ShareThis Page
Appeals court refuses lawsuits against Apollo uranium plant |
Valley News Dispatch

Appeals court refuses lawsuits against Apollo uranium plant

| Wednesday, August 23, 2017 3:48 p.m
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear lawsuits that claim Apollo area residents suffered from cancer caused by radiation from the former Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. The NUMEC plant, seen in this photo circa 1961, made nuclear batteries known as radioisotope thermoelectric generators. The plant, which was located just off of the Apollo Bridge, was razed decades later.

A federal appeals court refused to reinstate lawsuits alleging that exposure to radio­active emissions from a former nuclear fuels plant in Apollo caused cancer among residents.

The federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 90-page ruling released Wednesday, said it agrees with a lower court ruling that dismissed lawsuits filed on behalf of more than 70 people who claimed their cancers were caused by radioactive emissions from the former Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. plant.

The defendants are Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group and the Atlantic Richfield Co., which operated a uranium fuel-processing plant founded by the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp., or NUMEC, in Apollo and a plutonium plant in Parks Township. The plants operated from about 1957 to the mid-1980s.

The individual lawsuits for the 70-plus area residents were filed by attorneys from Motley Rice’s law firm in Providence, R.I., and a Pittsburgh law firm, Goldberg, Persky and White.

In their decision, the 3rd Circuit judges determined that the plaintiffs were missing critical elements for their case to go to trial:

• Although the plaintiffs had cancer and resided in or close to Apollo, there were other factors the court looked at, among them that some plaintiffs had extensive smoking histories and some had multiple cancer diagnoses over their lifetimes.

• “Even with state-of-the art data, it is impossible to determine with certainty that radiation is the cause of a given incidence of cancer,” the judges’ ruling stated.

• The alleged excessive radio­active emissions sparked major arguments between plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs cited emissions data from the plant’s stacks many times over permissible levels. However, the defendants argued that regulatory agencies instead relied on readings from air monitors at the edge of the plant’s roof and at the boundary of unrestricted areas.

• The judges ruled that the plaintiffs’ experts failed to provide “evidence of exposure to inhaled uranium from the Apollo plant and an estimate of the dose they received which caused their cancers.”

This round of lawsuits, first filed in early 2010, has sustained some challenges. In 2014, a federal judge overturned a ruling, keeping the lawsuit alive by allowing primary expert testimony for the plaintiffs to stand.

This latest round of lawsuits cover residents whose illnesses didn’t manifest until after the first civil action and other exceptions.

The companies always have maintained that their operations did not cause illness or damages.

Attorneys for the defendants and plaintiffs did not immediately return phone calls for comment late Wednesday afternoon.

Mary Ann Thomas is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 724-226-4691, or via Twitter @MaThomas_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.