DOCSLIB.ORG

SEC Petition Evaluation Report Petition SEC-00049

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SEC Petition Evaluation Report Petition SEC-00049 SEC Petition Evaluation Report Petition SEC-00049 Report Rev # Report Submittal Date: 10-24-06 Subject Expert(s): Donald Stewart, Elizabeth Gilley, Ron Kathren, and Vernon Shockley Site Expert(s): N/A Petition Administrative Summary Petition Under Evaluation Petition # Petition Qualification Date DOE/AWE Facility Name Type SEC-00049 83.13 May 1, 2006 Monsanto Chemical Company Petitioner Class Definition Directors and subordinates, Physicists, Chemists, Technicians, Workers that worked at Monsanto Chemical Company in Dayton, Ohio during the period of 1943 to 1949. Proposed Class Definition All Atomic Weapons Employees who were monitored or who should have been monitored for radiation while working at Monsanto Chemical Company Units I, III, or IV in Dayton, Ohio for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days during the period of January 1, 1943 to December 31, 1949, or in combination with the work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort. Related Petition Summary Information SEC Petition Tracking #(s) Petition Type DOE/AWE Facility Name Petition Status NA NA NA NA Related Evaluation Report Information Report Title DOE/AWE Facility Name NA NA ORAU Lead Technical Evaluator: Libby Gilley ORAU Review Completed By: Daniel Stempfley Peer Review Completed By: [Signature on file] 11/07/06 Frank C. Crawford Date SEC Petition Evaluation Reviewed By: [Signature on file] 11/07/06 Brant Ulsh for Jim Neton Date SEC Evaluation Approved By: [Signature on file] 11/07/06 Larry Elliott Date SEC-00049 FINAL Monsanto Chemical Company This page intentionally blank 2 of 46 SEC-00049 FINAL Monsanto Chemical Company Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00049, Monsanto Chemical Company This evaluation report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) addresses a class of employees proposed for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) per the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et seq. (EEOICPA) and 42 C.F.R . pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. Petitioner-Requested Class Definition Petition SEC-00049, qualified on May 1, 2006, requested that NIOSH consider the following class: Directors and subordinates, Physicists, Chemists, Technicians, Workers that worked at Monsanto Chemical Company in Dayton, Ohio, during the period of 1943 to 1949. NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition This evaluation defines a single class of employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses with sufficient accuracy. The NIOSH-proposed class includes: all Atomic Weapons Employees who were monitored or who should have been monitored for radiation while working at Monsanto Chemical Company Units I, III, or IV in Dayton, Ohio, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days during the period of January 1, 1943 to December 31, 1949, or in combination with the work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction The feasibility determination for the class of employees covered by this evaluation report is governed by the requirements of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1). Section 83.13 of the rule states that “Radiation doses can be estimated with sufficient accuracy if NIOSH has established that it has access to sufficient information to estimate the maximum radiation dose for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are reconstructed that could have been incurred in plausible circumstances by any member of the class, or if NIOSH has established that it has access to sufficient information to estimate the radiation doses of members of the class more precisely than an estimate of the maximum radiation dose.” NIOSH has established herein that it does not have timely access to sufficient information to estimate either the maximum radiation dose incurred by any member of the class or to estimate such radiation doses more precisely than a maximum dose estimate. The sum of information for the period 1943 through 1949 from the available resources is not sufficient to document or estimate the potential maximum internal and external exposure to members of the class under plausible circumstances during the period of radiological operations at Monsanto Chemical Company (MCC). 3 of 46 SEC-00049 FINAL Monsanto Chemical Company Health Endangerment Determination Per EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3), a health endangerment determination is required because NIOSH has determined that it does not have sufficient information to estimate dose for the members of the proposed class. NIOSH did not identify any evidence supplied by the petitioners or from other resources that would establish that the proposed class was exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have involved exceptionally high-level exposures. However, evidence indicates that some workers in the proposed class may have accumulated substantial chronic exposures from the inhalation and ingestion of radionuclides, combined with substantial external exposures to gamma, beta, and neutron radiation. Consequently, NIOSH has determined that there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of the class who were employed for at least 250 aggregated work days either solely under their employment or in combination with work days within the parameters (excluding aggregate work day requirements) established for other classes of employees included in the SEC. 4 of 46 SEC-00049 FINAL Monsanto Chemical Company Table of Contents Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00049, Monsanto Chemical Company............................................ 3 1.0 Purpose and Scope.......................................................................................................................... 7 2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 7 3.0 Petitioner Requested Class/Basis and NIOSH Proposed Class/Basis ............................................ 8 4.0 Data Sources Reviewed by NIOSH................................................................................................ 9 4.1 Site Profile Technical Basis Documents (TBDs) .................................................................. 9 4.2 ORAU Technical Information Bulletins (OTIBs) and Procedures ..................................... 10 4.3 Facility Employees and Experts .......................................................................................... 10 4.4 Previous Dose Reconstructions ........................................................................................... 11 4.5 NIOSH Site Research Database .......................................................................................... 12 4.6 Polonium Reconstruction (PoRECON) Database ............................................................... 12 4.7 CEDR Database................................................................................................................... 12 4.8 MCC Progress Reports........................................................................................................ 12 4.9 Documentation and/or Affidavits Provided by Petitioners ................................................. 13 4.10 Documentation from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Formerly Utilized Remedial Action Program ........................................................................................................................................ 13 5.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Proposed Class ............................................................ 13 5.1 Monsanto Chemical Company Plant and Process Descriptions.......................................... 14 5.1.1 Polonium from Uranium Ores................................................................................. 14 5.1.2 Polonium from Irradiated Bismuth Slugs................................................................ 16 5.1.3 Other Radiological Work at MCC........................................................................... 16 5.2 Monsanto Chemical Company Unit Descriptions............................................................... 17 5.2.1 Monsanto Chemical Company Unit I...................................................................... 18 5.2.2 Monsanto Chemical Company Unit II .................................................................... 18 5.2.3 Monsanto Chemical Company Unit III ................................................................... 18 5.2.4 Monsanto Chemical Company Unit IV................................................................... 19 5.2.5 Monsanto Chemical Company Warehouse ............................................................. 20 5.2.6 Marion ..................................................................................................................... 20 5.2.7 Mound Laboratory (Also Known as Unit V) .......................................................... 20 5.2.8 Summary of Key Monsanto Chemical Company Facilities.................................... 20 5.3 Radiological Exposure Sources from MCC Operations...................................................... 21 5.3.1 Alpha Particle Emissions........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 83, No. 214/Monday, November 5, 2018
    Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2018 / Notices 55401 including a description of the likely notwithstanding any other provisions of Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). respondents, proposed frequency of law, no person shall generally be subject Michel Smyth, response, and estimated total burden to penalty for failing to comply with a Departmental Clearance Officer. may be obtained free of charge from the collection of information that does not RegInfo.gov website at http://www. display a valid Control Number. See 5 [FR Doc. 2018–24153 Filed 11–2–18; 8:45 am] reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_ CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL BILLING CODE 4510–26–P nbr=201801-1218-004 or by contacting obtains OMB approval for this Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693– information collection under Control DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not Number 1218–0110. The DOL notes that toll-free numbers) or sending an email existing information collection Office of Workers’ Compensation _ _ to DOL PRA [email protected]. requirements submitted to the OMB Programs Submit comments about this request receive a month-to-month extension by mail to the U.S. Department of Labor- while they undergo review. New Energy Employees Occupational OASAM, Office of the Chief Information requirements would only take effect Illness Compensation Program Act of Officer, Attn: Departmental Information upon OMB approval. For additional 2000, as Amended Compliance Management Program, substantive information about this ICR, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue see the related notice published in the AGENCY: Office of Workers’ NW, Washington, DC 20210; or by Federal Register on March 30, 2018 (83 Compensation Programs, Labor email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Restoration Program MOUND
    ._. I s MOUND /. i i! I : “’ Al Environmental Restoration Program MOUND Environmental Restoration Program VlOUND MOUND PLANT POTENTIAL RELEASE SITE PACKAGE I Notice of Public Review Period hgram The following potential release site (PRS) packages will be available for public review ir he CERCLA Public Reading Room, 305 E. Central Ave., Miamisburg, Ohio beginning lune 17, 1997. Public comment will be accepted on these packages from June 17, 1997, .hroughJuly 18, 1997. PRS 30: Building 27 Propane Tank PRS 129/130: Former Solvent Storage Sites PRS 241: Soil Con@mination- - Main Hill Parking Lot Area PRS 307: Soil Contamination -.Buil.ding 29 PRS 318: PCB Tramformer and Capacitor Locations PRS 320-325: Former Sites -:Dayton Uqits 1-4/Dayton WarehousYScioto Facility PRS 383: Soil Contbination PRS 408: Soil Contz@&tion - “Prism” oil Queslionscan be referred to Mound’s Community Relations at (937) 8654140. 1 PRS 320/321/322/323/324/325 PUBLIC RELEASE Available for comment. The Mound Core Team P.O. Box 66 Miamisburg, Ohio 45343-0066 AUG 2 0 1997 - Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation 720 Mound Road COS Building 422 1 Miamisburg, Ohio 45342-67 14 . Dear Mr. Bird: The Core Team, consisting of the U.S. Department of Energy Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (DOE-MEMP), U.S. Envirommtal Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), appreciatesthe input provided by the public stakeholdersof the Mound facility. The public stakeholdershave significantly contributed to the forward progress that has been made on the entire releaseblock strategy for establishing the - safety of the Mound property prior to its return to public use after remediation and residual risk evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • RG 326 Atomic Energy Commission Oak Ridge Operations Office
    LOC:BO1 5/32/6-B0 15/34/7 Archives Accession: 72C2386 Job NO.4"-326-87-06 RG 326 Atomic Energy Commission Oak Ridge Operations Office Research and Development Div. Corres. Files 1947-1963 Entry 033 Boxes 1-129 . 7- AE~UES O 1. TRANSFER - OF 4. CURRENT LOCATION OF RECORM aSF 136 ATTACHE0 Declassified Correspondence Files of the Research and Development SEPARATE SHEET(S) Divi slon . 1947-1 963 ATTACHED a 5- B. EST. VOLUME C. ARE RECORDS SUUECT TO PRIVACY ACT? (If I*& 0. SPECIFIC RESTRlCTlOW TO BE IMPOSE0 (Indud. urnfiution.nd , dL. umcy system nu" ard T.R. roluao and -0 cu. (1. cu. mtr. cite -;uta or ~OIen i auaoriru nrcb rr~Lrku0~) numbor for moct nernc notla and alas copy) 5 U.S.C. 552(bp6) authorizes the with- ' DOE-33s ' DOE-4P 5 DOE-46, DOE-48, DOE-51, DOE-52, holding of personnel and medical files and b* similar files the disclosure of which would 47 'eR* No* 64 (April ** 1982) (applicable pages attached) constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion DOE-1 324.2 RS/16,5. a. i P- .. -? . .. .. .-- .- ... ... _... .. I;, .. .. E .~ cf W a .. CL C c % 2 ..... L w- Cu- rdaJ aJ nmx cn c;? ... W7JOU cum ........ n m aC ma .. cfp: .- .. -_.... .. .. ........ .. .... * ..... NO11 'i; 31UlLlnY - ....... -7 ...'I - . -. t ... 4e 3ca .... .- - ..... ' ;" ; . UUh Lb .-. , u ram - ...- w aJ7 ........ <'< ' ... ..I -: ..... ~ .- . 1. .. .' . .- -. ~ ....... - .... d .. d .. : . c - -..- .. .. ... ...... .. .. .-... i-- d -_ ? INVE~~TORY 1 Budget/Acct./Finance 1 Budget - General Policy Jan-June 1950 2 Budget - General Policy July-Dec. 1950 3 Budget Change Requests .. 4.
    [Show full text]
  • 14 Stratégies Nucléaires Support De Cours
    STRATÉGIES NUCLÉAIRES cours de M. Gourdin - 1 - CHRONOLOGIE DE L’ARMEMENT NUCLÉAIRE : LE « CLUB DES CINQ » : DATES ÉTATS-UNIS U.R.S.S. ROYAUME- FRANCE CHINE UNI . 16-7 : 1er essai bombe A (Robert 1945 Oppenheimer) . utilisation B 29 ➥ 6-8 : Hiroshima ➥ 9-8 : Nagasaki 1946 1947 1948 1949 - essai charge faible 29-8 : 1er essai - 1er bombardier bombe A stratégique B 36 1950 1951 . 1er bombardier 13-10 : 1er essai stratégique B 52 bombe A 1952 . 1er-11 : 1er essai bombe H de 10 mt (Edward Teller) 1er obus atomique 12-8 : 1er essai 1953 opérationnel bombe H (Andrei Sakharov) 12 : 1er sous-marin à 1ère bombe A 1954 propulsion nucléaire opérationnelle (Nautilus) 1955 1er IRBM 1er bombardier stratégique Valiant 1er bombardier 1956 stratégique Mya-4- Bison 1ere charge < 1 kt - 26-8 : 1er ICBM (T 16-5 : 1er essai 3 ) bombe H 1957 - - 4-10 : Spoutnik I - 1er bombardier stratégique Tu 95 Bear - 1er sous-marin (diesel) lanceur SLBM – Zulu V 1958 - 1°-2 : Explorer I - 1ers IRBM (Jupiter, Thor) - 1er ICBM (Atlas ) - 1°-12 : 1er sous- - 1er SLBM SS 1b- - la RAF prend en 1959 marin équipé SLBM Scud charge des missiles (Polaris ) intermédiaires - Dicoverer I américains Thor 1960 1er satellite d’alerte 13-2 : 1er essai précoce Midas bombe A 1961 1er satellite - 1er essai ABM d’observation - 1er sous-marin à SAMOS propulsion nucléaire Hotel I - 1er B 52 H- - 1er bombardier 1962 Stratofortress stratégique Tu 22- - 19-7 : 1er ABM Blinder (Nike-Zeus) - 1er satellite d’écoute électronique Ferrets 1er MRV - démantèlement des - 6-7 : 1ere bombe A missiles opérationnelle (AN21) 1963 intermédiaires - 1°-8 : 90ème escadre américains Thor de ravitaillement en vol (Istres) 8-10 : 1ère alerte 1964 opérationnelle 1er es- 16-10 : 1er essai cadron Mirage IV-A bombe A (escadre Gascogne ) 1965 1er satellite (Astérix) STRATÉGIES NUCLÉAIRES cours de M.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Update
    U.S. Department of Energy PR GRAM UPDATE July-September 2020 Duck and Cover Preserving the Legacy of DOE Historian Joins LM Dayton! 75 Years into the Manhattan Project the Nuclear Age In my last column, I remarked on how much had changed in our uranium for the world’s first nuclear weapon [page 4]. The recent professional and personal lives since the start of the COVID-19 opening of the K-25 History Center is part of a multi-project agreement pandemic. Hard to believe it has been more than six months to preserve and share the building’s historical significance. And be since we invoked our Continuity of Operations plan. sure to read the interview with DOE Historian Eric Boyle, who recently joined LM, to gain more perspective on why history provides an While some of these changes continue to test our resolve and important viewpoint for DOE and other federal agencies [page 8]. patience, I’m proud to say that six months into the pandemic, we’ve adapted to “the new abnormal” and continue to deliver In addition to learning more about LM’s history in this issue, on the LM mission in the office and the field. We’ve been able you’ll also find updates on important work and interesting news. to conduct field inspections and other critical site activities this On the science and technology front, we’re employing lasers and summer, thanks to strong teamwork and ingenuity. We’ve prepared drones to track change at LM sites. Our collaborative partnerships a robust plan for staff to eventually return to the office and field continue to thrive, with the National Nuclear Security Administration safely.
    [Show full text]
  • Facility List
    Text size: Smaller - Normal - Larger ­ You are Here: DOE > HSS > HealthSafety > FWSP Largest Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Home | Health and Safety Facility List There were 382 records found for all records in the list. 1 - A.O. Smith Corporation State: Wisconsin Location: Milwaukee Time Period: 1948-1950 Facility Type: Beryllium Vendor Facility Description: A.O. Smith studied methods for protecting beryllium carbide-matrix bodies for the Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) project. 2 - AC Spark Plug Also Known As: AC Spark Plug State: Michigan Location: Flint Time Period: AWE/BE 1946-1947; Residual Radiation 1948-March 1, 2011 Facility Type: Atomic Weapons Employer Beryllium Vendor Facility Description: AC Spark Plug performed beryllium work for the AEC. Records indicate that approximately 10 men worked with beryllium at this location in 1947. Information about AC Spark Plug is found in health hazard surveys, shipping reports and in a MED history. The company continued to receive hundreds of pounds of beryllium for use under government contract into the 1960's. It is possible that some or all of this beryllium was being used for other, non-AEC projects. There was also a small amount of thorium procurement related to AC Spark Plug in the 1946-1947 timeframe. 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. 3 - Accurate Machine & Tool Also Known As: Accurate Machine & Tool State: New Mexico Location: Albuquerque Time Period: 1987-2002 Facility Type: Beryllium Vendor Facility Description: Accurate Machine & Tool provides machine shop services to Sandia National Laboratory, California.
    [Show full text]
  • In This Issue Recognized As Philosophical at All
    A FORUM OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY • VOLUME XIII • NO. 5 • FALL 2017 The Author in Dialogue: Jimena Canales’s The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time by Robert P. Crease Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY ver 150 people attended the March meeting session devoted to Jimena Canales’s book, The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That OChanged Our Understanding of Time. It was the second of an annual series of FHP-sponsored sessions in which the author of a recent book on history of physics meets critics and commentators. The 2017 session was held on the third floor of New Orleans’ huge convention center. The atmosphere was relaxed and genial, with the papers and conversation directed, not at professional physicists or professional phi- losophers, but to those interested in the general subject of the nature of time, and assumed a modest shared knowledge of both physics and philosophy. Canales, from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and four other people spoke. Canales’s book was built around a 1922 episode in which Einstein and Bergson clashed about the nature of time; she discussed both the buildup to and the aftermath of the event, in which physicists and philosophers continued to display a lack of understanding for each others’ position. “The book has been more successful than I ever imagined,” Canales began. Part of the controversy, she continued, was fueled by Jimena Canales of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign physicists’ negative attitude towards philosophy, and she cited numerous examples.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Update: 1St Quarter 2021
    U.S. Department of Energy PR GRAM UPDATE January-March 2021 An Overview of LM’s Birders Flock to Two Natural Resources Observing the Secretive Midwestern LM Sites Inhabitants of LM Sites Management Plan Poet Anne Bradstreet once said, “If we had no winter, the spring to control invasive species and restore riverine ecosystems along would not be so pleasant; if we did not sometimes taste of this wild and scenic-designated river (see page 10), one of the adversity, prosperity would not be so welcome.” truly special places in the West. As the days lengthen and the first hints of spring arrive, my thoughts As the climate changes and more sites with diverse ecosystems turn to renewal and prosperity. Not just renewal from the cold days come into the LM portfolio, the skills and knowledge of our Ecology of winter, but from all the challenges we’ve faced over the past year Program Team will become increasingly important, as we seek to in our nation, our organization, and our personal lives; and I know find ways to restore these sites as safe and healthy landscapes for we will prosper. As we begin to see declining cases of COVID-19 conservation and beneficial reuse. across the country, and with more U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) and LM Strategic Partner (LMSP) We also took time this past February to honor Black History Month, employees receiving the vaccine, there are finally green shoots which is about telling the story of the often-overlooked contributions visible in the long struggle with the pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • Approved March 30, 2004 Pdf Icon[473 KB (34
    ORAU Team Document Number: ORAUT-TKBS-0016-2 NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Project Effective Date: 03/30/2004 Revision No.:00 Technical Basis Document for the Mound Site – Site Description Controlled Copy No.: ______ Page 1 of 34 Subject Expert: Jeff Vollmer Supersedes: Document Owner Approval: Signature on File Date:03/29/2004 Jeff Vollmer, TBD Team Leader None Approval: Signature on File Date: 03/29/2004 Judson L. Kenoyer, Task 3 Manager Concurrence: Signature on File Date: 03/29/2004 Richard E. Toohey, Project Director Approval: Signature on File Date: 03/30/2004 James W. Neton, OCAS Health Science Administrator TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Record of Issue/Revisions ................................................................................................................... 3 Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Site Activities and Processes ...................................................................................................... 6 2.3.1 Buildings with Radionuclide Activity
    [Show full text]
  • MANHATTAN PROJECT Official History and Documents
    A Guide to MANHATTAN PROJECT Official History and Documents A Guide to MANHATTAN PROJECT: Official History and Documents Edited by Paul Kesaris IP A MICROFILM PROJECT OF UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS OF AMERICA, INC. 5630 Connecticut Ave. Washington, D.C. 20015 Copyright O 1977 by University Publications of America, Inc. All rights reserved. ISBN 0-89093-199-2 A NOTE ON THE USE OF THIS GUIDE The reel numbers and part numbers into which Manhattan Project: Offi- cial History and Documents has been divided were dictated by the technical considerations of filming rather than by editorial considerations. Neverthe- less, the reel numbers and part numbers, appearing as they do both in this guide and as targets in the film, indicate the filmed location of the books, volumes, and chapters of this collection. The original division of the collection into books, volumes, chapters, appendices, and individual reports has been preserved; and the numbers which appear on the right side of each page of this guide refer to the pagination of the original material. Portions of the col- lection which are still restricted have been noted as such; portions which were either not completed or not accessioned by the National Archives are not covered by this guide, and hence there are some gaps in the numbering of books, volumes, and chapters. Reel 1 BOOK I: GENERAL (Part 1) Volume 1: General Restricted (Part 2) Volume 4: Auxiliary Activities Chapter 1: Legislative Contacts of the Manhattan District (31 pp.) Foreword Section 1 : Introduction 1.1 Section 2: Financial Program
    [Show full text]
  • Manhattan Project Sites, Draft Special Resource Study/Environmental Assessment
    N ATIO N AL PARK SERVICE MA N HATTA N PROJECT SITE S U.S. DE P ARTME N T OF THE IN TERIOR H a n f o r d , Wa s H i n g t o n • Lo s aL a m o s , ne W me x i c o • da y t o n , oH i o • oa k ri d g e , te n n e s s e e DRAFT SPECIAL RE S OURCE STU D Y /EN VIRO N ME N TAL Ass E ss ME N T N OVEMBER 2009 This report has been prepared to provide Congress and the public with information about the resources in the study area and how they relate to criteria for inclusion within the national park system. Publication and transmittal of this report should not be considered an endorsement or a commitment by the National Park Service to seek or support either specific legislative authorization for the project or appropriation for its implementation. SUMMARY PURPOSE AND NEED STUDY AREA The purpose of this study is to comply with Public Law 108-340 has a defined study area the Manhattan Project National Historical of Manhattan Project sites specifically Park Study Act (Public Law 108-340), passed including the (1) Los Alamos National in 2004, which directed the secretary of the Laboratory and townsite in New Mexico; (2) interior to “conduct a study on the Hanford site in Washington; and (3) Oak preservation and interpretation of historic Ridge Reservation in Tennessee. A fourth site sites of the Manhattan Project for potential at Dayton, Ohio, was added to the study by inclusion in the National Park System.” Congressional colloquy.
    [Show full text]
  • Carolyn Beatrice Parker: Scientist, Scholar, and American War Hero
    August 5, 2020 Dear School Board Members: Thank you for the opportunity to be involved in the choosing of a name for School #0031, formerly named J. J. Finley. As a committee, we recommend that School #0031 be named in honor of Carolyn Beatrice Parker: scientist, scholar, and American war hero. We are proud to make this recommendation after a deliberation that considered several hundred community-nominated names. Early Life Carolyn Beatrice Parker was born in Gainesville in 1917, during the Jim Crow era. Her father, Dr. Julius A. Parker was a physician who graduated from Meharry Medical College, the first medical school in the South for African Americans. Carolyn Parker’s maternal first cousin, Joan Murrell Owens was a marine biologist and was also one of the first Black women to complete a Ph.D. in geology. Six of Julius and Delia Parker’s seven children completed advanced degrees; a seventh child died at age 9. Carolyn Parker was educated in segregated public schools in Tampa, where she graduated from Middleton High School in 1933. She graduated magna cum laude from Fisk University with a bachelor’s degree in physics in 1938. Between 1938 and 1940, Ms. Parker taught high school in Gainesville, possibly at the historically Black Lincoln High School. However, her name does not appear in Albert White and Kevin McCarthy’s 2012 history of Lincoln High School, which highlights former teachers and includes lists of alumni. Several of Ms. Parker’s siblings attended Lincoln, including Julia Leslie (Parker) Cosby, who--in 1966--became the first Black woman to teach in Alachua County’s previously all-White schools, according to White and McCarthy.
    [Show full text]