Uranium Mining and the Governors Race (in Virginia)

Votes and half-truths
The News & Record / October 22, 2009
Dear Viewpoint:

The Richmond Times-Dispatch published a letter last month entitled “Mined Uranium Is Harmless Mineral” written by William Schmidt, a long-time power company employee. We at SCC have found that Schmidt’s half truths and distortions are typical of many paid nuclear power proponents. Schmidt spoke about weeks of exposure, a U.N. study showing no increased risk of lung cancer in uranium miners, and alpha radiation being harmless. Here is what he didn’t tell us:

Alpha radiation lasts forever (millions of years) and it accumulates in the body.

“Uranium in groundwater leads to health hazards.”

“Normal functioning of kidney, brain, liver, heart and other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because, in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal. Uranium is also a reproductive toxicant.”

“...absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate and stay for many years in bone tissue...”

“Alpha radiation is not dangerous to life unless it is inhaled or ingested - it is the most destructive form of ionizing radiation - and can cause any or all of the symptoms of radiation poisoning.”

“It is estimated that chromosome damage from alpha particles is 100 times greater than that caused by equivalent amounts of other radiation.”

“Not only do alphas themselves cause damage, but approximately equal ionization is caused by the recoiling nucleus after alpha emission, and this energy may in turn be especially damaging to genetic material.”

“Miners who worked in uranium filled mines have a very high incidence of cancer relative to the rest of the United States population. Through the Navajo workers and families noticed this in the 1950s, bureaucrats dragged their feet and companies ignored their warnings.”

SO MUCH FOR MINED URANIUM BEING A HARMLESS MINERAL!

(Quotes are from Wickipedia’s research of available worldwide information. Also note that our govt. won’t release much health information related to uranium for liability reasons.)

Let me repeat the above revelation concerning alpha radiation: Alpha radiation is dangerous to life when it is inhaled or ingested!

Well, Duh! Guess what Uranium mining does? It blasts and crushes solid bedrock into a fine powdery state, which creates the following problems:

1. How can the dust be confined to the site during the 40 year mining period?

2. How can a mountain of toxic, radioactive, powdery waste 200 ft. by 400 ft. wide and 14.2 miles long be kept out of our streams?

3. How can millions of cubic feet of deadly radon gas be confined to the site?

The answer to each of these questions is the same: it cannot be done.

It is also important to remember that aside from being radio-active in all its configurations, uranium is a toxic heavy metal which has proven to poison and genetically alter humans and animals.

Imagine the devastation to the farming community. Who would buy crops from tainted fields? Who would buy meat products raised on tainted fields or tainted waters? Imagine the blow to tourism.

Now guess who would be the first candidate for a high level (and low) uranium waste repository (dump)?

ABOUT THE ELECTION

Our Governor has the power to veto any legislation passed by the General Assembly; and that makes this year’s election so very important. Creigh Deeds is a past member of SCC who has studied the uranium mining issue in depth and has vowed to oppose any uranium mining legislation that threatens the health, safety and welfare of the people.

Sincerely,
Jack Dunavant, P.E., Chairman
Southside Concerned Citizens, Inc.


Read whole letter click below:
http://www.thenewsrecord.com/index.php/opinion/article/votes_and_half-truths

SENATE OF VIRGINIA: Renewable Energy Subcommittee, of the Energy and Environment Commission

SENATE OF VIRGINIA
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
RICHMOND

September 25, 2009

NOTICE OF MEETING

TO: Members, Renewable Energy Subcommittee, of the Energy and Environment Commission
FROM: Angi Murphy, Senate Committee Operations
RE: Meeting Date/Time/Location

A meeting of the Renewable Energy Subcommittee of the Commission on Energy and

Environment has been scheduled for Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in the

Pittsylvania County Public Library (Gretna Branch) at 207 Coffey Street, Gretna VA 24557.


Members:

The Honorable Charles D. Poindexter, Chair
The Honorable Joseph P. Johnson, Jr.
Patrick G. Hatcher
Hugh E. Montgomery
August Wallmeyer
Arlen Bolstad
David K. Paylor
Stephen A. Walz

Enclosure (s):

cc: The Honorable Susan Clarke Schaar
The Honorable Bruce F. Jamerson
Ellen Porter, Division of Legislative Services
Patrick Cushing, Division of Legislative Services
Mail List for Virginia Commission on Energy and Environment

http://dela.state.va.us/Dela/ComOpsStudy.nsf/82965f555b18a72185256c330058a983/11D8A24A68C83B088525763C006011F1?OpenDocument

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/

Massive Uranium mine planned in Chatham, VA

Comment: Just found on the net, interesting! Thanks goodness, other cities in Virginia knows about uranium mining! Uranium mining will be all over Virginia, not just Chatham! Demand the state of Virginia to ban uranium mining and milling!

LOCAL News :: Environment
Author:WSQT Guerrilla Radio 87.9 FM in DC
Date Created 30 Dec 2007

Uranium mining has been illegal in Virginia for years, but with growing interest in nuclear power as a phoney alternative to coal, mining companies will try to change that law this year.

In Chatham,VA, in Pittsylvania county, perhaps the largest uranium deposit in the entire US was found decades ago. Plans to mine it were scrapped when uranium prices melted down in the 1970's followed by the Three Mile Island nuke plant also melting down.

Now the proposed mine is back. With 1300 people living in nearby Chatham, Va legislators ought to go out West and ask Native American commuinities about the effects of uranium mining on their communities!

They would warn of rises in childhood cancer and other diseases, and about how the tailings and the foul, radioactive water from a uranium mine contaminate everything around it.

Of course, its unlikelyt that racist Virginia legislators (who rush to persecute members of indigenous American communties who come north into VA) would ever listen to warnings about the Native American nightmare with nuclear mines.

Still, even pro-industry sources admit that safety is a big consideration for a new uranium mine.

What they won't tell you is this-according to scientific studies conducted after this deposit was discovered, if all global energy production was nuclear, all the uranium would be GONE in just 150 years!

This is assuming we reprocess everything, otherwise you are looking at only a 30 year supply for a 100% nuclear future. At that point, the lights go out and the only thing lighting up at night would be the piles of glowing nuclear waste.

http://richmond.indymedia.org/newswire/display/14047/index.php

Ban stronger than moratorium (Uranium mining in VA)

Comment: Demand the county to BAN URANIUM MINING AND MILLING NOW!

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:33 AM EDT

I have been doing research on uranium mining and milling.

This is what I found: Marline stated that residents within a two-mile radius would have to relocate. Streams and wells would be lost for drinking purposes.

There was a study done in Michigan on the environmental impact on mining and milling of uranium.

Their findings for an open-pit uranium mine and mill was that there would have to be a buffer zone of 1,300 to 3,300 acres or two to five square miles.

Think a little bit. How many homes are in a square mile? How many acres of farm land will be useless? How many tax dollars the county will lose?

A couple of months ago, the county supervisors recognized the dairy farmers in the county.

The farmers stated in the last couple of years they hired 60 extra people.

The county will lose more tax revenue than it will gain if this mine and mill gets the ok.

The VanDerHyde's dairy is trying to get the ok and funding for an anaerobic digester to change cattle waste into electricity.

I think this is a good idea, and good for the environment.

None of this will happen when the air and water becomes contaminated.

People will not buy contaminated milk, hay, beef, or anything else raised or grown in the area surrounding a mine.

The mega park that the county supervisors have spent our tax money on will not happen. No company will come to this area if there are health risks.

Last November my wife and I, plus four others, went to West Virginia to see a mountain-top removal coal mine.

There was a town a few miles from the mine site. Everything was boarded up: schools, churches, gas stations, and stores.

It was a ghost town.

The mining company was following rules and regulations. Is this what we want for this county?

Don't wait for the study.

Mr. Kilgore, the head of the Coal and Energy Commission, flew over Coles Hill and stated that it was way out of the way of anything.

He doesn't think that we, the people of this county, are anything.

So let's show him that we are something by letting your supervisors know that you want to ban mining and milling of uranium.

The supervisors can do this if the regulations are stronger than the state.

A ban is stronger than a moratorium.

Allen Gross
Sheva, VA

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/09/16/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

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

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

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/