The Columbian

February 17, 2016

President Obama’s proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2017 is going nowhere. Members of the budget committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives say they will not even bother to hold hearings to question the president’s budget director about the plan.

But while the $4.15 trillion proposal is more of a wish list than a serious request, one tiny aspect of it is problematic for the residents of Washington. The administration’s budget calls for a $289 million cut in funding for the cleanup at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation — a responsibility the federal government has ignored for far too long.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said: “As every member of the Hanford community already knows, it is absolutely critical that work continues on schedule in a safe, efficient manner, so I will continue to make it clear to both the administration and my colleagues in the House and the Senate that the federal government cannot shirk its obligation on Hanford cleanup.” Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., also weighed in, saying that the largest environmental cleanup in the world needs continued support.

Getting those in Washington, D.C., to pay attention will be a tall task. For decades, the federal government has ignored its duties when it comes to cleaning up radioactive waste at Hanford, which lies near the Columbia River about 200 miles upstream from Vancouver. Along the way, that negligence has imperiled one of the nation’s major waterways and the residents of two states. It is difficult to imagine federal officials eschewing their duty if Hanford rested on the banks of, say, the Potomac River. But when it is on the other side of the country, well, out of sight out of mind.

In the 1980s, Congress and President Reagan agreed to the creation of a national nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, blocked votes that could have brought that to fruition. As columnist George Will of The Washington Post wrote in 2014: “Rather than nuclear waste being stored safely in the mountain’s 40 miles of tunnels 1,000 feet underground atop 1,000 feet of rock, more than 160 million Americans live within 75 miles of one or more of the 121 locations where 70,000 tons of waste are stored.” Even a court-mandated Hanford Cleanup Consent Degree in 2010 has generated negligible response. Meanwhile, dozens of tanks at the site have begun leaking radioactive waste.

Obama’s proposed budget would provide about $2 billion for continued cleanup efforts at Hanford. But it also would cut $287 million from the Richland Operations Office, which is responsible for the cleanup aside from the waste tanks and a vitrification plant being built to treat the waste. The Office of River Protection, which oversees those projects, would have its budget trimmed by $2 million.

While the specifics of the proposal will largely be ignored by congressional budget writers, it reflects a disturbing penchant of the other Washington to overlook the needs at Hanford. The region once played a key role in the development of the atomic bomb that helped the Allies to victory in World War II, and for years after that it assisted in the development of the United States’ nuclear arsenal. Such a level of commitment to the nation deserves some commitment in return, rather than allowing roughly 56 million tons of radio active waste to create an increasing danger.

Members of Washington’s congressional delegation should continue to impress upon their colleagues the importance of the Hanford cleanup. Ignoring the situation won’t make it go away.

The Eagle

February 16, 2016

The Hanford Advisory board says a proposed change in deadlines to clean up radioactive waste in the reservation is too extreme.

The Tri-City Herald reports (http://goo.gl/vsvRxm ) that the U.S. Department of Energy has proposed changing 64 deadlines in the Tri-Party Agreement that governs the Hanford cleanup, but the board says the new deadlines would not speed up work and would instead delay some projects.

State and federal environmental regulators say they have known for some time that deadlines for cleanup of central Hanford cannot be met. However, in a letter to the DOE and its regulators, the board wrote that the proposed extended deadlines don't reflect the urgency of cleanup.

Hanford for decades made plutonium for nuclear weapons and is one of the nation's most polluted nuclear sites.

Post-Register

February 21, 2016

It’s entirely possible last week’s announcement from the Department of Energy that it was issuing a site use permit to build a module nuclear reactor near the Idaho National Laboratory will be remembered as a historic moment in the development of nuclear power.

NuScale Power has been developing small modular reactors for years, but the granting of a site license is a major milestone toward actually building one for practical use. NuScale is partnering with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, of which Idaho Falls Power is a member, to develop the reactor. The granting of a site permit here in eastern Idaho could mean big things for the region.

SMRs aren’t just another nuclear program. People at NuScale and the Idaho National Laboratory see the technology as a potential bridge between Generator Three and Generation Four nuclear technology. What does that mean?

Without getting into the technical details, it could be a catalyst for getting the moribund American nuclear power program back on its feet after years of stagnation. The average age of American nuclear power plants is 35 years, and some are nearly a half-century old. A new plant hasn’t gone online since 1997, though the Tennessee Valley Authority plans to bring another one onto the grid this year.

There are no panaceas in the nuclear power arena. Nuclear will always be controversial to some and anathema to others. But if the United States and the rest of the world are serious about reducing carbon emissions, nuclear has to be a major part of the picture.

It’s entirely appropriate that NuScale’s project should be built here in eastern Idaho, adjacent to the country’s top nuclear research facility. It’s additionally appropriate that Idaho Falls Power is a major partner in the project.

Eastern Idahoans should be proud that this world-class research and development is happening here. Yes, nuclear research requires vigilance, transparency and care. We must insist on it. But we should also embrace our possible role as the place where American nuclear technology takes a leap forward at long last.

Michigan Radio

February 19, 2016

Plans for a nuclear waste dump site near Lake Huron in Ontario are on hold, at least for now.

The proposed Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) is the work of Canadian power company, Ontario Power Generation.

Canada's environment minister, Catherine McKenna, is now requesting additional information from OPG about the project including: alternate locations for the project; cumulative environmental effects of the project; and an updated list of mitigation commitment for each identified adverse effect, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

"We had hoped that the environment minister would have outright rejected the proposal and just simply ended this insane scheme," said radioactive waste watchdog, Kevin Kamps. He is with the group, Beyond Nuclear, which has been fighting the proposal for over a decade.

OPG wants to bury approximately 200,000 cubic meters of low to medium level nuclear waste 680 meters – just under a half mile – below ground.

CREDIT ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

The site is in the shadow of the Bruce Power complex, the world's largest operating nuclear plant.

It's also less than a mile from the shore of Lake Huron, a body of water that supplies drinking water to more than 40 million people in the U.S. and Canada.

"We've seen what happened in Flint with lead poisoning of the drinking water – a population of  100,000; well this is a population 400 times larger than that," Kamps said. "Including, ironically enough, the city of Flint which now gets its drinking water, again, from Lake Huron."

OPG insists the limestone formation in the area is geologically stable. Kamps says the shaft OPG drills would pierce that geology and create a new water flow pathway, forming an escape path for radioactive waste.

He says a leak would spell disaster for all points downstream.

"We're talking tens of millions of people in a total of eight states and two provinces, and a large number of Native American first nations, who's water could become poisoned," Kamps said.

The proposed nuclear waste storage facility has been controversial on both sides of the border. Environmental groups have protested it; and dozens of local Michigan governments have passed resolutions opposing it.

Ontario Power Generation said in a statement:

...OPG understands the sensitivity of decisions around nuclear waste and respects the Minister's request for further information to inform a science-based decision...OPG maintains that a deep geologic repository is the right answer for Ontario's low and intermediate level waste from more than 40 years operating Ontario's reliable, GHG-free nuclear stations.

OPG must provide McKenna with a timeline for fulfilling her request by April 18.

Kamps says Beyond Nuclear remains committed to trying to stop the plans.

"We can't risk the drinking supply of 40 million people being poisoned," he said.