AW: [ RadSafe ] DU Disposal in Utah

George Stanford gstanford at
Sat Jul 18 10:20:59 CDT 2009

      I think you are absolutely right.  The DU on hand
is a monstrous energy resource -- enough to supply
the world's energy for centuries with no more mining,
milling, or enrichment of uranium.
      By the way, breeders are pretty much irrelevant to the
production of weapons-grade Pu-239, since any reactor
at all can easily be used for short-term irradiation of
special uranium fuel elements to make plutonium of high
isotopic purity.
      But breeders can readily be used to denature
weapons-grade Pu rapidly, making it unusable
for military weapons.
      Best regards,
      --  George.


At 07:04 AM 7/18/2009, Franz Schönhofer wrote:

I have a very simple question regarding DU. Maybe I miss some point or maybe
I am simply naive.

Why is everybody so eager to dispose of DU? Why is much work done to convert
DU-Hexafluoride into a disposable compound? Wouldn't it be better to keep it
for the time, when Pu-breeders will be commercially available? It might be a
commercial question, that at the time being there is enough Pu-239 available
from surplus weapons that no additional Pu-239 is needed? Or is there any
political question like the decision long ago in the USA not to reprocess
nuclear fuel?

My personal opinion is that the worst option of disposing it of is to
dispose it in form of ammunition at the battle field.....

Best regards,


Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at [mailto:radsafe-bounces at] Im Auftrag
von Roger Helbig
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Juli 2009 08:30
An: radsafe at
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] DU Disposal in Utah

The Utah Radiation Control Board decided to postpone voting on banning
disposal of DU at Energy Solutions in Clive, Utah.

Here is an earlier article from the Salt Lake Tribune.  The reporter Judy
Fahys actually seems like someone who is interested in learning and does not
have her mind made up.  Some of you might want to contact her at
fahys at  and provide some advice if there are any glaring errors in
this story.

Is depleted uranium too hot for Utah site?

Environment > State Radiation Control Board has decided to look further into
the question.

<mailto:fahys at

<mailto:fahys at
anium%20too%20hot%20for%20Utah%20site?> By Judy Fahys

<mailto:fahys at
anium%20too%20hot%20for%20Utah%20site?> The Salt Lake Tribune

Updated: 06/10/2009 03:53:35 PM MDT

Utah's Radiation Control Board will dig deeper into the long-term risks of
depleted uranium before it decides whether the unusual form of low-level
radioactive waste warrants a moratorium.

But an attorney for EnergySolutions Inc. cautioned board members about legal
and technical challenges they will face if they try banning depleted uranium
temporarily or permanently.

"It's a fairly high bar" for the board to justify a moratorium, said
attorney James Holtkamp.

Board members said they would rather have waited for the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to wrap up its own in-depth study of how much DU, as
its called, can be safely buried in a shallow disposal site like
EnergySolutions' mile-square landfill in Tooele County.

But the that federal review could take years, and DU is already piled up at
government nuclear sites and an equal amount is expected from new uranium
enrichment plants coming online in the next few years. NRC estimates the
total needing disposal at 1.4 million tons, with just two disposal sites
available to take it: EnergySolutions and a yet-to-be-opened Texas landfill.

DU in small amounts clearly falls within Class A for low-level waste, as the
NRC reaffirmed a few months ago. But, because DU transforms over time to
high-radon "decay" products, it actually gets more hazardous over time and
peaks in danger in 1 million years.

EnergySolutions said it has disposed of 49,000 tons of DU in the past 20
years, but that won't top the state's Class A hazard limit for at least
35,000 years.

That's a problem for regulators.

Do they write a law that ensures the safety of public health and the
environment for 100 years? A thousand years? A million?

"First of all, I believe the public should be protected and the environment
should be protected," said board vice chair Elizabeth Goryunova, suggesting
that the board had a responsibility to consider the need for a moratorium
despite hassles that might be involved in imposing one. "That's absolutely a

Board members will hear presentations from Energy-Solutions, the Healthy
Environment Alliance of Utah and its legal advisors at its next meeting.

"I think it behooves us in terms of our responsibility," said board member
David Tripp, a University of Utah physicist.

Vanessa Pierce of HEAL was pleased with the board's decision to take more
time on the subject. HEAL requested the moratorium at the board's May

"They're showing good due diligence," she said, "in how they are proceeding
with this issue."

fahys at

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to 
have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These 
can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or 
unsubscribe and other settings visit:

More information about the RadSafe mailing list