POLICY ISSUE

INFORMATION

June 9, 2006 SECY-06-0136

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON POWER UPRATES

PURPOSE:

This paper summarizes the power uprate program accomplishments and challenges since the

last update in SECY-05-0098, dated June 2, 2005. This paper does not address any new

commitments or resources. 

BACKGROUND:

The staff provides the Commission an annual update of significant power uprate activities in

accordance with a staff requirements memorandum dated February 8, 2002 (SRM-M020129).

DISCUSSION:

Since the last update, the staff has approved 4 plant-specific power uprates. The staff is

currently reviewing 9 power uprates. Over the next 5 years, licensees are expected to submit

an additional 23 power uprate applications. The enclosed status report provides detailed

information on the power uprates approved since June 2, 2005, applications under review,

applications expected in the future, accomplishments, operating experience, program

performance and interactions with stakeholders.

CONTACT: Thomas W. Alexion

(301) 415-1326
The Commissioners - 2 - 

The staff is continuing to develop process improvements based on lessons learned from

completed reviews and operating experience reviews. The process improvements include more

detailed reviews of certain technical issues and some efficiency improvements. The technical

issues include power uprate testing programs, flow-induced vibration issues, and reactor

systems calculative techniques and methods. These more detailed reviews have resulted in an

increase in the planned resources for an extended power uprate (EPU) review from 3,900 hours

to 5,000 hours. These resources are budgeted through Fiscal Year 2008. Regarding efficiency

improvements, the staff has implemented more rigorous acceptance reviews for power uprate

applications and the staff will, on a pilot basis, conduct more extensive audits to improve the

review efficiency. Details of the program accomplishments and improvements are described in

the enclosure.

With the exception of the Vermont Yankee review, the 4 plant-specific power uprate reviews

were completed within the established resource and timeliness goals. The Vermont Yankee

review required additional time and resources to allow a thorough review of key technical issues

associated with safe operation at the new power level. The review of the key technical issues

discussed above took longer than expected for the staff and licensee to come to resolution on

these issues. The review involved several rounds of RAIs and over 40 supplemental submittals

by the licensee. Ultimately, license conditions were used to resolve the remaining key issues. 

To correct this in the future, the staff will utilize more and earlier management involvement in

the decision-making process, including consideration of license conditions to resolve key issues

earlier in the review process. 

The staff formed a Special Inspection Team to evaluate the licensee’s response to significant

degradation of the electromatic relief valves at the Quad Cities units from EPU operation, and

reviewed modifications at Quad Cities Unit 2 in spring 2006 to eliminate the source of 

flow-induced vibration and acoustic pressure pulses in the main steam lines during EPU

operation. Additionally, the staff monitored the power ascension at Vermont Yankee following

issuance of the EPU license amendment on March 2, 2006, and met with the vendors of

ultrasonic flow meters used for measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates to discuss

issues related to small differences in power level indications at some plants. The staff is

evaluating the need to modify guidance to address the operating experience.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel reviewed this report and has no legal objection.

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations

Enclosure: Power Uprate Program Status Report
The Commissioners - 2 - 

The staff is continuing to develop process improvements based on lessons learned from

completed reviews and operating experience reviews. The process improvements include more

detailed reviews of certain technical issues and some efficiency improvements. The technical

issues include power uprate testing programs, flow-induced vibration issues, and reactor

systems calculative techniques and methods. These more detailed reviews have resulted in an

increase in the planned resources for an extended power uprate (EPU) review from 3,900 hours

to 5,000 hours. These resources are budgeted through Fiscal Year 2008. Regarding efficiency

improvements, the staff has implemented more rigorous acceptance reviews for power uprate

applications and the staff will, on a pilot basis, conduct more extensive audits to improve the

review efficiency. Details of the program accomplishments and improvements are described in

the enclosure.

With the exception of the Vermont Yankee review, the 4 plant-specific power uprate reviews

were completed within the established resource and timeliness goals. The Vermont Yankee

review required additional time and resources to allow a thorough review of key technical issues

associated with safe operation at the new power level. The review of the key technical issues

discussed above took longer than expected for the staff and licensee to come to resolution on

these issues. The review involved several rounds of RAIs and over 40 supplemental submittals

by the licensee. Ultimately, license conditions were used to resolve the remaining key issues. 

To correct this in the future, the staff will utilize more and earlier management involvement in

the decision-making process, including consideration of license conditions to resolve key issues

earlier in the review process. 

The staff formed a Special Inspection Team to evaluate the licensee’s response to significant

degradation of the electromatic relief valves at the Quad Cities units from EPU operation, and

reviewed modifications at Quad Cities Unit 2 in spring 2006 to eliminate the source of 

flow-induced vibration and acoustic pressure pulses in the main steam lines during EPU

operation. Additionally, the staff monitored the power ascension at Vermont Yankee following

issuance of the EPU license amendment on March 2, 2006, and met with the vendors of

ultrasonic flow meters used for measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates to discuss

issues related to small differences in power level indications at some plants. The staff is

evaluating the need to modify guidance to address the operating experience.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel reviewed this report and has no legal objection.

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations

Enclosure: Power Uprate Program Status Report

ADAMS Accession No. ML061240351

OFFICE PGCB/PM PGCB/LA TECH ED PGCB/BC OGC DOLR/D DPR/D NRR/D EDO

NAME TAlexion CHawes HChang CJackson JMoore CHaney CGrimes JDyer LReyes

DATE 05/31/06 05/31/06 05/08/06 06/2/06 05/17/06 05/16/06 06/2/06 06/05/06 06/09/06

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- 1 - Enclosure

Power Uprate Program Status Report

June 2006

Power uprates are categorized based on the magnitude of the power increase and the methods

used to achieve the increase. Measurement uncertainty recapture (MUR) power uprates result

in power level increases that are less than 2 percent and are achieved by implementing

enhanced techniques for calculating reactor power. Stretch power uprates (SPUs) typically

result in power level increases that are up to 7 percent and generally do not involve major plant

modifications. Extended power uprates (EPUs) result in power level increases that are greater

than SPUs and usually require significant modifications to major plant equipment. The Nuclear

Regulatory Commission has approved EPUs for increases as high as 20 percent.

Power Uprates Approved Since June 2005

Power uprates approved since June 2, 2005, have added an additional 608 megawatts thermal

(MWt) or approximately 203 megawatts electric (MWe) to the Nation’s electric generating

capacity. This brings the total number of power uprates approved since 1977 to 109, resulting

in a combined increase of about 13,858 MWt or 4,619 MWe to the Nation’s electric generating

capacity. 

NO. PLANT %

UPRATE

MWt APPLICATION

DATE

APPROVAL

DATE

TYPE

1 Palo Verde 1 2.9 114 07/09/2004 11/16/2005 SPU

2 Palo Verde 3 2.9 114 07/09/2004 11/16/2005 SPU

3 Vermont Yankee 20 319 09/10/2003 03/02/2006 EPU

4 Seabrook 1.7 61 09/22/2005 05/22/2006 MUR

On March 2, 2006, the staff completed its review of the Vermont Yankee EPU application and

approved the 20 percent power uprate. The licensee reached 120 percent of original licensed

thermal power (the full EPU) on May 5, 2006, and successfully conducted a planned

condensate pump trip test on May 8, 2006. Details on program performance versus

established goals for these approved power uprates are presented later in this enclosure.

Power Uprate Applications Currently Under Staff Review

Power uprates currently under review could add an additional 2420 MWt or 807 MWe to the

Nation’s electric generating capacity if approved.

NO. PLANT % UPRATE MWt SUBMITTAL

DATE

PROJECTED

COMPLETION

DATE

TYPE

1 Browns Ferry 2 15 494 06/25/2004 Spring 2007 EPU

2 Browns Ferry 3 15 494 06/25/2004 Spring 2007 EPU
NO. PLANT % UPRATE MWt SUBMITTAL

DATE

PROJECTED

COMPLETION

DATE

TYPE

- 2 -

3 Browns Ferry 1 20 659 06/28/2004 Spring 2007 EPU

4 Beaver Valley 1 8 211 10/04/2004 07/18/2006 EPU

5 Beaver Valley 2 8 211 10/04/2004 07/18/2006 EPU

6 Calvert Cliffs 1 1.3 37 01/31/2005 12/31/2006 MUR

7 Calvert Cliffs 2 1.3 37 01/31/2005 12/31/2006 MUR

8 Fort Calhoun 1.5 22 03/31/2005 12/31/2006 MUR

9 Ginna 17 255 07/07/2005 08/23/2006 EPU

Expected Power Uprate Applications

The following table describing intended future license amendment applications is the result of a

survey of all licensees conducted in March 2006 and information obtained since the survey.

Fiscal

Year

Power Uprates

Expected

MUR

Power

Uprates

SPUs EPUs MWt MWe

2006 4 1 0 3 1470 490

2007 6 5 1 0 431 144

2008 0 0 0 0 0 0

2009 10 2 3 5 1792 597

2010 2 2 0 0 76 25

2011 1 1 0 0 26 9

TOTAL 23 11 4 8 3795 1265

Accomplishments Since June 2, 2005

! Approved four plant-specific power uprates: one MUR power uprate (Seabrook), two

SPUs (Palo Verde Units 1 and 3) and an EPU (Vermont Yankee). An adjudicatory

proceeding is currently in progress on the Vermont Yankee EPU; hearings are expected

to be held in September-October 2006.

! Issued an acceptance review letter for the Ginna power uprate application.

! Monitored the installation of new steam dryers with an improved design at Quad Cities

Units 1 and 2 in May 2005 and the return of those units to EPU operation.
- 3 -

! Performed additional reviews of, and conducted public meetings on, the Exelon

Generating Company, LLC (Exelon) evaluations of the plant data obtained during EPU

operation at Quad Cities to determine the causes of flow-induced vibration (FIV) issues.

! Reviewed Exelon’s evaluation of the steam dryer cracking identified at Dresden Units 2

and 3 in November 2005 and subsequent repair of the steam dryers.

! Formed a Special Inspection Team led by Region III with NRR assistance in January

2006 to evaluate Exelon’s response to significant degradation of the electromatic relief

valves (ERVs) at Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 from EPU operation.

! Reviewed Exelon’s response to the significant cracking identified in the steam dryer in

Quad Cities Unit 2 during its spring 2006 refueling outage, which the licensee

determined was caused by installation difficulties with the new dryer in May 2005.

! Reviewed the modifications performed by Exelon at Quad Cities Unit 2 in spring 2006 to

eliminate the source of FIV and acoustic pressure pulses in the main steam lines to

reduce vibration of main steam line components and pressure loading on the steam

dryer during EPU operation.

! Monitored the power ascension at Vermont Yankee following issuance of the EPU

license amendment on March 2, 2006, and reviewed plant data to evaluate pressure

loading on the modified steam dryer and vibration of plant components during the power

ascension process.

! Continued to hold discussions regarding FIV issues with General Electric Nuclear

Energy and the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group.

! Met with Westinghouse and Caldon, the vendors of ultrasonic flow meters used for MUR

power uprates, to discuss issues related to small differences in power level indications

at some plants.

! Presented information on the Vermont Yankee, Ginna, and Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2

EPU applications to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and the

ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates.

! Performed acceptance reviews of the EPU applications for Hope Creek and

Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 and determined that the information provided was

insufficient to demonstrate that the structural integrity of the steam dryers would be

maintained during EPU operation.

! Briefed the Mexican regulator, the Japanese regulator, and a group of Young Swedish

Nuclear Professionals on the Nuclear Regulator Commission’s (NRC's) power uprate

program.

! Presented information on NRC's power uprate program at regulatory information

exchange meetings in Taiwan and Korea.

! Supported interviews by World Watch and the Chicago Tribune that included questions

on NRC's power uprate program.

! Provided comprehensive power uprate review guidance in all aspects of power uprate

reviews to NRC's plant project managers.

! Briefed the ACRS on the staff's proposed final version of Standard Review Plan 

Section 14.2.1, "Generic Guidelines for Extended Power Uprate Testing Programs."

! Responded to Congressional questions on power uprates.

Operating Experience Related to Power Uprates

There have been several FIV issues warranting staff attention. In May 2005, the licensee

installed new steam dryers in Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 with an improved design to increase

their structural capability for EPU operation. The steam dryer in Quad Cities Unit 2 was
- 4 -

instrumented with pressure, strain, and acceleration sensors to collect data during the power

ascension and EPU operation to determine actual steam dryer loading and to validate an

acoustic analysis method that uses main steam line strain gage data as input in calculating

stress in the steam dryer during plant operation. The staff monitored the return to EPU

operation of the Quad Cities units following replacement of the steam dryers. The staff has

been reviewing the data collected at the Quad Cities units and the startup test reports prepared

by the licensee and has conducted several public meetings with the licensee to discuss the

steam dryer loads at EPU conditions. The staff is currently reviewing the licensee's response to

several remaining issues regarding the steam dryer stress analysis and its uncertainty

assumptions submitted on December 22, 2005. During EPU operation at Quad Cities Units 1

and 2, the licensee discovered significant degradation of the ERVs at those units in late

December 2005 and early January 2006. The licensee shut down the Quad Cities units to

repair the ERVs and restarted the units with operation up to pre-EPU power levels. In response

to the discovery of the ERV degradation, NRC sent a Special Inspection Team to Quad Cities in

January 2006 where the staff found several weaknesses in the licensee’s actions to ensure the

capability of the ERVs for EPU conditions. The licensee’s evaluation of the ERV degradation

under EPU conditions determined that the degradation was due to the failure to address the

source of the vibrations at the Quad Cities units over the last several years.

During the spring 2006 refueling outage at Quad Cities Unit 2, the licensee discovered a

significant crack in the skirt region of the steam dryer. The licensee determined that the

cracking was the result of fatigue failure during EPU operation due to overstressing of the skirt

during installation difficulties in May 2005. The licensee also conducted modifications to the

safety and relief valves branch lines from the main steam lines at Quad Cities Unit 2 to reduce

the acoustic pressure fluctuations that are causing significant steam dryer loading and main

steam line component vibration. Upon restart of Quad Cities Unit 2 in April 2006, the licensee

found that the main steam line strain gage instrumentation indicated acoustic pressure

fluctuations during a brief test period at EPU conditions to be below the levels measured at

EPU conditions. The licensee shut down Quad Cities Unit 1 in May 2006 to install similar

modifications in its steam lines and to inspect the steam dryer. The licensee found minimal

indications on the Quad Cities Unit 1 steam dryer which confirmed the analysis of the steam

dryer cracking found at Quad Cities Unit 2 earlier this year. As a result, the licensee returned

Quad Cities Unit 2 to EPU operation. Following the steam line modifications in 

Quad Cities Unit 1, the licensee restarted that unit and returned it to EPU operation. The NRC

staff will evaluate the Quad Cities plant data, analysis, and inspection results to determine

whether any safety concerns exist with the long-term EPU operation of those units.

In previous years, the steam dryers at Dresden Units 2 and 3 were modified to increase their

structural capability for EPU operation. These plants had operated for several years at the EPU

levels with the modified steam dryers without significant damage. However, cracking was found

in November 2005 in Unit 2 and later in Unit 3. The licensee repaired the cracks and installed

additional modifications to the steam dryers in the Dresden units. The licensee plans to replace

the dryers during the fall 2006 (Unit 3) and the fall 2007 (Unit 2).

In preparing a safety evaluation for the EPU license amendment request for Vermont Yankee,

the staff reviewed the licensee's modifications and analysis of the Vermont Yankee steam dryer

and the plans for monitoring plant instrumentation to assess steam dryer loads and FIV during

power ascension and EPU operation. The staff accepted the licensee's analysis of potential

adverse flow effects for EPU operation with specific license conditions and a regulatory
1 These goals do not include the duration of and staff-hours for the staff's

acceptance review, which the staff conducts upon receipt of the initial

application. 

- 5 -

commitment for monitoring plant instrumentation during power ascension. In March 2006

following issuance of the EPU license amendment, the licensee initiated a slow and deliberate

power ascension at Vermont Yankee. The plant reached administrative limits on main steam

line strain gage measurements at 105 percent, 112.5 percent, and 117.5 percent of original

licensed thermal power (OLTP). The licensee also reached an administrative limit at

117.5 percent of OLTP for moisture carryover efficiency of the steam dryer. The staff reviewed

the plant data for each power ascension step and the licensee’s analysis of the stress on the

steam dryer and specific reassessments of the administrative limits. The staff also reviewed

the plant data for vibration and the results from walkdown inspections conducted by the

licensee during the power ascension hold points. The staff will continue to monitor steam dryer

loads and FIV of plant components at Vermont Yankee.

The staff is applying the lessons learned from the review of the power uprate flow effects at

Quad Cities and Dresden to other power uprate applications. For example, the staff determined

that the initial EPU applications submitted by the Hope Creek and Susquehanna Units 1 and 2

licensees were insufficient to demonstrate that the steam dryers at those plants were capable

of maintaining their structural integrity at the uprated power levels. The Hope Creek and

Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 licensees are modifying their applications.

Another operating experience issue relates to abnormalities in ultrasonic flow meter (UFM)

instrumentation. The staff is currently following industry evaluations of a problem at plants

using a UFM of the type used for MUR power uprates. This problem has led to unexpected but

small differences in power level indications at some plants. The staff is currently completing its

evaluations of pending applications using the Westinghouse Crossflow system with the benefit

of this operating experience.

Program Performance vs. Established Goals

The established performance goals are: 6 months and 960 staff-hours for reviewing MUR

power uprate applications, 9 months and 1800 staff-hours for reviewing SPU applications, and

12 months and 3900 staff-hours for reviewing EPU applications.1

The staff will continue to ensure that the goal of protection of public health and safety is not

compromised in order to meet these timeliness and resource expenditure goals. To that end,

the staff believes it now needs to increase the resource goal for EPU applications to

5,000 hours to adequately review EPU applications in several areas, including power uprate

testing programs, FIV issues, and reactor systems calculative techniques and methods. These

resources are budgeted through Fiscal Year 2008. It should be noted that individual

applications may require more or less review time depending on the nature of the technical

issues; for example, the staff's review of the Vermont Yankee EPU involved about 11,000 hours

of review (about 10 percent of the 11,000 hours was used in the staff's acceptance review), and

900 hours for a pilot engineering inspection that touched on several EPU issues.
- 6 -

The timeliness and resource expenditure goals assume that licensees’ submittals are

consistent with established guidelines, do not include other non-power-uprate related requests,

do not involve new or unanticipated significant technical issues, and that licensees respond to

requests for additional information (RAIs) within established schedules. When establishing the

above goals for the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Operating Plan, the staff

recognized that in some cases, licensees’ plans for implementing power uprates exceed the

timeliness goals described above. As a result, for the NRR Operating Plan, the staff can meet

its timeliness goals by either completing the reviews according to the numerical goals or by

completing the reviews in time to support licensees’ proposed implementation schedules (also

known as licensees' need dates), whichever is longer. This flexibility allows the staff to utilize

its resources to better support other high-priority activities.

The staff met its timeliness and resource goals for its review of the Seabrook MUR power

uprate as well as the Palo Verde Units 1 and 3 SPUs. The Seabrook MUR power uprate was

approved on May 22, 2006 (which was the licensee’s need date), and the staff charged about

900 hours for its review. The Palo Verde Units 1 and 3 SPU was approved on November 16,

2005 (which was prior to the licensee’s need date of November 18, 2005), and the staff

charged about 1200 hours for its review. For the Vermont Yankee EPU review, the staff took

about 25 months and charged about 10,000 hours from the completion of NRC's acceptance

review. The timeliness and resource goals were not met. The scheduled review of the

Vermont Yankee EPU was extended largely due to incomplete submissions by the licensee,

which required greater effort to allow a thorough review of key technical issues associated with

safe operation at the new power level. 

The review involved several rounds of RAIs and over 40 supplemental submittals by the

licensee. Ultimately, license conditions were used to resolve the remaining key issues. To

correct this in the future, the staff will utilize more and earlier management involvement in the

decision-making process, including consideration of license conditions to resolve key issues

earlier in the review process. In addition, the staff will conduct, on a pilot basis, more extensive

audits at the plant and/or vendor sites to expedite resolution of RAIs.

For the ongoing EPU reviews of Browns Ferry Unit 1, Browns Ferry Units 2 and 3, and Beaver

Valley Units 1 and 2, the staff expects to meet the timeliness goals of 12 months after the

staff's acceptance review or the licensee's need date; however, these applications needed

substantial supplementation to pass their acceptance reviews, which took over 9 months in

each case. To correct this situation, the staff is now conducting more thorough and rigorous

acceptance reviews of power uprate applications. Any significant area not addressed with

sufficient completeness to allow the staff to proceed with its detailed technical review, may be

treated as a basis for not accepting the application. This staff position was illustrated with the

Hope Creek and Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 applications that were withdrawn by the licensees

on February 10 and May 18, 2006, respectively, after the staff determined that the applications

were insufficient to demonstrate that the structural integrity of the steam dryers would be

maintained during EPU operation. In addition, the Susquehanna application did not adequately

address several plant systems areas.

For the Ft. Calhoun and Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 MUR power uprate reviews, the NRC staff

issued acceptance letters on May 12 and March 18, 2005, respectively. However, these

reviews did not meet the 6-month timeliness goal because subsequent to the issuance of the

acceptance letters, the staff determined that the NRC-approved methodologies for feedwater
- 7 -

flow measurement were not being used by the licensees. (The staff based the 6-month

timeliness goal for MUR power uprates on the use of NRC-approved methodologies.) The staff

may also need to revisit the generic topical report associated with these reviews (i.e., the

Westinghouse Crossflow system).

Interactions with Internal and External Stakeholders

The staff briefed the ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates and the ACRS Full Committee in

November and December of 2005 for the Vermont Yankee EPU, and in March, April and May of

2006 for the Ginna and Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 EPUs. Regarding the Vermont Yankee

EPU, the ACRS had particular interest in the areas of containment overpressure credit, large

transient tests, times available to perform critical operator actions, margin added to the safety

limit minimum critical power ratio, and the steam dryer monitoring plan during power ascension. 

By letter dated January 4, 2006, the ACRS recommended approval of the Vermont Yankee

EPU.

Regarding the Ginna and Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 EPUs, the ACRS had particular interest

in the areas of non-loss-of-coolant accident (non-LOCA) events, LOCAs, boron precipitation

during long-term cooling following a LOCA, flow-induced vibration, flow accelerated corrosion,

and probabilistic risk assessment. By letters dated May 22, 2006, the ACRS recommended

approval of the Ginna and Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 EPUs.

For EPU applications, a proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration (NSHC) determination

will be issued as soon as the staff is able to make this proposed determination. This

determination would most likely be made right after the staff determines that the application

passes the acceptance review. The reason for noticing future EPU applications with proposed

NSHC determinations is that there has now been enough experience with EPUs (the staff has

approved 14 EPUs to date), such that the staff can now issue a proposed NSHC determination

when noticing the application.

The staff briefed the Mexican regulator (April 2006), the Japanese regulator (October 2005),

and a group of Young Swedish Nuclear Professionals (October 2005) on NRC's power uprate

program. This briefing focused on the staff's process for reviewing power uprate applications.

The staff presented information on NRC's power uprate program at regulatory information

exchange meetings in Taiwan and Korea in April 2006. These presentations focused on the

staff's process for reviewing power uprate applications and some of the current technical issues

with power uprates.