Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93008_1134687 D. Joker Category, unnamed Let's talk a little more about this 97% ---------- Where does it come from? Mostly it comes from leaking fuel rods in the reactor. Another thing I'm unhappy with in this definition is there ------with half-lives of 5,000 years or more. It means that in a hundred years the 5,730 half-life Carbon 14, which is biologically adjustable, which we really don't want any more of, will still be at a level of 99% of what was originally put in, and after 500 years, it will still be at a level of 94% of what was put it. I don't like that; I really don't like that. And that is just Carbon 14. We got ----99; we M----94; we've got -------129. O.K. If I don't like this, is there a solution to the problem? One more thing I should say, that is there is a rather disingenuous description of many of these radioactive materials. And that is you can have a material with a fairly short half-life decay and it doesn't make a stable product, it makes a radioactive product. St's bad, too. Also these lists don't show ---------- radioactive material that's produced by initial decay. What do I think should be done? I opposed the licensing of the Oconee Plant and the McGuire plant. They have been licensed. They are making their poisons right now. Well, what do I do? I try to take the most painfully responsible position that I can with regard to the problem. I feel that the best solution for these materials is to have surface monitored, maintained storage for --------and everything with a half-life short of a ----------, which would not produce --------------- The large volume material which Earl hasn't told us about, things like plastic booties, whites, uniforms, wiping cloths, mops, what not, are combustible. When it is burned the volume that we end up with can be as little as .7% of the volume that you started out with. That's very important because at present estimated prices for mile deep mined repositories, a cubic foot of space will cost about $2,000. And when you translate that to the volumes that Earl has been describing it turns out on the average electric bill of $100 a year. I don't think anybody is going to greet that with enthusiasm, but if you can incinerate the stuff and reduce the volume to 1% of that, then we are talking about $1 a year, and I don't think anybody is going to be too unhappy about that. And I think that's the way to go. But we're not there; we're very far from i'c. I think our solution should be in the interim to let this stop, be left on the surface. The power plant also has large areas and can reasonably contain it on its property and many have over a fairly long period of time, I feel that in the interim it should stay there where it is relatively safe and being handled by people who have experience in radioactive materials. In the meantime I really think it is our obligation and our duty to go to Congress, but I don't think the NRC is going to rewrite these classifications, and sell our politicans on the idea of a competent definition of radioactive waste. But the long time result, if we can incinerate all the combustible stuff and if it's a used reactor which is non-combustible that we also stash it in a terminal repository aboveground. HEDRICK: We will direct our comments toward the proposed ordinance. Speakers are limited to three minutes. MAC CORMAC: I think incineration is far better than above -ground retrievable. However, as Jess points out, we are limited by Federal and State Statutes, and I have to work within those. I'm not passing the buck. I'm a new Bureaucrat who lives within the law. HEDRICK: I think it is a point well made that we are all hoping, whatever happens to us, that it be done in the safest possible manner, and the manner of disposing of this waste is going to have to be decided at the Legislative Level, and we're going to put our confidence in Jess to plead our cause appropriately and adequately at the proper forum. I guess that would be at the next meeting on November 12th. MAC CORMAC: Please give me the names and the addresses, and I will put you on the mailing list. HEDRICK: Please give the names to our clerk, and we will see that you get copies of them. ERIC HANSEN: ( With a local business firm.) I am with the coalition against radioactive environment. Addressed a few of Mr. Mac Cormac's remarks. Using his term, "adequate technology". Our only problem is in determining what adequate technology is. It is certainly Duke Power's desire to have a landfill site. Don't agree with that; think it should be an above -ground, monitored, retrievable facility would be the best thing. The Canadians use these and do have better luck than we do. Have heard a lot about Barnwell, SC tonight; have not heard about Maxi Flats, Ky, where they have pumped millions of gallons of -------water out of the trenches. Neither have we heard about Sheffield, It where they have a radioactive plume extending 2,500' per year into the water table. We have also not heard about --------, NY, where plutonium, which is supposed to be high-level, has been found in the streams. These are just a few of the other examples of landfill sites, and it is for that reason that we do not agree with them. We are also talking about a problem that is not going to occur immediately but something that is going to happen over a very long term. We are talking about monitoring this facility for perhaps 100 years. One hundred years, as you heard by Jess Riley's account, is entirely insufficient for the term of radioactivity for most of these elements. I don't think that's a good policy right ' there at all.