Transportation of Uranium: Proposed Policy Analysis

Framework

http://nap.entclub.org

Client: Forgotten People/Navajo Nation

Robert Sabie Jr.

Huxley College of the Environment, Western Washington University
Environmental Policy Analysis 463
Final Submission: March 15th, 2011
Submitted to Navajo Nation: 6/24/2011

1
Client:

The Forgotten People is a non-profit community based organization dedicated to

improve the well-being of the Dine people who live on the Navajo Nation in Arizona

(Forgotten People 2011). The organization is involved in the avocation of safe drinking water,

campaigns against uranium mining, campaigns against coal mining, and helping the Navajo

people obtain comfort in shelter by building and repairing homes. The Navajo Nation has

approximately 270,000 citizens and covers a land area slightly bigger than West Virginia in the

Four Corners region of the Southwest United States. The interest of the Forgotten

People/Navajo Nation with this proposal is to assure that there is no additional suffrage placed

upon the Navajo people. This proposal outlines a framework which could be used to assess

policy alternatives for the transportation of uranium across the Navajo Nation.

Background:

The global demand to reduce coal energy use has increased the demand of uranium to

fuel nuclear power plants. The southwestern United States, in and around the Navajo Nation,

has most of the countrys known uranium deposits (EPA 2010). Although the Navajo banned

uranium mining in 2005, uranium mining still takes place along the periphery of the Navajo

Nation, thus requiring transportation of uranium ore through the Navajo Nation on highways to

a refinery in Blanding, Utah. Analysts estimate upwards of 350 tons of uranium per day are

expected to travel more than 300 miles from the mines in Arizona to the refinery in Blanding

(Benally 2010). Great concern exists regarding the potential hazards from transportation

activities across Navajo Nation. Because of the already quantified adverse health effects of the

Navajo Nations uranium paradigm, great care should precede any further potential exposure.

2
Currently, there is inadequate protection against potential exposure to uranium ore being

transported across Navajo lands.

For more than a century the Navajo tribe has been faced with paradoxical choices. In

1862 American General Carleton told the tribe that the only way they could achieve peace was

to leave their country (Brown 1970). Because the American Army cut off their food-supply

outnumbered them, and because the Navajo ultimately desired peace, they were left with little

choice but to leave. More than 100 years later the Navajo are still faced with choices that are

analogous to early interaction with the American government.

Philosophical differences exist between US environmental laws and Navajo cultural

laws. US laws try to impose Western society values that fail to recognize traditional Native

knowledge and values (Milholland 2010). For instance, the four mountains surrounding the

Navajo Nation are more than just geological feature. The mountains are considered sacred,

the foundation of our Hogan and our life (Milholland 2010). In US policy, to protect sacred

lands, a narrow definition is given to the term sacred, that does not translate over to the

Navajo description of sacred. Milholland suggests that a more accurate description of sacred,

quoting (Beck 1977), as something special, something out of the ordinary, and often it

concerns a very personal part of each one of us because it describes our dreams, our changing,

and our personal way of seeing the world. By placing Western society laws solely based on

science, even if those laws are meant for environmental protection, the US marginalizes tribal

sovereignty.

3
 The philosophical differences and paradoxical choices have led the Navajo down the

road to environmental injustice. The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines

Environmental Justice as:

the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies it will be achieved
when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health
hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment
in which to live, learn, and work.

Environmental justice has certainly not been achieved on the Navajo Nation. The Navajo

workers in the uranium industry were not warned against radiation hazards that were known

(Charley et al 2004). Because the Navajo language lacked words for many common industry

terms, such as radiation and radon gas, and the culture disallowed discussion of the deceased,

industry and government were able to take full advantage of the Navajo people. This theme

will be seen throughout this proposal and will be weighed heavily in the policy analysis

framework.

Health Concerns:

Uranium has been an important ore for the use in nuclear weapons and energy. A

majority of the uranium mined in the United States came from the southwestern part of the

country (Brugge et al 2007). Much of the current situation surrounding the Navajo Nation can

trace its roots to the middle 1800s when American General Carleton stated about the Navajo

land, a magnificent pastoral and mineral country (Brown 1970). Beginning in 1948, when the

Atomic Energy Commission guaranteed a price for uranium ore mined in the United States, the

four corners area of the United States experienced a mining boom. The job drought welcomed

4
the uranium mining industry because for the Navajo, this was an opportunity to connect with

the US economy (Brugge 2002). Of the approximately 10,000 workers employed in the mines,

25% were Navajo. Estimation suggests that between 500 and 600 lung cancer deaths total, of

former uranium miners, occurred from exposure to radon gas (Archer 1990). Aside from the

elevated cases of cancer in miners, the Navajo Nation as a whole suffers from kidney cancer

rates three times the national average (Forgotten People 2011). Female reproduction organ

cancers in teenagers are 17 times more than the national average. Richard M. Auld, a doctor

assigned to the Indian Health Service clinic in Shiprock, New Mexico found in 1982 that stomach

cancers were fifteen times higher than the national average in areas close uranium mines and

deposits (Pasternak 2010). Although several examples have been quantified the full extent of

health effects by uranium exposure is still being investigated

Mine Performance Concerns:

Because regulations have changed it is fair to ask, how is the uranium industry in

Arizona currently addressing safety concerns? Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ) approved the permits for Denison Mines to reopen their Arizona #1 uranium mine in

2009. The ADEQ did not perform a first inspection until nearly nine months after the mine

reopened (Cole 2011). Upon first ground level only inspection, ADEQ found four major

violations: 1.) No pumps in the mine to eliminate any water there, 2.) No permeability test of

the rock in the mine, 3,) A pipe protruding through a lined pond that is intended to prevent

groundwater contamination, 4.) The plans for the mine didnt match with the actual layout of

the mine (Cole 2011). Other concerning troubles exist including an old lining over a pond

5
designed to protect groundwater that had, as observed by ADEQ, patches lifting up on ends.

(Cole 2011). The mine is essentially self-regulating because there is too little oversight to

perform inspections. The cost to the US EPA for inspecting all of the former mines is about $12

million year (Diep 2010). There should be even more concern over mining regulation as the

funding for inspection continues to erode. The seriousness of responsibility is lacking within the

mining industry. The lack of serious concern stems from the lack of accountability for the social

cost involved. The mining corporations are not considering the social costs of uranium and

uranium byproducts.

Market Failure:

A market failure exists when the social cost of producing a good is not minimized. The

costs that are placed on society are externalities. The Navajo Nation has been unequivocally

receiving the social cost of uranium mining for the past several decades. A summary of

Pasternak (2010) would provide evidence that the groundwater has been polluted, there is

radon gas that causes cancer, land that is sacred has been blighted by mining operations and

biological effects exist that are not yet fully understood. The estimated 14 years it will take the

EPA to clean up the former Northeast Church Rock Mine in New Mexico illustrates how the

social cost to citizens was not minimized (Diep 2010). If one multiplied the money and

resources used in the Church Rock cleanup by the estimated 1300 other abandon mines around

the Navajo Nation, it would appear that the social cost of uranium mining is quite high.

6
Transportation Concerns:

Transporting uranium across Navajo lands is a disaster waiting to happen. Arizona ranks

in the top 15 states for highest highway fatal accidents (AZDOT 2008). Estimates of 50 uranium

transporting trucks per day trips per day will be traveling through the Navajo Nation

(Monestersky 2011). Concerns exist about the risk of uranium dust coming off the transport

trucks. This dust could end up breaking down into the cancer causing radon gas. This dust

could end up in the drinking water, thus polluting both plants and mammals. Another concern

about the transportation is the high frequency of accidents on the only available routes to

Blanding, Utah. Any contaminates that come off the trucks will most likely end up in the Grand

Canyon National Park Watershed. Because the watershed was designated by the Obama

administration as protected, interest groups are already aligning against ADEQ for issuing the

initial mining permits.

Stakeholders:

Navajo Nation Citizens of Page

Forgotten People Citizens of Blanding
EPA Uranium Transportation Companies
AZ Dept. of Environmental Quality AZDOT
Denison Mines Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Citizens of Flagstaff DOE

Note: This analysis recognizes that uranium mining can produce secondary service jobs,
but will only consider those jobs involved in the fundamental production and transportation of
uranium as stakeholders.

7
Approach:

To provide a framework for this analysis I am approaching the issue from multiples

directions. First, although I am approaching this analysis taking into consideration all

stakeholders, I must weight my analysis towards the perceived desires of The Forgotten People

and the Navajo Nation. Second, there is a personal bias of my view of democracy. While I

recognize the importance of both technocrats and interest groups in policy creation, I believe

that the ultimate power should lies in the hands of citizens. The outcome of this analysis will

inform stakeholders as to the importance of desired outcomes. The most important criteria for

my analysis will be based on cultural importance. Milholland (2010) points out that US policy

does not always work well with Native American culture because it destroys the sovereignty

and values. In order for a policy to work, it must include a heavy weighted cultural attribute.

Quantification, or the positivist approach, of risk assessment is an acceptable approach because

there is a vast body of scientific knowledge on uranium. The scientific data includes

epidemiological studies, toxicity studies and numerous lab studies. The quantitative approach

will help determine what, where and how much risk exists. A benefit-cost analysis, including

social cost, should be performed.

Policy Alternatives and Criteria:

Alternatives: Establish a Dynamic

No action Hazardous Response
Complete Ban on Uranium Program
Transport Criteria:
Reroute Uranium Justice
Transportation Sovereignty
Ecology/health

8
 The Navajo Nation requires a policy to address the issue of further potential uranium

exposure. While many stakeholders could argue individual inconveniences, few would argue

that the Navajo have been served justice. Certainly, state and national policy makers need to

consider Executive Order 12898 that states: each Federal agency shall make achieving

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United

States.. The issuance of the initial mining permits appears to disregard the executive order,

but that is not under analysis.

This section will explain each alternative and how they were judged based on the four

criteria. Before applying the criteria to each alternative, this section will explain the importance

of each criterion.

Justice:

Many definitions for justice exist. The definition that is used for this analysis is from the

World English Dictionary that explains justice as the principle of fairness that like cases should

be treated alike, a particular distribution of benefits and burdens fairly in accordance with a

particular conception of what are to count as like cases. Justice is the most important criteria

for this analysis because, as shown throughout history, justice has not been served to the

Navajo people. Environmental justice, in particular, shows saliency in context to uranium

transportation across Navajo lands. In order to understand the sophisticated inequalities that

9
create environmental injustice, one must look at the history of how the hazard was created,

look at the complex role stakeholders play, examine the social inequalities created, and the

power of the people facing the hazard to change the outcome of their situation (Pellow 2004).

The examples presented in the background section and countless others paint a clear,

resonating picture of the injustice of uranium exposure to the Navajo people and support my

decision for selecting justice as most important criterion.

Sovereignty:

The term sovereignty is used to describe the independent authority over a geographic

area. The issue of sovereignty has been consistently salient with tribes since the United States

Government passed the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934. The first test of sovereignty

has already begun when Joe Shirley, President of the Navajo Nation, signed the Din Natural

Resources Protection Act of 2005, thus banning uranium mining (Cooley 2006). If the

moratorium on uranium mining persists, an important precedent would be set designating the

power to protect its own land to the Navajo (Cooley 2006). The Navajo Nation should be

allowed to exercise their influence on activities on their land, especially when considering the

direct effects of additional uranium exposure to its people by way of transportation of ore on

highways through the Navajo Nation.

Ecology/Health:

The health effects of uranium exposure have only been briefly addressed in one of the

above sections. An assurance from the mining companies that the transport trucks and

contents presents little health or environmental risk is not enough. These misguidances echo

former mining companies statements. In a statement given to the Committee on House

10
Oversight and Government Reform Edith Hood recalls, They told us it is ``low grade``, that

most of the uranium has been extracted from it. This stuff is spread by wind and water. We

breathe it and live with it every day (Hood 2007). With an estimation of between 500 and 600

miners dying of lung cancer associated with radon gas exposure, the use of health as a criterion

is expressively important (Brugge 2002). Environmental health and ecological effects should

also be considered. Uranium ore and tailings produce radon gas which can poison people and

wildlife. Groundwater contamination from a potential spill or by uranium falling off improperly

secured transportation methods is addressed with this criterion. An analysis of the hydrology

along the transportation routes needs to be fully examined and consider the federal laws of the

Safe Drinking Water Act.

No Action:

The least desirable outcome is for no action to be taken. Denison Corporation would

continue to mine uranium just outside of the Navajo Nation and use State Highways that run

through to transport the uranium ore. This outcome would force continued injustice by way of

continued exposure to uranium and would be a disregard, by the U.S. legislature, of both

Executive Order 12898 and the Civil Rights Act. No action also disregards Navajo sovereignty by

not respecting the desire to eliminate further exposure to uranium. There would be continued

potential ore hauling trucks to be involved in an accident that the emergency planning system is

not adequately prepared to respond to. There would be continued human and ecological

health risks. Although this option is least desirable by the Navajo, other stakeholders would be

content with this outcome. The political viability of this option would fare better for

stakeholders interested in economic gains from uranium mining.

11
Total Ban on Uranium Transport:

A total ban on uranium transport through Navajo lands is the most desirable outcome

for the Navajo Nation. This would begin to serve the former lack of justice received by the

Navajo people over the past several decades of uranium mining. This alternative would respect

the Nations sovereignty by allowing it to set separate rules aside from those imposed by the

U.S. government. A transportation ban in combination with the ban of uranium mining would

set the stage for recovery of the lands. There would be no additional human or ecological

health risks for the Navajo. Taking into consideration the potential resistance from other

stakeholders, this alternative may be the hardest to pass.

Reroute Transportation of Uranium:

The Southwest region of the United States is scattered with canyons, mountains and

rough terrain. There are not many highway options leading from the mines up to Blanding,

Utah. Justice would be accomplished for the Navajo Nation, but there would likely be others

affected by a new route. A reroute would respect the sovereignty of the Navajo Nation.

Ecology and health would be improved within the Navajo Nation, but the damage done to the

environment from new construction of routes or ecological damages elsewhere lowers this

criterias score. Land use laws, private property rights and resistance from communities cause

this alternative to have a low political viability.

Establish a Dynamic Hazardous Response Program:

This alternative is the better than nothing option. Justice is not served because the

Navajo people would still be exposed to uranium. While the other two alternatives are based

12
on prevention, this alternative is about clean up. The idea of having a dynamic hazardous

response program assumes that there will be a spill. While having a response program in place

is better than not, eliminating the threat altogether is most desirable. This alternative does not

respect the Navajo Nations sovereignty because their desired policy is to eradicate any residual

uranium mining activity including transporting uranium ore across the Navajo lands. This

alternative also is low ecology and health because a spill would contaminate the ecosystem and

potentially harm humans. There is no guarantee that the response program will eliminate all

risks associated with uranium transportation. The political viability of this alternative scores

higher than the others. For stakeholders involved in the mining industry and politicians that

gain support from the mining interest groups, this option would be the most feasible. As long

as the market desires uranium, paying for the ability mine and transport uranium by way of a

dynamic hazardous response impact fee would appease the mining industry more than a halt in

production until a new route is designated.

Analysis Methods

From my proposed policy analysis perspective I make transparent that my alternatives

have the potential of being ethnocentric and should be subjected to criticism by my clients. To

understand the complexity of social issues underlying the transportation of uranium and the

potential implications of a complete ban a carefully designed survey should be designed and

presented to not only the Navajo Community, but other stakeholders involved. The survey

should include questions that illustrate respondents: understanding of risks to those involved in

uranium transportation, understanding of the history of uranium mining, understanding of

13
social vulnerability, and level of interest in uranium transportation. The survey will be clear and

simple, avoid bias in wording, produce informed responses, and produce useful statistics

(Clemons 2009).

Civic engagement on the part of the Navajo people will support the effort to establish a

policy that encompasses justice, sovereignty, heath, and political viability. Similar to what

already is being done through nonprofit groups like the Forgotten People, the Navajo should

continue establishing focus groups in their communities to examine the presented alternatives

and potentially raise new alternatives.

A benefit-cost analysis should be performed to assess the cost of cleaning up a spill,

establishing an intensive emergency response program, rerouting the transportation, and

banning the transportation all together. By using this analysis, the true costs of uranium mining

and transportation will be shown.

The Navajo Nation is already blighted with thousands of abandon uranium mines that

contaminate the air and water. Projects have already begun that map these locations. A

continuance of this mapping project should attempt to locate all uranium contamination, level

of contamination, proximity to population densities, location to water resources and location to

roads. By aggregating this information, policy makers will have a strong visual aid in realizing

potential impacts of uranium transportation through the Navajo Nation.

14
Analysis Recommendations

Without a full analysis the outcome of a policy regarding uranium transportation across

Navajo lands will certainly be different and more complex than this initial prescription. The

assumptions that are being made to complete this forecasted analysis include that the large-

majority of the Navajo people are well informed of the injustice that has been served by both

the mining companies and the United States government. The health effects of radon gas

exposure and the contamination of drinking water will be assumed knowledge of the Navajo

people. More research needs to be performed to establish an accurate cleanup cost of a

uranium truck accident, although it is known that the federal government has used billions of

taxpayer dollars in abandon uranium mine remediation (GAO 1996). For the purposes of this

forecast, it will be assumed that a proper cleanup will be $50 million, based on a fraction of the

$1 billion that Colorado State taxpayers have paid for site remediation (Colorado

Environmental Coalition 2010). The cumulative effects of uranium ore have not been assessed

and would be hard to assign an appropriate external cost value to be used in a benefit-cost

analysis.

Through the forecasted analysis each criterion was weighted by importance to the

analysis. Each criterion was examined on a four point scale for each of the four alternatives, 4

being most desirable and 1 being least and then multiplied by the weight of the respective

criterion. After examining the policy alternatives through the lens of the Navajo Nation and the

Forgotten People, my recommended policy alternative is a Total Ban on Uranium Transport

through Navajo Lands. To achieve justice, sovereignty and protection of health, which are the

15
three most important criteria in this analysis, banning uranium transportation is the best

alternative. Anything less than a complete ban on uranium activities, as set into Navajo Law

under the 2005 Din Natural Resources Protection Act, within the Navajo Nation would be a

compromise of health, sovereignty and most of all a compromise of justice.

Establish
Total Ban on Reroute Dynamic
Criteria No Action Uranium transportation Hazardous
Transport of Uranium Response
Program

Justice (4) 1 (4) 4 (16) 3 (12) 2 (8)

Soveriengty
1 (12) 4 (12) 3 (9) 2 (6)
(3)

Ecology (2) 1 (2) 4 (8) 2 (4) 2 (4)

Total Score 18 36 25 18
Goeller Scorecard referenced from Clemons 2009

16
 References:

Archer, V.E. 1990. Hearings Before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
101 Congress, 2nd Session.

AZDOT. 2008. Arizona Multimodal Freight Analysis Study. Technical Memorandum #2

Assessment of Arizona's Existing Freight Infrastructure. February, 2008.

Benally, Klee. 2010. Uranium Mining Begins near Grand Canyon. Indigenous Action Media
Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010. Website: http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2010/02/76467.php
Accessed: March 2nd, 2010

Brown, Dee. 1970. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West.
Holt Paperbacks. New York.

Brugge, Doug and Goble, Rob. 2002. The History of Uranium Mining and the Navajo People.
American Journal of Public Health. September 2002, Vol. 92, No. 9.

Brugge, Doug. deLemos, Jamie. Bui, Cat. 2007. The Sequoyah Corporation Fuels release and
the Church Rock Spill: Unpublicized Nuclear Release in American Indiana Communities.
American Journal of Public Health. September 2007, Vol. 97, No. 9.

Clemons, Randy S. and McBeth, Mark K. 2009. Public Policy Praxis: A Case Approach for
Understanding Policy and Analysis. Pearson Education. New York.

Charley, Perry H., Dawson, Susan E., Madsen, Gary E., Spykerman, Bryan R. 2004. Navajo
Uranium Education Programs: The Search for Environmental Justice. Applied Environmental
Education and Communications. 3, no. 2: 101-108.

Cole, Cindy. 2011. Mining on the Honor System. Arizona Daily Sun. January 16 th, 2011.

Cooley, Bradford D. 2006. The Navajo Uranium Ban: Tribal Sovereignty v. National Energy
Demands. Journal of Land , Resources & Environmental Law. Vol. 26, Issue 2.

17
Diep, Francie. 2010. An Overwhelming Problem in the Navajo Nation: A look at one
uranium mine shows how difficult it will be to clean up the reservations hundreds of
abandoned Cold War-era mines. Scienceline. December 30, 2010. Website:
http://scienceline.org/2010/12/an-%E2%80%9Coverwhelming-problem%E2%80%9D-in-the-
navajo-nation/ Accessed: February 6th, 2010.

EPA. 2010. Addressing Uranium Contamination in the Navajo Nation. Website:

http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/navajo-nation/ Accessed: March 2, 2011.

Forgotten People. 2011. Uranium Transport Ban Amendment to the Din Resources
Protection Act of 2005 amending Title 18 of the Navajo Nation Code White Paper. January 5th,
2011.

Forgotten People. 2011. Website: www.forgottennavajopeople.org Accessed: April 2nd, 2011.

General Accounting Office. 1996. DOE Cleanup: Status and Future Costs of Uranium Mill
Tailings Program. Website: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/rc96167t.pdf Accessed March
15th, 2011.

Hood, Edith. 2007 Environmental and Health Impact of Uranium Mining on Navajo Lands.
FDCH Congressional Testimony, 10/23/2007.

Monestersky, Marsha. 2011. Email communication

Milholland, Sharon. 2010. In the Eyes o the Beholder: Understanding and Resolving
Incompatible Ideologies and Languages in Us Environmental and Cultural Laws in Relationship
to Navajo Sacred Lands. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 2010, 34:2.

Pasternak, Judy. 2010. Yellow Dirt: An American Story of a Poisoned Land and a People
Betrayed. Free Press. New York.

Pellow, David N. 2004. The Politics of illegal Dumping: An Environmental Justice Framework.
Qualitative Sociology. Vol. 27, No. 4.

18