b'C H A P T E R 21B Y T H E E N D O F T H I S D E C A D Etwo grew to understand each others Reportwere publishing articles with all waste, and wherever it went was apolitical constituenciesAndrus had titles such as Rising Dangers of dump. 11the Idaho electorate and Bradley had Atomic Wastes and NuclearAEC Headquartersand worked out Terrorism: A Threat to the Future? Andrus fought hard to distance theamiable protocols. 10 Some scientists imagined disaster sce- NRTS from this kind of backgroundnarios involving terrorists, the theft of noise. He started by trying to distanceMeanwhile, publications with a nation- plutonium, and the making of bombs. the NRTS from Hanfords problems,al readershipSmithsonian, Readers Many journalists no longer differentiat- which Dixy Lee Ray had characterizedDigest, and US News and World ed between waste and spent fuel. It was as not only regrettable, but disgrace-ful. Andrus decided to lead a presstour of the RWMC, the Chem Plant,and their associated laboratories inDecember 1973. Bradley collaborated.Both hoped the tour would amelioratesuspicion within the ranks of the unin-formed media concerning the treatmentof wastes at the NRTS. Theypromised reporters that the trip wouldnot be an IDO sales job. All ques-tions would be answered. Andrus read-ied himself to identify the ChemPlants calcining program as a keypoint of difference between Hanfordand the NRTS. Here was commendableevidence that the NRTS employedbetter techniques than Hanford.Reporters would also see the areaswhere boxes and barrels had beenburied and lost their integrity, andwhere at the most, plutonium hasmigrated only 6 into the groundunderneath. 12The press tour went well, and the majorIdaho papers featured the story withinthe next few days. With the pressinformed and the AEC promising thatthe NRTS would not evolve into a per-manent waste depository, Andrus hopedthe issue had been settled.Governor Andrus at RWMC.Boise State University Library ISS-10020 7'