PIKETON, OH – New correspondence from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) reveals significant questions and concerns about the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) plans for managing and demolishing contaminated facilities at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The EPA letters, dated May 30, 2025, highlight potential blind spots in sampling for dangerous chemicals and inadequate monitoring proposals, raising serious alarms for public health and environmental advocates.
In a review of the "X-710 Technical Service Building and Associated Facilities Demolition Design Support Sampling and Analysis Plan," the Ohio EPA raised critical questions:
- Missing Chemical Scans: The agency noted that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) – known environmental contaminants often found at such sites – were inexplicably omitted from the X-710 building's sampling plan, despite being included in plans for other major contaminated buildings like X-326 and X-333. This omission could mean a significant category of hazardous materials goes unaddressed during demolition.
- Biased Sampling Gaps: The Ohio EPA also questioned why semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were planned for random concrete floor samples but excluded from "judgmental biased samples" in areas likely to have higher contamination, including the security portal. This suggests a potential for hazardous hotspots to be missed entirely.
These concerns point to a fundamental flaw in the DOE's approach: if you don't look for certain contaminants, you won't find them, and thus, won't clean them up.
The X-710 building is one of the most contaminated buildings at the PORTS site. Inside were several labs that, according to whistleblowers, experimented with various radioactive compounds, including plutonium.
The X-710B Explosion Test Facility, part of the X-710 complex, was originally designed for hazardous experiments involving unstable compounds with explosion potential, containing a reinforced concrete explosion chamber with blast-proof doors. Despite being inactive for years, documentation and visual assessments indicate that uncontrolled releases of radiological contamination have occurred during its operation, and the exact cause remains uncertain. Further complicating matters, the facility has documented asbestos in its wiring and steam pipes, along with the presence of a fluorine gas pig and gas cylinders of unknown contents, presenting ongoing concerns for potential contamination and safety hazards within the site.
Separately, the Ohio EPA scrutinized the "7-Unit Area Remediation and Containment Corrective Measures Implementation Work Plan" for groundwater cleanup, expressing worries about long-term effectiveness and monitoring:
- Unclear Plume Monitoring: The plan's statement about optimizing pumping rates without causing a specific groundwater plume (X-701B) to migrate lacked crucial details on how this migration would actually be measured and evaluated. Without clear metrics, there's no way to ensure the contamination isn't spreading.
- Vague Pump Adjustments: Questions were raised about how pumping rates for newly installed extraction wells would be adjusted – whether pumps would be throttled, cycled on and off, or controlled by automated systems. This lack of detail leaves the effectiveness of the containment strategy uncertain.
- Infrequent Inspections for Automated Systems: The plan states the groundwater system will operate automatically with only monthly inspections. The Ohio EPA challenged this, asking how malfunctions between inspections would be detected and communicated. Relying solely on monthly checks for a system meant to contain dangerous groundwater contamination introduces unacceptable risks.
These deficiencies in the groundwater cleanup plan highlight a disturbing potential for contaminated plumes to spread unchecked.
Add comment
Comments