Village of Piketon Of?ce of the Mayor 411 West Street Piketon, Ohio 45661 (740) 289?8154 Billy R. Spencer Fax?(740) 289-3 565 Mayor September 29, 2017 The Honorable Rick Perry Secretary of Energy Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC 205i] Dear Secretary Perry, Congratulations on being confirmed as the fourteenth Secretary of Energy and thank you for taking the time to visit the DOE Site in Piketon, Ohio, where DOE is currently cleaning up the contamination le?; behind by the uranium enrichment operations. This cleanup project is the most important project in southern Ohio, notjust because it provides good jobs to about 2,500 people, but because it will remediate decades of chemical and radiological releases to the environment. A ?ill cleanup is imperative to future economic development at this site, and the Village of Piketon fully supports the effort, with one exception: we want the DOE to ship all the waste offsite instead of building a nuclear dump. Our concerns have been expressed through a third?party assessment, as well as through letters to your project office manager. The responses we have received from DOE are vague and our speci?c concerns remain unanswered. Our community is done arguing with your field managers. The community has made its position known through official instruments passed by the local elected bodies most affected by this decision. We oppose onsite disposal and request DOE immediately change course to ship all waste. We ?rmly believe DOE and the community would be better served by constructing a first?class intennodal facility to ship this waste by truck and train to approved off-site disposal facilities in arid climates with very few human and ecological receptors. We ask that you consider building an asset that is aligned with President Trump?s vision to improve our country?s in?astructure. An intermodal facility will attract development to our community and support the development of a domestic uranium enrichment capability. The good people of Piketon made great sacrifices to support this mission during the Cold War and we are con?dent that under your excellent leadership, this cleanup project will make our site and our community worth investing in. Again, congratulations and thank you for your commitment to visit Piketon. Village of Piketon 2017-11 AUGUST 7, 2017 A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN WASTE AT THE US DEPARTMENT OF PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS PLANT lN OHIO. WHEREAS the Village of Piketon conducted a Third Party Assessment to independently review the environmental studies completed and verify the data used by DOE at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant to make a decision to construct an onsite waste diSposal facility in ?Area WHEREAS the Third Party Assessment report indicates that the bedrock underlying ?Area is fractured below the level represented by DOE in public meetings, in the proposed plan, and in the responsiveness summary in the Record of Decision; WHEREAS the Third Party Assessment report also indicates that ?Area cannot meet the requirements of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). TSCA states that the bottom of the land?ll liner system must be at least fifty feet from the historic high water table. The data from reports indicate that the depth to groundwater measured from the ground surface at the landfill ranges from 21 feet to 97 feet; WHEREAS the Village of Piketon recognizes that the community at large opposes onsite disposal; WHEREAS the community?s position regarding onsite disposal was documented during the official public comment period and in official instruments passed by the local governments and recognized community groups. Documentation includes the PORTS SSAB Recommendation 15?05, public comments submitted by the Southern Ohio Diversi?cation initiative board members and legal counsel, and Resolutions passed by the Village of Piketon, Seal Township, Scioto Township, Scioto Valley Local School District, and the Pike County Career Technology Center; WHEREAS the Village of Piketon has full con?dence in the Ohio Delegation to secure suf?cient funding levels through appropriations to allow 0&0 activities to continue uninterrupted and in compliance with the Records of Decision for 0&0 of the facilities, without stockpiling waste onsite and without impacting current employment levels at the site; and WHEREAS the Village of Piketon commends DOE for successfully and expediently shipping legacy waste, waste generated by the current deactivation activities in the and waste generated by the demolition of other facilities, and expects DOE to continue to ship all waste as it is generated by 0&1) activities to approved offsite disposal facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE OF OHIO, that the Village of Piketon wishes to make it explicitly clear to the residents of Piketon and Pike County, the Ohio Delegation, and DOE that the community cannot accept the construction of an onsite waste disposal facility at the DOE Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. PASSED: {5455 7 MW DATE ATTEST: OFFICER #1 September 19, 291? A RESOLUTZON TO THE OF AN 055in WASTE DISPOSAL FAQLETY AT THE US DEPARTMENT OF PORTSMOUTH GASI-IOUS DIFFUSION i353 PIKETON, OHIO. WHEREAS the of Piketoo conducted a ihird Party Assessment to independentiy review the environmentai studies completed and verify the data used by ESE at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant to make a decision to construct an onsite waste disposai in "Area the Third Party Assessment report indicates that the bedrock underlying ?Area is fractured below the ievei represented by DOE in pubiic meetings, in the proposed piao, arid in the responsiveness summary in the Record of Decision; WHEREAS the Third Party Assessment report aiso indicates that ?Area 0? cannot meet the requirements of the Toxic Substance Control Act TSCA states that the bottom of the land?ii iiner system most be at least fifty feet from the historic high water table. ?the data from reports indicate that the depth to groundwater measured from the ground surface at the ranges from 21 feet to 97 feet; WHEREAS the Scioto Valiey Locai School District recognizes that the community at is rge opposes oosite disposai; the community?s position regarding oosite disposal was documented during the officiai pobiic comment period and in official instruments passed by the locai governments and recognized community groups. Documentation includes the PORTS SSAB Recommendation 15-05, pubiic commeots submitted by the Southern Ohio Diversification initiative board members and legai counsei, and Resolutions passed by the of Piketoo, Seai Township, Scioto Township, Scioto Vaiiey Local School District, and the Pike County Career Technology Center; WHEREAS the Scioto Vailey Local School District has toii confidence in the Ohio Delegation to secure sufficient funding levels through appropriations to allow {3&8 activities to continue uninterrupted and in compliance with the Records of Decision for of the without stockpiling waste oosite and without impacting current em ployment leveis at the site; arid WHEREAS the Scioto Vailey Locai Schooi District commends DOE for soccess?ioiitr and expo-die ntiy shipping legacyI waste, waste generated by the current deactivation activities in the and waste generated by the demoiitioo of other and expects DOE to continue to ship ail waste as it is generated by 0&0 activities to approved offsite disposal MOW, THEREFORE, BE ii RESGLVED BY VALLEY LOCAL SCHOOL DiS'i'RiC?i? BOARD OF EDUCATION, that the Scioto Vaiiey Locai School District wishes to make it explicitiy clear to the residents of the Scioto Vaiiey Locai Schooi District and Pike County, the Ohio Delegation, and DOE that the community cannot accept the construction of an onsite waste disposal facility at the DOE Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. Motion Mrs. ieokios Second Mr. Smith Mr. Cutler YEA, Mrs. JenkiplszEA, Mr. Smith YEA, Mr- Stockham Absent, Mr. Wooidridge YEA a 2. Megan Williams, TreasurerICFO essowtioii ii em? 4, 2917 A RESGLW TO oeeoss THE #592 om WASTE mm fACiifi?! TEE 13$ BF GASEQUS {3833, WHEREAS the of 9i?i?t0? conducted a ?i'hird Party Assessment to independemiy review the environmentai studies comoieteti and verify the data used by SSE at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant to make a decision to constroct an onsite waste disposal in "Area WHEREAS the Third 93mg Assessment report indicates that the bedrock unde?yiog "Area is fractured oeiow the ievei represented by ME in maze meetiogs, in the plan, and in the responsiveness summary in the Record of Decision; WHEREAS the Third Party Assessment report also indicates that ?Area cannot meet the requirements of the Toxic So bstance Contioi Act {ism}. TSCA states that the bottom of the iano?ii iiner system must be at least fifty feet from the historic high water tabie. The data from {3033?s reoorts indicate that the depth to groundwater measured from the ground 511 {face at the ranges from 21 feet to 97 feet; Wi?i EREAS Seai Township recognizes that the oommuoity at iarge opposes cosite disposai; WHEREAS the community?s position regarding onsite disoosai was documented during the ofticiai comment period and in offian instruments passed by the iota! governments and recognized community groups. Documentation iododes the PORTS SSAB Recommendation 15-05, pubiic comments submitted by the Southern Ohio Ebersi?oation initiative board members and iegai coonsei, and Resoiutions passed try the Viliage of Piketon, Sea! Township, Scioto Township, Scioto Vaiiey Looai Schooi District, and the Pike County Career Tech noiogy Center; WHEREAS Seai Township has fuii con?dence in the Ohio Deiegatiori to secure sufficient funding ieveis through appropriations to aiiow 9&0 activities to continue uninterrupted and in compiianoe with the Records of Decision for {3&9 of the facilities, without stockpiling waste Desire and without impacting current empioymeot iemis at the site; and WHEREAS Seai Township commends DOE for successfoiiy and expedientiy shipping iegaoy waste, waste generated by the current deactivation activities in the X826, and waste generated by the demoiition of other and expects DOE to continue to ship ail waste as it is generated by 0&3 activities to approved offsite disposai NOW, THEREFORE, BE 11' BY THE SEAL TRUSTEES, that Seai Township wishes to make it expiicitiy ciear to the residents of Sea! Township and Pike County, the Ohio Delegation, and 805 that the community cannot accept the construction of an onsite waste oisoosai at the EOE Portsmootii Gaseous Diffusion Piaot in Piketon, Ohio. jasor, Fostei' z" Date ?if s1 r? Paui Goode Date :5 fr?! (I I filo-k.? I Delbert Rigsby l/ {3 3 mam A?wm mw?wg; 5_ 21.: 3 -.- $359; "My-e104 - 3 Edd ,29 i? fre- ?21: . ?grag 52mg: :ggr? 5 Eff! A . - amaf $5795 wwm? i3? . \m 5. Commissioners Foster, Montgomery l7?ca44-5029?39fonfdd95bdc4c1 Shim! Commissioners Foster, Montgomery release statement on onsite waste disposal Staff Report Sep 13, 2017 Two Pike County Commissioners, Fred Foster and Tony Montgomery, released a statement on September 8 concerning the planned onsite waste disposal facility at the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant at Piketon, stating that they believe ?a pause is warranted? mtil all oftheir questions are answered. The statement also calls for a professional independent study of the site to be conducted with no links to those for or against onsite waste disposal. The complete statement from Foster and Montgomery follows: Many of you knowus (Tony and Fred) personally and should knowihat we mould never do anyhving that would hurt the people and More generations of Pike County. in fact, my family (Fred) lives pretty close to the site in question. Tony and i were not involved in all ofthe meetings (public and professional} and all the ?nal decisions that led to the ?nalization of the Onsite Waste Disposal Facility (OSWDF). Four counties (Floss, Scioio, Jackson, and Pike) concurred with the final decision that took over ?ve years to make, w'th the ?nal papemork submitted shortly afterl (Fred) entered office- in addition, this project has been underway for overlvro years! We are spending numerous hours, days, and weeks trying to become educated on this topic. We have spoken to numerous citizens and experts both for and against the OSWDF. We do not play dre political game. We want the hazardous and non-hazardous uasie cleaned up in the best way possible- We ABSOLUTELY want to see those unprotected, existing leaking land?lls and plumes inside perimeter road, that have been in the ground for 60 years, cieaned up! The hazardous materials dumped in those unprotected land?lls are the materials that exposed so many workers who eventually lost their lives. We vent to ensure that ALL the highly radioactive and highly hazardous materials are shipped out of Pike County We acknonledge the public controversy among those for and against the newconsolidated land?ll. Emotions are running high on both sides. Some believe that the OSWDF will not protect our people and environment. and others believe that it will and that it is the best feasible solution to get the site cleaned up COMPLETELY. We went to pursue having a professional independent study to evaluate the results of the Record of Decision Currently, in our opinion, we believe that a PAUSE is warranted until ALL our questions are ensue-red. is Thus, at this lime we CANNOT approve ofmovingjomerd with the OSWDF until a professional a-r r? he, independent study has been conducted, that has no links to either side, and all our questions are 5 gm are i535 if answered to allowus to formulate a ?nal opinion. i .. Mills We? inn Miami? will ?gw?r" new/?r Page 1 of 1 2017-09-28 08:12 2636 RECORD OF ORDINANCES WAVERLY VILLAGE COUNCIL REGULAR mom mm mm ammo? ?1-2917 mousns 17 Ordinance No. Pas-spr 20 WHEREAS the V?iage of P?teton conducted a Third Party Assessment to independentiy review the environmental studies completed and verify the data used by DOE at the ?ortsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant to make a decision to construct an onsite waste disposal facility in ?Area WHEREAS the Third Party Assessment report indicates that the bedrock underlying ?Area 9" is fractured heiow the love! represented by DOE in pubiic meetings, in the proposed plan, and in the responsiveness summary in the Record ofDecision; D?cannotmeetthe requirements of?ie Toachubstawe Control Act (TSCAJ. TSCA statesmatthe bottom of watertabie. The data from reports indicate that the depth to groundwater measured from the ground surfaceatdm iand?llranges?mn 21 feetto97feet; WHEREAS the Vi?age of Waveriv recognizes that the money at large opposes onsite disposai; WHEREAS the community?s position regarding oosite dispose! was documented during the official pubiic mom period and in of?cial instruments passed by the taco! governments and recognized community grades. Dowmenta?on inciudes the PORTS SSAB Recommendation 15-05, public moments submitted by the 501131831 Ohio Diversi?cation initiative board membersaod legaicouosei, and Resoiutioospassed hythe Viilageof Piketon, Seal Township, Scioto Tomm, Scioto Valley total School District, and the Pike County Career Tedinoiogy Caner; suf?cient funding ieveis through appropriations to a?ow 0&9 to continue uninterrupted and in mp?aoce with the Records of Decision for 0&9 of?te fadiities, without stodqn?iing waste mite and without impacting current employment levels at the site; and WHEREAS the image of Waveriy commends for successqu and amedientiy shipping {egacy waste, waste generated by the current deactivation in the and waste generated by the demolition of other and expects DOE to continue to ship 31% wasteasitisgenerated NOW, WEREFORE, BE 3T RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF WAVERLY, that the Viagra of Waveriy wishes to make it expliu'tly dearto the residents of Waverly and Pike ammo-92% Deiegatim, and construction Diffusion Piant in Piketon, Ohio. {Check out; one of the foilow'mg}: The second and third readings ofthisOrdioance are herebydispeosed with, at feast ?ve members of Cwnc'd comm-ring. This Ordinanceread oy?tieoniy, amiotitvofCouodi coouxrriog. windiest? WEW assume 2637 RECORD OF ORDINANCES wmang mugs: comma mam mam son-325m magmas gimme No 51.2817 Pat?; AUGUST 15 I 20 17 mm mm? This Ordinance is an anemic: the imdiate preservation ofthe public peace, health and safety of the citizens of Waverly, at ieast ?ve members of Council concurring. The Ordinance to go into effectthe eariieSt date authorized by 33w. Reading 1: Reading 2: Reading 3: 9/717 President of Councit, Tom Pattersan Date Attest: Roxanne 30993 Date submitted to Mayor: Approvedede by Mayor 4% Kempton Date aesownons. 40.17 .2917 A TO OPPOSE THE OF AN ONSITE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY AT TEE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-S PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSIOH PLANT 1N PIKETON, OHIG. the of-Piketon conducted a Third Party Assessment to independently review the environmentai studies compieted and verify the data used by DOE at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant to make a decision to construct an onsite waste disposal facility in ?Area WHEREAS the Third Party Assessment report indicates that the bedrock undedying "Area is fractured beiow the lava! represented by DOE in public meetings, in the proposed plan, and in the responsiveness summary in the Record of Decision; WHEREAS the Third Party Assessment report also indicates that ?Area cannot meet the requirements of the Toxic Substance Control Act USCA). TSCA states that the bottom of the iand?ii liner system must be at ieast fifty feet from the historic high water table. The data from reports indicate that the depth to groundwater measored from the ground surface at the iand?ii ranges from 21 feet to 9? feet; WHEREAS the Pike County Treasurer recognizes that the community at ia rge opposes onsite disposal; WHEREAS the community?s position regarding onsite disposal was documented during the officia! public comment period and in of?ciai instruments passed by the iocai governments and recognized community groups. Documentation inciudes the PORTS SSAB Recommendation 15-05, pubiic comments submitted by the Southern Ohio ?iyersi?cation initiative board members and iegal counsei, and Resolutions passed by the of Piketon, Seai Township, Scioto Township, Scioto Vaiiey Local School District, and the Pike County Career Technology Center; WHEREAS the Pike County Treasurer has confidence in the Ohio Delegation to secure suf?cient funding levels through appropriations to aiiow activities to continue uninterrupted and in compliance with the Records of Decision for 0&9 of the without waste onsite and without impacting current empioyment ieyeis at the site; and WHEREAS the Pike County Treasurer commends DOE for successfully and expedientiy shipping legacy waste, waste generated by the current deactivation activities in the X-326, and waste generated by the demolition of other facilities, and expects DOE to continue to ship 3? waste as it is generated by 0&0 activities to approved offsite disposal NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY TREASURER, that the Pike County Treasurer wishes to make it explicitly ciear to the residents of Pike County, the Ohio Delegation, and DOE that the community cannot accept the construction of an onsite waste disposal at the DOE Portsmouth gaseous i?psion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. 3* i r? . if"? I .3 ,f .5. I, Donaid E. Davis, Pike County Treasurer Date Portsmouth EM Site Spec?c Advisory Board Chair William Henderson El Vice Chair Bolt: Bert}: ?reard Members Lisa. lieonen Maddelioe C. Caudill Carlton Cave Al Don Cisco Martha A. Cosby Ervin Craft .lol'm T. Evans Carl R. l-lattley Brian F. Huber Ronda i. Kinnamon Ryan E'l. Knight Neil heist Bernard 5. Neal IrmaC. Payne Cristy l3. Renae; Judy R. Vollratli {)epoty ?esignatcd Federal Of?cial .loel Bradbome EEOE Federal Coordinator Greg Simonton Recommendation 1 5?05 September Ti, 20 l. 5 REC8MMENBATEON 15-85: Portsmouth Environmental Management (EM) Si?e Specific Advisory Board (SEAR) recommends modification to Waste EEiSpositioa Record of Becision (303} in May 2013, the FORTS EM SSAB passed Recommendation 13?02. which outlined the board?s position on waste disposition at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffosioo Plant. The board?s position was in line with community sentiment and supported on-site diSposal of some decontamination and decommissioning waste only if The US. Department of Energy (DOE) could explicitly meet six conditions. No waste from off?site locations The consolidation of land?lls within Perimeter Road The consolidation of plumes within Road A concerted effort to recover and recycle nickel with the understanding the nickel barrier material was prohibited from on-site disposal a The prohibi?iioo of any material in an}! of its forms into the consite disposal cell A Department of Energy land use plan on par with the one compleied for the Miamisborg Mound facility 8 0 9 Following the Proposed Plan in 2014. DOE conducted a Public Comment Period when community groups. among them the PORTS EM objected to the language because it resulted. in a lack. of commitment from D05 on the conditions for support. Comments were made to strenglieo language in the Record of Decision but those comments were ignored. Under the current Record of Decision (ROB), the community has no guarantees for the cleanup program to accomplish the objective of leaving land within Perimeter Road in a suitable condition for redevelopment, which was the main purpose for our support of partial on?site dESposal. Additionally, there is no guarantee from DOE the prohibited items ouilined above would not be placed in the on-site disposal cell. The PORTS ELM SSAB, elected of?cials, and other community groups have acted in good faith throughout this process and have no reason to question intent as anything but genuine. However, without a ?rm regulatory commitment from DOE, circumszances could change in. the future resulting in a change to those intentions. After all, by the time waste would be placed in the on-site disposal cell, a new administration. will oversee 90E. DOE has not met the conditions for supper: for on~site disposal and the community is ieft in a vulnerable position. and that is unacceptable. RECGMMENBATEGN: The PORTS EM SSAB withdraws support for on-site disposal under the current conditions and recommends DOE modify the Record of Decision (ROD) to strengthen DOE commements that are required by the community for support of oo~site waste disposal. The PORTS EM SSAB does not object to plan for of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, only the lack ofcommitmeni' from DOE to complete the project in a manner that will foster future development. The board 3862 Sabrina Roan SUITE: 3 19 a Ol-llO 456614? understands the need for 00E so continue Oil-Site Waste Disposal Faei?ty (OSDC) efforts :0 efign waste disposal with 985D and dees not object to these efforts continuing, bus DOE should recegnize the community expects these regulatery de?ciencies to be addressed before any waste placement occurs. in ether werdse eensime?en efforts shouid be censidere? at risk uzztii the commun?y's eendiziens for support of on?site dispesa} are satis?ed. As aiways, the PORTS EM SSAB apprecia?ies willingness to communicate with the PORTS EM SSAB and 31% community groups. We ioek forward to these reguiatery de?ciencies being addressed eed working with DOE on this issue and future issues as the [3&3 program is executed. Thank you. i862 ROAD Sigma 1 29 Revers. OHEO 4566 1 Concerns about cnsite waste disposal c626ea5-71 T1-5033?3d94?97c2785c29f5htni Concerns about onsite waste disposal not new Staff Report Sep 23, 2017 Updated Sep 23. 201? With some eiected officiais and other area residents speaking out against onsite waste dispose! at the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Piant at Piketon, some may assume that the issue of waste disposal is a new one. fact, concerns were raised by iocai residents shortly after the Record of Decision (ROD) concerning waste dispose! atthe site was agreed upon byihe US. Department of Energy (DOE) and Ohio EPA in 2015- in September 2015, the PORTS EM SSAB {Site Speci?c Advisory Board) passed Recommendation 15-05, withdrawing its support for onstte waste disposal under cment conditions and recommending that DOE modify the Record of Decision to strengthen DOE commitments that had been required for SSAB's previous conditional support of onsite waste disposai. The background information provided with Recommendation 15-05 expiained that the SSAB passed previous Resolution 13?02 in May 2013, the board?s position on waste disposition atthe Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Piant. Recommendation 1302 supported waste disposai of some decontamination and decommissioning waste cniy if DOE couid explicitiy meet six conditions: i. No waste from off-site tocations 2. The of land?lls within Perimeter Road 3. The consolidation of plumes within Perimeter Road 4. A concerted effort to recover and recycle nickel with the understanding the nickei barrier material was prohibited from on?site disposal 5. The prohibition of any DUFS materiai in any of its forms into the on?site disposal cat! 6. A Department of Energy tend use plan on par with the one completed for the Miamisburg Momd ?Following the Proposed Pian in 20?! 4, conducted a PLbiic Comment Period when groups, among them the PORTS SSAB, objected to the ianguage because it resuited in a lack of commitment from DOE on the conditions for support," the background information for Recommendation 15435 stated in?part. Comments were made to strengthen ianguage in the Record of Decision (ROD), but those comments were ignored- Underthe current Record of Decision, the community has no guarantees forthe cleanup program to accomplish the objective of leaving land within Perimeter Road in a suitable condition for redevelopment, witch was the main purpose for our support of partiai cn?site disposai. ?Additionaiiy, there is no guarantee from DOE the prohibited items cuttined above wouid not be placed in the on?site disposal cell- The Portsmouth SSAB, elected of?cials, and other community groups have acted in good faith throughout this process and have no reason to question DOE's intent as anything but genuine. However, withouta ?rm regulatory commitment from DOE, circumstances couid change in the future resuiting in a change to those intentions. After ail, bythe time waste wouid be pieced in the on?site disposal ceii, a new administration oversee DOE. DOE has not metthe conditions for support for on-site disposal, and the communityis left in a vuinerable position, and that is unacceptable.? Recommendation 15?05 itsetf states that PORTS SSAB does not object to pian for 9&1} of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Piant but oniythe lack of commitment from DOE to complete the proiect in a manner that wi ii foster future development. Page 1 of 4 2017-0948 98:06 Concerns about onsite waste disposal ?The board understands the need for DOE to continue On-Site Waste DiSposal Facility construction efforts to align with activities and does not objectto those efforts continw'ng, but DOE should recognize the community expects these regulatory de?ciencies to be addressed before any waste placement occurs,? the recommendation states in?part. "h other words. construction efforts should be considered at risk urrlil the community?s conditions for support of on-site disposal are satis?ed.? in response to the SSAB recommendation, the Pike Comty Commissioners wat thattime Harry Rider, Fred Foster and Blaine Beekman ?weighed in with a letter to Will Henderson, then-chair of the SSAB, expressing concerns over recommendation withdrawing support for onsite waste disposat- ?We share the concerns listed in your bullet points, but ow responses are quite dissimilar, re?ecting our very different responsibilities,? the commissioners? letter stated ?As an advisory board, the SSAB was comfortable issuing a basic tilimatum that mtii the bulleted issues were addressed, the SSAB was withdrawing its support forthe onsite disposal cell. ?As elected of?cials in almost constant negotiation with DOE on various site issues, the Pike County Commissioners studied the two Records of Decision to see what points were de?nitely disapproved and found none. We realize thatthe Records of Decision were pathways- They were not exact blueprints and working out the details wiil take time.? The commissioners stated ti'at they will continue to work with DOE and contractor ?to ensure the necessary commitments to achieve the future site vision, most signi?cantly with the consolidation of the existing plumes and land?lls. While the Record of Decision language is not as strong as we would have preferred, DOE does appear to be moving forward with the actions necessaryto achieve the future vision. We. as elected of?cials, and your board as advisers to DOE are privylio detailed cleamp plans well in advance oft-he actual ?eld execution. We see our role as being watchdogs to see that DOE does not vary from its cemmitments.? ?Your declaration that all the bulleted items need to be addressed before you can return support for the waste disposal facility seems shortsighted,? the commissioners? letter continued- ?Some issues are more complicated and time-consuming We commissioners have learned that patience is required when working on a project on the DOE site." The commissioners stated that they are concerned with some of the wording in the two Records of Decision but that they understand that those issues will continue as part of ongoing discussions between themselves and DOE. ?in your Recommendation section you make the statements that should recognize that the community eiqoects these regulatory de?ciencies to be addressed before any waste ptacements occur.? it hardly seems likely that all of your bullet points are going to be addressed quickly." the commissioners stated- ?By your statement. you would expect the onsite waste disposal cell not to go irdo use. ?This womd apparently slow some of the planned clean to) activities. We have been very concerned aboutthe failure of DOE to provide suf?cient funding to carry out the cleanup- We are concerned that the same group in DOE that denied us suf?cient funding will seize upon your reaction as an excuse to make further cuts, or to try to stop the cleanup effort altogether." In response to that letter, Henderson mote a letter explaining his perspective on the subject The News Watchman is reprinting that letterfrom October 2015 in in its entirety in order to provide more context forthe current debate: FellowCiir'zens of Southern Ohio, 1 read with interest the recent article published in the area newspapers regarding the Pike County Commissioners?request that the Portsmouth Site Speci?c Advisory Board (SSAB) showpatr'ence regarding us. Department of Energy commitments for communin/ support of an Orr-Site Disposal Cell Page 2 of 4 2017-09-28 08:06 Concerns about onsite waste disposal not..- (OSDC). lam the SSAB chairman and in my ?lth year of board leadership, in this letterl will not presume to speak for the board, only myself, but lbelieve the public deserves a broader analysis on this issue- The all? volunteer, non-compensated was designed and chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FA CA), to provide advice from the community/s perspective to DOE on issues related to the Piketon site. After years of technical brie?ngs, in-depth analysis, interaction with other DOE sites and various consultations, the board passed a recommendation in 2013 that supported the nuclear waste facility under certain pie-conditions that mould foster hrture economic development. in essence, the board expressed a position that it did not vent an OSDC in the community, but the commitments from DOE would make it tolerable to the citizens of southern Ohio. This position was supported by all county commissioners from Pike, Jackson, Ross and Scioto counties. Everyone should be in agreement that the sites current condition is not viable for redevelopment, therefore, the community?s future potential is linked to regulatory commitments on behalf of DOE. So let?s review DOE. issued a Proposed Plan in 2014 that touted the community?s support for the OSDC but did not offer DOE commitments the community sawas pro-cursors for support (land?ll and plume consolidation, prohibition of nickel barrier material and DUF6 material in the 0800). Objections were made by the SSAB, U.S. Senator Sherrod 3mm, and none other than members of the Pike County Commission. Those comments indicated to DOE, along saith the Ohio EPA, that the language needed to be strengthened in the final Record of Decision that outlined the path forward. Those comments were ignored, and that has left this community in a vulnerable position. All of this is in the context of DOE continually failing to fund this project in a manner that allons our site work force, our regional businesses, and in fact the southern Ohio economy, to function with any sense of stability. As this letter is written, needy 500 workers with the cleanup operations have uncertain fates because of a landing shortfall, and have only received a limited reprieve through the Continuing Resolution until the middle of December. The plug was also pulled on the American Centrier Project. 80, as we sit mired in the obvious that DOE has not made this project a priority we are weeks away from construction activities beginning on a nuclear waste facility without key DOE commitments that are critical to ?rture site development. Howdid we allowthis to happen? Should we not consider this absurd and wholly unacceptable? Would a bank lend money iddrout an agreement? Would an insurance company provide coverage w'thout an agreement? Would business partners enterinto partnerships without an agreement? Would anyone rent a house w?thout an agreement? Why is this even a debate? The SSAB is still in alignment smith DOE is path toward, so long as DOE stops making excuses about uh it cant make any commitments to this community. The regulatory complexities are understood by everyone, but should that mean the community just throwits hands in the air and surrender its convictions? Of course not. The SSAB has spoken clearly and directly, and its position is supported by elected o?icials horn Pike County to Washington. 80, a sincere, genuine question u? not meant to be in?ammatory? is worth raising. Howmuch patience should this community have regarding DOE ?3 lack of commitment and when should it run out? Certainly, everyone can agree that it should be before nuclear waste is placed in our community. Will Henderson Waveriy, Ohio Page 3 of 4 2017-0928 08:06