(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
|---|
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
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
ML0719903442007-06-28028 June 2007
Comment (1) of Bertram C. Morris on Question Regarding Guidance for Electronic Submissions
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
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.
ML0511602172005-04-20020 April 2005
Comment (2) on Draft Regulatory Guide (DG) 1137 - Guidance for Lightning Protection for Nuclear Power Plants
ML0507001072005-02-28028 February 2005
Comment (4) of Heinz J. Mueller Re the Draft Generic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
ML0430100972004-10-23023 October 2004
Comment (473) of Corey E. Olsen on Draft Criteria on Manual Actions to Achieve Post-fire Safe Shutdown
ML0416000952004-06-0303 June 2004
Comment (6) of Frances Lamberts on Renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3
ML0416001012004-06-0202 June 2004
Comment (467) of M. Bowden Regarding Public Comment on Draft Criteria on Manual Actions to Achieve Post-Fire Safe Shutdown
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)
ML0413402452004-05-0707 May 2004
Comment (2) of Dave Ritter on Browns Ferry EIS Scoping
ML0414100442004-04-21021 April 2004
Comment (3) of Governor Bill Anoatubby Supporting the Renewal Application of the Tennessee Valley Authority for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant License
ML0412504052004-03-31031 March 2004
Comment (1) of Zola Regarding EIS Input - Over the Life Extension Request of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
ML0408302472004-03-17017 March 2004
Comment (2) of Mark J. Burzynski, TVA, Regarding Best Practices to Establish and Maintain a Safety-Conscious Work Environment
ML0404302652004-01-21021 January 2004
Comment (222) of Stephen Knowlton Regarding Stricter Fire Standards at Nuclear Plants
ML0404305032004-01-18018 January 2004
Comment (162) of D. K. Cinquemani and F. L. Cinquemani Opposing the Processed Relaxation of Enforcement of the Current Fire Code
ML0402305892004-01-14014 January 2004
Comment (135) of Christopher Anderson Opposing Easing of Fire Protection Regulations That Affect Fire Barriers Protecting Electrical Cables in Nuclear Reactors
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
ML0402305972004-01-13013 January 2004
Comment (138) of Claire Martineau Opposing Easing of Fire Protection Regulations That Affect Fire Barriers Protecting Electrical Cables in Nuclear Reactors
ML0402305942004-01-12012 January 2004
Comment (137) of Fawn Shillinglaw Opposing Easing of Fire Protection Regulations That Affect Fire Barriers Protecting Electrical Cables in Nuclear Reactors
ML0401307252004-01-0808 January 2004
Comment (127) of George Crocker Regarding Manual Actions to Achieve Post-Fire Safe Shutdown
ML0400807572004-01-0606 January 2004
Comment (122) of Hamilton Hudgins Regarding Draft Criteria on Manual Actions to Achieve Post-Fire Safe Shutdown
ML0400807422004-01-0505 January 2004
Comment (119) of Lisa Cohen Regarding Draft Criteria on Manual Actions to Achieve Post-Fire Safe Shutdown
ML0402305982004-01-0101 January 2004
Comment (139) of Mark K. Boughton 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
2024-05-07
[Table view] |
Text
2^ 5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TNREGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET
--e p~ot ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 February 28, 2005 Rules Review and Directives Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D59 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 RE: EPA Review and Comments on Draft Generic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DGSEIS)
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 21 Regarding Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 CEQ No. 040563
Dear Sir:
EPA Region 4 reviewed the Draft Generic Supplemental EIS (DGSEIS) pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102 (2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The purpose of this letter is to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with EPA's comments regarding potential impacts of the proposed renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Operating Licenses (OLs).
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted an application to renew the Operating License (OLs) for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3 for an additional 20 years.
The proposed action, (license renewal), would provide for continued operation and maintenance of existing facilities and transmission lines.
Based on the review of the DGSEIS, the document received a rating of EC-1, meaning that environmental concerns exist regarding some aspects of the proposed project. Specifically, protecting the environment involves the continuing need for appropriate storage and ultimate disposition of radioactive wastes generated on-site. In addition, the DGSEIS does not include complete information regarding the facility's CWA/NPDES compliance status.
According to EPA's records, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant has reported non-compliance regarding total suspended solids and coliform during the last two years. EPA's records also show that the facility was issued a letter of violation/warning by the State with regard to the Clean Water Act on February 17, 2004. However, page 2-8, line 22 mentions that "operations will continue to meet regulatory limits established in the existing NPDES Permit." Page 2-21 discusses the Plant's relationship with ADEM and the NPDES Permit, but does not mention the compliance status nor the letter of violation. The Final GSEIS needs to include information regarding how the facility has been addressing the non-compliance issues.
Intemet Address (URL)
- http:/lwww.epa.gov (/v z Recycled/Recyclable
- Prdnted with Vegetable o0Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30%/ Postconsumer) 1X- -,b / 3
I The DGSEIS acknowledges that OL renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant will require continuing radiological monitoring of all plant effluents. Appropriate storage of spent fuel assemblies and radioactive wastes on-site is required, in order to prevent impacts. Page A-1I discusses the Waste Confidence Rule (10 CFR 51.23), in which the Commission generically determined that the spent fuel generated by any reactor can be safely stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operating life of the reactor. Ultimately, long-term radioactive waste disposition will require transportation of wastes to a permitted repository site. We note the information on pages 6-4 through 6-6 of the document, regarding the expected availability of Yucca Mountain as a geological repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste.
In conclusion, the document states that the OL renewal would result in fewer environmental impacts than the feasible alternatives for generating power, and the NRC considers impacts of OL renewal to be small. Overall, the impacts as defined in the DGSEIS appear to be within acceptable limits.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Ramona MeConney of my staff at (404) 562-9615.
Sincerely, Heinz J. Mueller, Chief Office of Environmental Assessment
