Virginia Department of Health Public Comment Meeting for Private Wells, Water Supplies, and Recreational Waters / Public meeting : Uranium mining and milling in Virginia

Comments:   Please come to meeting, will be summary of all questions ask by meetings, also review the VA Beach meeting summary!

Public meeting :  Uranium mining and milling in Virginia

September 17, 2012 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Old Dominion Agricultural Center
19783 US Highway 29 South
Chatham, VA  24531

The Virginia Department of Health will hold a public meeting on issues related to potential uranium mining and milling in Virginia.   The agenda will include:

1. Presentation by VDH summarizing the comments and questions received to date by VDH regarding private wells and recreational water issues related to uranium mining and milling.
2. Presentation by DEQ on ground water, surface water and air quality issues related to uranium mining and milling.
3. Opportunity for public comments.

The meeting is open to the public and pre-registration is not required. 

Virginia Department of Health Public Comment Meeting for Private Wells, Water Supplies, and Recreational Waters

August 30, 2012, Virginia Beach Public Health Building, Virginia Beach, Virginia

The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) sponsored two public meetings in Virginia Beach on August 29^th and 30^th to collect questions and comments from the public regarding private wells, public water supplies, and recreational waters as these relate to the potential for uranium mining and milling in Virginia.  Notice of the meetings was provided via the Uranium Working Group (UWG) website (http://www.uwg.vi.virginia.gov/index.shtml), and the Commonwealth Calendar.

The second public comment meeting regarding private wells, water supply and recreational water use was held at the Meyera-Oberndorff Library, 4100 Virginia Beach Blvd, Virginia Beach on August 29^th from 6:00 until 8:00 P.M. All interested parties were invited to speak after signing up. Approximately 50 members of the public attended the meeting, and 10 individuals made public comment.

At the subsequent discussion session on August 30^th, VDH invited interested parties to participate in a facilitated full-day discussion of concerns and comments identified during the evening meeting the previous day as well as any other comments to be shared by the participants.  This session was held at the Virginia Beach Public Health Building, 4452 Corporation Lane, Virginia Beach.  Those interested in participating in the day-long session on August 30^th were required to register in advance.  Participation was to be limited to 20 persons chosen at random from those who registered.   However, only 16 persons registered to participate so all were invited to attend; 12 of those persons selected participated in the meeting.  Four individuals did not present themselves for participation on the day of the meeting.

The objective of both meetings was to gather questions and comments from the public on behalf of the UWG regarding potential impacts to private wells, public water supplies, and recreational waters should the current moratorium on uranium mining and milling be lifted. Questions and concerns identified in these meetings will be incorporated into the ongoing study being conducted by the UWG.

VDH asked participants to consider the following questions:

1.        What are the public’s concerns related to the impact of uranium mining and milling on water quality and quantity of private wells?

2.         What are the public’s concerns related to the impact of uranium mining and milling on recreational use of surface water?

3.         What role should VDH play in assuring that public health is protected in regard to private wells and recreational water use in regard to uranium mining and milling?

4.         What safeguards should be in place to protect private wells and recreational water?

The following is a summary of the comments received during the discussion session on August 30, 2012. The order of the subjects does not indicate priority, but is the order in which concerns were expressed by the speakers in the public meeting on the 29^th and were later grouped to facilitate discussions for this meeting. Please note that the statements of the participants are statements of opinion rather than fact and have not been assessed for veracity.

Risk Comments, Concerns, and Questions

Several speakers expressed concerns about risks in general.  Further, one speaker suggested that if the risks to human health and water quality are known, the moratorium should not be lifted.  One participant stated that risk is everything and must be fully evaluated.  One speaker was concerned about the health risks that result from uranium mining and milling.  Another stated the Coles Hill area is perceived as remote but there is more population in the area than in other areas with uranium production, such as Canada where uranium mining and milling is occurring.  This speaker noted that risk increases with population density.  One participant stated that the Coles Hill area already has a high rate of cancer and was concerned about the radon gas associated with operations.  It was suggested that VDH focus on the population in the area that are most at risk.  Another speaker expressed concern for the health of miners and mill workers regarding the known association between cigarette smoking and radon gas.  Another participant brought up the problem with silica dust that will likely arise with crushing ore and other operations.  One person stated that there is a risk simply in the potential public perception of agricultural products and offered the example of a company that publicly advertised, following the Three Mile Island incident, that none of their products came from Pennsylvania.

Another participant offered that contaminants may be consumed by animals and enter the food chain of those who consume them.  This speaker encouraged VDH not to review each risk in isolation, but to consider the entire decay series and to consider both levels of radiation; the quantity of the isotope and the energy level each isotope produces.

One speaker stated that the concept of risk is really the probability of an incident occurring multiplied by the consequences of the occurrence.  He further stated that there can be a low probability, but huge consequences equal high risk.  Another speaker added that once an activity is labeled “bad”, it generally receives high risk status and there needs to be data collected to assess the real risk of the activity.  One participant provided examples from England and the Kennecott operation near Salt Lake City and their associated lawsuits as evidence that there is risk because the regulations are not working due to a lack of enforcement.  

Another speaker introduced the concept of the three Rs: ”risk,” the notion that it is unfair that the decision maker does not bear the risk of the action; “reward,” the determination that there is adequate reward to justify the action; and “rigor,” ensuring the there is rigor in enforcement, rigor requires  overcoming the tendency to get used to non-compliant actions that can lead to disaster (i.e., the BP well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico).

Participants voiced the concern that there is no baseline information with which to determine the health of the community and the environment before mining and milling.  One participant stated that he had seen no evidence of risk incorporated in models presented in the 1960s-1970s.  Another participant stated that the study by Senes in the 1980s used models, but did not mention groundwater, further supporting the concern that there is no baseline for risk.  This speaker stated that prior to lifting the moratorium, degradation of the monazite sands in the Commonwealth should be evaluated because they may also be high in radioactivity, particularly thorium.

One speaker stated that there is a wealth of information from other areas where uranium has been mined, including France, Canada and the western United States, showing that such operations present a great risk.  This participant expressed the belief that public opinion is there are severe risks and that there is a “full-court press to lift the moratorium.”  The commenter stated that tax-payers need to have reasonable access to participate in decision-making regarding the issue.

One participant viewed keeping the moratorium in place as a risk of lost opportunity.  He believed that new regulations and procedures can be created to ensure safe operations.  This speaker believed nuclear energy is “here to stay” and there is potential to create innovative technologies and associated procedures and regulations.  This participant believed that Virginia can learn from the past experiences and can do better in the future.

One speaker expressed concern that downstream contamination could travel to Lake Gaston and make the water unacceptable as a public water source for the Virginia Beach area. Another speaker suggested that downstream contamination could impact the entire Roanoke River Basin and could impact residents of North Carolina.

Water Quality Comments, Concerns, and Questions

Comments and concerns regarding surface and groundwater focused on the issues of water quality and quantity.  One speaker asked about the contingency plans if the water is contaminated.  One participant stated that recent studies indicate that “somebody” will lose water as a result of uranium mining and milling.  He went on to state that water quantity is a higher public health issue than water quality.  This speaker stated that requirements for water are immediate and farmers cannot wait for bureaucracy to resolve issues.  He stressed that livestock and crops need water continually.

One participant questioned whether any rivers or streams in Virginia are currently impaired by radioactive contamination.  One person responded that these contaminants, at least in the west, are not monitored routinely.  Another participant stated that if they are, it is naturally occurring uranium and that the impairment does not result from human activity.  Further, this speaker stated that the city of Norfolk has the capacity to remove certain types of contaminants.  To address the concern about taking contaminated water from Lake Gaston, he stated that there are several uptakes upstream from Lake Gaston.  Further, he stated that there are contaminants in the sediment in Lake Gaston, but that the intakes for the water supply are higher in the water column and do not lie on the sediment of the lake. Another person stated that there are several water intakes up-stream of Virginia Beach.

One speaker questioned whether there are laboratories in Virginia capable of testing for radionuclides.  Another speaker stated that reliable laboratories do exist with the needed capabilities.

The idea of a baseline was presented again. One participant noted that testing of well in the area has only been conducted after exploratory drilling not before.  Another participant noted that the mining industry is “self-monitoring” and this causes the industry to “cut a few corners” while monitoring.  This participant asked how do we ensure independent water quality monitoring should the moratorium be lifted.

One participant stated that the water quality standards are not ”perfectly” safe; rather water quality regulations are designed to be safe for the average individual in average conditions, they are not designed for vulnerable populations.  Another speaker commented that the public water supply in Virginia Beach is at 5-6% of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) allowed in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards for drinking water.  He stated that there are sensitive populations that would be at risk if the levels of contaminants reached the MCLs.  If the contaminant levels elevate, but stay below the MCLs, there will likely be no action.  If contaminated water does need to be treated, one speaker questioned how the waste would be disposed of and who would pay for the disposal.  One participant added that the standards do not measure for future radioactivity, such as the daughter products of the uranium.

 The release of treated process water from the site concerned some participants. One speaker expressed concern that clean water will never be fully remediated once the source of contamination is created and releasing this process water to other surface water sources may add heavy metals to the surface waters.  The same speaker stated that surface water and groundwater are interconnected and questioned the impacts of dewatering the mine on the surrounding groundwater.

A participant who lives in the Chatham area related that he had two wells drilled that are less than 100 feet apart; one produces about 1.5 gallons per minute, the other about 10 gallons per minute.  He stated that nobody knows how the water veins in the rock go—his last well was over 800 feet deep while others in the area are less than 200 feet deep.  Another participant stated that one concern is a lack of information about the geology of that area, and that while many water wells exist, those wells were not done to study the geology and do not provide the necessary information to do so. 

Regulatory Comments, Concerns, and Questions

Several speakers offered concerns about the Commonwealth’s ability to generate the resources and expertise for a regulatory program in an environment of budget cuts and a lack of a political culture to protect the environment.  Many offered concerns that the Commonwealth has a history of insufficiently funding environmental protection and often leaves local governments to absorb costs associated with this work.  One participant offered the example of the contamination left from the coal industry.  One speaker added that Virginia is one of the lowest states in their funding for environmental protection.  Another speaker commented that every venue where mining and milling takes place does a poor job of enforcement of regulations and referred to the National Academy of Sciences report stating that more than 7,000 surface water bodies in Virginia are already contaminated.  One participant asked if uranium mining and milling regulations will protect the aquifers and rivers.  Another speaker stated that less than 1% of the budget is spent on inspections and monitoring.  This speaker stated that the public has a lack of trust in state workers to conduct oversight properly.

A speaker noted the Commonwealth cannot establish regulations until the moratorium is lifted.  Many participants expressed concern about current state budgets and one wondered if regulatory agencies would receive additional funding if the moratorium is lifted.  One participant stated that if the moratorium is lifted private money will come into the state for studies.  One participant questioned whether the permitting process would create a revenue stream sufficient to cover the costs of the regulatory program.

Another speaker stated that there is a problem with the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy’s (DMME) mission.  The speaker noted DMME has a dual mission, to exploit resources and to protect miners.  He stated that the Commonwealth should learn from federal model from the Atomic Energy Commission that dual missions do not work (the federal government went on to split the mission and create the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] for oversight).  Since uranium operations in the United States are primarily in the west, one speaker questioned if there are any NRC inspectors in the east.

One participant questioned whether there will be multiple uranium sites in Virginia and if the Commonwealth could create a regulatory structure for one site. Others thought that, although that might be theoretically possible, it is unlikely.  The speakers noted that currently there is only one proposed site in Virginia.  One speaker stated that the Coles Hill site is the only economically viable site in Virginia.  However, many participants believed that if the moratorium is lifted, exploration will expand throughout Virginia.  One speaker stated that many of the concerns will be addressed in the site-specific permit process.

Another speaker stated that regulations cannot protect anyone and the Commonwealth’s considerations needed to be preventive.  This speaker stated that regulations do not equal safety and regulations are a response to non-compliance after the fact.  This member of the panel expressed concern that none of what was being discussed was preventative.  VDH representatives explained what and how the agency regulates and ensures water is safe for consumption.  Department of Environmental Quality representatives stated that the agency deals with enforcing standards and monitoring ambient conditions in the environment.  DMME staff reported that the agency’s responsibilities focus on miner safety, the mine and associated area and that they work with other agencies to ensure safe operations.

One participant commented on past experiences of  using best management practices (BMPs), stating that  history has shown  that cleanup criteria can change over time and those practices that were acceptable in the past may not be acceptable in the future.

One participant asked if any wells in Virginia had been condemned due to contamination.  VDH staff stated that the agency regulates public water supplies and known contamination sources.  . VDH will not condemn, but will advise the landowner if problems are discovered and will recommend alternative sources of water.

One participant offered the concept of an independent auditor to oversee the regulatory program.  This group could include an ethics committee and would conduct multi stakeholder oversight of the regulatory framework. This could improve public confidence in the program.

One speaker questioned who would have legal standing to bring a suit in court should an operator not perform or comply with regulatory standards.

Baseline Testing and Monitoring Comments, Concerns, and Questions

Many speakers referred to the noticeable lack of baseline information in many areas.  One speaker noted that there is no baseline well information. This participant noted VDH requires only biological testing of private wells when a well is drilled and that private wells are never measured for heavy metals.  One participant questioned what types of contaminants the population is exposed to currently.  This speaker stated that the ore at Coles Hill has been tested, but the results of the testing have not been shared.

One speaker asked the following questions about a baseline and monitoring program:

• What is a good baseline?
• What will be tested
• How often will testing occur?
• Who will pay for the testing?

One speaker recommended that the UWG ask the legislature for the funds to conduct the baseline testing and to analyze the data.  He recommended that this include an analysis of monazite sands found in the state.  He suggested that these “black sands” may be radioactive and may require controls.

One participant stated that Virginia should conduct a minimum of 10 years of baseline testing specifically for the Coles Hill area and throughout Virginia.  He referenced experiences from the 1950s-1960s where tests determining the affects of radioactivity were conducted on humans.  These studies anticipated following up with the subjects in a certain number of years, but funding was cut and follow up did not occur.  One study for strontium 90 showed that levels were definitely higher in individuals after the nuclear age.  It was also suggested that the UWG look at data available from Russia. 

One participant requested testing for thorium, a decay product of uranium, be included in any baseline testing and monitoring protocol.  He stated that there is potential for 22 times the amount of thorium in tailings as there is in uranium content.  He further stated that the reporting conducted in the 1980s dealt only with uranium and it is important to understand the ore, the sub-ore, and the waste products.  This speaker added that the list of constituents should include all the toxic process chemicals and expressed concern that the company may claim constituents are proprietary and not want them included in monitoring.  Another speaker noted that it is also important to understand the mineralogy.  This individual stated sampling needs to include both filtered and unfiltered samples.  Further, many participants had knowledge that exploratory drilling had already occurred, but no data from those activities had been shared, making one participant question where proprietary data begins and ends.  This speaker provided the panel with a list of potential contaminants for which to monitor.  Another speaker suggested that mistrust could be diffused by engaging the public in sampling events.

One speaker again noted that the mining industry in largely self monitoring and questioned whether it is possible to ensure there is an independent data source.  He stated that companies have been known to supply bogus data that could hide problems.  One commenter asked if the company is monitoring and the mine or mill goes into standby or hiatus then who will be undertaking monitoring, the company will not be making enough money to pay for the monitoring.  Another speaker noted that ostensibly the monitoring is done by the permittee and verified by the stat utilizing permit fees.  Another participant suggested that the UWG report describe a monitoring program and should provide an estimate of the cost.  One speaker speculated that monitoring costs could run approximately $50,000/site/year.  It was suggested that the state is unlikely to fund extensive baseline studies. Another speaker stated that the mining and milling operator should pay the cost of monitoring. One participant expressed regret that all except one of the exploratory holes drilled in the Coles Hill area had been plugged and abandoned so the wells can no longer be used to gather information and wondered if the exploratory holes drilled in the 1980s are still available for monitoring.  He stated that not keeping historic holes open for monitoring is problematic for continuation of monitoring.

One participant offered the concept of continuous, real-time well monitoring by using devices installed in wells.  He believes that this could be accomplished for approximately $5,000/well and could lower the cost of overall monitoring.  According to this speaker, the major expense would be the capital cost of the equipment.  He went on to state there is the potential to operate the equipment on solar energy to further reduce costs.  He suggested that a coalition of interested parties could be created to fund this monitoring.  This speaker stressed, these devises would provide real time data for landowners and regulators and could help define the incremental risk of lifting the moratorium.  Another speaker questioned what distance from the operation would this type of monitoring be needed.  A map of proposed locations was provided.  Another speaker cautioned that sampling private wells could reveal things other than radioactivity that could be problematic and that water quality can change over time.

One speaker encouraged establishing a robust data quality program including all aspects of sample collection to sample analysis to ensure the integrity of data throughout the life of the project.  It was suggested that a data quality program would address the perception that any data coming from a laboratory is correct.  One speaker noted that laboratories are about production and have business interests just as any other industry.  He further noted that laboratories are operated by humans, who do make mistakes.  This speaker believed that it is critical to have independent validation of laboratories.  Another speaker noted that there are qualified laboratories in Virginia, including the Department of Consolidated Laboratory Services (DCLS)..  A participant commented that sampling capabilities at DCLS should be brought up to date to provide such specialized analyses.  Another speaker commented that Virginia should not turn monitoring of mills over to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Operational Comments, Concerns, and Questions

One participant attended the NRC meeting in the Chatham area and stated NRC staff reported that Virginia Uranium Incorporated (VUI) has a “failsafe” method for tailings containment.  The speaker noted that the current proposal is for below grade tailings containment, but it is unknown this method that will be approved with the water table issues in the area. This speaker believes that a failsafe method of containment does not exist.  This speaker was concerned that decisions would be made relying on this statement. However it was noted that the NRC stated that the fact that his method has been proposed does not mean it will be automatically approved.  Another participant stated that the current proposal is for below grade tailings containment, but it is unknown this method that will be approved with the water table issues in the area. Another commenter noted the possibility that mine shafts may be refilled with waste rock which could create structural issue. He explained that mine shafts are drilled and that leaves “spaces” of ore in between, so shafts must be refilled to be able to access that additional ore.  Another commenter noted that at times mine shafts are refilled with cement and cement erodes which can also lead to a structural issue.

One speaker asked which regulations would be invoked for tailings containment.  Another participant stated that it would be the NRC regulations unless Virginia applied for and was granted “Agreement State” status.  This participant commented that state of the art for containment is an earthen berm.  Another participant questioned the distance from the mine and mill to which regulations apply and since regulations for mines and mills are different, which set of regulations is used.

One speaker questioned what the bond is intended to cover.  Another participant stated that bonding normally covers earth-moving activities during construction and routine activities during operations, but rarely covers chronic releases and usually neglects to mention groundwater contamination.  Another speaker asked if bonding covers catastrophic events or is insurance available for this.  One participant noted that the bonding for the uranium initiative in the 1980s was $250,000 which would have been insufficient for testing, monitoring, etc.

The following questions and comments were offered:

·         There will be impacts to roads from transportation of ore. Has the Virginia Department of Transportation been asked to evaluate impacts?

·         Who will pay for the infrastructure (i.e., roads)?

·         If the mill is in Pittsylvania County, will ore be transported from other locations? Transported from other states?

·         If ore is transported, how will loads be covered?

·         If ore from other locations is milled in Pittsylvania County, can the waste be transported back to the source?

·         There could be blasting 24/7.

·         Operations will be noisy and smelly.

·         The operation will span decades. It will be hard to determine what will happen.

·         How long could operations be suspended before requiring remediation?

·         How much water will be used?

·         There needs to be radon monitoring on-site and on adjacent properties.

·         Regulations need to address temperature inversions around the site that can create radon problems.

·         What level of security will be needed? Will it be needed forever? What about terrorist activities?

·         What is the impact of precipitation on the ore and tailings piles?

·         What are the contaminants from construction?

·         What are all the contaminants in the waste rock (not just radioactive)?

·         Plastic liners will be degraded over time by the radioactive material that they are intended to contain.

·         Where will the contaminated filters used to process water from the mine and mill be stored?

One participant expressed concern for worker safety for both mining and milling activities and wondered what would prevent the workers from carrying contamination home and inadvertently spreading it to their homes.  Another speaker referenced a British Broadcasting documentary that highlighted soluble radium and the working level standards for workers.

Many comments were shared on the water issues associated with operations.  One participant stated that uranium operations traditionally use a large amount of water and the companies do not pay for it.  He asked how Virginia would treat industrial water use in this circumstance.  He went on to state would Virginia consider charging for water?  Specifically is there a price for water?   Another speaker noted that Virginia is a riparian water state and that if an individual owns property and water runs through your property or if there is a well on your property you may utilize that water.  One participant noted that a lot of water used on these sites is recycled water with little additional water brought to the site, but that dewatering at the site might affect some wells.  Another commented that recycled water is degraded with every use. One participant added that large volume water treatment will generate radioactive waste and disposal problems. One speaker stated that there will be water from the process and water from runoff.  This water will be treated on-site and eventually will be released to the Bannister River.

One speaker commented that VUI is a “junior” company with little experience and will most likely bring in a more senior partner, such as Areva or Cameco.  There were concerns expressed that corporate structuring will be utilized to shield a company from liability.  He expressed concern that VUI could not guarantee the best intentions of their planning for mining and milling.  Another speaker explained that the current plans are for an underground mine and the standard practice is to mine from the bottom up, take ore from the ceiling of the mine and let gravity do the work. This speaker noted the current plans incorporate putting the tailings back in the mine.  One speaker asked how the fractures would be sealed off and what happens when water seeps back into the mine.  He went on to ask how will the aquifers be sealed off during drilling? And finally will the tailings be cemented in the mine?

Catastrophic Events and Operational Failures Comments, Concerns, and Questions

Many participants expressed concerns about the faults and seismic concerns in the area.  One speaker noted the largest fault in Virginia is between Charlottesville and Richmond and the North Anna facility was built over a fault.  Another speaker noted the Danville and Chatham faults are in the area and it is unknown if they are active.  One participant referred to an earthquake in Virginia that was followed by more than 400 aftershocks and stated that some private wells went dry as a result.  She wondered what level of seismic activity an operating facility would be expected to withstand.  Further, she questioned if the facility would be required to shutdown to assess potential consequences following an earthquake.  Additional questions were asked regarding what are the planned contingencies for catastrophic events at these types of facilities.  One participant stated that catastrophic events include tornados and went on to ask who would pay for cleanup of scattered contamination.  One participant noted that state agencies cannot “regulate everything” as it is not “possible or practical.”

Several attendees referenced to recent heavy rainfalls and storm events they believed would be problematic if the uranium mining and milling are allowed.  One speaker stated that the eastern ridge of the Appalachian Mountains is most likely where uranium mines would be located and this may be one of the worst locations due to hydrology that is prone to catastrophic stream flows and near maximum rainfalls.  It was noted that the Commonwealth is looking at reports to identify areas of catastrophic stream flows and the civil engineering department at Virginia Tech is modeling stream flow. 

One participant questioned whether the operator would be allowed to discharge excess process water in a storm event and what defines the quantity of water that is determined to be excess during a storm event.  She asked, whether monitoring would occur during storm events.  She noted that large storm events are usually tumultuous times and it is unusual to have people on site to conduct monitoring during those periods.  Another speaker stated that there may be exclusions for containment in excess of the accepted design and stated that the design should stipulate containment for a 100-year storm event.  One speaker stated that only 10% of the contamination from tailings moves down stream; studies show that other 90% would stay in the river, could not be feasibly re-captured from an economic standpoint, and would remain forever..  

One speaker asked if there will be bioaccumulation.  Another participant commented that sediment transport could pose a problem for reservoirs and potentially shorten their useful life.   Another speaker suggested this is not likely and provided the example of Kerr Reservoir, which would take more than 400 years to fill with sediment.  One speaker asked if contaminated sediment settled in the bed of Lake Gaston, would cause the lake to be shut down..  

One commenter asked how fast the public will be notified in the event of a release and went on to note that monitoring does not prevent release only allows for notification.  She suggested there should be a mechanism in place to allow for remediation or shut down before the levels of contamination get too high or unsafe.  VDH staff explained the warning systems used for nuclear power plants. There are devices at the point of discharge downstream that constantly monitor to detect releases. These devices do not stop the release, but provide notification. VDH monitors along the discharge canal. These are preventative systems that measure below the safety limit to help operators prepare and take measures necessary to ensure safe operations.

With regard to operational failures, one speaker questioned how the potential of human error would be minimized. Another asked how will the risk of mechanical failure be minimized? Finally one speaker asked about the risk associated with the proximity of explosives to contamination?

Economic Comments, Concerns, and Questions

Many of the comments and concerns about cost had to do with the uncertainty of future cleanup and the associated cost considerations.  One speaker noted that cleanup may take decades, may never be completed, and wondered if the Commonwealth is looking at the long-term nature of future costs.  He stressed that when analyzing long term costs the state should not just look at the life of the mine but should consider the long term as the waste is going to be around “forever” and Virginians do not want the site to become a Superfund site down the line.  Another speaker noted the cost analysis should include a comparison of the revenue generated by the project and the cost of regulating the industry.  There will be impacts and associated costs of dispersed contamination that are not part of the cost of doing business.  One participant asked who sets the bond and how often is it revisited.

One speaker commented on the costs of increased cancer incidence.  He noted that there will also be the cost of developing treatments.  This speaker noted that there will be costs to develop forensic techniques to detect contamination such as polonium 210, which is highly toxic in small amounts.  Another speaker noted there will also be costs associated with technology, such as the cost of freezing the pile to prevent release of contamination.  It was noted that these technologies may make the project cost prohibitive. Another participant expressed concern about the availability of health insurance and asked if there is evidence that health insurers price policies higher in areas near uranium mining and milling operations.

Many participants expressed concern about the costs of litigation in the event of a disaster.  Many felt that individual landowners cannot fight a large company should litigation be necessary.  One speaker questioned whether there would be an advocate for landowners.  Another speaker noted that regulations in the west account for litigation, but litigation and resultant compensation has taken decades to finalize.  Another participant stated that there are water management groups in areas in southeastern Virginia to address litigation.  He stated that there are conditions in permits to ensure compliance, but if there is a failure, the landowner must still go against the private entity for compensation.

Other comments were shared about the damage to agricultural producers in the area who may have to counter the perception of contamination.  One individual gave the example of the Three Mile Island incident when the Safeway stores advertised that their milk was not from the area of potential contamination.  There were also references to a potential loss of tourism and the impacts to property values in the surrounding area.  Another participant questioned the availability of homeowners insurance.  One attendee expressed concern about the cost and availability of health insurance in the area and noted that Virginia does not currently participate in exchanges. 

One participant commented that uranium mining and milling comes with the promise of approximately 1,000 jobs during construction and about 300 jobs during operations.  This speaker noted that companies often bring in their employees, that miners have to be certified, and these workers are not available locally.  This speaker asked how these jobs would even conceivably be offered to the locals and went on to note that due to the fact that these workers are brought in by the industry there is frequent turnover of employment. Using the example of the West Valley site in New York, one speaker stated that the promises made in the past have seldom been fulfilled and if a full cost analysis was conducted, it might be determined that the venture in not feasible.  Another speaker noted that a regional group in Danville is trying to encourage high technology industry and jobs in the area and uranium mining and milling are not consistent with this mission.  This speaker questioned the longevity of uranium mining and milling (projected for 30 years) versus manufacturing or other industries.

One speaker encouraged the UWG to consider the example of the Panna Maria site in Karnes County, Texas as an example of “boom to bust” economy..  According to this speaker the area has a low net value for housing and their Chamber of Commerce lists them at 254^th out of 259 economic indicators.  The UWG should consider conditions before and after mining.  Another speaker recommended review of the Kuipers study on bonding of the sites in the west for any relevance to Virginia.

One participant asked about the cost of Virginia efforts to become an Agreement State and how that would be funded. He went on to ask if Virginia maintains oversight, how will the program be funded?  Will an excise tax be levied?  Are depletion taxes an option?  Will the permits fees cover costs?  Are there any examples from the west?  Are there any examples from coal mining? One speaker suggested that the Commonwealth establish an excise tax fund to cover public health issues and environmental restoration.  Another speaker noted in the past, excuses have been accepted for doing environmental restoration poorly.  It was suggested that if becoming an Agreement State is too costly, keeping the NRC in an oversight role might be better because states are easier to sue than the federal government.  Another speaker noted that money is currently being spent on studies, meetings, and reports and asked how are these being funded?

One speaker suggested that there incentives could be offered to operators to promote beneficial uses of reclaimed land and waste and to develop safer entombment methods.  Another suggested there also may be tax exempt status for machinery that could eliminate air and water concerns.

One participant questioned whether there is a need to acquire more land for the proposed operation.  Another speaker noted that there are 1,000s of acres from Coles Hill to the Bannister River. He went on to note leasing is not appropriate for surface activities and the hazardous waste regulations require the land used for those activities be owned.

Hydrology and Geology Comments, Concerns, and Questions

One participant stated that little is known about the hydrology in the area of the proposed operation.  He went on to note there was a lot of work done in the 1980s and it should be revisited.  Participants expressed that there are many gaps in the existing reports that need to be addressed for both surface water and groundwater.  One participant stated that .little is known about the deeper horizons below 200 feet.  He stressed the wells in the area were drilled as a source of water and not to learn about regional hydrology.  He stated that there is little available information on well construction and since so little is known, the water quality data is being taken out of context.  He further encouraged the UWG to integrate surface water, groundwater, and water quality in the discussion.

One speaker referred to the Gannon study which stated that the Coles Hill area is fractured and that the fractures close with depth.  Another speaker questioned whether there are resources to use remote sensing, satellite imagery, and hyper spectral imaging to enhance the understanding of the area.

Other General Comments, Concerns, and Questions

Several comments did not fall within the previous groupings and may need to be forwarded to other members of the UWG for evaluation. Other general comments, concerns, and questions included:

• If the moratorium is lifted, Virginia should create a stakeholder board or have an independent auditor to oversee the agencies regulating the uranium mining and milling industry in Virginia.
• What is the experience of Wright Environmental Services (WES) and/or VDH to propose potential solutions?  Another speaker noted that the public is paying for the UWG effort and did not participate in the selection of the contractors.  WES staff appear to be from the mining business.
• One speaker stated that the taxpayer has the burden of costs, but does not have reasonable access to decision making.  The example presented was how WES was selected to support VDH in its work for the UWG.  This speaker stated that citizens were allowed to nominate participants for the National Academy of Sciences study, while this piece of work was conducted by bid.
• There is a wealth of information from operations in the west and other locations around the world in France and Canada (boreal forest destruction).  Is the UWG looking at this information?
• One speaker commented that mining is needed for our standard of living and, while it is necessary, it has a bad reputation that is hard to overcome.
• One attendee stated that DMME staff were in the Coles Hill area.  She questioned why the residents were not notified; that she had tried to determine what they were doing in the area, but had not received a response.  DMME staff stated that there is an active permit in the area and they were there to look at the topography, to analyze geological data, and to review some proprietary data.  DMME collected ore samples and waste rock samples, which were submitted to a laboratory in Canada for 6 different analyses that included rare earth elements.  A report of the analyses will be posted on the web when it is finalized.
• One participant asked if the public can be made aware when members of the UWG are visiting the Coles Hill area.  Dr. Dempsey stated she was unaware of the dates and times members of the UWG were on site; however staff members at VDH can find that information and get back to that individual.  
• One speaker asked how the questions raised at the public meetings will be answered. VDH staff stated that summaries of all the meetings will become part of the larger UWG report, will be public and posted on the UWG website, and will be included into a report in and of itself.
• One participant asked if there is a federal need for the uranium resources should the Commonwealth keep the moratorium.  This speaker asked if the U.S. Department of Energy could condemn the property and exploit the resources.  Another participant stated that the federal government has an adequate stockpile and is selling less than they could.
• One speaker stated that nuclear energy is part of the Virginia’s energy portfolio and added that 40% of Virginia’s electrical power in generated from nuclear energy.  He added that it may be beneficial for Virginia to control its own supply.
• One participant stated that there is no need for nuclear fission and the associated problems and added that nuclear fusion is possible.
• Several participants commented on the future needs for nuclear fuel.  One participant stated that 90% of Virginia’s nuclear material is imported from countries that may not have our regulations, therefore making the fuel less expensive to mine and mill in other countries.  Another speaker stated that there are sufficient deposits around the world, while another speaker stated that with the price of ore being at $48, Australia is closing mines due to unfavorable economics.  This speaker added that it does not make sense to subsidize nuclear energy in this economic downturn.
• Will the UWG conduct a cost/benefit analysis to look at the big picture economics of cost, revenue, and waste management?
• One speaker noted that there was a report issued in 1985 by the former UWG to determine if the uranium moratorium should be lifted. The report identified 8 or 9 non-negotiable conditions that had to be implemented prior to lifting the moratorium.  This speaker asked that the current UWG review that report to see if those conditions would be implemented today.
• Another speaker referenced a VUI study on the health of coal communities including issues such as suicide, drop-out rates, teen pregnancies, etc. and questioned the existence of any similar studies conducted in uranium mining and milling communities.
• One participant raised concerns about the transparency of information.  He stated that there is mistrust of mining and radioactivity that should be discussed in the UWG report.  Further, he stated that there may be privacy and confidentiality issues around the health effects that could prevent regulators from recognizing a problem.  
• One speaker questioned who asked for the UWG to be formed given that the uranium mining and milling industry is risky, is not supported by economics, and the mining BMPs leave a mess.
• One participant expressed concern that there is a rush to lift the moratorium before all the issues have been identified and are understood.  This speaker stated that there is not enough data to support lifting the moratorium and that there is adequate nuclear stockpile at the Pantex Plant in Texas.  Further, he stated that the industry has bad history and has left a bad legacy.
• Legislators need to understand that the majority of the concerns about lifting the moratorium are about air, water, and public health.
• One attendee stated she had heard an interview with the governor that referred to “those people” which she took to mean the south side residents who are generally opposed to lifting the moratorium.  The governor referred to bringing in “these people” which the speaker took to mean the team to prepare the report.  This speaker resented the “us versus them” feeling in the interview.  Also, the governor used the term “nuclear resources” and the speaker questioned what the term means.
• One participant offered a hypothetical scenario where each resident of Virginia gets a ton of tailings dropped in their driveway to manage and pass on to their heirs.  He asked the participants to consider if the uranium mining and milling is okay, they should accept the ton of tailings and allow them to be left.  If it is not okay to manage and pass on to heirs, the moratorium should not be lifted.
• One speaker stated he was from Hampton Roads, but he appreciated the agricultural issues from the south side and western Virginia citizens and took every opportunity to convey their concerns to others.
• One speaker expressed concern that legislators and delegates took a trip to a facility in France that was paid for by VUI. She questioned if they conducted any sampling.
• In response, one participant, described his trip to Canada to a Cameco facility.  He stated that it was remote and the workers had to be flown in and out, there was no agriculture in the area, the operations used a lot of water, and the group took a mine tour and met with the regulators.
• One participant has created a video and asked if there was an opportunity to present it to the UWG and have it placed in the state library.  He was encouraged to work with his delegate.
• A participant requested that when the final report is presented that a short summary of the findings of the report be included. His suggestion was 10 pages.
• Comments about the meeting process:

·                     Meeting rooms need to have wi-fi.

·                     Environmental groups have difficulty gaining access to the process and were chastised for requesting an additional meeting.

·                     One individual asked if the video and audio recordings will be available to download from the website.  Dr. Dempsey stated that this could not be guaranteed as the process is a technical issue, based upon site capability, but that she would pass the request on.

Conclusion and Next Steps

At the conclusion of the meeting, Dr. Maureen Dempsey, Chief Deputy Commissioner for Public Health, thanked the participants for their comments and participation in the session.  Dr. Dempsey emphasized that the input and detail was important not only to answer questions of this study.  The answers will be important for the legislative process, but for the public as well.  Dr. Dempsey encouraged participants to continue to ask questions and make comments though mail or through the UWG website. Dr. Dempsey notified the attendees that there will be an additional meeting at the Agricultural Center in Chatham on September 17^th from 1-5 P.M. Dr. Dempsey stated that all audio and video recordings and summaries of the meetings will be placed on the UWG websites as soon as technically feasible.  Dr. Dempsey closed by thanking the participants for their attendance and comments. Dr. Dempsey also stated that the information gathered from the public meetings and discussion sessions in Chatham, Warrenton and Virginia Beach would be included in the overall efforts of the UWG.  She stated that the list of studies reviewed by the UWG and those referenced during the day’s discussion would also be included on the UWG website.