PAGE 2
DRAWING BY ROBERT GARDINER
OREGON’S ENERGY ISSUES
ik i . ?
r. -J ' K» t. - /»’* it »1 Wt»l' dll J .(MllfW
Ml
never give them hell. I ju s t tell them the
and they think it's hell."
L.Anr- ,^ c
7
-H A R R Y S. TRUMAN
1' 7
Oregon faces a number of important issues. As an anti
nuclear activist and consumer advocate, I find the following
issues at the top of my list:
Monitored Retrievable Storage in Oregon
Since the inception of nuclear technology there has
been no resolution to the final disposition of high level nuclear
wastes produced by both commercial and military reactors
In 1982 Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
which legislated a process for choosing a deep geologic reposi
tory for commercial nuclear wastes. It also provided for a study
on vtfiether a Monitored Retrieval Storage Facility (MRS) was
needed and feasible to temporarily hold the nation's waste.
In 1987, Congress had to amend this act due to the
failure of the U S. Department of Energy to properly implement
the site selection process. This amendment led to the creation of
the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator with the responsi
bility of soliciting a voluntary host for an MRS through negoti
ation with a State or Native American Indian Nation. A well
written report entitled "Monitored Retrievable Storage of Spent
Nuclear Fuel in Indian Country" by Erickson, Chapman and
Johnny, shows this process has evolved into exploiting the tragic
economic condition of the Indian Nations. It has also led to the
choice of Paiute-Shoshone Indian Reservation, located in
Oregon, as one of the candidate sites.
This development has received some attention from the
media with the following articles in The Oregonian: June 27,
1993, Nuclear Nation, February 28, 1994, Nuclear Waste May
Go to Oregon, March 6, 1994 editorial Reject Nuclear Bribery,
and a recent article on March 16, 1994, entitled Roberts
Opposes N-Waste in Oregon
While Governor Roberts has finally taken a position
against the siting of an MRS in Oregon, up to now there has
been little visible opposition by representatives of the state This
may be due to uncertainty as to whether Oregon has legal
recourse to stop the siting of this facility on Indian land.
Vocal opposition to Monitored Retrievable Storage in
Oregon is greatly needed and gubernatorial candidates should
be challenged as to their position on this issue. Oregon should
not become a defacto storage site for all of the nation’s nuclear
waste. •
Recently Don't Waste Oregon obtained a copy of a
document entitled "Authorization For Project --Trojan Large
Component Removal Project," dated January 19, 1994, vtfiich
-i
BY U»!
LLOYD
K. MARBET
' -r
;•"> I
I
,u>i i
>• };>
was submitted to the Board of Directors of Portland General
Corporation. This document reveals that, like the owners of the
Yankee Rowe Nuclear Plant in Massachusetts, PGE intends to
begin dismantling radioactive components at Trojan, to be ship
ped to Hanford, before it obtains final approval of its decommis
sioning plan and before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) finishes its own rulemaking on setting cleanup standards
for decommissioning nuclear plants.
PGE's justification is based on an agreement they have
reached with U S. Ecology Inc. to reduce volume based disposal
rates for radioactive waste by 25% for 1994-95, and to avoid
"future changes to regulations associated with decommis
sioning." There is no discussion in this document on how this
project will impact workers, who will face the increased risks of
radiation exposure, and there is also no discussion on how this
project will impact the Columbia River, which is to be used to
barge radioactive components to Hanford. There is a discussion,
however, on how PGE will respond to concerns of the public
with the usual "aggressive Public Relations campaign."
Due to increasing public interest, a third rulemaking
hearing was held by EFSC April 6. EFSC invited the NRC to
testify at this hearing on the "NRC's reasons for allowing early
component removal at Yankee Rowe" because "PGE wishes to
remove components early, but Don't Waste Oregon has offered
alternate rule language which would prohibit early component
removal."
Another revised set of proposed decommissioning rules,
dated March 1, 1994, has been drafted by the ODOE and can be
obtained by calling Marilyn Forsyth at 1-800-221-8035.
Decommissioning the Trojan Nuclear Plant
Since August of 1993, the Oregon Energy Facility Siting
Council (EFSC) has been conducting a rulemaking proceeding
in order to create rules which will be used for decommissioning
the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
Originally this rulemaking was to end after the con
clusion of two public hearings held in early 1994, but in late
January, Don't Waste Oregon Committee discovered a memo
randum, written by Adam Bless of the Oregon Department of
Energy (ODOE), which showed that the original rules pro-posed
by EFSC had in fact been written by Portland General Electric
(PGE).
This memorandum also revealed that a representative
of PGE, Tom Walt, was directly involved with the ODOE in
planning how to manage concerns raised during the hearings.
♦
rtcícHit
« m HY*
While EFSC invited the NRC, a proponent of early
component removal, to testify in their rulemaking proceedings,
there is no evidence of any effort to solicit witnesses who have
directly experienced the results of this decommissioning strategy
or who are experts holding opposing views. (In order to fully
evaluate the impact of early component removal, Don't Waste
Oregon has invited Jonathon M. Block, an attorney representing
the Citizens Awareness Network in Rowe, Massachusetts, to
testify on the NRC's policy of allowing early component removal
at the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Plant.)
The people of Oregon and Washington deserve the right
to make PGE accountable before any action to decommission
Trojan is taken on behalf of their corporate stockholders. If you
wish more information on this issue, please call Don't Waste
Oregon, (503) 637-3549.
Passing the closure costs of Trojan onto ratepayers
On November8, 1993, Portland General Electric filed a
proposed change in rates with the Oregon Public Utility
Commission (OPUC) asking for a $58.9-million annual rate
increase, 80% to be placed on residential ratepayers, vtfiich
includes $57.9-million annually for the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
This proposed rate increase would treat Trojan as if it is
a viable generating resource operating out to the year 2011.
Over this time frame it would reward PGE for failure; giving
them $291- million for Trojan cleanup, $350-million for recovery
of their remaining unamortized Trojan investment and $507-
million in profit.
Allowing PGE full cost recovery would foist the
responsibility for Trojan's failure upon ratepayers who were
misled election after election about Trojan's reliability. In
addition, PGE would not be able to demonstrate that it has been
financially harmed by Westinghouse Corporation, wrfiich sold
PGE the faulty steam generators causing the permanent closing
of Trojan. This would seriously jeopardize PGE's ability to justify
the award of damages against Westinghouse in its lawsuit in
federal court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Any consideration of rate relief for Trojan should wait
until the outcome of this lawsuit is resolved. If PGE gets to
charge all Trojan costs to ratepayers, then it can drop its lawsuit
against Westinghouse, so the truth about Trojan's construction
will never come to light.
In 1978 Oregon voters passed Ballot Measure 9 which
prohibited utilities from charging ratepayers for resources "not
presently used to provide service to the customer." In February
of 1993, PGE asked the OPUC to make a declaratory ruling on
whether it would allow PGE recovery of the capital and non
capital costs associated vwth Trojan, through 2011. The OPUC
KODAK
Buy & Sell
Collect
CHUCK MEYER
A ntique« • C o lle c tib le « • G ift«
1052 Commercial, A«toria O D 97103
475 14th Street
Astoria. Oreson 97103
Work: (503) 325-0759
Mary Lewi«
325-9722 • 1052 Commercial. A«Loria, O P 97103