'Stakeholders' clash at NAS uranium meeting

Stakeholders disagree whether Virginia could effectively regulate uranium mining to protect the environment, specifically water resources.

Environmental and water groups say mining uranium in a wet climate in Virginia would be “experimental” and questioned Virginia’s preparedness for related disaster planning and willingness to sufficiently fund state regulators of uranium. Mining and energy interests say Virginia could develop robust regulations by shifting costs to the industry and that developing one of the world’s largest uranium resources could help Virginia in its quest to become the “energy capital of the East Coast.”

On Monday, these groups shared this input with the National Academy of Sciences committee studying the scientific, technical and regulatory aspects of uranium mining statewide. A state legislative body tasked NAS with providing review and analysis to help lawmakers decide whether or not to lift the state’s moratorium on uranium mining and milling.

The $1.4 million study is due by December next year. Meanwhile, Chatham-based Virginia Uranium Inc. would like to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium deposit at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County.

Environmental and water interests

Former director of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Robert G. Burnley doubts whether Virginia would develop “robust” regulations. The current regulatory system doesn’t support the efforts needed to protect the environment from potential impacts of uranium mining and milling, he said.

State budget-makers don’t make the environment a high priority, Burnley said, adding Virginia spends less than 1 percent of its total annual budget on environmental quality programs.

Less money means fewer technicians and scientists collecting data from the field, he added. Additionally, if only one or two companies mine uranium in Virginia, the permitting fees wouldn’t add much to funding the whole program.

The committee should analyze whether Virginia’s regulatory structure is prepared for the worst possible outcomes, like flooding from hurricanes, said Cale Jaffe, senior attorney with Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville.

The Piedmont Environmental Council would like to stop speculation and asked the committee to find other sites with comparable rainfall to Virginia where uranium mining and milling was done properly, said representative Todd Benson. Until then, he agrees with the longstanding argument that uranium mining and milling in Virginia would be “experimental.”

The Roanoke River Basin Association would like a statewide hydrology study as local communities and South Hampton Roads rely on the basin’s water supplies, said Executive Director Andrew Lester. Yet, impacts go beyond Virginia as North Carolina cities also seek water from the basin.

As to whether or not uranium mining and milling can be done safely in Virginia, the burden of proof should be on the company and not the public, he added.

“Our philosophy is water is more valuable than uranium,” Lester said.

Energy and mining interests

Virginia Uranium Inc. anticipates the state would develop “robust” regulations and counters the argument that a regulatory framework would be too expensive to develop.

Two-thirds of the site — specifically radioactive tailings and the mill that produces yellowcake — would be regulated by the federal government through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said Patrick Wales, VUI project manager. Virginia is an agreement state with the NRC.

Virginia has a Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy that already regulates mining and a Division of Radiological Health & Safety Regulation. The state would need to add a radiological regulatory element to the mining framework. Wales said.

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality would only deal with a portion of the regulation, Wales said.

“Mining is mining,” said Norm Reynolds, director of Virginia Energy Resources — a public company that owns about 29 percent of VUI. “And Virginia has a very good mining program.”

Reynolds, who was on the team that found the Coles Hill deposit for Marline Corp., gave the committee eight volumes of site information comprising historic baseline data and extensive water studies.

As far as regulation costs, the state would determine the necessary fees to pay for it, Wales said.

He added that VUI is also telling local and state leaders, “tax us.”

The company proposes excise or severance taxes of 4 percent of gross revenue, or $6 million a year, Wales said. The company estimates operations would generate $140 million a year in gross revenue and up to $300 million a year in direct and indirect economic benefits.

As far as water concerns, the NRC requires planning for severe weather events and VUI anticipates the state would do the same, Wales said.

The Coles Hill deposit — the largest uranium resource in the United States — could help the state grow its energy supply by the 14.6 percent needed to meet demand by 2020, said Ray Ganther, chairman of Virginia Energy Independence Alliance.

If uranium recovery can be conducted safely, it would help Virginia in its quest to become the “energy capital of the East Coast,” Ganther said, citing the Virginia Energy plan.

Could uranium be mined elsewhere in the state?

More people have been calling about where else uranium exists in Virginia, said William Lassetter Jr. of the Virginia Division of Geology and Mineral Resources.

To date, about 60 notable occurrences of rock with elevated uranium have been identified in Virginia, but these are not concentrated enough to be deposits, he said.

The exception is Coles Hill, which is the only one that could be called an economic uranium deposit, Lassetter said.

The NAS committee will continue meeting in Danville through Wednesday.