Government Study: Elevated Uranium Levels in Grand Canyon's Watershed

Grand Canyon:  No to uranium mining!

For Immediate Release, February 18, 2010

Contact: Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, (602) 999-5790
Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust, (928) 774-7466

Exploration and Mining Sites Consistently Exceed Background Levels

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK— A series of studies released today by the United States Geological Survey show elevated uranium levels in wells, springs, and soil in and around uranium exploration and mining sites within the watershed feeding Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River. The agency conducted the monitoring to provide information for an environmental impact statement that is analyzing a proposed 20-year mineral withdrawal that would protect nearly 1 million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park from future mining activities.

“These reports demonstrate unequivocally that uranium mining should not proceed in these environmentally sensitive lands,” said Stacey Hamburg of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “Contaminated lands and waters around the Grand Canyon are not what we want for the future of northern Arizona. Cleaning up contaminated sites should be the government’s first priority.”

Elevated uranium levels consistently exceed natural background levels in and around exploration and old mining sites – sometimes, as in the case of the Kanab North mine, by as much as 10 times.

Elevated uranium levels were also detected near the old “Hack” uranium-mine complex, which the Bureau of Land Management actively promotes on its Web site as a model of good mine reclamation. Reclaimed in the 1980s, the mines are located in Hack Canyon, a tributary to Kanab Creek and the Grand Canyon and Colorado River.

Uranium mining has already contaminated lands and waters in and around Grand Canyon, and today’s research confirms that new uranium mining would threaten aquifers that feed Grand Canyon’s springs, the Colorado River, and nearly 100 species of concern,” said Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity. “These risks aren’t worth taking – and they’re risks neither the government nor industry can guarantee against.”

Elevated uranium levels were also detected at another nearby old mine that the Bureau has said it will allow to reopen without updating 1980s-era federal environmental reviews. The first such opening, of Denison Mines’ Arizona 1 mine, provoked a lawsuit in November from conservation groups seeking updated reviews.

Fifteen springs and five wells exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water; hydrogeologists have warned that new mining could deplete and pollute water in aquifers and connected springs. Today’s report concludes that: “Uranium mining within the watershed may increase the amount of radioactive materials and heavy metals in the surface water and groundwater flowing into Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River, and deep mining activities may increase mobilization of uranium through the rock strata into the aquifers. In addition, waste rock and ore from mined areas may be transported away from the mines by wind and runoff.”

“The USGS research confirms that mining uranium within Grand Canyon watersheds risks permanently polluting waning water supplies for 25 million people and arid ecosystems. There are some places where mining should not occur, and the Grand Canyon is one of them,” said Roger Clark of the Grand Canyon Trust.

Last week the Center for Biological Diversity sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for illegally withholding public records relating to uranium mines immediately north of Grand Canyon National Park. The Bureau is withholding the vast majority of eight linear feet of responsive records despite directives from the Obama administration requiring the agency to respond to information requests “promptly and in a spirit of cooperation” and to adopt a “presumption of disclosure” (see Obama’s Freedom of Information Act memo to federal agencies here).

All of today’s reports can be downloaded here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5025/

Summary of Research Findings (From USGS)

• The area proposed for withdrawal is estimated to contain about 163,000 tons (about 326 million pounds) of uranium oxide (U3O8), which is about 12 percent of the estimated total undiscovered uranium in northern Arizona (1.3 million tons or 2.6 billion pounds). For comparison, the United States consumes about 27,550 tons (55 million pounds) of uranium oxide each year in its reactors; most of it comes from Canada, Australia, and Russia.
• Soil and sediment samples were analyzed for six sites that experienced various levels of uranium mining in Kanab Creek area north of Grand Canyon National Park, including mined and reclaimed sites, mined sites currently on standby, and sites that were exploratory drilled but not mined. Uranium and arsenic were two elements consistently detected in the areas disturbed by mining in values above natural background levels.
• Analysis of historical water-quality data for more than 1,000 water samples from 428 sites in northern Arizona shows that dissolved uranium concentrations in areas without mining were generally similar to those with active or reclaimed mines. Sixty-six percent of the sampled sites showed low dissolved uranium concentrations (less than 5 parts per billion). Ninety-five percent of the sampled sites had dissolved uranium levels of less than 30 parts per billion, the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water.
• Samples from 15 springs and 5 wells exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water. These springs and wells are close to or in direct contact with mineralized ore bodies, and concentration levels are related to natural processes, mining, or a combination of both factors.
• Almost 100 plants and animals identified by the State of Arizona or other land managers as species of concern inhabit the area proposed for withdrawal. Because uranium and its byproducts such as radon can affect survival, growth, and reproduction of plants and animals, USGS scientists identified exposure pathways (for example, ingestion or inhalation) for these species of concern.

Read more:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/grand-canyon-02-19-2010.html

Aquifer mysteries hold key to effects of uranium mining

Comment: If think the EPA or the USGS will protect our water from uranium mining, think again, just read the extremely confusing article below where the EPA will let the uranium corporation perform the water test for situ leach mining! No to uranium mining and milling!

February 7, 2010
Tests could offer insight on potential for contamination

BY BOBBY MAGILL
BobbyMagill@coloradoan.com

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday a decision about whether Powertech USA will be permitted to conduct an aquifer pump test for its proposed Centennial Project uranium mine northeast of Fort Collins will be announced by mid-April.

If approved, Powertech will be allowed to test the feasibility of in situ leach mining for uranium at the Centennial Project site. The test could help regulators find answers to questions about how the underlying aquifer works and how any contamination from the mine could move through it and affect groundwater elsewhere.

Powertech's in situ leach mining method would pump a baking-soda-like fluid into the ground, which would loosen uranium from the underground rock formation, then pump the fluid back out of the ground, taking the uranium with it. The proposed pump test would allow Powertech to pump water out of the uranium-containing aquifer, store it and reinject it.

The mining could have the greatest impact on the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, which many surrounding landowners have tapped for their well water.

The councils of most of the surrounding cities and towns, including Fort Collins and Greeley, have said they oppose the mine, partly for fear it could pollute the groundwater.

How far any pollution from the mine could spread within the aquifer and how that could affect water wells in the area isn’t well understood, but the pump test could shed some light on the matter, according to the EPA.

“If this project moves forward, the technical data collected will generate a geologic and aquifer model that can accurately predict groundwater movement at the site,” said EPA spokesman Richard Mylott.

Information sparse

Information about the hydrogeology of the aquifer is sparse, and few people have studied how fast water moves in the aquifer to determine how pollutants could spread. The EPA’s expert on the Centennial Project site, Valois Shea, was unavailable last week for comment.

For their part, neither the state nor the U.S. Geological Survey has studied the area extensively enough to say how the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer works.

Vincent Matthews, state geologist and director of the Colorado Geological Survey, pointed only to a 1980 CGS study of hydrogeology and uranium resources northeast of the Centennial Project site, written at a time when Unocal and other companies were planning uranium exploration projects near Keota in Weld County.

The state sampled 104 water wells — many of which tapped the Fox Hills formation — near uranium deposits in northern Weld County. The study showed that the well water quality was extremely poor and much of the water contained high levels of uranium and vanadium.

The closer a well was to a uranium deposit, the more contaminated it was.

But, Matthews said, the study doesn’t say much about what’s happening in the same aquifer and rock formations near Nunn.

“One would need a lot of study, data and modeling to understand the intricacies of a particular area,” he said.

Jay Davis, whose property abuts the Centennial Project site, said his well water is good now, but he doesn’t want to see it contaminated.

“We’ve got fairly clean water, in a sense,” Davis said. “When we’ve had our water tested for uranium in the past, it’s actually below standard.”

The USGS has no specific data on the Fox Hills aquifer near the Centennial Project, and any other studies conducted in the area wouldn’t apply to that spot because each site has its own unique characteristics, said James K. Otton, a USGS geologist specializing in uranium.


Attracting attention

The potential for groundwater contamination beneath in situ leach uranium mines in Colorado has attracted the attention of Denver Water, which in 2008 voiced concern about the mines’ potential impact on groundwater quality while the Legislature was debating House Bill 1161.

The bill, signed into law the same year, requires companies doing in situ leach mining to prevent any mine contaminants from polluting the groundwater beyond the life of the mine.

“It’s essentially a no degradation standard,” said Jim Miller, a water treatment engineer for Denver Water, who testified before the Legislature partly about the agency’s fear that exploitation of uranium mining claims in Park County could pollute the headwaters of one of its primary water sources.

He said the potential for water pollution from in situ leach mines could affect water suppliers across the state.

“There’s a reason for water suppliers to watch this, besides which, we happen to be sitting on the Rocky Mountains, which are full of uranium,” he said.

Read more:
http://www.coloradoan.com/print/article/20100207/NEWS01/2070332/Aquifer-mysteries-hold-key-to-effects-of-uranium-mining

USGS Announces Mineral Research Grants for 2010

Comment:  Why don't they call USGS, Future Mining Corporation of America, we have to pay China for our debts!  Watch out coastal Virginia, they are looking for Phosphate, guess Virginia will continue blowing up her mountains for coal, blow up her hills for uranium and now dig for phosphate at the beach!  Greedy, Greedy America, ruin our land and our health for greedy corporations!

Released: 1/6/2010 7:55:52 AM

Contact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communication
119 National Center
Reston, VA 20192 Jeff Doebrich
Phone: 703-648-6103

Jessica Robertson
Phone: 703-648-6624

New research on a range of minerals important to our economy, national security, and land-use decisions has been funded through grants awarded by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Recipients of the 2010 USGS Mineral Resources External Research Program grants will study copper, lithium, rare earth elements, uranium, and phosphate in the United States. The principal investigators and a brief description of the successful proposals are provided below.

A Technique for Identifying Hidden Copper Resources

John Dilles of Oregon State University will help provide a means to identify potential porphyry copper resources that are concealed from surface exposure. The research will look at the three-dimensional footprint of porphyry copper deposits and define the trends that occur in rocks from a deposit’s center to its margins. This will help in identifying the direction of the deposit’s center based on the nearby geologic characteristics.

Lithium Resources: Important for Alternative Energy Technology

LeeAnn Munk of the University of Alaska, Anchorage, and C. Page Chamberlain of Stanford University will study the formation of lithium resources in brine waters and clays, helping with estimations of resource potential in these environments. Lithium is an increasingly important commodity for alternative energy technology. This research will focus on brine resources at Clayton Valley in southwest Nevada and on clay resources at McDermitt Caldera in north-central Nevada.

Formation of Lithium and Rare-Earth-Element Deposits

Adriana Heimann of East Carolina University will investigate the formation of granitic pegmatite deposits that contain lithium and rare earth elements. Particular focus will be placed on understanding the variability of mineral compositions in barren versus metal-rich deposits. This study is expected to provide a clearer understanding of the conditions under which these types of deposits formed and help in identifying where these deposits may occur.

Uranium Resources in Sandstone

Craig Lundstrom and Thomas Johnson of the University of Illinois will help in understanding the formation of uranium deposits found in sandstone units and provide a means to assess their uranium resource concentration. Research will look at the character of uranium in groundwater to better understand the process that leads to formation of uranium deposits in sandstone. These types of deposits are the most common uranium deposits in the United States, and this study will focus on characterizing current conditions in an active sandstone aquifer system in Texas.

Thomas Monecke and colleagues at the Colorado School of Mines will research the three-dimensional variations in rock compositions found in sandstone-hosted uranium deposits using state-of the-art technology. Research will be conducted at the Lost Creek uranium deposit in south-central Wyoming. Findings are expected to help develop new means to direct exploration and assessment of these deposits.

Hidden Phosphate in Virginia

William Lassetter, Jr., of the Virginia Division of Geology and Mineral Resources will help identify the potential for concealed phosphate resources along Virginia’s coastal plain. Research will look at the characteristics of rock layers in Virginia, and findings are expected to be applicable to identifying the phosphate resource potential along other regions of the eastern U.S. coastal plain.

The USGS Mineral Resources External Research Program invited research proposals that will help ensure a sustainable supply of minerals for the Nation’s future; understand the relationship between minerals, the environment, and public health; provide information to make informed land-use decisions; and deliver mineral information critical to national security. Proposals were accepted from academia, state agencies, industry and other private sector organizations and scientists. For more information visit the Mineral Resources - External Research Program site.

Read more:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2375
http://www.usgs.gov/