Ohio EPA Accuses DOE of Misleading Information on Contaminated Piketon Atomic Plant Land

PIKETON, OH - In a letter dated December 31, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accused the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) of providing false and misleading information regarding Parcel 4 at the site of the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. The letter, addressed to DOE officials Kristi Wiehle and Jeremy Davis, criticized the DOE’s Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for its lack of transparency, inadequate data, and misrepresentation of contamination levels.

The Ohio EPA’s review of the DOE's October 2024 submittal highlighted numerous flaws in the agency’s efforts to assess and prepare the land for transfer. The Ohio EPA expressed concerns about the DOE’s approach, particularly its characterization of the parcel as uncontaminated and its failure to adhere to established environmental safety standards.

A Plan Full of Omissions and Assumptions

Ohio EPA outlined 18 detailed comments revealing critical gaps in the DOE’s Sampling and Analysis Plan:

• Misleading Contamination Claims: The DOE labeled Parcel 4 as "uncontaminated" despite evidence showing contamination above protective levels. The Ohio EPA cited data from the DOE’s own reports that contradict the “non-impacted” designation.
• Inadequate Sampling Protocols: The DOE’s plan failed to include sufficient soil and building sampling, relying instead on outdated assumptions and limited data. Ohio EPA insisted that sampling protocols must address known contamination.
• Boundary Issues: Parcel boundaries were allegedly determined based on contamination levels but lacked the necessary supporting sampling data to ensure those boundaries are protective.
• Delayed Testing for PFAS: The DOE postponed testing for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which the Ohio EPA warned would cause delays and could complicate the environmental baseline survey for land transfer.

Radiation Risks Understated

The Ohio EPA took issue with the DOE’s downplaying of radiological contamination risks, particularly in Parcel 4. The letter pointed out discrepancies in how uranium isotopes were evaluated, noting that the action level for uranium-234 was inexplicably much higher than for other isotopes. The DOE also failed to explain how parcels bordering waste disposal and plume areas would meet radiological release criteria.

Moreover, Ohio EPA rejected the DOE's suggestion that land-use restrictions could be applied to contaminated parcels to justify their transfer. The state agency made it clear that contamination must be fully addressed before any transfer can occur, without relying on such restrictions.

A Pattern of Evasion

Environmental advocates have long criticized the DOE’s handling of the Portsmouth site, accusing the agency of prioritizing the transfer of land for economic redevelopment over public health and safety. The Ohio EPA’s letter underscores these concerns, calling out the DOE for attempting to sidestep comprehensive evaluations.

Calls for Action

The Ohio EPA demanded revisions to the DOE’s plan, including:

• The removal of misleading statements about contamination.
• Expanded soil and building sampling to include deeper layers and more grid blocks.
• Immediate inclusion of PFAS testing in the current plan.
• Justification for boundary determinations and sampling methods.

A Tense Path Forward

The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant has been a source of radioactive and toxic contamination for decades. As the DOE pushes forward with property transfers, tensions with state and local regulators are escalating. The Ohio EPA’s letter is another reminder that the legacy of nuclear contamination at the site is far from resolved, and the fight for environmental accountability is far from over.

For Piketon residents and environmental groups, the Ohio EPA’s comments validate long-standing concerns about the DOE’s practices. The question remains whether the federal agency will heed the warnings or continue to prioritize expediency over safety.