Safety Debate Puts Nuclear Dump in Limbo : Environment: Questions remain about whether radioactivity could leach into an aquifer and the nearby Colorado River. The company that would operate the site has received poor marks.

Peel away the politics and the rhetoric, the layers of concern about socioeconomic impact and the endangered California desert tortoise, and what is left is a single crucial question about the low-level radioactive waste dump proposed for the East Mojave Desert.

Can nuclear waste be stored safely in shallow, unlined trenches at Ward Valley, just 19 miles from a major water source for Southern California, Arizona and Mexico?

The answer is less sharp-edged than the comments of dump lovers and critics, murkier than the Colorado River. It is a tangled “he-said, she-said” dialogue of allegations and defenses, complicated by voluminous studies.

The dump would be licensed by the state Department of Health Services, built and operated by a company called U.S. Ecology. It is currently in limbo, waiting in part for the state appellate court in Sacramento to decide--most likely in late spring--whether the state must hold a hearing to address the safety concerns once and for all:

* Should trenches that will receive 100,000 cubic feet of radioactive waste each year have liners, which are required of all regular landfills in the state?

* Would radioactivity leach from the trenches into the ground water about 650 feet below?

* If it did, would that radioactivity subsequently flow into the Colorado River, tainting the water supply for millions of residents of the Southwest?

* What kind of wastes would go into the dump and where would they come from?

* Should a company ranked last among four original bidders operate the dump, particularly after the Department of Health Services once noted that U.S. Ecology’s history “casts doubts on its ability to perform future activities”?

Is Ward Valley safe?

Myrtle Pennington doesn’t think so, nor do many of her fellow desert dwellers who frequent Goffs Country Store and Cafe for a chat, a smoke and a beer. Just 10 miles away, Goffs, population 24, is the closest human outpost to the proposed dump site.

The town is so small that even some of the dump’s opponents--who have visited the area looking for reasons why it should not be built--did not know Goffs was there. So small that the state and the dump’s prospective operators consider Ward Valley uninhabited.

“They count the tortoises out here better than they count us,” says Pennington, a retired postmistress. “I think they should store (radioactive waste) where they make it. Why should it be over our water table? . . . I don’t know if (the dump is) safe or if it isn’t. We don’t want it here.”

What Pennington refers to as “our water table” is the Ward Valley aquifer, a ground water supply at the heart of the safety question.

Located 650 to 700 feet below the desert floor, it contains an estimated 5 million to 6 million acre-feet of ground water, whose quality “should be equivalent to, or possibly better than, Colorado River water,” according to a study commissioned by the city of Needles. Needles is exploring the potential use of Ward Valley water if access is cheap enough.

The City Council unanimously opposes the dump and wants to conserve the aquifer. As Mayor Roy Mills puts it: “If you screw it up, it’s going to be gone. You don’t want to mess with a potential water source.”

But does putting a low-level radioactive waste dump on top of an aquifer automatically “screw it up”? The discussion gets tricky, delving into the nether reaches of hydrology and geology, exploring the layered sands of a desert that critics say has not been studied carefully enough.

The first part of the equation is whether waste from the site would actually travel downward. Because rainfall in Ward Valley is so low--an estimated 4.7 inches per year--and evaporation rates are so high, a joint state and federal environmental impact report concludes that the movement of water in the soil would not necessarily be downward.

Because of certain geological and weather conditions, ground water also could move upward from the aquifer to the dump and the desert floor, the report says.

In addition, according to the EIR, computer modeling shows the most mobile radioactive atoms would take up to 1,300 years to reach the ground water below--if they move in that direction. The trip would take slower-moving atoms thousands of years.

But the dump’s critics are quick to point out that the EIR--although conducted jointly by the state Department of Health Services and the federal Bureau of Land Management--relies heavily on studies conducted by U.S. Ecology and the company’s consultants.

They also note that U.S. Ecology tested soil 100 feet below the desert surface and found evidence of tritium, a highly mobile radioactive atom with a short half-life.

That, said the state Senate Office of Research in a scathing safety report released earlier this year, “contradicted” U.S. Ecology’s contention that it would take thousands of years for radioactive atoms to migrate. The most obvious source of the tritium was atmospheric nuclear testing conducted in the 1950s and early 1960s.

“At best, the discovery indicates that tritium migrated to depths of at least 100 feet in less than a few decades,” said a 1992 Ward Valley review by the Committee to Bridge the Gap, an anti-nuclear group based in Los Angeles. “This severely undermines the assumption made by U.S. Ecology that tritium would take ‘thousands of years’ to reach the Ward Valley ground water basin.”

Contradictory studies aside, assume that waste actually does reach the Ward Valley aquifer. Besides contaminating the water, what else would happen?

According to U.S. Ecology, the answer is nothing because the Ward Valley aquifer is a “closed basin” and does not drain to another body of water. But according to Committee to Bridge the Gap, there is a potential for that water to flow to the Colorado River.

Ironically, both groups point to the same 1984 study by the U.S. Geological Survey to bolster their cause. “The region includes . . . basins from which ground water drains to the Colorado River (ground water units SC-01, SC-02, SC-03 and SC-04),” the USGS study says. SC-03 includes Ward Valley. Case closed, says Dan Hirsch, president of Committee to Bridge the Gap.

Not so fast, says James A. Shaffner, U.S. Ecology’s assistant manager of California operations. Shaffner points to another segment that says Ward Valley, Vidal Valley and Rice Valley are all part of SC-03. “The latter two basins are open to the Colorado River, but Ward Valley is not,” Shaffner said.

In truth, both could be right--or wrong. Not enough information exists about the area to come to either conclusion with certainty, says the man who helped write the 1984 USGS study.

“I can see where either group could use this to their advantage or disadvantage,” said William H. Langer, a geologist with the USGS. “It is inconclusive.”

Langer explains that the study is based on a map of Ward Valley that plots the flow lines the aquifer water could take. “There is an absence of good data on Ward Valley . . . used to put together the map,” he said. “Part was put together by hydrologic principles and assumptions that would need to be tested.”

The flow lines are not contiguous, but rather are short segments that can be connected much like the dots in a child’s coloring book. U.S. Ecology connects the dots in one direction and finds that water flows from Ward Valley to a region called Danby Dry Lake and stops. Committee to Bridge the Gap connects them in another direction and finds the water flowing into the Colorado River.

“I would caution anyone using the information,” Langer said.

If the radioactive waste could leach down from the four trenches planned for the 70-acre site and could contaminate the Colorado River, would having a liner help? U.S. Ecology’s design for the dump does not call for one.

The company points to a letter from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the state Department of Health Services, saying that in Ward Valley, “a liner may be counterproductive in that it would introduce the potential for accumulation of water within the disposal unit, which would otherwise not likely occur at an arid site and could increase long-term risk to human health and the environment.”

Shaffner, on a recent tour of the isolated site, responded to the question this way: “If someone said put a liner in this facility, that’s something we would do.”

Perhaps. But the Senate Office of Research report indicates that both the EPA’s Western region and the state’s Integrated Waste Management Board have asked that trench liners be included.

In addition, in an August, 1990, letter to the state, the California Regional Quality Control Board wrote: “We strongly advise that the wastes be contained and monitored on the site by: Installing dual liners underneath the facility to prevent migration of any waste . . . into the subsurface soils and the ground water.”

State law now requires that all regular landfills--those taking in lawn clippings, food scraps and disposable diapers--must provide ground water protection through the use of liners.

But there is some question in academic and industrial circles about how much good a liner would do. If the Ward Valley trenches were lined with concrete or plastic, the waste would migrate more slowly, said Dr. Eugene L. Saenger, professor emeritus of radiology at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and founder of the Eugene L. Saenger Radioisotope Laboratory there. Still, Saenger does not believe that the dump needs to be lined.

Another concern raised by dump critics surrounds the waste stream that will find its way to Ward Valley if the dump is built. U.S. Ecology, claiming that the information is proprietary, will not name all generators who would send waste.

The company and the state contend the site primarily would service biomedical establishments such as research labs, hospitals and pharmaceuticals plants and that nuclear power plants would be a minor contributor.

“However, DHS’ estimates are contradicted by figures collected by the U.S. Department of Energy, which indicate that utilities nationally produce over 80% (in terms of radioactivity) of all (low level radioactive waste),” according to the Senate Office of Research report.

Committee to Bridge the Gap contends that nuclear waste from reactors lasts longer and is more dangerous than nuclear waste from hospitals, a contention disputed by U.S. Ecology.

A list of the top 100 waste generators in the four-state area that would use the dump was compiled by U.S. Ecology and released by the state Department of Health Services. Committee to Bridge the Gap, which says the list is only partial, ranked the generators by which would dump the most curies, or radioactive units, of waste.

The group concluded that the majority of the waste would come from nuclear power plants or reactor makers, not medical sources: “The top 13 waste generators include ICN Pharmaceuticals and Moravek Biochemicals (two Orange County pharmaceuticals firms), five nuclear utilities, three reactor design firms . . . two aerospace firms, and one other industrial user.”

U.S. Ecology explains the differences as semantic. The question, according to the company, is how you define medical waste. Committee to Bridge the Gap “ignores the waste from hospital suppliers who produce the products used by medical researchers and hospitals,” the company said.

The company says some reactor makers supply reactors for medical purposes. But Hirsch of Committee to Bridge the Gap said none of the reactor makers within the four-state area to be served by Ward Valley supplies medical companies.

Since the Ward Valley site was chosen, seven cities, including Los Angeles, three counties and five Indian tribes in California, Arizona and Nevada have passed resolutions opposing the dump.

One reason is U.S. Ecology’s history. Four companies originally bid on the right to construct and operate the low-level radioactive waste dump for California, North Dakota, South Dakota and Arizona--the Southwestern Compact.

According to the Senate Office of Research report, U.S. Ecology was ranked lowest among the four. In 1984, the Department Health Services said the company got high marks for community relations, but its “operational procedures (including disposal techniques) design criteria, quality control and environmental monitoring are minimal.”

But when the other three companies backed out of the competition, claiming concerns over insurance issues, U.S. Ecology was left in 1985 as the sole bidder and the license designee.

U.S. Ecology has operated four similar dumps. One is still running, but the Senate Office of Research notes that “U.S. Ecology has been the operator of two of the three failed (low level radioactive waste) sites in the country, one at Maxey Flats, Ky., and the other at Sheffield, Ill.”

The report also says that U.S. Ecology attempted to abandon its Sheffield site by terminating its license agreement. And in Kentucky, the company argued that the state, which licensed the facility, was ultimately responsible for cleanup.

In a written rebuttal, the company said it “did not walk away from its responsibility” at Sheffield. “Rather, it continued to maintain security and surveillance of the disposal facility.” At issue, the company said, was a legal dispute between U.S. Ecology and Illinois over costs of closing the dump.

Many dump critics--including cities near the site, state Controller Gray Davis and state Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti--have called for a hearing to air unresolved safety issues, among other things.

U.S. Ecology has fought the hearing, saying it would be harmed by the proceeding and that it was “illegally coerced” by the Senate Rules Committee, which demanded it in exchange for confirmation of two gubernatorial appointments. The company has sued to block the hearing. Oral arguments in the case are expected in May.

For some, such as Goffs resident Bill Dewitt, even a hearing will not be reassuring. To Dewitt, there’s no such thing as a safe radioactive dump: “I think they’re messing up the desert when they start putting junk like that in.”

Others are willing to see what information a hearing would bring forward.

“I probably wouldn’t oppose this thing if (I believed) it was all medical waste and I was satisfied with the safety,” said Needles Mayor Mills. “But they haven’t convinced me.”

Desert Dump

The Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste dump site is in San Bernardino County, 10 miles from the town of Goffs, 22 miles from Needles and 19 miles from the Colorado River. A 70-acre dump is planned, although the site-which includes a buffer zone-is 1,000 acres.

Ward Valley: A Chronology

The fight over putting a low-level radioactive waste dump in California, a long and Byzantine battle that has heated up in the past few months, has stretched on for more than a decade.

1980: The federal government says states are responsible for finding sites for their radioactive waste and and tells states to work in groups to select a common site by Jan. 1, 1993.

1982: The state Legislature passes a bill telling the Department of Health Services to develop screening criteria and identify regions best suited for a dump site.

1984: Four companies, including U.S. Ecology, bid to develop and operate the dump.

1985: After the top three candidates opt out of the competition, U.S. Ecology is named license designee.

1988: U.S. Ecology proposes Ward Valley as the site for the low-level radioactive waste dump.

1989: U.S. Ecology files a 7,000-page license application with the Department of Health Services.

1990: The state Department of Health Services and the federal Bureau of Land Management issue a joint environmental impact report.

1991: The final environmental review is issued. The health services department notifies U.S. Ecology that the company has provided all information required for reaching a license decision.

1992: The Committee to Bridge the Gap releases a study by its technical review panel outlining unresolved safety issues. The Senate Rules Committee directs Health and Welfare Secretary Russell Gould to hold a hearing on Ward Valley to address safety, among other issues. U.S. Ecology and other parties file suit to stop the hearing.

1993: At the request of Gov. Pete Wilson, outgoing Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan says he will proceed with the sale of 1,000 acres of federal land to the state for the Ward Valley site. A federal judge issues a restraining order preventing Lujan from transferring the land. Bruce Babbitt, the new secretary of the Interior, says he will not transfer the land to California for a dump until he is satisfied the move would be legal.

Sources: U.S. Ecology, Committee to Bridge the Gap