top of page
logo
Sign Petition

What Actually Happens to the "Tails"? A Closer Look at GLE's Re-Enrichment Process

  • Writer: ProtectMcCrackenCounty
    ProtectMcCrackenCounty
  • Jul 11
  • 7 min read

The pitch is a tidy one, and by now it's familiar: depleted uranium tails go into GLE's new facility, cleaner fuel comes out, and the Paducah site gets a little closer to cleaned up. But "tails in, fuel out" skips over a lot of what happens in between, and the in-between is worth a closer look.


What are the "tails," really?


When Paducah operated as an enrichment plant, it split uranium into two streams. One stream had more of the useful isotope, U-235, and became fuel. The other stream, called tails, had less U-235 left in it. That leftover material is depleted uranium hexafluoride, or DUF6. Paducah has hundreds of thousands of tons of it sitting in storage cylinders today.


DUF6 is genuinely dangerous. When it contacts moisture in the air, it reacts instantly to form two things: hydrogen fluoride gas, a corrosive chemical that attacks the lungs and has killed workers in past industrial accidents, and uranyl fluoride, a compound that damages the kidneys. This isn't a hypothetical. In 1986, a ruptured UF6 cylinder at a conversion plant in Oklahoma released a cloud of gas that killed one worker and injured thirty-one others. That's the government's own accident record, not activist literature.


What does GLE's process actually do?


GLE's technology, called SILEX, uses lasers to pull out more of the remaining U-235 than older methods could reach. So GLE runs the tails through its process, extracts additional usable uranium, and sells that material into the commercial nuclear fuel market.


Here's the part that tends to get left out of the public pitch: this process doesn't make the tails disappear. It splits the material into two streams again, just like the original enrichment did. One stream is the uranium GLE can sell. The other stream is what's left over, and it's still depleted uranium hexafluoride, just slightly more depleted than what went in. That leftover material goes back to the Department of Energy for disposal.


In plain terms, DOE ends up managing a very similar volume of hazardous material after GLE is done as it was managing before. The community isn't trading a waste pile for an empty lot. It's trading one version of the waste pile for a slightly different one, next to a brand-new industrial enrichment facility.


Is it safe?


That's the question that should matter most, and it's the one that's had the least real scrutiny so far.


The federal environmental review for this project leans heavily on a generic document written years ago for nuclear reactors in general, not for this site specifically. That document gets used to wave through 34 separate environmental and safety issues as having only "small" impact, without new site-specific testing for most of them. One example: the assessment of surface water impacts on Little Bayou Creek relies on old monitoring data the Department of Energy already had on hand, rather than new sampling done for this project.


That's not a conspiracy theory. That's what's written in the government's own environmental filing. A community living next to an active Superfund cleanup, one that's projected to run through 2065, deserves a safety review built around this specific piece of ground, not a boilerplate document borrowed from somewhere else.


There's also a broader question that nuclear policy researchers have raised, separate from anything specific to Paducah. Laser enrichment technology is more compact and more efficient than the older methods international inspectors are used to monitoring. Some experts have flagged that this creates real challenges for the safeguards systems built to track where enriched uranium ends up. That's a conversation happening at the national policy level, and it's one more reason a full, independent, site-specific review matters here, not less.


What about long-term cancer risk?


This is where we want to be careful and specific, because vague claims are easy to knock down and specific ones aren't.


Multiple peer-reviewed studies of workers at the Paducah plant, going back decades, found that workers with higher radiation exposure and longer time on the job had elevated rates of blood cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. One study of more than 6,800 workers found lung cancer mortality was elevated specifically among those with higher cumulative radiation exposure and more than twelve years on site. Separately, trichloroethylene, a solvent used heavily at the plant for decades, is a known human carcinogen and one of the contaminants sitting in the groundwater that made this a Superfund site in the first place.


That's the real, documented risk. Not a vague hotspot claim, a specific, citable one.


The federal government already put this in writing


Here's something worth knowing. Congress recently expanded the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to cover people who lived, worked, or went to school in three Paducah-area zip codes (42001, 42003, and 42086) for at least two years after 1949, and who later developed one of a long list of specified cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma, and cancers of the thyroid, breast, lung, colon, brain, and more.


What makes this significant is how the law works. Claimants don't have to prove which specific contaminant caused their illness. Congress built this program specifically because individual proof is nearly impossible, and instead made a legal judgment that living in this area carried real, compensable cancer risk from historic nuclear waste. That's not our opinion. That's federal law, and the claims portal is open right now through the end of 2027.


To be clear about what this does and doesn't mean: this program compensates for historic Manhattan Project-era exposure. It isn't a finding about GLE's new facility or the laser enrichment process specifically. But it is the federal government's own written acknowledgment that this ground has already caused serious, documented harm, years before anyone proposed building something new on top of it.


On being called "misinformation"


We've heard the accusation, including publicly, that the concerns raised here amount to misinformation. We take that seriously, because getting things wrong would hurt the exact community we're trying to protect. So we want to be direct about it.


Every specific claim in this piece is sourced from government documents: NRC filings, federal accident records, peer-reviewed occupational health studies, and the text of federal compensation law. When we've made assumption calls in our own past communications, we've corrected them when we found out we were wrong. That's not the pattern of a group spreading misinformation. That's what taking accuracy seriously actually looks like.


We'd also point to this: an email obtained through an open records request showed a federal scientist involved in nuclear policy work acknowledging that our questions were legitimate, not manufactured, right around the same time our concerns were being publicly dismissed as misinformation. If our questions were baseless, that email wouldn't exist.


We're not asking anyone to take our word over anyone else's. We're asking people to read the sourcing for themselves and judge it on that basis. That's the whole point of doing this work the careful way.


What we're asking for


We're not asking anyone to take our word for any of this. We're asking for the same thing we've asked for from the start: an independent, cumulative study of this project's environmental and safety impacts, done specifically for this site, before any more permits move forward or another dollar of public money gets committed.


The tails aren't going away no matter what happens next. The only real question is whether the people who live here get an honest, thorough look at what's coming before it's built, or after.


Your neighbors at Protect McCracken County


Source List


DUF6 chemistry and hazards


GLE technology and corporate structure


The environmental review gap


Worker cancer studies


TCE and Superfund status

RECA compensation program

  • Program expansion, Manhattan Project Waste category, covered zip codes (42001, 42003, 42086), specified disease list, and compensation amounts: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, "Radiation Exposure Compensation Act," justice.gov/civil/reca.

  • Statutory authority: One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025, amending RECA (42 U.S.C. § 2210 note).


Misinformation section

 
 
 

1 Comment

Paulette Stokes
Jul 12

Outstanding commentary, accurate and insightful! Thank you.

Like
bottom of page