Uranium

 by Megan Kelly, Energy Associate

It’s that time of year, folks. Houses are adorned with lights and stockings and Santa’s helpers are getting together presents galore. And oddly enough, a long-standing name on the naughty list, the White Mesa uranium mill, has received an early present: over 10,000 tons of radioactive waste. 

While that's good news for the company that owns and operates the mill, it’s definitely not a gift for the Ute Mountain Ute tribal community of White Mesa, situated only a few miles away from the only remaining conventional uranium mill in the United States. Outdated single liners underlie much of the 275 acres of waste pits at the mill and are the only barrier between groundwater and the mill's toxic waste. White Mesa community members have fought for decades to protect their drinking water source, which lies beneath the mill, from contamination. Over 90 percent of the uranium mills that ever existed in the U.S. have been on or near tribal lands.

From one tribal community to the next

In late November, the last of 511 truckloads of this toxic package was driven nearly 1,000 miles from the Sequoyah Fuels facility in Gore, Oklahoma to its final resting place at the doorstep of the Ute Mountain Ute tribal community. Ironically, the occasion also marked the end of a 15-year battle by the Cherokee Nation to remove this danger from their home. Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. told the Tulsa World, “It is a historic day for the Cherokee Nation and the state of Oklahoma. Our lands are safe again, now that we have removed a risk that would have threatened our communities forever.” The Sequoyah Fuels waste is particularly troubling because the sludge contains levels of radioactive materials that are higher than most other substances the White Mesa Mill has processed. 

It’s not uranium ore. Why does the mill accept this sludge?

Why is this toxic waste being passed from one tribal community to another? Due to the low price of uranium, the White Mesa Mill turned to processing “alternate feed” — radioactive wastes from other industrial operations and contaminated places — as a source of additional revenue. The company grossed over $6 million processing alternate feeds in 2017. Although these toxic slurries can be processed at the mill, they are not natural ores, and the mill’s ability to accept them is the result of policy decisions made not by Congress with extensive and open debate, but by a handful of government officials with minimal public scrutiny.

When the sludge is sent through the mill, small amounts of uranium are extracted while a toxic and radioactive gumbo of other substances comes out the other side and is dumped into the mill’s waste pits, which were never meant to be used for this sort of waste-disposal business.

This isn’t the first time the mill has been allowed to process radioactive waste — more than a dozen different feeds have been approved for acceptance at the mill.

What’s in it?

Exactly what’s in alternate feeds varies, but the bottom line is the feed from Sequoyah Fuels is nasty. So nasty, in fact, that the company couldn’t get other facilities to accept it because its concentrations of radioactive substances exceed acceptable thresholds. While it added a temporary bump to the White Mesa Mill owner’s bottom line, the waste will remain at the mill in perpetuity. And someday, when the mill is finally shuttered, the waste is “capped” in place, and the mill’s operators walk away, it will be the community of White Mesa that’s left testing its water and hoping the day doesn’t arrive when its residents can no longer drink it. 

To keep up-to-date on the White Mesa uranium mill and opportunities to raise your voice, join our Action Alert Network › 

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

Imagine 268 football fields stretching across a single mesa in southeastern Utah. Having a hard time? I don’t blame you. But that huge amount of space is what the operator of the White Mesa uranium mill hopes to eventually fill with toxic and radioactive sludge. The White Mesa Mill — a destination for toxic and radioactive wastes from sites across the United States — sits just a handful of miles north and up-gradient of the small Ute Mountain Ute tribal community of White Mesa. 

Today, over 200 of those radioactive football fields already exist at the mill, spanning roughly 275 acres. The mill operator wants to add 80 additional acres of waste ponds, stirring worries about whether the toxic goulash these ponds are meant to contain — a mix of chemical-laden wastes from the mill and the radioactive dregs of the Manhattan Project, rare-metals processing plants, and uranium mines, among other sources — could find a way into the groundwater that flows beneath the mill and toward the community of White Mesa, near Bears Ears National Monument. 

Energy Fuels Resources Inc., the mill’s owner and operator, says there aren’t plans to build the additional 80 acres of waste ponds right away, but the company is still seeking authorization from Utah regulators to build them “to allow the Mill to respond to expected improvements in uranium market conditions.” The company may be referring to its hope that the Trump administration will grant the company’s request to impose import quotas on uranium. Those quotas would force nuclear utilities and anyone else buying uranium in the United States to purchase 25 percent of it from U.S. mines, whatever the cost. The basic premise behind that policy play is to line the pockets of companies mining and milling uranium in the U.S. by increasing your and my energy bills. 

Uranium wastes don’t just go away

The company is planning for the mill’s future operations, but eventually, the mill will have to close. And closing up shop at a uranium mill is not like closing up shop at most any other business. The thing about uranium-mill waste is that it poses risks for all of eternity — and that’s not hyperbole. With a half-life of 4.5 billion years, uranium waste doesn’t go away. Making sure that the measures we put in place to protect our generation and our kids’ and grandkids' generations is an expensive process, with costs in the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. And that process is fraught with uncertainties, from how much it will cost to secure the waste, to whether or not the ultimate closure process will truly withstand thousands of years of Mother Nature, especially in a changing climate. 

More waste, higher stakes

And the more waste ponds, the higher the stakes — it’s more waste, more opportunity for an accident, and more area to eventually pay to secure and monitor. 

The company’s application to the Utah Department of Waste Management and Radiation Control is over 1,300 pages long. It could take a while for the agency to review it, develop a proposed amendment to the company’s license to operate that would allow for the new waste ponds to be built, and open that amendment to public comment, but the Grand Canyon Trust will be ready when it does.

When the White Mesa Mill opened its doors in the 1980s, it was intended to operate for 15 years. Now, over thirty years later, the mill has left its toxic mark on the landscape and it’s time to start working on closing it down and cleaning it up, not on expanding it and making its impact worse. 

Want to receive updates and alerts about the White Mesa Mill? Join our action alert network ›

 by Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Director

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently changed its mind about whether the Grand Canyon Trust and other plaintiffs can challenge the government’s decision to exempt a uranium mine from a 2012 ban on new mining claims on more than 1 million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park. The new decision should land the case back in the U.S. District Court in Arizona to resolve our arguments challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s finding that Energy Fuels Resources Inc. had a valid right to operate the Canyon uranium mine before the ban. 

Where is Canyon Mine?

Canyon Mine is located on Kaibab National Forest land south of Grand Canyon National Park. The mine sits above important groundwater resources, including the deep Redwall-Muav aquifer and shallower “perched” aquifers. These aquifers feed springs in and around the Grand Canyon. Springs are a critical natural resource in Grand Canyon National Park. They provide base flows to the Colorado River and drinking water to wildlife and park visitors, support habitats with exceptional species diversity, and hold cultural and spiritual significance for Native American tribes. 

We believe that mining Canyon Mine poses an unacceptable risk to the region’s springs, the regional aquifer, and the Havasupai Tribe’s sole source of drinking water.

Back to district court

In December 2017, a three-judge appellate panel upheld the lower court’s decision disallowing the plaintiffs from challenging the Forest Service’s decision to exempt Canyon Mine from the 2012 mining ban. The Trust and our co-plaintiffs then filed a petition asking the entire court of appeals to rehear one of our arguments. Though the full court took a pass on that request, the petition ended up persuading the original panel to reverse its initial course and send the case back to the district court. 

The new ruling affirms our right to challenge the Forest Service’s “validity determination” for Canyon Mine under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.  

Validity means profitability

The 1872 Mining Law allows prospectors to stake a claim on public land to mine gold, copper, and other “hard-rock” minerals, including uranium. But the quality, quantity, and other characteristics of the discovered ore must be sufficient to produce a profit after all mining and reclamation costs are paid for, including the costs of complying with laws meant to protect cultural resources and the environment. 

In appealing the decision to allow the Canyon Mine to operate despite the ban on new mining claims, we argued that the  Forest Service failed to consider the real costs of the mine, including taking precautionary measures to minimize risks to the region’s groundwater and to protect plants, animals, cultural resources, and the public from uranium contamination. And those costs are going up.

Escalating costs 

In 2017, Canyon Mine’s freshly sunk shaft flooded with groundwater from a documented “perched aquifer” that was encountered during exploratory drilling. 

The miners had underestimated the volume of water in the aquifer and overestimated the capacity of a containment pond meant to hold that water. After addressing the overflow threat by trucking surplus water to a uranium mill in Utah, water continues to pour from the aquifer into the mine shaft, where it is being continuously pumped into the pond for evaporation. The mine’s owners have since decided to stop mine construction because of the chronically depressed uranium market. Meanwhile, the owners are paying to operate and maintain the pumps that are constantly removing contaminated water from the mine shaft. 

The Forest Service’s original calculation of Canyon Mine’s profitability did not consider these costs. So the liabilities on the mine’s balance sheet, which we think the Forest Service got wrong to begin with, have only grown. 

What’s next?

The appellate court’s decision calls on the district court to again take up our argument that the Forest Service failed to consider all costs in calculating Canyon Mine’s profitability. That gives us the chance to keep pressing our argument that the mine should not be allowed to operate despite the ban.

We believe that the Forest Service was wrong in permitting Canyon Mine to move forward without properly considering the consequences based on well-documented evidence about risks to the region’s groundwater. The agency failed to calculate the full cost of uranium mining in an area where the secretary of the interior had already deemed permitting new uranium claims too risky.

We’re grateful to get another day in court. This decades-long fight to stop private profits from bankrupting our public interest isn’t over yet.

 by Megan Kelly, Energy Associate

As if our public lands haven’t faced enough hardship, the U.S. Forest Service is proposing to revise its rules for hardrock mining (mining of minerals such as uranium ore) to speed up the review process that determines whether or not proposed mining operations are allowed to move forward. This comes in response to executive orders issued by the Trump administration generally aimed at advancing mineral extraction, and could have serious implications for mining claims in national forests throughout the Colorado Plateau, including lands in the Bears Ears region. 

The idea of making it easier for mining companies to set up shop on public lands is concerning, but the proposed rule change is also an opportunity to improve mining regulations in ways that could be beneficial to your public lands. The Grand Canyon Trust and our partners will submit comments to the Forest Service regarding the proposed rule change, and we encourage you to do the same. 

Take action. Send a comment to the Forest Service before October 15, 2018 ›

What is the Forest Service thinking about changing, why, and what will it mean for your national forests? Let’s take a look: 

Updating mine plans of operations

The Forest Service wants to give itself authority to require mines to modify their plans of operations based on what is currently happening on the ground. Plans of operations are how the government regulates hardrock mining on public lands. Current rules make modifications difficult to require, and have allowed mines such as Canyon Mine, a uranium mine located on the Kaibab National Forest, near Grand Canyon National Park, to restart operations after decades of inactivity. Canyon Mine's plan of operations has not been updated since 1984.

Clarifying rules and addressing negligence 

Another proposed rule change aims to clarify classifications of mining operations that determine whether or not a mining company must notify officials or submit a plan of operations for what it intends to do to your public lands. While adopting Bureau of Land Management language could be a step in the right direction, the Forest Service should require a plan of operations for all mining activities beyond "casual use" (uses with little impact, such as collecting specimens with hand tools). 

The Forest Service also wants to clarify what happens when mine operators don’t follow the rules. Enabling the agency to impose higher fines and/or more jail time for those caught in noncompliance is a good start, but the Forest Service should pursue even more aggressive enforcement mechanisms to incentivize compliance. For example, it could choose not to put a cap on jail time or fines, and could require that penalties cover all costs to investigate and remediate all resources affected by operator negligence. 

Keep taxpayers safe, and off the hook

The costs of mine cleanup have too often rested on the shoulders of taxpayers, rather than the mine operators who made the mess in the first place. Financial guarantees (called “surety bonds”) are a safety net for cleanup if operators walk away, but cleanup costs change with time, inflation happens, and contamination can be worse than anticipated. Currently, bonds are not required to be updated to guarantee coverage that reflects these changes, except when plans of operations are formally modified. This could change for the better, as the Forest Service wants to require periodic reviews of surety bonds to ensure funds will cover the present-day cost of cleanup. 

Letting mining bans work

When a mining ban is established, the Forest Service is supposed to assess whether a mine or claim can be exempted and allowed to move forward under the ban. This is called a “validity exam.” But the Forest Service is proposing to follow the Bureau of Land Management’s rules, and the Bureau of Land Management takes the view that these assessments are not required to exempt mines that have been approved before a ban is put in place. Instead of adopting the Bureau of Land Management rules, the Forest Service should require assessments for all mining claims and operations within the boundaries of a mining ban, whether or not operations were previously approved. 

In general, the Forest Service should be careful not to merely allow shortcuts for mining operators and companies with these proposed rule changes. However, many of these changes could rectify antiquated regulations that fail to take present-day circumstances into account.

Help us urge the Forest Service to take these changes in the right direction. 

Not sure what to say? Here are some points to touch upon: 

• Update mining plans regularly. The Forest Service’s proposal to require updated mining plans is past due. Actions are needed to protect national forests based on present-day circumstances and up-to-date science. 
• Increase fines and penalties for negligence. Amplifying Forest Service authority against negligent operators should include more aggressive enforcement rules, beyond those of the Bureau of Land Management, to further incentivize compliance and protect resources. 
• Require plans of operations for all mining activities. Trying to achieve consistency between the Bureau of Land Management’s and the Forest Service’s mine-classification rules is a worthwhile goal. But mine plans should be required for exploration or mining beyond “casual use.” 
• Mining companies, not taxpayers, need to put aside enough money for cleanup. Requiring periodic reviews of financial guarantees is important. A funding mechanism should also be established to guarantee proper funds. 
• Require validity exams for all mining operations. The Forest Service should require validity exams for all mining operations, even in proposed ban areas, and certainly for all mining operations in areas of established mining bans, whether or not the operations were previously approved.

I'm ready. Take me to the comment form › 

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

This week, supporters of the Grand Canyon mining ban saw a much-anticipated victory. Since the ban on new uranium claims on public lands surrounding Grand Canyon National Park was implemented in 2012, it has faced legal challenges from the mining industry. The challenges centered around the accusation that the ban was an example of overreach by the federal government. The mining industry lost its case first before the Arizona District Court in 2014, and then it lost an appeal before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. This week, we learned that the legal fight is, at long last, over. In a final bid to see the mining ban dissolved on legal grounds, the National Mining Association asked the Supreme Court earlier this year to hear its appeal. On Monday, that request was denied, affirming that the Grand Canyon mining ban has the right to exist.  

Trump administration could still lift the mining ban

This good news is a very big step in the right direction, but our work isn’t done just yet. That’s because, while the legal framework for the mining ban has been affirmed, the administration could still decide that the ban itself is no longer needed. And despite small indications that Secretary Ryan Zinke’s Department of the Interior may support the mining ban, Grand Canyon advocates lack the reassurance we need to let down our guard. 

Local elected officials and members of Arizona’s congressional delegation have requested a formal statement from the Interior Department supporting the mining ban, but so far those requests have gone unanswered. 

Some hopeful hints that the Interior Department may support the ban came when the Trump administration defended the ban in court, just as the Obama administration had before it. We’re deeply grateful for the government’s savvy and forceful efforts to defeat the mining industry’s lawsuit, from the trial court to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet whether that successful legal defense means that Secretary Zinke is committed to keeping the Grand Canyon mining hiatus intact — and pursuing the research that hiatus was meant to enable — isn’t beyond doubt. A host of complex considerations goes into the government’s legal strategies, leaving open the possibility that the secretary might yet want to pursue political channels to undermine or undo the withdrawal.

The second indication of possible support for the ban came via a tweet from the Interior Department’s press secretary in June 2018, admonishing sportsmen’s groups for “such a tremendous waste of precious conservation dollars” after the groups paid for billboards along the I-17 corridor in Phoenix, Arizona asking the public to contact the agency and urge the government to keep the mining ban intact.  

The Grand Canyon Trust, in a meeting with Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt in September 2018, got the message that the agency currently has “no reason” to reconsider the ban. 

To be clear, we’re glad that the Interior Department seems to support the mining ban. But the mining industry says it will continue to advocate against the ban in the name of national security and some politicians continue to specifically ask for the ban to be rescinded. 

Uranium quota investigation and critical minerals strategy

The Department of Commerce is in the midst of a uranium quota investigation and critical minerals strategy development that have significant potential to add political pressure to lift the ban. And a U.S. Forest Service recommendation to review and revise the ban is still floating in the ether of “no one knows what’s happening with that.” In short, this is why a simple “seems to” support the mining ban isn’t good enough. 

In the world of advocacy, it’s important to celebrate the wins while remaining soberly aware of still-moving pieces. That’s what the Grand Canyon Trust is doing right now. The uranium quota investigation, the Commerce Department strategy around critical minerals, and pending Forest Service actions are moving pieces with the potential to change the playing field upon which the mining ban sits. In an attempt to stay ahead of these decisions, this fall we traveled to Washington, D.C. with representatives of the broad coalition of mining ban supporters to meet with the people behind these administrative processes. We’ve also participated in public comment opportunities around these important decisions.

The Grand Canyon Trust is doing everything in our power to make sure decision-makers know that supporters of the Grand Canyon are still watching and that we’re still at the table. Thank you for standing with us.

 by Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Director

The Havasupai Tribal Council is inviting Native American neighbors and the general public to gather at Red Butte for four days this fall, October 4-7, 2018, for an intertribal spiritual gathering to protect their Grand Canyon homeland from uranium mining contamination. 

Why gather at Red Butte?

For first-time participants, these periodic gatherings near the southern gateway to Grand Canyon National Park offer a crash course in listening and learning.

Last year’s gathering at Red Butte occurred during the heat of summer. Convened in a sagebrush meadow within a high-plateau forest of piñon pines and juniper, we awoke early each day to the smell woodsmoke, chilly temperatures, and starlit skies. As the shadow of nearby Red Butte retreated with the rising sun, drumbeats, and singing filled the air. 

Mid-morning, we gathered under the shade of an enormous tent for an opening prayer. On the first day, former Tribal Chairman Rex Tilousi welcomed us, saying, “This gathering not only involves the Havasu Baaja. It involves a lot of people that have connections to the canyon.” 

The gatherings at Red Butte also serve to send messages to a larger audience and to unite opposition to such ongoing threats as the nearby Canyon uranium mine and the possibility of new mines adding to the legacy of contaminated air, water, and land that surrounds the Grand Canyon.

For example, during a 2009 gathering, the Arizona Republic published a statement by then Havasupai Tribe Vice Chairman Matthew Putesoy explaining that, “As the ‘guardians of the Grand Canyon,’ we strenuously object to mining for uranium here. It is a threat to the health of our environment and tribe, our tourism-based economy, and our religion.”

But possibly the most compelling reasons for attending are to experience what occurs as the guardians of Grand Canyon gather on sacred ground and to support their cause.

Homelands

According to historian Stephen Hirst, the Havasupai have been using the Grand Canyon with care and respect for more than seven centuries. “One day, “ Hirst writes, “invaders appeared from the other side of the earth and said the Havasupais’ homelands were so beautiful they should be reserved for viewing, and the Havasupai were made to leave. All that remained to them was the narrow bottom of Havasu Canyon.” 

In 1882, 10 years after Congress passed the law that opened public lands to mining, the United States officially restricted the Havasupai to a 518-acre reservation. But many tribal members continued to use their lands above and below the canyon’s rim until copper miners pushed them away from springs where they gardened every summer. Later, federal agencies took possession of Red Butte, Indian Gardens, Rain Tank, and many other sites where the Havasupai once lived and gathered.

For nearly a century, the Havasupai fought to regain access to hunting grounds and sacred areas above the rim. Finally, in 1975, Congress returned a portion of those lands for traditional uses. Still, the Havasupai must ask permission to gather at Red Butte. 

Permission granted

The Havasupai refer to Red Butte as “Clenched-fist Mountain” and “lungs of Mother Earth.” It is the spiritual center of their aboriginal homeland encompassing more than 3 million acres. The prominent stack of maroon-colored rocks is visible to millions of visitors as they approach Grand Canyon National Park.

During the 1980s, the U.S. Forest Service permitted a mining company to begin developing the Canyon uranium mine, located within what was later recognized as the Red Butte Traditional Cultural Property. The Havasupai lost their first lawsuit to stop the mine. But the partially developed mine soon closed in 1991 due to what turned out to be a decades-long slump in uranium prices.

The Havasupai again sued the U.S. Forest Service when it permitted Canyon Mine to reopen in 2013. Their appeal of that suit was still pending last year, when they asked the agency to permit the 2017 gathering at Red Butte.

The Kaibab National Forest had banned all campfires due to seasonally dry and windy weather and dangerous wildfire conditions. Respecting their request, the agency made an exception by permitting the Havasupai Tribe to build three fires. 

Drumbeats

Each morning before dawn, singers and drummers gathered at the ceremonial fire. Across the meadow, another fire boiled water next to a steam-healing sweat lodge. Later in the day, cooks tended a larger fire in a roasting pit to help feed several hundred people.

That afternoon, we joined in round-dancing and heard more from powerful speakers, including councilwoman Coleen Kaska, who explained, “The message that we’re trying to send is 'listen to us. Hear our voices. Hear the Native people’s voices. Hear the Havasupai Tribe. We’re a small tribe but we have a big voice, we have a big area to protect, Grand Canyon area as our sacred religious territory and aboriginal lands. We are still here and wanting to protect our Mother Earth.'”

On the third day, councilmember Richard Watahomigie said, “Our words are our prayers, our sound is our song, and our power is the drumbeat. When we do all that, the wind carries that everywhere, all over the world.”

On the fourth day, a soaking rain swept across Red Butte. 

2018 Gathering at Red Butte

The dates for this year’s gathering were selected to coincide with the four days preceding Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Hosted by the Havasupai Tribal Council and community, the Grand Canyon Trust, National Parks and Conservation Association, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and a private citizen are helping to cosponsor the gathering. The U.S. Forest Service is donating water. This year, there are no fire restrictions in effect.

Support the Havasupai Tribe’s 2018 intertribal spiritual gathering at Red Butte ›

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

The U.S. Department of Commerce is considering — at the behest of two uranium-mining companies — asking President Trump to impose uranium quotas, effectively forcing the U.S. nuclear power industry to purchase more uranium mined from U.S. public lands. Quotas would increase the price of uranium and make mining it more profitable, while putting our environment and our communities at risk. 

For decades, the global uranium market has been saturated, which has kept prices low. Now uranium mining companies are ignoring the facts and taking advantage of a protectionist administration to boost their bottom lines.

TAKE ACTION. Urge the Commerce Department not to recommend uranium quotas ›

There are hundreds of active mining claims on public lands in and around the original Bears Ears National Monument and around Grand Canyon National Park. If the uranium companies get these quotas and the price bump they say will accompany them, mining those claims could become a lot more attractive. The deadline to submit a public comment has been extended to September 25, 2018.

In your own words, please voice your opposition to uranium quotas. Some intel to share:

1. Uranium quotas won't increase national security. If the goal of quotas is to stabilize nuclear power, it would fail. The nuclear power industry itself estimates that a requirement to buy U.S. uranium would cost an extra $500-800 million per year, drive up the cost of electricity, and force reactors to close.
2. We already have enough uranium. Defense experts, including at the Department of Energy, say uranium supplies for defense needs are fulfilled at least through 2060. There’s no rush to mine additional uranium.
3. Mining uranium isn't worth the risk. The impact of the uranium mining industry on local economies will be marginal compared to the environmental risks, which could jeopardize key economic drivers like outdoor recreation and tourism.  In Arizona, a recent poll shows that 73 percent of voters consider outdoor recreation to be more important to the state's economic future than mining.

Please urge the Department of Commerce not to recommend quotas on uranium by the September 25 deadline ›

Thank you for taking action to protect our public lands from this ploy by uranium companies to drive up prices and bolster their own bottom lines.

 by Tim Peterson, Utah Wildlands Director

The Grand Canyon Trust and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance have appealed a decision by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to allow a massive expansion of the contentious Daneros uranium mine on public lands on the doorstep of Bears Ears National Monument. 

Back in February, the BLM gave the mine’s owner, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., the green light to expand the mine from 4.5 acres to 46 acres and truck up to half a million tons of uranium ore through Bears Ears National Monument to the company’s White Mesa uranium mill. We appealed, and filed a statement of reasons backing up our appeal on Friday, August 10, 2018.

We filed this appeal because we believe that the BLM did not take a hard look at the mine expansion’s potential impacts, and did not consider any alternatives other than keeping things as they are and the expansion as proposed by Energy Fuels. The BLM now has until mid-October to respond. 

Why care about the Daneros Mine? 

The wild landscape surrounding the Daneros Mine is too rich in cultural, historic, and scientific resources to imperil with more poisonous mining. The mine is located on lands proposed for national monument status by the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition in 2015, and it’s just three miles from Bears Ears National Monument as designated by President Obama in 2016.

During busy periods, the mine could run nonstop, broadcasting dust and noise from exhaust fans, generators, trucks, and other activity, and sullying an especially dark night sky. Up to 15 truckloads of uranium ore each day would be driven along steep and narrow roads from the mine to the highway, then through the south side of Natural Bridges National Monument and through the Shash Jaa’ monument unit of the shrunken Bears Ears designated by President Trump in 2017. 

Knowledge is power. Join our Action Alert Network and we’ll email you when there’s an opportunity to weigh in ›

The ore would be milled at the White Mesa uranium mill near the Ute Mountain Ute tribal community of White Mesa. The White Mesa Mill is already plagued with contamination that threatens the water, air, and public health of southeastern Utah, and this must be addressed before it is allowed to process any more toxic and radioactive material.

The Daneros Mine is currently mothballed, idled since 2012 when three reactor-core meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant put the nail in the coffin on already nosediving uranium prices. Though low uranium prices made the mine unprofitable, in 2013 Energy Fuels proposed expanding the footprint of the mine tenfold, boosting production from 100,000 tons to half a million tons of uranium ore, adding two new mine portals and numerous new ventilation shafts, and extending the life of the mine from seven to 20 years. In February 2018, the BLM approved a modified plan of operations greenlighting all the company’s plans. Even if Energy Fuels decides not to resume mining, this approval could end up delaying the costly cleanup of the existing mine for two decades or more.

Taking a hard look at the Daneros Mine

Without adequately analyzing the mine expansion’s potential impacts, we believe the BLM violated federal law approving the expansion and concluding that the project would not have a significant environmental impact. We’re asking the BLM to comprehensively analyze the mine expansion’s impacts on surface water, groundwater, and other resources, in part by conducting a more in-depth environmental review known as an environmental impact statement. We also aim to prevent surface water and groundwater contamination by requiring stricter standards for cleaning up the mine and additional monitoring and response procedures to detect and mitigate potential contamination.

The Daneros Mine is within the ancestral lands of several tribes, including the Ute Mountain Ute, Hopi, and the Navajo Nation. Diné (Navajo) people know uranium from a traditional story. The creator gave them a choice between yellow corn pollen and yellowcake uranium dust. The Diné chose corn pollen, and it is a fundamental aspect of traditional culture to this day. The creator then warned the people that if uranium was disturbed, it would unleash destruction. The destruction came to pass, sickening many who worked in the mines and mills during the Cold War. 

Radiation is particularly insidious because you can’t see it, smell it, or taste it, and yet it can be harmful to human health for a thousand generations or more. Instead of opening new and expanding old uranium mines, our society should be doing our best to clean up our toxic legacy for the thousand generations yet to be born. We’re working to make sure that this mine does not add to that legacy. 

Knowledge is power. Join our Action Alert Network and we’ll email you when there’s an opportunity to weigh in ›

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

It's been decades since the U.S. has seen a rush to the hills for uranium. But under the Trump administration, that could be about to change. Today, internationally owned mining companies are clinking their glasses over the chance to make a taxpayer-subsidized profit mining uranium on U.S. public lands despite a glutted global market. Meanwhile communities whose health and environment are still suffering from the last uranium boom, and even domestic nuclear power plant operators, are bracing themselves for impact. 

That’s because, this week, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced it will investigate whether or not to recommend to President Trump that he impose quotas to force the purchase of domestically mined uranium under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. This is the same sort of investigation that resulted in tariffs and quotas on aluminum and steel earlier this year.

Uranium industry seeks to boost its bottom line

The uranium investigation comes at the request of Ur-Energy and Energy Fuels International, both Canada-based uranium mining companies with operations in the United States. Both companies petitioned the Department of Commerce back in January to force the purchase of domestically mined uranium by U.S. consumers. Energy Fuels owns and operates the White Mesa Mill, the last remaining conventional uranium mill in the country, and also has significant claims and interest on public lands spanning from the Grand Canyon to Bears Ears to the plains of Wyoming.

American national security is the flag that these mining companies are waving before the administration in hopes that their petition requests will be granted. But that claim is just a convenient frame for what is, at its core, a simple ploy by these companies to bolster their own bottom lines. Why? Allow me to explain. 

Security for what? 

If a goal of these quotas is to ensure the security of domestic nuclear power, they’re doomed to fail. Forcing U.S. nuclear plants to fulfill a quarter of their demand with uranium mined mostly, if not all, from our public lands and minerals (as the mining companies have requested) would, according to the nuclear power industry itself, actually cost them $500-800 million dollars per year. It would whittle away at these power plants’ already tenuous bottom lines, risking the forced shutdown of plants already struggling against low natural gas prices. The nuclear power industry’s own report claims “[t]he employment impact of the retirement of a single nuclear facility likely offsets any increase in mining employment due to the proposed quota. In addition, incremental retirements due to the quota would permanently diminish demand for uranium, increase electricity costs for consumers, decrease the resiliency of the electric system…”

Okay, so import quotas wouldn’t add security to the nuclear power industry, but what about our military defense needs? As the Washington Post reported on July 18: “The United States has 574.5 metric tons of highly enriched uranium, according to the International Panel on Fissile Materials. A 2015 Energy Department study on security of supply said ‘new sources of fuel for naval reactors will be needed in approximately 2060.’ The United States is seeking to reduce the number of nuclear warheads worldwide, so there is little need for uranium imports for U.S. nuclear weapons.”

So if propping up the domestic uranium market won’t make nuclear power plants more secure and it doesn’t fill gaps in military defense needs, whose interests are being protected, exactly? You’ve got it — the bottom lines of the mining companies themselves. According to the Section 232 petition asking the Department of Commerce to investigate uranium imports, “Under the 25 percent quota, prices increase $21 per pound in 2018 and $32 per pound in 2022…which translate to a 69 and 104 percent increase in domestic prices respectively.”

Earlier this year, Energy Fuels' president told an audience at an investor conference that if the Section 232 petition were granted, "that could change our business overnight." 

Help us remind Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that the Grand Canyon is too precious to risk. Take action now ›

 by Amber Reimondo, Energy Director

In May, Ute Mountain Ute tribal members led their annual spiritual walk from the small reservation community of White Mesa to the nearby White Mesa uranium mill, the only operating conventional uranium mill in the United States. 

Hugging the gravel shoulder of U.S. Highway 191, just east of Bears Ears National Monument, the spiritual walk marked the latest protest in the community’s decades-long struggle to protect tribal members’ health, water, air, land, culture, and sacred sites from the uranium mill, located just a few miles north of their reservation.

Community members and the tribe’s environmental department worry that the mill — a destination for uranium ore mined across the Colorado Plateau and for waste from toxic and radioactive sites across the country — could contaminate groundwater.

"We want to make sure that water is okay forever. We're thinking about the long-term," explained Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Environmental Programs Director Scott Clow.

“The last two generations of Utes in White Mesa have lived with the knowledge that a uranium mill is contaminating our homelands — our pure water, clean air and even the burial grounds of our people,” wrote community member Yolanda Badback. “The mill was built on top of burial grounds and contaminates the bones of my ancestors.”

Numerous Native American archaeological sites affiliated with the San Juan Anasazi, who occupied this area of Utah from the first to the 14th centuries, are located on the mill site. In some cases, mill infrastructure, including waste ponds, was constructed directly atop the original locations of these sites.

Some community members see the mill as an environmental justice issue, since the reservation town is the mill’s nearest neighbor. Nationally, over 90 percent of all uranium milling in the U.S. has occurred on or just outside the boundaries of American Indian reservations.

White Mesa Mill’s license renewed, now what?

Earlier this year, state regulators renewed the mill’s radioactive materials license, which governs how the mill operates and how it will eventually be cleaned up, despite concerns raised by community members, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and conservation organizations, including the Grand Canyon Trust. 

The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, the Grand Canyon Trust, and others have appealed to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to review the decision to renew the license. Those appeals are pending.

Uranium industry forges ahead

What lies ahead for the White Mesa Mill as the sole destination for uranium ore mined on the Colorado Plateau? The administration is working to enhance access to uranium while the uranium industry pushes for policies that would drive up prices. Last week, at the request of Energy Fuels, the U.S. Department of Commerce opened an investigation into uranium imports that could lead to tariffs designed to boost the bottom line of companies mining in the U.S.

Meanwhile, back in February, the Bureau of Land Management approved an expansion of the Daneros uranium mine, also owned by Energy Fuels, which would allow the company to truck up to half a million tons of uranium ore through Bears Ears National Monument to the White Mesa Mill. The Grand Canyon Trust and others are currently challenging that decision before the Interior Board of Land Appeals.

A February 2018 search of the agency’s LR2000 database revealed that, as of that date, Energy Fuels held 117 active mining claims within the original Bears Ears National Monument, and an additional 179 claims to the west of it, near the Daneros Mine.

We won’t see a uranium boom without a surge in prices, but if that did happen, every ounce of uranium ore that is mined in the U.S. the old-fashioned way (rather than through underground leaching) will be processed at the White Mesa Mill. And more processing means more waste, and more risk of contamination.

White Mesa Mill on the public’s radar

The White Mesa Mill has long flown under the public’s radar. But revelations that Energy Fuels lobbied (with the assistance of Andrew Wheeler) to reduce the size of Bear Ears National Monument has earned the mill mentions in the New York Times. Community members continue to speak out and share their stories in the media. 

A short documentary the Trust worked with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to produce, Half Life: The Story of America’s Last Uranium Mill, will make its world premiere at the International Uranium Film Festival in Berlin in October, and will be featured in the festival’s U.S. tour in Window Rock, on the Navajo Nation, the following month.

You can help

In addition to working to ensure that the mill operates safely and in accordance with the law, the Grand Canyon Trust is dedicated to challenging the Daneros Mine expansion and opposing the listing of uranium as a critical mineral, as well as attempts to enhance access to uranium or artificially inflate demand.

Ready to help? Join our action alert network ›