Chris Capoccia (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Still contains POV/OR content. Instead of rewriting the article in a single edit, why don't you try adding it one point at a time? Tag: nowiki added |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
<!-- Per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE, neither the article's title nor related text appears in bold. -->The '''2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill''' was an [[environmental disaster]] that began at the Gold King Mine near [[Silverton, Colorado]],<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.newsweek.com/epa-causes-massive-colorado-spill-1-million-gallons-mining-waste-turns-river-361019 | first=Zoë | last=Schlanger | title=EPA Causes Massive Spill of Mining Waste Water in Colorado, Turns Animas River Bright Orange | date=August 7, 2015 | accessdate=August 10, 2015}}</ref> when [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]] personnel, along with workers for Environmental Restoration LLC (a Missouri company under EPA contract to mitigate pollutants from the closed mine), caused the release of toxic waste water into the Animas River watershed. They caused the accident while attempting to drain ponded water near the entrance of the mine on August 5.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-contractor-involved-in-colorado-spill-identified-as-environmental-restoration-1439414672 | last1=Harder | first1=Amy | last2=Berzon | first2=Alexandra | last3=Forsyth | first3=Jennifer | title=EPA Contractor Involved in Colorado Spill Identified as Environmental Restoration | work=[[Wall Street Journal]] | date=August 12, 2015 | accessdate=August 12, 2015}}</ref> After the spill, the Silverton Board of Trustees and the San Juan County Commission approved a joint resolution seeking Superfund money.<ref name = AccSup>{{cite news| title = Silverton to seek federal cleanup help after Gold King Mine disaster| date = Aug 25, 2015| url = http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/silverton-to-seek-federal-cleanup-help-after-gold-king-mine-disaster| publisher = ABC 7 Denver}}</ref> |
<!-- Per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE, neither the article's title nor related text appears in bold. -->The '''2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill''' was an [[environmental disaster]] that began at the Gold King Mine near [[Silverton, Colorado]],<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.newsweek.com/epa-causes-massive-colorado-spill-1-million-gallons-mining-waste-turns-river-361019 | first=Zoë | last=Schlanger | title=EPA Causes Massive Spill of Mining Waste Water in Colorado, Turns Animas River Bright Orange | date=August 7, 2015 | accessdate=August 10, 2015}}</ref> when [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]] personnel, along with workers for Environmental Restoration LLC (a Missouri company under EPA contract to mitigate pollutants from the closed mine), caused the release of toxic waste water into the Animas River watershed. They caused the accident while attempting to drain ponded water near the entrance of the mine on August 5.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-contractor-involved-in-colorado-spill-identified-as-environmental-restoration-1439414672 | last1=Harder | first1=Amy | last2=Berzon | first2=Alexandra | last3=Forsyth | first3=Jennifer | title=EPA Contractor Involved in Colorado Spill Identified as Environmental Restoration | work=[[Wall Street Journal]] | date=August 12, 2015 | accessdate=August 12, 2015}}</ref> After the spill, the Silverton Board of Trustees and the San Juan County Commission approved a joint resolution seeking Superfund money.<ref name = AccSup>{{cite news| title = Silverton to seek federal cleanup help after Gold King Mine disaster| date = Aug 25, 2015| url = http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/silverton-to-seek-federal-cleanup-help-after-gold-king-mine-disaster| publisher = ABC 7 Denver}}</ref> |
||
Contractors accidentally destroyed the plug holding water trapped inside the mine, which caused an overflow of the pond, spilling {{convert|3|MUSgal|ML|spell=on}} of [[Acid mine drainage|mine waste water]] and [[tailings]], including heavy metals such as [[cadmium]] and [[lead]], and other toxic elements, such as [[arsenic]],<ref name="denPost" |
Contractors accidentally destroyed the plug holding water trapped inside the mine, which caused an overflow of the pond, spilling {{convert|3|MUSgal|ML|spell=on}} of [[Acid mine drainage|mine waste water]] and [[tailings]], including heavy metals such as [[cadmium]] and [[lead]], and other toxic elements, such as [[arsenic]],<ref name="denPost"/> [[beryllium]],<ref name="denPost" /> [[zinc]],<ref name="denPost" /> [[iron]]<ref name="denPost" /> and [[copper]]<ref name="denPost" /> into Cement Creek, a tributary of the [[Animas River]] in [[Colorado]].<ref name="aug10spillfox">{{cite news| url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/10/navajo-nation-aims-to-sue-epa-over-devastating-mining-spill/ | first=Joseph J. | last=Kolb | title='They're not going to get away with this': Anger mounts at EPA over mining spill | publisher=[[Fox News]] | date=August 10, 2015 | accessdate=August 10, 2015}}</ref> The EPA was criticized for not warning Colorado and New Mexico about the operation until the day after the waste water spilled, despite the fact the EPA employee "in charge of Gold King Mine knew of blowout risk."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29504957/epa-employee-charge-gold-king-mine-knew-blowout#disqus_thread|title=EPA employee in charge of Gold King Mine knew of a blowout risk, e-mail shows|author=Jesse Paul<!--|website=denverpost.com-->|work=The Denver Post|date=February 11, 2016}}</ref> |
||
The EPA has taken responsibility for the incident, but refused to pay for any damages claims filed after the accident on grounds of [[Sovereign immunity in the United States|sovereign immunity]], pending special authorization from Congress or re-filing of lawsuits in federal court.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a8ae2e2996d745a3944912968742a948/apnewsbreak-epa-says-it-cant-pay-damages-mine-spill|title= EPA Says It Can't Pay Economic Damages From Mine Spill|last= Elliott|first= Dan|date= 2017-01-13|website= The Big Story|publisher= The Associated Press|access-date= 2017-01-27|quote=}}</ref> Governor of Colorado [[John Hickenlooper]] declared the affected area a disaster zone. The spill affects waterways of municipalities in the states of Colorado, [[New Mexico]], and [[Utah]], as well as the [[Navajo Nation]]. As of August 11, 2015, acidic water continued to spill at a rate of {{convert|500|–|700|USgal/min|m3/min|abbr=on}} while remediation efforts were underway.<ref name=NYT2>[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/us/epa-treating-toxic-water-from-abandoned-colorado-mine-after-accident.html "E.P.A. Treating Toxic Water From Abandoned Colorado Mine After Accident"], ''NY Times'', August 11, 2015</ref> The event drew attention to toxic drainage from many similar abandoned mines throughout the country.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2016/08/04/488579040/one-year-after-a-toxic-river-spill-no-clear-plan-to-clean-up-western-mines|title=One Year After A Toxic River Spill, No Clear Plan To Clean Up Western Mines|last=Hood|first=Grace|date=August 4, 2016|work=NPR.org|access-date=2017-12-16|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Hood|first1=Grace|title=EPA To Launch Treatment Plant For Gold King Mine Wastewater|url=http://www.cpr.org/news/story/epa-launch-treatment-plant-gold-king-mine-wastewater|website=Colorado Public Radio|accessdate=4 January 2018|date=October 15, 2015}}</ref> |
The EPA has taken responsibility for the incident, but refused to pay for any damages claims filed after the accident on grounds of [[Sovereign immunity in the United States|sovereign immunity]], pending special authorization from Congress or re-filing of lawsuits in federal court.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a8ae2e2996d745a3944912968742a948/apnewsbreak-epa-says-it-cant-pay-damages-mine-spill|title= EPA Says It Can't Pay Economic Damages From Mine Spill|last= Elliott|first= Dan|date= 2017-01-13|website= The Big Story|publisher= The Associated Press|access-date= 2017-01-27|quote=}}</ref> Governor of Colorado [[John Hickenlooper]] declared the affected area a disaster zone. The spill affects waterways of municipalities in the states of Colorado, [[New Mexico]], and [[Utah]], as well as the [[Navajo Nation]]. As of August 11, 2015, acidic water continued to spill at a rate of {{convert|500|–|700|USgal/min|m3/min|abbr=on}} while remediation efforts were underway.<ref name=NYT2>[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/us/epa-treating-toxic-water-from-abandoned-colorado-mine-after-accident.html "E.P.A. Treating Toxic Water From Abandoned Colorado Mine After Accident"], ''NY Times'', August 11, 2015</ref> The event drew attention to toxic drainage from many similar abandoned mines throughout the country.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2016/08/04/488579040/one-year-after-a-toxic-river-spill-no-clear-plan-to-clean-up-western-mines|title=One Year After A Toxic River Spill, No Clear Plan To Clean Up Western Mines|last=Hood|first=Grace|date=August 4, 2016|work=NPR.org|access-date=2017-12-16|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Hood|first1=Grace|title=EPA To Launch Treatment Plant For Gold King Mine Wastewater|url=http://www.cpr.org/news/story/epa-launch-treatment-plant-gold-king-mine-wastewater|website=Colorado Public Radio|accessdate=4 January 2018|date=October 15, 2015}}</ref> |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
Many abandoned mines throughout Colorado are known to have problems with [[acid mine drainage]].<ref>"Bibliography, Watershed Contamination from Hard-Rock Mining — Hardrock Mining in Rocky Mountain Terrain — Upper Arkansas River, Colorado " [http://toxics.usgs.gov/bib/bib-upper-ark.html U.S. Geological Survey, Toxic Substances Hydrology Program]; accessed 2015-08-12.</ref> The chemical processes involved in acid mine drainage are common around the world: where subsurface mining exposes metal [[sulfide minerals]] such as [[pyrite]] to water and air, this water must be carefully managed to prevent harm to [[riparian]] ecology. At the time of the accident, the EPA was working at the Gold King Mine to stem the leaking mine water going into Cement Creek. Water was accumulating behind a plug at the mine's entrance. They planned to add pipes that would allow the slow release and treatment of that water before it backed up enough to blow out. Unknown to the crew, the mine tunnel behind the plug was already full of pressurized water. It burst through the plug soon after excavation began. |
Many abandoned mines throughout Colorado are known to have problems with [[acid mine drainage]].<ref>"Bibliography, Watershed Contamination from Hard-Rock Mining — Hardrock Mining in Rocky Mountain Terrain — Upper Arkansas River, Colorado " [http://toxics.usgs.gov/bib/bib-upper-ark.html U.S. Geological Survey, Toxic Substances Hydrology Program]; accessed 2015-08-12.</ref> The chemical processes involved in acid mine drainage are common around the world: where subsurface mining exposes metal [[sulfide minerals]] such as [[pyrite]] to water and air, this water must be carefully managed to prevent harm to [[riparian]] ecology. At the time of the accident, the EPA was working at the Gold King Mine to stem the leaking mine water going into Cement Creek. Water was accumulating behind a plug at the mine's entrance. They planned to add pipes that would allow the slow release and treatment of that water before it backed up enough to blow out. Unknown to the crew, the mine tunnel behind the plug was already full of pressurized water. It burst through the plug soon after excavation began. |
||
In the 1990s, sections of the Animas had been nominated by the EPA as a [[Superfund]] site for clean-up of pollutants from the Gold King Mine and other mining operations along the river. Lack of community support prevented its listing. Under the law, the EPA had authority to do only minor work to abate environmental impacts of the mine.<ref name |
In the 1990s, sections of the Animas had been nominated by the EPA as a [[Superfund]] site for clean-up of pollutants from the Gold King Mine and other mining operations along the river. Lack of community support prevented its listing. Under the law, the EPA had authority to do only minor work to abate environmental impacts of the mine.<ref name = AP/> Locals had feared that classifying this as a Superfund site would reduce tourism in the area, which was the largest remaining source of income for the region since the closure of the metal mines.<ref name = WP/><ref>[http://www.startribune.com/officials-downstream-from-colorado-mine-spill-demand-answers/321355841/ "Colorado now faults EPA for mine spill after decades of pushing away federal Superfund help"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150815001210/http://www.startribune.com/officials-downstream-from-colorado-mine-spill-demand-answers/321355841/ |date=August 15, 2015 }}, ''Star Tribune'', 11 August 2015</ref> |
||
=== Mine Ownership === |
=== Mine Ownership === |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
== Environmental impact == |
== Environmental impact == |
||
[[File:Sanjuanrivermap.jpg|thumb|right|A map of the [[San Juan River (Colorado River)|San Juan River]] watershed, which drains into the Colorado river, showing the northern tributary of the [[Animas River]]]] |
|||
[[File:Sanjuanrivermap.jpg|thumb|right|A map of the [[San Juan River (Colorado River)|San Juan River]] watershed, which drains into the Colorado river, showing the northern tributary of the [[Animas River]]]]The Gold King Mine release crossed three state lines (Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah) and three tribal lands (Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Navajo Nation) over a 9-day period for a total distance of 550 km (342 mi). This river system has a long history of contamination from hundreds of old and abandoned mines throughout the region. Acid mine waste contamination historically has settled along these river banks and in river bed sediment. High river flow or snow melt can remobilize contaminants, impacting water quality throughout the river system to Lake Powell in Utah.<ref name=":4">United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017, January). Analysis of the Transport and Fate of Metals Released from the Gold King Mine in the Animas and San Juan Rivers, Executive Summary. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/goldkingmine/fate-transport-analysis.</ref> The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE), the New Mexico Environment Department, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) and the EPA collaborated to assess the immediate environmental impact of the release.<ref name=":3" /> |
|||
The Animas River was closed to recreation until August 14.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/14/us/animas-river-colorado-epa-mine-spill/index.html|title=Animas River reopens for recreation|author=Michael Martinez, CNN|date=August 14, 2015|work=CNN}}</ref> During the closure, county officials warned river visitors to stay out of the water.<ref name=NYT>[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/us/durango-colorado-mine-spill-environmental-protection-agency.html "Environmental Agency Uncorks Its Own Toxic Water Spill at Colorado Mine"], ''NY Times'', 10 August 2015</ref> Residents with wells in floodplains were told to have their water tested before drinking it or bathing in it. People were told to avoid contact with the river, including contact by their pets, and to prevent farmed animals from drinking the water. They were advised not to catch fish in the river. The [[Navajo Nation]] Commission on Emergency Management issued a state of emergency declaration in response to the spill; it has suffered devastating effects.<ref name=MSN>[http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/emergency-declared-after-epa-pollutes-river/ar-BBlAVdN?ocid=ansnewsUSA11 "EPA: Pollution from mine spill much worse than feared"], ''USA Today'', August 10, 2015</ref>{{refn|The impact on the Navajo Nation has been reported in various publications: The ''[[Portland Press Herald]]'' reported that the disaster is "devastating to the Navajo Nation."<ref>[http://www.pressherald.com/2015/08/12/southwest-states-may-face-long-term-calamity-from-colorado-mine-spillage/ "Southwest states may face long-term risk from Colorado mine spillage"], ''Press Herald'', August 12, 2015</ref> By August 12, the ''[[New York Post]]'' reported that "Bottled water on the Navajo Nation is becoming scarce.".<ref>[https://nypost.com/2015/08/12/navajo-nation-feels-brunt-of-colorado-mine-leak/ "Navajo Nation feels brunt of Colorado mine leak"], ''NY Post'', 12 August 2015</ref> CNN reported: "the Navajo Nation in New Mexico appears to have the most at risk."<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/12/us/navajo-nation-water-epa-spill/index.html "Damage to Navajo Nation water goes beyond money"], ''CNN'', 13 August 2015</ref>|group=note}} |
|||
The initial load of metals contained in the waste released increased significantly as the mine water traveled down the mine’s hill slope and along Cement Creek. It is estimated that 1% of the metals came from inside Gold King Mine itself while 99% of the metals were picked up from the mining waste pile on the hill slope and sediment on the Cement Creek stream bed. The EPA estimates that approximately 490,000 kg (540 tons) of metals, primarily iron and aluminum, entered the Animas River during the 9-hour period of the release. Iron and aluminum reacted with the river water to cause the characteristic bright yellow color. Approximately 15,000 kg, or 3%, of the original total metal mass was initially in dissolved form and 475,000 kg was in a fine, clay-like solid form. Generally, dissolved metals are considered more toxic, reactive, and mobile than solid metals.<ref name=":4" /> |
|||
People living along the Animas and San Juan rivers were advised to have their water tested before using it for cooking, drinking, or bathing. The spill was expected to cause major problems for farmers and ranchers who rely on the rivers for their livelihoods.<ref name=fox>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/10/navajo-nation-aims-to-sue-epa-over-devastating-mining-spill/ "'They're not going to get away with this': Anger mounts at EPA over mining spill"], Fox News, ''August 10, 2015</ref> |
|||
Initial sampling by the Colorado Department of Public Health (CDPHE) indicated that levels of copper, lead, manganese, and zinc were higher than previous testing from June 2015. By August 11, 2015, levels of metals in the Animas River returned to pre-release levels. Cadmium, copper, and zinc continued to be above historic ranges in Cement Creek.<ref>Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. (2016, January). Gold King Mine Spill - Animas River Basin - Southwest Colorado - August 2015. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Gold-King-Mine-Spill-Report-01-22-16-Digital.pdf.</ref> The Mountain Studies Institute (MSI) collected and analyzed water samples from the Animas River from August through October 2015. The MSI data were consistent with EPA data and showed a spike in total and dissolved concentrations of metals and minerals immediately following the Gold King Mine release. MSI continued to collect water quality samples from February through early April 2016, during spring melt, to assess possible re-suspension of sediment deposited along the Animas River banks. They found that metals of concern for human health (arsenic, lead, and mercury) were at levels considered “safe” for human, recreational and agricultural use based on Colorado water quality standards.<ref name=":3" /> To allow for a comparison with historic conditions, EPA scientists reviewed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) historic studies of acid mine drainage under similar high flow conditions. According to the analysis, the volume of the release was equivalent to 4 to 7 days of ongoing acid mine drainage. The total amount of metals entering the Animas River following the release was comparable to the amount of metals carried by the river in 1 to 2 days under high spring runoff conditions. However, the concentration of metals during the peak of the plume’s passage was much higher than historic conditions.<ref name=":4" /> |
|||
The long-term impacts of the spill are unknown, as sedimentation is expected to dilute the pollutants as the spill cloud moves downstream.<ref name =USAToday/> The acid mine drainage temporarily changed the color of the river to orange.<ref name=riverpoison>{{cite news|last=Castillo|first=Mariano|url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/us/colorado-epa-mine-river-spill/index.html|title=Pollution flowing faster than facts in EPA spill|publisher=''[[CNN]]''|date=August 10, 2015|accessdate=August 10, 2015}}</ref> |
|||
Metal concentrations within the plume decreased as it traveled downstream due to dilution by river water and setting of metals into the river bed. EPA estimates that approximately 90% of the solid metal load initially settled in the Animas River bed and that dissolved metal concentrations decreased to pre-release conditions by the time the plume flowed into the San Juan River. Although the Gold King Mine metal deposits were highly visible as a bright yellow color, metal concentrations were on average similar to those stored in river sediments due to years of mining activity in the region.<ref name=":4" /> |
|||
By August 7, the waste reached [[Aztec, New Mexico]]; the next day, it reached the city of [[Farmington, New Mexico|Farmington]], the largest municipality affected by the disaster. By August 10, the waste had reached the [[San Juan River (Colorado River)|San Juan River]] in [[New Mexico]] and Shiprock (part of the Navajo Nation), with no evidence to that date of human injury or wildlife die-off. The heavy metals appeared to be settling to the bottom of the river. They are largely [[solubility|insoluble]] unless the entire river becomes very acidic.<ref name = AP>{{cite web| title=Residents demand health answers as mine spill fouls rivers| work = Yahoo News| url=https://news.yahoo.com/epa-colorado-mine-waste-spill-larger-first-reported-080605079.html}}</ref> The waste was initially expected to reach [[Lake Powell]] by August 12;<ref name="aug10spillfox"/> arrivivg on August 14, it was expected to pass through the lake within two weeks. |
|||
The plume flowed into the San Juan River, where the small amount of remaining solid metals mixed with the large existing metal load in the river’s abundant sediment. The San Juan River bed naturally has low metal concentrations, but the river has a very large amount of mobile sediment during storms and high flow events. Because of this, water quality in the San Juan River is strongly related to the amount of sediment in the water (i.e. the concentrations of metals in the sediment in the San Juan River can exceed the concentrations of all the metals found in the plume). On the day the plume passed, lead and arsenic were found to be elevated relative to background levels in the San Juan River. Relatively higher levels of lead, and to a lesser extent arsenic, were generally characteristic of the Gold King Mine release. Although elevated, these metals were not uniquely higher than what is typically seen under high flow conditions. Data indicate that water quality returned to pre-release conditions within two weeks after the plume passed. Three weeks after the mine release, a large storm centered in Aztec, New Mexico flushed some of the deposited Gold King Mine metals from the lower Animas and San Juan Rivers to Lake Powell in Utah. After the storm flushed these deposits, water sampling showed elevated levels of dissolved aluminum and iron in both rivers that persisted throughout the fall months of 2015. During this time, the dissolved metals exceeded tribal aluminum human contact criteria, Utah aquatic chronic criteria, and New Mexico irrigation criteria.<ref name=":4" /> Total dissolved solids also exceeded Utah’s criteria for agriculture.<ref name=":3" /> |
|||
The Utah Division of Water Quality said the remaining contaminants will be diluted to a point where there will be no danger to users beyond that point.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/14/us/ap-us-mine-waste-leak.html | title=River in Colorado Reopens as Toxic Plume Reaches Lake Powell | agency=[[Associated Press]] | date=August 14, 2015 | accessdate=August 18, 2015}}</ref> By August 11, pollutant levels at Durango returned to pre-incident levels.<ref name="NYT2"/> On August 12, the leading edge of the [[river plume|plume]] was no longer visible due to dilution and sediment levels in the river.<ref name="LPC812">{{cite news | url=http://www.lakepowellchronicle.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=77&story_id=4877 | title=Gold King Mine spill update | work=[[Lake Powell Chronicle]] | date=August 12, 2015 | accessdate=August 12, 2015}}</ref> The discharge rate of waste water at Gold King Mine was {{cvt|610|usgal/min|l/min||}} as of August 12.<ref name="cnn20150814">{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/us/colorado-epa-animas-river-spill-owner/ | first=Mariano | last=Castillo | title=Gold King Mine owner: 'I foresaw disaster' before spill | publisher=[[CNN]] | date=August 14, 2015 | accessdate=August 21, 2015}}</ref> |
|||
Samples did not exceed EPA’s recreational screening levels. Some metal concentrations contributed to sporadic exceedances of state and tribal water quality criteria at times for nine months in some locations. EPA and states establish water quality standards based on the use of the water to protect human health and aquatic life. In addition to these factors, tribal standards also consider tribal cultural uses, and are often more stringent than state or federal standards. Thus, tribal standards were exceeded more often, even during average flow periods, partially because of historical background contamination.<ref name=":4" /> |
|||
=== Heavy metals === |
|||
There were no reported fish kills in the affected rivers, and post release surveys by multiple organizations found that other aquatic life did not appear to have suffered harmful short-term effects from the plume. The Mountain Studies Institute (MSI) found that metals most harmful to aquatic life (copper, zinc, and selenium) were at levels considered “safe” based on Colorado water quality standards. Concentrations of aluminum and iron exceeded Colorado water quality standards to protect aquatic life from persistent, long-term exposure, but similarly high levels of these metals have occurred in the Animas River during spring runoff in previous years as well. MSI’s studies on Animas River aquatic life do not indicate that there were substantial impacts to aquatic communities that signal degrading water quality. They stressed that these findings should be viewed in the historical context of metal contamination that has already led to the elimination of species most sensitive to metal contamination within this river system.<ref name=":3" /> The EPA analyzed available biological data collected from the Animas and San Juan rivers to assess the biologic response of aquatic life responded to the Gold King Mine release. They found that some fish accumulated metals immediately after the release, but levels returned to background conditions when samples were collected again the following spring. No human consumption advisories were ever issued. Based on the analysis of the available pre- and post-release data, EPA also concluded there were no measurable changes to fish populations, bottom-dwelling organisms, or benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages after the release.<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2018, November). Analysis of the Biological Data Collected from the Animas and San Juan Rivers Following the Gold King Mine Release. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/gkm_bio_report_181129-508-final.pdf.</ref> |
|||
On August 10, 2015, the EPA reported that levels of six metals were above limits allowed for domestic water by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The department requires municipalities to cease to use water when the levels in it exceed the limits. Some metals were found at hundreds of times their limits, e.g. lead 100 times the limit, iron 326 times the limit. Arsenic and cadmium were also above the limits. The measurement was made {{convert|15|mi|km}} upstream from Durango.<ref name="denPost">{{cite news| url=http://www.denverpost.com/environment/ci_28614946/epa-taking-damage-claims-toxic-spill-animas-river | first1=Bruce | last1=Finley | first2=Tom | last2=McGhee | title=Animas mine disaster: Arsenic, cadmium, lead broke water limits | work=[[The Denver Post]] | date=August 10, 2015 | accessdate=August 18, 2015}}</ref> In January 2018, global science and engineering consultants [[Knight Piésold]] reported, while the spill had "further limited aquatic life," its "resulting impacts on aquatic life, including the trout fishery downstream of Silverton, would undoubtedly be more adverse" were it not for actions taken by SGC, and that "Before the first miner arrived, there was massive natural metals loading in the Animas River, which limited aquatic life, including trout populations downstream from Silverton."<ref>[http://www.sanjuancleanwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/SGC-Mining-and-Reclamation-Activities-and-Metals-Loading-in-the-Animas-River-FINAL.pdf Lang, S.] "SGC Mining and Reclamation Activities and Metals Loading in the Animas River", by Steven Lange, M.S., Senior Project Manager, Knight Piésold Consulting, Knight Piésold Ltd., January 2018, pages 3, 5 and 19. Retrieved October 24, 2018.</ref><ref>[http://www.sgcreclamation.com/reports/20180824-Sunnyside-evaluation-of-success.pdf Lang, S.] Project No.: DV102-493.01 Doc. No.: DV-18-0935, Knight Piésold Consulting, Knight Piésold & Co., Denver, Colorado, USA, August 24, 2018. Retrieved October 24, 2018.</ref> |
|||
[[File:Gold King Mine Spill Emergency Retaining Ponds.JPG|thumb|Emergency tailing ponds constructed in response to the 2015 Gold King Mine Spill, pictured on August 7]] |
|||
EPA also investigated whether released metals contaminated water supply wells in the floodplain aquifers of the Animas. The concentrations of metals in well-water samples collected after the plume passed did not exceed federal drinking water standards. The 2016 spring snowmelt period remobilized metals that had settled in the sediment in the river system. EPA’s analysis showed that concentrations of metals in the water and sediment were elevated throughout the Animas and San Juan Rivers from regional acid mine drainage contamination as well as streambed deposits associated with the Gold King Mine release. Concentrations were low, but the duration of snowmelt strongly implies that the mass of Gold King Mine metals settled in the river beds had moved downstream to Lake Powell by the end of the snowmelt period. Monitoring through the summer and fall of 2016 showed that metal concentrations in water and sediment returned to pre-release conditions throughout the Animas and San Juan Rivers.<ref name=":4" />[[File:Gold King Mine Spill Emergency Retaining Ponds.JPG|thumb|Emergency tailing ponds constructed in response to the 2015 Gold King Mine Spill, pictured on August 7]] |
|||
== Health Impacts == |
|||
Following the spill, scientists and environmentalists alike were concerned about the immediate and lasting impacts for humans. Immediately following, farmers and communities were instructed not to use the water as there were potential health harms due to the high levels of metal in the rivers. |
|||
However, updated on December 4th 2018, the EPA released a study stating that there are no long term lasting health effects on those using the water.<ref name=":5">United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017, April 7). Frequent Questions Related to Gold King Mine Response. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/goldkingmine/frequent-questions-related-gold-king-mine-response.</ref> This was determined because the years long study concluded no fish or bottom dwelling organisms had experienced any changes in life quality or physical changes.<ref>Romeo, Jonathan. (2018, August 24). Study finds no lasting impacts from Gold King Mine spill. ''The Durango Herald''. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://durangoherald.com/articles/238158.</ref> Further down the stream, where concern over the spill is high, the EPA concluded that there were no adverse health effects as the waste had been diluted by this point and the metals were no longer at toxic levels. The research done in this study was on the aquatic life in the river and was translated over to humans. Although this study conducted by the EPA did not find any immediate or lasting health effects, there are potential impacts the Navajo communities could be at risk for based on other waste spills. In a study conducted on the heavy metal levels in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, researches found higher levels of certain diseases, however, these diseases have not been confirmed to be directly caused by the high levels of metal, but are to note.<ref name="Neuberger et al 2008">{{cite journal |last1=Neuberger |first1=John S. |last2=Hu |first2=Stephen C. |last3=Drake |first3=K. David |last4=Jim |first4=Rebecca |title=Potential health impacts of heavy-metal exposure at the Tar Creek Superfund site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma |journal=Environmental Geochemistry and Health |date=28 February 2008 |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=47–59 |doi=10.1007/s10653-008-9154-0 }}</ref> A main concern of these studies, which is relevant to this wastewater spill, is the “long-term ambient exposure assessment for airborne fine particulate crystalline silica, lead.”<ref name="Neuberger et al 2008"/> Since the study conducted by the EPA, which concluded no long lasting human health impacts, was only over a three-year span and more research will need to be done. |
|||
Overall human health concerns with spills of these nature are the food sources ingested by the communities. Since many shellfish or bottom-dwells are filter feeding, their bodies accumulate more bacterias and diseases. When humans consume these contaminated marine animals in high quantities, they become at a higher risk for infections.<ref name=":7">United States Environmental Protection Agency. Why Control Sanitary Sewer Overflows? Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sso_casestudy_control.pdf.</ref> Additionally, agricultural products are at risk for infection as this water supply feeds into the irrigation systems and therefore the surrounding populations.<ref name=":7" /> |
|||
==Government Action== |
==Government Action== |
||
Through a [[Freedom of Information Act (United States)|FOIA]] request, [[Associated Press]] obtained EPA files indicating that U.S. government officials "knew of ‘blowout’ risk for tainted water at mine," which could result from the EPA's intervention.<ref name="EPA Knew">{{cite news|url=http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epa-knew-blowout-risk-colorado-gold-mine-animas-river-report-n414211|title=EPA Knew of 'Blowout' Risk at Colorado Gold Mine on Animas River: Report|date=22 August 2015|accessdate=28 August 2015|publisher=NBC News|agency=The Associated Press}}</ref> EPA authorities had learned of this risk through a June 2014 work order that read "Conditions may exist that could result in a blowout of the blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated mine waters and sediment from inside the mine, which contain concentrated heavy metals." In addition, a May 2015 action plan for the mine "also noted the potential for a blowout."<ref name="EPA Knew" /> An EPA spokeswoman was not able to state what precautions the EPA took.<ref name="EPA Knew" /> |
|||
=== Immediate Response === |
=== Immediate Response === |
||
On February 11, 2016, the ''[[Denver Post]]'' reported that Hays Griswold, the EPA employee in charge of the Gold King mine, wrote in an e-mail to other EPA officials "that he personally knew the blockage "could be holding back a lot of water and I believe the others in the group knew as well.""<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29504957/epa-employee-charge-gold-king-mine-knew-blowout|title=EPA employee in charge of Gold King Mine knew of blowout risk, e-mail shows|author=Jesse Paul<!--|website=denverpost.com-->|date=February 11, 2016|work=The Denver Post}}</ref> The ''Post'' added: "Griswold's e-mail appears directly to contradict those findings and statements he made to The Denver Post in the days after the disaster, when he claimed "nobody expected (the acid water backed up in the mine) to be that high.""<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28705984/epa:-waste-pressure-evidently-never-checked-before-colorado-mine-spill|title=EPA: Waste pressure evidently never checked before Colorado mine spill|author=Jesse Paul The Denver Post|date=August 26, 2015|work=denverpost.com}}</ref> |
On February 11, 2016, the ''[[Denver Post]]'' reported that Hays Griswold, the EPA employee in charge of the Gold King mine, wrote in an e-mail to other EPA officials "that he personally knew the blockage "could be holding back a lot of water and I believe the others in the group knew as well.""<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29504957/epa-employee-charge-gold-king-mine-knew-blowout|title=EPA employee in charge of Gold King Mine knew of blowout risk, e-mail shows|author=Jesse Paul<!--|website=denverpost.com-->|date=February 11, 2016|work=The Denver Post}}</ref> The ''Post'' added: "Griswold's e-mail appears directly to contradict those findings and statements he made to The Denver Post in the days after the disaster, when he claimed "nobody expected (the acid water backed up in the mine) to be that high.""<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28705984/epa:-waste-pressure-evidently-never-checked-before-colorado-mine-spill|title=EPA: Waste pressure evidently never checked before Colorado mine spill|author=Jesse Paul The Denver Post|date=August 26, 2015|work=denverpost.com}}</ref> |
||
⚫ | The EPA took responsibility for the incident.<ref name="aug10spillfox" /> The EPA had notified local residents of the spill 24 hours after it occurred, a delay which the press and local officials criticized.<ref name="WP" /> The [[Associated Press]] reported, 17 days after the spill: "In the wake of the spill, it has typically taken days to get any detailed response from the agency."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/epa-knew-blowout-risk-august-5-disaster/|title=EPA knew of blowout risk ahead of Colorado mine accident|work=PBS NewsHour|date=2015-08-22}}</ref> |
||
The EPA took responsibility for the incident.<ref name="aug10spillfox" /> The EPA had notified local residents of the spill 24 hours after it occurred, a delay which the press and local officials criticized.<ref name="WP" /> The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as the Superfund, and the National Contingency plan outline the legal steps for reporting hazardous substance spills.<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2018, April 4). National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) Overview. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/national-oil-and-hazardous-substances-pollution-contingency-plan-ncp-overview.</ref> The CERCLA states, “A release of a hazardous substance must be immediately reported to the National Response Center. In a 2017 review in response to two congressional requests following the incident, the review found that the EPA met the legal requirement for immediately reporting the incident to the National Response Center. Due to limited phone service, the first notification by the on-scene coordinator (OSC) was made to the Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (DRMS) personnel via radio, who notified the National Response Center at 12:27pm. According to the 2017 review, “the EPA met this requirement by having the state personnel travel to establish cell phone communication to call the National Response Center as soon as possible.”<ref name=":8" /> The CERCLA also requires “all appropriate Government agencies” to be notified immediately. At 12:37pm the following government entities were alerted: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Information Analysis Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, Crisis Management Center, National Infrastructure Coordinating Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Committee, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Coast Guard, District 8.<ref name=":8" /> In addition, the region’s Emergency Operations Center was notified at 12:39pm. |
|||
⚫ | The [[Associated Press]] reported, 17 days after the spill: "In the wake of the spill, it has typically taken days to get any detailed response from the agency."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/epa-knew-blowout-risk-august-5-disaster/|title=EPA knew of blowout risk ahead of Colorado mine accident|work=PBS NewsHour|date=2015-08-22}}</ref> |
||
On August 8, Colorado Governor [[John Hickenlooper]] declared a disaster,<ref name="denPost"/> as did Navajo President [[Russell Begaye]].<ref name=oct3santafe>{{cite news | url=http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/briefs/navajo-nation-seeks-assistance-after-gold-king-mine-spill/article_a1fa4a76-eaab-569f-8708-c4773ebff7c9.html | title=Navajo Nation seeks assistance after Gold King Mine spill | work=[[Santa Fe New Mexican]] | via=[[Associated Press]] | date=October 3, 2015 | accessdate=October 4, 2015}}</ref> |
On August 8, Colorado Governor [[John Hickenlooper]] declared a disaster,<ref name="denPost"/> as did Navajo President [[Russell Begaye]].<ref name=oct3santafe>{{cite news | url=http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/briefs/navajo-nation-seeks-assistance-after-gold-king-mine-spill/article_a1fa4a76-eaab-569f-8708-c4773ebff7c9.html | title=Navajo Nation seeks assistance after Gold King Mine spill | work=[[Santa Fe New Mexican]] | via=[[Associated Press]] | date=October 3, 2015 | accessdate=October 4, 2015}}</ref> |
||
On August 11, New Mexico Governor [[Susana Martinez]] also declared a state of emergency, after having viewed the affected river from a helicopter, and said her administration was ready to seek legal action against the EPA.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://krqe.com/2015/08/07/animas-river-waste-flows-into-new-mexico/|title=Contamination in Animas River becomes 'Declaration of Emergency'|work=KRQE News 13|accessdate=August 12, 2015|date=2015-08-07}} |
On August 11, New Mexico Governor [[Susana Martinez]] also declared a state of emergency, after having viewed the affected river from a helicopter, and said her administration was ready to seek legal action against the EPA.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://krqe.com/2015/08/07/animas-river-waste-flows-into-new-mexico/|title=Contamination in Animas River becomes 'Declaration of Emergency'|work=KRQE News 13|accessdate=August 12, 2015|date=2015-08-07}}</ref> |
||
Multiple municipalities and jurisdictions along the course of the river, including the Navajo Nation, stopped drawing drinking water from the Animas River because of heavy metal contamination.<ref name = USAToday>{{cite web| title = Gold mine's toxic plume extends to Utah| work = USA TODAY| url = https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/10/navajo-nation-epa-mine-wastewater-spill/31399517/}}</ref> President Begaye advised his people with livestock and farming against signing a [[Legal release|form]] from the EPA saying that the Environmental Protection Agency is not responsible for the damage to crops and livestock.<ref name=USATODAY>{{Citation | url = https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/13/tribe-warns-residents-not-use-epa-forms-after-spill/31598753/ | title = Tribe warns residents not to use EPA forms after spill | newspaper = USA Today (online edition) |date = 13 August 2015 |accessdate = 15 August 2015}}</ref> Despite assurances of safety from both the U.S. EPA and the Navajo Nation EPA; farmers of the Navajo Nation, on August 22, voted unanimously to refrain from using water from the Animas River for one year, overruling Begaye's plan to reopen irrigation canals.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/26/gold-king-mine-spill-navajo-nation-farmers-animas-river-water | first=Tafline | last=Laylin | title=Gold King mine spill: Navajo Nation farmers prohibit Animas river access | work=[[The Guardian]] | date=August 26, 2015 | accessdate=August 26, 2015}}</ref> |
Multiple municipalities and jurisdictions along the course of the river, including the Navajo Nation, stopped drawing drinking water from the Animas River because of heavy metal contamination.<ref name = USAToday>{{cite web| title = Gold mine's toxic plume extends to Utah| work = USA TODAY| url = https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/10/navajo-nation-epa-mine-wastewater-spill/31399517/}}</ref> President Begaye advised his people with livestock and farming against signing a [[Legal release|form]] from the EPA saying that the Environmental Protection Agency is not responsible for the damage to crops and livestock.<ref name=USATODAY>{{Citation | url = https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/13/tribe-warns-residents-not-use-epa-forms-after-spill/31598753/ | title = Tribe warns residents not to use EPA forms after spill | newspaper = USA Today (online edition) |date = 13 August 2015 |accessdate = 15 August 2015}}</ref> Despite assurances of safety from both the U.S. EPA and the Navajo Nation EPA; farmers of the Navajo Nation, on August 22, voted unanimously to refrain from using water from the Animas River for one year, overruling Begaye's plan to reopen irrigation canals.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/26/gold-king-mine-spill-navajo-nation-farmers-animas-river-water | first=Tafline | last=Laylin | title=Gold King mine spill: Navajo Nation farmers prohibit Animas river access | work=[[The Guardian]] | date=August 26, 2015 | accessdate=August 26, 2015}}</ref> |
||
Line 122: | Line 114: | ||
Following the spill, the local governments of Silverton and San Juan County decided to accept Superfund money to fully remediate the mine.<ref name = AccSup/> The [[Federal Emergency Management Association]] (FEMA) rejected a request by the Navajo Nation to appoint a disaster-recovery coordinator.<ref name=oct3santafe/> |
Following the spill, the local governments of Silverton and San Juan County decided to accept Superfund money to fully remediate the mine.<ref name = AccSup/> The [[Federal Emergency Management Association]] (FEMA) rejected a request by the Navajo Nation to appoint a disaster-recovery coordinator.<ref name=oct3santafe/> |
||
A $1.5M water treatment plant built by the EPA to treat acid mine drainage from the Gold King Mine began operation in October 2015.<ref>[https://www.bna.com/five-things-know-b73014447306/ ''Bloomberg''] "Five Things to Know About the Gold King Mine Spill in Colorado", The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., ''Bloomberg'', September 7, 2016. Retrieved October 23, 2018.</ref> |
A $1.5M water treatment plant built by the EPA to treat acid mine drainage from the Gold King Mine began operation in October 2015.<ref>[https://www.bna.com/five-things-know-b73014447306/ ''Bloomberg''] "Five Things to Know About the Gold King Mine Spill in Colorado", The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., ''Bloomberg'', September 7, 2016. Retrieved October 23, 2018.</ref> In June, 2018, the EPA proposed a $10 million interim clean-up plan that was met with criticism for showing no actual benefit. Peter Butler of the Animas River Stakeholders Group wrote, "why is EPA not prioritizing where it can get the 'biggest bang for the buck' in terms of dollars spent for mine remediation?" and suggested that the speed of "Superfund clean-ups" may have supplanted local political interests.<ref>[https://durangoherald.com/articles/241333 Romeo, Jonathan] "EPA’s quick-action Superfund plan receives flak from commenters", ''The Durango Herald'', September 14, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.</ref> In April 2018, ''[[Associated Press]]'' reported that the EPA was "running its treatment plant at a fraction of capacity" and that "more than 350 million gallons (1.3 billion liters) — 150 times the volume of the Gold King spill — have flowed around the treatment plant into a tributary of the Animas" since October 2015.<ref>[https://apnews.com/e247850bee5b416b8bb86906fc9780ba Elliott, Dan] "Mine company says EPA is worsening Colorado water pollution", APNews, Associated Press, April 11, 2018. Retrieved October 24, 2018.</ref> |
||
In June, 2018, the EPA proposed a $10 million interim clean-up plan that was met with criticism for showing no actual benefit. Peter Butler of the Animas River Stakeholders Group wrote, "why is EPA not prioritizing where it can get the 'biggest bang for the buck' in terms of dollars spent for mine remediation?" and suggested that the speed of "Superfund clean-ups" may have supplanted local political interests.<ref>[https://durangoherald.com/articles/241333 Romeo, Jonathan] "EPA’s quick-action Superfund plan receives flak from commenters", ''The Durango Herald'', September 14, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.</ref> In April 2018, ''[[Associated Press]]'' reported that the EPA was "running its treatment plant at a fraction of capacity" and that "more than 350 million gallons (1.3 billion liters) — 150 times the volume of the Gold King spill — have flowed around the treatment plant into a tributary of the Animas" since October 2015.<ref>[https://apnews.com/e247850bee5b416b8bb86906fc9780ba Elliott, Dan] "Mine company says EPA is worsening Colorado water pollution", APNews, Associated Press, April 11, 2018. Retrieved October 24, 2018.</ref> The interim plan is focused on removing contaminants at 26 sites affected by the spill with high levels of aluminum, cadmium, copper, iron, lead or zinc including campgrounds, mine waste piles, ponds and rivers.<ref name=":9">Associated Press, The. (2018, June 15). Next Steps Laid Out For EPA’s Southwest Colorado Mine Clean Up. ''Colorado Public Radio News.'' Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.cpr.org/news/story/next-steps-laid-out-for-epa-s-southwest-colorado-mine-clean-up.</ref> Currently Gold King Mine is not one of those 26 sites. The EPA argues “that's because a temporary treatment plant was installed two months after the spill and is cleaning up wastewater from the mine.”<ref name=":9" /> |
|||
=== EPA Involvement === |
=== EPA Involvement === |
||
After the initial spill had occurred, EPA supervisors were not contacted by the contractors who caused the spill until an hour after the blowout.<ref |
After the initial spill had occurred, EPA supervisors were not contacted by the contractors who caused the spill until an hour after the blowout.<ref>Black, E. (2018). “Case Study of the Gold King Mine Spill.” ''North Dakota State University''. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from <nowiki>https://library.ndsu.edu/ir/bitstream/handle/10365/28719/Case%20Study%20of%20the%20Gold%20King%20Mine%20Spill.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y</nowiki></ref> There was no press release informing the state of the spill until around midnight that same day.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Montoya|first=Teresa|date=2017-09-02|title=Yellow Water: Rupture and Return One Year after the Gold King Mine Spill|journal=Anthropology Now|volume=9|issue=3|pages=91–115|doi=10.1080/19428200.2017.1390724|issn=1942-8200|via=}}</ref> Residents weren’t alerted directly of the spill until twenty four hours after it had occurred.<ref>Kaplan, S. (2015, August 10). “What the EPA was doing when it sent yellow sludge spilling into a Colorado creek.” ''The Washington Post.'' Retrieved November 15, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/10/what-the-epa-was-doing-when-it-sent-yellow-sludge-spilling-into-a-colorado-creek/</nowiki></ref> By this time people may have consumed the water from the river, which at the time contained a higher concentration of metals than advised by national drinking standards in terms of consumption.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|title=Post Gold King Mine Spill Investigation of Metal Stability in Water and Sediments of the Animas River Watershed|journal=Environmental Science & Technology|volume=50|issue=21|pages=11539–11548|language=en|doi=10.1021/acs.est.6b03092|pmc=5568564|pmid=27704799|year = 2016|last1 = Rodriguez-Freire|first1 = L.|last2=Avasarala|first2=S.|last3=Ali|first3=A. S.|last4=Agnew|first4=D.|last5=Hoover|first5=J. H.|last6=Artyushkova|first6=K.|last7=Latta|first7=D. E.|last8=Peterson|first8=E. J.|last9=Lewis|first9=J.|last10=Crossey|first10=L. J.|last11=Brearley|first11=A. J.|last12=Cerrato|first12=J. M.}}</ref> It was not until weeks after the Gold King Mine Spill that the water was considered clean enough for human consumption.<ref name=":2" /> During the time immediately following the spill, the EPA initially underestimated the amount of contaminated water drained into the Animas River and diverted questions about the water assessments of the river.<ref name=":0" /> In addition, an EPA administrator did not show up to the Silverton, Colorado area until a week after the spill had occurred.<ref>Colorado Water Quality Control Division. (2016). “Gold King Mine spill.” ''Department of Public Health and Environment''. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from <nowiki>https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Gold-King-Mine-Spill-Report-01-22-16-Digital.pdf</nowiki></ref> |
||
In order to evaluate the impacts of the spill to public health and the environment, by March 2016, the EPA developed a Monitoring Plan for surface water, sediments, and biology for the areas impacted by the spill. The Monitoring Plan included a comparison of water quality prior to the incident, including the measures of dissolved metals in water, total metals in water, mercury, methylmercury, dissolved organic carbon, total organic carbon, hardness, and toxic metals in sediment.<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016, March). Post-Gold King Mine Release Incident: Conceptual Monitoring Plan for Surface Water, Sediments, and Biology. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/post-gkm-final-conceptual-monitoring-plan_2016_03_24_16.pdf. </ref> The most recent data is available for the 2017 snow melt. |
|||
Since the incident the EPA has conducted a number of reviews on their involvement both in causing the spill and on their response efforts. In June 2017, the Office of Inspector General released a review in response to two congressional requests.<ref name=":8" /> The review addressed 16 issues to the response of the EPA as well as the EPA’s work prior to the spill including the selection and approval of contractors, EPA’s policies and guidelines on reporting hazardous material spills to state, local, and tribal agencies, and any policies or procedures to prevent incidents of this kind in the future. The review identified the additional policies and strategies for future spills that were developed by the EPA following the incident. These included: the development of a best practices response plan, “Planning for Response Actions at Abandoned Mines with Underground Workings: Best Practices for Preventing Sudden, Uncontrolled Fluid Mining Waste Releases”; strengthening the Regional Contingency Plans and Regional Response Teams; implementation of failure modes analysis in project planning; and regions maintaining up to date information for tribal emergency response contacts.<ref name=":8" /> |
|||
In another 2017 review, “In the Rearview Mirror: Implementation of the Gold King Mine After-Action Review”, an EPA After-Action Review Team identified ten recommendations to improve EPA’s response to emergency situations similar to the Gold King Mine spill.<ref name=":13">United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017, January 13). In the Rearview Mirror: Implementation of the Gold King Mine After-Action Review. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/gkm-after-action-review-implementation-report.pdf.</ref> The ten recommendations were:<blockquote>"Recommendation 1: Establish a National Incident Management Assistance Team (IMAT)</blockquote><blockquote>at EPA.</blockquote><blockquote>Recommendation 2: Institute Senior Official training plan.</blockquote><blockquote>Recommendation 3: Institute ICS key leadership training plan.</blockquote><blockquote>Recommendation 4: Establish an agency data and information management team.</blockquote><blockquote>Recommendation 5: Improve data and information posting and communications.</blockquote><blockquote>Recommendation 6: Establish Communications Strike Teams and broaden data training</blockquote><blockquote>for PIOs and public affairs staff.</blockquote><blockquote>Recommendation 7: Invest in data resources and clarify roles/responsibilities.</blockquote><blockquote>Recommendation 8: Build capacity for rapid data collection, interpretation, and</blockquote><blockquote>dissemination.</blockquote><blockquote>Recommendation 9: Align public affairs resources and update communications</blockquote><blockquote>procedures.</blockquote><blockquote>Recommendation 10: Improve notification procedures, plans, and equipment.” |
|||
<ref name=":13" /></blockquote>The report also provided the processes to meet each recommendation. |
|||
The EPA continues to monitor and provide the public with updates on the cleanup. |
|||
=== Recent Failures === |
=== Recent Failures === |
||
Line 144: | Line 125: | ||
=== Navajo Nation === |
=== Navajo Nation === |
||
The |
The effects of the Gold King Mine spill on the Navajo Nation has included damage to their crops, home gardens, and cattle herds. The Navajo Nation ceased irrigating their crops from the San Juan River on August 7, 2015. While San Juan County in New Mexico lifted the ban on water from the San Juan River on August 15, 2015, the President of the Navajo Nation, Russell Begaye, who had ongoing concerns about the water's safety, did not lift the Navajo Nation's ban until August 21, 2015. This followed the Navajo Nation's EPA completing its testing of the water.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://navajotimes.com/reznews/water-flowing-in-fruitland/|title=Water flowing in Fruitland - Navajo Times|date=2015-08-28|website=Navajo Times|language=en-US|access-date=2016-05-07}}</ref> During this time, the US EPA had water delivered to the Navajo Nation. |
||
An estimated 2,000 Navajo farmers and ranchers were affected directly by the closing of the canals after the spill. While water was trucked into the area to provide water to fields, many home gardens and some remote farms did not receive any assistance.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/print/2015/08/21/navajo-crops-drying-out-san-juan-river-remains-closed-after-toxic-spill-161461|title=Navajo Crops Drying Out as San Juan River Remains Closed After Toxic Spill|website=indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com|access-date=2016-05-07}}</ref> |
An estimated 2,000 Navajo farmers and ranchers were affected directly by the closing of the canals after the spill. While water was trucked into the area to provide water to fields, many home gardens and some remote farms did not receive any assistance.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/print/2015/08/21/navajo-crops-drying-out-san-juan-river-remains-closed-after-toxic-spill-161461|title=Navajo Crops Drying Out as San Juan River Remains Closed After Toxic Spill|website=indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com|access-date=2016-05-07}}</ref> They suffered widespread crop damage. |
||
The EPA and the Navajo Nation are still disputing how to fairly compensate the Navajo for the damage caused by the spill. As of April 22, 2016, the Navajo Nation has been compensated a total of $150,000 by the EPA, according to testimony at hearings of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. According to President Begaye, this is only 8% of the costs incurred by the Navajo Nation. According to Senator [[John McCain]], the Navajo Nation could incur up to $335 million in costs related to the spill. |
The EPA and the Navajo Nation are still disputing how to fairly compensate the Navajo for the damage caused by the spill. As of April 22, 2016, the Navajo Nation has been compensated a total of $150,000 by the EPA, according to testimony at hearings of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. According to President Begaye, this is only 8% of the costs incurred by the Navajo Nation. According to Senator [[John McCain]], the Navajo Nation could incur up to $335 million in costs related to the spill. |
||
Particularly within the context of environmental justice, the United States government has a disproportionately inadequate track record for dealing with incidents that affect indigenous people. For example, in the late 1970’s, a dam broke on the Navajo reservation near Church Rock New Mexico sending approximately 95 million gallons of radioactive waste into the Puerco River.<ref>Jennings, Trip. (2014, July 7). Remembering the largest radioactive spill in U.S. history. ''New Mexico In Depth''. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from http://nmindepth.com/2014/07/07/remembering-the-largest-radioactive-spill-in-u-s-history/.</ref> Response from the EPA during this incident was widely criticized as slow and inadequate. Likewise, the EPA’s response to Gold King Mine in 2015 was largely considered a failure. In fact, New Mexico State Environment Secretary Ryan Flynn called the EPA’s unacceptable response to the spill “cavalier and irresponsible.”<ref>Garrison, Steve and Kellogg, Joshua. (2015, August 9). EPA: Pollution from mine spill much worse than feared. ''USA Today''. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/09/navajo-nation-epa-spill/31384515/.</ref> As a result, the Gold King Mine incident may have furthered already tense relations between government officials and Native American tribes like the Navajo. In fact, Russell Begaye, president of the Navajo Nation directly stated during a 2015 interview “We don’t trust the EPA”.<ref name=":10" /> It is likely that the sentiment expressed by Begaye is widely echoed by many tribal members from the Navajo Nation. |
|||
=== Lawsuits === |
=== Lawsuits === |
||
There have been a number of recent lawsuits have been filed against the EPA since the Gold King Mine spill transpired. New Mexico is seeking compensation in the amount of $130 million, Utah is seeking compensation in the amount of $1.9 billion, and the Navajo Nation is seeking compensation in the amount of $130 million.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://the-journal.com/articles/116007|title=EPA asks courts to toss Navajo Nation's lawsuit over Gold King Mine spill|last=Sunday|first=Jonathan Romeo Herald staff writer|last2=Nov. 4|website=The Journal|language=en|access-date=2018-12-10|last3=Pm|first3=2018 7:22}}</ref> At first the EPA recommended people affected by the spill to file claims, however they retracted this statement in January 2017.<ref name=":3" /> The EPA is now motioning to dismiss all lawsuits, stating that they have paid enough through the $2.9 million they have spent to clean up the Animas River and other contaminated areas.<ref name=":3" /> EPA officials say they have immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act and therefore do not owe more compensation.<ref name=":3" /> |
|||
The environmental, agricultural and recreational effects of Gold King Mine were felt far and wide. As a result, two states as well as tribal members from the Navajo Nation and private residents from New Mexico have sought compensation for their losses. However, residents and tribal members seeking reimbursement for damages have had to withstand a series of setbacks in the processing of their cases. Currently, the lawsuits continue to snake their way through the legal system. The exact dollar amount being sought varies by source but is consistently estimated around $2 billion combined. |
|||
The first lawsuit resulting from the Gold King Mine incident was brought forth in May of 2016, when the state of New Mexico filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency. At the same time, the state brought charges against an environmental contractor and two mining companies that the state felt were liable for the spill. Shortly thereafter, in August of 2016, the Navajo Nation formally brought charges against the Environmental Protection Agency. They stated during a news conference: “We will not let you get away with this because you have caused great damage to our people, our river, our lifeblood”.<ref name=":10" /> The nation further explained that they felt it necessary to bring formal charges in court because the EPA has repeatedly denied or ignored requests for compensation and assistance on tribal lands following the spill. Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye commented at the time the suit was filed that “They [EPA] have not done a thing.”<ref>Montoya Bryan, Susan. (2016, August 16). Navajo Nation sues federal government over Gold King Mine spill, claiming negligence. ''The Denver Post.'' Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/16/navajo-nation-sues-federal-government-gold-king-mine-spill/.</ref> The state of Utah later joined the legal action when they filed a suit against the mine owners and EPA contractors in August of 2017. Though Utah’s claim was against mine owners and the contractors doing the work, not the EPA itself, the suit was transferred to New Mexico jurisdiction where it was eventually consolidated with the claims filed by the state of New Mexico, residents of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation. |
|||
The EPA initially dragged their feet in responding to legal claims. In January of 2017, toward the end of the Obama administration and nearly a year and a half after the incident, the Environmental Protection Agency formally responded. They stated that they would not pay any claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, asserting that the EPA was performing “discretionary” actions at the time of the event, and therefore, they could not be held liable for damages.<ref>Romeo, Jonathan. (2018, November 4). EPA asks courts to toss Navajo Nation’s lawsuit over Gold King Mine spill. ''The Journal''. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://the-journal.com/articles/116007.</ref> Several state representatives from Colorado and New Mexico took issue with what they perceived as the EPA shirking responsibility for reimbursing residents and tribal members for their losses. They worked diligently to garner the support needed to keep legal momentum and pressed for further investigation from the EPA. |
|||
In August of 2017, newly appointed EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, responded to the continued pressure from lobbyists by personally touring the Gold King Mine site. Upon touring the site, Pruitt stated that he believed “a new review is paramount to ensure that those who have, in fact, suffered losses have a fair opportunity to have their claims heard.”<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017, August 4). Administrator Pruitt Visits Gold King Mine on Anniversary of Spill. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/administrator-pruitt-visits-gold-king-mine-anniversary-spill.</ref> According to Pruitt “the types of grievances run the gamut. We have a wide array of claims: recreation and business owners, those that were impacted from a vacation perspective, landowners, farmers and ranchers.”<ref>Matthews, Mark K. (2018, March 12). Gold King Mine disaster claims to be fully reviewed by month's end, EPA chief Scott Pruitt says. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/12/gold-king-mine-disaster-claims-scott-pruitt/. </ref> As a result of Pruitt’s newfound commitment to addressing the Gold King aftermath, all 79 of the initially filed claims were revisited and 77 of them were reconsidered for financial restitution. This was certainly a positive step forward for those seeking compensation, though the battle was far from over. |
|||
Back in the courtroom, a federal judge ruled in February of 2018 that the lawsuit against an environmental restoration contractor filed by New Mexico, along with a similar lawsuit brought forth by the Navajo Nation would be allowed to proceed. After Scott Pruitt’s resignation in July of 2018, the EPA reneged and asked a federal court to dismiss all of the Gold King Mine claims. Government officials stated in a motion to dismiss the cases that the court did not need to intervene because cleanup from the event was already underway. Court documents officially cited the following: "Granting any relief in New Mexico, within the Navajo Nation, or in Utah would conflict and interfere with EPA's exclusive jurisdiction over its on-going response action activities and cleanup remedies.”<ref>Associated Press, The. (2018, July 27). EPA seeks dismissal of lawsuit over mine spill. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.abqjournal.com/1201733/epa-seeks-dismissal-of-gold-king-mine-spill-lawsuit.html.</ref> Despite this pushback from the EPA, the affected residents and tribal members pressed forward with their claims. A victory for plaintiffs in New Mexico came in February 2019 when the federal district court in New Mexico rejected the EPA’s claim that it was exempt from legal action under sovereign immunity. This ruling will allow claims against the EPA to proceed. |
|||
Lawsuits resulting from the Gold King Mine spill have seen a series of setbacks but continue to make their way through the judicial system. It remains to be seen whether or not the plaintiffs will ultimately be successful in obtaining compensation for their losses. |
|||
== '''Future Prevention Strategies''' == |
|||
The EPA has monitored the Gold King Mine Spill and published numerous reports since the spill took place.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":8" /> Many people from the Ute and Navajo nations have serious concerns about what steps regulatory bodies will take to prevent future occurrence and how the affected communities will be compensated.<ref>Associated Press, The. (2018, August 3). 3 Years Later, Gold King Mine Spill Victims Still Await Payment. ''Colorado Public News Radio''. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.cpr.org/news/story/3-years-later-gold-king-mine-spill-victims-still-await-payment. </ref> The EPA has outlined what it is doing to prevent future events from occurring again. In a FAQ about the spill the EPA has promised that it has investigated hundreds of other possible abandoned mine sites across Colorado to prevent a second event form occurring and is looking into building a wastewater treatment facility at the site.<ref name=":5" /> Internal review conducted by the EPA identified key policies that should be in place to safeguard against future spills.<ref name=":8" /> In July 2017 the EPA published best practices for preventing future spills.<ref name=":11">United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017, July 21). Planning for Response Actions at Abandoned Mines with Underground Workings: Best Practices for Preventing Sudden, Uncontrolled Fluid Mining Waste Releases. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/176382.pdf.</ref> Key recommendations from that report are as follows: |
|||
• Conducting an initial site screening |
|||
• Developing a conceptual site model of mine workings and pooled MIW risks |
|||
• Collecting data by non-invasive, minimally invasive and invasive (drilling) methods |
|||
• Performing a "failure modes and effects analysis of proposed work activities |
|||
• Developing or revising plans for contingencies. Notifications emergency actions and other activities |
|||
• Mitigating identified pooled MlW risks |
|||
The report provides in depth direction as to how to conduct these steps and can be found at https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/176382.pdf. |
|||
In general, disaster preparedness is the best prevention strategy.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":11" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zhang |first1=Chunxia |last2=Qiao |first2=Qingqing |last3=Piper |first3=John D.A. |last4=Huang |first4=Baochun |title=Assessment of heavy metal pollution from a Fe-smelting plant in urban river sediments using environmental magnetic and geochemical methods |journal=Environmental Pollution |date=October 2011 |volume=159 |issue=10 |pages=3057–3070 |doi=10.1016/j.envpol.2011.04.006 }}</ref> However, even rigorous preparation is not 100% fail safe. Some studies suggest that when such events occur, some of the negative impact can be indemnified through a process called remediation in which certain species of trees and vegetation are planted in contaminated areas effectively cleaning the soil of its contaminants thus preventing ground water contamination.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Madejón |first1=P. |last2=Domínguez |first2=M.T. |last3=Gil-Martínez |first3=M. |last4=Navarro-Fernández |first4=C.M. |last5=Montiel-Rozas |first5=M.M. |last6=Madejón |first6=E. |last7=Murillo |first7=J.M. |last8=Cabrera |first8=F. |last9=Marañón |first9=T. |title=Evaluation of amendment addition and tree planting as measures to remediate contaminated soils: The Guadiamar case study (SW Spain) |journal=CATENA |date=July 2018 |volume=166 |pages=34–43 |doi=10.1016/j.catena.2018.03.016 }}</ref> In the case of heavy metals, remediation is much more difficult and costly as remediation is not as effective when used on heavy metal spills. Phytocapping is an alternative remediation method that has been suggested for cleanup of heavy metals.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Karaca |first1=Oznur |last2=Cameselle |first2=Claudio |last3=Reddy |first3=Krishna R. |title=Mine tailing disposal sites: contamination problems, remedial options and phytocaps for sustainable remediation |journal=Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology |date=18 November 2017 |volume=17 |issue=1 |pages=205–228 |doi=10.1007/s11157-017-9453-y }}</ref> |
|||
=== The Gold King Mine Spill Accountability Act === |
|||
On January 3, 2018, the Gold King Mine Spill Accountability Act was introduced in the House by New Mexico Republican Representative Stevan Pearce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Environment, where it is still waiting on review. The bill aims to provide compensation from the EPA to victims of the spill and to fund long-term water quality monitoring programs. Allowable damage claims for compensation include property loss, business loss, and financial loss. Property loss includes “any cost resulting from lost tribal subsistence from hunting, fishing, firewood gathering, timbering, grazing, or agricultural activities, or from lost use for traditional or ceremonial uses, conducted on land or using water damaged by the Gold King Mine spill”, cost of revegetation of land, and costs accrued by an injured person for water treatment supplies.<ref name=":12">United States Congress. (2018, January 3). Gold King Mine Spill Accountability Act of 2018. 115<sup>th</sup> Congress 1<sup>st</sup> session H.R.4735. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4735/text.</ref> Business loss includes: “A) damage to tangible assets or inventory; (B) business interruption losses; (C) overhead costs; (D) employee wages for work not performed; and (E) any other loss that the Administrator determines to be appropriate for inclusion as a business loss.”<ref name=":12" /> Financial loss includes: “(A) an insurance deductible; (B) lost wages or personal income; (C) emergency staffing expenses; (D) debris removal and other cleanup costs; and (E) any other loss that the Administrator determines to be appropriate for inclusion as a financial loss.”<ref name=":12" /> In addition, funding should be provided for a long-term monitoring program of the Animas and San Juan Rivers’ water quality. In order to receive funding the program must make water quality and sediment data available to the public and provide the comparison between the data and water quality standards. |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
Revision as of 12:38, 26 March 2019
Date | August 5, 2015 |
---|---|
Location | Gold King Mine Silverton, Colorado, United States |
Coordinates | 37°53′40″N 107°38′18″W / 37.89444°N 107.63833°W |
Cause | Accidental waste water release, approx. 3 million US gal (11 ML) |
Participants | Environmental Protection Agency |
Outcome | River closures (until about Aug 17 with ongoing tests) Ongoing water supply & irrigation issues |
Waterways affected | Animas and San Juan rivers |
States affected | Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah |
Website | EPA updates |
The 2015 Gold King Mine waste water spill was an environmental disaster that began at the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado,[2] when Environmental Protection Agency personnel, along with workers for Environmental Restoration LLC (a Missouri company under EPA contract to mitigate pollutants from the closed mine), caused the release of toxic waste water into the Animas River watershed. They caused the accident while attempting to drain ponded water near the entrance of the mine on August 5.[3] After the spill, the Silverton Board of Trustees and the San Juan County Commission approved a joint resolution seeking Superfund money.[4]
Contractors accidentally destroyed the plug holding water trapped inside the mine, which caused an overflow of the pond, spilling three million US gallons (eleven megalitres) of mine waste water and tailings, including heavy metals such as cadmium and lead, and other toxic elements, such as arsenic,[5] beryllium,[5] zinc,[5] iron[5] and copper[5] into Cement Creek, a tributary of the Animas River in Colorado.[6] The EPA was criticized for not warning Colorado and New Mexico about the operation until the day after the waste water spilled, despite the fact the EPA employee "in charge of Gold King Mine knew of blowout risk."[7]
The EPA has taken responsibility for the incident, but refused to pay for any damages claims filed after the accident on grounds of sovereign immunity, pending special authorization from Congress or re-filing of lawsuits in federal court.[8] Governor of Colorado John Hickenlooper declared the affected area a disaster zone. The spill affects waterways of municipalities in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, as well as the Navajo Nation. As of August 11, 2015, acidic water continued to spill at a rate of 500–700 US gal/min (1.9–2.6 m3/min) while remediation efforts were underway.[9] The event drew attention to toxic drainage from many similar abandoned mines throughout the country.[10][11]
Background
Gold mining in the hills around Gold King was the primary income and economy for the region until 1991, when the last mine closed near Silverton.[12] The Gold King Mine was abandoned in 1923.[13] Prior to the spill, the Upper Animas water basin had already become devoid of fish, because of the adverse environmental impacts of regional mines such as Gold King, when contaminants entered the water system.[12] Other plant and animal species were also adversely affected in the watershed before the Gold King Mine breach.[12]
Many abandoned mines throughout Colorado are known to have problems with acid mine drainage.[14] The chemical processes involved in acid mine drainage are common around the world: where subsurface mining exposes metal sulfide minerals such as pyrite to water and air, this water must be carefully managed to prevent harm to riparian ecology. At the time of the accident, the EPA was working at the Gold King Mine to stem the leaking mine water going into Cement Creek. Water was accumulating behind a plug at the mine's entrance. They planned to add pipes that would allow the slow release and treatment of that water before it backed up enough to blow out. Unknown to the crew, the mine tunnel behind the plug was already full of pressurized water. It burst through the plug soon after excavation began.
In the 1990s, sections of the Animas had been nominated by the EPA as a Superfund site for clean-up of pollutants from the Gold King Mine and other mining operations along the river. Lack of community support prevented its listing. Under the law, the EPA had authority to do only minor work to abate environmental impacts of the mine.[15] Locals had feared that classifying this as a Superfund site would reduce tourism in the area, which was the largest remaining source of income for the region since the closure of the metal mines.[12][16]
Mine Ownership
Gold King Mine was originally discovered and owned by Olaf Nelson the “Mighty Swede” in 1887.[17] Olaf died before he could develop the mine leaving his widow to sell the mine in 1894.[18]
Prior reclamation
The Gold King's adits were dry for most of the mine's recent history, as the area was being drained from below by the Sunnyside Mine's American Tunnel. Sunnyside Mine closed in 1991. As part of a reclamation plan, the American Tunnel was sealed up in 1996.[19] In the absence of drainage, by 2002 a new discharge of particularly contaminated water had begun to flow from the Gold King Level 7 adit. Flow there increased again after the nearby Mogul Mine was sealed by its owners in 2003.
In 2006, a spot measurement of flow from this adit showed a peak of 314 US gal/min (1,190 L/min). The significance of this figure is unclear since flow was not being logged continuously.[20]: 17–22 By this time, the Gold King was considered one of the worst acid mine drainage sites in Colorado. In 2009, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) plugged all four Gold King Mine portals by stuffing them with old mine backfill; drainage pipes were installed to prevent water from ponding behind the entrance. This work was complicated by partial collapse of the mine tunnel near the entrance. It was noted that the drainage system might not be sufficient to prevent a future blowout.[20]: 35
In 2014, Colorado DRMS asked the EPA to reopen and stabilize the Gold King 7 adit.[20]: 35 Reportedly no maintenance on the existing drainage system had been performed since it was installed in 2009. It was noted that flow from the drains had decreased from 112 to 12.6 US gal/min (424–48 L/min) between August 25, 2014, and September 11, 2014. The cause of this decrease was unknown but attributed to seasonal variation.[20]: 35 While excavating the opening, workers saw seepage at six feet (1.8 m) above the bottom of the tunnel; they believed that meant that there was six feet (1.8 m) of water backed up in the tunnel. Excavation at the entrance was postponed until 2015, so that a pond large enough to treat that volume of water could be constructed.[20]: 36
The blowout
The EPA team returned in July 2015 to continue the work. They found that a landslide had covered the drainage pipes.[20]: 42 When the slide was cleared, seepage was again observed at a level about six feet (1.8 m) above the bottom of the mine entrance, which they thought was the level of pooled water behind the plug.[20]: 46 They planned to excavate the entrance beginning from the level of the top of the mine tunnel down to what they took to be the top of the water, insert a pipe through that clearance, and drain the pooled water.[20]: 47–52 DRMS and the EPA discussed the plan and came to an agreement. However, they had misjudged the level of the water in the tunnel.
At around 10:51 AM on August 5, the backhoe operator saw a spurt of clear water spray about two feet (61 cm) out of a fracture in the wall of the plug, indicating that the mine tunnel was full of pressurized water.[note 1] Failure of the plug produced uncontrolled release within minutes.[20]: 52–59 Rushing to Cement Creek, the torrent of water washed out the access road to the site.[20]: 60
The EPA had considered drilling into the mine from above in order to measure the water level directly before beginning excavation at the entrance, as was done at nearby mines in 2011. Had they done so, they would have discovered the true water level, and changed their plan; the disaster would not have occurred.[20]: 2 Operating mines have been required to perform such measurement of water level since a fatal mine flood in 1895.[20]: A-4
Environmental impact
The Animas River was closed to recreation until August 14.[21] During the closure, county officials warned river visitors to stay out of the water.[22] Residents with wells in floodplains were told to have their water tested before drinking it or bathing in it. People were told to avoid contact with the river, including contact by their pets, and to prevent farmed animals from drinking the water. They were advised not to catch fish in the river. The Navajo Nation Commission on Emergency Management issued a state of emergency declaration in response to the spill; it has suffered devastating effects.[23][note 2]
People living along the Animas and San Juan rivers were advised to have their water tested before using it for cooking, drinking, or bathing. The spill was expected to cause major problems for farmers and ranchers who rely on the rivers for their livelihoods.[27]
The long-term impacts of the spill are unknown, as sedimentation is expected to dilute the pollutants as the spill cloud moves downstream.[28] The acid mine drainage temporarily changed the color of the river to orange.[29]
By August 7, the waste reached Aztec, New Mexico; the next day, it reached the city of Farmington, the largest municipality affected by the disaster. By August 10, the waste had reached the San Juan River in New Mexico and Shiprock (part of the Navajo Nation), with no evidence to that date of human injury or wildlife die-off. The heavy metals appeared to be settling to the bottom of the river. They are largely insoluble unless the entire river becomes very acidic.[15] The waste was initially expected to reach Lake Powell by August 12;[6] arrivivg on August 14, it was expected to pass through the lake within two weeks.
The Utah Division of Water Quality said the remaining contaminants will be diluted to a point where there will be no danger to users beyond that point.[30] By August 11, pollutant levels at Durango returned to pre-incident levels.[9] On August 12, the leading edge of the plume was no longer visible due to dilution and sediment levels in the river.[31] The discharge rate of waste water at Gold King Mine was 610 US gal/min (2,300 L/min) as of August 12.[32]
Heavy metals
On August 10, 2015, the EPA reported that levels of six metals were above limits allowed for domestic water by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The department requires municipalities to cease to use water when the levels in it exceed the limits. Some metals were found at hundreds of times their limits, e.g. lead 100 times the limit, iron 326 times the limit. Arsenic and cadmium were also above the limits. The measurement was made 15 miles (24 km) upstream from Durango.[5] In January 2018, global science and engineering consultants Knight Piésold reported, while the spill had "further limited aquatic life," its "resulting impacts on aquatic life, including the trout fishery downstream of Silverton, would undoubtedly be more adverse" were it not for actions taken by SGC, and that "Before the first miner arrived, there was massive natural metals loading in the Animas River, which limited aquatic life, including trout populations downstream from Silverton."[33][34]
Government Action
Through a FOIA request, Associated Press obtained EPA files indicating that U.S. government officials "knew of ‘blowout’ risk for tainted water at mine," which could result from the EPA's intervention.[35] EPA authorities had learned of this risk through a June 2014 work order that read "Conditions may exist that could result in a blowout of the blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated mine waters and sediment from inside the mine, which contain concentrated heavy metals." In addition, a May 2015 action plan for the mine "also noted the potential for a blowout."[35] An EPA spokeswoman was not able to state what precautions the EPA took.[35]
Immediate Response
On February 11, 2016, the Denver Post reported that Hays Griswold, the EPA employee in charge of the Gold King mine, wrote in an e-mail to other EPA officials "that he personally knew the blockage "could be holding back a lot of water and I believe the others in the group knew as well.""[36] The Post added: "Griswold's e-mail appears directly to contradict those findings and statements he made to The Denver Post in the days after the disaster, when he claimed "nobody expected (the acid water backed up in the mine) to be that high.""[37]
The EPA took responsibility for the incident.[6] The EPA had notified local residents of the spill 24 hours after it occurred, a delay which the press and local officials criticized.[12] The Associated Press reported, 17 days after the spill: "In the wake of the spill, it has typically taken days to get any detailed response from the agency."[38]
On August 8, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper declared a disaster,[5] as did Navajo President Russell Begaye.[39]
On August 11, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez also declared a state of emergency, after having viewed the affected river from a helicopter, and said her administration was ready to seek legal action against the EPA.[40]
Multiple municipalities and jurisdictions along the course of the river, including the Navajo Nation, stopped drawing drinking water from the Animas River because of heavy metal contamination.[28] President Begaye advised his people with livestock and farming against signing a form from the EPA saying that the Environmental Protection Agency is not responsible for the damage to crops and livestock.[41] Despite assurances of safety from both the U.S. EPA and the Navajo Nation EPA; farmers of the Navajo Nation, on August 22, voted unanimously to refrain from using water from the Animas River for one year, overruling Begaye's plan to reopen irrigation canals.[42]
Following the spill, the local governments of Silverton and San Juan County decided to accept Superfund money to fully remediate the mine.[4] The Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) rejected a request by the Navajo Nation to appoint a disaster-recovery coordinator.[39]
A $1.5M water treatment plant built by the EPA to treat acid mine drainage from the Gold King Mine began operation in October 2015.[43] In June, 2018, the EPA proposed a $10 million interim clean-up plan that was met with criticism for showing no actual benefit. Peter Butler of the Animas River Stakeholders Group wrote, "why is EPA not prioritizing where it can get the 'biggest bang for the buck' in terms of dollars spent for mine remediation?" and suggested that the speed of "Superfund clean-ups" may have supplanted local political interests.[44] In April 2018, Associated Press reported that the EPA was "running its treatment plant at a fraction of capacity" and that "more than 350 million gallons (1.3 billion liters) — 150 times the volume of the Gold King spill — have flowed around the treatment plant into a tributary of the Animas" since October 2015.[45]
EPA Involvement
After the initial spill had occurred, EPA supervisors were not contacted by the contractors who caused the spill until an hour after the blowout.[46] There was no press release informing the state of the spill until around midnight that same day.[47] Residents weren’t alerted directly of the spill until twenty four hours after it had occurred.[48] By this time people may have consumed the water from the river, which at the time contained a higher concentration of metals than advised by national drinking standards in terms of consumption.[49] It was not until weeks after the Gold King Mine Spill that the water was considered clean enough for human consumption.[49] During the time immediately following the spill, the EPA initially underestimated the amount of contaminated water drained into the Animas River and diverted questions about the water assessments of the river.[17] In addition, an EPA administrator did not show up to the Silverton, Colorado area until a week after the spill had occurred.[50]
Recent Failures
In July 2018, more waste water was spilled into the river surrounding the Gold King Mine area. The truck driver was an employee of the EPA and the truck was carrying nine cubic yards of sludge, all of which spilled into the water. After this occurred, the EPA did not respond to requests for comment from the press. The sludge would have been brought to the EPA’s treatment plant made specifically for waste water in the area if there was still space. However, the plant was running out of room to store all of the sludge, and new areas are being created in its place.[51]
Monetary Compensation
The effects of the Gold King Mine spill on the Navajo Nation has included damage to their crops, home gardens, and cattle herds. The Navajo Nation ceased irrigating their crops from the San Juan River on August 7, 2015. While San Juan County in New Mexico lifted the ban on water from the San Juan River on August 15, 2015, the President of the Navajo Nation, Russell Begaye, who had ongoing concerns about the water's safety, did not lift the Navajo Nation's ban until August 21, 2015. This followed the Navajo Nation's EPA completing its testing of the water.[52] During this time, the US EPA had water delivered to the Navajo Nation.
An estimated 2,000 Navajo farmers and ranchers were affected directly by the closing of the canals after the spill. While water was trucked into the area to provide water to fields, many home gardens and some remote farms did not receive any assistance.[53] They suffered widespread crop damage.
The EPA and the Navajo Nation are still disputing how to fairly compensate the Navajo for the damage caused by the spill. As of April 22, 2016, the Navajo Nation has been compensated a total of $150,000 by the EPA, according to testimony at hearings of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. According to President Begaye, this is only 8% of the costs incurred by the Navajo Nation. According to Senator John McCain, the Navajo Nation could incur up to $335 million in costs related to the spill.
Lawsuits
There have been a number of recent lawsuits have been filed against the EPA since the Gold King Mine spill transpired. New Mexico is seeking compensation in the amount of $130 million, Utah is seeking compensation in the amount of $1.9 billion, and the Navajo Nation is seeking compensation in the amount of $130 million.[54] At first the EPA recommended people affected by the spill to file claims, however they retracted this statement in January 2017.[54] The EPA is now motioning to dismiss all lawsuits, stating that they have paid enough through the $2.9 million they have spent to clean up the Animas River and other contaminated areas.[54] EPA officials say they have immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act and therefore do not owe more compensation.[54]
See also
Notes
- ^ The water was under pressure because the flooded adit sloped upward away from the entrance, gaining about 10 ft (3.0 m) in elevation over 1,000 ft (300 m) horizontally. If the water was one ft (0.30 m) deep there, this would correspond to the weight of 11 ft (3.4 m) of water on the plug.[20]: 67
- ^ The impact on the Navajo Nation has been reported in various publications: The Portland Press Herald reported that the disaster is "devastating to the Navajo Nation."[24] By August 12, the New York Post reported that "Bottled water on the Navajo Nation is becoming scarce.".[25] CNN reported: "the Navajo Nation in New Mexico appears to have the most at risk."[26]
References
- ^ "How are they going to clean up that Colorado mine spill?", The Christian Science Monitor, August 13, 2015
- ^ Schlanger, Zoë (August 7, 2015). "EPA Causes Massive Spill of Mining Waste Water in Colorado, Turns Animas River Bright Orange". Retrieved August 10, 2015.
- ^ Harder, Amy; Berzon, Alexandra; Forsyth, Jennifer (August 12, 2015). "EPA Contractor Involved in Colorado Spill Identified as Environmental Restoration". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 12, 2015.
- ^ a b "Silverton to seek federal cleanup help after Gold King Mine disaster". ABC 7 Denver. August 25, 2015.
- ^ a b c d e f g Finley, Bruce; McGhee, Tom (August 10, 2015). "Animas mine disaster: Arsenic, cadmium, lead broke water limits". The Denver Post. Retrieved August 18, 2015.
- ^ a b c Kolb, Joseph J. (August 10, 2015). "'They're not going to get away with this': Anger mounts at EPA over mining spill". Fox News. Retrieved August 10, 2015.
- ^ Jesse Paul (February 11, 2016). "EPA employee in charge of Gold King Mine knew of a blowout risk, e-mail shows". The Denver Post.
- ^ Elliott, Dan (January 13, 2017). "EPA Says It Can't Pay Economic Damages From Mine Spill". The Big Story. The Associated Press. Retrieved January 27, 2017.
- ^ a b "E.P.A. Treating Toxic Water From Abandoned Colorado Mine After Accident", NY Times, August 11, 2015
- ^ Hood, Grace (August 4, 2016). "One Year After A Toxic River Spill, No Clear Plan To Clean Up Western Mines". NPR.org. Retrieved December 16, 2017.
- ^ Hood, Grace (October 15, 2015). "EPA To Launch Treatment Plant For Gold King Mine Wastewater". Colorado Public Radio. Retrieved January 4, 2018.
- ^ a b c d e Kaplan, Sarah (August 10, 2015). "What the EPA was doing when it sent yellow sludge spilling into a Colorado creek". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286.
- ^ Driessen, Paul (August 21, 2015). "EPA's gross negligence at Gold King". New Mexico Politics. Retrieved August 21, 2015.
- ^ "Bibliography, Watershed Contamination from Hard-Rock Mining — Hardrock Mining in Rocky Mountain Terrain — Upper Arkansas River, Colorado " U.S. Geological Survey, Toxic Substances Hydrology Program; accessed 2015-08-12.
- ^ a b "Residents demand health answers as mine spill fouls rivers". Yahoo News.
- ^ "Colorado now faults EPA for mine spill after decades of pushing away federal Superfund help" Archived August 15, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, Star Tribune, 11 August 2015
- ^ a b "LOOK: The Gold King Mine and Mill in its heyday, long before the spill". Denverite. Retrieved December 10, 2018.
- ^ Staff, Colorado Public Radio. "The Gold King Mine: From An 1887 Claim, Private Profits And Social Costs". Colorado Public Radio. Retrieved December 10, 2018.
- ^ SGC "Reclamation", Sunnyside Gold Corporation. Retrieved April 6, 2018.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m "Technical Evaluation of the Gold King Mine Incident" (PDF). Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center. Retrieved May 5, 2016.
- ^ Michael Martinez, CNN (August 14, 2015). "Animas River reopens for recreation". CNN.
{{cite web}}
:|author=
has generic name (help) - ^ "Environmental Agency Uncorks Its Own Toxic Water Spill at Colorado Mine", NY Times, 10 August 2015
- ^ "EPA: Pollution from mine spill much worse than feared", USA Today, August 10, 2015
- ^ "Southwest states may face long-term risk from Colorado mine spillage", Press Herald, August 12, 2015
- ^ "Navajo Nation feels brunt of Colorado mine leak", NY Post, 12 August 2015
- ^ "Damage to Navajo Nation water goes beyond money", CNN, 13 August 2015
- ^ "'They're not going to get away with this': Anger mounts at EPA over mining spill", Fox News, August 10, 2015
- ^ a b "Gold mine's toxic plume extends to Utah". USA TODAY.
- ^ Castillo, Mariano (August 10, 2015). "Pollution flowing faster than facts in EPA spill". CNN. Retrieved August 10, 2015.
{{cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ "River in Colorado Reopens as Toxic Plume Reaches Lake Powell". Associated Press. August 14, 2015. Retrieved August 18, 2015.
- ^ "Gold King Mine spill update". Lake Powell Chronicle. August 12, 2015. Retrieved August 12, 2015.
- ^ Castillo, Mariano (August 14, 2015). "Gold King Mine owner: 'I foresaw disaster' before spill". CNN. Retrieved August 21, 2015.
- ^ Lang, S. "SGC Mining and Reclamation Activities and Metals Loading in the Animas River", by Steven Lange, M.S., Senior Project Manager, Knight Piésold Consulting, Knight Piésold Ltd., January 2018, pages 3, 5 and 19. Retrieved October 24, 2018.
- ^ Lang, S. Project No.: DV102-493.01 Doc. No.: DV-18-0935, Knight Piésold Consulting, Knight Piésold & Co., Denver, Colorado, USA, August 24, 2018. Retrieved October 24, 2018.
- ^ a b c "EPA Knew of 'Blowout' Risk at Colorado Gold Mine on Animas River: Report". NBC News. The Associated Press. August 22, 2015. Retrieved August 28, 2015.
- ^ Jesse Paul (February 11, 2016). "EPA employee in charge of Gold King Mine knew of blowout risk, e-mail shows". The Denver Post.
- ^ Jesse Paul The Denver Post (August 26, 2015). "EPA: Waste pressure evidently never checked before Colorado mine spill". denverpost.com.
- ^ "EPA knew of blowout risk ahead of Colorado mine accident". PBS NewsHour. August 22, 2015.
- ^ a b "Navajo Nation seeks assistance after Gold King Mine spill". Santa Fe New Mexican. October 3, 2015. Retrieved October 4, 2015 – via Associated Press.
- ^ "Contamination in Animas River becomes 'Declaration of Emergency'". KRQE News 13. August 7, 2015. Retrieved August 12, 2015.
- ^ "Tribe warns residents not to use EPA forms after spill", USA Today (online edition), August 13, 2015, retrieved August 15, 2015
- ^ Laylin, Tafline (August 26, 2015). "Gold King mine spill: Navajo Nation farmers prohibit Animas river access". The Guardian. Retrieved August 26, 2015.
- ^ Bloomberg "Five Things to Know About the Gold King Mine Spill in Colorado", The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Bloomberg, September 7, 2016. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
- ^ Romeo, Jonathan "EPA’s quick-action Superfund plan receives flak from commenters", The Durango Herald, September 14, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
- ^ Elliott, Dan "Mine company says EPA is worsening Colorado water pollution", APNews, Associated Press, April 11, 2018. Retrieved October 24, 2018.
- ^ Black, E. (2018). “Case Study of the Gold King Mine Spill.” North Dakota State University. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from https://library.ndsu.edu/ir/bitstream/handle/10365/28719/Case%20Study%20of%20the%20Gold%20King%20Mine%20Spill.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
- ^ Montoya, Teresa (September 2, 2017). "Yellow Water: Rupture and Return One Year after the Gold King Mine Spill". Anthropology Now. 9 (3): 91–115. doi:10.1080/19428200.2017.1390724. ISSN 1942-8200.
- ^ Kaplan, S. (2015, August 10). “What the EPA was doing when it sent yellow sludge spilling into a Colorado creek.” The Washington Post. Retrieved November 15, 2018, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/10/what-the-epa-was-doing-when-it-sent-yellow-sludge-spilling-into-a-colorado-creek/
- ^ a b Rodriguez-Freire, L.; Avasarala, S.; Ali, A. S.; Agnew, D.; Hoover, J. H.; Artyushkova, K.; Latta, D. E.; Peterson, E. J.; Lewis, J.; Crossey, L. J.; Brearley, A. J.; Cerrato, J. M. (2016). "Post Gold King Mine Spill Investigation of Metal Stability in Water and Sediments of the Animas River Watershed". Environmental Science & Technology. 50 (21): 11539–11548. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b03092. PMC 5568564. PMID 27704799.
- ^ Colorado Water Quality Control Division. (2016). “Gold King Mine spill.” Department of Public Health and Environment. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Gold-King-Mine-Spill-Report-01-22-16-Digital.pdf
- ^ Press, The Associated. "Truck Crash Spills More Gold King Mine Waste Into Cement Creek". Colorado Public Radio. Retrieved December 10, 2018.
- ^ "Water flowing in Fruitland - Navajo Times". Navajo Times. August 28, 2015. Retrieved May 7, 2016.
- ^ "Navajo Crops Drying Out as San Juan River Remains Closed After Toxic Spill". indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com. Retrieved May 7, 2016.
- ^ a b c d Sunday, Jonathan Romeo Herald staff writer; Nov. 4; Pm, 2018 7:22. "EPA asks courts to toss Navajo Nation's lawsuit over Gold King Mine spill". The Journal. Retrieved December 10, 2018.
{{cite web}}
:|first3=
has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
External links
- EPA Region 8 Official Website for Event
- USGS Water Quality Data and Activities related to event
- Animas RIver spill six months later, an investigative report
- Cement Creek (USGS National Water Information System)
- Animas River below Silverton (USGS National Water Information System)
- Animas River at Durango (USGS National Water Information System)