DOCSLIB.ORG

Rocky Flats Plant Site Environmental Report 1993 Highlights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rocky Flats Plant Site Environmental Report 1993 Highlights (tff-Z,hN-<{2 Rocky Flats Plant Site Environmental Report 1993 Highlights The Rocky Flats Plant Site Environmental Report is developed each year as a means of informing the Department of Energy, federal and state regulatory agencies, and the public, of environmental activities performed at the Rocky Flats Plant. The report provides detailed technical data on environmental monitoring and remediation programs, resulting in an overall insight on the impact that those activities have on the environment and on public health. WIO11 1 DlSTRTBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED The Rocky Flats Plant at a glance .. O Built in 1951, began operations in 1952. O Owned by the Department of Energy as one of several historically constructed production plants in the weapons complex. O Located 16 miles northwest of Denver, Colorado, on 6,550 acres in northern Jefferson County. O Situated within a 50-mile radius of approximately 2.1 million people. O Curtailed many production activities in 1989. O Operated by EG&G, Inc., as of January 1990. O Began new mission of environmental restoration, waste management, decontamination and decommissioning, and economic development in The historical mission of the Rocky Flats Plant has been to develop and fabricate nuclear weapons components from radioactive and nonradioactive materials. Its manufacturing and production activities were crucial to the nation's nuclear weapons defense system. The plant was responsible for fabricating plutonium, uranium, beryllium, and stainless steel. Primary production activities included metal fabrication and assembly, metal recovery and purification of nuclear materials, and related quality and environmental control functions. This mission changed in January 1992 when President Bush announced that certain planned weapons systems had been canceled. Rocky Flats no longer produces nuclear weapons components and is now in transition to a new mission focusing on environmental restoration, waste management, decontamination and decommissioning, and economic development. Primary objectives of this new mission include achieving and maintaining compliance with applicable restoration schedules and environmental laws and regulations, including multi-party agreements. Historically, Rocky Flats managed both radioactive and potentially hazardous chemical materials, including acids, bases, industrial solvents, machining lubri• cants, and nonradioactive materials such as beryllium. Many of these materials will continue to be managed at Rocky Flats during the plant's transition phase DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products, images are produced from the best available original document. and throughout the decontamination and decommissioning process. A comprehen• sive environmental protection program is in place to ensure that these materials are managed safely with minimal impact to worker and public health and the environ• ment. Included in this program is monitoring of air, soil, and water for radioactive and hazardous materi• als at onsite loca• tions, at the plant boundary, and in surrounding com• munities. Additional inde• pendent monitor• ing is performed by outside Department of Energy agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Colorado Department of Health, and nearby communities. Data collected as part of this moni• toring have been reported in month• ly public meetings since the early 1970's and in numerous public documents, including the Rocky Flats Plant Site Environmental Report. Rocky Flats Plant monitoring programs satisfy multiple objectives. Monitoring serves as a check on the protective measures and engineered controls in place at Rocky Flats, measuring the effectiveness of those controls to isolate hazardous and radioactive materials from employees, the public, and the environment. Monitoring also supports regulatory compliance issues, demonstrating that plant operations are performed in accordance with the requirements of federal and state environmental laws and Department of Energy Orders. 3 Laws and Regulations Protect the Environment Increasing public awareness and environmental concern in recent years prompted Congress to pass increas• ingly stringent laws aimed at protect• ing the environment. In 1986 Rocky Flats became the first federal facility in the nation to accept state oversight when the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and Colorado Department of Health signed an historic Resource Conservation Recovery Act/Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (RCRA/CERCLA) com• pliance agreement, which gave the state authority to regulate hazardous components of Rocky Flats waste. The philosophy of environmental compliance at Rocky Flats is, quite simply, to comply fully with all environmental rules and regulations, while protecting employee and public health and the environment. Rocky Flats Plant is committed to ensuring compliance with federal, state, and local .environmental laws,X>epapment of Energy ' Orders, various agreements, and consent decrees that protect the environment and public health. All these laws, orders, and agreements mandate specific actions. The following list presents major federal laws that apply to the plant. & Clean Air Act O Clean Water Act 9 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 9 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Q Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ^ National Environmental Policy Act ^ Toxic Substances Control Act ^ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 4P Safe Drinking Water Act ^ Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ^ Endangered Species Act ^ Migratory Bird Treaty Act ^ Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ^ Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ^ Compliance with Floodplain/ Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements (10CFR1022) Understanding Radiation To better understand the safeguards in place at Rocky Flats to protect employees, the public, and the environment, a basic understanding of radiation is useful. The term "radiation" can include heat, sound, and visible light. Radiation exists naturally, in the form of cosmic radiation from space, from naturally occurring radioactive materials in soil and building materials, and from naturally occurring radioactive materials in food and air. Even some atoms in the human body are radioactive. In addition to natural sources of radiation, artificially produced sources are part of everyday life. These sources include medical x rays and equipment used in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases; consumer products such as smoke detectors, tobacco products, and fertilizers; industrial sources such as industrial x-ray equipment and soil moisture and density meters; nuclear reactors; and defense-related manufacturing. Radioactive elements such as plutonium, uranium, radium, and thorium share an important quality: they are unstable. Unstable atoms attempt to Alpha particles are the become stable by getting rid of unwanted particles slowest of the three types of and/or energy. As these particles are ejected, ionizing radiation. Despite a invisible energy called ionizing radiation is released. speed of approximately 10,000 Ionizing radiation has enough energy to separate miles per second, they can only electrons from atoms of material. It can change the travel a few centimeters in the chemical composition of atoms that it strikes, air. Alpha particles lose their causing them to become electrically charged or energy almost as soon as they "ionized." In some circumstances, the presence of collide with anything, and can such ions can disrupt normal biological processes easily be stopped by a sheet of and can present a health hazard to humans. paper or human skin tissue. Common types of ionizing radiation are alpha particles, beta particles, x rays, and gamma rays. Beta particles are much The main potential radiation hazard to the public smaller than alpha particles. associated with materials handled at the plant is from With a speed of up to 100,000 alpha radiation, which is primarily an internal hazard miles per second, they can — the radioactive material itself must get inside the travel in the air for a distance body and be in direct contact with living tissues for of approximately 10 feet. Beta the alpha radiation to cause damage. Radioactive particles can pass through a material may enter the body through such pathways sheet of paper, but can be as inhalation, ingestion, or a wound in the skin. stopped by a thin sheet of aluminum or glass. Rocky Flats Plant's environmental protection pro• gram is well suited for minimizing any releases of X rays and Gamma rays radioactive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Document Number Document Title Authors, Compilers, Or Editors Date
    Authors, Compilers, or Date (M/D/Y), Location, Site, or Format/Copy/C Ensure Index # Document Number Document Title Status Markings Keywords Notes Editors (M/Y) or (Y) Company ondition Availability Codes: N=ORNL/NCS; Y=NTIS/ OSTI, J‐ 5700= Johnson Collection‐ ORNL‐Bldg‐ 5700; T‐ CSIRC= ORNL/ Nuclear Criticality Safety Thomas Group,865‐574‐1931; NTIS/OSTI is the Collection, DOE Information LANL/CSIRC. Bridge:http://www.osti.gov/bridge/ J. W. Morfitt, R. L. Murray, Secret, declassified computational method/data report, original, Early hand calculation methods to 1 A‐7.390.22 Critical Conditions in Cylindrical Vessels G. W. Schmidt 01/28/1947 Y‐12 12/12/1956 (1) good N estimate process limits for HEU solution Use of early hand calculation methods to Calculation of Critical Conditions for Uranyl Secret, declassified computational method/data report, original, predict critical conditions. Done to assist 2 A‐7.390.25 Fluoride Solutions R. L. Murray 03/05/1947 Y‐12 11/18/1957 (1), experiment plan/design good N design of K‐343 solution experiments. Fabrication of Zero Power Reactor Fuel Elements CSIRC/Electroni T‐CSIRC, Vol‐ Early work with U‐233, Available through 3 A‐2489 Containing 233U3O8 Powder 4/1/44 ORNL Unknown U‐233 Fabrication c 3B CSIRC/Thomas CD Vol 3B Contains plans for solution preparation, Outline of Experiments for the Determination of experiment apparatus, and experiment the Critical Mass of Uranium in Aqueous C. Beck, A. D. Callihan, R. Secret, declassified report, original, facility. Potentially useful for 4 A‐3683 Solutions of UO2F2 L. Murray 01/20/1947 ORNL 10/25/1957 experiment plan/design good Y benchmarking of K‐343 experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl. Atoms
    ATOMS PEACE WAR Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission Richard G. Hewlett and lack M. Roll With a Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall and an Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London Published 1989 by the University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission; work made for hire. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hewlett, Richard G. Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961. (California studies in the history of science) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Nuclear energy—United States—History. 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—History. 3. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969. 4. United States—Politics and government-1953-1961. I. Holl, Jack M. II. Title. III. Series. QC792. 7. H48 1989 333.79'24'0973 88-29578 ISBN 0-520-06018-0 (alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CONTENTS List of Illustrations vii List of Figures and Tables ix Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall xi Preface xix Acknowledgements xxvii 1. A Secret Mission 1 2. The Eisenhower Imprint 17 3. The President and the Bomb 34 4. The Oppenheimer Case 73 5. The Political Arena 113 6. Nuclear Weapons: A New Reality 144 7. Nuclear Power for the Marketplace 183 8. Atoms for Peace: Building American Policy 209 9. Pursuit of the Peaceful Atom 238 10. The Seeds of Anxiety 271 11. Safeguards, EURATOM, and the International Agency 305 12.
    [Show full text]
  • PROSPECTUS for a NATIONAL TEACH in on OUR WORSENING Envirqillment
    First Draft* PROSPECTUS FOR A NATIONAL TEACH IN ON OUR WORSENING ENVIRQIllMENT Contents I. National Sponsors Board II. National Steering Committee XlI • . Tentative Budget and Financing IV. Tentative Schedule of vlork V. Some Special Effects To Be Developed VI. A Hodel For Local Teach Ins (This proposal is considerably more wide-ranging in the suggested projects than the Viet Nam Mobilization plan. But environmental problems are more complex than the simplification of IIbring our troops home. 1I Much more important, this effort will require considerably more motivational emphasis in order to get airborne.) *SUggested draft for organization of a Na.tional Teach-In, by Fred Dutton I. National Board of Sponsors To provide legitimacy, diversity of representation and_~~nal fram~ of reference for the project Consist of perhaps fift~' individuals like the follo,ving, who are only illustrative: 1. Dr. Roger Rovelle of Harvard 2. Head of the Sierra Club 3. Robert Wood of MIT 4. Prof. George Wald 5. Jacque Casteau 6. Jesse Jackson 7. Lay~ence Rockefeller 8. Halter Reuther 9. Mary Bunting 10. Gloria Steinem II. John Gardner 12. Ralph Nader 13. The editor of Science magazine 14. Six members of the House and Senate--bipartisan 15-24. Ten student editors across the country 25-34. Ten student body presidents from other colleges 35-44. Ten well-known student activists 45. President of the National Students Association, Charles Palmer 46-50. Others ~d meet in mid-February in vTashington, D. C., to generate public attention for the teach-in, hear several special papers presented and pass on guidelines for the teach-in.
    [Show full text]
  • ROCKY FLA TS PLANT HAER No
    ROCKY FLA TS PLANT HAER No. C0-83 (Environmental Technology Site) Bounded by Indiana St. & Rts. 93, 128 & 72 Golden vicinity Jefferson County Colorado PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA REDUCED COPIES OF MEASURED DRAWINGS HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD INTERMOUNTAIN SUPPORT OFFICE - DENVER National Park Service P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD ROCKY FLATS PLANT HAER No. C0-83 (Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site) Location: Bounded by Highways 93, 128, and 72 and Indiana Street, Golden, Jefferson County, Colorado. Date of Construction: 1951-1953 (original plant). Fabricator: Austin Company, Cleveland, Ohio. Present Owner: United States Department of Energy (USDOE). Present Use: Environmental Restoration. Significance: The Rocky Flats Plant (Plant), established in 1951, was a top-secret weapons production plant. The Plant manufactured triggers for use in nuclear weapons and purified plutonium recovered from retired weapons ( called site returns). Activities at the Plant included production, stockpile maintenance, and retirement and dismantlement. Particular emphasis was placed on production. Rocky Flats produced most of the plutonium triggers used in nuclear weapons from 1953 to 1964, and all of the triggers produced from 1964 until 1989, when production was suspended. The Plant also manufactured components for other portions of the weapons since it had the facilities, equipment, and expertise required for handling the materials involved. In addition to production processes, the Plant specialized in research concerning the properties of many materials that were not widely used in other industries, including plutonium, uranium, beryllium, and tritium. Conventional methods for machining plutonium, uranium, beryllium, and other metals were continually examined, modified, and updated in support of weapons production.
    [Show full text]
  • 3096-001 Coalition for Safe Energy Records Inventory Accession
    UNlVERSllY U BRARIJES w UNIVERSITY of WASHI NGTON Spe ial Colle tions 3463 Coalition For Safe Energy records Inventory Accession No: 3096-001 Special Collections Division University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, Washington, 98195-2900 USA (206) 543-1929 This document forms part of the Preliminary Guide to the Coalition For Safe Energy Records. To find out more about the history, context, arrangement, availability and restrictions on this collection, click on the following link: http://digital.lib.washington.edu/findingaids/permalink/CoalitionforSafeEnergyWash3096/ Special Collections home page: http://www.lib.washington.edu/specialcollections/ Search Collection Guides: http://digital.lib.washington.edu/findingaids/search ,_ ,;. COALITION FOR SAFE ENERGY II 3096 Container List Box 1 Administrative Files Correspondence Advertising C.A.S.E. speeches; education Environmental resource people Information sources Photos SUBJECT SERIES 2 General (4 lg. folders) Alternative airiculture Anti-initiative campaigns Architecture and buildings Atomic Energy Commission Breeder Budget Boeing Bonneville Power Administration Bomb Testing and explosives Book reviews Costs of nuclear power Carter Creative Initiative Foundation Clallam Nuclear Project Decentralized systems Emergency core cooling systems Enrichment Enrichment plant, Richland Energy 1990 Environmental protection agency Evacuation E.R.D.A. Energy info Energy alternatives - wind Fires Federal aid Forecasting Geothermal conference Senator Gravel Group meetings, etc. Group positions
    [Show full text]
  • ROCKY FLATS PLANT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN Environmental Restoration Program
    ! DRAFT ROCKY FLATS PLANT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN Environmental Restoration Program U S Department of Energy Rocky Flats Plant Golden, Colorado January 1991 ADMlN RECORD January 22, 19% -1 . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A Overview 1 B Site Description 4 C Community Background 13 D Objectives 20 E Community Relations Activities 21 Appendix A List of Contacts and Interested Parties Appendix B IAG List of Rocky Flats Plant Hazardous Substances Appendix C Community Interview Plan Appendix D Information Repositories and Suggested Locations for Public Meetings Appendix E Public Comment Opportunities Appendix F List of Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Appendix G References Figure 1 General Location of the Rocky Flats Plant figure 2 Surface Water Drainage Patterns at the Rocky Flats Plant Figure 3 Location of Ground Water contamination at the Rocky Flats Plant in 1989 Figure 4 Location of Ground Water Monitoring Wells at the Rocky Flats Plant in 1989 \ \ ROCKY FLATS PLANT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN Rocky Flats Plant, Golden, Colorado A Overview The Rocky Flats Plant Communrty Relatrons Plan describes the mechanisms through which the Rocky Flats Plant near Golden, Colorado, will inform and involve the public in environmental restoration and related environmental activities at the facility Community interest in the plant has increased over the years since operations began in 1952 Current interest in plant activities is high, particularly concerning environmental and health issues, and public comments indicate that interest will likely remain high throughout
    [Show full text]
  • From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present
    From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Thomson, Jennifer Christine. 2013. From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945- Present. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11125030 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present A dissertation presented by Jennifer Christine Thomson to The Department of the History of Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of History of Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2013 @ 2013 Jennifer Christine Thomson All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Charles Rosenberg Jennifer Christine Thomson From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present Abstract This dissertation joins the history of science and medicine with environmental history to explore the language of health in environmental politics. Today, in government policy briefs and mission statements of environmental non-profits, newspaper editorials and activist journals, claims about the health of the planet and its human and non-human inhabitants abound. Yet despite this rhetorical ubiquity, modern environmental politics are ideologically and organizationally fractured along the themes of whose health is at stake and how that health should be protected.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevada Test Site: Desert Annex of TESTS SINCE the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories 1945 Q Denotes “Subcritical” Introduction Test
    Western States Legal Foundation Nevada Desert Experience Information Bulletin Summer 2005 update 1,000+ U.S. NUCLEAR The Nevada Test Site: Desert Annex of TESTS SINCE the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories 1945 q denotes “subcritical” Introduction test Aardvark 1962 Abeytas 1970 The Nevada Test Site (NTS), an immense tract of desert and mountains northwest of Las Abilene 1988 Able 1946 Able 1951 Vegas, is the test range where the United States government set off over 900 nuclear Able 1951 Able 1952 explosions during the Cold War phase of the arms race. For most Americans, the Test Site is Abo 1985 Absinthe 1967 only a symbol of a closed chapter of history, a time of great danger that now is over. Even Ace 1964 Acushi 1963 those who know that the Nevada Test Site still is used for “subcritical” testing of nuclear Adobe 1962 Adze 1968 weapons materials and components underground may think operations largely have been Agile 1967 Agouti 1962 Agrini 1984 suspended, with unused facilities retained only against the eventuality of a return to full scale Ahtanum 1963 Ajax 1966 underground nuclear testing. But the Test Site remains an important part of the nuclear Ajo 1970 Akavi 1981 weapons complex, both a remote site where dangerous activities can be conducted with little Akbar 1972 Alamo 1988 public knowledge and a weapons laboratory unto itself. High risk programs involving nuclear Aleman 1986 Algodones 1971 material, such as nuclear criticality experiments, are slated for transfer to the Test Site, and it Aligote 1981 Aliment 1969 Allegheny 1962 also is being considered as a location for a proposed factory to mass produce plutonium pits, Alma 1962 Almendro 1973 the atomic explosive “triggers”at the core of most nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management Activities for Groundwater Protection Savannah River Plant Aiken, South Carolina
    \ DoE/Els-o120 Final Environmental Impact Statement Waste Management Activities for Groundwater Protection Savannah River Plant Aiken, South Carolina Volume 3 ~+FNTO&@+@ ~ &v a ~ k~ ;%.” $ +6w& ~+e Q $TiTESOf December 1987 United States Department of Energy TABLE OF CONTENTS ~pendix ~ G ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FOR NEW DISPOSAL/ STORAGE FACILITIES . ..... ...... G-1 G.1 No-Action Strategy . ..... ...... G-1 G.1.l Sununarvand Objectives . ..... ...... G-1 G.1.2 Groundwater and Surface Water Effects ...... G-4 G.1.3 Nonradioactive Atmospheric Releases . ...... G-4 G.1.4 Ecological Effects . ...... G-5 G.1.5 Radiological Releases . ...... G-5 G.1.6 Archaeological and Historic Resources ...... G-5 G.1.7 SOciOecOnOmics . ...... G-5 G.1.8 Dedication of Site . ...... G-6 G.1.9 Institutional Impacts . ...... G-6 G.l.10 Noise . ...... G–6 G.2 Dedication Strategy . ...... G-6 G.2.1 Summary a;d Objectives . ...... G–6 G.2.2 Groundwater and Surface Water Effects ...... G-7 G.2.2.1 Hazardous Waste . ...... G-7 G.2.2.2 Mixed Waste . ...... G–8 G.2.2.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste ...... G-8 G.2.3 Nonradioactive Atmospheric Releases . ...... G-13 G.2.4 Ecological Effects . ...... G-14 G.2.5 Radiological Releases . ...... G-14 G.2.5.1 Hazardous Waste . ...... G-14 G.2.5.2 Mixed Waste . ...... G-14 G.2.5.3 Low-Level Radioactive Waste ...... G–15 G.2.6 Archaeological and Historic Resources ...... G-15 G.2.7 Socioeconomic . ...... G-18 G.2.8 Dedication of Site . ...... G–19 G.2.9 Institutional Impacts .
    [Show full text]
  • Sandia's Weapons Program
    Sandia’s weapons program: Exciting work ahead, but the fiscal environment will be challenging Joan Woodard talks about program’s accomplishments, prospects, budgets, and staffing The Lab News had the opportunity recently to sit three things that are important. First of all, we down with Deputy Labs Director for Nuclear Weapons need to have a stockpile that’s sized appropriately, Joan Woodard to talk about the state of the program. and the president has made his decision about The interview was conducted by John German and where to go with that stockpile and we’re on that Stephanie Holinka. Here’s a transcript of their course to get there by 2012. conversation. The second part of this issue is that the stock- * * * pile needs to be capable of addressing the interna- Lab News: Let’s start with a big question . tional threat environment; it needs to have the What are the strongest arguments today for mainte- right capabilities. The military and DoD will need nance of the existing stockpile as a credible deterrent? to make that determination. As a nation, we talk There’s a national debate on this subject and the about capabilities-based strategy for national secu- outcome of that debate will determine much of the rity and defense; this strategy needs to be applied Labs’ future. in the nuclear deterrent arena. Joan Woodard: Let me first note that I don’t The third part is maintaining the technical think there’s a person at Sandia — and it would strength and competency to understand nuclear probably be hard to find anyone in the nation — weapons physics, weapons design engineering, who wouldn’t welcome a nuclear weapons-free, advanced technology, survivability, surety technol- peaceful world if we could really get there with ogy and systems, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nevada Test Site and the Socializing Practices of a Nuclearized World
    C H A P T E R 1 The Nevada Test Site and the Socializing Practices of a Nuclearized World The Nevada Test Site is a devastatingly holy place. —Anne Symens-Bucher1 “So this is how it feels,” Mary Ann Cejka thought, as she stared down at the handcuffs loosely fastened about her wrists. Writing about the act of nonviolent civil disobedience she took part in at the Nevada Test Site the first week of January, 1986, Ms. Cejka mused how, strangely, “I felt perfectly calm as I waited my turn to be frisked by a female official from the U.S. Department of Energy.”2 A campus minis- ter at California State University Long Beach at the time, Cejka had been drawn by a compelling sense of urgency to take nonviolent action at the United States’ nuclear proving ground sixty-five miles north of Las Vegas. Concerned about what she perceived as the increasing threat of nuclear war, Cejka decided to take part in the Nevada Desert Experience “New Year’s” ritual of prayer and nonviolent witness. Driving east from Southern California across the Mojave Desert and then skirting Death Valley, Cejka had arrived at St. James Catholic Church in Las Vegas the day before the activities at the test site began. She joined nearly two hundred people in preparation for their journey to a site where the United States and Britain had detonated hundreds of nuclear bombs. They participated in a nonviolence training that set the tone for the peace witness and prepared some of them to risk arrest.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 15 Facilities and Operations Relevant to the Use and Release Of
    CHAPTER 15 FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS RELEVANT TO THE USE AND RELEASE OF CHEMICALS ABSTRACT This chapter provides information about the major facilities and operations responsible for releases of chemicals to the air and surface water at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The most important facilities and operations were the powerhouses, the separations processes, and raw materials operations. This chapter also describes key sources of information about releases of chemicals, site operations, waste disposal, water treatment, explosions, fires, and spills. RELEASE POINTS AND PROCESSES The SRS has several thousand process exhaust points and “literally tens of thousands of administrative events” according to the Part 70 Operating Permit Application submitted to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Inquiries made to the Air Emissions Inventory database in October 1997 indicate that there were 527 emission points in D-Area; 3023 emission points in A-Area, which includes the powerplant, Savannah River Laboratory (SRL), and Savannah River Ecology Laboratory; 540 emission points in M- Area; 2347 emission points in F-Area, including the Naval Fuels Facility; 2123 emission points in H-Area, including the tritium facilities; 396 in T-Area or TNX; 535 in G-Area or CMX; and from 600 to 650 in each reactor area (Faugl 1996). Six onsite process stacks emitted most of the nonradioactive materials released: three 313-M stacks and one 321-M stack in M-Area and two, 200-ft-high stacks (291/292-H and 291/292-F) in the separations areas. Because of the sensitive nature of some of the information about process equipment, design, and location, exhaust points were combined into one location for each area.
    [Show full text]