BY PAIGE KNIGHT

Hanfordèthe name conjures up different reactions, usually perfunctory statements from the average citizen in the Pacific Northwest. │Oh, isn╣t that place closed yet?▓ is perhaps the most common one. Hanford nuclear site is a large tract of land in southeastern Washingtonï560 square miles containing the largest area of polluted land in the US, one of the vast tracts of the Columbia Basin shrub-steppe ecosystems, with incredible plumes of radioactive and chemical contaminants moving towards the Columbia River, and the home of the last native salmon-spawning beds on the last free flowing stretch of the river, the Hanford Reach.

Production of plutonium has stopped at Hanford. The last plutonium reactor was closed in 1987. Slowly, especially with Hazel O╣Leary as Secretary of Energy, Hanford╣s mission has shifted away from bomb production. O╣Leary stated in 1992 that the government had a moral obligation to re-focus on the cleanup of the widespread contamination at Department of Energy (DOE) sites like Hanford. Hanford╣s mission was specifically changed to cleanup, with big dreams of turning Hanford and the Tri-cities into a technological Mecca to advance cleanup technologies. So where are we today, in early 1997, after billions have been spent on cleanup? Progress is beginning to show. The K-Basins near the Columbia, full of corroding spent-fuel have been on an aggressive cleanup track. Pump and treat projects on some of the worst plumes are slowing down the inevitable contamination of the river. We have begun to have more access to what were once │secret▓ files and behind-the-scenes decisions to which the public was not privy.

But, each year Congress has tightened the cleanup budget for Hanford in an attempt to reform abuses by contractors that have cost the taxpayers millions, if not billions, through waste. The Start I and II treaties signed by Bush and Yeltsin in 1991 started us on the road to weapons dismantlement and brought to public attention the tremendous plutonium and uranium stockpiles and residues in facilities throughout the weapons╣ complex. This brought us a plethora of Environmental Impact Statements on proposals to cleanup, consolidate, store and dispose of the tons of waste and excess weapons materials.

But suddenly, with all the alternatives of what to do with these most toxic of substances, bureaucrats and scientists have decided to │burn▓ excess plutonium in reactors, which is seen by many who follow these issues as an attempt to revive the flailing nuclear industry. We face the dilemma of disposing of all the waste produced around the complex over the last 50 yearsïshove it into the hands of the unwilling Nevadans while we continue to produce more? Hanford is even considered in almost every EIS as a possible site for nuclear wastes.

At the same time, the DOE and the weaponeers have decided that we need more tritium to up the amps in our current stockpile of warheads. Tritium, a radioactive gas, boosts the destructive power of nuclear bombs! It decays at the rate of 5.5 percent per year and must be replenished, either by recycling usable tritium from existing warheads or by producing more. Enter Hanford.

The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), a sodium-cooled reactor (a la the Fermi Reactor in Detroit in the 1960s which never got off the ground because of a near melt-down), was built at Hanford between 1969 and 1973 at the cost of $647 million. It operated from 1982 to 1992, testing advanced fuels, materials and components to support the next generation of Liquid Metal Reactors. FFTF was shut down (put into cold stand-by) in 1992 when it was determined that it no longer had a sustainable mission. It was scheduled to be deactivated this year, saving us the yearly mortgage fee of $44 million, which could go towards the actual cleanup at Hanford. The Hanford Advisory Board (HAB), Hanford Watch and Heart of America have demanded that the money for cold stand-by come out of the Defense budget (since it is a defense mission) and have received a commitment from the DOE that the money will come from deactivation savings and nuclear legacy fundsïwith the Nuclear Energy program kicking in $1 million to study the feasibility of restarting FFTF.

One of the ironies of the Tri-cities╣ clamor for the restart of the FFTF is that the local governments of Richland, Kennewick and Pasco have been working hard for economic diversification so that they are not dependent upon the DOE for jobs. The past 50 years in the plutonium business have brought wild fluctuations in employment. One of the reasons that the Fluor Daniel Company was awarded the prime cleanup contract for Hanford was their promise of creating economic diversification. There have been thousands of layoffs over the past few years, with more to come. Yet the restart of the FFTF for a tritium production mission could take the towns right back to the same government dependency. The restart of the FFTF also is counter to the cleanup mission that has been strongly touted by the former Secretary of Energy; it would add more waste to an already overburdened waste stream with nowhere to go. (Yucca Mountain high level waste repository in Nevada is still years behind schedule and millions of dollars over cost.) And if the FFTF were chosen as the best alternative for producing tritium for warheads, it is likely that the Fuel and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) would be used to produce mixed oxide fuel (MOX), the fuel of choice to run the FFTF. Again, more waste streams would be created, adding the burden of radioactive transport to Hanford as plutonium is brought in to fuel the FMEF.

Add to this burgeoning resurgence of the bomb business the decision at DOE headquarters to use the MOX fuel option (or │burn▓ option) as one part of a two-tiered path to dispose of our excess plutonium stockpile. Washington Public Power Supply System would like to have its commercial nuclear power reactor, which has had it╣s share of problems, │retrofitted▓ as a MOX reactor. The excess plutonium would be free or cheap fuel provided by the government for burning. Sounds like a good solution to all of our problems? But all reactors produce waste that has nowhere to go.

Looking at this whole picture, many of us see the cessation of all cleanup efforts at Hanford and the restart of a multi-faceted nuclear industry dependent on government subsidies.

Producing tritium would be a gigantic step backward in the cleanup of Hanford and thus of the Columbia River. If the cleanup is slowed down any more than it has been by lack of funds and by past mismanagement, we will be leaving our children and grandchildren a toxic legacy that could reach epic proportions within the next 100 years. The progress that has been made in the past six years cannot be turned aside. Future decisions must be made with full public awareness, debate and participation. We all have an obligation to look at the issues and let our views be known to the DOE and to Congress. We hold fate in our handsïeither by our action or our inaction.

Call the Oregon State Legislature at 1-800-332-2313, your Federal Congressional Member at 1-800-972-3524 or Governor Kitzhaber at 503-378-3111. Ask them to provide adequate funds for monitoring and cleanup at Hanford and oppose the use of plutonium fuels in nuclear reactors and the production of tritium at the Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford