Rep. Kristi Noem is trying to spin the Department of Energy’s cancellation of the Deep Borehole Field Test as evidence that her Führer is hearing the anti-nuclear concerns of South Dakotans.
I don’t think Trump hears anyone other than Jared and Steve feeding him lines and Melania telling him when she’ll let him hold her hand. But maybe I’m wrong: maybe Trump is listening to South Dakotans who don’t want to risk releasing radioactive materials into our water supply.
That’s the signal I could take from the Trump EPA’s extension of the public comment period on the Azarga/Powertech uranium mining and waste disposal permits in the southern Black Hills. The EPA planned to close public comment on May 19, but Dakota Rural Action says strong public interest has persuaded the EPA to take comments for another month:
After a massive showing of interest at recent Black Hills uranium mine hearings, the EPA announced an extension of its comment period on water permits until June 19, for the proposed reopening of activity in Custer and Fall River county underground aquifer supplies.
With more than 700 people attending, 212 testified at the hearings in Rapid City, Hot Springs and Edgemont held May 8-11 and at the hearing in Valentine, NE, on April 27. Out of all the speakers, 197 expressed opposition to the proposed in situ leach, or ISL, mine and mill [Dakota Rural Action, press release, 2017.05.26].
EPA is taking comment by mail, fax, and e-mail:
- Mail: Valois Shea, U.S. EPA Region 8, Mail Code: 8WP-SUI, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO. 80202-1129
- Fax: 303-312-6741
- Email: shea.valois@epa.gov
If Rep. Noem can praise Trump for canceling an engineering project based on citizen concerns about radiation, then she should be shouting for Trump’s attention to the Azarga uranium mining application and the vocal resistance from her anti-nuclear constituents. Of course, it’s possible that if Trump notices at all the Azarga issue, he’ll listen to Azarga, which, like Team Trump, has numerous connections to Russia and the former Soviet Union.
Glad they did this because I got busy at work and couldn’t delve into it like I wanted to. Nice to know federal agencies are still willing to accommodate the public, even with bad leadership at the top.
The whole corporate governance structure is something that needs serious research. It’s clear they are trying to hide the big fish behind all the various entities.
There are parts of Azarga that are owned and governed by sleazy folks from Blumont Group, and they have various subsidiaries or sister companies. Does anyone really know who is behind this any of this? One link you gave is to Azarga Metals with Molyneux as head, but he is not the head of Azarga Resources or Azarga Uranium, though he once was. Molyneux is also the head of Paladin, another Uranium concern that may or may not be related. I know at one time these entities were tied up with a sleazy hedge fund in NYC. For all we know Trump could have money in this thing.
I don’t mind extending deadlines to have voices heard. This is similar to lines of voters physically at the polls when the poll is supposed to close.
But I would hope there would be some evidence that procedures were unsafe. If they are safe, and are monitored with good oversight, and operations can be stopped to fix things, then that’s about as good as you can do operationally.
It is unfortunate that I have not heard of any efforts to have a committee with proponents and opponents to review data and operational procedures to improve upon safety issues. But then again, opponents don’t want it to occur. Coal is nice.
The answer is not to deny that the wastes exist. We get a benefit from carbon-free energy. The cost is the safe isolation or recycling of the wastes, be they from solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, etc. The cost is worth it, and the solutions demand good science.
Wrong Robert…..we won’t benefit….foreigners and fat cats will benefit. We will be left with the problems.
I read the other day that the Wharf mine in the Black Hills raked in $136 million last year, and what did the Black Hills get for that? I don’t see swat.
Supplementally, I was driving around a couple weeks ago, and I ran across the old Gilt Mine – which was blocked off in every way – informing me of yet another off limits hazardous Super Fund site that I was unaware of. And, surely, proponents of that mine once claimed it too would be safe and good to the environment.
Uranium mining companies are very good at lying for money. The public has been ‘in committee’ with proponents of this project for like a decade now, and the public says go to hell… and rightly so.
Trump is solvent nothing only making more problems. Is even more dangerous than the high active nuclear waste itself. Greetings from a hot Holland. Leo
Clyde,
Certainly a valid point for discussion as to why domestic companies are not mining the uranium. Currently the far majority of the new nuclear power plants being planned or built are overseas. But I find it odd also that we make it difficult for domestic mining companies to thrive and then complain that foreign companies are extracting the uranium.
Adam,
There has been no committee with participation by opponents that acts to make uranium mining better and safer or that would participate in any oversight. What that says to me is that coal burning is OK and you will live with the waste that is produced. You are not going to produce all the power you want whenever you want it with just solar and wind. We are not doing that today.