DOCSLIB.ORG

ROCKY FLA TS PLANT HAER No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. Cutting edge technologies developed at the Plant resulted in a number of patents, doctoral degrees, and numerous scientific discoveries. Early on, there were very few locations in the United States that had the capabilities to work with plutonium. Employees working at the Plant were leaders in the field. ROCKY FLATS PLANT HAER No. C0-83 (Page 2) The Plant is associated with the United States strategy of nuclear military deterrence during the Cold War, a strategy considered of major importance in preventing Soviet nuclear attack. The establishment of the Rocky Flats Plant was the result of the post-war fear of the Soviet Union; this fear drove the federal government to build a vastly expanded nuclear weapons production system. The nuclear arms race resulted in the development of an immense research, production, and testing network that came to be known as the "Nuclear Weapons Complex." From the Manhattan Project to 1995, the United States spent over 300 billion dollars on nuclear weapons research, production, and testing (in 1995 dollars; USDOE 1995). During a half century of operations, the complex manufactured tens of thousands of warheads and detonated more than one thousand nuclear warheads. At its peak, the "Nuclear Weapons Complex" consisted of thirteen major facilities, which included laboratories, production plants, testing facilities, and associated infrastructure. All of the thirteen sites had interrelated functions. The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) complex contains four types of facilities: a) nuclear sites (fabrication and assembly); b) non-nuclear sites (manufacture of non-nuclear components); c) laboratories and test sites (research and test support); and d) weapons assembly and disassembly. Historians: D. Jayne Aaron, Environmental Designer, engineering­ environmental Management, Inc. ~e2M), 1998. Judy A. Berryman, Ph.D., Archaeologist ( e M), 1998. Project Information: In 1995, an inventory and evaluation of facilities at the Rocky Flats Plant for their potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places was conducted. The primary goal of this investigation was to determine the significance of the Cold War era facilities at Rocky Flats Plant in order to assess potential effects of the long-term goals and objectives of the USDOE. These goals and objectives included waste cleanup and demolition. Recommendations regarding National Register of Historic Places ROCKY FLATS PLANT HAER No. C0-83 (Page 3) eligibility were developed to allow the USDOE to submit a formal determination of significance to the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer for review and concurrence and to provide for management of historic properties at the Rocky Flats Plant. From this determination and negotiations with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council, and the National Park Service, a Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) project began in 1997 to document the Rocky Flats Plant's resources prior to their demolition. Also in 1997, the Rocky Flats Plant was officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The archives for this HAER project are located in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Information for this HAER project was gathered from declassified written materials and personnel interviews. All aspects of this project (this report, individual building reports, photographs, and drawings) have been reviewed by the Rocky Flats security organization and released as not containing any classified information. Documentation for this HAER project includes a Plant-overview component (this written report followed by drawings and photographs), as well as reports and photographs of individual buildings considered contributing resources of the Rocky Flats Plant historic district. This Plant-overview report is organized into the following topics, which can be found on the indicated page numbers: Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 6 • Cold War and the Nuclear Weapons Complex ............................................................ 11 • Political Climate .............................................................................................. 11 • Development of the Atomic Bomb .................................................................. 13 • Nuclear Weapons Development- Manhattan Project ...................................... 14 • The Cold War (1946-90) ................................................................................. 22 • Societal Impacts of the Cold War .................................................................... 28 • Cold War Advances in Nuclear Weapons Design ........................................... 29 • The Atomic Energy Commission Weapons Program ...................................... 32 • The United States Nuclear Energy Program .................................................... 33 • The USDOE Nuclear Weapons Complex ........................................................ 34 • Rocky Flats Plant ......................................................................................................... 35 • Site Location .................................................................................................... 35 • Mission of the Plant ......................................................................................... 36 • Significance ..................................................................................................... 39 ROCKY FLATS PLANT HAER No. C0-83 (Page 4) • Plant Site Overview ..................................................................................................... 40 • The Rocky Flats Plant Site .............................................................................. 40 • Plant Organization ........................................................................................... 41 • The Original Plant Construction 1951 - 1953 ................................................ .42 • History of Operations (1953-55, 1956-63, 1964-89, and 1989-92) ................ .43 • Public Perception of Rocky Flats Plant .......................................................... .49 • Manufacturing History ................................................................................................. 52 • Plutonium Operations (Recovery and Fabrication) ......................................... 52 • Depleted Uranium Operations ......................................................................... 56 • Enriched Uranium Operations (Fabrication and Recovery) ............................ 57 • Beryllium Operations ....................................................................................... 59 • Stainless Steel Operations ................................................................................ 60 • Assembly Operations ....................................................................................... 61 • Major Material Processing Buildings .......................................................................... 61 • Depleted Uranium and Beryllium (Building 444) ........................................... 61 • Enriched Uranium and Non-plutonium Metals/Alloys (Buildings 881, 883, 865, and 460) ................................................................................................... 62 • Plutonium (Buildings 771, 776/777, 707, and 371) ......................................... 64 • Shipping/Receiving and Assembly (Building 991) ......................................... 68 • Security .......................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Document Number Document Title Authors, Compilers, Or Editors Date

    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.
  • ROCKY FLATS PLANT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN Environmental Restoration Program

    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
  • Welcome to Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Home to Over 239 Species of Wildlife and Over 630 Species of Plants

    Welcome to Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Home to Over 239 Species of Wildlife and Over 630 Species of Plants

    Welcome to Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, home to over 239 species of wildlife and over 630 species of plants. In 2001, the Refuge was created by Congress to protect xeric tallgrass prairie, a globally rare ecosystem, and to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species. The security that once protected the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant also preserved this unique expanse of Front Range habitat. Portions of the Refuge surround a historic Cold War site. For nearly four decades, thousands of women and men worked at the Plant, building weapons components for the United States’ nuclear weapons arsenal. In 1989, operations ended and the Rocky Flats Plant was added to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List of sites that needed to be cleaned up. Beginning in 1992, many of the same Cold War veterans who had built weapons components at the Plant, assisted with an unprecedented and enormously complex Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“Superfund”) cleanup project to investigate and remediate the site. Thousands of soil, water, air, and sediment samples were collected and analyzed by laboratories. This extensive evaluation of Rocky Flats was conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors, overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Based on the results of the investigation, it was determined that no remediation was required on Refuge lands. The Site was closed in 2005 after the Plant was torn down and cleanup was completed. DOE Legacy Management staff continue to manage 1,300 acres located at the center of the Refuge where the former Plant was located.
  • CMRR Backgrounder 4 25 12.P65

    CMRR Backgrounder 4 25 12.P65

    The CMRR-NuclearTHE CMRR-NUCLEAR Facility: FACILITY 1 Why a Delay Makes Sense BACKGROUNDER APRIL 2012 LISBETH GRONLUND & STEPHEN YOUNG Executive Summary Looking ahead two decades, we find that the only plau- sible need to increase pit production capacity above the cur- In its FY2013 budget request, the Obama administration rent level is to support the upcoming life extension programs announced a delay of at least five years in the construction (LEP) for the W78 and W88 warheads—if they use newly built of a proposed new facility at the Los Alamos National Labo- pits. (A LEP could simply refurbish the existing warhead and ratory (LANL)—the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research use the existing pit, or could use an existing pit from another Replacement-Nuclear Facility warhead type.) However, even in this (CMRR-NF). Our analysis finds case, an annual production capacity of There will be no adverse effects that there will be no adverse effects 40-45 pits would be adequate, and this of delaying construction. More- of delaying construction. could be accomplished without build- over, there is no clear need for the Moreover, there is no clear need ing a new CMRR-NF. If the United CMRR-NF as currently proposed. for the CMRR-NF as currently States reduced its arsenal below 3,500 Delaying construction will also al- proposed. weapons over the next few decades, low the National Nuclear Security an even lower annual production ca- Administration (NNSA) to fully pacity could be sufficient. assess alternatives to building To date, NNSA has not made a CMRR-NF and to take into account forthcoming changes decision about whether it will use new pits for the W78 and to U.S.
  • Extensions of Remarks 28103 Private Bills and Resolutions H.R

    Extensions of Remarks 28103 Private Bills and Resolutions H.R

    August 10, 1970 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 28103 PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS H.R. 18888. A bill for the relief of Edward PETTI'IONS, ETC. E. Jones; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private By Mr. PEPPER: Under clause 1 of rule XXII, bills and resolutions were introduced and H.R. 18889. A bill for the relief of John 567. The SPEAKER presented a petition severally referred. as follows: Molgard Isak.sen; to the Committee on the of Wayne E. Carver, Wheelersburg, Ohio, rela­ By Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia: Judiciary. tive to appointments to the U.S. Supreme H.R. 18887. A bill for the relief of Slavko By Mr. SCHMITZ: Court and to other Federal benches, which N. Bjelajac; to the Committee on the Ju­ H.R. 18890. A bill for the relief of Bernaldo was referred to the Committee on the Ju­ diciary. Acupan; to the Committee on the Judiciary. diciary. EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS SCORE A BIG PLUS FOR SMALL to start them out earlier and then get them tired executive (many of them involuntary BUSINESS back in the store to perform other duties. retirees) and the idea of SCORE was born. Careful records were kept of all costs and The goal of SCORE is to use the otherwise they were trimmed relentlessly. untapped abil1ties of the retirees. So far, Within months, the business was breaking SCORE has been able to do that, although HON. HENRY P. SMITH III even for the first time in seven years. The the road hasn't always been easy.
  • Waste Management Activities for Groundwater Protection Savannah River Plant Aiken, South Carolina

    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 .
  • Chapter 15 Facilities and Operations Relevant to the Use and Release Of

    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.
  • EXTENSIONS of REMARKS 8463 Brenkworth Again Was Employed by the an Amendment by Mr

    EXTENSIONS of REMARKS 8463 Brenkworth Again Was Employed by the an Amendment by Mr

    April 24, 1979 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 8463 Brenkworth again was employed by the an amendment by Mr. KENNEDY, on serve of the Army and in the Army of the United States, under the provisions of title Commission until his appointment to which there is time limitation of 2 hours, 10, United States Code, sections 3019, 3442 the Disbursing Office on June 1, 1948. He after which Mr. TowER will call up his and 3447: advanced to chief bookkeeper in August amendment, on which there is a 1-hour To be major general, USAR and AUS of 1951 and subsequently became the as­ time limitation; subsequent to which Mr. sistant financial clerk on January 1, HATCH will be recognized to call up his Brig. Gen. William Roger Berkman, 559- 1953, a position he held until his ap­ five amendments, one at a time, of course, 32-4169. pointment as financial clerk on August with a time limitation on each of 1 hour. 23, 1954. Mr. President, as I say, the time limi­ CONFIRMATIONS He is survived by his wife, Elsie, and tations that I have set forth in this state­ Executive nominations confirmed by two children, Barbara and Lisa. ment may be reduced, either by consent the Senate April24, 1979: I am sure the Members of the Senate or by virtue of the parties in control DEPARTMENT OF STATE join me in expressing our condolences to thereof yielding some of the time back. John Prior Lewis, of New Jersey, for the his wife and to his children, and join me There may be other amendments around, rank of Minister during the tenure of his in saying that Mr.
  • RETHINKING PLUTONIUM: a Review of Plutonium Operations in the U.S

    RETHINKING PLUTONIUM: a Review of Plutonium Operations in the U.S

    RETHINKING PLUTONIUM: A Review of Plutonium Operations in the u.s. Nuclear Weapons Complex Energy Resean:h FOlmdation Natural Resources Defense Council 537 Harden Street 1350 New York Avenue. NW. Suite 300 Colmnbia. SC 29205 Washington. DC 20005 8031256-7298 202f783-7800 T.\.BLE OF CONTENTS CHAPfER ONE. PLurONIUM OPERATIONS: AN UNCERTAIN FUTIJRE . .. 5 History of Plutonimn Operations 6 Assessing Phrtonimn Need 8 Future Plutonium Production 11 Warhead Dismantlement 13 Capacity; Verification Options for Surplus Plutonium 15 Managing Plutonium-Bearing Materials 18 Discard Limits; Continuing Recovery Cli(\PTER TWO. PLUfONIUM PROCESSING TECHNOWGIES 23 Producing New Plutonium <::) 23 Reactor Production; Chemical Separation; Fabrication Processing Old Plutonium 26 Recycle and Recovery Feedstocks; Recycle and Recovery Processes CHAPfER TIIREE. PLtTrONIUM PROCESSING SITES ..... : .... ' .. \. .. .. 31 Rocky F1ats Plant . 31 Capabilities; Problems at RFP Los Alamos National Laboratory 36 Production Support; Upgtades Hanf~ Reservation. 38 PUREX' & PFP; Hanford's Future ·Savannah River Site . < 41 Recycle and Recovery ~eloPQlent; New Special Recovery facility; FB-LiDe; HB-Line; 01her Activities . Other Sites • 48 Pantex Plant; Oak ~e Reservation; Idaho N~ Engineering Laboratory . CHAPTER FOUR. RECOMMENDATIONS . .. 51 Information Flow . 51 The V8Iue of PlDtoDium 54 Plutonium-Bearing Materials 55 International Controls 56 Facility Safety 57 Resuming Production 59 PREFACE As a result of safety and environmental problems, the United States CUII'eIltlylacks the capacity to produce nuclear warheads - a situation that bas pel'Sisted for more than two years. Moreover, for the first time since the Manhattan Project, the U.S. bas no immediate plans to produce additional wameads. Nonetheless, the Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing a major rebuilding of the nuclear weapons complex.
  • Environmental Management Fact Sheets. INSTITUTION Department of Energy, Washington, D.C

    Environmental Management Fact Sheets. INSTITUTION Department of Energy, Washington, D.C

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 383 566 SE 056 510 TITLE Environmental Management Fact Sheets. INSTITUTION Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. REPORT NO DOE/EM-0071P PUB DATE Aug 94 NOTE 84p.; Photographs may not reproduce well. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PC04 Pius Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Energy Education; Environmental Education; *Federal Legislation; *Hazardous Materials; Nuclear Energy; *Pollution; Radiation; Solid Wastes; Technology; *Waste Disposal IDENTIFIERS *Department of Energy; Environmental Law; Environmental Management; Environmental Protection' *Fact Sheets ABSTRACT In recent years, the need for nuclear materials has decreased and the Department of Energy (DOE) has focused greater attention on cleaning up contamination left from past activities. The Office of Environmental Management (EM) within DOE is responsible for managing waste and cleaning up contamination at DOE sites across the nation. This collection of 40 EM Fact Sheets contains information on DOE .nd EM activities in technology development, facility transition and management, radiation in the environment, and related programs and activities. Three major sections contain fact sheets on laws and regulations, waste management, and environmental restoration. Regulations covered include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act or "Superfund"; the National Environmental Policy Act; and additional statutes affecting DOE's Environmental Management Program. Other tact sheets contain definitions of waste management and environmental restoration and cover activities at DOE regional operations offices. Fact Sheets are a major component of EM's Public Participation Program, which attempts to educate stakeholders in DOE-related environmental issues. EM also sponsors educational progr ms, special topic workshops, and science units for schools.
  • RCRA Facility Investigation – Remedial Investigation/ Corrective Measures Study – Feasibility Study Report for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

    RCRA Facility Investigation – Remedial Investigation/ Corrective Measures Study – Feasibility Study Report for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

    RCRA Facility Investigation – Remedial Investigation/ Corrective Measures Study – Feasibility Study Report for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Section 1.0 Site Background This Report was prepared by Kaiser-Hill Company, L.L.C. for the U.S. Department of Energy June 2006 RCRA Facility Investigation-Remedial Investigation/ Section 1.0 Corrective Measures Study-Feasibility Study Report Site Background TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SITE BACKGROUND........................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site .......................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Site History.................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Site Mission................................................................................. 1-2 1.1.3 The Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act........................... 1-5 1.1.4 National Priority List and Hazardous Waste Activities............... 1-6 1.2 Site Investigations and Cleanup History.................................................. 1-7 1.2.1 Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 1-8 1.2.2 Previous Site Investigations and Configuration......................... 1-17 1.2.3 Remedial Activities (RFCA Accelerated Actions).................... 1-22 1.2.4 CERCLA Five-Year Review ..................................................... 1-29 1.3 Site Conditions for Evaluation in the RI/FS, Proposed Plan, and Final Remedy .................................................................................................
  • Waste Management Plan (July 1987)

    Waste Management Plan (July 1987)

    REPRODUCED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY C0NF-871075--Vol.l-Pt.l & Z §•§!*: 1 § * 's 1 l.f | J | Z £ | t— c, ^i c- * w c w Initiative i'i^gf >•: I! =f u >, -r > — -?-: as 1987 OAK RIDGE MODEL CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS .•= _ ap Waste Management -^ s 11 I = ^ M ^. Volume I 55 c c -^ c C "^ -C C i_ Part 1 1^ I Bis I*eS sponsored by * _ I « -2 3 5 S 2 S £ 5 * ^ .31 -E S c-1 ~ The Department of Energy/Oak Ridge Operations ii c S-^ $ 1 2- 3 §•• Research and Waste Management Division and Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. Prepared by ANALYSAS CORPORATION Printed by MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract No. DE-ACC5-840R21400 WSTB CONF-871075—Vol.1-Pt.1 \ DE88 007803 EXECUTIVE STEERING OGMfFFEEE XANCE J. MEZGA EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ED AEHESCHER DR. lARRy JONES PUBLIC RELATIONS - TOURS UNIVERSITY PARTICIPATION ANNE CAIHOUN CYNTHIA KENERICK AEMENISTRATTVE SUPPORT TECHNICAL PROGRAM CHAIRMAN KWISE DUNLAP JUDITH IAHBERT CCMMUNHY PARnCIPATION CONFERENCE COC3RDINATOR KATHRYN FCREES NELSON PRESENTATICW COORDINATOR DDE IiAISON ROBEKT HHI'lM. IIKY MATIESON ANS TEACHER'S WORKSHOP CONFERENCE COORDINATOR DR. ROBEST JOII£Y •van BOH EXHIBITS - POSTER SESSIONS EXECUTIVE STEERING CCMMTTTEE CHAIRMAN EMERITUS TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMOTIEE CYNTHIA M. KENDRICK CHAIRMAN GARY D. ODXON MIKE C. SMITH J. CARROLL DUGGAN IRVIN G. SPEAS LARRY H. JONES, PhD. DON WILKES J. T. PRILE CM-S1.TK STAFF OOHFJJKENCE COORDINATORS COORDINATOR Judith Lambert Kathryn Forbes Lucy Matteson SESSION COORDINATORS Anne Calhcun Kathryn Forbes