By Julian Walker
Scott Harper
The Virginian-Pilot
January 8, 2012
Officials in Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk are united in opposing efforts this year to lift a ban on uranium mining in Virginia.
There's less agreement, however, among the region's state legislators on an issue that's inspired a muscular lobbying campaign and is expected to be a dominant topic in the General Assembly session that starts Wednesday.
Critics, including many environmentalists, say the health and safety risks are too great. Supporters contend the mine could make America more energy-independent and would create hundreds of jobs in Southside Virginia, a rural region hard hit by lost manufacturing plants and the recession.
The study did not make a recommendation on whether to lift the ban - it was intended to give lawmakers advice on what issues to consider as they weigh that question. The report said that before allowing uranium mining and processing, Virginia would need a new system of rigorous, transparent procedures for mining operations, environmental protection and proper long-term monitoring of radioactive mining waste.
Safe storage of tailings, which retain their naturally occurring radioactivity for hundreds of years, is also one of the concerns voiced by environmentalists, who note that a uranium mill in Colorado that's been leaking for 30 years has been declared a Superfund site.
Gaston flows into Norfolk's reservoirs, serving about 1 million people in all, including local military bases. Water from that system also can go to Portsmouth, Suffolk and Isle of Wight County in emergency situations such as a drought.
Norfolk, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake leaders support keeping the ban, at least this year, to allow for further analysis or until officials are satisfied risks can be mitigated.
The Navy, too, is concerned that water for its local bases may be in jeopardy from mining activity and accidents. Portsmouth and Suffolk haven't taken formal positions.
The stakes are high for Virginia: There has been little uranium mining east of the Mississippi River in U.S. history and none here.
The General Assembly imposed the moratorium in 1982 to allow for additional study of mining.
Mining proponents say the benefits of lifting the ban now are clear with uranium prices rising and the nation eager to develop more domestic energy sources.
For work to begin, lawmakers have to lift the moratorium so the state can develop mining and environmental regulations. That process alone would take a few years, making it likely mining would begin five to eight years after the state were to endorse it.
But a Keep the Ban Coalition boasts dozens of supporters for a continued moratorium, including the Virginia Municipal League, church organizations, environmental groups, the NAACP, schools, universities, towns, cities, and outdoor clubs.
"We simply want to keep the status quo," said Mary Rafferty, chief lobbyist for the Sierra Club of Virginia. "This is a common-sense situation. Uranium mining is just too dangerous for Virginia."
A big political swing occurred last week with the release of a letter, dated Dec. 28, signed by five representatives, Republican and Democratic, of the Southside region. It asks fellow lawmakers to shelve the idea of lifting the moratorium, at least for now.
"We are being asked to push through a proposal to lift a 30-year-old ban on an industry with an abysmal environmental record that, under the most optimistic assumptions, experts conclude the most that can be expected is to reduce some of the quite serious risks to the health and welfare of the surrounding community," wrote the five representatives: Sen. Frank N. Ruff Jr. and Dels. James E. Edmunds II, Danny W. Marshall, Donald W. Merricks and Thomas C. Wright Jr.
Industry opponents pounced on the letter, arguing that if the local leaders in Southside are against mining, how can anyone else vote for it?
Read more:
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/big-question-lawmakers-what-do-uranium
Scott Harper
The Virginian-Pilot
January 8, 2012
Officials in Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk are united in opposing efforts this year to lift a ban on uranium mining in Virginia.
There's less agreement, however, among the region's state legislators on an issue that's inspired a muscular lobbying campaign and is expected to be a dominant topic in the General Assembly session that starts Wednesday.
Critics, including many environmentalists, say the health and safety risks are too great. Supporters contend the mine could make America more energy-independent and would create hundreds of jobs in Southside Virginia, a rural region hard hit by lost manufacturing plants and the recession.
The study did not make a recommendation on whether to lift the ban - it was intended to give lawmakers advice on what issues to consider as they weigh that question. The report said that before allowing uranium mining and processing, Virginia would need a new system of rigorous, transparent procedures for mining operations, environmental protection and proper long-term monitoring of radioactive mining waste.
Safe storage of tailings, which retain their naturally occurring radioactivity for hundreds of years, is also one of the concerns voiced by environmentalists, who note that a uranium mill in Colorado that's been leaking for 30 years has been declared a Superfund site.
Gaston flows into Norfolk's reservoirs, serving about 1 million people in all, including local military bases. Water from that system also can go to Portsmouth, Suffolk and Isle of Wight County in emergency situations such as a drought.
Norfolk, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake leaders support keeping the ban, at least this year, to allow for further analysis or until officials are satisfied risks can be mitigated.
The Navy, too, is concerned that water for its local bases may be in jeopardy from mining activity and accidents. Portsmouth and Suffolk haven't taken formal positions.
The stakes are high for Virginia: There has been little uranium mining east of the Mississippi River in U.S. history and none here.
The General Assembly imposed the moratorium in 1982 to allow for additional study of mining.
Mining proponents say the benefits of lifting the ban now are clear with uranium prices rising and the nation eager to develop more domestic energy sources.
For work to begin, lawmakers have to lift the moratorium so the state can develop mining and environmental regulations. That process alone would take a few years, making it likely mining would begin five to eight years after the state were to endorse it.
But a Keep the Ban Coalition boasts dozens of supporters for a continued moratorium, including the Virginia Municipal League, church organizations, environmental groups, the NAACP, schools, universities, towns, cities, and outdoor clubs.
"We simply want to keep the status quo," said Mary Rafferty, chief lobbyist for the Sierra Club of Virginia. "This is a common-sense situation. Uranium mining is just too dangerous for Virginia."
A big political swing occurred last week with the release of a letter, dated Dec. 28, signed by five representatives, Republican and Democratic, of the Southside region. It asks fellow lawmakers to shelve the idea of lifting the moratorium, at least for now.
"We are being asked to push through a proposal to lift a 30-year-old ban on an industry with an abysmal environmental record that, under the most optimistic assumptions, experts conclude the most that can be expected is to reduce some of the quite serious risks to the health and welfare of the surrounding community," wrote the five representatives: Sen. Frank N. Ruff Jr. and Dels. James E. Edmunds II, Danny W. Marshall, Donald W. Merricks and Thomas C. Wright Jr.
Industry opponents pounced on the letter, arguing that if the local leaders in Southside are against mining, how can anyone else vote for it?
Read more:
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/big-question-lawmakers-what-do-uranium
