of these loans at over 50%.
If you liked nationalizing banks and insurance companies, you'll love nationalizing nuclear utilities!Climate Progress went on to explain how the calculated cost of the loans was based on the same sort of ridiculous financial assumptions that got the United States into the subprime mortgage mess.
The loan guarantees were stripped from the compromise bill after a massive outpouring of public opposition.
The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a Maryland-based watchdog group with offices in North Carolina, reports that Senators received more than 7,600 letters on the issue in one week, House members received more than 3,000 letters in three days, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got more than 1,100 letters in just one afternoon when the negotiations on the compromise measure were taking place.
The final bill is expected to be approved by the House today and by the Senate on Friday and land on President Obama's desk on Monday.
It is expected to pass, and no amendments can be added at this point.
"This is a huge win -- for our planet and for taxpayers who want stimulus funds to be invested wisely," Friends of the Earth said in a statement.
"The bailout in question would have thrilled nuclear industry lobbyists but done virtually nothing to stimulate the economy. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for the nuclear industry's failures.
Congressional leaders did the right thing and prevented waste by removing this bailout.
"But NIRS warns that the nuclear industry is unlikely to give up on getting the taxpayer subsidies it so desperately wants -- and in fact needs, since private capital has proven unwilling to finance the new reactors planned for the nation, most of which are slated for the South.
As the group reported in an e-mail sent out to supporter following yesterday's vote:
Two days ago, for example, they began a new push to have nuclear power declared a "renewable" energy source in Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) upcoming
Renewable Portfolio Standard bill, which is intended to increase renewable energy production in the U.S. (although first indications are that the bill is much weaker than it should be).
This is likely to become a major issue in March.And there will be new efforts to set up a federal "clean energy bank" to finance nuclear reactors with taxpayer dollars in the coming weeks and months.
By Sue Sturgis on February 12, 2009 11:22 AM
The guarantees were not in the version of the bill originally approved by the House, but they were added to the Senate version by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah). Bennett has long fought efforts to move the country toward more sustainable energy by opposing vehicle fuel standards, pushing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and opposing efforts to factor global warming into government planning.Experts had warned that the provision would not create any new jobs over the next four years and could in fact actually kill jobs.
As Climate Progress reported following a discussion with former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Peter Bradford: The capital markets are not swimming in credit.
If you have billions in taxpayer backed loans for your project, even for a project that will take years to finalize and see actual jobs, you may well suck up money that might be otherwise be available for, say, wind projects that are shovel ready now. Bradford called the nuke loans "straw ready.
"Worse, utilities that actually use these loans to build a nuclear plant would face an all but certain drop in their credit rating -- see "Warning to taxpayers, investors -- Part 2: Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings." That means we are setting ourselves up to take over more trouble assets, since the Congressional Budget Office estimates the likely default rate of these loans at over 50%.
If you liked nationalizing banks and insurance companies, you'll love nationalizing nuclear utilities!Climate Progress went on to explain how the calculated cost of the loans was based on the same sort of ridiculous financial assumptions that got the United States into the subprime mortgage mess.
The loan guarantees were stripped from the compromise bill after a massive outpouring of public opposition.
The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a Maryland-based watchdog group with offices in North Carolina, reports that Senators received more than 7,600 letters on the issue in one week, House members received more than 3,000 letters in three days, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got more than 1,100 letters in just one afternoon when the negotiations on the compromise measure were taking place.
The final bill is expected to be approved by the House today and by the Senate on Friday and land on President Obama's desk on Monday.
It is expected to pass, and no amendments can be added at this point.
"This is a huge win -- for our planet and for taxpayers who want stimulus funds to be invested wisely," Friends of the Earth said in a statement.
"The bailout in question would have thrilled nuclear industry lobbyists but done virtually nothing to stimulate the economy. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for the nuclear industry's failures.
Congressional leaders did the right thing and prevented waste by removing this bailout.
"But NIRS warns that the nuclear industry is unlikely to give up on getting the taxpayer subsidies it so desperately wants -- and in fact needs, since private capital has proven unwilling to finance the new reactors planned for the nation, most of which are slated for the South.
As the group reported in an e-mail sent out to supporter following yesterday's vote:
Two days ago, for example, they began a new push to have nuclear power declared a "renewable" energy source in Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) upcoming
Renewable Portfolio Standard bill, which is intended to increase renewable energy production in the U.S. (although first indications are that the bill is much weaker than it should be).
This is likely to become a major issue in March.And there will be new efforts to set up a federal "clean energy bank" to finance nuclear reactors with taxpayer dollars in the coming weeks and months.
By Sue Sturgis on February 12, 2009 11:22 AM
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Chatham mulls updating uranium resolution
By John CranePublished: February 11, 2009
The towns of Hurt and Gretna have passed resolutions on uranium mining this month, and now Chatham is mulling a resolution of its own to replace the previous one the town passed a year ago.
Chatham Mayor George O. Haley said he wants to bring the town’s resolution up to par with the other towns’ more detailed documents.
“Their resolutions were a little more comprehensive than ours,” Haley said.
Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill six miles northeast of Chatham.
Chatham passed a simple resolution on Feb. 11, 2008, asking the state’s General Assembly not to consider scrapping Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining unless a thorough, independent study finds uranium mining and milling safe.
A year later, the situation has changed. Senate bill 525, which called for a study, was tabled in the House Rules Committee in March 2008. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission approved a study in November to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences or a comparable institution.
Also, Gretna and Hurt have passed resolutions calling for the study to meet certain criteria. Both request the entire process be open to the press and public and that the respective towns be allowed to participate in the study.
Both also call for a peer-review group separate from the parties conducting the study and made up of representatives from agencies in environmental public health, water supply and resources, air quality and the Army Corps of Engineers to monitor and critique the study.
In addition, the towns want ample time and adequate funding for the study. And the study must be thorough, unbiased and conducted by an agency outside the mining industry.
Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, asked the Chatham Town Council during its regular meeting Monday night to pass a resolution calling for a study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely in the commonwealth, as well as a companion study to examine issues other than scientific aspects.
Nenon wants the resolution to be broader than those passed in Gretna and Hurt and to include a request for a parallel study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation or other comparable institution. Nenon would like to see a study cover quality-of-issues separate from “hard science” aspects.
Haley said he would discuss Nenon’s request with the town manager and report back to the council. Haley said he is anti-uranium mining but supports a study to determine whether it can be done safely. Chatham’s original resolution was “not as comprehensive as I would like for it to be,” he said. However, “it was a step in the right direction,” Haley said.
Besides public health and environmental issues, Haley said he is also concerned about the aesthetic effects uranium mining and milling would yield.
“What are we going to look like physically when this takes place?” Haley said.
Delegate Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, who heads the Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Subcommittee, said the study process will be open and honest. Ware said the towns’ resolutions will not fall on deaf ears.
“There is no question that we are highly interested in and attuned to the views of those who are the most directly affected,” Ware said.
Ware said the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will present the scope of the study at the subcommittee’s next meeting. A date and time have not been set. The NAS would examine the study’s language next, Ware said. The NAS would probably designate about a dozen or 15 internationally known scientists to conduct the study, Ware said.
The study will take about 18 months.
The towns of Hurt and Gretna have passed resolutions on uranium mining this month, and now Chatham is mulling a resolution of its own to replace the previous one the town passed a year ago.
Chatham Mayor George O. Haley said he wants to bring the town’s resolution up to par with the other towns’ more detailed documents.
“Their resolutions were a little more comprehensive than ours,” Haley said.
Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill six miles northeast of Chatham.
Chatham passed a simple resolution on Feb. 11, 2008, asking the state’s General Assembly not to consider scrapping Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining unless a thorough, independent study finds uranium mining and milling safe.
A year later, the situation has changed. Senate bill 525, which called for a study, was tabled in the House Rules Committee in March 2008. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission approved a study in November to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences or a comparable institution.
Also, Gretna and Hurt have passed resolutions calling for the study to meet certain criteria. Both request the entire process be open to the press and public and that the respective towns be allowed to participate in the study.
Both also call for a peer-review group separate from the parties conducting the study and made up of representatives from agencies in environmental public health, water supply and resources, air quality and the Army Corps of Engineers to monitor and critique the study.
In addition, the towns want ample time and adequate funding for the study. And the study must be thorough, unbiased and conducted by an agency outside the mining industry.
Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, asked the Chatham Town Council during its regular meeting Monday night to pass a resolution calling for a study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely in the commonwealth, as well as a companion study to examine issues other than scientific aspects.
Nenon wants the resolution to be broader than those passed in Gretna and Hurt and to include a request for a parallel study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation or other comparable institution. Nenon would like to see a study cover quality-of-issues separate from “hard science” aspects.
Haley said he would discuss Nenon’s request with the town manager and report back to the council. Haley said he is anti-uranium mining but supports a study to determine whether it can be done safely. Chatham’s original resolution was “not as comprehensive as I would like for it to be,” he said. However, “it was a step in the right direction,” Haley said.
Besides public health and environmental issues, Haley said he is also concerned about the aesthetic effects uranium mining and milling would yield.
“What are we going to look like physically when this takes place?” Haley said.
Delegate Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, who heads the Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Subcommittee, said the study process will be open and honest. Ware said the towns’ resolutions will not fall on deaf ears.
“There is no question that we are highly interested in and attuned to the views of those who are the most directly affected,” Ware said.
Ware said the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will present the scope of the study at the subcommittee’s next meeting. A date and time have not been set. The NAS would examine the study’s language next, Ware said. The NAS would probably designate about a dozen or 15 internationally known scientists to conduct the study, Ware said.
The study will take about 18 months.
Gretna residents applaud Hurt action
Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:22 AM EST
My husband and I are very pleased with the decision by Hurt Town Council to approve a resolution on behalf of their townspeople asking for representation from Hurt to oversee an unbiased uranium study.
This certainly shows that Hurt Town Council really cares about the health, safety and welfare of their citizens.
We think it is commendable of Mr. Tommy Neal for his leadership on this matter by making the motion to adopt this, and we would like to thank him and council personally and on behalf of all the citizens of Hurt. Mr. Neal made his career by protecting citizens and certainly showed at the meeting he is still doing so.
All towns, counties, businesses, churches and civic organizations should follow Hurt's fine example and put in their own resolutions.
Your livelihood is going to be decided by others if you don't take action to protect yourself!
All citizens should call or write your local and state representatives to make sure they protect you. Citizens, you need to get involved; don't leave it up to someone else or it won't get done.
Take your future, your children's future and your grandchildren's future into your own hands or you will get mined!
Don't believe those who will say that the government will come in and take this uranium if they want it.
The United States Department of Energy Office of Public Affairs just released their Excess Uranium Inventory Plan Dec. 16, 2008, and how they plan to sell part of it. A total of 550 metric tons of uranium yellowcake from Iraq was shipped to Canada (Cameco bought it) by the U.S. military, which cost the taxpayers $70 million.
If we really needed uranium, we would have brought this 550 metric tons here and we would not be selling our excess uranium!
If you need any help with resolutions, education information or anything else we can do, please do not hesitate to call us at 434-656-2046 or e-mail us at lovelace1265@fairpoint.net.
We do not belong to any groups, but are concerned citizens, parents and grandparents. We are trying to do our part to get the word out. Won't you do your part also?
Deborah LovelaceGretna
My husband and I are very pleased with the decision by Hurt Town Council to approve a resolution on behalf of their townspeople asking for representation from Hurt to oversee an unbiased uranium study.
This certainly shows that Hurt Town Council really cares about the health, safety and welfare of their citizens.
We think it is commendable of Mr. Tommy Neal for his leadership on this matter by making the motion to adopt this, and we would like to thank him and council personally and on behalf of all the citizens of Hurt. Mr. Neal made his career by protecting citizens and certainly showed at the meeting he is still doing so.
All towns, counties, businesses, churches and civic organizations should follow Hurt's fine example and put in their own resolutions.
Your livelihood is going to be decided by others if you don't take action to protect yourself!
All citizens should call or write your local and state representatives to make sure they protect you. Citizens, you need to get involved; don't leave it up to someone else or it won't get done.
Take your future, your children's future and your grandchildren's future into your own hands or you will get mined!
Don't believe those who will say that the government will come in and take this uranium if they want it.
The United States Department of Energy Office of Public Affairs just released their Excess Uranium Inventory Plan Dec. 16, 2008, and how they plan to sell part of it. A total of 550 metric tons of uranium yellowcake from Iraq was shipped to Canada (Cameco bought it) by the U.S. military, which cost the taxpayers $70 million.
If we really needed uranium, we would have brought this 550 metric tons here and we would not be selling our excess uranium!
If you need any help with resolutions, education information or anything else we can do, please do not hesitate to call us at 434-656-2046 or e-mail us at lovelace1265@fairpoint.net.
We do not belong to any groups, but are concerned citizens, parents and grandparents. We are trying to do our part to get the word out. Won't you do your part also?
Deborah LovelaceGretna
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Hanford nuclear power plant goes off line
Last updated February 9, 2009 12:38 p.m. PT
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
RICHLAND, Wash. -- Energy Northwest says its nuclear power plant on the Hanford nuclear reservation is shut down for repair.
The utility consortium says the Columbia Generating Station should be off the Bonneville Power Administration grid for no more than two days
.
The plant disconnected Sunday when monitoring equipment indicated a problems with the steam flow through the main turbine.
The 1,150 megawatt plant generates enough electricity for a city the size of Seattle
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
RICHLAND, Wash. -- Energy Northwest says its nuclear power plant on the Hanford nuclear reservation is shut down for repair.
The utility consortium says the Columbia Generating Station should be off the Bonneville Power Administration grid for no more than two days
.
The plant disconnected Sunday when monitoring equipment indicated a problems with the steam flow through the main turbine.
The 1,150 megawatt plant generates enough electricity for a city the size of Seattle
Gretna targets uranium
By SUSAN WORLEY/Star-Tribune Staff WriterWednesday,
February 11, 2009 10:47 AM EST
GRETNA - Gretna Town Council passed a resolution Monday night addressing concerns about the possibility of mining uranium in Pittsylvania County.
The town endorses the concept of asking the National Academy of Sciences to join the Coal and Energy Commission on the state study that is under way.
The town takes the position that unless mining and milling can be done safely, Gretna opposes the lifting of the state moratorium enacted in 1983."That unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air, the Town of Gretna is opposed to the elimination of the existing legislative moratorium on uranium mining," states the resolution.
The town stresses that a study should include a thorough evaluation of the risks, including those resulting from natural events such as floods.Also safeguards must be in place to protect the environment, agricultural lands and the health and well-being of citizens.
The town would like for the study process to be open to the public and the press.Since Gretna is the closest town to the site, a town representative should be included in the study, not for influence, but to make sure the town is kept informed.
It is a non-binding resolution that is simply the expression of the position of the town, said town attorney Michael Turner.
Joe Aylor, chief geologist for Virginia Uranium Inc., which plans to mine the site, grew up in Gretna.He said there are 119 million pounds of uranium at Coles Hill which could mean between 300 and 500 jobs for the long term.
"The jobs would mean economic gains for the community and Pittsylvania County," said Aylor.He invited those present to visit the VUI office in Chatham or the proposed site to better understand what uranium mining means for the community.
Aylor said the resolution basically mirrors what the state is already doing.
Bunny Eanes, who represents a group that earlier asked council to pass a resolution addressing uranium mining, said she is very concerned."The studies I have seen don't address the long range effects in this area's climate and rainfall," said Eanes."I'm worried about my grandchildren. The jobs all sound fine and well, but I don't think jobs are worth the health of our community."
The resolution will be forwarded to the town's Congressional and General Assembly delegations.
February 11, 2009 10:47 AM EST
GRETNA - Gretna Town Council passed a resolution Monday night addressing concerns about the possibility of mining uranium in Pittsylvania County.
The town endorses the concept of asking the National Academy of Sciences to join the Coal and Energy Commission on the state study that is under way.
The town takes the position that unless mining and milling can be done safely, Gretna opposes the lifting of the state moratorium enacted in 1983."That unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air, the Town of Gretna is opposed to the elimination of the existing legislative moratorium on uranium mining," states the resolution.
The town stresses that a study should include a thorough evaluation of the risks, including those resulting from natural events such as floods.Also safeguards must be in place to protect the environment, agricultural lands and the health and well-being of citizens.
The town would like for the study process to be open to the public and the press.Since Gretna is the closest town to the site, a town representative should be included in the study, not for influence, but to make sure the town is kept informed.
It is a non-binding resolution that is simply the expression of the position of the town, said town attorney Michael Turner.
Joe Aylor, chief geologist for Virginia Uranium Inc., which plans to mine the site, grew up in Gretna.He said there are 119 million pounds of uranium at Coles Hill which could mean between 300 and 500 jobs for the long term.
"The jobs would mean economic gains for the community and Pittsylvania County," said Aylor.He invited those present to visit the VUI office in Chatham or the proposed site to better understand what uranium mining means for the community.
Aylor said the resolution basically mirrors what the state is already doing.
Bunny Eanes, who represents a group that earlier asked council to pass a resolution addressing uranium mining, said she is very concerned."The studies I have seen don't address the long range effects in this area's climate and rainfall," said Eanes."I'm worried about my grandchildren. The jobs all sound fine and well, but I don't think jobs are worth the health of our community."
The resolution will be forwarded to the town's Congressional and General Assembly delegations.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Many Oppose Uranium Jobs
posted 6:23 pm Mon February 09, 2009 - Pittsylvania Co., VA
reporter: Sarah Bloom posted by: Amy Foster, from ABC 13
It's led to a lot of heated debate in Pittsylvania County.
Should a company be allowed to mine uranium there? There are millions of pounds of the stuff - worth billions of dollars.
But folks are worried about the side effects.
Virginia Uranium Incorporated is pumping the economic benefits, in the form of 300 to 500 jobs, with starting salaries of $65,000 to $70,000.
With having a job almost a luxury these days, news of hundreds of possible openings is eye opening.
Pamela Watkins - "I would say... give me one!"
Sandra Barnes - "I would be saying hooray! You know, a lot of our problem here is we're really suffering because we have no jobs left."
That many jobs at that salary, sounds pretty good right now. A stop at the Community Services building, will put the economic squeeze into perspective fast.
Jay Browns, Pittsylvania Co. Community Services - "Lines out the doors. A lot of times, we open at 8:30 each day, and a lot of times when we get here, the parking lot is full and there is a line waiting to get in to apply for benefits."
But that enthusiasm is terrifying to people like Eloise Nenon. She's spent hours fighting the mining industry.
Eloise Nenon, Against Mining - "In areas where they have uranium mining you have horrendous birth defects, you have rampant lung cancer, and many other physical problems."
Health doesn't seem to concern the people we spoke with. They say they believe in the dangers. Right now, they're just worried about putting food on the table.
Sarah - "Is that putting your health at a price?"
Barnes - "Breathing puts your health at a price right now, so it's we've got to decide what's more important."
For Nenon, and others opposed to mining, that's a frightening realization.
Barbara Hancock, Against Mining - "As a nurse, I feel any amount of money wouldn't be worth living in those conditions."
And a decision fueled by what opponents say, are false promises.
Nenon - "Why would they hire local people when there are experienced miners? And there are a lot of those not that far away!"
The representative we spoke with from Virginia Uranium told us the company would absolutely hire locally, and train those people extensively.
Still, those opposed say they'll believe it when they see it and hope they never do.
reporter: Sarah Bloom posted by: Amy Foster, from ABC 13
It's led to a lot of heated debate in Pittsylvania County.
Should a company be allowed to mine uranium there? There are millions of pounds of the stuff - worth billions of dollars.
But folks are worried about the side effects.
Virginia Uranium Incorporated is pumping the economic benefits, in the form of 300 to 500 jobs, with starting salaries of $65,000 to $70,000.
With having a job almost a luxury these days, news of hundreds of possible openings is eye opening.
Pamela Watkins - "I would say... give me one!"
Sandra Barnes - "I would be saying hooray! You know, a lot of our problem here is we're really suffering because we have no jobs left."
That many jobs at that salary, sounds pretty good right now. A stop at the Community Services building, will put the economic squeeze into perspective fast.
Jay Browns, Pittsylvania Co. Community Services - "Lines out the doors. A lot of times, we open at 8:30 each day, and a lot of times when we get here, the parking lot is full and there is a line waiting to get in to apply for benefits."
But that enthusiasm is terrifying to people like Eloise Nenon. She's spent hours fighting the mining industry.
Eloise Nenon, Against Mining - "In areas where they have uranium mining you have horrendous birth defects, you have rampant lung cancer, and many other physical problems."
Health doesn't seem to concern the people we spoke with. They say they believe in the dangers. Right now, they're just worried about putting food on the table.
Sarah - "Is that putting your health at a price?"
Barnes - "Breathing puts your health at a price right now, so it's we've got to decide what's more important."
For Nenon, and others opposed to mining, that's a frightening realization.
Barbara Hancock, Against Mining - "As a nurse, I feel any amount of money wouldn't be worth living in those conditions."
And a decision fueled by what opponents say, are false promises.
Nenon - "Why would they hire local people when there are experienced miners? And there are a lot of those not that far away!"
The representative we spoke with from Virginia Uranium told us the company would absolutely hire locally, and train those people extensively.
Still, those opposed say they'll believe it when they see it and hope they never do.
Papua New Guinea Hosts International Meeting on Ocean Dumping of Mine Waste
Friday January 2, 2009 11:41 AM
Dumping mine tailings into the sea via a submerged pipe is a highly controversial practice. While it is effectively banned in Canada under provisions of the Fisheries Act and the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, Canadian companies practice so-called Submarine Tailings Disposal (STD) overseas.
Mining companies operating in island-rich nations in southeast Asia and the Pacific are particularly likely to seek permission to dump their waste into the sea.
Papua New Guinea (PNG) has already hosted two STD mines (one of which, now closed, was Canadian). Many more companies are indicating an interest in piping their waste into the seas around Papua New Guinea.
Fishing communities near the planned disposal sites of proposed STD mines in Papua New Guinea are expressing strong opposition to ocean dumping of mine waste.
The European Union has collaborated with Papua New Guinea’s Mining Sector Support Programme (MSSP) to fund an independent evaluation of so-called Deep-Sea Mine Tailings Placement in Papua New Guinea.
The research is being carried out by the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS). In November of this year, SAMS and MSSP hosted a conference in Madang, PNG, to present the preliminary findings of the research carried out by the SAMS team and to present Draft Guidelines for the use of STD in PNG.
MiningWatch Canada has worked on the issue of STD with partners in Indonesia, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea since 2000.
In 2002 MiningWatch Canada and Project Underground published an STD Toolkit that details the scientific and technical concerns associated with STD. The Toolkit also provides six case studies from the Asia Pacific region.
MiningWatch’s Catherine Coumans was invited to present at the conference in Madang and to hear preliminary findings of research being conducted by SAMS. The SAMS research to date recognizes many of the scientific and technical concerns elaborated in the STD Toolkit – among others: the potential for wider than predicted dispersal of tailings along the sea bottom; shearing off of tailings at various sea levels as they make their way to the sea bottom; the problem of pipe breaks at sea; greater levels of dissolved oxygen at depth than predicted in industry consultants’ reports; the potential for metal leaching from tailings in the marine environment; the ecosystem significance of marine biota found in deep sea environments; the inadequacy of baseline data for some STD mines; the importance of vertical migration of species from the deep sea to higher levels for potential metal mobility; and lack of information on potential re-colonization of tailings as biological processes are very slow at 1000 metre depths.
Scientific presenters noted that “less is known about the deep sea than about the back side of the moon” raising the need first and foremost for precaution when considering a massive anthropogenic impact on a fragile and not-well-understood ecosystem.
Although the Draft Guidelines SAMS presented are meant to apply to PNG, it is clear that they may potentially form the basis for international guidelines. MiningWatch Canada will continue to monitor the development of these guidelines.
Dumping mine tailings into the sea via a submerged pipe is a highly controversial practice. While it is effectively banned in Canada under provisions of the Fisheries Act and the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, Canadian companies practice so-called Submarine Tailings Disposal (STD) overseas.
Mining companies operating in island-rich nations in southeast Asia and the Pacific are particularly likely to seek permission to dump their waste into the sea.
Papua New Guinea (PNG) has already hosted two STD mines (one of which, now closed, was Canadian). Many more companies are indicating an interest in piping their waste into the seas around Papua New Guinea.
Fishing communities near the planned disposal sites of proposed STD mines in Papua New Guinea are expressing strong opposition to ocean dumping of mine waste.
The European Union has collaborated with Papua New Guinea’s Mining Sector Support Programme (MSSP) to fund an independent evaluation of so-called Deep-Sea Mine Tailings Placement in Papua New Guinea.
The research is being carried out by the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS). In November of this year, SAMS and MSSP hosted a conference in Madang, PNG, to present the preliminary findings of the research carried out by the SAMS team and to present Draft Guidelines for the use of STD in PNG.
MiningWatch Canada has worked on the issue of STD with partners in Indonesia, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea since 2000.
In 2002 MiningWatch Canada and Project Underground published an STD Toolkit that details the scientific and technical concerns associated with STD. The Toolkit also provides six case studies from the Asia Pacific region.
MiningWatch’s Catherine Coumans was invited to present at the conference in Madang and to hear preliminary findings of research being conducted by SAMS. The SAMS research to date recognizes many of the scientific and technical concerns elaborated in the STD Toolkit – among others: the potential for wider than predicted dispersal of tailings along the sea bottom; shearing off of tailings at various sea levels as they make their way to the sea bottom; the problem of pipe breaks at sea; greater levels of dissolved oxygen at depth than predicted in industry consultants’ reports; the potential for metal leaching from tailings in the marine environment; the ecosystem significance of marine biota found in deep sea environments; the inadequacy of baseline data for some STD mines; the importance of vertical migration of species from the deep sea to higher levels for potential metal mobility; and lack of information on potential re-colonization of tailings as biological processes are very slow at 1000 metre depths.
Scientific presenters noted that “less is known about the deep sea than about the back side of the moon” raising the need first and foremost for precaution when considering a massive anthropogenic impact on a fragile and not-well-understood ecosystem.
Although the Draft Guidelines SAMS presented are meant to apply to PNG, it is clear that they may potentially form the basis for international guidelines. MiningWatch Canada will continue to monitor the development of these guidelines.
Uranium mining still a worry for residents
February 10, 2009
BY KEVIN DUGGANKevinDuggan @coloradoan.com
Relative quiet has settled over a proposal to extract uranium ore from beneath the prairie east of Wellington, but that doesn't mean the matter is settled.
Powertech (USA) Inc., which hopes to tap into more than 4,500 tons of uranium believed to be under the surface, expects to apply for local, state and federal permits for the operation by the end of May, said Richard Clement, company president and CEO.
The company wants to use chemically treated water to dissolve the ore and pump it out for processing into fuel for nuclear power plants. The mining process is known as in-situ leaching.
If permits are issued for the company's Centennial project, construction of mining facilities could be completed by late 2011, Clement said.
Recent drops in spot prices for uranium tied to the worldwide economic recession are not likely to affect long-term contracts for uranium, he said. Reactors in the United States need a steady supply.
"There is significant interest in domestic production," he said. "We're sure the market will stay strong."
Local residents opposed to the mining operation are keeping an eye on the company and the project in hopes of keeping the mining from getting started.
With little news about the project through the end of 2008, some people believe the Centennial proposal is dead, said Jackie Adolph, outreach manager for the anti-uranium mining group Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction, or CARD.
"It's not over," she said. "We're picking up our efforts to let people know what's going on."
State officials have begun the process of drafting rules for in-situ mining as called for by state legislation passed last year.
The law requires a mining company to prove it can restore the quality of groundwater at in-situ sites to levels that are the same or better before the start of mining.
CARD members want to make sure the rules meet the letter of the law, Adolph said.
Powertech is wrapping up the process of establishing environmental background levels on the 5,700-acre Centennial site, Clement said.
The state's new law, which is known as House Bill 1161, is not likely to impede the company's operations at Centennial, Clement said.
Its standards are similar to what is already required by federal regulators, he said.
But in-situ leaching projects elsewhere in the country have wound up contaminating groundwater, said Jay Davis, a CARD member who lives near a section of the Centennial project.
Mining companies have not been able to restore groundwater to its pre-mining condition, he said.
"We are keeping a close eye on what's going on elsewhere," he said. "We think the rules enforcing 1161 will have a significant impact."Additional Facts
BY KEVIN DUGGANKevinDuggan @coloradoan.com
Relative quiet has settled over a proposal to extract uranium ore from beneath the prairie east of Wellington, but that doesn't mean the matter is settled.
Powertech (USA) Inc., which hopes to tap into more than 4,500 tons of uranium believed to be under the surface, expects to apply for local, state and federal permits for the operation by the end of May, said Richard Clement, company president and CEO.
The company wants to use chemically treated water to dissolve the ore and pump it out for processing into fuel for nuclear power plants. The mining process is known as in-situ leaching.
If permits are issued for the company's Centennial project, construction of mining facilities could be completed by late 2011, Clement said.
Recent drops in spot prices for uranium tied to the worldwide economic recession are not likely to affect long-term contracts for uranium, he said. Reactors in the United States need a steady supply.
"There is significant interest in domestic production," he said. "We're sure the market will stay strong."
Local residents opposed to the mining operation are keeping an eye on the company and the project in hopes of keeping the mining from getting started.
With little news about the project through the end of 2008, some people believe the Centennial proposal is dead, said Jackie Adolph, outreach manager for the anti-uranium mining group Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction, or CARD.
"It's not over," she said. "We're picking up our efforts to let people know what's going on."
State officials have begun the process of drafting rules for in-situ mining as called for by state legislation passed last year.
The law requires a mining company to prove it can restore the quality of groundwater at in-situ sites to levels that are the same or better before the start of mining.
CARD members want to make sure the rules meet the letter of the law, Adolph said.
Powertech is wrapping up the process of establishing environmental background levels on the 5,700-acre Centennial site, Clement said.
The state's new law, which is known as House Bill 1161, is not likely to impede the company's operations at Centennial, Clement said.
Its standards are similar to what is already required by federal regulators, he said.
But in-situ leaching projects elsewhere in the country have wound up contaminating groundwater, said Jay Davis, a CARD member who lives near a section of the Centennial project.
Mining companies have not been able to restore groundwater to its pre-mining condition, he said.
"We are keeping a close eye on what's going on elsewhere," he said. "We think the rules enforcing 1161 will have a significant impact."Additional Facts
Group calls for uranium mining solution
Published: February 9, 2009
BY JOHN R. CRANE
Register & Bee staff writer
CHATHAM — A founding member of Southside Concern Citizens asked the Chatham Town Council to pass a resolution calling for a study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely in the commonwealth, as well as a companion study to examine issues other than scientific aspects.
The resolution needs to be broader than the one passed by the town of Hurt last week, Eloise Nenon, SCC founding member, said to Chatham Town Council members Monday night. Like Hurt’s, Chatham’s resolution should call for the study to open to scrutiny by the press and public, but another study should address concerns not covered in the study’s “hard science”
aspects, Nenon said.
“We need something more than what the town of Hurt has done,” Nenon said during Chatham Town Council’s regular meeting.
Nenon praised Hurt’s move, but said a study by the National Academy of Science, or another similar entity, would not cover issues such as the community, heritage or history of Chatham and Pittsylvania County or quality-of-life issues.
Nenon said Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall could be vulnerable to the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling.
Other questions Nenon wants answered is what type of emergency plan Chatham has in place in case of disaster.
Nenon also wants to know the names of at least five communities with similar geography to Pittsylvania County that have had uranium mining and milling but have not suffered environmental consequences. In addition, Nenon asked who would be held liable in the event of a disaster at Coles Hill.
Dust at uranium mining sites has never been controlled, she said.
“Are we destined to become the Pittsylvania dustbowl?” Nenon said.
Nenon said the National Trust for Historic Preservation could possibly conduct a separate study.
The town of Chatham passed a resolution opposing the lifting of the state’s moratorium against uranium mining in the absence of a thorough study in February 2008. Chatham Mayor George Haley said he would discuss Nenon’s request with the town manager and report back to the council.
VUI wants to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill six miles northeast of Chatham.
Patrick Wales, a geologist and spokesman for Virginia Uranium Inc, said profits made from mining and milling at Coles Hill would go toward land conservation and maintaining the area’s history and agriculture. VUI would impose an excise tax on itself and use the funds to help pay for initiatives to improve the county’s schools, Wales said during a phone interview Monday night after the meeting.
All VUI has asked for is a study to determine the safety of mining and milling uranium, he said. Also, the study has nothing to do with lifting the moratorium on mining, he said. That decision will be up to the General Assembly, Wales said.
John Crane can be reached at jcrane@registerbee.com
BY JOHN R. CRANE
Register & Bee staff writer
CHATHAM — A founding member of Southside Concern Citizens asked the Chatham Town Council to pass a resolution calling for a study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely in the commonwealth, as well as a companion study to examine issues other than scientific aspects.
The resolution needs to be broader than the one passed by the town of Hurt last week, Eloise Nenon, SCC founding member, said to Chatham Town Council members Monday night. Like Hurt’s, Chatham’s resolution should call for the study to open to scrutiny by the press and public, but another study should address concerns not covered in the study’s “hard science”
aspects, Nenon said.
“We need something more than what the town of Hurt has done,” Nenon said during Chatham Town Council’s regular meeting.
Nenon praised Hurt’s move, but said a study by the National Academy of Science, or another similar entity, would not cover issues such as the community, heritage or history of Chatham and Pittsylvania County or quality-of-life issues.
Nenon said Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall could be vulnerable to the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling.
Other questions Nenon wants answered is what type of emergency plan Chatham has in place in case of disaster.
Nenon also wants to know the names of at least five communities with similar geography to Pittsylvania County that have had uranium mining and milling but have not suffered environmental consequences. In addition, Nenon asked who would be held liable in the event of a disaster at Coles Hill.
Dust at uranium mining sites has never been controlled, she said.
“Are we destined to become the Pittsylvania dustbowl?” Nenon said.
Nenon said the National Trust for Historic Preservation could possibly conduct a separate study.
The town of Chatham passed a resolution opposing the lifting of the state’s moratorium against uranium mining in the absence of a thorough study in February 2008. Chatham Mayor George Haley said he would discuss Nenon’s request with the town manager and report back to the council.
VUI wants to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill six miles northeast of Chatham.
Patrick Wales, a geologist and spokesman for Virginia Uranium Inc, said profits made from mining and milling at Coles Hill would go toward land conservation and maintaining the area’s history and agriculture. VUI would impose an excise tax on itself and use the funds to help pay for initiatives to improve the county’s schools, Wales said during a phone interview Monday night after the meeting.
All VUI has asked for is a study to determine the safety of mining and milling uranium, he said. Also, the study has nothing to do with lifting the moratorium on mining, he said. That decision will be up to the General Assembly, Wales said.
John Crane can be reached at jcrane@registerbee.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
