- ML110980538 - Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule.
- ML11136A187 - 2011/04/26 NRR E-mail Capture - Audit Results Summary Report Supporting TAC ME3775 - BF1 AREVA Fuel Transition and related BF2/3 Request
- ML111400373 - FEMA Ltr: Statement of Continuation of Reasonable Assurance for Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Restart.
- ML111400477 - IR 05000259-11-402, 0500260-11-402, and 05000296-11-402, on 02/18/2011 (Corporate Office) & 04/21/2011 (K.Polson & members staff at plant), Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, NRC Security Inspection.
- ML11122A113 - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, and Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 - RAI Regarding Decommissioning Funding Status Report (TAC Nos. ME5455, ME5456, ME5457, ME5535, ME5536, and 5551).
- ML11137A199 - Browns Ferry, Unit 1, Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding to Transition to AREVA Fuel (TAC No. ME3775).
- ML102880526 - LER 10-001-00 for Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2 & 3, Regarding Appendix R Safe Shutdown Instruction Procedures Contain Incorrect Operator Manual Actions.
- ML111460511 - NRC Reply To Browns Ferry November 2010 Letter Regarding Response to Inspection Report No 2010004 and EA 10-215.
- ML11145A066 - Brown Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 2 & 3 - Request for Additional Information Regarding a Request to Eliminate Low Pressure Coolant Injection Pump Motor Generator Sets (TAC ME5796 AND ME5799).
On a slightly different tack, the NRC had a public meeting at Browns Ferry today to discuss the annual performance assessment of our plant. In the wake of the Japan earthquake and the storms at the end of April and Browns Ferry being in the media about a valve failure from the 4th quarter of 2010, there were a decent number of folks present. The NRC does a decent job of getting information from these meetings posted within a week or so. Hopefully there will be a transcript.
I could posit my opinion on many of the concerns that were brought up at today's meeting, but that would take a LONG time. Perhaps I'll use an occasional post here and there to talk about a different concern that was brought up. I will note that the usual fear, uncertainty and doubt that can commonly be associated with anti-nuclear folks was present in spades today. Everyone I work with has GREAT respect for the power of the atom. A healthy sense of respect does not translate to fear. The effects of accidents (particularly severe accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl) breed that sense of respect. However, when the public at large is presented with partial truths (occasionally driven by political agendas and/or personal gain for the presenter(s)) and not necessarily well versed in the operation of nuclear plants or statistical bases of accident risk analysis, that fear will present itself. I'm NOT going to say that accidents can't or won't happen. They already have. However, I can say that the folks I worked with in Illinois and the folks I work with here (and I'm willing to say every operating nuclear unit in this country) do everything we can to ensure that:
a)the likelihood of any major accident occurring is extraordinarily small, and
b)if a problem does occur, we are trained and ready and able to keep any and all consequences to a minimum
After 9/11, many changes were made throughout the industry. As a result of those changes, I believe we are safer than ever before. After Japan, there will be many more changes and I think we will have an even better margin to a catastrophic event.
