A venture capitalist behind new plans for interim spent nuclear fuel storage and reprocessing in South Carolina said Wednesday he is reaching out to state utilities to further develop the concept.
Mike Stake, who is leading the Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Group, plans to reprocess spent fuel from the state’s nuclear reactors at a facility planned near the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in Aiken. He has announced his intention to submit an interim storage application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the regulator has encouraged Stake to hold pre-application meetings with NRC staff.
Those plans have drawn opposition from conservation groups — including Savannah River Site Watch, the South Carolina chapter of the Sierra Club, and the League of Women Voters of South Carolina. Those organizations argued last month in a press release that there is no demonstrated need for such a facility in South Carolina, and that it would serve no purpose for the nation’s spent fuel storage problem.
South Carolina is home to four nuclear reactor sites: Duke Energy operates the Catawba Nuclear Station, the Oconee Nuclear Station, and the Robinson Nuclear Plant, while South Carolina Electric & Gas operates the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station. More than 4,200 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel has accumulated in storage in South Carolina, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Duke Energy representatives said this week that company is not aware of Stake’s plans. “We have not received information from or spoken to Mr. Stake regarding his plans,” Duke spokeswoman Rita Sipe said by email Wednesday.
SCE&G spokeswoman Rhonda O’Banion recently said her company is also not up to speed on the project, stating that SCE&G has safely and securely stored spent fuel on site for years and will continue to do so. O’Banion wrote in an email Wednesday that the company’s response to Stake’s plan remains the same.
Stake, in a telephone interview Wednesday, said he plans to reach out to nuclear industry leaders and utilities to set up meetings “hopefully within the next few weeks.” If the plan is not cost-effective, he said, “we have to find a way to make it cost-effective,” alluding to the opposing views that there is no need for his concept. He added that an interview last month with local TV station WRDW 12 precipitated a handful of conversations with industry leaders. Backlash within the state, he said, might require his group to adjust its approach, though the plan remains to focus on in-state waste.
“We’re always going to focus on in-state, just so that we can create a pilot program, so that as we continue to make the in-state waste profitable, we can start looking to interstate and helping solve the issues with the other states also,” Stake said. “Before you go save the world, you have to clean up your room.”
Nothing further has been scheduled with the NRC on the potential application.
