Uranium meeting targets
jobs, health, water
Proponents say mining techniques,
regs have improved

Copyright © 2008
Gallup Independent
By Kevin Killough
Staff writer

GRANTS — The state Legislature’s Indian Affairs Committee and Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Committee met in Grants for further discussions of resuming uranium mining operations in New Mexico. A portion of the meeting was dedicated to public comment. Industry representatives and members of the public were given a chance to speak their concerns on the issue to the committee members.

Ava Peets, who has lived in the Grants area for 32 years, said that mining corporations built much of the medical infrastructure and the mining museum, which is one of the few tourism draws that Grants has today.

Terry Fletcher, president of Rio Algom Mining, LLC, denied that mining companies leave behind dangerous contamination. He said that he worked on the reclamation of 10 of the largest uranium mines in the state and that cleanup operations continue to the present day.

“You heard of companies cutting and running, and that’s not true,” Fletcher said.

Proponents also included younger people who were not born during the mining boom of the ’60s and ’70s. Paulena Martinez, a high school student, also spoke on the issue, saying that the industry was badly needed to ensure jobs for the future.

“I respect other people’s views, but I support uranium mining,” she added.

Opponents said that uranium mining should not be permitted until contamination from previous mining operations had been cleaned up. Others said that any risk for cancer and other diseases from radiation was not worth any economic benefits.

Candace Head-Dylla, who is a member of the Bluewater Valley Downstream Alliance, said that mining company’s operations had poisoned her groundwater, which has destroyed her property values and made her water undrinkable.

“Now we can’t use that water on land we bought and paid for,” she said. “You want to talk about impact on private property?”

She said all mining companies should be help responsible for the clean up, and no operations should proceed until all traces of previous operations have been eliminated.

“That’s not an anti-business message at all. That’s just saying clean up the mess you left,” she told the committees.

Jana Gunnell, a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility, said that since radiation poses health risks, uranium should never be mined under any circumstances.

“As a doctor, my bottom line is health,” she said.
While poverty is a significant contributor to poor health, she said, water is too limited of a resource to take any risks that it might be contaminated.

“No economic development is justified that threatens our water,” she said.

Though the scientific data has not been conclusive in demonstrating that uranium mining has been a significant contributor to cancer in the area, she said, that does not mean that mining is not causing multiple cases of cancer in the state.

“Do not equate a lack of data with a lack of effect,” she said.

Executive Vice President and COO of Uranium Resources, Inc. Rick van Horn said that uranium companies do not just leave behind toxic contamination when operations cease. He said that URI had met all cleanup obligations as set forth in the agreements they sign to get their operations license.

“There is nothing further from the truth,” van Horn said. “If the state thinks these regulations are not adequate, they need to make them tougher.”

The regulations, he said, require the company to meet certain specifications of groundwater restoration after operations are finished in addition to stringent monitoring throughout the period of operation.

In some cases, he said, the company is unable to meet a certain restoration requirement. When the deviation is minor, the company has the option to file for an exception. Before this exception can be approved, the public is given an opportunity to voice their objections. Only the state may approve the exception, and the entire process is open to the public.

“It’s not something we do in secret,” van Horn said.

He also said that while much of the “plume” that contaminates groundwater was caused by obsolete milling technologies that have nothing to do with in-situ leach mining or modern mining techniques, URI continues to support reasonable efforts to clean up the contamination.
He was a strong proponent of bill to create a fund to clean up past mining operations with future mining operation funds, van Horn said. The governor ultimately vetoed the bill, saying the bill did not create adequate funding, and many environmental groups also opposed it.

“We understand the legacy issues need to be addressed,” van Horn said.