If you haven’t figured it out yet, nuclear waste is a serious problem. It’s right up there with the economy and what the Commons is serving for lunch today. Storing nuclear waste is hazardous and very difficult to do. Transporting thousands of tons of irradiated fuel is outright scary.
Alarmist sentiments? Maybe. Last time, I discussed Yucca Mountain and I promised to bring the matter home for you this week. As radioactive waste accumulates at reactor sites around the country, it becomes increasingly clear that either these reactors need to be shut down or a place needs to be found to house this waste. Despite its shortcomings, Yucca Mountain holds all of the eggs in the proverbial wastebasket. Yucca Mountain only affects Nevada though, doesn’t it?
Nope.
In order to bring the waste to Nevada, thousands of trucks must be placed on the road to transport it. According to the Nuclear Information Resource Service (www.nirs.org), these trucks will be taking the most direct routes through 43 states and passing within half a mile of an estimated 50 million American people. The Nuclear Energy Institute (www.nei.org) indicates that there have been eight nuclear shipping accidents to date, although none resulting in the release of radioactive material. Now for the statistics: According to the editors of Scientific American (January 2002) each of the 100+ reactors currently in operation produces about 20 tons of waste material per year. By my estimation, that means about 1000 truckloads per year. If the safety record provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute holds for the future, that means an estimated six accidents every year. Naturally, this proposition does not take into account the amount of waste that is already built up at reactor sites, only the waste generated from today onward. Despite a myriad of impressive safety and security precautions, accidents can still occur.
If an accident were to occur involving the release of a large amount of radioactive material, the potential health consequences posed to nearby communities and ecosystems would be potentially catastrophic in their implications. Such a release of radioactive materials could cause a number of health problems, from cancer to genetic mutation. Financially speaking, a Department of Energy determined that cleanup costs would be approximately 460 million dollars if just a small amount of radioactive material were released. Despite the stringent tests that shipping casks undergo, the possibility for manufacturing errors and accidents exceeding design tolerances still exists.
So, despite all of the care taken to prevent them, accidents may still happen. The potential exists for tremendous long-term damage to both human and ecosystem health, in the event of an accident occuring in relation to the shipping of nuclear waste. Security measures, as strict as they may be, still have the potential for failure. Regardless of the low statistical chance of a radioactive release, with thousands of shipments being made, the numbers still tend to make me a tiny bit nervous. The real question that you should be asking yourself is, “How many accidents does it take before the damage is too much?” When you are talking about nuclear waste, one accident is far too many. I cannot help but consider nuclear power and ask myself, “Is it worth it?” Perhaps you should do the same. There are hard choices to be made about this nation’s energy future; surely any energy source with the potential for hazard that nuclear power has should not be a consideration as we plan for a sustainable future.
