By RAELYNN RICARTE
News staff writer
March 28, 2007

The news that Hanford Nuclear Reservation could restart to meet growing energy demands met with mixed reviews on Monday evening.

About 200 people crowded into the Gorge Room at the Hood River Inn to voice their approval or disapproval for the federal proposal. For every argument in support of the project, a counterpoint was made to let Department of Energy officials know that it was a bad idea.

“Reprocessing spent fuel is like King Midas on steroids. Everything touched becomes radioactive. Hanford does not need more nuclear waste, it needs less,” wrote U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in a statement read by staffer Mary Gautreaux.

“We in the United States can either become, or should I say remain, the technical experts in the field or we can continue to give our technology away to the rest of the world. And end up becoming more energy dependent than we are now,” said Jerry Peltier of Richland, Wash., a member of the Hanford Advisory Board.

At issue is a federal proposal to encourage expansion of domestic and international nuclear energy production. DOE officials contend that steps need to be taken to address the worldwide electricity demand that is expected to double by 2030. And the U.S. needs to take the lead in developing a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership or be left behind as Russia, France, Japan and China forge ahead with new technologies.

“This is a sound choice. It will contribute to the development of clean energy. And it will ensure that future generations have an adequate supply long after oil and gas is depleted,” said Darryl Francis, who works for an environmental safety firm in Richland, Wash.

“My mother told me to clean up my mess before I could do anything else; no matter how logical that anything else seemed to me,” said Jurgen Hess, a conservation activist from Hood River.

“By DOE’s admission Hanford is a mess, the most polluted site on earth. GNEP perpetuates the myth that we can tame the nuclear monster. Scientists say, `trust us.’ Yet as long as we humans are involved accidents will happen and just like global warming or the death of salmon from dams, unforeseen consequences happen.”

At the March 26 meeting, DOE official Ray Furstenau said nuclear reactors do not emit the air pollutants and greenhouse gases that result from coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-fired generation. He said the recycling process — which had yet to be fully researched and developed — would cut down on the amount of waste being stored. It would also reduce the shelf life of spent fuel from thousands of years to several hundred.

Furstenau said GNEP would find ways to reuse the elements of nuclear waste that produce carbon-free energy. And partner countries would have to agree to use nuclear power only for electricity and refrain from pursuing uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities that produce nuclear weapons.

According to DOE, nuclear power now provides about one-fifth of the electricity that the United States uses to power factories, office buildings, homes and schools. More than 100 operating nuclear power plants, located at 65 sites in 31 states, make up the second-largest source of electricity generation in the nation.

Goldendale resident Gene Kinsey said people should not be fearful of Hanford being used once again to produce nuclear fuels. He said technology had improved drastically since the plant was built in World War II to provide plutonium for nuclear weapons.

“Mount St. Helens blew in 1980 with the force of 21,000 nuclear bombs, and we’re still here,” said Kinsey.

Steve Curley of White Salmon rebutted that claim of safety after stepping up to the podium. He said, “As far as Mount St. Helens — it was not radioactive ash that fell on this area.”

Curley and other opponents contend the GNEP initiative is all about “big money interests.”

Hanford is one of 13 locations being considered by DOE for future reprocessing of nuclear waste. Furstenau said local communities near each site were willing to consider the project in exchange for an undisclosed amount of funding.

Gerald Pollet, director of Heart of America Northwest, blasted DOE for holding a meeting to “scope” out public concerns — when no specifics had been provided about the project.

“You haven’t even said what the size of the nuclear reactors is – so how do we know what to comment on?” he asked.

Furstenau explained that public concerns about the proposal were being sought by DOE until April 4. He said answers to citizen questions would then be addressed in a study of environmental impacts. The preliminary draft of that study would be brought forward this summer for further public review. The decision to either select or reject Hanford is expected to be made by the summer of 2008.

Residents interested in submitting comments into the record can do so by e-mail at: GNEPPEIS@nuclear.energy.gov, by telephone at 1-866-645-7803, by fax at 1-866-645-7807 or by mail to: Mr. Timothy A. Frazier, Office of Nuclear Energy/U.S. DOE, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20685.