Advertisement

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 301, Issue 2, pp 307–313 | Cite as

Uranium isotopic signatures measured in samples of dirt collected at two former uranium facilities

  • Lisa A. Meyers
  • Stephen P. LaMont
  • Apryll M. Stalcup
  • Henry B. Spitz
Article

Abstract

Nuclear forensics is a multidisciplinary science that uses a variety of analytical methods and tools to explore the physical, chemical, and isotopic characteristics of nuclear and radiological materials. These characteristics, when evaluated alone or in combination, become signatures that may reveal how and when the material was fabricated. The signatures contained in samples of dirt collected at two different uranium metal processing facilities in the United States were evaluated to determine uranium isotopic composition and compare results with processes that were conducted at these sites. One site refined uranium and fabricated uranium metal ingots for fuel and targets and the other site rolled hot forged uranium and other metals into dimensional rods. Unique signatures were found that are consistent with the activities and processes conducted at each facility and establish confidence in using these characteristics to reveal the provenance of other materials that exhibit similar signatures.

Keywords

Nuclear forensics Isotopic signatures Uranium Thorium MC-ICP-MS 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Ross Williams from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for his expertise and assistance with this research. The authors would also like to thank the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nuclear Materials Information Program for funding this project. This work was part performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This research was part based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Grant Award Number, 2012-DN-130- NF0001-02. This research was part performed under the Nuclear Forensics Graduate Fellowship Program, which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and the U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

References

  1. 1.
    Stanley FE, Stalcup AM, Spitz HB (2013) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 295:1385–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Browne E, Firestone RB, Shirley VS (1986) Table of radioactive isotopes. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stirling CH (2012) Science 335:1585–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hiess J, Condon DJ, McLean N, Noble SR (2012) Science 335:1610–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zoriy MV, Kayser M, Izmer A, Pickhardt C, Becker JS (2005) Int J Mass Spectrom 242:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boulyga SF, Prohaska T (2008) Anal Bioanal Chem 390:531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rye JS, Jeong YJ, Cha HJ, Shin HS, Cheong CS (2010) J Anal Sci Tech 1:49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stefanka Z, Katona R, Varga Z (2008) J Anal At Spectrom 23:1030–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boulyga SF, Becker SJ (2001) Fresenius J Anal Chem 370:612–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boulyga SF, Testa C, Desideri D, Becker JS (2001) J Anal At Spectrom 16:1283–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bouyga SF, Becker JS (2002) J Anal At Spectrom 17:1143–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boulyga SF, Matusevich JL, Mironov VP et al (2002) J Anal At Spectrom 17:958–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meyers LM, Williams RW, Glover SE, LaMont SP, Stalcup AM, Spitz HB (2013) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 296:669–674Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Srnik M, Steier P, Wallner G (2010) Nucl Instr Methods Phys Res B 268:1146–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carvalho FP, Oliveira JM (2010) Environ Int 36:352–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oliver IW, Graham MC, MacKenzie AB, Ellam RM, Farmer JG (2007) J Environ Monit 9:740–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Williams RW, Gaffney AM (2011) Proc Radiochim Acta 1:31–35Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tandon L, Kuhn K, Martinez P et al (2009) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 282:573–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wallenius M, Lutzenkirchen K, Mayer K et al (2007) J Alloys Compd 444–445:57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rich BL, Hinnefeld SL, Lagerquist CR, et al (1988) Health physics manual of good practices for uranium facilities, DOEGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Cohen & Associates (2011) SC&A Review of issues related to reconstruction of doses for workers exposed to recycled uranium at Fernald—A Second White PaperGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moody KJ, Hutcheon ID, Grant PM (2005) Nuclear forensic analysis, Taylor & Francis, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa A. Meyers
    • 1
  • Stephen P. LaMont
    • 2
  • Apryll M. Stalcup
    • 1
  • Henry B. Spitz
    • 3
  1. 1.University of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Department of EnergyNuclear Materials Information ProgramWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.University of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations