PIKETON, Ohio — A recent announcement of a substantial partnership between Centrus Energy Corporation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to produce advanced nuclear fuel in Piketon has been met with fierce opposition from local residents and environmental activists. While officials like U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) tout the project as a means to create jobs and restore U.S. leadership in nuclear energy, many in the community view it as a dangerous step backward, threatening public health and the environment.
“This investment is not a cause for celebration but a call for alarm,” said Vina Colley, founder of Piketon/Portsmouth Residents for Environmental Safety and Security (PRESS). “We have been living with the consequences of radioactive contamination for decades. Introducing more nuclear activity only exacerbates the risks to our community.”
Piketon’s troubled history with nuclear operations dates back to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), which operated from 1952 to 2001. The plant, involved in uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons and energy, left behind a legacy of environmental contamination that continues to impact the area. Recent studies have unveiled alarming levels of radioactive substances like neptunium-237—a byproduct with a half-life of over 2 million years—in local soil, water, and even vegetation.
In July, a report led by Dr. Michael Ketterer, Professor Emeritus at Northern Arizona University, confirmed significant contamination in waterways near the defunct plant. The study found that neptunium-237 had infiltrated groundwater and was being absorbed by local plant life, raising serious concerns about long-term health risks for residents.
Activists point to other unsettling incidents, such as mysterious blue liquids seeping into Little Beaver Creek and the abrupt closure of Zahn’s Corner Middle School in 2019 due to radioactive contamination fears. “We want signs posted to warn residents about the radioactive dangers in our creeks,” Colley emphasized. “Our community deserves transparency and immediate action to address these hazards.”
Despite these concerns, Senator Brown hailed the new partnership as a boon for the region. “This investment will help develop new enrichment technologies and support American energy independence,” he stated. However, critics argue that economic gains cannot outweigh the potential health and environmental costs. They accuse officials of ignoring the community’s legitimate fears in favor of political and corporate interests.
“Bringing more nuclear activity to Piketon is like pouring salt into an open wound,” said a local resident who wished to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation. “We’ve suffered enough. Our health, our environment, and our children’s futures are at stake.”
Environmental advocates also question the promises of job creation and economic revitalization. They argue that similar assurances were made in the past, only to result in ongoing contamination and unfulfilled commitments. The new project, they fear, will repeat history, leaving the community to bear the brunt of the consequences.
“We’ve heard these promises before,” said another concerned resident. “What good are jobs if they come at the expense of our health and safety? The so-called benefits are not worth the risks.”
The controversy highlights a deep divide between governmental ambitions for nuclear advancement and the lived experiences of communities adversely affected by such projects. While the DOE and Centrus Energy focus on strategic goals like reducing reliance on foreign uranium supplies, locals are left grappling with the immediate realities of environmental degradation and health risks.
Activists like Gina Doyle are calling for comprehensive environmental assessments and remediation of existing contamination. She urges officials to prioritize the well-being of residents over industrial expansion.
“The legacy of the PGDP is one of environmental neglect and community harm,” Colley asserted. “We cannot, in good conscience, allow further nuclear development. They haven’t even addressed the ongoing contamination and its impact on our lives.”
As Piketon faces the prospect of renewed nuclear operations, many residents remain steadfast in their opposition, advocating for a future that prioritizes health, safety, and environmental integrity over uncertain economic gains. The debate serves as a stark reminder of the complexities surrounding nuclear energy and the importance of including community voices in decisions that profoundly affect their lives.