Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:29 AM EDT
A recent article in this newspaper covered a report commissioned by Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI) questioning the findings of the city of Virginia Beach study on impacts of uranium mining and milling near Chatham.
Virginia Beach is concerned about the uranium mining and milling plans because its drinking water comes from Lake Gaston, and the site of the first proposed operation is located between two major seismic zones and in the FEMA flood zone bordering the Banister River upstream from Lake Gaston.
Many long-time residents in this area remember the water dispute of the 90s that left local distrust, if not animosity, toward the city of Virginia Beach.
But this time around, this region's downstream communities and Virginia Beach share the same concerns - threats posed by uranium mining to our water supply.
The Hampton Roads region and its vast military installations, as well as our own economic prosperity, depends on the availability of clean, safe drinking water that we take for granted.
That is why Virginia Beach spent almost half a million dollars to determine impacts of uranium mining on the river basin under the worst-case scenario.
The Virginia Beach study involved computer modeling of over 200 various scenarios, took almost a year to complete, and was reviewed by a panel of distinguished experts in their respective fields, including a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission official.
Uranium mining and milling generates huge quantities of toxic waste, called tailings.
The Virginia Beach study found that in the event of a uranium mill tailings impoundment failure, the city's water supply will be contaminated for as long as two years.
The public can access the 300-page study report at the Virginia Beach Public Utilities website: http://www.vbgov.com/vgn.aspx?gnextchannel=f04cd0e6f130e110VgnVCM100000190c640aRCRD&vgnextparchannel=28b1fd67f3ad9010VgnVCM100000870b640aRCRD
Considering the mounting costs of the Fukushima disaster and the Gulf oil spill, two events that seemed "highly improbable" just 12 months ago, it should be clear that a prudent approach in the decision-making process is to ascertain risks in the event of the worst case scenario.
In my view, Virginia Beach did everything to make the different scenarios it analyzed as realistic as possible.
It requested that VUI share specific information on the uranium mill tailings storage and content; however, according to records obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, VUI responded that "most of that data has not yet been generated and is not expected in the near term."
Then VUI commissioned its own "study" that resulted in a 37-page report put together in a matter of weeks.
Not surprisingly, the VUI consultant's report identifies the lack of the information that Virginia Beach was unable to get from VUI as a flaw in the city's study methodology.
And, unlike the Virginia Beach study, there is no evidence that the VUI report was peer reviewed.
No doubt Virginia Beach is capable of defending the findings of its own study, but what I find really disturbing is VUI's reaction to the city's study.
A responsible company should want to hear about potential risks.
A responsible company would be concerned about the safety of its operations for those who must live with the results of its actions.
A responsible company would work to address Virginia Beach's concerns by, at the very least, devising a disaster preparedness plan.
Instead, VUI responded by commissioning a report that rejects the important contingency analysis as "fantasy," apparently because the company doesn't like the results.
By neglecting its obligations to downstream communities, VUI is showing what kind of company it is.
Tiffany Haworth,
executive director
Dan River Basin Association
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2011/07/20/chatham/opinion/opinion04.txt
