Re: New Barnwell Access Fees

[Bob Hite <bobhite@ies.iec-energy.com>]

Volume reduction is what has lead to this predicament in the first place. 
Volume buried was chosen by INPO as an indicator of excellent facility
performance.  Since nuclear power plants generated the large bulk of the
volume buried at Barnwell in years past, they also had the biggest impact
on the economics of the burial site.  Licensees drove volume buried down in
order to receive favorable ratings from INPO and the NRC.  This lead to
reduced income for the burial site.  The burial sites entered into
agreements with South Carolina to essentially guarantee a stable revenue
for the state.  As volumes were reduced, prices went up.  Anyone involved
with volume reduction and budgeting knows that the budgets have not come
down commensurately with volume buried (not even close).  The current state
of affairs was inevitable, it just took this long to get here.

I'm not advocating eliminating volume reduction as a potentially prudent
and responsible course of action, but to suggest that volume reduction is
the best way to lower costs sort of misses the mark with respect to why
these fees exist to begin with.  From a cost per cubic foot standpoint, and
a total dollars spent standpoint, there could probably be scenarios in
which volume expansion could be the more cost effective solution, given
Barwell's current pricing structures (which consider density in the
equation).  

>>> John E Riley, Jr <jerjr@holta.ho.lucent.com> 06/03 4:12 PM >>>
The fees look like the best argument made for volume reduction.

Jack Riley
Bell Labs