2 sides to reduced nuclear waste shipmentsBy Prentiss Findlay (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Brad Nettles Barnwell County Administrator Pickens Williams Jr. said that the reduced revenue from fewer nuclear waste shipments could negatively affect police, fire and sanitation services. BARNWELL — Emily Crews grew up here, and her father worked at the Savannah River Site where they made tritium for nuclear bombs. But she's no fan of the county's legacy as a nuclear waste disposal ground for the rest of the country. It's good news that will change starting today, she said. "Thumbs up. That's what I say. We are reducing the risk for the community," said Crews, a 20-something bound for graduate school at the University of Chicago and assistant manager of The Genesis Store, an organic health foods retailer on Main Street. "I'm in favor of anything healthy." Store Manager Honor Hartzog describes herself as a long-time opponent of nuclear energy. "I think it's not a clean power," she said. City and county officials said they were worried about the Legislature's decision to accept nuclear waste from only three states, including South Carolina, instead of from the entire country. Millions of dollars will be drained from Barnwell County because of a sharp reduction in low-level nuclear waste shipments, said County Council Finance Committee Chairman Keith Sloan. City Administrator John Zawacki said he also is concerned. Layoffs at the Chem-Nuclear site, which employs 50 people, will have a ripple effect on the economy and the social fabric of the town, he said. "It has been a good thing for Barnwell," he said. Zawacki said he was general manager of the facility from 1980 to 1996. He described it as "very safe." During peak operation, about 30 tractor- trailers brought radioactive waste to the landfill near here each day. Zawacki said that will drop to about two trucks per week. This year, the landfill will accept 33,000 cubic feet of the waste, but that is expected to drop to 9,000 cubic feet, he said. Jim Latham, Chem-Nuclear vice president of disposal operations, said the changes could mean the layoff of half of the workforce in the long term, but no major changes are expected in the near future. The jobs reportedly pay some of the best wages in the county, an average of nearly $50,000 a year. Starting today, the radioactive waste shipments will be accepted only from South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut. Since the mid-1990s, the county has received $40 million and the schools have received $10 million from the landfill operators, Sloan said. The county, which has a $12.4 million operating budget, has worked to make up a $1 million shortfall in its current budget because of the reduced waste shipments. Three county school districts also have taken a combined $1 million hit, he said. Sloan said he anticipates that the drop in revenue from the landfill operators will mean the loss of as many as 25 county jobs in the next two years. The county currently has 135 staffers, he said. There are no county worker cuts in the current fiscal year budget, which runs from today to June 30 of next year. But the reduced revenue from fewer waste shipments at the landfill and sharply higher fuel costs could affect police, fire and sanitation services as well as road maintenance, County Administrator Pickens Williams Jr. said. In the current budget, the council approved a property tax increase that generated an additional $120,000 to compensate for some of the lost revenue, Williams said. "Over the years council has been reluctant to do that unless it was unavoidable. I see a lot of belt-tightening around here," he said. About one-third of the county was condemned in the 1950s to create the Savannah River Site. As compensation, the county receives $750,000 annually from the Department of Energy for lost property tax revenue, Williams said. But the county is expected to lose up to $1.5 million annually because of the landfill operations changes, he said. Reach Prentiss Findlay at 937-5711 or at pfindlay@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools
Sponsored Links |
|||
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 13 comment(s)
Posted by majorjohnson on July 1, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder how little miss healthy will feel about it at the unemployment line when those highly paid workers aren't paid anymore and peripheral business start laying off. With food prices high, and organic food prices even higher, I'd expect that store she works at will be laying folks off soon.
Posted by dwatts on July 1, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is time people stopped looking at the past in regard to nuclear energy. We have come a long way since the 70's. Engineering a safe nuclear power plant is well within our grasp, we need to stop the red tape that prohibits such projects from taking shape. I am all for a power plant that does not belch CO2, sulphur, and mercury into the air I have to breath.
Yes nuclear waste is a problem, but no more than the trash can in your house. Everyone wants a landfill..just not in their area.
I agree with Major....people will be singing a new tune in that community with all the budget cuts.
Posted by Early on July 1, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The damage is already done, the waste will not disapear so what's more waste? seems if it keeps a town going, then so be it. It's like being,,,,,half dead.
Posted by dwatts on July 1, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
An interesting read http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/rs/doc...
Posted by Pinckney on July 1, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Early has a good point. The damage is already done. Still, why do more? I was taught that when you find you have dug yourself into a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.
It's a stretch to equate a garbage landfill - much less a home trash can - with a nuclear landfill. This plant has real potential problems. The Nation has been unable to find a stabile place to put this stuff and the states are happy to keep dumping it on us. We're a poor state so ... we have to take what we can get ....?
Most states are at least a stabile as SC. Why not just keep it where it is? It's dangerous stuff anywhere so let the plants that produce it keep it.
Posted by ginj on July 1, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wasn't it at the University of Chicago where the atom was first split starting the nuclear era? Seems she has really done well with her college education.
Posted by Rebel_Yell on July 1, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How did we go from a state that led the nation against the Brits and the yanks to a dumpyard for the entire nation. Screw the jobs, get that crap out of here and let everyone eat fish and live off the land. I don't give a crap about jobs like this -- we're better off without such jobs.
Posted by Early on July 1, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rebel_Yell, unfortunately you can only eat so much fish because we have too much mercury and pesticides. The deer near the Savannah River Plant are contaminated, you have to take your deer by a Geiger Counter. And we only been in the industrial revolution how long?
Posted by jeff61 on July 1, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So the real story here is if my kids had any aspirations of working in the nuclear waste industry, they should give it a second look due to this reduction?
Posted by eatmorecollards on July 1, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If we must have this nuclear waste agonizing death threat in South Carolina, we may as well go a head and build a few neclear power plants and enjoy cheap energy. We have nothing to loose.
Posted by cinnabar on July 1, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Look up in the sky...The ultimate nuclear fusion reactor is shining on the earth. This natural phenomena last an average for 12 hours a day. Look to long and you'll get radiation posioning on your retina. Stay out too long and your skin gets UV damage and possible mutations leading to melanoma and such. Believe it or not, some fools intentionally expose themselves using oils to entrap even more solar radiation...This is not recommended. Compare this daily exposure with the radiation from a nuclear plant and you may find more people die from sun exposure effects(and organic food poisoning) than nuclear power and waste, even those who work inside the nuclear power plants...Just a thought...now be sure and wear your hat...
Posted by FiscalConservative on July 2, 2008 at 5:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nuclear power is the safest form of energy we have. Little waste, very efficient and powerful. I hate these tree huggers who do not want any of this. Do they really think we can survive on wind and solar alone as it is.
Posted by Kathy on July 4, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems to me that we're going to have to start building nuclear power plants in the United States very soon. That waste will have to be taken care of somehow. Also, as a lifelong resident of Barnwell County, I have never really understood the panic of a handful of people here concerning the low level waste at Chem Nuclear (a portion of which comes from treating cancer patients, etc.). Savannah River Site---with the heavy duty nuclear waste---is right next door. There really isn't anything we can do about that. So why get so overwrought about Chem Nuclear? My father worked in health physics and then reactor technology at SRS for 30 years. He lived to a very healthy 84 years old. Evidently, nuclear energy can be handled safely. Let's do that and quit being such "nuclear ninnies." France uses plenty of nuclear power. Why shouldn't the U.S.?