LISTEN TO THE PODCAST | Piketon's Poisoned Legacy: Can SO-CALLED "Clean" Energy Rise from Toxic Ground?
In a chilling move that prioritizes corporate profits over public health, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is pushing forward with land transfers at the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, a site riddled with a half-century legacy of radioactive and chemical contamination. Despite vociferous warnings from the Ohio EPA and a history of worker exposure and community illnesses, large swathes of this poisoned land are being handed over for a "reindustrialization" scheme, including a controversial "blue hydrogen" project that promises clean energy while overlooking a dirty past.
The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which operated from 1954 to 2001, was a key facility in the nation's nuclear weapons complex, enriching uranium that left behind a toxic stew of contaminants. Uranium, technetium-99, PCBs, trichloroethylene (TCE), asbestos, and even hydrogen fluoride gas are among the dangerous substances that have leached into the soil and groundwater, posing ongoing threats. The site's cleanup has been a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar endeavor, yet watchdogs assert it's far from complete.
Now, under the guise of economic development, the DOE is transferring portions of this deeply contaminated land to the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative (SODI) and private entities like Newpoint Trillium Management, LLC, and TritenIAG, who, in partnership with Shell, aim to develop a "blue hydrogen" production facility. This project, branded by proponents as a step toward clean energy, relies on natural gas with carbon capture technology – a process environmental groups like the IEEFA have widely criticized as a "boondoggle" that perpetuates fossil fuel dependence and generates significant emissions.
The immediate and alarming danger lies with the construction workers slated to break ground on these transferred parcels. As they excavate and disturb the land, they face direct exposure to a witches' brew of radioactive and chemical hazards. Historical reports from the NIOSH have documented significant health risks to construction workers at similar DOE sites, with concerns ranging from hydrogen fluoride and nitrogen dioxide exposure to a lack of adequate information about chemical hazards and a culture that prioritized production over safety. These aren't theoretical risks; workers at Portsmouth have historically reported rashes, illnesses, and even emergency room visits due to exposure.
Adding fuel to the fire, the Ohio EPA has repeatedly accused the DOE of providing "false and misleading information" regarding contamination levels on these parcels. Specifically, Parcel 4, initially marketed by the DOE as "uncontaminated," was found by the Ohio EPA to contain contamination "well above safe levels." Intense scrutiny from the Ohio EPA and media forced the DOE to reduce the size of Parcel 4 from over 200 acres to a mere 78, acknowledging that significant portions were indeed contaminated and unsuitable for immediate transfer. This shocking reversal exposes a disturbing pattern of the DOE attempting to downplay risks and rush transfers without thorough remediation.
Concerns also extend to inadequate sampling protocols, delayed testing for dangerous PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), and the DOE's alarming suggestion that "land-use restrictions" could somehow justify transferring contaminated land without full cleanup. This is not just about environmental integrity; it is a direct assault on the safety and well-being of the workers and the surrounding community.
The local community in Piketon has already borne the heavy burden of the plant's toxic legacy, with heightened cancer rates and contamination fears leading to school closures and lawsuits. Now, they watch with trepidation as the DOE, aided by private industry, proposes to build a new industrial complex on the very ground that has poisoned generations.
This land transfer is not a step towards a clean energy future; it is a dangerous gamble with human lives and the environment.
Poisoned Promises
The Troubled Transfer of Portsmouth's Nuclear Legacy to New Industries
An in-depth look at the environmental, economic, and human costs of reindustrializing a contaminated nuclear site in Southern Ohio.
Executive Summary
The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) in Piketon, Ohio, a relic of the Cold War, is undergoing cleanup and repurposing. However, this process is plagued by problematic land transfers, raising urgent alarms about public health and the environment. This infographic dives into the plant's history of contamination, scrutinizes land transfers to SODI, and exposes the risks of the proposed "blue hydrogen" plant by Trillium H2. Our aim is to demand uncompromising accountability and vigilance in the face of economic expediency.
The Shadow of Portsmouth: A History of Nuclear Contamination
The PORTS plant, a cornerstone of the U.S. nuclear program, left behind a profound environmental cost. Decades of operation prioritized national security, neglecting long-term environmental consequences. Cleanup efforts only began in 1989, decades after contamination, underscoring a historical pattern of deferred responsibility.
From Cold War Powerhouse to Toxic Burden: A Timeline
A Trail of Poisons: Key Contaminants
The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant generated a diverse cocktail of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes. These contaminants have infiltrated the soil, groundwater, surface water, and air, creating pervasive environmental pathways for exposure. Please refer to the detailed report for specific contaminant information.
The Human Cost: Community & Worker Impacts
The environmental contamination at PORTS has tragically affected surrounding communities and former workers. Concerns about elevated cancer rates, worker illnesses, and off-site contamination are long-standing.
- Local residents voice persistent concerns about excessive cancer rates and plant releases.
- Former plant workers exposed to airborne uranium, transuranics, fission products, fluorine, hydrogen fluoride gas, and asbestos report various illnesses.
- The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act provides compensation for affected workers.
- Zahn's Corner Middle School (2019): Abruptly closed after neptunium-237 (an enriched uranium byproduct) was detected just two miles from the plant, forcing student relocation. This directly contradicts official assurances of environmental safety.
Land Transfers to SODI: Unveiling the Risks
The transfer of federally-owned PORTS land to the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative (SODI) for economic revitalization is fraught with environmental risks and a troubling lack of transparency. The pursuit of economic gain may be prioritized over thorough cleanup.
SODI's Dual Mandate: Development vs. Safety
SODI is tasked with fostering economic development on a former nuclear site. This creates an inherent tension, as the pressure for jobs could lead to less stringent cleanup approaches or acceptance of residual contamination.
- Established 1997 as Community Reuse Organization (CRO) by DOE.
- Mission: Economic diversification, reindustrialization, workforce retraining.
- Receives excess DOE personal property for sale to fund projects.
- Identifies and prepares former nuclear site land for transfer.
- Inherent Tension: "No property, no project" pressure can lead to prioritizing economic gains over public health.
Parcel 3: A Transfer with Strings Attached
Transferred on April 20, 2025, for a symbolic $10.00, Parcel 3 is not "clean." Its deed includes a stringent Environmental Covenant, revealing perpetual limitations due to residual contamination.
- 🏭 Land use limited to Commercial/Industrial only.
- 🚱 Groundwater use for potable purposes strictly prohibited.
- 💨 New construction requires vapor intrusion pathway evaluation.
- 📄 Annual compliance reports to Ohio EPA required.
- Conditional DOE Indemnification: DOE covers *prior* contamination but *not* new contamination or costs increased by SODI/transferees.
Parcel 4: A Battleground of Deceit and Denial
The controversy over Parcel 4 exposed alarming misrepresentation by the DOE, who initially claimed it was "uncontaminated." Intense scrutiny forced a dramatic reduction in its size, revealing a troubling pattern of prioritizing expediency over safety.
DOE's Initial Claim
200+ ACRES
"Uncontaminated" & "Non-Impacted"
- Inadequate sampling & delayed PFAS testing.
- Downplayed uranium-234 risks.
- Attempted reliance on land-use restrictions rejected by Ohio EPA.
Reality After Scrutiny
78 ACRES
Major portions removed due to contamination
Forced reduction after Ohio EPA and media pressure, acknowledging contamination. This highlights a persistent pattern of minimizing risks to expedite transfers.
Trillium H2: A "Clean" Promise on Contaminated Ground?
The proposed Trillium H2 project, promising "clean energy" for Southern Ohio, demands rigorous scrutiny. Its "blue hydrogen" technology is far from clean, and siting it on a historically contaminated nuclear site raises profound environmental justice concerns, compounding risks for an already burdened community.
Blue Hydrogen's Dirty Secret
Despite optimistic branding, blue hydrogen (from natural gas with carbon capture) is heavily criticized by environmental experts. It is not a viable climate solution and can increase overall greenhouse gas emissions.
- 💨 Methane Leaks: Reliance on natural gas infrastructure leads to leaks of potent methane (80x CO2 impact over 20 years).
- 🏭 Increased Air Pollution: Carbon capture can generate up to 60% more damaging air pollutants (e.g., NOx).
- ⚠️ Questionable Effectiveness: Real-world CCS often fails to meet capture targets, leading to net emissions increases.
- 💥 Pipeline & Leakage Risks: CO2 pipelines carry explosion/poisoning risks; hydrogen itself is prone to leakage and explosive.
Siting Risks & Responsibility Loophole
Placing a new industrial facility with potential emissions on a contaminated nuclear site exacerbates environmental burdens. The liability framework is complex.
- ⚖️ Environmental Justice Concern: Compounding pollution on a community already burdened by PORTS' legacy.
- 🔄 Liability Shift: DOE indemnifies for *prior* contamination, but *not* for new contamination or increased costs due to Trillium H2's actions.
- 💰 The financial and environmental burden for new issues could fall to SODI, Trillium H2, or local taxpayers.
Trillium H2: Claims vs. Watchdog Concerns
| Project Aspect | Trillium H2 Claim/Promise | Environmental Watchdog Concern/Critique |
|---|---|---|
| Investment & Jobs | $1.6B-$1.8B investment, 1,900 construction jobs, 237 long-term O&M jobs. | Economic benefits may not outweigh environmental risks if "clean" promises are not met. |
| Hydrogen Production | "Decarbonized (blue) hydrogen" from natural gas, CO2 capture. | Relies on fossil fuels; methane leakage; increased air pollutants (NOx); potential for net increase in GHG emissions. |
| CO2 Capture Plan | CO2 captured and permanently stored, high capture rate. | Effectiveness often overstated; real-world data may show minimal reductions; tax credits subsidize without proven benefit. |
| Siting Location | 250 acres of "remediated land" at former PORTS site. | Compounding contamination; cumulative impacts ignored; environmental justice concerns for burdened community. |
| Infrastructure Risks | Implied safe operation. | CO2 pipeline explosion/poisoning risks; hydrogen leakage hazards; inadequate existing regulations. |
Conclusion: Prioritizing Public Health Over Expediency
The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant's history serves as a stark warning. The rush to redevelop a contaminated nuclear site without full, transparent remediation risks creating new environmental harm. A fundamental shift is needed from expedited land transfers to genuine, comprehensive, and transparent remediation.
Recommendations for Action
Regulatory Bodies
- Demand comprehensive assessments (cumulative impacts).
- Enforce strict cleanup standards (no land-use restrictions as substitute).
- Increase transparency (public disclosure of all data).
- Conduct independent audits of DOE claims.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
- Prioritize full and verifiable remediation.
- Genuine, proactive public engagement.
- Full disclosure of contamination without minimizing risks.
SODI & Developers (e.g., Trillium H2)
- SODI: Due diligence for tenants & long-term stewardship.
- Trillium H2: Transparent impact assessments; commit to green hydrogen; genuine community engagement.
Demand Accountability. Demand Transparency. Demand a Safe Future.
Add comment
Comments