Rocky Flats SEC Petitioners' Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Rocky Flats SEC Petitioners' Presentation

on

  • 634 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
634
Views on SlideShare
517
Embed Views
117

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

4 Embeds 117

http://www.rockyflats.org.usrfiles.com 100
http://static.wix.com 10
http://static.usrfiles.com 6
http://htmlcomponentservice.appspot.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Rocky Flats SEC Petitioners' Presentation Presentation Transcript

  • 1. ROCKY FLATS SEC PETIONERS’ PRESENTATION TO THE ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH DENVER, CO SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
  • 2. ROCKY FLATS CIRCA 1989
  • 3. TRITIUM STRIPPING BLDG. 444 IN 1987 From: lopez, Theresa·· MFG [mailto:Theresa,Lopez@mfgenv,com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 2:26 PM To: rmeyer Jim Langstedi Little, Craig -- MFG Subject: New table 8-2 Importance: High I have significantly revised table 8-2 in response to Jim's concerns and have found a new source of info on the internet that may be a better source for Karin to use if she would like to expand this table. From www.rfets.gov, choose history and go to the HAER site. They have pictures of the buidings and a good history (click on "building history" under the building number). At this point, I think everyone has sent in comments so here is the new table, until you review it again! Theresa «Table 8-2 2006Mar21 update TKL.doc» Notes to Jim: They did not have any information of tritium stripping on building 444 except that it began in 1987, so I am not sure where we can get more information; I have found no references to building 664 anywhere - any ideas? I have nol added it to the table. http://www.eecap.org/PDF_Files/Colorado/Rocky_Flats/Miscellaneous/2006,_Oct._4_Rocky_Flats_ER_email_between_Jes sen,_Masterson.pdf
  • 4. TRITIUM PRODUCED AT ROCKY FLATS http://www.ambushedgrandjury.com/pdf/243-280.pdf “The decades of secrecy and cheating can mislead even well-intentioned and objectively conducted studies, and can result in mistakes in development of the clean-up plans for Rocky Flats. The tritium analyses reflected in the “Technical Summary Report for the Historical Public Exposures Studies for Rocky Flats Phase II,” Risk Assessment Corporation, September 1999, are an example. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen with a 12.5 year half-life that emits low energy beta particles as it decays. Tritiated water is its most common form when found in the environment. In the technical summary report, the dose reconstruction team estimated the dose to the public from tritium based on the assumption that there was no tritium production at Rocky Flats. This is what the team had been advised, and based on this information, Dr. Till, as principal Investigator, concluded that, “Tritium was not produced at the RFP, but it has been released accidentally from the RFP on several occasions during processing of tritium-contaminated scrap plutonium from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.” See, Technical Summary report, ibid. However, the information that Rocky Flats did not produce tritium is contradicted in a 7 June 1991 interview by Special Agent Lipsky with XXXX, a chemical engineer then recently retired from Rocky Flats after approximately 40 years. XXXX stated: “Due to the ongoing practice of conducting Classified projects at Rocky Flats, tritium was produced and disposed of at the plant, in the area of the 207 ponds.”
  • 5. TIGER TEAM REPORT “The quality assurance and quality control practices for radiochemistry analyses in the Building 123 HS&E Laboratory do not conform to generally accepted practices. Consequently, the laboratory cannot adequately verify the validity of analytical results. Among the deficiencies observed are: 10) The pipet calibration checks for the preparation of tritium samples are based on the transfer of multiple aliquots to a graduated cylinder. This is not an accurate method (RAD-36) Page 7-9 “Assessment of Environmental Conditions at the Rocky Flats Plant” August 1989 U.S. Department of Energy Special Assignment Environmental Team
  • 6. STACKER/RETRIEVER DOSE From: Mel Chew Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:33 PM To: Ulsh, Brant A. (CDC/NIOSH/OD) Cc: Bob Morris; Bryce, blsjrich, lrmeyer7@XXX, “little, Craig—MFG’ Subject: Stacker/retriever Brant, I finally got to look at your right up-. If you want to add that during loading and unloading of “materials in birdcages”, dose rates right up against the birdcages could have been as his as a couple of hundred mr/hr. This dose rate drops off very quickly as a relationship to where personnel are present. Only conceivable way he could have measured a 8R/hr field , is a very large Americium can. Did not happen very often And to add if you are standing working in a 8R/hr field you are not a very good RCTI!I Talk with you today soon. Mel http://www.eecap.org/PDF_Files/Colorado/Rocky_Flats/Dose/2006,_Aug._1_Stacker- retriever_email_between_Chew,_Ulsh.pdfrom: Ulsh,
  • 7. NUCLEAR RESIDUES REPACKING GLOVEBOX BUILDING 440 From the Project Incendiary Iconography: The Nuclear Legacy of the Cold War http://awthompsonphotography.com/
  • 8. DOL SEM PLUTONIUM IN 460, MAY 2009
  • 9. WHAT NIOSH KNEW ABOUT THORIUM STRIKES Ulsh, Brant A. (CDC/NIOSH/OD) [mailto:bau6@cdc.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:56 AM To: Mel ChewCc: Robert L. Morris (Home); Gene Potter; blsjrich; Robert Meyer; Craig Little; MARY FREIBERG Subject: Strikes Mel: The attached is a crib sheet of info I have collected on the Th strikes over the past several months. Here are some things to note: 1) The big strike occurred between April 25 and May 2, 1965. Presumably this corresponds to the dates in Ken's logbook, though I don't have any dates on the scans you sent me. This is also the strike described in (Kirchner and Freiberg, 1965- see attached for complete reference) . By the way, I don't see Kirchner's name anywhere in the pages you sent. Was he was involved in the process? Maybe he was just the author of the report but didn't do any hands-on work. Please ask Ken about it. 2) There was a Th strike on 8/23/65. 3) There was a U-233 project around 6/28/66 . A Th strike wasn't explicitly mentioned, but I am assuming one must have occurred with th is project? 4) There was another Th strike on 1/13/67. 5) There was another Th strike in 1976-77. 6) The document by R. L. Moment states "U-233 processing began in Building 771 where the uranyl nitrate solution was transferred to receiving tanks. Fluoride precipitation was then used to remove the ""hot"" (highly radioactive) daughter products (primarily Th-228), and the uranium was converted to peroxide." Did the strikes happen in 771 , or in 881? If I parse the Moment document closely, it could be interpreted to mean that the step that occurred in 771 was the transfer of the uranyl nitrate to receiving tanks and the following steps (precipitation, or the "strike" part of the process) occurred in881 . Please verify with Ken where the strike happened (771 or 881 ). I don't want to use air data for the wrong place. It would be worthwhile to ask Rod if he has Ken's logbooks corresponding to the dates of the other strikes. If there is anything in them about the other strikes, we should try to get and redact the appropriate pages.. I realize this cannot be done by Thursday, but let's set the process in motion. Call me to discuss. Thanks, http://www.eecap.org/PDF_Files/Colorado/Rocky_Flats/Thorium_FOIA_Emails/2007,_May_15_Thorium_Strikes_email_between_Chew,_Ulsh.pdf
  • 10. WHAT NIOSH TOLD THE BOARD ON THORIUM Folks: Ulsh, Brant A. (CDC/NIOSH/OD) Friday, May 25, 2007 2:28 PM Wade, Lewis (CDC/NIOSH/OD); Elliott, Larry J. (CDC/NIOSH/OD); Neton, Jim (CDC/NIOSH/OD) Rocky conference call I just got off the phone with Mark Griffon , John Mauro, and Joe Fitzgerald. Here is the outcome of the call:(1) Arjun and Ron Buchanan are the principal authors of SC&A's report, which is expected to be sent for PA review on June 1 (2) They asked three questions about thorium(a) What about additional Th strikes other than the one we considered in 1965? I told them there was one other one January 13, 1967, but the one we considered was bounding (it was the biggest). (b) What about other small sources? I gave them evidence that these were "laboratory sources". Mark indicated that the Board had accepted NUREG-1400 for these types of operations. There was weak buy-in from Joe and John, but I am not at all confident this will hold once it reaches Arjun.(c) Mg-Th alloy. They still consider this an open issue, but raised the possibility of material going to Rocky Mountain Arsenal. I was quite surprised that they knew about this, as it is something I have been pursuing for some time now. However, I didn't want to go public with this theory before I had an airtight case. Mark requested that I run this idea by (the worker from Dow Madison). Mark also indicated that he would turn to me to talk about this at the Board meeting. They asked no questions about neutrons or about Bldg 881 , though I am hesitant to draw any conclusions from that. As usual, they were vague about what their report will say. My qualitative impression is that SCA will raise questions about thorium at least. I didn't get a chance to ask Mark about the idea of me talking at the Board meeting about changes that have been made as a result of the WG deliberations, as Mark had to exit the call early. Have a good weekend . Brant http://www.eecap.org/PDF_Files/Colorado/Rocky_Flats/Thorium_FOIA_Emails/2007,_May_25_Rocky_conference_call_email_between_Ulsh,_Wade.pdf
  • 11. NEPTUNIUM, LANL AND ROCKY FLATS NIOSH Evaluation Report SEC-00109, Rev. 1 08-13-12 LANL 52 of 98 Neptunium-237 Neptunium-237 was not a commonly-used radionuclide at LANL. There is, however, evidence of periodic operations involving its use prior to 1975 and continuing to at least 2002. Although LANL maintains the ready ability for targeted in vitro measurements (LANL, 2008), bioassay data are generally unavailable. In the initial (Rev. 0) SEC-00109 Evaluation Report, NIOSH proposed that, in the absence of bioassay data, intakes of Np-237 could be bound using co-worker data for Pu-239, as described earlier in this section. At the time of this writing, NIOSH has been unable to satisfactorily demonstrate that this proposed methodology would adequately bound intakes of Np-237 for unmonitored workers. NIOSH will continue to evaluate this issue for the post-1995 period, and for purposes of performing partial dose reconstructions for earlier years.
  • 12. NEPTUNIUM MATERIAL BALANCE Page 54, Summary of Rocky Flats Plant Waste Buried in the Subsurface Disposal Area – Edward Vejvoda April 2005
  • 13. NEPTUNIUM INVENTORIES Page 54, Summary of Rocky Flats Plant Waste Buried in the Subsurface Disposal Area – Ed Vejvoda April 2005
  • 14. PRODUCTION SCALE PLUTONIUM-NEPTUNIUM SEPARATION AND RESIDUE RECOVERY AT ROCKY FLATS PLANT Production-Scale Plutonium-Neptunium Separation and Residue Recovery at Rocky Flats Plant. Rockwell International, Golden, CO. Rocky Flats Plant. ProductType: Technical report NTIS Order Number: DE87013420 Please select a media type! $33.00-Print on Demand Page Count: 6 pages Date:May 1987 Author:L. L. Martella R. H. Guyer W. C. Leak R. L. Thomas An anion exchange process to recover plutonium from plutonium - 0.5% neptunium residues has been investigated on a production scale. The plutonium was effectively recovered and separated from neptunium using Rohm and Haas Amberlite IRA-938 (20 to 50 mesh) ... Report Number:RFP-4030