Nuclear Plant Promises Called Blank Sheet of Paper

Nov. 6, 2009

Piketon Area May Have Permanent Environmental Scars

By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter

Portsmouth, OH (HNN) A meeting of the Department of Energy¹s Site Specific
Advisory Board for clean up and reuse of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
Plant at Piketon brought forth a tug of war. Much like the Huntington
downtown Superblock which lay fallow for nearly 30 years, uses for the
contaminated site break down to two camps: Clean up the radioactive waste
that still kills former workers versus possibly attracting a so-called new
nuclear plant that would allegedly be safe.

The latter would bring jobs to an area starving for employment. But, many
nearby residents do not trust the statements that a Onew¹ nuclear plant
would not continue the odyssey of cover ups since the former facility opened
during the Cold War in the 1950s.

However, after an elaborate news conference in the summer of 2009, the
project dropped off the radar.

Activist and former Piketon employee Vina Colley, referred to past
contamination as a reason to avoid nuclear power. ³All of their drains and
laundry [water] where they washed contaminated clothes and [water from]
equipment washed off went into the local creeks, which emptied into the
Scioto River, then filtered to the Ohio and down to the Mississippi. We¹re
not the only ones affected. The whole world is affected by what these
nuclear facilities are producing and releasing into the environment.²

[Editor¹s Note: During the interview, which will run at a later date, Ms.
Colley alleged that radioactive materials at one time were sent from Piketon
to a facility at Huntington¹s old Nickel Plant. They contaminated a section
of the Huntington plant. Colley maintains the contents and building remains
from Huntington are buried around the Piketon facility.]

³I¹m open minded about a safe nuclear power plant. There never has been one.
How can people say naively this time we are going to have a safe oneS If
there is a contractor or company that can run a safe nuclear power plant,
nobody has seen it,² stated board member Terri Smith following the meeting.
³There¹s no record of it. You can always find EPA reports and independent
research reports on the flumes, plumes and toxins from the plant(s).²

David Krikorian, a 2010 Congressional candidate, explained to HNN that this
was his first Site Specific Advisory Board [SSAB] meeting. ³At first blush,
I noted a lot of contention.²

Krikorian, who ran in 2008 as an independent candidate for Congress in
Ohio¹s Second Congressional District, added, ³This federal reservation [the
plant site] has been used as a political football fot the last eight years.
Every two years a new proposal is trotted out to buy votes from the public.
There has yet to be an honest discussion as to what this facility should be
for the people¹s benefit who live in the area.²

Geoffrey Sea, a member of the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group, agreed calling
the proposed development an idea by ³two politicians to give the people of
this area a reason to vote for them to get more jobs. [They] put out an
imaginary unicorn of an idea, [but] there is no proposal. There is certainly
no funding.

Meanwhile, the SSAB meeting dwelt on the definition of financial conflict of
interest for board members. Terri Smith maintained that the majority of the
21 person board of which she is a member have direct or indirect financial
connections to the nuclear power industry.

Those inferences prompted one member to label it an ³attack,² rather than
inquiry. A school administrator countered that a new nuclear facility would
bring jobs.

Ms. Smith, a member of the Decontamination Decommissioning sub-committee,
responded that questioning a ³financial interest² is not an ³attack² and the
member ³may be taking the comment too personally.²

Despite the potential economic benefits, she stressed, ³How do we know it¹s
something better² and that it will be safe.

For instance, during the discussion, Brian Blair, Ohio EPA Division of
Emergency and Remedial Response, told the SSAB members, and in particular
the sub-committee on future use, that ³we¹re early² in determining the
³natural resources damage that is pertinent to the Portsmouth site.² Blair
mentioned that there could be ³permanent and long term damage² to the water,
as well as damage to the fish and wildlife populations.