Log In


Reset Password
News Education Local News Nation & World New Mexico

A long road for mine cleanup

EPA addresses how process might work
A worker walks around one of the five retentions ponds constructed below the Gold King Mine that are collecting sediment before entering Cement Creek as seen Aug. 19 during a tour of where the mine spill happened north of Silverton.

SILVERTON – More questions than answers face those tasked with deciding the most efficient and feasible plan for cleaning up leaky mines above Silverton.

The Environmental Protection Agency, at the behest of the San Juan County Commission, met with local and state officials at Silverton’s packed City Hall on Friday for an update about the Gold King Mine, where an EPA contractor accidentally unleashed 3 million gallons of toxic sludge into the Animas River in early August.

But for all the inquires into project time lines, funding and boundaries – or if the mine leakage from the Silverton caldera would even qualify for a Superfund designation – those looking for answers did not find much satisfaction.

The EPA could have summed up its response to all these inquiries by simply saying, “We need more data.”

The meeting’s main speaker was Mathy Stanislaus, an EPA assistant administrator based in Washington, D.C., who specializes in Superfunds – the federal program created specifically to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites.

Stanislaus initially said one of the advantages of the mining network above Silverton is that there is already a slew of data, complied by various local entities such as the Animas River Stakeholders Group and the state health department.

But as it turns out, the EPA would have to rely on its own sampling before being able to answer questions such as: What would be the boundary of a Superfund designation? How many years would the project take to complete? Or where would the site rank among the nation’s worst polluted areas, if at all?

Stanislaus explained that in the coming months, the EPA will work with local groups to conduct an evaluation of a variety of factors, including groundwater and soil issues, threat of exposure to humans and animals, as well as the potential impact to drinking water. The agency will then identify possible short- and long-term solutions.

No timeline could be pinned down, but Stanislaus said after that investigation, the EPA would present the public its initial study and ask for comment. If the EPA, the federal agency responsible for the Gold King Mine blowout, receives a positive response, it would initiate a formal proposal process.

However, none of these actions guarantee the mines north of Silverton will even qualify for the National Priority List, which is the ranking system that prioritizes hazardous sites.

After the agency drafts its “formal proposal,” it must be accepted on the NPL. If that happens, Stanislaus said, investigators will conduct another more comprehensive examination of the mines. Those results would be compared with other sites around the country by a “risk panel” and subsequently ranked in order of importance.

There are about 1,750 designated Superfund sites in the U.S., and only so much federal funding. Though the Gladstone region wouldn’t compete with all 1,750 hazardous areas, the fact remains the highest priority sites receive funding first, and there’s a huge gap of uncertainty when other cleanup zones will be addressed.

“As we learn more about those sites, that’s when its determined how it gets funded and how much,” said Doug Ammon of the EPA’s Tribal Site Identification Branch.

But given the scope of what it would cost to treat the Silverton caldera long-term, many attendees wondered what other options are on the table besides a Superfund.

Doug Jameson of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said there’s no way the state could financially cover such an undertaking.

“In most cases, the state does not have significant resources to extend upon these types of projects,” he said, adding that the state health department often works with the EPA on toxic cleanups.

“There have been times when funding has slowed down because of priority, and we haven’t gotten funding in a given year,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean funding is dried up. Elements are delayed, not the entire project.”

Basically, if a site is on the NPL, it’s on, and would hold the guarantee that “sometime” in the future, there would be a remediation.

Ammon added sometimes it’s in the best interest of all parties to explore other avenues if a Superfund is not attainable.

“The EPA is actually very happy to find other ways of cleaning up a site,” he said. “But it depends on the circumstances whether they’re viable options. It wouldn’t be uncommon for a large, complex site to (be broken up) all toward the goal of a long-term, permanent cleanup.”

EPA officials were adamant throughout the meeting that the public will be involved every step of the way. How they intend to include the long line of downstream communities is unclear.

“We are not trying to drive an agenda (of a Superfund designation) – the decision to list is the concurrence of the governor with the input of the communities and tribes impacted by this,” EPA’s Region 8 Administrator Shaun McGrath said.

“If you are telling me you want to dig into this and pursue it, without making any decisions up front, but having that conversation, we are ready to have that conversation.”

jromeo@durangoherald.com



Reader Comments