Soulies 1

Christopher Soulies

Dr. Tara Gilstrap

ENG 1103

5 December 2014

Mine! Mine! Mine! A Primer on Uranium Mining in the Coles Hill Area of Virginia and

Whether the Moratorium Banning Operations Should Be Lifted.

Uranium, named after the planet, Uranus is an actinide represented by U on the

Periodic Table. The Royal Society of Chemistry defines it as a naturally occurring uranium

[that] consists of 99% uranium-238 and 1% uranium-235. Uranium-235 is the only naturally

occurring fissionable fuel (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2014) and The fuel used in nuclear

reactors is enriched with uranium-235. (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2014.) It is a toxic metal

and has no known biological uses but when processed can be used to power ocean vessels and in

its depleted state can be utilized in vessel keels as counterweights or for armoring military

vehicles. (Royal Society of Chemistry). However the use that is on the minds of those living in

Virginia, specifically the residents of Pittsylvania County is its ability to provide clean, efficient

power, but at what risk? This is the crux of the debate to lift the 30-year-old moratorium

prohibiting the mining of Uranium from Coles Hill, VA (Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012). There

are those clearly for mining and those staunchly opposed and both with good reason.

Virginia Uranium Incorporated (VUI) is a company based out of the Coles Hill area and

is dedicated to having the moratorium lifted. VUI has had their dog in the fight against the

moratorium for quite some time and offers an insight to the history of this issue in their online
 Soulies 2

article entitled Moratorium on Uranium Mining in Virginia-Past and Present. It begins in 1981

when the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission (CEC) is directed by the states General

Assembly to study the impact on Uranium mining and milling (Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012).

This is in response to Marline Uranium Corporation looking to areas in Virginia as potential

mining sites back in 1977 (Fiske 293). Over the course of a few years the Uranium

Subcommittee (established by the CEC held public hearings and fact finding trips to states

already involved with uranium mining (Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012). Shortly after, in 1983, the

General Assembly established the Uranium Administrative Group to look at the costs versus

benefits while the Uranium Task Force (UTF), stood up by the CEC, was charged with studying

the risks and benefits of mining in Pittsylvania County (Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012). When

Marline initially set out to explore the state, it was discovered that this area had nearly 110

million pounds of ore (Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012). This is enough to power every single

nuclear reactor in the United States for two years (Fiske 293). We can see the red tape building

up already its no secret that no real progress has been made to date. The UTF commissioned

SENES Consulting LTD to accomplish a yearlong study to address the radioactive risks of

mining operations (Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012). The report concluded by saying that uranium

development (in Pittsylvania County) can be undertaken with minimal risks (Virginia Uranium

Inc. , 2012). The CEC then stated, The moratorium on uranium development can be lifted if

essential specific recommendations derived from the work of the (UTF) are enacted into law

(Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012). The General Assembly experienced dissent and despite the

finding of the various committees, the moratorium was not lifted (Fiske 294). To date, only

exploratory drilling is allowed in the state and a draft of regulating procedures ordered by

Governor Bob McDowell in 2012 is under revisions. If the moratorium is lifted, the process to
 Soulies 3

obtain the necessary permits could take up to six years and will allow for public opinion

(Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012).

In his paper, an exegesis on the dangers of uranium mining and an effort to shed light on

the side in favor of keeping the ban is entitled Virginias Moratorium: Is Mining On the Horizon

In the Commonwealth, William Fiske provides an overview of the mining and milling processes.

There are three primary methods in use within the United States for uranium mining: open pit,

underground and in-situ (Fiske 291). When uranium ore is found in shallow deposits, a process

called Open Pit Mining is performed. This is done when the ore is at or less than 300 feet below

the surface (Fiske 291). It is much like a rock quarry where explosives and heavy equipment are

used to create large craters where the ore is removed and hauled off. This is utilized when the

ore is more than 300 feet deep (Fiske 291). In cases when the ore is deeper, the method used is

Underground Mining and is a process similar to traditional coal mining where explosives and

machinery are used to create a system of tunnels leading to ore deposits for removal. Another

method, called In-Situ, is done when a solution is injected into ore thereby dissolving the

uranium into a leaching field (Fiske 291). From this leaching field, the created solution is

pumped to the surface. This is done when ore is found below predetermined levels (Fiske 291).

Regardless of the method used, all ore must go through a milling process. This process

creates a half-liquid/half-solid slurry (Fiske 291) by crushing the ore and mixing it with water. A

solvent is used to remove impurities and the end result is enriched uranium, or yellowcake

(Fiske 291-292). It takes one ton of mined ore to create five pounds of yellowcake (Fiske 292).

It is a fair question, then, to inquire where all the remainder of the unused ore goes. This is the

tail end of the mining process, again, regardless which methods is used and generates a product

known as tailings which are the remaining ore, un-enriched uranium and solution which are
 Soulies 4

radioactive (Fiske 292). It is here that much of the debate lies as the efficiency over coal that

uranium offers is almost universally accepted, it is the handling of the radioactive tailings that

pose the greatest threat to the environment, workers and surrounding populations.

Many debatable issues have arisen since this topic was first breached some 30 years ago.

There are two clear sides of the fence one can take but perhaps there is another. Pro-mining

debaters cite economic benefits through created job and monies poured into the local, state and

national wallets. They also state that this is a step towards cleaner energy, a means to an end to

reduce foreign dependency as much of our uranium is from other countries (Hamilton , 2014).

The opposition maintains there is no benefit worth the risk of damaging the environment for

multiple generations via the destruction of land, groundwater pollution and the irreversible harm

to wildlife and human health, convinced that a natural disaster worse than the coal ash spill

suffered by their southern neighbor is inevitable and no amount of regulatory code can stop it. It

seems that no one argues the energy production benefits uranium offers, but rather the handling

of the waste is at the heart of debate.

As part of the many studies written on mining uranium in Virginia, one of the most

thorough is from the National Academy of Sciences and authored by the Committee on Uranium

Mining in Virginia; Committee on Earth Resources; National Resources Council. This published

work entitled Uranium Mining in Virginia: Scientific, Technical, Environmental, Human Health

and Safety, and Regulatory Aspects of Uranium Mining and Processing in Virginia is just as

complete and exhaustive as the title suggests. There are various threats associated with the

mining and waste disposal pertaining to mining uranium. Of the myriad concerns, the most

debated are the potential effects on human health, ground and surface waters, biota (all living

organisms) and abiotic factors (rock, soil, etc.). The long-term affects of uranium have very little
 Soulies 5

data due to its ability to stay hazardous for thousands of years (Virginia, Resources and Council

125). It is clear that those concerned with the far-reaching affects of uranium on the biome we

call Earth are so with good cause.

Those who work these mines face all the dangers that miners from coal, diamond or any

other mining operation. They are at risk for lung cancer from fumes from equipment and silica

(Virginia, Resources and Council 125). However, uranium miners also face unique hazards

borne from the processes. Miners are exposed to radioactivity from radon and other

radionuclides (Virginia, Resources and Council 124). The compounded exposure to this

radioactivity and common mining air hazards increase the miners risk to lung cancer

exponentially. In addition to inhalation, miners can intake radioactive material via ingestion or

absorption (Virginia, Resources and Council 124). Also at risk for these hazards, although to a

lesser degree, are those that live in the vicinity of the mine as airborne contamination from off-

site releases of the radionuclides and the potential for water source contamination (Virginia,

Resources and Council 124). Indeed, those at risk the most are those that are depended upon the

most and in all probability, the most underpaid of those employed in the uranium business.

Although this does come across as bleak, VUI maintains that exposure expected is no more than

that of other sites and areas across the nation (Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012).

It is not, however, just the human factor that is of concern, but also the potential and

adverse impact the processes of mining for uranium will have on the environment. The threat of

increased radioactive and non-radioactive sediments from mining operations can negatively

effect the living organisms living in and nourishing from bodies of water that would receive the

heavily loaded run off through rain, dust settlement and vehicle traffic (Virginia, Resources and

Council 193-4). Also of major concern are the radiological effects from mining wastes, known
 Soulies 6

as tailings, on ground and surface water sources. Though the processes and designs for tailing

disposal has improved over the years, not enough time has lapsed to prove these new methods

merit. In an event of soil or water contamination from tailings, the effects would be felt for up to

1000 years (Virginia Uranium Inc. 221-222). Connected to these concerns are those that live

downstream from these water sources either by direct connection by a river or stream or via

watershed run-off. Their fears are these contaminates will work their way to them eventually by

a failure of the tailing containment systems (Fiske 298). Water is not the only environmental

concern, however. Soil, air and ecological effects can also expect changes from mining. Soil

must be removed and relocated; this will create airborne debris and could destroy or disrupt

habitats changing the ecological balance known for so long (Virginia, Resources and Council

201-204).

One may ask why, if the risks seem so great, would anyone think that mining uranium

could be done is a safe and responsible way and do the potential benefits outweigh these risks?

Virginia Uranium Inc. states that their mining efforts will be of great benefits to the energy needs

of Virginia and the nation by significantly reducing the need to import uranium to operate the

over 100 reactors in the US for two years (Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012). VUI firmly hold that

their processes would begin and end with the environment in mind and maintain strict adherence

of state and federal regulations for cradle to grave mining operations to include air quality and

run-off management as well as a trained and safety minded workforce versed in regulatory

governance (Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012). Economically, VUI contends that allowing mining

operations could support over 1,000 jobs for the 35-year life span of the mine, generate $5

billion in revenue for Virginia companies, and generate $112 million in state and local taxes

(Virginia Uranium Inc. , 2012). If VUI upholds these claims and lives up to their published
 Soulies 7

Guided Principles, then it can be argued quite aggressively that the lifting of the moratorium is

not only due, but also of upmost importance.

Every business venture looks at a variety of models to ensure that the proposed endeavor

will succeed. I believe it is no different with this issue. Uranium is a business and has seen

glory days and, like any market, low spots. However, unlike a failed pizzeria or a flopped

invention, the mining of uranium boasts serious economic and energy problem solutions but it

also creates a dark cloud of drawbacks that could far outlast the benefits. VUI states that the

Coles Hill site has a life expectance of up to 35 years until the ore has been depleted. As

mentioned earlier this could power all our reactors for two years. This, coupled with the

potential for Americans to secure employment is quite the benefit but I fear that these do not

outweigh the risk. I concede that all mining jobs, as well as many others, pose health risks and

having held such a job; I also have faith in the regulatory laws that keep workers safe however

what is difficult to compromise on his the mere probability of a failed tailing containment

systems effecting the environment for nearly 30 times as long as the perceived benefits. It is my

hope that more research will be done, more lateral talks held and further scientific data would

reveal a safe and economical method for extracting this element but until then I must answer the

question, one posed to many Virginians, Should the moratorium on uranium mining be lifted for

Coles Hill? with a resounding no. In this case, the risks far outweigh the benefits.
 Soulies 8

Works Cited

Fisk, William Briske. "Virginia's Moratorium: Is Mining on the Horizon in the Commonweath?"

Wm. & Mary Envt'l L. & Pol'y Rev. (2012): 288-317.

Royal Society of Chemistry. Periodic Table>Uranium. 2014. 15 November 2104

<http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/92/uranium>.

Virginia Uranium Inc. www.virginiauranium.com/who-we-are/moratorium-on-uranium-mining-

in-virginia-past-and-present/. 2012. 12 November 2014.

Virginia, Committee on Uranium Mining in, Committee on Earth Resources and National

Research Council. Uranium Mining in Virginia: Scientific, Technical, Environmental, Human

Health and Safety, and Regulatory Aspects of Uranium Mining and Processing in Virginia.

Washington, DC: The National Acadamies Press, 2012.

Christopher Soulies
 Soulies 9

Dr. Tara Gilstrap

ENG 1103

18NOV14

Annotated Bibliography

Fisk, William Briske. "Virginia's Moratorium: Is Mining on the Horizon in the Commonweath?"

Wm. & Mary Envt'l L. & Pol'y Rev. (2012): 288-317.

This paper discusses the history of the Uranium Moratorium in Virginia as well as the

different methods of mining the ore from the source areas. Also discussed are the controversies

surrounding the issue as well as information from additional reports done by private and federal

organizations. This paper was written using many credible resources including the NAS report I

cite later. I will use this source to relay information on mining methods, waste management and

environmental controversies.

Royal Society of Chemistry. Periodic Table>Uranium. 2014. 15 November 2104

<http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/92/uranium>.

. Periodic Table>Uranium. 2014. 15 November 2014 <http://www.rsc.org/periodic-

table/element/92/uranium>.

This site provides the scientific background information on the element itself as well as

discusses uranium's different uses. This site is a primer for chemistry students as well as a

resource for those researching the subject scientifically. I will use this information to provide a

brief explanation on the element itself.

 Soulies 10

Virginia Uranium Inc. www.virginiauranium.com/who-we-are/moratorium-on-uranium-mining-

in-virginia-past-and-present/. 2012. 12 November 2014.

Written by pro mining advocates, this site addresses their side of the topic as well as a

timeline relating to the processes experienced by the state in regards to the moratorium. It is a

viable source for understanding the viewpoints of those who have a financial stake in the mining

of uranium though I would hold their environmental impact data suspect. I will use this source

to discuss historical data as well as shed light on pro mining data including, but not limited to,

economic benefits and energy independence.

Virginia, Committee on Uranium Mining in, Committee on Earth Resources and National

Research Council. Uranium Mining in Virginia: Scientific, Technical, Environmental, Human

Health and Safety, and Regulatory Aspects of Uranium Mining and Processing in Virginia.

Washington, DC: The National Acadamies Press, 2012.

An in depth paper written to address the many issues about mining for Uranium in

Virginia. Written by scientists from a majority environmental viewpoint. It showcases data and

facts relating to the effects on biota and abiotic factors. This paper will be used to exegete on the

potentially harmful environmental effects on the ecosystems surrounding and potentially effected

by mining operations.
 Soulies 11

Christopher Soulies

Dr. Tara Gilstrap

ENG 1103

21NOV14

Research Paper Outline

Thesis: the moratorium banning the mining of uranium should not be lifted because the potential

effects of the wastes on the environment and human health are too great a risk. Although there is

some economic benefit via job creation and cash flow in local markets as well as a decreased

dependance on coal, to lift the moratorium would require strict, almost fool-proof processes and

regulations.

1) Introduction
a) Uranium basic information (Royal Society of Chemistry) (Hamilton)
b) First mention of debate (Virginia Uranium Inc.) (Fiske)
c) Thesis
2) History of Moratorium (Virginia Uranium Inc.) (Fiske)
a) Timeline
b) Entities involved
c) Reports created
d) Current status
3) Methods (Fiske)
a) Open Pit
b) Underground
c) In-situ
d) Milling and tailings
4) Introduction of controversies (Fiske) (Virginia, Resources and Council) (Virginia Uranium

Inc.)
a) Pro Mining
b) Anti-Mining
5) Debate details from pro mining (Virginia Uranium Inc.) (Hamilton)
a) Economic benefits
b) Job creation
c) Benefits over coal (not a replacement for, but a defraying)
6) Debate details from anti-mining (Virginia, Resources and Council) (Fiske)
a) Groundwater threats
i) Local
 Soulies 12

ii) Watershed
b) Biota threats
i) Radioactive
ii) Migratory
c) Land threats
i) Erosion
ii) Aesthetics
7) Conclusion
a) Integration of both sides
b) Personal opinion

References

Fisk, William Briske. "Virginia's Moratorium: Is Mining on the Horizon in the Commonweath?"

Wm. & Mary Envt'l L. & Pol'y Rev. (2012): 288-317.

Royal Society of Chemistry. Periodic Table>Uranium. 2014. 15 November 2104

<http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/92/uranium>.

Virginia Uranium Inc. www.virginiauranium.com/who-we-are/moratorium-on-uranium-mining-

in-virginia-past-and-present/. 2012. 12 November 2014.

Virginia, Committee on Uranium Mining in, Committee on Earth Resources and National

Research Council. Uranium Mining in Virginia: Scientific, Technical, Environmental, Human

Health and Safety, and Regulatory Aspects of Uranium Mining and Processing in Virginia.

Washington, DC: The National Acadamies Press, 2012.