SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Expert: US Plan for Uranium-233 Disposal "Shocking"
Report warns against plan to simply bury weapons-grade nuclear material 'straight into the ground'
Sep 24, 2012
Uranium 233, a man-made substitute for natural uranium that was produced mostly in the 1960's and 70's to provide fuel for the nation's nascent nuclear energy program, turned out to be a highly expensive material with almost no practical application.
Now, nearly fifty years and many billions of dollars later, the question before the US Department of Energy is how to safely neutralize and store the many thousands of pounds of it that remain in government facilities.
A report in Monday's New York Times, explains that the government's plan
is to take the uranium made at Indian Point, now stored in 403 stainless steel tubes at a plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and bury the containers at a low-level waste dump that consists of trenches that are up to 40 feet deep at the Nevada National Security Site, where nuclear weapons were tested until 1992.
Workers will dig narrow "slit trenches" at the bottom of the standard ones, descending another 8 to 10 feet.
But Robert Alverez, a nuclear expert and senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, argues that this plan is a gross mistake, and only builds on previous blunders made by the US Department of Energy when it comes to decisions about uranium 233.
To bury the material--which Alvarez characterizes as one of the "most dangerous materials on the planet"--in what amounts to a "landfill," he says, would show blatant disregrard "for international safeguard and security norms as well as the department's own nuclear security and radioactive waste disposal standards."
"Instead of setting an example," Alvarez continues, "the U.S. government is establishing a bad precedent for the rest of the world in protecting public safety and security from concentrated fissile materials."
"Our nuclear facilities may have done a poor job of keeping track of this dangerous material. Now, the Department of Energy has indicated it plans to waive safety requirements to dispose of it. But if the U.S. government makes a mess, they should clean it up."
According to a report (pdf) authored by Alvarez last month, the last remaining stockpile of uranium-233, "should be properly accounted for, safely secured, and diluted for proper disposal, never to fuel nuclear weapons in the future."
As the NYT concludes, the costs of such efforts were not available, but so far "the Energy Department has rejected the additional expense as unnecessary."
# # #
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Uranium 233, a man-made substitute for natural uranium that was produced mostly in the 1960's and 70's to provide fuel for the nation's nascent nuclear energy program, turned out to be a highly expensive material with almost no practical application.
Now, nearly fifty years and many billions of dollars later, the question before the US Department of Energy is how to safely neutralize and store the many thousands of pounds of it that remain in government facilities.
A report in Monday's New York Times, explains that the government's plan
is to take the uranium made at Indian Point, now stored in 403 stainless steel tubes at a plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and bury the containers at a low-level waste dump that consists of trenches that are up to 40 feet deep at the Nevada National Security Site, where nuclear weapons were tested until 1992.
Workers will dig narrow "slit trenches" at the bottom of the standard ones, descending another 8 to 10 feet.
But Robert Alverez, a nuclear expert and senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, argues that this plan is a gross mistake, and only builds on previous blunders made by the US Department of Energy when it comes to decisions about uranium 233.
To bury the material--which Alvarez characterizes as one of the "most dangerous materials on the planet"--in what amounts to a "landfill," he says, would show blatant disregrard "for international safeguard and security norms as well as the department's own nuclear security and radioactive waste disposal standards."
"Instead of setting an example," Alvarez continues, "the U.S. government is establishing a bad precedent for the rest of the world in protecting public safety and security from concentrated fissile materials."
"Our nuclear facilities may have done a poor job of keeping track of this dangerous material. Now, the Department of Energy has indicated it plans to waive safety requirements to dispose of it. But if the U.S. government makes a mess, they should clean it up."
According to a report (pdf) authored by Alvarez last month, the last remaining stockpile of uranium-233, "should be properly accounted for, safely secured, and diluted for proper disposal, never to fuel nuclear weapons in the future."
As the NYT concludes, the costs of such efforts were not available, but so far "the Energy Department has rejected the additional expense as unnecessary."
# # #
Uranium 233, a man-made substitute for natural uranium that was produced mostly in the 1960's and 70's to provide fuel for the nation's nascent nuclear energy program, turned out to be a highly expensive material with almost no practical application.
Now, nearly fifty years and many billions of dollars later, the question before the US Department of Energy is how to safely neutralize and store the many thousands of pounds of it that remain in government facilities.
A report in Monday's New York Times, explains that the government's plan
is to take the uranium made at Indian Point, now stored in 403 stainless steel tubes at a plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and bury the containers at a low-level waste dump that consists of trenches that are up to 40 feet deep at the Nevada National Security Site, where nuclear weapons were tested until 1992.
Workers will dig narrow "slit trenches" at the bottom of the standard ones, descending another 8 to 10 feet.
But Robert Alverez, a nuclear expert and senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, argues that this plan is a gross mistake, and only builds on previous blunders made by the US Department of Energy when it comes to decisions about uranium 233.
To bury the material--which Alvarez characterizes as one of the "most dangerous materials on the planet"--in what amounts to a "landfill," he says, would show blatant disregrard "for international safeguard and security norms as well as the department's own nuclear security and radioactive waste disposal standards."
"Instead of setting an example," Alvarez continues, "the U.S. government is establishing a bad precedent for the rest of the world in protecting public safety and security from concentrated fissile materials."
"Our nuclear facilities may have done a poor job of keeping track of this dangerous material. Now, the Department of Energy has indicated it plans to waive safety requirements to dispose of it. But if the U.S. government makes a mess, they should clean it up."
According to a report (pdf) authored by Alvarez last month, the last remaining stockpile of uranium-233, "should be properly accounted for, safely secured, and diluted for proper disposal, never to fuel nuclear weapons in the future."
As the NYT concludes, the costs of such efforts were not available, but so far "the Energy Department has rejected the additional expense as unnecessary."
# # #
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.