3/19 u-news
Jaffe and Burnley: Gov. McDonnell, respect the uranium mining moratorium
Posted: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 12:00 am
BY CALE JAFFE AND BOB BURNLEYRichmond Times-Dispatch
BY CALE JAFFE AND BOB BURNLEYRichmond Times-Dispatch
This winter, efforts to lift the commonwealth’s long-standing ban on uranium mining were soundly defeated.
It was a landmark victory for more than 60 local governments, regional chambers of commerce, environmental nonprofits and public health groups, all of which opposed the idea of storing radioactive waste from uranium mining in a basin that provides drinking water for 1.1 million people.
And yet, with the legislature set to return to Richmond on April 3 to vote on gubernatorial amendments and vetoes, some are now pressuring Gov. Bob McDonnell to circumvent the General Assembly and develop mining regulations outside of the legislative process.
Virginia Uranium’s spokesperson told the Associated Press that this unorthodox step is necessary because “unanswered questions remain.”
It’s a curious argument, since uranium mining has been one of the most carefully studied environmental issues in recent Virginia history. In fact, the moratorium remains on the books precisely because peer-reviewed science has shed so much light on the issue.
Instead of being swayed by an aggressively funded lobbying campaign by Virginia Uranium, Inc. — a campaign that included trips to France for some legislators — General Assembly leaders largely based their decisions on state-commissioned reports from the National Academy of Sciences and other experts.
After reading these studies, a bipartisan group of legislators, including every legislator representing the area of the proposed mining site, went on record to support the moratorium.
A socio-economic analysis authorized by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission concluded that uranium mining could trigger an $11 billion loss statewide under a worst-case scenario — nearly twice as much as the hoped-for positive impact under the study’s best-case scenario.
Another study, commissioned by the Governor’s Uranium Working Group, found that Virginia business leaders favored keeping the uranium mining ban by more than an 11-point margin.
Critically important is the full Uranium Working Group Report, which goes so far as to explain that if a bill to lift the moratorium passes the legislature and is signed into law, “then and only then could the agencies begin the process of drafting and promulgating regulations under the Administrative Process Act.”
And then there is the National Academy of Sciences’ review, conducted over the course of two years at a cost of more than $1.4 million.
That report validated many of our core concerns.
It stated that even assuming international best practices, sites containing radioactive waste from the mining and milling processes still “represent significant potential sources of contamination for thousands of years, and the long-term risks remain poorly defined.”
And while the National Academy observed that federal regulations could seek isolation of waste material for up to 1,000 years, the report questioned whether this standard could ever be met in Virginia, where frequent thunderstorms, hurricanes and extreme weather events threaten to erode storage sites.
The mining industry’s failed bill implicitly acknowledged this scientific reality. It would have asked mine operators to identify alternative sources of water for impacted communities in the event that surface or groundwater contamination made those water supplies undrinkable.
Back in 2011, when the National Academy’s research was in progress, Virginia Uranium, Inc., made an important public pledge.
In a column published in the Danville Register & Bee, the company’s CEO wrote that he was “fully committed to heeding those findings (of the National Academy Sciences) — regardless of the outcome. ... If the NAS finds that uranium mining would entail unacceptable risks, we will not pursue lifting the moratorium.”
Indeed, we should. And that is precisely why McDonnell should rebuff the mining company’s latest pleas to develop regulations. Such an effort would be an end-run around the General Assembly’s decision to keep Virginia’s 31-year-old moratorium in place.
Cale Jaffe is the director of the Charlottesville office of the Southern Environmental Law Center and a member of the Board of Directors for the Virginia Conservation Network. Bob Burnley is the former director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and president of Robert G. Burnley, LLC, a firm that advises clients on environmental matters. Contact them at cjaffe@selcva.org.
It was a landmark victory for more than 60 local governments, regional chambers of commerce, environmental nonprofits and public health groups, all of which opposed the idea of storing radioactive waste from uranium mining in a basin that provides drinking water for 1.1 million people.
And yet, with the legislature set to return to Richmond on April 3 to vote on gubernatorial amendments and vetoes, some are now pressuring Gov. Bob McDonnell to circumvent the General Assembly and develop mining regulations outside of the legislative process.
Virginia Uranium’s spokesperson told the Associated Press that this unorthodox step is necessary because “unanswered questions remain.”
It’s a curious argument, since uranium mining has been one of the most carefully studied environmental issues in recent Virginia history. In fact, the moratorium remains on the books precisely because peer-reviewed science has shed so much light on the issue.
Instead of being swayed by an aggressively funded lobbying campaign by Virginia Uranium, Inc. — a campaign that included trips to France for some legislators — General Assembly leaders largely based their decisions on state-commissioned reports from the National Academy of Sciences and other experts.
After reading these studies, a bipartisan group of legislators, including every legislator representing the area of the proposed mining site, went on record to support the moratorium.
A socio-economic analysis authorized by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission concluded that uranium mining could trigger an $11 billion loss statewide under a worst-case scenario — nearly twice as much as the hoped-for positive impact under the study’s best-case scenario.
Another study, commissioned by the Governor’s Uranium Working Group, found that Virginia business leaders favored keeping the uranium mining ban by more than an 11-point margin.
Critically important is the full Uranium Working Group Report, which goes so far as to explain that if a bill to lift the moratorium passes the legislature and is signed into law, “then and only then could the agencies begin the process of drafting and promulgating regulations under the Administrative Process Act.”
And then there is the National Academy of Sciences’ review, conducted over the course of two years at a cost of more than $1.4 million.
That report validated many of our core concerns.
It stated that even assuming international best practices, sites containing radioactive waste from the mining and milling processes still “represent significant potential sources of contamination for thousands of years, and the long-term risks remain poorly defined.”
And while the National Academy observed that federal regulations could seek isolation of waste material for up to 1,000 years, the report questioned whether this standard could ever be met in Virginia, where frequent thunderstorms, hurricanes and extreme weather events threaten to erode storage sites.
The mining industry’s failed bill implicitly acknowledged this scientific reality. It would have asked mine operators to identify alternative sources of water for impacted communities in the event that surface or groundwater contamination made those water supplies undrinkable.
Back in 2011, when the National Academy’s research was in progress, Virginia Uranium, Inc., made an important public pledge.
In a column published in the Danville Register & Bee, the company’s CEO wrote that he was “fully committed to heeding those findings (of the National Academy Sciences) — regardless of the outcome. ... If the NAS finds that uranium mining would entail unacceptable risks, we will not pursue lifting the moratorium.”
Indeed, we should. And that is precisely why McDonnell should rebuff the mining company’s latest pleas to develop regulations. Such an effort would be an end-run around the General Assembly’s decision to keep Virginia’s 31-year-old moratorium in place.
Cale Jaffe is the director of the Charlottesville office of the Southern Environmental Law Center and a member of the Board of Directors for the Virginia Conservation Network. Bob Burnley is the former director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and president of Robert G. Burnley, LLC, a firm that advises clients on environmental matters. Contact them at cjaffe@selcva.org.
Posted: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:35 am | Updated: 7:37 am, Tue Mar 19, 2013.
Associated Press |
RICHMOND - If Gov. Bob McDonnell decides against reviving the issue of uranium mining this year, the two men who are likely to succeed him are willing to keep the issue alive in 2014.
Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe conditionally said they would be open to consider uranium mining, in response to an Associated Press request for their positions on the fiercely debated subject. Each identified key factors in their ultimate decision, such as its economic impact and whether mining can be done safely.
Despite a big build up to the 2013 session of the General Assembly, proposals to end a 1983 prohibition on uranium mining failed to even achieve a committee vote amid almost certain defeat.
Mining supporters then suggested that McDonnell direct the appropriate agencies to draw up regulations to better inform legislators when they take up the issue again, which is expected.
He has also raised the possibility he might not take a public position on uranium mining.
The issue is being pushed by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine a 119-million-pound deposit of the radioactive ore in Pittsylvania County.
Before it can mine, however, a decades-old ban must be lifted by the General Assembly.
Virginia Uranium has made it clear it will not walk away from a deposit .
McAuliffe and Cuccinelli offered succinct responses to the question of uranium mining, with the attorney general offering a slightly more expansive answer.
"Mr. Cuccinelli feels the factors that should be weighed ... include the safety of miners and the surrounding community, jobs created, tax revenues generated, the environmental impact, the cultural impact on the region, and energy independence for Virginia and America," wrote Caroline Gibson, a spokeswoman for his office.
She said Cuccinelli "believes that it would be appropriate" to have regulations in place before the General Assembly considers ending the ban.
McAuliffe's campaign issued his response:
"Any economic proposal in these tough times merits a hard look. However, I would need to be certain that mining uranium can be done safely and cleaned up completely before a moratorium is lifted."
McAuliffe is a businessman and former chairman of the National Democratic Committee.
Opponents and supporters of mining would argue those questions both men cite have already been answered. Uranium mining has been studied extensively over the past few years, from an environmental and economic perspective. A study by the National Academy of Sciences, completed in late 2011, is the most widely accepted.
The mostly commonly cited portion of the report states Virginia would have to overcome "steep hurdles" before allowing mining and milling of the ore to ensure the safety of workers, the public and the environment. Mining supporters cite a section of the report that states "internationally accepted best practices" governing mining could be a starting point for Virginia.
Full-fledged uranium mining has never occurred on the East Coast. Critics say the state's climate is too wet and prone to tropical storms to allow uranium mining and milling, or the separation of ore from rock.
Virginia Uranium says mining and milling can be done safely and create jobs in the economically depressed Southside region of the state.
Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling was expected to offer anti-mining voters an option in November after he declared his opposition to uranium mining, but has since abandoned a GOP or independent bid for governor.
Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe conditionally said they would be open to consider uranium mining, in response to an Associated Press request for their positions on the fiercely debated subject. Each identified key factors in their ultimate decision, such as its economic impact and whether mining can be done safely.
Despite a big build up to the 2013 session of the General Assembly, proposals to end a 1983 prohibition on uranium mining failed to even achieve a committee vote amid almost certain defeat.
Mining supporters then suggested that McDonnell direct the appropriate agencies to draw up regulations to better inform legislators when they take up the issue again, which is expected.
He has also raised the possibility he might not take a public position on uranium mining.
The issue is being pushed by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine a 119-million-pound deposit of the radioactive ore in Pittsylvania County.
Before it can mine, however, a decades-old ban must be lifted by the General Assembly.
Virginia Uranium has made it clear it will not walk away from a deposit .
McAuliffe and Cuccinelli offered succinct responses to the question of uranium mining, with the attorney general offering a slightly more expansive answer.
"Mr. Cuccinelli feels the factors that should be weighed ... include the safety of miners and the surrounding community, jobs created, tax revenues generated, the environmental impact, the cultural impact on the region, and energy independence for Virginia and America," wrote Caroline Gibson, a spokeswoman for his office.
She said Cuccinelli "believes that it would be appropriate" to have regulations in place before the General Assembly considers ending the ban.
McAuliffe's campaign issued his response:
"Any economic proposal in these tough times merits a hard look. However, I would need to be certain that mining uranium can be done safely and cleaned up completely before a moratorium is lifted."
McAuliffe is a businessman and former chairman of the National Democratic Committee.
Opponents and supporters of mining would argue those questions both men cite have already been answered. Uranium mining has been studied extensively over the past few years, from an environmental and economic perspective. A study by the National Academy of Sciences, completed in late 2011, is the most widely accepted.
The mostly commonly cited portion of the report states Virginia would have to overcome "steep hurdles" before allowing mining and milling of the ore to ensure the safety of workers, the public and the environment. Mining supporters cite a section of the report that states "internationally accepted best practices" governing mining could be a starting point for Virginia.
Full-fledged uranium mining has never occurred on the East Coast. Critics say the state's climate is too wet and prone to tropical storms to allow uranium mining and milling, or the separation of ore from rock.
Virginia Uranium says mining and milling can be done safely and create jobs in the economically depressed Southside region of the state.
Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling was expected to offer anti-mining voters an option in November after he declared his opposition to uranium mining, but has since abandoned a GOP or independent bid for governor.
Virginia Tech's ties to uranium cash raise questions
by
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Christina Nuckols | 981-3377
With the large known undeveloped uranium deposit 100 miles from campus, it’s hard to blame Virginia Tech professors interested in energy research for beating a path to Pittsylvania County, home to an estimated 119 million pounds of the radioactive ore.
But Tech officials have opened themselves up to criticism by failing to fully explain the university’s complex relationship, particularly its financial connections, with Virginia Uranium Inc., the company seeking permission to mine the site.
The General Assembly preserved a mining moratorium this winter, and Gov. Bob McDonnell has been mum about requests that he develop regulations over legislators’ objections.
But Virginia Uranium hasn’t given up. Its ties to Tech are key to its efforts to gain public and political support.
Tech’s most visible role in the debate was as facilitator for a National Academy of Sciences study examining the environmental and public health effects of mining in the state. Virginia Uranium paid $1.7 million for the research, but the NAS required the money to be handled by Tech to avoid conflicts. Tech retained $300,000 for its work on the study.
Less known is that Virginia Uranium has funded multiple research projects overseen by Tech professors.
In total, the university has directly received just more than $1.25 million from the company in the past five years, according to data obtained through a Freedom of Information request. The money paid for groundwater studies, soil evaluations, surveys of insects and stream life and research on the potential impact of a radioactive waste spill in a major flood.
Michael Karmis, director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Tech and the point man for the NAS study, said those dollars don’t mean that the university is an advocate for uranium mining.
“One has to separate between personal opinions and Virginia Tech opinions,” he said in an interview last week. “Tech has never officially had an opinion. Here you will find folks in favor and you find folks against.”
Cale Jaffe, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center and an opponent of the proposed Virginia mine, said he doesn’t view Tech as an advocate, and he praised Karmis’ even-handed oversight of the NAS study. But he said there is less transparency about the role of other professors.
The most outspoken academic on uranium mining has been Robert Bodnar, a distinguished professor of geosciences who specializes in energy and minerals research. Projects he oversees have attracted nearly $740,000 in Virginia Uranium funding.
“I consider myself to be an advocate for development of energy policies in this country that will help us become more self-sufficient and help to wean us away from fossil fuels,” he told me in a phone interview. “ . . . I saw so many people out there who were spreading lies and untruths, I can’t let that pass by.”
Bodnar approached Virginia Uranium when he learned about its plans. “I said, ‘This is a great opportunity for our students,’ ” who previously traveled to Nevada, Arizona, Mexico and Peru to do mining research.
“To have a project with a real-world goal was unique and appealing,” said John Gannon, a former student of Bodnar’s who conducted a groundwater study near the mine site.
It’s common for universities to seek private sector support for research along with grants from government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.
Tech officials said there are safeguards in place to ensure industries don’t influence the research. An advisory committee oversees those arrangements. Research published in scientific journals is reviewed by anonymous experts selected by the publication. “The sponsor has no censorship over the results,” Bodnar said. “They provide the funding but they don’t meddle in the day-to-day research.”
“They plan to continue to move ahead with promoting their educational program,” he said.uckols is editorial page editor of The Roanoke Times.
But Tech officials have opened themselves up to criticism by failing to fully explain the university’s complex relationship, particularly its financial connections, with Virginia Uranium Inc., the company seeking permission to mine the site.
The General Assembly preserved a mining moratorium this winter, and Gov. Bob McDonnell has been mum about requests that he develop regulations over legislators’ objections.
But Virginia Uranium hasn’t given up. Its ties to Tech are key to its efforts to gain public and political support.
Tech’s most visible role in the debate was as facilitator for a National Academy of Sciences study examining the environmental and public health effects of mining in the state. Virginia Uranium paid $1.7 million for the research, but the NAS required the money to be handled by Tech to avoid conflicts. Tech retained $300,000 for its work on the study.
Less known is that Virginia Uranium has funded multiple research projects overseen by Tech professors.
In total, the university has directly received just more than $1.25 million from the company in the past five years, according to data obtained through a Freedom of Information request. The money paid for groundwater studies, soil evaluations, surveys of insects and stream life and research on the potential impact of a radioactive waste spill in a major flood.
Michael Karmis, director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Tech and the point man for the NAS study, said those dollars don’t mean that the university is an advocate for uranium mining.
“One has to separate between personal opinions and Virginia Tech opinions,” he said in an interview last week. “Tech has never officially had an opinion. Here you will find folks in favor and you find folks against.”
Cale Jaffe, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center and an opponent of the proposed Virginia mine, said he doesn’t view Tech as an advocate, and he praised Karmis’ even-handed oversight of the NAS study. But he said there is less transparency about the role of other professors.
The most outspoken academic on uranium mining has been Robert Bodnar, a distinguished professor of geosciences who specializes in energy and minerals research. Projects he oversees have attracted nearly $740,000 in Virginia Uranium funding.
“I consider myself to be an advocate for development of energy policies in this country that will help us become more self-sufficient and help to wean us away from fossil fuels,” he told me in a phone interview. “ . . . I saw so many people out there who were spreading lies and untruths, I can’t let that pass by.”
Bodnar approached Virginia Uranium when he learned about its plans. “I said, ‘This is a great opportunity for our students,’ ” who previously traveled to Nevada, Arizona, Mexico and Peru to do mining research.
“To have a project with a real-world goal was unique and appealing,” said John Gannon, a former student of Bodnar’s who conducted a groundwater study near the mine site.
It’s common for universities to seek private sector support for research along with grants from government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.
Tech officials said there are safeguards in place to ensure industries don’t influence the research. An advisory committee oversees those arrangements. Research published in scientific journals is reviewed by anonymous experts selected by the publication. “The sponsor has no censorship over the results,” Bodnar said. “They provide the funding but they don’t meddle in the day-to-day research.”
“They plan to continue to move ahead with promoting their educational program,” he said.uckols is editorial page editor of The Roanoke Times.
