|
|
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | issue date = 09/06/1973 | | | issue date = 09/06/1973 |
| | title = Letter Responding to the July 5, 1973 Letter Requesting Comment on the AEC Draft Environmental Statement Relating to the Conversion of the Current Provisional Operating License to a Full-Term License | | | title = Letter Responding to the July 5, 1973 Letter Requesting Comment on the AEC Draft Environmental Statement Relating to the Conversion of the Current Provisional Operating License to a Full-Term License |
| | author name = Phillips T A | | | author name = Phillips T |
| | author affiliation = US Federal Power Commission | | | author affiliation = US Federal Power Commission |
| | addressee name = Muller D R | | | addressee name = Muller D |
| | addressee affiliation = US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) | | | addressee affiliation = US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| | docket = 05000220 | | | docket = 05000220 |
Line 15: |
Line 15: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:~rt AEC DIS XBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MA"XAL (TEt 1PORARY FORM)CONTROL NO: 6874 FILE: ENVIRO FROM: Federal Power Commission ,Washington, D.C.20426 T.A.Phillips DATE OF DOC 9-6-73 DATE REC'D 9-11-73 MMO OTHER TO: CLASS UNCLASS XXX D.R.Muller PROP INFO ORIG 1 signed'NPUT CC OTHER NO C S REC'D SENT AEC PDR SENT LOCAL PDR X DOCKET NO: 50-220 DESCRXPTION: | | {{#Wiki_filter:AEC DIS XBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MA "XAL |
| Ltr furnishing comments on DES...r ENCLOSURES: | | ~ rt (TEt 1PORARY FORM) CONTROL NO: 6874 FILE: ENVIRO FROM: DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D MMO OTHER Federal Power Commission |
| r ACKNOWLEDGED ONOT PE>>~E Nine Mile Point Unit 8'FOR ACTION/INFORMATION 9-11-73 fod BUTLER(L)W/Copies CLARK(L)W/Copies GOLLER(L)W/Copies KNIEL(L)W/Copies SCI1WENCER(L)
| | ,Washington, D. C. 20426 9-6-73 9-11-73 T. A. Phillips TO: ORIG CC OTHER SENT AEC PDR D. R. Muller 1 signed SENT LOCAL PDR X CLASS UNCLASS PROP INFO 'NPUT NO C S REC'D DOCKET NO: |
| W/Copies STOLZ(L)W/Copies VASSALLO(L)
| | XXX 50-220 DESCRXPTION: ENCLOSURES: |
| W/Copies SCHEMEL(L) | | Ltr furnishing comments on DES... |
| W/Copies NIEMANN (L)W/1 Copies DICKER(E)W/Copies KNIGHTON(E) | | r r |
| " W/Copies YOUNGBLOOD(E)
| | ACKNOWLEDGED ONOT PE>>~E Nine Mile Point Unit 8' FOR ACTION/INFORMATION 9-11-73 fod BUTLER(L) SCI1WENCER(L) NIEMANN(L) ~GAN(E) |
| W/Copies~GAN(E)W/4 Copies W/Copies W/Copies W/Copies INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION | | W/ Copies W/ Copies W/1 Copies W/4 Copies CLARK(L) STOLZ(L) DICKER(E) |
| ~G FXLE C P OGC, ROOM P-506A~TZING/STAFF CASE GIAMBUSSO BOYD MOORE (L)(BWR)DEYOUNG(L)(PWR)~KOVHOLT (L)P.COLLINS REG.OPR~ILE®ION(3)MORRIS STEELE TECH REVIEW HENDRIE SCHROEDER MACCARY KNIGHT PAWLICKI SHAO STELLO HOUSTON NOVAK ROSS IPPOLITO TEDESCO LONG LAINAS~BENAROYA VOLTE R DEN TON GRIMES GAK1ILL KASTNER~LLARD SPANGLER ENVLRO MULLER~DICKER KNIGHTON YOUNGBLOOD REGAN PROJECT LDR DITTMAN ESS LIC ASST HIGGS (L)GEARIN (L)GOULBOURNE (L)LEE (L)MAIGRET (L)SERVICE (L)SHEPPARD (E)SMITH (L)TEETS (L)WADE (E)WILLIAMS (E)WILSON (L)~AT LND BRAI'OMAN SALTZMAN PLANS MODONALD DUBE INFO C.MILES-LOCAL PDR Oswe o N.Y.-DTIE(ABERNATHY) 1"-NSIC(BUCHANAN) 1-ASLB(YORE/SAYRE/ | | W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies GOLLER(L) VASSALLO(L) KNIGHTON(E) " |
| WOODARD/"H" ST.16-CYS ACRS HOLDING r t A EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
| | W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies KNIEL(L) SCHEMEL(L) YOUNGBLOOD(E) |
| ~(1)M@83)-NATIONAL LAB'~N~1-R.Schoonmaker,OC,GT,D-323 | | W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION |
| '1-R.CATLXN, E-256-GT 1-CONSULTANT'S NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN 1-GERALD ULRXKSON.~~OIQK~l-Pennington 1-PDR-SAN/LA/NY 1-GERALD LELLOUCHE BROOKHAVEN NAT.LAB 1-AGMED(WALTER KOESTER HM-C-427-GT 1-RD MULLER..F-309 GT pc'l>>" (>tt(>>gpFI l y4,',l~',.~C,<,p II<~(li>, f q,',tgi4 g.S'g~)g g if I''fh I''I'lt II Ol ERAL POWER COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.20426 IN REPLY REFER TOI 50-220 Mr.Daniel R.Muller Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Direct'orate of Licensing U.S.Atomic Energy Commission Hashington, D.C.20545~EF'XZ)973~
| | ~G FXLE TECH REVIEW DENTON LIC ASST |
| )(np 6)gg
| | ~AT LND C P HENDRIE GRIMES BRAI'OMAN OGC, ROOM P-506A SCHROEDER GAK1ILL HIGGS (L) SALTZMAN |
| | ~TZING/STAFF MACCARY KASTNER GEARIN (L) |
| | CASE KNIGHT ~LLARD GOULBOURNE (L) PLANS GIAMBUSSO PAWLICKI SPANGLER LEE (L) MODONALD BOYD SHAO MAIGRET (L) DUBE MOORE (L) (BWR) STELLO ENVLRO SERVICE (L) |
| | DEYOUNG(L) (PWR) HOUSTON MULLER SHEPPARD (E) INFO |
| | ~KOVHOLT (L) NOVAK ~ DICKER SMITH (L) C. MILES P. COLLINS ROSS KNIGHTON TEETS (L) |
| | IPPOLITO YOUNGBLOOD WADE (E) |
| | REG. OPR TEDESCO REGAN WILLIAMS (E) |
| | ~ILE & REGION(3) LONG PROJECT DITTMAN LDR WILSON (L) |
| | MORRIS LAINAS STEELE ~BENAROYA ESS VOLTE R EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION |
| | - LOCAL PDR Oswe o N. Y. |
| | 1 "- |
| | - DTIE(ABERNATHY) |
| | NSIC(BUCHANAN) |
| | ~ (1) M@83)-NATIONAL LAB'~N~ |
| | 1-R.Schoonmaker,OC,GT,D-323 1-PDR-SAN/LA/NY 1-GERALD LELLOUCHE 1 - ASLB(YORE/SAYRE/ '1-R. CATLXN, E-256-GT BROOKHAVEN NAT. LAB WOODARD/ "H" ST. 1-CONSULTANT'S 1-AGMED(WALTER KOESTER 16 - CYS ACRS HOLDING NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN HM-C-427-GT t |
| | r A |
| | 1-GERALD ULRXKSON. ~ ~ OIQK 1-RD MULLER..F-309 GT |
| | ~l-Pennington |
|
| |
|
| ==Dear Mr.Muller:==
| | " (> tt(>>gp FI l y4, pc 'l>> |
| This is in response to your letter dated July 5, 1973, requesting comment on the AEC Draft Environmental Statement relating to the conversion of the current provisional operating license to a full~term license to the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 (Docket No.50-220).The following comments are made in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the April 23, 1971, Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality, and review the need for the capacity of the 610-megawatt Nine Mile Point Nuclear Unit 1 with regard to the adequacy and reliability of the affected electric power systems and related matters.In preparation of these comments, the Federal Power Commission's Bureau of Power staff has considered the AEC Draft Environmental State-ment;the Applicant's Environmental Report and Supplements thereto;related reports made in response to the CommissionIs Statement of Policy on Reliability and Adequacy of Electric Service (Docket No.R-362);and the staff's analysis of these documents togetherwith related information from other FPC reports.The staff generally bases its evaluation of the need for a specific bulk power facility upon long-term considerations as well as upon the load-supply situation for the peak load period immediately following the availability of the facility.It should be noted that the useful life of the Nine Mile Point unzt is expected to be 30 years or more.During that period the unit will make a significant contribution to the adequacy of power supply in the Applicant's service area.The Nine Mile Point Nuclear Unit 1 has been in commercial operation since December 1969.During the period from December 1969 to December 31, 1971, the unit produced 4,858 billion kilowatt-hours of electric energy, and during 1972 the unit produced an additional 3,242 billion kilowatt-hours.
| | ',l~', |
| uQ GQV 033 2~AC 1 i"-:;3"-'i se ni~awl.-&R I' Mr.Daniel R.Muller The Applicant is a member of the New York Power Pool (NYPP), which coordinates the operation of members'ulk power systems whose combined service areas serve the entire State of New York.The Applicant is also a member of the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC), which coordinates the planning of the members'enerating and transmission facilities in the area which includes the State of New York, New England and th'e provinces of New Brunswick and Ontario.NPCC has established a reliabilzty criterion equivalent to a loss of load probability of one day'n ten years.Members'of the NYPP have agreed that to maintain this standard, each memb'er system w'ill maintain installed capacity at least equal to that required to meet an 18 percent reserve during its most recent annual peak load.The Bureau of Power'taff has analyzed, the effect o'f the capacity of Nine Mile Point No.1 onthe winter-peaking Applicant's system for the 1973-1974 Winter Peak Period and the summer-peaking NYPP for the 1974 Summer Peak Period.The following tabulations show the effect of the Nine Mile Unit 1 on these systems.NIAGARA MOHAWK SYSTEM 1/1973-74 WINTER PEAK LOAD PERIOD With Unit 1 Without Unit 1 Total Owned Capability, Dec.31, 1972, MW Share of Roseton No.1, MW Share of Roseton No.2, MW Share of Fitzpatrick No.1, MW Share of Blenheim-Gilboa, MW Other Purchases Total Capability, MW Estimated Peak Load, MW Reserve MW Reserve,%of Peak Load 3 251 240 240 295 550 1 646 6,222 5 200 1,022 19.7 2,641 240 240 295 550 1 646 5,612 5 200 412 7.9 1/Niagara Mohawk Form 12 Report For 1972.
| | . ~ |
| H f I'll)ggy~II J<+$Jlt>ll i<(4*Ah$Jll.'):ir h9'<3!i ai.<~A t~V Mr.Daniel R.Muller NEW YORK POWER POOL 1974 SUMMER PEAK PERlOD 1/With Unit 1 Without Unit 1 f Total Capability
| | C,<,p II<~( |
| -.Megawatts Net Peak Load.-Megawatts Reserve Margin-Megawatts.',<<Reserve Margin-Percent of Pe'ak Load 27,671 225006 2/5,665 25.8 27,061 22,006 2/5,055 23.0 1/Data Source: NPCC Report 383-2 dated April 1, 1973.2/Coincident Peak Load of 21,930 megawatts increased by 76 MW as a result of transactions with systems outside NYPP.The Niagara Mohawk reserve of 19.7%with Nine Mile Point is within the range usually found satisfactory, but the bare numerical value is deceptive.
| | li >, |
| Of the 1,646 MW listed under"Other Purchases," 270 MW is supplied by.Rochester Gas&Electric Company, who in turn is relying on a purchase of 207 MW from Power Authority of the State of New York.However, Rochester Gas&Electric Company,'according to its 1972 Form 12 Report to the Federal Power Commission, will only have a 5.2%reserve at the time of its 1973-74 winter peak.Consequently, of the 1,022 megawatt reserve that Niagara Mohawk appears to have with Nine Mile Point No.1, 270 megawatts can, be considered of doubtful reliability.
| | f q, ',tgi4 g. S' g~)g g if I''fh I I'l t II |
| Without Nine Mile Point, Niagara Mohawk would have only a 7.9%reserve, more than half of which would be dependent on a purchase of doubtful reliability.
| |
| Xt is therefore essential for Niagara Mohawk's adequacy of service to have Nine Mile Point No.1 in operation at its full rated 610 megawatts.
| |
| The Applicant's system is integrated with all New York State systems through the NYPP and the summer-peaking pool indicates reserves of 25.8 percent of peak, load responsibility with the capacity of Unit 1 and 23.0 percent without the unit.During the week of the summer peaks in 1971 and 1972 the NYPP experienced unavailable capacity totalling 3,326 megawatts and 3,581 megawatts, respectively, due to scheduled maintenance, forced outages, delays in availability of new units and variation of hydro conditions from median values.Xf the average of the capacity losses experienced during the 1971 and 1972 summer peaks existed at the time of the 1974 summer peak, the reserves on the NYPP system would be reduced to 10.0 percent with Unit 1 and 7.3 percent without the unit.
| |
|
| |
|
| Mr.Daniel R.Muller During the 1974 summer period, the availability of emergency power supplies from the neighboring NEPOOL 1/and PJM 2/pools may be limited by the needs of those systems to maintain planned reserve levels.The limited capacity of the intexconnections and the predominantly thermal systems of NEPOOL and PJM, which are subject to forced outages, fuel shortages and operating restrictions due to air quality limitations, indicate that little capacity reserve would be available from these areas.The winter-peaking Ontario Hydro system has indicated reserves after maintenance of 31.3 percent of peak load, totalling 3,490 mega-watts, and i,s considered the only available source of emergency power supply.The Nine Mile Point Unit 1 is completed and has been producing electric powex'ince 1969.In view of the substantial purchases of power necessary by the Applicant to meet its system demands, the Bureau of Power staff recommends that the full-tenn operating license be issued to the Applicant for this unit.Power purchases are an expedient for meeting electric system demands during construction of new units;however, purchases are not a satisfactory substitute for adequate base-load owned generation. | | Ol ERAL POWER COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 IN REPLY REFER TOI 50-220 Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for ~EF'XZ)973~ )( np 6 )gg Environmental Projects Direct'orate of Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Hashington, D. C. 20545 |
| Regional reliability is greatly improved when each electric system has adequate installed generating capacity to meet its syst: em demands and provide reserve capacity.r The use of geothermal power as an alternative to the nuclear unit was not considered, according to the Draft Environmental Statement (page 9-1).In light of the fact that geo)ljermal sources are known to exist in New York and neighboring states,-a discussion of this alternate would be appropriate. | | |
| Hydroelectric power as a substitute for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear unit would be impractical and inadequate. | | ==Dear Mr. Muller:== |
| Although the total generating capacity that could be made available in New York by the addition of'enerators at existing hydro sites and the development of new sites is some 1,292 megawatts, 4/'his capacity would be scattered over a laxge number of sites.The total average annual energy available fxom all the sites;4/would be approximately equal to the annual energy obtainable. | | |
| 1/New England Power Pool.2/Pennsylvania<<New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection. | | This is in response to your letter dated July 5, 1973, requesting comment on the AEC Draft Environmental Statement relating to the conversion of the current provisional operating license to a full~term license to the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 (Docket No. 50-220). |
| 3/Thermal Springs of the United States and Other Countries of the world-A Summary.Geological Survey Professional Paper 492.U.S.Government Printing Office, 1965.4/Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United States, January 1, 1972.Federal Power Commission, FPC P-42. | | The following comments are made in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the April 23, 1971, Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality, and review the need for the capacity of the 610-megawatt Nine Mile Point Nuclear Unit 1 with regard to the adequacy and reliability of the affected electric power systems and related matters. |
| I~ Mr.Daniel R.Muller from Nine Mile Point No.1.However, it is not considered | | In preparation of these comments, the Federal Power Commission's Bureau of Power staff has considered the AEC Draft Environmental State-ment; the Applicant's Environmental Report and Supplements thereto; related reports made in response to the CommissionIs Statement of Policy on Reliability and Adequacy of Electric Service (Docket No. R-362); and the staff's analysis of these documents togetherwith related information from other FPC reports. The staff generally bases its evaluation of the need for a specific bulk power facility upon long-term considerations as well as upon the load-supply situation for the peak load period immediately following the availability of the facility. It should be noted that the useful life of the Nine Mile Point unzt is expected to be 30 years or more. During that period the unit will make a significant contribution to the adequacy of power supply in the Applicant's service area. |
| 'feasible to develop a large number of small hydroelectric"sites due to environmental, considerations and public reaction.'he Bureau of Power staff considers that the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 is needed on the Applicant's system to meet the projected loads.,In view of the substantial power purchases required by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to'eet loads and the serious consequences of inadequate installed generating capacity, the staff considers it prudent that a full-term license be issued to the Applicant for the continued operation of the Nine Mile Nuclear Station Unit 1.Very truly yours, T A.hillip Chief, Bureau of Power | | The Nine Mile Point Nuclear Unit 1 has been in commercial operation since December 1969. During the period from December 1969 to December 31, 1971, the unit produced 4,858 billion kilowatt-hours of electric energy, and during 1972 the unit produced an additional 3,242 billion kilowatt-hours. |
| .Regulatory}} | | |
| | uQ GQV 033 2 ~AC 1 |
| | i "-:;3 "-'i se ni~ awl.- |
| | & R I' |
| | |
| | Mr. Daniel R. Muller The Applicant is a member of the New York Power Pool (NYPP), which coordinates the operation of members'ulk power systems whose combined service areas serve the entire State of New York. The Applicant is also a member of the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC), which coordinates the planning of the members'enerating and transmission facilities in the area which includes the State of New York, New England and th'e provinces of New Brunswick and Ontario. NPCC has established a reliabilzty criterion equivalent to a loss of load probability of one day'n ten years. Members 'of the NYPP have agreed that to maintain this standard, each memb'er system w'ill maintain installed capacity at least equal to that required to meet an 18 percent reserve during its most recent annual peak load. |
| | The Bureau of Power'taff has analyzed, the effect o'f the capacity of Nine Mile Point No. 1 on the winter-peaking Applicant's system for the 1973-1974 Winter Peak Period and the summer-peaking NYPP for the 1974 Summer Peak Period. The following tabulations show the effect of the Nine Mile Unit 1 on these systems. |
| | NIAGARA MOHAWK SYSTEM 1/ |
| | 1973-74 WINTER PEAK LOAD PERIOD With Unit 1 Without Unit 1 Total Owned Capability, Dec. 31, 1972, MW 3 251 2,641 Share of Roseton No. 1, MW 240 240 Share of Roseton No. 2, MW 240 240 Share of Fitzpatrick No. 1, MW 295 295 Share of Blenheim-Gilboa, MW 550 550 Other Purchases 1 646 1 646 Total Capability, MW 6,222 5,612 Estimated Peak Load, MW 5 200 5 200 Reserve MW 1,022 412 Reserve, % of Peak Load 19. 7 7.9 1/ Niagara Mohawk Form 12 Report For 1972. |
| | |
| | H f I'll) ggy ~ IIJ<+$ Jlt>ll i<( 4*Ah$ Jll |
| | .'):ir h9 '< 3!i ai.<~A t |
| | ~ V |
| | |
| | Mr. Daniel R. Muller NEW YORK POWER POOL 1974 SUMMER PEAK PERlOD 1/ |
| | With Unit 1 Without Unit 1 f |
| | Total Capability -. Megawatts 27,671 27,061 Net Peak Load.- Megawatts 225006 2/ 22,006 2/ |
| | Reserve Margin - Megawatts .',<< 5,665 5,055 Reserve Margin - Percent of Pe'ak Load 25.8 23.0 1/ Data Source: NPCC Report 383-2 dated April 1, 1973. |
| | 2/ Coincident Peak Load of 21,930 megawatts increased by 76 MW as a result of transactions with systems outside NYPP. |
| | The Niagara Mohawk reserve of 19.7% with Nine Mile Point is within the range usually found satisfactory, but the bare numerical value is deceptive. Of the 1,646 MW listed under "Other Purchases," 270 MW is supplied by. Rochester Gas & Electric Company, who in turn is relying on a purchase of 207 MW from Power Authority of the State of New York. |
| | However, Rochester Gas & Electric Company, 'according to its 1972 Form 12 Report to the Federal Power Commission, will only have a 5.2% reserve at the time of its 1973-74 winter peak. Consequently, of the 1,022 megawatt reserve that Niagara Mohawk appears to have with Nine Mile Point No. 1, 270 megawatts can, be considered of doubtful reliability. Without Nine Mile Point, Niagara Mohawk would have only a 7.9% reserve, more than half of which would be dependent on a purchase of doubtful reliability. Xt is therefore essential for Niagara Mohawk's adequacy of service to have Nine Mile Point No. 1 in operation at its full rated 610 megawatts. |
| | The Applicant's system is integrated with all New York State systems through the NYPP and the summer-peaking pool indicates reserves of 25.8 percent of peak, load responsibility with the capacity of Unit 1 and 23.0 percent without the unit. During the week of the summer peaks in 1971 and 1972 the NYPP experienced unavailable capacity totalling 3,326 megawatts and 3,581 megawatts, respectively, due to scheduled maintenance, forced outages, delays in availability of new units and variation of hydro conditions from median values. Xf the average of the capacity losses experienced during the 1971 and 1972 summer peaks existed at the time of the 1974 summer peak, the reserves on the NYPP system would be reduced to 10.0 percent with Unit 1 and 7.3 percent without the unit. |
| | |
| | Mr. Daniel R. Muller During the 1974 summer period, the availability of emergency power supplies from the neighboring NEPOOL 1/ and PJM 2/pools may be limited by the needs of those systems to maintain planned reserve levels. The limited capacity of the intexconnections and the predominantly thermal systems of NEPOOL and PJM, which are subject to forced outages, fuel shortages and operating restrictions due to air quality limitations, indicate that little capacity reserve would be available from these areas. The winter-peaking Ontario Hydro system has indicated reserves after maintenance of 31.3 percent of peak load, totalling 3,490 mega-watts, and i,s considered the only available source of emergency power supply. |
| | The Nine Mile Point Unit 1 is completed and has been producing electric powex'ince 1969. In view of the substantial purchases of power necessary by the Applicant to meet its system demands, the Bureau of Power staff recommends that the full-tenn operating license be issued to the Applicant for this unit. Power purchases are an expedient for meeting electric system demands during construction of new units; however, purchases are not a satisfactory substitute for adequate base-load owned generation. Regional reliability is greatly improved when each electric system has adequate installed generating capacity to meet its syst: em r |
| | demands and provide reserve capacity. |
| | The use of geothermal power as an alternative to the nuclear unit was not considered, according to the Draft Environmental Statement (page 9-1). In light of the fact that geo)ljermal sources are known to exist in New York and neighboring states, a discussion of this alternate would be appropriate. |
| | Hydroelectric power as a substitute for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear unit would be impractical and inadequate. Although the total generating capacity that could be made available in New York by the addition of |
| | 'enerators at existing hydro sites and the development of new sites is some 1,292 megawatts, 4/'his capacity would be scattered over a laxge number of sites. The total average annual energy available fxom all the sites; 4/ would be approximately equal to the annual energy obtainable. |
| | 1/ New England Power Pool. |
| | 2/ Pennsylvania<<New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection. |
| | 3/ Thermal Springs of the United States and Other Countries of the world - A Summary. Geological Survey Professional Paper 492. U. S. |
| | Government Printing Office, 1965. |
| | 4/ Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United States, January 1, 1972. |
| | Federal Power Commission, FPC P-42. |
| | |
| | I ~ |
| | Mr. Daniel R. Muller from Nine Mile Point No. 1. However, it is not considered 'feasible to develop a large number of small hydroelectric"sites due to environmental, considerations and public reaction. |
| | 'he Bureau of Power staff considers that the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 is needed on the Applicant's system to meet the projected loads. ,In view of the substantial power purchases required by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to'eet loads and the serious consequences of inadequate installed generating capacity, the staff considers it prudent that a full-term license be issued to the Applicant for the continued operation of the Nine Mile Nuclear Station Unit 1. |
| | Very truly yours, T A. hillip Chief, Bureau of Power |
| | |
| | . Regulatory}} |
|
---|
Category:Environmental Impact Statement
MONTHYEARML0612903102006-05-31031 May 2006 NUREG-1437, Supp 24, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 Final Report ML17037C3211974-03-27027 March 1974 Letter Requesting That the Commission Withhold Any Final Question on the Applicant'S Request for a Full-Term Operating License Until After Receipt and Consideration of EPA Comments ML18018A8791974-01-31031 January 1974 Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 ML17037C3241973-09-0606 September 1973 Letter Responding to the July 5, 1973 Letter Requesting Comment on the AEC Draft Environmental Statement Relating to the Conversion of the Current Provisional Operating License to a Full-Term License ML17037C3281973-08-17017 August 1973 Letter Responding to the July 5, 1973 Letter to Assistant Secretary Davis Concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Unit 1 and Enclosing Comments from the Federal Railroad Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard ML17037C3291973-03-0101 March 1973 Letter Regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Which Accompanied the January 17, 1973 Letter and Enclosing Comments ML17037C3151972-09-0505 September 1972 Letter Forwarding Environmental Impact Documentation to Provide Information in Advance of Receipt of the Draft Environmental Statement 2006-05-31
[Table view] Category:Letter
MONTHYEARNMP1L3608, Supplemental Information Letter No. 3 - Revision to the Technical Specifications Design Features Sections to Remove the Nine Mile 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, Designation2024-09-20020 September 2024 Supplemental Information Letter No. 3 - Revision to the Technical Specifications Design Features Sections to Remove the Nine Mile 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, Designation RS-24-090, Response to Request for Additional Information - Relief Request Concerning Extension of Permanent Relief from Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Pressure Vessel Circumferential Shell Welds2024-09-12012 September 2024 Response to Request for Additional Information - Relief Request Concerning Extension of Permanent Relief from Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Pressure Vessel Circumferential Shell Welds ML24249A1362024-09-0404 September 2024 EN 57304 - Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, Final Report - No Embedded Files. Notification of the Potential Existence of Defects Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 21 IR 05000220/20240052024-08-29029 August 2024 Updated Inspection Plan for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Report 05000220/2024005 and 05000410/2024005) IR 05000220/20240102024-08-22022 August 2024 Age-Related Degradation Inspection Report 05000220/2024010 and 05000410/2024010 NMP1L3603, Submittal of Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate and Irradiated Fuel Management Plan2024-08-20020 August 2024 Submittal of Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate and Irradiated Fuel Management Plan ML24222A6772024-08-0909 August 2024 Response to Request for Additional Information for Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-591-A, Revise Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program Revision 0 and Revise 10 CFR 50.69 License Condition IR 05000220/20240022024-08-0505 August 2024 Integrated Inspection Report 05000220/2024002 and 05000410/2024002 ML24215A3002024-08-0202 August 2024 Operator Licensing Examination Approval ML24213A1412024-07-31031 July 2024 Requalification Program Inspection NMP1L3601, Supplemental Information Letter No. 2 - Revision to the Technical Specifications Design Features Sections to Remove the Nine Mile 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, Designation2024-07-31031 July 2024 Supplemental Information Letter No. 2 - Revision to the Technical Specifications Design Features Sections to Remove the Nine Mile 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, Designation NMP2L2883, Fourth Inservice Inspection Interval, Second Inservice Inspection Period 2024 Owner’S Activity Report for RFO-19 Inservice Examinations2024-07-24024 July 2024 Fourth Inservice Inspection Interval, Second Inservice Inspection Period 2024 Owner’S Activity Report for RFO-19 Inservice Examinations ML24198A0852024-07-16016 July 2024 Senior Reactor and Reactor Operator Initial License Examinations RS-24-070, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Nine Mile Point, Units 1 and 2, Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, R. E. Ginna - Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plan Document Revisions2024-07-12012 July 2024 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Nine Mile Point, Units 1 and 2, Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2, R. E. Ginna - Nuclear Radiological Emergency Plan Document Revisions RS-24-061, Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, Response to NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2024-01, Preparation and Scheduling of Operator Licensing Examinations2024-06-14014 June 2024 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, Response to NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2024-01, Preparation and Scheduling of Operator Licensing Examinations NMP1L3584, License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-230, Revision 1, Add New Condition B to LCO 3.6.2.3, RHR Suppression Pool Cooling2024-06-13013 June 2024 License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-230, Revision 1, Add New Condition B to LCO 3.6.2.3, RHR Suppression Pool Cooling IR 05000220/20244012024-05-30030 May 2024 Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000220/2024401 and 05000410/2024401(Cover Letter Only) ML24079A0762024-05-23023 May 2024 Issuance of Amendments to Adopt TSTF 264 NMP1L3591, Response to Ny State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Request for Information & Modification Request2024-05-18018 May 2024 Response to Ny State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Request for Information & Modification Request NMP1L3589, Special Report: Containment High Range Radiation Monitor Instrumentation Channel 12 Inoperable2024-05-16016 May 2024 Special Report: Containment High Range Radiation Monitor Instrumentation Channel 12 Inoperable NMP1L3582, 2023 Annual Radioactive Environmental Operating Report for Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 22024-05-15015 May 2024 2023 Annual Radioactive Environmental Operating Report for Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 ML24158A2052024-05-15015 May 2024 Annual Radioactive Environmental Operating Report IR 05000220/20240012024-05-10010 May 2024 Integrated Inspection Report 05000220/2024001 and 05000410/2024001 RS-24-049, Updated Notice of Intent to Pursue Subsequent License Renewal Applications2024-05-0909 May 2024 Updated Notice of Intent to Pursue Subsequent License Renewal Applications RS-24-038, Relief Request Concerning Extension of Permanent Relief from Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Pressure Vessel Circumferential Shell Welds2024-05-0202 May 2024 Relief Request Concerning Extension of Permanent Relief from Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Pressure Vessel Circumferential Shell Welds NMP2L2880, Automatic Reactor Scram on Turbine Trip Due to Low Condenser Vacuum2024-05-0101 May 2024 Automatic Reactor Scram on Turbine Trip Due to Low Condenser Vacuum RS-24-041, Alternative Request to Utilize Code Case OMN-32, Alternative Requirements for Range and Accuracy of Pressure, Flow, and Differential Pressure Instruments Used in Pump Tests2024-04-30030 April 2024 Alternative Request to Utilize Code Case OMN-32, Alternative Requirements for Range and Accuracy of Pressure, Flow, and Differential Pressure Instruments Used in Pump Tests NMP1L3581, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) - 2023 Radioactive Effluent Release Report2024-04-30030 April 2024 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) - 2023 Radioactive Effluent Release Report NMP2L2877, 2023 Annual Environmental Operating Report2024-04-19019 April 2024 2023 Annual Environmental Operating Report NMP2L2878, Core Operating Limits Report2024-04-16016 April 2024 Core Operating Limits Report ML24103A2042024-04-12012 April 2024 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-591-A, Revise Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program Revision 0 and Revise 10 CFR 50.69 License Condition ML24092A3352024-04-0101 April 2024 NRC Office of Investigations Case No. 1-2023-002 RS-24-002, Constellation Energy Generation, LLC - Annual Property Insurance Status Report2024-04-0101 April 2024 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC - Annual Property Insurance Status Report ML24074A2812024-03-14014 March 2024 Request for Information and Notification of Conduct of IP 71111.21.N.04, Age-Related Degradation, Reference Inspection Report 05000220/2024010 and 05000410/2024010 NMP1L3577, Special Report: Containment High Range Radiation Monitor Instrumentation Channel 12 Inoperable2024-03-13013 March 2024 Special Report: Containment High Range Radiation Monitor Instrumentation Channel 12 Inoperable IR 05000220/20230062024-02-28028 February 2024 Annual Assessment Letter for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, (Reports 05000220/2023006 and 05000410/2023006) NMP1L3570, Supplemental Information Letter - Revision to the Technical Specifications Design Features Sections to Remove the Nine Mile 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, Designation2024-02-0101 February 2024 Supplemental Information Letter - Revision to the Technical Specifications Design Features Sections to Remove the Nine Mile 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, Designation IR 05000220/20230042024-02-0101 February 2024 Integrated Inspection Report 05000220/2023004 and 05000410/2023004 05000410/LER-2023-001, Supplement to LER 2023-001-00, Automatic Reactor Scram on Low Level Due to Partial Loss of Feedwater2024-01-30030 January 2024 Supplement to LER 2023-001-00, Automatic Reactor Scram on Low Level Due to Partial Loss of Feedwater NMP1L3569, CFR 50.46 Annual Report2024-01-26026 January 2024 CFR 50.46 Annual Report ML24004A2122024-01-0808 January 2024 Senior Reactor and Reactor Operator Initial License Examinations ML23354A0012024-01-0404 January 2024 Exemption from Select Requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 (EPID L-2023-LLE-0059 (Security Notifications, Reports, and Recordkeeping and Suspicious Activity Reporting)) IR 05000410/20243012023-12-14014 December 2023 Initial Operator Licensing Examination Report 05000410/2024301 ML23278A1292023-12-14014 December 2023 Units 1 & 2; Limerick, Units 1 & 2; Nine Mile Point, Units 1 & 2; and Peach Bottom, Units 2 & 3 -Revision to Approved Alternatives to Use Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project Guidelines NMP1L3566, Radiological Emergency Plan Document Revision. Includes EP-AA-1013, Revision 10, Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for Nine Mile Point Station2023-12-14014 December 2023 Radiological Emergency Plan Document Revision. Includes EP-AA-1013, Revision 10, Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for Nine Mile Point Station ML23305A1402023-12-13013 December 2023 Units 1 & 2; Nine Mile Point, Unit 2; Peach Bottom, Units 2 & 3; and Quad Cities, Units 1 and 2 - Issuance of Amendments to Adopt Traveler TSTF-580 NMP1L3564, Supplemental Response to Part 73 Exemption Request - Withdrawal of Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 73, Subpart B, Preemption Authority Requirements2023-12-0707 December 2023 Supplemental Response to Part 73 Exemption Request - Withdrawal of Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 73, Subpart B, Preemption Authority Requirements ML23291A4642023-12-0707 December 2023 Issuance of Amendment No. 251 Regarding the Adoption of Title 10 the Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.69, Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of SSC for Nuclear Power Plants ML23289A0122023-12-0606 December 2023 Issuance of Amendment No. 250 Regarding the Revision to Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-505, Revision 2, Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b NMP1L3563, Submittal of Relief Request I5R-12, Revision 0, Concerning the Installation of a Full Structural Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208)2023-12-0404 December 2023 Submittal of Relief Request I5R-12, Revision 0, Concerning the Installation of a Full Structural Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208) 2024-09-04
[Table view] Category:Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI)
MONTHYEARRS-24-090, Response to Request for Additional Information - Relief Request Concerning Extension of Permanent Relief from Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Pressure Vessel Circumferential Shell Welds2024-09-12012 September 2024 Response to Request for Additional Information - Relief Request Concerning Extension of Permanent Relief from Ultrasonic Examination of Reactor Pressure Vessel Circumferential Shell Welds ML24222A6772024-08-0909 August 2024 Response to Request for Additional Information for Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-591-A, Revise Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program Revision 0 and Revise 10 CFR 50.69 License Condition NMP1L3591, Response to Ny State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Request for Information & Modification Request2024-05-18018 May 2024 Response to Ny State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Request for Information & Modification Request NMP1L3545, Supplemental Information Letter to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk- Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Revision 2 and 10 CFR 50.69, Risk-informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems .2023-08-0404 August 2023 Supplemental Information Letter to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk- Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Revision 2 and 10 CFR 50.69, Risk-informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems . NMP1L3519, Submittal of Emergency Relief Request I5R-11 Concerning the Installation of a Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208)2023-03-30030 March 2023 Submittal of Emergency Relief Request I5R-11 Concerning the Installation of a Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208) NMP1L3516, Submittal of Emergency Relief Request I5R-11 Concerning the Installation of a Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208)2023-03-29029 March 2023 Submittal of Emergency Relief Request I5R-11 Concerning the Installation of a Weld Overlay on Reactor Pressure Vessel Recirculation Inlet Nozzle N2E Safe End-to-Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld (32-WD-208) NMP1L3478, Response to Request for Additional Information - Relief Request Associated with Pump Periodic Verification Tests of Core Spray System Pumps2022-08-0505 August 2022 Response to Request for Additional Information - Relief Request Associated with Pump Periodic Verification Tests of Core Spray System Pumps RS-22-027, Constellation, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-541 Revision 2, Add Exceptions to Surveillance Requirements for Valves and Dampers Locked in the Actuated2022-02-23023 February 2022 Constellation, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-541 Revision 2, Add Exceptions to Surveillance Requirements for Valves and Dampers Locked in the Actuated P NMP1L3447, Constellation Energy Generation, LLC - Response to Request for Additional Information - Proposed Relief Request Associated with Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Level Instrumentation Partial Penetration Nozzle Repairs2022-02-0202 February 2022 Constellation Energy Generation, LLC - Response to Request for Additional Information - Proposed Relief Request Associated with Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Level Instrumentation Partial Penetration Nozzle Repairs NMP2L2794, Supplemental Information to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-582, Revision 02022-01-11011 January 2022 Supplemental Information to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-582, Revision 0 NMP2L2789, Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Reactor Regulation to Support Review of License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-582, Revision 02021-12-16016 December 2021 Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Reactor Regulation to Support Review of License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-582, Revision 0 NMP2L2787, Response to Request for Additional Information - Relief Request Associated with Excess Flow Check Valves2021-11-15015 November 2021 Response to Request for Additional Information - Relief Request Associated with Excess Flow Check Valves JAFP-21-0087, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Request for Approval of Transfer of Licenses and Conforming Amendments2021-09-16016 September 2021 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Request for Approval of Transfer of Licenses and Conforming Amendments NMP2L2773, Company - Response to Request for Additional Information2021-06-30030 June 2021 Company - Response to Request for Additional Information JAFP-21-0044, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Request for Approval of Transfer of Licenses and Conforming Amendments2021-06-11011 June 2021 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Request for Approval of Transfer of Licenses and Conforming Amendments NMP1L3402, Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-582, Revision 02021-06-0404 June 2021 Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-582, Revision 0 JAFP-21-0032, Response to Request for Additional Information - Proposed Alternative Concerning ASME Section XI Repair/Replacement Documentation for Replacement of Pressure Retaining Bolting2021-04-20020 April 2021 Response to Request for Additional Information - Proposed Alternative Concerning ASME Section XI Repair/Replacement Documentation for Replacement of Pressure Retaining Bolting NMP1L3376, Supplemental Information to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-334, Revision 22021-01-27027 January 2021 Supplemental Information to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-334, Revision 2 NMP1L3373, Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-334, Revision 22021-01-22022 January 2021 Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-334, Revision 2 NMP2L2754, Responses to Request for Additional Information Questions 27 and 28 to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk- Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Revision 22021-01-0707 January 2021 Responses to Request for Additional Information Questions 27 and 28 to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk- Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Revision 2 NMP2L2749, Responses to Request for Additional Information Questions 17 and 26 for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk- Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Rev. 22020-10-22022 October 2020 Responses to Request for Additional Information Questions 17 and 26 for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk- Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Rev. 2 NMP2L2745, Request for Additional Information for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Revision 22020-10-0202 October 2020 Request for Additional Information for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, to Adopt TSTF-505, Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4b, Revision 2 RS-20-112, Response to Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-5682020-09-0303 September 2020 Response to Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-568 NMP2L2742, Response to Request for Additional Information by NRR to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, License Amendment Request Re Risk Informed Categorization & Structures, Systems and Components2020-08-28028 August 2020 Response to Request for Additional Information by NRR to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, License Amendment Request Re Risk Informed Categorization & Structures, Systems and Components ML20188A2642020-07-0606 July 2020 Clinton Power Station, R.E. Ginna Station, Limerick Station, Nine Mile Point Station & Peach Bottom Station - Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case OMN-26 - Response to Request for Additional Information NMP2L2713, Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, License Amendment Request to Increase Allowable MSIV Leakage Rates2019-11-21021 November 2019 Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, License Amendment Request to Increase Allowable MSIV Leakage Rates NMP2L2711, Byron Station; Calvert Cliffs; Clinton Power Station; LaSalle County Station; Limerick Generating Station; and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case N-8792019-10-16016 October 2019 Byron Station; Calvert Cliffs; Clinton Power Station; LaSalle County Station; Limerick Generating Station; and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Case N-879 JAFP-19-0057, Response to Request for Additional Information - Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Cases N-878 and N-8802019-06-0404 June 2019 Response to Request for Additional Information - Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Cases N-878 and N-880 NMP1L3279, Response to Request for Additional Information - Proposed Alternatives to Utilize Code Cases N-878 and N-880 for Plants2019-05-0101 May 2019 Response to Request for Additional Information - Proposed Alternatives to Utilize Code Cases N-878 and N-880 for Plants NMP1L3264, Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications 3.3.1 for Primary Contain2019-02-25025 February 2019 Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications 3.3.1 for Primary Containm JAFP-19-0006, Response to Request for Additional Information - Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Cases N-878 and N-8802019-01-0808 January 2019 Response to Request for Additional Information - Proposed Alternative to Utilize Code Cases N-878 and N-880 NMP2L2695, Supplement Information and Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of an Emergency License Amendment Request for One Time Extension to The.2018-12-0707 December 2018 Supplement Information and Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of an Emergency License Amendment Request for One Time Extension to The. NMP1L3248, Supplement to the Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, License Amendment Request to Apply TSTF-542, Revision 2, Reactor Pre2018-11-0202 November 2018 Supplement to the Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, License Amendment Request to Apply TSTF-542, Revision 2, Reactor Pres NMP1L3238, Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, License Amendment Request to Apply TSTF-542, ...2018-10-0101 October 2018 Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, License Amendment Request to Apply TSTF-542, ... NMP1L3233, Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Removal of Boraflex Credit License Amendment Request (L-2018-LLA-0039)2018-08-17017 August 2018 Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Removal of Boraflex Credit License Amendment Request (L-2018-LLA-0039) NMP1L3221, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Nine Mile Point, Units 1 & 2, R. E. Ginna - Response to Request for Additional Information License Amendment Request to Adopt Emergency Action Level Schemes.2018-05-10010 May 2018 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Nine Mile Point, Units 1 & 2, R. E. Ginna - Response to Request for Additional Information License Amendment Request to Adopt Emergency Action Level Schemes. RS-18-061, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Decommissioning Funding Plans for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (Isfsis)2018-05-0202 May 2018 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Decommissioning Funding Plans for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (Isfsis) ML18025A7992018-01-25025 January 2018 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Generic Letter 2016-01 NMP2L2662, Supplemental Information for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, to Adopt TSTF-542, Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control, Revision 22017-12-27027 December 2017 Supplemental Information for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, to Adopt TSTF-542, Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control, Revision 2 NMP2L2658, Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-542, Revision 2, Reactor Pressure Vessel Water2017-11-0303 November 2017 Response to Request for Additional Information by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Support Review of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-542, Revision 2, Reactor Pressure Vessel Water NMP1L3180, Submittal of Relief Request NMP-RR-001 Concerning Nozzle-to-Vessel Weld and Inner Radii Examinations (Use of Code Case N-702)2017-09-18018 September 2017 Submittal of Relief Request NMP-RR-001 Concerning Nozzle-to-Vessel Weld and Inner Radii Examinations (Use of Code Case N-702) RS-17-053, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Generic Letter 2016-012017-04-27027 April 2017 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Generic Letter 2016-01 NMP1L3146, Response to Request for Additional Information to Relief to Perform Pressure Isolation Valve Leakage Testing at Frequencies Consistent with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J2017-04-0606 April 2017 Response to Request for Additional Information to Relief to Perform Pressure Isolation Valve Leakage Testing at Frequencies Consistent with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J RS-17-044, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Proposed Alternative for the Use of Encoded Phased Array Ultrasonic Examination Techniques in Lieu of Radiography2017-03-13013 March 2017 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Proposed Alternative for the Use of Encoded Phased Array Ultrasonic Examination Techniques in Lieu of Radiography RS-17-027, Response to March 12, 2012, Request for Information Enclosure 2, Recommendation 2.1, Flooding, Required Response 3, Flooding Focused Evaluation Summary Submittal2017-03-10010 March 2017 Response to March 12, 2012, Request for Information Enclosure 2, Recommendation 2.1, Flooding, Required Response 3, Flooding Focused Evaluation Summary Submittal ML17037A2652017-02-0606 February 2017 Response to Request for Information Concerning Regional Meteorological Conditions Characterizing Atmospheric Transport Processes within 50 Miles of the Plant RA-16-049, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Requests to Withhold Emergency Preparedness Documents from Public Disclosure2016-05-26026 May 2016 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Requests to Withhold Emergency Preparedness Documents from Public Disclosure ML16131A6542016-05-0404 May 2016 Response to a Question Raised During the Audit ML16131A6552016-05-0404 May 2016 White Paper Prepared in Response to a Question Raised During the Audit NMP2L2616, Supplemental Response to Request for Additional Information by NRR to Support Review of Relocation of Secondary Containment Bypass Leakage Paths Table from Technical Specifications to the Technical Requirements Manual2016-03-21021 March 2016 Supplemental Response to Request for Additional Information by NRR to Support Review of Relocation of Secondary Containment Bypass Leakage Paths Table from Technical Specifications to the Technical Requirements Manual 2024-09-12
[Table view] |
Text
AEC DIS XBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MA "XAL
~ rt (TEt 1PORARY FORM) CONTROL NO: 6874 FILE: ENVIRO FROM: DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D MMO OTHER Federal Power Commission
,Washington, D. C. 20426 9-6-73 9-11-73 T. A. Phillips TO: ORIG CC OTHER SENT AEC PDR D. R. Muller 1 signed SENT LOCAL PDR X CLASS UNCLASS PROP INFO 'NPUT NO C S REC'D DOCKET NO:
XXX 50-220 DESCRXPTION: ENCLOSURES:
Ltr furnishing comments on DES...
r r
ACKNOWLEDGED ONOT PE>>~E Nine Mile Point Unit 8' FOR ACTION/INFORMATION 9-11-73 fod BUTLER(L) SCI1WENCER(L) NIEMANN(L) ~GAN(E)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/1 Copies W/4 Copies CLARK(L) STOLZ(L) DICKER(E)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies GOLLER(L) VASSALLO(L) KNIGHTON(E) "
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies KNIEL(L) SCHEMEL(L) YOUNGBLOOD(E)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
~G FXLE TECH REVIEW DENTON LIC ASST
~AT LND C P HENDRIE GRIMES BRAI'OMAN OGC, ROOM P-506A SCHROEDER GAK1ILL HIGGS (L) SALTZMAN
~TZING/STAFF MACCARY KASTNER GEARIN (L)
CASE KNIGHT ~LLARD GOULBOURNE (L) PLANS GIAMBUSSO PAWLICKI SPANGLER LEE (L) MODONALD BOYD SHAO MAIGRET (L) DUBE MOORE (L) (BWR) STELLO ENVLRO SERVICE (L)
DEYOUNG(L) (PWR) HOUSTON MULLER SHEPPARD (E) INFO
~KOVHOLT (L) NOVAK ~ DICKER SMITH (L) C. MILES P. COLLINS ROSS KNIGHTON TEETS (L)
IPPOLITO YOUNGBLOOD WADE (E)
REG. OPR TEDESCO REGAN WILLIAMS (E)
~ILE & REGION(3) LONG PROJECT DITTMAN LDR WILSON (L)
MORRIS LAINAS STEELE ~BENAROYA ESS VOLTE R EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
- LOCAL PDR Oswe o N. Y.
1 "-
- DTIE(ABERNATHY)
NSIC(BUCHANAN)
~ (1) M@83)-NATIONAL LAB'~N~
1-R.Schoonmaker,OC,GT,D-323 1-PDR-SAN/LA/NY 1-GERALD LELLOUCHE 1 - ASLB(YORE/SAYRE/ '1-R. CATLXN, E-256-GT BROOKHAVEN NAT. LAB WOODARD/ "H" ST. 1-CONSULTANT'S 1-AGMED(WALTER KOESTER 16 - CYS ACRS HOLDING NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN HM-C-427-GT t
r A
1-GERALD ULRXKSON. ~ ~ OIQK 1-RD MULLER..F-309 GT
~l-Pennington
" (> tt(>>gp FI l y4, pc 'l>>
',l~',
. ~
C,<,p II<~(
li >,
f q, ',tgi4 g. S' g~)g g if Ifh I I'l t II
Ol ERAL POWER COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 IN REPLY REFER TOI 50-220 Mr. Daniel R. Muller Assistant Director for ~EF'XZ)973~ )( np 6 )gg Environmental Projects Direct'orate of Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Hashington, D. C. 20545
Dear Mr. Muller:
This is in response to your letter dated July 5, 1973, requesting comment on the AEC Draft Environmental Statement relating to the conversion of the current provisional operating license to a full~term license to the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 (Docket No. 50-220).
The following comments are made in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the April 23, 1971, Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality, and review the need for the capacity of the 610-megawatt Nine Mile Point Nuclear Unit 1 with regard to the adequacy and reliability of the affected electric power systems and related matters.
In preparation of these comments, the Federal Power Commission's Bureau of Power staff has considered the AEC Draft Environmental State-ment; the Applicant's Environmental Report and Supplements thereto; related reports made in response to the CommissionIs Statement of Policy on Reliability and Adequacy of Electric Service (Docket No. R-362); and the staff's analysis of these documents togetherwith related information from other FPC reports. The staff generally bases its evaluation of the need for a specific bulk power facility upon long-term considerations as well as upon the load-supply situation for the peak load period immediately following the availability of the facility. It should be noted that the useful life of the Nine Mile Point unzt is expected to be 30 years or more. During that period the unit will make a significant contribution to the adequacy of power supply in the Applicant's service area.
The Nine Mile Point Nuclear Unit 1 has been in commercial operation since December 1969. During the period from December 1969 to December 31, 1971, the unit produced 4,858 billion kilowatt-hours of electric energy, and during 1972 the unit produced an additional 3,242 billion kilowatt-hours.
uQ GQV 033 2 ~AC 1
i "-:;3 "-'i se ni~ awl.-
& R I'
Mr. Daniel R. Muller The Applicant is a member of the New York Power Pool (NYPP), which coordinates the operation of members'ulk power systems whose combined service areas serve the entire State of New York. The Applicant is also a member of the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC), which coordinates the planning of the members'enerating and transmission facilities in the area which includes the State of New York, New England and th'e provinces of New Brunswick and Ontario. NPCC has established a reliabilzty criterion equivalent to a loss of load probability of one day'n ten years. Members 'of the NYPP have agreed that to maintain this standard, each memb'er system w'ill maintain installed capacity at least equal to that required to meet an 18 percent reserve during its most recent annual peak load.
The Bureau of Power'taff has analyzed, the effect o'f the capacity of Nine Mile Point No. 1 on the winter-peaking Applicant's system for the 1973-1974 Winter Peak Period and the summer-peaking NYPP for the 1974 Summer Peak Period. The following tabulations show the effect of the Nine Mile Unit 1 on these systems.
NIAGARA MOHAWK SYSTEM 1/
1973-74 WINTER PEAK LOAD PERIOD With Unit 1 Without Unit 1 Total Owned Capability, Dec. 31, 1972, MW 3 251 2,641 Share of Roseton No. 1, MW 240 240 Share of Roseton No. 2, MW 240 240 Share of Fitzpatrick No. 1, MW 295 295 Share of Blenheim-Gilboa, MW 550 550 Other Purchases 1 646 1 646 Total Capability, MW 6,222 5,612 Estimated Peak Load, MW 5 200 5 200 Reserve MW 1,022 412 Reserve, % of Peak Load 19. 7 7.9 1/ Niagara Mohawk Form 12 Report For 1972.
H f I'll) ggy ~ IIJ<+$ Jlt>ll i<( 4*Ah$ Jll
.'):ir h9 '< 3!i ai.<~A t
~ V
Mr. Daniel R. Muller NEW YORK POWER POOL 1974 SUMMER PEAK PERlOD 1/
With Unit 1 Without Unit 1 f
Total Capability -. Megawatts 27,671 27,061 Net Peak Load.- Megawatts 225006 2/ 22,006 2/
Reserve Margin - Megawatts .',<< 5,665 5,055 Reserve Margin - Percent of Pe'ak Load 25.8 23.0 1/ Data Source: NPCC Report 383-2 dated April 1, 1973.
2/ Coincident Peak Load of 21,930 megawatts increased by 76 MW as a result of transactions with systems outside NYPP.
The Niagara Mohawk reserve of 19.7% with Nine Mile Point is within the range usually found satisfactory, but the bare numerical value is deceptive. Of the 1,646 MW listed under "Other Purchases," 270 MW is supplied by. Rochester Gas & Electric Company, who in turn is relying on a purchase of 207 MW from Power Authority of the State of New York.
However, Rochester Gas & Electric Company, 'according to its 1972 Form 12 Report to the Federal Power Commission, will only have a 5.2% reserve at the time of its 1973-74 winter peak. Consequently, of the 1,022 megawatt reserve that Niagara Mohawk appears to have with Nine Mile Point No. 1, 270 megawatts can, be considered of doubtful reliability. Without Nine Mile Point, Niagara Mohawk would have only a 7.9% reserve, more than half of which would be dependent on a purchase of doubtful reliability. Xt is therefore essential for Niagara Mohawk's adequacy of service to have Nine Mile Point No. 1 in operation at its full rated 610 megawatts.
The Applicant's system is integrated with all New York State systems through the NYPP and the summer-peaking pool indicates reserves of 25.8 percent of peak, load responsibility with the capacity of Unit 1 and 23.0 percent without the unit. During the week of the summer peaks in 1971 and 1972 the NYPP experienced unavailable capacity totalling 3,326 megawatts and 3,581 megawatts, respectively, due to scheduled maintenance, forced outages, delays in availability of new units and variation of hydro conditions from median values. Xf the average of the capacity losses experienced during the 1971 and 1972 summer peaks existed at the time of the 1974 summer peak, the reserves on the NYPP system would be reduced to 10.0 percent with Unit 1 and 7.3 percent without the unit.
Mr. Daniel R. Muller During the 1974 summer period, the availability of emergency power supplies from the neighboring NEPOOL 1/ and PJM 2/pools may be limited by the needs of those systems to maintain planned reserve levels. The limited capacity of the intexconnections and the predominantly thermal systems of NEPOOL and PJM, which are subject to forced outages, fuel shortages and operating restrictions due to air quality limitations, indicate that little capacity reserve would be available from these areas. The winter-peaking Ontario Hydro system has indicated reserves after maintenance of 31.3 percent of peak load, totalling 3,490 mega-watts, and i,s considered the only available source of emergency power supply.
The Nine Mile Point Unit 1 is completed and has been producing electric powex'ince 1969. In view of the substantial purchases of power necessary by the Applicant to meet its system demands, the Bureau of Power staff recommends that the full-tenn operating license be issued to the Applicant for this unit. Power purchases are an expedient for meeting electric system demands during construction of new units; however, purchases are not a satisfactory substitute for adequate base-load owned generation. Regional reliability is greatly improved when each electric system has adequate installed generating capacity to meet its syst: em r
demands and provide reserve capacity.
The use of geothermal power as an alternative to the nuclear unit was not considered, according to the Draft Environmental Statement (page 9-1). In light of the fact that geo)ljermal sources are known to exist in New York and neighboring states, a discussion of this alternate would be appropriate.
Hydroelectric power as a substitute for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear unit would be impractical and inadequate. Although the total generating capacity that could be made available in New York by the addition of
'enerators at existing hydro sites and the development of new sites is some 1,292 megawatts, 4/'his capacity would be scattered over a laxge number of sites. The total average annual energy available fxom all the sites; 4/ would be approximately equal to the annual energy obtainable.
1/ New England Power Pool.
2/ Pennsylvania<<New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection.
3/ Thermal Springs of the United States and Other Countries of the world - A Summary. Geological Survey Professional Paper 492. U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1965.
4/ Hydroelectric Power Resources of the United States, January 1, 1972.
Federal Power Commission, FPC P-42.
I ~
Mr. Daniel R. Muller from Nine Mile Point No. 1. However, it is not considered 'feasible to develop a large number of small hydroelectric"sites due to environmental, considerations and public reaction.
'he Bureau of Power staff considers that the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 is needed on the Applicant's system to meet the projected loads. ,In view of the substantial power purchases required by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to'eet loads and the serious consequences of inadequate installed generating capacity, the staff considers it prudent that a full-term license be issued to the Applicant for the continued operation of the Nine Mile Nuclear Station Unit 1.
Very truly yours, T A. hillip Chief, Bureau of Power
. Regulatory