Protecting Drinking Water from Uranium Mill Wastes

• Author: Environmental Law Institute
• Pages: 12-13

12 NEPA Success Stories

Decisions that adversely aect the natural environ-

ment may also create potential adverse public health

impacts. NEPA’s purpose is to not only protect the

environment but also to protect and promote public

health. is case shows how a robust NEPA review

can achieve more productive results.

e Moab Uranium Millsite site is located on the

west bank of the Colorado River near Moab, Utah

and adjacent to Arches National Park. e site cov-

ers approximately 400 acres and contains almost 16

millions tons of uranium mill tailings, the radioac-

tive residue from processing uranium. e uranium

mill tailings are piled within the oodplain of the

Colorado River, which serves as a primary drinking

water supply for Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego and

Los Angeles, raising concerns of contaminating the

drinking water of millions of people.

In 1986 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) issued a single-alternative Environmental As-

sessment (EA) approving mill-owner Atlas Minerals’

plan to cap the tailings in place on the riverbank.

e EA only contained one alternative because the

NRC asserted that they could not evaluate alterna-

tives not proposed by their licensee. In 1993 NRC

issued a Finding of No Signicant Impact (FONSI)

on Atlas’ plans to cap the tailings pile. e EA did

not take into account geometric considerations at

the site which required steeper sideslopes than al-

lowed by regulation. e local county government

wrote a letter of protest stating that the cap-in-place

option met none of the long term objectives for tail-

ings disposal and did not include an alternative of

moving the wastes to a safer site away from the river.

Convinced by the letter, Senator Orrin Hatch inter-

vened, requesting NRC to prepare a full Environ-

mental Impact Statement (EIS) on disposal options.

Still constrained by its interpretation that it could

only analyze alternatives proposed by its licensee,

NRC again prepared an EIS with just one alterna-

tive. e EIS noted that relocating the tailings would

be preferable in every respect except it would cost

more. e EIS did not address ground and surface

water contamination because the NRC determined

there was no risk of contamination.

is nal EIS position was contradicted by the Utah

Division of Drinking Water, which measured high

levels of contaminants in the Colorado River in

direct association with the tailings pile. Oak Ridge

National Lab next conrmed extreme contamination

of groundwater at the site, and the U.S. Geological

Service demonstrated that near shore waters in the

river were lethal to sh. is compelled the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service to issue a “biological opinion”

after issuance of the nal EIS, stating that the plan

to cap the tailings in place would jeopardize the

endangered Colorado pikeminnow. Atlas, which had

never planned any groundwater remediation, led

for bankruptcy, leaving behind a reclamation bond

worth just $4.25 million.

e Atlas bankruptcy left the site in a legal void. In

2001, Congress assigned responsibility for cleanup at

Moab to the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE,

as the lead agency, held public scoping meetings

for the EIS in January 2003 and issued a draft EIS

in November 2004 for public comment. e draft

EIS explored whether the tailings should be moved

or stored in place, but did not include a preferred

alternative. On April 6, 2005, DOE announced

that the nal EIS would recommend moving the 12

million tons of radioactive waste by train to Crescent

Junction, thirty miles north of Colorado River. e

nal EIS was published in July 2005, and the Record

of Decision was issued in September 2005. In 2008

the EIS was amended to allow a change in transpor-

tation options to provide greater exibility.

During the public comment period on the draft

EIS, diverse stakeholders submitted comments on

the proposals for nal storage of the tailings. Com-

ments were submitted by a bipartisan coalition of

governors from Arizona, California, New Mexico,

PROTECTING D RINKING WATER FROM UR ANIUM MI LL WASTES

AVOIDING RISKS OF MASSIVE DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION VIA A SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE