by Eva Cassada
SoVaNow.com / February 09, 2011
RICHMOND – Halifax County had no shortage of representation at the uranium meeting here Monday night even though the proposed mine is across the line in Pittsylvania County.
About 200 people, many from across Southside, attended the fourth town hall-style meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, whose scientists have been charged with studying the feasibility of lifting the 1982 uranium ban in Virginia so that a massive, $8 billion deposit in Chatham may be excavated by Virginia Uranium Inc.
Public comments largely fell into one of two categories: It’s unsafe for land and water or, in contrast, the area needs jobs and the nation needs the uranium.
Of 46 speakers, 33 were opposed to the lifting of the ban. In the course of three hours, no uranium supporter identified himself as currently living in Southside Virginia.
Keep the ban
Andrew Lester, executive director of the Roanoke River Basin Association (which formed in 1945 and helped convince the government to build Kerr Dam, he noted) said the water supply of millions of people could be affected by the proposed mine – including Virginia Beach, Tidewater’s military installations, Henderson, N.C., Roanoke Rapids, N.C., and even Raleigh, which has lately had its eye on Kerr Lake.
Even down into North Carolina, more people are getting “very, very concerned and energized,” he said.
He predicted the debate would eventually get as heated as it did over the Lake Gaston Pipeline in the 1980s and 90s.
It was that controversy, in fact, that catapulted Halifax’s State Sen. Frank Ruff into politics when Ruff, of Clarksville, was a leader in the organization.
Opponents repeatedly cited their concern that water and soil could be contaminated for thousands of years if the mine is incorrectly operated, if regulators don’t provide sufficient oversight, if catastrophic weather occurs or if, after the mine is depleted, long-term care is neglected. The Coles Hill mine would be one of only a few uranium mines in the Eastern U.S.; most North American mines are in more arid climates.
Critics say Virginia is too wet. Uranium waste products called tailings could contaminate the nearby Roanoke/Staunton River system, which includes Buggs Island Lake, they contend.
Retired environmental attorney Kay Slaughter of Charlottesville called uranium mining in a wet environment “a gigantic experiment.”
Of local speakers, Tom Brown of Halifax noted that the Navy had never had accidents with its nuclear submarines because of extensive training; however, he worried that private companies would cut corners.
Holt Evans, a Halifax Town Council member, said he’s concerned about cancer rates and health issues.
Halifax Mayor Dick Moore called mined uranium “a slow bomb.”
“I told you so,” said Jack Dunavant, a civil engineer from Halifax and leader of Southside Concerned Citizens, referring to a study released last week by Virginia Beach showing that the proposed mine – 200 miles from Chatham – could pose risks to the drinking water of more than one million people in Tidewater.
“The threat to downstream communities like Virginia Beach is real,” echoed Cale Jaffe, a lawyer for the Southern Environmental Law Center, based in Charlottesville.
Peter Martin of Richmond, who once lived in Halifax and is brother to the late Rev. Fred Martin, expressed concern over the Banister River, Buggs Island Lake and Virginia Beach.
Other speakers said the jobs the mine would create were not worth the potential environmental impact or the stigma.
Both Halifax legislators, Del. James Edmunds of Halifax and State Sen. Ruff of Clarksville, oppose uranium mining but neither was present when it was their turn to speak. They were presumably called away by legislative duties as this is the General Assembly’s notoriously busy “crossover week.”
In his absence, Edmunds’ statement was read by Trieste Lockwood of the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy. In it, he acknowledged the promise of jobs and the goal of energy independence, but he charged the panel: “Be … so sure that nothing will ever go wrong that you would have your children drink the water flowing from the Banister. That you would have them live downwind and that you would encourage them to build their homes nearby and raise your grandchildren.” Edmunds, a cattle and grain farmer, said he owns two miles of Banister riverfront.
“While I understand all too well that we need jobs, some risks are not worth taking … Please don’t take our future in your hands without a disclaimer that some events are simply unpredictable and the outcome of a disaster her would last forever.”
Naomi Hodge-Muse of Martinsville is head of the NAACP and the Sierra Club chapter there. She said in an interview that a bus chartered from there carried 38 people – Democrats, Republicans and tea partiers – all united against the mine.
The largest single contingent of speakers was from Danville and Pittsylvania.
A Pastor Tarpley of Chatham objected to the area being thought of as a “sacrificial zone.”
Sarah Motley, a hospice nurse living in Hampton who grew up on a Pittsylvania County farm, said she had visited uranium mines out west. She asked the panel how much tailings management had changed in the past 30 years and how many mines are federal Superfund sites.
“Protect us,” Eloise Nenon of Chatham asked the 15-member panel.
Monday’s public comment period was part of a three-day meeting, most of it private, conducted by the Academy. It followed a December meeting in Danville and prior meetings in Washington, D.C. Remaining for the body are meetings in Denver and in Saskatchewan, Canada. Its report, paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc., is due late this year and could have significant sway among legislators deciding whether or not to lift the moratorium. They could do so as early as their 2012 session.
Read more:
http://www.thenewsrecord.com/index.php?/news/article/uranium_debate_cites_buggs_island_lake/
