DOCSLIB.ORG

Prognostics and Health Management in Nuclear Power Plants: a Review of Technologies and Applications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prognostics and Health Management in Nuclear Power Plants: a Review of Technologies and Applications PNNL-21515 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Prognostics and Health Management in Nuclear Power Plants: A Review of Technologies and Applications JB Coble P Ramuhalli LJ Bond JW Hines BR Upadhyaya July 2012 PNNL-21515 Prognostics and Health Management in Nuclear Power Plants: A Review of Technologies and Applications JB Coble P Ramuhalli LJ Bond(a) JW Hines(b) BR Upadhyaya(b) July 2012 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 ___________________ (a) Formerly Lab Fellow at PNNL Currently Director of CNDE at Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 50011 (b) The University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee 37996 Abstract Recent years have seen a resurgence of nuclear power worldwide, with interest in extending the operating life of the approximately 436 reactors currently in service (as of March, 2012), 61 new reactors being constructed, and as many as 162 under consideration. Renewed worldwide interest in nuclear power has been somewhat tempered by the March 2011 incident at Fukushima Dai-ichi in Japan. However, nuclear power is still considered a key element in meeting future worldwide sustainable energy, energy security, and emissions goals. Currently, three separate thrusts to safe and economical nuclear power development for energy security are being pursued in the United States: (i) longer term operation for the legacy fleet, from 40–60 and possibly 60–80 years; (ii) near-term new nuclear plants with a 60-year design life; and (iii) small modular reactors, which are expected to employ light water reactor technology at least in the medium term. Within these activities, attention is turning to enhanced methods for plant component and structural health management. The operating U.S. fleet includes 104 light water reactors. In addition, there are now (as of May 2012) four new nuclear power plants (AP-1000 plants) under construction in the United States, and two delayed plants are being completed by the Tennessee Valley Authority. There is also interest in the United States in small modular reactors (SMRs), which could be easier to match to existing grid infrastructure and which could replace aging coal fired plants. The current low price for natural gas presents a challenge to the economics of nuclear power, at least in the short term; however, some recent studies have demonstrated that nuclear generation will be competitive in the longer term (at least in some markets) when anticipated escalation in gas prices and the cost of building, operating, and maintaining gas-fired plants are considered over those same time periods. This report reviews the current state of the art of prognostics and health management (PHM) for nuclear power systems and related technology currently applied in field or under development in other technological application areas, as well as key research needs and technical gaps for increased use of PHM in nuclear power systems. The historical approach to monitoring and maintenance in nuclear power plants (NPPs), including the Maintenance Rule for active components and Aging Management Plans for passive components, are reviewed. An outline is given for the technical and economic challenges that make PHM attractive for both legacy plants through Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) and new plant designs. There is a general introduction to PHM systems for monitoring, fault detection and diagnostics, and prognostics in other, non-nuclear fields. The state of the art for health monitoring in nuclear power systems is reviewed. A discussion of related technologies that support the application of PHM systems in NPPs, including digital instrumentation and control systems, wired and wireless sensor technology, and PHM software architectures is provided. Appropriate codes and standards for PHM are discussed, along with a description of the ongoing work in developing additional necessary standards. Finally, an outline of key research needs and opportunities that must be addressed in order to support the application of PHM in legacy and new NPPs is presented. iii Summary Recent years have seen a resurgence of nuclear power worldwide, with interest in extending the operating life of the approximately 436 reactors currently in service (as of March 2012), 61 new reactors being constructed, and as many as 162 under consideration. While the renewed interest in nuclear power has been somewhat tempered by the March 2011 incident at Fukushima Dai-ichi in Japan, nuclear power is still considered key to meeting future worldwide sustainable energy, energy security, and emissions goals. Currently, three separate thrusts to safe and economical nuclear power development for energy security are being pursued in the United States. The first thrust is focused on life extension of operating light-water reactors (LWRs), referred to as long-term operation (LTO). In the United States, 71 reactors have been approved for license extension from 40 years to 60 years of operation, and 9 plants have already entered LTO (in some cases, with power uprates). Similar trends are being reported worldwide. Interest is now turning to a second license extension to enable operation from 60–80 years, so-called extended LTO or life-beyond-60 (LB60). The question of safely and economically operating some of these plants beyond 60 years is now being considered in anticipation of this second round of license extensions. The existing fleet is considered to be too valuable to decommission, even if $1B per plant is needed for refurbishment to give another 20 years of operation. Through power uprates of existing plants, U.S electric companies have added the equivalent of five or six new reactors in the past 30 years by upgrading legacy plants in order to produce more power from the same plant (Carter 2006). The second pathway focuses on new LWR reactor designs. In the United States, the Westinghouse AP-1000 has emerged as the primary Generation III+ design, and four plants are currently under construction. The AP-1000 has enhanced safety features and a 60-year design life. Similar features are being included in other Generation III+ designs, including the ABWR, APWR, EPR, EBR, and Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR), many of which are being built worldwide. The third thrust is in the area of advanced reactor designs that rely on passive safety systems for decay heat removal; in the near-term, there is a focus on light water reactor designs and a particular focus on so-called small modular reactors (SMRs). Over the years, operational experience has shown that greater situational awareness of the state of safety-critical nuclear plant systems, structures, and components is necessary, particularly as they age over time due to exposure to harsh service conditions. While replacement of a subset of components is possible, it may be economically prohibitive to replace several of the larger components, including the reactor pressure vessel and primary piping. Thus, detection, management, and mitigation of aging-related degradation in these critical components become important to maintain safety margins. In this context, the technical challenges related to detecting, characterizing, monitoring, and managing materials degradation need to be identified and addressed. These challenges are not unique to the operating fleet of LWRs, as the next generation of nuclear power reactors is expected to have similar needs in terms of managing and mitigating degradation; therefore, it is likely that any technology developed for detecting and characterizing degradation will have applications beyond the current fleet. Additionally, some next- generation reactor designs have potentially increased monitoring needs due to extended fuel cycles, reduced access to critical components, and remote siting with reduced maintenance staff. v The key technology developments necessary for detecting and managing degradation in reactor components are: (1) nondestructive measurement methods and analyses to detect degradation and anomalies, (2) algorithms to characterize and monitor the degradation state of the component, and (3) algorithms that use the degradation state information to determine remaining useful life (RUL) and probability of failure (POF) of the component. The POF information may then be used in a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) model to assess the risk significance of the degradation and the corresponding reduced safety margin. Together, these technologies constitute prognostics and health management (PHM) systems. Ideally, degradation detection should occur early in the degradation development lifecycle, to enable the application of appropriate mitigation or repair actions, thereby maintaining the necessary safety margins. Appropriate PHM systems therefore can potentially preclude serious consequences due to aging-related faults. This report reviews the current state of the art of prognostics and health management for nuclear power systems and related technology currently applied in field or under development in other technological application areas. The nuclear power industry worldwide poses a unique challenge for application of health management systems. NPPs worldwide are closely regulated by national and international licensing bodies, and application of PHM systems which may impact safety-critical systems (and some non-safety– related systems) will require a clear licensing basis outlining appropriate algorithms, architectures, and applications.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States
    +44 20 8123 2220 [email protected] Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States https://marketpublishers.com/r/AC4983D1366EN.html Date: June 2012 Pages: 700 Price: US$ 450.00 (Single User License) ID: AC4983D1366EN Abstracts The global energy industry has explored many options to meet the growing energy needs of industrialized economies wherein production demands are to be met with supply of power from varied energy resources worldwide. There has been a clearer realization of the finite nature of oil resources and the ever higher pushing demand for energy. The world has yet to stabilize on the complex geopolitical undercurrents which influence the oil and gas production as well as supply strategies globally. Aruvian's R'search’s report – Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States - analyzes the scope of American energy production from varied traditional sources as well as the developing renewable energy sources. In view of understanding energy transactions, the report also studies the revenue returns for investors in various energy channels which manifest themselves in American energy demand and supply dynamics. In depth view has been provided in this report of US oil, electricity, natural gas, nuclear power, coal, wind, and hydroelectric sectors. The various geopolitical interests and intentions governing the exploitation, production, trade and supply of these resources for energy production has also been analyzed by this report in a non-partisan manner. The report starts with a descriptive base analysis of the characteristics of the global energy industry in terms of economic quantity of demand. The drivers of demand and the traditional resources which are used to fulfill this demand are explained along with the emerging mandate of nuclear energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Byron, Units 1 & 2, Dresden, Units 2 & 3, James A. Fitzpatrick, Lasalle
    200 Exelon Way Exelon Generation ® Kennett Square. PA 19348 www.exeloncorp.com 10 CFR 50.55a RS-19-089 JAFP-19-0084 August 27, 2019 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 NRC Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455 Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25 NRC Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59 NRC Docket No. 50-333 LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18 N RC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-37 4 Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85 N RC Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30 NRC Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265 Subject: Request to Use a Provision of a Later Edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI Reference: NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-12, "Clarification on Use of Later Editions and Addenda to the ASME OM Code and Section XI," dated July 28, 2004 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request to Use a Provision of a Later Addenda of the ASME B&PV Code, Section XI August 27, 2019 Page 2 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a, "Codes and standards," paragraph (g)(4)(iv), and the guidance provided in the referenced document, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) requests NRC approval to use a specific provision of a later edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, Section XI, for the units identified above.
    [Show full text]
  • Nrc Liaison Report
    SC-2Mtg07-2_Att#10 NRC LIAISON REPORT • STP first company to step forward in decades seeking new reactor license The application, a 200,000-page document submitted on a single DVD, was filed on September 24. The staff and STP officials met October 11 for the first public meeting since the application was filed. NRC staffers outlined several issues during the meeting, including a lack of supporting documents for at least two sections, outdated data for one section, missing figures for another and, in one instance, the absence of state emergency preparedness plans that were cross-referenced in the application. • TVA Opts For AP1000 Design Instead Of Completing Partially Finished Existing Reactors. TVA is submitting the combined operating license request nearly two decades after work stopped in 1988 toward building two similar-sized reactors at Bellefonte. TVA officials determined that finishing those reactors, which the agency started building in 1973, would be too costly." Application will be the first involving construction of a Westinghouse AP1000 advanced reactor, made by Westinghouse Electric Co., which is owned by Japan's Toshiba Corp. • Grid Security A video released last month by CNN illustrates the potential danger to the power grid, experts say. While in the past, most had imagined a cyberattack might shut down patches of the US grid for a few days at worst, But the video shows a demonstration by the Idaho National Laboratory that a large electric generator shaking violently, spraying metal parts, and spewing smoke before grinding to a stop. The method of attack used in that demonstration could be replicated to destroy more and larger equipment, several experts say.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power Summary – Licensing Actions August 2020
    NUCLEAR POWER SUMMARY – LICENSING ACTIONS AUGUST 2020 Congressional Legislative Action: o August 2020: • The American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020, which was heard by the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works on August 5, 2020, will enable U.S. international leadership, preserve America’s uranium supply chain, reduce carbon emissions, and strengthen our economic, energy, and national security. • The Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA), included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2021, was passed by the Senate on July 23, 2020. NELA will help facilitate the path to market for advanced reactors by allowing the federal government to be an early adopter of commercialized technologies; providing for needed scientific research facilities; demonstrating advanced reactor concepts; breaking down fuel availability barriers when the market cannot; and training the next generation of nuclear scientists. • The Nuclear Energy for the Future Act (HR 6796), which was introduced to the House on May 8, 2020, builds on the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA) to provide full authorization for the Versatile Test Reactor. • The Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act (HR 6097) was passed by the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Energy on March 12, 2020 and forwarded to the full Committee. This act would authorize many programs within the Office of Nuclear Energy, including further research and development on the existing fleet of reactors, advanced reactors, hybrid energy systems, and advanced fuels. • The Integrated Energy Systems Act of 2019 (S 2702), which was heard by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on December 17, 2019, would direct the Department of Energy to establish an integrated energy systems research, development, and demonstration program.
    [Show full text]
  • Savannah River Site, 700/A Area, Site Administration, Safety, Security, And
    SAVANNAH RIVER SITE COLD WAR HISTORIC PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION 700/A AREA SITE ADMINISTRATION, SAFETY, SECURITY, AND SUPPORT Aiken County, South Carolina NEW SOUTH ASSOCIATES 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 SAVANNAH RIVER SITE COLD WAR HISTORIC PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION NARRATIVE AND PHOTOGRAPHY 700/A AREA – SITE ADMINISTRATION, SAFETY, SECURITY, AND SUPPORT Aiken County, South Carolina Report submitted to: Washington Savannah River Company • Aiken, SC Report prepared by: New South Associates • 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue • Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 Terri Gillett Mary Beth Reed Mark T. Swanson Steven Gaither May 25, 2007 • Final Report New South Associates Technical Report 1433 ii ABSTRACT ABSTRACT This documentation was prepared in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the Department of Energy–Savannah River (DOE-SR) and the South Carolina Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated February 17, 2004, as well as the Consolidated MOA of August 2004. The MOA stipulated that a thematic study and photographic documentation be undertaken on A Area historic properties 703-A and 708-A. In addition, a Cultural Resource Management Plan was accepted and signed by DOE-SR and the SHPO on December 9, 2004 calling for documentation of the remainder of the A Area buildings that were deemed eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as contributing resources to a Savannah River Site (SRS) Cold War Historic District. The impetus for the study was the imminent decommissioning and/or dismantling of the majority of NRHP eligible buildings in A Area. The resulting narrative is based on field analysis, oral history, primary documentation and research.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Power Monthly December 1997
    DOE/EIA-0226(97/12) Distribution Category UC-950 Electric Power Monthly December 1997 With Data for September 1997 Energy Information Administration Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 mmwm OF m$ mumr is mmm This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein should not be construed as advocating or reflecting any policy position of the Department of Energy or any other organization. Contacts The Electric Power Monthly is prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. Questions and comments concerning the contents of the Electric Power Monthly may be directed to: Ms. Sandra Smith, Project Leader Energy Information Administration, EI-524 U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC, 20585 Telephone number: (202)426-1173 Internet E-Mail number: [email protected] or the following subject specialists: Subject Contact Phone Number Internet E-Mail Electricity Supply and Demand Forecast.. Rebecca McNerney 202-426-1251 [email protected] Industry Developments Kenneth McClevey 202-426-1144 [email protected] New Electric Generating Units Karen McDaniel 202-426-1234 [email protected] U.S. Electric Utility Net Generation Melvin E. Johnson 202-426-1172 [email protected] U.S. Electric Utility Consumption of Fuels . Melvin E. Johnson 202-426-1172 [email protected] U.S. Electric Utility Stocks of Fuels Melvin E. Johnson 202-426-1172 [email protected] U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 20071204-Ucs-Brief-Got-Water
    GOT WATER? Nuclear power plants are usually built next to lakes, rivers, and oceans.1 Not for the scenic views that such locales provide, but because water can absorb the waste heat produced by the plants. Nuclear power plants consume vast amounts of water during normal operation to absorb the waste heat left over after making electricity and also to cool the equipment and buildings used in generating that electricity. In event of an accident, nuclear power plants need water to remove the decay heat produced by the reactor core and also to cool the equipment and buildings used to provide the core’s heat removal. This issue brief describes the reliance of nuclear power plants on nearby bodies of water during normal operation and under accident conditions. All of the 104 nuclear reactors currently licensed to operate in the United States are light2 water reactors. Sixty-nine (69) are pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and 35 are boiling water reactors (BWRs). In a PWR, water flowing through the reactor core is In a BWR, water flowing through the reactor core is heated by its thermal energy. Because this water is heated by its thermal energy and boils. The steam flows maintained under high pressure (over 2,000 pounds per from the reactor vessel to the turbine. The steam spins the square inch), it does not boil even when heated to over turbine, which is connected to a generator that produces 500ºF. The hot water flows from the reactor vessel and electricity. The steam exits the turbine into the condenser. enters thousands of metal tubes within the steam Water from the nearby lake, river, or ocean flows through generator.
    [Show full text]
  • Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3
    UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III 2443 WARRENVILLE RD. SUITE 210 LISLE, IL 60532-4352 July 19, 2017 Mr. Bryan C. Hanson Senior VP, Exelon Generation Co., LLC President and CNO, Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 SUBJECT: DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3—NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000237/2017002 AND 05000249/2017002 Dear Mr. Hanson: On June 30, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an integrated inspection at your Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3. On June 30, 2017, the NRC inspectors discussed the results of this inspection with Mr. J. Washko and other members of your staff. The results of this inspection are documented in the enclosed report. Based on the results of this inspection, one issue was self-revealed and was evaluated under the risk significance determination process as having very low safety significance (Green). The NRC has also determined a violation is associated with this issue. Because the licensee initiated a condition report to address this issue, the violation is being treated as a Non-Cited Violation (NCV), consistent with Section 2.3.2 of the Enforcement Policy. This NCV is described in the subject inspection report. If you contest the violations or significance of this NCV, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555–0001, with copies to the Regional Administrator, Region III; the Director, Office of Enforcement; and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station.
    [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]
  • Cheap Natural Gas, Stagnant Power Demand, and Power Prices That
    Cheap natural gas, stagnant power demand, and power prices that have fallen significantly since 2008 have jeopardized the economics of about two-thirds of the nation’s 100-GW nuclear capacity, according to a working paper from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. About 21 GW in merchant deregulated markets are retiring, or are at high risk of retiring the paper suggests. Here’s a profitability outlook for all 61 nuclear plants in the U.S. over the short term (between 2017 and 2019), according to the research entity. Source: “Early Nuclear Retirements in Deregulated U.S. Markets: Causes, Implications and Policy Options,” MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (March 2017) —Copy and artwork by Sonal Patel, a POWER associate editor. Millstone 14.8 Seabrook 14.0 Nine Mile Point 13.7 North Anna 13.7 James A. FitzPatrick 12.9 Indian Point 2 12.6 Pilgrim Nuclear 9.9 Calvert Cliffs 9.5 Indian Point 3 9.0 R.E. Ginna/Ontario Sta. 13 8.2 Surry 5.1 Davis Besse 4.5 Clinton Power Station 3.6 Perry 3.5 *Profitability is defined as the net pre-tax Limerick 1.9 Dresden 1.8 earnings of the individual facilities, Peach Bottom 1.7 calculated as the sum of energy sales, Donald C. Cook 1.4 capacity market revenue, and policy support Susquehanna 1.3 (subsidies if applicable) minus the cost of Braidwood Generating 0.8 generation. Salem 0.4 LaSalle County 0.3 St. Lucie 0.1 Beaver Valley –0.1 Palo Verde –0.5 Hope Creek –0.5 Grand Gulf –1.2 Alvin W.
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Fundamentals Examination Results
    October 7, 2019 THIS LETTER DISTRIBUTED TO THE FOLLOWING DOCKET NUMBERS: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Docket No. 50-368 Columbia Generating Station, Docket No. 50-397 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Docket Nos. 50-275/323 River Bend Station, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-458 SUBJECT: GENERIC FUNDAMENTALS EXAMINATION RESULTS On September 4, 2019, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered the generic fundamentals examination (GFE) section of the written operator licensing examination to employees at 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 forward the results to the individuals along with the copies of their respective answer sheets. A “P” in the RESULTS 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 Mr. Eric Cushing at 301-415-1064 and/or [email protected]. Sincerely, /RA Gregory E. Werner, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosures: As stated Reactor 50 dockets - 2 - cc w/enclosures: Dennis Kilpatrick, Training Manager Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Inc. 1448 S.R. 333 Russellville, AR 72802 Glenn Pierce, Manager Nuclear Training Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest, MD-1023 P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352-0968 Justin Rogers, Training Manager Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Power Plant P.O. Box 56, Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Kevin Stupak, Manager Training Entergy Operations, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Operating License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear
    Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1 Introduction Set forth below is Entergy Operations’ Environmental Report-Operating License Renewal Stage for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. This report was prepared in conjunction with Entergy Operations’ application to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to renew the operating license for ANO-1. In compliance with applicable NRC requirements, this ER analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with renewal of the ANO-1 license. It is designed to assist the NRC staff with the preparation of the ANO-1 specific Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that is required for license renewal. The content of the ER complies with the requirements of 10CFR Part 51, as augmented by the NRC’s “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (NUREG-1437). Specifically, the ANO-1 ER complies with 10CFR54.23, which requires license renewal applicants to submit a supplement to the ER that complies with requirements of Subpart A of 10CFR Part 51. This report also addresses the more detailed requirements of NRC environmental regulations in 10CFR51.45 and 10CFR51.53, as well as the underlying intent of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. For major federal actions, the NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement that addresses significant environmental impacts, adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, alternatives to the
    [Show full text]