Americans for Prosperity is a Virginia Uranium, Inc. Agent

Residents in Southside and South Central Virginia have been receiving automated message calls from Americans for Prosperity. The calls originated from AFP's Richmond office. AFP claimed that Virginia Uranium, Inc.'s dangerous project will generate up to 500 jobs. It is a LIE.
According to the Energy Informaion Administration, in 2009, the entire uranium production industry employed 1,096 people.
In the same year, there were 20 operating mines in the U.S. and one operating and one developing mill. No single mining and milling operation can employ one half of the number of employees being currently employed by 22 uranium production operations.

Hank Davis - 19th District Candidate for VA Senate Seat Answers Tough Questions

A large number of citizens have contacted Bill Stanley, a 19th District candidate for the VA Senate seat, with various questions. Mr. Stanley never responded, raising suspicions among cncerned citizens that Mr. Stanley is not a real person.

Luckily, Davis Hank, the other candidate for the VA Senate seat from the 19th District responded promptly to all questions. His answers are below.

1) What is your opinion regarding the potential lifting of the current ban on uranium mining in Virginia? (If possible, elaborate further than to "wait for the study".)

I am opposed to uranium mining and milling in Virginia and will not vote to lift the ban.

2) What implications do you forsee for Virginia if the current ban on uranium mining is lifted?

I see social and economic disaster for the 19th District, not to mention great health concerns where the mine is located.

3) The current NAS study will not determine if mining and milling can be done safely in VA. When the report is finalized it will be up to the General Assembly to vote "yea" or "nay" regarding the ban. What opportunity is there for citizens to publically review and comment onthe NAS report prior to a vote by the GA?

I do not know what final citizen review will be available other than legislative committee's hearing which I am sure will be public.

4) What factors will ultimately determine your vote regarding whether or not to mine uranium in Virginia?

The safety, health and socioeconomic factors will determine my vote as well as my awareness of the opinions of my constituents.

5) Should any of the other studies being done be considered by the General Assembly and what weight should be given to them?

All relevant studies should be considered. Each one will have to be evaluated based on their content and completeness.

Thanks for the opportunity to answer your questions!

Hank

THERE IS STILL TIME TO SUBMIT COMMENTS ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE FOR URANIUM MINING STUDY

Although the 20-day public comment period ended on August 18, 2010, the National Academy of Sciences continues to accept comments on the composition of the provisional committee that will study the feasibility of uranium mining in Virginia. The deadline has been extended until the first committee meeting, which is yet to be scheduled. The comment period was extended in response to 120 requests for extenstion of time received by NAS from various public interest groups and concerned citizens.

You can sign on the comments prepared by UraniumFree Virginia by sending your name and location to uraniumfreeVA@gmail.com or you can send separate comments on the provisional appointments directly to the study director Dr. David Feary at dfeary@nas.edu


Committee Membership Information

Project Title: Uranium Mining in Virginia

PIN: DELS-BESR-09-06

Major Unit: Division on Earth and Life Studies

Sub Unit: Board on Earth Sciences & Resources
Water Science and Technology Board

RSO: Feary, David

Subject/Focus Area: Earth Sciences

Committee Membership

Date Posted: 07/29/2010

Dr. Joaquin Ruiz - (Chair)
University of Arizona

JOAQUIN RUIZ is Executive Dean of the Colleges of Letters, Arts and Science, Dean of the College of Science, and a Professor of Geosciences at the University of Arizona. Prior to being appointed as Dean of the College of Science, Dr. Ruiz served as the Head of the University of Arizona’s Department of Geosciences from 1995 to 2000. Dr. Ruiz is an expert in radiogenic isotopes applied to the study of regional tectonics, origin of magmas, and hydrothermal ore deposits. He was elected to the Mexican Academy of Science in 2006. He has served as a member of the U.S. National Committee for the International Association for Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth’s Interior; a member of the National Science Foundation’s Instrumentation Panel with the Division on Earth Sciences; and was a panel member of the Facilities Program and Centers for Excellence in Science and Technology Program with the Directorate of Education. Dr. Ruiz is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and of the Society of Economic Geologists. He received a B.Sc. in Geology and a B.S. in Chemistry from the University of Miami and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Corby G. Anderson
Colorado School of Mines

CORBY ANDERSON is the Harrison Western Professor of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines. Dr. Anderson is an expert in the fields of mineral processing, waste minimization and recycling, has an extensive background in industrial-oriented research, and has more than 30 years of academic and applied experience in mining, chemical, and materials engineering. In 2008 he received the Milton Wadsworth Award from SME for his contributions to advance the field of chemical metallurgy. Dr. Anderson holds a Ph.D. in Mining Engineering - Metallurgy from the University of Idaho, as well as a Bachelors degree in Chemical Engineering and a Masters degree in Metallurgical Engineering.

Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse
LWB Environmental Services, Inc.

LAWRENCE W. BARNTHOUSE is the President and Principal Scientist of LWB Environmental Services, Inc. His consulting activities include 316(b) demonstrations for nuclear and non-nuclear power plants, Superfund ecological risk assessments, Natural Resource Damage Assessments, risk-based environmental restoration planning, and a variety of other projects involving close interactions with regulatory and resource management agencies. Dr. Barnthouse has authored or co-authored more than 90 publications relating to ecological risk assessment. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Hazard/Risk Assessment Editor of the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and Founding Editorial Board Member of the new journal Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. He has served on the National Research Council Board of Environmental Studies and Toxicology and on several National Research Council committees, and was a member of the peer review panel for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Dr. Barnthouse holds a PhD in biology from the University of Chicago.

Dr. Scott C. Brooks
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

SCOTT C. BROOKS is Senior Scientist in the Environmental Sciences Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dr. Brooks’ research focuses on the biogeochemistry of advecting fluids in the subsurface and the geochemical factors influencing the fate and transport of solutes. He has conducted numerous experiments at the laboratory and field scale studying the fate and transformation of radionuclides in the environment. He has Ph.D. and M.S. degrees in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia.

Dr. Patricia A. Buffler
University of California, Berkeley

PATRICIA BUFFLER (IOM) is professor of epidemiology and holds the Kenneth and Marjorie Kaiser Chair in Cancer Epidemiology in the School of Public Health at University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Buffler’s research interests include the environmental causes of cancer, especially gene-environment interaction and childhood cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, brain cancer, and breast cancer; epidemiologic research methods; and the uses of epidemiologic data in health policy. She has served on numerous committees of the National Research Council, including the Committee on Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, and Committee on Emerging Issues and Data on Environmental Contaminants. Dr. Buffler was elected to the Institute of Medicine in 1994. She received a Ph.D. in epidemiology from the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Michel Cuney
CNRS

MICHEL CUNEY is director of the research team, Genesis and Management of Mineral Resources for the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) at the Henri Poincaré Universite in Nancy, France. He has worked mainly on the geochemistry of uranium in various geological environments since 1972. He has visited and/or worked on most major uranium deposits of the world, and has published about 180 scientific papers in this disciplinary area. Dr. Cuney is one of the world's experts on the genesis of uranium deposits and uranium geology, and he will provide invaluable insights concerning mining techniques that would be used to extract uranium from deposits in Virginia as well as the possible effects on the local environment. Dr. Cuney received his Docteur es Sciences (Ph.D.) degree from Henri Poincaré Universite.

Dr. Peter L. deFur
Environmental Stewardship Concepts

PETER L. DEFUR is President of Environmental Stewardship Concepts, LLC (ESC), an independent private consulting firm in Richmond, Virginia. He is also an affiliate Associate Professor at the Center for Environmental Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University where he conducts research on environmental health and ecological risk assessment. Dr. deFur has over thirty years’ experience providing technical services regarding the cleanup of contaminated sites to community organizations across the country. Dr. deFur received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the College of William and Mary, and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Calgary.

Dr. Mary R. English
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

MARY ENGLISH is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment, The University of Tennessee in Knoxville. She is a social scientist who is familiar with the environmental effects of mining and related regulatory issues. Her work has focused on energy and environmental policy and has included research on mechanisms for involving stakeholders in public policy decisions, how "the community" should be defined within the context of community-based environmental efforts, information-gathering and analytic tools to improve environmental decision making, and guidance on conducting socioeconomic impact assessments. She previously served on the NRC Board on Radioactive Management as well as the NRC Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. Dr. English has a M.S. from the University of Massachusetts and a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Dr. R. William Field
University of Iowa College of Public Health

R. WILLIAM FIELD is a Professor in the Department of Occupational and Environmental Health and in the Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health. He also serves as Director of the Occupational Epidemiology Training Program, at the NIOSH-Heartland Center for Occupational Health and Safety, and Director of the Pulmonary Outcomes Cluster, NIEHS - Environmental Health Sciences Research Center (EHSRC). Dr. Field has been active in numerous national and international collaborative radiation-related epidemiolgic projects for many years and has served on the editorial boards of several national and international scientific journals.. His research interests fall into the broad categories of environmental epidemiology, occupational epidemiology, radioepidemiology, cancer epidemiology, immune-mediated disease epidemiology, health physics, biomonitoring, risk perception, and novel methods of retrospective exposure assessment. Dr. Field received his Ph.D. in preventive medicine and environmental health from the University of Iowa.

Dr. Jill Lipoti
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

JILL LIPOTI is Director of the Division of Environmental Safety and Health at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Prior to assuming this position, she was an Assistant Director with responsility for directing the state’s radiation protection programs. Dr. Lipoti also serves as adjunct assistant professor, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey - School of Public Health, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, specializing in radiation exposure, and preparedness for chemical and radiological emergencies. She has provided advice to the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding radiation safety and security, and has served on the Radiation Advisory Committee of EPA’s Science Advisory Board. She has M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in environmental science from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Dr. Paul A. Locke
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

PAUL A. LOCKE, an environmental health scientist and attorney, is an Associate Professor at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Division of Toxicology. He holds an MPH from Yale University School of Medicine, a DrPH from the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and a JD degree from Vanderbilt University School of Law. Dr. Locke’s research and practice focus on how decision makers use environmental health science and toxicology in regulation and policy-making and how environmental health sciences influence the policy-making process. His areas of study include designing and evaluating radiation protection initiatives and radiation policies, especially in the areas of low dose radiation science, radon risk reduction, safe disposal of high level radioactive waste, and use of CT as a diagnostic screening tool. Dr. Locke directs the School’s Doctor of Public Health program in Environmental Health Sciences. Dr. Locke was a member of the National Academy of Sciences Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board from 2003 to 2009, and has served on five National Research Council committees. He is also a member of the editorial boards of Risk Analysis: An International Journal and the International Journal of Low Radiation and is on the Board of Directors of the NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). He is admitted to practice law in the states of New York and New Jersey, the District of Columbia, the Southern District Court of New York and the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Henry Schnell
Areva, Inc.

HENRY A. SCHNELL holds the position of Technical Authority (Senior Expert) in the Expertise & Technical Department, Mining Business Unit, with AREVA NC Inc., In his role as Technical Authority for uranium, he is responsible for review and support of existing operations and new projects world wide, and for final technical authorization of plant design and modifications. Mr. Schnell has 41 years of experience in management, plant operations, plant design, engineering, and research and development in mining and ore treatment, and 21 years of this has been specializing in uranium metallurgy, operations, and mining projects. He has a B.S. (Honours) degree from the University of Alberta, Edmonton and other extensive training in metallurgy and project management.

Dr. Jeffrey J. Wong
California Environmental Protection Agency

JEFFREY J. WONG is Deputy Director of the Science, Pollution Prevention and Technology Program for the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) at the California EPA and serves as DTSC's Chief Scientist. This program's activities include environmental measurements, biological and exposure monitoring, toxicology and risk assessment, and green chemistry and pollution prevention. Before his current appointment Dr. Wong served as chief of DTSC's Human and Ecological Risk Division. He served by presidential appointment on the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board from 1996 until 2002. Dr. Wong has served on several National Academies committees, including the Committee on Risk-Based Approaches for Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste, the Committee on Environmental Remediation at Naval Facilities, the Committee on Remedial Action Priorities for Hazardous Waste Sites and the Panel for Review of the DOE Environmental Restoration Priority System. Dr. Wong received his Ph.D. in pharmacology and toxicology from the University of California at Davis.

Comments on the Composition of the Uranium Mining Study Committee

August 18, 2010


Dr. David Feary
Study Director
Board on Earth Sciences and Resources
Division on Earth and Life Studies
National Academy of Sciences
500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001


Re: The Composition of Provisional Committee for the Study of
Uranium Mining in Virginia, DELS-BESR-09-06

Dear Dr. Feary:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the composition of the provisional study committee on uranium mining in Virginia, established to examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health, safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The committee’s work is extraordinarily important, as the findings of the study will assist the Commonwealth in determining 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.

Proposed uranium mining has been a controversial issue in the Commonwealth of Virginia since late 1970s when the uranium mining deposits were first discovered. For years, this matter has been an issue of utmost concern for the communities that may potentially be affected by uranium mining. For these reasons, it is very important that this uranium mining study be performed by a well-balanced and objective panel of scientists and experts who are free of any obligations to entities that may either benefit or be disadvantaged by the findings of this study.

Unfortunately, it appears that several members of the provisional committee have conflicts of interest that could significantly impair their objectivity and further damage the credibility of this study in the eyes of the public. As more fully discussed below, we respectfully request that the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources (thereafter, BESR) conduct a review of Dr. Corby G. Anderson, Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse, and Dr. Michel Cuney for a potential conflict of interest, and remove Mr. Henry Schnell from the study committee due to an apparent conflict of interest.

It has been widely reported in the Virginia local press that the funding for this study is coming from Virginia Uranium, Inc., the company seeking to lift Virginia’s 1982 ban on uranium mining, and that the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is serving as a mere conduit for funneling the study funds to the National Research Council. The Governing Board Executive Council of National Academies was apprised of this situation in an October 2, 2009 letter signed by over 30 concerned citizens. Because of the nature of the end source of funding, the study’s credibility is already being questioned by the public.

Under these circumstances, it is especially important that the study process be conducted in a manner ensuring transparency and an ample opportunity for public comment. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the BESR extend the comment period until August 30, 2010. Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (thereafter, FACA), the National Academy of Sciences “shall … provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment on … appointments before they are made or… in the period immediately following the appointments.” While a 20-day comment period has been the National Academies’ long-standing practice, limiting it to 20 days is not required by law. In this particular case, given the controversial nature of the issue to be examined in the uranium mining study, and the fact that most of Virginia residents received either no notice or insufficient notice of the commencement of the comment period, the BESR should extend the public comment period until August 30, 2010 to allow all interested parties to comment on the composition of the provisional committee.

In addition, we urge the BESR to conduct public hearings to provide an open public forum for interested parties to participate in the study committee discussions in accordance with Section 15(b)(3) of FACA, and to promptly make available to the public a summary of any committee meetings and any materials provided to the study committee in compliance with Sections 15(b)(3)-(4). The general public should also be provided with a sufficient notice of at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public meeting and an opportunity to submit written comments on the public committee discussions.

We believe that public meetings should be conducted so as to include all the locations in the Commonwealth of Virginia that may potentially be affected by uranium mining. Historically, uranium companies have shown interest in uranium in Culpeper, Fauquier, Franklin, Floyd, Henry, Madison, Nelson, Orange, Patrick, and Pittsylvania Counties and leased mineral rights on approximately 50,000 acres in the 1980s. Downstream from these areas, there are counties and municipalities whose drinking water could be affected by uranium mill tailings. These include Brunswick, Fairfax, Halifax, Mecklenburg, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and others. If the uranium mining ban is lifted, we would likely see exploration for uranium in the black shale of Southwest Virginia, in crystalline granite throughout the Blue Ridge, and in sedimentary rock in the Coastal Plains, as well as further exploration in the Northern and Southern Piedmont. Conducting public meetings at multiple locations will ensure the utmost degree of transparency of the study process for such a controversial issue as uranium mining.

Potential Conflict of Interest

The National Academies have established policies and procedures for addressing potential conflicts of interest to be used by committees in the development of its reports. This policy states that “[i]t is essential that the work of committees of the institution used in the development of reports not be compromised by any significant conflict of interest. For this purpose, the term "conflict of interest" means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the individual because it (1) could significantly impair the individual's objectivity or (2) could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. Except for those situations in which the institution determines that a conflict of interest is unavoidable and promptly and publicly discloses the conflict of interest, no individual can be appointed to serve (or continue to serve) on a committee of the institution used in the development of reports if the individual has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed.”

We wish to bring the following matters of concern to the attention of the National Academies and the BESR regarding employment, existing fiduciary duties, consulting services, and promotional activities of Dr. Corby G. Anderson, Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse, Dr. Michel Cuney, and Mr. Henry Schnell that to the best of our knowledge have not been publicly disclosed as potential conflicts of interest in regard to the uranium mining study.

Dr. Corby G. Anderson currently serves as s trustee for the Northwest Mining Association, a trade association, whose stated purpose is to represent and inform members on legislative, regulatory and technical issues, to support and advance the mineral resource and related industries, and to foster and promote economic opportunity. Among the members of the Northwest Mining Association are Denison Mines Corp., a publicly traded company operating three uranium mines and two uranium mills in North America, and Uranium One Inc., one of the world’s largest publicly traded uranium producers. As a trustee of this trade association, Dr. Anderson has a fiduciary duty to the association and its members to act in their best interests. Although the study is designed to examine the feasibility of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the outcome of this study, similar to all studies completed by the National Academies, will set precedent for the entire uranium mining industry here in the United States and possibly around the world. The study findings will serve as the basis for the Virginia General Assembly’s determination of whether to lift the 28-year ban on uranium mining. The Virginia General Assembly’s action on the uranium mining ban has a potential of impacting economic opportunities for many uranium mining companies, including the companies that are corporate members of the Northwest Mining Association.

In addition, to the best of our knowledge, Dr. Anderson routinely undertakes contracted projects for global industrial client projects, including serving as an expert witness in mining litigation. Under the National Academies’ Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest, a consulting relationship, such as serving as an expert witness in litigation, constitutes a potential financial conflict of interest.

Furthermore, Anderson also serves on the Board of Directors of Phoenix Minerals, Inc. and is President and COO of Getty Copper Inc. Both are publicly traded mining companies. In connection with this, we respectfully request that BESR investigate whether any of the two companies currently operate a uranium mine or mill and whether they presently have plans to mine or mill uranium.

Dr. Lawrence W. Barnthouse is an owner of LWB Environmental Services, Inc., a consulting company that provides ecological risk assessments and risk-based environmental restoration planning. Among Dr. Barnthouse’s clients are large law firms that represent clients from all over the country in environmental litigation and environmental regulatory proceedings. This appears to indicate that Dr. Barthhouse serves as an expert witness for those law firms and their clients on the issues that may be the subject matter of the uranium mining study. The National Academies’ policy on conflicts of interest provides that serving as an expert witness is a type of consulting relationship that may constitute a financial interest. Accordingly, we request that BESR further investigate Dr. Barnthouse for a conflict of interest based on the nature of the consulting services he provides to his clients. BESR’s review should address whether Dr. Barnthouse serves as an expert witness on issues that will be examined in the uranium mining study and whether he provides expert testimony on behalf of uranium mining companies, regardless of whether they are his direct clients or clients of his clients.

Dr. Michael Cuney’s industry consultation includes work for major uranium mining companies, such as Areva and Uranor Inc. The findings of the uranium mining study will determine future economic opportunities for Dr. Cuney’s corporate clients in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Thus, Dr. Cuney’s consulting relationship with uranium mining companies constitutes a potential conflict of interest and warrants review by BESR.

In addition, as stated in Dr. Cuney’s biography, he has visited and/or worked on most major uranium deposits of the world. BESR should investigate in what capacity Dr. Cuney traveled to all those mining sites, who funded his trips and whose interests he represented during those trips and to which companies he provided the services in connection with the trips, and whether these companies continue to use his services.

Furthermore, Dr. Cuney participates in numerous international conferences. In fact, he was a speaker at the Global Uranium International Conference held in Colorado in May 2009, where the Coles Hill, VA deposit was discussed at length. We, therefore, request that BESR require Dr. Cuney to disclose whether he received any honorarium or travel expense reimbursements for his participation in these activities and any other uranium mining conferences and who sponsored his trips to such conferences.

Mr. Henry Schnell has an apparent conflict of interest based on his employment. Mr. Schnell holds a senior position in the Mining Business Unit with Areva NC Inc., a multinational company that owns and operates, either directly or through its subsidiaries, uranium mines in many parts of the world, including North America. Specifically, Areva’s subsidiary Pathfinder Mines Corporation operates large uranium mines in Wyoming that are currently undergoing reclamation. As stated above, the study’s finding will set precedent for the entire uranium mining industry and will have a potential to affect economic opportunities for many uranium mining companies, including Mr. Schnell’s employer, Areva.

In addition, we would like to bring to BESR’s attention the fact that Areva Inc. is actively involved in promoting uranium mining in Virginia. Virginia Energy Independence Alliance (thereafter, VEIA), whose two out of three corporate members are Areva Inc. and Virginia Uranium, Inc., has been very outspoken and pro-active in its campaign to support uranium mining in the Commonwealth. The VEIA Chairman Ray Ganthner has just retired from his position of Senior Vice President with Areva. Most recently Mr. Ganthner appeared on behalf of VEIA at the June 22, 2010 public hearing conducted by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission on uranium mining and spoke publicly on behalf of VEIA in favor of uranium mining. Because VEIA at this time has only three corporate members, one of which is Areva Inc., it is reasonable to conclude that when the VEIA Chairman speaks on the subject of uranium mining, it represents Areva’s views and promotes Areva’s best interests.

This demonstrates that Mr. Schnell’s employer Areva may directly benefit or may be disadvantaged by the findings of the uranium mining study. Because of his employment and his employer’s particular interest in uranium mining in Virginia, Mr. Schnell’s objectivity may be significantly comprised. Mr. Schnell’s participation in this study may create an unfair competitive advantage for Areva. Accordingly, we request that Mr. Schnell be removed from the study committee due to his apparent conflict of interest.

Balance of the Study Committee

Under the Statement of Task for the uranium mining study, the study committee is called upon to examine 12 questions covering a wide range of areas from legal framework to public health and safety to mining methods to reclamation and waste management to cultural issues to geology, climate and water management, etc. Despite the fact that the scope of the uranium mining study is vast and complex, the study committee is comprised of only 13 experts. It appears that some of the issues included in the study will be examined by only one expert. A committee that has only one expert per issue cannot be characterized as balanced because the study process will fail to ensure peer review on one or more issues. For this reason, we believe that the committee membership must be expanded to include more experts, especially in the areas highlighted below.

The first item of the Statement of Task directs the study committee to “assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health … considerations … including the potential human health risks.” Item 4 directs to “analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health.” Comprehensive examination of items 1 and 4 of the Statement of Task requires an expert in occupational and public health, as well as a medical doctor. The provisional committee currently includes public and occupational health experts and epidemiologists but no medical doctor. We, therefore, request that the BESR appoint an expert with the medical doctor degree to the study committee.

Pursuant to item 4 of the Statement of Task, the study committee is to “analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations … at sites with comparable .. hydrologic … characteristics to those found in the Commonwealth.” In addition, item 9 directs the study committee to “identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water… As relevant, water and waste management … may also be considered.” The potential impact of uranium mining on water supply has been of utmost concern for the communities where uranium mines may be developed and to the communities, like Fairfax and Halifax Counties and the City of Virginia Beach, and all the communities in the Roanoke River Basin including those in North Carolina whose sources of drinking water are located in areas where uranium mining is likely to occur should the uranium mining ban is lifted. For this reason, we respectfully request BESR to ensure that the study committee includes a sufficient number of experts with the expertise in hydrology and water-related issues.

Item 5 of the Statement of Task directs the study committee to “review the … cultural settings … in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” A comprehensive analysis of the cultural settings requires an expertise in environmental justice. Unfortunately, it is not apparent from the information posted on the credentials of the provisional committee members whether the committee includes experts in environmental justice. Because uranium mining is likely to affect many communities with relatively low socioeconomic status and very little influence over legislative decisions and limited access to the legal system, it is very important that the issue of environmental justice be examined thoroughly in the study. To this end, the study committee should be expanded to include at least two experts in environmental justice with experience of addressing these issues in the communities affected by uranium mining. We would welcome an opportunity to provide nominations for all above-mentioned areas of expertise.

In addition, it appears that the majority of questions under the Statement of Task require global expertise in uranium mining and broad knowledge of world-wide trends and experiences of other U.S. states and foreign nations with uranium mining. Unfortunately, the provisional committee does not include experts with such level of expertise. We, therefore, respectfully request that BESR expand the committee to include at least four experts who have studied the effects of uranium mining world-wide.

It is also unclear from the published bios of the provisional committee members whether anyone of them has an expertise required for evaluating post-mining impacts of tailings impoundments. We, therefore, respectfully request that BESR ensure that an expert in this very specific area is included in the committee.

Thank you very much for your time and attention. We hope that BESR will give sufficient consideration to the concerns raised in these comments and will ensure that this very important study proceeds in a most transparent manner.


Sincerely,

S.J. Dunavant, Jr.
Chairman
Southside Concerned Citizens, Inc.
Halifax, VA

Rev. Walter Stark
Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice
Pleasant Hill, TN

Donald B. Clark
Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility
United Church of Christ
Pleasant Hill, TN

Patricia T. Birnie,
GE Stockholders' Alliance

Tucson, AZ

Joanne Sheehan
New England War Resisters League,
Norwich, CT

Scott Sklar
The Stella Group, Ltd.
Arlington, VA

Paula Gotsch
GRAMMES
Normandy, NJ

Judy Treichel
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force
Las Vegas, NV

Deb Katz

Vermont Citizens Action

Hancock Vermont

Marilyn McCulloch
The Carrie Dickerson Foundation
Tulsa, OK

Rinaldo Brutoco
World Business Academy
Santa Barbara, CA

Madeleine Austin
World Business Academy
Honolulu, HI

Joni Arends
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety

Santa Fe, NM

Marylia Kelley
Tri-Valley CAREs

CA, USA

Alice Slater
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
New York, NY

Nina Bell, J.D.
Northwest Environmental Advocate
Portland OR

Lloyd K. Marbet
Oregon Conservancy Foundation
Boring, Oregon

Mary Davis
Ecoperspectives
Lexington, KY

Nikos Pastos
Center for Water Advocacy
Moab, UT

HOMER, AK
Portland, OR

Tom Ferguson Foundation for Global Community
Atlanta, GA

Bob Darby
Food Not Bombs
Atlanta, GA

Robert M. Gould, MD
SanFrancisco/Bay Area Chapter: Physicians for Social Responsibility
San Francisco, CA

Cara Campbell
Ecology Party
Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Mark Haim
Missourians for Safe Energy
Columbia, MO

Ken Bossong
SUN DAY Campaign
Takoma Park, MD

Bonnie Urfer
Nukewatch

Luck, WI

John LaForge
Nukewatch

Luck, WI

Michael Casper
Larson Transportation Institute
University Park, PA

Christopher LaForge
Great Northern Solar
Port Wing, WI

William S. Linnell
Cheaper, Safer Power
Portland, ME

Anna Aurilio
Environment Virginia
Richmond, VA

Dagmar Fabian
Crabshell Alliance
Cockeysville, MD

Hope Taylor,MSPH
Clean Water for NC
Asheville & Durham, NC

Lynn Sims

Don't Waste Oregon

Portland, OR

Greg Wingard
Director
Waste Action
Seattle, WA

Ellen Thomas
Proposition One Campaign
Washington, DC

Egan O'Connor
Committee for Nuclear Responsibility
San Francisco CA

Mary Beth Brangan
The Ecological Options Network, EON
Bolinas, CA

Elena Day
People's Alliance for Clean Energy
Charlottesville, VA

Patricia Gillis
Voices for Earth Justice
Southfield, MI

Douglas Meiklejohn
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
Santa Fe, NM

Ernest Fuller

CCSS (Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety)

Six Mile Run, PA

Carolyn Treadway
No New Nukes
Normal, IL

Donna
Alliance For A Clean Enviornment
Pottstown, PA

Linda Seeley
Terra Foundation
San Luis Obispo, CA

Dr. F. Taylor
Hilton Head for Peace
Hilton Head, SC

Jeff Unsicker
Nuclear Free Vermont
Brattleboro, VT

Cynthia Weehler
Energia Mia
San Antonio, Texas

BRIGITTE FORTIN
Catoctin Group, Maryland Sierra Club
Myersville, MD

Suzanne Miller
AFSC (American Friends Service Committee
Cleveland Heights, OH

Wells Eddleman
Staff Scientist
NC Citizens Research Group, Durham NC

Glenn Carroll
Nuclear Watch South
Atlanta, GA

Andrew Fellows
Chesapeake Regional Director
Clean Water Action
Washington, DC

Janet Greenwald
Co-coordinator Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping
Albequrque, NM

Molly Johnson Grandmothers for Peace/San Luis Obispo County Chapter
San Miguel, CA

Ralph Hutchison
Coordinator
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance
Oak Ridge, TN

Alice Slater
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, NY
New York , NY

Judy Treichel
Executive Director
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force

Byron & Janice Motley
Chatham, VA

Barbara M. Hancock
Pittsville, VA

Terry H. Andrews
Halifax, VA

Nancy Gillespie
Roanoke, VA

Tony Dix
Blair, VA

Albert Nunez
Takoma Park, MD

Hattie Nestel
Brattelboro, VT

Hunter Austin
Hurt, Virginia

Lynnea Smith
Crownpoint, NM

Bert Marian
Addison, ME

Karl J. Novak
Hinesburg, Vt

Rebecca L. Ramsay
Cambridge, MA

Barbara Antonoplos
Atlanta, GA

David N. Pyles
Nelson, NH

Denise Jakobsberg
Mt. Rainier, MD

Jessie Dodson
Richmond, VA

Ann Van Kuren
State College, PA

Jonathan M. Block,
Santa Fe, NM

Deborah Dix
Blairs, VA

Bob Brister
Salt Lake City, UT

Natalie Hanson
Lansing, MI

Gail Merrill

New Canaan, CT

Lisa Kasenow
Sanibel, Florida

Tom and Nancy Florsheim

Santa Fe, NM

Diane Pontius
Evanston, IL

Roy C. Treadway
Normal, IL

Leah R. Karpen
Asheville, Nc

Elizabeth Covington
Richmond, Va

Peggy Pryor
Andrews County, TX

Melodye Pryor
Andrews County, TX

Holly Rose
New Smyrna Beach, FL

June Sevilla
Lusby, MD

James Wishart
Lexington Park, MD

Maya Be
Seattle, WA

Dudley Lindsley
Leonardtown, MD

Dr. Thomas B. Cochran
Arlington, VA

Lee Ann Olohan
Owings, MD

Charles K. Johnson
Portland, OR

Gary Shaw
Croton on Hudson, NY

Olga Kolotushkina
Annandale, VA

Karen B. Maute
Danville, VA

Valentin Lukashuk
Fairfax, VA

Joan R. Sprinkle (Mrs. James D.)
Danville, VA

Ricky Simpson
Altavista, VA

Andrey and Larisa Lukashuk
Mount Solon, VA

Deborah Quinn Lovelace
Gretna, VA

Carolyn A. Gibson
Ringgold, VA

Andrew Lester
Keeling, VA

Winnie Pruitt
Danville, VA

Wm. and Barbara Winn
Martinsville, VA

Peyton Wrenn
Blairs, VA

Sergey and Dina Lukashuk
Harrisonburg, VA

Linda Worsley
Chatham, VA

Robert Pruitt
Danville, VA

Barbara Bass Thompson
Chatham, Virginia

Frank H. (Jesse) Andrews, Jr.
Halifax, VA

Kenneth D. And Karen H. Schneider
Caswell County, NC

Phillip Lovelace
Gretna, VA

Ann M. Rogers
Boones Mill, VA

Annette G. Ayres
Summerfield, NC

Barbara Hudson
Chatham, VA

Janice H. Overbey
Chatham, VA

Cory Greer
Roanoke, VA

George Warren Stanhope
Chatham, VA

Janet Lincoln Stanhope
Chatham, VA

Richard Austin
Hurt, VA

Laura D. Meder
Danville, VA

Virginia Anne Cockrell
Danville, VA

Cara Cooper and Jessica Okaty
Students for Environmental Action at FIU and FL Youth Environmental and Sustainability Coalition
Miami FL

Provisional Committee Appointments for the NAS Study of Uranium Mining

The following provisional committee for the National Academies of Science study of uranium mining in Virginia (funded by Virginia Uranium Inc., the company seeking to lift Virginia's 1982 uranium mining moratorium) has been approved:

Dr Joaquin Ruiz, Chair, College of Science, University of Arizona, Tucson
Dr Corby Anderson, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado
Dr Lawrence W. Barnthouse, LWB Environmental Services, Inc., Hamilton, Ohio
Dr Scott C. Brooks, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Dr Patricia A. Buffler, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
Dr Michel Cuney, Genesis and Management of Mineral Resources, Université Henri Poincaré, Nancy, France
Dr Peter L. deFur, Environmental Stewardship Concepts LLC, Henrico, Virginia
Dr Mary R. English, Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Dr R. William Field, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City
Dr Jill A. Lipoti, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton
Dr Paul A. Locke, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
Mr Henry A. Schnell, Mining Business Unit, AREVA NC, Paris, France
Dr Jeffrey J. Wong, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento

General public will have 20 days to challenge the appointments. Please see http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/ReportView.aspx?key=Provisional for more information on the comment submission process.

Would You Like Virginia to Become the "Saudi Arabia of Nuclear Fuel"?

The comment below is written in response to Professor Robert Bodnar's editorial "Why the Virginia legislature should lift the moratorium on mining uranium."

Mr. Bodnar, Sir:

You have presented an argument in favor of lifting the 1982 moratorium against mining and milling uranium in Virginia. Most of it is true, with the exception of the description of Virginia becoming "the Saudi Arabia of nuclear fuel." By most estimates, there exists enough uranium in the ground at the farm of Mr. Walter Coles, in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, to supply the existing nuclear power industry of the United States for nearly two (2) years. By their own estimates, this extraction process is projected to take as little as fifteen (15) years and as much as thirty (30) years to complete.

This ore is then milled - that means it is pulverized to a "talcum powder" like dust, treated with sulfuric acid and other goodies, in concert with an immense amount of water to produce what is known as “yellowcake" or, uranium 238. Trouble is, that in order to render one (1) pound of U-238, worth about $42, it requires that one thousand (1000) pounds of ore must be dug out of the ground - and the leftovers are the nine hundred and ninety nine (999) pounds of highly radioactive tailings. These tailings are going to be radioactive for as long as a half - life of 4.5 billion years, in the case of uranium 238. The Santoy Resources website is full of pertinent information, and under the company prospectus for the COLES HILL project, their plan is to declare an area eight (8) miles from the center of each hole a "DEAD ZONE". Within this "DEAD ZONE" they expect to lose all groundwater and drilled wells. That water will no longer be potable.

Amid all the hype about employment as a result of lifting the moratorium are the stark facts that the uranium mining industry employs less than five hundred (500) people in the entire United States. As well, there is nearly a 100% failure record on the part of the mining industry for being responsible for the clean - up of these sites. Nearly all have been abandoned by the industry and thus qualify, and gain the distinction of becoming "Toxic Waste Sites," funded by the American taxpayer.

Mr. Bodnar, you have somehow overlooked all of the history of the catastrophic health and environmental results of uranium mining on the local residents and nature itself. In addition, you have not mentioned that radon gas is called "a daughter of uranium." That is, radon 222 only comes to us as a result of the decaying of uranium. What that means to scientists is that everywhere where there was a "radon scare" in the 1970s and 80s, there exists deposits of uranium. All through Appalachia from north Georgia, western North Carolina, the Piedmont foothills and Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, throughout the Shenandoah Valley, as well as all along the US-29 corridor. According to the United States Geological Service these deposits run up into central Maryland, southwestern Pennsylvania, and into Delaware and the District of Colombia. They even show what appears to be a huge deposit down in Greensboro, N.C. This is definitely an issue that will affect a much broader area than merely Pittsylvania Co.

I live eight (8) miles from the proposed "north hole" of the "COLES HILL" site. By my best estimate Roanoke is approximately fifty (50) miles, as the crow flies (as dust flies) from the site. Now, the question: Would I like Pittsylvania County tobecome the "Saudi Arabia of nuclear fuel"?? NO WAY!! Itisn't worth the trade off so that a Canadian corporation calling itself "VIRGINIA RESOURCES" (?) can take most of the profits back home to Canada. Virginia won't even get much tax from the "experiment" since it will all be sold on the open commodity markets, and thus not subject to Virginia state corporate taxes. There may be, one day, a reason to move to Saudi Arabia because it isn't radioactive there. Other than that - NO!! I like it just fine here, where I am. I have good air to breathe and pure water to drink, and I stand opposed to lifting the 1982 moratorium on mining or milling of uranium in the Commonwealth of Virginia

Hunter Austin

Hurt, Va. 24563

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE JUNE 22, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SCOPE OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS STUDY OF URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA

On Tuesday, June 22, 2010, the Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee held a public hearing to receive the public's recommendations on the scope of the socioeconomic study of uranium mining in Virginia. The meeting was held Chatham, VA, was attended by over 300 people and lasted over 3 hours. Approximately 70 people signed up to speak.

The meeting was held in a large auditorium of the Chatham High School. A local non-profit organization, the League of Individuals for the Environment (L.I.F.E.) distributed informational materials and "no-uranium" pins. Virginia Energy Independence Alliance (VEIA) was there also and distributed pro-mining materials.

Members of the press, including Danville Register & Bee, Chatham Star Tribune, Richmond Times - Dispatch, CBS/WDBJ Channel 7, NBC/WSLS Channel 10, ABC/WSET Channel 13 TV stations, also attended the meeting.

The meeting began with a significant procedural violation. Someone affiliated with Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI) and the Virginia Energy Independence Alliance (VEIA) gained access to the sign-up sheet before it was made available to the general public and before the doors of the auditorium opened, and signed up 19 people to speak. That was done to ensure that the press that stayed at the meeting for about 1.5 hour got to hear only pro-mining arguments.

The meeting was opened by the Uranium Mining Subcommittee Chairman Del. Lee Ware (56th District). Other members of the Subcommittee present were Del. Kilgore (Chair of the VA Coal and Energy Commission, ex-officio), Del. Watkins (59th District), Del. Carrico (5th District), Senator Puckett (38th District). The Subcommittee members, Del. Onzlee Ware, Senators Frank Wagner & Watkins, who travelled to France at Virginia Uranium Inc.'s expense, did not find time to attend this public hearing.

The opening remarks were followed by presentations by Del. Merricks (16th Dist.), Senator Hurt (16th Dist.), and Del. Danny Marshall (14th Dist.) Del. Merricks said that the study needs to examine the impact on local farms, such as Motley Diary Farm, and on two prominent local institutions, Chatham Hall, a private boarding school for girls, and Hargrave Military Academy. Senator Hurt, whose father among the 31 local investors in Virginia Uranium Inc., urged the Subcommittee to consider impacts on farms, Main Street, and downstream effects of uranium mining. He also said that proper resources should be committed to the study. Del . Danny Marshall proposed that other studies should be reviewed and incorporated in the socioeconomic study, including the technical study conducted by the National Academies of Science, the Virginia Beach study and the Danville Regional Foundation socioeconomic study. Del. Danny Marshal suggested that in order to avoid inconsistencies, the findings of those studies should be incorporated in the socioeconomic study. He further stated that the study should examine the impact of uranium mining on property values, the potential of legal liabilities for contaminating the watershed downstream, including North Carolina, and the impact on the recruitment of new industries.

The presentations by the legislators were followed by a show staged by the uranium mining interests. The opening stance was presented by VEIA Chair, Ray Ganther (Areva) who urged the Subcommittee to include in the scope of the site- and region-specific study the impact of the proposed uranium mining on the goals set in Virginia Governor's statewide energy plan to increase in-state energy production. Mr. Ganther seemed to be unaware of the fact that yellowcake, the final product of the proposed mine and mill in Coles Hill, is not a fuel but a raw material that is a commodity traded on global market and used for production of nuclear weapons, nuclear power plant fuel and even isotopes for medical purposes. Production of yellowcake will have no effect on energy production within the borders of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Among the pro-mining speakers was a representative from the National Association for the Advancement of the Colored People, who spoke very passionately about problems faced by youth, especially in inner cities but said nothing substantive about the study. Next, the Subcommittee heard Jim Beard who introduced himself as a professor and geologist. Mr. Beard forgot to specify that he is only an adjunct professor. Mr. Beard touted modern day uranium mining technologies and then misspoke that "any mining will lead to a catastrophe."

Next speaker Victor Miller said that the United States nuclear industry has a great, accident-free track record. He probably never heard about Three Mile Island accident. He also carelessly suggested that uranium mining will have a positive impact on two distinguished educational institutions located very close to the proposed mining site: Chatham Hall and Hargrave Military Academy. Mr. Miller expressed confidence that the uranium mining industry will be providing technology to local schools. Mr. Miller is probably unaware that geology, mining and nuclear science are not a part of high school curriculum. Next speaker, Walter Anderson, who claimed to be a college student majoring in physics was very hard to follow because he was reading off the script prepared by someone else. The text contained no substantive comments about the scope of the study.

Next to speak was Professor Robert Bodnar from Virginia Tech who claimed to have the first hand knowledge of socioeconomic improvements around uranium mines in Peru, Chile, Nevada, and Southern Africa. Professor forgot to mention Areva's horrible track record in Niger, Africa, and contamination of Colorado river by uranium mining in Nevada. Bodnar's presentation was followed by several poorly rehearsed presentations where speakers had to consult the text because they did not really know what they were talking about. The pro-mining show concluded with a presentation by Ken Newman, a professor and geologist from Bluefield, VA, a 3.5 hour drive from Chatham, VA.

Marshall Ecker, an elected official from Pittsylvania County, suggested that the study should consider the tax burden of uranium mining and the effect on real estate values.

Kate Whitehead, Chairman, Dan River Basin Association, stated that the results of the technical study of uranium mining to be conducted by the National Academies of Science should be the basis for the socioeconomic study and that the socioeconomic study should not commence until the technical study is complete and made available to the public. In Ms. Whitehead's opinion, this is the only way to ensure that the socioeconomic study incorporates the findings of the technical study.

Carl Espy, Town Manager, Town of Halifax, also urged the Subcommittee to wait for the completion of the technical study before commencing the socioeconomic study. He stated that the completion of the socioeconomic study should not be rushed in order to present this issue to the General Assembly in the beginning of the 2012 legislative session. Mr. Espy pointed out that the technical study will be complete in Dec. 2011 and a non-technical summary of the study findings will also be distributed for the purpose of educating the general public.

Nancy Poole, Halifax County Chamber of Commerce, stated that the funds allocated for the socioeconomic study are insufficient and the Subcommittee will not be able to recruit prominent research institutions to undertake the study, which will have a negative impact on the overall quality of the study.

2 residents from the Sheba community urged the Subcommittee to examine socioeconomic impacts and costs under the worst-case scenario.

Ann Veal, a Chatham resident, asked the Subcommittee to include in the study the costs to taxpayers of containing uranium mining tailings after the mine is decommissioned and the title is passed to the Commonwealth. She also asked the Subcommittee to consider who will be paying for waste monitoring during the time when mining and milling get temporarily suspended due to low uranium prices on global markets.

Del. James Edmonds (60th Dist.) expressed his opposition to uranium mining and asked the Subcommittee to examine health impacts of uranium mining and the effect on the crime rate, as well as impacts on communities located downstream from the mining site.

George Stanhope suggested that the study should consider the risks associated with weather and climatic factors. He also pointed out that existing federal regulations of uranium mining are lacking. He also asked to consider the impact on property values.

Jack Dunavant, Chairman of Southside Concerned Citizens group, proposed that the study should examine the area within 50 miles of the proposed mining site and the effect on water supply. He also urged the Subcommittee to incorporate in the socioeconomic study the findings of all other studies of uranium mining and to examine impacts on watershed and aquifers, and farmlands, as well as the community’s health.

Deborah Lovelace, a Gretna resident, asked the Subcommittee to examine impacts of uranium mining on agriculture, fishing, hunting and recreation.

Olga Kolotushkina, a Leesville Lake part-time resident, asked the Subcommittee to include in the scope of the study Smith Mountain Lake and Leesville Lake and the surrounding counties and to consider impacts on the lakes’ water level, real estate prices, property values, future real estate development, as well as tourist industry.

Phillip Lovelace, a cattle farmer from Gretna, spoke on the need to perform the hydrology study before proceeding with uranium mining. He also stated that the funds allocated for the study are insufficient, considering the importance of the issue and the area that the study will cover. He calculated the study funds to be less than $1 per person.

George Stuart asked the Subcommittee to consider the impact on life style, and whether the communities will undergo attrition as a result of uranium mining.

A resident from the Sheba community asked to consider the effect on the intra- and intercommunity relations. She also wanted the Subcommittee to examine a possible scenario of low uranium prices when mining becomes unprofitable and the company temporarily withdraws leaving behind uranium mining tailings that need to be constantly monitored.

Robert from Danville, asked the Subcommittee to examine impacts on agriculture and to consider various scenarios under different weather conditions.

Stan Goldsmith, Campbell County Supervisor, requested, on behalf of the Campbell County Board of Supervisors, to include in the scope of the study the southern part of Campbell County, including Altavista, Brookneal and Leesville Lake. He also asked the Subcommittee to examine real and perceived impacts on real estate values, as well as on recreation and fishing on Staunton River.

Deb Dix spoke on the need to conduct the hydrology study first because according to the 1999 geological survey the Coles Hill site has a fractured water table, which means that groundwater can move in unpredictable directions, which will make groundwater contamination more likely. She also posed an interesting question for the study – how uranium mining will impact health and well-being of high risk groups, such as children, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and the elderly. Ms. Dix also asked the Subcommittee to examine how many local people would be actually hired to work at the mine and mill.

Anne Cockrell, registered nurse, stated that more information about the proposed uranium mining project is needed in order to successfully conduct the study. She also said that the study should be statewide because as soon as the moratorium is lifted, there will be a sharp increase in uranium mining stakes. She also urged the Subcommittee to consider taxpayers costs associated with the clean-up of the site and monitoring it for thousands of years.

Todd Benson, Piedmont Environmental Council, suggested that the study should consider the cyclical nature of uranium mining industry. He also urged the Subcommittee to make the study statewide reminding that there are uranium mining leases in Orange, Madison, Fauquier and Culpeper counties that will be reactivated as soon as the moratorium is lifted.

Susan, a realtor from Danville, suggested that the study should take into account socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining and milling experienced by other communities in the U.S. She also asked the Subcommittee to examine whether uranium mining will result in attrition of neighboring communities and crime rate increase.

Garry Thomas, an agriculture teacher, urged the Subcommittee to consider the effect on property values in the event of tailings overspill and/or seepage and the resulting losses in tax revenues.

A senior attorney with Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), criticized the preliminary scope of the study for excess focus on expected economic benefits and disregard of adverse economic costs. According to SELC, the study also overlooks regulatory costs associated with the need to establish a new agency that would regulate and enforce regulations for the uranium mining industry and additional costs of additional uranium mining monitoring responsibilities for the existing agencies. SELC representative also said that the study needs to examine the costs of the worst-case scenario, including the costs associated with contingency planning and disaster management, should the disaster occur. While the latter costs might never be incurred, the former are unavoidable.

Joe Spence, radiologist, Danville, urged the Subcommittee to examine the effect of uranium mining on the population’s health and to consider the experience, negative and positive, of other communities in the U.S. where uranium has been mined.

Eloise Nennon, Chatham, asked the Subcommittee to consider a number of lost jobs as a result of mining, the effect on tourism and the costs of long-term containment of uranium mining tailings and the effect on the population’s health.

Gary Fountain, Rector, Chatham Hall pleaded with the Subcommittee to conduct market analysis of the effect of uranium mining on the national and international image of the school. He said that uranium mining will always be perceived by parents of prospective students as posing a danger to their children’s health.

Katherine Mull, Dan River Basin Association, stated that the study should consider whether the perceived economic benefits are sustainable long term and should determine the costs accrued over the mining period and the costs of long-term storage of tailings. Ms. Mull also suggested that the study should examine impacts of perceived risks on investment and drinking water marketability.

Tommy Motley, Diary Farmer, expressed a concern that radioactive dust may end up in the cows’ feed and their milk and pointed out that the testing standards for milk products are very stringent and will likely detect even insignificant amount of chemical contamination. He thus suggested that the study should consider the impacts on agriculture, farmers, and the marketability of agricultural products.

Jake Calhoun, Pittsylvania County Farm Bureau, stated that his organization represents 1000 farmers and their families that bring $100 million in net tax revenues to the County. He suggested that the study must examine how the safety of agricultural products will be perceived by dairy products processors and vendors and how that would affect the marketability of agricultural products to processors and end users.

A self-employed tourist guide from Danville recommended that the study should examine the effect of uranium mining on tourism and all tourism-related businesses.

Local citizens also recommended considering the effect on recruitment of new businesses, lifestyle, viewshed, and the community fabric.

A registered nurse from Halifax suggested that the study should examine the effect on local businesses, especially restaurants that use local produce which might be perceived as contaminated. She also urged the Subcommittee to consider the impact on real estate values in riverfront communities on Banister River and the population’s health and the costs associated with damages to health.

Andrew Lester recommended that the study consider the impact on the recruitment of new businesses and the long-term costs associated with containing the tailings and maintaining the site when the company temporarily suspends operations due to low uranium prices. Mr. Lester also said that the benefits of nuclear energy should not be a part of the study of socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining as it is irrelevant for the determination of socioeconomic impacts.

Frank Fox, Danville-Pittsylvania Chamber of Commerce, asked to consider the effect on recruitment and retention of businesses, especially physicians. He also pointed out that more information is needed about the proposed mining and milling project to examine its socioeconomic impacts on the community. In Mr. Fox’s opinion, the study should have three tiers: “site-specific” within 25 mile radius, “region-specific” within 50 mile radius and state-wide.

Karen Maute, Danville, seconded Mr. Fox’s recommendations and suggested that a 3 tiered socio-economic study should be required for each proposed mine in the state: site-specific (within a 25 mile radius), regional specific (within a 50 mile radius) and a state socio-economic impact study . Ms. Maute reasoned that each mine site will impact its location in a unique manner.

A Pittsylvania County Supervisor stated that the study should establish a benchmark before the mining begins in order to estimate the damages afterwards. A benchmark will reflect the currently existing water quality and quantity, number of cancers, still births and birth defects and will be used to determine if there have been any changes after uranium mining and milling commences.

An elementary school teacher from Halifax spoke on social justice. She said that the study process would have been different if a uranium mine was proposed for localities close to Charlottesville, Middleburg or Fredericksburg.

Patrick Wales, VUI, attempted to cheer the audience by promising that 90% of positions required to staff the mine and mill will be filled with locals.


Disclaimer: these unofficial minutes of the June 22, 2010 public hearing on the scope of the socioeconomic study of uranium mining in Commonwealth of Virginia are based on the notes taken by a citizen who attended the meeting. There was no court reporter present at the meeting. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the summaries of the presentations; however, these unofficial minutes do not represent a complete record of the speeches, addresses, and discussions that took place during the meeting. Please send your corrections and suggestions to uraniumfreeVA@gmail.com.

VUI SCOPING STUDY IS A SHAM!

VUI commenced its so-called scoping study back in March 201o right around the same time when the National Academies of Science announced its decision to agree to conduct the technical study of feasibility of uranium mining in Virginia (despite the obvious conflict of interests, as the study will be paid by VUI). A lot of you hoped that the scoping study would shed some light on the technical details of the proposed mining and milling project. It also sounded very promising at the time when the Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee announced its intention to incorporate the scoping study information into its study of socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining.

We all hoped to finally learn what type of mining and milling VUI will employ, how large the mining operation will be, what will be the scale of the milling operations, how much water the mine and mill will use, where this water will come from, how much electric power the operations will need and who will be supplying that electricity, what heavy machinery will be used, what happens to the water used in the mining and milling operations, how the extracted uranium will be transported and which routes will be used and what types of precautions will be in place. We needed all this information for the study to answer many environmental, health and economic questions, such as: how much water will be consumed; how it will affect the Roanoke River Basin; what happens to the contaminated water discharged from the mine and mill, where will it go, how will it be treated before it is discharged into the environment; how much noise and air pollution will be created by mining and milling operation; how much electric power will be consumed and whether it will affect electric supply to the neighboring communities; how safe our roads will be with all these trucks carrying radioactive yellowcake. It also appears that we will probably never learn how (and if at all) the site will be reclaimed and rehabilitated once all uranium is extracted, and what will happen to the communities when the mining and milling operations get temporarily suspended when uranium prices on global markets hit low and who will be watching over radioactive uranium tailings during those periods.

Instead, we got a 4 page summary with the numbers we all have already seen. The list of occupations to be used at the mine and mill is nothing more than a list that anyone can compile by looking up on Internet general information on personnel employed at any mine and mill. The summary of the so-called scoping study does not explain how the revenue and "investment in the community" estimates were derived and what they are based on. These are not reliable estimates or even predictions; those numbers are just empty promises. A socioeconomic study that relies on empty promises will be an empty promise in itself.

To prevent this situation from happening, attend the June 22 public hearing and voice your recommendations on the scope of the socioeconomic study. Tell the Uranium Mining Subcommittee that you want the study to be based on real facts and that VUI has to provide real information on its planned operations. If you are unable to attend, you have until June 30 to send written comments to the Uranium Subcommittee.

Reference Materials:

Meeting Agenda

Coles Hill Conceptual Study Results Summary

"Virginia Reports study Underway for Coles Hill Uranium Project," Marketwire

'Uranium study gets green light" by Tim Davis, Chatham Star-Tribune

REQUEST THAT URANIUM MINING SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR EXTEND DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS

On June 22, 2010, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee will conduct a public hearing to receive the public's recommendations on the scope of the socioeconomic study of impacts of uranium mining on our communities. The Uranium Mining Subcommittee will be accepting written comments until June 30, 2010, only eight days after the date of the meeting. Such a short comment period is insufficient to ensure Virginia citizens' due process rights.

In May 2010, in regard to the procedures to be employed to determine the scope of the socioeconomic study of uranium mining, the Uranium Mining Subcommittee Chairman Ware publicly stated that “the format and procedures will be precisely as were the format and procedures in crafting the scope of study for the technical study” of uranium mining in Virginia.

Just to remind the readers, The first public hearing on the scope of the technical study of uranium mining was held on December 12, 2008, and the deadline for written comments was set on December 29, 2008. The second public hearing was held on January 6, 2009 and written comments were due on January 19, 2009. After the first public hearing on the scope of the technical study interested parties had 17 days to prepare and deliver their written comments; after the second meeting, the interested parties had 13 days. None of the comment deadlines was as unreasonably short as eight days.

The June 30 deadline for submitting written comments is unacceptably short because it provides only eight days to prepare and deliver written comments to the location in Richmond. Given the limited amount of time, comments from those who reside outside of Richmond might never arrive on time unless sent by express mail. Concerned citizens and businesses should not be compelled to prepare and deliver their written comments before they have an opportunity to attend the June 22 public meeting and hear the discussion of issues recommended for inclusion in the scope of the study..

400-500 people are expected to attend the June 22 meeting; naturally, not everyone who is willing and prepared to speak will be able to get included in the agenda. Those people will have only eight days to prepare and deliver their written comments to Richmond. In order to meet the June 30 deadline, interested parties will have to rely on express mail delivery. Not everyone can afford t to pay the express mail costs. The June 30 deadline will essentially deprive those people of an opportunity to provide their comments on a very important matter.

Interested parties should not be deprived of an opportunity to finalize their written comments based on the public discussion of issues at the June 22, 2010 meeting and to submit those comments on time without incurring high costs of express mail delivery.

Please email to Del. Ware at DelLWare@house.virginia.gov to request that the comment deadline be extended to provide more time to prepare comments based on the live discussion of issues at the June 22 meeting.

Reference materials: “Uranium Mining Subcommittee to Meet in Chatham June 22” by Tim Davis, Star-Tribune

December 12, 2008 Meeting Agenda

January 6, 2009 Meeting Agenda

Agenda for the June 22 Public Hearing on the Scope of the Socioeconomic Study of Uranium Mining

Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy
Uranium Mining Sub-Committee

Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Chatham High School Auditorium
Chatham, Virginia

AGENDA

I. Welcome & Call to Order by Delegate Lee Ware, Chairman

II. Public Comment on Scope of Study
The Sub-Committee on Uranium Mining invites members of the public to
recommend points of concern that should be included in the scope of the
socioeconomic study on uranium mining in the Commonwealth. Speakers will be
provided with three minutes to address the sub-committee and may not cede their
time to other speakers. A sign-up list will be available at least one hour prior to
the start of the hearing. Comments should be specific to the scope of the
socioeconomic study on uranium mining and not on whether uranium mining
should be permitted generally.

The Sub-Committee on Uranium Mining also welcomes written comment on the
scope of the study through June 30, 2010. Please send correspondence to the Coal
& Energy Commission, c/o Ellen Porter, Division of Legislative Services, 910
Capitol Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 or eporter@dls.virginia.gov.
The preliminary draft is available in hard copy at the meeting and on the website
for the Coal and Energy Commission at:
http://dls.state.va.us/groups/cec/032409/impacts.pdf

III. Discussion

IV. Adjourn

http://dls.state.va.us/groups/cec/062210/ag062210.pdf

Everyone Should Attend!

The Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee is moving ahead with the socioeconomic study of impacts of uranium mining. On April 29, 2010, the Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission approved its Executive Committee's recomendation to provide up to $200, 000 in funding to pay for the study of socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining. The Uranium Mining Subcommittee is currently working on determining the scope of the study. On June 22, 2010, it will hold a public meeting on this issue and general public will be allowed to comment. The meeting will be held at 6 pm at Chatham High School, 100 Cavalier Circle, Chatham, VA 24531.

Please attend to make sure that your concerns are heard. If you are unable to attend but would like to contribute your insights and ideas, please contact UraniumFree Virginia at uraniumfreeVA@gmail.com to let us know what YOU would like to see in this study.
UraniumFree Virginia is currently collecting signatures under the request to include the Smith Mountain Lake, Leesville Lake areas and the surrounding counties in the scope of the study. You can sign the online petition at http://www.uraniumfreeva.org/.

Reference materials:

Socioeconomic study meeting to be held June 22.

Tobacco Commission OKs funds for uranium study

Waterfront Sportsman Supports UraniumFree Virginia's Mission

Waterfront Sportsman is committed to protecting water quality and promoting quality of life by moderate environmental policies that will support activities and enable use and access of water resources by all sportsman enthusiasts. That is why, Waterfront Sportsman supports UraniumFree Virginia's mission to educate Virginia's residents and neighbors about the environmental and health risks of uranium mining.

Please read what Waterfront Sportsman says about uranium mining in Virginia. http://waterfrontsportsman.wordpress.com/

SML 2010 Business Expo was a Success!!

12 volunteers for UraniumFree Virginia and League of Individuals for Environment, Inc. attended the Smith Mountain Lake 2010 Business Expo and distributed over 800 informational brochures, over 200 flyers, and collected over 100 signatures for the petition to the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee to include the Smith Mountain Lake, Leesville Lake and the surrounding counties, Bedford, Campbell, Franklin, and Pittsylvania, in the scope of the socio-economi impact study of uranium mining, which has begun with the grant of up to $200,000 approved on Thursday, April 29, 2010 by the Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission.

To view the full text of the petition and to sign it online, please visit http://www.uraniumfreeva.org/.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE!

To Learn More:

http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=12400126

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/tobacco_commission_oks_funds_for_uranium_study/20655/

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/lawmaker_spending_more_for_uranium_socioeconomic_study_not_wise/20563/

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/lawmaker_spending_more_for_uranium_socioeconomic_study_not_wise/20563/

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_investor_has_no_regrets_on_tobacco_commission_vote/20374/

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/04/21/chatham/news/news50.txt

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/article/process_begins_for_socioeconomic_study_of_uranium_mining/20129/Reidsville/

http://www.thenewsrecord.com/index.php/news/article/tobacco_cash_eyed_for_uranium_study/

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

UraniumFree Virginia Has Launched a Website

On April 30, 2010, UraniumFree Virginia launched a website. The blog format proved to be inefficient for creating a library of informational materials on uranium mining. A traditional website will serve this purpose much better. The website is a work in progress and will be continuously updated with new information.

This blog will be used to update you on recent developments and to provide our followers with the forum to comment on those developments. Announcements on the events and activities attended by UraniumFree Virginia will also be posted here.

PLEASE CHECK OUR NEW WEBSITE: WWW.URANIUMFREEVA.ORG

PLEASE CONTINUE COMING BACK TO THIS BLOG FOR NEWS AND UPDATES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

Need More Volunteers

UraniumFree Virginia and L.I.F.E. will have 12 volunteers attending the Smith Mountain Lake 2010 Business Expo, distributing informational brochures and flyers, answering your questions, and collecting signatures for the petition to the Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee requesting that the Subcommittee's socio-economic impact study of uranium mining include the Smith Mountain Lake area and the surrounding counties.

We need more volunteers to participate in this action, as 4,000-5,000 people are expected to attend the Expo. If you are available and would like to participate, volunteers are meeting at 11 am on Food Lion's parking log in Gretna. If you are driving from a different direction, please email to uraniumfreeVA@gmail.com for more details. Thank you for your support in advance.

Meet Our Volunteers on April 30, 2010

On Friday, April 30, 2010, UraniumFree Virginia and L.I.F.E. volunteers will be attending the Smith Mountain Lake 2010 Business Expo. We will be distributing informational brochures and flyers to educate the Smith Mountain Lake residents, businesses, and visitors, of the risks and dangers associated with uranium mining.

The Smith Mountain Lake, also known as the jewel of Virginia, is located only 14.5 miles Northwest of the proposed uranium mine in Coles Hill, VA. The close proximity of the mine to the Smith Mountain Lake may have negative repercussions for the area's businesses and real estate values. We believe that people should be made aware of the pending plans to mine uranium in their backyard.

Our volunteers will also be collecting signatures for the petition to the Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee requesting the Subcommittee to include the Smith Mountain Lake area in the study of socio-economic impacts of uranium mining. The socio-economic study process has already begun. The Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission will provide $200,000 to fund the study. The Uranium Mining Subcommittee Chairman Ware has announced that he plans to conduct a public meeting on the scope of the study in the nearest future. We believe that the socio-economic study should include the areas located in close proximity to the proposed uranium mining site, including the Smith Mountain Lake, Leesville Lake and surrounding counties (Campbell, Bedford, Franklin, and Pittsylvania).

For more information
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/article/official_says_hearing_needed_on_uranium_mining/20459/

Happy Earth Day!

The US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson spoke on the significance of Earth Day, our achievments in the environmental protection area, and the inextricable link between the flourishing economy and the clean, safe, clean environment.

To read more follow the links below:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/04/epa-administrator-lisa-jackson-discusses-how-relevant-earth-day-really-is.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-p-jackson/its-the-sustainable-econo_b_546725.html