08-05-2019, 04:10 PM
reni,
"Yes, I think it should have been happening already. What a corp. signs off on in the 70's or 80's as part of their lease agreement (restoration per environmental regulations ) was most likely minuscule in comparison to the requirements of today. Time lost = more cost.
And have wondered since I read the article on the hydraulic fuel spill that might have seeped into the ground. How will this be known without starting the decommission process, removing part of the slab and sampling the soil?"
There's a difference in the lease agreements between the older and newer observatories. The newer ones have to restore the site to its original condition, the older ones have a very similar agreement but it's not quite the same although I forget the wording, I will have to research it over the next day or so, but it's something like restoring the site but not quite to the original condition. I think it means anything underground could potentially be left there as long as it is covered up. But please don't quote me on that.
In any case, the process of decommissioning an observatory is just as complicated as building a new one, possibly even more complicated. The example you mention of not knowing how the decommissioning will proceed due to a previous but very small spill is exactly what the CSO is going through right now.
Of course, the two decommisioned observatories could be removed quite quickly, but only if the laws are broken, and the observatories are clearly not going to do that.
"Yes, I think it should have been happening already. What a corp. signs off on in the 70's or 80's as part of their lease agreement (restoration per environmental regulations ) was most likely minuscule in comparison to the requirements of today. Time lost = more cost.
And have wondered since I read the article on the hydraulic fuel spill that might have seeped into the ground. How will this be known without starting the decommission process, removing part of the slab and sampling the soil?"
There's a difference in the lease agreements between the older and newer observatories. The newer ones have to restore the site to its original condition, the older ones have a very similar agreement but it's not quite the same although I forget the wording, I will have to research it over the next day or so, but it's something like restoring the site but not quite to the original condition. I think it means anything underground could potentially be left there as long as it is covered up. But please don't quote me on that.
In any case, the process of decommissioning an observatory is just as complicated as building a new one, possibly even more complicated. The example you mention of not knowing how the decommissioning will proceed due to a previous but very small spill is exactly what the CSO is going through right now.
Of course, the two decommisioned observatories could be removed quite quickly, but only if the laws are broken, and the observatories are clearly not going to do that.