Why not a socio-economic mining study?

Comment: Great Letter Ms. Worsley, thanks from all of us that are fighting against uranium mining before the State of Virginia ruin our lives with the state and Canada uranium corporate greed!

By Published by The Editorial Board

Published: September 13, 2009

To the editor:

Today, I have read regarding uranium mining, “Del. Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy, said Virginia Uranium Inc. would pay for the study by the National Academy of Sciences.”

So, a man, backed by a foreign interest with unlimited pockets deeper than even his own, and supported by family and friends in our government from Chatham to Richmond to Washington can pay for an “unbiased” opinion on how financially lucrative uranium mining in our community would be (reportedly worth billions of dollars) and expect that we will accept its validity.

However, “Kilgore said Virginia Uranium will fund the scientific study, but not an in-depth look at the socio-economic impact of uranium mining.”

Why not? Is it because that part of the equation is the least of VUI’s concern? Of course — that’s why we, the rest of us, must make it ours.

LINDA WORSLEY
Chatham

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/why_not_a_socio-economic_mining_study/13821/

Va. firm seeking to mine uranium to pay for study

Comment: Is this the future of Virginia if uranium mining is allowed?

By: SUE LINDSEY
Associated Press
09/04/09 4:55 PM EDT

ROANOKE, VA. — The company that wants to mine a vast uranium deposit in Southside Virginia will pay for a study to determine whether the ore can be extracted without harming humans and the environment, a state legislator said Friday.

Del. Terry Kilgore said he has written a letter asking the National Academy of Sciences to proceed with a study on whether the 119 million pounds of uranium on 3,000 acres in Pittsylvania County can be mined safely.

Virginia Uranium Inc. had offered to pay for the study, which Kilgore estimated will cost up to $1.3 million.

He said the state, which is dealing with a $1.5 billion budget deficit, can't finance the study and no one else has come forward.

A subcommittee of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission that Kilgore heads decided earlier this year that the national academy should be the organization that studies whether uranium can safely be mined and milled in Virginia.

Some mining opponents were skeptical of a study financed by the company that wants to mine uranium.

"I don't know how anybody could expect that it's going to be really unbiased," said Eloise Nenon, who lives near the site and belongs to a citizens group opposed to the mining. "It'll lack credibility."

William Colglazier, executive officer of the national academy, said its studies are based on science, not political considerations. The academy is a private, nonprofit agency that advises government officials on scientific matters. Group members who conduct studies are chosen for their expertise and work without compensation, Colglazier said.

"We have no stake in the outcome," he said.

Virginia's study request will probably go before the academy's governing board for approval in October.

"This looks like an important issue," Colglazier said. "It looks like a reasonable request."

Kilgore, a Republican from southwest Virginia's coal-mining region, believes the study will be fair and will answer the safety questions. It could take up to two years to complete, he said.

"It's going to take a while, and that's a good thing," he said. "We want to make sure it's done right."

The study is a first step by Virginia Uranium toward persuading the General Assembly to lift a ban on uranium mining in the state that has been in place since 1982.

"We're certainly gratified that it looks like things are moving forward," company spokesman Patrick Wales said.

The Pittsylvania County deposit is believed to be the largest in the nation.

Find this article at:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/ap/57285647.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/ap/57285647.html

Virginia Uranium to fund state study 18-month study will cost $1.2 million

Comment: The Uranium Study should not be pay for by VUI! Letting a Profit Corporation called Virginia Uranium Inc (really a Canadian Uranium Corporation) pay the so call study in country terms is called, "Fox in charge of the Hen House theory"! I love Mr. Kilgore comment, ""I just wanted to visualize what we've been talking about," he said. “ It's way out away from anything." Really??? The major water resource for Southern Virginia and the watershed lake systems feeding Virginia Beach area where the Navy is stationed, Langley Air Force Base, Raleigh-Durham, NC area (major business of Research Triangle Park, Duke Medical Center, the gov't seat of North Carolina, Duke University, North Carolina State University) down east North Carolina which is only 20-50 miles away! In addition, the county seat of Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Mr. Kilgore looks at a map! Schools, people farms, people homes will be able to look down in the open pit uranium mining! People of Virginia, demand this money to be stop for the study now, demand the state of Virginia to ban uranium mining now or we will lose our health, our water, our homes and our land for the greedy Canadian uranium company!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:58 AM EDT

The question over who will fund a study on uranium mining has been resolved.

Del. Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy, said Virginia Uranium Inc. will pay for the study by the National Academy of Sciences.

The study, which is expected to take about 18 months, will cost an estimated $1.2 million, Kilgore said.

The Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg has agreed to serve as a repository for the funding.

Kilgore said a formal contract between Virginia Tech and the National Academy of Sciences should be signed soon, with the study beginning in about 30 days.

The National Academy of Sciences is part of the National Research Council, a respected institute that conducts research and advises government agencies.

It will help the commonwealth "determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens."

No conflict

According to Kilgore, the academy has assured Virginia Tech that private funding will not influence the study.

"I don't think we have anything to worry about," he said. "The National Academy has a great reputation for being fair and up front."

Kilgore explored other avenues to underwrite the study, including state funding, but said the money just wasn't there.

"I wish we had other funding opportunities, but in these tough economic times it was just hard to find," the delegate said.

Virginia Uranium offered to pay for the study when it first announced plans two years ago to explore mining uranium at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham.

"Basically, that's what we've said all along," said chairman Walter Coles.

Coles doesn't see any conflict in having private industry fund the study.

"Groups do it all the time. States do it," he said. "They are scientists. Their reputation is at stake. It's too important."

'Pandora's Box'

Eloise Nenon of Chatham, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, questioned the legitimacy of a study funded by the uranium industry.

"Generally speaking, the money behind something influences it," said Nenon, adding the National Academy of Sciences is "quite strongly pro-nuclear."

"This is a red flag," she said.

Nenon has little faith in a study.

"It ignores the people, it ignores the community, the history and traditions, and what's important to people here," she said.

"What's important for Virginia Uranium may not be what's important for citizens. Our life is a lot more than science."

Frank Benson of Gretna agreed.

"It's a Pandora's Box," said Benson, another member of Southside Concerned Citizens. "It's going to pollute the water, air and soil.

"We're going to lose businesses and farming. If they don't wake up, this is going to be a ghost town."

Katie Whitehead, chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, said serious doubts remain about the study.

"We won't know if the National Academy of Sciences is willing to perform a study paid for solely by an interested party until someone representing Virginia sends the required letter formally requesting a study and officially identifying the funding source," she said.

"Only the National Research Council Governing Board has the authority to decide whether NAS does the study, and the board has not yet even considered the question."

Whitehead pointed out the academy's reputation depends on rigorous, thorough research, independence and objectivity, and on the avoidance of even the appearance of influence.

"The National Academies do not perform studies for private, for-profit corporations," she said.

"We don't know how the governing board will weigh the fact that the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has looked for a year and found no one other than the uranium industry willing to support the study - if support means paying for it."

'Signed, sealed, delivered'

Kilgore said Virginia Uranium will fund the scientific study, but not an in-depth look at the socioeconomic impact of uranium mining.

A second study, which will address the effects of uranium mining on businesses, schools and the community, will be conducted by another organization and funded separately, the chairman said.
"We're hoping to get everything signed, sealed and delivered on the scientific, technical study," he said.

"As soon as we get this one nailed down, we plan to move on to the socioeconomic study."

Kilgore, who is from Scott County in far southwest Virginia, recently flew over Coles Hill on the way to a Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission meeting.

To satisfy his curiosity, the small plane landed in a field and Kilgore explored the site, one of the largest uranium deposit in the United States.

"I just wanted to visualize what we've been talking about," he said. "It's way out away from anything."

Final framework

The Coal and Energy Commission's Subcommittee on Uranium Mining voted 8-2 to approve a final framework for the uranium mining study in May.

The panel, chaired by Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, made public safety a top priority.

The study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing.

In particular, it will look at short- and long-term health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling and processing.

It also will identify uranium mining "best practices" worldwide, review global and national uranium market trends.

The academy, however, will not offer a recommendation on whether uranium mining should be permitted.

That decision will be left to the General Assembly, which placed a moratorium on uranium mining in 1982.

The Coles Hill uranium deposit was discovered in the early 1980s by Marline Uranium Corp.

In 2007, the Coles and Bowen families formed Virginia Uranium Inc. in hopes of mining the uranium, which is worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
434-432-2791

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/09/02/chatham/news/news51.txt

Uranium Study--status of coal and energy commission study

Comment: We need to know the money trail of Virginia Tech's disbursement to NAS staff!

Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Uranium Study--status of coal and energy commission study

The board of the National Academy of Sciences is to formalize the terms of contract with Virginia Tech so that funds to conduct the study can be collected and disbursed to NAS staff.

We expect all of this to be done quite soon.

Thereafter, the study will be proceeding on the roughly 18-months timetable, and the Uranium Study subcommittee will convene meetings periodically to ensure continued dialogue and availability of any information the NAS staff wishes to disseminate. All good wishes,

Cordially, Lee Ware

R. Lee Ware
Member, Virginia House of Delegates (65th District)
P.O. Box 689
Powhatan, VA 23139

Official seeks funding for uranium study

By John Crane

Published: July 8, 2009

While the commonwealth waits for a study to begin to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the state, the head of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission is seeking funding for the study.

So far, the sole entity that has expressed willingness to pay for the study is Virginia Uranium Inc., said Delegate Terry Kilgore, R-1st District, chairman of the VCEC.

“They’re the only ones who have offered funding,” Kilgore said, adding that he will try to obtain funding from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, the Piedmont Environmental Council or other organizations.

The commission is responsible for arranging financing of the study. The VCEC’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee approved the first part of the study, which is expected to cover the technical aspects of mining and milling, in May. Kilgore said the study’s first portion would cost about $1.2 million. The second phase, which would cover uranium’s economic impact but has not yet been approved by the subcommittee, will cost about $500,000, Kilgore said.

The subcommittee will oversee the study. Michael Karmis, director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech, presented the final recommendation of the first phase of the study’s scope to the subcommittee on May 21, and is working on the study with the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.

Karmis is out of the country and could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Kilgore said he will talk to Karmis about funding sources for the study and expects the next Uranium Mining Subcommittee meeting to take place in August or September. Kilgore said he believes the study, which would take up to two years, will start in the fall and that determining the scope of the study’s second phase later will not slow the process.

VUI chairman Walter Coles Sr. said his company has not been in discussion with the commission about providing funding, but would help pay for it if no alternate sources are found. VUI seeks to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Funding must be in place before the study begins, Kilgore said.

Uranium mining opponents have raised questions about the objectivity of a study backed by mining interests. Kilgore said he trusts the National Academy of Sciences to approach the study scientifically with no bias.

“The NAS would have a lot of safeguards in place,” Kilgore said. “They’re scientists first. I don’t believe they have an agenda either way.”

Jennifer Walsh, spokeswoman with the NAS/NRC, said academy officials have discussed the study’s scope with Karmis. Walsh said the academy has not received an official request for a study.

“The official request and proposed statement of task (the study’s scope) must … be approved by our governing board, which includes the president of the NAS, before a study can begin,” Walsh said via e-mail Wednesday.

The scope of the study’s first phase includes, among additional items, examination of public-safety and health impact of uranium mining and milling; review of the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in Virginia; identification and description of the main types of uranium deposits worldwide, including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations and best practices; a review of global and national uranium market trends; a review of the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing and reclamation; identification of the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing and reclamation; as relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.

Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy Uranium Mining Subcommittee

Comment: Notes of the meeting!
Heck No! We Won't Glow, demand the local leaders to ban uranium mining and milling now!

Thursday, May 21, 2009, 2:30 p.m. House Room D, General Assembly Building
Richmond, Virginia

Meeting Summary

Delegate Ware began the meeting by setting the agenda and indicating that Delegate Kilgore would be listening in by phone. After the members introduced themselves, Dr. Karmis began with a brief introduction of the scope of study.

The final draft of the scope of study was developed in conjunction with the National Research Council (NRC), which functions under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Karmis emphasized to the subcommittee that the role of the NRC is not to make actual policy recommendations, but to collect and analyze information with the aim of improving the quality of the policy-making process. The draft of the final scope of study is based upon the tentative scope approved by the subcommittee on March 24th and has been drafted with the NRC's Division on Earth and Life Studies.

Dr. Karmis concluded his introduction of the scope by noting several points: (i) the study will provide advice, but not recommendations; (ii) reserves should bedistinguished from resources, of which reserves are a fully explored and known component; and (iii) that the NRC clarified with Dr. Karmis that the use of the term "reclamation" is meant to include post-mining land use and monitoring.

Delegate Abbitt asked whether issue 11, which states "[b]riefly characterize a public education and outreach program . . . for a uranium mining operation," assumed that the previous issues on public health, safety, and the environment would be answered reassuringly. He further noted his opinion that no money should be spent designing a public education and outreach program unless uranium mining has been found to be safe.

Delegate Abbitt also asked whether the study would examine "real-life situations." Dr. Karmis responded that existing issue 2, which states "[i]dentify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices[,]" will review real-life situations. Delegate Abbitt suggested to the subcommittee that the scope be amended to clarify as such and emphasize the importance of studying tailings practices.

Delegate Abbitt continued to express his concerns with the scope and its apparent brevity. He asked that the report include information on buried tailings and radioactive leachate, which would be with us for thousands of years. He also asked for more information on the financial assurances provided by any mining entity—how such assurances might be given for such a long period of time in the future and whether foreign ownership of the mining entity would affect such assurances?

Delegate Amundson asked for clarification on how the study would review best practices and stated that she thought that it might be procedurally difficult to make such generalizations. Dr. Karmis responded that the study would review best practices as a preliminary step before determining if any such practices would be applicable in our situation. Delegate Amundson asked that the study also provide guidelines that could be used to determine applicability of best practices in the Commonwealth. Furthermore, Delegate Amundson stated her understanding that the scope of study is arranged sequentially, but asked that the subcommittee move the issue of public health and safety into a predominant position.

Delegate Daniel Marshall spoke before the subcommittee as a member of the public and stated his concerns with the final scope as drafted. He would like a list of definitions for the terms used in the scope, such as "reclamation," so that he could be reassured that terms written broadly would be interpreted as such. He also emphasized to the subcommittee that this study is of statewide application and hoped that the scope could be sequenced in order of importance.

Delegate Marshall asked that the subcommittee not take any action on the scope for 60days to allow further review and input from the public. He is concerned that the scope will not include any recommendations and wonders what party will be competent to make such recommendations if the NRC will not do it. Senator Watkins answered that the policy issue will come back to the subcommittee, but ultimately will be answered by the General Assembly as a whole.

Delegate Abbitt noted his agreement with Delegate Marshall that the scope of study include definitions.

Members of the public spoke and voiced their concerns on a diverse array of issues including: that the primary focus of the study should be health and safety issues (from several speakers); a desire to have additional time to review the final draft before the subcommittee takes any action (from several speakers); clarification that the study will include real-life examples (from several speakers) and a grounding in actual experience for the investigators; a suggestion that issue 7, which assesses occupational and public health risks, include effects of heavy metals; a suggestion that issue 11, which asks for a characterization of a public education campaign, be stricken; worries that uranium mining in Virginia will have a negative impact on drinking water supplies (from several speakers); hopes that uranium mining would contribute positively towards improved economic conditions in the region and a secure source of domestic energy; skepticism that the study will be able to sufficiently inform policymakers of an acceptable level of risk (from several speakers) and that policymakers might not be able to apply such risk with parity across the Commonwealth; the study will not provide any answers, but simply narrow the questions to be asked in yet another study (from several speakers); the critical importance of Lake Gaston as a water supply for the U.S. Navy, the Cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach, as well as the State of North Carolina (from several speakers); the hope that the study and the subcommittee's oversight will proceed transparently and include all stakeholders; the desire that local government officials will be consulted as the study continues; whether the U.S. has a legitimate need to produce more uranium; impacts on agriculture; the effects of dust from blasting operations; the increase of lead in water taken from drinking wells near the Cole's Hill site since the inception of exploratory drilling; the absence of a mining plan presented by Virginia Uranium; use of taxpayer funds in this study; perceived risks that might persist even if uranium mining is found safe; the complexity of scientific language likely to be included in thestudy; the sequence of the issues set out in the scope (from several speakers); the risks posed from earthquakes and severe weather events such as hurricanes (from several speakers); the risks of open pit mining and the value of applying experience from other types of mining operations to an open pit mine; real estate values around a mine and in buffer areas; aesthetic value of the area; damage to the reputation of private schools from the perceived risks, even if invalidated; that energy independence should be considered at a more local level; the risk that the price would drop and that the project could be curtailed midstream; that the study will simply review information without a push towards rational conclusions (from several speakers); perception of study bias and legitimacy of the study in light of a lack of knowledge regarding study funding (from several speakers); and radon exposure.

Delegate Amundson proposed an amendment to the first paragraph of the scope to clarify the purpose of the study is to assist "the Commonwealth to determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens." Senator Watkins questioned whether the statement was redundant with earlier language and Delegate Amundson responded that redundancy may be appropriate to make priorities clear. Delegate Ware agreed that this might be an appropriate place to make a clear, though redundant, statement.

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Delegate Amundson asked that existing item 7, which states that the study will "[a]ssess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health risks from exposure to “daughter” products of radioactive decay of uranium[,]" be moved to be the first item in the list.

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Delegate Abbitt asked that an item be added to emphasize that real-world examples of mining practices be reviewed at sites with conditions comparable to Virginia. (The amendment took the form of a new item 4.)

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Senator Wagner asked for further clarification that the study include a review of negative impacts and the measures that might be adopted to mitigate those impacts. Delegate Abbitt asked that the suggested amendment include the phrase "if available" to modify mitigating measures. Senator Wagner agreed. (The amendment was included with the new item 4.)

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Delegate Abbitt asked for more specifics on the risks from mining leachate. Delegate Ware invited Dr. Karmis to respond to Delegate Abbitt's request. Dr. Karmis agreed that scope specifics might be helpful to clarify examination of tailings, tailings disposal, and monitoringDr. Karmis relayed that the NRC finds these issues to fall within the term "reclamation."

Delegate Abbitt and Dr. Karmis agreed that simply using the term reclamation broadly without a definition is vague. Delegate Abbitt proposed an amendment to include more specific language.

The amendment failed by voice vote.

Senator Watkins moved that the scope, as amended, be adopted by the subcommittee. Delegate Abbitt noted his dissatisfaction and stated that he would not be in favor of the amended scope. Senator Watkins stated that the vote was not a referendum on uranium mining and that the General Assembly was in a position where it must seek guidance from others. Eventually theCommonwealth will decide, upon the contributions of science, whether to pursue uranium
mining.

It is a vote to seek knowledge, not an approval of uranium mining.

Senator Puckett put forth his disappointment that the actions of the subcommittee would be characterized as "a fast track approval." He said that this is in an initial step in a very slow process and cited the example of the 12 years it took to approve the Wise County Power Plant.

Senator Puckett further expressed his regret that any member of the public would voice personal attacks, specifically those attacks directed towards Dr. Karmis, whose role it is to serve the General Assembly. He reassured those in attendance that the subcommittee will do its due diligence and include the public at every juncture.

The motion to adopt the scope as amended passed, with Delegates Abbitt and Janis voting against the motion.

http://dls.state.va.us/groups/cec/052109/sm052109.pdf

Statement of Task

Thanks UraniumHead

Comment: articles from the State of VA, Uranium Subcom. & TDE

Uranium Mining in Virginia and The Department of Energy has issued a draft environmental assessment (EA) on proposed methods to manage uranium

Statement of Task

Uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been prohibited since 1982 by a state moratorium, although approval for restricted uranium exploration in the state was granted in 2007.

A National Research Council study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of assisting the Commonwealth to determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens.

In particular, the study will:

1) Assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health risks from exposure to “daughter” products of radioactive decay of uranium.
2) Review global and national uranium market trends.
3) Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.
4) Analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health, safety, and the environment at sites with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic, and population characteristics to those found in the Commonwealth. Such analysis shall describe any available mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts from uranium operations.
5) Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6) Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments (“cells”).
7) Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
8) Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.
9) Identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.
10) Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
11) Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
12) Briefly characterize a potential public education and outreach program in the Commonwealth of Virginia for a uranium mining operation (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).

By addressing these questions, the study will provide independent, expert advice that can be used to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia; however, the study will not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted nor will the study include site-specific assessments.

Another piece of uranium stuff from The Depart of Energy:http://www.deq.virginia.gov/eir/descriptions/1Q2009.html

09-002F The Department of Energy has issued a draft environmental assessment (EA) on proposed methods to manage uranium that would involve the transportation of uranium (depleted, natural or low-enriched) by truck, rail or barge via nonspecific routes in the United States and exportation to France via a U.S. port. This EA focuses on (a) health and safety impacts, (b) impacts associated with accidents and intentional destructive acts (terrorism, sabotage) and (3) economic impacts of the proposed action on the domestic uranium industry. It is conceivable that uranium may be transported through or exported from Virginia during this process.

Urgent questions remain regarding the two uranium studies

By Katie Whitehead
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:57 AM EDT

News reports regarding the work and responsibilities of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee do not begin to inform the public about the true status and complexity of the uranium study process.

There may not be a market for such information, yet there is certainly a need. Urgent questions remain unanswered.

Contrary to some reports, the uranium mining study has not started.

We need to remember, as well, that "the study" is now two studies - a technical study and a socio-economic study.

The subcommittee is negotiating the technical study with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

Before NAS can call for nominations for a study committee, both parties must agree on the scope of work, the NAS has to draw up a budget and timeline, and someone has to come up with money and sign a contract.

Subcommittee members have yet to discuss the equally important, complicated, and challenging socio-economic study.

Will there be a socio-economic study?

If a technical study is done, a socio-economic study should also be done.

Some people have gotten the impression that the Uranium Mining Subcommittee sees the socio-economic study as secondary and perhaps unnecessary.

The Danville Register and Bee reported on May 13 that subcommittee member Sen. Phillip Puckett opposes conducting a socio-economic study if mining is found to be unsafe in the technical study: "If that is a 'no,' we don't have to answer any more questions."

One could make the same argument for the socio-economic study: if uranium mining is undesirable for social and economic reasons, we don't have to know absolutely whether it is safe or not.

Contrary to what we have been led to believe, the technical study will not make a final judgment on whether mining is safe or unsafe. A socio-economic study might provide greater clarity.

The stigma associated with uranium mining and tailings has real social and economic impacts, as does the volatility of the market for uranium.

We need to understand how uranium mining might influence perception of a region for current residents, as well as for business executives, farm product consumers, families, students and their parents, retirees, tourists, and others contemplating coming to the area to live or to visit.

We should look at available evidence about whether uranium mining harms or enhances a region's character, quality of life, and economic well-being.

The only way to ensure that the socio-economic study is done and done adequately is to identify an independent and objective research institution, get budget estimates, and secure full funding for both studies before either study begins. This is not happening.

Who will do the socio-economic study? Will it be objective?

The Coal and Energy Commission chose as its advisor Dr. Michael Karmis, a world-renowned mining engineer and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research (VCCER).

Whether he is an appropriate advisor regarding a socio-economic study is a valid and important question that implies no disrespect.

Dr. Karmis, in his rough draft scope for the socio-economic study, recommended a site- and region-specific study, not a study anticipating statewide consequences of lifting the moratorium.

He envisioned a smaller, shorter, less complicated, less costly study than the technical study.

He also advised that the National Academy of Sciences would not likely be interested in undertaking the socio-economic study.

We should ask the academy. The National Academy of Sciences does socio-economic studies and some original research and is, of course, known for its independence and objectivity.

The NAS might well be willing to study by analogy how introduction of a controversial industry can influence the perception of a region and its economy.

The academy is also able to study the potential for boom-bust cycles in mining communities and their effects on regional economic activity and quality of life.

Real-life examples of uranium mining communities and regions with analogous industrial activities can help researchers tell us what we might be facing.

An alternative approach would specifically identify businesses, institutions, schools, government bodies, and other entities in a region of interest and study in detail how each might be affected by the potentially disruptive introduction of a stigmatized industry.

Two entities have been named in private conversations as perhaps being capable of this sort of socio-economic study, but one of these institutions may have been suggested by industry lobbyists after prior contact with researchers.

Such contact could inappropriately influence the framing of a study and compromise the independence of the research.

Who is paying for the studies? Who should pay? Will adequate funds be available?

According to various members of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee, Del. Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission and ex-officio subcommittee member, is responsible for finding money to do the two studies.

Del. Kilgore listened to the May 21 subcommittee meeting by telephone. He did not participate in discussion or respond to questions or comments about funding.

Kilgore has asked for donations to pay for the studies. No other information is publicly available.

The National Academy of Sciences cannot perform a study directly for a private industry.

The Virginia General Assembly has not budgeted money for a study.

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission cannot accept contributions to spend on a study.

The Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research can accept donations and use them to contract for a study, though Dr. Michael Karmis said recently that he, as director of the center, has no more information than the general public about who will pay for the two uranium studies or how much money will be available.

Dr. Karmis has also made clear that the work of the VCCER will be complete once study entities are identified and study plans defined.

Whether he will sign a contract with the National Academy of Sciences is unclear.

Citizens have emphasized to the subcommittee the need to consider the whole study process, secure appropriate funding, and ensure independent experts give adequate time and attention to both studies.

Even the best study process does not ensure a sound public policy decision. The current process raises serious doubts.

Katie Whitehead of Chatham is chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force.


http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/05/27/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt

Uranium Study Set

Comment: The two articles are about the illegal uranium mining study in Virginia!

Uranium study set

The News & Record / May 25, 2009

More than a year after first being proposed, a scientific study of uranium mining in Virginia will soon get under way.

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee on Thursday adopted a 11-point “Statement of Task” that set formal terms for a review of the environmental, economic and safety impacts of the proposed Coles Hill uranium mine near Chatham. The study, to be conducted by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, is expected to take two years.

The subcommittee vote broke a political logjam that had held up movement on a study, the first step in possibly overturning Virginia’s 25-year moratorium on uranium mining. After a study bill died in the General Assembly last year, legislators asked the Coal and Energy Commission to take over the task of setting the parameters for a review. Left unanswered after Thursday’s vote is who will pay for the study, expected to cost in excess of $1 million.

Advocates say the Coles Hill project will pump billions of dollars into the Southside economy and create hundreds of new jobs, but opponents warn that uranium mining will have devastating environmental and health impacts in the region and across Virginia.

About 100 people, mostly mining opponents, attended the subcommittee meeting in Richmond to express their concerns to legislators who make up the subcommittee. After listening to their input, the panel reordered the list of tasks to be presented to the National Research Council, asking that the group make public safety and health impacts the top priority of its study.

Previously, the lead topic on the subcommittee’s 11-point priority list was an analysis of global and national uranium market trends. But speakers implored members to make their first order of business determining whether mining can be done safely, without harm to Pittsylvania County and other parts of the Commonwealth.

“Your decisions will affect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the citizens of Virginia forever,” said Marshall Ecker, a Pittsylvania County supervisor who spoke at the meeting.

The subcommittee made a number of other changes defining the scope of the study, including adoption of a motion by Del. Watkins Abbitt (R-Appomattox) to review the public health and safety impacts of uranium mining operations similar to what is being proposed in Pittsylvania County.

However, the subcommittee rejected an Abbitt motion to study methods for storing uranium tailings, designed to keep mining wastes from leaking into nearby water sources.

Abbitt and Del. William Janis dissented in the 8-2 vote adopting the framework for the study. Janis opposed the motion after missing most of the debate due to a scheduling conflict. Abbitt said he could not vote for the study after his motion to analyze methods for tailings storage failed.

Reaction to the subcommittee’s decision was mixed. Patrick Wales, chief geologist for Virginia Uranium, Inc., which is seeking to mine the Coles Hill site, told subcommittee members Thursday that VUI is committed to mining uranium only if can be shown that it can be done safely.

In a follow-up interview with the Danville Register & Bee, Wales said VUI was “very gratified” after Thursday’s vote. “An independent study of uranium mining and milling has been the one thing we’ve been proposing since the inception of our company,” Wales told the newspaper.

Katie Whitehead, chair of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, issued a follow-up statement saying that “(t)he best news of the day was unanimous approval of Del. Abbitt’s amendment” to study uranium deposits elsewhere in the world similar to the Pittsylvania County site.

Whitehead also said it was “noteworthy” that “subcommittee members expressed concern about potential government ownership and financial liability after closure of a mining operation or in the event of a business failure,” although members did not include that concern in the written list of study topics.

An outspoken opponent of uranium mining, Karen Maute of Chatham, said she skipped the subcommittee meeting because “everything I’ve read ... says this just brings us a step closer to mining, and I believe that.

“I think it’s being used as a way to legitimize uranium mining in Virginia,” said Maute. “It’s stupid to even consider mining uranium in Virginia ... The facts are out there that this is not going to beneficial — it’s not been beneficial anywhere it’s been done,” she said.

http://www.thenewsrecord.com/index.php/news/article/uranium_study_set/

Virginia OKs uranium mining study

A proposal to mine uranium in south-central Virginia advanced this week when a key state body approved a study of the matter. The targeted site is in Virginia’s Pittsylvania County just north of the city of Danville and close to the border with North Carolina’s Rockingham and Caswell counties.

A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy OK’d the study yesterday after deciding on exactly what issues should be examined, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports:
Some opponents asked the panel to vote against the study, hoping that would kill the mining proposal.

But state Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, a member of the subcommittee, said approval of the study did not mean approval of mining in Pittsylvania.

“That decision is a long way down the road,” Watkins said.
The panel will look at mining’s effects on people’s health and ecosystems, identify pollution issues and review current mining regulations. But it denied a request by Del. Watkins M. Abbitt Jr. (I-Appomattox) to consider how water pollution specifically might be prevented. The subcommittee’s chair, Del. Lee R. Ware Jr. (R-Powhatan) argued that the study already included that issue.

The study, which will be conducted by the U.S. National Research Council, is expected to cost $1.5 million and last about 18 months. It remains unclear how the work will be funded, according to the paper.

As Facing South reported previously, Virginia has banned uranium mining for the past 25 years. Virginia Uranium—a privately-held company formed several years ago by the owners of the land where the uranium was found—has been pressing to get the ban lifted. To that end, Virginia Uranium contributed almost $30,000 to state lawmakers last year alone.

The Pittsylvania County site is believed to hold the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the United States and the seventh-largest in the world. It holds an estimated 60,000 tons—enough uranium to power all the commercial nuclear plants in the country for about two years. The company estimates its value at about $10 billion.

While the company has maintained that the uranium could be mined safety, uranium mining has a history of causing serious environmental health problems, having been linked to chromosome abnormalities, birth defects and cancer in communities from Texas to Germany.

Uranium mining also poses a serious threat to drinking water. In 1979, for example, a dam holding uranium mining waste at a New Mexico facility owned by the Virginia-based United Nuclear Corp. burst, sending more than 1,100 tons of toxic discards and 90 million gallons of contaminated water into the Rio Puerco. Once an important drinking water source for nearby Navajo communities, the river remains dangerously contaminated today.
Officials in Virginia Beach are among those opposing the uranium mining plans. They have noted that a tropical storm or hurricane could breach the mine’s waste impoundment and pollute downstream water bodies including Lake Gaston, the city’s drinking-water source.

(This story originally appeared at Facing South) http://www.grist.org/article/virginia-oks-uranium-mining-study/

Virginia panel OKs uranium mining study

Associated Press - May 21, 2009 5:15 PM ET

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy has approved the framework of a scientific study on proposed uranium mining in Virginia.

The subcommittee on Thursday amended a list of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences on what would be included in the study.

Among the major revisions was moving an item on assessing health risks to workers and the public to the top of the list. The study will not take a position for or against the mining.

Before uranium could be mined in Virginia, the General Assembly would have to lift a ban that has been in place since 1982.

The study was requested as a first step to lifting that ban by a company that wants to mine a 119 million-pound Pittsylvania County deposit.

http://www.nbc12.com/global/story.asp?s=10405336&ClientType=Printable

Coal and Energy Commission

Comment: Virginia - take notice, the most important facts of the study is money, GREED, not the health of VA's people - TAKE NOTICE ALL OF VIRGINIA - 'U R NEXT' - see next article for the so call illegal study!

Uranium Mining Sub-Committee Meetings
Contact information for Sub-Committee Members

Thurdsay, May 21, 2009 - 2:30 p.m., Uranium Mining Sub-Committee Meeting, House room D, General Assembly Building

Agenda

Final draft: Scope of Study for Uranium Mining in the Commonwealth
Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 2:00 p.m., Uranium Mining Sub-Committee Meeting, House room C, General Assembly Building

Agenda

Preliminary draft: Uranium Mining in Virginia

Preliminary draft: Socio-Economic Impacts of Uranium Mining in Virginia

Uranium Mining in Virginia Presentation

http://dls.state.va.us/groups/cec/Uranium/meetings.htm

Uranium subcommittee releases proposed final study draft

Comment: The study is mainly on profit and not the people of Virginia, demand now, Ban uranium mining & milling in Virginia!

Thursday, May 7, 2009 4:53 PM EDT

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee today released a proposed final draft for a study on the dangers and benefits of uranium mining.

The subcommittee will meet Thursday, May 21, at 2:30 p.m. in Richmond.

The final study draft:

Uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been prohibited since 1982 by a state moratorium although approval for restricted uranium exploration in the state was granted in 2007.

A National Research Council study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In particular, the study will:

1) Review global and national uranium market trends.

2) Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.

3) Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

4) Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments ("cells").

5) Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

6) Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.

7) Assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health effects from exposure to "daughter" products of radioactive decay of uranium.

8) Identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.

9) Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

11) Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

12) Briefly characterize a potential public education and outreach program in the Commonwealth of Virginia for a uranium mining operation (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).

By addressing these questions, the study will provide independent, expert advice that can be used to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia; however, the study will not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted nor will the study include site-specific assessments

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/05/07/chatham/news/news38.txt

Get the facts: Uranium mining in Virginia

Comment: well, at least other parts of Virginia are paying attention to uranium mining will affect them too!!!! They need to join the fight and demand the State of Virginia to ban uranium mining & milling!!!! U R NEXT!!!!

By SurfSongUSA

On Thursday, May 21 at 3:30 p.m., the Uranium Subcommittee of the legislature will meet in Richmond to continue discussions about the future of uranium mining in the state. The meeting will be held at the Virginia State Capitol, House Room D.

Background: In the 1980s, uranium leases were filed on thousands of acres of land in Virginia including Fauquier, Orange, Culpeper, and Madison Counties, stretching along the Piedmont to Pittsylvania in Southside Virginia. At that time, the Commonwealth undertook an extensive study of uranium mining. It was costly, time consuming, and divisive.

When it was over, the General Assembly and Governor decided it was in the best interests of the people to maintain a moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia. (WELL, VIRGINIA WANTS TO BE THE NUKE POWER OF THE WORLD NOW!!!)

A new corporation, Virginia Uranium, Inc., is seeking to lift the moratorium. During the 2008 Virginia General Assembly session, legislation (SB 525) was introduced on behalf of Virginia Uranium, Inc. to create a study on the safety of uranium mining in Virginia. The bill included a stipulation requiring a determination of

Although the primary focus on the uranium debate has been on the Coles Hill site in Pittsylvania County, most of Virginia’s population would be impacted by uranium mining, especially areas downstream or downwind of mining sites.

Learn more: Those interested may attend the open meeting, or can visit the Piedmont Environmental Council’s web site at: www.pecva.org

The web site includes maps of where the mining sites are being proposed, and the waterways situated close by.

http://7bends.com/2009/05/06/get-the-facts-uranium-mining-in-virginia/

Uranium subcommittee to meet May 21

Comment: people of this county, wake up, look at the subcommittee's order of business, (1.) Mining first, (2.)Uranium Supply & Demand (3.) People's health last - this is a flaw study, just like the previous Senate Bill 525, which was table because of the same flaw ----PEOPLE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE WANTS THE MONEY, IT WILL BE FOUND SAFE IN THEIR EYES, IT HAS NEVER BEEN SAFELY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:30 AM EDT

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission subcommittee studying the dangers and benefits of uranium mining will meet Thursday, May 21, in Richmond.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will begin at 2:30 p.m. in House Room D, said Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, chairman of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee.

Dr. Michael Karmis will present the National Academy of Science's recommendations for the final scope of the study.

Karmis is a professor in the Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg.

He presented the proposed study draft to the subcommittee in March after reviewing information from two earlier public hearings, including one in Chatham.

The National Academy of Science is expected to present its recommendations by May 4.

"Accordingly, these recommendations will be made available for review on the Coal and Energy Commission's Web site well in advance of the meeting," Ware said.

The May 21 meeting also will include time for public comment, the chairman said.

At the subcommittee's last meeting, members voted unanimously to proceed with a tentative draft of the study's objectives.

Once approved, the study is expected to take about two years.

In addition to Ware, members of the subcommittee include Del. Watkins Abbitt of Appomattox, Sen. John Watkins of Midlothian, Del. William R. Janis of Glen Allen, Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr. of Galax, Sen. Phillip P. Puckett of Tazewell, Del. Clarence E. Phillips of Castlewood, Del. Kristen J. Amundson of Fairfax County, Sen. Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach and Harry D. Childress.

Childress, a citizen member on the Coal and Energy Commission, is the former head of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy.

Abbitt was a member of the original commission that studied uranium mining in the 1980s.

The commission's chairman, Del. Terry Kilgore of Scott County, also serves on the subcommittee as an ex-officio member.

Pittsylvania County is home to one of the largest uranium deposits in the United States.

The Coles Hill uranium deposit, about six miles northeast of Chatham, was discovered in the early 1980s.

In 2007, the Coles and Bowen families, who own the ore, formed Virginia Uranium Inc. in hopes of mining the uranium, which at that time was worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.

Before the deposit can be mined, however, the General Assembly would have to lift Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining, which has been in place since 1982.

The Uranium Mining Subcommittee held a public hearing at Chatham High School in early January to receive input on the study. More than 400 people attended the meeting.

The study objectives are "to assess the scientific and technical aspects of uranium mining, milling and processing in Virginia and associated environmental, human health, safety and regulatory issues."

According to the draft, the study will consider uranium supply and demand trends and projections, worldwide uranium deposits and operations, and uranium mining, milling and processing technologies.

It also will take into account occupational and public health and safety, environmental considerations, social and economic impacts, and security standards and procedures.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/04/30/chatham/news/news50.txt

Keep Virginia Uranium Mining Ban

Comment: not a ban, wish it was, State of Virginia just has a moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia!

Chesapeake CurrentsOnline, Spring 2009

Uranium and mining industry lobbying to lift a twenty-five year ban(moratorium) on uranium mining persuaded Clean Water Action and allies to mount a counter-effort that will last at least through the 2009 election year, and likely into the 2010 legislative session. CWA involvement stepped up following a Virginia state panel vote for a uranium study after a House of Delegates panel had killed a similar proposal during the 2008 session. The renewed prospect of uranium mining was initially generated by Virginia Energy Plan 2007, a plan on meeting future energy needs developed by the administration of Governor Tim Kaine under a General Assembly mandate.

The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy voted 12-0 in November, 2008 to move forward on a wide-ranging study on the potential impact of uranium mining in Virginia. Earlier that year, in February, the Virginia Senate passed a proposal to create a 17-member commission to oversee a two-year National Academy of Sciences study of whether uranium could be safely mined on 200 acres in south-central Virginia. After uranium was discovered in an area of Pittsylvania County used for cattle, hay and timber, a proposal to mine the large deposit near Chatham in the early 1980s generated controversy that led to the existing ban, in effect since 1982. Opponents were concerned at the time, and remain so, that radioactive milling waste, a result of processing, would pollute the environment.

Under the Senate proposal, Virginia Uranium, the company most active in attempting to lift the ban (moratorium), would have picked up the cost of the report, which had been estimated at $1 million or more. Virginia Uranium was clearly betting that the study would somehow imply that the mining could be done "safely", and that the company could use it as the basis for a push to lift the ban.

Following the Senate action, after more than an hour of debate, the House Rules Committee on March 3, 2008 voted down the proposal over concerns about land, air and drinking water contamination. The vote eliminated any chance that the controversial bill could pass during the 2008 session, and provoked the uranium and mining industry to seek a study commissioned by the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy, which was not subject to legislative approval. These efforts are widely viewed as initial steps towards lifting a ban(moratorium) on uranium mining in Virginia, and a member of the House of Delegates leadership indicated that a review of the ban(moratorium) during the 2009 session was likely. CWA members, staff and allies generated pressure to keep the ban in place, and no action to lift the ban was taken during the short legislative session in Richmond.

With energy in national headlines, and a renewed push for expansion of nuclear power by the industry, Clean Water Action members will be working to remind candidates for office in 2009 that:

Uranium has never been mined on the east coast. It is mined in less-populated drier states such as Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming and Nebraska.
Release of radioactive materials from uranium mining could contaminate local waters and the surrounding area, causing cancer and other ill effects in animal and plant life in the region, and downstream all the way to the Chesapeake Bay.

Efforts to place radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada have been largely shelved by the Obama Administration, and there is still no long-term solution for the safe storage of radioactive waste.

The events of 2001 have renewed concerns that not only the risk of accidents, such as the 1979 near-meltdown at Three Mile Island, but also of intentional actions by terrorists make nuclear power an unacceptably unsafe way to meet energy needs.

Costs and the length of time to expand nuclear make it an ineffective approach for addressing the immediate crisis of climate change.

Private capital has been unwilling to risk investment in nuclear, requiring billions of dollars in loan guarantees by the federal government to underwrite the nuclear industry. Such commitments undermine efforts to invest in safer and more cost-effective energy production methods.

What you can do

Write a short letter to the Governor and your state representatives to oppose any attempts to lift the ban (moratorium)on uranium mining in Virginia.

In this issue of Chesapeake CurrentsOnline:

Keep Virginia Uranium Mining Ban(moratorium)

Uranium and mining industry lobbying to lift a twenty-five year ban(moratorium) on uranium mining persuaded Clean Water Action and allies to mount a counter-effort that will last at least through the 2009 election year, and likely into the 2010 legislative session.

CWA involvement stepped up following a Virginia state panel vote for a uranium study after a House of Delegates panel had killed a similar proposal during the 2008 session.

The renewed prospect of uranium mining was initially generated by Virginia Energy Plan 2007, a plan on meeting future energy needs developed by the administration of Governor Tim Kaine under a General Assembly mandate

http://www.cleanwateraction.org/currents/chesapeake/spring2009/keep-virginia-uranium-mining-ban

Let’s make entire county a uranium mine

Comment: Great Article!

By Published by The Editorial BoardPublished: April 8, 2009

To the editor:

First of all I’d like to say that we need to go to the Board of Supervisors and apologize to certain members for us being wrong about uranium mining. Apparently, it’s good for us and, after all, they know what’s best for the citizens of this country.

And after that we can go to the General Assembly and tell them we want our own mine in our yard. Why should Coles be the only one to profit?

When we come back from the General Assembly, we’ll stop at Wal-Mart and pick up a Mr. Fusion. I know you’ve watched the movie “Back to the Future.”

When we get home, we’ll mount them on our vehicles, and use uranium to fuel our cars. Why buy gas?

And if you are worried about the water you have at home, buy a couple cases while you’re there.

I understand that heavy metals are good for you, if you want to drink your own.

With the extra profits we can make with our mines, we can donate some of our earnings to the Board of Supervisors to go toward the budget and the Mega Park.

We have seven empty ones already. What’s one more?

And what’s one more study on uranium mining? It’s only been around for 60 years.

And if you don’t want to donate your profits to the Mega Park, put it toward the study.

Someone has to pay for it.

And as far as the jobs go at Coles Hill, do the work yourself on your own mine and share it with the family. Why pay the middle man? And don’t worry about the mineral taxes; it’s just pennies on the dollar.

And as far as trying to sell your house, don’t be concerned if you have to disclose there could possibly be a uranium mine in the area.

That could be used as an incentive to buy or sell a house.

As far as schools go, there won’t be many left in the area.

That will also help the budget.

After Hargrave and Chatham Hall close up, we can use those facilities as industrial parks, too.

I wouldn’t want to pay $30,000 a year for my kids to be six miles from a uranium mine.

So let’s praise Canada, VUI and a few members of the Board of Supervisors for trying to enrich us with their vast knowledge on this subject.

After all, they know what’s best for us and the country.

TIMOTHY F. STUART
Chatham

Why Pay for Something We Never Wanted?

Published: April 4, 2009

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Re: your editorial "Stonewalling," those of us opposing last year's legislative uranium study cited facts and figures showing the abysmal failure of the uranium mining and milling industry in the West to protect the environment and human health.

Our research finds little has changed; we are concerned about lifting the moratorium to mine and mill uranium in Virginia.

This would make ours the first state east of the Mississippi to allow mining.

Virginia's conservation community opposed the 2008 legislative study as a first step toward lifting the moratorium.

Now that the Coal and Energy Commission study is going forward, we are participating in the process.

However, since we did not want the study in the first place, why would we pay for it?

Donors to our nonprofit organizations expect their donations to go toward statewide protection of natural resources.

Ideally, the commonwealth would pay for a study, but the state doesn't have the funds and it is unlikely a million-dollar study of uranium mining would be among its top priorities even if times were less tight.

Moreover, the study exists only because of heavy lobbying ($95,434 during the 2008 General Assembly) by Virginia Uranium, Inc.

Thus, the commonwealth should look to VUI to ensure that it receives sufficient funds for a National Academy of Sciences study.

These funds should be placed in an account and dispensed only by commonwealth officials, with no further input by the corporation.

Kay Slaughter, Southern Environmental Law Center,Charlottesville;

Lisa Guthrie, Virginia League of Conservation Voters, Richmond;

Dan Holmes, Piedmont Environmental Council, Warrenton.

In uranium mining study, ensure independence

The Virginian-Pilot© April 1, 2009

Every aspect of a study on uranium mining is going to be radioactive, and that's particularly true for the money needed to fund the project.

The best option would be for the state to underwrite the $1 million-plus needed to guarantee a thorough analysis by the respected National Academy of Sciences.

But a 119-million-pound deposit of uranium in Pittsylvania County was too hot for state legislators, who refused to fund a study determining whether it could be mined safely.

Virginia Uranium Inc., a firm established by two families whose properties contain the deposit, has offered to stroke a check, raising concerns that the study's outcome would be tainted by a less-than-objective sponsor.

Environmental and citizens groups that object to the project have been criticized because they won't contribute to the cause. That's a cynical ploy to discredit organizations with legitimate interests in the process.

Those groups aren't sitting on a pile of uranium ore with an estimated value of at least $7 billion.

They have no financial stake in a mine, just a reasonable concern over its effect on public safety.

And they certainly aren't the ones pressing the state to allow uranium mining after a 25-year ban.

The reality is there's only one stakeholder with the means and the motivation to make this study happen, and that's Virginia Uranium Inc.

That should make state officials uncomfortable, but they can at least put safeguards in place to preserve some semblance of propriety.

The company should be required to turn over the full amount for the study up front, rather than parsing it out over the course of the research. There should be no potential for funds to dry up if preliminary results aren't to Virginia Uranium's liking.

The awkward financial arrangement demands a careful step-by-step analysis to ensure that public safety is paramount.

If mining and milling of the ore pose a threat to local wells and nearby Lake Gaston, the primary source of drinking water for Virginia Beach, that danger should be identified and disclosed before researchers begin examining the mine's economic viability.

That doesn't mean economics should be ignored.

Under current market conditions, the Pittsylvania deposit may be the only feasible site for a mine.

If ore prices skyrocket, however, communities as far away as Fauquier County could become candidates for mining operations. (U R NEXT!!!!!)

If the state were to end its moratorium on uranium mining, the decision would affect the entire commonwealth, not just Pittsylvania, and the study must recognize that fact.

Questions about the financing and scope of the study are making for an uneasy start to what will be at least an 18-month process.

The only way to soothe those anxieties is for state officials to make sure the analysis is thorough and transparent.(AND DUDES WE ARE WATCHING YOU VERY CLOSELY!!)

Senator Deeds doubts science and sense behind uranium study

March 26, 2009

Earlier this week, Terry McAuliffe waffled on the issue of whether “he’d back uranium mining in Virginia as he expanded what he calls his business plan for the state,” according to The Associated Press.

A Virginia commission study on the impacts of uranium mining first reported in The Washington Post last November is ongoing.

Today, Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining linked up an article from The Richmond Dispatch on the latest action at the commission:

A Virginia panel is giving the go-ahead to a study on opening the state to uranium mining and likely bankrolled by the industry — raising fears that the research will be weighted in favor of proponents.

McAuliffe had an opportunity to take a strong and principled whack at a serious issue, but he bunted.

The overwhelming consensus is that uranium mining is not worth the risk.

Virginia Beach officials recognized this a few months ago when they came out strongly against the proposed study, citing concerns over the possible effects of a uranium mine nearly 200 miles away from the coast.

It is no secret that the land containing the hard sought stash is in the hands of two families and is largely pursued by one corporation, Virginia Uranium Inc., which claims that lifting the Commonwealth’s longstanding ban on uranium mining will create jobs for southside Virginia.

The health hazards of uranium mining have been known for quite some time and thankfully the industry suffered some serious shrinkage as nuclear power fell out of vogue over the past few decades.

The folks at a NFNB have a great summary of the reasons why the estimated $10 billion at stake from Virginia Uranium, Inc., is a fool’s wager . . .

Scientific evidence and history tells us that uranium mining and exploration represents irreversible consequences to the health of our ecosystems, watersheds, wildlife, agriculture and recreation, and communities nearby, downstream or down-wind. Uranium mining and milling produces huge volumes of long-lived radioactive tailings. Radioactive by-products including thorium-230, radium-226 and radon-222 are formed as uranium atoms slowly disintegrate over billions of years. These radioactive elements can easily enter the environment from unstable uranium mill tailings where they can stay for 100,000 years.

People living near uranium tailings receive significant increases to exposure to radioactive elements that are linked to serious health conditions such as various cancers and reproductive health conditions.

President Obama succinctly defined what I’ve called the progressive trifecta–health care, education and sustainable energy–Virginians need a governor who understands that the points of this triangle intersect and are interrelated.

So, with all the emerging technological options available to an innovative nation with a well-developed higher education system like the United States and a state like Virginia, why spend time and resources (either public or private) on the dubious science of a by-gone era?

After the story broke regarding McAuliffe’s dodge on the issue of uranium mining, I wondered what Senator Deeds (D-Bath) thought about an issue that is arguably closer to his neck of the woods (I’ve long since given up on trying to contact the Moran Campaign . . . it’s cool, whatever . . . sniff . . . sniff).

Southside, like southwest Virginia, is hemorrhaging jobs. Impatient politicians clamor for quick solutions. This is understandable, but unwise.

I asked Deeds Campaign Communications Director Brooke Borkenhagen to pass a question along to her boss yesterday.

I wanted to know if Deeds was willing to conjecture on the record about the long-term efficacy of uranium mining in Virginia before the results of the study are released.

Deeds shares the intuition of the bulk of the scientific community. Borkenhagen told me:

Senator Deeds has serious reservations about whether uranium can be mined in Virginia.

He looks forward to reviewing the study, but he believes that our top priorities must be to ensure the protection of our water supply and the safety of all workers.

He is not convinced that uranium mining can meet either of these requirements.

Better-known blogs have suggested Deeds is a tool of the coal industry.

I wouldn’t know.

Last Fall, I heard candidate Obama talk favorably about clean coal; Joe Biden may have thought otherwise.

Confused? Sure.

But the science that says uranium mining is a hazard we can’t afford is clear.

Deeds understands that, and that may speak volumes about how he will approach the entire spectrum of issues related to energy and the environment, both human and ecological.

Disclaimer: SCH does not endorse candidates for elected office.

The opinions of the contributors to SCH are theirs and theirs alone.

Study of Uranium Mining in Virginia Approved

Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch)By Jeff E. Schapiro, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Va.

Mar. 25--A Virginia panel is giving the go-ahead to a study on opening the state to uranium mining and likely bankrolled by the industry -- raising fears that the research will be weighted in favor of proponents.

A subcommittee of the Coal and Energy Commission yesterday approved a tentative outline of the study by the National Academy of Science, which would focus on safety, environmental and health concerns. A separate examination of the financial and economic impact of mining also is planned.

Uranium mining has been illegal in Virginia since 1982, but with the push for alternatives to oil and coal, two Southside families want to extract in rural Pittsylvania County the nation's largest untapped lode of uranium. Five lobbying firms are pressing the General Assembly to lift the ban.
Because lawmakers from the largely agricultural region blocked a statefinanced study in 2008, fearing it as a first step toward ending the moratorium, the two families' firm, Virginia Uranium Inc., is offering to pay upward of $1 million for the inquiry.

Opponents are refusing to contribute to the cost of the study.

The green light for the study comes as the uranium industry is buffeted by an uncertain economy that is pushing down prices and drying up financing for the construction of nuclear plants powered by the ore.

Walter Coles Sr., Virginia Uranium's chairman, said in an interview that company financing of the 1 1/2 - to two-year study is potential ammunition for mine foes, described by Mick Mastilovic, company vice president, as "the mobocracy." (Mick, go back home, we have the right to protest the illegal uranium study!!!"")

Coles, whose company has raised $19 million for the project from a Canadian energy firm, hedge funds and local investors, said of the study, "You're damned if you do and damned if you don't."

Joseph R. Stanley III, an environmental analyst for the Virginia Interfaith Center, which is helping to organize resistance to a Pittsylvania mine, said allowing industry to pay for the study means "the perception that [it] would be skewed would exist."

But Michael E. Karmis, director of Virginia Tech's coal and energy research center and the state panel's liaison to the National Academy of Science, said the academy is "totally independent" and its work is "based solely on technical science."

Contact Jeff E. Schapiro at (804) 649-6814 or jschapiro@timesdispatch.com.