Paul Robinson provides an introduction to uranium mining

VCNVAORG — March 31, 2010 — Paul Robinson provides an introduction to uranium mining

Read more:
http://www.youtube.com/user/VCNVAORG

Uranium on Sale under UN-Russian Control

By Clive Banerjee
IDN-InDepth NewsAnalysis

VIENNA (IDN) – Countries that are members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and need uranium for peaceful purposes do not have to worry any more.

They can draw on a reserve of 120 tonnes of low enriched uranium (LEU) valued at about 250 million U.S. dollars that the United Nations agency has set up.

An agreement for the purpose was signed March 29, 2010 by IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano and the Director General of the Russian Federation’s State Atomic Energy Corporation (ROSATOM), Sergey Kiriyenko.

The reserve is to be located at the International Uranium Enrichment Centre in Angarsk, Russia.

The establishment and maintenance of the reserve are to be funded by the Russian Federation, including the costs of storage, safety, security and safeguards. LEU from the reserve, which is supplied to a member state by the IAEA, would be provided at the prevailing market spot price, and the resulting proceeds would be used to replenish the reserve, explained Sasha Henriques from the IAEA Division of Public Information.

Henriques said the LEU reserve was being launched "to provide member states protection against possible supply disruptions unrelated to technical or commercial considerations".

“In other words, any country employing nuclear power peacefully and in keeping with its obligations to the international community through the IAEA would not suffer supply disruption for political reasons,” an analyst at the World Nuclear News (WNN) said.

The IAEA director general has authority to complete contracts for any future user, which would have to pay the prevailing spot market price for uranium. The 120-tonne inventory is enough for two full core loads for a large reactor or about six reloads, a WNN analyst said.

ROSATOM

IAEA’s partner in the agreement ROSATOM runs all nuclear assets of the Russian Federation, both civil and weapons. Along with commercial activities which move forward nuclear power and nuclear fuel cycle facilities, it acts as a governmental agent, primarily in the field of national security (nuclear deterrence), nuclear and radiation safety, basic and applied science.

Besides, it has the authority to fulfill on behalf of Russia the international commitments undertaken by the nation with regard to the peaceful use of atomic energy and non-proliferation.

ROSATOM was established on December 18, 2007, following the adoption of the Federal Law On the State Atomic Energy Corporation ‘Rosatom’, which took effect from December 5, 2007.

The Russian Government has set three major goals for ROSATOM: ensure sustainable development of the Nuclear Weapons Complex; increase nuclear contribution in electricity generation (25-30 percent by 2030) with continued safety improvement; and strengthen the country’s position on the global market of nuclear technology, by expanding traditional markets and winning new ones.

One of the most important ROSATOM constituents is Atomenergoprom that has incorporated all civil assets of the nuclear industry. Apart from Atomenergoprom, ROSATOM includes nuclear weapons enterprises; the federal state-owned unitary enterprise Atomflot running the nuclear ice-breaker fleet; INTER RAO UES which manages energy assets in 14 countries and controls export/import of electricity; and Atomstroyexport – a company building nuclear power plants outside Russia.

The Nuclear Weapons Complex of ROSATOM implements the nuclear deterrence policy pursued by Russia. The sector operates in liaison with defence industry, according to the corporation’s website.

The nuclear weapons industry sprang from the first Soviet A-bomb project and originally included the enterprises listed in the USSR State Defense Committee order ‘On organization of uranium-related activities’.

ROSATIM website points out that a significant contribution was made to the A-bomb project by prominent scientists such as I. Kurchatov, Y. Zeldovich, A. Sakharov, Y. Khariton, E. Zababakhin, A. Bochvar, I. Kikoin, A. Alexandrov, A. Alikhanov, G. Flerov, and Academy Corresponding Members D. Blokhintsev, N. Dukhov and K. Shchelkin.

The current leaders of this industry are Academicians R. Ilkaev, Y. Trutnev, B. Litvinov, E. Avrorin, V. Mikhailov and corresponding members of the Academy of Sciences G. Rykovanov and S. Garanin.

ROSATOM claims that the nuclear weapon complex is a sustainably operating venture. Two large-scale programmes are under implementation – State Weapons Program for 2007-2015, and federal target program on the Nuclear Weapons Complex Development in 2007-2010 and until 2015.

Governmental defense contracts are placed with the sector each year.

The corporation’s website notes: “The nuclear weapons industry is a begetter of national nuclear power because the idea to use nuclear for electricity generation appeared in the process of A-bomb creation.

The Nuclear Weapons Complex is still a major source of innovative solutions for its civil spin-off. Civil products of weapons enterprises are in great demand; the biggest clients are oil and gas, railroad and motor-car industries.” (IDN-InDepthNews/30.03.2010)

External link:
http://www.rosatom.ru/en/complex
http://www.iaea.org/
Related IDN stories:
http://www.indepthnews.net/area2.php?key=EN

NASA Proposes Wind Turbines For Va Launch Facility

 Nasa - Wallops Island

Mar 28, 2010 8:46 am US/Eastern

ATLANTIC, Va. (AP) ― NASA wants to install wind turbines on Wallops Island to generate electricity for its flight facility.

A public meeting on the proposal is scheduled April 1 from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Wallops Island Flight Facility's Visitor Center. April 5 is the deadline to submit comments.

NASA says the wind turbines would generate about a third of the flight facility's electricity.

Two 2-megawatt utility-scale turbines and up to five 2.4-kilowatt residential scale turbine would be installed.

NASA says it studied several renewable energy sources, including solar and geothermal. Wind turbines are the preferred alternative.
___

Wallops Island draft Energy Assessment: http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/AltEnergy_DEA.html
Read more:
http://wjz.com/wireapnewsva/NASA.proposes.using.2.1595011.html

EPA Launches Web Forum on How to Best Protect America’s Waters

CONTACT:

Enesta Jones
jones.enesta@epa.gov
202-564-7873
202-564-4355

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 17, 2010

EPA Launches Web Forum on How to Best Protect America’s Waters

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input on how the agency can better protect and improve the health of our waters.

For a two- week period, EPA is holding a Web discussion forum on how the nation can better manage some of the most significant water pollution problems facing our nation.

The feedback received on the online forum will help shape the discussion at EPA’s upcoming conference in April, Coming Together for Clean Water, where we will engage approximately 100 executive and local level water leads on the agency’s clean water agenda.

"We look forward to reviewing the ideas and feedback from the public,” said Peter S. Silva, assistant administrator EPA’s Office of Water. “This online discussion is for anyone who wants to share their best solutions for restoring healthy waters and creating sustainable communities across the country."

EPA wants to receive input from water professionals, advocates, and anyone interested in water quality issues about best solutions—from planning, scientific tools, low impact development, to green infrastructure and beyond—in controlling water pollution and how resources can be better focused to improve these efforts.

To join the discussion: http://blog.epa.gov/waterforum/
Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.
Please join the conversation on our new open government Web site http://www.epa.gov/open/index.html?gd

Farmers may get money for energy projects

By Tara Bozick
Danville Register & Bee
Published: March 25, 2010

DANVILLE - Levi and Katie Thompson wanted to see how they could install solar energy on their small family farm.

The Concord couple heard of available grant money for renewable energy and would like to produce electricity from a solar power system to sell back to the grid and utility companies.

“We’re interested in offering an alternative to what’s currently available and generating profit at the same time,” Katie Thompson said.

So, they came to the Rural Energy for America Program workshop hosted by the Virginia Cooperative Extension at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research on Wednesday. The program offers funding for both renewable energy systems and energy efficiency projects.

“The bottom line of this program is basically to help them decrease their dependency on foreign fuels, increase efficiency and save money,” said Laurette Tucker, rural business specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development office in Richmond.

The Virginia office would like to stimulate interest in the program as each state receives allocations from the federal government every year.

For many energy efficiency upgrades like equipment or facility replacement, farmers should undergo an energy audit or energy assessment to determine the costs, expected savings and payback time of the project. The energy audit or assessment reports are also used in the REAP application process.

To help local farmers with the costs of energy audits and project implementation, community viability specialist Martha Walker of the local Extension Office announced Wednesday that money is available through the On-Farm Energy Efficiency Program.

The new pilot program funded by the Virginia Tobacco Commission aims to help farmers in Southside and Southwest Virginia. The funding helped the Extension train 12 data collectors for farm energy audits completed through Vermont-based EnSave Inc.

Money is available to help at least 30 farmers with free energy audits, Walker said.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service in Virginia is also offering financial assistance for farmers to conduct energy audits.

Once the audit report is complete, farmers who decide to go through with the projects may also receive up to $2,500 in funding through a 25 percent cost-share program, Walker said.

For information on how to get started on farm energy projects or get an energy audit, call Walker at (434) 766-6761 or e-mail walker53@vt.edu.

Local farmers interested in applying for a direct farm loan may contact farm loan officer James Rigney Jr. in the Pittsylvania County Farm Service Agency office in Chatham at (434) 432-9455, Ext. 2.

What is the Rural Energy for America Program?

Through U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development, this program offers grants, guaranteed loans or combination grant-loans to help farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses buy and install renewable energy systems or make energy efficient improvements.

What kinds of projects can get money? For example:

• Improving the lighting, heating, ventilation or insulation in poultry houses
• Converting a coal- or petroleum-fired stove or boiler with one that uses a renewable fuel like corn or wood
• Constructing a biodiesel or ethanol facility
• Installing solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric power or geothermal systems
• Building anaerobic digesters
• Upgrading to more efficient freezers in a grocery store
• Replacing grain dryers

Read more:
http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/local/southside/article/farmers_may_get_money_for_energy_projects/89054/

How much uranium in water is too much?

The Virginian-Pilot
March 20, 2010

A study will begin soon to examine whether a uranium deposit in Southside Virginia can be mined safely.

Experts with the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, start work at a time when issues related to uranium and public health are in flux.

The Environmental Protection Agency is due to release a review of drinking water standards this month. Recent research suggests that even the tiny amounts of uranium permitted in public water supplies may carry health risks. Sorting through the policy and politics will be a challenge.

The National Research Council's  must retain a healthy skepticism about any recommendations based on current safety standards, recognizing that a growing number of scientists and government regulators consider those rules inadequate.

This issue is particularly crucial for the residents of Virginia Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk. Lake Gaston, downstream from the proposed mine in Pittsylvania County, is the main source of drinking water for Virginia Beach, helps replenish Norfolk-owned reservoirs and may one day provide drinking water to Chesapeake.

Beach officials have wisely hired an independent engineering firm to do its own study about risks to the city's water supply. Much of the concern has centered on the potential for large storms to wash radioactive contaminants into streams feeding Lake Gaston, but additional attention must be given to the treatment of groundwater in and around the uranium deposit.

Scientists featured at a symposium last week sponsored by environmental groups emphasized that they are still learning about the health effects from uranium and heavy metals left behind from milling the ore. Recent research suggests even low levels of uranium in drinking water may cause reproductive changes that could increase the risk of fertility problems and certain cancers. Those studies focus on water that meets existing EPA standards for human consumption.

The World Health Organization recommends stricter limits than those in force in the United States. An investigation last year by The New York Times found that the federal Safe Drinking Water Act regulates only 91 of 60,000 chemicals in use in the United States, and many of the standards are out of date.

The EPA is now reviewing those regulations. Any changes will be balanced against the cost for achieving greater water purity.
Government regulations can never eliminate all risks. The real question: How much risk is acceptable? The EPA is struggling with that question now, and soon Virginia leaders will be doing the same.

Read more:
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/how-much-uranium-water-too-much

Uranium socio-economic study expected to begin this summer

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:13 AM EDT

The chairman of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy expects a study on the socio-economic impact of uranium mining to begin this summer.

The study, which is separate from the scientific study set to begin soon, will address the effects of uranium mining on businesses, schools and the community.

"We're going to try to get that going pretty quickly," said Del. Terry Kilgore of Scott County.

Kilgore said the Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee will seek proposals from universities and other qualified organizations.

Unlike the scientific study, which includes the entire state and is not site specific, the socio-economic study will target Pittsylvania County, Halifax County and Danville, Kilgore said.

Virginia Uranium Inc. announced plans three years ago to explore mining uranium at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham.

In February, the National Research Council in Washington, D.C., agreed to conduct a statewide scientific study on uranium mining in Virginia.

The council signed a contract with Virginia Tech for the $1.4 million study, which will be funded by Virginia Uranium.

The study will take about 18 months, with a final report due Dec. 1, 2011.

Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, chairman of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee, recently applied for a $200,000 grant from the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission.

Meanwhile, the National Research Council is seeking nominations for a 12-member committee for the scientific study.

The council is hoping to identify suitable members for the study committee with expertise in areas such as ecology, environmental and mining law, environmental remediation, geology, ground and surface water hydrogeochemistry, health communications, mine safety, mine regulation and reclamation, radiation health effects; and uranium mining, milling, processing, and engineering.

Nominations for the committee may be sent to Nicholas Rogers (nrogers@nas.edu) and copied to Feary (dfeary@nas.edu).

Spokesman William Kearney expects the committee to be approved this spring and begin meeting early this summer.

He said one of the group's first public meetings will be in Danville.

"The goal is to pick a committee with the expertise to carry out the objectives of the study and also be balanced from a scientific perspective," said Kearney.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/03/24/chatham/news/news50.txt

URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA/The National Research Council Study Process: Call for Nominations

National Academy of Sciences building, located in Washington, D.C

                                              
URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA

The National Research Council Study Process
Call for Nominations

Study Timeline

Current Status: Stage 2: Committee Selection and Approval -- Call for Nominations (See NRC Study Process Pamphlet for general timeline: http://www.nationalacademies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf

The target for completion of the study is December 2011.

Call for Nominations

To send nominations via email click here: nrogers@nas.edu, dfeary@nas.edu

The NRC has started a new study on Uranium Mining in Virginia under the auspices of the Board on Earth Science and Resources' Committee on Earth Resources and with collaboration by the Water Sciences and Technology Board; the statement of task for this project is appended below.

We seek your assistance in identifying suitable members for the study committee (approximately 12 people) who will have expertise in areas such as ecology; environmental and mining law; environmental remediation; geology; ground and surface water hydrogeochemistry; health communications; mine safety; mine regulation and reclamation; radiation health effects; and uranium mining, milling, processing, and engineering.

Please send any nominations for members of the study committee to Nicholas Rogers: nrogers@nas.edu
, with cc to David Feary, dfeary@nas.edu. It would also be most helpful if you could include a brief sentence or two describing the particular expertise of nominees.

The Statement of Task:

Uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been prohibited since 1982 by a state moratorium, although approval for restricted uranium exploration in the state was granted in 2007. A National Research Council study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of assisting the Commonwealth to determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens. In particular, the study will:

(1) Assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health risks from exposure to "daughter" products of radioactive decay of uranium.
(2) Review global and national uranium market trends.
(3) Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.
(4) Analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health, safety, and the environment at sites with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic, and population characteristics to those found in the Commonwealth. Such analysis shall describe any available mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts from uranium operations.
(5) Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(6) Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments ("cells").
(7) Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
(8) Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.
(9) Identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.
(10) Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
(11) Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
(12) Provide a non-technical summary of the report for public education purposes (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).

By addressing these questions, the study will provide independent, expert advice that can be used to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia; however, the study will not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted nor will the study include site-specific assessments.

Contacts:

Media Inquiries:
Ms. Jennifer Walsh
Email: news@nas.edu
Phone: (202)334-2138

Study Information:
Dr. David Feary , Study Director
Email: dfeary@nas.edu
Phone: (202)334-3622
Fax: (202)334-1377

Mr. Nicholas Rogers
Email: nrogers@nas.edu
Phone: (202)334-2208
Fax: (202)334-1377

Read more:
http://www.dels.nas.edu/besr/uranium.shtml?utm_source=Virginia+Energy+Independence+Alliance&utm_campaign=59d108b817-NAS+Study%3A+Call+for+Nominations&utm_medium=email

Efficiency Rebate Program Summary (Virginia)

Updated March 16, 2010

Efficiency Rebate Program Summary

Governor Bob McDonnell announced that approximately $6.5 million will be available for a second round of the Virginia Energy Efficiency Rebate Program to make existing homes and businesses more energy efficient.

Energy efficiency improvements include upgrading heating and air conditioning equipment, adding insulation, replacing leaky windows, and other improvements to existing homes and businesses that reduce energy consumption and utility costs.

Homeowners are eligible for rebates for 20 percent of the costs of qualifying energy conserving products and services, up to $2,000. Commercial consumers are eligible for 20 percent of their costs, up to $4,000.

Home and business owners also can qualify for an additional $250 for an energy audit. (Click here to read more: http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/ARRA-Public/SEPRebate.shtml .)

Reserve a Rebate: https://epm.virginiainteractive.org/eerebate/
Redeem a rebate, check status or modify an existing project: http://www.virginia.gov/eerebates

Risk assessment a complex task - Experts described the top threat from uranium mining, and regulators cited thorough efforts

By Duncan Adams
981-3324

One thousand years.

If uranium mining and milling of ore happens someday near Chatham, Va., Virginia Uranium or another company involved could be required by Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations to design a disposal system that can safely impound mining wastes for a millennium.

The design must provide "reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years," according to the NRC.

Related regulations apply to conventional open pit or underground mining. Different disposal regulations would apply if other methods are used.

In short, uranium mining wastes can be dangerous for generations.

Milling leftovers, called tailings, contain radiation and heavy metals. Among other hazards, the tailings release radon gas and can become dust in the wind and groundwater contaminants.

Experts about the dangers of uranium mining say the tailings can present the greatest hazard to human health and the environment.

"My concern would not be so much about radiation from the ore," said Susan Pinney, an associate professor and epidemiologist at the University of Cincinnati. "Usually, exposure comes from the tailings."

Pinney added, "Inhaling uranium dust is really the source of the body burden of uranium."

An early step in preparing uranium for use in a nuclear reactor is the milling process, which crushes and grinds the ore into powder, called yellowcake.

Paul Robinson, research director for the Southwestern Research and Information Center in New Mexico, said "the way tailings are managed determines whether any mining facility is safe."

Generally, though, Robinson believes all uranium mining is dangerous.

Utah State University professor Susan Dawson's primary research interest is occupational and environmental health.

For more than 15 years, she and her husband, professor Gary Madsen, have studied the impacts of uranium mining and milling on the people of the Colorado Plateau.

Dawson said past studies by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have found increased health risks for certain disorders among people who have worked at uranium mills.

According to NIOSH, research has revealed higher than expected rates of blood cancers, chronic kidney disease and nonmalignant lung diseases among mill workers. Lung cancer deaths also were higher than expected.

Modern controls might make milling work significantly safer, Dawson said.

The problem, she said, is that evidence of health problems often takes years to emerge.

"There's a latency effect," she said. "It takes 20 to 30 years for some of these diseases to appear."

Jack Dunavant, chairman of the Southside Citizens Committee, a group opposing Virginia Uranium's plans, shared a similar observation.

"If you get exposed to radiation, you are not going to turn immediately into a block of salt," he said. "Your health risks are a function of time."

Read more:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/146631

EPA Offers Free Access to Chemicals Inventory

Posted by Nils Bruzelius in EPA,
March 16, 2010

The US Environmental Protection Agency put out the word yesterday (March 15) that people who want to see its public inventory of industrial chemicals will no longer have to shell out their own money to get it. It’s a small but meaningful step on a longer and contentious road to give the public, first responders, workers and business people full access to information about the possible risks of substances that are all around us.

In recent meetings with EPA officials and Congressional aides, Environmental Working Group (EWG) Senior Scientist Dave Andrews, Ph.D., and others have pointed out that it didn’t make sense to force people to pay for information filed with EPA on the 84,000 registered chemicals.

That inventory was established so that people who handle industrial chemicals, or live in communities where these synthetics were made or fabricated into other products, like cleaners and cookware, could find out whether accidental releases posed a health threat.

The inventory is available for free on EPA’s website and on Data.gov.

Now it’s up to EPA and Congress to confront the bigger issue — industry’s overuse of a loophole in the law that allows chemical makers to keep crucial information about many industrial chemicals out of the public eye entirely. In a report last December called “Off the Books: Industry’s Secret Chemicals,” Andrews documented that 17,000 of the substances on the EPA inventory are cloaked under claims of “confidential business information” (CBI).

For those 17,000 chemicals, EPA is not allowed to disclose information as basic as the identity of the product or information about its health hazards. Companies must submit that information to the agency, but EPA cannot even share it with first responders called to accidents or disasters that might expose them to unknown toxic substances. Over the last three decades, industry has stamped secrecy claims on two-thirds of all newly introduced chemicals.

EPA, which until recently rarely challenged industry’s secrecy claims, has announced that it will begin to take a closer look. In particular, it will not allow industry to withhold information indicating that a chemical poses a risk to health or the environment if that chemical is already listed on the public inventory.

That’s progress, too, but it still leaves a gaping hole in the system that’s supposed to shield us from toxic risks. EWG urges EPA to continue its efforts to curb abuse of confidentiality claims and calls on Congress to move quickly to replace the 30-year old Toxic Substances Control Act with an updated and effective Kid Safe Chemicals Act.

Read more:
http://www.ewg.org/kid-safe-chemicals-act-blog/2010/03/epa-offers-free-access-to-chemicals-inventory/
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/invntory.htm

Group seeks tobacco money to fund second part of uranium mining study

By John Crane
Published: March 19, 2010

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has applied for $200,000 in grant money from the Virginia Tobacco Commission to help pay for the second part of a uranium mining study.

Virginia Delegate Lee Ware, chair of the commission’s uranium mining subcommittee, filed the application last month, said David Bovenizer IV, spokesman for Ware. The study’s second portion would focus on the socioeconomic aspects of uranium mining and milling.

Also, the subcommittee’s staff attorney is contacting schools and institutions in Virginia as possible candidates for conducting the study. The contacted entities include the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service and the economics department at George Mason University, Bovenizer said.

The Weldon Cooper Center’s mission is “to anticipate and forecast change and to serve as a resource to those who need to recognize and address that change,” according to the center’s Web site. The center provides “policy analysis, applied research, technical assistance, leadership development, survey research, consultation and training for state and local officials, community leaders, as well as members of the general public,” according to the Web site.

The socioeconomic study is still in the planning stage and the next uranium subcommittee meeting has not been set, Bovenizer said.

“All is very preliminary,” Bovenizer said via e-mail Friday. “Delegate Ware acted to meet the deadline and to ‘get the ball rolling.’”

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining and milling since 1982. The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, is conducting the first part of the study — focusing on the technical and safety aspects of uranium mining — to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth.

VUI, through Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, is paying for the $1.4 million first half of the study, but will not fund the second portion, said Patrick Wales, geologist and spokesman for VUI.

The Danville Regional Foundation aims to conduct its own separate socioeconomic study on the Coles Hill project. It would be site specific and focus on a 50-mile radius around the project’s location.

Jack Dunavant, head of Southside Concerned Citizens and a Halifax town councilman, called VUI’s plans an “asinine idea” and doubts the Coles Hill project will succeed.

The study should include an analysis probing the questions of “jobs gained versus jobs lost”in the region resulting from uranium mining and milling, he said. Two schools in Chatham, Hargrave Military Academy and Chatham Hall, an all-girls boarding school, would close if uranium is mined and milled at Coles Hill, Dunavant said.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/group_seeks_tobacco_money_to_fund_second_part_of_uranium_mining_study/19150/

Fix a Leak Week Offers Texas-Sized Water Savings: Americans can save water and money

News Release
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 16, 2010

(Boston, Mass.—March 16, 2010) Across the country, household leaks are wasting more than 1 trillion gallons of water per year—enough water to supply every home in Texas with its annual water needs. To help consumers save water and money, EPA is working with water utilities, manufacturers, retailers, communities and plumbers to promote its second annual Fix a Leak Week, March 15 to 21.

If a family of four’s wintertime water use exceeds 12,000 gallons per month, they probably have a leak. In many cases, fixture replacement parts pay for themselves quickly and can be installed by do-it-yourselfers, a trusted professional plumber, or a WaterSense irrigation partner.

WaterSense, a partnership program sponsored by EPA, seeks to protect the future of our nation's water supply by offering people a simple way to use less water.

In addition, EPA is providing consumers with ways to identify and repair dripping faucets, running toilets and leaky showerheads. Here are a few water-saving tips:

- Reduce faucet leaks by checking washers and gaskets for wear and replacing them; if it’s necessary to replace a faucet, look for the WaterSense label.
- Silent toilet leaks can be found by placing a few drops of food coloring in the tank and checking the bowl for color after a few minutes or before flushing. Replacing a worn rubber flapper is a quick fix, or look for the WaterSense label if you need a new toilet.
- For a leaky garden hose, replace the nylon or rubber hose washer and ensure a tight connection. For a landscape irrigation system, a WaterSense irrigation partner can check it in the spring to make sure fixtures were not damaged by frost or freezing.

In New England, EPA will be joining the City of Salem, Mass. as they launch a WaterSense Poster Contest for local school children and recognize the numerous water conservation initiatives the City has undertaken to commemorate Fix a Leak Week.

More information on other Fix a Leak events: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/fixaleak
More information on WaterSense: http://www.epa.gov/watersense
Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.

Setting the mining record straight (uranium)

By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: March 17, 2010

To the editor:

The March 11 uranium mining and milling symposium in Richmond presented information regarding some of the challenges that industry, regulators and citizens face regarding the potential lifting of the moratorium in Virginia. The forum offered an opportunity for elected officials, interested citizens and the uranium mining (and milling) industry to broaden their knowledge regarding the issue. Each panelist brought decades of education and experience regarding uranium mining, milling, resulting wastes and their effects on human health. Symposium sponsors will have a video of the symposium available soon. Hopefully, those of you who did not attend the symposium will take the opportunity to view it online.

It is unfortunate that some tried to portray the symposium as pro-mining vs. anti-mining constituents.

Virginia Uranium Inc.’s Patrick Wales termed it an “anti-mining pep rally,” which is insulting to attendees, sponsors and the esteemed panelists. We’ve come to expect analogies of this nature from VUI’s “head cheerleader.” Wouldn’t it have been more productive for VUI to request to meet with the assembled panelist, offer a tour of Coles Hill and and discuss safety issues regarding uranium mining and milling practices?

It was puzzling that the Register & Bee chose to quote and refer to Marita Noon, executive director for a lobby group, as an expert regarding uranium mining and milling in a recent article. She is not.

KAREN B. MAUTE

Mount Cross

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/setting_the_mining_record_straight/19041/

DRF uranium mining study moving forward

By John Crane
Published: March 18, 2010

The Danville Regional Foundation has narrowed its search for an organization to conduct a study to determine the socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining and milling in the Dan River Region.

Karl Stauber, the foundation’s president and chief executive officer, said three entities will submit proposals to the foundation by June 15.

“They’re going to propose to us how to do the study,” Stauber said Wednesday.

Eight firms submitted requests for qualifications to the foundation, which selected three as possible contractors. Stauber declined to reveal the names of the organizations, but said the one chosen to perform the study will have to meet certain requirements.

Whoever the foundation picks must be internationally regarded for scientific rigor and have a “real track record” for conducting socioeconomic studies, Stauber said. Also, it must lack identification with one side or the other on the issue of uranium mining and milling and have a history of producing results that “can be used in making critical public decisions,” he said.

Stauber announced the foundation’s intention to undertake the study last fall to find out the implications of uranium mining and milling for the region.

“We’re focused on the economic transformation of this region,” he said, adding that the foundation wants the best available information from credible, independent sources.

Stauber said he won’t know the study’s costs until he sees the proposals. The foundation will ask the three organizations to submit 10-15-page synopses of their proposals, which will be posted on the foundation’s Web site — http://www.danvilleregionalfoundation.org/  — for public comment for 30 days.

The foundation will also assemble a panel of experts from all over North America to critique the proposals.

“We’re looking for an array of people that are pro-mining, anti-mining and neutral,” Stauber said.

Stauber said the foundation hopes to make recommendation to its board in early August and hopes the study begins in September. The study will take 15-18 months, he said.

The study’s emphasis will not be statewide but will focus on a 50-mile radius around Coles Hill, Stauber said. Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining and milling since 1982.

VUI will not pay for the second part of the study, which would focus on the socioeconomic impacts.

Eloise Nenon, founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens in Chatham, praised the foundation’s efforts and said the scientific part of uranium mining and milling, which the NAS/NRC is studying, is only a small part of mining’s impacts.

“The science is just a fraction of what would be involved,” Nenon said, adding that the region’s history, farms, culture and future generations will also be affected if uranium is mined and milled

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/drf_uranium_mining_study_moving_forward/19067/

National Academy of Sciences won't answer our biggest questions

Chatham, VA

By Katie Whitehead/Opinion
Wednesday, March 10, 2010 9:02 AM EST

The NAS technical study will not end the intense political debate about the safety of uranium mining in Virginia. Nor will it answer the more important question: Would the uranium industry be good for our community and our state over the long term?

At a recent awards ceremony in Richmond, someone asked geologist Robert Bodnar whether uranium can be mined safely at Coles Hill. Emphasizing all three words, Bodnar responded, "I don't know."

Truly surprised and sincerely wanting to learn from an expert, the person said something like, "You've done work there; do you have an opinion?" Bodnar replied, "An opinion, yes; but I'd like to give you an informed opinion and for that I need more information."

Many people think that Virginia has asked the National Academy of Sciences the same safety question, and they expect a decisive answer - yes or no.

Dr. Bodnar, the C. C. Garvin Professor of Geochemistry and University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Tech (VT), was recently named Virginia's Outstanding Scientist 2010 by Gov. McDonnell and the Science Museum of Virginia.

Bodnar is investigating the origin, age, and physical and chemical properties of the uranium deposit at Coles Hill. He focuses on the various ways uranium is contained in the rock and what is required to extract it.

His work is critical to engineers who investigate the potential cost of mining and milling the ore and to scientists who study environmental and health effects of uranium mining and tailings.

Funded by the U.S. Geological Survey, Bodnar's current project could also help exploration geologists find similar deposits elsewhere.

He has commented, "I think there's a very high probability that there are other deposits of the same size, same grade, as Coles Hill located in the eastern United States."

Bodnar supervised recent research at Coles Hill by VT graduate students funded by Virginia Uranium Inc. VUI discontinued funding to VT in January 2009.

In Bodnar's view, an especially useful project would be to inventory and summarize the many cartons of data accumulated since the Coles Hill deposit was discovered in 1979.

The mineralogy and hydrology data needed to understand and decide whether Coles Hill could be mined safely does not exist in a usable form. It may not exist at all.

Bodnar makes clear he's not interested in withholding information. Existing Coles Hill data is not organized sufficiently to know what's there and share it.

Many people think that the purpose of the NAS study is to fill in knowledge gaps; however, NAS will not do field work or other site-specific research at Coles Hill or anywhere else, much less go through those cartons.

VUI justifies discontinuing financial support for VT geology and hydrology research by explaining that the company is spending its entire research budget on uranium studies initiated by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, including the NAS technical study estimated at $1.4 million.

VUI also budgets a comparable or larger sum on lobbying and public relations.

To produce the best information on which to base a public policy decision, truly "hands-off" funding is needed without simultaneous lobbying and self-promotion.

VUI's goal in funding VT's independent research was to "turn on the science," VUI vice president Mick Mastilovic explained to the Chatham Star-Tribune in September 2008. "Before you can answer a lot of questions you've got to collect a lot of information."

Virginia Uranium Inc. has worked hard to influence public opinion and frame the uranium mining controversy as a simple matter of safety: "If the study says the Coles Hill deposit cannot be mined safely, it will not be mined."

As a consequence many people, like the person at the ceremony in Richmond, mistakenly expect a simple yes-or-no answer to the safety question and don't necessarily ask how uranium mining could affect quality of life or question the long-term economics.

The NAS will review existing scientific literature, clarify the issues, and identify valid concerns that are relevant in Virginia.

At best, the NAS study will gather and evaluate existing evidence of the effects of uranium mining, millings, and tailings storage elsewhere and the implications for Virginia communities.

Especially helpful will be NAS comment on whether there is sufficient information available for us to make a sound public policy decision and what additional research is most needed or desirable.

Anyone expecting the National Academy of Sciences to provide a clear-cut conclusion telling us what to think and what to do will be disappointed.

The NAS will not make a simple, unconditional statement about whether uranium can be mined safely in Virginia. The NAS study report will not say, "It can be mined safely." or "It cannot be mined safely."

The NAS technical study will not put an end to the intense political debate about the safety of uranium mining in Virginia.

Nor will it answer the bigger, more important question: Is there convincing evidence anywhere that the uranium industry sustains a desirable quality of life in actual communities - communities like ours - over the long term?

Katie Whitehead lives in Pittsylvania County and serves as chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force.

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/03/16/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt

meeting of the Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission and the Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee

The next meeting of the Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission and the Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee

will be Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at the Franklin Center, Rocky Mount, VA.
50 Claiborne Avenue, Rocky Mount, VA 24151.
Directions and contact information can be found by accessing this website http://www.thefranklincenter.org/default.htm

The RRBBC meeting will be 10 a.m. until 12 p.m. and

the VRRBAC meeting will be 1 p.m. until 3 p.m.

Agenda for RRBBC Meeting:

ROANOKE RIVER BASIN BI-STATE COMMISSION

Meeting Agenda:

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

10:00 am - 12:00 pm

The Franklin Center, Rocky Mount, VA

A. Call meeting to order

B. Welcome

C. Recognition of Members and Guests - Chairman Feild

D. Minutes of December 3, 2009 Meeting

E. Committee Reports

1. NC Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee - Rep. Lucy Allen and Sen.

A. B. Swindell

2. VA Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee - Mike McEvoy

3. Water Allocation Committee - Tom Fransen and Scott Kudlas

4. Lower Basin IBT Coalition - Gene Addesso

F. Presentations:

1. Tom Leahy, Director of Public Utilities, Virginia Beach - Uranium Mining Study

2. Interstate Commission of the Potomac River Basin - Scott Kudlas, Jason Ericson,

VA DEQ (rescheduled from the December 3, 2009 meeting)

G. Next Meeting - Location and Topics

H. Other Business

I. Adjournment

Commission Members

North Carolina Virginia

Senator A. B. Swindell Senator Wm. Roscoe Reynolds

Senator Ed. Jones Senator Frank M. Ruff

Senator Clark Jenkins Delegate Kathy J. Byron

Rep. Lucy T. Allen Delegate Thomas C. Wright, Jr.

Rep. James Crawford Delegate Charles D. Poindexter

Rep. Edith Warren Delegate Onzlee Ware

Larry Yarborough John Feild

John Slaton Haywood J. Hamlet

Nate Hall Mike McEvoy

Staff_____________________________________________

Richard Seekins Scott Kudlas

Gene Addesso Tammy Stephenson

Tom Reeder Jason Ericson

Tom Fransen

Agenda for VRRBAC Meeting.

VIRGINIA ROANOKE RIVER BASIN

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Meeting Agenda

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m.

The Franklin Center, Rocky Mount, VA

A. Call meeting to order

B. Welcome; Recognition of Members and Guests

C. Consider Minutes of October 19, 2009 Meeting

D. Presentation

Tom Leahy, Director of Public Utilities, Virginia Beach - Uranium Mining Study

E. Sub-Committee Reports

Agriculture and Forestry Sub-Committee - Haywood Hamlet, Chair

Lake Interests Sub-Committee - Russ Johnson, Chair

Permit Holders Sub-Committee - John Lindsey, Chair

Public Officials and Government Entities Sub-Committee - Robert Conner, Chair

Roanoke River Interests Sub-Committee - Read Charlton, Chair

F. Next Meeting Date/Topic /Location

G. Other Business

H. Adjournment

Committee Members

Senator Wm. Roscoe Reynolds Walter Coles, Sr., Chatham

Senator Frank M. Ruff John H. Feild, Mecklenburg

Delegate Kathy J. Byron Haywood J. Hamlet, Phenix

Delegate Thomas C. Wright, Jr Evelyn Janney, Floyd

Delegate Onzlee Ware. Bob Jean, Brookneal

Delegate Charles D. Poindexter Russ Johnson, Wirtz

Representative Tom Perriello John Lindsey, Penhook

Mike McEvoy, Chairman, Roanoke Billy Martin, Sr., Blue Ridge

Tim Pace, Collinsville Robert H. Conner, Vice-Chair, Ebony

Mark Wagner, Huddleston Read Charlton, Vice-Chair, Charlotte

Court House

Anyone with questions or who would like additional information about VRRBAC or RRBBC should contact VA DEQ staff Scott Kudlas at scott.kudlas@deq.virginia.gov or by calling 804-698-4456 OR Tammy Stephenson at tammy.stephenson@deq.virginia.gov or by calling 540-562-6828.

Read more:
http://www.deq.state.va.us/vrrbac/

Edwards nuclear lecture 3/5: Radiation & the ultimate waste

12.1.2010

How come nuclear proponents can claim that final deposition would solve the problem with the waste?

This answer has been given:"We don't consider this as a technical problem, but a public relations problem!" (This final phrase was left out due to time limitation.)

Presentation held in Loviisa 12.1.2010. Gordon Edwards is math & physics professor from Canada who increases awareness of nuclear power to prevent the harm that the mere self-sustaining thrive of the industry leads to.

Read more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjlFOEtsDRQ

Experts at symposium see health, economic risks in uranium mining

By Rex Springston
Published: March 12, 2010

Mining uranium can create health and economic problems, experts said yesterday.

A company called Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine uranium in Pittsylvania County in south-central Virginia. The radioactive material fuels nuclear power plants.

Uranium and related substances such as radon have been linked to problems such as cancer, birth defects and kidney disease, said Doug Brugge, a professor of public health at the Tufts University School of Medicine.

"There is a pretty solid scientific basis to be concerned about the health impacts," Brugge said.

People could be exposed by working in a mine, drinking contaminated water or inhaling tainted air, he said.

A uranium mine in Pittsylvania would create a lot of waste and hurt local economic development, said Paul Robinson, research director for the Southwest Research and Information Center, a nonprofit educational group in New Mexico.

The men spoke at a daylong symposium on uranium mining at Richmond CenterStage in downtown Richmond. About 175 attended.

Sponsors of the symposium included the environmental groups Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Southern Environmental Law Center.

Wales acknowledged that uranium mining has caused health problems in the past, but he said modern regulations and mining methods would protect the public.

Brugge and Robinson said current regulations are not very strict. Robinson also said prices and demand for uranium have dropped in recent years.

Robinson and Brugge said they were not opponents of the Pittsylvania mine. They said they wanted to provide information so residents and lawmakers could make informed decisions.

State officials have asked the National Research Council, a respected scientific organization, to study the safety of uranium mining in Virginia.

Virginia Uranium is putting up $1.4 million for the study, which could be completed by late 2011, Wales said.

Read more:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/URAN12_20100311-223007/329930/

VIRGINIA FLOOD STORIES (whole state is a proposed Uranium Mining)

Comments:  Lots of rain this weekend has closed many road closings!

Pittsylvania (County) - Current Road Conditions

Rt. 637N (Pittsylvania County) Shula Dr; Rt. 642N/S (Pittsylvania County) Roark Mill Rd; Rt. 638E/W (Pittsylvania County) Closed Flooded 03/14/2010 05:13 AM


Rt. 637S (Pittsylvania County) Shula Dr; Rt. 642N/S (Pittsylvania County) Roark Mill Rd; Rt. 638E/W (Pittsylvania County) Closed Flooded 03/14/2010 05:13 AM

Rt. 683N (Pittsylvania County) E Gretna Rd; VA-40E/W Upper Mountain Rd; Rt. 627N/S (Pittsylvania County) Closed Washout 03/14/2010 05:13 AM

Rt. 683S (Pittsylvania County) E Gretna Rd; VA-40E/W E Gretna Rd; VA-40E/W Closed Washout 03/14/2010 05:13 AM

Rt. 792E (Pittsylvania County) Chaney Ln; Rt. 1308N/S (Pittsylvania County) E Gretna Rd; Fairmont Rd; Rt. 665E/W (Pittsylvania County); VA-40E/W Closed Flooded 03/14/2010 05:13 AM

Rt. 792W (Pittsylvania County) Rockford School Rd; Rt. 665E/W (Pittsylvania County) E Gretna Rd; Fairmont Rd; Rt. 665E/W (Pittsylvania County); VA-40E/W Closed Flooded 03/14/2010 05:13 AM


Virginia's Top Ten Worst River Floods (20th Century)

By Barbara McNaught Watson


#1 June 21-24, 1972 - "Agnes"

#2 November 4-7, 1985 - "Election Day Flood"

#3 September 6-8, 1996 - "Fran"

#4 October 15-17, 1942

#5 January 19-22, 1996 - "The Great Melt Down"

#6 August 14-18, 1940

#7 March 18-19, 1936 - "The Great Spring Flood"

#8 August 20-22, 1969 - "Camille"*

#9 April 26-27, 1937

#10 August 18-20, 1955 - "Diane"


There are four basic types of floods that afflict Virginia: coastal flooding, urban flooding, flash flooding, and river flooding.

Coastal flooding usually occurs with the storm surge of a hurricane (see chapter called Virginia Hurricanes) or with a "Nor'easter", an intense low pressure system that moves slowly up the coast with strong onshore winds. While the hurricane season goes from June through November, Nor'easters occur from September through March and are generally considered a winter-time storm (see chapter called Virginia Winters).

Urban flooding occurs in heavily paved areas. Pavement does not allow water to be absorbed into the ground thereby increasing the speed and amount of water run-off . If areas are without proper drainage, or storm drains become clogged, then streets become streams and water gathers in low-lying areas turning them into pond. If it rains hard enough, underpasses can rapidly fill trapping motorists and streets can accumulate enough water to submerge cars or carry them wherever the water flows.

This chapter will focus on flash flooding and river flooding, Virginia's deadliest weather duo.

VIRGINIA FLOOD STORIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 1771 - "The Great Fresh of 1771" : The following is pulled from an even more detailed, three page article that appeared in the Virginia Cavalcade in Autumn 1951 --

"In the spring of 1771 the lowlands of all Virginia rivers east of the Alleghenies were inundated by destructive floods. This unexpected tragedy was probably the most devastating act of God which has been experienced in Virginia during the three and one-half centuries since the English planted their colony at Jamestown. Many islands were torn to pieces, hills of sand thrown up, channels stopped, the face of nature almost changed.

While not a cloud was to be seen in the skies above the Tidewater, torrential rains deluged the central Blue Ridge Mountain region throughout ten or twelve days in May 1771. Rivers which drained this general area - the James, the Rappahannock, and the Roanoke in particular - overflowed when unprecedented quantities of water were funneled into their channels. The Shenandoah, Potomac, and York rivers seem to have swollen to a lesser degree, but whatever damage they did was overlooked in the colony's greater concern over the more extensive destruction done by the other three.

For sixty hours the James river rose continuously, as much as sixteen inches per hour. On May 27, a ship anchored near Warwick in Chesterfield County, a few miles below Richmond, which made soundings from the first perceptible rise, found itself riding a crest forty feet higher than the common tides. Other observers claimed that this fresh was twenty feet higher than the one in May 1766, and ten feet higher than those which had come in 1720 and 1724. Richard Adams saw from his porch a flood "40 feet perpendicular." So dreadful was it, he remarked, that a truthful description of it would not seem credible to anyone who had not seen it with his own eyes. Old Joe, an honest and well-known Negro at the falls of the James near the little town of Richmond, said that the water climbed fifteen feet above the crest of the worst flood remembered in the tradition of neighboring Indians. The Rappahannock River was reported in The Gentleman's Magazine of London to have risen twenty-five feet higher than it had ever been known to be.

Swept from their foundations, houses floated down the rapid currents. Despairing people trapped on these makeshift crafts shouted pitifully for help, but no attempts at rescue could be ventured. Wine casks, hogsheads of tobacco, furniture, trees, lumber, and even large warehouses were borne seaward by the swirling waters.

All told, one hundred and fifty persons were said to have lost their lives. Many others had narrow escapes.

Both in the Piedmont and in the Tidewater property losses were disastrous. Thomas Jefferson lost his gristmill at "Shadwell" on the Rivanna River. Everything was swept off Farrar's Island.... Eighty acres of rich topsoil on this farm were buried under ten to twelve feet of sand overlaid by rocks flattened smooth as if by a modern steam roller. ...at Elk Island...nothing being saved but the people and five horses. It is more meaningful to express the losses of this one estate in terms of more than seven hundred livestock, nearly a hundred farm buildings, and unknown quantities of grain and tobacco. At another plantation, located where the Rivanna merges with the James, fourteen Negroes were drowned and only one of forty houses was left standing.

How much destruction was done in the Valley it is impossible to ascertain, but one surviving record indicates that the James River wreaked havoc even west of its passage through the Blue Ridge. John Howard of Botetourt County lost all of his growing crops, all but one of his tobacco houses, his corn house and the feed stored therein, and some of his livestock. It was only because of "the great goodness of God that my People are all alive," he wrote thankfully.

Floods are dirty things, and this one was no exception to the rule. When the rivers receded, carcasses, trees, and other debris were found to be matted together in some places to heights of twelve and even twenty feet. These confused masses of litter issued such a stench that there was no undoing them. As may have been expected, a "sickly" summer followed."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flood of 1870 - Richmond:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flood Stories of the 20th Century

March 17-18, 1936: During the period March 9-22, successive storms crossed the eastern region of the U.S. with floods occurring from Virginia to Maine. A total of 150 to 200 lives were lost and damage was in the millions. In Virginia, the Potomac, Shenandoah, Rappahannock, James, and York Rivers flooded. Most large flood events in Virginia are associated with tropical systems. This flood was the largest non-tropical flood event. The winter of 1935-1936 was marked by long-continued periods of low temperatures and heavy snowfalls. In December, it was estimated that areas in the northern Blue Ridge Mountains exceeded 40 inches of snow. Some snow melted during a mild January, but more fell in late January to mid-February. March began with warm temperatures and a thaw. The first rainstorm came in the second week with up to three inches falling. The rains melted the snow, adding an equivalent of one to two inches of rainfall. This caused the rivers to rise and set the stage for the next rain event.

The primary flood-producing rains came March 17 and 18 when a storm, drawing moisture from the Gulf of Mexico, tracked right across Virginia. It dumped an additional six inches of rain on top of the already saturated soil. The North Fork of the Shenandoah crested eight feet above flood stage in Rockingham County. At Front Royal, the Shenandoah flooded the city rising to 14 feet above flood stage. The Potomac River in Washington, D.C. rose nine feet above flood stage flooding portions of Arlington and Alexandria including the old airport (where the Pentagon is now located). The fresh water inundation on the Lower Potomac and tributaries killed thousands of bushels of oysters and seedlings. In Culpeper, the Rapidan crested at over five feet above flood stage and in Fredericksburg, the Rappahannock flooded. The James River, at Richmond, reached 26.5 feet (18.5 feet above flood stage) causing serious flooding to the city's industrial and business sections.

April 1937: Just one year after the record flood of March 1936, another major flood struck Virginia. Heavy rains caused widespread flooding over all but southwest Virginia. The Rappahannock Basin was hit hardest. Fredericksburg saw its worst flood since 1889 when the river swelled to 30 feet above normal. Three bridge spans were lost, home in low areas were partially submerged and a score of gasoline storage tanks were swept away. Four young Culpeper residents died in Madison County when their car plunged off a bridge at Locust Dale into the Robinson River. The approach to the bridge had been washed away by the flood waters. Another person was lost in Amelia County when their car dropped into the river where a bridge approach was washed out. A sixth person was drowned when a roadway over a dam collapsed. Flooding on the Potomac was not as bad as the previous year, yet the river reached 14.3 feet at Wisconsin avenue and portions of Alexandria and Arlington again flooded. Total damages to roads and bridges in Virginia came to nearly a half a million dollars. Agricultural losses came to over a million dollars in Northern Virginia alone.

October 1942: Torrential rains fell from October 12-16 in Northern Virginia causing the worst river flood in the history of the state. The hardest hit was the mid portion of the Rappahannock River and the Shenandoah River. On the Rappahannock, damages came to $2.5 million (1942 dollars) and most of that was in Fredericksburg, where the river rose to 41 feet (27 feet above flood stage). On the Shenandoah River, a stage of almost 50 feet was reached at Riverton on the morning of the 16th. Flood stage is 22 feet and it broke the record set by the March 1936 flood by 12 feet! Flood losses on the Potomac River were $4.5 million. The Potomac at Washington reached 17.6 feet (flood stage is seven feet). Areas of Alexandria and Arlington were seriously flooded. Flooding was not quite as serious on the James River, yet the flood crest in Richmond reached 16 feet above flood stage.

Ten to 12 inches of rain fell from Fredericksburg to Warrenton. Seventeen inches were recorded in Front Royal. In Shenandoah National Park, along Skyline Drive, rainfall totals reached 18 to 19 inches! To the south, Nelson County received 16 inches. Another maxima of 12 to 16 inches fell from near Paw Paw, West Virginia south along the mountains into Highland and Bath Counties of far western Virginia. Highways and bridges were washed away. Over 1,300 people were left homeless in Albemarle, Spotsylvania, Stafford and Warren Counties. Miraculously, only one person died. Transportation was interrupted for three days. Severe damage occurred to Virginia crops: peanuts, cotton, sweet potatoes, soybeans, shocked corn and late hay. The heavy rains caused a million bushels of apples to drop before they were picked.


June 1949: Severe flash flooding struck the southern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and Potomac Highlands of West Virginia in June 1949. High pressure over New England combined with a tropical low near Georgia to set up a flow of moist, tropical air from the Virginia Coast westward against the east slopes of the Appalachians. As the air lifted along the mountain slopes, rain began. Flood-producing rains occurred from mid day on the 17th into the morning of the 18th while the tropical low moved from the North Carolina Coast to southern Virginia. In Virginia, the heaviest rain fell in the Bridgewater-Stokesville area of Rockingham and Augusta Counties. Witnesses say that rain fell in sustained torrents from mid afternoon to past midnight. Car headlights could not penetrate the rain more than 5 feet. At the North River Dam Station nearly 10 inches of rain was recorded over three days with 7.75 inches of it falling in a 24 hour period beginning the morning of the 17th. However, much greater rainfall amounts fell in the hardest hit area. Rainfall was so great in the upper reaches of the Little River that it caused large landslides on the steep slopes. The North River and it tributaries above the mouth of the Dry River were all at record breaking stages. Interviews (by the Division of Water Resources) with the oldest inhabitants established that this flood was higher than the 1877 flood. The USGS gage on the North River near Burketown (downstream from Bidgewater) indicated a crest of 36.3 feet, about 4 feet higher than the October 1942 flood crest. A preliminary report by the Weather Bureau read as follows:

Stokesville, Va., where heavy damage occurred, is located just below the confluence of the Little River and the North River. It received the combined flow of both streams, which apparently peaked at about the same time. From eyewitnesses' accounts, this combined flow made such a sudden rise that it gave the effect of a "wall of water" traveling down the channel and causing extreme damage all the way to Bridgewater.

The path of the high-intensity rainfall also included the headwaters of Briery Branch, causing a great flood on this stream. The town of Bridgewater, Va., received the flood waters from the combined North River -- Little River -- Briery Branch drainage areas, apparently with their peak flows nearly simultaneous.

The Stokesville area is a community of 76 families. This area saw 14 homes destroyed, 29 homes damaged, 20 brooder houses destroyed, 2 barns and 75 smaller out-buildings lost to flood waters. Another 31 smaller buildings, two gas stations, and an undetermined number of cars and trucks were lost. Several hundred chickens and turkeys and 36 head of livestock were lost. Total damages to this small community came to nearly half a million dollars. About 25 homes were lost along Briery Branch. The town of Bridgewater had a population of around 1000. Here, three lives were lost and damages totaled nearly one million dollars. Some 50 homes were flooded and one was destroyed. Municipal installations such as water supply and sewage disposal were heavily damaged. Power and phone lines were lost as well as over 50 vehicles. The Highway Department listed damages at a quarter of a million dollars. A 240-foot bridge at Mt. Solon in Augusta County and two 100-foot bridges aCROSS THE NORTH rIVER IN rOCKINGHAM cOUNTY WERE LOST. Practically the entire highway along the North River between Towers School and Stokesville was destroyed. Agricultural losses from the flood were half a million dollars. Total flood damage was a little over 2 million dollars.

August 1955, Connie and Diane: On August 12, Hurricane Connie dropped a record 8.79 inches of rain on Richmond. Connie moved up the Chesapeake Bay on the thirteenth, across Baltimore and into Pennsylvania. The rains produced by Connie saturated the soil and set the stage for Hurricane Diane. Hurricane Diane, just five days after Connie, moved across central North Carolina, central Virginia, Washington, D.C. and into Pennsylvania. Diane dropped an additional 10 inches of rain on the Blue Ridge Mountains. East winds in advance of the storm lifted the heavy moisture-laden air into the mountains. The heaviest rains again fell along Skyline Drive. Many areas, from Danville to Fredericksburg to Winchester and Staunton, set new record rains for the month of August. Luray recorded 8.82 inches of rain on the 18th from Diane, setting a new 24 hour record for the site and had a new monthly record near 20 inches. Big Meadows, in the mountains southeast of Luray, set a new record for August with near 24 inches.

Except for some local areas, river flooding was not as severe as the 1942 and 1936 floods. The heavy rains resulted in flash flooding along the piedmont and over the Shenandoah Valley. Water flowed into nearby rivers causing the heaviest flooding on the Shenandoah and the Rappahannock rivers. The Rappahannock River crested in Remington at 8.5 feet above flood stage setting a new record and at Fredericksburg, it crested 11.5 feet above flood stage. In Richmond, the James River crested nine feet above flood stage but well below the flood of 1936. In Rockingham County, the Shenandoah River crested one to two feet above flood stage (nine feet below the 1942 flood) and downstream, at Riverton, it crested near 30 feet (7 feet above flood stage).

August 19-20, 1969: Hurricane Camille made landfall on the Louisiana Coast and maintained hurricane strength for 150 miles up the Mississippi Valley. The storm turned east and headed for Virginia. It tapped into the warm moisture-rich air over the southern Gulf Stream and drew it northwest toward its center and toward the Virginia Mountains. Thunderstorms began to grow and it started raining. The storms formed a band with each thunderstorm following the one before it as they rose up the mountain slopes between Charlottesville and Lynchburg. An area 100 miles long and 25 miles wide received more than 10 inches of rain. In Nelson County, the storm total came to 27 inches and unofficial rain total was estimated at 31 inches! Rain from Camille produced the worst flash flood in Virginia's history. It was so devastating that 117 people died, all communications were cut off to the outside world and damages came to over half a billion dollars.

The following stories were obtained from the Charlottesville Daily Progress and published in the Southern Climate Review in the Autumn 1989 addition:

Wayne Oliver, of Lovingston, awoke around 3 a.m., heard some unusual noises, decided to get out of bed and have a look around. Eight inches of water were on the bedroom floor. "We'd been having some trouble with the water system and I thought maybe a pipe had burst, so I went to check it out. That's when the house started moving." The wife and two young children huddled on the bed while Wayne fought to open the water-swollen attic door and lift them above the rising water. "The bed was floating and it got higher and higher and you could feel the house moving. The boards were cracking and popping and first the floor came apart in the kitchen and then it came apart in the bedroom and then the bed hit the ceiling with me on it and the whole house came apart! It threw me into the water and carried me away and I couldn't hold them any more. I never saw them again.... I don't know how far I drifted. There were boards hitting me and I was groping for them but nothing would hold me up until I finally came up on a piece of the house. I think it was the livingroom." Mrs. Oliver was washed a mile from her home. Her husband wound up in a tree a half mile away. The children were never found.

A mother and child stayed in their home as it was torn from its foundation and floated over seven miles downstream. They were unharmed.

Dora Morris lived at the head of Davis Creek where its average depth is a few inches. In virtually continuous lightning, she estimated it had risen to a height of 50 feet. "The awfullest roar. It was a horrible sound. I suppose it was the landslides and the trees tumbling down the hollow, tearing at everything." She said it lasted four hours.

By 1 a.m., August 20, the amount of rain was enough to undermine the forest floor, and mudslides - soil, rock, boulders, trees, and some inhabited houses poured down the ravines. At some points, these slides were blocked and created temporary dams that impounded acres of water. Finally, the dams would give way sending torrents down the creeks into Tye, Piney, and Rockfish Rivers. For five miles down Davis Creek, logs were piled 30 feet high.

Curt Matthews smelled it coming. The scent of crushed pine pitch, amidst the roar of the mudslides, invisible in the storm, was what saved his life. At 1 a.m. "I had gone in to lay down for a while, and when I came back out on the porch, I smelled the unusual odor of bark and sap and green timber. I'm in the logging business and I know that smell, but I never in my life smelled it so heavy, even in a sawmill. The air was like sticking your head in a sack of bark. Finally, I couldn't stand it any longer and I went to wake up my wife and told her we had to get out. She didn't want to go and it took me 20 minutes to get her and the child ready. But in 20 minutes, the water rose from three to eight feet in my yard.... It must have been all these trees coming apart and washing down the hollow that I smelled. I guess I was one of the lucky ones." His home and land disappeared without a trace, but the family got out in time.

Samuel Johnson of Massies Mill was washed through the eaves of his two-story house at 3 a.m. He rode the water a half mile downstream and lodged in a tree. "The house went away like a paper bag bursting." He spent over six hours in the tree with "not a rag on my body...just the same as I came into the world." The other family members in the house did not survive the night.

Mr. McQuary of Rockfish: "The first thing I heard was this water on my porch. I kept fussing with my wife, but she didn't want to leave her belongings. There was this rumbling...like thunder...and the ground trembling. As my wife stepped off the porch, the house began to go...rocks and water just squished it off...we managed to get away." Within a half hour, "the thundering came back and big rocks and trees came down.... All I saved is what I had on my back."

June 1972, Agnes: Hurricane Agnes, in its tropical storm stage, caused torrential rains over Virginia and the Mid-Atlantic States. In Chantilly (near Dulles Airport), 16 inches of rain fell. All rivers in Virginia were affected. Ten inches of rain fell over northern Virginia resulting in widespread flash flooding and major flooding on the Potomac River. New records were set on the Rapidan and Rappahannock Rivers. In Lynchburg, the James River crested eight feet above flood stage. In Richmond, the river crested 6.5 feet above the old record flood marks dating back 200 years. Water supply and sewage treatment plants, along with electric and gas plants, inundated and were partially shut down. Four of the five bridges crossing the James were closed. A 200 block area of downtown Richmond was swamped and closed off for several days. Flooding occurred on the Appomattox River with Farmville suffering its worst flood in history. The Dan River at Danville and the Roanoke River in Roanoke exceeded previous record flood stages set in August 1940. A total of 63 counties and 23 cities qualified for federal disaster relief. There were 13 deaths and $222 million in damages. Sensitized by Camille, quick evacuation saved lives. Numerous homes were destroyed, 600 roads went underwater and 103 state highway bridges were washed out or damaged.

November 1985: This was the most recent major flood in Virginia causing 22 deaths and nearly $800 million in damage. Extensive flooding also occurred in eastern West Virginia and western Maryland. Heavy rains began on the fourth of November causing flash flooding. Roanoke recorded a record 6.63 inches of rain in 24 hours. The Roanoke River rose seven feet in one hour and 18 feet in six hours. It crested at 23 feet on November 5 - Election Day. Eight feet of water stood in downtown Roanoke causing extensive damage. Mobile homes were swept down the river. Boats and helicopters were used to rescue people from the cold waters and pluck them off roof tops.

Flash flooding occurred in normally dry hollows. The flood waters carried tremendous amounts of debris which wiped out bridges and left channels filled with rocks. In Lynchburg, the James River reached a new record flood stage: seven feet above the old water marks. Stored tobacco valued at $8 million was lost in several warehouses along the James. Canisters of deadly chlorine gas were washed into the river from a plant near Lynchburg. In Richmond, the river flooded several blocks of commercial and industrial buildings.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) declared 50 jurisdictions disaster areas, and 4,331 people applied for temporary housing. A total of 1.7 million people were affected by the flooding with the majority in Roanoke, Salem, Lynchburg and Richmond. Nineteen election polling stations had to be moved due to the flooding and it should be no surprise that the turn out was considered poor.

June 1995: This was the worst flash flooding in Virginia since Camille in 1969. It is estimated that near 20 inches of rain fell in southwestern Madison County in less 12 hours.

Read more:
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/Historic_Events/va-floods.html

World experts on uranium mining featured at Richmond forumHealth

Environmental concerns growing in uranium-mining communities in U.S. and elsewhere

03.11.2010 – Contact:
Cat McCue, Senior Communications Manager, Southern Environmental Law Center, 434-953-8672
Eileen Levandoski, Hampton Roads Organizer, Sierra Club, 757-277-8537

Richmond - More than 150 people attended a symposium in Richmond today to hear from five experts from around the world on the human, environmental and economic impacts of uranium mining. The experts have witnessed first-hand the operations and impacts of uranium mines in the U.S. and around the globe, and have written extensively on issues of water quality and health consequences, as well as economic and community impacts.

A proposal to mine uranium in Pittsylvania County, Virginia – thought to be the largest deposit in the U.S. – has brought the issue front-and-center in the state over the last several years. Virginia has banned uranium mining since the early 1980s when the deposit was discovered; Virginia Uranium Inc. is seeking to overturn the ban. The National Academy of Sciences is about to begin an 18-month study, as requested by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, to determine whether uranium mining and milling can be done safely in Virginia.

One of the experts, Doug Brugge, professor in the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine, said the body of evidence of health impacts of exposure to uranium continues to grow. Uranium, a heavy metal, is known to cause kidney damage and birth defects in animals, while other contaminants in uranium ore can cause cancer.

“It’s a heavy metal, a chemical toxin, like lead and mercury and cadmium,” Brugge told the audience. “We’re not at the end of the road, there’s probably more to be found.” He discussed recent studies from around the world showing even low levels of uranium have health impacts, and that, aided by new genetic technology, researchers are learning more about how uranium changes genetic processes.

Brugge also said that current drinking water standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency are insufficient. EPA sets 30 ug/L as safe to drink; the World Health Organization standard is half that, yet a health-based standard would be about 2 ug/L. “In regards to current standards, I would be skeptical about their adequacy to adequately protect people,” Brugge said.

Paul Robinson, research director of the Southwest Research & Information Center in New Mexico, said that most open-pit uranium mines generate five to 10 times the amount of waste rock as uranium ore, and that the milling process to separate the usable uranium from the waste rock also generates massive amounts of waste, called “tailings.” Uranium waste is contaminated with both toxic chemicals as well as radiation, and can spread through the air, surface water or groundwater to nearby communities.

Potential mining in Pittsylvania County could have a number of negative economic impacts, he said, including lowered property values, and decreased markets for the region’s agricultural products. “The perception of risk is very important in marketing, and that has a socio-economic impact on neighbors (of a uranium mine).”

Robinson also discussed the global uranium market, saying that supply has outstripped demand in recent years, and that that trend will continue. The world uses roughly 65,000 pounds of uranium a year – enough for 80 to 100 years at current consumption rates.

Other speakers included Gordon Edwards, with the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Rianne Teule with Greenpeace International, and Manuel Pino, a professor of American Indian Studies at Scottsdale Community College in Arizona and a member of the Acoma Pueblo, a Native American community hard-hit by health damage among its members who worked at what was the world’s largest uranium mine for 30 years until it closed in 1982.

The symposium was sponsored by the Dan River Basin Association, Friends of the Earth, Piedmont Environmental Council, Sierra Club, Virginia Chapter, Southern Environmental Law Center, Virginia Conservation Network, and Virginia Interfaith Power & Light.

A video of the symposium will be available next week.

News Facts


Proposed mining area in Pittsylvania County, Virginia is thought to have the largest deposits of Uranium in the U.S.

Symposium comes as National Academy of Sciences readies for 18 month study to determine if uranium mining and milling can be done safely in Virginia.

Experts say that mining in Pittsylvania County could have a number of negative economic impacts, including lowered property values, and decreased markets for the region’s agricultural products.

Doug Brugge of Tufts pointed to studies taht show that even low levels of uranium has health impacts.

Uranium waste is contaminated with both toxic chemicals as well as radiation, and can spread through the air, surface water or groundwater to nearby communities. Studies have shown that even low levels of uranium can have health impacts.
Read more:
http://www.pitchengine.com/southernenvironmentallawcenter/worldexpertsonuraniumminingfeaturedatrichmondforum/51526/