DOE Records Show Years of Hazardous‑Waste Failures at Piketon Atomic Plant

PIKETON, Ohio — Internal correspondence between the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency from 1991 and 1992 shows a federal uranium‑enrichment plant struggling with widespread hazardous‑waste violations, missed deadlines and unresolved regulatory disputes.

Ohio EPA inspection records cite DOE’s Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant for a series of RCRA violations, including leaking and unfit chemical tanks, missing inspection logs, incomplete operating records and improper storage of hazardous and mixed wastes. Regulators reported that the X‑700 chromic acid tank had been declared unfit for use in 1990 but continued to hold hazardous waste, and that other tanks — including X‑740, X‑750 and X‑700 Tanks 6 and 8 — lacked required secondary containment, leak testing and engineering assessments.

The state also faulted DOE for decades‑old stockpiles of lithium hydroxide and depleted uranium hexafluoride that had not been fully evaluated. Ohio EPA said lithium hydroxide stored since the 1950s and 1960s met the definition of hazardous waste due to speculative accumulation and potential mercury contamination. Regulators further requested detailed information on UF₆ tailings cylinders, including how a leaking cylinder discovered in 1990 was managed and cleaned up.

DOE disputed several findings, arguing that emptied tanks were not subject to assessment requirements and that depleted UF₆ was “source material” exempt from RCRA under the Atomic Energy Act. The agency cited a 1991 Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing board decision to support its position and maintained that Ohio EPA had not provided a rationale for treating UF₆ as hazardous waste.

The documents show DOE missing multiple deadlines for revised closure plans, including plans for the X‑740, X‑750, X‑744Y, X‑744GR, X‑744GU and X‑752 units. Ohio EPA issued repeated notices after DOE failed to submit required revisions within 10‑day and 30‑day windows. Regulators also reported that closure of the X‑616 and X‑749 units fell behind schedule, with DOE attributing delays to weather, scope changes and health‑and‑safety concerns.

In November 1992, DOE invoked the dispute‑resolution process under the 1989 Consent Decree governing the site. Ohio EPA responded by elevating the matter to the decree’s Dispute Resolution Committee, saying DOE had not resolved violations within the required 14‑day negotiation period and had misinterpreted the state’s willingness to continue discussions as an extension of deadlines.

The records show that as of late 1992, several hazardous‑waste units at the southern Ohio facility remained out of compliance, with closure plans pending, assessments incomplete and key regulatory questions — including the status of depleted UF₆ — still unresolved.