Public concerns over the uranium discovered recently in Rattlesnake Creek were laid to rest Thursday night, as the Army Corps of Engineers assured city and town of Tonawanda residents at a public meeting that the contamination was minimal and presents no risk to those who live in the area.

Rattlesnake Creek is a mile-long tributary of Two Mile Creek, which runs parallel to River Road from the town and into the city where it drains into the Niagara River.

David Conboy, the Corps' chief of environmental analysis, outlined the results of a recent investigation during the hour-long meeting held at the Phillip Sheridan Building at 3200 Elmwood Ave.

The sedate audience consisted of approximately 25 residents and representatives of For A Clean Tonawanda Site (FACTS), a local environmentalist group.

A total of 34-soil samples, were taken in and around the creek. And Mr. Conboy said Uranium- 238, which gives off little radiation in comparison to other radioactive contaminants, was the primary element found.

"The highest elevation (U-238) is not enough to present a risk," he said. "Our main focus here is the protection of human health and the environment."

Other contaminants such as Thorium, Radium and U-235 were found, but their concentration was significantly lower than U-238.

Mr. Conboy said the Corps used several scenarios during its testing to ensure that the radiation would not be a threat.

Because the land is zoned for commercial use, he said, a measurement was calculated to determine how much radiation an industrial worker would receive, if the waste was found above ground instead of 18 inches below the creek's surface.

In that situation, the worker would be exposed to one-third of the maximum amount which is deemed safe by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Similarly, a child who played in the creek for two hours a day for 120 days per year would receive less than 4 percent of the maximum amount he said.

The Corps also developed a more conservative estimate, he said.

Although the land is not zoned for residential housing, the Corps figured that a person who lived at the site of the highest contamination would be safe, even if they used the soil for gardening.

Such a person could eat food out of their garden and they would only be exposed to 60 percent of the allowable limit, Mr. Conboy said.

The few public comments that were made were led by FACTS Treasurer Don Finch and Bill Watson, a city resident and member of the city environmental board.

Mr. Finch said the findings in the creek might be low, but he would like to know why the Corps does not discuss the cumulative effects of all of the radiation people receive daily.

"When you figure it all in there is a risk," he said.

Mr. Conboy said the Corps has no data to conduct such a study. There would be too many variables depending on the individual in question, he added.

Mr. Watson asked the Corps if the hypothetical child playing in the creek would be more at-risk if the contaminated soil was in his or her shoes.

Mr. Conboy said the amount of exposure would increase, hut it would still be below the federally allowable limit.

Town Councilman E. William Miller said everyone should keep in mind that the land is privately owned and children would be trespassing if they were to go on the land.

When the issue arose last month, the radiation was suspected to have been caused through runoff from the nearby Ashland II radiation waste site. That site, which is located at 4545 River Road, was recently cleaned up by the Corps. The land had been used as a dump for the radioactive waste generated during the construction of the atomic bomb during World War II.

However, the Corps said the testing results do not support the Ashland II runoff theory. More testing will be done this fall, Mr. Conboy said, which could determine the cause.

But where the contamination came from is not the pressing issue, he said. As long as the radiation levels remain minimal, there will be little risk.

EDITOR'S NOTE:

Seems that no one (DOE, NRC, USACE) wants to discuss the CUMULATIVE exposures involved when working, living or recreating in these radioactively contaminated areas. It's always a comparison to how much exposure one gets from the solar system, naturally occurring radioactivity, eating a banana, etc., etc.

Town Councilman E. William Miller's comment that "everyone should keep in mind that the land is privately owned and children would be trespassing if they were to go on the land" makes one wonder. Since when did young children worry about being in danger of trepassing on privately owned land?