From the Chatham Star-Tribune:
Why not study uranium?
By Katie Whitehead
Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:54 AM EDT
In the last week of the General Assembly, the House Rules Committee rejected a Senate-passed bill that would have required a study of uranium mining.
People took sides on Senate Bill 525 before it was even introduced or its text available. Many are still not familiar with the actual wording of the bill or of Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining.
Some who wanted more information are wondering how legislators could reject a study. Those aware of problems in the original bill wonder why it was overwhelmingly rejected after most of their concerns were addressed.
The committee has given us time to make sense of the seemingly irreconcilable views expressed about a study in recent weeks and to better prepare for whatever may come in the next legislative session.
Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining is a single sentence in the law stating that "permit applications for uranium mining shall not be accepted by any agency of the Commonwealth ... until a program for permitting uranium mining is established by statute."
As introduced in the General Assembly at the request of Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI) and as approved by the Senate, the uranium study bill proposed establishment of a commission with a twofold charge: to assess the risks and benefits of developing Virginia's uranium resources and, if appropriate, to recommend establishing regulatory controls.
Until its last hour, the bill proposed more than a study; it would have authorized the commission to draft the statutes necessary to lift the statewide moratorium.
The bill's assignment of two distinct tasks to the commission divided the public response among four camps.
Proponents included those who simply wanted a study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely and in harmony with the present ways of life in Southside and those confident that uranium can be mined safely, who wanted a study to convince the General Assembly to lift the moratorium.
Opponents included those who were willing to consider a study but nothing more and those convinced that uranium tailings cannot be stored safely, who opposed any new study.
Not until the House Rules Committee meeting did the bill's patron, Sen. Frank Wagner (R-Virginia Beach), offer amendments that removed the commission's authority to recommend legislation and made the bill simply a study bill.
These and other late changes responsive to objections voiced by opponents throughout the legislative session came too late to ease suspicion of the bill's intent or to win approval of a study at this time.
Del. Watkins Abbitt (I-Appomatox), who participated in the 1980s study of uranium mining in Virginia, challenged the need for a new study, saying the only new technology brought to his attention by VUI engineers is an improved synthetic liner for the tailings storage pits and a method for compacting the tailings that makes them less pervious to water.
Another new mining technique, in situ leaching, would be problematic in an area with high groundwater levels like Virginia.
Before the Rules Committee voted on the uranium study bill, Sen. Wagner rejected a substitute bill presented by Del. Clarke Hogan (R-South Boston) which proposed that a group of legislators consider whether a state-contracted study of uranium mining is warranted.
Del. Morgan Griffith (House Majority Leader, R-Salem) spoke for the preliminary study, calmly registering concern that more thought be given to "the questions that need to be asked of people doing a scientific study," such as how to look statewide at ore deposits and possible mining effects. He asked fellow delegates to go slowly in considering development that could affect our quality of life for 200 to 2000 years.
If anything is clear in the wake of the uranium study bill, it is that the issue of mining uranium in Virginia is not going away. We would do well to learn more before the next General Assembly session.
Everyone has the opportunity to become better informed about the science, the history, and the economics of uranium mining, milling, and tailings storage, and about the legislative decision process.
Elected officials, citizens and civic-minded groups should seek out reliable information. We should not rely solely on VUI's promotional presentations to understand the critical issues we face.
However much we may like and want to trust them, local people involved with VUI are not just long-time family friends and bright young faces returning home. They are salesmen for an industry that does not sell itself.
VUI has a budget for "educating the public." This program carefully designed to sell a favorable view of uranium mining is advertising. As in any business that advertises, the factual information that industry representatives share with us is not the whole truth. VUI's oft-repeated claims should prompt us to ask hard questions.
Among our questions should be:
Can uranium mining tailings be stored safely for more than a thousand years with new lining material and computer monitoring?
Can anyone accurately predict without trial and error experience whether uranium can be mined in Virginia without adverse impacts?
Are there mining sites in areas with Virginia's population density, high water table, and annual rainfall averaging 45 inches that can provide evidence?
What does "safely" mean?
What level of risk is safe?
Given that human beings routinely fail to comply with regulations developed to ensure our safety, can anyone claim that mining regulations will protect us?
Why is there such conflict now in western mining states over the resurgence of interest in uranium if new methods and regulations have made this industry safe?
No matter how real the harmful effects of uranium and other radioactive elements and heavy metals to human health and the environment, they are often subtle and long-term and data may be inadequate or not available.
Is it even possible to determine the health effects attributable to decades of mining and centuries of tailings storage?
We need to consider our questions. We ourselves can and should study uranium.
A native of Pittsylvania County, Whitehead served as the information officer for the Uranium Administrative Group, established by the 1983 Virginia General Assembly to study the costs and benefits of uranium mining when it was first proposed in Virginia.
No comments:
Post a Comment