http://www.energy-net.org/N-LET/EN/0BULL/2002/RBULL-03.702 

***************************************************************** 

07/03/02   RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) ** ** VOL 10.169 

***************************************************************** 

 RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE 

***************************************************************** 

 NUCLEAR POLICY 

 

1 US: Group criticizes Bush air plan 

2 US hampering construction of nuke plant in Iran 

3 Firm pitched plan for plutonium to be sent to Canada, letter shows 

4 Secret plan to revive UK nuclear power industry* 

 

 NUCLEAR REACTORS 

 

5 Control Yuan faults government over nuclear plant fiasco 

6 US: Feds missed Davis-Besse safety mess 

7 US: Chances to identify corrosion 

8 Ling'ao Nuclear Power Station Begins Commercial Operation 

9 US: Congressmen hear Nebraska's preparation for attacks 

10 Nuclear expert gives Plymouth his accident worst case scenario 

 

 NUCLEAR SAFETY 

 

11 US: [radiation-survivors] NEW STUDY SHEDS LIGHT ON FROG 

12 Moscow’s drawbacks: The capital is like another Chernobyl 

13 US: S.C. judge overturns order closing plant

Charlotte Observer | 07/02/2002 | 

[http://www.charlotte.com] 

 

 AARON SHEININ 

 The (Columbia) State 

 

A judge on Monday overturned the state health department's order that closed a Barnwell County 

manufacturing plant over a potential uranium leak. 

 

Administrative Law Judge Marvin Kittrell ruled that the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental 

Control did not have jurisdiction to force Starmet CMI Inc. to close last week. 

 

Kittrell delayed his order until the agency has a chance to ask him for a temporary injunction to keep 

Starmet closed. The agency and the company were already scheduled to come before Kittrell in 

August for a hearing on many of the issues DHEC raised in its emergency order. 

 

Kittrell ruled that because the August hearing is before him, he has jurisdiction to decide if Starmet 

remains closed. 

 

Both sides began arguments Monday as to whether an emergency exists at the plant, and whether Kittrell 

should grant DHEC a temporary injunction keeping the plant closed. 

 

Testimony continues today. 

 
Kevin Strickland, DHEC's inspector for the Starmet plant, testified that he saw "green salt," a by-product 

of the uranium metal production process, spilling from drums that had been hit by a forklift. He said 

employees often had inadequate protective clothing to handle radioactive material and had to borrow 

monitoring equipment from a nearby plant. 

 

Testing of ponds used to contain uranium also showed increased levels of the radioactive material. 

 

"When we got the results back, it was readily apparent the results had risen," Strickland said. 

 

Still, when questioned by Starmet attorney John Hodge, Strickland said he never indicated in his reports 

that an emergency situation existed at the plant. 

 

Hodge tried to impugn Strickland's testimony by showing that he failed to notify Starmet directly of 

problems he found in his weekly or daily inspections. 

 

In its emergency order, DHEC said Starmet had failed to contain water in waste lagoons. The lagoons are 

supposed to prevent uranium from leaking into groundwater. 

 

Charlotte.com 
http://www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/hottopics/depleteduraniumtest.htm 

Utah DEQ: Issues: Depleted Uranium 

Depleted Uranium History 

Definition | Concerns | Regulatory Oversight | Background on Issues

What is Depleted Uranium? 

What Concerns Are There to Health and the Environment? 

Below the site, the aquifer is naturally of poor quality so the water is not used as a drinking water 

source without significant treatment. 

Page 1 of 5 

Issues 

 The Radiation Control Board on April 14, 2010 approved a new rule that required Energy 

Solutions to conduct a performance assessment before disposing of depleted uranium. The 

Board's action was based on the fact that DU's radioactivity increases over a very long period of 

time. In addition, NRC did not evaluate shallow land disposal of DU when it developed its lowlevel radioactive waste disposal regulations. In the absence of federal regulation, the Board 

adopted the new rule. 

The Depleted Uranium Performance Assessment Rule, R313-25-8, "Technical Analysis" is 

posted on the DRC Web. The assessment was originally due on December 31, 2010 however, 

Energy Solutions asked for another two months, in part to take into account the input received 

during a series of scoping meetings that have taken place this year. To read more Information on 

the scoping meetings. 

The assessment is expected by the end of February. Once it is received, the staff will review it 

for completeness and then start a technical review of the Performance Assessment. A stakeholder 

workshop on the topic is also anticipated. 

Uranium's physical and chemical properties make it ideal for use in nuclear reactors and for 

military uses. To be used, uranium has to be "enriched." During this process, the fraction of U235 is increased from its natural level (0.72% by mass) to between 2% and 94% by mass. The 

by-product after the enrichment process has reduced concentrations of U-235 and U-234 and is 

known as depleted uranium (DU). 

DU is classified as a Class A, low-level radioactive waste, yet it does have some commercial use. 

However, demand is currently much less than the amounts generated. Disposal is the only option 

for the rest. Under federal law, the Department of Energy is required to accept DU from an NRC 

licensed uranium enrichment facility. DU can also be accepted by a licensed commercial 

disposal site. Energy Solutions' Clive facility holds a Class A radioactive waste license. 

The risk from DU comes from the fact that it slowly creates radon gas. DU is also harmful, 

due to its toxicity, if ingested. This process is extremely slow; estimated by scientists to take 
between 1,000 and one million years and, at that point, people and/or the environment would still 

need to come into direct contact before there was a radiological or chemical risk. If it remains 

properly disposed, there is no contact and therefore no additional risk. 

At the Clive location, given its arid climate and low precipitation, the current potential for soil 

erosion to any 
Issues

Depleted Uranium History

Definition | Concerns | Regulatory Oversight | Background on Issues

The Radiation Control Board on April 14, 2010 approved a new rule that required EnergySolutions to 

conduct a performance assessment before disposing of depleted uranium. The Board's action was based on 

the fact that DU's radioactivity increases over a very long period of time. In addition, NRC did not evaluate 

shallow land disposal of DU when it developed its low-level radioactive waste disposal regulations. In the 

absence of federal regulation, the Board adopted the new rule. 

The Depleted Uranium Performance Assessment Rule, R313-25-8, "Technical Analysis" is posted on the 

DRC Web. 

The assessment was originally due on December 31, 2010 however, EnergySolutions asked for another two 

months, in part to take into account the input received during a series of scoping meetings that have taken 

place this year. To read more Information on the scoping meetings.

The assessment is expected by the end of February. Once it is received, the staff will review it for 

completeness and then start a technical review of the Performance Assessment. A stakeholder workshop on 

the topic is also anticipated.

What is Depleted Uranium?

Uranium's physical and chemical properties make it ideal for use in nuclear reactors and for military uses. To 

be used, uranium has to be "enriched." During this process, the fraction of U-235 is increased from its 

natural level (0.72% by mass) to between 2% and 94% by mass. The by-product after the enrichment 

process has reduced concentrations of U-235 and U-234 and is known as depleted uranium (DU).

DU is classified as a Class A, low-level radioactive waste, yet it does have some commercial use. However, 

demand is currently much less than the amounts generated. Disposal is the only option for the rest. Under 

federal law, the Department of Energy is required to accept DU from an NRC licensed uranium enrichment 

facility. DU can also be accepted by a licensed commercial disposal site. EnergySolutions' Clive facility holds 

a Class A radioactive waste license.

What Concerns Are There to Health and the Environment?

The risk from DU comes from the fact that it slowly creates radon gas. DU is also harmful, due to its toxicity, 

if ingested. This process is extremely slow; estimated by scientists to take between 1,000 and one million 

years and, at that point, people and/or the environment would still need to come into direct contact before 

there was a radiological or chemical risk. If it remains properly disposed, there is no contact and therefore no 

additional risk. 

At the Clive location, given its arid climate and low precipitation, the current potential for soil erosion to any 

buried DU is extremely low. Once buried, it is felt that the likelihood of intrusion by natural elements or by 

humans also remains extremely low. This condition will be evaluated as part of its performance assessment 

review.

Below the site, the aquifer is naturally of poor quality so the water is not used as a drinking water source 

without significant treatment. 

Utah DEQ: Issues: Depleted Uranium Page 1 of 5

http://www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/hottopics/depleteduraniumtest.htm 8/1/2011
What Does the Federal Government Have to do With DU?

The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) regulates commercial nuclear power plants and other uses of 

nuclear materials. Utah is an "Agreement State" under the NRC. As an Agreement State, Utah's regulations 

must be consistent with those of the NRC. In order to be more strict, Utah law requires a written finding that 

the corresponding federal regulation is inadequate to protect public health and the environment of the state. 

Background on Depleted Uranium Issue

Because entries are in date order, we suggest that you start at the bottom and scroll up.

Posted Dec. 8, 2010

EnergySolutions Seeks Extension on DU Performance Assessment

EnergySolutions has asked for an extension to submit a performance assessment that analyzes whether its 

site is suitable for large quantities of depleted uranium. The assessment was due Dec. 31, but 

EnergySolutions is asking for another two months, in part to take into account the input received during a 

series of scoping meetings that have taken place this year.

Posted April 20, 2010

DRC Board Approved New Rule

The Radiation Control Board on April 14 approved a new rule that requires EnergySolutions to conduct a 

performance assessment before disposing of depleted uranium.

The Depleted Uranium Performance Assessment Rule, R313-25-8, "Technical Analysis" is posted on the 

DRC Web:

DRC Homepage: 

http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/index.htm 

Rulemaking Actions: 

http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Rules/rulemaking_actions.htm

Posted: April 5, 2010

Test Results Complete: DOE Drums of Depleted Uranium Meet Legal Limits

An Oakridge, Tennessee lab notified the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) today that the 

samples of depleted uranium at EnergySolutions' low-level radioactive waste disposal facility meet health 

and safety standards set by the State.

The Division of Radiation Control (DRC) last month conducted its own tests at the direction of Governor Gary 

Herbert. The material was shipped to Utah in December from the Department of Energy's Savannah River, 

South Carolina, cleanup.

Eberline Services, Inc. analyzed 171 samples randomly collected from the 5,400 drums. DRC used an 

Environmental Protection Agency method under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act that 

determines the number of samples for a statistical approach to find out whether the waste concentrations 

exceed EnergySolutions' Class A license.

"We took a much more conservative and thorough approach to sampling," said Amanda Smith, Executive 

Director of DEQ. "We believe that given questions raised about the nature of this waste, the State should do 

its due diligence and perform additional tests."

Depleted uranium is classified as Class A low-level waste by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the 

Savannah River waste also contained trace amounts of other radioactive elements, including Technetium, 

which, if concentrations are too high, would be prohibited from disposal under State law.

Utah DEQ: Issues: Depleted Uranium Page 2 of 5

http://www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/hottopics/depleteduraniumtest.htm 8/1/2011
The Radiation Control Board is promulgating a rule that would require a performance assessment to 

determine if depleted uranium can be safely disposed above ground at EnergySolutions. The waste material 

from Savannah River will continue to be monitored until the performance assessment is completed.

Posted: February 25, 2010

DEQ Uses a Statistical Analysis to Test Depleted Uranium

Salt Lake City, Utah—The Division of Radiation Control (DRC) on Tuesday initiated the sampling of the 

depleted uranium at EnergySolutions' low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, using a federally-accepted 

statistical approach to determine whether the waste meets the safety hazards set by the state.

Sampling will continue next week, weather permitting, said Amanda Smith, executive director of the Utah 

Department of Environmental Quality. At the request of Governor Herbert, Smith directed DRC staff to 

conduct its own tests of the depleted uranium that the Department of Energy (DOE) shipped to Utah in 

December from its Savannah River, South Carolina cleanup.

It's a highly laborious process, said Smith. Samplers pop the lid off the 55-gallon drums, and skim 250 grams 

of the depleted uranium, a powder substance, into a container. The samples are randomly taken from 171 of 

the 5,400 drums and will be sent to Eberline Services, Inc. in Oakridge, Tennessee for analysis, which will 

take a couple of weeks to a month to complete.

"We believe that given the questions raised about the nature of this waste, the state should do its due 

diligence and perform additional testing to assure with statistical confidence that the 5,400 drums do not 

exceed federal or state standards for radioactivity," said Smith.

Dane Finerfrock, director of DRC, said DEQ is using an Environmental Protection Agency method under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that determines the number of samples for a statistical 

approach to find out whether the waste concentrations exceed EnergySolutions' Class A license. 

Depleted uranium is classified as Class A low-level waste by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but 

becomes more hazardous over time, up to 1 million years. Depleted uranium consists of many isotopes, 

including technetium-99, that if concentrations are too high would be prohibited under state law. The 

Radiation Control Board is currently completing a rule-making that would place specific conditions on 

depleted uranium disposal. 

"We have reviewed the shipping documents and the analytical results from the generator and have no 

reason to believe at this time that waste exceeds the Class A limits. At the Governor's request DRC is 

conducting an independent analysis, and we have chosen a much more conservative and thorough 

approach to sampling."

Governor Herbert stopped the Energy Department from shipping additional trainloads of depleted uranium 

from Savannah River under an agreement he negotiated with DOE earlier this week. The Energy 

Department also agreed to take the depleted uranium back if testing shows the material exceeds the Class A 

limit.

Posted: February 23, 2010

Governor Succeeds in Keeping Second and Third Depleted Uranium Trains Out of Utah

Planned shipments of depleted uranium from the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site will not 

be shipped to Utah under an agreement negotiated Monday by Governor Gary R. Herbert.

"This is a monumental win for the State of Utah," Governor Herbert said. "At one point, we were told these 

trains were all but on the tracks, making their way to Utah. The Department of Energy has now agreed, after 

we registered our concerns, that those trains will head elsewhere."

The Governor emphasized that, in addition to halting planned shipments, "the Department of Energy has 

agreed it will take back the depleted uranium it sent in December if we cannot implement disposal processes 

that ensure the long-term health and safety of all Utahns."

Utah DEQ: Issues: Depleted Uranium Page 3 of 5

http://www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/hottopics/depleteduraniumtest.htm 8/1/2011
The Governor met Monday in Washington D.C. with Ines Triay, DOE's Assistant Secretary for Environmental 

Management. As a result of that hour-long meeting, the Department of Energy has agreed to divert two train 

loads of depleted uranium originally intended for storage at EnergySolutions' facility in Clive, Utah.

Additionally, a DOE representative will travel to Utah to address the state's Radiation Control Board and will 

work closely with state regulators to develop a site-specific performance assessment to determine if depleted 

uranium can be safely stored in the State of Utah. That process is expected to take up to two years.

The first DOE shipment of approximately 3,500 tons of material arrived in December from the Savannah 

River Site in South Carolina. It is being held in temporary storage until acceptable parameters for permanent 

storage are put in place. 

If proper storage procedures cannot be achieved to the state's satisfaction, or if independent testing of the 

barrels reveals the waste exceeds Class A levels, the Department of Energy will immediately remove the 

depleted uranium from the state.

"The Department of Energy will be actively engaged in this process, and has committed to me, personally, 

that it will be responsible if the waste is not what it purports to be," Governor Herbert said. "I appreciate 

federal officials' time and attention to this matter and their understanding of its critical importance to the 

people of Utah."

The Governor's Office is currently working on a written document to memorialize the terms of the agreement.

Posted: January 13, 2010

At the direction of Governor Herbert, the Division of Radiation Control staff will conduct independent 

sampling of the first shipment of depleted uranium, which arrived at EnergySolutions' Clive landfill last month 

from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River cleanup. The samples will be sent to an outside lab 

for testing. Meanwhile, Governor Herbert is still negotiating with DOE regarding two remaining shipments 

slated for the EnergySolutions' landfill. 

Posted: December 21, 2009

Governor Gary Herbert and the U.S. Department of Energy negotiated a deal last week that allows a 

trainload of depleted uranium to be temporarily stored at EnergySolutions' landfill, but not disposed, until a 

safety analysis deems DU can be safely buried at EnergySolutions up to 10,000 years in the future. 

Additional shipments of DU from Savannah River, South Carolina are suspended pending the site safety 

review that is under way.

Posted: December 16, 2009

Governor Gary Herbert is asking the U.S. Department of Energy to halt shipments of depleted uranium from 

Savannah River in South Carolina to EnergySolutions' landfill in Clive, Utah. In a December 15 letter to 

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Herbert said Utah regulators need more time to make sure the 

EnergySolutions site can safely dispose of the waste. Read Governor Herbert's letter.

Posted: December 14, 2009

The Department of Energy announced last week that it plans to ship 11,000 tons of depleted uranium from 

the Savannah River cleanup in South Carolina to EnergySolutions' low-level radioactive waste facility in 

Clive, Utah. Included in a pending license condition is a requirement that EnergySolutions would have to 

remove the waste if the site safety analysis demonstrates that depleted uranium could not be safely 

disposed at the landfill for at least 10,000 years. Get more information on the license amendment. 

Posted: December 9, 2009

On Tuesday, Dec. 8, the Radiation Control Board moved forward with rulemaking on the disposal of depleted 

uranium, looking 10,000 years in the future. The rule is subject to a 30 day public comment period after the 

rule is published in Administrative Rules.

Posted: November 23, 2009

Utah DEQ: Issues: Depleted Uranium Page 4 of 5

http://www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/hottopics/depleteduraniumtest.htm 8/1/2011
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control (DRC), on behalf of the Utah 

Radiation Control Board, is requesting public comment regarding an amendment to EnergySolutions' LowLevel Radioactive Waste Disposal License (RML UT2300249). The License Amendment is proposed to 

impose certain requirements regarding the receipt and disposal of Depleted Uranium (DU). The Proposed 

License Condition No. 35 will be available for review and/or copying between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., 

Monday through Thursday, at:

Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

Division of Radiation Control 

Room 212, Airport East Business Building (Bldg #2) 

168 North 1950 West 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850

A 30-day public comment period will commence on November 23, 2009. Written comments will be accepted 

until the close of business on December 23, 2009. Written comments should be sent to the address listed 

above. All comments received within the 30-day comment period will be considered when making a final 

decision regarding this License Amendment. 

Additional information regarding the proposed License Amendment may be obtained by calling Dane 

Finerfrock at 801-536-4250, or by writing the DRC at the aforementioned address. In compliance with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals with special needs (including auxiliary communicative aids and 

services) should contact Brooke Baker, Office of Human Resources, at 801-536-4412 (TDD 536-4414) at 

least 10 working days prior to close of the comment period. 

Posted: November 12, 2009

The Radiation Control Board at its November 10th meeting decided to seek rulemaking that would require 

EnergySolutions' to conduct a performance assessment (safety analysis) before disposing of significant 

amounts of depleted uranium. Considering the regulation wouldn't go into effect for 90 to 120 days, 

EnergySolutions could still take depleted uranium under an amended license. 

Posted: October 13, 2009

In its meeting, the Radiation Control Board decided to require that a performance assessment (safety 

analysis) be provided to the Division of Radiation Control prior to receiving depleted uranium for disposal. 

The decision reverses the Board position taken at the September meeting.

Posted: September 24, 2009

On September 22, the Radiation Control Board voted against pursing rulemaking that may have resulted in a 

temporary moratorium on depleted uranium (DU) disposal at EnergySolutions. The Board directed that the 

Utah Division of Radiation Control amend EnergySolutions' license to include a performance assessment on 

the suitability of DU disposal. This would require Energy Solutions to assure that any DU taken prior to final 

NRC rulemaking is ultimately disposed of in compliance with future performance standards.

Utah DEQ: Issues: Depleted Uranium Page 5 of 5

http://www.deq.utah.gov/Issues/hottopics/depleteduraniumtest.htm 8/1/2011








WISE Uranium Project - Fact Sheet

Hazards from depleted uranium

produced from reprocessed uranium

There has been concern about the detection of uranium-236 in depleted uranium (DU) used for

the production of ammunition. U-236 is an artificial nuclide of uranium which only can result

from the use of uranium recycled from spent fuel. Therefore, the question is raised, whether

other nuclides usually found in spent fuel, such as the transuranics plutonium (Pu-239) and

neptunium (Np-237) might also be present in the depleted uranium, and what the health hazard

from their presence would be. Due to their heavy atomic weights, transuranics introduced into

the enrichment process would concentrate in the tails stream and would therefore show up in

the depleted uranium.

The amounts of recycled uranium used in U.S. enrichment plants were first disclosed by the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 1999:

"At the Paducah uranium enrichment plant, recycled uranium was introduced into the

enrichment "cascade" shortly after the startup of the plant in 1953 and continued

through 1964. Activities were resumed in 1969 and continued through 1976. Paducah

received approximately 100,000 tons (90,000 metric tons) of recycled uranium

containing an estimated 328 grams of plutonium, 18.4 kilograms of neptunium and 661

kilograms of technetium-99. Operations at Paducah included the conversion of uranium

oxide to uranium hexafluoride at a feed plant located onsite. The converted material was

subsequently introduced into the gaseous diffusion "cascade" for further enrichment."

[DOE_1999a]

These figures are based on [DOE_1984]; more details are also available in [DOE_2000].

For an assessment of the hazards from the transuranics, we first have to determine the

concentrations of all nuclides of interest in the depleted uranium. For this purpose, we first need

to calculate the mass balance of the enrichment process. We then calculate the inhalation doses

from the depleted uranium and compare the dose contributions from the nuclides of interest.

Mass balance for uranium enrichment at Paducah [DOE_1984, p.35]

Feed Product Tails Other

Mass [st] 758002 124718 621894 11390

Mass fraction 100.00% 16.45% 82.04% 1.50%

Concentration of plutonium in tails (depleted uranium) from enrichment of reprocessed

uranium, assuming that all plutonium were transfered to the tails:

0.328 kg / (101,268 st • 907.185 kg/st • 0.8204) = 4.352 • 10-9 = 4.352 ppb

Concentration of neptunium in tails from enrichment of reprocessed uranium uranium,

assuming that all neptunium were transfered to the tails:
- 2 -

Schematic of historic uranium enrichment process at Paducah [DOE_1999b]
- 3 -

18.4 kg / (101,268 st • 907.185 kg/st • 0.8204) = 2.441 • 10-7 = 244.1 ppb

For comparison, we first calculate the inhalation dose from depleted uranium produced from

natural uranium. We assume that the short-lived decay products have reached secular

equilibrium with their parent nuclides (shown in bold).

Inhalation Dose from Depleted Uranium from Enrichment of Natural Uranium

(from enrichment to 3.5%, tails assay 0.2%)

ICRP72 (public) inhalation, adults, Type S (insoluble forms)

Nuclide Half-life Spec. act.

[Bq/g]

Conc.

[wt_%]

Dose fact.

[Sv/Bq]

Eff. dose

[Sv/g DU]

Dose

fraction

U-238 4.468e9 a 1.245e+04 9.980e+01 8.000e-06 9.936e-02 83.73%

Th-234 24.1 d 7.700e-09 9.563e-05 0.08%

Pa-234m 1.17 m

U-235 7.038e8 a 8.001e+04 2.000e-01 8.500e-06 1.360e-03 1.15%

Th-231 25.52 h 3.300e-10 5.281e-08 0.00%

U-234 2.445e5 a 2.313e+08 8.210e-04 9.400e-06 1.785e-02 15.04%

Total 1.000e+02 1.187e-01 100.00%

(Nuclide concentrations after [Neghabian_1991])

So, the effective dose from inhalation of depleted uranium produced from natural

uranium would be 119 mSv/g.

For depleted uranium from enrichment of reprocessed uranium, the isotope composition is

different, and several new nuclides have to be considered - mainly U-236, Pu-239, and Np-237.

Data from Paducah tails shows concentrations of U-236 of up to 0.0045 wt_%, with typical

values in the range of 0.002 - 0.003 wt_% for a tails assay of 0.2% U-235 [DOE_1984 pp.18,

53-55]. Actual monitoring results from DU used for ammunition are as follows: [AEPI_1995]

gives a figure of 0.003% U-236; this was confirmed by independent measurements in the U.S.

[Dietz_1996]; UNEP found a slightly lower 0.0028% in Kosovo [UNEP_2001a], 0.0027% in

Serbia [UNEP_2002a], and 0.0027 - 0.0029% in Bosnia [UNEP_2003a].

Note: these figures are about 75-fold lower than would be expected, if the Paducah feed had been obtained from

commercial reactors. This is due the fact that the vast majority of the reprocessed material came from military

reactors in Hanford and Savannah River (low burnup), and that the reprocessed material constituted only approx.

13% of the Paducah feed.

U-234 concentrations in Paducah tails ranged rom 0.0006 to 0.0010 wt_% for a tails assay of

0.2% U-235 [DOE_1984 p.15]; this is a typical tails assay for the DU used in ammunition

[AEPI_1995].
- 4 -

Minor uranium isotopes in Paducah tails [after DOE_1984]

With this data, we obtain the following results:

Inhalation Dose from Depleted Uranium used in DU penetrators

(assuming that all Pu-239 and Np-237 shows up in tails)

ICRP72 (public) inhalation, adults, Type S (insoluble forms)

Nuclide Half-life Spec. act.

[Bq/g]

Conc.

[wt_%]

Dose fact.

[Sv/Bq]

Eff. dose

[Sv/g DU]

Dose

fraction

U-238 4.468e9 a 1.245e+04 9.980e+01 8.000e-06 9.936e-02 83.45%

Th-234 24.1 d 7.700e-09 9.563e-05 0.08%

Pa-234m 1.17 m

U-236 2.342e7 a 2.396e+06 3.000e-03 8.700e-06 6.254e-04 0.53%

U-235 7.038e8 a 8.001e+04 2.000e-01 8.500e-06 1.360e-03 1.14%

Th-231 25.52 h 3.300e-10 5.281e-08 0.00%

U-234 2.445e5 a 2.313e+08 8.000e-04 9.400e-06 1.739e-02 14.61%

Pu-239 24131 a 2.295e+09 4.352e-07 1.600e-05 1.598e-04 0.13%

Np-237 2.14e6 a 2.610e+07 2.441e-05 1.200e-05 7.645e-05 0.06%

Pa-233 27 d 3.900e-09 2.485e-08 0.00%

Total 1.000e+02 1.191e-01 100.00%
- 5 -

So, the inhalation dose from DU used for penetrators would be only 0.7% higher than

from DU obtained from enrichment of natural uranium. U-236 would contribute 0.53% to

the dose, Pu-239 0.13%, and Np-237 0.06%.

The above calculations have assumed that all transuranics contained in the reprocessed uranium

would have been introduced into the enrichment cascades. This is, however, a gross

overestimation:

"At both Paducah and Oak Ridge sites, the majority of the plutonium and neptunium

was separated out as waste during the initial chemical conversion to uranium

hexafluoride. Because of this, only a fraction of the plutonium contamination was

actually introduced to the gaseous diffusion cascade at either plant. This waste was

subsequently reprocessed to recover additional uranium and then reused.

Of the 328 grams of plutonium present in the 100,000 tons of recycled uranium

processed at the Paducah plant, only 0.1 gram of plutonium is estimated to have been

introduced into the Paducah cascade. Transuranics including plutonium are believed to

have been deposited on internal surfaces of the feed process equipment, with

concentrations also being deposited in waste products." [DOE_1999a] (emphasis added)

If it is assumed, that all of these 0.1 g of plutonium were transfered to the tails, the plutoniumconcentration in the tails would be 0.0013 ppb. It is, however, questionable whether any

significant fraction of these 0.1 g of plutonium was transfered to the tails, according to DOE

[DOE_1984 p.17].

There exists only sporadic monitoring data of plutonium concentrations in Paducah tails and in

DU metal made from it for the years the reprocessed uranium was fed into the cascade. In no

case has plutonium been found in amounts above the detection limit given by the respective

measuring techniques used:

Monitoring data for plutonium in Paducah tails and products made thereof

Year Item Plutonium concentration Reference

1957 DU metal < 1 ppb (based on U) [DOE_1963]

1963 tails < 1 ppb (based on U)

1964 tails < 10 ppb [DOE_1984, p.17]

1973 tails < 0.01 ppb

from 1975 tails < 0.01 ppb

1 ppb = 1 part per billion = 10-9

And, of the18.4 kg of Np-237, only 4.6 kg is estimated to have been fed into the cascade.

[DOE_1984 p.11]

According to these estimates, only less than 0.03% of the total plutonium and 25% of the total

neptunium could have shown up in the tails. Therefore, the inhalation dose from plutonium

would cause only less than 0.000039% of the total dose, and the dose from neptunium

would cause less than 0.016% of the total dose from the DU used for penetrators.

Since February 2001, first monitoring results for plutonium in DU penetrators spent in Kosovo
- 6 -

are available. In several cases, the detection limit was low enough to actually find traces of

plutonium. The results confirm, albeit for a few penetrators only, that the above assumptions

(0.0013 ppb) are realistic. New data from penetrators recovered from target areas in Southern

Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina shows plutonium concentrations up to 30 times higher.

Monitoring data for plutonium in uranium penetrators

Location Plutonium concentration Reference

Kosovo < 0.0032 ppb (based on U) [GSF_2001]

Kosovo 0.00035 - 0.0056 ppb [UNEP_2001b]

Southern Serbia 0.019 ppb [McLaughlin_2003]

Southern Serbia 0.0058 - 0.0138 ppb [UNEP_2002a]

Bosnia 0.0022 - 0.0382 ppb [UNEP_2003a]

1 ppb = 1 part per billion = 10-9

For comparison: plutonium concentrations in the range of a few thousandth parts of a ppb are naturally found in

uranium ore deposits: uranium-238 captures neutrons coming from various natural sources, such as cosmic

radiation, and spontaneous fission of uranium-235. The product is uranium-239, which decays at a half-life of 23.4

minutes to neptunium-239, which, in turn, decays at a half-life of 2.355 days to plutonium-239. The plutonium

actually found in penetrators would, however, nearly completely be from artificial sources. This is a result of the

chemical processing of the material, reducing plutonium concentrations from any source. 

In its 2003 assessment for Bosnia-Herzegovina, UNEP also reports concentrations of neptunium

for 3 penetrators recovered:

Monitoring data for neptunium in uranium penetrators

Location Neptunium-237 conc. Reference

Bosnia < 0.15 - 0.62 ppb [UNEP_2003a]

1 ppb = 1 part per billion = 10-9

The only database available so far of more than sporadic monitoring data of contaminants found

in DU is for DU metal used for the fabrication of tank armor: The Idaho Nuclear Technology

and Engineering Center (INTEC) has analyzed 60 samples of depleted uranium metal billets for

transuranics and fission products [Army_2000]. Transuranics concentrations above the

detection limits have been identified in this material, including not only plutonium-239, but also

americium-241, neptunium-237, and plutonium-238. Furthermore, the fission product

technetium-99 was detected.
- 7 -

Monitoring data for transuranics and fission products in DU armor

Nuclide data max. values found in DU armor

Half-life Specific

Activity

[Bq/g]

Dose

Coeff. 3

)

[Sv/Bq]

Activity

Conc. 2)

[Bq/g DU

armor]

Conc. by

weight

[ppb]

Effective

Dose 3)

[Sv/g DU

armor]

Am-241 432.2 a 1.271e+11 4.2e-05 0.703 0.0055 3.0e-05

Np-237 2.140e6 a 2.611e+07 2.3e-05 0.137 5.2470 3.2e-06

Pu-238 87.75 a 6.340e+11 4.6e-05 0.074 0.0001 3.4e-06

Pu-239/240 1

) 24.13e3 a 2.296e+09 5.0e-05 0.1 0.0436 5.0e-06

Tc-99 213.0e3 a 6.280e+08 4.0e-08 19.98 31.8153 8.0e-07

Total 4.2e-05

1

) nuclide data of Pu-239 only

2

) [Army_2000]

3

) ICRP 72 (Public) Inhalation, Adults, AMAD = 1 μm, Class M (Note: Other than for uranium and technetium,

the inhalation dose coefficients for the transuranics increase rather than decrease with the solubility of the

material.)

Thus, for DU armor containing 0.2% U-235 and 0.003% U-236, the excess inhalation dose

from transuranics and fission products of max. 0.042 mSv/g represents only a 0.035%

increase over the dose from the DU alone.

References

[AEPI_1995] Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S.Army: Technical

Report. Army Environmental Policy Institute, Atlanta, Georgia 1995, 200+ p.,

<http://www.aepi.army.mil/Library/AEPI%20Publications/DU/techreport.html>

[Army_2000] Analysis of Transuranics and Other Contaminants in Depleted Uranium Armor Department of the

Army, January 19, 2000

<http://www.nato.int/du/docu/us000119a.pdf>

[Dietz_1996] Contamination of Persian Gulf War Veterans and Others by Depleted Uranium, by Leonard A.

Dietz, Niskayuna 1996

<http://www.wise-uranium.org/dgvd.html>

[DOE_1963] Plutonium Content of Depleted Uranium, Feb. 1, 1963 (unclassified)

[DOE_1984] Historical Impact of Reactor Tails on the Paducah Cascade, by R. F. Smith, U.S. DOE, March 1984

(unclassified)

<http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/Foia/KY-L-1239.pdf>

[DOE_1999a] Past Recycled Uranium Programs Under Review as Energy Department Investigation Continues,

U.S. DOE news release R-99-262 of Sept. 29, 1999,

<http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases99/seppr/pr99262.htm>

[DOE_1999b] Phase One Independent Investigation of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, U.S. DOE, October
- 8 -

1999

<http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oversight/paducah/pad_ph1.pdf>

[DOE_2000] Exposure Assessment Project at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Dec. 2000,

<http://tis.eh.doe.gov/portal/feature/pr01007.html>

[GSF_2001] Kein Plutonium im Urangeschoss, Pressemitteilung GSF - Forschungszentrum für Umwelt und

Gesundheit, GmbH, Neuherberg, 3./5.2.2001, <http://www.gsf.de>

[McLaughlin_2003] Actinide analysis of a depleted uranium penetrator from a 1999 target site in southern Serbia,

by J.P. McLaughlin, L. León Vintró, K.J. Smith, P.I. Mitchell, Z.S. Zunic, in: Journal of Environmental

Radioactivity 64 (2003) 155–165

[Neghabian_1991] Verwendung von wiederaufgearbeitetem Uran und von abgereichertem Uran, von A.R.

Neghabian, H.J. Becker, A. Baran, H.-W. Binzel, Der Bundesminister für Umwelt, Naturschutz und

Reaktorsicherheit (Hg.), Schriftenreihe Reaktorsicherheit und Strahlenschutz, BMU-1992-332, November

1991, 186 S. 

[UNEP_2001a] UNEP Balkans press release, January 16, 2001

[UNEP_2001b] UNEP Balkans press release, February 16, 2001

[UNEP_2002a] Depleted Uranium in Serbia and Montenegro, Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment in the

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, UNEP, Geneva, March 2002, 200 p.

<http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/duserbiamont.pdf>

[UNEP_2003a] Depleted Uranium in Bosnia and Herzegovina , Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment, United

Nations Environment Programme, March 2003

<http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/BiH_DU_report.pdf>

WISE Uranium Project, Peter Diehl

http://www.wise-uranium.org

first published: January 16, 2001

last revised: June 17, 2005

(es ist auch eine deutsche Version dieses Textes verfügbar)