Remember what coalition did |
Letters to the Editor

Remember what coalition did

The first thing to build at the Parks Township nuclear waste dump site is a memorial to the Kiski Valley Coalition to Save our Children ( “Amount of nuclear waste in Parks Township could remain unknown until 2031” ).

This group of local citizens prevented Babcock & Wilcox from building a nuclear garbage incinerator at the site.

We took on the company’s legal and technical staffs, which were bolstered by counterparts at the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Environmental Protection. These agencies, established to protect the public, were solidly backed by B&W. In fact, several members of the NRC staff were former NUMEC employees.

In addition, B&W had the support of elected officials. The only politician who supported our efforts was state Rep. Joe Petrarca.

Our breakthrough came when I found a provision in the Clean Air Act allowing local governments to establish more stringent air-quality standards than the federal government.

Our attorney prepared an ordinance based on tighter standards. Parks Township residents voted 80 percent in favor of this ballot referendum.

This was crucial to the cleanup because, as long as a viable operation existed, the company was not required to decommission the site.

The cleanup is slated for completion in 2031, 14 years hence. By that time, the remaining members of the coalition will have passed on. Without a memorial, no one will be aware of the efforts of this small group that saved the Kiski Valley from further nuclear contamination.

Jack Bologna

Parks Township

The writer was chairman of the Kiski Valley Coalition to Save Our Children.

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.