A nuclear waste shipment would offer terrorists a simple way to create a dirty bomb
In Our View: A new look at nuclear waste :: The Daily Herald, Provo Utah: "Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 12:00 AM
In Our View: A new look at nuclear waste
The Daily Herald
Utah's latest hope for scuttling Private Fuel Storage's plan to store nuclear waste in Skull Valley now rests with the newest federal agency.
The Department of Homeland Security will evaluate the plan to ship nuclear waste cross-country for "temporary" above-ground storage on the Skull Valley Goshutes' reservation.
If the department charged with protecting the country from terrorists isn't satisfied with the safety plan, perhaps the plan will die.
This review should have taken place a long time ago. It may have saved Utah money in its ongoing battle to keep nuclear waste out, and it would have allowed PFS to focus on securing the waste where it was created.
There's no question that nuclear waste is safer when it's stored at the site of its creating reactor than it is being transported all over the country in vulnerable trucks or train cars.
Unfortunately, discussion of transportation safety has primarily focused on ordinary traffic accidents, as opposed to such large-scale scenarios as the train tunnel fire in Baltimore that burned hot enough to melt steel rail cars.
Such colossal catastrophes should be factored in. On Sept. 11, 2001, a major new variable entered the equation: terrorism. The attacks on New York and Washington clearly demonstrated that terrorists are unconventional and can turn ordinary objects into lethal weapons.
A nuclear waste shipment would offer terrorists a simple way to create a dirty bomb. All it takes is enough explosives to breach the shipping canister. The result would be a radiation release that could sicken bystanders and rescuers, if not outright kill them, as well as create widespread panic, wreak havoc on the economy and cost countless dollars on clean-up.
As we have seen in Iraq, there's no shortage of anti-tank weapons that could pierce a shipping cask. If a terrorist can't find those, a high explosive like the one that shattered the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City might be enough.
These factors must be considered when crafting plans to ship nuclear waste to a repository or even to the "temporary" depot in Skull Valley. The fact that waste shipments are being pursued at this time in history shows a frightening inability to think along unconventional lines.
If the Homeland Security study finds that there is no reasonable way to secure nuclear waste in transit (and that's rather likely, if they're honest about it) the government and PFS should move toward securing the waste at reactor sites. That would prove easier than trying to construct shipping containers that could survive terrorist attacks and still be able to be shipped by road or rail. Leaving waste where it is makes waste a less tempting target since large amounts from several reactors are not concentrated in one place as they would be at Skull Valley.
We hope the Homeland Security department will bring some common sense to the debate and keep nuclear waste out of Utah.
This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A6."
In Our View: A new look at nuclear waste
The Daily Herald
Utah's latest hope for scuttling Private Fuel Storage's plan to store nuclear waste in Skull Valley now rests with the newest federal agency.
The Department of Homeland Security will evaluate the plan to ship nuclear waste cross-country for "temporary" above-ground storage on the Skull Valley Goshutes' reservation.
If the department charged with protecting the country from terrorists isn't satisfied with the safety plan, perhaps the plan will die.
This review should have taken place a long time ago. It may have saved Utah money in its ongoing battle to keep nuclear waste out, and it would have allowed PFS to focus on securing the waste where it was created.
There's no question that nuclear waste is safer when it's stored at the site of its creating reactor than it is being transported all over the country in vulnerable trucks or train cars.
Unfortunately, discussion of transportation safety has primarily focused on ordinary traffic accidents, as opposed to such large-scale scenarios as the train tunnel fire in Baltimore that burned hot enough to melt steel rail cars.
Such colossal catastrophes should be factored in. On Sept. 11, 2001, a major new variable entered the equation: terrorism. The attacks on New York and Washington clearly demonstrated that terrorists are unconventional and can turn ordinary objects into lethal weapons.
A nuclear waste shipment would offer terrorists a simple way to create a dirty bomb. All it takes is enough explosives to breach the shipping canister. The result would be a radiation release that could sicken bystanders and rescuers, if not outright kill them, as well as create widespread panic, wreak havoc on the economy and cost countless dollars on clean-up.
As we have seen in Iraq, there's no shortage of anti-tank weapons that could pierce a shipping cask. If a terrorist can't find those, a high explosive like the one that shattered the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City might be enough.
These factors must be considered when crafting plans to ship nuclear waste to a repository or even to the "temporary" depot in Skull Valley. The fact that waste shipments are being pursued at this time in history shows a frightening inability to think along unconventional lines.
If the Homeland Security study finds that there is no reasonable way to secure nuclear waste in transit (and that's rather likely, if they're honest about it) the government and PFS should move toward securing the waste at reactor sites. That would prove easier than trying to construct shipping containers that could survive terrorist attacks and still be able to be shipped by road or rail. Leaving waste where it is makes waste a less tempting target since large amounts from several reactors are not concentrated in one place as they would be at Skull Valley.
We hope the Homeland Security department will bring some common sense to the debate and keep nuclear waste out of Utah.
This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A6."
posted by Greta Jane at Sunday, August 14, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home