DOCSLIB.ORG

ML12333A320.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ML12333A320.Pdf NLS2012124 Enclosure NLS2012124 ENCLOSURE COOPER NUCLEAR STATION FLOODING WALKDOWN REPORT H Nebraska Public Power District "Always there when you need us" CNS Memo 12-0002 To: Cooper Nuclear Station Licensing Department From: Cooper Nuclear Station Design Engineering Department CC: N/A Date: 11/26/2012 Re: Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Section 2.3 Flooding Validation and Acceptance of Vendor Provided Evaluations In response to the nuclear fuel damage at Fukushima Daiichi due to earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting information pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.54 (f). As part of this request which is as defined in the Recommendation 2.3, Flooding, Enclosure 4 of the 50.54(f) Letter dated March 12, 2012, CNS was required to perform walkdowns to verify that plant features credited in the current licensing basis (CLB) for protection and mitigation from external flood events is available, functional, and properly maintained. In addition, the purpose of the walkdowns was to identify and address plant-specific degraded, non-conforming, or unanalyzed conditions (through the corrective action program) and associated APM (Available Physical Margin) and verify the adequacy of monitoring and maintenance procedures. This information was obtained in accordance with NEI 12-07, "Guidelines for Verification Walkdowns of Plant Flood Protection Features". This memo is being written for CNS Design Engineering to formally accept the walkdown packages, and final walkdown report as being technically accurate. The walkdowns were developed with APM determined from 906', which is what CNS is committed to the NRC to protect up to. CNS licensing basis is 903'. During the walkdowns many features were found to be non-conforming to the design basis. CR's were written for all non-conforming features as is stated in the NEI 12-07 guidance. DED determined whether the feature was deficient or not. If a feature was determined deficient, a recovery plan was created to correct the deficiency. These deficiencies are included in the Final Walkdown Report. The attached walkdown packages and final walkdown report are found technically accurate with the CNS design and licensing bases and will be appropriate for a response to Recommendation 2.3, Flooding, Enclosure 4 of the 50.54(q Letter dated March 12, 2012. The information collected in this evaluation will not impact the existing design basis as recommendation 2.3 is a review of current CNS flood mitigation strategies. Any change to the licensing basis will come out of Recommendation 2.1 which will reference the material from Recommendation 2.3. CNS Memo 12-0002 Revision 0 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENTS: Final walkdown report Walkdown packages Walkdown team credentials CNS Design Engineer Matthew Nienaber /if26 2ý CNS Design Engineering Brian T. Wolken Supervisor IfZ~ CNS Design Engineering Roman M. Estrada Manager CNS Memo DED 12-0002 Revision 0 Page 2 of 2 Page I of 36 CNS Flooding Walkdown Submittal Report LIST OF ACROMYMS Abbreviation Description AEC Atomic Energy Commission APM Available Physical Margin B&R Burns and Roe CA Corrective Action CAP Corrective Action Program CED Change Evaluation Document CFR Code of Federal Regulation CLB Current Licensing Basis CNS Cooper Nuclear Station COE Corps of Engineers(USACE) CR Condition Report DB Design Basis ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System EE Engineering Evaluation ERP Elevated Release Point FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report HPCI High Pressure Core Injection IPEEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events IER INPO Industry Event Report MPF Multi-Purpose Facility MSL Mean Sea Level (based on NGVD29) NGVD29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NPPD Nebraska Public Power District NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OWC Optimum Water Chemistry PM Preventative Maintenance PMF Probable Maximum Flood PMP Probable Maximum Precipitation PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment RCA Radiological Controlled Area RCIC Reactor Core Injection Cooling RHR Residual Heat Removal RPS Reactor Protection System SER Safety Evaluation Report TRM Technical Requirements Manual TLCO Technical Requirements Manual Limiting Conditions of Operation URT Unit Reliability Team USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USAR Updated Safety Analysis Report USNRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 of 36 CNS Flooding Walkdown Submittal Report TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................ 5 2 DESIGN BASIS FLOOD HAZARD LEVEL ............................................................... 6 2.1 Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) .......................................................................... 6 2.2 Postulated Dam Failure .......................................................................................... 6 2.3 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) ............................................................... 7 2.4 Other Evaluated Flooding Events .......................................................................... 8 2.5 Original Supporting Evaluations and Methodology ............................................. 8 2.6 Other Analysis and Evaluations ............................................................................ 9 2.7 CLB Flooding Summary Table ............................................................................. 11 3 EXTERNAL FLOOD PROTECTION AND MITIGATION FEATURES ................. 12 3.1 Flood Licensing Basis and Protected SSCs ........................................................ 12 3.2 Plant Operation During Flooding ........................................................................ 13 3.3 Flood D uration .................................................................................................... 14 3.4 Flood Protection Features ..................................................................................... 15 3.5 Procedures ................................................................................................................ 16 3.6 Adverse Weather Conditions .............................................................................. 17 3.7 Groundwater Ingress .......................................................................................... 17 4 INTERNAL WARNING SYSTEMS ..................................... 18 5 EFFECTIVENESS OF FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEMS ...................................... 22 5.1 A cceptance Criteria .............................................................................................. 22 5.2 Overall Effectiveness of Plant Flood Protection Features .................................. 23 5.3 Other Existing Plant SSCs and Procedures that May Provide Flood Mitigation ..... 23 6 IMPLEMENTATION OF WALKDOWNS ................................................................. 24 6.1 Walkdown Package Development ..................................................................... 24 6.2 Team O rganization .............................................................................................. 24 6.3 Training A pproach ............................................................................................. 25 6.4 Peer Review Process ........................................................................................... 25 7 WALKDOWN RESULTS ........................................................................................... 26 7.1 Incorporated or Exterior Passive Features .......................................................... 26 7.2 Incorporated or Exterior Active Features ............................................................ 27 7.3 Temporary Passive Features ................................................................................ 27 7.4 Temporary Active Features ................................................................................ 27 Page 3 of 36 CNS Flooding Walkdown Submittal Report 7.5 Procedural Review .............................................................................................. 28 7.6 Inaccessible Features ........................................................................................... 29 7.7 Deficient Features ................................................................................................ 29 7.8 D elayed Inspection Features ............................................................................... 32 8 AVAILABLE PHY SICA L M A RG IN .......................................................................... 33 9 NEW FLOOD PROTECTION SY STEM S ................................................................. 34 10 REFEREN CES ................................................................................................................. 35 10.1 Regulatory Docum ents, Codes and Guidance .................................................... 35 10.2 NPPD Docum ents ................................................................................................ 35 Page 4 of 36 CNS Flooding Walkdown Submittal Report 1 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE This Flooding Walkdown Report is prepared in accordance with the request from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as defined in the Recommendation 2.3, Flooding, Enclosure 4 of the 50.54(f) Letter dated March 12, 2012. In response to the nuclear fuel damage at Fukushima Daiichi due to earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting information pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • American Nuclear Society ANS 3.5
    ANSI/ANSANSI/ANS--3.53.5 DiscussionDiscussion OrganizationalOrganizational DefinitionsDefinitions ANSANS--3.53.5 WorkingWorking GroupGroup MembersMembers ANSI/ANSANSI/ANS--33--55 UsageUsage UpdateUpdate SummarySummary ofof ChangesChanges ANSI/ANSANSI/ANS--3.53.5 OrganizationalOrganizational DefinitionsDefinitions ANSANS -- AmericanAmerican NuclearNuclear SocietySociety ANSIANSI -- AmericanAmerican NationalNational StandardsStandards InstituteInstitute ANSANS--3.53.5 -- WorkingWorking GroupGroup isis comprisedcomprised ofof Industry,Industry, Regulatory,Regulatory, andand Organizational/IndividualOrganizational/Individual VolunteersVolunteers ANSANS--3.53.5 WorkingWorking GroupGroup MembershipMembership ANSANS--3.53.5 WorkingWorking GroupGroup BalanceBalance ofof InterestsInterests NRC-1 7% VENDORS-3 20% UTILITY-9 60% ORG-2 13% ANSANS--3.53.5 WorkingWorking GroupGroup MembersMembers ANSANS--3.53.5 OfficersOfficers ListList ChairChair -- TimothyTimothy DennisDennis – Individual (chair of ANS-21/member NFSC executive committee) ViceVice--chairchair -- JimJim FlorenceFlorence – Nebraska Public Power District - Cooper Nuclear Station SecretarySecretary -- KeithKeith WelchelWelchel – Duke Energy - Oconee Nuclear Station EditorEditor -- FF JJ (Butch)(Butch) ColbyColby – L3 Communications MAPPS Inc (formerly CAE) StyleStyle EditorEditor -- WilliamWilliam MM (Mike)(Mike) ShellyShelly – Entergy Services, Inc ParliamentarianParliamentarian –– LawrenceLawrence VickVick – U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission ANSANS--3.53.5 UtilitiesUtilities JamesJames
    [Show full text]
  • Ornl/Nsic-176
    4 ggcBvePBtnc APR 291980 ORNL/NSIC-176 MASTER Descriptions of Selected Accidents that Have Occurred at Nuclear Reactor Facilities H. W. Bertini and Members of the Staff of the Nuclear Safety Information Center NUCLFAR SAFETY INFORMATION CENTER DIEmu'lhj \i 'uNLIMIlt.il c ORNL/NSIC-176 Contract No. W-7405-eng-26 Engineering Technology Division DESCRIPTIONS OF SFLEuTED ACCIDENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED AT NUCLEAR REACTOR FACILITIES H. W. Bertini and Members of the Staff of the Nuclear Safety Information Center Date Published: April 1980 Prepared by the OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORArORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 operated by UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION for the DEPARTMENT OP ENERGY tP MTOWiOtl Cf THIS MCU«»T It IHWWTW iii CONTENTS (7 Page FOREWORD ...» v PREFACE . vli 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. NUCLEAR REACTORS: FUNDAMENTALS .' 3 2.1 Basic Theory 3 2.2 The Components of a Nuclear Reactor 8 2.3 Radioactivity , 11 2.4 Electric Power Plants .... 16 2.5 Classification of Reactors 17 2.6 Light-Water Reactors for the Production of Electricity ..... 19 3. CENTRAL STATION POWER PLANTS. 32 3.1 Fuel Melting Incideat at the Fermi Reactor (1966) 32 3.2 Electrical Cable Fires at San Onofre 1 (1968) 33 3.3 Fuel Meltdown at St. Laurent (1969) 35 3.4 Uncovering of the Core at La Crosse (1970) 38 3.5 Seven Injured When Steam Nozzle Breaks at Robinson 2 (1970) 39 3.6 Discharge of Primary System into Drywell at Did 'en 2 (1970) 42 3.7 Turbine Damage Caused by Human Error at Robinson 2 (1970) 45 3.8 Construction Fire at Indian Point 2 (1971) 46 3.9 Valve Separations at Turkey Point 3 (1971) 47 3.10 Turbine Basement Flooded at Quad Cities V?I2) 48 3.11 Steam Generator Damaged in Hot Tests at Oconee 1 (1972) 49 3.12 Two Fatalities in Steam Line Accident at Surry 1 (1972) 50 3.13 Seawater Intrusion into Primary System at Millstone 1 (1972) ..
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Facility Siting Using Coalition Opportunity Structures and the Advocacy Coalition Framework
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE ORDER IN A CHAOTIC SUBSYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING USING COALITION OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES AND THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By KUHIKA GUPTA Norman, Oklahoma 2013 ORDER IN A CHAOTIC SUBSYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING USING COALITION OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES AND THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BY ______________________________ Dr. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Chair ______________________________ Dr. Carol L. Silva, Co-Chair ______________________________ Dr. Christopher M. Weible ______________________________ Dr. Deven E. Carlson ______________________________ Dr. Jill A. Irvine © Copyright by KUHIKA GUPTA 2013 All Rights Reserved. Dedication For my incredible parents, Anil and Alpana Gupta, for making all of this possible, and my husband, Joseph T. Ripberger, for being a constant inspiration. Acknowledgements This dissertation would not be possible were it not for the invaluable support I have received throughout my journey as an undergraduate at Delhi University in India, a graduate student at the University of Warwick in England, and my pursuit of a doctorate at the University of Oklahoma in the United States. During my time at Delhi University, Ramu Manivannan was an amazing mentor who taught me the value of making a difference in both academia and the real world. My greatest debt is to Hank Jenkins-Smith and Carol Silva at the University of Oklahoma, whose encouragement, guidance, and intellectual advice has made this journey possible. I am deeply grateful for their unending support; this dissertation would not exist without them.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-13-493, Nuclear Reactor License Renewal: Nrc
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters May 2013 NUCLEAR REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL NRC Generally Follows Documented Procedures, but Its Revisions to Environmental Review Guidance Have Not Been Timely GAO-13-493 May 2013 NUCLEAR REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL NRC Generally Follows Documented Procedures, but Its Revisions to Environmental Review Guidance Have Not Been Timely Highlights of GAO-13-493, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found Many U.S. commercial nuclear power The scope of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) license renewal reactors are reaching the end of their process focuses on managing the effects of aging on a reactor and its associated initial 40-year operating period. To systems, structures, and components (i.e. safety) and assessing certain potential continue operating, their owners must environmental impacts of extending a reactor’s operating-life. As a result, reviews renew their licenses with NRC, the done as part of this process are not required to address as many topics as independent federal agency reviews for initial licensing, which include security and emergency planning. responsible for licensing and regulating nuclear reactors. NRC evaluates NRC has regularly updated the safety review guidance it uses in the license license renewal applications under two renewal process but has not revised most of its environmental review regulations parallel reviews for safety and potential and guidance since they were first issued. NRC has revised its safety review environmental impacts. NRC’s license guidance twice—in 2005 and 2010—and has issued interim updates for selected renewal process has received safety issues between those revisions.
    [Show full text]
  • United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter Of ) ) EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC, ) Docket No. 50-352-LR ) Docket No. 50-353-LR (Limerick Generating Station) ) (License Renewal Application) DECLARATION OF THOMAS B. COCHRAN, Ph.D., MATTHEW G. MCKINZIE, Ph.D. AND CHRISTOPHER J. WEAVER, Ph.D., ON BEHALF OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL INTRODUCTION We, Thomas B. Cochran (TBC), Matthew G. McKinzie (MGM), and Christopher J. Weaver (CJW), declare that the following statements are true and correct to the best of our knowledge.1 1. (TBC) My name is Thomas B. Cochran. I received my Ph.D. in Physics from Vanderbilt University in 1967. I am currently a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) at its Washington, D.C. office. Prior to retiring from NRDC in 2011, I was a senior scientist and held the Wade Greene Chair for Nuclear Policy at NRDC, and was director of its Nuclear Program until 2007. My curriculum vitae is provided in Attachment A. 2. (MGM) My name is Matthew G. McKinzie. I received my Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1995. I am a Senior Scientist in the Nuclear Program and 1 This Declaration is presented jointly by all three of us but in some instances discrete points are offered by only one or two of us. Each paragraph is preceded by the initials of the Declarant(s) who are offering the information contained in that paragraph. Cochran, McKinzie and Weaver Declaration (NRDC), Docket No. 50-352-LR, No.
    [Show full text]
  • Mailing List of U.S. Domestic Nuclear Utilities
    Mailing List of Domestic Nuclear Utilities ",Plant .. I Address Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 Vice President, Operations Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Inc. 1448 S.R. 333 Russellville, AR 72802 Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 & 2 Eric A. Larson Beaver Valley Power Station P. O. Box 4, Route 168 Shippingport, PA 15077 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 & 3 Mr. Joseph W. Shea Vice President, Nuclear Licensing Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street, LP 3D-C Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 & 2 George T. Hamrick, Vice President Brunswick Steam Electric Plant P.O. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 Byron Station, Units 1 & 2/Braidwood Station, Michael J. Pacilio Units 1 & 2 Senior Vice President Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO) Exelon -Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Callaway Plant, Unit 1 Mr. Adam C. Heflin Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Union Electric Company Ameren Missouri P.O. Box 620 -Fulton, MO 65251 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2 Mr. George H. Gellrich, Vice President Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657-4702 Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 Mr. Kelvin Henderson Site Vice President Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Catawba Nuclear Station 4800 Concord Road York, SC 29745 All -2- Plant Address Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 Michael J. Pacilio Senior Vice President Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO) Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Rd. Warrenville, IL 60555 Columbia Generating Station Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Cooper, Diablo, Units 1 and 2
    UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COi\1fJHSSION REGION IV 612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4125 9 Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos.: 50-313; 50-368 Cooper Nuclear Station, Docket No.: 50-298 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos.: 50-275; 50-323 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3, Docket Nos.: 50-528; 50-529; 50-530 SUBJECT: GENERIC FUNDAMENTALS EXAMINATION RESULTS On June 8, 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered the generic fundamentals examination (GFE) section of the written operator licensing examination to employees of your facility. Enclosed with this letter are copies of both forms of the examination, including answer keys, the grading results for your facility, and copies of the individual answer sheets for each of your employees. Please forvvard the results to the individuals along with the copies of their respective answer sheets. A "P" in the GRADE column indicates that the individual achieved a passing grade of 80 percent or better on the GFE, while an "F" indicates that the individual failed the examination. If you have any questions concerning this examination, please contact Larry Vick at (301) 415-3181. ( Mark S. Haire, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosures: As stated cc w/enclosures: Sherrie Cotton, Training Manager Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Inc. 1448 S.R. 333 Russellville, AR 72802 Dan Sealock, Acting Manager Nuclear Training Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 98 - 2 - Lynn \/Vaiter, Director Learning Services Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diabio Canyon Power Plant P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-13-743, Nuclear Power
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters September 2013 NUCLEAR POWER Analysis of Regional Differences and Improved Access to Information Could Strengthen NRC Oversight GAO-13-743 September 2013 NUCLEAR POWER Analysis of Regional Differences and Improved Access to Information Could Strengthen NRC Oversight Highlights of GAO-13-743, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The 2011 disaster at Japan's The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relies on its staff’s professional Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power judgment in implementing its processes for overseeing the safety of U.S. Plant demonstrated that unexpected commercial nuclear power reactors. In implementing this oversight, NRC nuclear accidents with extreme allocates specific roles and responsibilities to resident inspectors assigned to consequences can occur and, thus, each plant, regional officials at one of four regional offices responsible for most heightened concerns about NRC’s oversight activities, headquarters officials, and the nuclear power industry. NRC ability to oversee the safety of U.S. also builds into its processes incentives for plant managers to identify concerns commercial nuclear power reactors. about reactor safety, report those concerns to NRC, and take prompt actions to NRC oversees safety through multiple correct them. NRC’s processes for identifying and assessing findings and processes, such as physically violations are based on prescribed agency procedures and include several points inspecting reactors and also responding to signs of declining where NRC staff must exercise their professional judgment, such as determining performance (i.e., findings) or whether issues of concern identified during physical inspections constitute violations of its requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors Operating Reactors
    7 APPENDIX A Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors Operating Reactors Plant Name, Unit Number CP Issued 2014– Licensee Con Type Licensed OL Issued 2019* Location NSSS MWt Comm. Op. Capacity Docket Number NRC Architect Engineer License LR Issued Factor Region Constructor Number SR Issued (Percent) NRC Web page Address Exp. Date Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 IV PWR-DRYAMB 2,568 12/06/1968 98 Entergy Operations, Inc. B&W LLP DPR-51 05/21/1974 89 London, AR BECH 12/19/1974 94 (6 miles WNW of Russellville, AR) BECH 06/20/2001 87 05000313 N/A 76 https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/ano1.html 05/20/2034 87 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 IV PWR-DRYAMB 3,026 12/06/1972 85 Entergy Operations, Inc. CE NPF-6 09/01/1978 94 London, AR BECH 03/26/1980 89 (6 miles WNW of Russellville, AR) BECH 06/30/2005 70 05000368 N/A 82 https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/ano2.html 07/17/2038 82 Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 I PWR-DRYAMB 2,900 06/26/1970 86 Energy Harbor Nuclear Generation LLC/ WEST 3LP DPR-66 07/02/1976 90 Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. S&W 10/01/1976 91 Shippingport, PA S&W 11/05/2009 99 (17 miles W of McCandless, PA) 05/27/2047 92 05000334 01/29/2036 91 https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/bv1.html Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 I PWR-DRYAMB 2,900 05/03/1974 98 Energy Harbor Nuclear Generation LLC/ WEST 3LP NPF-73 08/14/1987 90 Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Beans Coming Attractions Facility Updates
    To: Jim Mehl, ERSIS Manager From: Zack Clayton, Rad Coordinator Subject: August Monthly Report Date: September 1, 2015 _________________________________________________________________ Beans Training: 0 Drills: 0 Meetings: 1 Technical Assistance: 3 Public Assistance: 3 Web Page Views: There were 19 page views in August. Radiological Safety Program Pages: http://epa.ohio.gov/derr/ersis/er/rad.aspx Coming Attractions 10/5 URSB 10/22 NEPAC Facility updates Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Davis-Besse operated at full power for the month. Davis-Besse provided an update on the elevated levels of tritium in ground water that were first detected on February 3, 2015. The sample results for August show 13 samples above the agreed reporting threshold of 2000 picocuries of tritium per liter (pCi/L). Generally the sample results are holding steady or slightly decreasing. The highest sample result was 6246 pCi/L. The limit for tritium in drinking water is 20,000 pCi/L. Perry Nuclear Power Plant Perry operated at full power for the month. Beaver Valley Power Station At approximately 530 am on August 26, a single warning siren in Beaver County Pennsylvania was inadvertently activated. No emergency was declared at the Beaver Valley Power Station. The plant is required to report this event to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. See Event number 51345. Beaver Valley Unit I Unit I operated at full power for the month. Beaver Valley Unit II Unit II operated at full power for the month. At 0837 EDT on August 17, 2015, it was determined that Beaver Valley Unit 2 had experienced a small oil leak of approximately 1 liter from equipment located inside the Alternate Intake structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 123/Tuesday, June 27, 2006/Notices
    36556 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 27, 2006 / Notices Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, & 50–296 Columbia Generating Station Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the License Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, & DPR– Docket No. 50–397 Advisory Committee on Reactor 68 License No. NPF–21 Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting 10835 Shaw Rd. Snake River Warehouse on July 12–14, 2006, 11545 Rockville Athens, AL 35611 North Power Plant Loop Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of Mr. Michael Skaggs Richland, WA 99352 this meeting was previously published Site Vice President Mr. Christopher M. Crane in the Federal Register on Tuesday, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 President and Chief Nuclear Officer November 22, 2005 (70 FR 70638). Tennessee Valley Authority AmerGen Energy Company, LLC Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Wednesday, July 12, 2006, Conference Docket No. 50–390 Room T–2b3, Two White Flint North, License No. NPF–90 Docket No. 50–219 License No. DPR–16 Rockville, Maryland Highway 68 Near Spring City 4300 Winfield Road Spring City, TN 37381 8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening Warrenville, IL 60555 Remarks by the ACRS Chairman Mr. Randy Douet Mr. Christopher M. Crane (Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make Site Vice President President and Chief Nuclear Officer opening remarks regarding the conduct Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Exelon Generation Company, LLC of the meeting. Tennessee Valley Authority Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 8:35 a.m.–10 a.m.: Final Review of the Docket Nos. 50–327 and 50–328 and 3 License Renewal Application for the License Nos.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 11/Tuesday, January 19, 2021
    Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Notices 5269 issue finality of any approval issued information related to this document and 2); for Vistra Operations Company under 10 CFR part 52. As explained in using any of the following methods: LLC (for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power DG–1303, applicants and licensees • Federal Rulemaking website: Go to Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2); for Arizona would not be required to comply with https://www.regulations.gov and search Public Service Company (for Palo Verde the positions set forth in DG–1303. for Docket ID NRC–2020–0110. Address Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, Dated: January 12, 2021. questions about NRC Docket IDs in and 3); for PSEG Nuclear LLC (for Hope For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; Creek Generating Station and Salem telephone: 301–287–9127; email: Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 Meraj Rahimi, [email protected]. For technical and 2); and for Indiana Michigan Power Chief, Regulatory Guidance and Generic questions, contact the individual listed Company (for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Issues Branch, Division of Engineering, Office FOR FURTHER INFORMATION of Nuclear Regulatory Research. in the Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), afford these CONTACT section of this document. licensees temporary relief from the [FR Doc. 2021–00940 Filed 1–15–21; 8:45 am] • NRC’s Agencywide Documents work-hour controls under 10 CFR BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Access and Management System 26.205(d)(1) through (d)(7). The (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly exemptions from 10 CFR 26.205(d)(1) NUCLEAR REGULATORY available documents online in the through (d)(7) ensure that the control of COMMISSION ADAMS Public Documents collection at work hours and management of worker https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ fatigue do not unduly limit licensee [Docket Nos.
    [Show full text]