NAS, Virginia Tech agree to uranium mining study

Comment:  Don't forget who is paying for the study:  The Uranium Corporation's listed below!

By Staff
Published: February 23, 2010

The long-awaited study of uranium mining and milling in Virginia has been given the green light to proceed. The National Academy of Sciences and Virginia Tech have agreed to the study. The NAS will conduct the study.


Is this the future of Pittsylvania County, VA (ironic the name "Pitts"?)

Scientific study is statewide in scope, the news is especially relevant in the Dan River Region because Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium deposit at Coles Hill.
Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/nas_virginia_tech_agree_to_uranium_mining_study/18268/

Government Study: Elevated Uranium Levels in Grand Canyon's Watershed

Grand Canyon:  No to uranium mining!

For Immediate Release, February 18, 2010

Contact: Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club, (602) 999-5790
Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Trust, (928) 774-7466

Exploration and Mining Sites Consistently Exceed Background Levels

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK— A series of studies released today by the United States Geological Survey show elevated uranium levels in wells, springs, and soil in and around uranium exploration and mining sites within the watershed feeding Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River. The agency conducted the monitoring to provide information for an environmental impact statement that is analyzing a proposed 20-year mineral withdrawal that would protect nearly 1 million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park from future mining activities.

“These reports demonstrate unequivocally that uranium mining should not proceed in these environmentally sensitive lands,” said Stacey Hamburg of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. “Contaminated lands and waters around the Grand Canyon are not what we want for the future of northern Arizona. Cleaning up contaminated sites should be the government’s first priority.”

Elevated uranium levels consistently exceed natural background levels in and around exploration and old mining sites – sometimes, as in the case of the Kanab North mine, by as much as 10 times.

Elevated uranium levels were also detected near the old “Hack” uranium-mine complex, which the Bureau of Land Management actively promotes on its Web site as a model of good mine reclamation. Reclaimed in the 1980s, the mines are located in Hack Canyon, a tributary to Kanab Creek and the Grand Canyon and Colorado River.

Uranium mining has already contaminated lands and waters in and around Grand Canyon, and today’s research confirms that new uranium mining would threaten aquifers that feed Grand Canyon’s springs, the Colorado River, and nearly 100 species of concern,” said Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity. “These risks aren’t worth taking – and they’re risks neither the government nor industry can guarantee against.”

Elevated uranium levels were also detected at another nearby old mine that the Bureau has said it will allow to reopen without updating 1980s-era federal environmental reviews. The first such opening, of Denison Mines’ Arizona 1 mine, provoked a lawsuit in November from conservation groups seeking updated reviews.

Fifteen springs and five wells exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water; hydrogeologists have warned that new mining could deplete and pollute water in aquifers and connected springs. Today’s report concludes that: “Uranium mining within the watershed may increase the amount of radioactive materials and heavy metals in the surface water and groundwater flowing into Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River, and deep mining activities may increase mobilization of uranium through the rock strata into the aquifers. In addition, waste rock and ore from mined areas may be transported away from the mines by wind and runoff.”

“The USGS research confirms that mining uranium within Grand Canyon watersheds risks permanently polluting waning water supplies for 25 million people and arid ecosystems. There are some places where mining should not occur, and the Grand Canyon is one of them,” said Roger Clark of the Grand Canyon Trust.

Last week the Center for Biological Diversity sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for illegally withholding public records relating to uranium mines immediately north of Grand Canyon National Park. The Bureau is withholding the vast majority of eight linear feet of responsive records despite directives from the Obama administration requiring the agency to respond to information requests “promptly and in a spirit of cooperation” and to adopt a “presumption of disclosure” (see Obama’s Freedom of Information Act memo to federal agencies here).

All of today’s reports can be downloaded here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5025/

Summary of Research Findings (From USGS)

• The area proposed for withdrawal is estimated to contain about 163,000 tons (about 326 million pounds) of uranium oxide (U3O8), which is about 12 percent of the estimated total undiscovered uranium in northern Arizona (1.3 million tons or 2.6 billion pounds). For comparison, the United States consumes about 27,550 tons (55 million pounds) of uranium oxide each year in its reactors; most of it comes from Canada, Australia, and Russia.
• Soil and sediment samples were analyzed for six sites that experienced various levels of uranium mining in Kanab Creek area north of Grand Canyon National Park, including mined and reclaimed sites, mined sites currently on standby, and sites that were exploratory drilled but not mined. Uranium and arsenic were two elements consistently detected in the areas disturbed by mining in values above natural background levels.
• Analysis of historical water-quality data for more than 1,000 water samples from 428 sites in northern Arizona shows that dissolved uranium concentrations in areas without mining were generally similar to those with active or reclaimed mines. Sixty-six percent of the sampled sites showed low dissolved uranium concentrations (less than 5 parts per billion). Ninety-five percent of the sampled sites had dissolved uranium levels of less than 30 parts per billion, the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water.
• Samples from 15 springs and 5 wells exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations greater than the Environmental Protection Agency maximum for drinking water. These springs and wells are close to or in direct contact with mineralized ore bodies, and concentration levels are related to natural processes, mining, or a combination of both factors.
• Almost 100 plants and animals identified by the State of Arizona or other land managers as species of concern inhabit the area proposed for withdrawal. Because uranium and its byproducts such as radon can affect survival, growth, and reproduction of plants and animals, USGS scientists identified exposure pathways (for example, ingestion or inhalation) for these species of concern.

Read more:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/grand-canyon-02-19-2010.html

Uranium study faces premature doubts

Comment: Look at the following statement: "It (local uranium company) should also disclose the source of its money, identifying the investors who are fronting the funds for the study", yes, tell us who is really paying for the uranium mining study, tell us the names of the 32 investors! Either the 32 investors are cowards or part of the uranium mining study, the 32 investors maybe working for the state, county, city of Danville or the federal government! Come on investors, stop being cowards and tell us who you are or the uranium mining study will never be accepted because of the cowards of the local uranium mining company! VA, keep the moratorium on uranium mining and milling!
The Virginian-Pilot
September 30, 2009

The respected National Research Council hasn't yet voted on whether to take on a study of uranium mining in Virginia, but the second-guessing has already started.

Some mining opponents in Pittsylvania County dismiss the results - which won't be available for nearly two years - because the study would be underwritten by Virginia Uranium Inc. The company stands to make billions if state officials allow it to tap the estimated 119 million pounds of ore in the county.

Residents are right to feel protective of their community. That's equally true of Virginia Beach leaders, who are concerned that mining could contaminate the city's water supply in Lake Gaston.

But no one has legitimately questioned the integrity of the NRC, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, or suggested a better alternative.

It would be preferable for the state to pay the $1.2 million to $1.4 million for the study, but that's not a realistic option this year. Gov. Tim Kaine recently announced budget cuts that will cost nearly 600 salaried state workers their jobs. Core public safety and mental health services face funding reductions.

The only way to determine whether uranium can be safely mined in Virginia's rainy climate is to allow Virginia Uranium to pay for that assessment. It's an uncomfortable arrangement but one that can work with appropriate safeguards.

The mining company should be required to pay the full amount for the study up front, eliminating any temptation to retract its support if preliminary findings aren't favorable.

 It should also disclose the source of its money, identifying the investors who are fronting the funds for the study. That's important because no scientists should be permitted to participate in the study if they are employed by a mining company with a financial interest in the project.

The details of that contract, particularly its financial provisions, must be made public.

Further, state legislators should hold a meeting to explain the contract and take comments.

They should ensure that the scope of the assessment includes an examination of claims by Pittsylvania residents that exploratory drilling at the site has contaminated local wells. Equally important, the state should guarantee that a separate study on the mine's economic impact does not begin until questions of safety are fully addressed.

But that doesn't negate the fact that many thousands of Virginians who have been less vocal still want and deserve an open, transparent process that puts their health and safety above all other interests.

Read more:
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/09/uranium-study-faces-premature-doubts

Karmis, Virginia Tech, responds to issues in uranium study letter (Virginia)

Comment:  Notice the following statement, we all need to send our concerns to the NAS and DEMAND WE SHOULD ATTEND PUBLIC MEETINGS IN VIRGINIA: There will be a 20-day public comment period on the panel selection at http://www.nationalacademies.org/,
Kearney said.   Uranium is located all over Virginia, so people of VA, wake up and smell the threat of uranium mining will happen even in the plush fields of the famous horse's areas!

By John Crane
Published: December 8, 2009

The $1.4 million study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth will likely be paid for in installments, says the head of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research.

Michael Karmis, director of the center at Virginia Tech, said Tuesday the center would probably fund the study by the National Research Council in payments based on the study’s progress.

Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining since 1982.

VUI, through Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, would pay for the study’s first phase focusing on the technical and public-safety aspects of mining.

 Virginia Tech’s Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research would handle the money and contract with the NAS/NRC for the study. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission would be the study’s sponsor.

The NRC expressed concerns in a Nov. 23 letter to Karmis about VUI’s proposal to provide “incremental funding” for the study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth.

The NRC said several issues must be addressed before the study proceeds, including “the requirement for independence of the NRC in carrying out the study” and “full transparency regarding the study’s funding.”

Karmis has not responded to the NRC’s letter, said NRC spokesman William Kearney.

“We’re waiting for a response to clarify these outstanding issues (before the study can be approved),” Kearney said Tuesday.

Karmis said officials from Virginia Tech, VUI and the NRC will meet to discuss the contract and a guarantee of funding before the study is approved.

Once the contract is drawn up and the study approved, the NRC will select a panel to perform the study.

There will be a 20-day public comment period on the panel selection at http://www.nationalacademies.org/,
 Kearney said.

Karmis said one issue brought up in the NRC’s letter was resolved at a meeting of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission last week.

 The word “outreach” was eliminated from an item in the proposed study’s statement of task because it pre-judged the study’s outcome, Karmis said

Read more at:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/karmis_responds_to_issues_in_uranium_study_letter/16172/