Editorial on Ward Valley

[Mike Grissom <mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

Radsafers,

The following editorial also appeared in the San Francisco
Chronicle on December 5, 1997 (a big day for radiation
related 1" screamers on the OpEd page!).  Should you like
to make a response, the contact information is:

	Fax for Letters to the Editor or
	Open Forum articles 415-543-7708
	mailto:chronletters@sfgate.com

Those of you who have not been following the Ward Valley saga
on radsafe may be interested in reviewing the radsafe archives.
Ward Valley is a proposed radioactive waste storage and disposal
facility in the California Mojave Desert.  The content of this
editorial is more controversial...

----------

		  More Serious Questions
	         On Ward Valley Project

 "The report suggests the Mojave Desert nuclear dump
             site may not even be needed"

FROM THE START, questions have been raised about the wisdom of
building the proposed Ward Valley nuclear waste dump in the
Mojave Desert.  It would store so-called low-level waste from
nuclear power plants, hospitals and biomedical research
facilities.

(It does not include high-level wastes such as spent nuclear
fuel rods and bomb byproducts.  Nevertheless, even the low-level
wastes require special handling and long-term isolation.)

Under the Ward Valley plan, such waste would be buried in
trenches about 20 miles from the Colorado River, a source of
drinking water for millions of people.  Serious concerns have
been raised about the technology that would be used, and about
the track record of the dump's operator, American Ecology
[formerly U.S. Ecology].  Leakage of radioactivity has been a
problem at two of the company's other dumps, in Kentucky and
Illinois.

All of these questions are legitimate, and justified the U.S.
Interior Department's descision last year (over the objections
of Governor Wilson's administration) to conduct further safety
tests before turning the federally owned site over to the
state.

Now, a new report issued this week raises another fundamental
question about Ward Valley:  Is it even needed?

The study by a University of Nebraska researcher notes the
dramatic changes in the nuclear-waste business since a group of
states agreed in the early 1980s to build a series of low-level
disposal sites.

The amount of waste -- in terms of sheer bulk -- has declined as
a result of advances in technology and an increase in recycling,
reported researcher F. Gregory Hayden.  Current dump sites, he
found, are hurting for business.

His report flatly disputed the notion -- advanced by Wilson and
other Ward Valley proponents -- that radioactive waste is piling
up in urban areas because of the lack of a safe permanent dump
site.

"New disposal sites are no longer needed, nor would they be
economically viable if built," Hayden wrote.

Senator Dianne Feinstein said the "startling" findings provide
cause for further federal scrutiny.  Congressman George Miller
called them "compelling additional grounds for opposition."
Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl said the report should be "the final
nail in the coffin."

At the very least, Hayden's report plainly suggests that Ward
Valley is not just an environmental risk.  Its economic arguments
appear to be equally shaky.

----------