|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML24156A2492024-05-30030 May 2024
Comment (5) E-mail Regarding Browns Ferry SLR EIS Scoping
ML24142A2212024-05-16016 May 2024
Comment (4) E-mail Regarding Browns Ferry SLR EIS Scoping
ML24131A0292024-05-0707 May 2024
Comment (3) E-mail Regarding Browns Ferry SLR EIS Scoping
ML24127A0022024-05-0303 May 2024
Comment (2) E-mail Regarding Browns Ferry SLR EIS Scoping
ML24107B1072024-04-11011 April 2024
Comment (1) E-mail Regarding Browns Ferry SLR EIS Scoping
ML16221A1652016-08-0303 August 2016
Comment (1) of Mark Leyse on Behalf of Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team/Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation, Regarding Amendment Request for the Extended Power Uprate for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3
ML15154A5052015-05-18018 May 2015
Comment (1) of Heinz J. Mueller on Behalf of Us EPA on Final Generic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Fgseis)/ License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 53 Regarding Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Ceq 20150079
ML14364A0122014-12-22022 December 2014
Comment (00011) of Anonymous Individual on Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML13130A2382013-05-0101 May 2013
Comment (13) of Yolanda Moyer on License Renewal Application for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Tennessee Valley Authority
ML13130A2442013-05-0101 May 2013
Comment (1) of Kristina Lambert, of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Opposing the Relicensing of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
ML13130A2392013-04-30030 April 2013
Comment (14) of Judith Canepa of the New York Climate Action Group Opposing the License Renewal Application for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Tennessee Valley Authority
ML13149A0082013-04-26026 April 2013
Comment (15) of Tom Clements on Behalf of Friends of the Earth on Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application Review
ML13144A8282013-04-26026 April 2013
Comment (2) of Tom Clements on Behalf of Friends of the Earth, on the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 License Renewal Application Review
ML13119A2032013-04-25025 April 2013
Comment (11) of Sandra Kurtz on the Scoping Regarding the Re-licensing for Sequoyah Nuclear Reactors 1 and 2
ML13116A2962013-04-19019 April 2013
Comment (6) of Eric Blevins on the License Renewal Application for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Tennessee Valley Authority
ML13116A2942013-04-19019 April 2013
Comment (7) of Tara Pilkinton Opposing the License Renewal Application for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Tennessee Valley Authority
ML13116A2932013-04-17017 April 2013
Comment (4) of Jeannie Hacker-Cerulean Opposing the License Renewal Application for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Tennessee Valley Authority
ML13116A2952013-04-17017 April 2013
Comment (5) of Sylvia D. Aldrich Opposing the License Renewal Application for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Tennessee Valley Authority
ML13116A2922013-04-16016 April 2013
Comment (3) of Adelle Wood, Opposing the Application for Renewal of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
ML13101A1172013-04-0404 April 2013
Comment (2) of David Lockbaum on Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
ML13091A0182013-03-16016 March 2013
Comment (1) of Jaak Saame Regarding Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
ML13119A1112013-03-0808 March 2013
Comment (8) of Brian Paddok on Application for Renewal of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
ML13119A1132013-03-0808 March 2013
Comment (10) of Gretel Johnston on the License Renewal Application for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Tennessee Valley Authority
ML12032A0272011-12-19019 December 2011
Comment (4) of Raj Rana, on Behalf of Himself, on NUREG-1482, Rev 2, Appendix B
ML11354A1102011-12-14014 December 2011
Comment (74) of Lois Duvall & Faith Ruffing on Behalf of Themselves Supporting Draft Supplement 47 to the GEIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11334A0682011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (69) of Kris Watkins on Behalf of Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau, Supporting Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Operated by Energy Northwest
ML11325A1822011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (63) of Laurence Vernhes Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant
ML11325A1812011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (62) of Theodora Tsongas Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
ML11325A3172011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (60) of Thomas Buchanan, on Behalf of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, on Relicensing Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A3152011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (59) Jill Reifschneider Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A3182011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (61) of Allison O'Brien on Behalf of Us Dept of the Interior, on Re-licensing of Columbia Generating Station
ML11334A0692011-11-16016 November 2011
Comment (70) of Christine B. Reichgott on Behalf of Us Environmental Protection Agency, on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Renewal of Columbia Generating Station License
ML11325A3092011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (53) of Janice Castle Opposing Relicensing of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A3132011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (57) of Mary Twombly Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
ML11325A2472011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (51) of Eric Adman, Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A1842011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (65) by James W. Sanders on Behalf of Benton Pud, Supporting Renewal of the Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A3102011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (54) of Gerry Pollet, on Behalf of Heart of America, on Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating Stati
ML11325A3112011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (55) of Chandra Radiance on Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the Licenses Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A3122011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (56) of Hafiz Heartsun, on Behalf of Himself, Opposing Re-Licensing of Columbia River Generation Station
ML11325A3142011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (58) of Charles Johnson, on Behalf of Himself, Opposing Relicensing of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A3082011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (52) of Leslie March, on Behalf of the Sierra Club, Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generating
ML11325A1832011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (64) of Julie Longenecker on Behalf of Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, on Draft Supplemental EIS for License Renewal of the Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A2462011-11-15015 November 2011
Comment (50) of Delbert Mccombs, Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants & Public Meetings for License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A2442011-11-14014 November 2011
Comment (48) of Steven G Gilbert, on Behalf of Himself, Opposing License Renewal of Columbia Generating Station
ML11325A2432011-11-14014 November 2011
Comment (47) of Jacqueline Sorgen on Behalf of Himself Opposed to Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Columbia Generating Station Facility Operating License
ML11325A2452011-11-14014 November 2011
Comment (49) of Susan Nash, Opposing NRC-2010-0029-0015, Notice of Availability of Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for License Renewal of Columbia Gener
ML11325A2422011-11-12012 November 2011
Comment (46) of Louisa Hamachek, Opposing NRC-2010-0029-0015, Energy Northwest, Columbia Generating Station; Opposing Draft Supplement 47 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings
ML11325A1902011-11-10010 November 2011
Comment (66) of Michelle Caird on Behalf of Inland Power and Light Co., Supporting License Renewal of the Columbia Generating Station
ML11334A0662011-11-10010 November 2011
Comment (67) of Stephen Posner on Behalf of the State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council on Columbia Generating Station Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement - Supplement 47
ML11334A0702011-11-0808 November 2011
Comment (71) of Commissioners on Behalf of Mason County Pud Supporting Draft Supplement 47 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants and Public Meetings for the License Renewal of Columbia Generatin
2024-05-07
[Table view] |
Text
0 Mendiola, Doris
Subject:
FW: Comment on Draft Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2012-2016, NUREG-1614, Vol. 5, draft From: tomclements329@cs.com rma ito tomclements329@cs.coml Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 12:33 PM To: Coyle, James
Subject:
Comment on Draft Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2012-2016, NUREG-1614, Vol. 5, draft November 1,2011 C:
Mr. James Coyle '-' ,J' TWFN Mail Stop 09-D24 "" ; -,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Washington, DC 20555-0001 .
phone: 301-415-6087 -"c-7V7T-e-mail: James.Coyle@NRC.gov F-Comment on Draft Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2012-2016, NUREG-1614, Vol. 5, draft
Dear Mr. Coyle:
I notice that there is no discussion in the NRC's draft strategic plan about the testing of plutonium fuel (MOX) made from weapons-grade plutonium that will be required for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license MOX use in boiling water reactors (BWRS) and which will be needed to license MOX use for three cycles in pressurized water reactors (PWRs). I believe this issue and problems associated with itare worthy of mention in the strategic plan, as preparations for this test may well begin by 2016.
Given that the U.S. Department of Energy is considering MOX use in the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry reactors (GE Mark I BWRs) and Energy Northwest's Columbia Generating Station (GE Mark IIBWR) as well as in TVA's Sequoyah PWRs (ice condenser design, with thin containment), the NRC will be intimately involved in the licensing of these tests and subsequently in any licensing of batch use if such a license request goes forward. Adiscussion of the task in front of the NRC to license the MOX tests is worthy of discussion in the plan and though no request are now before the NRC construction of the MOX plant at the DOE's Savannah River Site implies such requests if the facility is finished and can operate per NRC license requirements.
As there has been no testing at all of weapons-grade MOX in BWRs - a fact which some in the plutonium industry have attempted to cloud - a test for a full three 2-year fuel cycles will be necessary to license MOX for three cycles of irradiation. After the irradiation, the NRC will have to be involved in post irradiation examination, if itis decided to review the results of any test that might take place.
Likewise, in order to license MOX for three 18-month cycles in the Sequoyah PWRs, a three-cycle test will be necessary.
As a test of weapons-grade MOX was aborted in Duke Energy's Catawba reactor after only two cycles in which the fuel assemblies did not perform as planned, a successful third cycle of MOX assemblies will be necessary if MOX will be used for the normal three cycles for uranium fuel.
Obviously, there may be decisions not to proceed with MOX use given exorbitant costs of the program, proliferation implications associated with introducing plutonium into commerce, the stresses it places on reactor operation and given the more serious radiation release in case of an accident involving containment breach.
While the licensing review of the MOX plant under construction at the DOE's Savannah River Site is mentioned in the draft plan, it must be noted that operation of the plant, if it were to receive an operating license, will be curtailed during testing of weapons-grade MOX in BWRs and PWRs. As the MOX plant is at risk of sitting idle or operating at reduced capacity after initial fabrication of the MOX "lead test assemblies" (LTAs), the NRC must take this into account as it considers the operating license. The SRS MOX plant will be, if completed and if operable, the only place in the world which could be available to fabricate MOX fuel from weapons-grade plutonium, so the only option will be that the LTAs be fabricated there. Fabrication of the LTAs could only take place after successful start-up of the MOX plant and production of batch quantities of fuel will likely not be able to proceed given the necessity of lengthy NRC-licensed MOX testing in a
BWR and a PWR, which will have unknown results. Lacking licensing confirmation of batch MOX use at the time of initial operation of the MOX plant dictates that no production can take place until multi-year testing of LTAs has fully concluded.
That the MOX plant may sit idle or will operate at reduced capacity needs to be considered during licensing review of the facility.
I request that this comment be made a part of the official record and that it also be placed in ADAMS.
Sincerely, Tom Clements Southeastern Nuclear Campaign Coordinator Friends of the Earth 1112 Florence Street Columbia, SC 29201 tel. 803-834-3084 tomclements329tcs.com 2
