Milan is a very small mountainous community that has been detrimentally affected by the boom-and-bust era of the uranium industry during the 1950’s through 70’s. Uranium mills- facilities that process mined uranium- are now closed, and the companies operating these facilities have left. However, the tailings remain. As defined by the industry, mill tailings are the by-product of the uranium milling process. This benign classification does not accurately characterize the millions of tons of radioactive material produced, the majority of which was collected into huge piles exposed to the elements, including the most problematic element: rain. As a result, radioactive uranium was liberated and leeched down into the ground, eventually infiltrating the drinking water aquifer, with serious repercussions.
The following story is meant to illustrate the disregard of the nuclear industry to the people of Milan, and hints at the adoption of unscrupulous business ethics. According to Chris Shuey of the Southwest Research and Information Center, a New Mexico based research and education group, the effects of mill tailings were known by uranium companies vis-à-vis studies conducted by the federal government decades earlier. These studies concluded that exposure to uranium and its half-life constituents could cause numerous health effects to anyone ingesting or inhaling these toxins. Thus, he argues that uranium companies actively chose to ignore these studies in order to tell communities that mill tailings would not endanger the public. In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the federal regulating body that was supposed to monitor the activities of the uranium mills, passed policies that classified mill tailings as “by-products”. This categorization established these “by-products” as part of the natural environment, and as such, did not require regulation or monitoring. Thus, the NRC effectively ignored its responsibilities to protect the community and the environment.
Uranium Resources Incorporated (URI), the company responsible for the mill tailings, had previously stated that leeched toxins were not going to reach the main drinking aquifer of the town. Unfortunately, the toxins infiltrated and the aquifer became contaminated. In addition, data from monitoring wells surrounding the tailings pile, as well as others farther away, concluded that toxins were spreading towards the town. When uranium was detected by the farthest monitoring wells from the tailing pile, URI concluded that the spread of toxins in the drinking water aquifer had ceased. This interpretation stems from poor business ethics, the manipulation of science, and illustrates the URI's attitude towards the people of this community. The situation was even more perverted in that this company was self-regulating itself using company monitoring wells. When there were no more wells “downstream” to test, instead of drilling more monitoring wells or checking other available wells in the area, the company simply chose the more cost-efficient, and less responsible, interpretation of the data that had been collected. Later, at the request of the residents, the EPA tested residential wells in town and found that uranium had indeed migrated, and that the well water was unsafe for consumption.
In an attempt to curb the spread of contamination, URI set up pumps that shot contaminated ground water into the air and into an evaporation pond in an attempt to reduce the amount of uranium infiltrating the drinking water aquifer. URI claims that the sprayed toxins remain in the water when sprayed, and that once the pond evaporates, contaminants will be sequestered on the surface. But what if the sprayed contaminated water does land where it is supposed to? Water is able to form small droplets that can float in the air column (think about the mist around Niagara Falls, or driving through fog). It is not unreasonable to think that dissolved uranium would be able to travel in these droplets. According to Candace Headylla and Milton Headylla, a daughter-father activist duo living in the shadow of the tailings piles, the winds in the area push the contaminated mist towards residents’ homes. Although not recognized by URI, the effects of both contaminated drinking water and the mist are rampant in the town.
According to Ms. Headylla, there is a very high incidence of cancer in households downwind and “downstream” from the tailings pile, where over the past thirty years many residents have died from living in these conditions. While driving through her neighborhood, Candace pointed out various homes whose residents have either died or are suffering from cancer. Linda Evers, neighbor to Ms. Headylla and a woman fighting for her health and family, has had several miscarriages, a degenerative bone disease, one child born without a hip, and another with stomach deformities. Ms. Headylla herself had thyroid cancer, which was subsequently removed. Milton Headylla, her father, has problems with the valves in his heart, which would require a complex procedure not covered by his health insurance to correct.
In light of this, proponents of the uranium mining industry still argue that companies are operating on a cost-benefit model, where the cost of moving the tailings pile to a lined enclosure - which would subsequently prevent more uranium from leeching into groundwater -is greater than the benefits of curbing future health effects produced from ingestion or inhalation of uranium. In addition, the uranium obtained from milling is supposedly supporting a cleaner environmental footprint by promoting the use of nuclear power. I propose that we look at the economic footprint of these activities. If we factor into the cost-benefit model the enormous cost of environmental restoration, health costs of both mill workers and affected community members, lost wages to persons on disability, reduced property values, and the possibility of Milan becoming a ghost town, it would appear that these indirect costs would greatly outweigh the cost of moving the tailings pile. From a more humane standpoint, the cost of a human life or living with a debilitating disease such as cancer far outweighs the economic investment it would take to relocate the tailings pile. Now, because of the extent to which toxins have infiltrated, the cost of restoring the affected land and water would cost 9 billion dollars, according to an EPA figure cited by Ms. Headylla.
Recently, URI proposed a budget of 15 million dollars for the restoration of the community’s drinking water; miniscule compared to the EPA’s 9 billion dollar estimate. According to Chris Shuey, this financial donation is for risk mitigation and not environmental restoration, and reflects the company’s litigation concerns rather than the health of the town’s people and the environment. By offering a settlement of 15 million, the company has grounds to say it had made an “appropriate” offer to the town. Whether this meager settlement is accepted or not, the act of offering would relieve the company of its financial and environmental responsibilities. The result: URI will have extracted profitable uranium and left the relatively poor community to cope with the consequences of the company’s activities without major legal or financial repercussions.
There are some who believe we should not stand in the way of the nuclear industry, even if companies are conducting themselves in a questionable manner. The NRC states that although it has jurisdiction, it will not stand in the way of nuclear progress by enforcing policies that could possibly hinder the extraction of uranium by mills. Furthermore, the market for uranium is predicted to grow as the United States looks towards nuclear energy as an option to meet increasing energy demands. John Indall, a lawyer who represents uranium mining and milling companies and the Uranium Producers of America, argued that the benefit of milling lies in the creation of jobs in predominantly poor communities. In response to environmental policy and health concerns, he states that these companies function according to industry standards and comply with the federal regulations laid out by the NRC. With the partnership between the uranium industry and the federal government unlikely to change in the near future, small communities with little political or economic influence will continue to struggle with the federally supported, unscrupulous actions of the uranium industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment