PIKETON, Ohio — The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has quietly renewed a crucial air pollution control permit for Fluor-BWXT at the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
The five-year renewal, Permit Number P0125415, takes effect on July 29, 2025, and extends through July 29, 2030, raising alarms among anti-nuclear groups and local residents wary of the plant's long radioactive history.
While the Ohio EPA frames the permit as a control measure for "radionuclides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)," critics argue it merely rubber-stamps ongoing activities at a site grappling with a legacy of contamination, cancer, and death. The permit broadly requires compliance with federal National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, specifically 40 CFR Part 61, Subparts A & H, which address radionuclide releases. However, the details of the permit offer little comfort to those concerned about the inherent dangers of uranium enrichment.
A closer look at the permit reveals a continuation of operations that have long drawn scrutiny:
Groundwater Treatment: A Band-Aid on Deep Wounds?
The permit outlines continued authorization for several groundwater treatment facilities. For instance, the X-623 facility (P018) is permitted to release up to 0.33 tons per year of organic compounds, supposedly controlled by a "vapor phase carbon filter." Similarly, the X-624 facility (P019) is allowed to emit trichloroethylene and other VOCs, relying on a "carbon absorption system." The X-627 facility (P540) is also authorized for organic compound emissions, again with carbon absorption as the primary "control."
However, environmental advocates question the long-term effectiveness of these measures against the backdrop of decades of contamination.
Ongoing Uranium Operations: Business as Usual for a High-Risk Industry
The bulk of the renewed permit simply re-authorizes various emission units involved in former uranium handling, cleaning, and laboratory analysis across the sprawling X-300, X-700, and X-705 buildings. These include operations like "pigtail gulpers," "cold recovery vents," and numerous cleaning and storage areas for uranium. Some areas of which contained nuclear-weapons grade material. While the permit reiterates a general requirement for compliance with radionuclide standards, it offers no new, stricter limits or innovative control technologies to alleviate concerns about potential airborne radioactive particles or other hazardous releases.
Even the facility's 15,000-gallon uranium storage tanks (T104 and T105) are simply capped at 0.14 TPY of organic compounds each, with the only specified control being "submerged fill pipes." This minimal requirement raises questions about the true priority of environmental protection over operational convenience.
Reporting and Oversight: Trusting the Fox to Guard the Hen House?
The permit details extensive reporting requirements, including annual radionuclide emission reports and quarterly deviation reports for malfunctions or non-compliance. However, critics argue that such self-reporting mechanisms often lack true independent oversight. "We're expected to just trust that they'll tell us when something goes wrong," stated one Piketon resident. "The history of this site demands far more transparency and independent verification, not just more paperwork."
The renewal also maintains standard provisions for inspections and information requests, but the actual frequency and depth of such oversight remain a point of contention for those who feel the regulatory body is too close to the industry it is meant to regulate. The permit's renewal, rather than a cause for reassurance, serves as a stark reminder for community members that the uranium enrichment plant's operations, and their associated risks, will continue unabated in Piketon for the foreseeable future.
Add comment
Comments