What the NAS study will — and will not — address

By By Olga Kolotushkina
Published: June 19, 2011

I’m writing to clarify some misconceptions about the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study of uranium mining currently under way.

First, the NAS study is simply not designed to give a definite answer to the crucial question of whether uranium mining can be done safely in Virginia. Instead, the scope of the NAS study calls for secondary research, a review of the literature and experiences with uranium mining elsewhere. The statement of work explicitly states that "the study will not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted nor will the study include site-specific assessments."

This is not a reflection on the National Academy of Sciences or on the qualifications of individual members on the uranium mining panel. In most cases, NAS studies are designed to provide definite answers to questions posed by study sponsors. For example, the National Academy of Sciences’ 2005 study of Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (known as BEIR VII) resulted in a very definite conclusion that even very low doses of radiation can cause cancer, and that 1 in 100 people will get cancer if exposed to the allowable "safe" dose set for general public under current federal regulations. Another related study currently underway at the NAS is expected to propose in December 2011 a specific methodology for quantifying cancer risks in population living around nuclear facilities.

Whether or not an NAS study results in a definite answer to specific questions depends on the scope of work; and the scope of work is proposed by a study sponsor.

The official sponsor of the uranium mining study is Virginia Tech, which is paid $300,000 by Virginia Uranium, Inc. as compensation for overseeing the study process and passing through $1.4 million to the NAS to cover the study expenses, as the National Academies’ policy does not favor funding from for-profit entities. It is Virginia Tech that took lead in developing the scope of work for the ongoing uranium mining study and managed to get most of its nominations appointed to the uranium panel.

The question is why doesn’t the NAS study’s scope of work ask for a definite answer to the only question that really matters — whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in Virginia? Maybe, because the answer to this question would be too simple.

My research has failed to reveal any sites where uranium mining has been done safely. Virginia Uranium Inc. has not been helpful in identifying such sites, either.

Even France, which has been used by uranium mining proponents as an example of successful reclamation, is no success story.

Radiological surveys of former uranium mining sites conducted by Commission de Recherche et d’Information Indépendantes sur la Radioactivité found radioactive contamination around each of the surveyed sites and raised issues with the lack of sufficient protection from contaminants and ionizing radiation of the general public living around those sites.

As a result of this omission in the study scope, instead of concentrating on the crucial question of safety, the NAS uranium mining panel spent a whole day during its last public meeting in Canada listening to presentations by two giants of the uranium mining industry, Areva and Cameco.

A world-renowned expert in nuclear and radioactive materials proposed as a speaker for that meeting by citizen groups representing hundreds of citizens, businesses, and municipalities was rejected by the NAS, leaving the communities that will be most affected by proposed uranium mining without any representation at the meeting thousand miles away.

It is important to remember that the livelihood of proponents of uranium mining depends on the ability to mine uranium at Coles Hill and other locations in the commonwealth.

This is where we differ: The livelihood of the Roanoke River Basin communities in Virginia and North Carolina depends on the availability of clean water and the projected image of a healthy, friendly, and attractive place to live and do business.

Uranium mining will tarnish the image of the region as a tourist and recreational destination. It will put the quality of our agricultural products in question. And it will destroy our chances to attract new businesses, as no company would want to relocate next to piles of radioactive waste.

All these concerns prompted around 50 groups and localities in Virginia and North Carolina to oppose lifting of Virginia’s 30 year ban on uranium mining. Over 30 of those groups and localities are in the Roanoke River Basin. Newly adopted resolutions opposing lifting of the ban keep coming every week.

The Roanoke River Basin communities that went on record in opposition to proposed uranium mining are especially concerned about devastating consequences of a potential uranium mill waste impoundment failure, as evaluated in the City of Virginia Beach study. That study was criticized by uranium mining proponents as based on an extremely unlikely event.

Kolotushkina is the regulatory and legislative adviser for the Roanoke River Basin Association and spokeswoman for the Dan River Basin Association’s Uranium Mining Task Force. She wrote this commentary for the Register & Bee.

Read more:
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2011/jun/19/what-nas-study-will-and-will-not-address-ar-1116325/