Attorney General Opinion Casts Doubt on Local Uranium Ban

I'm not sure why this is news. I think we've already heard about it...like last November and, unofficially, even earlier than that. It is interesting, though, that the person asked to once again pose the question is the son of one of VUI's major investors. What an interesting way for VUI to say, "We would just like to remind all you mining opponents out there that the easiest way to prevent uranium mining is not an option available to you." OK, VUI...we hear you. If we're not mistaken, former AG, Bob McDonnell, rendered the opinion in Novermber, 2008. Senator Hurt would have asked for a refresher from the current AG, Bill Mims. General Mims was elected to the position by the General Assembly because General McDonnell resigned while the GA was in session so that Governor Kaine would not have the opportunity to fill the position. General Mims' term ends in 2010. We'll see what happens..but until then, I find myself singing along with Bob Dylan..."Oh, the times, they are a changin'."


By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:36 AM EDT

Pittsylvania County does not have the authority to ban uranium mining, according to a recent opinion by the Virginia attorney general's office.

Late last month, County Administrator Dan Sleeper, acting on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, asked Sen. Robert Hurt to request an attorney general's opinion on whether the county could pass an ordinance banning uranium mining.

Hurt contacted the attorney general's office, which referred to a formal opinion issued on Nov. 14, 2008, that says localities cannot enact any law that "nullifies or pre-empts state or federal law."

To do so without express permission from the General Assembly would be unconstitutional, the opinion states.

The same opinion cast a shadow over so-called "chemical trespass" ordinances, which some localities, including Chatham, were considering for protection against uranium mining.

The idea for a ban on uranium mining was suggested by Karen Maute of Danville, a well-known zoning and environmental advocate.

Other residents opposed to uranium mining also have called for an outright ban.

Supervisors' Legislative Committee met in March to explore tightening the county's zoning ordinance, but tabled a possible ban.

"I think we need to address the issue and look at it closely and not make any hasty decisions one way or the other," said the committee's chairman, Staunton River District Supervisor Marshall Ecker.

The committee also includes Banister District Supervisor William Pritchett and Chatham-Blairs District Supervisor Henry "Hank" Davis Jr.

Davis recently pushed for a stronger resolution from supervisors on uranium mining.

The resolution, adopted unanimously in February, recommends that a state study determine uranium mining will cause "no damage or harm" to the county.

It was sent to the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee, which is conducting a comprehensive study on the dangers and benefits of uranium mining.

The Coles Hill uranium deposit about six miles northeast of Chatham is one of the largest deposits in the United States.

Even if the Coal and Energy Commission determines uranium mining can be done safely, the General Assembly would have to lift the state's moratorium, which has been in place since 1982.

The board's chairman, Westover District Supervisor Coy Harville, said it's a state issue.

"Right now all we can do is listen," he said. "The state has a moratorium and I respect that. They have more authority than we do."

According to the attorney general's opinion, "a Virginia locality may not enact an ordinance that diminishes, alters, or eliminates legal rights, particularly where the state or federal government may be said to 'occupy the field," unless given specific authority to do so by the General Assembly or the Congress of the United States."

The four-page opinion was issued at the request of Del. Riley E. Ingram of Hopewell.

The attorney general said county and municipal ordinances must be consistent with the laws of the commonwealth.

"Thus, if an entity operates in compliance with state law, a Virginia locality cannot impose a criminal liability on that entity," said the attorney general.

"Likewise, a locality may not prohibit or limit the authority of state or federal agencies to carry out their duties as prescribed by law."

Supervisors could still ban uranium mining, but a ban would likely be overturned in court.

Even if the General Assembly eventually lifts Virginia's moratorium, state and federal laws would govern uranium mining and processing.

Supervisors also would have to rezone the Coles Hill property and Virginia Uranium Inc., which is hoping to mine the deposit, would have to obtain a special-use permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Hurt said it appears the attorney general's opinion addresses the county's question on a possible ban on uranium mining.

However, in a June 3 letter to Sleeper, the senator said, "In the event that you do not believe this opinion fully answers your request , I will be happy to follow up with the attorney general's office."

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/10/chatham/news/news51.txt

Dr. Toohey’s Column Missed a Lot of Important Facts, Problems

Dr. Brugge spoke at a public presentation in Chatham on the evening of Saturday, Nov. 8, 2008 regarding studies, including his own, on the effects of uranium mining and milling on human health. That morning, he spoke at an invitational event in Danville to a group of community leaders and officials. His appearances were sponsored by the Dan River Basin Association. More information on those events can be found here: http://www.uranium2008.blogspot.com/

Now he's written a response to Dr. Richard Toohey's remarks that appeared in the Danville Register & Bee on March 8, 2009. That Guest Editorial can be found here:

http://sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com/2009/03/understanding-uraniums-benefits-and.html

Published: March 29, 2009

Danville Register & Bee

To the editor:
I would like to respond to some of the comments recently published in your newspaper by Richard E. Toohey, president of the Health Physics Society, “Understanding the benefits, balancing the risks,” (March 8, page A11).

In his column, Toohey makes a number of claims that, while narrowly true, manage to distort a fair discussion of the issues.

The first example is his claim that nuclear energy is “carbon free.” In fact, this is true only if you look at the nuclear reaction itself. The mining, milling and processing of uranium into fuel for use in a nuclear power plant produce plenty of carbon dioxide. So does the building of a nuclear plant. And, of course, the remediation of the mines and mills and the disassembly of the plant itself and long-term disposal and storage of the high-level radioactive waste also consume energy and produce greenhouse gases. The level of this problem is less than with coal, but is not non-existent; and, should we have to mine lower and lower grade ore as we deplete higher grade deposits, the problem could increase dramatically.

A second example is his claim that no new radioactivity will be produced at the site. Technically this is true. The uranium and other isotopes in the ore are already there. If anything, mining will remove some of them. But that is not the real concern. Mining the ore will bring radioactive materials currently underground to the surface and has the potential, as has been the case elsewhere in the United States and around the world, to spread those materials around in the environment to an extent that they would not be if they were left alone. To date I have never seen a mining operation that did not leave copious contamination and environmental impact.

Third, Toohey talks a lot about trade-off of benefits and costs and cites power generation and production using U.S. natural resources as benefits. My understanding is that the nuclear industry has only been viable in the United States because of huge subsidies from taxpayers. But that aside, and addressing aspects I know more about, nuclear power is not clean in the sense of producing no toxic waste. In fact, the biggest problem that nuclear energy currently faces in the U.S. is that there is no approved storage site for the large qualities of high-level waste that are produced already. The Yucca Mountain site may never be approved.

What are we going to do with all this high-level waste we already have, let alone tons more that could be generated? Perhaps we could reprocess it, but there are problems that come with that option, including fears of contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation. And, if reprocessing is the answer, then it is an alternative to mining, not an argument for more mining. The bottom line is that nuclear energy has been neither cheap nor clean.

Finally, let me point out, as I did when I gave a talk in Pittsylvania County on the subject, that the focus solely on radiation hazards is misguided.

There are numerous chemical hazards associated with uranium mining, as well as radioactive concerns. While radon is a highly potent lung carcinogen, uranium itself is primarily a heavy metal toxin, more similar to lead or mercury. Perhaps it is not as exotic as radiation, but uranium is quite capable of causing kidney damage, birth defects and possibly estrogenic (feminizing) effects. Uranium ore also frequently contains other highly toxic, though non-radioactive, contaminants.

The upshot, from my perspective, is that the history (which some people want to forget or have you forget) is that uranium mining has left a miserable record of damage to workers, communities and the environment for more than 50 years. The onus is on the proponents of uranium mining to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will not continue the legacy from the past into the future. Arguments such as those ofToohey that seem to play with words to sound reassuring are, if anything, quite the opposite.

DOUG BRUGGE

Associate Professor

Tufts University Boston

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/letters_to_the_editor_for_monday_march_29_2009/10025/