VUI raises conflict concern, residents raise process concern

Local residents Katie Whitehead and Hollis Stauber expressed concern to state leaders in an e-mail that the socioeconomic studies on the impacts of uranium mining in the region wouldn’t be able to use the findings from the scientific statewide study.

In reaction, Chatham-based Virginia Uranium Inc. published a statement on its website and raised concerns about the involvement of Hollis Stauber, whose husband Karl Stauber heads the Danville Regional Foundation, which is funding one of the socioeconomic studies.

On Dec. 6, Whitehead of Pittsylvania County and Hollis Stauber of Danville e-mailed uranium study leaders, state legislators and VUI an overview chart outlining the four different uranium studies currently going on.

The e-mail cover letter also stated concerns arise from seeing the “big picture” — only one study (National Academy of Sciences’ scientific study) is statewide and two studies are assessing the socioeconomic impacts of uranium mining at the region level.

Three studies have the same deadline, so the two socioeconomic studies — one commissioned by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission and one funded by the Danville Regional Foundation — would not be able to use the NAS study, the e-mail continued.

After receiving the e-mail, Walter Coles Sr., VUI president, CEO and board chairman, sent a letter to the chair of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee of the Coal and Energy Commission, stating that its study should not be “truncated, delayed or compromised” based on work by other organizations and that the commission put the study proposals through a “public competitive process.”

Coles added the commission’s $200,000 study is funded by the Virginia Tobacco Commission, whose “charge is limited to the affected region.”

Coles called Whitehead a “vociferous opponent of uranium mining,” pointed out Hollis Stauber’s spouse connection and wrote, “We wish only to point out that the communication you received yesterday can hardly be considered disinterested.”

This shows the wisdom of the subcommittee’s adherence to a course that is independent of other efforts, Coles wrote.

“Someone who is withholding judgment until the evidence is in has a strong legitimate interest in the quality of the evidence. Hollis Stauber and I are among many people who want a public policy decision based on the best available evidence,” Whitehead said via e-mail. “This would include looking at modern, regulated uranium operations and mining communities. Decisions about how studies are designed and conducted will determine the value of their findings; these decisions are of interest to citizens.”

Whitehead, chair of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, and Hollis Stauber had prepared and been updating the chart for the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, the Halifax Chamber of Commerce Uranium Study Group and the Garden Club of Virginia Conservation Committee. In the e-mail, Whitehead and Stauber spoke only as individuals.

It occurred to them that the chart, a summary of basic facts, could serve as a reference for anyone following the uranium studies, including VUI, the funding source for the $1.4 million NAS study, Whitehead said.

Additionally, Whitehead referred to Coles’ column in the Danville Register & Bee dated Dec. 23, 2007, when he wrote, “And we’re in no hurry — after two centuries, we’re not about to make any rash decisions that will jeopardize this land or our community.”

“Given time, the NAS findings would benefit the socioeconomic studies,” Whitehead said. “And the Coal and Energy Commission’s socioeconomic study should not be rushed.”

Coles wrote the purpose of the letter was to express support for the subcommittee’s official, credible and independent efforts.

Karl Stauber and Hollis Stauber declined comment for this story.

To view VUI’s statement, visit www.virginiauranium.com.