Re: Anti-WIPP article lacks critical thinking

[Susan Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>]

Peter,

Yes, we have different opinions.  I also have a PhD in geology and have
looked rather extensively into the technical aspects of geologic
repositories.  In my PROFESSIONAL opinion, the planned repositories are
more than adequately protective for long-term disposal.

All risks are relative, and all resources are limited.  There is far too
much hysteria over things nuclear that is based on imagery of mushroom
clouds.  Only by looking to the science can rational decisions be made
regarding cleanup, management, and disposal of nuclear wastes.

My "agenda" is to decrease immediate environmental insults and potential
exposures to workers and the public.  I want to see the limited
environmental cleanup dollars allocated to DOE-Oak Ridge Operations used
to remediate sites--not babysit wastes in inappropriate storage, not
build storage for wastes that need to be disposed of offsite.  I want to
see Oak Ridge Reservation brought to a state where there is no
uncontrolled contamination.  This is necessary for our area's long-term
economic redevelopment as we transition from a federally based to
private-sector economy.  This community is not a "sacrifice zone" to
please social activists who think that they can get rid of nuclear
weapons by preventing the appropriate management of legacy wastes and
contamination.

You are right in saying there is not "zero likelihood of failure" but
the testing of the TRU containers shows that they don't fail under
extreme conditions of being dropped, burned, and hit by trains.  So the
likelihood of failure in a typical road accident is vanishingly small. 
I don't like the tactic of saying that since there is an very low
probability, we must make our decision based on the most extreme case. 
You still cross the street despite the risk of being hit by a car.

As a friend often says "Life is about risk, and it ends badly."

Regards,
Susan

peter strauss wrote:
> 
> Susan,
> 
> I have spoken with you and found you to be a thoughtful, well informed
> person.  I was thus dissapointed by your posting - both in substance and
> tone. Ms. Kelley and Tri-Valley CAREs are (I'm sure she wouldn't mind me
> saying this) unabashingly anti-nuclear weapons development, and thus
> follow (and have opinions) on all matters nuclear. Her article, while
> you may disagree with it, does not lack critical thinking.  You're
> piece, on the other hand, seems to be lacking in critical thinking and
> clearly states your opinion.
> 
> I'll try to answer you point by point.
> 
> Peter Strauss
> 
> > From: Susan Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>
> > Subject: Anti-WIPP article lacks critical thinking
> >
> > "WIPP will leak." --This is not likely.  The salt will flow plastically
> > to encase the drums and fill in the excavated chambers.  There are no
> > free liquids allowed in the drums.  The discussion of the geology of the
> > WIPP site ignores the fact that these salt domes are highly stable and
> > aren't subject to the unlikely scenarios postulated.  Moreover, nearby
> > drilling and injection operations will be forbidden.
> 
> HOW CAN YOU OR ANYONE REASONABLY ARGUE THAT THERE WILL BE GEOLOGIC AND
> INSTITUTIONAL STABILTY, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF TIME REQUIRED FOR DECAY OF
> THE SUSTANCES TO BE BURIED AT WIPP.  ARE THERE GOING TO BE REGULATORY
> BARRIERS THAT PREVENT DEEP MINERAL EXTRACTION IN 200 YEARS? 2,000 YEARS?
> 20,000 YEARS?  CAN YOU STAND UP AND SAY THAT SALT DOMES WILL NOT LEAK
> UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING EARTHQUAKES, VOLCANOES ETC. WHILE I
> CAN'T STAND UP AND SAY THAT THEY WILL DEFINITELY LEAK, SAYING THE
> INVERSE IS NOT ACCURATE.
> >
> > "Much of the waste slated for WIPP is contaminated with plutonium 239,
> > which has a radioactive half-life of over 24,000 years." --Big deal.
> > There are many more toxic elements that will NEVER decay away disposed
> > by industries daily in much less secure disposal sites.
> 
> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT TOXIC ELEMENTS YOU ARE REFFERING TO.  HOWEVER,
> EVEN IF THIS ASSERTION IS CORRECT, IT DOES NOT JUSTIFY BUILDING AND
> DISPOSING OF WASTES IN FACILITIES THAT ARE MORE SECURE, BUT NOT SECURE
> ENOUGH.  ITS SORT OF LIKE SAYING EVERYONE DUMPS THEIR GARBAGE IN THE
> RIVER, THEREFORE DON'T COMPLAIN WHEN WE DUMP IT IN THE OCEAN.
> >
> > "DOE plans to bring 40,000 truck loads of transuranic waste to WIPP over
> > the next 30 years....DOE estimates these shipments will result in 6
> > deaths and 48 injuries from accidents and that 3 people will die from
> > radiation exposure during 'accident free' shipments." --All trucking has
> > fatal accident rates--the nuclear trucking industry has far fewer than
> > average. The TRU shipping containers are extremely over-designed and
> > tested, with zero liklihood of failure in a typical road accident.
> > Moreover, the $20 million per year that New Mexico is receiving for
> > accepting WIPP, and which is being applied to highway upgrades, will
> > prevent many more deaths from traffic accidents than the small number of
> > fatalities estimated for the TRU waste shipping campaign.
> 
> WHILE ITS TRUE THAT ALL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC INVOLVES THE RISK OF FATALITIES,
> THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "ZERO LIKLIHOOD OF FAILURE". YOUR STATEMENT
> IS NOT ACCURATE.
> >
> > I have never seen protesters complaining about a bridge or building
> > being constructed when the construction industry knows that X number of
> > workers will die.  I have never seen protests about the prevalence of
> > single-walled petroleum tankers plying our highways, city streets, and
> > neighborhoods--accidents involving these are demonstrably more likely to
> > be fatal (and environmentally harmful) than from a TRU-bearing truck.
> > So what is the real agenda here?
> 
> DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE TRADING-OFF RISKS OF ALL HUMAN
> ACTIVITIES WITH THOSE OF THE OPTIONS FOR NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL?
> BRIDGES ARE OPPOSED ALL THE TIME - ONLY IN DIFFERENT FORUMS.  AND THERE
> HAS BEEN QUITE A BIT OF ENVIRONMENTAL OPPOSITION TO SUCH THINGS AS
> IMPORTING LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS,
> AS WELL PROTESTS THAT HAVE PROMOTED THE USE OF SEA-GOING DOUBLE WALLED
> OIL TANKERS.  IF LAND BASED OIL TANKERS ARE A PROBLEM, I WOULD INVITE
> YOU TO MAKE THE CASE WHY COMMUNITY GROUPS SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
> 
> AND SADLY, I MUST ASK YOU WHAT YOUR REAL AGENDA IS.
> 
> > "WIPP is part of the DOE's nuclear waste "shell game," a dangerous
> > enterprise that puts deadly wastes on our highways, moving them around
> > the
> > country and substituting "out of sight - out of mind" for a sound
> > policy." --This statement is inflammatory rhetoric.  In truth, WIPP is
> > the best possible policy, considering the budgetary constraints and the
> > current state of TRU-waste storage and buildings/lands contaminated with
> > TRU-waste in many of our communities.
> 
> COME ON! IS THIS REALLY INFLAMMATORY?  OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND IS
> CLEARLY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE BURY THINGS FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME.  THE
> WASTE DOES NOT GO AWAY - IT MERELY CHANGES LOCATION. AND I ASK YOU, WHAT
> ANALYSIS HAVE YOU DONE TO SUPPORT THE OPINION THAT "WIPP IS THE BEST
> POSSIBLE POLICY"?
> 
> I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT MARYLIA LIVES WITHIN ONE BLOCK OF LAWRENCE
> LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY, WHERE TRU WASTE FROM ITS WEAPONS
> DEVELOPMENMT PROGRAM IS STORED. SHE KNOWS AS WELL AS YOU DO THE HAZARDS
> AND RISKS OF LIVING WITH TRU WASTE STORED ABOVE GROUND.  HOWEVER, SHE
> PROBABLY HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION ABOUT HOW TO DEAL WITH IT.
> 
> > "Moreover, WIPP will not come close to solving the country's nuclear
> > waste problems, not by any standard of measurement.  WIPP is designed to
> > handle less than 2% of the existing volume of nuclear bomb-generated
> > radioactive wastes. Even if one calculates the transuranic wastes alone,
> > WIPP is proposed for only about one-third of DOE's existing TRU waste."
> > --WIPP is by law and by design only intended to handle TRU waste.  Yes,
> > we need more capacity.  We also need appropriate sites opened to dispose
> > of the nation's low-level and high-level radioactive wastes.  Oak Ridge
> > and the other DOE sites want this out of their communities to prevent
> > further discharges to their groundwater and their rivers.
> 
> WIPP DOES NOT SEEM LIKE A RATIONAL OPTION IF FOR ALL THE BILLIONS OF
> DOLLARS SPENT, IT CAN ONLY ACCOMODATE ONE THIRD OF TRU WASTES.  IT HAS
> BEEN, IN MY OPINION, A PROJECT THAT WAS BUILT WITHOUT STAKEHOLDER OR
> STATE CONSENT, AND IT WAS KEPT ALIVE BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES
> NOT KNOW HOW TO WRITE OFF SUNK COSTS.  I'VE BEEN IN THE CONSULTING
> BUSINESS SINCE 1977, AND WIPP WAS CONTROVERSIAL THEN.  HOW ARE WE GOING
> TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER TWO-THIRDS OF TRU WASTE? SHOULD WE WAIT ANOTHER
> 25 - 30 YEARS FOR MORE UNDERGROUND CAPACITY?  IF NOT, WHAT ABOUT LOOKING
> AT ABOVE GROUND MONITORED STORAGE?  THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY, IN PART
> BECAUSE IT CANNOT RELY ON GOVERMENT DEVELOPMENT OF A GEOLOGIC
> REPOSITORY, HAS SHIFTED TO ABOVE GROUND STORAGE FOR ITS SPENT FUEL.
> 
> > While the ANA--"anti-nuclear anything"--crowd is causing delaying
> > tactics for real-life rational solutions, the rest of us are fighting to
> > get these wastes cleaned up and moved out.  So if you won't support us,
> > at least get out of our way, and let us really do some good for the
> > environment we live in.  And if you really are "working for peace,
> > justice and a healthy environment" then write to Secretary Richardson
> > and ask him to open WIPP as soon as possible to all the sites needing to
> > dispose of TRU wastes.
> 
> DID YOU REALLY SAY THAT "IF YOU WON'T SUPPORT US, AT LEAST GET OUT OF
> OUR WAY"? DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE HAVE OPINIONS OTHER THAN YOURS?

==================================================
Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director
Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, Inc.
136 South Illinois Avenue, Suite 208
Oak Ridge, Tennessee  37830
Phone (423) 483-1333; Fax (423) 482-6572; E-mail loc@icx.net
VISIT OUR UPDATED WEB SITE:  http://www.local-oversight.org
==================================================