House passes research parks bill
A bill that seeks to designate the Savannah River Site as a National Environmental Research Park (NERP) and fund it until 2014 has passed the House of Representatives, but without the backing of one local Congressman.
The House voted 330-96 to approve H.R. 2729. With the passing vote, the House officially recognized the labs' work. If the bill becomes law, these NERPs, which include SRS and six other sites around the country, would become part of the federal budgetary process. The bill, in its current form, would offer each site $5 million a year starting in fiscal year 2010.
The bill had bipartisan support within South Carolina's delegation, as well as on a national level. However, two Congressman, Gresham Barrett and Henry Brown, R-Charleston, were in the minority who opposed the bill.
Barrett said in a statement that he voted against the NERP bill "because he has concerns it could prohibit or complicate possible future activities such as energy parks" at SRS.
"(Barrett) does believe SRS should conduct some of the activities consistent with the bill's mission, but is concerned ... (about) unintended consequences," Barrett's statement said.
NERPs were put in place in the 1950s to monitor and predict the environmental impact of energy production. The bill seeks to formalize the laboratories' efforts and community interaction.
In 1972, the Atomic Energy Commission established its first official environmental research park at the Savannah River Site. In 1976, the Department of Energy defined the mission for the research parks in accordance with the recommendations of the multiagency review team.
The long-term data sets that have been collected from the parks are used to understand natural ecosystem development and variability, including how ecosystems respond to climate change and other factors.
On the same side of the political aisle as Barrett, but offering an opposing opinion, Congressman Joe Wilson was among the 330 Congressman who backed the bill.
"I have been a longtime supporter of the Savannah River Site," Wilson said. "The energy and environmental research done there has benefited not only the local community but the state and country as well. This legislation builds on that legacy of innovation and scientific curiosity while promoting cooperation with our educational institutions."
The bill, which is now headed to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, stresses not only continued environmental research but also the cooperation among institutions, to stress independent results and community outreach.
"Each site shall support an outreach program to inform the public of the diverse ecological activities conducted at the park and to educate students at various levels in environmental science," the bill reads.
Barrett added that he was a proponent of environmental research and education but worried the bill would take away flexibility regarding SRS and the surrounding community.
Contact Mike Gellatly at mgellatly@aikenstandard.com.
- Local events for Friday, Feb. 10
- State approves $13.5M for road work in city
- Pacer hoops squads look to erase bad memories
- Could the USC-Clemson rivalry game ever go away?
- LETTER: Create jobs instead of slamming unions
- OPINION: Statehouse tackles 'honest-to-goodness red-blooded battle'
- SC AG sues over rejected voter ID law
- New equipment allows larger planes to land at Aiken airport
- T-Bred girls get rivalry win
- AHS shines on Senior Night, forces Jackets into deep hole






Notice about comments:
AikenStandard.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. AikenStandard.com 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 AikenStandard.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" 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.