4 February 2012 Register   Login
Library

ANA in the News
Speakers take dim view of storing toxic mercury in KC
published Monday, July 27, 2009  1516 Views :: 3 Comments
Posted on Thu, Jul. 23, 2009

Speakers take dim view of storing toxic mercury in KC
By CHAD DAY
The Kansas City Star

Take Kansas City off the list of potential storage sites for the nation’s
elemental mercury, residents and others urged federal officials tonight.

The opposition came during at a meeting held by U.S. Department of Energy,
which is preparing an environmental impact statement on storing the toxic
metal at the Kansas City Plant on Bannister Road.

City Councilman John Sharp said the storage facility would be ill-placed in
a residential area and would deter commercial development there.

“This is not a place I would pick to put a toxic metal storage facility,” he
said.

He asked the energy department to stop the year-long process of preparing an
environmental impact statement because it “will put a damper on our economic
development.”

The City Council has passed a resolution opposing the storage of the toxic
metal at the plant, and representatives from Councilwoman Cathy Jolly’s and
U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s offices read letters opposing the project.
Cleaver, a Democrat, earlier had spoken against the facility.

About 40 people attended the meeting at the Embassy Suites Hotel. About half
spoke, and only one person expressed support for the storage facility,
saying it could bring jobs to the area.

Jill Mesmer, who lives near the plant, said she worried that mercury storage
would discourage people from moving into the neighborhood.

“It’s a beautiful area,” she said. “It could be a success, but something
like this would definitely be a deterrent for anyone to buy up there.”

Kansas City is one of seven sites the Department of Energy is considering
for the mercury storage as required under the Mercury Export Ban Act of
2008.

The act mandates the storage of the nation’s estimated 10,000 tons of
mercury waste in one facility or just a few by 2013.

Others who spoke tonight said the site is already heavily polluted with
cancer-causing chemicals, and cleanup costs could run into the hundreds of
millions.

But federal officials have said there is little danger in storing the toxic
metal there, and the thick concrete floors and walls and 500-year flood
protection of the Kansas City Plant make it a good fit.

The site met the energy department’s seven criteria for housing the mercury,
said Bill Levitan, the director of environmental management office of
compliance for the Department of Energy.

The plant already stores a liquid alloy of mercury for commercial use,
according to a National Nuclear Security Administration memo written on
April 24.

Levitan, who presented the proposal at the meeting, said the presence of
mercury was not a reason for recommending the site.

In an interview, Levitan said the energy department does not yet know how
many jobs the storage facility would create, but he estimated it would be
fewer than 100.

The other sites in consideration are the Hawthorne Army Depot in Nevada, the
Hanford Site in Washington state, the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho,
Waste Control Specialists in Texas, the Grand Junction Disposal Site in
Colorado and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

The energy department must develop environmental impact statements for each
site. Final versions are expected next summer.

To reach Chad Day, call 816-234-4188 or send e-mail to cday@kcstar.com.

© 2009 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.kansascity.com


 



© 2012 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability   |  Citadel Hosting  |  Terms Of Use  |  Privacy Statement