Reed Hayes: One false step, 41 years of pain

by Joe Hanel
Herald Denver Bureau

Monday, August 10, 2009

July 1967. Graveyard shift at the Atlas uranium mill in Moab, Utah. A light bulb is out on the second level over one of the vats of yellowcake - sludge of concentrated uranium ore.

Reed Hayes eases himself down the walkway, a replacement bulb in hand. But someone on the swing shift forgot to put up a rope to block off the yellowcake tank. Suddenly Hayes falls. He splashes into the tank.

He's a strong swimmer, and he swims out through the sludge. The shift boss tells him to go home, shower, change clothes and get back to work.

A month later, shortly after he left his job, painful rashes break out all over his body, "head to toes." It's an affliction Hayes has carried to his retirement home, a tidy ranch house with an immaculate garden at the western tip of the Paradox Valley.

Hayes' words come slowly, with long pauses between sentences, as he describes dozens of different drugs and tests he's endured over the decades.

"I've got it today. I've got parts of it on my body right now," Hayes says.

He wears a thick, long-sleeved shirt, sunglasses and a hat every time he goes outside to work in his garden and orchard. For some reason, this year, he's been able to grow apricots - 56 of them, to be precise - while many of the Western Slope crops failed.

Atlas was no help to him. The company is defunct. He applied to the government for compensation for sick nuclear workers, but he couldn't get it because the program was for only lung disease. He's applied to another program, and his case has been pending since last fall.

"I think I'm on the back burner, basically," he says.

"I've been in misery, sometimes literally hell, for 41½ years," Hayes says. "My wife has taken me to the emergency room probably seven or eight times. Sometimes it breaks out and gets in my mouth, starts choking me. Sometimes it gets in my eyes. It moves around."

Steroid balms help a bit, along with antihistamines.

"It never does get rid of it. It just calms it down. It's just a Band-Aid," Hayes says. "That's my story."

http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/08/10/Reed_Hayes_One_false_step_41_years_of_pain/

Ore From Last Uranium Boom Still Scattered on Colorado Land

By Joe Hanel
Herald Denver Bureau

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

PARADOX - From the road, it looks like a pile of gray rocks. But a closer inspection reveals flakes of yellow and lime green - telltale signs of uranium ore.

The pile and others like it make up some of the 5,000 tons of uranium ore that remains on the surface from Colorado's last boom, according to a Department of Energy environmental study.

Five thousand tons of rock is only a few months of production from a mid-sized mine, but it's enough to concern Travis Stills, a Durango lawyer leading the legal challenge to the Energy department's plan to lease Colorado land for uranium mining.

The Office of Legacy Management, which issues leases on federal uranium lands, cleaned up all its old mine sites by 2001, according to court filings by Andrew Smith, a Justice department lawyer who is representing the OLM.

Piles of waste rock at uranium mines could cause trouble if water runs off them into creeks, said Angelique Diaz, an environmental engineer for the Environmental Protection Agency's Denver office. The piles are radioactive and give off radon gas, but not in significant quantities, Diaz said.

The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety cleans mines that were abandoned before 1977, using mostly federal dollars but also money from state taxes on gas, oil and coal production.

With 17,000 abandoned mines in Colorado, the priority goes to open mine shafts that might be dangerous for hikers, said Loretta Pineda, director of the abandoned mines program.

"I do have some environmental funding, but it's pretty limited," Pineda said.

The BLM has asked the state to put several old mines in the Paradox Valley on its list, Pineda said. She had a project on tap near Uravan a few years ago, but it was put on hold when people started staking claims in the area. Anyone who opened a new mine would have to clean up the old pollution first.

For Stills, the cleanup of the old mines should happen now.

"Five thousand tons of uranium ore sitting on the surface should be somebody's priority," he said.

http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/08/11/Ore_from_last_uranium_boom_still_scattered_on_Colorado_land/

Health Risks From Mines Covered Up: Department of Energy Files Reveal Legacy of Secrecy and Negligence

Disgusting and infuriating but not surprising, unfortunately. Can we really expect any better protection or information dissemination in Virginia? Let's learn from the past and leave the U in the ground. Let's let integrity triumph over greed.

by Joe Hanel
Herald Denver Bureau

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

URAVAN - Health experts working for the state of Colorado and the federal government knew about the dangers of working in uranium mines and mills 60 years ago, but they hid their knowledge from the workers. As a result, workers died from cancer.

This has been public knowledge since the mid-1990s, when the Department of Energy published the results of its "Openness Project," an extraordinary catalog of government failures in the decades after World War II.

The report blames state and federal bureaucrats for "intergovernmental buck passing and decades of study, a course that resulted in the premature deaths of hundreds of miners."

State and federal regulators did plenty of studies. According to the archives of the Department of Energy's Openness Project: On Aug. 25, 1949, Colorado health officials met with U.S. Public Health Service employees to discuss uranium mine and mill safety. The same month, the Colorado Health Department and Colorado Bureau of Mines asked the Public Health Service to do a formal study of the mines and mills.

Public Health Service official Duncan Holaday was in charge of the study, and he quickly found evidence that unventilated mines were exposing workers to cancer-causing levels of radiation. Vents would have helped lessen the danger.

But the Public Health Service couldn't get access to the mines without permission from mine owners. To get permission, inspectors promised the mine owners not to warn workers of radiation hazards, Holaday testified in a lawsuit brought by Navajo uranium miners.

"You had to get the survey done, and you knew perfectly well you were not doing the correct thing ... by not informing the workers," Holaday said, according to the Openness Project report.

In May 1952, the Public Health Service gave its initial results in a report that was released to only state and federal officials and mining companies. A news release said "no evidence of health damage from radioactivity had been found." But the Openness Project report notes lung cancer takes 10 to 20 years to show itself, and public health regulators knew about the risks as early as the 1940s.

In 1960, the Public Health Service at last gave the governors of uranium states such as Colorado what it said was a conclusive link between uranium mining and lung cancer. Yet the Atomic Energy Commission, the Public Health Service and the states continued their talks and studies.

The biggest radiation hazard for miners was radon, a radioactive gas that is formed when uranium decays. Although uranium is radioactive, the radioactive particles are most dangerous when ingested. That happens most often when radon is inhaled in mines with poor ventilation.

It wasn't until 1967 that the federal government finally set a standard for radon in uranium mines, about the same time Colorado and Utah started serious enforcement. Most small Colorado mines weren't ventilated until the 1960s, more than two decades into the uranium boom.

By 1990, miners in one study group had seen 410 deaths from lung cancer - almost five times the rate that statisticians would expect.

The judge in the Navajo miners' case called it the "tragedy of the nuclear age."

Congress in 1990 passed a law to compensate the surviving miners and millers called the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. But of the 165,000 claims filed, only 43,000 have been paid, according to Labor Department statistics cited in a 2008 Rocky Mountain News investigation.

http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/08/11/Health_risks_from_mines_covered_up/

GOV. RITTER CONGRATULATES NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY FOR LANDING $20M GRANT

Written by Shrewsbury, Holly

Gov. Bill Ritter today congratulated the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden for winning a $20 million grant to advance solar energy research in an effort to forge new frontiers in achieving energy independence. The NREL grant is funded largely by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and is part of a $377 million program targeting 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers across the country. The grants were announced today by Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "Congratulations to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for securing another Recovery Act grant that will support growth and advancements in the New Energy Economy," Gov. Ritter said. "NREL is a critical component of Colorado’s energy sector and this grant is the latest example of how the state is being recognized for its work to create jobs and advance energy technologies.” The new grant will go to NREL’s Center for Inverse Design and will be used to replace trial-and-error methods used in the development of materials for solar energy conversion with an inverse design approach powered by theory and computation. The Recovery Act devotes $154 billion to energy, infrastructure and science projects nationwide to help push the economy in a new direction and to support efforts to create a sustainable energy industry. The Governor’s Energy Office is implementing a series of programs to use Recovery Act dollars to create jobs, support business and advance the state’s New Energy Economy. For more information about the Recovery Act, go to www.colorado.gov/recovery . To view a complete list of grant recipients, go to http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/EFRC_Synopses.pdf . http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/5026/2/

Colorado Commissioner Joins Fight Against Mine

Wow! Here's a County Commissioner that gets it! Hope some of the local supervisors see this and follow suit!

By Cherry Sokoloski
North Forty News

Larimer County Commissioner Randy Eubanks has thrown down the gauntlet in the uranium-mining controversy, challenging his fellow commissioners to sign a resolution against uranium mining in northern Colorado.

At an informational hearing hosted by the commissioners Feb. 25, Eubanks said he plans to write letters of opposition to all permitting authorities involved with the proposed Centennial mine in Weld County.

"There's no safe level of radiation," said Eubanks, who worked in the nuclear power field for 13 years.

The Centennial Project between Nunn and Wellington is proposed by Powertech Inc., a Canadian company that wants to mine uranium using the in-situ leach method. With this method, wells are drilled into the aquifer containing the uranium deposits. A leaching solution is injected into the site and then piped back to the surface, where the uranium is removed from the water.

A report by the county's environmental advisory board stated that "a number of risks are identified with ISL operations," but that too little information is available to know for sure what the probabilities of contamination are.

Open-pit uranium mining presents higher risks to the environment than an ISL operation, the EAB noted. However, the report added, uranium mining could cause economic damages in the region regardless of actual risks, because of the power of perceptions.

Local commissioners do not have decision-making authority over the proposed mine, but they may provide input to Weld County, Colorado and the federal government, all of whom must issue permits before any mining can begin.

Jeff Parsons of Loveland, a mining attorney who spoke at the hearing, said the county's input "will be taken seriously at the state level."

Other speakers noted that Fort Collins, Timnath, Front Range Cancer Specialists and the Larimer County and Colorado Medical Societies have already passed resolutions against uranium mining.

Terence Walsh, project manager for Powertech's Centennial project, told the commissioners there's a large demand for uranium in the nuclear power industry. Twenty percent of electrical power in the United States is currently generated by nuclear power, he said, and the industry requires 55 million pounds of uranium per year. Most of that is imported, he said.

In-situ leach mining, according to Walsh, is "a safe and benign method of mining," but he acknowledged that groundwater restoration is a necessary part of the process.

He said monitoring wells would measure any vertical or horizontal migration of water, a primary concern with in-situ mining. If such a migration occurred, it could contaminate other aquifers used for domestic water or irrigation. In Colorado, Walsh noted, compliance wells are also required. Walsh said it takes about three years to restore groundwater to previous quality levels.

Lilias Jarding, a member of Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction which is actively opposing the Centennial project, said water contamination from the mine could occur from pipe failures, failures in the wastewater retention ponds or heavy rains. Another concern for Jarding is the use of large quantities of water for the in-situ process. Powertech officials, she said, estimate that about a million gallons of water per month would be consumed at Centennial.

Jarding said the price of uranium has "skyrocketed" in recent years, creating a worldwide uranium-mining boom.

Most speakers at the hearing were concerned about possible ill effects on health and the environment from the proposed mining operation. Possible water contamination was cited, along with contamination caused by high winds that could carry pollutants long distances.

There was also concern about livestock grazing on contaminated pastureland and about property values in the vicinity that are already falling. Some worried that Powertech would eventually file for permits on open-pit mining as well.

The Navajo Nation in the Four Corners area has banned uranium mining. "The people there were affected very badly by open-pit uranium mining," said Dian Sparling of Fort Collins, a nurse-midwife who worked on the reservation in 1982. One of her jobs was to collect statistics on the number of miscarriages and birth defects experienced by tribal members.

"Uranium mining so close to 275,000 people is a very risky business," said John Dixon of Fort Collins. "We will be playing Russian roulette with the lives of our children and future generations. What is the health of our children worth?"

http://www.northfortynews.com/Archive/A200803-01N_CommissionerFightMine.htm

Don't Drink The Uranium

August 1, 2009

by Ann Garrison

Havasupai Guardians of the Grand Canyon.
Photo credit: Brenda Norrell

On July 21, 2009, Obama Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a two year "time out" on new uranium mining claims on nearly a million acres of federal land near the Grand Canyon, in response, it seemed, to the protest of environmentalists, and, Native Americans, who still suffer cancers and other illnesses at rates many times higher than the general population, consequent to uranium mining on or near tribal lands.

Cause for celebration? Not in the least. Salazar's announcement is straight out of Orwell's 1984. This two year "time out" is no time out at all, because new mining claims are not the issue. More than 10,000 uranium claims have been staked on federal land immediately surrounding the Grand Canyon in the last three years. According to Roger Clark, Air and Energy Director of the Grand Canyon Trust, if even 1% of these claims become mines, they could seriously contaminate both ground and surface water surrounding the Grand Canyon, which drains into the Colorado River and contributes to the drinking water of 30 million people in the Lower Colorado River Basin, in Arizona, Colorado, and California.

On the day that Salazar announced his faux time out, the Native Havasupai, who make their home at the base of the Grand Canyon's South Rim, began gathering to host a weekend teach-in and speak-out against uranium mining at Red Butte, a Havasupai sacred site they hope to defend from contamination and desecration by Denison Mines' plan to reopen its nearby Arizona One uranium mine. Denison, a collaboration of Dennison Mines, Inc. and Uranium International, was then reported to be only one Arizona air quality permit away from reopening the mine closed 20 years ago.

In November 2008, the Motley Fool stock adviser, in "A Fresh Jolt for Uranium," said that Denison's prospects, like those of other small players in uranium mining were benefiting from increased demand created by uranium mining giant Cameco's ongoing difficulty getting its jet bore uranium mine into operation at Cigar Lake, on Native Canadian land in northern Saskatchewan. In October 2006, while Cameco's Cigar Lake mine was still under construction, a wall of water knocked it into Cigar Lake and adjacent waterways.

The Fool also pointed out that uranium supplies from decomissioned nuclear warheads, a.k.a., "the bomb mine," are running out:

"As it stands, uranium usage routinely exceeds global mine production. We can tap decommissioned warheads and other stockpiles to fill the gap, but that won't last forever. The longer Cigar Lake is delayed, the faster we blow through above-ground supply. That would do wonders for the spot price of uranium."

On July 30th, 2009, nine days after Salazar's announcement, and, four days after the Havasupai concluded their protest, the Motley Fool named Denison as their favorite "penny stock" of the week, meaning, the cheap stock most likely to take off from a very low price. and, maybe even make you rich, on a very small investment:

''Uranium was recently at its lowest price level. With brent price increase, uranium and fossil fuels tend to follow the price increase,'' wrote CAPS investor jajege in June. ''New nuclear power plants are planned and will require more uranium production, especially after the stock of uranium from the nuclear weapons are running out.''

It's still a very risky stock, though, the Fool warned, but only because of its low capitalization of only $2.5 million, its heavy debt load of $100 million, and, the risky nature of mining ventures.

Not because of Interior Secretary Salazar's ''time out,'' and, not because of environmentalist and native resistance, although, in November 2008, the Fool did warn of ''delays in permitting and other pesky problems'':

'None of these companies is immune to mining mishaps. Delays in permitting and other pesky problems have pushed back production schedules pretty much across the board. Still, the growth outlook is very favorable for Denison, which makes it the sort of stock you should own.'

In 2006, the Navajo Nation Tribal Council passed a ban on uranium mining, the first native claim to sovereignty, over natural resources of its kind. Navajo environmentalists have been defending the ban, against enormous pressure, ever since. At Red Butte, members of the Havasupai Tribe said that they hope to enact a ban as well.

As with the Navajo ban, a fundamental question would then be whether uranium mining which endangers the water table well beyond the mining claim itself, violates a Havasupai ban, and/or, the environmental rights of wider communities, including the 30 million people of Arizona, Colorado, and California, who depend on the Colorado River's contribution to the drinking water in the Colorado River Basin.

Free Speech Radio News (FSRN) reported on the gathering at Red Butte, and Censored News writer/editor Brenda Norrell captured video: "Havasupai: Singing away uranium mining."

http://www.examiner.com/x-8257-SF-Energy-Policy-Examiner~y2009m8d1-Uranium-the-Havasupai-and-drinking-water-in-the-Colorado-River-Basin

Uranium poised for another boom

By Joe Hanel
contact@rmindependent.com

Warning signs and barbed wire mark the old townsite of Uravan. Once home to a uranium mill, the entire town was removed during a Superfund cleanup that ended last year. (Photo by Joe Hanel)

The Rocky Mountain Independent is running a three-part series of environmental snapshots from the Front Range. Part two examines how some Colorado residents fear that the industry and government regulators will repeat previous safety missteps.

No one wanted the piles of gray rocks with the yellow and bright green flakes. They lay in piles outside the vanadium mills in Southwest Colorado until World War II.

The suddenly, military men arrived and claimed the piles for the Manhattan Engineering District. A mill town called Uravan became a secret military city.

The yellow flakes became fuel for the first American atomic bombs, and Colorado’s uranium boom was born. For decades, the government bought all of the uranium that miners could find. But in the 1980s, the market crashed, and uranium resumed its status as a nearly worthless rock.

Now uranium is poised for a comeback. Companies are pushing projects near Fort Collins and Cañon City and in Southwest Colorado’s remote Paradox Valley.

“Population is growing, demand is increasing, and the world is also looking for affordable energy that produces no (greenhouse) emission and is very safe,” said Stuart Sanderson, president of the Colorado Mining Association.

Uranium prices have rebounded since the early part of this decade. Although, at $50 a pound, they are below their record $138 during a speculative bubble in 2007. A U.S.-Russian program to use fuel from old Soviet weapons in American power plants will end in 2013, which could create demand for domestic uranium. Also, nuclear power might become more popular as an alternative to fuel sources that emit global-warming gases.

Uranium critics scoff at the idea that it is a safe fuel source.

“I’ve been in misery, sometimes literally hell, for 41 and a half years,” said Reed Hayes, of Paradox, who fell into a vat of uranium in 1967 at a mill in Moab.

Hayes has suffered rashes all over his body and sometimes in his mouth and eyes. Of the 26 workers who started at the mill when it opened, 23 have died, mostly of cancer. By contrast, most of his high school class is still alive, Hayes said.

He opposes a new uranium mill planned for his valley, saying that the element of human error can never be overcome.

“I don’t want to see any more people die,” he said.

In every place in Colorado where a company has proposed a uranium project, a citizens group has risen up to oppose it.

• Powertech Uranium Corp. plans to open an “in-situ” mine east of Fort Collins that would leach uranium out of the groundwater. Coloradans Against Resource Destruction is fighting
the plan.Cotter Corp. plans to reopen
• its Cañon City uranium mill by 2014. It shut down the mill in 2005, and Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste wants it to remain closed. The mill polluted the nearby Lincoln Park neighborhood, and residents blamed it for causing cancer in their families.
• Energy Fuels Inc. plans to build a uranium mill in the Paradox Valley. Mill backers say it would spur the region’s dormant uranium mines back into production. But opponents in the Paradox Valley, which has become a haven for organic agriculture, want the region to turn its back on mining permanently.

Both the Cañon City mill and the Uravan mill — just outside the Paradox Valley — were on the federal Superfund list for environmental cleanups. Although the Cañon City mill remains, Uravan had a different fate. The entire town — homes, church, swimming pool, soda fountain — has been wiped off the map. All that remains is an office building and a barbed-wire fence marked with red-and-yellow radiation signs.

During the last uranium boom, government regulators failed to keep people safe. The Department of Energy published an extraordinary mea culpa during the Clinton administration, admitting that health experts in the federal and Colorado governments knew about the dangers of unventilated mines but hid the danger from miners. That story and many others are chronicled in the DOE Openness Project.

Congress set up a compensation system for uranium workers in 1990. But not everyone qualifies, and payments come slowly, if at all. The Department of Labor has paid only 43,000 claims out of 165,000 filed, according to a 2008 Rocky Mountain News investigation.

State health officials say things will be different this time.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has no applications on file for uranium mills. But Powertech, Cotter and Energy Fuels all will need radiation permits before they start operating. Warren Smith, of the state health department, said he expects Powertech and Energy Fuels to apply for their permits this year. When they do, it will trigger an intense 15-month review that includes at least two public meetings.

Steve Tarlton, who is in charge of the health department’s radiation program, says times have changed.

“When I was a kid, we didn’t have seat belts. Things are different now. The same is true of the uranium industry,” Tarlton said. “We have learned a lot from past mistakes.”

Joe Hanel reports from Denver for The Durango Herald and the Cortez Journal. Watch www.durangoherald.com and www.cortezjournal.com this month for a four-part series on uranium mining in Southwest Colorado.

http://www.rockymountainindependent.com/2009/07/uranium-poised-for-another-boom/

Company on Mission to Fuel the Future With Biofuels

BY DAVID YOUNG
July 19, 2009

It may sound like something out of a science fiction film, but the fields of algae growing in plastic bags submerged in water in Southern Colorado are a reality and could be the future of biofuels.

Solix Biofuels Inc. launched its first full-scale biofuels demonstration facility, the first of its kind in the world, last week by inoculating its photobioreactor system to start growing algae.

The 2-acre facility, named Coyote Gulch, is southwest of Durango on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. The inception of the new plant is a monumental step for the CSU startup company in its quest to deliver biofuels to the masses at an affordable price.

Founded in 2006, Solix is developing low-cost scalable photobioreactors where algae grows inside plastic bags suspended in the sunlight in place of open-pond conditions. The goal is to cheaply mass produce oil derived from algae and convert it to biodiesel that could fuel vehicle and planes.

On Tuesday at Solix's Fort Collins offices at Colorado State University's Engines and Energy Conversions Laboratory, Solix's Chief Financial Officer David Maytubby said the new plant will produce 2,000 gallons per-acre per-year of biofuel in 2009, and expand to about 3,000 gallons per-acre per-year by 2010.

To be commercially viable, Maytubby said the facility would need to produce between 3,000 and 4,000 gallons of biofuel per-acre per-year on 150 to 200 acres. He anticipates the Coyote Gulch facility could reach that point within the next three years. Solix broke ground on the site Feb. 18 and begins production this week.

For now, Solix has three large water basins on the plant site, each filled with plastic bags in which the algae grows. The project, dubbed "Gemini Reactors," is 25-times the size of its pilot project outside its Fort Collins' office known as the "Mercury Reactors."

Eventually, Solix intends to expand to commercial capacity at its Southern Colorado facility, which is referred to as the "Apollo Reactor."

The process of creating algae biofuel requires land, CO2 and water, something that Solix's partners at the Southern Ute Alternative Energy LLC have plenty of. Currently, the facility, which has photobioreactors on one acre and a harvesting plant in the works on another, has surveyed 14-acres and has an additional 180 acres to expand its Coyote Gulch Demonstration Facility if Solix meets certain benchmarks.

Read this complete article about Solix and its biofuel innovations here:

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20090719/BUSINESS/907190301
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jiffy Facts About Solix Biofuels Inc.
(source above)

Overview: The world's largest algae-to-energy technology development company.

Mission: To be the world's leading producer of algal fuels, algal co-products and production technology systems.

CEO: Doug Henston

Founded: 2006

Headquarters: Fort Collins

Demonstration facility: Coyote Gulch Demonstration Facility in Southwestern Colorado inoculated its first photobioreactor system to start growing algae last week.

Employees: 75

Investors: Bohemian Investments, Infield Capital, I2BF, SAIL Ltd., Southern Ute Alternative Energy, Valero Energy Corp.

Nuclear power isn't clean or cheap

BY NIELS S. NOKKENTVED - Idaho Statesman

Published: 07/14/09

An Eagle-based company wants to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant in Elmore County.

The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that proposes the nation build 100 new nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years.

Idaho Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson has embraced nuclear power, and like others, promotes it as cheap and clean. They argue also that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gases. But it is unclear which part of the nuclear energy cycle they're referring to. Nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean.

The two main reasons no new power plants have been built in the United States since the late 1970s are the high cost of construction and the uncertainty of the regulatory approval process. Only federal subsidies make nuclear power "cheap."

The nuclear fuel cycle starts with mining, which relies on trains, trucks and heavy equipment that run on diesel fuel. Refining the ore and turning it into nuclear fuel creates large amounts of radioactive and toxic tailings and waste. Uranium, for example, gives off radioactive radon gas, the second leading cause of lung cancer in this country.

And operating a nuclear power plant requires an outside source of electric power. Reactors emit small amounts of radiation and heat in the form of steam or hot water, and they produce waste for which we have no disposal solution.

Uranium mining and milling have a sordid history in the West. In the Southwest, Navajo homes once were built of radioactive mine tailings, and their land is riddled with more than 1,000 abandoned mines. Mining companies hired local residents to work at low wages without telling them of the health risks. When the ore played out, some companies simply walked away.

In one example, Uranium Reduction Co. began processing ore from the Moab area's rich uranium ore deposits in the 1950s. In 1962, the company sold the mill to Atlas Minerals Corp., which ran it until declaring bankruptcy in 1998. The federal government took over the site in 2001.

Today a 94-foot tall pile of radioactive and toxic mill tailings covers 130 acres and holds 12 million tons of radioactive waste - about 750 feet from the third largest river in the West, three miles from Moab, less than a mile from Arches National Park and across the mouth of Moab Wash.

The unlined pile leaks an average of 57,000 gallons per day into the Colorado River upstream of Lake Mead, which supplies drinking and irrigation water to southern California, Las Vegas and parts of Arizona. Similar piles at 38 mill sites in the West - 22 of them abandoned - hold 140 million tons of radioactive tailings.

The story doesn't end with refining the ore. Producing reactor fuel involves a process that concentrates one form, or isotope, of uranium that can sustain a nuclear reaction. The leftovers, known as "depleted uranium," remain radioactive. About 750,000 tons of depleted uranium already awaits disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued warnings about disposing of large amounts of this material as "low level" waste - the current proposed practice.

Most industry supporters - who claim nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases - want to ship spent fuel from power plants, mainly in the eastern part of the country, by diesel-powered trains to a proposed waste disposal facility in Jackass Flats, Nev. - a site known as Yucca Mountain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Niels S. Nokkentved has degrees in journalism and environmental studies and has worked as natural resource reporter for 20 years, including more than 12 years of covering nuclear waste issues at the Idaho National Laboratory.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/832976.html

From NunnGlow's FAQ's - - FAQ 3 - Don't we need uranium to fuel cheap, clean nuclear power?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) 2003 study and a 2004 University of Chicago study concurred that nuclear power is much more expensive than natural gas or coal for electrical production (MIT's estimated cost of electricity for coal was 4.2kWh/ natural gas 3.8-5.6 kWh/nuclear power 6.7kWh). The MIT study concluded "The potential impact on the public from safety or waste management failure and the link to nuclear explosives technology are unique to nuclear energy among energy supply options. These characteristics and the fact that nuclear is more costly, make it impossible today to make a credible case for the immediate expanded use of nuclear power."

Brice Smith's book "Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change" (http://www.ieer.org/reports/insurmountablerisks/bricestmt.html) offers facts, figures, reports, and studies that show uranium and its radiation cannot be an answer to greenhouse gas reduction. In addition, for all the potential dangers nuclear energy will expose us to, it will have little effect on global climate stabilization.

Peter Bradford, a former Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reports that, even if we were to triple today's worldwide nuclear capacity, it would only be equivalent to one third of what we can currently do to decrease greenhouse gas omission through energy efficiency and conservation. (See the nuclear power debate between Bradford, Patrick Moore, and Jim Riccio of Greenpeace USA at http://www.nirs.org/videodebate.htm)

Dr. Helen Caldicott writes in her book Nuclear Power is Not the Answer on page viii: “Nuclear power is not “clean and green,” as the industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process. Burning of this fossil fuel emits significant quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2)– the primary “greenhouse gas”- into the atmosphere. In addition, large amounts of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbon (as CFC gas) are emitted during the enrichment of uranium. CFC gas is not only 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient as an atmospheric heat trapper (“greenhouse gas”) than CO2, but it is a classic “pollutant” and a potent destroyer of the ozone layer.”

It is exciting to hear our legislators want Colorado to become an economic hub for RENEWABLE energy. Let us move toward that goal and leave uranium in-situ, in its original place in the earth. A quick profit for a few individuals will have negative impacts, not just in northern Colorado, but globally.

http://www.nunnglow.com/faqs/faq3.html

Flashfloods Not Uncommon on Proposed Uranium Mining Site in CO

On June 22nd, 2009 a severe evening thunderstorm set off tornado warnings in Larimer and Weld Counties. A tornado touched down four miles west of Pierce and tornado sirens went off in Nunn an hour later. Four inches of rain fell in Laporte, 3 inches in northern Fort Collins, and over 2 in Wellington. That storm system hit Jay and Robin Davis’ home near Nunn at the base of Antelope Hill about 9pm, near where Powertech Uranium hopes to operate an in situ leach uranium mine.

Ms. Davis suspected what they could only hear, the wind sounding like a train running by their place, that a tornado system had come close to their home. While Davis’ rain gauge showed .91 inch of rain fell there, runoff from Antelope Hill still flooded their property, over filled their pond, and washed southeastward across Weld County Road 21, an event that they frequently witness following heavy rain and snow storms. It wasn’t until 1PM the following day Robin had an idea of how much water had come off of Antelope Hill and the surrounding areas filling an intermittent stream called Coalbank Creek.

Fifteen hours after the thunderstorm, dry Coalbank Creek was still moving floodwater and making many Weld County roads in the area impassible. Flattened vegetation and debris deposits showed how high the water levels had been on Coalbank Creek during the storm aftermath.

To see more photos, much like the Coles Hill area after hard rain, see

http://www.nunnglow.com/latest/flashfloods-not-uncommon-on-proposed-uranium-mining-site.html

Black Range, Uranium One deal falls apart

Company strikes new agreement with NZ Minerals LLC

Publish Date: 7/7/2009

Debbie Bell
The Daily Record

Although its deal with Uranium One to create a single, massive uranium project site near Tallahassee recently fell through, Black Range Minerals has an eye on acquiring the entire deposit through a new agreement with NZ Minerals LLC.

Canadian-based Uranium One, which has holdings in South Africa and Australia, defaulted on its option to purchase a 39.2 percent stake in the Hansen Project. The company had struck a deal with BRM, an Australian energy company, in January to form the partnership to join adjacent uranium projects in the Tallahassee area.

Black Range currently owns 100 percent of the Taylor Ranch Project, which lies to the north of the Hansen Project, and claims recent exploration there has proven mining and milling operations are economically viable. The two companies had planned to consolidate assets to establish a joint venture.

Instead, BRM announced an agreement last week to acquire a 49 percent interest in the Hansen deposit through NZ Minerals LLC, a U.S. company that owns almost 1 million acres of mineral rights spread across Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma. NZ Minerals sold the property to the developers of the South T-Bar Ranch but retained 49 percent of the mineral rights during that transaction.

Black Range Minerals now will focus its efforts to acquire the other 51 percent of mineral rights from South T-Bar.

“We have consolidated our position,” Ben Vallerine, U.S. exploration manager with BRM, said Monday. “We’ve got a bigger area and the best deposit in the area, so we’ll continue to work on that and make it an economic project.”

Vallerine said the deal with Uranium One had his company in a holding pattern, but he foresees action in the near future.

“We haven’t progressed much, because we’ve been working on acquiring this 49 percent. Now that we have that, we will start trying to get the 51 percent from South T-Bar Ranch, which has declared their 51 percent for sale,” Vallerine said. “Obviously, if we can acquire 100 percent, we’ll work toward getting permitting in place to drill.”

Vallerine said if the pieces all fall into place, BRM would again go before Fremont County officials to seek another Conditional Use Permit for exploration drilling on the Hansen deposit.

“There was a lot of work done in the 1970s that needs updating,” he said. “We need to revalidate it. They planned to do a pit, and we plan to do underground mining. There’s a lot of different technical work that needs to be done.”

Tallahassee Area Community Inc., the local group formed specifically to fight uranium production in the area, said Uranium One pulling out of the deal was a positive step.

“Uranium One was a bigger company than Black Range Minerals is,” TAC member Kay Hawklee said Monday afternoon. “When the larger company starts to pull away, that encourages us to think the larger companies do not want to go after minerals that are of this low quality, so therefore, are not that economically viable.”

Hawklee said legal counsel advised the group the move could potentially be good news.

“It’s kind of heartened us,” Hawklee said. “We think it’s great.”

However, Vallerine said his company is moving full steam ahead.

“Hopefully, we can get the CUP approval to drill around Christmas and get it done over the winter,” he said. “Then we can spend all next year doing our drilling and follow-up studies. Obviously, we have to have the other 51 percent. Nothing is going to be economic if we’ve only got 49 percent.”

If the two projects are successfully combined, they will contain an estimated 80 million pounds of uranium ore.

http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=11058

Uranium hearing Tuesday to ban uranium exploration and mining

More public testimony planned for proposed uranium amendment

Debbie Bell
The Daily Record

7/6/2009

Public testimony is scheduled Tuesday night for the second month in a row on proposed amendments to the Fremont County Master Plan that would ban uranium exploration and uranium mining in certain instances.

The public hearing that began June 2 will continue before the Fremont County Planning Commission at 7 p.m. Tuesday, in the lower level of the County Administration Building, 615 Macon Ave. The panel will listen to new public testimony only.

Planners heard more than three hours of testimony and conflicting legal opinions during the initial hearing regarding the Master Plan amendment, which was offered by the government affairs committee of the Tallahassee Area Community. The amendment would establish a two-mile buffer zone between uranium activity and residential areas in Fremont County’s Mountain Districts.

Residents testified in June that they believe health and safety issues are at stake, as well as economic and environmental issues.

Planning Commission Chairman Tom Piltingsrud said the panel was not prepared to make a decision last month, because members had volumes of material and legal opinions to review.

Because of the heightened interest in the proposed Master Plan amendment and the large crowd that attended the first hearing in June, Tuesday’s meeting will be televised on local public access channel 19 on Bresnan Cable.

Review of the Urban Growth Boundary Area map also is on Tuesday’s agenda. The map, prepared by the planning staff of Cañon City, was referred to the planners by the Cañon City Council. According to Piltingsrud, the question is whether future growth areas targeted outside the city limits of Cañon City would be subject to the city’s subdivision and development regulations when reviewed by county officials.

http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=11048

[CO] Uranium Mill Issue Will Set National Precedent

MONTROSE – Deep divisions in the Paradox Valley community may well remain after the Montrose Planning Commission’s vote Wednesday night on whether to recommend a special use permit for a uranium mill in Paradox Valley.

Friendships have been severed, with some on the side of agriculture in the valley and some who want to hearken back to the good old days of uranium mining their parents and grandparents enjoyed decades ago.

Whatever the decision of the planning commission, Energy Fuels’ request to build a huge mill on 800 acres will be the first built in the United States in almost 30 years, and will have national implications, some say.

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said recently that nuclear energy is “the wave of the future” and is encouraging nuclear energy development.

The proposed mill would set a precedent for the rest of the country, said Travis Stills of the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango, but for the wrong reasons.

“They’re trying to claim it’s the resurgence of the uranium industry and trying to tie it into the nuclear equation,” he said. “It could be a national story because it could be the place where all the stuff goes. It could be looked at as a disposal facility.”

As originally proposed, the mill would only process raw uranium ore from nearby mines. But at a public hearing in Nucla last month, Energy Fuels CEO George Glasier said the mill could also extract uranium from radioactive groundwater.

After Glasier spoke, Stills went to the podium and expressed his displeasure with what he called “a major shift” in policy on what would be processed at the mill.

Only two uranium mills are operating in the U.S. at this time, the White Mesa and Shootaring Canyon mills in Utah, Stills said, both process radioactive wastes.

“A major source of income (for the mills) is waste disposal fees from various folks who have radioactive waste to get rid of,” he said.

The proposed Paradox Valley mill also wants to take in mine waste, not just tailings, he said.

“They should send that to a low level facility, not to a mill tailings cell, which is hazardous enough,” he said.

But Glasier and his many associates have decried health risks of exposure to radioactive materials in the air and water that opponents say could occur because of the mill. Glasier says the industry has made enormous safety advances since the near meltdown of a reactor core at Three Mile Island in 1979.

Glasier said he never had plans for the mill to become a waste disposal facility for nuclear and other radioactive wastes, but was only trying to help the state because of tighter laws on uranium content in drinking water.

New state laws require a new limit on the amount of uranium in drinking water, but in western Colorado, naturally occurring water has higher than those limits, Glasier said.

The mill could have treated municipal water by supplies by loading resin beads with uranium extracted from the water, sending the beads to a disposal facility, after which the beads could be reused.

Without the mill, the water treatment plants will have to install their own resin extraction columns, which is expensive, he said.

“They’ll have no place to dispose of it so they’ll have to ship it to a waste disposal site and they can’t reuse the beads,” he said. “The state wants us to do it, and it would save all these municipalities a great deal of money.”

But Glasier said he dropped the idea of extracting water from uranium because of objections raised at the public hearings.

“Some people were objecting to what would have been a real benefit,” he said. “But those environmental kooks come up with this stuff…They’re saying we’ll process waste, but we have no plans to process anything else but raw uranium ore and the water that comes right out of our mines.”

Other objections to the mill have come from the agricultural community. On to their Web site for Paradox Valley Community Supported Agriculture, William and Vernie Lynn DeMille wrote about how they moved to the valley from Missouri after farming there for 35 years.

“We love farming and we were thrilled when we discovered the Paradox Valley,” DeMille wrote. “Because of its outstanding soil, great climate and protected valley, it is the perfect place to grow excellent crops, both vegetable and fruit.”

Food grown in the valley will be packed with nutrition because of high mineral content of the soil, DeMille said.

During public forums, farmers in the valley objected to the mill, saying they will lose their organic agriculture status because the mill has the potential to pollute the air and water.

Paradox Valley proponents of the mill, most from families who remember the heyday of mining in the area decades ago, scoffed at farmers’ concerns, even displaying a sign at the last public meeting that read, “Uranium dust helps your organics grow” along with “We need jobs on the West End.”

However the planning commission votes, which occurred after the Watch printing deadline, the divisions in the Paradox Valley will apparently not soon heal.

http://www.telluridewatch.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Uranium+Mill+Issue+Will+Set+National+Precedent%20&id=2867706-Uranium+Mill+Issue+Will+Set+National+Precedent&instance=secondary_stories_left_column

Colorado's Summit County again seeks ban on uranium mining and cyanide

Despite a setback in Colorado's Supreme Court, Summit County is again seeking a way to stringently regulate mining at the local level.

Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: Monday , 22 Jun 2009

RENO, NV -

Despite a Colorado Supreme Court decision that overturned Summit County's cyanide heap-leach mining ban, Summit County planners are still pursuing tightening mining regulations.

A January Colorado Supreme Court ruling found the county could not ban a mining technique the state of Colorado allows.

The Colorado Mining Association successfully challenged Summit County's ban on cyanide processes for gold mining. The CMA contends existing state laws adequately regulate mining and the local mining bans could result in conflicting state and local regulations that would negatively impact mining companies.

However, this past week, the county introduced a first draft of new mining regulations during a work session of the Summit County Commission. The county may consider designating mining areas and implement tough performance standards in them,

The draft suggests performance standards that would require mining companies to enhance planning for emergency operations, including the clean-up of any potential cyanide spill. Under its existing land use powers, the county could designate certain areas are inappropriate for mining.

Summit County Planning Director Jim Curnutte told the Summit Daily News that the county would also consider applying its 1041 powers to review and regulate mining operations. Local 1041 powers come from a 1974 Colorado state law allowing local governments to "designate certain geographic areas and specified activities as matters of state interest."

Curnutte suggested Summit County may look at designating specific mining or mineral zones that would be subject to local 1041 permitting authority. These regulations could also force mining companies to disclose their exploration activities.

The overall changes in the local mining regulations would make it easier for local planning boards to review proposed mining projects and to issue stringent conditional use permits, the Summit Daily News reported.

http://www.mineweb.net/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72068?oid=85286&sn=Detail

Underground Movement

In northern Colorado, newcomers to the area lead the charge against planned uranium mining.

Updated Sept. 28, 2007

High Country News

NUNN, COLORADO

Early last year, Robin and Jay Davis bought 80 acres of rolling prairie in north-central Colorado. As is often the case in Western states, the "split estate" property included only the surface rights, not the rights to any minerals that might lie beneath the land. So before they signed the deal, the couple carefully researched potential mineral development. "We looked into oil, gas and coal," Robin Davis says. "Even diamonds." Deciding that the risk was negligible, they bought the land, planning to board horses and open a riding school.

Then, last fall, a Canadian-owned energy company informed the Davises and their neighbors that it wanted to extract not coal or natural gas, but uranium from beneath their property. "When we got a letter about it, we thought it was a joke," Robin Davis says. "Uranium mining? Here? Yeah, right."

But Powertech (USA) Inc. is serious. The company recently bought 5,760 acres of mineral rights near the high-tech mecca of Fort Collins. Powertech hopes to extract about 8 million pounds of uranium, worth nearly $700 million at current market prices, mostly through in-situ recovery, which involves injecting a solution underground to dissolve uranium.

In-situ uranium projects are on tap for other places in the West as well, including New Mexico, and Powertech is exploring for uranium in South Dakota and Wyoming. But in many ways, Powertech's Colorado proposal is different. The West's uranium mining has historically taken place in sparsely settled deserts, not near booming urban centers. Affected residents have been mostly poor and rural, and opposition has often been slow to develop. About 300,000 people live within 30 miles of Powertech's proposed operations; Weld County, in which the project is located, is one of the 50 fastest-growing counties in the nation. Universities and computer companies in Fort Collins and nearby Greeley have attracted well-educated academics and scientists, some of whom own homes and land near the project site, and they've organized a robust grassroots resistance.

Their biggest fear? Contamination of the area's groundwater. Powertech plans to drill deep into an aquifer that supplies local homes and farms. In-situ processing, say critics, could do more than just ravage the surface of the land: It could permanently taint groundwater with heavy metals and radioactivity. "We can live without a lot of things," says Robin Davis, "but water is not one of them."

The countryside around Powertech's planned operation is mostly shortgrass prairie, dotted with sagebrush and golden blooms of rabbitbrush. Swainson's hawks soar overhead; meadowlarks and red-winged blackbirds perch on fenceposts. A few old farmhouses stand amid corn and wheat fields, but most of the homes are new, tidy and moderately sized, on 40- to 80-acre plots. The occasional fencerow, house or pickup sports a bright yellow sign with a black radiation symbol and the words "No Uranium Mining in Colorado. www.nunnglow.com." (The closest town is the farming hamlet of Nunn, whose water tower displays the slogan "Watch Nunn Grow." Opponents have suggested changing the last word to "Glow.")

Powertech's project would be the first use of in-situ extraction techniques in Colorado, beyond a few tests in the 1970s, and the state is scrambling to get up to speed before Powertech submits permit applications in late 2008.

The company is also considering some open-pit mining, but the geology of the Nunn area is mostly suited to in-situ recovery. Many of the uranium ore deposits lie beneath the water table in sandstone and are confined above and below by impermeable mudstone. Workers would drill a grid of wells 50 to 150 feet apart and pipe a sodium bicarbonate solution into the underground ore. The alkaline solution dissolves the uranium, and is then pumped to the surface and piped to a mobile processing facility. The pure uranium adheres to resin beads, which are trucked to a mill. Then the uranium is stripped off and processed into "yellowcake," the raw material for the fuel rods used in nuclear power plants.

In groundwater, the sodium bicarbonate solution dissolves not only uranium, but also heavy metals such as molybdenum and selenium. Uranium can cause kidney problems and increase cancer risk. In minute doses, molybdenum and selenium are essential nutrients. In higher amounts, molybdenum can cause joint pain and liver dysfunction in humans and birth defects in animals. Selenium can damage the nervous system, and in livestock it can cause reproductive failure and "blind staggers," marked by impaired vision, aimless wandering and even paralysis.

Although in-situ recovery is more economical and safer than traditional open-pit mining, it "tend(s) to contaminate the groundwater," according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report. That's why the government will not permit in-situ projects in drinking water aquifers. Powertech plans to drill into the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer, which supplies local drinking and irrigation water. The company says that the portions of the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer it wants to use are already unsafe for drinking due to high mineral levels. It plans to seek exemptions from the Environmental Protection Agency; the project can't proceed unless the agency officially declares those parts of the aquifer undrinkable.

Even if Powertech gets exemptions, it still must prove that its operations won't cause lasting harm to any groundwater, drinkable or not. But that may not be easy: No in-situ uranium project has ever succeeded in restoring the surrounding groundwater to its original baseline condition. Last fall, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times examined 32 permits for south Texas in-situ projects, most closed in the '80s and '90s, and reported that none were able to meet all of the groundwater restoration goals in their original permits. Some met the specification for one mineral but found ten- and twenty-fold increases in others.

In Wyoming and Nebraska, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission relaxed some restoration goals for in-situ well fields after the operations could not meet all of the water-quality standards specified in the original permits. "Those (lower) standards are still protective of human health and the environment," says William von Till, chief of the Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch. And, he adds, the relaxed standards applied only to the exempted portions of the aquifers. The drinkable water outside those areas remained safe: "We are not aware of any instance where in-situ uranium milling has impacted a water well user."

The history of in-situ recovery, though, provides many examples of accidents and unexpected results: pump failures, breaks in underground pipes, wastewater pond failures, water movement within aquifers. "There are lots of problems associated with any well operation that could breach the integrity of an aquifer and spread contamination," says Eric Eidsness, a Reagan-era appointee to the EPA who was assistant administrator for water programs. "It just happens."

Continue reading this article here

Atna Enters Into New Agreement in the Sand Creek Uranium Joint Venture; Drilling to Resume

GOLDEN, Colo., June 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --

Atna Resources Ltd. ("Atna") - (TSX: ATN) has entered into a Supplemental Agreement to the Sand Creek Uranium Project Exploration, Development and Mine Operating Agreement dated August 25, 2006, with High Plains Uranium Inc. ("High Plains"), a subsidiary of Uranium One Inc. (TSX: UUU). Under this Supplemental Agreement, High Plains shall assume the role of project manager and may spend up to US$1.6 million before December 31, 2012 to increase its interest in the project from 30 percent to 51 percent. Atna's equity position may decrease from 70 percent to 49 percent, should High Plains meet this commitment.

Atna will be carried at no expense while High Plains spends the funds to increase its interest. High Plains may either provide notice of completion of its expenditures or terminate their earn-in right with prior notice. If High Plains terminates its accelerated earn-in right, they will be credited for expenditures made and their equity in the project will increase accordingly. If they do not earn up to a 50 percent position, then Atna will assume the role of operator in the project. At termination or completion of the Supplemental Agreement, the existing Exploration, Development and Mine Operating Agreement will remain effective and the partners' operating interests will be set in proportion to the amount of their respective expenditures.

High Plains has submitted a work plan and budget for 2009 detailing $320,000 in expenditures. These expenditures cover the cost of property maintenance for the remainder of 2009, permitting activities and a 20,000 foot drilling program with associated analytical testwork.

The Sand Creek uranium joint venture area of interest, located south east of Douglas, Wyoming, was identified by a subsidiary of Atna and its former joint venture partners during a uranium exploration effort in the early 1980s. The company drilled 88 holes for approximately 69,000 feet in 1981 and 1982, discovering several zones of uranium mineralization. In late 2006, the current partners' drill program began in the western portion of the Sand Creek JV area. Fourteen holes totaling 10,395 feet clearly demonstrated the presence of "roll front" style uranium mineralization. A follow up drill program consisting of 16 drill holes totaling 11,700 feet was completed in mid-2007 and the favorable results were announced in a press release in August 2007. Three of the 16 holes intercepted significant uranium grades. The drilling program consisted primarily of wide-spaced, reconnaissance style drilling with drill hole spacing of 500 to 1,000 feet. Uranium mineralization in the area is hosted in sandstones of the White River Formation, which is composed of sandstones, conglomerates, and red to green siltstones and claystones. The sandstones are lenticular in nature and average from five to 20 feet in thickness and occasionally range up to 45-feet thick. The White River Formation is being mined for uranium using In-situ Recovery methods at the Crowe Butte mine in Nebraska.

This press release was prepared under the supervision and review of William Stanley, V.P. Exploration of Atna, a Licensed Geologist, and Qualified Person with the ability and authority to verify the authenticity and validity of information contained within this news release.

For additional information on Atna and its exploration and development projects, please visit our website at www.atna.com.

This press release contains certain "forward-looking statements," as defined in the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and within the meaning of Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical fact. They are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of the Company's management on the date the statements are made and they involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Consequently, there can be no assurances that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements if management's beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change. Factors that could cause future results to differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements include: the Company might encounter problems such as the significant depreciation of metals prices; accidents and other risks associated with mining exploration and development operations; the risk that the Company will encounter unanticipated geological factors, the Company's need for and ability to obtain additional financing; the possibility that the Company may not be able to secure permitting and other governmental clearances necessary to carry out the Company's exploration programs; and the other risk factors discussed in greater detail in the Company's various filings on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) with Canadian securities regulators and its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company's 2008 Form 20-F dated March 31, 2009.

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-02-2009/0005036749&EDATE=

Uranium Mill Project Makes Headway: Advisory commission, county planning director recommend approval

You really need to read Linda Goin's explication of this article at http://lindagoin.blogspot.com/2009/05/uranium-mill-project-makes-headway.html These uranium catastrophes that are on private land, like Coles Hill, are subject to far less governmental oversight than those on public lands. We know how little government oversight is actually done...and we know about the slaps on the wrist the government administers for transgressions. But if mining and milling on private land gets even less oversight, Coles Hill will operate in a shroud of secrecy.

By D. Dion
Editor, Norwood Post

Published: Saturday, May 30, 2009

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 [like Coles Hill], 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. (emphasis mine...SB)

http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2009/05/30/news/doc4a218b2cbac7f201184926.txt

Wind-blown dust causes concern over uranium development in Paradox

Mountains, usually visible, are obscured by dust. Photo by Ben Williams

Recent dust storms from strong winds have had the communities of Norwood, Telluride and Mountain Village concerned about future contamination with radionuclides should uranium development in the Paradox valley ramp up.

Winds measuring consistently above 40 mph have mobilized large quantities of dust from the west end of San Miguel County, bringing sands all the way from Utah. Paradox valley, the proposed site for a new uranium mill, is due west of the resort communities of Telluride and Mountain Village, and the ranching town of Norwood.

The dust storms, which occurred over two days at the end of March and early May, brought thick quantities of red dust up into the mountains, obscuring the sky and reducing visibility.

“It was like being in a red fog,” said one Norwood resident. “I couldn’t even see Lone Cone [mountain].”

The dust filled the sky, covered cars and homes, and settled visibly on the slopes around Telluride. It was an eerie portent, a bloody sunset and doom-like sky.

Each spring strong winds race up Wright’s mesa, heading in from the desert. A strong differential is formed by the heat in the low-lying desert areas around Moab and the four corners, and the cool mountain air at elevation. Each year, winds roll in from the west. But this amount of dust was unusual.

“Frankly, I’m worried that once the mining and milling operations crank up in Paradox, this dust will glow in the dark!” Joked a Telluride worker. "Hey, maybe we can go night skiing!"

One resident of Norwood, a recent father, said he would leave the area before construction of the mill began, if the final permits get approved.

“I won’t expose my son to anything like that,” he said, even as property values fall under the faltering economy. "I'll just sell, and get the hell out."

Aside from containing potentially deadly alpha-emitters, the dust has a known impact on the local economy of Telluride and Mountain Village. It speeds snow melt.

As the San Juan Mountains lie at the tip of the watershed, any contaminants borne by the wind will end up in waterways and flow downstream. Ranchers who use irrigation will spray them on crops. Meanwhile, livestock will ingest them in the wind and grasses. This is akin to a secondary pulse of exposure. Exposure repeats as the particles move through the biosphere. As agricultural products are sent to market, and distributed nationally, tertiary pulses become possible.

Energy Fuels is confident it can mitigate fugitive dust. An enormous amount of water will be used to spray down drop-off and tailing sites. Keeping the areas wet will reduce dust. However, fans in area mines that vent mining shafts regularly spray out small dust particles. These mines will kick up again if the mill gets approved.

Nevertheless the perception is there: The dust seemed portentous of the region's uncertain future. In coffee shops and on street corners subdued tones and watchful eyes bespoke the common fear. What does this mean in two years if uranium development increases? Why aren't plume studies a necessary part of any application to develop radioactive resources? Do the regulations imposed by the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment address these concerns? The questions went on, but were swallowed by the wind.

http://www.examiner.com/x-12119-San-Miguel-County-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m5d29-Windblown-dust-causes-concern-over-uranium-development-in-Paradox

Decision Delayed on Montrose County [CO] Uranium Mine for Second Meeting in June

Wednesday, May 20, 2009
By DENNIS WEBB/The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

The promise of new jobs brought out supporters in force this week for a public hearing on the proposed Piñon Ridge uranium mill proposal in western Montrose County.

At the end of a five-hour meeting Tuesday night in Nucla, the county Planning Commission decided to delay a decision on the matter until after it can hold a second public meeting June 10 at 6 p.m. in Montrose.

However, the county’s West End Planning Advisory Committee voted Tuesday unanimously in support of the proposal. The county’s planning staff also has recommended approval.

Energy Fuels Resources Corp. is seeking to process locally mined uranium and vanadium ore on 880 acres off Colorado Highway 90 about 12 miles west of Naturita and seven miles east of Bedrock.

The county said in a news release approximately 250 people attended Tuesday night’s meeting in the Nucla High School gym, and the majority of residents living in the county’s west end supported the mill. Opponents included a few Montrose County residents, and mostly residents from neighboring San Miguel County and Moab, Utah, the county said.

Energy Fuels says the mill would employ up to 85 people and process about 500 tons of ore per day.

“The overall economic impact seems to be the theme from supporters,” said the company’s chief operating officer, Stephen Antony.

He called the advisory committee’s endorsement “a first step in a long trail that will thoroughly evaluate all of the issues involved with the facility.”

Among those opposing the mill is Julie Schneider, whose family owns a farm about 15 miles from the proposed site. She said concern about the proposal put an end to a potential sale of the farm.

“When the mill was announced the buyers said that was a deal-breaker and walked away from the sale,” Schneider said.

She said she worries the mill could expose the public to radioactive materials and toxic chemicals, and she thinks the county should promote stable jobs rather than ones she considers unsafe and subject to booms and busts.

Antony said Energy Fuels can run a safe operation, and it will be up to the state to consider health and environmental issues surrounding the project.

(Emphases mine...SB)

The permit application and staff reports on the application are available at www.montrosecounty.net/landuse/uranium_mill_sup_information or at the county Planning & Development Department at 317 S. Second St. in Montrose.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2009/05/20/052109_9A_uranium_mill_meeting.html