U233 - Is it a problem?

My friend Keith, always vigilant, sent me an article today from the New York Times Uranium 233 A Disposal Risk? It's not a lengthy read and poses yet another permanent disposal risk along with other concerns as well.

U233 was a man-made substitute for natural uranium back in the 1950's when we 'loved the bomb' and needed to be assured we would not run out of fuel for our reactors and our bombs. But as the cycle of life goes, things change and we move on or at least attempt to.

What I found kind of interesting in reading the article was how at that time in 'back to the future' in the fifties how everyone seems to know all the answers to questions of stockpiles and storage and moving 'forward to the future' I wonder...hmm will there still be answers that turn into questions?

"Today, the problem is how to safely get rid of it." - Oh, oh  here we go again. I did a little checking and it seems that Uranium 233 has a half life of 159,200 years. That shouldn't be a problem. The direction we are headed Planet Earth is going to be following the path of Planet Hollywood before long.

“Nuclear physicists weren’t geologists and didn’t understand the supply of uranium,” said Frank N. Von Hippel, a physicist and public policy specialist at Princeton. “It turned out there was more uranium than people thought and less nuclear power than people thought there would be.”

Oh, dear, say it isn't so? I suppose in the end I should be more concerned over the security risks, you know evil countries or evil terrorists stealing our left-overs and making bombs that will destroy the world. But my concern is more for the long term impact on our environment and human-kind in general but perhaps that is a moot point.

The government spent $5.5 billion (adjusted for inflation) to produce U233, something it turns out wasn't even needed and now the Energy Department is estimating it will take $473 million to dispose of the stockpiles that weren't needed in the first place. 

Go ahead read the article have a chuckle then maybe sit down an have a stiff drink.

Didn't mean to get your week off to a bad start.

Things You Should Know About

U.S. Senate hearing lays groundwork for latest Mobile Chernobyl legislation

The cover of Beyond Nuclear's pamphlet "A Mountain of Radioactive Waste 70 Years High"

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has acknowledged that the court-ordered revision to its Nuclear Waste Confidence Decision, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement about the risks on at-reactor storage of irradiated nuclear fuel, will delay the issuance of new reactor construction and operating licenses, as well as old reactor 20 year license extensions, by two years. This has led to a backlash by the nuclear establishment in industry and government.

U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, held a hearing on September 12th to advance his bill, S. 3469, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2012. Although Bingaman himself has acknowledged his bill will not be enacted this year, before he retires from the Senate, he has expressed hope that it will lay the groundwork for passage next year.

As reported previously by Beyond Nuclear, Bingaman's bill would largely promote the recommendations of President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu's Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future. The BRC's top priority involves launching high-level radioactive waste shipments -- by truck, train, and barge -- sooner rather than later. The first shipments would begin at permanently shutdown atomic reactors, to free up the radioactively contaminated land for "unrestricted re-use," despite the lingering hazards. Once the shipments leave the nuclear utilities' property, the title and liability for the forever deadly irradiated nuclear fuel transfers instantly, and forevermore, to American taxpayers.

The targeted destinations are called "consolidated" or "centralized interim storage sites," but should be called parking lot dumps. Given the great difficulty of locating even a single deep geologic repository at a site capable of containing the high-level radioactive wastes for a million years, chances are that "interim storage sites" will become de facto permanent surface storage for high-level radioactive waste. Locations at the top of that target list include the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Bingaman's home state of New Mexico; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; the tiny Skull Valley Goshutes Indian Reservation in Utah; the Dresden nuclear power plant in Illinois; and others.

Beyond Nuclear will join with Nuclear Energy Information Service in Chicago to commemorate the 70th year since Enrico Fermi first split the atom during the Manhattan Project at the University of Chicago in 1942, thus creating the first high-level radioactive waste on Earth. The event, "A Mountain of Radioactive Waste 70 Years High: Ending the Nuclear Age," will take place from December 1st to 3rd. A key goal of the gathering will be to begin pushing back against such a radioactive waste shell game on our roads, rails, and waterways, which Senator Bingaman is attempting to launch for no good reason.

For More Information: http://www.beyondnuclear.org

NRC Asks - What are we going to do with all this S**T?

NRC DIRECTS STAFF TO CONDUCT TWO-YEAR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AND 
REVISION TO WASTE CONFIDENCE RULE

Here is the link to the NRC release http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2012/12-098.pdf

"Waste Confidence" is a generic finding that spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored for decades beyond the licensed operating life of a reactor without significant environmental effects. It enables the NRC to license reactors or renew their licenses without examining the effects of extended waste storage for each individual site pending ultimate disposal. - from above cited NRC news No. 12-098

I don't even like the term "waste confidence" but hey, this is a start. I trust this is not a smoke screen to disguise the huge problem of permanent long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel. Did that need to be mentioned yet again?