A proposal to mine uranium in south-central Virginia advanced this week
when a key state body approved a study of the matter. The targeted site
is in Virginia’s Pittsylvania County just north of the city of Danville
and close to the border with North Carolina’s Rockingham and Caswell
counties.
A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy OK’d the
study yesterday after deciding on exactly what issues should be
examined, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reports:
Some opponents asked the panel to vote against the study, hoping that would kill the mining proposal.
But state Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, a member of the subcommittee, said approval of the study did not mean approval of mining in Pittsylvania.
“That decision is a long way down the road,” Watkins said.
The
panel will look at mining’s effects on people’s health and ecosystems,
identify pollution issues and review current mining regulations. But it
denied a request by Del. Watkins M. Abbitt Jr. (I-Appomattox) to
consider how water pollution specifically might be prevented. The
subcommittee’s chair, Del. Lee R. Ware Jr. (R-Powhatan) argued that the
study already included that issue.
The study, which will be
conducted by the U.S. National Research Council, is expected to cost
$1.5 million and last about 18 months. It remains unclear how the work
will be funded, according to the paper.
As Facing South reported previously, Virginia has banned uranium mining for the past 25 years. Virginia Uranium—a privately-held company formed several years ago by the owners of
the land where the uranium was found—has been pressing to get the
ban lifted. To that end, Virginia Uranium contributed almost $30,000 to
state lawmakers last year alone.
The Pittsylvania County site is
believed to hold the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the United
States and the seventh-largest in the world. It holds an estimated
60,000 tons—enough uranium to power all the commercial nuclear
plants in the country for about two years. The company estimates its
value at about $10 billion.
While the company has maintained that the uranium could be mined safety, uranium mining has a history of causing serious environmental health problems, having been linked to chromosome abnormalities, birth defects and cancer in communities from Texas to Germany.
Uranium
mining also poses a serious threat to drinking water. In 1979, for
example, a dam holding uranium mining waste at a New Mexico facility
owned by the Virginia-based United Nuclear Corp. burst, sending more
than 1,100 tons of toxic discards and 90 million gallons of
contaminated water into the Rio Puerco. Once an important drinking
water source for nearby Navajo communities, the river remains
dangerously contaminated today.
Officials in Virginia Beach are among those opposing the uranium mining plans. They have noted that a tropical storm or hurricane could breach the mine’s waste impoundment and pollute downstream water bodies including Lake Gaston, the city’s drinking-water source.
(This story originally appeared at Facing South)
Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things
Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy
Nuclear companies face reactor design problems, ethics questions
Comments
View as Threaded
Atomicrod Posted 5:19 pm
23 May 2009
Permalink
Linda Goin Posted 6:26 pm
12 Jun 2009
Publisher, Appomattox (Virginia) New
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 6:36 pm
12 Jun 2009
Permalink
Linda Goin Posted 2:16 pm
19 Jun 2009
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 5:11 pm
19 Jun 2009
Permalink
Linda Goin Posted 6:48 pm
19 Jun 2009
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 3:01 am
20 Jun 2009
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show PodcastÂ
Permalink
Linda Goin Posted 6:48 pm
20 Jun 2009
Permalink
Smidgen Posted 12:26 am
21 Jun 2009
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 3:59 am
21 Jun 2009
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Permalink
Linda Goin Posted 7:26 am
21 Jun 2009
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 7:59 am
21 Jun 2009
Permalink
Linda Goin Posted 9:35 am
21 Jun 2009
fifty years ago - they had no clue that they were living with toxic
materials. Years later, many of those residents have died, so they
cannot bear witness to the toxicity of the chemicals they worked with.
They have died from various cancers. But, many of them smoked
cigarettes, so the government feels that they cannot tell if the Uravan
residents died from toxic waste or from smoking (including those who
received second-hand smoke vs. hands-on exposure to radioactive
materials).The proposed miners from Pittsylvania County (which, by the way, will
be totally inexperienced, IF they are hired), will not need to descend
into a mine, fortunately, as you mention. This uranium mine is slated for open
pit. While underground mines
are more dangerous than open pit mines for miners (simply because of
possible seismic action and enclosed spaces with radon and dust), open
pit mines and their accompanying waste ponds endanger entire regions
and their populations.On another topic - once again you are divorcing uranium mining from nuclear power when you state, "there is an available, lower cost alternative that produces NO atmospheric waste products." Uranium mining produces radon gases, the dust is known to cause cancer, and radiation is rampant on those abandoned mines that companies leave behind when the price of uranium slid downhill. And, as I stated, no one ever counts the cost of medical problems (the ones that RECA does acknowledge and pay for), the cost of operation of a mining and milling process, the cost of the loss of land for perpetuity and the cost of cleanup. It all adds up to become one of the most expensive forms of energy available - very close to coal, but it exceeds coal in that some of the true costs have been discounted do to lack of information. This is not a well documented industry."Once again - I will agree with you that uranium mining would not
currently be necessary if the developers of breeder and high conversion
rate reactors had been allowed to continue their work in the
1970s-2000s. We would be well on our way to a closed fuel cycle with
reuse of all of the material that is now considered to be "depleted
uranium" or "spent nuclear fuel".I agree with you on that one, Rod - but it seems that the industry lacks altruistic adventurers or visionaries. Otherwise, we'd be there anyway if nuclear power truly was the panacea for all energy-related ills. Uranium is not the Greek goddess of healing (Panakeia); the Navajo have a name for it - Leetso - the "yellow monster," or the evil that prevents a successful life.
Permalink
Smidgen Posted 10:06 pm
21 Jun 2009
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 11:44 pm
21 Jun 2009
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[22]='\"';l[23]=' 109';l[24]=' 111';l[25]=' 99';l[26]=' 46';l[27]=' 108';l[28]=' 111';l[29]=' 97';l[30]=' 64';l[31]=' 100';l[32]=' 111';l[33]=' 114';l[34]=' 99';l[35]=' 105';l[36]=' 109';l[37]=' 111';l[38]=' 116';l[39]=' 97';l[40]=':';l[41]='o';l[42]='t';l[43]='l';l[44]='i';l[45]='a';l[46]='m';l[47]='\"';l[48]='=';l[49]='f';l[50]='e';l[51]='r';l[52]='h';l[53]='a ';l[54]='
Permalink
Linda Goin Posted 12:57 am
22 Jun 2009
radioactive fallout – including polonium-210 – on the ground for
hundreds of miles downwind of the mine site." http://pacificfreepress.com/content/view/2064/81/Additionally, other contaminants are brought to the surface during the mining process and left in the waste ponds during the milling process. In the Uravan site, EPA - during the Superfund cleanup - discovered contaminants including radioactive products such
as raffinates, raffinate crystals and mill tailings containing uranium and radium.
Other chemicals in the tailings and ground water were heavy metals, such as
lead, arsenic, cadmium and vanadium. http://www.epa.gov/Region8/superfund/co/uravan/Uravan is not an isolated incident, and as I mentioned before, cleanup on abandoned mine sites has - for all intents and purposes - just begun in many toxic areas. Uranium mining has left behind a legacy that is disgusting, deadly and irresponsible. And yet you propose doing more of the same on pristine land that need not be mined for any specific reason other than money.For those who are interested in more information on uranium mining and the constant degradation that uranium companies put residents through, please follow and read more at the links below. I hope you know that I am not an alarmist. In fact, I truly wish nuclear power could work, as it would create jobs. But, the risks are too high for this process to continue, and too damaging for future generations. While I've been called a NIMBY by some, I wouldn't wish uranium mining in anyone's back yard. U.S. Nuclear Accidents: http://www.lutins.org/nukes.htmlUranium mining and milling wastes - an introduction: http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.htmlCARD (Coloradans against Resource Destruction): http://www.nunnglow.com/uranium-mining/open-pit-mining.html (this link leads to information on open-pit mining. Check out the entire site - these folks have been on point constantly to keep the uranium mining company in their county on the straight and narrow - keeping track of uranium mining companies - and people like Rod - remains a full-time job for many volunteers).Finally, the Navajo. As with any profession that involves extraction, the poorer members of society often are enlisted with promises and lies to do the dirty work. The uranium miining that occured on the Navajo nation is a complete disgrace. You can learn more here: http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/navajo/
Permalink
Smidgen Posted 1:09 am
22 Jun 2009
Permalink
DGM Posted 6:15 am
22 Jun 2009
Permalink
CleanEnergyInsight Posted 9:45 am
22 Jun 2009
Permalink
Linda Goin Posted 2:48 pm
22 Jun 2009
Permalink
Yellowcake Sucks! Posted 8:50 pm
22 Jun 2009
Perhaps, you think Mr. Coles is a good steward of the land. Forgive me, but it seems his and Virginia Uranium Inc.'s (VUI) exploratory drilling for uranium has already caused his neighbors problems with their well water. For example, one neighbor who lives a couple of miles from Coles Hill had a pre-drill lead level of 2.0. (Ideally, lead levels in drinking water should be 0.) It's now up between 18.0-19.0, post-drilling. (Forgive me, again, but I don't feel like looking up the lab value designation, but lead levels greater than 15.0 are "actionable.") He and his wife, and many others of Coles' neighbors, are no longer drinking their well water--they have to drink store-bought water. (BTW, I hear it's getting to be quite expensive, too.) But, no, Coles and VUI are certain that the now-high lead levels in his neighbors' well water are not related to the exploratory drilling activity. Seems Coles' unfortunate neighbors share the same problems with the folks at Goliad, Texas after exploratory drilling for uranium was done there. They can't drink their water, either, for fear of getting sick. Oh, and Coles' water is now high, so I hear, for lead, too. But, he lives in Danville, remember? No filling the pot with store-bought water to cook potatoes on the stove for him.Yes, I suppose we should build more nuclear power plants to solve this country's energy needs and to put that fancy yellowcake at Coles Hill to good use. I understand 45 nuclear power plants would cost an estimated $810 billion dollars to build. (Each costing somewhere between $12 to $18 billion.) And if we started tomorrow, we could have nuke plants online in just 10 to 12 short years. Really, no sweat, A-Rod, this country's only in the hole by $11 trillion dollars already. What's $810 billion more? I won't go into the obvious, "what are you going to do with all the highly-radioactive spent fuel rod waste" question because the the nuke plants that are supposed to be able to burn this waste have historically had problems burning the stuff! And, I hear the nuke plants in this country aren't already set up to do this. They'd have to be majorly modified or built anew. Is there any truth to this? And, of course, there's Yucca Mountain to hold all the waste. All the knowing, lobbied politicians like to soothingly float that bit of information out there. No matter that Nevadans are fighting it tooth and nail from ever opening or that the facility would quickly fill with the already-existing waste should it open tomorrow. Oh, and I hear (within the last three weeks' worth of news) that Mr. Obama just might not use the facility after all. We've only sunk $30 billion into the building of the facility already. Oh, that's right, what another $30 billion, here or there, to add to the debt our children and their children will have to pay back?It doesn't seem to bother Walter Coles that his ancestors' homeplace, going back for generations, will become a Superfund site one day. He's looking at a $10-billion-dollar ore deposit to make the destruction of his boyhood home a little easier to take. Sadly, his neighbors, whose families have also lived around Coles Hill for generations, won't be so lucky.Well, enough. I think my screen name says it all: Yellowcake Sucks!
Permalink
Smidgen Posted 9:03 pm
22 Jun 2009
create. They already have to put the land back essentially how they
found it." You need to research uranium mining just a bit more. There is nowhere in the world where "they" have "put the land back essentially how they found it". There are some places that, to the naked eye, appear to be somewhat rehabilitated but they're still radioactive...so much so, that any activity undertaken on them, if any at all is allowed, is inherently dangerous due to the amount of radiation. There are "requirements" to be met at any mine site but not obeying them is followed by a fine that is like pocket change to the mining companies. There's a requirement in this country to rehabiitate the site but thousands of U mine sites have instead been abandoned. The companies simply restructure, declare bankruptcy and leave. Billons of your tax dollars and mine are still being spent cleaning up after these companies. If you live in VA, then you must know that the study is not going to be specific to the site in Pittsylvania Coumty, it's going to look at the entire state. There's a huge vein of uranium that runs north/south through the central/east-central portion of the state. Pittsylvania Co will only be the 1st mine...not the only mine. The study is not going to say whether mining will be safe or not at any given location. There's no uranium shortage...there's no need to ruin the state of Virginia. You need to do a little more research.
Permalink
Smidgen Posted 10:30 pm
22 Jun 2009
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 1:05 am
23 Jun 2009
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Permalink
DGM Posted 4:55 am
23 Jun 2009
Permalink
SouthsideMiner Posted 6:44 am
24 Jun 2009
region that shot down plans to build a massive wind energy plant in the
Chesapeake for fear that the turbines would kill too many birds.Thirdly, Linda, if you are opposed to uranium mining, but you also said you're not supporting coal mining, what methods do you support? I assume things like solar and wind, but considering that they, combined, only sum to around 0.1% of the energy produced in the US, they're clearly not the solution. Therefore, it appears to me that you are either against mining of anything altogether, or you're against being near a mine. In either case, I'll point out the importance of each. Everything you used to type your comments was mined. Moreso, every aspect of your life, your household appliances, your cell phone that does everything but make waffles, your furniture, your windows, all of it was mined in some fashion. If you're just against being near a mine, that's not really much of an argument, at all.As for your recommendation of in-situ mining, I am somewhat baffled as to why you would recommend it. First off, you are talking about in-situ leaching, which is the process of dissolving ore and pumping it out of the ground. You already talked about the effects on the water supply, so, why didn't you mention it when professing this great idea? In-situ leaching has been well-known to acidify groundwater, and in the event of a system failure, instead of having a solid material being moved, you have a liquid, radioactive slurry contaminating streams/lakes/etc. Additionally, there is a risk of subsidence when the ore is dissolved, as well as bacterial contamination of groundwater. It seems to me that you heard, "No pit," and thought, "Gee! What a great idea," when in actuality, there are still some concerns worth addressing.
Permalink
Linda Goin Posted 7:18 am
24 Jun 2009
Permalink
SouthsideMiner Posted 8:24 am
24 Jun 2009
Also, if you don't mind, what remarks did others make that came from the 60's?
Permalink
NAYGN Keith Posted 3:41 pm
29 Jun 2009
I am going to do my best to keep economics, power production, and politics out of this post. My goal is to simply state the facts about the regulations currently in place on uranium mining operations in the US. I have not seen any information provided about this topic by any other posters, and I feel that it is pertinent and necessary to this discussion.
Below is a great background to the topic:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/mill-tailings.html
In addition to State, Federal, and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) standards for permitting, the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Agency) has additional laws that apply to uranium mining. The additional laws can be found below:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part040/part040-appa.html
These laws are the result of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) which was enacted by Congress in 1978. This act is broken into two titles:
Title I: Reclamation Work at Inactive Tailings Sites‘Two sites in North Dakota were withdrawn and tailings from some sites were combined, resulting in 19 tailings disposal sites.'
‘By August 1999, 17 more sites were completed and brought under the general NRC license, including sites at Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico; Burrell, Pennsylvania; Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; Durango, Colorado; Falls City, Texas; Green River, Utah; Gunnison, Colorado; Lakeview, Oregon; Lowman, Idaho; Maybell, Colorado; Mexican Hat, Utah; Naturita, Colorado; Rifle, Colorado; Salt Lake City, Utah; Shiprock, New Mexico; Slick Rock, Colorado; and Tuba City, Arizona. The only remaining sites are those at Grand Junction, Colorado and Moab, Utah.'
‘DOE initiated the groundwater cleanup phase of the UMTRA Project in 1991. It has completed all of the 20 scheduled baseline risk assessments for the groundwater cleanup phase and has transmitted them to concerned parties. Two sites did not have groundwater contamination. DOE has developed Groundwater Compliance Action Plans for demonstrating groundwater compliance at 13 sites and submitted them to the NRC for concurrence. DOE has demonstrated groundwater cleanup compliance at eight of those sites.'
Title II: Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities and Mill Tailings Sites‘Of 16 uranium recovery facilities currently licensed by the NRC under its regulations (10 CFR Part 40), there are 12 conventional uranium mills and four in situ leach (ISL) facilities. There is also one former conversion facility under reclamation for 11e(2) byproduct material. Two of the conventional mill site licenses have been terminated and the reclaimed tailings areas transferred to DOE for long-term care under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.28.'
‘No NRC-licensed conventional uranium mills are operating. One mill is in stand-by status and will likely resume commercial operation in the future. The remaining conventional uranium mill sites have completed, or are completing, reclamation activities to provide long-term stabilization and closure of the tailings impoundments and the sites. Two of the four ISL facilities are presently operating, one is on stand-by status, and one will likely resume operations in the future. The NRC inspects these sites at semiannual to three-year intervals depending on the operational (or stand-by) and reclamation status.'
These quotations from the NRC site describe in detail the activities nationally for ALL uranium mining operations. These results show tremendous effort and progress with this issue. The number of sites that are now clean and under continual monitoring is staggering.
Below is a chronology of accidents resulting from uranium tailing pond failures. Please notice that there were many in the US prior to 1980 and zero after these laws were enacted. Also keep in mind that tailing pond failure, while a large one, is only one dimension of environmental impact that results from uranium mining. This site was provided by Linda Goin.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdafu.html
The law also covers requirements for capping, ground water monitoring, and rainfall runoff standards. Again, these requirements must be addressed before a company receives its permit from the NRC to build and operate. This involves a detailed review by the NRC of every aspect of the mines design and construction. Review and monitoring persists not only through the design stages, but through operation and decommission. Any new mine in Virginia is most certainly accountable to these standards.
Also find the EPA's soil cleanup standards here. These laws caveat cleanup of the conditions 10 CFR Part 40 is meant to prevent:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/pdfs/ssg_appd-e.pdf
I hope these sources provide some clear information about the laws that apply to new uranium mines. I hope it also provides a current status of the mines in the country. Linda, Rod, Smidgen, Carrington, and other posters: I encourage you to keep this conversation factual and positive. After reading all of your posts, I believe that we all want the best for the environment and general public as a whole. The sacrifices made by the individuals adversely affected by uranium mining can only be justified by responsible prevention and advocacy. Please let me know if the information I have presented is incorrect or if you have any questions.Regards,
Keith Hernandez
NAYGN Member
Permalink