Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout28- Council Office CITY OF SAN BERNA! '3INO - REQUEST FC COUNCIL ACTION From: Councilman Ralph Hernandez Subject: Ward Valley Waste Issue Dept: Council Office Date: January 25 , 1993 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Recommended motion: To discuss and recommend action to be taken regarding the Ward Valley Low Level Radioactive Waste Dump. i Signature Contact person: Ralph Hernandez Phone: 333 Supporting data attached: Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No-1:29 ENERGY FACT SHEET "LOW-LEVEL" RADIOACTIVE WASTE "Low-Level" g: Radioactive Waste is one of the Irradiated Components and Pipin most misleading terms ever created. In the U.S., reactor hardware and pipes that are in continual it is all nuclear waste that is not legally contact with highly radioactive water for the 20 high-level waste, some transuranic waste, or to 30 years the reactor operates. The metal trill mugs. becomes "activated' or radioactive itself from bombardment by neutrons that are released High-Level Radioactive Waste is: when energy is produced. Also called Irradiated • the irradiated fuel from the cores of nuclear Primary System Components. reactors, Control Rods: from the core of nuclear ' the liquid and sludge wastes that are left over power plants—rods that regulate and stop the after irradiated fuel has been reprocessed (a nuclear reactions in the reactor core. procedure used to extract uranium and Poison Curtains: which absorb neutrons plutonium),. from the water in the reactor core and ' the solid that would result from efforts to irradiated fuel (high level waste),pool. solidify that liquid and sludge from reprocessing. Resins, Sludges, Filters and Evaporator Bottoms: from cleansing the water that Transuranic Waste is material contaminated circulates around the irradiated fuel in the with radioactive elements heavier than uranium, reactor vessel and in the fuel pool, which holds such as plutonium, neptunium, americium and the irradiated fuel when it is removed from the curium- These elements: . core. ' have extremely long haardous lives—hundreds Entire Nuclear Power Plants if and of thousands to millions of years and when they are dismantled. This includes, for ' emit alpha radiation, a type of radiation that example, from a typical 1,000 megawatt nuclear is especially dangerous if inhaled or swallowed. reactor building floor. over.13,000 tons of Some transuranic waste Is allowed in the contaminated concrete and over 1,400 tons of "low-level" radioactive waste category. In 1983, contaminated reinforcing steel bar. when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission- . The highly radioactive and long-lived (NRC) adopted regulations on land disposal of reactor wastes are included in the Sow-level" radioactive waste (10CFR61), it increased the waste category along with the much less .allowable concentration of nansuranics in concentrated and generally much shorter-lived 'low-level" radioactive waste- wastes from medical treatment and diagnosis Uranium Mill Tailings resulting from mining and some types of scientific research, and milling uranium for weapons and RADIOACTIVE CONCENTRATION vs commercial reactors, are not usually included in VOLUME the 'low-level" waste category, but may be handled with it in some states. 'The large The nuclear industry and government commonly volumes of these wastes, which will emit describe Sow-level' waste in terms of volume radiation for centuries, pose serious health although there can be a tremendous problems. concentration of radioactivity in a small package WHAT IS "LOW- and a small concentration in a big package. I-E�'II and The amount of radioactivity, measured in WASTE CURIES,' indicates how much radioactive energy is being emitted by the waste. "Low-Level" Radioactive Waste includes: (' 1 Curie = 37,000,000,000 or 37 Billion Nuclear Information and Resource Service 1424 16th Street NW,Suite 601,Washington DC 20036 (202) 326-0002 PROPOSED WARD VALLEY,`-„ACA RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMP MEDIA,_ INFORMATION CONTACT LIST Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition-Phil Klasky (415) 752-8678 for general information, endangered'species 896-1981 Ward Young, Waste stream information (510) 658-2135 CALPIRG- Mary Raftery ,: < (916) 448-4516 Committee to Bridge'the:Gap=.Dan ch”Jose h p (310) 478-0820 Lyou, for information on Adjudicated, hearings and scientific backgroound on`.Tritium and the medical waste question.Y* . D Arrigo, Diane- Nuclear* nformationaand{Resource (202) 328-0002 Services, Wash. DC 'fornational;;perspective. Davis, Gray- CA State Controller aide' a .�anice (310) 446-8846 . Sihclaire for taxpayer..:.liabllityinformation. Don't Waste California, Rog.er Herded4_. r� . (41 S) 861-0592 . I .� Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Nora GarciaSteve (619) 326-4591 Lopez, Needles, CA. t 326-4810 •r Greenpeace-Sherry Meddick, Radioactive.Waste (310) 287-2210 CA Campaign Coordinator, L.A:` = . Greenpeace San Francisco-Kim Roberson. (415) 512-9025 Bill Walker Goitein, Ernest- Nuclear Engineer (415) 369-6690 Hollywood Women's Political Committee and (310) 474-7880 Americans for a Safe Future- Dana Gluckstein (over) RESOLUTION NO. 91-C45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITY IN WARD VALLEY WHEREAS, there are concerns at the prospect of a low- levP1 radioactive dump site in Ward Valley, California, thirteen miles from the Colorado River, which is a source of drinking water, and WHEREAS, being aware that low-level radioactive waste includes intensely radioactive lethal material which survives as long as tens of thousands of years, and WHEREAS, knowing that there is no safety threshold for low-level radioactive waste, and WHEREAS, we are concerned for the health not only of the citizens of Azusa, but for the entire region, and WHEREAS, recognizing that under current state law, after the 35 year contract with the United States Ecology is terminated, California would be liable for environmental damage; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. We hereby express our strong opposition to the development of the proposed site and call on the State Legislature to stop the proposed dump site. SECTION 2. Request further public hearings on the matter and request that new state legislation be created that would address the problem of low-level radioactive waste without endangering the health and safety of the people of Azusa. SECTION 3 . The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1991. MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Azusa, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of May, 1991, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: DANGLEIS, STEMRICH, NARANjO, ALEXANDER, MOSES NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE DEPUTY CI CtERK Disposing of Low—Level Radioactive Waste in California A Guidebook for Citizen Participation June 1990 Ij i w � Y 1 . r` Disposing of Low—Level Radioactive Waste in California A Guidebook for Citizen Participation June 1990 By Gloria Anderson League of Women Voters Southern California Regional Task Force Design and Illustrations by M.A. Parker Corporate Design Service This publication was funded by a grant from US Ecology Inc. Acknowledgements Thanks to the following for their assistance: Alison Fuller League of Women Voters of California Steve Romano US Ecology, Inc.,Auburn, CA James G.Tripodes University of California, Irvine,CA Alan Pasternak California Radioactive Materials Management Forum,Sacramento,CA Don Womeldorf Department of Health Services, Sacramento, CA Doug Romoli U.S. Bureau of Land Management,Riverside, CA a Currently, waste produced in California and the rest of the country is disposed of at three sites in Washington, Nevada, and South Carolina. These three states have objected to shouldering the entire nation's burden for safely managing these wastes. In 1983, California began efforts to site its own disposal facility in response to federal law, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA). In 1988, California joined with Arizona, North Dakota, and South Dakota to form the Southwestern Compact and agreed to be the host state for the compact's first regional disposal facility. The League of Women Voters believes that the active involvement of the public in the decision making at every stage of the siting process is one reason for the success to date of the effort to site a disposal facility in California. In 1984, the League of Low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) Women Voters Southern California Re- is produced by hospitals, universities, gional Task Force (SCRTF)published biomedical research firms, the first guidebook for citizen participa- industries, and nuclear power plants tion in the siting and development of California's low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, 'Disposing of Low-Level Radioactive Waste in California". It was made possible by a grant from the California Radioactive Materials Management Forum (CalRad Forum) and assistance from Southern California Edison. The guidebook was used in conjunction with a one-day public forum on low-level radioactive waste in San Bernardino. In 1987, the guidebook was updated with a grant from US Ecology, Inc. after the number of siting areas was narrowed to three specific sites. Since then, a site in the Ward Valley in San Bernardino County has been proposed as the project location and a license application has been submitted by US Ecology, Inc. to the State Department of Health Services. This guidebook is intended to inform citizens about the project, and about how they can participate in the environmental review and licensing processes currently in progress. It also includes basic information about radioactivity and how low-level radioactive waste is managed. Q Contents What is Low-Level Radioactive Waste? .................................................. 5 1980-1985: 7 Providing the Framework—The Federal Story ...................................... 1980-1986: Meeting the Challenge—The California Story ........................................ 8 1986-1987: The Site Selection Process ..................................................................... 9 1987: Narrowingthe Choices ........................................................................ 10 1988-1991: Licensing and Environmental Review ................................................. 13 1991: After License Approval — Facility Construction ................................ 22 The 21st Century: Looking Toward the Future ................................. 25 Appendix A: Some Basics About Radioactivity .................................. 26 What Citizens Can Do ........................................................................ 27 Sources and Resources ...................................................................... 27 Glossary ............................................................................................... 28 Abbreviations ...................................................................................... 28 A Guidebook for Citizen Participation,June 1990 0 4 What is Low—Level Radioactive Waste? The low-level radioactive wastes that states are responsible for managing are defined and classified in regulations published by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and adopted by California. LLRW)is classified according to hazard level, taking into account the type of radiation emitted, the concentration (or amount) of radiation, and the half-life of individual radioactive elements (the period of time it takes for the radioactivity level to be reduced by half through decay). Class A wastes, the least dangerous, comprise over 9596 of the volume of State--managed loin-4evet the waste and will decay to acceptable levels in 100 years or less. Class radioactive tvaste does C, the most dangerous, has a 500-year hazard life. not include: k� "'I'm I.ozu--lec,el waste mveedhr q the Class C limits set hr the Typical LLRW Management of LLRW • fern niwlearpower reactor .fuel rods Generally speaking, low-level LLRW management is regulated by • Uranium miraiiig wid nidlblg radioactive waste is material that has the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis- become contaminated by radioactive sion. Regulations for the safe dis- Hih-level waste from either material used in medical practice posal of LLRW are contained in Title riuclearfa-tel repmcessiug or and scientific research, in some 10, Part 61 of the Code of Federal nuclear weapoiis pr-oductiora. industrial processes, and in nuclear Regulations, commonly known as 10 power plants. CFR 61. Other parts of Title 10 contain NRC's regulations for other Solid wastes: Discarded metal aspects of radioactive materials man- equipment and tools, construction agement. materials, glassware, used protective clothing, plastic gloves, clean—up Many waste producers have insti- rags, and paper. tuted volume reduction practices. They may use procedures to mini- Liquid or wet wastes: Aqueous so- mize contamination and maximize lutions and filtration sludges from reuse of materials in their processes, nuclear power plants which are or they may reduce the volume of solidified or packaged in absorbent waste by compaction or incineration. material before disposal. However, reducing the volume of a radioactive waste does not destroy Special wastes: Those derived the radioactivity. These wastes ulti- from research and certain manufac- mately require disposal at a licensed turing activities, such as plant and facility. animal tissues, sealed sources, and thickness gauges. 5 Before being packaged for shipment, DOT specifies three types of pack- all liquid wastes must be solidified ages for shipping radioactive materi- by combination with materials such als. The standards are intended to as concrete, asphalt or glass, or insure the integrity of the package in combined with material absorbent the event of an accident. Other Activity enough to absorb double the vol- regulations specify tie—down proce- The rate at which ume of liquid in the container. The dures, placarding to indicate radioac- radioactive material emits radiation. The common unit standard shipping containers for tive cargo, and maximum radiation of radioactivity is LLRW are 55—gallon steel drums and level limits for packages and truck- the curie. reinforced metal boxes. The label loads. All shipments of LLRW must on each package must state the be accompanied by a manifest, a content, radioactivity(in curies)and document designed to certify deliv- '' NRC classification of the package. ery to a licensed disposal site and to ensure proper handling en route. LLRW is transported by trucks No special routing is required for regulated by the U.S. Department of LLRW shipments, but interstate Transportation(DOT) and the NRC. routes and other major arteries are In California, the California Highway preferred by carriers. Patrol enforces laws and regulations regarding LLRW transport. Near-surface disposal is currently used at all existing LLRW disposal facilities. Also known as shallow land burial, it involves placing the containers of LLRW in excavated trenches. A layer of containers is covered by the amount of soil required by the license. A filled trench is covered with earth and/or clay and is marked with a permanent monument describing the contents. A monitoring system is installed at each facility. It must be capable of providing early warning of any 1 releases of radionuclides from buried wastes. Monitoring takes Place throughout the construction and operation of the facility and continues after final closure for a minimum of 100 years. o � 1980-85: Providing the Framework The Federal Story In the early 19701s, there were six commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal sites in the United States to handle the needs of industrial, utility, medical and research waste producers. By 1978 The Milestones three sites had closed, and the governors of the three remaining states with operating sites put the rest of the country on notice that they ,Tidy 1, 1986 wanted the other states to take responsibility for their own waste. State must join a compact or show intent to develop its oxvii LLRW Congress reacted. The chronology. disposal facility. 'I January 1, 1988 December 1980 Compact must name host state and Congress enacted the Low-Level South Carolina)were to remain open prepare siting plans. Radioactive Waste Policy Act (Pub- to all states through December 1992. -- - lic Law 96-573)• This act gave each To ensure progress, these states are Januan, 1. 1990 state the reponsibility for managing also allowed to levy surcharges on Appik-,iticm must he file(+ fOr license to operate glow-lei el its own low-level radioactive waste, out-of-region waste producers, waste facilit�f within the compact unless the waste was nuclear increasing from $10.00 per cubic region or state. or governor of weapons-related. It also encour- foot in 1986 to $40.00 per cubic foot non-sited state must certify that aged states to enter into multi-state which has been in effect since state will provide storage. disposal agreements called compacts to safely January 1, 1990. This now amounts or management of its own waste and efficiently manage the waste on to a surcharge of almost$300 for one Ater December.31 1992. --- a regional basis, subject to Congres- 55-gallon drum of waste,which January 1, 1992 sional approval, and it allowed a could bring the cost of disposing of Application must be filed for compact region to exclude low-level one drum of waste to over$500. license to operate a low-level wastes generated outside the region The Act also specifies certain dead- vy<iste facility within the compact from its disposal site, beginning lines that non-sited regions and regi<m or state. January 1, 1986. states must meet in their own siting � January 1, 1993 processes, called milestones, with in- if state or compact region in December 1985 creases in surcharges paid by waste which low-level waste is none,- Because of the difficulty states were producers if they are not met, up to ated is unable to provide for experiencing in siting new facilities $120 per cubic foot. Waste produc- disposal of all such waste, each � as the 1986 deadline approached, ers can also be denied access to state mull take title possession of the\vaste and assume liability for Congress enacted the Low—Level existing sites if their states fail to the waste produced in the state.. 7f Radioactive Waste Policy Amend- meet certain milestones. States and not, state's surcharge rebate will ments of 1985(Public Law 99-240), regions that meet these milestones go to waste producers in that state effective January 15, 1986. This act are entitled to a rebate of 25 percent to help them provide their own includes incentives and penalties to of the surcharges paid by their waste storage capacity. prod states and regions without producers. In California, these January 1, 1996 disposal sites to build new disposal rebates are used to defray the cost of State that has not provided for facilities. One provision of the act regulating new disposal site devel- disposal capacity is required to was that the three states with exist- opment. take title to and custody of the ing sites (Nevada, Washington, and waste from waste producers in that state. The state's failure to do so would make it liable for damage incurred by waste Note: States or compacts which meet the'86, '88, and 90 milestones and the'93 deadline receive a rebate producers. of 25 percent of the surcharges paid by their waste generators. There is no surcharge rebate a,,�()ciated with the 92 milestone. 7 1980-1986: Meeting the Challenge The California Story California has proceeded with development of a disposal facility in response to the federal directive. It has met all the milestones and has certified that it will provide for the low-level waste generated within its borders. Two pieces of legislation provided the framework for California's response to the federal legislation. 1982 The Legislature enacted Assembly regulations, for LLRW disposal. The Bill 1513(Torres) This urgency Governor was directed to negotiate legislation took effect upon being compacts or agreements with other signed by Governor Edmund G. compacts to establish or maintain Brown,Jr. The act directed the access to existing LLRW facilities for Department of Health Services California's wastes. (DHS)to: • Study the feasibility of reducing 1984 LLRW generation. DHS adopted regulations for selec- • Plan for interim storage of LLRW in tion of the license designee and for case California was barred from disposal of LLRW, and completed existing disposal sites before the state—wide regional screening building its own site. which identified the southeastern • Develop screening criteria for a part of the state as the largest area land disposal site, and survey the warranting further study. state to identify regions most likely to meet the criteria. �:`. ' - • Levy fees on waste producers to 1985 pay for these activities,and fund US Ecology, Inc. posted a $1,000,000 t r x interim storage facilities if needed. performance bond and accepted " : H t • Appoint an expert committee to license designee status. advise DHS on LLRW management, disposal, classification and health 1986 effects. US Ecology began the site selection process. ' 1983 ''.'.'. The Legislature enacted Senate Bill 342(Alquist) This urgency legisla- tion was signed by Governor George �r. Deukmejian. It established a proce- dure for selecting a private com- ,:.7 pany, called a license designee, to site, construct and operate the state's permanent disposal facility.- P P �. It also -`` directed DHS to adopt emergency regulations, consistent with federal 8 l 1986-87: The Site Selection Process An independent site selection citizens advisory committee was formed to assist in narrowing a list of 18 desert basins in the Mojave Desert to 3 to S specific sites for detailed field studies. The League of Women Voters Southern California Regional Task Force received a grant from US Ecol- ogy to support committee activities. Twelve citizens were appointed to Committee members were provided serve on the Citizens Advisory Com- with background information from a mittee (CAC). Two members were variety of sources, including US appointed by the Boards of Supervi- Ecology and its support contractors, The Steps in Site Selection: sors of each of the three study local, state and federal agencies, the o Identif}'Siting ISSlles counties of Inyo, Riverside, and San League of Women Voters, the o lDrfinc Siting Ohjecti\es Bernardino. The League of Women Ca1Rad Forum, and the Desert and Critcri"i o Lank Siting Criteria Voters appointed three members, Studies Consortium. Inipc�3t�ince one from each of the study counties. o Rate t uu!idate Sites using The other three members were Three rounds of public workshops the Criteria appointed by the Sierra Club, the were also held in various locations in Native American Heritage Commis- the three counties to involve the sion, and the Ca1Rad Forum. general public directly in the site selection process. These meetings For further information about An independent non—voting con- were organized and conducted by this first phase of the site venor/facilitator selected by the US Ecology with advice from the selection process, contact League of Women Voters conducted CAC. DHS representatives attended the meetings of the CAC to ensure as observers. Public input was Gloria Anderson that all viewpoints were heard and considered by the CAC in making its League of Women voters considered and that the committee recommendations. In addition, Box 1662 focused on its assigned tasks. The meetings were held with govern- Crestline, CA 92325 CAC met six times from June 1986 ment agencies to obtain input on through January 1987. During this development and application of site first phase of site selection, members selection criteria. progressed through a series of steps to eventually recommendin g P re- 1987 . ` ferred siting areas to US Ecology. US Ecology announced the selection of three sites for further study in the Ward, Silurian, and Panamint "`~�:f w•�c:-. • ���r `• • ,y, Valleys. r 4 r r " • ' � •.ire. .:. :�:'._:.r':++-.,�;• .Ste.>5:,= t:+r:�_.;'.4 r ,.: :.. •.,: . • . � 1987: Narrowing the Choices The steps in the siting process that remained after the list of eighteen desert basin sites narrowed to three sites included detailed site charac- terization, selection of a single preferred site, and the formal licensing and environmental review processes for that site. The site characterization phase of site after it begins accepting waste. the siting process began in early Detailed surveys of the area were 1987, after US Ecology announced also conducted to identify any the selection of three sites for further unmapped earthquake faults, land study: Ward Valley near Needles and use patterns, archaeological sites, Silurian Valley near Baker in San historical resources, plant species, Bernardino County, and Panamint and wildlife habitats. Valley in southern Inyo County, north of Trona. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) continued in an advisory role Detailed field investigations were during this second phase of site undertaken to determine the engi- selection. In addition, a local com- neering, geologic and hydrologic mittee was formed for each of the characteristics important to the three candidate sites. Each Local performance of the site as a secure Advisory Committee(LAC)was repository for LLRW. Weather comprised of members reflecting a conditions, surface and groundwater representative cross—section of their movement, and natural background communities, independently chosen radiation were monitored for one by local organizations. year. Surface water runoff and flash—flood patterns were closely In each candidate site area, LAC evaluated. Samples of soil, water, members played a key role in animals and plants were collected bringing local concerns to US Ecol- and tested. These studies provide ogy's attention. The committees also baseline data for comparison with helped to assess the extent of local data which will be collected by impacts which might occur because monitoring systems at the disposal of the disposal facility and to explore E desirable means of minimizing or compensating for these impacts. In addition, the LACs assisted US Ecology in planning public meet- ings,workshops, and inspection tours of the candidate sites and the company's operating disposal site near Beatty, Nevada. Finally, each LAC contributed findings on the local candidate site to assist US Ecology in choosing a proposed site for licensing. 10 0 0 CAC meetings during this phase Since the announcement of the were coordinated with meetings of preferred site, the Local Advisory the local advisory committees. CAC Committee for the Ward Valley site meetings focused on formation of has continued to meet to advise on March, 1988 the local committees, site characteri- public involvement needs as well as US Ecology designated zation, and rating of the three to comment on the company's work the Ward Valley site as the candidate sites. in evaluating environmental impacts proposed project location. and finalizing disposal site layout In March, 1988, US Ecology desig- and engineering design plans. nated the Ward Valley site as the Initially, the Ward Valley LAC con- proposed project location. This decision was based on the results of sisted of individuals nominated by site characterization studies and the City of Needles, the Needles input from the four citizens advisory Chamber of Commerce, the Needles committees, members of the public Unified School District, the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, and the Sierra and government agencies. (For Club, as well as three members details, see "Final Report to US Ecology on the Low—Level Radioac- living in Essex and Goffs, communi- ties near the site. Later, in order to tive Waste Disposal Site Selection expand local representation a Citizens Advisory Committee" or member of the Needles Business contact Gloria Anderson, League of and Professional Women and a Women Voters, Box 1662, Crestline, local physician were added. The CA 92325.) CAC member from Needles was also asked to join the LAC. Locations of proposed Ward Valley site and alternative Silurian Valley site Las Vegas map Are Shoshone• INYO COUNTY Tecopa Ridgeaest SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Silurian Valley site'•.• 178 Mountain•'•. t+ Pass\ 127 Searchlight as I.'-``cG r4Py�to p9 Oq Kingman Baker Lan tiiy'•. z Bullhead City Laughlin Z:: J Riviera f 58 Barstow GOfls W ., Mohave Valley ........................... ° Topeka an Fenner 'Need ` r d Ludlow Q5 Sany Fe ao and Vagey site `�vr�av pp Victorville Amboy W w: J: W; 15 2 95 <i yy 1 0:.. an Bernardino Twentyn ine Palms 10 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY e2 ....... ..'............ .:�••: ......... ....................._..._......... ................................................... RIVERSIDE COUNTY an•: i Riverside ,;D * Proposed Site Irby _z E of Alternative Site 15 215 Desert Center D •:Z 0 Miles 30 10 Blythe 11 All meetings of the LAC are open to The compact legislation specifies the public. Time is provided on the that surcharges imposed on waste agenda for public comment and producers in each of the states in the questions. Meeting notices are compact must be sufficient to estab- Compact placed in the local paper and an- lish funds for various purposes, An agreement entered into by two or more states nounced on the local radio station. including a local government reim- to provide regional bursement fund to compensate local disposal facilities for LLRW The Southwestern Compact government for any costs or in- under federal laws. Another important development in creased burdens in providing public Congressional approval 1987 was passage by the California services. These expenses might provided the legal authority Legislature of Assembly Bill 1000 include fire protection, monitoring to deny access to the (Peace),which ratified the Southwest- by local health officials, and improv- California disposal site ern Low-Level Radioactive Waste ing emergency response prepared- from outside the Disposal Compact. Other member ness related to hosting the disposal Southwestern Compact region. states are Arizona, North Dakota, and facility. South Dakota. The compact was approved by Congress in November, The Commission may establish 1988 (Public Law 100-712). Under committees to advise them on the this agreement, California will pro- disposal and management of radio- vide the Compact's disposal facility active waste. Such committees could for the first 30 years. provide an opportunity for discus- sion of local community concerns The Southwestern Compact Commis- about currently unresolved issues sion is responsible for ensuring that such as acceptance of out-of- low-level radioactive wastes are compact waste. DHS has indicated safely and efficiently disposed of and that it will continue seeking guid- managed in the region. However, the ance from the Ward Valley Local Commission will not regulate the Advisory Committee. safety of the disposal facility itself. This is the responsibility of the Because of the difficulty of establish- Department of Health Services (DHS). ing new disposal facilities in other The Commission must meet at least parts of the country, questions have once a year, and otherwise as busi- arisen concerning acceptance of ness requires. Membership will waste from outside the compact. consist of one voting member from The compact allows the Commission each of the four states in the compact, to enter into an agreement to import appointed by the governor of each LLRW if the agreement is approved state. The host county is also entitled by a two-thirds vote of the Commis- to one voting member. California's sion, and if the Commission and the governor is entitled to appoint DHS favorably assess the facility's additional members to give California ability to handle additional wastes at least 51%of the membership of the and any relevant environmental or Commission. Meetings of the Com- economic factors. mission are subject to California's open meeting and public records laws. 12 1988-1991: Licensing and Environmental Review �l After studying the Ward Valley and Silurian sites in detail, US Ecology published a Proponent's Environmental Assessment(PEA) in August, .;. 1989. The Silurian site was studied as an alternative site. In late 1989, the company filed an application with the Department of Health Services (DHS) to construct the facility at the Ward Valley site. DHS z subsequently deemed the application ready for detailed review. Public Comment on Environmental Impact Studies DHS has conducted informal work- The Environmental The Draft EIR/S is expected shops on topics related to the state's Review Process to be issued in June 1990, regulatory role and will prepare an The California Environmental followed by public Environmental Impact Report(EIR) Quality Act(CEQA) requires all state bearings in July. to support its licensing decision. In and local agencies to consider the July 1990, DHS will hold public hear- environmental effects of a proposed ings to provide information and project and to reject it if alternative The opportunities for public receive comments on the Draft EIR measures are available and feasible comment/and or testimony and US Ecology's license application. to significantly reduce the project's include: The U.S. Bureau of Land Manage- impact on the land, air, and water. o Written comment on the ment(BLM)will also be involved in As the state government agency with Draft FIR,S the environmental review process primary responsibility for licensing o Written or orai testimony at because the project involves a the facility, DHS is the lead agency I)LINic hearings transfer of federally—owned land to for carrying out CEQA's provisions the state. As a result, BLM will also and will prepare an EIR. Because participate in the hearings. the project involves a transfer of federally—owned land to the state, Lead agency A final joint environmental impact the National Environmental Policy Government agency with primary responsibility report/statement(EIR/S) is expected Act(NEPA)requires an Environ- forpermitting a project and to be issued in the fall of 1990. If mental Impact Statement(EIS), for for issuing an EIR or EIS. the license is approved and issued in which the BLM is the lead agency. early 1991, construction of the facility could begin in mid-1991 and The purpose of an EIR/S is to iden- waste disposal operations could tify any significant environmental begin the end of that year. effects of a proposed project, to establish mitigation and compensa- tion measures to avoid or offset such effects, and to evaluate alternatives to the project as proposed. 13 The EMS must address waters of the state. Other respon- the following topics: sible agencies are the California De- Significant environmental effects of partment of Fish and Game(DFG) the proposed project, including and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife cumulative impacts, if any. Service, because the proposed site is • Mitigation measures Mitigation measures to minimize in desert tortoise habitat. (The desert adverse effects. Changes or additions • Significant environmental effects tortoise receives special protection to a proposed project that cannot be avoided the because it is designated as a threat- intended to avoid, reduce government.) d f h d an the federal i or compensate a proposal is implemented. ened species by the State of Califor- • for significant adverse Reasonable alternatives to the n g environmental effects. proposed project that might feasibly Both agencies will issue biological attain the objectives of the project, opinions concerning project impacts including the"no project" alterna- on the tortoise. DHS convened an Responsible agency tive. Any public agency • ad hoc working group to discuss The relationship between local these impacts and possible miti a other than the lead agency P P g - with permitting authority short-term uses of the environment tion which could be recommended. and the maintenance and enhance for some aspect of ment of long-term productivity. (See Impacts/Mitigation page 19.) the project. • Any significant irreversible environ- mental changes which would be Air quality reviews must be con- Interested agency involved if the proposed project ducted. These are to be performed Any government agency should be implemented. by the San Bernardino Air Pollution whose jurisdiction might be • Any growth-inducing impacts of the Control District. affected by a project. proposed project. Interested agencies are those that The EIR/S Process have no permitting authority for the A contractor has been selected to project but whose jurisdictions might assist DHS and BLM in preparing a be affected, including city, county, document designed to satisfy the state and federal agencies. The City requirements of both CEQA and of Needles is an interested agency. NEPA. In June 1988, DHS issued a Notice of Preparation to other Following notification of the respon- agencies that an EIR/S is in prepar- sible and interested agencies, scop- ation. These agencies include those ing meetings were held to solicit that issue permits for some aspect of agency and public concerns and to the project(responsible agencies) identify important issues to be and those whose jurisdictions might covered in the EIR/S. In June 1988, be affected, including city, county, DHS held a meeting of federal, state state and federal agencies (inter- and local government agencies in ested agencies). Ontario. BLM held public scoping meetings in Riverside, Barstow, The Colorado River Regional Water Baker, and Needles in May and June Quality Control Board is a respon- of 1989 to obtain public input. sible agency because of the need to establish waste discharge require- Upon completion of the Draft EIR/S, ments to ensure that operations at as the lead state agency, DHS will the facility do not adversely affect file a Notice of Completion and give public notice of the availability of the Draft. As the lead federal v w, agency, BLM will file a Notice of Availability of the Draft. There is a M, public review period of not less than 14 0 0 45 days for CEQA(60 days for of the availability of the document NEPA) for agencies and the public to must be sent to organizations and to submit comments on the adequacy anyone requesting such notice. of the document. Since this is a joint Comments from individuals and document, the longer time will agencies must be received by the apply. The lead agencies must lead agency within 60 days after the Copies respond to each comment received document is released for review. of the Draft EIR/S and during this period, and all comments supporting documents are included in the Final EIR/S. The Comments should address: will be available final document is considered by the • The adequacy of the document:Are for review at. lead agencies in deciding whether all important issues included? Is the San Bernardino the project should be approved. analysis of each issue sufficiently County Library detailed? This is the time to point 10,i West Fourth St. To approve the project,they must out if more information is needed, PP P l e3' so that it can be included in the final San Bernardino, CA 92'115 make one of the following findings: document. County Library o The project has been changed to • The alternatives:Have alternatives Needles Branch mitigate or avoid significant been seriously explored? What are 1111 Bailey Street environmental effects. the relative merits of each? Are any Needles, CA 92363 o The needed mitigation measures of the alternatives preferable to the County Library cannot be required by the lead proposed project? Barsto��° Branch agency,because they are subject to • Mitigation measures:Are the pro- 30J East Buena Vista the jurisdiction of another agency. posed measures acceptable?Are Barsto\v, CA 92311 O Specific economic, social or other there others that might also be factors render the mitigation considered? Department of measures or project alternatives Health Services identified in the final EIR/S in- The final document must address 714 P St..,Koom 616 feasible. Sacraments}, CA 95814 issues raised in the scoping or Draft U.S. Bureau of Land EIR/S comment periods. After the If the project is approved, DHS will final EIR/S is released, the public Management file a Notice of Determination and California Desert District may make further written comments BLM will sign a Record of Decision 1695 SprLice Street g on any inadequacies within 30 days Riverside, CA 92507 (ROD)to approve conveyance of the after its release. US Ecology Inc. land to California. 800 W. Broadway, SUite E Appeals Needles, CA 92363 Public Comment on the EIR/S Both CEQA and NEPA allow citizens American Ecology The Draft EIR/S will be issued in to take legal action if they believe Corporation June 1990, followed by public that the environmental review 30423 Oiiwood St.. Suite 201 hearings in July. document or the lead agency does Aooura Nibs, CA 91301 not comply with these acts. The The opportunities for public comment/and or testimony include: lawsuit must be filed within 30 days -- - o Written comment on the Draft after the Notice of Determination is EIR/S filed. O Written or oral testimony at public hearings The lead agencies must circulate the Draft EIR/S to other government agencies and make it available to the public through local public libraries or other document locations. Notice 15 Project Description The proposed site for California's low-level radioactive waste disposal facility is located in San Bernardino County near the northern end of the Ward Valley in southeastern California's Mojave Desert. It is south of Interstate 40 at the Water Road exit, 22.5 miles west of Needles, California. Because the site is on federal land managed by the Bureau Fenced of Land Management, the federal government would convey the one Area thousand acre project site to California. I The proposed disposal facility Five disposal trenches would be / would consist of contained within a 70—acre square / • A 70—acre square fenced area within area, to make the most efficient use Fenced which controlled disposal opera- / Flood tions will take place. of space and to minimize surface IDisposal disturbance. \Control Area • An adjoining fenced support area of I 7.6 acres containing parking areas, \ m fuel and water tanks,utilities, an ad- There would be one trench design \ _'`, ministration building and a shop for Class A waste, the least danger- \ .o` building. ous type of LLRW, and another \ • A series of small surface drainage design for Class B and C waste, diversion berms to the west of the which are more dangerous types of disposal area. LLRW. Four trenches are planned • A higher surface drainage protection for disposal of Class A waste, which berm around the fenced area. is expected to account for more than ,� • A meteorological and air quality %of the the waste disposed L Fee, station,five groundwater monitoring 95 p ose d of at the site. There would be only one wells and additional environmental monitoring stations. trench for both Class B and C waste. Proposed Facility Design US Ecology is proposing to develop The Department of Health Services each Class A trench on a continuous, (DHS)has required certain modifica- progressive basis. Each of the five tions of the disposal technology, trenches would be excavated in based on a technical study of design phases and backfilled as the waste is g enhancements prepared for DH put in the trench. All trenches Sb P P Y Ebasco, a consulting engineering would include 20 feet of soil backfill firm. DHS required the enhance- between the buried waste and the ments to address public concerns original ground surface when the and to provide an increased level of trench is completed. The single confidence that both the public and Class B and C trench would also be the environment will be protected. excavated as needed and backfilled The disposal facility design is based as waste is placed, with a cover on this guidance. depth of 20 feet. Space would be provided for safe maneuvering of heavy equipment and waste shipments into the trench 16 4 Detail of support area and subsequent unloading, place- ment and backfill. A working Fence Parking distance of approximately 200 feet between disposed waste and exca- Guard Station vation areas would be maintained to at Main Gate ensure worker safety and provide ° sufficient working room for excava- Operations tion and backfilling operations. Water Tank Truck I Trench Excavation Spoils Dispo- Staging I sition: The size of the initial trench I excavations was based on the Shop amount of spoils (excavated earth) y' that would be generated, and the various uses for these spoils at the co •Gasoline m I time of site construction and prepar- Q Diesel ~ ation for initial receipt of wastes. As Ia rule, the spoils pile would not exceed 10 feet in height to minimize I dust production. Spoils would be I reduced gradually as trenches are Op backfilled. I I o Feet 400 Flood Protection Berm: A flood diversion berm designed to with- -- --- - - - stand the probable maximum flood [Detail of disposal area would be constructed within the 70-acre fenced disposal area. Ex- cept for the riprap (loose rock or stones)on the outer slope, the berm / 9 MW-4 would be constructed with the material removed for the initial Limit of Trench Area trench excavation. I Trench 5 Class"A" i External Flow I I Riprap would be imported from Break-Up Berms 1- ------- ------ —� 10 High Temporary Trench 4 I off—site commercial borrow sources. Spoil Pile Ramp Class"A" I As the trench is covered,the area en- - closed by the berm would be filled. Excavation I Trench 3 i Eventually, the berm would form 60'Deep I i class•A" I part of a four-foot-thick cover over the entire disposal area. Approxi- Excavation Trench 2 1 N 42'Deep class"A" mately 15 low berms would also be placed up-gradient(west)of the + \ Trench 1 i facility to slow and distribute rainfall & — Class"B" "C" } runoff. Spoils from trench excava- tion would be used to create these 0 berms. W-2 � M Meteorological MW-1 Station o 1000 Facility Fencing: The controlled • MW=Monitoring Well I I I disposal area and the area contain- Feet ing various support facilities would �- ------- - - -- -- be surrounded by an eight-foot- 17 high chain link fence topped by a The shop building would house the three—strand barbed—wire outrigger facility maintenance and repair and skirted with hardware cloth. areas, operations supervisor's office, The three—foot—high hardware cloth equipment and parts storage, main- skirt is designed to restrict wildlife tenance and cleaning supplies, and access into the fenced facility. It employee locker and shower rooms. would be buried one foot beneath Disabled equipment would be grade to resist burrowing animal in- towed from the disposal area into trusion and constructed of one—inch the shop for repair through a gate mesh to prevent above—ground adjacent to the shop building. Ra- I intrusion. dioactive materials would not be handled in the shop building. To prevent ravens or other predatory birds from perching, the top of the A 20,000—gallon steel water storage perimeter fence would be electrified, tank for fire protection and dust using a battery—operated agricultural control would be located in the fence charger with solar recharging. support area near the shop building, The charge would not be strong a few feet above the ground. It enough to cause serious injury to a would contain non—potable water bird or any other living thing that from a well on the site. (Bottled touches it, including man. drinking water would be brought to the site for drinking.) The fenced support area would occupy approximately 7.6 acres ad- Communications would be provided joining the disposal area. Buildings through a line—of--sight microwave within this area would include the communications link. An antenna on shop, administration building, and the ground would be directed at an the guard station for security person- existing microwave relay tower near nel located at the main entry gate. Searchlight, Nevada. This area would also contain gaso- line, diesel fuel and water tanks and Electrical power would be brought parking areas. underground to the site from South- ern California Edison's Camino The one—story administration build- Substation approximately 1.2 miles ing would house the receiving office, to the north. Emergency back—up health physics inspection station, power would be available to ensure decontamination shower, radiation that the essential tasks are carried safety office, state inspector's office, out. Radiological sensing instru- mechanical room, work and storage ments essential for facility operation room, drivers' lounge, and data would have battery power capabili- processing room. ties. Since there is no sewering authority in the vicinity of the facility, a septic tank and subsurface disposal system x- r would be installed on the site for \ sanitary waste. Non—radioactive solid waste generated at the site (e.g. office paper, shipping materials, food waste)would be taken to the City of Needles Municipal Landfill for disposal. I Key Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures The Proponent's Environmental Assessment(PEA) contains the findings from US Ecology's study of impacts on the environment that are likely to result from the project. US Ecology's evaluation will be independently studied by DHS and BLM in preparing their joint EIR/S. The project as presented in the PEA is not expected to result in significant adverse environmental effects because of extensive measures taken to minimize impacts. These findings will be open for comment at upcoming hearings and during the comment period on the Draft EIR/S. The PEA addresses concerns raised during the siting process. Key areas addressed include desert tortoise and other wildlife impacts, transportation safety, emergency response preparedness, Native American cultural resources, dust and air quality impacts, and visual resources. Following is a summary of these key impact areas and meas- ures proposed to mitigate their effects. Wildlife: The desert tortoise, a protected species, is the major _ wildlife concern because the site is in desert tortoise habitat which would be lost for up to 130 years. However, there would be benefits to the tortoise from proposed mitiga- tion measures. Impact reduction measures were developed in consultation with the ad hoc working group convened by DHS. The working group consisted of representatives of BLM, California Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wild- life, San Bernardino County, South- ern California Edison, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, and f US Ecology and its consultants. 1V lit.• ��TC`_a'Y '}S'.., � t'r.t 111 �...� 19 Tortoise mitigation Transportation: The public has ex- measures include: pressed concern about the safety of • Protective fencing on each side of transporting LLRW. The current I-40 traversing Ward Valley, as well means, regulations, and procedures as disposal facility fencing which for transporting LLRW would not would include a barrier to prevent tortoises from burrowing beneath change as a result of the project. the fence. Tortoises may then travel Although the potential for highway safely beneath the freeway and re- transportation accidents exists, the colonize the area directly next to it. risk would be somewhat reduced The top strands of the facility fence would be electrified to discourage because trucks would be travelling perching by ravens and other fewer miles than they now do, since predatory birds. the site would be closer to the pro- i • Relocation of about 20 tortoises from ducers than the current disposal sites the project site to a site north of the are. About 15 trucks per week would freeway. be travelling to the site- 14 travelling • Published studies on the success of east through Barstow on I-40 and the freeway fencing effort and one travelling west from Arizona relocation program which would be through Needles on ISO. No trans- available to interested individuals ortation accidents involving releases and agencies. p g • 15 MPH speed limits posted on the of LLRW are known to have occurred facility access road and individual in California. truck escorts arranged during times when the tortoise is active. The facility would also be prepared • Burying new electric transmission to respond to emergencies. US lines that supply power to the Ecology has proposed that San facility,thus eliminating poles that Bernardino County hire a half-time could provide perches for predators. emergency response preparedness • Use of five-foot-high earthen coordinator funded by disposal berms during the operations phase revenues. Free training would also to reduce noise from heavy equip- ment operation. be provided to local hospitals and emergency response organizations • A worker education program and monitoring equipment provided stressing the legal protections where necessary. afforded the tortoise and measures to minimize impacts to the tortoise and its habitat. Worker Safety: The California • Keeping records of any incidents facility's comprehensive training and involving injury or death of qualification program would be tortoises. based on programs utilized at US • Containment of all food wastes and Ecology's existing disposal facilities. other substances in a closed area to avoid attracting predators. US Ecology would employ a full-time safety staff consisting of a radiation Another wildlife concern raised was safety officer and up to three techni- that mountain sheep attempting an cians. Safety training would be per- east-west crossing of Ward Valley formed continuously and emergency near the site may be diverted or drills would be conducted at least discouraged from continuing by the three times yearly. Quality Assurance presence of the facility. However, audits would include quarterly i because the site is near a busy radiation safety audit and general freeway, sheep would probably not industrial health and safety audits be crossing the Ward Valley in the twice a year. vicinity of the site. 20 I S equipment would include NQe Vegetation: No special industrial and radiological cautionary status plants are present at the site. boundaries and warning signs. Vegetation, primarily creosote bush Emergency response equipment scrub, dominated by burro bush, would include industrial fire extin- would be removed or damaged on guishers, a stationary water tank 90 acres until revegetation occurs. equipped with a pump and hose, a Yucca and cacti would be trans- spray—nozzle equipped watertanker, planted from disturbed areas to a foam fire extinguisher system, nurse beds for later retransplanting. earthmoving equipment, air purify- Revegetation would begin as soon as ing and supplied-air respirators, and trenches are complete using meth- radiological emergency response ods to promote re—establishment of gear. the vegetation. The goal would be to have immedi- Air Quality: Dust would be pro- ate emergency response capability at duced by equipment operation and the site. US Ecology has signed an by wind erosion of disturbed soil. agreement with "Flight for Life" To alleviate this problem, stockpiled based in Las Vegas to provide soil and berms would be stabilized helicopter ambulance service. An with chemical binder. Areas worked Emergency Response Plan would be by heavy equipment would be kept adopted and made an integral part of lightly watered, and work would be P the radiological worker and radio- suspended during high winds. Snow a logical control and safety personnel fences, moved seasonally,would be training plans. used to limit blowing dust in exca- vated areas. Cultural Resources: Although the site does not contain unique on—site Combustion emissions which would resources, it is in an area considered be produced by equipment operat- ' culturally sensitive by Native Ameri- ing on the site, by vehicles used by � . cans. Because of this concern, US workers and for transport of waste .,.. Ecology conducted extensive con- are not considered significant �..� sultation with Native Americans from enough to require mitigation be tribes known to have used the cause they would be well below region. Areas with unique re- state and federal air quality stan- :r- sources were avoided during site dards. selection. US Ecology has proposed a trail study to be undertaken with Flash Flood Control: There would Native Americans to document also be some rainfall runoff and traditional Native American use of erosion which require mitigation. Ward Valley and adjoining areas. Existing channels around the facility would be changed by slightly increased runoff diverted away from the facility. External flow break—up berms west of the disposal area are proposed to slow and break up rainfall runoff. Berms around the facility would divert runoff away from both the disposal and support _ areas toward Homer Wash. Chan- nels adjacent to the facility would be riprapped to control erosion. 21 0 Runoff on the site would include lotions, although it would be relatively minor amounts of motor oil and inconspicuous because of the other petroleum products, brake low-lying nature of the project and lining material, and tire residue from the prominence of existing electrical vehicles travelling to and from the transmission towers and a substation facility. Most of this material would nearby. be retained in surface soils on the site as runoff infiltrates. (This is a To reduce the visual impact of the small amount compared to the project, spoils piles height would be amount of similar material found in limited to 10 feet. Neutral colors, runoff flowing to Homer Wash from non-glare paint finishes, and corru- the freeway.) Any spills from fuel gated metal buildings would reduce tanks on the site would be confined glare and reflections from buildings. in the concrete basins containing the Electrical power lines would be tanks and collected. buried underground. Minimal night lighting, directed toward buildings, Scenic Values: Primary visual im- would be used. Dust control meas- pacts would be changes in the ures would reduce dust plumes. texture of vegetative cover and Solar panels would be oriented potential for color contrasts and south, away from the freeway. ` glare from vehicles at the site. The facility would be seen from the freeway by travelers in both direc- 1991 After License Approval Facility Construction Following license approval, US Ecology would begin construction of the disposal facility. This phase is expected to last six to eight months. About Local contractors four months would be required for on—site earthmoving and construction interested in performing work activities. US Ecology will use qualified local contractors when they are during construction and available at reasonable cost. Steps in the construction phase would operation of the disposal include road improvement, site preparation,fencing, building facility are encouraged to contact US Ecology: construction,fuel tank placement and other support area construction, and initial trench excavation. Rob Rittenberg Facility Manager Environmental monitoring would plus a fair profit. In addition, the US Ecology,Inc. 800 W. Broadway, Suite E continue during the operational state would impose a charge to Needles, CA 92363 period. Groundwater monitoring cover licensing and monitoring equipment and air monitoring instru- expenses, long term post-closure mentation are already in place. maintenance, local government services reimbursement, and mitiga- Fees charged to waste producers tion and compensation requirements would be set by DHS to enable US established through the environ- Ecology to recover its investment mental review process. 22 0 4 The Department of Health Services Non—combustible mixed wastes are (DHS)would review as—built plan being held in interim storage where drawings and also inspect the facility they are produced until it is decided to ascertain that conditions of license how the compact's mixed wastes approval and the final EIR/S had will be handled. If the Ward Valley The annual disposal volume been met. LLRW disposal site is designated as is estimated to be between 125,00 150,000 cubic feet of California's mixed waste disposal LLRW,, most of it Class A waste. Facility Operation facility, a new and separate licensing This would be enough to The Southwestern Low—Level Radio- and permitting process would be re- cover a football field to a depth of active Waste Disposal Compact quired, including environmental about 3 feet each year. specifies that the site would operate review under the California Environ- for 30 years. During this time, mental Quality Act(CEQA). trenches would be developed,waste would be disposed of, and environ- What is Mixed Waste? mental monitoring would take place About 3 to 5%of all commercial on a scheduled basis. low—level waste is mixed waste, which is LLRW that also contains Mixed Waste hazardous wastes. (Hazardous The license application filed by US wastes are largely the by—products of Ecology for the Ward Valley facility industrial processes employing does not include disposal of mixed chemicals.) waste. Mixed wastes are no longer being accepted at the three existing Examples of mixed waste: LLRW disposal sites in Washington, • Liquid scintillation wastes(small South Carolina, and Nevada. vials containing organic solvents used in medical research)-the The majority of LLRW(in curies) in the Southwestern Compact most common type of mixed is from medical sources. waste. Nuclear • Discarded lead used to shield Powar Industry Plants workers from radiation. (non-medical) 6.2% • 10.0% Wastes containing corrosion Academic inhibitors used at power plants. <0.1% Government • Contaminated cleaning solvents and 47� waste oils. A recent DHS survey found that N ;• ��1c,-_'• there are about 136 producers of mixed waste producing approxi- mately 21,000 cubic feet of this waste annually. Approximately 13,000 cubic feet of liquid scintilla- tion wastes are incinerated at out—of—compact facilities. A small amount is disposed of as hazardous waste after it is held for decay of the radioactive hazard. The remaining waste is classified as organics, Mad low 7e.0% metals, or other inorganics. Federal treatment requirements are expected to result in reduction of the volume eligible for disposal to only about 800 cubic feet per year(roughly 100 barrels). Source: Disposal site shipment records 23 There are differences in how and cation including mixed waste by the when radioactive and hazardous January 1, 1990 milestone, the wastes are regulated and differences CMWMP is the cornerstone for the in the technical requirements for Governor's certification that the state disposal. Radioactive waste is regu- is capable of providing for, and will lated by the Nuclear Regulatory provide for management of all Commission(NRC), while hazardous low—level waste generated within its waste is regulated by the Environ- borders requiring disposal after mental Protection Agency(EPA). December 31, 1992. (See Mile- The conflicting approaches of the stones, page 7) Citizens interested in NRC and EPA have created practical following the mixed waste issue issues regarding disposal of mixed Management options are based on are encouraged to contact the waste. Since LLRW sites were consideration of treatment and ! Department of Health Services and request that they be kept designed and built to meet NRC disposal options, storage needs, informed on the state's rather than EPA rules, none have regulatory context, and the state of evolving plans. plastic liners. the art in technology development. Another consideration is the cost of These options are: developing a mixed waste disposal • Treatment,storage, and disposal in facility for only about 100 barrels a California. year. Disposal costs would be very • Export of Southwestern Compact high, and they would become higher waste to a different compact region if the amount of waste disposed was for management. further reduced. The need for a • Storage and disposal in California mixed waste facility may not exist in with treatment elsewhere. the future. However, once built, the • Treatment,storage, and disposal in long-term environmental monitoring California with annual evaluation of continuing need. and financial obligations of such a • Treatment of all mixed waste to facility would remain. remove the hazardous component prior to disposal. In December 1989, the DHS released a Conceptual Mixed Waste Manage- California will continue to plan for ment Plan(CMWMP) The purpose its own treatment, storage, and of the plan is to support California's disposal facilities until such a course commitment to provide for the nec- of action is demonstrated to be no essa rY management of its mixed g longer prudent. An alternative waste. The provisions of the South- course of action will then be devel- western Compact require that the oped and approved by the Gover- needs of the other states in the nor, or his designee, describing the compact be considered. Since Cali- reasons for the change and how fornia did not receive a license appli- California would carry out its con- tinuing responsibilities under the federal law. 24 The 21st Century: Looking Toward the Future Facility Closure A closure and stabilization plan, approved by DHS, would be undertaken after waste was no longer accepted for disposal at the site, using special funds set aside for this purpose. These funds would be The State of California collected during the site's operational life and placed in an will continue environmental monitoring and surveillance interest—bearing account to help ensure that the facility would not for a minimum of 100 years become a burden to taxpayers. after the site is closed and stabilized. During the closure phase, the final Post—Closure Observation portions of the disposal area cap and Maintenance would be completed, and the entire US Ecology would remain at the site facility would be decommissioned. following completion of closure All radiation—controlled areas and activities to continue monitoring, structures would be decontaminated surveillance, maintenance of trench and decommissioned, and the caps, and revegetation of disturbed facility would be prepared for areas. This phase is expected to take long—term care. The operations three to five years, after which DHS building would be dismantled and would terminate US Ecology's removed from the facility, leaving license and the State of California the shop building as a base for would assume long—term care of the post—closure observation and main- site. tenance. It is estimated that the final volume of contaminated decommis- Institutional Control Period sioning waste would be less than ten The State of California would con- 55—gallon drums. These would be tinue monitoring, surveillance, disposed of at the facility. The maintainance of trench caps, and re- perimeter fence and certain support vegetation for at least 100 years. The facilities would remain in place. site access road would require This phase is expected to last about periodic maintenance during this one year, six months of which would time. Thereafter, the site would be involve earthmoving activities. suitable for release for unrestricted surface use. Deed restrictions would Only a small portion of the disposal document the site's status as a closed area would remain to be reclaimed disposal facility. at the time of final closure because of the continuous excavation, dis- posal and backfilling of trenches proposed as the method of operating the site. Some of the area will have been reclaimed and revegetated for as long as 20 to 25 years. 25 Appendix A: Some Basics About Radioactivity Radioactive atoms (radionuclides) are atoms that are energetically un- stable. An atom is composed of protons and neutrons (nucleus) and electrons. Each of the different nuclear weights of a particular element is called an isotope of that element; all have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. They can be stable or unstable (that is, radioactive). Their nuclei send off waves or particles that can dam- age living cells. This process of giving off radiation is called radioactive decay. It continues until a stable form is reached. Some of the radioac- tive isotopes occur naturally in the soil, such as those of uranium or radium. Others are the result of nuclear fission, as in a nuclear reactor. r Three types of radiation Each radioisotope has its own half- are emitted by radioactive atoms: life, which is the time it takes to lose 50 percent of its radioactivity by Alpha particles have 2 protons and decay. The rate of decay decreases 2 neutrons, with little penetrating with time in the same way that the power. They are easily shielded by number of atoms present decreases. paper, but if they are swallowed or Thus, the hazard due to radioactive inhaled, they can cause internal substances decreases with time. damage. The federal government has set Beta particles are electrons (electri- standards for protecting the public cally charged particles) having more against radiation. These standards penetrating power than alpha limit the amount of radiation(or particles. They are easily stopped by radiation dose)that workers or a thin sheet of metal, but they can members of the general public may also cause internal damage if inhaled receive. The goal of LLRW manage- or swallowed. ment and disposal is to keep the waste isolated from human contact Gamma rays are energy waves until its radionuclides decay to ac- having the greatest penetrating ceptable levels. power. Heavier shielding of lead, concrete or earth is needed to absorb them. Cosmic rays are a form of gamma radiation. 26 4 m� °;� '°i '! ��" 3. Understanding Radioactive Waste- Respond to opportunities g for comment, in writing or Raymond L.Murray, Battelle Press. Citizens / in person at bearings, and 505 Ave ve i 05 King Anue,Columbus, OH postpaid. 1. Get information. public meetings. Libraries and other document The Transportation of Nuclear repositories re will have copies of the 0 Meetings of the Local Advisory Materials-Theodore A.Wolff, Sandia p p Committee National Laboratories,Albuquerque, EIR/S. Information may also be NM 87185. December, 1984. Avail- obtained from US Ecology, * Public hearing on Draft EIR/S able from National Technical Service, Department of Health Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Bureau of Land Management, and • Public hearing on US Ecology's Port Royal Road, Springfield,VA other agencies. (See Sources and license application 22161. Resources.) Written comments receive the Southwestern Low-Level Radioactive 2. Ask to be on mailing lists same attention as oral comments; Waste Compact(Public Law 100-712.) for information and meeting however, the information pro- 1988• notices. vided at meetings may assist in making your Comments more Proponent's Environmental Assess- , For requests for notice of availabil- useful to the lead agencies in ment,California Low-Level Radioac- ity of the EIR/S and notices of tive Waste Disposal Project. US public hearings, contact: evaluating the project. Additional Ecology,August 1989.Available for benefits of attending and partici- review at the offices of US Ecology, pating in meetings include gaining Inc. or at libraries and public reposito- Don Womeldorf,Chief information and hearing other ries. Environmental Management Branch viewpoints. Department of Health Services 714 P Street,Room 616 San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Sacramento,CA 95814 ; Health Services (916)445-0498 385 N.Arrowhead, 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415 Doug Romoli (714)387-4646 Bureau of Land Management 1695 Spruce Street Disposing of Low-Level Radioactive Regional Water Quality " Waste in California June 1987 Riverside, CA 92507 J Control Board-Colorado River (714)276-6373 Update. Alison Fuller,League of Basin Region Women Voters Southern California 73-271 Highway 111,Suite 21 For inclusion on US Ecology's Regional Task Force. Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619)346-7491 mailing list, co ntact: "Final Report to US Ecology on the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Dis- Bureau of Land Management Connie Jewell posal Site from the Site Selection Citi- Needles Resource Area US Ecology,Inc. zens Advisory Committee. March PO Box 888 wa Suite E n Voters 800 W. Broad . Lea e of Women Broadway, 1988 League Needles,CA 92363 2 Regional Task Needles CA 6 Southern California Califomia Re o 9 3 3 Sout g 26- 8 6 ( 9)3 9 61 26-4 02 Force. Available from Gloria Ander- son, P.O. Box 1662,Crestline,CA California Radioactive Materials For information on meetings of the 92325. Management Forum Technical Director Ward Valle Local Advisory Alan Pasternak, Y rY The Nuclear Waste Primer,AHand- 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 380 Committee, contact: book for Citizens-League of Women Sacramento, CA 95814 Voters Education Fund, 1985. Avail- (916)447-1087 Gloria Anderson g able from local leagues or from League of Women Voters LWVEF, 1730 M St.,N.W.,Washing- P.O. Box 1662 ton, DC 20036. $6.00 Crestline, CA 92325 ($3.00 00 to LWV members). 27 4 Lead agency Government agency �, ��� with primary responsibility for Activity The rate at which radioac- permitting a project and for issuing tive material emits radiation. The the EIR or EIS, if required. BLM U.S Bureau of Land Manage- common unit of radioactivity is the ment curie. Low--level radioactive waste (LLRW) Material slightly or moder- CAC Citizens Advisory Committee Alpha Particle Two protons and 2 ately contaminated with radioactivity. neutrons, emitted from the nucleus of States are responsible for LLRW CEQA California Environmental a radioactive atom. Classes A, B,and C as defined in Title Quality Act 10, Code of Federal Regulations,Part Atom The smallest part of an 61.55. CFR Code of Federal Regulations element having all the chemical DHS California Department of IJ properties of that element; composed Mitigation measures Changes or p additions to a proposed project Health Services of protons and neutrons(nucleus) and electrons. intended to avoid,reduce or compen- sate for significant adverse environ DOT U.S. Department of Transport- Background radiation The expos- mental impacts. ation yure to cosmic rays and Nuclide Radionuclide, a radioactive EIR Environmental Impact Report naturally—occurring radioactive atom. elements in the earth,environment EIR/S Document combining Environ- and the human body,with some Radiation Radiant energy in the form mental Impact Report required by contribution from nuclear weapons of particles or rays. CEQA with the Environmental Impact testing. Statement required by NEPA. Radioactivity The spontaneous Beta Particle An electron, emitted emission of radiation from the nucleus EPA U.S. Environmental Protection from the nucleus of a radioactive of an atom. Agency atom. REM The standard unit of measure- LAC Local Advisory Committee Compact An agreement entered into ment of the energy imparted by by two or more states to provide radiation to man. Rem = Roentgen LLRW Low—level radioactive waste regional disposal facilities for LLRW equivalent man. under federal law. NEPA National Environmental Policy Responsible agency Any public Act Decay Disintegration of radioactive agency other than the lead agency material with an emission of energy. with permitting authority for some NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com- Half—life The period of time it takes aspect of the project. mission for radioactive activity to be reduced Scoping Early consulation by a lead by half through decay. agency with other parties for the purpose of identifying subjects to be Host state(or county) Location of analyzed in depth in a Draft EIR or LLRW disposal site. EIS. Interested agency Any government agency whose jurisdiction might be affected by a project for which an EIR or EIS is required. Isotope One of several forms of the same chemical element; all have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. 20 Notes: 29 4 Notes: 30 .'_•` is r League of Women Voters Iz l Y. O. Box 1662 Crestline,CA 92325 •.;:sue--• ... This brochure was printed on recycled paper saving , 15 trees ` 3,700 kilowatt bours of energy `s q 6,300 gallons of water 2.7 cubic yards of landfill space ;rte and reducing emissions by SSpounds of airpollutants.