491st Meeting - April 12, 2002
Official Transcript of Proceedings
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
491st Meeting - OPEN SESSION
Docket Number: (not applicable)
Location: Rockville, Maryland
Date: Friday, April 12, 2002
Work Order No.: NRC-325 Pages 408-420
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+ + + + +
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
+ + + + +
April 12, 2002
+ + + + +
+ + + + +
The ACRS met at the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Two White Flint North, Room T2B3, 11545
Rockville Pike, at 8:30 a.m., Mario V. Bonaca, Vice
MARIO V. BONACA, Vice Chairman
THOMAS S. KRESS, Member-at-Large
F. PETER FORD, Member
GRAHAM M. LEITCH, Member
DANA A. POWERS, Member
VICTOR H. RANSOM, Member
STEPHEN L. ROSEN, Member
COMMITTEE MEMBERS (cont.):
WILLIAM J. SHACK, Member
JOHN D. SIEBER, Member
ACRS STAFF PRESENT:
SHER BAHADUR, Associate Director ACRS/ACNW
PAUL A. BOEHNERT, ACRS Staff
RALPH CARUSO, ACRS Staff
JOE DONOGHUE, ACRS Staff
SAM DURAISWAMY, Technical Assistant ACRS/ACNW
ED KENDRICK, ACRS Staff
HOWARD J. LARSON, Special Assistant ACRS/ACNW
TAD MARSH, ACRS Staff
FRAN BOLGER, GE
ISRAEL NIR, GE
DAN PAPPONE, GE
Meeting Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
General Electric Nuclear Energy topical report
Constant Pressure Power Uprate
Israel Nir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
Closed Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420
VICE CHAIR BONACA: On the record. The
meeting will now come to order.
This is the second day of the 491st
meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards. During today's meeting the Committee will
consider the following: General Electric Nuclear
Energy topical report Constant Pressure Power Uprate,
future ACRS activities, report of the Planning and
Procedure Sub-Committee, reconciliation of ACRS
comments and recommendations, and proposed ACRS
reports. A portion of the meeting may be closed to
discuss General Electric proprietary information.
This meeting is being conducted in
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. Mr. Sam Duraiswamy is the designated
Federal Official for the initial portion of the
We have received no written comments or
requests for time to make oral statements from members
of the public regarding today's sessions. A
transcript of a portion of the meeting is being kept.
It is requested that the speakers use one of the
microphones, identify themselves and speak with
sufficient clarity and volume so that they can be
We have two new additions to our staff.
Mr. Rob Elliott, could you please stand up? You will
be with us for two years. Right?
MR. ELLIOTT: It's going to be on the
VICE CHAIR BONACA: Yes. He has been with
the NRC for almost 11 and a half years. His most
recent position was as a Technical Reviewer in NRR's
Plant Systems Branch. He has also had the lead roles
in both the Hatch and Duke Power Licensing UL
Application Reviews. He's well qualified to be with
The other person is Tim Kobetz who is also
going to be with us for two years. His most recent
job with the Agency was as Project Manager with the
Spent Pure Project Office in NMSS. Before that he was
Senior Resident Inspector for two years at the Point
Beach Nuclear Plant. So he's also very well qualified
to be with us. Welcome to both of you.
We are ready to start. The first topic is
the General Electric Nuclear Energy topical report,
Constant Pressure Power Uprate. The cognizant member
is Mr. Sieber.
MEMBER SIEBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think before we begin we have two members with
potentially conflicts of interest, Dr. Ford and Dr.
Ransom who would like to make a statement for the
record to recuse yourself.
MR. BOLGER: I'm a GE retiree. Therefore
I declare a conflict of interest.
MEMBER RANSOM: I'm Victor Ransom. I own
700 shares of GE stock. Until I get rid of those I
guess I should go. Right now I don't want to get rid
MEMBER SIEBER: Okay. Thank you. I also
note from the slides that there is proprietary
information. I would request General Electric to let
me know so that we can close the session and mark the
transcript accordingly. Those persons in the room who
should not have access to proprietary information will
be requested to step outside for that period of time.
As we begin the session, I would note that
the Thermal Hydrolic Phenomenon Sub-Committee met
twice to discuss specifically General Electric's
constant pressure power operate topical report first
on January 16 through 18 and second on March 6. We
have all had some experience at least with the
concepts because Clinton came very close in its Uprate
to strictly following what was in the topical report
and Dresden Quad Cities also used elements of it.
From our Sub-Committee meetings, we had a
couple of issues that we have asked be further
discussed today so that we can clarify and fill in
some detail. The first of those would be directed to
General Electric which talks about core spray
effectiveness. So that we would get a better and
stronger feel of whether it's adequate or not.
The second issue that has come up in
various power uprates and also in the discussion here
is more directed to the staff. It has to do with
oversight of the reload analysis methodology. The
licensee usually through its integral supplier or its
fuel vendor is required to perform a Reload Safety
Analysis for every reload and every cycle.
So that they first of all can establish
and demonstrate that the core as designed and operated
will meet all the regulatory constraints. The outcome
of that is a Reload Safety Analysis and a Core
Operating Wellness Report. The Core Operating
Wellness Report is used in the control room by the
operators and reactor engineers in order to properly
operate the core.
On the other hand, neither of these
documents are submitted to the staff prior to the
start-up after a refueling outage. The practice of
the staff right now is not to audit these reports
The Constant Pressure Power Uprate places
a greater demand on core performance than previously
existed. In that we're trying to achieve flux
flattening to get a higher average power output from
a core without increasing the peak rod power. Also in
a lot of cases it involves a change in the style or
model of the fuel. So that you may end up with a
mixed core of two different types of fuel or a new
type of fuel for a given cycle.
We are concerned that these Core Operating
Wellness Reports and the Reload Safety Analysis are
not being reviewed. We feel that it would be more
appropriate given the higher demands of the core and
changes that are occurring during an uprate that the
staff pay closer attention to these reports for
With that I think that's enough of an
introduction, I'll end up using everybody's time.
Then we'll have to have a break. I really don't want
to do that. So what I'd like to do now is introduce
MR. BOEHNERT: He's not in there.
MEMBER SIEBER: Okay.
MR. BOEHNERT: GE is going first. He's
MEMBER SIEBER: Okay.
MR. NIR: Good morning. My name is Israel
Nir. I'm representing General Electric. I'll cover
the GE BWR Constant Pressure Power Uprate Program.
We're also going to cover the core spray topic and
also some general information on the reload scope just
to give the Committee maybe a sense of what is
involved in a standard BWR reload campaign.
I have a short open session. It provides
some introductory remarks. Then we'll go into the
closed session which I'll provide more detail on the
Constant Pressure Power Uprate Program.
Most of the slides that I will present was
presented to the Thermal Hydrolic Phenomenon Sub-
Committee. So bear with me. That's actually per
their request. Hopefully the second time around will
We now have extensive analysis experience
with Extended Power Uprate and growing experience with
implementation. The 12 BWRs are now in different
phases of implementing EPU. They all were approved to
implement the EPU. NRC is now in the process of
reviewing two additional BWRs.
We expect to see additional requests for
Extended Power Uprate in the coming years. In
anticipation for that load, we propose this Constant
Pressure Power Uprate approach, the CPPU. It is based
on our growing experience. It is focused on the
potential impacts of the power increase, maintain
safety margin, facilitate the review and focus the
documentation of the power increase effects.
We met first with the Thermal Hydrolic
Phenomenon Sub-Committee back in June 2001 to describe
the approach. We initiated the interface with the NRC
back in March 2001. We submitted the Constant
Pressure Power Uprate LTR which I will refer to as
We received significant feedback on the
approach in the level of detail. We then resubmitted
the CLTR in July 2001. We received a significant
number of RAIs that provided I believe some
significant clarifications on the CLTR. We submitted
a RAI Addenda (PH) to the CLTR in December 2001.
We met with the Sub-Committee again in
January to describe the approach. Clinton made a
presentation on their program which included some
elements of CPPU to the Sub-Committee and as a matter
of fact in March to the full Committee. We met again
in March with the Sub-Committee to review the CLTR/CR.
I have just a few words on GE Power Uprate
Program. It started with a 5 percent Power Uprate
Program which is a Stretch Power Uprate. We then
moved back in '98 to Extended Power Uprate, up to 20
percent above original license thermal power.
We also have what we call Thermal Power
Optimization Uprate which is based on the improved
feedwater flow measurement uncertainty. It involves
Power Uprate up to about one and a half percent, not
exceeding two percent.
Finally the last element is the Constant
Pressure Power Uprate which is associated with no
pressure increase but as you will see it is actually
more than that. It's a more streamlined and
This is a summary of our Power Uprate
experience. You can see on the left hand side that
initially the Power Uprates were associated with a
dome pressure increase. As we move to the right hand
side, some of the latest five percent Power Uprates
were associated with no pressure increase. All of the
subsequent EPUs are associated with no pressure, dome
I noted at the bottom that Brunswick Unit
1 and 2, the effort is in progress. Actually it's
under NRC review. Browns Ferry Units 2 and 3 are also
in progress. It will submit in the middle of the
year. I believe the target right now is July.
Finally this is just a summary of what the
program has contributed to the electrical grade. This
is a summary of the Megawatt Electric added as a
result of GE BWR Power Uprates. You can see that the
light gray is the five percent power, the Stretch.
This is a past contribution of 1,000 or so Megawatt
You can see that the EPU contribution.
This is the licensed EPU still in different phases of
implementation but it will reach the level equivalent
of what we've achieved with the Stretch. In progress
we have another 540. What is still on top and
potentially used in the years to come is about 46
percent or an additional 2,000 Megawatt Electric.
Overall that is as indicated here the
equivalent of five relatively large BWR plants. The
program definitely contributes significant Megawatt
Electric to electrical grid. That concludes my
comments for the open session. I'm ready now to go to
the closed session.
MEMBER SIEBER: Can we go to the closed
(Discussion off the microphones.)
MR. BOEHNERT: Let's go to closed session.
No one has to leave apparently.
(Whereupon, at 8:47 a.m., the proceedings
went into Closed Session.)
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, July 18, 2016