DOCSLIB.ORG

Portsmouth Waste Disposition Record of Decision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Portsmouth Waste Disposition Record of Decision Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office '1017 Majestic Drive, Suite 200 Lexington, Kentucky 4051 3 (859) 21e-4000 JUN 3 0 2015 Ms. Maria Galanti PPPO-O3-3018616-15 Site Coordinator Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Southeast District Office 2195 Front Street Logan, Ohio 43138 Dear Ms. Galanti: FINAL RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE SITE.WIDE \ryASTE DISPOSITION EVALUATION PROJECT AT THE PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT (DOE/PPPO/03-0s 13&D2) References: 1. Letter from W. Murphie to M. Galanti, "Record of Decision for the Site-wide Waste Disposition Evaluation Project at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (DOE/PPPO/03 -0 5 13 &D2)," (PPPO-O3 - 3 003 5 62- 15 ), dated J une 22, 20 I 5 2, Letter from C. Butler to K. Wiehle and J. Bradburne, "Ohio EPA Concurrence/Approval as Applicable on the Record of Decision for the Site-Wide Waste Disposition Evaluation Project," dated June 30, 2015 Enclosed please find the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) ftnal Record of Decisionþr the Site-wide lMaste Disposition Evaluation Project at the Portsmouth Gaseous Dffision Plant (DOE/PPPO/03-05138.D2) (WD ROD) for your records. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) was provided with the draft WD ROD, which Ohio EPA concuned and approved, as applicable, in the letter dated June 30, 2015. The enclosed WD ROD is the final version and has been signed by Mr. William E. Murphie, Manager of the Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office. This document was prepared in accordance with The April I3, 2010 Director's Final Findings and Orders þr Removol Action ond Remediol Inttestigcttion and Feasibi!í4, Studi, and Remedial Design and Remedial Action, includíng the July 16, 2012 Modffication thereto. Ohio EPA's engagement and participation in early discussion and draft document reviews was a tremendous benefit to the project and DOE appreciates your cooperation. a Ms. Galanti - l,- PPPO-03-3018616-15 If you have auy questions or require additional inforrnation, please contact Kristi Wiehle of my staff at (740) 897-5020. Vincent Adams Portsmouth Site Director Poft smouth/Paducah Proj ect Office Enclosure: Final Record of Decision for the Site-wide Waste Disposition Evaluation Project at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (DOE/PPPO/O 3 - 0 5 ß eD2) cc w/enclosure: Wi [email protected]. gov, PPPO/LEX [email protected]. gov, PPPO/PORTS [email protected]. gov, PPPO/LEX Amy. [email protected]. gov, PPPO/PORTS [email protected]. gov, PPPO/PORTS [email protected]. gov, PPPO/PORTS Jason. [email protected]. gov, PPPO/LEX Randy.Tonney@emcbc. doe. gov, EMCBC Kristi. Wiehle@l ex.doe. gov, PPPO/PORTS [email protected]. gov, EM- I 3 [email protected]. gov, EM-12 [email protected], Ohio EPA [email protected], Ohio EPA [email protected]. gov, Ohio EPA [email protected]. gov, Ohio EPA [email protected], Ohio EPA [email protected], Ohio EPA [email protected], RSI/PORTS [email protected]. gov, RSVPORTS [email protected]. com, FRP/POR TS Jyh-Dong. Chiou@fbports. com, FBP/PORTS Marc. Jewett@fbports. corÌr, FBP/PORTS ETS. [email protected]. gov [email protected] (DFF&O WD AR File) RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE SITE-WIDE WASTE DISPOSITION EVALUATION PROJECT AT THE PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT, PIKETON, OHIO U.S. Department of Energy DOE/PPPO/03-0513&D2 June 2015 This document is approved for public release per review by: Sam Eldridge (signature on file) 04-02-2015 PORTS Classification Office/Export Controlled Information Officer Date This page is intentionally left blank. RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE SITE-WIDE WASTE DISPOSITION EVALUATION PROJECT AT THE PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT, PIKETON, OHIO U.S. Department of Energy DOE/PPPO/03-0513&D2 June 2015 Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Prepared by Fluor-B&W Portsmouth LLC, Under Contract DE-AC30-10CC40017 FBP-ER-RIFS-WD-RPT-0041, Revision 7 This page is intentionally left blank. DOE/PPPO/03-0513&D2 FBP-ER-RIFS-WD-RPT-0041 Revision 7 June 2015 CONTENTS Page FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................... iii TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... iii ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................ v PART 1. DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 PART 2. DECISION SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 2-1 1. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... 2-3 2. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ............................................................. 2-6 3. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................. 2-8 4. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION .......................................................................... 2-9 5. SITE CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................................... 2-10 5.1 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ........................................................................ 2-10 5.2 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 2-11 5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 2-11 5.4 NATURAL RESOURCES/ECOLOGY ........................................................................ 2-11 5.5 CONTAMINATION ..................................................................................................... 2-12 5.6 PROJECT WASTE VOLUMES AND WASTE FORMS ............................................. 2-12 6. CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND AND RESOURCE USES........................... 2-12 7. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS .................................................................................................... 2-13 7.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 2-13 7.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 2-15 8. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 2-16 9. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES...................................................................................... 2-17 9.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ............................................................................... 2-17 9.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – ON-SITE DISPOSAL/OFF-SITE DISPOSAL ........................... 2-17 9.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 – OFF-SITE DISPOSAL ................................................................ 2-20 10. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES .................................. 2-21 10.1 CERCLA CRITERIA .................................................................................................... 2-21 10.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment ................................ 2-21 10.1.2 Compliance with ARARs/TBCs .................................................................... 2-21 10.1.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence .................................................... 2-22 10.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment .................. 2-23 10.1.5 Short-term Effectiveness ............................................................................... 2-23 10.1.6 Implementability ............................................................................................ 2-25 10.1.7 Cost ................................................................................................................ 2-26 10.1.8 State Acceptance ........................................................................................... 2-26 10.1.9 Community Acceptance ................................................................................ 2-26 10.2 OTHER CRITERIA EVALUATION ............................................................................ 2-27 10.2.1 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................. 2-27 10.2.2 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Values ..................................... 2-27 10.3 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS .......................................................... 2-28 i FBP/WD ROD D2 R7 MASTER/6/23/2015 6:20 AM DOE/PPPO/03-0513&D2 FBP-ER-RIFS-WD-RPT-0041 Revision 7 June 2015 Page 11. PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTES .............................................................................................. 2-29 12. SELECTED REMEDY ............................................................................................................... 2-30 12.1 SUMMARY OF THE RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTED REMEDY .................... 2-30 12.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY ........................................................ 2-31 12.3 SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED REMEDY COSTS ............................................. 2-41 12.4 EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THE SELECTED REMEDY ...................................... 2-43 13. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................ 2-43 13.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Behaviour of Polytetrafluoroethylene at High Pressure
    THE BEHAVIOUR OF POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE AT HIGH PRESSURE by Haroun Mahgerefteh A dissertation submitted to the University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology, Imperial College, London SW7 2BY. October 1984 If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties. Robin Hyman TO MY PARENTS PREFACE This dissertation is a description of the work carried out in the Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology, Imperial College, London between October 1981 and October 1984. Except where acknowledged, the material presented is the original work of the author and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration, and no part of it has been submitted for a degree at any other Univer­ sity. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Brian Briscoe for his excellent super­ vision during the course of my research. His help and guidance have been invaluable. It has been a pleasure to receive the help of many members of the Department, in particular Messrs. D. Wood and M. Dix of Electronics and Mr. B. Lucas of the Workshop. The help and support from all the members of my family especially my sister Deborah have been invaluable. I also thank Mrs. Joyce Burberry for patiently typing the manuscript. I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Science and Engineering Research Council and Imperial Chemical Industries PLC for the provision of a CASE studentship. Imperial College, H. Margerefteh
    [Show full text]
  • Laser Isotope Separation (LIS), Technical and Economic
    NASA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM A STATUS OF PROGRESS FOR THL LASER lsofopE SEPARATION (11 SI PROCESS +tear 1976 NASA George C. Mdr~bdlSpace Flight Center Marshdl Space Fb$t Center, Alabama lLSFC - Form 3190 (Rev June 1971) REPORT STANDARD TITLE PACE I nEPMTn0. 3. RECIPIENT*$ CATILOC NO. NASA TM X-73345 10 TITLE UO SUTlTLt IS. REPORT DATE I September A st.tUaof for Iaser isotOpe &paratian lS76 I Progress the (LIS) 6 PERFWYIIIG WGUIZATIO* CQOE George C. M8ralmll!3gam Flight Center I 1. COUTRUT OR am yo. I MarW Flight Center, Alabama 35812 Tecbnid Memormdum National Aemutics and Space Administration Washingtan, D.C. 20546 I I Prepared by Systems Aaalysis and Integration Iaboratory, Science and Engineering An overview of the various categories of the LE3 methodology is given together with illustrations showing a simplified version of the LIS tecbnique, an example of the two-phoiin photoionization category, and a diagram depicting how the energy levels of various isdope influence the LIS process. A&icatlons have been proposed for the LIS system which, in addition to the use to enrich uranium, could in themselves develop into programs of tremendous scope and breadth. Such applications as treatment of radioac '--ewastes from light-water nKzlear reactors, enriching the deuterlum isotope to make heavv-water, and enrlchhg tik light isotopes of such 17 KEt WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 5ECUQlTY CLASSIF. Ff thh PI*) 21 NO. OF PAbFS 22 PRICE Unclassified Unclassified I 20 NTIS PREFACE Since the publication of t& first Techid hiemomxitun (TM X-64947) on the Laser hotope Separation (LE)process in May 1975 [l], there bbeen a virtual explosion of available information on this process.
    [Show full text]
  • NNSA Should Clarify Long-Term Uranium Enrichment Mission Needs and Improve Technology Cost Estimates
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees February 2018 NUCLEAR WEAPONS NNSA Should Clarify Long-Term Uranium Enrichment Mission Needs and Improve Technology Cost Estimates GAO-18-126 February 2018 NUCLEAR WEAPONS NNSA Should Clarify Long-Term Uranium Enrichment Mission Needs and Improve Technology Cost Highlights of GAO-18-126, a report to Estimates congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found NNSA has several mission needs for The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized enriched uranium, including providing agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), is taking or plans to take four LEU to fuel a nuclear reactor that actions to extend inventories of low-enriched uranium (LEU) that is unobligated, produces tritium—a key isotope used or carries no promises or peaceful use to foreign trade partners until about 2038 in nuclear weapons. NNSA has a to 2041. Two of the actions involve preserving supplies of LEU, and the other pressing defense need for unobligated two involve diluting highly enriched uranium (HEU) with lower enriched forms of LEU to fuel this reactor, meaning the uranium to produce LEU. GAO reviewed these actions and found the actual uranium, technology and equipment costs and schedules for those taken to date generally align with estimates. used to produce the LEU, must be U.S. NNSA and GAO have identified risks associated with two of these actions. One in origin. Because the United States of these risks has been resolved; NNSA is taking steps to mitigate another, while lost its only source of unobligated LEU production in 2013, the supply is finite.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Perspective for Uranium Enrichment
    SIDEBAR 1: Economic Perspective for Uranium Enrichment he future demand for enriched are the customary measure of the effort uranium to fuel nuclear power required to produce, from a feed material plants is uncertain, Estimates of with a fried concentration of the desired T this demand depend on assump- isotope, a specified amount of product en- tions concerning projections of total electric riched to a specified concentration and tails, power demand, financial considerations, and or wastes, depleted to a specified concentra- government policies. The U.S. Department tion. For example, from feed material with a of Energy recently estimated that between uranium-235 concentration of 0.7 per cent now and the end of this century the gener- (the naturally occurring concentration), ation of nuclear power, and hence the need production of a kilogram of uranium enrich- for enriched uranium, will increase by a ed to about 3 per cent (the concentration factor of 2 to 3 both here and abroad. Sale of suitable for light-water reactor fuel) with tails enriched uranium to satisfy this increased depleted to 0.2 per cent requires about 4.3 demand can represent an important source SWU. of revenue for the United States, Through Gaseous diffusion is based on the greater fiscal year 1980 our cumulative revenues rate of diffusion through a porous barrier of from such sales amounted to over 7 billion the lighter component of a compressed dollars, and until recently foreign sales ac- gaseous mixture. For uranium enrichment counted for a major portion of this revenue. the gaseous mixture consists of uranium The sole source of enriched uranium until hexafluoride molecules containing 23$ 1974, the United States now supplies only uranium-235 ( UF6) or uranium-238 238 about 30 per cent of foreign demand, New ( UF6).
    [Show full text]
  • Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Is Defined As Uranium That Has Been Enriched to 20 Percent Or Greater in the Uranium-235 Isotope
    - DRAFT U.S. DEPARTMENTOF ENERGY NATIONALNUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICEOF THE DEPUTYADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSEPROGRAMS OFFICIAL USE ONLY - DRAFT - DRAFT U.S. DEPARTMENTOF ENERGY NATIONALNUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICEOF THE DEPUTYADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSEPROGRAMS JANUARY200 1 - DRAFT - DRAFT Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is defined as uranium that has been enriched to 20 percent or greater in the uranium-235 isotope. All HEU is considered to be weapons-usable. HEU comes in different forms, including metals, oxides, solutions, reactor fuel, and irradiated spent nuclear fuel. Pictured above is a metal disk or "button" of HEU. - DRAFT - DRAFT .TABLE OF CONTENTS YL..*--~-*..~~.. -- - &*. +"-. w-~P~zF~zr~--~-"?wa~..=-&..m~w-=..L " EXECUTIVESUMMARY ...................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................. 1 U.S. HEU INVENTORY...................................................................................................... 2 MATERIALBALANCE .......................................................................................................... 3 NEWLYDECLASSIFIED INFORMATION ........................................................................................ 3 CORRECTIONSTO PREVIOUSLY RELEASED DATA ........................................................................ 3 SECTION2 = URANIUMPRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION........................................... 21 OVERVIEWOF
    [Show full text]
  • An Access-Dictionary of Internationalist High Tech Latinate English
    An Access-Dictionary of Internationalist High Tech Latinate English Excerpted from Word Power, Public Speaking Confidence, and Dictionary-Based Learning, Copyright © 2007 by Robert Oliphant, columnist, Education News Author of The Latin-Old English Glossary in British Museum MS 3376 (Mouton, 1966) and A Piano for Mrs. Cimino (Prentice Hall, 1980) INTRODUCTION Strictly speaking, this is simply a list of technical terms: 30,680 of them presented in an alphabetical sequence of 52 professional subject fields ranging from Aeronautics to Zoology. Practically considered, though, every item on the list can be quickly accessed in the Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (RHU), updated second edition of 2007, or in its CD – ROM WordGenius® version. So what’s here is actually an in-depth learning tool for mastering the basic vocabularies of what today can fairly be called American-Pronunciation Internationalist High Tech Latinate English. Dictionary authority. This list, by virtue of its dictionary link, has far more authority than a conventional professional-subject glossary, even the one offered online by the University of Maryland Medical Center. American dictionaries, after all, have always assigned their technical terms to professional experts in specific fields, identified those experts in print, and in effect held them responsible for the accuracy and comprehensiveness of each entry. Even more important, the entries themselves offer learners a complete sketch of each target word (headword). Memorization. For professionals, memorization is a basic career requirement. Any physician will tell you how much of it is called for in medical school and how hard it is, thanks to thousands of strange, exotic shapes like <myocardium> that have to be taken apart in the mind and reassembled like pieces of an unpronounceable jigsaw puzzle.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gaseous Diffusion Process
    The Gaseous Diffusion Process The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, built in 1953-1954, produces enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) for commercial power reactors. In the past highly enriched uranium hexafluoride 235 was produced for the U.S. Navy. Enriched UF6 is material that contains the isotope U in assays (concentrations) greater than 0.711 weight percent. Commercial power plants currently use uranium enriched to the 3 to 5 percent range. The plant is capable of producing a range of U235 assays from 0.2% to over 97%. In late 1991, the equipment that produced high assay uranium was taken off line and placed in long term shutdown. High assay material that was declared excess by the US Navy and Department of Energy was fed into the cascade and blended down to the assays used by commercial power plants. This refeed project was completed in July 1998. It is possible that other high assay material will be declared excess in the future and would possibly be blended down at PORTS. It is also possible that high assay production could be resumed in the future. The plant's certification under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) limits the maximum assay to 10%. Enrichment is accomplished using gaseous diffusion technology as the name implies. The gaseous diffusion cascade consists of many stages of equipment connected in series, i.e., in a cascade arrangement. Each stage consists of an electric motor, a compressor, and a converter which contains 235 a porous membrane through which the lighter U F6 diffuses at a slightly faster rate than the heavier 238 U F6.
    [Show full text]
  • Actinide Series
    20-Mar-20 Lecture 6-8 ACTINIDE SERIES (5f- elements) 4th year (Micro/Chem- Botany/Chem and Biochemistry) 18 Occurrence and Preparation of the Elements • Ac, Th, Pa, U are naturally occur • All known isotopes of all actinide metals are radioactive. • Thorium (Th) occurs in monazite sands, which are up to 20% ThO2. • Chemically it can be prepared from thermal decomposition of the iodide (de Boer process): ThI4 → Th + 2I2 • Uranium (U) occurs (at about 0.1%) in uraninite ores as U3O8, and carnotite as K2(UO2)2(VO4)2·3H2O. 19 1 20-Mar-20 Occurrence and Preparation of the Elements • The transuranic elements must all be prepared artificially. • About 1200 tonnes of plutonium (Pu) have been produced worldwide in reactors! 20 Actinide Metals Preparation • Reduction of AnF3 or AnF4 with vapors of Li, Mg, Ca or Ba at 1100 - 1400°C • Chlorides and oxides can be similarly reduced. Example: • Am can be Chemically prepared by reduction of AmF3 with Ba: 3Ba(g) + 2AmF3 → 3BaF2 + 2Am • Or by reduction of americium oxide with lanthanum (La) at 1200oC: Am2O3 + 2La → La2O3 + 2Am 21 2 20-Mar-20 Chemical reactivity of Actinides • Actinides are Highly reactive metals, especially when finely divided. • Typically react with: • air → tarnishing • boiling water or dilute acid → releasing Hydrogen • most non-metals in direct combination • Alkalies have no effect. 22 Oxides and hydroxides • Some actinides can exists in several oxide forms such as An2O3, AnO2, An2O5 and AnO3. • For all actinides, oxides AnO3 are amphoteric and An2O3, AnO2 and An2O5 are basic, they easily react with water, forming bases: An2O3 + 3 H2O → 2 An(OH)3.
    [Show full text]
  • Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Spill Report 9-1 Underground Storage Tanks (Usts) 9-1
    ES/ESH-50 POEF-3050 PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT ANNUAL SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR 1993 Project director F. C. Kornegay Project coordinator D. C. West Technical coordinator S. C. Newman Coordinating editor C. M. Horak Date Published: November 1994 Prepared by Environmental, Safety, and Health Compliance and Environmental Management staffs MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6285 and the Environmental Control Department Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. P.O. Box 628 P^OMo 45661 |„ftT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY If i§ Ofm under contract No. DE-AC05-84OR21400 «t?3ff" & %M M ^ ^ and MARTIN MARIETTA UTILITY SERVICES, INC. for the UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION under contract No. DE-AC05-76OR00001 ^-^a*11^-'^ DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products.
    [Show full text]
  • Mining, Milling, Conversion, and Enrichment of Uranium Ores
    MINING, MILLING, CONVERSION, AND ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM ORES Presented by Lisa Loden Export Control Implementation Global Nuclear Security Technology Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Based on the slides of the late Dr. Clarence J. Hardy Past President Pacific Nuclear Council Secretary, Australian Nuclear Association Managing Director, Nuclear Fuel Australia Ltd July 19, 2011 Uranium Background Key points over 150 years •1789 – Uranium was discovered by Klaproth in Germany and named after the planet Uranus recently discovered by Herschel. •1896 – Professor Becquerel in Paris discovered radioactivity in uranium minerals; radium was then discovered by Mme. Curie in Paris. •1910 – Dr. Soddy in Cambridge, UK, proposed “isotopes” for atoms with different atomic weights but identical chemical properties. •1913 – Professor Thomson at Cambridge showed neon had “isotopes,” and, therefore, other elements were likely to have them, too. •1932 – Dr. Chadwick at Cambridge discovered the neutron. •1935 – Dr. Dempster in Chicago showed uranium contained 0.7% of uranium-235 and the rest was uranium-238. Uranium structure was shown to be 92 p and 146 n in U-238; 92 p and 143 n in U-235. Background to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle •1939 – Discovery of fission of uranium by Hahn and Strassman in Germany with extra neutrons released gave rise to the possibility of a chain reaction. •1939–1942 – Concept of an atomic bomb was developed in UK, U.S., and Germany. •1942 – Start of the Manhattan Project and the need for the nuclear fuel cycle with uranium ore processing, uranium enrichment, plutonium production, etc. •1942 – Chemical and physical separation processes became very important for the production of large amounts of uranium-235 and plutonium.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Annual Report
    2018 Annual Report UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 Commission file number 1-14287 Centrus Energy Corp. Delaware 52-2107911 (State of incorporation) (IRS Employer Identification No.) 6901 Rockledge Drive, Suite 800, Bethesda, Maryland 20817 (301) 564-3200 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Class A Common Stock, par value $0.10 per share NYSE American Rights to purchase Series A Participating Cumulative Preferred Stock, par value $1.00 per share NYSE American Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes . No Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes . No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).
    [Show full text]
  • An Atomic History Chapter 2
    An Atomic History 0-3 8/11/02 7:31 AM Page 18 Chapter Two 19 THE FERMI-SZILARD PILE AND URANIUM RESEARCH The first government funding for nuclear research was allocated to purchase graphite and uranium oxide for the chain reaction experiments being organized by Fermi and World War II and the Manhattan Project Szilard at Columbia University in February 1940.2 This work, which began in New York 2 City, soon spread to Princeton, the University of Chicago, and research institutions in California.3 Even at this stage, the scientists knew that a chain reaction would need three major components in the right combination: fuel, moderator, and coolant. The fuel would contain the fissile material needed to support the fission process. The neutrons generated by the fission process had to be slowed by the moderator so that they could initiate addi- tional fission reactions. The heat that resulted from this process had to be removed by the coolant. Fermi’s initial research explored the possibility of a chain reaction with natural urani- The 1930s were a time of rapid progress in the development of nuclear physics. um. It was quickly determined that high-purity graphite served as the best neutron moder- Research accelerated in the early years of the Second World War, when new developments ator out of the materials then available.4 After extensive tests throughout 1940 and early were conceived and implemented in the midst of increasing wartime urgency. American 1941, Fermi and Szilard set up the first blocks of graphite at Columbia University in government interest in these developments was limited at first, but increased as the war September 1941.
    [Show full text]