National transport impacts of shipping high-level radioactive waste to NM, NV, and/or TX

The following was attached to a Beyond Nuclear press release re: the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ruling in favor of consolidated interim storage of 40,000 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel at Waste Control Specialist in West Texas:

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFO. RE: TRANSPORTATION RISKS OF CONSOLIDATED INTERIM STORAGE:

Dear News Media who cover the High-Level Radioactive Waste Beat,

FYI, see press release [above]. Please note that Toledo, OH-based attorney, Terry Lodge, represents a seven-group, national grassroots environmental coalition in this same legal proceeding.

Sierra Club is also engaged in this legal proceeding, represented by Cedar Rapids, IA-based attorney Wally Taylor. In fact, according to the NRC ASLB ruling, Sierra Club is the only party to have established legal standing, as well as won a hearing on a contention, in this proceeding. 

Holtec International is poised to acquire the numerous atomic reactors, and their on-site high-level radioactive wastes, from various current owners -- although competitors, such as NorthStar (affiliated with Waste Control Specialists), as well as EnergySolutions of Utah (which has undertaken the largest decommissioning in U.S. history, at Zion, IL on the Great Lakes shore), are still in the competition. If and when various atomic reactors shut down for good, one of these companies will likely take over the site(s) during the decommissioning stage, including the high-level radioactive waste management. 

Holtec would send high-level radioactive wastes to New Mexico for "interim" storage, while NorthStar would send them to WCS, Texas -- just 39 miles from Holtec, NM. Outbound transport routes would be the same for much of the country -- including the potential for barge shipments on surface waters, or heavy haul truck shipments, Legal Weight Truck shipments, and/or rail shipments on land, in most states, scores of major urban areas, and the vast majority of U.S. congressional districts.

For maps and documentation of the numbers of barge shipments that could travel numerous surface waters across the U.S. (the Great Lakes, rivers, and sea coasts), as well as what the risks of a sinking are, see:

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/waste-transportation/2017/6/29/potential-barge-routes-on-us-surface-waters-to-ship-high-lev.html

See this map for truck and train routes nationwide: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2017/ymroutes17.png

See this document, for transport routes by road and/or rail in 44 states: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2017/pdf/States_Affected.pdf

See this document for a close ups of shipping routes in 20 major urban areas: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2017/pdf/Cities_Affected.pdf

See page 4-5 of 19 in this document for numbers of shipments (rail, truck, and total) in various states: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2017/pdf/Congressional_Districts_Affected.pdf

Note that all of these linked documents above are in the context of 70,000 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel being shipped to Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Holtec NM would hold 173,600 MT, while WCS, TX would hold another 40,000 MT, for a grand total of 213,600 MT. Thus, a significantly larger number of shipments could pass through many to most states, if reactors continue generating high-level radioactive waste, and ship them to the Southwest, than is even accounted for under the 70,000 MT Yucca dump scheme. In the same document linked just above, beginning at page 7 of 19 on the PDF counter, a listing of the 370 U.S. congressional districts that would be crossed by road and/or rail shipments is documented.

Unfortunately, both WCS/ISP and Holtec/ELEA have included very little transport-related information in their application documents, leaving the public largely in the dark regarding routing, shipment numbers, as well as related risks.