Board still wrestling with possible uranium-mining study

By John Crane
Published: November 11, 2009

Staff with the National Research Council is continuing to try to determine how the agency will proceed with a possible uranium-mining study.

The National Research Council Governing Board’s Executive Committee met Tuesday in Washington to discuss the proposal for a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in Virginia.

“Given the complexity with several institutions involved (Virginia Tech, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission), our staff is continuing to work on how we will go about doing the study,” said Jennifer Walsh, spokeswoman for the National Academy of Sciences. “So far, our standard statement of task and approval process is not yet complete.”

The NRC is an arm of the NAS.

Walsh did not comment further when asked about details regarding the study and when the next executive committee meeting will be held.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. VUI, through Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, would pay for the study’s first phase focusing on the technical and public-safety aspects of mining.

That first phase would cost as much as $1.4 million. Virginia Tech’s Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research would handle the money and contract with the NAS for the study. The second part of the study, dealing with the socioeconomic aspects of mining, still needs to be developed by the Virginia Coal & Energy Commission. VUI would not fund the second part.

If the governing board approves the study request, the next step would be the NRC negotiating and entering into a contract with Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research. The board would then appoint a provisional committee of about a dozen scientific experts to perform the study and write its report.

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/board_still_wrestling_with_possible_uranium-mining_study/15446/

NRC committee to meet to discuss uranium study

Obviously transparency is not going to be an option.

By John Crane
Published: October 28, 2009

The National Research Council governing board’s executive committee will meet next month to discuss the study that would determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in Virginia.

The meeting will take place Nov. 10 in Washington and will be closed to the public, said Jennifer Walsh, spokeswoman for the National Academy of Sciences.

Walsh said she does not know if the committee will decide during next month’s meeting whether to approve the study.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. VUI, through Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, would pay for the study’s first phase focusing on the technical and public-safety aspects of mining.

That first phase would cost as much as $1.4 million. Virginia Tech’s Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research would handle the money and contract with the NAS for the study. The second part of the study, dealing with the socioeconomic aspects of mining, still needs to be developed by the Virginia Coal & Energy Commission. VUI would not fund the second part.

If the governing board approves the study request, the next step would be the NRC negotiating and entering into a contract with Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research. The board would then appoint a provisional committee of about a dozen scientific experts to perform the study and write its report.

There will be public comment regarding the makeup of the committee, William Kearney, NRC spokesman, said last month.

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/nrc_committee_to_meet_to_discus_uranium_study/15011/

Funding the study

Money-laundering and political incest...

Danville Register & Bee

To the editor:

OK, let’s get this straight. Virginia Uranium Inc. wants studies that might indicate uranium mining and milling is good business and is safe for Virginia’s citizens. It also wants the National Academy of Sciences to conduct at least one of the studies.

The Virginia General Assembly voted not to fund such a study two years ago. Virginia Uranium Inc. persisted and apparently convinced the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission to do its bidding. The VCEC formed a uranium mining subpanel.

With the aid of Michael Karmis of Virginia Tech’s Mining and Minerals Engineering Department/Director of Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research Center, a study’s scope was determined and Karmis began communication with the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. At present, no one can or will fund the NAS study but VUI.

The National Academy of Sciences will not accept VUI’s offer to pay because it does not perform its services for private industry. So Virginia Tech will take VUI’s money and give it to the NAS. The National Academy of Sciences will do the study for private industry as long as the industry does not pass the money directly to them? A “blind eye” kind of thing, I suppose.

Does this seem akin to money laundering? If NAS gets “besmirched,” they will have done it to themselves. Virginia Tech appears to be an accomplice. At this point, if the state offers to pay for a study, it looks like a disingenuous offer with those supporting it seemingly subjects of tampering. If citizens question the process, the get called “silly!” VUI has managed to make everyone look bad.

Without mining the first shovel of uranium Virginia Uranium, Inc. is already tearing at the fabric of Virginia and polluting our government institutions and causing deep divisions in the citzenry. If for no other reason than to protect the Commonwealth's integrity, uranium mining should be banned. Unfortunately, we stand to lose more if we mine and mill uranium. Why risk Virginians’ health, heritage, agricultural and tourism industry, future economic opportunities, clean air and water for a boom-bust uranium mine? To allow this, as Karmis might opine, would be “silly.”

KAREN B. MAUTE

Mount Cross

Note: The R&B chose to omit the follwing from Ms. Maute's original letter: "Without mining the first shovel of uranium Virginia Uranium, Inc. is already tearing at the fabric of Virginia and polluting our government institutions and causing deep divisions in the citzenry. If for no other reason than to protect the Commonwealth's integrity, uranium mining should be banned."

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/funding_the_study/14385/

This is the editorial that prompted Ms. Maute's letter:

Editorial: No conflict at Tech

A nuclear engineering program at Virginia Tech shouldn't impact its involvement in uranium study.

There is ample reason to be disappointed in, and wary of, the planned study of uranium mining safety in Virginia -- most notably the fact that the corporation wanting to do that mining is paying for the study.

But it is wrong to allege, as some critics of the study have, that Virginia Tech has a conflict of interest in its assigned role of managing the money and coordinating with the National Academy of Sciences on the study.

Anne Cockrell, a Danville resident and member of the mining opposition group Southside Concerned Citizens, said Tech's nuclear engineering program poses a conflict of interest.

"Tech's having a domestic supply of uranium ore in its back yard would complement its nuclear engineering program in no small measure," she wrote in a recent e-mail. She repeated the charge in a commentary in the Chatham Star Tribune.

In an interview with the Danville News, Michael Karmis, director of Tech's Center for Coal and Energy Research, called that argument "silly."

Tech is not revitalizing its nuclear engineering program because of the possibility that there may be a local source of uranium available. Rather, the move is in response to a growing demand for nuclear energy and the upcoming retirement of a generation of nuclear engineers.

There are serious reasons to doubt the safety and feasibility of mining and processing uranium in Virginia's damp climate and in a location near population centers.

For appearances' sake, it would have been far better for the state to have paid for the study. The corporation that could mine as much as $10 billion worth of uranium from the Coles Hill site has a clear vested interest in the outcome of the study, and should not be involved.

But no one else stepped up with the money, and the state isn't exactly flush with cash.

The safeguards in place -- including Tech's management of the funds -- seem sufficient to ensure that the study is not biased by its funding.

Certainly, the National Academy of Sciences will not trade its reputation in exchange for a $1.2 million study.

Based on the available evidence, Tech doesn't deserve to have its reputation besmirched, either.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/221135

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/

National Research Council Agrees to [Consider] Uranium Study

By John Crane

Danville Register & Bee
Published: September 23, 2009

A National Research Council official says a formal request for a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in Virginia is worth pursuing.

Delegate Terry Kilgore, head of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, sent a written request to the NRC on Aug. 20. The NRC responded Sept. 8, saying the proposed study merits consideration.

“The fact that the request comes from a body created by the Virginia General Assembly … is a strong indication to us of the importance of this study to the commonwealth and one that deserves our serious attention,” wrote E. William Colglazier, chief operating officer of the NRC, in a letter to Kilgore.

The NRC is an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.

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.

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, turning Pittsylvania County into a sacrifice zone.

As for the NRC’s response, Kilgore said he thinks the study will happen.

“I get a good feeling they’re going to do it,” Kilgore said Tuesday. “I think we can expect a positive outcome.”

VUI, through Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, will pay for the study’s first phase focusing on the technical and public-safety aspects of mining.

The study’s first portion will cost $1.2 to $1.4 million. Virginia Tech’s Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will implement funding and will contract with the NAS for the study. Kilgore said the second part of the study, dealing with the socioeconomic aspects of mining, still needs to be worked out by the commission. VUI will not fund the second part.

William Kearney, an NRC spokesman, said the group’s Governing Board has not approved the study request, and will likely discuss it at the board’s regular meeting in October or 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.

If the board approves the request, the next step would be the NRC negotiating and entering into a contract with Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research. The board would then appoint a provisional committee of about a dozen scientific experts to perform the study and write its report, Kearney said. There will be public comment regarding the makeup of the committee, Kearny said.

The committee’s members would make a site visit to Coles Hill and possibly hold a public meeting, Kearney said.

Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, which opposes mining, said there needs to be citizen input during the study.

“To ignore the people makes no sense at all,” Nenon said Tuesday. The study needs local viewpoint, which is different than that of scientists from outside the area, she said.

VUI spokesman Patrick Wales praised the NRC’s response to Kilgore’s request.

“I think this is another important step in getting the nation’s preeminent independent scientific institution to evaluate this energy resource in Pittsylvania County,” Wales, a geologist with VUI, said.

http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/local/southside/article/national_research_council_agrees_to_uranium_study/49146/

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/

A comment on outrageous doings

Bless you, Mr. Dixon...and thanks!

Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Chatham Star-Tribune

With the news that Virginia Uranium will pay for a study to determine the future of uranium mining in Virginia, this very major issue now moves into the realm of the absurd.

The acquiescence of the government of the commonwealth to this situation is stunning in its stupidity and bald-faced corruption.

Our elected officials have shown little judgment and even less common sense in this decision. The fate of their careers as elected officials must be in doubt.

Every state-wide representative who did not stand up to oppose this corrupt bargain has abrogated his responsibility as a guardian of the people's interest. They are unworthy of our votes and have earned our collective disdain.

I am sure the National Academy of Science is indeed a "neutral" organization through which to conduct this study, bought and paid (quiet literally) by our Canadian friends and their cadre of wealthy local and foreign investors.

The scientists at Virginia Tech would never think of the opportunity to use Pittsylvania County as a laboratory and its citizens as guinea pigs in their investigations of the affects of uranium mining on the environment east of the Mississippi.

They are responsible individuals first, and scientists second. In fact, this new relationship could be the beginning of several new National Academy/Virginia Tech studies.

Let's see what else they could do. Here's one: "The Feasibility of Bank Bailouts as a Means of Helping the Economy."

That one would be paid for by Wachovia and Bank of America. I wonder what the National Academy of Science would find?

Here's another: "The Positive or Negative Effects of Socialism in America."

That one would be funded by the American Communist Party. I am sure the folks at Virginia Tech will come up with a fair and balanced conclusion.

Finally, in the area of sports we have, "Steroids: Good or Bad for Baseball?" This one has the financial backing of Jose Canseco, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds.

I am on tenterhooks awaiting that conclusion.

Pardon my sarcasm, but I fear the deck is stacked against Pittsylvania County. Is this the sad fate that must play out over the next two decades?

The "study" will conclude that uranium mining is safe "under certain circumstances."

The fine print of the extreme conditional approval will be ignored by the uranium industry and they will embrace the study as definite "scientific" proof that all is well.

Mining regulations will move swiftly through the hapless House of Delegates; mining will begin with a flourish of heady pronouncements about employment and the economic prosperity that is headed our way.

Blasting activity will begin; tailing ponds will be dug; all will move quickly forward. Then, somewhere down the line, there will be an economic (price of uranium falls) or environmental (water ruined) catastrophe.

Government and uranium industry officials will throw up their hands and declare that no one could have foreseen this (remember Katrina?), and they are not to blame.

The mines will close; the investors will go silent and Virginia Uranium will creep back to its Canadian homeland.

By that time, the people of Virginia will be left to tend the mess that Virginia Uranium began: the two 800-foot holes in the ground; the ruined landscape, poisoned water and contaminated air.

Unemployment will rise, now that tobacco and non-mining businesses have long left the area. Taxes will rise; land values will fall.

The National Academy will assert the fine print of its study (i.e. that mining probably could not be done successfully) and the scientists at Virginia Tech will have their laboratory and guinea pigs just down the road from them in Pittsylvania County.

My father used to say that if you can't pay for something, you can't buy it. If the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot pay for a study, they should not have one.

Virginia Uranium is a biased funder; the conflict of interest is so apparent that it is embarrassing for a private citizen to have to point this out to officials who should know better.

If Virginia cannot pay now for a study of this sort, how are they going to pay for the regulation and upkeep of the area once mining begins? Where will that money come from?

Until these basic questions are answered completely, all citizens of good faith must remain opposed to any study of any kind paid for by the very people who profit from its slanted outcome.

We shall and must regard the findings of this tainted study, and the people who support it, with a cynical and suspicious eye.

Richard Dixon

Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/09/09/chatham/opinion/opinion05.txt

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

National Academy of Sciences responds to uranium criticism

By John Crane

Published: September 3, 2009

A spokeswoman for the National Academy of Sciences responded Thursday to criticism from uranium-mining opponents that the academy is pro-nuclear.

Mining foes also say that a study performed by the NAS and paid for by Virginia Uranium Inc. would tilt in favor of uranium-mining.

The NAS has not received a formal request to conduct a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth, said Jennifer Walsh, spokeswoman for the NAS.

But 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, the NAS usually works with a third organization that provides funding on behalf of a company or industry, she said.

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

VUI seeks to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chat-ham.

Delegate Terry Kilgore, R-1st District and chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission, said Wednesday VUI will pay for the state study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the state. Kilgore said he will send a letter to the NAS to let offi-cials there know VUI will fund the study. So far, VUI is the sole entity that has expressed interest in paying for the study.

Virginia Tech's Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will imple me nt funding and will contract with the NAS for the study.

Attempts to contact Michael Karmis, head of the VCCER, were unsuccessful Thursday.

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. The study's first phase should begin by the end of the year.

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

Walsh said an executive committee of the NAS governing board would review a study proposal, its budget and work plan — a process that could take weeks or months. If a study is approved, staff from the NAS and the National Research Council would assemble a committee of scientific experts who will hold information-gathering meetings on the study. The meetings are open to the public and posted on the NAS Web site ahead of time at http://www.national -academies. org.

Members of the public can follow the progress of the academy's studies by going to the Web site and clicking on the "current projects" link. To learn more about the NAS study process, go to the "National Academies study process" link.

The study's second part would focus on mining's socio-economic impact, including effects on real-estate values and businesses. 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 he is looking at foundations to pay for the second phase, which would not be funded by VUI. The study's second portion would probably begin in early 2010.

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/national_academy_of_sciences_responds_to_uranium_criticism/13662/

Official Seeks Funding For [VA's] Uranium Study

If the NAS has any integrity, it will avoid even a hint of impropriety by refusing to accept funding from any corporate entity with a vested interest in the outcome of the study. (Just my humble opinion, of course...SB)

By John Crane

Published: July 8, 2009

While the commonwealth waits for a study to begin to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the state, the head of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission is seeking funding for the study.

So far, the sole entity that has expressed willingness to pay for the study is Virginia Uranium Inc., said Delegate Terry Kilgore, R-1st District, chairman of the VCEC.

“They’re the only ones who have offered funding,” Kilgore said, adding that he will try to obtain funding from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, the Piedmont Environmental Council or other organizations.

The commission is responsible for arranging financing of the study. The VCEC’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee approved the first part of the study, which is expected to cover the technical aspects of mining and milling, in May. Kilgore said the study’s first portion would cost about $1.2 million. The second phase, which would cover uranium’s economic impact but has not yet been approved by the subcommittee, will cost about $500,000, Kilgore said.

The subcommittee will oversee the study. Michael Karmis, director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech, presented the final recommendation of the first phase of the study’s scope to the subcommittee on May 21, and is working on the study with the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.

Karmis is out of the country and could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Kilgore said he will talk to Karmis about funding sources for the study and expects the next Uranium Mining Subcommittee meeting to take place in August or September. Kilgore said he believes the study, which would take up to two years, will start in the fall and that determining the scope of the study’s second phase later will not slow the process.

VUI chairman Walter Coles Sr. said his company has not been in discussion with the commission about providing funding, but would help pay for it if no alternate sources are found. VUI seeks to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Funding must be in place before the study begins, Kilgore said.

Uranium mining opponents have raised questions about the objectivity of a study backed by mining interests. Kilgore said he trusts the National Academy of Sciences to approach the study scientifically with no bias.

“The NAS would have a lot of safeguards in place,” Kilgore said. “They’re scientists first. I don’t believe they have an agenda either way.”

Jennifer Walsh, spokeswoman with the NAS/NRC, said academy officials have discussed the study’s scope with Karmis. Walsh said the academy has not received an official request for a study.

“The official request and proposed statement of task (the study’s scope) must … be approved by our governing board, which includes the president of the NAS, before a study can begin,” Walsh said via e-mail Wednesday.

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 operations 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://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/official_seeks_funding_for_uranium_study/12346/

All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer

This isn't news, per se, but it is vitally important information. It's from the National Academies of Science, the group who is to conduct the state-wide uranium mining feasibility study.

Washington, DC, June 30, 2005 -

The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on “Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation” reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.

Among the reports conclusions are:

• There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.
  
  
• Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks.
  
  
• Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects.
  
  
• It is possible that children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures.
  

The “bystander effect” is an additional, newly recognized method by which radiation injures cells that were not directly hit but are in the vicinity of those that were. “Genomic instability” can be caused by exposure to low doses of radiation and according to the report “might contribute significantly to radiation cancer risk.” These new mechanisms for radiation damage were not included in the risk estimates reported by the BEIR VII report, but were recommended for further study.

The Linear-No-Threshold model (LNT) for predicting health effects from radiation (dose-response) is retained, meaning that every exposure causes some risk and that risks are generally proportional to dose. The Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor or DDREF which had been suggested in the 1990 BEIR V report to be applied at low doses, has been reduced from 2 to 1.5. That means the projected number of health effects at low doses are greater than previously thought.


RADIATION RISKIER THAN THOUGHT— RISKS TO PUBLIC and NUCLEAR WORKERS

The BEIR VII risk numbers indicate that about 1 in 100 members of the public would get cancer if exposed to 100 millirads (1milliGray) per year for a 70-year lifetime. [1] This is essentially the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s allowable radiation dose for members of the public.

In addition, 1 in about 5 workers [2] would get cancer if exposed to the legally allowable occupational doses [3] over their 50 years in the workforce. These risks are much higher than permitted for other carcinogens.

Specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows members of the public to get 100 millirems or mr (1 milliSievert or mSv) per year of radiation in addition to background. The BEIR VII report (page 500, Table 12-9) estimates that this level will result in approximately 1 (1.142) cancer in every 100 people exposed at 100 mr/yr which includes 1 fatal cancer in every 175 people so exposed (5.7 in 1000).[4]

The risk of getting cancer from radiation (in BEIR VII) is increased by about a third from current government risk figures (FGR13): BEIR VII estimates that 11.42 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem (1,000 millirems or 10 mSv). The US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Guidance Report 13 estimates that 8.46 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem.

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service interprets this as further evidence that unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided.

“This means that the government is not justified in deregulating nuclear power and weapons waste—releasing it to regular trash or “recycling” it into everyday household items as proposed by 5 US federal agencies at the behest of nuclear waste generators hoping to save money,” stated Diane D’Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service Radioactive (NIRS). “This also means that remediation of radioactive sites should be done to cleaner levels and that nuclear transport standards should be strengthened.”

Cindy Folkers, NIRS Energy and Health Project Director stated “These findings confirm that all levels of radiation are harmful. Since nuclear power routinely releases long-lasting radiation into the air, water and soil, we must avoid a new generation of nuclear power to prevent unnecessary exposures.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] NAS Report in Brief June 2005 BEIR VII: Health Effects from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation pp 2-3 (for 1 cancer in 100 people exposed to 100mSv or 10 r ).

More detailed calculation: National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. Table 12-9 indicates that average risk (cancer incidence for males and females) of getting leukemia or solid cancers is 1142 out of 100,000 exposed to 10 r. Thus a member of the public who lives for 70 years and receives the permitted 100 mr (or 0.1 r)/year could receive 7 r or 7000 mr in his/her lifetime. [US Nuclear Regulatory Commission permits 0.1 r or 100 mr per year above background to members of the public.] Comparing to BEIR VII’s risk estimate of 1142 in 100,000 at 10 r, to the 7 r lifetime dose permitted by NRC:(7r/10r= 0.7) we get 0.7 x 1142 = 799 cancers in 100,000 population at 7 r or 799cancers/100,000 exposed = 1 cancer in 125 exposed (to 7 r over lifetime).

[2] At 0.1 Sv (100 mSv or 10 r) the risk is 1 in 100 getting cancer (NAS Report in Brief Jun 2005 pp2-3) At 2.5 Sv (worker legal dose) the dose and risk are 25x higher or 25 in 100 (or 1 in 4) exposed getting cancer…but since workers are exposed later in life than the general public, adjusting for age would correct the risk to about 1 in 5 exposed to the full legal amount for their working lives getting cancer from those exposures.

[3] 10 CFR 20 subpart C, Occupational Dose Limits limit workers to total effective dose equivalent of 5000 millirems or 50 milliSieverts (5 rems or 0.05 Sv) per year. If it is low LET radiation, this is comparable to 5000 millirads or 50 milliGray.

[4] National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. There will be 570 fatal cancers in 100,000 exposed at 0.1Gy or 10 r. (100,000/570= 175) Approx 1 in 175 so exposed will get fatal cancer.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/radiation-levels.html

Uranium mining study is a fine beginning

We're not so sure the study is a "fine" beginning, but it is a beginning. While we don't share the Virginian-Pilot's enthusiasm re: the study, we're delighted to finally see a news story that is upfront about what the study will and won't cover.

Thanks, V-P, for finally spelling out that the entire Commonwealth has a very serious stake in this endeavor.

The Virginian-Pilot
© June 15, 2009

As work begins on a study of uranium mining in Virginia, it's becoming clearer what that study will do and what it won't.

It will answer some questions about the effect similar mining operations have on health and safety. It will likely generate new questions that require additional research. But it will not be the definitive word on whether uranium can be mined safely in Pittsylvania County or any other corner of the state.

Supporters say there are billions of dollars of uranium ore in the ground near Chatham. Many nearby residents tried to block the study, fearing lawmakers will use it as political cover to approve a venture that would churn out new tax revenues.

Virginia Beach leaders pressed for a sophisticated, comprehensive and expensive analysis on the potential risks to Lake Gaston, which lies downstream from the proposed site and provides drinking water to nearly 900,000 residents of Hampton Roads.

The study approved by a legislative panel last month is unlikely to satisfy any of those groups. But the analysis, which could take up to 18 months to complete, should be viewed as a valuable first step toward assessing the potential dangers and rewards from permitting one or more mining operations in the commonwealth.

The study will be performed by the National Academy of Sciences, a reputable organization with no financial stake in its outcome. Researchers will examine uranium mining in locations around the world that are comparable to Virginia in terms of population, hydrology and weather conditions. Other uranium mines in the United States are located in more arid climates that don't offer a valid comparison.

The NAS will not examine specific plans for the Pittsylvania site. That's beyond its normal scope of research. Besides, Virginia Uranium Inc. has not yet released a detailed accounting of how it would mine and mill uranium or how it would dispose of waste from the operations.

The team of scientists performing the study isn't being asked to approve or reject a mining permit for Pittsylvania County. Instead, the group will assemble research for state legislators to consider as they determine whether to lift a 27-year moratorium on uranium mining.

If legislators end the ban, Virginia Uranium and any other would-be developer will be subjected to a lengthy battery of federal, state and local regulatory examinations.

There's a good chance the question of whether to keep Virginia's moratorium will be answered with a resounding "maybe." That's not a bad outcome.

Both advocates and opponents of uranium mining quote a confusing array of statistics, much of it from questionable sources. It's time to let the scientists jump in and sort out the facts from the fabrications.

(Emphases mine...SB)

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/06/uranium-mining-study-fine-beginning

Urgent Questions Remain Regarding the Two Uranium Studies

The mining study is shaping up to be one big expensive joke with potentially lethal consequences. Socio-economic aspects are getting short shrift and tailings containment, one of the gravest dangers of mining, will be ignored. Katie Whitehead makes a compelling argument for the inclusion of socio-economics here. SB

News reports regarding the work and responsibilities of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee do not begin to inform the public about the true status and complexity of the uranium study process. There may not be a market for such information, yet there is certainly a need. Urgent questions remain unanswered.

Contrary to some reports, the uranium mining study has not started. We need to remember, as well, that “the study” is now two studies – a technical study and a socio-economic study. The subcommittee is negotiating the technical study with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Before NAS can call for nominations for a study committee, both parties must agree on the scope of work, the NAS has to draw up a budget and timeline, and someone has to come up with money and sign a contract.

Subcommittee members have yet to discuss the equally important, complicated, and challenging socio-economic study.

Will there be a socio-economic study?

If a technical study is done, a socio-economic study should also be done.

Some people have gotten the impression that the Uranium Mining Subcommittee sees the socio-economic study as secondary and perhaps unnecessary. The Danville Register and Bee reported on May 13^th that subcommittee member Sen. Phillip Puckett opposes conducting a socio-economic study if mining is found to be unsafe in the technical study: “If that is a ‘no,’ we don’t have to answer any more questions.”

One could make the same argument for the socio-economic study: if uranium mining is undesirable for social and economic reasons, we don’t have to know absolutely whether it is safe or not. Contrary to what we have been led to believe, the technical study will not make a final judgment on whether mining is safe or unsafe. A socio-economic study might provide greater clarity.

The stigma associated with uranium mining and tailings has real social and economic impacts, as does the volatility of the market for uranium. We need to understand how uranium mining might influence perception of a region for current residents, as well as for business executives, farm product consumers, families, students and their parents, retirees, tourists, and others contemplating coming to the area to live or to visit. We should look at available evidence about whether uranium mining harms or enhances a region’s character, quality of life, and economic well-being.

The only way to ensure that the socio-economic study is done and done adequately is to identify an independent and objective research institution, get budget estimates, and secure full funding for both studies before either study begins. This is not happening.

Who will do the socio-economic study? Will it be objective?

The Coal and Energy Commission chose as its advisor Dr. Michael Karmis, a world-renowned mining engineer and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research (VCCER). Whether he is an appropriate advisor regarding a socio-economic study is a valid and important question that implies no disrespect.

Dr. Karmis, in his rough draft scope for the socio-economic study, recommended a site- and region-specific study, not a study anticipating statewide consequences of lifting the moratorium. He envisioned a smaller, shorter, less complicated, less costly study than the technical study. He also advised that the National Academy of Sciences would not likely be interested in undertaking the socio-economic study. We should ask the academy. The National Academy of Sciences does socio-economic studies and some original research and is, of course, known for its independence and objectivity.

The NAS might well be willing to study by analogy how introduction of a controversial industry can influence the perception of a region and its economy. The academy is also able to study the potential for boom-bust cycles in mining communities and their effects on regional economic activity and quality of life. Real-life examples of uranium mining communities and regions with analogous industrial activities can help researchers tell us what we might be facing.

An alternative approach would specifically identify businesses, institutions, schools, government bodies, and other entities in a region of interest and study in detail how each might be affected by the potentially disruptive introduction of a stigmatized industry. Two entities have been named in private conversations as perhaps being capable of this sort of socio-economic study, but one of these institutions may have been suggested by industry lobbyists after prior contact with researchers. Such contact could inappropriately influence the framing of a study and compromise the independence of the research.

Who is paying for the studies? Who should pay? Will adequate funds be available?

According to various members of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee, Del. Terry Kilgore, Chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission and ex-officio subcommittee member, is responsible for finding money to do the two studies. Del. Kilgore listened to the May 21^st subcommittee meeting by telephone. He did not participate in discussion or respond to questions or comments about funding. Kilgore has asked for donations to pay for the studies. No other information is publicly available.

The National Academy of Sciences cannot perform a study directly for a private industry.

The Virginia General Assembly has not budgeted money for a study. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission cannot accept contributions to spend on a study.

The Virginia Citizens have emphasized to the subcommittee the need to consider the whole study process, secure appropriate funding, and ensure independent experts give adequate time and attention to both studies. Even the best study process does not ensure a sound public policy decision. The current process raises serious doubts.

Katie Whitehead of Chatham is chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force.

Va. uranium mining study approved

By Rex Springston

Published: May 22, 2009

A study of uranium mining in Virginia is moving forward, to the dismay of some mining opponents.

A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy approved the study yesterday after fine-tuning the issues to be studied.

The study arises from a proposal by Virginia Uranium Inc. to mine uranium in Pittsylvania County in south-central Virginia.

During a meeting in the General Assembly Building, opponents told the panel that mining could cause air and water pollution and turn a pastoral landscape ugly.

"We will be left with a radioactive open pit," said Georgie Stuart of Chatham.

But Patrick Wales of Danville, a Virginia Uranium geologist, said he hoped the study would show how to mine uranium "in a way that protects the health of our neighbors, protects our environment and brings hundreds of well-paying jobs to our region."

Some opponents asked the panel to vote against the study, hoping that would kill the mining proposal.

But state Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, a member of the subcommittee, said approval of the study did not mean approval of mining in Pittsylvania.

"That decision is a long way down the road," Watkins said.

Legislators simply need the study to get information that would help them make a decision, Watkins said.

The panel made clear that one of the most important issues they want studied is mining's effects on people's health.

The study also will investigate the safest ways to mine uranium; review mining regulations; identify pollution issues; and delve into effects on ecosystems, among other things.

The panel denied a request by Del. Watkins M. Abbitt Jr., I-Appomattox, to study how water pollution might be caused and prevented.

Del. Lee R. Ware Jr., the Powhatan County Republican who is chairman of the subcommittee, said he felt Abbitt's request was unnecessary because the study's scope already included that issue.

The study will be conducted by the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, a respected institute that advises government agencies.

The study could cost $1.5 million and last about 18 months. It was unclear yesterday how the study would be funded.

Virginia Uranium, formed by Pittsylvania landowners, says 119 million pounds of the ore, worth about $8 billion, lie underground near Chatham, about 145 miles southwest of Richmond.

Uranium is used to fuel nuclear power plants. Virginia has banned uranium mining since the 1982.

Officials in Hampton Roads also have expressed concerns about the mining. Much of the water serving Virginia Beach, Norfolk and Chesapeake comes from Lake Gaston, which lies downstream from the proposed mine.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/URAN22_20090521-221901/269205/

Virginia Panel OKs Uranium Mining Study

By MICHAEL FELBERBAUM , 05.21.09,

A Virginia coal and energy panel on Thursday approved the framework of a scientific study on proposed uranium mining in the state, saying they want to make safety their top priority.

A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy amended a list of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences on what to include in the study. It would range from market trends to technical practices to health risks, but would not take a position for or against the mining.

Members heard a series of public comments at the more than two-hour meeting before amending the study's scope. Among the major revisions: putting assessment of health risks to workers and the public at the top of the list.

Environmentalists and residents who live close to the site near the Virginia-North Carolina state line worry about hazards to human health and the environment from mining the radioactive material.

"I think that what we heard here was a real strong desire to make it clear that safety is our top priority in this," said Del. Kristen Amundson of Fairfax, a member of the panel charged with commissioning an independent study.

Before uranium could be mined in Virginia, the General Assembly would have to lift a ban that has been in place since 1982. The proposed independent study could take 1 1/2 years, then the General Assembly would decide whether to approve the mining. The legislature last year refused to even study the idea.

The study, a first step to lifting that ban, had been requested by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine a 119 million-pound Pittsylvania County deposit beneath 3,000 acres near the North Carolina border in Southside Virginia. It is believed to be the largest deposit in the nation, with a value estimated anywhere from $7 billion to $10 billion.

The study, designed to cover all aspects of the impact on uranium mining in Virginia, also will examine ecosystem issues, problems related to air and water pollution, and state and federal regulatory issues.

"I think this study will help me as an individual to arrive at what I think might be the right decision," said Sen. Phillip Puckett of Russell County. "All on this subcommittee want to do the right thing here. I'm telling you personally I don't think I have the knowledge and information I need to make that decision today."

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/21/ap6454442.html and

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/virginia_panel_oks_uranium_mining_study/11187/

Let the Study of Uranium Mining Begin

The News & Advance
Published: May 12, 2009

Nearly everyone agrees that an independent study of the effects of proposed uranium mining in Pittsylvania County is a good step. But not everyone agrees on the study’s framework and the order in which the various aspects of such a mining operation would be covered.

That will be decided later this month. The first step toward the study’s framework has been taken by the respected National Academy of Sciences. In recommendations announced last week, the study would range from market trends to technical practices to health risks.

A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy will consider approving the recommendations on May 21 in Richmond. Before uranium can be mined in Virginia, the General Assembly would have to lift a ban that has been in place since 1982.

The study has been requested as a first step toward lifting that ban by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine a deposit near Chatham that is believed to be the largest in the nation. Its value is estimated at $7 billion to $10 billion.

Environmentalists and residents who live near the site are worried about hazards to human health and the environment from mining the radioactive material. They believe that health and environmental issues should be addressed first, followed by such topics as market trends, types of uranium deposits in other parts of the world and technical mining options.

Deborah Lovelace is one of them. Her farm is close to the deposit and she believes that effects on health and the environment should be studied before those other issues are taken up.

“The study should be stopped if it’s (mining) not safe,” Lovelace said. “Why even spend the money?”

She makes a good point. But a thorough framework of the study must include all the factors involved in any potential mining operation. And that is what the academy has proposed. The order in which those topics are covered is not necessarily important.

“The study will provide independent, expert advice that can be used to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia,” the academy’s statement said.

The study won’t take a position for or against the mining, nor will it assess Virginia Uranium’s site.

If the study finds it is safe to mine uranium at the site near Chatham, the resulting yellow cake ore would reduce America’s dependence on foreign fuels in two ways. It would add to the 65 million pounds of uranium ore now used domestically each year for nuclear power. The U.S. only produces 4.7 million of those pounds. The balance comes from Canada, Australia and Russia.

Further, the new uranium ore would help reduce in the long run America’s use of foreign oil used by power plants from countries in the Mideast that would like to bury the U.S.

The uranium study proposed by the National Academy of Sciences is an important first step to any such mining in Virginia. The risks and rewards must be assessed in an orderly fashion and that is what the academy has proposed. It is a prudent approach to the potential future of uranium mining in Virginia.

http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/opinion/editorials/article/let_the_study_of_uranium_mining_begin/15858/

URANIUM MINING Wide-ranging study of Va. uranium mining proposed

ROANOKE, Va. (AP) -

The National Academy of Sciences is proposing a study of the technical aspects of uranium mining in Virginia, as well as the market for the ore and the health risks.

A Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy subcommittee posted the recommendations online Thursday. The panel will consider them later this month.

The study has been sought by Virginia Uranium, which wants to mine a 119 million-pound deposit in Pittsylvania County that is believed to be the largest in the U.S.

Before uranium can be mined in Virginia, the General Assembly would have to lift a ban that has been in place since 1982.

The academy says the study by its working arm, the National Research Council, won't take a position for or against the mining.

http://www.wmdt.com/wires/displaystory.asp?id=87453410