Va. Farm Bureau seeks go-slow approach on uranium

The Virginia Farm Bureau is expected to endorse a go-slow approach to uranium mining at its annual meeting, asking the 2012 General Assembly to defer action until studies on the impact of mining can be thoroughly examined.

The farm lobby's current position states that it supports an analysis of uranium mining's impact on agriculture, which is included in a broad, statewide study by a National Academy of Sciences panel. It is to be delivered in December.

There is concern among Farm Bureau members, however, that legislation to lift a 1982 ban on uranium mining will be introduced in the upcoming session before the findings of that study and others are thoroughly reviewed, a Farm Bureau lobbyist said Monday.

"They're going to want nothing to be done as far as lifting the moratorium until after the study has been fully evaluated to see what the National Academy came up with," said Andrew W. Smith of the Farm Bureau's governmental relations department.

"I believe the sense of our members is that they want to have more time for the legislature and the citizens to fully evaluate that study," he said.

Asked if that means delaying legislation until after the 2012 session, he said, "That's what I anticipate my members to say."

Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine a 119-million-pound deposit in Pittsylvania County, has spent tens of thousands of dollars courting legislators and hiring lobbyists, leading many to believe it will push to end the moratorium in the 2012 General Assembly session.

The company, which has said the mining can be done safely and create hundreds of jobs, has said it is also awaiting the NAS study before stating whether it will seek an end to the ban in the upcoming session.

Patrick Wales, project manager for Virginia Uranium, wrote in an e-mail about the Farm Bureau: "It seems premature to take any position prior to the release of the NAS study, and I hope they remain open to reconsidering that stance."

He added, "Interestingly, many of the concerns expressed by the agricultural community may be more appropriately addressed in the regulatory process rather than the legislative one."

Environmental groups, some localities and the NAACP have all opposed lifting the ban. A Farm Bureau resolution seeking a delay would get the attention of legislators.

"The Farm Bureau has always been a valued voice in the General Assembly," said Cale Jaffe, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which opposes ending the ban. "It's obviously welcome news and it supports what we've been saying all along."

The Farm Bureau has 150,000 members statewide, with 40,000 actively involved in farming. Its convention is scheduled to begin Nov. 29 in Norfolk.

Mining opponents have said tapping one of the world's largest known deposits of uranium would create the potential for environmental disaster from runoff in a wet, hurricane-prone region. Large-scale uranium mining has never occurred on the East Coast.

Smith said while the Farm Bureau supports the development of domestic energy sources, some members are concerned about their crops and farm animals located in a mining environment. The mining would also include a milling process to separate the ore from rock, generating large amounts of radioactive-laced waste.

The issue, however, is also one of consumer perception, Smith said.

"How is being near a uranium mine going to affect the sale or production of a product?" he asked. "It's just the connotation of being near that."

Smith said the concerns are being raised in Pittsylvania and Halifax counties, home to tobacco growing, vegetables and dairy operations, but also beyond to areas where other uranium deposits could lie such as Orange and Greene counties. The Pittsylvania site is the only known economically viable deposit in Virginia.

"I anticipate they're going to want more time for our policymakers and citizens to better understand what that study says," Smith said of the 2,600 members expected to attend the convention.