Conflict of Interest [re: study funding]

Caswell Messenger
Oct 06, 2009 - 06:25:03 pm CDT

To the editor:

I think it's a bit disingenuous for Dr. Karmis, the Director of the Virginia Center for Coal & Energy Research at Virginia Tech and a professor in its Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering to say Tech's nuclear engineering program has "nothing to do with Coles Hill."

Professors and graduate students of Virginia Tech's Departments of Geosciences and Hydrogeosciences have already been on-site at Coles Hill performing various studies and tests on the unmined uranium ore body. According to Dr. Robert J. Bodnar, a professor with Tech's Geosciences Department: "All of these studies are telling us something about the subsurface - the rocks, when the rock type changes, where the major faults are. All those pieces of information are critical to understanding the ore deposit as it exists today, and that will be very useful information as the company [VUI] starts to develop the deposit in the future." ("Beneath the Surface, Virginia Tech conducts research at Coles Hill" by T. Davis, Star-Tribune, Sept. 10, 2008. Online source: www.virginiauranium.com/pdf/Beneath_the_Surface.pdf )

Clearly Virginia Tech's studies at Coles Hill are contributing to the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, the mining and milling of uranium.

Dr. Karmis is also well aware of the ongoing "nuclear renaissance" where the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear power production, is being promoted by nuclear power companies like Areva to have more nuclear power plants built. This, according to nuclear power proponents, is to offset the country's growing energy needs and dependence on fossil fuels. Areva, Dominion Power and Oakridge National Laboratories are working with southeastern universities like Virginia Tech to help meet the goal of training more nuclear engineers to run the planned nuclear power plants.

Let's not forget a "nuclear renaissance" would also benefit VUI in creating the need for more uranium. Increasing the "need" will raise the price of uranium and make it profitable to mine the ore body at Coles Hill.

Finally, Dr. Karmis' statement that nuclear engineers "don't care where uranium comes from" may be true, but Tech's having a domestic supply of uranium ore in its back yard, would complement its nuclear engineering program in no small measure. The waste management aspect (tailings, holding ponds and long-term storage, e.g., Superfund planning), I suspect, would turn up in Virginia Tech's curriculum.

As much as I admire Virginia Tech, for it is a fine institution of learning, I see a clear conflict of interest in its "implementing" the money VUI will pay to the NAS to perform a "research study."

Anne Cockrell
Danville, Virginia

http://www.caswellmessenger.com/articles/2009/10/06/opinion/opinion02.txt

Virginia Tech rejects conflict of interest allegations in uranium study

What did we expect Va Tech to say? "Oh, snap...how did we miss that"?

By John Crane

Published: September 30, 2009

The director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research says its role to administer funding for a uranium mining study poses no conflict of interest.

At least one mining opponent contends Virginia Tech stands to benefit from the excavation of uranium at Coles Hill by expanding its nuclear engineering program.

“… (Virginia) Tech’s having a domestic supply of uranium ore in its backyard would complement its nu-clear engineering program in no small measure,” said Anne Cockrell, a Danville resident and member of Southside Concerned Citizens, a group that opposes uranium mining, via e-mail Wednesday.

During an interview Wednesday, Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, called Cockrell’s allegations “a very silly argument.” The nuclear engineering program at the school has nothing to do with Coles Hill, Karmis said.

A lack of engineering capabilities in the work force to run nuclear power plants and nuclear programs at military bases is prompting schools like Virginia Tech to revive their engineering departments, Karmis said. Industries did not hire engineers in the 80s and 90s, leaving a generation gap among nuclear and other types of engineers, Karmis said. Nuclear engineering has become almost extinct and engineers about to retire need to be replaced, he said. In addition, demand for nuclear power is increasing, he said.

“That’s what the universities are responding to,” Karmis said.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining. Delegate Terry Kilgore, head of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, sent a written request in August to the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct the study. NRC officials say the proposed study is worth pursuing.

Mining supporters say an operation at Coles Hill would bring economic benefits to Southside and supply hundreds of jobs. Opponents believe the project would destroy the environment and threaten public health in Pittsylvania County.

Cockrell said the nuclear-power industry, including Areva, Dominion Power and Oakridge National Laboratories, is working with schools like Virginia Tech to help train more nuclear engineers to run planned nuclear-power plants. Also, Cockrell said professor and graduate students of Virginia Tech’s departments of geosciences and hydrogeosciences have conducted on-site studies and tests of unmined uranium at Coles Hill.

“Clearly Virginia Tech’s studies at Coles Hill are contributing to the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, the mining and milling of uranium,” Cockrell said in her e-mail.

William Kearney, a spokesman for the NRC, said the organization operates independently of sponsors, who have no role in the study’s results

“Nobody knows the outcome of the study which hasn’t even started,” Kearney said of opponents’ allega-tions. “The study still needs to be approved by our governing board.”

Kearney said the NRC’s governing board will likely discuss the study request at the board’s regular meeting this month or in November. In the meantime, NRC staff will prepare a prospectus, or study proposal, that will include a scope, timeline, likely costs and sponsorship, Kearney said. The board would review the prospectus before deciding whether to approve the request.

The study’s first portion would cost $1.2-$1.4 million. Virginia Tech’s Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will handle the money and work with the NAS for the study. The second part of the study, dealing with the socioeconomic aspects of mining, still needs to be worked out by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission. VUI will not fund the second part.

Katie Whitehead, a member of the Dan River Basin Association, said a detailed draft contract should be open to the public.

“A draft contract with details regarding such things as financial provisions, public hearings, interim reports, and release of information needed for the socioeconomic study should be made available for public comment,” Whitehead said in a statement. “For transparency, a meeting to explain the draft contract and take comments is essential.”

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/virginia_tech_rejects_conflict_of_interest_allegations_in_uranium_study/14270/

State Money [for uranium study] Must Be Part of Equation

Katie's message is right-on!

Danville Register & Bee
September 29, 2009

To the editor,

The author of, “Welcome funding,” (Sept. 24, page A8) is quite right that these are hard times in Virginia, and hard times call for a wise investment in the future so that things will improve. That’s exactly why it could make sense for the legislature to invest in a thorough and unbiased study of uranium mining. If the legislature wants to consider opening the [entire] state to uranium mining and milling, it should know whether uranium mining in Virginia is sure to lead to safe and sustainable economic development or might cause harm, regional stigmatization and boom-bust economic instability.

The author repeats the assertion frequently made by Virginia Uranium Inc. that the National Academy of Science is “beyond reproach.” The NAS does not make this claim. Rather, as a matter of policy, the NAS does not do studies for private, for-profit corporations or accept money directly from them. The NAS takes the appearance of influence seriously.

While acknowledging great respect for the National Academies, the Center for Science in the Public Interest in a 2006 report “found serious deficiencies in the NAS’ committee-selection process” and instances of “blatant conflicts of interest.” CSPI doesn’t write off NAS, but rather offers constructive recommendations to improve the study committee selection process to ensure independence and objectivity. The report is available at http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/nasreport.pdf. [emphasis mine...SB]

This isn’t a matter of “reproach”; it’s a matter of accountability — accountability for avoiding influence and the appearance of influence. It is appropriate that all participants in the study process, whether legislators, citizens, or the esteemed National Academies hold themselves and each other accountable.

Accountability will be equally important in the socioeconomic study.

Virginia needn’t cover the entire cost of a uranium study; any contribution by the commonwealth would have significance. Securing any state funds would involve an approval process that would confirm that the commonwealth wants the study and increase confidence that all evidence will be weighed fairly.

KATIE WHITEHEAD
Chatham

anriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/state_money_must_be_part_of_equation/14205/

Nuclear grant has more to it

VA Tech Collegiate Times

by Letter to the editor

Monday, September 28, 2009; 7:41 PM

Are there really no conflicts of interests here?

According to the article "Tech receives nuclear grant" (CT, Sept. 15), Virginia Tech is slated to "implement" the money Virginia Uranium, Inc. will pay to the National Academy of Sciences for its services in performing a research study, which is to determine if uranium mining and milling can be done safely in Virginia.

Tech's newspaper, Collegiate Times, recently featured a picture of a mushroom-shaped atomic bomb blast cloud with the title "Virginia Tech's History of Nuclear Energy" with the chronological dates of the program's inception (1953), its disbanding (1990s) and its revival (2007). Strangely included are the dates of the Three Mile Island disaster in Pennsylvania (1979) and the Chernobyl disaster in Russia (1986). It also lists the $850,000 nuclear grant money (2009) received from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The article by Liana Bayne relates the NRC nuclear grant money, $850,000, which will go toward hiring new professors to "revitalize" Tech's nuclear engineering program.

Now, I shudder to think what the school's newspaper was thinking to post such a photograph, but it should cause more than an uneasy pause for the members of the NAS governing board, which is currently deliberating whether its prestigious institution should contract with Tech to do a study when the school, as the above article states, is clearly enjoying "a taste of the nuclear renaissance."

Let's recap: VUI wants to excavate an $8 billion to $10 billion uranium ore body at Coles Hill in Chatham, Va., and is the only entity that has offered to pay for the proposed NAS study. Tech wants to revitalize its nuclear engineering program and is well on track in doing so by receiving nuclear grant money ($850,000) from the NRC. (This is on top of a $300,000 grant it received last year for this program.) Tech will utilize VUI's north and south mines at Coles Hill, and its milling facility, as field laboratories for its students, which will be part of the curriculum of the nuclear engineering program. (In the past, Tech graduate students have already been on the site doing various studies on the un-mined uranium ore body at Coles Hill.) Tech will be the conduit to "implement" the estimated $1.2 million to $1.4 million VUI plans to pay NAS for doing the research study - a study it needs in order to overturn Virginia's moratorium on the mining and milling of uranium.

I have to ask, are there really no conflicts of interest here? And what does a mushroom-shaped atomic bomb blast cloud have to do with Tech's revival of its nuclear engineering program? Will NAS disregard the obvious connection between the revival of Tech's nuclear engineering program and its role to "implement" the money VUI will pay the NAS to do a research study?

Does NAS have blinders on?

Anne Cocknell [sic]
Danville, Va.

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14276

From Virginia Tech's college newspaper, The Collegiate Times

Naaa...there's no conflict of interest with Va Tech, VUI, NAS, the NRC and the upcoming study. They're all one big happy family!

State study? State money

By Katie Whitehead
Published: September 20, 2009

The Virginia General Assembly’s failure to secure state and other non-industry funding is jeopardizing the credibility — and perhaps the execution — of its proposed uranium mining studies. A study paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc. does nothing to avoid the appearance of influence.

After a uranium mining study bill failed in the General Assembly last year, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, chaired by Del. Terry Kilgore, voted in November to initiate its own uranium studies. The commission enlisted the assistance of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, headed by Dr. Michael Karmis, a mining engineer. Kilgore appointed a Uranium Mining Subcommittee with Del. Lee Ware as chairman.

The subcommittee should question not just whether uranium mining and milling might be done safely, but also whether introducing this stigmatized industry into our communities is a good idea. Even if uranium can be mined safely under certain conditions, it still might not be an industry we want in Virginia.

In spring meetings, the subcommittee focused on defining a technical study that it wants the National Research Council of The National Academies to undertake. (The National Research Council is the staffing organization for the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.)

The subcommittee postponed discussion of a separate socioeconomic study, arguably the more important of the two studies. Kilgore recently wrote to NRC to request the technical study.

As proposed, the technical study will attempt to address the safety question by gathering available evidence regarding whether uranium mining, milling and tailings storage are being done safely elsewhere under conditions comparable to those in Virginia. The socioeconomic study has yet to be defined, funded or negotiated with any research organization. It should address the desirability question by providing real-life evidence about how introducing the uranium industry affects the long-term health, economic well-being and quality of life in communities. Currently, the commission’s failure to secure state and other non-industry funding is jeopardizing both studies.

In the absence of other funding, VUI has offered to pay the entire cost of the technical study (estimated $1.2 million to $1.4 million). The funds would be contributed to the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, which would then pass them on to NRC. This indirectness may conform to the written policy of NRC and reduce the appearance of influence to some eyes, but it does nothing to change the fact that an interested party — a private, for-profit corporation with something to gain from the results of the study — is paying NRC for it. It’s not a pretty picture.

Many people have assumed that NRC will definitely do the technical study. NRC has expressed interest in the study and, according to its policy, may accept the proposed funding. Will NRC in fact accept?

The group that will decide is the National Research Council Governing Board, which is responsible for safeguarding the unique reputation of NRC for independent, unbiased scientific research. The members of the governing board will have to determine whether accepting 100 percent of the funding — however indirectly — from a uranium mining company is consistent with that responsibility. We don’t know how they will weigh the fact that no one other than a uranium company has demonstrated support for the study by offering funding.

No one knows how the governing board will ultimately respond to Kilgore’s request. They’ve not officially discussed it, much less made a decision.

One might argue that the National Research Council is beyond reproach and that one needn’t care who pays NRC to do a study — that one can be sure NRC will be objective and independent regardless. NRC has a hard-earned reputation for thoughtful, thorough, independent, unbiased research. This reputation depends not only on avoiding actual influence by parties that might profit from NRC study results, but also on avoiding even the appearance of such influence.

If an unbiased assessment of the safety and the desirability of uranium mining is of value to the commonwealth, then the commonwealth should be willing to pay for it, at least in significant part. The commission should request funding from the legislature to pay the majority — if not all — of the cost of both the technical study and the socioeconomic study. Securing public financial support would confirm that Virginians want this research, ensure that both studies go forward and increase confidence that the studies will fairly evaluate all available evidence.

* Whitehead lives in Pittsylvania County and chairs the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force. Contact her at mkwhitehead@yahoo.com

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/community_voices/article/state_study_state_money/13996/

It’s No Big Deal Who Pays For Uranium Mining Study [HUH??]

Apparently the News & Advance has not seen the report on the rampant conflicts of interest within the NAS. We'll be sending it to the editor. Apparently the News & Advance doesn't care about neutrality, even when it comes tosomething as dangerous as uranium mining, something that's never been done safely anywhere in the world to date. Apparently the uranium industry owns Lynchburg and the News & Advance. In our opinion, the News & Advance has done a great disservice to its readers and to everyone who will be adversely affected by uranium mining throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Please know that Coles Hill, in Pittsylvania Co., will not be Virginia's only uranium mine...it will just be the first. A map of the uranium deposits in VA is at the top of this post. The link to the report about the lack of neutrality within the NAS is here: http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/nasreport.pdf and here: http://sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com/2009/09/ensuring-independence-and-objectivity.html

The News & Advance
Published: September 13, 2009

The story from Danville last week about Virginia Uranium Inc. agreeing to pay for a state study on the safety of mining uranium near Chatham has raised some questions. And rightly so.

Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Gate Ctiy and chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, said Virginia Uranium will pay for the study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to determine whether uranium can be mined safely in Virginia.

But doesn’t that create the potential for a conflict of interest — even the perception of a conflict? Can the firm that wants to mine uranium get the best safety study that money will buy?

The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is not really.

Kilgore himself acknowledged the concerns about VUI backing the study financially, but he quickly added that the National Academy of Science’s research abilities are “great.”

While it would be more appropriate for the coal and energy commission or some other state agency that doesn’t have a vested interest in the outcome of the study to put up the money for it, a Virginia Tech department will coordinate funding and will contract with NAS for the study. Virginia Tech’s Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will coordinate the study’s first phase on the technical and public safety aspects of mining uranium.

The study is expected to cost between $1.2 million and $1.4 million and could begin by the end of this year.

VUI seeks to mine and mill a 119 million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Walter Coles Sr., VUI chairman, has said he expressed willingness to provide funding for the study since the beginning of the mining proposal.

Mining opponents have questioned the credibility of a study paid for with VUI money and one even went so far last week as to brand NAS as being pro-nuclear.

A spokeswoman for NAS responded that the agency is perfectly capable of performing unbiased studies without regard to who is paying for them. Jennifer Walsh said the academy has performed unbiased, federal level studies in the past involving the tobacco and cell phone industries.

When an industry pays for a study, she said, the NAS usually works with a third organization that provides funding on behalf of a company or industry.

“We would not work directly with them (VUI),” Walsh said. “We would only got to them with questions and concerns. They would have no say-so in the study.”

Walsh added that information-gathering meetings involved in the study would be open to the public and posted on the NAS Web site ahead of time.

The public, then, can follow the progress of the uranium mining safety study, just as it can any other studies being conducted by the agency.

The National Academy of Sciences is a well-respected agency whose expert scientific studies have held up as being as solid as they come. That reputation outweighs the concerns raised about where the money is coming from for the study. And that reputation is not for sale to the highest bidder — not even the owner of Virginia Uranium Inc.

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/opinion/editorials/article/its_no_big_deal_who_pays_for_uranium_mining_study/19413/

Richmond drops the ball, not the cash

By Published by The Editorial Board

Published: September 8, 2009

Virginia’s study of uranium mining finally has the funding it needs to move forward, thanks to the only entity that ever offered to pay for it.

Virginia Uranium Inc. Chairman Walter Coles Sr. long ago said his company would pay for the state study. With the commonwealth unwilling to fund the study and no one else waving their checkbook around, VUI money was the only way to move this issue forward.

In a better world, the state government should have paid for the study. The state’s moratorium keeps VUI from mining what’s believed to be the largest untapped uranium deposit in the United States. If the study sways the General Assembly to lift the moratorium, it will be state agencies that will assume part of the responsibility for writing mining and milling regulations and ensuring that they’re enforced.

But most of all, it was in the state’s interest to allow the National Academy of Sciences to do its work without mining opponents from accusing the NAS of somehow being in the pocket of Virginia Uranium Inc.

That argument is a slap in the face of the scientists, researchers and others who will be involved in this project. It will no doubt plan a fertile seed of future debate, doubt and consternation. The state has done a cheap and foolish thing.

Compounding the problem is the NAS study probably won’t be a slam-dunk for either side. Both camps are likely to complain that certain things weren’t checked out by the National Academy of Sciences or that certain people weren’t interviewed or that certain places weren’t visited.

Even conditional conclusions — if this is done, then that will happen — are likely to be scrutinized right down to the syllable.

Given the stakes for both sides, we could be looking at years of argument that doesn’t convince anybody of anything — including majorities of the House of Delegates and state Senate.

Additionally, many local people supported an outside study of uranium mining and milling and are counting on the study’s results to inform their final choice on the matter.

For its part, an NAS spokeswoman said her agency doesn’t have direct contact with the companies it studies.

“We would not work directly with them (VUI),” Jennifer Walsh said. “We would only go to them with questions and concerns. They would have no say-so in the study.”

Is that the end of it? Probably not. Should it be the end of it? Probably so. But the problem could have been avoided if the state of Virginia didn’t saddle the National Academy of Sciences with this controversy.

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/editorials/danville_editorials/article/richmond_drops_the_ball_not_the_cash/13689/

Ensuring Independence and Objectivity at The National Academies

This is the Preface to the report written in 2006. The link to the entire report is below. The NAS, it seems, has committees full of scientists with conflicts of interest that damage the neutrality and validity of studies. Gee...the science community was seeing serious conflicts of interest three years ago. VUI funnels $1.2M through VA Tech who is reinvigorating its nuclear engineering program and supplying faculty and students to work at Coles Hill so that the NAS can study the feasibility of mining uranium in VA, starting with Coles Hill. Sounds ripe for a scandal to me!

This report is written out of great respect for the National Academies. Each year,
Congress and government agencies call upon the NAS to provide the best scientific
advice possible on important and controversial topics. NAS reports invariably earn high marks from the scientific community, and this study, which did not evaluate the quality any particular NAS report, makes no effort to question that consensus view.

Rather, because commercial pressures on the conduct of science have grown exponentially in recent decades, we focused on the process of nominating committees, as well as the composition of committees, both of which strongly influences the conclusions and recommendations of reports. We focused on the committee selection process because of the importance of protecting NAS committees from those pressures. Only through preventing the appearance of bias, imbalance, and conflicts of interest can the NAS ensure that the high quality and reputation of its reports will be maintained in the future.

Unfortunately, we found serious deficiencies in the NAS’s committee-selection process that could jeopardize the quality of future NAS reports. The NAS has allowed numerous scientists (and others) with blatant conflicts of interest to sit on committees. Compounding that problem, those conflicts of interest usually are not disclosed to the public. Whether complete avoidance of conflicts of interest on committees would have improved the committees’ recommendations is impossible to know. At the very least, though, improving the process of committee formation and excluding individuals with conflicts or balancing them with individuals having sharply contrasting views, would provide added insurance that Academy recommendations will continue to be both topnotch and merit respect throughout the world. (emphasis mine...SB)

Michael Jacobson, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Center for Science in the Public Interest

http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/nasreport.pdf

NRC supports nuclear engineering at Virginia Tech

How conVEEE nyent...Va Tech's getting money from the NRC for nuclear engineering while supplying faculty and students to do who-knows-what-all at Coles Hill. It's also going to handle the money from VUI to the NAS in some odd effort to effect some semblance of integrity in the conflict-ridden study and payer system that's been worked out. I'm not sure I've seen anything quite this incestuous in a long, long time. Virginia, it's past time to wake the hell up!

Blacksburg, Va. -- Virginia Tech's nuclear engineering program will receive $450,000 for faculty development and $399,948 for fellowships from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

The NRC awarded nearly $20 million to 70 institutions to boost nuclear education and expand the workforce in nuclear and nuclear-related disciplines. Congress provided the NRC funding for a $5 million educational curriculum program and an additional $15 million to supplement the NRC's grant program for scholarships and fellowships, faculty development, trade schools, and community colleges.

"As directed by the Congress, this funding provides broad benefits to the nuclear sector rather than solely benefitting the NRC. These grants help develop a workforce capable of the design, construction, operation and regulation of nuclear facilities and the safe handling of nuclear materials," said NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko. "This year the agency expanded the number of institutions receiving grants from 60 to 70, and increased the number of grants to minority serving institutions by 67 percent."

Virginia Tech revived its nuclear engineering program in 2007, offering graduate coursework that leads to a graduate certificate in nuclear engineering. Final approval of the graduate certificate is pending. Development of a master's and Ph.D. in nuclear engineering is in progress. In addition, an undergraduate certificate in nuclear engineering is currently available and a minor in nuclear engineering is in preparation.

"With the critical demand for energy by our nation and the world, we were pleased to revive our concentration on nuclear engineering," said Richard C. Benson, dean of Virginia Tech's College of Engineering. "We have strong relationships with a number of industrial and government entities, including AREVA, NP, Inc., the Babcock and Wilcox Company, Dominion Resources, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the American Nuclear Society, and the Department of Energy, that have shown support for our nuclear engineering program. I believe educating our very bright students in this area will be beneficial to them and to society."

Leading the effort in ME are two faculty members, Mark Pierson and Eugene Brown. Pierson was formerly on the staff of the director of naval reactors, a joint Department of Defense/Department of Energy organization founded by Admiral Hyman Rickover. Pierson was responsible for operational and maintenance input for all SW5 naval nuclear reactors and shipboard radiological controls. In 1992 he was named executive officer, second-in-command, of the USS Indianapolis SSN 697, a fast attack submarine.

From 1994 until 1997 Pierson served as the submarine maintenance program officer for the director of submarine warfare on the chief of naval operations staff at the Pentagon. In 1998 he was named deputy department head of the engineering, materials, and physical sciences department, and program officer for nuclear ballistic missile submarine security, for the Office of Naval Research. He retired from the U.S. Navy in 2001 and enrolled at Virginia Tech to earn his doctoral degree in mathematics. http://www.me.vt.edu/people/faculty/pierson.html

"Our long term vision is to create an interdisciplinary program in nuclear science and engineering," said Ken Ball, head of the ME department, who also has expertise in nuclear materials and engineering. "Our program would encompass the nuclear sciences and medicine as well as nuclear engineering and reach across three Virginia Tech colleges."

###

The NRC announcement is here: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-140.html

Flag this message Virginia Uranium Inc. will pay for mining study

What a sad day this is! Virginia has been sold down the river by a handful of greedy bastards. I hope someone will involve the Union of Concerned Scientists to provide oversight and report on any irregularity, no matter how small, to the people as proof positive of the folly of letting the foxes mingle with they call the chickens but which have no feathers.

By John Crane

Published: September 2, 2009

The chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission says Virginia Uranium Inc. will pay for the state study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth.

Delegate Terry Kilgore, R-1st District and chairman of the VCEC, said he will send a letter to the National Academy of Sciences to let officials there know VUI will fund the study.

Kilgore said he understands concerns about VUI financially backing the study, but the NAS’s research abilities are “great.”

“I think they will come out with a good study, a thorough study,” Kilgore said Wednes-day.

So far, the sole entity that has expressed willingness to pay for the study is VUI.

“It looks like that’s our only option,” Kilgore said.

The study’s first portion, which will examine the technical and public-safety aspects of mining and milling, will cost between $1.2-$1.4 million, Kilgore said. Virginia Tech’s Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will implement funding and will contract with the NAS for the study. The study’s first phase should begin by the end of the year, Kilgore said.

VUI seeks to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Walter Coles Sr., VUI chairman, said he has expressed willingness to provide funding for the study since the beginning, but has not spoken to Kilgore.

“We’ve had this offer on the table since day one,” Coles said, adding that he hopes the VCEC will continue to look for other funding sources.

Mining opponents say a study paid for with VUI money will not be objective.

“It certainly reduces the credibility of the study in a hurry,” said Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens. Nenon said the NAS is known to be pro-nuclear.

“The study is going to be tainted by the money,” said Jack Dunavant, SCC chairman. “We know [sic] this would happen all along.”

The study’s second part would focus on mining’s socio-economic impact, including effects on real-estate values and businesses, Kilgore said. The VCEC will seek another institution, such as George Mason University or James Madison University, to perform the second portion of the study. Kilgore said the second phase would probably begin in early 2010.

The scope of the study’s first phase includes, among additional items, examination of public-safety and health impact of uranium mining and milling; review of the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in Virginia; identification and description of the main types of uranium deposits worldwide, including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining opera-tions and best practices; a review of global and national uranium market trends; a review of the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing and reclamation; identification of the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing and reclamation; as relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.

http://www2.godanriver.com:80/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/virginia_uranium_inc._will_pay_for_mining_study/13632/

Virginia Uranium to fund state study 18-month study will cost $1.2 million

So much for the integrity of the NAS who just a few weeks ago was stating emphatically that it would not accept payment from any entity, including VUI, for any study in which that entity had a vested interest. Sooo sad that those with the greatest responsibility to protect the citizens, environment, etc. are now among those with the greatest difficulty with speaking the truth.

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 8:58 AM EDT

The question over who will fund a study on uranium mining has been resolved.

Del. Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy, said Virginia Uranium Inc. will pay for the study by the National Academy of Sciences.

The study, which is expected to take about 18 months, will cost an estimated $1.2 million, Kilgore said.

The Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg has agreed to serve as a repository for the funding.

Kilgore said a formal contract between Virginia Tech and the National Academy of Sciences should be signed soon, with the study beginning in about 30 days.

The National Academy of Sciences is part of the National Research Council, a respected institute that conducts research and advises government agencies.

It will help the commonwealth "determine whether uranium mining, milling, and processing can be undertaken in a manner that safeguards the environment, natural and historic resources, agricultural lands, and the health and well-being of its citizens."

No conflict

According to Kilgore, the academy has assured Virginia Tech that private funding will not influence the study.

"I don't think we have anything to worry about," he said. "The National Academy has a great reputation for being fair and up front."

Kilgore explored other avenues to underwrite the study, including state funding, but said the money just wasn't there.

"I wish we had other funding opportunities, but in these tough economic times it was just hard to find," the delegate said.

Virginia Uranium offered to pay for the study when it first announced plans two years ago to explore mining uranium at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham.

"Basically, that's what we've said all along," said chairman Walter Coles.

Coles doesn't see any conflict in having private industry fund the study.

"Groups do it all the time. States do it," he said. "They are scientists. Their reputation is at stake. It's too important."

'Pandora's Box'

Eloise Nenon of Chatham, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, questioned the legitimacy of a study funded by the uranium industry.

"Generally speaking, the money behind something influences it," said Nenon, adding the National Academy of Sciences is "quite strongly pro-nuclear."

"This is a red flag," she said.

Nenon has little faith in a study.

"It ignores the people, it ignores the community, the history and traditions, and what's important to people here," she said.

"What's important for Virginia Uranium may not be what's important for citizens. Our life is a lot more than science."

Frank Benson of Gretna agreed.

"It's a Pandora's Box," said Benson, another member of Southside Concerned Citizens. "It's going to pollute the water, air and soil.

"We're going to lose businesses and farming. If they don't wake up, this is going to be a ghost town."

Katie Whitehead, chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force, said serious doubts remain about the study.

"We won't know if the National Academy of Sciences is willing to perform a study paid for solely by an interested party until someone representing Virginia sends the required letter formally requesting a study and officially identifying the funding source," she said.

"Only the National Research Council Governing Board has the authority to decide whether NAS does the study, and the board has not yet even considered the question."

Whitehead pointed out the academy's reputation depends on rigorous, thorough research, independence and objectivity, and on the avoidance of even the appearance of influence.

"The National Academies do not perform studies for private, for-profit corporations," she said.

"We don't know how the governing board will weigh the fact that the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has looked for a year and found no one other than the uranium industry willing to support the study - if support means paying for it."

'Signed, sealed, delivered'

Kilgore said Virginia Uranium will fund the scientific study, but not an in-depth look at the socioeconomic impact of uranium mining.

A second study, which will address the effects of uranium mining on businesses, schools and the community, will be conducted by another organization and funded separately, the chairman said.

"We're hoping to get everything signed, sealed and delivered on the scientific, technical study," he said.

"As soon as we get this one nailed down, we plan to move on to the socioeconomic study."

Kilgore, who is from Scott County in far southwest Virginia, recently flew over Coles Hill on the way to a Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission meeting.

To satisfy his curiosity, the small plane landed in a field and Kilgore explored the site, one of the largest uranium deposit in the United States.

"I just wanted to visualize what we've been talking about," he said. "It's way out away from anything."

Final framework

The Coal and Energy Commission's Subcommittee on Uranium Mining voted 8-2 to approve a final framework for the uranium mining study in May.

The panel, chaired by Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, made public safety a top priority.

The study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing.

In particular, it will look at short- and long-term health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling and processing.

It also will identify uranium mining "best practices" worldwide, review global and national uranium market trends.

The academy, however, will not offer a recommendation on whether uranium mining should be permitted.

That decision will be left to the General Assembly, which placed a moratorium on uranium mining in 1982.

The Coles Hill uranium deposit was discovered in the early 1980s by Marline Uranium Corp.

In 2007, the Coles and Bowen families formed Virginia Uranium Inc. in hopes of mining the uranium, which is worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/09/02/chatham/news/news51.txt