DOE Contractors Exceed Targets Amid Controversy Over Safety Violations and Environmental Concerns

PIKETON, OH – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) continues to face mounting criticism over its handling of the cleanup and conversion of dangerous nuclear materials at former uranium enrichment sites in Ohio and Kentucky. While contractors tout their ability to exceed performance targets, a closer look reveals a system plagued by safety violations, environmental hazards, and questionable oversight.

Mid-America Conversion Services: Profits Over Safety

Mid-America Conversion Services (MCS), tasked with converting depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) at the Portsmouth and Paducah sites, has prioritized production over safety. The contractor processed more than its annual target of DUF6 cylinders—626 at Paducah and 460 at Portsmouth—earning $3.5 million in performance fees. But this achievement comes against the backdrop of a $382,500 fine for repeated nuclear safety violations between 2019 and 2022.

The safety breaches highlight the inherent risks of handling DUF6, a material capable of releasing highly toxic hydrogen fluoride if improperly managed. These incidents underscore the failure of both the DOE and its contractors to ensure the safety of workers, nearby communities, and the environment.

Fluor-BWXT and the Illusion of Progress

Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth, a contractor responsible for decontaminating and decommissioning (D&D) the Portsmouth site, has also been lauded for "success." Yet the glowing performance reviews mask a much darker reality: the continued storage of over 20,000 DUF6 cylinders and a cleanup process riddled with delays and risks. The DOE’s own reports call for better regulatory compliance—a damning indictment of the current management approach.

Same Contractors, Same Problems

The recent $5.87 billion Portsmouth cleanup contract, awarded to Southern Ohio Cleanup Co. (SOCCo)—a joint venture of Amentum, Fluor, and Cavendish Nuclear USA—represents more of the same. Critics argue that this “new” partnership simply rebrands a deeply flawed system. SOCCo members have faced numerous controversies, legal challenges, and allegations of prioritizing profit over safety.

This continuation of status quo management has left the community skeptical about the DOE’s commitment to addressing the dangers posed by these nuclear sites. A subcontractor, WAI, also raises red flags, with its ties to the Ohio Nuclear Development Authority and allegations of insider dealings.

Environmental Disasters in the Making

The risks at these sites are not hypothetical. The Ohio Atomic Press recently revealed incidents in 2024 at the Portsmouth site, including radiological discharges and fires at an on-site radioactive waste dump. These events demonstrate the ongoing environmental risks posed by nuclear cleanup operations and the lack of meaningful accountability for contractors.

The storage of DUF6 alone poses a long-term environmental disaster waiting to happen. The material is housed in aging cylinders vulnerable to corrosion, potentially releasing toxic gases into the atmosphere. This risk is compounded by the DOE’s pattern of contracting with entities that prioritize speed and cost-cutting over thorough, responsible remediation.

Paducah’s Progress: At What Cost?

At the Paducah site, similar issues persist. Jacobs-led Four Rivers Nuclear Partnership exceeded its targets, earning millions in fees. Yet, the focus on meeting quotas does little to address the broader environmental and safety implications of handling radioactive material. The DOE’s glowing reviews fail to account for the fundamental dangers these operations pose to surrounding communities and ecosystems.

The Bigger Picture

These failures are part of a larger critique of the nuclear industry and its byproducts. The legacy of uranium enrichment is one of contamination, risk, and long-term harm. While contractors reap millions in fees, local communities bear the brunt of the dangers associated with nuclear waste and decommissioning.

The continued push for nuclear energy and weapons development has left sites like Portsmouth and Paducah with a toxic legacy that will take decades—and billions of dollars—to address. Even as cleanup efforts inch forward, the risks of radiological contamination, toxic discharges, and catastrophic failures remain ever-present.

A Call for Accountability and Alternatives

Instead of perpetuating the cycle of nuclear dependency and dangerous waste management, critics argue for a pivot toward renewable energy and safer, more sustainable technologies. The DOE’s current approach—marked by profit-driven contractors and environmental negligence—fails to protect workers, communities, and future generations from the dangers of nuclear material.

As incidents at these sites pile up, the message is clear: the nuclear cleanup industry is not just cleaning up a mess—it’s creating new ones.