Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Feds Urged to Suspend Grand Canyon Uranium Mine to Protect Water, Wildlife and People
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz.— Conservation groups have sent a letter (see PDF) urging federal regulators to suspend operations at a uranium mine near the Grand Canyon, where millions of gallons of uranium-laced groundwater threaten people and wildlife. Records from the U.S. Geological Survey show that the contaminated groundwater — 80 times the limit set to protect public health and the environment — have inundated the Pinenut uranium mine immediately north of Grand Canyon National Park. It is unknown whether deep aquifers and nearby springs in the national park are also being polluted.
“The big question now is whether contaminated water has moved from the mine into deep aquifers that feed Grand Canyon springs,” said Grand Canyon Trust Program Director Roger Clark. “Once polluted, remediation of the aquifers would be impossible. If agencies can’t ensure against that pollution — which they can’t — then mining should not occur.”
Records show that when the Pinenut mine was reopened in 2009, the mine operator estimated that 2.85 million gallons of water had accumulated in the mine and that it was in direct contact with high-grade uranium for nearly two decades, but water storage capacity outside the mine was limited and the water could not be pumped out to prevent seepage into the watershed. In addition, 1,500 tons of uranium ore were stored at the site when the mine was temporarily closed in 1989. That ore was subsequently eroded by wind and water, allowing the uranium to dissolve into accumulated water.
Water from the mineshaft exceeds federal water-quality standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In the repository pond dissolved uranium levels are 2,400 micrograms per liter — 80 times the upper limit allowed under federal law. This highly contaminated wastewater threatens migratory birds and other wildlife that are attracted to the mine’s open-air evaporative pond.
“We have raised concerns about groundwater contamination repeatedly and the agencies who are supposed to be protecting public health, public lands and public waters have ignored those concerns,” said Sandy Bahr, chapter director for Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “It’s unconscionable that regulatory agencies permit such risks to Grand Canyon’s wildlife and groundwater without requiring the needed protections to prevent permanent harm.”
Records also show ongoing groundwater flow into the mine. Even after a mine closes, federal rules allow mine operators to dispose of low-grade ore and waste rock in the mineshaft before sealing it. There are no mechanisms in federal or state plans to ensure that polluted water does not move from the mine into deep aquifers after the mine is closed.
“Water is continually flowing into these mines, increasing the risk to deep aquifers and springs and opening the door to an environmental disaster,” said Katie Davis, public lands campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity. “The BLM has ignored this problem for too long. We need our public officials to act now and respond to this crisis.”
In August 2013 Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Bureau of Land Management under the federal Administrative Procedures Act to require a new mining plan of operations from mine operators in light of the millions of gallons of polluted water inundating the mine. The Bureau has not responded to that petition. The groups sent a third letter to the agency on Tuesday urging action on the petition.
Tuesday’s letter requests that BLM take action, based on their authority under the Federal Land Policy Management Act, by ordering an immediate suspension of the Pinenut operations to protect health, safety and the environment.
Background
In 2012 the Obama administration issued a “mineral withdrawal” prohibiting new mining claims and the development of claims lacking valid existing rights across 1 million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park. Despite public protests and legal challenges from local American Indian tribes and conservation groups, federal agencies have allowed three uranium mines predating the withdrawal to resume operations. One of those, the Pinenut mine, was originally approved in 1986, but the mine owners closed the mine in 1989 because of low market demand for uranium. The BLM allowed the mine to reopen in 2009 after a request from Pinenut.
In 2010 water samples summarized by the USGS showed that 15 springs and five wells contained dissolved uranium concentrations in excess of the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards for safe drinking water. The USGS report concluded that these contaminated sites “are related to mining processes.”
In 2013 Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a rulemaking petition to the BLM under the Administrative Procedures Act to update its operating plan to incorporate new information regarding uranium-mining risks to groundwater. The agency has not responded to the petition.
In 2013 the National Park Service said that the “regional aquifer groundwater wells at the Canyon, Pinenut, and Hermit mines as well as the sumps at the base of Pigeon and Hermit mines have all exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations in excess of drinking water standards (30 micrograms per liter), with sump concentrations at Hermit Mine exceeding 36,000 micrograms per liter.”
The mission of the Grand Canyon Trust is to protect and restore the Colorado Plateau — its spectacular landscapes, flowing rivers, clean air, diversity of plants and animals, and areas of beauty and solitude.
The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with more than 2.4 million members and supporters nationwide, including 35,000 in Arizona as part of the Grand Canyon Chapter. Sierra Club’s mission is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of earth’s ecosystems and resources; and to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment. For more information, visit http://arizona.sierraclub.org/
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 775,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org
August 4, 2014
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/grand_canyon_uranium-08-04-2014.html
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
Records show that when the Pinenut mine was reopened in 2009, the mine operator estimated that 2.85 million gallons of water had accumulated in the mine and that it was in direct contact with high-grade uranium for nearly two decades, but water storage capacity outside the mine was limited and the water could not be pumped out to prevent seepage into the watershed. In addition, 1,500 tons of uranium ore were stored at the site when the mine was temporarily closed in 1989. That ore was subsequently eroded by wind and water, allowing the uranium to dissolve into accumulated water.
Water from the mineshaft exceeds federal water-quality standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In the repository pond dissolved uranium levels are 2,400 micrograms per liter — 80 times the upper limit allowed under federal law. This highly contaminated wastewater threatens migratory birds and other wildlife that are attracted to the mine’s open-air evaporative pond.
“We have raised concerns about groundwater contamination repeatedly and the agencies who are supposed to be protecting public health, public lands and public waters have ignored those concerns,” said Sandy Bahr, chapter director for Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “It’s unconscionable that regulatory agencies permit such risks to Grand Canyon’s wildlife and groundwater without requiring the needed protections to prevent permanent harm.”
Records also show ongoing groundwater flow into the mine. Even after a mine closes, federal rules allow mine operators to dispose of low-grade ore and waste rock in the mineshaft before sealing it. There are no mechanisms in federal or state plans to ensure that polluted water does not move from the mine into deep aquifers after the mine is closed.
“Water is continually flowing into these mines, increasing the risk to deep aquifers and springs and opening the door to an environmental disaster,” said Katie Davis, public lands campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity. “The BLM has ignored this problem for too long. We need our public officials to act now and respond to this crisis.”
In August 2013 Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Bureau of Land Management under the federal Administrative Procedures Act to require a new mining plan of operations from mine operators in light of the millions of gallons of polluted water inundating the mine. The Bureau has not responded to that petition. The groups sent a third letter to the agency on Tuesday urging action on the petition.
Tuesday’s letter requests that BLM take action, based on their authority under the Federal Land Policy Management Act, by ordering an immediate suspension of the Pinenut operations to protect health, safety and the environment.
Background
In 2012 the Obama administration issued a “mineral withdrawal” prohibiting new mining claims and the development of claims lacking valid existing rights across 1 million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park. Despite public protests and legal challenges from local American Indian tribes and conservation groups, federal agencies have allowed three uranium mines predating the withdrawal to resume operations. One of those, the Pinenut mine, was originally approved in 1986, but the mine owners closed the mine in 1989 because of low market demand for uranium. The BLM allowed the mine to reopen in 2009 after a request from Pinenut.
In 2010 water samples summarized by the USGS showed that 15 springs and five wells contained dissolved uranium concentrations in excess of the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards for safe drinking water. The USGS report concluded that these contaminated sites “are related to mining processes.”
In 2013 Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a rulemaking petition to the BLM under the Administrative Procedures Act to update its operating plan to incorporate new information regarding uranium-mining risks to groundwater. The agency has not responded to the petition.
In 2013 the National Park Service said that the “regional aquifer groundwater wells at the Canyon, Pinenut, and Hermit mines as well as the sumps at the base of Pigeon and Hermit mines have all exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations in excess of drinking water standards (30 micrograms per liter), with sump concentrations at Hermit Mine exceeding 36,000 micrograms per liter.”
The mission of the Grand Canyon Trust is to protect and restore the Colorado Plateau — its spectacular landscapes, flowing rivers, clean air, diversity of plants and animals, and areas of beauty and solitude.
The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with more than 2.4 million members and supporters nationwide, including 35,000 in Arizona as part of the Grand Canyon Chapter. Sierra Club’s mission is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of earth’s ecosystems and resources; and to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment. For more information, visit http://arizona.sierraclub.org/
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 775,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org
August 4, 2014
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/grand_canyon_uranium-08-04-2014.html
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
EPA IS REQUIRED UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO RESPOND TO CITIZEN PETITION AND THEY WILL DO SO IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2620
U.S. Code › Title 15 › Chapter 53 › Subchapter I › § 262015 U.S. Code § 2620 - Citizens’ petitions
Any person may petition the Administrator to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under section 2603, 2605, or 2607 of this title or an order under section 2604 (e) or 2605 (b)(2) of this title.
(b) Procedures
(1) Such petition shall be filed in the principal office of the Administrator and shall set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary to issue, amend, or repeal a rule under section 2603, 2605, or 2607 of this title or an order under section 2604 (e), 2605 (b)(1)(A), or 2605 (b)(1)(B) of this title.
(2) The Administrator may hold a public hearing or may conduct such investigation or proceeding as the Administrator deems appropriate in order to determine whether or not such petition should be granted.
(3) Within 90 days after filing of a petition described in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall either grant or deny the petition. If the Administrator grants such petition, the Administrator shall promptly commence an appropriate proceeding in accordance with section 2603, 2604, 2605, or 2607 of this title. If the Administrator denies such petition, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register the Administrator’s reasons for such denial.
(4)
(A) If the Administrator denies a petition filed under this section (or if the Administrator fails to grant or deny such petition within the 90-day period) the petitioner may commence a civil action in a district court of the United States to compel the Administrator to initiate a rulemaking proceeding as requested in the petition. Any such action shall be filed within 60 days after the Administrator’s denial of the petition or, if the Administrator fails to grant or deny the petition within 90 days after filing the petition, within 60 days after the expiration of the 90-day period.
(B) In an action under subparagraph (A) respecting a petition to initiate a proceeding to issue a rule under section 2603, 2605, or 2607 of this title or an order under section 2604 (e) or 2605 (b)(2) of this title, the petitioner shall be provided an opportunity to have such petition considered by the court in a de novo proceeding. If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence that—
(i) in the case of a petition to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rule under section 2603 of this title or an order under section 2604 (e) of this title—
(I) information available to the Administrator is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substance to be subject to such rule or order; and
(II) in the absence of such information, the substance may present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, or the substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities and it enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to it; or
(ii) in the case of a petition to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rule under section 2605 or 2607 of this title or an order under section 2605 (b)(2) of this title, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of such a rule or order is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. [1]
the court shall order the Administrator to initiate the action requested by the petitioner. If the court finds that the extent of the risk to health or the environment alleged by the petitioner is less than the extent of risks to health or the environment with respect to which the Administrator is taking action under this chapter and there are insufficient resources available to the Administrator to take the action requested by the petitioner, the court may permit the Administrator to defer initiating the action requested by the petitioner until such time as the court prescribes.
(C) The court in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant to subparagraph (A) may award costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses if the court determines that such an award is appropriate. Any court, in issuing its decision in an action brought to review such an order, may award costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys if the court determines that such an award is appropriate.
(5) The remedies under this section shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, other remedies provided by law.
15 U.S. Code § 2601 - Findings, policy, and intent
US Code
The Congress finds that—
(1) human beings and the environment are being exposed each year to a large number of chemical substances and mixtures;
(2) among the many chemical substances and mixtures which are constantly being developed and produced, there are some whose manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment; and
(3) the effective regulation of interstate commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures also necessitates the regulation of intrastate commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures.
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States that—
(1) adequate data should be developed with respect to the effect of chemical substances and mixtures on health and the environment and that the development of such data should be the responsibility of those who manufacture and those who process such chemical substances and mixtures;
(2) adequate authority should exist to regulate chemical substances and mixtures which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, and to take action with respect to chemical substances and mixtures which are imminent hazards; and
(3) authority over chemical substances and mixtures should be exercised in such a manner as not to impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation while fulfilling the primary purpose of this chapter to assure that such innovation and commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures do not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
(c) Intent of Congress
It is the intent of Congress that the Administrator shall carry out this chapter in a reasonable and prudent manner, and that the Administrator shall consider the environmental, economic, and social impact of any action the Administrator takes or proposes to take under this chapter.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2620
U.S. Code › Title 15 › Chapter 53 › Subchapter I › § 262015 U.S. Code § 2620 - Citizens’ petitions
Any person may petition the Administrator to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under section 2603, 2605, or 2607 of this title or an order under section 2604 (e) or 2605 (b)(2) of this title.
(b) Procedures
(1) Such petition shall be filed in the principal office of the Administrator and shall set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary to issue, amend, or repeal a rule under section 2603, 2605, or 2607 of this title or an order under section 2604 (e), 2605 (b)(1)(A), or 2605 (b)(1)(B) of this title.
(2) The Administrator may hold a public hearing or may conduct such investigation or proceeding as the Administrator deems appropriate in order to determine whether or not such petition should be granted.
(3) Within 90 days after filing of a petition described in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall either grant or deny the petition. If the Administrator grants such petition, the Administrator shall promptly commence an appropriate proceeding in accordance with section 2603, 2604, 2605, or 2607 of this title. If the Administrator denies such petition, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register the Administrator’s reasons for such denial.
(4)
(A) If the Administrator denies a petition filed under this section (or if the Administrator fails to grant or deny such petition within the 90-day period) the petitioner may commence a civil action in a district court of the United States to compel the Administrator to initiate a rulemaking proceeding as requested in the petition. Any such action shall be filed within 60 days after the Administrator’s denial of the petition or, if the Administrator fails to grant or deny the petition within 90 days after filing the petition, within 60 days after the expiration of the 90-day period.
(B) In an action under subparagraph (A) respecting a petition to initiate a proceeding to issue a rule under section 2603, 2605, or 2607 of this title or an order under section 2604 (e) or 2605 (b)(2) of this title, the petitioner shall be provided an opportunity to have such petition considered by the court in a de novo proceeding. If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence that—
(i) in the case of a petition to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rule under section 2603 of this title or an order under section 2604 (e) of this title—
(I) information available to the Administrator is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substance to be subject to such rule or order; and
(II) in the absence of such information, the substance may present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, or the substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities and it enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to it; or
(ii) in the case of a petition to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rule under section 2605 or 2607 of this title or an order under section 2605 (b)(2) of this title, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of such a rule or order is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. [1]
the court shall order the Administrator to initiate the action requested by the petitioner. If the court finds that the extent of the risk to health or the environment alleged by the petitioner is less than the extent of risks to health or the environment with respect to which the Administrator is taking action under this chapter and there are insufficient resources available to the Administrator to take the action requested by the petitioner, the court may permit the Administrator to defer initiating the action requested by the petitioner until such time as the court prescribes.
(C) The court in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant to subparagraph (A) may award costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses if the court determines that such an award is appropriate. Any court, in issuing its decision in an action brought to review such an order, may award costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys if the court determines that such an award is appropriate.
(5) The remedies under this section shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, other remedies provided by law.
15 U.S. Code § 2601 - Findings, policy, and intent
US Code
The Congress finds that—
(1) human beings and the environment are being exposed each year to a large number of chemical substances and mixtures;
(2) among the many chemical substances and mixtures which are constantly being developed and produced, there are some whose manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment; and
(3) the effective regulation of interstate commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures also necessitates the regulation of intrastate commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures.
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States that—
(1) adequate data should be developed with respect to the effect of chemical substances and mixtures on health and the environment and that the development of such data should be the responsibility of those who manufacture and those who process such chemical substances and mixtures;
(2) adequate authority should exist to regulate chemical substances and mixtures which present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, and to take action with respect to chemical substances and mixtures which are imminent hazards; and
(3) authority over chemical substances and mixtures should be exercised in such a manner as not to impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers to technological innovation while fulfilling the primary purpose of this chapter to assure that such innovation and commerce in such chemical substances and mixtures do not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
(c) Intent of Congress
It is the intent of Congress that the Administrator shall carry out this chapter in a reasonable and prudent manner, and that the Administrator shall consider the environmental, economic, and social impact of any action the Administrator takes or proposes to take under this chapter.
For more information:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network