(From the Danville Register-Bee 01/29/08)
Here are my questions
To the editor:
Last week an advertisement ran in several newspapers entitled, “II. Virginia Uranium Inc. Questions We’ve Been Hearing.” It was the second full-page ad run by Walter Coles Sr.No doubt, we’ll see ads III, IV and so on.
Perhaps, in his next ad, Coles can answer some questions I’ve been hearing. Specifically:
-- What are the differences between Virginia Uranium Inc. (Virginia), Virginia Uranium Ltd. (Yukon), Virginia Uranium Inc. (Yukon), Holdco, Landco and Southside Cattle Co.?
-- Ron Netolitzky is president and CEO of the Canadian company Santoy, as well as a director on the Holdco and Virginia Uranium Inc. boards. Norm Reynolds is an advisory board member of Santoy, as well as the CEO and president of Virginia Uranium Inc. Is there a joint venture between Santoy and Holdco?
-- A January 1985 Marline Corp. letter from Land Manager Mark Fetzer states, “I know that Marline holds leases with over 300 families in Pittsylvania County.” Does VUI or any related company hold mineral leases for areas other than Coles Hill - in Pittsylvania County or elsewhere in Virginia?
-- I’ve seen VUI information which states that “Holdco will commence a regional exploration and acquisition program to target and acquire both new and historic uranium prospects in Pittsylvania County, Va.” Is VUI or any related company planning to mine areas other than Coles Hill if the moratorium on uranium mining is lifted?
-- Do you think others, perhaps Canadians, French or Australians, will be encouraged to seek uranium opportunities in Virginia or other east coast states if the uranium ban is lifted and VUI is allowed to mine in Virginia?
-- Recently, I have read, in a document prepared for VUI, “Holdco does not currently carry any form of insurance for environmental risks (including potential liability for pollution or other hazards as a result of the disposal of waste products occurring from exploration and production).” Who is responsible for pollution and other hazards that result from the disposal of waste produced during exploratory drilling?
-- The Pittsylvania County Waste Ordinance, Chapter 29, outlines the procedure for approval for waste management activities. Did Pittsylvania County exempt VUI from the Waste Ordinance? If so, why?
-- If there is contamination present when VUI tests water from exploratory drilling, where and how does VUI dispose of the water?
KAREN B. MAUTE
Mount Cross
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Radiation from Tailings Will Escape Site-Dunavant
(From Media General News Service 01/29/2008)
Uranium study plan revised
By RAY REED
Media General News Service
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
RICHMOND - A revised plan for studying whether uranium can be mined safely in Virginia surfaced in the General Assembly Monday, driven by an environmental group’s warning that the search for an answer should start with an unbiased review by scientists.
A Senate committee sent the new proposal from Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, to a special subcommittee for a closer look. Most legislators and speakers saw it for the first time Monday morning.
Three people spoke in favor of the study and 11 opposed it during the hearing before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources. The study would focus on a huge uranium deposit, worth up to $10 billion, in Pittsylvania County.
Among the supporters was Coy Harville, chairman of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors. Several audience members opposed the bill, with more than a dozen of them from Pittsylvania and Halifax counties wearing green-and-yellow caps of Southside Concerned Citizens.
The revised bill from Wagner seemed to put the National Academy of Sciences near the forefront, and ahead of legislators and business interests, in analyzing new mining methods and how they might apply to the Pittsylvania County site about six miles north of Chatham.
Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville, was the first committee member to question Wagner. Deeds said he was an attorney in Danville in 1984 when an uproar about the Pittsylvania County deposit led to a statewide ban on uranium mining that is still in effect.
“What has changed about the ground or science to make us believe the result will be different this time?” Deeds asked.
Wagner replied, “We have made leaps and bounds in environmental science.” No one knows if those advances will make mining safe, he said, “but that’s why we want to have a study.”
“We’re not saying, ‘do it,’” Wagner said of mining. “We’re saying, ‘let’s look at the state of the art.’”
Virginia Uranium Inc., which is proposing the study and says it will pay for it, has said the likely method of mining would be an open pit where ore would be extracted and the milled dirt, or tailings, returned to the hole.
Jack Dunavant, chairman of Southside Concerned Citizens and owner of an earth-moving business, told the senators that if open-pit mining begins, “there is no way to confine radiation from the tailings pile to the site.”
Wind and water erosion will carry material into the Banister River where it can travel downstream to Albemarle Sound in North Carolina and affect Virginia Beach’s water supply along the way, Dunavant and other opponents said.
The tailings pile from a pit 600 feet deep would stretch 14 miles, Dunavant said.
The Wagner bill’s new assurance regarding the National Academy of Sciences wasn’t strong enough, said Cale Jaffe, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville.
Jaffe said he had talked with Wagner about the SELC’s problems with the original bill, which made the National Academy study an optional choice by a study commission composed of legislators and gubernatorial appointees.
“Our core concern is still not addressed,” Jaffe said, because Wagner’s new bill would allow the National Academy “or other entity” to conduct the research. Jaffe urged that the legislation specify that the National Academy do the study, and if it could not perform the work, the Legislature could then look for other experts.
The National Academy issue will be among the points the subcommittee will examine. Sen. Roscoe Reynolds, D-Henry County, was appointed head of the subcommittee. Its other members are Sen. Frank Ruff, R-Clarksville; Sen. John C. Watkins, R-Midlothian; Sen. J. Chapman Petersen, D-Fairfax; and Sen. Ryan McDougle, R-Mechanicsville.
Ray Reed is a staff writer for The News & Advance in Lynchburg
Uranium study plan revised
By RAY REED
Media General News Service
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
RICHMOND - A revised plan for studying whether uranium can be mined safely in Virginia surfaced in the General Assembly Monday, driven by an environmental group’s warning that the search for an answer should start with an unbiased review by scientists.
A Senate committee sent the new proposal from Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, to a special subcommittee for a closer look. Most legislators and speakers saw it for the first time Monday morning.
Three people spoke in favor of the study and 11 opposed it during the hearing before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources. The study would focus on a huge uranium deposit, worth up to $10 billion, in Pittsylvania County.
Among the supporters was Coy Harville, chairman of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors. Several audience members opposed the bill, with more than a dozen of them from Pittsylvania and Halifax counties wearing green-and-yellow caps of Southside Concerned Citizens.
The revised bill from Wagner seemed to put the National Academy of Sciences near the forefront, and ahead of legislators and business interests, in analyzing new mining methods and how they might apply to the Pittsylvania County site about six miles north of Chatham.
Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville, was the first committee member to question Wagner. Deeds said he was an attorney in Danville in 1984 when an uproar about the Pittsylvania County deposit led to a statewide ban on uranium mining that is still in effect.
“What has changed about the ground or science to make us believe the result will be different this time?” Deeds asked.
Wagner replied, “We have made leaps and bounds in environmental science.” No one knows if those advances will make mining safe, he said, “but that’s why we want to have a study.”
“We’re not saying, ‘do it,’” Wagner said of mining. “We’re saying, ‘let’s look at the state of the art.’”
Virginia Uranium Inc., which is proposing the study and says it will pay for it, has said the likely method of mining would be an open pit where ore would be extracted and the milled dirt, or tailings, returned to the hole.
Jack Dunavant, chairman of Southside Concerned Citizens and owner of an earth-moving business, told the senators that if open-pit mining begins, “there is no way to confine radiation from the tailings pile to the site.”
Wind and water erosion will carry material into the Banister River where it can travel downstream to Albemarle Sound in North Carolina and affect Virginia Beach’s water supply along the way, Dunavant and other opponents said.
The tailings pile from a pit 600 feet deep would stretch 14 miles, Dunavant said.
The Wagner bill’s new assurance regarding the National Academy of Sciences wasn’t strong enough, said Cale Jaffe, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville.
Jaffe said he had talked with Wagner about the SELC’s problems with the original bill, which made the National Academy study an optional choice by a study commission composed of legislators and gubernatorial appointees.
“Our core concern is still not addressed,” Jaffe said, because Wagner’s new bill would allow the National Academy “or other entity” to conduct the research. Jaffe urged that the legislation specify that the National Academy do the study, and if it could not perform the work, the Legislature could then look for other experts.
The National Academy issue will be among the points the subcommittee will examine. Sen. Roscoe Reynolds, D-Henry County, was appointed head of the subcommittee. Its other members are Sen. Frank Ruff, R-Clarksville; Sen. John C. Watkins, R-Midlothian; Sen. J. Chapman Petersen, D-Fairfax; and Sen. Ryan McDougle, R-Mechanicsville.
Ray Reed is a staff writer for The News & Advance in Lynchburg
Boy Overwhelms Senate Committee
(From the Gazette-Virginian 01/31/2008)
A Halifax Boy Takes Aim
BY BETH ROBERTSON
G-V MANAGING EDITOR
Eleven-year-old Matthew Epps stepped to the General Assembly’s senate committee’s podium Monday morning and took a country boy’s verbal aim at the target on behalf of his generation’s tomorrows.“I am the future, and not just me,” Epps told legislators.
“If you allow this to happen, it would be like throwing a person’s health down the drain, or worse.”Young Epps was addressing the very serious issue of a proposed uranium mining operation in neighboring Pittsylvania County.
On Monday, Epps had accompanied his grandfather, Southside Concerned Citizens Chairman Jack Dunavant, to the hearing in Richmond.Matthew, who has helped distribute signs and brochures for SCC at Southside meetings, was anxious to speak at previous meetings, but had not.
His premiere at the podium was destined to be the General Assembly. Not bad, sir.His grandfather introduced him, advising the committee he did not know what Matthew had to say. The young man stepped to the microphone and advised legislators that from his studies “things point to it not being safe” to mine the uranium ore.
“And in conclusion, it can’t be done safely,” he said.
Emails were rolling in yesterday.One wrote: “I am the future ..Those are the words that jolted the committee.” Another said: “This is wonderful .... It’s these little children who will suffer the most and the longest! I’m just touched to my soul that this boy was brave enough to talk before a senate committee and say so much in so few words. What a great kid!”
We couldn’t agree more.
A Halifax Boy Takes Aim
BY BETH ROBERTSON
G-V MANAGING EDITOR
Eleven-year-old Matthew Epps stepped to the General Assembly’s senate committee’s podium Monday morning and took a country boy’s verbal aim at the target on behalf of his generation’s tomorrows.“I am the future, and not just me,” Epps told legislators.
“If you allow this to happen, it would be like throwing a person’s health down the drain, or worse.”Young Epps was addressing the very serious issue of a proposed uranium mining operation in neighboring Pittsylvania County.
On Monday, Epps had accompanied his grandfather, Southside Concerned Citizens Chairman Jack Dunavant, to the hearing in Richmond.Matthew, who has helped distribute signs and brochures for SCC at Southside meetings, was anxious to speak at previous meetings, but had not.
His premiere at the podium was destined to be the General Assembly. Not bad, sir.His grandfather introduced him, advising the committee he did not know what Matthew had to say. The young man stepped to the microphone and advised legislators that from his studies “things point to it not being safe” to mine the uranium ore.
“And in conclusion, it can’t be done safely,” he said.
Emails were rolling in yesterday.One wrote: “I am the future ..Those are the words that jolted the committee.” Another said: “This is wonderful .... It’s these little children who will suffer the most and the longest! I’m just touched to my soul that this boy was brave enough to talk before a senate committee and say so much in so few words. What a great kid!”
We couldn’t agree more.
Bill Sent Back to Sub-Committee
(From the Danville Register Bee website 01/28/2008)
Uranium bill gets more study
On the Danville Register and Bee Web site
January 28, 2008
Lynchburg News & Advance
RICHMOND - A bill that proposes a study of uranium mining in Virginia has been overhauled by its sponsor, Senator Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach.
Wagner offered the revised bill this morning to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
The panel named a subcommittee to review the changes, which are focused on making sure the study is impartial and that it would start with an analysis of mining safety by an outside group such as the National Academy of Sciences.
The committee spent more than an hour debating the bill and listening to witnesses who said mining should be studied because of its economic benefits, or who said mining would release radiation into drinking water, cause cancer, and pollute the Southside Virginia environment forever.
Uranium bill gets more study
On the Danville Register and Bee Web site
January 28, 2008
Lynchburg News & Advance
RICHMOND - A bill that proposes a study of uranium mining in Virginia has been overhauled by its sponsor, Senator Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach.
Wagner offered the revised bill this morning to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.
The panel named a subcommittee to review the changes, which are focused on making sure the study is impartial and that it would start with an analysis of mining safety by an outside group such as the National Academy of Sciences.
The committee spent more than an hour debating the bill and listening to witnesses who said mining should be studied because of its economic benefits, or who said mining would release radiation into drinking water, cause cancer, and pollute the Southside Virginia environment forever.
Indians Oppose Multi-National's Mine Expansion Plans
(Following provided by Annette Ayres)
Lakota oppose expansion of uranium operations
Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 23:59.
The proposed 2,100-acre expansion of Canada-based Cameco's Crow Butte Resources uranium mine near Crawford in western Nebraska is meeting opposition from members of the Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Tribe, including proponents of commercial hemp cultivation as en economic alternative for the impoverished Pine Ridge Reservation, which lies just across the South Dakota line.
A panel of three administrative law judges from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have heard arguments concerning whether the Lakota petitioners have standing to contest the mine expansion plan. Leading the opposition are Tom Cook of Chadron, NE, the Slim Buttes Agricultural Development Project, the Western Nebraska Resources Council and the Lakota NGO Owe Aku.
Owe Aku, dedicated to the preservation of the Lakota way on life on the Pine Ridge, fears that the expansion of the Crown Butte leach mine will require too much water, and could endanger water quality on the reservation. Attorney Dave Frankel, representing the opponents, told the NRC that Pine Ridge residents rely on underground water supplies.
Among those who testified against the project were Joe American Horse, a former president of the 0glala Sioux Tribe, and former traditional chief Oliver Red Cloud. American Horse and Cook are leading advocates of industrial hemp cultivation on the Pine Ridge reservation. While federal laws don't distinguish between industrial hemp and illegal marijuana, Oglala Sioux tribal law recognizes hemp as a legal crop. Reservation residents have created bricks, stucco and shingles from hemp to build homes.
Deborah White Plume, who represents Owe Aku in seeking legal standing before the NRC, is, like Cook, a member of American Horse's family. The NRC panel is to announce a decision in the coming months.
Tyson Smith, attorney for Crown Butte Resources, argues that the mine is certified under the International Organization for Standardization's ISO 14001 guidelines, and that adequate safeguards are in place to protect water resources.
. The tribal council also recently passed OST Resolution 07-0154, a resolution prohibiting any uranium operations on the reservation.
The Oglala Band of the Black Hills Sioux Treaty Council has also opposed any mining or exploration within the original boundaries created by the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties, including much what are now the states of South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana. (MineWeb, Jan. 21; Indian Country Today, Jan. 7)
Lakota oppose expansion of uranium operations
Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 23:59.
The proposed 2,100-acre expansion of Canada-based Cameco's Crow Butte Resources uranium mine near Crawford in western Nebraska is meeting opposition from members of the Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Tribe, including proponents of commercial hemp cultivation as en economic alternative for the impoverished Pine Ridge Reservation, which lies just across the South Dakota line.
A panel of three administrative law judges from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have heard arguments concerning whether the Lakota petitioners have standing to contest the mine expansion plan. Leading the opposition are Tom Cook of Chadron, NE, the Slim Buttes Agricultural Development Project, the Western Nebraska Resources Council and the Lakota NGO Owe Aku.
Owe Aku, dedicated to the preservation of the Lakota way on life on the Pine Ridge, fears that the expansion of the Crown Butte leach mine will require too much water, and could endanger water quality on the reservation. Attorney Dave Frankel, representing the opponents, told the NRC that Pine Ridge residents rely on underground water supplies.
Among those who testified against the project were Joe American Horse, a former president of the 0glala Sioux Tribe, and former traditional chief Oliver Red Cloud. American Horse and Cook are leading advocates of industrial hemp cultivation on the Pine Ridge reservation. While federal laws don't distinguish between industrial hemp and illegal marijuana, Oglala Sioux tribal law recognizes hemp as a legal crop. Reservation residents have created bricks, stucco and shingles from hemp to build homes.
Deborah White Plume, who represents Owe Aku in seeking legal standing before the NRC, is, like Cook, a member of American Horse's family. The NRC panel is to announce a decision in the coming months.
Tyson Smith, attorney for Crown Butte Resources, argues that the mine is certified under the International Organization for Standardization's ISO 14001 guidelines, and that adequate safeguards are in place to protect water resources.
. The tribal council also recently passed OST Resolution 07-0154, a resolution prohibiting any uranium operations on the reservation.
The Oglala Band of the Black Hills Sioux Treaty Council has also opposed any mining or exploration within the original boundaries created by the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties, including much what are now the states of South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana. (MineWeb, Jan. 21; Indian Country Today, Jan. 7)
Uranium Incident in Australia
(Following provided by Annette Ayres)
Uranium tailings dumped in plastic bags?
Ruth Ratcliffe, Adelaide
26 January 2008
One of the 60 companies currently holding uranium exploration licenses in South Australia, Marathon Resources, has admitted it’s investigating how 50-60 garbage bags containing what’s thought to be uranium tailings were dumped in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary in the Flinders Ranges.
Doug and Marg Sprigg of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary reported to the January 17 Australian that they called police to the site where Marathon Resources had been drilling after they found the garbage bags buried in about a metre of soil.
Arkaroola is one of the state’s top tourist attractions, however the Spriggs report that already they are seeing a drop in visitor numbers because of the heavy-handed exploration currently underway. “Ninety-five percent of people who sign our comments book are totally against the exploration of uranium in Arkaroola”, Doug Sprigg told the January 19 Adelaide Advertiser.
The South Australian government is also investigating whether Marathon “incorrectly disposed of drill samples in the sanctuary”, according to the January 17 ABC News Online. SA Greens MP Mark Parnell has called for Marathon to be stripped of its exploration licence if it’s found to have contaminated Arkaroola.
The Greens also have a bill before state parliament which would put wilderness sanctuaries off-limits to mining. According to the ABC News article, David Noonan from the Australian Conservation Foundation says the government “must not allow Marathon to continue exploring for uranium in an area where mining should never be allowed”.
Uranium tailings dumped in plastic bags?
Ruth Ratcliffe, Adelaide
26 January 2008
One of the 60 companies currently holding uranium exploration licenses in South Australia, Marathon Resources, has admitted it’s investigating how 50-60 garbage bags containing what’s thought to be uranium tailings were dumped in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary in the Flinders Ranges.
Doug and Marg Sprigg of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary reported to the January 17 Australian that they called police to the site where Marathon Resources had been drilling after they found the garbage bags buried in about a metre of soil.
Arkaroola is one of the state’s top tourist attractions, however the Spriggs report that already they are seeing a drop in visitor numbers because of the heavy-handed exploration currently underway. “Ninety-five percent of people who sign our comments book are totally against the exploration of uranium in Arkaroola”, Doug Sprigg told the January 19 Adelaide Advertiser.
The South Australian government is also investigating whether Marathon “incorrectly disposed of drill samples in the sanctuary”, according to the January 17 ABC News Online. SA Greens MP Mark Parnell has called for Marathon to be stripped of its exploration licence if it’s found to have contaminated Arkaroola.
The Greens also have a bill before state parliament which would put wilderness sanctuaries off-limits to mining. According to the ABC News article, David Noonan from the Australian Conservation Foundation says the government “must not allow Marathon to continue exploring for uranium in an area where mining should never be allowed”.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
In The Beginning, There was....................
THE ROANOKE TIMES !!!!
(Editorial from www.roanoke.com 01/29/2008)
Editorial: Bagging Dillon's rule
The question isn't one of paper or plastic, but state or local control.
A story in Monday's edition, "Paper or plastic? Or neither?" raises the question that stores and customers are asking throughout the country: Which way of toting home groceries causes the least environmental damage?
Municipal leaders across the United States are answering that with ordinances that ban plastic bags. They recognize that not only are valuable fossil fuels consumed to make them, the flimsy bags don't ever seem to disappear.
The bags aren't easily broken down by the elements, and they contribute to roadside litter, cling to trees, strangle shrubbery, and are swept away in streams. At the very least they are an unsightly mess; at their worst, they kill or injure wildlife.
Yet Virginia's local leaders couldn't ban plastic bags even if every one of their constituents stormed their meetings demanding they do so.
Why? The Dillon Rule. Its restrictions forbid local leaders from exercising any power not explicitly given them by the state. This means that unless lawmakers in Richmond specifically say that city council in Roanoke can ban plastic bags, council is powerless to do so.
Micromanaging local affairs will most likely endure in Virginia long after the last plastic bag returns to the earth.
About the best localities can hope for is legislation such as Senate Bill 711 that was introduced by Frederick Quayle, a Republican senator from Suffolk. Quayle proposes allowing any locality that so desires to ban retailers from using plastic bags unless the bags are made of durable plastic, at least 2.25 mils thick and are designed for multiple reuse.
The bill is before the Local Government committee as are others that chip away at the Dillon Rule. Another Quayle bill, for example, would allow localities the option to ban indoor smoking.
Lawmakers could cede a small slice of control to localities and still retain the power to enact statewide bans on both smoking and plastic bags if ever they raised enough affirmative votes.
It's time to end Dillon's oppressive rule over the minutiae of local government. The General Assembly should begin work on a constitutional amendment to grant localities genuine self-governance.
(Editorial from www.roanoke.com 01/29/2008)
Editorial: Bagging Dillon's rule
The question isn't one of paper or plastic, but state or local control.
A story in Monday's edition, "Paper or plastic? Or neither?" raises the question that stores and customers are asking throughout the country: Which way of toting home groceries causes the least environmental damage?
Municipal leaders across the United States are answering that with ordinances that ban plastic bags. They recognize that not only are valuable fossil fuels consumed to make them, the flimsy bags don't ever seem to disappear.
The bags aren't easily broken down by the elements, and they contribute to roadside litter, cling to trees, strangle shrubbery, and are swept away in streams. At the very least they are an unsightly mess; at their worst, they kill or injure wildlife.
Yet Virginia's local leaders couldn't ban plastic bags even if every one of their constituents stormed their meetings demanding they do so.
Why? The Dillon Rule. Its restrictions forbid local leaders from exercising any power not explicitly given them by the state. This means that unless lawmakers in Richmond specifically say that city council in Roanoke can ban plastic bags, council is powerless to do so.
Micromanaging local affairs will most likely endure in Virginia long after the last plastic bag returns to the earth.
About the best localities can hope for is legislation such as Senate Bill 711 that was introduced by Frederick Quayle, a Republican senator from Suffolk. Quayle proposes allowing any locality that so desires to ban retailers from using plastic bags unless the bags are made of durable plastic, at least 2.25 mils thick and are designed for multiple reuse.
The bill is before the Local Government committee as are others that chip away at the Dillon Rule. Another Quayle bill, for example, would allow localities the option to ban indoor smoking.
Lawmakers could cede a small slice of control to localities and still retain the power to enact statewide bans on both smoking and plastic bags if ever they raised enough affirmative votes.
It's time to end Dillon's oppressive rule over the minutiae of local government. The General Assembly should begin work on a constitutional amendment to grant localities genuine self-governance.
Praise to the Roanoke Times for Seeing the Constitutional Issue Involved!!!!!!!
Monday, January 28, 2008
Not in their town
THIS IS THE OPINION OF THE EDITORS OF THE DANVILLE REGISTER & BEE!
Danville Register and Bee
Monday, January 28, 2008
Not in their town
Here’s an idea the folks at Virginia Uranium Inc., its investors and supporters can all get behind: The town of Halifax is considering a “chemical and radioactive bodily trespass” ordinance.
Halifax Town Council will get its first look at the proposed ordinance early next month.
In its current draft form, the ordinance attempts “to hold strictly liable those corporations, persons, and governmental agencies who are culpable for the deposition of toxic and potentially toxic substances in the bodies of residents of the town.”
The proposed ordinance is a reaction to the proposed uranium mine about 25 miles west of the town in Pittsylvania County. In Halifax County, environmental concerns over Virginia Uranium’s long-term plans have put the community on edge.
The proposed ordinance would provide the town of Halifax with a legal framework to punish Virginia Uranium Inc. if the environmental worst-case scenario were to come true and uranium mining spread toxic and radioactive substances over a large swath of Southside Virginia.
“Corporations and persons using corporations to engage in mining in a neighboring municipality, county or state shall be strictly liable for all harms caused to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Town of Halifax from those activities, and for all harms caused to ecosystems and natural communities within the Town of Halifax,” part of the proposed ordinance reads.
Why would Virginia Uranium Inc. want to get behind this?
Because the company’s leaders have repeatedly said they don’t want to mine the 110 million pounds of uranium ore under Pittsylvania County unless it can be done safely. If Halifax has an ordinance making it illegal for Virginia Uranium to poison the town and its people with radiation, and Virginia Uranium won’t mine so much as a pebble if it can’t be done safely, the company should support the town’s proposed ordinance. After all, environmental safety is one of Virginia Uranium’s highest principles, along with “sound economic development and the well being of the community and region.”
That’s why Virginia Uranium should support Halifax’s proposed “chemical and radioactive bodily trespass” ordinance.
Danville Register and Bee
Monday, January 28, 2008
Not in their town
Here’s an idea the folks at Virginia Uranium Inc., its investors and supporters can all get behind: The town of Halifax is considering a “chemical and radioactive bodily trespass” ordinance.
Halifax Town Council will get its first look at the proposed ordinance early next month.
In its current draft form, the ordinance attempts “to hold strictly liable those corporations, persons, and governmental agencies who are culpable for the deposition of toxic and potentially toxic substances in the bodies of residents of the town.”
The proposed ordinance is a reaction to the proposed uranium mine about 25 miles west of the town in Pittsylvania County. In Halifax County, environmental concerns over Virginia Uranium’s long-term plans have put the community on edge.
The proposed ordinance would provide the town of Halifax with a legal framework to punish Virginia Uranium Inc. if the environmental worst-case scenario were to come true and uranium mining spread toxic and radioactive substances over a large swath of Southside Virginia.
“Corporations and persons using corporations to engage in mining in a neighboring municipality, county or state shall be strictly liable for all harms caused to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Town of Halifax from those activities, and for all harms caused to ecosystems and natural communities within the Town of Halifax,” part of the proposed ordinance reads.
Why would Virginia Uranium Inc. want to get behind this?
Because the company’s leaders have repeatedly said they don’t want to mine the 110 million pounds of uranium ore under Pittsylvania County unless it can be done safely. If Halifax has an ordinance making it illegal for Virginia Uranium to poison the town and its people with radiation, and Virginia Uranium won’t mine so much as a pebble if it can’t be done safely, the company should support the town’s proposed ordinance. After all, environmental safety is one of Virginia Uranium’s highest principles, along with “sound economic development and the well being of the community and region.”
That’s why Virginia Uranium should support Halifax’s proposed “chemical and radioactive bodily trespass” ordinance.
Mining forum views blasted
The Danville Register & Bee
January 28, 2008
By JOHN R. CRANE
Register & Bee staff writer
January 27, 2008
Give your opinion on this story (click the link or leave comments at the end of this article, GV)
Uranium-mining proponents take issue with the views expressed at last week’s forum in South Boston sponsored by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.
During the event at Halifax County High School, Ben Price, the nonprofit law firm’s projects director, exhorted attendees to keep their local government from making decisions based on the wishes of corporate elites, appointed scientific experts and other special interests.
Price challenged Virginia’s authority as a “Dillon Rule” state, which subordinates municipalities to the state, making them “as children are to the parents.” A “Dillon state” refers to John F. Dillon, a 19th century railroad lawyer and Iowa Supreme Court Justice who argued that corporations have the right to use their property rights over the will of residents if necessary.
In addition, corporations were given the same rights as individuals in 1886, Price said.
In addition, he said regulatory agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and other similar organizations, exist merely to grant permits and licenses for companies to pollute.
But Henry Hurt, investor in Virginia Uranium Inc., disagrees and said if that logic were applied in other cases, then health permits for restaurants and other businesses should also be done away with.
Also, Hurt said Price encouraged people to defy laws they don’t like.
“If everybody did that, we’d have anarchy,” Hurt, who attended the forum, said Sunday.
Price could not be reached for comment Sunday.
Virginia Uranium Inc. has proposed a uranium mining and milling operation on Coles Hill about six miles outside Chatham, and seeks a study from the National Academy of Science or other independent institution to determine whether mining can be done safely in the commonwealth.
Opponents of uranium mining are afraid of its environmental effects, but proponents, including Virginia Uranium, say it could revamp the local economy.
Shireen Parsons, CELDF Virginia community organizer, said Price was reminding citizens to ensure that their representatives carry out the will of the majority. The United States has a tradition of questioning those in power, she said.
“We have a long history of people challenging unjust systems of laws,” Parsons said, citing movements abolishing slavery and granting women the right to vote as examples. During his presentation Thursday, Price cited the example of Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a segregated bus in Montgomery, Ala., in 1955. Price said Parks broke state, federal and local laws and the bus lines’ corporate policy when she took her stand. Residents should use the same tenacity if they want to protect public health, he said. Other communities, including those in Pennsylvania, another “Dillon Rule” state, have used their power to draft ordinances banning environmentally-unfriendly corporate practices, he said. Citizens letting local governments base their decisions on that rule are letting dead people like Dillon run their country, Price said.
As for uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, Senate Bill 525, which asks the state to establish a commission to study whether mining is safe in the commonwealth, goes to the Senate Agriculture Committee. Mining proponents say they don’t want the state’s moratorium on uranium mining lifted, but are merely asking for a study. Opponents say such an argument is a veiled effort to get rid of the moratorium to reap profits from mining regardless of the public-health consequences.
Walter Coles Sr., owner of Virginia Uranium, denied opponents’ claims. “To say anybody is not concerned about the health and welfare (of residents) is absurd,” Coles said. Coles, who lives in the middle of two bodies of ore that would be mined, said he would continue living there if that happens.
Contact John R. Crane at jcrane@registerbee.com or (434) 791-7987.
January 28, 2008
By JOHN R. CRANE
Register & Bee staff writer
January 27, 2008
Give your opinion on this story (click the link or leave comments at the end of this article, GV)
Uranium-mining proponents take issue with the views expressed at last week’s forum in South Boston sponsored by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.
During the event at Halifax County High School, Ben Price, the nonprofit law firm’s projects director, exhorted attendees to keep their local government from making decisions based on the wishes of corporate elites, appointed scientific experts and other special interests.
Price challenged Virginia’s authority as a “Dillon Rule” state, which subordinates municipalities to the state, making them “as children are to the parents.” A “Dillon state” refers to John F. Dillon, a 19th century railroad lawyer and Iowa Supreme Court Justice who argued that corporations have the right to use their property rights over the will of residents if necessary.
In addition, corporations were given the same rights as individuals in 1886, Price said.
In addition, he said regulatory agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and other similar organizations, exist merely to grant permits and licenses for companies to pollute.
But Henry Hurt, investor in Virginia Uranium Inc., disagrees and said if that logic were applied in other cases, then health permits for restaurants and other businesses should also be done away with.
Also, Hurt said Price encouraged people to defy laws they don’t like.
“If everybody did that, we’d have anarchy,” Hurt, who attended the forum, said Sunday.
Price could not be reached for comment Sunday.
Virginia Uranium Inc. has proposed a uranium mining and milling operation on Coles Hill about six miles outside Chatham, and seeks a study from the National Academy of Science or other independent institution to determine whether mining can be done safely in the commonwealth.
Opponents of uranium mining are afraid of its environmental effects, but proponents, including Virginia Uranium, say it could revamp the local economy.
Shireen Parsons, CELDF Virginia community organizer, said Price was reminding citizens to ensure that their representatives carry out the will of the majority. The United States has a tradition of questioning those in power, she said.
“We have a long history of people challenging unjust systems of laws,” Parsons said, citing movements abolishing slavery and granting women the right to vote as examples. During his presentation Thursday, Price cited the example of Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a segregated bus in Montgomery, Ala., in 1955. Price said Parks broke state, federal and local laws and the bus lines’ corporate policy when she took her stand. Residents should use the same tenacity if they want to protect public health, he said. Other communities, including those in Pennsylvania, another “Dillon Rule” state, have used their power to draft ordinances banning environmentally-unfriendly corporate practices, he said. Citizens letting local governments base their decisions on that rule are letting dead people like Dillon run their country, Price said.
As for uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, Senate Bill 525, which asks the state to establish a commission to study whether mining is safe in the commonwealth, goes to the Senate Agriculture Committee. Mining proponents say they don’t want the state’s moratorium on uranium mining lifted, but are merely asking for a study. Opponents say such an argument is a veiled effort to get rid of the moratorium to reap profits from mining regardless of the public-health consequences.
Walter Coles Sr., owner of Virginia Uranium, denied opponents’ claims. “To say anybody is not concerned about the health and welfare (of residents) is absurd,” Coles said. Coles, who lives in the middle of two bodies of ore that would be mined, said he would continue living there if that happens.
Contact John R. Crane at jcrane@registerbee.com or (434) 791-7987.
Mine Fines Routinely Ignored
From Shireen: This isn't surprising -- it's business as usual for all our "regulatory" agencies. If you still trust the federal EPA and MSHA, and the Virginia DEQ and DMME to protect us from contamination by VUI's uranium mine, please call me. ;-)
Shireen Parsons
Virginia Community Organizer
Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
http://www.celdf.org/
306 Miller StreetChristiansburg,
Virginia 24073540
381-3153 (home/office)
540-449-9144 (cell)
horizon66@verizon.net
The Charleston Gazette [WV]
January 27, 2008
Mine fines routinely ignored
MSHA leaders promise reforms
Federal regulators have allowed mine operators to avoid fines for thousands of health and safety citations, despite a federal law that requires monetary penalties for such violations, government officials have confirmed.
By Ken Ward Jr.
Staff writer
Federal regulators have allowed mine operators to avoid fines for thousands of health and safety citations, despite a federal law that requires monetary penalties for such violations, government officials have confirmed.
Over the last six years, the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration did not assess civil penalties for about 4,000 violations, according to preliminary MSHA data.
Most of the violations involve situations where MSHA did not assess monetary penalties within 18 months of issuing a citation. Agency officials believe that is the legal time limit for doing so.
MSHA officials emphasized that less than 1 percent of all violations cited by agency inspectors were involved, and said steps are being taken to fix the problem.
But at least one of the citations involves a violation that MSHA inspectors concluded was partly responsible for the December 2005 death of an underground miner in Kentucky.
The revelation is another major setback for MSHA, which is still trying to catch up on missed mandatory inspections and implement far-reaching safety laws passed after a series of disasters in 2006 and 2007.
"There is no doubt that there is a problem," said Richard Stickler, acting assistant labor secretary in charge of MSHA. In a Thursday interview, Stickler said he was told of the problem a week earlier and had ordered his staff to quickly correct it. "Any violation that we write and don't assess a penalty for, that's a big problem to me," Stickler said.
Previously, Stickler had been touting increased numbers of citations and fines being issued by MSHA under new regulations as proof that the agency is on the right track. "The amount of penalties we assessed increased over 100 percent last year," Stickler said in a Jan. 10 speech to the West Virginia Coal Association. "I believe this increased penalty structure will provide a greater incentive for operators to ensure that safety and health laws are followed, which will result in safer working conditions for our miners." And on Friday, MSHA posted new data on its Web site to highlight increased numbers of inspections, citations and fines.
MSHA officials apparently stumbled upon the fine assessment problem while discussing recent Louisville Courier-Journal articles about inaction by Kentucky state officials in the death of miner Bud Morris at H&D Mining's Mine No. 3 in Harlan County. On Dec. 30, 2005, Morris bled to death after his legs were severed when a loaded coal car accidentally rammed him.
MSHA investigators concluded "complications to the victim's recovery occurred because proper first-aid was not given ... the mine operator did not ensure that the section foreman, as the select supervisor, was properly trained to perform first-aid." MSHA cited H&D Mining, stating "this injury became a fatality because basic first-aid was not properly performed prior to the injured employee being transported.
"H&D's failure to conduct the required select supervisor first-aid training contributed to the victim not receiving the proper first-aid at the mine," the MSHA citation said.
On Friday, MSHA records indicated H&D Mining had never been fined for this citation.
Over the last few weeks, MSHA officials apparently discovered that fact, and it led them to investigate how many other citations had also gone without any fines.
Shireen Parsons
Virginia Community Organizer
Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
http://www.celdf.org/
306 Miller StreetChristiansburg,
Virginia 24073540
381-3153 (home/office)
540-449-9144 (cell)
horizon66@verizon.net
The Charleston Gazette [WV]
January 27, 2008
Mine fines routinely ignored
MSHA leaders promise reforms
Federal regulators have allowed mine operators to avoid fines for thousands of health and safety citations, despite a federal law that requires monetary penalties for such violations, government officials have confirmed.
By Ken Ward Jr.
Staff writer
Federal regulators have allowed mine operators to avoid fines for thousands of health and safety citations, despite a federal law that requires monetary penalties for such violations, government officials have confirmed.
Over the last six years, the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration did not assess civil penalties for about 4,000 violations, according to preliminary MSHA data.
Most of the violations involve situations where MSHA did not assess monetary penalties within 18 months of issuing a citation. Agency officials believe that is the legal time limit for doing so.
MSHA officials emphasized that less than 1 percent of all violations cited by agency inspectors were involved, and said steps are being taken to fix the problem.
But at least one of the citations involves a violation that MSHA inspectors concluded was partly responsible for the December 2005 death of an underground miner in Kentucky.
The revelation is another major setback for MSHA, which is still trying to catch up on missed mandatory inspections and implement far-reaching safety laws passed after a series of disasters in 2006 and 2007.
"There is no doubt that there is a problem," said Richard Stickler, acting assistant labor secretary in charge of MSHA. In a Thursday interview, Stickler said he was told of the problem a week earlier and had ordered his staff to quickly correct it. "Any violation that we write and don't assess a penalty for, that's a big problem to me," Stickler said.
Previously, Stickler had been touting increased numbers of citations and fines being issued by MSHA under new regulations as proof that the agency is on the right track. "The amount of penalties we assessed increased over 100 percent last year," Stickler said in a Jan. 10 speech to the West Virginia Coal Association. "I believe this increased penalty structure will provide a greater incentive for operators to ensure that safety and health laws are followed, which will result in safer working conditions for our miners." And on Friday, MSHA posted new data on its Web site to highlight increased numbers of inspections, citations and fines.
MSHA officials apparently stumbled upon the fine assessment problem while discussing recent Louisville Courier-Journal articles about inaction by Kentucky state officials in the death of miner Bud Morris at H&D Mining's Mine No. 3 in Harlan County. On Dec. 30, 2005, Morris bled to death after his legs were severed when a loaded coal car accidentally rammed him.
MSHA investigators concluded "complications to the victim's recovery occurred because proper first-aid was not given ... the mine operator did not ensure that the section foreman, as the select supervisor, was properly trained to perform first-aid." MSHA cited H&D Mining, stating "this injury became a fatality because basic first-aid was not properly performed prior to the injured employee being transported.
"H&D's failure to conduct the required select supervisor first-aid training contributed to the victim not receiving the proper first-aid at the mine," the MSHA citation said.
On Friday, MSHA records indicated H&D Mining had never been fined for this citation.
Over the last few weeks, MSHA officials apparently discovered that fact, and it led them to investigate how many other citations had also gone without any fines.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Feds Fine Lynchburg Co for Nuclear Incident
(From the Danville Register Bee 01/27/2008)
Commission proposes fine for incident at Lynchburg site
By Bryan Gentry
Media General News Service
January 25, 2008
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that the Babcock & Wilcox Company did not adequately test a uranium handling procedure that posed potential to cause a "nuclear criticality" in the Lynchburg-based plant last July.
According to an NRC news release, a specialized vacuum cleaner designed to handle nuclear material spilled a solution of high-enriched uranium into an attached plastic bag used for contamination control.
The commission proposed a $32,500 fine against BWX Technologies, which was the name of the company at the time of the incident.
A nuclear criticality occurs when enough high-enriched uranium comes together to cause a chemical reaction, resulting in a short burst or sustained release of radiation.
A criticality did not occur in the July event, and the commission's investigation determined that the concentration of uranium, and the amount of solution that spilled, was low enough that the risk of the spill had been minimal.
However, the commission found that the company had insufficient controls to ensure that uranium solutions in the vacuum cleaners remained below acceptable levels.
Commission proposes fine for incident at Lynchburg site
By Bryan Gentry
Media General News Service
January 25, 2008
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that the Babcock & Wilcox Company did not adequately test a uranium handling procedure that posed potential to cause a "nuclear criticality" in the Lynchburg-based plant last July.
According to an NRC news release, a specialized vacuum cleaner designed to handle nuclear material spilled a solution of high-enriched uranium into an attached plastic bag used for contamination control.
The commission proposed a $32,500 fine against BWX Technologies, which was the name of the company at the time of the incident.
A nuclear criticality occurs when enough high-enriched uranium comes together to cause a chemical reaction, resulting in a short burst or sustained release of radiation.
A criticality did not occur in the July event, and the commission's investigation determined that the concentration of uranium, and the amount of solution that spilled, was low enough that the risk of the spill had been minimal.
However, the commission found that the company had insufficient controls to ensure that uranium solutions in the vacuum cleaners remained below acceptable levels.
Va Beach Writer Says NO to Uranium Study
(From www.vbdems.org , Va Beach Democrats)
Jan 24th 2008
Post by Eileen Levandoski
From a Beach (as in ocean, as in waves) legislator nonetheless. Yes, this could be Virginia if Sen. Frank Wagner gets his way.
Virginia Beach's own has introduced a bill that will open the door to uranium mining in Virginia and threatens to lift a moratorium prohibiting uranium mining that dates back to 1982.
Uranium mining produces massive tailings piles of radioactive waste that would contaminate our air, drinking water, and pristine rivers and streams. Past experiences with uranium mining have been limited to sparsely populated regions of the arid Southwest. It is doubtful that uranium could be mined safely in a wet climate and in a region with higher population density, as is found in Virginia.
Don't allow Virginia to become a testing ground for a dangerous new experiment in uranium mining! Email/call your Senator especially if he/she serves on the Senate Agricultural, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee who will consider this bill on Monday, Jan. 28th, bright and early at 9:00 AM. Take action TODAY!
Remember. this is a completely separate issue from the question of nuclear power generation. If you've seen pictures of the collapse of a dam holding back hundreds of acre-feet of coal slag tailings, imagine what it would be like with a radioactive uranium slag.
"Even if you rescinded all other considerations", writes a commenter at the Daily Press, "Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island demonstrate that humans are not responsible enough to play with this toy." This is especially true of humans named "Frank Wagner".
Here are some quick facts about uranium mining from Tidewater CCAN's Rick Kennerly:
1. with just a slight increase in acidity of the water, uranium deposits are highly water soluble material
2. it takes 1-2 tons of ore to produce 1 lb of yellow cake uranium and of that only 1-2% is reactor quality material, that's a lot of mine tailings
3. this is a slurry process sure to produce acres of dammed radioactive sludge near our waterways and ground water sources
4. the Pennsylvania county (Pittsylvania) (Danville region) gets 44 inches of rain per year, increasing the likelihood of leeching or a dam break
5. uranium mining has never been attempted in an area with such a large population
6. the water shed from this region feeds both the Richmond (James River) and the Virginia Beach (Lake Gaston) water supplies.
Disclaimer: The views expressed on the VBDems blog are those of the individual authors and commenters, and not of the Virginia Beach Democratic Committee or any other group, organization, club, or entity to which authors may belong unless otherwise specified in individual blog entries. Posts are not authorized by any candidate or committee unless otherwise specified in individual posts.
Jan 24th 2008
Post by Eileen Levandoski
From a Beach (as in ocean, as in waves) legislator nonetheless. Yes, this could be Virginia if Sen. Frank Wagner gets his way.
Virginia Beach's own has introduced a bill that will open the door to uranium mining in Virginia and threatens to lift a moratorium prohibiting uranium mining that dates back to 1982.
Uranium mining produces massive tailings piles of radioactive waste that would contaminate our air, drinking water, and pristine rivers and streams. Past experiences with uranium mining have been limited to sparsely populated regions of the arid Southwest. It is doubtful that uranium could be mined safely in a wet climate and in a region with higher population density, as is found in Virginia.
Don't allow Virginia to become a testing ground for a dangerous new experiment in uranium mining! Email/call your Senator especially if he/she serves on the Senate Agricultural, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee who will consider this bill on Monday, Jan. 28th, bright and early at 9:00 AM. Take action TODAY!
Remember. this is a completely separate issue from the question of nuclear power generation. If you've seen pictures of the collapse of a dam holding back hundreds of acre-feet of coal slag tailings, imagine what it would be like with a radioactive uranium slag.
"Even if you rescinded all other considerations", writes a commenter at the Daily Press, "Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island demonstrate that humans are not responsible enough to play with this toy." This is especially true of humans named "Frank Wagner".
Here are some quick facts about uranium mining from Tidewater CCAN's Rick Kennerly:
1. with just a slight increase in acidity of the water, uranium deposits are highly water soluble material
2. it takes 1-2 tons of ore to produce 1 lb of yellow cake uranium and of that only 1-2% is reactor quality material, that's a lot of mine tailings
3. this is a slurry process sure to produce acres of dammed radioactive sludge near our waterways and ground water sources
4. the Pennsylvania county (Pittsylvania) (Danville region) gets 44 inches of rain per year, increasing the likelihood of leeching or a dam break
5. uranium mining has never been attempted in an area with such a large population
6. the water shed from this region feeds both the Richmond (James River) and the Virginia Beach (Lake Gaston) water supplies.
Disclaimer: The views expressed on the VBDems blog are those of the individual authors and commenters, and not of the Virginia Beach Democratic Committee or any other group, organization, club, or entity to which authors may belong unless otherwise specified in individual blog entries. Posts are not authorized by any candidate or committee unless otherwise specified in individual posts.
Citizens from 3 States Ally Against Uranium Mining
Organizations from three states join together on Uranium concerns
Organizations from South Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado met in Rapid City on Saturday, November 10, 2007 to discuss their joint concerns about uranium mining in the Region. Citizens from four organizations are voicing their concerns about surface and ground water, human health, and local property values.
Defenders of the Black Hills and ACTion for the Environment are attending from South Dakota, which faces mining proposals along the southern Black Hills. The Powder River Basin Resource Council is attending from Wyoming, where exploratory and mining permits have been applied for in the state. Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction are traveling from the northern part of Colorado where uranium mining is also proposed near Fort Collins.
In all three places, mining is planned by a Canadian company, Powertech Uranium Corporation. The company proposes to use 'in situ' leach mining (ISL) which injects a dissolving solution underground into suspected uranium deposits. The solution dissolves the uranium and its radioactive decay products, as well as heavy metals. This radioactive solution is pumped to the surface. The uranium is then removed and shipped to a mill for concentration into "yellowcake." The water is re-treated and then injected back underground in a cycle that continues until all the uranium has been extracted. Reverse osmosis is then used to remove some of the toxics from the water, and the remaining liquid is either injected underground or retained in shallow ponds.
In Colorado, a Powertech representative said the company also intends to do open pit mining. Other uranium mining companies are currently active in the three states as a result of recent increases in the price of uranium.
"In Wyoming, there are significant questions about regulation and oversight of uranium operations," according to Shannon Anderson, Organizer for the Powder River Basin Resource Council. "Our organization wants the public to have a stronger voice in uranium activities and wants regulators to insure full restoration of mined areas," she said.
In South Dakota, Powertech has started drilling more uranium exploratory wells in an area where they already have 4,000 wells in the southwestern Black Hills. "It's already been proven world-wide that ISL mining contaminates aquifers that cannot be fixed," said Charmaine White Face, Coordinator for Defenders of the Black Hills. "South Dakota relies so heavily on aquifers for drinking water and livestock use that we do not need to add to the destroyed aquifer statistics by doing this kind of mining for uranium here. We've been in a drought for the last ten years and the last thing we need to do is poison our water," she said.
ACTion for the Environment is very concerned that South Dakota taxpayers will once again have to take on the toxic messes that are left when a mining company leaves as happened previously with Canadian companies. "The Board of Minerals and Environment should remember what happened when they gave approval for the Brohm mine. Now SD people are paying for that mess. Are we going to have to pay for a radioactive mess left by another Canadian company?" said Gary Heckenliable, Organizer for ACTion for the Environment. "Not only South Dakota residents but all the taxpayers of the United States are going to have to pay for this for many, many years to come," he said.
Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction (CARD), formed earlier this year in response to Powertech's proposal to mine in the rapidly-growing area near Fort Collins. "Of course uranium mining always causes some form of contamination. Water at in situ leach mining sites is not returned to its original condition," said Lilias Jarding, Ph.D., an Environmental Policy specialist with CARD. "Most people don't know that federal policies that subsidize the nuclear industry aren't just about power plants. The nuclear industry's largest negative impacts have always been in uranium mining and milling processes."
The four groups have issued a common statement:
"We want the uranium industry to know that we stand together on this issue. Whether in a rural setting or a populated area, uranium mining causes radioactive contamination. Past uranium sites continue to contaminate the air, land, and water. Any bonds designed to pay for clean-up of former mining areas have not been sufficient, and taxpayers have been forced to pay the bill. We call on the public and all elected officials to do everything possible to protect the water, land, and local economies from proposed uranium activities."
More information can be found at:
Defenders of the Black Hills: www.defendblackhills.org
Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction: www.nunnglow.com
Powder River Basin Resource Council: www.powderriverbasin.org
Organizations from South Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado met in Rapid City on Saturday, November 10, 2007 to discuss their joint concerns about uranium mining in the Region. Citizens from four organizations are voicing their concerns about surface and ground water, human health, and local property values.
Defenders of the Black Hills and ACTion for the Environment are attending from South Dakota, which faces mining proposals along the southern Black Hills. The Powder River Basin Resource Council is attending from Wyoming, where exploratory and mining permits have been applied for in the state. Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction are traveling from the northern part of Colorado where uranium mining is also proposed near Fort Collins.
In all three places, mining is planned by a Canadian company, Powertech Uranium Corporation. The company proposes to use 'in situ' leach mining (ISL) which injects a dissolving solution underground into suspected uranium deposits. The solution dissolves the uranium and its radioactive decay products, as well as heavy metals. This radioactive solution is pumped to the surface. The uranium is then removed and shipped to a mill for concentration into "yellowcake." The water is re-treated and then injected back underground in a cycle that continues until all the uranium has been extracted. Reverse osmosis is then used to remove some of the toxics from the water, and the remaining liquid is either injected underground or retained in shallow ponds.
In Colorado, a Powertech representative said the company also intends to do open pit mining. Other uranium mining companies are currently active in the three states as a result of recent increases in the price of uranium.
"In Wyoming, there are significant questions about regulation and oversight of uranium operations," according to Shannon Anderson, Organizer for the Powder River Basin Resource Council. "Our organization wants the public to have a stronger voice in uranium activities and wants regulators to insure full restoration of mined areas," she said.
In South Dakota, Powertech has started drilling more uranium exploratory wells in an area where they already have 4,000 wells in the southwestern Black Hills. "It's already been proven world-wide that ISL mining contaminates aquifers that cannot be fixed," said Charmaine White Face, Coordinator for Defenders of the Black Hills. "South Dakota relies so heavily on aquifers for drinking water and livestock use that we do not need to add to the destroyed aquifer statistics by doing this kind of mining for uranium here. We've been in a drought for the last ten years and the last thing we need to do is poison our water," she said.
ACTion for the Environment is very concerned that South Dakota taxpayers will once again have to take on the toxic messes that are left when a mining company leaves as happened previously with Canadian companies. "The Board of Minerals and Environment should remember what happened when they gave approval for the Brohm mine. Now SD people are paying for that mess. Are we going to have to pay for a radioactive mess left by another Canadian company?" said Gary Heckenliable, Organizer for ACTion for the Environment. "Not only South Dakota residents but all the taxpayers of the United States are going to have to pay for this for many, many years to come," he said.
Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction (CARD), formed earlier this year in response to Powertech's proposal to mine in the rapidly-growing area near Fort Collins. "Of course uranium mining always causes some form of contamination. Water at in situ leach mining sites is not returned to its original condition," said Lilias Jarding, Ph.D., an Environmental Policy specialist with CARD. "Most people don't know that federal policies that subsidize the nuclear industry aren't just about power plants. The nuclear industry's largest negative impacts have always been in uranium mining and milling processes."
The four groups have issued a common statement:
"We want the uranium industry to know that we stand together on this issue. Whether in a rural setting or a populated area, uranium mining causes radioactive contamination. Past uranium sites continue to contaminate the air, land, and water. Any bonds designed to pay for clean-up of former mining areas have not been sufficient, and taxpayers have been forced to pay the bill. We call on the public and all elected officials to do everything possible to protect the water, land, and local economies from proposed uranium activities."
More information can be found at:
Defenders of the Black Hills: www.defendblackhills.org
Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction: www.nunnglow.com
Powder River Basin Resource Council: www.powderriverbasin.org
CALL TO ACTION !!
Action Call for All Concerned Virginians !!
Your Attendance is Needed on Monday, January 28, 2008 in Richmond!!
............at the Virginia Senate meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation, and Natural Resources
............at 9:30 am in Senate Room B in the Capitol Building
............the docket includes Senate Bill 525 (Coles' bill to get a uranium mining study).
............early arrivals can sign up to speak at the beginning of the meeting.
............Carpoolers contact Gregg Vickrey 434-432-1244.
Just Do It !!
Texas Group Fights In-situ Uranium Mining
(From http://www.goliadproject.com/ )
“In Situ” mining is the new wave. This is the new era of mining in which all these toxic and radioactive elements are turned to liquid underground and hidden from view, down in the aquifer that we drink from. The problem is that all these liquified toxic and radioactive elements could escape the mine site and migrate to water wells.
My family and I live less than five miles from a proposed uranium mining site, and we live downstream from it right on top of the Evangeline Aquifer in Victoria County.
We're told that liquid radioactive toxins cannot travel underground from the mine to our home. Look at the creek next to it. This aquifer slopes DOWN toward our well. If liquid radioactive pollution can find a channel (an underground creek), it will travel. What about the people who live less than 1/4 mile away? How long will it take for oxidized radioactive heavy metals to enter their drinking water if it escapes the mining site?
The aquifer that we drink from is called the Evangeline Aquifer and it drops toward the coastline. Gravity is pulling this water toward the ocean. Our well is in the "third sand" at 185 feet deep. The uranium is between 100 and 400 feet deep, so the probability that the mining will occur in our particular aquifer zone is very high. If liquid radioactive toxins find a channel and escape the mining zone, how will they stop it? They cannot stop it! If an excursion escapes the mining process, it's only a matter of time...how much time, nobody knows!
Also, self-filed reports by uranium mining companies reveal extreme spills on top of the ground as well. If a check valve fails or a joint cracks or if a meter breaks ...here it comes right down Coleto Creek! Hundreds if not thousands of spills are recorded at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
These are examples of actual spills in Kleberg County, Texas:
URI reports to TNRCC and TDH reveal :
1. a 2/23/99 spill caused by a faulty check valve on well 5704B. Approximately 2,000 gallons of extraction water with a concentration of 9 PPM uranium spilled on the ground,
2. an 11/2/99 spill caused by a cracked joint in a line from the RIX in Production Area. Approximately 1,000 gallons of bleed water with a concentration of 1.5 PPM uranium spilled onto the ground, and
3. a 1/25/99 spill caused by a broken meter for well 6168A. Approximately 12,000 gallons of extraction water with a concentration of 1.5 PPM uranium spilled onto the ground.
A few of us had our water tested specifically for Uranium and Radium 226. Water samples were taken from nineteen wells in our neighborhood on October 2, 2007 and delivered to the Texas Department of State Health Services in Austin for testing. Our water appears to be safe according to EPA Drinking Water Standards. If an excursion from the mining area escapes and migrates to our wells, then at least we have an established baseline to compare to.
In situ mining is great in theory but it's not perfected. When the injection fluid called "lixiviant" is pumped into the ground, the uranium, radium and many other toxic and radioactive isotopes are oxidized and turned to liquid. The "pregnant lixiviant" is then pumped to the surface and processed. In the process, the uranium is extracted and the remaining isotope-bearing fluid is circulated underground again and again, until it's finally disposed of either by deep-well injection (back into the ground) or in an evaporation pond where radon gas is emitted into the air. During the process, some of the lixiviant escapes into the underground water supply. Even the mining folks will admit this but they say it won't substantially migrate.
Scheme of normal ISL operation
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality..."Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution". If TCEQ allows in situ uranium mining in an aquifer that supplies drinking water to people and livestock, how can this motto ring true?
"Two criteria must be met before an aquifer exemption is granted: The aquifer does not currently serve as a source of drinking water for human consumption, and until the exempt status is removed, the aquifer will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water for human consumption." -Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
This aquifer does currently serve as a source of drinking water for human consumption! Thousands of people and livestock drink from it, so what's to consider? We can live without uranium but we cannot live without water!
The Health Department becomes very upset if my septic system overflows, but they don't care if somebody injects liquid radioactive heavy metals into the drinking water supply? How can this be? What is going on here? I have this feeling that our federal government is pushing our state government for this development without considering the effects upon the local population. Our property will be worth less than nothing if our water becomes contaminated with radioactive and toxic liquid heavy metals. Our future and, more importantly, our children's future will be at risk. How long will it take for an excursion to reach their water? How will this affect their future?
Kidney failure, leukemia, a variety of other soft tissue cancers and severe birth defects could be expected if these liquid toxins enter our (your) water supply unexpectedly. It appears that somebody in government has their head up in the clouds (or buried in the sand). To date, not in one single instance has groundwater been restored to its original quality after In Situ mining!
If the Goliad Project uranium mine is approved by TCEQ, will it stop there? No! This will initiate a mass-mining frenzy that will migrate quickly into Victoria County. UEC, the mining company, is already hosting meetings in Victoria. Several other mining companies have begun to acquire leases as well.
If you oppose uranium mining in your water supply, it is imperative that you write a letter to TCEQ! Be sure to include the reason you object to the mining (for example, the risk of polluting the Evangeline Aquifer is too great to allow in situ mining because this aquifer supplies thousands of people and livestock with drinking water, and the possible migration of liquid radioactive isotopes and toxic metals into people's drinking water supply is an extreme threat to human welfare!)
Write to:
Office of the Chief Clerk MC 105
TCEQ
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
If you drink from a water well in western Victoria County or eastern Goliad County, GET YOUR WATER TESTED NOW!!! If your water becomes contaminated later, it will be too late and you will have no recourse! The mining company could disclaim any responsibility and claim that your water was contaminated the whole time! The Texas Department of State Health Services can perform the tests but the water samples must be delivered to their laboratory in Austin. The phone number for radionuclide testing is (512) 458-7111 ext. 3827. There are costs involved, but this is important not only to protect yourself from possible future contamination, but you may also be drinking substantial levels of naturally occurring uranium and radium right now and not know it.
Mark Krueger
Here are some interesting and educational links on uranium mining and its issues:
http://www.ksat.com/video/14920420/detail.html
http://www.nunnglow.com/
http://www.powertechexposed.com/
http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20080106/NEWS/29211963
http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5720721
http://texas.sierraclub.org/coastalbend/SouthTexasUranium.htm
http://goliad-tx.tamu.edu/uiag.html (click September Conference. Entire 2-Day conference video/audio)
http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/uri.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4535148/
http://www.wise-uranium.org/
http://www.anawa.org.au/mining/isl.html
http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/pdfs/uranium.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/pdfs/9283_1_14.pdf
http://www.uraniumenergy.com/
http://uraniumenergy.com/investor_info/news_releases
http://www.sedar.com/ (search for Uranium Energy Corp and form "Technical Report NI 43-101")
http://www.sacurrent.com/news/story.asp?id=67630
“In Situ” mining is the new wave. This is the new era of mining in which all these toxic and radioactive elements are turned to liquid underground and hidden from view, down in the aquifer that we drink from. The problem is that all these liquified toxic and radioactive elements could escape the mine site and migrate to water wells.
My family and I live less than five miles from a proposed uranium mining site, and we live downstream from it right on top of the Evangeline Aquifer in Victoria County.
We're told that liquid radioactive toxins cannot travel underground from the mine to our home. Look at the creek next to it. This aquifer slopes DOWN toward our well. If liquid radioactive pollution can find a channel (an underground creek), it will travel. What about the people who live less than 1/4 mile away? How long will it take for oxidized radioactive heavy metals to enter their drinking water if it escapes the mining site?
The aquifer that we drink from is called the Evangeline Aquifer and it drops toward the coastline. Gravity is pulling this water toward the ocean. Our well is in the "third sand" at 185 feet deep. The uranium is between 100 and 400 feet deep, so the probability that the mining will occur in our particular aquifer zone is very high. If liquid radioactive toxins find a channel and escape the mining zone, how will they stop it? They cannot stop it! If an excursion escapes the mining process, it's only a matter of time...how much time, nobody knows!
Also, self-filed reports by uranium mining companies reveal extreme spills on top of the ground as well. If a check valve fails or a joint cracks or if a meter breaks ...here it comes right down Coleto Creek! Hundreds if not thousands of spills are recorded at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
These are examples of actual spills in Kleberg County, Texas:
URI reports to TNRCC and TDH reveal :
1. a 2/23/99 spill caused by a faulty check valve on well 5704B. Approximately 2,000 gallons of extraction water with a concentration of 9 PPM uranium spilled on the ground,
2. an 11/2/99 spill caused by a cracked joint in a line from the RIX in Production Area. Approximately 1,000 gallons of bleed water with a concentration of 1.5 PPM uranium spilled onto the ground, and
3. a 1/25/99 spill caused by a broken meter for well 6168A. Approximately 12,000 gallons of extraction water with a concentration of 1.5 PPM uranium spilled onto the ground.
A few of us had our water tested specifically for Uranium and Radium 226. Water samples were taken from nineteen wells in our neighborhood on October 2, 2007 and delivered to the Texas Department of State Health Services in Austin for testing. Our water appears to be safe according to EPA Drinking Water Standards. If an excursion from the mining area escapes and migrates to our wells, then at least we have an established baseline to compare to.
In situ mining is great in theory but it's not perfected. When the injection fluid called "lixiviant" is pumped into the ground, the uranium, radium and many other toxic and radioactive isotopes are oxidized and turned to liquid. The "pregnant lixiviant" is then pumped to the surface and processed. In the process, the uranium is extracted and the remaining isotope-bearing fluid is circulated underground again and again, until it's finally disposed of either by deep-well injection (back into the ground) or in an evaporation pond where radon gas is emitted into the air. During the process, some of the lixiviant escapes into the underground water supply. Even the mining folks will admit this but they say it won't substantially migrate.
Scheme of normal ISL operation
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality..."Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution". If TCEQ allows in situ uranium mining in an aquifer that supplies drinking water to people and livestock, how can this motto ring true?
"Two criteria must be met before an aquifer exemption is granted: The aquifer does not currently serve as a source of drinking water for human consumption, and until the exempt status is removed, the aquifer will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water for human consumption." -Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
This aquifer does currently serve as a source of drinking water for human consumption! Thousands of people and livestock drink from it, so what's to consider? We can live without uranium but we cannot live without water!
The Health Department becomes very upset if my septic system overflows, but they don't care if somebody injects liquid radioactive heavy metals into the drinking water supply? How can this be? What is going on here? I have this feeling that our federal government is pushing our state government for this development without considering the effects upon the local population. Our property will be worth less than nothing if our water becomes contaminated with radioactive and toxic liquid heavy metals. Our future and, more importantly, our children's future will be at risk. How long will it take for an excursion to reach their water? How will this affect their future?
Kidney failure, leukemia, a variety of other soft tissue cancers and severe birth defects could be expected if these liquid toxins enter our (your) water supply unexpectedly. It appears that somebody in government has their head up in the clouds (or buried in the sand). To date, not in one single instance has groundwater been restored to its original quality after In Situ mining!
If the Goliad Project uranium mine is approved by TCEQ, will it stop there? No! This will initiate a mass-mining frenzy that will migrate quickly into Victoria County. UEC, the mining company, is already hosting meetings in Victoria. Several other mining companies have begun to acquire leases as well.
If you oppose uranium mining in your water supply, it is imperative that you write a letter to TCEQ! Be sure to include the reason you object to the mining (for example, the risk of polluting the Evangeline Aquifer is too great to allow in situ mining because this aquifer supplies thousands of people and livestock with drinking water, and the possible migration of liquid radioactive isotopes and toxic metals into people's drinking water supply is an extreme threat to human welfare!)
Write to:
Office of the Chief Clerk MC 105
TCEQ
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
If you drink from a water well in western Victoria County or eastern Goliad County, GET YOUR WATER TESTED NOW!!! If your water becomes contaminated later, it will be too late and you will have no recourse! The mining company could disclaim any responsibility and claim that your water was contaminated the whole time! The Texas Department of State Health Services can perform the tests but the water samples must be delivered to their laboratory in Austin. The phone number for radionuclide testing is (512) 458-7111 ext. 3827. There are costs involved, but this is important not only to protect yourself from possible future contamination, but you may also be drinking substantial levels of naturally occurring uranium and radium right now and not know it.
Mark Krueger
Here are some interesting and educational links on uranium mining and its issues:
http://www.ksat.com/video/14920420/detail.html
http://www.nunnglow.com/
http://www.powertechexposed.com/
http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20080106/NEWS/29211963
http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5720721
http://texas.sierraclub.org/coastalbend/SouthTexasUranium.htm
http://goliad-tx.tamu.edu/uiag.html (click September Conference. Entire 2-Day conference video/audio)
http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/uri.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4535148/
http://www.wise-uranium.org/
http://www.anawa.org.au/mining/isl.html
http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/uranium.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/pdfs/uranium.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/radiation/pdfs/9283_1_14.pdf
http://www.uraniumenergy.com/
http://uraniumenergy.com/investor_info/news_releases
http://www.sedar.com/ (search for Uranium Energy Corp and form "Technical Report NI 43-101")
http://www.sacurrent.com/news/story.asp?id=67630
Friday, January 25, 2008
Va Uranium Admits-Cannot Cope with Mining Risks
“In addition, because we have limited capital, we are unable to withstand significant losses that can result from
inherent risks associated with mining, including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, flooding, interruptions
due to weather conditions and other acts of nature.”
Wow! Wow! Can you believe that?
These are Virginia Uranium's own words in their now-withdrawn Prospectus prepared by their own experts when they were considering an Initial Public Offering on the Canadian Stock Exchange!
Wow! Why in the world would any Corporation, whether Multi-National or Local, venture into such a dangerous operation without the capital and assets to "clean up what they mess up" ?
What they are saying here is:
inherent risks associated with mining, including environmental hazards, industrial accidents, flooding, interruptions
due to weather conditions and other acts of nature.”
Wow! Wow! Can you believe that?
These are Virginia Uranium's own words in their now-withdrawn Prospectus prepared by their own experts when they were considering an Initial Public Offering on the Canadian Stock Exchange!
Wow! Why in the world would any Corporation, whether Multi-National or Local, venture into such a dangerous operation without the capital and assets to "clean up what they mess up" ?
What they are saying here is:
- If there is a disaster, they don't have the money to correct it.
- But, let's go ahead and do this deal anyway!
- We can have our companies declare bankruptcy and then we can walk away with our millions and billions of dollars.
- We have built up enough "shell companies" and LLCs (Limited Liability Company) to limit any liability to us in case of a disaster.
- The State, the County, and the Town will just have to clean it up themselves (a cleanup from the WWII days in the American West is still going on to the tune of $1,ooo,ooo,ooo-plus <BILLION> and counting).
Here is a list of the "shell companies" we currently know about (they may be others):
- Coles, LLC
- Bowen, LLC
- Landco
- Southside Cattle Company
- Virginia Uranium, Inc
- Holdco
- Virginia Uranium, LTD (a Canadian company)
Why in the world would any of our appointed officials and definitely any of our elected officials ever, ever, ever allow this company to do any business in our borders? SHAME, SHAME, SHAME !!!!
Do the Right Thing by Your Constituents----Ban This Business from Our State!
Thursday, January 24, 2008
3rd Uranium Mining Bill Introduced!
Yet another uranium bill has made its way onto the Senate Rules Committee's agenda for tomorrow, Friday, Jan 25.
Senate Joint Resolution 100 has been brought to our attention by the Danville Register Bee.You can find the text of SJ100 here:
http://tinyurl.com/2ouaqnor here:http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+SJ100
The text is also printed below. It's definitely worth a read:
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 100
Offered January 9, 2008
Prefiled January 9, 2008
Establishing a joint subcommittee to study nuclear power within the Commonwealth. Report.---
-------Patrons-- Cuccinelli, Newman and Wagner----------
Referred to Committee on Rules----------
WHEREAS, according to the Virginia Energy Plan, 36 percent of the electricity generated in Virginia in 2004 came from nuclear power plants;
andWHEREAS, the Energy Plan also notes that the operational costs of Virginia's nuclear power plants are the lowest of any type of generation except for hydroelectric, wind, and solar, and with future carbon taxes or emissions trading requirements, the competitive position of nuclear power is expected to improve;
andWHEREAS, Virginia's need for electric power is expected to continue to grow, and the federal Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2006 indicates that, from 2004 to 2030, the amount of retail sales of electricity to residential consumers in the South Atlantic states is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.9 percent per year, compared with a projected growth rate of 1.5 percent per year for sales to all U.S. residential consumers;
andWHEREAS, all of the 1.6 million pounds of uranium used to fuel the North Anna and Surry nuclear power plants is imported, though the potential to mine Virginia uranium from Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County may offer substantial economic development opportunities;
andWHEREAS, Virginia currently has a moratorium in effect on the mining, but not the exploration, of uranium;
andWHEREAS, Dominion has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve a site for new nuclear reactors at its North Anna power station;
andWHEREAS, the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the 2007 amendments to the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act provide incentives for new nuclear generation;
andWHEREAS, Virginia is home to several nuclear energy businesses, including BWXT and Areva in the Lynchburg region and Northrop Grumman Newport News, and could benefit from growth in the nuclear energy industry;
andWHEREAS, in order to ensure that adequate supplies of electricity are available to meet the growing demand of Virginia consumers, it is appropriate to examine the generation of new nuclear power in Virginia; now,
therefore, be itRESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That a joint subcommittee be established to study nuclear power within the Commonwealth. The joint subcommittee shall consist of 10 legislative members. Members shall be appointed as follows: four members of the Senate to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules; and six members of the House of Delegates to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Delegates in accordance with the principles of proportional representation contained in the Rules of the House of Delegates.
The joint subcommittee shall elect a chairman and vice chairman from among its membership.In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall (i) address all aspects of the production of nuclear power, including the mining of uranium the impact of the new nuclear plants on electricity rates; (ii) examine the economic development potential of nuclear power; (iii) consider whether the General Assembly should take action to support the development of additional nuclear power facilities in the Commonwealth; and (v) examine the advisability of permitting the mining of uranium for use within the Commonwealth in the generation of power.
Administrative staff support shall be provided by the Office of the Clerk of the Senate. Legal, research, policy analysis, and other services as requested by the joint subcommittee shall be provided by the Division of Legislative Services. Technical assistance shall be provided by the State Corporation Commission. All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the joint subcommittee for this study, upon request.
The joint subcommittee shall be limited to four meetings for the 2008 interim, and the direct costs of this study shall not exceed $10,000 without approval as set out in this resolution. Approval for unbudgeted nonmember-related expenses shall require the written authorization of the chairman of the joint subcommittee and the respective Clerk. If a companion joint resolution of the other chamber is agreed to, written authorization of both Clerks shall be required.
No recommendation of the joint subcommittee shall be adopted if a majority of the Senate members or a majority of the House members appointed to the joint subcommittee (i) vote against the recommendation and (ii) vote for the recommendation to fail notwithstanding the majority vote of the joint subcommittee.
The joint subcommittee shall complete its meetings by November 30, 2008, and the chairman shall submit to the Division of Legislative Automated Systems an executive summary of its findings and recommendations no later than the first day of the 2009 Regular Session of the General Assembly. The executive summary shall state whether the joint subcommittee intends to submit to the General Assembly and the Governor a report of its findings and recommendations for publication as a Senate or House document.
The executive summary and the report shall be submitted as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents and reports and shall be posted on the General Assembly's website.Implementation of this resolution is subject to subsequent approval and certification by the Joint Rules Committee.
The Committee may approve or disapprove expenditures for this study, extend or delay the period for the conduct of the study, or authorize additional meetings during the 2008 interim.
Any of the currently pending 3 bills, SB525, SJ100, and SJ107, is enough to authorize the study of uranium mining in Virginia, more specifically in Pittsylvania County. Any opposition to one of the bills must include opposition to the other 2.
And we need to remain vigilant toward even more bills. One is all that's needed...therefore all must be opposed.
Smidgen Barnes
Louisville, KY
Senate Joint Resolution 100 has been brought to our attention by the Danville Register Bee.You can find the text of SJ100 here:
http://tinyurl.com/2ouaqnor here:http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+SJ100
The text is also printed below. It's definitely worth a read:
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 100
Offered January 9, 2008
Prefiled January 9, 2008
Establishing a joint subcommittee to study nuclear power within the Commonwealth. Report.---
-------Patrons-- Cuccinelli, Newman and Wagner----------
Referred to Committee on Rules----------
WHEREAS, according to the Virginia Energy Plan, 36 percent of the electricity generated in Virginia in 2004 came from nuclear power plants;
andWHEREAS, the Energy Plan also notes that the operational costs of Virginia's nuclear power plants are the lowest of any type of generation except for hydroelectric, wind, and solar, and with future carbon taxes or emissions trading requirements, the competitive position of nuclear power is expected to improve;
andWHEREAS, Virginia's need for electric power is expected to continue to grow, and the federal Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2006 indicates that, from 2004 to 2030, the amount of retail sales of electricity to residential consumers in the South Atlantic states is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.9 percent per year, compared with a projected growth rate of 1.5 percent per year for sales to all U.S. residential consumers;
andWHEREAS, all of the 1.6 million pounds of uranium used to fuel the North Anna and Surry nuclear power plants is imported, though the potential to mine Virginia uranium from Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County may offer substantial economic development opportunities;
andWHEREAS, Virginia currently has a moratorium in effect on the mining, but not the exploration, of uranium;
andWHEREAS, Dominion has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve a site for new nuclear reactors at its North Anna power station;
andWHEREAS, the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the 2007 amendments to the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act provide incentives for new nuclear generation;
andWHEREAS, Virginia is home to several nuclear energy businesses, including BWXT and Areva in the Lynchburg region and Northrop Grumman Newport News, and could benefit from growth in the nuclear energy industry;
andWHEREAS, in order to ensure that adequate supplies of electricity are available to meet the growing demand of Virginia consumers, it is appropriate to examine the generation of new nuclear power in Virginia; now,
therefore, be itRESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That a joint subcommittee be established to study nuclear power within the Commonwealth. The joint subcommittee shall consist of 10 legislative members. Members shall be appointed as follows: four members of the Senate to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules; and six members of the House of Delegates to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Delegates in accordance with the principles of proportional representation contained in the Rules of the House of Delegates.
The joint subcommittee shall elect a chairman and vice chairman from among its membership.In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall (i) address all aspects of the production of nuclear power, including the mining of uranium the impact of the new nuclear plants on electricity rates; (ii) examine the economic development potential of nuclear power; (iii) consider whether the General Assembly should take action to support the development of additional nuclear power facilities in the Commonwealth; and (v) examine the advisability of permitting the mining of uranium for use within the Commonwealth in the generation of power.
Administrative staff support shall be provided by the Office of the Clerk of the Senate. Legal, research, policy analysis, and other services as requested by the joint subcommittee shall be provided by the Division of Legislative Services. Technical assistance shall be provided by the State Corporation Commission. All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the joint subcommittee for this study, upon request.
The joint subcommittee shall be limited to four meetings for the 2008 interim, and the direct costs of this study shall not exceed $10,000 without approval as set out in this resolution. Approval for unbudgeted nonmember-related expenses shall require the written authorization of the chairman of the joint subcommittee and the respective Clerk. If a companion joint resolution of the other chamber is agreed to, written authorization of both Clerks shall be required.
No recommendation of the joint subcommittee shall be adopted if a majority of the Senate members or a majority of the House members appointed to the joint subcommittee (i) vote against the recommendation and (ii) vote for the recommendation to fail notwithstanding the majority vote of the joint subcommittee.
The joint subcommittee shall complete its meetings by November 30, 2008, and the chairman shall submit to the Division of Legislative Automated Systems an executive summary of its findings and recommendations no later than the first day of the 2009 Regular Session of the General Assembly. The executive summary shall state whether the joint subcommittee intends to submit to the General Assembly and the Governor a report of its findings and recommendations for publication as a Senate or House document.
The executive summary and the report shall be submitted as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents and reports and shall be posted on the General Assembly's website.Implementation of this resolution is subject to subsequent approval and certification by the Joint Rules Committee.
The Committee may approve or disapprove expenditures for this study, extend or delay the period for the conduct of the study, or authorize additional meetings during the 2008 interim.
Any of the currently pending 3 bills, SB525, SJ100, and SJ107, is enough to authorize the study of uranium mining in Virginia, more specifically in Pittsylvania County. Any opposition to one of the bills must include opposition to the other 2.
And we need to remain vigilant toward even more bills. One is all that's needed...therefore all must be opposed.
Smidgen Barnes
Louisville, KY
Uranium Mining Proponents Resort to Thievery
Mining Supporters Steal Opponent's Yard Signs!!
Thursday, January 24, 2007, SCC supporter and Publicity Committee member John Chaney posted two freshly printed anti-uranium mining signs in his front yard on Main Street in Chatham, VA. Within one hour of posting the signs, they were stolen by persons unknown!
Chaney propmtly reported the theft to both the Chatham Town police and the Pittsylvania County Sheriff's Office. He alerted both to the fact that this may occur again all over the county as SCC has purchased hundreds of signs for their many supporters. Both agencies said they would be on the lookout for anyone who may tamper with, destroy, or steal the signs, which is considered Theft by the Criminal Code of Vrginia.
Mr. Chaney then promptly replaced the two stolen signs with five additional signs!!!!!
Thursday, January 24, 2007, SCC supporter and Publicity Committee member John Chaney posted two freshly printed anti-uranium mining signs in his front yard on Main Street in Chatham, VA. Within one hour of posting the signs, they were stolen by persons unknown!
Chaney propmtly reported the theft to both the Chatham Town police and the Pittsylvania County Sheriff's Office. He alerted both to the fact that this may occur again all over the county as SCC has purchased hundreds of signs for their many supporters. Both agencies said they would be on the lookout for anyone who may tamper with, destroy, or steal the signs, which is considered Theft by the Criminal Code of Vrginia.
Mr. Chaney then promptly replaced the two stolen signs with five additional signs!!!!!
Senate Bill may Pass Friday!
SJ107 is on the Senate Rules Committee's agenda for Friday, Jan.25 (tomorrow).
The Chair of that committee is Mary Margaret Whipple, co-sponsor of SB525. I have no doubt that the Resolution will come out of committee tomorrow.
Here's the Rules' docket for tomorrow, Jan 25th: http://tinyurl.com/297m56Coles' mining study is all but certain. The Resolution is on the blog and it can be accessed here as well:http://tinyurl.com/263kwk
Take a look at it...it directs a legislative subcommittee to do the study which is insane but which pretty much guarantees that it will be favorable to Coles, et al. Jack Dunavant has spoken to several issues that the Resolution creates...you can find his excellent questions and comments on the blog too.
First and foremost, there's no opportunity for public input to the study subcommittee so it remains vital that each local community panel, board, governing body, etc. continue to hear opposition from SCC so that they'll continue to find creative ways to block the eventual mining of Coles Hill.
There's still a huge fight to be fought and SCC can indeed fight! Unity has never been more important...this issue demands a unified voice so hang together tightly!
Continued strength and luck to you...
Smidgen Barnes
Louisville, KY
The Chair of that committee is Mary Margaret Whipple, co-sponsor of SB525. I have no doubt that the Resolution will come out of committee tomorrow.
Here's the Rules' docket for tomorrow, Jan 25th: http://tinyurl.com/297m56Coles' mining study is all but certain. The Resolution is on the blog and it can be accessed here as well:http://tinyurl.com/263kwk
Take a look at it...it directs a legislative subcommittee to do the study which is insane but which pretty much guarantees that it will be favorable to Coles, et al. Jack Dunavant has spoken to several issues that the Resolution creates...you can find his excellent questions and comments on the blog too.
First and foremost, there's no opportunity for public input to the study subcommittee so it remains vital that each local community panel, board, governing body, etc. continue to hear opposition from SCC so that they'll continue to find creative ways to block the eventual mining of Coles Hill.
There's still a huge fight to be fought and SCC can indeed fight! Unity has never been more important...this issue demands a unified voice so hang together tightly!
Continued strength and luck to you...
Smidgen Barnes
Louisville, KY
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Uranium Mine Owner Tries 2nd Track in General Assembly
(Following is from a Concerned Friend in Kentucky)
How clever...Coles has his study request being covered in at least 2 directions. This is a Senate Joint Resolution and states that the House concurs.
This means that after this bill comes out of the Rules Committee, and it will because the members of Rules include the principle sponsors of SB525, it can be approved on a voice vote. When that happens, the study begins to take shape.
Changing the Code of Virginia, as necessitated by SB525, might have proved too slow a process. Whatever the case, Coles' political advisors have decided that this route could easily be quicker.
I'd have to agree. If you're going to oppose SB525, it's vital that SJ107 be opposed as vehemently and vigorously. This Joint Resolution ultimately allows the mining study.
SJ107 indicates that it was filed on Jan 9, 2008 but, if it was, it wasn't made public on that date. Sometimes legislators can get these things held back and blame 'human error' or 'oversight' or some other vague 'mistake' for not getting it before the public in a timely manner. Certainly, Coles bills are not being properly announced and/or cross-referenced in the Legislative Information System (LIS) which is supposed to be the way the public can track bills.
Pretty sleazy operations...or just fortunate for Coles?
Smidgen Barnes
Louisville, KY
How clever...Coles has his study request being covered in at least 2 directions. This is a Senate Joint Resolution and states that the House concurs.
This means that after this bill comes out of the Rules Committee, and it will because the members of Rules include the principle sponsors of SB525, it can be approved on a voice vote. When that happens, the study begins to take shape.
Changing the Code of Virginia, as necessitated by SB525, might have proved too slow a process. Whatever the case, Coles' political advisors have decided that this route could easily be quicker.
I'd have to agree. If you're going to oppose SB525, it's vital that SJ107 be opposed as vehemently and vigorously. This Joint Resolution ultimately allows the mining study.
SJ107 indicates that it was filed on Jan 9, 2008 but, if it was, it wasn't made public on that date. Sometimes legislators can get these things held back and blame 'human error' or 'oversight' or some other vague 'mistake' for not getting it before the public in a timely manner. Certainly, Coles bills are not being properly announced and/or cross-referenced in the Legislative Information System (LIS) which is supposed to be the way the public can track bills.
Pretty sleazy operations...or just fortunate for Coles?
Smidgen Barnes
Louisville, KY
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Halifax Town Considers Anti-Corporate Measure
The Town of Halifax Recognizes and Acts on the Threat from the Multi-National Corporations.......
What are Pittsylvania County and Chatham Town Officials Going to do to Protect Us?
(Following is from The Gazette-Virginian 01/18/2008)
Halifax council to hold hearing on uranium concerns
By BETH ROBERTSON
HALIFAX - Halifax Town Council has agreed to take a “chemical trespass” ordinance billed as a tool for citizens’ protection to public hearing.
A planning commission public hearing on the ordinance, which is in response to Virginia Uranium’s proposed mining and milling operation at Coles Hill near Chatham, will be held at 7 p.m. Jan. 30 in Town Hall.
Council is expected to address the issue at its Feb. 12 meeting, Town Manager Carl Espy said Thursday.
Coles Hill is located about six miles from Chatham in Pittsylvania County. Halifax is located downstream from the proposed uranium mine, an estimated $10 billion ore deposit.
Southside Concerned Citizens is opposing mining citing concerns about air and groundwater pollution in the region.
Council’s action came during its Tuesday night session following a preliminary review of the proposed ordinance by Halifax attorney George Bagwell. The attorney said he had only a short time to review the long document, and said he had not reviewed the town’s most recent charter, which could have an impact on the issue.
Although Bagwell advised council he found nothing that he thought would hurt the town or create liability, he did question the enforceability of some clauses.
He also noted that towns and municipalities generally do not have the right to pass laws that will generate lawsuits. However, Bagwell said he was not an expert in the field, and the document would require additional study.
Similar ordinances have been passed by numerous communities in Pennsylvania to “stop corporate assaults,” according to Shireen Parsons, the state’s community organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, and the organization that provided the ordinance draft. Parsons said the ordinances have been used to protect citizens against mining and sludge disposal projects, among others, and have been effective.
Councilman Jack Dunavant made the motion to advertise the ordinance for public hearing, with a second by Councilman Dick Moore.
“The wolf is at the door,” said Dunavant, urging council to approve taking the ordinance to public hearing. The councilman also described the ordinance as “on the cutting edge of constitutional law.”
Bagwell described the ordinance as “really high-tech.”
Council agreed to the “encompassing ordinance” with the understanding some clauses could be cut or modified prior to final hearing.
Bagwell is expected to review the ordinance with attorney Tom Lindsey, who wrote the ordinance, prior to the public hearing.
Parsons said Lindsey would be happy to work with the town at no cost.
By BETH ROBERTSON
HALIFAX - Halifax Town Council has agreed to take a “chemical trespass” ordinance billed as a tool for citizens’ protection to public hearing.
A planning commission public hearing on the ordinance, which is in response to Virginia Uranium’s proposed mining and milling operation at Coles Hill near Chatham, will be held at 7 p.m. Jan. 30 in Town Hall.
Council is expected to address the issue at its Feb. 12 meeting, Town Manager Carl Espy said Thursday.
Coles Hill is located about six miles from Chatham in Pittsylvania County. Halifax is located downstream from the proposed uranium mine, an estimated $10 billion ore deposit.
Southside Concerned Citizens is opposing mining citing concerns about air and groundwater pollution in the region.
Council’s action came during its Tuesday night session following a preliminary review of the proposed ordinance by Halifax attorney George Bagwell. The attorney said he had only a short time to review the long document, and said he had not reviewed the town’s most recent charter, which could have an impact on the issue.
Although Bagwell advised council he found nothing that he thought would hurt the town or create liability, he did question the enforceability of some clauses.
He also noted that towns and municipalities generally do not have the right to pass laws that will generate lawsuits. However, Bagwell said he was not an expert in the field, and the document would require additional study.
Similar ordinances have been passed by numerous communities in Pennsylvania to “stop corporate assaults,” according to Shireen Parsons, the state’s community organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, and the organization that provided the ordinance draft. Parsons said the ordinances have been used to protect citizens against mining and sludge disposal projects, among others, and have been effective.
Councilman Jack Dunavant made the motion to advertise the ordinance for public hearing, with a second by Councilman Dick Moore.
“The wolf is at the door,” said Dunavant, urging council to approve taking the ordinance to public hearing. The councilman also described the ordinance as “on the cutting edge of constitutional law.”
Bagwell described the ordinance as “really high-tech.”
Council agreed to the “encompassing ordinance” with the understanding some clauses could be cut or modified prior to final hearing.
Bagwell is expected to review the ordinance with attorney Tom Lindsey, who wrote the ordinance, prior to the public hearing.
Parsons said Lindsey would be happy to work with the town at no cost.
THE WORLD'S BIGGEST URANIUM MINE
Olympic Dam Mine
Olympic Dam mine is the world's largest copper-uranium mine and is owned and operated by Western Mining Corporation (WMC). The mine has been in production for over 15 years.
An Indenture Act signed in 1989 freed WMC from the 'burden' of State and Federal legislation and contained a confidentiality clause prohibiting the release of environmental and health reports unless agreed to by WMC and the government. This has serious consequences considering the hazardous nature of mining and milling uranium.
It is expected that at least 160 million tonnes of radioactive waste will be produced over the life-span of Olympic Dam mine. The waste includes radioactive wash water known as tailings which are stored in 75 hectare retention ponds with levees 30 metres high. The poison will not affect WMC's future but a radioactive legacy imposed upon the traditional owners for many generations. This is undeniably a form of state sanctioned genocide that will continue for thousands of years. Tailings penetrate underground water resources, water that communities need to survive. Radiation emitted from tailings affects humans, animals and plants, causing cancer and genetic mutation.Another aspect of the Olympic Dam project having devastating affects on country and culture is the enormous quantity of water used to process the uranium. The Indenture Act gives permission for WMC to siphon a maximum of 42 million litres a day from the Great Artesian Basin. WMC is under no obligation to pay for the water they use
Olympic Dam mine is the world's largest copper-uranium mine and is owned and operated by Western Mining Corporation (WMC). The mine has been in production for over 15 years.
An Indenture Act signed in 1989 freed WMC from the 'burden' of State and Federal legislation and contained a confidentiality clause prohibiting the release of environmental and health reports unless agreed to by WMC and the government. This has serious consequences considering the hazardous nature of mining and milling uranium.
It is expected that at least 160 million tonnes of radioactive waste will be produced over the life-span of Olympic Dam mine. The waste includes radioactive wash water known as tailings which are stored in 75 hectare retention ponds with levees 30 metres high. The poison will not affect WMC's future but a radioactive legacy imposed upon the traditional owners for many generations. This is undeniably a form of state sanctioned genocide that will continue for thousands of years. Tailings penetrate underground water resources, water that communities need to survive. Radiation emitted from tailings affects humans, animals and plants, causing cancer and genetic mutation.Another aspect of the Olympic Dam project having devastating affects on country and culture is the enormous quantity of water used to process the uranium. The Indenture Act gives permission for WMC to siphon a maximum of 42 million litres a day from the Great Artesian Basin. WMC is under no obligation to pay for the water they use
WHO DECIDES Forum Planned
SCC Chairman Jack Dunavant announced a Public Forum for Citizens and Public Officials---
Thursday, January 24, 7:00 p.m.
Halifax County High School
310 High School Circle, South Boston VA 24592
Who Decides?
Who decides whether the people of Southside, Virginia, should have to endure uranium mining and its impacts on human health and our environment - the citizens of Southside Virginia, or the corporate officers of Virginia Uranium Inc.? That's the question that will be posed to the citizens and elected officials of the Southside communities that would be directly affected by the proposed mine in Pittsylvania County. Presenting the case for decision-making by the people who will be affected by that decision will be Ben Price and Shireen Parsons, the Projects Director and the Virginia Community Organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), a nonprofit, community-interest law firm.
Local Self-Government on Issues of Local Import: the Kind of Government You Can Get Behind
Since 1995, the Legal Defense Fund has assisted community groups and local governments in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and New Jersey to draft municipal ordinances that prohibit corporate activities determined by the citizens to be a threat to their health, safety, environment and quality of life. Municipalities that have asserted their right to self-governance by adopting such ordinances have tackled issues including long-wall mining, ground water withdrawals, factory farms, sewage sludge and corporate waste dumping.
Just Government Exists Only With the Consent of the Governed
Some who distrust democracy argue that it is "beyond the authority" of communities to make governing decisions and pass laws on such issues. They assert that it is up to the state, or the "experts" to decide what's best for the people, the ecology, and future generations of Virginians, and that a centralized system of decision-making is "more efficient." But that's not the model of decision-making and self-government envisioned by the American Revolutionaries who signed their names to a bold statement of community rights that asserted: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." Clearly, when people are governed by powers derived, not from their consent, but from some other force, governing power is separated from justice.
Security Begins at Home
Those who disparage the people and their decision-making ability pretend that compliance and obedience are necessary in service of the greater good, for an abstract ideological concept, or for "homeland security." But security really begins at home. If our communities are not secure, if we, the people are stripped of our rights of self-determination and self-government, if the health of our children can be jeopardized in service of corporate profits and the political security of those who decide for us, how can we say the nation will be secure? Homeland security begins at home - if our communities are not secure, the nation cannot be secure.
Regulating Is Not Governing
State regulatory agencies issue permits for activities that are detrimental to communities across Virginia, and the people in those communities are prevented by their own elected representatives from corporate assaults that promise gradual but complete destruction. Citizens are told they can regulate the rate of destruction by advocating for the strict enforcement of permissive regulations. But to regulate harm is to allow it, while merely attempting to limit the severity. To regulate is not to govern. The people have an inalienable right to self-government, not a limited right to mitigate harms. If the people are denied their inalienable right to self-government in the communities where they live, they have it nowhere at all.
The Time Is Now
This presentation will bring the necessity for action to the forefront. Gathering data, writing to legislators, petitioning regulatory agencies, testifying at public hearings - these are not self-governing activities, but grievance procedures. There is no hero waiting in the wings to save our communities from ruin. We are the ones we have been waiting for. Our time has come. There is no time to lose.
Thursday, Jan 24, 7:00 pm Halifax County High School
Who Decides Whether Southside Virginia
Will Be a Sacrifice Zone for Uranium Mining?
A Public Forum for citizens and elected officials
Will Be a Sacrifice Zone for Uranium Mining?
A Public Forum for citizens and elected officials
Thursday, January 24, 7:00 p.m.
Halifax County High School
310 High School Circle, South Boston VA 24592
Who Decides?
Who decides whether the people of Southside, Virginia, should have to endure uranium mining and its impacts on human health and our environment - the citizens of Southside Virginia, or the corporate officers of Virginia Uranium Inc.? That's the question that will be posed to the citizens and elected officials of the Southside communities that would be directly affected by the proposed mine in Pittsylvania County. Presenting the case for decision-making by the people who will be affected by that decision will be Ben Price and Shireen Parsons, the Projects Director and the Virginia Community Organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), a nonprofit, community-interest law firm.
Local Self-Government on Issues of Local Import: the Kind of Government You Can Get Behind
Since 1995, the Legal Defense Fund has assisted community groups and local governments in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and New Jersey to draft municipal ordinances that prohibit corporate activities determined by the citizens to be a threat to their health, safety, environment and quality of life. Municipalities that have asserted their right to self-governance by adopting such ordinances have tackled issues including long-wall mining, ground water withdrawals, factory farms, sewage sludge and corporate waste dumping.
Just Government Exists Only With the Consent of the Governed
Some who distrust democracy argue that it is "beyond the authority" of communities to make governing decisions and pass laws on such issues. They assert that it is up to the state, or the "experts" to decide what's best for the people, the ecology, and future generations of Virginians, and that a centralized system of decision-making is "more efficient." But that's not the model of decision-making and self-government envisioned by the American Revolutionaries who signed their names to a bold statement of community rights that asserted: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." Clearly, when people are governed by powers derived, not from their consent, but from some other force, governing power is separated from justice.
Security Begins at Home
Those who disparage the people and their decision-making ability pretend that compliance and obedience are necessary in service of the greater good, for an abstract ideological concept, or for "homeland security." But security really begins at home. If our communities are not secure, if we, the people are stripped of our rights of self-determination and self-government, if the health of our children can be jeopardized in service of corporate profits and the political security of those who decide for us, how can we say the nation will be secure? Homeland security begins at home - if our communities are not secure, the nation cannot be secure.
Regulating Is Not Governing
State regulatory agencies issue permits for activities that are detrimental to communities across Virginia, and the people in those communities are prevented by their own elected representatives from corporate assaults that promise gradual but complete destruction. Citizens are told they can regulate the rate of destruction by advocating for the strict enforcement of permissive regulations. But to regulate harm is to allow it, while merely attempting to limit the severity. To regulate is not to govern. The people have an inalienable right to self-government, not a limited right to mitigate harms. If the people are denied their inalienable right to self-government in the communities where they live, they have it nowhere at all.
The Time Is Now
This presentation will bring the necessity for action to the forefront. Gathering data, writing to legislators, petitioning regulatory agencies, testifying at public hearings - these are not self-governing activities, but grievance procedures. There is no hero waiting in the wings to save our communities from ruin. We are the ones we have been waiting for. Our time has come. There is no time to lose.
One Man's Email to State Legislators
The following is my email to all of the state legislators whose email addresses are cited in a below post:
It has come to my attention that you are in a position to influence or even vote on Senate Bill 525 and Senate Joint Resolution 107, both of which support a state study of uranium mining in Virginia.
Please be aware of my 100% opposition to even a study of this potentially disastrous legislation. As you well know, a study usually leads to a positive finding on an issue, and, more importantly, "he who pays for the study, gets the results he wants."
I am a conservative Republican but have decided that this issue is a dealmaker or deal-breaker for me in terms of who I will support in all future elections, both locally and statewide. Please represent the interests of the people of Virginia over the interests of Multi-National and local Corporations. I do want to support you in the future; please make the decisions that will allow me to do so.
Thank you,
John E. Chaney
270 N Main St
Chatham, VA 24531
It has come to my attention that you are in a position to influence or even vote on Senate Bill 525 and Senate Joint Resolution 107, both of which support a state study of uranium mining in Virginia.
Please be aware of my 100% opposition to even a study of this potentially disastrous legislation. As you well know, a study usually leads to a positive finding on an issue, and, more importantly, "he who pays for the study, gets the results he wants."
I am a conservative Republican but have decided that this issue is a dealmaker or deal-breaker for me in terms of who I will support in all future elections, both locally and statewide. Please represent the interests of the people of Virginia over the interests of Multi-National and local Corporations. I do want to support you in the future; please make the decisions that will allow me to do so.
Thank you,
John E. Chaney
270 N Main St
Chatham, VA 24531
Additional Study Bill Offered
Senate Joint Resolution #107:
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 107
Offered January 9, 2008
Prefiled January 9, 2008
Establishing a joint subcommittee to study the mining of uranium in the Commonwealth.
----------
Patron-- Saslaw
----------
Referred to Committee on Rules
----------
WHEREAS, the long-term and short-term impacts to the state and local economies, both positive and negative posed by the development of a uranium mining and processing industry in the Commonwealth needs to be examined; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That a joint subcommittee be established to study the mining of uranium in the Commonwealth. The joint subcommittee shall have a total membership of eight members. Members shall be appointed as follows: three members of the Senate to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules and five members of the House of Delegates to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Delegates in accordance with the principles of proportional representation contained in the Rules of the House of Delegates. The joint subcommittee shall elect a chairman and vice chairman from among its membership.
In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall review the findings of a study completed by the National Academy of Sciences and funded from state appropriations.
Administrative staff support shall be provided by the Office of the Clerk of the Senate. Legal, research, policy analysis, and other services as requested by the joint subcommittee shall be provided by the Division of Legislative Services. All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the joint subcommittee for this study, upon request.
The joint subcommittee shall be limited to four meetings for the 2008 interim, and the direct costs of this study shall not exceed $8,000 without approval as set out in this resolution. Approval for unbudgeted nonmember-related expenses shall require the written authorization of the chairman of the joint subcommittee and the respective Clerk. If a companion joint resolution of the other chamber is agreed to, written authorization of both Clerks shall be required.
No recommendation of the joint subcommittee shall be adopted if a majority of the Senate members or a majority of the House members appointed to the joint subcommittee (i) vote against the recommendation and (ii) vote for the recommendation to fail notwithstanding the majority vote of the joint subcommittee.
The joint subcommittee shall complete its meetings by November 30, 2008, and the chairman shall submit to the Division of Legislative Automated Systems an executive summary of its findings and recommendations no later than the first day of the 2009 Regular Session of the General Assembly. The executive summary shall state whether the joint subcommittee intends to submit to the General Assembly and the Governor a report of its findings and recommendations for publication as a Senate or House document. The executive summary and the report shall be submitted as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents and reports and shall be posted on the General Assembly's website.
Implementation of this resolution is subject to subsequent approval and certification by the Joint Rules Committee. The Committee may approve or disapprove expenditures for this study, extend or delay the period for the conduct of the study, or authorize additional meetings during the 2008 interim.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 107
Offered January 9, 2008
Prefiled January 9, 2008
Establishing a joint subcommittee to study the mining of uranium in the Commonwealth.
----------
Patron-- Saslaw
----------
Referred to Committee on Rules
----------
WHEREAS, the long-term and short-term impacts to the state and local economies, both positive and negative posed by the development of a uranium mining and processing industry in the Commonwealth needs to be examined; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That a joint subcommittee be established to study the mining of uranium in the Commonwealth. The joint subcommittee shall have a total membership of eight members. Members shall be appointed as follows: three members of the Senate to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules and five members of the House of Delegates to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Delegates in accordance with the principles of proportional representation contained in the Rules of the House of Delegates. The joint subcommittee shall elect a chairman and vice chairman from among its membership.
In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall review the findings of a study completed by the National Academy of Sciences and funded from state appropriations.
Administrative staff support shall be provided by the Office of the Clerk of the Senate. Legal, research, policy analysis, and other services as requested by the joint subcommittee shall be provided by the Division of Legislative Services. All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the joint subcommittee for this study, upon request.
The joint subcommittee shall be limited to four meetings for the 2008 interim, and the direct costs of this study shall not exceed $8,000 without approval as set out in this resolution. Approval for unbudgeted nonmember-related expenses shall require the written authorization of the chairman of the joint subcommittee and the respective Clerk. If a companion joint resolution of the other chamber is agreed to, written authorization of both Clerks shall be required.
No recommendation of the joint subcommittee shall be adopted if a majority of the Senate members or a majority of the House members appointed to the joint subcommittee (i) vote against the recommendation and (ii) vote for the recommendation to fail notwithstanding the majority vote of the joint subcommittee.
The joint subcommittee shall complete its meetings by November 30, 2008, and the chairman shall submit to the Division of Legislative Automated Systems an executive summary of its findings and recommendations no later than the first day of the 2009 Regular Session of the General Assembly. The executive summary shall state whether the joint subcommittee intends to submit to the General Assembly and the Governor a report of its findings and recommendations for publication as a Senate or House document. The executive summary and the report shall be submitted as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents and reports and shall be posted on the General Assembly's website.
Implementation of this resolution is subject to subsequent approval and certification by the Joint Rules Committee. The Committee may approve or disapprove expenditures for this study, extend or delay the period for the conduct of the study, or authorize additional meetings during the 2008 interim.
SCC Member Responds to Coles' Full-page Ad
(Following is from Wallace Nunn, SCC Board Member and reflects his concerns with the statements made in the Multi-National Mining Company's full-page ad in Pittsylvania county news media the week of 01/16/2008)
Food for thought........This is what I get out of the ad..
Question 1: Everyone knows the answer to that one.
Question 2: Is VUI asking to have the current moratorium on uranium mining lifted "IMMEDIATELY"?
This doesn't deny that they are trying to get the moratorium lifted, just denies that they are trying to get it lifted "IMMEDIATELY".
Question 3: Who owns VUI?
Admits Canadian ownership.
Question 4: What's the basis for so much hysteria over uranium mining?
A very weak explanation. If they had to go back to the 1940s - 1960s for an explanation, they are just grasping at straws.
Question 5: What sort of nuclear-related industry is going on in Lynchburg?
The people of Lynchburg, Campbell County and downstream on the beautiful and historic James River will have to deal with the "Big Accident" when it happens.
Question 7: Is it true that VUI is importing employees from other states to work?
That's what they say now, but what about later. Maybe all the employees at "our Chatham headquarters" are Virginia employees. Do you really believe that all the employees at the mine site are Virginia employees? I guess they would be considered Virginia employees, if they are working there now. What else would they be? Where would they find people qualified to drill and mine uranium in Halifax and Pittsylvania Counties?
"REALITY CHECK"
If all drilling is done underwater, what happens to the water containing the dust? How do you recycle radioactive water?
If the core samples do not contain enough radioactivity to register, then what good are they?
The entire ad is full of untruths and half-truths.
The Coles Hill mine sight should be a very good market for bottled water. How many of the people there do you think will drink water from the water well they plan to drill? Even though the site is "safe".
Wallace Nunn
Food for thought........This is what I get out of the ad..
Question 1: Everyone knows the answer to that one.
Question 2: Is VUI asking to have the current moratorium on uranium mining lifted "IMMEDIATELY"?
This doesn't deny that they are trying to get the moratorium lifted, just denies that they are trying to get it lifted "IMMEDIATELY".
Question 3: Who owns VUI?
Admits Canadian ownership.
Question 4: What's the basis for so much hysteria over uranium mining?
A very weak explanation. If they had to go back to the 1940s - 1960s for an explanation, they are just grasping at straws.
Question 5: What sort of nuclear-related industry is going on in Lynchburg?
The people of Lynchburg, Campbell County and downstream on the beautiful and historic James River will have to deal with the "Big Accident" when it happens.
Question 7: Is it true that VUI is importing employees from other states to work?
That's what they say now, but what about later. Maybe all the employees at "our Chatham headquarters" are Virginia employees. Do you really believe that all the employees at the mine site are Virginia employees? I guess they would be considered Virginia employees, if they are working there now. What else would they be? Where would they find people qualified to drill and mine uranium in Halifax and Pittsylvania Counties?
"REALITY CHECK"
If all drilling is done underwater, what happens to the water containing the dust? How do you recycle radioactive water?
If the core samples do not contain enough radioactivity to register, then what good are they?
The entire ad is full of untruths and half-truths.
The Coles Hill mine sight should be a very good market for bottled water. How many of the people there do you think will drink water from the water well they plan to drill? Even though the site is "safe".
Wallace Nunn
Penn Township Vote to Strip Corporations of Rights
This is THE Way to Fight the Multi-National Mining Corporations Here in Virginia !!!!!
(From www.rachel.org 01/17/08)
Concurrently Adopts Ordinance to Strip Corporations of "Rights" Joins Growing List of Communities to Recognize the Rights Of Nature
On December 18, 2007, the Board of Supervisors in Donegal Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania voted 2-1 to adopt an Ordinance banning corporations from mining within the Township. Passed to confront concerns about corporate longwall coal mining, the new Ordinance prohibits corporations from engaging in mining activities.
In doing so, the Supervisors took a stand with neighboring Blaine Township, which passed a similar Ordinance on October 16, 2006. In addition to prohibiting corporations from mining, the Donegal Supervisors adopted a second Ordinance that strips corporations of constitutional protections within the Township. The Township thus becomes the ninth municipality in the nation to refuse to recognize corporate constitutional "rights," and to prohibit corporate "rights" from being used to override the rights of human and natural communities.
The Ordinances adopted by the Donegal Township Board of Supervisors also (1) recognize the rights of natural communities and ecosystems to exist and flourish within the Township, and provides for the enforcement and defense of those rights, (2) prohibit corporate contributions to candidates for elected office within the Township, (3) prohibit mining corporations from purchasing mineral rights or land for mining, and (4) prohibit mining corporations from interfering with the civil rights of residents, including residents' right to self-government.
The Ordinances were drafted by Donegal Township residents in conjunction with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit law firm. Thomas Linzey, the Executive Director of the Legal Defense Fund, applauded the vote of the Board of Supervisors, declaring that "for too long, a handful of powerful men have controlled the fate of communities in Western Pennsylvania, using large corporations to impose surface and longwall mining on people wanting to stop the harms caused by mining in the region. Those few, who benefit from the privileges bestowed on corporations, routinely use State law to preempt municipalities from protecting their residents. With adoption of this Ordinance yet another Pennsylvania community is exercising the governing authority of community majorities, and eliminating the governing authority of a corporate few."
============== The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, located in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, has worked with communities resisting corporate assaults upon democratic self-governance since 1995. Among other programs, it has brought its unique Daniel Pennock Democracy Schools to communities in Pennsylvania and twenty-five other states where people seek to end destructive and rights-denying corporate acts routinely permitted by state and federal agencies. Over one hundred Pennsylvania municipalities have adopted ordinances authored by the Legal Defense Fund.
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund Thomas Linzey, Esq. 675 Mower Road Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17202 (717) 709-0457 tal@pa.net
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment & Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are often considered separately or not at all.
The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy, intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and therefore ruled by the few.
In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, "Who gets to decide?" And, "How do the few control the many, and what might be done about it?" As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots, please Email them to us at dhn@rachel.org.
Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject. Editors: Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy & Health News send any Email to: rachel-subscribe@pplist.net. In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that you want to subscribe. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research FoundationP.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903dhn@rachel.org
(From www.rachel.org 01/17/08)
Concurrently Adopts Ordinance to Strip Corporations of "Rights" Joins Growing List of Communities to Recognize the Rights Of Nature
On December 18, 2007, the Board of Supervisors in Donegal Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania voted 2-1 to adopt an Ordinance banning corporations from mining within the Township. Passed to confront concerns about corporate longwall coal mining, the new Ordinance prohibits corporations from engaging in mining activities.
In doing so, the Supervisors took a stand with neighboring Blaine Township, which passed a similar Ordinance on October 16, 2006. In addition to prohibiting corporations from mining, the Donegal Supervisors adopted a second Ordinance that strips corporations of constitutional protections within the Township. The Township thus becomes the ninth municipality in the nation to refuse to recognize corporate constitutional "rights," and to prohibit corporate "rights" from being used to override the rights of human and natural communities.
The Ordinances adopted by the Donegal Township Board of Supervisors also (1) recognize the rights of natural communities and ecosystems to exist and flourish within the Township, and provides for the enforcement and defense of those rights, (2) prohibit corporate contributions to candidates for elected office within the Township, (3) prohibit mining corporations from purchasing mineral rights or land for mining, and (4) prohibit mining corporations from interfering with the civil rights of residents, including residents' right to self-government.
The Ordinances were drafted by Donegal Township residents in conjunction with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit law firm. Thomas Linzey, the Executive Director of the Legal Defense Fund, applauded the vote of the Board of Supervisors, declaring that "for too long, a handful of powerful men have controlled the fate of communities in Western Pennsylvania, using large corporations to impose surface and longwall mining on people wanting to stop the harms caused by mining in the region. Those few, who benefit from the privileges bestowed on corporations, routinely use State law to preempt municipalities from protecting their residents. With adoption of this Ordinance yet another Pennsylvania community is exercising the governing authority of community majorities, and eliminating the governing authority of a corporate few."
============== The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, located in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, has worked with communities resisting corporate assaults upon democratic self-governance since 1995. Among other programs, it has brought its unique Daniel Pennock Democracy Schools to communities in Pennsylvania and twenty-five other states where people seek to end destructive and rights-denying corporate acts routinely permitted by state and federal agencies. Over one hundred Pennsylvania municipalities have adopted ordinances authored by the Legal Defense Fund.
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund Thomas Linzey, Esq. 675 Mower Road Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17202 (717) 709-0457 tal@pa.net
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment & Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are often considered separately or not at all.
The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy, intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and therefore ruled by the few.
In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, "Who gets to decide?" And, "How do the few control the many, and what might be done about it?" As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots, please Email them to us at dhn@rachel.org.
Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject. Editors: Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy & Health News send any Email to: rachel-subscribe@pplist.net. In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that you want to subscribe. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research FoundationP.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903dhn@rachel.org
Email Addresses of Critical Legislators....
This is the email list of Senators and Delegates who:
- are Southside's representatives to the Gen. Assembly, or,
- sponsors of the Senate Bill 525 authorizing a uranium study, or,
- are members of the Senate committee who will vote on the Senate bill.
Your Job......Email each and Every one of Them Now and Continuously During this General Assembly!! Then, get all of your family and friends to do the same!!
Southside Representatives:
Senator Robert Hurt district19@sov.state.va.us
Senator Frank Ruff district15@sov.state.va.us
Senator Roscue Reynolds district20@sov.state.va.us
Senator Shannon Valentine district @sov.state.va.us
Delegate Don Merricks DelDMerricks@house.state.va.us
Delegate Danny Marshall DelDMarshall@house.state.va.us
Delegate Clarke Hogan DelCHogan@house.state.va.us
Delegate Charles Poindexter DelCPoindexter@house.state.va.us
Delagate Thomas Wright DelTWright@house.state.va.us
Delegate Ward Armstrong DelWArmstrong@house.state.va.us
Sponsors of Senate Bill 525
Senator Frank Wagner district07@sov.state.va.us
Senator Phillip Puckett district38@sov.state.va.us
Senator Richard Saslaw district35@sov.state.va.us
Senator John Watkins district10@sov.state.va.us
Senator Mary Margaret Whipple district31@sov.state.va.us
Members-Senate Agriculture, Conservation, and Natural Resources Committee (not previously cited)
Senator Patricia Ticer district30@sov.state.va.us
Senator Emmett Hanger district24@sov.state.va.us
Senator Harry Blevins district14@sov.state.va.us
Senator R. Creih Deeds district25@sov.state.va.us
Senator Ken Cuccinelli district37@sov.state.va.us
Senator Mark Obenshain district26@sov.state.va.us
Senator Mamie Locke district2@sov.state.va.us
Senator Ryan McDougle district4@sov.state.va.us
Senator A. Donald McEachin district9@sov.state.va.us
Senator Ralph Northam district6@sov.state.va.us
Please write/email them regularly. Include your full name and address in your signature!
Expert Says... Focus on the Study !
(The following is from Katie Whitehead)
Date: January 16, 2008
IF there is going to be a uranium study, make it good.
By Katie Whitehead
Senate Bill No. 525 would establish the VirginiaUranium Mining Commission in order "to assess therisks and benefits of developing Virginia's uraniumresources and to advise the Governor and GeneralAssembly." I urge you to make your opinion-whatever itis-known to your Senator and Delegate.
In writing or calling legislators, please considerthese questions and suggestions:
1) Read Senate Bill 525 before writing or callingsenators or delegates. The text is available onlineat:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+SB525.
If you don't have Internet access, your locallibrarian can help.
2) Consider how uranium mining in Virginia mightaffect you and your loved ones. Are your concernsincluded in the study proposal? Will the commissioninclude members who will represent your point of view?I see no reference to public participation, such aspublic hearings, in Senate Bill 525.
3) It is generally easier to identify and measurepotential benefits than potential costs of developingVirginia's uranium resources. Subtle and long-termhealth effects may be impossible to identify andquantify with any certainty, but this is no reason toneglect or underestimate them in a study.
4) Consider the scope of the study: The study done inthe 1980s did not fully consider the potential effectsof uranium mining, milling, and tailings storagestatewide. Lifting the moratorium would allow uraniummining for the indefinite future throughout Virginia,not only by Virginia Uranium, Inc. (VUI) but alsoother companies not yet identified. (VUI estimates itwill mine for 40 years at Coles Hill.) A study shouldconsider costs and benefits for all the years ofuranium mining and for the centuries that minetailings would pose a danger.
5) Emphasize the need to look closely and criticallyat any assumptions made by the study-assumptions suchas whether any radioactive particles may leach out ofthe tailings ponds, and if so what quantity. No costbenefit study should assume that there would be nodesign flaws, accidents, flood, earthquake, ordeterioration of structures over the period when thetailings present a potential danger.
6) Note that the standards used in calculating healthcosts are controversial. For example, there issignificant disagreement about how much radiationexposure should be allowed. Neither governmentagencies nor health physicists agree about whatexposure is acceptable, and different standardsproduce very different health cost estimates. I feelit is appropriate to use conservative standards, buteveryone should be able to agree that estimates basedon a range of credible standards, up to the legallypermitted limits, would give the best idea of what theactual costs might be.
7) Is The National Academy of Sciences, which is theonly entity specifically named in Senate Bill 525, themost appropriate organization to help Virginia withthis study? I don't know if it is or not, but thisVirginia Uranium Inc. recommendation should not beaccepted without question.
8) Is nuclear power a clean, reliable, andeconomically wise energy source? What will happen tothe promised benefits of mining if the national energystrategy takes a different direction?
9) What influence did VUI have on the writing of theVirginia Energy Plan referred to by Senate Bill 525?
10) Does Senate Bill 525 represent the bestpracticable way to judge the far-reaching consequencesof uranium mining in Virginia?
11) What happens if the costs are greater thanprojected? Should the study address the establishmentof a trust fund to cover unanticipated costs toindividuals or the state?
12) It seems only fair that the uranium miningmoratorium should remain in place until the localcommunities most affected are convinced that uraniummining is a good idea, not just the state legislature.Senate Bill 525 includes the task of considering thecompatibility of mining and milling Virginia's uraniumdeposits with Virginia Constitution ARTICLE XI -Section 1 regarding conservation ofnatural resources and historical sites of theCommonwealth. Is the proposed mining and millingcompatible with other parts of the constitution? Willindividuals, towns and counties be protected if themoratorium is lifted?
Your opinion will carry the most weight if it respondsaccurately to the contents of the bill. You might wantto go back and check the text.
Contact information for all General Assembly membersis available at:
http://legis.state.va.us/
Southside Senators: Robert Hurt, Frank Ruff, RoscoeReynolds, Shannon Valentine,
Southside Delegates: Don Merricks, Danny Marshall,Clarke Hogan, Charles Poindexter, Thomas Wright, WardArmstrong
Sponsors of Senate Bill 525: Senators Wagner, Puckett,Saslaw, Watkins, and Whipple
Members of the Senate Agriculture, Conservation andNatural Resources Committee: Senators Ticer(Chairman), Whipple, Hanger, Watkins, Reynolds,Puckett, Ruff, Blevins, Deeds, Cuccinelli, Obenshain,Locke, McDougle, McEachin, and Northam.
Thank you.
Date: January 16, 2008
IF there is going to be a uranium study, make it good.
By Katie Whitehead
Senate Bill No. 525 would establish the VirginiaUranium Mining Commission in order "to assess therisks and benefits of developing Virginia's uraniumresources and to advise the Governor and GeneralAssembly." I urge you to make your opinion-whatever itis-known to your Senator and Delegate.
In writing or calling legislators, please considerthese questions and suggestions:
1) Read Senate Bill 525 before writing or callingsenators or delegates. The text is available onlineat:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+sum+SB525.
If you don't have Internet access, your locallibrarian can help.
2) Consider how uranium mining in Virginia mightaffect you and your loved ones. Are your concernsincluded in the study proposal? Will the commissioninclude members who will represent your point of view?I see no reference to public participation, such aspublic hearings, in Senate Bill 525.
3) It is generally easier to identify and measurepotential benefits than potential costs of developingVirginia's uranium resources. Subtle and long-termhealth effects may be impossible to identify andquantify with any certainty, but this is no reason toneglect or underestimate them in a study.
4) Consider the scope of the study: The study done inthe 1980s did not fully consider the potential effectsof uranium mining, milling, and tailings storagestatewide. Lifting the moratorium would allow uraniummining for the indefinite future throughout Virginia,not only by Virginia Uranium, Inc. (VUI) but alsoother companies not yet identified. (VUI estimates itwill mine for 40 years at Coles Hill.) A study shouldconsider costs and benefits for all the years ofuranium mining and for the centuries that minetailings would pose a danger.
5) Emphasize the need to look closely and criticallyat any assumptions made by the study-assumptions suchas whether any radioactive particles may leach out ofthe tailings ponds, and if so what quantity. No costbenefit study should assume that there would be nodesign flaws, accidents, flood, earthquake, ordeterioration of structures over the period when thetailings present a potential danger.
6) Note that the standards used in calculating healthcosts are controversial. For example, there issignificant disagreement about how much radiationexposure should be allowed. Neither governmentagencies nor health physicists agree about whatexposure is acceptable, and different standardsproduce very different health cost estimates. I feelit is appropriate to use conservative standards, buteveryone should be able to agree that estimates basedon a range of credible standards, up to the legallypermitted limits, would give the best idea of what theactual costs might be.
7) Is The National Academy of Sciences, which is theonly entity specifically named in Senate Bill 525, themost appropriate organization to help Virginia withthis study? I don't know if it is or not, but thisVirginia Uranium Inc. recommendation should not beaccepted without question.
8) Is nuclear power a clean, reliable, andeconomically wise energy source? What will happen tothe promised benefits of mining if the national energystrategy takes a different direction?
9) What influence did VUI have on the writing of theVirginia Energy Plan referred to by Senate Bill 525?
10) Does Senate Bill 525 represent the bestpracticable way to judge the far-reaching consequencesof uranium mining in Virginia?
11) What happens if the costs are greater thanprojected? Should the study address the establishmentof a trust fund to cover unanticipated costs toindividuals or the state?
12) It seems only fair that the uranium miningmoratorium should remain in place until the localcommunities most affected are convinced that uraniummining is a good idea, not just the state legislature.Senate Bill 525 includes the task of considering thecompatibility of mining and milling Virginia's uraniumdeposits with Virginia Constitution ARTICLE XI -Section 1 regarding conservation ofnatural resources and historical sites of theCommonwealth. Is the proposed mining and millingcompatible with other parts of the constitution? Willindividuals, towns and counties be protected if themoratorium is lifted?
Your opinion will carry the most weight if it respondsaccurately to the contents of the bill. You might wantto go back and check the text.
Contact information for all General Assembly membersis available at:
http://legis.state.va.us/
Southside Senators: Robert Hurt, Frank Ruff, RoscoeReynolds, Shannon Valentine,
Southside Delegates: Don Merricks, Danny Marshall,Clarke Hogan, Charles Poindexter, Thomas Wright, WardArmstrong
Sponsors of Senate Bill 525: Senators Wagner, Puckett,Saslaw, Watkins, and Whipple
Members of the Senate Agriculture, Conservation andNatural Resources Committee: Senators Ticer(Chairman), Whipple, Hanger, Watkins, Reynolds,Puckett, Ruff, Blevins, Deeds, Cuccinelli, Obenshain,Locke, McDougle, McEachin, and Northam.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
