Nuclear transport to Utah may face problems

Suzanne Struglinski

Monday, Sept. 12, 2005 | 10:56 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Moving nuclear waste to the planned interim storage site in Utah will face the same challenges as moving waste to Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

The arguments over the transportation of high-level nuclear waste follow a well-laid path.

Critics will point to potential terrorist strikes and accidents while the industry will point to a relatively clean record of moving used fuel from one place to another.

The transportation planning process, a private venture for Utah and public one for Nevada, share similar characteristics. Each need a large land withdrawal from the Bureau of Land Management to begin construction, detailed planning and cooperation from states waste shipments would cross and eventual public acceptance.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Private Fuel Storage's license on Friday. The consortium of nuclear utilities investing in the project will now begin to look for companies interested in storing their waste there -- until the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas opens.

Private Fuel spokeswoman Sue Martin said some planning on moving the waste from nuclear power plants has been done, including designing and building a prototype rail cask that would move the waste. But until Private Fuel knows exactly where it will be taking waste from and moving it to Utah, specific details like routes and transportation methods are still unknown.

Several utilities are the initial investors in Private Fuel, but they will give the opportunity to utility storing nuclear to put waste in Utah.

Yucca Mountain, if approved, would bring waste from almost every state east of the Mississippi River. The Energy Department aims to build a new rail line from Caliente on the Union Pacific lines to move waste to the mountain.

Similar to transportation plans that would bring waste to Yucca, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have to approve any container Private Fuel would use to move the waste and it would need to be moved under Transportation Department rules for radioactive material.

Transportation planning was not part of the eight-year application process and Utah was not allowed to bring it up during proceedings.

Utah Assistant Attorney General Jim Soper said the commission said transportation was not within the scope of whether the site should get a license.

Soper wonders how many utilities will actually use Private Fuel Storage.

"It is not an attractive alternative for all utilities," he said, because it may cost more and utilities would still be liable for waste as it moved to the state. For Yucca, once the department takes title to the waste at the utility when it begins preparing it for shipment, it is the Energy Department's responsibility, he said.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said the NRC's decision to license Private Fuel is "irresponsible beyond human comprehension."

"If this stuff is so safe to store above ground, it is safe to leave it on site," Berkley said. "There is no reason to be moving this stuff. We've been against shipping waste for years and they are still going forward with this."

Similar to the Energy Department, Berkley said Private Fuel is vague about routes.

"Once the American public gets wind of the fact nuclear waste will be driven through their neighborhoods, they will protest," she said.