‘Hot’ drinking water near uranium mine in Brazil
In October 2008, Greenpeace published data showing that drinking water around the Caetité uranium mine in the state of Bahia, Brazil was contaminated with uranium levels up to seven times higher than the World Health Organisation’s recommendations. The Bahia Institute of Water Management and Climate (Ingá) opened its own investigation in the matter. In November 2009 they suspended the use of water from six wells preventively, because radioactivity in the wells was found to be above allowed limits.
On 21 January 2010, Ingá and the Department of Health of Bahia notified local authorities in Caetité that another three wells need to be closed, and clean water should be supplied to the local community. Radioactivity was again found to be too high. Greenpeace went to the uranium mining area yesterday, and discovered that the wells had not been closed yet. The mining company INB (Industrias Nucleares Brasileiras) as well as the Brazilian nuclear regulator CNEN (note: also shareholder of the mining company (!)) shamelessly claim the Ingá results to be false… read more.. weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2010/01/hot_drinking_water_near_uraniu.html
Mine Pollutes Water With Uranium
YERINGTON, Nev. (Nov. 21, 2009) -- Peggy Pauly lives in a robin-egg blue, two-story house not far from acres of onion fields that make the northern Nevada air smell sweet at harvest time. But she can look through the window from her kitchen table, just past her backyard with its swingset and pet llama, and see an ominous sign on a neighboring fence: "Danger: Uranium Mine."
For almost a decade, people who make their homes in this rural community in the Mason Valley 65 miles southeast of Reno have blamed that enormous abandoned mine for the high levels of uranium in their water wells.They say they have been met by a stone wall from state regulators, local politicians and the huge oil company that inherited the toxic site — BP PLC. Those interests have insisted uranium naturally occurs in the region's soil and there's no way to prove that a half-century of processing metals at the former Anaconda pit mine is responsible for the contamination.
That has changed. A new wave of testing by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that 79 percent of the wells tested north of the World War II-era copper mine have dangerous levels of uranium or arsenic or both that make the water unsafe to drink.
And, more importantly to the neighbors, that the source of the pollution is a groundwater plume that has slowly migrated from the 6-square-mile mine site.
The new samples likely never would have been taken if not for a whistleblower...
read more...news.aol.com/article/officials-point-to-uranium-mine-as-water/778556
Water Impacts of Strip Mining
The effects of strip mining are broadcast over a wide region. It affects the water table, ground water, and aquifers for miles around the project.
Powertech, inc., executive testified to Colorado legislature on September 19, 2008, "We all know that conventional mining dewaters the area and destroys the aquifer." 
Contamination to water table is invisible (picture provided by C.A.R.D.)
Water Usage
The main issues arising from thermal and nuclear generating plants’ water use include the impacts of withdrawing large volumes from aquatic ecosystems, the effects of temperature change caused by thermal plant water discharge, and the potential release of impurities into the environment.[31]
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sd-dd//pubs/h2o/3-2_e.html
31 U.S. Geological Survey, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000 (USGS Circular 1268, released March 2004, revised April 2004, May 2004, February 2005).
Water vs. Energy
The best article we've found to date is from Scientific America. It explains the tremendous water usage of nuclear power plants.
Energy versus Water: Solving Both Crises Together Water is needed to generate energy. Energy is needed to deliver water. Both resources are limiting the other—and both may be running short. Is there a way out? By Michael E. Webber http://www.sciam.com
excerpt: "We consume massive quantities of water to generate energy, and we consume massive quantities of energy to deliver clean water. Many people are concerned about the perils of peak oil—running out of cheap oil. A few are voicing concerns about peak water. But almost no one is addressing the tension between the two: water restrictions are hampering solutions for generating more energy, and energy problems, particularly rising prices, are curtailing efforts to supply more clean water."
Water usage for In-situ Leech mining:
The State of Wyoming believes that in-situ will be the primary means of uranium mining; rather than, open-pit mines. The Gas Hills Uranium in-situ plant is estimated to use 8,000 g.p.m. or 12,906 AF/yr.
http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/bighorn/techmemos/industuse.html
Water Well Testing
Water well testing is not required before exploration begins, in Colorado. Water well testing is done by the industry or the homeowner has to pay for the testing themselves. Uranium exists in deposits and soils throughout the United States and it is a good idea to have your water tested for uranium wherever you may live. Standard water testing will not look for radiological constituents such as Uranium, Radium, Thorium, and Radon. Lead levels may be an indicator that you might have uranium as well since they are both transported as disolved solids in water.
Water contamination
Report: Water for 30,000 exceeds new radioactivity standards
DENVER (AP) - State records show about 30,000 Coloradans are drinking tap water that violates new standards for radioactive contaminants. read more... www.9news.com/news/article.aspx
Water Well Testing for Nebraska Citizens
Private well owners may want to test for uranium
Grand Island Independent - Grand Island,NE,USA
Nebraska Health and Human Services spokeswoman Marla Augustine said there are two types of tests for soluble uranium in drinking water. One is called a mass ...
Report: Water for 30,000 exceeds new radioactivity standards
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=90716
Other Water Usages
Paducah Enrichment – 26M g per day
Harris Reactor – 33M g per day
Cotter Mill – 1.3M g per day
City – Wells – Pump-back (4,300 families)
BRM – U Exploration – Tallahassee
No Decreed Water Rights – Exchange till Oct 2008
Drought – 104 Reactors – 24 in trouble
Bad ruling for environment
Supreme Court inexplicably allows mining company to dump waste in lake
Thu, Jun 25, 2009 (2:06 a.m.)
The U.S. Supreme Court turned its back on the environment Monday when a 6-3 majority gave a gold mining company permission to dump its toxic waste in an Alaskan lake.
In a narrow interpretation of the law — so narrow that it defies common sense — the court ruled that the Clean Water Act does not prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from permitting mining companies to dump waste in bodies of water as long as the discharge can be classified as “fill material” that changes the bottom elevation of the water. The toxicity of the waste inexplicably did not factor into the majority’s decision.
Trip Van Noppen, president of the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice, put the court’s ruling in proper perspective when he told The New York Times: “If a mining company can turn Lower Slate Lake in Alaska into a lifeless dump, other polluters with solids in their wastewater can potentially do the same to any water body in America.”
This case has exposed an alarming loophole in the Clean Water Act that should be closed by Congress immediately. Otherwise, mining companies and polluters from other industries could interpret the ruling as giving them license to turn the nation’s lakes, rivers and streams into toxic cesspools.
That was not the intent of the Clean Water Act when it was enacted in 1972. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court minority, clearly understood this. Quoting from the act itself, she wrote that its intent was to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of bodies of water in the U.S.
Does mining company Coeur Alaska Inc. intend to maintain the integrity of Lower Slate Lake? The answer is a resounding “No.” As Ginsburg wrote, the company plans to dump into the lake 4.5 million tons of solid tailings whose contents will include aluminum, copper, lead and mercury.
All of the lake’s fish would be killed. For that we will have the Supreme Court to thank.
-----------------------------
One More Threat to Clean Water
Thanks to the Bush administration’s industry-friendly rulings and a Supreme Court determined to ignore the plain language of the Clean Water Act, America’s waterways are at risk of becoming industrial dumps.
The latest indignity was a 6-to-3 decision on Monday that will allow an American gold mining company to discharge 210,000 gallons a day of potentially toxic mining waste into a 23-acre lake near Juneau, Alaska. A joyous Sarah Palin, Alaska’s governor, called the ruling a “great victory” for Alaska and, astonishingly, “a green light for responsible resource development.”
What it is, rather, is a green light for the extinction of every fish in the lake. The mining company says it will pretreat the waste and restore the lake’s vegetation down the road, but we’re not betting on it.
The decision was based in part on a 2002 Bush rule that cleared the way for the dumping of mining waste in previously protected waters. Until that rule, the Clean Water Act had stipulated that the Army Corps of Engineers could place “fill material” in waters when it was building bridges and levees. The Bush administration enlarged the definition of fill material to include contaminated mining waste, in clear violation of the law’s intent. This is the same regulatory trick the corps relies on to allow coal mining companies in Appalachia to dump the waste from mountaintop mining into the valleys below — a practice that has obliterated 1,200 miles of streams.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the court had little choice but to “accord deference” to the corps’ reading of the law. To which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg replied, in effect, what about paying deference to the Clean Water Act?
The act, she rightly argued, states plainly that waterways cannot be used for waste disposal. The court’s job, she suggested, is not to take refuge in ambiguities but to reaffirm the clear purpose of the law.
Fortunately, the ruling does not have to be the last word. The Obama administration can save that Alaskan lake — and other threatened water bodies — simply by reversing the Bush “fill” rule. Congress could also step in; a House bill that would reverse the rule already has 151 co-sponsors. Before any more damage is done, a way must be found to protect America’s vulnerable waters.
Exploration/Mining in Tallahassee Creek System, Colorado:
Water Depletions to Arkansas River
|
.png)
