Planning to evacuate the Tri-Cities in a nuclear attack may be ‘misguided’

A quirky bill pending in the 2018 Legislature has some Washington residents wondering what they should do in case of a nuclear attack.

House Bill 2214, whose sponsors include Rep. Larry Haler, a Richland Republican, would eliminate a Cold War-era ban on planning for an evacuation or relocation if a nuclear attack is expected.

Reasons for the ban are complicated and date to a time when the former Soviet Union had an estimated 10,000 nuclear weapons, presumably aimed at the U.S.

Today, fears over North Korea’s evolving nuclear program are again stirring concerns and beg the question: Should Washington plan for evacuations and relocations if an attack is expected?

Local emergency officials say the bill’s emphasis on evacuating people is misguided because that there’s no way to know where or when a missile might strike.

Sending people on the road would split evacuees from support networks and supplies. It also could potentially put them in the strike zone.

The phony ballistic missile alert that panicked Hawaii on Jan. 13 helped drive home that point.

“Shelter in place is going to be your first option,” said Deanna Davis, emergency manager for Benton County Emergency Services.

Tri-City officials have long planned for radiation threats related to the Hanford site and the Northwest’s only nuclear power plant, Columbia Generating Station.

An estimated 6,000 residents live within the 10-mile emergency planning zone around the nuclear plant north of Richland.

While local emergency plans don’t specifically address a ballistic missile, Davis said the local response to a missile threat would be the same as if there was a radiation-related emergency at Hanford or Energy Northwest’s nuclear plant.

“Everything we do for the plant and radiological emergencies is directly relatable for a nuclear strike. We would use that course of action, that same process,” she said.

The coordinated emergency response for a radiation emergency includes monitoring the population and providing messaging in the event of a threat. The Tri-Cities, she points out, is rich with monitoring equipment and specialists with expertise in radiation exposure.

HB 2214 isn’t a bill she’s tracking. Davis hopes the nuclear threat is being overstated.

“You have to believe there isn’t that kind of crazy in the world,” she said.

The bill’s prime sponsor is Rep. Dick Muri, R-Steilacoom, a retired Air Force colonel.

Muri said the prohibition against planning arose during the Reagan years, when the Soviets were the threat and people feared that just talking about nuclear war made it more likely.

But the prohibition against planning evacuations and relocations prevents Washington from contemplating a worst-case scenario, he told the House Public Safety committee this week.

“Everyone thinks a nuclear weapon hitting our state would be the end of the world. It would not,” Muri said. “It’s definitely going to cause a lot of destruction. But the idea is we would have some plans in place that would help mitigate any potential attack. It’s unthinkable, but we have to plan.”

The bill had opponents too.

One complained the bill fosters the “illusion” that nuclear war is survivable while pulling resources from the sorts of emergencies Washington can expect to happen.

The Washington Military Department is responsible for the state’s comprehensive emergency plan.

The existing plan contemplates natural disasters such as avalanches, droughts, earthquakes, fires, floods, landslides, tsunamis, severe storms, volcanoes and human-caused threats such as pipeline incidents, dam failures, hazardous material, chemical and radiological incidents, epidemics and pandemics, animal, crop and plant diseases, infestation, outbreaks — and terrorism.

The bill is pending in the Public Safety Committee.

This story was originally published January 24, 2018 at 6:08 PM with the headline "Planning to evacuate the Tri-Cities in a nuclear attack may be ‘misguided’."