The following editorial appeared Sunday in the Tri-City Herald.

A new report on Hanford’s potential role in the future of nuclear research does more than provide answers.

It raises the right questions.

The study – actually a combination of separate reports from the Tri-City Development Council and the Columbia Basin Consulting Group – was released last week.

The document, produced under a grant from the Department of Energy, makes a compelling case for Hanford’s selection as a demonstration site for an advanced nuclear fuel recycling program.

Hanford has a lengthy list of attributes, giving it an advantage over other possible sites if the nation decides to move forward with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

GNEP is a Bush administration initiative to develop the technology to reprocess spent nuclear fuel in a way that recycles the power-producing isotopes without producing bomb-making materials.

Whether the new Democratic majority in Washington, D.C., will provide enough money to keep GNEP alive remains to be seen. The proposal deserves a fair hearing in Congress, but nothing guarantees it will get one.

Under the plan, Third World nations would receive nuclear power plants and fuel from the West, then return the spent fuel for reprocessing.

The vision is ambitious, providing abundant energy to the developing world without expanding the number of nations with nuclear weapons programs. The potential to take a slice out of world poverty without contributing to global warming makes GNEP worth considering, regardless of political persuasion.

The same is true for Hanford’s potential role.

Existing infrastructure – idled, mothballed and partially completed – could be salvaged by GNEP, saving taxpayers hundreds of millions, the Hanford study found. And restarting the Fast Flux Test Facility and using the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility at Hanford’s 400 Area would not only save money but also could cut a decade off development of the program, according to the study.

Nearby, two unfinished nuclear power plants at Energy Northwest’s 972-acre site could be used for fuel recycling and an advanced burner reactor, TRIDEC concluded.

As part of the DOE grant, TRIDEC tried to gauge the region’s concerns and questions about the program.

The list is as informative as the catalog of Hanford’s attributes. Several consistent themes surfaced from discussions with focus groups and during one-on-one sessions with key decision-makers across the state, TRIDEC reported.

“Strongest among the messages was that cleanup of Hanford must come first,” the study found.

“We also heard that bringing additional nuclear waste into the state would be met with significant resistance.” The fear is GNEP could make “Hanford the de-facto repository for the United States.”

Other issues were identified, but those were the big ones.

Knee-jerk opposition is guaranteed for anything nuclear, but thoughtful people are raising legitimate concerns. Nothing appears to be a show-stopper, especially considering the time and money that could be saved at Hanford.

But proponents of a nuclear future at Hanford must address the concerns of Northwesterners to have a chance of success.