The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20081131.tiff Esther Gesick From: Esther Gesick Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 10:23 AM To: 'bkughman@hotmail.com' Subject: FW: TMSM-Spam: No Uranium Mining in Northern Colorado Attachments: LEUraniumEmail.doc iUraniumEmail.doc (54 KB) Mr. Kughman, Please see the attached response. Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 (970)356-4000 X4226 (970)352-0242 (fax) Original Message From: Bill Jerke Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 4 :29 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: TMSM-Spam: No Uranium Mining in Northern Colorado Original Message From: Brian Kughman [mailto:bkughman@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:02 AM To: bkughman@hotmail.com Cc: Dave Long; Douglas Rademacher; Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; William Garcia; Bruce Barker; Trevor Jiricek; Monica Mika; krennels@larimer.org; ggibson@larimer.org; reubanks@larimer.org; governor.ritter@state.co.us; shawn.mitchell.senate@state.co.us; scott.renfroe.senate@state.co.us; steve.johnson.senate@state.co.us; bob.bacon.senate@state.co.us; randy.fischer.house@state.co.us; john.kefalas.house@state.co.us; kevin@kevinlundberg.com; don.marostica.house@state.co.us; jim.riesberg.house@state.co.us; glenn.vaad.house@state.co.us; comments.wqcd@state.co.us Subject: TMSM-Spam: No Uranium Mining in Northern Colorado To Whom it May Concern, I am very concerned about the potentially severe impacts the proposed uranium mine near Nunn, Colorado will have on our land, water, and health. I'm currently living in Fort Collins and have recently purchased a home in Nunn. As my representatives and government officials, I ask that you do everything in your power to stop this project. Thank you, Brian Kughman Larimer/Weld counties 2008-1131 LC %csx� a s/- /y- doz' 1 PL/M Esther Gesick From: Esther Gesick Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:32 AM To: 'guard1234@hotmail.com' Subject: FW: TMSM-Spam: Smith-Highlands Ranch uranium contamination Attachments: LEUraniumEmail.doc .EUraniumEmail.doc (54 KB) Mr. Williams, Please see the attached response. Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 (970)356-4000 X4226 (970) 352-0242 (fax) Original Message From: William Garcia Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:54 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: TMSM-Spam: Smith-Highlands Ranch uranium contamination Original Message From: howard williams [mailto:guard1234@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 11:36 AM To: Bill Jerke; bob.gardner.house@state.co.us; bob bacon; Buffie McFadyen; Christine Scanlan; cory Gardner; 'Cynthia Burkhart' ; 'Daniella Butrick' ; Dave Long; don.marostica.house@state.co.us; Douglas Rademacher; fwsmith@ezlink.com; g gibson; glenn.vaad.house@state.co.us; governor.ritter@state.co.us; isgarsenate@frontier.net; janice lynne; jerry sonnenberg; Jerry Sonnenberg; John Kefalas; Judy Solano; kathleencurry@montrose.net; Kathy krennels; Kevin Lundberg; larry horsman; Mike Freeman; mortega@reporter-herald.com; Rob Masden; Scott Renf roe; Scott Rent roe; Trevor Jiricek; wes McKinley; William Garcia Subject: TMSM-Spam: Smith-Highlands Ranch uranium contamination Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe that several of you have been told that the Smith-Highlands Ranch In -Situ leach mine in Douglas Wyoming, is 'the state of the art of In Situ leach mining' operation" . Read this article and cross it off your list of successful 'environmentally safe uranium mines' . We have had some influence on the residents of the state of Wyoming, they now want those mines investigated for environmental problems. This like all other in-situ leach mines has contaminated the ground water, the aquifers mined in there are no longer suited for wells for domestic or livestock consumption. Is this the future of 'Beautiful Colorado' ? 'The most beautiful place to live' ? Four of you have told Colorado groups that you were "impressed with the Smith- Highlands Ranch operation" . What are your thoughts now??? Considering that the band of uranium on the eastern plains of Colorado is in HIGHLY populated areas and in the Denver Basin Aquifer System, can you continue to support in- 1 C'ulhlvwtn, dArivw y-/y-JLOB DLOI / situ leach mining in this belt of residential land???? As more and more of these sites are investigated by federal and state officials ,who up until now, were asleep at the switch, it further proves that our official position on the subject was and is correct. Personally, I would like to hear from Senator Renfroe, Representatives, Marostica, Sonnenberg, Lundberg, McKinley, and Hodge. What do you think about helping to develop legislation similar to HB 1165, or a modification of it that you all can agree on by consensus, before the end of this session? Howard M. Williams 52337 WCR # 15 Carr, Colorado 970 897 2865 Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now. <http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?6VJBBd-UVNcS02ciwxkNg-hD- nNnWk-17UVkPYj cLcs3ylrige1830A118w4wGdyE2xk1lvKN-xcl8 ek9RrIj5rI9TKYrLROTQQKKefLCXCObuNghjpolhelNfBPgbyab9EVdEFT7e3D4nT3r39IolBcCn2Yy9c o8kd40b S5ypEwrzI9dGCy2Roj RmkdDaI3 s_3VUIvIE6Qjg9JBBd-UV54TSC2pSuFn6 f C> 2 Casper Star-Tribune Online - Editorial Page 2 of 4 DEQ needs to ensure uranium mine oversight Tuesday, April 8, 2008 2:06 AM MDT Star-Tribune Editorial Board Anticipated growth in uranium mining will help Wyoming diversify its minerals production. But the new activity comes at a time when the public has had its confidence shaken in both state regulators and at least one player in the uranium industry. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality said it had discovered long- standing environmental concerns at the Smith-Highland Ranch in-situ leach Story Tools uranium mine north of Douglas. The mine, operated by Power Resources Corp., is the only one now operating in Wyoming. But at least seven other companies are _Print this story expected to seek DEQ approval for similar mines throughout the state. E-mail this DEQ found serious alleged violations at the mine, including delayed restoration of story groundwater, "routine" spills, and a bond inadequate to cover restoration. These problems occurred over several years but apparently were not noticed by DEQ until lRate this the agency conducted a special investigation of the mine last fall. story The DEQ's report said Power Resources routinely extends the production time for 1 Text Size some wells. One well field that was planned to be in production for one to three , years was actually used for a decade. The agency's inspectors noted that while underground water restoration is supposed to occur simultaneously with ongoing Share This Story: production, that rarely happens at the mine. ❑ Cameco Corp., which owns Power Resources Corp., said it will restore well fields 0 O❑ to a point acceptable to state and federal regulators. Cameco said it also will increase its bond to adequately cover restoration of the mining activity, and will provide better records and documentation in the future. It's disturbing that so many problems have been discovered at what should have trib.popular served as a model for future uranium mining activity in the state. The good news is that the company has acknowledged its mistakes and has the revenue to do much • Post- better in the future. It has the opportunity to prove, as a Cameco spokesman said, delisting that the environment is one of its top priorities. wolf kills begin(6296) Meanwhile, DEQ Director John Corra acknowledges the department's oversight of • Men face the mine failed, but he adds that his staff was not "asleep at the switch." Then how charges in does he explain what happened? Evansville shooting The director vows that the agency will be more vigilant about its inspection process (2596) in the future. But that promise would be more credible if the agency were being • Carcasses of held accountable for failed oversight in the past. two calves found at NC Wyoming citizens deserve confidence that DEQ will monitor in-situ uranium (M4) mining closely and take appropriate action when necessary. If staffing and a file://C:\Documents and Settings\egesick\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\S... 4/9/2008 Casper Star-Tribune Online - Editorial Page 3 of 4 . Clinton dwindling knowledge base about the uranium industry within DEQ are factors in its health care failed oversight, as Corra suggested, then Corra and Gov. Dave Freudenthal should story is address those problems immediately. wrong hospital says Wyoming has an opportunity to benefit economically from increased uranium (1916) mining, but Wyoming citizens deserve to know regulators will provide proper . Probe finds oversight. uranium mine violations (1652 Next Diversity needs to be city's economic mantra trib.bloggers Article Rating Music, Part 2 Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes! Rate File: Select Rating: "'- "What brings people to etg her..." - - posted April 6, n 2008 (48 hours Reader Comments ago) There are No comments posted. (31) Comments Why is the grass Comments to this story. green? Because it's so watered down. Submit a Comment "Sports Goulash" We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our posted April 4, Web staff before appearing on the Web site. 2008 (4 days ago) (8) Comments Name: Breathe Deep... "Phiddlechik's Email: (optional) Blog" posted April 3, 2008 (4 days ago) (6) Comments In memoriam- the Polaroid "Photo blog!" posted April 6, 2008 (37 hours Comments: ago) 0 (3) Comments Image Verification: . I Post Comment I Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. file://C:\Documents and Settings\egesick\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\S... 4/9/2008 Esther Gesick From: Bill Jerke Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 3:51 PM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Salazar Info Attachments: EPA to Salazar letter.pdf real" EPA to Salazar letter.pdf(3 M... Original Message From: Trevor Jiricek Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 3 :04 PM To: Rob Masden; Douglas Rademacher; William Garcia; Bill Jerke; Dave Long Cc: Phillip Brewer; Thomas Honn; Kim Ogle; Mark Wallace; Bruce Barker; David Bauer Subject: FW: Salazar Info All, Attached is the EPA's response to a request made by Ken Salazar concerning the proposed uranium mine in Weld County. Valois Shea (the gal who made the presentations) promised to forward this to us during her last visit. She forwarded it yesterday. Hope all is well! Trevor Jiricek, M.A. Director, Environmental Health Services Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment 1555 N. 17th Ave Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-304-6415, ext. 2214 (office) 970-304-6411 (fax) Original Message From: Shea.Valois@epamail.epa.gov (mailto:Shea.Valois@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 12:12 PM To: Trevor Jiricek Subject: Re: Salazar Info Hi Trevor, I was supposed to have already sent you our response letter back to Senator Salazar. Here it is finally: (See attached file: EPA to Salazar letter.pdf) Valois Shea US EPA Region 8 8P-W-GW 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 phone: 303-312-6276 fax: 303-312-6741 niC �O /Y-7LYJS i ,212619 „1 0 STglF UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY �,. REGION 8 1595 wynkoop Street �L r- ` atl �Q ' DENVER,CO 80202-1129 I. Phone 800-227-8917 http://www.epa.govireglon08 JAN 2 4 2008 Ref: 8P-W-GW The Honorable Ken Salazar United States Senate 702 Hart Senate Office Building • Washington, D.C. 20510-0606 RE: Powertech Uranium Mining Project in Weld County, Colorado Dear Senator Salazar: This letter follows my earlier response of November 27,2007,to your letter of November 9,2007,to the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)which expressed concerns regarding the Powertech Uranium Corporation's(Powertech)proposed Centennial Project for in-situ extraction of uranium in Weld County, Colorado,and the potential for contamination of ground water from Class III solution mining injection well operations. The enclosure to this letter provides the summary information you requested in your letter. Our Region 8 EPA office has worked with EPA Headquarters offices to gather information and generate the requested summary information regarding the history of known impacts from in-situ extraction of minerals in the continental U.S., and EPA's cumulative experience with remediation of aquifer excursions and other site contamination at these sites. I regret that gathering the requested information and preparing this response took longer than my anticipated 30 days, and I appreciate this further opportunity to provide the enclosed summary information. Again, I appreciate your writing on behalf of the many citizens of northeast Colorado regarding this proposed uranium in-situ leach(ISL)project. I hope this information, in addition to my earlier letter,helps to assure you and the public that EPA remains diligent in its responsibilities related to proposed uranium ISL projects and UIC Class III injection well permitting decisions,particularly with respect to the Powertech Uranium Corporation proposed project in Weld County;and protection of the larger Denver Basin aquifer system. If you or your staff has questions or comments regarding the information provided in this letter or enclosure,please contact me or Sandy Fells, our Regional Congressional Liaison, at 303-312-6604. Sincerely, &Lot ede±L* Robert E. Roberts Regional Administrator Enclosure cc: Mr. James B. Martin Executive Director Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver,Colorado 80246-1530 Ms. Martha Rudolph, Director,Environmental Programs Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Mr. Harris Sherman Executive Director Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St. Denver, CO 80203 Mr. Ron Cattany Director,Division of Reclamation,Mining and Safety Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St. Denver, CO 80203 2 Attachment UIC Class III Injection Well Overview Wells which inject for extraction of minerals include those mining of sulfur by the Frasch process,in-situ production of uranium or other metals, and solution mining of salts or potash. 40 CFR 144.6(c). Alternately referred to as In-Situ Leach(ISL)mining, in-situ extraction,and solution mining,these in-situ extraction operations began as experimental technology in the 1960's for extraction of minerals from generally shallow depths(typically 400-1700 feet below the land surface). For the purpose of consistency, this response uses the term"ISL"to refer to Class III wells used for in-situ production of uranium,and"Class III solution mining"to refer to injection wells used for solution mining of salts or potash. Of the uranium extracted in the United States, 80 percent is now produced by ISL. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC)licenses uranium mills and ISL facilities. ISL facilities,due to the use of chemical solutions to extract uranium, are referred to by NRC as uranium milling underground. Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act,NRC regulates all ISL facility operations, including the injection of fluids, using environmental and ground water protection standards developed by EPA in accordance with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act(UMTRCA). Thus,in accordance with standards developed by EPA under UMTRCA,NRC implementing regulations and guidance require the licensee to restore groundwater in the license area, which includes the exempted aquifer, and to prevent excursions or pollution of surface waters. EPA also has complementary authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate the injection of the fluids at these sites. Consequently,prior to any ISL mining at these sites,a mine owner/operator receiving a license from the NRC or NRC Agreement State must as well receive an Underground Injection Control Program(UIC)permit provided by either EPA or a State with UIC primary enforcement authority. Please note that an Agreement State means a State to which NRC has relinquished a portion of its authority for licensing and regulating of uranium extraction facilities. Colorado is an Agreement State. The EPA is currently providing assistance to NRC which is drafting new regulations for ground water protection at ISL facilities. These new NRC regulations must receive EPA concurrence before promulgation. Known History and Environmental Impacts The Energy Information Administration reports five licensed and operating ISL facilities as of the end of the third quarter in 2007. One is in Wyoming,one in Nebraska, 1 and three are in Texas. Although no ISL facilities are listed on the Superfund National Priorities List,ISL license violations have been documented through State agencies and the NRC's Agencvwide Documents Access and Management System or"ADAMS." Locations to note are the Crow Butte mine in Nebraska,Kingsville Dome in Texas,and Christensen Ranch/Irigaray in Wyoming. Information concerning environmental impacts at individual uranium milling sites can be found on ADAMS at http://www.nrc.aov/reading-rm/adams.html. Definitive published studies specifically regarding environmental impacts of uranium ISL operations and mills in the United States do not currently exist. EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air(ORIA)has been conducting technical studies on uranium mining and associated wastes since the mid-1990s. Two EPA reports released in 2006 and 2007 provide detailed information on ISL operations,wastes,reclamation, regulatory controls,and potential health risks to members of the public and on-site employees. These are: "Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from Uranium Mining, Volume 1: Mining and Reclamation Background" and "Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from Uranium Mining, Volume 2: Investigation of Potential Health, Geographic. and Environmental Impacts of Abandoned Uranium Mines". Both reports are available through the EPA website at: Volume 1: http://www.epa.zov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-05-007-rev0607.ndf; • Volume 2: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/volume-ii/402-r-05-007.odf. Specific examples of ground water excursions and contamination at ISL sites with references to various other studies,compiled by the United States Geological Survey and others organizations,are included in Appendix III of Volume 2. The NRC also is at present researching information regarding the impacts of uranium milling facilities and will publish for public comment a Generic Environmental Impact Statement(GEIS) for ISL facilities. The NRC published a revised scoping notice for its GEIS in the Federal Register on November 1,2007. 72 Fed. Reg. 61912 (Nov. 1, 2007). The public comment period on the GEIS ended on November 30,2007. Id. The GEIS will focus on ISL facilities and is"intended to address the common issues associated with environmental review of such milling facilities located in the western United States... The GEIS will focus on the construction,operation and decommissioning [of ISL facilities] and also assesses alternative methods of uranium recovery. " Id. Resource areas tentatively identified by NRC to be analyzed in the GEIS include public and occupational health,waste management, land use,transportation, geology and soils,water resources,ecology, air quality,noise,historical and cultural resources,visual and scenic resources, socioeconomics,environmental justice and cumulative effects. Id. at 61913. It should be noted that it is unclear at this time whether 2 the GEIS will include ground water remediation and restoration data. According to the November I,2007 NRC Federal Register notice,the draft GEIS is scheduled to be published in April 2008,and will allow for 3 weeks of public comment and/or public meetings. The final GEIS is expected to be published in January 2009. Id. Possible environmental impacts from ISL facility operation would primarily be to ground water at the facility,although contamination of soil,surface water and air also may occur. Ground water contamination from ISL generally can occur in three ways: (1) through unavoidable contamination of the exempted portion of the aquifer in which the uranium deposit is localized,(2)through unintentional contamination due to contaminants moving outside of the exempted aquifer area,and(3) as a result of facility structural failure and surface spills. Case 1: While the injected oxidized water lixiviant is not itself a contaminant,the lixiviant does solubilize the uranium,and can move into solution heavy metals that may be present in the ore production zone such as arsenic,selenium, vanadium,molybdenum. Case 2: Ground water pressure differential is used to control movement of lixiviant within the mining area. However,faults crossing aquifer systems;underground mine shafts or exploratory drill holes,and natural changes in permeability within the mined zone could possibly cause lixiviant excursions and/or cause contaminated groundwater to move beyond the NRC licensee's point of compliance. Case 3: Contamination of the soil, surface water and/or ground water may occur through unintentional spills from leaking surface facility structures such as tanks or piping, injection or production well integrity failure, or evaporation pond liner failure. Solid waste from ISL consists of soil,bedrock material and the by-product waste from the drilling of injection and production wells,and solids precipitated from fluid holding ponds. Surface water contaminated by erosion from mines and mine wastes may percolate into ground water. Both solid and liquid waste from ISL uranium mine operations have some residual uranium and radium-226 that when improperly disposed or handled may be carried in particulate form by flowing water,potentially leach through soil into ground water,or pollute the air by release of radon. EPA Experience with Remediating Aquifer Excursions and Other Types of Site Contamination Caused by ISL EPA has already approved primary enforcement authority(primacy)for Class III injection wells for the states where ISL currently occurs(i.e., Wyoming,Nebraska and Texas). To date,there are no licensed ISL operations in States or Indian Country where EPA directly enforces UIC regulations and oversees ISL remediation. Consequently, EPA's experience with remediating aquifer excursions and other types of site 3 contamination at ISL facilities has thus far been limited to an oversight role of the three state UIC programs with primacy. EPA does have experience with a Class III solution mining facility in Colorado. Between 2001 and 2003, injection operations at the American Soda LLC(American Soda) Class III solution mining facility in Rio Blanco County, Colorado,appeared to cause sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate-laden water to move out of the approved injection mining zone and into an overlying saline aquifer. American Soda used the solution mining process to extract and produce sodium carbonate and food-grade quality soda bicarbonate from nahcolite deposits found in the upper Green River Formation in the Piceance Basin of western Colorado. Nahcolite is the mineral name for sodium bicarbonate,or baking soda. In this case,a gradual ground water level rise of approximately 1.60 feet was detected in a dissolution zone monitoring well,which led EPA to conclude that the American Soda mining operations had breached the confining zone. The breach was thought to be caused by a crack in the mining zone that allowed injected fluid to move through the confining zone and into the overlying dissolution zone aquifer. The operator initiated an approved plan to remediate the situation by injecting highly saturated fluid so that,upon cooling,the nahcolite would precipitate out and"plate over" the breach. In order to proceed with the approved remediation plan,EPA also modified the Class III UIC Permit by expanding the approved injection zone to include the dissolution zone directly above the original overlying salt confining zone. The remediation operation did not fully conclude because American Soda "mothballed"these operations in 2004, and there has been no injection or mining after 2004. Since August 2003,the ground water elevation in the monitoring well has gradually receded,and most recently was recorded at a level about 14 feet above where it had been prior to rising. EPA Class III UIC Well Permit Requirements Review of an application for a Class III injection well includes a rigorous evaluation that the proposed injection activity will not endanger Underground Sources of Drinking Water(USDW). EPA promulgated the criteria and standards applicable to Class III injection wells at 40 C.F.R.Part 146, Subpart D. 40 C.F.R. §§ 146.31-146.34. As noted in our letter of November 27,2007,EPA issues Class III UIC permits in Colorado. EPA regulations require certain information be considered prior to permit issuance. 40 C.F.R. 146.34. This information includes maps and cross sections indicating the vertical limits of all USDWs within the area of review,the position of the USDWs relative to the injection formation,the direction of water movement where known, in every USDW which may be affected by the proposed injection,expected • • changes in pressure,native fluid displacement or direction of movement of injection fluid, and contingency plans to cope with all shut-ins or well failures so as to prevent the migration of contaminating fluids into USDWs; well construction requirements; operating, monitoring, and reporting requirements; closure plans and a certificate that the applicant has assured,through a performance bond,or other appropriate means,the resources necessary to close,plug,or abandon the wells as required. Id. In conclusion, ISL facility operators are required to comply with groundwater protection standards developed by EPA, in accordance with the UMTRCA.The NRC or the Agreement State that issues the license for the uranium mill and ISL facility (licensing agency) enforces these ground water protection and restoration regulations. The licensing agency also must enforce all other applicable environmental requirements, and the operator must comply with orders from the licensing agency for any required site cleanup. In general,the operator/owner has the most experience in site remediation; however,the plan for a remediation response usually is developed in coordination with the licensing agency. Should a contamination event occur at an ISL facility,the licensing agency will order the licensee(operator)to take necessary steps to correct a violation, and the licensing agency has the regulatory responsibility to order the cleanup and approve its completion. Should the contamination event also constitute a violation of the Class III UIC Permit,the contamination event will trigger enforcement of the UIC Permit requirements by the UIC permitting agency. Additionally,EPA has authority to oversee remediation should the NRC or the Agreement State fail to achieve appropriate remediation or environmental law compliance under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA), or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act(CERCLA). • Hello