The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this multimedia interactive. Get it here.

Plans for Piketon uranium plant meet new resistance

Uranium miners say it could depress the price of their ore.

Local Focus: Cincinnati for May 25
New 17 min. ago 5/25/12
Local Focus: Warren County for May 25
New 17 min. ago 5/25/12
Local Focus: Butler County for May 25
New 18 min. ago 5/25/12
Male teachers are rare in elementaries
New 20 min. ago 5/25/12
Fewer taking time off work
New 25 min. ago 5/25/12
> More headlines

By Jessica Wehrman, Washington Bureau 12:35 AM Saturday, February 4, 2012

WASHINGTON — Congressional opposition to a proposed uranium enrichment plant in southern Ohio appears to be growing.

Weeks after a Massachusetts lawmaker fired off a letter to the Secretary of Energy opposing a plan to use federal dollars to help create a uranium enrichment plant in Piketon, 13 congressmen — mostly from mining states — are expressing concern about aspects of that plan as well.

In a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu sent Thursday, the bipartisan group, which includes lawmakers from eight mostly western states, questioned the Energy Department’s January decision to assume USEC’s liability for $44 million worth of depleted uranium “tails,” which can be reprocessed to create more enriched uranium.

USEC, a Maryland-based company that also operates a uranium enrichment plan in Paducah, Ky., wants to phase out the Paducah plant and replace it with one using newer technology in Piketon, about 90 miles southeast of Dayton. The plan promises about 4,000 temporary jobs to Ohio and 400 permanent ones.

Earlier this year, a group of Ohio and Kentucky lawmakers that included House Speaker John Boehner, R-West Chester Twp., asked the Energy Department to assume the liability for USEC’s depleted “tails.” They also asked the department to begin re-enriching depleted “tails” at Paducah in order to extend the life of that plant while USEC moves toward opening its Piketon plant. The Energy Department has agreed to do the first, but not the last.

Writing Thursday, the western lawmakers expressed concern about both requests, saying they worried that putting more enriched uranium on the market could hurt the market price of uranium and have an impact on domestic mining industries.

“We recognize that other members of Congress have professed interests in the tails re-enrichment issue as a way to fund research on new enrichment technologies and extend the life of existing enrichment facilities,” the group wrote, adding that “As you consider their interests, we urge you to also carefully weigh our belief that predictability and transparent entry” of government uranium stocks into the market are “critical.”

The Energy Department announced it was assuming liability for USEC’s depleted uranium tails last month in order to help free up money for the company, which has sought a $2 billion loan guarantee for more than three years and has warned of impending layoffs if it does not soon secure some federal dollars.

Jen Stutsman, a spokesperson for the Department of Energy, said the department will take on liabilities for the uranium tails in exchange for enriched uranium.

The department, she said, “is continuing to review how it manages its uranium inventories, taking a number of factors into account, including our mission needs, our energy security interests, the cost to the taxpayers, and potential impacts on the domestic uranium market.

“As for the re-enrichment of uranium tails, while there have been a number of alternatives proposed by industry and Congress, the Department has not made a decision at this time whether to proceed with re-enrichment,” she said.

Share this article