Follows Federal Announcement on Nuclear Expansion

MONTROSE – After a blizzard last month kept some opponents of the uranium mill proposed for construction and operation in Paradox Valley from attending the first of two mandatory public hearings held before the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (in its review of the radioactive materials license application for the mill), they turned out in force at the Wednesday, Feb. 17 meeting at Montrose Pavilion, reminding the agency that support for the proposed Piñon Ridge mill is not universal.

Still, in the far-from-full auditorium, the opposition seemed spare among a sea of supporters wearing bright orange “Yes to the Mill” stickers making their allegiance obvious to all.

“The only other time I’ve felt so much in the minority was in the March on Washington in 1963,” said Telluride Town Councilmember David Oyster, who attended last week’s meeting out of curiosity about its tenor, the types of comments that would be made and how it was conducted.

Colorado is among 37 “agreement states” to which the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission transfers authority to regulate and license uranium. As a result the CDPHE is in the process of conducting a 12-14 month comprehensive technical review of the 15-volume license application, submitted in November 2009 by Energy Fuels Resources Corp.

The company, incorporated in Colorado in 2005, according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s website, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Toronto-based Energy Fuels Inc., which trades on the Canadian Stock Exchange.

If the CDPHE approves the radioactive materials license application, it would enable the company to build the nation’s first uranium mill in nearly three decades.

Without the license approval the mill cannot be built.

The Montrose meeting mirrored its January predecessor, save for the considerably larger presence of anti-mill forces.

Frank Filas, environmental manager for Energy Fuels, gave a presentation about the proposed facility. Afterwards about 70 speakers provided their input with 40 percent opposed to and 60 percent in favor of the mill.

As during the January meeting mill, advocates spoke largely about economic development and the need for jobs in the West End of Montrose County.

Energy Fuels has said that the mill would create up to 85 new jobs averaging $40,000 to $75,000 a year plus benefits, and 80 percent of which would come from the local population, in addition to supporting 200 ancillary mining and trucking jobs at nearby mines and generating tax revenues for public services and infrastructure if built.

“This is more than just 85 jobs in the west end,” said Mathew Burtis, business manager for the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 145 in Grand Junction, who said he spoke on behalf of local membership and the national organization.

“The big picture for us is this is going to help steer the full industry for our 320,000 members…” he said, later adding, “We have a lot of people who have been out of work for a long, long time.”

The need for America to produce its own nuclear energy for reasons of national security, and to address climate change, ran a close second to job creation for mill advocates, who seemed delighted that, just one day before, President Obama had announced that the federal government would guarantee $8.3 billion in loans for the construction and operation of two new nuclear reactors at a plant in Georgia – signaling a resurgence of the nation’s long dormant nuclear industry.

“To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we need to increase our supply of nuclear power and today’s announcement helps to move us down that path,” the President said last week.

If achieved it would be the nation’s first nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades.

But mill opponents continued to voice concerns about the potential negative impacts of the mill, in particular the long-term health effects of radiation exposure they fear could leak from the facility no matter how well designed or regulated.

Janet Johnson of Grand Junction, who said she has lived in proximity to a uranium mill for all but four years of her life when she went away to college, gave poignant testimony about her brother and cousin’s early deaths at the ages of 53 and 43, respectively. She noted that both had worked in uranium mills, to which she seemed to attribute their demise.

“I have cancer, as do many of my classmates and many of the people I grew up with,” she added.

Speaking of the radiation that is inherent to uranium, she said: “I know that you can’t keep it all out of the water, out of the air or out of the things we eat,” going on implore the CDPHE panel to consider that future jobs in the area could also be lost as a result of the mill.

“This is an industry that is not a sustainable industry,” she said. “I ask that you consider that.”

Although the land where Energy Fuels has proposed building its mill is zoned for agricultural use, last September the Montrose County Commissioners unanimously approved a special use permit that would allow the industrial facility to be sited there.

If achieved it could become ground zero for the country’s radioactive needs in exploration, mining and ore processing, a fact not lost on those who favor it in light of Obama’s recent statement.

With an operating life of 40 years the proposed Piñon Ridge mill would initially use 144 gallons of water per minute to process 500 tons of ore per day, seven days a week, 350 days per year. At that rate it would produce 770,000 pounds of uranium oxide annually – enough to produce 1,500 megawatts of electricity each year, according to the company, which hopes to expand its operations to eventually process 1,000 tons of ore per day.

At 500 tons per day it would also produce 2.7 million pounds of vanadium oxide annually for use in steel production.