PIKETON, OH — Could a potential storm be brewing between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the future of Parcel 4 at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, a 245-acre site under review for transfer? Ohio EPA’s scathing critique of DOE’s Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) has raised alarms about potential risks to public health and environmental safety, accusing the DOE of misrepresenting contamination levels and employing inadequate testing methods.
The Battle Over Contamination
The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS), a relic of Cold War uranium enrichment operations, is undergoing a gradual transition. Parcel 4 is earmarked for redevelopment, but recent EPA findings suggest that the DOE’s eagerness to expedite the transfer may have come at the expense of thorough contamination analysis. Ohio EPA’s December 2024 letter to the DOE sharply criticized the SAP, calling for comprehensive revisions.
The core of the dispute lies in how the DOE characterized contamination levels, defined boundaries, and implemented sampling strategies. Ohio EPA’s comments highlight troubling deficiencies, including assumptions that some areas are “uncontaminated” despite contradictory evidence.
Key EPA Findings
1. Misrepresentation of Contamination:
- Section L: DOE deemed this area uncontaminated after limited remediation, but Ohio EPA pointed to data showing arsenic levels exceeding safety thresholds (29 mg/kg).
- Sections G and F: Historical records reveal radioactive contamination above background levels, yet DOE failed to classify these sections as impacted.
2. Inadequate Sampling Practices:
- Soil samples were limited to a depth of 0-6 inches, ignoring potential deeper contamination.
- Sampling density fell short of statistical requirements, with fewer than eight samples in critical areas.
- Ohio EPA demanded an increase in both sampling depth and density to achieve reliable contamination assessments.
3. Deferral of PFAS Testing:
- The DOE postponed testing for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly referred to as “forever chemicals,” despite their known environmental and health risks.
- Ohio EPA warned that delaying PFAS evaluations could create logistical and regulatory bottlenecks.
4. Arbitrary Parcel Boundaries:
- Parcel delineations for sections such as 4C and 4K were reportedly based on incomplete contamination data. Ohio EPA demanded boundary justifications grounded in comprehensive testing.
5. Questionable Action Levels:
- The DOE’s proposed action level for uranium-234 (329 pCi/g) far exceeded those for uranium-235 (3 pCi/g) and uranium-238 (16 pCi/g), raising questions about scientific consistency and regulatory compliance.
What’s at Stake?
The DOE’s SAP aims to comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and DOE Order 458.1, which mandate contamination assessments before property transfers. However, Ohio EPA’s findings suggest systemic flaws that could jeopardize public health and the environment if left unaddressed.
The stakes are particularly high for local communities in Piketon, where memories of past environmental mismanagement still linger. Big Run Creek, an ecologically sensitive area intersecting Parcel 4, has been flagged for contamination risks, underscoring the need for rigorous evaluations.
Intentional Misleading or Negligence?
Ohio EPA’s critique hints at either systemic negligence or deliberate attempts to minimize contamination findings:
- Negligence: Sampling limitations and reliance on outdated data could reflect oversight or budget constraints.
- Intentional Misrepresentation: The DOE’s labeling of contaminated areas as “non-impacted” and reliance on land-use restrictions instead of remediation suggest a potential strategy to expedite the property transfer process.
Ohio EPA’s Demands
Ohio EPA’s 20-point critique laid out specific demands for the DOE, including:
- Revised Sampling Protocols: Require deeper soil samples and increased sampling density.
- Immediate PFAS Testing: Integrate PFAS evaluations to avoid regulatory delays.
- Transparent Boundary Justifications: Base parcel delineations on comprehensive contamination data.
- Consistent Action Levels: Justify discrepancies in uranium action levels to align with regulatory standards.
The agency also emphasized that property transfers under CERCLA cannot rely on use restrictions to sidestep remediation responsibilities—a practice the DOE has proposed.
Response from the DOE
The DOE has yet to respond publicly to Ohio EPA’s demands. However, internal correspondence suggests that DOE officials are pushing back against the agency’s findings, arguing that existing data sufficiently support Parcel 4’s characterization as ready for transfer.
Critics, including environmental advocates, argue that such resistance reflects the DOE’s prioritization of cost-saving over community safety.
As the DOE and Ohio EPA square off over Parcel 4, the fate of the site—and its potential impact on Piketon residents—hangs in the balance. For now, Ohio EPA’s critique serves as a rallying cry for greater accountability and transparency in the DOE’s property transfer process.
This battle underscores a broader challenge facing decommissioned nuclear sites across the country: how to reconcile redevelopment ambitions with the need for rigorous environmental safeguards.
Add comment
Comments