Activists Fear Ward Valley Plan’s Revival

As state officials resume their search for a long-term dump for low-level radioactive waste, environmentalists fear that a dismissed desert site near the Colorado River may be resurrected.

Confusion over the fate of the controversial Ward Valley site was triggered by conflicting statements on behalf of government officials last week. The spokesman for a state advisory panel studying the hot-button issue said Ward Valley remained an optional site for the disposal of the waste. Two days later, a member of Gov. Gray Davis’ Cabinet said that Davis had closed the door to the San Bernardino County site.

The federally owned, 1,000-acre Ward Valley site, 20 miles west of Needles, had been championed for years by then-Gov. Pete Wilson, but in the face of staunch opposition by environmentalists, Native Americans and scientists who raised safety questions, the Clinton administration refused to transfer the Bureau of Land Management property to the state.

Those same Ward Valley opponents now worry that the advisory panel, formed by Davis to find alternative solutions for disposing of California’s radioactive waste--and whose membership includes some of Ward Valley’s strongest supporters--may push for reconsideration of the controversial site.

The panel, headed by University of California President Richard Atkinson, held its first meeting last week--a boisterous, contentious session at UCLA in which charges were leveled that the panel was stacked with Ward Valley proponents.

Of the panel’s 19 members, nine come from the ranks of universities, utilities and other generators of radioactive waste that had championed the Ward Valley site for years. Five others represent long-standing Ward Valley opponents, and the balance are considered neutral.

Atkinson came under fire from two of the panel members he had appointed. They complained that Atkinson had previously lobbied for Ward Valley in his role as the head of the UC system, which generates radioactive waste. They also pointed out that he has served as a paid board director of San Diego Gas & Electric Co., part owner of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, one of the state’s largest generators of radioactive waste.

Those factors “cast a serious cloud over his ability to conduct a neutral review,” according to a joint statement prepared by panel members Nora Helton, head of the Fort Mojave Tribe near Ward Valley, and Jonathan Parfrey, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

A spokesman for Atkinson dismissed the attack. “President Atkinson brings a fair-minded perspective to this issue and is prepared to consider any and all proposals that are raised,” said Brad Hayward.

Both Hayward and a spokesman for Gov. Davis said the two officials do not plan on considering Ward Valley again.

“The governor’s long-standing position has been opposition to Ward Valley,” said Davis spokesman Michael Bustamante, “and nothing has changed.”

Mary Nichols, secretary of the California Resources Agency, reiterated that position last Friday, telling a television interviewer, “I want to make it absolutely clear that there is not going to be a nuclear waste dump at Ward Valley, period.”

But there remains confusion nonetheless because another spokesman for Atkinson said before the Nov. 17 meeting that Ward Valley could resurface as a candidate.

“The group is not ruling anything in and not ruling anything out,” said Chuck McFadden, Atkinson’s chief spokesman. “Ward Valley is one of a series of options.”

This week, in the absence of the vacationing McFadden, Hayward said: “Ward Valley is not one of the alternatives being considered.”

But some committee members--saying that they have not yet received clear direction from Atkinson--question whether the previously proposed Mojave Desert dump site remains a subject of discussion.

“I don’t think it should be on the table, but we need to hear from Richard Atkinson directly,” said Michael Paparian, a panel member representing the Sierra Club. “If Ward Valley remains on the table, I have concern, because there are quite a few interests [on the panel] who supported it in the past, and that could be a big problem.”

Also weighing in on the matter are officials of U.S. Ecology, the company which had been licensed by California to manage the radioactive landfill. In a letter to Atkinson last week, Jack Lemley, chairman of its parent company, said it still stands ready to construct the facility.

Saying that his company had already invested more than $100 million in Ward Valley, Lemley said it “would be imprudent for the state to pursue an alternative to the current program, in disregard of its statutory and contractual duties and U.S. Ecology’s well-established rights.”

The firm has appealed the federal decision not to transfer the property to the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, said U.S. Ecology spokesman Steve Romano.

Ward Valley was first proposed as a dump site for low-level radioactive waste more than 10 years ago, when there was concern that the three other dump sites in the United States were approaching capacity, and that California needed to develop its own waste site.

Ward Valley was selected by the Wilson administration, and quickly came under attack by a coalition that cited concerns about the possible contamination of the water table and ultimately of the nearby Colorado River, the loss of sacred Native American sites and the impact on desert wildlife.

The site underwent intensive scientific scrutiny and generally passed muster, but some scientists conceded the possibility that waterborne radionuclides from the dump’s unlined trenches could migrate to an aquifer that held potential drinking water.

In the last days of the George Bush administration, Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan agreed to transfer the land to California. But in part because of the need for more environmental tests, the Clinton administration refused to honor the transfer agreement. Finally, in April, responding to a lawsuit by Wilson and U.S. Ecology, a federal judge ruled that Clinton could not be forced to transfer the land.

Davis appointed Atkinson in June to form an advisory committee to investigate what California should now do with its radioactive waste, which includes virtually all types and strengths of radioactive garbage except spent reactor fuel.

Some experts say that California can continue to send its waste to South Carolina and Utah, as it does currently, because the amount of radioactive waste generated nationwide has plummeted from earlier projections and there is unexpected capacity elsewhere.

The panel will consider the need for developing another site in California--and may conclude that, in the absence of a capacity crush elsewhere, out-of-state dumps can still be used.

The panel may also consider a suggestion by one of its members, Jon Mikels, chairman of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, that the waste stream be divided, and that the least dangerous waste--such as the gloves worn by nuclear laboratory technicians--be carefully containerized and monitored in existing landfills.

In the meantime, debate from panel outsiders continues over whether Ward Valley should remain under consideration.

“It’s probably the safest low-level waste site ever studied . . . and there’s still no better site,” said Alan Pasternak, spokesman for Cal Rad Forum, the consortium of industries, universities, utilities and other waste generators that has long lobbied for Ward Valley.

He said he was told by the governor’s office--albeit last June--that Ward Valley would remain a waste site option.

Dan Hirsch, who heads the antinuclear organization Bridge the Gap, said he remains concerned that the panel will still stoke interest in Ward Valley. “Efforts to have both sides of the issue look for alternatives appear to have been hijacked,” he said, “by members who have been among the most vigorous proponents of Ward Valley and who may be attempting to resurrect it.”