DOCSLIB.ORG

DOE/EIS-0236, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management ()

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DOE/EIS-0236, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management () DOE/EIS-0236, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management () Volume 4 Chapter 1 Introduction Public Hearing Format Organization of this Comment Response Document How to Use this Comment Response Document Changes from the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2: Comment Documents Public Hearing: Los Alamos, New Mexico not available electronically Public Hearing: Albuquerque, New Mexico not available electronically Public Hearing: Las Vegas, Nevada not available electronically Public Hearing: Oak Ridge, Tennessee not available electronically Public Hearing: Kansas City, Missouri not available electronically Public Hearing: Livermore, California not available electronically Public Hearing: Washington, D.C. not available electronically Public Hearing: Amarillo, Texas not available electronically Public Hearing: Santa Fe, New Mexico not available electronically Public Hearing: North Augusta, South Carolina not available electronically All Public Hearings not available electronically Chapter 3: Comment Summaries and Responses Land Resources Site Infrastructure Air Quality Water Resources Geology and Soils Biotic Resources Cultural and Paleontological Socioeconomics Intersite Transportation Waste Management Radiation and Hazardous Chemicals Environmental Justice Cumulative Impacts Stewardship-Contained Firing Facility Stewardship-National Ignition Facility Stewardship-Atlas Facility Management-Weapons Assembly/Disassembly Management-Nonnuclear Components Management-Pits Management-Secondaries and Cases Management-Weapons Assembly/Disassembly Management-High Explosives Components Nuclear Weapons Policies Regulatory Compliance Relationship to Other DOE Programs/Activities General/Miscellaneous Environmental file:///I|/Data%20Migration%20Task/EIS-0236-FEIS-04-1996/Vol4toc.htm[6/27/2011 2:26:44 PM] DOE/EIS-0236, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management () List of Figures Comments From Private Individuals Comments From Organizations and Public Officials List of Tables Public Hearing Locations, Attendance, and Comment Summaries Document and Comment Submission Overview Issue Categories Table 1.3-2. Index of Attendance at Public Hearings Index of Commentors, Private Individuals Index of Commentors, Organizations, and Public Officials Comment Document and Summary Locator Comments Sorted by Summary Code file:///I|/Data%20Migration%20Task/EIS-0236-FEIS-04-1996/Vol4toc.htm[6/27/2011 2:26:44 PM] DOE/EIS-0236, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management () CHAPTER 1: Public Comment Process This chapter of the Comment Response Document describes the public comment process for the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management and the procedure used in responding to those comments. Section 1.1 describes the means through which comments were acquired, summarized, and numbered. Section 1.2 discusses the public hearing format that was used to solicit comments from the public. Section 1.3 describes the organization of this document as well as how the comments were categorized, addressed, and documented. Section 1.3 also provides guidance on the use of this document to assist the reader. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the major comments and changes to the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management resulting from the public comment process. 1.1 Introduction In February 1996, the Department of Energy (DOE) published the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Stockpile Stewardship and Management , which described and analyzed alternative ways to implement the proposed actions for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program. DOE developed the Program to provide a single highly integrated technical program for maintaining the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear testing. The 60-day public comment period for the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Draft PEIS began on March 8, 1996, and ended on May 7, 1996. During the comment period, public hearings were held in Los Alamos, NM; Las Vegas, NV; Albuquerque, NM; Oak Ridge, TN; Kansas City, MO; Livermore, CA; Washington, DC; Amarillo, TX; Santa Fe, NM; and North Augusta, SC. Figure 1.1-1 shows the locations and dates of the hearings. Five of those public hearings were joint meetings to obtain comments on both the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Draft PEIS and the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Storage and Disposition Draft PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0229-D, February 1996). Two of the joint meetings (Pantex Plant [Pantex] in Amarillo, TX and Savannah River Site [SRS] in North Augusta, SC) also included the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components (Pantex Site-Wide Draft EIS) (DOE/EIS-0225-D, March 1996). In addition, the public was encouraged to provide comments via mail, fax, electronic bulletin board (Internet), and telephone (toll-free 800-number). Attendance at each hearing, together with the number of comment summaries recorded, is presented in table 1.1-1. Attendance numbers are based on the number of participants who completed and returned registration forms and may not include all of those present at the meetings. In addition to comments received at the public hearings, comments were also received during the public comment period through the other means described above. All public hearing comment summaries were combined with comments received by other means during the public comment period. Comments received by mail, fax, Internet, or telephone were date stamped and assigned a sequential document number according to origin (e.g., fax or mail) of the document. Chapter 2 of this volume contains copies of the documents DOE received. Table 1.1-2 provides an overview of the number of documents and comments submitted by each method. The document number codes that were assigned to each document based on the method of submission are given in parentheses in table 1.1-2. For example, all documents that were handed in at public hearings have document numbers beginning with SSM-H. Table 1.1-1.-- Public Hearing Locations, Attendance, and Comment Summaries Hearing Location Total Attendance Comment Summaries Los Alamos, NM 87 89 Las Vegas, NV 51 54 file:///I|/Data%20Migration%20Task/EIS-0236-FEIS-04-1996/V4c1pt1.htm[6/27/2011 2:26:43 PM] DOE/EIS-0236, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management () Albuquerque, NM 41 87 Oak Ridge, TN 200 128 Kansas City, MO 21 7 Livermore, CA 176 177 Washington, DC 145 21 Amarillo, TX 350 95 Santa Fe, NM 276 195 North Augusta, SC 91 68 Table 1.1-2.-- Document and Comment Submission Overview Method Documents Received Total Comments Received Hand-in at public hearings (SSM-H) 101 222 Mail-in (SSM-M) 128 446 Letter/postcard campaigns (SSM-C) 6,675 7,038 Fax (SSM-F) 30 155 Phone (SSM-P) 9 10 Electronic bulletin board (SSM-B) 0 0 Transcripts (SSM-ET) 2 11 1.2 Public Hearing Format The public hearings used a modified traditional hearing format which allowed for two-way interaction between DOE and the public and encouraged informed public input and comments on the document. Neutral facilitators were present at the hearings to direct and clarify discussions and comments. Court reporters were also present to provide a verbatim transcript of the proceedings and record all formal comments that the public wished to present. The transcripts are available in DOE Public Reading Rooms near each site and in Washington, DC. These transcripts have been marked with sidebars to identify specific comments and how the comments were categorized into issue codes. The format used for each hearing included a Program overview, interactive discussions, and a summary session. There was also an opportunity for formal comment provided for any attendee who wished to read a prepared statement of no more than 5 minutes. The Program overview session opened with a welcome from a site representative, followed by an overview of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program by a DOE representative. After clarifying questions, the facilitator opened the interactive general question and discussion period. A notetaker was present at each session to document and consolidate comments for the preparation of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Final PEIS. Following the question and discussion period, a summary session was held to present the major comments and issues identified in each discussion group. An opportunity for additional comments or clarification was provided at this time. Modifications to the format were made at each public hearing location to best fulfill special needs or requests from the attendees. Following the public hearings, comment summaries were prepared by the notetakers (see chapter 2) with the verbatim transcripts being used as a reference. 1.3 Organization of this Comment Response Document file:///I|/Data%20Migration%20Task/EIS-0236-FEIS-04-1996/V4c1pt1.htm[6/27/2011 2:26:43 PM] DOE/EIS-0236, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management () This Comment Response Document has been organized into the following sections: Chapter 1 describes the public comment process and contains tables to assist readers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Document Number Document Title Authors, Compilers, Or Editors Date
    Authors, Compilers, or Date (M/D/Y), Location, Site, or Format/Copy/C Ensure Index # Document Number Document Title Status Markings Keywords Notes Editors (M/Y) or (Y) Company ondition Availability Codes: N=ORNL/NCS; Y=NTIS/ OSTI, J‐ 5700= Johnson Collection‐ ORNL‐Bldg‐ 5700; T‐ CSIRC= ORNL/ Nuclear Criticality Safety Thomas Group,865‐574‐1931; NTIS/OSTI is the Collection, DOE Information LANL/CSIRC. Bridge:http://www.osti.gov/bridge/ J. W. Morfitt, R. L. Murray, Secret, declassified computational method/data report, original, Early hand calculation methods to 1 A‐7.390.22 Critical Conditions in Cylindrical Vessels G. W. Schmidt 01/28/1947 Y‐12 12/12/1956 (1) good N estimate process limits for HEU solution Use of early hand calculation methods to Calculation of Critical Conditions for Uranyl Secret, declassified computational method/data report, original, predict critical conditions. Done to assist 2 A‐7.390.25 Fluoride Solutions R. L. Murray 03/05/1947 Y‐12 11/18/1957 (1), experiment plan/design good N design of K‐343 solution experiments. Fabrication of Zero Power Reactor Fuel Elements CSIRC/Electroni T‐CSIRC, Vol‐ Early work with U‐233, Available through 3 A‐2489 Containing 233U3O8 Powder 4/1/44 ORNL Unknown U‐233 Fabrication c 3B CSIRC/Thomas CD Vol 3B Contains plans for solution preparation, Outline of Experiments for the Determination of experiment apparatus, and experiment the Critical Mass of Uranium in Aqueous C. Beck, A. D. Callihan, R. Secret, declassified report, original, facility. Potentially useful for 4 A‐3683 Solutions of UO2F2 L. Murray 01/20/1947 ORNL 10/25/1957 experiment plan/design good Y benchmarking of K‐343 experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductions Supplied by EDRS Are the Best That Can Be Made from the Ori Inal Document. SCHOOL- CHOICE
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 460 188 UD 034 633 AUTHOR Moffit, Robert E., Ed.; Garrett, Jennifer J., Ed.; Smith, Janice A., Ed. TITLE School Choice 2001: What's Happening in the States. INSTITUTION Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC. ISBN ISBN-0-89195-100-8 PUB DATE 2001-00-00 NOTE 275p.; For the 2000 report, see ED 440 193. Foreword by Howard Fuller. AVAILABLE FROM Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Washington, DC 20002-4999 ($12.95). Tel: 800-544-4843 (Toll Free). For full text: http://www.heritage.org/schools/. PUB TYPE Books (010) Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC11 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; Charter Schools; Educational Vouchers; Elementary Secondary Education; Private Schools; Public Schools; Scholarship Funds; *School Choice ABSTRACT This publication tracks U.S. school choice efforts, examining research on their results. It includes: current publicschool data on expenditures, schools, and teachers for 2000-01 from a report by the National Education Association; a link to the states'own report cards on how their schools are performing; current private school informationfrom a 2001 report by the National Center for Education Statistics; state rankingson the new Education Freedom Index by the Manhattan Institute in 2000; current National Assessment of Educational Progress test results releasedin 2001; and updates on legislative activity through mid-July 2001. Afterdiscussing ways to increase opportunities for children to succeed, researchon school choice, and public opinion, a set of maps and tables offera snapshot of choice in the states. The bulk of the book containsa state-by-state analysis that examines school choice status; K-12 public schools andstudents; K-12 public school teachers; K-12 public and private school studentacademic performance; background and developments; position of the governor/composition of the state legislature; and statecontacts.
    [Show full text]
  • ROCKY FLA TS PLANT HAER No
    ROCKY FLA TS PLANT HAER No. C0-83 (Environmental Technology Site) Bounded by Indiana St. & Rts. 93, 128 & 72 Golden vicinity Jefferson County Colorado PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA REDUCED COPIES OF MEASURED DRAWINGS HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD INTERMOUNTAIN SUPPORT OFFICE - DENVER National Park Service P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD ROCKY FLATS PLANT HAER No. C0-83 (Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site) Location: Bounded by Highways 93, 128, and 72 and Indiana Street, Golden, Jefferson County, Colorado. Date of Construction: 1951-1953 (original plant). Fabricator: Austin Company, Cleveland, Ohio. Present Owner: United States Department of Energy (USDOE). Present Use: Environmental Restoration. Significance: The Rocky Flats Plant (Plant), established in 1951, was a top-secret weapons production plant. The Plant manufactured triggers for use in nuclear weapons and purified plutonium recovered from retired weapons ( called site returns). Activities at the Plant included production, stockpile maintenance, and retirement and dismantlement. Particular emphasis was placed on production. Rocky Flats produced most of the plutonium triggers used in nuclear weapons from 1953 to 1964, and all of the triggers produced from 1964 until 1989, when production was suspended. The Plant also manufactured components for other portions of the weapons since it had the facilities, equipment, and expertise required for handling the materials involved. In addition to production processes, the Plant specialized in research concerning the properties of many materials that were not widely used in other industries, including plutonium, uranium, beryllium, and tritium. Conventional methods for machining plutonium, uranium, beryllium, and other metals were continually examined, modified, and updated in support of weapons production.
    [Show full text]
  • ROCKY FLATS PLANT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN Environmental Restoration Program
    ! DRAFT ROCKY FLATS PLANT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN Environmental Restoration Program U S Department of Energy Rocky Flats Plant Golden, Colorado January 1991 ADMlN RECORD January 22, 19% -1 . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A Overview 1 B Site Description 4 C Community Background 13 D Objectives 20 E Community Relations Activities 21 Appendix A List of Contacts and Interested Parties Appendix B IAG List of Rocky Flats Plant Hazardous Substances Appendix C Community Interview Plan Appendix D Information Repositories and Suggested Locations for Public Meetings Appendix E Public Comment Opportunities Appendix F List of Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Appendix G References Figure 1 General Location of the Rocky Flats Plant figure 2 Surface Water Drainage Patterns at the Rocky Flats Plant Figure 3 Location of Ground Water contamination at the Rocky Flats Plant in 1989 Figure 4 Location of Ground Water Monitoring Wells at the Rocky Flats Plant in 1989 \ \ ROCKY FLATS PLANT COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN Rocky Flats Plant, Golden, Colorado A Overview The Rocky Flats Plant Communrty Relatrons Plan describes the mechanisms through which the Rocky Flats Plant near Golden, Colorado, will inform and involve the public in environmental restoration and related environmental activities at the facility Community interest in the plant has increased over the years since operations began in 1952 Current interest in plant activities is high, particularly concerning environmental and health issues, and public comments indicate that interest will likely remain high throughout
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Home to Over 239 Species of Wildlife and Over 630 Species of Plants
    Welcome to Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, home to over 239 species of wildlife and over 630 species of plants. In 2001, the Refuge was created by Congress to protect xeric tallgrass prairie, a globally rare ecosystem, and to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species. The security that once protected the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant also preserved this unique expanse of Front Range habitat. Portions of the Refuge surround a historic Cold War site. For nearly four decades, thousands of women and men worked at the Plant, building weapons components for the United States’ nuclear weapons arsenal. In 1989, operations ended and the Rocky Flats Plant was added to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List of sites that needed to be cleaned up. Beginning in 1992, many of the same Cold War veterans who had built weapons components at the Plant, assisted with an unprecedented and enormously complex Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“Superfund”) cleanup project to investigate and remediate the site. Thousands of soil, water, air, and sediment samples were collected and analyzed by laboratories. This extensive evaluation of Rocky Flats was conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors, overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Based on the results of the investigation, it was determined that no remediation was required on Refuge lands. The Site was closed in 2005 after the Plant was torn down and cleanup was completed. DOE Legacy Management staff continue to manage 1,300 acres located at the center of the Refuge where the former Plant was located.
    [Show full text]
  • CMRR Backgrounder 4 25 12.P65
    The CMRR-NuclearTHE CMRR-NUCLEAR Facility: FACILITY 1 Why a Delay Makes Sense BACKGROUNDER APRIL 2012 LISBETH GRONLUND & STEPHEN YOUNG Executive Summary Looking ahead two decades, we find that the only plau- sible need to increase pit production capacity above the cur- In its FY2013 budget request, the Obama administration rent level is to support the upcoming life extension programs announced a delay of at least five years in the construction (LEP) for the W78 and W88 warheads—if they use newly built of a proposed new facility at the Los Alamos National Labo- pits. (A LEP could simply refurbish the existing warhead and ratory (LANL)—the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research use the existing pit, or could use an existing pit from another Replacement-Nuclear Facility warhead type.) However, even in this (CMRR-NF). Our analysis finds case, an annual production capacity of There will be no adverse effects that there will be no adverse effects 40-45 pits would be adequate, and this of delaying construction. More- of delaying construction. could be accomplished without build- over, there is no clear need for the Moreover, there is no clear need ing a new CMRR-NF. If the United CMRR-NF as currently proposed. for the CMRR-NF as currently States reduced its arsenal below 3,500 Delaying construction will also al- proposed. weapons over the next few decades, low the National Nuclear Security an even lower annual production ca- Administration (NNSA) to fully pacity could be sufficient. assess alternatives to building To date, NNSA has not made a CMRR-NF and to take into account forthcoming changes decision about whether it will use new pits for the W78 and to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Extensions of Remarks 28103 Private Bills and Resolutions H.R
    August 10, 1970 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 28103 PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS H.R. 18888. A bill for the relief of Edward PETTI'IONS, ETC. E. Jones; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private By Mr. PEPPER: Under clause 1 of rule XXII, bills and resolutions were introduced and H.R. 18889. A bill for the relief of John 567. The SPEAKER presented a petition severally referred. as follows: Molgard Isak.sen; to the Committee on the of Wayne E. Carver, Wheelersburg, Ohio, rela­ By Mr. BROYHILL of Virginia: Judiciary. tive to appointments to the U.S. Supreme H.R. 18887. A bill for the relief of Slavko By Mr. SCHMITZ: Court and to other Federal benches, which N. Bjelajac; to the Committee on the Ju­ H.R. 18890. A bill for the relief of Bernaldo was referred to the Committee on the Ju­ diciary. Acupan; to the Committee on the Judiciary. diciary. EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS SCORE A BIG PLUS FOR SMALL to start them out earlier and then get them tired executive (many of them involuntary BUSINESS back in the store to perform other duties. retirees) and the idea of SCORE was born. Careful records were kept of all costs and The goal of SCORE is to use the otherwise they were trimmed relentlessly. untapped abil1ties of the retirees. So far, Within months, the business was breaking SCORE has been able to do that, although HON. HENRY P. SMITH III even for the first time in seven years. The the road hasn't always been easy.
    [Show full text]
  • EXTENSIONS of REMARKS 8463 Brenkworth Again Was Employed by the an Amendment by Mr
    April 24, 1979 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 8463 Brenkworth again was employed by the an amendment by Mr. KENNEDY, on serve of the Army and in the Army of the United States, under the provisions of title Commission until his appointment to which there is time limitation of 2 hours, 10, United States Code, sections 3019, 3442 the Disbursing Office on June 1, 1948. He after which Mr. TowER will call up his and 3447: advanced to chief bookkeeper in August amendment, on which there is a 1-hour To be major general, USAR and AUS of 1951 and subsequently became the as­ time limitation; subsequent to which Mr. sistant financial clerk on January 1, HATCH will be recognized to call up his Brig. Gen. William Roger Berkman, 559- 1953, a position he held until his ap­ five amendments, one at a time, of course, 32-4169. pointment as financial clerk on August with a time limitation on each of 1 hour. 23, 1954. Mr. President, as I say, the time limi­ CONFIRMATIONS He is survived by his wife, Elsie, and tations that I have set forth in this state­ Executive nominations confirmed by two children, Barbara and Lisa. ment may be reduced, either by consent the Senate April24, 1979: I am sure the Members of the Senate or by virtue of the parties in control DEPARTMENT OF STATE join me in expressing our condolences to thereof yielding some of the time back. John Prior Lewis, of New Jersey, for the his wife and to his children, and join me There may be other amendments around, rank of Minister during the tenure of his in saying that Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • RETHINKING PLUTONIUM: a Review of Plutonium Operations in the U.S
    RETHINKING PLUTONIUM: A Review of Plutonium Operations in the u.s. Nuclear Weapons Complex Energy Resean:h FOlmdation Natural Resources Defense Council 537 Harden Street 1350 New York Avenue. NW. Suite 300 Colmnbia. SC 29205 Washington. DC 20005 8031256-7298 202f783-7800 T.\.BLE OF CONTENTS CHAPfER ONE. PLurONIUM OPERATIONS: AN UNCERTAIN FUTIJRE . .. 5 History of Plutonimn Operations 6 Assessing Phrtonimn Need 8 Future Plutonium Production 11 Warhead Dismantlement 13 Capacity; Verification Options for Surplus Plutonium 15 Managing Plutonium-Bearing Materials 18 Discard Limits; Continuing Recovery Cli(\PTER TWO. PLUfONIUM PROCESSING TECHNOWGIES 23 Producing New Plutonium <::) 23 Reactor Production; Chemical Separation; Fabrication Processing Old Plutonium 26 Recycle and Recovery Feedstocks; Recycle and Recovery Processes CHAPfER TIIREE. PLtTrONIUM PROCESSING SITES ..... : .... ' .. \. .. .. 31 Rocky F1ats Plant . 31 Capabilities; Problems at RFP Los Alamos National Laboratory 36 Production Support; Upgtades Hanf~ Reservation. 38 PUREX' & PFP; Hanford's Future ·Savannah River Site . < 41 Recycle and Recovery ~eloPQlent; New Special Recovery facility; FB-LiDe; HB-Line; 01her Activities . Other Sites • 48 Pantex Plant; Oak ~e Reservation; Idaho N~ Engineering Laboratory . CHAPTER FOUR. RECOMMENDATIONS . .. 51 Information Flow . 51 The V8Iue of PlDtoDium 54 Plutonium-Bearing Materials 55 International Controls 56 Facility Safety 57 Resuming Production 59 PREFACE As a result of safety and environmental problems, the United States CUII'eIltlylacks the capacity to produce nuclear warheads - a situation that bas pel'Sisted for more than two years. Moreover, for the first time since the Manhattan Project, the U.S. bas no immediate plans to produce additional wameads. Nonetheless, the Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing a major rebuilding of the nuclear weapons complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment for Interim Storage Of
    DOE/EA-0812 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR INTERIM STORAGE OF PLUTONIUM COMPONENTS AT PANTEX LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE PRE-APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND THE REVISED PRE-APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PUBLIC MEETING VOLUME 11 JANUARY 1994 U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office Amarillo Area Office Pantex Plant P.O. Box 30030 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME II, SECTION I LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE PRE-APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT VOLUME II, SECTION II LETTERS RECEIVED DURING THE 1WO-WEEK COMMENT PERIOD FOLLOWING THE DECEMBER 6, 1993 PUBLIC MEETING (DECEMBER 6 TO 20, 1993) Volume 11, Section 1 Letters Received on the Pre-Approval Environmental Assessment Document Author Affiliation 1001 Ann W. Richards, Governor State of Texas 1002 Alison A. Miller Texas Air Control Board 1003 Thomas A. Griffy University of Texas at Austin, Department of Physics 1004 C. Ross Schulke U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 1005 Jeri Osborne & Family Crtizen Comments 1006 Auburn L. Kitchell University of Texas at Austin, Texas Bureau of Economic Geology 1007 Joseph A. Martillotti Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control 1008 Boyd Deaver Texas Water Commission 1009 Tom Millwee, Chief Texas Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management 1010 Wah Kelley City of Amarillo/Counties of Potter and Randall Emergency Management 1011 Dana O. Porler Citizen Comments 1012 Margie K. Hazlett (1) Citizen Comments 1013 Margie K. Hazlett (2) Citizen Comments 1014 Sam Day, Director N ukewatch 1015 Addis Charless, Jr. Panhandle Area Neighbors and Landowners (PANAL) 1016 Jeri Osborne Citizen Comments 1017 Jim Osborne Citizen Comments 1018 Bob Bullock, Lt.
    [Show full text]
  • Appraisal John W. Gofman Papers Edited for Website11-4-2016
    Historyofscience.com ▼ Jeremy Norman & Co., Inc. ▼ Historyofinformation.com History of Science, Medicine & Technology ▼ History of Media Rare Books, Manuscripts, Appraisals ▼ P. O. Box 867, Novato, California 94948–0867 Email: [email protected] ▼ Telephone: 415–892–3181 ▼ Fax: 415–276–2317 November 4, 2016 …. Of the many medical and scientific archives that I have appraised during the past forty plus years, the archive of John W. Gofman stands out for his great scientific discoveries, and for his extraordinarily articulate scientific papers, books, speeches, legal testimonies, and interviews on topics concerning large scale health problems in atherosclerosis and heart disease and the carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiation. The archive is a major source of primary research material for subjects in which there is extensive political and scholarly interest, including the controversies fought out during his career concerning the safety of nuclear power plants, and the health dangers of exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear fallout and from nuclear power plants, and from plutonium exposure from breeder-reactors. Dr. Gofman also campaigned against excessive exposure to ionizing radiation from unwise radiation therapy treatments, from excessive exposure associated with various diagnostic radiologic procedures, and from fluoroscopy employed during therapeutic procedures. These issues remain of great research interest both the socio-political and scientific points of view. Besides these scientific contributions to important socio-political issues, Gofman’s discoveries of lipids as risk factors in atherosclerosis were probably deserving of the Nobel Prize for medicine, though he never received that award A nuclear/physical chemist as well as a physician, Gofman co-discovered several radioisotopes, including Pa-232, U-232, Pa-233, and U-233 and proof of the slow and fast neutron fissionability of U-233 while working on his PhD dissertation under Glenn Seaborg.
    [Show full text]
  • The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production
    Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production February 1991 OTA-O-484 NTIS order #PB91-143743 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production, OTA-O-484 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1991). For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report) Foreword Until recently, Federal regulations to control pollution and cleanup toxic wastes have been mainly focused on private industry. It is now clear that the Federal Government itself ranks high among the contributors to environmental contamination, from decades of inadequate attention to safe storage and management of toxic waste products. The environmental problems at the Department of Energy nuclear weapons facilities are among the most serious and costly to correct. Widespread contamination of soil and water, leaks from old waste burial grounds, and possible public health impacts from radioactive and hazardous releases have all contributed to congressional concerns about this problem and to a national search for feasible solutions. The Senate Committee on Armed Services asked OTA to evaluate what is known about the contamination and public health problems at the Nuclear Weapons Complex and to investigate technological and other approaches to solutions. This report analyzes current and proposed methods of waste management and environmental restoration and evaluates the major DOE programs. It also discusses the prospects for improvement and describes certain initiatives that could enhance those prospects. Because the characterization of the Weapons Complex waste and contamination problem is still in the early stages, it is not possible to identify and rank specific sites that represent the most serious or immediate risks.
    [Show full text]