Exposing Powertech Uranium Corp's plans for mining near Nunn, Weld County, Colorado

The board ruled 7-0 in favor of the new rules.

Mike King - Exec. Director, Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources

The new rules require uranium companies planning an "in-situ leach" operation -- a process that injects chemicals to leach the uranium from the ground without resorting to strip mining -- to protect groundwater.

Powertech proposed using such an in-situ mining technique on its Centennial project in Weld County, believed to hold 12.8 million pounds of uranium.

The new rules also requires applicants for in-situ uranium mining to get information on groundwater quality prior to prospecting for uranium.

In an Aug. 6 filing to the reclamation board, Powertech said requiring pre-prospecting groundwater studies "economically and technically impracticable at best -- impossible at worst" because the prospecting has to happen in order to study the groundwater.

"This results in an obvious Catch 22 which would be fatal to any serious potential in-situ recovery project," said the filing by Powertech President Richard Clement and attorney John Fognani with Denver's Fognani & Faught PLLC.

Mike King, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and a member of the reclamation board, on Thursday applauded the new rules.

"These rules will protect our groundwater resources by requiring baseline characterization and grant much greater transparency to the impacted communities regarding the proposed mining activities," King said in a statement.

Environmental groups involved in the rulemaking said they, too, approved of the board's decision.

"The state mining board took decisive action to protect our water and land from uranium pollution," said Matt Garrington, program advocate of Environment Colorado, in a statement. "Today is a triumph for our land and water."

------------------------------

Board OKs oversight of in situ mining

Rules require 'baseline' water quality tests and allow appeals

By Bobby Magill

Fort Collins Coloradoan

August 13, 2010

Residents who worry about uranium mining near their land in Northern Colorado will now be able to appeal to the state if a mining company is allowed to prospect in the area.

The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board on Thursday put its final stamp of approval on a set of rules that will govern how British Columbia-based Powertech Uranium Corp. will be allowed to mine using an in situ leaching process and provide the public with a way to appeal state decisions on uranium prospecting.

"It's been what we've been effectively fighting for, for over three years now," said Jay Davis, whose property is adjacent to the Centennial Project uranium mining site northeast of Fort Collins in Weld County.

Powertech proposes to mine for uranium at the Centennial Project using in situ leaching. The company will inject a baking soda-like solution into the ground to dissolve the uranium, then pump it to the surface for processing.

Davis and other Northern Colorado residents have worried for years that the process could contaminate domestic well water near the mine, which would be built between Wellington and Nunn.

The rules, Davis said, will hold uranium companies such as Powertech to a higher standard in Colorado than in other states where environmental rules aren't as strict.

The new rules permit the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety to require Powertech and other companies hoping to mine uranium using in situ leaching to establish “baseline” water quality before they begin prospecting for uranium.

Baseline water quality is the quality of the groundwater as it exists before any mining or prospecting begins. The rules, which implement a 2008 state mining law, require Powertech, once mining is complete, to return the contaminated groundwater beneath the mine site to its original baseline condition.

Powertech USA President Richard Clement said in an Aug. 6 letter to state mining officials that the rules would be “fatal” to any in situ uranium mining in Colorado.

“At the end of the day, they’ll realize this will provide additional protection to them and insulate them from assertions that prospecting released uranium into the groundwater,” said Mike King, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and a member of the MLRB. “This will provide a level of comfort and insurance to well owners, land owners in the area that they will have all the information (on groundwater quality) up front before the prospecting and mining process.”

How fatal these rules will prove to be all depends on how they’re interpreted, Clement said Thursday.

Establishing baseline water quality, he said, is part of the prospecting process. “You could interpret the rules to the point where you can’t possibly accomplish the goal before you begin operations,” he said.

Environmental groups hailed the board’s decision Thursday.

“They hit it out of the park,” said Matt Garrington of Environment Colorado, a Denver environmental group championing strong restrictions on mining companies in Colorado. “For the first time ever, local governments can appeal mine prospecting decisions.”

King said the rules take effect Sept. 15.

"State board unanimously adopts uranium
mining reforms" by David O. Williams - Colorado Independent - August 13, 2010 (PDF 9 KB, 1 page)

"Powertech urges rejection of water testing rule" by Bobby Magill - Fort Collins Coloradoan - August 12, 2010 (PDF 9 KB, 1 page)

Powertech's response to proposed prospecting rules regarding notice to local governments and collection of baseline water quality information - August 6, 2010 (PDF 239 KB, 6 pages)

"Fort Collins reps seek to strengthen uranium mining rules" by Bobby Magill - Fort Collins Coloradoan - August 1, 2010 (PDF 9 KB, 1 page)

Rulemaking page of the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety

House Bill 08-1161

Consultant: Test wells not returned to baseline uranium levels

By JJ VELASQUEZ
Originally published May 4, 2010

AUSTIN - Consultant Craig Holmes acknowledged a mining company did not return test mining sites to baseline uranium levels after testing, which is a common practice.

Holmes, who is an independent consultant hired to make sure Uranium Energy Corp. follows procedures, spent eight hours on the witness stand on Tuesday during the second day of testimony in the state contested case hearing over uranium mining in Goliad.

Holmes was questioned on three main points: uranium level baseline, bore holes not being plugged within the 48 hours required after drilling, and his credibility.

Holmes said the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality was notified of the violations involving the bore holes.

Holmes said in his more than 30-year career, none of the operations he was involved with ever returned wells back to baseline uranium levels for groundwater. He also said he has been involved in 80 percent of uranium mining permitting applications in Texas over his career.

Bob Underdown, vice president of production for the energy company, testified Monday that he has never reached baseline levels in any of the mining projects he has worked on.

When companies fail to restore the baseline, they may ask the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for an amendment to exceed the baseline levels.

Harry Anthony, UEC's chief operating officer, who was absent from the hearing, said Tuesday this is a common industry practice.

"These are just targets that the TCEQ sets for us," he said of baseline levels. "They've known for a long time that you can't return it back ion for ion."

Anthony said the water in the mining wells is designated for industrial use and cannot be made available for human or agricultural consumption.

He responded to questions about his credibility.

Attorney Jim Blackburn, who represents Goliad County, questioned whether Holmes owning stock in UEC would lessen his credibility.

Holmes said he divested himself of the stock options Friday when he learned during pre-trial proceedings that the stock options could hurt his reputation, he said.

"My credibility has been, I'm proud to say, intact and very good," Holmes said.

Goliad County Commissioner Jim Kreneck, who is attending the hearing, said he feared if mining operations began in Goliad, other uranium companies would move in.

"When this shoe drops, there are going to be other companies," he said.

DEWEY-BURDOCK PROJECT - SOUTH DAKOTA

NEW ORDER (Rescheduling Conference Call) In the Matter of POWERTECH (USA), INC. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - August 31, 2010 (PDF 115 KB, 4 pages)The conference call with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Powertech, NRC staff, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and other mine opponents has been rescheduled to Thursday, September 23 at 11:00 AM Mountain Daylight Time. Members of the public who wish to listen to the conference call should contact Ashley Prange at (301) 415-0110 to obtain the telephone number and pass code.

RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION In the Matter of POWERTECH (USA), INC. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - August 26, 2010 (PDF 20 KB, 6 pages) Powertech expresses "concern" that the Licensing Board judges "may not understand the facts of the ISR process."

Powertech (USA) Inc. - Environmental Permits - South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources Includes links to all state and federal permit applications.

Emails between the NRC's Ronald Burrows and Powertech's Richard Blubaugh concerning an estimated date for Powertech to submit responses to the NRC's technical requests for additional information on the Dewey-Burdock project - July 20, 2010 through August 10, 2010 (PDF 114 KB, 3 pages) Dick to Ron: "Thanks for the reminder."

NOTICE OF HEARING In the Matter of POWERTECH (USA), INC. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - August 20, 2010 (PDF 150 KB, 7 pages) In this notice from the ASLB, the board explains that nonparties may submit written position statements.

NRC staff's MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING SCOPE OF ADMITTED CONTENTIONS In the Matter of POWERTECH (USA), INC. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - August 16, 2010 (PDF 135 KB, 15 pages) NRC staff carries Powertech's water by attempting to narrow contentions raised by Oglala Sioux Tribe and other parties.

ORDER (Scheduling Initial Telephone Prehearing Conference Call) In the Matter of POWERTECH (USA), INC. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - August 13, 2010 (PDF 121 KB, 8 pages) The evidentiary hearing process begins...

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board approves Dewey-Burdock hearing

Judges allow Oglala Sioux Tribe and others to intervene in NRC licensing process over objections of Powertech and NRC staff; no firm timeline exists but hearing process and appeals could take "several months" or more

Posted August 8, 2010, Updated August 10, 2010

Panel rules on uranium mining petitioner claims

Hot Springs Star

By Brett Nachtigall

August 10, 2010

CUSTER – Petitioners opposing uranium mining in the area will be given an opportunity to further develop and present their arguments against the application submitted by Powertech, according to a ruling by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).

Following oral arguments presented to the ASLB in Custer on June 8 and 9, the three-judge panel has determined that those seeking a hearing had “standing,” meaning there was “a demonstrable reason why the proposed facility could impact them,” said Neil Sheehan, a Public Affairs Officer with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The panel, which consists of a lawyer and two nuclear engineering experts, has granted a hearing to two different groups. The first group, which has three contentions that will be further examined, is Consolidated Petitioners Susan Henderson, Dayton Hyde, David Frankel, CWA and ARM. The second group is the Oglala Sioux Tribe, which has four contentions the panel will examine further.

Included in the contentions that the ASLB will consider are Powertech’s presentation and analysis of baseline ground water quality data, the impact to surrounding aquifers and surface waters, as well as their ability to contain fluid migration. Another contention being examined further on the application is Powertech’s demonstration that cultural and historic resources are identified and protected, pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act.

The ASLB panel also ruled that Consolidated Petitioners Gary Heckenlaible, Lilias Jones Jarding and Theodore Ebert are denied party status in the proceeding. Additionally, seven other contentions presented by the petitioners were also denied further hearings.

Sheehan said the upcoming hearing will be conducted as a “Subpart L” proceeding, which means a great deal of it will be carried out in written filings and rulings.

“However, if the contentions are not dismissed along the way, an actual hearing in which the expert witnesses will testify will take place in the vicinity of the facility, perhaps in Custer once again,” Sheehan said.

In an emailed statement from Sheehan, he added, “There is no firm timeline yet on when the actual evidentiary hearing would take place. Again, that would depend on whether the contentions survive until that point, since there will be an opportunity at one point for the company to file a dismissal motion(s) regarding the contentions.

“The judges would have to rule on such a motion(s) before an actual hearing could occur. If an actual hearing was conducted, the panel would rule within several months of that session. The parties would then have an opportunity to appeal the ruling, with the presidentially appointed Commission that oversees the NRC functioning as the appeals
panel. The Commission has five members. After that step, the parties could still challenge the outcome in federal
court.”

-------------------------------------------------

Tribe, others can weigh permits for Edgemont mine

Associated Press - August 8, 2010 7:15 PM ET

EDGEMONT, S.D. (AP) - The Oglala Sioux Tribe and others have been named official parties in the permitting process for Powertech Uranium Corp.'s proposed mine near Edgemont.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission agreed Friday that the tribe, three individuals and two citizens' groups raised valid arguments about the Dewey Burdock project and would be allowed to weigh in.

Powertech wants to inject chemically treated water into holes to dissolve the uranium, then pump out the solution and collect the uranium for processing. Company representatives say the process is safe.

But some environmental and American Indian groups fear it would harm underground aquifers and disturb sacred and burial sites. The land is about 60 miles from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

-------------------------------------------------

From the ASLB's Memorandum and Order:

VII. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

A. Consolidated Petitioners Susan Henderson, Dayton Hyde, David Frankel, CWA, and ARM are admitted as parties in this proceeding, and a Subpart L hearing is granted with respect to the following contentions, as limited and reworded by the Licensing Board:

Contention D – Powertech’s presentation and analysis of baseline water quality data in its Application is inadequate. Further, Powertech’s analysis of aquifer confinement fails to include an analysis of how artesian and horizontal flow could impact surrounding aquifers and surface waters.

Contentions E (merged with J) – The lack of adequate confinement of the host Inyan Kara aquifer makes the proposed operation inimical to public health and safety in violation of Section 40.31(d). Further, Applicant’s failure to describe faults and fractures between aquifers, through which the groundwater can spread uranium, thorium, radium 226 and 228, arsenic, and other heavy metals, violates Section 51.45(c) and (e).

Contention K – The Application is not in conformance with 10 C.F.R. § 40.9 and 10 C.F.R. § 51.45 because the Application does not provide analyses that are adequate, accurate, and complete in all material respects to demonstrate that cultural and historic resources . . . are identified and protected pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. As a result, the
Application fails to comply with Section 51.60 . . . .

B. Consolidated Petitioners Gary Heckenlaible, Lilias Jones Jarding, and Theodore Ebert are denied party status in this proceeding. Further, the Board finds inadmissible the following contentions set forth by Consolidated Petitioners: Contentions A, B, C, F G, H and I.

C. The Oglala Sioux Tribe is admitted as a party in this proceeding, and a Subpart L hearing is granted with respect to the following contentions, as limited and reworded by the Licensing Board:

Contention 1 – Powertech’s Application is deficient because it fails to address adequately protection of historical and cultural resources.

Contention 2 – Failure to include necessary information for adequate determination of baseline ground water quality.

Contention 3 – Failure to include adequate hydrogeological information to demonstrate ability to contain fluid migration.

Contention 4 – Inadequate analysis of Ground Water Quantity Impacts.

D. The Board finds inadmissible the following contentions set forth by the Oglala Sioux
Tribe: Contentions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

E. Within ten (10) days of the issuance of this Order, Petitioners David Frankel and
Susan Henderson must elect to participate in this proceeding as individuals or to have their
interests represented by CWA or ARM.

F. The Licensing Board will hold a telephone conference with the parties in which we
will discuss a schedule of further proceedings in this matter.

Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Petitions to Intervene and Requests for Hearings), In the Matter of Powertech (USA), Inc. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - US Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board - August 5, 2010 (PDF 585 KB, 95 pages)

Official Transcript of Oral Argument, In the Matter of Powertech (USA), Inc. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - US Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board - June 8, 2010 (PDF 9,742 KB, 275 pages)

DEADLINES FOR HEARING ACTIVITIES -- 10 CFR PART 2, SUBPART L