What part of "no" don't they understand?

by Lynn Porter

Dear Secretary Pena:

For a time the US Dept. of Energy appeared to listen to citizens of the Northwest, but lately the DOE seems to have adopted an arrogant conviction that it can ram anything down our throats.

For years we have said that Hanford's nuclear waste is a serious long-term threat to the Columbia River, that we want Hanford cleaned up, and that no new waste should be brought to Hanford or generated there.

Now we have DOE proposing to import nuclear waste to Hanford from other nuclear military sites. DOE also wants to use Hanford's Fast Flux reactor to "burn" surplus military plutonium and generate tritium for nuclear weapons.

The Dept. of Energy has not shown us that the tritium is necessary or that Hanford is where it needs to be produced. "Burning" plutonium as fuel will not make it safe from terrorists because very little of the plutonium is actually destroyed and what is left can still be extracted from the spent fuel. Serious questions have been raised about the safety of running the Fast Flux reactor with plutonium as fuel.

Most important to Oregon and the Northwest, running the Fast Flux reactor to produce tritium will generate large amounts of nuclear waste at Hanford, adding to the risk of seriously polluting the Columbia River.

Citizen activists are saying "no" to this scheme. The governor of Oregon has said "no." The Oregon state legislature overwhelmingly voted "no." The Oregonian has said "no" in an editorial. Yet the proposal is still on the table, supported by nuclear bureaucrats and people in the Hanford area who want to make money.

I have to wonder: exactly what part of "no" does the US Dept. of Energy not understand?