Agenda - 05-02-2002 - Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 2 Q. The evacuation plan in place now in case of a radiation release from Shearon Harris only evacuates a 10-mile radius. Please address the need for plans to consider a larger area and how this involves schools and location of emergency shelters that are currently within 20 miles. A. This is a good question, but one that would also be asked if the planning zone was 50 miles. No matter where the line is drawn, the question remains about people at N+1 miles. Despite that limitation, it's important to remember that the planning process for 10 miles involves many of the same local, state, and federal authorities as would be involved fora 50-mile radius. The biggest loss in 10 miles vs. 50 miles is the exclusion of some local authorities. The existing planning process serves as a foundation for dealing with the beyond 10 mile case. For example, if the offsite radiation survey teams detected high levels at 10 miles, the state and federal authorities would redirect school evacuations to safer areas and/or extend the sheltering/evacuation process beyond 10 miles. Q. Why not put the dry storage casks into holes rather than above ground with berms? A. If placed underground, canisters would be subject to degradation from moisture, and subsequent leakage. Holes could possibly be engineered to maintain the ability to monitor the waste fuel, but the cost would be higher than if surrounded by berms, thus there would probably be more resistance from the nuclear power industry. Also, there is concern that burial would create an impetus for the industry to avoid true disposal. Q. How many cancer deaths might result from exposure to radiation over the duration of an evacuation if a worst case scenario occurred - a waste pool fire or attack that released all the radiation in the fuel rods stored there? A. A 1997 study for the NRC by the Brookhaven National Laboratory estimated that a waste pool fire near a highly populated area could lead to 140,000 cancer deaths and cause over $500 billion in offsite property damage. That scenario involved approximately 67% of the waste fuel already stored at Shearon Harris. Even short-term exposures could lead to cancers. Q. In the area of risk quantification: 3panelists spoke of "Chernobyl-like" accidents. Don't you see those statements are disengenuous and intellectually dishonest given that there are exactly zero "Chernobyl-like" commercial power plants in the U.S.? These scare tactics are disgraceful! A. The 1986 Chernobyl accident is a standard to which people can compare potential accidents. Most people do not care what actual type of accident, whether from various core damage scenarios or a spent fuel fire, would lead to a radiation release. They are more interested in the potential size of the release. Given that waste fuel pools can contain far more long-lived radioactivity than released at Chernobyl, the comparison seems relevant.