Copyright © 2000 NLThomas
All Rights Reserved

We wish we could report a final decision about Ward Valley but the Davis administration seems reluctant to be so definitive. Still, we have good news as we near the end of this year of hard work to stop the dump once and for all. Our work would not be possible without the wonderful support from all of you who have created the movement that will finally defeat the dump and turn the threat of a nuclear waste dump into an inspiring victory. Our goal is not only to stop the Ward Valley dump, but to set a precedent so that other minority communities do not have to fight the nuclear power industry's attempts to dump their waste in some hole in the ground for future generations to contend with.

Following a victory for dump opponents in federal court last March, Governor Davis, instead of stopping the project once and for all, decided to appoint an Advisory Committee to study the issue of low-level radioactive waste disposal in California. But both the Advisory Committee (Chaired by University of California President Richard Atkinson) and the Science Panel tasked to advise the Committee is stacked with individuals with ties to the nuclear power industry. There was initial confusion as to whether the Committee was supposed to consider Ward Valley as an option. We soon cleared that up. A strong showing by dump opponents at the Advisory Committee's first meeting on November 17 in Los Angeles embarrassed Davis into sending some signals regarding his intentions. BAN Waste board member Catherine Powell, Executive Director of the Data Center, uncovered information exposing serious conflicts of interest involving Atkinson (who has received nearly $500,000 from a nuclear utility) and other Advisory Committee members. Johnathan Parfrey of Los Angeles Physicians for Social Responsibility, chosen as one of three environmentalists on the 19 member Atkinson Committee, challenged the composition of the committee and issued an effective and well-prepared challenge to Atkinson, and Nora Helton, Chairwoman of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the only Native American representative on the Committee, challenged the Committee's decision-making process and delivered an eloquent statement regarding environmental justice. The audience response was powerful as well with statements by Native American leaders and elders, a hard-hitting attack by Dan Hirsch from Committee to Bridge the Gap, and other excellent statements by Joe Lyou, Ward Young from the BAN Waste Coalition, Bradley Angel from Greenaction, Jane Williams, Laura Lake and many others. In essence, dump opponents took over the meeting and sent a strong message to Sacramento.

Davis' press secretary responded by issuing a statement that the governor is opposed to the dump project (this is the first time we have received such a strong statement from Davis' office) and Mary Nichols of the State Resources Agency stated definitively on a cable television show in LA that "there will be no dump at Ward Valley, period." Atkinson then responded with a statement that Ward Valley was "off the table" for consideration by the Committee. These are very encouraging signs although we would like a direct statement by Davis himself and a re-constitution of both the Atkinson Committee and the Science Panel since Ward Valley dump proponents are busy trying to revive the proposal.

On December 20, the Science Panel met for the first time. There are 13 members most of whom have ties to the nuclear power industry or represent the status quo on nuclear dumping with the exception of Dr. Kevin Lemley of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Ernest Goitein, environmental activist, nuclear engineer and BAN Waste Advisory Board member. Ernie Goitein gave an effective presentation on various waste isolation technologies and criticized shallow land burial and other irresponsible means of disposal. Phil Klasky and Ward Young of BAN Waste were invited to make a presentation to the Science Panel and they delivered a well-researched report that established the fact that most of the waste in the so-called "low-level" waste stream comes from nuclear power plants and that shallow land burial has failed as a method of disposal. We criticized the composition of both the Advisory Group and Science Panel and called for more balance with the addition of experts from public interest organizations. We reiterated our opposition to the Ward Valley dump and the reasons for that opposition. We raised ethical issues that the Science Panel had not considered.

The chair of the Science Panel, Dr. William Kastenberg reiterated Davis' directive that Ward Valley was off the table although some on the Panel seemed disposed to revive the proposal. We promoted a number of policy initiatives and criteria including: segregation of the waste stream separating the short-lived biotech, hospital and research waste from the long-lived and highly dangerous nuclear power waste; source reduction; generator liability and internalization of the costs of containment; zero release and isolation of wastes from the biosphere; outlaw shallow land burial; on-site storage and storage until decay at brokers for short-lived wastes; long-term storage of nuclear power wastes in highly-engineered facilities at decommissioned nuclear power plants; long-term storage of the very small amount of long-lived wastes from biotech, hospital and research wastes at decommissioned nuclear power plants; citizen oversight in siting and maintenance of containment facilities; the recognition of scientific uncertainty in the establishment of cause and effect as established by the precautionary principle; the ethical and practical necessity to keep nuclear poisons within our sphere of responsibility; make social equity and environmental justice a central role in policy development.

Many of these concepts were lost on some of the Science Panel members but it was important that we asserted them anyway. We remain concerned about the composition of the Advisory and Science panels and plan to be present at all the meetings.