Waste Disposal Fill-in-the-Blanks

["David Scherer" <scherer@mirlink.wustl.edu>]

As has been pointed out, one reason for geologic disposal is allowing transport
processes to delay and reduce concentrations to potential receptors.  Another
important element is that geologic processes have occured over a long time
scale and are believed to be predictable for long periods in the future.  Some
believe that engineered solutions (e.g. waste treatment, HICs, and construction
practices) can provide adequate protection.  The problem is that these
processes have not been subject to long-term study to verify these estimates
for service life.  I've had to replace my 20-year roof . . . .  :-).

My point on the anecdote about the simplistic analysis is that it was rejected
by the type of people you hope to influence.  This approach is viewed as a
polemic, not an objective analysis.  The Siting Commission members were not
subject to extraordinary political pressure.  They didn't have to worry about
reelection or reappointment.  They simply came to a conclusion different than
you would have (and different from the one I would have, for that matter).  Nor
were they hoodwinked by anti-nuclear arguements without access to the facts. 
Chem Nuclear, IDNS, etc. had ample opportunity (several months) to make their
case about the Martinsville site.  I believe that in order to convince public
officials, a numerical estimate of the radiation dose must be presented, albeit
with very wide error bars.  If you can show that the site will satisfy the
concentration limits at 99% certainty, the decision becomes a little easier.

Dave Scherer