Uranium study gets green light

Comment:  No to uranium mining and milling!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Tuesday, February 23, 2010 6:36 PM EST

The National Research Council has agreed to conduct a statewide scientific study on uranium mining in Virginia.

William Kearney, a spokesman for the National Research Council in Washington, D.C., said a contract for the long-awaited study has been approved and signed with Virginia Tech.

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

"Once we have the signed contract and funding is released, we'll begin," Kearney said Tuesday.

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

According to Kearney, the first step will be for the National Research Council to solicit recommendations for experts to serve on the committee that will conduct the study.

He said the committee will be composed of about a dozen scientists from the National Academies of Science and Engineering as well as the council's own scientific staff, academia and government officials.

"The goal is to pick a committee with the expertise to carry out the objectives of the study and also be balanced from a scientific perspective," said Kearney.

Nominations will be posted on the council's website for a 20-day public comment period.

"The committee remains provisional until every member has complied with our conflict of interest policy," the spokesman said.

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.

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

Discovered in the early 1980s, the uranium deposit is one of the largest in the United States and is worth an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion.

The National Research Council presented its recommendations for a study in May to the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy's Uranium Mining Subcommittee.

The subcommittee, chaired by Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, voted 8-2 to approve a framework for the study and made public safety a top priority.

According to the National Research Council's "Statement of Task," the 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 for the purpose of assisting the commonwealth to 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."

In particular, the study will:

_ 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 risks from exposure to "daughter" products of radioactive decay of uranium.

_ Review global and national uranium market trends.

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

_ Analyze the impact of uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation operations on public health, safety, and the environment at sites with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic, and population characteristics to those found in the commonwealth. Such analysis shall describe any available mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate the negative impacts from uranium operations.

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

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

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

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

_ 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.

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

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

_ Provide a non-technical summary of the report for public education purposes (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).

The National Research Council, however, will not offer recommendations on whether uranium mining should be permitted, and the study will not include "site-specific" assessments.

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

Coal and Energy Commission chairman Del. Terry Kilgore said the state also plans to conduct a study of the socioeconomic impact of uranium mining.

The 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.

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

Read more:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/02/24/chatham/news/news50.txt

Study to examine uranium mining

Comment:  Ban uranium mining and milling!

January 27, 2010 6:00 AM

A study requested by the General Assembly may offer a clue to the future of uranium mining in Southern Virginia, a divisive issue in the region.

The National Research Council (NRC), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, has tentatively agreed to conduct a study of the safety and feasibility of uranium mining in the commonwealth.

The study was prompted by a proposal by Virginia Uranium Inc. to mine and mill a 119 million pound deposit of uranium ore near Chatham in Pittsylvania County.

For mining to begin, the legislature would have to overturn a ban imposed in the early 1980s.

Virginia Uranium and its supporters argue that the mining operation would be a boon to the regional economy and the state’s growing nuclear energy industry.
Opponents have raised concerns about pollution to streams and farms. Southern Hampton Roads, for example, draws much of its water from Lake Gaston, which is downstream from the proposed site.

Opponents also worry that uranium mining would damage efforts to attract young professionals to the region.

The NRC study will look at uranium mining operations in places around the world that resemble Virginia in population and weather conditions. (Uranium mining sites in the U.S. are in dry areas, which don’t offer a good comparison.)

The study, which will take 18 months, will not be the final word on the issue. It will only provide information for the legislature to consider in lifting or maintaining the ban.

Read more:
http://www.virginiabusiness.com/index.php/news/article/study-to-examine-uranium-mining/202867/

Open-Minded (Open-Mined) on Uranium Mine Study/ Mining: Decision time draws near

Comment:  Great Letter, Ms. Maute


Open-Minded (Open-Mined) on Uranium Mine Study

Callands-Gretna Supervisor Fred Ingram, in his recent editorial, says he believes in the importance of science-based study to determine the safety of mining. Curiously, at this late date, he expresses concern "that no one from Pittsylvania County is on the panel convened by the National Academy." He's about 2 years too late. Having no local representation on the Coal and Energy Commission and National Academy of Sciences is old news. Where was Ingram when these decisions were being debated and determined?

He now advocates that four open-minded citizens be placed on the panel to represent our best interests and to be a part of the study and deliberations in reaching findings as to whether mining is safe. Why this eleventh hour concern for citizen participation in the process? Is he, or someone else, having doubts regarding the ability of NAS to deliver the intended goods? Is Ingram concerned that the NAS may articulate the risks involved regarding uranium mining and milling in Virginia?

Who might he consider an "open-minded citizen"? Does he mean open-minded (open-mined) to the prospect of mining and milling of uranium or open to safegarding citizen's health, welfare and water resouces? Perhaps he means those who know nothing...the kind of people government seems to embrace regarding decision making. Who will aid Mr. Ingram in determining these open-minded citizens to help determine our fate?

I smell a rat. Whose agenda is Ingram really trying to advance?

Karen B. Maute


Mining: Decision time draws near


By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: February 2, 2010

To the editor:

It is time to move beyond non-binding resolutions regarding uranium mining and get to the real issues at hand.

All of us on the Board of Supervisors, as well as most sensible citizens, agree on the importance of the science-based study to determine the safety of mining. We should now wait for the findings of the National Academy of Sciences before taking any further action.

In the meantime, I remain concerned that no one from Pittsylvania County is on the panel convened by the National Academy. I believe we should have at least four open-minded citizens on the panel to represent our best interests and to be a part of the study — and a part of the deliberations in reaching findings as to whether mining is safe. I intend to ask the Board of Supervisors to send a letter making this request to the National Academy.

I offer these thoughts in the spirit of compromise and, I hope, reconciliation. My hope is not to squelch vigorous debate among board members but to encourage the unity we all would like to see on the board. There will be many points along the way involving permitting and zoning in which the board will have specific authority to be sure the right course is allowed.

I hope, too, that my resolve not to support any further resolutions on the uranium issue will clear the air as we await the results of the science-based study to provide us with hard facts instead of emotion in assessing the merits of the project.

I agree with many others — and as I told Gov. Bob McDonnell — that if the National Academy of Sciences finds that mining can be done safely, we must all be prepared to move ahead vigorously to bring new jobs and a fresh sense of prosperity to our region.

FRED INGRAM
Supervisor, Gretna-Callands District

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/mining_decision_time_draws_near/17589/

Va. Beach weighs in on (uranium) mining study

Comment:  Thanks VA Beach for another study that is not being paid by the greedy uranium corporations!  No to uranium mining and milling now!

By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: January 17, 2010

Here in the Dan River Region, the predominant public opinion about uranium mining and milling appears to be, “Wait for the study’s results to come in and then decide.”

If that’s how most people really feel, then it’s a triumph for Virginia Uranium Inc.

For more than two years, the (uranium) company wanted the National Academy of Sciences to study uranium mining and milling. They’ve got the study from the agency they wanted.
That hasn’t stopped Virginia Beach, which drinks Pittsylvania County water, from taking a keen interest in what might happen at Coles Hill, the site of a 119-million pound deposit of uranium ore.

Virginia Beach depends on Lake Gaston water, and some of the water in Lake Gaston flows past Virginia Uranium’s Coles Hill site.

For that reason, Virginia’s largest city is conducting a study of its own to determine what would happen if a weather-related disaster at Coles Hill affected the water supply it relies on.

“We’ve concluded that it’s very important (that) this be done,” said Thomas Leahy, Virginia Beach’s director of public utilities. “… We think it’s a question that has to be answered. No one else is going to do this study.”

The National Academy of Sciences is studying uranium mining and milling in Virginia.
Virginia Beach will spend $437,000 on its study. Pittsylvania County doesn’t have that kind of money, of course, but even it did, it’s unlikely that it would spend any money to study any aspect of the proposed project.

The Board of Supervisors can’t even bring itself to say that it doesn’t want uranium mining or milling in the new industrial megapark it’s building with Danville off Berry Hill Road.

Virginia Beach continued interest in this project — and its willingness to put its money where its concern is — represents a wild card VUI most likely never expected to see played.

Given the high stakes that are involved, we welcome any and every bit of credible, third-party information about this complex project. Virginia Beach has a stake in this project. Since 1998, they’ve consumed some of our water.

If they can’t drink it, we certainly can’t drink it.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/editorials/danville_editorials/article/va._beach_weighs_in_on_mining_study/17118/

Science Panel May Study Virginia Uranium Plan

Comment:  So people knew that Coles Hill had uranium deposits since the 1950's!  Strange!  No uranium mining or milling!

BY BETTY JOYCE NASH

A large deposit of uranium ore — possibly 119 million pounds, if geologists’ assessments bear out — lies beneath Pittsylvania County’s bucolic pastures.

But in Virginia, there’s the small matter of a 1983 state moratorium on uranium mining. State legislators had rejected a uranium mine study, but a Virginia Coal and Energy Commission subcommittee has authorized negotiations with the National Academy of Sciences to study the idea.

The stakes are high. The study could clarify long-term effects on air, water, and health.

Virginia’s Southside Walter Coles Sr. still remembers the early 1950s when a Geiger counter ticked up in response to what may be the biggest untapped source of uranium in the United States.

The signal was so strong that the geologist who brought the device, a friend of his father’s, thought it was broken. Nuclear was hot then. President Dwight Eisenhower had pitched “atoms for peace” in a 1953 speech to the United Nations. Nuclear fuel occupied a prominent place in a future of military might and peacetime energy.

Contaminated leftover materials and chemicals used in this kind of extraction process typically are collected in retention ponds. The prospect of overflow or failure of impoundments worries the state’s biggest environmental group because of Virginia’s comparatively rainy climate.

Most mines are out West, in arid climates, or in remote regions of Canada. At least one city that gets its drinking water from reservoirs downstream, Virginia Beach, has opposed it.

In 1979, however, Marline and Union Carbide drilled core samples until 1984 under mineral rights leased from the two families that own the land.

The firms back then also leased mineral rights to 16,000 acres in Fauquier, Orange, Culpeper, and Madison counties.

Uranium Supply and Demand

There was even an economic impact study on the possible Coles Hill uranium mine. But demand collapsed and the leases eventually expired in the wake of core meltdowns in 1979 at Three Mile Island, and 1986 at Chernobyl. Cost overruns, nuclear disarmament, and overestimates of electricity
demand also killed the 124 nuclear reactors then on the drawing board.

But nuclear’s looking, if not hot, then lukewarm. Nuclear reactors don’t directly emit carbon.

Nuclear does leave a footprint, though. Worldwide, uranium mines release carbon, processors discharge chlorofluorocarbons, also a greenhouse gas,
and then there’s that unsolved mystery — waste storage.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 offered investment tax credits and subsidies for construction, among other nuclear perks. That and the industry’s longtime federal insurance caps on accident liability have helped propel nuclear energy, and, by extension, uranium prices.

Virginia Uranium estimates its gross revenues at about $280 million annually depending on uranium prices, which long term are expected to average $70 per pound.

Back in the mid-1970s, uranium prices reached roughly $112 per pound, in 2006 dollars. Uranium sold for $7 a pound in 2002; the price is now about $42 per pound, down from $136 a pound in 2007. The $136 was “due to a lot of investors in this industry looking to buy and hold uranium,” says Nick
Carter of the Ux Consulting Co. “It’s now at a level where, in order for a lot of these new mines to be developed, there needs to be a much higher price.”

Production costs help determine viability. “Production costs at Coles Hill are unknown,” he says. “The costs typically are higher here than say Kazakhstan and the eastern countries because the regulatory system is much more stringent here than in Asia.”

The Unknown Element

The uranium mine at Coles Hill remains a largely “on paper” enterprise, with operations and output, employment, and other possible effects, good and bad, unknown to the larger community. No current laws address the mining of uranium.

The Virginia General Assembly, if it lifted the moratorium,would amend mining laws and draft regulations, according to Mike Abbott of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, which regulates coal mines in the state, among other duties. “Our agency would be involved in
drafting the language with input from a variety of stakeholders,
including the general public.”

Once the mine is decommissioned, then the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission specifies how the tailings, or waste,are to be managed. How water flows through rock may affect that.

From 1911 through the 1950s, a Canonsburg, Pa., site was inappropriately mined, but remediated by the government in the 1980s. While there were no milling-related traces in the surface waters of the nearby creek, the groundwater remains contaminated. Both surface and ground waters will be monitored in perpetuity, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Mines in remote Canadian locations, however, could prove similar in geology and hydrology to Virginia, according to Virginia Uranium.

Because this hard rock mine is breaking new ground, the Piedmont Environmental Council has requested that Virginia sponsor original research. “The first thing to do is study those areas comparable to Virginia — rainfall, geology, hydrology — to see if it’s ever been done properly,” says Todd Benson, a council attorney. “Show us five places where it’s been done comparably.”

Meanwhile, the firm’s parent has sold an 8 percent stake to a Canadian resource firm, Santoy, to raise cash, and plans to go public in Canada first. The United States has been out of the uranium mining business since the price collapsed, and Coles notes that there’s little mining expertise left on Wall Street.

Benson, for now, wants to make sure the study is sound. “It appears the best possible study will require you do in-thefield research,” he says, because of Virginia’s rainfall compared to the arid West. Waste lagoons could overflow in a heavy rain event, and inaccurate predictions would mean
trouble.

“Let’s look at where it’s been done -- has it been done anywhere comparable to Virginia? If it’s never been mined anywhere similar to Virginia, then at least we know we’re in uncharted territory.” RF

Read more:
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/fipfedrrf/y_3a2009_3ai_3awin_3ap_3a22-23_3an_3av.13no.1.htm

Uranium Study Finally Gets a Green Light (Not Really, NAS is not excited about the payment option)

Comment: Well, this paper is owned by the nukes and you can read all the propaganda on their site. However, this blog has a problem with the paper calling people names who are just worried about the safety of our families with uranium mining and describing the good people of Southside "just went off the deep end" because of worries of pollution from modern uranium mining! The so called editorial should just sign the name of "Nukes for Uranium Mining!" Please review the comments; at least the people Lynchburg recognize this paper as bunch of Nukes!

The News & Advance
Published: December 6, 2009

Word came Thursday that Virginia’s uranium mining study has gotten the go-ahead from a top panel of the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.

At last, science and rational thought seem to be prevailing in this decades-long dispute.

The National Research Council (NRC) is part of nation’s premier scientific organization. .

Since the early 1980s, Virginia has had a moratorium on mining and milling in place, due to concerns as to whether it could be done safely.

Virginia Uranium Inc., the company that is seeking to mine and mill the Coles Hill deposit, successfully lobbied the General Assembly last session to ask for the study, laying the groundwork for the eventual lifting of the moratorium.

Unfortunately, the Assembly didn’t appropriate any money to pay for the study, estimated to cost approximately $1.9 million.

That’s where diehard opponents of mining just went off the deep end in their battle against uranium mining.

Southside Concerned Citizens, chaired by Jack Dunavant of Halifax County, is one of the more rabid groups fighting Virginia Uranium and Coles family. They and their supporters called into question the impartiality of Virginia Tech, the energy research center and the National Academy of Sciences itself for being willing to conduct a study paid for with “tainted” money.

Reader Reactions
Voice your opinion by posting a comment.
Flag Comment Posted by packer2dogs on December 07, 2009 at 10:55 am
Somebody tell me where, anywhere, uranium has been mined safely with no effects to the local community.

Flag Comment Posted by Why the Hat on December 07, 2009 at 10:15 am
White House Is Urged to Help States With Nuclear Plants Stockpile Thyroid Drug: New York TIMES

WASHINGTON — After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress passed a law instructing the federal government to help states build bigger stocks of a simple, cheap drug to protect people near nuclear power plants in the event of an accident or terrorist attack.
But the 2002 law left a legal loophole allowing the White House to forgo distribution if officials found that there was a better way to prevent cancer than administering the thyroid drug, potassium iodide. And after years of delays, the Bush administration dropped the plan in 2007, saying evacuations would be a better alternative. [read: RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!]
The federal government already helps the 31 states with commercial nuclear plants stock pills for people within 10 miles, and some states have already distributed them in that zone. The provision sought to extend that radius to 20 miles.

Distributing them might also have a “misleading psychological effect,” he said, suggesting that the drug would protect against all health effects, rather than just the effect of radioactivity on the thyroid.

Well, nothing to worry about.

Flag Comment Posted by Martha on December 06, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Or, David, like something you would read on this comments site by some of the folks who post here, huh? Not you!

Flag Comment Posted by David on December 06, 2009 at 6:04 pm
The N&A describes the opposition as having gone off “off the deep end” and calls one of the opponents living in a neighboring county as “rabid”. I don’t know if I am for or against the mining in close-by Pittsylvania Co. yet—there are more things to consider than the N&A’s apparent whole-hearted endorsement. However, I have a feeling that the opponents have some points as well which perhaps the N&A should have considered, discussed and then dismissed if those points deserved. However, the name calling seems undignified in an editorial opinion—more like something you’d hear said on cable television by a talking head.

Flag Comment Posted by Why the Hat on December 06, 2009 at 8:45 am
—“the rabble rousing protestors” In the Middle?

First, it is disingenuous to equate nuclear power plants with uranium mining? Second, stop pretending that this mining operation will employ Southside Virginia. Third, if you are right with regard to the safety issue you should have no trouble “insuring” it through some reputable insurance company. (good luck!)

Flag Comment Posted by Why the Hat on December 06, 2009 at 6:02 am
The question of “can” something be done safely is easily answered. Certainly it can.

The question of “will” it be done safely is unanswerable. There in lies the problem.

Historically, uranium mining has been devastating to local communities. Increased cancer death and polluted and poisonous groundwater have resulted and then been abandoned by the corporate entities that caused the damage. The profits leave town and the federal government is left to clean up the mess with taxpayers money. The taxpayers are broke. The clean up never takes place. The localities wither and die as limited liability corporations move on to new locations. It starts all over again.

Read more at:
http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/opinion/editorials/article/uranium_study_finally_gets_a_green_light/22019/

Uranium study on hold (Virginia, NAS)

Comment: People of Virginia, notice the following comment: "proposed statewide scientific study on uranium mining", uranium mining will take place all over Virginia!!! Demand our leaders to ban uranium mining now! Also, NAS, do not take monies from the funneled money through Virginia Tech which comes from a for profit uranium corporation: Virginia Uranium Inc!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:24 AM EST

The National Research Council's governing board wants more time to set up a proposed statewide scientific study on uranium mining.

The council's executive committee met Tuesday afternoon in Washington, D.C., but delayed approving a contract for the study.

"Given the complexity with several institutions involved, our staff is continuing to work on how we will go about doing the study," said Jennifer Walsh, a spokesman for the National Research Council. "So, our standard statement of task and approval process is not yet complete."

The National Research Council, which includes the National Academy of Sciences, presented its recommendations for a study in May to the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy's Uranium Mining Subcommittee.

Commission Chairman Del. Terry Kilgore of Scott County still expects a contract with the National Academy of Sciences to be signed soon.

The study, which is expected to take about 18 months and cost an estimated $1.2 million, will be funded through Virginia Tech, with Virginia Uranium Inc. picking up the tab.

Kilgore said the state also plans to conduct a study of the socioeconomic impact of uranium mining.

Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining since 1982.

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

Click Title or Link to whole post:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/11/11/chatham/news/news50.txt

Funding the study (Virginia uranium study)

Comment: Thanks for the following statement from Ms. Maute: The R&B seems fond of editing letters. Please note that this paragraph (below) was cut from the original submitted editorial. The paragraph highlights an important aspect of this issue. It is unfortunate that the R & B chose to omit it.

"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."

Funding the study

By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: October 6, 2009

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
Danville, VA

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

Welcome funding (uranium mining in Virginia)

So France is chasing Virginia's uranium and I guess paying their people to write letters to counter the anti-uranium letters! Yes sir. those are the facts but they are too chicken to put their organization on the letter! If the Nukes like NAS, I will not trust the study at all! Go back to France; we do not want in our county or my state!

Heather Newcomb -
Lynchburg, Virginia Area -at AREVA NP

Welcome funding

By Published by The Editorial Board
Published: September 24, 2009

To the editor:

Katie Whitehead’s column, “State study? State money” (Sept. 20, page A11), questioned why the state government isn’t footing the bill for a National Academy of Sciences study of uranium mining.

Virginia is currently facing a $1.5 billion budget shortfall, which may grow over the coming months, and budget cuts include plans to lay off hundreds of state workers. At a time when the state is faced with eliminating jobs to balance the budget, decision makers are wise to engage the National Academy to study an issue that could bring hundreds of well-paying jobs to a region that badly needs them. Unemployment numbers in Southside Virginia (Danville, Martinsville and Pittsylvania County in particular) are among the state’s highest.

The National Academy of Sciences is an institution of Nobel Laureates and our country’s most esteemed academic and scientific experts.

The reputation of the National Academy is beyond reproach, and their research is conducted independently regardless of the source of funding. Virginians should welcome having the experts study the public health and environmental effects of uranium mining in Virginia, and trust that their findings will provide unbiased guidance to decisions of great importance to our energy future — and our economy.

HEATHER NEWCOMB

Lynchburg

http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/welcome_funding/14100/

State study? State money (Uranium Mining in Virginia)

Comment: Demand Virginia to ban uranium mining now!

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/