Subject: Braidwood, Byron, Calvert Cliffs, Clinton, Dresden, FitzPatrick, LaSalle, Limerick, Nine Mile, Peach Bottom, Quad Cities, Ginna, Three Mile Island- Proposed Alternative To Use ASME Code Cases N-878 And N-880 (EPID L-2018-LLR-0077)
ADAMS Accession No. ML19192A244.pdf
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Supplemental Information Needed to Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-879
Subject: Braidwood 1 & 2; Byron 1 & 2; Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2; Clinton 1; Lasalle 1 & 2; Limerick 1 & 2; Nine Mile Point 2; Three Mile Point 1 - Supplemental Information Needed to Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-879 (EPID L-2019-LLR-0037)
ADAMS Accession No. ML19179A061.pdf
ADAMS Accession No. ML19179A061.pdf
Official: TMI decommissioning could take decades
From the York Dispatch:
Three Mile Island's operating nuclear reactor is shutting down in September, but its towers will mark the skyline for decades.
The option of SAFSTOR — which would put the Dauphin County plant in an extended state of dormancy until 2075 — is not uncommon for decommissioning, according to officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Read more
Ohio nuclear bailout bill held up because of lawmaker absences
From cleveland.com:
After hours of debates, negotiation and votes, Ohio lawmakers prepared to give final approval to high-profile legislation to gut Ohio’s green-energy mandates and create large public subsidies for nuclear and coal plants.
But there was one problem: because four “yes” votes in the House were gone, supporters fell one vote short Wednesday of getting the 50-vote majority needed to send House Bill 6 to Gov. Mike DeWine, who has indicated support for the measure.
Feds outline plan for Three Mile Island shutdown
From ABC27:
With Three Mile Island shutting down operations by Sept. 30, we’re getting details on how it will work and what it means for people living nearby.
During a public webinar Tuesday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission outlined the plan to shut down TMI Unit 1.
“Decommissioning a nuclear power plant is more akin to a marathon than a sprint,” NRC senior project manager Jack Parrott said.
Read more
Public comment sought in TMI decommissioning
From the York Dispatch:
Three Mile Island’s Unit 1 nuclear power reactor would not undergo cleanup for about 56 years, according to a plan outlined in a report on the plant’s decommissioning process.
The unit, owned by Exelon Generation, would cease operations permanently at the end of September, but decommissioning operations would not start until 2075 and site restoration would not begin until 2079 — 100 years after the partial meltdown at TMI Reactor 2.
FERC Dramatically Revises US Electricity Generating Predictions
From Clean Technica:
The United States’ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has apparently “dramatically revised” its three-year forecast for changes in the country’s electrical generating capacity mix, according to the SUN DAY Campaign, with sharp declines expected for fossil fuel and nuclear generation offset by even stronger growth in renewable energy.
NRC to Conduct Public Webinar on July 16 to Discuss Three Mile Island 1 Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Topics
No: I-19-016
July 8, 2019
Contact: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330
Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331
NRC to Conduct Public Webinar on July 16 to Discuss Three Mile Island 1 Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Topics
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will present a webinar for interested members of the public on July 16 regarding the decommissioning of the Three Mile Island 1 nuclear power plant, located in Londonderry, Pa.
The purpose of the webinar is to provide key facts about the decommissioning process and how the NRC regulates such activities through on-site inspections and other reviews.
The webinar will begin at 1 p.m. Participants will be able to view slides prepared by NRC staff and ask questions in writing via a web page set up to host the session. Online registration is required to take part.
The NRC will also hold a public meeting in Hershey, Pa., on July 23 to discuss and accept public comments on Exelon’s Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report for Three Mile Island 1, which calls for placing the plant into long-term storage before dismantlement and decontamination work takes place. A copy of the report can be found on the NRC website.
Three Mile Island 1 is scheduled to permanently cease operations by Sept. 30, 2019.
The adjacent Three Mile Island 2 plant did not return to service following the March 1979 accident. It has a different owner and a PSDAR for that unit was submitted to the NRC in
June 2013.
July 8, 2019
Contact: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330
Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331
NRC to Conduct Public Webinar on July 16 to Discuss Three Mile Island 1 Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Topics
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will present a webinar for interested members of the public on July 16 regarding the decommissioning of the Three Mile Island 1 nuclear power plant, located in Londonderry, Pa.
The purpose of the webinar is to provide key facts about the decommissioning process and how the NRC regulates such activities through on-site inspections and other reviews.
The webinar will begin at 1 p.m. Participants will be able to view slides prepared by NRC staff and ask questions in writing via a web page set up to host the session. Online registration is required to take part.
The NRC will also hold a public meeting in Hershey, Pa., on July 23 to discuss and accept public comments on Exelon’s Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report for Three Mile Island 1, which calls for placing the plant into long-term storage before dismantlement and decontamination work takes place. A copy of the report can be found on the NRC website.
Three Mile Island 1 is scheduled to permanently cease operations by Sept. 30, 2019.
The adjacent Three Mile Island 2 plant did not return to service following the March 1979 accident. It has a different owner and a PSDAR for that unit was submitted to the NRC in
June 2013.
June 4 Public Meeting w/Exelon regarding Safety Relief Valve Test Intervals
Blake:
I was on the line along with two employees from the PA DEP from 10:30 to 10:50 listening to dead air. Out of concern and curiosity, how long did the presentation proceed before the NRC realized the phone was not working?
Not only was the public deprived of the opportunity to ask questions of Exelon and the NRC, but the revised slides - which were materially different - were not made available prior to the failed public broadcast.
Does this event count as an official pre-application meeting?
I wanted to point out the irony of how a basic malfunction undermines the licensee’s assertion of the benefits of saving both "time and effort.” This type of avoidable malfunction actually underscores the folly of allowing Exelon to skip future reviews.
I have enclosed several questions.
1) How was the issue of aging factored into the BWR Fleet MSSV/SRV analyses?
2) Re: Old p.14 At what point or at what time would pressure tolerances be compromised?
3) Re: Old 16 p. Does the request period include license extensions? Please quantify "time” and “effort,” and at on point do “time” and effort” become negligible?
4) How are these relief requests measured against “defense in depth” criteria?
5) Please prepare a comparison and contrasts of Exelon’s presentations for the Pre-Application meeting.
Thanks in advance to your attention to this most important matter.
Sincerely,
Eric Epstein, Chairman, TMI-Alert
ML19162A027.pdf
I was on the line along with two employees from the PA DEP from 10:30 to 10:50 listening to dead air. Out of concern and curiosity, how long did the presentation proceed before the NRC realized the phone was not working?
Not only was the public deprived of the opportunity to ask questions of Exelon and the NRC, but the revised slides - which were materially different - were not made available prior to the failed public broadcast.
Does this event count as an official pre-application meeting?
I wanted to point out the irony of how a basic malfunction undermines the licensee’s assertion of the benefits of saving both "time and effort.” This type of avoidable malfunction actually underscores the folly of allowing Exelon to skip future reviews.
I have enclosed several questions.
1) How was the issue of aging factored into the BWR Fleet MSSV/SRV analyses?
2) Re: Old p.14 At what point or at what time would pressure tolerances be compromised?
3) Re: Old 16 p. Does the request period include license extensions? Please quantify "time” and “effort,” and at on point do “time” and effort” become negligible?
4) How are these relief requests measured against “defense in depth” criteria?
5) Please prepare a comparison and contrasts of Exelon’s presentations for the Pre-Application meeting.
Thanks in advance to your attention to this most important matter.
Sincerely,
Eric Epstein, Chairman, TMI-Alert
ML19162A027.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
