rhe proposed high-level radioactive waste repository, which currently is most likely to be sited at Hanford in Southeastern Washington about 6 milesfrom the Columbia River, could alter our place in the universe more significantly than anything constructed hereabouts to date. The Department of Energy (DOE) anticipates that this first repository will hold half of the high-level commercial wastes that have been generated in this country by nuclear power plants from their beginnings until the year 2000. It will be the first technology in the world to permanently store nuclear wastes. Currently these commercial wastes are in temporary storage in water-filled pools near nuclear power plants. Through the DOE, the federal government is tied into a contract with the utilities to accept the waste by the year 1998. In early 1981 there were about 8,000 tons of spent fuel assemblies from commercial nuclear power plants in temporary storage which would occupy about 104,000 cubic feet of space—about the equivalent of one football field two feet deep. By the year 2000, spent fuel is projected to total about 79,000 tons, or about 950,000 cubic feet. From the DOE standpoint, land-use difficulties would be minimal, since the federal government already owns the reservation. Further, the Hanford reservation is already contaminated, due to the storage of high- level radioactive Defense Department wastes since World War II. Promoters of Hanford have spoken for years about promoting the entire nuclear energy-weapons chain. Plutonium has been produced at Hanford since its use in the Nagasaki atomic bomb. Since 1976 Hanford has been promoted by the DOE as a potential waste storage site through its Basalt Waste Isolation Project in Richland. Basalt, a fine-grained solidified lava, has been considered favorable to the containment of radioactive wastes. Hanford has an accumulation of layered flood basalts which are part of the Columbia River Plateau. Hanford is the only basalt site which has been named. Other sites under consideration are salt sites in Mississippi and Texas, a bedded salt formation in Utah under Canyonlands National Park and a tuff rock formation site about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. In late spring of 1985, after the government’s Environmental Assessments are complete, three sites will be chosen for the more technical site characterization. Supporters of the repository project anticipate a state revenue of at least $8- 10 billion. Most of the jobs gained by the project would not be for Tri-Cities residents, however, but would be construction jobs for temporary residents. If the decision is made to construct three repositories, the total cost would be $26 billion in 1980 dollars, according to DOE estimates. Right now the DOE has a drilling rig at the Hanford Site—the Reference Repository Location —ready to be used as soon as drilling is authorized. The rented rig costs $5,800 per day and has been on site since March, 1983. Managers of the repository project say they have held onto the rig to avoid the cost of over one million dollars to tear it down. The soonest it is expected to be used is May, 1985. When approval is granted, they intend to dig a shaft 6 feet in diameter to through the water table to a depth of 3000 feet to perform tests of basalt at actual repository depth. Criticisms in the scientific world have been raised about the Hanford site in terms of the paths of underground streams that flow in the Columbia River region and hazards of groundwater contamination. । here is concern about the behavior of the basalt formation in terms of melting, fracturing and faulting leading to possible leaks of radionuclides. Many observers note that the real reason Hanford was chosen was political expediency. Washington State’s Response Unlike other states under consideration, the government of Washington State has cooperated with the federal government by forming a Nuclear Waste Board to evaluate a possible site, has formed a negotiating team to draft a Consultation and Cooperation (C&C) agreement with the DOE, has been conducting monthly hearings on the topic and with the aid of the State Department of Ecology plans to make recommendations to the governor and legislature regarding the advisablity of locating a repository at Hanford. The governor has also appointed a Nuclear Waste Advisory Council consisting of 15 members with the role of advising the Nuclear Waste Board. Monthly meetings of the Board and Council are open to the public and take place in Lacey, near Olympia. Schedules can be obtained from the Washington Dept, of Ecology. Ultimately, the decision to accept or reject a repository rests with the governor and the legislature. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 states that either the Radiation on the ROCKS By Melissa Laird Illustration by Tom Procbaska governor or the state legislature can file a Notice of Disapproval if a site is nominated. This state disapproval can be overridden at the federal level by a Joint Resolution of Congress. Other states under consideration have demonstrated outspoken opposition to becoming federal dump sites. Richard Bryant, Governor of Nevada, objects to a dump site there because Nevada has “done more than its share for the nation” in developing atomic energy. The proposed site in Utah is less than a mile from Canyonlands National Park. Utah’s Governor Scott Matheson has denied permits for DOE studies to take place there. A moratorium on DOE studies has been imposed in Mississippi as well. Being the first state to enter into Consultation and Cooperation agreements with the DOE puts Washington into a position that will be highly visible to the rest of the country. It also suggests that a gubernatorial or legislative veto against siting a repository in Washington must be based on a highly technical analysis on the DOE’s own terms. State Senator Margaret Hurley (D-Spo- kane), a current member of the Nuclear Waste Board, said that during its formation there were very few legislators on the board. While the legislature was not in session, Governor Spellman decided to initiate a group to cooperate and communicate with the DOE The group drafted an initial C&C agreement. When the legislature convened and found that its members were not considered on the board, some legislators became very concered and suspicious, particularly about issues related to liability. Hurley said she did not think it is in the state’s best interest to sign a C&C agreement. “The DOE could take a signed agreement to another state and Washington would be contributing to that state’s selling out to the DOE.” Hurley said that David Stevens in the Office of High-Level Nuclear Waste Management in Washington has been paving the way for a repository at Hanford, making it easy by not bringing in controversial items. “Rather than cooperating from the start, what we should have done was to have the legislature pass a bill vetoing the repository,” said Hurley. “In the early stages, the DOE has been reluctant to override a state that has shown opposition by the legislature or governor. It’s too bad that one little area down there can destroy the state. It is the paramount problem that we face today-more than education, more than economics, more than welfare. It should be faced by the legislature this year. But it will probably be covered up.” State Sen. Al Williams (D-Seattle), Chairman of the Senate Science and Technology Committee and member of the Nuclear Waste Board, said that the governor’s initial task force, created by executive order, was comprised of about six administration people and four legislators. Two of the legislators—Max Benitz and Shirley Hankins—were from Richland and carried a strong political bias. In the second and third years the Nuclear Waste Board was reconstituted with wider representation and more autonomy. “By and large we have been cautiously pessemistic as a board. I think we’ve been very considerate in letting the federal government attempt to demonstrate site suitability,” Williams stated. Referring to hearings by Congressman Morris Udall (D-Arizona) of the House 12 Clinton St. Quarterly
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz