Radioactive Waste: Interior's Review of the Proposed Ward Valley Waste
Site (Testimony, 07/22/97, GAO/T-RCED-97-212).

Although Congress in 1980 directed the states to take responsibility for
disposing of commercially generated low-level radioactive waste, only
California has authorized the construction of a disposal facility--to be
built on federally owned land in Ward Valley, California. GAO found that
the Interior Department's insistence on new environmental studies before
transferring the property is not based on significant new information.
Eleven of the 13 issues that Interior is assessing, such as the effects
of a disposal facility at Ward Valley on Native Americans, had already
been considered in California's licensing process and in earlier
environmental statements prepared by the state and the Bureau of Land
Management. Moreover, much of the new information that has become
available is favorable to the proposed disposal facility. Interior
believed that the second supplement would provide a forum for resolving
the public's concerns about the facility and would allow an independent
determination of the site's suitability as a disposal facility.
Interior, however, lacks the technical expertise in radiological safety
matters to independently determine the site's suitability, and it has
not sought technical assistance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
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.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-97-212
     TITLE:  Radioactive Waste: Interior's Review of the Proposed Ward 
             Valley Waste Site
      DATE:  07/22/97
   SUBJECT:  Environmental impact statements
             Environmental monitoring
             Land transfers
             Radioactive waste disposal
             Native Americans
             Site selection
             Government facility construction
             Federal/state relations
             Radioactive pollution
             Licenses
IDENTIFIER:  Ward Valley (CA)
             Beatty (NV)
             Arizona
             North Dakota
             South Dakota
             Colorado River
             
******************************************************************
** 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


Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.  Senate

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
9:00 a.m.  EDT
Tuesday,
July 22, 1997

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

Statement of Gary Jones,
Acting Associate Director, Energy, Resources,
and Science Issues,
Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-97-212

GAO/RCED-97-212T


(141081)


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

  NRC -
  FLPMA -
  NEPA -
  DOE -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

We are pleased to be here today to testify on the proposed transfer
of federal land in Ward Valley, California to the state for use as a
site for the disposal of commercially generated low-level radioactive
waste.  In February 1996, the Department of the Interior announced
that before it would decide on transferring the land, it would
conduct additional tests at the site and prepare a second supplement
to an earlier environmental impact statement. 

Our testimony is based on our report on Ward Valley,\1 and will
discuss (1) what sources of information Interior relied on in
deciding to prepare a second supplemental statement and in selecting
issues to address in the supplement, (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, and (3) what Interior's underlying reasons were for
preparing the supplement. 

In summary, we found the following: 

  -- Interior cited (1) a May 1995 report on the Ward Valley site by
     the National Academy of Sciences and (2) information developed
     by its U.S.  Geological Survey in 1994 and 1995 about the
     migration of radioactive elements in the soil from a former
     disposal facility at Beatty, Nevada, as its basis for preparing
     the second supplement.  It also stated that it would address
     "nearby Indian sacred sites" in the supplement.  Later, after
     obtaining and analyzing information from the public, including
     environmental groups, Native Americans, and others, Interior
     decided to address 10 more issues in the supplement and to
     expand the issue of sacred Indian sites to include a variety of
     issues pertaining to Native Americans. 

  -- Eleven of the 13 issues that Interior is addressing in the
     second supplement had been considered in California's licensing
     process and in previous environmental impact 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. 

  -- The reasons cited by Interior for preparing a second supplement
     were an impasse with California over land-transfer conditions
     and the 5 years that had passed since the original environmental
     impact statement was issued in April 1991.  Two other reasons,
     however, have shaped Interior's actions on the Ward Valley issue
     over the last several years.  Specifically, Interior believes
     that it should provide a forum for resolving public concerns and
     independently determine if the site is suitable for a disposal
     facility. 

It should be noted, Mr.  Chairman, that California has met all of the
state's procedural and substantive requirements for licensing the
proposed facility.  Consequently, the state and US Ecology--the
company licensed by the state to construct and operate the disposal
facility--have sued Interior to determine, among other things, if
Interior exceeded its authority regarding radiological safety
matters, such as independently deciding on the site's suitability. 
Thus, whether or not an independent determination of the site's
suitability is within Interior's discretion will be decided in the
courts. 


--------------------
\1 Radioactive Waste:  Interior's Continuing Review of the Proposed
Transfer of the Ward Valley Waste Site (GAO/RCED-97-184, July 15,
1997). 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended in
1985, made states responsible for disposing of commercially generated
low-level radioactive waste.  Consequently, in 1987 Arizona,
California, North Dakota, and South Dakota entered into a compact in
which California agreed to develop a disposal facility that would
serve the needs of waste generators in the four states.  The Congress
ratified the compact in 1988. 

California, the only state since 1980 to have authorized the
construction and operation of a disposal facility, is responsible for
licensing and regulating its disposal facility.  As authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Atomic Energy Commission
(a predecessor to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC])
relinquished to the state in 1962 a significant portion of the
Commission's authority to regulate radioactive materials within the
state, including the disposal of low-level radioactive waste.  The
state incorporated NRC's criteria for siting and regulating low-level
waste disposal facilities into the state's regulations. 

In 1985, California named US Ecology its "license designee" and
authorized the company to screen and select a potential site for a
disposal facility, to investigate its suitability, and to construct
and operate the facility as licensed and regulated by the state. 
After evaluating potential sites, a 1,000-acre site in Ward Valley in
the Mojave Desert was selected.  (See fig.  1.)

   Figure 1:  Map of Ward Valley
   Area

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

About 70 of the 1,000 acres would be used for the trenches containing
the disposed waste.  Almost all of the remaining area would
constitute a buffer zone. 

In April 1991 Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which manages the
land, and the state jointly issued an environmental impact statement
concluding that the proposed facility would not cause significant
adverse environmental effects.  The statement is required as part of
the record for the Secretary of the Interior's land-transfer
decision. 

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 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 making such a finding, the land transfer must be
made on terms that the Secretary deems are necessary to ensure proper
land use and the protection of the public interest.  After
considering the environmental impacts of a licensed disposal facility
at the site, the outgoing Secretary decided in January 1993 to sell
the land as requested.  Acting for the state, US Ecology then paid
Interior $500,000 for the land. 

The outgoing Secretary's decision was immediately challenged in
federal court on the basis of Interior's alleged noncompliance with
FLPMA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and alleged
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 US Ecology's payment.  Meanwhile, in September 1993,
California issued a license to US Ecology, contingent on 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 a first supplement to the
April 1991 environmental impact statement, (2) the National Academy
of Sciences 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 the land-transfer
agreement.  The land-transfer negotiations reached an impasse in late
1995 over the issue of Interior's authority to enforce the state's
compliance with the Academy's recommendations in court.  Then, in
February 1996 Interior announced that it would prepare a second
supplement to the environmental impact statement and conduct tests
that the Academy had recommended.  Interior expected these activities
to take about a year to complete; however, Interior has not begun
preparing the supplement or conducting the tests. 


   INTERIOR PRIMARILY RELIED ON
   SCIENTIFIC REPORTS AND PUBLIC
   CONCERNS IN DECIDING ON A
   SECOND SUPPLEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

When Interior announced in February 1996 that it would prepare the
second supplement, it cited the Academy's May 1995 report and new
information about the migration of radioactive elements in the soil
from the former disposal facility at Beatty as its basis for
preparing the supplement.  Although Interior also said it would
address "nearby Indian sacred sites" in the supplement, it did not
identify any such sites or sources of information on this issue. 
Thereafter, Interior relied on information obtained from the public,
including environmental groups, Native Americans, and others, to
select 10 more issues to address in the supplement and to expand the
issue of sacred Indian sites to include a variety of issues
pertaining to Native Americans. 


      REPORT OF THE NATIONAL
      ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.1

In March 1994, the Secretary asked the Academy to study seven
radiological safety and environmental concerns about the proposed
Ward Valley facility that were raised by three scientists employed by
the Geological Survey.  The scientists were particularly concerned
about the potential for (1) water to flow into the trenches
containing the waste, (2) radioactive materials to move down through
the unsaturated soil to the water table, 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 the occurrence of
any of these three situations is unlikely.  Two committee members,
however, disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the movement
of radioactive elements to the water table is "highly unlikely." The
Academy added that the potential effect on water quality of any
contaminants that might reach the Colorado River would be
insignificant. 

Among other things, however, the Academy recommended that additional
measurements at the site be made to explain why tritium had
apparently been detected about 100 feet beneath the surface of Ward
Valley during the site's investigation.\2 The unexpected measurement
of tritium at this depth raised questions about how quickly
radioactive elements might migrate from the disposal facility to the
groundwater.  The Academy concluded that inappropriate sampling
procedures probably introduced atmospheric tritium into the soil
samples. 

Fifteen committee members concluded that the tritium tests could be
done during the facility's construction because the purpose of the
tests was to improve baseline information for the long-term
monitoring of the site rather than to resolve questions about the
site's suitability for a disposal facility.  Two members concluded
that the tests should be completed in time to use the results in a
final decision on the site's suitability as a disposal facility. 


--------------------
\2 Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that is produced by
atmospheric nuclear weapons tests and carried to the ground by rain. 


      NEW INFORMATION ON THE
      BEATTY FACILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.2

In 1994 and 1995, the Geological Survey detected tritium and another
radioactive element in the soil adjacent to a disposal facility for
low-level radioactive waste located at Beatty, Nevada.  This facility
had operated from 1962 until Nevada closed it after 1992.  US Ecology
began operating the facility in 1981.  While conducting research next
to the Beatty facility, the Survey detected radioactive elements in
concentrations well above natural background levels.  The Survey
attributed this situation to disposal practices at Beatty, such as
disposing of liquid radioactive waste, that are now prohibited. 

The Survey added that it is doubtful that the distribution of the
radioactive elements 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
Survey concluded, extrapolations of the information from Beatty to
the proposed Ward Valley facility are too tenuous to have much
scientific value because of the uncertainties about how radioactive
elements at Beatty are transported and because liquid wastes cannot
be buried at Ward Valley.  The Survey concluded that the findings of
tritium near Beatty do not help explain the measurements of tritium
at Ward Valley. 


      INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM
      THE PUBLIC
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.3

Interior relied on the views of the public to add 10 more issues to
address in the second supplement and to expand another issue--"nearby
Indian sacred sites"--into a broader review of Native American
issues.  For example, before Interior announced that it would prepare
a second supplement, an environmental group--the Committee to Bridge
the Gap--had already requested that Interior prepare a supplement
addressing the Academy's report, the Beatty facility, and four other
issues that Interior eventually selected:  (1) the potential pathways
of waste to the groundwater and then to the Colorado River; (2) the
types, quantities, and sources of waste to be disposed of; (3) the
recent financial troubles of US Ecology; and (4) protection of the
desert tortoise. 

After Interior's February 1996 announcement that it would prepare a
second supplement, the Bureau obtained and summarized public comments
and recommended to Interior's Deputy Secretary that 10 issues be
addressed in the supplement.  Four of the 10 issues were similar to
those that the Committee to Bridge the Gap had already raised. 
Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary approved 13 issues to be addressed
in the second supplement.  In addition to the Academy's report, the
new information on the Beatty facility, and the four other issues
that the Committee to Bridge the Gap had recommended, Interior
expanded the scope of the Indian sacred sites issue and added (1) the
movement of radioactive elements 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)
the public health impacts of operating the disposal facility. 


   MOST OF THE CURRENT ISSUES WERE
   PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

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 in the state's
licensing proceeding; in the state's and the Bureau's joint
environmental impact statement; and in the Bureau's first supplement
of September 1993.  According to the Council on Environmental
Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA, however, when a federal
agency has already addressed issues in an environmental impact
statement, it must prepare a supplement to the statement when
significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns has become available.  An agency may also
prepare a supplement when it determines that doing so will further
the purposes of NEPA. 

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

Other evidence indicates that Interior did not initially consider the
Academy's report and the new information on Beatty significant enough
to require a supplement.  For example, the Secretary's public
statement on the Academy's report said that the report "provides a
qualified clean bill of health in relation to concerns about the
site." According to the Secretary, with appropriate land-transfer
conditions based on the recommendations of that report, the Secretary
was "now confident that the transfer of the land is in the public
interest." Also, when Interior announced that it would prepare the
second supplement, it stated that the 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. 

The effect of the Ward Valley facility on Native Americans in the
region is one example of an issue that had been addressed earlier by
the state and the Bureau.  In part, however, Interior plans to
address Native American issues in the second supplement because of
two recent Executive orders.\3 One order requires federal agencies to
accommodate access to and the ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites
and avoid adversely affecting the integrity of such sites.  The
second order requires federal agencies to make "environmental
justice" for low-income and minority populations (including Indian
tribes) a part of their missions by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, the relatively high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their activities on these groups. 

To a significant degree, the state and the Bureau had addressed
Native American issues in the site selection process, the state's
licensing proceeding, and the 1991 environmental impact statement. 
The specific consultation steps, according to the 1991 statement,
included an archaeological survey of the site with Native American
participation.  This survey found that no significant cultural
resources were present at the site.  In addition, US Ecology
contacted the Indian tribes in the region to evaluate the potential
cultural impacts of a regional nature.  A site-specific walkabout by
tribal representatives did not identify any unique cultural
resources.  According to US Ecology's license application, that part
of Ward Valley where the proposed disposal site is located had once
been disturbed by military tank maneuvers.  Also, electric-power
transmission lines cross the site, and a pit used to supply rock for
highway construction is nearby.  As recently as February 1997, The
Director of the Bureau's Sacramento office stated in a letter to the
Environmental Protection Agency that the affected tribes were fully
represented and consulted in the scoping and descriptive phases of
the 1991 environmental impact statement. 

Interior plans to assess compliance with the two Executive orders in
the second supplement by addressing the effects that a disposal
facility at Ward Valley could have on Native Americans' religious and
cultural values, tourism, agricultural cultivation, and future
economic developments, such as hotels and gambling casinos, along the
Colorado River.  The river is about 20 miles east of the Ward Valley
site at its closest point.  In commenting on a draft of our report,
Interior also said that it will address the environmental justice
implications to low-income and minority populations that may live
near where waste is stored of not transferring the Ward Valley site
to the state. 


--------------------
\3 Exec.  Order No.  13007 (Accommodation of Sacred Sites, May 24,
1996) and Exec.  Order No.  12893, (Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, (Feb.  11, 1994). 


   INTERIOR'S REASONS FOR THE
   SUPPLEMENT ARE TO PROVIDE A
   PUBLIC FORUM AND DETERMINE SITE
   SUITABILITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

The reasons Interior gave for its decision to prepare a second
supplement were the impasse over land-transfer conditions and the age
of the original environmental impact statement.  Two other reasons
for the second supplement, however, have shaped Interior's actions on
the Ward Valley issue for several years; specifically, Interior
believes that it should provide a forum for resolving public concerns
and independently determine if the site is suitable for a disposal
facility.  In contrast, California and US Ecology believe that (1)
the state--not Interior--has the authority, implementing criteria,
and expertise for determining if the site is suitable and (2)
Interior had completed all essential requirements for deciding on the
land transfer in January 1993.  Consequently, California and US
Ecology have sued Interior over, among other things, whether Interior
has exceeded its authority with respect to radiological safety
issues.  The lawsuits are pending. 


      SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT
      SUBSTITUTES FOR A FORMAL
      HEARING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Interior's regulations for transferring federal land under FLPMA do
not encourage, require, or prohibit public hearings on proposed
transfers.  Nevertheless, Interior wanted the state to conduct a
formal public hearing on the Ward Valley facility because of the
controversy over the facility.  According to Interior, the second
supplement and tritium tests will fulfill its responsibility to
assure the public that health and safety concerns are adequately
addressed. 

California conducted a public hearing as a part of its licensing
procedures for the Ward Valley facility.  The applicable state laws
and regulations required the state to conduct a hearing in which the
public makes brief oral statements and provide written comments.  All
comments were to be considered by the state and included in the
written licensing record.  Several individuals and groups
unsuccessfully urged the state to conduct a public hearing on the
license application using formal, trial-type procedures.  However, a
state appellate court found that the state had met the requirements
of state law and regulations and 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 waste 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,
Interior's Secretary asked the state to conduct a formal public
hearing as part of a credible process for determining if 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
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

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 facility according to the
state's laws and regulations, which 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, in his January 1993 decision (subsequently
rescinded) to transfer the land, accepted the state's and US
Ecology's technical findings supporting the state's licensing
decision and accepted that the proposed facility would be licensed by
the state according to all applicable federal and state laws and
regulations.  In contrast, the current Secretary 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, Interior has neither the
criteria nor the technical expertise to independently assess the
suitability of the site from a radiological safety perspective. 
Moreover, Interior had not sought advice or assistance on the
suitability of the site from NRC or, until recently, the Department
of Energy (DOE), which have such expertise. 

Interior has not sought NRC's assistance in addressing issues about
the suitability of the Ward Valley site for a disposal facility.  In
1993, the Bureau verbally requested NRC's views on the adequacy of
California's program for regulating radioactive materials, including
the Ward Valley facility.  NRC responded that it periodically reviews
California's regulatory program to determine, as required by the
Atomic Energy Act, if the state's 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 waste and is
capable of conducting an effective and thorough review of US
Ecology's license application for the Ward Valley facility. 

DOE had no role on the Ward Valley facility until February 1996, when
Interior decided to perform the tritium tests at the site. 
Thereafter, DOE and Interior negotiated conditions under which
Interior would use facilities at DOE's Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory to conduct one technical part of the tests.  Interior
officials subsequently told us that DOE'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 comment on the second supplement. 

California and US Ecology do not agree that Interior is authorized 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 migration of radionuclides, is
the state's responsibility because of the state's agreement with NRC
under the Atomic Energy Act.  Therefore, they argue, radiological
safety matters are outside of Interior's authority and expertise.  As
discussed earlier, the state and US Ecology have sued Interior.  They
have asked 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 against radiation hazards.  Thus,
the courts ultimately will decide the legality of, among other issues
raised by the litigation, Interior's position that it must
independently determine if the site is suitable for a disposal
facility. 


   CONCLUSION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

In conclusion, 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 California are viewed as an indicator of
whether the current national disposal policy can be successful.  In
the case of Ward Valley, however, Interior has not accepted the
state's findings in the area of radiological safety as adequate to
permit Interior to decide on the 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. 
Moreover, subsequent new information, such as the Academy's report,
generally favors the proposed facility. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5.1

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement.  We would be
happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the
Committee may have. 


*** End of document. ***