Redefining high level wasteFrom: PAIGE KNIGHT Dear Dan, Sorry for my delayed response -- I've been out of town. Here are my thoughts on your questions: 1. Right now it appears that DOE's reclassification of waste proposal has to do with saving money by not dealing with some of the wastes at Hanford and across the weapons complex. It does need to be reclassified by longevity, pathway through which it reaches the bodies of humans, fetuses and the ecosystem in general. That requires science, not politics, and a national dialogue so that the redefining is transparent to all of us. 2. I will try to find out the first publicized tank leak at Hanford. 3. Right now I think for some people the dumping of more waste anywhere is NIMBY, but for those of us who are deeply involved in the issue and understand the ramifications, we have been asking for years for a Blue Ribbon Task Force to put together a comprehensive nuclear waste policy. Right now, as always, it's piecemeal and too political as opposed to making sense and protecting all of us. All waste has to be put into safe containers as a first step. That will cost billions and take time before safe transport can begin. People near waste-producing sites need to see the volumes produced in their community, otherwise it's "out of sight, out of mind" and the mentality is to continue producing the waste. We're talking about waste that will be lethal and cause much damage to all life forms, and we do not yet have the technology to treat and dispose of it safely, let alone to produce it safely. One of the things the nuclear activist community sees in the current administration is the drive to "clean up" small sites like Rocky Flats and Fernald under the guise of increasing cleanup funds for other sites. But will the DOE and Congress (with most clout from the eastern and southern states who produce the most waste) have the will to continue funding the most contaminated sites, like Hanford, since it is not in their backyard. Trust does not run rampant among us. Sincerely, ----- Original Message
----- Hi. I'm working on an article for Open Spaces magazine, and I'd like to ask you a few questions: 1) Does the Energy Department's idea of reclassifying some high level waste indicate anything other than a desire to save money? 2) What was the date of the first publicized major leak from a Hanford storage tank? I think it was around 1975, but I can't find it. 3) I don't want more radioactive waste dumped at Hanford, either--it's in my backyard, too--but realistically, is this anything more than a classic NIMBY reaction? After all, nobody wants the stuff, but we've been producing it for 60 years, and somebody has to take it. Thanks for any help you can give me. Dan Chasan |