The findings of a recent report questioning the cohesion of the bedrock on which a nuclear waste disposal facility is to be built in Ohio has not deterred the Energy Department from moving forward with the project.
“Based on the intensive review of all the information provided in the Ferguson Group Report, DOE does not see any basis for reopening the Waste Disposition Record of Decision (WD ROD),” a spokesperson for DOE’s Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office said by email last week. “DOE’s review has determined that the technical evaluation in the [waste disposal remedial investigation and feasibility study report], the public involvement process, and the decision reached in the WD ROD constitute a legally compliant and technically sound remedial action.”
The department in 2022 plans to open the $900 million engineered On-Site Waste Disposal Facility (OSWDF) at its Portsmouth site in Ohio, which is expected to store material from ongoing cleanup of long-closed uranium enrichment operations there – including building debris, contaminated soil, and waste extracted from other landfills at the site.
The facility has been fully designed and early site preparations are underway, including removing trees and shrubs, putting erosion and sediment controls into places, and continuing rough grading for the initial infrastructure of the disposal site, the spokesperson said.
The disposal facility in the northeast section of the Portsmouth Site is a key component of DOE’s 2015 record of decision setting out the preferred plan for dealing with over 2 million cubic yards of waste produced through decontamination and decommissioning of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
Three options were studied: taking no action, allowing the buildings to degrade and eschewing any waste management; a mixture of off-site and on-site disposal, including the waste disposal facility; and shipping all waste to DOE-approved off-site disposal. All options were determined to be feasible, but DOE found the second alternative to have significant benefits: it would be far more protective of human health and the environment than simply doing nothing; and would also cut at least $200 million from the cost of full off-site disposal, while offering 1,000 years of effectiveness.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency concurred with DOE’s findings, but a number of local bodies have opposed keeping radioactive waste near their communities. The village councils of Piketon and Waverly in August both approved resolutions against the On-Site Waste Disposal Facility.
Piketon, where Mayor Billy Spencer has been particularly outspoken on the matter, commissioned an evaluation from the Washington, D.C.-based Ferguson Group consulting firm, which said DOE has known for years that the planned disposal site is on fractured bedrock that could allow radioactive waste to spread if fluid made it through the facility’s liner and foundation.
The Energy Department has responded to Piketon officials regarding the issues raised in the Ferguson Group report, the spokesperson said. DOE did not release details of the response.
In the 2015 record of decision, DOE specifically cited the bedrock under the planned waste disposal site as having low permeability.
None of this has proven satisfactory to Spencer, who said a new group opposed to the disposal facility, Citizens Against Radioactive Dump (CARD), packed its first meeting on Aug. 26 at a local high school.
“What needs to be said is that the Village of Piketon, CARD and the citizens of Pike County will never give up on fighting to keep this out of the ground,” Spencer said by email.
