Mike Bowen's Nov. 8 commentary, "Uranium mining study is based on wrong data," is inaccurate and misleading in three important ways.

First, the Arrowhead report that Mr. Bowen touts as nonbiased is actually based on assumptions provided by the Uranium Producers of New Mexico. The authors of that study have publicly conceded that they did not question the assumptions they
were given.

One of those assumptions is that worker productivity from the 1970s — when uranium mining was not highly automated or computerized — has not changed and will not change for the next 30 years. Another assumption is that every pound of uranium in New Mexico will be recovered, even though at least 150 million pounds of that uranium lie beneath the Navajo Nation, which outlawed uranium mining and processing in 2005. Further, the Arrowhead report draws some truly incredible conclusions, for example, that the uranium industry will bring 250,000 new jobs to New Mexico — a number that is about a quarter of the current total workforce in the state.

Second, the industry report does not account for the substantial costs of uranium mining. While some aspects of the uranium mining industry have changed since the last "boom" ended in the 1980s, it is still fundamentally a heavily polluting and dangerous industry. For example, in situ leach or ISL mining, which is hailed as the most "environmentally benign" form of uranium mining by the industry, involves intentionally polluting groundwater, much of which could be used as drinking water, to flush out uranium.

In the history of ISL mining in America, not a single operator has been able to clean up an aquifer where mining has occurred to pre-mining conditions. Additionally, spills and leaks of radioactive and toxic pollutants are still commonplace in the industry.

In March, 2008, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality levied a fine against Power Resources, Inc. of $1 million for violating state environmental laws for years, including failure to implement groundwater restoration in a timely manner and for radioactive spills.

Finally, in September, 2008, a report found that in Texas, when ISL operations failed to restore groundwater, state regulators almost invariably relaxed restoration standards. This pattern of behavior seems very similar to how the industry operated in the last uranium boom.

Finally, Mr. Bowen's assertion that each mine or mill project in New Mexico will be required to produce an environmental impact statement is patently false. Only projects that require federal approval or involve federal money are required to have EISs. So, open-pit and shaft uranium mines, which are the most polluting, will not require an EIS because they are not regulated by the federal government.

Further, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has just issued a draft generic environmental impact statement that will have the effect of limiting the site-specific environmental analyses required for future ISL mines in New Mexico.

This effort was fully supported by uranium mining companies hoping to do business in New Mexico, and their trade associations.

New Mexicans are still living with the consequences of the last uranium boom. The communities faced with new uranium mining must at least be given the courtesy of complete and accurate information before allowing uranium mining in their communities again.

When communities get the whole picture of the industry, it is clear that uranium mining is a bad bet for New Mexico's economy and environment.

More information can be found on the Web site at www.nmenvirolaw.org.

Eric Jantz is a staff attorney at the
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
based in Santa Fe.