By: Katie Whitehead
Published: October 23, 2011
Published: October 23, 2011
I would agree: transparency is critical as legislators consider whether to establish "big rules" to govern uranium mining in Virginia. There’s general agreement that uranium mining without "big rules" has caused great harm to people and the environment. Transparency is essential to understanding the issues we face and determining whether state and federal agencies have access to the expertise, knowledge and money required to develop and enforce the "big rules" necessary to safeguard the well-being of Virginians.
Despite lip service to transparency, we should not assume or expect transparency in the uranium industry’s promotional presentations, advertising and free tours for legislators and select citizens. Industry officials and lobbyists have the right of free speech in their well-funded effort to win public support and legislators’ votes to lift Virginia’s uranium mining moratorium, but there is no requirement that their statements be accurate or complete. Citizens and legislators have a responsibility to fact check.
I was not invited to travel with VUI to France or to Canada; I missed the mine and mill tours and the opportunity to interact with legislators.
Having followed the uranium mining issue closely for the past four years, I feel able to say that there are facts commonly accepted by experts that have not gained widespread awareness in Southside, whereas misinformation often passes for fact. Here are several examples of misinformation we hear locally and basic facts not easily available.
v v v
Misinformation: Since we are all exposed to low levels of ionizing radiation (background radiation) and since ionizing radiation can have beneficial uses (X-rays, CAT scans, cancer treatment), we don’t need to worry about comparable levels of exposure from proposed uranium operations.
Fact: Any exposure to ionizing radiation increases a person’s risk of illness, according to NAS studies. The greater the exposure, the greater the risk: there is no such thing as a "safe" exposure level. In considering whether to lift Virginia’s moratorium, legislators will make a decision regarding an "acceptable" level of risk from many real or perceived hazards — not just radiation; that is, in deciding whether to enable a voluntary act by a private company, legislators will decide what involuntary and unwanted risks to impose on private citizens.
v v v
Confusing Information: Coles Hill is the only economically viable uranium deposit in Virginia. Coles Hill is the first of many major discoveries in Virginia.
Fact: Some uranium at Coles Hill could be mined profitably under current economic conditions. Coles Hill may be unique, or it may be one of many exploitable deposits in Virginia. As Dr. Hugh Miller of the Colorado School of Mines made clear to the NAS panel, the value of a uranium site depends on many economic and technological factors that are constantly changing.
v v v
Misinformation: Unlike the early years of uranium production, the U.S. now has strict standards and stringent regulations for uranium operations.
Fact: Regulations established 30 years ago marked a fundamental change in the uranium industry, but there has been little effort to keep regulations current because there has been so little uranium mining in the U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for reviewing emission standards and exposure limits and is many years behind in this work. Representatives from various federal agencies told the NAS committee that existing regulations need updating to reflect current knowledge.
v v v
Misinformation: If Virginia allows uranium mining and milling, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would regulate the milling operations and tailings.
Fact: States regulate uranium mining. States may choose to regulate milling and tailings storage with NRC approval. Virginia would have to address this important choice.
v v v
Misinformation: A uranium mill must prove that its tailings storage will last for 1,000 years.
Fact: A company applying to mill uranium must prove that its proposed tailings disposal cells will be protective "for 1,000 years, or at least for 200 years." A troubling funny moment followed when NAS committee member Dr. William Field asked a federal regulatory official: "What does that mean?" It means that the design must be effective for at least 200 years.
v v v
Misinformation: Under no circumstances would the NRC allow above-ground storage of uranium tailings behind a dam.
NRC regulations do not prohibit use of a dam and therefore (according to Virginia Beach) do not fully protect the city from a dam failure. VUI and Virginia Beach appear to agree that the worst-case scenario for Virginia Beach would be the failure of a tailings dam during a major flood resulting in contamination of Lake Gaston, a source of drinking water for the city; they disagree on whether this could happen.
Fact: Another worst-case scenario would be an explosion in a uranium mill, according to regulator Philip Egidi of the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment. This possibility is rarely mentioned. A nuclear explosion is not possible, but even a chemical explosion could spread uranium dust over a wide area.
Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/oct/23/understand-issues-we-face-ar-1401193/
