DOCSLIB.ORG

Pollution Prevention Technologies for Plutonium Processing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pollution Prevention Technologies for Plutonium Processing A. U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory LALP-93-92 POLLUTION PREVENTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR PLUTONIUM PROCESSING NUCLEAR MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY 1994 LALP-93-92 April 1994 Published by Los Alamos National Laboratory Nuclear Materials Technology Division MS E500 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 Coordinator K.K.S. Pillay Editors Carolyn K. Robinson Joan Farnum Graphic Designer Susan L. Carlson Printing Coordination Guadalupe D. Archuleta Brenda R. Valdez For More Information K.K.S. Pillay (505) 667-5428 Page 65 Photos: figure 3—B 1420 01 figure 4—B 1425 15 Los Alamos National Laboratory is operated by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36. An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the Regents of the University of California, the United States Government, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com- pleteness, 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, mark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Regents of the University of California, the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Regents of the University of California, the United States Government, or any agency thereof. Contents C o n t e n t s Preface Preventing Pollution From Plutonium Processing by K.K.S. Pillay 3 Overviews - Waste Minimization Technologies Off-Gas Scrubbing by W. Brad Smith 7 Acid Recovery and Recycle by Thomas R. Mills 12 Hydrochloric Acid Waste Stream Polishing by Louis D. Schulte, Richard R. Salazar, Benjie T. Martinez, John R. FitzPatrick, and Bradley S. Schake 16 A Novel Liquid-Liquid Extraction Technique by Daniel J.Kathios, Gordon D. Jarvinen, Stephen L. Yarbro, and Barbara F. Smith 20 Electrochemical Treatment of Mixed Hazardous Waste by Wayne H. Smith, Christine Zawodzinski, Kenneth R. Martinez, and Aaron L. Swanson 37 Application of Freeze-Drying Technology to Decontamination of Radioactive Liquids by Nicholas V. Coppa 44 Nuclear Applications for Magnetic Separations by Larry R. Avens, et al. 52 Distillation Separation of Actinides from Waste Salts by Eduardo Garcia, Vonda R. Dole, Walter J. Griego, John J. Lovato, James A. McNeese, and Keith Axler 61 Evaluating Existing Partitioning Agents for Processing Hanford High-Level Waste Solutions by S. Fredric Marsh, Zita V. Svitra, and Scott M. Bowen 66 Gas Pycnometry for Density Determination of Plutonium Parts by J. David Olivas, S. Dale Soderquist, Henry W. Randolph, Susan L. Collins, Darren Verebelyi, William J. Randall, and Gregory D. Teese 71 Contents continued on next page 1 Contents C O N T E N T S Continued Plutonium Dry Machining by Mark R. Miller 75 Technical Issues in Plutonium Storage by John M. Haschke and Joseph C. Martz 80 Overviews - Facility Operations Waste Management at Technical Area 55: A Historical Perspective and Status Report by Bill J. McKerley, James J. Balkey, and Ronald E.Wieneke 88 Future of Waste Management at the Los Alamos Plutonium Facility by Ronald E. Wieneke 94 Nuclear Materials Technology 1994 Report 2 Preface P r e f a c e Preventing Pollution From Plutonium Processing K. K. S. Pillay Introduction Nuclear Materials Technology Pollution is a dirty word. No one has to make a case anymore for the need for pollution prevention or the related concept of environ- mental management. Although the history of pollution control leg- islation in the United States dates back to the River and Harbor Act of 1899, the past four decades have been most active in developing and administering numerous environmental regulations. This pro- cess of administering environmental regulations has accelerated in recent years and has become a critical factor in the quality of life in these United States. Since the passage of the Atomic Energy Act in 1954, the Congress of the United States has promul- gated numerous environmental statutes. Figure 1 shows the ac- cumulation of environmental statues and their amendments that are presently applicable to nuclear defense facilities. These statutes have been codified into over 9000 regulations by federal agencies.1 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alone has over 125,000 employees administering these statutes and regulations. There is an equal number of environmental regulators at the state and local government levels. Although radioactive wastes have been accumulating in the United States for the past half century, only during the last two decades has there been a concerted effort to address the problems of long-term isolation of these wastes from the human environment. After considerable study and debate, the U.S. program for Fig.1. Accumulation of environmental statutes and their amendments radioactive waste management since the passage of the Atomic Energy Act in 1954. was codified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.2 3 Preface Preventing Pollution From Plutonium Processing According to this legislation, The Nuclear Materials Technol- The following paragraphs the U.S. Department of Energy ogy (NMT) Division, in this new examine the legacy of nuclear (DOE) has the responsibility cultural climate, adopted a stra- waste, the new priority of waste to develop strategies, systems, tegic goal to systematically minimization, responsible waste and technologies for the long- eliminate the adverse environ- management, and technological term isolation of all spent mental impacts associated with challenges for the future. nuclear fuels, high-level wastes, operating the Los Alamos Pluto- and transuranic wastes in the nium Facility. This ambitious The Legacy of Nuclear Waste United States. Because of the goal of a committed group of The term “nuclear waste” is unique socio-political atmo- people in the Los Alamos generally used to represent all sphere surrounding radioactive nuclear technology community radioactive waste materials re- waste management, there are is the theme of this compilation gardless of their origin, material considerable challenges to the of technology initiatives. Our form, or radioactivity levels. scientific community for devel- strategic goal is not only part of Nuclear wastes originate from a oping technological solutions a survival strategy but also rep- multitude of activities involving that are acceptable to a resents our readiness to solve nuclear technologies in both concerned free society. national environmental prob- the civilian and defense sectors. lems associated with nuclear The steady accumulation of For nearly four decades, the U.S. processing facilities and, nuclear wastes over the past half nuclear defense facilities sought thereby, help alleviate public century has attracted consider- refuge under the Atomic Energy and governmental concerns. able public attention during the Act and claimed sovereign im- past two decades. Following the munity from compliance with Since September 1992, several reactor accidents at Three Mile most of the environmental regu- activities within NMT Division Island and Chernobyl, there lations. In response to increasing have been postponed because have been overwhelming ex- public pressure during the past of the FFCA and the long and pressions of public concerns few years, the defense sector has laborious negotiations that are over safety of all nuclear facili- undergone a cultural shift that required to reach a facility- ties and the safe management has changed past attitudes to- specific agreement with the of accumulated nuclear wastes ward complying with environ- EPA. On July 19, 1993, DOE as well as those that are being mental regulations. This shift Secretary Hazel O’Leary ap- generated. has culminated in the passage proved the Los Alamos agree- of the 1992 Federal Facility ment with Region 6 of the EPA. Studies have shown that the Compliance Act (FFCA) and According to this agreement, public’s perception of risk from other complementary regula- full compliance with the FFCA nuclear waste is similar to those tions and executive orders.3,4 is expected by the year 2000. of highly energetic, catastrophic The FFCA gives federal facilities During these negotiations, events. This perception is a three-year period to develop NMT Division began to imple- qualitatively incorrect because detailed plans for complying ment its strategic plan to meet radioactive wastes have far with all applicable environmen- all regulatory requirements of lower energy levels in compari- tal regulations. This particular waste minimization and pollu- son with reactor accidents, legislation has been a great tion prevention and to transform earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, motivator to all federal facilities, the Los Alamos plutonium pro- etc. An educational process that including the Los Alamos Pluto- cessing operations into an envi- conveys realistic risks of nuclear nium Processing Facility, to ronmentally benign activity. wastes has to be a necessary modify past practices and to In developing those technolo- part of an overall program of become conscious of the envi- gies required to meet our goals, nuclear waste management. ronmental impacts of all its we will also serve the needs of activities. the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Deadly Crop in the Tank Farm
    DEADLY CROP IN THE TANK FARM An Assessment of the Management of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in the Savannah River Plant Tank Farm, Based on Official Documents Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.* Robert AIvarez** Brent Blackwelder, Ph.D.*** * Associate Professor, Capitol Institute of Technology ** Director, Nuclear Weapons and Power Project, Environmental Policy Institute *** Vice-President, Environmental Policy Institute Corrections were made to several pages, in January 2012. Changes to pages 27 and 29 are described at http://www.ieer.org/errata.html. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface, ............................................... i 1 . Summary and Recommendations ....................... 1 Part I 2. Site Characteristics ................................. 8 3 . Introduction to Tank Farm Operation ................... 16 4 . Technical Problems ................................33 5 . Catastrophic Events ................................55 6. Environmental Contamination......................... 71 7 . Worker Exposures.................................. 100 Part I1 Tables Compiled From The Savannah River Plant 200 Area Fault Tree Data Bank PREFACE Although much attention over Union where U.S. intelligcncc sources the past decade has been focused on and exiled Sovict scientists suggest an accidental large-scale releases of explosion in 1957 scverely contaminated radioactivity from commercial nuclear several hundred square miles and reactors, a similar potential exists at resulted in a major loss of life. A federal nuclear facilities. In recent potential for similar
    [Show full text]
  • The Prosecution of Environmental Crimes at the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats Facility
    THE PROSECUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S ROCKY FLATS FACILITY January 4, 1993 Rep. Howard Wolpe Chairman Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight House Committee on Science, Space and Technology TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 3 KEY PARTICIPANTS IN THE ROCKY FLATS PROSECUTION 6 I. INTRODUCTION 9 II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 12 III. RECOMMENDATIONS 16 IV. THE ROLE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 21 V. THE PLEA AGREEMENT 34 A. Background 34 B. Rockwell Settlement Demands 37 1. Individual Indictments: Evidentiary Bases 40 2. Charges with Offsite Implications 67 3. False Statement, Fraud and Conspiracy Charges 79 4. Nolo Contendere Pleas 81 5. Indemnification 83 6. Debarment 87 7. Global Settlement 88 8. Public Statements 89 9. Grand Jury Report 99 10. Summary 100 VI. THE FINE 102 A. Early Prosecution Discussion 102 B. Settling on $15.5 Million and Inching Up 103 C. Conclusion 105 VII. LACK OF INDICTMENTS OF DOE PERSONNEL 108 VIII. THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 112 IX. THE SPECIAL GRAND JURY REPORT 121 X. THE EFFECTS OF THE PROSECUTION 141 ENDNOTE -144 GEORGE E BROWN ..ka Caleornm. CHAIRMAN ROBERT S WALKER TenneyNose I JAMES SENSENes1 NNER. A Wixom.. Vi4RW000 L 105 IIUET No. York JAMES H SCHEUER. Neuf York TOM LEWIS Routs MARILYN LLOYD 14,AASAMI CON NETTER Pennersisinie DAN GLICIOLA.N. Rena. SID MORRISON W oh.ngton HAROLD L VOCKMER. Missouri ROM PADICAPO Cael (KN. SOWARD WOLK_ limhmen U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RAII. I HOMY Mot hp. RALPH W MALL Tm KAMM W CASVELL 'Snow DAVE MCCURDY. Oklahoma LAMAR SON.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation and Disposal Configuration for DOE-Managed Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste
    DOE/LLW-179 ! t.,-..V m 1 7 1398 fl>P It Transportation and Disposal Configuration for DOE-Managed Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Radioactive Waste Technical Support Program June 1993 DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED MASTER •"t DISCLAIMER D0E/LLW-179 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, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi• bility 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. Refer• ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom• mendation, 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. Transportation and Disposal Configuration for DOE-Managed Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste Tom Johnsen Published June 1993 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory EG&G Idaho, Inc. Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-761D01570 ABSTRACT This report briefly examines the current U.S. Department of Energy complex-wide configuration for transportation and disposal of low-level and mixed low-level waste, and also retraces the historical sequence of events and rationale that has guided its development.
    [Show full text]
  • Buildings 771 and 774 Closeout Briefing Summary Prepared by Rik Getty
    Buildings 771 and 774 Closeout Briefing Summary Prepared by Rik Getty Briefing Summary Revision Number Rev 0 (12/05) Approximate Location Northing: 751,000 (approximate center of 771), 751,050 (approximate center of 774) Easting: 2,083,800 (approximate center of 771), 2,084,100 (approximate center of 774) Location Relationship to other Site areas: Buildings 771 and 774 were built into a slope immediately north of the former Buildings 776/777 and south of North Walnut Creek. Historical Information (For a detailed history on Buildings 771 and 774, see References 1 and 2; the following section relies heavily on language used in References 1 and 2). In addition the link below has many interesting photos from the production era in Building 771. http://192.149.55.183/HAER/base/771.htm The HAER reference in the link is part of the Historical American Engineering Record which can be found on the www.rfets.gov homepage under Historical Information. Building 771 Building 771 (B771) construction began in 1951 and operations began in May, 1953. The original designation for B771 was Plant C or 71. After quite a few years the designation changed to 771 just like the original Plant A or 44 became B444 as more and more buildings were added to the site. The original building was a two-story structure built into the side of a hill with most of three sides covered by earth (see Figure 1, page 7). The fourth side, facing north, provided the main entrance to the building. Original building operations included: • plutonium (Pu) foundry, fabrication, and assembly operations; • Pu recovery; • Pu special recovery; • Pu chemistry; • Pu metallurgy research; and, • analytical laboratory operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Flats Site History Events Leading to the Creation of the Weapons Complex and Events at the Rocky Flats Site from the 1930S to Present by Pat Buffer the 30S
    Rocky Flats Site History events leading to the creation of the weapons complex and events at the Rocky Flats Site from the 1930s to present by Pat Buffer The 30s: 1934 — The Italian physicist Enrico Fermi produces fission. December 1938 — Two scientists in Nazi Germany, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann, discover the process of fission in uranium. Lise Meitner, Hahn’s former colleague (a refugee from Nazism then staying in Sweden) and her nephew, Otto Frisch, confirm the Hahn-Strassmann discovery and communicate their findings to Danish Nobel laureate Niels Bohr. January 26, 1939 — Bohr, accompanied by Fermi, reports on the Hahn-Strassman results at a meeting on theoretical physics in Washington, D.C. August 1939 — Hungarian refugee scientists Lee Szilard, Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner, fearing that the energy released in nuclear fission might be used in bombs by the Germans, persuade Albert Einstein, the century’s premier physicist, to send a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt informing him of German atomic research and the potential for a bomb. This letter prompts Roosevelt to form a special committee to investigate the military implications of atomic research. October 1939 — Roosevelt decides to act and appoints Lyman J. Briggs, director of the National Bureau of Standards, head of the Advisory Committee on Uranium. November 1939 — The Uranium Committee recommends that the government purchase graphite and uranium oxide for fission research. The 40s: June 1940 — Vannevar Bush, president of the Carnegie Foundation, is named head of the National Defense Research Committee. The Uranium Committee becomes a scientific subcommittee of Bush’s organization.
    [Show full text]
  • EA-1146; Environmental Assessment and FONSI Radioactive Waste Storage at Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Golden, Colorado
    EA-1146; Environmental Assessment and FONSI Radioactive Waste Storage at Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Golden, Colorado Table of Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Background 1.3 Purpose and Need 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Proposed Action 2.1.1 Selection of Buildings 2.1.2 Modifications to the Buildings 2.1.3 Sources of Waste Intended for Storage 2.1.4 Description of Waste Intended for Storage 2.1.5 Transportation of Wastes to Candidate Buildings 2.1.6 Waste Management, Storage, and Preparation 2.2 The No Action Alternative 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 2.3.1 Building 980 2.3.2 Building 777 2.3.3 Constructing a New Facility 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Location, Demographics, and Land Use 3.2 Built Environment 3.2.1 Building 374 3.2.2 Building 440 3.2.3 Building 444 3.2.4 Building 551 3.2.5 Building 777 3.2.6 Building 865 3.2.7 Building 881 3.2.8 Building 883 3.2.9 Building 906 3.2.10 Building 980 3.2.11 IDM Facility 3.3 Safety Systems and Practices 3.4 Cultural Resources 3.5 Natural Environment 3.5.1 Climate 3.5.2 Habitats and Biota 3.5.3 Air Quality 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 4.1 Proposed Action 4.1.1 Risks from Routine Operations 4.1.2 Risks from Accidents 4.2 No Action Alternative 4.2.1 Risks from Routine Operations 4.2.2 Risks from Accidents 4.3 Cumulative Effects 4.4 Summary of Effects 5.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 6.0 REFERENCES 7.0 GLOSSARY Appendix A Air Emissions Assessment of Proposed Radioactive Waste Storage Activities (Electronic Copy Unavailable) Appendix B Consequence Analysis for TRU Waste Storage Facilities Without Mitigating Factors (Electronic Copy Unavailable) Appendix C Species of Concern at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Finding of No Significant Impact Response to Comments on Draft Radioactive Waste Storage List of Tables Table 2-1.
    [Show full text]