Arsenic, lead, cadmium broke water limits
Metals that spilled into the Animas exceed quality levels.
The EPA on Monday expanded its response to the Animas River mining disaster, delivering bottled water in Colorado, New Mexico and Navajo Country and testing for contaminants as far as Lake Powell.
The acidic heavy metals that flooded into Cement Creek and the Animas in southwestern Colorado — including arsenic, lead, copper and cadmium — initially broke state water quality limits, based on data the Environmental Protection Agency has released.
Gov. John Hickenlooper declared a disaster. New Mexico also declared a disaster. California officials have been calling the EPA about water supply implications. Residents along the Animas near Durango, with about 17,000 people, swamped La Plata County with requests for well tests.
And a long-running debate about solutions — possibly involving Superfund status for leaking old mines — is ignited.
But five days after an EPA crew triggered the Gold King mine blowout, EPA regional chief
Shaun McGrath still could not give an assessment of potential harm to people.
The spread of toxic heavy metals was such that authorities will block access to the Animas at least until Aug. 17 while the EPA develops “risk-screening criteria” and data show that water has returned to “preevent conditions,” McGrath said.
“The risk-screening levels, that is based on exposures through different uses in this area,” he said.
“Are we back down to pre-event conditions? … That is going to take a little bit of time.”
An initial deluge of acid mine wastewater estimated at 3 million gallons brought the concentration of lead in the Animas River to 5,720 parts per billion (ppb), according to the EPA’s data — far above the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment domestic water quality standard of 50 ppb, the shut-off point above which municipal water providers are told not to draw water into their systems.
“That’s really high for lead,” said Peter Butler, a coordinator of the Animas River Stakeholders Group and former director of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission.
“They’ll want that kind of data in Durango,” Butler said. “You would not want to be pulling that into your system. ... These events have happened historically. We’ve seen other blowouts in the Upper Animas — but much smaller than this one.”
The water data available Monday, from a location 15 miles north of Durango, were taken one day after the Gold King blowout. The contamination is expected to be diluted. EPA responders have set up new retention ponds below Gold King.
The data EPA officials posted in tables on a government website Monday show contamination at 6.13 ppb for cadmium, above a state limit of 5 ppb; 264 ppb for arsenic, above a state limit of 10; 326,000 ppb for iron, above a limit of 1,000; 1,120 for copper, above a limit of 1,000 ppb; and 3,040 for manganese, above a limit of 50.
More data measured up river near Silverton six hours after the blowout showed elevated cadmium at 98.3 ppb, zinc at 26,800 ppb, beryllium at 34.8 ppb, aluminum at 91,900 ppb, lead at 150 ppb, and copper at 10,400 ppb.
EPA officials declined to discuss contamination levels. Colorado health and mining officials, who are supporting the EPA, declined to provide requested information or discuss the contamination.
Fish caught in three cages at Durango have survived in the mustard-yellow water.
The EPA has been collecting water at multiple points below the mine, 60 miles north of Durango in the mountains above Silverton. McGrath said the agency is preparing to test water in Lake Powell. EPA officials are hearing concern from California and working with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Water supply worries intensified, especially in New Mexico communities where the Animas is the sole source of water and near Durango, where thousands of residents rely on shallow wells.
La Plata County officials said they’re overwhelmed with phone calls from residents asking for well tests. The officials directed callers to the county fairgrounds, where the EPA provided bottled water.
Hickenlooper’s disaster declaration makes $500,000 available. He and Cabinet officials are headed for Durango.
“We will work closely with the EPA to continue to measure water quality but also to work together to assess other mines throughout the state to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” Hickenlooper said in a prepared statement.
The problem of leaking old mines around Colorado and the West is a familiar one for state and federal environmental officials. EPA chief McGrath said a “Superfund” designation at Gold King could make resources available for a proper cleanup.
But Silverton and San Juan County officials have long resisted a full-scale federal cleanup — fearing the Superfund stigma could hurt business.
Now concerns are heightened with contaminated water flowing from Colorado into three states and possibly Lake Powell, said Gwen Lachelt, a La Plata County commissioner.
“It’s clear that we all understand we are part of the same ecosystem — all the way from La Plata County to the Navajo Nation and beyond. Superfund is one solution to the issue up there,” Lachelt said.
“There are a number of others that have been proposed. We need to sit down and roll up our sleeves and begin that conversation,” she said.
The EPA seeks local approval before declaring a Superfund site, which can bring federal money, said Butler of the local stakeholders group and state water quality commission.
“The EPA wants the governor of the state to request being placed on a national priorities list for Superfund,” he said. “If the governor’s office doesn’t believe there is local support, he is unlikely to send that letter.”
State and federal officials have talked about cleanups for decades.
Southwestern Colorado residents wonder what a cleanup would mean. “The EPA hasn’t given any indication about what area they’re thinking about for a designation. People don’t want to give them carte blanche.”
While some residents support the idea, others point to how the EPA caused this disaster. “‘ Gee, look at the way the EPA screwed this up. Why would you want them to do more?’ ”