Thursday, February 14, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Someone's missing the point of Senate Joint Resolution 133 (text below)...I hope that it's me.
The way I see it, this appears to be setting the stage for Virginia possibly becoming a storage dump for nuclear waste...sort of a companion bill to SJ525: as long as Southside is going to be sacrificed, might as well really sacrifice it and turn it into a nuclear dump as the same time it's a nuclear mine site. Pollute 2 birds with the same contaminant, so to speak.
The Savannah River plant (nuclear dump) in Barnwell, SC is full...the area is sooo contaminated now, there's no room for more. This Resolution proposes a study to "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."
Gee...somewhere in VA they might find a place where they can dump low-level radioactive waste? Does it only cause low-level cancer?
I'm not sure this isn't connected to Coles' study bill. How convenient would it be for Virginia to be able to meet the "industry needs" of UMI when they need to dump their radioactive waste?
This bill/resolution has cleared the Senate and has been sent to the House. It's currently before the House Rules Committee (if the LIS is up-to-date).
There might be a need for a serious onslaught of letters, calls and emails to House members to defeat it. I'm not comfortable with all of these "studies" being done, are you?
Take a look at the Resolution and decide for yourselves...
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 133
AMENDMENT 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; and
WHEREAS, 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.
Smidgen Barnes
Louisville, KY
Post a Comment