Pages

2014 KEEP THE BAN BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN




 
 
 2014 KEEP THE BAN BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
   

The “Keep the Ban” Billboard  on Hwy 29 and Highway Rt. 58  is a bold reminder that the threat of uranium mining, milling and radioactive waste disposal remains a clear and present danger in Southside and across Virginia. 
 
 It is strategically located near Virginia Uranium Inc.’s Coles Hill deposit.

We need  $3750 to maintain the billboard until G.A. meets in January
 
  We remain committed to maintaining the billboard as long as necessary and, if funding allows, erecting additional billboards and possibly placing signs at local sports fields.

We need your help in order to maintain the current billboard and possibly contract for additional billboards and signs.

Your contribution is 100% tax deductible.  

Please send your billboard contribution to
PRIDE,
P. O. Box 11521,
Danville, VA 24543-1521.  
 PRIDE is a chapter of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, which is a 501 (c) (3) organization.  PRIDE is accepting donations for the “KTB” Billboard Campaign.


…No amount is too great or too small

        With appreciation,

               PRIDE
        P. O. Box 11521
        Danville, VA 24543-1521

Epidemic of Radioactivity Leaks from U.S.



BWX Technologies, Inc., James River, Lynchburg, Virginia
 

Yet another leak of radioactively contaminated water from a radioactive waste cask handling area pool was discovered on September 19, 2000.
 
Workers at the BWX Technologies facility in Lynchburg, Virginia determined
that the cask handling area pool was leaking approximately 250 gallons per day into the ground. The pool was approximately 528 yards from the James River.
 
 
Image result for pictures of james river near BWX


 The pool contained irradiated reactor hardware and several spent

fuel rods. The radionuclide concentrations of the water in this pool were significantly above the concentrations

allowed by 10 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] Part 20, the NRC regulations for releases to unrestricted areas.
 
Boroscopic examination identified cracks across the transfer cavity region of the pool.18 Although the company and



NRC downplayed the risk, by citing that the estimated radiation dose to a member of the public drinking water from the James River was calculated to be less than one millirem per year, the issues of ongoing, chronic exposure and the added risks of organically bound tritium have gone unaddressed.19
 


http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/pool%20leaks%20fact%20sheet.pdf

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling that Virginia Mines are Liable For Selenium Pollution



Appeals Court Upholds Ruling that Virginia Mines are Liable For Selenium Pollution



Earthquakes





Comments:  No to uranium mining, fracking, Nuke Plants on all earthquake faults!

 

New Insight on the Nation’s Earthquake Hazards                    

This Science Feature can be found at: http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/new-insight-on-the-nations-earthquake-hazards/

National Map
2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Map, displaying intensity of potential ground shaking from an earthquake in 50 years (which is the typical lifetime of a building).

To help make the best decisions to protect communities from earthquakes, new USGS maps display how intense ground shaking could be across the nation.

The USGS recently updated their U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps, which reflect the best and most current understanding of where future earthquakes will occur, how often they will occur, and how hard the ground will likely shake as a result.

42 States at Risk; 16 States at High Risk
 Students Conduct Earthquake Preparedness Drill
Students conduct the “drop, cover, hold on” safety procedure during an earthquake preparedness drill. Photo Credit: Jessica Robertson, USGS

While all states have some potential for earthquakes, 42 of the 50 states have a reasonable chance of experiencing damaging ground shaking from an earthquake in 50 years (the typical lifetime of a building). Scientists also conclude that 16 states have a relatively high likelihood of experiencing damaging ground shaking. These states have historically experienced earthquakes with a magnitude 6 or greater.

The hazard is especially high along the west coast, intermountain west, and in several active regions of the central and eastern U.S., such as near New Madrid, MO, and near Charleston, SC. The 16 states at highest risk are Alaska, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

While these overarching conclusions of the national-level hazard are similar to those of the previous maps released in 2008, details and estimates differ for many cities and states. Several areas have been identified as being capable of having the potential for larger and more powerful earthquakes than previously thought due to more data and updated earthquake models. The most prominent changes are discussed below.

Informed Decisions Based on the Maps
With an understanding of potential ground shaking levels, various risk analyses can be calculated by considering factors like population levels, building exposure, and building construction practices. This is used for establishing building codes, and in the analysis of seismic risk for key structures. This can also help in determining insurance rates, emergency preparedness plans, and private property decisions such as re-evaluating one’s home and making it more resilient.

These maps are part of USGS contributions to the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which is a congressionally-established partnership of four federal agencies with the purpose of reducing risks to life and property in the U.S. that result from earthquakes. The contributing agencies are the USGS, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Standards and Technology, and National Science Foundation (NSF). As an example of the collaboration, the hazards identified in the USGS maps underlie FEMA-sponsored seismic design provisions that are incorporated into building codes adopted by states and localities. The maps also reflect investments in research by academic and other scientists supported by grants from the USGS and the NSF.

“The standards for seismic safety in building codes are directly based upon USGS assessments of potential ground shaking from earthquakes, and have been for years,” said Jim Harris, a member and former chair of the Provisions Update Committee of the Building Seismic Safety Council.
“The committees preparing those standards welcome this updated USGS information as a basis for making decisions and continuing to ensure the most stable and secure construction.”

Key Updates
East Coast
The eastern U.S. has the potential for larger and more damaging earthquakes than considered in previous maps and assessments. As one example, scientists learned a lot following the magnitude 5.8 earthquake that struck Virginia in 2011. It was among the largest earthquakes to occur along the east coast in the last century, and helped determine that even larger events are possible. Estimates of earthquake hazards near Charleston, SC, have also gone up due to the assessment of earthquakes in the state.

In New York City, the maps indicate a slightly lower hazard for tall buildings than previously thought (but still a hazard nonetheless). Scientists estimated a lower likelihood for slow shaking from an earthquake near the city. Slow shaking is likely to cause more damage to tall structures in contrast, compared to fast shaking which is more likely to impact shorter structures.

Central U.S.
The New Madrid Seismic Zone has been identified to have a larger range of potential earthquake magnitudes and locations than previously identified. This is a result of a range of new research, part of which was recently compiled by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

West Coast
In California, earthquake hazard extends over a wider area than previously thought. Most notably, faults were recently discovered, raising earthquake hazard estimates for San Jose, Vallejo and San Diego. On the other hand, new insights on faults and rupture processes reduced earthquake hazard estimates for Irvine, Santa Barbara and Oakland. Hazard increased in some parts of the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles region and decreased in other parts. These updates were from the new Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast Model, which incorporates many more potential fault ruptures than did previous assessments.

Recent earthquakes in Alaska, Mexico and New Zealand taught scientists more about complex ruptures and how faults can link together. This insight was applied to California for which approximately 250,000 potential complex ruptures were modeled.

New research on the Cascadia Subduction Zone resulted in increased estimates of earthquake magnitude up to magnitude 9.3. Deep-sea cores were collected that show evidence within the sea-floor sediments of large earthquake-generated mudflows. Earthquake shaking estimates were also increased following abundant data gathered from the magnitude 9.0 earthquake in Tohoku, Japan in 2011 and the magnitude 8.2 earthquake offshore of Chile in 2014, as those events ruptured along subduction zones similar to the Pacific Northwest zone.
Damage to Washington National Cathedral
Damage to the Washington National Cathedral in DC from the earthquake in Virginia on August 23, 2011. Photo Credit: William Leith, USGS

In Washington, scientists incorporated new knowledge of the Tacoma Fault into the maps and identified changes to the geometry of the Whidbey Island fault in the northern Puget Sound. Earthquake hazard also increased for Las Vegas because of new science. In Utah, scientists dug trenches to study prehistoric earthquakes along the Wasatch Fault. While the overall seismic hazard didn’t change significantly, detailed changes were made to the fault models in this region and robust data were acquired to hone the assessments. This is valuable since approximately 75% of Utah’s population, including the residents of Salt Lake City, lives near this fault.
The magnitude 7.9 earthquake in Wenchuan, China in 2008 provided many new records of shaking that are very similar to anticipated future earthquakes in the western U.S., as the fault structures are similar. Previously, scientists did not have nearly as many shaking records from earthquakes of this size.
Induced Earthquakes … Research Underway
Some states have experienced increased seismicity in the past few years that may be associated with human activities such as the disposal of wastewater in deep wells.
One specific focus for the future is including an additional layer to these earthquake hazard maps to account for recent potentially triggered earthquakes that occur near some wastewater disposal wells. Injection-induced earthquakes are challenging to incorporate into hazard models because they may not behave like natural earthquakes and their rates change based on man-made activities.
You Can’t Plan If …
“USGS earthquake science is vital because you can’t plan for earthquakes if you don’t know what you are planning for,” said Mark Petersen, Chief of the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. “Our nation’s population and exposure to large earthquakes has grown tremendously in recent years. The cost of inaction in planning for future earthquakes and other natural disasters can be very high, as demonstrated by several recent damaging events across the globe. It is important to understand the threat you face from earthquakes at home and the hazards for the places you might visit. The USGS is dedicated to applying the best available science in developing reliable products useful for reducing the earthquake risk across the U.S.”
Start with USGS Science
The USGS is the only federal agency with responsibility for recording and reporting earthquake activity nationwide and providing a seismic hazard assessment. The USGS regularly updates the national seismic hazard models and maps, typically every 6 years, in sync with the building code updates. The 2014 update focuses on the conterminous U.S. Maps are also available for Alaska (last updated in 2007); Hawaii (1998); Puerto Rico (2003); Guam and Marianna Islands (2012); and American Samoa (2012).

Duke Energy Claims Dan River Cleanup Complete but: Law group says 94 percent of deposit still in river/ Critics skeptical of claim that coal ash cleanup is finished / NC, Va. groups to monitor coal ash in Dan River /

 
Coal Ash Spill:  Seventy miles of the Dan River were coated after a drain pipe collapse at a plant in Eden, N.C., released tens of thousands of tons of coal ash into the water
  

NC, Va. groups to monitor coal ash in Dan River

By Steve Szkotak Associated Press | Posted: Monday, July 21, 2014 1:15 am        
RICHMOND, Va. — Two water protection groups are teaming up to continue monitoring the Dan River for large deposits of coal ash from a massive spill in North Carolina that flowed into Virginia.

The planned long-term monitoring comes after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded Thursday that Duke Energy had completed the removal of large pockets of coal ash.

The monitoring will be conducted by the Roanoke River Basin Association and the Dan River Basin Association. The groups are fearful coal ash containing an array of toxic heavy metals will continue to be churned up from the river bottom during floods or storms.

“We know that river better than anyone so we know where the coal ash is most likely to move, to stay and collect,” said Tiffany Haworth, executive director of the Dan River group. “We will continue to monitor the river and look for these high deposits of coal ash.”

The testing will complement a range of monitoring already announced before the EPA declared the largest collections of ash had been removed, including 2,500 tons scooped up from a 20-by-350-yard section of the river in Danville.

The coal ash, which had collected behind a dam, was the result of a Feb. 2 breach at a waste dump 24 miles upriver from Danville. Duke Energy estimates about 39,000 tons of coal ash entered the dam after a drain pipe collapsed in Eden, North Carolina. Seventy miles of the river was coated with the gray discharge.

Myles Bartos, the EPA’s on-site coordinator for the cleanup, acknowledged that only a fraction of the coal ash that spilled had been collected.

“Really, the threat is not the coal ash; it’s what’s in the coal ash,” he said. “It’s the metal that’s in the coal ash. The thing that we’re really concerned about is the concentration of metals.”

Bartos stressed that treated public drinking water supplies in Danville and South Boston tested above safe drinking standards.

“The systems did what they were supposed to — take particulate out of the river water,” he said.

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality will test the water and fish in the river, as well as river sediments, over the next two years, spokesman William Hayden said. The DEQ’s counterpart in North Carolina, as well as Duke and federal agencies, will also continue to monitor the river.

Andrew Lester, executive director of the Roanoke River Basin Association, said while he is aware of the continued testing, the water groups are still committed to conducting their own monitoring.

“Our philosophy is, you trust but you verify,” he said.

http://www.roanoke.com/ap/state/nc-va-groups-to-monitor-coal-ash-in-dan-river/article_1c717af8-8568-5f4c-87c1-49b8328359b9.html

Law group says 94 percent of deposit still in river

BY JOHN R. CRANE
jcrane@registerbee.com
(434) 791-7987 | Posted: Monday, July 21, 2014 7:23 pm

An environmental group has criticized Duke Energy following its clean-up of a 2,500-ton coal ash deposit at Schoolfield Dam, saying the company has not accounted for the remainder of its 39,000-ton coal ash spill into the Dan River.

“Where are the other 37,000 tons?” said Kathleen Sullivan, senior communications manager for the Southern Environmental Law Center, in an email to the Danville Register & Bee last week. “They have not accounted for 94 percent of the coal-ash waste spilled into the Dan River. Duke has removed about 6 percent of the coal-ash waste it spilled and at just two places: at the spill site itself and the Danville dam. It is hard to believe that the coal ash hasn’t collected elsewhere in places in the river where it could be removed.”

Calling the cleanup of Schoolfield Dam an important milestone, Duke Energy Spokesman Jeff Brooks said the company will continue monitoring and evaluating the Dan River, including sediments.
 
“While we have completed those projects [Schoolfield and the Town Creek site two miles downstream of Duke’s old Dan River Steam Station in Eden, North Carolina, where the Feb. 2 spill occurred] and removal of material, we are far from complete in our monitoring work at the river,” Brooks said during an interview Monday.
 
The company will work to determine whether deposits meet criteria for removal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and whether removal of the material would cause more harm than benefit to the environment, Brooks said.
 
“That work is going to continue for many months,” Brooks added. “Duke Energy is not going anywhere.
 
The company recently completed clean-up of a 258-ton coal-ash deposit where Town Creek meets the Dan River in Eden. Material from both sites has been taken to the Upper Piedmont landfill in Person County, North Carolina, for storage.
 
Myles Bartos, an EPA official in charge of overseeing coal-ash cleanup near the dam, told Danville City Council last week that the Dan River has returned to normal. Bartos said ,ore than 600 water samples have been taken from the river since the spill and all tests have shown consistently safe drinking water and a quick return to normal levels of chemicals.
 
The Southern Environmental Law Center’s email said Duke is incapable of removing all the coal ash and its pollutants, and that it’s “more important than ever to remove the coal ash from all 14 waterfront sites in North Carolina and move it to safe, dry, lined storage.”

Also, studies from Duke University have shown that coal ash and its heavy metals will enter into the water from sediments in hot weather and “when conditions are right.”
 
“Also, it will get stirred up when there is a flood,” Sullivan said in the email.
 
Brooks acknowledged the Dan River is powerful and carries the potential for stirred-up pollutants, “but that’s why we’re monitoring the river so closely and why we’ve conducted monitoring and modeling.”
 
“Should we see a deposit change and meet the criteria for removal, we would absolutely take action,” Brooks said. “But we’re not seeing that now.”
 
Duke has taken more than 2,000 surface and drinking water samples in the Dan River since the Feb. 2 spill, Brooks said.
 
Brooks said he understood the desire to have all the coal ash removed, but extracting all of it “may not be the best option for the river.”
 
Frank Holleman, Southern Environmental Law Center senior attorney, said the organization will be pressing as hard as possible to get Duke to clean up its coal-ash sites across North Carolina. The law center is representing several environmental groups in court to make Duke clean up its coal-ash pollution from its old Dan River Steam Station in Eden, including the Dan River Basin Association, Roanoke River Basin Association, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and the Waterkeeper Alliance.
 
The Dan River Basin Association and the Roanoke River Basin Association will monitor the river, looking for coal ash collection that should be brought before the EPA’s attention, Holleman said.
 
The Southern Environmental Law Center will be watching what state and federal governments do “to ensure that Duke is appropriately penalized and pays the public for what it has done, for the consequences of the spill,” Holleman said.
 
The biggest priority is for everyone to make sure Duke cleans up those sites and gets the ash out of these old lagoons and moves it to safe, lined storage away from the rivers, Holleman said.
Another spill could occur in the Dan River and Duke has failed to clean up the coal ash from the old Dan River Steam Station, Holleman said.
 
“You would think it [cleanup at the Dan River Steam Station] would have happened by now,” Holleman said.
 
http://www.godanriver.com/news/coal-ash/law-group-says-percent-of-deposit-still-in-river/article_028ec20a-112e-11e4-aae8-0017a43b2370.html

Duke Energy Claims Dan River Cleanup Complete

ash core-3
Waterkeeper Alliance pulled samples from Dan River to test Duke Energy’s cleanup claims. Since the spill was announced in February, Waterkeeper has called for a comprehensive cleanup to all Duke Energy coal ash sites in North Carolina

Waterkeeper Alliance, North Carolina Riverkeepers, and local residents reacted with shock and outrage to Duke Energy’s announcement yesterday that the company had completed clean-up work on the Dan River following the massive February 5th coal ash spill in Eden, North Carolina.

“This is what taking responsibility looks like to Duke Energy.”

After hearing the news of the “completed” cleanup from Duke Energy, Waterkeeper Alliance staff attorney, Pete Harrison, headed straight to Eden, NC, the site of the spill, to see the river for himself and take samples of the remaining coal ash.
They say they’ve completed the cleanup of the Dan River and I think it’s more accurate to say they’ve stopped cleaning up the Dan River,” said Harrison.

http://waterkeeper.org/2014/07/18/duke-energy-claims-dan-river-cleanup-complete/

94% of toxic coal ash still remains in the Dan River. Tell our state leaders that it's their duty to make Duke Energy clean up ALL of NC's coal ash ponds: http://bit.ly/moveNCcoalash

Read this article: http://abc11.tv/1jFit1V
http://bit.ly/moveNCcoalash

Critics skeptical of claim that coal ash cleanup is finished

Thursday, July 17, 2014
It's the headline that has environmentalists and folks who live along the Dan River so fired up: "Duke Energy Completes Cleanup Work Along the Dan River." In Rockingham County, they just don't believe that, or they don't understand it.

"If you get out and go three inches deep in the sand, you're in coal ash," said Ben Adkins.

Adkins lives just up the road from Draper's Landing, a popular spot with fishermen and river lovers. He grew up here and talking to him, you can feel his love for the Dan River.

"It means everything to me," Adkins said. "I mean this is where I come in the summer to cool off, fish, hunt for clams. I learned how to swim right over there. It was the first place I knew God was real. It makes me sick. I got a three-year-old boy that'll never be able to come down here."

Accompanied by Pete Harrison, with the Waterkeeper's Alliance, Adkins used a PVC pipe to take core samples from the river bed and found 1-2 inches of a dark grey, shimmering substance buried under about three inches of brown, sandy sediment.

"You can see here this dark colored stuff is pure coal ash," said Harrison. "This is what taking responsibility looks like to Duke Energy."

Duke Energy has spent the last six months cleaning up coal ash that spilled into the Dan on Feb. 2. By the company's own numbers, 39,000 tons of toxic sludge spewed into the river after a pipe under a coal ash lagoon burst.

About 90 percent of that is still coating the riverbed as far as 70 miles downstream, but Duke contends removing it would cause more problems than it solved.

"They say they've completed the cleanup of the Dan River and I think it's more accurate to say they've stopped cleaning up the Dan River," said Harrison.

Still, the EPA signed off on Duke's decision not to clean up more ash as well as the company's request to stop taking water samples from the river. According to Duke, the company has conducted nearly 2,000 surface and drinking water samples in the Dan River and water quality has remained safe since the spill.

But Harrison and other environmentalists contend that, even if that's the case now, it might not stay that way.

"There's good science that shows this stuff does not remained locked in place," Harrison said. "We know that particularly when it heats up in the summer that the ash that's bound up with soil particles and that sort of thing can actually just erupt back into the water. For Duke to be wiping its hands clean and walking away is outrageous."

"It's ridiculous what they did to my river. Makes me fume," said Adkins.

http://abc11.com/news/critics-skeptical-of-claim-that-coal-ash-cleanup-is-finished/196078/



Senate unanimously nixes House coal ash bill
With a 46-0 vote North Carolina's Senate unanimously rejected the House's version of a coal ash clean-up plan, calling it too lenient.
http://abc11.com/politics/senate-nixes-house-coal-ash-bill/185755/

WNC At Risk For Fracking





Guest Column by Louis A. Zeller

In June, North Carolina Gov. McCrory signed the so-called Energy Modern-ization Act (Session Law 2014-4), opening the state to the invasive method of extracting natural gas known as “fracking.” While most of the focus on fracking has centered on the state’s piedmont, the legislature has allocated $550,000 for geologic testing to find natural gas in the mountains of Western North Carolina.
Documents obtained by the Blue Ridge Environ-mental Defense League indicate that some geologists have been aware of the potential for natural gas in Western North Carolina since 2008.

A report entitled “Reasonably Forsee-able Development Scenario for Fluid Materials” for North Carolina published by the US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management states, “Seismic surveys in the Blue Ridge suggest that sedimentary rocks may be present deep beneath the crystalline rocks. These may be similar to oil- and gas-bearing strata in the Valley and Ridge Province of Virginia and West Virginia. Detailed studies have not been conducted to verify the seismic surveys.”

In other words, under the metamorphic crystalline rock of Western North Carolina, there appears to be sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is where oil and natural gas are found. That’s why the governor would spend half a million taxpayer dollars.

Fracking Pollution
The impacts of fracking would be devastating. Compounds used in the fracking process include more than 100 known or suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Wastes generated by the exploration and production of oil and gas contain toxic chemicals and can be radioactive, but can be disposed of in any county’s municipal solid waste landfill. The oil and gas industry can claim trade secret protection for fracking chemicals.

The fracking law the governor signed in June makes it a crime for state officials, first responders, and medical providers to disclose trade secrets to others, and even among themselves. In addition to water contamination, ozone pollution from gas fields has caused air pollution problems similar to that found in large cities and can extend 200 miles from gas operations.

Legal Loopholes
The oil and gas industry is exempt from major environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Compre-hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Toxic Release Inventory of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. Why are so many exemptions necessary?
Public Lands At Risk

Much of Western North Carolina is national forest land. The Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests cover 1,600 square miles between Murphy and Boone. Nationwide, five million acres of Forest Service land is currently leased for oil, gas and mining operations. Today, fracking is planned or underway in national forests across the Appalachian Mountains. Allegheny National Forest in Western Pennsylvania has 12,000 gas and oil wells. Talladega National Forest in northern Alabama has plans to lease 43,000 acres for gas drilling. Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia is also open to drilling.

On March 11, 2014 the supervisor for North Carolina’s national forests announced the upcoming revision of the Nantahala and Pisgah land management plan. The Forest Service’s planning document states, “There is a need to update plan direction to address potential commercial oil, gas, and hardrock mineral exploration and uses.” This summer the Forest Service is holding a series of meetings to gather public input on proposed changes to the plan. People should attend these meetings and voice their concerns.

What Others Are Doing To Halt Fracking
Local governments are taking action to protect their residents from the impacts of fracking. In June, Arlington County Virginia approved a resolution calling upon the US Forest Service to “prohibit the use of horizontal fracturing in the George Washington National Forest.” The county government cited the need to protect the headwaters of its public water supply. The recently enacted North Carolina law against local anti-fracking ordinances does not bind the United States Forest Service. Local governments in North Carolina should take a page from the Arlington County playbook and call for a prohibition of fracking on all national forest lands.

(Zeller is the executive director of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League located in Glendale Springs, N.C. Founded in 1984 to oppose a national nuclear waste dump, today BREDL has chapters in Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia and North Caro-lina. For more information, call (336) 982-2691 or visit http://www.BREDL.org.

http://www.transylvaniatimes.com/story/2014/07/07/opinion/wnc-at-risk-for-fracking/18613.html

Energy Fuels sells Pinon Ridge and other non-core assets ...



 
Energy Fuels Announces Sale of Certain Non-Core Uranium Assets


Toronto, Ontario and Lakewood, Colorado � July 3, 2014
Energy Fuels Inc. (NYSE MKT:UUUU; TSX:EFR) (“Energy Fuels” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce that, as part of its continuing cost reduction and asset rationalization strategy, it has entered into definitive agreements to sell certain of its non-core uranium assets to a private investor group led by Baobab Asset Management LLC and George Glasier, the past president of the Company who served from its founding in 2006 until March of 2010.� The assets in the transaction include the Pi�Ridge mill license and related assets (the “Pi�Ridge Project”) and certain other mining assets located along the Colorado-Utah border, including the Sunday Complex, the Willhunt project, the San Rafael project, the Sage mine, the Van 4 mine, the Farmer Girl project, the Dunn project and the Yellow Cat project (the “Mining Assets”).� The Pi�Ridge Project and certain of the Mining Assets will be conveyed to the purchasers through the sale of one of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, which is also the licensee for the Pi�Ridge Project.� The remainder of the Mining Assets will be conveyed to the purchasers through separate asset transactions involving other subsidiaries of the Company.�
Upon closing of these transactions, each of which is expected to occur on or before October 15, 2014, the Company will receive in total approximately US$2.05 million, payable in a combination of cash, secured promissory notes, and the assumption by the purchasers of certain existing Company debt.� In addition, the purchasers will assume all reclamation obligations and replace all existing reclamation bonds for the Pi�Ridge Project and Mining Assets, totaling approximately US$700,000.� The purchasers will also reimburse the Company for certain holding and other carrying costs incurred from March 19, 2014 through closing of these transactions.� Finally, the Company will retain a throughput royalty on the Pi�Ridge Project equal to US$3.00 per ton of ore fed through the facility, and a 1% royalty on the market value of all uranium, vanadium and other minerals recovered from the Mining Assets.� These transactions are subject to regulatory approvals, including approval by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment of the change of control of the licensee of the Pi�Ridge Project.�
Through these transactions, the Company expects to realize reductions in holding, permitting, litigation and compliance costs over the next several years related to these assets. �The Pi�Ridge Mill is the first new uranium mill to be licensed in the U.S. in over 30 years.� However, with the acquisition of the White Mesa Mill in 2012, the Company no longer needs to construct the Pi�Ridge Project in order to meet its planned production.
The Mining Assets include National Instrument 43-101 compliant uranium and vanadium resources, including approximately 4.8 million lbs. of U3O8 contained in 1.15 million tons of measured and indicated resources with an average grade of 0.21% U3O8.� The Mining Assets also include additional inferred and historic uranium and vanadium resources.
Stephen P. Antony, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer stated, “Energy Fuels is continuing to focus its business strategy on projects that contribute to our ability to significantly increase uranium production as uranium prices recover.� As a result, we are disposing of certain non-core assets, like those included in this transaction.� We continue to believe in the long-term fundamentals of uranium markets, which will allow us the opportunity to significantly increase production as market conditions warrant.� We do not expect the sale of these assets to materially impact the Company’s future production potential or scalability.� In addition, we expect to continue our asset rationalization efforts, which may include the sale of additional properties in the future.”
”.
 
 

Energy Fuels sells Pinon Ridge and other non-core assets ...

www.proactiveinvestors.com

2013Preliminary Accident Reports, Fatalgrams and Fatal Investigation Reports Metal and Nonmetal Mines



"Fatality Overviews"... If a report has an overview, the button to that report will indicate so. These reports are offered in Microsoft's PowerPoint ® or PDF. You will need Adobe's PDF Reader. If you need more information on this, see this page.

"Fatality Overviews", slide shows regarding fatal accidents, are another part of the Mine Safety and Health Administration's program to share information with the mining community. We encourage you to share these presentations with your supervisors and miners to assist your efforts to prevent similar accidents.

Accident Classifications - definitions of accident classifications found on this web site.

Please Note: Since June 2010, MSHA is posting preliminary reports of accidents. These are a preliminary report of a reported mine fatality that occurred. These reports are subject to change as the accident is investigated and will be updated as NEW INFORMATION becomes available.

Please Note: There is a link at the top left of all Fatal Accident Reports that reads "PDF Version - (Contains All Graphics)". Use that to see the "complete" report. That version will have photos not included in the web version, Accident Investigation Data - Victim Data and more.

to Date for 2013: 22 Last Updated: 5/5/2014


Fatality #1 - January 7, 2013
(Victim Died January 19, 2013)
Fall of Highwall – Kentucky – Crushed, Broken Limestone NEC
Lafarge West, Inc – Three Rivers Quarry


Fatality #2 - January 21, 2013
Machinery – Nevada – Lime
Lhoist North America of Arizona Inc. – Apex Quarry and Plant


Fatality #3 - March 27, 2013
Explosives and Breaking Agents – Missouri – Crushed, Broken Limestone NEC
Fred Weber Inc – North Stone


Fatality #4 - April 4, 2013
Falling/Sliding Material – Arizona – Copper Ore NEC
Freeport-McMoRan Bagdad Inc – Freeport-McMoRan Bagdad Inc


Fatality #5 - April 16, 2013
Falling/Sliding Material – Louisiana – Salt
North American Salt Company - Cote Blanche Mine


Fatality #6 - April 27, 2013
Powered Haulage – Texas – Gypsum
Allied Custom Gypsum - ACG #1 Shamrock


Fatality #7 - May 17, 2013
Powered Haulage – New Mexico – Molybdenum Ore
Chevron Mining Inc - Questa Mine & Mill


Fatality #8 - June 2, 2013
Powered Haulage – Nevada – Gold Ore
Newmont USA Limited - Exodus


Fatality #9 - June 13, 2013
Powered Haulage – California – Crushed, Broken Stone NEC
Stevens Creek Quarry Inc - Stevens Creek Quarry


Fatality #10 - August 5, 2013
Machinery – New York – Crushed, Broken Limestone NEC
MJL Crushing LLC - MJL Crushing LLC


Fatality #11 - September 16, 2013
Powered Haulage – Missouri – Crushed, Broken Limestone NEC
Con-Agg of MO, LLC - Huntsville Quarry


Fatality #12 - September 18, 2013
Falling/Sliding Material – Kentucky – Crushed, Broken Limestone NEC
Gaddie-Shamrock LLC - Caldwell Quarry


Fatality #13 - September 19, 2013
Powered Haulage – Pennsylvania – Dimension Slate
T. G. Mountain Stone - Northrup Quarry


Fatality #14 - October 17, 2013
(Victim Died October 19, 2013)
Slip/Fall of Person – California – Cement
National Cement Company Of California Inc - Lebec Cement Plant


Fatality #15 - November 7, 2013
Powered Haulage – Georgia – Crushed, Broken Granite
Vulcan Construction Materials, L.P. - Lithia Springs Quarry


Fatality #16 & #17- November 17, 2013
Explosives/Breaking Agents – Colorado – Silver
Star Mine Operations, LLC - Revenue Mine


Fatality #18 - November 18, 2013
(Victim Died November 22, 2013)
Electrical – Kentucky – Crushed, Broken Limestone NEC
Pine Bluff Sand & Gravel Company - Cumberland River Quarry


Fatality #19 - December 4, 2013
Explosives/Breaking Agents – Kansas – Crushed, Broken Limestone Bayer Construction Company, Inc. - Kansas Falls Quarry


Fatality #20 - December 6, 2013
Based on MSHA's investigation and the finding of the death certificate,
MSHA concluded that the miner died from natural causes
and that the fatality is not chargeable.


Fatality #21 - December 13, 2013
Falling/Sliding Material – Georgia - Construction Sand and Gravel
Brown Brothers Sand Company - Wittichen Stephen Plants


Fatality #22 - December 10, 2013
Other (Drowning) – Kentucky - Construction Sand and Gravel
Hunter Sand & Gravel, LLC. - Dredge IV

http://www.msha.gov/FATALS/FABM2013.asp