LLW Compacts, again

[David Scherer <scherer@uiuc.edu>]

At 01:20 PM 12/11/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>     I wasn't going to get into this one, but here goes:  the 1980 Act did 
>     not require each state to have its own site, but to take 
>     responsibility for its wastes by setting up compacts and compact 
>     regions. 

I am aware of the history of the LLWPA; I was responsible for the HP review
of CNSI's license application when Illinois had a candidate site.  My post
said each "state or region" was required to provide for disposal, intending
to include compacts in the latter term.

>     The purpose was exactly what Dr. Pasternak said: to provide a 
>     sort of equity.  It also envisioneda sort of fallback scheme in the 
>     event that the 3 open sites either would develop some leak or fault 
>     (since they had been sited before NEPA) or would fill up.  In 
>     Washington, we projected that eventually all LLW would come to Hanford 
>     because of its very large physical capacity.
>     
I would suggest that it is no more inequitable for WA or SC to accept LLW
than it is for AL to accept out-of-state hazardous waste or for IL to
accept out-of-state municipal waste (see below).  For that matter, when I
buy steel from a PA steel mill, whatever environmental decrement is
accociated with that stays in PA, too.  Should we require each
state/compact to produce its own industrial products, too?  IL accepts a
large dose of agrichemicals in order to produce food for other states.  How
does this differ from LLW?  The only reason people view LLW in terms of
equity is that they consider it more dangerous than these other, commercial
activities.  In my view, the facts do not support that belief.

>       The costs of transporting from, say, New Jersey to Hanford are
horrendous.
>
It is a small fraction of the disposal cost under the current surcharge
system.  The transportation costs are insignificant compared to the
disposal costs in an engineered facility similar to the one proposed for
Illinois, as well.  I assume that's the main point of the Hayden Report.

>     The Commerce Clause was and is in effect.  Radioactive waste can be 
>     shipped across state boundaries unhindered.  The Commerce Clause 
>     doesn't include disposal, and won't, and probably shouldn't.
>
The Commerce Clause DOES apply to disposal and any other commercial
activity.  In Illinois, municipal landfills are required to accept solid
waste from other states despite the ill will this has created.  
     
>     Dr. Pasternak is also correct in that economics was not a 
>     consideration in the 1980 Act.  
>     
Yes, and I believe that was a weakness in the process.

Regards,
Dave Scherer