Science and WIPP
Posted by John Tauxe on May 20, 1999 at 08:24:37:In Reply to: Science and WIPP posted by Myla Reson on May 09, 1999 at 17:05:54:
I delved into the hydrogeological issues at WIPP back in the summer of 1992 and I also was not satisfied with the extent of technical understanding of the geologic strata overlying the site (specifically the Culebra Dolomite). I scrutinized the drilling records of all the holes that they were using for characterization and found that half of them were not suitable for hydrogeological characterization, and was told flat out that no more holes would be drilled, despite my objections that more data were needed. I say that to let you know that I am well aware of various shortcomings in the research behind WIPP, and the stonewalling attitude of the DOE.
Nevertheless, I still believe that WIPP is a good site for its purpose. As in any classic environmental analysis, one must examine the alternatives. It is unfortunate that Congress limited the number of sites to investigate to 1, but that was done and here we are. Do you really want to spend billions more dollars on investigating other disposal sites or technologies, or, like me, do you want to proceed with an acceptable solution? Let it go. We have much bigger environmental fish to fry, like water in the west.
- Karst and WIPP Myla Reson 5/21/99 (1)
- Karst etc. John Tauxe 5/24/99 (0)