Minutes - 20020502 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

between these guys to keep them from going critical. And as a result, in 1998, one member of Congress that was most powerful had control over the NRC and how NRC spends its money - which it gets from the industry it regulates - basically attempted to cut their personnel budget by one third, which sent an unmistakable message to back off, which they have done. We have a very difficult and profoundly corrupt situation, unfortunately, where an agency that was set up with the best of intentions that was meant to regulate has now become codependent on the entity it is supposed to regulate. The only way we can change things like this is through federal legislation and through encouraging Congress to carry out its oversight responsibilities, to make sure this agency is doing its job. It is outrageous and disgraceful for this agency to hold hearings in secrecy because, while it is true that there is certain information that people should not be made aware of because of the potential risks it may pose, it is also true and also rightful for the public to know if this agency is doing its job. And there is a fundamental lack of oversight in Congress, and this is something we really need to correct (applause). Mayor Foy: I have a written question from a member of the audience that says, "If a dam holding Harris Lake were blown up, how would the waste pools be affected?" Does anybody have the answer to that? Mr. Lochbaum: I do not know the answer specifically for Harris, but I know in general nuclear power plants have to be designed so that if there is a dam break, either intentional or accidental, that the water level, once the rush occurs, is still sufficient to provide cooling for both the reactor and the spent fuel pool, but I have not verified that for Harris. In general, that is the criteria. Question: My question is for the Emergency Management folks. When do you think that we will have a new emergency plan that would have the authority to evacuate within a 50-mile radius and when would the schools get that information that are outside of the ten-mile radius at that time? Secondly, how long do you think it would take to evacuate a 50-mile radius? And, thirdly, how many cancer deaths might we assume would happen due to that exposure over a duration of that kind of evacuation? Nick Waters: I can't give you a definite timeline on how long it is going to take to get a plan. I can tell you that there is an increase in interest in regional planning, and there are three or four initiatives going on now to look at regional planning concepts. As to whether we have an evacuation plan or a full response plan outside the 50-mile, I'm not sure we need to wait on CP&L to do that, I think we need to start doing that county by county. And that is our intent to start working on those kinds of things immediately. As to the number of cancer deaths, I'll defer to someone else. Dr. Alvarez: You have to think of this not only in terms of what your risk of cancer is going to be as you flee. You have to think of this in terms of what does this mean for a large area of land that may be uninhabitable for 300 years. What would be the risk of people if they return over time, not only in terms of their risk of cancer, but the other disturbing finding that is coming out of the Chernobyl emergency responders is that they are now discovering that the genetic harm that is manifest in the emergency responders is being directly passed on to their offspring. So now we have to think broadly. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is erroneously addressing the nature of this risk by only looking at fatal cancers and prompt fatalities. The underlying problem with these types of facilities is that they can render large areas uninhabitable and make them poisonous to human beings for long periods of time. And that's the kind of risk we need to come to terms with and understand to prevent certainly, and certainly do our best to respond to.