By Katie Whitehead
Virginia’s uranium mining debate is and should be about the health and well-being of Virginians and North Carolinians. Citizens of either state serious about clean energy and energy independence would do well to review uranium mining experience elsewhere and to insist on a mining plan from the company that wants to start mining in the Roanoke River Basin just north of the North Carolina border.
Virginia legislators, wary of what appeared to some to be a fast-track effort to lift Virginia’s uranium mining moratorium, tabled a 2008 study bill requesting a State-sanctioned study framed by industry lobbyists. They called for a more cautious approach. Virginia Uranium Inc. is welcome to contract for a study and propose a mining, milling, and hazardous tailings disposal plan for review by the State of Virginia.
Touting the safety of uranium mining, Manhattan Institute’s Max Schulz has stated, “It is not as if we have no experience with uranium mining, which is in fact relatively harmless.” Heritage Foundation’s Jack Spencer and Nicholas Loris have exclaimed, “We’re not even talking about new technology. Uranium has been mined safely for decades in many global spots.” If that’s true, show us where these spots are.
There may be communities where uranium mining, milling and tailings disposal are done in a way that protects the well-being of people and the environment and will protect them for the necessary thousands of years. There may be communities where uranium mining sustains economic well-being beyond a boom-bust cycle. There may be communities where mine dust, heavy metals and other contaminants in groundwater, and the stigma of radiation and mining do no harm to health, recreation and tourism, established businesses and schools, and economic development. Show us these communities if they really exist.
One doesn’t have to look far to find reports that contradict oversimplified statements about uranium mining safety. Recent news articles from Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado are clear examples:
On September 3, the Chadron Record described a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hearing in Chadron, Nebraska: “Among the details to emerge from the meeting was acknowledgment by the NRC that, although ISL (in situ leaching) mine permits call for returning groundwater to its original condition when mining is done, some of the “baseline parameters” have proved unachievable by mining companies,” in particular, the water quality standards for uranium and radium.
On August 24, the Casper Star-Tribune cited regulatory violations at the Smith Ranch-Highland mine, the largest active in situ uranium mine in the United States, often lauded as a model in situ leaching operation. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality fined Cameco Corporation $1 million.
On August 13, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported that the Cotter Corp. uranium mill was cited for radioactive contamination at the adjacent Shadow Hills Golf Club: “Until now, all contamination from Cotter was believed to be from before 1979. … ’The theory was the new mill wasn't contributing to any material off-site,’ said Steve Tarlton, head of the Radiation Management Unit at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.”
On August 6, GateHouse News Service reported on a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Energy (DOE), in awarding16 mining leases, did not follow the National Environmental Policy Act requirement that DOE consider environmental consequences of the whole mining program, including the proposed uranium mill. When the same area - Uravan, CO - hosted mining and milling several decades ago, many workers were poisoned by the radiation. They have since won two big class action lawsuits against Union Carbide; however, the reclamation of the old mill site is still unfinished. Attorney Travis Stills commented, “The DOE has taken the position they don’t have to look at the past problems. But if you don’t look at the history, how can you avoid this happening again?”
If we don’t fully recognize the past problems and current risks presented by the uranium industry, how can we make a sound decision about proposed mining in Virginia and diligently protect our air, water, rural heritage, and quality of life?
If we don’t see actual evidence that supports proponents’ claims about safe mining, how can we consider such a possibility in Virginia? (emphasis original)
Show us evidence. And let us review it thoroughly while we have the peace of mind of knowing that Virginia’s uranium moratorium is securely in place and will remain in place unless we decide that the benefits of mining really do outweigh the risks for our families and communities and for our friends and neighbors downwind, downstream, and down through the years.
* * *
Katie Whitehead, of Chatham, VA, and Durham, NC, is a member of the Mining Task Force of the Dan River Basin Association (danriver.org), and former information officer for the Uranium Administrative Group, which studied uranium mining for the Virginia General Assembly in the 1980s. Contact her at mkwhitehead@yahoo.com.
References:
http://www.thechadronnews.com/articles/2008/09/04/chadron/headlines/news905.txt?show_comments=true#commentdiv
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2008/08/24/news/wyoming/626aea80a4056114872574ae0073e935.txt
http://www.gazette.com/articles/cited_39287___article.html/contamination_mill.html
http://www.norwoodpost.com/archive/x27201783/Uranium-mining-lawsuit-filed
No comments:
Post a Comment