Press "Enter" to skip to content

EPA Faces Lawsuit over Powertech Uranium Permit; Call Secretary Haaland!

In its fire sale of America’s health and welfare, the Trump Administration last month approved the Powertech/Azarga in situ uranium mining plan in the Dewey–Burdock corners of Custer and Fall River counties. Powertech can’t start shooting water into the ground to flush out uranium just yet; it still needs some permits from the federal Bureau of Land Management and the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (which Governor Kristi Noem is conveniently burying in the pro-business, pro-exploitation Department of Agriculture, which is neither equipped nor inclined to regulate uranium mining), but the Clean Water Alliance is raising the alarm for two main reasons:

The first is that – with these permits — the Environmental Protection Agency has said it’s okay to allow the toxic and radioactive contamination of groundwater aquifers – aquifers that are needed in our semi-arid region. The Agency says that the risks associated with this dangerous project are “acceptable.” Their word. Our question is “Acceptable to who?” To the uranium company – and apparently to the EPA. But not to the almost 700 local people who attended the EPA hearings about the permits in 2017 and handed the EPA a clear message – “No Uranium Mining in the Black Hills.”

The second reason is that the EPA’s review of this project is not serious or complete. Despite the time they’ve had to do a good job, the documents issued with the permits and the permit process appear rushed. Issues include:

  • The fact that the Dewey-Burdock site is not a suitable location for an in situ leach uranium mine, which requires that underground water can be controlled to prevent leaks of contaminated water into clean water. In the Dewey-Burdock area, the rock is fractured, making leaks likely. In some places, underground water moves very quickly, increasing the likelihood that the contaminated mining water will flow into water that had been clean.
  • Second, the EPA is required by law to consult with tribal governments on a range of potential issues. The EPA cut off this process before consultation occurred. Without thorough government-to-government tribal consultation, these permits are illegal.
  • And third, the EPA issued the permits before it tested the groundwater aquifer where the company wants to pump waste water into disposal wells. The water in this aquifer is safe drinking water in nearby areas. It is illegal to pump waste water into safe drinking water. The aquifer’s water should have been tested before any permit was issued to insure it is protected [Black Hills Clean Water Alliance, press release, 2020.11.25].

…and taking the EPA to court:

Federal well permits for a project down in the southwestern corner of South Dakota that would inject water underground to dissolve uranium, and then pump the solution to the surface for processing, appears headed into a federal court.

Bruce Ellison, a Rapid City lawyer representing Clean Water Alliance, said Thursday that permits the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued November 24 for the Powertech mine would be contested. His comments came during a discussion by the state Board of Minerals and Environment [Bob Mercer, “A Proposed Uranium Mine That Would Rely on South Dakota Water Faces a Court Challenge,” KELO-TV, 2020.12.17].

The Oglala Sioux Tribe, which waged its own unsuccessful court challenge against Powertech/Azarga’s uranium project, says the Trump EPA broke two federal laws in approving this in situ mine:

Those two laws require government-to-government consultation between U.S. and tribal authorities when Native cultural resources are impacted by project permit requests, such as this one by Canada-based Chinese multi-national Azarga Uranium Corp. and its wholly owned subsidiary Powertech USA Inc.Without conducting the consultation to the tribe’s satisfaction, the EPA announced it has proceeded to grant an exemption from compliance with the quality standards of the Clean Drinking Water Act and two permits to punch some 4,000 new injection well holes in the aquifers for this project [Talli Nauman, “EPA Draws Fire from OST,” Native Sun News Today via Indianz.com, 2020.12.09].

Hmmm… maybe alongside lawyering up to take the EPA to court, the tribes and the Clean Water Alliance will want to take their concerns to the Bureau of Land Management, which will be under new management in barely a month. President-Elect Joe Biden just named New Mexico Congresswoman Deb Haaland to be his Secretary of the Interior. As a member of the Laguna Pueblo people with a keen understanding of the harmful impacts of improperly handled radioactive materials on her people, Secretary-nominate Haaland might direct her BLM to be more sensitive to Native claims and environmental justice and put the kibosh on uranium mining in the Black Hills.

4 Comments

  1. Donald Pay 2020-12-18 11:46

    Yes. I do believe that both Mr. Ellison and Mr. Leach cut their legal teeth in South Dakota on uranium/native issues. What happened to Phyllis Girrourd (spelling?) and Andy Reid, two other good legal minds who worked on these issues?

  2. Whitless 2020-12-18 14:33

    Protecting underground aquifers is vital. The presumption should be that an application for an underground injection well will be denied unless the applicant demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence that the risk of contaminating an aquifer is de minimis, during mining and just as importantly, after the mining operation is complete. This includes natural events, such as an earthquake, that may create cracks, allowing contaminated water to seep into an aquifer. Furthermore, the permit should be contingent upon the company depositing with the EPA funds that are sufficient to cover the cost of monitoring for a period of years if the company fails to keep its promise to monitor the well sites after the project is completed. Too many examples exist of companies that have gone bankrupt or dissolved, leaving a mining site that is an environmental hazard.

  3. Mark Anderson 2020-12-18 17:10

    Yes, perhaps South Dakota will be protected under Biden. First Ms. Haaland will have to be approved, which will be fun to watch. Second, if she can prevent the South Dakota Republicans from selling out the long term health of its people for a short term gain in profits. Now that is doubtful.

  4. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2020-12-19 08:10

    The funny thing is, if Powertech/Azarga could safely extract that uranium without ruining the Black Hills water supply, and if Powertech/Azarga didn’t export all that uranium to China and Russia, we could use that uranium to fuel nuclear power plants that could power our electric cars and tractors here in South Dakota.

Comments are closed.