Public to DOE: SRS not the place for waste disposal

Apr 20 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Anna Dolianitis Aiken Standard, S.C.

The Department of Energy held the first of nine public hearings nationwide Tuesday night in North Augusta to hear input on the Environmental Impact Statement detailing options for the disposal of Greater than Class C and GTCC-like low-level radioactive waste.

The report looks at potential impacts from constructing and operating a new facility, or using one of nine existing locations, possibly the Savannah River Site.

GTCC waste is produced from nuclear power plants, production of radioisotopes, diagnostics and treatment of cancer, oil and gas exploration and other uses.

GTCC-like waste includes DOE owned or generated low-level waste and nondefense transuranic waste.

"We appreciate the perspectives from the community," said Arnie Edelman of the DOE Office of Disposal Operations. "It's a challenge. We don't have a preferred alternative."

Edelman said that he expected to hear that the community wants waste to be taken off the 310-square mile SRS, not be brought to it.

The consensus from the 25 or so people who attended the meeting and about a dozen who spoke was that SRS is not the place for the GTCC and GTCC-like waste to be brought.

Representatives from group such as the League of Women Voters of South Carolina, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and Nuclear Watch South said that more waste being transported to SRS was not what they wanted.

SRS Citizens Advisory Board nuclear materials committee Chair Rose Hayes said she would like to see an interim storage plan for both high- and low-level waste developed involving Yucca Mountain in Nevada or the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, while new technology is developed.

Debbie Parker of Conservation Voters of South Carolina said her organization would like to see hardened on-site interim storage, and said that sending GTCC waste to SRS would go against its current mission of cleanup and footprint reduction.

Glenn Carroll of Nuclear Watch South said her organization took issue with the EIS not having a preferred alternative.

The fact that DOE will not give a preferred alternative until after the public meetings when there is no opportunity for additional public input is "just not right," Carrol said.

Public meetings will be held in eight other areas that are home to the other sites being considered before the end of June.

The other sites are: the Hanford Site in Washington; Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho; the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and the WIPP vicinity in New Mexico; and the Nevada National Security Site in Nevada.

The report is expected to be completed and sent to Congress for action by early 2012, Edelman said.

To view the EIS online, visit www.gtcceis.anl.gov.

To make a public comment, email Edelman at gtcceis@anl.gov.