Dec. 9, 2010
Huntington Uranium Document Suggests Wider Usage of Atomic Plant
Presence of Radioactive Fluorides
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – A 2005 Huntington Pilot Plant worker medical summary hints that the structure remained in some type of operation beyond its official 1962 shut down date and that residual radiation between the 1962 “cold stand by” and 1978-1979 demolition was not documented.
Table One of the report states an assumption of exposure “stopping when AEC (Atomic Energy Commission ) operations creased” had been made, but “this does not appear to be the case.” The medical report deficiently did not address “external exposure to residual contamination following the conclusion of nickel handling and processing operations.”
In fact, the revised report refers to a 2004 file that this employee continued working at the contaminated plant after its official “cold standby” status by the AEC. The site remained on the East Huntington INCO venue from 1962-1978, when dismantling began. However, the specific employee continued working at the HPP/RPP until 1972.
“The Technical Basis Document indicates that exposures terminated after AEC nickel processing operations ceased in 1963 , and no additional intake occurred between 1963 and when the employee stopped worked in 1972. As indicated by (redacted file #) the employee continued to work at the HPP…”
But, apparently, no residual radiation tests were taken during the “cold stand by” period. The 2005 document refers only to an Oak Ridge Universities re-test of various portions of the demolished site completed in 1981.
“External gamma readings were obtained in 1981, which was several years after AEC operations ceased and after decontamination of the facility took place in 1978,” the report said. It continues, “ the use of 1981 survey data for determining exposures to deposited radioactivity during operations is highly questionable… one approach may be to obtain data on the surface contamination of nickel dust at other nickel melting operations… There is no reason to believe the highest air exposure rate observed post-decontamination bears any relationship to the exposure rate prior to decontamination.”
The document confirms , in part, statements by various former workers that activities of some kind continued in the contaminated HPP/RPP during its ‘cold stand by’ period.
Prepared by project manager Dr. John Mauro, a world recognized nuclear radiation expert, he determined that the nickel scrap from received in Huntington from the diffusion plants was contaminated with more than uranium isotopes. “Various literature documented that nickel scrap generated in the same time frame was contaminated with isotopes of Pu-239, Np-237 , U-236 and Tc-99.” The contamination came from “reprocessed uranium feed shipped to the K-25 (plant at Oak Ridge) that had come from plutonium production reactors at Hanford and Savannah River. Some of the by products from entering the diffusion cascades that “tended to remain in storage cylinders” from feedstock vaporization likely included uranium hexafluoride (UF 6) (“it’s reactions are often explosive and liberate large amounts of heat,” Hazardous Waste chemistry , Toxicology and Treatment, p. 131) , Plutonium hexafluoride (PuF6) and Neptunian hexafluoride (NpF6).
[Editor’s Note: An article in New Scientist, August 23, 1964 describes American research has increased the yields of plutonium “recovered from spent nuclear fuels.” The process was pioneered at California’s Los Alamos laboratories. A “synthesis of PuF6 is easy to separate from other fission products and radionuclides present in the spent fuel rods of modern nuclear reactors.” The drawback? “Plutonium is highly toxic and a volatile compound of [oxidized] plutonium would add to the hazard of handling it.” http://books.google.com/books?id=iwgENmqHm68C&pg=PA20&lpg= PA20&dq=PuF6+toxicity&source=bl&ots=fy9WOuRxOb&sig=4W-MG5X0-doIln3RPRzCxAgT9wg&hl=en&ei=qncATfb2OcWqlAf80KS3CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct= result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false ]
Dr. Mauro , who assisted in evaluations of Rocky Flats and testified before Congress as a Bikini Atoll witness, opined in March 2010 that external, internal and air exposure levels of workers at the former Huntington uranium recycling/processing plant should be increased from four to tenfold. See: http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/local/100721-rutherford-localexposure.html
He criticized a dose reconstruction for the plant taken after its burial in Piketon, Ohio. “I’m kinda troubled,” he said , adding, “there’s no reason to believe that host decontamination measurements would be meaningful to reconstruct doses 18 years earlier during operations. There’s a disconnect here .”
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Huntington Uranium Document Suggests Wider Usage of Atomic Plant
Presence of Radioactive Fluorides
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – A 2005 Huntington Pilot Plant worker medical summary hints that the structure remained in some type of operation beyond its official 1962 shut down date and that residual radiation between the 1962 “cold stand by” and 1978-1979 demolition was not documented.
Table One of the report states an assumption of exposure “stopping when AEC (Atomic Energy Commission ) operations creased” had been made, but “this does not appear to be the case.” The medical report deficiently did not address “external exposure to residual contamination following the conclusion of nickel handling and processing operations.”
In fact, the revised report refers to a 2004 file that this employee continued working at the contaminated plant after its official “cold standby” status by the AEC. The site remained on the East Huntington INCO venue from 1962-1978, when dismantling began. However, the specific employee continued working at the HPP/RPP until 1972.
“The Technical Basis Document indicates that exposures terminated after AEC nickel processing operations ceased in 1963 , and no additional intake occurred between 1963 and when the employee stopped worked in 1972. As indicated by (redacted file #) the employee continued to work at the HPP…”
But, apparently, no residual radiation tests were taken during the “cold stand by” period. The 2005 document refers only to an Oak Ridge Universities re-test of various portions of the demolished site completed in 1981.
“External gamma readings were obtained in 1981, which was several years after AEC operations ceased and after decontamination of the facility took place in 1978,” the report said. It continues, “ the use of 1981 survey data for determining exposures to deposited radioactivity during operations is highly questionable… one approach may be to obtain data on the surface contamination of nickel dust at other nickel melting operations… There is no reason to believe the highest air exposure rate observed post-decontamination bears any relationship to the exposure rate prior to decontamination.”
The document confirms , in part, statements by various former workers that activities of some kind continued in the contaminated HPP/RPP during its ‘cold stand by’ period.
Prepared by project manager Dr. John Mauro, a world recognized nuclear radiation expert, he determined that the nickel scrap from received in Huntington from the diffusion plants was contaminated with more than uranium isotopes. “Various literature documented that nickel scrap generated in the same time frame was contaminated with isotopes of Pu-239, Np-237 , U-236 and Tc-99.” The contamination came from “reprocessed uranium feed shipped to the K-25 (plant at Oak Ridge) that had come from plutonium production reactors at Hanford and Savannah River. Some of the by products from entering the diffusion cascades that “tended to remain in storage cylinders” from feedstock vaporization likely included uranium hexafluoride (UF 6) (“it’s reactions are often explosive and liberate large amounts of heat,” Hazardous Waste chemistry , Toxicology and Treatment, p. 131) , Plutonium hexafluoride (PuF6) and Neptunian hexafluoride (NpF6).
[Editor’s Note: An article in New Scientist, August 23, 1964 describes American research has increased the yields of plutonium “recovered from spent nuclear fuels.” The process was pioneered at California’s Los Alamos laboratories. A “synthesis of PuF6 is easy to separate from other fission products and radionuclides present in the spent fuel rods of modern nuclear reactors.” The drawback? “Plutonium is highly toxic and a volatile compound of [oxidized] plutonium would add to the hazard of handling it.” http://books.google.com/books?id=iwgENmqHm68C&pg=PA20&lpg= PA20&dq=PuF6+toxicity&source=bl&ots=fy9WOuRxOb&sig=4W-MG5X0-doIln3RPRzCxAgT9wg&hl=en&ei=qncATfb2OcWqlAf80KS3CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct= result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false ]
Dr. Mauro , who assisted in evaluations of Rocky Flats and testified before Congress as a Bikini Atoll witness, opined in March 2010 that external, internal and air exposure levels of workers at the former Huntington uranium recycling/processing plant should be increased from four to tenfold. See: http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/local/100721-rutherford-localexposure.html
He criticized a dose reconstruction for the plant taken after its burial in Piketon, Ohio. “I’m kinda troubled,” he said , adding, “there’s no reason to believe that host decontamination measurements would be meaningful to reconstruct doses 18 years earlier during operations. There’s a disconnect here .”
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
