Editorial: Risks are too great to lift uranium moratorium
Even absent a catastrophic accident or storm, state and federal regulators can't be trusted to protect our health and environment from harm.
State leaders are under pressure to lift a 30-year moratorium on uranium mining, a vote carrying enormous consequences for generations of Virginians. In making such a momentous decision, it is crucial that Gov. Bob McDonnell and legislators carefully weigh the risks and the benefits. After studying hundreds of pages of scientific and economic analyses by advocates and opponents of mining, as well as independent experts, we are convinced the threat to public health and the environment overshadows any potential gains.
The dangers are most obvious for the closest neighbors to a uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County, but the threat is not relegated to one community. Virginia's two largest cities, Virginia Beach and Norfolk, are justifiably concerned that their water supply could be compromised if Kerr Reservoir, located downstream from the mine site, is contaminated. The Roanoke Valley's water is not similarly situated, but the region must be vigilant to possible impacts from a catastrophic accident or storm.
Officials with Virginia Uranium scoff at warnings about monster storms, but weather events that once were rare have become regular and destructive visitors to our front page and our community.
Even absent a crisis, we have no confidence that state and federal regulators would adequately protect our health and environment from harm.
Virginia has no experience regulating uranium mining, and a mediocre history with environmental protections. Agencies charged with ensuring clean air and water have rarely been a budget priority, as evidenced by the polluted Chesapeake Bay and rivers and streams throughout the state.
When regulators attempt to do their jobs, state lawmakers cannot resist the urge to interfere, virtually always taking the side of polluting industries, ranging from agriculture to coal to commercial fishing. Is there any doubt that a cash-rich mining company would shape policies to its advantage once it had its claws dug deep into Virginia soil?
Those who put their trust in federal regulators should revisit last year's report from the National Research Council, an arm of the respected National Academy of Sciences. It notes that the U.S. government has little experience with uranium mines in wet climates and oversees just one active operation of the type contemplated in Virginia.
The nation's only conventional mine is located in San Juan County, Utah, which is the size of New Jersey and has a population density of fewer than two people per square mile. Pittsylvania County's population density is 65 people per square mile.
Nevertheless, the NAS study observes, with no little irony, federal agencies have extensive experience cleaning up messes at former uranium mines, hardly a comfort to Southside Virginia residents.
Arguments in favor of accepting such risk are not compelling. One source of uranium from decommissioned Russian nuclear weapons will soon disappear, but the security threat from purchasing more ore from Australia or Canada is unclear. Further, at least a dozen uranium mines are being developed in dry-climate Western states that already have experience, albeit largely a negative experience, with similar operations.
As for Virginia, a uranium mine is not a magic solution for Southside's economic woes. Studies estimate 324 of them directly tied to the mine. Those jobs would disappear in two or three decades, sooner if the volatile uranium market dictates, leaving nothing behind but radioactive waste that would linger for centuries.
"Regulatory programs are inherently reactive," the NAS report notes. In other words, they change whenever bad things happen. Virginia does not want to be the cautionary inspiration for the next generation of environmental reforms. That's a foolhardy price to pay for a fleeting and uncertain economic stimulus.
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/317657#.UMVY5yvwis8.facebook
Uranium-mining question: How much risk is too much?
Posted: Friday, December 7, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 11:53 pm, Fri Dec 7, 2012.
A lot of people want to know if uranium can be mined safely in Virginia. The better question may be: How much risk is Virginia willing to take?
“You can mitigate some of the risk” through strong regulations, said Paul Locke, chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee that studied uranium mining in Virginia. “You can never mitigate all of the risk.”
Locke was one of four panelists who discussed uranium Thursday during AP Day at the Capitol, an annual event that focuses on Virginia issues.
Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill uranium from what it says is a 119 million-pound deposit in Pittsylvania County about 145 miles southwest of Richmond. Uranium fuels nuclear power plants.
The company wants the 2013 General Assembly to lift Virginia’s 30-year ban on uranium mining.
But Cale Jaffe, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, a conservation group, said Virginia would be taking a “high-risk gamble” if it allowed mining and milling.
“Right now it’s not a gamble Virginia should take,” Jaffe said.
Opponents fear the uranium operation could cause air and water pollution, particularly if a big storm flushed radioactive waste into streams. Virginia Uranium says it would provide hundreds of jobs for economically struggling Southside Virginia.
Del. Donald W. Merricks, R-Pittsylvania, said a mine could create a stigma for the region — the company denies that — and he said pollution could occur even if Virginia adopted tough regulations.
“I just don’t think the (state) report answers the ‘What if?’ ” Merricks said.
“We are talking about maintaining in reality a Superfund waste site forever. Forever’s a long time, and quite frankly I do not believe there are enough bonds floating around (to) provide the necessary assurances for our citizens in case of a breach.”
State Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, said Monday he will push a bill requiring Virginia to create strict uranium-mining rules. If approved, the legislation would lift the state’s mining ban.
rspringston@timesdispatch.com
(804) 649-6453
“You can mitigate some of the risk” through strong regulations, said Paul Locke, chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee that studied uranium mining in Virginia. “You can never mitigate all of the risk.”
Locke was one of four panelists who discussed uranium Thursday during AP Day at the Capitol, an annual event that focuses on Virginia issues.
Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill uranium from what it says is a 119 million-pound deposit in Pittsylvania County about 145 miles southwest of Richmond. Uranium fuels nuclear power plants.
The company wants the 2013 General Assembly to lift Virginia’s 30-year ban on uranium mining.
But Cale Jaffe, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, a conservation group, said Virginia would be taking a “high-risk gamble” if it allowed mining and milling.
“Right now it’s not a gamble Virginia should take,” Jaffe said.
Opponents fear the uranium operation could cause air and water pollution, particularly if a big storm flushed radioactive waste into streams. Virginia Uranium says it would provide hundreds of jobs for economically struggling Southside Virginia.
Del. Donald W. Merricks, R-Pittsylvania, said a mine could create a stigma for the region — the company denies that — and he said pollution could occur even if Virginia adopted tough regulations.
“I just don’t think the (state) report answers the ‘What if?’ ” Merricks said.
“We are talking about maintaining in reality a Superfund waste site forever. Forever’s a long time, and quite frankly I do not believe there are enough bonds floating around (to) provide the necessary assurances for our citizens in case of a breach.”
State Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, said Monday he will push a bill requiring Virginia to create strict uranium-mining rules. If approved, the legislation would lift the state’s mining ban.
rspringston@timesdispatch.com
(804) 649-6453
Sunday Q&A with Cale Jaffe: Uranium Mining
Posted: Sunday, December 9, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 9:04 pm, Sat Dec 8, 2012.
BY REX SPRINGSTON
Richmond Times-Dispatch
Richmond Times-Dispatch
Cale Jaffe, 40, is a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. He grew up in Northern Virginia and went to Yale University. He met his wife, Katie, while working in Washington after college. They went to the University of Virginia for graduate school and have been in Charlottesville ever since. She’s an internal medicine physician at U.Va. They have three children.
What is the Southern Environmental Law Center? How big is it?
SELC is a nonprofit conservation group that uses the power of the law to protect what is unique about the Southeast. In courts, with legislatures and before agencies, we work to enforce the laws and advance policies that determine the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the special places we all cherish. We have roughly 50 attorneys working in nine offices throughout the region, including an office in Richmond. I work in the headquarters.
What did you do before you came to the SELC?
Right before SELC, I was with McGuireWoods LLP. I still have many friends there. By working on both sides on some tough environmental issues, I’ve learned never to see the opponent as an enemy. One of my favorite quotations is from J.M. Barrie: “Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own.”
You have been active in the debate over a proposal to mine uranium in Pittsylvania County. What is your position?
Along with a broad array of groups — everyone from the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to the Virginia Farm Bureau — we believe that Virginia should maintain its longstanding ban on uranium mining.
Can uranium be mined safely in Virginia?
It’s not a question of “safe” versus “unsafe”; it’s a question of understanding the risks. The National Academy of Sciences’ report on uranium mining in Virginia — that’s the gold standard here — validated many of our core concerns. For example, they found that uranium waste “disposal sites represent significant potential sources of contamination for thousands of years, and the long-term risks remain poorly defined.”
In fairness, what does the other side say? Why do they think mining is a good thing?
The industry has pointed to a Coal and Energy Commission study, which estimated that in a best-case scenario, uranium mining could mean a $6 billion benefit for Virginia. But that same study found that in a worst-case scenario, mining could trigger an $11 billion loss. There is a business stigma — not to mention real risks — from being situated next to the East Coast’s only uranium waste disposal site.
How big an issue is uranium mining?
At stake is an alternative vision for economic development: a beautiful river, tourism, agriculture and high-tech companies drawn by the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville.
The 2013 General Assembly is expected to consider lifting a 30-year state ban on uranium mining. Do you think this next session will decide the issue once and for all?
I do think this year is shaping up as the go/no-go decision-point.
The proposed mine would be 145 miles southwest of Richmond. Why should people who don’t live in that area care about uranium mining?
Radioactive waste disposal in a hurricane-prone environment poses a significant threat to the agricultural, tourism and education-based economies in southern Virginia. But it also poses a downstream threat for Norfolk and Virginia Beach water supplies, which is why those communities have been so involved in defending the ban.
