DOCSLIB.ORG

Effects of Converting Nuclear Plants in Midwest to Synchronous Condensers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effects of Converting Nuclear Plants in Midwest to Synchronous Condensers EFFECTS OF CONVERTING NUCLEAR PLANTS IN MIDWEST TO SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSERS A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY TAHNEE MILLER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE Paul Imbertson, Advisor Ned Mohan, Advisor June 2018 © Tahnee Miller 2018 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Acknowledgements I’d like to express my appreciation to the following individuals for their support on the project: • Steve Seitz at MISO for diligently following up to help get access to the models and other information necessary to complete the research. • Douglas Brown at Siemens PTI for his time helping with the dynamic analysis and his support of the project. • Chad Snyder at GE Power for his knowledge of synchronous condensers and his willingness to share some of his experiences of past projects. • Ned Mohan at the University of Minnesota for his ideas and patience. • My husband, Greg, for his endless support and encouragement and for always going over and above to help me find the time and mental capacity to work on my thesis. The kids never noticed I was too busy to play with them when I was working, because they were having too much fun with you! Thank you for always treating my goals with the same rigor as if they were your own. i Abstract Conventional power plants are being retired and replaced with power generation from new renewable generation facilities around the country. One significant drawback to this trend is the loss of system inertia, which conventional power plants are typically able to provide better than wind and solar plants, and the corresponding decrease in grid frequency stability. One way to provide system inertia is with a synchronous condenser. This thesis investigates the potential for converting five nuclear plants in the Midwest into synchronous condensers upon retirement. A transmission system software model was used to simulate disturbances in frequency with the electric grid in the existing system configuration, with the studied facility retired, and with the studied facility converted to a synchronous condenser. Synchronous condenser conversion was determined to have the greatest positive impact on local frequency stability in areas that are close to a large amount of load and renewable generation projects. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... i Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. vi 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Background .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Synchronous Condensers ................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Frequency Stability .......................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Synchronous Condenser Conversion ............................................................................... 3 2.4 MISO Planning Area ........................................................................................................ 4 3 Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Existing MISO Planning Model ....................................................................................... 5 3.2 Selection of Study Cases .................................................................................................. 6 3.2.1 Clinton Generating Facility ...................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Duane Arnold Generating Facility ........................................................................... 7 3.2.3 Palisades Generating Facility ................................................................................... 7 3.2.4 Prairie Island Generating Facility ............................................................................ 8 3.2.5 Kewaunee Generating Facility ................................................................................. 8 3.3 Study Procedure ............................................................................................................. 10 3.3.1 Create Modified Models ........................................................................................ 10 3.3.2 Simulate Frequency Disturbances .......................................................................... 12 3.3.3 Measured Quantities .............................................................................................. 13 3.3.4 Analysis Limitations .............................................................................................. 14 4 Results .................................................................................................................................... 15 4.1 Clinton Results ............................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Duane Arnold Results .................................................................................................... 20 iii 4.3 Palisades Results ............................................................................................................ 25 4.4 Prairie Island Results ..................................................................................................... 30 4.5 Kewaunee Results .......................................................................................................... 35 5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 40 5.1 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................... 40 5.2 Conclusions Drawn By Results...................................................................................... 40 5.3 Future Work ................................................................................................................... 41 References ...................................................................................................................................... 42 iv List of Tables Table 1: MTEP16 Model Base Case Summary ............................................................................... 5 Table 2: MISO Nuclear Generation Facilities ................................................................................. 6 Table 3: MISO Nuclear Generation Facilities Selected For Evaluation .......................................... 8 Table 4: Frequency Disturbance Simulations ................................................................................ 12 Table 5: Clinton Results Summary – Summer Shoulder Case ...................................................... 15 Table 6: Clinton Results Summary – Summer Peak Case ............................................................. 15 Table 7: Duane Arnold Results Summary – Summer Shoulder Case ............................................ 20 Table 8: Duane Arnold Results Summary – Summer Peak Case .................................................. 20 Table 9: Palisades Results Summary – Summer Shoulder Case.................................................... 25 Table 10: Palisades Results Summary – Summer Peak Case ........................................................ 25 Table 11: Prairie Island Results Summary – Summer Shoulder Case ........................................... 30 Table 12: Prairie Island Results Summary – Summer Peak Case .................................................. 30 Table 13: Kewaunee Results Summary – Summer Shoulder Case ................................................ 35 Table 14: Kewaunee Results Summary – Summer Peak Case ...................................................... 35 v List of Figures Figure 1: MISO Map ........................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2: Wind Generation With Selected Sites Overlayed ............................................................. 9 Figure 3: Frequency Measurement Quantities ............................................................................... 13 Figure 4: Clinton - Generator Trip in Summer Shoulder Case ...................................................... 16 Figure 5: Clinton - Generator Trip in Summer Peak Case ............................................................. 17 Figure 6: Clinton - Load Trip in Summer Shoulder Case .............................................................. 18 Figure 7: Clinton - Load Trip in Summer Peak Case .................................................................... 19 Figure 8: Duane Arnold - Generator Trip in Summer Shoulder Case ........................................... 21 Figure 9: Duane Arnold - Generator Trip in Summer Peak Case .................................................. 22 Figure 10:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Kewaunee Power Station Applicant's Environmental Report Operating
    Kewaunee Power Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage Kewaunee Power Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Table of Contents Operating License Renewal Stage TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations..............................................................................................AA-1 Chapter 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Environmental Report Scope and Methodology.......................................................... 1-1 1.3 Kewaunee Power Station Licensee and Ownership ................................................... 1-2 1.4 References.................................................................................................................. 1-5 Chapter 2 - Site and Environmental Interfaces ..................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Location and Features ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Aquatic Ecological Communities................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Groundwater Resources ............................................................................................. 2-9 2.4 Critical and Important Terrestrial Habits ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry
    Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry – Final Report June 2013 Navigant Consulting, Inc. For EISPC and NARUC Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry Study 5: Assessment of the Location of New Nuclear and Uprating Existing Nuclear Whitepaper 5: Consideration of other Incentives/Disincentives for Development of Nuclear Power prepared for Eastern Interconnection States’ Planning Council and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 South Bedford Street, Suite 400 Burlington, MA 01803 781.270.0101 www.navigant.com Table of Contents Forward ....................................................................................................................................... ix Basic Nuclear Power Concepts ................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 5 1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Early Years – (1946-1957) ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.1.1 Shippingport ............................................................................................................................. 11 1.1.2 Power Reactor Demonstration Program ..............................................................................
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Nuclear Power Facilities in the Great Lakes Basin
    Nuclear Power Facilities in the Great Lakes Basin Background Report Compendium of information related to the current status and decommissioning of Great Lakes nuclear power facilities to support the development of a Great Lakes Water Quality Board report Prepared for the Great Lakes Water Quality Board to be submitted to the International Joint Commission September 2019 Acknowledgements Ryan C. Graydon – Author and Primary Researcher [email protected] Paisley A. Meyer – Research Assistant [email protected] Mark J. Burrows – Project Manager, COR [email protected] Suggested citation: Graydon RC, Meyer PA, and Burrows MJ. September 2019. Nuclear Power Facilities in the Great Lakes Basin: Background Report. Prepared for the International Joint Commission’s Great Lakes Water Quality Board. For more information on this report, please visit https://ijc.org/en/wqb. Permissions With the permission of Canadian Standards Association, (operating as “CSA Group”), 178 Rexdale Blvd., Toronto, ON, M9W 1R3, material is reproduced from CSA Group’s standard CSA N294-09 – Decommissioning of facilities containing nuclear substances. This material is not the complete and official position of CSA Group on the referenced subject, which is represented solely by the Standard in its entirety. While use of the material has been authorized, CSA Group is not responsible for the manner in which the data is presented, nor for any representations and interpretations. No further reproduction is permitted. For more information or to purchase standard(s) from CSA Group, please visit store.csagroup.org or call 1-800-463-6727. With the permission of Natural Resources Canada: Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, material is adapted and reproduced from Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • EPRI Guidance for Transition from Operations to Decommissioning, February 16-18, Lyon, France
    PREDEC 2016: EPRI Guidance for Transition from Operations to Decommissioning, February 16-18, Lyon, France EPRI Guidance for Transition from Operations to Decommissioning Richard McGrath* Richard Reid Electric Power Research Institute 3420 Hillview Ave Palo Alto, California 94504 *corresponding author: [email protected] Keywords: decommissioning, transition, regulatory framework Abstract A wide range of key activities are necessary after permanent shutdown of a nuclear power plant before active dismantlement of the plant can begin. This period is typically referred to as the transition period. In some cases these activities are prescribed by regulation and in others they may be more practically driven or even optional. In either case, planning for transition activities should optimally take place prior to final shutdown. Additionally, execution of some transition period activities, such as filing required regulatory submittals, may be performed prior to plant shut down. In addition to general transition period activities such as defueling, management of operational wastes, fulfilling regulatory requirements and changes to plant technical specifications, there are a number of optional activities that may have a long-range impact on future decommissioning activities. This includes activities such as the timing of staff reductions and performance of chemical decontamination. EPRI is nearing completion of a project to develop guidance for transitioning a nuclear power plant to decommissioning. This project includes the following elements:
    [Show full text]
  • Communities Adjust to Impending Loss of Kewaunee Power Station | Green Bay Press Gazette | Greenbaypressgazette.Com 4/28/13 12:27 PM
    Communities adjust to impending loss of Kewaunee Power Station | Green Bay Press Gazette | greenbaypressgazette.com 4/28/13 12:27 PM JOBS CARS HOMES APARTMENTS SHOPPING CLASSIFIEDS LOG IN SUBSCRIBE ACTIVATE E-NEWSPAPER HELP News Packers Sports Business Living Opinion Obituaries Photos/Video FEATURED: Calendar Investigative reports Entertainment Yard MD Preps Blog Day Trips Find what you are looking for ... SEARCH ADVERTISEMENT Communities adjust to impending loss of Kewaunee Power Station Apr. 27, 2013 | Comments A A ADVERTISEMENT Most Popular Most Commented More Headlines 1 Offense set to shift gears with top RB prospects 2 Notebook: Packers reportedly taking trade offers on Bishop, Starks 3 Quarterback, safety among undrafted rookies to sign with Packers Purchase Image 4 McCarthy reacts to Packers' draft Ann Bies, manager at Fat Boyz, shares a laugh with a customer inside Fat Boyz in Tisch Mills on Wednesday, April 23, 2013. Fat Boyz is a popular spot for plant workers. Evan Siegle/Press-Gazette Media / Evan Siegle/Press-Gazette Media 5 Three draftees' checkered pasts don't deter Thompson Written by Richard Ryman KEWAUNEE COUNTY — As the effect of the Kewaunee Power Press-Gazette Media Station closing ripples out from the shore of Lake Michigan into the community, Fat Boyz 2 bar and grill, five miles away in Tisch Mills, FILED UNDER will be one of the first businesses to feel the impact. Most Viewed Business Manager Ann Bies said Kewaunee and Point Beach Nuclear Plant employees and contractors make up about one-third of Fat Boyz 2’s business. Losing the Kewaunee contingent, including the contract employees who come in every 18 months to work refueling http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20130427/GPG03/304270261/ Page 1 of 4 Communities adjust to impending loss of Kewaunee Power Station | Green Bay Press Gazette | greenbaypressgazette.com 4/28/13 12:27 PM outages, will be a blow.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 53/Monday, March 19, 2012/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2012 / Notices 16091 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2012–0068] Order Modifying Licenses With Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events (Effective Immediately) In the Matter of: ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND HOLDERS OF CON- Docket Nos. (as shown in Attachment 1) License Nos. (as shown in STRUCTION PERMITS IN ACTIVE OR DEFERRED STATUS. Attachment 1) or Construction Permit Nos. (as shown in Attach- ment 1)) EA–12–049 I Approximately 40 minutes following As directed by the Commission’s staff the earthquake and shutdown of the requirements memorandum (SRM) for The Licensees and construction SECY–11–0093, the NRC staff reviewed 1 operating units, the first large tsunami permits (CP) holders identified in wave inundated the site, followed by the NTTF recommendations within the Attachment 1 to this Order hold licenses additional waves. The tsunami caused context of the NRC’s existing regulatory and CPs issued by the U.S. Nuclear extensive damage to site facilities and framework and considered the various Regulatory Commission (NRC or resulted in a complete loss of all ac regulatory vehicles available to the NRC Commission) authorizing operation and/ electrical power at Units 1 through 5, a to implement the recommendations. or construction of nuclear power plants condition known as station blackout. In SECY–11–0124 and SECY–11–0137 in accordance with the Atomic Energy addition, all direct current electrical established the staff’s prioritization of Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 power was lost early in the event on the recommendations based upon the of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 Units 1 and 2 and after some period of potential safety enhancements.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Preferences Related to Consent-Based Siting Of
    Public Preferences Related to Consent-Based Siting of Radioactive Waste Management Facilities for Storage and Disposal: Analyzing Variations over Time, Events, and Program Designs Prepared for US Department of Energy Nuclear Fuel Storage and Transportation Planning Project Hank C. Jenkins-Smith Carol L. Silva Kerry G. Herron Kuhika G. Ripberger Matthew Nowlin Joseph Ripberger Center for Risk and Crisis Management, University of Oklahoma Evaristo “Tito” Bonano Rob P. Rechard Sandia National Laboratories February 2013 FCRD-NFST-2013-000076 SAND 2013-0032P Public Preferences Related to Consent Based Siting of Radioactive Waste Management Facilities ii February 2013 DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the US Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
    [Show full text]
  • Prioritization of Response Due Dates
    UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 May 11, 2012 All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status SUBJECT: PRIORITIZATION OF RESPONSE DUE DATES FOR REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 50.54(f) REGARDING FLOODING HAZARD REEVALUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 OF THE NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE REVIEW OF INSIGHTS FROM THE FUKUSHIMA DAI-ICHI ACCIDENT On March 12, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a request for information pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 54(f). The purpose of that request was to gather sufficient information to enable the NRC staff to determine whether the nuclear plant licenses under your responsibility should be modified, suspended, or revoked. Enclosure 2 to that letter directed the reevaluation of flooding hazards at operating reactor sites. The required response section of Enclosure 2 indicated that the Hazard Reevaluation Report would be due within one to three years from the date of the letter. Further, it specified that NRC would provide a prioritization plan indicating deadlines for individual plants to complete the reevaluations. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the prioritization plan developed by the NRC and the resultant list of due dates for all sites. Since the issuance of the information request, the NRC has held multiple public meetings and teleconferences to gather stakeholder feedback on this topic. On March 15, 2012, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), on the industry's behalf, provided a methodology for categorizing flooding reevaluations using indicators for susceptibility and complexity.
    [Show full text]