Uranium Mining News

Science can't make uranium mining safe

By Katie WhiteheadWhitehead is a native and resident of Pittsylvania County.

The National Academy of Sciences report concluded that Virginia would face "steep hurdles" if it removes the moratorium on uranium mining. Arguably, the steepest hurdle is developing a culture of safety in which both regulators and employees, as well as elected officials and corporate executives, give priority to protecting our health and resources.
The NAS asserted, "Standards contained in regulatory programs represent only a starting point. A culture in which worker and public health, protection of environmental resources and preservation of ecologic resources are highly valued, and continuously assessed and strengthened, is the ultimate goal of a regulatory program."
Gov.Bob McDonnell's Uranium Working Group is supposed to answer questions left unanswered by the NAS. According to McDonnell,
Scientific data and expert opinion offer, at best, a theoretical answer to the question. As the NAS reported, Virginians have no evidence from which to draw conclusions about the truly long-term impacts of storing uranium mine and mill waste that remains hazardous for many thousands of years or the shorter-term impacts on the region's reputation and overall economy.
We need more self-reflective questions and honest answers on the part of legislators and Virginia residents. Are we willing to create and sustain a truly robust regulatory program? Are we willing to commit not only ourselves but also future generations to managing the risks that come with uranium development?
The NAS report states, "The optimum approach would be for an entirely new uranium mining, processing and reclamation law or laws to be enacted. In addition, a new regulatory program would be required to implement this law or laws." Are we willing to invest in such a program? Year after year? Election after election?
Protective regulations are often seen as unnecessary obstacles by investors, managers, supervisors and even workers. Politicians routinely condemn regulations as job-killing and costly.
Creating a safety culture would require a well-conceived regulatory program with consistent funding and expert staff, but also education and training so that both industry employees and regulatory inspectors understand the need for and the value of regulations.
To build on the work of the NAS, the Uranium Working Group must not just draft a statutory and conceptual regulatory framework, but also address the broader challenge of inspiring the safety culture that is essential to proper regulation. The cultural context is critical.
On July 5, an expert investigative panel reported that the Fukushima catastrophe in Japan "was a profoundly man-made disaster — that could and should have been foreseen and prevented." The report said, "The accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and [the plant operator] Tepco;" and that "across the board, the commission found ignorance and arrogance."
According to Reuters, "the report pointed to numerous missed opportunities to take steps to prevent the disaster, citing lobbying by the nuclear power companies as well as a 'safety myth' mindset that permeated the industry and the regulatory regime as among the reasons for the failure to be prepared."
Science and technology weren't the problem. The limiting factor was human nature.
It's human nature to want a simple answer — even if it's a myth: "Be happy. Don't worry — it's safe." It's human nature to forget all that's required to reduce risk.
Whether or not the moratorium is removed, we would do well to create a safety culture. A uranium tailings cell failure is not the only threat to Virginia's health and natural wealth.
If the moratorium ends, we should diligently avoid creating a safety myth. Safety is not an innate character trait. Mining and milling uranium and living with hazardous waste are inherently not safe. Science and technology can't make them safe.
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/311400

Unofficial meeting on uranium ban in Pittsylvania breathes life into democracy

July 12, 2012 By: Daniel Carawan

On Monday in Pittsylvania County[1], residents took part in an unofficial board of supervisors’ forum to gain resident input on uranium mining and the possibility of lifting Virginia’s decade’s old ban on uranium mining in Virginia.[2]
The forum was organized and presided over by Supervisors Marshall Ecker and Jessie Barksdale. At least 100 residents of Pittsylvania County collected in the courtroom to let the board of supervisors know their opinion on lifting Virginia’s ban on uranium mining[3].
According to GoDanRiver,[4] close to two-thirds of the residents who attended disapproved of lifting the uranium mining ban while a third were in favor of the lift. The results were drawn based upon the number of attendees applauding the various speakers at the forum.
Residents opposed to uranium mining sited concerns ranging from anxieties regarding water quality, property values, businesses uprooting from the county, and an overall degradation of quality of life.
The importance of the unofficial uranium mining meeting really can’t be overstated. The forum constituted a much needed medium for the residents of Pittsylvania County to state their views on lifting the uranium mining ban in Virginia. Since these individuals will be the most directly affected by such a move, they are logically the ones who should be listened to the closest.
Up till the present however, it hasn’t seemed like the opinions of Pittsylvania County residents have been given the attention or policy weight they warrant by the McDonnell administration or the Virginia General Assembly. With hoards of pro-mining lobbyists lining the halls of Capitol Square[5], it’s little wonder that Pittsylvania County residents have had such difficulty getting their government to listen to their opinions and concerns.
Since these Virginians stand to lose the most from uranium mining in their communities, it is them who relevant Virginia public officials should truly be listening to. Even though the forum on Monday was unofficial, the fact that the forum was held was a recognition by leaders in Pittsylvania County that residents are still anxious to make their worries and views heard.
The forum on Monday was also a step in the right direction in a state founded upon democratic principles.
The people of Pittsylvania County have the right to decide their own fate; that’s the democratic way.
Till this point in time, the McDonnell administration in particular has not lived up to these democratic principles when it comes to the issue of uranium mining.[6]
[1] http://www.pittgov.org/
[2] http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2012/jul/09/uranium-forum-draw-crowd-pit...
[3] http://www.southernenvironment.org/cases/uranium_mining_in_virginia/
[4] http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2012/jul/09/uranium-forum-draw-crowd-pit...
[5] http://www.vacapitol.org/square.htm
[6] http://www.examiner.com/article/mcdonnell-s-uranium-mining-study-a-subve...

http://www.examiner.com/article/unofficial-meeting-on-uranium-ban-pittsylvania-breathes-life-into-democracy

Uranium Mining in Virginia

Posted on July 12, 2012 at 4:00 am

Kenneth R. "Ken" Plum

Reston's Delegate to Virginia House of Reps

The threat to human health outweighs any arguments for lifting the ban. I remain opposed to lifting the ban and will be sensitive to any efforts to circumvent the ban through the regulatory process.

http://reston.patch.com/blog_posts/uranium-mining-in-virginia

Pittsylvania residents air views on uranium project

SovaNow.com

SoVaNow.com / July 11, 2012

CHATHAM — Pittsylvania County residents packed a general district courtroom here Monday night for a public hearing in the heart of the region that could most benefit from — or be damaged by — a proposed uranium mine and mill.

About 250 people sat quietly or applauded politely — somewhat in contrast to earlier, more spirited hearings on the subject. The Monday night event was set up by Pittsylvania County Supervisors who, unlike some neighboring elected boards, have yet to take a stand for or against uranium. Only Pittsylvania County residents were allowed to speak.

While most speakers beseeched the Supervisors to resolve against uranium, several touted its economic promise.

http://www.sovanow.com/index.php?/news/article/pittsylvania_residents_air_views_on_uranium_project/

Is the root cause of the Fukushima disaster really “Made in Japan?”

By Karl Grossman
The conclusion of a report of a Japanese parliamentary panel issued last week that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster was rooted in government-industry “collusion” and thus was “man-made” is mirrored throughout the world. The “regulatory capture” cited by the panel is the pattern among nuclear agencies right up to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“The Fukushima nuclear power plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and Tepco [Tokyo Electric Power Company, the owner of the six Fukushima plants] and the lack of governance by said parties,” said the 641-page report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission released on July 5. “They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly ‘man-made,’” said the report of the panel established by the National Diet or parliament of Japan.
“We believe the root causes were the organizational and regulatory system that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions,” it went on. “Across the board, the commission found ignorance and arrogance unforgivable for anyone or any organization that deals with nuclear power.” It said nuclear regulators in Japan and Tepco “all failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirements.”
The chairman of the 10-member panel, Kiyoshi Kurokawa, a medical doctor, declared in the report’s introduction: “It was a profoundly man-made disaster—that could and should have been foreseen and prevented.”
He also placed blame on cultural traits in Japan. “What must be admitted—very painfully,” wrote Dr. Kurokawa, “is that this was a disaster ‘Made in Japan.’ Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture; our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the programme’; our groupism; and our insularity.”
In fact, the nuclear regulatory situation in Japan is the rule globally.
In the United States, for example, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, never denied a construction or operating license for a nuclear power plant anywhere, anytime. The NRC has been busy in recent times not only giving the go-ahead to new nuclear power plant construction in the U.S. but extending the operating licenses of most of the 104 existing plants from 40 to 60 years—although they were only designed to run for 40 years. That’s because radioactivity embrittles their metal components and degrades other parts after 40 years making the plants unsafe to operate. And the NRC is now considering extending their licenses for 80 years.
http://enformable.com/2012/07/is-the-root-cause-of-the-fukushima-disaster-really-made-in-japan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Enformable+%28Enformable%29