Grand Canyon at Risk Uranium Mining Doesn’T Belong Near Our National Treasures Grand Canyon at Risk Uranium Mining Doesn’T Belong Near Our National Treasures

Grand Canyon at Risk Uranium Mining Doesn’t Belong Near Our National Treasures Grand Canyon at Risk Uranium Mining Doesn’t Belong Near Our National Treasures

Environment Virginia Rob Kerth, Jordan Schneider, and Elizabeth Ridlington, Frontier Group Anna Aurilio, Environment America Research & Policy Center

Summer 2011 Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Lauren Pagel, Legislative Coordinator with Earthworks, and Dusty Horwitt, Senior Counsel with Environmental Working Group, for their insight- ful comments on drafts of this report. Thanks also to Tony Dutzik and Travis Madsen of Frontier Group for editorial assistance.

The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of Environment Virginia. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.

We all want clean air, clean water and open spaces. But it takes independent research and tough-minded advocacy to win concrete results for our environment, especially when powerful interests stand in the way of environmental progress. That’s the idea behind Environment Virginia. We focus exclusively on protecting Virginia’s air, water and open spaces. We speak out and take action at the local, state and national levels to improve the quality of our environment and our lives. For more information or to download additional copies of this report, please visit www.environmentvirginia.org.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org.

Cover photo: Robin Silver Photography Design and Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 Introduction 4 The Grand Canyon Is a Uniquely Valuable Natural Place 5 Mining Has Competed with Tourism for Use of the Grand Canyon 7 Uranium Mining Is a Dirty, High-Risk Activity 10 Uranium Mining Involves Dangerous Substances 10 Mining Damages the Environment 11 Each Uranium Mining and Processing Technique Poses Risks 13 Uranium Mining Has a Track Record of Environmental Contamination 14 Arizona: Fouled Streams, Damaged Aquifers, and Toxic Dirt Piles 15 New Mexico: A Giant Spill and an Ongoing Cleanup 17 The Atlas Mill at Moab: 16 Million Tons of Radioactive Rubble 18 Colorado: Poisoned Well Water and Sick Residents 19 Policy Recommendations 21 Notes 23

Executive Summary

ranium mining—which often re- • Contaminated water can leak from quires vast open pits, spreads radio- mines or tailings piles, potentially en- Uactive dust through the air, and leaks tering groundwater or nearby streams radioactivity and toxic chemicals into the and transporting contamination away environment—is among the riskiest indus- from the mine. Contaminated water trial activities in the world. Every uranium that enters municipal water sup- mine ever operated in the United States plies can threaten the health of large has required some degree of toxic waste numbers of people. Mining near the cleanup, and the worst have sickened doz- Colorado River, which flows through ens of people, contaminated miles of rivers the Grand Canyon, threatens the and streams, and required the cleanup of drinking water supplies of millions hundreds of acres of land. of people in cities like Phoenix, Los After several decades of reduced activity Angeles, and Las Vegas. due to depressed prices, uranium mining is making a comeback—including on the • Airborne uranium dust threatens the edges of one of our nation’s most treasured health of miners and nearby residents; wild places, the Grand Canyon. if inhaled, it can cause lung cancer. Uranium mining has left a toxic trail across the West—including at the Grand • Tailings – the waste rock and dirt left Canyon itself. To protect this national trea- over once uranium extraction and sure, and the millions of people who visit milling are complete—are 85 per- it each year, mining should be prohibited cent as radioactive on average as the on land near Grand Canyon National Park, original ore and contain other toxic and other treasured places. chemicals such as arsenic. Tailings Uranium mining is risky for miners, piles can make mine sites permanently local residents and the environment. hazardous and leach toxic substances Mines can release uranium itself—a dan- into the environment. gerous radioactive substance—or toxic chemicals used in the mining process.

Executive Summary 1 Uranium mining and processing has Park contributes $686 million to left a toxic trail across the West—in- Northern Arizona’s economy every cluding at the Grand Canyon itself. year, supporting nearly 12,000 jobs.

• Four streams in Arizona’s Grand • The Colorado River, which provides Canyon National Park suffer from drinking water for 25 million people some degree of uranium contamina- downstream, runs through the Grand tion after mining activity occurred in Canyon and draws water from the the area. area’s springs and streams.

• In New Mexico, a 1979 dam break Uranium mining is incompatible released radioactive wastewater from with the preservation of the Grand a New Mexico uranium mill into the Canyon as a treasured ecosystem and Little Colorado River, releasing more natural wonder. The Obama adminis- radiation than was released in the tration should act to protect the Grand Three Mile Island nuclear power plant Canyon from the threat of uranium accident into downstream waterways. mining.

• In Utah, workers are still cleaning up • Extend the moratorium on new 16 million tons of contaminated tail- mining claims near the Grand ings at the site of one of the nation’s Canyon. In June of 2011, Interior first mines in Moab. Secretary Ken Salazar extended a moratorium on new mining claims • In Colorado, residents of Lincoln near the canyon—in place since Park, a small community near a ura- 2009—through December 2011. The nium mill, have had to stop drinking Obama administration should finalize well water because of contamination its preferred alternative and ban new from the mill’s old tailings pools, and claims within a one million acre area suffered health consequences from near the canyon for the next 20 years, uranium and other toxic substances in while pursuing permanent protection. their water. • Reform mining laws to allow regu- Grand Canyon National Park is a lators to deny permission to mine uniquely valuable place and ecosystem. where significant natural places or human health are at risk. The 1872 • The Grand Canyon is a unique natural General Mining Law, which cur- wonder—one of the world’s deepest rently governs mining on federal land and widest canyons, home to spectac- through a very limited permitting ular views, great biological diversity, process, is too lax in granting mining and a unique geologic record. companies the right to stake and develop claims. Most federal land is con- • 4.2 million people visit Grand Canyon sidered open for mining by default, National Park every year, making it and regulators lack sufficient power to the second most visited park in the weigh the costs and benefits of mining National Park System, and the most against other possible uses of the land. visited park west of the Mississippi. Mining should be placed on an even footing with recreation and other land • Tourism to Grand Canyon National uses by allowing regulators to make a

Grand Canyon at Risk balanced evaluation of the best use of should cover all foreseeable reclama- federal lands. tion activities, as well as insurance against accidents that would signifi- • Require uranium mining companies cantly raise cleanup costs. Addition- to clean up contamination. Uranium ally, companies should not be allowed companies should be required to post to place mines on “standby” without enough money to cover the full cost cleaning them up sufficiently to pre- of reclamation at mine and mill sites vent the spread of contamination. before beginning operations. Costs

Executive Summary 3 Introduction

he hike from the Grand Canyon Mine—the creek is too contaminated with National Park headquarters to the uranium. THermit’s Rest Overlook is one of the Most Americans do not think of Grand most beautiful in America. Incredible views Canyon National Park as a mining site. greet hikers the entire way as the trail hugs Yet, for years, uranium was mined within the canyon’s rim, looking out over the mas- the park’s borders—leaving scars that will sive gorge down to the Colorado River. remain for years to come. At one point, however, the trail cuts The Grand Canyon is not the only place away from the canyon. There, behind a in the West scarred by uranium mining. rusty fence, sits the remnants of what was Indeed, uranium mines and processing once one of the nation’s biggest sources of facilities have left a toxic trail across the uranium, the Orphan Mine. After sitting West—harming both the natural environ- abandoned for decades, the mine’s build- ment and human health. ings were recently removed, but the ground With rising uranium prices driving around the site remains too contaminated mining companies to pursue the resump- for visitors to enter. tion of mining activity in the West, it is Hiking down from Hermit’s Rest into a good time to review the toxic legacy of the canyon, hikers can turn onto the Tonto uranium mining. That legacy demonstrates Trail, a popular hiking trail that runs right that uranium mining is utterly incompat- through the middle of the canyon. Tower- ible with the preservation of the Grand ing limestone walls line the right side of Canyon as a healthy ecosystem and natural the trail, while the Colorado River passes wonder. by 1,000 feet below and to the left. Hikers Americans have long fought to pre- using the Tonto trail fill their water bottles serve our national parks for ourselves and from creeks that spill down from springs future generations to enjoy. The time has in the canyon walls to eventually join up come once again to defend Grand Can- with the Colorado. They don’t, however, yon National Park by keeping uranium drink from Horn Creek, which emerges mining activity far away from the park’s from the rock near the site of the Orphan boundaries.

Grand Canyon at Risk The Grand Canyon Is a Uniquely Valuable Natural Place

he Grand Canyon is unlike anything Great Smoky Mountains National Park, else on earth. Its scale—277 river miles which sits much nearer to major population in length, over a mile deep in places, centers on the East Coast, received more T 4 and more than 15 miles across at its widest visitors. The park draws visitors from point—places it among the largest canyons throughout the world. In 2004, a survey in existence. Its geological value—three found that park visitors included citizens of the four eras of geologic time are from all 50 states. Additionally, 17 percent represented by the canyon’s rocks—is of park visitors had come from at least 41 unique.1 The canyon contains remarkable different foreign countries.5 biodiversity. The sharp change in elevation The Grand Canyon’s status as an inter- along its walls allows different climates and national tourist destination makes it a pow- ecosystems to exist in close proximity, and erful economic force in Arizona. It draws the canyon and its surroundings contain millions of visitors to nearby towns like three of the four types of desert that exist in Flagstaff every year, providing business North America, and five of the continent’s for local hotels, motels, and restaurants. In seven ecological zones. 2 The canyon is 2004, tourism at Grand Canyon National renowned for its spectacular views, and has Park created an estimated $686 million of been a tourist attraction since the late 19th economic activity in the northern Arizona century. Theodore Roosevelt, after visit- region, supporting nearly 12,000 jobs.6 The ing the canyon in 1903, made it a national broader region surrounding the canyon monument in 1908; it became a national benefits as well; many visitors to Grand park in 1919.3 Canyon National Park make their visit part Grand Canyon National Park, which of a larger tour of attractions in Arizona contains the canyon and much of its sur- and the Southwest. Other nearby national rounding forest and desert, is today one of parks and attractions as far away as Las the most-visited natural attractions in the Vegas also receive a large amount of tourist world. Nearly 4.4 million people visited traffic from visitors to the park.7 Tourism Grand Canyon in 2010, making it the is Arizona’s single largest source of out- second-most visited national park. Only of-state revenue, with the Grand Canyon

The Grand Canyon Is a Uniquely Valuable Natural Place 5 accounting for more than 10 percent of river, which drains large portions of seven total visits to the state.8 states. 9 Any toxic releases or accidents that Beyond the value of the canyon itself, damaged the quality of the Colorado as a the Colorado River, which flows through drinking water source would have severe it, is one of the primary water sources for consequences for the residents of Califor- the southwestern states. 25 million people nia, Arizona, and Nevada. derive their drinking water from the

Grand Canyon at Risk Mining Has Competed with Tourism for Use of the Grand Canyon

arly in its history, the Grand Canyon on the world uranium market drove them was explored as a mining site as well to shut down. Eas a tourist attraction. Prospectors Mining companies are interested in began to visit the area soon after the 1872 the Grand Canyon area because the land General Mining Act threw open almost all around the canyon contains some of the federal lands to mineral exploration and highest-grade uranium deposits in the extraction. The canyon and its surround- country. Commercially viable uranium ings contain a variety of mineral deposits. deposits can be 1 percent uranium or less, The first decade of the 20th century saw a but the Orphan Mine produced shipments few successful efforts at developing copper composed of as much as 4.9 percent urani- and asbestos mines. Most miners, however, um, and individual samples tested as high as failed to earn much money at their chosen 80 percent uranium.16 This high-grade ore trade. As time went on, some early min- is a consequence of geological formations ers abandoned mining and established known as breccia pipes—underground themselves as tour guides instead, helping columns of loose rock glued together by a transform the canyon from a site of extrac- cement-like matrix. The Grand Canyon’s tive industry to a tourist attraction.10 breccia pipes formed much like sinkholes: The last mineral to inspire major min- underground erosion of limestone created ing efforts in the Grand Canyon area was a space that was filled over time by other uranium—a radioactive element used in rocks and minerals. Over time, uranium nuclear weapons and as fuel for nuclear from rocks and minerals in the breccia power plants. Uranium was found at the pipes has been concentrated into the min- Orphan Mine—an inactive copper mine— eral uraninite. Mining of these deposits in 1951, and that mine produced high grade takes place through deep shaft mines. ore between 1956 and 1969. Other finds fol- At the same time, the Grand Canyon’s lowed, and several mines operated outside uranium resources compose only an in- the park in the Arizona Strip, north of the significant portion of the nation’s overall canyon, up until the 1980s, when low prices uranium resources. The lands proposed

Mining Has Competed with Tourism for Use of the Grand Canyon 7 The 1872 Mining Law

ardrock mining near the Grand Canyon, as on other public lands, is governed Hby the General Mining Law of 1872. That law, passed with the intent of speed- ing the settlement of the American West by encouraging individuals to prospect for minerals on federal land, has governed the establishment of mining claims and the management of mineral deposits for more than a century.11 At its heart, the law allows anyone to establish mining rights over any suspected mineral deposit on federal land. The law also allows miners or mining companies to purchase the land surrounding a proven claim for $2.50 to $5.00 per acre—a process known as patenting.12 Congress put a moratorium on new applications to patent mining claims in 1994, but patenting could resume at some time in the future.13 Miners or mining companies have broad discretion to carry out mining activities on land near their claims. The Bureau of Land Management needs to approve a plan of operations before mining operations can take place, which it must do unless it finds that the plan would result in “unnecessary or undue degradation of federal lands.”14 Miners are required to post bonds to cover the expected cost of remediating mine sites, but those costs may be underestimated, and the Government Account- ability Office has expressed concerns that the agencies regulating mines have failed to examine environmental risks and cleanup costs closely enough in the past.15

for withdrawal near the canyon contain new claims or applied for permits to ex- only 12 percent of Arizona’s recoverable plore potential mine sites for uranium. uranium resources.17 As of January 2003, there were only 10 No new mines have opened near the claims within five miles of Grand Canyon canyon since the 1980s, but sites like the National Park.20 By June 2011, there were Orphan Mine—now a fenced-off cleanup 3,500 claims in the area proposed for with- site on the canyon’s rim—remain from drawal by the Department of the Interior.21 the canyon’s uranium boom.18 As the price Mining companies have been moving to of uranium has risen in the past decade, develop uranium mines at some of those mining companies have again turned their claims; in January 2008, the Forest Service attention toward the possibility of staking approved a request by VANE Minerals, a claims near the Grand Canyon. British mining company, to explore 39 sites The price of uranium greatly increased near the canyon for uranium potential. 22 in recent years, rising from a little over $10 The first mothballed mine to reopen per pound in 2001 to $60 in 2008—with near the canyon was the Arizona I mine, spot market prices even higher, up to $136 operated by the Toronto-based company per pound—and declining slightly since Denison Mines. Denison also plans to then.19 In response, mining companies reopen another two of its 1980s-era mines, prepared for the resumption of mining. the Pinenut and Canyon mines.23 Several companies that explored claims Interior Secretary Ken Salazar imposed and began to develop mines in the 1980s a two-year halt to uranium exploration and applied for permits to resume operations staking of new claims on one million acres at those sites. Other companies have filed around the Grand Canyon in July 2009.24

Grand Canyon at Risk He has since extended that moratorium The bureau of land management has through the end of 2011 to allow time for stated that ore from mines near the Grand further study.25 Canyon would most likely be shipped to Should the moratorium on new min- Utah for processing at the White Mesa ing sites at the canyon be lifted, uranium uranium mill in Blanding, Utah. 28 It is mining is likely to resume near the Grand possible, however, that under the right Canyon on a scale much greater than that economic circumstances—such as high previously seen. A draft environmental fuel costs, which raise the cost of transport- impact study by the Bureau of Land Man- ing ore to distant processing sites, and the agement predicted that mining compa- opening of a large enough number of mines nies would explore 278 sites, and actually near the canyon to support local processing mine at 30 sites, if the moratorium is fully infrastructure—a uranium mill dedicated lifted.26 Operating this many mines near to serving the mines in the canyon area the canyon would require the construc- could open nearby. If such a mill opens, the tion of 22 miles of roads and power lines, threat to the canyon area would be greatly and disturb approximately 1,350 acres of increased by the long-term storage of toxic land—primarily north of the canyon.27 waste near the facility.

The Kanab North Uranium Mine, sited along Kanab Creek and just north of the Grand Canyon, opened in the 1980s. Credit: Don Bills, USGS

Mining Has Competed with Tourism for Use of the Grand Canyon 9 Uranium Mining Is a Dirty, High-Risk Activity

ranium mining is an inherently risky Uranium Mining Involves activity. Uranium, the chemicals Uused to extract it, and many of the Dangerous Substances substances commonly released through Uranium mining and processing release a the process of mining it, are toxic or ra- number of toxic substances. These include dioactive. Rocks and dirt removed from radioactive elements, heavy metals, and mines and processed to extract uranium other toxic substances. become toxic waste; tools and equipment used in the mining and milling process Radioactive Elements eventually become radioactive; water that Radioactivity comes in several forms, all of filters through mines or tailings becomes which damage cells and DNA. Electromag- contaminated; even dirt from the ground netic radiation—gamma rays or x-rays— surrounding uranium facilities becomes can travel through the air and harm people a toxic hazard when whipped up by the who spend time near a radiation source.29 wind. Alpha and beta radiation—particles emit- Some of the threats—such as those from ted from atomic nuclei—cannot travel very mining—pose a direct threat to the Grand far but do severe damage to cells if they Canyon area. Other threats—such as those are released from within the body, which from milling and tailings storage—pose a can happen after a person drinks contami- greater threat to communities elsewhere nated water or inhales contaminated dust.30 in the West, but may affect the Grand Acute exposure—likely only in the case Canyon as well if mining is accompanied of severe radioactive accidents—results in by the development of a local processing immediate sickness, and possibly death.31 infrastructure. The risks that uranium Longer term exposure raises the risk of mining, milling, and storage pose to wa- cancer and other illnesses, such as anemia ter supplies would threaten the Colorado and cataracts. River, and the downstream water supplies Uranium itself is radioactive, but a of millions of people larger portion of the radioactivity in uranium ore comes from other elements,

10 Grand Canyon at Risk which means that the waste from uranium functions, causing gastrointestinal illness, mining remains radioactive even after the nervous system damage, cancer, and other uranium has been removed.32 As radioac- ailments.37 These substances will pose a tive elements break down, they produce threat near the canyon if a mill is opened other elements—including radon, which there, or at whatever location is used for can cause lung cancer. Radon is a radioac- milling. tive gas that can escape from waste piles and travel through the air, spreading the risk of radioactive exposure over a wider area.33 Radioactivity declines over time, but Mining Damages the some elements decay so slowly that radioactivity remains a health threat for Environment generations. Producing uranium is a complicated and la- bor-intensive process, involving extracting Heavy Metals and purifying ores that may contain only a Rock that contains uranium may also con- tiny fraction of uranium. Large amounts of tain toxic heavy metals. The most familiar rock are excavated, soaked with chemicals, toxic heavy metal is lead, a substance that and eventually disposed of. can impair the mental and physical development of young children.34 Lead can Water Filtration Through Mines leach out of uranium mining and milling and Tailings wastes and escape into the environment, as Mining uranium ore exposes the ore and can a number of other heavy metals. Many the rocks that surround it to the air and of those metals cause problems similar to weather. Though ore may contain as little those caused by lead, in addition to other as 0.1% uranium, once exposed to the harms. Molybdenum, for instance, causes air, the uranium oxidizes and becomes joint and respiratory problems in adults water-soluble, allowing it to leach into as well as threatening the development of groundwater.38 Other toxic substances fetuses and children. 35 can also leach out of tailings and mines.39 Water filtering through tailings or mines Other Toxic Chemicals can carry the toxic and radioactive contents In addition to radioactive elements and of these waste materials into the broader heavy metals, uranium mining and mill- environment, putting nearby water sup- ing use or release a range of other toxic plies at risk. chemicals. Sulfuric acid—which is the most The risk that contamination could enter common chemical used to leach uranium the Colorado River and threaten drinking out of ore at in-situ leaching mines, heap- water supplies has raised concern among leaching piles, or uranium mills—can the agencies responsible for providing burn skin and cause illness at high levels of water to major cities downstream. The exposure.36 Selenium—an element that the agencies responsible for the drinking water body needs in very small doses, but which supplies of Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los can accumulate and interfere with hor- Angeles have all registered their opposi- mone synthesis, interfere with the immune tion to expanded uranium mining near the system, cause liver damage, and even result canyon, noting that a worst-case scenario in death in larger doses—escapes from involving uranium contamination could ore alongside uranium, as does arsenic, a threaten the water supply of the entire poison that interferes with important cell drought-prone region.40

Mining Is a Dirty, High-Risk Activity 11 Release of Tailings the cleanup of the Atlas tailings pile near Tailings are mine or mill waste contain- Moab, Utah, for instance, water spraying is ing processed ore, chemicals used in pro- required to prevent dust from escaping the cessing, and other contaminated liquids site.44 Uranium sites that are abandoned or or debris. Tailings are stored in piles or temporarily shut down without being fully ponds near uranium facilities. Because remediated—like the Kanab North mine uranium accounts for such a small portion site near the Grand Canyon—can become of the material in ore, uranium mines can large-scale sources of radioactive dust.45 If generate extremely large amounts of tail- inhaled, that dust can increase the risk of ings—up to 99.9 percent of the original lung cancer; it can also blow into streams or volume of ore. Sulfuric acid, commonly onto nearby ground, spreading radioactive used to extract uranium from tailings, also contamination.46 breaks molybdenum, vanadium, selenium, iron, lead and arsenic out of the ore, en- Land Disruption abling those substances to pollute water Land disruption is one of the most visible passing through the tailings.41 Even after and severe impacts of the mining process, uranium extraction, mill tailings contain although it would be less significant for 5-10 percent of the original uranium, and mines near the Grand Canyon than it is at all of the other radioactive elements that many other uranium sites. were present in the original ore; in total, Open pit mines, from which about 25 tailings are 85 percent as radioactive on percent of the world’s uranium is drawn, average as the original ore from which they require the excavation of large areas of were derived. 42 ground.47 These mines produce large vol- Accidents involving mine or mill tailings umes of waste rock, which does not contain can result in environmental contamination a commercially viable level of uranium and damage to public health. The Church but must be removed for the purpose of Rock Mine disaster, in which a tailings pond accessing ore. Waste rock may contain at a New Mexico uranium mill broke open, elevated levels of uranium compared to left miles of river so contaminated with ura- ordinary rock and is typically stored near nium that water in the area is still unsafe to the mine site.48 drink decades later. Even smaller spills can Even underground mines or in-situ do serious damage. When a single truck leaching operations (in which chemicals carrying ore overturned in a flash flood at are injected into the ground to dissolve the Hack Canyon mine north of the Grand uranium and allow it to be pumped to the Canyon, the resulting spill contaminated a surface) require a footprint—about 20 acres watershed severely enough to necessitate for underground mines of the sort that long-term warnings against drinking from would be used near the Grand Canyon.49 one of the Grand Canyon’s streams.43 Radioactive dust and debris can render the area around the mine unsafe even after the Airborne Radioactive Dust mine closes, as has occurred at the Orphan Bringing radioactive material above ground Mine on the rim of the Grand Canyon. exposes it to wind as well as floods and spills. Dust from uranium mining or processing Ecosystem Damage sites contains many of the hazardous ma- Plants and animals near uranium mines are terials that are present in ore, tailings, and vulnerable to several of the effects of min- mine debris. Uranium cleanup efforts may ing—in particular, radioactive contamina- need dust suppression measures to prevent tion and hydrological disruption. blown dust from becoming a health risk. At Mines near the Grand Canyon have the

12 Grand Canyon at Risk potential to introduce radionuclides into • Open-pit mines are mines where the environment and food chain and to uranium-bearing ore is extracted impact the water sources local plants and from a large pit, in a fashion similar animals rely on. Increased levels of radio- to quarrying stone. These mines have activity in the environment could lead to the largest surface footprint of any diminished vitality or death for exposed uranium operation, both from the plants and animals.50 mine itself and from the land required Disruption to any of the scarce springs to store the overburden and ore re- near the canyon would impact local plants moved. 53 and animals by cutting off an important source of scarce water. Some water will • In-situ leaching mines are low-cost be diverted for mine operations under mines that extract uranium from any mining scenario. A larger, permanent underground deposits located in impact might take place if mines pierce aquifers trapped within imperme- perched aquifers—an occurrence which able rock. Leaching fluid is circulated could sharply reduce the water available to through a uranium deposit through plants and animals that rely on a particular wells drilled down into the deposit, spring. 51 extracting uranium from the rock. Uranium is recovered by pumping the fluid back to the surface. If fluid escapes from a well or from the underground deposit, groundwater can be contaminated. 54 Each Uranium Mining and Processing Technique Poses • Heap leaching is a method for extracting uranium from low-grade ore Risks by running sulfuric acid or another Every uranium mining technique dam- chemical through piles of ore at a ages the environment and threatens public mine site to extract the uranium. health. Each of the different kinds of fa- These heaps become large tailings cilities used to mine and process uranium piles once leaching ends; they contain carries its own risks: many of the toxic substances often found in tailings, and can contaminate • Underground mines extract ore from the land and water under them. 55 deep underground lodes and are the type of mine likely to be used near the • Uranium mills are used to process Grand Canyon. Underground mines higher-grade ores by grinding up the usually involve a deep shaft down to rock and using sulfuric acid or another the level where ore is located, and a chemical to extract uranium. Mills network of excavations at the depth produce large amounts of tailings— of the ore through which uranium is and, in fact, often centralize the tail- removed. A mix of ore-bearing rocks ings from multiple mines at a single and ordinary rock is excavated from location, leading to potentially very these mines. Because they are more large tailings piles. Mill equipment expensive to build and operate, deep also requires special handling when underground mines are likely to be the facilities are decommissioned; the used only for relatively high-grade ore equipment is radioactive and poses deposits. 52 health risks without proper disposal. 56

Mining Is a Dirty, High-Risk Activity 13 Uranium Mining Has a Track Record of Environmental Contamination

n four decades of heavy mining—from fuel and repurposed uranium from decom- the 1950s through the 1980s—the U.S. missioned nuclear weapons supplied a large Iuranium industry left a toxic trail of portion of the civilian nuclear industry’s contaminated sites across the American needs. Mine and mill closures swept West. Contaminated sites include mines, through the U.S. uranium industry. mills, tailings piles, and the sites of ac- Every uranium site is hazardous while cidental spills. Some of the first sites used in use (as discussed in the previous sec- by the uranium industry are still contami- tion), and needs to be cleaned up after- nated today; the Atlas Uranium Mill near ward. Uranium itself, the chemicals used Moab, built to process ore from one of the to extract it, and many of the byproducts country’s first major uranium strikes, left that emerge from ore alongside it are behind a tailings pile that still threatens toxic. These contaminants can do lasting the Colorado River. Some of the last mines damage to uranium sites and the land and to open are also still a threat; the Kanab water around them. Sick families, poisoned North Mine, an underground mine near streams, and lasting threats to the drink- the Grand Canyon, has been placed on ing water of millions have been among “standby”—indefinite closure, with the the results of uranium mining in the past. possibility of returning to active use at a The case studies below describe a range of later date—without cleanup. sites and incidents—in multiple states, at The uranium industry came into exis- multiple types of uranium facilities, across tence to produce bomb-making material multiple decades—that illustrate the risks to meet the needs of the U.S. military’s uranium mining has posed in the past, and nuclear program. In the 1970s, as the mili- will continue to pose in the future. tary stepped down its uranium purchasing, Several of these sites closely resemble uranium mines and mills found a new mar- potential new mines near the Grand Can- ket as fuel providers to the civilian nuclear yon. The incidents described in Arizona power industry. By the 1980s, though, and New Mexico both affected the Grand worldwide demand for newly extracted Canyon area, and those in Arizona actu- uranium had fallen, as reprocessed reactor ally took place at mines near the canyon.

14 Grand Canyon at Risk Abandoned equipment and structures for the Orphan Mine on the rim of the Grand Canyon in 2007, decades after the mine closed and shortly before the National Park Service removed them from the site. Photo Credit: Alan Levine, used under Creative Commons Attribution License.

The other case studies below illustrate the During the mid-century uranium risks that uranium extracted from any mine boom, a handful of uranium mines oper- poses to the areas where ore is processed ated near the Grand Canyon—in one case, and waste is stored, and the overall risk right up to the canyon’s edge. These mines that the uranium industry poses to human have left an indelible mark on the canyon health and the environment. and its surroundings, from fouled streams and damaged aquifers to lingering piles of radioactive debris. Every year, 1.5 million park visitors head west from Grand Canyon Village toward the historic El Tovar Hotel and the popular Arizona: Fouled Streams, Hermit Overlook; on the way, they detour Damaged Aquifers, and away from the canyon’s rim to avoid the Orphan Mine, an abandoned uranium Toxic Dirt Piles mine surrounded by fences and warning If uranium mining companies are allowed signs to keep park visitors away. to develop new mines near the Grand Can- The Orphan Mine—a 1,500-foot yon, it won’t be the first time that the can- deep underground mine that produced yon has hosted uranium mining activities. high-grade uranium ore from 1956 to Nor will the impacts of any new mining be 1969—began its life as an unsuccessful the first damage uranium has done to the copper mine, then sat idle for decades as canyon; the park already bears the scars of the mine’s owners put their land to use for a previous round of extraction. the more profitable tourism business. The

Uranium Mining Has a Track Record of Environmental Contamination 15 discovery of uranium in 1951 changed their fers. Even mines that don’t introduce con- profit incentive, and the mine resumed tamination can harm local water supplies activity shortly thereafter. The mine by piercing the impermeable rocks that owners ultimately secured permission to support perched aquifers—isolated pools mine uranium within the boundaries of of groundwater elevated above the overall Grand Canyon National Park. (The fed- water table, which are the source of many of eral government was originally reluctant the park’s springs. Exploratory drilling for to give that permission, but relented after the Canyon Mine—a potential mine site the mine owners threatened to build an that was developed but never mined in the 18-story hotel descending down the rim 1980s, now slated to reopen under the con- of the canyon.57) trol of Denison —pierced such an aquifer, Today, the mine site is controlled by draining an estimated 1.3 million gallons the National Park Service, and access is of water per year from area springs. 62 restricted because soil radiation levels are Another old Grand Canyon mine dem- 450 times above normal.58 The National onstrates a different, more direct, path to Park Service recently removed the mine stream contamination. The Hack Canyon structures from the rim; total cleanup of Mine, on the Grand Canyon’s less-trav- the contamination on the surface will cost eled north rim, is a deep shaft mine like $15 million, which the Park Service hopes the Orphan Mine, which produced 9.5 to eventually recoup from the defense con- million tons of uranium over the course tractors responsible for the mine.59 of its lifetime.63 The mine made its last- Two creeks near the mine, meanwhile, ing radiological mark on the area in 1984, contain high quantities of uranium in their when a summer flash flood swept 4 tons water. Horn Creek, flowing from a spring of high grade uranium ore from the mine near the mine, crosses a popular trail site into nearby Kanab Creek; the National through the canyon, but hikers are warned Park Service advises visitors not to drink not to drink the water; its uranium content or bathe in the creek because of its radio- is too high for safe consumption. Nearby activity levels.64 Salt Creek bears a similar warning. 60 Hack Canyon isn’t the only mine to The Orphan Mine is an underground introduce uranium into Kanab Creek, just uranium mine, a series of tunnels under- the one that did so in the most spectacular ground from which miners pulled ore when fashion. Ongoing contamination of the the mine was active. Mines of this sort are area comes from several shuttered mines less disruptive of the land’s surface than near the creek. Federal law requires min- open pit mining, but in a landscape like ing companies to reclaim mines when they the Grand Canyon they bear risks of their close, but mines that are placed on “stand- own. By disrupting and opening up the by”—indefinite temporary closure, often rock formations in which uranium is sealed triggered by a fall in mineral prices—can underground, mines can open pathways for remain unreclaimed for decades. At Kanab water from mine tunnels to enter aquifers, North Mine, for instance, a 350-foot long including the limestone from which the tailings pile remained behind when min- Grand Canyon’s springs emerge.61 If new ing operations stopped in the 1980s; it underground mines open near the canyon’s remains uncovered, allowing the wind to rim, more springs could be contaminated blow uranium-laden dust into the Kanab as uranium finds its way down into aqui- Creek watershed.65

16 Grand Canyon at Risk New Mexico: A Giant Spill and an Ongoing Cleanup Beginning in the 1950s, uranium mines sprang up in the New Mexico’s Grants Mineral Belt, which spans Cibola, McKin- ley, Sandoval, and Bernalillo counties, as well as Navajo Tribal lands.66 When uranium prices fell, the industry left, and left extensive contamination behind; the EPA estimates that 130 different mine sites in New Mexico still need to be Aerial view of the cleanup site at the former cleaned up.67 Church Rock Uranium Mill. The former A uranium mill that served New Mex- location of the tailings pond is visible in the ico’s mines was the site of the worst ura- bottom right half of the photograph. Credit: nium accident in the United States. The U.S. EPA Church Rock Mill, owned by the United Nuclear Corporation, operated from 1977 When the United Nuclear Corporation to 1982, processing ore from mines in the (UNC) closed the Northeast Church Rock area.68 In 1979, an earthen dam burst at Mine, it failed to clean all the radioactive the mill’s tailings pond. Behind that dam sediments out of the pools it had used to were 94 million gallons of acidic water, treat radioactive mine water. Now, those laden with uranium tailings. The radioac- pools fill with rainwater instead, creating tive flood that resulted spilled down the dangerous and unhealthy surface water. north fork of the Rio Puerco and into the Water from the final treatment pool Little Colorado River; within days, water poured out into an arroyo that runs be- sources as far as 50 miles downstream in tween houses in the community of Church Arizona had been polluted.69 Though less Rock; that arroyo, too, is contaminated. 71 well publicized, the Church Rock Disaster The mine waste piles, meanwhile, con- was actually larger, in terms of the volume tain low-grade uranium, other radioactive of radioactive material released, than the elements, and heavy metals. Those piles— Three Mile Island nuclear power plant now partly covered by plants—pose a risk accident.70 to people who walk through the area. Dirt Today, the mill and the nearby North- blows off the piles in the wind and runs off east Church Rock Mine remain the worst in rainwater to spread contamination to the of the 20 abandoned uranium sites in surrounding area. 72 the Church Rock area of New Mexico. People who inhale contaminated dust Problems extend beyond the spill; while it particles or utilize contaminated rain- operated, the mine piled up waste in heaps water or runoff that has pooled in ponds outside the mine, and pumped radioac- around the site face elevated health risks tive water out of mineshafts to dry up in from Radium-226, which is found in pools on the ground above. The ongoing high concentrations on the 125-acre site. contamination stemming from those waste Among the health risks are “anemia, cata- heaps and pools led the U.S. Environmen- racts, fractured teeth, cancer (especially tal Protection Agency to declare the mine bone cancer), and death,” according to a Superfund site, starting a cleanup process the EPA.73 Additionally, many homes and that still continues today. storage structures have been constructed

Uranium Mining Has a Track Record of Environmental Contamination 17 from contaminated materials from nearby mines. “Building material sources may The Atlas Mill at Moab: include rocks from the mine and aggregate 16 Million Tons of from mine spoils which may have been used in concrete mixing. Structures may Radioactive Rubble also be contaminated by the presence of Today, the town of Moab, Utah is most radiological materials in outdoor soils and famous for outdoor recreation. Mountain dust that may have been brought into the bikers, hikers, and all-terrain vehicle riders homes on shoes and clothing,” according travel from all over the country to visit the to the EPA.74 The EPA demolished at least area’s wide-open landscapes and striking 35 structures between 2008 and the end red rocks. Moab got its start, though, as of 2010.75 one of the nation’s biggest hubs of uranium The Northeast Church Rock Mine mining and processing. continues to poison the land, air and water Uranium was discovered near Moab around it decades after being shut down. in 1953, and a boom started immediately. Even with cleanup efforts underway, the Moab’s population shot from 1,200 to people of the community near the mine 6,000 in less than a year, and Charlie are surrounded by sources of dangerous Steen, the impoverished prospector who contamination every day, which pose severe made the first uranium strike, suddenly health risks not only for them, but also for found himself rich enough to build a mill future generations. for his ore.76

The Atlas Mill tailings pile near Moab. The Colorado River is visible in the right of the photograph. The Department of Energy expects that fully removing the pile will take until 2025 at current funding levels. Photo Credit: Department of Energy.

18 Grand Canyon at Risk That mill, completed in 1956 and the government with full responsibility for purchased in 1962 by the Atlas Uranium the tailings pile.83 A multi-year legal and Corporation, operated from 1956 to 1982. legislative struggle ensued, as local resi- Milling uranium involves crushing ore and dents and downstream water users fought running sulfuric acid or another chemi- to get the tailings relocated to a safer site cal through it to extract the uranium. It away from the river. produces large volumes of waste; since After the federal government agreed to uranium composes only a tiny fraction of remove the tailings, cleanup began in 2009, the material in ore, 99 percent or more of but the size of the pile ensures that the risk the rock extracted from a mine can wind will remain for a while. A cleanup effort up in a tailings pile. That waste retains 85 expanded by funds from the American percent of the radioactivity of the original Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) underground deposit. 77 removed 4 million tons of waste between In 1982, the collapsing price of uranium 2009 and 2011, but, with the expiration rendered the Atlas Mill uneconomical, and of the ARRA funds in 2011, the Depart- it closed. Left behind was a 130-acre, 16 ment of Energy expects to need another million ton pile of toxic and radioactive 14 years—until 2025—to complete the tailings located 750 feet from the edge of project.84 the Colorado River, a source of drinking water for 25 million downstream residents.78 Among the cities that rely on the Colorado for drinking water are San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles.79 Colorado: That tailings pile remained untouched Poisoned Well Water for almost three decades, from 1982 to 2009, and most of it is still in place today. and Sick Residents Over that period, it has steadily leaked For decades, residents of Lincoln Park, a uranium and other toxics into the aquifer small community near the Cotter Cor- underneath it, the land between the pile poration Uranium Mill outside of Cañon and the river, and the river itself. By the City, Colorado, got their drinking water late 1990s, uranium concentrations be- from wells near the mill. Today, they rely neath the pile were 31 times the safe limit, instead on treated water from Cañon City’s lead concentrations 20 times their limit, water system, since their groundwater is no and ammonia concentrations 6 times their longer safe to drink. limit—to name just a few of the 20 toxic From 1958 to 1979, the Cañon City ura- substances found at unsafe levels in the nium mill stored its waste in unlined pools vicinity of the pile.80 Every day, as much as on the mill’s grounds.85 The result was a 28,000 gallons of contaminated water from toxic plume in groundwater surrounding the pile makes its way into the Colorado the plant—a pool of contamination that River.81 In a flood, or if the course of the required the EPA to declare the mill and river shifted, large amounts of toxic waste its surroundings a Superfund toxic waste could be swept into the river.82 site and remove tons of contaminated soil Atlas Uranium, under pressure to ad- from the area. dress the risk posed by the tailings, pro- When uranium processing takes place posed to “cap” the pile with layer of rock near residences, the wastes it produces and clay; in the midst of a regulatory battle can pose a serious threat to human over whether that measure would be suffi- health—even years after the processing is cient, the company went bankrupt, leaving complete. Stored waste from the decades

Uranium Mining Has a Track Record of Environmental Contamination 19 of uranium processing at the Cotter Mill ment scientists warned that properties near was the source of contamination that led the mill might be too contaminated to de- to the poisoning of a community’s water velop safely as homes—and contamination supply. of local vegetable gardens with arsenic and Uranium was not the only toxic sub- other poisons. 88 stance to which residents of Lincoln Park The impacts on the community were were exposed. Uranium milling both uses severe. Residents of the area suffered from and releases a wider variety of toxic chemi- birth defects, arthritis, and cancer, among cals—from the sulfuric acid commonly other illnesses; medical experts have tes- used for extracting the uranium to the tified that contamination from the mill molybdenum and other heavy metals that contributed to these health problems.89 leach out of the ore along with uranium. Residents have fought through several Among the chemicals found in the soil near rounds of litigation with the Cotter Cor- the Cotter Mill were uranium, arsenic, mo- poration, winning various settlements and lybdenum, lead, cobalt, nickel, selenium, awards worth millions of dollars, but facing zinc, copper and cadmium.86 persistent appeals and denial of responsi- Federal investigators found that heavy bility from the mill company.90 Long term metal contamination of well water ac- plans for cleaning up the site after the mill counted for the worst of the health threats closes remain uncertain; Cotter has set from the Cotter Mill, putting residents aside $20 million for the eventual decom- at particular risk of joint and respira- missioning of the mill, but that sum is just tory problems.87 Lincoln Park’s residents under half of the total estimated cost of switched from well water to municipal the cleanup.91 In Colorado alone, taxpay- water to avoid these risks, but only after ers have already spent more than $1 billion decades during which they unknowingly dollars cleaning up past uranium milling consumed contaminated well water. Other operations according to U.S. Department health risks came from the soil—govern- of Energy and U.S. EPA documents.92

20 Grand Canyon at Risk Policy Recommendations

he Grand Canyon is one of the most and Management Act and identified impressive, unique, and treasured by Interior Secretary Salazar as the Twild places in the United States. Interior Department’s preferred op- Uranium mining is one of the dirtiest and tion, would protect the Grand Canyon riskiest industries. The two do not belong from the worst impacts of expanded together. uranium mining. Extending the mora- Since 2009, a moratorium on mining has torium to the full million acre package protected the area around the Grand Can- of land under consideration is the best yon from the development of new mining way to keep the risks inherent in ura- claims. Because of low uranium prices, no nium mining and processing at a safe new claims were developed for two decades remove from the Grand Canyon. before 2009. Now, however, with uranium prices high, an end to the moratorium on • Reform mining laws to allow regu- uranium mining near the canyon could lators to deny permission to mine lead to a rush of new mining activity on where significant natural places the lands around Grand Canyon National or human health are at risk. Cur- Park. To properly protect the park for fu- rent mining law is too lax in granting ture generations, we need to ensure that no mining companies the right to stake new uranium mining takes place there. In and develop claims with a very lim- the longer term, other places deserve that ited permitting process. Most federal same protection, including other national land is considered open for mining by parks and important waterways. In order to default, and regulators lack sufficient achieve this, policymakers should: power to weigh the costs and benefits of mining against other possible uses • Place a 20 year moratorium on new of the land. Mining should be placed claims and exploration in a million- on an even footing with recreation acre area surrounding the Grand and other land uses by allowing regu- Canyon. This action, the strongest lators to make a balanced evaluation of allowed by the Federal Land Policy the best use of federal lands.

Policy Recommendations 21 • Require uranium mining com- well as insurance against accidents panies to clean up contamina- that would significantly raise cleanup tion. Uranium companies should be costs. Additionally, companies should required to post enough money to not be allowed to place mines on cover the full cost of reclamation at “standby” without cleaning them up mine and mill sites before beginning sufficiently to prevent the spread of operations. Costs should cover all contamination. foreseeable reclamation activities, as

22 Grand Canyon at Risk Notes

1 National Park Service, Grand Canyon 9 “Moab Uranium Tailings Pile Starts National Park: Nature and Science, 15 Moving at Last,” Environment News November 2010. Service, 6 May 2009.

2 Ibid. 10 Michael Anderson, Arizona State University and Grand Canyon 3 Michael F. Anderson, Polishing the Association, Nature, Culture and History Canyon: An Administrative History of Grand at the Grand Canyon, downloaded Canyon National Park. Grand Canyon, AZ: from grandcanyonhisjtory.clas.asu. Grand Canyon Association, 2000. edu/history_loggingminingranching_ mining.html, 23 May 2011. 4 National Park Service, Ranking Report for Recreation Visits in 2010, downloaded 11 Robert McClure and Andrew from www.nature.nps.gov/stats/ Schneider, “The General Mining Law viewReport.cfm on 16 May 2011. of 1872 Has Left a Legacy of Riches and Ruin,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 10 June 5 Arizona Hospitality Research and 2001. Resource Center, Northern Arizona University, Grand Canyon National Park 12 43 CFR 3860 & Northern Arizona Tourism Study, April 2005. 13 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management California, Mineral 6 Ibid. Patents, 22 August 2007, downloaded from www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/minerals/ 7 Ibid. patents.html on 21 June 2010.

8 Arizona Office of Tourism,Arizona 14 43 CFR 3809.411 Tourism Industry Maintains Vital Impact to State (press release), 9 July 2009. “Over 10 15 Jane Perlez and Kirk Johnson, percent” based on 2008 tourism figures. “Beyond Gold’s Glitter: Torn Lands and

Notes 23 Pointed Questions,” New York Times, 14 Moratorium Extended at Grand June, 2010. Canyon,” New York Times, 20 June 2011.

16 Grand Canyon Treks, The Orphan 26 Bureau of Land Management, Mine!, downloaded from www. Northern Arizona Proposed Withdrawal grandcanyontreks.org/orphan.htm, 23 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, May 2011. 2011.

17 U.S. Geological Survey, Breccia Pipe 27 Ibid. Uranium Mining in Northern Arizona— Estimate of Resources and Assessment of 28 Ibid. Historical Effects, January 2011. 29 Radiation Emergency Assistance 18 Tara Alatorre, “Federal Plan to Close Center/Training Center, Characteristics Land Won’t End Uranium Mining Near of Gamma Radiation and X-Rays, Grand Canyon,” Cronkite News, 9 May downloaded from orise.orau.gov/reacts/ 2010. guide/gamma.htm on 21 June 2011.

19 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 30 Health Physics Society, What Types Information Administration, Uranium of Radiation Are There?, downloaded Marketing Annual Report, 18 August 2010. from www.hps.org/publicinformation/ Spot prices: Cameco Corp, Uranium ate/faqs/radiationtypes.html on 21 June Prices, downladed from www.cameco. 2011. com/investors/uranium_prices_and_ spot_price/ on 6 June 2011. 31 Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Center, Types of 20 Pew Environment Group, Ten Radiation Exposure, downloaded from Treasures at Stake, 2011, available at www. orise.orau.gov/reacts/guide/injury.htm pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/ on 21 June 2011. PEG/Publications/Report/ 10%20Treasures.pdf 32 William Sweet, “Unresolved: The Front End of Nuclear Waste Disposal,” 21 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fact Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 1979. Sheet: Proposed Mineral Withdrawal Near Grand Canyon National Park, 20 June 33 U.S. Environmental Protection 2011. Agency, A Citizen’s Guide to Radon, downloaded from www.epa.gov/radon/ 22 Felicity Barringer, “Uranium pubs/citguide.html on 21 June 2011. Exploration Near Grand Canyon,” New York Times, 7 February 2008. 34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil, 23 See note 18. downloaded from epa.gov/lead/pubs/ leadinfo.htm on 22 May 2011. 24 Associated Press, Critics Blast Report on G. Canyon Uranium Mining, 15 May 35 States News Service, ATSDR 2011. Releases Report on Lincoln Park Cotter Mill Uranium Site, 9 September 2010 and 25 John Broder, “Uranium Mine World Health Organization, Molybdenum

24 Grand Canyon at Risk in Drinking Water: Background Document from www.moabtailings.org/faq.htm, 23 for Development of WHO Guidelines for May 2011. Drinking Water Quality, 2003. 45 See note 18. 36 Jacob L. Heller, MD, MHA, “Sulfuric Acid Poisoning,” in Medline 46 U.S. National Research Council, Plus Encyclopedia, 30 September 2009. Scientific Basis for Risk Assessment and Management of Uranium Mill Tailings. 37 Selenium: M. Vinceti et al, “Adverse Washington: National Academy Press, Health Effects of Selenium in Humans” 1986, p. 4. Review of Environmental Health, July- September 2001, 233-51. Arsenic: RN 47 25 percent: World Nuclear Raitnake, “Acute and Chronic Arsenic Association, World Uranium Mining, Toxicity,” Postgraduate Medical Journal, April 2011. July 2003, 391-396. 48 See note 41. 38 0.1%: International Atomic Energy Agency, Advances in Uranium 49 Eugene V. Spiering, Quaterra Ore Processing and Recovery From Non- Resources Inc., Exploration and Discovery Conventional Resources, 1985. Leach: See of Blind Breccia Pipes: The Potential note 18. Significance to the Development of the Arizona Strip District, Northern Arizona 39 Robert F. Kaufman, Gregory G. (presentation delivered at Society Eadie and Charles R. Russell, U.S. EPA, of Mining Engineers 2010 Annual Summary of Water Quality Impacts of Meeting), 1 March 2009. Uranium Mining and Milling in the Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico, August 1975. 50 See note 26.

40 Environmental Working Group, 51 Ibid. Colorado River Agencies Urge Caution on Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon 52 International Atomic Energy (press release), 17 May 2010. Agency, Methods of Exploitation of Different Types of Uranium Deposits, 41 U.S. EPA, “Uranium” in September 2000. Identification and Description of Mineral Processing Sectors and Waste Streams, 53 Ibid. downloaded from www.epa.gov/osw/ nonhaz/industrial/special/mining/ 54 U.S. EPA, “Appendix III: minedock/id/id4-ura.pdf on 7 July 2010. Occupational and Public Risks Associated with In-Situ Leaching” 42 See note 32. in Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from 43 Jim Mimiaga, “Study: Mining Near Uranium Mining Volume 2: Investigation Grand Canyon Could Threaten Water,” of Potential Health, Geographic, and Four Corners Free Press, May 2010. Environmental Issues of Abandoned Uranium Mines, April 2008. 44 Moab UMTRA Project Information, Frequently Asked Questions, downloaded 55 See note 41.

Notes 25 56 Department of Energy, Energy 70 Doug Brugge et al., “The Sequoyah Information Administration, Corporation Fuels Release and the Decommissioning of U.S. Uranium Church Rock Spill: Unpublicized Production Facilities, February 1995. Nuclear Releases in American Indian Communities,” American Journal of Public 57 Dana Bennett, Arizona State Health 97(9): 1595–1600, September 2007. University Nature, Culture and History at the Grand Canyon Project, 71 U.S. Environmental Protection Orphan Mine, downloaded from Agency, Region 9 Superfund: Northeast grandcanyonhistory.clas.asu.edu/history_ Church Rock Mine, downloaded from loggingminingranching_orphanmine. yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/ html on 13 May 2011. 3dec8ba3252368428825742600743733/ 9beb6aeaf2fa058a88257353002bf7d6 on 5 58 Mark Clayton, “Do Uranium Mines May 2011. Belong Near Grand Canyon?” Christian Science Monitor, 19 August 2008. 72 Ibid.

59 John Dougherty, “McCain Turns 73 Ibid. Back on Grand Canyon,” Washington Independent, 22 July 2008. 74 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Addressing Uranium 60 See note 58. Contamination in the Navajo Nation: Contaminated Structures, downloaded 61 Ibid. from www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/ navajo-nation/contaminated-structures. 62 See note 18. html, 5 May 2011.

63 See note 49. 75 Ibid.

64 See note 43. 76 David Hasemyer, “At the Edge of the Colorado River – San Diego County’s 65 See note 18. Main Source of Water – Sits a Massive Reminder of What the Atomic Age Left 66 “Uranium News – Legacy Issues: Behind,” San Diego Union-Tribune, 23 Agencies Join to Seek Solutions,” Cibola August 1998. Beacon, 22 October 2009. 77 See note 32. 67 Ibid. 78 See note 9. 68 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, UNC – Church Rock Mill 79 Environmental Working Group, Uranium Recovery Facility, downloaded Mining Surge Near Colorado River from www.nrc.gov/info-finder/ Threatens Drinking Water for 25 Million decommissioning/uranium/is-united- (press release), 5 May 2008. nuclear-corporation-unc.pdf on 5 May 2011. 80 See note 76.

69 See note 66. 81 David Hasemyer, “Radioactive

26 Grand Canyon at Risk Waste Pile Under Attack: Pressure 88 Ibid. Mounts to Move Threat to Drinking Water,” San Diego Union-Tribune, 27 89 Tom Ragan, “Because of December 1998. Contamination, Mill Finds Itself at the Center of a Struggle,” The Gazette 82 Matt Jenkins, “Colorado River (Colorado Springs, CO), 27 August Kisses a Toxic Mess Good Bye,” High 2001. Country News, 2 May 2005. 90 “Primary Insurers Have Duty To 83 Lisa Church, “Interior Secretary, Utah Defend Corporation In Tort Actions Delegation Join in Turning Up Pressure to Concerning Hazardous Materials, Move Moab Tailings Pile; Pressure Is On But Excess Insurers Have No Such To Move Tailings Pile Near Moab,” Salt Duty; COTTER CORPORATION v. Lake Tribune, 24 November 1998. AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 02SC707 84 Judy Fahys, “Tailings Cleanup to (Colorado Supreme Court May 17, 2004),” Slow as Stimulus Money Dries Up,” Salt Digest of Environmental Law, August Lake Tribune, 10 May 2011. 2004.

85 Colleen Long, “EPA Says Soil 91 “Group Sues Cotter Corp. Over Cleanup at Cañon City Superfund Site is Uranium Mill Cleanup,” Associated Press, Finished,” Associated Press, 4 January 2002. 22 September 2010.

86 Tom McAvoy, “Victims of Radiation 92 Environment Colorado, Cleaning- Poisoning from Cañon City, Colo., Up a Toxic Legacy; Elected Officials, Awarded $16 Million,” Pueblo Chieftain, 2 Business, and Advocates Gather in Canon July 2001. City to Announce New Legislation to Strengthen Clean-Up at Uranium 87 States News Service, ATSDR Processing Facilities (press release), 26 Releases Report on Lincoln Park Cotter Mill January 2010. Uranium Site, 9 September 2010.

Notes 27 28 Grand Canyon at Risk