Radioactive Waste: Interior's Continuing Review of the Proposed Transfer
of the Ward Valley Waste Site (Letter Report, 07/15/97, GAO/RCED-97-184).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO determined: (1) what sources of
information the Department of the Interior relied on in deciding to
prepare a second supplemental environmental impact statement and in
selecting issues to address in the supplement; and (2) whether the
selected issues had been considered in earlier state or federal
proceedings and, if so, whether they are being reconsidered on the basis
of significant new information.

GAO noted that: (1) in deciding to prepare a second supplement and the
issues it should address, Interior relied primarily on: (a) a report by
the National Academy of Sciences on the proposed disposal facility at
Ward Valley; and (b) new information and analysis from the U.S.
Geological Survey on the migration of radioactive materials in the soil
from a now-retired disposal facility at Beatty, Nevada; (2) in selecting
other issues to address in the supplement, Interior relied on the
comments of environmental groups, Native American tribes, and others;
(3) eleven of the 13 issues that Interior is addressing in the new
supplement, such as the effects of a disposal facility at Ward Valley on
Native Americans, had been considered in California's licensing process
and in previous environmental statements prepared by the state and
Interior's Bureau of Land Management; (4) the other two issues--the
findings and recommendation of the Academy and the information on the
Beatty facility--are new; (5) in announcing that it would prepare the
new supplement, Interior gave as its reasons and impasse with California
over land-transfer conditions and the age of the original environmental
impact statement; (6) Interior did not state that its decision to
prepare the supplement was based on significant new information that
would require it to prepare a supplement to the original environmental
impact statement; (7) in fact, much of the new information that has
become available is favorable to the proposed disposal facility; (8)
Interior's underlying reasons for preparing a second supplement were
that it should provide a forum for the resolution of the public's
concerns about the facility and independently determine if the site is
suitable for containing radioactive wastes; (9) Interior, however, has
neither criteria nor technical expertise in radiological safety matters
to independently determine if the site is suitable for a disposal
facility, nor has it sought technical assistance from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) or, with one exception, the Department of
Energy; (10) California, however, has net all of the state's procedural
and substantive requirements for licensing the proposed facility; and
(11) consequently, the state and its licensee have sued Interior to
determine, among other things, if Interior has exceeded its authority
with respect to radiological safety matters, such as determining the si*

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-184
     TITLE:  Radioactive Waste: Interior's Continuing Review of the 
             Proposed Transfer of the Ward Valley Waste Site
      DATE:  07/15/97
   SUBJECT:  Radioactive waste disposal
             Environmental impact statements
             Environmental policies
             Radioactive pollution
             Land transfers
             Environmental law
             Licenses
             Government facility construction
             Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER:  Ward Valley (CA)
             Colorado River
             Beatty (NV)
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

July 1997

RADIOACTIVE WASTE - INTERIOR'S
CONTINUING REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED
TRANSFER OF THE WARD VALLEY WASTE
SITE

GAO/RCED-97-184

Radioactive Waste

(141028)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  FLPMA - Federal Land Policy and Management Act
  NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
  NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-276538

July 15, 1997

Congressional Requesters

Seventeen years ago, the Congress directed states to take
responsibility for disposing of commercially generated low-level
radioactive waste.  Since that time, however, only one
state--California--has authorized the construction and operation of a
disposal facility.  The facility would be located in Ward Valley,
California, on federally owned land in the Mojave Desert; however,
construction depends on the Department of the Interior's sale of the
land to the state.  Interior announced in February 1996 that before
it would make a land-transfer decision, it would conduct additional
tests at the site and prepare a second supplement to an environmental
impact statement.  A supplement to an environmental impact statement
is required when significant new environmental information becomes
available and may be prepared at an agency's discretion to further
the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 
Interior's measures are primarily intended to address public concerns
about radioactive contamination of the Colorado River, which is about
20 miles east of the site at its closest point. 

Concerned that further delay might inhibit progress on similar
disposal facilities in other states and threatens the continuing
viability of the federal government's policy on the disposal of
low-level radioactive wastes, you asked us to determine (1) what
sources of information Interior relied on in deciding to prepare a
second supplemental environmental impact statement and in selecting
issues to address in the supplement and (2) whether the selected
issues had been considered in earlier state or federal proceedings
and, if so, whether they are being reconsidered on the basis of
significant new information.  This report also discusses Interior's
reasons for preparing the supplement. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

In deciding to prepare a second supplement and the issues it should
address, Interior relied primarily on (1) a report by the National
Academy of Sciences on the proposed disposal facility at Ward Valley
and (2) new information and analysis from the U.S.  Geological Survey
(an agency within Interior) on the migration of radioactive materials
in the soil from a now-retired disposal facility at Beatty, Nevada. 
In selecting other issues to address in the supplement, Interior
relied on the comments of environmental groups, Native American
tribes, and others. 

Eleven of the 13 issues that Interior is addressing in the new
supplement, such as the effects of a disposal facility at Ward Valley
on Native Americans, had been considered in California's licensing
process and in previous environmental statements prepared by the
state and Interior's Bureau of Land Management.  The other two
issues--the findings and recommendations of the Academy and the
information on the Beatty facility--are new. 

In announcing that it would prepare the new supplement, Interior gave
as its reasons an impasse with California over land-transfer
conditions and the age of the original environmental impact
statement.  Interior did not state that its decision to prepare the
supplement was based on significant new information that would
require it to prepare a supplement to the original environmental
impact statement.  In fact, much of the new information that has
become available is favorable to the proposed disposal facility. 
Interior's underlying reasons for preparing a second supplement were
that it should provide a forum for the resolution of the public's
concerns about the facility and independently determine if the site
is suitable for containing radioactive wastes.  Interior, however,
has neither criteria nor technical expertise in radiological safety
matters to independently determine if the site is suitable for a
disposal facility, nor has it sought technical assistance from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or--with one exception--the
Department of Energy.  California, however, has met all of the
state's procedural and substantive requirements for licensing the
proposed facility.  Consequently, the state and its licensee have
sued Interior to determine, among other things, if Interior has
exceeded its authority with respect to radiological safety matters,
such as determining the site's suitability. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended in
1985, made states, acting individually or collectively, responsible
for disposing of the low-level radioactive wastes that are the
by-products of nuclear power, radioactive medicine, research, and
other commercial activities.  Consequently, in 1987 Arizona,
California, North Dakota, and South Dakota entered into a compact in
which California agreed to develop and operate a disposal facility
that would serve the needs of waste generators in the four states. 
The Congress ratified the compact in 1988. 

In addition to having the responsibility for developing a disposal
facility, California is also responsible for licensing and regulating
the facility.  The state's authority stems from a 1962 agreement with
the Atomic Energy Commission (a predecessor to NRC), as authorized by
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.  In accordance with this
agreement, the Commission relinquished to the state a significant
portion of the Commission's authority to regulate radioactive
materials within the state, including the disposal of low-level
radioactive wastes.  Licensing criteria established by the state
incorporated into the state's regulations NRC's regulations for
siting and regulating low-level waste disposal facilities. 

In 1985, California selected US Ecology--a company that has operated
other disposal facilities for low-level radioactive wastes--as its
"license designee" and authorized the company to conduct a site
screening and selection process, investigate the suitability of the
selected site, and construct and operate a disposal facility that
meets the requirements of a license to be issued by the state.  After
screening and evaluating potential locations for a disposal facility,
US Ecology and California selected a 1,000-acre site in Ward Valley. 
(See fig.  1.)

   Figure 1:  Map of Ward Valley
   Area

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

About 70 acres would be used for the trenches containing the disposed
wastes, a smaller area would be used for administrative purposes, and
the remaining area would be a buffer zone. 

The site is on federal land managed by the Bureau.  The transfer of
the land to the state for use as a disposal facility is considered a
"major federal action" that may have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment under NEPA.  Therefore, an
environmental impact statement is required to accompany the record
for the land-transfer decision.  Because the state requires a similar
environmental statement, the Bureau and the state jointly prepared
and, in April 1991, issued an environmental statement concluding that
the proposed facility would not cause significant adverse
environmental effects. 

In July 1992, California asked Interior to sell the Ward Valley site
to the state under authority granted to the Secretary by the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).  Among other things,
this act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to transfer public
land by direct sale upon finding that the transfer would serve
important public objectives that cannot be achieved elsewhere and
that outweigh other public objectives and values served by retaining
federal ownership of the land.  After such a finding, the transfer
must be made on terms that the Secretary deems are necessary to
ensure proper land use and the protection of the public interest.  In
January 1993, the outgoing Secretary decided, after considering the
environmental impacts of a licensed disposal facility at the site, to
sell the land as requested.  Acting for the state, US Ecology then
paid Interior $500,000 for the land. 

The Secretary's decision was immediately challenged in federal court
on the basis of Interior's alleged noncompliance with FLPMA and NEPA
and failure to protect native desert tortoises under the Endangered
Species Act.  To settle the lawsuits and to assure himself that the
proposed land transfer would comply with applicable federal laws, the
incoming Secretary rescinded the earlier land-transfer decision and
returned the money that US Ecology had paid for the land.  Meanwhile,
in September 1993, California issued a license to US Ecology, subject
to the transfer of the land to the state, to construct and operate
the disposal facility.  Legal challenges to the state's licensing
action were denied by the state's courts. 

From 1993 until 1996 the Secretary deferred the land-transfer
decision while (1) the Bureau completed, in September 1993, a
supplemental environmental statement, (2) the Academy reviewed seven
technical issues related to the Ward Valley site, and (3) Interior
negotiated with the state the terms of a public hearing on the
proposed facility and a land-transfer agreement. 

In May 1995, the Academy recommended that additional tests be
performed at the Ward Valley site to improve the program for
monitoring the disposal facility's performance during and after the
30 years that the facility was expected to operate.  The Governor of
California publicly committed the state to implementing the substance
of the Academy's recommendations.  Interior notified the state that
it would transfer the land if the state would accept, as a condition
of the transfer, Interior's authority to enforce in the courts the
state's compliance with the Academy's recommendations.  California
refused Interior's offer on the grounds that the implementation of
the Academy's recommendations falls into the area of radiological
safety, which is the state's responsibility and is outside of
Interior's authority and expertise. 

With the transfer negotiations at an impasse, in February 1996
Interior announced that it would prepare a second supplemental
environmental impact statement and conduct the recommended tests. 
Interior expected these activities to take about a year to complete;
however, as of June 1997, Interior had not yet begun preparing the
supplement or conducting the tests. 


   INTERIOR PRIMARILY RELIED ON
   SCIENTIFIC REPORTS AND PUBLIC
   CONCERNS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The primary sources that Interior relied on in deciding that it would
prepare the second supplement and in selecting the issues that it
would address in the statement were (1) scientific reports addressing
concerns about the suitability of desert sites for disposal
facilities and (2) information obtained from the public, including
environmental groups, Native Americans, and others. 


      INTERIOR CITED THE ACADEMY'S
      RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEW
      INFORMATION ON A DISPOSAL
      FACILITY IN NEVADA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

In March 1994, the Secretary asked the Academy to study seven
radiological safety and environmental concerns about the disposal
facility that were initially raised by three scientists in the
Geological Survey's Menlo Park, California, office.  The
scientists--acting on their own rather than in their official
capacity--had presented their concerns to the Secretary of the
Interior in June 1993 in a brief report and then prepared a more
comprehensive report on these issues in December 1993.  In
particular, the scientists were concerned about the potential for (1)
water to flow into the facility's waste-emplacement trenches; (2)
radioactive materials to move through the unsaturated ground beneath
the disposal facility to the water table, which is at least 650 feet
beneath the surface; and (3) a connection between the local
groundwater and the Colorado River. 

In a May 1995 report, a 17-member committee of the Academy concluded
that (1) the lateral flow of water at shallow depths beneath the
desert surface is not a significant issue at the site, (2) the
transfer of contaminants down through the unsaturated zone to the
water table is "highly unlikely,"\1 and (3) although most of the
groundwater flow beneath Ward Valley discharges into a dry lake about
30 miles from the Colorado River, there are conceivable, but
unlikely, flow paths for some groundwater to reach the river.  The
Academy added that the potential effect on water quality of any
contaminants that might reach the river would be insignificant. 

The Academy recommended, however, that additional tests be done at
the site.  In particular, the Academy recommended that additional
measurements at the site be made to satisfactorily explain why US
Ecology detected tritium--a radioactive form of hydrogen that is
produced by atmospheric nuclear weapons tests and carried to the
ground by rain--about 100 feet beneath the surface of Ward Valley
during its investigation of the site.  The unexpected presence of
tritium so far beneath the surface raised questions about how quickly
radionuclides (radioactive elements) from waste materials might
migrate from the disposal facility to the groundwater.  The Academy
concluded that inappropriate sampling procedures probably introduced
atmospheric tritium into the samples extracted by US Ecology. 

Fifteen committee members concluded that because US Ecology planned
to monitor the site for tritium during disposal operations, the issue
of the reported tritium needs to be resolved only before monitoring
of the site begins.  For these members, the recommended tests were
not intended to resolve questions about the site's suitability.  In
the opinion of the other two members, the tests should be completed
in time to use the results in a final decision on the suitability of
the site for a disposal facility. 

Interior also based its decision to prepare a second supplement on
the Geological Survey's detection of tritium and another radioactive
element in the soil adjacent to a disposal facility for low-level
radioactive wastes located at Beatty, Nevada.  This facility had
operated from 1962 until Nevada decided to permanently close it at
the end of 1992.  US Ecology began operating the facility in 1981. 
Since 1976, the Geological Survey has operated a facility, located on
federal land next to the Beatty facility, for research on the
disposal of low-level radioactive wastes in desert climates.  While
conducting this research in 1994, the Geological Survey detected the
radioactive contamination from the Beatty facility in concentrations
well above natural background levels and confirmed this finding with
additional measurements in 1995. 

The Geological Survey concluded that the detected contamination was
probably due to past disposal practices at the Beatty facility that
are now prohibited, such as disposing of liquid radioactive wastes. 
The Geological Survey added that it is doubtful that the distribution
of the contaminants leaking from the site and their movement through
the ground over time will ever be understood because of incomplete
records of the disposal of liquid radioactive wastes.  Therefore, the
Geological Survey concluded that extrapolation of the information
from Beatty to the proposed disposal facility at Ward Valley is too
tenuous to have much scientific value. 

In addition to the issues of the Academy's report and the new
information on the Beatty facility, Interior said it would address a
third issue--the effects of the disposal facility on "nearby Indian
sacred sites." Interior did not, however, identify any such sites or
sources of information that led it to select this issue.  Later,
Interior expanded the scope of this issue to include a variety of
issues pertaining to Native Americans. 

Appendix I provides additional details on the three issues of the
Academy's report, the Beatty facility, and the potential effects of
the Ward Valley facility on Native Americans. 


--------------------
\1 Two committee members dissented from this conclusion. 


      INTERIOR ALSO RELIED ON
      PUBLIC COMMENTS TO SELECT
      ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Interior relied on the views of the public expressed, both before and
after its February 1996 announcement, to select 10 more issues to
address in the second supplement.  For example, before Interior
announced that it would prepare a second supplement, an environmental
group--the Committee to Bridge the Gap--had been requesting that
Interior prepare a supplement.  In August 1995, the Committee made
this request because, it asserted, Interior had broken its repeated
commitment to hold a public hearing on the Ward Valley facility and
prepare a supplemental statement on any new information raised in the
hearing.  The Committee was referring to the Secretary's decision,
after the Academy issued its report, to discontinue negotiations with
the state over the scope of and procedures for a hearing in favor of
transferring the site to the state under mutually acceptable
conditions. 

Subsequently, in a February 8, 1996, letter, the Committee reiterated
to Interior's Deputy Secretary its "numerous previous requests" for a
second supplement.  The Committee said the supplement should address
the new information on the Beatty facility and the other significant
developments that occurred after the original environmental impact
statement was prepared.  In addition to the Academy's report, the
Committee urged Interior to address four other issues that Interior
eventually selected:  (1) the potential pathways to the groundwater
and then to the Colorado River; (2) the types, quantities, and
sources of wastes to be disposed of; (3) the recent financial
troubles of US Ecology; and (4) the protection of the desert
tortoise. 

When Interior announced that it would prepare a second supplement, it
said the supplement would address the Academy's report, the Beatty
facility, and "nearby Indian sacred sites." Interior also said the
public could participate in identifying issues that should be
addressed in the supplement.  Thereafter, the Bureau held pubic
meetings and received written comments on the scope of the new
supplement.  After summarizing the public comments, the Bureau sent a
list of 10 recommended issues to Interior's Deputy Secretary.  Four
of the 10 issues were similar to those that the Committee to Bridge
the Gap had already raised.  Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary
approved of 13 issues to be addressed in the supplement.  In addition
to the three issues that Interior cited in its announcement and the
four other issues that the Committee to Bridge the Gap had
recommended, the list of issues included:  (1) the movement of
radioactive contaminants in the soil, (2) alternative methods of
disposal, (3) the potential introduction of nonnative plants, (4)
waste transportation, (5) the state's long-term obligations, and (6)
public health impacts of operating the disposal facility.  (See app. 
I for a discussion of each of the 13 issues.)


   CURRENT ISSUES BEING CONSIDERED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Except for the Academy's report and the new information about the
Beatty facility, all of the issues that Interior will address in the
second supplement had been considered earlier by US Ecology and
California, in the state's licensing proceeding; by the state and the
Bureau in their joint environmental statement of April 1991; and by
the Bureau in its first supplement of September 1993.  In announcing
the new supplement, Interior said that the impasse with California
over the land-transfer conditions and the age of the original
environmental impact statement prompted its decision to prepare the
supplement.  Interior did not state that the Academy's report and the
new information on the Beatty facility were significant enough that
it had to prepare a supplement.  The evidence suggests that Interior
based its decision on environmental regulations that give federal
agencies discretion to prepare supplements to further the purposes of
NEPA. 


      MOST CURRENT ISSUES WERE
      ADDRESSED EARLIER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Appendix I discusses what each of the 13 issues that Interior intends
to address in the second supplement is and how they were addressed
earlier, as appropriate.  One example of an issue that had been
addressed in the 1991 environmental impact statement is the potential
for rainfall to carry radioactive contaminants through the
unsaturated zone to the groundwater.  In the 1991 statement, the
state and the Bureau noted that extensive studies by US Ecology to
evaluate this issue indicated that no effects on groundwater would be
expected.  The statement also concluded that there is no route for
contamination of the Colorado River or to any other surface water
resources.  The Bureau reiterated these conclusions in its first
supplement to the 1991 environmental impact statement. 

To a significant degree, the state and the Bureau had also addressed
Native American issues in the site selection process, the state's
licensing proceeding, and the 1991 environmental impact statement. 
The Director of the Bureau's Sacramento office reiterated this view
in a February 1997 letter to the Environmental Protection
Administration.  The Director stated that Colorado River Native
American tribes were fully represented and consulted in the scoping
and descriptive phases of the 1991 statement.  The specific
consultation steps, according to the 1991 statement, included an
archaeological survey of the site with Native Americans'
participation.  This survey found that no significant cultural
resources were present at the site.  In addition, US Ecology
contacted the Fort Mojave, Chemehuevi, and Colorado River Indian
Tribes to evaluate potential cultural impacts of a regional nature. 
A site-specific walkabout by tribal representatives did not identify
any unique cultural resources. 


      INTERIOR DID NOT STATE THAT
      NEW INFORMATION WAS
      SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO
      REQUIRE A SUPPLEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

According to the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality
on preparing supplements to environmental impact statements, a
federal agency must prepare a supplement when either substantial
change in a proposed action or significant new circumstances or
information becomes available that is relevant to environmental
concerns.  An agency may also prepare a supplemental statement when
it determines that doing so will further the purposes of NEPA.  Among
other things, these purposes include promoting efforts to prevent or
eliminate damage to the environment. 

Although Interior's announcement that it would prepare the second
supplement focused on the Academy's recommendations and the new
information on the Beatty facility, Interior did not state that this
new information constituted significant new circumstances or
information that would require it to prepare a supplement to comply
with the Council's guidelines.  According to Interior, its decision
to prepare the statement was prompted by (1) the state's rejection of
its proposed land-transfer conditions and (2) the passage of 5 years
since the initial environmental impact statement had been prepared. 

Other evidence also indicates that Interior did not consider the
Academy's recommendations and the new information on Beatty
significant enough to require a supplement.  After the Academy issued
its report, for example, the Secretary of the Interior stated that
the report "provides a qualified clean bill of health in relation to
concerns about the site." According to the Secretary, the Academy's
report provided a "needed careful investigation, assessment, and
consideration" of the issues that the three Geological Survey
scientists had raised and, with appropriate land-transfer conditions
based on the recommendations of that report, the Secretary was "now
confident that the transfer .  .  .  [was] in the public interest."
Also, when Interior announced that it would prepare the second
supplement, it stated that the Geological Survey's new information on
the Beatty site indicated "little similarity with Ward Valley" but
underscored the need for continued scientific monitoring at both
locations. 

Interior also did not compare the public comments it received with
the state's licensing record or the previous environmental statements
to provide a basis for identifying "significant" new circumstances or
information.  According to the Bureau's Sacramento officials who are
preparing the second supplement, whether or not there was any "new"
information was not important to the Bureau's deliberations about
what issues should or should not be addressed in the supplement.  For
many of the issues, they said, what was "new" was the public's
concerns about the issues. 

For example, new information about the desert tortoise became
available after the Bureau prepared its 1993 supplemental statement. 
The most significant new information is that Interior's Fish and
Wildlife Service concluded in 1995 that the facility will not likely
jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.  Like
the Academy's report, the Service's conclusion is generally favorable
to the proposed Ward Valley facility. 

The new information related to Native American issues is the issuance
of two Executive orders since the Bureau issued the first supplement. 
One order, issued 3 months after Interior decided to prepare the
second supplement, requires federal agencies to accommodate access to
and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites and avoid adversely
affecting the integrity of such sites.  The second order, issued in
February 1994, requires federal agencies to make "environmental
justice" for low-income and minority populations (including Native
American tribes) a part of their missions by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, relatively high and adverse human health
or environmental effects of their activities on these groups. 

Interior plans to assess compliance with the two Executive orders in
the second supplement.  With respect to sacred sites, the state's
previous licensing proceeding and the original environmental impact
statement documented, as discussed earlier, the absence of Native
American sacred sites at the Ward Valley site.  According to US
Ecology's license application, the site had once been disturbed by
military tank maneuvers, electric-power transmission lines cross the
site, and the site is adjacent to a "borrow pit" used to supply rock
to construct Interstate 40 one mile north of the site. 

To respond to the Executive order on environmental justice, Interior
intends to address, in the second supplement, the effects that a
disposal facility at Ward Valley could have on Native American
religious and cultural values, tourism, agricultural cultivation, and
future economic developments.  For example, Indian tribes are
beginning economic development projects along the Colorado River,
including tourism, hotels, and gambling casinos. 

Interior also plans to reexamine alternatives to developing the
facility, including the "no action" alternative of not transferring
the Ward Valley site to California.  In commenting on the planned
scope of this alternative, officials in the Bureau's Sacramento
office told us that they did not plan to address the environmental
justice implications for any low-income or minority populations
living near places where wastes are now temporarily stored.  However,
in commenting on a draft of our report, Interior said that it intends
to include environmental justice within the scope of its
reexamination of the environmental impacts of the "no action"
alternative. 


   INTERIOR'S REASONS FOR NEW
   STATEMENT ARE TO PROVIDE A
   PUBLIC FORUM AND DETERMINE
   SUITABILITY OF THE SITE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

During 1996, Interior stated that its decision to prepare a second
supplement was based on the impasse over land-transfer conditions,
the 5 years that had passed since the original environmental impact
statement had been issued, and the need to analyze new information
that became available and circumstances that occurred after the 1991
statement.  Although these factors may have precipitated the decision
to prepare the statement, there are also two underlying reasons that
have shaped Interior's actions on the Ward Valley issue for several
years, specifically, that Interior should provide a forum to resolve
public concerns and independently determine if the site is suitable
for the planned disposal facility.  However, California and US
Ecology believe that (1) the state has the authority under the Atomic
Energy Act, implementing criteria, and its own expertise for
determining if the site is suitable and (2) Interior had, before its
decision was rescinded, completed all essential requirements for
deciding on the land transfer.  Consequently, California and US
Ecology have sued Interior over, among other things, whether it has
exceeded its authority with respect to radiological safety issues,
such as the potential public health effects of radionuclide
migration, and, ultimately, the suitability of the site for a
radioactive waste disposal facility.  The lawsuits are pending. 


      SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT
      SUBSTITUTES FOR A FORMAL
      HEARING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Interior's regulations for transferring federal land under FLPMA do
not require public hearings.  Nevertheless, Interior wanted the state
to conduct a formal public hearing on the Ward Valley facility
because of the controversy over it, particularly the public's concern
that the facility could jeopardize the water supply of millions of
people in the Southwest.  In lieu of the formal public hearing, the
second supplement and additional site tests will, according to
Interior, fulfill its responsibility to assure the public that health
and safety concerns are adequately addressed. 

California did address the public's concerns in a public hearing
conducted as a part of its licensing procedures for the Ward Valley
facility.  When deciding whether to issue US Ecology a license, the
applicable state laws and regulations required the state's Department
of Health Services to conduct a hearing in which the public could
make brief oral statements and provide written comments.  These
regulations required the department to include all comments in the
written licensing record and to consider them.  Formal, trial-like
hearings, with sworn testimony and cross-examination, are only used
in the case of a proposed suspension or revocation of an existing
license. 

During California's licensing proceeding, several individuals and
groups unsuccessfully urged the state to conduct a public hearing on
the license application using formal, trial-like procedures. 
Subsequently, however, a state appellate court found that the state
had met the requirements of state law and regulations, such as
holding the kind of public hearings specified by law, for licensing
US Ecology to construct and operate a disposal facility at Ward
Valley.  An appeal of the court's decision was denied. 

California issued a license to US Ecology to build and operate a
disposal facility for low-level radioactive wastes at Ward Valley in
accordance with the state's authority under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 and related state laws and regulations.  Interior, however, has
not accepted the results of the state's licensing proceeding as an
adequate basis for Interior to make a land-transfer decision.  For
example, in an August 11, 1993, letter to the Governor of California,
the Secretary of the Interior requested that the state conduct a
formal public hearing as part of a credible process for determining
that the site is appropriate so the Secretary can make a
land-transfer decision. 


      INTERIOR WANTS TO
      INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINE IF
      WARD VALLEY IS SUITABLE FOR
      A DISPOSAL FACILITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

FLPMA requires the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that federal
lands transferred to other parties are properly used and protect the
public interest.  California, on the other hand, is responsible for
licensing and regulating the Ward Valley disposal facility according
to the state's laws and regulations that are intended to adequately
protect public health and safety.  Where the respective
responsibilities of Interior and the state overlap, if at all, has
been an uncertain matter.  The former Secretary based his decision
(subsequently rescinded by the current Secretary) to transfer the
land in part on the findings of the joint state-Bureau environmental
impact statement of April 1991.  Regarding radiological issues, the
former Secretary pointed out that (1) the state's analyses of these
issues showed that any off-site migration of radionuclides would be
less than regulatory limits and (2) the proposed facility would be
licensed by the state according to ".  .  .  all applicable federal
and state laws and regulations."

In contrast, the current Secretary of the Interior has asserted more
overlap between Interior's and the state's respective
responsibilities.  For example, when the Secretary requested the
state to conduct a formal public hearing, he said the hearing should
focus on the issue of the migration of radionuclides from the site
because that issue directly relates to his ".  .  .  responsibility
under federal law regarding the suitability of the site.  .  .  ."

Setting aside the issue of authority, which is in litigation,
Interior has neither the criteria nor the technical expertise to
independently determine if the site is suitable for a disposal
facility.  Moreover, Interior has not sought advice or assistance on
the suitability of the site from NRC or--with one exception--the
Department of Energy, which have such expertise. 

NRC officials told us that in 1993, the Bureau had made a verbal
request for NRC's views on the adequacy of California's program for
regulating radioactive materials, including the Ward Valley facility. 
In June 1993, NRC responded that it periodically reviews the state's
regulatory program to determine, as required by the Atomic Energy
Act, if the program is compatible with NRC's program for regulating
radioactive materials in states that have not agreed to assume this
responsibility.  On the basis of these periodic reviews, NRC said
that it had concluded that the state has a highly effective
regulatory program for low-level radioactive wastes and is capable of
conducting an effective and thorough review of US Ecology's license
application for the proposed disposal facility. 

According to officials of the Department of Energy, the Department
had no role in the proposed disposal facility at Ward Valley until
Interior decided to perform the tests recommended by the Academy. 
Following that decision, Interior and Energy negotiated conditions
under which Interior would use facilities at Energy's Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory to conduct one technical part of the
tests.  Interior officials subsequently told us that Energy's role in
the testing has evolved into a partnership with Interior in setting
up the test arrangements.  The Interior officials also pointed out
that federal agencies such as NRC and the Environmental Protection
Agency are expected to provide comments in the process of preparing
the second supplement. 

California and US Ecology do not agree that Interior has the
authority to independently determine if the Ward Valley site is
suitable for a disposal facility.  Their position is that the
regulation of radiological safety issues, such as the migration of
radionuclides, is the state's responsibility because of the state's
agreement with NRC under the Atomic Energy Act.  Therefore, they
argue, these issues are outside of Interior's authority and
expertise.  As discussed earlier, the state and US Ecology sued
Interior earlier this year, asking the court to order Interior to
complete the sale of the land and declare that Interior had exceeded
its authority with respect to protecting the public's health and
safety against radiation hazards.\2 Thus, the courts ultimately will
decide the legality of, among other issues raised by the litigation,
Interior's position that it must determine if the site is suitable
for a disposal facility. 


--------------------
\2 California Department of Health Services v.  Babbitt, No. 
1:97CV00218, (D.D.C.  filed Jan.  31, 1997) and US Ecology, Inc.  v. 
U.S.  Department of the Interior, No.  1:97CV00365 (D.D.C.  filed
Feb.  24, 1997). 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The task of developing new facilities for disposing of commercially
generated low-level radioactive waste has proven more difficult than
imagined when the Congress gave states this responsibility 17 years
ago.  Because no state has yet developed a new facility, the actions
in a leading state, like California, are viewed as an indicator of
whether the current national disposal policy can be successful.  In
the case of California's proposed Ward Valley disposal facility,
Interior has been unwilling to accept the state's explicit authority
and findings concerning radiological safety as adequate to permit
Interior to decide on the proposed land transfer.  Instead, Interior
has decided that it must independently determine if the site is
suitable for a disposal facility.  Whether an independent
determination is within Interior's discretion will be decided in the
courts.  Setting this legal question aside, most of the substantive
issues that the public has raised to Interior for its consideration
have already been addressed by the state and by the Bureau of Land
Management.  Moreover, subsequent new information, such as the
National Academy of Sciences' report, generally favors the proposed
facility. 


   INTERIOR'S AND STATE'S COMMENTS
   AND OUR EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We provided a draft of our report to Interior and California for
review and comment.  Their written comments appear in appendixes II
and III, respectively. 

Interior said it disagreed that its decision to prepare the new
supplement was not based on significant new information that would
require it to prepare the document.  We did not make our own
determination of whether or not new information, such as the
Academy's report and the information on the Beatty facility, was
significant enough to require Interior to prepare the new supplement. 
Instead, we discussed the reasons Interior originally gave for
preparing the supplement and other evidence that, taken together,
indicated that Interior did not initially consider the new
information significant enough to require it to prepare a supplement. 
We have revised our report to clarify this point. 

In addition, Interior said that our report does not accurately
discuss Interior's responsibility and authority for land transfers. 
We disagree.  As discussed in our report, the fundamental issue at
Ward Valley is whether or not the disposal facility would properly
contain radioactive wastes and therefore adequately protect public
health and safety.  California must address this issue because of its
authority derived from the Atomic Energy Act.  Interior's statutory
responsibility, however, is much less specific than California's. 
Interior must consider environmental impacts and ensure that the
"public interest" is protected if it decides to transfer the land as
the state has requested.  Neither of the two statutes covering these
responsibilities--FLPMA and NEPA--would preclude Interior from giving
great weight to the state's conclusions on radiological safety.  In
fact, when the former Secretary originally decided (a decision
subsequently rescinded by the current Secretary) to transfer the
land, he based his decision, in part, on the record on radiological
safety matters developed by the state.  Since January 1993, however,
Interior has not accepted the state's conclusion that the disposal
facility would comply with regulatory requirements. 

Interior also said that our report does not appropriately evaluate
new information and circumstances, available since 1991, that clearly
warrant the preparation of a supplement.  Again, we do not agree. 
Interior's position is largely due to what it described in its
comments as the "uncertainties and unknown risks" related to the Ward
Valley facility that are illustrated by (1) the Academy's inability
to resolve the issue of tritium measured beneath the site and (2) the
relevance of the information on the Beatty site to Ward Valley
because of the similarities between the two sites.  Interior,
however, appears to overstate the uncertainties and risks that may be
perceived from these sources.  As discussed in our report, most
Academy members recommended that the tritium issue be resolved for
the limited purpose of improving the monitoring of the site--not to
answer questions about the site's suitability.  Moreover, the
Academy's nearly unanimous findings and conclusions are generally
favorable to the Ward Valley facility and do not support Interior's
concern about "uncertainties and unknown risks." Also, the Geological
Survey concluded that it is doubtful that the situation at Beatty and
the possible relevance of that situation to Ward Valley will ever be
understood because liquid wastes were disposed of at Beatty--a
prohibited practice at Ward Valley--and related disposal records are
incomplete.  Thus, the Survey questioned the relevance of the
information on Beatty. 

Finally, Interior commented on the statement that it does not have
the criteria or the expertise to independently determine if the Ward
Valley site is suitable for a disposal facility.  Interior pointed
out that, as is common practice in preparing environmental documents,
it is contracting with a qualified consultant to prepare the
supplement; the Department of Energy is assisting on the tests
concerning tritium; and NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
other federal agencies with relevant expertise are expected to
provide comments on the supplement.  We agree that these sources of
expertise are appropriate for assisting Interior in preparing the
supplement and conducting the planned tests.  Our report, however,
addressed Interior's position that it should independently assess the
suitability of the site from a radiological safety perspective. 
Although Interior can contract with others for expertise on this
issue, it has no criteria for deciding if the site is or is not
suitable for its intended purpose. 

We have revised our report to incorporate Interior's comments on the
issue of environmental justice.  Our responses to Interior's other
specific comments are provided in appendix II. 

California agreed with our report and conclusions.  The state also
offered comments to supplement the information in our report and
clarify certain points in the text, which we incorporated as
appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We performed our review at the Department of the Interior's
headquarters in Washington, D.C.; the Bureau of Land Management's
field office in Sacramento, California; and California's Department
of Health Services in Sacramento.  We also performed our review at
the headquarters of NRC, in Rockville, Maryland; the Department of
Energy, in Germantown, Maryland; and the U.S.  Geological Survey, in
Reston, Virginia.  Because we did not independently evaluate whether
the information that the public provided Interior with addressed
"significant new circumstances or information," we did not discuss
this information with those who provided it.  We conducted our review
from February through July 1997 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.  (See app.  IV for details of our
scope and methodology.)

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this
letter.  At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of the
Interior; the Governor of California; and the Director, Office of
Management and Budget.  We will make copies available to others on
request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-3991 if you or your staff have any
questions.  The major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V. 

Gary L.  Jones,
Acting Associate Director, Energy,
 Resources, and Science Issues


List of Requesters

The Honorable Frank H.  Murkowski
Chairman, Committee on Energy
 and Natural Resources
United States Senate

The Honorable Don Young
Chairman, Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

The Honorable Joe Barton
The Honorable Brian Bilbray
The Honorable Ken Calvert
The Honorable Tom Campbell
The Honorable David Dreier
The Honorable Ron Packard
The Honorable Dan Schaefer
House of Representatives


ISSUES THAT THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT IS CONSIDERING IN ITS
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
=========================================================== Appendix I

On February 15, 1996, the Department of the Interior's Deputy
Secretary announced that Interior would prepare a supplemental
environmental impact statement on the proposed disposal facility in
Ward Valley, California, for commercially generated, low-level
radioactive waste.  The purposes of the supplement are to (1) address
public concerns that have been raised since Interior's Bureau of Land
Management and California jointly published an environmental impact
statement in April 1991 and (2) examine recommendations made by the
National Academy of Sciences.\1

Interior intends to prepare the supplement prior to deciding whether
to transfer land in Ward Valley to the state for use as a disposal
facility. 

After a public scoping process, Interior's Deputy Secretary selected
13 issues that the Bureau would address in the supplement.  In a
December 1996 solicitation of contractors' proposals to prepare the
supplement, the Bureau stated that the purpose of the supplement was
to analyze new information that became available and circumstances
that occurred since the 1991 environmental statement was published. 
According to the request for proposals, the contractor will, for the
most part, review relevant existing documents rather than generate
new surveys, inventories, or other new information about the
characteristics of the site.  Interior anticipated that the major
issues to be addressed will include but not be limited to

1.  The Academy's May 1995 report

2.  The movement of radionuclides (radioactive elements) in the soil

3.  The potential for radionuclides and other materials to
contaminate the groundwater beneath the site and the Colorado River

4.  The Beatty, Nevada, disposal site as an analog to the Ward Valley
site

5.  The impacts on the desert tortoise

6.  The nuclear waste stream (types, amounts, and sources of wastes)

7.  The alternative methods of disposal

8.  Native American issues

9.  The potential for the introduction of exotic flora

10.Transportation issues

11.The state's obligations regarding the disposal facility

12.The issues pertaining to US Ecology

13.The public health impacts of the disposal facility

Of the 13 selected issues, Interior cited the Academy's report; the
Beatty, Nevada, disposal facility; and "nearby Indian sacred
sites"--one aspect of Native American issues--as reasons for
preparing the supplement and added the remaining 10 issues on the
basis of expressions of public concern.  Except for the issues
related to the Academy's report and the Beatty facility, all of the
issues had been addressed, to a significant degree, in one or more of
the following: 

  -- California's licensing proceeding for the disposal facility. 
     The administrative record for the proceeding consisted primarily
     of US Ecology's initial license application to the state,
     records of oral and written comments, and written responses to
     the comments. 

  -- The April 1991 joint California-Bureau environmental impact
     statement. 

  -- The Bureau's first supplement to the environmental impact
     statement issued in September 1993.  The Bureau expressly
     limited the scope of this supplement to the method for
     transferring the Ward Valley site to the state.  Nevertheless,
     because many public comments on a draft of the statement
     addressed environmental issues, the Bureau also responded to
     these comments in the supplement. 

  -- Related reports by Interior's Geological Survey and Fish and
     Wildlife Service. 


--------------------
\1 The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit
organization chartered to advise the federal government on scientific
and technical matters. 


   THE ACADEMY'S MAY 1995 REPORT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

As California's licensing process for the disposal facility was
ending, the state asked Interior to transfer the federal land,
managed by the Bureau, to the state for the development of the
disposal facility.  While Interior was reviewing the state's request,
three geologists acting on their own from the Geological Survey's
Menlo Park, California, office raised seven concerns about the
adequacy of the state's evaluation of the proposed facility and site
to the Secretary of the Interior.\2 The geologists' analysis, known
as the "Wilshire Report," raised questions about the validity of
conclusions in site evaluation documents and suggested approaches to
resolving the scientific problems they posed.  The scientists were
particularly concerned about the flow of shallow water into waste
trenches, the transfer of contaminants to the groundwater, and
groundwater connections from the site to the Colorado River.  They
also had subordinate concerns about the lack of off-site monitoring,
the potential failure of flood control devices, the inability to
compensate for the loss of habitat for the desert tortoise, and the
plan to revegetate areas disturbed by waste disposal operations. 

At the Secretary's request, the Academy convened a committee of 17
scientists to evaluate the three scientists' concerns.\3

After reviewing the data, the Academy recommended the continuation of
data collection and evaluation activities at the site to build
scientific assurance, credibility, and public confidence in the
program for monitoring the disposal facility.\4 Fifteen members of
the committee believed that the additional data collection and
evaluation could be performed during the construction and operation
of the site.  The other two members believed that the tests should be
completed in time to use the results in a final decision on the
suitability of the site for a disposal facility.  In addition, the
committee's chairman stated that, from a purely scientific
standpoint, none of the data reviewed by the committee supported
further delay or opposition to the construction of the facility if
the Academy's oversight and monitoring recommendations were
implemented. 


--------------------
\2 Howard, K.A.; D.M.  Miller; and H.G.  Wilshire.  Description of
Earth-Science Concerns Regarding the Ward Valley Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Site Plan and Evaluation (1993).  The authors
stated that the report is not an official Geological Survey report
and does not represent the policies or positions of the Geological
Survey. 

\3 The Ward Valley committee was composed of 17 scientists with a
range of expertise in geophysics, geochemistry, hydrology, soil
science, ecology, botany, and environmental engineering.  The
scientists' background included work in the transport of contaminants
in unsaturated zones, the ecology of desert tortoise and desert plant
populations, soil physics, and the movement of radionuclides in the
environment. 

\4 Ward Valley--An Examination of Seven Issues in Earth Sciences and
Ecology, National Academy of Sciences (May 1995). 


   MOVEMENT OF RADIONUCLIDES IN
   THE SOIL
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

The Wilshire group and others have raised concerns about the
possibility that radionuclides might move through the soil under the
site to the groundwater.  As a result, Interior plans to address this
issue in the second supplement.  However, the Bureau's position in
addressing public comments on its 1993 supplemental statement was
that radionuclide migration from the disposal facility would be
"infinitesimally small." In its report, the Academy's conclusion that
migration was "highly unlikely" was similar to the Bureau's position. 

Regulations on disposal facilities for low-level radioactive waste
require a prospective licensee to demonstrate that a proposed
facility can meet performance objectives related to the site's and
the facility's ability to contain radionuclides found in the disposed
waste.  As part of its license application, US Ecology used a series
of computer models to assess the performance of the proposed facility
at Ward Valley.  The performance assessment analyzed plausible
pathways for the migration of radionuclides from the facility and
predicted that migration to the groundwater would take thousands of
years. 

Commenters on the Bureau's first supplement pointed out that, during
the site investigation, US Ecology had detected trace amounts of
tritium 100 feet beneath the site.  Therefore, the commenters
suggested, the tritium must have been carried there by rainfall in a
matter of decades rather than thousands of years.  The Wilshire group
also concluded that earlier evaluations of the possible migration of
radionuclides to groundwater were inadequate.  In the group's view,
the detection of measurable tritium in deep soils beneath the site
indicated the migration of tritium from the surface at a rate much
faster than presumed in site evaluation documents.  The scientists
also concluded that properties measured and used in modeling water
migration in the unsaturated zone did not represent the variability
and complexity of the materials at the site.\5

Furthermore, according to the Wilshire report, the potential for the
shallow lateral flow of water down the slope of Ward Valley and into
and out of the waste disposal trenches was not addressed in any of
the site evaluation documents prepared by US Ecology, the state, or
the Bureau.  The scientists said that the available information shows
that shallow, low-permeability layers of soil exist in the slope
beneath the site and toward Homer Wash, which serves as the main
drainage mechanism for the valley.  In the scientists' view, these
layers of soil could promote the lateral, rather than vertical, flow
of water.  This condition, they said, could lead to an excess of
water leaking into and then out of the waste trenches, causing the
migration of contaminants from the trenches to Homer Wash and then
possibly redistributing the waste into the general environment by
wind and water erosion. 

However, in response to the concerns of commenters, the Bureau said
that finding minute traces of tritium in the soil does not invalidate
US Ecology's predictions regarding the potential for radionuclides to
reach the aquifer below the site because, in part, the downward
percolation of rainfall does not occur below the upper few meters of
soil.  Instead, water's movement in the top 100 feet of soil is
upward because of evaporation and the consumption of water by plants. 
According to the Bureau, even in a worse-case scenario, the amount of
tritium that could find its way to the groundwater would be
infinitesimally small.\6

Furthermore, the Academy concluded from multiple lines of evidence
that the potential migration of radionuclides through the unsaturated
zone to the groundwater is highly unlikely.  The Academy's report
discussed a number of aspects of this potential migration and did not
find a likely mechanism that would allow contaminants to reach the
groundwater.  In the Academy's view, the most likely explanation for
the apparent detection of tritium at unexpected depths beneath the
site is flawed data collection methods rather than the actual
presence of tritium in the measured amounts.  Uncertainties about
these methods should be resolved, the Academy concluded, by
remeasurement for tritium and the measurement for other
radionuclides, such as chlorine-36 from atmospheric tests of nuclear
weapons.  A majority of the committee members said that these
measurements could be done during the construction and operation of
the site.  Two of the 17 committee members disagreed with the general
conclusions about the transfer of contaminants through the
unsaturated zone.  They said that they were not willing to judge the
likelihood that contaminants would reach the groundwater because of
uncertainties about the movement of water through the unsaturated
zone. 

In regard to concerns about lateral water flow, the Academy also
found that such flow at shallow depths beneath the desert's surface
is not a significant issue at the Ward Valley site.  According to the
Academy, lateral water flow into the trenches would be insignificant
even with intense rainfall or flooding because of the overall
permeability of the soil and the site's gentle slope. 


--------------------
\5 The unsaturated zone is the area above the water table that
includes soil that may contain water under pressure less than that of
the atmosphere. 

\6 The performance assessment's worse-case scenario assumed that the
entire quantity of tritium projected to be received at the site
during the 30-year operating period would be concentrated at one
location and instantaneously released. 


   THE POTENTIAL FOR RADIONUCLIDES
   AND OTHER MATERIALS TO
   CONTAMINATE THE GROUNDWATER
   BENEATH THE SITE AND THE
   COLORADO RIVER
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

Interior plans to review whether radionuclides and other materials
from the Ward Valley site may eventually contaminate the Colorado
River.  Concerns about the possible contamination of the river have
been raised since the 1991 environmental statement was issued. 
Although the Wilshire group disputed the findings of the
environmental statement, the Academy generally agreed with the
Bureau's conclusion in 1993 that the disposal facility will meet or
exceed all environmental health standards with respect to ground or
surface waters. 

Commenters on the Ward Valley environmental statements were concerned
that the location of the waste disposal facility could lead to the
contamination of the Colorado River through the contamination of
aquifers that might connect the valley with the river.  However, the
Bureau concluded in its September 1993 first supplement to the 1991
environmental impact statement that the results of independent
studies and the predictions of radiological pathways, as reflected in
the original environmental statement, indicate that the disposal
facility will meet or exceed all environmental health standards and
will not contaminate ground or surface waters.  Among other things,
the Bureau concluded the following: 

  -- US Ecology's license application and the 1991 environmental
     statement conclude that there is no route for the contamination
     of the Colorado River or any other surface water sources.  The
     reports found that Ward Valley is a closed basin with no surface
     water drainage to adjacent basins or the Colorado River.  In
     addition, the reports concluded that no evidence has been found
     of underground connections that would result in the
     contamination of a water supply if groundwater were contaminated
     under the site. 

  -- US Ecology did extensive studies to evaluate the depth of the
     groundwater and the potential for infiltrating rainfall to carry
     radionuclides through the unsaturated zone to the groundwater
     aquifer.  The Bureau concluded that the assumptions and
     scenarios used to evaluate the groundwater and the potential for
     contamination indicate that no impact on groundwater will occur
     under the expected site and operating conditions. 

  -- The selection of the Ward Valley site, with its natural features
     and surface water protection, provides the key protection
     against contamination.  All available data show that water
     resources will not be threatened by the disposal facility. 

After reviewing the license application and environmental statements,
the Wilshire group stated that the application and environmental
statements were based on an inadequate assessment of the regional
geology.  The group concluded in its report that there may be at
least five hydrologic connections between the site and the Colorado
River groundwater reservoir and that these connections engage
aquifers presently in use that are even closer to the site than the
Colorado River. 

The Academy, however, concluded that, although there are
conceivable--but unlikely--flow paths for some of the groundwater
under Ward Valley to the Colorado River, the potential impacts on the
river's water quality would be insignificant relative to present
natural levels in the river and to accepted regulatory health
standards.  To assess the effects of conceivable flow paths, the
Academy estimated the total amount of plutonium that might end up at
the site and then assumed that all of the plutonium would reach the
Colorado River at the same rate it was disposed of.\7 The panel found
that even under these hypothetical conditions, the effects of the
plutonium on the quality of the river water would be insignificant
when compared with the existing background level. 


--------------------
\7 The Academy used plutonium because it remains hazardous longer
than any radionuclide that might be disposed of in a significant
quantity at the Ward Valley site. 


   THE BEATTY, NEVADA, DISPOSAL
   SITE AS AN ANALOG TO THE WARD
   VALLEY SITE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

Interior plans to review whether the Beatty, Nevada, site of a
now-closed disposal facility for low-level radioactive waste is
analogous to the Ward Valley site.  Interior began to consider
preparing the second supplement, in part, because of new information
on radioactive materials found near the Beatty site.  However, the
Academy found limited value in comparing the behavior of the Beatty
site with that of the Ward Valley site, and recent evaluations by the
Geological Survey show there is little scientific connection between
the Beatty and Ward Valley sites. 

The Beatty and Ward Valley sites are sometimes considered analogous
because both are designed to bury low-level radioactive waste in
shallow, unlined dirt trenches in arid terrain.  As part of its
deliberations, the Academy's committee invited a team of Geological
Survey hydrogeologists to consider whether the Beatty site is an
analogue for Ward Valley.  Geological Survey scientists do regard the
Beatty site, in some respects, as an analogue for the Ward Valley
site because both are located in similar terrain and have similar
climate and hydrologic characteristics.  Although the natural
settings are similar, according to these scientists, there are major
differences between the Beatty site and the proposed Ward Valley site
regarding the types of waste disposed of and disposal methods.  For
example, the Beatty facility includes both a toxic chemical and a
low-level radioactive waste site next to each other.  According to
the Academy's report, there are also serious uncertainties about the
types, compositions, and physical forms of the wastes that were
accepted at the Beatty site.  One such uncertainty is how much
radioactive waste might have been disposed of in a liquid form--a
form that is now prohibited.  The Academy determined, therefore, that
the Beatty site may be useful in understanding some natural
processes, but it is limited in evaluating the behavior of the Ward
Valley site because of historical uncertainties. 

According to the Geological Survey, the contamination of groundwater
at the Beatty site has been known for many years.  However, gas
samples collected by the Geological Survey at its research facility
near the Beatty waste site in 1994 and 1995 contained large
concentrations of tritium and carbon-14--concentrations well above
ambient background levels.  These new and unexpected findings
indicated the large lateral and vertical movement of tritium and
carbon-14 in the unsaturated zone at the research site.  Because it
appeared that the Beatty site was the most obvious and plausible
source, the Geological Survey assembled a review team to examine a
variety of transport scenarios to determine whether the
concentrations could be explained by sources of tritium and carbon-14
within the waste burial area at Beatty. 

The Geological Survey concluded that the tritium distribution at
Beatty was probably the result of the burial of liquid wastes and the
fact that some disposal trenches at Beatty were open for years until
filled, allowing the accumulation and infiltration of
precipitation.\8 The Geological Survey also found that it is unlikely
that the tritium distribution and its evolution through time will
ever be understood in detail because of the incomplete accounting of
liquid wastes at Beatty.  The Survey's Director concluded that
extrapolations of the results from Beatty to Ward Valley are too
tenuous to have much scientific value because of the uncertainties
about the transport mechanisms at Beatty and because liquid wastes
will not be buried at Ward Valley.  Furthermore, the Survey's
Director concluded that the findings of tritium near Beatty do not
provide further insight into which hypotheses about tritium at Ward
Valley are correct.  Finally, the Director said that the Beatty
findings reinforce the importance of implementing the measures the
Academy had recommended, including long-term, continuous monitoring
at the Ward Valley site and minimizing the exposure of open waste
trenches to precipitation. 


--------------------
\8 Survey Open-File Report 95-741 contains a summary of tritium and
carbon-14 data at Beatty, Nevada.  Survey Open-File Report 96-110
contains the review team's analysis of the data. 


   IMPACTS ON THE DESERT TORTOISE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

As part of its second supplement, Interior intends to review the
impacts on the desert tortoise from the proposed low-level
radioactive waste disposal facility.  Several groups have raised
concerns that the development of the Ward Valley site would have a
serious effect on the habitat of the desert tortoise.  However, the
1991 environmental impact statement on Ward Valley included measures
to minimize the impact of the facility on the desert tortoise.  In
addition, two Interior agencies--the Bureau and the Fish and Wildlife
Service--say that the Ward Valley facility will not jeopardize the
tortoise or its habitat. 

The desert tortoise is a large herbivorous reptile found in parts of
the Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah deserts.  By the late
1980s, the desert tortoise had disappeared from parts of the Mojave
Desert and declined in many other areas.  These declines led in 1989
to an emergency federal listing of the entire Mojave desert tortoise
population as endangered and in 1990 to a final listing of the
population as a threatened species.  In response to a federal
mandate, the Fish and Wildlife Service published a critical habitat
designation for the Mojave desert tortoise population and approved a
desert tortoise recovery plan in 1994. 

The 1991 environmental statement included proposed environmental
protection measures to minimize the impact of the disposal facility
on the desert tortoise and its habitat.  The mitigation and
compensation measures--which US Ecology agreed to implement--are
intended to protect and potentially increase the number of desert
tortoises.  In particular, fencing off a nearby stretch of Interstate
Route 40 is intended to reduce freeway kills.  The measures had been
accepted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in November 1990 as part of
consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act.  This
consultation included a review by a committee comprising
representatives of the Bureau, the California Department of Fish and
Game, the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Desert Council. 
In a biological opinion, the Service concluded that the Ward Valley
project would not likely jeopardize the existence of the desert
tortoise.  In addition, an Interior Assistant Secretary wrote that
the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have been met and that
the proposed measures will protect the desert tortoise. 

The Wilshire group did not consider the mitigation plan established
by US Ecology and supported by California to be adequate.  In the
group's view, the artificial protection of displaced tortoises or the
protection of their habitat in different areas is unlikely to fully
compensate for the loss of habitat.  In August 1995, however, the
Fish and Wildlife Service reiterated in a second biological opinion
that the disposal facility would not likely jeopardize the continued
existence of the desert tortoise or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.\9 The Service prepared the
opinion using a number of sources, including a biological assessment
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau and
prepared by US Ecology, the Academy's report on Ward Valley, and a
risk assessment prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency, to
assess the potential radiological impacts of the facility on the
desert tortoise. 


--------------------
\9 The Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency requested the
consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. 


   THE NUCLEAR WASTE STREAM
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6

Interior plans to identify the current and future types and amounts
of nuclear waste from waste generators located in the Southwestern
Compact--the states of Arizona, California, and North and South
Dakota--that would dispose of low-level radioactive waste at the
proposed facility in Ward Valley.  Public interest groups have raised
concerns about the nature of this waste stream, including the
relative amounts and types of low-level waste generated and disposed
of by nuclear power plants compared with other waste generators, such
as medical facilities.  However, the projected nuclear waste stream
was described in US Ecology's license application, addressed in the
state's licensing records, and discussed in the 1991 environmental
statement.  According to officials of the Bureau's Sacramento office,
there is little new information on this issue. 

The 1991 environmental statement described the low-level radioactive
waste expected to be produced within the Southwestern Compact
according to several categories, including nuclear power stations,
government agencies, medical institutions, academic institutions, and
industrial (nonmedical) concerns.  California, for example, has more
than 2,000 radioactive materials licensees, concentrated primarily in
the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego areas.  Licensees
include hospitals, universities, government agencies, biotechnology
companies, and other industrial radioactive material users including
the state's two operating nuclear power stations.  At that time, the
report showed that for the period 1985 through 1987, nuclear power
plants generated 39 percent of the volume of low-level waste in the
compact.  The nonmedical industry generated almost 46 percent of the
waste, and the medical and academic community generated the remaining
15 percent. 

Finally, Bureau officials told us that the Bureau does not have new
information justifying the need to include the nuclear waste stream
issue in the second supplement.  Rather, the Bureau will use the
supplement to determine whether information has changed since the
state licensed the disposal facility and the 1991 environmental
statement was prepared.  According to officials of the state's health
services department, the projections of waste to be disposed of over
the operating lifetime of the disposal facility have declined since
the state licensed the facility.  Moreover, they stated, the amount
of waste disposed of by the nuclear power industry, in relation to
that of other users of nuclear materials, is not important as long as
the amount and types of radioactive waste disposed of at the Ward
Valley facility do not exceed the limits imposed in US Ecology's
license. 


   ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DISPOSAL
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7

Alternative methods for disposing of low-level radioactive waste at
the proposed Ward Valley facility were a major area of public concern
raised in the scoping process for the second supplement, and
therefore, will be addressed in the statement.  For example, one
environmental group--the Committee to Bridge the Gap--recommended
that above-ground facilities and multiple barriers be considered. 
However, US Ecology and the state addressed alternative disposal
methods in the state's licensing proceeding.  In addition, the 1991
and 1993 environmental statements discussed alternatives.  The
proposed facility would use a burial method in which containers of
waste are placed in 35-foot-deep trenches and then covered with soil. 
The alternative disposal methods discussed in the statements include
the following: 

  -- The concept of disposing of waste in an above-ground vault.  The
     primary features of this concept include a vault, a drainage
     layer, and an interior drain.  According to the 1991
     environmental statement, this concept is inappropriate in a
     desert environment because of deterioration problems (without
     ongoing and expensive maintenance), the need for a longer
     institutional care period, a shorter route for radionuclides to
     escape to the environment, and limited practical experience with
     applying the technology. 

  -- A shallow land burial facility with double-lined trenches.  The
     liners are intended to prevent the migration of liquids and
     wastes into the soil.  The analysis of this alternative revealed
     benefits, such as isolating wastes from the subsurface
     environment beneath the liner during the liner's useful life. 
     However, the 1991 environmental statement concluded that there
     was no technical basis for a liner to protect groundwater and
     that the installation of a liner system could result in a "bath
     tub effect," causing water to build up around the wastes. 
     Furthermore, in a desert environment in which there is very
     little precipitation, a high evapotranspiration rate,\10 and
     several hundred feet of unsaturated ground between the surface
     and the water table, it is prudent not to concentrate moisture
     infiltrating into waste trenches. 

The alternatives to building the disposal facility discussed in the
statements included the following: 

  -- Storing wastes where they are generated.  According to the 1991
     environmental statement, the long-term storage of radioactive
     wastes at multiple facilities throughout the state is not
     desirable and may increase the risk of releases of radionuclides
     to the environment. 

  -- No action.  According to the 1991 environmental statement,
     denying either the land transfer or the license for the disposal
     facility would avoid the potential adverse effects of the
     facility but would cause other types of significant effects. 
     This alternative would, among other things, place the state in
     violation of the compact agreement ratified by the Congress,
     result in potentially significant health effects if medical and
     other licensed activities are curtailed or wastes are improperly
     managed, and delay, at considerable cost, a necessary action
     into the future at a significant risk to the public's health and
     safety. 


--------------------
\10 "Evapotranspiration" is a term used to describe the process by
which water is returned to the air either through direct evaporation
or by the transpiration of vegetation. 


   NATIVE AMERICAN ISSUES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8

When Interior announced that it would prepare a second supplement, it
gave as one reason "nearby Indian sacred sites." Subsequently,
following the scoping process, the Department expanded this issue to
include a review of various relevant materials regarding Native
American issues.  According to officials in the Bureau's Sacramento
office, this expansion of scope for the supplement is appropriate
because of a recent underlying shift in emphasis from cultural
issues, such as sacred sites, to concern about the health and
economic effects that contamination of the Colorado River could have
on Native Americans living in the region.  However, Native American
issues--including new requirements to consider sacred sites and
environmental justice--have been addressed to a significant degree in
previous licensing and environmental actions taken by US Ecology,
California, and the Bureau.  One dimension of environmental justice
that the supplement does not include, however, is whether developing
the Ward Valley disposal facility has environmental justice
implications for people located around the sites where wastes are
generated and stored. 

The Fort Mojave and Chemehuevi Valley Indian Reservations in
California and the Colorado River Indian Reservation in Arizona are
adjacent to the Colorado River.  The California town of Needles, also
near the Colorado River and about 20 miles east of the Ward Valley
site, is the closest significant population center.  The 1991
environmental statement described the Ward Valley site as within the
traditional, historic, and contemporary use areas of the Mojave and
Chemehuevi peoples.  The area contains natural resources that are
important to their belief systems.  Additionally, the traditional
trails crossing the valley outside the project area are considered
culturally important.  As such, the entire Ward Valley is considered
to be sensitive in terms of ethnographic resources. 

However, the proposed site of the disposal facility is crossed by
existing electric-power transmission lines and is also adjacent to a
"borrow pit" for rock used to construct Interstate Route 40 about 1
mile north of the site.  Furthermore, according to US Ecology's
license application, unlike large areas of Ward Valley, which are
still largely pristine, the proposed project site has been
extensively disturbed by such additional activities as tank maneuvers
by the military and yucca harvesting. 

President Clinton issued Executive Order 13007 in May 1996 requiring
federal agencies that manage federal lands to accommodate, to the
extent practicable, access to and the ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites by Indian religious practitioners and avoid adversely affecting
the physical integrity of such sacred sites.  In February 1994,
President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, which is designed to
focus federal agencies' attention on the environmental and human
health effects of their activities on minority and low-income
communities (including Native American communities) and achieve the
goal of environmental justice.  The concept of environmental justice
grew out of a grass-roots campaign against the local siting of
incinerators, landfills, and other facilities associated with
pollution and contaminated consumption in minority and low-income
communities. 

Interior's responsibilities related to the proposed land transfer
require a reasonable effort to identify and consider Native
Americans' comments and concerns.  The Bureau believes that Native
Americans were fully represented and consulted in the original
environmental impact statement as well as the first supplement. 
Nevertheless, Interior will consider the potential impacts of the
proposed facility on Native American religious and cultural values,
tourism, future economic developments, and agricultural cultivation
in the second supplement.  In addition, Interior will examine
compliance with executive orders on Indian sacred sites and
environmental justice. 

However, Native American consultation was initiated by US Ecology
early in the site selection process and continued through the
preparation of the license application and the 1991 environmental
statement.  The state's licensee conducted archaeologic and
ethnographic studies of tribal activities in the region. 
Consultations with Native Americans focused on the sensitivity of
Native American resource use and cultural and religious values. 

The specific consultation steps taken in preparation of the license
application and considered in the 1991 environmental statement
included a 100-percent archaeological survey with Native American
participation.  According to the Bureau, the survey indicated that no
significant cultural resources were present at the site.  In
addition, US Ecology contacted the Fort Mojave, Chemehuevi, and the
Colorado River Indian Tribes to evaluate potential cultural impacts
of a more general regional nature.  In addition, during a walkabout
at the site, no tribal representative identified anything to suggest
that the site has an established religious significance to, or
ceremonial use by, an Indian religion and did not identify any unique
cultural resources. 

Furthermore, in the state's view, the proposed transfer of land for
the Ward Valley low-level radioactive waste disposal facility is
fully consistent with Executive Order 12898.  As discussed above, the
state's view is based on the earlier consideration of socioeconomic,
historical, and cultural issues in the state's licensing proceeding
and in the 1991 environmental impact statement. 

Finally, according to Bureau officials, Interior is considering
environmental justice in the second supplement only as it pertains to
Native Americans and not to other minority or low-income groups. 
Thus, although Interior plans to review alternatives to developing
the facility, such as storing waste at generators' sites, the
environmental justice implications for potentially affected
low-income and minority populations are not within the scope of this
review.  According to California officials, the potential exists for
waste to be stored in urban locations if the disposal facility at
Ward Valley is not built.  This carries environmental justice
implications for urban populations, these officials maintain, because
depriving the generators of low-level radioactive waste of a safe
disposal option potentially discriminates against hundreds of
thousands of minority persons who live in proximity to the stored
waste. 


   POTENTIAL FOR THE INTRODUCTION
   OF EXOTIC FLORA
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9

Interior plans to review the potential impacts that new flora may
have on the area as a result of building and operating the disposal
facility.  Officials in the Bureau's Sacramento office told us that
the impetus for this issue was the Wilshire group.  However, this
group subsequently withdrew this concern, and according to the Bureau
officials, nothing new regarding this issue is apparent. 

The proposed site for the disposal facility is in a remote area that
has experienced little in the way of intensive development.  However,
various land uses could introduce vegetation that is not native to
the area.  For example, Interstate Route 40, a four-lane interstate
highway, runs in an east-west direction about 1 mile north of the
proposed site.  The request for proposals requires the contractor to
evaluate the potential for and impacts of importing exotic species of
plants into Ward Valley. 

The Bureau and the state, in their 1991 environmental statement,
included a discussion of US Ecology's plans to revegetate the site. 
The plan described the timing, techniques, and locations for
transplanting cacti and yuccas during construction; the initiation of
revegetation during operation; and the restoration of the entire site
after closure. 

The Wilshire group initially said that misconceptions about the
enhancement of revegetation may interfere with the successful
reestablishment of the native plant community.  Later, the group
dropped this concern, saying that it was satisfied that there is an
adequate revegetation program and that it will be overseen by an
independent panel of experts. 


   TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:10

Interior plans to review transportation issues that were raised by
the public.  However, aspects of transporting low-level radioactive
waste were addressed in the 1991 Bureau-California environmental
statement.  In addition, the Bureau addressed concerns about
transporting wastes in responding to public comments on its first
supplement.  Although Bureau officials told us that there is no new
information on the issue that was not discussed in the state's
licensing proceeding and the environmental statements, Interior plans
to review and update the 1991 statement as part of the second
supplement. 

Transporting low-level radioactive waste was considered in the
original environmental statement.  In responding to public comments
on that statement, the Bureau and state noted that the potential for
accidents was determined to be a low risk and that the range for the
possible effects from radiological exposure due to an accident would
be below that established by regulatory limits and would meet
environmental health and safety standards.  In addition, the
statement recommended environmental protection and mitigation
measures, such as requiring all shippers to notify the schedule and
route of shipments in advance. 

In responding to public comments on the first supplement in 1993, the
Bureau addressed public concerns about transporting wastes.  At that
time, the Bureau discussed truck transportation because trucks were
considered the primary mode of transporting wastes.  The Bureau made
a number of conclusions about transporting wastes in the state
including the following: 

  -- No transportation accidents involving low-level waste releases
     have occurred in the state, and no radiological exposures have
     occurred from an accident with a vehicle transporting low-level
     radioactive waste for storage or out-of-state disposal. 

  -- The Ward Valley facility is expected to receive fewer than four
     shipments per day, which represents only a small percentage of
     the hazardous materials routinely transported through the state. 

  -- All waste is securely packaged for shipment and is not
     combustible or explosive. 

  -- Inspection on arrival at the facility will ensure that waste
     transport vehicles are not exceeding radiation limits or safety
     conditions. 

  -- Since transportation is an existing federally regulated system
     by which all hazardous materials are transported in the country,
     all needed safeguards already exist. 


   THE STATE'S OBLIGATIONS
   REGARDING THE DISPOSAL FACILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:11

Interior plans to review California's legal and financial obligations
in connection with the proposed Ward Valley disposal facility. 
However, the legal and financial liability issues were addressed in
the 1991 environmental statement prepared by the state and the
Bureau. 

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended,
requires that either the state or the federal government own disposal
sites for such waste.  As a matter of policy, Interior will not
permit the development of this type of facility on federal land in
the Mojave Desert region.  Therefore, the state, if it is to use the
Ward Valley site for a disposal facility, must obtain and retain
ownership of the site. 

Regulations implementing the low-level waste act anticipate that a
low-level radioactive waste disposal facility would be acceptable for
unrestricted surface use 100 years following the closure and
stabilization of a disposal facility.  According to the state, US
Ecology will be responsible for the waste received during the 30-year
operating period of the disposal facility.  Monitoring and
institutional responsibility would shift to California following the
satisfactory closure and transfer of US Ecology's operating license
to the state's custodial agency. 

A number of factors affect California's total liability, however. 
First, the operating license specifies that the licensee will
continue to be responsible for buried radioactive waste until the
state finds that the site has been satisfactorily closed.  The
failure to renew the license will not relieve the licensee of the
responsibility to carry out the site's closure, post-closure
observation, environmental monitoring, site inspections, maintenance,
and site security until California transfers the license to the
state's custodial agency or another licensee.  Second, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980, as amended, primarily determines the state's liability for
releases of radioactivity from the facility.  Under this law, four
classes of persons may be liable for cleanup costs:  the current
owner and operator, anyone who owned or operated the facility when
radionuclides were released, waste generators, and persons who
transported radionuclides to the facility.  Under this law, the state
may be liable for environmental remediation costs as a waste producer
and site operator. 


   ISSUES PERTAINING TO US ECOLOGY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:12

Interior plans to review the past performance of US Ecology and any
uncertainty regarding its financial status.  This issue was raised
during public scoping meetings for the second supplement on Ward
Valley.  However, California already considered the company's
operating record and financial condition in its licensing proceeding,
and the state and the Bureau had addressed it and found US Ecology
fully qualified in their 1991 environmental statement. 

The selection of US Ecology to develop and operate the low-level
radioactive waste facility for the Southwestern Compact has been
criticized by people who question the qualifications and operating
record of the company.  US Ecology has operated four low-level
radioactive waste disposal facilities--two in areas with high
rainfall (Sheffield, Illinois, and Maxey Flats, Kentucky) and two in
arid areas similar to Ward Valley (Beatty, Nevada, and Richland,
Washington).  Small amounts of radioactivity were detected in the
groundwater at the Illinois and Kentucky facilities.  Also, in 4
separate years--1979, 1982, 1983, and 1984--tritium in concentrations
well below NRC's regulatory limits in water was detected in a well at
the Beatty site.  The request for proposals for a second supplement
calls for the consideration of US Ecology's past performance and
uncertainty regarding its financial status. 

However, US Ecology's record for operating other low-level
radioactive disposal facilities was addressed by the state in its
licensing proceeding and by the state and the Bureau in their 1991
environmental statement.  In responding to public comments on the
environmental statement, the state and the Bureau noted that
California had issued a report of findings on US Ecology's past
record and the company's qualifications and capabilities to develop
and operate the Ward Valley facility.  The report, issued in 1986,
found that US Ecology was fully qualified to develop and operate the
facility and that the problems that had occurred in the past at other
disposal facilities can be avoided through experience gained and
through the enforcement of stringent low-level radioactive disposal
regulations in effect since 1982.  With respect to US Ecology's
disposal sites in Kentucky and Illinois, the Bureau and state found
that no member of the public had ever been exposed to radiation as a
result of off-site releases of buried waste.  According to the Bureau
and the state, the experience with desert disposal sites in Nevada
and Washington is more relevant to California's effort. 

California's current position is that no new information has emerged
to change the state's and the Bureau's earlier conclusions that US
Ecology is fully qualified to operate the Ward Valley facility. 

Recently, an environmental group also questioned whether US Ecology
is on solid enough financial footing to proceed with the Ward Valley
facility.  The group asserted that US Ecology's parent company
appeared to be in a serious financial condition because of large
liabilities associated with purchases of two waste companies in
Tennessee and Texas.  According to the group, this development
affected the qualifications of US Ecology to safely operate the
proposed Ward Valley facility. 

According to California, the financial condition of US Ecology and
its parent company was considered in the April 1991 environmental
impact statement.  In the unlikely event that US Ecology is unable to
meet its obligations, according to the state, the state would use
available mechanisms to replace the company with another qualified
contractor. 


   PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF THE
   DISPOSAL FACILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:13

Interior intends to consider, in the second supplement, the public
health effects of accidents, fire, intruders, and radionuclide
migration on operating the Ward Valley disposal facility.  However,
these issues were addressed by the state and the Bureau in the 1991
environmental statement. 

For example, in their 1991 environmental statement, the Bureau and
the state summarized the effects of 30 hypothetical radiation
exposure scenarios varying from waste container breaks to several
intrusion possibilities.  According to the statement, the scenarios
were considered appropriate for conservatively estimating the
potential effects of facility operations, accident conditions, and
post-closure activities and events.  Specifically, for all credible
exposure scenarios, the maximum doses of radiation to on-site and
off-site individuals were calculated for both normal and accident
conditions.  Regardless of the probability of occurrence, the results
indicated that the projected maximum doses would be well below
regulatory limits and would meet the standards for environmental
health and safety. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
letter dated July 3, 1997. 


   GAO'S COMMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:14

1.  Interior commented that California's hearing on Ward Valley did
not subject the project to appropriate review.  In our view, this
issue is not relevant to Interior's obligations to decide whether or
not to transfer the land.  The state has its requirements for public
hearings on the issuance of licenses, and its courts determined that
the state had followed these requirements.  Neither the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act nor the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 requires that Interior hold a public hearing before deciding
on the proposed land transfer. 

2.  Interior commented that without further study, the information on
the Beatty facility will shed little light on how the wastes migrated
from that facility.  It should be noted that, according to the
Geological Survey, further study will probably not answer this
question or provide insightful information on the Ward Valley
facility because of the incomplete accounting of the disposal of
liquid radioactive waste at Beatty. 

3.  We agree that Interior is required to comply with the Executive
Orders on Indian sacred sites and environmental justice.  We note,
however, that complying with these orders does not require the
preparation of an environmental impact statement--or, in the case of
Ward Valley, a supplement. 

4.  During the course of our review, we found no indication that
Interior evaluated new information received in relation to
information that had previously been considered or that the
determination that the information was "new" was important in the
selection of issues to be addressed in the supplement.  As discussed
in our report, the intensity of the public's concern about issues was
more important to the Bureau in recommending issues to be considered
in the supplement than whether or not any new information had been
made available. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix IV

To (1) identify the sources of information that the Department of the
Interior relied upon for a second supplemental environmental
statement and (2) determine if the issues the Department is
addressing had already been considered, and if so, on the basis of
significant new information, we performed our work primarily at
Interior's headquarters in Washington, D.C.; the Department's state
office in Sacramento, California; and the state's Department of
Health Services in Sacramento.  At these locations, we obtained and
reviewed information from officials of Interior's Office of the
Solicitor and Bureau of Land Management and the state's health
services department.  This information included

  -- legislation, regulations, and guidance related to transfers of
     federal land and authorizing construction and operation of
     disposal facilities for commercially generated low-level
     radioactive waste;

  -- correspondence on the proposed disposal facility at Ward Valley
     of an intradepartmental nature, between the state and the the
     Deparment (including the Bureau), and from the public to the
     Deparment and the Bureau; and

  -- Ecology's application to the state for a license to build and
     operate a disposal facility at Ward Valley, the joint
     state-Bureau environmental impact statement of April 1991, and
     the Bureau's September 1993 supplemental statement. 

We also obtained and reviewed information from officials of the (1)
Executive Director for Operations, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Rockville, Maryland; (2) Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management, Department of Energy, Germantown, Maryland; and U.S. 
Geological Survey, Reston Virginia. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Dwayne E.  Weigel, Assistant Director
John E.  Bagnulo, Evaluator-in-Charge
Cassandra D.  Joseph, Communications Analyst
Susan W.  Irwin, Senior Attorney

DENVER, COLORADO

Sue E.  Naiberk, Assistant Director
Cheryl L.  Pilatzke, Senior Evaluator
Cynthia S.  Rasmussen, Senior Evaluator

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS

Radioactive Waste:  Status of Commercial Low-Level Waste Facilities
(GAO/RCED-95-67, May 5, 1995). 

Nuclear Waste:  Connecticut's First Site Selection Process for a
Disposal Facility (GAO/RCED-93-81, Apr.  5, 1993). 

Nuclear Waste:  New York's Adherence to Site Selection Procedures Is
Unclear (GAO/RCED-92-172, Aug.  11, 1992). 

Nuclear Waste:  Slow Progress Developing Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Facilities (GAO/RCED-92-61, Jan.  10, 1992). 

Nuclear Waste:  Extensive Process to Site Low-Level Waste Disposal
Facility in Nebraska (GAO/RCED-91-149, July 5, 1991). 


*** End of document. ***