Letter to Delegate Terry Kilgore, Chairman of the Uranium Subcommittee

Comments from Ms. Maute:

* Could this open the door for other municipalities to request a seat at the C&E table.

* What criteria will be used for nomination and appointment?

* A strategic move (at this late date) to take the focus from supervisors allowing them to remain silent on the issue of uranium mining and milling at Coles Hill.

Unfortunately, if and when we are mined here, those 4 citizens will be remembered for inadequately representing our interests.

Letter to Delegate Terry Kilgore, Chairman of the Uranium Subcommittee

February 11,2010

Delegate Terry Kilgore
Chairman of the Uranium Subcommittee
Coal & Energy Commission
General Assembly Building. Room 704
Richmond, VA 23218

Re: Advisory Board Uranium Study

Dear Delegate Kilgore:

There is no question that the mining and milling of uranium in Virginia has been a controversial subject for the past 3 years.

The subcommittee from the Coal and Energy Commission has contracted to do a study through the National Academy of Science which will certainly result will valuable information to allow the Governor's Office and the General Assembly of Virginia to evaluate whether or not uranium should be mined and milled within the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Since all of the discussion concerning the mining and milling, of uranium relates to the Coles Hill Project in Pittsylvania County, the Board of Supervisors is requesting the Governor's Office to allow a four (4) member advisory' board made up of qualified citizens of Pittsylvania County to be nominated for your review and appointment to the Uranium Mining Subcommittee

The Board is requesting the ability to make nominations so that we can ensure that the Commonwealth receives representation from both sides of the issue to represent the peoples input to this study.

The. Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County respectfully requests your consideration of this
small advisory board for citizen input for the issue of uranium mining and milling in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Your attention to this mailer is greatly appreciated,

Henry A. Davis. Jr., Chairman

Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors

Virginia Conservation Briefing Book 2010: Energy: Uranium Mining:A Statewide Concern

Comment:  No to uranium mining!

Recommendations: Uranium Mining:

 The NRC study is not likely to reassure Virginians as it will not address integral questions on socioeconomic
impacts.

 The uranium subcommittee of the Coal and Energy Commission intends to develop a separate study of socio-economic impacts such as: the impact of health threats (and the perceptions thereof) to the economy; social and economic instability associated with mining (e.g., boom-bust cycles); jobs and local income effects including their stability and duration; and revenues and liabilities over the life of potential mines and life of mine closures. Neither the commission nor the General Assembly should act to lift Virginia’s existing moratorium until both the NRC study and the proposed socio-economic study are completed and made available for public review and comment.

Statement of the Issue

There are many questions surrounding the safety and wisdom of uranium mining and processing in Virginia. As a state-commissioned study goes forward, Virginia Conservation Network maintains its opposition to lifting the current moratorium on uranium mining. The burden is on the study to prove that it can and will be done safely under the conditions found in Virginia. Similarly, the onus rests with a planned second study to demonstrate net benefits to the communities and local economies involved. A mining study in the 1980s failed to consider these Virginia-specific questions, and that failure, as noted by dissenting study committee member Elizabeth Haskell, marred the study conclusions. Ignoring this question in 2009 will only serve to replicate a past study deficiency.

Background

A moratorium on uranium mining and milling was imposed in the early 1980 and then the Virginia commission on Coal and Energy undertook an extensive study of uranium mining. The study was costly, time consuming, and divisive. The Commission made no recommendation on lifting the moratorium and the General Assembly and Governor did nothing to lift it. After the General Assembly failed to endorse a subsequent study in 2008, the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy decided to initiate a new study on uranium mining. It appointed a subcommittee to work with Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech to negotiate a contract with the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Science. The purpose of the NRC study presumably is to determine whether uranium mining, milling, in a manner that will safeguard the Commonwealth'senvironment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens. As noted by Del. Terry Kilgore, Chairman, Coal and Energy Commission: “We need to leave no stone unturned on this. If it’s not safe, we don't want to do it.”

Known Dangers of Uranium Mining

Uranium ore, waste, and tailings are a toxic mixture of numerous, hazardous materials. The two types of conventional mining, open pit and underground mining, involve milling—grinding mined ore to an even, sandy consistency, and leaching uranium from the ore using either acid or alkaline chemical solutions. Because the ratio of usable uranium to mined rock can be as low as one-half pound per ton, conventional mining creates vast amounts of waste containing low levels of radiation, heavy metals, and other pollutants. Mining waste principally consists of waste rock and the “tailings” left over after milling. Dry waste piles must be managed to prevent wind-blown spread of radioactive materials during operations.

Tailings are typically placed as a liquid/sand slurry in massive tailings ponds. These tailings ponds can leak contaminants into surface and underground waters and pose the risk of catastrophic failure. Both the waste rock and tailings present significant challenges in terms of reclamation and will likely require maintenance in perpetuity.

The process of radioactive decay necessitates the long term maintenance of former mines. Uranium isotopes are radioactive. Over time, the nuclei of radioactive elements are transformed into other elements by emitting or absorbing particles. This process, known as radioactive decay, generally results in the emission of alpha or beta particles from the nucleus. It is often also accompanied by emission of gamma radiation, which is similar to X-rays.

These three kinds of radiation are all ionizing radiation—each is energetic enough to break chemical bonds,
thereby possessing the ability to damage or destroy living cells. The most serious health hazard associated with uranium mining is lung cancer due to inhaling uranium decay products. The radioactive materials, notably radium-226, and heavy metals (e.g., manganese and molybdenum) contained in uranium mill tailings can also leach into groundwater.

Near tailings piles, water samples have shown levels of some contaminants at hundreds of times the government’s acceptable level for drinking water. Radon gas also emanates from tailings piles. Radon gas can travel a thousand miles in just a few days, with a light breeze. As it travels low to the ground (it is much heavier than air) it deposits radioactive fallout on the vegetation, soil and water below; the resulting radioactive materials enter the food chain, ending up in fruits and berries, the flesh of fish and animals, and ultimately, in the bodies of human beings.

Additional health and environmental dangers are posed by the heavy metals like selenium and other contaminants frequently associated with uranium.

Contacts:
Energy: Uranium Mining 21
Todd Benson,Fauquier Land Officer
Piedmont Environmental Council
540.347.2334. tbenson@pecva.org

Kay Slaughter
Senior Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
434.977.4090
kslaughter@selcva.org

Read more:
http://vcnva.org/anx/ass/library/45/vcn-briefingbook-2010.pdf

Coal and Energy Commission (Uranium Subcommittee Update)

Comment:  How come the public comments is not listed?

Coal and Energy Commission
December 3, 2009

The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy met in Richmond. Chairman Terry G. Kilgore welcomed the members and called the meeting to order.

Subcommittee Update

Delegate R. Lee Ware provided the full commission with an update of the activities of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee, which was created by the Coal & Energy Commission by motion on November 6, 2008.

Since that meeting just over a year ago, the subcommittee met four times to develop and finalize a scope for the study that would be used to execute the contract with the National Academy of Sciences or, more specifically, with the National Research Council (NRC), which is under the same umbrella organization as the National Academy of Sciences.

Delegate Ware reports that the public comment at each meeting was robust, extensive, and thoughtful. After receiving public comment, the scope of study was finalized and adopted by the subcommittee at the meeting on May 21, 2009. The Governing Board Executive Committee of the NRC met on November 11, 2009, to review the scope and determine whether the study would be accepted. As a result of that meeting, the NRC has asked for clarification on several issues.

First, it is critical that NRC maintain its independence in carrying out the study. The request to perform the study emanates from the Coal and Energy Commission—which would be considered the study sponsor, notwithstanding that funding for the study might be provided by a for-profit entity, and that the signatory for the study would be the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech, acting as an agent for the Commonwealth.

Second, the NRC is committed to providing a completely objective, high-quality scientific assessment of the issues. To that end, any funding must be guaranteed as fully available throughout the course of the contract term and there should be no contingencies save the production of deliverables under the contract. The NRC committee undertaking the study would seek information from all interested parties, but would operate with complete independence from Virginia Uranium and from the study’s sponsor, the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Finally, the NRC would like to amend or delete the last item in the scope of study. The amendment would limit that item to a nontechnical summary of the report for public education and outreach purposes. It should also be noted by the Commission that, while the study would provide independent, expert advice to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining, the study would not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted, nor would the study include site-specific assessments. If the NRC were to accept the modifications and enter into the contract to perform the study, Delegate Ware anticipated that the next step of the subcommittee would be to hold public hearings to determine the scope of the socio-economic study and the entity best suited to perform that study.

Members of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee unanimously voted to accept the scope as recommended by the NRC. Delegate Ware hopes that the socio-economic study could take place contemporaneously with the study by the NRC. The Commission thought that staff might prepare an informal query to determine which institutions might be interested in performing the socio-economic study.

Public Comment

The Commission received public comment expressing concern about the treatment of communities living around mining operations and dust exposure, particularly at the hands of Canadian mining corporations.

Chairman:
The Hon. Terry Kilgore

For information, contact:
Ellen Porter, DLS Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division of Legislative Services; Legislative Record  2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more:
http://dls.state.va.us/pubs/legisrec/2009/CEC2.htm

State study? State money (Uranium Mining in Virginia)

Comment: Demand Virginia to ban uranium mining now!

By Katie Whitehead
Published: September 20, 2009

The Virginia General Assembly’s failure to secure state and other non-industry funding is jeopardizing the credibility — and perhaps the execution — of its proposed uranium mining studies. A study paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc. does nothing to avoid the appearance of influence.

After a uranium mining study bill failed in the General Assembly last year, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, chaired by Del. Terry Kilgore, voted in November to initiate its own uranium studies. The commission enlisted the assistance of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, headed by Dr. Michael Karmis, a mining engineer. Kilgore appointed a Uranium Mining Subcommittee with Del. Lee Ware as chairman.

The subcommittee should question not just whether uranium mining and milling might be done safely, but also whether introducing this stigmatized industry into our communities is a good idea. Even if uranium can be mined safely under certain conditions, it still might not be an industry we want in Virginia.

In spring meetings, the subcommittee focused on defining a technical study that it wants the National Research Council of The National Academies to undertake. (The National Research Council is the staffing organization for the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.)

The subcommittee postponed discussion of a separate socioeconomic study, arguably the more important of the two studies. Kilgore recently wrote to NRC to request the technical study.

As proposed, the technical study will attempt to address the safety question by gathering available evidence regarding whether uranium mining, milling and tailings storage are being done safely elsewhere under conditions comparable to those in Virginia. The socioeconomic study has yet to be defined, funded or negotiated with any research organization. It should address the desirability question by providing real-life evidence about how introducing the uranium industry affects the long-term health, economic well-being and quality of life in communities. Currently, the commission’s failure to secure state and other non-industry funding is jeopardizing both studies.

In the absence of other funding, VUI has offered to pay the entire cost of the technical study (estimated $1.2 million to $1.4 million). The funds would be contributed to the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, which would then pass them on to NRC. This indirectness may conform to the written policy of NRC and reduce the appearance of influence to some eyes, but it does nothing to change the fact that an interested party — a private, for-profit corporation with something to gain from the results of the study — is paying NRC for it. It’s not a pretty picture.

Many people have assumed that NRC will definitely do the technical study. NRC has expressed interest in the study and, according to its policy, may accept the proposed funding. Will NRC in fact accept?

The group that will decide is the National Research Council Governing Board, which is responsible for safeguarding the unique reputation of NRC for independent, unbiased scientific research. The members of the governing board will have to determine whether accepting 100 percent of the funding — however indirectly — from a uranium mining company is consistent with that responsibility. We don’t know how they will weigh the fact that no one other than a uranium company has demonstrated support for the study by offering funding.

No one knows how the governing board will ultimately respond to Kilgore’s request. They’ve not officially discussed it, much less made a decision.

One might argue that the National Research Council is beyond reproach and that one needn’t care who pays NRC to do a study — that one can be sure NRC will be objective and independent regardless. NRC has a hard-earned reputation for thoughtful, thorough, independent, unbiased research. This reputation depends not only on avoiding actual influence by parties that might profit from NRC study results, but also on avoiding even the appearance of such influence.

If an unbiased assessment of the safety and the desirability of uranium mining is of value to the commonwealth, then the commonwealth should be willing to pay for it, at least in significant part. The commission should request funding from the legislature to pay the majority — if not all — of the cost of both the technical study and the socioeconomic study. Securing public financial support would confirm that Virginians want this research, ensure that both studies go forward and increase confidence that the studies will fairly evaluate all available evidence.

* Whitehead lives in Pittsylvania County and chairs the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force. Contact her at mkwhitehead@yahoo.com.

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/community_voices/article/state_study_state_money/13996/

Va. firm seeking to mine uranium to pay for study

By: SUE LINDSEY
Associated Press
09/04/09 4:55 PM EDT

ROANOKE, VA. — The company that wants to mine a vast uranium deposit in Southside Virginia will pay for a study to determine whether the ore can be extracted without harming humans and the environment, a state legislator said Friday.

Del. Terry Kilgore said he has written a letter asking the National Academy of Sciences to proceed with a study on whether the 119 million pounds of uranium on 3,000 acres in Pittsylvania County can be mined safely.

Virginia Uranium Inc. had offered to pay for the study, which Kilgore estimated will cost up to $1.3 million.

He said the state, which is dealing with a $1.5 billion budget deficit, can't finance the study and no one else has come forward.

A subcommittee of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission that Kilgore heads decided earlier this year that the national academy should be the organization that studies whether uranium can safely be mined and milled in Virginia.

Some mining opponents were skeptical of a study financed by the company that wants to mine uranium.

"I don't know how anybody could expect that it's going to be really unbiased," said Eloise Nenon, who lives near the site and belongs to a citizens group opposed to the mining. "It'll lack credibility."

William Colglazier, executive officer of the national academy, said its studies are based on science, not political considerations. The academy is a private, nonprofit agency that advises government officials on scientific matters. Group members who conduct studies are chosen for their expertise and work without compensation, Colglazier said.

"We have no stake in the outcome," he said.

Virginia's study request will probably go before the academy's governing board for approval in October.

"This looks like an important issue," Colglazier said. "It looks like a reasonable request."

Kilgore, a Republican from southwest Virginia's coal-mining region, believes the study will be fair and will answer the safety questions. It could take up to two years to complete, he said.

"It's going to take a while, and that's a good thing," he said. "We want to make sure it's done right."

The study is a first step by Virginia Uranium toward persuading the General Assembly to lift a ban on uranium mining in the state that has been in place since 1982.

"We're certainly gratified that it looks like things are moving forward," company spokesman Patrick Wales said.

The Pittsylvania County deposit is believed to be the largest in the nation.

Find this article at:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/ap/57285647.html

Uranium Study--status of coal and energy commission study

Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Uranium Study--status of coal and energy commission study

The board of the National Academy of Sciences is to formalize the terms of contract with Virginia Tech so that funds to conduct the study can be collected and disbursed to NAS staff. We expect all of this to be done quite soon. Thereafter, the study will be proceeding on the roughly 18-months timetable, and the Uranium Study subcommittee will convene meetings periodically to ensure continued dialogue and availability of any information the NAS staff wishes to disseminate. All good wishes,

Cordially, Lee Ware

R. Lee Ware
Member, Virginia House of Delegates (65th District)
P.O. Box 689
Powhatan, VA 23139

DISTRICT OFFICE:
P.O. Box 689
Powhatan,.Virginia 23139
Telephone: (804) 598-6696
Email: dellware@house.state.va.us

Attorney general opinion casts doubt on local uranium ban

Comment: People of Virginia, demand your local leaders to ban uranium mining and milling in Virginia!! Remember, It's "We the People, Not We the Corporations!!!"

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:36 AM EDT

Pittsylvania County does not have the authority to ban uranium mining, according to a recent opinion by the Virginia attorney general's office.

Late last month, County Administrator Dan Sleeper, acting on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, asked Sen. Robert Hurt to request an attorney general's opinion on whether the county could pass an ordinance banning uranium mining.

Hurt contacted the attorney general's office, which referred to a formal opinion issued on Nov. 14, 2008, that says localities cannot enact any law that "nullifies or pre-empts state or federal law."

To do so without express permission from the General Assembly would be unconstitutional, the opinion states.

The same opinion cast a shadow over so-called "chemical trespass" ordinances, which some localities, including Chatham, were considering for protection against uranium mining.

The idea for a ban on uranium mining was suggested by Karen Maute of Danville, a well-known zoning and environmental advocate.

Other residents opposed to uranium mining also have called for an outright ban.

Supervisors' Legislative Committee met in March to explore tightening the county's zoning ordinance, but tabled a possible ban.

"I think we need to address the issue and look at it closely and not make any hasty decisions one way or the other," said the committee's chairman, Staunton River District Supervisor Marshall Ecker.

The committee also includes Banister District Supervisor William Pritchett and Chatham-Blairs District Supervisor Henry "Hank" Davis Jr.

Davis recently pushed for a stronger resolution from supervisors on uranium mining.

The resolution, adopted unanimously in February, recommends that a state study determine uranium mining will cause "no damage or harm" to the county.

It was sent to the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee, which is conducting a comprehensive study on the dangers and benefits of uranium mining.

The Coles Hill uranium deposit about six miles northeast of Chatham is one of the largest deposits in the United States.

Even if the Coal and Energy Commission determines uranium mining can be done safely, the General Assembly would have to lift the state's moratorium, which has been in place since 1982.

The board's chairman, Westover District Supervisor Coy Harville, said it's a state issue.

"Right now all we can do is listen," he said. "The state has a moratorium and I respect that. They have more authority than we do."

According to the attorney general's opinion, "a Virginia locality may not enact an ordinance that diminishes, alters, or eliminates legal rights, particularly where the state or federal government may be said to 'occupy the field," unless given specific authority to do so by the General Assembly or the Congress of the United States."

The four-page opinion was issued at the request of Del. Riley E. Ingram of Hopewell.

The attorney general said county and municipal ordinances must be consistent with the laws of the commonwealth.

"Thus, if an entity operates in compliance with state law, a Virginia locality cannot impose a criminal liability on that entity," said the attorney general.

"Likewise, a locality may not prohibit or limit the authority of state or federal agencies to carry out their duties as prescribed by law."

Supervisors could still ban uranium mining, but a ban would likely be overturned in court.

Even if the General Assembly eventually lifts Virginia's moratorium, state and federal laws would govern uranium mining and processing.

Supervisors also would have to rezone the Coles Hill property and Virginia Uranium Inc., which is hoping to mine the deposit, would have to obtain a special-use permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Hurt said it appears the attorney general's opinion addresses the county's question on a possible ban on uranium mining.

However, in a June 3 letter to Sleeper, the senator said, "In the event that you do not believe this opinion fully answers your request , I will be happy to follow up with the attorney general's office."

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
(434) 432-2791

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/10/chatham/news/news51.txt

Uranium Study Confirmed as Statewide

Comment: Well, well, The uranium study will consider the whole state of Virginia, just not SouthSide!!!! People of Virginia, wake up and demand an ordinance to ban uranium mining and milling in our home state of Virginia!!!

By Linda Goin on June 4th, 2009

On 21 May 2009, The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee met to adopt a Statement of Task that was designed to set formal terms for a review of uranium mining. Although it has been reported that this Statement of Task was to focus on the Coles Hill uranium vein located near Chatham, it appears that the study now is statewide.

The statewide scope has been confirmed by Delegate Watkins Abbitt in a phone interview conducted Monday morning, 1 June 2009 and in a phone interview conducted this morning with Patrick Wales, geologist and project manager at Virginia Uranium, Inc .

The uranium subcommittee approved the study document in an 8-2 vote with Delegate Abbitt, I-59th District, and Delegate William Janis, R-56th District, opposing. Abbitt opposed the document, despite the fact that the subcommittee adopted his motion to review public health and safety impacts of uranium mining operations similar to what is being proposed in Pittsylvania County. However, the subcommittee rejected Abbitt’s motion to study methods for storing uranium tailings, designed to keep mining wastes from leaking into nearby water sources. (Read more about the Statement of Task)

“I was told that the Federal Government prohibits above-ground waste ponds,” Abbitt stated in the interview. Abbitt’s concern is over open waste ponds that would be subject to adverse weather, such as flooding rains, hurricanes and other natural disasters. “If those ponds were to leak, we don’t have a plan in place to treat the leakage.”

Abbitt also stated that the mining operation did not have a development plan. “How can we deal with a company that doesn’t have a plan?” Abbitt asked. In the conversation with Wales, however, it seems that the waste ponds and the mining plan are two issues that anti- and pro-uranium mining advocates could dance around for as long as the statewide study lasts. It appears that both the waste pond issue and the mining plans are on hold until the study is completed, according to Wales.

However, Wales did expand on the waste pond development issue. In our research, we did not find any federal regulations against open-air waste ponds except in cases of closed mining operations. Wales confirmed the open waste ponds in active mining in our conversation. In fact, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) states, “…because U.S. laws do not classify mine overburden as a radioactive waste, its placement in radioactive waste disposal facilities is not required.” (See title=”Uranium Mining Wastes” Uranium Mining Wastes)

Mining is just one part of the operation proposed at Coles Hill. The other part is milling, or extracting the yellowcake from the mined ore. In the process of milling, the ore is crushed into smaller particles before leaching the uranium from the ore. Sulfuric acid often is the leaching agent, but alkaline solutions also are used. This leaching process can extract up to 95 percent of the uranium from the ore, and it also leaches out heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, vanadium and other metals such as selenium and molybdenum.

The waste produced by this milling process is stored in pits known as “waste ponds,” “tailing ponds” or “retention ponds.” From Wales’ description of the ponds, it appears they won’t be very different from those waste ponds developed in Uravan, Colorado. However, Wales stated, this plan for milling waste will be dictated by regulations that have yet to be written for Virginia.

Wales stated that the waste created by mining and milling at Coles Hill would be covered “every day” with water. Basically, the sludge created by mining and milling would be dampened, creating a liquid substance, known either by “slurry” or “sludge”, that would be “piped under a head of water” that would keep that sludge from becoming dry. Wetness is a necessary factor, as mined uranium dust and gasses are known to create health hazards.

When uranium is mined and milled, it is exposed to air. This exposure accelerates natural radioactive decay, and can produce radon gas. Because radon and its decay products (daughters) are radioactive and because the tailings are now on the surface, measures are taken to minimize the emission of radon gas. During the operational life of a mine the material in the tailings dam often is kept covered by water to reduce surface radioactivity and radon emission.

Wales also stated that they do not have a detailed plan for the mining and milling process, as they would need to conform to any regulations devised by the study, by the state or by federal entities regarding mining and milling uranium in Virginia. Since uranium mining has not been conducted in Virginia, Wales stated that they would follow “best industry practices” if the statewide moratorium against uranium mining is lifted.

Wales stated, “We will use whatever technique is required or safest to use in our situation.”

But, until the study is complete, no one will know whether uranium mining in Virginia is feasible, nor will anyone know what those safe practices might entail. Since the moratorium against uranium mining is statewide, it seems to make some sense that the study concerning the safe practices of mining in Virginia would be statewide as well. The study, which will be conducted by the U.S. National Research Council (NAS), is expected to cost $1.5 million and last about 18 months and it will cover mining’s effects on people’s health and ecosystems, identify pollution issues and review current mining regulations.

http://www.appomattoxnews.com/2009/uranium-study-confirmed-as-statewide.html/comment-page-1#comment-1778

Wake up and fight, folks

Comment: The study is a joke, something call VA Coal Commission are miners, they take the Mountain Tops off our lovely mountains to get the coal, so they will mine Southside and all of Virginia!! The Canadian uranium companies will take back about 60-80 per cent of their money back to Canada, the local uranium people will send their money off-Shore like the banks!!! Southside will be the Sacrifice area for the Nuke People to sell the uranium to China!! Demand the local leaders to ban uranium mining now!!!!!! Great Letter!!

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:07 AM EDT

I am so frustrated by our populace's belief in the uranium "study." Study of what?

How much money the investors of a Canadian company will make?

How much money Walter Coles and friends will make?

How much money everyone other than these people will lose by being subjected to the loss of their livelihoods and lives by having one of the most hazardous and toxic businesses in the world located in their backyards?

Please wake up and fight, folks.

We need every voice.

Linda Worsley
Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/03/chatham/opinion/opinion03.txt

Uranium study set

Comment: Two articles about the illegal uranium study, remember, this study includes all of Virginia, so all the people of Virginia needs to get local leaders to have an ordinance to ban uranium mining & milling or YOU R NEXT!!!

Uranium study set

The News & Record / May 25, 2009

More than a year after first being proposed, a scientific study of uranium mining in Virginia will soon get under way.

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee on Thursday adopted a 11-point “Statement of Task” that set formal terms for a review of the environmental, economic and safety impacts of the proposed Coles Hill uranium mine near Chatham. The study, to be conducted by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, is expected to take two years.

The subcommittee vote broke a political logjam that had held up movement on a study, the first step in possibly overturning Virginia’s 25-year moratorium on uranium mining. After a study bill died in the General Assembly last year, legislators asked the Coal and Energy Commission to take over the task of setting the parameters for a review. Left unanswered after Thursday’s vote is who will pay for the study, expected to cost in excess of $1 million.

Advocates say the Coles Hill project will pump billions of dollars into the Southside economy and create hundreds of new jobs, but opponents warn that uranium mining will have devastating environmental and health impacts in the region and across Virginia.

About 100 people, mostly mining opponents, attended the subcommittee meeting in Richmond to express their concerns to legislators who make up the subcommittee. After listening to their input, the panel reordered the list of tasks to be presented to the National Research Council, asking that the group make public safety and health impacts the top priority of its study.

Previously, the lead topic on the subcommittee’s 11-point priority list was an analysis of global and national uranium market trends. But speakers implored members to make their first order of business determining whether mining can be done safely, without harm to Pittsylvania County and other parts of the Commonwealth.

“Your decisions will affect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the citizens of Virginia forever,” said Marshall Ecker, a Pittsylvania County supervisor who spoke at the meeting.

The subcommittee made a number of other changes defining the scope of the study, including adoption of a motion by Del. Watkins Abbitt (R-Appomattox) to review the public health and safety impacts of uranium mining operations similar to what is being proposed in Pittsylvania County.

However, the subcommittee rejected an Abbitt motion to study methods for storing uranium tailings, designed to keep mining wastes from leaking into nearby water sources.

Abbitt and Del. William Janis dissented in the 8-2 vote adopting the framework for the study. Janis opposed the motion after missing most of the debate due to a scheduling conflict. Abbitt said he could not vote for the study after his motion to analyze methods for tailings storage failed.

Reaction to the subcommittee’s decision was mixed. Patrick Wales, chief geologist for Virginia Uranium, Inc., which is seeking to mine the Coles Hill site, told subcommittee members Thursday that VUI is committed to mining uranium only if can be shown that it can be done safely.

In a follow-up interview with the Danville Register & Bee, Wales said VUI was “very gratified” after Thursday’s vote. “An independent study of uranium mining and milling has been the one thing we’ve been proposing since the inception of our company,” Wales told the newspaper.

Katie Whitehead, chair of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, issued a follow-up statement saying that “(t)he best news of the day was unanimous approval of Del. Abbitt’s amendment” to study uranium deposits elsewhere in the world similar to the Pittsylvania County site.

Whitehead also said it was “noteworthy” that “subcommittee members expressed concern about potential government ownership and financial liability after closure of a mining operation or in the event of a business failure,” although members did not include that concern in the written list of study topics.

An outspoken opponent of uranium mining, Karen Maute of Chatham, said she skipped the subcommittee meeting because “everything I’ve read ... says this just brings us a step closer to mining, and I believe that.

“I think it’s being used as a way to legitimize uranium mining in Virginia,” said Maute. “It’s stupid to even consider mining uranium in Virginia ... The facts are out there that this is not going to beneficial — it’s not been beneficial anywhere it’s been done,” she said.

http://www.thenewsrecord.com/index.php/news/article/uranium_study_set/

Virginia OKs uranium mining study

A proposal to mine uranium in south-central Virginia advanced this week when a key state body approved a study of the matter. The targeted site is in Virginia’s Pittsylvania County just north of the city of Danville and close to the border with North Carolina’s Rockingham and Caswell counties.

A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy OK’d the study yesterday after deciding on exactly what issues should be examined, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports:
Some opponents asked the panel to vote against the study, hoping that would kill the mining proposal.

But state Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, a member of the subcommittee, said approval of the study did not mean approval of mining in Pittsylvania.

“That decision is a long way down the road,” Watkins said.
The panel will look at mining’s effects on people’s health and ecosystems, identify pollution issues and review current mining regulations. But it denied a request by Del. Watkins M. Abbitt Jr. (I-Appomattox) to consider how water pollution specifically might be prevented. The subcommittee’s chair, Del. Lee R. Ware Jr. (R-Powhatan) argued that the study already included that issue.

The study, which will be conducted by the U.S. National Research Council, is expected to cost $1.5 million and last about 18 months. It remains unclear how the work will be funded, according to the paper.

As Facing South reported previously, Virginia has banned uranium mining for the past 25 years. Virginia Uranium—a privately-held company formed several years ago by the owners of the land where the uranium was found—has been pressing to get the ban lifted. To that end, Virginia Uranium contributed almost $30,000 to state lawmakers last year alone.

The Pittsylvania County site is believed to hold the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the United States and the seventh-largest in the world. It holds an estimated 60,000 tons—enough uranium to power all the commercial nuclear plants in the country for about two years. The company estimates its value at about $10 billion.

While the company has maintained that the uranium could be mined safety, uranium mining has a history of causing serious environmental health problems, having been linked to chromosome abnormalities, birth defects and cancer in communities from Texas to Germany.

Uranium mining also poses a serious threat to drinking water. In 1979, for example, a dam holding uranium mining waste at a New Mexico facility owned by the Virginia-based United Nuclear Corp. burst, sending more than 1,100 tons of toxic discards and 90 million gallons of contaminated water into the Rio Puerco. Once an important drinking water source for nearby Navajo communities, the river remains dangerously contaminated today.
Officials in Virginia Beach are among those opposing the uranium mining plans. They have noted that a tropical storm or hurricane could breach the mine’s waste impoundment and pollute downstream water bodies including Lake Gaston, the city’s drinking-water source.

(This story originally appeared at Facing South) http://www.grist.org/article/virginia-oks-uranium-mining-study/

Uranium safety priority leaves doubts

Comment: The Uranium Mining Sub is an illegal group which will approve uranium mining because they do not care about the people of Virginia!!! The illegal study is a joke!! People of Virginia are you still saying wait for the study, they will make the right decision, they would not wait 60 days just to hear our worries, they acted like the people of Virginia are not smart enought to evan make uranium mining suggestions, they are the all knowing!!! We the People need to demand our Local Leaders to write a ordinance to ban uranium mining & milling now!!! Tell to take Dillion's Rules and put it where the sun does not sign!!!! SOUTHSIDE VIRGINIA DEMAND HOME RULE NOW AND BAN URANIUM MINING!!!!!!

By John Crane

Published: May 22, 2009

The Uranium Mining Subcommittee’s approval Thursday of the final draft of a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in Virginia drew a variety of reactions from local opponents and a supporter.

“We’re very gratified,” Patrick Wales, geologist and spokesman for Virginia Uranium Inc., said Friday. “An independent study of uranium mining and milling has been the one thing we’ve been proposing since the inception of our company.”

VUI seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining.

Among changes the subcommittee brought to the final draft of the 11-item statement of task was to move the public health and safety aspect of the study from the No. 7 spot to No. 1. The previous first priority of the study was a review of global and national uranium market trends. The subcommittee also added language that calls for analysis of mining impacts on public health and safety in areas with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic characteristics and population density to Pittsylvania County.

A request that study language include methods for tailings management to prevent or mitigate leakage was nixed. However, Delegate Lee Ware, the subcommittee’s chairman, said after the meeting that Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, has assured him that tailings will be included in the study. Karmis will take the approved final draft to the National Research Council and the study will begin, Ware said. The study will take about two years.

Wales said that public health and safety has “always been our No. 1 priority.” Wales, who attended the meeting, told the subcommittee he hopes “it will follow scientific evidence where it leads us.” VUI also hopes the study’s results will include recommendations on how mining and milling can be done safely in a manner that protects public health and the environment, Wales told the subcommittee. (Uranium Mining has never been done safely in the whole world!!!)

“This is our home, our community,” Wales said Friday. (and Wales wants to take all the greedy money and leave for the islands, he does not live in the county)

But not everyone was pleased with Thursday’s vote. Mining opponent Karen Maute, who did not attend Thursday’s meeting, said Friday she wasn’t surprised by the decision and that elevating public health and safety to the top of the list makes no difference.

“You’ve got seven rocks in your pocket and you take one out first, it’s still a rock,” Maute said.

Also, there’s no guarantee that the study will provide a clear answer to the question of mining’s safety, Maute said. She questions the credibility of a study that arose from a circumvention of the legislative process. A proposal for a study in the General Assembly, Senate Bill 525, was killed in a House of Delegates subcommittee in early 2008. But the following November, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission approved the study and tasked the Uranium Mining Subcommittee with overseeing it.

“The whole thing is bogus,” she said.

Although public health and safety now head the list, it’s not enough, said Eloise Nenon, a board member of Southside Concerned Citizens, which opposes uranium mining.

“I’m still concerned that they are ignoring the people,” Nenon said.

Health is an important part, Nenon said, but the study still needs to examine the economic impacts of mining and milling on the community, its effects on agriculture and the people who have lived and farmed here for several generations. In addition, taxpayers will be left with the bill to clean up the site, she said.

Nenon said she was disappointed that the subcommittee didn’t wait 60 days to allow more public comment before making a decision on the study. Delegate Danny Marshall, R-Danville, had asked the subcommittee to post Thursday’s citizen input on its Web site and wait 60 days before deciding whether to approve the study.

“There needs to be more time to allow for more public input,” she said.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_safety_priority_leaves_doubts/11213/

Virginia panel OKs uranium mining study

Comment: Demand our local Pittsylvania County leaders to write an ordinance to Ban Uranium Mining & Milling today or we will be mined!!!!

By MICHAEL FELBERBAUM
Associated Press Writer

Posted: Today at 5:58 p.m.

RICHMOND, Va. — A Virginia coal and energy panel on Thursday approved the framework of a scientific study on proposed uranium mining in the state, saying they want to make safety their top priority.

A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy amended a list of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences on what to include in the study. It would range from market trends to technical practices to health risks, but would not take a position for or against the mining.

Members heard a series of public comments at the more than two-hour meeting before amending the study's scope. Among the major revisions: putting assessment of health risks to workers and the public at the top of the list.

Environmentalists and residents who live close to the site near the Virginia-North Carolina state line worry about hazards to human health and the environment from mining the radioactive material.

"I think that what we heard here was a real strong desire to make it clear that safety is our top priority in this," said Del. Kristen Amundson of Fairfax, a member of the panel charged with commissioning an independent study.

Before uranium could be mined in Virginia, the General Assembly would have to lift a ban that has been in place since 1982. The proposed independent study could take 1 1/2 years, then the General Assembly would decide whether to approve the mining. The legislature last year refused to even study the idea.

The study, a first step to lifting that ban, had been requested by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine a 119 million-pound Pittsylvania County deposit beneath 3,000 acres near the North Carolina border in Southside Virginia. It is believed to be the largest deposit in the nation, with a value estimated anywhere from $7 billion to $10 billion.

The study, designed to cover all aspects of the impact on uranium mining in Virginia, also will examine ecosystem issues, problems related to air and water pollution, and state and federal regulatory issues.

"I think this study will help me as an individual to arrive at what I think might be the right decision," said Sen. Phillip Puckett of Russell County. "All on this subcommittee want to do the right thing here. I'm telling you personally I don't think I have the knowledge and information I need to make that decision today."

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/5193290/

Get the facts: Uranium mining in Virginia

Comment: Well, it is nice the rest of Virginia are paying attention to Uranium Mining, since I live the sacrifice zone, Pittsylvania County, Va (SouthSide)!! We need to demand the State of Virginia to ban Uranium Mining & Milling! Some History of past Uranium research!

By SurfSongUSA

On Thursday, May 21 at 3:30 p.m., the Uranium Subcommittee of the legislature will meet in Richmond to continue discussions about the future of uranium mining in the state. The meeting will be held at the Virginia State Capitol, House Room D.

Background: In the 1980s, uranium leases were filed on thousands of acres of land in Virginia including Fauquier, Orange, Culpeper, and Madison Counties, stretching along the Piedmont to Pittsylvania in Southside Virginia. At that time, the Commonwealth undertook an extensive study of uranium mining. It was costly, time consuming, and divisive.

When it was over, the General Assembly and Governor decided it was in the best interests of the people to maintain a moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia.

A new corporation, Virginia Uranium, Inc., is seeking to lift the moratorium. During the 2008 Virginia General Assembly session, legislation (SB 525) was introduced on behalf of Virginia Uranium, Inc. to create a study on the safety of uranium mining in Virginia. The bill included a stipulation requiring a determination of mining and it was table.

Although the primary focus on the uranium debate has been on the Coles Hill site in Pittsylvania County, most of Virginia’s population would be impacted by uranium mining, especially areas downstream or downwind of mining sites.

Learn more: Those interested may attend the open meeting, or can visit the Piedmont Environmental Council’s web site at: www.pecva.org

The web site includes maps of where the mining sites are being proposed, and the waterways situated close by.

http://7bends.com/2009/05/06/get-the-facts-uranium-mining-in-virginia/comment-page-1/#comment-11

What's on the agenda for the Uranium Mining Subcommittee's May 21 meeting?

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 9:27 AM EDT

The Uranium Mining Subcommittee will meet in Richmond on May 21.

At the subcommittee's March 24 meeting, Dr. Michael Karmis of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research recommended that the uranium study be separated into two studies: a "technical" study and a social-economic study. The subcommittee agreed to first consider the technical study.

The subcommittee approved the first draft of the technical study scope as working document only. Dr. Michael Karmis wrote the first draft. He asked the subcommittee to let him get initial feedback from the National Academy before the subcommittee discussed any changes to his draft.

Discussion was cut short with the understanding that the real debate would come when a second draft - the draft from the National Academy - is available.

The subcommittee and Virginia citizens now have a chance to see this latest - not necessarily final - draft. The document will be available any day now for public review on the Coal and Energy Commission Web site: http://dls.state.va.us/cec.htm

This is the National Academy's first comment on studying the implications for the commonwealth of allowing uranium mining in Virginia.

The National Academy has tried to describe a study that the academy can do and that is what the Uranium Mining Subcommittee wants.

Dr. Karmis has represented the subcommittee in discussion with the National Academy. He has communicated what he thinks the subcommittee and Virginia citizens want studied.

The subcommittee can request changes to the academy draft. The academy process allows for multiple drafts in a back-and-forth process.

Only when there is mutual agreement does the academy develop a study budget. If the subcommittee then commits the funds, a contract can be signed.

The May 21 agenda does not mention the socio-economic study.

The subcommittee has not yet discussed the socio-economic study or who will pay for either study.

Katie Whitehead, chairman

Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force

Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/05/06/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt#top