www.roanoke.com

In this week’s Point/Counterpoint, our guests debate the question “Should Virginia lift its moratorium on uranium mining?” You can pose questions to Robert Bodnar of Virginia Tech and Cale Jaffe of the Southern Environmental Law Center Monday at noon here on The RoundTable.

 Let’s do this the right way

Robert J. Bodnar

 Bodnar, the C.C. Garvin Professor and University Distinguished Professor of Geosciences at Virginia Tech, was named Virginia’s Outstanding Scientist for 2010 by Gov. Bob McDonnell.

Over the next two months, the Virginia General Assembly will debate the pros and cons of lifting the moratorium on uranium mining. Those opposed to lifting the moratorium would have Virginians believe that mining will begin immediately if the moratorium is lifted, and this assertion is patently false.

Lifting the moratorium simply means that entities within the commonwealth could begin to develop a regulatory framework and mining plan that will ensure the health and safety of the local population and the environment if uranium were to be mined.

Read more.

Diverse coalition seeks to keep ban in place

Cale Jaffe

 Jaffe is a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center and a lecturer at the University of Virginia School of Law, where he teaches a course on Environmental Law and Federalism.

For 30 years, Virginia has banned uranium mining. Now, one company, Virginia Uranium Inc., wants to repeal that ban with its eye on a site near Danville.

The company advertises its project as “Fuel for America,” although it concedes only 0.06 percent of the deposit could be milled into yellowcake. The remainder is waste — 58billion pounds of it, according to the company’s estimate — containing radioactive materials that we would have to manage in perpetuity.

Read more.

Bodnar’s response:

The entire argument against uranium mining made by my esteemed counterpart Mr. Jaffe is based on the false premise that, “For thirty years, Virginia has banned uranium mining.” Despite numerous attempts by legislators and journalists to correct this misconception, anti-mining opponents continue to mislead Virginians into thinking that Virginia banned uranium mining in the 1980s to protect the Commonwealth from a dangerous threat.

According to State Senator John C. Watkins, who was a freshman Delegate in the Virginia General Assembly when the moratorium was enacted in 1982,“The moratorium was intended as a first, not last, step in a lengthy examination of uranium mining in Virginia. Despite popular myths to the contrary, the moratorium simply directed that no permit applications for uranium mining could be accepted prior to July 1, 1984, and until a program for permitting uranium mining is established in statute.” (Richmond Times –Dispatch, August 7, 2011).

It is clear from the simple wording of the law that it does not ban uranium mining but, rather, was intended to establish a moratorium to “slow down” the process to give various state agencies sufficient time to develop guidelines and regulations related to uranium mining.

It is not difficult to understand why those opposed to the well-planned and thoughtful development and exploitation of Virginia’s valuable natural resources continue to perpetuate this falsehood. They would like the citizens of Virginia to mistakenly believe that uranium was “banned” in the 1980s because it was considered to be too dangerous to mine, and posed unacceptable risks to the environment.

A brief history lesson reveals that the complete opposite is true. Four state government bodies determined in the 1980s that uranium mining could be done safely and with minimal risks, and all recommended that the General Assembly lift the moratorium.

Here’s the full story.

After the moratorium was imposed in 1982, the Virginia General Assembly tasked multiple state bodies to study the potential environmental and public health impacts of uranium mining and report back to the legislature with a recommendation on whether or not to lift the moratorium. The 1984 state-sponsored radiological risk assessment determined that “uranium development [in Pittsylvania County] can be undertaken with minimal risks,” and the Uranium Administrative Group, the Uranium Task Force, the Coal & Energy Commission and the Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee all recommended that the General Assembly lift the moratorium and allow state agencies to develop a regulatory and permitting program for the industry.

The General Assembly was thus advised by various regulatory agencies within the State that the moratorium should be lifted, but lawmakers never acted on these recommendations because between 1982 and 1984 there was a downturn in the market  for uranium and the company controlling the Coles Hill uranium deposit lost interest in further developing the resource.

Now, understanding the true story about the moratorium, the most important question to consider is, if four government bodies determined in the 1980s that uranium mining could be conducted safely in Virginia, then what has changed since then to prevent us from following through on their clear recommendations? Has uranium mining and milling become less safe since the 1980s? Have environmental regulations become less stringent since the 1980s? Have environmental safeguards and technologies become less effective since the 1980s? According to the National Academy of Sciences study released in December, the answer to each of these questions is “No.”

As the National Academy of Sciences study clearly and succinctly concluded, since the 1980s uranium mining and milling operations have become significantly safer and more protective of the environment and public health; state and federal regulations are far stricter and rules are enforced more vigorously; and, environmental management practices and technologies are far more effective than they were in the 1980s at protecting air, water and soil quality.

The National Academy of Sciences study even addressed the most often cited concern expressed by mining opponents – the potential risk of a storm-induced release of tailings into downstream Lake Gaston: “Over the past few decades, significant improvements have been made to tailings management practices to isolate mine waste from the environment… Full below-grade disposal of mill tailings is an option that has been developed specifically to eliminate concerns over the release of tailings due to catastrophic failure of a construction retaining berm or tailings dam.”

If uranium mining was safe and posed only minimal risks in the 1980s, and safeguards and regulations have only become more rigorous and more effective since then, common sense dictates that the General Assembly should act on the recommendations originally made in the 1980s and lift the moratorium.

Jaffe’s response:

I want to thank the Roanoke Times for providing this forum, and Professor Bodnar for engaging on this crucially important topic.

Professor Bodnar’s first point is that lifting the ban “simply means” developing a regulatory framework, suggesting that headier questions on whether to mine can wait.

Yet it makes no sense to waste scarce taxpayer dollars on regulatory development if the General Assembly intends to keep the uranium ban in place. Legislators might agree with their Southside colleagues that this is a “very, very bad idea.”

At the very least, I hope legislators wait until after the various studies have been reviewed.

The most highly anticipated report—from the National Academy of Sciences—was not released until December 19th. When asked at a Garden Club of Virginia event how long it typically takes to digest reports from the academy, Professor Bodnar responded, “years.” We should take more than the a few weeks around the holidays to digest this one.

Professor Bodnar’s second point is to suggest that concerns about uranium emanate solely from tragic stories from the 1950s to 1970s. Yet modern problems persist. In 1989, a leak in Saskatchewan dumped more than 500,000 gallons of radioactive water into the environment. Another 500,000 gallon spill occurred at Elliot Lake in Ontario in 1993.

As recently as 2006, flooding overwhelmed a site in Saskatchewan. According to a nuclear-industry publication, that flood raised “questions for some analysts about whether [the mining company] could devise plans to prevent future floods.”

Professor Bodnar’s third point is one of national security. Yet the U.S. Department of Energy reports that one of our allies—Australia—has the most reasonably assured uranium resources in the world. Another friendly country, Canada, is number two on the list. A New York Times report (Nov. 24, 2011) quoted a nuclear fuel business consultant: “‘We’ve got 100 years of high-enriched uranium in storage,’ and with additional material coming out of uranium weapons, there is enough ‘probably for 1,000 years of whatever naval fuel we need.’”

The real national security question is for Hampton Roads. All of the military bases in the area rely on public water supplies, which are downstream from the proposed mine site in Pittsylvania County. The City of Virginia Beach commissioned a study that found, in the event of a worst-case spill, it could take as long as two years to flush radioactive contaminants out of the reservoir. Capt. Joe Bouchard, U.S. Navy (ret.), and former commander of the Norfolk Naval Station said, “National security risks are profound with this project and cannot be ignored.”

A final point I’d like to raise is one of fiscal realities. Bob Burnley, the former Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, has spoken out against lifting the ban on uranium mining. Mr. Burnley has a forty-year career in the Virginia regulatory community and is a consultant to the Southern Environmental Law Center on this issue.

In a presentation to the National Academy of Sciences, Mr. Burnley cautioned, “[N]early every year, nearly every Governor for whom I worked asked for budget cuts in the 5% to  15% range. When faced with this kind of budget situation year after year after year, one runs out of things to cut.”

In an article in the Virginia Lawyer Magazine (June/July 2011, Vol. 60), Mr. Burnley expanded on this point, asking, “[W]hat programs will be cut to fund the regulation of uranium mining and milling?”

According to a socio-economic study commissioned by Virginia’s Coal and Energy Commission, a best-case scenario finds a possible $6 billion benefit. The same study warns, however, that a worst-case scenario would cause Virginians an $11 billion loss. Uranium mining in Virginia is, at best, an extraordinarily high-stakes gamble.