Mr. Hancock misrepresents the technical challenges of salt disposal and
doesn't address the advantages of that rock type. Salt was never "ruled
out" as a host rock. Salt was "ruled out" when congress, in its
wisdom, decided that Nevada would be the site, apparently thinking that, with
only 4 electoral votes (1987), the state could do little; congressional
judgements speak for themselves decades later. The facts are that the nation
simply lacks the political will to resolve the siting question. Mr'
Hancock's assertions about New Mexico's attitude toward
radioactive-waste disposal reflect only a minority view of this issue. Maybe
there should be a binding New Mexico-wide vote to see where folks really are...?
Mr. Hancock fails to mention that much of the multi-billions already spent on
the Yucca Mountain Project addressed his items 1 through 3. More study is not
needed because a suitable site has already been found on the edge of the Nevada
Test Site at Yucca Mountain. We simply need the political will to go ahead with
it.He is correct in stating that salt was ruled out 20 years ago for
high-level nuclear waste because the hot waste would work its way downward
through the salt. That is not true for the low-level waste stored at WIPP.