Citizens Advisory Committee

In September 2004, a committee of local citizens was formed by the Port of Chelan County (an agency dedicated to regional economic development). The committee's purpose was to review the DUSEL proposal for Mt. Cashmere / Icicle Canyon and submit a report to the Port District commissioners on whether the Port District should encourage the process for locating DUSEL here.

Despite a majority of the committee members coming to the conclusion that DUSEL should NOT be located in Icicle Canyon and/or have serious concerns about the project (see letter below), the Port Dsitrict commissioners have drafted a proposal to support DUSEL anyway.

URGENT ACTION NEEEDED

The Port of Chelan County is currently taking public comments on this draft proposal. We strongly encourage you to write or email them with your own thoughts on why DUSEL should not be located in the Leavenworth area.

Are you a member of the Chamber of Commerce in Leavenworth, Cashmere or Wenatchee?

Did you know that the Port of Chelan County is counting you as a supporter of DUSEL unless they hear from you? Call or email them today to tell them it is just flat wrong to count the entire membership of the Chamber as being in favor of DUSEL, when in fact no survey of the membership has ever been made.

Chelan County Port District's "DUSEL Process" cooks the books: Four local Chamber of Commerce membership lists were added to the "count" of those in favor of the DUSEL project, despite the fact that the members were never asked their opinion. If these four Chamber of Commerce individual membership lists are excluded from the count (as they should be), the Port received 905 notices against DUSEL Cascades proposal and 34 in favor of it.

Read the Port District's Draft Proposal HERE [PDF:18kb] and note "Exhibit A" list of "recommendations" -- an effort to mitigate the enormous risks and problems with DUSEL being located here -- all of which cannot be mitigated at all.

Read the Citizens Advisory Committee Report HERE [PDF:102kb]

Read a letter from ten of the Citizens Advisory Committee members to the National Science Foundation below, followed by concerns from members of the committee.

DUSEL is "NO SELL" for the Icicle Canyon

After studying the DUSEL proposal for over five months as members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee to the Port of Chelan County, many of us have concluded that it would be best if the lab were sited elsewhere. These were the reasons for our decision:

The tunnel boring and blasting has the potential to disturb subsurface water flows in Leavenworth's municipal watershed, and damage the ecosystem of the entire region. Such effects may not become apparent until after the project is well underway. Can we be sure that all such unanticipated problems will yield to engineering solutions?

Once the lab is built, huge quantities of toxic chemicals will be required for its neutrino detectors. For example, just one of the experiments planned for the lab requires 150,000 gallons of gasoline-like scintillator and tons of lead shielding, and even larger experiments are contemplated. What kind of "mitigation" can justify introducing these potential contaminants into our watershed, where the current risk is zero?

The construction of the staging area, twin 3-mile long tunnels and lab chambers under Mt. Cashmere would be very destructive to the land, while severely impacting local residents and visitors. Two of the most intractable problems this would create are the extensive rock hauling through residential areas on the Icicle Road and up Tumwater Canyon, and the costly, lengthy, and invasive infrastructure upgrades. How could three-plus years of intense construction activity not have a negative effect on Leavenworth's visitor-based economy?

The US Forest Service has determined that the Icicle's scenic beauty and recreational value are of primary importance. But DUSEL would severely impact recreational use of the Canyon during the lengthy construction period due to noise, heavy truck traffic, and restricted access to campgrounds and trails.

The future direction of such esoteric deep-lab research is difficult to predict. No one knows what kinds of experiments will find their way into the lab over time, what additional risks they might pose, or how open they will remain to public scrutiny. The proponents say that some experiments will relate directly to national defense, and this role may expand. Given the huge monetary investment, the importance of the research, and the ever-present threat of terrorism, the area surrounding the lab portal near Bridge Creek may need to be tightly secured. Would floodlights, chain-link fences, locked gates, and security checkpoints be compatible with a wilderness-recreational environment?

Is it in our best interests to become dependent on outside government agencies which may not share our local culture or values, and which may have economic and political agendas unaligned with ours? For the last forty years, the Icicle and Wenatchee Valleys have enjoyed local control of their tourist and small-business economy. We have all seen far too many examples of federal projects which have been misrepresented, poorly designed or implemented, mismanaged, under-funded, and in some cases even abandoned before completion, such as the Super-Collider project in Texas.

A number of environmental rules and regulations would have to be compromised in order to allow the lab chambers to be placed under a designated Wilderness Area, and to permit the portal within one-quarter mile of Icicle Creek. If loopholes in our environmental rules can be exploited to allow a project of this size in the Icicle, what precedents will this set for future large-scale developments in the Canyon, or for similar projects elsewhere?

There are other communities in the U.S. which are far better equipped to accommodate a project of this size and complexity, and are eager to do so.

Most of our concerns relate specifically to the Icicle site. At these other mine-based sites, environmental impacts have largely been mitigated, much of the infrastructure is already in place, economic impacts would be unambiguously positive, and fewer people would be adversely affected. In addition, the extra cost of building DUSEL here, the only from-scratch site still under consideration, is not a justified expenditure of U.S. taxpayer money, given these alternatives.

We believe the Icicle Canyon was a hasty and inappropriate choice as a DUSEL candidate. We fail to see how the concerns we have raised can be adequately addressed later in the process. The lab is what it is; some of the problems it will create here simply can't be mitigated.

There is a significant downside in continuing to promote DUSEL-Cascades in the face of stiff and growing local opposition. Most people who live here and those who use the Canyon for recreation understand that the Icicle is a special place, and believe in the importance of protecting it from large-scale development. We urge the NSF to have the wisdom and foresight to remove the Icicle Canyon/Mt. Cashmere site from further consideration.

Hank Drewniany
Pat Fromm
William Kampen
Ken Marson
Polly McIntire
Lee Milner
Alan Moen
Cot Rice
Dick Rieman
Craig Root

Members of the Citizens Advisory Committee
DUSEL-Cascades project

DUSEL Proposal Concerns

Craig Root

Member of the Citizens Advisory Committee
DUSEL-Cascades project

8-24-04

1.) DUSEL has been presented as a University of Washington project involving basic research into fundamental aspects of astrophysics, primarily neutrinos. After reading the proposal, it is evident DUSEL is a federal project and will support a significant amount of applied research. Major tenants and management of the facility include the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, Homeland Security, National Nuclear Security Agency, NASA, possibly the Navy, and contractors to these agencies such as PNNL and federal government management contractors. Some of the applied research will include resource exploration and extraction for gas, oil, mining and biological resources; use of underground environments for disposal and storage of radioactive wastes; construction and new uses of underground facilities; and development of novel biological organisms and genetic materials found deep underground. In addition, there is a closed secure portion of DUSEL that will be a national analytical laboratory for worldwide monitoring for nuclear detonations. The concern is two-fold. One is the incongruent nature of the research to its proposed location under Mt. Cashmere and to the activities and community culture in the Icicle and Leavenworth valleys. Secondly, the presence of the education and outreach center sends a message to the world that such use in places like the Icicle is acceptable

2.) The DUSEL programs are national and international in scope. Most employees will be advanced and renowned scientists from elsewhere. The programs will also support more transient employees such as visiting scientists, post doctoral scientists, and graduate students. Many will be from other regions and countries. In addition, many will be taking advantage of the lab from a distance through the internet. Much of the research has global and universal importance and application. With such an organization, will there be a real connection and commitment by the organization and tenants to our community, our culture, our values, and visions?

3.) The proposal seeks to sever long term responsibility and liability for the sponsor and users of DUSEL and this has the potential to leave our community and area at risk from an unwanted legacy once DUSEL’s life-time has been reached. The proposal states a goal to relieve the NSF of any permanent responsibility for buildings and lands. If the NSF does not have long term liability associated with DUSEL, then what incentive does the organization have to weigh cautiously certain risks associated with the project? Once in place, what incentive for the sponsoring organization is there to manage the operations weighing local concerns over project goals? Management of operations will be further separated from the sponsoring organization with the use of a government contracted operations management firm. The University of Washington will function as a landlord overseeing environmental health and safety issues and tenant agreements, but the long term responsibility of the sponsor towards the land is severed.

4.) The proposal does not deal with closure of DUSEL. When DUSEL programs are finished, will the facility close or be used by other agencies for other purposes? If closed, how will the process of closure and related expenses be handled and by whom? Will our area be saddled with a liability to our environment because it is not being managed properly as an abandoned facility? Will there be cleanup requirements related to contamination issues resulting from DUSEL’s presence? If other tenants wish to use the facility, what role will the community play in the use of the facility? The liabilities and responsible parties upon DUSEL closure need to be identified and assigned so this component of the proposal can be evaluated by the NSF and to insure our community is not left with a legacy they cannot and do not want to deal with.

5.) Concerns regarding the construction period and trucking have been addressed, but it appears these discussions have only dealt with the initial construction period. Throughout the proposal, additional construction is mentioned. The Earthlab has proposed three tunnels of its own totaling several kilometers in length and the Low Level Counting Facility requires expansion as part of its facility needs. The proposal leaves the impression that trucking, rock disposal, noise, traffic and other issues will continue to be an impact on the neighbors and community. How frequently and how long will the construction be a factor to our community and recreation in the Icicle Valley? Can this be quantified? Will this be a factor the community lives with for the life-time of the facility?

6.) With DUSEL, Leavenworth will have the Low Level Counting Facility for the U.S. that analyzes samples taken worldwide to monitor clandestine nuclear testing, and a Homeland Security facility developing ways to hamper terrorist tactics. Leavenworth also hosts concentrations of tourists, and with DUSEL specifically at the education and outreach center. With DUSEL, Leavenworth will also have renowned scientist from around the world studying cutting edge physics, and lots of national attention in the media. Leavenworth also has a rural mindset and limited infrastructure. It seems all these components could add up to a potential terrorist target. Do we as a community want to increase our potential risk as a target for terrorists? Is this a reality for Leavenworth? Do we want to live with the heightened presence of security that will most likely come with having a closed national security and Homeland Security facility? Will our community and local response agencies be involved in contingency planning and exercises that are being done elsewhere in the state and nation? Is this an element we want to bring to our small mountain community? How will the tourist community react to such a presence?

7.) The proposal includes aggressive development and marketing of the education and outreach programs and has the potential to draw many tourists as well as participants in its many planned programs such as teachers and students. Can Leavenworth accommodate such an increase in demand for facilities such as motels and restaurants, traffic and parking? The potential draw for tourism and educational experiences may be great, but can this be integrated into the community vision, and is Leavenworth prepared to meet this challenge?

8.) The proposal addresses the issue of affordable housing with a concept that provides housing primarily for DUSEL tenants and some units made available to the non-DUSEL community. This gives the impression that DUSEL people will be housed separated from the broader community housing market. This concept does not strengthen affordable housing development within the community, but within the DUSEL framework. Housing like this tends to enforce the alienation of these members of the community as well. Are there other avenues that can be investigated where DUSEL might provide affordable housing through existing programs in the community?

9.) The proposal addresses several issues related to safety and the environment and indicates the University of Washington and committees will have oversight of this aspect of operations. However, throughout the proposal, there are numerous safety issues of concern that are mentioned, but are not addressed at all or in greater detail as to how they will be addressed. In some cases, it is noted that the safety aspects of a process are yet to be developed. This raises concern as to what safety risks there are and will these be adequately evaluated and addressed in the review of the proposal for the Leavenworth site. More information is needed. As examples, what are the specifics for such things as: What flammable liquids are being used, their volumes and classes? How specifically will they be stored? What toxic chemicals will be used and in what volumes? What acids will be used and in what volumes? What are the chemical processes associated with copper electroplating? What specific hazardous chemical wastes will be generated and in what volumes and how frequently? Will any be treated on-site and how? What radioisotopes will be used in experiments and what are their hazards? What is involved in the Germanium crystal growth process? What is contained in scintillation fluids and what are their hazards? What volumes will be used and how will disposal be done? What specific types of secondary containment will be used? What specific exotic detector materials will be used and their hazards that are said to have special safety concerns? Will cerium oxide, rich in Thorium, be used as a polishing compound? What is material cooling storage? Is this radioactive decay? What is an intense neutrino calibration source and why are they handled in a special manner? What is being filtered out of the liquid nitrogen in carbon filters? What are the other safety processes and needs referred to and not described in the proposal?

10.) Several processes mention the need for exhausting of lab air that contains radioisotopes, acid fumes, and toxic organic vapors. Where will these and others such as the emergency power generator fumes be vented to? The Icicle valley? Will this exhaust be treated prior to release to the environment? An air contaminant source operating permit from the Department of Ecology is listed as potentially necessary for operations. What will this be for? Will the air quality in the Icicle and near the portal be impacted from exhaust of hazardous air from the underground lab processes?

11.) There is no data available to indicate whether the deep zones of Mt. Cashmere are hydraulically connected to the shallow zones. If they are connected, the activities proposed for DUSEL would pose too much of a risk. Will verification be done before proceeding with this project?

12.) Experiments proposed in EarthLab related to disposal and storage of radioactive waste include “in situ” experiments with these materials. One study is to examine the existing rock as primary containment. It is unknown how this rock structure and lab will interact with and affect the groundwater and surface water and to introduce these types of compounds “in situ” seems very risky.

13.) The EarthLab proposal includes surface drilling that is connected to other subsurface drillings. Where will this surface work be done? Will it be in the wilderness area? What access will be required for this drilling

14.) The enlarged internal portal cavity is presented as an area that will house several things to help reduce visual and noise impact. After reviewing the proposal, the space seems too small. In addition, utilities will be added when the lab expands. How will the existing portal accommodate expansion? Where will new equipment be housed? Where will the minimum 200,000 gallon fire suppression water storage tank be located? The proposal states it will be insulated and heated per NFPA requirements. Does this mean it will be located outside? The same storage capacity is needed to collect the used fire suppression water and where will that be located? Where will the emergency generator fuel supply tanks be located? The Xenon detector requires 3000 liters/day of liquid nitrogen that will be supplied by an external tank and plumbing. Where will this tank be located? Where will the septic waste storage tank be located? Where will the dewatering tank be located and the associated treatment equipment for discharge?

15.) The proposal presents access to this location as beneficial. However, it does not point out that access up the Icicle has historically been denied for several reasons, such as fires, slides and snow conditions. This may be a critical factor if personnel cannot access the lab for critical procedures, maintenance or for emergencies (the proposal indicates the necessity for 24/7 access). The proposal does not indicate that access to the site during snow and ice conditions is normal for several months of the year. This requires snow plowing and who will be responsible for this cost? These conditions raise the risk for transport of hazardous materials, which are described throughout the proposal. There is risk for a vehicle to go off the road and possibly into Icicle Creek causing a release to the creek or nearby. Such weather conditions will have an impact on construction trucking. The proposal does not indicate that normal recreational activities of pedestrians, bicyclists, climbers, and their vehicles will be a factor and liability during construction trucking. These factors are real and significant, and should be accurately represented in the proposal to NSF.

16.) The proposal mentions that sulfide, uranium and thorium content of the rock to be bored is currently being analyzed by PNNL. Do these components present a problem?

17.) Are the “sole use vehicles” described for transporting samples from PNNL to the lab and from the research building to the lab for counting at the LLCF for containment of hazards or for security purposes or both? What routes will be taken through our area? Will this transport present any potential terrorist target or health risk if an accident occurs?

18.) Normal traffic in the Icicle valley consists of cars, bicycles and pedestrians. Commercial industrial trucks are not the norm. The presence of these types of vehicles will be a negative impact to the users and residents of the valley. How frequently and what sizes of vehicles will be on Icicle Road servicing DUSEL?

19.) The proposal indicates operational staff will handle emergency responses and will work with local agencies on special challenges posed by underground operations. What are these specific special challenges? Do Leavenworth and Chelan County response agencies have the training and equipment to respond to these special challenges? If not, who will bear the cost to meet these requirements? What kind of response times are necessary for some of these challenges? Can they be met at this isolated location and under poor winter weather conditions? Have local response agencies provided their input for this proposal? It appears the proposal is assuming capabilities that may not exist here, and those are important factors in evaluating the appropriateness of this site.

20.) How will emergency responses be handled in the closed secured areas? Will the Department of Ecology and other regulatory agencies have access for oversight of operations and compliance with regulations? This may not be as critical on a military or DOE reservation, but under Mt. Cashmere this oversight is very critical.

21.) The proposal describes how the lab dewatering system will collect water, monitor, process it, and return it to the environment via discharge to Icicle Creek or to the ground through soil injection. It states only two parameters to be monitored that of solids and temperature. The entire lab complex has many sources of contaminants that can not all be controlled or releases known about that could find their way to this water. This could be lubricants on machinery, small spills that go unreported, sewage leaks, and other incidental releases. If these components are not tested for, how can anyone know if they are not being released? Criteria for discharges to surface waters do not necessarily require the water being discharged to be as pristine as the receiving water. This means these discharges even though legal, could be impacting the pristine nature of the Icicle. The proposal does not provide information on what processing capabilities are planned for treating waters discharged from the lab. It does not explain how and where and in what type of system soil injection would take place. Will this be visible? Will it impact the Icicle? What is the potential impact for these discharges as the facility expands and water use and generation increases?

22.) DUSEL will have neutrino factories producing neutrino superbeams sent between like facilities. What hazards are associated with these beams?

23.) Will the improvement of Icicle Road up the icicle Valley with utilities promote further development of the valley? Will the presence of such a facility in the Icicle encourage other enterprises to present plans for development? Will it make it easier to justify other types of development there once DUSEL is in place? Further development will reduce the value of the Icicle as a recreational resource that the community enjoys and depends on for their tourism.

24.) The addition of another bridge between the Peshastin bridge and Leavenworth is unnecessary and impacts the beauty of that stretch of river and adds another congestion point and intersection hazard.

25.) Research is proposed that will involve recombinant DNA and novel genetic material use. The facility can become a terrorist target for activists based on these activities. This will require proper security for the research center to prevent damage from such activities. These controls need to be addressed in the proposal.

26.) During construction and during future expansion construction, where will explosives be stored? Outside of the portal? Will there be any impact to the Icicle residents and recreational users from the blasting during construction?

DUSEL Proposal Concerns

Bill Kampen

Member of the Citizens Advisory Committee
DUSEL-Cascades project

1. The huge size and the lack of flexibility of the DUSEL project—it’s all or nothing nature*:

a. The lack of alternative options if things do not go exactly as planned. What happens, for example, if unanticipated fractures/fissures show up in the rock during tunnel boring? Can the tunnels be shortened or rerouted? What happens if noise/vibrations during the winter/spring rock hauling generate snow/rock avalanches in the canyon? Where are the allowances for Murphy‘s Law?

b. The uncertainty of federal funding, particularly in light of record federal deficits and debt. Could we get stuck with a partially-completed project? Could state/county taxpayers be forced to pay a larger portion of the tab than anticipated--more of the infrastructure costs, for example?

c. The potential for an already huge project to become even larger. The use of the fourth lab room/detector chamber will not be determined until sometime in the future. How much real influence will local residents have regarding the size of this addition and the nature of experiments to be conducted there?

2. Water issues:

a. The introduction of large quantities of toxic material (oil, diesel fuel, scintillator) into the watershed, including the potential for carelessness or accidents. Will oil and diesel fuel be transported to/stored near the portals for refueling and lubrication of the tunnel borer and other equipment during construction? When DUSEL is built, what types of scintillator might be used over the life of the lab? In what quantities? How will the scintillator be transported?

b. The potential for unanticipated rock fracturing to negatively impact the water table.

c. Increased water demand from all lab buildings and personnel once the lab is operating. This will reduce the water available for other, existing uses (drinking water, irrigation, fish hatchery, maintenance of stream flows for fish, water dipping during fires) particularly during the August/September low water period, and especially when fire camps are active (at which times city hydrants are tapped to serve hundreds of visiting firefighters).

3. Traffic issues (vastly increased heavy equipment traffic on the Icicle/East Leavenworth roads during the approximately five years of construction):

a. Noise, dust, and diesel fumes affecting residents living near the road.

b. Impacts to joggers, walkers, bikers, and horseback riders who currently use the road shoulder.

c. Economic impact to the town (decreased tourism) caused by closure and/or reduced accessibility/attractiveness of Icicle road and campgrounds. Possible backlash from tourists.

d. Deterioration of roadways (Who pays for repairs? When are repairs done?).

e. Ongoing traffic disruptions and congestion due to additional heavy truck traffic, infrastructure upgrades (burying roadside cable), and increased maintenance/repair.

f. Elimination of off-season (late fall through early spring) peace and quiet for valley residents. Currently there is very little traffic in the Icicle from November through April--a nice respite for both people and wildlife. The rock hauling and lab construction would change that.

g. Increased danger of collision (pedestrians, other vehicles, wildlife). Dump trucks with pups are not very maneuverable and cannot stop quickly.

h. Increased traffic congestion during firefighting, since the fish hatchery and Fromm property are used as staging areas.

4. Noise, dust, and diesel fumes for residents living near rock dump sites: Is the County borrow pit at the junction of Icicle and East Leavenworth Roads still the number one dump site? What other sites are being considered? Who will be most directly affected?

5. Trojan horse and trust issues:

a. During construction, DUSEL will essentially be a mining operation. If tunnels can be drilled under a wilderness area here, why not elsewhere, perhaps for other, less civic-minded purposes?

b. If large quantities of toxic/hazardous materials (oil, diesel fuel, scintillator) can be transported and stored alongside the Icicle in our watershed (a river still under consideration for Wild and Scenic status), what kind of precedent will this set for other wilderness streams?

c. Property has been bought and sold in the Icicle for many years based on the assumption that the Icicle Canyon would always be protected from large industrial development of this type. The USFS regulations won’t allow DUSEL in the Icicle without variances and/or conditional use permits. If these permits are issued, what does this say about our federal government’s willingness to ignore its own rules, and what are the implications for homeowners everywhere who live adjacent to “protected” federal areas? How much faith will the public continue to have in these rules if the government so willingly bends them? And if the rules can be bent enough now to permit the construction of DUSEL in the Icicle, how can we trust the same regulations to prevent the Mt. Cashmere cavity from eventually being used for nuclear waste storage?

d. There will be little real local control over the types of experiments being performed and materials being used (scintillator, lead shielding) in the lab.

Some experiments associated with national defense will not be open to public scrutiny at all. How would we know if certain lab activities presented a danger to us? Given our Federal government’s growing penchant for secrecy, how likely is it that we would be warned of any potential hazards?

Many of these concerns relate specifically to the Icicle Valley, and would not be problems at other (more remote, less populated, less esthetically-valued) sites under consideration. By building DUSEL here, is the UW trying to shoehorn it into an area which is really a poor fit for it? Are there other sites available which meet the needs of the science, but at much lower socio-economic, environmental, and taxpayer cost?

TOP OF PAGE