Las Vegas Sun

March 19, 2024

Moving deadly cargo

WEEKEND EDITION: October 10, 2004

Buried in the Energy Department's environmental impact statement on Yucca Mountain is a telling admission:

"Accidents could occur during the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste."

That is hardly a comforting thought given the catastrophic possibilities of a radioactive release in a densely populated city such as Las Vegas.

The Energy Department would prefer to use railroads instead of trucks to ship most of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

But the department -- which has been accused of ignoring scientific questions related to repackaging of the waste, to the threat of terrorism and to the mountain as a safe storage site -- has yet to answer the following:

How reliable is the nation's freight-rail system and how can we be sure that it is safe enough to transport the proposed 77,000 tons of radioactive material from 127 sites in 39 states?

The answer is, no one knows for sure because the rail system has yet to be studied in depth as it relates to Yucca Mountain. The Energy Department does not even know the rail routes it would use, let alone the trains and waste storage casks it would use.

Among the rail-safety issues that merit attention are:

The history of nuclear waste transport by rail and whether it is relevant given the much higher number of shipments that are expected to come to Nevada.

The railroad accident records of each state that would be crossed by trains carrying radioactive waste.

The risks involved in transporting nuclear waste by rail from Caliente in Lincoln County to Yucca Mountain, a proposed route of 319 miles.

The impact deregulation of the railroad industry in 1980 has had on rail safety.

The impact of railroad worker fatigue.

The ability of federal and state railroad inspectors to keep on top of safety issues.

Historical perspective

The rail industry and the Energy Department say they believe nuclear waste shipments by rail would be safe based on the success of transports that have occurred nationwide since 1957.

Allan Rutter, then-administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, which oversees safety, made that clear in March while testifying before the House Transportation of Nuclear Waste Subcommittee on Railroads.

"Rail shipments of spent nuclear fuel have a long and very positive safety history, having been transported safely by rail in the United States for more than 46 years," Rutter testified. "During that time, there has never been a single train accident or incident involving these rail shipments that has resulted in an injury, a death or a release of the material from the packaging."

There is dispute about Rutter's claim that there never was a cask leak. According to the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, the state's Yucca Mountain watchdog, three rail yards at unspecified locations were contaminated by cask leaks in June 1960. And there was a cask leak confined to a rail car at another undisclosed location in December 1963.

There have been at least four other train accidents related to nuclear waste transport with no reported radioactive release and four accidents involving trains that were carrying empty decontaminated nuclear waste casks. One was in a North Carolina rail yard in March 1974 when a train with an empty cask was struck by another train that derailed, causing superficial damage to the cask.

The most highly publicized incident occurred in March 1987 in St. Louis when a train carrying nuclear waste to Idaho from the damaged Three Mile Island reactor near Middletown, Pa., collided with a stalled vehicle at a railroad crossing. There were no fatalities or radioactive release, but the city's Board of Aldermen cited the collision in a resolution calling for an end to nuclear waste shipments through that city until a permanent solution for nuclear waste is found.

The Energy Department estimated there would be eight accidents involving nuclear waste trains between 2010, the projected starting date of shipments to Yucca Mountain, and 2034. The state nuclear projects agency predicted 160 to 390 rail accidents based on possible shipments over a 38-year period. Even if the 24-year schedule is met, the state believes the Energy Department has grossly underestimated the number of accidents that would occur.

The reason for the discrepancy is that there have been only about 1,200 rail shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste in this country -- the history the Energy Department relied on heavily to make its prediction. The state argues that there could be at least 14,000 rail shipments to Yucca Mountain.

"I used to think rail would be safer and cheaper than trucks, but I am beginning to realize it wouldn't be safer or cheaper," said Bob Halstead, Nevada's lead transportation consultant on nuclear waste. "The public perception is that rail would be safer because the number of shipments would be smaller. But rail casks handle four to six times as much nuclear waste as truck casks, so there is a trade-off when it comes to safety and security from terrorism."

Accidents by state

The Energy Department has not yet determined which rail routes the nuclear waste would be transported to Nevada. But Federal Railroad Administration data show that the states with the most noncrossing train accidents from 1995 through 2003 -- mishaps that involve mostly derailments or collisions on main rail lines and in rail yards -- are all sure bets to be included because they are on paths to nuclear reactors.

Those states are Texas (2,731 accidents), Illinois (2,424), California (1,537), New York (1,151), Pennsylvania (1,059), Ohio (951), Iowa (850), Nebraska (838), Kansas (822), Minnesota (752), Missouri (750) and Louisiana (745).

Nevada had 94 noncrossing train accidents from 1995 through 2003. Only seven states had fewer mishaps along main rail lines and in rail yards. Nevada ranks low in this category because it has relatively little freight-train activity compared to other states.

Nationwide there were 9,330 train accidents from 1975 through May that damaged cars carrying hazardous material. Of those accidents, 1,653 resulted in spills and 689 forced temporary evacuations. Nevada only accounted for slightly more than three-tenths of 1 percent of those accidents and four-tenths of 1 percent of the spills.

But the state is not immune from train mishaps.

Nevada's most infamous rail accident involved a passenger train, "The City of San Francisco," which derailed off of a bridge in Eureka County in August 1939. The accident, in which five cars plunged into the Humboldt River, killed 24 people and injured 121. Sabotage was suspected but never proven.

From 1975 through May the state had 497 noncrossing train accidents. Thirty-four of those damaged cars holding hazardous material such as chemical compounds and solvents. There were seven spills, although no deaths or injuries resulted.

Nevada also had 274 incidents -- 48 in Clark County -- where trains and motor vehicles collided at road crossings.

For all train activity combined in Nevada from 1975 through May there were 119 fatalities and 2,742 injuries. Most fatalities were railroad trespassers and motorists involved in train crashes, and most of the injuries were to railroad workers.

To Fred Dilger, a traffic consultant to the state's nuclear projects agency, Nevada's past train accidents are "not like anything that could happen in the future."

"We're looking at orders of magnitude of difference in terms of the shipment of nuclear waste and other hazardous material," Dilger of Henderson said. "High-level nuclear waste is unlike any other hazardous material because it is unsafe even when it is enclosed. The waste packages do not contain all the radiation because there are gamma rays that escape."

The Association of American Railroads, a trade group in Washington, believes its industry is very safe. Nationally there are four rail accidents for every 1 million miles traveled.

"Generally speaking, rail is safe and it is the preferred method of shipping most hazardous waste," spokesman Tom White said. "Last year there were only 25 accidents in this country in which any hazardous material was released. That is out of close to 1.8 million freight cars of hazardous material that moved by rail.

"I don't think anyone has found a way to make anything accident-proof, but you make it as safe as you possibly can. Our record speaks for itself."

Through Nevada

Halstead of Portage, Wis., said Nevada is lucky it hasn't already had a major calamity tied to a hazardous-material spill.

Nevada has 1,200 miles of rail, all owned by Union Pacific Railroad Co. The state ranks 39th in actual track mileage. Nevada is well behind Texas (10,347 miles), Illinois (7,261) and California (5,908). But portions of the Nevada lines go through densely populated Las Vegas and Reno.

In Las Vegas, the rail line cuts through a 30-mile-long urban corridor that also includes nearby petroleum and natural gas pipelines. In 1989 a railroad car in Union Pacific's Las Vegas rail yard overturned and barely missed two petroleum pipelines.

"We do have conditions conducive to severe accidents," Halstead said. "The very fact that we have had accidents in the past is a concern because it tells you more severe accidents are possible. It's not the statistical data that concerns me. It's the conditions we have in Nevada."

One condition in Nevada is extreme summer heat, which can cause rails to expand. In certain parts of the state, extreme cold temperatures can cause rails to contract.

Another condition is Nevada's mountainous terrain, which prompted the state to file another federal lawsuit earlier this month against the Energy Department. Bob Loux, executive director of the state nuclear projects agency, said the federal department exceeded its jurisdiction by proposing in April to build a 319-mile rail route from Caliente to Yucca Mountain.

"There are 11 major mountains that would have to be crossed and that would require tunneling and very steep grades," Loux said.

Energy's strategy is to have most of the nation's radioactive waste shipped by rail to Caliente, a line that would take at least four years and $880 million to build. Rail experts say the safest waste transports would be on short trains -- possibly only five or six cars in length -- to reduce slack and jerky motions that can occur with longer trains.

The railroad industry believes the trains should have no other cargo, be given priority so that other trains on the same tracks would have to move aside and have a security escort.

The Federal Railroad Administration, which has a safety compliance plan for nuclear waste transports, also would require railroads to detect rail flaws so that repairs could be made before shipments occurred. And federal inspectors would check each shipment prior to departure and during each crew change.

Union Pacific, the nation's largest railroad and largest hauler of chemicals by rail, is not concerned about transporting spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain, spokesman John Bromley said.

"We have never had a nuclear waste spill or an accident while transporting nuclear waste so we have an excellent track record," Bromley said. "We will handle it with the greatest of care when it comes our way."

But critics say the Caliente route would be unsafe because of steep hairpin curves through the mountains.

"It puts a lot more demand on the operators of the train," said Rick Moore, a rail engineering consultant for Nevada's nuclear projects agency from Laramie, Wyo. "You could be going too fast down a grade and then have a tight curve that the train can't handle, and it could jump the tracks. Because of the weight of the train, it could push on the outside rail and that could pull the rails apart."

If the casks should be thrown from a train in Nevada, Dilger said it could take five hours for special cranes in Los Angeles or Salt Lake City to arrive at the scene to retrieve them.

Critics also say a high volume of nuclear waste could still pass through Las Vegas if the Energy Department chooses southern routes to transport spent nuclear fuel west to California and then back through Nevada.

Railroad deregulation

To help economically depressed railroads, Congress in 1980 deregulated the industry. This led to profitability, but also promoted consolidation to the point where only four railroad companies, including Union Pacific, control 90 percent of the nation's rail-freight business.

Industry representatives say freight-train safety has improved dramatically since deregulation, with a 65 percent decline in train accidents overall and an 86 percent drop in accidents involving hazardous material.

The reason given was that railroads began spending profits on safety upgrades. White said railroads spent $10.1 billion on maintenance and safety improvements in 2002, compared to $5.8 billion in 1980.

"One thing that happened is that the economic condition of railroads has improved," White said. "They have had more money to spend on tracks and equipment, and things are better maintained than they were 20 years ago."

But according to a Labor Department inflation calculator based on the Consumer Price Index, $5.8 billion in 1980 would have translated to $12.6 billion in 2002.

The Federal Railroad Administration also reported in 2002 that railroads reduced their research and development programs "despite record traffic levels in the freight-railroad industry and the creation of fewer, larger railroad companies."

Deregulation also caused major railroads to reduce the amount of track they use nationally from 165,000 miles to 100,000. The result is heavier traffic along the tracks still in use, which Halstead said increases the chances for train accidents.

"The desire of the railroads to maximize profits has led them to do things that have major safety implications, like having 110 cars per train instead of 100 and increasing the payload per train," Halstead said.

"The locations where there are high probabilities for a serious accident are places where there are high speeds, places where two-way traffic is heavy, places where two trains are close enough for collisions to occur or places where there are deficiencies in infrastructure, such as bridges."

The trend also has been to rely on heavier and faster trains. While the standard tank car weighs up to 263,000 pounds, there has been talk that a fully equipped nuclear waste car could weigh as much as 400,000 pounds because of the heavy casks. That has prompted concerns whether the nation's rail beds are strong enough to support heavier trains.

Because of rail consolidation, more cargo also passes through urban rail yards, and because of sprawling suburbs, more people live closer to rail lines than ever before, Halstead said.

"The real problem is when you have railroads hauling hazardous material in close proximity to heavily populated areas," he said.

Worker fatigue

After more than 20 years of steady declines in the number of train accidents, hitting a bottom of 2,397 in 1997, the trend has turned upward, with 2,958 accidents recorded last year.

Of those accidents, 1,197 were caused by human error, the most since at least 1993.

Railroad labor unions believe potential accidents could be avoided if working conditions improved. The United Transportation Union, which represents 46,000 train engineers and conductors, is chagrined that its employees must work longer shifts with less time off because of workforce reductions.

The reductions are partly caused by employees who retired early because of changes in railroad pensions regulated by Congress.

"We have a lot of crews working 12-hour shifts and then given only 10 hours off," spokesman Frank Wilner of Alexandria, Va., said. "A lot of people are getting only five or six hours of sleep a night. The problem is the railroads don't have enough crews. This has led to a significant reduction in morale and the increased potential for human error."

Of Nevada's 497 noncrossing accidents from 1975 through May, which caused $44.4 million in damage to trains and tracks:

193 were caused by equipment problems. The most frequent problems were related to overheated axles.

165 were caused by human error. The most frequent errors were excessive speed when attempting to link cars and improperly aligned rail switches, which are rail-traffic guidance devices.

77 were caused by track problems. Missing or defective rail crossties and broken rails were the leading factors.

62 were caused by other factors.

Although three-fourths of those accidents derailed cars, Bromley said Nevada's freight-train system is "very safe." Based on an estimated 50 trains a day -- or 18,250 a year -- that pass through Nevada, the state's eight train accidents last year would have translated to one for every 2,281 trains.

Track problems in Nevada and elsewhere have been reduced by improving the quality of metal used in rails and by replacing old wooden crossties with concrete. Bromley characterized most of Union Pacific's accidents as "fender benders in rail yards," although federal statistics show that 65 percent of the train accidents in Nevada since 1975 have occurred on main rail lines.

"You will always have accidents as long as people are involved," Bromley said.

But some railroad employees don't think the industry shoulders enough blame.

Yucca Mountain is a central issue in a lawsuit rail workers filed in November against the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. in federal court in Sioux City, Iowa. The lawsuit alleges that the railroad -- one of two that operate in Nevada -- disregards safety measures to expedite shipments and increase profits.

The workers allege that the company doesn't report all accidents and injuries to the government. The lawsuit claims vandals can disturb company rail switches because thousands of keys are in circulation that can open generic locks used to secure the switches.

The lawsuit also addresses the Energy Department's intent to contract with Burlington Northern and other railroads to haul nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain.

"DOE (the Energy Department) is informing the public and state and local government that using these railroads, including BNSF, is safe," the lawsuit stated. "DOE is wrong. It is not safe to move nuclear waste by rail across the BNSF. DOE could not lawfully enter into such contracts if it knew the truth of the unsafe conditions of BNSF operations."

Lena Kent, a Burlington Northern spokeswoman, declined comment on the lawsuit. But Kent said her company has complete confidence in the rail system, including the Union Pacific rails it uses in Nevada.

"We run a very safe operation and wouldn't do anything to put our crews at risk if we thought it was unsafe," Kent said. "We have no reason to believe the Union Pacific rails are unsafe."

A different take came from Harry Zanville, a San Diego attorney who represents the rail workers in the lawsuit.

"The concerns they have are systemic and involve all 28 states that Burlington Northern comes through," Zanville said. "If they had a calamitous accident with nuclear waste, a lot of people would get hurt and a lot of property would be damaged. It would be a catastrophe. And there are a lot of things that can produce a catastrophic accident.

"We had one incident where the train crew in Iowa was told by management not to inspect the brakes before a train left the rail yard. That train had an accident in a train yard in Denver."

Railroad inspections

Railroads are responsible for inspecting their own tracks and equipment. Their work is checked by Federal Railroad Administration inspectors and, in Nevada's case, by inspectors employed by the state's Public Utilities Commission.

There are about 500 federal and state safety inspectors nationwide. But Halstead said there aren't enough inspectors, resulting in possible under-reporting of accidents.

"Part of the problem with railroad accident statistics are the self-reporting requirements," he said. "There is also a lack of precision in the definitions of an accident."

From 1995 through mid-August, federal and state railroad inspectors conducted 5,734 inspections in Nevada and found 18,745 instances where federal standards were violated. They found fault in:

15.8 percent of the railroad's operating practices inspected.

12.9 percent of the railroad signals.

11.4 percent of the hazardous materials areas.

6.7 percent of the cars and locomotives.

6.5 percent of the tracks.

Hundreds of things can go wrong with trains. As the Federal Railroad Administration reports, a tank car designed to hold chemicals can malfunction without warning because of corrosion, cracks or fatigue.

Administration spokesman Warren Flatau said many violations fixed immediately do not result in penalties.

"There is a lot of attention placed on human factors, particularly in rail yard settings," Flatau said. "Sometimes we'll do a focused inspection based on accidents that have been reported."

As for the violations in Nevada, Flatau said those figures can be misleading because the real measure of safety is the number of accidents.

"A defect is the equivalent of a warning," Flatau said. "Now if a train pulls out of a yard and there are no shipping papers to go with it, that's a very serious thing. If there is a gaping hole in a car and something is leaking, that would trigger action."

Vic Crumley, one of four PUC rail-safety inspectors, said the defect rates found in Nevada are below what he would consider unsafe.

"We haven't really had a problem in this state with damaged rail," Crumley said. "If you look at the 6.5 percent, that's not an alarming defect rate. I'd say it would be a problem if it was 10 percent or higher."

The federal government can prosecute railroad employees for willful violations of safety regulations and levy civil penalties. Railroads last year paid nearly $11 million in penalties, including $1.4 million for violations of hazardous material standards.

"We take a great amount of care in using limited and finite resources to achieve the goals of the Department of Transportation," Flatau said of inspections.

But Zanville is leery.

"The Federal Railroad Administration performance has been miserable," Zanville said. "There is a problem with underreporting of accidents and injuries. The government responds only when it has to."

Rail postscript

The Energy Department declined requests to discuss rail issues. Instead, spokesman Allen Benson referred to documents stating that it intends sometime before 2010 to create a transportation plan that includes the training of railroad workers.

Dilger has a theory on why rail safety hasn't been studied in detail.

"I believe it is the same reason the DOE has not studied a lot of the safety and security aspects," Dilger said. "They expected that if they got the waste package right, everything else would be OK. They know they can't prevent accidents or keep stupid things from happening on the roadways and railways."

Nuclear scientist Edward Bentz of Springfield, Va., who has worked on federal contracts related to nuclear waste transport, was contracted by the Energy Department beginning in the 1980s to study the nation's railroad system. By the mid-1990s money for transportation studies related to Yucca Mountain dried up, and Bentz took his expertise elsewhere. He now studies homeland security issues.

Federal transportation funding related to Yucca Mountain, $57 million in 1995, dropped all the way down to $2 million by 2000 before picking back up to $64 million this year. During that time, most of the department's efforts were focused on the packaging of the waste in casks, Bentz said.

"Very little money has gone into transportation issues," Bentz said. "And of the transportation money, most of it has gone into the packaging. So most of the qualified people who study transportation issues went elsewhere."

When the department issued its environmental impact statement for Yucca Mountain in 2002, the emphasis on transportation was mostly on the amount of radioactivity that could be released in an accident.

Nevada and Clark County have requested in vain that the Energy Department study rail safety.

"We definitely pointed out to the DOE that examining human error and looking at the entire system for moving the waste was central to understanding its impact," Dilger said. "We want the DOE to do a separate environmental impact statement related to the transportation side of the project. But we never heard back ... on that.

"The DOE wants to get this program on. They really believe that the casks are so tough that they don't have to worry too much about accidents."

archive