|
---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML24025A0952024-01-24024 January 2024 Clarifications Related to the NRC Staff'S EA for Crystal River ML23180A0562023-06-13013 June 2023 ADP-CR3, Crystal River Unit 3 Email from J. Jernigan to Tim Barvitskie Confirmation That Enclosure 22 Radiological Groundwater Characterization Report ML21117A2902021-04-26026 April 2021 Acceptance of License Amendment Request Related to the ISFSI-Only Physical Securityplan ML21096A0432021-04-0505 April 2021 Acceptance of License Amendment Request Related to the ISFSI-Only Emergency Plan ML19344C8052019-11-12012 November 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 11-12-2019 H Danenhower ML19310D8602019-10-24024 October 2019 E-Mail Dated October 24, 2019, from Mark Vansicklen, Duke Energy Florida, to John Hickman, NRC, Providing Background Information for the Crystal River Partial Site Release Request ML19344C7872019-10-0303 October 2019 Response from NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire 10-03-2019 D Taylor ML19310D8212019-09-13013 September 2019 E-Mail Dated September 13, 2019, from John Hickman, NRC, to Mark Vansicklen, Duke Energy Florida, Requesting Background Information for the Crystal River Partial Site Release Request ML19130A2082019-05-0808 May 2019 Email - NRC Email to FEMA Dated May 8, 2019: NRC Response to Comment on FEMA Review of Proposed Changes to DBNPS Emergency Plan for Permanently Defueled Condition ML19070A3112019-03-0606 March 2019 Document Title or Accession No. E-Mail Dated 3/6/2019 from John Hickman, NRC, to Phyllis Dixon, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Regarding NRC Acceptance Review of Partial Site Release Request for Crystal River Unit 3 ML19071A0662019-03-0606 March 2019 E-Mail Dated 3/6/2019 from John Hickman, NRC, to Phyllis Dixon, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Regarding NRC Acceptance Review of a Request to Revise the ISFSI Only Emergency Plan for Crystal River Unit 3 ML18263A1462018-09-11011 September 2018 NRR E-mail Capture - Logbook Entry: 09/11/2018 a Kemp'S Ridley Sea Turtle (Federal Endangered Species) Carcass Was Recovered from the Crystal River Energy Complex Unit 2 Fossil Unit ML16054A2402015-12-10010 December 2015 E-44108 Attachment 10 E-mail from Steven Edwards (Due Energy) to Don Shaw (Areva) for Brunswick Nuclear Plant, Oconee Nuclear Station, and Robinson Nuclear Plant ML15176A2692015-06-25025 June 2015 NRR E-mail Capture - NRC Acceptance Review for LAR #317 Regarding Changes in Managment Titles ML15043A1042015-02-0505 February 2015 NRR E-mail Capture - Mf Crystal River TAC ML15015A6722015-01-15015 January 2015 NRR E-mail Capture - NRC Acceptance Review for LAR - Application for Order Approving Transfer of License and for Conforming License Amendment ML14344A9992014-12-0909 December 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - Severe Weather Exemption ML14258A7432014-09-0505 September 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - FW: Comparison of Crystal River'S Exemption Secy Paper with Kewaunee'S ML14290A1992014-08-27027 August 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - Draft RAIs for Ep/Eal LAR ML14163A2512014-06-0303 June 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information - Exemption for Conducting Annual force-on-force Exercises ML14153A0842014-05-29029 May 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - Logbook Entry: 05/29/2014 ML14153A6912014-05-21021 May 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information - Decommissionign Trust Fund Exemption Request ML14132A2052014-05-0909 May 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - MF3089 - Defueled TS Amendment Request for Additrional Information ML14114A2792014-04-10010 April 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - MF3089 Defueled TS Request for Additional Information ML14113A3632014-04-10010 April 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - MF3415/MF2981 RAI on EP Exemptions, EAL Scheme Change and E Plan Amendment ML14118A2872014-02-20020 February 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information: Exemptions to the Radiological Emergency Plan Requirements ML14045A0012014-02-12012 February 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - RAI: Adminstrative Controls ML14031A1752014-01-27027 January 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - CR3 Certified Fuel Handler Training and Retraining Program Approval - RAI Request ML14017A0772014-01-16016 January 2014 NRR E-mail Capture - Brunswick 1 and 2, Crystal River Unit 3, Harris Unit 1, and Robinson Unit 2 - Acceptance for Review of License Amendment Request for Cyber Security Plan Implementaion Milestone 8 (TAC Nos. MF3263 - MF3267) ML14027A0332013-12-16016 December 2013 NRR E-mail Capture - Eplan and EAL Scheme Change Request for Additional Information (LAR #315) ML13336A9112013-12-0202 December 2013 NRR E-mail Capture - Periodic Update to the Crystal River 3 Containment Petition ML13198A1422013-07-17017 July 2013 NRR E-mail Capture - Draft RAI - Request to Amend Section 5.0 of the CR-3 Technical Specifications (MF1504) ML13157A2062013-05-31031 May 2013 NRR E-mail Capture - Logbook Entry: 5/31/2013 ML13155A2062013-05-29029 May 2013 NRR E-mail Capture - Petition Status Update - Containment for Crystal River ML13120A0412013-04-29029 April 2013 NRR E-mail Capture - Status Update for Petition on Crystal River 3 ML13095A4002013-04-0505 April 2013 E-mail - Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Change of Licensee Name ML13052A2402013-02-0808 February 2013 LTR-13-0131 - E-mail Tom Gurdziel Concerns Crystal River, Unit 3 ML13015A2832013-01-14014 January 2013 NRR E-mail Capture - Status of 10 CFR 2.206 Petition Related to Crystal River 3 ML13011A1482013-01-10010 January 2013 NRR E-mail Capture - CR-3 EPU LAR - Additional RAI from Eeeb (ME6527) ML12304A0682012-10-26026 October 2012 NRR E-mail Capture - RAIs Regarding Crystal River 30-day Report for ECCS Model Changes Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.46 Requirements (ME8408) ML12297A3922012-10-23023 October 2012 NRR E-mail Capture - Draft Bypass Test Plan ML12268A3592012-09-24024 September 2012 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for LAR Regarding Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule Milestones ML12208A0142012-07-25025 July 2012 NRR E-mail Capture - State Consultation ML12184A3442012-07-0202 July 2012 NRR E-mail Capture - Crystal River, Unit 3 EPU LAR - Discussion/Clarification of Emcb Draft RAIs ML12144A0102012-05-22022 May 2012 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review Determination: CR-3 - Relief Request #12-001-MX for Option to Use ASME Code Case N-791 for Containment Repair ML12107A0682012-04-0404 April 2012 NRR E-mail Capture - Crystal River, Unit 3 EPU LAR - Clarifications for Component Performance & Testing Branch (Eptb) ML12100A1022012-03-30030 March 2012 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for CR3 - LAR 312- Departure from a Method of Evaluation for Aux Bldg Over Head Crane, Implementation Schedule Change ML12023A1272012-01-23023 January 2012 NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review Determination for TAC ME7729: CR3 - Relief Request #11-001-MX, Containment Surveillance Schedule, Fourth 10-Year ISI Interval ML12019A2662012-01-17017 January 2012 NRR E-mail Capture - Crystal River Nuclear Plant - Enforcement Petition 10 C.F.R. 2.206 ML12019A2672012-01-17017 January 2012 NRR E-mail Capture - Crystal River Nuclear Plant - Enforcement Petition 10 C.F.R. 2.206 2024-01-24
[Table view] |
Text
From: Duke Energy To: NEIMA108 Resource
Subject:
Response from "NEIMA Local Community Advisory Board Questionnaire" Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 4:56:39 PM Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Duke Energy (heather.danenhower@duke-energy.com) on Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 17:05:01 through the IP 148.184.182.46 using the form at https://www.nrc.gov/waste/decommissioning/neima-local-comm-advisory-board-questionnaire.html and resulted in this email to neima108.resource@nrc.gov
related-site: Crystal River Nuclear Plant (CR3) in Citrus County, Fla.
cab-question1:
cab-question2:
cab-question3:
cab-question4:
cab-question5:
cab-question6:
cab-question7:
cab-question8:
cab-question9:
cab-question10:
cab-question11:
cab-question12:
cab-question13:
cab-question14:
cab-question15:
cab-question16:
nocab-question1: Yes, to determine Duke Energys engagement strategy for the Crystal River Nuclear Plant located in Citrus County, Fla., the company considered whether forming a community advisory board was necessary.
To determine its stakeholder engagement strategy, Duke Energy conducted eight surveys of stakeholders - including two formal surveys conducted in 2013 and 2019 that provided statistically valid results (meaning the sample size was large enough to explain the general population).
Duke Energy then used this data to design and implement structured stakeholder engagement plans that reflect the specific needs and preferences of the community.
Other research included: Reviewing guidance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Electric Power Research Institute; benchmarking other decommissioning plants, e.g., Maine Yankee, Zion, Kewaunee, San Onofre and Vermont Yankee; attending a community advisory board meeting at Zion; serving on a Nuclear Energy Institute communications task force with representatives from decommissioning nuclear plants; and analyzing local demographics, economic impacts of the nuclear plants closure and interest from a variety of groups.
nocab-question2: Based on careful consideration and statistically valid data, Duke Energy chose not to form a formal community advisory board. Data show forming a board was not necessary for the Crystal River Nuclear Plant or the best avenue to meet the needs of the Citrus County community.
Instead, every year since the decommissioning was announced in 2013, Duke Energy has maintained an informal community stakeholders group and designed and implemented a structured stakeholder engagement plan based on the well-researched needs and preferences of the community.
According to data, stakeholders prefer receiving information about the nuclear plant's decommissioning through a company newsletter mailed to their home, email, website, face-to-face meetings and traditional media.
In 2013, key community leaders ranked forming a community advisory board as their fourth preferred communications channel out of five specified options.
Other data points helped inform Duke Energys stakeholder engagement strategy and distinguish the Crystal River Nuclear Plant from other decommissioning plants that have community advisory boards.
As examples:
The Crystal River Nuclear Plant is part of a large energy complex that has been a vital part of Citrus County for more than 50 years. With other generating units continuing to operate at the site, the complex will remain an industrial facility for decades to come.
Financial contributions to agencies and employee volunteerism programs are continuing, despite the nuclear plants decommissioning.
Since 2012, Duke Energy has contributed more than $1.75 million to Citrus County through Duke Energy Foundation grants and community sponsorships. Of this amount, $1 million was provided in 2013 (after the decommissioning decision was announced) to Citrus County organizations that focus on economic development, workforce development, community vitality and essential services.
In 2018, employees in Citrus County logged more than 2,900 volunteer hours helping nonprofit organizations advance their mission.
In 2019, Duke Energy paid $29 million in local property taxes.
Public opposition of the Crystal River Nuclear Plant has been minimal compared to other decommissioning sites in other states.
Duke Energy invested $1.6 billion to construct a 1,640-megawatt combined-cycle natural gas station at the energy complex to replace generation from plant retirements.
This investment helped address community concerns about economic impacts related to the nuclear plants closure.
The new Citrus Combined Cycle Station generated more than $600 million in economic benefits during construction
and created about 3,000 temporary jobs. The new station will also provide the community $13 million in economic benefits annually during the stations 35-year operational life and about $13.5 million in new property taxes to Citrus County government in 2019.
nocab-question3: Duke Energy's stakeholder engagement plans focus on providing updates about key decommissioning milestones using communications channels stakeholders identified as most valuable, addressing top community concerns and building goodwill and trust in the community.
Between 2013 and 2019, Duke Energy provided 118 stakeholder engagement opportunities, including: 11 written communications; 32 face-to-face interactions, e.g., open houses, meetings, presentations and tours; 18 proactive traditional media opportunities; and 56 community giving events.
nocab-question4: Several examples of effective stakeholder engagement exist among owners of decommissioning nuclear plants across the U.S.
Each is unique. Some licensees have formed community advisory boards; others have not, but both approaches have been successful.
What has worked well in one community might not work well in another.
Duke Energy believes owners of nuclear plants should continue to have the flexibility to tailor their approach to stakeholder engagement to meet specific local needs, and a one-size-fits-all approach is not in the best interest of each community.
nocab-question5: Several examples of effective stakeholder engagement exist among owners of decommissioning nuclear plants across the U.S.
Each is unique. Some licensees have formed community advisory boards; others have not, but both approaches have been successful.
What has worked well in one community might not work well in another.
Duke Energy believes owners of nuclear plants should continue to have the flexibility to tailor their approach to stakeholder engagement to meet specific local needs, and a one-size-fits-all approach is not in the best interest of each community.