Plutonium Sludge Case Study - Tri-Valley CAREs
Plutonium Sludge Case Study - Tri-Valley CAREs
Plutonium Sludge Case Study - Tri-Valley CAREs
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
March 1994 Rainwater at LLNL is found to contain tritium at concentrations 7 times higher than state and federal maximum<br />
limits; equipment from Building 331 "off-gassing" is thought to be the cause.<br />
1995 Additional soil sampling in Big Trees Park undertaken jointly by USEPA, LLNL and the State of California reveals<br />
concentrations of plutonium up to 1.02 pCi/g in the top two inches of dirt.<br />
February 7, 1996 Inventory reveals 12 pounds of plutonium at LLNL unaccounted for.<br />
February 7, 1997 HEPA filter failure in Building 321 releases uranium-238.<br />
February 1997 <strong>Plutonium</strong>-contaminated tissue cut out of worker's body.<br />
March 1997 Uranium filings catch fire.<br />
July 2, 1997 Curium contamination during filter shredding operation.<br />
1997 The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) initiates a Public Health Assessment of the<br />
potential human health impacts of Livermore Laboratory’s activities.<br />
1998 LLNL conducts a third round of sampling to investigate plutonium in Big Trees Park. Elevated levels of plutonium<br />
found at numerous sites in the Park, near (but not in) the nearby creek, along the baseball field that borders the<br />
elementary school and by a little grassy hill between the park and the sidewalk. Slightly elevated levels of<br />
plutonium also found behind an apartment complex between LLNL and Big Trees Park.<br />
May 1999 The California Department of Health Services (CDHS) and ATSDR jointly recommend the historic distribution of<br />
sewage sludge be investigated.<br />
November 2002 CDHS concludes, “sludge at LWRP was contaminated by routine and unintentional releases of plutonium from<br />
LLNL … [and] the historic distribution (1958-1976) of sewage sludge from the LWRP poses an indeterminate<br />
health hazard due to a lack of data.” CDHS recommends that “LLNL/DOE [should] provide funding to Alameda<br />
County Department of Health Services to implement a process to address the historic distribution of sludge from<br />
LWRP.”<br />
August 2003 ATSDR concludes, “the historic distribution of Pu-contaminated sewage sludge is determined to be no apparent<br />
public health hazard.”<br />
October 2003 <strong>Plutonium</strong> "glove box" leaks due to missing seal, emergency generator, alarm system and negative air flow<br />
system fail simultaneously.<br />
May to August 2004 LLNL cited for "chronic airborne radiation levels" of plutonium over a 4-month period due to continual use of faulty<br />
equipment in waste packaging operations.<br />
March 2005 LLNL cited for storing plutonium in paint cans and food tins.<br />
April 22, 2005 Radioactive spill at LLNL tracked off-site; spill area left unsecured for several days.<br />
November 2005 U.S. Department of Energy issues decision to double the amount of plutonium that can be kept at Livermore<br />
National Laboratory having determined its review showed no adverse environmental impacts associated with the<br />
weapons research even if more plutonium is made available.<br />
Research Methods<br />
Although the recommendation to investigate the sludge distribution was made jointly by CDHS<br />
and ATSDR, the federal and state researchers completely diverged in their methods of inquiry.<br />
Two research models to address the potential public health impacts of plutonium-contaminated<br />
sludge distribution emerged: (1) A collaborative approach, undertaken by CDHS; and (2) a<br />
dose-assessment approach pursued by ATSDR.<br />
A collaborative approach<br />
Key characteristics of the CDHS research method were: (1) gathering and incorporating of local<br />
knowledge into the scientific analysis; and (2) fostering the growth of mutually respectful<br />
relationships between scientists, governmental, and non-governmental collaborators by<br />
including them in all aspects of the research.<br />
Absent a complete and accurate written record about the sludge, and by virtue of their<br />
commitment to a transparent, collaborative process, CDHS researchers recognized that input<br />
from workers and community members would be essential to their investigation. However, in<br />
8