Gary,

My work experience is primarily in the chemical manufacturing industry which uses many of the same types of operations used in the nuclear power industry (and why a chemical company ran a nuclear facility).

My time at SRP was limited to two summers between Jr & Sr year and undergrad and grad school. My expertise there is a faded memory relating primarily to the difference between what was claimed and what turned out to be the case years later. I spent the fist summer as a sample and data collector for the site environmental group. I spent the second running simulations on a program someone else wrote without understanding the underlying theory.

I did interview and was offered a job at their waste encapsulation pilot plant but passed on it to continue on at Auburn. I was very impressed by the technology and felt it was a technologically sound way to deal with highly radioactive waste. As I understand from media reports with some interpretation based on my own experience at SRP, the contamination was primarily caused by low level waste. People working in hazardous environments tend to discount risks much lower than the primary ones they face and be far less carefull. Chemicals most people treat carefully are handled at my plant with little concern by operators used to dealing with far worse.

I agree with Tom that recycling spent fuel makes makes sense theoretically. I don't remember enough to assess its practicality without some review. My point was that I'm pretty sure low level waste will end up an issue for the same reason it did at SRP. Nick would probably be more qualified than me to assess Yucca mountain. Off the top of my head, I tend to think the environmental extremists are once again being overly cautious.

Regards,
Mark