Ritchie reported in late 2016 on claims and problems with in-situ uranium mines "across the country". The I2M Editors will evaluate these claims and address them accordingly. The reporter for a local newspaper in South Dakota began his article by indicating that "Powertech, a Canadian company that is proposing to begin mining uranium near Edgemont, has worked for years to reassure South Dakotans that its mine will not only be environmentally friendly, but that there are plenty of other mines across the country to prove that safety record. But a closer look shows that hasn't always been true.
In the run-up to today's state permitting hearing in Rapid City (in 2016), the Journal staff compiled a list of some of the worst environmental issues at in situ leach uranium mines across the country. The data was collected from newspaper clippings, state records, federal records, and academic reports published over the past 40 years. [Bias Alert: Having such records is very different from evaluating what they purport in terms of their environmental impact. Misinformation is repeated and evolves through a lack of understanding of the actual technical issues involved.]
The Journal sent its list to Powertech last week and asked how the company would prevent incidents that occurred at other mines. The company responded with an 8-page letter describing the mine's safety features, mitigation procedures, and how its operation would be regulated. The company also noted that the Journal didn't provide sourcing to its list and therefore it was unable to verify all of the listed problems.
Because Powertech's response was too long for print publication, the Journal has published it online. The Journal has also provided links to documents that formed the basis of its list. Below is a look at those incidents, listed by mine name, the mine's location, the company involved, and what happened:
• Willow Creek mine, Johnson & Campbell Counties, Wyo. (Uranium One): An active mine that has operated under different companies since the late 1970s. [What is wrong with having multiple owners? Business is business.] Today it is divided between two sites: the Irigaray mine plant and the Christensen Ranch mine satellite facility. When the operation was under the ownership of Wyoming Mineral Corporation in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the state found the Irigaray site experienced repeated fires, migrations of injection solution in groundwater, and that basic tests were also not being performed.
In 2011, the state issued a violation after it was discovered that 7,000 to 10,000 gallons of sodium chloride brine was released into a dry ephemeral stream at the Irigaray site. The company took two weeks to notify the state, when notification should have occurred in 24 hours. In 2010, the state found problems with contaminants migrating through groundwater from the Christensen Ranch site [Bias Alert: A leap in logic here by the reporter by not providing a basis for his claim of contaminants in groundwater migration. Tip-off is that groundwater just doesn't flow that fast. Therefore, reporter making an unfounded claim here]. Glenn Mooney, a geologist for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, sent a letter to the company and noted that uranium levels were "over 70 times" the maximum contaminate [not verb, should be contaminant] threshold in groundwater near the mine's permit boundary. Mooney wrote that the finding "is a major concern to WDEQ". In 2011, the state issued a violation after discovering the company was failing to properly conduct groundwater tests. [Note: Further to above, the reported contamination at the boundary may have been related to natural uranium in an unknown zone of minor mineralization. BYW, why wasn't the Mooney letter produced in reporter's list of references? No proof , no basis, no credulity to reporter claims].
[Summary of Claims: A minor spill and a boundary issue can happen, and get resolved just like in other industry issues, such as in oil & gas-groundwater impact issues. We consider these reports, if accurate, were no big deal].
• Bruni mine, Bruni, Texas (Cogema Mining): A now decommissioned mine that operated through the 1970s and 1980s. Between 1975 and 1981, the state recorded 23 incidents of leachate spills. [The reference to 23 incidents of leachate spills were reported by Gavin Mudd, a notorious anti-uranium mining academic from an Australian university of the late 1990s. He was prone to exaggeration of conditions and overall hyperbole on the subject]. Between 1978 and 1981, the state also recorded four such spills of waste ponds on the mine surface or in shallow areas above the uranium deposit. [In the 1970s-80s, regulations were not as stiff, and they are now. Also, the industry was learning how to operate with environmental considerations at the forefront, as now. No groundwater contamination has been reported since. This is because as the uranium is exposed to oxygen-laden production fluids during the in-situ mining process, the uranium within the sediment of the ore-zone goes into solution as part of the production fluid and piped to the processing plant where the pregnant solution is turned in yellowcake for sale. Once production has ceased, oxygen scavenging fluids are introduced into the mineralized zones which eliminated the oxygen and the uranium is precipitated in the sediment as a solid, as it existed before production was initiated, except large masses of the uranium in the mineralized zone were far less prevalent than before mining. In one sense, the process removes the "contaminant" for use as an industrial product as fuel in the nuclear-power industry. As long as the sediments contain very low oxygen, the now-reduced zone cannot carry uranium to migrate in the groundwater because it is no longer in liquid form and is therefore not mobile (more)].
The largest leak contaminated groundwater for a year before it was found and repaired. The state also found the company was improperly storing radioactive material. In 1977, the state tried to fine the company and eventually reached an out-of-court settlement of $42,500. After retiring the mine, the company struggled to return the groundwater to its pre-mine chemical composition. The company, like many other in situ mining operators in Texas, requested that the state lower its restoration standards. [Note: The rest of this story is that "pre-mine chemical composition" testing required by the state as a standard was once based on the general EPA-State groundwater standards, which were not applicable in this and another cases in Texas. Why? Because the groundwater in the vicinity of the mineralized zones to be subsequently mined by in situ methods were already naturally contaminated with uranium. When drilling a hole into such zones, any uranium in the sediments will be exposed to oxygen in the oxygenated drilling fluids introduced from surface water supplies at the drilling rig. The uranium will then be solubilized (and go into solution) indicating, after analysis, higher uranium in groundwater than actually present in subsurface. The standards were subsequently changed by state and federal regulation where comprehensive sampling became the rule (conducted under controlled low-flow conditions to minimized solubilization of uranium in the sediment, etc.)].
[Summary of Claims: Looking back, the indicated minor leaks and spills were common problems of any industry. Using anti-uranium pundits to support such positions also impacts the reporter's credibility. The question arises: Why involve such a biased source as Mudd? Likely answer: Provides the reporter the opportunity to introduce a full report of anti-uranium hyperbole into his reporting for this article. We consider these reports, if accurate, were typical of the young industry and emerging regulations. Current issues can also relate to industrial issues, but on minor scales and little impact. Most of the rhetoric by the reporter is to pander to his audiences' fear of radiation or to unfounded views regarding mining and nuclear power in general. This fear is slowing evolving into understanding, just like the use of flammable natural gas once experienced years ago (more)]
• Clay West and Burns mines, George West, Texas (U.S. Steel): A pair of now decommissioned mines that were run by U.S. Steel from 1975. The state found workers were frequently exposed to unsafe levels of radiation. [This reference was also from Mudd. Same considerations as above. Now to the claims ....]. An inspection in 1980 found gamma radiation levels were so high they "pegged the meter" due to problems containing uranium dust in the plant loading area. [Note: uranium in the subsurface mineralized zones and processing plants are not very radioactive. The radioactivity is generated by daughter products of uranium decay. Radium, especially is radioactive, and radon, but most of such radiation is alpha and beta radiation, but with gamma radiation as well (more)] The company would later discover that uranium fluid was leaking into the ground, saturating the soil around the plant, and coating its drainage field and septic tank in uranium. In 1985, the state discovered that workers for three companies in Corpus Christi were exposed to unsafe levels of radiation while repairing a machine for the company. Overall, due to pipe ruptures, the company reported more than 22 surface spills at the site, releasing an estimated 1,199,647 gallons of radioactive and toxic chemicals.
[Summary of Claims: Looking back, this site exhibits similar issues. The indicated minor leaks and spills were common problems of any industry. Using anti-uranium pundits to support such positions also impacts the reporter's credibility. The question arises: Why involve such a biased source as Mudd? Likely answer: Provides the reporter the opportunity to introduce a full report of anti-uranium hyperbole into his reporting for this article. We consider these reports, if accurate, were typical of the young industry and emerging regulations. Current issues can also relate to industrial issues, but on minor scales and little impact. Most of the rhetoric by the reporter is to pander to his audiences' fear of radiation or to unfounded views regarding mining and nuclear power in general. This fear is slowing evolving into understanding, just like the use of flammable natural gas once experienced years ago (more)]
• Mt. Lucas mine, Dinero, Texas (Everest Exploration): A now decommissioned mine run by Everest Exploration. The company was given permission to dispose of untreated radioactive wastewater by Lake Corpus Christi. Between 1984 and 1986, the company irrigated the waste on a 22-acre patch of land 300 yards from the lake. In 1987, radioactivity was 47 times above normal and six times higher than allowed by the company's operating license. The state found half of the irrigation water had percolated into the water table, potentially endangering surface water and groundwater. [Yes, in years past regulations were not as strict as they are today. Such liquid waste disposal found its way into a surface body of water and then apparently infiltrated to reach the water table (the top of the groundwater reservoir). As indicated above, the plume of oxygenated uranium would have encountered a reduced subsurface (oxygen consuming) environment as far as the oxygen persisted, likely no further than a few thousand feet during a number of years; but along the path of the migration of the oxygen, it would have been consumed by the reducing environment and the uranium would have been reduced to solid form and become immobile.]
[Summary of Claims: Looking back, this site exhibits similar issues. Otherwise as above]
• Goliad exploration wells, Goliad County, Texas (Uranium Energy Corp): A recently permitted but presently inactive mine in Goliad County. Two residents sued Uranium Energy Corp in 2008 after the company conducted exploratory drilling in the area. The lawsuit charged that the company drilled 70 exploratory bore holes but failed to close them properly, allowing storm runoff to flow into them and contaminate the county's groundwater. A group of residents say the well water in their area became slimy and discolored and only returned to normal after drilling stopped. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit and advised the county to pursue the matter through the state courts or a state administrative body. The county filed two new lawsuits this year. The first lawsuit was filed against the Texas Department of Environmental Quality for improper testing and analysis of groundwater. The second lawsuit was filed against the Environmental Protection Agency for similar reasons. [The problems of leaving holes open to precipitation entering the holes complicates some issues. By introducing such water (being oxygenated), this would have mobilized any uranium that the introduced fluids encountered in the subsurface exposed by the drilled hole. But, the volume would have likely been minimal and the introduced oxygen plume at each well site would be soon reclaimed by the reduced environment. The plumes would have been small and of short duration before all uranium had returned to solid form].
[Summary of Claims: Looking back, this site exhibits some unusual issues. The magnitude was minimal and certainly did not merit the lawsuits funded by the residents of the Goliad region and grifted by a notorious attorney known for bringing marginal lawsuit again companies with “deep pockets’. These matters were also evaluated in a previous review (here, Review #28, and Review #24)].
• Smith Ranch-Highland mine, Douglas, Wyo. (Cameco Resources): Cameco, under a subsidiary called Power Resources, has been mining in the area since 1988 and the operation remains active. In 2007, the state discovered the company was violating its agreements to restore groundwater to pre-mining condition. [See similar issue discussed above re GW Water Quality Standards of the time] The state also found that the company had experienced an "inordinate number of spills, leaks and other releases" and that it was failing to detect, report and track spills as it should be. That included, in that year alone, a surface spill of 3,700 gallons of fluid containing uranium and trace minerals (although the company managed to recover 3,500 gallons). The company also spilled 11,600 gallons of disposal solution.
In addition, the state found the company was only budgeting $40 million for reclamation when the state calculated it would cost $150 million. [That was a state oversight and should have been noted earlier by the state. This is an example of why federal oversight should be conducted of state activities. “Good-ol boy” syndrome can develop if the feds do not provide oversight of state activities, or the lack thereof]. The company reached a $1.4 million settlement with the state over the permit violations and doubled the company's bond from $40 million to $80 million. Despite the settlement, the state has continued to find violations on a routine basis at the mine over the past five years. From September 2008, the state has fined the company a total of $88,000 for improperly capping drill holes, incorrectly reporting its capping practices, failing to perform certain groundwater tests, and operating outside its permit boundaries. In March this year, the state issued a violation for the migration of injection fluid through groundwater outside the mining area, but it has not issued a fine yet. [Note: They are likely determining if in fact the injected fluid had migrated off site, which is highly unlikely.]
[Summary of Claims: Looking back, this site exhibits similar issues. Otherwise as above. Fact remains that the mine is still operational, if not shuttered temporarily].
• Crow Butte site, Crawford, Neb. (Cameco Resources): Nebraska's sole in situ leach mine was opened in 1991 and remains active. In 2008, a district court in Nebraska imposed a $50,000 penalty for violations including a surface spill and for constructing wells between 2003 and 2006 in an area that had the potential to contaminate underground drinking water. The company waited for more than a month and half to tell the state when it realized it was mining where it shouldn't.
[Summary of Claims: Looking back, this site exhibits similar industrial issues. Otherwise as above. Fact remains that the mine is still operational, if not shuttered temporarily].
• Kingsville Dome, Kleberg County, Texas (Uranium Resources Inc.): A permitted but currently inactive mine that was opened in 1988. A hydrologist commissioned by Kleberg County released a report in 2006 on how groundwater was affected by the mine. George Rice found that the water quality didn't meet drinking standards before mining began, but the quality had worsened in most of the site after mining and despite restoration efforts. While Rice found that no domestic wells had been affected by the contaminated water, he believed it could migrate outside of the mining boundaries if not properly restored.
This year Rice wrote a paper, as yet unpublished, that he says shows that contaminants, particularly uranium, have moved about 1,000 feet from a production site and into a well used for livestock. Rice says while the concentration of uranium in the well was always unsafe for human consumption, but it has now tripled. He believes it will continue to spread with the groundwater's natural flow. The state of Texas acknowledges the high level of uranium, but disputes Rice's conclusion.
[Summary of Claims: The report by George Rice has apparently been withdrawn so we cannot comment in any detail on the matter raised above. If this report is found, we will comment here at that time. Withdrawals of such reports suggest problems, such as errors, missinformation, etc.].
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
