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

[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

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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

[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

[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.

[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)???