President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 10, 2009 07:36 PM UTC

Mercury Misgivings in Mesa? More Toxic Waste in Grand Jct?

  • 12 Comments
  • by: ClubTwitty

( – promoted by ClubTwitty)

Formerly: “Storage and Management of Elemental Mercury (DOE/EIS-0423)” Updated with some political musings and relevance…

Grand Junction, Colorado is one of several sites being considered by the U.S. Department of Energy for the disposal of mercury waste from around the nation, according to the Grand Junction Sentinel (props to Gary Harmon for the story) and other information on the Intertubes.  

The Sentinel reports:

Mesa County is one of seven locations around the United States being considered for storing mercury, an element deemed by Congress too hazardous to export.

The Department of Energy website has this listed on their public meetings calendar:

07.21.09   Public Scoping Meeting for the Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury EIS (DOE/EIS-0423)  

Two Rivers Convention Center, 159 Main Street, Grand Junction, CO 81501, from 5:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m.

The Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published on the DOE website July 2.  

The Grand Junction meeting is one of several scoping meetings being held around the country near potential sites.  Scoping serves a specific National Environmental Policy Act purpose: to gather input on the ‘scope’ of issues the EIS should cover.  

Judging from the Sentinel article, they are liable to get an earful in Grand Junction at least:

“I’ve got a long way to go before I’d welcome a truck full of mercury to this town,” said Paul Nelson, a Grand Junction city councilman in the 1980s and 1990s, when the city and Mesa County negotiated the agreement under which a disposal cell for uranium mill tailings could be built in the desert south of Grand Junction.

…The disposal cell “wasn’t meant to be a catchall for everything,” said former Councilman Reford Theobold.

“You’re kidding,” said Kathy Hall, a former Mesa County commissioner. “That was absolutely not the purpose” of the disposal cell. “It was for mill tailings and mill tailings only. The big fear was that they would try to do something else with it.”

…”I’d like to know who thought that would be a good site” for hazardous-materials storage, said Don Pettygrove, chairman of the Uranium Mill Tailings Citizens Advisory Committee, which worked with local officials on the cleanup and decisions about how to transport the tailings to the disposal site.

Grand Junction, of course, has a well-known toxic past, to which the quotes above allude.  It was, afterall, the western center (pdf) of the Atomic Energy Commission (now DOE) during the west’s uranium boom, and selected then by the government as the regional milling site.  

The Sentinel article fills in a few of the details.

That cell, now known as the Grand Junction Disposal Site, was built to contain the remnants of the uranium-milling legacy of Grand Junction going back to the 1940s.

…The cell was intended to hold mill tailings and related waste only, former officials with the city and Mesa County said.

…Tailings were what was left behind after uranium was processed in the mill in downtown Grand Junction. The sandy material was used in foundations, roads, streets, curbs and other public works during the 1950s and 1960s.

…The site holds more than 4.4 million cubic yards of contaminated materials in a cell between U.S. Highway 50 and Grand Mesa, south of Grand Junction.

Indeed, millions in taxpayer dollars were spent to clean up Grand Junction’s toxic legacy.  

The scoping period is the first of at least two public comment periods, as the agency first prepares its draft EIS.  Then it will take  public comment again, then issue a final EIS and decision.

The article didn’t mention where Mesa’s current elected officials are at, and its early enough in the process that the state and congressional offices haven’t issued any statements of which I am aware.

Few states appreciate being the nation’s dumping ground.  Even Utah beat back a proposal to store high-level radioactive waste there. Certainly there are a lot of details yet unknown.  An active state and congressional delegation can make a big difference in making sure questions are answered and issues addressed.      

In the 1950s,60s and 70s county and city leaders were happy to take the free fill material from the uranium mill, now–judging at least from the initial reactions in the Sentinel article–they are a bit more skeptical.  Other folks in Colorado–and current elected officials–should follow their lead.  

 

Comments

12 thoughts on “Mercury Misgivings in Mesa? More Toxic Waste in Grand Jct?

  1. I think the main issue here that anyone not dragging their knuckles across the ground in Grand Junction should be concerned with is where this poison will be stored and how. Ultimately, we know from past experience, that wherever this poison (because it is a poison) is stored, however it is stored, it will eventually leak into water supplies.

    Yaaay! Just what we need, more hydrocephalic autistic kids being born every year so politicians can run roughshod over our lives with a public incapable of understanding basic logic.

    1. The mercury that many thought was causing autism was not from the environment, but a preservative within a vaccination.

      Lewis & Clark used mercury to treat syphilis. It worked.  Unfortunately, what little I know indicates that many L&C men died early. But in those days, who didn’t?  

      I used to play with mercury when I was a kid.  There’s nothing wrong with…nothing wrong with me….nothing wrong with me….

      1. Your sarcasm is well targeted, and it points out just how little we actually know about mercury’s long-term effects on human (or for that matter) environmental health. There’s also a thing called principle that’s involved here.  

  2. Since the folks in GJ don’t believe in regulation, maybe the mercury should just be dumped in their street and in their gutters and see what they think of that.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

61 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!