A draft environmental impact statement scheduled for publication in January is expected to shed new light on Savannah River Site's suitability as a long-term repository for thousands of tons of unwanted mercury.
SRS and six other sites across the nation are under scrutiny by the U.S. Energy Department, which hopes to build and open the storage facility by Jan. 1, 2013, to comply with a 2008 law known as the Mercury Export Ban.
In March, the Energy Department published a request for expressions of interest and chose to evaluate -- in addition to SRS -- the Grand Junction (Colo.) Disposal Site; Hanford Site in Richland, Wash.; Hawthorne (Nev.) Army Depot; Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls; Kansas City (Mo.) Plant; and Waste Control Specialists in Andrews, Texas.
"Right now the private facility operated by Waste Control Specialists in west Texas is the preferred alternative, but that is not a certainty until the draft EIS is published," said Jim Giusti, a DOE spokesman at SRS. "All are in until a record of decision is made by DOE."
The facility would eventually store 7,500 to 10,000 metric tons of mercury from nongovernmental sources over a 40-year period, in addition to large amounts of mercury already stored in government facilities.
Much of the mercury in the U.S. comes from chlorine manufacturing, and mercury is also reclaimed through waste recycling and as a byproduct of gold mining.
A public hearing to discuss the progress of the site selection will be scheduled soon in the Aiken-Augusta area, Mr. Giusti said. A final site decision is expected in fall 2010.
Reach Rob Pavey at 868-1222, ext. 119, or rob.pavey@augustachronicle.com.
FACILITY CRITERIA
- The facility will not create significant conflicts with any existing DOE site mission and will not interfere with future mission compatibility.
- The location has an existing facility suitable for mercury storage with the capability and flexibility for operational expansion.
- The facility is, or potentially will be, capable of complying with Resource Conservation Recovery Act permitting requirements, including siting requirements.
- The facility has supporting infrastructure, including a capability or potential capability for flooring that would support mercury loadings.
- Storage of elemental mercury at the facility is compatible with local and regional land-use plans.
- The facility is accessible to major transportation routes.
- The location has sufficient information on hand in order to adequately characterize the site.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010 Morris Communications, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
it's time fro clean missions at SRS, not ones that dump mercury or spent nuclear fuel on us. Once SRS is "cleaned up" the age of projects that create nuclear or toxic waste must be closed.
This is Olins out, the taxpayer is going to end up paying to store their mercury from here on out. It seems they should be paying for the storage of this mercury not the taxpayer. They plan to continue using the mercury for the next few years (once they get an extention) then dump the mercury on the taxpayers and move to Mexico.
The problem with charging them to store it will be they will send it down the river to avoid the cost.