PIKETON, Ohio – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has significantly reduced the size of Parcel 4 at the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, from over 200 acres to just 78 acres following an intense review by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and extensive investigative reporting. The decision represents a major shift from DOE’s previous stance and raises new concerns about transparency, environmental risks, and potential misconduct.
Revising the Boundaries: A Major Retraction
The DOE’s latest response to Ohio EPA’s concerns confirms that several sections initially included in Parcel 4 have been removed. The reduction of the parcel’s size appears to be a direct response to scrutiny over contamination levels, sampling deficiencies, and boundary justifications.
This revision marks a clear contradiction of the DOE’s earlier claims that Parcel 4 was largely uncontaminated and suitable for public transfer. Previously, DOE had characterized the entire parcel as safe, despite Ohio EPA’s findings of contamination exceeding safe levels. Now, DOE has retracted those statements, acknowledging that areas previously included in Parcel 4 require further scrutiny and may not be safe for immediate transfer.
Key DOE Reversals and Concessions
1. Acknowledgment of Contamination
DOE initially maintained that Parcel 4 was “uncontaminated.” However, in response to Ohio EPA’s critiques, DOE has now agreed that multiple sections exceed background contamination levels and must be addressed. This represents a major reversal, confirming that DOE’s prior statements were misleading.
2. Reduction of Transferable Land
The DOE’s decision to shrink Parcel 4 down to 78 acres follows direct challenges to its original boundaries. The new designation removes sections that were found to have unresolved contamination issues, contradicting DOE’s prior assertions that the parcel as a whole was ready for transfer.
3. Revised Sampling and Testing Commitments
DOE has now agreed to conduct additional soil and sediment sampling for PFAS contamination, which was previously postponed. The delay in PFAS testing had been a major point of contention, as these chemicals are known for their toxicity and persistence in the environment.
4. A Shift in Radiological Risk Assessments
Ohio EPA flagged the DOE’s inexplicably high action levels for uranium-234 in Parcel 4, which were an order of magnitude above other uranium isotopes. DOE has now conceded that these figures need to be reevaluated and has committed to using a more conservative approach in determining radiological safety.
Unanswered Questions and Ongoing Concerns
While DOE’s revised stance addresses some concerns, major questions remain:
- Why was the contamination in Parcel 4 initially misrepresented? The reduction of the parcel size indicates that DOE either failed to properly evaluate contamination levels or deliberately downplayed the risks.
- What happens to the removed acreage? The DOE has not provided a timeline or process for when—or if—these areas will be addressed and remediated.
- Are previous land transfers at risk? Given that Parcel 4 was initially deemed safe before this retraction, concerns grow over whether prior land transfers (Parcels 2 and 3) were similarly misrepresented.
- What legal or regulatory consequences could DOE face? Misleading environmental reports, particularly on federally managed sites, could warrant further investigation from regulatory agencies or legal action from affected parties.
Public and Environmental Impact
Residents of Piketon, already distrustful of DOE’s handling of the Portsmouth site, are raising alarms over these revelations. The removal of large portions of Parcel 4 due to contamination concerns validates long-standing fears about DOE’s oversight and transparency. Environmental advocates argue that the agency’s actions reflect a pattern of minimizing risks in order to accelerate property transfers.
With the Ohio EPA continuing to push for stricter accountability and more rigorous testing, the battle over Parcel 4’s future remains unresolved. For now, the DOE’s sudden change of course underscores the power of investigative journalism and regulatory oversight in exposing the risks tied to this former nuclear site.
What Comes Next?
As the DOE revises its plans, Ohio EPA has made it clear that the agency will not accept any further attempts to transfer land under misleading conditions. Additional sampling and data collection will be key in determining if even the reduced 78-acre parcel is genuinely safe for redevelopment.
Meanwhile, calls for independent investigations into the DOE’s handling of Parcel 4 are growing. Advocacy groups and local officials are demanding greater transparency in DOE’s property transfer process, fearing that misrepresentations about contamination could pose long-term health risks to the community.