Revealing the catastrophic human toll of America's Atomic Age

“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

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

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

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) (1) announced today that the last of the B53 nuclear bombs has been dismantled at the Pantex Plant, outside Amarillo, Texas.

“The dismantlement process includes four steps: retiring a weapon from active or inactive service; returning and staging it at NNSA’s Pantex Plant; taking it apart by physically separating the high explosives from the special nuclear material; and processing the material and components, which includes evaluation, reuse, demilitarization, sanitization, recycling and ultimate disposal.” (2)

The B53, (or the Mk-53, according to the Nuclear Weapons Archives) was manufactured between August, 1962 and June, 1965. The early models were retired beginning in 1967, with 50 remaining in permanent stockpile until 1997.

What the article doesn’t state is that there were 350 of these weapons produced, each with the capacity of 9 Megatons each. (3)

“All current nuclear bombs are designated either “B” or “W” followed by a number. Gravity bombs are designated with a “B.” In the 1940s and 1950s, nuclear warheads were assigned “Mark” (Mk) numbers, which were used interchangeably with the designations B and W. Other designations include: “TN” (thermonuclear), “TX” (experimental but cancelled warheads), “EC” for emergency capability, “S” for some atomic artillery shells, “ER” for enhanced radiation (neutron bomb), and “EP” for earth penetrator.”

Total warhead production between 1945 and 1990 stands at 70,299, Table 1-3 Atomic Audit, Brookings Institute (4)

Current United States Stockpile as of May 3, 2010: 5115 (5) 

End Part One

 Peace,

JP

 (1) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

http://nnsa.energy.gov/ourmission

 (2) NNSA Announces Dismantlement of Last B53 Nuclear Bomb-10/25/2011

http://nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/b53dismantle102511

B53 Fact Sheet

http://nnsa.energy.gov/print/mediaroom/factsheets/b53factsheet

(3) Nuclear Weapons Archives

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

 (4) Atomic Audit The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940

http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/1998/atomic.aspx

(5) U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2010

http://www.thebulletin.org/files/066003008.pdf

First off, I have discovered that a lot of the links I have been posting from the The Mainichi Daily News about the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster are ineffective after a certain length of time, and I apologize for that. I will be more selective of my links in the future.

The International Atomic Energy Agency hasn’t posted an update since June 2, and the only news that is being released from them is through their “Daily Press Release.” (1) I find it strange that they stopped their Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update shortly after it was announced by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) that the power plant had indeed suffered a meltdown at three of the reactors (May 12, 2011).

After reading about the requested documents from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, which TEPCO blacked out about 99 percent of the information, there is no doubt that the disaster is much worse than being released to the public. Government and corporations, they only tell you what they want to.

I have gathered a number of other sites that are covering this topic as well, and have them listed below for you.   One that I find very informative is “Greg Landen’s Blog, Japan Nuclear Disaster Update (Ana’s Feed).” I find his other topics to be very enjoyable reading. Check it out.  (4)

Peace,

JP

(1) IAEA Daily Press Review

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/dpr/pressreview.html

 Fukushima Diary

http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/09/column-whats-happening-in-fukushima/

(3) Other Websites to Check Out

Beyond Nuclear Website

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/

Japan Atomic Energy Agency

http://www.jaea.go.jp/english/

http://www.jaea.go.jp/english/jishin/gaiyou/e1011.pdf

Watershed Sentinel

http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/fukushima-update-what-tepco-hiding-about-radiation-leaks

Nuclear Free Planet.Org

http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/

 Nuclear Street

http://nuclearstreet.com/newsletters/10_12_11.html

 TEPCO Press Releases

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

 A Pro-Nuclear advocate, Rod Adams “Atomic Insight” Website

http://atomicinsights.com/

 (4) Greg Landen’s Blog; Japan Disaster Update (Ana’s Feed)

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/japan_disaster/

 More Articles of Interest

 Japan ‘scared’ of telling truth to Fukushima evacuees

 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/fukushima-residents-unable-to-return-home/3026496

 Strontium found at city near Tokyo after Fukushima disaster

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/strontium-found-at-city-near-tokyo-after-fukushima-disaster/story-e6frg6so-1226165273252

Fukushima’s Contamination Produces Some Surprises at Sea

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/fukushimas-contamination-produces-some-surprises-at-sea/

Bloomberg, September 27, 2011

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-26/fukushima-desolation-worst-since-nagasaki-as-population-flees.html

What’s going on at Japan’s crippled nuclear power plant?

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/09/09/idINIndia-59238420110909?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=401

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)

October 5, 2011

Before the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was abolished in 1974, it established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), to “evaluate radioactive contamination at sites where work was performed to develop the nation’s nuclear weapons and early atomic energy program.” (1)

After studying the 501 “Considered Sites”  I noticed that some of these locations were used for uranium and other radioactive material processing for the AEC in the 1940’s and 1950’s, but were not cleaned up for another 35 years, while other sites are still being cleaned up to this date. (2)

How many people have worked or lived in these buildings or areas that were contaminated and are not aware of the possible health impacts from this contamination caused by past activities? How much radioactive contamination is at these sites, and has been allowed to just remain there? Some questions can never be answered.

Under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (3), the Atomic Energy Commission and was split into two agencies; the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Energy Research and Development Administration responsibility was for managing energy research and development, nuclear weapons, and the naval reactor programs. This short-lived administration was dissolved in 1977, and was transferred into the Department of Energy (DOE), under the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977. (4)

There are 501 sites that were considered under the FUSRAP program, and 46 sites have required remediation. Some of the remaining sites were referred to:

• The Department of Defense
• The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (5)
• The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, OR Superfund), 1980
• The Environmental Protection Agency or various State Agencies

Other sites were eliminated from the FUSRAP program for the following reasons:

• 35 colleges and universities were eliminated due to trace amounts or controlled environments of handling radioactive materials.
• No record of radioactive material at site
• Engineering consulting firms, meeting sites for The Manhattan Project
• Site no longer existed (Demolition, interstate projects, tennis courts, etc.)
• 3 sites were listed as “Location Unknown”
• Active AEC/NRC license
• No authority to cleanup site

In 1997, the DOE had 25 sites remediated, and responsibility for cleaning up the FUSRAP sites was transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers. (6)

Under the Army Corps of Engineer, a site is transferred to the Department of Energy’s Legacy Management office after two years once the site has been deemed remediated. As of May 23, 2011, 29 sites have been “cleaned up”, and are under the Department of Energy’s Legacy Management’s “Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance of Remediated FUSRAP Sites.”(7)

For a complete list of all the sites that The Office of Legacy Management manages, check out this link:

http://www.lm.doe.gov/pro_doc/references/framework.htm#fusrap

 Let me give you an example of one of these sites that is in Chicago. This location is known as “Chicago North Site” under FUSRAP. The following listing is from the Office of Health, Safety and Security list of covered facilities for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP). There are 24 FUSRAP sites that are part of this program.

http://www.hss.doe.gov/healthsafety/fwsp/advocacy/faclist/showfacility.cfm

National Guard Armory

AKA Washington Park Armory
Chicago, Illinois
AWE 1942-1951; Residual Radiation 1952-1986; DOE 1987 (remediation)
Atomic Weapons Employer, Department of Energy
“Facility Description: In the 1940s, the Manhattan Project leased the National Guard Armory from the State of Illinois for uranium processing and radioactive material storage. In 1951, the site was returned to the State of Illinois. Although this site was designated as part of the Formerly Utilized Site Remediation Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1985, the only year in which remediation work took place was 1987.

During the period of residual contamination, as designated by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and as noted in the dates above, employees of subsequent owners and operators of this facility are also covered under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act.”

You will notice that the last paragraph mentions “residual contamination.” There are 96 facilities under the EEOICPA that make this statement.

And the list goes on and on.

Peace,

JP

(1) Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

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

(2) Office of Legacy Management Considered Sites

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Considered_Sites/Summary/

(3) Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0980/rev1/vol-1-sec-2-to-5.pdf

(4) Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977

http://www.usbr.gov/power/legislation/doeorg.pdf

(5) RCRA Statute, Regulations & Enforcement (EPA)

http://epa.gov/compliance/civil/rcra/rcraenfstatreq.html

 (6)

USACE-Buffalo District

http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/docs/fusrap-fs-general-2006-09.pdf

 USACE-St. Louis District

http://www.mvs.usace.army.mil/pm/fusrap/index.html

 USACE-New York District

http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/business/prjlinks/fusrap/

 USACE-Pittsburg District

http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/fusrap/slda.htm

 USACE-Philadelphia District

http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/fusrap/index.html

 (7) Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance of Remediated FUSRAP Sites

http://www.lm.doe.gov/default.aspx?id=734

Several other links of interest:

LM and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sites

http://www.lm.doe.gov/default.aspx?id=2126

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP)

http://www.lm.doe.gov/default.aspx?id=866

September 19, 2011

This question was asked on a Facebook post (thank you Bryce), and I would like to explain it to you.  

The opening paragraph from “About the Film” sums it up: American Massacre – A Documentary Film exposes the unthinkable truth behind America’s race to win nuclear superiority. It is a frightening tale of our government’s willingness to sacrifice its own citizens in the name of science and national defense. American Massacre examines the heart-breaking human toll.

There are three motivations that we have for making this film:

• The suffering of one million US citizens at the hands of one industry built by the government of our country.
• The betrayal that has happened to these workers and veterans of this nation by broken promises of the United States government.
• To find justice for these “Cold War Patriots”, to care for and compensate them, as has been promised, for the illnesses that has infected them from the exposures encountered while working for America’s National Security.

It is the goal of American Massacre to bring to light the overwhelming impact that the nuclear industry has had on our nation since its inception 70 years ago, and to bring about justice for those that have been affected by its product.

Between 1945 and 1962, the United States conducted over 200 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, at the Pacific Proving Grounds, the Nevada Test Site, and in the South Atlantic.

This careless undertaking by the government brought about numerous class action lawsuits alleging exposure to known radiation hazards. As a partial restitution to individuals who developed one or more of 27 medical conditions, the United States Congress enacted the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990. (1)

This Act was designed to compensate those who lived or worked in the path of the radioactive fallout (Downwinders), Uranium Miners and Ore Haulers who worked in the industry throughout 11 Midwest and Western states up to 1971, and those who were On-Site Participants during these atmospheric tests, including US service personnel, who were ordered to participate in “Atomic Warfare Simulations” in the 1950’s at the Nevada Test Site.

Return to Top

The weapons development and testing continued until 1992, and it wasn’t until the year 2000 that the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program was signed into law. (2)

This law would allow those who worked at any of the 366 listed facilities across the United States for the Department of Energy to seek compensation from illnesses contracted through no fault of their own. (3)

The following is from Executive Order 13179 of December 7, 2000, signed by President Bill Clinton: (4)

 “Thousands of these courageous Americans, however, paid a high price for their service, developing disabling or fatal illnesses as a result of exposure to beryllium, ionizing radiation, and other hazards unique to nuclear weapons production and testing. Too often, these workers were neither adequately protected from, nor informed of, the occupational hazards to which they were exposed.”

However, the burden of proof has been placed upon these hard-working individuals, and the task for collecting records, in some cases, has been next to impossible. Numerous contractors have kept inadequate, incomplete, and unreliable radiation dose exposure records, or have simply denied that people worked there.

“The Federal Government should provide necessary information and otherwise help employees of the DOE or its contractors determine if their illnesses are associated with conditions of their nuclear weapons-related work.”

The system used for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program has numerous and significant flaws. One example is that claims for this program are sent to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (5), for a Radiation Dose Reconstruction, which uses the same incomplete records that the contractors kept.

Our government is “spending billions to save thousands” from giving these workers the compensation they are owed. (Quoted by a worker at the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant.)

Return to Top

Some of the people we will be interviewing are workers from areas in the following list, which is from the Department of Energy’s “Linking Legacies” publication, 1997, Appendix B: (6)

 The Eight Major Processes of the Nuclear Weapons Complex

1) Mining, milling, and refining of uranium

2) Isotope separation of uranium, lithium, boron and heavy water

3) Fuel and target fabrication for production reactors

4) Reactor operations to irradiate fuel and targets to produce nuclear materials

5) Chemical separations of plutonium, uranium, and tritium from irradiated fuel and target elements

6) Component fabrication of both nuclear and nonnuclear components

7) Weapon operations, including assembly, maintenance, modification, and dismantlement of nuclear weapons

8) Research, development, and testing

 These interviewees will represent hundreds of thousands of workers.

Return to Top

 The other areas we will be covering are the environmental, economical, and the medical impact this has had on America.

As far as the nuclear energy industry goes, yes, our nation needs alternative energy sources to cut down on our dependence of foreign oil (that’s what I have been hearing for most of my life.) Yes, there are other alternative sources that can be used that are safer AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY.

As with any new industry (nuclear power has been around since the 1950’s), there is a need for research and development. And there needs to be a way to make this source of energy safer for the environment and for us. The research needs to focus on ways of making nuclear energy more efficient with less spent fuel and related hazardous waste. However, spent fuel is just the end line of a process that involves the first three steps listed above, and all of these have numerous steps in themselves.

 We will be offering both sides the chance to tell their story, if they choose to do so. Our film will be compelling and comprehensive in a way that no other film that has focused on this topic has been. American Massacre connects the dots… from the extraction of the uranium to its final use, there are lives attached to every step from all across this nation. American Massacre will also be an educational and historical for future generations. Most of all, American Massacre will present no account or record or personal tale that has not been verified as fact. This is not a “theory,” American Massacre is dedicated to the truth and to justice.

What exactly is the American Massacre? Hundreds of thousands of us that have had part of our lives ripped away from us, our health destroyed by this industry’s products, watched family members die from expose to it, and having to deal with our government’s bureaucratic “red tape” that is stacked up way too high.

Our sincere hope is that this film will help these “Cold War Patriots”, the veterans, and their families that have been forgotten about. There’s got to be a better way, and I hope we can help find it.

This is a message for you, for our children, and for the generations to come.

 Peace,

John A. Pointer

Writer/Researcher

Return to Top

 (1) Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990

http://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca.html

(2) The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program

http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/

(3) The Office of Health, Safety and Security, Facilities List

http://www.hss.doe.gov/healthsafety/fwsp/advocacy/faclist/findfacility.cfm

(4) Executive Order 13179 of December 7, 2000

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/theact/eo13179.pdf

 (5) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/#drrev

 (6) Linking Legacies, January, 1997

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

(7) Current Inventory of Depleted Uranium

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

Other Department of Energy publication

Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom

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

Environmental Management, Taking Stock, 1995

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

Return to Top

Linking Legacies

The Eight Major Processes of the Nuclear Weapons Complex

 #1-Uranium Mining, Milling, and Refining

Mining: Open pit, underground, In-Situ solution mining.

Milling: The physical and chemical processing of the ore to isolate uranium concentrate, or “yellowcake.”

Refining:  The chemical processing to change concentrate into feed material suitable for further processing.

#2-Isotope Separation

Isotope Separation, also commonly known as “enrichment,” is the process of concentrating one or more isotopes of the same element. Three elements that have been isotopically separated in large quantities in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex are uranium, lithium, and hydrogen.

The enrichment and extraction of the Uranium-235 isotope from natural Uranium (U-238) is because it is the one isotope that can sustain a fission chain reaction. The remaining U-238 is called Depleted Uranium, and is used by our military for armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles.

Five to ten kilograms of depleted uranium (DU) are produced for every kilogram of low-enriched uranium and up to 200 kilograms of DU are produced for every kilogram of highly enriched uranium. Currently, over ninety-five percent (556,510 metric tons) of the total MIN DU inventory is solid uranium hexafluoride (UF₆) stored at the three gaseous diffusion plants located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio.” A metric ton is equal to 2,404 pounds. So there is roughly 1,337,850,000 pounds of Depleted Uranium at these sites. (7)

Return to Top

#3-Fuel and Target Fabrication

Fuel and target fabrication consists of the foundry and machine shop operations necessary for the conversion of uranium feed material into the fuel and target elements used in nuclear materials production reactors. Included are the casting, extrusion, alloying, plating, cladding, machining, etching, cleaning, degreasing, and grinding to produce the finished elements.

#4-Reactor operation

Reactor operations include fuel and target loading and removal, reactor maintenance and modification, and the control and cooling of the reactor as it operates. Large production reactors provide the neutrons needed to produce nuclear materials in large quantities. Smaller reactors are used to test materials and perform experiments. Operating a nuclear reactor creates highly radioactive materials—spent nuclear fuel and irradiated targets. The structures of the reactor core and the reactor coolant also become radioactive. Most of the radioactivity in the DOE weapons complex was created in production reactors.

Return to Top

#5-Chemical Separation

Chemical separation is the process of chemically separating and purifying plutonium, uranium and other nuclear materials from irradiated reactor fuel and targets, and converting the materials to usable forms. The process includes: physical disassembly and chemical dissolution of irradiated items; separation of uranium, plutonium and fission products; decontamination or purification; volume reduction or concentration; and isolation. Operations considered as first stage finishing processes are also included, e.g. the precipitations of heavy metal nitrate solution mixtures, hydro-fluorination, and metal reduction.

Chemical separation of spent fuel and target elements produces large volumes of highly-radioactive, high-level waste (HLW), low-level waste (LLW) and mixed low-level waste (MLLW). Chemical separation of plutonium and other transuranic isotopes also results in transuranic waste (TRUW). Contaminated environmental media and facilities from chemical separations of irradiated reactor materials pose unusual and severe restoration problems.

#6-Weapons Component Fabrication

Weapons component fabrication includes the manufacturing, assembly, inspection, local testing, and verification of specialized parts and major weapon components. Chemical processing to recover, purify, and recycle plutonium, tritium, and lithium from retired warheads, and from component production scrap and residues, are included in this category, as are maintenance, recharging, and dismantlement of individual components.

Nuclear weapons components can generally be categorized as either nuclear or nonnuclear. They range from small parts to separately functioning subsystems of weapons. Nuclear components are located in the primary stage of the weapon, the secondary stage, and in other systems designed to boost nuclear performance. Nuclear components in the primary stage are located in the “pit.” The nuclear components contain plutonium, highly enriched and/or depleted uranium, lithium-6, deuterium, tritium, and various other, structural parts.

Return to Top

#7-Weapons Operation

Weapons Operations include assembly, maintenance, modification and dismantlement of nuclear weapons stockpile warheads.  Assembly is the final process of joining together separately manufactured components and major parts into complete, functional and certified nuclear weapon warheads for delivery to the Department of Defense (DOD). Dismantlement of retired warheads includes disassembly of weapons and the sanitization, demilitarization and disposition of their component parts.  Warhead modifications and maintenance by DOE are also included in this category, although field maintenance by DOD is not.

#8-Research, Development, and Testing

Weapons Research and Development (R&D) is conducted by DOE national weapon laboratories and test sites whose primary mission is to support the nuclear weapons program. This includes basic and applied research with weapon applications and the design and testing of nuclear weapons systems. Weapons-related research has also been conducted by most of the DOE’s multi-program laboratories.

Testing includes the preparation and instrumentation of the test site and device, the placement and detonation of the device, and the post-detonation analysis and cleanup. It also includes nonnuclear tests of weapon ballistics and other aspects of the military utilization of nuclear weapons. Tests which produced only small nuclear yields (“safety experiments”) which intentionally did not produce a nuclear explosive yield, are also included in this category.  Nuclear testing has resulted in large areas of contaminated soil and other environmental media, some areas being highly contaminated.

Return to Top

URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT (UMTRCA)

During the 1950’s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), launched the “first federally-sponsored mineral rush in US history.”(1) The call was for uranium deposits that were suitable for use in the nuclear weapons buildup, and later for the nuclear energy field. The majority of the mining occurred in the Four Corners region of the United States (Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah).

After the AEC had acquired enough uranium ore in reserve, the uranium boom came to a stop in the 1960’s. The aftermath resulted in thousands of abandoned mines left across the western half of the United States. “Although there are about 4,000 mines with documented production, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified 15,000 mine locations with uranium occurrence in 14 western states.”(2)

The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 covers cleanup for disposal and processing sites. The following is from the act: “The Congress finds that uranium mill tailings located at active and inactive mill operations may pose a potential and significant radiation health hazard to the public, and that the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare and the regulation of interstate commerce require that every reasonable effort be made to provide for the stabilization, disposal, and control in a safe and environmentally sound manner of such tailings in order to prevent or minimize radon diffusion into the environment and to prevent or minimize other environmental hazards from such tailings.” (3)

Title 1 of this act “established a joint Federal/State-funded program for remedial action at abandoned mill tailings sites where tailings resulted largely from production of uranium for the weapons program.” Title II of the act is directed toward uranium mill sites licensed by the NRC or Agreement States in or after 1978. (4)

Of the 86 sites that are currently under the Department of Energy’s Legacy Management, 22 sites fall under the UMTRCA Title 1, and 27 sites under Title II in 10 states: Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Oregon, Texas, Arizona, Idaho, Washington and Pennsylvania.

(1)History of Uranium Mining in Utah

http://www.onlineutah.com/uraniumhistory.shtml

(2)Abandoned Uranium Mines in the United States:

http://www.abandonedmines.gov/wbd_um.html

(3) URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT OF 1978

( Starts on Page 497)

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0980/v1/sr0980v1.pdf#page=503

Title 1 Program (NRC)

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/regs-guides-comm/title-i-program.html

(4)Fact Sheet on Uranium Mill Tailings (NRC)

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/mill-tailings.html

(5) Office of Legacy Management Sites

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

Other Websites of Interest

 Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Performed by the US DOE: An Overview

http://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/public-utilities/Documents/08.DOE_Overview_Uranium_Tailing_Remediation.pdf

World Information Service on Energy (WISE)

Uranium Mining and Milling

http://www.wise-uranium.org/

http://www.wise-uranium.org/indexu.html

EPA and Radiation Protection

Uranium Mining Wastes

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/uranium.html#how_much

Figure 2.1. Mines and Other Locations with Uranium in the Western U.S.

Click to see full image

Thousands of uranium mine sites are scattered over wide areas of the western United States.

This map shows locations provided in the MAS/MILS database.

Figure 2.7. Generalized Uranium Mill Physical Layout

Click to see full image

This figure shows how a uranium mill is physically set up to crush raw ore into particles amenable to chemical treatments for extracting uranium.

Source: U.S. DOE/EIA