SPEAKOUT: Vote against uranium mine a state first
By Gary Wockner and Becky Long,
Published December 19, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.
On Dec. 4, the Fort Collins City Council made Colorado history.
With a standing-room-only crowd that had just spent one hour testifying, the council took the bold leadership step of helping to secure the future of northern Colorado's economy and environment. Amidst hoots, hollers and eruptive applause, Fort Collins became the first Colorado city to pass a resolution against uranium mining in the northern part of our state.
Councilmember Lisa Poppaw introduced the resolution - it passed with a 6-0 vote with one member abstaining.
The threat in northern Colorado comes from a proposed project - the Centennial uranium mine - near the town of Nunn and just seven miles from Fort Collins. The mining company - a Canadian corporation named Powertech - is proposing an in-situ leach mining operation that will pump chemicals into the groundwater to leach out the uranium, and then pump the groundwater to the surface to chemically extract the uranium from the water. In addition, the mining company has not ruled out the possibility of digging a massive open-pit mine to extract the uranium by mechanical means.
Both types of mining - in-situ leach and open pit - pose serious health risks for local residents, and pose serious environmental and economic risks for Fort Collins and northern Colorado.
The potential health risks have caused both the Larimer County Medical Society and the Colorado Medical Society to pass resolutions against the mine. The environmental and economic risks have caused a multitude of people - elected officials from both political parties, farmers and ranchers, medical professionals, real estate agents and conservationists - to take a stand against the mine, the city of Fort Collins being the latest in opposition.
One of the biggest health and environmental risks is to groundwater. The groundwater aquifer that Powertech will inject chemicals into feeds a huge network of drinking-water wells in northern Colorado, and also provides water for livestock and crop irrigation. Unfortunately, the track record of in-situ leach uranium mining is littered with groundwater pollution, spills, mistakes and clean-up problems that are left wanting for both money and often a government bailout.
The economic risks were also highlighted at the meeting when a local real estate agent described a potential buyer immediately backing out of a potential sale upon learning that the property was in the vicinity of the proposed mine. The bottom line: Nobody wants to live near a uranium mine. Risks to property values - even seven miles away in Fort Collins - are a serious concern.
Uranium mining in northern Colorado poses additional risks, including decreased tourism and sales tax revenues, loss of protections for the surface land owners, increased dust emissions and air pollution, and a host of other legal, technical and political detriments.
Uranium exploration is booming across the state, fed by a huge increase in the price of uranium and ample deposits in the bedrock below ground. Colorado ranks third among all states for its uranium reserves, only trailing Wyoming and New Mexico.
We encourage other communities in Colorado to take a long and hard look when uranium mines are proposed in their areas. Always ask hard questions of the mining company, always attend all public hearings, and don't be afraid - like the people of northern Colorado - to organize your own watchdog group. The coalition against the Centennial mine has created www.nunnglow.com, and its e-mail list already has several thousand members.
On Dec. 4th, the city of Fort Collins made history by opposing this mine, but what it also did was help write a new history of Colorado. Instead of the history our generation inherited - one dotted with mines, endless pollution and endless Superfund clean-up costs - the next generation might inherit a cleaner, greener Colorado, one that protects both the economy and the environment.
Gary Wockner, Ph.D., is a writer and conservationist in Fort Collins (garywockner.com). Becky Long is the water coordinator for the Colorado Environmental Coalition (ourcolorado.org).
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
December 19, 2007
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Art writes:
While the health implications of uranium mining are clear what is less clear is how this will affect our national reliance on fossil fuels, especially fuels that we must import from other countries, such as Saudi Arabia. If we want to be independent from foreign sources for our energy needs we must find ways to produce the fuels here in our own country. Nuclear power is not the final answer but it is one step we can take now to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to find ways to mine the uranium that is here in the U.S. and work with the companies that will be doing the mining. Unfortuately the mining companies will have to mine the ore from the ground which may be near towns and cities and we will have to find a way for this to happen and still safeguarding our health. The not in my backyard attitude will have to change if we want to have true energy independence. It has to come from someone's backyard.
December 19, 2007
7:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
NativeColoradan writes:
Abe - Energy independence for the US is not dependent upon nuclear fuels. You have bought into a myth perpetuated by the uranium mining companies and nuclear fuel industry. First of all, nuclear fuel is not renewable, the nuclear fuel cycle generates substantial carbon emissions, we have no long-term solution for spent fuel disposal, and other costs include such things as sacrificing aquifers - as proposed in Weld County. Indeed - in situ leach uranium mining regularly permanently contaminates groundwater supplies. Look it up. Colorado - and particularly Northern Colorado - doesn't need this problem - groundwater is too precious to be sacrificing for a mere 10 years (max) of uranium mining development. If a company cannot restore the groundwater to its pre-mining chemical conditions, it should not be permitted - period. Such groundwater sacrifice zones may be OK for Texas, but not here - especially within a dozen miles of hundreds of thousands of people.
Lastly, as I know you like free market theory (who doesn't!) - nuclear fuel cannot compete on the free market. Just look at the the massive subsidies the industry claims are needed to keep it going(See the 2005 Energy Act). On top of this, the practical reality is that in order to keep pace with the current domestic nuclear fuel energy production AND make a dent in our energy supply to supplant coal, we'd have to build on the order of one nuclear plant a month, every month, for the next 20 some odd years. Does anyone think that is even possible? no. Even the nuclear industry does not claim this is even possible.
December 20, 2007
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Local_Resident writes:
Gene No the city council didn't want to hear from the mining company. They said that perception is reality. The mine is perceived to be dangerous therefore it is. I perceive city councilmen to be intelligent and open mined. That doesn't appear to be the reality at Fort Collins.
December 20, 2007
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Local_Resident writes:
NativeColoradan You state “in situ leach uranium mining regularly permanently contaminates groundwater supplies. Look it up.” I tried I couldn’t find any government reports that said insitu mining has contaminates groundwater supplies. Please post the articles you have showing this.
December 20, 2007
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
Does NativeColoradan have ANY evidence to back up his claims, or is he simply quoting verbatim the Sierra Club?
Look, I'm an environmentalist at heart, but I'm also someone who believes Nuclear Energy has a major role to play in our energy needs. There's absolutely no reason why nuclear power can't be produced cleanly, safely, and with nearly zero carbon emissions. Hmm, speaking of CO2 emissions, exactly what emissions do nuclear power plants produce? Well, definitely a lot of hot water, and of course the spent rods. Find a place to permanently store the spent rods, cool off the hot water, and all's good...
Ladies and gentlemen, we're far beyond Three Mile Island and Chernobyl... How about getting back to the reality that nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient?
December 20, 2007
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
BTW, I would also like to know, along with Local_Resident, where Native Coloradan gets his facts regarding in-situ leach mining for uranium regularly contaminating groundwater supplies.
I was under the impression that several impermeable liners were to be placed underneath the leach piles, meaning that nothing is going to seep into the groundwater.
Silly me, I guess Native Coloradan knows everything... :)
December 20, 2007
2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
JohnSSS writes:
What about the fact that France has over 75% of its electricity supplied by nuclear power? In 1974 (after the oil shock), Fance to expand their nuclear capacity. They did this because they had alot of engineering expertise but not alot of energy resources.
Now France is fairly energy independent and has one of the lowest cost electricity in Europe, along with an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita (>90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro)
I think that there is more to the issue than simply NIMBY
December 20, 2007
8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
NativeColoradan writes:
Oh Boy. Where to start. How about with the fact that in-situ leach uranium mines regularly contaminate aquifers.
In Texas alone, there have been at least 32 in-situ leach operations, and out of all these attempts, not a single one has restored the aquifer to its pre-mining water quality. Cite: Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Nov. 5, 2006 ("The Caller-Times examined 32 permits from closed South Texas mines that had used a water-pumping method to mine. In each case, companies were permitted to leave behind minerals such as uranium, molybdenum and selenium at higher levels than were listed in the original permit.") Not that it is always impossible to restore, mind you - just quite expensive, challenging, and time-consuming.
In one Colorado very small testing experiment with in-situ uranium leaching near Grover, Colorado, beta radioactive contamination in the local groundwater was dramatically increased, to over 15 times its safe, pre-mining, condition, and alpha radiation increased 5 fold. Cite: "Energy Resources of the Denver and Cheyenne Basins, Colorado" Colorado Geological Survey, 1980 page 175, Table 15 – showing Alpha and Beta radiation increasing from 87 and 15 pci/L respectively to 454 and 247 pci/L at the END of the so-called “restoration” phase.
According to a January 2007 report from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on restoration of uranium ISL mines, “Industry experience shows that elevated concentrations (above baseline) of arsenic, selenium, radium, uranium, molybdenum, radium, uranium, and vanadium still existed after extensive groundwater restoration activities.” “Consideration of Geochemical Issues in Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In-Situ Leach Mining Facilities,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission/U.S. Geological Survey, January 2007.
And these are just a few of the examples....
Now, about liners – nope. Sorry. No liners with in-situ. This is not like cyanide leaching on the surface, which does sometimes use multiple liners (and, incidentally, still has a horrible track record...Summitville, anyone?). In in-situ, the oxidizing caustic chemicals that dissolve the uranium and other heavy metals are injected directly into the aquifer – the problem is always keeping them contained (“excursions”) and then getting them out in restoration attempts.
Again – Northern Colorado groundwater supplies are too precious to risk with such a destructive technology - particularly to mine the extremely low grade uranium ore (less than 1% grade) Powertech is seeking. For certain, if the mine can’t ensure full restoration up front – there should be no permit - period. Our long-term future regional economy depends on us not sacrificing and contaminating aquifers. Between the threats to agricultural uses and quality of life – two major economic drivers of the region, it’s a risk we can’t afford to take for some speculative short-term gain.
December 26, 2007
5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
REEnwall writes:
Review of many of the comments opposing uranium mining in Weld County reveals the common belief that leaving the uranium in its present location represents a risk-free alternative. A uranium deposit is a natural analogue of a hazardous waste dump. If a polluter had deposited several million pounds of uranium oxide underground in the aquifer, there would be a hue and cry to have it removed immediately. The USEPA and various State government agencies would take action and mount a major remediation project, quite possibly using methods similar to the mining processes considered for the Weld County deposits.
Opposition groups have expressed fear of risks incurred to the groundwater system if mining proceeds. There is, however, risk to the ground water system if the uranium is allowed to remain. Similarly to hazardous waste dumps, uranium deposits located within active groundwater regimes can produce plumes of abnormally high concentrations of uranium in groundwater, sometimes several hundreds to thousands times normal background concentrations. The question then becomes which risk do you want to accept - to mine or not to mine?