Comment: No to Uranium Mining and Milling!
Attorney: ‘The only people who seem to think a uranium mill and a uranium mine are the same thing are the county commissioners and county staff.’
By Matthew Beaudin,Editor
Published: Sunday, November 8, 2009 8:09 AM CST
After garnering a Montrose County approval heavy with conditions and contention, an energy company now faces another challenge: A local environmental group fired a legal salvo disputing that permit and how it was obtained.
Sheep Mountain Alliance, a local environmental group, recently filed a lawsuit against the Montrose County Commissioners and its land use director, alleging a hopscotch of missteps in the board’s approval of a uranium mill to be built six miles outside of Paradox, Colo.
The problems in the approval, they say, are far-reaching and systemic: At the heart of the matter is the notion that a uranium mill — heavy in both regulation and stigma — could be plopped down in the middle of the lofty and stark Paradox Valley, which is zoned for agricultural uses.
The complaint alleges inappropriate meetings, abuses of discretion when approving a special use permit for Energy Fuels Inc., the company hoping to build the mill, and more.
Historically, the area in the west ends of Montrose and San Miguel counties belongs to mining; ore from the area went toward the Manhattan Project and the culture of mining is the very stitching of communities like Nucla and Naturita.
But: “Economic activity regarding uranium mining and milling has not played a significant role in the region’s economy over the past 30 years, except the economic activity generated by several uranium mill closures and decontamination projects carried out…” the complaint, filed in Montrose County District Court, reads. “Unlike the San Miguel River Valley where Nucla and Naturita are located, there has never been a uranium mill in the Paradox Valley.”
Montrose County Attorney Bob Hill said the county hadn’t yet been served with the suit and wouldn’t comment on any accusations therein.
“It’s relatively narrow, but it does focus in on sort of the issues that do run throughout their process and their approval,” said Travis Stills, an attorney at the Energy Minerals Law Center who is working on behalf of SMA.
Flatly, he said the land’s zoning “doesn’t have room for an industrial facility with toxic, hazardous emissions and a permanent waste facility.”
And, he says, the Montrose commissioners acted outside of their authority when issuing the special use permit.
The crux of the debate may hinge on the differences in mining, which is permitted on agricultural land, and milling.
“A mill and a mine are radically different,” Stills said. “You start into a very heavy industrial process [with a mill].” Uranium mills, unlike some other processing sites, have their own special sets of regulations and oversight.
“The only people who seem to think a uranium mill and a uranium mine are the same thing are the county commissioners and county staff,” Stills said.
The issue now finds itself in the badminton of land use disputes, with Montrose County expected to reply in the near future.
The suit asks the process begin anew.
Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2009/11/08/news/doc4af633c7777f0169999327.txt
