Yucca nuke route could affect 370,000

Thursday, Oct. 14, 1999 | 11:18 a.m.

If a high-level nuclear waste dump is built 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, trucks carrying the nation's radioactive trash could rumble within a half-mile of 37 schools, 23 hotels, a major health facility and a special events center.

Clark County officials presented that estimate Wednesday to members of an advisory committee to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who were hearing public comment on the safety of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.

The NRC would have to license a repository before it is built.

Routes to the proposed repository include Interstate 15, U.S. 95 and the Las Vegas Beltway, which is still under construction. The affected communities include Las Vegas, Stateline and Mesquite.

What's troubling about that count, county officials told the NRC panel, is that by county calculations, there could be 61 to 107 accidents over the first quarter-century of the repository's life -- most of them causing surface contamination. The county used a 1991 DOE study to come up with that estimate.

Accidents could expose children and hospital patients -- a population that is particularly vulnerable -- to radiation, not to mention tourists at the hotel-casinos along the route, Fred Dilger, a county analyst, said.

"That's just under three a year and the disruption to the area has undetermined effects," he said. While a radioactive accident may not require more than removing a few inches of soil, the county is worried about the public stigma created by such an event.

An estimated 372,579 people could be exposed along the route by the time shipments begin in 2020, according to county estimates.

Although the Department of Energy produced a voluminous study on environmental impacts, the information it contained failed to use modern population counts, Engelbrecht von Tiesenhausen of the county's Nuclear Waste Division said.

The DOE used 1990 census data, Dilger said, and estimated only 88,745 people would potentially be exposed along the route. More recent information was available, he said. The Local Emergency Management Planning committee updates affected populations every year.

"Using current population figures is very important to calculate the health risks," Dilger said.

In addition, the DOE is not required to consider special populations such as schools, hospitals and public facilities, Dilger said.

John Garrick, chairman of the regulatory commission's advisory committee, acknowledged that transportation risk assessment is one of the "boogeymen" of measuring possible hazards and dangers to public health and safety.

Because the DOE in its environmental impact report looked at the transportation issue in general terms and didn't look at vulnerable populations such as children and hospitalized people, it got a poor look at the health risks, he said.

"It has to be done on specific routes," Garrick said, asking both federal and county officials present whether any agency represented was prepared to measure more accurately the transportation risks.

The DOE wasn't, said DOE senior technical and science adviser Michael Voegele. "You have to remember the repository has not been approved yet."

The state says that by law it can only designate alternative routes after the final routes are chosen by the federal Department of Transportation.

And the county doesn't think such a study is its responsibility, , said Dilger. "We think that is the Department of Energy's job to produce that risk assessment," he said.

The Department of Energy has not focused on transportation problems because Yucca Mountain has not passed scientific muster, the DOE's Paul Harrington said.

Harrington also presented information on major design changes proposed for disposal containers that would boost radiation levels coming from shipments. Instead of a carbon steel shell 100 millimeters thick, the new proposed cask would have two layers, one a metal alloy and the second stainless steel, 50 millimeters thick.

The old container would allow 50 rems of radiation to escape. The new one would allow 600 rems, Harrington said.

He was asked how the DOE plans to protect drivers, workers, inspectors and the public from the increased exposure permitted by the new casks.

"By using robotic handlers and shielding, a drip shield in the repository," he replied.

The radiation, Harrington explained, is dangerous only at the surface of the container. At a distance of 3 feet away, it would not harm anyone.

Dilger also criticized plans by the DOE to ship 5-year-old radioactive wastes from reactors to Yucca Mountain. "Originally, the age was 25 years," he said. "At 5 years, (the waste) is more radioactive." Radioactive material becomes less dangerous over time.

Further, the DOE did not state in its environmental impact report whether nuclear waste shipped by rail will move on special, guarded trains or along general freight routes, Dilger noted.

If the nuclear waste went with normal freight traffic, it could be forced to sit in rail yards across the country -- including in downtown Las Vegas -- for long periods of time if tracks were blocked on its route, he said.

Clark County wasn't the only local government concerned about the stigma and impacts from thousands of nuclear waste containers coming by truck or train.

Nye County's Jim Williams said that the federal routing regulations are open to political manipulation by more populated, better represented states. That could increase both the risks and the costs, he said.

"Please help us think about how to deal with a shipping campaign that is unprecedented," he asked the committee.