acceptance might be applicable in the case of a repository. They did not address the correlation between faults and vertical conduits that would be more critical to repository evaluation than that for nuclear power plants. So far over $230 million have been spent by Rockwell Hanford Operations on a study of doubtful scientific merit. It is pointed out in the study by WashPIRG that the DOE’s General Siting Guidelines have not been rigidly applied at Hanford. It is suggested that it would not be worthwhile to spend millions of dollars on further studies to find the site unsuitable. Granite or other crystalline sites may be without inherent groundwater problems and are suggested as sites to be considered in the first round of repository selection. The Nuclear Waste Board applied for funds from the DOE to pay for a welllogging study to address some of the questions regarding the concept of flow in the basalt region. Dr. William Brewer of the Wash. State Dept, of Ecology’s Office of High-Level Nuclear Waste Management has presented the case to the Board and to the DOE naming the Civil and Environmental Dept, at Washington State University to do the work for the state. Although a similar study was funded by the DOE in the state of Nevada for state review purposes, the Washington study was denied funding by the Richland office of the DOE on the basis that such a study is “site characterization-related.” Karen Wheeless, of the Public Affairs Office of the DOE, explained the decision. “It would be up to each individual office to determine whether a project were funded or not. We felt it was site characterization-related, which we believe to be our responsibility. In Nevada, perhaps they didn’t feel that kind of study was related to characterization. Each office makes its own recommendations and approvals. The DOE goes in there to actually characterize the site. The state’s responsibility is to review our work. That review may involve some field investigation. It doesn’t mean that the state turns over a piece of dirt next to ours. Regarding review, the state may check our accuracy, do some computer work, field Wastes from the utilities industry would become a resource in defense terms. In the production and transportation of spent fuel, part of the dollars paid by utilities ratepayers would be going into defense production. samples and office checks, but not actual duplication of work.” Wheeless added that the study would be contracted out to Rockwell and it would be up to them whether they did it or it would be sub-contracted. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not clearly define the nature of a state’s review. However, there is a concern that the DOE may not be operating legally if one state is being funded for an independent study and another is not. Dr. Brewer stated that he thought the DOE was misinterpreting the Act. “They’re setting a trap for themselves because down the road they’re going to need evidence of state review for licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” He added that the Nuclear Waste Board had some recourse for the funding at another level. The Role of the Defense Department Some supporters of the Hanford waste repository cite jobs as one of the potential benefits to the Tri-Cities area. The DOE estimates that during the construction 1700- 5000 jobs would be created during a 4-year period. After construction, 870-1100 persons would be employed for 30 years of operation. The cost to create a job at Hanford is $150,000 as compared to $20- 40,000 in light industry. What is more significant in economic terms is the defense contracts which the area would retain through continued processing of plutonium. The Reagan Administration brought a reduction of energy research projects at Batelle and conversion of several non-military projects to defense status at Rockwell International—as well as the re-opening of the PUREX plant so that the U.S. could build five nuclear weapons a day. In 1982, an Environmental Impact Statement noted that PUREX is the only source of plutonium for Trident, Pershing and other warheads. What threatens the continuation of these contracts is that plutonium is in short supply. A repository on-site could remedy that shortage: plutonium can be extracted from commercial spent fuel in the form of fuel rods. To the DOE’s good fortune, it will legally own these fuel rods in 1998 when, according to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, it takes responsibility for their disposal. Extraction of plutonium and unburned uranium from other materials in spent fuel is cheaper using Hanford’s PUREX facility than would be the construction of new facilities to make plutonium from scratch. Hanford’s N-Reactor has been converted to weapons-grade mode of operation, and at least $140 million has been spent to restore the PUREX plant, which uses a chemical process to separate plutonium and uranium from the fuel rods. The role the defense industry plays in the repository siting issue has been underplayed by the media and by the State Nuclear Waste Board in recent months. Wastes from the utilities industry would become a resource in defense terms. In the production and transportation of spent fuel, part of the dollars paid by utilities ratepayers would be going into defense production. Through the Hart-Simpson Amendment to the Atomic Energy Reauthorizing Act of 1982, the military reprocessing of commercial spent nuclear fuel is not allowed. However, some observors are convinced the amendment will be changed if the current rate of defense build-up continues. According to Dick Nelson, member of the Nuclear Waste Board, “Under a second Reagan administration there could be the assertion that we would need more plutonium. People in the Tri-Cities talk about the complete fuel cycle and I would guess there are supporters of reprocessing spent fuel.” Author of the amendment, Sen. Gary Hart, stated in the 1982 hearings that Congress could repeal the measure “if it is clearly essential for the national security.” An incident at PUREX Last November PUREX was restarted after a 12-year halt in operations. After two months it was shut down due to emission of radiation escaping up a 200-foot smoke stack. Although the emission was thought to be plutonium, Rockwell officials later stated the plant was emitting thorium daughters which are far less dangerous. On August 22, however, after considerable unwillingness on the part of Rockwell officials to answer questions pertaining to the PUREX emissions, Paul Lorenzini, Vice President of Rockwell, confessed that Rockwell had known since January that plutonium was being emitted from the stack. Plutonium has a 24,000-year half life and is carcinogenic for 250,000 years. In a series in the Bellevue Journal- American, September 2-5, 1984, Larry Shook and Tim Conner describe the PUREX incidents in detail. They point out that Dr. Allen Benson of Spokane Falls Community College analyzed data relating to the emissions and found plutonium was emitted in concentrations close to 4000 times greater than guidelines set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. DOE officials have defended the concentrations of these emissions with the theory that dispersal will dilute plutonium (and other contaminants). This dispersal theory was disputed in numerically dramatic terms by a joint study of the U.S. Weather Bureau and the Air Force at the Savannah River, South Carolina plant. Despite requests by the Southwest Washington Board of Health and citizens groups that PUREX not be restarted until independent state monitoring take place, Open to All— Food Front COOPERATIVE GROCERY Whole foods, Real Groceries, » a f —A natural Treats, Fresh Produce Open 7 days, 9 a m. to 8 p.m. 2675 NW Thurman 222-5658 TRI-MET BUS 53 $1.00 OFF ANY EXTRA-LARGE PIZZA (GOOD FOREVER) PORRETTA PIZZA NOW YOU CAN TAKE IT OUT OR EAT IT HERE! WHOLE WHEAT OR WHITE CRUST IMPORTED &DOMESTIC BEER &WINE SUB SANDWICHES & SALADS CALL AHEAD YOUR ORDER WILL BE READY WHEN YOU ARRIVE HOURS TUES-WED-THURS-SUN 4 PM- 10 PM FRI & SAT 5 PM- 12 MIDNIGHT CLOSED MONDAY 232-2812 2239 S.E. HAWTHORNE BV. Clinton St. Quarterly 15
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz