Fw: low level waste sites

["Tom O'Dou" <tom_dixie@email.msn.com>]

It appears the complete message did not make it the first time.


>Regarding the waste disposal issue.  We have seen for years that the
>Barnwell site is a political football, only in the game to increase the
>income of the owners and the state.  When the state does not get it's
share,
>the rates increase or the site is closed.  The current rate structure is
>outrageous.
>
>From the current thread:
>
>>The last thing this country needs is for another waste site to steal
volume
>from
>>Barnwell.
>
>I have a different opinion, what this country needs is a solid waste
>disposal site.  Where should this be?  The obvious choice is the Nevada
test
>site.  More than 900 nuclear tests have been conducted at this site.  All
of
>the waste from all operations involving radioactive materials could be
>placed there without any significant increase in the radioactive materials
>already there.  Look at the location of Barnwell and it's age.  It is
>completely unreasonable to continue putting waste in this area where
>migration of the materials is much more likely to occur than in an area
>where rainfall is minimal.
>
>The statement:
>
>>Quote from article, "David Duggins, a spokesman for the state's utilities,
>said
>>the only place that nuclear waste could now be stored was at a dump
>>in South Carolina. He told the commission that ``Texas has an
>>obligation, a moral and legal obligation'' to construct its own facility."
>
>Is another indication that our current system of "waste management" is
>lacking.  Even though the site in Texas is far better than the Barnwell
site
>for control of wastes, it is another area which we would contaminate with
no
>purpose other than to attempt to line the coffers of the state and the
>operators of the site.
>
>The current system of 'compacts' ignores common sense.  The NTS can never
be
>remediated and is the ideal solution to the United States waste disposal
>problems.
>
>We are all in this together....this is a national problem....how can we
make
>it right?
>
>>It is commendable that the fine folks in Texas would want to create
>>their own waste/cash repository for their region, but right now the
>continued
>>operation of Barnwell should be the primary national interest.
>
>We must at some point recognize that Barnwell will continue to suck cash
>from anyone willing to throw it in that direction.  It is time that the
>country establish a goal to minimize the number of sites out there and
>provide a disposal site where the cost will be reasonable, the migration of
>materials from the site will be minimal, and the land affected by the
>operation is someplace that can never be inhabited anyway.
>
>>recognize that Envirocare in Utah is already diverting much of Barnwell's
>waste/cash.
>
>When did Barnwell become the 'inheritor' of all radioactive waste and is it
>not reasonable to preserve one's funds and the country's resources by
>disposal at Envrocare where the concern of migration is minimal and the
land
>is less likely to be an issue than at Barnwell?
>
>>There is an obvious lack of national leadership in the area of radioactive
>waste.
>
>That is obvious!
>
>This is one of the more serious issues we face in radiation protection.
Are
>there any other voices of reason out there who can provide some insight to
>the waste problem to members of our government?
>
>Continued construction and operation of waste sites for each compact is a
>waste of our country's resources.  Every person in the radiation protection
>field has watched as the politicians have continuously screwed this up.
How
>much longer can this happen?
>
>Tom O'Dou
>tom_dixie@msn.com
>
>My thoughts and those of many others!  Thanks for the time.
>
>
>
>



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html