DOCSLIB.ORG

Site Characterization Work Plan for the Gnome-Coach Site, New Mexico

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Site Characterization Work Plan for the Gnome-Coach Site, New Mexico Nevada DOE/NV--689-Rev. 1 Environmental Restoration Project Site Characterization Work Plan for the Gnome-Coach Site, New Mexico Controlled Copy No.: Revision No.: 1 January 2002 Approved for public release; further dissemination is unlimited. Environmental Restoration Division U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office Available for public sale, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Phone: 800.553.6847 Fax: 703.605.6900 Email: [email protected] Online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm Available electronically at http://www.doe.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 Phone: 865.576.8401 Fax: 865.576.5728 Email: [email protected] 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 or its contractors or subcontractors. Printed on recycled paper DOE/NV--689-Rev. 1 SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN FOR THE GNOME-COACH SITE, NEW MEXICO U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office Las Vegas, Nevada Controlled Copy No.: Revision No.: 1 January 2002 Approved for public release; further dissemination is unlimited. SITE CHARACTERIZATION WORK PLAN FOR THE GNOME-COACH SITE, NEW MEXICO Approved by: Date: Monica Sanchez, Project Manager Offsites Project Approved by: Date: Runore C. Wycoff, Division Director Environmental Restoration Division Gnome-Coach SC Work Plan Section: Contents Revision: 1 Date: 01/14/2002 Page i of xviii Table of Contents List of Figures. ix List of Tables. .xii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations . xiv 1.0 Introduction. 1 1.1 Purpose . 3 1.2 Scope of Work . 3 1.3 Investigation Work Plan Contents . 5 2.0 Facility Description. 6 2.1 Physical Setting. 6 2.1.1 Land Status . 6 2.1.2 Environmental Setting . 6 2.1.3 Geology and Hydrology. 8 2.1.4 Surface Water, Wetlands, and Floodplains . 10 2.2 Operational History. 11 2.2.1 Trailer Park and Control Point. 14 2.2.2 Fallout Plume. 14 2.2.3 Gnome-Coach Shaft Area . 14 2.2.4 Gnome Surface Ground Zero. 16 2.2.5 Evaporation Pond/Waste Tank . 17 2.2.6 Area 57. 17 2.2.7 Salt Muckpile. 17 2.2.8 Storage Areas. 18 2.2.9 Decontamination Pad. 19 2.2.10 Laundry/Lab Facilities. 19 2.2.11 Contaminated Waste Dump . 20 2.2.12 Salvage Yard . 20 2.2.13 Drill Hole Pads. 21 2.2.13.1 LRL-7 and LRL-8 Drill Pads . 27 2.2.13.2 Drill Pad for Monitoring Wells USGS-4 and USGS-8 . 28 2.3 Site Restoration Activities . 28 2.3.1 Initial Cleanup in 1968/1969 . 28 2.3.2 1972 Area Reconnaissance . 29 2.3.3 Second Cleanup in 1977 to 1979 . 30 2.4 Current Conditions at the Gnome-Coach Site . 32 2.5 Previous Investigations . 33 2.5.1 Surface Investigations . 33 1/16/02\P:\Doc-prod\OFFSITES\Gnome\Work_Pln\Final Rev_1\Gnome-CoachTOC.fm Gnome-Coach SC Work Plan Section: Contents Revision: 1 Date: 01/14/2002 Page ii of xviii Table of Contents (Continued) 2.5.2 Radionuclide Background Investigations . 33 2.5.2.1 Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil at the Gnome-Coach Site . 35 2.5.2.2 Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil at the WIPP . 36 2.5.2.3 Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil in the Vicinity of WIPP . 36 2.5.2.4 Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil at Distant Locations within New Mexico . 39 2.5.2.5 Summary of the Background Radionuclide Concentrations in Soil for the Gnome-Coach Site . 39 2.5.3 Subsurface Investigations . 41 3.0 Data Quality Objectives . 43 3.1 Conceptual Site Model . 43 3.1.1 Surface Conceptual Site Model . 45 3.1.2 Subsurface Conceptual Site Model . 46 3.2 Contaminants of Potential Concern . 49 3.2.1 COPCs for Surface and Shallow Subsurface Investigation . 51 3.2.2 Preliminary Action Levels (PALs) . 54 3.2.3 COPCs for Subsurface Investigation . 55 4.0 Surface and Shallow Subsurface Work Plan . 59 4.1 Demarcate Historical Operational Areas . 60 4.2 Investigation of Radiological Constituents. 60 4.2.1 Driveover Radiological Survey . 69 4.2.1.1 Driveover Radiological Survey Design and Assumptions . 70 4.2.2 Shallow Subsurface In Situ Radiological Surveys. 72 4.2.2.1 CPT In Situ Radiological Survey Design and Assumptions . 74 4.2.2.2 Confirmation Soil Sample Collection for Radiological COPCs . 75 4.2.2.3 Data Quality and Analysis . 76 4.2.3 Establishing Background Values for Radiological Surveys . 76 4.3 Vegetation Sampling. 77 4.4 Geophysical Investigation. 78 4.4.1 Geophysical Survey Areas. 79 4.4.1.1 Technical Methodology . 80 4.5 Delineate Soil Investigation Areas . 80 4.6 Representative Inorganic Background Sample Collection . 81 Gnome-Coach SC Work Plan Section: Contents Revision: 1 Date: 01/14/2002 Page iii of xviii Table of Contents (Continued) 4.7 Surface/Shallow Subsurface Soil Investigation of Chemical Constituents . 83 4.7.1 Soil Sampling Techniques . 84 4.7.2 Field Screening . 85 4.7.3 Sampling Criteria. 86 4.7.4 Soil Sampling Locations for Surface/Shallow Subsurface Characterization . 87 4.7.4.1 Mud Pit Sampling Locations . 88 4.7.4.2 Sampling Locations at Suspect AOCs with Chemical COPCs . 89 4.7.4.3 USGS-1 Concrete Pad and Grease Pit (near shaft) . 91 4.7.4.4 Other Sampling Locations . 91 4.7.5 Data Quality and Analysis . 92 4.8 Surface Water and Shallow Groundwater Investigation. 92 4.9 Additional Requirements and Activities. 92 4.9.1 Health and Safety. 92 4.9.2 Environmental Compliance and Waste Management . 93 4.9.3 NEPA Requirements . 94 4.9.4 Quality Assurance ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Atomic Energy Commission
    The Atomic Energy Commission By Alice Buck July 1983 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Management Office of the Executive Secretariat Office of History and Heritage Resources Introduction Almost a year after World War II ended, Congress established the United States Atomic Energy Commission to foster and control the peacetime development of atomic science and technology. Reflecting America's postwar optimism, Congress declared that atomic energy should be employed not only in the Nation's defense, but also to promote world peace, improve the public welfare, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise. After long months of intensive debate among politicians, military planners and atomic scientists, President Harry S. Truman confirmed the civilian control of atomic energy by signing the Atomic Energy Act on August 1, 1946.(1) The provisions of the new Act bore the imprint of the American plan for international control presented to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission two months earlier by U.S. Representative Bernard Baruch. Although the Baruch proposal for a multinational corporation to develop the peaceful uses of atomic energy failed to win the necessary Soviet support, the concept of combining development, production, and control in one agency found acceptance in the domestic legislation creating the United States Atomic Energy Commission.(2) Congress gave the new civilian Commission extraordinary power and independence to carry out its awesome responsibilities. Five Commissioners appointed by the President would exercise authority for the operation of the Commission, while a general manager, also appointed by the President, would serve as chief executive officer. To provide the Commission exceptional freedom in hiring scientists and professionals, Commission employees would be exempt from the Civil Service system.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Environmentally Sensitive Resources at Off-Site Locations
    CNT OW048 Review of Environmentally Sensitive Resources at Off-Site Locations Nevada Test Site Nevada ~nvironmentalRestoration Review of Environmentally Sensitive Resources at Off-Site Locations Prepared for: U.S. Deparuncnt of Energy Nevada Field Office Las Vcgas, Nevada Repdby: lT Corporation Las Vcgas, Nevada Work Pcrformcd Under Conmct DE-AC08-92NV10972 March, 1993 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................... 1-1 1.1 Hazardous. Contaminated. or Polluted Sites .......................... 1-3 1.2 Environmentally Sensitive Resources ............................... 1-3 1.2.1 Property of Historic. Archaeological. or Archirectural Significance ...... 1-3 1 2.2 Threatened. Endangered. or Candidate Species .................... 1-4 1.2.3 Floodplains and Wetlands .................................. 1-5 1.2.4 Federal- and State-Designated Areas ........................... 1-6 1.2.5 Rime Agricultural Lands ................................... 1-7 1.2.6 Special Sources of Water ................................... 1-7 1.2.7 Tundra. Coral Reefs. and Rainforests ........................... 1-7 2.0 Alaska Project Site .............................................. 2-1 2.1 Amchidta Island Test Site ...................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Hazardous. Contaminated. or Polluted Sites ...................... 2-1 2.1.2 Property of Historic. Archaeological. or Architectural Significance ...... 2-4 2.1.3 Threatened. Endangered. and Candidate Species ................... 2-8 2.1.4 Floodplains and Wetlands .................................
    [Show full text]
  • Humble Origins.………………………………………………………………18
    Southern Devices: Geology, Industry, and Atomic Testing in Mississippi’s Piney Woods by David Allen Burke A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama May 14, 2010 Approved by William F. Trimble, Chair, Professor of History James R. Hansen, Professor of History Jennifer E. Brooks, Professor of History David T. King Jr., Professor of Geology Abstract This work centers on the two underground atomic tests conducted in south central Mississippi on September 22, 1964, and December 3, 1966. The region, known as the “Piney Woods,” hosted the two blasts, conducted by the United States Atomic Energy Commission, in a mammoth subterranean salt formation known as a “salt dome.” These salt domes are common along the Gulf Coast from Texas to the Mississippi-Alabama border. The two tests, codenamed “Project Dribble” were part of a larger test series, “Vela Uniform,” that sought to improve and create seismological methods to detect underground nuclear tests. The two nuclear tests were followed by two methane/oxygen blasts under “Project Miracle Play” to assess whether chemical explosions could simulate nuclear tests in an underground environment. The atomic test program at the Tatum Dome was the result of a unique combination of geological and industrial factors. It succeeded in producing data considered crucial to nuclear weapons control negotiation and treaties, yet it failed to bring the nuclear industry into the Piney Woods. Furthermore, many of the desired economic benefits failed to materialize due to the federal reliance on outside contractors to perform tasks at the site.
    [Show full text]
  • US Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office Film
    U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office Film Declassification Project Video Tape Fact Sheets Updated September 2000 Released by Nevada Operations Office Coordination & Information Center Operated by Bechtel Nevada Under Contract DE-AC08-96NV11718 Film Declassification Project - Video Tape Fact Sheets Summary Information The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Albuquerque Operations Office, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), is committed to making available to the public historically significant films describing various aspects of the U.S. nuclear weapons development program. The process of declassifying these films is an ongoing task. The film footage is available on video tape in three formats: VHS ($10.00 each plus shipping and handling); beta ($80-$100 each plus shipping and handling); and VHS PAL ($40.00 each plus shipping and handling). All payment must be made by check or money order in U.S. dollars, payable to Bechtel Nevada. The enclosed fact sheets provide information on each video. The video listing and fact sheets can also be found on the Internet at: http//www.nv.doe.gov under “News & Publications” and the subheading “Historical Nuclear Weapons Test Films.” To purchase these videos or obtain additional information, please contact: U.S. DOE/Nevada Operations Office - Public Reading Facility Bechtel Nevada P. O. Box 98521 M/S NLV040 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521 Telephone: 1-877-DOE-FILM (1-877-363-3456) (Toll Free) or (702) 295-1628 Facsimile: (702) 295-1624 E-mail: [email protected] iii Table of Contents Listing or Number Page 0800000 - NUCLEAR TESTING REVIEW ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • HALF-LIVES and HALF-TRUTHS Confronting the Radioactive Legacies of the Cold War One Half-Lives, Half-Truths, and Other Radioactive Legacies of the Cold War
    HALF-LIVES AND HALF-TRUTHS Confronting the Radioactive Legacies of the Cold War one Half-Lives, Half-Truths, and Other Radioactive Legacies of the Cold War Barbara Rose Johnston Half-Lives and Half-Truths: Confronting the Radioactive Legacies of the Cold War examines some of the events and consequences of what many call the first nuclear age—the age when uranium was exploited, refined, enriched, and used to end a world war and fight a cold war. It is a book written by anthropologists who study the culture and history of science, document the environmental health problems that are the legacy of the Cold War–era nuclear war machine, and assist communities in their struggles to secure information, accountability, and meaningful remedy. In essays addressing the US and former Soviet nuclear war machines, contributors outline some of the human and environmental impacts of preparing for nuclear war and the related problems cre- ated by the heavy hand of the security state. Contributors also explore the dynamic tensions that structure human response to such problematic radioactive realities: How do people come to terms with their past, and the current and future risks from this past, and find ways to carry on? What strategies are employed to cope? What efforts are taken to secure meaningful remedy? What actions do people—survivors, families, communities, scientists, advocates, organizations, and governments—take to ensure never again? The essays and case studies explore the biases and political constraints intrinsic to atomic energy research on behalf of the security state, and the radioactive legacy of the Cold War in the United States and its former territories of Alaska and the Marshall COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL www.sarpress.sarweb.org 1 Islands, and in the former Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plowshare Program
    A Look Back: The Plowshare Program Login Contact Us Text Size: A Look Back: The Plowshare Program 06/19/2018 Likes(1) | Comments(2) | Printer-friendly Project Gnome, the first nuclear Plowshare experiment held Dec 10, 1961. High Resolution Image The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) established the Plowshare Program in June 1957 to explore the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The program took its name from the Bible (Isaiah 2:4), "they will beat their swords into plowshares." The purpose of the AEC program, instituted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), was to develop the necessary technology for using nuclear explosions for civil and industrial projects, such as the creation of harbors and canals and the stimulation of natural gas reservoirs. Watch the 11 minute film, "Civilian Applications of Nuclear Explosives." The idea of using nuclear explosions for non-military purposes was first raised by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his famous "Atoms for Peace" speech in December 1953 -- an idea that resonated with Edward Teller. In the summer of 1956, Harold Brown (LLNL director, 1960-1961) proposed a symposium on the subject to the AEC, and a meeting was held at LLNL in February 1957. Some 24 papers were presented, covering a broad array of ideas. While interest was high, discussions were hampered by the lack of data on the effects of underground explosions. Such data was subsequently generated with the Rainier event in September 1957. On Sept. 19, 1957, LLNL conducted the first contained underground nuclear explosion. Rainier was fired beneath a high mesa at the Nevada Test Site.
    [Show full text]
  • The Newsletter for America's Atomic Veterans
    United States Atmospheric & Underwater Atomic Weapon Activities National Association of Atomic Veterans, Inc. 1945 “TRINITY“ “Assisting America’s Atomic Veterans Since 1979” ALAMOGORDO, N. M. Website: www.naav.com E-mail: [email protected] 1945 “LITTLE BOY“ HIROSHIMA, JAPAN R. J. RITTER - Editor March, 2011 1945 “FAT MAN“ NAGASAKI, JAPAN 1946 “CROSSROADS“ BIKINI ISLAND 1948 “SANDSTONE“ ENEWETAK ATOLL 1951 “RANGER“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1951 “GREENHOUSE“ ENEWETAK ATOLL 1951 “BUSTER – JANGLE“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1952 “TUMBLER - SNAPPER“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1952 “IVY“ ENEWETAK ATOLL 1953 “UPSHOT - KNOTHOLE“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1954 “CASTLE“ BIKINI ISLAND 1955 “TEAPOT“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1955 “WIGWAM“ OFFSHORE SAN DIEGO 1955 “PROJECT 56“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1956 “REDWING“ ENEWETAK & BIKINI 1957 “PLUMBOB“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1958 “HARDTACK-I“ ENEWETAK & BIKINI 1958 “NEWSREEL“ JOHNSON ISLAND 1958 “ARGUS“ SOUTH ATLANTIC 1958 “HARDTACK-II“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1961 “NOUGAT“ NEVADA TEST SITE 1962 “DOMINIC-I“ CHRISTMAS ISLAND JOHNSON ISLAND 1965 “FLINTLOCK“ AMCHITKA, ALASKA 1969 “MANDREL“ AMCHITKA, ALASKA 1971 “GROMMET“ AMCHITKA, ALASKA 1974 “POST TEST EVENTS“ AMCHITKA, ALASKA ------------ “ IF YOU WERE THERE, DRILLING DEEP SHAFTS FOR NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTS YOU ARE AN ATOMIC VETERAN “ The Newsletter for America’s Atomic Veterans COMMANDERS COMMENTS Well now, here we are three months into our 31st. year of assisting America’s Atomic D. D. Robertson ( MO ) G. H. Schwartz ( VA ) Veteran community. Collectively, we have W. E. Aubry ( MA ) R. C. Callentine ( TX ) been striving to gain full recognition and J. N. Levesque ( ME ) F. G. Howard ( FL ) ( where applicable ) ample compensation for T. F. Zack ( CA ) T. H. Rose ( MD ) those who stood before an invisible enemy, J.
    [Show full text]
  • Plowshare Program
    Acknowledgements The U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Office of Public Affairs and Information, acknowledges the contribution of Dr. William C. Beck, Belfort Engineering & Environmental Services, Incorporated, for providing historical information for this publication; Patricia Nolan Bodin, Janine M. Ford, Sandra A. Smith and Warren S. Udy, U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Office of Public Affairs and Information; Beverly A. Bull, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Richard Reed, Remote Sensing Laboratory (operated by Bechtel Nevada); Carole Schoengold, Martha DeMarre, Coordination and Information Center (operated by Bechtel Nevada); Loretta Bush, Technical Information Resource Center (operated by Bechtel Nevada). i Executive Summary Plowshare Program Introduction The United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), now the Department of Energy (DOE), established the Plowshare Program as a research and development activity to explore the technical and economic feasibility of using nuclear explosives for industrial applications. The reasoning was that the relatively inexpensive energy available from nuclear explosions could prove useful for a wide variety of peaceful purposes. The Plowshare Program began in 1958 and continued through 1975. Between December 1961 and May 1973, the United States conducted 27 Plowshare nuclear explosive tests comprising 35 individual detonations. Conceptually, industrial applications resulting from the use of nuclear explosives could be divided into two broad categories: 1) large-scale excavation and quarrying, where the energy from the explosion was used to break up and/or move rock; and 2) underground engineering, where the energy released from deeply buried nuclear explosives increased the permeability and porosity of the rock by massive breaking and fracturing. Possible excavation applications included: canals, harbors, highway and railroad cuts through mountains, open pit mining, construction of dams, and other quarry and construction-related projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallout from Plowshare Peaceful Nuclear Explosions and the Environment 1956-1973
    LLNL-CONF-464374 Fallout from Plowshare Peaceful Nuclear Explosions and the Environment 1956-1973 B. C. Hacker 1995 Release Date: July 21, 2010 Organization of American Historians Annual Meeting Washington, DC, Unitied States March 30, 1995 through April 2, 1995 Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed 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 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. This work was performed under the auspices of the Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, (LLNS)
    [Show full text]
  • New Mexico's Forgotten Nuclear Tests: Projects Gnome (1961) and Gasbuggy (1967)
    New Mexico Historical Review Volume 73 Number 4 Article 3 10-1-1998 New Mexico's Forgotten Nuclear Tests: Projects Gnome (1961) and Gasbuggy (1967) Ferenc M. Szasz Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmhr Recommended Citation Szasz, Ferenc M.. "New Mexico's Forgotten Nuclear Tests: Projects Gnome (1961) and Gasbuggy (1967)." New Mexico Historical Review 73, 4 (1998). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmhr/vol73/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in New Mexico Historical Review by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. New Mexico's Forgotten Nuclear Tests: Projects Gnome (1961) and Gasbuggy (1967) FERENC M. SZASZ On 16 July 1945, scientists from the Manhattan Project detonated an atomic device at Trinity Site, in the northwest corner ofthe Alamogordo Bombing Range in central New Mexico. The select group ofeyewitnesses watched in awe as the mushroom cloud rose to 20,000 feet and slowly drifted north-northeast over the Chupadera Mesa toward Oklahoma and Kansas. With this, the state ofNew Mexico entered history as "the birth~ place of the Atomic Age."1 Five days after the explosion, Stafford Warren, the physician in charge of health safety for the Manhattan Project, wrote to the overall head-General Leslie R. Groves. In this lengthy missive, Warren cau­ tioned Groves that central New Mexico was far too populated for further nuclear explosions. He recommended that any future tests be held in a location with a radius of at least 150 miles without people.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Monitoring Report for the Nevada Test Site and Other Test Areas Used for Underground Nuclear Detonations
    ' -t' -LV-539-39 - EvC-LT-539493g e ENVIRONMENTAL HONITORING REPORT FOR THE NEVADA TEST SITE AND OTHER TEST AREAS USED FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS January through December 1974 by the Monitoring Applications Laboratory National Environmental Research Center U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Las Vegas, Nevada Published May 1975 T_ ~~~~. _ , U_ This work performed under a Memorandum of Understanding No. AT(26-1)-539) for the U. S. ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION - - lb l a This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Goverrment. Neither the United States nor the United States Energy Research and Development Administration, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, sub- contractors, or their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represent that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights. Available from the National Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161 Price: Paper copy $5.45; microfiche $2.25 NERC-LV-539-39 NERC-LV-539-39 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT FOR THE NEVADA TEST SITE AND OTHER TEST AREAS USED FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS January through December 1974 by the Monitoring Applications Laboratory National Environmental Research Center U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Las Vegas, Nevada Published May 1975 This work performed under a Memorandum of Understanding No. AT(26-1)-539) for the U. S. ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION PREFACE The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) has used the Nevada Test Site (NTS) from January 1951 through January 19, 1975, as an area for conducting nuclear detonations, nuclear rocket-engine development, nuclear medicine studies, and miscellaneous nuclear and non-nuclear experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Dose Reconstruction Cases by Nuclear Weapons Production Facility
    NIOSH Report – Attachment 2 Dose Reconstruction Cases by Nuclear Weapons Production Facility as of January 15, 2004 Cases Associated Cases in process Facility/Office with the Facility over 150 days Albany Research Center 3 2 Albuquerque Operations Office 21 20 Aliquippa Forge 21 16 Allegheny-Ludlum Steel 8 6 Allied Chemical and Dye Corp. 6 5 Allied Chemical Corp. Plant 50 48 Allis-Charmers Co. 1 0 Aluminum Co. of America (Alcoa) 1 6 2 Aluminum Co. of America (Alcoa) 2 3 2 Amchitka Island Nuclear Explosion Site 48 43 American Bearing Corp. 1 1 American Chain and Cable Co. 2 2 American Machine and Foundry 1 1 Ames Laboratory 7 7 Anaconda Co. 8 8 Argonne National Laboratory - East 110 101 Argonne National Laboratory - West 52 42 Armour Research Foundation 2 2 Arthur D. Little Co. 1 1 Ashland Oil 25 23 Associated Aircraft Tool and Manufacturing Co. 1 0 Atomics International 13 9 B & T Metals 1 0 Baker-Perkins Co. 6 4 Battelle Laboratories - King Avenue 11 10 Bethlehem Steel 487 18 Birdsboro Steel & Foundry 4 4 Bliss & Laughlin Steel 13 10 Blockson Chemical Co. 107 57 BONUS Reactor Plant 2 2 Bridgeport Brass Co. 8 8 Bridgeport Brass Co., Havens Lab 64 61 Brookhaven National Laboratory 33 32 Brush Beryllium Co. 4 7 6 BWXT 17 17 C. H. Schnorr 4 2 C. I. Hayes, Inc. 1 0 Carboloy Co. 1 1 Carborundum Company 5 5 Chapman Valve 78 62 Cincinnati Milling Machine Co. 3 2 Clarksville Facility 54 49 Colonie Site (National Lead) 3 3 Combustion Engineering 30 28 Connecticut Aircraft Nuclear Engine Laboratory 19 17 Coors Porcelain 2 2 Copperweld Steel 3 3 Crane Co.
    [Show full text]