POLICY ISSUE 

INFORMATION 

June 3, 2008 SECY-08-0078

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON POWER UPRATES 

PURPOSE: 

This information paper summarizes the power uprate program accomplishments and challenges 

since the last update in SECY-07-0090, Status Report on Power Uprates,” dated June 4, 2007. 

This paper does not address any new commitments or resource implications. 

BACKGROUND: 

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

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

DISCUSSION: 

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

currently reviewing nine power uprates. Over the next 5 years, the staff expects that licensees 

will submit an additional 25 power uprate applications. The enclosed status report provides 

detailed information on the power uprates approved since June 4, 2007; applications under 

review; applications expected in the future; accomplishments; operating experience; and 

program performance. 

CONTACTS: Thomas W. Alexion, NRR/DPR 

 (301) 415-1326 

 Anthony W. Markley, NRR/DPR 

 (301) 415-3165
The Commissioners -2- 

The staff essentially met its timeliness goals for five of the six power uprates approved so far in 

Fiscal Year 2008 (the Crystal River Unit 3 and Vogtle Units 1 and 2 measurement uncertainty 

recapture (MUR) power uprates, and the Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 extended power uprates 

(EPUs)). The staff exceeded the 12 month review goal for the Susquehanna EPUs by four 

weeks because it needed additional time to consider Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards’ recommendations. The staff’s review of the Hope Creek EPU (duration of about 

20 months) was delayed because the licensee changed its steam dryer analysis methodology in 

mid-2007. 

By the end of 2008, the staff expects to receive two independent topical reports which will 

provide an integrated evaluation of adverse flow effects. Upon evaluation and approval of the 

reports by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the staff expects improvements in 

the timeliness of future boiling water reactor EPU reviews. 

The staff has completed its reevaluation of the generic approvals of ultrasonic flow meters 

(UFMs) used for MUR power uprates. This resulted in the withdrawal of approval of the 

Westinghouse Crossflow UFM for power uprate or power recovery. The staff notified 

Westinghouse Electric Company by letter of the suspension of the staff’s approval of 

Westinghouse topical report on the Crossflow UFM for new and future use in power uprate 

applications. Industry was notified of this withdrawal of approval in Regulatory Issue 

Summary 2007-24, "NRC Staff Position on Use of the Westinghouse Crossflow Ultrasonic Flow 

Meter for Power Uprate or Power Recovery," dated September 27, 2007. 

The continuing goal is for the staff to conduct timely power uprate reviews of appropriate scope 

and depth for each of the technical areas ensuring that safety will continue to be maintained. 

COORDINATION: 

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

/RA Bruce S. Mallett for/ 

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Power Uprate Program Status Report 
The Commissioners -2- 

The staff essentially met its timeliness goals for five of the six power uprates approved so far in 

Fiscal Year 2008 (the Crystal River Unit 3 and Vogtle Units 1 and 2 measurement uncertainty 

recapture (MUR) power uprates, and the Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 extended power uprates 

(EPUs)). The staff exceeded the 12 month review goal for the Susquehanna EPUs by four 

weeks because it needed additional time to consider Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards’ recommendations. The staff’s review of the Hope Creek EPU (duration of about 

20 months) was delayed because the licensee changed its steam dryer analysis methodology in 

mid-2007. 

By the end of 2008, the staff expects to receive two independent topical reports which will 

provide an integrated evaluation of adverse flow effects. Upon evaluation and approval of the 

reports by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the staff expects improvements in 

the timeliness of future boiling water reactor EPU reviews. 

The staff has completed its reevaluation of the generic approvals of ultrasonic flow meters 

(UFMs) used for MUR power uprates. This resulted in the withdrawal of approval of the 

Westinghouse Crossflow UFM for power uprate or power recovery. The staff notified 

Westinghouse Electric Company by letter of the suspension of the staff’s approval of 

Westinghouse topical report on the Crossflow UFM for new and future use in power uprate 

applications. Industry was notified of this withdrawal of approval in Regulatory Issue 

Summary 2007-24, "NRC Staff Position on Use of the Westinghouse Crossflow Ultrasonic Flow 

Meter for Power Uprate or Power Recovery," dated September 27, 2007. 

The continuing goal is for the staff to conduct timely power uprate reviews of appropriate scope 

and depth for each of the technical areas ensuring that safety will continue to be maintained. 

COORDINATION: 

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

/RA Bruce S. Mallett for/ 

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Power Uprate Program Status Report 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML081130266 WITS 200200020/EDATS: SECY-2008-0329

OFFICE PGCB PGCB/PM PGCB/LA* TECH ED EMCB/BC PGCB/BC 

NAME AMarkley TAlexion CHawes CHsu (via email) KManoly MMurphy 

DATE 04/30/08 04/29/08 04/29/08 04/24/08 05/07/08 05/27/08 

OFFICE OGC (NLO) DOLR/D DPR/D NRR/D EDO 

NAME EWilliamson CHaney MCase (TQuay for) ELeeds RBorchardt 

(BMallett for)

DATE 05/21/08 05/15/08 05/27/08 05/29/08 06/03/08 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
Enclosure 

Power Uprate Program Status Report 

May 2008

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 of less than 2 percent and are achieved by implementing enhanced 

techniques for calculating reactor power. Stretch power uprates (SPUs) typically result in powerlevel increases of up to 7 percent and generally do not involve major plant modifications. 

Extended power uprates (EPUs) result in greater power-level increases than SPUs and usually 

require significant modifications to major plant equipment. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has approved EPUs for increases as high as 20 percent. 

Power Uprates Approved Since June 2006

Power uprates approved since June 4, 2007, have added an additional 1589.2 megawatts 

thermal (MWt) or approximately 530 megawatts electric (MWe) to the Nation=s electric 

generating capacity. This brings the total number of power uprates approved since 1977 to 119, 

resulting in a combined increase of about 16,289 MWt (5,430 MWe) in the Nation=s electric 

generating capacity. Table 1 provides information on the power uprates approved since 

June 4, 2007; details on program performance versus established goals for these approved 

power uprates are discussed later in this enclosure. 

Table 1 - Power Uprates Approved Since June 2007

No. Plant % Uprate MWt Application Date Approval Date Type 

1 Crystal River 3 1.6 41 04/25/2007 12/26/2007 MUR 

2 Susquehanna 1 13 463 10/11/2006 01/30/2008 EPU 

3 Susquehanna 2 13 463 10/11/2006 01/30/2008 EPU 

4 Vogtle 1 1.7 60.6 08/28/2007 02/27/2008 MUR 

5 Vogtle 2 1.7 60.6 08/28/2007 02/27/2008 MUR 

6 Hope Creek 15 501 09/18/2006 05/14/2008 EPU 

 Total 1589.2 

Power Uprate Applications Currently under Staff Review

Power uprates currently under review could add an additional 2,207 MWt or 736 MWe to the 

Nation’s electric generating capacity if approved, as noted in Table 2. 
-2- 

Table 2 - Power Uprate Applications under Review

No. Plant % Uprate MWt Submittal 

Date 

Projected 

Completion Date Type 

1 Browns Ferry 2 15 494 06/25/2004 December 2008 EPU 

2 Browns Ferry 3 15 494 06/25/2004 December 2008 EPU 

3 Browns Ferry 1 15 494 06/28/2004 December 2008 EPU 

4 Davis-Besse 1.6 45 04/12/2007 09/30/2008 MUR 

5 Millstone 3 7.0 239 07/13/2007 08/15/2008 SPU 

6 Comanche Peak 1 4.5 154 08/28/2007 07/08/2008 SPU 

7 Comanche Peak 2 4.5 154 08/28/2007 07/08/2008 SPU 

8 Cooper 1.6 38 11/19/2007 06/20/2008 MUR 

9 Monticello 5.4 95 03/31/2008 06/01/2009 EPU 

 Total 2207 

Expected Power Uprate Applications

Table 3 describes intended future power uprate applications based on a survey of all licensees 

conducted in April 2007. 

Table 3 - Projected Future Power Uprate Applications

Fiscal 

Year 

Power Uprates 

Expected 

MUR Power 

Uprates SPUs EPUs MWt MWe 

2008 2 2 0 0 52 17 

2009 11 5 0 6 2366 789 

2010 7 1 0 6 1405 468 

2011 5 0 0 5 1451 484 

2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 25 8 0 17 5274 1758 

Accomplishments Since June 4, 2007

$ Approved six plant-specific power uprates, specifically three MUR power uprates (Crystal 

River Unit 3, and Vogtle Units 1 and 2) and three EPUs (Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 and 

Hope Creek). 

$ Issued letter to Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC) suspending the NRC approval of 

the Crossflow Ultrasonic Flow Meter (UFM) topical report on September 26, 2007 

(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

No. ML071650263). 
-3- 

$ Issued Regulatory Issue Summary 2007-24 (ADAMS Accession No. ML063450261), 

"NRC Staff Position on Use of the Westinghouse Crossflow Ultrasonic Flow Meter for 

Power Uprate or Power Recovery," on September 27, 2007 to inform addressees that the 

NRC had written a letter to WEC suspending NRCs approval of the WEC topical report 

on the Crossflow UFM for new and future use. 

• Approved General Electric (GE) Topical Report (TR) 33173P, “Applicability of GE 

Methods to Expanded Operating Domains,” on January 17, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML073340231) for referencing in licensing applications for GE-designed boiling water 

reactors (BWRs), subject to certain limitations. Topical Report 33173P evaluates the 

impact of operation at the higher void conditions characteristic of EPUs. 

• Issued acceptance letters for the MUR power uprate application for Cooper, and the SPU 

applications for Millstone Unit 3 and Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2. 

• Presented information on the Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 and the Hope Creek EPU 

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

Subcommittee on Power Uprates. 

Operating Experience Related to Power Uprates

Potential Adverse Flow Effects 

At power uprate conditions, nuclear power plants can experience significant increases in steam 

flow velocities. Plant experience has shown that the higher main steamline flow can create an 

acoustic resonance in the steamlines as the flow passes over branch lines that can vary greatly 

from one plant to another depending on the routing of the main steam lines and steam dryer 

vintage and geometry. The acoustic resonance can create pressure waves that strike the steam 

dryer in BWRs with sufficient force to cause the stress in the steam dryer to exceed the material 

fatigue limits which may result in steam dryer cracking. The acoustic resonance can also cause 

excessive vibration that may damage steamline components, such as relief valves and piping. 

To address this issue, BWR EPU applicants have provided a steam dryer analysis to 

demonstrate the structural integrity of the steam dryers at the uprated power level. However, 

providing an acceptable steam dryer analysis has been a challenge and has resulted in delays in 

EPU reviews for Vermont Yankee (approved in 2006) and Browns Ferry and Hope Creek EPU 

reviews. The steam dryers at Susquehanna will be replaced before EPU implementation. 

The Browns Ferry and Hope Creek reviews were delayed because the licensees changed their 

analysis methodologies in mid-2007. This change involved a revised acoustic circuit model 

analysis as well as a revised frequency-domain finite element analysis. The NRC staff asked 

licensees to address agency questions about these analyses since they had not been used 

previously in EPU applications. The licensee for Hope Creek has addressed these questions 

and that application review was recently completed. The licensee for Browns Ferry is still 

addressing these questions. 

Industry and vendors plan to submit two independent topical reports to provide an integrated 

evaluation of adverse flow effects. On March 14, 2008 GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy submitted 

one report, titled “Applicability of Topical Report NEDC-33408P, ‘ESBWR Steam Dryer – Plant 

Based Load Evaluation Methodology,’ to Current Plants.” The other report, which is expected by 

the end of 2008, will address the revised analysis methodologies noted above. 
-4- 

In response to nuclear plant operating experience, the NRC staff and its contractors have been 

performing more detailed reviews and inspections of plant performance and power uprate 

license amendment requests with respect to adverse flow effects on plant structures, systems, 

and components. The NRC staff has also updated Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections 3.9.2 

and 3.9.5 of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for 

Nuclear Power Plants,” and Regulatory Guide 1.20, “Comprehensive Vibration Assessment 

Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial Startup Testing,” to provide 

additional guidance for NRC staff reviewers and the nuclear industry on the evaluation of 

potential adverse flow effects at operating plants considering power uprates and at new nuclear 

power plants. 

Ultrasonic Flow Meter Instrumentation

Another operating experience issue relates to abnormalities in UFM instrumentation. The staff 

completed its review of industry evaluations of a problem at plants using a UFM of the type 

employed for MUR power uprates. This problem has led to unexpected but small differences in 

power-level indications at some plants. 

Two vendors, Caldon and WEC, currently supply UFMs to nuclear power plants. The staff 

completed its reevaluation of the generic approvals previously granted for these UFMs. By letter 

to Caldon dated July 5, 2006, the staff's reevaluation concluded that the performance of the 

Caldon Check and CheckPlus UFMs is consistent with previous NRC reviews and therefore is 

acceptable. 

The staff completed its reevaluation of the WEC Crossflow UFM. By letter dated September 26, 

2007, the NRC suspended its approval of the Crossflow UFM topical report for new and future 

use in power uprate applications or in future evaluations of changes to support power recovery 

covered by Title 10, Section 50.59, “Changes, tests, and experiments,” of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR 50.59). This withdrawal of approval, published in Regulatory Issue 

Summary 2007-24 on September 27, 2007, resulted in the NRC denial of the Fort Calhoun MUR 

power uprate application on September 27, 2007 and the licensee’s withdrawal of the Calvert 

Cliffs Units 1 and 2 MUR power uprate application on September 27, 2007. 

Program Performance versus Established Goals

The established performance goals are: 6 months for reviewing MUR power uprate 

applications, 9 months for reviewing SPU applications, and 12 months for reviewing EPU 

applications.1

 The staff will continue to ensure that the goal of protecting public health and 

safety is not compromised to meet these timeliness goals. Individual applications may require 

more or less review time depending on the nature of the technical issues. 

 1 These goals do not include the duration of the staff's acceptance review, which the staff conducts upon 

receipt of the initial application. On May 2, 2008, the staff issued a new Office Instruction, LIC-109, Acceptance 

Review Procedures, to provide specific guidance for acceptance reviews. The staff plans to issue a regulatory 

summary with LIC-109 as an enclosure to inform licensees and the public of the staff’s procedures governing 

acceptance reviews.
-5- 

These goals are a simplification of the goals established and last documented in SECY-07-0090, 

dated June 4, 2007. The metric goals have not changed; the change involves removing caveats 

with the intent of increasing efficiency in reporting program performance. 

NRC essentially met its timeliness goals for the five of the six power uprates approved so far in 

FY 2008 (the Crystal River Unit 3 and Vogtle Units 1 and 2 MUR power uprates, and the 

Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 EPUs). The staff exceeded the 12 month review goal for the 

Susquehanna EPUs by four weeks as it needed additional time to consider the Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards recommendations. The Hope Creek EPU review took about 

20 months because the licensee changed its analysis methodologies in mid-2007, including a 

revised acoustic circuit model analysis and a revised frequency-domain finite element analysis. 

The licensee needed additional time to address NRC questions on these analysis 

methodologies as they have not been used in previous EPU applications. 

In SECY-07-0090, the 2007 “Status Report on Power Uprates,” the staff informed the 

Commission that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was unable to provide its revised steam 

dryer analysis for Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3, by the licensee’s committed-to date of early 

April 2007. The staff went on to say that they would “reestablish the review schedule when the 

licensee provides a revised schedule for submitting the steam dryer analysis.” On July 27, 2007, 

TVA provided its revised analysis. Based on the staff’s preliminary review of the revised 

analysis, additional information was needed from TVA for the staff to assess the structural 

integrity of the steam dryers at the uprated power level. Since August 9, 2007, the staff has met 

with TVA on several occasions, conducted numerous telephone conversations, including 

discussions with Senior TVA management, and issued formal requests for additional information 

to support the review of the revised analysis. On April 17, 2008, TVA informed the staff that 

needed information would be submitted in June 2008. The staff believes the EPU for Units 1, 2, 

and 3 can be issued in December 2008 assuming TVA successfully responds to all requests for 

information in June. 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report on Power Uprates

On March 28, 2008, the OIG issued Audit Report OIG-08-A-09, “Audit of NRC’s Power Uprate 

Program.” The report identified that the NRCs power uprate program could be enhanced in 

areas of the power uprate inspection procedure documentation and implementation, the 

circulation and written quality of safety evaluation, and the power uprate coordinating function. 

The staff has reviewed the OIG report and the eight recommendations. As indicated in 

Appendix D of that report, the staff agreed with most of the OIG recommendations, but does not 

agree that inspection procedures should cross reference back to the power uprate inspection 

procedure nor with the extent of additional training for writing or contributing to a safety 

evaluation. The staff will be working with the OIG to resolve all of the recommendations.