POLICY ISSUE 

INFORMATION 

May 20, 2010 SECY-10-0070

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: Eric J. Leeds, Director 

 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON POWER UPRATES 

PURPOSE: 

This information paper summarizes the power uprate program accomplishments and challenges 

since the last update in SECY-09-0078, “Status Report on Power Uprates,” dated May 20, 2009. 

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, entitled 

“Briefing on Status of Nuclear Reactor Safety” (SRM-M020129). 

DISCUSSION: 

Since the last update, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has approved 

four plant-specific power uprates. The staff is currently reviewing 16 power uprates. Over the 

next 5 years, the staff expects that licensees will submit an additional 39 power uprate 

applications. The enclosed status report provides detailed information on the power uprates 

approved since May 20, 2009; applications under review; applications expected in the future; 

accomplishments; challenges associated with power uprates; and program performance. 

CONTACT: Thomas W. Alexion, NRR/DPR 

 (301) 415-1326
The Commissioners 2 

The staff met its timeliness goals for two of the four power uprates approved since May 20, 

2009, (the North Anna Units 1 and 2 measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates). The 

staff exceeded the 6-month review goal for the Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 measurement 

uncertainty recapture power uprates by 4 months due to the licensee’s late responses to NRC 

questions. 

The use of containment accident pressure credit in the safety analyses of some extended power 

uprate applications continues to be an area of discussion between the Advisory Committee on 

Reactor Safeguards and the staff. This issue has delayed two reviews: Browns Ferry and 

Monticello. During recent meetings with the ACRS, they provided recommendations that could 

raise policy issues. The staff will include our proposed path forward in our response to the 

ACRS recommendations. 

Two independent industry topical reports have been submitted and are under review, which 

could ultimately provide the industry with two independent integrated evaluation approaches and 

acceptance criteria for steam dryers. Upon evaluation and approval of the reports by the NRC, 

the staff expects improvements in the timeliness of future boiling-water reactor extended power 

uprate reviews. 

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

and depth for each of the technical areas while ensuring that safety is maintained. 

COORDINATION: 

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

/RA/ 

Eric J. Leeds, Director 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Enclosure: 

Power Uprate Program Status Report 
The Commissioners 2 

The staff met its timeliness goals for two of the four power uprates approved since May 20, 

2009, (the North Anna Units 1 and 2 measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates). The 

staff exceeded the 6-month review goal for the Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 measurement 

uncertainty recapture power uprates by 4 months due to the licensee’s late responses to NRC 

questions. 

The use of containment accident pressure credit in the safety analyses of some extended power 

uprate applications continues to be an area of discussion between the Advisory Committee on 

Reactor Safeguards and the staff. This issue has delayed two reviews: Browns Ferry and 

Monticello. During recent meetings with the ACRS, they provided recommendations that could 

raise policy issues. The staff will include our proposed path forward in our response to the 

ACRS recommendations. 

Two independent industry topical reports have been submitted and are under review, which 

could ultimately provide the industry with two independent integrated evaluation approaches and 

acceptance criteria for steam dryers. Upon evaluation and approval of the reports by the NRC, 

the staff expects improvements in the timeliness of future boiling-water reactor extended power 

uprate reviews. 

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

and depth for each of the technical areas while ensuring that safety is maintained. 

COORDINATION: 

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

Eric J. Leeds, Director 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Enclosure: 

Power Uprate Program Status Report 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML100710014 WITS 200200020/EDATS: SECY-2009-0391 

 *via e-mail 

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

NAME TAlexion CHawes* KAzariahKribbs MKhanna RDennig MMurphy 

DATE 03/16/10 03/19/10 03/16/10 03/19/10 03/22/10 05/10/10 

OFFICE OGC (NLO) DORL/D DPR/D NRR/D 

NAME EWilliamson JGiitter 

(RNelson for) 

TMcGinty ELeeds 

DATE 04/13/10 04/22/10 05/10/10 5/20/10 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
ENCLOSURE 

Power Uprate Program Status Report 

May 2010

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 

power-level 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 May 2009

Power uprates approved since May 20, 2009, have added 168 megawatts thermal (MWt) or 

approximately 56 megawatts electric (MWe) to the Nation=s electric generating capacity. This 

brings the total number of power uprates approved since 1977 to 129, resulting in a combined 

increase of about 17,179 MWt (5,726 MWe) in the Nation=s electric generating capacity. Table 1 

provides information on the power uprates approved since May 20, 2009; details on program 

performance versus established goals for these approved power uprates appear later in this 

report. 

Table 1 - Power Uprates Approved since May 20, 2009

No. Plant % Uprate MWt Application Date Approval Date Type 

1 Calvert Cliffs 1 1.4 37 08/29/2008 07/22/2009 MUR 

2 Calvert Cliffs 2 1.4 37 08/29/2008 07/22/2009 MUR 

3 North Anna 1 1.6 47 03/26/2009 10/22/2009 MUR 

4 North Anna 2 1.6 47 03/26/2009 10/22/2009 MUR 

 Total 168 
-2- 

Power Uprate Applications Currently under Staff Review

As illustrated in Table 2, power uprates currently under review could add 3,436 MWt or 

approximately 1,145 MWe to the Nation’s electric generating capacity, if approved. 

Table 2 - Power Uprate Applications under Review

No. Plant % Uprate MWt Submittal 

Date 

Projected 

Completion Date Type 

1 Browns Ferry 2 14.3 494 06/25/2004 To Be Determined EPU 

2 Browns Ferry 3 14.3 494 06/25/2004 To Be Determined EPU 

3 Browns Ferry 1 14.3 494 06/28/2004 To Be Determined EPU 

4 Monticello 12.9 229 11/05/2008 To Be Determined EPU 

5 Point Beach 1 17 260 04/07/2009 November 2010 EPU 

6 Point Beach 2 17 260 04/07/2009 November 2010 EPU 

7 Nine Mile Pt. 2 15 521 05/27/2009 September 2010 EPU 

8 Prairie Island 1 1.6 27 12/28/2009 August 2010 MUR 

9 Prairie Island 2 1.6 27 12/28/2009 August 2010 MUR 

10 Surry 1 1.6 41 01/27/2010 September 2010 MUR 

11 Surry 2 1.6 41 01/27/2010 September 2010 MUR 

12 LaSalle 1 1.6 57 01/27/2010 September 2010 MUR 

13 LaSalle 2 1.6 57 01/27/2010 September 2010 MUR 

14 Limerick 1 1.6 57 03/25/2010 November 2010 MUR 

15 Limerick 2 1.6 57 03/25/2010 November 2010 MUR 

16 St. Lucie 1* 11.9 320 04/16/2010 To Be Determined EPU 

 Total 3,436 

* This application is currently undergoing NRC acceptance review. 
-3- 

Expected Power Uprate Applications

Table 3 estimates future power uprate applications based on a survey of all licensees conducted 

in December 2009. 

Table 3 - Projected Future Power Uprate Applications

Fiscal 

Year 

Power Uprates 

Expected 

MUR Power 

Uprates SPUs EPUs MWt MWe 

2010 4 0 0 4 1,603 534 

2011 20 13 1 6 2,511 837 

2012 8 5 0 3 1,308 436 

2013 4 3 0 1 591 197 

2014 3 0 0 3 1,245 415 

Total 39 21 1 17 7,258 2419 

Accomplishments since May 20, 2009

The NRC staff accomplishments since May 20, 2009, are as follows: 

• Approved four plant-specific power uprates, specifically four MUR power uprates (Calvert 

Cliffs Units 1 and 2, and North Anna Units 1 and 2). 

• Issued acceptance letters (or notifications) for the MUR power uprate applications for 

Prairie Island Units 1 and 2, Surry Units 1 and 2, LaSalle Units 1 and 2, and Limerick 

Units 1 and 2; and for the EPU applications for Point Beach Units 1 and 2, and Nine Mile 

Point Unit 2. 

• Issued acceptance letters for two industry topical report applications that present two 

independent integrated evaluation approaches and acceptance criteria for steam dryers. 

• Revised Inspection Procedure 71004, "Power Uprate," to clarify the approval process for 

a site-specific power uprate inspection plan. 

Challenges Associated with 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 as the higher velocity main steamline flow 

passes over branch lines, it can create an acoustic resonance in the steamlines that can vary 

greatly from one plant to another, depending on the routing of the main steamlines and the 

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

strike the steam dryer in boiling-water reactors (BWRs) with significant force. This force could 

cause the stress in the steam dryer to exceed the material fatigue limits, which may result in 
-4- 

steam dryer cracking. The acoustic resonance can also cause excessive vibration that may 

damage steamline and feedwater line components, such as relief valves and piping. 

To address this issue, BWR applicants for EPUs have provided complex steam dryer analyses 

to demonstrate the structural integrity of the steam dryers at uprated power levels. However, it 

has been challenging for licensees to provide acceptable steam dryer analyses and this has 

significantly contributed to the delays in the EPU reviews for several BWR plants. Reasons for 

these delays typically include: licensees introducing new refinements to analytical methods not 

used in previous EPU applications, the NRC identifying new issues with licensees’ acoustic 

circuit models, licensees needing to make steam dryer modifications to address analysis issues, 

and lack of adequate plant measurement data needed for the steam dryer analyses. 

To address this issue, two independent industry topical reports have been submitted to the NRC 

for review and approval. These reports present two independent integrated evaluation 

approaches and acceptance criteria for steam dryers. GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy submitted 

NEDC-33436P, “GEH Boiling Water Reactor Steam Dryer - Plant Based Load Evaluation,” on 

November 7, 2008. The Electric Power Research Institute resubmitted BWRVIP-194, 

“Methodologies for Demonstrating Steam Dryer Integrity for Power Uprate,” on 

December 18, 2008. By letters dated June 30, 2009, and September 15, 2009, the NRC 

accepted topical reports BWRVIP-194 and NEDC-33436P, respectively, for a detailed technical 

review. However, the NRC letters also identified the need for complementary or related topical 

reports, as well as additional information, to continue its review. The topical report applicants 

have kept the NRC informed on their progress in providing this supplemental information. If the 

NRC ultimately approves these topical reports, licensees referencing them will only need to 

provide the plant-specific items (which the NRC will develop) for the NRC’s review. This process 

should improve the review timeliness of future requests that involve evaluation of potential 

adverse flow effects on steam dryers. 

Containment Accident Pressure Credit 

EPUs result in an increase in the temperature of the sump water (in pressurized-water reactors) 

and suppression pool water (in BWRs) during certain postulated accidents or abnormal events. 

This could affect the performance of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) pumps taking 

suction from these water sources. In some cases, licensees have included containment 

accident pressure in their safety analyses to demonstrate acceptable performance of the ECCS 

pumps. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) recommended changes with 

this practice in a letter to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) dated March 18, 2009. 

The staff responded to the ACRS by letter dated June 4, 2009. The staff informed ACRS that it 

was carefully reviewing the recommendations of the March 18, 2009, letter and would brief 

ACRS on the results of its review. The staff response also stated that it would consider delaying 

approval of licensing actions that included the use of containment accident pressure. 

In September and October 2009, the NRC informed two licensees for EPU applications (Browns 

Ferry and Monticello), which take credit for containment accident pressure and are currently 

undergoing NRC staff review, that the agency needs more time to develop additional regulatory 

guidance to ensure the technical adequacy of their applications. This resulted in delays in the 

staff’s review of these applications. 
-5- 

The staff has now developed draft guidance for this issue. By letters dated March 1 

and 24, 2010, the NRC provided the draft guidance to the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group 

(BWROG) and the Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group, respectively, and requested that 

they meet with the staff to discuss it. The staff discussed the draft guidance with the BWROG 

on April 14, 2010, and presented it to the ACRS Power Uprate Subcommittee and ACRS full 

committee on April 23 and May 6, 2010, respectively. The ACRS made recommendations in a 

letter to the EDO dated May 19, 2010, which could raise policy issues. The staff is evaluating 

those recommendations and will include our proposed path forward in our response to those 

ACRS recommendations. Once all issues are resolved, the staff plans to incorporate this 

guidance into a regulatory guide. 

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 protection of public health and safety is not 

compromised through its efforts to meet these timeliness goals. Individual applications may 

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

The staff met its timeliness goals for two of the four power uprates approved since May 20, 2009 

(the North Anna Units 1 and 2 MUR power uprates). The staff exceeded the 6-month review 

goal for the Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2 MUR power uprates by 4 months due to the licensee’s 

late responses to NRC questions, as documented in the NRC’s letter dated January 27, 2009. 

The Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3, and Monticello EPU reviews have been delayed primarily 

due to staff concerns with the licensees’ steam dryer analyses and analyses that take credit for 

containment accident pressure. The Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU review may also be delayed in 

order to resolve staff concerns with the licensee’s steam dryer analyses. Discussion of these 

issues appeared previously in the “Challenges Associated with Power Uprates” section of this 

report. 

The Point Beach Units 1 and 2 EPU review schedule has been delayed primarily due to the 

EPU's dependence on approval of the alternative source term (AST) amendment application, 

which is a separate application that is linked to the EPU application. According to the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation’s publicly available Office Instruction LIC-109, "Acceptance Review 

Procedures," the staff should not, in general, accept a license amendment application for NRC 

review until the agency has reviewed and approved all prerequisite license amendment 

applications. In consideration of LIC-109 and the licensee's history with AST applications, the 

staff decided to defer the EPU review until the NRC was able to accurately assess the viability of 

the AST application. However, the staff did begin working on, separately from the EPU, two 

portions of the EPU submittal that contained safety-significant modifications (auxiliary feedwater 

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

receipt of the initial application.
-6- 

modifications and revisions to non-conservative setpoints). The NRC’s letters dated June 29, 

August 25, and October 19, 2009, document the staff’s acceptance review progress and 

concerns. Subsequently, the licensee addressed the staff's acceptance review concerns and by 

letter dated November 4, 2009, the NRC accepted the Point Beach Units 1 and 2 EPU 

applications.