ML030270303
| ML030270303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/2003 |
| From: | Leslie F - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB |
| References | |
| 67FR66674 00007 | |
| Download: ML030270303 (2) | |
Text
Frank Leslie To: StLucieDSEIS@nrc.gov Subect: Personal Comments on St. Lucie Relicensing Plant Specific GELS, Supplement 11 Chief Rules and Directives Branch f/1//
Mailstop T-6D 59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/
Washington DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
Following are my personal comments on Supplement 11:
Comments on St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Relicensing GELS, Supplement Tl-T.'
From Frank R. Leslie, 1017 Glenham Dr., NE, Palm Bay FL 32905, 321-768-6629,-_ c-f.leslie@ieee.org on 12/02/2002 General comments: Use of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE impact is a good approach Lo focus on the effects on the environment qualifijs rather than various quantities.
U More emphasis upon the risk calculations is desirable to clarify the probability of possible events in the context of everyday risks such as driving to work. The public perceives risks to be far worse when they don't choose those risks. As examples, a mountain climber may rail against the risk of a city street air pollutant or second-hand smoke, or joggers may choose to run alone and unarmed in mountain-lion country.
Plant safety/security comments: Discuss and clarify SANDIA report discussing offsite recent USA Today stories about a radiation release plumes of 500 miles extent the 50 mile limit used in the Supplement. The radiation levels rather than have great meaning. While the St. Lucie plant at varying distances must westerly weather winds, it also has easterly has clearing of a potential plume release by to southeasterly sea breeze winds that could send a release plume across the state towards Orlando or Tampa.
Since much has been made by antinuclear activists of the potential for zirconium spent fuel fires and release dispersion, a detailed study of possibilities of those fires (a fault tree analysis) should be made in a way as to fully inform the public as to how risks are computed. Loss of pool coolant such and terrorist actions should be considered.
Video surveillance systems using software intruder-path detection and alarming should employed to supplement the security forces be alertness. These cameras may be especially useful in detection of boats and swimmers approaching the Lagoon side of the plant.
Electric-field detection fencing is a first level of defense. Ultrasonic sensors in the barge channels are necessary to detect underwater swimmers. Consultations with the Sandia Intrusion Detection Lab and Special Forces teams would help determine means of attack defense. The plant security force members and periodically should consider how they would attack the plant with their level of knowledge, and then help design the means to prevent such attacks. Do not downplay obscure or low-probability attacks.
The following comments primarily address the alternative energy aspects of relicensing considerations.
Section 8 Alternatives to Nuclear Relicensing Fossil fuel plants produce more air/water pollution than nuclear plants, but few are as concerned about non-nuclear pollution.
Wind and solar-electric plants would require extensive land areas energy density of the sources. Neither appears due to the low to be a viable replacement for large base load plants.
Hydropower has limited resource in Florida and environmental blocking objections, while ocean wave and tide energy appears to be uneconomic and environmentally problematic
-6 13X(
1 7
7Ai az
within the next twenty years.
Oil is too precious and chemical use must take apriority.
resource to burn in fixed locations for heat. Transportation Biomass combustion produces pollution and C02, which many believe contributes global warming (climate change). Municipal to stream waste (MSW) contains heavy metals as lead, mercury, and zinc that should such not be incinerated.
Catastrophic extremes (site failure costs than meteor strikes or tsunamis; core meltdowns) may have lower computed Should we take action to preclude those impact and similar events?
Summary of comments: Table 9-1 displays the SMALL impact replacement power possibilities that of relicensing range from MODERATE to LARGE impacts.versus the other thus appears to be the best action License renewal now, and in perhaps twenty years, other alternatives may be better suited and energy economic.
Frank R. Leslie Disclaimer: These are personal comments and do not necessarily represent the positions of Florida Institute of Technology.
Frank R. Leslie i Florida Tech email: mailto:fleslie@fit.edu Florida Tech, 150 University Blvd., Melbourne FL (321) 674-7377 I http://my.fit.edu/~fleslie/ 32901, DMES, Rm. 104 (Renewable Energy)
Home: 1017 Glenham Drive, NE, Palm Bay FL 32905-4855 1 (321) 768-6629 Home email: mailto:f.leslie@ieee.org www.geocities.com/windy4us (Wind I 28-01.3130N / 80-35.6136W Energy Experimenters) I KD4EYQ 020912 2