FEBRUARY 8, 2011: VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTS VIRGINIA URANIUM PROVIDE THEIR PLANS TO STORE TOXIC URANIUM MILL TAILINGS
From: Peter Pommerenk
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:00:58 -0500
Subject: Information on Uranium Mill Tailings
Dear Mr. Wales,
According to recent media reports following our release of the uranium mining impact study, you stated that you would be able to share data and information about the "amount and type of material that will be present at the Coles Hill site." We are delighted to hear this and would like to take you up on this offer.
We are particularly interested in any primary sources that could provide insight into the chemical and radiological composition of the tailings and the properties of the solids (e.g., grain size distributions, etc.) that might be generated at Coles Hill. In addition, even though we have retained expertise on contemporary mill tailings containment construction, any preliminary information regarding this aspect of your venture would be helpful to us in order to narrow down the potential impact scenarios in our model simulations. More specifically, we are looking for the following:
* Site plans
* Design information: surface area, volume, height of the dam above= the original ground elevation, type of the dam, method of construction (standard dam, or if gradually raised upstream method, downstream method, or centerline method), collection of liquids and seepage, operation rules, etc.
* Geotechnical information Tailings:
* Uranium leaching method (acid or alkaline) and test results
* Pulp density of tailings when pumping from the mill to the containment cell
* Expected pulp density of tailings when impounded
* Total unit weight or density of the tailings (solid-liquid mixture)
* Grain size distribution (tailings)
* Dry density of tailings * Cohesivity (if any)
* Bingham plastic viscosity, Bingham yield strength (if available)
* Radioactivity content in tailings (Gross-Alpha/Beta, Ra-226/228 and Th-230/232 in sands, slimes, and liquids)
* Residual uranium content in sands, slimes and liquids expected to be in the tailings
* Any data on other toxic matter, if available, their initial concentration in sands, slimes and liquids (such as arsenic, lead, etc.)
We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter and are looking forward to hearing from you within the next 30 days. Thank you.
Peter Pommerenk, Ph.D., P.E.
City of Virginia Beach Public Utilities/Engineering Division Planning & Analysis
FEBRUARY 23, 2011 (TWO WEEKS LATER): VIRGINIA URANIUM RESPONDS: IT HAS NO PLANS AND WILL NOT HAVE THEM IN NEAR FUTURE, OFFERS GET-TOGETHER INSTEAD
From: Walt Coles, Sr. [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:51 AM
To: Tom Leahy
Cc: Peter Pommerenk; email@example.com
This email is in response to Peter Pommerenk's email to Patrick Wales dated February 8, 2011. As I offered to you at the NAS meeting in Danville, we would be delighted for you and others to visit with us at our office and the Coles Hill site. We feel this would provide more of a hands-on approach to Virginia Uranium's work and on-site observations. Such a meeting would provide opportunity for both parties to exchange various points of information and objectives. At that time, we would be happy to provide you with selected old data created by Marline in the 1980-92s. I hope that you will consider this offer.
In regard to current data and Peter's list of specific data requests, most of that data has not yet been generated and is not expected in the near term.
Please let me know if you would like to set up a time for a visit and we look forward to working with you.
MARCH 1, 2011: VIRGINIA BEACH REJECTS GET-TOGETHER ON WALTER COLES PROPERTY AS USELESS
From: Tom Leahy
To: "Walt Coles, Sr."
CC: Peter Pommerenk , "firstname.lastname@example.org" , Marilyn Crane Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:50:31 -0500
Thank you for your response to Peter Pommerenk's request for information. Peter's request for information was fairly specific. Unfortunately, you have indicated that VUI has little if any of the requested information and that you do not expect to have any in the near term. Given this situation, I do not believe that much would be accomplished by assembling our team of experts at Coles Hill at this time. As most of our technical team are under contract, it would be very costly in terms of both time and money.
However, I will note that Patrick Wales has previously offered to provide copies of the Marline Report to both Virginia Beach and the NAS Uranium Committee. We have the main body of the Marline Report (Volumes 1-3) but we would appreciate a copy of the 14 appendices (Volumes 4-8). Virginia Beach would be more than happy to pay the cost of reproduction. It may be that the Marline Report will have the information we need and this will be the most efficient way to respond to our request for information. After we review the remaining volumes, we would be in a better position to discuss the potential benefits of a meeting at Coles Hill.