RE: Deadly Plutonium ?

["Bradshaw, Keith" <Keith.Bradshaw@nnc.co.uk>]

> Please, how does Pu get into DU?  Are the enrichment plants contaminated
> with
> Pu?  It seems so from all the current media articles on Paducah.  If so,
> what is
> the measured Pu concentration in DU?  Or has no one ever asked that
> question?
> 
	Well, I did, on this very list about a year ago:)

	At the time it generated some conflicting postings and some
interesting private emails.  Some people were adamant that no Pu could ever
get into DU, whereas others said it could be present. Several correspondents
suggested I must be mentally deficient for even asking the question.
However, very recently Rodney Bauman provided the following to RADSAFE:

	<SNIP>
Standards in existence since the early 1950s
limited Pu-239 activity to approximately 10 ppb of uranium.  This
specification
had to be met prior to reduction of the uranium in solution to solid UO3 at
the
reprocessing site.  Most data show levels to be much less than this limit.
For
"natural" UO3 (i.e., approx. 0.71% U-235 by weight), 10 ppb equates to just
over
10% additional inhalation burden (using current 10CFR835 DAC values).

Certain processes at the gaseous diffusion plant sites concentrated the
transuranic content into "waste" streams.  The most obvious is the fly ash
produced during the fluorination of UF4 to UF6 in the GDPs' feed plants. 
<SNIP>

Now, some of the private mail I got at the time suggested that,
historically, most wastes ended up in the DU stream precisely because that
was seen as the 'waste stream'.  Possibly this included the fly ash?

Another RADSAFER (P Egidi) tells us the following:

<SNIP>
One thing I haven't heard mentioned anywhere is that the "DOE Manual of 
Good Practices for Uranium Facilities", EGG-2530, June 1988, clearly states 
that these contaminants are a possibility. Page 2-5:

"Much of the uranium feed material that is currently handled at DOE 
facilities has been reclaimed, or recycled, from reprocessed, spent reactor 
fuel.  The chemical processes by which recycled uranium is purified leave 
trace amounts of transuranic elements (neptunium and plutonium) and fission 
products (mainly Tc-99).  Recycled uranium also contains trace amounts of 
uranium isotopes not found in nature, such as U-236.  At the concentrations 
in uranium from fuel reprocessing facilities, the radiological impact of 
these impurities is negligible in many cases.  However, there are many 
routine chemical processes which tend to concentrate these impurities 
either in the uranium product or in reaction by-products such that 
radiological controls and effluent/environmental monitoring programs must 
consider these impurities in some cases."

This manual was written by staff from Fernald, Rocky Flats, Livermore, PNL, 
and Portsmouth, and published by EG&G Idaho at INEEL.

Clearly, it was known over 10 years ago in the DOE complex, and mentioned 
in this fairly widely-distributed manual.  The paragraph to me seems to 
downplay the issue, but admits that it is there.
<SNIP>


> Or is the DU used in weapons all from non Pu contaminated DU?  Al
> Tschaeche
> antatnsu@pacbell.net
> 
	Perhaps someone will tell us!!  I suppose the US has been using the
'once through' fuel option since 1977, so since then, US DU should have been
made from virgin U, and hence relatively uncontaminated.  That's as long as
they haven't shipped in used U for re-enrichment from other countries.  I
don't know who in the world makes DU munitions and where they get their DU
from.  If it's sourced from countries like the UK, France or the old Soviet
Union, which recycle uranium, there must be at least the possibility of Pu,
U-236 etc in the DU.  Also we don't know what, if any, standards (eg the
10ppb limit for Pu mentioned above in the US - does that apply to DU?) there
are in these countries.

	Al, just asking this question seems to get some people upset.  I'd
like to emphasise that I've no particular axe to grind and I originally made
this enquiry for reasons entirely unconnected with Gulf War Syndrome etc.

	Just a humble seeker of the truth

	keith.bradshaw@nnc.co.uk


> "Bradshaw, Keith" wrote:
> 
> >         When you take into account the dose coefficients for INHALATION
> of
> > insoluble species and for members of the public,  by my reckoning it
> takes
> > only approx. 1ppm by mass of Pu-239 in DU to double its overall Sv/Bq
> rating
> > and hence reduce its DAC by a factor of 2. The presence of 238 and
> 240-Pu
> > (which is usual in civil Pu) would give a figure below 1ppm because of
> their
> > greater alpha activity per unit mass.
> >
> >         Nat-U has about 1.7 times the U alpha activity of DU (of Rand
> Report
> > isotopic composition) so about 1.7ppm of Pu-239 in nat-U would
> approximately
> > double the radiological hazard weight for weight.
> >
> >
> 
> begin:vcard 
> n:Tschaeche;Al
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> org:Nuclear Standards Unlimited
> version:2.1
> email;internet:antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
> title:CEO
> x-mozilla-cpt:;0
> fn:Al Tschaeche
> end:vcard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
	END


**********************************************************************
NNC Limited
Booths Hall
Chelford Road
Knutsford
Cheshire
WA16 8QZ

Country of Registration: United Kingdom
Registered Number: 1120437

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify 
the NNC system manager.
**********************************************************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html