Cookie Control

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer.

Some cookies on this site are essential, and the site won't work as expected without them. These cookies are set when you submit a form, login or interact with the site by doing something that goes beyond clicking on simple links.

We also use some non-essential cookies to anonymously track visitors or enhance your experience of the site. If you're not happy with this, we won't set these cookies but some nice features of the site may be unavailable.

By using our site you accept the terms of our Privacy Policy.

(One cookie will be set to store your preference)
(Ticking this sets a cookie to hide this popup if you then hit close. This will not store any personal information)

"Environmentalists, Santee Cooper Trade Claims Over Grainger Cleanup"

"CONWAY, S.C. -- Environmental groups say state-owned electric utility Santee Cooper is trying to mislead the public about its proposed plan to contain groundwater pollution at the closed Grainger plant here, but Santee Cooper officials say the proposal is in its early stages and more detailed information -- including answers to environmentalists’ questions -- will come as the plan works its way through the regulatory process."



"Santee Cooper, in a proposal submitted in March to state regulators, says it wants to combine the two coal ash ponds at the Grainger plant –located adjacent to the Waccamaw River – and then build a cement-fortified vault around the site, capturing and containing pollutants such as arsenic in the coal slurry. The proposal would leave the polluted groundwater at the Grainger site. Environmental groups want the utility to remove the coal ash and haul it to a lined landfill.

The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control is reviewing the proposal.

Opponents of the plan, including the Southern Environmental Law Center, say the utility’s proposal overstates the effectiveness of the vault remedy, inflates the estimated cost of trucking coal ash from Grainger to an offsite landfill and misstates geological conditions at the plant site to make it appear as if the plan is a better alternative than removing the coal ash."

David Wren reports for the Myrtle Beach Sun News June 29, 2013.
 

Source: Myrtle Beach Sun News, 07/01/2013