RE: High-level MRS (the acceptable political solution)?

["Wright, Bill" <aqbvw@techmail.admin.ttu.edu>]

There is no way the anti-nucs or environmentalists will let you deep six
anything radioactive. In middle 1980's the US Navy wanted to deep six
several de-commissioned nuclear missile submarines in a trench in Pacific
(approx 3 miles deep). All those environ. & anti-nucs howled & forced the
Navy to return each submarine to dry dock & cut out the Reactor Compartment
& barge same to Hanford & bury them. No spent fuel involved here just
radioactive components. So Forget about the Ocean.
PS I was a Nuclear Ship Superintendent at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in
Bremerton Washington during this timeframe. I cut up the Robert E. Lee,
Thomas Edison, & Ethan Allen

Bill Wright
Radiation Safety Officer
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@prodigy.net]
		Sent:	Wednesday, November 24, 1999 6:25 PM
		To:	Multiple recipients of list
		Subject:	Re: High-level MRS (the acceptable political
solution)?

		I can't agree that we will "need" geologic disposal.
Actually, there is an
		alternative nuclear waste disposal method that would be far
more economic
		and much more safe. That alternative is oceanic disposal
[not subseabed
		disposal, but simply-- solidify the waste, take it out over
a deep ocean
		trench (> 10 km depth), and  push it overboard]. Despite
many attempts, we
		could find no credible scientific scenario where this method
could result
		dire consequnses to either human health or to the
environment. Perhaps
		someone else could identify such a scenario. You are
certainly welcome to
		try, but it would likely be an excercise in futility. While
oceanic disposal
		may be the best technological solution, it is probably the
least acceptible
		politically.  Based on the history of nuclear waste policy
to date,
		scientific considerations are unimportant  and  politics is
overriding.
		Isn't that a shame?         jjcohen@prodigy.net

		-----Original Message-----
		From: J. Andrew Tompkins <jatalbq@mindspring.com>
		To: Multiple recipients of list
<radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
		Date: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 1:56 PM
		Subject: Re: High-level MRS (the acceptable political
solution)?


		>Mark,
		>
		>I always advocated calling it the Yucca Mtn. "Piggy Bank"
or "Depository".
		>It is technically far easier to reprocess 20 year old spent
fuel than 1
		>year cooled material.  The option of removing it from
storage and
		>reprocessing it is great if you are worried about future
energy supplies.
		>You still ultimately need geologic disposal for spent fuel
and vitrified
		>glass logs.
		>
		>Andy Tompkins
		>Woodstock, GA
		>
		>
		>
	
>************************************************************************
		>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
subscription
		>information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

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