New group - including former NASCAR driver - wants to continue state uranium mining ban

The Associated Press

8:40 a.m. EST, December 29, 2011
DANVILLE, Va. (AP)—

A new coalition with some familiar names has been created to keep Virginia's 30-year ban on uranium mining in place.

The Gazette Virginian reports that The Virginia Coalition includes House Del. James Edwards, former Del. Ted Bennett and retired NASCAR driver Ward Burton.

The coalition also includes Andrew Lester of the Roanoke River Basin Association. He says the association believes a raft of reports released in recent weeks all lead to the conclusion that uranium mining would be a threat to the health and safety of Virginians.

Read more:
http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-new-group-including-former-nascar-driver--wants-to-continue-state-uranium-mining-ban-20111229,0,4456496.story

New Web Site: Read the Reports

Comment:  Please visit the great blog:  Read the Reports:  http://www.readthereports.org/index.php

The risks to our health are too great to rush the vote!

Uranium has never been mined in Virginia, and our wet climate presents a totally different set of risks than those in the more arid Western US.

Virginia is unprepared to regulate the uranium mining industry and inadequate oversight would pollute Virginia for many generations.

http://www.readthereports.org/index.php

Pittsylvania County farmer takes uranium mining debate to heart

The farmer's legacy could be in danger if mining and milling is permitted about two miles from his farm

Justin Ward
Reporter
1:21 p.m. EST, December 29, 2011
CHATHAM, Va.—

Uranium mining is likely to be the hot button issue when Virginia lawmakers begin work in a couple of weeks up in Richmond.

A proposal to lift a statewide ban on the mining of the radioactive mineral is polarizing and personally impactful.

Consider the case of a 200-year-old farm near a proposed uranium mine site in Pittsylvania County.

The 104 acre farm has been in farmer Byron Motley's family for seven generations.

But keeping his property up to par isn't what's waking him up in the middle of the night, it's worrying whether he'll get to keep it.

Motley and his family live about two miles from the proposed uranium mine site at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County.

Part of his property falls under, what recent studies have called, a contamination or condemned zone.

According to one of those studies, mining and milling uranium can drastically lower underground water levels and could place by-products in well water.

Underground water is the only source available to Motley and his neighbors.

"I don't know where I could go and call it home. This is been my home all my life," Motley said.

He's not the only person that the proposed site could impact.

"It's a lot of memories, a lot of heritage and something I would like to preserve and have for the future," Motley said.

Read more:
http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-pittsylvania-county-farmer-takes-uranium-mining-debate-to-heart-20111229,0,6827627.story

Please review the great interview:

http://www.wdbj7.com/videogallery/67052579/News/Local-farmer-will-be-impacted-by-uranium-mining#pl-66745839

Leave Virginia's uranium mining ban in place

Letter to the Editor

Published: December 26

Regarding the Dec. 20 Metro article “Obstacles remain in quest for uranium”:

Few people I’ve spoken with were aware of the threat uranium development poses to Virginia. This is a reflection of the would-be developers’ political savvy, and it’s deeply troubling, given the risky nature of this experimental development scheme by Virginia Uranium.

Plenty is at risk from operations on the proposed Pittsylvania County site, including potential contamination of drinking water that would affect more than a million residents of Hampton Roads and North Carolina communities; Virginia’s $18 billion tourism industry; and markets for local agricultural products, including wine, milk and the grass-fed beef raised in Pittsylvania County by my family, among others.

No one has identified successful uranium operations in wet, severe climates comparable to that of Southside Virginia.

The National Academy of Sciences study on uranium mining at the site leaves too many unknowns.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) and state legislators must reject this risky experiment with Virginia’s future and leave the state’s moratorium on uranium mining in place.

Joy M. Oakes, Arlington

Read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/leave-virginias-uranium-mining-ban-in-place/2011/12/22/gIQAHWgHJP_story.html

A turn in the road? General Assembly to weigh pros, cons of uranium mining

December 27, 2011 12:20 AM
Jessica Sabbath

Editor’s note: This story is part of Virginia Business’ look at the upcoming General Assembly session in its January issue. The issue, which will be available online on Dec. 29

Not everyone agrees uranium mining would be such a good deal for Southern Virginia.

Phillip and Deborah Lovelace also decided to raise cattle during their retirement at their family farm, located about five miles from the uranium deposits. They worry about what a uranium mine would mean for their well water, air quality and health. “We came back to the family farm to retire here, and we hopefully can pass it on to our children,” says Deborah Lovelace. “My youngest daughter’s about to go to college, but I wouldn’t want to raise children here [if the mine were built].”

Neighbors aren’t the only voice of opposition. Environmentalists and advocacy organizations from around the state are fighting to prevent uranium mining from being allowed in Virginia, arguing it would threaten drinking water, pose public health risks and degrade quality of life.

After receiving two in-depth science and socioeconomic studies on uranium mining in December, the General Assembly may consider this year whether to lift a 30-year moratorium on uranium mining.

So, instead of the retirement he envisioned, Coles runs a company that wants to mine and process uranium deposits worth an estimated $7 billion at today’s prices, leading what is likely to be one of the most contentious battles in this year’s General Assembly.

Eventually four state governmental bodies (including the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission) determined in 1984 the moratorium should be lifted if recommendations from the state’s Uranium Task Force for permitting and regulations were put in place. The issue was dropped, however, when in the wake of the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania, the U.S. nuclear energy industry stalled. Marline gave up its plans as the price of uranium sank.

A study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is expected to be a key guide for legislators as they consider whether to lift the moratorium. The 302-page report did not recommend whether or not to allow mining, but it concluded that Virginia faces “steep hurdles”

The Roanoke River Basin Association came to a different conclusion. “The NAS study does not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that uranium mining in Virginia’s wet climate will pose absolutely no threat to public health and safety,” says Andrew Lester, executive director of the association. “In fact, the study lists potentially insurmountable challenges in addressing the technological and regulatory problems with uranium mining in Virginia.”

If the moratorium is lifted, the state would create a regulatory framework for uranium mining, and Virginia Uranium could begin the years-long process of seeking the required local zoning approvals and state and federal permits.

Opponents believe legislators don’t have enough time to adequately examine the NAS study before this year’s General Assembly session. “One of our many concerns is that the industry is trying to push this forward without regard to the fact that the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission hasn’t been able to have a public outreach process,” says Calle Jaffe, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

The opposition

A host of environmental and government groups (such as the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Farm Bureau) and localities either are strongly opposed to uranium mining or at least want the General Assembly to delay consideration of the issue.

Historically, the uranium industry has a poor track record of protecting the environment and public health. Geologists argue that technology and science have improved enough to allow uranium to be mined with low risk. “I know from past experience we can extract resources from the earth with minimal exposure to the environment and public health,” says Robert Bodnar, a geology professor at Virginia Tech who has been involved in mining for more than 30 years.

Another scientist, however, believes the Coles Hill deposits would likely contaminate the local groundwater.

The Roanoke River Basin Association asked Robert Moran, a Colorado hydrologist, to conduct an analysis of Coles Hill. Using current technical reports from Virginia Uranium and a Marline report from the 1980s, Moran said that conditions such as naturally permeable rock, seismic activity and degradation of liners of tailing containments could create seepage into local water supplies.

The containment of tailings, the remnants from the uranium mining process, is among the biggest concerns about the industry.

The potential threat to water supplies has caught the attention of Virginia’s largest city, Virginia Beach. The city spent $600,000 on two studies to determine the effect of the breaching of tailings containment facilities on its water supply, which is downstream from the proposed uranium sites. The study concluded it would take two years for contaminants to be cleaned from the water under this scenario. “The [city council’s] current position is that there are just too many studies coming out this month or early next year, and there’s simply no time for the public or the city to properly consider these studies for any action,” says Tom Leahy, public utilities director for Virginia Beach.

Cotter Corp.’s uranium mill near Canon City, Colo., provides a cautionary tale on the importance of properly managing tailings. The mill, which operated off and on between 1958 and 2005, received many citations for air and water contamination and was declared a Superfund site in 1984. In 2005, a state regulator determined that even a tailings pond built under current regulations was determined unusable. In 2009, Colorado required Cotter to post a financial bond of $43 million to help pay for cleanup of the site, but the company so far has paid only $20.8 million of that amount.

But Moran says another major issue is that most of the uranium mining data today do not come from independent sources. “The modern operations are clearly done at a higher quality level than historic ones,” he says. “The bigger problem is that the information that’s generated from the projects — even the modern ones — is largely controlled by the corporations.”

Environmentalists have major concerns about Virginia’s ability to regulate uranium mines. “Even the best regulations don’t necessarily prove they will be able to protect us completely,” says Lester of the Roanoke River Basin Association.

Another concern stems from the fact that tailings remain for thousands of years. “Companies will do a reasonably good job while the operations are active, but once they shut down, who’s going take care of the site forever?” asks Moran.

Study shows hurdles with uranium mining

The National Academy of Sciences’ report determined Virginia faces “steep hurdles” in establishing a regulatory framework to protect employees, public health and the environment if uranium mining is allowed.

The study did not include a blanket recommendation on uranium mining in Virginia but identified health and environmental risks such as radiation exposure and groundwater contamination. The report said these risks could be reduced by implementing industry best practices and establishing a stringent monitoring system.

One of the key obstacles in regulating uranium mines is lack of experience on the state and federal level. Conventional mining is a small industry in the U.S. and currenlty done only in the West. The report recommended the state consider the entire lifecycle of a mine or mill during the planning phase, including post-mining monitoring.

Containment of uranium tailings, the solids produced in processing, is one of the industry’s most significant environmental health concerns. Although technology has improved, data do not exist yet on the long-term effectiveness of modern procedures for containing tailings, the report said.

Read more:

http://www.virginiabusiness.com/index.php/news/article/a-turn-in-the-road-general-assembly-to-weigh-pros-cons-of-uranium-mining/315890/

Exposure Pathways from Uranium Mining and Waste Disposal

Unless properly managed for long-term stability and security, mining wastes and milling tailings from radioactive ores present serious threats to human health. through their potential to leak these radioactive materials. Unfortunately, uranium mining in low- and middle-income countries is often not regulated with the type of oversight available in high-income countries, and production rather than safety is often the priority. In some instances, tailings have even been used in home construction.

Although tailings often have only low-grade radioactivity, they can be dangerous because of the large quantities that are stockpiled in small areas. Additionally, water that is pumped away from the mine during operations can contaminate local surface waters. Proximity to radioactive materials—both waste dumps and infrastructure built from mining wastes—can result in exposure to Gamma particles and Neutron radiation.

Contamination of food and water sources can occur from dust transported by wind from uranium mine sites and waste deposits. One study in Kazakhstan demonstrated that wind had transported dust particles contaminated with uranium and thorium from a uranium-mining site to plants outside the city of Aktau. [113] Other studies have shown how—because of the long half-lives of many of these radioactive materials—even legacy uranium mines can lead to exposure through food crops and contaminated agricultural soils. [114]

http://www.worstpolluted.org/projects_reports/display/83

Radionuclides: Common Exposure Pathways and Health Risks

Radionuclides can be released into the environment through accidents, poor waste disposal, or other means. Some levels of radiation are naturally present in surface and ground water, but other degrees of radiation exposure come from contact with rocks and soil that have been contaminated with the artificially produced radionuclides mentioned above, such as radon. Often, contaminated soil and rock are the by-products of wastes and tailings from mineral extraction sites, where ores such as uranium are taken for their radioactive properties and industrial uses.

Once elements such as uranium have been processed in sites such as nuclear reactors, radiation exposure can also occur through leaks and industrial failures. Exposure to radiation can also occur when radionuclides are used in excess during medical treatments. These levels of exposure and the effects they produce are called radiation poisoning. Some major pathways to commonly encountered hazardous radionuclides are through inhalation (uranium and radon), food contamination (radium), and occupational exposure at mining and processing sites. [104]

Acute health effects due to a large radiation exposure begin with nausea, vomiting, and headaches. With increased exposure a person may also experience fatigue, weakness, fever, hair loss, dizziness disorientation, diarrhea, blood in stool,low blood pressure, and ultimately death. Chronic and long-term effects may also occur.

Uranium is known as a radioactive toxicant capable of damaging the kidneys and genetic code, which can result in health problems passed to the following generations. Radon is a human lung carcinogen and particularly damaging to miners who extract ores containing radioactive elements. Radon is also the second leading cause of lung cancer death in uranium miners. [105] [106] Studies also show that long-term exposure to radon leads to an elevated risk of leukemia. [107] Chronic exposure to radium through the inhalation pathway can lead to leukopenia, a decrease in the number of white blood cells, which places an exposed individual at an increased risk for contracting infections. [108]

When ionizing radiation strikes an organism’s cells, it may injure the cells. If radiation affects a significant number of cells, it can eventually lead to cancer. At extremely high doses, this type of exposure can cause dealth. In general, there is no safe level of radiation exposure. Individuals exposed to non-lethal doses may experience changes in blood chemistry, as well as nausea and fatigue. Children are particularly vulnerable, as radiation has an effect on the cellular level. As children grow, they divide more and more cells, and more opportunities exist for radiation to interfere with the development process—in terms of fetal development, this can result in smaller head or brain size, poorly formed eyes, abnormal growth, and mental retardation. [109]

Read more:
http://www.worstpolluted.org/projects_reports/display/83

Ionizing radiation

Ionizing Radiation in our Environment

Radiation has always been a natural part of our environment. Natural radioactive sources in the soil, water and air contribute to our exposure to ionizing radiation, as well as man-made sources resulting from mining and use of naturally radioactive materials in power generation, nuclear medicine, consumer products, military and industrial applications.

Radiation accidents and emergencies

Although the likelihood of a major accident at a nuclear facility is low, should such an accident occur, protective actions near the facility and monitoring of radiation at longer distances would need to be taken to protect the public. Other radiation emergencies (for example, a radiation source appears in the human environment, patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment are accidentally overexposed) normally affect only a few individuals, but they occur much more frequently (several times each year). More recently the threat of possible terrorist attacks using radioactive materials or nuclear warheads has become prominent.

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/en/

What is Ionizing Radiation?

 

Introduction - Waves and Particles

The purpose of this section is to provide information on the basics of ionizing radiation for everyone.

Energy emitted from a source is generally referred to as radiation. Examples include heat or light from the sun, microwaves from an oven, X rays from an X-ray tube, and gamma rays from radioactive elements

Ionizing Radiation

Ionizing radiation is radiation with enough energy so that during an interaction with an atom, it can remove tightly bound electrons from the orbit of an atom, causing the atom to become charged or ionized.

Here we are concerned with only one type of radiation, ionizing radiation, which occurs in two forms - waves or particles. More information on Non-Ionizing radiation.

Forms of electromagnetic radiation. These differ only in frequency and wave length.
Heat waves
Radiowaves
Infrared light
Visible light
Ultraviolet light
X rays
Gamma rays

Longer wave length, lower frequency waves (heat and radio) have less energy than shorter wave length, higher frequency waves (X and gamma rays). Not all electromagnetic (EM) radiation is ionizing. Only the high frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum which includes X rays and gamma rays is ionizing.

Waves

Most of the more familiar types of electromagnetic radiation (e.g. visible light, radio waves) exhibit “wave-like” behavior in their interaction with matter (e.g. diffraction patterns, transmission and detection of radio signals). The best way to think of electromagnetic radiation is a wave packet called a photon. Photons are chargeless bundles of energy that travel in a vacuum at the velocity of light, which is 300 000 km/sec.

Particulate



Specific forms of ionizing radiation:
Particulate radiation, consisting of atomic or subatomic particles (electrons, protons, etc.) which carry energy in the form of kinetic energy or mass in motion.

Electromagnetic radiation, in which energy is carried by oscillating electrical and magnetic fields traveling through space at the speed of light.

Alpha particles and beta particles are considered directly ionizing because they carry a charge and can, therefore, interact directly with atomic electrons through coulombic forces (i.e. like charges repel each other; opposite charges attract each other).

The neutron is an indirectly ionizing particle. It is indirectly ionizing because it does not carry an electrical charge. Ionization is caused by charged particles, which are produced during collisions with atomic nuclei.

The third type of ionizing radiation includes gamma and X rays, which are electromagnetic, indirectly ionizing radiation. These are indirectly ionizing because they are electrically neutral (as are all electromagnetic radiations) and do not interact with atomic electrons through coulombic forces.

http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/about/what_is_ir/en/index1.html

Speed-bump device converts traffic energy to electricity

November 9, 2011 by Nancy Owano

A Maryland company, New Energy Technologies, has devised that kind of speed-bump device, which the company likens to a rumble strip, that harvests kinetic energy from vehicles and converts the energy into electricity.

New Energy’s MotionPower Express system captures the unused kinetic energy of vehicles at points where they are required to slow down or come to a stop.

New Energy has ambitions to see its MotionPower Express devices become a part of the toll booths, rest areas, parking lots, airport arrival and departure areas, city lighting systems, zones in other places where traffic should be slowing down—scenarios that can benefit from a greener approach to energy and electricity cost savings.

New Energy has been testing its technology for over a year. The company recently got a boost in publicity by partnering with the city of Roanoke in Virginia to put its MotionPower Express system to the test. According to the company and the city, that test, which was carried out late last month, was successful. Roanoke tested the device that generated energy when vehicles drove over it.

MotionPower Express is suited for installation where vehicles are traveling faster than 15 mph and are slowing-down before stopping, including parking lots, border crossings, exit ramps, neighborhoods with traffic calming zones, rest areas, toll booths, and travel plazas.

The installation at the Roanoke Civic Center was during a busy time when the center was hosting a gun show and circus. A total of 580 cars passed over the rumble strip in six hours.

Reports claim this traffic over this amount of time generated enough electricity to power an average U.S. home for a day. In a commercial context, the traffic over a six hour period was claimed to produce enough electricity for a 150 square-foot electronic billboard or marquee for a day.

New Energy Technologies has been field-testing MotionPower for over a year. In 2009, they conducted a field test at a Burger King in Hillside, New Jersey.

Read more:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-speed-bump-device-traffic-energy-electricity.html

19 Easy Home Winterization Projects

Unless you live in Florida or some other similar balmy climate, you have probably noticed that it is getting COLD outside. Brrrrrr.
So, for us in the Northern Hemisphere, that means that winter is coming (or is here).

And that means that heating bills will be going up.

So what to do?

Well, for 19 suggestions regarding how to winterize things around your house or apartment, check out link:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/latest/winterize-home-tips-energy-461008?link=rel&dom=yah_green&tpc=&src=syn&con=art&mag=tdg

Top Officials Tour Electronic Waste Recycler

The Federal Government Highlights Economic Benefits of Electronics Recycling

Top Officials Tour Electronic Waste Recycler

Contact: John Martin, (212) 637-3662, martin.johnj@epa.gov

(New York, N.Y. – November 10, 2011) Officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. General Services Administration toured e-Green Management of Islip Terrace, New York to highlight the environmental, public health and economic benefits of recycling electronics. The EPA and GSA are partners in a “National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship,” which commits the federal government to promoting the recycling of electronics and advancing a domestic market for electronics recycling that will protect public health, prevent pollution and create jobs.

“The growing electronics recycling industry has the potential to create new economic and environmental opportunities,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck. “Our work with businesses like e-Green Management means that more of our nation’s electronics will be handled responsibly, and more jobs will be created. I commend e-Green Management for their work.”

"The federal government is the nation's largest consumer of electronics and GSA can and will ensure that it becomes the most responsible user of these items," said GSA Regional Administrator Denise L. Pease. "Our efforts in this region alone already keep 1300 tons or 49% of office and building waste out of landfills. Through GSA's programs for reuse, recycling and proper disposal of e-waste, the federal government can lead by example and, at the same time, help promote job growth in this emerging industry. Supporting small businesses who continue to generate jobs and strengthen our economy is a priority of President Barack Obama."

Every year, Americans generate almost 2.5 million tons of used electronics, which are made from valuable resources such as precious metals and rare earth materials, as well as plastic and glass. From computers and cell phones, to portable communication and music devices, the U.S. is a global leader in designing and developing new and improved electronic technologies. The responsible management of electronics provides an opportunity to promote economic development and jobs by developing a strong domestic electronics recycling market while preventing pollution.

The National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship includes four overarching goals:

· Build incentives for the design of greener electronics

· Increase the safe management and handling of used electronics

· Reduce harm from U.S. exports of e-waste and improve the safe handling of used electronics in developing countries

· Ensure that the federal government expands recycling of equipment purchased by the federal government

Under this strategy, GSA will ensure that all electronics used by the federal government are reused or recycled properly. In addition, EPA and GSA will promote development of new environmental performance standards for categories of electronic products not covered by current standards. Several federal agencies will work together to identify methods to move federal agencies toward reuse and recycling.

A key component of the strategy includes the use of certified recyclers and increasing the safe and effective management and handling of used electronics. There are two existing domestic third-party certification recycling entities, the responsible recycling, or R2, and E-Steward certifications. The electronics recycling industry is increasingly using these certification programs. Certified recyclers are regularly audited to ensure that electronics are recycled in a manner that is safe for human health and the environment.

Founded in 2007, e-Green Management is part of the R2 certification program. The company recycles used computers, color TVs, cell phones, printers and fax machines, in addition to batteries and fluorescent bulbs. E-Green Management is planning to expand the number of full-time employees of the company within the next two years.

For more information on the EPA and industry collaboration: http://www.epa.gov/electronicsstrategy

More information on GSA’s electronic stewardship goals and promoting federal agencies’ purchasing Environmentally Preferable Products: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/234565

Follow EPA Region 2 on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/eparegion2 and visit our Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/eparegion2.

NAS Meeting

By STEVE SZKOTAK
The Associated Press
1:33 p.m. EST, December 19, 2011
RICHMOND, Va. (AP)—

A highly anticipated National Academy of Sciences report on uranium mining concludes that Virginia must overcome "steep hurdles" before it can assure that a rich deposit of the radioactive ore can be safely mined and processed.

The 290-page report released Monday is expected to guide the 2012 General Assembly if it considers ending a 30-year ban on uranium mining.

The report does not recommend whether the ban be lifted or remain in place, but makes clear the state must address a number of environmental and public safety issues before mining can occur.

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-uranium-mining-report-released-20111219,0,4606023.story


NAS report:
http://www.scribd.com/full/76073399?access_key=key-1vwh05dgi950nb0jn45d

7 Of The Dirtiest Surfaces In North America

The Huffington Post First Posted: 10/28/11 08:35 AM ET Updated: 10/28/11 02:17 PM ET

Ever wondered about the amount of bacteria on a public surface? You may finally have an answer. According to a report released by consumer product company Kimberly-Clark, gas pump handles and mailbox handles are some of the dirtiest surfaces in America.

The likelihood for illnesses to transfer from the objects that people use every day like ATMs and parking meters is eye-opening," said Brad Reynolds of Kimberly-Clark Professional's Healthy Workplace Project.

The solution? Just wash and dry your hands more often.

Check out our slideshow of some of America's dirtiest surfaces. The numbers indicate the percentage of surveyed items that had ATP levels of 300 or more. Seventy one percent of gas pump handles, for example, had ATP levels of 300 or more

Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/28/dirtiest-surfaces-america_n_1031168.html

NAS Report Validates Major Environmental, Health Concerns Raised by Uranium Mining Opponents

Press Release December 19, 2011

More Info:Uranium Mining - A Risky Experiment
NAS Report Validates Major Environmental, Health Concerns Raised by Uranium Mining Opponents

Cale Jaffe, Senior Attorney, 434-977-4090
In Partnership With:Piedmont Environmental Council - Dan Holmes, 571-213-4250

Richmond, VA – The long-awaited report issued by the National Academy of Sciences today echoes numerous pitfalls with potential uranium mining, milling and waste disposal in the Commonwealth that many concerned Virginians have expressed in past months.

The 300-page report was commissioned by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission and is part of an ongoing contract between the commission and NAS that includes a public outreach and public meeting period over the next five months. The report does not make any recommendations about whether Virginia should or should not allow uranium mining, but raises significant environmental and public health concerns.

Read the National Academy of Sciences report here:  http://dls.virginia.gov/commissions/cec.htm?x=std

State law has maintained a nearly 30-year ban on uranium mining. Virginia Uranium, Inc., which wants to establish a uranium mine, mill, and waste disposal site in Pittsylvania County, is pushing the General Assembly to lift the ban in 2012, beginning with the drafting of regulations.

"This is a huge validation for many of the core concerns that we have been raising," said Cale Jaffe, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. "As the report highlights, a uranium mine or processing facility could be subject to an uncontrolled release as a result of flood, hurricane, or earthquake. In Virginia, we've experienced all of those extreme events just this year."

"The report highlights the difficulty of storing radioactive waste for thousands of years, given Virginia's climate, geology and population density. " said Dan Holmes, Director of State Policy for the Piedmont Environmental Council. "We are now more convinced that this would be a dangerous experiment in Virginia."

Among the cautionary points found by the NAS study committee:

A HUGE RISK - ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: "Furthermore, Virginia is subject to relatively frequent storms that produce intense rainfall. It is questionable whether currently-engineered tailings repositories could be expected to prevent erosion and surface and groundwater contamination for as long as 1,000 years. Natural events such as hurricanes, earthquakes, intense rainfall, or drought could lead to the release of contaminants if facilities are not designed and constructed to withstand such events, or if they fail to perform as designed."

SEVERE CONTAMINATION RISKS EXIST: "Moreover, in a hydrologically active environment such as Virginia, with relatively frequent tropical and convective storms producing intense rainfall, it is questionable whether currently-engineered tailings repositories could be expected to prevent erosion and surface and groundwater contamination for 1,000 years. There are many reports in the literature of releases from improperly disposed tailings and their environmental effects."

A HIGH STAKES GAMBLE: "A mine or processing facility could also be subject to uncontrolled releases of radioactive materials as a result of human error or an extreme event such as a flood, fire, or earthquake."

ADVERSE IMPACTS FOR SOUTHSIDE AGRICULTURE: "Exposure could also occur from the release of contaminated water, or by leaching of radioactive materials into surface or groundwater from uranium tailings or other waste materials, where they could eventually end up in drinking water supplies or could accumulate in the food chain, eventually ending up in the meat, fish, or milk produced in the area."

A HIGH STAKES GAMBLE: "Uranium tailings present a significant potential source of radioactive contamination for thousands of years ... because monitoring of tailings management sites has only been carried out for a short period, monitoring data are insufficient to assess the long-term effectiveness of tailings management facilities designed and constructed according to modern best practices."

CURENT U.S. REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The decay products of uranium (e.g., 230-Th, 226 Ra) provide a constant source of radiation in uranium tailings for thousands of years, substantially outlasting the current U.S. regulations for oversight of processing facility tailings."

CURRENT U.S REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The United States federal government has only limited recent experience regulating conventional uranium processing and reclamation of uranium mining and processing facilities. Because almost all uranium mining and processing to date has taken place in parts of the United States that have a negative water balance (dry climates with low rainfall), federal agencies have limited experience applying laws and regulations in positive water balance (wet climates with medium to high rainfall) situations."

CURRENT U.S. REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The United States' federal government has only limited experience regulating conventional uranium mining, processing, and reclamation over the past two decades, with little new open pit and under-ground uranium mining activity in the United States since the late 1980s."

LONG-TERM RISK: "Tailings disposal sites represent potential sources of contamination for thousands of years, and the long-term risks remain poorly defined."

UNKNOWN RISK: "Additionally, until comprehensive site-specific risk assessments are conducted, including accident and failure analyses, the short-term risk associated with natural disasters, accidents, and spills remain poorly defined."

UNIQUE RISKS FOR VIRGINIA: "In the recent past, most uranium mining and processing has taken place in parts of the United States that have a negative water balance (dry climates with low rainfall), and consequently federal agencies have little experience developing and applying laws and regulations in locations with abundant rainfall and groundwater, and a positive water balance (wet climates with medium to high rainfall), such as Virginia."

PUBLIC PROCESS: "However, under the current regulatory structure, opportunities for meaningful public involvement are fragmented and limited."

WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: "Disturbances of the land surface associated with uranium mining in Virginia would be expected to have significant effects on both on-site and downstream surface water conditions. These disturbances affect both surface water quantity and quality."

http://www.southernenvironment.org/newsroom/press_releases/2011-12-19_nas_report/

Company to build site for testing windmills that could go offshore

By: Rex Springston
Published: October 13, 2011

A venture with American and Dutch roots is proposing to build a multimillion-dollar center on the Eastern Shore for testing huge windmills that could provide clean energy from offshore.

The Poseidon Atlantic test center would cost $5 million to $7.5 million and could nourish a fledgling wind-power industry in the state, supporters say.

"It helps Virginia become a leader in offshore wind," said Paul Vosbeek, co-founder of Rockville, Md.-based Real NewEnergy LLC, one of the partners in the venture.

The other partner is Ecofys, a sustainable-energy subsidiary of the Dutch utility Eneco. Ecofys operates the largest wind-turbine test center in Europe, at Lelystad in the Netherlands, Poseidon officials say.

The proposal calls for establishing eight to 10 sites where windmills — also called wind turbines — up to 750 feet tall would be built. By comparison, the Washington Monument is 555 feet tall.

Wind-turbine companies would build the machines on the Poseidon center's sites. There, the center's workers would test and certify the turbines for standards such as performance and noise levels.

The specific sites have not been determined, but they would be on the eastern side of Northampton County on the Eastern Shore, officials said.

Read more:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/oct/13/tdbiz01-company-to-build-site-for-testing-windmill-ar-1379653/

*New Meeting* : Briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study/Agenda

*New Meeting* : Briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study/Agenda

Agenda:

Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy Uranium Mining Sub-Committee

Monday, December 19, 2011, 1:30 p.m.
House Room D, General Assembly Building

Agenda
I. Call to Order
Delegate R. Lee Ware, Chairman
II. Presentation of the National Research Council's Study of the Health, Safety, and Environmental Impacts of Uranium Mining
Dr. Paul A. Locke, JD, DrPH
Director of the Public Health Program
Department of Environmental Health Sciences
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
III. Discussion and Questions from the Sub-committee Members
IV. Response to the public's written questions on the report
IV. Other Business/Future Meetings
V. Adjourn



Legislative Interim Meeting Notice
Coal and Energy Commission Uranium Mining Subcommittee

*New Meeting*

Subject: URANIUM MINING SUBCOMMITTEE of THE COAL AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING

Meeting Date: Monday, December 19, 2011
End Date: Monday, December 19, 2011

Meeting Time: 01:30 PM
Location: House Room D, General Assembly Building

Address: 901 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Information:

The Uranium Mining Subcommittee of The Coal and Energy and Energy Commission will meet on Monday, December 19, 2011 in House Room D at 1:30 PM. There will be a briefing from the National Academy of Sciences' study of the health, safety and environmental impact of uranium Mining. Written comments will be accepted and the subcommittee will take written questions from the public to the study's authors.


Contact:
Martin Farber, Division of Legislative Services (804) 786-3591
Scott Meachan, Division of Legislative Services (804) 786-3591
Bill Owen, House Committee Operations (804) 698-1540


http://dela.state.va.us/Dela/ComOpsStudy.nsf/FB72CC61CD3B2450852577990056CC19/5ADE09723C9BC0E5852579640067351F?OpenDocument


http://dls.virginia.gov/commissions/cec/files/ag121911.pdf

Uranium Mining

Uranium Mining Studies

What is rush on uranium?

Posted: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:26 am

I can't understand why Chairman Tim Barber, as well as four other county supervisors, would feel that taking time to digest information produced by all the ongoing uranium impact studies, is "overkill."

Should we not err on the side of caution? Surrounding counties have already taken their stance - all with due reserve.

Virginia Uranium Inc. originally said there was no hurry; they would wait to see what the studies produced. But that's not what their moves in the legislature have revealed.

What is the rush here? Looks like many in Virginia would like to hear more, save VUI and five of our supervisors.

Linda Worsley
Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/opinion/article_b18b1806-265f-11e1-8de8-0019bb2963f4.html


Who will pay long-term costs of uranium mining?


Posted: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:30 am
After reading the entire Chmura report, I can't see where all of the rejoicing about this uranium mine is appropriate.

Even in a perfect world where nothing ever goes wrong, this report details plenty of major problems that will accompany this endeavor.

From increased traffic accidents, to air pollution that will cover over a five-mile radius as well as real estate value losses for the 1,350 citizens that live in this radius, this will be the new reality.

Without apology, Virginia Uranium and those that would stand to profit from this venture, would reap benefits from the uncompensated losses of more citizens than would benefit from this mine.

Reading the entire report reveals not just the rosy glow of profit, but some apocalyptic predictions for many of the homes, businesses and citizens of Pittsylvania County.

Perhaps robbing these citizens of property value and quality of life with a little increased cancer risk as a bonus is a small price to pay for the increased prosperity of a couple hundred employees in the Chatham Labor Shed, (basically all of the counties surrounding Pittsylvania), but is this really fair?

Is this hypothetical profit based on peak uranium prices from a few years back realistic given the current price and current demand? Read the report - No!

One glaring omission is lack of mention of insurance costs. Many taxpayers in the area are self-employed farmers; they pay their own insurance out of pocket for home, health, auto and business.

From an actuarial standpoint, in the shadow of this mine with guaranteed increases in respiratory disease and increased traffic accidents and property devaluation, even in the best-case scenario, there is no way any insurance company would offer affordable policies to such a high-risk population.

Who is going to underwrite health policies for the VUI workers at the mine? Is this another bond issue for this company?

This venture is touted by Virginia Energy as securing a future energy source and prosperity independent from the American unfriendly world market.

Sorry, but Canadian-owned Virginia Energy is traded not in an American exchange, but exclusively in Canada.

Half of Virginia Uranium (also traded on the Canadian exchange),is owned by a multitude of international mining interests that have no interest in American well being whatsoever.

Some of these companies are repeat offenders still in courts trying to evade their culpability in creating toxic Superfund sites that U.S. citizens (that's you and me, brother) are paying to clean up.

Read page 109 of the Chmura report. After our friends at VUI get this mine going, they will most likely cash out on the whole project, leaving it in the hands of some of the most notorious, unrepentant polluters this country has ever seen. Take the money and run, laughing all the way.

Back here in the formerly bucolic Pittsylvania cowshed, with our homes devalued, unable to obtain health insurance as we gasp our last polluted breath, our livestock and crops worthless, unwanted by the market, our tax base of cherished private boarding schools closed, who will pay for this devastation?

Not the piddly few million bucks in tax revenue from this mine that wrought this, not the squeezed-dry folks that fell victim to this great idea.

The billions of dollars it will take to plaster over this poisoned hole will never make this area whole again, but it will come from generations of future taxpayers.

Read the report - all of it.

Kay Patrick
Gretna

http://www.wpcva.com/opinion/article_4cf5c548-2660-11e1-a8d9-0019bb2963f4.html



Ruff, Edmunds looking for delay in uranium vote

WRITTEN BY DOUG FORD
08:28 AM 12/14/11

State Senator Frank Ruff and Delegate James Edmunds told town council at its monthly meeting Monday night they were hopeful a vote on the current moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia would not occur in the upcoming General Assembly session. Council had invited the pair of legislators to its meeting to give an overview of the General Assembly session, due to begin in mid-January.

Ruff has stated his opposition to lifting the current moratorium on uranium mining, but he is optimistic the issue will not come to a vote in this session.

“I don’t think it (uranium) will be dealt with this year,” Ruff told council. The prevailing view is with these reports coming out, people will take the time and read them,” Ruff told council.

A National Academy of Science report is coming out any day, several hundred pages long with a recap of about 20 pages, according to Ruff.

There’s not going to be a very good concentration of legislators reading the report due to time constraints caused by the demands of the holiday season, Ruff noted.

“That’s not a very fair assessment. We need to sit down, let everyone go through it and see what the follow up questions are,” he said.

“I’m not sure it will satisfy anybody in this area, but that’s the best we can hope for this year.

“I think everyone needs to know what the ground rules are before we take such a drastic step.”

Edmunds, who also has expressed his opposition to lifting the moratorium, said, “It looks like we’re going to put this thing off for at least a year.”

“As much concern as there is about it, I don’t believe it can get a proper airing,” he said.

“It’s not as if nothing else is going on. I hope we can at least put this thing off for at least a year.

http://www.gazettevirginian.com/index.php/news/34-news/4555-ruff-edmunds-looking-for-delay-in-uranium-vote


Schapiro: Executive asks, 'Is uranium a good business?'

Comment: This is interesting. If I was a betting person I'd say the ban is safe for another year. 


By: Jeff E. Schapiro | jschapiro@timesdispatch.com
Published: December 14, 2011

Ben Davenport Jr.'s farm, where he and his family will spend Christmas, is 4 miles northeast of Coles Hill, site of a proposed uranium mine. The Davenport place, in Pittsylvania County, is hard by the Banister River, which mine opponents predict would be poisoned with radioactive waste. Davenport doesn't share that fear. He has other concerns.

"The question I have is the stigma," says Davenport. "We're being asked to endorse a risk."

Clement is among 16 lobbyists paid nearly $270,000 since 2009 by Virginia Uranium Inc., headed by Clement's brother-in-law, Walter Coles Sr.

Uncertainty is the bane of business, and listening to Davenport, the proposed mine is generating a mother lode. He worries that, with Canadian bankers backing the venture, more money would flow north of the border than through Southside. He worries about possible declines in enrollment at Hargrave Military Academy, of which Davenport is an alumnus and trustee. He worries property values will fall.

"Why would you come here, if you felt threatened?" said Davenport, whose fuel and waste-hauling companies employ more than 300 people along the Virginia-North Carolina border.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/dec/14/tdmet01-schapiro-executive-asks-is-uranium-a-good--ar-1542121/


Va. uranium mining report to be delivered

By STEVE SZKOTAK | AP –

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A legislative commission has scheduled a meeting for Monday to present a highly anticipated report on uranium mining that is expected to guide General Assembly debate on whether Virginia should end a 30-year ban on mining the radioactive ore.

The uranium sub-committee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy on Tuesday scheduled the meeting with the chairman of the National Academy of Sciences panel that will present the report. It will not include a recommended course of action for legislators.

Paul A. Locke, the chairman of the study, is an environmental health scientist, an attorney and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University. He will discuss the report with committee members and take questions.

The $1.4 million report was financed by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine a 119-million-pound deposit in Pittsylvania County. It is believed to be the richest known uranium deposit in the U.S. and one of the largest in the world.

Mining opponents fear uranium mining and milling — the separation of ore from rock — will threaten water supplies as far away as Virginia Beach, approximately 200 miles east of the deposit.

Keep the Ban, a coalition of communities, environmental groups and the Virginia NAACP, wants to keep the ban in place

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/va-uranium-mining-report-delivered-214809388.html

Report: Uranium mining risky but a boom

December 02, 2011

Uranium mining in the spine of Virginia, including Fauquier County, could create an economic boom and significant environmental problems, according to a state-commissioned report issued this week.

The 2012 General Assembly, which convenes Jan. 11, might consider lifting a ban on uranium mining and milling in Virginia. The ban took effect in 1982.

Southside Virginia could gain 1,000 jobs annually and $135 million annually over 35 years, according to the new report from Chmura Economics & Analytics in Richmond.

But the report warns: "Uranium mining and milling operations unambiguously increase the exposure of the public and the environment to mildly radioactive substances, toxic chemicals, heavy metals and other carcinogenic material."

Opponents contend that milling, which separates uranium ore from rock, has enormous potential to pollute water supplies.

The report says those who live within five miles of a milling operation would face the risk of increased asthma-related symptoms or other respiratory problems.

Meanwhile, the National Academy of Sciences soon will issue a technical report on the effects of potential uranium mining in Virginia.

http://www.fauquiernow.com/page.cfm/article/Report:-Uranium-mining-risky-but-also-a-potential-boon

Report provides uranium discussion framework

By: Tara Bozick | GoDanRiver.com
Published: December 16, 2011 Updated: December 16, 2011 - 7:04 PM

For residents who need to get caught up on the uranium debate, a recently released report is a handy introduction and guide for how to think about or discuss the complex issues.

About 125 people came to hear the key findings of RTI International’s report on the potential socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining in the Dan River Region at the Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce breakfast on Friday.

Danville Regional Foundation paid $530,000 for the independent study, as Virginia Uranium Inc. would like lawmakers to lift a 30-year moratorium so the company could mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium deposit at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County.

“The bottom line is this is a very complicated, high risk, high stakes question,” said study project manager Katherine Heller of RTI in Research Triangle Park, N.C.

New jobs and higher incomes could enhance the region, but that comes with the risk of environmental contamination, even if VUI does everything right, she added. On top of that, the region risks the perceived quality of the area being damaged, even if there’s no evidence.


Regional industries that rely on water, like agriculture, tourism, food and beverage manufacturing and chemical manufacturing, would have the most costs associated with negative perceptions, Sinha said.

Collaboration between the company, regulators and residents would be needed to prevent or mitigate any environmental impacts, said environmental scientist Michael Lowry. That’s in addition to knowing pre-mining conditions, using the best technology and practices and continual pollution monitoring.

Ongoing monitoring, demonstration of limited impacts and openness and transparency would also mitigate inaccurate negative perceptions, Heller said.

Dr. Gary Miller, a Danville councilman, asked about the potential net loss of jobs if the uranium project chased away business. He also wanted more information on miner safety and estimated health costs.

He’ll use this study along with others to come to a final conclusion on the uranium question. He worries the project is a gamble when just one accidental release of contamination could cause harm to the region.

“You’ve got to make sure the benefits are way up here and the risks are way down here,” Miller said, gesturing with his hands.

Halifax Town Councilman Bill Confroy asked if Virginia had the capacity to monitor uranium mining and what the cost would be. The report estimated that Virginia would need to hire between 10 and 20 additional employees with specialized expertise, which could cost between $2 million and $5 million.

DRF President and CEO Karl Stauber acknowledged that the study could not answer all questions, but that it provides a comprehensive overview of uranium risks and rewards and injects analysis into the public discussion.

To view the report and presentation, visit www.danvilleregionalfoundation.org. For questions about the study, call Patrick Gibbons at (919) 541-6136 or email pgibbons@rti.org.

More reaction to the report


» The Roanoke River Basin Association and League of Individuals for the Environment, Inc. said in a statement that while the study relied on estimates of economic benefits provided by VUI, it also shows how the region’s water levels are at risk.


“Further, we believe that a series of public hearings should be held throughout the state on a monthly basis for the next 18 months by an unbiased commission. Only fools rush in on a matter this monumental,” said RRBA Executive Director Andrew Lester in a statement.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/dec/16/report-provides-uranium-discussion-framework-ar-1550116/

National Academy of Science to release "Uranium Mining in Virginia" Report Dec. 19th

National Academy of Science to release "Uranium Mining in Virginia" Report Dec. 19th

On Monday, December 19th, The National Academy of Science (NAS) isscheduled to release their report: "Uranium Mining in Virginia". Thishighly anticipated report is being released just 22 days before the 2012General Assembly session.

The NAS report was commissioned by the Coal and Energy Sub-Committee on Uranium Mining and is intended to inform the debate onwhether or not to lift the ban.

The NAS contract stipulates a 5 month publicreview process from the date of the release, however, industry executives arerushing the process and have promised their stock holders they will introduce apiece of legislation in the 2012 session which runs from Jan through March2012.

Now is the time to show broad public support toKeep the Ban. Can you join us on December 19th?

Uranium Sub-Committee Meeting
When: December 19, 2011 1:30pm
Where: Virginia General Assembly Building,Richmond, House Room D

If you are planning to attend the meeting or ifyou would like additional information please email Mary.Rafferty@SierraClub.org

Don't Know About Uranium Mining inVirginia?

Virginia has a nearly 30 year ban on uraniummining. The industry is making a well financed push to lift that ban in theupcoming General Assembly session starting in January 2012. If the ban werelifted, processed uranium would be shipped out of state. Left behind forcenturies would be huge volumes of radioactive and toxic waste, disposed nearfarmlands and local waterways. Exposure to this waste has been linked toincreases in leukemia, kidney disease and other severe health problems.

Uranium mining in the U.S. has typically occurredin dry, sparsely populated climates in the arid Southwest. Virginia, on theother hand, has wet weather and is prone to extreme flooding and storms.Communities downstream from the first proposed site in Pittsylvania County(including Virginia Beach and Chesapeake) worry that a large storm, likeHurricane Irene, will overwhelm operations putting their drinking water at riskof radioactive contamination.

You can get more information and sign our petition at www.KeepTheBan.org

Read more:
http://vcnva.org/anx/

Uranium mining, milling threatens water, report claims

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 9:03 AM EST

A report funded by the Roanoke River Basin Association warns that a proposed uranium mining and milling project in Pittsylvania County could be a serious threat to water quality and may increase competition for water in the future.

The 39-page report, "Site-Specific Assessment of the Proposed Uranium Mining and Milling Project at Coles Hill, Pittsylvania County, Va.," was released Thursday.

It was written by Colorado scientist Robert E. Moran, PhD., who has 40 years of experience and served as a hydrogeological and water quality consultant to Marline Uranium and Union Carbide on the Coles Hill project in the early 1980s.

Moran also was the keynote speaker in October at workshops sponsored by the Roanoke River Basin Association in Danville and League for the Environment in Dry Fork.

According to the Roanoke River group, most of the information for Coles Hill was collected by the mining companies or consultants and contractors paid by Marline or Virginia Uranium.

Moran's study is one of the few reports on the potential impact of uranium mining not funded by the mining industry, the association noted.

It also pointed out Moran's report is "site-specific" to Coles Hill.

"Various aspects of uranium mining are expected to be addressed in the National Academy of Sciences report due on Dec. 1, 2011," said association executive director Andrew Lester.

"However, the statement of task for the NAS panel explicitly excludes site-specific assessments, which prompted the Roanoke River Basin Association to commission this report to assess risks and challenges associated with on-site water and waste management during the operations and post-closure," Lester said.

Olga Kolotushkina, an adviser to the Roanoke River Basin Association, agreed.

"Unfortunately, the company seeking to lift the existing ban has so far failed to present any sort of detailed project proposal in writing," she said.

"The verbally described plans have changed constantly, depending on the audience. Hence, we felt that an independent evaluation of the proposed project is needed."

Approximately 1.2 million people rely on the Roanoke River for drinking water downstream from Coles Hill.

Moran said the uranium mining industry's track record demonstrates that predictions on potential impacts on water resources and public health, as well as promised socioeconomic benefits, are "overly optimistic."

"The most powerful influences in any decision on uranium mining and processing are likely to be financial and political," he said.

"Thus, it is imperative that the public evaluate the long-term 'big picture' because the actual impacts will be paid for by numerous future generations."

Moran was asked to evaluate site- and project-specific risks and challenges posed by uranium mining and milling at Coles Hill.

"Most U.S. uranium mining sites that I visited are located in desert or semi-desert, sparsely populated regions," he said.

"The Coles Hill site is wet, with annual precipitation equal to about 42 inches. It's really quite different from isolated sites in the West.

"Most importantly, within a radius of two to three miles, Coles Hill has roughly 250 private wells, at least one dairy and numerous hay and forage fields, which are liable to be impacted," said Moran.

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2011/11/22/chatham/news/news43.txt

RTI Uranium Study - Press Release

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release: December 16, 2011

Contact: Andrew Lester, 434-250-1185; Deborah Lovelace, 434-841-3736

Danville, VA - Today, representatives of the Roanoke River Basin Association (RRBA) and League of Individuals for the Environment, Inc. (LIFE) attended a presentation by RTI International (RTI) of its recently released report on socioeconomic impacts of a uranium mine and mill proposed 14 miles southeast of Smith Mountain Lake.

The RTI study, like the Chmura study, relied on the estimates of economic benefits provided by Virginia Uranium, Inc., a Canadian-owned company seeking to lift Virginia’s 30-year ban on uranium mining.

One of the most important conclusions of the RTI study is that “even if the mine and mill meet or exceed regulatory standards, detectable concentrations of uranium and other constituents would be released from the facility into the surrounding environment.” The study also describes the risks to the regions as “both actual environmental risks and perceived risks that could hurt the region’s reputation.”

“Although we at Roanoke River Basin Association, like other interested citizens, have not had the opportunity to read and digest this massive report, the RTI presentation this morning confirms our common-sense concerns that proposed uranium mining in our state would be detrimental to Virginia's business climate and a threat to the public's health, safety and welfare," said Andrew Lester, RRBA executive director.

“We believe that a thorough analysis and venting of this report, as well as other issues, should take place over the next year or more. Further, we believe that a series of public hearings should be held throughout the state on a monthly basis for the next 18 months by an unbiased commission. Only fools rush in on a matter this monumental," said Lester.

The study also finds that proposed uranium operations “would reduce groundwater levels in the area around the mine, and could affect nearby wells, springs, and surface water bodies.”

œThe major concern for me personally is that the study concludes that the proposed operations would affect the water volumes and thus increase competition for water resources in the region. The question is how uranium mining is going to affect the water level on Smith Mountain Lake?” said Olga Kolotushkina, a part-time lake resident. 

“Water is a major concern in all aspects of life from farming, businesses, industry and recreation,” agreed Deborah Lovelace, LIFE president. “We must make sure it is thoroughly studied. The state officials should insist on more studies to provide definite answers to questions not addressed in the RTI and other studies,” said Lovelace.

Report details rewards, risks with uranium mining

A Danville Regional Foundation-commissioned socioeconomic study of potential uranium mining impacts on the Dan River Region details “reasonable” rewards and risks.

RTI International, based in Research Triangle Park, N.C., spent the past year interviewing regional stakeholders, researching uranium mine and mill impacts on other communities and analyzing information to give residents a sense of what’s at stake (within 50 miles) in Virginia Uranium Inc.’s

http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/dec/15/report-risks-rewards-va-uranium-mining-ar-1547493/

Fairfax Water looking at impact of uranium mining

Posted at 09:25 PM ET, 12/01/2011
By Tom Jackman

Uranium mining is actually banned in Virginia right now. But next month, the General Assembly is going to start considering lifting that ban because of some uranium deposits in southern Virginia which could bring big money to, well, the uranium mine owners. In anticipation of that, the board of Fairfax Water last month ordered up an $85,000 study into what that all means for Northern Virginia.

Fairfax Water thought they better get ready in case someone starts drilling around here, Bianchi said.

“There are uranium mining sites,” she said, “that have been identified to be within the Occoquan and Potomac watersheds. We need to be proactive on what impact the mining might have.”

Bianchi said the water board decided, “Let’s get ahead of it. If the moratorium is lifted, what our position is on lifting that ban.”

The study is due to be presented to the water board later this month.


By Tom Jackman | 09:25 PM ET, 12/01/2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/fairfax-water-looking-at-impact -of-uranium-mining/2011/12/01/gIQA9NheIO_blog.html