Letter Sequence Request |
---|
|
Initiation
- Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request
- Acceptance, Acceptance, Acceptance, Acceptance
- Supplement, Supplement
|
MONTHYEARML1011601822010-04-16016 April 2010 St. Lucie Unit 1 License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate Project stage: Request L-2010-181, Withdrawal of Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2010-08-13013 August 2010 Withdrawal of Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Withdrawal ML1035604192010-11-22022 November 2010 St. Lucie, Unit 1 - Transmittal of Affidavits from Westinghouse, Areva and Caldon Ultrasonica Technology Center Re License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate Project stage: Request L-2010-302, License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate2010-12-15015 December 2010 License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate Project stage: Request ML1107302822011-02-25025 February 2011 St. Lucie, Unit 2 - License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate, Attachment 2; Supplemental Environmental Report Project stage: Supplement ML1107302992011-02-25025 February 2011 St. Lucie, Unit 2 - License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate, Attachment 5; Licensing Report Project stage: Request ML1107301162011-02-25025 February 2011 St. Lucie, Unit 2 - License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate Project stage: Request ML1105906632011-03-0909 March 2011 Acceptance for Review of License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate Project stage: Acceptance Review ML1110100982011-04-19019 April 2011 Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate Project stage: RAI ML1113200042011-05-12012 May 2011 EPU - Supplemental Information Needed for Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Amendment Project stage: Acceptance Review ML11153A0482011-05-27027 May 2011 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1 - Information Regarding Areva LOCA and Non-LOCA Methodologies Provided in Support of the License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate Project stage: Request NRC-2011-0128, St. Lucie, Unit 1 - Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, and Opportunity for a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Documents Access to Sensitive Unclassified Nonsafeguards Information2011-06-0202 June 2011 St. Lucie, Unit 1 - Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, and Opportunity for a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Documents Access to Sensitive Unclassified Nonsafeguards Information Project stage: Approval ML11119A0852011-06-0202 June 2011 Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, and Opportunity for a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Documents Access to Sensitive Unclassified Nonsafeguards Information Project stage: Other ML11119A0842011-06-0808 June 2011 Transmittal Letter - Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Document Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non Safeguards Information Project stage: Other ML11173A1042011-06-23023 June 2011 Acceptance for Review of License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate Project stage: Acceptance Review ML12037A1472011-07-21021 July 2011 NRR E-mail Capture - Efh Species for St. Lucie Project stage: Request L-2011-273, Information Regarding Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS) Provided in Support of the Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-07-22022 July 2011 Information Regarding Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS) Provided in Support of the Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-314, Response to NRC Accident Dose Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-08-12012 August 2011 Response to NRC Accident Dose Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request NRC-2011-0190, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Federal Register Notice - Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, and Opportunity for a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Document Access to SUNSI2011-08-26026 August 2011 St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Federal Register Notice - Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, and Opportunity for a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Document Access to SUNSI Info Project stage: Approval ML11208B6442011-08-26026 August 2011 Federal Register Notice - Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, and Opportunity for a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Document Access to SUNSI Information Project stage: Other ML11208B6422011-09-0101 September 2011 Transmittal Letter - Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, and Opportunity for a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Document Access to SUNSI Information Project stage: Other ML1123602302011-09-0202 September 2011 Request for Concurrence on List of Species with Essential Fish Habitat in the Vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2 Project stage: Other L-2011-360, Response to NRC Accident Dose Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-09-0202 September 2011 Response to NRC Accident Dose Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-397, Unusual or Important Environmental Event - Reportable Fish Kill2011-09-20020 September 2011 Unusual or Important Environmental Event - Reportable Fish Kill Project stage: Request L-2011-389, Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-09-22022 September 2011 Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-383, Response to NRC Containment and Ventilation Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-09-22022 September 2011 Response to NRC Containment and Ventilation Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-410, Environmental Protection Plan Report 316(b) Related Documentation2011-09-30030 September 2011 Environmental Protection Plan Report 316(b) Related Documentation Project stage: Request L-2011-404, Response to NRC Accident Dose Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-10-0505 October 2011 Response to NRC Accident Dose Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-422, Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information and Supplemental Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-10-10010 October 2011 Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information and Supplemental Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Supplement L-2011-450, Submittal of Final Revised Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit No. FL0002208, and Environmental Protection Plan Report2011-10-20020 October 2011 Submittal of Final Revised Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit No. FL0002208, and Environmental Protection Plan Report Project stage: Request L-2011-448, Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-10-31031 October 2011 Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-466, Revision to Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Proposed Technical Specification 5.6, Design Features - Fuel Storage - Criticality2011-11-0404 November 2011 Revision to Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Proposed Technical Specification 5.6, Design Features - Fuel Storage - Criticality Project stage: Request L-2011-467, Response to NRC Accident Dose Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-11-14014 November 2011 Response to NRC Accident Dose Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-493, Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-11-23023 November 2011 Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-524, Response to NRC Steam Generator Tube Integrity and Chemistry Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-12-27027 December 2011 Response to NRC Steam Generator Tube Integrity and Chemistry Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request ML11332A0212011-12-28028 December 2011 Federal Register Notice - Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed Extended Power Uprate Project stage: Request ML11332A0202011-12-28028 December 2011 Transmittal Letter - Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the Proposed Extended Power Uprate Project stage: Draft Other L-2011-533, Response to NRC Reactor System Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2011-12-29029 December 2011 Response to NRC Reactor System Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-566, Response to NRC Instrumentation & Controls Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2012-01-14014 January 2012 Response to NRC Instrumentation & Controls Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-532, Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2012-01-14014 January 2012 Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-565, Response to NRC Instrumentation & Controls Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2012-01-14014 January 2012 Response to NRC Instrumentation & Controls Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-441, Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2012-01-18018 January 2012 Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2011-534, Response to NRC Reactor System Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2012-01-18018 January 2012 Response to NRC Reactor System Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2012-012, Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2012-01-21021 January 2012 Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2012-009, Response to NRC Reactor System Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2012-01-21021 January 2012 Response to NRC Reactor System Branch and Nuclear Performance Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2012-043, Comment (1) of Richard L. Anderson, on Behalf of Florida Power & Light, Regarding Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Related the Proposed Extended Power Uprate2012-01-30030 January 2012 Comment (1) of Richard L. Anderson, on Behalf of Florida Power & Light, Regarding Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Related the Proposed Extended Power Uprate Project stage: Draft Other ML12044A1272012-02-13013 February 2012 Comment (2) from Edward W. Johnson Opposing Ncr Permit Approval for St. Lucie 1 & 2 Project stage: Request L-2012-059, Response to NRC Mechanical and Civil Engineering Branch (Emcb) Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2012-02-29029 February 2012 Response to NRC Mechanical and Civil Engineering Branch (Emcb) Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2012-075, Response to NRC Mechanical and Civil Engineering Branch (Emcb) Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2012-03-0606 March 2012 Response to NRC Mechanical and Civil Engineering Branch (Emcb) Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request L-2012-100, Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request2012-03-0606 March 2012 Response to NRC Reactor Systems Branch Request for Additional Information Regarding Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Project stage: Request 2011-05-27
[Table View] |
|
---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML21327A0882021-11-22022 November 2021 Comment (1) E-mail Regarding St. Lucie SLR Scoping ML21340A0392021-11-0404 November 2021 Comment (3) E-mail Regarding St. Lucie SLR Scoping ML21340A0372021-10-28028 October 2021 Comment (2) E-mail Regarding St. Lucie SLR Scoping ML14239A0352014-08-21021 August 2014 Comment (9) of James M. Petro on Behalf of FPL on Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.46(c), Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Cladding Acceptance Criteria for Light-Water Nuclear Reactors (Docket Id: NRC-2008-0332 L-2014-267, Comment (9) of James M. Petro on Behalf of FPL on Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.46(c), Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Cladding Acceptance Criteria for Light-Water Nuclear Reactors (Docket Id: NRC-2008-03322014-08-21021 August 2014 Comment (9) of James M. Petro on Behalf of FPL on Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 50.46(c), Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Cladding Acceptance Criteria for Light-Water Nuclear Reactors (Docket Id: NRC-2008-0332 ML14171A4052014-06-17017 June 2014 Comment (6) of James M. Petro, on Behalf of Florida Power & Light Company, on Draft Regulatory Issue Summary 2014-XX, Tornado Missile Protection. ML12044A1272012-02-13013 February 2012 Comment (2) from Edward W. Johnson Opposing Ncr Permit Approval for St. Lucie 1 & 2 ML1108005362011-03-18018 March 2011 Comment (7) of Larry Nicholson, on Behalf of Nextera Energy, on Draft Regulatory Issue Summary, Adequacy of Station Electric Distribution System Voltages. ML1022401722010-08-0707 August 2010 Comment (41) of Mike Geier, on Behalf of Palm Beach County, Fl, Div of Emergency Management, Opposing NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Suppl 3, Guidance for Protective Action Recommendations for General Emergencies ML0931002132009-10-19019 October 2009 Comment (8) of Mchenry Cornell on Behalf of Florida Power & Light Company, on NRC-2008-0122 Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations, Proposed Rule ML0319704012003-07-14014 July 2003 Comment (6) by R.S. Kundalkar Regarding Proposed Generic Communication Requirements for Steam Generator Tube Inspection - 68 Fr 25909 ML0319700442003-06-30030 June 2003 Comment (1) of Heinz J. Mueller Re Final Generic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Fgseis) ML0302703032003-01-16016 January 2003 Comment of Frank Leslie St. Lucie Relicensing Plant Specific GEIS, Supplement 11 ML0302703062003-01-13013 January 2003 Comment from Mark Oncavage on Draft Supplement 11 to NUREG-1437 Re St. Lucie Dseis ML0301504432003-01-10010 January 2003 Comment by Betty Lou Wells Regarding Questions That Were Asked Over Thirty Years Ago, at First NRC Public Hearings for St. Lucie Units 1 & 2, That Probably Need to Be Revisited ML0301503282003-01-0404 January 2003 Comment from Betty Lou Wells on Ny Times Article, Regulators Kept Damaged A-Plant Open Because of Cost to Owner. 2021-11-04
[Table view] |
Text
I, I
$ 7: -37
/ ~
27 gg;;/3
/5'0 A-1 3 62~ '7 6V (7~22)
Operation of St. Lucie Plant, Units l and 2 (St. Lucie 1 and 2 ) NRC-2011-0302 To: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington RE: Opposition to NCR permit approval for St. Lucie Plant, Florida Units 1 and 2 (St. Lucie 1 and 2)
NRC-2011-0302 NCR permit review group, I am opposed to the application to increase the power capacity at Port St. Lucie based on my concern over the following issues:
- 1. The applicant is requesting to increase the power capacity by nearly 12 % over what is presently allowed. This application presents significant safety and environmental concerns that in my determination and thereby make it unacceptable. The age of these plants alone should be enough to reject this permit, Unit 1 has operated since March 1, 1976 (36 yrs old) and Unit 2 began operations on April 6, 1983 (29yrs old).
- 2. The current amount of sea water withdrawn from the Atlantic, nearly 1 million gal/sec., will not be increased even though nearly 12 % more power will be produced. Based on my extremely limited understanding of thermodynamics it would appear that the amount of water necessary to cool these 2 reactors would also increase by an equal amount, 12 %. Which means the required amount should be an extra 100,00 gallons /sec. to meet reentry requirements. Rather than having to increase that amount and undergone the scrutiny of additional federal agencies, they propose heating the ocean as an alternative.
- 3. The seawater at withdrawal based on what has been determined, the water temp. beyond the mixing zone at exit, is 95 Deg. F. That too me seems extremely high but is the value the applicant has submitted. I would like verification that this is the temp @ the point of extraction. In my own research have found readings for Miami Beach which is South of Port St. Lucie, Florida and would have water temperatures on average higher than those found at the Port St. Lucie location.. Those values are found in the following web site (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/wtgl2.html). The yearly water temperature in that region is 79 Deg. F. with a min. occurring in Jan of 71 Deg. F. and a Max. monthly ave of 86 Deg. F.
occurring in July. The point is, at present they are taking 95 Deg. F. water and heating to 113 deg. F. and dumping it back into the ocean to begin cooling within the specified mixing zone.
This increase is a total of 18 Deg. F. Under the new application this water would increase by 2 deg. F. to 115 Deg. F. It rather outrages me that the applicant has in any way associated the term, "nominal," as an expression relative to water use or temperature association above ambient values. I would further challenge these seemingly incorrect claims of a high starting ambient temperature when it appears that value should be reduced by another 16 Deg. F.
meaning the difference between entering and exiting this nuclear facility would not be a gain of 18 Deg. F. as has been mentioned but rather 18 plus 16 for a more realistic total of 34 Deg. F.
Based on the new request in increase the electrical output of the plant by 12%, using thesame amount of seawater and my determined starting ambient temperature of 79 Deg F., we would have the heated water returning to the ocean not 2 Deg. F warmer but rather more than 4 Deg.
F. warmer at the edge of the mixing zone. For starters I object to 2 degree allowance at the edge of the mixing zone but 4 Deg. F., as I contend, is extremely dangerous for the adjacent ocean
"m and will have additional unintended but detrimental effects on the life in the sea and the overall health of our planet. As a remedy for an accurate assessment of these temperatures for extracted and water returned to the ocean, thermal imaging techniques should be employed.
- 4. An astounding nearly 1 million gal./sec of water is pumped through the plant to cool the reactor.
In my calculations every 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> a volume equal to the size of the New Orleans Super Dome(1 billion gallons) is basically sterilized and heated up and cooled back down to 113(presently) Deg F. which will be increase to 115 if approved before it returns to the ocean. If you could quantify just how much microscopic life is lost from the sea in every 17 hour1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> period and have any doubt that the Atlantic Ocean is losing its life generating capacity you only need to look at this nuclear plant at Port St. Lucie. Every day 1 billion gallons is overheated, mashed against filter screens, and treated with chlorine to kill microscopic plants and animals before returning to the sea lifeless. The NRC has a responsibility to more than the shareholders of this particular corporate entity; the ocean is our home not a cesspool created for their disposal needs. The argument that "dilution is the solution," can no longer be used in corporate boardrooms, and in this case the by the authorizing NRC.
- 5. Based on my understanding, given the water amount will remain constant and 12% more heat will be generated to turn the power producing turbines, the temp and or pressure will increase by an equal amount. This will put the internal operation of all valves, gaskets, fittings, linings pumps and include any surface areas exposed to these temp or and pressure increases at risk of failure. The following document, a rather complete review of the nuclear industry and the aging nuclear facilities addresses this entire issue. Based on the limited time remaining before comments must be submitted this must suffice rather than a point by point examination of these findings. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2011-06-27-aging-nukes-safety n.htm
- 6. The following incident, "Jellyfish swarm shuts down St. Lucie nuclear power plant," at this plant points out a couple of issues: A) the actual incident took place in Sept. and involved near criticality of the plant but was not publicly reported until Dec. of last year. The NCR must increase the timely reporting of such events which allow precautionary safety awareness and evacuation to proceed. B) Unpredictable events have and will occur beyond what has been anticipated. During Aug. of last year a massing of jellyfish became so encumbering, it prevented seawater from reaching the cooling loop. The following article describes what happened and I will use quotes directly from that source. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/iellyfish-swarm-shuts-down-st-lucie-nuclear-power-2019257.html "The four-day event began Aug. 22.
The plant's three intake pipes, located almost a quarter-mile offshore, began sucking in an unusually large number of moon jellyfish. Travelling through the pipes at about 4.6 mph, the jellyfishes' poisonous tentacles broke off...Trash rakes and large, rotating metal screens that prevent debris from getting into storage tanks could not keep pace with the influx of dying and dead jellyfish and became clogged. That caused pressure to build in the pumps that keep the water flowing in the plant for cooling.....For fish trapped in the plant's intake canal, the situation became lethal. Unable to escape the canal, the poisonous tentacles attached to their gills, which became grossly swollen. Biologists from Inwater Research Group, a nonprofit that oversees the plant's turtle protection program, poured white vinegar on the gills of the giant grouper in an attempt to save them. Ten were rescued before divers were forced out of the water after they, too, were stung." What happened during those 4 days created one of those unforeseen events that cannot be predicted and will always remain an issue when we attempt to use living substances such as seawater then attempt to manipulate it for the sole purpose of satisfying man's whims and pleasures.
- 7. "Harmful Effects of the Once-Through System The environmental impact of diverting more than a billion gallons of water per unit per day from a water source such as an ocean or estuary, heating it up, and then discharging it at temperatures up to 25 degrees F higher than the surrounding water has been shown to cause significant damage. Not only are marine animals "entrained" or "impinged" by the intake system, but billions of smaller marine organisms, essential to the food web, are also sucked into the reactor operating system and largely destroyed in this process. Entrainment involves the drawing in of marine life through an intake tunnel, pipe, or canal at a velocity the marine animals cannot resist. Once drawn in, they are subject to impingement, becoming trapped against "prevention devices" such as screens, racks, bars, and barrier nets. Larger animals may then drown or suffocate after becoming impinged,"
quoted from the following:
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/licensedtokill/executivesumma ry.htm#.
- 8. Smaller fish and other organisms may be entrained through the entire reactor system and are often scalded by the heated water before being discharged into the waterway. Others, pulverized by the reactor condenser system, emerge as sediment that clouds the water around the discharge area, often blocking light from the ocean floor. The resulting shadow effect kills plant and animal life around reactor discharge systems by curtailing the light and oxygen they need to survive.
Our home planet, Earth, appears blue from space, water essential for all life was not designed to be heated by nuclear power plants. It is time that safety dominants the issuing of new permits for aging facilities such as this one at Port St. Lucie, Florida. There is no question that rather than modifying existing limits on rules governing nuclear plant operations, a new course must be stuck to elevate the ever complicating risks each new safety lower benchmark is established.
Edward W. Johnson Since submitting this article have come across add. Artilces http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42103936/ns/world news-asiapacific/#.TzlYZlxsMoo "It turns out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated the odds of an earthquake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant here. Each year, at the typical nuclear reactor in the U.S., there's a 1 in 74,176 chance of an earthquake strong enough to cause damage to the reactor's core, which could expose the public to radiation. No tsunami required. That's 10 times more likely than you winning $10,000 by buying a single ticket in the Powerball multistate lottery, where the chance is 1 in 723,145."
Here are the 10 nuclear power sites with the highest risk of an earthquake causing core damage, showing their NRC risk estimates based on 2008 and 1989 geological data.
- 6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.
Rank. Reactor, nearby city, state: Chance each year of core damage from an earthquake, showing NRC estimates based on 2008 USGS data. Old estimate from 1989 data. Change in risk.
- 8. Saint Lucie 1, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
- 8. Saint Lucie 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A.
Change in risk: N/A.