Letter: Hazards of nuke shipments are exaggerated

Monday, Aug. 14, 2000 | 9:53 a.m.

The issue that needs to be addressed is routing. It's almost a phony issue because a lot of our elected officials worry about the waste coming through the Las Vegas Valley. Well, a lot of people might not know that the state of Nevada can designate alternate routes, but to date it hasn't and probably won't because it's part of the state's strategy. If the state does designate an alternate route, then it takes away one argument opposing the project.

Nuclear power plants, government research facilities, universities and industrial facilities have transported about 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel to date without a single death or injury due to the radioactive nature of the cargo. You might not know that about 3 million shipments of radioactive materials occur annually in our country and most of them on the highways. Transportation of spent nuclear fuel in our country has a proven safety record.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will approve transportation casks for spent fuel. These are robust containers that are designed to shield radiation and withstand severe accidents just like the accident last week on U.S. 95. It's important to note that spent fuel is a solid and is shipped dry -- there is no liquid oozing out like some in the media would like you to believe.

I take risks every day. When I get in my car I'm taking a risk, but I also know that if I come to a stoplight I would much rather be stopped next to a truck carrying spent nuclear fuel than a gasoline or chlorine tanker.

The value added in the recent accident is our increasing awareness of emergency response training and equipment needs throughout not only Clark County but rural Nevada as well. Those are just two areas we need to work on with the federal government as the scientific study of Yucca Mountain proceeds.

BILL VASCONI