ML20035C800
| ML20035C800 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham, Limerick File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1993 |
| From: | Lewis M LEWIS, M. |
| To: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035C794 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304090093 | |
| Download: ML20035C800 (4) | |
Text
'-
f3 g 46
,co.
.~
i
+
i Marvin I.
Lewis 7G01 Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 62 Phila.. PA 19152 (215)624-1574 The Honor able Ivan Se12n United States t!uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
2055S Dear Chairman Selin;
Background:
The Philadelphia Inquirer of 2-26-93 reported that Limerick Nuclear Power Plant will use slightly irradiated fuel from the abandoned Shoreham Nuclear F.e ac t o r. The complications of this use caire many concerns: transportation of slightly used
-fuel, slightly used fuel compatibility in areas used for
}
unirradiated fuel, handling precautions, violations of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), lack of regulations, and lack of Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Study required 6
by NEPA.
Concerns:
1.
Transportation of slightly used fuel:
?
The transportation of.the Flightly used Limerick enriched uranium fuel raises many concerns. Slightly used fuel is seldom transported hundreds of miles between user locations. This transportation of used fuel between Shoreham and Limerick is a
' novel, unique and original maneuver. As a novel, unique and
-original maneuver with consequences of major proportions, the transportation of slightly used fuel requires an Environmental i
Impact Statement.
Other conce ns related to the local area include lack of FEMA, CNSI and local budgets directed to the Local Emergency Planning Commi ttee to purchase necesssry emergency equipment for i
radiation accidents.
l The concern about FEMA involves the lack of funding of
]
emer gency response other than response to nuclear attacks.
=
'(Fhila. Daily News, Page 10, P ap. c r : FEMA focusing on Armegeddon.)
At a meeting in King of Prus sia.. PA 3 the CNSI contractor for the propoued_ low level-radioactive waste site in Pennsylvania informed me that CNSI was required to provide equipment for
~
. radiation accidcnts related to low level radioactive waste.
CNSI suggested that I have the LEPC contact them. I went to a-Philadelphia City Budget' Hearing on 3-6-93 and informed the City Council of th2s cource of funding and equipment for radiation i
emergencies. The city has so fer responded with itt usual lack i
of enthusiasm and action.
This all leadt to a contarn that the local area is unprepared for the tranrportation of used fuel.
9304090093 930406 PDR ADOCK 05000322 H
.hm. - -
a
J
.g s.-
1
.,3.
- t.,
4 a:
d l
8.:
I.
f k
2..Used fuel compatibility in areas used for new fuel:
?
New fuel has very.few' transuranic elements and radioactive 1
breakdown products within the fuel rod and bundle. The k
radioactivity of some new fuel is so low that it,may be p
transported unshielded.
r
.The opposite is true for irradiated or used-fuel. Used fue]
-has a high level of transuranics and radioactive, decay products-
]
I
-making handling and transportation dangerous, j
New fuel is loaded.from the transporter into the reactor thru.
' channels and routes which do not require or have the safety.
devices needed for used fuel. This leaves the'une of channels and
[
routes from the transporter into the reactor inadequate-for the
. safe transfer of used fuel, a
E.1 S :
These concerns all relate to " paperwork." The SER was written L
to inform.the licensee what he was allowed to do. Regulations were written to tell the licensee what he could not do. The
.I National Environmental Policy Act was passed to tell the NRC and the licensee what Congress required of all parties.
h Assurance is lacking that the SER will be followed because.
j
. the SER does not ment-ion transportation of used fuel, that NRC l
. regulations will be written to include the transportation of used
_j
[~
transportation of used fuel.
fuel. and that the EA or EIS will be filed to cover this
'i j
[
14. Other incompatibilities:-
j 1 have included a chart and list of questions-concerning other.intempatibilities as sn Appendix. I hope that these
[
" questions will receive attention.
l:
interest:
Standing'and p
.Although.I am not fi1ing this 1etter-as a formal 2.206
[
LPet2 tion, I believe that the Chairman shou'Id be aware of my-L
- interest.
F I am.a native born citizen of this area. I am familiar with i
Limerick and its SER.- I am also familiar with1 radiation and its
-j Leffects.
l
['
.The roads in this area.are dangerous in some circumstances. I d
. concern myself'that an accident of radioactive material c.a n lead.
g.
- -to consequences _for' which this area is as prepared as NY was-f F
.during the World Trade Center. bombing.
j m
i h
~:
I
-i I
2 3:
]
4;
,~.me.-
-m
,... _.....,,.._. -.....,,.. _ e_
4
-.A-.-
-. ;)
e,.
~,
.s..
s I am also concerned that storage'and loading of used fuel at the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant will cause dangers not included in EER, FEMA, PEMA and LEPC p}anning and response.
I request a reply. Any attention'which you give this matter will be greatly appreciated and will demonstrate the concern of' the NRC.
t Renpectfully submitted, y[ dd/9a Q'
s
/
9 :'
1
.3-9-93.
i 6
6 9
i n
l t
I e
i-i L
i i
I
'l t
1 J
l
y
-a 4'
,. y.
o t
APPE JJD I X f
Sh o r eh ara Limerick Percent of enr i c h mca n t
.i 4
D2 raennions of
-l Bundles 1
-t Rods i
Connecting hardware to SCRA!1 Dr2ves a
1 Eafety related interfaces Routes of new fuel thru local roads thru nuclear plant
?
Routes of used fuel thru Jocal rnadt thru ruclear plant.
l
[ hyle t i cins..
{
1.
Have the local author tion including LEPCn been informed of routing and need for responce an accordance with the Federal Community R3ght to know Act?(EPCR4 or Title 3 of CERCLA.)
f 2.
Is the TRU or plutonium content of the uned fuel nufficient to.
clancify as TRU contaminated?
l 3.
If the used fuel vu l l require reworking or refitting to use at Limerich, wher e han the impact of this reworking and or refitting l
been reportedi i
h s
I a
?
!