RICHMOND–

If state lawmakers lift a 29-year moratorium to allow uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, areas west of Fredericksburg and other spots with uranium deposits in Virginia could be next.

But at a forum on the topic yesterday hosted by the Garden Club of Virginia at the University of Richmond, panelists were split on whether that could happen.

Patrick Wales, geologist and project manager for Virginia Uranium Inc., said the company is interested only in its Coles Hill site in Pittsylvania. The county is about 180 miles southwest of the Fredericksburg area.

“I understand why others would want to expand this” to other areas in the state, he said. “They [opponents] would like to make this seem like it’s a statewide issue.”

The moratorium is a concern here because in the 1970s, Marline Uranium Corp. secured leases on thousands of acres in Orange, Culpeper, Madison and Fauquier counties with a plan to mine and mill the radioactive mineral.

For more, click here.

Patrick Wales, project manager for Virginia Uranium, speaks during a panel discussion on uranium mining in the state at the University of Richmond in Richmond on Nov. 3.

RICHMOND –

What should Virginia do when it comes to uranium mining?

That was the topic of the Garden Club of Virginia’s timely forum Thursday as the General Assembly is expected to consider lifting a 29-year-old uranium mining moratorium early next year.

Speakers noted uranium is a divisive social issue, and Department of Environmental Quality Deputy Director Richard Weeks foresees a “very emotional” legislative session.

Uranium isn’t just a Pittsylvania County concern, as Virginia Uranium Inc. would like to tap a 119-million-pound deposit there, but is a statewide issue, environmentalists said, citing impacts beyond the region and the possibility for future uranium exploration and mining in other parts of the state.

And, is it just the 140 state elected representatives who are going to decide? While several of the forum’s panel speakers differed on various aspects of uranium mining, many agreed that Virginia residents need to be involved and give input to shape the state’s uranium regulatory framework, if such work begins.

Peyton Wells, chair of the Garden Club’s 53rd Conservation Forum, encouraged more than 230 attendees to take what they learned and talk with their legislators.

Click here for more.

A proposed uranium mine in Southside Virginia could be a boon to the state’s economy and the nation’s security — or an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

Experts laid out starkly differing visions during a forum Thursday at the University of Richmond.

The 2012 General Assembly is expected to consider lifting a 30-year moratorium on mining uranium, which is used to fuel nuclear power plants.

“It’s very likely to become the biggest issue” during the session that begins Jan. 11, said Bob Gibson, executive director of the nonpartisan Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia. He moderated the forum.

Click here to read more.

The Virginia NAACP unanimously passed a resolution Monday to support keeping a moratorium on uranium mining in the state.

A company, Virginia Uranium Inc., is looking to persuade legislators to repeal the nearly three-decades ban on mining at its regular session in January.

Tests indicate that about 119 million pounds of uranium — which the company says could be worth as much as $10 billion — are located in Coles Hill, near Chatham, a small town in Pittsylvania County.

“The risk uranium mining poses to our drinking water, air quality and local communities far outweighs the benefit,” said King Salim Khalifani, executive director Virginia State NAACP.  “The magnitude of potential impacts on people of color and all the people in Virginia is too great to leave it to chance.”

Click here to read the entire article.

WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world’s surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of “Climategate,” a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What’s different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to “The Daily Show” is paying attention is who is behind the study.

Read the rest of the story here.

By David Hagedorn, Published: October 25, The Washington Post

When Bruce Wood’s father was dying 30 years ago, he told his son: “You’re the smart one. I want you to do something about cleaning up this bay.” Two decades later, Wood began to fulfill the promise of restoring the Chesapeake’s waters. His mode of choice: oysters.

Details: oysters and salinity.

Wood uses discarded shells to create an ecosystem in which oysters can grow and thrive, a small-scale version of the Oyster Recovery Partnership in Maryland. But what started as a way to help clean the bay — one oyster filters 50 gallons of water a day — has become a business. Nine years after he seeded his first 500 larvae, Wood sells thousands of oysters under the Dragon Creek name every week to 16 Washington-area restaurants.

For more, click here.

One of the most serious potential dangers associated with uranium mining is water contamination. The Piedmont Environmental Council has asserted that surface mining at the Coles Hill site may threaten water supplies in such places as Fairfax County, Town of Orange, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, Halifax, Clarksville, and Mecklenburg. Read more here: http://www.shenandoahpress.org/2011/10/will-uranium-mining-return-to-virginia/.

Altavista Journal

When Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI) took Virginia legislators to see a closed uranium mine near Bessines, France, in June, company vice president Walter Coles Jr. asked the mayor of Bessines, Andrea Soyer, what advice she would give them.

Her interpreter translated her response: “Very big rules to follow… With people, tell them everything… Not to hide anything… Really to tell everything.”

A listener paraphrased: “Transparency. Be open. Don’t hide. When you start to hide things, people start to suspect.” http://vimeo.com/27119336

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.

I have studied uranium mining in ways open to individual citizens willing to travel on their own dime. I’ve attended legislative committee and commission meetings and open sessions of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on Uranium Mining in Virginia, featuring dozens of invited speakers at meetings in Washington, D.C.; Danville; Boulder, Colorado; and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

The NAS committee is exceptional in bringing together experts across a wide range of disciplines including geology, hydrology, mining engineering, resource economics, biology, chemistry, public health, environmental science, and law.

I’ve been impressed to see experts with diverse points of view talking and listening to each other, respecting what each discipline and perspective has to offer as the committee works toward a consensus report.

And I’ve been struck by the contrast between this process and the local experience where forums and articles typically present polarized views and focus on the drama of conflict with little fact checking.

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:

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) Misinformation: Unlike the early years of uranium production, the U.S. now has strict standards and stringent regulations for uranium operations.

Fact: Regulations established thirty 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.

(4) Misinformation: If Virginia allows uranium mining and milling, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 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.

(5) Misinformation: A uranium mill must prove that its tailings storage will last for 1000 years.

Fact: A company applying to mill uranium must prove that its proposed tailings disposal cells will be protective “for 1000 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.

(6) Misinformation: Under no circumstances would the NRC allow above-ground storage of uranium tailings behind a dam.

Fact: NRC regulations do not prohibit use of a dam and therefore (according to the City of Virginia Beach) do 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.

(7) 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.

(8) Misinformation: If VUI is not allowed to mine this valuable resource, the federal government could take the property and mine it.

Fact: I pursued accurate information from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and obtained clarification from William Szymanski, Director of Nuclear Energy Fuel Supply Analysis: commercial companies in the U.S. mine and sell uranium on the global market. The federal government has no need or intention of taking control of anyone’s private property to mine uranium.

(9) Fact: After closure and decommissioning, the DOE would in all likelihood take ownership of the mill and tailings areas, potentially hundreds of acres. Law requires that the state or federal government take ownership; no state has ever done so.

We will all be able to replace other misinformation with facts when the NAS report and additional reports by the Research Triangle Institute and Chmura Economics and Analytics are released later this year.

VUI has legislators ready to introduce legislation in January 2012 to lift the moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia. Many stakeholders, including the Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission, the Smith Mountain Lake Association, and most Southside legislators, have taken a firm position opposing a rush to judgment in 2012.

In the interest of public understanding and confidence, the people for whom the uranium study reports are being written (you, me and our representatives) should be allowed sufficient time to read them thoroughly, consider differences among them, and determine whether essential questions are answered.

We will have available the expertise of a wide range of people who have devoted large parts of their lives to understanding the issues we face: we would be foolish to make this decision in haste.

Katie Whitehead is a native and resident of Pittsylvania County.

Wanting to convince members of Virginia’s legislature to keep the 30 year old ban on uranium mining in Virginia, members of Halifax Town Council, along with members of Keep the Ban Coalition, will host a symposium at Halifax County High School auditorium on Friday, Octt 14 beginning at 7 p.m. to hear several speakers discuss the dangers of uranium mining.

“It is the opinion of the Halifax Town Council stated in several resolutions adopted since 2007, that uranium mining in Southern Virginia would be destructive to its people and economy and detrimental to the people and economy of Virginia and North Carolina as a whole,” wrote Halifax Mayor Dick Moore in a letter sent to residents of the town. Click here for the rest of the article.