NUCLA — Tuesday night, a common pageant in the world of rural industry hearings played out before the Montrose County Planning Commission.
The commission gathered to hear public comment on the Energy Fuels Pinon Ridge yellowcake uranium mill to be located about 25 miles southwest of Nucla and 12 miles east of Paradox in the West End of the county. The county will have to decide whether to grant EF a special use permit to operate in an agricultural zone.
  
Advertisement |
The Nucla residents talked about their life in the world of uranium mining and milling and about the “outsiders.”
“They’d better grow their organic foods under glass because you get uranium dust in your tomatoes. And if they don’t like it, they can go home,” Nucla resident Tammy Sutherland said.
Some spoke nicely and some with defensive contempt. And they demanded the right to make the decision to risk their lives and health in the world of radioactivity.
It was the first public hearing, and it won’t be the last. The next one is scheduled June 10 at Friendship Hall in Montrose.
Here are some of the highlights and some of the unfinished business from Tuesday’s hearing.
• EF presented a summary of how the mill would work, security, water usage, tailings disposal planning. At the end of the meeting, EF brought forth its consulting team — led by environmental manager Frank Filas and EF CEO George Glasier — that had worked on preparing state documents to provide more detail.
• The mill presentations, as well as the call for protection from the anti-mill speakers, were well defined by mill proponent Tony Adkins. “Everyone here has an agenda. Keep a healthy skepticism on both the company and the opponents,” he said. “We need to realize that statements made here and calculations submitted should be proven by everyone involved.”
• A common theme from the anti-mill speakers: Let the Colorado Division of Public Health and Environment finish its own permit for public review that defines precisely what the mill would be. Then the planning commission could protect the public health and welfare per the CDPHE mandate. The state process, suggested Filas, would take a year, possibly 18 months to complete.
• Joan May and Mike Rozycki spoke on behalf of the San Miguel County Commissioners and Planning Commission. They said the environmental and health issues were a justification of permit denial as defined by written submissions. At a minimum, they asked the commission to wait for a CDPHE permit.
• Telluride-based Sheep Mountain Alliance director Hillary White summarized points in her written testimony: The mill would emit 500 tons per year of dangerous air emissions; dust from tailings could travel 50 miles and cause irreparable damage to lungs; mill tailings retain most radioactivity; the history of previous mill liners are corroded by chemicals and improperly monitored; fractured rocks that could ultimately allow transport of pollution as well as evidence of earthquake/seismic susceptibility; uncertainty of legal water availability; hydrological impacts, past mill operation epidemiological links to stomach cancer. And if a permit were to be granted, avoiding importation of concentrated radioactive waste for processing. She also submitted a map of sensitive species and lands surrounding the mill site, and questioned whether EF had funds to build a mill and not just sell their permits.
• Former Nucla resident Ryan Farmer said people whose families had died in the uranium industry had the right to determine their own fate.
• “The economic benefits of building the mill are very short sighted given the history here,” Nucla High School graduate and current sociology major Mallory Rice said. “What we have tonight is the intersection of ideology and repetition. Much of what the mill produces won’t even benefit the U.S.”
• Paradox resident Marie Moore, who leads an ad hoc local group of mill opponents, first presented highlights of a document submitted to planning director Steve White by attorney Travis Stills.
It described the constituents of concentrated radioactive and hazardous waste to be left “in perpetuity” by the mill.
Moore came back at the end of public testimony to ask the commission: “Do those who are the self-selected who can survive radiation have the right to decide for those of us who get sick from radiation?”
• With 10 minutes left in the hearing, long-time Paradox resident and West End Planning Advisory Committee Member Marty Warner began asking probing questions of Glasier and his team. She turned to planning director Steve White with a basic question: “As many have asked tonight, why does the planning commission have to make a decision before they can read and analyze the CDPHE permit?”
White replied his job was to react to a special permit application and define the tasks before the commission; that the commission could do what it sees fit.
“If you wait for the state to permit before you do, we’ll never raise the funds to operate because nobody will move ahead,” Glasier said, repeating an earlier pro-mill statement.
Warner pressed Glasier for details on earthquakes, water availability and noise. She said she loved Paradox more than anything in the world and asked him if he would promise to be a protective neighbor if his mill was approved.
Glasier reassured her.
• With one minute left in the meeting, amid calls to “stand up among your people” from Nucla residents, the three West End advisory members present recommended to the planning commission mill approval with a series of conditions attached. The advisory committee has no official capacity beyond giving an opinion. Among members’ conditions were prohibitions against importing any waste to be processed for feedstock at the mill, stronger legal agreements for water, and noise mitigation.
So the questions, as well as the responsibility of protecting Montrose County’s health and welfare, remain in front of the planning commission: Can planning commissioners actually determine if this facility can protect county health and the environment? That emissions from dust and the plant operation cannot impact county people and animals? Are planning commissioners in a position to define and protect water quantity and quality as a county resource?
Uranium mining health and environmental issues were never placed before the members other than as a justification for local people to have the right to work. Yet mill proponents stressed that if the mill was built, mines would need to feed it.
The amount of expert advice the Montrose County Planning Commission requires, and perhaps should have EF contract for, seemed to loom above the contentiousness that was present.
fuzzhead wrote on May 27, 2009 1:38 PM:
fuzzhead wrote on May 27, 2009 11:27 AM:
Rockon wrote on May 24, 2009 8:21 AM:
Paradox Resident wrote on May 23, 2009 2:42 PM:
William H. Bramsky wrote on May 23, 2009 1:58 PM:
holder wrote on May 21, 2009 6:22 PM:
Bedrock Babe wrote on May 21, 2009 5:33 PM:
West End Farmer wrote on May 21, 2009 5:26 PM:
We all live here wrote on May 21, 2009 5:24 PM:
We have to look to the future. This mill is just another shadow from the past. That's why the older folks support it and the youth oppose it: But the longer you carry an error around won't make it right. It's time to move forward, not backwards. "
Nucla resident wrote on May 21, 2009 4:44 PM:
Former Nucla Resident wrote on May 21, 2009 11:17 AM:
JMadison wrote on May 21, 2009 9:48 AM:
Mr. Kamp, just the facts. Please dispense with your anti-uranium commentary. "
JMadison wrote on May 21, 2009 9:46 AM:
We should let science and facts rule the day. Science and facts say the Mill will be safe. Science and facts say that we need domestically produced, carbon-free electricity.
Opponents are throwing out all kinds of Trojan Horses - earthquakes, water, finances, renewables, radioactive dust. All fear-mongering, completely unrelated to facts and science. "
Here in Nucla wrote on May 21, 2009 9:23 AM:
Nucla resident wrote on May 21, 2009 9:03 AM:
Former Naturita Resident wrote on May 20, 2009 8:56 PM: