FOR MOST PEOPLE, the most sobering andconfusing aspect of the proposed Paradox ValleyEnergy Fuels uranium mill in the west end ofMontrose County is the question of humanhealth.

If, as one victim of a toxic baptism declares inour sidebar interview, “humans make mistakes,”is that significant to future mining and milling inthe Uravan district and the county? Have oldmines and mill sites been cleaned up sufficiently?What risks of radioactive exposure does a workerface today? Is new technology safer?

Like environmental impacts that will be dis-cussed in a separate article, health and uraniumis an issue that the Montrose County PlanningCommission and the Commissioners should un-derstand as well as they possibly can.

There are two principal reasons for local regula-tors and elected officials to focus on health issues.

• First, the proposed mill is an industrial planton Montrose County private land so it is theCommissioners who must determine what landmanagement issues matter regarding it. Theycan deny or approve a special use permit, or im-pose conditions in the event that they approveEF’s permit application that was submitted onJuly 25. (The land is owned by Energy Fuels.)

• Second, uranium mining, transportation,milling and processing have had profoundhealth effects on the workforce and to residentsof Montrose and Mesa counties.

Health and environmental questions will beintertwined; but we will not address the latter inany detail.

Montrose County planning director SteveWhite, will play a major role in determining thefuture of the EF mill. His thoughts about thehealth issues: “If I talk about the proposed millin generic terms from a County perspective, wehave people in the West End that want to work inthis plant whether there’s a health risk or not.This is a county that historically has acceptedthat kind of risk and worked in uranium minesand mills. The same people who might opposethe mill may have drunk alcohol, smoked, ordriven too fast—also conscious acts and accept-ance of risk. We need good solid (health-relat-ed) data and we need to understand how thingswork in terms of this mill’s impact on environ-

mentandhealth.”

White added,“We’ll either do it (is-sue a permit) or not basedon the planning commissionand the Commissioners’ conclu-sions. I’ve read some of these healthstudies and it’s difficult to draw conclu-sions. This will be a subjective decision.”

The Colorado Department of Public Healthand Environment (CDPHE) will handle state en-vironmental health permitting issues specific tothe site and the facility. CDPHE actually re-quires that a county applicant provide $50,000 tocounty government to get independent advice tolocally assess nuclear health and environmentalissues around this mill or other nuclear facili-ties to help determine whether to issue a permitor apply conditions to it.

EF CEO George Glasier noted that he has noproblem adding more money to that pot if thecounty determines that it is necessary. Glasiercommented, “If the county needs a $100,000 oreven more to get the expertise they need, we arespending millions on permitting and the countypermit is the one that decides whether we buildor not on our property.”

A systematic way to look at the proposed mill

Since the proposed mill is on private land be-longing to Energy Fuels, and not Federal proper-ty, the proposed mill will not be subject to a Fed-eral Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Currently the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE) is responding to a July lawsuit brought byColorado environmental groups for not develop-ing in-depth multiple EISs for uranium mines inthe Uravan district that were issued preliminaryleases to operate. EF was one successful bidderon these leases.

An EIS is meant to closely examine the possi-ble environmental, health, social, and economicimpacts of a proposed project. It provides a fac-tual description of the project, the environmentit may affect, and the impacts that might result.In this way, an EIS aids decision makers in mak-

ingan in-formedand rationaldecision aboutthe project. Thestatement also analyzescumulative impacts of theproject along with impacts fromexisting and other proposed facili-ties.

The EIS extends the analysis of impactsof a project to off-site and out-of-the-region ar-eas—including nuclear waste in this case-- inproviding a larger understanding of impacts. Itis certainly not required by any law at a countylevel.

However the EIS is a well-developed tool to un-derstand how uranium ore is minded, handled,and transported to the mill and also in under-standing how the mill and tailings disposal willoperate and eventually be shut down permanentlyand “reclaimed”. And it can analyze known andpotential health risks of a new uranium mill andilluminate problems from the past.

This article/analysis is a simplified and “lim-ited to health EIS-style” look at selected urani-um issues related to the proposed EF mill. Wedo not investigate other uranium life cyclequestions that could appear in an EIS beyondmilling. For example, we will not discusshealth risks from the converting of the mill’s“yellowcake”, or uranium oxide that will beconverted to uranium hexafluoride and then be“enriched” for conversion into fuel for nuclearpower reactors.

A Montrose Daily Press Special Report

SEE A MILL UNLIKE, PAGE 4

Energy Fuels Resources miners Kenneth Chadd, Allen Young, andSteve Puderbaugh describe their experiences mining in 2007.All three have decades of time underground.

Miners and a mule pose at unknown date at unknown mine providingore to Uravan mill (courtesy Rimrocker Historical Museum, Naturita, donated by Union Carbide)

By D ick Kamp Wick Commun i ca t i on s En v i r onmen t a l L i a i s on

p h o t o b y W i l l i a m Wo o d y

2 SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2008 URANIUM&HEALTH MONTROSE DAILY PRESS

s

Glossary

FOUR CORNERS

Wick Communications Environmental Liaison Dick Kamp begancollaborating with the company on environmental and technicaland policy issues in 1983. During the 1980s, he worked with currentDaily Press publisher Stephen Woody at the Sierra Vista (AZ) Her-ald and the Bisbee (AZ) Daily Review on the development of a U.S.-Mexico treaty which affected the pollution from Mexico-based cop-per smelters.

Since 2005, he has been working with other Wick-affiliated news-papers with local and regional environmental health concerns andissues dealing with the environment. In Montrose, this has includ-ed an enterprise project on the proposed Robideaux Wilderness.Kamp also joined with Daily Press staff members in 2006 with a de-tailed investigation of the Elizabeth Mining Co. site that led to itsclosure and criminal indictments.

Kamp has directed two non-profits, the Border Ecology Projectand more recently, the E-Tech International endeavor that provid-ed environmental technical support in developing countries. Kamplives in Santa Fe with his family.

Dick Kamp Wick Communications Environmental Liaison

Montrose Daily Press3684 N.Townsend, Montrose CO, 81401• (970) 249-3444 • www.montrosepress.com

Publisher/Editor Stephen Woody Writer Dick Kamp Design Editor Ben Jones Photographer William Woody Photographer Joel BlockerAcknowledgements

Maps showing mine and milling locations in Montrose County and Utah.

Alpha particle - Nucleus of a helium atom--certain radioac-tive nuclei emit alpha particles. Alpha particles can bestopped by a s a sheet of paper, and cannot penetrate the out-er layer of skin. When alpha-emitting atoms of radioactivesubstances are inhaled or swallowed, they are especiallydamaging because they transfer relatively large amounts ofionizing energy to living cells in the body.

"Background" Radiation - The level of radioactivity in sur-rounding rock (if gamma radiation) or in the air or water (if al-pha radiation/radon gas) that is present. Either when therehas been no disturbances of the natural environment or--if thepolicy of regulatory agencies---surrounding an area that maybe mined or that may otherwise increase radioactivity. In somecases, already polluted and radioactive areas may be referred toas "background" depending on state regulations. However,"background" usually refers to natural radioactivity levels.

Beta Particles: - Electrons ejected from the nucleus of a de-caying atom. Although they can be stopped by a thin sheet ofaluminum, beta particles can penetrate the dead skin layer,potentially causing burns. They can pose a serious direct orexternal radiation threat and can be lethal depending on theamount received. They also pose a serious internal radiationthreat if beta-emitting atoms are ingested or inhaled.

BIER 7 - The most recent Committee on the Biological Ef-fects of Ionizing Radiation named by the U.S. National Acad-emy of Sciences.

Bureau of Mines - Department of the Interior agency thatoversaw U.S. mining from 1910-1996.

CDC - Dept. of Health and Human Services Center for Dis-ease Control and Prevention—The U.S. government servicethat addresses any epidemiological issues—those that affectlarge parts of the population

Curies and Picocuries (measure radon) Curie (Ci) - The tra-ditional measure of radioactivity based on the observeddecay rate of 1 gram of radium. A picocurie is about 1 tril-lionth of a curie.

Excess cancer risk - A means to describe cancers that mayoccur as a result of exposure to some form of suspected orknown carcinogen or cancer causing substance.

Gamma Rays - High-energy electromagnetic radiation emit-ted by certain radionuclides when their nuclei transitionfrom a higher to a lower energy state. These rays have highenergy and a short wave length. All gamma rays emittedfrom a given isotope have the same energy, a characteristicthat enables scientists to identify which gamma emitters arepresent in a sample. Gamma rays penetrate tissue fartherthan do beta or alpha particles, but leave a lower concentra-tion of ions in their path to potentially cause cell damage.Gamma rays are very similar to x-rays. See also neutron.

Geiger Counter or scintillator - A radiation detection andmeasuring instrument consisting of a gas-filled tube contain-ing electrodes, between which an electrical voltage but nocurrent flows. When ionizing radiation passes through the

tube, a short, intense pulse of current passes from the nega-tive electrode to the positive electrode and is measured orcounted. The number of pulses per second measures the in-tensity of the radiation field. Geiger counters are the mostcommonly used portable radiation detection instruments.

Hazardous Material - A material that can be toxic, flamma-ble, reactive, or explosive.

ICRP - International Commission on Radiological Protec-tion is a prestigious international community whose med-ical research is a basis for many countries’ standards.

Malignant/non-malignant - Cancerous or non-cancerous.

Milliroentgens (mR) - Measure of radioactivity used largelyto measure gamma radiationthat can be converted intoREMS (below). A miner’s ‘acceptable’ yearly dose is 5 rem(or about 5000 total mR per hour).

MSDS - Manufacturer’s Safety Data Sheet that provides in-formation in the worksheet on hazardous or radioactive ma-terials.

MSHA - U.S. Mining Safety and Health Administration—oversees uranium mine operations.

NIOSH - National Institute of Occupational Safety andHealth is a part of the Dept. of Health and Human ServicesCenter for Disease Control and prevention and does studiesto set workplace health standards.

NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission—regulates uraniummilling and subsequent use of uranium compounds (powerplants, enrichment, etc). In Colorado the Colorado Depart-ment of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has beenapproved by the NRC to regulate uranium milling.

OSHA - US Occupational Safety and Health Administration.Federal agency that sets standards for hazardous materialsin the workplace.

Pathway of exposure - A means by which a contaminant ortoxic or radioactive substance will impact the human body.Skin, lungs are examples of a pathway within the body. Astreambed or a tailings heap could be an external pathway tothe body.

Radon daughters - As radioactive compounds break downthey produce different concentrations of alpha energyknown as radon daughters or “progeny”.

Radon Gas - Radon (Rn): a naturally occurring radioactivegas found in soils, rock, and water. Radon causes lung cancerand is a threat to health because it tends to collect in minesand homes, sometimes to very high concentrations. As a re-sult, radon is the largest source of exposure to people fromnaturally occurring radiation.

RECA - The Federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Actthat provides some payment and medical care to certain ura-nium industry workers and certain persons living “down-wind” of nuclear tests

Reclaimed/reclamation: - When a mine or mill of any kind isclosed, reclamation is a process of permanent cleanup andrestoration. There is an enormous variation in what differ-ent states and federal agencies accept as reclaimed.

REM a unit of “equivalent dose” - Not all radiation has thesame biological effect, even for the same amount of ab-sorbed dose. REM relates the absorbed dose in human tissueto the effective biological damage of the radiation.

Soluble Uranium - A form of uranium with water or watercompounds in it that occurs during milling that is toxic tothe human body.

Tailings - Wastes from a mining or milling process after eco-nomically usable minerals are extracted. Uranium millingproduces tailings.

United Nations Select Committee on the effects of Atomic Ra-diation - A UN committee that publishes in depth reportsglobally on impacts of radiation on human health. MineEngineering and Safety Administration. Forerunner toMSHA prior to 1978.

Uranium Hexafluoride - Made from yellow cake, this is thecompound that then gets “enriched” in a very special cen-trifuge to make rods for nuclear power plant.

Uranium ore - Rock containing a substantial amount of ura-nium that can be utilized for milling.

Uravan mining district - A general area of Southwestern Col-orado including Mesa and Montrose counties crawling overthe Utah border that fed uranium ore to the Uravan UnionCarbide mill

U.S. DOE - US Department of Energy oversees the permitsthat allow uranium to be mined.

U.S. DOJ - US Department of Justice

U.S. DOL - US Department of Labor

U.S. EPA - US Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - Was establishedunder President Lincoln and the U.S. Congress to serve asadvisors to the government. Members are not compensated.

Working level month - A term used in RECA cases by theDOJ and DOL in measuring whether an applicant can getcompensation for getting sick. A “working level month”is170 hours exposure to a level of radon—alpha radiation-- of100 picuries per liter.

Yellowcake - The end product of a uranium mill containsabout 70-90 percent uranium trioxide, ammonium and anumber of differing substances.

Terms from U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services; Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention

(Left to Right) Joel Blocker, Stephen Woody, Ben Jones, William Woody

MONTROSE DAILY PRESS URANIUM&HEALTH SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2008 3s

RADIATION IN ANENERGY FUELS MINE

IN LATE JUNE, the author borrowed a Geigercounter for a tour of the Energy Fuels Whirl-wind mine located on the far western corner ofMesa County on BLM land. The shaft actuallygoes underneath the Utah border. The Whirl-wind was being prepared for mining and is nowpermitted to mine by the BLM.

Outside the mine shaft, the reclaimed dumpsat the Whirlwind mine registered at most twice“background” mostly Gamma radiation of .010--.020 milliroentgens per hour (mR) even whenmeasured quite close to the surface. The Geigercounter levels actually dropped to a low back-ground level--.015 milliroentgen p(mr)-- whenmeasured while riding down the shaft nearly3,500 feet on a gradual slope downhill.

Mine director of safety Jess Fulbright saidthat his radon gas readings had been very low,allegedly .004 picocuries per liter, which wouldindicate that the gas was not accumulating inthe mine and would meet a household standardfor radon.

However, at the end of the shaft various veinsof uranium were spray-painted with the esti-mates of the concentration of ore to rock. TheGeiger counter was measuring a .25% concen-tration of uranium about 6 inches from therock—where a worker would set a charge— thegamma ray level jumped 300 times to over 4.6 mRand briefly higher. Farther away—about 3 feetfrom the vein, it dropped to around 1.5 mR.

Twenty-five percent is the concentration of ura-nium estimated by EF on their website to bewhat they expect to mine at Whirlwind.

Geologist and EF Vice president Dick Whitesaid he was not particularly concerned with hisown exposure to this level of gamma radiation.

Nearby spray painted concentrations of urani-um in the shaft varied from negligible to about 3times the .25%. Presumably the Geiger counterreadings would have gone up and down with theconcentrations of uranium—conceivably tothree times those recorded earlier.

Interpreting Whirlwind mine radiation numbers

Regarding these specific readings, Dr. ArthurMiller of the NIOSH occupational mine safety andhealth Spokane Research Lab said, “Since the ‘ac-ceptable’ yearly dose is 5 rem (or about 5000 totalmR per hour using the readings in the mine), if youlook at (a miner’s) exposure over a long period, andhe spent enough time to gather less than (the limitof) 5,000 mR exposure in a year, he would be consid-ered to have ‘acceptable’ exposure.

So this would mean hewould have to spend lessthan 5,000/4.6 = 1,087 hrsin that environment with-in a year to have experi-enced an acceptable expo-sure level.”

EF’s George Glasier sug-gested that a 5-6 hour dayworking underground is prob-ably a reasonable esti-mate of worker expo-sure.

This wouldmean thata minercouldworkabout180 workingdays a year (36weeks) for a 6-hourday or about 217 days (43 weeks)for a 5-hour day before exceeding the Federalstandard for gamma radiation exposure.

The combination of Dr. Miller’s and Glasier’sestimates of potential workplace exposure arealso consistent with the last comprehensive datafor uranium mining worker exposure to gammarays done between 1975-1977 by the agency thatwas the predecessor to MSHA released in a 1977report by NIOSH. This report to Congress indi-cated that workers generally were exposed to be-tween 15% and 40% more radiation than the lawallowed after regulations were in place.

The measurements that MSHA requires areaverages for a year’s accumulation, and the spe-cific requirements of where to monitor require-ments are somewhat vague.

Above State Road 90, about a mile above theproposed mill site, one finds tailings from theCotter Corporation and several abandonedmines. Readings from mine waste dumps nearthem registered Geiger counter readings thatwere close to those within the Whirlwind mine.Many such dumps are present on BLM and pri-vate land in the Uravan mining district; some ofthe waste dump areas on BLM land near theWhirlwind mine have been reclaimed.

Whirlwind’s MSHA violations & significance

EF critics, such as the Durango-based EnergyMinerals Law Center, have pointed to Whirlwindmine MSHA violations as an indication of cor-porate irresponsibility that should be caution-ary for the future. EF was issued 14 MSHA viola-tions between March 19 and March 24 that costthe company $100 apiece and that have sincebeen resolved. These included: failure to notifyMSHA before opening a mine, electrical and ma-chinery safety problems, lack of proper refuge,failure to keep employee working hour records,lack of a ventilation plan, failure to keep fanmaintenance, failure to maintain an emergencyplan (escape, evacuation and ventilation ofemergency routes), failure to maintain a mineemergency rescue team of at least five people toaddress emergencies and no health sampling.

It may be a little difficult to say that at thisearly stage of preparing to mine that these vio-lations at the Whirlwind mine are particularlyegregious, and most of the conditions had beenaddressed by late June. The violations may indi-cate that the MSHA inspection was more thor-ough than in the past when the agency was tak-en to task numerous times for allegedly notify-ing management when and where they would in-spect an active uranium mine.

Transporting ore from themine to the mill; accidents happen

After mining, the next pathway of exposure toradioactivity comes from loading, driving, andunloading the 25-ton ore trucks driving from themine to the mill.

Since the 2000 amendments to RECA, uraniumore truck drivers who worked before 1971 may becompensated for lung cancer, pulmonary fibro-sis, fibrosis of the lung, silicosis, pneumoconio-sis, renal cancer and chronic renal diseases andtissue injuries, among other conditions.

EF’s Dick White described two spills of truckscontaining uranium ore traveling from differentdirections to the Canon City, Colo. Mill. On Sep-tember 30, 1997, chaos and panic ensued when anore truck traveling from the CotterSchwartzwalder mine overturned on I-25 out-side of Colorado Springs. The local fire depart-ment—rather than a trained hazardous materialemergency response crew that could not enterthe closed freeway—was brought in withoutmeasuring radioactivity. They swept the ore offthe freeway.

In February, 2006, an ore truck overturned eastof Salida along the Arkansas River on U.S. High-way 50. “The driver,” said White, “carried aGeiger counter and measured the radiationright where it spilled rather than three feetaway as the MSHA regulations require and thereadings were very high.” That incident alsoled to complicated cleanup procedures.

The second spill raises an interesting ques-tion. If a driver is leaning against a truck or theore spills out—why is measuring radiation fromthree foot average distance more relevant thanthe reading close to the spill?

The 25-ton ore trucks tend to be covered with asimple tarp. There are no other protections fromthe ore spilling or otherwise exposing anybody.

A very steep road drops down from the mouthof the Whirlwind mine. It can grow slick andclaylike, particularly in inclement weather.”

“Substantial work needs to be done to the roadbefore we start hauling ore”, said Glasier.

AbandonedGolden EagleMine nearproposedPinon Mill site

Energy Fuels Geologist and VP Dick Whiteholds Geiger counter in the Whirlwind mineshowing gamma radiation rate about 300times greater than in most of the mineshaft.

Geiger counter (inset) showing radiation atabout 150 times background radiation at orewaste dumps near abandoned Golden EagleMine. Waste dump source unknown.

photo by Dick Kamp

p h o t o b y J o e l B l o c k e r

photo by Joel Blocker

photo by Dick Kamp

EF has been rehabilitating three mines thatwould provide up to 70% of the mill’s processingcapacity. The EF Whirlwind mine on Mesa Coun-ty-Utah border has an infrastructure typical of amoderate size modern day underground urani-um mine. The waste rock piles left behind wereterraced and buried (reclaimed).

The mine was permitted to operate by theBLM on September 12, after an environmentalassessment determined it would have no signifi-cant impact to environment or health. Howmuch, if and when it will produce in the future,will depend on milling contracts although EFprojects production at 200 tons per day.

EF is also rehabilitating the Tenderfoot minein San Juan County, Utah and the Energy Queenmine in Mesa County. At least one mine doesnot have tailings reclaimed, says Glasier.

Uranium mine-to-mill life hazards andhealth risks

Exposure to radioactivity-“ionizing radia-tion”-- poses some risk of excess cancers andother non-cancerous/malignant disease.

These can come from (1) alpha particles in theform of radon gas and its solid decay products,called “daughters”, (2) from beta particles, and(3) from gamma rays emitted from radium andother radioactive compounds derived from ura-nium.

Uranium workers are exposed to these types ofradiation in a mine before or after blasting, in auranium waste dump, in a truckload of ore, andin the dust and processes of making yellowcake.

However, it is also safe to say that the actualrisks in an Energy Fuels mine or mill from radi-ation hazards are difficult to define.

This is true presuming that all Federal MineSafety and Health Administration (MSHA) occu-pational standards are met, or even if the moreprotective standards proposed over two decadesago (and not adopted) by the U.S. Center for Dis-ease Control’s National Institute for Occupation-al Safety and Health (NIOSH) were met by thecompany.

In 2006, a conservative group of scientists, es-tablished by the National Academy of Sciences,called BEIR 7 (Committee on the Biological Ef-fects of Ionizing Radiation), looked at ionizinggamma radiation occupational exposure global-ly -the type of radiation that could be blocked bylead-independent of inhaled radon gas.

The group issued this statement: “The com-mittee concludes that current scientific evi-dence is consistent with the hypothesis thatthere is a linear, no-threshold dose-response re-lationship between exposure to ionizing radia-tion and the development of cancer in humans.”

Partial translation: no matter what the dose, to

some degree radiation from any source includ-ing uranium mining, milling, and usage willcause cancer.

CEO Glasier’s Health perspective

George Glasier was asked if he felt that hismines and mill could avoid all future deathsfrom cancer or other industry related illnesses.He replied, “We can absolutely avoid futuredeaths from mining and milling. I don’t knowthe number of cancer deaths caused by milling.Radon gas is not the same problem in a mill asin a mine.

“It’s addressed by MSHA in the requirementsfor ventilation of mines. The radiation at themillsite is currently background, and there isnatural radiation in the ground. The mill won’tcontribute to cancer deaths and worker safety isset by Federal standards. If you don’t believethe data that backs current standards then thereisn’t much I could say. I’ve heard that if youwork in our mill full time it would be equivalentto taking two airplane flights a year.”

4 SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2008 URANIUM&HEALTH MONTROSE DAILY PRESS

s

A MILL UNLIKE OTHERSAND ITS MINES

EF CEO GEORGE

Glasier said that

he has no existing

model for his mill

that has been built

anywhere: “This

one will be the

state of the art”.

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

Energy Fuels Resources miner Allen Young demonstrates the usage of a breathing apparatusin case of an emergency. Below from left George Glasier, Kathleen Glasier and Allen Youngride an ATV from deep inside a uranium mine near Gateway in 2007.

The Paradox Valley as seen from above the Cotter JD-8 open pit uranium mine, far right side. The Energy Fuels Pinon Ridge millsite property islocated about 2/3 of the way to the left or west side of the photo.

p h o t o b y J o e l B l o c k e r

p h o t o s b y W i l l i a m Wo o d y

George Glasier

Terry Bunker,

Allen Young

Kenneth Chadd

Steve Puderbaugh

p h o t o s b y W i l l i a m Wo o d y

URANIUM MILLOccupational Health concerns

THE MOST CURRENT analyses of health risks inuranium milling were compiled in 1993 by the UnitedNations Select Committee on the effects of AtomicRadiation.

The collective “excess cancer risks of the 18,000mill workers globally in ’93 were estimated to beabout 1 out of 99 (182 excess cancers) as a result ofworking in a mill. (By comparison, the aforemen-tioned 2005 ICRP study estimated that overall excesscancer risks in the uranium industry were 1 out of 31).

The main “pathways of exposure” to radiation theUnited Nations committee found were inhalation ofradon gas and the subsequent “daughter” com-pounds that evolve from radon in the lungs. Workerswere exposed largely to inhalation of uranium oredust as it entered into the mill and to handling theore as it was leached, and later in the process, to in-halation of uranium concentrate dust.

Additionally, a substantial amount of the risk inthe mill was estimated to be from exposure to radia-tion due to proximity to the ore and the concentrates.This would have been largely gamma rays.

The UN study is considered to be highly conserva-tive and cautious by both the uranium industry, andantinuclear activists. Industry has claimed that thisrisk is low when they cite the study; critics claim it ismisleadingly low and should be higher. The studypresumed that mills were meeting high internation-al occupational health standards rather than neces-sarily checking thousands of medical records.

The EF mill and health

Regarding impacts on workers and nearby resi-dents, EF’s Frank Filas, who is handling the stateenvironmental permitting, said that the externalair emissions would be “within state emission stan-dards for the area” and that it was “premature” toestimate them.

Tailings will be in underground “cells” and buried,unlike at older mills, although the jury may be out onwhether the site is seismically stable—a major envi-ronmental question.

Exactly what the resident and worker exposurecould be at the Energy Fuel mill is difficult to say,based on the Montrose special use permit summary.

In its permit appendix on “Radiation and Work-er/Public Safety”, EF hastens to assure readersthat workers are generally exposed to less than 1/50of stringent Federal standards, that airplane pilotsare generally in greater risk than uranium indus-try workers and that the average frequent flyer islikely to get exposed to a greater radiation riskthan a uranium worker.

It seems difficult, when comparing airplane pas-sengers to miners, millers, and others in the indus-try, to presume that monitoring is done with ex-traordinary care; workers avoid all hazards, thataccidents never happen, that 1993 risk studies arenot applicable 15 years later, and that the occupa-tional record of the Canon City, Colorado mill is acomplete anomaly.

Cotter’s Canon City mill, currently closed, violatedColorado occupational health standards 24 times in2002, directly resulting in a plant shutdown, had “sig-nificant deficiencies” in 2003, was cited in 2004 and2005 for worker exposure to over the twice the federalstandard for “soluble uranium”.

“Soluble uranium” exposure meant that CanonCity workers would have been exposed within theplant at a stage where chemicals or fluids had beenadded during pre-leaching and thickening, leaching,separation and purification of uranium, or duringuranium recovery as yellowcake.

The Canon City mill, which is a contaminated Su-perfund site, paid local residents more than $16 mil-lion in 2001 for causing excess radiation poisoningand for diseases in surrounding communities. Themill’s last violation was in late August, 2008.

However, the nearest residence to the EF mill ismore than three miles away.

A worst-case fear over what could happen to work-ers in a mill are summed up in our interview with ex-mill worker, Reed Hayes of Paradox, who fell into avat of yellowcake in 1967 at the Atlas mill in Utah at atime, points out EF in their permit proposal, whenworker protection was low on the agenda. Hayessays, “I don’t care what the newer technologies are,mistakes will be made.”

Workers at a Uravan district mine during 1950s. (Union Carbide donation to Rimrocker Museum.)

MONTROSE DAILY PRESS URANIUM&HEALTH SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2008 5s

HISTORICALLY IN THE URANIUM industry,exposure to radioactive particles in the form ofradon gas and direct ionizing radiation, com-bined with poor mine ventilation and lack ofworker safety protective devices such as respira-tors, was the cause of excess lung cancer andother respiratory disease in underground min-ers.

Alpha radiation is classified as a Class A hu-man carcinogen—the worst—by the EPA be-cause of the evidence of excess lung cancer inci-dence and mortality in underground Europeanand American uranium miners.

Some authorities “weigh” alpha exposure risklevels as somewhere around 20 times the riskcompared to whole body exposure to gamma ra-diation, which is emitted by uranium ore bodiesand by uranium mine and mill waste dumps.

In 1987, Dr. J.D. Milar, the U.S. Assistant Secre-tary of Health for NIOSH, strongly recommend-ed that uranium mine and mill workers meet astandard for alpha particulate-radon gas expo-sure that was one fourth the standard that westill have today. He did so based on studies of “35years, over 3,000 miners and thousands of meas-urements”.

However, Dr. Milar added, “Although I am ap-proving this…standard, I do not believethat….the recommended standard fully meets(NIOSH) commitment to protect all the nation’sminers.”

Dr. Milar stressed that NIOSH analysis showed“significant health risks” even at the proposedstronger standard. He recommended that mineoperators treat the proposed limit as “an upperlevel of exposure” and that they take furthermeasures to protect workers.

Milar added that he had accepted the standardin spite of his doubt because of a US Bureau ofMine study stressing the difficulties in reducingradon levels in mines.

The Reagan and subsequent administrationstook no action on the recommendation. The in-mine radon exposure standard remains fourtimes higher than the proposed standard that, toPresident Reagan’s occupational health agency,still was inadequate to protect health.

“The bottom fell out of the uranium marketand the presumption may have been that withno mining, there was no need for a new stan-dard”, says NIOSH epidemiologist MaryShubauer-Berrigan, “The upsurge in uraniummining should make that alpha exposure stan-dard a viable issue again.”

Surprisingly, however, the levels of gammarays that a worker may be exposed to have beenlittle measured by regulatory authorities suchas MSHA. Understanding real-life exposure isthe key to understanding what risks a nuclearenergy worker may face and is the weak link inradioactive risk analyses.

The BEIR 7 study of gamma radiation healthrisks included estimates of excess cancer deathsat differing levels of exposure to gamma radia-tion.

When estimates are made of health risk fornuclear industry workers in general, one entersnew territory compared with other workplacehazards. Since the early 1980s approval of toxic

chemicals in the work place and the environ-ment has been evaluated, in part, by stating “ex-cess cancer risk”

Frequently acceptance of a chemical has beencontroversial if it causes 1 excess cancer in10,000 people exposed at a particular level of ex-posure. More commonly, it is rubber-stamped as“acceptable” if it doesn’t exceed a risk of one ina million.

But radioactivity is in a different category forcancer risk than chemical toxicity. Although es-timates have varied greatly, and some claim therisk is less, you have a lifetime excess cancerrisk of 1 in 286 from exposure to background ra-diation according to the International Commis-sion on Radiological Protection or ICRP. Thismeans that exposure to all sources of natural ra-diation — from sunlight to indoor radon to gam-ma rays from soils and building materials to thenumber of times you take commercial air flightsat high altitudes — increases your cancer riskby that amount.

In 2005 the ICRP estimated that a nuclearworker with 40 years in the “industry” meetinginternational standards roughly equivalent tothe U.S. would have roughly a 1 in 31 excess can-cer risk from exposure to alpha and gamma rayscombined.

ICRP data like this risk rate is used as a basisfor U.S. radiation standards according to the U.S.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.These estimates are based on many studies

globally, although-generally lacking exposuredata and often complete medical records.

Uranium is also known, from hundreds of ani-mal, occupational and human studies of expo-sure, to be a potent chemical toxin. In general,chemical toxicity refers to biological effects ofuranium as a soluble metal, not as a radioactivesubstance.

Numerous studies have shown that uraniumminers employed prior to 1971 contracted lungcancer, pulmonary fibrosis, fibrosis of the lung,silicosis, pneumoconiosis, renal (kidney) cancerand chronic renal disease and injury at rates farhigher than the general population.

Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Com-pensation Act (RECA) in 1990 to compensateminers for these health effects, and in 2000, en-acted amendments to RECA to include uraniummillers and ore haulers and to broaden the list ofcompensable diseases. A third RECA may passCongress in the next two years. The U.S. Depart-ment of Labor in conjunction with the Depart-ment of Justice administers the RECA program.(See interview with Grand Junction attorneyKeith Killian.) Updated statistics on DOJ’s com-pensation awards can be viewed athttp://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/reca/

p h o t o b y W i l l i a m Wo o d y

MUDDLED federal exposure documentation and record keeping

WHAT IS PERHAPS most startling in tryingto understand the health problems related topast uranium mining and processing is the lackof data—even when it was gathered after stan-dards were applicable to mining after 1971.

Prior to 1978, MSHA’s predecessor, the MineEngineering and Safety Administration, col-lected worker exposure data that, agency offi-cials say, were put onto some kind of electronicformat that is completely unreadable today—orat least nobody has put the effort required intocracking its electronic code.

If there are hard copies of pre-1978 medicalrecords, nobody knows where they are. Thereis data from 1978 to 1982 on miners in hard copyin Denver, but these need to be sorted throughmanually.

Data from 1983 to the present are availablethrough NIOSH on-line—although the informa-tion is only available for the time that someonewas employed; if they became sick five yearslater, no reports of their illnesses are made.NISOH doesn’t have any health studies basedon analysis of post-83 records.

Chris Shuey is an environmental health spe-cialist and advocate who has nearly threedecades of tracking uranium impacts on theNavajo Nation and in the Southwest for Albu-querque-based nonprofit Southwest Researchand Information Center (SRIC) . Shuey pointsout that post-1971 regulations required compa-nies to measure in-mine radon and gamma radi-ation levels, and keep track of worker expo-sures and report those exposures annually.

However, said Shuey, it’s not clear the recordsstill exist, or if do, whether they can be ac-cessed.

“Nobody has looked at these MSHA and earli-er records and it may be impossible to readthem,” Shuey said. “Keep in mind that we are

talking about records for those first yearswhen, allegedly, occupational health practiceswere supposedly improving after 1971 regula-tions passed. This is critical data to assesswhether the health of workers was protected,and our government has no access to it.”

MSHA’s rules also require companies to re-port worker illnesses, he added, “but no miningcompany is required to report that some workersaid they were sick after they quit with a possi-ble work-related condition.”

NIOSH reported that several studies on Nava-jo mine and mill workers indicated that, evenafter the 1971 regulations were in place, 90% ofthe post-1971 workers said that their protectionwas inadequate and that they had developedrespiratory problems related to mining and

milling. Navajo workers, in a variety ofNIOSH archived studies, have been found tosmoke cigarettes far less than white workers inthe southwestern U.S.

Shuey said that the current lack of data onhealth conditions among post-1971 uraniumworkers and residents of communities impact-ed by releases of wastes from mines and mills isa sad testimony to events in the early 1980s.“Government and industry officials and aca-demics belittled SRIC’s recommendations to es-tablish a disease registry in Navajo communi-ties impacted by 20 years of uranium mining.This included the massive mill tailings spill in-to the Puerco River in Churchrock, NM in 1979.

“We were told that a registry or some type ofsurveillance program was unnecessary, that wewouldn’t detect increased disease rates becauselocal populations are too small,” he said.“Thousands of deaths and morbidities (sick-nesses) later, we still have scant and primitiveinformation, no comprehensive health studieshave been done, all the sites we named as highpriorities are contaminated, and most of thegroundwater cleanups at uranium tailings siteshave failed.”

“We need a RECA reform that will include re-quirements that all the old medical records besorted out and tracked and that all future work-ers and resident be tracked and followed for ex-posure and disease,” he said. “God knows, wecan no longer say that we don’t know the risks.”

What is perhaps most startling in tryingto understand the health problemsrelated to past uranium mining andprocessing is the lack of data.

RADON GASgamma ray risks

p h o t o b y W i l l i a m Wo o d y

6 SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2008 URANIUM&HEALTH MONTROSE DAILY PRESS

s

WHEN EXAMINING radiological and chemicalimpacts of uranium mining, processing and uti-lization, there are many affected who do not workin the mines or mills. A worker at home, theirspouses, children, laundromats, streets and gar-dens may all be pathways of exposure to uraniumand other contaminants.

Unfortunately, if the workplace is difficult tomeasure and environmental monitoring in thegeneral environment provides results that are de-bated---day-to-day life exposure is little monitored.

The old uranium-vandium-radium millsite ofUravan in west Montrose County along SpringCreek and the Dolores River was dismantled, andthe tailings covered, along with wastes from othernearby uranium and vanadium mills, because ofconcerns for long-term radiological contamina-tion of the local and regional environments.

Union Carbide ran a vintage vanadium and lat-er uranium mill and multiple mines in Uravanfrom 1928 until 1984. By 1986, pervasive contami-nation forced evacuation of the town. Testimonyin a 2004 lawsuit against Union Carbide (now DowChemical) described children sliding down tail-ings piles, food stored in the mines, workers leav-ing without showering or changing clothes. Wash-ing machines discharged yellowish water.

Uravan and Monticello Studies

Two studies published in 2007 by VanderbiltUniversity researchers found significant in-creased risks of death from lung cancer amongMontrose County residents and former uraniumminers residing in the Uravan district, but no in-creased mortality risk for any other cancer. Non-cancerous diseases were not investigated. Howev-er the Vanderbilt studies did not determine thatnon-uranium workers in the population had high-er cancer rates.

Other health studies have had varied results indetermining whether disease rates are higheramong people living near a uranium mill that be-gan operating in 1943. For instance, a 2006 UtahDepartment of Health (UDOH) study found no ev-idence of increased frequency of cancers through2004 among Monticello, Utah, residents who livedin the town during the time a uranium mill oper-ated and before it was reclaimed.

UDOH contradicted the Monticello “mill neigh-bors” study in December 2007 using more precisemethods to ascertain cancer cases. The state de-tected significantly elevated rates of lung,bronchial and stomach cancers, compared withoverall state rates, for the period 1973 and 2004and said it was “plausible” that the mill could be asource.

Population-based cancer studies have a com-mon weakness: individual exposures are notknown and cannot be evaluated.

Pollution surrounding the Homestake millsitenear Grants, N.M., has left both toxic and radio-logical hazards—and hundreds of anecdotal dis-ease reports, but no formal epidemiological inves-tigation.

These studies are sometimes difficult to evalu-ate, points out NIOSH epidemiologist LynnePinkerton, “because there is a self-filtering phe-nomenon one finds among both workers and resi-dents in uranium industry communities: the

sickest people tend to leave and so you often arestudying a population that may be more resistantto health conditions.”

Additionally, epidemiologists say, the “healthyworker” factor often masks occupational diseasesbecause people who work are generally healthierthan people in the general population.

Paradox resident and mill opponent MarieMoore considers herself an example of how path-ways of exposure to uranium poisoning could takeplace during only a four month period of time.

From September through December 1995,Moore coordinated a project for Nature Conser-vancy (TNC) building a picnic ground alongSpring Creek in Uravan with Americorps volun-teers. “We were told the area we were workingwas cleaned up so we wore no protective clothing.We dug holes, planted native plants, made trails, abathroom, picnic tables. A few months later I de-veloped lower back pain and stomach problems. Ididn’t relate it to working there and it continuedfor many years.”

In 1997, she visited the site again and found theevidence of her work gone. TNC staff told herthat the area she worked had been found contami-nated. It was covered with earth along with therest of the townsite of Uravan, and was fenced inas part of the site.

Prior to the visit, and after her Uravan work,she had developed an area of raw skin that wouldnot heal and necrotic dead tissue was found neara herniated disc in her back. “Where else couldthat have come from”, said Moore.

Moore’s complaints are “anecdotal” or isolated,and compared to hundreds of other uranium in-dustry working families--minor. Unfortunatelymore severe conditions facing workers are alsoconsidered anecdotal due to lack of documenta-tion and the complexity with which ionizing radi-ation affects the human body.

Navajos who live next to uranium waste dumpsdescribed a variety of maladies in testimony be-fore the House Committee on Oversight and Gov-ernment Reform in October 2007. New healthstudies of communities exposed to uraniumwastes, to be released in 2009 by University ofNew Mexico, Eastern Navajo Health Board andSRIC, have indicated a prevalence of kidney dis-ease related to uranium exposure.

IMPACTS ON THOSE WHO DO NOTWORK IN THE MINES OR MILLS.

Energy Fuels VP Dick White sees the Uravan Superfund site as the failings of the past.

Paradox Townsite

p h o t o b y D i c k K a m p

MONTROSE DAILY PRESS URANIUM&HEALTH SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2008 7s

SEVENTY-ONE YEAR old Reed Hayes of Para-dox worked at the Atlas mill in Moab, Utah, nowa Superfund site. “I was there the day the millopened in 1955,” he said “and worked there untilthe fall of ’67.”

In July of 1967, he was working the graveyardshift when, due to the negligence of a worker onthe day shift, he fell into a tank of yellowcake.Hayes was walking along a catwalk above thetanks. The lights were off and he couldn’t seewhere he was going.

“Nobody roped it off and I fell straight into thetank 12 feet deep,” Hayes said. “When I climbedout, my supervisor told me to go home, take ashower, change clothes and come back to work.”

“The vat contained uranium oxide, ammoni-um and nitric acid,” said Hayes. “A month laterI came down with this case of hives and they’vebeen my scourge ever since. There was no histo-ry of hives in my family, nothing before this in-cident and now I’ve had them for 41 years.”

Later, Hayes said, “I took a RECA (RadiationExposure Compensation Act) exam for minersand millers: I went to Grand Junction and wentthrough a battery of tests. I’m a nonsmoker andmy lungs are good. I got letters from three of mydoctors and got a letter from a friend that sawme climb out of the tank. I sent it to also to theU.S. (Department of Labor-) and described otherconditions in the mill that hurt people while Iworked there, safety issues.”

Hayes has been treated with steroid creamsand large quantities of Alegra, an antihista-mine that temporarily controls the itching with-

out making him drowsy. He says that his insur-ance claimed he could be using cheaper antihist-amines, although they make him tired. They de-nied payment for his medications, in spite of hisphysican in Norwood writing a letter backinghis claim, as has his former doctor in Moab.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice (RECAsection) has refused to compensate Hayes for hismedical problems.. This is in spite of the factthat a symptomatic description of hives isbacked by both the U.S. Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) and industrialManufacturer Data Safety Sheets (MSDS) foruranium oxide (the main concentrate in yellow-cake) that describe similar skin outbreaks. Hiscase is now going to the Department of Labor.

OSHA references to uranium poisoning in-clude the statement, “The signs and symptomsof uranium-induced dermatitis may include ir-ritation, redness, blistering, thickening, or hy-perpigmentation of the skin.”

MSDS sheets for uranium oxide list dermatitisas the number one condition as a result ofchronic exposure to uranium oxide. Dr. MarySchubauer-Berrigan a National Institute of Oc-cupational Safety and Health epidemiologistsays she knows of no epidemiological studiesdone on mill or mineworkers and dermatitis.

Falling into a vat of uranium may have beenunique, “I don’t know of anybody else who did,”said Hayes, “but they never gave us any protec-tive clothing nor told us it was dangerous. Gotover 20 people I could name off the top of myhead got severely sick from mills or mines here

or in the Moab area. Most of them are dead.”Hayes said he’s heard Energy Fuel’s CEO

George Glasier’s arguments that new technolo-gy will avoid past health disasters if uraniummining and milling begin again in the Uravandistrict. He doesn’t buy it. “Mistakes will bemade,” he said.

REED HAYES: “Mistakes Will Get Made”

Reed Hayes of Paradox

p h o t o b y D i c k K a m p

d o n a t e d p h o t o

This is a mix of information from RimrockerHistorical Museum in Naturita, ColoradoState Historical Fund, Center of SouthwestStudies, USEPA CERCLA, U.S. DOE, GeologistDick White of Energy Fuels, Inc, Wickipedia,and www.Uravan.com)

Colorado has the third-largest uranium re-sources in the U.S. The Uravan mineral belt in-cludes parts of San Miguel, Montrose, andMesa counties, as well as Grand County, Utah.The mining districts include Slick Rock, Gyp-sum Valley, Uravan, and Gateway mining dis-tricts. The Gateway district includes the Ener-gy Fuels permitted Whirlwind mine.

• 1871-1872: Discovery of first uranium inpitchblende deposits near Center City, Colo.

• 1880s: Ore discovered in western MontroseCounty by Thomas Talbert containing uranium,radium and vanadium.

• 1898: Samples of ore found in the Rock Creekarea of Montrose County are shipped to France.Ore is named “carnotite” and is believed to beprofitable for mining -- first for vanadium to hard-en steel; for uranium, and for processing as radi-um. Mining in the district was primarily for thevanadium at first. On average there is five timesas much vanadium in carnotite than uranium.

• 1899-1911: Madame Curie’s medical institutein France creates a market for radium, ultimatelydetermining that Uravan belt carnotite is eco-nomic to mine and concentate at mills. Claims arestaked in present Uravan district. Ore is sent toFrance for milling.

• 1912-1913: Standard Chemical Corp. estab-lishes first radium recovery operation and minesopen in present Uravan area.

• 1914-1915: Standard Chemical Corp. opensJoe Jr. concentrator-mill in what will become Ura-van to process radium. Housing established inarea. Montrose County becomes world’s largestproducer of radium.

• 1921-1923: Mines and mill closes in the Ura-van belt as Belgian Congo in Africa producescheap and copious amounts of radium from pitch-blende deposits.

• 1928: U.S. Vanadium Corp. buys mill site andconverts it to produce vanadium to harden steel.

• 1936: U.S. Vanadium is purchased by UnionCarbon and Carbide Company, later Union Car-bide Corp., and later, regionally, UMETCO. Since2001, Union Carbide has been owned by DowChemical. Union Carbide establishes Uravan as acompany town in 1936. Mills also built in the re-gion by other companies in Nucla , Naturita, Du-rango, and in Monticello, Moab, and Lisbon, Utah.

• 1943-1945: U.S. military takes over Uravanmill to produce uranium for the atomic bombsbuilt at Los Alamos and tested in New Mexico be-fore dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.A military uranium refinery is built in GrandJunction, Colo., as a subsequent stage.

• 1946-1984: Union Carbide Uravan Mill is ex-panded for nuclear weapons grade uranium andlater for uranium yellowcake to be refined and en-riched for nuclear fuel for nuclear power plants af-ter 1957, which is now the sole permitted purposefor uranium production. After 1950, new open ura-nium mining claims were halted and government

leases, now under the Department of Energy, wereestablished covering known deposits and put outfor limited bid. Uranium prices declined by 1980and continued to do so and the Uravan mill and oth-ers closed by 1984.

• 1986-2008: Prices remained low through early2004. Uravan mill site is declared EPA Superfundsite, officially declared remediated in September,2008. Some $120 million is expended on razingtown site, burying mill and other regional urani-um mill wastes.

Most regional uranium mines closed by 2005, asdoes Canon City Mill, leaving only the WhiteMesa, Utah mill currently operating.

Uranium prices rose dramatically 2004-2007 fromless than $16 pound in early 2004 to almost $140pound in mid-2007 on speculation of possible nu-clear power plant construction and other factors.

• 2007: Energy Fuels Corp. announces intent tobuild the Pinon Ridge Mill. Spot prices drop to $45pound by late October 2008. Adjusted for inflation,these prices are not the lowest historically butsimilar to early-1980s prices when the industrywas declining.

• 2008: Future of uranium mining and millingremains economically in doubt. Extension of for-eign contracts and strategies to address climatechange that may or may not include large scalenuclear growth will be major factors in a time ofglobal reduced economic growth. Pinon Ridgemill project continues to move ahead.

TIMELINE URAVAN MINERAL BELT URANIUM MINING

GRAND JUNCTION -- Grand Junction attor-ney Keith Killian has spent the last 17 years try-ing to help victims of uranium exposure claimU.S. government compensation under the Radi-ation Exposure and Compensation Act (RECA),which Congress first passed in 1990 and updatedin 2000. Killian says both versions of RECAhave been flawed.

The Reed Hayes Case

Reed Hayes of Paradox. (see sidebar) Hayesworked in a mill for 12 years. His most frighten-ing exposure was the night he arrived at theuranium mill and found the lights off. He triedto make his way down a catwalk above a vat ofyellowcake uranium. The worker from the pre-vious shift had also left a gate open. Hayes tookone step too many and fell into the inferno ofyellowcake. For the past 41 years he has suf-fered from severe hives over his entire body.

Despite the extreme exposure, Hayes has beendenied compensation under RECA, in part be-cause his skin problems simply weren’t includ-ed in the law. According to Hayes’ lawyer, KeithKillian, Hayes’ condition is considered “anec-dotal,” that is, undocumented by the companyHayes worked for and not covered in the laws orFederal worker safety agencies.

“Given the past history of uranium mills, it isnot surprising that Reed fell into yellowcake.Jennifer (McCall, Killian’s chief paralegal whohas also worked on these issues since the 90s)was trying to sort it out: a man falls into vat ofyellowcake. Can he get compensated for hissymptoms or for his disease? The evidenceplus the symptoms are common to uranium ox-ide.

“Reed Hayes was denied benefits under RECAthrough the Department of Justice (DOJ) be-cause he has had no “medical exposure” underthat agency’s requirements—he has dermatitisand not kidney disease or respiratory diseasefrom his 40 plus working level months of expo-sure.

“The second (option for Hayes) is the Depart-ment of Labor (DOL) Division of Energy Em-ployees Occupational Illness Compensation andwe are pursuing that avenue. (These are post2001 and 2004 benefits established for mine, milland transportation and other workers who ei-ther worked for the Department of Energy orhelped produce or process uranium under theirguidelines.)

“Now I think Hayes’ falling into the yellow-cake vat was the tip of the iceberg of condi-tions. Remember, most of the lung cancer vic-tims are dead, mostly miners. The millers’ ex-posure was, overall, probably less than orehaulers. For the millers and ore haulers, kid-neys were included but not dermatitis, eventhough OSHA lists it as a symptom of chronicuranium exposure.

“There isn’t any one size fits all when tryingto get compensation for a uranium-caused med-ical condition. You are trying to get beyondthat description of a condition as ‘anecdotal.’An anecdote has meaning: the anecdotal historyof a uranium worker’s or a resident’s disease is

the story of a life and a death. People didn’tknow then, nor do they know now, exactly howthey got sick. The anecdotal data shows thatmany people have lost their lives, “said Killian.

Less Money, Less Attorneys

Killian said that a provision in RECA causeda lot of attorneys who used to represent urani-um victims to drop out. It has also affectedwhich cases attorneys take.

“There used to be lots of attorneys, maybe 15,who did this work until the fee dropped from10% to 2% of benefits—10% if we appeal-- andnow we have maybe six. (Now) we end up fol-lowing through with a low percentage of RECAapplicants who we think will meet the criteria,at best one in four. (I figure that) over the past17 years probably (only) one in ten (persons ex-posed to uranium) who contacted us followedthrough with applying through us.

“We are about 99% successful when we do de-cide to take on a case. Thousands of peoplehave contacted us; we’ve screened about 2,000but we don’t try to take on their cases unless wethink they will seriously meet the criteria of ei-ther the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the De-partment of Labor (DOL) or both.

The History of RECA

“A little background: when the 1990 lawpassed to enable compensation under RECA, itwas basically written for miners who workedprior to 1971, when occupational health andsafety regulations were passed. Formulaewere developed that guided compensation thatwere meant to be consistent with uranium min-ing exposure and you need a course in calculusto figure them out.

“If you smoked, you had to have 500 uranium“working level months” and if not, 200 workinglevel months. You had to show three things:you were exposed to a great deal of radiation,you had been diagnosed with a qualifying dis-ease, and you had to document your smokinghabits.

“During the 1980s, health researchers en-countered a great deal of disease from uraniummining, milling, hauling, core drilling; a lotmore than expected. A lot of cancer victimsdied in the 60s, but then the numbers dwindled.A moderate amount (died) in the 70s, By the80’s, fewer cancer victims were alive.

“So the government said, ‘Oh wow, maybethese guys live wild lives and smoke cigarettesand that’s the main problem.’ That was RECA 1.

“By the time RECA 2 changes came in 2000 tocover transporters, “downwinders” who liveddown-wind of nuclear tests, (and) millers, regu-lators and legislators said that the whole levelof exposure should be changed and dropped to40 “uranium working months” and they addedore truck drivers.

NOTE: A “working level month”is 170 hoursexposure to a level of radon—alpha radiation--of 100 picuries per liter. The first 1990 RECAbill thus required exposure to 20,000 picocuriesper liter for a nonsmoker or 50,000 picocuries

per liter for a smoker. By comparison, EPA hasa home radon exposure standard of an averageof 4 picocuries per liter averaged for one year.As Killian points out—it is confusing

“The difficulty for many applicants has fre-quently been this amount of so-called workinglevel months that a miner, a mill worker or a“downwinder” can document. Lots of mines,mills and companies are gone so the records aregone and we need medical documentation thateither never took place or is not available.

“Downwind counties are in Arizona, Utah andNevada; not in Colorado. They are reflective ofvery specific exposures and had to have beenfrom January 1950 to October 1958 and you haveto prove two years of exposure. Also (therewas) one specific (bomb) test in July ’62.

“A downwinder gets paid $50,000 for cancer; aminer gets $100,000 plus $50. DOL gives addi-tional health benefits beyond cash for miners,millers and ore haulers. If you were exposed atthe nuclear test site, there’s $75,000 no medical.“All this is a labyrinth. We are working our waythrough technicalities; our expertise is collectingdocumentation to establish the criteria the law re-quires. (We’re trying to find) records that barelyexisted for people who had diseases in the ‘60s, whomay have been dead 40 years. In some cases directfamily members can collect; in others not. We tell alot of people, sorry, the law is like a checkerboard.More than 50% of my clients are not alive and I’mrepresenting widows and children, mainly chil-dren.

“All of our cases date from pre-1971 because Con-gressional logic said that supposedly conditionswere worse then with no regulation. My view isthat exposure to a certain amount of uranium,whatever that amount is, is enough to kill you ifyou live long enough. And the actual exposures,even after 1971, were documented very poorly.

Will a new Energy Fuels mill avoid theproblems of the past?

“Here’s my point of view. From a logical stand-point, I don’t know the answer to how little or greata risk the mines that feed the Energy Fuels mill, orthe mill, itself, pose. I don’t stand in opposition tothe uranium industry legally or politically. I makemy living from it.

“So even as a lawyer I can only give you an emo-tional answer for those people in the graveyardsand that answer is that there is no safe way to han-dle this substance.

“Our society wants energy and low gas prices. Ifthey find people who are willing to sacrifice them-selves to make the profit, then society will againdecide it’s worth the price. Like in the 1800s,(when industrial pollution and working conditionscaused many health related illnesses), we have acapitalist system that works wonderfully, with so-cial (and medical) costs

“I should interject that personally, after readingmany studies and representing many uraniumworkers, I believe that uranium is very dangerousstuff. Even the most conservative medical panelssay there is no threshold of exposure that is safe.”

KEITH KILLIAN & JENNIFER MCCALL:Helping Uranium VictimsGet Compensated

photo courtesy of Killian, Jensen & Davis, Attorneys, Grand Junction

8 SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2008 URANIUM&HEALTH MONTROSE DAILY PRESS

s

Yellowcake slurry tailings Uravan Millers, 1961

Uravan Mill c.1946-1956. Expanded as Union Carbide mill.(courtesy Rimrocker Historical Museum, Naturita)

Nucla Freshman Class 1942

Uravan Mill 1943-45 The military, Manhattan Project providedyellowcake for the atomic bomb. (photo courtesy Rimrocker Historical Museum, Naturita)

Uravan Mill circa 1960

Moving drill rig 1915(photo, Standard Chem. Co.)

MONTROSE DAILY PRESS URANIUM&HEALTH SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2008 9s

“There is a book that describes the situation of theNavajo best. It’s called “If You Poison Us: Uraniumand Native Americans” by Peter Eichstaedt. The ti-tle quote is from Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice.A character asks, “If you poison us, do we not die?”We represented thousands of Navajo miners in the1970s and 80s and many of these people are dead.

“The process of establishing claims has been par-ticularly difficult among the Navajo, not just becauseof the lack of records on the reservation allowing usto diagnose disease, but even establishing wheresome of the mines were. We honestly don’t knowwhere many of them worked.

“We’ve worked with the Navajo Nation for yearsand they asked us not to lobby, but to work with keyCongressmen to move the next RECA 3 reform alongand it is coming. Maybe we will have RECA 3 by 2010and we can deal with post-1971 worker exposure, aswell as those who lived near uranium mills andmines and expand the areas where downwindershave been exposed.

“Now if you lived on certain areas of the Navajoreservation and never worked in the mine, you defi-nitely had proximity exposure, vicinity exposure,whatever the term should be. These areas were andare hot. (Some areas near the old Homestake mill sitenear Grants, NM, by Navajo residences have hadEPA recorded Gamma ray readings as high as urani-um veins in the Whirlwind mine.)

“(I personally feel that) it doesn’t matter what theworking conditions were, pre ‘71 compared to post‘71. Logic says it matters whether mines had fans orhow hot it was. I defer to those conducting the med-ical research,; who weigh the impacts of fans andradon or Gamma ray exposure. But radiation existswhether there’s a fan or not removing the radon gas.The Navajo say it’s abad spirit. Otherssay its Gammarays. It’s bad stuff:it will get youeventually.

p h o t o b y W i l l i a m Wo o d y

NAVAJO MINERSAND “BAD SPIRITS”

Promise of a golden futureYellow uranium ore from the Colorado Plateau

is helping to bring atomic wonders to youLong ago, Indian braves made their war paint from the col-orful sandstones of the Colorado Plateau.

THEY USED URANIUM - Their brilliant yellows came fromcarnotite, the important uranium-bearing mineral. Early inthis century, this ore supplied radium for the famous scien-tists, Marie and Pierre Curie, and later vanadium for specialalloys and steels.Today, this plateau-stretching over parts of Colorado,Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona-is our chief domesticsource of uranium. Here, now communities thrive: jeepsand airplanes replace the burro: Geiger counters supplantthe divining rod and miner's hunch.From hundreds of mines that are often just small tunnelsin the hills, carnotite is hauled to processing mills. After thevanadium is extracted, the uranium, concentrated in theform of "yellow-cake," is shipped to atomic energy plants.

A NEW ERA BECKONS - What does atomic energy promisefor you? Already radioactive isotopes are working wonders

in medicine, industry, and agriculture. In atomic energy, sci-entists also see a vision of unknown power - which somedaymay heat and light your home, and propel submarines,ships, and aircraft. The Indian's war paint is on the marchagain - toward a golden future.UCC TAKES AN IMPORTANT PART - The people of UnionCarbide locate, mine, and refine uranium ore. They alsooperate for the Government the huge atomic materials plantsat Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Paducah, Ky., and the Oak RidgeNational Laboratory, where radioisotopes are made.FREE: For an illustrated story of the fascinating uraniumcountry of the Colorado Plateau, write for the booklet"Mesa Miracle." Ask for booklet B.

UN I O N CA R B I D EAND CARBON CORPORATION30 EAST 42ND STREET NEW YORK 17, N.Y.UCCUCC’s Trade-marked Products of Alloys, Carbons, Chemicals, Gases, and Plastics includeELECTROMET Alloys and Metals • HAYNES STELLITE Alloys • EVERREADY Flashlights and Batteries • NATIONAL CarbonsACHESON Electrodes • PYROFAX Gas • PRESTONE AND TREK Anti-Freeze • PREST-O-LITE AcetyleneBAKELITE, KRUSE, and VINYLITE Plastics • DYNEL TEXTILE Fibers • LINDE Oxygen • SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS

Uranium ad from the 1950’s

Miners in a Union Carbide affiliated mine providing ore to Uravan mill. (c.1946-1965) (courtesy Rimrocker Historical Museum, Naturita, donated by Union Carbide.)

Navajo miners, at Miner’s Cove, Ariz. 1952

(Below) Navajo miners in New Mexico, 1960s.(Above) Navajo miner Paul Nakaidenae, Red Valley, AZ

photos courtesy: Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College

photo byDoug Brugge

10 SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2008 URANIUM&HEALTH MONTROSE DAILY PRESS

s