|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML19004A0752019-01-0303 January 2019
Comment of Janet Tauro on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML19003A2422018-12-28028 December 2018
Comment of Donald Weigl on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18362A0952018-12-23023 December 2018
Comment of Gary Defranco of Trans Tech Industries on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18324A7762018-11-18018 November 2018
Comment (2) of Alfred Decker on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18302A2232018-10-29029 October 2018
Comment (1) of Brain Kube on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment
ML18255A0422018-09-12012 September 2018
Comment (3) of Ron Martyn on Behalf of Community Civic Affairs Group on Decommissioning Creek Nuclear of Exelon'S Oyster Generating Station
ML11264A0902011-09-13013 September 2011
Comment (8) of John Runyan, on Behalf of Self, on Consideration of Rulemaking to Address Prompt Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operations
ML0822000512008-07-0909 July 2008
Comment (2) of David P. Helker, on Behalf of Exelon and Amergen, Concerning Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1195, Availability of Electric Power Sources.
ML0808604892008-03-13013 March 2008
Comment (4) of David P. Helker on Behalf of Exelon Generation and Amergen Supporting Draft Regulatory Guide DG-5015, Training and Qualification of Security Personnel at Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities.
ML0720501772007-04-26026 April 2007
Local Area Personal Income
ML0706600532007-02-21021 February 2007
Comment (1) of John Filippelli on Behalf of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Renewal of Operating License for Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant
ML0630703242006-10-21021 October 2006
Comment (2) of Raymond Tierney, on Reactor Oversight Process as Described in Solicitation Letter #7590-01-P
ML0628605662006-09-15015 September 2006
2006/09/15-Comment (1) of J. Lipoti Supporting to the Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03 for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analyses
ML0626102482006-09-14014 September 2006
2006/09/14-Comment (20) of Willie Decamp Regarding Waste Accumulation for Oyster Creek License Renewal
ML0626800332006-09-14014 September 2006
2006/09/14-Comment (23) of Richard Webster, on NUREG-1437:Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,Supplement 28, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Draft Report for Comment: Comment on Safety & Secu
ML0626504562006-09-14014 September 2006
Comment (22) of Mary Miazza, Opposing Relicensing of 35 Year Old Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant
ML0626203482006-09-14014 September 2006
2006/09/14-Comment (21) of Kenneth C. Koschek on License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant
ML0626102442006-09-13013 September 2006
2006/09/13-Comment (18) of Jennifer Samson on Behalf of Clean Ocean Action and American Littoral Society on NUREG-1437: Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Suppl, 28, Oyster Creek Draft Report for C
ML0626102452006-09-12012 September 2006
Comment (19) of Edith Gbur Re Oyster Creek EIS
ML0626102362006-09-11011 September 2006
Comment (12) of Eugene Creamer on Nrc'S Environmental Impact Statement for Renewal of License for Oyster Creek
ML0626103592006-09-11011 September 2006
Comment (11) of Richard Webster, Resending EIS Comments
ML0626104162006-09-0808 September 2006
Comment (10) of Raechelle Edwards on Behalf of Julia Lemense Huff Re Renewal of Oyster Creek License
ML0626102422006-09-0707 September 2006
2006/09/07-Comment (16) of John Filippelli on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Oyster Creek. Recommends That the Final SEIS Address Opportunities for Pollution Prevention & Waste Recycling
ML0626102342006-09-0707 September 2006
Comment (9) of Robert Scro on Behalf of Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Opposing the Generic Environmental Impact Station for Oyster Creek,
ML0625501632006-09-0606 September 2006
Comment (5) of Jessie Carr, Re Comments on Draft Supplement 28 to GEIS (NUREG-1437) Specific to Application for 20-Year License Extension for Oyster Creek Generating Station
ML0625501702006-09-0505 September 2006
Comment (8) of Tom D. Jones Voicing Concerns and Objections to Relicensing of Nuclear Power Plant in Lacey Township, Nj
ML0626102402006-09-0404 September 2006
Comment (15) of Mary Mazza Opposing Relicensing Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant; So Much Technology for Safer Cleaner Energy Alternatives Are Now Available and During the Next 5 Years, More Will Be
ML0626102392006-09-0404 September 2006
Comment (14) of Joan K. Rubin and Gail Marsh Saxer, League of Women Voters, on Nrc'S Draft Generic Environmental Impact Study for Re-Licensing of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. League Supports Recommendation by the State of Nj
ML0625501682006-09-0101 September 2006
Comment (7) of David J. Mckeon, Re Oyster Creek EIS - Question on Strontium-90 Emission
ML0630001342006-08-30030 August 2006
Comment (27) of Diane Lazinsky Regarding the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Geis) for License Renewal at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (NUREG-1437, Suppl. 28)
ML0625501582006-08-30030 August 2006
2006/08/30-Comment (3) of Michael J. Kennish on Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Geis) Regarding License Renewal of Oyster Creek
ML0625501662006-08-30030 August 2006
Comment (6) of Edith Gbur, Re Questions Regarding EIS
ML0625501612006-08-28028 August 2006
2006/08/28-Comment (4) of Michael P. Gallagher on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 28 Regarding Oyster Creek, Dated June 2006
ML0624800412006-08-0909 August 2006
2006/08/09-Comment (2) of Jim Saxton Opposing Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Issued as Part of the Operating License Renewal Process for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Facility in Forked River, New Jersey
ML0620503092006-07-14014 July 2006
Comment (1) of Joseph Mangano on Renewal of Oyster Creek License for Another 20 Years. Urges NRC to Thoroughly Examine Potential Health Risks from Plant Using Available Data
ML0630001172006-07-13013 July 2006
Comment (26) of Pat Crocker Supporting License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Station
ML0630001062006-07-0505 July 2006
Comment (24) of Dotty Reynolds on Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant License Renewal Hearings
ML0436200752004-12-10010 December 2004
Comment (10) of Jill Lipoti on Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process, Dated October 25, 2004
ML0300204912002-12-16016 December 2002
Comment from Jill Lipoti on the Third Year of Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP)
2019-01-03
[Table view] |
Text
RULES ".CTIVES
Michael T. Lesar 21 October 2006 Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch 7 4 Vd
,,,,: 21 Office of Administration (Mail Stop: T6D59)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 205550001
Dear Mr. Lesar,
RF2 V: i\/~" D Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the reactor oversight process as described in solicitation letter # 7590-01-P. As a local resident in the lower Ocean County Township of NJ, I do have an interest in the NRC's re-license process of Oyster Creek NGS.
Enclosed sheets are marked as best as I could in interpreting the questions related to the program associated with your oversight process. Basically, as my understanding, it's the overview of inspection results obtained at previous inspections of commercial operating nuclear generating stations. Color-coded icons that relate to the severity of the findings then classify these results.
In a general comment to that process I must inject that I am retired and was involved with the nuclear energy activities for over forty years. There is today as it was back in 1955, the public perception that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are one in the same. Unfortunately the first use of this energy was a weapon. This perception is fostered by a lack of knowledge. Until this countries education system promotes early year learning about radiation health effects and the generic use of nuclear generation, this lack of knowledge will continue.
As you are well aware, the Europeans are far more advanced in utilizing this form of energy. That is interesting in reference that they had the worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, (Unsafe design) in comparison to our Three Mile Island operator error incident. In addition, our political structure is part of the problem.
I also must admit that your interfacing with the uneducated public is challenging with reference of discussion in technical maters. Having attended several of these meeting I would advise that your speakers be aware of this and use basic generic terms in there responses.
In closing, again -thanks for the opportunity to input my thoughts and comments.
34 Kansas Rd.
Little Egg Harbor, NJ.
08087.
raytierneyva-comcast. net 609-296-1561 o ~-~6I I 6
.4 QUESTIONS In responding to these questions, please consider your experiences using the NRC oversight process.
Shade in the circle that most applies to your experiences as follows:
- 1) Strongly Agree 2) Agree 3) Neutral 4) Disagree 5) Strongly Disagree If there are experiences that are rated as unsatisfactory, or if you have specific thoughts or concerns, please elaborate in the "Comments" section that follows the question and offer your opinion for possible improvements. If there are experiences or opinions that you would like to express that cannot be directly captured by the questions, document that in the last question of the survey.
Questions related to specific Reactor Oversight (ROP) program areas (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.)
(1) The Performance Indicator Program provides useful insights to help ensure plant safety.
1 2 3 4 5 H IW El EL I Comments:
(2) Appropriate overlap exists between the Performance Indicator Program and the Inspection Program.
1 2 3 4 5 0 i FI LI LI Comments:
(3) NEI 99-02, "Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline" provides clear guidance regarding Performance Indicators.
1 2 3 4 5 LI LI P EL LI Comments:
(4) The Performance Indicator Program, including the Mitigating Systems Performance Index, can effectively identify performance outliers based on risk-informed, objective, and predictable indicators.
1 2 3 4 5 LI a LI LI LI Comments:
(5) The Inspection Program adequately covers areas important to safety, and is effective in identifying and ensuring the prompt correction of any performance deficiencies.
1 2 3 4 5 SEl El El r Comments:
(6) The information contained in inspection reports is relevant, useful, and written in plain English.
1 2 3 4 5 Hl E] l P El Comments:
(7) The Significance Determination Process yields an appropriate and consistent regulatory response across all ROP cornerstones.
1 2 3 4 5 Comments:
(8) The NRC takes appropriate actions to address performance issues for those plants outside of the Licensee Response Column of the Action Matrix.
1 2 3 4 5 El DFlL 1 Comments:
(9) The information contained in assessment reports is relevant, useful, and written in plain English.
1 2 3 4 5 EL []
nl Comments:
Questions related to the efficacy of the overall ROP. (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.)
(10) The ROP oversight activities are predictable (i.e., controlled by the process) and reasonably objective (i.e., based on supported facts, rather than relying on subjective judgement).
1 2 3 4 5 El
(11) The ROP is risk-informed, in that the NRC's actions and outcomes are appropriately graduated on the basis of increased significance.
1 2 3 4 5 Ll El1 If L1 Comments:
(12) The ROP is understandable and the processes, procedures and products are clear and written in plain English.
1 2 3 4 5 Li E]l LI Comments:
(13) The ROP provides adequate regulatory assurance, when combined with other NRC regulatory processes, that plants are being operated and maintained safely.
1 2 3 4 5 L[ I1 E L
[I Comments:
(14) The ROP safety culture enhancements help identify licensee safety culture weaknesses and focus licensee and NRC attention appropriately.
1 2 3 4 5
] 19El EDE EL Comments:
(15) The ROP is effective, efficient, realistic, and timely.
1 2 3 4 5 EWE ELI Comments:
(16) The ROP ensures openness in the regulatory process.
1 2 3 4 5 Li S EE El Comments:
(17) The public has been afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the ROP and to provide inputs and comments.
1 2 3 4 5 Comments:
(18) The NRC has been responsive to public inputs and comments on the ROP.
1 2 3 4 5 Comments:
(19) The NRC has implemented the ROP as defined by program documents.
1 2 3 4 5 LI EL DI []
Comments:
(20) The ROP minimizes unintended consequences.
1 2 3 4 5 Comments:
(21) You would support a change in frequency of the ROP external survey from annually to every other year, consistent with the internal survey, as proposed in SECY-06-0074.
1 2 3 4 5 0 L LI LI I]
Comments:
(22) Please provide any additional information or comments related to the Reactor Oversight Process.