# The logistics of moving nuclear waste... **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 3, 2001, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466 "2001-09-03T01:49:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SuperTer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c57346/32.png) [@SuperTer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuperTer)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/1 "2001-09-03T01:49:25Z")
I have sent this one to Cecil, but in the event that he is consumed by other questions I hope someone can help… I recently bought a house that happens to be within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. I am fine with the nuclear power itself, but it’s the storage of the waste that has me worried. Currently this plant uses 2 pools to store the spent rods. The rods must be stored under 25 feet of water. The powers that be intend to activate 2 more pools at the plant, which will cause this plant to have the title of “largest nuclear waste storage facility in the United States.” Turns out that spent rods from other plants in my state are transported to this plant for storage. So here is part one of the question: how is nuclear waste “transported”? If it is so dangerous that it needs to be stored in a 25-foot deep pool, how is it moved across my state? Could these things me driving down the highway next to us? And part two is: the anti-waste storage camp is adamant that the additional storage will cause this plant to become a prime terrorist target. How likely is that? And finally, part three: If there is indeed a nuclear disaster, what happens to humans within a certain radius of the event? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/2 "2001-09-03T02:39:00Z")
How is nuclear waste transported. Look up your state here. [http://www.citizen.org/cmep/AtomicAtlas/atlas.htm](http://www.citizen.org/cmep/AtomicAtlas/atlas.htm) The NRC speaks. [http://www.nrc.gov/NMSS/SFPO/sfpo.htm](http://www.nrc.gov/NMSS/SFPO/sfpo.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/3 "2001-09-03T03:55:17Z")
There was a plan by a company called Panacea to have Western Australia store nuclear waste in the vast desert region of that state. Panacea’s office building has since been the site of regular protests and as far as I know the State Government has backed down on the issue. Moving the stuff just seems to me to be frought with the risk of a vehicular accident. This seems intuitively less likely with rail than by road, but the prospect of a train derailing and spilling radioactive debris doesn’t do much for me. ---
**Author:** ![SuperTer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c57346/32.png) [@SuperTer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuperTer)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/4 "2001-09-04T04:30:57Z")
Okay, did you all see Duck’s Post? I encourage you to look at these links. Tomorrow when you drive to the office you may pass a vehicle containing nuclear waste. How does that make you feel? I just can’t believe the stuff is actually transported via vehicle. Are there other means? I drive past the nuclear power plant daily. How alarmed should I be? ---
**Author:** ![Doc\_Nickel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@Doc\_Nickel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doc_Nickel)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/5 "2001-09-04T04:52:18Z")
Um… Has anyone _seen_ the transport casks used to haul spent fuel rods? They make an airplane’s “black box” look like a robin’s eggshell by comparison. They are _designed_ to be nigh-indestructible and reduntantly armored- very, very little short of towed artillery can damage one to the point of inner containment rupture. The Nuclear industry is more heavily regulated than the Airline industry- does anyone think waste is simply poured into a five gallon bucket and put in the back of a pickup? Besides, in addition to the nuke waste, there’s twenty times more trucks carrying a far more hazardous fluid in far less stringent conditions each day. Ever give a second look at a gasoline tanker? What’s one gallon of gasoline, the equivalent of six sticks of Dynamite? To say nothing of the thousands of trucks you never even notice carrying stuff like sulfuric acid, pesticides, diesel fuel, propane, chlorine, formaldehyde, methyl mercaptan, toluene, methanol alcohol and even MTBE. Worried? Be more concerned with the caffeine in that double Latte`. ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/6 "2001-09-04T05:08:36Z")
At the risk of “me too-ing” **Doc’s** post, I’d recommend a balanced view (not a poke at you, **Duck** , I thought you did a good job of presenting reasonable links for moderate positions on both sides). I agree that it’s imperative to pay attention when things like nuclear waste are involved, but there is far more fear-mongering and mis-information than rationality floating around. ---
**Author:** ![DVous\_Means](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@DVous\_Means](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DVous_Means)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/7 "2001-09-04T14:37:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > \*\*There was a plan by a company called Panacea to have Western Australia store nuclear waste in the vast desert region of that state. Panacea’s office building has since been the site of regular protests and as far as I know the State Government has backed down on the issue. > \*\* Panacea are not finished yet. They are still lobbying the Australian federal government for the right to establish the same facility in remote South Australia, and the feds are showing a good deal of sympathy towards the idea. Despite being of the same political party as the feds, the SA government is pubicly opposing the plan, but they are in crisis management mode, with an election looming in the next six months. The feds have already foisted a storage facility for “low-level” nuclear waste in remote SA, at Woomera. You’d have to be quite naive to think that nothing hotter is there, or will never be shipped there. I think its the thin edge of the wedge - the first stage in a softening-up process to turn overwhelming public opposition into large scale apathy. But I was always a cynical bastard… ---
**Author:** ![DVous\_Means](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@DVous\_Means](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DVous_Means)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/8 "2001-09-04T14:39:43Z")
Silly me, I just realised the company is called Pangea, not Panacea. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2001, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/9 "2001-09-05T21:08:58Z")
“Tomorrow when you drive to the office you may pass a vehicle containing nuclear waste. How does that make you feel?” Not one whit less safe than when I consider the literally hundreds of train cars that pass through my town every day carrying chemicals of every kind and description, from the most benign and inert to some of the most flammable and toxic. Many of which seem to pass through about four feet in front of me when I’m trying to cross the tracks to catch my commuter train to work. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2001, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/10 "2001-09-05T21:50:19Z")
Oh, I just _know_ that y’all ain’t gonna have a debate on this here, right? Right? ---
**Author:** ![SuperTer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c57346/32.png) [@SuperTer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuperTer)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/11 "2001-09-06T03:36:24Z")
Sounds to me like Manhattan has issued a challenge to debate Hazmat transport safety. No, of course I don’t think that nuclear rods are shipped in Tonka trucks. But I am aware of the power of the utility companies, and I know that public safety is compromised in the transportation of not only nuclear waste but other chemicals as well. So has anyone had any hazmat problems lately? Talk to us. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/12 "2001-09-06T03:44:26Z")
Hey you know Homer isn’t bald from a recessive gene… Thanks for the info, **Dvous Means**. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/13 "2001-09-06T03:56:05Z")
Hey, you’re worried about hazmat transportation issues? Know how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sends its test samples back to the home office to be tested? They mail them. [http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/IM/1232.html](http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/IM/1232.html) > [@](#): > > a. General Information. Applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in 49 CFR 170-178 and U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Regulations in Publication #6, “Radioactive Materials,” September 1983, must be followed in the packaging and shipment of samples. The samples must be considered to be “radioactive material” for purposes of transportation if their specific activity exceeds 0.002 µCi/gram, and the radioactivity is essentially uniformly distributed [see 49 CFR 173.403(y)]. Below this activity, the packages may be shipped as would any other nonradioactive laboratory sample. Liquids below this specific activity may be sent without absorbing material if packaged in 1-quart “Cubitainers.” As an added precaution against leakage, the “Cubitainer” lid should be screwed on tightly and black electrical tape should be used to secure the cap and neck of the container. The “Cubitainer” should be placed inside a heavy-gage plastic bag, excess air removed, and the bag sealed. The bagged “Cubitainer” is placed in the cardboard carton and mailed. > > Nonliquid samples will be packaged, marked and labeled as required in accordance with applicable requirements for mailable or non-mailable packages as described below. Particulate filters will be placed inside glassine envelopes and sent in regular mailing envelopes or packages as required by the radioactivity present. > > Gas samples are to be shipped in the same package as received, using care to position the polyfoam at the ends of the inner container to protect the fragile arms of the gas bulb. Should the surface activity of the packaged gas sample exceed the permissible limits, the inner container must be packaged within a larger outer container so as to reduce the external radiation. > > b. Mailable Radioactive Sample Packages. If the sample specific activity exceeds or is suspected to exceed the 0.002 µCi/gm level, the next threshold to consider is whether the package activity exceeds one-tenth of a “small” or “limited” quantity, pursuant to 49 CFR 171.8 and 173.421, 173.421-1, and 173.421-2 or USPS Publication #6, paragraph IIA. For solids this mailable limited quantity is 10-4 times its A2 value in 49 CFR 173.435 or 10-5 times its A2 value for liquids. As such, the packages must be “strong, tight” with the radiation level on the package not to exceed 0.5 mrem/h at any point. The USPS requirements for “limited quantity” are essentially identical to the DOT requirements of 49 CFR 173.421, 173.421-1, and 173.421-2 for a “limited quantity,” except that the USPS further requires that liquids must additionally be packaged within a leak resistant and corrosion resistant secondary inner container, surrounded by sufficient suitably positioned absorbent material to absorb at least twice the volume of liquid radioactive contents in the event of leakage from the secondary inner container. > > The external surface of the package may not have “significant” removable radioactive surface contamination as prescribed by 49 CFR 173.443(a), and the inner packages must be marked “RADIOACTIVE” or if there is no inner package, the outside of the package itself must be so marked. Think about that, the next time you drive past the mail dropbox in the parking lot of the Kroger store that’s down the road from the nuclear power plant. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Threadkiller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aca169/32.png) [@Threadkiller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Threadkiller)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2001, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-logistics-of-moving-nuclear-waste/79466/14 "2001-09-06T15:02:18Z")
[From](http://www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us/pr/2000-1/RH72B.pdf): > [@](#): > > [ul]\* Free drop test. The transportation container is dropped from 30 feet onto a flat, unyielding surface (such as a steel-reinforced concrete pad) striking the surface at the containers weakest point. > > - Puncture test. Next, the transportation container is subjected to a 40-inch free drop onto a six-inch diameter steel bar at least eight inches long. > > - Burn Test. The transportation container is doused with jet fuel and ignited subjecting it to a temperature of 1,475 deg. Fahrenheit for 30 minutes. > > - Immersion test. Using specialized analyses, a separate transportation container of the same design is subjected to external pressure equivalent to being immersed under 50 feet of water.[/ul] They aren’t exactly soup cans.