Nuclear waste coming soon to an interstate near you
By Jack Dresser

Pasco, Wash., is an exceptionally clean, well-kept little city. But as many unhappy homeowners and investors now realize, when something looks too good, you’d better look more closely. Pasco is the gateway to the most contaminated nuclear site in the Western Hemisphere. We attended a U.S. Department of Energy hearing there last Nov. 17, and another the following night in Hood River.

Sixteen years ago Portland General Electric shut down Trojan, Oregon’s only nuclear power plant. In 2005, the Trojan reactor vessel and other radioactive equipment were removed, encased, barged upstream, and buried in a 45-foot deep pit at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation along the Columbia River and its salmon spawning grounds. Our radioactive leftovers joined Hanford’s 44-year repository as the nation’s nuclear dumpster.

When decommissioned in 1987, Hanford held two-thirds of the nation’s high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks. These have been leaking into the groundwater and the river despite a massively funded, 19-year cleanup effort.

The Nov. 17 hearing presented a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on the energy department’s earlier proposal to develop a “Global Nuclear Energy Partnership” presented in May, 2007 at the same locations. The DOE snuck in its mandated hearings far from our population centers, with short and little notice. For good reason.

Under the GNEP plan, nuclear fuel would be produced in the U.S. and other advanced nuclear nations through a reprocessing technology that is yet to be developed. The cost is undisclosed but substantial. Nuclear fuel would be provided to developing countries for their nuclear energy development. In return, we would receive their waste for further reprocessing — an international recycling system that would keep the big boys in control of weapons-grade nuclear material production. The DOE claims the reprocessing site isn’t yet selected, but the inside word is that it’s Hanford.

Most of the waste would be shipped by truck or train through Oregon, primarily along the Interstate 5 and Interstate 84 corridors.

We also attended the earlier hearing, at which local teenagers told us they couldn’t swim in the Columbia River or eat the fish they caught. We read the local paper. Despite years of cleanup research and billions of dollars spent, the sources of groundwater contamination still haven’t been identified.

“We know we’re at least close to one major source,” a DOE groundwater geologist stated in a Tri-Cities Herald story. “If we can find the source, we can clean it up.”

Another Herald story the following day reported that “Hanford workers have moved enough radioactive waste through two- and three-inch underground pipes in recent months at the tank farms to fill six Olympic-size swimming pools.” These “fields of underground tanks,” the story continued, “hold 53 million gallons of some of Hanford’s worst waste contaminated with high-level radiation and hazardous chemicals.”

In contrast to the local news, the deceptively soothing DOE handouts had brief and carefully worded descriptions, touting nuclear as an energy source that doesn’t pollute the air (never mind the Earth and water). And its proposed system will allegedly be “proliferation-resistant” (not proliferation-secure), making nuclear materials “nearly impossible” (not impossible) to divert without detection. They were clearly hedging their pledges, and it wasn’t reassuring.

The newly released PEIS addresses “areas of controversy,” acknowledging “irreducible uncertainties.”

Can we afford these uncertainties on trucks loaded with nuclear materials rolling through Eugene and Portland on I-5 during rain, snow, fog and rush-hour congestion? The PEIS estimates as many as 35,000 truck shipments per year under one plan, with an average shipping distance of 2,100 miles.

The impact statement also estimates the “latent cancer fatalities” based upon population densities along the selected routes for “incident-free” transport, meaning the radiation cannot be fully contained and insulated from the public.

Unsurprisingly, the PEIS sidesteps the probabilities of accident and “intentional destructive acts” (e.g., terrorist opportunism), and the possible consequences upon those of us who happen to be in the vicinity. Since this hearing, we read of the truck accident in Eastern Oregon that spilled radiological waste from medical laboratories headed for Hanford.

The GNEP proposal can be viewed at www.gnep.energy.gov. Our governor has announced his opposition to the plan, and it is important that the DOE hear from as many potentially affected Oregonians as possible. To comment, call Francis Schwartz toll-free at (866) 645-7803 or send a fax to (866) 489-1891. To e-mail comments, go to www.regulations.gov, search for Francis Schwartz, see “Draft Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” and click on “Send a comment or submission.” Comments must be received by March 16, 2009.

Our testimony at the Hood River hearing, and those of numerous highly informed, articulate Oregonians, can be viewed at our Web site, here: http://www.squadron13.com/deployed/081118PascoHoodRiver/
 

Jack Dresser, a former Army psychologist and a behavioral research scientist, is a member of Veterans for Peace. He lives in the McKenzie Valley near Springfield.

published 3/4/09: http://www.registerguard.com:80/csp/cms/sites/web/opinion/8611560-47/story.csp
 

(WEBMASTERS NOTE: the full link to submit your comments online is here: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=09000064807446b3  )
 
 
 

Jack Dresser (VeteransForPeace member) speaks of the immoral relationship between the DOE and the DOD. Click here for more video statement from other Oregon activists