The Black Hills are an area of the northern Great Plains, characterized by pine-covered hills, rocks, and fresh water that flows into underground aquifers to recharge groundwater across the region [2]. The Black Hills are subject to treaties between the State and the Oglala Sioux Tribe which reserved the right of the Hills's land [2]. The Oglala maintain a strong legal, traditional, and spiritual link to the Black Hills [2]. In the case of this environmental injustice, however, this promise has not been kept. Through history, the area experienced uranium mining and milling in the 1950s to early 1970s. This left 169 abandoned mines and a trail of contaminated land and water [2]. Similarly today, a company called Powertech (pending a name change to Azarga Uranium Corp. !) is looking at getting state and federal approval to build uranium mine and to use in situ leach method for uranium extraction near in the Black Hills. Officials from the county are currently exploring the feasibility and environmental impact that such an operation could have on the surrounding area [2]. If permitted, the operation would become the first radioactive "in situ leach" mining in South Dakota. It will be located on 10,000 acres of Custer and Fall River counties adjacent to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and upstream at the headwaters of the Cheyenne River [1]. In order for "in situ leach" mining to work, the uranium must be located directly in an underground water resource. The method involves pumping a solution underground through wells. The solution is forced through a uranium deposit and leaches the uranium out of the rock. The solution is then pumped back to the surface, and the uranium is removed for further processing [2] [6]. The Powertech/Azarga Uranium Corp. company , which has never mined uranium before, proposes to drill 4,000 wells into an aquifer that is used for domestic water and livestock. The project would use 9,000 gallons of water per minute, 1/3 larger than the amount of groundwater used by nearby Rapid City, the second- largest town in the state. It also plans to pump its wastewater into another aquifer through four deep disposal wells [2]. All told, the project would impact water from 3 of the 4 major drinking water aquifers in the Black Hills, a semi-arid area that relies on groundwater; including high radiactivity risks [2]. The Oglala Sioux Tribe has taken leadership in fighting the proposal, and all nine tribal governments within South Dakota have passed resolutions against it. Local non- profit groups have also join the opposition. Resistance to the project also includes the City Council of Rapid City and the South Dakota State Medical Association, which passed a resolution against the proposed mine [2]. Lately, Northern Cheyene Nation also joined the struggle [1]. Powertech/ Azarga needs to get at least ten federal, state, and county permits for its mining operation to begin. It currently has one -from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – but that license was under litigation. On January 31 2019 however, the NRC ruled in favour of the Powertech/ Azarga' license for southern Black Hills uranium mining, which was challenged for eight years by the Oglala Sioux Tribe [2]. If the license-holder Powertech/ Azarga wins the necessary number of licences in the end, it can be used to undertake the in situ mining of uranium [2].The tribal government and local groups urged members of the public to attend proceedings and participate in an outdoor cultural event to raise awareness about the uranium mining issue. The tribe members who hold important oral histories pertain to the discussion of cultural resources going on between the tribe and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). “None of these families was consulted in connection with the NRC staff’s efforts before,” the tribe argues [4]. “NRC staff is attempting to escape its obligation to consider cultural resources at the site, saying it is so expensive and they shouldn’t have to do a cultural survey” [4]. So, “The tribe is fighting back.” [4] The mining activity would entail chemically leaching the radioactive toxic heavy metal from the rock in the underground water-table and processing it above-ground. Extracted uranium then would be transported out of state to refinement facilities, making it available for use its ultimate destination, the production of nuclear power . The polluted water would be pumped back underground or sprayed on the surface [5]. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extended the deadline for the current round of written comments until December 9th 2019 [1]. The EPA says it still seeks public comment on historic and traditional cultural properties, as well as on its revised draft environmental impact analysis (please see Source and Materials documents for more details) [1]. (See less) |