Study Shoots a Big Hole in Plan for Nuclear Dump

The most compelling argument for building a low-level nuclear waste disposal facility in the California desert at Ward Valley has always been that such waste is accumulating faster than it can be safely disposed of. Now comes a Nebraska economics professor with persuasive evidence that this dump is not needed at all.

He also argues that disposal at Ward Valley would be more expensive for hospitals and other waste generators than if they continued to use existing dumps. And, he says, the proposed facility might be profitable only if California were to accept waste from around the nation, something not previously embraced by its supporters.

F. Gregory Hayden’s research adds to earlier concerns about the geologic suitability of the Mojave Desert dump site as well as lingering doubts about the fiscal health and environmental record of U.S. Ecology, the company that would operate the facility. Taken together, the doubts should cause federal and state officials to reconsider whether this facility should be built. As a first step, Gov. Pete Wilson should drop the lawsuits he filed seeking transfer of the dump site, now in federal hands, to the state.

The study, released this week, documents a steady, 16-year decline in the quantity of low-level radioactive waste disposed of in the United States. The volume going to disposal sites is a fraction of what it was in 1980 when Congress ordered states to cooperate in the construction of about a dozen dumps. Hayden’s study, which grew out of the efforts of Nebraska and other central states to deal with their disposal needs, questions the necessity of a new generation of commercial nuclear waste dumps, the first of which would be in Ward Valley.

Technological advances in incineration, compaction and recycling have reduced the volume of radioactive material that needs to be buried in secure facilities. Even Ward Valley backers acknowledge that the amount of waste shipped out of California for disposal has dropped by at least 75% over the past decade.

In recent years, low-level waste generated in California has gone to a Barnwell, S.C., dump and a newer facility in Utah. Concern that Barnwell, which once closed to most outsiders for a year, could do so again was a key reason to build Ward Valley. Some of that concern lingers, but Hayden’s study indicates that the dropping volume of radioactive waste means Barnwell and other dumps with surplus storage capacity may need to keep their gates open to remain profitable. The findings also raise questions about whether Ward Valley, given the high costs projected for construction and disposal, could operate in the black by accepting waste from only California and a few other states, as is now planned.

Those who have pushed hard for this project over 17 years may view opponents’ spotlighting of the study as just another obstructionist tactic. Actually, the new findings reflect an important change in the situation. We think Hayden’s report should prompt sober thought in Sacramento.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Waste Reduction

Low-level radioactive waste received commerical disposal sites in the U.S. 1980 through 1996.

(In millions of cubic feet)

1996

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, National LLRW Management Program, annual state-by-state assessment of LLRW received at commerical disposal sites.