Potential Uranium Mine Sparks Water Quality Protests

A proposal for a new uranium mine in South Dakota is sparking protests from residents concerned about potential harm to water quality.

The U.S. EPA, which is considering the proposal, held a series of hearings on the issue, according to the agency.

“Opponents of uranium mining say the project puts a vital resource at risk — water. But project managers and supporters say uranium extraction has come a long way since the old mining days,” SDPB reported.

One hearing “turned lively when one of the first audience members to speak, Carol Hayse, of rural Nemo, concluded her remarks with a fist-pumping chant that was joined by numerous audience members,” the Rapid City Journal reported.

"Protect our water!" Hayse called to the audience. Protesters shouted “Mni Wiconi,” which the Rapid City Journal described as a Lakota Sioux phrase meaning “water is life.” It is also “the name of a rural water system that serves several Native American tribes and other users in western South Dakota,” the report said.

Water quality is the top concern among uranium mine protesters.

“The EPA has issued two draft permits for the mine to Powertech, a U.S.-based division of the global Azarga Uranium Corp., and the EPA [took] oral public comments about the permits at [the] hearings and written public comments until May 19 before making a final decision,” the report said.

Here is the process the mining company wants to use, per the report:

Groundwater at the site would be captured and combined with oxygen and carbon dioxide and then pumped back underground to leach uranium deposits from rocks in a process known as "in situ" mining. The uranium would be sold, processed and used elsewhere to produce nuclear energy.

After mining, the water would be treated to remove radioactive and other hazardous substances. After the completion of mining, the treated water would be injected back where it came from, in the Inyan Kara formation of aquifers hundreds of feet underground. The briny fluid created as a byproduct of the treatment process would be pumped deeper underground into disposal wells about 2,000 feet below the ground surface in the Minnelusa formation of aquifers.

Meanwhile, here is what the EPA permits would allow Powertech to accomplish:

The EPA permits would allow Powertech to use underground water from the Inyan Kara formation for production wells — possibly up to a total of 4,000 production wells among 14 well fields over the life of the mining operation — and to inject waste fluid into the Minnelusa formation through as many as four deep disposal wells. The EPA is also proposing to exempt the portion of the Inyan Kara aquifer in the project area from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is necessary for mining to occur there.

Locals claim these processes will probably pollute their water. "In situ leaching will allow poisons into our Black Hills aquifers," Hayse said, per the report.

Marvin Kammerer, a rural Rapid City rancher, weighed in as well. “Kammerer predicted that even the water treated at the mine and pumped back underground would be polluted, and he rhetorically asked the EPA officials at the meeting whether they would drink any of the mine's treated water,” the report said.

Mark Hollenbeck, a project director for Powertech, said he would accept the challenge. "I would be glad to drink the treated water after it comes out of the plant," Hollenbeck said.

"I don't think anybody has addressed true issues with the permits," he said, per the report. "They've just expressed a general disdain for uranium mining."

Powertech already cleared regulatory hurdles set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the status state and EPA permits remain uncertain.

For similar stories visit Water Online’s Source Water Contamination Solutions Center.