RE: Court Seeks Views on Waste Compact

[Marty.Bourquin@grace.com]

The following statements are my opinions alone -  
The final dispute was NOT over the suitablity of the site selected.  
The characterization was no where near complete (after spending 
$115MM).  The dispute was over funding (at least that was the excuse - 
I'm sorry - issue cited).  The Compact Commission had provided $80 MM 
to select and characterize a site.  NC had provided an additional $35MM 
(or so) which it would get back out of operating fees once the site 
opened.  Since the site selection and characterization had dragged on 
for MANY years the Commission decided to restrict or eliminate any 
future funding and to require NC - as the commission believed the 
compact law provided for - to provide the remaining funds (all of which 
they would recover once the site opened).  NC then shut down all 
operations and when the commission attempted to bring sactions they 
withdrew from the compact.  In my opinion there was no desire, on the 
political side, to to develop the site in NC.   The purpose of the 
suit, as I understand it, is to recover the funds that the generators 
provided to develop a site.    

-----Original Message-----
From: KDA2921@aol.com [mailto:KDA2921@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:45 PM
To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Cc: KDA2921@aol.com
Subject: Re: Court Seeks Views on Waste Compact


The agreement between the states that were members of the Southeast 
compact 
and the State of North Carolina was to study the location of a disposal 
site 
within North Carolina.  Is it not feasible to assume that the results 
of the 
costly study indicated that locating the site in North Carolina was not 
the 
"best" option?  It would not appear prudent for the State of North 
Carolina 
to agree to construct the facility if the location would not be in the 
interest of the compact states or would adequately address the 
liability of 
the members of the compact.

Of course, the "Supremes" will not proceed in the case in order to "rip 
the 
lungs out of North Carolina".  The brief news article has more than 
likely 
not included the numerous facts that impacted the decision made by 
North 
Carolina.  Locating facilities to dispose of low level radioactive 
waste 
continues to be a difficult and challenging technical and political 
tasks. 

Keith Anderson, CHP
kda2921@aol.com

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html