Residents urge caution over proposed uranium enrichment and DOE projects near Paducah

Residents at the Paducah City Commission meeting on May 12 urged officials to press for more coordinated environmental review and clearer economic accounting of multiple proposed projects near the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

Erica Moore, who said she lives at 422 North 7th Street in Paducah, described a cluster of proposals including a lease for a uranium enrichment facility on the federal Superfund site, a proposed 665‑acre Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) project on adjoining private land, and Department of Energy solicitations for an AI data center and a co‑located small modular reactor. "The projected cost to clean that up is $17,000,000,000, and the projected completion date is not until 2065," Moore said, citing the site's estimated cleanup cost and arguing the city and county deserve answers about placing new industrial activity nearby.

Moore also raised the scale of public incentives tied to the projects: "A $113,000,000 in tax incentives have already been committed to just the first two projects alone for 380 permanent jobs combined," she said, adding that the job numbers are spread over 15 years. She asked why private firms would build on new, undeveloped land next to the contaminated site rather than use federally designated nuclear industrial land already subject to existing regulatory frameworks.

Josh Massey, a longtime Paducah resident, told the commission he opposes new nuclear facilities in the region because of economic and public‑health risks. "I am here to beg and plead on behalf of my family and my friends that this commission oppose the construction of new nuclear facilities here in Paducah, Kentucky," Massey said, citing the Price‑Anderson Act's insurance framework and health warnings about ionizing radiation.

Jacob Hinkle, another commenter, linked the proposals to a longer history of nuclear‑era burdens on the community and urged local officials to act as a "roadblock or speed bump" to protect residents.

Mayor George P. Bray responded that much of the land under discussion is in the county rather than the city and suggested speakers also direct comments to county officials. The mayor did not offer a formal city position at the meeting.

The commission did not take action on the projects at this session. Several speakers said they had submitted supporting documents and requested follow‑up; Moore said she had provided materials for the record. The concerns raised focused on environmental health, long‑term cleanup costs, project siting and whether promised jobs and incentives justify potential risks.