Va. Beach responds to uranium study criticism

After Virginia Beach released its study of what would happen to its water in the event of a worst-case uranium mill tailings release in February, Virginia Tech professors questioned some of the information used.

In response, the Virginia Beach Department of Public Utilities said in a March 12 statement it used the latest available, provable information.

Tom Leahy, director of public utilities for Virginia Beach, called two of the criticisms “wrong” outright, but agreed more information about the tailings facility and the amount of tailings would refine the analysis.

The city is collecting more information and will spend about $100,000 to study more locations, including along the Banister River, and will narrow down its results to one reasonable scenario in modeling a “catastrophic” release event.

In an opinion piece published in the Danville Register & Bee on Feb. 27, Virginia Tech professors Robert J. Bodnar and Panos Diplas criticized the Virginia Beach study with concerns it didn’t use the most recent and accurate data for its computational modeling.

A primary concern was the study assumed the tailings impoundments would be above-ground, when current plans for the Coles Hill uranium deposit call for a portion of the tailings to be stored underground, said Bodnar, professor of geology and a University Distinguished Professor.

Additionally, another shortcoming is the assumed volume or mass of tailings that would be generated, Bodnar said in an email.

Leahy said he’s not aware of any final plans developed by Virginia Uranium Inc., the company that would like to mine the 119-million-pound uranium deposit at Coles Hill.

So, as a basis for the Virginia Beach study, engineering firm Michael Baker Corp. took into account a 1983 Marline Uranium Corp. report, which stated below-grade tailings disposal wasn’t practical in the Coles Hill area because of the high water table, Leahy said.

“Whether or not surface impoundments will be buried or not is speculative at this point until groundwater studies have been done,” Leahy said. “ … If there is some way we can prove these impoundments would be partially below grade, then we would adjust our calculations.”

In early February, Virginia Beach wrote to VUI asking for more information about the tailings impoundments, Leahy said. The response from VUI CEO and Chairman Walter Coles Sr. was the information hadn’t been generated yet.

Coles confirmed this, as the information requested was specific and technical in nature. Coles said via email that Leahy or firm conducting the study could have learned more by visiting the site, which he offered in December.

VUI received a list of specific technical questions and some of that information is being developed, but won’t be completed for a number of months, he added. Coles said storing tailings below grade at Coles Hill is viable.

VUI provided Marline Uranium Corp. data as requested. Coles added Virginia Beach asked for information after the study was already released.

Bodnar and Diplas also questioned if the study omitted the dam on the Banister River at Halifax or the possibility of radioactive sediment being trapped by Banister Lake.

Leahy said while the report didn’t discuss the results, the results of the model do include the dam and the reservoir. Modeling produces enormous amounts of data and the information from that location will be reported with the follow-up studies, he said.

Lastly, Bodnar and Diplas wrote that the study didn’t use the latest available FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) stream cross-section data.

“That is not correct,” Leahy said, adding Michael Baker Corp. has a contract with the federal government for preparing FEMA flood maps.

A model is a series of cross-sections from the top of the river all the way down, where each cross-section tells you what the channel looks like, Leahy explained.

While the FEMA data is based on 1970s information, the contractors compared recent cross-sections at the Halifax and Randolph gauging stations and found “good agreement” with the FEMA data. The firm also used cross-section data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Department of Transportation from a range of dates.

Additionally, it would only be a meaningful criticism if the cross-sections had changed, Leahy said.

Leahy hopes to have the next $165,000 study completed by July.

The city of Chesapeake is sharing the cost, contributing about $25,000, Leahy said. The city of Norfolk is also contributing about $40,000 to look at the capacity of water treatment plants to remove radioactive contaminants.