DOCSLIB.ORG

Plumbbob Series, 1957, United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit NYS000285 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. In the Matter of: Submitted: December 21, 2011 (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) c:..\,.~""R REGlI~;. ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 | 05000286 Exhibit #: NYS000285-00-BD01 Identified: 10/15/2012 •l ~'~0 · . Admitted: 10/15/2012 Withdrawn: ~ .~. ....,,1- 0.... Rejected: Stricken: ? ~ ****il Other: DNA 6005F I 1 United Ststas Atmospheric. iNUIclaat Weapons Tests Nuclear Tes Personn · I Review I), \ KL l ' ,....J'~,j fl~ Prepared by the 0 e'fens,e Nuclear Agency as Executive A 'genc'y for the Department of 'Q,Et'fense Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return to sender. PLEASE NOTIFY THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY, ATTN: STTI, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20305, IF YOUR ADDRESS IS INCORRECT, IF YOU WISH TO BE DELETED FROM THE DISTRIBUTION LIST, OR IF THE ADDRESSEE IS NO LONGER EMPLOYED BY YOUR ORGANIZATION. UNCLASS I FI ED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (W?!en D.t. entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM I. REPORT NUMBER r' GOVT ACCESSION NO. l. RECIPIEN T'S CAT ALOG NUMBER DNA 6005F 4. TITLE (and Subtltlo) 5. TYPE OF REPORT 5. PERIOO COVEREO PLUMBBOB SERIES, 1957 Technical Report 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPOAT NUMBEA 2087-79-02 7. AUTHOR(o) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NU ... 8ER(0) P.S. Harri s S. Obermi 11 er C. Lowery W.J. Ozeroff DNA 001-78-C-0311 A. Nelson S. E. Weary 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDAESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK JAY COR AREA & WOAK UNIT NUMBERS 205 South Whiting Street Subtask U99QAXMK506-04 Alexandria, Virginia 22304 II. CONTROI..LING OFFICE NAME AND AOORESS 12. REPORT OATE Director 15 September 1981 Defense Nuclear Agency 13. NUMBER OF PAGES Washinqton, D.C. 20305 312 -14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AOORESS(II dillorornl lrom Controllln, Ottle.) 15. SECU RITV CLASS. (01 thle ,epot't) UNCLASSIFIED 15 •. OECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING NffiHEOULE 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (01 till. Report) Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (01 the .b.ttact ent.r.d In Block 20, If dllierent Irorn Repot't) 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES This work sponsored by the Defense Nuclear Agency under RDT&E RMSS Code B350078464 U99QAXMK50604 H2590D. For sale by the National Technical Infor- mation Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. (Continued) 19. KEV WORDS (Contlnu. on r.v..... Ida Ii n.e •••ery and Idantlfy by block numb.r) AEC Desert Rock NTPR SMOKY AFSWC Fallout PLUMBBOB AFSWP GAll LEO PRISCILLA Atmospheric Nuclear Tests HOOD Radiation Exposure Decontamination Ionizing Radiation Radioactivity 2~. ABSTRACT' ~ _ re~ .- fI ~ ...tId_It,. by block number) This report describes the activities of DOD participants in the atmospheric nuclear test series, Operation PLUMBBOB. The various levels at which DOD personnel participated with the Nevada Test Organization are identified. DOD participants in Desert Rock Exercise Projects are described. The AEC and DOD criteria and procedures for Rad-safe are included. Those projects related to DOD mission activities are described as to purpose, agency. operations, and Rad-safe aspects. FORM DO \ J_73 1473 EDfno.. OF ! pfOV 65 IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSlFICATtOI't OF THIS F'AGE (1J'hen Dat. Entered) UNCLASSIFIED S!:CURITY CL.ASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(lrh.. D.'. Ifnl.ted) 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES (Cont.) The Defense Nuclear Agency Action Officer, Major H. L. Reese, USAF, under whom this work was done, wishes to acknowledge the research and editing contribution of numerous reviewers in the military services and other organizations in addition to those writers listed in block 7. UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CL.ASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Wllen Dat. Enteted) Fact Defense Nuclear Agency Public Affairs Office Washington, D.C. 20305 Subject: Series Operation PLUMBBOB, the sixth series of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted within the continental United States, ted of 24 nuclear detonations and six safety experiments. The series lasted from April 24, to October 7, 1957, and involved about 18,000 DOD personnel participating in observer programs, tactical maneuvers, and scientific and diagnostic studies. The series tested nuclear weapons for possible inclusion in the defense arsenal. The tests were also used to improve military tactics, equipment, and training. The safety experiments were conducted to ensure that no nuclear reaction would occur if the high explosive components of the device were accidentally detonated during storage or transport. Department of Defense Involvement During Operation PLUMBBOB, the activity with the largest DOD participation was Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII, a program involving members of all armed services. Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII included training programs, tactical maneuvers, and technical service projects. Training programs generally included lectures and briefings on the effects of nuclear weapons, observation of a nuclear detonation, and a subsequent visit to a display of military equipment exposed to the detonation. At shots HOOD, SMOKY, and GALILEO, maneuvers were conducted to develop tactics applicable to the nuclear battlefield. At HOOD, the Marine Corps conducted a maneuver involving the use of a helicopter airlift and tactical air support. At shot SMOKY, Army troops conducted an airlift assault, and at shot GALILEO, Army troops were tested to determine their psychological reactions to witnessing a nuclear detonation. Technical service projects were designed to test equipment and techniques. In addition to Desert Rock activities, scientific experiments to assess the effects of each nuclear detonation were conducted by four test groups of the Nevada Test Organization The Weapons Effects Test Group was sponsored by Field Command, Armed Forces Special Weapons Project The two AEC weapons development laboratories sponsored the Los Scientific Laboratory and the University of California Radiation Laboratory Test Groups. Finally, the Federal Civil Defense Administration sponsored the Civil Effects Test Group , which evaluated the effectiveness of civil defense measures. Although the Weapons Effects Test Group was the only DOD-sponsored test group, DOD person- nel took part in the experiments of the other three groups. Individuals participating in scientific experiments placed data-collection instruments around the point of detonation in the days and weeks preceding the scheduled nuclear test. They returned to the test area to recover equipment and gather data after the detonation, when the Test Manager had determined that the area was safe for limited access. 1 Support services for both Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII and the Nevada Test Organization included radiological safety, security, transportation, communi- cations, engineering, and logistics. The Air Force Special Weapons Center (AFSWC) at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, provided aircraft and pilots for preshot security sweeps, cloud sampling, cloud tracking, and aerial radiological surveys conducted for the NTO. During PLUMBBOB, AFSWC also conducted cloud penetration studies for the Weapons Effects Test Group to determine Air Force needs in monitoring the accumulation of radioactive contaminants on aircraft. Safetv Standards and Procedures Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII, the test groups, and AFSWC each developed its own organization and procedures for ensuring the radiological safety of its members based on the established criteria of the Atomic Energy Commission. The radiological safety plans were developed to minimize operational exposures to ionizing radiation. The safety of Desert Rock VII and VIII participants was the responsibility of the Desert Rock Exercise Director. A maximum radiation exposure limit of 5.0 roentgens in any six-month period was established for Desert Rock troops. Of this exposure, no more than 2.0 roentgens was to be from prompt radiation. Exposure limits for blast pressure and thermal radiation were also established. Based on exposure limits and mode of delivery, minimum distance criteria for positioning Desert Rock troops and observers were established. For a tower shot with a predicted maximum yield of about 10 kilotons, troops in the open were positioned at least 4,000 yards from ground zero. Troops in trenches at such a shot were positioned no closer than 2,600 yards from ground zero. Troops in armored vehicles were positioned no closer than 2,800 yards from ground zero. The Desert Rock Radiological Safety Section implemented procedures for Exercise Desert Rock during PLUMBBOB. The 50th Chemical Platoon supported the Radiological Safety Section by providing materials, equipment, and personnel. The Test Manager was responsible for the safety of all test group personnel at the Nevada Test Site during the operation. The radiological safety criteria for test group personnel was 3.0 roentgens for any 13-week period, and 5.0 roentgens for one calendar year. AFSWC pilots were subject to the same exposure limits as the test groups. radiological safety operations were performed for the Test Manager by AEC personnel. The Air Force Special Weapons Center implemented its own radiological safety procedures. Although the missions of Exercise Desert Rock, NTO, and AFSWC required different types of activities and separate radiation protection plans and staffs, many of the procedures were similar and were performed by two or more of the three radiological safety groups. These procedures included : l Orientation and training preparing radiological
Recommended publications
  • Warhead Development, Stockpiling, and Retirement

    Warhead Development, Stockpiling, and Retirement

    DO0 and DOE Aareements The most recent NWSMs include: Warhead Development, - QY 1979-81, approved by carter, 11 January 1978 Stockpiling, and Retirement fPD-26.1 [ru-:J, devlopment, stockpiling, and retirement of specific FY 1983-87, approved by Reagan, 17 March 1982 nuclear warheads This formal process is highly struc- INSDD-71, tured and includes seven distinct phases A number of kY 1983188, appmved by Reagan, I8 Novembe~ agreements between the DOD or DOE specify the respon- 1982 (NSDD-68). sibilities of the two agencies during these seven phases FY 1984-89, aonraved bv Rewan, 16 Februarv -. Two of the most important agreements date from 1953 1984 [NSDD-?I; * and 1983 The 1953 agreement-titled An Agrmment + FY 1985-90, approved by Reagan, mid-Eebmay Between the AEC and lhe LWD for the Development, Pro- 1985 fNSDD-?L and duction and Standardization of Atomic Weapons, and FY 1986-91, a'iproved by Reagan, 4 March 1986 - .. - - - .. dated 21 March 19534ivides responsiblities between the two departments As set forth in this Agreement the DOD is responst- Nuclear Weapons Development Guidance ble for the military characteristim, development priority, Biennially, the Defense Nuclear Agency prepares a suitability, and acceptability of nuclear weapons; cus- Nuclear Weapons Development Guidance [NWDG] doc- tody and maintenance of the stockpile; development and ument in coordination with DOE This states quaIitative pmduction of delivery systems and support equipment requirements for the devekopment of nuclear warheads for nuclear weapons; and the
  • Downloads of Technical Information

    Downloads of Technical Information

    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2018 Nuclear Spaces: Simulations of Nuclear Warfare in Film, by the Numbers, and on the Atomic Battlefield Donald J. Kinney Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES NUCLEAR SPACES: SIMULATIONS OF NUCLEAR WARFARE IN FILM, BY THE NUMBERS, AND ON THE ATOMIC BATTLEFIELD By DONALD J KINNEY A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2018 Donald J. Kinney defended this dissertation on October 15, 2018. The members of the supervisory committee were: Ronald E. Doel Professor Directing Dissertation Joseph R. Hellweg University Representative Jonathan A. Grant Committee Member Kristine C. Harper Committee Member Guenter Kurt Piehler Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii For Morgan, Nala, Sebastian, Eliza, John, James, and Annette, who all took their turns on watch as I worked. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee, Kris Harper, Jonathan Grant, Kurt Piehler, and Joseph Hellweg. I would especially like to thank Ron Doel, without whom none of this would have been possible. It has been a very long road since that afternoon in Powell's City of Books, but Ron made certain that I did not despair. Thank you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract..............................................................................................................................................................vii 1.
  • Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow and Transport Modeling – Approach and Example

    Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow and Transport Modeling – Approach and Example

    Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow and Transport Modeling – Approach and Example Bill Wilborn UGTA Activity Lead U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office Bob Andrews Navarro-INTERA December 12, 2014 Outline • Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) • Environmental Management (EM) mission at NNSS • Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) • UGTA strategy and approach • NNSS inventory • Example of UGTA strategy implementation at Yucca Flat • Summary ID 876 – December 2014 – Page 2 PageLog 2Title No. 2014-231Page 2 EM Mission at NNSS • Characterization and remediation activities at radioactive and non-radioactive contaminated sites – Activities focus on groundwater, soil, and onsite infrastructure contamination from historic nuclear testing • Low-level radioactive and hazardous waste management and disposal – National disposal facility for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Complex (Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site) • Environmental planning, compliance, and monitoring ID 876 – December 2014 – Page 3 PageLog 3Title No. 2014-231Page 3 FFACO • FFACO provides approach for DOE to develop and implement corrective actions under the regulatory authority and oversight of State of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) • Agreement for governing the process to identify, characterize, and implement corrective actions at historical sites used in the development, testing, and production of nuclear weapons • Tri-party agreement – NDEP, DOE, and U.S. Department of Defense ID 876 – December 2014 – Page 4 PageLog 4Title No. 2014-231Page 4 FFACO UGTA Strategy Assumptions 1. Groundwater technologies for removal or stabilization of subsurface radiological contamination are not cost-effective 2. Closure in place with monitoring and institutional controls is the only likely corrective action 3.
  • 148 Part 3—Adjudication

    148 Part 3—Adjudication

    § 2.8 38 CFR Ch. I (7–1–20 Edition) a brief summary of each recommenda- PART 3—ADJUDICATION tion for relief and its disposition. Prep- aration of the report shall be the re- Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, and sponsibility of the General Counsel. Dependency and Indemnity Com- (c) The authority to grant the equi- pensation table relief, referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, has not been GENERAL delegated and is reserved to the Sec- Sec. retary. Recommendation for the cor- 3.1 Definitions. rection of administrative error and for 3.2 Periods of war. appropriate equitable relief therefrom 3.3 Pension. 3.4 Compensation. will be submitted to the Secretary, 3.5 Dependency and indemnity compensa- through the General Counsel. Such rec- tion. ommendation may be initiated by the 3.6 Duty periods. head of the administration having re- 3.7 Individuals and groups considered to sponsibility for the benefit, or of any have performed active military, naval, or concerned staff office, or by the Chair- air service. man, Board of Veterans Appeals. When 3.10 Dependency and indemnity compensa- tion rate for a surviving spouse. a recommendation for relief under 3.11 Homicide. paragraph (a) or (b) of this section is 3.12 Character of discharge. initiated by the head of a staff office, 3.12a Minimum active-duty service require- or the Chairman, Board of Veterans ment. Appeals, the views of the head of the 3.13 Discharge to change status. administration having responsibility 3.14 Validity of enlistments. for the benefit will be obtained and 3.15 Computation of service.
  • The Manhattan Project John Kenneth Christopher Hunt a Thesis in The

    The Manhattan Project John Kenneth Christopher Hunt a Thesis in The

    The Manhattan Project John Kenneth Christopher Hunt A Thesis in The Department of English Presented in Partial Fulfllment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in English at Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada Dr. Darren Wershler, Project Supervisor April 2017 © John Kenneth Christopher Hunt 2017 1 2 ABSTRACT The Manhattan Project is a book of lyric poetry that chronicles the discovery of nuclear energy and its subsequent use as both a weapon and a fuel source. The book is grounded in the aesthetic positionality contained in scholar Joyelle McSweeney`s concept of the `necropastoral`, a liminal zone where disparate spaces, such as the classical `urban` and `pastoral`, become blurred. The Manhattan Project examines the enduring impossibility of sufciently responding to the continuing repercussions of the nuclear age and its post-nuclear contaminants through a kind of `resurrection` of lyric meditation, further mutated by both formal constraints and conceptual frameworks. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE ATOMS WE CLEAVE 8 II. THE ARMS RACE Below Oklo 14 Radioactivity 18 The World Set Free 20 Ideal Isotopes 22 Critical Mass 38 Thuringia 40 III. TRINITY 44 IV. GHOSTS OF LOS ALAMOS Valles Caldera 50 Industrial Complex 54 The Demon Core 56 V. MILITARY INCIDENTS Dull Swords 66 Broken Arrows 68 Bent Spear 72 Empty Quivers 73 Faded Giants 75 Nucflash 77 4 VI. RAIN OF RUIN Clear Skies 80 Testimony 84 Operation Epsilon 88 VII. CONTAMINATION Christmas Island 92 Plutonium Valley 94 The East Ural Reserve 96 The Argonne Incident 98 The Human Factor 100 The Elephant’s Foot 102 Caveat Clepta 109 Rising Water 110 VIII.
  • Locally Intruded by Late Mesozoic (@93 M.Y.BP) Plutonic Rocks Related Ti the Sierra Nevada Batholith

    Locally Intruded by Late Mesozoic (@93 M.Y.BP) Plutonic Rocks Related Ti the Sierra Nevada Batholith

    —-...--...——.—— LA-10428-MS ! CIC-14REPORT COLLECTION C3* Reproduction COPY :,;-.+Z;LJJ I .—.— .n.Tm—. Los Alamos Nationel Laboratory IS operated by the Unlverslty 01 California for the Uruted States Department of Energy undercontiact W-7405 .ENG-36. ,- ~.. ., . ,.. -. ,. .. .— - “- , . .,, i. ,, . .. ,.- . ... ,<.- . ...-;; . .: : . .. ,.:-” ,,,.,, , -; ,. ,. ., , .,-,. .N, u , ,,“~ : “,,; ,’...... .,, .!. ,,,.. , ., . .., .. ... # ,,.. .. ,,. .. ,. .- . “. ,, ‘..,.,.Nevada Test Site Field Trip (iuidebook .-, ,. ,. ,., , ..,,..,,“ :. .,,4,,d. .,}.., , .. “:.,-. ! ————. 1984 .--.—.. -:----s ● H.-: - -r., -. .,% .~hd.? I ..-.— —. .. — . .— —.— —...——— LosAlamosNationalLaboratory LosAllallT10sLosAlamos,NewMexico87545 k AffiitiveActlosa/Equdt)p@UOity fh@oyS?S This work was supported by the US Department of Energy, Waste Management Program/Nevada Operations Ofiiee and Los Alamos Weapons Development Pro- gram/Test Operations. Edited by Glenda Ponder, ESSDivision DISCLAIMER Thisreport waspreparedas an accountof work sponsoredby an agencyof the LhdtedStatesCoverrrment. Neitherthe UnitedStates Governmentnor any agencythereof, nor any of their employees,makesany warranty,expressor irnpIied,or assumesany Iegatliabilityor responsibilityfor the accuracy,wmpletenesa, or usefutncasof any information,apparatus,product, or processdisclosed,or representsthat i!ausewould not infringeprivatelyownedrights. Reference hereinto any specificcommercialproduct, process,or serviceby trade name,trademark,manufacturer,or otherwise,doesnot newaaarilywnatitute or Irssplyits
  • National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

    National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet

    NFS Form 10-900 QMB No. 10024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NATiOWAL This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Sedan Crater other names/site number Project Sedan 2. Location street & number Area 10 on the Nevada Test Site_____ _____ D not for publication city or town ___Mercury______________________________________ __________ XX vicinity state ______Nevada_______ code NV county ___Nye code 023 zip code 89023 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this Ixl nomination D request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property B meets D does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant _p.
  • Field Trip to Nevada Test Site

    Field Trip to Nevada Test Site

    £AftVV3&V6-t UNITED STATES -DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 FIELD TRIP TO NEVADA TEST SITE Prepared By U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-313 Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey for the Nevada Operations Office U.S, Energy Research and Development Administration (Agreement No. E(29-2)-474) and the Defense Nuclear Agency 1i This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey standards or nomenclature. CONTENTS Page Abstract…--------------------------------------------- I Introduction……--------------------------------- ------------ 1 Acknowledgments…------------------------------ 2 Generklized structural geology from Las Vegas to Mercury---- 2 Road log: Las Vegas to Mercury…--------------------------- 4 Road iog: Mercury to Sedan Crater-------------------------- 14 Stop No. 1--Mercury vicinity--------------------------- 14 Nevada Test Site geohydrology--overview----------- 17 Stop No. 2--Data Center--U.S. Geological Survey-------- 19 Stop No. 3--Volcanic rocks of the Nevada Test Site----- 21 Mercury water supply------------------------------ 26 Stop No. 4--Yucca Lake geology------------------------- 27 Yucca Lake hydrology…---------------------------- 30 Stop No. 5--Mine Mountain------------------------------ 31 Yucca Flat hydrology------------------------------ 34 Stop No. 6--Timber Mountain caldera-------------------- 36 Pahute Mesa hydrology ------------------------ 38 Hydraulic effects of explosions…------------------
  • Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2016 ATT-A-I Attachment A: Site Description

    Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2016 ATT-A-I Attachment A: Site Description

    DOE/NV/25946--3334-ATT A Environmental Report 2016 Attachment A: Site Description September 2017 National Nuclear Security Administration LLC National Security Technologies Vision • Service • Partnership A Message from the Manager The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) strives to achieve our missions in a safe, secure, sustainable, and environmentally responsible manner. Our staff, our contractor and laboratory partners, as well as other users of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) succeed through demonstrated teamwork, innovation, and continuous improvement. The NNSA/NFO presents this environmental report to summarize actions taken in 2016 to protect the environment and the public while achieving our mission goals. It is prepared for the public and our stakeholders in hopes that it is readily understandable and usable. It is a key component in our efforts to keep the public informed of environmental conditions at the NNSS and its support facilities in Las Vegas, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO ensures the validity and accuracy of the data contained in this report. We invite you to help us improve the usefulness and readability of this Environmental Report by providing your comments and concerns to Peter A. Sanders, ([email protected]). Steven J. Lawrence Nevada Field Office Manager DOE/NV/25946--3334-ATT A Environmental Report 2016 Attachment A: Site Description This report was prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office By: National Security Technologies, LLC Las Vegas, Nevada September 2017 Compiled by Cathy Wills, Editor Graphic Designer: Katina Loo Geographic Information System Specialist: Ashley Burns Work performed under contract number: DE-AC52-06NA25946 Attachment A: Site Description Table of Contents List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................
  • U.S. Atmospheric Nuclear Tests

    U.S. Atmospheric Nuclear Tests

    U.S. NUCLEAR TESTING FROM PROJECT TRINITY TO THE PLOWSHARE PROGRAM [From For the Record – A History of the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program, 1978-1986, by Abby A. Johnson, et al, Defense Nuclear Agency, DNA 6041F, 1986. The United States conducted Project TRINITY, the world's first nuclear detonation, in 1945. From 1946 to 1963, when the limited nuclear test ban treaty was signed, the U.S. conducted 18 atmospheric nuclear test series, identified below as operations, and a program of testing called PLOWSHARE. In addition, the U.S. staged safety experiments to determine the weapons' susceptibility to fission due to accidents in storage and transport. This chapter provides historical summaries of the tests, listed below in the order in which they occurred and are addressed: · Project TRINITY, 1945 (CONUS) · Operation CROSSROADS, 1946 (Oceanic) · Operation SANDSTONE, 1948 (Oceanic) · Operation RANGER, 1951 (CONUS) · Operation GREENHOUSE, 1951 (Oceanic) · Operation BUSTER-JANGLE, 1951 (CONUS) · Operation TUMBLER-SNAPPER, 1952 (CONUS) · Operation IVY, 1952 (Oceanic) · Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, 1953 (CONUS) · Operation CASTLE, 1954 (Oceanic) · Operation TEAPOT, 1955 (CONUS) · Operation WIGWAM, 1955 (Oceanic) · Operation REDWING, 1956 (Oceanic) · Operation PLUMBBOB, 1957 (CONUS) · Operation HARDTACK I, 1958 (Oceanic) · Operation ARGUS, 1958 (Oceanic) · Operation HARDTACK II, 1958 (CONUS) · Safety Experiments, 1955-1958 (CONUS) · Operation DOMINIC I, 1962 (Oceanic) · Operation DOMINIC II, 1962 (CONUS) · PLOWSHARE Program, 1961-1962 (CONUS). Most of the oceanic tests were conducted at the Pacific Proving Ground, which consisted principally of the Enewetak and Bikini Atolls in the northwestern Marshall Islands of the Pacific Ocean. The Marshall Islands are in the easternmost part of Micronesia.
  • Field Testing the Physical Proof of Design Principles

    Field Testing the Physical Proof of Design Principles

    Field Testing The Physical Proof of Design Principles by Bob Campbell, Ben Diven, John McDonald, Bill Ogle, and Tom Scolman edited by John McDonald or the past four decades, Los interplay of field testing and laboratory de- disguisedly an instrument of destruction, Alamos has performed full-scale sign is orchestrated to optimize device per- without hurting anyone? nuclear tests as part of the Labo- formance, to guarantee reliability, to analyze From the beginning, field testing of nu- F ratory’s nuclear weapons pro- design refinements and innovations, and to clear weapons has followed commonsense gram. The Trinity Test, the world’s first study new phenomena that can affect future guidelines that accord prudent and balanced man-made nuclear explosion, occurred July weapons. concern for operational and public safety, 16, 1945, on a 100-foot tower at the White The advent of versatile, high-capacity obtaining the maximum amount of Sands Bombing Range, New Mexico. The computers makes it possible to model the diagnostic information from the high-energy- actual shot location was about 55 miles behavior of nuclear weapons to a high degree density region near the point of explosion, northwest of Alamogordo, at the north end of similitude. However, subtle and im- and meeting the exacting demands of engi- of the desert known as Jornada del Muerto perfectly understood changes in design neering and logistics in distant (and some- which extends between the Rio Grande and parameters, such as small variations in mass, times hostile) environments. The extreme the San Andres Mountains. shape, or materials, have produced unex- boundaries of the arena of nuclear testing The actual detonation of a nuclear device pected results that were discovered only encompass tropical Pacific atolls and harsh is necessary to experimentally verify the through full-scale nuclear tests.
  • Field Trip to Nevada Test Site

    Field Trip to Nevada Test Site

    :~~~~~~~ **e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rr-;|.m@ call~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W~. , F:I':,W-XL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-_S : s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 i * FIELD TRIP TO NEVADA TEST SITE This field guide has been prepared for use during the trip from Las Vegas to the Nevada Test Site and the tour of the NTS. A brief discussion of major geologic structures between Las Vegas and Mercury is followed by a general discussion of the geology and hydrology of NTS. The remainder of the field guide covers geologic and hydrologic features of interest at the NTS. Most of the brief writeups are synthesized from selected published t 'Ip reports, administrative reports and from other unpublished data. 1 I' I, pJJ A C 'V. :e - Las Vegas to Mercury The Las Vegas Valley shear zone is expressed topographically by * -- the trough which extends parallel to U.S. Highway 95 from Las Vegas to Mercury, Nevada, a distance of about 55 miles. The amount and a direction of movement along this shear zone is estimated from S.-. * structural and stratigraphic evidence to be on the order of 15 to 40 miles; the movement is right lateral. The evidence for the movement is based upon the sharp bending of fold axes, traces of thrust faults, topographic trends, and facies boundaries in the vicinity of the shear zone. Most of the displacement on the Las Vegas shear zone may be taken up by structural bending in the Specter Range area at the north end of the shear zone. The move- ment may have taken place as early as the Jurassic and have been completed by early or middle Miocene time.