The industry says the Moab case is an outdated blight from the distant past.
"What gets my ire up is when we get compared to stuff that happened in the 60s. There is no argument from us now about being careful... with an eye to preserving the environment," said Peter Farmer, CEO of Denison Mines, a Canadian company that operates seven U.S. mines as well as the nation's only operating uranium mill in Blanding, Utah.
Denison recently spent more than $5 million to triple-line a waste pit and outfit it with leak detection sensors. It's cheaper to pay up front, Farmer says, than to clean up later.
Roger Haskins, a specialist in mining law at the BLM, agrees that concerns over mining are overblown. He says landmark environmental regulations in the 1970s prepared the industry for the 21st century. While it's still easy to stake a mining claim, projects must now undergo extensive environmental review before they can be turned into mines.
"Whatever happens out there is thoroughly manageable in today's regulatory environment," Haskins said.
Scientists say some degree of pollution is inevitable, because mining sometimes uses toxic chemicals like cyanide. It also exposes naturally toxic metals that would otherwise remain deep underground.
Drilling for uranium creates pathways where raw, radioactive material can migrate into underground aquifers that drain into the river. Surface water can seep into the drill holes and mine shafts, picking up traces of uranium and then percolating into underground water sources. The milling process itself creates six pounds of radioactive and toxic waste -- including ammonia, arsenic, lead and mercury -- for every ounce of uranium produced.
"There has to be some impact to downstream water. Whether or not we can measure -- that is the question," said David Naftz, a hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Salt Lake City who studies uranium mining.
Naftz has documented dangerous levels of uranium near waste dumps at more than 50 separate test sites in Utah. While much of the mining happens in high, dry places where contaminants don't easily seep into surface water, he says periodic storms can still wash them into the river.
"What we've done is kind of upset the geochemical equilibriums in these basins by taking these ores and exposing them to conditions on the surface," he said. "The question is, how long is it going to take to transport them down to water systems?"
Pollution problems with gold, copper and other mines also challenge the assertion that technology and better regulation have eliminated the environmental risks.
One study compared the EPA's environmental impact statements for 25 sites to what really happened after mining took place. Water at three quarters of the mines was found to be contaminated, even though the mines used technology and techniques that the EPA had said would keep the environment clean, according to the research done for Earthworks by Jim Kuipers, an environmental engineer in Butte, Mont. and Anne Maest of Buka Environmental in Boulder, Colo.
At least four large mines that operated as recently as the 1990s -- long after new regulatory standards were put in place -- have caused so much contamination that the EPA designated them as priority Superfund cleanup sites. One rendered a 20-mile stretch of a Colorado River tributary completely dead.
"Promises are made and promises are broken," said Roger Clark, who is director of the Grand Canyon Trust's air and energy program and has been monitoring the rise in mining claims near the Grand Canyon. "This is not something we can sit back and take industry's word for."
Clark, who explored the Colorado River as a Boy Scout and later as a river guide, already has seen signs of the park's decline. On a recent hike along the Grand Canyon's rim, he passed a stream whose water he drank freely as a boy. Now it's marked with a sign saying, "Drinking and bathing in these waters is not advisable." The Park Service posted the same warning along five other canyon streams that feed into the Colorado, because high concentrations of uranium have leached into the water, likely from old mines.
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentWhy the sudden last minute grants? Is profit being promised to certain individuals in return? What we in the US do not understand, is that potable (drinkable) water is one of the rarest commodities on the planet. Instead of jeopardizing such a needed and valuable resource, shouldn't we be exploring ways to reduce or eliminate the need for polluting fossil fuels?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting (and very discouraging) when "Scientific" American starts publishing opinions in the forum of neutral science. For example, the USGS has already published more than enough observational science (all available online) about the geochemistry of Colorado River water to clearly show, to someone who takes the time and effort to look at it, that ongoing uranium mineral exploration in the Grand Canyon region in no way threatens the water quality of the river, yet this exploration work is summarily and carelessly characterized as "threatening" the river. It is not enough to fear -- fear should instead drive an examination of observations to determine if there are any real reasons to dwell in this fear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven this weakness in reporting in the Grand Canyon region case with which I am familiar, I can only suspect the rest of the article.
This article completely ignores the fact that the colorado river also originally supplied mexico too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving traveled down the river many times from Needles to Lake Havasu, drinking its water and enjoying it beauty I, too, wish to see it protected. But slanted reporting such as this inhibits responsible development in the area surrounding the river. Even if man never drilled or mined here, the river would still carry tons of metals, including uranium, downstream every day. Natural erosion is a fact - have you seen the depth of the canyon? Duh? To not capture these materials is also a waste. In addition, the author recklessly uses the word "contaminated" throughout the article, without reference to actual levels or concentrations. The river does not carry 18 megaohm water and never did. The uranium deposits alone could potentially free us from the need to go after the gas or shale. Let's get it out, do it now and do it cleanly. Think people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLdflipper,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Colorado river is already polluted from previous uranium mining. A uranium tailing pile along the river near Moab has been polluting the river for decades!
Ldflipper,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Colorado river is already polluted as the result of previous uranium mining. A uranium tailings pile near Moab has been leaking into the river for decades.
At the Grand Canyon, the Colorado River carries about 4.7 parts per billion uranium year round (slightly higher when the annual sand bar-flushing water releases through the Canyon take place), according to several USGS reports that can be accessed through http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/. This very safe level of uranium is NORMAL for rivers passing through semi-arid regions like the Colorado River and the Rio Grande do (see p. 578 of "Geochemistry of Mineral Exploration" by Rose et al., 1979, for these published values) . The slight elevation in uranium content of the Colorado River and the Rio Grande in comparison to rivers like the Mississippi and Columbia -- which drain much more humid country -- is primarily a function of evaporative concentration of the arid region river water, and is NOT materially caused by purported leakage of uranium from places like the Moab mill reclamation site. The EPA maximum contamination level threshold for uranium in drinking water is 30 ppb uranium. The Colorado River naturally carries about 118,000 pounds of dissolved uranium downstream each year (and most of this is eventually deposited in sediment at the bottom of Lake Mead) -- another 650,000 pounds or so of uranium would have to be annually added to this natural dissolved uranium content of the River to bring the concentration of uranium up to the problematic level of 30 ppb. The only way this could happen is if the climate becomes MUCH more humid, causing strongly increased leaching of the uranium in the region's rocks and soils. In this event, however, surface and ground water discharge into the River would be MUCH higher and would dilute the added uranium content. Point being, the Colorado River is not at risk from man or nature as far as potential 'uranium contamination' is concerned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLdflipper
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for a very informative, and good blog. I always like the facts.
It just occurred to me that the biggest opponents to clean natural gas are also the largest users of gasoline California and New York! LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey SA after reading the comments on this story ya'll kinda got beat up "huh"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is really ironic that at a time when we are coming up with all kinds of expensive ideas to slow the flow of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the coal, natural gas, and oil industry are devising ways to pollute the earth & atmosphere even faster. Uranium mining leaves waist that will be dangerous for thousands of years. They cannot wait to dig up every last molecule of coal, ounce of uranium, or drop of oil. No one has yet realized that the safest place for all that carbon and uranium is in the ground. Already there is not enough water in the Colorado to supply all its allocated uses. Mexico has not received its fair share in many years. Yet we keep granting more uses for this scarce resource. This madness will only end when the US is totally unfit for human habitation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this