National Research Council seeking nominations for uranium study committee

Comment:  Ban uranium mining, just the facts!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 9:58 AM EST

The National Research Council, which last week agreed to undertake a scientific study of uranium mining in Virginia, is seeking nominations for a 12-member study committee.

A request sent out by the study's director, David Feary, notes that the uranium study will be done under the auspices of the Board on Earth Science and Resources' Committee on Earth Resources with collaboration by the Water Sciences and Technology Board.

The council is hoping to identify suitable members for the study committee with expertise in areas such as ecology, environmental and mining law, environmental remediation, geology, ground and surface water hydrogeochemistry, health communications, mine safety, mine regulation and reclamation, radiation health effects; and uranium mining, milling, processing, and engineering.

Nominations for the study committee may be sent to Nicholas Rogers (nrogers@nas.edu) and copied to Feary (dfeary@nas.edu).

The National Research Council in Washington, D.C., signed a contract for the long-awaited study with Virginia Tech last week.

The university will serve as a conduit for funding from Virginia Uranium Inc., which has agreed to pay for the $1.4 million study.

Virginia Uranium announced plans three years ago to explore mining uranium at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham.

The study will take about 18 months. A final report is due Dec. 1, 2011.

National Research Council spokesman William Kearney expects the committee to be approved this spring and begin meeting early this summer.

He said one of the group's first public meetings will be in Danville.

The National Research Council's website outlines the committee appointment process, noting, the "selection of appropriate committee members, individually and collectively, is essential for the success of a study."

According to the council, committee members serve as individual experts, not representatives of organizations or interest groups.

"Each member is expected to contribute to the project on the basis of his or her own expertise and good judgment," the council said.

It also notes that a committee is not finally approved until a thorough "balance and conflict of interest discussion" is held at the first meeting, and any issues raised in that discussion or by the public are investigated and addressed.

According to the council, it is important that the committee include the appropriate range of expertise for the task.

"One of the strengths of the National Academies is the tradition of bringing together recognized experts from diverse disciplines and backgrounds who might not otherwise collaborate," the council said. "These diverse groups are encouraged to conceive new ways of thinking about a problem."

A balance of perspectives is also important, the council said.

"Having the right expertise is not sufficient for success. It is also essential to evaluate the overall composition of the committee in terms of different experiences and perspectives. The goal is to ensure that the relevant points of view are, in the National Academies' judgment, reasonably balanced so that the committee can carry out its charge objectively and credibly."

It points out, however, that a point of view is not necessarily a conflict of interest.

"Committee members are expected to have points of view, and the National Academies attempt to balance these points of view in a way deemed appropriate for the task," the council said.

"Committee members are asked to consider respectfully the viewpoints of other members, to reflect their own views rather than be a representative of any organization, and to base their scientific findings and conclusions on the evidence."

In addition, each committee member has the right to issue a dissenting opinion to the report if he or she disagrees.

"For this purpose, a conflict of interest means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the individual because it could significantly impair the individual's objectivity or could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization," it said.

"The term 'conflict of interest' means something more than individual bias," the council said. "There must be an interest, ordinarily financial, that could be directly affected by the work of the committee. "

"Except for those rare situations in which the National Academies determines that a conflict of interest is unavoidable and promptly and publicly discloses the conflict of interest, no individual can be appointed to serve (or continue to serve) on a committee of the institution used in the development of reports if the individual has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed."

Specific steps in the committee selection and approval process include:

_ Staff solicits an extensive number of suggestions for potential committee members from a wide range of sources, then recommends a slate of nominees;

_ Nominees are reviewed and approved at several levels within the National Academies; a provisional slate is then approved by the president of the National Academy of Sciences, who is also the chairman of the National Research Council;

_ The provisional committee list is posted for public comment in the Current Projects System on the Web (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/);

_ The provisional committee members complete background information and conflict of interest disclosure forms;

_ Committee balance and conflict of interest discussion is held at the first committee meeting;

_ Any conflicts of interest or issues of committee balance and expertise are investigated; changes to the committee are proposed and finalized;

_ Committee is formally approved.

Committee members continue to be screened for conflict of interest throughout the life of the committee, the council said.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
434-432-2791

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/03/03/chatham/news/news53.txt

Wake up and fight, folks

Comment: The study is a joke, something call VA Coal Commission are miners, they take the Mountain Tops off our lovely mountains to get the coal, so they will mine Southside and all of Virginia!! The Canadian uranium companies will take back about 60-80 per cent of their money back to Canada, the local uranium people will send their money off-Shore like the banks!!! Southside will be the Sacrifice area for the Nuke People to sell the uranium to China!! Demand the local leaders to ban uranium mining now!!!!!! Great Letter!!

Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:07 AM EDT

I am so frustrated by our populace's belief in the uranium "study." Study of what?

How much money the investors of a Canadian company will make?

How much money Walter Coles and friends will make?

How much money everyone other than these people will lose by being subjected to the loss of their livelihoods and lives by having one of the most hazardous and toxic businesses in the world located in their backyards?

Please wake up and fight, folks.

We need every voice.

Linda Worsley
Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/03/chatham/opinion/opinion03.txt

Uranium study Ok’d; Public-safety, health-impact items made top priority in final draft

Comment: Attention Pittsylvania County, VA people, you must demand our local leaders to draft an ordinance to ban uranium mining NOW or the State of Virginia will mine us, they want the money, as you have read on this blog, NUKE Power is not needed, it is too expensive, too dangerous, NO TO URANIUM MINING!!!

By John Crane

Published: May 21, 2009

RICHMOND — The uranium-mining study has begun. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee, tasked with overseeing a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth, approved a revised final draft of the study Thursday.

But Delegate Danny Marshall, R-Danville, said he is disappointed with the decision. Marshall asked the subcommittee to post Thursday’s citizen input on its Web site and wait 60 days before deciding whether to approve the study.

“We’re not in a hurry to do this,” Marshall said during an interview before the meeting.

Subcommittee members pressed ahead after taking public comment, rearranging and adding amendments to the study’s 11-item “statement of task” before approving it by an 8-2 vote. Delegate William Janis, R-56th District and Delegate Watkins Abbitt, I-59th District, opposed.

One of the biggest alterations the subcommittee brought to the document was making the public-safety and health-impact items the top priority on the statement of task, moving them from No.7 on the list to No. 1. Reviewing global and national uranium market trends had been in the top spot.

Virginia Uranium Inc. wants 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.

Subcommittee members received an earful from uranium mining skeptics and opponents. More than 100 people attended the meeting and about 20 publicly commented.

Eloise Nenon, a board member of Southside Concerned Citizens, said uranium mining and milling causes male sterility and would spell disaster for Pittsylvania County farmers.

“This is going to destroy agriculture,” Nenon said.

George Stanhope, an SCC member, said mining would send dust with low-level radiation into the Banister River heading toward Lake Gaston.

Mining opponent Phillip Lovelace told the subcommittee that if health is not the No.1 topic of the study, “I don’t want it.”

Lovelace said he is against lifting the moratorium on mining and milling uranium. If the state allows mining across the commonwealth, five major rivers will be contaminated in other parts of Virginia, he said. Major military installations would relocate from the state as a result, causing major damage to Virginia’s economy and leaving the commonwealth vulnerable to terrorists, he said.

“(If the moratorium is lifted) you’re putting the whole East Coast in jeopardy,” Lovelace said.

Marshall Ecker, a Pittsylvania County supervisor who represents the Staunton River District, said the subcommittee should make health, safety and the economic concerns of uranium mining its main focus.

“Your decisions will affect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the citizens of Virginia forever,” Ecker said.

Amanda Wydner, a Pittsylvania County native, said the study should address what uranium mining could portend for culture and quality of life in the area. Land values, population density and demographics should be measured and compared before and after mining. She said the study should find out how it will affect the area’s skyline, aesthetic appearance and reputation as a quaint Southern town, she said.

“How will the perception of Chatham change?” she said.

Some opponents also called for a site-specific study to examine areas similar to Pittsylvania County in geology, hydrology, climate and population density, and to find out how those regions were affected by mining.

“What we have heard here is a real strong desire to make clear that safety is our top priority,” said Delegate Kristen Amundson, D-44th District, a subcommittee member.

Amundson proposed moving the seventh item listed, addressing health and safety, under the statement of task to the top slot. The subcommittee unanimously approved the motion. Another motion from Amundson to amend language in part of the statement also passed unanimously.

Patrick Wales, a VUI geologist, spoke in favor of the study, saying that health and safety are important issues, and that he hopes uranium can be mined in a way that would protect citizens and the environment.

The subcommittee also green-lighted added language proposed by Abbitt that calls for analysis of mining impacts on public health and safety in areas with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic characteristics and population density.

In response, Sen. Frank Wagner, R-7th District, proposed language stating that if negative consequences were found in those areas, then options would be presented by the National Research Council for elimination or mitigation of the effects. The language was approved.

Abbitt requested that the study include available methods for management of tailings to prevent or mitigate leachates (leakage). The motion failed 4-2.

As a result, Abbitt voted against approving the revised draft.

“I can’t vote for this,” Abbitt said.

Janis voted against the study because he was absent during discussion. Janis had a scheduling conflict and was unable to attend the meeting until it was almost over.

Sen. John Watkins, R-10th District, told attendees that the subcommittee’s aim is not to hurry through the study, but to be conscientious.

“We’re not here to run this through without due diligence,” he said.

Delegate Lee Ware, R-65th District, said Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, will take the revised document to the National Research Council and “things will get under way.”

The study will take about two years.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_study_okd_public-safety_health-impact_items_made_top_priority_in_fi/11192/

Wide-ranging study of Virginia uranium mining proposed

Comment: Will this be Virginia's future, all of Virginia because the State of Virginia is embracing Nuke Power from foreign countries, People wake up, if you wait for the illegal study, you will be mined, it is not right our local leaders cannot protect their people because of The Dillion Rule!! We need to demand that the State of VA to let local communities to invoke Home Rule so we can envoke an Ordinance to Ban Uranium Mining! Look at the study, putting Uranium market trends over the protection of its people against Uranium ruining our water, air & land.

Monday, May 11, 2009

A study of proposed uranium mining in Virginia would range from market trends to technical practices to health risks, the National Academy of Sciences said in recommendations released Thursday.

A Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy subcommittee posted the academy's recommendations for the study online. The recommendations were made by the academy's working arm, the National Research Council. The Virginia panel will consider approving them at a May 21 meeting 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 to lifting that ban by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine a 119 million-pound Pittsylvania County deposit that is believed to be the largest in the nation. Its value is estimated at $7 billion to $10 billion.

"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.(are they coming to Virginia, it does not say, neither says when they come!)

The study won't take a position for or against the mining, the academy said, nor will it assess Virginia Uranium's site near Chatham.

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

The academy proposed assessing short- and long-term health risks both to workers and the public.

Source: Forbes


http://www.yourminingnews.com/news_item.php?newsID=31958

Uranium subcommittee releases proposed final study draft

Comment: The uranium study is focusing on MONEY not the Virginia people, look at the list and decide for yourself!!! Demand the Virginia to Ban Uranium Mining & Milling!!! Also, look, it does not say SouthSide Virginia, it says Virginia, Uranium is all over Virginia, "U R Next"

Thursday, May 7, 2009 4:53 PM EDT

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee today released a proposed final draft for a study on the dangers and benefits of uranium mining.

The subcommittee will meet Thursday, May 21, at 2:30 p.m. in Richmond.

The final study draft:

Uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been prohibited since 1982 by a state moratorium although approval for restricted uranium exploration in the state was granted in 2007.

A National Research Council study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In particular, the study will:

1) Review global and national uranium market trends.

2) Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.

3) Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

4) Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments ("cells").

5) Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

6) Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.

7) Assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health effects from exposure to "daughter" products of radioactive decay of uranium.

8) Identify 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.

9) Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

11) Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.

12) Briefly characterize a potential public education and outreach program in the Commonwealth of Virginia for a uranium mining operation (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).

By addressing these questions, 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; however, the study will not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted nor will the study include site-specific assessments.

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/05/07/chatham/news/news38.txt

VIRGINIA: Wide-ranging study of uranium mining proposed

Comment: How do you do a study and not come to the site?

By SUE LINDSEY
Associated Press Writer

May 7, 2009

ROANOKE, Va.

A study of proposed uranium mining in Virginia would range from market trends to technical practices to health risks, the National Academy of Sciences said in recommendations released Thursday.

A Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy subcommittee posted the academy's recommendations for the study online. The recommendations were made by the academy's working arm, the National Research Council. The Virginia panel will consider approving them at a May 21 meeting 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 to lifting that ban by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine a 119 million-pound Pittsylvania County deposit that is believed to be the largest in the nation. Its value is estimated at $7 billion to $10 billion.

"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. (who is paying for the independent study, not VA?)

The study won't take a position for or against the mining, the academy said, nor will it assess Virginia Uranium's site near Chatham. (do what? will it be arm chair assess?)

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

The academy proposed assessing short- and long-term health risks both to workers and the public.

The study would examine ecosystem issues and problems related to air and water pollution, the academy said.

Uranium in the U.S. has been mined only in the arid West, and opponents believe the more humid Eastern climate would increase adverse environmental effects.

Deborah Lovelace, whose farm is close to the deposit, was concerned the academy listed health and environmental issues after such topics as market trends, types of uranium deposits worldwide and technical mining options.

Effects on health and the environment should be studied before those other issues are addressed, she said.

"The study should be stopped if it's (mining) not safe," Lovelace said. "Why even spend the money?" (do what, if, it has never been mined safely anywhere in the world,except areas where the environmental law is so weak it favors the Uranium Mining!!)

But Del. Kristen Amundson, a member of the panel charged with commissioning an independent study, said she would be concerned only if health or the environment were not included in the review.

"I think there are very serious issues that would have to be resolved about safety and about environmental protection," said Amundson, of Fairfax. "I would really like to see someone with a very strong science background analyze those issues." (it is not rocket science, ask the miners or the downwinders about their water problems and their cancers all over the world!!!)

A company called Marline Uranium explored mining Virginia uranium in the 1980s, but its interest waned as the price of the ore fell. A spike in the price recently has revived interest in the mining.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--uraniummining0507may07,0,133661.story