DOCSLIB.ORG

Record of Decision Hanford 100 Area Superfund Site 100

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Record of Decision Hanford 100 Area Superfund Site 100 RECORD OF DECISION HANFORD 100 AREA SUPERFUND SITE 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, and 100-HR-3 OPERABLE UNITS July 2018 ii Table of Contents PART I: DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION ........................................................... 1 1.0 Site Name and Location .................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Statement of Basis and Purpose ........................................................................................ 1 3.0 Assessment of the Site ...................................................................................................... 1 4.0 Description of Selected Remedy ....................................................................................... 1 4.1 Overall Site Cleanup Strategy .................................................................................... 1 4.2 Principal Threat Wastes at the Site ............................................................................. 2 4.3 Major Components of the Selected Remedy .............................................................. 2 5.0 Statutory Determinations................................................................................................... 6 6.0 ROD Data Certification Checklist ..................................................................................... 7 7.0 Authorizing Signatures ...................................................................................................... 8 PART II: DECISION SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 11 1.0 Site Name, Location, and Brief Description ................................................................... 11 2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities ......................................................................... 11 2.1 Site Operational History ........................................................................................... 11 2.2 Previous Investigations and Interim Actions ............................................................ 13 2.3 CERCLA Regulatory and Enforcement Activities ................................................... 15 3.0 Community Participation ................................................................................................ 16 4.0 Scope and Role of the Response Action ......................................................................... 17 5.0 Site Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 19 5.1 Site Features and Land and Groundwater Use .......................................................... 19 5.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination ........................................................................ 22 5.3 Conceptual Site Model ............................................................................................. 25 6.0 Current and Potential Future Land and Water Uses ........................................................ 26 6.1 Current Onsite and Surrounding Land Use............................................................... 26 6.2 Anticipated Future Land Use .................................................................................... 26 6.3 Current Ground and Surface Water Uses ................................................................. 27 6.4 Potential Future Groundwater Beneficial Uses ........................................................ 27 6.5 Expected Timeframes for Beneficial Groundwater Use ........................................... 27 6.6 Location of Anticipated Groundwater Use in Relation to Contamination................ 27 7.0 Summary of Site Risks .................................................................................................... 27 iii 7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment .......................................................... 27 7.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment ................................................................ 31 7.3 Basis for Action ........................................................................................................ 32 8.0 Remedial Action Objectives............................................................................................ 33 8.1 Specific Remedial Action Objectives ....................................................................... 33 8.2 Cleanup Levels ......................................................................................................... 34 9.0 Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................. 38 9.1 Description of Remedy Components ........................................................................ 39 9.2 Common Elements of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 ......................................................... 48 9.3 Expected Outcomes of Each Alternative .................................................................. 50 10.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................................ 50 10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ...................................... 52 10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ............... 52 10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence .............................................................. 52 10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment ............................. 53 10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness ......................................................................................... 53 10.6 Implementability ....................................................................................................... 55 10.7 Cost ........................................................................................................................... 56 10.8 State Acceptance ....................................................................................................... 56 10.9 Community Acceptance ............................................................................................ 56 11.0 Principal Threat Waste .................................................................................................... 57 12.0 Selected Remedy ............................................................................................................. 57 12.1 Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy ................................................ 57 12.2 Detailed Description of the Selected Remedy .......................................................... 59 12.3 Summary of the Estimated Remedy Costs ............................................................... 67 12.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy ........................................................... 68 13.0 Statutory Determinations................................................................................................. 68 13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment ................................................... 69 13.2 Compliance with ARARs ......................................................................................... 69 13.3 Cost Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 80 13.4 Use of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable ................................................................................... 80 13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element ..................................................... 81 iv 13.6 Five-Year Review Requirements .............................................................................. 82 14.0 Documentation of Significant Changes ........................................................................... 82 PART III: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 83 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 83 2.0 Community Involvement................................................................................................. 83 3.0 Comments and Responses ............................................................................................... 83 ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................ 107 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 109 Appendix A .... Comments Received During Public Comment Period on Proposed Plan for Remediation of the 100-DR-1, 100-DR-2, 100-HR-1, 100-HR-2, and 100-HR-3 Operable Units ........................... A-i Figures Figure 1. Hanford Site River Corridor ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 2. Features of the 100-D/H Area ............................................................................................... 13 Figure 3. Stratigraphy and Hydrogeologic Units of 100-D/H .............................................................. 20 Figure 4. 100-D/H Water Table Map (March 2011) ............................................................................ 21 Figure 5. Groundwater and Surface Water Interactions at 100-D/H .................................................... 22 Figure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I
    Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I November 4 - 7, 2002 Richland, WA FINAL REPORT A Collaborative Workshop: United States Fish & Wildlife Service The Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN) Hanford Reach National Monument 1 Planning Workshop I, November 2002 A contribution of the IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group in collaboration with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service. CBSG. 2002. Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I. FINAL REPORT. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN. 2 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I, November 2002 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I November 4-7, 2002 Richland, WA TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. Executive Summary 1 A. Introduction and Workshop Process B. Draft Vision C. Draft Goals 2. Understanding the Past 11 A. Personal, Local and National Timelines B. Timeline Summary Reports 3. Focus on the Present 31 A. Prouds and Sorries 4. Exploring the Future 39 A. An Ideal Future for Hanford Reach National Monument B. Goals Appendix I: Plenary Notes 67 Appendix II: Participant Introduction questions 79 Appendix III: List of Participants 87 Appendix IV: Workshop Invitation and Invitation List 93 Appendix V: About CBSG 103 Hanford Reach National Monument 3 Planning Workshop I, November 2002 4 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I, November 2002 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I November 4-7, 2002 Richland, WA Section 1 Executive Summary Hanford Reach National Monument 5 Planning Workshop I, November 2002 6 Hanford Reach National Monument Planning Workshop I, November 2002 Executive Summary A. Introduction and Workshop Process Introduction to Comprehensive Conservation Planning This workshop is the first of three designed to contribute to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) of Hanford Reach National Monument.
    [Show full text]
  • MEETING of St. Petersburg
    Joint Institute for Nuclear Research MEETING of St. Petersburg Fourth International conference, dedicated to N.W. Timofeeff-Ressovsky and his scientific school MODERN PROBLEMS OF GENETICS, RADIOBIOLOGY, RADIOECOLOGY, AND EVOLUTION Fourth Readings after V.I. Korogodin & V.I. Shevchenko IUR Advanced Research Workshop RADIOECOLOGY MEETS RADIOBIOLOGY: A REAPPRAISAL OF BASIC MECHANISMS OF RADIATION St. Petersburg, 2-6 June 2015 ABSTRACTS PAPERS BY YOUNG SCIENTISTS Dubna, 2015 1 The collection contains Theses of the reports presented at the Meeting of St. Petersburg and Short papers by young scientists submitted to the competition after N.W. Timofeeff-Ressovsky. The Theses and young scientists Papers are published in the authors’ wording. The responsibility for misprints in the report and paper texts is held by the authors of the reports. The book is composed by V.L. Korogodina. Title page design: V.L. Korogodina. 2 ORGANIZERS: Department of Biological Sciences, RAS; Genetics Department of Moscow State University; Genetics and Biotechnology Department of SPb State University; Genetics Society of America; International Union of Radioecology; Institute of Cytology and Genetics SD RAS, Novosibirsk; Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, UD RAS, Yekaterinburg; Institute of Medicine-Biology Problems, Moscow; Institute of Industrial Ecology, UD RAS, Yekaterinburg; International Association of Academies of Sciences; Joint Council “Biology and Medicine”; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research; Medical Radiological Scientific Centre, Russian Ministry of Healthcare, Obninsk; National Academy of Sciences of Belarus; National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Radiology and Agroecology, Obninsk; St. Petersburg Scientific Centre, RAS; Scientific Council “Ecology and Natural Resources”; Scientific Council on Genetics and Breeding, RAS; Scientific Council on Radiobiological Problems, RAS; The Max Delbruck Molecular Medicine Centre (Berlin-Buch, Germany); The N.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Cabernet Sauvignon
    ���� Cabernet Sauvignon The vineyard sources for our Cabernet Sauvignon come Harvest began early morning on September 10th, 2015 and con- from three distinct AVAs. In the Columbia Valley, 2015 was a tinued through October 20th. We did the majority of our cluster very early and extremely warm year. Hot days were accompa- sorting in the vineyard, which allowed the fruit to arrive at the nied by warm nights, but luckily much of the heat caused the winery chilled and without need for much additional sorting. plants to slow respiration to survive the heat. In Red Mountain, 2015 was also warm, and as a result of the heat, acid levels in the This wine was fermented mostly in concrete tanks with a very wines were low, but the heat created photosynthetic stall in the small amount fermented in stainless steel and aged in 80% vineyards, balancing lower acids with lower alcohols. Wahluke new French oak for 21 months. The addition of 6% Cabernet Slope, which is typically a more moderate growing area for Franc adds aromatic complexity and a touch dryer tannin that Washington, had better acid levels than Red Mountain to help helps with length and persistence. keep the wines fresh and ripe. CANADA ������ ��������� Bellingham Port Angeles 1 Columbia Valley AVA Stillwater Creek Vineyard, LAKE CHELAN I Woodinville COLUMBIA VALLEY Seattle D Dionysus Vineyard, Spokane A Wenatchee Bacchus Vineyard H OLYMPICS ANCIENT LAKES O Olympia CASCADES 2 Red Mountain AVA Canyons Vineyard NACHES HEIGHTS WAHLUKE SLOPE 3 Pullman Yakima LEWIS-CLARK SNIPES MOUNTAIN 1 VALLEY RATTLESNAKE HILLS RED MOUNTAIN 3 Wahluke Slope AVA Weinbau Vineyard Prosser Tri-Cities YAKIMA VALLEY 2 WALLA WALLA HORSE Walla Walla VALLEY HEAVEN HILLS COLUMBIA GORGE OREGON PACIFIC OCEAN PACIFIC Vancouver Portland N W E S Production 235 Cases Release Date April 2018 Blend 86% Cabernet Sauvignon, 8% Merlot, 6% Cabernet Franc Vinification Mostly Concrete Tanks Aging 80% New French Oak Barrels Alcohol 14.1% Retail $57 �������� ������ ����� ����� �� ��, �����������, �� ����� ��������������.���.
    [Show full text]
  • First Quarter Hanford Seismic Report for Fiscal Year 2011
    PNNL-20302 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 First Quarter Hanford Seismic Report for Fiscal Year 2011 AC Rohay RE Clayton MD Sweeney JL Devary March 2011 PNNL-20302 First Quarter Hanford Seismic Report for Fiscal Year 2011 AC Rohay RE Clayton MD Sweeney JL Devary March 2011 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Summary The Hanford Seismic Assessment Program (HSAP) provides an uninterrupted collection of high- quality raw and processed seismic data from the Hanford Seismic Network for the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors. The HSAP is responsible for locating and identifying sources of seismic activity and monitoring changes in the historical pattern of seismic activity at the Hanford Site. The data are compiled, archived, and published for use by the Hanford Site for waste management, natural phenomena hazards assessments, and engineering design and construction. In addition, the HSAP works with the Hanford Site Emergency Services Organization to provide assistance in the event of a significant earthquake on the Hanford Site. The Hanford Seismic Network and the Eastern Washington Regional Network consist of 44 individual sensor sites and 15 radio relay sites maintained by the Hanford Seismic Assessment Team. The Hanford Seismic Network recorded 16 local earthquakes during the first quarter of FY 2011. Six earthquakes were located at shallow depths (less than 4 km), seven earthquakes at intermediate depths (between 4 and 9 km), most likely in the pre-basalt sediments, and three earthquakes were located at depths greater than 9 km, within the basement.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State AVA
    WASHINGTON STATE | AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 19 UNIQUE GROWING REGIONS Total Wine Grape Acres: 60,000+/ Hectares: 24,281+ Bellingham Port Angeles LAKE CHELAN Woodinville COLUMBIA Spokane Seattle VALLEY Wenatchee PUGET SOUND AVA Quincy ANCIENT LAKES Olympia ROYAL SLOPE NACHES HEIGHTS WAHLUKE SLOPE Pullman Mt. Rainier Yakima WHITE BLUFFS RATTLESNAKE HILLS SNIPES MOUNTAIN RED MOUNTAIN CANDY MOUNTAIN Tri-Cities YAKIMA VALLEY Prosser LEWIS-CLARK GOOSE GAP Walla Walla VALLEY COLUMBIA GORGE HORSE WALLA WALLA HEAVEN HILLS VALLEY THE BURN OF COLUMBIA VALLEY Portland WASHINGTON WINE Terrific Terroir Great wine begins with nature— and Washington is blessed with a climate and soils that produce some of the best fruit in the world across 19 distinct AVAs. LOCATION Washington State shares the same latitude as top wine regions in Europe. With this northern latitude and a growing season that sees up to 17 hours of sunlight a day, Washington's geography and climate deliver a perfect balance of New World fruit with Old World structure. FIRE & ICE Volcanic Foundation: The largest lava flows ever documented formed a basalt bedrock that makes viticulture possible in eastern Washington. Epic Floods: Thousands of years ago during the last ice age, cataclysmic floods from ancient Lake Missoula inundated eastern and central Washington – bringing with them soils uniquely suited for growing grapes. The Columbia River: The fourth largest river in North America is the main source of irrigation for the majority of Washington’s vineyards. CLIMATE TEMPERATURE Warm days provide ripe fruit flavors while cool nights help maintain the natural acidity Rain Shadow Effect. Two mountain ranges create a rain shadow of the grapes.
    [Show full text]
  • Wahluke Slope
    Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72707 FDC date State City Airport FDC No. Subject 11/03/05 .... SC Myrtle Beach .................................. Myrtle Beach Intl ............................ 5/0235 ILS OR LOC RWY 18, AMDT 1F. 11/03/05 .... SC Myrtle Beach .................................. Myrtle Beach Intl ............................ 5/0236 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, AMDT 1C. 11/09/05 .... TN Chattanooga .................................. Lovell Field .................................... 5/0497 ILS OR LOC RWY 2, AMDT 7A. 11/15/05 .... OR Eugene .......................................... Mahlon Sweet Field ....................... 5/0407 LOC/DME RWY 16L, ORIG-A. 11/15/05 .... OR Eugene .......................................... Mahlon Sweet Field ....................... 5/0409 RNAV (GPS) RWY 16L, ORIG-A. 11/15/05 .... WA Pasco ............................................. Tri-Cities ........................................ 5/0394 VOR/DME RWY 30, AMDT 2A. 11/15/05 .... WA Pasco ............................................. Tri-Cities ........................................ 5/0395 ILS RWY 21R,.AMDT 10D. 11/15/05 .... WA Pasco ............................................. Tri-Cities ........................................ 5/0396 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, ORIG-A. 11/08/05 .... IL Jacksonville ................................... Jacksonville Muni .......................... 5/0388 RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, ORIG-A. 11/08/05 .... IL Jacksonville ................................... Jacksonville Muni .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Yakima Fold Belt Structures on Columbia Basin Terroir
    INFLUENCE OF YAKIMA FOLD BELT STRUCTURES ON COLUMBIA BASIN TERROIR POGUE, Kevin, Geology, Whitman College, Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA 99362, [email protected] The boundaries of many of the American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) in the Columbia basin are based largely on topography that is a consequence of Yakima Fold Belt (YFB) structures. The Rattlesnake Hills, Red Mountain, Wahluke Slope, and Horse Heaven Hills AVAs are situated on dip slopes on the south- facing limbs of YFB anticlines, the Walla Walla Valley and Yakima Valley AVAs encompass synclinal valleys, and the boundaries of the Snipes Mountain AVA are formed by topographic contours that encircle an anticlinal ridge. Topographic variables such as slope and aspect influence viticulture primarily through their affects on solar radiation and cold air drainage. For example, the gently inclined (5°-10°) south-facing dip slopes of YFB anticlines receive 3% – 5% more solar energy per unit area than the relatively flat floors of the synclinal basins. In 2008, vineyard sites on the northeast-facing slopes of Snipes Mountain, an anticlinal ridge in the Yakima Valley, accumulated 210 fewer growing degree-days (GDD) (10°C) relative to sites at the same elevation on southwest-facing slopes. Due to clear skies and low humidity, air temperatures typically decline rapidly after sunset in the Columbia basin. The cold air drains from the flanks of the YFB anticlines into adjacent synclinal basins where it pools behind narrow water gaps. For this reason, the vineyards with the greatest risk of frost and freeze damage are located on the floors of synclinal basins at relatively low elevations.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Sunset International Wine Competition Sonoma County, CA June 22, 2020
    2020 Sunset International Wine Competition Sonoma County, CA June 22, 2020 [ess·eff] wines 2019 [ess·eff] wines Oakmont Barbera Rose Shenandoah Valley Gold 91 2018 [ess·eff] wines Keller Estate Pinot Noir Petaluma Gap Gold 92 2017 [ess·eff] wines Teldeschi Zinfandel Dry Creek Valley Old Vines Gold 90 2Hawk Vineyard & Winery 2017 2Hawk Winery Chardonnay Rogue Valley Darow Series Gold 91 2017 2Hawk Winery Malbec Rogue Valley Darow Series Silver NV 2Hawk Winery Plume rouge v.2 Rogue Valley Silver 2016 2Hawk Winery Tempranillo Rogue Valley Darow Series Silver 2018 2Hawk Winery Grenache Rose Rogue Valley Silver Aaron Family Winery 2016 Aaron Family Winery Tempranillo Reserve Umpqua Valley Reserve Silver Abacela 2019 Abacela Grenache Rose Umpqua Valley Estate Grown, Gold 92 Produced and Bottled 2017 Abacela Tempranillo Fiesta Umpqua Valley Estate Grown, Gold 92 Produced and Bottled 2019 Abacela Albarino Umpqua Valley Estate Grown, Silver Produced and Bottled Acquiesce Winery 2016 Acquiesce Winery & Vineyards Sparkling Lodi, Mokelumne River Methode Lodi Rules Silver Grenache Blanc Champenoise Adelsheim Vineyard 2016 Adelsheim Vineyard Boulder Bluff Pinot noir Chehalem Mountains Gold 92 2016 Adelsheim Vineyard Ribbon Springs Pinot noir Ribbon Ridge Silver 2019 Adelsheim Vineyard Willamette Valley Rosé Chehalem Mountains Silver 2017 Adelsheim Vineyard Ribbon Springs Ribbon Ridge Silver Chardonnay Adkins Family Vineyard 2018 Adkins Family Vineyard Chardonnay Alta Mesa Silver 2018 Adkins Family Vineyard Zinfandel Alta Mesa Silver 2018 Adkins Family
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 199/Tuesday, October 15, 2019
    Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules 55075 availability of this material at the FAA, call FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 781–238–7759. Concerning the regulations, Pamela SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on Kinard at (202) 317–6000 or Jamie October 7, 2019. Dvoretzky at (202) 317–4102; and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the 156,389-acre ‘‘Royal Robert J. Ganley, concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the Slope’’ viticultural area in Adams and Manager, Engine & Propeller Standards Grant Counties, in Washington. The Branch, Aircraft Certification Service. building access list to attend the hearing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317– proposed viticultural area lies entirely [FR Doc. 2019–22393 Filed 10–11–19; 8:45 am] within the existing Columbia Valley BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 6901 (not toll-free numbers), [email protected]. viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The better describe the origin of their wines DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY subject of the public hearing is the and to allow consumers to better notice of proposed rulemaking (REG– identify wines they may purchase. TTB Internal Revenue Service 121508–18) that was published in the invites comments on this proposed Federal Register on Wednesday, July 3, addition to its regulations. 2019 (84 FR 31777). 26 CFR Part 1 DATES: The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) Comments must be received December 16, 2019. [REG–121508–18] apply to the hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Winery 2018 Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet Franc
    Columbia Winery 2018 Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet Franc Washington’s original premium winery, Columbia Winery has been discovering and celebrating Washington wine for over 50 years. Winemaker Sean Hails blends classic traditions with innovative winemaking techniques to craft a distinct collection of Washington wines. Columbia Winery’s unrelenting curiosity and trailblazing heritage is reflected in the grape selection philosophy of premier vineyard sites within the Columbia Valley and its acclaimed AVAs, including Red Mountain, Horse Heaven Hills, Yakima Valley and Wahluke Slope. With a tasting room located just outside Seattle and a winery in Eastern Washington, Columbia Winery embodies Washington’s welcoming spirit, rich diversity and exceptional wines. About the Wine: Our 2018 Horse Heaven Hills Cabernet Franc is rich and robust with medium weight tannins and balanced acidity. Notes of Bing cherry and ripe plum intertwine with subtle hints of dried sage, while wonderful oak notes of vanilla and spice tie this wine together. Our Cab Franc pairs well with a variety of foods from ribeye to mesquite smoked meats. Viticulture Notes: In 2018, we continued sourcing grapes from our favorite block of Alder Ridge Vineyard in the Horse Heaven Hills AVA. Perched high on the crest of a hill overlooking the Columbia River, this block receives a steady onslaught of wind that stunts the vines and produces tiny berries with intense color and flavor. The fruit has helped us win awards year after year. We harvested this block of Cab Franc on October 5, which is 13 days earlier than the previous year. The spring of 2018 vintage was temperate, which led to normal budbreak.
    [Show full text]
  • The Last Sink: the Human Body As the Ultimate Radioactive Storage Site
    How to cite: Brown, Kate. “The Last Sink: The Human Body as the Ultimate Radioactive Storage Site.” In: “Out of Sight, Out of Mind: The Politics and Culture of Waste,” edited by Christof Mauch, RCC Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society 2016, no. 1, 41–47. RCC Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society is an open-access publication. It is available online at www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives. Articles may be downloaded, copied, and redistributed free of charge and the text may be reprinted, provided that the author and source are attributed. Please include this cover sheet when redistributing the article. To learn more about the Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society, please visit www.rachelcarsoncenter.org. Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society Leopoldstrasse 11a, 80802 Munich, GERMANY ISSN (print) 2190-5088 ISSN (online) 2190-8087 © Copyright of the text is held by the Rachel Carson Center. Image copyright is retained by the individual artists; their permission may be required in case of reproduction. Out of Sight, Out of Mind 41 Kate Brown The Last Sink: The Human Body as the Ultimate Radioactive Storage Site Living in Chelyabinsk, Russia, while researching a closed nuclear city, I got distracted by the supposedly hidden secrets of the security zone. It took an old woman and her scarred body to get me to see the real secrets. She taught me that a bigger story was right before me, on the bodies of the people I met. These were secrets so close I could reach out and touch them. I was in Chelyabinsk to find out more about Ozersk, a pretty little city in a northern birch and pine forest surrounded by lakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Scholars' Forum Report
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Scholars’ Forum Report November 9-10, 2015 Manhattan Project National Historical Park New Mexico, Tennessee, Washington Scholars’ Forum Report Department of Energy Sites within the National Park Service Manhattan Project National Historical Park U.S. Department of the Interior Hanford Washington (page 3) Los Alamos Oak Ridge New Mexico Tennessee (page 2) (page 4) Legend Locations OFFICE: Lands Resources Program REGION: Intermountain Region Pacific West Region Southeast Region PARK: MAPR DATE: September 2015 MAP NUMBER: 540/129,780 (Page 1 of 4) 0 250 500 750 1,000 Miles Manhattan Project National Historical Park Contents Background . 2. High Level Theme Topics . .2 . Day 1 . 3 Big Picture Ideas on How to Interpret the Manhattan Project . 3. Potential Interpretive Theme Topics . 4 Day 2 . .10 . Common Themes . 10. High Level Theme Topics and Subtopics . 10 Attachments . .14 . Attendees . 44 Cover Photo A meeting regarding the 184-inch cyclotron project, held at the University of California, Berkeley, on March 29, 1940. Left to right: Ernest O. Lawrence, Arthur H. Compton,Vannevar Bush, James B. Conant, Karl T. Compton, and Alfred L. Loomis. The photograph is reprinted in Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World, 1939-1946: Volume I, A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission(Washington: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1972), opposite page 33. 1 Scholars’ Forum Report Background In December 2014, Congress authorized a new park called the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, which will be jointly administered by the National Park Service and the Department of Energy.
    [Show full text]