US Held Liable for Cleanup Costs at Mining Site Leased to Private Operator
March 17, 2011
In a case with broad implications for hazardous-waste cleanups on federally owned lands, an Idaho federal district court recently held that the U.S. Government had both arranger and operator liability under CERCLA at a site leased to a mining company. Nu-West Mining Inc. v. United States.[1] The court concluded that the Government’s permitting, inspection, and oversight functions at four mines located in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Idaho exposed it to CERCLA liability, and rejected the Government’s argument that it was acting in a merely “regulatory” capacity. The decision potentially gives the US Government – the largest landowner in the country – a share of cleanup costs on leased property throughout the nation.
CERCLA Background
Under CERCLA, a private party or the government may recover response costs arising from the release or threatened release of hazardous substances from four categories of persons, referred to as “potentially responsible parties,” or “PRPs.”[2] Two of these categories were at issue in the Nu-West case: “arrangers” and “operators.” CERCLA imposes liability on arrangers – or “any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise, arranged for disposal or treatment … of hazardous substances,”[3] as well as current and former operators of contaminated facilities.[4]
In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of arranger liability in Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States (“BNSF”).[5] InBNSF, plaintiffs sought to hold a chemical manufacturer who sold a product to a chemical mixing facility liable as an arranger. Although the manufacturer used a third party to transport the chemicals and sold a “useful product,” the manufacturer knew that significant leaks and spills occurred during the transfer of its product to storage on the site. The Ninth Circuit held the manufacturer liable on the theory that it arranged for disposal because it knew spills and leaks were inherent in the transfer process. The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that an entity may only qualify as an arranger “when it takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance.”[6] The Court held that the manufacturer’s “mere knowledge” that spills would occur did not amount to an “intent” to dispose, and emphasized that arranger liability “requires a fact-intensive inquiry that looks beyond the parties’ characterization of the transaction as a ‘disposal’ or ‘sale’ and seeks to discern whether the arrangement was one Congress intended to fall within the scope of CERCLA’s strict-liability provisions.”[7]
Under CERCLA, an operator is circularly defined as “any person … operating [a] facility.”[8] Therefore, interpretation of CERCLA’s operator provisions hinges on the 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decision United States v. Bestfoods.[9] In Bestfoods, the Court held that, to be liable under CERCLA, an operator must “manage, direct, or conduct operations specifically related to pollution, that is, operations having to do with the leakage or disposal of hazardous waste, or decisions about compliance with environmental regulations.”[10] Operator liability attaches if the defendant had authority to control the cause of the contamination at the time of disposal and actually exercised that control.[11]
Factual Background to the Nu-West Decision
Nu-West arose from selenium contamination at four phosphate mines in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Idaho. Beginning in the 1960s, the Government leased mineral rights in the National Forest to various mining companies. Under the twenty-year leases, the Government inspected the mines to monitor environmental conditions, ensure that waste rock was properly disposed, and validate royalty payments. The Government also issued special use permits for the construction of waste rock dumps adjacent to the mine sites.
One of the rock layers within the mines, known as the “middle waste shale,” contained selenium – a naturally occurring element. In an effort to promote re-vegetation, the Government required the companies to cover the waste rock dumps with middle waste shale. The selenium in this waste rock layer leached into the water flowing from beneath the piles, contaminating the site. The contamination was discovered in the 1990s, and Nu-West Mining, Inc. and Nu-West Industries, Inc. (“Nu-West”) incurred approximately $10 million to clean up the sites. Nu-West then filed an action under CERCLA to recover these costs from the Government.
The Court’s Decision
On Nu-West’s partial motion for summary judgment, the court held the Government liable under CERCLA as both an arranger and an operator for the contamination at the four mine sites.
Arranger Liability
The court began with BNSF: an arranger under CERCLA means “someone who ‘takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance.’”[12] Relying on pre-BNSF Ninth Circuit case law, the court refined the arranger definition to include only those entities that had “direct involvement in [the] arrangements” for waste disposal.[13] In this light, the court considered three elements to determine arranger liability – whether the Government: (1) owned the hazardous substance; (2) had the authority to control the disposal of that substance; and (3) exercised some actual control over the disposal of that substance.[14] The court held that the Government had satisfied all three elements.
The court easily disposed of the first two elements: the Government not only owned the source of the hazardous substance (the selenium within the middle waste shale), it also had the authority to control the disposal of mining waste at the dump sites – indeed, “no mining or waste disposal could occur without its approval.”[15] Looking to the third element, the court concluded that the Government had exercised actual control over the disposal (and “showed its intent that disposal take place”), by requiring the lessees to cover the waste dumps with the middle waste shale.[16] In support, the court pointed to the fact that the Government: (1) required lessees to obtain the Government’s approval for their mining, waste disposal, and reclamation plans; and (2) conditioned its approval of mining plans on requiring lessees to perform specific reclamation activities (including covering the waste dumps with a layer of middle waste shale to promote re-vegetation).
The court also rejected the Government’s argument that it should not be held liable because it was “acting in a purely regulatory role.”[17] The Government asserted that it did not have the requisite intent required under BNSF, since it was merely acting to “ensure that the Lessees complied with the law and the terms of their leases, permits, and mine plans that [the Lessees] entered into as a condition of mining on public land.”[18] “Regulatory oversight,” the Government argued, did not equate to “actual control” of the hazardous substances required under CERCLA.[19] Therefore, it could not have taken any “intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance” as BNSF requires.[20] Relying on a pre-BNSF Ninth Circuit decision – United States v. Shell Oil,[21] the court concluded that CERCLA’s broad waiver of sovereign immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 9620(a)(1) exposed the Government to liability even when acting in a regulatory role.[22] On these grounds, the court held the Government liable as an arranger for the mining contamination.
Operator Liability
Likewise, the court had no difficulty holding that the Government had also directly “manage[d], direct[ed], or conduct[ed] operations specifically related to pollution.”[23] “In this case, the record shows conclusively that the Government was managing the design and location of the waste dumps for the four mines.”[24] The court found that the Government participated in decisions regarding waste-dump design, regularly inspected the dumps to ensure compliance with the mining plans and waste disposal guidelines, and directed the lessees to take specific actions at the waste dumps.[25] The court held these actions sufficient as a matter of law to impose CERCLA operator liability on the United States.[26]
Conclusion
Nu-West suggests that, at least in certain circumstances, the Government’s permitting role on federal lands may give rise to operator and/or arranger liability under CERCLA.
For more information on the decision, contact Russell Prugh or any member of Marten Law’s Waste Cleanup practice group.
Radioactive spill at AREVA Uranium mine in Niger
Johannesburg, December 17, 2010 – Greenpeace has today received and verified reports that since December 11th, more than 200,000 litres of radioactive sludge from three cracked waste pools has leaked into the environment at the SOMAIR uranium mine in Niger, operated by French energy company AREVA [1].
Almoustapha Alhacen who carried out an inspection of the spill for NGO Aghir in'Man confirmed to Greenpeace that two hectares have been contaminated by the spill since December 11th.
“This new leakage shows that the bad practices at the AREVA uranium mines in Niger continue to threaten the health and safety of people and the environment”, said Rianne Teule, energy campaigner for Greenpeace Africa. “In contrast to AREVA’s statements claiming their operations comply with international health, safety and environmental standards, this new information shows that AREVA has not sufficiently acted to protect the Nigerien population”.
In May 2010, a Greenpeace report, “Left in the Dust” [2] revealed dangerous contamination levels in the air, water and soil around the AREVA uranium mines in Niger. The report detailed how the people of the mining towns Arlit and Akokan are surrounded by poisoned air, contaminated soil and polluted water. Greenpeace called for a full independent study around the mines and mining towns in Niger followed by a thorough clean up and decontamination.
We will bring you further updates as we get them.
[1] Uranium mining creates large volumes of radioactive and industrial wastes. Leakage of for example the radioactive tailings into the environment can cause serious contamination of the ground water and local wells. When the local water supply gets contaminated with radioactive and other materials, this poses serious health risks for the local population.
The sludge that remains after removal of the uranium from the ore, known as tailings, contains 85% of the initial radioactivity of the ore. Also the chemical agents used in the leaching process, as well as heavy metals and other contaminants like arsenic, are left behind in the tailings. In the uranium mines in Niger, these mining wastes are stored in huge piles, exposed to the open air.
[2] The Greenpeace report: Left in the dust, AREVA’s radioactive legacy in the desert towns of Niger is available for download in English and French
Cotter, clean up your mine
By The Denver Post
Posted: 09/25/2010 01:00:00 AM MD
The Cotter Corp. must not be running for Colorado's corporate citizen of the year award. The company has repeatedly defied state orders to clean up its contaminated uranium mine west of Denver and has refused to pay fines for failing to do so, according to a Denver Post story by Bruce Finley. Uranium-tainted water is rising toward the rim of Cotter's defunct Schwartzwalder mine upstream from a Denver Water reservoir, according to state regulators.
The state has ordered Cotter to pump and treat toxic water filling the mine, northwest of Golden along Ralston Creek. The creek, which flows into Denver Water's Ralston Reservoir, contains uranium levels as high as 310 parts per billion — more than 10 times the health standard for drinking water.
Cotter contends water in the mine shaft is not connected to groundwater, while state mining regulators argue it is connected to both groundwater and the creek. We say, let's not find out the hard way. Cotter needs to step up and do what's right for residents who rely on Denver Water for drinking water.
Read more: Cotter, clean up your mine - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16166754#ixzz11PKxeWyN
Group starts campaign to raise mining industry taxes
RENO — The Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN) filed a petition with the secretary of state Tuesday as part of a campaign to change Nevada law and compel the mining industry to pay higher taxes to alleviate state budget woes.
The coalition is seeking signatures for a petition to get a question on this year’s ballot to require that mining companies contribute more to the state’s general fund out of its gross, or total, revenues rather than from net proceeds, the sum of companies’ earnings after deductions.
“We want to rectify a situation where great wealth is being exploited and taken from our state while a substantial source of revenue we need in this state is being ignored,” PLAN executive director Bob Fulkerson said.
read more... dailysparkstribune.com/pages/full_story/push
Gas Hills Mine, WY
photo courtesy of SkyTruth
Mine Pollutes Water With Uranium
YERINGTON, Nev. (Nov. 21) -- Peggy Pauly lives in a robin-egg blue, two-story house not far from acres of onion fields that make the northern Nevada air smell sweet at harvest time.
But she can look through the window from her kitchen table, just past her backyard with its swingset and pet llama, and see an ominous sign on a neighboring fence: "Danger: Uranium Mine."
Skip over this content
For almost a decade, people who make their homes in this rural community in the Mason Valley 65 miles southeast of Reno have blamed that enormous abandoned mine for the high levels of uranium in their water wells.
They say they have been met by a stone wall from state regulators, local politicians and the huge oil company that inherited the toxic site — BP PLC. Those interests have insisted uranium naturally occurs in the region's soil and there's no way to prove that a half-century of processing metals at the former Anaconda pit mine is responsible for the contamination.
That has changed. A new wave of testing by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that 79 percent of the wells tested north of the World War II-era copper mine have dangerous levels of uranium or arsenic or both that make the water unsafe to drink.
And, more importantly to the neighbors, that the source of the pollution is a groundwater plume that has slowly migrated from the 6-square-mile mine site.
The new samples likely never would have been taken if not for a whistleblower, a preacher's wife, a tribal consultant and some stubborn government scientists who finally helped crack the toxic mystery that has plagued this rural mining and farming community for decades.
"They have completely ruined the groundwater out here," said Pauly, the wife of a local pastor and mother of two girls who organized a community action group five years to seek the truth about the pollution. read more... news.aol.com/article/officials-point-to-uranium-mine-as-water/778556Uranium Mining
"Uranium mines generate wastes in the form of overburden, waste rock and low-grade ore. When exposed to air, the hazardous and radioactive substances native to the rock are oxidized and released to the environment through runoff and wind dispersion. The toxic constituents of mine waste include uranium, arsenic, cadmium, lead, molybdenum and selenium, and the radioactive constituents include uranium, thorium, radium, and lead." Radioactive Waste Management Associates, 2008.
Greenpeace finds radiation
on the streets of Niger
November 26, 2009
Greenpeace has found high radiation contamination levels in the streets of Akokan where children play. What is even more disturbing is that this just year AREVA claimed that those same streets were safe.
In one area Greenpeace tested, the radiation was almost 500 times higher than normal levels.
This is the hidden cost of nuclear power: innocent men, women and children exposed to radiation, exploitation and danger. It’s something you won’t see in the nuclear industry’s glossy brochures and on its impressive websites. read more... AREVA nuclear scandal:
Environmental impacts of mining
"Mining can accelerate the release of metals and radioactive constituents into the environment."
--Source: Mining, Nonpoint Source Management Program, Colorado Department Of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, Prepared in Cooperation with the Colorado Nonpoint Source Council Mining Committee, January 10, 2000, Chapter 5, p.5.
“Environmental impacts from mining are unavoidable, regardless of the level of operational controls.”
--Source: Statement of Chris Shuey; Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands; Natural Resources Committee; U.S. House of Representatives; March 28, 2008
The Church Rock Mining District in New Mexico was heavily mined in the 1950s and 1960s, and again between 1969 and 1983. Nearly 20 mines and 1 uranium mill and tailings facility were located in the district. There was a serious uranium mill tailings spill, in 1979, at the United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) uranium mill. However, more radioactivity was released in nearly 20 years of dewatering of three major underground mines than in the one-time tailings dam breach.(our emphasis). (Wirt, 1994).
Scientist Dr Gordon Edwards stated that “Uranium ore bodies are among the deadliest on earth. They harbour large quantities of dangerous radio-active materials. Exploration and mining activities liberate these poisons into the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat.” Consideration must be given to the fact that a uranium mine releases radon which blankets the ground hundreds of miles downwind as solid radioactive fallout.
The best thing is to leave the uranium where it is. Mining only serves to disturb the radioactive particles of the ore from their relatively safe underground environment and unleash a hazard which is easily dispersed in the environment. There is no safe way of conducting uranium mining. What may look as though it is safe could be detrimental after years of undetected exposure and environmental damage. Read more... www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/04/02/guyana-should-say-no-to-uranium-mining/
EPA to rebuild Uranium-polluted Navajo Homes
Cold War-era contamination may affect more than 500 structures.
Flagstaff, Arizona - The federal government plans to spend up to $3 million a year to demolish and rebuild uranium-contaminated structures across the Navajo Nation, where Cold War-era mining of the radioactive substance left a legacy of disease and death.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its Navajo counterpart are focusing on homes, sheds and other buildings within a half-mile to a mile from a significant mine or waste pile. They plan to assess 500 structures over five years and rebuild those that are too badly contaminated. read more... www.truthout.org/061609EA
Water Contamination as a Result of Mining
"Mine drainage and runoff problems can be extremely complex and solutions are often highly site specific. In many cases, the parties responsible for the pollution and cleanup of these mines no longer exist....This problem can affect local economies by threatening drinking and agricultural water supplies, increasing water treatment costs, and limiting fishing and recreational opportunities." Tesimony of Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate.
Dewatering of Aquifers and Ground Water
Mining operations affect the natural water flows in the area. To keep the mine area from flooding, water flow from nearby aquifers is diverted, and adjacent formations are dewatered.
Powertech, inc., executive testified to Colorado legislature, "We all know that conventional mining dewaters the area and destroys the aquifer," on September 19, 2008.
The True Cost of Mining
In 1998, DOE testified to congress that it would cost approximately $2.3 billion (in 1998 dollar value) to clean up the uranium ore processing facilities nationwide under UMTRCA. Because there are other uranium mines and overburden sites not included in this estimate, the total cost of uranium site cleanup is expected to be much higher than this limited estimate. Read more... www.abandonedmines.gov/wbd_um.html
Another panel recommended to the Government of Canada and the government of British Columbia, that a project not be approved as proposed."In the panel's view, the economic and social benefits provided by the project, on balance, are outweighed by the risks of significant adverse environmental, social and cultural effects, some of which may not emerge until many years after mining operations cease."The panel also warned that in contrast to the short-term benefits from the mine, there would be a environmental management obligations to protect water quality and public safety that "may continue for thousands of years." Taxpayer-funded reclamation is an enormous, hidden subsidy of the mining industry.
Virginia Study
Virginia is conducting a formal study on potential environmental and health effects of uranium mining before lifting the 1983 ban. What is interesting in Virginia --as opposed to Colorado-- is that Republicans are calling for proof that uranium mining won’t contaminate water supplies and endanger the health of people.
“Del. Don Merricks, R-Danville -- urged the panel to hold a hearing in Pittsylvania County. Del. Lee Ware, R-Powhatan County, the subcommittee's chairman, agreed to the request. Merricks said he is keeping an open mind about the issue but will need persuasion to support lifting the moratorium. "I have to be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that mining uranium could be done without any ... adverse effect on our area," Merricks said.”
Having Republicans in Virginia and Democrats in Colorado expressing their concern shows that this is truly a bipartisan issue that transcends political boundaries. Colorado has no such study planned. Read more... www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/187607
Bans on Uranium Mining
NAVAJO NATION PRESIDENT SIGNS BILL BANNING
URANIUM MINING AND MILLING
Crownpoint, N.M., April 29, 2005. Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley, Jr., today signed what is believed to be the first Native American tribal law banning uranium mining and milling. With dozens of community members and dignitaries looking on, Shirley signed the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act (DNRPA) of 2005, which was passed by the Navajo Nation Council by a vote of 63-19 on April 19. As amended by the Council during floor debate, the act states, "No person shall engage in uranium mining and processing on any sites within Navajo Indian Country." The law is based on the Fundamental Laws of the Diné, which are already codified in Navajo statutes. The act finds that based on those fundamental laws, "certain substances in the Earth (doo nal yee dah) that are harmful to the people should not be disturbed, and that the people now know that uranium is one such substance, and therefore, that its extraction should be avoided as traditional practice and prohibited by Navajo law."
Read more... www.sric.org/uranium/
BHP considers export of unsmelted Olympic Dam copper / uranium concentrate to China
In view of China's expected serious over-capacity of copper processing, BHP Billiton has asked the federal Government to approve the export of uranium-bearing copper concentrate to China. BHP's next chief executive, Marius Kloppers, met Industry Minister Ian MacFarlane to signal a formal request to directly ship up to 1.2 million tonnes of Olympic Dam copper concentrate a year, rather than convert the ore into metal at the mine site.
The idea means that BHP would be, by stealth, selling uranium directly to China, which is why the company needs to secure federal endorsement. The export copper concentrate would contain relatively low levels uranium. But even at the expected 0.01 per cent to 0.15 per cent concentrations, BHP would still be shipping up to 2500 tonnes of uranium to Chinese smelters each year.
read more... www.wise-uranium.org/umopauod.html
Hard Rock Mining Reform
The General Mining Law of 1872 promotes the development of western lands. The law waives royalties on extracted minerals and sells public land at between $2.50 and $5.00 per acre to mining corporations. This unfettered giveaway has left behind more than half a million abandoned hardrock mines that will cost taxpayers a conservatively-estimated $32 billion to clean up. Read more...
To update this relic, Congressman Nick Rahall has introduced The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009,
End the giveaway of public lands.
Require a minimal 8% royalty on net smelter return.
Require the hard rock mining industry to comply with basic environmental reclamation standards.
Create a fund to reclaim and restore land and water resources harmed by past mineral activities.
Requiring the mining industry to pay for the cleanup of its own mess.
Allow the public to retain ownership over the land leased to mining companies and protect it from unreasonable degradation.
The Case for 1872 Mining Law Reform
"Enticed by soaring prices in recent years for gold, silver, copper and uranium, mining companies have been filing claims at a record clip. But the General Mining Law of 1872, which governs them, is as flimsy as ever."
2009 Press Releases: New Bingaman Mining Legislation Would Bring Tens of Thousands of Jobs to Rural Communities
Senate Mining Reform Initiative Would Bring Bring 19th Century Law into 21st
Washington, D.C., 04/02
-- Today, for the first time in over a decade, the Senate is moving forward with reform of one of the most archaic policies governing our public lands. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has introduced S. 796, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009, to regulate the mining of hardrock minerals -- like gold, copper and uranium -- on public lands. This bill will create jobs and provide economic opportunities for rural communities while cleaning up a massive legacy of toxic mining pollution. Read more...
www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/opinion/23mon2.html
earthworksaction.org/PR_S796.cfmuserfiles/file//DrLowry-Uraniumexploitationandenvironmentalracism3-25-09.pdf
www.worc.org/Hardrock-mining/
US lawmakers warned about uranium mining
February 28, 2009
Australian aborigines, a French physicist and a US actor joined representatives of indigenous peoples from Africa and the United States on Friday to send US lawmakers a stark warning about the dangers of uranium mining.
"We want US lawmakers to understand that uranium mining is highly pollutant and that there is currently no scientific answer to the question of radioactive waste containment," said Bruno Chareyron of France's CRIIRAD laboratory, which measures radioactivity in the environment.
"We want them to know that the information they are given by the mining companies is not wholly reliable," he said.
read more... news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/us-lawmakers-warned-about-uranium-mining-20090228-8kuy.html
In-Situ-Leach Recovery - aka: Solution Mining
www.nunnglow.com/impacts/
| In-Situ Leaching (ISL) Impacts |
 |
|
Spills, Leaks, and Excursions are Common Hazards of In-Situ Uranium Mining
Cameco Corporation owns the Highland Smith In-Situ Leaching plant located in the Powder River Basin near Douglas and Glenrock, Wyoming. It is the largest uranium production facility in the United States, employing about 140 people. Cameco's website proclaims mining at Smith Ranch-Highland “uses environment-friendly in-situ recovery (ISR) mining technique to extract uranium” and the Smith Ranch facility "employs state-of-the-art technology." (Editor's Note: In-Situ Leaching and In-Situ Recovery refer to the same process.)
Despite using “state-of-the-art technology,” the environment-friendly Smith Ranch received 42 license violations involving surface spills and leaks from December 31, 1999 through May 21, 2007 (WISE - World Information Service on Energy - Uranium Project). On March 10, 2008 Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (LQD) issued a Notice of Violation to Power Resources, Inc. (PRI) a wholly owned subsidiary of Cameco Corp for numerous deficiencies at their Smith Ranch-Highland Uranium Project. The seriousness of these deficiencies is apparent by LQD’s section on Reclamation Cost/Bonding: “Considering that reclamation will take several times longer, require at least twice the staff with higher wages and require much greater investments in infrastructure than PRI has estimated, a realistic reclamation cost estimate for this site would likely be on the order of $150 million, as compared to PRI's current calculation of $38,772,800. PRI is presently bonded for a total of only $38,416,500. No bond adjustments have been made since 2002. Clearly the public is not protected.” (For more information, see Wyoming In Situ Leach Uranium Mines Violated State Law).
|
| Read more... |
In-Situ-Leach Recovery is a mining technique being utilized by the industry to extract the Uranium mineral from underground deposits. The process is touted as being benign to the environment; but instead ,has its own unique set of impacts which can leave behind contamination that will spread for generations to come. ISL mining is accomplished through the injection of solutions into an ore-body to recover the mineral desired. In the case of Uranium recovery two types of solution may be used depending on the geologic makeup of the ore-body.
"The nuclear fuel cycle is a mixture of industrial processes. Initially, solution mining that produces the uranium feedstock is an industrial process similar to well drilling in the petroleum industry and it has similar hazards of drilling and pumping fluid. Purifying the uranium solution by solvent extraction is a chemical treatment process similar to different types of ore purification performed in other industries and has the hazards inherent with chemical process plants." Read more...
The permitting process of an ISL Mine is different from a conventional mining operation. An ISL mine is also considered to be a "Mill" by definition, because it processes the ore-body in place (in-situ). This makes the permitting process more involved as it must go through a review process by several more agencies.
Contamination can occur during solution mining
See the link below to review the Beverly Mine Violations
www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/20540/beverley_reporting.pdf
Cleanup set for uranium-tainted water at closed Jeffco mine
Posted: 06/15/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Operators of a defunct uranium mine accused by the state of contaminating groundwater and a nearby creek have agreed to begin a cleanup by the end of July.
"We intend to comply to the best of our ability," Cotter Corp. vice president John Hamrick said.
Cotter will pump and treat tainted water from inside its Schwartzwalder mine in Jefferson County, then seek a state permit before releasing treated water back into Ralston Creek, Hamrick said.
Uranium levels in water found in the mine's 2,000-foot shaft exceed the human-health standard by more than 1,000 times. Uranium levels in the creek, which flows into Denver Water's Ralston Reservoir, have reached 390 parts per billion — 13 times higher than the 30 ppb health standard.
Cotter was responding to a cease-and-desist order issued June 1 by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Fines as high as $10,000 per day could be imposed. Cotter officials and state regulators have been negotiating.
Colorado Department of Natural Resources mining regulators sent Cotter a separate notice saying they have reason to believe Cotter has failed to comply with permit requirements designed to protect the environment.
State regulators have pressed to get the company to pump and treat the toxic water in the mine.
"We're in the process of establishing that system," Hamrick said. State officials "have given us until July 31. We expect to have it by that date or before," he said.
State health-agency water-quality regulators could not be reached for comment Monday.
"Discussion of possible penalties will not take place until after Cotter has ceased its unauthorized discharge or a clear path to resolution is identified and accepted . . .," agency spokesman Mark Salley said.
State mining regulators weren't aware of Cotter's response, CDNR spokesman Theo Stein said. "It's the top priority for the division of reclamation, mining and safety to get this resolved," Stein said.
Residents of Denver, Arvada and the North Table Mountain Water and Sanitation District depend on the reservoir for drinking water. Municipal-water providers say their filtration systems remove uranium but aren't designed specifically for this. Denver Water and others have been urging a swift cleanup.
Cotter acquired the Schwartzwalder mine in 1965. Located northwest of Golden, it produced more than 16 million tons of uranium for nuclear weapons and power plants. The mine closed in 2000, and water-treatment facilities were dismantled.
A state mining inspector reported the contamination in 2007. Neither Cotter nor state regulators notified water providers.
Cotter's Hamrick said negotiations with state regulators include discussion of bond money the company must post to ensure contamination could be removed if Cotter abandoned the site. Cotter and state officials still disagree over groundwater links to the mine.
Environmental advocates lauded regulators for insisting that toxic water be treated, Environment Colorado spokesman Matt Garrington said.
"The next step," he said, "is to get a long-term plan in place to ensure that this mine does not become a problem in the future."
PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release:
Friday, May 21st, 2010
Contact:
Matthew Garrington, (720) 206-4348
JeffCo uranium mine decision draws praise
Local officials and advocates laud mining division for requiring Cotter to take immediate action to clean up water at Schwartzwalder uranium mine
Denver – Uranium pollution contaminating Ralston Creek will see immediate clean-up take place thanks to strong action by the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety.
In a letter released late yesterday, the mining division required the Cotter Corporation to begin active water treatment at its Schwartzwalder uranium mine just west of Arvada by July 31st and rejected Cotter’s proposed cleanup plan for failing to adequately protect water quality.
“The mining division took bold and decisive action to protect our drinking water,” said Jefferson County Commissioner Kathy Hartman. “I am pleased to see immediate action to protect Ralston Reservoir.”
News broke last month that uranium levels had exceeded 1,400 times Colorado water quality standards at the Cotter mine. Uranium pollution in Ralston Creek itself is more than 13 times state standards.
Matt Garrington, program advocate with Environment Colorado and Jefferson County resident, has been advocating for swift action to clean-up the mine. “Thousands of people depend on clean water from Ralston Reservoir, and we can’t afford for Cotter to drag its feet cleaning up their mess,” said Garrington. “The mining division deserves praise for taking strong action.”
The mining division made the following requirements of Cotter at the Schwartzwalder uranium mine:
· reinitiate active water treatment by July 31st,
· update bonding provisions for clean up,
· increase water quality monitoring, and
· revise its Environmental Protection Plan according to extensive feedback by August 1st.
In public comments, Denver Water and the City of Arvada both criticized Cotter’s attempts to rely on the water providers to treat the contamination and called on Cotter to instead implement its own active water treatment for clean up. Denver Water wrote that if Cotter is not required to clean up its own pollution the “financial impact to Denver Water customers could be enormous” for modifying existing municipal water treatment plants to handle additional uranium contamination clean up.
Cotter is bonded at just over $104,000 because its last proposal in 2003 included no plans for water treatment.
Denver Water noted that not all water is treated which flows through Ralston Creek, which means that uranium contamination from Cotter’s mine could reach Clear Creek and eventually the Platte River.
Addition information:
After a mining project is licensed and proceeds, the actual characteristics of the mine can change. Underground mining can be abandoned for cheaper open-pit mining. The mine may move into sulfide ores with acid mine drainage problems. The water regime discovered may be different from that originally projected. The decontamination of the waste material may be more difficult and less complete than claimed. The containment of toxic chemicals and pollutants may be incomplete. The fact is that in order to get a permit, most mines must demonstrate on paper that they will avoid pollution problems. The actual performance of those mines, however, almost always involves substantial pollution and near-permanent surface disturbance. Despite this fact, each new mine asserts that this time and that this particular mine will have no significant environmental problems. Such projections of pollution-free mining are rarely realized. A recent analysis of metal mine performance in the US has documented this. The study focused on the 183 large mines for which environmental impact statements were prepared since 1975. For a representative sample of these mines, the study compared the projections of water quality with actual water quality once the mine was operating. For 84 percent of the mines, actual pollution violated the water quality standards the mines were required to meet. Of these failing mines, 44 percent had mischaracterized the geochemical characteristics of the ores (e.g., sulfide content), 24 percent had mischaracterized the hydrology of the mining area, and 64 percent had been overly optimistic about the adequacy of their mitigation strategies to control water pollution.
The remainder of this page is under construction. Please check back for updates.
(Text)
Deep Hard-Rock (Shaft) Mining
(Explanation of the process)
Open Pit (Strip) Mining
(Explanation of the process)
(Blasting, drilling, conveyance systems)
(Explained)
(Text)
Ore Crushing
(Text)
Overburden Storage
(Text)
Tailings
(Text)
(Text)
De-Watering
(Explained)
Water Diversion
(Text)
De-Watering Wells
(Text)
Retention Ponds and Pit Lakes
(Text)
Evaporation Loss
(Text)
Water Usage
(Explained)
Ore Processing
(Text)
Dust Control
(Text)
(Text)
(Text)
Assuming environmental damage away
|
.png)
