Re: Fw: Environmentalism & the US Constitution

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

 I read parts of the GEIS "cold", so to speak -- I knew nothing about the internal politics and was just getting started with "radiation politics" at the time (I was more concerned woth air dispersion).  I also read USGS circular 779, and I thought the two documents made a reasonable argument for both sub-seabed and mined geologic disposal (Ross Heath at U. of Washington was a big proponent of sub-seabed, by the way).  


I also collaborated with my Congressman (Al Swift, D. 2nd District, WA) on the EIS section of the NWPA and on some of the other language (the 1982 Act,not the 1987 Amendments), and there was nothing in any of this about "fear of radiation."  At the public hearings on the NWPA, everybody seemed to be in pretty good agreement that it was a good idea.  It came hot on the heels of the BWIP EIS, which considered envirpnmental impacts of putting a big hole in the ground and avoided the question of what was going into that hole.  I spoke to this effect at the public hearing in Richland on the BWIP EIS, which endeared me to the anti-nukes and even the GAO (which amazed me -- I was pretty naive -- I thought the GAO was an unbiased auditing agency).


I think the provisions of the 1982 NWPA: state oversight, state veto with Congressional override, EIS, standard set by EPA, licensing by NRC, etc., were done in good faith to give the states and tribes and EPA and NRC a voice in the decision that heretofore had been DOE's alone.  I certainly didn't foresee the NIMBY backlash, but again, that's not the law, but the use to which it was put.


I thought the 1987 amendments, by comparison, were a travesty that was politically motivated.  Maybe I was also wising up.


Ruth.


RuthF. Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com