Revealing the catastrophic human toll of America's Atomic Age

Greetings!
Thanks for visiting American Massacre – A Documentary Film site. We’re honored to have you join us for this journey. Here, you’ll learn about our film, meet the crew, and share the experience of first-time filmmakers for a unique behind-the-scenes experience. Stay engaged as we prepare to share with the world a story that is both astonishing and terrifying, and will affect all life on this planet for thousands of years to come! Let us know what you think and feel free to ask questions. We’re honored to have you along for the ride!

American Massacre – A Documentary Film is a fiscally sponsored project of IFP.

We are looking for individual stories and possible candidates for interviewing for the film! If your life, or the life of a family member, has been impacted due to radiation exposure, please tell  your story. Let us know if the exposure was related to: 1.) service in the US Military, era of service and which branch; 2.) as a result of being downwind from mining, manufacturing, energy production, weapons testing, etc.; 3.) as a result of working in the nuclear industry and in what capacity; 4.) medical-procedure related; or 5.) some other method of exposure. We are looking for individual stories to tell, but be assured all stories will be vetted prior to their inclusion in the film. If you want to share your story, but do not want to post a portion here, please e-mail us at info@american-massacrefilm.com. When submitting your information via e-mail, it will not be shared unless you grant us permission to do so. (Note: We will not publish your story without your permission. If you agree to share your experiences with our readers, please tell us so in your response.)

“For the wise man looks into space and he knows there is no limited dimension.”

Lao Tzu

 *Writer’s Note: There’s a lot more on this topic which I will cover in my upcoming blogs. I just wanted to share this part of history with you. I have always been fascinated with space exploration. Hope you enjoy it. JP

On April 17, 1970, Apollo 13 successfully splashed down in the South Pacific Ocean, after what Commander James Lovell called a “successful failure,” that is “the safe return of the crew, but the failure to make the lunar landing”. Accompanying Commander Lovell on this mission was John Swigert (Command Module pilot) and Fred Haise (Lunar Module pilot).

Apollo 13 was to be the third manned space mission to land on the moon. However, 56 hours into the mission, an explosion involving oxygen tank #2 in the Service/Command Module occurred at 173,790 nautical miles (almost 200,000 miles) away from earth. The lunar landing was aborted, and the crew was forced to return to earth using the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) “Aquarius” as a lifeboat because of the damage done to the Service Module. The Command Module “Odyssey” was the reentry vehicle used.

The following is from the “Apollo 13 Technical Air–to-Ground Voice Transcript, April, 1970.” The time column is day, hour, minute, and second. CDR is Commander Lovell, CMP-John Swigert, LMP-Fred Haise, and CC is Capsule Communicator.

Pg. 167

02 07 52 58: CC-13, we’ve got one more item for you, when you get a chance. We’d like you to stir up your cryo tanks. In addition, I have shaft and trunnion…

02 07 53 06: CMP-Okay.

02 07 53 07: CC-for looking at the Comet Bennett, if you need it.

02 07 53 12: CMP-Okay. Stand by.

02 07 55 19: LMP-Okay, Houston

02 07 55 20: CDR-I believe we’ve had a problem here.

02 07 55 28: CC-This is Houston. Say again, please.

02 07 55 35: CDR-Houston, we’ve had a problem. We’ve had a MAIN B BUS UNDERVOLT.

Three days later, the extent of the damage was discovered with the jettison of the Service Module:

Pg 728

05 18 04 46: CDR-And there’s one whole side of that spacecraft missing.

05 18 04 50: CC-Is that right?

05 18 04 57: CDR-Right by the – Look out there, will you? Right by the high gain antenna, the whole panel is blown out, almost from the base to the engine.

05 18 05 09: CC-Copy that.

 Three hours later came the LEM jettison and subsequent discussions of its location:

 Pg 757

05 21 29 56: CDR-Five. LM jettison.

05 21 30 05: CC-Okay, copy that. Farewell, Aquarius, and we thank you.

 Pg 760

05 22 0l 12: CDR-Okay. Fine; thank you Joe. How does the LM look? Are you still tracking it?

05 22 01 17: CC-All I’ve heard was that it’s-that the cabin was holding pressure. I haven’t heard anything more.

 Pg763

05 22 30 50: CC-Okay. At 10 minutes to 400 K, you’re looking good; we’re real happy with the trajectory, and a minute ago, we just lost contact with your friend Aquarius.

05 22 3] 03: CMP-Okay. Where did she go?

05 22 31 07: CC-Oh, I don’t know. She’s up there somewhere.

05 22 31 13: CMP-She sure was a good ship.

05 22 31 16: CC-Hey, just as I said that, we got another burst of LM data, so I guess it’s still ticking.

Apollo 13 Technical Air–to-Ground Voice Transcript, April, 1970

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a13/AS13_TEC.PDF

Aquarius reentered the Earth’s atmospheric and landed in the South Pacific, in the Tonga Trench south of Fiji. The Tonga Trench has an average depth of 20,000 feet.  The Command Module splashed down 201 miles south of Johnston Atoll in the South Pacific, with all three crew members safe.

Apollo 13 Home Page-NASA

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo13info.html

Stowed away on the Lunar Module was a SNAP-27 (Systems Nuclear Auxiliary Power), a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG). It was designed to be left on the lunar surface to power experiments left by the crew.

The SNAP-27 contained 3.79 kilograms (8.36 pounds) of Plutonium 238, one of the 15 isotopes of Plutonium, atomic number 94 on the element chart.

The SNAP-27 is designed to operate off of power produced by the natural decay of Plutonium 238. The Pu 238 produces heat, which in turn produces electricity, around 63 watts. Plutonium 238 has a half life of 87.74 years. A half life is the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms of the element to decay.*

On page 8 of the Department of Energy’s publication “Nuclear Power in Space”, there’s a picture of astronaut Gordon Bean of the Apollo 12 mission preparing a RTG.

Nuclear Power in Space

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/npInSpace.pdf

*Physical, Nuclear, and Chemical Properties of Plutonium

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)

http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/pu-props.html

Apollo 13 Lunar Module/ALSEP

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=1970-029C

To give you a good explanation of the lunar experiment (Passive Seismic Experiment) and a description of the SNAP-27 unit, I have gathered the following information from the Apollo 13 Press Kit, April 2, 1970:**

Passive Seismic Experiment

The ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package) Passive Seismic Experiment (PSE) will measure seismic activity of the Moon and obtain information on the physical properties of the lunar crust and interior. The PSE will detect surface tilt produced by tidal deformations, moonquakes and meteorite impacts. The passive seismometer design and subsequent experiment analysis are the responsibility of Dr. Gary Latham of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory.

A similar passive seismic experiment was deployed as part of Apollo 12 ALSEP station at Surveyor crater last November and has transmitted earthward lunar surface seismic activities since that time. The Apollo 12 and 13 seismometers differ from the seismometer left at Tranquility Base in July 1969 by the Apollo 11 crew in that they are continuously powered by a SNAP-27 radioisotope electric generator, while the Apollo 11 seismometer was powered by solar energy and could output data only during the lunar day at its location.

SNAP-27

SNAP-27 is one of a series of radioisotope thermoelectric generators, or atomic batteries, developed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission under its SNAP Program. The SNAP (Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power) Program is directed at development of generators and reactors for use in space, on land, and in the sea.

SNAP-27 was first used in the Apollo 12 mission to provide electricity for the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP). A duplicate of the Apollo 12 SNAP-27 will power the Apollo 13 ALSEP.

The basic SNAP-27 unit is designed to produce at least 63 electrical watts of power. It is a cylindrical generator fueled with the radioisotope plutonium 238. It is about 18 inches high and 16 inches in diameter, including the heat radiating fins. The generator, making maximum use of the lightweight material beryllium, weighs about 28 pounds unfueled.

The fuel capsule, made of a superalloy material, is 16.5 inches long and 2.5 inches in diameter. It weighs about 15.5 pounds, of which 8.36 pounds represent fuel. The plutonium 238 fuel is fully oxidized and is chemically and biologically inert.

The rugged fuel capsule is contained within a graphite fuel cask from launch through lunar landing. The cask is designed to provide reentry heating protection and added containment for the fuel capsule in the unlikely event of an aborted mission. The cylindrical cask with hemispherical ends includes a primary graphite heat shield, a secondary beryllium thermal shield, and a fuel capsule support structure made of titanium and Inconel materials.

The cask is 23 inches long and eight inches in diameter and weighs about 24.5 pounds. With the fuel capsule installed, it weighs about 40 pounds. It is mounted on the lunar module descent stage by a titanium support structure.

Once the lunar module is on the Moon, the lunar module pilot will remove the fuel capsule from the cask and insert it into the SNAP-27 generator which will be placed on the lunar surface near the module.

The spontaneous radioactive decay of the plutonium 238 within the fuel capsule generates heat into the generator. An assembly of 442 lead telluride thermoelectric elements converts this heat-1480 thermal watts-directly into electrical energy-at least 63 watts. There are no moving parts.

Plutonium 238 is an excellent isotope for the use in space nuclear generator. At the end of almost 90 years, plutonium 238 will still supply half of its original heat. In the decay process, plutonium 238 emits mainly the nuclei of helium (alpha radiation) a very mild type of radiation with a short emission range.

Before the use of the SNAP-27 system in the Apollo program was authorized, a thorough review was conducted to assure the health and safety of personnel involved in the mission and the general public. Extensive safety analyses and tests were conducted which demonstrated that the fuel would be safely contained under almost all creditable accident conditions.

Contractors for the SNAP-27

General Electric Co., Missile and Space Division, Philadelphia, PA, designed, developed, and fabricated the SNAP-27 generator for the ALSEP.

The 3M Co., St. Paul, MN, fabricated the thermoelectric elements and assembled the SNAP-27 generator.

Solar Division of International Harvester, San Diego, CA, fabricated the generator’s beryllium structure.

HITCO, Gardena, CA, fabricated the graphite structure for the SNAP-27 Graphite LM Fuel Cask.

Sandia Corp., a subsidiary of Western Electric, operator of AEC’s Sandal Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, provided technical direction for the SNAP-27 program.

Savannah River Laboratory, Aiken, SC, operated by DuPont Co. for the AEC, prepared the raw plutonium fuel.

Mound Laboratory, Miamisburg, OH, operated by Monsanto Research Corp. for the AEC, fabricated the raw fuel into final fuel form and encapsulated the fuel.

I will provide additional information about several sites listed above (Sandia Corp., Savannah River, and the Mound Laboratory) in upcoming blogs.

**NASA-Apollo 13 Press Kit, April 2, 1970

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-13/docs/apollo-13-press-kit.txt

Nuclear Power on the Moon-Apollo 12

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull121/12104700912.pdf

Will NASA ever recover Apollo 13’s Plutonium from the Sea?

Matthew Van Dusen, November 28, 2011

http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/will-nasa-ever-recover-apollo-13s-plutonium-from-the-sea

Peace,

JP

Without the oceans there would be no life on Earth.-Peter Benchley

Located 30 miles west of San Francisco, California are the Farallon Islands, and the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge.

In 1909, President Theodore Roosevelt declared this area a National Wildlife Refuge. President Roosevelt was one of this nation’s greatest conservationists, with the establishment of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the United States Forest Service, and the National Park Systems, just to name a few.

There have been 36 marine mammal species observed at the Gulf of the Farallones sanctuary including seals and sea lions, whales, dolphins, porpoises, and otters.  There are more than 160 species of seabirds that use the sanctuary for shelter, food or as a migration corridor. (1)

Farallon National Wildlife Refuge

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=81641

The Farallon Islands-“California’s Galapagos”

http://science.kqed.org/quest/video/the-farallon-islands-californias-galapagos/

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/

Just to the south of the Farallon Islands between 1946 and 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), authorized the dumping of 47,500 drums of radioactive waste. There were three types of “materials” that were permitted to be dumped into the ocean:

• By-product materials-refer to a wide variety of substances which were exposed to incidental radiation
• Source materials-included Uranium and Thorium
• Special nuclear materials-included Plutonium, Uranium-233, enriched Uranium-235, and any other materials which the AEC may have determined to be special nuclear materials. (2)

In 1972, Congress passed the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act prohibiting dumping of wastes into sanctuary waters. In 1973, the U.S. ratified the 1972 London Convention, prohibiting, among other things, the ocean disposal of high level nuclear wastes and allowing for future dumping of low-level radioactive wastes only under controlled conditions stipulated by the Convention.

Sea disposal of radioactive wastes: The London Convention 1972 IAEA Bulletin, February, 1994

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull362/36205981216.pdf

Summary of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/mprsa.html

Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/mprsa/02.html

 (1) Gulf of the Farallones, Condition Report 2010 (The only mention of the waste site is found on page 66 of this report):

http://farallones.noaa.gov/science/pdf/V9_GF_CR_LowResolution.pdf

History of Dumpsite Use

“Most of the dumpsite was generated by three Atomic Energy Commission contractors: The U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory in San Francisco, The University of California Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, and The University of California Radiation Laboratory at Berkley. The radioactive waste disposal operations were carried out by the U.S. Navy until July, 1959 when private companies assumed the responsibility under AEC license.”

“The dumpsite consisted of three sites, all using 55 gallons steel drums. Site 1: estimated 150 containers @ 50 fathoms (300 feet), Site 2: 3,600 containers @ 500 fathoms, Site 3: 44,000 @ 1,000 fathoms.”

1 fathom = 1.8288 meters (6 feet)

EPA Operations Report: A Survey of the Farallon Islands 500-Fathom Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, December, 1975

(You will need to Google “EPA Operations Report: A Survey of the Farallon Islands 500-Fathom Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, December, 1975” because the URL is extremely long. Sorry about this)

Farallon Nuclear Waste Dumping Map

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Farallon_nuclear_waste_dumping.png

It is also believed that the aircraft carrier USS Independence (CV-22) was scuttled over the continental slope west of the Farallon Islands on January 29, 1951. The Independence was a target ship used during Operation Crossroads, the first series of atomic bomb testing out at Bikini Atoll on July 1, 1946 (Shot Able) and on July 25, 1946 (Shot Baker). The Independence survived both tests, and was sent to the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco to be studied and used as a laboratory at the newly created Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. “The carrier itself was clearly “hot” when it went down. It had been used as an atomic bomb target and a nuclear laboratory, and it was packed full of fresh fission products and other radiological waste at the time it sank.”(*)

USS Independence (CV-22)

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/22.htm

http://wikimapia.org/15868488/Wreck-of-USS-Independence-CVL-22

 (*) This is a fantastic article written by Lisa Davis of the SF Weekly on the Farallon Islands Nuclear Waste Site, the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, and the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.

Fallout by Lisa Davis May 9, 2001

http://www.sfweekly.com/2001-05-09/news/fallout/

I haven’t been able to find any information of any kind on monitoring of the waste by any US Government agency. It is argued that it would be best just to leave it where it is.

The Farallon Islands are not the only area off our coastlines that had the misfortune of becoming a radioactive waste dump site.

The following is from the EPA report “Fact Sheet on Ocean Dumping of Radioactive Waste Materials-November 20, 1980. 

History OF Dumping Operations

On the basis of the information EPA has gathered to date, the following are salient points in the history of U.S. ocean dumping of radioactive materials. A tabular summary of the designated dump sites follows this list.

• Between 1946 and 1970 the ocean dumping of radioactive wastes was conducted under the licensing authority and direction of the Atomic Energy Commission;
• In 1960, the AEC imposed a moratorium on the issuance of new dumping licenses, allowing existing licenses to remain in force and to be renewed;
• By 1963 most ocean dumping activities had been phased out, and in 1970, the U.S. terminated all ocean dumping of radioactive waste materials;
• In 1973, the U.S. ratified the 1972 London Dumping Convention, prohibiting, among other things, the ocean disposal of high level nuclear wastes and allowing for future dumping of low-level radioactive wastes only under controlled conditions stipulated by the Convention;
• From 1946 thru 1962 (two years after the license moratorium), the U.S. dumped a total of approximately 89,400 containers with an estimated inventory of 94,000 curies (Ci) of radioactivity;
• Between 1963 and 1970 (when all dumping was terminated), the U.S. dumped only 350 containers with an estimated total activity of about 230 curies;
• The Farallon Island Sites (collectively) received approximately 99 percent of the radioactivity dumped in the Pacific Ocean;
• The Atlantic 2800 Meter Sites received approximately 96 percent of all radioactivity dumped in the Atlantic.

There are 18 sites located in the Pacific Ocean, 8 in the Atlantic Ocean, and 2 in the Gulf of Mexico. The following list is just some of the sites:

Pacific Sites

25-60 miles WSW of San Francisco   20 miles NE of Honolulu

300 miles N of Midway Islands           35 miles SW of Port Hueneme

230 miles W of OR/CA border            190 miles NW of OR/CA border

35 miles W of OR/CA border           1000 miles WSW of Los Angeles

800 miles SW of San Diego                  225 miles SW of San Diego

800 miles WNW of San Francisco     350 miles NW of Cape Flattery

Atlantic Sites

Massachusetts Bay                            80 miles E of Cape Henry

140 miles SE of Sandy Hook         220 miles SE of Sandy Hook

220 miles E of Charleston               15 miles S of Morehead City

Off coast of Sapelo Islands

Gulf of Mexico

170 miles S of New Orleans

250 miles SE of Apalachicola, Florida

 (2) Fact Sheet on Ocean Dumping of Radioactive Waste Materials, EPA, November 20, 1980

(Once again, you will need to Google “Fact Sheet on Ocean Dumping of Radioactive Waste Materials”  because the URL is extremely long.)

I found the following document from the FUSRAP Considered Sites, Navy Ammunitions Depot-Earle, New Jersey site. It is an office memorandum dated August 16, 1949, and discusses the “purpose of advising the Navy on radiation hazards involved in the dumping of contaminated AEC wastes at sea.”

Navy Ammunition Depot, Earle, New Jersey (Click on Document NJ.15-1)

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Considered_Sites/Navy_Ammunition_Depot_-_NJ_15.aspx

Document NJ.15-2,

Page 8-Naval Ammunition Depot-Red Bank, New Jersey

Collection point for unserviceable contaminated drums and scrap (radioactive) for sea disposal-late 1940’s and early 1950’s)

Ocean disposal of radioactive waste: Status report, IAEA, 4/1989

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull314/31404684750.pdf

Storage and Disposal Options for Radioactive Waste

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf04ap2.html

Also off the coast of California, the AEC and the Department of Defense conducted 2 underwater nuclear tests.

The first was Operation Wigwam on May 14, 1955, located 500 miles SW of San Diego (29 Deg N, 126 Deg W). It was detonated at a depth of 2000 feet and its yield was 30 kilotons. This was the Betty Mk-90 ASW (Anti-submarine Warfare) depth bomb warhead (B-7, listed under the W-7). There were 225 of these weapons manufactured between 1955 and 1960.

The second test was Operation Dominic-Swordfish on May 11, 1962, 460 miles west of San Diego, (31.24500 LAT -124.21170 Long) and was detonated at 650 feet deep. This was a full scale test of the RUR-5 Anti-Submarine ROCket (ASROC) and was fired from the destroyer USS Agerholm (DD-826) at a range of 4,348 yards. Its yield was 18 kilotons. This was a W-44 plutonium implosion warhead, and there were 575 of these manufactured between May, 1961 and March, 1968.

Nuclear Weapon Archives

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/index.html

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

This is a US Navy documented film on Operation Swordfish. Audio is not the greatest.

1962 ASROC Navy Nuclear Tests from USS Agerholm DD826

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV5q_mlhaiM

Nuclear waste isn’t the only thing that the United States has dumped in the oceans. Arsenic Trichloride, Hydrogen Cyanide, Lewisite, Mustard Gas, Nerve Gas, Phosgene, and White Phosphorus are some of the “64 million pounds of nerve and mustard agents and 400,000 chemical-filled bombs that were dumped at 26 sites off the coasts of our country.”*

The Deep Sea News post “Munitions Dumping at Sea”, by CR McClain, June 11, 2007, gives you an idea as to where some of these sites are located.

http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/2007/06/munitions_dumping_at_sea.php

*The Deadliness Below- John M.R. Bull-The Daily Press

(From the Berkley Radiological Air and Water Monitoring Forum)

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/deadliness-belowweapons-mass-destruction-thrown-sea-years-ago-present-danger-now-and-army-

Historic Disposal of Military Munitions in US Coastal Waters, February, 2009

http://www.slideshare.net/glcarton/2009-feb-17-overview-of-historic-dod-sea-disposal-mod

Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation, William R. Brankowitz, April 27, 1987

http://www.epa.gov/region04/foia/readingroom/camp_lejeune/trianadoc21a.pdf

Operation CHASE (Cut Holes and Sink ‘Em) stated on Page 9, 10

 Peace,

JP

Histories of ages past

Hung in light and shadows cast

Down through all eternity

The crying of humanity

Donovan

The one year anniversary of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan is on March 11. When the 8.9 (9.0) magnitude earthquake occurred, it knocked out power to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. This event was followed by a 250 mile long, 38 foot high tsunami that easily overwhelmed the 16½ foot high seawall at the plant. This sequentially flooded the backup generators (that were located slightly above sea-level) that were to run the pumps that kept the water flowing to cool the reactors in case of power failure. The battery backup was only good for several hours. This in turn started the meltdown of three reactors at the site and caused several hydrogen and steam explosions at the site.

 Explosion at Fukushima Reactor 3, March 14, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haUawwm7l4k

Partial Meltdowns Led to Hydrogen Explosions at Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=partial-meltdowns-hydrogen-explosions-at-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant

Fukushima throws spotlight on quake zone nuclear power

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928043.100-fukushima-throws-spotlight-on-quake-zone-nuclear-power.html

Cold shutdown (in a sense) was achieved in December, 2011, nine months after the initial crisis. According to the U.S. NRC, cold shutdown is a term used to define a reactor coolant system at atmospheric pressure and at a temperature below 200 degrees Fahrenheit following a reactor cool down.

There is currently a 12 miles exclusion zone in effect around the plant.

http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2011/03/20km-exclusion-zone-on-google-maps.html

An interesting article from inside the exclusion zone by Richard Engel, NBC’s Rock Center, March 7, 2012

http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/07/10594667-one-year-after-disaster-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant-town-remains-frozen-in-time?chromedomain=dailynightly

With estimates coming in that it will take Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) 10 years to remove the melted fuel rods, and another 20-40 years to completely decommission the plant site. With so many conflicting reports on the true condition of the reactors, and the amount of radiation released over the region, the real question that remains is: Who or what are we to believe?

I can only wish the people of Japan the best on their continuing recover from the earthquake, tsunami and ongoing nuclear disaster.

Map of Fukushima Plant and Epicenter of Earthquake (Page 3)

http://www.vgb.org/vgbmultimedia/News/Fukushima_VGB_rev16.pdf

Examining the Missteps in Japan’s Nuclear Crisis

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/examining_the_missteps_in_japans_nuclear_crisis/2384/

After Fukushima: The Fear Factor-World bytes (Video)

http://www.worldbytes.org/after-fukushima-the-fear-factor/

Fukushima: It’s much worse than you think

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html

Tokyo Electric Power Company Press Release

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/index-e.html

Will Davis “Atomic Power Review”

His blog on November 30, 2011 is the only one I’ve been able to find that shows what’s going on with the reactor core vessel at Fukushima.

http://atomicpowerreview.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archive.html

Other Items about Nuclear Power

As far as nuclear power ties into our story, we have so many other things to cover, that the nuclear power discussion will be limited. We will be briefly discussing the Hanford Reservation in Washington, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory in Southeast Idaho. Our story will center around the people that have been affected by living near or working at these sites, and the overall environmental impact on the regions.

Several of the issues that we will be covering on nuclear power are:

• How safe are nuclear power plants?
• Are there reactor designs that use more of their fuel?
• The spent fuel issue, is it for real?
• What has been learned, and what is being done to make it safer.

We will be looking at the mining and milling, chemical separation, and enrichment of uranium that is the fuel for nuclear power.

The best way for me to look at both sides of the nuclear power debate (the whole story really) is explained by what Bill Watterson calls “Neo Cubist”, the ability to see both sides of the argument. (Calvin & Hobbes is still by far my favorite comic strip).

“Calvin and Hobbes” as a Critical Medium on Art & Philosophy

By Constantine Koutsoutis

http://comicbookstorytelling.blogspot.com/2011/07/calvin-and-hobbes-as-critical-medium-on.html

The Pro Side

Some Key Points:

• Nuclear power does produce about 20% of the electricity used in the United States.
• It provides jobs for the local economy, jobs in mining, milling, fuel processing, etc.
• There are less CO2 emissions then fossil fuel power plants.

There are 104 reactors at 65 power plants currently operating in the United States, with more being built or proposed. The first nuclear reactor construction permit in over 30 years was approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on February 8, 2012 for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in eastern Georgia.

Plant Vogtle

http://www.southerncompany.com/nuclearenergy/vogtle.aspx

NRC Approves Vogtle Reactors

The Augusta Chronicle-February 9, 2012

http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2012-02-09/nrc-approves-vogtle-reactors?v=1328795966

Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)

http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

http://www.nrc.gov/

Map of Power Reactors-Nuclear Regulatory Commission

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html

Nuclear Street.Com, Proposed New Nuclear Power Plants

http://nuclearstreet.com/newsletters/new-nuclear-plants_R19.pdf

The Anti Side

Some Key Points:

• The environmental impact of mining, milling, and fuel processing of uranium.
• Spent fuel
• Accidents involving nuclear power plants
• The issue of depleted uranium.

So, am I Pro or Anti nuclear?  I need to clarify this question because it breaks down into two parts; nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

Leslie Corrice “The Hiroshima Syndrome” is a well written website that best describes what I’m talking about; that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are two different categories.

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/

I am against nuclear weapons. They are nothing but weapons of annihilation. I also believe that there will never be a total disarmament in my lifetime. The main reason I’m writing this story is because of my father and the several hundred thousand other veterans who were exposed to high levels of ionizing radiation during the atmospheric testing from 1945-1963, and forgotten about. And that’s just one area.

2) Am I for or against nuclear power? As I write this, I cannot truly answer this question. For the sake of presenting an unbiased story, I have to remain neutral.

I see the need for alternative energy to help run our country. We just can’t shut down every power plant in the nation because we don’t think it’s safe. This just will not happen. Yes, there are other sources of clean energy, and coal, gas, and nuclear can be produced cleaner, and with the advancing technology in these areas, they can be made safer for us to use, and for the environment.

FYI

The half life (the rate at which a radioactive isotope decays) of Uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years (The same age as the earth).

“The vast majority of the heat in Earth’s interior—up to 90 percent—is fueled by the decaying of radioactive isotopes like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and Thorium 232 contained within the mantle. These isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward stability. “The amount of heat caused by this radiation is almost the same as the total heat measured emanating from the Earth.”

Probing Question: What heats the earth’s core?

http://www.physorg.com/news62952904.html

It’s what we’ve been doing to it here on the surface that has put us in danger for the last 65 years.

Peace,

John Pointer

Referring back to my Fernald Preserve post on January 16, 2012, this round of Recommending Reading is At Work in the Field of the Bomb by Robert Del Tredici, 1987.

Del Tredici spent six years gathering pictures and interviews from people and places in all areas of work from the nuclear weapons industry. From photographer Berlyn Brixter, the official photographer for the Trinity test on July 16, 1945, General Paul Tibbets (Pilot of the Enola Gay), and Admiral Hyman Rickover (“the Father of the Nuclear Navy”) Del Tredici covers a wide area not just from the United States, but also interviews from Japan, Britain, and Canada just to name a few.

Also included in this book is Widow Kay Gable, whose husband Don Gable worked at the Rocky Flats plant and died in 1980 from on-the-job exposure to radiation. They are both featured in the documentary film “Dark Circle”, which in part looks at the Rocky Flats plant and the environmental contamination from its plutonium production.

One person he interviews is Yoshito Matsushige, a photographer from the Hiroshima newspaper Chugoku Shimbun, who went out and took photographs of the city the same day the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (photo set #100).

Robert Del Tredici has also done work for several Department of Energy publications:

Closing the Circle on Splitting the Atom- January, 1996

http://www.em.doe.gov/Publications/splitatom.aspx

Linking Legacies- January, 1997

http://www.em.doe.gov/Publications/linklegacy.aspx

From Cleanup to Stewardship, October, 1999

http://www.em.doe.gov/pdfs/doc130.pdf

He currently teaches photography and the history of animated film at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada.

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

http://www.ccnr.org/

I highly recommend this book, and it is well worth your time.

Peace,

JP

Fernald, Ohio

18 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio is the Fernald Preserve (1). Visitors to the preserve have 7.4 miles of walking trails, acres of forest, prairie land, savanna, wetlands and open waters to admire. This location was also home to the former Feeds Material Production Center (FMPC), also known as Fernald, a uranium processing site that operated from 1952 to 1989 for the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Energy. DOE formally shut down the facility on June 19, 1991.

Fernald’s part of the 1950’s nuclear buildup included nuclear material processing and machining, fuel fabrication, and radiochemical processing. It produced high-purity uranium metal products in the form of ingots, derbies, billets, and fuel cores for use in the reactors at the Savannah River Site, the Hanford Site, and Oak Ridge, as well as uranium products for other Atomic Energy Commission sites.

http://www.lm.doe.gov/land/sites/oh/fernald_orig/50^th/s7.htm

The following three examples give you an idea of how much product was produced at Fernald:

US Environmental Protection Agency

From 1952-1989, the facility produced more than 500 million pounds of uranium metal and approximately 1.5 billion pounds of waste material. During the facility’s operation, processing activities led to the contamination of site soil, surface water and ground water (underground water supplies).

http://www.epa.gov/Region5/superfund/redevelop/pdfs/Fernald_Preserve.pdf

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

The Fernald site delivered nearly 170,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU) metal products and 35,000 MTU of intermediate compounds, such as uranium trioxide and uranium tetrafluoride. From the mid-1950s to the early 1960s, metal production peaked at nearly 12,000 tons a year.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/fernald.html

Fluor Fernald, Inc, (the contractor responsible for the cleanup of the site)

Fernald produced over 500 million pounds of high-purity uranium metal products for the U.S. defense program. During the Cold War, this 1,050-acre site generated over 6 million tons of liquid and solid wastes and emitted over 1 million pounds of uranium into the atmosphere from its production stacks.

http://www.fluor.com/projects/Pages/ProjectInfoPage.aspx?PrjID=8

Pages 5-8 from the link below is from the book At Work in the Fields of the Bomb, a 1987 book by Robert Del Tredici, and has some very insightful pictures from inside Fernald. You will notice in the pictures that none of the workers are wearing any form of respirator protection.

http://www.twill.info/magazine/%2312/downloads/articles/Twill_12_At_Work_In_The_Fields_Of_The_Bomb.pdf

 (1) Fernald Preserve-Google Map

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&qscrl=1&nord=1&rlz=1T4GZHY_enUS239US239&q=fernald+preserve+satellite+image&bav=on.2,or.r_

gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&ion=1&biw=1302&bih=733&wrapid=tlif132674675154510&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=kYwUT9UrhJS3B9P83JwC&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=3&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg

View of the plant in September, 1999.

http://www.lm.doe.gov/land/sites/oh/fernald_orig/Vimages/Aerials/Sep99/pages/7219-6.htm 

Water Supply

In 2004, The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability presented an in-depth report of water supplies for 13 sites involved in the Department of Energy’s nuclear complex, including Fernald.

 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability-Danger Lurks Below

http://www.ananuclear.org/EducationalResources/Reports/DangerLurksBelow/tabid/175/Default.aspx

Danger Lurks Below-Fernald

http://ananuclear.org/Portals/0/documents/Water%20Report/waterreportfernald.pdf

The Feeds Material Production Center was located less than a mile west of the Great Miami River, and was built directly over the Great Miami Aquifer, which provides water throughout southwest Ohio.

The Great Miami Watershed

http://academic.udayton.edu/michaelsandy/great_miami_river_watershed_is_l.htm

In 1981, uranium contamination was found to exist in wells one mile south of the Fernald site in what is referred to as the “south plume.” DOE provided bottled water for residents in the plume area from February 1991 until 1996 when a public drinking water system became operational.

 Fernald Aquifer Restoration and Waste Water Project (EPA)

http://epa.ohio.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=4462

“The Aquifer Restoration and Wastewater treatment involved cleaning approximately 170-acres of the Great Miami Aquifer that became contaminated as a result of the uranium processing mission at Fernald. From 1993 through May, 2004, more than 14.9 billion gallons of water had been extracted and nearly 6,100 pounds of uranium removed from the aquifer.” There are currently 23 extraction wells in operation on the preserve. *(Page 23)

* Operations and Maintenance Master Plan for Aquifer Restorationand Wastewater Treatment, April, 2010

www.lm.doe.gov/fernald/LMICP_Vol_II_Att_A_2010.pdf

 Aquifer Restoration and Wastewater

http://www.lm.doe.gov/land/sites/oh/fernald_orig/Vimages/PhotoTour/2004/May04/pages/8070D-156.htm

Great Miami Aquifer

(The Fernald Preserve is located in the lower left side of this map, in Hamilton County.)

http://www.fogm.org/pdfs/maps/aquifer.pdf

http://www.fogm.org/maps.html

Third Five-Year Review Report for the Fernald Preserve

www.lm.doe.gov/Fernald/third_five_year_review.pdf

Cleanup

Environmental cleanup began in 1992, and after 14 years and 4.4 billion dollars spent, Fluor Fernald, Inc. declared physical completion of the site on October 29, 2006 

On the eastern part of the preserve is the On-Site Disposal Facility (OSDF), which consists of eight cells that contain approximately 85 percent soil and 15 percent demolition debris. The OSDF is an above-grade, double lined and capped facility measuring 100-acres, 65-foot high, 3,700-foot long and 1,000-foot wide. It is designed to hold approximately 2.9 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris.  The last cell was capped on September 25, 2006

Other facts from Fluor Fernald about the cleanup:

• Fluor safely treated and shipped 1.2 million tons of radioactive waste, equivalent to the weight of 18 battleships, from three concrete silos, six waste pits, a 12-acre concrete waste pad and a thorium warehouse.

• During a 10-year period (1995–2005), Fluor shipped 6.6 million cubic feet of low-level waste to the Nevada Test Site (NTS); 174,912 gallons of low-level liquid mixed waste offsite for incineration; and 59,147 cubic feet of low-level liquid mixed waste off site for treatment.

• Fluor expedited the shipment of 31 million net pounds of nuclear material through transfer to other DOE sites, sale to the private sector or off-site burial. This downgraded Fernald’s nuclear hazard rating status, reducing S&M cost by $1.7 million per year and freeing $69 million to expedite cleanup.

• Fluor executed the largest low-level waste shipping campaign in DOE’s history by shipping 9,100 railcars containing 979,000 tons of material from Fernald’s six waste pits to Envirocare—more than 41 million miles without a safety incident. The project involved treating 350,000 tons of waste pit material to meet Envirocare’s waste acceptance criteria. Fluor also shipped waste by truck an additional 31 million miles without safety incident.

 Fluor Government Group, Fluor Fernald, Inc.

http://www.pmi.org/About-Us/Our-Professional-Awards/~/media/PDF/Awards/Fernald%20Project%20of%20the%20Year%20Nomination.ashx 

Taxpayers bilked in Fernald cleanup

http://www.enquirer.com/fernald/#findings

 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Study

“In 1988, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted an epidemiologic study to assess the potential association between exposure to ionizing radiation and the level of disease in the community surrounding the former Feed Material Processing Center (FMPC) in Fernald, Ohio. The results were released in 1998.”

Fernald Dosimetry Reconstruction Project

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/brochure/profile_fernald.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fernald/default.htm

 Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program

As of January 8, 2012, there have been 5,043 claims filed, equaling 3,828 cases which represents 2,207 workers.  Of the 3,828 cases, only 974 of them have been awarded compensation. That’s a 25 percent success rate for the compensation program for this facility.

EEOICP Program Statistics http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/regs/compliance/statistics/WebPages/FEED__PROD_CTR.htm

“Nobody can ever safely live here, federal scientists say, and the site will have to be closely monitored essentially forever.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/20/nation/na-radiation-fernald20

Peace,

JP

 Active Fuel Fabrication Locations in the USA

Mixed-Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility

Shaw AREVA MOX Services, LLC-Aiken, South Carolina  (under construction)

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/mox/licensing.html#3

Uranium Fuel Fabrication Facility

AREVA NP, Inc.- Lynchburg, Virginia

(Mt. Athos Road Facility)

AREVA NP, Inc.- Richland, Washington

B&W Nuclear Operations Group- Lynchburg, Virginia

Global Nuclear Fuel- Americas, LLC- Wilmington, North Carolina

Nuclear Fuel Services- Erwin, Tennessee

(active facility, license renewal application submitted,  undergoing partial decommissioning)

Westinghouse Electric Co. LLC- Columbia, South Carolina

(Columbia Fuel Fabrication Facility)

Uranium Hexafluoride Production (Conversion) Facility

Honeywell International, Inc.-Metropolis, IL

Locations of Major U.S. Fuel Cycle Facilities-NRC

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/fuel-cycle/

Fuel Fabrication

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/fuel-fab.html

Former Fuel Fabrication Facilities  

Weldon Spring Site-Weldon Spring, Missouri

http://www.lm.doe.gov/weldon/Sites.aspx

Bridgeport Brass Company- Adrian, Michigan

Vulcan Crucible Steel Company-Aliquippa, Pennsylvania

Bliss and Laughlin Steel Company-Buffalo, New York

B&T Metals-Columbus, Ohio

Associate Aircraft Tool and Manufacturing Co.-Fairfield, Ohio

Dow Metal Products Division-Madison, Illinois

Alba Craft Laboratories, Inc.-Oxford, Ohio

C.H. Schnorr & Company-Springdale, Pennsylvania

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Sites_Map.aspx

Apollo Plant-Apollo, Pennsylvania

Cimarron Fuel Fabrication Site-Crescent, Oklahoma         

Westinghouse Electric Company-Hematite, Missouri

(Hematite Facility)

Curtis-Wright Cheswick-Cheswick Pennsylvania

BASF (State of Massachusetts)-Plainville, Massachusetts

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/

Reactive Metals, Inc.-Ashtabula, Ohio

http://www.em.doe.gov/bemr/bemrsites/reme.aspx

 World Information Service on Energy

Uranium Enrichment/Fuel Fabrication – Decommissioning Issues (USA)

http://www.wise-uranium.org/edusa.html#HEMAT

EPA Reports

 Ohio.gov-EPA Fernald Cleanup Fact Sheet

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/swdo/divisions/FFS/Fernald/FernaldSiteInfo/FernaldCleanupFactsheet.aspx

Fernald Chronology, Ohio EPA

http://epa.ohio.gov/swdo/divisions/FFS/Fernald/FernaldSiteInfo/chronology.aspx 

Department of Energy Publications

Fernald Preserve Guided Tour

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Fernald/Visitors_Center/Fernald_Preserve_Visitors_Center_Guided_Tour.pdf

DOE-History of the Fernald Site

http://www.lm.doe.gov/land/sites/oh/fernald_orig/50th/history.htm

 DOE Management and Oversight of Cleanup Activities at Fernald

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/rc97063.pdf

 DOE-Fernald Documents

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Fernald/Documents.aspx

Fernald Production Process & Products

http://www.lm.doe.gov/land/sites/oh/fernald_orig/50th/fppp.htm 

Other Articles of Interest

 Fernald Feed Materials Production Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernald_Feed_Materials_Production_Center

IEER (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research)

http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_5/5-3/fern-res.html

 The Center for Land Use Interpretation

http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/OH3126/

http://ludb.clui.org/tag/Nuclear+%3B2F+Radioactive/

A Tour of the Feed Materials Production Center at Fernald Ohio

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/Society/nuclear/fernald/fernald.html

 A Field Trip to Fernald

http://www.disk-o.com/malamp/fernald.html

Shifting Radioactivity Risks

http://www.ieer.org/reports/fernald/fullrpt.pdf

A Park Grows at Fernald-May 13, 2009

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-17825-a_park_grows_at_fernald.html

 Fernald, Ohio

http://wn.com/fernald,_ohio?orderby=relevance&upload_time=today 

The Ohio Ornithological Society

http://www.ohiobirds.org/birdingsites/showsite.php?Site_ID=113

This letter is from Terrie Barrie, a Founding Member, Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups. Not only does Terrie clearing outline the absurdity of what nuclear workers are facing, she speaks to the heart of the driving force of our film coupled with similar plights suffered by America’s Atomic Veterans and Site Participants with their compensation/care program (RECA) and many others who fall through the gaps completely. Please take a moment to read this.

-The filmmakers

A Letter from ANWAG

December 5, 2011

What if there was a federal law that promised to take care of people who were poisoned by working at a government facility?

What if the lead agency requires the equivalent of waterboarding to approve a claim for a covered disease?

What if the lead agency allowed derogatory names to be used in a training manual for claimants or their doctors?

What if, two months after an apology and a promise to do better by said agency, an agency employee refers to a claimant’s physician as a “quack”?

What if this agency approves one claimant for a disease but denies a co-worker with the same disease who worked next to the approved claimant?

What if this agency ignores nationally renowned, top medical experts’ testimonies in favor of their own hand-picked physicians?

What if this agency ignores a letter from Members of Congress which explains how Congress expects the program to be implemented?

What if this agency ignores its own medical director’s advice to the extent that the medical director resigns in protest?

What if the federal department responsible for administering the program’s medical benefits continued to do everything in its power to delay and deny in-home nursing to the beneficiaries who are entitled to the help, as ordered by their physicians?

What if a supporting agency says it is not inappropriate for the person who wrote the Final Rules for the program to have the responsibility of guiding the advisory board?

What if the supporting agency says they can reconstruct dose with reasonable accuracy when there is absolutely no data for the workers instead of following the statute and declare an SEC?

What if the supporting agency obfuscated to the advisory board about a document that would affect the whether claimants would be covered without delay?

What if the supporting agency hired a contractor who had been historically responsible for maintaining the safety and health of the workers to reconstruct what happened at the facility?

What if the supporting agency allows a contractor to bill the government for maintaining records and also allows this contractor to bill the government for requesting these same records?

What if the supporting agency delays the process so much that claimants are in limbo for five or more years rather than follow the statute and declare an SEC?

These above questions are all true about the historic program that was designed to compensate nuclear weapons workers for diseases that are the result of their daily exposure to deadly toxic substances, including radiation, heavy metals and solvents.

This historical and compassionate legislation is the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA).

This legislation was enacted because since the 1940’s these workers who helped keep America safe during WWII and the Cold War had been denied the basic compensation available to the carpenter who fell off a roof and broke his arm.  The Department of Energy historically reimbursed its contractors of these nuclear weapons facilities to contest the claims for occupational diseases.  These diseases are not restricted to cancer from radiation exposures, but also include lung diseases from inhaling beryllium and heavy metal dusts, neurological diseases from exposure to solvents and heavy metals to gastrointestinal diseases as the result of ingesting radioactive materials and carcinogenic solvents.

The workers and their survivors rejoiced eleven years ago.  This was an end of an era of lies and denials and the beginning of an age of openness and accountability.  These workers were promised they would receive the same consideration for workers’ compensation as their brothers and sisters received in the private sector.  This is a good law.  Granted, there are a few sections that can be clarified, but overall, this legislation would allow these dedicated and patriotic workers receive the just and fair compensation due to them.

That was until the agencies wrote the Final Rules.  The agencies bastardized the intent of Congress and interpreted the statute to benefit the agencies rather than the damaged workers.  They said that radiation and chemicals do not interact despite valid scientific evidence to the contrary.  This was done despite Congress stating during the rule making process that radiation needs to be regarded as a contributory factor.  The agencies said Congress really didn’t mean an evaluation report needs to be submitted within 180 days, even though the law specifically states that it does.

What went wrong?  ANWAG doesn’t know.  All we know is that Congress intended these workers to receive medical, wage loss and impairment compensation for the illnesses they developed while working to protect our country.  For too many workers this is not happening.

Again, ANWAG calls for a full investigation of this program by Congress; an investigation which will require that all agency heads be called on the carpet for these and other violations of the Act.  We call on Congress to act and act now.  ANWAG sincerely thanks and honors those few Members who have stepped up to the plate and supported these workers this year.  But more must be done.

Terrie Barrie

Founding Member, Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups

tbarrieanwag@gmail.com

Atom Valley

(härtˈlăndˌ) Noun

A central region, especially one that is politically, economically, or militarily vital to a nation, region, or culture.

This is the region of the north-central United States around the Great Lakes and the upper Mississippi Valley. It is generally considered to include Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. The area is known for its rich farmlands and highly industrialized centers.

American Heritage Dictionary

One of the areas we will be covering in our documentary will be the Ohio River Valley in southern Ohio and the surrounding area.

Ohio has numerous sites that were involved in the nuclear industry. 55 sites are listed on the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) considered list in Ohio, with 8 of these sites selected for remediation. (See my October 5, 2011 blog)

Ohio is in Region III of the NRC’s List of States and Territories by NRC Region

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/region-state/

Starting with the North Coast of the state, between Toledo and Ashtabula, Ohio, (a distance of around 180 miles), there are two active Nuclear power plants (*), four sites under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) (**), two sites undergoing decommissioning by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (***), and one site that was cleaned up under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (****).

(*)Active nuclear power plants in Ohio:

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station- Oak Harbor (21 Miles ESE of Toledo)

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/davi.html

Perry Nuclear Power Plant- Perry, OH (35 miles NE of Cleveland)

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/perr1.html

The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station is also one of 51 sites across the United States that is listed as an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.

Spent Fuel Sites

http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/locations.html

(**)FUSRAP sites located along Lake Erie, under the US Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo, New York District:

http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/index.htm

Toledo Site

“Baker Brothers, Inc., machined and shaped uranium for Clinton Semi-Works in East Tennessee and for the Hanford Reservation in 1944.” Remediation was completed in 1995, and was certified on August 24, 2001.

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Toledo/Sites.aspx

Painesville Site-(22 NE of Cleveland)

“From 1951 to 1953, Diamond Magnesium received approximately 1,650 tons of radioactively contaminated scrap steel from the Lake Ontario Storage Area (now the Niagara Falls Storage Site), to be used in the magnesium production process.”

Site remediation began in 2007, and is scheduled for completion in 2012.

http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/paine/

Luckey Site-22 miles SE of Toledo

“Between 1949 and 1958, the Luckey Site was operated as a beryllium production facility by the Brush Beryllium Company (later Brush Wellman) under contract to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). In 1951, the site received approximately 1,000 tons of radioactively contaminated scrap steel, to be used in proposed magnesium production at the site.”

Remediation is scheduled to start in 2014.

http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/luckey/

http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/luckey/luckey-fs-site-2011-05.pdf

Harshaw Chemical Site-5 miles SW of downtown Cleveland

“ From 1944 to 1959, the former Harshaw Chemical Company was contracted by the Manhattan Engineer District (MED) and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to produce uranium for isotopic separation and enrichment in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.”

This site is in the “Feasibility Study Phase.”

http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/harshaw/

http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/harshaw/harshaw-fs-site-2011-05.pdf

  (***)Two of the three sites listed under “Facilities Undergoing Decommissioning” by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are located in Sandusky, Ohio:

NASA–MOCKUP and Plum Brook Research and Test Reactor Facility

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/region-state/ohio.html

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/pbrf/history.htm

(****)”Located 3 miles northeast of the city of Ashtabula (50 miles northeast of Cleveland), and one mile south of Lake Erie is the Ashtabula Closure Project facility. The RMI Extrusion Plant, processed uranium for the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies for the production of nuclear fuel elements between 1962 and 1988. Remediation began in 1997, and was officially announced “clean up” by the DOE on January 19, 2007.” Maybe on the surface, but according to this article, the groundwater is still contaminated:

http://starbeacon.com/local/x343703839/Former-RMI-site-in-line-for-2-2M

Ashtabula Closure Project

http://www.emcbc.doe.gov/servicedsites/siteprofile.php?profile=Ashtabula

Audit Report

http://www.orau.gov/ddsc/projects/DOE/ig-0541.pdf

DOE Environmental Management

http://www.em.doe.gov/bemr/bemrsites/reme.aspx

Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-EPA

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lrca.html

CENTRAL

The central part of the state has three sites in the Columbus area:

Battelle Columbus Laboratories-Columbus (King Avenue Site)

http://www.em.doe.gov/bemr/bemrsites/bacl.aspx

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/complex/battelle-columbus-laboratories.html

West Jefferson Site (5 miles west of Columbus)

http://www.em.doe.gov/SiteInfo/ColumbusEnvMgtPrj-WestJefferson.aspx?PAGEID=MAIN

http://www.battelle-japan.com/lab/westJefferson.aspx

Waste Management 2003 conference, February 23-27, Tucson, Arizona

RH-TRU Waste Shipments from Battelle Columbus Laboratories to the Hanford Nuclear Facility for Interim Storage

http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2003/pdfs/334.pdf

FUSRAP Site:

Columbus East Site (Formerly B&T Metals)

“From March through August 1943, B&T Metals extruded uranium fuel rods from uranium metal billets (bars or ingots of uranium formed as an intermediate product) under contract to E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont). The rods were manufactured in support of Manhattan Engineer District (MED) operations and were destined for use as fuel in the Hanford, Washington, nuclear reactor. It is estimated that more than 50 tons of uranium were extruded.”

Remediation was conducted from March through June, 1996, and the site was certified cleaned up in 2001.

In May of 2011, so much for the cleanup effort:

The Columbus Dispatch

http://www.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-city/2011/05/bt_metals_finally_coming_down.html

Columbus Underground

http://www.columbusunderground.com/bt-metals-in-franklinton-to-be-demolished

FUSRAP Information:

http://www.lm.doe.gov/columbus_east/Sites.aspx

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Considered_Sites/Columbus_East_OH_Site_-_OH_26.aspx

The Ohio State University is also home to a 500 kilowatt research reactor that has been in service since 1961.

The Ohio State University Nuclear Reactor Lab (OSU-NRL).

http://reactor.osu.edu/

WSW, SOUTH

And now, our feature presentation:

Located in the WSW and southern part of Ohio are three FUSRAP sites, one decommissioned nuclear reactor, the first permanent Atomic Energy Commission laboratory, one former uranium processing plant (now a Preserve), and one gaseous diffusion plant.

FUSRAP Sites

Hamilton Site, Hamilton

“From 1943 to 1951, the Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Company fabricated slugs from rolled natural uranium metal stock for use by the Manhattan Engineer District and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in production reactors.”

Remediated in 1994-95, and was certified in 1996.

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Hamilton/Sites.aspx

Fairfield Site-(15 miles NW of Cincinnati)

“In 1956, uranium metal was machined and shaped at the site for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, for the Hanford, Washington, and Savannah River, South Carolina, nuclear reactors.

Remediation was conducted in 1994-95, and the site was certified in 1996.”

http://www.lm.doe.gov/fairfield/Sites.aspx

Oxford Site- (35 miles NW of Cincinnati)

“From October 1952 to February 1957, Alba Craft Laboratory, Inc., worked under a subcontract to National Lead of Ohio (NLO). NLO developed and machine-threaded natural uranium metal to be used at the AEC Savannah River, South Carolina, site. NLO also performed hollow drilling and turning of uranium metal to be used in the Savannah River and Hanford, Washington, nuclear reactors. It is estimated that NLO machined several hundred tons of uranium at the Oxford site.”

Remediation was conducted in 1994-95, and the site was certified in 1996.

http://www.lm.doe.gov/oxford/Sites.aspx

Piqua Decommissioned Reactor Site (30 miles north of Dayton)

DOE Defense Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) Program

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Piqua/Sites.aspx

Mound Plant- Miamisburg, Ohio, 10 miles SW of Dayton

1948-2003

“Construction of the Mound facility began in 1946 to support the early atomic weapons programs. Early work at the site involved production of polonium-beryllium initiators used in early atomic weapons and research related to radionuclides and detonators.”

Office of Legacy Management

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Mound/Sites.aspx?view=2

Mound Museum

http://moundmuseum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1

Clean up is ongoing under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLCA) and/or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations

Fernald Feeds Material Plant-(20 miles NW of Cincinnati)

“The site’s production mission began in 1951 and continued until 1989, when production operations ceased and Fernald’s mission changed to environmental remediation. The comprehensive environmental remediation and ecological restoration of the site was completed in 2006 at a cost of $4.4 billion,” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLCA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Office of Legacy Management

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Fernald/Sites.aspx

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (20 miles north of Portsmouth) Piketon, Ohio

“The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant was one of three large gaseous diffusion plants initially constructed to produce enriched uranium to support the nation’s nuclear weapons program and later enriched uranium used by commercial nuclear reactors.”

US Department of Energy

http://www.pppo.energy.gov/portsmouth.html

Ohio has 81 sites on 25 properties under the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). This link will give you an idea of how many sites there are nationwide.

Cleanup Actions at Formerly Used Defense Sites

http://www.gao.gov/gao-01-1012sp/app2.htm

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

ARRA Funding:

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant-    $119,800,000

Mound Site-                                                     $17,900,000

Painesville Site-                                              $15,200,000

Luckey Site-                                                        $1,100,000

Total                                                                 $154,000,000

http://www.em.doe.gov/emrecovery/EMRecovery.aspx

I will go into more detail in regards to the Mound Plant,  Fernald Preserve, Piqua Decommissioned Reactor Site and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in my upcoming blogs. I will also discuss the rivers and water tables that have been affected.

I know this is a lot of information, but sadly, there are a lot of sites in a state that I once called home, and I was not aware of their existence.

Peace,

JP 

More Sites to check out (Just in case you needed more)

 Legacy Management-Ohio

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Ohio/

 DOE Environmental Management US Map

http://www.em.doe.gov/bemr/BEMRPages/map.aspx

Ohio

http://www.em.doe.gov/bemr/BEMRmapSites/ohio.aspx

DOE Ohio Closure Projects:

http://orise.orau.gov/files/ieav/project-summaries/project-doe-ohio.pdf

Completed D&D Project Sites

(Ashtabula, Columbus Nuclear Research (Battelle), Fernald, Mound)

http://www.em.doe.gov/pdfs/DDMaps.pdf

Press Campaign Begins!

Check out this news release on our Indie Gogo Campaign!

http://www.prlog.org/11723928-colorado-filmmakers-launch-campaign-for-documentary-film-on-americas-nuclear-industry.html

Tarry Shirkey

October 4, 1945-November 9, 2011

 Time is so very precious here on this earth. We take things and people for granted, thinking they will always be there. And when someone passes away, we are reminded of the limited time we all have left.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2011, we lost a good friend of ours, Tarry Shirkey. Although I only met him about a year and a half ago, I considered him my friend. Although he had many health problems, he was always one with a good outlook on life.

Tarry was a Navy Vietnam veteran. When I asked him how he decided on the Navy, his reply was, “I didn’t, the draft board did it for me.” He would go on to serve as a nuclear technician on the USS Bainbridge DLGN-25, (changed to CGN 25 in 1975), the world’s first nuclear frigate. (1)

I enjoyed talking to him about his time growing up during the Cold War, and the time of “Duck and Cover.” (2) He told me that he knew then that it wouldn’t work.

He was more than part of our documentary, he was a friend, and he will be missed. Take care, and Godspeed my friend.

JP

Tarry, his wife Pam, and their family are like family both to me and our director Chris Wildman. There are many wonderful memories and some significant heartaches we have shared over the years. Far beyond the film, Tarry’s absence will leave a tangible void in our lives. He has touched many with his wonderful wit and positive attitude. He will be deeply and forever missed by all who knew him.

Lisa

(1) USS Bainbridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Bainbridge_(CGN-25)1.jpg

http://www.navysite.de/cg/cgn25.htm#crew

 Naval History Blog

http://www.navalhistory.org/2011/10/06/uss-bainbridge-commissioned-6-october-1962/

Nuclear powered warships Enterprise, Long Beach, and Bainbridge

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/kn00001/kn09027.jpg

(2) Duck and Cover

http://www.archive.org/details/DuckandC1951

I would like to thank each and every veteran out there for your service and sacrifice you have done for our country. A very special Thank You goes out to my two older brothers, my younger brother, and to my father for your service.

John Pointer

“On Veterans Day, we pay tribute to our veterans, to the fallen, and to their families. To honor their contributions to our Nation, let us strive with renewed determination to keep the promises we have made to all who have answered our country’s call. As we fulfill our obligations to them, we keep faith with the patriots who have risked their lives to preserve our Union, and with the ideals of service and sacrifice upon which our Republic was founded.”

President Barack Obama

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/03/presidential-proclamation-veterans-day-2011

Armistice/Veterans Day

Armistice Day marks the anniversary of the signing of the Armistice by Germany on the 11 hour of the 11 day of the 11 month in 1918, bringing an end to World War I.

 Armistice with Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_with_Germany_(Compi%C3%A8gne)

“To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…”

Woodrow Wilson, 28^th President of the United States

 Woodrow Wilson Library

http://www.woodrowwilson.org/

On June 1, 1954, November 11 became Veterans Day in the United States, a day of honor for all veterans. It is still called Armistice Day in Europe, and Remembrance Day in the British Commonwealth.

History of Veterans Day

http://www.va.gov/opa/vetsday/vetdayhistory.asp