Feds issue threat over money for nuclear-waste cleanup

By H. Josef Hebert
The Associated Press

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

WASHINGTON — The Energy Department is threatening to withhold $350 million that was to be used to pay for disposal of some of the most dangerous radioactive waste from Cold War bomb-making. First, it said, Congress and state officials must accept a cleanup plan already rejected in court.

The issue has pitted Washington and five other states against the Bush administration, raising concern that some of the millions of gallons of highly radioactive waste that are supposed to be solidified and buried by the government may remain in place.

"I will not allow DOE to hold this work hostage or to hold this budget hostage," Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, told the head of the Department of Energy cleanup effort at a recent hearing.

On Capitol Hill and in the states facing the cleanup task, critics are accusing the department of trying to force states to accept less-stringent cleanup standards to save money and finish the job more quickly. The department said that some of the waste has a low-enough level of radioactivity that it can be covered with cement and left in place.

A federal judge in Idaho last year said the Energy Department's plan to reclassify some of the waste in the tanks as "low level" and not remove it for burial violated the law. He said Congress specifically said all the waste, the byproduct of plutonium production during the Cold War, has to be treated as "high-level" waste and must be buried in a central facility, probably the planned site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

The cleanup at sites in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina and New York is expected to cost tens of billions of dollars and take decades.

But the head of the cleanup program, Jessie Roberson, told congressional committees recently that the department has no plans to spend the $350 million earmarked for next fiscal year — and probably won't ask Congress for it — unless it is allowed to reclassify some of the radioactive waste to make disposal easier and cheaper.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., reminded Roberson that some people have characterized the department's strategy as "blackmail" in an attempt to get the federal nuclear-waste law changed and circumvent the federal court's ruling. The Energy Department is appealing that ruling but would prefer Congress change the law.

"They (Department of Energy officials) didn't get their way in court, so now they want the law changed," Murray said. "Everyone is for accelerated cleanup as long as it's done in a way that protects workers' safety and we don't cut corners."
 
The waste, some in leaking tanks, has been described as a "witch's brew of radioactivity" left from nuclear reprocessing. Haphazard records often were kept as to what actually was being poured into the tanks, according to cleanup engineers. Dealing with this material is at the core of a much broader waste-cleanup effort that the Energy Department said will cost $273 billion.

The high-level waste includes 53 million gallons in tanks at the department's Hanford site near Washington's Tri-Cities; ; 34 million gallons at its Savannah River site near Aiken, S.C.; and 900,000 gallons at INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory) in Idaho. Also to be tackled are 600,000 gallons of waste left from a short-lived reprocessing program near West Valley, N.Y.

Roberson told lawmakers recently that the department wants to "aggressively reduce risks" posed by the tanks but that the Idaho court decision "makes it difficult, if not impossible" to proceed with cleanup.

As for the $350 million earmarked for dealing with the tanks in the fiscal year beginning in October, Roberson said, "These funds will be requested only if the legal uncertainties are satisfactorily resolved."

"That's extortion," said Susan Gordon, a Seattle activist and national director of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, who has followed the Hanford and Idaho cleanup issues closely. She called the reclassification of the waste a ruse to "fence areas off" and leave more of the radioactive material behind.

But Roberson said a change in the law is overdue.

"Historically, we've taken a simplistic approach to managing (such) waste," she said. The tank waste has been classified as "high level" because of its origin and not its composition, she said, and Congress should change that to allow quicker and cheaper cleanup without reduced safety.

Six states have joined in urging the appeals court to uphold the Idaho judge's decision.

Along with the four states where waste is located, Oregon joined because Hanford is in an adjacent state, and New Mexico joined because officials are concerned a reclassification of tank waste would result in more being shipped to a government repository near Carlsbad.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company