A very involved, extremely dedicated SCC affiliate sent me the following information:
What happens if the House passes the amendment in the budget bill for the DMME to plan for developing mining regulations for uranium, but kills SB525 that says a study must be done before regulations are put in place?
Has the state now just put us all in the position of shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't support the study bill?
If the study bill is killed, and the DMME has a whole set of uranium mining regulations to propose in 2009, what's to say someone won't propose legislation to adopt those regulations WITHOUT a study??? Saying they have gathered their own evidence and documentation within the past year to show this can be done while safeguarding residents and the environment?
After today's organizational meeting of the Chatham chapter of SCC, my personal response would be .............Who cares?
As a group, we have come to the point that what does matter is the following:
we need to focus all energy and expense on that which we CAN control or realistically affect.....namely, the local governing bodies
we need to elect those who support our positions to town councils, city councils, county supervisor boards, school boards, sheriffs, treasurers, etc. If we they can be elected, they need to be ours!
we need them to pass "chemical and corporate anti-trespass ordinances”.
we need them to pass anti-uranium mining and drilling ordinances.
we need them to appoint people who support our positions to local planning commissions, local boards of zoning appeals, local health department boards, etc
we need to solicit doctor and nurse associations to oppose mining
we need to solicit hunt clubs, gun clubs, etc to oppose mining
As we have become aware and determined today, ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL in terms of impact and importance!
Then, when we control the LOCAL politics, we will control our destiny and no corporation and no state legislature will be able to do anything about it!!!!!
At that point, we will have won!!!!!!
Please help us in any way you can towards this objective. You can play a decisive role here. We must CONVINCE our local public that VUI's economic argument is false; that there will be no real economic gain for the current residents in the area.
The ECONOMIC argument is the ONLY reason we do not have an angry mob in front of town hall; as they did in Halifax. People really want to believe that hundreds, thousands of GOOD jobs are coming with the mining, because they want the jobs for themselves or family members.
The reality is that mine workers and staff will be imported from elsewhere until the mine dries up and the only real jobs for locals will be low-paying service industry jobs.
That is where your skills can help us!!! Help us prove that contention with real-world, real-time results elsewhere!
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Myth- Uranium's Economic Boom Exposed-#2
Question: Won't the proposed uranium mine provide economic benefits?
REALITY:
Though no one knows exactly how many people would be employed by Virginia Uranium, an idea could be inferred from Cameco's Smith Ranch-Highland production facility in Wyoming. Smith Ranch-Highland proclaims to be the largest production facility in the U.S.A. and - according to the company's own Web site - only employs approximately 140 people.
It also is unclear what kind of exemptions and credits Virginia Uranium may receive and whether it may extract uranium without much of a tax liability.
One must also consider the potentially negative effects on a community and property values once it becomes known radioactive ore is being mined within mere miles of homes and towns.
Ask yourselves, if you weren't working in the nuclear field or mining industry, would you want to move your family near such a facility?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Supervisors Dodging Their Legal Duty !
February 18, 2008Honorable Members of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors
Members of the Pittsylvania County Solid Waste Committee,
Pittsylvania County's Administrator has rendered an opinion that the county does not have to enforce its own Waste Ordinance regarding the uranium core drilling currently being conducted at Coles Hill because the county must defer to the Virginia state Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy regulations regarding the drilling.
However, we have learned through research by a SCC affiliate that the opinion is incorrect. Rather, the Virginia Code that specifically authorizes the DMME also states that the DMME shall not supercede any other state or local governing body. Thus, the county's Waste Ordinance does indeed apply.
Citations:
Regarding the relationship between DMME's program and other jurisdictions, the regulation of uranium exploration by drilling by the DMME is separate from, and does not alter the authority of, any other state or local laws and regulations. Please see Section 45.1-284 of the Code of Virginia for information on the relationship of the DMME program to other state and local governing bodies.
§ 45.1-284. State and local authority.
Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to alter the authority of any state or local governing body, including the authorities conferred under Chapter 22 (§ 15.2-2200 et seq.) of Title 15.2, relative to matters which are the subject of this chapter. (1982, c. 269.)According to Conrad Spangler of the Department of Minerals, Mines and Energy (DMME) there are no regulations in place for exploratory drilling. However, he states that Code of Virginia 45.1-273-285 applies to exploratory drilling.
Mr. Spangler appeared unaware of any reason why Virginia Uranium would be exempt from local ordinances in the exploratory drilling phase.
Mr. Sleeper has not made a case for exempting Virginia Uranium Inc. from Chapter 29, the Pittsylvania County Waste Ordinance. He had no grounds for determining that Chapter 29 is not applicable. In fact, and according to the information Mr. Spangler has given us, he has referenced inappropriate Virginia law. Section 10.1 – 1400 through 10.1 – 1457 of the code of Virginia 1950, as amended, and specifically Section 10.1 – 1406.2 setting specific exemptions deal with mining. As you know, uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia is currently illegal.
If you insist on applying the regulations as proposed by Mr. Sleeper, are you condoning an illegal activity as per the code of Virginia? Surely not. If you apply the correct law, as per Mr. Spangler of the DMME, then I would ask you to issue a cease and desist order to VUI until our local waste ordinances can be put in place, including public hearings.
VUI has always promoted that they want the utmost in safety for our citizens. They have also made it clear that the current drilling is not for profit taking. In light of this, I’m sure that they will agree that this would be the best course of action for all concerned.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully,
Gregg Vickrey
232 N. Main St.
Chatham, VA 24531
Monday, February 18, 2008
Radon and Water Testing Info
(The following is provided by Burt Scearce II, a SCC affiliate)
I wanted to pass this information (website) along so that it will get out to the citizens.
I wanted to also tell you that I have found one lab in the area that does Radon testing on basements. The cost is $95 plus a mileage fee. They are USA LABS, LLC in Danville. 434-793-5300. I am having my basement tested this week. I spoke to a lady name Pernice.
I have called several lwater testing abs on the state provided list. I found one that will do the radionucleide testing of the well water. I am waiting on cost estimates. They are Pace Analytical in Eden, NC, 336-623-8921. I spoke with a lady named Tammy Easter.
I am hopeful that you can get this information out to the concerned citizens who want their water and basement tested.
Sincerely,
Burt Scearce
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#rads
I wanted to pass this information (website) along so that it will get out to the citizens.
I wanted to also tell you that I have found one lab in the area that does Radon testing on basements. The cost is $95 plus a mileage fee. They are USA LABS, LLC in Danville. 434-793-5300. I am having my basement tested this week. I spoke to a lady name Pernice.
I have called several lwater testing abs on the state provided list. I found one that will do the radionucleide testing of the well water. I am waiting on cost estimates. They are Pace Analytical in Eden, NC, 336-623-8921. I spoke with a lady named Tammy Easter.
I am hopeful that you can get this information out to the concerned citizens who want their water and basement tested.
Sincerely,
Burt Scearce
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#rads
Yucca MT--No Nuclear Waste Yet $$ Pouring Out
(The following is from www.nytimes.com )
With court orders and settlements, the federal government has already paid the utilities $342 million, but is virtually certain to pay a total of at least $7 billion in the next few years and probably over $11 billion, government officials said. The industry said the total could reach $35 billion.
The payments come from an obscure and poorly understood government account that requires no new Congressional appropriations, and will balloon in size, experts said.
The payments are due because the reactor owners were all required to sign contracts with the Energy Department in the early 1980s, with the government promising to dispose of the waste for a fee of a 10th of a cent per kilowatt-hour. It was supposed to begin taking away the fuel in .............
As Nuclear Waste Languishes, Expense to U.S. Rises
WASHINGTON — Forgotten but not gone, the waste from more than 100 nuclear reactors that the federal government was supposed to start accepting for burial 10 years ago is still at the reactor sites, at least 20 years behind schedule. But it is making itself felt in the federal budget.
With court orders and settlements, the federal government has already paid the utilities $342 million, but is virtually certain to pay a total of at least $7 billion in the next few years and probably over $11 billion, government officials said. The industry said the total could reach $35 billion.
The payments come from an obscure and poorly understood government account that requires no new Congressional appropriations, and will balloon in size, experts said.
The payments are due because the reactor owners were all required to sign contracts with the Energy Department in the early 1980s, with the government promising to dispose of the waste for a fee of a 10th of a cent per kilowatt-hour. It was supposed to begin taking away the fuel in .............
To read the rest of this article, click the link below:
Solar Power Could be the Answer
(The following is from www.sciam.com Scientific American Magazine January 2008)
A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.
Read the rest of this article by clicking the link below:
http://www.sciam.com/article/id/a-solar-grand-plan/SID/mail
Solar Power Could Supply 69% of US Electricity by 2050 !
A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
A vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours.
Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well.
A new direct-current power transmission backbone would deliver solar electricity across the country.
But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.
Read the rest of this article by clicking the link below:
http://www.sciam.com/article/id/a-solar-grand-plan/SID/mail
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Anti-Uranium Car Magnetic Signs
It has come to our attention, and, we want to pass this on, that you can now get ANTI-URANIUM car magnetic signs to place on both sides of your vehicle!
Since we also oppose uranium mining, we wholeheartedly endorse your purcahse of thes signs! Our understanding is that they show the following:
Since we also oppose uranium mining, we wholeheartedly endorse your purcahse of thes signs! Our understanding is that they show the following:
Heck No
Chatham, VA
Won't Glow
The signs can be obtained by calling 434-432-0613 ! Do it today!
Sen Wagner Retaliates Against Citizen Advocate
(The following is from http://bryanscrafford.wordpress.com/ 01/23/2008)
As many of you may remember, Monday was Citizen's Lobby Day and many citizens went down to Richmond in order to "lobby" for certain bills that they favored. In other words, they were going down to Richmond to talk with members of the General Assembly hoping that it would have a greater impact than simply making a phone call, sending an email, or writing a letter.
This is simply unacceptable behavior. As a member of the General Assembly, Wagner and his staff should know that there are almost always going to be people who disagree with the positions he takes.
Sen. Wagner's Office Seeks Vengeance
Posted on January 23, 2008 by Bryan Scrafford
Posted on January 23, 2008 by Bryan Scrafford
As many of you may remember, Monday was Citizen's Lobby Day and many citizens went down to Richmond in order to "lobby" for certain bills that they favored. In other words, they were going down to Richmond to talk with members of the General Assembly hoping that it would have a greater impact than simply making a phone call, sending an email, or writing a letter.
From the responses I've heard from people, their participation in the event was extremely worthwhile - even if they didn't persuade their representatives to vote the way they wanted.
In the case of those visiting Sen. Frank Wagner's office, however, it appears as though they received a significant amount of resistance. According to a diary over at Raising Kaine, someone from Wagner's office even called one of the citizen's boss to complain that members of his group were "knifing Sen. Wagner in the back on the Uranium Bill after the senator had gone to bat for the solar industry."
This is simply unacceptable behavior. As a member of the General Assembly, Wagner and his staff should know that there are almost always going to be people who disagree with the positions he takes.
Furthermore, it is the right of these citizens (and some might say, their responsibility) to come forth and express these opinions in a professional manner without being afraid of punishment. Apparently someone from Sen. Wagner's office doesn't agree and decided to lash out against this citizen by calling his employer.
As Lowell and Ben have suggested, people should stand up against punishing people for actually trying to take part in our democracy. You can do so by calling Senator Wagner's office at 804-698-7507 and tell them that they were wrong and demand a statement from the Senator.
As Lowell and Ben have suggested, people should stand up against punishing people for actually trying to take part in our democracy. You can do so by calling Senator Wagner's office at 804-698-7507 and tell them that they were wrong and demand a statement from the Senator.
We agree wholeheartedly with this writer! Sen Wagner should be charged with "legislative harassment" of a citizen or "abuse of his office" as a representative of the People!
PHD Calls In-Situ Uranium Mining "Inherently Unsafe"
(The following is an article written by Jim Green, PHD jimgreen@foe.org.au )
Since 2001 a fast tracked in-situ leach (ISL) mine, the Beverley uranium mine, has been operating in the northern Flinders Ranges in South Australia. The mine is owned by General Atomics, a US-based company, and managed by its subsidiary, Heathgate Resources.
ISL involves pumping acid into an aquifer. This dissolves the uranium ore and other heavy metals and the solution is then pumped back to the surface. The small amount of uranium is separated at the surface. The liquid radioactive waste – containing radioactive particles, heavy metals and acid – is simply dumped in groundwater. From being inert and immobile in the ore body, the radionuclides and heavy metals are now bioavailable and mobile in the aquifer.
There has never been a commercial acid leach mine in the USA given environmental approval. Experiences with its use in the Eastern Bloc and elsewhere have left aquifers heavily polluted.
Heathgate has no plans to clean up the aquifer as it says the pollution will ‘attenuate' – that the aquifer will return to its pre-mining state over time. This claim has been queried by the scientific community as being highly speculative with little or no firm science behind it.
According to Dr. Gavin Mudd, a hydrogeologist based at Monash University: "The critical data which could answer scientific questions concerning contaminant mobility in groundwater has never been released by General Atomics. This is especially important since GA no longer maintain the mine is 'isolated' from surrounding groundwater, with desires to expand the mine raising legitimate concerns over the groundwater contamination legacy left at Beverley."
Jillian Marsh, Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner, noted in her submission to 2002-03 Senate References and Legislation Committee that: "The government chose not to demand that the groundwater be rehabilitated, an unacceptable situation for the Australian public at large given our increasing reliance on groundwater and the increasing salinity of land surfaces and water systems."
()
The 2003 report of the Senate Committee noted "a pattern of under-performance and non-compliance" in Australia's uranium mining industry, it identified "many gaps in knowledge and found an absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent of contamination or its impact on the environment", and it concluded that changes were necessary "in order to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage".
On ISL mining, the 2003 Senate report stated:
"The Committee is concerned that the ISL process, which is still in its experimental state and introduced in the face of considerable public opposition, was permitted prior to conclusive evidence being available on its safety and environmental impacts.
"The Committee recommends that, owing to the experimental nature and the level of public opposition, the ISL mining technique should not be permitted until more conclusive evidence can be presented on its safety and environmental impacts.
"Failing that, the Committee recommends that at the very least, mines utilising the ISL technique should be subject to strict regulation, including prohibition of discharge of radioactive liquid mine waste to groundwater, and ongoing, regular independent monitoring to ensure environmental impacts are minimised."
A sham inquiry was subsequently convened by the SA government to justify ISL mining and to justify the government's indefensible decision not to require rehabilitation of groundwater.
The 2003 Senate report also noted: "Another serious claim made by the ACF concerns the status and release of Heathgate Resources' reports on the Beverley FLTs [Field Leach Trials], including the Groundwater Monitoring Summary. The ACF states that release of these reports under the Freedom of Information Act was delayed by company claims of commercial-in-confidence for more than two years. A successful ACF appeal to the South Australian Ombudsman finally secured the release of some of these reports, the Ombudsman finding that in no case was a commercial-in-confidence claim justified."
Another feature of ISL mining is surface contamination from spills and leaks of radioactive solutions. There have been several dozen spills at Beverley, such as the spill of 62,000 litres of contaminated water in January 2002 after a pipe burst, and the spill of 15,000 litres of contaminated water in May 2002.
Since 2001 a fast tracked in-situ leach (ISL) mine, the Beverley uranium mine, has been operating in the northern Flinders Ranges in South Australia. The mine is owned by General Atomics, a US-based company, and managed by its subsidiary, Heathgate Resources.
ISL involves pumping acid into an aquifer. This dissolves the uranium ore and other heavy metals and the solution is then pumped back to the surface. The small amount of uranium is separated at the surface. The liquid radioactive waste – containing radioactive particles, heavy metals and acid – is simply dumped in groundwater. From being inert and immobile in the ore body, the radionuclides and heavy metals are now bioavailable and mobile in the aquifer.
There has never been a commercial acid leach mine in the USA given environmental approval. Experiences with its use in the Eastern Bloc and elsewhere have left aquifers heavily polluted.
Heathgate has no plans to clean up the aquifer as it says the pollution will ‘attenuate' – that the aquifer will return to its pre-mining state over time. This claim has been queried by the scientific community as being highly speculative with little or no firm science behind it.
According to Dr. Gavin Mudd, a hydrogeologist based at Monash University: "The critical data which could answer scientific questions concerning contaminant mobility in groundwater has never been released by General Atomics. This is especially important since GA no longer maintain the mine is 'isolated' from surrounding groundwater, with desires to expand the mine raising legitimate concerns over the groundwater contamination legacy left at Beverley."
Jillian Marsh, Adnyamathanha Traditional Owner, noted in her submission to 2002-03 Senate References and Legislation Committee that: "The government chose not to demand that the groundwater be rehabilitated, an unacceptable situation for the Australian public at large given our increasing reliance on groundwater and the increasing salinity of land surfaces and water systems."
(
The 2003 report of the Senate Committee noted "a pattern of under-performance and non-compliance" in Australia's uranium mining industry, it identified "many gaps in knowledge and found an absence of reliable data on which to measure the extent of contamination or its impact on the environment", and it concluded that changes were necessary "in order to protect the environment and its inhabitants from serious or irreversible damage".
On ISL mining, the 2003 Senate report stated:
"The Committee is concerned that the ISL process, which is still in its experimental state and introduced in the face of considerable public opposition, was permitted prior to conclusive evidence being available on its safety and environmental impacts.
"The Committee recommends that, owing to the experimental nature and the level of public opposition, the ISL mining technique should not be permitted until more conclusive evidence can be presented on its safety and environmental impacts.
"Failing that, the Committee recommends that at the very least, mines utilising the ISL technique should be subject to strict regulation, including prohibition of discharge of radioactive liquid mine waste to groundwater, and ongoing, regular independent monitoring to ensure environmental impacts are minimised."
A sham inquiry was subsequently convened by the SA government to justify ISL mining and to justify the government's indefensible decision not to require rehabilitation of groundwater.
The 2003 Senate report also noted: "Another serious claim made by the ACF concerns the status and release of Heathgate Resources' reports on the Beverley FLTs [Field Leach Trials], including the Groundwater Monitoring Summary. The ACF states that release of these reports under the Freedom of Information Act was delayed by company claims of commercial-in-confidence for more than two years. A successful ACF appeal to the South Australian Ombudsman finally secured the release of some of these reports, the Ombudsman finding that in no case was a commercial-in-confidence claim justified."
Another feature of ISL mining is surface contamination from spills and leaks of radioactive solutions. There have been several dozen spills at Beverley, such as the spill of 62,000 litres of contaminated water in January 2002 after a pipe burst, and the spill of 15,000 litres of contaminated water in May 2002.
What Happens When the Uranium is All Mined?
As this example shows, what happens when the Multi-National and Local Corporations finish their mining is exactly what we said in the past...................they close up shop, declare bankruptcy, and head for a island retreat on their private plane with all the money they made, leaving the locals with the burden of the Clean-up and any lingering health concerns!
(The following is from http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/uri.html )
Winning the Battle -- Losing the Aquifer?
Over two years after the TNRCC allowed Area 3 mining to begin, Kleburg County and Teo Saenz and his neighbors won the legal battle for the right to a contested case hearing to decide whether the permit should have ever been approved. The Travis County District Court ruled on February 29, 2000 that the TNRCC must grant a hearing on URI's plan to open a new uranium mining area. This ruling marks the sixth time in the last several years that a court has had to step in to protect citizens rights to participate in permit decisions implemented by the Bush-appointed TNRCC Commissioners.
But the damage had already been done. After mining as much uranium as it could from Area 3, URI stopped mining months ago. In a March 31, 2000 press release, URI admits, "the company has exhausted all of its available sources of cash to support continuing operations and will be unable to continue in business beyond June 2000 unless it can secure a cash infusion."
Inheriting Pollution
Now, as the neighbors feared, Uranium Resources Inc. is on the verge bankruptcy. Teo Saenz is worried that the land and water near him will never be adequately cleaned up. "My inheritance was land, and we're giving them polluted water and soil," he says. "That's not a very good inheritance for our kids".
(The following is from http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/uri.html )
Winning the Battle -- Losing the Aquifer?
Over two years after the TNRCC allowed Area 3 mining to begin, Kleburg County and Teo Saenz and his neighbors won the legal battle for the right to a contested case hearing to decide whether the permit should have ever been approved. The Travis County District Court ruled on February 29, 2000 that the TNRCC must grant a hearing on URI's plan to open a new uranium mining area. This ruling marks the sixth time in the last several years that a court has had to step in to protect citizens rights to participate in permit decisions implemented by the Bush-appointed TNRCC Commissioners.
But the damage had already been done. After mining as much uranium as it could from Area 3, URI stopped mining months ago. In a March 31, 2000 press release, URI admits, "the company has exhausted all of its available sources of cash to support continuing operations and will be unable to continue in business beyond June 2000 unless it can secure a cash infusion."
Inheriting Pollution
Now, as the neighbors feared, Uranium Resources Inc. is on the verge bankruptcy. Teo Saenz is worried that the land and water near him will never be adequately cleaned up. "My inheritance was land, and we're giving them polluted water and soil," he says. "That's not a very good inheritance for our kids".
House Now Takes Up Uranium Study Bill
House Rules Committee Meets Tuesday on Study Bill
The Rules Committee meeting will be at 4:00 pm in the 6th floor Speaker's Conference Room. The next post above lists the contact information for each member of the committee. The following is an opinion from SCC affiliate "A":
One of the questions I would ask each member of the House Rules Committee is the following:
Will Virginia Uranium Inc. will be required to supply any and all of its data to the Commission appointed to study whether uranium can be mined safely in Virginia if SB 525 passes the House? Is that specific language in the bill - if it's not, it should be, correct?
Without the most current information from Virginia Uranium about its plans, water testing, drill sampling, mapping, methods, technology, etc., how could a fair and just study be conducted?
And will that study - and all the documents, interviews, etc. -- then become public record and available to everyone? (Or would it fall under the protection of Virginia's FOIA rules governing uranium exploration? The FOIA rules protecting uranium exploration info can be found on the DMME web site.) This must be addressed for the public.
This question arose (above) while I was reading the conclusion of a report prepared by a county environmental advisory board for the Larimer County Comissioners (dated Feb. 12, 2008). They make a very valid point - Please read the below information.
".the board would expect that those proposing the mining operation will provide the public with all of the data which they possess that could have any relevancy to the matter at hand and then use these data to propose a reasoned and scientifically based risk assessment of the operations. Without meeting this standard, it is impossible for the Board or the public to provide their informed consent or for the outcome to represent a just resolution. The risks (environmental, economic, health, and social) and the ability of the mine operator and local governments to avoid or mitigate these risks should be weighed against the benefits that may be derived from such an operation when determining whether the mine is acceptable for the region."
SOURCE: Report on In Situ Leach and Open-Pit Mining ; prepared for the Larimer County Commissioners by The Larimer County Environmental Advisory Board; Feb. 12, 2008.
The Rules Committee meeting will be at 4:00 pm in the 6th floor Speaker's Conference Room. The next post above lists the contact information for each member of the committee. The following is an opinion from SCC affiliate "A":
One of the questions I would ask each member of the House Rules Committee is the following:
Will Virginia Uranium Inc. will be required to supply any and all of its data to the Commission appointed to study whether uranium can be mined safely in Virginia if SB 525 passes the House? Is that specific language in the bill - if it's not, it should be, correct?
Without the most current information from Virginia Uranium about its plans, water testing, drill sampling, mapping, methods, technology, etc., how could a fair and just study be conducted?
And will that study - and all the documents, interviews, etc. -- then become public record and available to everyone? (Or would it fall under the protection of Virginia's FOIA rules governing uranium exploration? The FOIA rules protecting uranium exploration info can be found on the DMME web site.) This must be addressed for the public.
This question arose (above) while I was reading the conclusion of a report prepared by a county environmental advisory board for the Larimer County Comissioners (dated Feb. 12, 2008). They make a very valid point - Please read the below information.
".the board would expect that those proposing the mining operation will provide the public with all of the data which they possess that could have any relevancy to the matter at hand and then use these data to propose a reasoned and scientifically based risk assessment of the operations. Without meeting this standard, it is impossible for the Board or the public to provide their informed consent or for the outcome to represent a just resolution. The risks (environmental, economic, health, and social) and the ability of the mine operator and local governments to avoid or mitigate these risks should be weighed against the benefits that may be derived from such an operation when determining whether the mine is acceptable for the region."
SOURCE: Report on In Situ Leach and Open-Pit Mining ; prepared for the Larimer County Commissioners by The Larimer County Environmental Advisory Board; Feb. 12, 2008.
Six States Uranium Waste Coming Here?
(Most of the following is from Karen Maute, a noted local environmentalist and SCC affiliate)
Before the state Senate now is a resolution of major importance to all Virginians and of particular concern to Southside residents as it appears the Governor and the General Assembly have picked us to be the "Sacrifice Zone" for matters relating to uranium. The resolution follows:
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 133AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
(Proposed by the Senate Committee on Rules on February 1, 2008)
(Patrons Prior to Substitute--Senators McEachin and Cuccinelli [SJR 100])
Requesting the Department of Health to study long-term options for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Report.
WHEREAS, as of June 30, 2008, the disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina, will no longer accept certain classes of low-level radioactive waste from Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Barnwell facility is currently the only facility accepting this waste for disposal; andWHEREAS, due to environmental and health concerns, disposal of this low-level radioactive waste is preferable to long-term storage; and
WHEREAS, Virginia has less than a year to find alternative methods of dealing with this waste; now, therefore,
be it RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That the Department of Health be requested to study long-term options for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
In conducting its study, the Department shall, in consultation with the Department of Environmental Quality, investigate alternative methods of disposal or storage of Class B and Class C low-level radioactive waste, taking into consideration both industry needs and public health and safety concerns.
Technical assistance shall be provided to the Department by the Department of Environmental Quality. All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the Department for this study, upon request.
The Department of Health shall complete its findings by November 30, 2008, and shall submit to the Governor and the General Assembly an executive summary and a report of its findings and recommendations for publication as a House or Senate document. The executive summary and report shall be submitted as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents and reports no later than the first day of the 2009 Regular Session of the General Assembly and shall be posted on the General Assembly's website.
Before the state Senate now is a resolution of major importance to all Virginians and of particular concern to Southside residents as it appears the Governor and the General Assembly have picked us to be the "Sacrifice Zone" for matters relating to uranium. The resolution follows:
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 133AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
(Proposed by the Senate Committee on Rules on February 1, 2008)
(Patrons Prior to Substitute--Senators McEachin and Cuccinelli [SJR 100])
Requesting the Department of Health to study long-term options for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Report.
WHEREAS, as of June 30, 2008, the disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina, will no longer accept certain classes of low-level radioactive waste from Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Barnwell facility is currently the only facility accepting this waste for disposal; andWHEREAS, due to environmental and health concerns, disposal of this low-level radioactive waste is preferable to long-term storage; and
WHEREAS, Virginia has less than a year to find alternative methods of dealing with this waste; now, therefore,
be it RESOLVED by the Senate, the House of Delegates concurring, That the Department of Health be requested to study long-term options for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
In conducting its study, the Department shall, in consultation with the Department of Environmental Quality, investigate alternative methods of disposal or storage of Class B and Class C low-level radioactive waste, taking into consideration both industry needs and public health and safety concerns.
Technical assistance shall be provided to the Department by the Department of Environmental Quality. All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the Department for this study, upon request.
The Department of Health shall complete its findings by November 30, 2008, and shall submit to the Governor and the General Assembly an executive summary and a report of its findings and recommendations for publication as a House or Senate document. The executive summary and report shall be submitted as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents and reports no later than the first day of the 2009 Regular Session of the General Assembly and shall be posted on the General Assembly's website.
This may be an eye-opener for those who favor U mining... Those of you that were on the uranium E-list early on may remember concern that was expressed regarding low level radio active waste issues. http://www.secompact.org/ Above is a link to a "compact" of states comprised of Alabama, Florida, GA, Mississippi, TN and VA. whose mission is: MISSION OF THE SOUTHEAST COMPACTCOMMISSION "To ensure that adequate, reliable, and appropriate services are available, now and in the foreseeable future, such that low-level radioactive waste generated in the Southeast Region can be safely managed in an efficient, equitable, economical, andenvironmentally responsible manner in order that each party state may meet its responsibility for providing for the availability of capacity either within or outside the State for disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated within its borders (Article 1, PL 99-240). " After the closure of the Barnwell facility, Waste was to have been taken by North Carolina for a period of 20 years. Notice that NC is not listed above. They pulled out of the compact after years of trying to site a LLRW facility and findingopposition every where it went. Numerous hearings were held. If I'm not mistaken, the compact sued NC for leaving the compact. Barnwell continued to take the waste until the next state in the seguence was due to participate...Guess who's next? You got it...Virginia. Virginia's representative on the Board has been Sen. Charles Hawkins over the years. He is still listed as Virginia's representative on the above website. So, I guess you may want to address Qs to him. Much of Virginia will be desirable for this activity. The coastal area will be too wet, the mountains potentially inaccessible during inclement weather. That leaves areas like ours. How convenient to dispose of LLRW in an area that already has a U-mine. I can hear the legislators now, "Gosh, SS's already *@#&ed up...lets just put the waste here. "One stop glow and go!
When you look at the bill above, notice that there are no public hearings mentioned. Information I've found in the Virginia County Supervisors' Manual re: Radioactive Waste Management states"
"The Governor is authorized to enter into agreements with the federal government to permit the state to assume responsibility for low-level radioactive waste. (code sec. 10-282). The Virginia Waste Management Board, with prior approval of the governor, is authorized to enter cooperative agreements with the federal government, other states, or interstate agencies to perform inspections or other functions relating to the control of low-level radioactive wastes, and to establish training programs for personnel involved in these activities. The Board is also empowered to aquire and maintain sites for low-level radioactive waste management. The right of eminent domain may be exercised by the Board for this purpose, subject to the provisions of the Condemnation Act, Sectoins 25-46.36 (code sec. 10.283, 10.285)"
I have not checked these code references as of yet.
US Town Threatened by Mining Waste Water
(The following is from CNN.com 02/15/2008)
Eruption of tainted water could swamp Colorado town
DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- More than 1 billion gallons of contaminated water -- enough to fill 1,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools -- is trapped in a tunnel in the mountains above the historic town of Leadville and threatening to blow.
Lake County Commissioners have declared a local state of emergency for fear that this winter's above-average snowpack will melt and cause a catastrophic tidal wave.
The water is backed up in abandoned mine shafts and a 2.1-mile drainage tunnel that is partially collapsed, creating the pooling of water contaminated with heavy metals.
County officials have been nervously monitoring the rising water pressure inside the mine shafts for about two years. An explosion could inundate Leadville and contaminate the Arkansas River.
"It could come out, we just don't know where," county Commissioner Carl Schaefer said. "We're seeing changes and we're very concerned. We're not crying `Chicken Little' here."
State and federal officials agreed Thursday to conduct a risk assessment before taking any action. Critics said something should be done immediately to ease the pressure.
Peter Soeth, a spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation, which acquired the drainage tunnel in 1959, said there was no immediate threat to Leadville's 2,700 residents. Officials point out that a speaker system to broadcast evacuation notices has already been installed near a mobile home park that has 300 residents near the tunnel's portal.
The tunnel normally drains water that seeps into some of the hundreds of abandoned mine shafts and other mine workings in the mountains east and south of Leadville and deposits it into the East Fork of the Arkansas River about a mile north of town.
The Environmental Protection Agency raised concerns about the situation in letters sent to the Bureau of Reclamation, which has been assessing the concerns.
"Due to the unknown condition of the tunnel blockage and the large volume of water behind the blockages, we are concerned that an uncontrolled, potentially-catastrophic release of water to the Arkansas River from [the tunnel] is likely at some point," said one EPA letter sent in November.
Stan Christensen, an EPA expert on the tunnel, said the likelihood that something catastrophic might happen increases the longer nothing is done.
A water treatment plant at the foot of the tunnel removes toxins and heavy metals such as zinc, cadmium and manganese before discharging the water into the Arkansas River. The mobile home park is near the treatment plant.
New springs and seepages have appeared at California Gulch, which sits below the plant. Tests have shown high levels of heavy metals typically found in mine discharge, leading officials to conclude the trapped water is finding ways out.
"No one can tell us what it means," said Jeffrey Foley, Lake County's emergency management director. "It's finding fault lines and it's pouring mine-contaminated water into the Arkansas."
The EPA's Christensen said the water table is rising regionwide and that his agency can't immediately reach the same conclusion.
Leadville, which sits at 10,200 feet of elevation and some 100 miles west of Denver, rose to national prominence and attracted thousands of people after a gold rush in 1859. After the gold ran out, silver became the dominant mining industry.
Later, a mine that sits beneath 13,000-foot mountain peaks began shipping molybdenum ore in 1915. Miners have recovered 946,000 tons of molybdenum, used to harden steel, worth about $4 billion. The Climax mine closed in 1995.
Lake County Commissioners have declared a local state of emergency for fear that this winter's above-average snowpack will melt and cause a catastrophic tidal wave.
The water is backed up in abandoned mine shafts and a 2.1-mile drainage tunnel that is partially collapsed, creating the pooling of water contaminated with heavy metals.
County officials have been nervously monitoring the rising water pressure inside the mine shafts for about two years. An explosion could inundate Leadville and contaminate the Arkansas River.
"It could come out, we just don't know where," county Commissioner Carl Schaefer said. "We're seeing changes and we're very concerned. We're not crying `Chicken Little' here."
State and federal officials agreed Thursday to conduct a risk assessment before taking any action. Critics said something should be done immediately to ease the pressure.
Peter Soeth, a spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation, which acquired the drainage tunnel in 1959, said there was no immediate threat to Leadville's 2,700 residents. Officials point out that a speaker system to broadcast evacuation notices has already been installed near a mobile home park that has 300 residents near the tunnel's portal.
The tunnel normally drains water that seeps into some of the hundreds of abandoned mine shafts and other mine workings in the mountains east and south of Leadville and deposits it into the East Fork of the Arkansas River about a mile north of town.
The Environmental Protection Agency raised concerns about the situation in letters sent to the Bureau of Reclamation, which has been assessing the concerns.
"Due to the unknown condition of the tunnel blockage and the large volume of water behind the blockages, we are concerned that an uncontrolled, potentially-catastrophic release of water to the Arkansas River from [the tunnel] is likely at some point," said one EPA letter sent in November.
Stan Christensen, an EPA expert on the tunnel, said the likelihood that something catastrophic might happen increases the longer nothing is done.
A water treatment plant at the foot of the tunnel removes toxins and heavy metals such as zinc, cadmium and manganese before discharging the water into the Arkansas River. The mobile home park is near the treatment plant.
New springs and seepages have appeared at California Gulch, which sits below the plant. Tests have shown high levels of heavy metals typically found in mine discharge, leading officials to conclude the trapped water is finding ways out.
"No one can tell us what it means," said Jeffrey Foley, Lake County's emergency management director. "It's finding fault lines and it's pouring mine-contaminated water into the Arkansas."
The EPA's Christensen said the water table is rising regionwide and that his agency can't immediately reach the same conclusion.
Leadville, which sits at 10,200 feet of elevation and some 100 miles west of Denver, rose to national prominence and attracted thousands of people after a gold rush in 1859. After the gold ran out, silver became the dominant mining industry.
Later, a mine that sits beneath 13,000-foot mountain peaks began shipping molybdenum ore in 1915. Miners have recovered 946,000 tons of molybdenum, used to harden steel, worth about $4 billion. The Climax mine closed in 1995.
Writer Refutes VUI Ad in Star-Tribune
(The following was written by Hildred, a SCC affiliate, on 02/15/08)
Hildred
VUI Wrong About Importance of "Spot Price of Uranium"
Recently I asked this List if anyone else was following the current selling price of uranium.
Today I noticed the full-page ad in the 2-13-2008 issue of The Star-Tribune referred to the "confusion" being caused by persons who were discussing the spot price of uranium, which, by the way, remained at $75 this week. The "confusion" according to the ad is caused by the fact that uranium is usually sold by contract.
On the Internet, I found the following explanation of the relationship between the spot price and the contract price:
"The structure of uranium supply contacts varies widely. Pricing can be as simple as a single fixed price, or based on various reference prices with economic corrections built in. Contracts traditionally specify a base price, such as the uranium spot price, and rules for escalation. In base-escalated contracts, the buyer and seller agree on a base price that escalates over time on the basis of an agreed-upon formula, which may take economic indices, such as GDP or inflation factors, into consideration."
"A a spot market contract usually consists of just one delivery and is typically priced at or near the published spot market price at the time of purchase. However 85% of all uranium has been sold under long-term, multi-year contracts with deliveries starting one to three years after the contract is made. Long-term contract terms range from two to 10 years, but typically run three to five years, with the first delivery occurring within 24 months of contract award. They may also include a clause that allows the buyer to vary the size of each delivery within prescribed limits."
Therefore, it appears the uranium spot price is a basic indicator of the market price of uranium and that price has fallen in the last year about $63. I am very sorry to see, this week, that fall hesitating about continuing the downward slide.
Today I noticed the full-page ad in the 2-13-2008 issue of The Star-Tribune referred to the "confusion" being caused by persons who were discussing the spot price of uranium, which, by the way, remained at $75 this week. The "confusion" according to the ad is caused by the fact that uranium is usually sold by contract.
On the Internet, I found the following explanation of the relationship between the spot price and the contract price:
"The structure of uranium supply contacts varies widely. Pricing can be as simple as a single fixed price, or based on various reference prices with economic corrections built in. Contracts traditionally specify a base price, such as the uranium spot price, and rules for escalation. In base-escalated contracts, the buyer and seller agree on a base price that escalates over time on the basis of an agreed-upon formula, which may take economic indices, such as GDP or inflation factors, into consideration."
"A a spot market contract usually consists of just one delivery and is typically priced at or near the published spot market price at the time of purchase. However 85% of all uranium has been sold under long-term, multi-year contracts with deliveries starting one to three years after the contract is made. Long-term contract terms range from two to 10 years, but typically run three to five years, with the first delivery occurring within 24 months of contract award. They may also include a clause that allows the buyer to vary the size of each delivery within prescribed limits."
Therefore, it appears the uranium spot price is a basic indicator of the market price of uranium and that price has fallen in the last year about $63. I am very sorry to see, this week, that fall hesitating about continuing the downward slide.
Hildred
Senate Bill 525-An Analysis
(The following is by Karen Maute, a noted local environmentalist and SCC affiliate)
Senate Bill 525, establishing a Virginia Uranium Mining Commission, has left the Senate and is in the House. Pittsylvania County remains the main focus of this legislation.
The bill contains phrases such as, "where uranium mining is currently proposed ", "where mining and the processing of uranium would be conducted in Virginia", and "in the areas where uranium is currently proposed ." This means us. In fact, the one definition found in the bill reads, "Where uranium mining is currently proposed" means the localities within the Southside and West Piedmont Planning District Commissions. Sounds like us, don't you agree?
This is not a statewide study. This is a study aimed at the mining and milling of uranium in Pittsylvania County.
SB 525's purpose is stated as, "to assess the risks and benefits of developing Virginia's uranium resources ", determine if ,"uranium mining and milling in Virginia can be undertaken in a manner that will safeguard the Commonwealth's environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens", then the commission "shall offer recommendations for legislation establishing necessary regulatory controls and safeguards under which mining and the processing of uranium resources could be permitted".
There is no guaranty of any level of safety. However there is a provision which calls for "Use of severance taxes and other mechanisms to provide monetary allocations to localities impacted. " I thought the if the study showed risk to Pittsylvania County and those downstream that uranium mining would not be allowed. Does this mean that when we are "impacted" we get paid for the inconvenience?
If this bill must be considered, it requires much more work to make it effective and constitutional. It appears to be neither at present.
Karen B. Maute
2920 Mt. Cross Rd.
Danville, VA 24540
434-797-3460
Senate Bill 525, establishing a Virginia Uranium Mining Commission, has left the Senate and is in the House. Pittsylvania County remains the main focus of this legislation.
The bill contains phrases such as, "where uranium mining is currently proposed ", "where mining and the processing of uranium would be conducted in Virginia", and "in the areas where uranium is currently proposed ." This means us. In fact, the one definition found in the bill reads, "Where uranium mining is currently proposed" means the localities within the Southside and West Piedmont Planning District Commissions. Sounds like us, don't you agree?
This is not a statewide study. This is a study aimed at the mining and milling of uranium in Pittsylvania County.
SB 525's purpose is stated as, "to assess the risks and benefits of developing Virginia's uranium resources ", determine if ,"uranium mining and milling in Virginia can be undertaken in a manner that will safeguard the Commonwealth's environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens", then the commission "shall offer recommendations for legislation establishing necessary regulatory controls and safeguards under which mining and the processing of uranium resources could be permitted".
There is no guaranty of any level of safety. However there is a provision which calls for "Use of severance taxes and other mechanisms to provide monetary allocations to localities impacted. " I thought the if the study showed risk to Pittsylvania County and those downstream that uranium mining would not be allowed. Does this mean that when we are "impacted" we get paid for the inconvenience?
If this bill must be considered, it requires much more work to make it effective and constitutional. It appears to be neither at present.
Karen B. Maute
2920 Mt. Cross Rd.
Danville, VA 24540
434-797-3460
VA's Choice:Death by Guns or Uranium
(The following is from Jack Caldwell published by www.infomine.com)
RICHMOND - The Virginia Senate voted today to approve measures to authorize a study on uranium and to allow Virginians with permits to carry concealed handguns to bring those weapons into restaurants.
The Senate voted 36-4 to approve Senate Bill 525, which could be the first step toward repeal of a 25-year-old ban on uranium mining in Virginia. It was spurred largely by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine what is believed to be one of the largest concentrations of uranium in the country, now several miles underground in Pittsylvania County.
The Senate, meanwhile, voted 24-15 to approve a measure allowing concealed-carry permit-holders to bring their guns into restaurants, so long as they notify restaurant personnel and do not consume alcohol. State law already permits open carry in restaurants.
Death by guns or uranium: in Virginia you can choose
The following news report almost requires no comment. Unless you yield to the temptation and ask the obvious: will guns or uranium kill more Virginians in the future? Here is the report-I promise this is how it reads-all I have done is cut out one redundant word.
RICHMOND - The Virginia Senate voted today to approve measures to authorize a study on uranium and to allow Virginians with permits to carry concealed handguns to bring those weapons into restaurants.
The Senate voted 36-4 to approve Senate Bill 525, which could be the first step toward repeal of a 25-year-old ban on uranium mining in Virginia. It was spurred largely by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine what is believed to be one of the largest concentrations of uranium in the country, now several miles underground in Pittsylvania County.
The Senate, meanwhile, voted 24-15 to approve a measure allowing concealed-carry permit-holders to bring their guns into restaurants, so long as they notify restaurant personnel and do not consume alcohol. State law already permits open carry in restaurants.
Ontario Canadians Seek Uranium Moratorium
(The following is from the Kinston Whig-Standard 02/14/2008)
Uranium mining is dangerous and should be banned
Good morning, Kingston. It's time to wake up and smell the uranium.
Despite the many environmental concerns we face, the proposed uranium mine 60 kilometres north of Kingston is, by far, the most immediate concern for us.
Perhaps some of you have heard about the conflict and assumed that it is just a First Nations land claim issue. Wrong. Uranium mining is a threat to every living thing. The poisons released by mining would infect every aspect of our environment, and us. Additionally, unlike other poisons, it would remain with us for hundreds of thousands of years.
So what is going on?
A company called Frontenac Ventures has staked 400 mineral claims on 8,000 hectares - 30,000 acres, according to the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium, a group formed to oppose the project - of Crown and private property in the northern Frontenac County area.
Yes, you read correctly - there are mining claims on private land, land we citizens think we own. How can that be?
Do you think you own your land? Well, you don't, due to an antiquated law that allows anyone to stake a claim on your property for a small fee. We property owners own the surface rights to our property. Most of us do not own the land underneath the surface. That means someone can enter your property, cut down trees, build roads, dig, drill and mine your property, not only without your permission but without even informing you. It's perfectly legal. Just ask Frank and Gloria Morrison, as that is exactly what happened on their land last spring.
Here are some facts about uranium mining and Frontenac Ventures' plans:
There is no evidence of any safe level of uranium mining.
There is well-documented evidence of increased incidences of cancer in mine workers and people living near mining sites.
Every test hole drilled releases poisonous gases into the atmosphere.
Frontenac Ventures is planning an open pit mine, which means less exposure to poisons for workers but air and water pollution that will spread far and wide.
The North Frontenac uranium deposits are very limited; hence substantial quantities of radioactive material and radon gas will be dispersed by air and water to obtain small amounts of marketable uranium.
The process of mining involves the extraction of ore, crushing of ore, leaching with sodium/bicarbonate solution and dumping of the leachate and tailings.
Frontenac Ventures' website states that the company is "embarking on aggressive open pit mining" in the area. The leachate from this mining venture would poison the waters in the Mississippi watershed. Kingston and Ottawa are the ultimate recipients of these contaminated waters.
If you want to be more fully informed, you should seek information from the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium (uraniumnews@ccasmu.ca, www.miningwatch.ca, and info@know uranium.org).
The bottom line is that uranium mining is extremely dangerous and should never be permitted close to human populations. Many communities and organizations have demanded that a moratorium on uranium mining should be imposed immediately in order to study its effects on Canadians.
So far, Premier Dalton McGuinty has not been willing to listen to the concerns of citizens. If you agree that this serious threat to the health and safety of citizens needs to be acknowledged and studied, please let McGuinty and your local MPP, John Gerretsen, know. Demand a moratorium on uranium mining now.
Joan Rose Kingston
Uranium - This Blog, My Role, My Opinion
(The following is a comment left by Blogger "Jack" to the post immediately below this post. What follows his comment here is my response.)
"Jack said...
How is it that no one ever comments on this blog? I am a new lurker, and I wonder if you ever offer up any opinions of your own? What is your opinion of the uranium controversy?"
If you or any reader/blogger attempt to access "My Profile" here on this blog, you will find that I have not included one for public view. The reason for this I hoped would be obvious.
This blog is not about me or any particular person. Rather, it is an attempt to bring to light the plight of Southside's and Virginia's future should uranium be allowed to be mined here in Pittsylvania County. The story is much bigger than any individual.
The story needs to be told, information needs to be distributed, group action needs to be called for, and responses to the opposition need to be made! Who I am or what I believe is immaterial to this mission!
Granted, I occasionally make editorial comments in the posts and occasionally write a post entirely from my own perspective. But, that is not going to be the rule; rather, it will be the exception. Egos are not needed in this group; decisive group action is indeed needed!
I would also hope, Jack, that you could "read between the lines" to determine how I feel about uranium. If not, I am truly sorry that I am not reaching you and I have failed my mission with at least one reader. Alas, I regret it, but must move on to work with those that do understand me.
"Jack said...
How is it that no one ever comments on this blog? I am a new lurker, and I wonder if you ever offer up any opinions of your own? What is your opinion of the uranium controversy?"
If you or any reader/blogger attempt to access "My Profile" here on this blog, you will find that I have not included one for public view. The reason for this I hoped would be obvious.
This blog is not about me or any particular person. Rather, it is an attempt to bring to light the plight of Southside's and Virginia's future should uranium be allowed to be mined here in Pittsylvania County. The story is much bigger than any individual.
The story needs to be told, information needs to be distributed, group action needs to be called for, and responses to the opposition need to be made! Who I am or what I believe is immaterial to this mission!
Granted, I occasionally make editorial comments in the posts and occasionally write a post entirely from my own perspective. But, that is not going to be the rule; rather, it will be the exception. Egos are not needed in this group; decisive group action is indeed needed!
I would also hope, Jack, that you could "read between the lines" to determine how I feel about uranium. If not, I am truly sorry that I am not reaching you and I have failed my mission with at least one reader. Alas, I regret it, but must move on to work with those that do understand me.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Action Call-House of Delegates
(From our close friends at the Virginia Consevation Network)
Last month, a record-breaking turnout at Conservation Lobby Day helped secure a major victory for Virginia's environment. The General Assembly is on track to pass legislation protecting citizen environmental boards. However, the other major environmental bills heading to the House of Delegates include a sweetheart deal for developers to subsidize sprawl (SB 768) and a flawed study that would open the door to toxic uranium mining in Virginia (SB 525).
Legislators tell us all the time: when constituents come to Richmond they listen. Your Delegate needs to hear from you on these critically important issues.
Where: General Assembly Building's 4 West Conference Room (4th floor)
When: Monday, February 18th at 9 a.m.
What: Join the Virginia Conservation Network for a special "Assembly Update": an up-to-the minute briefing from our experts. Then, take the message to your representatives!
Click here to find your Delegate, then phone ahead to make an appointment between 9:30 a.m. and noon. For more details, phone 804-644-0283 or e-mail vcn@vcnva.org. We'll do our best to pair you with another constituent or Legislative Contact Team member upon request.
Remember: George Washington said "The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments." It's up to us to stand up and make sure special interests don't highjack democracy. If you can't make it to Richmond, you can still take action. Click here to sign up for Conservation e-Action Virginia (CAV) alerts on priority bills and be sure to visit www.vcnva.org for updates.
For More Information: Contact Nathan Lott or Suzanne Ankrum at 804-644-0283 or vcn@vcnva.org
This Monday-President's Day-come to Richmond and make your voice heard!
Last month, a record-breaking turnout at Conservation Lobby Day helped secure a major victory for Virginia's environment. The General Assembly is on track to pass legislation protecting citizen environmental boards. However, the other major environmental bills heading to the House of Delegates include a sweetheart deal for developers to subsidize sprawl (SB 768) and a flawed study that would open the door to toxic uranium mining in Virginia (SB 525).
Legislators tell us all the time: when constituents come to Richmond they listen. Your Delegate needs to hear from you on these critically important issues.
Where: General Assembly Building's 4 West Conference Room (4th floor)
When: Monday, February 18th at 9 a.m.
What: Join the Virginia Conservation Network for a special "Assembly Update": an up-to-the minute briefing from our experts. Then, take the message to your representatives!
Click here to find your Delegate, then phone ahead to make an appointment between 9:30 a.m. and noon. For more details, phone 804-644-0283 or e-mail vcn@vcnva.org. We'll do our best to pair you with another constituent or Legislative Contact Team member upon request.
Remember: George Washington said "The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments." It's up to us to stand up and make sure special interests don't highjack democracy. If you can't make it to Richmond, you can still take action. Click here to sign up for Conservation e-Action Virginia (CAV) alerts on priority bills and be sure to visit www.vcnva.org for updates.
For More Information: Contact Nathan Lott or Suzanne Ankrum at 804-644-0283 or vcn@vcnva.org
County Administrator's Opinion Wrong?
Pittslvania County's Administrator has rendered an opinion that the county does not have to enforce its own Waste Ordinance on the uranium drilling going on at Coles Hill because the county must defer to the Virginia state Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy regulations regarding the drilling.
However, we have learned through some research by a SCC affiliate that the opinion is incorrect! Rather, the Virginia Code that specifically authorizes the DMME also states that the DMME shall not supercede any other state or local governing body. Thus, the county's Waste Ordiance does indeed apply.
Citations:
Regarding the relationship between DMME's program and other jurisdictions, the regulation of uranium exploration by drilling by the DMME is separate from and does not alter the authority of any other state or local laws and regulations. Please see Section 45.1-284 of the Code of Virginia for information on the relationship of the DMME program to other state and local governing bodies.
§ 45.1-284. State and local authority.
Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to alter the authority of any state or local governing body, including the authorities conferred under Chapter 22 (§ 15.2-2200 et seq.) of Title 15.2, relative to matters which are the subject of this chapter.
(1982, c. 269.)
However, we have learned through some research by a SCC affiliate that the opinion is incorrect! Rather, the Virginia Code that specifically authorizes the DMME also states that the DMME shall not supercede any other state or local governing body. Thus, the county's Waste Ordiance does indeed apply.
Citations:
Regarding the relationship between DMME's program and other jurisdictions, the regulation of uranium exploration by drilling by the DMME is separate from and does not alter the authority of any other state or local laws and regulations. Please see Section 45.1-284 of the Code of Virginia for information on the relationship of the DMME program to other state and local governing bodies.
§ 45.1-284. State and local authority.
Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to alter the authority of any state or local governing body, including the authorities conferred under Chapter 22 (§ 15.2-2200 et seq.) of Title 15.2, relative to matters which are the subject of this chapter.
(1982, c. 269.)
Another Tactic Against Uranium Mining
(The following is from the Courier-Journal.com 11/04/2007)
By Brett BarrouquereAssociated Press
A federal appeals court has ruled that a 10-year-old lawsuit alleging that water leaks from a Western Kentucky uranium enrichment plant hurt property values can go forward.
The decision, issued Friday by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reverses a decision by U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley, who dismissed the suit, saying there was no proof that enough contamination existed to pose a health hazard.
Judge Avern Cohn, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said McKinley erred in dismissing the suit because the homeowners who brought the case have enough evidence to warrant a jury trial.
"The jury, properly instructed, must decide the outcome," Cohn wrote.
The case stems from a suit filed by 16 homeowners who live near the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The homeowners sued in 1997, claiming about 10 billion gallons of polluted groundwater had damaged 82 pieces of property. They also claimed they lost use of their property and suffered losses of plants, crops, livestock and wildlife. Aside from land devaluation, the landowners allege the plant is a nuisance and they are seeking unspecified punitive damages.
Defense lawyers for former plant operators Union Carbide and Lockheed Martin denied the allegations and sought the dismissal.
The case was the only one alleging land devaluation among several lawsuits filed in recent years claiming contamination.
Court clears way for suit over uranium plant
By Brett BarrouquereAssociated Press
A federal appeals court has ruled that a 10-year-old lawsuit alleging that water leaks from a Western Kentucky uranium enrichment plant hurt property values can go forward.
The decision, issued Friday by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reverses a decision by U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley, who dismissed the suit, saying there was no proof that enough contamination existed to pose a health hazard.
Judge Avern Cohn, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said McKinley erred in dismissing the suit because the homeowners who brought the case have enough evidence to warrant a jury trial.
"The jury, properly instructed, must decide the outcome," Cohn wrote.
The case stems from a suit filed by 16 homeowners who live near the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The homeowners sued in 1997, claiming about 10 billion gallons of polluted groundwater had damaged 82 pieces of property. They also claimed they lost use of their property and suffered losses of plants, crops, livestock and wildlife. Aside from land devaluation, the landowners allege the plant is a nuisance and they are seeking unspecified punitive damages.
Defense lawyers for former plant operators Union Carbide and Lockheed Martin denied the allegations and sought the dismissal.
The case was the only one alleging land devaluation among several lawsuits filed in recent years claiming contamination.
\
In the 1990s, the Department of Energy provided eight of the 16 properties with free municipal water, even though traces of contamination were found in wells of only four of the eight.
The case has bounced around the state and federal legal systems for a decade. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had asked the Kentucky Supreme Court to clarify several aspects of state law in June.
The state's high court ruled then that the landowners don't have to prove they were harmed to sue past contractors for trespassing by allowing contaminants to spread beyond the plant.
In the 1990s, the Department of Energy provided eight of the 16 properties with free municipal water, even though traces of contamination were found in wells of only four of the eight.
The case has bounced around the state and federal legal systems for a decade. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had asked the Kentucky Supreme Court to clarify several aspects of state law in June.
The state's high court ruled then that the landowners don't have to prove they were harmed to sue past contractors for trespassing by allowing contaminants to spread beyond the plant.
Keep an Eye on Homes for Sale !
(This link was sent in by SCC affiliates to help us keep a daily look at the number of homes up for sale in the area. Please note that this site does NOT have a record of every home in the area; however, watching what it does have data on will give us a trend over time. Also please note that 7 out of 8 homes documented here all went to listing in the last 30 days.)
http://www.zillow.com/search/RealEstateSearch.htm?dg=dg2&addrstrthood=coles+road+&citystatezip=CHATHAM,+va+24531#view=ver%3D1%26op%3Dsearch%26scen%3Ds1%26map%3D%28Aw%3AAN79601506%21As%3A36690772%21Ae%3AAN79188998%21An%3A36901055%29%26mode%3D%28zoom%3A10%21sortANdir%3Au%21sortANparam%3Ax9%29%26dg%3Ddg2%26loc%3Dmap
http://www.zillow.com/search/RealEstateSearch.htm?dg=dg2&addrstrthood=coles+road+&citystatezip=CHATHAM,+va+24531#view=ver%3D1%26op%3Dsearch%26scen%3Ds1%26map%3D%28Aw%3AAN79601506%21As%3A36690772%21Ae%3AAN79188998%21An%3A36901055%29%26mode%3D%28zoom%3A10%21sortANdir%3Au%21sortANparam%3Ax9%29%26dg%3Ddg2%26loc%3Dmap
New Tactic in opposing Uranium Mining?
(The following is from Victoria Advocate - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX 12/09/2007)
Opponents of uranium mining are fighting on two fronts: the court of public opinion and the courtroom.
On the legal front, opponents have requested a hearing to contest Uranium Energy Corp.'s application for a mining permit, the next step toward full-scale mining. Private residents, the Goliad County commissioners court, and the county's groundwater conservation district have all asked the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for a hearing.
The hearing is a legal proceeding similar to a civil trial and, if granted, would be in Austin at the State Office of Administrative Hearings.
If the groundwater becomes contaminated, some landowners near the proposed mining area say they would consider suing not only the uranium company but also the landowners who leased their land for mining.
On the public relations front, the county commissioners court has passed a resolution against uranium mining in the county. Although non-binding, the resolution made clear the court's stance.
Opponents also are funding a more visible effort in Victoria, where a digital billboard flashes its daily message opposing uranium mining. Some donations are collected at town hall meetings. A sign at a recent meeting stated, "our billboard has area folks talking and thinking." The billboard cost $105 a day, according to another sign.
Harry Anthony, the mining company's chief operations officer, calls those in opposition to uranium mining, "a great vocal minority."
Guest columns and the letters to the editor in the Advocate also lend a voice to both sides of the debate. The residents' committee, Uranium Information at Goliad, supplies a regular column in the Goliad newspaper featuring questions and answers about uranium mining and the ongoing process. The group also has distributed brochures expressing concerns about uranium mining.
Those brochures caused Anthony to question the tactics of uranium mining opponents.
A photograph showing a barren well field is actually in Wyoming, not Texas, Anthony said, calling it intentionally "misleading the public." A caption under the photo reads, "Note the lack of trees and vegetation." The brochure does not state where the photo was shot, although a photo credit is given to Peter Diehl of Wise Uranium.
Ginger Cook, a landowner who is a member of the county's uranium research and advisory committee, said she put the brochure together and doesn't think it's deceptive at all.
"It shows ugly. And ugly is ugly no matter where it's located,"Cook said.
Another tactic the company criticized is opponents' statement at town hall meetings that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality gets more than 80 percent of its revenue from the issuance of permits, implying that the commission would lose money if it turned down a permit.
That percentage came directly from the commission's Web site last October, said Margaret Rutherford, who helped organize the citizens committee, but it "was withdrawn shortly after I presented this information."
"Eighty-two percent of all agency revenue from permits is very incorrect. Permitting fees are actually a fairly small percentage of our revenue," said Lisa Wheeler, commission spokeswoman. The application fee for an underground injection control permit is $100, according to the commission's Web site.
The uranium company has done some public relations work itself, providing $10,000 annually for science and engineering scholarships to Goliad high school seniors.
Until the fight shifts to the legal front, both sides remain focused on winning public opinion.
"I know I wear the scarlet 'U',"Anthony said the first time he met with the public in Goliad in June 2006. ""But we are here to extend our hand and be a good corporate neighbor. We want to make sure there is no misinformation."
Rutherford says those opposing uranium mining can't fight the battle alone.
"You can't be the silent majority here. We need everyone's help. Please help support the cause to keep you informed with accurate, research-based information."
Sonny Long is a reporter for the Advocate. Contact him at 361-580-6585 or slong@vicad.com
Opponents of uranium mining are fighting on two fronts: the court of public opinion and the courtroom.
On the legal front, opponents have requested a hearing to contest Uranium Energy Corp.'s application for a mining permit, the next step toward full-scale mining. Private residents, the Goliad County commissioners court, and the county's groundwater conservation district have all asked the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for a hearing.
The hearing is a legal proceeding similar to a civil trial and, if granted, would be in Austin at the State Office of Administrative Hearings.
If the groundwater becomes contaminated, some landowners near the proposed mining area say they would consider suing not only the uranium company but also the landowners who leased their land for mining.
On the public relations front, the county commissioners court has passed a resolution against uranium mining in the county. Although non-binding, the resolution made clear the court's stance.
Opponents also are funding a more visible effort in Victoria, where a digital billboard flashes its daily message opposing uranium mining. Some donations are collected at town hall meetings. A sign at a recent meeting stated, "our billboard has area folks talking and thinking." The billboard cost $105 a day, according to another sign.
Harry Anthony, the mining company's chief operations officer, calls those in opposition to uranium mining, "a great vocal minority."
Guest columns and the letters to the editor in the Advocate also lend a voice to both sides of the debate. The residents' committee, Uranium Information at Goliad, supplies a regular column in the Goliad newspaper featuring questions and answers about uranium mining and the ongoing process. The group also has distributed brochures expressing concerns about uranium mining.
Those brochures caused Anthony to question the tactics of uranium mining opponents.
A photograph showing a barren well field is actually in Wyoming, not Texas, Anthony said, calling it intentionally "misleading the public." A caption under the photo reads, "Note the lack of trees and vegetation." The brochure does not state where the photo was shot, although a photo credit is given to Peter Diehl of Wise Uranium.
Ginger Cook, a landowner who is a member of the county's uranium research and advisory committee, said she put the brochure together and doesn't think it's deceptive at all.
"It shows ugly. And ugly is ugly no matter where it's located,"Cook said.
Another tactic the company criticized is opponents' statement at town hall meetings that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality gets more than 80 percent of its revenue from the issuance of permits, implying that the commission would lose money if it turned down a permit.
That percentage came directly from the commission's Web site last October, said Margaret Rutherford, who helped organize the citizens committee, but it "was withdrawn shortly after I presented this information."
"Eighty-two percent of all agency revenue from permits is very incorrect. Permitting fees are actually a fairly small percentage of our revenue," said Lisa Wheeler, commission spokeswoman. The application fee for an underground injection control permit is $100, according to the commission's Web site.
The uranium company has done some public relations work itself, providing $10,000 annually for science and engineering scholarships to Goliad high school seniors.
Until the fight shifts to the legal front, both sides remain focused on winning public opinion.
"I know I wear the scarlet 'U',"Anthony said the first time he met with the public in Goliad in June 2006. ""But we are here to extend our hand and be a good corporate neighbor. We want to make sure there is no misinformation."
Rutherford says those opposing uranium mining can't fight the battle alone.
"You can't be the silent majority here. We need everyone's help. Please help support the cause to keep you informed with accurate, research-based information."
Sonny Long is a reporter for the Advocate. Contact him at 361-580-6585 or slong@vicad.com
An Excellent Uranium Mining Educational Resource
(The following was forwarded to us from Hollis Stauber, Danville, VA. It is a resource bibliography from www.wise-uranium.org who describes itself as " WISE Uranium Project is part of World Information Service on Energy .It covers the health and environmental impacts of nuclear fuel production".)
Please click on link below to go to their website bibliography:
Please click on link below to go to their website bibliography:
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Letter-Uranium Owners Personally Attack Opponents
(The following is a letter to the editor for the Danville Register-Bee, 02-10-08)
To the editor:
In their advertisement, “Reality Check III,” Virginia Uranium Inc. - or whatever name they’re going by this week - stated that they “… are asking for an independent, scientific study, paid for by us in a hands-off manner and authorized by the Commonwealth of Virginia, to determine if mining can be done safely in Virginia.”
The “independent scientists” conducting any such study would be acutely aware of who was buttering their bread. How could they not?
Furthermore, any study authorized by the state government would be under the auspices of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who thinks uranium mining is a fine idea. But he does not live here, or anywhere near Coles Hill. He and his family would never know it was happening, much less have to suffer the inevitable devastating consequences of uranium mining. It is not his home that would be affected.
This whole idea is so transparent, I am amazed anyone lends it any credibility at all. It is a classic example of the fox minding the henhouse. And we all know what happened to those chickens.
It is also beyond comprehension that Virginia Uranium would feel the need to personally attack Jack Dunavant and Eloise Nenon, two citizens of the commonwealth, who have dared to challenge VUI and its propaganda machine. I have never heard or read any such vitriolic nonsense perpetrated by Southside Concerned Citizens against any individual in the employ of VUI. Nor do I believe they would feel the need to stoop to such petty attempts to discredit Walter Coles Sr. or any of his associates.
I believe VUI makes the rules up as it goes along, with little regard for the outcome for the thousands of citizens who stand to suffer the catastrophic results of uranium mining. The truth is that Coles and his cronies are the only people who truly stand to benefit from this dangerous idea. None of the rest of us who live here can be honestly promised anything except a ruined environment, higher cancer rates, a higher incidence of birth defects and the burden of having to relocate to a safer place.
If VUI is so confident that they are “creating a glorious new era for Southside” as they have claimed, then they should not feel the need to publish these low-blow attempts to discredit people who are asking honest, well-conceived questions about how VUI intends to conduct this mining safely.
After all, the study they offered to pay for would be dealing strictly in conjecture. The results would necessarily have to say, “We believe this mining could be done safely.” No one, no matter who is paying them, could honestly say that uranium could be mined in a safe manner. It has not been up to this point, anywhere.
Why does VUI think we should believe they have some secret new mining method that would make it safe? Why won’t they just come out and tell us? Because they don’t have anything new to offer to that discussion.
JESSE P. ANDREWS
Halifax
Don’t attack Dunavant and Nenon for their work
To the editor:
In their advertisement, “Reality Check III,” Virginia Uranium Inc. - or whatever name they’re going by this week - stated that they “… are asking for an independent, scientific study, paid for by us in a hands-off manner and authorized by the Commonwealth of Virginia, to determine if mining can be done safely in Virginia.”
The “independent scientists” conducting any such study would be acutely aware of who was buttering their bread. How could they not?
Furthermore, any study authorized by the state government would be under the auspices of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who thinks uranium mining is a fine idea. But he does not live here, or anywhere near Coles Hill. He and his family would never know it was happening, much less have to suffer the inevitable devastating consequences of uranium mining. It is not his home that would be affected.
This whole idea is so transparent, I am amazed anyone lends it any credibility at all. It is a classic example of the fox minding the henhouse. And we all know what happened to those chickens.
It is also beyond comprehension that Virginia Uranium would feel the need to personally attack Jack Dunavant and Eloise Nenon, two citizens of the commonwealth, who have dared to challenge VUI and its propaganda machine. I have never heard or read any such vitriolic nonsense perpetrated by Southside Concerned Citizens against any individual in the employ of VUI. Nor do I believe they would feel the need to stoop to such petty attempts to discredit Walter Coles Sr. or any of his associates.
I believe VUI makes the rules up as it goes along, with little regard for the outcome for the thousands of citizens who stand to suffer the catastrophic results of uranium mining. The truth is that Coles and his cronies are the only people who truly stand to benefit from this dangerous idea. None of the rest of us who live here can be honestly promised anything except a ruined environment, higher cancer rates, a higher incidence of birth defects and the burden of having to relocate to a safer place.
If VUI is so confident that they are “creating a glorious new era for Southside” as they have claimed, then they should not feel the need to publish these low-blow attempts to discredit people who are asking honest, well-conceived questions about how VUI intends to conduct this mining safely.
After all, the study they offered to pay for would be dealing strictly in conjecture. The results would necessarily have to say, “We believe this mining could be done safely.” No one, no matter who is paying them, could honestly say that uranium could be mined in a safe manner. It has not been up to this point, anywhere.
Why does VUI think we should believe they have some secret new mining method that would make it safe? Why won’t they just come out and tell us? Because they don’t have anything new to offer to that discussion.
JESSE P. ANDREWS
Halifax
Best Rebuttal of Reasons to Mine Uranium
(The ALLIANCE with SCC Action Committee Chair, Gregg Vickrey, has written the absolute best rebuttal of arguments made by the Multi-National and local mining corporations that i have seen. He has taken the actual presentation VUI makes in its "special, secret presentations" to local citizens (Vickrey has attended one such) and rebutts argument after argument. His dissertation follows below with a link to the balance of the article after a few introductory paragraphs. DO NOT MISS READING THIS----IT'S POWERFUL !)
I attended the VUI presentation. Here is what they had to say. I am taking this off of my hard copy of their power point presentation and will write each of their points for each of their slides verbatim. My impressions/questions will follow in bold italics.
Slide 1
Virginia Uranium, Inc.
Overview for January 30, 2008
Slide 2
Basics
Our Goal
Implement Virginia Energy Plan recommendation to study whether uranium development can be done safely in Pittsylvania County.
Don't they mean their energy plan? The Energy Plan actually says: "Virginia should assess the potential value of and regulatory needs for uranium production in Pittsylvania County." This says nothing about it being done safely. Why is this? This sounds like a forgone conclusion. In fact, as reported by Scott Harper for the Virginian Pilot...published Oct 21,2007...: "To renew political interest in uranium, Coles got some well connected help-namely from his brother-in-law Whit Clement, a former state delegate and Virginia transportation secretary under former Gov. Mark Warner. According to state Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, Clement asked him to include uranium mining in Wagner's 2006 energy bill. The bill at first did not mention uranium. But after hearing from Clement whom Wagner described as an old friend and colleague, "I decided to put in an amendment," the senator said. When the bill passed last year, a section that endorsed a study of possible uranium mining in Pittsylvania County remained in the text-and later became part of the Virginia Energy Plan, which Kaine announced this summer." Frank Wagner is also the sponsor of SB-525, which is the bill to create a commission to tell VUI how to mine this deposit legally. Whit Clement is VUI's primary lobbyist.
Maintain moratorium until a study demonstrates uranium development can be undertaken safely.
Again, an interesting choice of words. Another foregone conclusion. This says that VUI believes that this is what their study will show. It does not tell us what their definition of "safely" is. Health safety (they can never guaranty this for 500,000 years), Social safety (Chatham is already being stigmatized by the very idea of this mine. People in the know who wish to remain anonymous have said …………………………….
I
Click on the link below to read the rest of this article......
I attended the VUI presentation. Here is what they had to say. I am taking this off of my hard copy of their power point presentation and will write each of their points for each of their slides verbatim. My impressions/questions will follow in bold italics.
Slide 1
Virginia Uranium, Inc.
Overview for January 30, 2008
Slide 2
Basics
Our Goal
Implement Virginia Energy Plan recommendation to study whether uranium development can be done safely in Pittsylvania County.
Don't they mean their energy plan? The Energy Plan actually says: "Virginia should assess the potential value of and regulatory needs for uranium production in Pittsylvania County." This says nothing about it being done safely. Why is this? This sounds like a forgone conclusion. In fact, as reported by Scott Harper for the Virginian Pilot...published Oct 21,2007...: "To renew political interest in uranium, Coles got some well connected help-namely from his brother-in-law Whit Clement, a former state delegate and Virginia transportation secretary under former Gov. Mark Warner. According to state Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, Clement asked him to include uranium mining in Wagner's 2006 energy bill. The bill at first did not mention uranium. But after hearing from Clement whom Wagner described as an old friend and colleague, "I decided to put in an amendment," the senator said. When the bill passed last year, a section that endorsed a study of possible uranium mining in Pittsylvania County remained in the text-and later became part of the Virginia Energy Plan, which Kaine announced this summer." Frank Wagner is also the sponsor of SB-525, which is the bill to create a commission to tell VUI how to mine this deposit legally. Whit Clement is VUI's primary lobbyist.
Maintain moratorium until a study demonstrates uranium development can be undertaken safely.
Again, an interesting choice of words. Another foregone conclusion. This says that VUI believes that this is what their study will show. It does not tell us what their definition of "safely" is. Health safety (they can never guaranty this for 500,000 years), Social safety (Chatham is already being stigmatized by the very idea of this mine. People in the know who wish to remain anonymous have said …………………………….
I
Click on the link below to read the rest of this article......
Complete Senate Uranium Study Bill
(The following was provided by Karen Maute, an SCC affiliate)
It has come to my attention that we need to be concentrating on the Bill before the House, SB 525, so we can comment on its content. Below I have put references to location of mining activities in red with my comments/questions underlined. The fuscia colored text reflects other questionable language with my underlined comments.
I hope you will do the same. I'd like to see your comments re: the bill.
We then need to address questions and concerns to the House.
It appears to me that Southside remains the main focus of this legislation.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Title 30 a chapter numbered 45, consisting of sections numbered 30-293 through 30-300 as follows:
CHAPTER 45.
VIRGINIA URANIUM MINING COMMISSION.
§ 30-293. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning:
"Where uranium mining is currently proposed" means the localities within the Southside and West Piedmont Planning District Commissions. (This apparently means us.)
§ 30-294. The Virginia Uranium Mining Commission; purpose.
The Virginia Uranium Mining Commission (the Commission) is established as an advisory commission in the legislative branch of state government. The purpose of the Commission is to assess the risks and benefits of developing Virginia's uranium resources in Virginia and to advise the Governor and General Assembly:
1. Whether uranium mining and milling in Virginia can be undertaken in a manner that will safeguard the Commonwealth's environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens; and
2. On other related matters as requested by the Governor or the General Assembly.
If appropriate, following the conclusion of the independent study required under § 30-297, the Commission shall offer recommendations for legislation establishing necessary regulatory controls and safeguards under which mining and the processing of uranium resources could be permitted.
§ 30-295. Membership; terms; quorum; meetings.The Commission shall have a total membership of 17 members that shall consist of eight legislative members, six nonlegislative citizen members, and three ex officio members. Members shall be appointed as follows: three members of the Senate, to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules; 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; six nonlegislative citizen members to be...........
Please click link below to read the rest of this article:
It has come to my attention that we need to be concentrating on the Bill before the House, SB 525, so we can comment on its content. Below I have put references to location of mining activities in red with my comments/questions underlined. The fuscia colored text reflects other questionable language with my underlined comments.
I hope you will do the same. I'd like to see your comments re: the bill.
We then need to address questions and concerns to the House.
It appears to me that Southside remains the main focus of this legislation.
SENATE BILL NO. 525
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
(Proposed by the Senate Committee on Rules)
(Patron Prior to Substitute-Senator Wagner)
Senate Amendments in [ ] -- February 12, 2008
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Title 30 a chapter numbered 45, consisting of sections numbered 30-293 through 30-300, relating to establishing the Virginia Uranium Mining Commission.
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
(Proposed by the Senate Committee on Rules)
(Patron Prior to Substitute-Senator Wagner)
Senate Amendments in [ ] -- February 12, 2008
A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Title 30 a chapter numbered 45, consisting of sections numbered 30-293 through 30-300, relating to establishing the Virginia Uranium Mining Commission.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Title 30 a chapter numbered 45, consisting of sections numbered 30-293 through 30-300 as follows:
CHAPTER 45.
VIRGINIA URANIUM MINING COMMISSION.
§ 30-293. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning:
"Where uranium mining is currently proposed" means the localities within the Southside and West Piedmont Planning District Commissions. (This apparently means us.)
§ 30-294. The Virginia Uranium Mining Commission; purpose.
The Virginia Uranium Mining Commission (the Commission) is established as an advisory commission in the legislative branch of state government. The purpose of the Commission is to assess the risks and benefits of developing Virginia's uranium resources in Virginia and to advise the Governor and General Assembly:
1. Whether uranium mining and milling in Virginia can be undertaken in a manner that will safeguard the Commonwealth's environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens; and
2. On other related matters as requested by the Governor or the General Assembly.
If appropriate, following the conclusion of the independent study required under § 30-297, the Commission shall offer recommendations for legislation establishing necessary regulatory controls and safeguards under which mining and the processing of uranium resources could be permitted.
§ 30-295. Membership; terms; quorum; meetings.The Commission shall have a total membership of 17 members that shall consist of eight legislative members, six nonlegislative citizen members, and three ex officio members. Members shall be appointed as follows: three members of the Senate, to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules; 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; six nonlegislative citizen members to be...........
Please click link below to read the rest of this article:
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Anti-Uranium Council Candidates Sought
HELP WANTED:
Candidates for Chatham Town Council
Must Pledge to Protect the People and Property of the Town.
Must Pledge to Protect the Ecology of the Town.
Must Pledge to Protect Citizens of the Town versus Multi-National and Local Corporations who would do us harm in their own interests of profit-taking.
If you qualify,
please contact us at
We pledge a large, united, and dedicated force of townspeople to help you win election!!!!!!!
Uranium Mine Economic Boom Myth Exposed!
(Note: this will be the first in a series of articles on the myth of the supposed boom we will receive from uranium mining. Readers are encouraged to submit articles on this subject to john_chaney@hotmail.com for publication herein.)
The Myth of the Economic Boom from Uranium Mining– Part I
Much has been said about the enormous boom that will come from uranium being mined and processed here in our economically depressed area. But is that true? Is it true of past mining towns and areas? Is it true of current mining towns? What happens when a uranium mine comes to town? Do things get better or worse?
These are important questions that need real answers instead of just assuming all will be great and wonderful. I will not attempt to answer all of these in this instance; we will address them over time.
However, there is already being felt an economic effect from just the thought of uranium mining coming to Chatham. And, folks, I have to warn you that it is NOT an economic boom! It IS quite contrary to that!
The Multi-National and Local mining corporations have pooh-pawed contentions that mining will actually have a negative economic effect in Chatham and the county. They say we are illiterate hysterics for even mentioning the possibility that land and home values will tank, that companies will hesitate to locate here, and that the two prominent private schools here will suffer from withdrawals of current students and loss of future enrollments.
Well, I hate to be the one to actually have to inform the Multi-National corporations, but, it is already happening:
· A successful local real estate broker has stated that their firm has recently obtained at least two sale listings in Chatham where the current owners gave the uranium mine as their sole reason for selling their property. How many others will do so soon? With a glut of homes for sale, what will happen to prices and values? Economic boom? I don’t think so!
· A company that had previously decided to open up shop here has now missed a pre-set contact appointment with town officials and does not return calls from town officials. Economic boom? I don’t think so!
· A reliable source at one of the two private schools in Chatham has confirmed that potential enrollee’s families are now holding back from making decisions to enroll at a rate that is uncharacteristic of the past. The source attributes it to the uranium mine coming to town.
The Myth of the Economic Boom from Uranium Mining– Part I
Much has been said about the enormous boom that will come from uranium being mined and processed here in our economically depressed area. But is that true? Is it true of past mining towns and areas? Is it true of current mining towns? What happens when a uranium mine comes to town? Do things get better or worse?
These are important questions that need real answers instead of just assuming all will be great and wonderful. I will not attempt to answer all of these in this instance; we will address them over time.
However, there is already being felt an economic effect from just the thought of uranium mining coming to Chatham. And, folks, I have to warn you that it is NOT an economic boom! It IS quite contrary to that!
The Multi-National and Local mining corporations have pooh-pawed contentions that mining will actually have a negative economic effect in Chatham and the county. They say we are illiterate hysterics for even mentioning the possibility that land and home values will tank, that companies will hesitate to locate here, and that the two prominent private schools here will suffer from withdrawals of current students and loss of future enrollments.
Well, I hate to be the one to actually have to inform the Multi-National corporations, but, it is already happening:
· A successful local real estate broker has stated that their firm has recently obtained at least two sale listings in Chatham where the current owners gave the uranium mine as their sole reason for selling their property. How many others will do so soon? With a glut of homes for sale, what will happen to prices and values? Economic boom? I don’t think so!
· A company that had previously decided to open up shop here has now missed a pre-set contact appointment with town officials and does not return calls from town officials. Economic boom? I don’t think so!
· A reliable source at one of the two private schools in Chatham has confirmed that potential enrollee’s families are now holding back from making decisions to enroll at a rate that is uncharacteristic of the past. The source attributes it to the uranium mine coming to town.
Economic boom? I don’t think so!
(For additional information on the economic effects of uranium mining, please go to : www.evincere.net then Click on the current Issue of Evince button labeled "here" . Read Rick Dixon's article.)
Monday, February 11, 2008
Chatham Council "Welcomes" Uranium?
Chatham's Town Council Wimps out .........Welcomes the Farcical Study of Uranium Mining!
Townspeople Seek Candidates to Replace Current
Council Members as a Result!
Town Council Told Citizens They Could Send E-Mails to Town Treasurer and He Will Forward Them to Council Members. No Council Member offered to Personally Recieve E-Mails From Their Own Constituents!
Townspeople Want to Replace Council Members who refuse to educate themselves when provided multiple opportunities, and, then, hide behind the cliche that "they don't know enough" to make a decision!
Townspeople Want Real Representatives of the People!
Opposition Leaders Schedule Meeting to Decide How to Respond to the Will of the People of Chatham!
Stay tuned for Details to follow...................
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Where have all the polticos gone.............?
Throughout the saga that is this battle for life and future life in Chatham and Pittsylvania County, I have been amazed at how many of our local elected and appointed representatives have refused to take a stand.
At a rate of almost 100%, they have claimed "that they just don't know enough about the issue" to make a decision. We have constantly pointed out to them the ease of which information is available on the internet and from government files, if they would only make the effort.
We finally decided to bring the information to them. We arranged a Forum this past Saturday night at which both sides of the issue would be presented with an impartial moderator (a local pastor). We even arranged for a question and answer period with no conditions on the questions that could be asked.
After we arranged this information exchange, the moderator personally invited each and every member of the county Board of Supervisors. Additionally, we know that a town official made each and every Town Council member aware of the forum. Below is a list of all of the Supervisors and Council members who attended:
At a rate of almost 100%, they have claimed "that they just don't know enough about the issue" to make a decision. We have constantly pointed out to them the ease of which information is available on the internet and from government files, if they would only make the effort.
We finally decided to bring the information to them. We arranged a Forum this past Saturday night at which both sides of the issue would be presented with an impartial moderator (a local pastor). We even arranged for a question and answer period with no conditions on the questions that could be asked.
After we arranged this information exchange, the moderator personally invited each and every member of the county Board of Supervisors. Additionally, we know that a town official made each and every Town Council member aware of the forum. Below is a list of all of the Supervisors and Council members who attended:
- Hank Davis----Supervisor, Chatham District
- George Haley--Mayor, Town of Chatham
WHAT IN THE WORLD IS GOING ON WITH OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES?
Either they now have "educated" themselves on the issue and are fully ready to take a stand.................or....................They have no intention of taking a stand, no intention of doing the job they were elected to do, and a complete intention to dodge the issue at every opportunity.
I say we should....."THROW the RASCALS OUT" !
If they won't represent the PEOPLE'S INTERESTS, then let's find some who will, hold recall elections, and get real people's representatives elected!
JUST DO IT!!!!
CALL TO ACTION !!
Another, yet, CRITICAL Call to Action !!
Yes, we know you just turned out in force Saturday night!
Yes, we know you have done so time and time again!
But, Monday night the Battle comes home to Chatham!
The Town Council meets Monday night to approve either our resolution in opposition to mining, or, to approve the Multi-National and Local Corporations' resolution to support a state study (a euphimism for approving uranium mining).
We must show through strength of numbers that THE PEOPLE'S WILL is that nothing associated with mining be approved, study or not! Please read Gregg's message below and ....................BE THERE !
Chatham Town Council will meet tomorrow, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2008 @ 7:00 PM at the Chatham Fire Department on route 57, Chatham. Attached is their agenda.
They will take up our proposed resolution to maintain the moratorium on uranium mining as well as VUI's resolution to support the "study".
Please attend! we need to show council that we support our resolution! You can bet VUI will be there.
Thanks to all that were at the forum last night! A special thanks to our speakers and our questioners! YOU WERE AWESOME! Thanks also to everyone that helped pull this together. If any of you need a great venue for an event, please contact Pastor Pope: (434) 250-1649. This would be the best way to show him our appreciation.
They will take up our proposed resolution to maintain the moratorium on uranium mining as well as VUI's resolution to support the "study".
Please attend! we need to show council that we support our resolution! You can bet VUI will be there.
Thanks to all that were at the forum last night! A special thanks to our speakers and our questioners! YOU WERE AWESOME! Thanks also to everyone that helped pull this together. If any of you need a great venue for an event, please contact Pastor Pope: (434) 250-1649. This would be the best way to show him our appreciation.
Tale of Two Pictures
As the FOX network says, we are ......
Fair and Balanced..............You Decide!
Below are two pictures. The first represents the Bannister River in it's current condition somewhere near the Coles Hill underground uranium deposit. The second represents uranium sludge ponds near the Colorado River somewhere near Moab, Utah's uranium mine.
Which do you prefer for your community?
Definitions of Urnanium Waste
(Following is from the US Environmental Protection Agency)
The SCC contends that VUI is now, currently violating the county's Waste Ordinance. The County Administrator says that the material being brought up from underground and not used for current research is not waste.
We think it is and here is a US government agency's definition of waste that supports our opinion:
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/tenorm/uranium.html
Click on the link and decide for yourself!!!
The SCC contends that VUI is now, currently violating the county's Waste Ordinance. The County Administrator says that the material being brought up from underground and not used for current research is not waste.
We think it is and here is a US government agency's definition of waste that supports our opinion:
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/tenorm/uranium.html
Click on the link and decide for yourself!!!
Some Answers> River Basin Committee
(Following is from Smidgen Barnes, an SCC friend in Louisville, KY)
You've asked some great questions and I sure hope you get answers. Looking at the Dept of Environmental Quality website would indicate that this advisory committee is somewhat of a joke which is so unfortunate.
§ 62.1-69.34 created the Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee. It spells out the membership and purpose. Regarding meetings, the statute says this:
"The meetings of the advisory committee shall be held at the call of the chairman or whenever the majority of the voting members so request."
The last meeting minutes available on the DEQ website are from March 9, 2005. That's nearly three years ago! There was a meeting scheduled for July 26, 2005 but apparently it never was held.
Should you not get the info you desire, I hope that you'll follow through with a formal Open Records Request through the Freedom of Information Act. The contact is listed on the DEQ Contacts page.
What you're asking and asking for is important. You're to be commended for taking the time to follow this up. Coles' membership on this Committee seems incongruous at best.
Smidgen Barnes
Louisville, KY
You've asked some great questions and I sure hope you get answers. Looking at the Dept of Environmental Quality website would indicate that this advisory committee is somewhat of a joke which is so unfortunate.
§ 62.1-69.34 created the Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee. It spells out the membership and purpose. Regarding meetings, the statute says this:
"The meetings of the advisory committee shall be held at the call of the chairman or whenever the majority of the voting members so request."
The last meeting minutes available on the DEQ website are from March 9, 2005. That's nearly three years ago! There was a meeting scheduled for July 26, 2005 but apparently it never was held.
Should you not get the info you desire, I hope that you'll follow through with a formal Open Records Request through the Freedom of Information Act. The contact is listed on the DEQ Contacts page.
What you're asking and asking for is important. You're to be commended for taking the time to follow this up. Coles' membership on this Committee seems incongruous at best.
Smidgen Barnes
Louisville, KY
Coles on River Basin Committee????
(Following is from Katie Whitehead to our representatives in the General Assembly)
Sen. Hurt, Del. Merricks, Del. Poindexter, and Del.Marshall,
Today a concerned citizen in Southside pointed outthat a Walter Coles is/was on the Virginia RoanokeRiver Basin Advisory Committee. The membership list isat least somewhat out of date, given that it showsSen. Charles Hawkins and Del. Robert Hurt and citizenmember Charles Poindexter. I would like interestedindividuals in Southside and elsewhere in the RoanokeRiver Basin to better understand the work of this committee and the consequences of its advice.
Can one of you answer or refer me to someone who cananswer the questions listed below? I understand thatyou are all very busy. At the same time, this is oneexample where ordinary citizens feel out of the loop.You needn't all respond. Your identifying anappropriate person to address these concerns would be beneficial, I think.
What is the current membership?
Are you on the Committee?
Who made the appointments? When? What notice was givenof the openings?
When will new or additional appointments be made?
What is the stated task of the Committee?
Can you or someone please articulate the relevance of the proposed study of uranium mining in Virginia tothe work of this Committee?
Whom does the Committee advise?
Who appoints the NC members? When?
When does this Committee meet?
What provision is there for public notification and participation?
Thank you for any clarification you can give and any suggestions you may have as to how your constituentscan actively and constructively participate in allaspects of the process as debate about uranium mining continues.
Katie Whitehead
Sen. Hurt, Del. Merricks, Del. Poindexter, and Del.Marshall,
Today a concerned citizen in Southside pointed outthat a Walter Coles is/was on the Virginia RoanokeRiver Basin Advisory Committee. The membership list isat least somewhat out of date, given that it showsSen. Charles Hawkins and Del. Robert Hurt and citizenmember Charles Poindexter. I would like interestedindividuals in Southside and elsewhere in the RoanokeRiver Basin to better understand the work of this committee and the consequences of its advice.
Can one of you answer or refer me to someone who cananswer the questions listed below? I understand thatyou are all very busy. At the same time, this is oneexample where ordinary citizens feel out of the loop.You needn't all respond. Your identifying anappropriate person to address these concerns would be beneficial, I think.
What is the current membership?
Are you on the Committee?
Who made the appointments? When? What notice was givenof the openings?
When will new or additional appointments be made?
What is the stated task of the Committee?
Can you or someone please articulate the relevance of the proposed study of uranium mining in Virginia tothe work of this Committee?
Whom does the Committee advise?
Who appoints the NC members? When?
When does this Committee meet?
What provision is there for public notification and participation?
Thank you for any clarification you can give and any suggestions you may have as to how your constituentscan actively and constructively participate in allaspects of the process as debate about uranium mining continues.
Katie Whitehead
Price of Uranium Falls
(Following from Hildred, an SCC affiliate)
Is anyone following the market price of uranium because the site I am using shows the
spot US price has fallen from almost $140 in January, 2007, to $73.00 as of yesterday, February 4. It fell $3,00 from the previous week and $8.00 from the week before that.
The fact that the bottom fell out of the market and Marline went bankrupt stopped the mining in the 1980s. Hasn't Walter Coles stated in one of the newspaper articles -- I think back in October or November -- that he became interested when the price rose to $85.00?
Yes, and what will that mean if that start mining, accumulate tons of tailings and waste, the price drops further, they declare bankruptcy, and then steal off into the night with their millions? Who will clean up the place for the next 500,000 years?
Is anyone following the market price of uranium because the site I am using shows the
spot US price has fallen from almost $140 in January, 2007, to $73.00 as of yesterday, February 4. It fell $3,00 from the previous week and $8.00 from the week before that.
The fact that the bottom fell out of the market and Marline went bankrupt stopped the mining in the 1980s. Hasn't Walter Coles stated in one of the newspaper articles -- I think back in October or November -- that he became interested when the price rose to $85.00?
Yes, and what will that mean if that start mining, accumulate tons of tailings and waste, the price drops further, they declare bankruptcy, and then steal off into the night with their millions? Who will clean up the place for the next 500,000 years?
Uranium Debate Forum Results.............
Opponents Get Huge Victory over Uranium Mining
- Most attendees oppose mining.
- Most questioners skeptical of VUI's answers.
- VUI presenters appeared wary of answering pointed questions.
- At one point, VUI presenters passed microphone back and forth several times before one finally attempted to answer the question at hand.
More Details to Come ......... Stay Tuned!
Friday, February 8, 2008
Chatham to Elect Town Council Members
WANTED:
Candidates for Town Council
- Must Pledge to Protect the People and Property of the Town
- Must Pledge to Protect the Ecology of the Town
- Must Pledge to Protect Citizens of the Town versus Multi-National and Local Corporations who would do us harm in their own interests of profit-taking.
If you qualify,
please contact us at chainsaw2k@hotmail.com .
We pledge a large, united, and dedicated force of townspeople to help you win election!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
