Opposition to bringng in more nuclear waste to South Carolina

Green groups oppose shipping hot waste to SRS The State, By SAMMY FRETWELL 7 Sept 12, – sfretwell@thestate.com Environmentalists spoke out Thursday against sending highly radioactive waste from commercial power plants to the Savannah River Site near Aiken for storage. The federal government has been trying to decide what to do with spent fuel created by the nation’s 104 atomic energy plants since President
Barack Obama chose in 2009 to abandon the Yucca Mountain, Nev., disposal site.

One option is temporarily storing the toxic refuse at federal sites
such as SRS, a sprawling nuclear weapons complex with limited public
access, until a replacement to Yucca Mountain opens.
But environmentalists say interim disposal could too easily become
permanent. At the very least, it could take decades before a
replacement facility would open, they say. Planning for Yucca Mountain
dates to the mid-80s. More than $10 billion was spent on the project,
much of the money coming from utilities that would send radioactive
spent fuel there. Utilities, which relied on ratepayers’ money, now
want to be reimbursed.
At Thursday’s Governor’s Nuclear Advisory Council meeting in Columbia,
representatives of four conservation groups said South Carolina should
resist any federal plan to use SRS for disposal, even if the plan is
considered interim.
“For too long, South Carolina has shouldered a disproportionate share
of our country’s nuclear waste,” said Debbie Parker, a representative
of the Conservation Voters of South Carolina. “We cannot endorse any
negotiations that imply consent … for SRS to serve as an interim
site for consolidation of commercial nuclear waste storage or for
reprocessing.”
Representatives from the state Sierra Club, the S.C. Coastal
Conservation League and the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability also
spoke out.
The alliance’s Tom Clements said behind-the-scenes discussions now are
occurring among state leaders to allow the disposal in exchange for
some type of jobs initiative. He did not name anyone, but said “it’s
time for those in on these discussions to reveal what they are up to”
and tell the public.
The advisory council did not take any action Thursday. The council, as
its name says, provides advice to the governor on nuclear
matters……
Environmentalists said storing spent nuclear fuel could increase the
cry for a reprocessing plant. Reprocessing is supposed to render used
fuel available for reuse in commercial plants, but conservationists
say it creates more waste and threatens the landscape…..
Green groups say used nuclear fuel, while dangerous, can be safely
kept in casks at existing power plants, rather than shipping it to an
interim site while the debate over a permanent facility rages. Of the
nation’s 104 reactors, South Carolina has seven at four places. SCE&G
is building two more reactors at its Jenkinsville power plant.
http://www.thestate.com/2012/09/07/2429793/green-groups-oppose-shipping-hot.html#.UEuQW7JlT4Z#storylink=cpy