Moving Nuclear Waste By Rail, Yay or Nay???

[Anonymous]

In and Around the Industry



US Plans to Move Nuclear Waste to Nevada Site By Rail



The U.S. Department of Energy plans to use rail to ship most radioactive waste bound for a planned national nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the Department announced on April 5.

The department has not said what routes it intends to use to transport the waste from 127 sites across the nation to a planned rail head near Caliente, 150 miles northeast of Las Vegas near the Utah line.

Use of rail will require construction on a new 319-mile long from Caliente to Yucca Mountain. The line will cost $880 million and take four years to build, according to a DOE spokesman.

Bob Loux, the state of Nevada=s nuclear projects chief, told the Associated Press that the state will challenge the rail plan.

In July 2002, the Bush administration and Congress approved Yucca Mountain as the site to store 77,000 tons of radioactive waste now held in 39 states. The facility is supposed to open by 2010.


[?][?][?][?]

What's everyones opinion on this? I support the storage of waste at Yucca Mountain, and as a railroader I would even transport it. Many tests have been performed on the cars that carry radioactive waste and it's said they can withstand severe impacts through collisions or derailments. What's your opinion(s)???

[tree68]

Given the choice between a relatively stable rail car and a rubber-tired wobbler, I'll support the train. Collisions between cars and trucks usually end up badly for both. Collisions between cars and trains, as we've discussed at length, generally favor the train, which means the material is that much safer.

Of course, the NIMBY folks will be out in force.

[JoeKoh]

The Nimbys were worried when they moved a reactor from Michigan to South Carolina.The stuff is low level so really no problem.
stay safe
Joe

[edblysard]

Man, not to be a spoil sport, but if John Q Public knew what we already haul around, and through their citys, towns and neighborhoods, they would pull up the rails.

Hydrocyanatic acid, LPG, MDI, chlorine, amonia, acrylic acid, and so many chemicals with tounge twister names that, if it leaks, things die.

Hundreds of thousands of gallons of things that curl you toes when you read the hazmat info on them, yet we move them every single day, millions of miles a year, through towns and cities, safely and without incident..

Nuclear waste?

Not a problem, wheres the trainsheet and the motors?

Ed

[louisnash]

If I am not mistaken, I believe that the Fernald Uranium plant north of Cincinnati hauls by rail. It seems that one of the TV stations did a report on it. They are presently cleaning that site up also, closing it down.

If it is true that they use rail, you never hear anything about any troubles from them.

I am sure if nuclear waste was/is to be hauled by rail that there is some sort of extra security in place. Especially in the times that we are in right now. But you never know.

But I believe it is just as safe by rail. I am sure there are precautions set in place to protect the load.

Brian (KY)

[Train Guy 3]

Why not carry it by rail?... there's plenty of dangerrous stuff already travling down them, this is just one more on the list. Personally, I'd rather live by a rail line with nuclear waste running down it; than live by the nuclear plant itself.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Get it there by rail, and get it over with. Once the original shipments are made, the amounts should be small from then on. The state of Nevada has fought this entire project all the way, but it is moving forward. The fight is just a show for the Nimbys.

This is just a nuclear waste roundup, and Yucca is the corral. Roll em in there and close the gate. I wi***here was a better solution, but there isn't.

[Anonymous]

In my opinion: if its good enough to be done on RT2, might as well try it in real life!

and BTW, when the nat'l park service supposedly considered repairing & refilling the C&O canal in Brunswick, they decided against it because the canal bed closest the old B&O roundhouse was too contaminated with toxic chemicals to be filled with water and be enviromentally safe enough for tourists........and the RR employees work with this stuff daily (or at least they had years ago)

[Anonymous]

I don't see why anyone would worry. We have to have a place to dispose of this waste to continue producing energy. Right now all of the nuclear plants have to store their own waste. This is expensive and causes problems. They need a permanent site so they can build more plants. Nuclear power is very clean power and there are very few accidents. There are no emmision problems from these plants. The fuel used in nuclear plants is very low in energy compared to weapons grade fuel.

I am not worried at all about any transportation of nuclear waste. The containers that they use are resistant to anything that they will encounter. I really don't care how they get it there, it just needs to go. It does make sense to use rail because speed is not a concern and trains can carry the heavy metals and the heavy container without a problem.

buellman2003

[RudyRockvilleMD]

What are the alternate modes of transportation, and are they safer? No.

[Modelcar]

....If it must be moved and the rails have the proper equipment then it is my opinion that is the way it should be moved. I'm not passing judgement of where it should go, just how....

[Anonymous]

It's rail or truck, (don't think they've ever tried to move this stuff in planes).

Trains overall would be much safer, and can be moved more efficiently given a consistant, clear right-of-way.

Seems like the better choice to me.

[Anonymous]

hey, why don't we drop the stuff in a volcano in the middle of nowhere in the pacific an Nuke it. LOL

[Anonymous]

By rail is best!

In Germany, we made the nuclear transports, waste or not, since years by rail! Highest poissible security was made when such a train run. The waste was loaded in so called CASTORS´s and the transport was made with a mass of police and security.

The biggest problem is that our waste site, near Hamburg, is away from rail. So they must load the heavy Castor onto a platform roller and drive it to the site.

I remember only one accident - nobody was injured ! The wagons that handle the castor, I think they were made in the USA are loaded extreme heavy - about 300 tons. In Forbach, at the border to France - reactorcores to the refreshplant in Northfrance or UK - was derailed because of a damaged track. This was happened at a low speed.

Nuclear transports are every time dangerous so the highest possible security is a must!

[Mookie]

Will this travel in tank cars? And will it be marked as Nuclear Waste or will it just have a placard and # to look up? Just wondering if they will "keep it under wraps" while they are shipping it? Is it liquid?

Mookie

[mudchicken]

Railroads have moved much more volatile stuff than this for years in AEMX , AECX cars that look like white, chopped, low-ridered boxcars. (Example: plutonium triggers from Amarillo, TX /PANTEX to Hanford, WA)...These were not moved in the overly tested containers now at the AAR/TTC "FAST" track at Pueblo...

The bigger problem is NIMBY and quack environmentalists trying to disrupt train operations by derailing the train. Have seen these clowns dump old refrigerators in switches and try to burn timber bridges (both unsuccessfully) in Southern Colorado....

The rail containers going to Yucca Mountain and WIPP are vertical containers about 10 feet in diameter and 8-10 ft tall. These are already a common sight on I-25 between Albuquerque and Denver. What is more interesting to me is the ex-Amtrak F40's in graph paper paint (silver & black grid) used as cra***est dummies at the Pueblo test track....

Travelling Feathers[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Man, not to be a spoil sport, but if John Q Public knew what we already haul around, and through their citys, towns and neighborhoods, they would pull up the rails.

Hydrocyanatic acid, LPG, MDI, chlorine, amonia, acrylic acid, and so many chemicals with tounge twister names that, if it leaks, things die.

Hundreds of thousands of gallons of things that curl you toes when you read the hazmat info on them, yet we move them every single day, millions of miles a year, through towns and cities, safely and without incident..

Nuclear waste?

Not a problem, wheres the trainsheet and the motors?

Ed

Yeah, try one day getting really close, and reading what the actaul freight cars contain, Amonium-hydroxide, Potassium Nitrate, Basically any element on the peridoic table AND its compounds..

Not to mention, C3H8, C3H6,

[rrnut282]

This should be a no-brainer. Ship it by rail. The casks that actually hold the material have been tested at impacts around 20g's. Nothing short of a concentrated blast of high-explosives will rupture them. The ONLY problem is the NIMBY's and as someone mentioned before, quack environmentalists. I find it ironic that they would try to disrupt a shipment and risk poisoning their sacred environment for so little gain. Several months ago, we had a shipment pass through and the TV stations got wind of it and made some noise. It passed through quietly in the night to lessen the chance of a grade-crossing incident and everyone slept peacefully, which is what this whole program at Yucca Mountain is all about. Until they develop a rocket capable of heavy lift that will target the sun, this is the best alternative available.

[wabash1]

been hauling this stuff for years now. on rail thru here. at track speed. never had a problem. this is low level stuff of course but nobody knows its happening.

[dharmon]

Why waste a perfectly good train...lets contract ValueJet.......that way we get a good firey crash and greater radiation spread.

[Anonymous]

Well I'd rather it be by train than by truck. With a truck anything can happen and shipping by rail is safer.

[DSchmitt]

Radioactive materials have been moved safely for years by both truck and rail. When possible rail is the best way to go.

By the way if you think radiation is always hazardous read this article:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/31/163126.shtml

[Anonymous]

Ok, so what routes will 3 mile island and the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power company be useing? will they be running by here? who wants to take a bath in some glowin' green jello?

[edblysard]

Just a though,
But did anyone wonder how they moved the radioactive fuel into the plants in the first place?

Its not like they ran down to Home Depot and picked up a few fuel rod bundles on sale...

And most of the waste is going to be things along the lines of junk, sections of reactor vessels, left over construction material, just about anything that has been exposed for a long period of time.
Was watching a Discovery Channel program on the disposal site, and what was going to be stored there.
All the junk from Three mile Island, used protective clothing, tools, broken control rods, contaiminated dirt and trash,heck, they even showed a bucket or pail that was exposed, and they chop it all up, stuff it in 55 gallon drums, and ship it.

It isnt going to be just used fuel rods.
Ever wonder what they do with old X-Ray equipment, and the radioactive leftovers from that?
Its gotta go somewhere.
We service a place called Safety Clean, they dispose of stuff like that, and medical waste.
Have hauled a lot of old gons out to them, marked "radioactive" and covered with a tarp.
Some of it they bury, some gets incinerated.

Its a smart move, putting all this stuff in a place where most humans dont really want to go.
Better move would be to not create the junk in the first place, but thats a different story...

Ed

[vsmith]

Hey I had a thought,

What if we got that nuclear-powered ex-Norfolk 2-8-8-2 from India to pull the train,
we'd be killing two birds with one stone...

[8)][:P][X-)][censored][%-)][D)][(-D]

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Hey I had a thought,

What if we got that nuclear-powered ex-Norfolk 2-8-8-2 from India to pull the train,
we'd be killing two birds with one stone...

[8)][:P][X-)][censored][%-)][D)][(-D]

Yeah....Yeah..and me and girlfriend...Morgan...yeah Morgan Fairchild could run it....

[Anonymous]

I worked on ideas of transporting and storing nuclear waste for the nuclear industry of America Canada and the UK .I was quite pleased by the idea of the
building material as waste going by rail.I was not worried by accidents as knew state
as rail industry had safe guards on hand and would place proper hazmat units as needed.would we ship oil ect and other way .

think safety think rail

David Brown

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainheartedguy

hey, why don't we drop the stuff in a volcano in the middle of nowhere in the pacific an Nuke it. LOL

Why not just load it up in a rocket ship and send it on a one-way ticket into deep space?

[Anonymous]

I don't have a problem with it. It's been safely done before and the cars are better constructed than what could be built to travel on highways.

[hogger42]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Railroads have moved much more volatile stuff than this for years in AEMX , AECX cars that look like white, chopped, low-ridered boxcars. (Example: plutonium triggers from Amarillo, TX /PANTEX to Hanford, WA)...These were not moved in the overly tested containers now at the AAR/TTC "FAST" track at Pueblo...


Travelling Feathers[banghead][banghead][banghead]

Geez MC,
I remember switching these cars in Pueblo Yard some years ago... They had lights and horns all over them....