U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audit Services 

Audit Report 

Management Alert on Environmental 

Management's Select Strategy for 

Disposition of Savannah River Site 

Depleted Uranium Oxides 

OAS-RA-10-07 April 2010 
Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

April 9, 2010 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNDER SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

FROM: Gregory H. Friedman 

 Inspector General 

SUBJECT: INFORMATION: Management Alert on Environmental 

 Management's Select Strategy for Disposition of Savannah River Site 

 Depleted Uranium Oxides 

BACKGROUND

The Administration and the Congress, through policy statements and passage of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), have signaled that they hope that 

proactive actions by agency Inspectors General will help ensure that Federal Recovery Act 

activities are transparent, effective and efficient. In that context, the purpose of this management 

alert is to share with you concerns that have been raised to the Office of Inspector General 

regarding the planned disposition of the Savannah River Site's (SRS) inventory of Depleted 

Uranium (DU) oxides. This inventory, generated as a by-product of the nuclear weapons 

production process and amounting to approximately 15,600 drums of DU oxides, has been stored 

at SRS for decades. A Department source we deem reliable and credible recently came to the 

Office of Inspector General expressing concern that imminent actions are planned that may not 

provide for the most cost effective disposition of these materials. 

During April 2009, the Department chose to use funds provided under the Recovery Act to 

accelerate final disposition of the SRS inventory of DU oxides. After coordination with State of 

Utah regulators, elected officials and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department 

initiated a campaign to ship the material to a facility operated by EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah. 

Although one shipment of a portion of the material has already been sent to the EnergySolutions

facility, the majority of the product remains at SRS. As had been planned, both for the shipment 

already made and those planned in the near term, the EnergySolutions facility was to have been 

the final disposal location for the material. 

IMMEDIATE CONCERN

Recently, a member of Congress and various Utah State officials raised questions regarding the 

radioactive and other constituents present in the DU oxides to be disposed of at the Clive, Utah, 

facility. These concerns revolved around the characterization of the material and its acceptability 

under existing licensing criteria. As a consequence, the Governor of Utah met with Department 

officials to voice concerns regarding further shipments of the material and to seek return of the 

initial shipment of DU oxides to SRS. Utah's objections and the Department's agreement to 

accede to the State's demands effectively prohibit the transfer of the remaining material from 

South Carolina to Utah.
2 

In response, the Department evaluated its options and issued a draft decision paper on March 1, 

2010, which outlined an alternative for temporary storage until the final disposition issue could 

be resolved. Under the terms of the proposed option, the remaining shipments from SRS are to 

be sent on an interim basis to a facility owned by Waste Control Specialists (WCS) in Andrews, 

Texas. Clearly, this choice carries with it a number of significant logistical burdens, including 

substantial additional costs for, among several items, repackaging at SRS, transportation to 

Texas, storage at the interim site, and, repackaging and transportation to the yet-to-bedetermined final disposition point. 

The Department source expressed the concern that the proposal to store the material on an 

interim basis in Texas was inefficient and unnecessary, asserting: (i) that the materials could 

remain at SRS until a final disposition path is identified, and that this could be done safely, 

securely and cost effectively; and, (ii) that the nature of the material was not subject to existing 

compliance agreements with the State of South Carolina, suggesting the viability of keeping the 

material in storage at SRS until a permanent disposal site is definitively established. We noted 

that, while the Department's decision paper referred to "numerous project and programmatic 

factors...that make it impractical to retain the remaining inventory at Savannah River," it did not 

outline the specific issues involved nor did it provide any substantive economic or environmental 

analysis supporting the need for the planned interim storage action. The only apparent driver in 

this case was a Recovery Act-related goal established by the Department to accelerate the 

general disposition of the SRS material. 

We recognize that decisions such as the one proposed for the SRS inventory of DU oxides are 

often more complex and nuanced than might appear on the surface. Consideration of factors 

such as cost, state interest, posture of local regulators, etc., are important elements in this 

process. Although, we have not completed sufficient work to reach an independent judgment on 

the merits of this matter, we wanted to ensure that the Department was aware of the concerns that 

have been raised before imminent decisions and resource commitments were made regarding the 

path forward. To the credit of the employee who brought these concerns to our attention, the 

hope was expressed that the decision reached would be both sensitive to the needs of the people 

in and around the SRS as well as the best interests of the taxpayers and citizens of the Nation. 

In that light, we suggest that the Department consider the expressed concerns as it evaluates the 

economic feasibility and programmatic impact of the planned or pending move of the SRS DU 

oxides to the WCS facility in Texas. 

MANAGEMENT COMMENTS AND AUDITOR RESPONSE

Management stated that although a final decision on the storage and disposal of the DU oxides 

has not been made, they are aware of the concerns that a decision to pursue interim storage at 

WCS may result in increased cost to the Department. In response to those concerns, 

management requested a cost assessment analysis of various interim storage alternatives. 

However, they emphasized that cost is only one among multiple factors that must be balanced 

with issues such as potential impacts to other site efforts, community input, leveraging existing 

resource investments, and future Environmental Management liabilities. They concluded that 

the Department intends to permanently dispose of the DU oxides off-site while delivering the 
3 

overall best value to the taxpayers, considering both cost and non-cost factors. Given our 

interest in this project, management agreed to keep the Office of Inspector General informed of 

ongoing evaluations and any future decisions. 

We consider management's comments responsive to our suggestion. Our primary concerns are 

that the method that the Department selects for disposing of the DU oxides achieve the best value 

for the taxpayer and, to the extent possible, ensures that Recovery Act goals are met and funds 

are well spent. We understand that a final decision has not been made and will ultimately 

involve consideration of a number of complex variables. Accordingly, we will continue to 

monitor the Department's progress on the ultimate disposition of the DU oxides. 

Management's written comments are attached in their entirety. 

Attachment 

cc: Deputy Secretary 

 Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration 

 Assistant Secretary, Environmental Management

 Special Advisor to the Secretary for the Recovery Act 

 Chief of Staff 

 Manager, Savannah River Site 

 Chief Financial Officer 

2 
3 
IG Report No. OAS-RA-10-07

CUSTOMER RESPONSE FORM 

The Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the usefulness of 

its products. We wish to make our reports as responsive as possible to our customers' 

requirements, and, therefore, ask that you consider sharing your thoughts with us. On the 

back of this form, you may suggest improvements to enhance the effectiveness of future 

reports. Please include answers to the following questions if they are applicable to you: 

1. What additional background information about the selection, scheduling, scope, or 

procedures of the inspection would have been helpful to the reader in understanding 

this report? 

2. What additional information related to findings and recommendations could have 

been included in the report to assist management in implementing corrective actions? 

3. What format, stylistic, or organizational changes might have made this report's 

overall message more clear to the reader? 

4. What additional actions could the Office of Inspector General have taken on the 

issues discussed in this report which would have been helpful? 

5. Please include your name and telephone number so that we may contact you should 

we have any questions about your comments. 

Name Date 

Telephone Organization 

When you have completed this form, you may telefax it to the Office of Inspector 

General at (202) 586-0948, or you may mail it to: 

Office of Inspector General (IG-1) 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

ATTN: Customer Relations 

If you wish to discuss this report or your comments with a staff member of the Office of 

Inspector General, please contact Felicia Jones at (202) 253-2162. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
The Office of Inspector General wants to make the distribution of its reports as customer friendly 

and cost effective as possible. Therefore, this report will be available electronically through the 

Internet at the following address: 

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General Home Page 

http://www.ig.energy.gov

Your comments would be appreciated and can be provided on the Customer Response Form.