Uranium Mining Study Should Face Realities Of Today’s Uranium Industry

Excellent editorial from the Gazette-Virginian:

Chamber Uranium Study Group Urges Looking Beyond Good Ideas, Intentions To Focus On Evidence From Experience

Health and environment, economic impact, scope and methodology of study as well as quality of life issues were areas of concern outlined by the Halifax County Chamber of Commerce Uranium Mining Study Group in a 131-page report submitted to the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission last week.

Last month, the Commission appointed a subcommittee of its members to oversee a study of the impact of uranium mining in Virginia.

Virginia Uranium Inc., which controls an estimated $7-$10 billion uranium deposit near Chatham, is seeking a study. Currently, a moratorium on uranium mining in the commonwealth exists, one that has been in effect over 25 years.

The HCCC Uranium Study Group’s work came at the behest of Del. Clarke Hogan, who asked chamber of commerce organizations in Halifax and Pittsylvania County to form a joint committee to seek citizen input regarding issues of concern. Only Halifax County’s chamber participated.

The chamber’s Uranium Study Group’s conclusion called on commissioners to look beyond conceptual, theoretical and hypothetically safe conclusions, and instead “to look squarely at existing operations and communities and face the realities of today’s uranium industry.”

“The results of a study will depend heavily on whether commissioners and researchers look beyond good ideas and good intentions and focus on evidence from experience,” noted the study group’s report.

“Our citizens accept that the ‘idea’ of safe mining is possible,” noted the report. “However, prudence and experience demand a thorough consideration of what could happen in practice if human beings undertake uranium mining, milling, and tailings storage in Virginia.”

One study conclusion: ”It is not rational, realistic, or scientific to presume that mine operations in Virginia - however ingenious, honest, professional, hardworking, caring, responsible, and patriotic they may be - would do better than other experienced professionals already involved in modern, regulated uranium mining. Virginia climate and population density would add considerably to both the risk of failures and the consequences of those failures.”

The study group described Virginia’s uranium debate as “not about the cost-benefit of remedying an existing problem,” but about “whether the state should create a situation that carries with it the potential for real risks to real people and the environment, as well as affecting people’s right to the safe enjoyment of their property.”

“In considering whether to lift Virginia’s moratorium, legislators will make a decision regarding an ‘acceptable’ level of risk - but acceptable to whom?” asked the report. “To a single mother of two small children living a mile from Coles Hill on land that once belonged to her grandparents? To a dairyman and his family and hundreds of cows three miles and a light breeze from the proposed mine? To community citizens wondering if it’s safe to drink the water, shower, swim, garden, buy local produce, fish, hunt, start a business, or buy a home?

“In considering whether to enable a voluntary act by a private company, legislators will decide what involuntary and unwanted risks to impose on private citizens who want nothing more than to live peacefully, safely and without worry in their own homes and on their own land,” the report concluded.

Study’s Four Areas of Concern

Health and Environment: Uranium mining in the United States has a history of environmental pollution. Virginia’s climate, geology and population density make that history all the more problematic, particularly in light of information indicating there is no safe level of exposure to radiation, radon, and the heavy metals that are associated with uranium mining.

Economic Effects: The economic effects of initiating uranium mining in a community are unclear. Increases in tax revenue and industry related jobs may be offset by negative impacts on economic development and the costs of containing and monitoring hazardous wastes literally forever. Individuals have an intuitive sense that property values will decline sharply. It seems likely that one group of stakeholders may gain benefits, while a different group bears the costs.

Scope and Methodology of the Study: The credibility of the study will depend upon the independence and qualifications of the research institutions, the transparency of the study, the facilitation of public education and participation, the degree to which the study addresses the community’s specific concerns, and the extent to which study conclusions are based upon actual experience. Our citizens endorse the selection of the National Academy of Sciences.

Quality of Life: Virginia’s Piedmont is a mix of cities, small towns and rural areas. Livestock and agriculture are plentiful; the area has abundant rivers and lakes and streams; fishing, hunting and water sports are popular pastimes. Many people choose to reside in the area because of these natural resources. Any perceived or real contamination would have a devastating effect.

Within the Uranium Study Group’s report are several series of questions. For each operating site studied, the study group proposed the research institution should develop and consider, at a minimum, 28 questions and issues. Once that data has been gathered, an additional 13 questions are proposed.

Also, recurring questions from “our citizens” included the following:

•Is there a health or economic risk to people whose water intake is downstream of a site?

•Is there a health or economic risk to area residents who depend on wells for consumption and for agricultural purposes.

•Is there a health or economic risk to area property owners?

•Is there economic risk to businesses that depend on the recreational resources in the area?

•How will a farmer or homeowner be compensated if their source of water becomes unusable or unavailable?

•Who is responsible if property values do fall?

•What guarantees exist to insure that taxpayers bear no cost of monitoring, remediation, or reclamation of the site?

•How will damage claims be investigated and compensated?

•What are the beneficial and negative economic impacts on distinct groups and interests: 1)owner and investors, 2) workers, 3) nearby residents, 4) area farmers, 5)local counties, 6) recreation, 7) tourism, 8) historic and archaeological resources, 9) existing businesses/schools/institutions, 10) regional economic development, 11) downstream water users, and 12) state governments.

•Are there health or economic risks due to transportation of waste products, ore, and uranium?

•Are area residents disturbed by noise and/or dust from blasting? If so, at what maximum distance?

•How can area residents be certain their water and air are not being adversely affected before damage is done?

•What are the economic impacts of perceived risk or stigma associated with uranium and mining?

•What Does uranium mining provide jobs to local citizens, and at what average wage?

•What is expected net financial effect on local and state governments?

•What happens if mining proceeds and all the assurances prove to be wrong? Who will unring the bell?

•If my water quality is reduced, how will I know if it is adversely affecting my children’s long term health?

•My children play outdoors, and swim in the creeks and rivers. How do I know they will not be affected?

•Given the research that indicts predictive modeling, the complex hydrogeology in Virginia, the severe weather events, the population density, the criticality of groundwater, and the repeated failures of the uranium mining industry to meet regulatory standards, why should Virginia’s citizens be expected to rely on the assurances and models of a for-profit company and its paid consultants?

•How much is peace of mind worth?

http://www.gazettevirginian.com/news1.htm