|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML19177A2322019-06-26026 June 2019
Comment (15) E-mail Regarding C.R. EIS Scoping Comments
ML14070A4042014-03-0505 March 2014
Comment (7) of Brian P. Moore on Crystal River, Unit 3, Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML14070A4032014-03-0404 March 2014
Comment (6) of Ricky Miles on Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML14063A2042014-02-19019 February 2014
Comment (5) of Warren K. Brewer on Crystal River, Unit 3, Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML14035A0722014-01-19019 January 2014
Comment (4) of an Anonymous Individual on Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML14017A0562014-01-10010 January 2014
Comment (3) of Anonymous Individual on Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Crystal River, Unit 3, Nuclear Generating Plant Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML14017A0582014-01-0909 January 2014
Comment (2) of William Kran on Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Cyrstal River, Unit 3, Nuclear Generating Plant Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML14017A0572014-01-0909 January 2014
Comment (1) of an Anonymous Individual on Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Crystal River, Unit 3, Nuclear Generating Plant Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report
ML13022A4962012-12-13013 December 2012
Comment (248) of Deb Brown on Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation
ML12334A3952012-11-22022 November 2012
Comment (99) of Steve Shuput on Consideration on Environmental Impacts on Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation
ML12334A3872012-11-21021 November 2012
Comment (91) of Kenneth Clark on Consideration on Environmental Impacts on Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation
ML11209C4862011-07-26026 July 2011
Comment (9) of Joseph Walsh, on Behalf of Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, on Draft Supplement to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants for Crystal River Unit 3, NRC Report No. NUREG-14
ML11217A0192011-07-25025 July 2011
Comment (12) of Heinz J. Mueller on Behalf of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Issuance of a Renewed Operating License for Crystal River Plant, Unit 3
ML11208C2722011-07-25025 July 2011
Comment (8) of Sara Barczak on Behalf of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Opposing Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 44 Regarding Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant
ML11208C2712011-07-25025 July 2011
Comment (7) of Charles C. Alton on Behalf of Himself, Opposing Crystal River, Unit 3, Draft Supplement 44 to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
ML11208C2692011-07-25025 July 2011
Comment (5) of Michael Canney on Behalf of the Green Party of Florida Opposing NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (NUREG-1437, Sup
ML11203A4412011-07-21021 July 2011
Comment(4) of Andreas Auner, Supporting Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 44 Regarding Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant
ML11194A0372011-07-0707 July 2011
Comment (3) of Josh Wooten, on Behalf of the Citrus County Chamber of Commerce, Full Board of Directors, Supporting NRC Renewal of Nuclear Plant License for Nuclear Plant Site Located within Citrus County, Florida
ML11194A0362011-07-0505 July 2011
Comment (2) of C. Theresa Supporting Shut Down of Nuclear Power Plants in Florida & Opposing License for License of Crystal River Plant
ML0611103552006-04-11011 April 2006
Comment (4) of Brian Mccabe, Re NUREG-0800, Section 17.5, Quality Assurance Program Description - Design Certification, Early Site Permit and New License Applicants, Draft Revision 0
2019-06-26
[Table view] |
Text
Page 1 of 2 As of: March 07, 2014 Received:
March 04, 2014 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Itatus: l'enldng-ost PUBLC S BMISIONTracking No. ljy-8ars-syr5 Comments Due: March 05, 201L Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2013-0283 Duke Energy Florida, Inc. Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report Comment On: NRC-2013-0283-0001 Duke Energy Florida, Inc., Cyrstal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report Document:
NRC-2013-0283-DRAFT-0006 Comment on FR Doc # 2013-31317 75/5- 19'7Of'Submitter Information Name: Ricky Miles Address: 11020 Hotchkiss Valley Road East F-q -0 13000 Gulf Blvd., Madeira Beach, FL C:) C/Lenoir City, TN, 37771 Email: rmiles@ovssr.org General Comment Docket ID -NRC-2013-0283 Comments on the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) for the Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plant Putting Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plaht (CR-3) in long term SAFSTOR has major issues that are not addressed in this Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) because of the structural integrity issues of the reactor building concrete containment wall. This PSDAR does not even mention the lack of structural stability (fails to meet the design basis of the reactor building concrete containment wall criteria) of the 3.5 foot reactor building outside containment wall. This is the primary reason CR-3 has been shut down and will never be returned to service but this PSDAR uses bounding analysis techniques that ignore the fact that the reference Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) used in NUREG-0586 has a reactor building primary and secondary containment that meet the design basis and CR-3 does not.The bounding analysis used in Section 5.0, Environmental Impacts, of the PSDAR are flawed because the reference PWR used in NUREG-0586 (see Section 5.1) to evaluate environmental impacts does not have a severely damaged reactor building containment concrete wall. To the contrary, the reference PWR has both a primary and secondary containment that meet the design basis of a commercial nuclear power electrical https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000064815f7585
&for... 03/07/2014 Page 2 of 2 generating plant. CR-3 is not bounded by the envelopes of analysis described in NUREG-0586 and NUREG-1496 as neither consider a nuclear power plant with a structural failed (does not meet design criteria) reactor outside concrete containment wall prior to the being placed in SAFSTOR.This PSDAR has a major omission of the condition of the reactor building outside concrete containment wall and how this condition must be dealt with going forward. This PSDAR needs to be revised or amended now to address the existing failure of the reactor concrete containment wall and how the long term SAFSTOR of the plant will be effected.I am a Duke Energy electrical customer that lives in Pinellas County, Florida. I am concerned that putting CR-3 in long term SAFSTOR is not the best option for the citizens of the surrounding area given the structural issues with this plant and that Duke Energy of Florida should make every effort to expedite the DECON option for this site.Would you please acknowledge that you received my comments to this PSDAR and furnish me with a schedule when I should receive your response to my comments.My contact information is as follows: Ricky C. Miles at phone number (865) 603-0804 or email address rmiles@ovssr.org.
https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=090000648 15f7585&for...
03/07/2014
