Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
VI. Update on Nuclear Waste Storage Pools at Shearon Harris <br /> Mary McDowell, nuclear issues consultant to Chatham County, reported to the CFE on the status of the proposed <br /> expansion of the Shearon Harris facility . Discussion centered on the position of CP&L that Shearon Harris <br /> expansion poses no new risk to public health and safety, and on organizing an effort to encourage other jurisdictions <br /> and public officials to get involved in the issue . Below is a summary of the discussion . <br /> Stancil: Before Mary begins speaking I want to remind the CFE that we have Dr. Gordon Thompson ' s report of the <br /> NRC findings as well as CP&L ' s response . <br /> McDowell: I am happy to be here . I have been working on the low- level nuclear waste issue for Chatham for 8 years <br /> and began working on high level waste in June . Given changes on the Chatham board there is a possibility that I <br /> may not be working on this issue after July . Gordon Thompson has shown in his report that the existing waste <br /> storage pools pose a danger. The likelihood of an accident is not high, but the possibility remains, and this is <br /> something that the NRC has not considered . The expansion of these pools will extend Shearon Harris ' s use for 90 <br /> years . Overall, we expect that water levels in the pools will drop . This has happened in the past at Shearon Harris, <br /> although the levels have not been low enough for radioactive exposure . What is needed is for NRC to extend their <br /> risk assessment to the pools and the reactor, this would benefit the nation and the area . Ultimately, you have greater <br /> radioactivity in pools given the shifting of waste from the reactors to the pools . If water levels drop then there is a <br /> risk of fire or of a zirconium steam reaction . The risk of both these accidents occurring is something that the NRC <br /> hasn ' t looked into . the NRC sees the new pools as less dangerous as existing pools . Dr. Thompson ' s results are <br /> logical and the issue of partial drainage in new pools should be examined, by both NRC and CP&L . <br /> Gordon : How plausible is it to get CP&L to consider partial drainage issues ? They seem to be incredibly resistant to <br /> change . <br /> McDowell: Corporations , such as CP&L are concerned with their economic future, their public image , it is <br /> important to involve the public and the media in pressuring CP&L . <br /> Pratt: Does the Shearon Harris plant include back-up pump systems and other redundancies ? <br /> McDowell: There are redundancies built- in the two heat exchanges , but they are not linked. <br /> Pratt.* When facilities are designed a safety factor is incorporated . Changes to a facility are allowed only if the <br /> safety factor is maintained . <br /> McDowell: There are a bunch of technical questions that need to be resolved, but they (CP&L) do not need to place <br /> rods in such a dense configuration . <br /> Pratt: We need to find out how and if the safety factor changes if Shearon Harris expansion occurs . <br /> Okun : In reading the Thompson report, expansion of the pools is reducing the safety factor. CP&L ' s actions were <br /> cavalier . This is in the historical tradition of the nuclear industry . This issue requires a public hearing . <br /> Pratt: My point is when the final safety report was prepared it was based on quantitative information . We need to <br /> find out if the safety factor was changed and if so then formulate an engineering solution . <br /> Okun : How costly and time intensive will such an endeavor be ? <br /> Pratt: There is no doubt that it will be . <br /> Gordon : When we (BOCC) got into it I was willing to hear information, but CP&L has claimed that they are <br /> continuing existing policy, but they are clearly not doing so . The point is that that CP&L is not doing the same <br /> thing, they are not letting the experts in . Are they trying to hide something? <br /> Rafalow: Where are we in the process ? <br /> Gordon : We have asked for a hearing in the legal manner from the NRC . <br /> Rafalow: Has our congressional delegation been contacted? <br /> Gordon : No . <br /> Pratt: Have State officials been contacted? <br /> Gordon : NC DENR has sent a letter to the NRC asking for a public hearing to be held. <br /> McDowell: The Chatham chair asked DENR, Division of Radiation Protection (DRP) , to put money aside for <br /> examining Shearon Harris . DRP has met with CP&L . I was at their meeting , during which CP&L explained how <br /> under existing regulations they were not increasing risk. In private conversations with NC DRP, it appears that DRP <br /> does not have the expertise to evaluate the Shearon Harris expansion . Given this , we may need to look toward UNC <br /> to do an engineering analysis for us . <br /> Pratt: What is the County ' s position? <br /> 3 <br />