HomeMy WebLinkAbout20092901.tiffExpo'sing Powertech Uranium Corp's plans for mining near Nunn, Weld County, Colorado Page 1 of 9
Information about proposed uranium mining in northern Colorado and Powertech Uranium Corp.
REJECTED OR ACCEPTED? Powertech spins
problems with Dewey -Burdock
Posted October 10, 2009
In the world according to Powertech, a permit application returned for incompleteness is not "rejected'. But when
such an application is redone, resubmitted, and found to be complete and ready for technical review, it is
"accepted".
In June, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave Powertech an ultimatum- withdraw the company's
application for an ISL mining license for the Dewey -Burdock project, or the NRC would formally reject the
application. Turns out, the 8,700 -page application contained five material deficiencies that rendered it unsuitable
for technical review by NRC staff. Powertech withdrew the application.
Two months later, the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources found Powertech's
application for an Underground Injection Control Permit for the project to be incomplete and thus not ready for
technical review. According to the 41 -page letter to Powertech, three major issues were not adequately
addressed in the application, and dozens of errors and deficiencies were noted.
In both of these cases, the permit applications were sent back to Powertech because they were determined to be
incomplete. Neither agency could conduct a technical review of the applications. (An earlier application to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for an Underground Injection Control permit for the Dewey -Burdock
project has been found to be complete.)
When Paul Robinson of the Southwest Research and Information Center was quoted as saying the applications
had been "rejected as unacceptable", Powertech CEO Dick Clement was quick to respond. "The state did not
reject our application...it's not unusual to get these kinds of questions" asserted Clement, referring to the
incompleteness determination by the SDDENR.
In an earlier news release, Clement had already described the NRC's requirement to revise the federal permit
application as a "voluntary withdrawal". Making every effort to obscure the fact that the company botched both
permit applications, Powertech officials have downplayed the concerns of the permitting agencies and have been
especially vehement in their denial that the applications have been rejected.
It is perhaps a fair criticism that the applications have not been "rejected". They have both been found
"incomplete". In the words of the SDDENR:
"In general terms, the application lacks sufficient detail to address fundamental questions related to
whether the project can be conducted in a controlled manner to protect ground water resources."
So if they weren't "rejected", then a subsequent finding that a revised application is now "complete" shouldn't
mean that it is "accepted", right?
Wrong.
On October 7, Powertech issued a news release with the following headline:
"POVVERTECH'S DEWEY-BURDOCK PROJECT APPLICATION
ACCEPTED BY NRC"
If you read the news release, you discover that the NRC has simply "found the Company's application for its
Dewey -Burdock uranium in situ project acceptable for detailed technical and environmental review." In other
words, it is "complete". The news release goes on to make the misleading claim that the EPA has "accepted" the
UIC permit application, which is currently undergoing technical review.
If Powertech officials were concerned about transparency and disclosure, they would say that a permit application
has been "rejected for technical review" or "accepted for technical review", or that is has been "found to be
incomplete" or "found to be complete".
JW
Mining project needs more
objective review
John S. Dixon
Fort Collins Coloradoan
October 4, 2009
This is in response to Wallace M. Mays' Soapbox article on Thursday regarding
proposed uranium mining in nearby Weld County by Powertech (USA) Inc. Mays
is chairman of the board at Powertech.
t»UI ,r,..1 ItikLatav > Il-2-2 Od`I
http://www.powertechexposed.com/
Site updated October 21, 2009
Can't find the information or document you're looking
for? Try our search engine:
I Search
Document Library • Maps • Past Postings • News
Stories • Editorials & Letters • Research tools •
House Bill 1161 • Photos • Mine Proximity •
Graphics • Quotes • CARD • Scorecard • Uranium,
radium & radiation • Links • Contact us
DOCUMENTS
Updated October 21, 2009
An Analysis of Excursions at Selected In Situ Uranium
Mines in Wyoming and Texas (NUREG(CR3967 59
pages - does not include appendices/case histories) -
Staubet al - Prepared for the U S Nuclear Regulatory
Commission by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
the University of Idaho - July 1986 (PDF 3.858 KB)
"Powertech revising uranium mining permit applications'
Steve Miller- Rapid City Journal - October 3 2009 Note:
This article covers the problems Powertech has had with
their first two permit applications for Dewey -Burdock
ISL uranium project near Edgemont, South Dakota. Both
of the permit applications (to the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources) were found to have
numerous material deficiencies. Powertech purchased
the Dewey -Burdock uranium leases in May 2006. Four
months later, the company purchased the uranium
mineral rights for the Centennial uranium project near
Nunn and Fort Collins, Colorado. In the three years since
Powertech announced the projects, the company has had
only two permit applications accepted for technical review
by permitting agencies, both for the Dewey -Burdock
project (no permits have been issued). No permit
applications have been filed for the Centennial project,
and it is unlikely that any will be submitted before spring
2010.
Comment letter on behalf of CARD. Environment
Colorado. Ciean Water Action. and INFORM. to the
Colorado Division of Mining Reclamation and Safety.
expressing concerns that Powertech's Modification #3 to
NOI P-2008-043 does not comply with the Colorado
Mined Land Reclamation Act's requirements regarding
baseline characterization and that there are numerous
deficiencies in the company's request relating to impacts
to groundwater and the hydrologic balance at the site -
Jeffrey Parsons. Western Mining Action Protect -
September 29. 2009 (PDF 1.729 KB)
Response by the State of Colorado to Powertech's
September 2. 2009 request for approval of Modification
#3 to Notice of Intent P-2008-043. finding that
Powertech's modification request is incomplete including
16 items that Powertech must fully address within 60
daysand stating that Powertech may not commence
operations on the proposed pump test until all issues
have been resolved and a bond has been submitted and
accepted - Allen Sorenson. Reclamation Specialist -
Colorado Division of Reclamation. Mining and Safety -
September 25. 2009 (PDF 1 761 KB)
Request for Modification to Notice of Intent (NOI) File No
2009-2901 10/24/200'
ILLEvi
Exposing Powertech Uranium Corp's plans for mining near Nunn, Weld County, Colorado Page 2 of
Wallace "I'm not doing this
for the money" Mays,
Chairman of the Board,
Chief Operating Officer, and
largest individual
shareholder - Powertech
Uranium Corp.
Before Powertech begins mining and rolls the dice with our health and safety, our
home values and our local economy, we must have a more objective appraisal of
the proposed mining project. We need the appraisals of scientists who have
doctorate degrees in the appropriate disciplines and who are independent of
Powertech.
Mays writes about the unintended movement of production fluids outside the
mining zone and says "... excursions do happen ..." In other words, the methods
Powertech intends to use to mine uranium cannot be relied upon to restrict the
water used in the mining process to the mine site and cannot ensure that tainted
extraction fluids will not contaminate nearby water supplies.
Mays refers to a recent report published by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. We need to read this report. We also need to read a recent U.S.
Geological Survey report (Open -File Report 2009-1143), which concludes that no
in situ leach mine in the United States has ever been able to return post -mining
groundwater to its original, baseline condition.
On July 8, at a town of Nunn public meeting, Mays said "... I don't do it (uranium
mining) for the money .." Considering Mays is a major stockholder in Powertech,
this comment adds greatly to his credibility.
RELATED DOCUMENTS:
"Powertech works to protect health. safety" - Wallace M. Mays - Fort Collins Coloradoan - October 1 2009
DATA ON GROUNDWATER IMPACTS AT THE EXISTING ISR FACILITIES - tno author given) - U.S Nuclear
Regulatory Commission - tno date given I Note: This document was prepared by an unidentified NRC staff
member(s) upon the request of the Commission. It is undated, authorship is unknown, and no sources are cited.
It does mention that in the three mines reviewed (Mgary/Christensen Ranch in Wyoming, Smith Ranch/Highland
in Wyoming, and Crow Butte in Nebraska), restoration efforts could only return 50-70 percent of constituents to
baseline values. In particular, restoration of uranium, radium -226, arsenic, and selenium to baseline is often not
attainable. The report also confirms that excursions of leaching fluids out of the mining zone have persisted for
several years, and that leakage of well casings and fittings is not uncommon. The report concludes that
"Potential environmental impacts to groundwater at an ISR facility can result from inadequate restoration of the
production aquifer following completion of the ISR operations, leakage from a failure of the subsurface well
materials, or an excursion of the leaching fluids to the aquifers surrounding the production or exempted aquifer."
The report goes on to say that excursions and well failures "in most cases" do not pose a threat to the
surrounding aquifers. (Apparently, in some cases they do.) Despite the numerous risks from ISL mining
delineated in the report, the unnamed author repeatedly asserts that the NRC's regulation of these three mines
has been successful at protecting "human health and the environment". This claim is made eleven times in the
nine -page report, but there is no explanation of how these determinations were made, who made them, or the
scientific criteria used to assess the various risks.
"Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In -Situ Recovery Mines. South Texas Coastal Plain" - Susan Hall -
Open -File Report 2009-1143. U S. Department of the Interior. U S. Geological Survey. Central Energy
Resources Science Center - 2009 (PDF 3.236 KB)
Report on Findings Related to the Restoration of In -Situ Uranium Mines in South Texas - Bruce K. Darling.
Ph. D.. P . - SOUTHWEST GROUNDWATER CONSULTING. LLC - September 29 2008 (PDF 982 KB)
Report by hydrogeologist finds Texas in -situ uranium mines have been unable to restore ground water
aquifers to premining water quality - State regulators routinely approve leaving higher uranium levels in
ground water author questions mine operators' scientific understanding of aquifers - Posted October 24,
2008, Updated March 30, 2009
After in -situ uranium leaching, ground water cannot be returned to the way it was - Nuclear Regulatory
Commission official and uranium mining executive acknowledge restoration of aquifer to baseline is
unachievable- Posted September 3 2008
See story on Wallace Mays' deal to sell uranium to the government of India
U.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION:
In -situ leach uranium mining affects groundwater quality
when leaching solutions travel beyond well field
boundaries
Recent NRC document describes horizontal and vertical excursions at ISL mines in
Wyoming and Nebraska some lasting for as long as 8 years
Posted September 13, 2009
WHISTLEBLOWER: Former Texas ISL weilfield
operator speaks out
P-2008-043. Centennial Uranium Project. Weld County.
Coloraoo, requesting approval from the Colorado Division
of Reclamation. Mining and Safety to "conduct an aquifer
pumping test utilizing monitoring wells... and return the
produced water back to the source aquifer" - Powertech
(USA) Inc - September 2. 2009 (PDF 1.917 KB)
CENTENNIAL PROJECT SECTION 33 PUMPING TEST
PLAN, WELD COUNTY. COLORADO -prepared for
Powertech (USA) Inc. by Petrotek Engineering
Corporation - September 2009 (PDF 2.100 KB)
Comments submitted on behalf of Coloradoans Against
Resource Destruction (CARD) and Information Network
for Responsible Mining (INFORM) regarding the draft UIC
Class V injection well permit issued to Powertech (USA)
Inc by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -
Region 8 for underground infection of water produced by
a proposed aquifer pump test to be conducted on Section
33, Township 10N Range 67W Weld County Colorado-
Jefirey Parsons Senior Attorney. Western Mining Action
Protect - July 24. 2009
"Nunn board against uranium mine" - Steven Olson. The
Wellington (Wellington. Colorado) - September 9 2009
Note: This article does a good job of describing the Nunn
Town Board's discussion and vote against the Centennial
Project at its September 3 meeting. However, it fails to
mention the strong support and involvement of Nunn
residents and nearby landowners who are not associated
with CARD, the main grassroots organization opposing
the project. The article concludes with a statement by
Loveland attomey Jeff Parsons that while the resolution is
not enough to stop Powertech, it would be a mitigating
factor to agencies that determine whether the Canadian
mining company gets the permits to operate.
'Uranium mining may get buried in Nunn' - Monte
Whaley. Denver Post - September 3 2009 Note: This
story came out the moming before the Nunn Town Board
soundly approved a resolution against the Centennial
Uranium Project. The proposed project would include
mining within the growth management area of the town.
Powertech CEO Dick Clement was interviewed for the
story and admitted that a resolution against the project by
the town could ham, the company's chances for approval
of mining permits. Nunn Mayor Jeff Pigue is incorrectly
described as being undecided on the project. Pigue is an
outspoken Powertech supporter, and he worked with
Powertech officials in a months -long effort to head off a
vote on the resolution.
"Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In -Situ Recovery
Mines. South Texas Coastal Plain" - Susan Hall - Open -
File Report 2009-1143. U S Department of the Interior
U.S Geological Survey. Central Energy Resources
Science Center -2009 (PDF 3.236 KB)
Note: USGS geologist Susan Hall concludes that
"Regarding the original question of whether or not
groundwater has been restored to baseline in Texas
uranium ISR well fields, it was observed that no well field
for which final sample results were found in TCEQ (Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality) records returned
every element to baseline."
More Documents
http://www.powertechexposed.com/
10/24/2(
Exposing Powertech Uranium Corp's plans for mining near Nunn, Weld County, Colorado
Page 3 of
Did Powertech CEO Richard Clement's former employer violate environmental laws and
endanger groundwater users?
Posted September 8, 2009, Updated September 9, 2009 (Thanks to G. Harman and M. Krueger)
Roland Burrow worked as a wellfield operator for Uranium
Resources, Inc..outside Kingsville, Texas a decade ago.
He says the company at the time was regularly flushing
high volumes of water into the mine field that would have
expanded groundwater pollution beyond its permitted
area, posing a potential future risk to the residents of
Kingsville.
He claims also to have witnessed the falsification of
monitoring -well data, which must be regularly submitted to
the state to show the contaminated water is contained at
the mine site. He tried unsuccessfully to get the TNRCC
(now the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality)
and FBI involved, and was fired in 1996. He moved a
couple counties over, but now a URI offshoot wants to mine in his backyard, and he's decided to fight.
Powertech CEO Richard Clement was an executive of Uranium Resources, Inc. for 16 years from 1983 to 1999.
Watch the six minute video on YouTube. Read the story.
NUNN TOWN BOARD VOTES TO
OPPOSE CENTENNIAL PROJECT
Posted September 3, 2009, Updated September 4, 2009
On Thursday, September 3, the Town Board of Nunn, Colorado passed a resolution opposing Powertech
Uranium Corp.'s proposed Centennial Uranium Project. The vote was four in favor, two opposed (including
Mayor Jeff Pigue) and one abstention. Trustees Jenny Johnson, Karen Burd, Joyce Taylor, and Brian Jex
supported the resolution.
Weld County residents Ken Tarbett and Mike Wlliams presented the resolution to the Town Board. Tarbett and
his family get their water from a domestic well that is the closest well to the area Powertech seeks to mine first.
The Tarbetts have yet to be contacted by Powertech.
The Mayor said he didn't understand the technical issues addressed by the resolution, and he raised the specter
of angry mineral rights holders filing lawsuits against the town if the resolution were to pass. Town Trustee Joyce
Taylor responded by asking why the cities and towns of Fort Collins, Greeley, Wellington, Ault, and Timnath had
not been sued for the resolutions they had already passed against the project.
The Town of Nunn has no permitting authority with respect to the Centennial Project. However, it is the closest
municipality to the proposed mine — a portion of the proposed mining area is located within the town's 3 -mile
growth management area. The opposition to the project by the Town of Nunn and other municipalities will bean
important consideration when the various permitting agencies weigh the environmental and socioeconomic
impacts from the proposed project.
JW
Nunn digs in against uranium mine -Colin Lindenmayer. Greeley Tribune - September 4. 2009
Board opposes uranium mine- Bobby Magill Pod Collins Coloradoan -September 4, 2009
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF NUNN
EXPRESSING THE BOARD'S OPPOSITION TO THE MINING OF URANIUM NEAR
THE TOWN
WHEREAS, Powertech (USA) Inc. ('Powertech"), a wholly -owned subsidiary of
Canadian company Powertech Uranium Corp., has proposed a uranium mining
operation on nearly 10,000 acres of land located west of the Town of Nunn (the
"Town"), known as the Centennial Project (the Project"); and
WHEREAS, Powertech proposes to extract the uranium using in -situ leach mining,
which involves the drilling of wells into an aquifer, the injection of chemically -altered
water under pressure to dissolve uranium and other heavy metals, and the pumping of
the resulting solution to the surface for further processing; and
WHEREAS, leaching solutions contaminated with heavy metals and radionuclides
would be repeatedly re -injected and re -circulated through the aquifer; and
WHEREAS, Powertech proposes to conduct in -situ leach mining in the Laramie -Fox
Hills aquifer in which numerous domestic and agricultural wells are completed in close
stack C Lii
$0.38 t 1f r,5i
Stc-chl >D7
1$0 37 p10 -13,T0,
Ms, ter captts ',who,:
820 374 361 111$/3
.4voragr" n'-lume
156.800 shares
52 -,mu_ into -day high
(CAD)
Sil.^5:5'4'1)9)
52 -wk. into day low
iCADI
50 17110R3!0.G
All lime high (CAD)
84.45 (3123107)
Shares outstanding
155.429.020
F'.inF. Tau ,
A„
r1t73+ y�4
r'y
rr ,. Group
} Iii,:.. .0's
r
‘ti
il
lY tililrl
le
tM,,,,,, k
46.00 pc' pound
(10'l )9 source)
870.00 00, pound
rur�.l
:NV mghred-.+v0rage
Will the Belgians throw good money after
bad? (Apparently so.)
On June 4, 2008, Belgian firm Synatom Invested $9
million CAD in Powertech Uranium Corp. Six milli°
shares of stock were issued to Synatom at $1.50
CAD per share. The value of these shares has
dropped to $2.28 million CAD as of October 16,
http://www.powertechexposed.com/
10/24/2(
Exposing Powertech Uranium Corp's plans for mining near Nunn, Weld County, Colorado
proximity to the proposed mining area; and 2009.
WHEREAS, in -situ leach mining holds inherent risks, including but not limited to the
possible contamination of groundwater, and the release of contaminants to surface
areas through spills and leaks as documented in Nuclear Regulatory Commission
records; and
WHEREAS, Powertech proposes to prevent horizontal excursions of leaching solutions
from the mining area into adjacent drinking water supplies by the use of water pressure;
and
WHEREAS, Powertech claims that impermeable layers of rock will prevent vertical
excursions of leaching solutions into overlying or underlying drinking water aquifers; and
WHEREAS, the proposed mining area includes thousands of exploration drill holes from
the 1970s and 1980s, many of which were not plugged properly to prevent water from
migrating vertically between aquifers; and
WHEREAS, both vertical and horizontal excursions of leaching solutions from the
mining area of historical and current in -situ leach uranium projects are numerous and
well -documented; and
WHEREAS, a lack of long-term monitoring of aquifers at historical in -situ leach uranium
mines has resulted in insufficient data to determine long-term impacts on drinking water
supplies; and
WHEREAS, Powertech proposes to dispose of mine wastewater with elevated levels of
radionuclides and heavy metals by land application with pivot irrigation and by storage
in open holding ponds for later injection into deep wells; and
WHEREAS, land application of mine wastewater could result in dispersal of
contaminants by windblown dust and by surface water runoff; and
WHEREAS, wastewater holding ponds are subject to leaks and failures as documented
in Nuclear Regulatory Commission records; and
WHEREAS, following the cessation of in -situ leach uranium mining, Powertech would
be required to restore the aquifer to pre -mining baseline water quality or to Colorado
radioactive materials standards and the most stringent ground water quality criteria; and
WHEREAS, aquifer restoration involves flushing the aquifer with large quantities of
water from outside the mining area, and may also include filtering, injection of
hazardous reducing chemicals, and injection of substances to promote growth of
microbial agents; and
WHEREAS, historical attempts to restore aquifers to pre -mining baseline water quality
following in -situ uranium leaching have all been unsuccessful, and regulatory agencies
have had to relax water quality restoration standards to allow closure of these mines;
and
WHEREAS, the closest area to be mined would be on Section 35, bounded by the Nunn
Road (WCR 100), WCR 23, WCR 98, and WCR 21, and is located within the 3 -mile
growth management area of the Town; and
WHEREAS, the uranium deposits in the area closest to the Town are shallow and
located above the water table and thus are not amenable to typical in -situ leaching; and
WHEREAS, shallow unsaturated uranium deposits are typically extracted using open pit
mining; and
WHEREAS, open pit mining holds inherent risks, including but not limited to the
possible contamination of groundwater, and the potential hazard of windborne
contaminated dust and particulate matter; and
WHEREAS, Powertech originally notified state mining regulators that it intended to
extract the uranium deposits south of the Nunn Road by the use of open pit mining, but
has since indicated it is investigating alternative methods; and
WHEREAS, Powertech has not reasonably or fully explained how it intends to mine
these shallow deposits; and
WHEREAS, the Project would occur in an area near the Town that is experiencing
steady population growth and is in close proximity to many homes and agricultural
operations; and
WHEREAS, mineral estate owners have a right to extract minerals when that extraction
will not be injurious to surface right owners, neighboring property owners, and
groundwater users; and
Page 4 of
See story:
Powertech sells off part of company to European
multinational corporation - Canadian firm to get 5.9
million cash infection from Societe Beige De
Combustibles Nuclearres Synatom SA. a subsidiary or
Eleceabel/SUES Group
Posted June 3, 2008
When uranium mining goes wrong
Is this the future of northwestern Weld County?
0 WATER FROM
THIS WELL
IS NOT SAFE
TO DRINK
This water has been tested and tound
to exceed Navajo EPA and U.S. EPA
human drinking water standards for
uranium or other contaminants_
Navajo Nation policy is that livestock -
use -only wells are not to he used for
human drinking water.
Source- http //www.epa govireglon09/waste/sfund/navalo-
nation/contaminated-water. html
The No Uranium Song -written and performed b'
Russ Hopkins. Order your CD here. Download an MP
for $1.00 here. All proceeds to benefit C. A.R.D. in the
fight against uranium mining in northern Colorado.
Note to Powertech's attorneys:
The First Amendment to the US
Constitution: Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting ll
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government fora redress of grievances.
WHEREAS, Powertech has been unable to convincingly demonstrate that its proposed
http://www.powertechexposed.com/
10/24/2(
Exposing Powertech Uranium Corp's plans for mining near Nunn, Weld County, Colorado Page 5 of
mining activities would not injure surface right owners, neighboring property owners,
and groundwater users, and
WHEREAS, economic development is a high priority for the Town; and
WHEREAS, uranium mining close to the Town might provide employment for a few
local residents but could negatively impact long-term efforts to attract new residents,
businesses, and investment; and
WHEREAS, protection of health, safety, and economic well-being is a primary
responsibility of the Board of Trustees; and
WHEREAS, for all these reasons the Nunn Board of Trustees is strongly opposed to the
Project and hereby conveys that opposition to the federal, state, and county agencies
that will review this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF NUNN'
Section 1. The Nunn Board of Trustees hereby strongly opposes the proposal for
mining uranium at the proposed Centennial project and urges all county, state, and
federal agencies involved in the permitting process to recognize that locating such
projects along the North Front Range in close proximity to cities and towns is
inappropriate because such mining may be injurious to the health, safety, welfare, and
property rights of the residents and do irreparable harm to the economic well being of
the Town.
Section 2. For all the foregoing reasons the Nunn Board of Trustees further urges all
involved government agencies to deny any and all permit applications for the Project.
Mining opponents pack Nunn meeting
August 12, 2009
By Steven Olson
The Wellington (Wellington, Colorado's Community Newspaper)
They had to get extra chairs. Mayor Jeffrey Pigue, officers of the Nunn police department and others brought in
17 chairs to add to the 42 already in the room to seat the crowd that showed up for the Aug. 6 Nunn Town Board
of Trustees meeting.
Facing a packed room, Pigue suggested that the more mundane items the board usually handles at the
beginning of the meeting be moved to the end.
Interest was high because Powertech Uranium Corp., the Canadian -based firm that wants to mine uranium in
Weld County between Nunn and Wellington (Colorado), had asked for an item of new business regarding its
Centennial Project.
Area residents who monitor town board meetings were surprised to find Powertech on the agenda posted the day
before the meeting, and details of the company's request were not made available to the public. Town Clerk Tori
McMechan would not provide an advance copy of the proposed resolution to The Wellington, saying that she
might be in violation of attorney -client privilege if she did so.
Read aloud at the town board meeting, the resolution stated Powertech wanted to work with Nunn to iron out any
problems connected with the Centennial Project and to establish a cooperative relationship with the town.
The audience, which consisted of a mixed group including members of Coloradoans Against Resource
Destruction, citizens of Nunn and people who live nearby, wasted no time in expressing an opinion on accepting
the letter. It was a unified and very loud 'No.'
Trustee Brian Jex got a loud burst of applause when he observed, "If we adopt this, we're showing we're pro-
Powertech, which I'm against to be honest with you."
The board agreed to table the matter. While most in the audience applauded, some, like longtime Nunn resident
Alvarita Thomas, wanted to know what that meant. Pigue responded, "It's a dead issue now."
Many were filing out of the board meeting room when Thomas persisted, "I'm concerned that when you say it's a
dead issue, it might rise from the grave.'
it's dead as far as this meeting is concerned; Pigue said. "...Until someone brings it up again, it's dead. If
someone brings it up later, we have no choice but to hear it."
Though Pigue said the issue was dead, there were some in the audience and some milling about outside the
small community center who were still suspicious. Dog breeder Gerrit Voshel, a CARD member who lives on
Weld County Road 17 near one of the proposed mining sites, said the entire situation "sounded like a lot of
smoke and mirrors.'
"They tried to slip something past us at the last minute," said Voshel, "but thanks to e-mail and the Internet we
can get a crowd together pretty quickly."
http://www.powertechexposed.com/ 10/24/2(
• Exposing Powertech Uranium Corp's plans for mining near Nunn, Weld County, Colorado Page 6 of
The Wellington story
POWERTECH DRILLING CREW LEAVES OPEN BOREHOLE,
VIOLATES STATE WATER LAW
Open hole discovered on May 1. 2009 by inspector from Colorado Division of
Reclamation, Mining and Safety: inspection report released two months later
Posted July 6, 2009
Antelope Hill Blog
June 14, 2009 - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified five
material deficiencies in Powertech's application for a license to conduct in -situ
leach uranium mining at its Dewey -Burdock project near Edgemont, South Dakota.
Powertech submitted the license application on February 25, 2009, and NRC staff
conducted an acceptance review that ended with a May 26 phone conference with
Powertech informing the company of the problems.
According to an NRC notice, the material deficiencies in Powertech's application
relate to hydrogeology/site characterization, waste disposal, well field locations and
layout, protection of water resources, and operations information.
In a May 28 letter to the NRC, Powertech Vice -President Richard Blubaugh stated that "While Powertech may not
fully agree with NRC Staffs conclusions regarding the
nature of the identified issues, we would like to schedule a meeting with NRC Staff as soon
as possible after June 9, 2009."
(According to NRC document NUREG-1569, "The applicant's....failure to supply information requested by the
staff to complete the review (10 CFR 2.108) is also grounds for denial of the application.")
NRC staff and Powertech attorneys and officials including Chairman Wallace Mays met on June 11 to discuss the
problems with the application. Interested members of the public participated in the meeting via teleconference.
According to a participant and related news coverage, the meeting concluded with NRC staff declaring that the
application was incomplete, and that if Powertech did not withdraw the application the NRC would send a
rejection letter. Powertech is expected to respond in a week or two.
The problems with the application are numerous, and will likely take some time to correct. According to a
participant who monitored the meeting, the deficiencies include:
- Inadequate characterization of the hydrology and geology of the site, and lack of information to
support conclusions.
- Inadequate descriptions of where ISL mining would actually occur. Apparently, Powertech has
not conducted enough exploratory drilling to identify all of the specific ore bodies it intends to mine.
- Insufficient detail regarding waste disposal methods. (For a letter from the Wyoming Department
of Environmental Quality rejecting an overture from Powertech to pump wastewater across the
state line for disposal in a deep injection well, go here.)
- Uncertainty regarding ISL mining in unconfined aquifers.
- Questions concerning aquifers that may serve as sources of drinking water.
The meeting participant said Powertech cited the high cost of exploration drilling and testing as a reason why
additional information was not provided to the NRC.
Correcting the application's deficiencies will delay permitting of the project. Powertech has made permitting of
Dewey -Burdock its number one priority after last year's passage of House Bill 08-1161 by the Colorado
legislature and subsequent rulemaking delayed the submittal of permit applications for the Centennial project in
northern Colorado. In addition, Powertech has so far been unable to obtain approvals for a final aquifer pump
test needed to collect data for its Colorado and EPA applications.
Presumably, Powertech has been counting on progress with its Dewey -Burdock permit applications to convince
investors to provide more venture capital. Since the company has yet to file its March 31 fiscal year-end financial
statements with Canadian securities regulators, its cash position is unclear. The NRC's non -acceptance of
Powertech's application for Dewey Burdock will undoubtedly be seen as bad news by investors.
JW
May 16, 2009 (Updated June 28, 2009) - The photo below shows a Powertech drill rig on Section 33, north of
Weld County Road 110 between county roads 17 and 19. The site is about 7 miles northeast of Wellington. The
drilling is authorized under a state Notice of Intent to Conduct Prospecting (P-2008-043). According to
Powertech, the wells being drilled on Section 33 will be used to conduct an aquifer pump test to collect data for
http://www.powertechexposed.com/ 10/24/21
• Exposing Powertech Uranium Corp's plans for mining near Nunn, Weld County, Colorado Page 7 of 9
mine permit applications.
During the proposed pump test, water would be continuously pumped from the target aquifer to the surface for up
to six days. About 170,000 gallons of water would be removed and stored for later disposal. Water levels in
observation wells would be measured for drawdown, providing data on how much water can be transmitted
horizontally through the aquifer, labeled the A2 Sand by Powertech. Observation wells in overlying and
underlying aquifers would be monitored to determine whether the ore -bearing aquifer is confined or whether
vertical leakage during mining is possible.
Pump tests are required to determine if in -situ leach mining is economically feasible and whether ISL mining is
likely to contaminate other aquifers. The data are also used to design optimum wellfield configurations.
The purpose of the tanker trucks in the photo is unknown, although they may contain fluid for hydraulic fracturing
of the wells. A hydrofracturing truck from The Well Improvement Company Inc., a Fort Collins firm, was seen
leaving Section 33 on the day the photo was taken (May 5, 2009). Hydraulic fracturing is a form of "well
stimulation" commonly used in the oil and gas industry to increase fluid flow into wells. A fracture fluid is injected
under extremely high pressure to create or expand cracks in the underground rock formation. Sand or ceramic
beads are added to the fracture fluid to prop open the resulting cracks. These "proppants" have a higher
permeability than the surrounding rock formation and provide a conduit for fluids to flow to or from the well.
It is unclear whether Powertech is conducting hydrofracturing on these wells since little public information is
available on the proposed pump test and related drilling.
(Note: On May 29, 2009, I received an email from a Wyoming driller who observed that the activity in the photo
above could not include hydraulic fracturing because the well was still being drilled and because several more
water trucks would be required to provide the required volume of fracture fluid. It should be noted that there are
other Powertech wells on this section of land, and also that the Well Improvement Company Inc. has developed a
"scaled -down version of the oil field techniques"that uses only 2,000 gallons of fluid.)
In fact, the company has not sought or received approval from the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and
Safety (DRMS) for the pump test. Only a brief discussion of the proposed pump test was included in Powertech's
March 4, 2009 submittal to the DRMS requesting approval of a second modification to NOI P-2008-043.
In its letter, Powertech simply announced that it would be conducting a pump test. The purpose of the submittal
was to seek approval for disposal of the pump test water in an unlined infiltration pit. Since the pump test would
be conducted in a part of the aquifer containing uranium deposits, the wastewater would have elevated levels of
uranium and radium.
Because this wastewater might migrate into the shallow, higher -quality Laramie Formation aquifer, there are
concerns about this disposal method. Concerned landowners and members of the public as well as Weld County
officials submitted comments to the DRMS questioning the wisdom of this proposal. In response, the DRMS
requested additional technical information from Powertech and directed the company to respond to the concems
of landowners and county officials.
Powertech's reaction was to withdraw the infiltration pit proposal and complain that the DRMS is not authorized to
accept and respond to comments by local governments and the public regarding prospecting activities.
Powertech is now proposing that it would store the pump test wastewater in metal tanks and then inject it back
into the A2 formation aquifer. Under federal regulations, Powertech would have to obtain a Class V Underground
Injection Control permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
According to Valois Shea from the EPA's Region 8 office in Denver, Powertech has already submitted a Class V
permit application. If the application is deemed complete, the EPA will review the application and prepare a draft
permit (if it chooses not to deny.) The draft permit and a "Statement of Basis" will be released and public notice
will be given. After a 30 -day public comment period, a public hearing will be held. The hearing may take place in
Nunn, Wellington, or Greeley, and could happen as early as July.
http://www.powertechexposed.com/ 10/24/200'
• Exposing Powertech Uranium Corp's plans for mining near Nunn, Weld County, Colorado Page 8 of
The EPA must review and respond to public comments. If the application is approved, a final permit is drafted
and issued along with the administrative record. The permit is effective in 30 days unless appealed and stayed.
Presumably, Powertech must still submit an application to the DRMS for an NOI modification for injection of the
wastewater. Whether the DRMS must approve the pump test itself is an open question.
JW
Previous blog postings
Why I created powertechexposed.com
Radiation warning sign
outside of Crow Butte in -
situ leach uranium mining
facility, located near
Crawford, Nebraska.
Photo courtesy of the
Lakota Media Project of
t Owe Aku,
This site is dedicated to uncovering the facts surrounding Powertech Uranium Corp.'s proposal to mine
uranium in Weld County, Colorado. Furthermore, its purpose is to protect the health, environment,
property, and livelihoods of residents, landowners, and business owners by petitioning elected officials and
government agencies on this matter of heightened public concern.
My family and I live on the prairie between the towns of Wellington and Nunn, Colorado. Our land is
about two miles west of the area that Powertech wants to mine. Our water, and all our neighbors' water,
comes from wells drilled into the Laramie -Fox Hills aquifer.
After reviewing the history of uranium mining by the in situ leach and open pit methods, my opinion is
that this project would likely contaminate the groundwater aquifer used by hundreds of well owners,
disperse windblown radioactive dust over the Fort Collins/Wellington/Nunn/Ault area, and negatively impact
the real estate market and general economic prosperity of this part of northern Colorado.
Powertech proposes to mine on at least twelve sections of land, roughly 7,000 acres, located between
the City of Fort Collins and the towns of Wellington, Nunn, and Ault. One of the mining areas is six miles
from the city limits of Fort Collins, and much of the mining area is located within the proposed growth
management area of the town of Nunn.
The proposed project is generally referred to as the Centennial Project. In fact, it is two projects: The
"Indian Springs" project consists of the seven northern sections where in situ leach mining is proposed. The
"Centennial" project includes the five southern sections of land slated for sand and gravel mining followed
by conventional open -pit uranium mining.
At the July 19. 2007 open house in Nunn, Powertech representatives suggested the company is
considering an untested alternative to open -pit mining on the southern sections - flooding the area to
saturate the shallow uranium deposits, followed by "modified" in situ leaching. Powertech officials admit
that this flooding process has never been attempted.
The Canadian corporation, incorporated in 1984 as Ararat Oil & Minerals Inc., has for most of its
existence been a manufacturer of boilers and water heaters. In May 2006, control of the publicly -
traded shell corporation was transferred to the current goup of managers who announced that the company
was now in the uranium mining business. However, Powertech has never mined uranium, has never
http://www.powertechexposed.com/ 10/24/20(
• Exposing Powertech Uranium Corp's plans for mining near Nunn, Weld County, Colorado Page 9 of
real,zed revenue from mining uranium, and has never obtained a permit to conduct uranium mining.
It has, however, raised more than $23 million in Europe and Canada by promoting and selling penny
stock to investors. The promotion of Powertech has been orchestrated from its head office in Centennial,
Colorado and its corporate office in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Vancouver address has been shared
by at least six other Canadian penny stock firms in the recent past.
Thanks to the friends, neighbors, public officials, anonymous sources, Powertech employees and
contractors, and others who provide inspiration, ideas, and content for this site - your contributions are
greatly appreciated.
Jim Woodward
Wellington, Colorado, USA
jbw@triicom
http://www.powertechexposed.com/ 10/24/21
Hello