DOCSLIB.ORG

SC&A Draft: Review of the K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SC&A Draft: Review of the K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site May 31, 2007 Mr. David Staudt Center for Disease Control and Prevention Acquisition and Assistance Field Branch Post Office Box 18070 626 Cochrans Mill Road – B-140 Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0295 Re: Contract No. 200-2004-03805, Task Order 1: Transmittal of Draft SCA-TR-TASK1-0017, K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site Profile Review Dear Mr. Staudt: SC&A, Inc. is please to submit its draft report titled K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site Profile Review, SCA-TR-TASK1-0017. This report was submitted for Privacy Act (PA) review on March 9, 2007, and has been revised to accommodate that review. This report is considered pre- decisional and is being submitted to the Advisory Board for review. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 732-530-0104. Sincerely, John Mauro, PhD, CHP Project Manager cc: P. Ziemer, PhD, Board Chairperson A. Makhijani, PhD, SC&A Advisory Board Members H. Behling, SC&A L. Wade, PhD, NIOSH M. Thorne, SC&A L. Elliott, NIOSH H. Chmelynski, SC&A J. Neton, PhD, NIOSH J. Fitzgerald, Saliant S. Hinnefeld, NIOSH J. Lipsztein, SC&A L. Homoki-Titus, NIOSH K. Robertson-DeMers, CHP, Saliant A. Brand, NIOSH S. Ostrow, PhD, SC&A J. Broehm, NIOSH K. Behling, SC&A L. Shields, NIOSH T. Bell, Saliant Project File (ANIOS/001/17) 1608 SPRING HILL ROAD, SUITE 400 • VIENNA, VIRGINIA • 22182 • 703.893.6600 • FAX 703.821.8236 Draft ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site Profile Review Contract No. 200-2004-03805 Task Order No. 1 SCA-TR-TASK1-0017 Prepared by S. Cohen & Associates 1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 Vienna, Virginia 22182 Saliant, Inc. 5579 Catholic Church Road Jefferson, Maryland 21755 May 2007 Disclaimer This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted. Effective Date: Revision No. Document No. Page No. May 31, 2007 0 SCA-TR-TASK1-0017 2 of 191 S. Cohen & Associates: Document No. SCA-TR-TASK1-0017 Technical Support for the Advisory Board on Effective Date: Radiation and Worker Health Review of Draft — May 31, 2007 NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program Revision No. 0 – DRAFT Page 1 of 191 K-25 GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT SITE PROFILE REVIVEW Supersedes: Task Manager: N/A ________________________ Date: ___________ Joseph Fitzgerald Project Manager: ________________________ Date: ___________ John Mauro NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. Effective Date: Revision No. Document No. Page No. May 31, 2007 0 SCA-TR-TASK1-0017 3 of 191 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................5 1.0 Executive Summary.............................................................................................................9 1.1 Summary of Strengths............................................................................................11 1.2 Summary of Findings.............................................................................................12 1.2.1 Primary Findings........................................................................................12 1.2.2 Secondary Findings....................................................................................15 1.3 Opportunities for Improvement .............................................................................16 2.0 Scope and Introduction ......................................................................................................20 2.1 Review Scope.........................................................................................................20 2.2 Review Approach...................................................................................................21 2.3 Report Organization...............................................................................................22 3.0 Assessment Criteria and Methods......................................................................................24 3.1 Objectives ..............................................................................................................24 3.1.1 Objective 1: Completeness of Data Sources.............................................24 3.1.2 Objective 2: Technical Accuracy..............................................................24 3.1.3 Objective 3: Adequacy of Data.................................................................25 3.1.4 Objective 4: Consistency among Site Profiles..........................................25 3.1.5 Objective 5: Regulatory Compliance........................................................25 4.0 Site Profile Strengths .........................................................................................................29 4.1 Internal Dose TBD Strengths.................................................................................29 4.2 External Dose TBD Strengths................................................................................29 4.3 Medical Dose Strengths .........................................................................................30 4.4 Environmental Dose TBD Strengths .....................................................................30 5.0 Vertical Issues....................................................................................................................31 5.1 Issue 1: More Guidance is Needed on Appropriate Enrichment when interpreting Uranium Bioassay Mass Concentration Data.....................................31 5.2 Issue 2: No Default Absorption (Solubility) Classes for Any of the Intakes are Identified ..........................................................................................................32 5.3 Issue 3: The Default Isotopic Distribution does Not Appear to be Claimant Favorable................................................................................................................34 5.4 Issue 4: There is General Inconsistency or Lack of Complete Radionuclide Information for Facilities in the TBD Tables ........................................................35 5.5 Issue 5: Lack of Incident Information May be a Problem for Accuracy and Claimant-Favorable Internal Dose Reconstruction................................................36 5.6 Issue 6: Coworker Data Use and Approach for Unmonitored Employees May not be Appropriate.........................................................................................37 5.7 Issue 7: Uranium Cylinder Storage Yard Dose May be Underestimated and Neutron Dose May have been Missed ...................................................................39 NOTICE: This report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. Effective Date: Revision No. Document No. Page No. May 31, 2007 0 SCA-TR-TASK1-0017 4 of 191 5.8 Issue 8: Until 1980, Some dosimeters were only processed upon request resulting in ambiguity regarding the construction of doses in the early years.......40 5.9 Issue 9: Chronic Neutron Exposure Opportunities May have been Overlooked.............................................................................................................40 5.10 Issue 10: Potential Exposure to Tc-99 Beta were Not Recorded by Dosimeters and are Not Addressed in the TBD.....................................................41 5.11 Issue 11: Reliance on a Single Neutron-to-Photon Ratio for the Entire Plant is Questionable.......................................................................................................42 5.12 Issue 12: All Beta Dosimetry was based on a Uranium Slab Calibration ............42 5.13 Secondary Issues....................................................................................................43 5.13.1 Secondary Issue 1: There is a Lack of Guidance on Bioassay Interpretation..............................................................................................43 5.13.2 Secondary Issue 2: There is No Comparison between Measured and Predicted Environmental Dose............................................................45 5.13.3 Secondary Issue 3: The TBDs do not provide a Consistent Time Period for the Processing of RU at K-25. ..................................................45 5.13.4 Secondary Issue 4: The TBD Does Not Adequately Define Frequency and Assess All Types of X-rays in Occupational Medical Exposure. ...................................................................................................46 5.13.5 Secondary Issue 5: Techniques and Protocols Increase Uncertainty of Dose Conversion Factors Listed in the TBD.........................................48 5.14 Review of Technical Support Documents .............................................................50
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metallurgical Laboratory (HWMF)
    WSRC-TR-94-0615 Unclassified METALLURGICAL LABORATORY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT (U) FOURTH QUARTER 1994 AND 1994 SUMMARY Publication Date: March 1995 Authorized Derivative Classifier and Reviewing Official: 3-2?-?S UNCLASSIFIED Does Not Contain Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information Westinghouse Savannah River Company Savannah River Site Aiken, SC 29808 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Control Contract No. DE-AC09-89SR18035 WSRC-TR-94-0615 Unclassified METALLURGICAL LABORATORY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT (U) FOURTH QUARTER 1994 AND 1994 SUMMARY Publication Date: March 1995 Authorized Derivative Classifier and Reviewing Official: UNCLASSIFIED Does Not Contain Unclassified Controlled Nuclear Information Westinghouse Savannah River Company Savannah River Site Aiken, SC 29808 DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED'&c Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Control Contract No. DE-AC09-89SR18035 MASTER DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or .assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States * Government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Enrico Fermi: Genius
    ANNIVERSARY Enrico Fermi: genius This year marks the centenary of the birth of Enrico Fermi, one of the giants of 20th- • century science, and one of the last physicists to be both an accomplished experimentalist and an influential theorist. Here, Gianni Battimelli of the University of Rome "La Sapienza" traces the life of a genius. Enrico Fermi was born on 29 September 1901 in Rome to a family with no scientific traditions. His passion for natural sciences, and in particular for physics, was stimulated and guided in his school years by an engineer and family friend, Adolph Amidei, who recognized Fermi's exceptional intellectual abilities and suggested admission to Pisa's Scuola Normale Superiore. After finishing high-school studies in Rome, in 1918 Fermi progressed to the prestigious Pisa Institute, after producing for the admission exam an essay on the characteristics of the propagation of sound, the authenticity of which the commissioners initially refused to believe. Studies at Pisa did not pose any particular difficulties for the young Fermi, despite his having to be largely self-taught using mate­ rial in foreign languages because nothing existed at the time in Fermi's group discovered the Italian on the new physics emerging around relativity and quantum radioactivity induced by theory. In those years in Italy, these new theories were absent from university teaching, and only mathematicians likeTullio Levi-Civita neutrons, instead of the had the knowledge and insight to see their implications. alpha particles used in the Working alone, between 1919 and 1922, Fermi built up a solid competence in relativity, statistical mechanics and the applications Paris experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Argonne National Laboratory Was Founded As a Chemistry, Materials
    Physical Sciences and Engineering (PSE) Associate Laboratory Director Requisition 403294 Argonne National Laboratory Lemont, Illinois (Suburb of Chicago) Argonne National Laboratory was founded as a chemistry, materials and nuclear engineering laboratory in 1946, as the successor to the Manhattan Project’s Metallurgical Laboratory. Since then, as part of the Department of Energy (DOE) network of national laboratories, Argonne has built on its original strengths and expanded its mission in response to national needs. Today, Argonne serves America as a leading science and energy laboratory distinguished by the breadth of its research and development (R&D) capabilities combined with a unique portfolio of experimental and computational user facilities. Located just outside Chicago, Argonne has been managed since its founding by The University of Chicago (UChicago), one of the world’s preeminent research universities. Argonne’s workforce of over 3200 includes over 1500 scientists and engineers. The Laboratory operates five world-renowned scientific user facilities, which together support nearly 8,000 researchers annually. Argonne is currently inviting applications for the position of Associate Laboratory Director (ALD) of the Physical Sciences and Engineering (PSE) Directorate, which employs approximately 700 people including scientists, technical and administrative staff, postdocs, fellows, students, visiting scholars and joint appointments and has an annual budget in excess of $200 million. The directorate’s R&D programs have produced a wide range of groundbreaking, internationally recognized discoveries and inventions throughout Argonne’s history. The scope of PSE’s research encompasses materials science, condensed matter physics, chemistry and chemical engineering, and nuclear and particle physics. This work is carried out through five discipline-based operating divisions and is funded primarily by DOE’s Office of Science and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 6 No. 14 ... Enrico Fermi, Distinguished Physicist, Whose Name Will Head Illinois Research Laboratory ••• ... H. Ande
    Vol. 6 No. 14 April11, 1974 The National Accelerator Laboratory will become the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory at a dedication cere­ mony to be held at the Laboratory on Saturday, May 11, 1974. The plan to change the name of the Laboratory was announced on April 29, 1969 by Glenn T. Seaborg, then chair­ man of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. It was understood then that the dedication and the changing of the name would take place when construction was complete. May of 1974 will find the Laboratory close to completion and running strongly in all areas. In announcing the AEC's plans, Seaborg said in 1969: ... Enrico Fermi, distinguished "It is particularly fitting that we honor Dr. Fermi in this physicist, whose name will head manner, for in so doing we further acknowledge his many con­ Illinois research laboratory ••• tributions to the progress of nuclear science, particularly his work on nuclear processes. Enrico Fermi was a physicist of great renown who contributed in a most significant way to the defense and welfare of his adopted land and to the enhancement of its intellectual well-being. His greatest achievement, the first sustained nuclear chain reaction, took place in a small laboratory in Chicago. It seems sin­ gularly appropriate, therefore, that the Federal Government recognize the memory of a man who was at the forefront of science in his day by naming in his honor a laboratory near Chicago -- a laboratory which will have a major internationa: impact on our understanding of the basic structure of matter." ... H. Anderson, student and long-time Enrico Fermi was born in Rome, Italy, on September 29, colleague of Fermi, on visit to NAL 1901.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dupont Company the Forgotten Producers of Plutonium
    The DuPont Company The Forgotten Producers of Plutonium Assembled by the “DuPont Story” Committee of the B Reactor Museum Association Ben Johnson, Richard Romanelli, Bert Pierard 2015 Revision 3 – March 2017 FOREWORD Like the world’s tidal waters, the study of our national story sometimes leads us into historical eddies, rich in human interest content, that have been bypassed by the waves of words of the larger accounting of events. Such is the case of the historical accounts of the Manhattan Project which tend to emphasize the triumphs of physicists, while engineering accomplishments, which were particularly important at the Hanford Site, have been brushed over and receive less recognition. The scientific possibility of devising a weapon based on using the energy within the nucleus of the atom was known by physicists in both the United States and Germany before World War II began. After the start of hostilities, these physicists were directed by their respective governments to begin development of atomic bombs. The success of the American program, compared with the German program, was due largely to the extensive involvement in the U.S. Manhattan Project of large and experienced engineering firms whose staff worked with the physicists. The result was the successful production of weapons materials, in an amazingly short time considering the complexity of the program, which helped end World War II. One view which effectively explains these two markedly different historical assessments of accomplishments, at least for Hanford, is noted in the literature with this quote. - "To my way of thinking it was one of the greatest interdisciplinary efforts ever mounted.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Survey of Sylvania-Corning Nuclear Corporation Metallurgical Laboratory Bayside, New York
    PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF SYLVANIA-CORNING NUCLEAR CORPORATION METALLURGICAL LABORATORY BAYSIDE, NEW YORK Work performed by the Health and Safety Research Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 March 1980 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION for the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY as part of the Formerly Utilized Sites-- Remedial Action Program SYLVANIA-CORNING NUCLEAR CORPORATION METALLURGICAL LABORATORY BAYSIDE, NEW YORK At the request of the Department of Energy (DOE), a preliminary survey was performed at the former Sylvania-Corning Nuclear Corporation in Bayside, New York (see Fig. l), on November 29, 1977, to assess the radiological status of those facilities uti 7 ized under Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) contract during the __ ._. 1950s. __ This property is currently utilized by the National Bank of North Amer ca. Sidney Klotz, Assistant Vice President, National Bank of North Amer ca, provided information about the site and arranged for approval of the preliminary survey of the site. From information currently available, contract work was performed by Sylvania-Corning Nuclear Corporation at the Bayside Metallurgical Laboratory located at this site. Work apparently involved uranium pipe cutting using an abrasive cutoff technique and the produc- tion of UO, wafers using a pulverization and pressing technique. There are also indications that a later project involved work with thorium. Present Use of Facilities The site on which the laboratory was located was estimated to be about 28 acres and is currently owned by the National Bank of North America. All facilities, except for a garage and boiler house (see Figs. 2, 3, and 4), have been demolished.
    [Show full text]
  • An Atomic History Chapter 2
    An Atomic History 0-3 8/11/02 7:31 AM Page 18 Chapter Two 19 THE FERMI-SZILARD PILE AND URANIUM RESEARCH The first government funding for nuclear research was allocated to purchase graphite and uranium oxide for the chain reaction experiments being organized by Fermi and World War II and the Manhattan Project Szilard at Columbia University in February 1940.2 This work, which began in New York 2 City, soon spread to Princeton, the University of Chicago, and research institutions in California.3 Even at this stage, the scientists knew that a chain reaction would need three major components in the right combination: fuel, moderator, and coolant. The fuel would contain the fissile material needed to support the fission process. The neutrons generated by the fission process had to be slowed by the moderator so that they could initiate addi- tional fission reactions. The heat that resulted from this process had to be removed by the coolant. Fermi’s initial research explored the possibility of a chain reaction with natural urani- The 1930s were a time of rapid progress in the development of nuclear physics. um. It was quickly determined that high-purity graphite served as the best neutron moder- Research accelerated in the early years of the Second World War, when new developments ator out of the materials then available.4 After extensive tests throughout 1940 and early were conceived and implemented in the midst of increasing wartime urgency. American 1941, Fermi and Szilard set up the first blocks of graphite at Columbia University in government interest in these developments was limited at first, but increased as the war September 1941.
    [Show full text]
  • Trs313 Web.Pdf
    MANUAL ON LABORATORY TESTING FOR URANIUM ORE PROCESSING The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN HAITI PARAGUAY ALBANIA HOLY SEE PERU ALGERIA HUNGARY PHILIPPINES ARGENTINA ICELAND POLAND AUSTRALIA INDIA PORTUGAL AUSTRIA INDONESIA QATAR BANGLADESH IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA BELGIUM IRAQ SAUDI ARABIA BOLIVIA IRELAND SENEGAL BRAZIL ISRAEL SIERRA LEONE BULGARIA ITALY SINGAPORE BYELORUSSIAN SOVIET JAMAICA SOUTH AFRICA SOCIALIST REPUBLIC JAPAN SPAIN CAMEROON JORDAN SRI LANKA CANADA KENYA SUDAN CHILE KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SWEDEN CHINA KUWAIT SWITZERLAND COLOMBIA LEBANON SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC COSTA RICA LIBERIA THAILAND COTE DTVOIRE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA TUNISIA CUBA LIECHTENSTEIN TURKEY CYPRUS LUXEMBOURG UGANDA CZECHOSLOVAKIA MADAGASCAR UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC KAMPUCHEA MALAYSIA REPUBLIC DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S MALI UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF KOREA MAURITIUS REPUBLICS DENMARK MEXICO UNITED ARAB EMIRATES DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONACO UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT ECUADOR MONGOLIA BRITAIN AND NORTHERN EGYPT MOROCCO IRELAND EL SALVADOR MYANMAR UNITED REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA NAMIBIA TANZANIA FINLAND NETHERLANDS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FRANCE NEW ZEALAND URUGUAY GABON NICARAGUA VENEZUELA GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC NIGER VIET NAM GERMANY, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA YUGOSLAVIA GHANA NORWAY ZAIRE GREECE PAKISTAN ZAMBIA GUATEMALA PANAMA ZIMBABWE The Agency's Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957. The Head- quarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is "to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world". © IAEA, 1990 Permission to reproduce or translate the information contained in this publication may be obtained by writing to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramerstrasse 5, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Alvin M. Weinberg 1915–2006
    Alvin M. Weinberg 1915–2006 A Biographical Memoir by James B. Roberto and Margaret B. Nestor \©2014 National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. ALVIN MARTIN WEINBERG April 20, 1915–October 18, 2006 Elected to the NAS, 1961 Alvin Martin Weinberg, who possessed a wide-ranging curiosity and an abiding concern for the welfare of humanity, applied these traits to addressing the complex issues that arise at the intersection of science and society. As a pioneer first in the development of nuclear energy and later in a quest to understand the entire energy system, Alvin was a strong proponent of what he called the “technological fix”: bringing science and technology to bear on societal problems. Yet he also recognized Photo courtesy Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge National Photo courtesy that many such questions can be asked of science but cannot be answered by science alone. He combined his consideration of these “trans-scientific” questions and his By James B. Roberto extensive experience as a science administrator to assess and Margaret B. Nestor the value of scientific inquiry and to establish a set of criteria for scientific choice, especially as it related to “big science”— another of Alvin’s coinages that has passed into common use. He spoke and wrote persuasively about these and other issues that engaged his attention, creating a substantial body of work that continues to inform science and energy policymaking. Alvin began his scientific career at the University of Chicago, where he received a doctorate in mathematical biophysics in 1939.
    [Show full text]
  • Met Lab & Early Argonne History
    Those early days as we remember them - Part VI | Met Lab and Early Argonne History | Argonne National Laboratory Those early days as we remember them Part Vl Lester C. Furney (second from right), who formerly handled public relations at Argonne and is author of the article below, is pictured here in February 1956 with (l to r) Major General D. J. Keirn, Major General James McCormack, Jr. (Ret.), and Lt. General James H. Doolittle (Ret.) during a coffee break in a briefing session with the Research and Development Group of the U. S. Air Force. Lester C. Furney former Assistant to Laboratory Director Walter H. Zinn Ever since receiving an invitation to contribute an article to the ARGONNE NEWS about my impressions of the early days, I have been trying to decide what was my most unforgettable experience. No one could have lived through World War II, through the exciting days of Trinity, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and through the hopeful months when Argonne National Laboratory was just a dream in the minds of a few of the wartime scientists at the Metallurgical Laboratory, without having amassed enough memories to fill a lifetime. All of these days were interesting and exciting and I have many fond memories of them. The remembrance, however, that keeps coming back time after time has to do with my introduction into the Plutonium Project. The first few days were the most unusual ones I have ever experienced. It all goes back to May 22, 1944, when I disappeared into Eckhart Hall and began a career that was supposed to last a few years but stretched into more than twenty.
    [Show full text]
  • Chicago Pile-1 - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Chicago Pile-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1#Later_operation Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1) was the Site of the First Self Sustaining Nuclear world's first nuclear reactor to Reaction achieve criticality. Its construction U.S. National Register of Historic Places was part of the Manhattan U.S. National Historic Landmark Project, the Allied effort to create Chicago Landmark atomic bombs during World War II. It was built by the Manhattan Project's Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago, under the west viewing stands of the original Stagg Field. The first man-made self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction was initiated in CP-1 on 2 December Drawing of the reactor 1942, under the supervision of Enrico Fermi, who described the apparatus as "a crude pile of black bricks and wooden timbers".[4] The reactor was assembled in November 1942, by a team that included Fermi, Leo Szilard, discoverer of the chain reaction, Location Chicago, Cook County, and Herbert L. Anderson, Walter Illinois, USA Zinn, Martin D. Whitaker, and Coordinates 41°47′32″N 87°36′3″W George Weil. It contained 45,000 Built 1942[2] graphite blocks weighing 400 NRHP Reference # 66000314 [1] short tons (360 t) used as a neutron moderator, and was Significant dates fueled by 6 short tons (5.4 t) of Added to NRHP 15 October 1966 [1] uranium metal and 50 short tons (66000314) (45 t) of uranium oxide. In the Designated NHL 18 February 1965[2] pile, some of the free neutrons Designated CL 27 October 1971[3] produced by the natural decay of uranium were absorbed by other uranium atoms, causing nuclear fission of those atoms, and the release of additional free neutrons.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FIRST NUCLEAR REACTOR, the PRODUCTION of PLUTONIUM and ITS CHEMICAL EXTRACTION by Glenn T
    THE FIRST NUCLEAR REACTOR, THE PRODUCTION OF PLUTONIUM AND ITS CHEMICAL EXTRACTION by Glenn T. Seaborg CHAIRMAN, US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION This Special Number of the Agency Bulletin commemorates the 20th anniversary of the operation of the first nuclear reactor at the Metallurgical Labo­ ratory of the University of Chicago on 2 December 1942. Although this first experiment is generally considered to mark the beginning of the atomic age, it had.at that time a single objective. This was to show the feasibility of manufacturing in quantity the new element, plutonium, through the demonstration of a nuclear chain reaction operating with natural uranium. With the feasibility of such a nuclear reactor thus demonstrated, two outstanding questions still remained. One involved the problem of building such a nuclear reactor, operating on natural uranium, for operation at such a high power level that sufficient quantities of plutonium could be produced within the required short time scale. The other question was whether it would be possible to devise, also within the required short time interval, the chemical means for separating this plutonium from the uranium and from the tremendous quantities of fission product radioactivities that would be present. These were the two very difficult problems which formed the basis for the American Plutonium Project. Their solutions were, in large measure, unrelated, and the development programme in each case was in the hands of research men in different Glenn T. Seaborg fields, namely physics and chemistry. plutonium, plutonium-239, production of which formed The present account will be concerned with only the objective of the Plutonium Project, was discovered the second of these problems, that is, the develop­ early in 1941, as a result of bombarding natural ment of the processes for the chemical separation uranium with the high flux of neutrons produced and purification of the plutonium.
    [Show full text]