Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) - Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Public Hearing - Concerning TVA's Sequoyah Nuclear Facility (NNSA Public Hearing Links on TVA Tritium Production)

(photo - wikipedia, Fair Usage rights for non-profit news reporting)

4 part video presentation, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for license extension-

The Sequoyah Nuclear Plant is a nuclear power plant located on 525 acres (212 ha) located 7 miles (11 km) east of Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee, and 20 miles (32 km) north of Chattanooga, abutting Chickamauga Lake, on the Tennessee River. The facility is owned and operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

The plant has two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors. Sequoyah units 1 & 2, as well as their sister plant at Watts Bar, both have ice condenser containment systems. In case of a large loss-of-coolant accident, steam generated by the leak is directed toward borated ice which helps condense the steam creating a lower pressure, allowing for a smaller containment building.

The operating license of Sequoyah's Unit 1 expires in 2020. Unit 2's operating license expires in 2021.^[2]

TVA's Sequoyah operating license was modified in September 2002 to allow TVA to irradiate tritium-producing burnable absorber rods at Sequoyah for the U.S. Department of Energy. The process of irradiating tritium-producing rods produces tritium, which is used in nuclear weapons and for various forms of research into nuclear fusion for commercial power production. Wiki article:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoyah_Nuclear_Generating_Station

NRC information on the License Extension - http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/sequoyah.html  It is remarkable that there is no date on the cover or other substantial documents listed on the NRC site references listed on the link referenced.

The Sequoyah plant has two pressurized water reactors. The current operating licenses are due to expire Sept. 17, 2020, for Unit 1 and Sept. 15, 2021, for Unit 2. The operator, Tennessee Valley Authority, submitted its renewal application Jan. 15, 2013.  

The NRC’s review of the application consists of a technical safety review and an environmental review. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement is Supplement 53 to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. It is now available on the NRC’s electronic document database, ADAMS http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. under accession number ML14211A454.

In a related Federal Register notice, the NRC provided detailed instructions on how to submit written comments on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement. Comments will be accepted through Sept. 29, 2014 .Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–0037   Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey; Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Drucker, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301–415–6223, email to David.Drucker@nrc.gov ; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.  GPO Federal Notice Record link:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-08-11/pdf/2014-18966.pdf

NRC Aug 12, 2014 · Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2  http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement53/

TVA's home page on Sequoyah: http://www.tva.gov/power/nuclear/sequoyah.htm  No indications on  Sequoyah's home page concerning any documents relating to a license extension.
TVA  info on license renewal and environmental impacts
https://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/sqn-renewal/index.htm

Videos, NRC EIS Public Hearing  regarding a 20 year license extension of TVA Sequoyah Nuclear Facility, 4 part video presentation with  Citizen Input Regrding the EIS on September 15, 2014 at Soddy Daisy, Tn. Municipal Complex.

VIDEOS
NRC EIS Public Hearing Pt.1-TVA Sequoyah Nuclear 9-15-14 

NRC EIS Public Hearing Pt.2 TVA Sequoyah Nuclear 8-15-14 

NRC EIS Public Hearing Pt.3 TVA Sequoyah Nuclear 9-15-14 

NRC EIS Public Hearing Pt.4-TVA Sequoyah Nuclear 9-15-14 

BEST-MATRR's investigations into health, cancer and radiation in the Tennessee River Valley current summary:  Government health statistics and scientific investigations point toward this fact - radiation from man made ionizing radiation sources such as nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel facilities, nuclear weapons facilities and nuclear experimental facilities have increased ionizing radiation levels in the environment within the Tennessee River Basin area. Since the addition of nuclear facilities in the Tennessee River Valley, the cancer incident rates and mortality rates have steadily increased.  (National Cancer Institute statistics and maps http://seer.cancer.gov/statistics/scp.html  and BEST/MATRR Report: http://best-matrr.org/pdfs/AL_BFN_Report_2013-final-dig2.pdf  )" BEST-MATRR's investigations are ongoing in East Tennessee and North Alabama.

NNSA Public Hearing - The public comment period ends on September 22, 2014. 
http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ouroperations/generalcounsel/nepaoverview/nepa/tritiumseis
Videos in Chattanooga, Links:
NNSA introduction - Public Hearing, NNSA, Tritium Production 9-10-14 

Public comments, part 1:  NNSA-SEIS, 9-10-14 Public Hearing Chattanooga, Tn. Part 1 

Public comments, part 2:  NNSA-SEIS, 9-10-14 Public Hearing Chattanooga, Tn. Part 2 

Public comments, part 3   NNSA-SEIS 9-10-14 Public Hearing Chattanooga, Tn. Part 3 

Plutonium Mox Fuel Use in TVA's Nuclear Reactors? - Plutonium MOX Fuel Info

"The commercialization of nuclear weapons Plutonium as a fuel for commercial nuclear reactors is compounded insanity." Garry Morgan

 

Huntsville Times Op-Ed about using Plutonium MOX Fuel at TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Reactors

http://blog.al.com/times-views/2012/09/our_view_next_door_nuclear_res.html

 

Mixed Oxide Plutonium Fuel (MOX) is composed of uranium dioxide and plutonium dioxide powders which are mixed inside of fuel pellets. Because plutonium releases more radioactivity than uranium, this mixed fuel is more difficult to control inside of reactors and requires more safeguards than traditional uranium reactor fuel. In 2008 MOX fuel rods being tested by Duke Energy started warping and Duke withdrew from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s testing agreement.

 

The additional risks posed by MOX plutonium fuel, along with renewed global skepticism about nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, have resulted in the world-wide decline of the MOX industry. Japan has cancelled all of its orders for MOX plutonium fuel and the UK has recently closed its MOX plant in Sellafield due to a lack of customers. With no willing customers, the Department of Energy is pressuring the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to use MOX plutonium fuel. Some of the reactors that TVA is considering for MOX have the same Mark I exploding design that failed in Fukushima. http://www.ananuclear.org/Issues/PlutoniumFuelMOX/tabid/75/Default.aspx

Fuel Rod Assembly Model  (approximately 1/7th scale-2ft. 2in.)

 

MOX or not? Gov't likes weapons fuel, public doesn't [The Decatur Daily, Ala.] Sept. 14--The Energy Department believes it is safe to use weapons-grade fuel at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, but not many residents attending a public hearing Thursday agreed. http://www.equities.com/news/headline-story?dt=2012-09-14&val=479809&cat=energy

You Tube-Calhoun College, Near Browns Ferry, Alabama, DOE-NEPA Plutonium MOX Hearing


Chattanooga meeting on MOX fuel draws a crowd - More than 100 people crowded a room at the Chattanooga Convention Center on Tuesday to talk about using a largely untried fuel in local nuclear reactors to help keep plutonium out of the hands of terrorists. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/sep/12/chattanooga-meeting-on-mox-fuel-draws-a-crowd/

Why is Plutonium MOX Fuel a bad idea?
--Plutonium fuel weakens the reactor pressure vessel due to embrittlement of the metal in the primary containment as a result of a high neutron flux. http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/basicmoxinfo.htm and  http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/iaeabooks/1264/Neutron-Irradiation-Embrittlement-of-Reactor-Pressure-Vessel-Steels
--At Cabri France, testing demonstrated Plutonium MOX Fuel has a higher failure potential than Uranium Oxide fuel and there is a potential for fuel rod rupture at comparable burn up. http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/9_1lyman.pdf
--The use of Plutonium as a commercial nuclear reactor fuel increases the risk of theft and diversion of nuclear materials.  The threat of terrorism and nuclear weapons proliferation is greatly increased.  http://www.nci.org/b/berlin.htm & http://www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/resources/nuclear-power-in-france-setting.pdf
--Plutonium reactor fuel can be utilized to fabricate a nuclear weapon. http://www.fas.org/rlg/980826-pu.htm 
--Utilization of Plutonium as a commercial nuclear reactor fuel serves one purpose, the financial benefit of the commercial nuclear power industry. Tax payers are paying for the construction of the Plutonium-MOX fuel facilities to benefit the nuclear power industry. Total end costs are estimated at 16 billion dollars for the Savanah River Site (SRS) MOX Plant.  President Obama promised $85 billion for “Complex Modernization” in late 2010. http://www.ananuclear.org/Issues/NuclearWeapons/tabid/68/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/587/Default.aspx
-- The use of Plutonium fuel at Browns Ferry, Alabama or Sequoya, Tennessee compounds the insanity of utilizing this dangerous high risk nuclear fuel. Both reactors are old, and in the case of Browns Ferry the reactors are the defective GE Mark 1 reactors which are under increased scrutiny by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The nuclear reactors at Fukushima which exploded and “melted down” are the GE Mark 1 series of reactors.
--Weapons Grade Plutonium Mixed Oxide Fuel is high risk and has failed in previous testing at civilian nuclear power reactors.  http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/nuclear-fuel-test-failure0140.html
--The use of ex-warhead Plutonium imposes a significant increased health risk to the public if an accident occurs. http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/9_1lyman.pdf
   
SOLUTIONS

The Solution as National Policy: "Two separate initiatives should be developed for dealing with military and civilian Plutonium, to proceed on separate tracks but eventually be brought together into a unified international regime. On the military track, the U.S. should move assertively to strike a deal with the Russians to pursue vitrification in a joint venture underwritten by the United States. The U.S. should make clear that no U.S. funds will be made available for using plutonium in reactors or for reprocessing spent fuel. Instead, a reciprocal approach to joint construction, operation and inspection of vitrification plants in Russia and the U.S. should be proposed." http://www.nci.org/b/berlin.htm  (NCI-Nuclear Control Institute)

There is a solution which is recommended for all Plutonium waste materials as indicated in the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding Plutonium weapons material and waste. Glass vitrification of all Plutonium weapons materials and wastes as indicated in appendix G, page G-1 of the NNSA’s July 2012 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. http:www.tva.com/environment/reports/mixed_oxide/vol2/AppendixG.pdf

Short video version of above Plutonium MOX Hearing

 

Information from the NNSA on Plutonium and Plutonium MOX 

Plutonium Disposition: Weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) are the critical ingredients for making a nuclear weapon. With the end of the Cold War, hundreds of tons of these materials were determined to be surplus to U.S. and Russian defense needs. http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/nonproliferation/programoffices/fissilematerialsdisposition/plutoniumdispositio

 

The Pits: http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/ourmission/managingthestockpile/plutoniumpits

 

Plutonium Inventory: 34 tons are reported as surplus weapons materials. Total inventory may be found at http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/puinventory62912

 

The 34 tons:

http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/nonproliferation/materialremovaldisposition/plutoniumdisposition

The Shaw Areva MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (SHAMS)

 

NEPA Scoping Deceptions, AREVA-DOE-TVA Browns Ferry Plutonium Concerns

Huntsville Times article with my comment: http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/08/safety_dominates_meeting_about.html

*

Concerns from Decatur leaders: http://decaturdaily.com/detail/65777.html

Civilian contractors were misrepresenting themselves with the blessings of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) http://nnsa.energy.gov/ . Areva-Shaw contractors wore identification name tags of the Department of Energy (DOE) NNSA. Many of the alleged federal employees, DOE-NNSA, present were civilian contractors who stand to gain billions of dollars from the plutonium-MOX program. http://www.wise-uranium.org/epdcs.html

*

All civilian contractors of Areva ("The French State owns more than 90%.")-Shaw should have been identified properly as civilian contractors, this was not the case. The failure of proper identification casts a shadow of doubt over a program which must be free from deception. Areva: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva Shaw-Areva-MOX=SHAM: http://ir.shawgrp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=61066&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1150039&highlight=
*

In another disclosure at last evening's meeting, the TVA has been involved in Secret negotiations with the NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (The NRC was not present at last evenings meeting.), to relax security of shipments concerning Plutonium-MOX fuel due to costs of security. This disclosure was revealed in recent Freedom of Information Act disclosures which the TVA Public Relations representative denied in last nights meeting. Mr. Terry Johnson, Public Relations-TVA, seemed shocked at the FOIA disclosure at last nights meeting. Mr. Johnson denied any knowledge of the NRC-TVA negotiations, stating when asked about the secret negotiations, "I find it doubtful TVA would do such a thing." Dr. Edward Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists disclosed the documents to Mr. Johnson with me present.

*

I expressed concern to Mr. Johnson that deception from the TVA can not be tolerated in the NEPA, National Environmental Protection Act, process concerning disclosing to the public necessary information related to public safety of nuclear materials.