February 29, 2012 The Honorable Maureen Matsen Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources Office of the Secretary of Natural

Resources Patrick Henry Building 1111 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 P.O. Box 1475 Richmond, VA 23218 Cathie France Deputy Director for Energy Policy Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy Washington Building, 8th Floor 1100 Bank Street Richmond, VA 23219 Re: Uranium Working Group

Dear Deputy Secretary Matsen and Deputy Director France: In response to the directive issued by Governor McDonnell dated January 19, 2012, we the undersigned would like to share the following observations and recommendations. We wish to voice our concerns about the direction that the Governors Uranium Working Group appears to be taking. This action, which accompanied the Governors request that the General Assembly refrain from enacting any legislation relating to the ban on uranium mining, has the unfortunate effect of taking the process away from the Commonwealths elected representatives and placing it behind closed doors. In particular, we are troubled by the possibility of little public involvement in this critical process and the directives lack of information and apparent disregard for much of the information and recommendations on how to proceed contained within the National Academy of Sciences report 1 .
1

Uranium Mining in Virginia, Prepublication dated December 19, 2011, by the National Research Council: Page 179 - Because the Commonwealth of Virginia enacted a moratorium on uranium mining in 1982, the state has essentially no experience regulating uranium mining and there is no existing regulatory infrastructure specifically for uranium mining... Page 180 - Under the current regulatory structure, opportunities for meaningful public involvement are fragmented and limited. Page 208 - Report suggests transparent cross-agency coordination by topic. Page 211 - Meaningful and timely public participation should occur throughout the life-cycle of a project, so that the public is informed about - and can comment upon - any decisions that could impact their community. Page 212 - Referring to the 5-8 years between the decision to lift the ban and the beginning of mining: Full use of this period will be essential for development of a regulatory culture that promotes environmental and human health protection, for instituting a broad range of human health and environmental baseline monitoring activities, for development of a robust legal and regulatory infrastructure, and to assemble a management team that is responsive to both the regulatory process and to the full range of citizen and stakeholder needs.

While the members of the Academy have been clear in stating the report is not a cookbook for moving forward, it is the best guide we have to identify areas where additional information is needed to continue any discussion of lifting or maintaining the moratorium. More importantly, it clearly defines numerous pitfalls we hope the working group will avoid - specifically, abbreviated timeline, undefined and limited public input, and proceeding without adequate agency expertise in this area. The report anticipated the development of a regulatory process taking years to complete and stressed the need for meaningful public input at all stages. It also contained a warning that our regulatory agencies would need to develop a culture that promoted human health and environmental protection and implement a robust regulatory and legal infrastructure. The Governors directive takes some notice of the Academy report. Yet it seems to be guided by a timeline that could result in a rushed product which could appear to be designed to achieve Virginia Uranium Inc.s (VUI) goal of a bill in the 2013 session for the General Assembly. Furthermore, if the purpose of the Task Force is for development of a regulatory framework that would have statewide application then there is no reason why there should be a Coles Hill specific component. The study should simply lay out what kinds of baseline, ongoing and post closure studies are to be required regardless of location. Broader analysis of the hydrogeology of the regions of the state where uranium concentrations have been identified is appropriate and will have benefits in other ways. This is not to suggest that site-specific studies should not be considered by the working group. However, the Commonwealth should not expend any resources on conducting those studies. We have additional concerns with the cost of this exercise and potential conflicts with members or resources considered by the working group. Those concerns are as follows: 1. Interested stakeholders may have already gathered information or have expertise in areas identified within the directive. These parties could provide the Commonwealth with supporting information and significant savings for the task at hand. Yet capturing this opportunity does not appear to be specifically included in the directive. We would recommend the formation of a parallel outside advisory group with representatives from affected communities--both close and downstream, environmental interests, economic interests, tourism, outdoor recreation, industry representatives, etc. This advisory group could be tasked with assisting the Uranium Working Group, providing expertise and knowledge in various areas that are needed to support the effort. The advisory group should provide regular briefings to the working group. 2. It is unclear at this time how the Commonwealth intends to fund the directive. We note that a Request for Proposal will be issued by the Commonwealth this week. We are concerned that funds for this study not be taken from the already stretched budgets at the agencies involved in this task force. Nor should the cost of the Coles Hill studies should be borne by the Commonwealth. If the directive is to include site-specific studies, the cost of those studies should be the responsibility of those that stand to profit from any discussion of lifting the moratorium. 3. It is common knowledge that the Geosciences Department of Virginia Tech has been actively involved in the uranium mining issue. Freedom of Information responses divulge that VUI has paid over one million dollars to Virginia Tech or to pay the salary of Virginia Tech employees. Should the Uranium Working Group rely upon Virginia Tech for unbiased advice during its deliberations? These contributions would have the potential to undermine the integrity of the process if they are accepted as unbiased or granted more weight than that of information provided by other interested parties.

In moving forward we ask for: 1. No program for permitting uranium mining and milling in Virginia should be considered until the industry has definitively established that it can be done safely. This is consistent with Governor McDonnells frequently stated commitment that the safety of the people and environment is of paramount concern. 2. A process that is better defined with regard to public participation and the acceptance of information from interested parties with expertise. 3. A wise use of limited funds - We should limit the use of public money to broader studies that will help understand the impacts on natural resources and communities of the Commonwealth. Site specific studies should be the responsibility of the mining interests of the site in question. Otherwise we are conducting studies on behalf of the interests in question, studies that would be required in any application or permit for the mining, milling and storage of the waste. 4. Recognition of the drain on agency funding and staffing resources - In addition to any funding that would come from agencies existing budgets; we are also concerned with costs associated with diverting staff resources. In calculating the costs of meeting this directive, there needs to be recognition of the staffing and unaccounted costs - other agency work that will suffer for this change in direction without additional staff to accommodate the workload of staff resources that are diverted for pursuing this exercise. 5. An avoidance of any apparent conflicts of interest with identified potential sources of information and research (Virginia Tech). The Uranium Working Group should be extremely cautious in relying upon advice from groups on either side of the debate, and should seek unbiased experts for technical advice. We hope that there will be additional clarification on how the administration and you, as those in charge with the directives implementation, will address the identified concerns and suggestions above. We look forward to participating in the process and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions about the concerns or recommendations we have raised.

Sincerely,

Daniel R. Holmes State Policy Director Piedmont Environmental Council PO Box 460 Warrenton, VA 20188

Lisa M. Guthrie Executive Director Virginia League of Conservation Voters 530 E. Main Street; Suite 410 Richmond, VA 23219

Glen Besa, Director Sierra Club-Virginia Chapter 422 E. Franklin St, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219

CC: Governor Bob McDonnell Karen Remley, State Health Commissioner Conrad T. Spangler, III, Director, Dept. Mines, Minerals and Energy David K. Paylor, Director, Va. Dept. of Environmental Quality