The approximately 250 people who filled the Nucla High School gym last week were there to witness a different kind of rivalry than the basketball games that usually inhabit the venue. Instead, they came to debate the proposed uranium mill in Paradox Valley, a project that has electrified the fence between area residents who want jobs and those who are wary of the environmental impacts of such a facility.

The Montrose County Planning Commission held the public hearing to gather input about the proposed mill before making a recommendation to the county commissioners about a permit. The 880-acre project site is on private land zoned for agricultural use, not for industrial operations like processing ore, so it will require a special use permit for the proposed mill. The planning commission deferred its decision on the permit to a June 10 meeting, but both County Planning Director Steve White and the West End Planning Advisory Committee (made up of residents who live closer to the proposed project) recommended approval of the permit.

Although the majority of the crowd at the meeting seemed in favor of the project, either wielding signs of support or clapping after every pro-mill comment, there was also a lot of skepticism about the mill. The site’s neighbors and farmers in Paradox asked the commission to deny the permit, which they said was in conflict with how the surrounding lands are used.

“Agriculture is why we bought here,” said Martha Burgess, an organic farmer in Bedrock just a few miles from the proposed mill. “We feel that the contaminants would dangerously compromise our operations for both the animals and vegetables that we produce.”

Residents on the other side of the proposal, in Nucla, were put off by people from Telluride, Ridgway or Utah who expressed concern about the contamination of the water or air. Paradox may still be pristine, but Nucla is nearer to Uravan, the toxic remnants of an old uranium mill that produced yellowcake for the Manhattan Project. The uranium industry, mining and milling, has been a part of the culture in Nucla for generations. West end citizens argued that the advent of a new mill would provide jobs and invigorate the economy. Several remarked that they, or their families, had worked in the uranium industry before and that they don’t “glow in the dark.”

Glowing in the dark is not the real concern, of course — lung and kidney diseases, blood cancers and high mortality rates have been associated with uranium mill workers. Former Nucla resident Ryan Farmer tackled the elephant in the room, the health risks, and said that it wasn’t that the Nucla locals didn’t understand the risks. They do, he said. They just think that they are acceptable.

“Who here has lost a family member?” asked Farmer, and several people raised their hands. “If anybody knows the long term and health effects, it’s them. They’ve lived it. And they think the risks are worth it, and they want [the mill].”

A younger Nucla native, 21-year-old Mallory Rice, had a different perspective.

“The economic benefits are great for the community, however, they are very shortsighted given the history here … Please consider the long-term effects,” she said.

The planning commission gave Energy Fuels, the applicant, the opportunity to rebut the litany of negative comments, from the risks of contamination to the concerns about where the water needed to run the mill will come from or the possibility of earthquakes and accidents to the fact that the project is still under-capitalized, with just $35 million raised for the $150 million mill. After that, the hearing was continued to June 10 at the Friendship Hall in Montrose. Should the planning commission recommend approval, the matter will be heard by Montrose County Commissioners next.

Because the site is on private land, the only other agency besides the county that will regulate the mill operations will be the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment. No federal oversight or environmental impact statement will be required.

If you're wondering why I'm posting information about a Colorado uranium milling operation, then read on. I'll make my points and provide links for more information.

1. This mill will be located not far from the reclaimed Uravan site, where uranium and vanadium were mined for almost fifty years and where the Superfund cleanup has been ongoing. If you read the article carefully, you'll discover information about "old-timers" and younger perspectives on this mill. While, in the previous blog entry I posted here, I stated to Mr. Donelson that many people do remember a uranium mine in their county, I neglected to add that people would need to be old enough to remember it. On the other hand, some younger folks seem to have more foresight than those who would rather "die employed." Uranium mining DOES contaminate surrounding areas and has impacts that people may not see for decades. See Uravan Superfund Cleanup information at http://www.epa.gov/Region8/superfund/co/uravan/ for the truth on how uranium mining in this area contaminated far-reaching areas through the San Miguel River.

2. Given this history, it is clear that many residents are looking at economic benefits, just as Mr. Donelson was pushing in his letter to the editor. The long-term effects can be horrific, as shown by the ongoing battle between the Navajo Nation and the government for the issues uranium mining has brought to their community. See: Navajo leaders seek help with uranium issues at http://www.daily-times.com/ci_12482886

3. The issue of land use was broached at this meeting for the Colorado mining and milling operation. Montrose County has a history of uranium mining, yes, but it also is agricultural and it also hosts Montrose, a town with an airport that brings in Telluride skiers and San Juan County tourists. Land use has been an ongoing issue in this area, especially in the town of Montrose. Unfortunately, up until the housing boom and bust, many of the members of the town council were also real estate agents who fought the residents about land use. While this blog isn't very active now (because real estate is an economic non-issue in Montrose at this time), you can learn more about the struggles over land use here: http://montrosecitizens.org/

4. Land use also is an issue in the Pittsylvania County uranium mining proposal. Additionally, since the study on uranium mining in Virginia now is a statewide issue, this land usage issue may come up again...Virginia is agricultural, and - unlike Montrose County in Colorado - uranium mining has never been conducted east of the Mississippi. Therefore, land use battles over historic former mining for uranium is moot in the State of Virginia. Virginia has been known as an agricultural state (at least below the Washington, D.C. beltway), and agricultural issues are of a major concern in Southside. See: Keeping Agriculture Alive in the Shadow of a Uranium Mine: Potential Effects and Regulatory Solutions for Virginia: http://elpr.org/2009/05/20/keeping-agriculture-alive-in-the-shadow-of-a-urani...

5. The Paradox Valley mining project in Colorado is proposed on private land, just as the Coles Hill project is located on private land. Since these projects are located on private land, there are issues such as oversight that must be addressed. In Colorado, no federal oversight or environmental impact statement is required, an issue that can speed up the process for the underfunded project proposed there. In Coles Hill, the project appears to be in fine financial shape, as Virginia Uranium just joined with Canadian Uranium mining company Santoy. And, a study is now being conducted in Virginia (although funds for that study are vague), but I - as do others - have an uneasy feeling about this study. Mainly, the question is how this statewide study can be conducted within eighteen months. This Virginia study is not site-specific, which means that Coles Hill is not a focus. Rather, it seems that economics will take the day, although it has been promised that the safety of Virginians will take a top priority. See the specifics on the Uranium Mine Study’s Statement of Task Issues at http://www.appomattoxnews.com/2009/uranium-mine-studys-statement-of-task-issu...

6. Finally, although this article doesn't clarify the Energy Fuels' origins, they are a Canadian company, just like Santoy. See http://www.energyfuels.com/ for Energy Fuels and http://www.santoy.ca/s/Home.asp for Santoy. You might want to ask yourself why Canadian companies are so interested in U.S. uranium. If you have an answer, let me know, as I know that Canada still has plenty of uranium in their country to mine and mill. So, I don't have answers.