|
|---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML15154A5052015-05-18018 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
ML13119A1112013-03-0808 March 2013
Comment (8) of Brian Paddok on Application for Renewal of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
ML11308A0302011-11-0101 November 2011
Comment (2) of Tom Clements on Behalf of Friends of the Earth, on Draft Strategic Plan About Testing of Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Made from Weapons-Grade Plutonium Required for NRC to License MOX Use in Boiling Water Reactors
ML0927401602009-09-24024 September 2009
Comment (1) of Don C. Laster Opposing on Site Disposal of Contaminated Materials at the Sequoyah Fuels Site Located 2 Miles East of Gore Oklahoma
ML0720803462007-07-23023 July 2007
Comment (3) of Beth A. Wetzel on Behalf of Tennessee Valley Authority Regarding Proposed Generic Communication Concerning Managing Gas Intrusion
ML0636204352006-12-22022 December 2006
Comment (46) of Beth A. Wetzel, on Behalf of TVA Re Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1172, Application and Testing of Safety-Related Diesel Generators in Nuclear Power Plants, Enclosed Comments Should Be Considered ESI-EMD Owners Group and Tva'S C
ML0616001982006-06-20020 June 2006
Order EA-06-137, Attachment 1-E; List of Licensees
ML0604100502006-02-0202 February 2006
Comment (8) of Glenn W. Morris on Behalf of Tennessee Valley Authority Re Proposed Generic Communication; Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown Circuit Analysis Spurious Actuations.
ML0415403832004-05-28028 May 2004
Comment (3) of Mark J. Burzynski on Proposed Generic Letter (GL) 2004-XX; Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR)
ML0408302472004-03-17017 March 2004
Comment (2) of Mark J. Burzynski, TVA, Regarding Best Practices to Establish and Maintain a Safety-Conscious Work Environment
ML0402305282004-01-14014 January 2004
Comment (134) of Mary Mastin Opposing Easing of Fire Protection Regulations That Affect Fire Barriers Protecting Electrical Cables in Nuclear Reactors
ML0400807702003-12-0404 December 2003
Comment (4) of Scott Poteet Re Shell Life of GFE
ML0202500892002-01-16016 January 2002
General Notice Comment Letter on Request for Hearing by NRC & Petition for Leave to Intervene in Matter of TVA Re Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License
2015-05-18
[Table view] |
Text
Page 1 of 2 As of: April 08, 2013 Received:
April 04, 2013 PUBLIC SUBMISSION Status: Pending_Post PUBL C S B MIS IONTracking No. ljx-8415-fca2 Comments Due: May 03, 2013 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2013-0037 Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Comment On: NRC-2013-0037-0003 License Renewal Application for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Tennessee Valley Authority Document:
NRC-2013-0037-DRAFT-0002 2&1 Comment on FR Doc # 2013-05491
'(D Submitter Information Name: David Lochbaum '=Address: --PO Box 15316 -7 Chattanooga, TN, 37415-1271 -i co Submitter's Representative:
David Lochbaum Organization:
Union of Concerned Scientists -T] .00 General Comment Environmental Report Section 4.21 addresses Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives.
As stated in Section 4.21.3, a SAMA analysis is required for license renewal unless one has previously been performed for other reasons. The Limerick nuclear plant in Pennsylvania did a SAMA analysis as part of its initial licensing process.When its owner applied for license renewal, it did not submit another SAMA analysis.Page 4-65 explains TVA reviewed 309 SAMA candidates.
262 candidates were screened out as either not being applicable to Sequoyah.47 SAMA candidates underwent further analysis and TVA identified 9 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs for Unit 1 and 8 on Unit 2. As explained on page 4-66, because none of these potentially cost-beneficial safety upgrades is related to aging management
-the focus of license renewal -none are required in TVA's view.Page 4-67 reports that TVA's analysis of SAMAs 286 and 288 for both units concldued that the "total averted cost risk from the senstivity analyses is greater than the implementation cost...".But Section 4.21.6 concludes that "None of the SAMAs are related to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation.
Therefore, they do not need to be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54." SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM -013 E-RIDS= ADM -03 Add= A/- C 6 https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=
90000648126a73d&for...
04/08/2013 Page 2 of 2 As demonstrated by the Limerick case, SAMA analyses are not required for license renewal unless a SAMA analysis has not yet been done. Thus, the SAMA analysis is not linked solely to aging management during a license renewal period.The SAMA analysis is done for the environmental report. The environmental report considers alternatives to the proposed activity; namely, operating these reactors for 20 more years.The environmental report's evaluation shows that operating these reactors without these safety upgrades for 20 years is the wrong thing to do from a legal and moral perspective.
The Sequoyah licenses should not be renewed without these safety upgrades.https://www.fdms.gov/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectld=090000648126a73d&for...
04/08/2013
