[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Court Seeks Views on Waste Compact
I have been hammered for expressing my views in the past but this
issue was very close to me. When is enough enough? Mr Brown of NC was
miffed from the announcement of this project. He felt that NC was always
the dumping ground for the east coast and that CNSI and all their geologists
and consultants would NEVER be able to answer all his questions. Looks like
he was right. As far as money, there was a concern at one time for the
amount of junkets being taken by state employees to learn from other
countries and hold seminars in vacation cities. Why shouldn't the other
states be concerned how NC was spending their money. This was never a
science project, it was typical government at its best. The independent
consultants found it suitable, CNSI did their job, but enough wasn't enough.
Ditto on the lungs.
These views are mine and not that of ComEd, soon to be Exelon and the best
operators of nuclear plants.
Wm. B. (Sam) Griffith
Radwaste Specialist, Braidwood.
815 458-2801x3088
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marty.Bourquin@grace.com [SMTP:Marty.Bourquin@grace.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 8:41 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: Court Seeks Views on Waste Compact
>
> 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
*********************************************************************************
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Unicom proprietary
information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright
belonging to the Unicom family of Companies. This E-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If
you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation
to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please
notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and
any copy of this E-mail and any printout. Thank You.
*********************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html