Water group releases report on uranium

Uranium mining in Pittsylvania County would cause long-term water quality degradation, a hydrogeologist hired by the Roanoke River Basin Association said.

Virginia Uranium Inc. contends water quality and the environment would be protected, as regulations require that. VUI would like to mine and mill what’s described as the largest U.S. undeveloped uranium deposit at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County, although a 29-year state moratorium on uranium mining is in place.

On Thursday, the Roanoke River Basin Association released a report produced by water quality expert Robert Moran, who analyzed past technical reports on the Coles Hill site. Moran has 39 years experience at conducting and managing water quality.

In 1983, Moran was a hydrogeological and water quality consultant through a contractor to Marline Uranium Corp. and Union Carbide Corp., which were developing the uranium project.

“It’s just simply untrue to say that you don’t release contaminants into the environment,” Moran said, after referring to permitted discharges of uranium effluent at Canadian uranium sites.

Additionally, Moran is concerned about the amount of rainfall at the Coles Hill site, precipitation’s interaction with rock walls, mining waste rock and uranium mill waste (tailings) and the containment and treatment of affected water. A 1983 Marline report described the site geologic formations as being “water-bearing,” with the presence of several springs and faults capable of transmitting water.

The area also has roughly 250 private wells in a two- to three-mile radius, the RRBA report stated. Moran also noted the need for groundwater studies at lower depths.

“It is generally the slow, chronic, semi-invisible, chemical reactions and seepage of effluents that routinely produce the long-term unforeseen impacts to water resources and costs for taxpayers,” Moran writes in the report. “No waste facilities can remain stabilized unless funds are available to maintain the facilities, forever.”

This means that the millions of tons of solid uranium mill tailings, containing radionuclides and heavy metals, would require maintenance “forever,” Moran said, adding wastes could contain 1,000 times the drinking water standard for uranium.

Additionally, seepage of other chemicals used for mining, like from explosive residues, and mill processing should be a primary concern, he said.

Moran noted that uranium regulations have been “lax” historically, citing how Cotter Uranium mill in Canyon City, Colo., was able to continue operations despite dozens of violation notices for contaminating surface and ground waters.

The basin association report also stated that Virginia Uranium’s water usage for its operations would increase local water competition.

According to a preliminary economic assessment commissioned by Virginia Uranium last year, the site would require more than 500 million gallons per year for the first one to two years and then would need about 142 million gallons per year for its 30 to 35-year lifetime.

In recent presentations, VUI shows the site would require 110 million gallons per year after start-up, as it plans to recycle some of the processing water (60 gallons per minute), said Patrick Wales, VUI project manager.

The company estimates it would use more than 300,000 gallons per day. For comparison, the town of Chatham uses 350,000 gallons per day.

During start-up, the company would stockpile water for a reservoir, Wales said. The company would also collect precipitation, site runoff and mine dewatering, according to the 2010 preliminary assessment.

“We have made our commitment to maintaining water quality well-known. Additionally, laws and regulations at the state and federal levels would require that we do so,” Wales said in a prepared response to the report. “Throughout the commonwealth, reasonable parties are awaiting the findings of the National Academy of Sciences that are expected to be released in less than a month. Those findings should provide a legitimate foundation for additional discussion on the merits of uranium mining in Virginia.”

The basin association also criticized the $1.4 million NAS study of uranium mining in Virginia, as VUI paid for it, and noted that study wasn’t providing a site-specific assessment, which prompted the report, said RRBA Executive Director Andrew Lester.

The report cited NAS policy of not accepting more than 50 percent of a project’s funding from industry.

NAS is receiving 100 percent of the project’s funding from the state of Virginia and only deals with the state regarding the project’s statement of task and work contract, explained NAS spokeswoman Jennifer Walsh.

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, a legislative body, requested the study, but when the state didn’t have the money to pay for it, VUI offered to do so. Virginia Tech manages the money and serves as the study sponsor on behalf of the state, but the committee carrying out the study operates with complete independence from outside parties, including the sponsor, or Virginia Tech, Walsh said.

The study will undergo peer review and will be released in early December. NAS plans to have public meetings to distribute the information, Walsh said.