Re: Univ Waste

["GLEN VICKERS" <BRZGV@ccmail.ceco.com>]

     Could the sur charge discriminate against some research?  One example 
     would be much research in the biological sciences uses radioactive 
     tracers to see how certain mechanisms work.  It would be a shame to 
     put a crunch on good research.  
     
     I would even think that some research has already been affected due to 
     the limited availability of waste sites and we all know how short 
     research money is.
     
     Good luck on coming up with the right answer.
     
     
     Glen Vickers


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Univ Waste
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at INTERNET
Date:    6/19/96 6:58 PM


   We had a very cost effective method of waste disposal at CSU, we 
buried it in our own landfill until 1985. After that we simply stored it 
in an old dog kennel on campus until 1992 when we shipped a large 
quantity to a fun place called RAMP Industries. We continued to store 
waste at the kennel until October of 1995 when the EPA sent the RAMP 
waste back to us. Therefore, if it hasn't decayed, we have all of our 
radioactive waste still at CSU. If you never get rid of it, it doesn't 
cost you anything, right?
 Our administration is having to deal with the incredible cost of 
cleaning up 40 years of waste within one year. This includes rad, mixed, 
and animal wastes. Since there has been no reason to charge researchers 
in the past, the administration is just now dealing with the cost issues. 
I am in favor of a surcharge on radioactive materials ordered. The heavy 
users would pay their fair share.
 This, however, is just my opinion (not the official opinion of 
the University)
Scott B. Webb, RSO
Colorado State University
sbwebb@vines.colostate.edu