Uranium mining, milling threatens water, report claims
By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 9:03 AM EST
A report funded by the Roanoke River Basin Association warns that a
proposed uranium mining and milling project in Pittsylvania County
could be a serious threat to water quality and may increase
competition for water in the future.
The 39-page report, “Site-Specific Assessment of the Proposed Uranium
Mining and Milling Project at Coles Hill, Pittsylvania County, Va.,”
was released Thursday.
It was written by Colorado scientist Robert E. Moran, PhD., who has 40
years of experience and served as a hydrogeological and water quality
consultant to Marline Uranium and Union Carbide on the Coles Hill
project in the early 1980s.
Moran also was the keynote speaker in October at workshops sponsored
by the Roanoke River Basin Association in Danville and League for the
Environment in Dry Fork.
Marline discovered the Coles Hill uranium deposit, which is about six
miles northeast of Chatham, in 1979.
The company, however, abandoned the site, and Virginia adopted a
moratorium on uranium mining in 1982.
Virginia Uranium Inc. announced plans four years ago to explore mining
uranium at Coles Hill.
Believed to be one of the largest uranium deposits in the United
States, the site is worth an estimated $7 billion.
Independent study
According to the Roanoke River group, most of the information for
Coles Hill was collected by the mining companies or consultants and
contractors paid by Marline or Virginia Uranium.
Moran’s study is one of the few reports on the potential impact of
uranium mining not funded by the mining industry, the association
noted.
It also pointed out Moran’s report is “site-specific” to Coles Hill.
“Various aspects of uranium mining are expected to be addressed in the
National Academy of Sciences report due on Dec. 1, 2011,” said
association executive director Andrew Lester.
“However, the statement of task for the NAS panel explicitly excludes
site-specific assessments, which prompted the Roanoke River Basin
Association to commission this report to assess risks and challenges
associated with on-site water and waste management during the
operations and post-closure,” Lester said.
Olga Kolotushkina, an adviser to the Roanoke River Basin Association, agreed.
“Unfortunately, the company seeking to lift the existing ban has so
far failed to present any sort of detailed project proposal in
writing,” she said.
“The verbally described plans have changed constantly, depending on
the audience. Hence, we felt that an independent evaluation of the
proposed project is needed.”
Approximately 1.2 million people rely on the Roanoke River for
drinking water downstream from Coles Hill.
‘Overly optimistic’
Moran said the uranium mining industry’s track record demonstrates
that predictions on potential impacts on water resources and public
health, as well as promised socioeconomic benefits, are “overly
optimistic.”
“The most powerful influences in any decision on uranium mining and
processing are likely to be financial and political,” he said.
“Thus, it is imperative that the public evaluate the long-term ‘big
picture’ because the actual impacts will be paid for by numerous
future generations.”
Moran was asked to evaluate site- and project-specific risks and
challenges posed by uranium mining and milling at Coles Hill.
“Most U.S. uranium mining sites that I visited are located in desert
or semi-desert, sparsely populated regions,” he said.
“The Coles Hill site is wet, with annual precipitation equal to about
42 inches. It’s really quite different from isolated sites in the
West.
“Most importantly, within a radius of two to three miles, Coles Hill
has roughly 250 private wells, at least one dairy and numerous hay and
forage fields, which are liable to be impacted,” said Moran.
Site-specific findings
Moran’s site-specific findings include:
Virginia Uranium has failed to present any sort of detailed project
proposal in writing.
The verbally described plans have changed constantly, depending on the audience.
Hence, the public has no way of reliably knowing the details of the
proposed mining and mineral processing methods or the related impacts.
The project as proposed may generate at least 28 million tons of solid
uranium mill tailings and roughly the same amount of liquid waste.
The solid wastes would remain on site forever, requiring maintenance forever.
Uranium mill tailings would contain radionuclides, heavy metals, and
other toxic elements.
Undiluted tailings liquids may contain 1,160 to 1,460 times the
existing Safe Drinking Water Act standard for uranium.
The confirmed presence of sulfides in the Coles Hill rock raises the
possibility that long-term, active water treatment may be required, in
perpetuity.
Numerous factors combine to provide long-term pathways for the
migration of contaminants into local waters.
As proposed, the Coles Hill project would require over 5 billion
gallons of water. During the start-up period, the project would use at
least 525.6 million gallons per year.
It has been estimated that at least 136 million gallons of groundwater
would flow into the open pit per year.
This water would become contaminated with numerous radioactive and
non-radioactive contaminants.
To allow mining, this contaminated water must be pumped out of the
open pit and discharged to some undefined location.
The Coles Hill project may use over 2,030 tons of explosives per year,
releasing potentially toxic concentrations of nitrate, ammonia, and
other organic compounds into the environment.
Such a project would cause long-term, chronic degradation of water
quality and increase wate competition in the region.
Statistically adequate baseline data (water quality, quantity, etc.)
have never been collected, compiled, and interpreted, or released to
the public.
Thus, the public has no reliable “yardstick” against which to
demonstrate that changes have occurred or not.
There is no credible evidence to indicate that either the federal or
state regulatory agencies have sufficient staff, budgets, or political
clout to adequately oversee and enforce the appropriate regulations.
‘Trade-offs’
“The main takeaway from this report for the communities is that all
such large-scale uranium projects involve trade-offs, usually some
short-term jobs in exchange for long-term impacts – environmental and
socioeconomic – most of which are paid by future generations. Thus,
many of the long-term costs will be subsidized by the public,” said
Moran.
