Nov. 12, 2009
What to Do About Radioactive Contamination: No More Nukes versus Possible Jobs Fuel Discontent, Outrage
By Tony Rutherford
Huntngtonnews.net Reporter
Portsmouth, OHIO (HNN) – Some vocalized emotions enter meltdown mode when clean up and future uses of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (or A-Plant). The plant has not been a nuclear enrichment facility since 2001, but balancing future uses after clean up appear diametrically opposed: One group seeks to replace jobs lost in the Portsmouth-Piketon area with minute consideration of the potential consequences of a radioactive presence and another outraged group of former Piketon plant workers decry any reuse remotely connected with the nuclear power industry.
(Editor’s Note: To download in pdf form Documents related to the buried Huntington materials, click HERE. To download, all burial materials obtained regarding the Portsmouth/Piketon plant, click HERE)
Joni Fearing powerfully expressed her own life circumstances. Having moved away from Portsmouth, Ohio, her parents one of whom worked at the plant died. During the 2008 presidential campaign, she carried a “no nukes” sign which caught the eye of candidate John McCain.
“My father worked at that (uranium enrichment) plant for 10 years and died after doctors had found four different cancers,” Fearing said. “And there are many, many, many people who are ill today from working around nuclear power plants or nuclear facilities of any kind.” Asked by HNN to explain her view on other sick people, she detailed that when her dad worked at the plant , he brought home his work clothes to be washed by her mother. She too has since passed away. In short, Fearing believes that workers at the plant passed on their own radioactive and contaminant exposure to their wives, children and other people in their lives.
Illustrating her perspective Fearing told of watching “Silkwood” in a theatre. The production stars Meryl Streep as the 28-year-old nuclear worker caught in a small town where mostly uneducated townspeople face choices between toxic contamination and their livelihood. The real-life Karen Silkwood , a union activist, made plutonium pellets for nuclear reactor fuel rods at a Karr-McGee plant in Oklahoma. After making wrongdoing claims public involving plant safety, she died under mysterious circumstances.
“I’m sitting there in a movie theatre giving off radiation and I didn’t even know it,” Fearing said.
During a committee meeting of the Portsmouth EM Site Specific Advisory Board on Tuesday, November 10, co-chairman Richard H. Synder inquired to Brian Bias, an Ohio EPA representative, about the role of the state agency in the clean up.
“We are more of an auditor,” Bias said, which translates to allowing contractors to prepare critical samples, send them to Ohio EPA, and the finding are accepted. The agency would do “sampling and policing” to maintain the integrity of the process, though.
But, as discussions on Decontamination/Decommissioning and Future Land Use evolved, Snyder told Department of Energy and other government officials in attendance, “We need to know what the [quantities of] contamination levels are.”
Currently, the sub-committee plans meetings in January, February and March 2010 to hear presentations regarding recycling, waste removal/treatment, and the Decontamination/Decommissioning process.
One of the items passed out was an examination titled, “The Politics of Cleanup,” which emphasizes that trust must be developed amongst the stakeholders. However, the past lies (whether national security related or not) have left a bristled community --- one that would like to see possible jobs from development at the site, but strong disagreements emerge if the redevelopment has any nuclear connection.
Val Francis, co-chairman, stated, “What happened years ago is beyond us,” swiftly moving to the bottom line --- “Do we have your trust.”
Obviously, the answer varies depending upon who you ask, just members of the subcommittee, the full group, those present in the room, those unwilling or unable to express their opinion, and those thinking that nuclear is the only chance for an economic revival , discounting other energy producers such as wind turbines or even bio-fuels.
Subcommittee member Terri A. Smith question Francis on his move to the Portsmouth area. Having previously stated no connection to the nuclear industry, Francis revealed at the sub-committee meeting that he had in past years worked as a “consultant” for a Texas recycling facility where some of the Portsmouth waste may be sent.
“I didn’t do nuclear waste,” he defensively stressed. “I did hazardous waste.”
Activist and former plant employee , Vina Colley, told those gathered , “We do not trust EPA,” referring to them keeping secret the presence of plutonium and radium 226 at the site. “There is no trust. Give us experts so we can start building trust.”
But, experts charge fees. The committee has no funds, though, Colley called for an appropriation from stimulus money. “Tell the public what has been found,” she said, alluding that statistical interpretations can be skewed depending upon who examines the document.
However, future use does not have to equal new development. Based on the recent award of stimulus monies, $268 million dollar for a twenty one acre electrical switchyard, an eighteen acre cooling tower complex, an 18,000 square foot chemical engineering structure, and repackaging and disposing of about 1,000 metric tons of surplus uranium materials as well as excavation and treatment of groundwater contaminated with trichloroethene
U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) visited the plant Monday, Nov. 9, to provide an update on creation of ‘shovel ready’ jobs expediting the cleanup. Ines Triay, DOE assistant Secretary for Environmental Management accompanied the Senator.
Most of the subcommittee on future use listened to a presentation from the Kentucky Research Consortium for Energy and Environment, which according to its website is a collaborative effort of Kentucky universities administered by the University of Kentucky. The organization has been working extensively in the restoration of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (http://www.uky.edu/krcee/Welcome.htm).
At Paducah, the cleanup is of contaminants including radioactive plutonium, uranium and technetium, as well as beryllium, chromium, arsenic, PCBs and various other oils. The site has cylinders containing an estimated 486,000 metric tons of depleted uranium, and 52,000 drums of various chemical wastes.
(Editor’s Note: One internet site for wise-uranium.org discusses issues at the Paducah and Portsmouth plants. Quoting a United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional committee July 2, 2004 (GAO-04-692) the cost for decontaminating and decommissioning the Department of Energy's three uranium enrichment plants - located near Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio - will exceed the available funds by $3.5 billion to $5.7 billion. http://www.wise-uranium.org/epusec.html. The following is a link to a table from the Background Investigation Report of the University of Tennessee listing chemicals, soil and groundwater contaminants at the plant: http://rais.ornl.gov/tools/ports_background.html.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
What to Do About Radioactive Contamination: No More Nukes versus Possible Jobs Fuel Discontent, Outrage
By Tony Rutherford
Huntngtonnews.net Reporter
Portsmouth, OHIO (HNN) – Some vocalized emotions enter meltdown mode when clean up and future uses of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (or A-Plant). The plant has not been a nuclear enrichment facility since 2001, but balancing future uses after clean up appear diametrically opposed: One group seeks to replace jobs lost in the Portsmouth-Piketon area with minute consideration of the potential consequences of a radioactive presence and another outraged group of former Piketon plant workers decry any reuse remotely connected with the nuclear power industry.
(Editor’s Note: To download in pdf form Documents related to the buried Huntington materials, click HERE. To download, all burial materials obtained regarding the Portsmouth/Piketon plant, click HERE)
Joni Fearing powerfully expressed her own life circumstances. Having moved away from Portsmouth, Ohio, her parents one of whom worked at the plant died. During the 2008 presidential campaign, she carried a “no nukes” sign which caught the eye of candidate John McCain.
“My father worked at that (uranium enrichment) plant for 10 years and died after doctors had found four different cancers,” Fearing said. “And there are many, many, many people who are ill today from working around nuclear power plants or nuclear facilities of any kind.” Asked by HNN to explain her view on other sick people, she detailed that when her dad worked at the plant , he brought home his work clothes to be washed by her mother. She too has since passed away. In short, Fearing believes that workers at the plant passed on their own radioactive and contaminant exposure to their wives, children and other people in their lives.
Illustrating her perspective Fearing told of watching “Silkwood” in a theatre. The production stars Meryl Streep as the 28-year-old nuclear worker caught in a small town where mostly uneducated townspeople face choices between toxic contamination and their livelihood. The real-life Karen Silkwood , a union activist, made plutonium pellets for nuclear reactor fuel rods at a Karr-McGee plant in Oklahoma. After making wrongdoing claims public involving plant safety, she died under mysterious circumstances.
“I’m sitting there in a movie theatre giving off radiation and I didn’t even know it,” Fearing said.
During a committee meeting of the Portsmouth EM Site Specific Advisory Board on Tuesday, November 10, co-chairman Richard H. Synder inquired to Brian Bias, an Ohio EPA representative, about the role of the state agency in the clean up.
“We are more of an auditor,” Bias said, which translates to allowing contractors to prepare critical samples, send them to Ohio EPA, and the finding are accepted. The agency would do “sampling and policing” to maintain the integrity of the process, though.
But, as discussions on Decontamination/Decommissioning and Future Land Use evolved, Snyder told Department of Energy and other government officials in attendance, “We need to know what the [quantities of] contamination levels are.”
Currently, the sub-committee plans meetings in January, February and March 2010 to hear presentations regarding recycling, waste removal/treatment, and the Decontamination/Decommissioning process.
One of the items passed out was an examination titled, “The Politics of Cleanup,” which emphasizes that trust must be developed amongst the stakeholders. However, the past lies (whether national security related or not) have left a bristled community --- one that would like to see possible jobs from development at the site, but strong disagreements emerge if the redevelopment has any nuclear connection.
Val Francis, co-chairman, stated, “What happened years ago is beyond us,” swiftly moving to the bottom line --- “Do we have your trust.”
Obviously, the answer varies depending upon who you ask, just members of the subcommittee, the full group, those present in the room, those unwilling or unable to express their opinion, and those thinking that nuclear is the only chance for an economic revival , discounting other energy producers such as wind turbines or even bio-fuels.
Subcommittee member Terri A. Smith question Francis on his move to the Portsmouth area. Having previously stated no connection to the nuclear industry, Francis revealed at the sub-committee meeting that he had in past years worked as a “consultant” for a Texas recycling facility where some of the Portsmouth waste may be sent.
“I didn’t do nuclear waste,” he defensively stressed. “I did hazardous waste.”
Activist and former plant employee , Vina Colley, told those gathered , “We do not trust EPA,” referring to them keeping secret the presence of plutonium and radium 226 at the site. “There is no trust. Give us experts so we can start building trust.”
But, experts charge fees. The committee has no funds, though, Colley called for an appropriation from stimulus money. “Tell the public what has been found,” she said, alluding that statistical interpretations can be skewed depending upon who examines the document.
However, future use does not have to equal new development. Based on the recent award of stimulus monies, $268 million dollar for a twenty one acre electrical switchyard, an eighteen acre cooling tower complex, an 18,000 square foot chemical engineering structure, and repackaging and disposing of about 1,000 metric tons of surplus uranium materials as well as excavation and treatment of groundwater contaminated with trichloroethene
U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) visited the plant Monday, Nov. 9, to provide an update on creation of ‘shovel ready’ jobs expediting the cleanup. Ines Triay, DOE assistant Secretary for Environmental Management accompanied the Senator.
Most of the subcommittee on future use listened to a presentation from the Kentucky Research Consortium for Energy and Environment, which according to its website is a collaborative effort of Kentucky universities administered by the University of Kentucky. The organization has been working extensively in the restoration of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (http://www.uky.edu/krcee/Welcome.htm).
At Paducah, the cleanup is of contaminants including radioactive plutonium, uranium and technetium, as well as beryllium, chromium, arsenic, PCBs and various other oils. The site has cylinders containing an estimated 486,000 metric tons of depleted uranium, and 52,000 drums of various chemical wastes.
(Editor’s Note: One internet site for wise-uranium.org discusses issues at the Paducah and Portsmouth plants. Quoting a United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional committee July 2, 2004 (GAO-04-692) the cost for decontaminating and decommissioning the Department of Energy's three uranium enrichment plants - located near Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio - will exceed the available funds by $3.5 billion to $5.7 billion. http://www.wise-uranium.org/epusec.html. The following is a link to a table from the Background Investigation Report of the University of Tennessee listing chemicals, soil and groundwater contaminants at the plant: http://rais.ornl.gov/tools/ports_background.html.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
