Agenda - 11-17-1998 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Secretary McDevitt September 18, 1998 Page 2 of 3 The problem that most concerns us with the planned expansion is that fuel pools, according to nuclear safety engineer, David Lochbaum, were designed for short term storage of a small quantity of fuel. However, they are having to be modified to take a much larger, more closely packed set of rods for an indefinite period of time. This is because the federal Department of Energy, which is responsible for a permanent disposal site has been unable to provide one and future prospects for a site are very uncertain. The nuclear industry planned on sending their activated fue! for reprocessing when the plants were designed, but that option was ruled out by federal action to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, after commercial failures of early reprocessing plants. In his book examining spent fuel storage safety, Lochbaum reports that unfortunately, the three-layer defense-in-depth strategy of minimizing the chances of an accident, mitigating the severity of an accident and containing the consequences of an accident employed for reactor safety is not in place consistently for fuel pool storage in this country. In addition he cites numerous incidents where near-misses have occurred in fuel pools because of inoperable equipment, personnel errors, seal failures, etc. that suggest that safety standards are inadequate or not maintained. The consequences for the public within a 50- mile radius of a loss of cooling water accident could be severe according to Lochbaum. The NRC has stated a concern that deregulation or preparation for deregulation will put financial pressures on the nuclear utility industry that could compromise safety at nuclear plants. If the application is approved by the NRC, the Hams site would apparently hold one of the two largest concentrations of high-level waste in the United States from nuclear power plants for an indefinite period until a permanent disposal site is opened. Because of the indeterminate length of storage, the questions on defense-in-depth safety, and the large quantity of high-level waste that would be shipped into and through North Carolina, we request the assistance of the state of North Carolina in three matters: 1. Please assist us, with the expertise in radiation protection and engineering at your disposal, in reviewing the fuel pool application and in then submitting comments as warranted to the NRC in order to assure the safety of NC citizens. We hope that review would be conducted as an open public process like DENR's review of the low-level radioactive waste site license application. 2. Please ask the NRC to require an Environmental Impact Statement to fully consider alternatives from the safety point of view, before it allows shipment of the