Meeting set to discuss NUMEC groundwater contamination
The Army Corps of Engineers will hold a meeting on Jan. 29 on groundwater testing results from the nuclear dump in Parks.
The Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency did not find nuclear or chemical contamination above drinking-water standards for the groundwater tests conducted last year.
The Corps is leading the cleanup project, estimated to cost $250 million to $500 million. It could take up to a decade to complete.
Formally known as the Shallow Land Disposal Area, the 44-acre dump received radioactive and chemical waste from about 1960 to the early 1970s from the former Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. in Apollo and Parks, and its successor, the Atlantic Richfield Co.
BWX Technologies, known as Babcock & Wilcox, owns the site.
At the meeting, the Corps will present an overview of its testing results to the public.
It will provide representatives for residents to meet with one-on-one, said Dan Jones, Corps spokesman for the Pittsburgh District.
A number of government agencies have long been concerned about the potential for groundwater contamination from the 54-year-old nuclear waste dump, which is next to a residential community and an industrial park.
Although many of the 50 or so homes in the neighboring village of Kiskimere are connected to a public water system, some residents use well water for drinking and to water vegetable gardens.
Mary Ann Thomas is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-226-4691 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.