Radioactive Hot Potato

Nuclear Waste Trucked Through The Gorge

By Tomi Owens, 3-26-07

Oregonian’s only chance to speak their mind about the United States Department of Energy’s latest attempt to truck massive quantities of high-level nuclear waste through the Portland and the Columbia Gorge to Hanford Nuclear Reservation is tonight at the Best Western Hood River inn (ll08 East Marina Way; Hood River from 6-9:30pm.)

Discussion will revolve around the Bush Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership’s (GNEP) plan to solve “the problem” of spent nuclear waste by shipping it to one or two sites in the country for storage and “reprocessing.”

Heart of American Northwestand Columbia Riverkeeper vehemently oppose both the transportation of extremely hot Cesium and Strontium through the region as well as the storage at Hanford, already notorious for leaking millions of gallons of deadly waste.

Public comment at tonight’s “Scoping” will determine what issues agencies will address in the environmental impact statement. Concerns about safety and driving conditions on proposed trucking routes, the storage facilities’ proximity to the Columbia River, and the effectiveness of the reprocessing procedure are just some of issues to be addressed by the EIS. 

[End of article]

I have followed most of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership articles as the Public Scoping meetings have toured the Nation and I find this particular article to be flagerantly inaccurate.
And, thanks for posting the meeting notice. I heard it was a good meeting. http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/8742669p-8644425c.html

Energy sources, global warming, recycling and waste management are timely debates.

Best regards,

Monday night's meeting was good, but only because it was attended by a mostly well-informed public. If the public came to the meeting expecting information, there was a strange lack of it from any other source except from Columbia Riverkeepers and Heart of America Northwest.
Where were the details of the proposal the public was supposed to comment on? Where were the DOE or the GNEP officials to answer the public's questions?
How was the public supposed to comment intelligently on a proposal that was given to us in a 5 minute video and sounded like this: "Recycling nuclear waste is as simple as putting out your cans and bottles every week. Well, we don't actually have the technology yet to recylce it or to clean any of it up, but trust us, if you let us ship a lot of high-level nuclear waste through your neighborhoods, we promise we'll make some really great bombs out of all that plutonium."
No questions were allowed during the meeting. When the public expressed some distress at this, they were told to ask their specific questons during the short break to the DOE officials. However, no DOE officials volunteered to answer questions.
Actually, the only reason the Oregon Public Hearing was held was because Gov. Kulongoski, Sen. Ron Wyden, and a few other Oregon leaders protested loudly enough to force the meeting to happen.
Among others who testified against the mysterious proposal were Physicians for Social Responsibility, Columbia Riverkeepers, a DOE official, Veteran's for Peace, Columbia River Fellowship for Peace, a few ex-employees of Hanford and the Trojan project, Sen. Ron Wyden's representative, and many concerned citizens.
The few who testified in favor of the proposition all stood to gain financially. One particularly bellicose gentleman who just happens to own a lot of land adjacent to the Hanford site asserted that Hanford needs more nuclear waste because that particular waste will be used to cure cancer.
A representative from the State of Washington stood up and promised us that "if only the scientists who invented this marvelous proposal were here, they could answer all your questions and convince all of you what a great opportunity this is."
The public seemed quite unconvinced.
Perhaps this was in part because the biggest supporter of this "recycling" program is President Bush, a man who has declared that religion trumps science and who can't pronounce the word "nuclear." It's odd that a President who doesn't believe in Global Warming would use Global Warming as a reason to start up the nuclear machine again.
As Brent Foster from Riverkeepers said, "Saying that Nuclear Power is clean energy because it doesn't produce carbon dioxide is like saying that Coal Power is clean energy because it doesn't produce nuclear waste."

I am also quite curious to know why Carl Holder feels the New West article is inaccurate. I was one of four citizens invited to the DOE/EPA/Wa. State Dept. of Ecology meeting last May, and everything in the article is supported by the literature presented by those agencies.