Governor’s Hearing On New Nuclear Waste Brings Opposition From SC Activists

The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Conservation Voters of South Carolina, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, the South Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the League of Women Voters of South Carolina all delivered testimony against the the shipment of hot nuclear waste for “reprocessing” at the Savannah River Site (SRS).

The hearing before the Governor’s Nuclear Advisory Council in Columbia, SC was prompted by backroom  “negotiations” about terms for bringing spent fuel to the DOE’s Savannah River Site.  Speaking to The State, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability’s Tom Clements called for the secret talks to end:

The alliance’s Tom Clements said behind-the-scenes discussions now are occurring among state leaders to

Cleaning up the Cold War legacy: Speak out against plutonium in your own backyard

DOWNLOAD THIS FLYER: “Cleaning up the Cold War legacy:
Speak out against plutonium in your own backyard”. Alliance for Nuclear Accountability.

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.

A spokesperson for Governor Nikki Haley supports “processing” of spent fuel at the Savannah River Site.  That’s a thinly disguised term for reprocessing. 

Yucca Mountain in Nevada was once considered as a permanent storage site for all US nuclear waste, but the proposal was killed on scientific and political grounds.  Since the successful scuppering of the Yucca proposal,  politicians and the nuclear industry discuss “temporary” storage of nuclear waste at SRS.  But since there is no facility for permanently storing nuclear waste, storage in South Carolina would likely become permanent.  

The State article today continues:

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.

“Our country stands at a nuclear waste crossroads,” the conservation league’s Ryan Black said. “The political failure to develop Yucca Mountain has only complicated this issue further. But Yucca’s demise should not dictate that South Carolina bear the burden, yet again, of our nation’s radioactive waste.”

Many thanks to Tom Clements for helping inform, organize, and publicize the resistance the public about the secret nuclear waste proposals.

Read the full article at The State here.

Advertisements

One thought on “Governor’s Hearing On New Nuclear Waste Brings Opposition From SC Activists

  1. nuke waste is most appropriately “stored” ON SITE where it is generated AT THE COST OF THE PRODUCERS OF THE NUKE WASTE not the taxpayers of any state or our national treasury…. I testified to such a fact in Oconee, SC last Wednesday, a week ago. Furthermore I demanded the resident NRC INSPECTORS AND COMMISSIONERS devise a method to discriminate between FUKISHIMA isotopes, FORT CALHOUN NEBRASKA ISOTOPES & Oconee isotopes escaping containment facilities or nuke industry travel paths, both airborne and ground water to be continuously monitors AS OUR RIGHT TO KNOW IN SOUTH CAROLINA

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s