Aug. 30, 2010
“Classified” Incident May Have Released Toxic Gas on Huntington in the 1950s
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) - Having established a concern for an updated 21st Century radiation remediation inspection of the venue, the handwritten notes of a management employee denied compensation illustrate incidents that spread toxic materials in and possibly beyond the weapons processing plant in East Huntington.
When HNN first obtained these notes, the activities at the Huntington Pilot Plant location had not been as fully researched as now. For that reason, we “revisit” some of these incidents.
Keep in mind, the processing and recycling materials load into the Cold War atomic weapons plant had come from or was destined to one or more of the nation’ s gaseous diffusion plants.
Due to continued detailed findings and a March 22, 2010 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health proposal that the dosage received by those at the plant be INCREASED, the admittedly incomplete handwritten records do not state which of the radioactive metals or toxic residue was emitted. Yet, to return to the 1987 recommendation of no significant radiation related activities were conducted at the HPP, these incidents significantly contradict the lack of detailed reports on the processing and recycling at the plant.
The survivor’s daughter stated that her dad likely forgot he had these notes or they likely would have been destroyed. Specifically of interest , she believes these notes were kept of incidents and/or accidents at the plant. “The Atomic Energy Commission was always there after any kind of accident.” Further , during a 1957 strike, the daughter stated “jobs at RPP had special problems.”
At the same time, due to the classified nature (some items remain off limits), the “notes” by the supervisor refer to incidents 50-55 years ago. Due to a statement by the survivors daughter that members of the AEC always assembled at the plant after an accident or incident, it could be presumed a serious chemical release occurred. (Or, suspicions of espionage/sabotage, perhaps.)
Still, from analysis of documents related to groundwater discharges into the Scioto River at or near the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the documents state that the public believes a cancer increase occurred. However, due to the 10-20 year latency period for cancer, the peak, in Portsmouth, would have been in the 60s and 70s. Unfortunately, scientific studies related to cancer rates in that time frame have not been found for Portsmouth.
SETTING THE TONE
During the operational era of the Huntington Pilot (Reduction Pilot) Plant which recycled uranium from gaseous diffusion plants as part of the atomic weapons program, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were in a Cold War that “peaked” with the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was a period when instead of fearing terrorist attacks, families considered digging their own fallout shelter in the event of a nuclear strike on the U.S.
You may still find a yellow/black “Fallout Shelter” sign posted. The fallout was the radiation residue from the nuclear explosion that would have traveled by air, if a blast occurred. During the time period, the U.S. believed that it was imperative to have a larger and more potent stock of nuclear weapons than other nations. Ironically, the “stockpiles” were many times what would wipe out the full population of the planet if detonated.
During the era, films such as “On the Beach” warned of annihilation; “Panic in Year Zero” depicted one family’s odyssey to survive a Los Angeles blast; “Dr. Strangelove” mocked the sheer madness of having an amount of weapons to kill everyone hundreds of times; and, “The Last Man on Earth”: (a.k.a. “Omega Man”) was one of many films that depicted DNA mutated creatures that roamed the planet following nuclear warfare.
While films of that nature characterized warfare, others would examine the purported safety of using nuclear power to generate electricity. These films are representative of “China Syndrome” ( an accidental meltdown) and “Silkwood” (a worker victimized for publicizing safety gaps to higher ups at the risk of losing jobs).
AND, NOW, HUNTINGTON…
Interpretation of the “incidents” or “accidents” would require a physicist or chemist briefed on the state of atomic weapons plants during the 50s and 60s. Still, you will find it chilling and sobering to read that workers participated in the assembly of portions of the atomic weapons (Manhattan Project) process in the Eastern section of Huntington at a 4 story rusty looking building that had to be leveled , buried and sealed in Piketon, Ohio, to prevent further harm to the public and workers.
While worker who can prove their exposure to various atomic elements are eligible for government compensation, the secrecy of the projects place hurdles such as no records or inadequate records. Part of that secrecy was to prevent the public from learning about the hazards of radiation. The AEC wanted to build more atomic plants and if the early ones caused too much waste which killed people, their efforts to expand this technology would be hindered.
So it is. A group at Portsmouth continues fighting efforts of the Department of Energy to replace the PGDP with an allegedly safer atomic facility with high paying jobs. Yet, the description of smelting and recycling of waste from other nuclear power plants has a strong element of déjà vu. That’s the task of plants in the 50s and 60s, like the HPP, recycle the radioactive contaminants out of un-used weapons, so that valuable nickel and other minerals could be used again.
SOME HUNTINGTON INCIDENTS (as best we can make them out)
APRIL 17, 1955
“Employee dropped residue in mixer before connecting chute to mixer and consequently had a complete residue charge scattered from top to bottom of residue circuit.”
JANUARY 10, 1956
“Placed residue container which still contained residue from preceding (#6) reactor under succeeding reactor (#1). When residue from #1 reactor was dropped, it overfilled container and consequently dusted entire building. “ According to a further explanation, the residue of #6 had been dropped by the preceding shift (C) at “about shift change time” and they “had no opportunity to weigh and identify same.” The container should have been checked by above named employee before placement under the reactor.
APRIL 11, 1956
During the “bleeding” of pressure off #4 reactor prior to an apparent routine “blow out with inert” an employee [accidentally ] shut down a “circulator and external vent value on circulator dripped … oil from same. [The employee] did not close vent … after flushing… and as a result the reactor leaked down through an open and unlit (?) vent on the process building roof polluting the atmosphere with highly saturated and poisonous gas.”
Since at that time environmental laws had not been enacted and the accident involved secret atomic war materials, no report has been available as to what action was taken AFTER the April 11, 1956 incident.
UNDATED
In an incident involving the #4 reactor, …”practically an entire container of residue was blown out of the building…”
JUNE 20, 1962
A failure to “purge product cones with inert gas after dropping … resulted in several hours delay in recovery of product and also caused considerable anxiety in determining the seriousness of the CO4 leakage.
(Note: HNN has PDF’s of the incident, but to protect the privacy of the WRITER, we will make it available only upon request.)
It should be stated that the according to these records, after the man’s retirement he went back as a “consultant to dismantle the Reduction Pilot Plant.” The hand written notes state that he “did NOT wear a suit and tie” as this was “dirty hands on” work. The notation confirms that the dismantling covered the 1978-1979 period: “ Do not remember the exact dates, but was still doing this in 1979.”
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
“Classified” Incident May Have Released Toxic Gas on Huntington in the 1950s
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) - Having established a concern for an updated 21st Century radiation remediation inspection of the venue, the handwritten notes of a management employee denied compensation illustrate incidents that spread toxic materials in and possibly beyond the weapons processing plant in East Huntington.
When HNN first obtained these notes, the activities at the Huntington Pilot Plant location had not been as fully researched as now. For that reason, we “revisit” some of these incidents.
Keep in mind, the processing and recycling materials load into the Cold War atomic weapons plant had come from or was destined to one or more of the nation’ s gaseous diffusion plants.
Due to continued detailed findings and a March 22, 2010 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health proposal that the dosage received by those at the plant be INCREASED, the admittedly incomplete handwritten records do not state which of the radioactive metals or toxic residue was emitted. Yet, to return to the 1987 recommendation of no significant radiation related activities were conducted at the HPP, these incidents significantly contradict the lack of detailed reports on the processing and recycling at the plant.
The survivor’s daughter stated that her dad likely forgot he had these notes or they likely would have been destroyed. Specifically of interest , she believes these notes were kept of incidents and/or accidents at the plant. “The Atomic Energy Commission was always there after any kind of accident.” Further , during a 1957 strike, the daughter stated “jobs at RPP had special problems.”
At the same time, due to the classified nature (some items remain off limits), the “notes” by the supervisor refer to incidents 50-55 years ago. Due to a statement by the survivors daughter that members of the AEC always assembled at the plant after an accident or incident, it could be presumed a serious chemical release occurred. (Or, suspicions of espionage/sabotage, perhaps.)
Still, from analysis of documents related to groundwater discharges into the Scioto River at or near the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the documents state that the public believes a cancer increase occurred. However, due to the 10-20 year latency period for cancer, the peak, in Portsmouth, would have been in the 60s and 70s. Unfortunately, scientific studies related to cancer rates in that time frame have not been found for Portsmouth.
SETTING THE TONE
During the operational era of the Huntington Pilot (Reduction Pilot) Plant which recycled uranium from gaseous diffusion plants as part of the atomic weapons program, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were in a Cold War that “peaked” with the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was a period when instead of fearing terrorist attacks, families considered digging their own fallout shelter in the event of a nuclear strike on the U.S.
You may still find a yellow/black “Fallout Shelter” sign posted. The fallout was the radiation residue from the nuclear explosion that would have traveled by air, if a blast occurred. During the time period, the U.S. believed that it was imperative to have a larger and more potent stock of nuclear weapons than other nations. Ironically, the “stockpiles” were many times what would wipe out the full population of the planet if detonated.
During the era, films such as “On the Beach” warned of annihilation; “Panic in Year Zero” depicted one family’s odyssey to survive a Los Angeles blast; “Dr. Strangelove” mocked the sheer madness of having an amount of weapons to kill everyone hundreds of times; and, “The Last Man on Earth”: (a.k.a. “Omega Man”) was one of many films that depicted DNA mutated creatures that roamed the planet following nuclear warfare.
While films of that nature characterized warfare, others would examine the purported safety of using nuclear power to generate electricity. These films are representative of “China Syndrome” ( an accidental meltdown) and “Silkwood” (a worker victimized for publicizing safety gaps to higher ups at the risk of losing jobs).
AND, NOW, HUNTINGTON…
Interpretation of the “incidents” or “accidents” would require a physicist or chemist briefed on the state of atomic weapons plants during the 50s and 60s. Still, you will find it chilling and sobering to read that workers participated in the assembly of portions of the atomic weapons (Manhattan Project) process in the Eastern section of Huntington at a 4 story rusty looking building that had to be leveled , buried and sealed in Piketon, Ohio, to prevent further harm to the public and workers.
While worker who can prove their exposure to various atomic elements are eligible for government compensation, the secrecy of the projects place hurdles such as no records or inadequate records. Part of that secrecy was to prevent the public from learning about the hazards of radiation. The AEC wanted to build more atomic plants and if the early ones caused too much waste which killed people, their efforts to expand this technology would be hindered.
So it is. A group at Portsmouth continues fighting efforts of the Department of Energy to replace the PGDP with an allegedly safer atomic facility with high paying jobs. Yet, the description of smelting and recycling of waste from other nuclear power plants has a strong element of déjà vu. That’s the task of plants in the 50s and 60s, like the HPP, recycle the radioactive contaminants out of un-used weapons, so that valuable nickel and other minerals could be used again.
SOME HUNTINGTON INCIDENTS (as best we can make them out)
APRIL 17, 1955
“Employee dropped residue in mixer before connecting chute to mixer and consequently had a complete residue charge scattered from top to bottom of residue circuit.”
JANUARY 10, 1956
“Placed residue container which still contained residue from preceding (#6) reactor under succeeding reactor (#1). When residue from #1 reactor was dropped, it overfilled container and consequently dusted entire building. “ According to a further explanation, the residue of #6 had been dropped by the preceding shift (C) at “about shift change time” and they “had no opportunity to weigh and identify same.” The container should have been checked by above named employee before placement under the reactor.
APRIL 11, 1956
During the “bleeding” of pressure off #4 reactor prior to an apparent routine “blow out with inert” an employee [accidentally ] shut down a “circulator and external vent value on circulator dripped … oil from same. [The employee] did not close vent … after flushing… and as a result the reactor leaked down through an open and unlit (?) vent on the process building roof polluting the atmosphere with highly saturated and poisonous gas.”
Since at that time environmental laws had not been enacted and the accident involved secret atomic war materials, no report has been available as to what action was taken AFTER the April 11, 1956 incident.
UNDATED
In an incident involving the #4 reactor, …”practically an entire container of residue was blown out of the building…”
JUNE 20, 1962
A failure to “purge product cones with inert gas after dropping … resulted in several hours delay in recovery of product and also caused considerable anxiety in determining the seriousness of the CO4 leakage.
(Note: HNN has PDF’s of the incident, but to protect the privacy of the WRITER, we will make it available only upon request.)
It should be stated that the according to these records, after the man’s retirement he went back as a “consultant to dismantle the Reduction Pilot Plant.” The hand written notes state that he “did NOT wear a suit and tie” as this was “dirty hands on” work. The notation confirms that the dismantling covered the 1978-1979 period: “ Do not remember the exact dates, but was still doing this in 1979.”
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
