Part 2 Investigation: Unmasking the Ohio Nuclear Development Authority’s Inner Workings

COLUMBUS, OH — The Ohio Nuclear Development Authority (ONDA), initially hidden within Ohio’s state budget, continues to reveal unsettling details about its formation, leadership, and priorities. This investigative report uncovers key figures within ONDA, potential conflicts of interest, and a pervasive industry bias that prioritizes nuclear development over public transparency, environmental safety, and ethical governance. Drawing from primary documents provided, we examine the deep ties ONDA’s leaders have to the nuclear industry, which raise significant questions about the authority’s impartiality and intentions.

ONDA’s Troubling Genesis

The ONDA was created without direct legislative debate, inserted into the state budget in a manner that avoided public scrutiny. This approach bypassed the usual accountability measures, allowing the authority to emerge as a “shadow state agency.” Emails and correspondence show that ONDA’s creation was carefully orchestrated to prioritize nuclear energy as a cornerstone of Ohio’s energy policy while insulating it from direct oversight by state legislators or the public (Records 3.pdf).

Key Members and Their Industry Ties

1. Steven Moore: A Clean-Up Profiteer

• Background: Steven Moore is affiliated with VNS Federal Services, a company heavily involved in nuclear decommissioning, waste management, and cleanup operations. His dual role as an ONDA leader and a cleanup contractor exemplifies the authority’s alignment with industry interests over environmental accountability.
• Conflict of Interest: Moore’s financial ties to waste remediation projects create a clear conflict. ONDA’s policies may directly influence the proliferation of cleanup opportunities, benefitting his company financially. (Records 2.pdf).

2. Dr. Lei Raymond Cao: The Industry Academic

• Background: Dr. Cao, a nuclear engineering professor at Ohio State University, has deep professional ties to the nuclear industry, including advocacy for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and military nuclear applications. His appointment reflects ONDA’s emphasis on nuclear expansion rather than oversight.
• Concerns: Dr. Cao’s academic role often involves partnerships with nuclear developers, raising concerns about whether his leadership at ONDA can remain unbiased. His focus on positioning Ohio as a nuclear leader indicates a an agenda favoring industry growth over renewable energy alternatives (Records 2.pdf).

3. Alicia Walls: Profiting from Contamination

• Background: Walls is a Nuclear Criticality Safety Engineer for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Contract. Her resume demonstrates extensive involvement in nuclear cleanup and safety operations.
• Conflict of Interest: Walls directly profits from nuclear site remediation, making her role within ONDA ethically questionable. Decisions promoting nuclear development without strict controls could perpetuate contamination. (Records 3.pdf).

4. Mark Miller: Nuclear Medicine Advocate

• Background: Miller, associated with the Cleveland Clinic, specializes in nuclear medicine and isotope production. His inclusion on the board highlights ONDA’s focus on niche nuclear applications.
• Concerns: While his expertise is valuable, Miller’s priorities might skew ONDA’s focus toward isotope production and medical applications at the expense of broader environmental or safety considerations (Records 3.pdf).

5. Michael J. Snee: Administrative Alignment

• Background: Snee’s administrative background aligns closely with advancing nuclear energy investments. However, his lack of a strong regulatory or environmental safety background may limit his ability to address public concerns.
• Concerns: His appointment supports ONDA’s pro-nuclear investment agenda without clear evidence of prioritizing community safety or environmental safeguards (Records 2.pdf).

Pervasive Industry Bias

The leadership of ONDA is overwhelmingly composed of nuclear industry insiders. This creates a troubling dynamic where the authority’s decisions are unlikely to reflect a balance of public and industry interests. For example, communications among ONDA members repeatedly emphasize Ohio’s competitive potential for attracting nuclear investments, with little to no mention of community engagement or environmental oversight (Records 3.pdf).

Transparency and Accountability Concerns

Emails and internal communications reveal the lack of a public engagement process during ONDA’s formation. The integration of ONDA into the state budget circumvented the usual legislative process, effectively silencing potential opposition. This secretive approach mirrors the broader industry tactic of embedding pro-nuclear agendas into policymaking without public awareness (Records 3.pdf).

Implications for Ohio’s Future

The ONDA’s composition and formation suggest a narrow focus on advancing nuclear energy at the expense of transparency, environmental stewardship, and public safety:

1. Environmental Risks:
   • Policies promoting nuclear expansion risk increasing contamination and waste.
2. Ethical Governance:
   • The presence of individuals like Steven Moore and Alicia Walls, who stand to profit from ONDA’s decisions, raises serious ethical concerns.
3. Public Trust:
   • The lack of public consultation and opaque formation process undermines trust in ONDA’s ability to act in Ohio’s best interests.

The Ohio Nuclear Development Authority embodies a pro-nuclear agenda led by individuals with direct financial and professional stakes in the industry. Its secretive creation, industry-dominated leadership, and prioritization of nuclear investments over community and environmental safety present significant risks to Ohioans. This investigation highlights the urgent need for greater transparency, stricter oversight, and a shift toward inclusive, environmentally sustainable energy planning. Further scrutiny of ONDA’s activities and leadership is imperative to safeguard public interests.

(Part 1 of our investigation)