Saturday, March 31, 2012

GreenScapes


GreenScapes logo and tagline with collage of park bench and backyard images
EPA’s GreenScapes program provides cost-efficient and environmentally friendly solutions for landscaping. Designed to help preserve natural resources and prevent waste and pollution, GreenScapes encourages companies, government agencies, other entities, and homeowners to make more holistic decisions regarding waste generation and disposal and the associated impacts on land, water, air, and energy use.

This website provides information on the GreenScapes program, including:
  • GreenScapes for Large-scale Landscapes – GreenScapes for Large-scale Landscapes offers commercial and government land managers information and resources to GreenScape their large-scale landscapes.
  • GreenScapes for Homeowners – GreenScapes for Homeowners provides homeowners with information and resources to improve the health and appearance of their lawns and gardens.
  • Where You Live – Includes links to state and EPA regional information.
  • Benefits – GreenScaping can help you save money, reduce waste, conserve water, save energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce your environmental footprint.
  • How to GreenScape – Includes tips to GreenScape large-scale landscapes.
  • Success Stories – Learn about public agencies, private companies, and commercial landscapers using environmentally beneficial landscaping techniques.
  • Resources – Contains publications, guidance, and research documents as well as on-line calculator tools that can aid in your decision making and implementation of more sustainable landscape design, construction, and operations & maintenance.
  • Links – Provides Web links to additional information related to sustainable landscape design, construction, and maintenance.
Read more:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/greenscapes/index.htm

Friday, March 30, 2012

Radioactive Cigarettes

burley tobacco air-curing in barn

Date: 02 Apr 1980
Length: 2 pages
2012611337-2012611338
Jump To Images
snapshot_pm 2012611337-2012611338

Abstract

The radiation poisoning death of ex-Russian KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko last week has brought a renewed interest in the cigarette contaminant Polonium-210. This confidential Philip Morris (PM) memo from 1980 written by Roger Comes (a Associate Senior Scientist in PM's Research and Development department in Richmond, Virginia) responds to news reports about a research article that was published at the time by Edward Martell that revealed that cigarette smoke contained low levels of the radioactive alpha particle emitting constituent Polonium-210. The memo confirms that PM was aware at that time that smoke from their cigarettes contained radioactive lead and polonium, and that it was derived from the uranium contained in the calcium phosphate fertilizers that farmers regularly used on tobacco-growing soils. Comes states that
"210-Pb [radioactive lead] and 210-Po [radioactive polonium] are present in tobacco and smoke...."
He also suggested that switching to another fertilizer could probably help the situation:
"...using ammonium phosphate instead of calcium phosphate as fertilizer is probably a valid but expensive point..."

Fields

Notes
A larger, clearer copy of the memo can be seen at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ege97e00
Quotes
That phosphate fertilizer contains natural radioactivity is a well established fact. Natural uranium accumulates in the phosphate rock...Uranium and its daughters are thus carried through the mining and manufacturing process and appear in the commercial product [the fertilizer used on tobacco plants]. Soils to which these products are applied show an increase in radioactivity over that naturally present and this increase is a function of the rate of application and the number of years that the fertilizers have been used....Thus, the smaller particles [of the fertilizer] which would be more likely to be made airborne by normal farming practices, would be expected to settle out on the tobacco leaves during the growing season and/or be more readily taken up by the plant root system. 210-Pb [radioactive lead] and 210-Po [radioactive polonium] are present in tobacco and smoke....For alpha particles from 210-Po to be the cause of lung cancers is unlikely due to the amount of radioactivity of a particular energy necessary for induction. Evidence to date, however, does not allow one to state that this is an impossibility. The recommendation of using ammonium phosphate instead of calcium phosphate as fertilizer is probably a valid but expensive point.... ....The soluble 210-Po is that which one would expect to be cleared by normal physiological processes...A study carried out by us has shown an increase in the soluble 210-Po with time after harvest.... [underlining emphasis added]

Read more:
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/177546.html

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Fact Sheet on Uranium Mill Tailings


Background

In the early 1980s, the price of uranium fell due to a lack of orders for new nuclear power plants in the U.S. and the importing of uranium from other countries. As a result, U.S. uranium mills were shut down or had their operations scaled back. Recently, the price of uranium has rapidly increased from $9.70 per pound in 2002 to over 90 per pound in 2007. Due to this price increase, there have been numerous inquiries about the licensing of new uranium production facilities. Uranium mill tailings contain the radioactive element radium, which decays to produce radon, a radioactive gas. The radium in these tailings will not decay entirely for thousands of years. The mill tailings pose a potential hazard to public health and safety.

To provide for the disposal, long-term stabilization, and control of these mill tailings in a safe and environmentally sound manner and to minimize or eliminate radiation health hazards to the public, Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). This Act established two programs to protect the public and the environment from uranium mill tailings.

The UMTRCA Title I program established a joint Federal/State-funded program for remedial action at abandoned mill tailings sites where tailings resulted largely from production of uranium for the weapons program. Now there is Federal ownership of the tailings disposal sites under general license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Under Title I, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for cleanup and remediation of these abandoned sites. The NRC is required to evaluate DOE's design and implementation and, after remediation, concur that the sites meet standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The UMTRCA Title II program is directed toward uranium mill sites licensed by the NRC or Agreement States in or after 1978. Title II of the Act provides -

  • NRC authority to control radiological and non-radiological hazards.
  • EPA authority to set generally applicable standards for both radiological and non-radiological hazards.
  • Eventual State or Federal ownership of the disposal sites, under general license from NRC.

There are five Agreement States - Colorado, Illinois, Texas, Utah and Washington – that license "Atomic Energy Act section 11e.(2)"; material (i.e., certain mill tailings and related waste containing thorium or uranium). NRC is required to make a determination that all applicable standards and requirements have been met by uranium mills before termination of their Agreement State license.

Regulations and Standards


UMTRCA charged the EPA with the responsibility for issuing generally applicable standards for control of uranium mill tailings. In 1983, EPA issued standards for both Title I and Title II sites. In November 1985, as mandated by UMTRCA, NRC changed its regulations in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A to be consistent with EPA Title II standards. Since 1985, various changes have been made to Part 40 for the Title II sites. In 1995, EPA issued final Title I groundwater standards.

The Atlas Site in Moab, Utah

The Atlas Site in Moab, Utah

Discussion


Title I - Reclamation Work at Inactive Tailings Sites - Under the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project, DOE was charged with completing surface reclamation at 24 inactive uranium mill tailings piles. Two sites in North Dakota were withdrawn and tailings from some sites were combined, resulting in 19 tailings disposal sites. These piles range in size from approximately 60,000 to 4.6 million cubic yards of material. Except for a site at Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, and an associated property at Burrell, Pennsylvania, the inactive sites are located in western states. In 2001, the Atlas site near Moab, Utah was transferred to DOE for remediation under Title I of UMTRCA.

In 1993, DOE became a licensee of NRC under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.27. This transpired when NRC concurred in the completion of construction and surface cleanup at the Spook, Wyoming, inactive tailings site and accepted DOE's plan for long-term surveillance at the Spook site. By August 1999, 17 more sites were completed and brought under the general NRC license, including sites at Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico; Burrell, Pennsylvania; Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; Durango, Colorado; Falls City, Texas; Green River, Utah; Gunnison, Colorado; Lakeview, Oregon; Lowman, Idaho; Maybell, Colorado; Mexican Hat, Utah; Naturita, Colorado; Rifle, Colorado; Salt Lake City, Utah; Shiprock, New Mexico; Slick Rock, Colorado; and Tuba City, Arizona. The only remaining sites are those at Grand Junction, Colorado and Moab, Utah. Legislation allows a portion of the Grand Junction site to remain open until 2023 to accept additional waste from tailings contaminated properties. DOE has decided to transfer the Moab mill tailings to a site near Crescent Junction, Utah, and is preparing a remedial action plan for NRC concurrence describing its proposed action.

DOE initiated the groundwater cleanup phase of the UMTRA Project in 1991. It has completed all of the 20 scheduled baseline risk assessments for the groundwater cleanup phase and has transmitted them to concerned parties. Two sites did not have groundwater contamination. DOE has developed Groundwater Compliance Action Plans for demonstrating groundwater compliance at 13 sites and submitted them to the NRC for concurrence. DOE has demonstrated groundwater cleanup compliance at eight of those sites.

Tailings Cover, Gas Hills, Wyoming

Tailings Cover, Gas Hills, Wyoming

Title II - Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities and Mill Tailings Sites - Of 16 uranium recovery facilities currently licensed by the NRC under its regulations (10 CFR Part 40), there are 12 conventional uranium mills and four in situ leach (ISL) facilities. There is also one former conversion facility under reclamation for 11e(2) byproduct material. Two of the conventional mill site licenses have been terminated and the reclaimed tailings areas transferred to DOE for long-term care under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.28.

A conventional mill uses uranium ore extracted by either open pit or deep mining. The ore is then crushed and sent through the mill, where extraction processes concentrate the uranium into uranium-oxygen compounds called yellowcake. The remainder of the crushed rock, in a processing fluid slurry, is placed in a tailings pile/cell. The "pile"; is actually a constructed impoundment or a former uranium mine pit that must meet criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. These criteria include requirements for siting and design of the pile, cover performance, and financial surety for decommissioning, reclamation, and long-term surveillance.

With the ISL uranium extraction process, wells are drilled into rock formations containing uranium ore. Water, with added oxygen and sodium bicarbonate, is injected down the wells to mobilize the uranium in the rock so that it dissolves in the groundwater. The water is pumped to the surface, where a processing plant separates the uranium. Waste from this process is disposed in a tailings pile at a mill site.

No NRC-licensed conventional uranium mills are operating. One mill is in stand-by status and will likely resume commercial operation in the future. The remaining conventional uranium mill sites have completed, or are completing, reclamation activities to provide long-term stabilization and closure of the tailings impoundments and the sites. Two of the four ISL facilities are presently operating, one is on stand-by status, and one will likely resume operations in the future. The NRC inspects these sites at semiannual to three-year intervals depending on the operational (or stand-by) and reclamation status.

The NRC-licensed sites are located in Nebraska, New Mexico, and Wyoming. There also are eight conventional uranium mills in Agreement States that have similar non-operational tailings impoundments. One mill in Colorado is operating. Texas also has ISL facilities, but most are in, or have completed, decommissioning. Three uranium mill sites are located in Utah, with one being active, one in reclamation, and one returning to active status. An active mill tailings disposal facility is also located in Utah. This mill tailings disposal facility was licensed by NRC as a commercial facility in November 1993 to receive and dispose of 11e.(2) byproduct material. In 2004, Utah became an Agreement State for 11e.(2) byproduct material and regulatory authority over the site transferred to the state. The site also has disposal cells licensed under Utah Agreement State authority for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste.

August 2006

Page Last Reviewed/Update Friday, February 04,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/mill-tailings.htmld  2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Buy Fresh Buy Local

Local Chapters

There are currently nine active Buy Fresh Buy Local chapters in Virginia. To be listed in a BFBL Guide or on www.buylocalvirginia.org, a farm or business must be located within the geographic region of one of the BFBL chapters listed below.
If your area isn't currently served by a chapter and you would like information on how to start one, please visit FoodRoutes.orgor contact them at 570-638-3608 or info@foodroutes.org. You may also wish to visit our Additional Resourcespage for a listing of potentially helpful local food websites

Charlottesville Area

Provided by the Piedmont Environmental Council, Charlottesville area guides include the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle, Greene, Louisa, Fluvanna, and Nelson Counties.

Fredericksburg Area

The new Fredericksburg Area Buy Fresh, Buy Local Chapter covers Stafford, Spotsylvania, Caroline, King George counties, and Westmoreland as well as the City of Fredericksburg.

Hampton Roads Area

Provided by Buy Fresh Buy Local Hampton Roads, this guide includes the Cities of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, the counties of Isle of Wight and Surry, and the Eastern Shore of Virginia.

Loudoun County

Provided by the Piedmont Environmental Council

Northern Piedmont

Provided by the Piedmont Environmental Council, Northern Piedmont guides include Madison, Orange, Culpeper, Rappahannock, and Fauquier Counties.

Northern Virginia

Sponsored by Inova Health System, the Northern Virginia Chapter includes the City of Fairfax, City of Alexandria, and Arlington and Fairfax Counties.

Richmond Area

Provided by the Center for Rural Culture, Richmond area guides include the City of Richmond, Charles City, Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, New Kent, and Powhatan Counties.

Shenandoah Valley

Cities of Harrisonburg, Staunton, Waynesboro, Buena Vista, Winchester, and Lexington, as well as Augusta, Bath, Highland, Page, Rockbridge, Rockingham, and Shenandoah, Clarke, Frederick, and Warren Counties.

South Centre Corridors

The new South Centre Corridors Chapter covers Dinwiddie, Greensville, Prince George, Southampton, and Sussex counties as well as the cities of Hopewell and Petersburg.
http://www.buylocalvirginia.org/index.cfm/0,11,299,html

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Uranium Mining Areas in VA



In 1979, Bill Speiden was offered a lease for uranium mining and milling on his Orange County farm. That uranium hasn’t gone anywhere.

The debate over uranium mining and milling in Virginia is coming to a head, with a much-awaited study from the National Academy of Sciences due to be released in December. Proponents are pushing the General Assembly to end the state’s ban on uranium mining in the January 2012 session.

 The stakes are high; not just for southwest Virginia, but for the entire state—including the Piedmont.
In the 1970s and 80’s, companies filed mining leases on land in Culpeper, Madison, Fauquier and Orange, where uranium was detected.

That's when Orange County dairy farmer Bill Speiden got involved. Speiden's farm, which he had started in 1959, was sitting on potentially one of the highest concentrations of uranium in northern Virginia. He found this out in 1979, when he was approached by Marline Uranium Corporation. The company initially offered him a nice signing bonus if he leased his land for uranium mining and milling. When Speiden seemed to hesitate, they went on to offer Speiden a partnership in the company.

“At that time,” Speiden recalls, “we didn’t know much about uranium mining. We actually thought it sounded good. We thought the income we would get from leasing the farm would be a nice bonus to life. But, we did have some questions.”

 
The Speidens’ decided to some research before they signed on. They looked up information on existing mines, talked to ranchers in areas where mining and milling was taking place, and got in touch with miners. They bought plane tickets and flew to out west to tour mines and mills. Long story short, the Speidens looked into the issue -- and they looked long and hard.

“After all of this,” Speiden recalls, “we were taken aback by all of the problems these places were having. Wells were getting contaminated, livestock were getting sick from leakage… and that was in areas with only 12-14 inches of rain a year! We have, on average, over 40 inches of rain here. We could see some serious potential problems that we didn’t want to take ownership of.”

Due to all of the unknowns surrounding the safety of uranium mining, especially in areas with climates similar to that of Virginia’s, the General Assembly put a state moratorium on uranium mining in 1982.

Today, Virginia Uranium, Inc., is pushing to end that moratorium. They claim that their proposed mine near Danville will bring jobs to the area. Yet, Speiden’s research has led him to the conclusion that the risks are not worth the potential gains.

“Jobs are very necessary,” he says, “but these mining operations tend to have a boom-bust syndrome, and they leave behind a mess… I would suggest that anyone thinking along those lines, when it comes to uranium mining and milling, look at the Navajo Nation and see what their situation is.”
The Navajo Nation, which spreads across parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, joined the uranium mining boom of the 1950s.

The mining and milling, however, proved to be detrimental to the health of their community and their land. Their community endured increased rates of cancer and other disorders, which were traced back to uranium exposure, and the over 1,000 abandoned mining shafts on Navajo land present ongoing health and environmental hazards. Today, the Navajo leadership openly expresses their regret in allowing uranium mining on their land.

Virginia Uranium, Inc. claims they can mine safely in Virginia using new technologies. Yet, they have been unable to provide credible examples of other places with a similar climate where uranium has been mined without serious environmental and health hazards, and they haven't provided details on their proposed operations.

This is not just an issue for southwest Virginia, a fact that Speiden is all too familiar with. “What they can do in one part of Virginia, they can do in any part of Virginia,” he says. “There are outcrops of uranium in southern and northern Virginia, and many of them would affect state-wide watersheds… and we can’t live without our clean water supply. No amount of jobs is worth that risk."

http://www.pecva.org/index.php/maps-and-resources/publications/piedmont-view/112-winter-2011-piedmont-view/270-uranium-2011-piedmont-view

Monday, March 26, 2012

Virginia’s waterways among most polluted in U.S., study finds

Thursday, Mar. 22, 2012 by Trevor Baratko

Virginia was listed as the second-worst state for toxic chemicals dumped into its waterways, according to research released today by Environment Virginia, a statewide environmental advocacy group.

More than 18 million pounds of toxic chemicals – including arsenic, mercury and benzene – have been released annually into Virginia’s waterways in recent years, states the study “Wasting our Waterways: Industrial Toxic Pollution and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Clean Water Act.”

“Virginia’s waterways are a polluter’s paradise right now,” said Laura Anderson, field organizer with Environment Virginia.

Additional findings through the report list that 377,090 pounds of toxic pollution were dumped into the Shenandoah River in 2010; Virginia polluters alone dumped 203,480 pounds into the Potomac River; and other states dumped additional toxic pollution for a total of 402,261 pounds in the Potomac in 2010.

“The Shenandoah River serves to remind us what happens when industrial sites are allowed to pollute,” said Jeff Kelble, Shenandoah Riverkeeper, in a prepared statement. “Before we had the Clean Water Act in 1972, industries contaminated the river with mercury, PCB and other toxic chemicals. People are still unable to eat fish on over 100 miles of the Shenandoah because these toxic chemicals don’t break down or go away.”

Five of Virginia’s rivers – New River, Parker Creek, Sandy Bottom Branch, James River, and York River—were listed in the reports 50 worst waterways in the nation for toxic pollution.

Indiana was found to be the worst offender of toxic pollution in its waterways.

The report was compiled over several weeks using the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxics Release Inventory for 2010, the most recent data available, said Anderson.

Environment Virginia’s report summarizes discharges of cancer-causing chemicals, chemicals that persist in the environment, and chemicals with the potential to cause reproductive problems ranging from birth defects to reduced fertility. Exposure to these chemicals is linked to cancer, developmental disorders, and reproductive disorders.

Read more:
http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/virginias_waterways_among_most_polluted_in_u.s._study_finds423/

EPA Superfund Sites: Uranium Mining

Non-NPL Mine Sites | Superfund | US EPA02-24-2012
... SAN MATEO CREEK BASIN LEGACY URANIUM SITES, 6, NM, ... BIG
HILL/CHLORIDE CHIEF MINES, 8, UT, UT0001958420. ... BUTTERFIELD MINE ( ...
http://www.epa.gov/aml/amlsite/nonnpl.htm
NPL Sites - Abandoned Mine Lands | Superfund | US EPA02-24-2012
... BUNKER HILL MINING & METALLURGICAL COMPLEX, 10, ... FORMOSA MINE,
10, OR, ORN001002616, ... LUCKY LASS URANIUM MINES (USDA), 10 ...
http://www.epa.gov/aml/amlsite/npl.htm
[ More results from www.epa.gov/aml/amlsite ]
Mineral Processing Sectors | Abandoned Mine Lands ...03-06-2012
... Rock, Asbestos, and Overburden from Uranium Mining, December 1985. ...
Uranium. ... Mine Waste Rulemaking Docket Supporting Documentation. ...
http://www.epa.gov/aml/mineral/
Tribes | Abandoned Mine Lands | Superfund | US EPA03-25-2011
... Office of Surface Mining Indian Lands Program Exit ... Navajo Abandoned Uranium
Mines, EPA Region 9; ... Black Mesa/Kayenta Mine Exit Disclaimer; ...
http://www.epa.gov/aml/tribes/
NPL Site Narrative for Fremont National Forest/White King and ...08-09-2011
... White King and Lucky Lass Uranium Mines site is ... Energy Commission oversaw
ore production from the mines. ... acres at White King Mine and 20 ...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar1402.htm
NPL Site Narrative for Uravan Uranium Project (Union ...08-09-2011
... with process wastes, including uranium, from the ... date of the Surface Mining
Control and ... from the SMCRA Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation ...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar864.htm
[ More results from www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl ]
Superfund's 30th Anniversary: 30 Years of Protecting ...08-09-2011
... earth movers. Midnite Mine. An otherwise scenic view is scarred by
the remains of uranium mining. Acid mine drainage ...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/30years/
Abandoned Mine Lands | Superfund | US EPA03-25-2011
... Site Information - presents information about abandoned hardrock mines and
mineral ... to the assessment and remediation of abandoned mine lands ...
http://www.epa.gov/aml/
Glossary | Abandoned Mine Lands | Superfund | US EPA03-25-2011
... silver, bentonite, barite, feldspar, fluorspar, and uranium. ... Montana Bureau of
Mines and Geology ... R. RAMP Rural Abandoned Mine Program RC&D ...
http://www.epa.gov/aml/gloss.htm
[ More results from www.epa.gov/aml ]
Superfund's 25th Anniversary: Capturing the Past, Charting ...01-03-2012
... earth movers. Midnite Mine. An otherwise scenic view is scarred by
the remains of uranium mining. Acid mine drainage ...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/news/

... a result of historic mining practices. EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program and the EPA/DOE Mine Waste Technology ...
http://www.epa.gov/aml/tech/news/sbankhg.htm
Additional Publications — M | Superfund | US EPA08-09-2011
... Coatings, Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine, Tar Creek, 6/21 ... Mining Sites in the
National Priorities List ... Site, US Titanium, Uravan Uranium Mill, Whitewood ...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/pubs/mpubs.htm
Superfund's 30th Anniversary Photograph History Project ...08-09-2011
Jump to main content or area navigation. US Environmental Protection
Agency logo. Where should we search? All EPA; ...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/30years/photo/
Region 8 | Superfund Redevelopment Program | US EPA02-08-2012
... Mining wastes leached acid waters and created a 72-square-mile plume of ...
on the property from 1942 until 1960, producing uranium and vanadium ...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/live/region8_ut.html
Conference Proceedings | 2007 Community Involvement ...09-09-2010
... mining and milling and currently is dealing with proposals for new uranium
mining. ... of the 2006 US EPA Region 9 Superfund mine waste removal ...
http://www.epa.gov/ciconference/previous/2007/proceedings.htm
M | Glosario bilingüe de términos, abreviaturas y siglas ...09-06-2011
... la superficie (Surface Uranium Mines). Operaciones mineras para remoción
de minerales que tengan uranio. Minería a cielo abierto (Strip-Mining). ...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/spanish/glosario/terminos_m.html
Abreviaturas: RZ | Glosario bilingüe de términos, abreviaturas ...09-06-2011
... RAMP: (Rural Abandoned Mine Program ... SMCRA: (Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act ... UMTRCA: (Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control ...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/spanish/glosario/abreviaturas_r-z.html
[ More results from www.epa.gov/superfund/spanish/glosario ]
Reportable Quantities | Superfund | US EPA12-12-2011
... Natural uranium in secular equilibrium with its daughters, 0.052 Ci. ... the
disturbance of large areas of land for purposes other than mining, such as ...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/release/rq/
We're in this together: Better Decisions Through Continuous ...08-09-2011
... At the Orengo-Duenweg Mining Belt in ... in the generation of uranium dust,
contaminated ... Visit Superfund's web site at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund. ...
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/17yrrept/report4.htm

... Abandoned Uranium Mines (AUMs). Abandoned Uranium Mine Larger
Image. From 1994 to 2007 EPA used its Superfund ...
http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/navajo-nation/abandoned-uranium.h...
Addressing Uranium Contamination in the Navajo Nation ...12-28-2011
... the problems posed by abandoned uranium mines, completing a ... As mines
that pose risks are ... Although the legacy of uranium mining is widespread ...
http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/navajo-nation/
[ More results from www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/navajo-nation ]
Uranium Mines | RadTown USA | US EPA07-19-2010
... re-use abandoned equipment from uranium mining sites. ... water from open pit
mine lakes ... from streams and springs near abandoned uranium mines. ...
http://www.epa.gov/radtown/uranium-mines.html
Site Overview|Abandoned Uranium Mines On The Navajo ...10-15-2011
... of all known abandoned uranium mine sites. ... a powerful GIS database identifying
520 mines. ... with the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation ...
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/ViewByEPAID/NNN000906087...
TENORM Publications | Radiation Protection | US EPA07-08-2011
... Chapter 4 Uranium Mine and Extraction Facility ... Materials From Uranium Mining
Volume 2 ... Issues of Abandoned Uranium Mines (PDF) (131 pp, 3MB ...
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/pubs.html
Uranium Mining Wastes | Radiation Protection | US EPA11-30-2011
... the uranium produced from the mined ore is directly ... cancer and environmental
risks posed by abandoned uranium mines. ... Mine Location Database. ...
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/uranium.html
[ More results from www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm ]
[PDF] Introduction, TENORM from Uranium Mining: Investigation of ...05-06-2008
... Hundreds of active and abandoned uranium mines are scattered over wide ...
only a few mines, the mines typically produced uranium as a by ...
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-volii/402-r-08-0...
Mining Sector | Laws and Regulations | US EPA10-25-2011
... & Guidance: Surface Coal Mining Activities under ... Polluted Runoff: Acid Mine
Drainage: includes guidance ... and cleaning up abandoned mine sites. ...
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/sectors/mining.html
[PDF] Tetimony of James Woolford, Director Office of Superfund ...10-18-2011
... work at four of the highest risk abandoned uranium mines. ... previously screened
mines to determine the impact ... In the US, uranium has been mined ...
http://www.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/testimony/112_2011_2012/2011_1006_jw....
[PDF] Uranium Mines02-25-2010
... re-use abandoned equipment from uranium mining sites. ... water from open pit
mine lakes ... from streams and springs near abandoned uranium mines. ...
http://www.epa.gov/radtown/docs/uranium-mines.pdf

... background, as recommended in the EPA Abandoned Mine Site
Characterization ... Abandoned conventional uranium mines may also ...
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-volii/402-r-08-0...
Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive ...--
... metals noted in some Arizona mines in the EPA Abandoned Mine Lands portion ...
Vanadium and uranium are commonly mined together on the ...
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1001IXB.txt
Technical Report on Technologically Enhanced Naturally ...--
... metals noted in some Arizona mines in the EPA Abandoned Mine Lands portion ...
Vanadium and uranium are commonly mined together on the ...
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1001J0S.txt
[ More results from nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi ]
Mineral Processing Sectors | Abandoned Mine Lands ...03-06-2012
... are here: EPA Home; Superfund; Programs; Abandoned Mine Lands; Mineral ...
Uranium. ... Mine Waste Rulemaking Docket Supporting Documentation. ...
http://www.epa.gov/aml/mineral/
Tribes | Abandoned Mine Lands | Superfund | US EPA03-25-2011
... Office of Surface Mining Indian Lands ... Navajo Abandoned Uranium Mines,
EPA Region 9; Background Black Mesa/Kayenta Mine Exit Disclaimer; ...
http://www.epa.gov/aml/tribes/
[PDF] USEPA: OCIR: Testimony of Wayne Nastri, Region 9 ...02-21-2008
... tons of uranium ore were mined from the ... by the Navajo Nation's Abandoned
Mine Lands Program ... at six of the abandoned uranium mines sites. ...
http://www.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/testimony/110_2007_2008/2007_1023_wn....
[PDF] The Legacy of Uranium Mines in the Grants Mineral Belt, New ...01-09-2012
... permits for Class III solution mining wells ... Johnny M Mine Entrance ... Screen
abandoned uranium mines that may warrant emergency removal actions ...
http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/newmexico/grants/uranium-mine-brochure....
Uranium Mill Tailings | Radiation Protection | US EPA07-08-2011
... uranium is extracted by milling ore mined from the ... under the authority of the
Uranium Mill Tailings ... disposal of mill tailings at abandoned sites and ...
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/radwaste/402-k-94-001-umt.html

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Asthma Triggers: Gain Control



Asthma Triggers: Gain Control

Americans spend up to 90 percent of their time indoors.

Indoor allergens and irritants play a significant role in triggering asthma attacks.

Triggers are things that can cause asthma symptoms, an episode or attack or make asthma worse.

If you have asthma, you may react to just one trigger or you may find that several things act as triggers.

 Be sure to work with a doctor to identify triggers and develop a treatment plan that includes ways to reduce exposures to your asthma triggers.


http://www.epa.gov/asthma/triggers.html





Saturday, March 24, 2012

News Release: EPA Proposes to Add Cibola County Mine to National Priorities List of Superfund Sites

 

News Releases By Date



EPA Proposes to Add Cibola County Mine to National Priorities List of Superfund Sites - Nine hazardous waste sites added, 10 proposed

Release Date: 03/13/2012
Contact Information: Dave Bary or Jennah Durant at 214-665-2200 or r6press@epa.gov

(DALLAS – March 13, 2012) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced the Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine in Laguna Pueblo has been proposed to be added to the National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites, a list of sites that pose risks to people’s health and the environment. Superfund is the federal program that investigates and cleans up the most complex, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country.

About 40 miles west of Albuquerque in Cibola County, the mine lies in an area of canyons and arroyos near the village of Paguate. Anaconda Minerals Company operated the 7,868-acre site from 1953 to 1982, leaving open pits, waste dumps, and ore stockpiles. Contaminants found at the site include uranium, arsenic, barium, chromium, and lead. While previous attempts clean up the site have been made, an assessment in 2007 determined these were not enough.

“Today we’re taking an important step toward restoring contaminated property and protecting people’s health and our environment,” said EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz. “Cleaning up hazardous waste in our communities and returning properties to environmental and economic vitality are EPA priorities.”

The nearby Rio Paguate and Paguate Reservoir have shown elevated levels of isotopic uranium, which could affect cultural and ceremonial uses of these water bodies. Although the site had undergone reclamation previously, a 2007 report concluded that effort left several issues unaddressed.

The EPA will seek public comment on adding the Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine site to the NPL for 60 days. Comments will be considered as the agency completes the final decision process.

Since 1983, 1,661 sites have been listed on the NPL. Of these sites, 359 have been cleaned up resulting in 1,302 sites currently on the NPL (including the nine sites added today). There are 62 proposed sites (including the 10 announced today) awaiting final agency action.

With all NPL sites, the EPA works to identify companies or people responsible for the contamination at a site, and requires them to conduct or pay for the cleanup. For the newly listed sites without viable potentially responsible parties, the EPA will investigate the full extent of the contamination before starting significant cleanup at the site. Therefore, it may be several years before significant EPA cleanup funding is required for these sites.

More information on the Superfund NPL is available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/current.htm

More about activities in EPA Region 6 is available at http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/region6.html

EPA audio file is available at http://www.epa.gov/region6/6xa/podcast/mar2012.html

Why Water Efficiency

What is Water Efficiency?


Water efficiency is the smart use of our water resources through water-saving technologies and simple steps we can all take around the house. Using water efficiently will help ensure reliable water supplies today and for future generations.

Save Water, Save Money


The average household spends over $700 per year on its water and sewer bill. By making just a few simple changes to use water more efficiently, you could save about $200 per year. Also, when we use water more efficiently, we reduce the need for costly investments in water treatment and delivery systems.

Drops to Watts: Save Water, Save Energy



It takes a considerable amount of energy to deliver and treat the water you use every day. For example, letting your faucet run for five minutes uses about as much energy as letting a 60-watt light bulb run for 14 hours.

Heating water for bathing, shaving, cooking, and cleaning also requires a lot of energy. Homes with electric water heaters, for example, spend one-quarter of their electric bill just to heat water.

With climate change concerns, pervasive droughts, and high energy prices across the country, nearly everyone is looking for ways to conserve resources and cut costs. The good news is that by using a little "water sense" we can all save water, energy, and money.

Water Efficiency & the Environment


When reservoir water levels get lower and ground water tables drop, water supplies, human health, and the environment are put at serious risk. For example, lower water levels can contribute to higher concentrations of natural and human pollutants.

NatureLess water going down the drain means more water available in the lakes, rivers and streams that we use for recreation and wildlife uses to survive. Using water more efficiently helps maintain supplies at safe levels, protecting human health and the environment.

Water suppliers are doing their part to improve water efficiency for their own operations and are helping their customers save more by providing rebates on water efficient products and tips on how to create more water efficient yards

http://www.epa.gov/

Friday, March 23, 2012

Virginia’s waterways among most polluted in U.S., study finds in 2012 and 2009

Virginia’s waterways among most polluted in U.S., study finds

Thursday, Mar. 22, 2012 by Trevor Baratko

Virginia was listed as the second-worst state for toxic chemicals dumped into its waterways, according to research released today by Environment Virginia, a statewide environmental advocacy group.
More than 18 million pounds of toxic chemicals – including arsenic, mercury and benzene – have been released annually into Virginia’s waterways in recent years, states the study “Wasting our Waterways: Industrial Toxic Pollution and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Clean Water Act.”
“Virginia’s waterways are a polluter’s paradise right now,” said Laura Anderson, field organizer with Environment Virginia.

http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/virginias_waterways_among_most_polluted_in_u.s._study_finds423/

Virginia waterways ranks second-dirtiest in country

By Julian Walker
The Virginian-Pilot


Virginia has the second-dirtiest waterways among the 50 states.
That's according to a recent study by the Environment America advocacy group tallying the amount of pollutants discharged into bodies of water across the nation.
Based on numbers reported to federal authorities, only Indiana had more toxic chemicals released into its waterways by industry than Virginia's 18 million-plus pounds in 2007.
That is the most recent year for which discharge figures are publicly available from the Environmental Protection Agency, which collects the data.
The report also awards this dubious distinction to the Old Dominion: It is home to a portion of the nation's second-most-polluted waterway, the roughly 320-mile New River, which snakes through southwest Virginia and two other states. The most polluted waterway, it says, is the Ohio River.
Across the nation in 2007, 232 million pounds of toxic chemicals were dumped into 1,900 waterways, the report finds.
"Nearly half of the rivers and lakes in the U.S. are considered too polluted for safe fishing or swimming," said Sarah Driscoll, an official with the Virginia chapter of Environment America.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/11/virginia-waterways-ranks-seconddirtiest-country


Thursday, March 22, 2012

Water worries continue to flow around uranium controversy

By: Tara Bozick | GoDanRiver




Uranium group will keep secrets






Gov. Bob McDonnell's uranium working group will be doing its work outside the light of public scrutiny. It could use the illumination.

Lawmakers and the governor chose caution and delayed the decision this year. That gives everyone time to digest fully the science and the risks. A National Academy of Sciences study released mere weeks before the General Assembly convened warned that a lot more needs to be known before anyone concludes mining could be done safely.

In January, McDonnell formally announced his support for postponement and created a working group to study the issue further. In his announcement, he said, "I have directed the group ... to allow thorough opportunity for public participation in its work."

The work group has other ideas. It invokes the oft-abused governor's working papers exemption to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act to keep its work out of the public eye. Virginians whose health and environment are most at risk if uranium mining goes badly, and who stand to gain tax revenue if it goes well, will be kept in the dark.

When the working group gathers scientific data or commissions expert reports, it will keep most information secret. The group promises to take public comment at meetings, but much of its deliberation will be behind closed doors.

Cathie France, the group's chairwoman and deputy director of the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, insists this is all to make things easier for the group. "It's not because we don't want to be transparent," she said.

The governor promised thorough public participation. If he, France and the rest of his working group truly want to be transparent, they will make sure that crucial data will be seen by people beyond the governor's office.


http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/306123

Anaerobic digester on tour April 3 in Chatham



By: GoDanRiver Staff | GoDanRiver.com



Wednesday, March 21, 2012

June's uranium workgroup meeting in Chatham

By: Tara Bozick | GoDanRiver



Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Danville students build heater powered by sun




By: Tiffany Holland | GoDanRiver.com








Monday, March 19, 2012

Healthy Waters, Healthy Communities Program

Times-Dispatch photo of the Banister River

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Healthy Waters, Healthy Communities program links community groups with regional resource experts to help these groups investigate, understand and take action to address community health problems related to pollution. River Network program staff provides guidance to our community and resource partner pairings to assist them to:

  • Organize and develop a solid constituency
  • Investigate links between human health problems and pollution
  • Identify hazards and exposure routes
  • Monitor contamination levels
  • Research the known health effects of contaminants
  • Understand the basics of toxicology and epidemiology
  • Conduct Health Surveys
  • Develop campaign strategies and action plans based on the data collected


Click here to lear how to keep our waters clean: 

http://www.rivernetwork.org/sites/default/files/Healthy%20waters%20ensure%20healthy%20comm.pdf

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Kid-Safe Chemicals Act


10 Americans Video


Kid Safe Chemicals Act: Ten Americans : a video from the Environmental Working Group
We all know pollution and toxins are bad for you.

But the Environmental Working Group has conducted perhaps the deepest analysis of this issue on the most vulnerable demographic on the planet.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Meeting: The Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission (RRBBC) and the VA Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee (VRRBAC)

The Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission (RRBBC) and the VA Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee (VRRBAC)

 will hold meetings on Tuesday, March 20, 2012

at the Pepsi Building in Danville, VA
661 Craighead Street, Danville, VA 24541


The RRBBC Meeting will be 10am until 12pm (agenda and minutes attached) and

 the VRRBAC meeting will begin at 1pm and will conclude at approximately 2pm (agenda and minutes attached). 


Lunch for RRBBC and VRRBAC members, VA DEQ and NC DENR staff, and invited guests will be provided by the City of Danville.  A one hour lunch break is provided between meetings.


Directions to the Pepsi Building, 661 Craighead Street, Danville, VA  24541:
To reach the Pepsi Building, from US 58 Business near  downtown Danville, take Main Street south across the Dan River and turn left at the first traffic light onto Craghead Street. Follow that for about 5 blocks until you see the sign for “The Crossing at the Dan”, then turn left beside the Science Museum (if you go through the railroad underpass, you have gone past the Pepsi Building entrance). The Pepsi Building is directly in front of you with parking in the lot on the left.  The train station will be on your right as you turn in.
From the Danville Expressway, US 29/US 58, turn north onto Goodyear Boulevard (State Route 737). Stay on Goodyear until it ends at Industrial Avenue. Turn right onto Industrial, which will become Craghead Street. Follow Craghead until you see the sign for “The Crossing at the Dan”, then turn right into the complex (beside the Science Museum and after the railroad underpass). The Pepsi Building will be directly in front of you with parking in the lot on the left.  The train station will be on your right as you turn in.


Tammy D. Stephenson
Program Coordinator
Office of Water Supply
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Blue Ridge Regional Office - Roanoke
3019 Peters Creek Road
Roanoke, Virginia  24019
PH (540) 562-6828
FAX (540) 562-6725
tammy.stephenson@deq.virginia.gov
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/watersupplyplanning/homepage.html

Agendas:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=135cfa576e291a41&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D87aab9e94c%26view%3Datt%26th%3D135cfa576e291a41%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26zw&sig=AHIEtbSAFbMqlzMkbPA0Q86T2YsZuKPWrA

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.3&thid=135cfa576e291a41&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D87aab9e94c%26view%3Datt%26th%3D135cfa576e291a41%26attid%3D0.3%26disp%3Dsafe%26zw&sig=AHIEtbQBYzI5cM4Lkvy1MYW3OR_b4d_-4Q

Danville Regional Foundation publishes uranium study comparison



Danville Regional Foundation this week published a chart comparing key points of six studies to date on uranium mining and milling.

The uranium study comparison is in this week’s Star-Tribune and is available below on the newspaper’s website.

also is available on Danville Regional Foundation’s website at www.drfonline.org.

The comparison looks at 10 key findings from the National Academy of Sciences Study, RTI Uranium Report, Chmura Study, Virginia Beach Study, Moran Report, and Fairfax Study.

It provides answers to who funded the studies, why the studies were done, and highlights the positive and negative environmental, health, economic, and social impacts of uranium mining and milling.

“The purpose of this comparison of uranium studies is to provide a framework to examine the findings regarding possible outcomes if uranium mining and milling occurs at the Coles Hill site in Pittsylvania County, Virginia,” the foundation said.

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/news/article_e725264a-69f4-11e1-89f2-001871e3ce6c.html

Friday, March 16, 2012

Keeping Agriculture Alive in the Shadow of a Uranium Mine

 

Potential Effects and Regulatory Solutions for Virginia

This is a preview of one of the upcoming Volume 34 notes
by Maggy J. Lewis

This Note deals with the emerging regulatory controversy over the potential mining of a uranium deposit located in rural Southern Virginia. The “Coles Hill” deposit is thought to be the largest deposit of uranium in the United States, but has been largely ignored since the Virginia General Assembly instituted a moratorium on uranium mining in the early 1980′s. The increase in the price of uranium in recent years has revived the debate on uranium mining. There is potential for the moratorium to be lifted in the near future and for uranium mining to be introduced to Virginia for the first time.

Virginia’s climate, topology, and climatology are substantially different from those areas in the Southwest where uranium historically has been mined. In addition, the location of the mine is in an area that, although considered rural within the state, has a significantly greater population density than the western mining areas.

The region of Southern Virginia where the proposed mine is located has historically been powered by nearby textile and furniture industries and agricultural production, especially tobacco. The present-day economy of the immediate region is comprised of more than a thousand farms, primarily producing tobacco, corn, wheat, and soybeans, and beef cattle and swine.

Although uranium mining has the potential to bring short-term economic prosperity to Southern Virginia, there are potential risks to the agricultural economy. The mining and milling process, as well as waste products, also bring significant risks of contamination to the surrounding environment.

These risks which have been realized at other mining locations, and these risks may be exacerbated
by the unique hydrological environment of Virginia.

The increased exposure of crops and livestock has the potential to pose a significant safety and health risk to consumers of those products.

More importantly, the public perception of risk or danger from uranium mining may also result in serious negative repercussions for the marketability of agricultural products from the nearby regions, regardless of whether those risks present any real threat.


Read the great info at:
http://www.elpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/lewis.pdf