Archive for the ‘legal’ Category

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s rules on uranium and thorium

June 10, 2013

NRC Finalizes Rules on Using & Distributing Uranium & Thorium 
http://smnewsnet.com/archives/66243
   2 June 13,  T
he Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations for products and materials containing unenriched uranium and thorium, also known as source material. The changes include new requirements for distributing source material and licensing its use.

Manufacturers and importers of products that can be used without a license—such as welding rods and gas lantern mantles that contain thorium, and decorative glassware containing uranium—will now need to apply to the NRC for specific licenses to distribute these products. Such licenses will impose new requirements for labeling, quality control, reporting and recordkeeping.

The new regulations also modify distribution, possession and use requirements for small quantities of source material that can be used or transferred without a specific license. Distributors of small quantities must now apply for specific licenses. For source material being processed or in a dispersible form, such as liquid or powder, the limit on the use or transfer at any one time without a license is decreasing from 15 to 3.3 pounds; the annual limit will drop from 150 to 15.4 pounds. Limits are not changing for anyone possessing source material in a solid, non-dispersible form (such as display samples of depleted uranium metal), removing uranium from drinking water, or determining the concentration of uranium and thorium in a material at a laboratory.

Finally, the new regulations expand the exemption from licensing for optical lenses containing thorium to include lenses and mirrors coated with or containing uranium or thorium. These products are typically used in lasers or other high-technology optical systems.
These new license requirements and possession limits are intended to ensure those who possess source material do so safely, and that the NRC has a better understanding of how much source material is being distributed annually.

Ban on new uranium mining to stay at grand canyon – judge rules

May 23, 2013

Judge Rejects Uranium Mining Industry Attempt to Repeal Ban on Grand Canyon Mining, Earth Justice Ted Zukoski Ruling again rejects attack on DOI’S authority to temporarily protect lands MAY 16, 2013  GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, AZ  —

  U.S. District Judge David Campbell today denied a uranium industry motion to reconsider his March 20, 2013 ruling that rejected the attempt to overturn the Obama administration’s ban on new uranium mining claims on one million acres near the Grand Canyon.  The ban was adopted in January 2012 to protect the Grand Canyon’s watersheds.  The withdrawal prohibits new mining claims and development on old claims that lack “valid existing rights” to mine.“It’s another good day for the Grand Canyon, and for rivers, wildlife, and communities across the West,” said Ted Zukoski of Earthjustice, one the attorneys representing conservation groups and the Havasupai Tribe in the case.  “The court has now twice rejected the uranium industry’s attempt to cripple the Interior Department’s ability to temporarily protect lands from destructive mining.”
If successful, the uranium industry’s argument would have eliminated the Interior Secretary’s authority to protect large tracts of public lands from mining.  Over the last five years, the secretary has used his authority to “withdraw” areas greater than 5,000 acres for up to 20 years to protect lands all across the West……. In response to a uranium boom in 2007 and 2008, during which thousands of claims were staked around Grand Canyon, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar withdrew one million acres of public lands in the Grand Canyon watershed from new mining claims and development on old claims lacking “valid existing rights” to mine. In January 2012, after more than two years of environmental review, the Interior Secretary withdrew the lands for 20 years.

The withdrawal protects habitat for deer, elk, numerous reptiles, and habitat for endemic species, endangered fish and the imperiled California condor. American Indian tribes live in or adjacent to the withdrawn lands; the withdrawal area includes sacred and traditional sites these tribes have used for centuries. A uranium boom in the area threatens to bulldoze miles of road, degrade habitat, spread toxic uranium dust, and could eventually pollute watersheds and aquifers that feed Grand Canyon’s biologically-rich and culturally-important springs and that provide drinking water to 30 million people.
The withdrawal does not prohibit old mines with valid rights from re-opening, and the Havasupai tribe and conservation groups have had to sue the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, including a lawsuit filed last week, for allowing 1980s-era mines to resume operations without first undertaking tribal consultations or updating decades-old environmental reviews……

On March 20, 2013, Judge Campbell denied industry’s motion to overturn the withdrawal and the underlying federal authority to enact withdrawals larger than 5,000 acres. ….

 Today’s ruling by Judge Campbell denied industry’s motion to have the judge reconsider and reverse his March 20 decision. 
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2013/judge-rejects-uranium-mining-industry-attempt-to-repeal-ban-on-grand-canyon-mining

Court win protects 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon from uranium mining

April 28, 2013

Judge Upholds Uranium Mining Ban on 1 Million Acres Near Grand Canyon 
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2013/uranium-mining-03-20-2013.html
 
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK— U.S. District Judge David Campbell today denied a uranium industry motion to overturn the Obama administration’s ban on new uranium mining on 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon. The ban was adopted January 2012 to protect the Grand Canyon’s watersheds. The withdrawal prohibits new mining claims and development on old claims that lack “valid existing rights” to mine.

“It’s a great day for the Grand Canyon, and for rivers, wildlife, and communities across the West,” said Ted Zukoski of Earthjustice, one the attorneys representing conservation groups and the Havasupai tribe in the case. “The uranium industry was hoping to cripple the Interior Department’s ability to temporarily protect lands from destructive mining. Today’s opinion upholds the Interior Department’s authority to take such protective measures.”

The National Mining Association, Nuclear Energy Institute, Northwest Mining Association and others last year filed four lawsuits challenging the withdrawal and the underlying federal authority to enact any withdrawals larger than 5,000 acres. The Havasupai tribe and conservation groups intervened to uphold both.

“Today’s decision upheld the government’s important role in preventing private profiteers from poisoning public lands under the authority of an antiquated mining law,” said Grand Canyon Trust’s Roger Clark. “We look forward to the court’s upholding of other federal responsibilities to protect the Grand Canyon.”

Judge Campbell denied industry’s motion to overturn the withdrawal and the underlying federal authority to enact withdrawals larger than 5,000 acres. The industry groups had claimed that the presence of an unconstitutional legislative veto in the subsection that contains the Interior Secretary’s authority to withdraw land parcels larger than 5,000 acres means that the Interior Secretary had no authority at all to withdraw such lands. The judge ruled — as the government, Havasupai tribe and conservation groups had argued — that the unconstitutional veto provision could be “severed” from the law without affecting the Grand Canyon’s watershed withdrawal or the Interior Department’s general authority to protect such lands.

“Today’s ruling protects not only the Grand Canyon’s watershed, but millions of acres of other public land that have been withdrawn to protect natural values from destructive mining,” said Taylor McKinnon with the Center for Biological Diversity. “By upholding the federal withdrawal authority, today’s ruling is good news for public lands, water and wildlife.”

If successful, the uranium industry’s argument would have eliminated the Interior Secretary’s authority to protect large tracts of public lands from mining. Over the last five years, the secretary has used his authority to “withdraw” areas greater than 5,000 acres for up to 20 years to protect lands all across the West. Examples include nearly a half-million acres within national wildlife refuges; habitat for desert tortoises and pronghorns as well as archeological treasures in Nevada; habitat protecting the largest wintering Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep herd in North America (on Wyoming’s Whiskey Mountain); recreational areas in Washington and Wyoming; forests in Oregon; and special features like the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah.

“Currently, there are limited tools to protect sensitive public lands and wildlife from harmful uranium mining — this is one of them,” said Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “Today’s decision will mean the Grand Canyon watershed and other withdrawn lands throughout the West will continue to be protected from new mining claims.”

The court’s decision today does not end the four industry lawsuits challenging the Grand Canyon mineral withdrawal decision. Industry can still raise arguments that Interior Secretary Salazar failed to properly consider environmental and economic impacts of the withdrawal. Those issues are likely to be briefed this spring.

Read today’s ruling here.

Background
In response to a uranium boom in 2007 and 2008, during which thousands of claims were staked around Grand Canyon, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar withdrew 1 million acres of public lands in the Grand Canyon watershed from new mining claims and development on old claims lacking “valid existing rights” to mine. In January 2012, after more than two years of environmental review, the Interior Secretary withdrew the lands for 20 years.

The withdrawal protects habitat for deer, elk, numerous reptiles, and habitat for endemic species, endangered fish and the imperiled California condor.  American Indian tribes live in or adjacent to the withdrawn lands; the withdrawal area includes sacred and traditional sites these tribes have used for centuries. A uranium boom in the area threatens to bulldoze miles of road, degrade habitat, spread toxic uranium dust, and could eventually pollute watersheds and aquifers that feed Grand Canyon’s biologically-rich and culturally-important springs and that provide drinking water to 30 million people.

The withdrawal does not prohibit old mines with valid rights from re-opening, and the Havasupai tribe and conservation groups have had tosue the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, including a lawsuit filed last week, for allowing 1980s-era mines to resume operations without first undertaking tribal consultations or updating decades-old environmental reviews.

Kuantan High Court to hear appeal against permit for rare earths reprocessing

December 28, 2012

Lynas will be in court in Malaysia on 19 December. The Save Malaysia Stop Lynas (SMSL) campaignerswill be appealing against the Kuantan High Court decision to lift its stay on the company being able to exercise its rights to proceed under the temporary licence.

The toxic waste that’s not in Australia’s backyard 
http://aliran.com/11005.html
  18 Dec 12, Australian-owned company Lynas is quietly shipping rare earth to a processing plant in Malaysia – without a firm plan in place to dispose of dangerous radioactive waste. Wendy Bacon reports.

If a manufacturing plant involving radioactive materials moved into your community, one of the first things you would ask is, “what’s going to happen to the waste?”

This is exactly how residents of Kuantan on Malaysia’s east coast reacted when the Australian company Lynas announced plans to build Lamp, the world’s biggest rare earth processing plant in their area.

Several years later, they have no clear answer. Indeed last week, while the plant that will use concentrate imported from Lynas’s rare earth mine at Mount Weld in Western Australia was finally ramping up for production, the Malaysian government and the company were in direct conflict about what would happen to the waste. (more…)

Court action against uranium mining project

December 28, 2012

Group sues over planned SW Wyo. uranium mine 
http://www.chron.com/news/science/article/Group-sues-over-planned-SW-Wyo-uranium-mine-4024532.php
  November 9, 2012 CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — An environmental group has filed suit to contest federal approval of a uranium mine in southwest Wyoming.

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance says the U.S. Bureau of Land Management violated federal laws in approving the Lost Creek uranium mine. Allegations include BLM failed to take a hard look at how the mine would affect species including sage grouse, pocket gophers and pygmy rabbits.

The Laramie-based group filed suit Thursday in federal court in Cheyenne. BLM officials declined to comment, citing agency policy not to comment on pending litigation.

Denver-based Ur-Energy Inc. received BLM approval for the mine last month. The company plans to invest $30 to $40 million into the project over the next six to nine months.

The in-situ mine would extract uranium from wells.

Legal action possible to stop proposed Wiluna uranium mine

November 4, 2012

Uranium plans may spark legal stoush 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-21/uranium-mine-plans-may-spark-legal-stoush/4274134
 Sep 21, 2012   
The Conservation Council of Western Australia says it will consider legal action to prevent Toro Energy’s proposed Wiluna uranium mine going ahead.

The group says the State Government has not responded adequately to appeals lodged against the project, which is set to become WA’s first uranium mine. The council’s Mia Pepper says the group will pursue a range of avenues to ensure its safety and environmental concerns are addressed. (more…)

Insurance policy can cover cost of uranium mine cleanup, rules court

September 2, 2012

Court rules in uranium mine cleanup dispute 
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/aug/23/court-rules-in-uranium-mine-cleanup-dispute/#ixzz24VeeQu7N

vcstar.com The Associated Press VCStar.com August 23, 2012   SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - The state Supreme Court has ruled a uranium company’s insurance policies may cover costs of cleaning up contamination at a former mine in northwestern New Mexico.

The ruling on Thursday sends the dispute back to a district court to
determine what insurers must pay for, if any, involving a cleanup by
United Nuclear Corp. at the Northeast Church Rock mine near Gallup.
The site is adjacent to the Navajo Nation.

The court decision hinged on an insurance provision excluding coverage
for pollution damages unless the discharges were “sudden and
accidental.” The court concluded the term “sudden” meant unexpected
rather than happening over a short period of time. An insurance
company had contended its policies provided no liability coverage
because environmental damage at the mine happened over many years.

Australia’s federal and State governments allow BHP Billiton to be above the law

July 20, 2012

Jim Green: Project a rule unto itself Adelaide Now, Jim Green July 10, 2012 OLYMPIC Dam is like a state with no environment, water, Aboriginal and FoI laws, says Jim Green. HUNDREDS of Australians will converge on BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam uranium/copper mine – and a camp up the Oodnadatta Track – from Saturday for five days of protest, education and entertainment.

The concerns leading people to participate are many and varied. The overarching concern might be expressed as a failure of governance - corporate and political.

Olympic Dam is a state within a state. It operates under a unique set of laws enshrined in the amended Roxby Downs Indenture Act.

That would be unobjectionable except that the Indenture Act allows Olympic Dam wide-ranging exemptions from environmental, water management and Aboriginal Heritage laws and, for good measure, it curtails the application of the Freedom of Information Act.

SA Liberal Party industry spokesman Martin Hamilton-Smith said “every word of the (Indenture) agreement favours BHP, not South Australians”. It beggars belief the SA Labor Government would agree to such one-sided terms and that Mr Hamilton-Smith and his Liberal colleagues waved it through Parliament with no amendments. (more…)

Colorado uranium milling license cancelled by Judge

June 24, 2012

License to build uranium mill in southwest Colorado nixed by Denver judge,   06/14/2012   Denver Post, By Bruce Finley, A state judge has invalidated a radioactive materials license that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment issued to allow construction of a new uranium mill in southwestern Colorado. (more…)

Huge legal case seeks justice for cancer patients who worked in uranium processing plant

June 4, 2012

n recent court filings, plaintiffs provided many tragic stories of living in the Apollo and Parks area in the shadow of the nuclear sites and being diagnosed with cancer.

Mega-lawsuit claims nuke contamination in Armstrong Trib Live News, Mary Ann Thomas Gateway Newspapers , May 17, 2012 The nearly 100 plaintiffs alleging death, cancer and other illnesses from radioactive emissions from two defunct Armstrong County nuclear fuels plants are awaiting a trial date for what is likely to be a second set of a multimillion-dollar federal lawsuit. (more…)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers