Re: Editorial on Ward Valley

[Bob Hearn <rah@america.net>]

The "research" being attributed below to an F. Gregory HAYDEN should remind
anyone who has been aware of activists for a few decades of a prominent
friend of Jane Fonda from California named Tim who shared her views on
nuclear anything, as well as other issues. A quick search of the internet
confirmed the same spelling of the last name, and indicated a number of
other references for "Tim Hayden", primarily as a real estate agent in and
around Napa Valley and as an expert contact listed by the US Army Corps of
Engineers Construction Enginerring Research Laboratories Champaign,
Illinois, with the specialty of threatened/endangered species.

As little as was cited in the article, this "research" may have consisted
of musings amongst family members over Thanksgiving dinner.

At 10:49 AM 12/8/97 -0600, Mike Grissom wrote:
>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.
>
>----------
>
>
>