Advanced Nuclear Technology (ANT) Action Plan …mydocs.epri.com/docs/ANT/MASTER ANT APC Jan 2010 Booklet.pdf · 2010-02-03 · NDE Risk-Informed PSI & ISI Meth. - Test Cases for

Advanced Nuclear Technology (ANT)

Action Plan Committee Meeting – Winter 2010

January 26/27, 2010Orlando, FL

1/21/2010

Agenda Advanced Nuclear Technology (ANT) Action Plan Committee (APC) Meeting

January 26 & 27, 2010 Hilton Located in the Walt Disney World Resort

Lake Buena Vista, FI

DAY 1 - January 26, 2010 1300-1315 Introductions / Meeting Objectives / ANT Program Status Bryan Dolan - Duke Tom Mulford – EPRI 1315-1500 Review of Ongoing ANT Projects Utility / EPRI SMEs

− PSI/ISI Methodology for New Plants − Welding and Fabrication Critical Factors Project − CEUS SSC Project − Materials Management Matrix − Reduction of Repairs for Construction − Equipment Reliability for New Plants

1500-1530 Break 1530-1730 Review of Ongoing ANT Projects: Utility / EPRI SMEs

− Achieving Virtual Plant Configuration Management − Modular Equipment Testing − EMI Protection − Fuel Reliability Guideline Assessment − NGA-East − Stationary Battery Qualification

1730 Adjourn 1830 EPRI Technology Transfer Awards Dinner (ANT Program Members Invited)

1/21/2010

Agenda Advanced Nuclear Technology (ANT) Action Plan Committee (APC) Meeting

January 26 & 27, 2010 Hilton Located in the Walt Disney World Resort

Lake Buena Vista, FI

DAY 2 – January 27, 2010 0800-0830 EPRI Customer Satisfaction Survey Results Ken Barry EPRI 0830-0930 Opportunity for New Nuclear Generation in Pending U.S. Vic Niemeyer

CO2 Cap-and-Trade Program Guest Speaker 0930-1000 Break 1000-1100 Update of 2010 Approved Projects EPRI Staff

1100-1130 ANT Program Financial Update Tom Mulford EPRI 1130-1145 Update of EPRI Activities Underway for SMRs; Tom Mulford

Update of EPRI Activities Planned for Water Availability/Use EPRI 1145-1200 Meeting Action Items / Open Discussion / 2010 Events Schedule Bryan Dolan - Duke Tom Mulford – EPRI 1200 Adjourn 1200-1300 Lunch 1300-1400 ANT APC Member Feedback Session ANT Members -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1400-1700 Strategic Session to Digital I&C for New Plants (see separate agenda)

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY / INSTRUMENATION & CONTROLS

NEW PLANT I&C SPECIAL SESSION

1400 to 1700 January 27th, 2010 Walt Disney World, Florida

AGENDA

The goal of this session is to have a discussion between utility members, NSSS suppliers, industry, regulatory and EPRI personnel on potential common issues facing successful deployment of digital I&C deployment in the next generation of nuclear power plants. As the first joint session between EPRI’s ANT and I&C programs, the intent is to establish an initial list of generic technical issues/topics for further discussion and potential future ANT projects. The primary objectives are to better understand what technical issues exist from various perspectives and discuss how they are or may be addressed. If there is an opportunity for a collaborative approach for advancement or resolution on some topics, these topics will be brought to the EPRI ANT Technical Advisory Group meeting, planned for April 2010. Note: Proprietary or confidential issues may limit discussion of some subjects. If this occurs, please be respectful of these concerns.

January 27, 2010

1400 Welcome by EPRI Tom Mulford, EPRI / Dave Lewis, PSEG

1405 Session objectives, rules of engagement, format Rob Austin, EPRI; Jeffrey Hamel, EPRI

1415 NRC perspective on technical challenges for new plant Digital I&C and Q&A

Terry Jackson, NRC

1515 Break 1530 Round Table 1 - Discussion on specific up front design issues (e.g.

risk analysis for software, verification & validation, diversity & defense and depth, common mode failures, AND cyber-security)

Led by Ray Torok / Chris Weigand, Exelon

1600 Round Table 2 – Discussion on specific operational issues (e.g. instrument calibration extension, surveillance requirements, 3-D model management, equipment monitoring, wireless)

Led by Joe Naser, EPRI / Utility Advisor TBD

1630 Final actions, wrap up and future engagement discussion

Rob Austin, EPRI; Jeffrey Hamel, EPRI

1700 Adjourn

Winter 2010 ANT APC Meeting 1


Introductions / Meeting Objectives / ANT Program Status

Bryan Dolan, ANT APC ChairpersonTom Mulford, EPRI Program Manager

Orlando, FL January 26, 2010

2© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Winter 2010 ANT APC Meeting Objectives

• Review status of ongoing ANT projects• Approve program budget and initial projects for 2010• Special session on new plant Digital I&C



APC Agenda – January 26-27, 2010

Tuesday – January 26th

1300-1330 Introductions / Meeting Objectives / ANT Program Status

1330-1730 Review of Ongoing R&D Projects

1730 Adjourn

1800 EPRI Technology Transfer Awards Dinner

Wednesday – January 27th

0800-0830 EPRI Customer Satisfaction Survey Results

0830-0930 Guest Speaker – Vic Niemeyer from EPRI’s Global Climate Program

1000-1100 Review of 2010 Projects Financial Review

1100-1130 Financial Review

1130-1145 Discussion on EPRI Activities on SMRs and Water Availability/Use

1200 Adjourn / Lunch

1300-1400 ANT APC Feedback Session

1400-1700 Special Session on New Plant Digital I&C


ANT APC Organization Chart

• Tom Mulford• Jeffrey Hamel• Ken Barry• Matrixed SMEs *

ChairmanBryan Dolan (Duke)

Executive Committee (EC) EPRI Staff

ProjectExecutive Sponsors

Vice-Chairmanvacant

Project Technical Advisory Groups (TAG)

Technical AdvisoryCommittee (TAC)

• Bryan Dolan (Duke)• Marilyn Kray (Exelon)• Marty Gettler (FPL)• Gene Grecheck (Dominion)• David Lewis (PSE&G)

Advanced Nuclear Technology (ANT)Action Plan Committee (APC)

* Subject Matter Experts



2010 ANT Membership Breakdown

Current 2010 Membership…$4.125M

2010 Potential…~$3.1M 2010 “Drops”


2010 ANT Program Funding

$4,125

$903$765

$150

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

2010 Committed

Utilities & Vendors

EPRI Base

$5,943 To-Date

DOE / NRC

EPRI TI

*

**

* Includes additional 150K for final report production and website repository of results

** SMR only. New Plant Water Issues TBD



Advanced Nuclear Technology Program2009 Deliverables

101922011/04/2009Technical ReportCEUS Seismic Source Charact. Project - Workshop # 3 Proceedings

101920911/08/2009Technical ReportWelding and Fabrication Critical Factors

10196118/25/2009Technical UpdateABWR Material Degradation Matrix

101922112/22/2009Technical ReportNew Nuclear Power Plant Information Handover Guide

101921812/22/2009Technical UpdateNDE Risk-Informed PSI & ISI Meth. - Test Cases for Various Designs

101921712/22/2009Technical UpdateTechnical Justification for ASME Section III Code Change: Reduction of Weld Fabrication Repairs - Fitness for Purpose

101921012/10/2009Technical ReportMaterials Management Matrix – GEH ABWR

101921112/09/2009Technical ReportFuel Reliability Guideline Assessment for New Plants

101921411/18/2009Technical UpdateER Industry Recommendations - Design (Long Term Operability)

101921511/16/2009Technical UpdateER Industry Recommendations – Storage, Construction and Testing

101921611/16/2009Technical UpdateVRLA Battery Research Summary Report

101921310/27/2009Technical UpdateModular Equipment Benchmarking Findings

10185318/28/2009SoftwareDevelopment of an XML Schema Viewer

10192195/27/2009Technical ReportCEUS Seismic Source Charact. Project - Workshop # 2 Proceedings

Product IDCompletionProduct TypeProduct Name


Spring Meeting(Location TBD; May, 2010)

• Review status of new work initiated in CY

• Discuss projects and funding for next CY

2010 ANT Operational Calendar

Winter Meeting (@NPC)

(Orlando: Jan 26-27, 2010)

Summer Meeting (@NPC)

(Denver: August 24-25, 2010)

• Finalize budget for current CY

• Review status of ongoing projects

• Review new projects for next CY

• Set priority list for next CY

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting -

New Task Identification(Charlotte; April 2010)

• Brainstorm needs of industry

• Discuss best us of ANT resources for next CY

Standardized Pre-Meeting Communications:Ongoing & proposed project templates sent to APC: ~20 days prior to APC meeting

Pre-meeting webcast held: ~10 days prior to APC meeting

Fall APC Webcast(Mid-October 2010)

• Review status of ongoing work

• Confirm budget needs for projects continuing into next CY



Review of Ongoing ANT Projects

EPRI Technical Staff


Winter 2010 ANT APC Meeting

2008-01NDE Risk-Informed PSI & ISI Methodology

Patrick O’ReganSenior Project Manager




2008-01 NDE Risk-Informed PSI & ISI Methodology

Project Goals• Reduce construction, inspection and acceptance (e.g.

NCRs) cost.• Reduce operating costs• Positive impact on schedule• Basis:

– reduction in construction and turnover schedule– focus resources on important SSCs– fewer meaningless NCRs requiring resolution,– less stop work orders, etc.



Progress• Foundation laid in 2008• Obtained necessary inputs from vendors and/or publicly

available sources (e.g. DCDs)• Completed RI-ISI test cases for RCS or equivalent• ABWR, AP1000, EPR, ESBWR & APWR (consistency review)• Results consistent with methodology and operating fleet

– High, Medium and Low risk– Less High and more Medium and Low– Results provided at the segment level (i.e. not weld)– Spatial separation will be strong plus for other systems




Progress• Continued interaction with NRC

– risk metrics (e.g. large release frequency, LRF)– risk acceptance criteria (more stringent than operating

fleet?)– PSI

• Low risk - not required• High and Medium risk

– 100%, or – A reasonable sample



Scheduled Deliverables• Issued 1019218 (Test Case Results) published 12-22-

2009• Revised Methodology Report with Test Case Results and

Regulatory Approval Protocol (4Q10)Budget 2008 2009 2010

Approved ANT Budget $225K $225K

Prior Year Carry Forward $98K $41K

Requested Budget $150K

Prior Year(s) Spent $127K

Current Year Spent to Date

(Through 12/31/09) $281K




Next Steps• Risk Metric• Risk Acceptance Criteria• PSI• PRA Technical Adequacy• Implementation Strategy



Risk Metric• Operating Fleet

– Risk metrics defined in Reg. Guide 1.174– core damage frequency (CDF) & large, early release

frequency (LERF)

• New Build– CDF and LERF, plus?

• Large release frequency• Not yet defined by NRC• Vendors have multiple definitions• Acceptance criteria for applications?




Risk Acceptance Criteria• Operating Fleet

– Risk metrics defined in Reg. Guide 1.174– core damage frequency (CDF) & large, early release

frequency (LERF)– 1E-06 (CDF) / 1E-07 (LERF)

• New Build– CDF, LERF

• And LRF?• Something less than 1E-06 (CDF) / 1E-07 (LERF)



PSI• Per previous slides

PRA Technical Adequacy• EPRI 1018427 under NRC review• Will provide a timeline for New Build

– What is needed– When it came be accomplished

Implementation Strategy– 50.55a a success path– Alternative strategies being pursued


2008-03 New Plant Welding and Fabrication Guidelines

Jeffrey HamelANT Senior Project Manager

Steve McCrackenWRTC Senior Project Manager



2008-03 Welding and Fabrication Guidelines

Project Goals• Develop a Welding and Fabrication Critical Factors report

– Document existing nuclear plant operating experience

– Provide a detailed discussion of degradation mechanisms

– Discuss welding, fabrication and mitigation critical factors

– Develop relative risk of welding and fabrication effects on degradation mechanisms in BWR and PWR environments

• Hold a workshop to review, share, and discuss most effective way for utilities building new power plants to utilize the Welding and Fabrication Critical Factors report (TR 1019209)

• Develop relative risk assessment of Class I welds for each new plant design based on welding and fabrication methods (MMM Addenda forAP1000, EPR ABWR, etc.)




Progress• Domestic expert panel met twice and the Asian expert

panel met once during 2009 to acquire welding and fabrication expert experience

• EPRI and contractors evaluated expert panel welding and fabrication input (score cards)

• Published Technical Report 10192209, “Welding and Fabrication Critical Factors for New Nuclear Power Plants” in December 2009– Report provides relative risk of critical welds based on

welding and fabrication factors– Details options and guidelines to reduce relative risk



Scheduled Deliverables• Application Workshop – Summer 2010

Budget 2008 2009 2010



(Balance to be returned)



Current Year Spent to Date (Through 12/31/09)

$558K




Next Steps

Welding & Fabrication Guidelines Workshop– Develop training & orientation materials for ANT members– Schedule and direct workshops

• Present most effective way to use TR 10119209• Discuss and determine best way to encourage vendors

to use welding and fabrication best practices

Discussions / meetings with NPP vendors (ON HOLD)– Gather welding and fabrication methods specified or

employed by vendors and sub-contractors– Produce MMM Addendum for BWR and PWR designs– Discuss at upcoming TAC meeting

2008-04 CEUS Seismic Source Characterization Project

Jeffrey HamelSenior Project ManagerLawrence SalomoneDOE Project Manager




2008-04 CEUS Seismic Source Characterization

Project Goals• Replace the EPRI (1989) and LLNL (1993) seismic source

characterization models for the CEUS.• Provide an up-to-date, consistent, stable basis for a site-

specific PSHA for locations in the CEUS.• Capture the knowledge and uncertainties of the informed

scientific community using a SSHAC Level 3 process.• Develop a New CEUS Seismic Source Characterization

Model that is vetted by the NRC.


CEUS SSC Study Area and Test Sites



Progress• Project Plan developed as EPRI Technical Update – June, 2008 (Completed)• Workshop #1: Significant Issues and Databases – July 21-23, 2008 (Completed)• Workshop #2: Alternative Interpretations – February 18-20, 2009 (Completed)• Complete Database and Seismicity Catalog Development – June 30, 2009

(Completed)• Workshop #3: Feedback on CEUS SSC Sensitivity Model – August 25-26, 2009

(Completed)• Construct Final CEUS SSC Model and Prepare Draft Technical Report – April

2010 to July 31, 2010• Publish Final Technical Report – December 31, 2010• Present New CEUS SSC Model to Industry, NRC, DOE and DNFSB – First

Quarter 2011



Technical Developments• Tectonic Framework - Criteria for Identifying Seismic Sources Being Developed

• Review of Seismic Source Characterization Models Developed for Key Regions

– New Madrid, Wabash Valley, Oklahoma Aulocogen, Alabama-Louisiana-Mississippi- Paleoseismic Zone (ALM), Midwest/Mid-Continent, Charleston

– Southeast/East Tennessee, Northeastern U.S., Gulf Coast, Rio Grande Rift

• Review of Alternative Mmax Approaches

• Review of Approach to Characterize “Background” Zones

• Develop New Seismicity Catalog Based on Moment Magnitude




SSC Model Assessment• Use CEUS SSC Model to Perform Sensitivity Studies on Seismic Hazard at Seven

(7) Generic Test Sites With Different Soil Profiles and Hazard Environments

• Compare Seismic Hazard at Rock Obtained Using CEUS SSC Model, USGS SSC Model and SSC Model Used for COLAs at Seven (7) Generic Test Sites on or before July 2010

• Make Adjustments As Required



Scheduled Deliverables• CEUS SSC Model – 12/31/10• Industry Briefing – 1Q 2011

Budget


2008 2009 2010

Approved ANT Budget (EPRI and DOE Funding) $1,550K $2,433K



Requested Additional Budget $310K

Prior Year(s) Spent $1,112K


$2,479K

+ $262K (NRC funded)



Next Steps• Complete Sensitivity Analyses Using Sensitivity Model: January 29, 2010

• Obtain Funding for and Begin Development of Public Website: February 1, 2010

• Complete Preliminary CEUS SSC Model: February 26, 2010

• Complete Final CEUS SSC Model: April 30, 2010

• Complete Sensitivity Analyses Using Final CEUS SSC Model: July 1, 2010

• Obtain Draft Report Comments from PPRP and Sponsor Reviewers: September 1, 2010


2008-05 Material Management Matrix

Jeffrey HamelSenior Project Manager




Project Goals• Provide an assessment of materials being used in the new

plants to proactively inform, and provide ability to react to/mitigate potential materials performance issues

• Facilitate and document a systematic risk evaluation of the major component groupings. Provide assessment around:– likely degradation mechanisms – possible consequences if degradation did occur – Detectability through in-service inspection (NDE)

• Document potential actions that could significantly improve plant materials performance.




Progress• GE-H ABWR MMM Published in December 2009• Toshiba ABWR MMM scheduled for March 2010• EPR MMM underway – Scheduled for October 2010• APWR planning underway – project to be initiated mid-2010• APR1400 MMM underway – planned completion 1Q 2011



Scheduled Deliverables• Toshiba ABWR MMM scheduled for March 2010• Update of Degradation Matrix for Advanced PWR Designs scheduled

for June 2010 (Update to EPRI Report 1018153)• EPR MMM scheduled for October 2010• APR1400 and APWR scheduled for 2011Budget


2008 2009 2010 2011




Requested Additional Budget $90K $45K



(Through 12/31/09) $298K


Next Steps• Initiate and finalize agreement with MNES/MHI for moving

forward w/ APWR MMM.• APR1400 RPE meeting planned for April at Doosan in

South Korea• Present MMM results at ICONE and ICAPP conferences

in May/June, respectively• Continue application meetings w/ utility and vendor

personnel to explain full benefits and uses of MMM efforts • Explore possible new projects results from collective gaps

at upcoming TAG…look at Environmental Fatigue



2008-06 NDE and Reduction of Repairs in Nuclear Construction

Steve SwilleyProgram Manager




Project Goals• Eliminate unnecessary repairs during construction

– Change ASME Code Section III• Provide Code Case for near term use

0° TDC

9.4°

FLAW #1

FLAW #2

FLAW #3

FLAW #4

FLAW #5

32.8°

64.7°

76.5°

15.0°

12.8°

51.5°

7.3°

4.6°

3.4°

END VIEW LOOKING TOWARD VESSEL

Ø23.04

Ø19.94

STAMP SAMPLE ID #: ANT-DM09-1ON INSIDE SURFACE, CARBON END




Progress• ASME Code Engagement

– Code action approved by ASME Section III SG New Reactors– Action now at ASME Section III Sub Group MF&E

• Mockups– 15 DM nozzle to pipe welds– Open mockups

• UT work– Demonstration of capability

• Technical Update (1019217) Published– UT results on 3 mockups– Available to the public for ASME Code use



Scheduled Deliverables• Draft Code Case (3Q10)• UT demonstration on remaining mockups (2Q10)• Technical Update Report on remaining mockups (3Q10)

Budget 2008 2009 2010 2011



Requested Budget $280K $3,183K



(Through 12/31/09) $542K




Next Steps• Present draft Code Case to ASME Section III SG MF&E

– Address comments• Complete UT demonstration work• Publish results in Technical Update• Determine if destructive analysis of a couple of mockups

will be necessary for Code basis• Establish rigor of future qualification program and scope• Complete Code progression and approvals

2008-09 Equipment Reliability (ER) for New Plants

Leonard LoflinTechnical Executive





Project Goals• Support high initial and continued capacity factors for new

plants

• Reduce the cost to establish the ER program for the plant

Accomplished by:

• Compiling industry ER lessons learned as usable recommendations during design, procurement, construction and testing of new plants



Progress• Project original scope completed – 3 reports issued

EPRI Advanced Nuclear Technology: Equipment Reliability for New Nuclear Plant Projects: Industry Recommendations-- Design ,1019214

EPRI Advanced Nuclear Technology: Equipment Reliability for New Nuclear Plant Projects: Industry Recommendations-- Procurement ,1018393

EPRI Advanced Nuclear Technology: Equipment Reliability for New Nuclear Plant Projects: Industry Recommendations—Storage, Construction and Testing 1019215




Scheduled Deliverables• Scope completed – additional scope completion

dependent on scheduling of pilot

Budget 2008 2009 2010

Approved ANT Budget $190K $200K $64K

APC Approved Revised Budget $222K

Prior Year Carry Forward $65K




(Through 11/30/09) $157K



Next Steps• During the 2009 ER for New Plants Workshop,

development of self assessment modules was suggested– To allow an Owner to gauge the ER health of their new

plant project

• Additional scope would be– A self assessment module for each of the 3 reports– Partnering with an ANT member to self assess the ER

condition of their project as a pilot for the modules– Revision of each of the reports to include the modules

and any needed updates




Next Steps• The original scope was completed 14% ($65k) under

budget

• It is proposed that $42k be added to this carry forward to complete and pilot the self assessment modules and revise the 3 reports.

2009-01 Achieving New Nuclear Virtual Plant Configuration Management

Ken BarrySenior Project Manager





Project Goal• We need a common data language and

interoperability standard that will be used by the nuclear plant sub-tier suppliers through the suppliers, through the EPC and reactor vendors, and finally through to the owner and operator



ProgressStandard Configuration Management Reference Model• The Standard Configuration Management Reference Model draft will

be available for comment by the end of January 2010. New Nuclear Plant XML Equipment Schemas• The Schema viewer is complete. The project is working with the

Hydraulic Institute and a pump vendor to conduct a pump procurement pilot to determine nuclear specific fields.

• We are running into more issues with the standardization of XML schemas that anyone had anticipated. The original concern that a few “nuclear specific” fields may be missing has turned into a major effort involving schema terminology, complexity, architecture refinement, document maturity validity, etc.

Information Handover Guide• The Handover Guide was published in December 2009 (1019221).



• Significant man-power required to manage design bases of the plant• Design basis reconstitution and associated labor expense often

required for replacement components• Regulatory relationship compromised by inability to verify

requirements are being met• Margin to commitment or failure often cannot be determined• Supplier options complicated by non-standard purchasing systems

and lack of data-interoperability• Public trust eroded by recurrent failures to comply with requirements

and commitments.

Consequences of Current CM Practices



Existing CM Practices SCMRM

Ambiguous terminology Well defined distinctions

Vague boundaries create confusion on managed information

Precise boundaries define managed configuration

No means for standardized data interchange Inter-communicability with vendors and regulators

No mechanism for scope control Scope controlled by rulesets

No capture of invested intellectual capitol Incorporates knowledge management practices to capture design decisions

Inadequate requirements management makes margin management subjective

Margin management well defined, objective, and quantitative

No logical relationship between physical plant and requirements

Direct, logical, reproducible, connection between requirements

and components





Scheduled Deliverables• White Paper on XML Schema issues• Electronic Templates for implementation of the SCMRM

and Information Handover plan developmentBudget

2008 2009 2010


Prior Year Carry Forward $46K 97K




$504K



Next Steps• Complete the Standard Configuration Management

Reference Model implementation guidelines (draft by 1Q10)

• Complete XML Schema pilot (1Q10)• Complete the XML Schema issues white paper (1Q10) • Complete SCMRM XML Toolkit data standards and

electronic templates for taxonomy, configuration management work-flow and standard practices. (4Q10)

• Develop electronic templates for implementation of the Information Handover Requirements, Plan and Implementation Plan (4Q10)


2009-02 Modular Equipment Testing, Shipping and Storage - Benchmarking and GuidelinesKen BarrySenior Project Manager



2009-02 Modular Equipment Testing, Shipping and Storage - Benchmarking and Guidelines

Project Goals• Select and benchmark international nuclear and two other industries

that will provide insight and critical characteristics that they use to control equipment modularization.

• Define the applicability to modularization in the nuclear industry. This will define the extent to which equipment modules can be tested.Guidelines for testing will be provided. Consideration will be made of system testing that will be required once installation is complete.

• Define cautions and likely limitations that should be placed on shipping, storage, and installation of modules. This task will define the requirements for the equipment once it is installed in the final system and will define the potential restrictions that will be placed on vibration and environment during shipping and storage.




Progress• The Benchmarking Findings deliverable was published on

10/27/09 (1019213).• The phase 2 report on preserving testing and qualification

in currently in draft and is being reviewed by the TAG and the NEI CIPTF. Estimated publication date is 1Q10.

• Because of the progress that the NEI CIPTF has made with the US NRC on the definition of “as-built” to include the words “technically justified” for any tests performed prior to the final installed location – the 3rd phase of this project (to develop input for NEI 08-01) will not require additional effort.



Scheduled Deliverables• Modularization of Equipment for New Nuclear

Applications - Testing and Preservation (1Q10)

Budget 2009 2010

Approved ANT Budget $250K


Prior Year(s) Spent


$215K




Next Steps• Complete Testing and Preservation Guide

2009-04 Guidance on EMI Protection

Philip KeeblerSenior Project Manager, EMC





Project Goals• Developing guidance which limits the need for exclusion zones for

components including wireless equipment• Developing guidance for a plant wide plan for frequency spectrum

management• Recommending a strategy to programmatically address EMI

during various life cycle phases of equipment such as design, specification development, purchasing, planning, and maintenance

• Incorporating counter-productive operating experience into the technical report to prevent re-occurrences

• Expanding the scope to address higher frequencies• Expanding scope of the technical report from applying only to

safety-related systems to include critical non-safety related equipment that affects plant reliability and operability as well as components that affect personnel safety



Progress• Developed plan and coordination with test centers (who presently

qualify new equipment for nuclear plants) and FCC (who presentlyqualify new radio equipment (i.e., walkie talkies, cell phones, pagers, wireless radio devices, etc.) some of which is used in nuclear plants) to capture emissions and immunity data for use in constructing adatabase of unintentional radiators, to simulate expected EMC in advanced nuclear plants (ANP).

• Developed plan to model what occurs with various EMI problems in nuclear plants to begin assembling simulation data that can be used to describe what really goes on in these plants when an EMI problem occurs.

• Made presentation at ANSI C63 Committee and received approval of a project (led by EPRI) to explore the need for an EMC standard and develop one or more standards for ensuring EMC in advanced plants

• Reviewing EMI events that have occurred in existing plants (this data will be needed to help illustrate the need for new plant EMC standards)




Develop Base Linefrom Historical Dataof Emissions Datafor Nuclear Plants

Evaluate PresentEMC Performanceof I&C Equipment

Analyze FactorsCausing Change inthe Electromagnetic

Environment for ANPs

Conduct InterferenceAnalysis on Future

I&C Systems forANPs

Use

Exi

stin

g (N

ew)

IEEE

Std

. 190

0.2

Use

EPR

I TR

-102

323

for I

nput

ANSI ASC C63Approved a Study ofNeed for New Stds

Started

Develop New RFImmunity

Requirements forANPs

Develop SpectrumManagement Plan

for ANPs

Initiate Developmentof New Standards

(ANSI/IEEE) toAddress these Needs

Design a ConformityAssessment System

to Provide forRF Immunity for

ANP I&C Equipment

ConstituteAlpha & Beta TestRecommendations

in ANP Designs

Upcoming

In Process

In Process

Done

Inco

rpor

ate

New

Wire

less

Sta

ndar

dsD

ata

from

199

3to

200

9

• Assures required level of RF immunity

• Encompasses process to assure I&C equipment complieswith the installed environment with requirements

• Conformity assessment systems are ISO standardized

I&C EquipCertification

System

• New test protocols• Testing & test reporting• In-situ testing• Test report review & system certification

New Layers ofEMC Protection

EliminateExclusion

Zones

• Initiates required frequency protection margin• Establishes frequency budget• Defines transmitter spacing• Reduces probability of transmitter causing EMI problems


EliminateExclusion

ZonesU

se E

xist

ing

(New

)IE

EE S

tand

ard

• Establishes normative standards for:a) Recommended design practicesb) I&C product qualification & In-situ evaluation c) Refine & keep standards current


EliminateExclusion

Zones

• Develop staged process for deployment

• Initial testing in laboratory environments

• Alpha, then Beta testing in a staged process

SupportDeploymentof ImprovedI&C Systems

Analysis2009

Execution2010

Implementation2011



Scheduled Deliverables

Budget

Deliverable Title Planned

Completion Date

Deliverable Type

Guidelines for Ensuring Electromagnetic Compatibility for Instrumentation &Control Equipment in New Nuclear Plants

12/31/2010 Technical Report

2009 2010




Prior Year(s) Spent


$163K




Goal: To Integrate EMC into the ANP DSPIM Process• Application of reviewed EMC tests used in the past combined with EMI

events (stemming from these tests) & new EMC immunity changes will lead to development of new EMC immunity tests designed to enhance EMC hardening of ANP equipment & installations

• Collection of spectrum practices & planned spectrum usage combined with application of new IEEE standard will lead to an ANP SM plan

• ANSI C63 recommendation report (under development) will lead to development of an EMC standard for ANPs

• Utilizing facets of new EMC tests for I&C equipment to be used in ANP plants & documentation of I&C DSPIM process → integration of EMC into process → CAS for ANP I&C equipment

• Select I&C equipment, bound for ANPs, to undergo new tests & encounter staged deployment process

Develop New RFImmunity

Requirements forANPs

Develop SpectrumManagement Plan

for ANPs

Initiate Developmentof New Standards

(ANSI/IEEE) toAddress these Needs

Design a ConformityAssessment System

to Provide forRF Immunity for

ANP I&C Equipment

ConstituteAlpha & Beta TestRecommendations

in ANP Designs

Execution2010

Next Steps in 2010

DSPIM: Design, Specification, Procurement, Installation, & Maintenance

2009-05 EPRI Fuel Reliability Guidelines Assessment for New Plants

Jeffrey HamelSenior Project Manager




2009-05 EPRI Fuel Reliability Guidelines Implications for New Plants

Project Goals• Review new plant fuel and system design features that could impact

fuel reliability• Review current fuel reliability guidance and summarize any new plant

fuel reliability concerns• Identify new plant fuel reliability areas that could benefit from further

study prior to new plant operationProgress• Project original scope completed – 1 report issued

• “Assessment of EPRI Fuel Reliability Guidelines for New Nuclear Plant Designs” Product ID: 1019211; Published: 12/9/2009


Scheduled Deliverables• Scope completed

Budget


2009



(Through 12/31/09) $118K



Next Steps• Communicate results of project to industry• Seek feedback on project


2008-07 Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Models Development for CEUS

Jeffrey HamelSenior Project ManagerLawrence SalomoneDOE Project Manager




Project Goals• Increase the accuracy of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard

Assessments in the CEUS• Capture and understand uncertainty by separating and

capturing aleatory and epistemic uncertainty• Increase acceptance and stability because ground motion

equations provide the greatest source of uncertainty• Create a common and transparent database

2009-07 Next-Generation Attenuation (NGA) Model Development for CEUS


Progress• EPRI participated in committee and planning meetings during the week of

September 28, 2009– Determined NGA-East Project will follow SSHAC Level 3 Process

• Proponent Model Development• Weighted logic tree and guidelines for use of the ground motion prediction

equations (GMPEs)• Identified potential members of Technical Integration (TI) Team (Abrahamson,

Boore, Bozorgnia, Campbell, Youngs)• Collection and processing of the ground motion data recorded in the CEUS,

Canada and other stable Continental Regions have begun– Dave Boore (USGS), lead for database development– John Adams (Canadian Geological Survey), lead for collection and QA of

Canadian data• Investigating reduction of standard deviations (uncertainties) has begun




Scheduled Deliverables


Deliverable Title Planned Completion Date Deliverable Type

Comprehensive Database of recorded and simulated ground motions for Stable Continental Regions 12/31/2011

Database/ PEER Technical Report

(Public)

Findings and Reports of Various Supporting Research Projects 12/31/2012

PEER Technical Report (Public)

Set of well-coordinated yet separate Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) 12/31/2014

PEER Technical Report (Public)


Budget


2009 2010 2011 2012/2013


Prior Year Carry Forward

Requested Budget $125K $185K $430K



(Through 12/31/09) $100K



Next Steps• Committee, planning and public meetings scheduled for week of

February 8, 2010:– Joint Management Committee Meeting (February 8, 2010)– Committee Meeting on Uncertainties (February 9, 2010)– Public Meeting (February 10, 2010)– Database Development Meeting (February 11, 2010)– Geotechnical (Site Effects) Committee Meeting (February 12,

2010)• Investigate site effects where instruments are located• Develop simulations after site effects have been investigated


2009-08 Safety Related Stationary Battery Qualification

Ken BarrySenior Project Manager





Project Goals• Qualify stationary vented lead-acid (VLA) batteries for

passive plant designs without impacting startup schedules• Support industry modification of IEEE 535• Develop a knowledge base on valve regulated lead-acid

(VRLA) battery performance for potential future IEEE 535 modification



Progress• VRLA Qualification Assessment guide published in

December 2009 (1019216)• Westinghouse Qualification Plan has been reviewed and

feedback provided• 80% Service Test “proof of concept” developed and

socialized with IEEE 535 group



EPRI* WEST** Revised West MP or 80% testFactory MP MP MP MPPre-op S P S MPYear 1 S P

2 P S MP MP3 S4 S S S5 S P MP6 S S MP7 P MP8 S S S9 S

10 S MP MP MP11 S12 P S S MP13 S14 S S MP15 S P MP16 S S S17 P P MP18 S MP MP19 S P MP20 S S MP MP21 S MP22 MP MP MP

Pre seismic Test MP MPSeismic testPost Seismic test P MP MP MP

* - After installation age 5 years then perform all tests in that period

** - Age then test for each test

2 year qualification period

3 Year Qualification Period

< 2 year qualification

period

Qualification Testing Plans


Load Amps

20A for 72 hours

0 6 12 18 24 32 38 42 48 54 60 66 72Discharge Time in Hours

320A311A

Load Amps

Service Test Portion

Performance Test Portion

20A for 72 hours

0 6 12 18 24 32 38 42 48 54 60 66 72 75.4 (Estimated)Discharge Time in Hours

Discharge = 60% of Nom. Amp-hrs

72-hr Svc Test then 8-hr rate to end vpc

Nominal 2490 Amp-hr Battery


Modified Performance Test (Type 3)

72 hour Service Test




Load Amps

45.5A for 72 hours


1476A for 1st Min.

Load Amps

34.5A for 4319 minutes



Discharge = 100.7% of Nom. Amp-hrs

72 hour 80% Service Test

72 hour Performance Test





80% Service Test Concept• Meets Service Test requirements of IEEE 450-2002.• Specific Duty Cycle for life of battery –

– 80% of one-minute rating to end voltage– 80% of rating for duty cycle duration to end voltage

• Amp-hours discharged ≤ Nominal 8-h Amp-hours• Initial electrolyte temperature and average end voltage

are used to calculate percent capacity for condition monitoring.

• Replace performance tests and modified performance tests for qualification, TS surveillances and condition monitoring.




Scheduled Deliverables• 80% Service Test White Paper (3Q10)

Budget 2008 2009 2010





$151K



Next Steps• Conduct the proof of concept test.• Present results to IEEE 535 and IEEE 450• Support Westinghouse as needed



Day 2 Material


Member Satisfaction Survey Results

Ken Barry





Final 2008 Survey Results

Program AreaSurveys/Funders

%Response

OverallPerformance

Ease ofDoing Business

TechnicalProgram Value

MaterialsDegradation/Aging 13/37 35% 93% 80% 93%

Fuel Reliability 18/37 48% 88% 80% 92%

High Level Waste/Spent Fuel 14/37 37% 100% 100% 100%

NDE 12/37 32% 100% 100% 100%

Equip Reliability/I&C 25/37 67% 91% 71% 85%

Risk and Safety Management 17/37 45% 95% 95% 100%

Advanced Nuclear Technology 13/37 35% 73% 60% 86%

LLW and Radiation 18/37 48% 100% 73% 95%

Council 20/37 54% 100% 84% 100%

Total 93% 80% 93%

>80% Excellent + Very Good

<80%


Final 2009 Survey Results

Program AreaSurveys/Funders

%Response

OverallPerformance

Ease ofDoing Business

TechnicalProgram Value

MaterialsDegradation/Aging 15/37 40% 100% 95% 100%

Fuel Reliability 14/37 37% 100% 95% 100%

High Level Waste/Spent Fuel 12/37 32% 100% 100% 91%

NDE 15/37 40% 100% 93% 100%

Equip Reliability 27/37 72% 95% 88% 97%

I&C 20/37 54% 95% 86% 95%

Risk and Safety Management 14/37 37% 100% 94% 100%

Advanced Nuclear Technology 14/37 37% 92% 100% 85%

LLW and Radiation 15/37 40% 100% 89% 100%

Council 21/37 56% 100% 88% 100%

Total 98% 91% 97%

>80% Excellent + Very Good

<80%



Improving Member Satisfaction

• Focus on 5 areas related to ease of doing business

– Improve Timeliness of EPRI Products & Research (10 actions)

– Provide Information on How Others Apply EPRI Results (6 actions)

– Enhance International Support (8 actions)

– Increase Clarity of Member and Industry Interfaces with EPRI Including Advisory Structure and Process (8 actions)

– Improve Nuclear Power Council Meetings (5 actions)

Nuclear Sector Continuous Improvement RhythmNuclear Sector Continuous Improvement Rhythm


Climate Policy Implications and Opportunities for Nuclear Generation

Vic NiemeyerEPRI Technical [email protected], 650-855-2262




Mirant’s Trading Floor in 2001 (right half)

91


Today’s Discussion

Climate policy presents challenges and opportunities

Electric sector will be driven to replace coal emissions

Nuclear/CCS Coal/Renewables will compete to be part of the solution



All U.S. Policy Proposals Require Rapid and Dramatic Cuts in CO2 Emissions


All Proposals Based on CO2 “Cap-and-Trade”

• A market-based pollution reduction program – Imposes a fixed “cap” on annual CO2 emissions– Allocates a CO2 emission “allowances” equal to the emissions cap

(e.g., auction, grandfathering, other)• “Covered” entities must submit allowances (or qualifying

offsets) equal to CO2 emissions for a “compliance period”– Reduce emissions and/or buy allowances from others– Buy offsets from qualifying emission reduction activities– Allowances & offsets can be bought, sold and traded in the market

• Examples of existing cap-and-trade programs:– U.S. SO2 (“Acid Rain”) program (Title IV 1990 CAA)– Northeast NOx Budget Program

• Result is a price on CO2



• CO2 prices must rise high enough to force emissions below the cap

• CO2 allowance prices will be “high”(> $30/tCO2) in early years of a new CO2 cap-and-trade program unless…– “Safety valve,” “price collar,” or

other price-control mechanism(s)

– Massive GHG reductions by other regulated sectors (unlikely), or….

What Will Drive CO2 Price?

– Abundant offsets are available


Example Offset Project Types

• Forests– Afforestation / Reforestation– Reduced emissions from deforestation

and degradation (REDD)• Soil Carbon and Agriculture

– Conservation tillage practices – Reduced nitrogen fertilizer

• Methane (CH4) Destruction– Animal waste digesters – Landfill gas– Coal-mine methane– Natural-gas system fugitives

• Energy Efficiency and Renewables – Domestic EE & renewable projects are not offset projects. They reduce

electric-sector CO2 emissions included under the “economy-wide” cap– International EE & renewable projects may be offsets if they are

implemented in sectors and locations without a CO2 cap.



Electric Sector is Major Source of CO2Emissions and Abatement

Electric sector’s share of national total (2006)• 33% of total GHGs• 39% of total CO2

Shares within the electric sector CO2• 15% from natural gas ($6/MMBtu)• 83% from coal ($1.5/MMBtu)

Coal displacement primary source of abatement economy-wide and its cost drives CO2 price


CO2 Policy Can Have a Dramatic Impact on Generation Costs, Power Prices, and Cash Flows

• Each dollar of CO2 value boosts fossil dispatch costs~ $1.00/MWh for coal-fired generation~ $0.40/MWh for gas-fired CC~ $0.60/MWh for gas-fired CT/boiler

• But higher dispatch costs mean higher power prices• Net impact on cash flow depends on net balance of cost

impacts against net revenue impacts from a CO2 price



2012: CO2 Price Increases Dispatch Costs ─ Supply Stack Re-Orders to Favor Less Emitting Generation

$0

$50

$100

$150

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

Cumulative Regional Capacity (MW)

Dispatch Price ($/M

Wh)

GasCoalNuclearRenewablesBiomass

Midwest Regional Supply Stack in 2012(Gas at $6.82/MMBTU)

$0/ton CO2

Source: EPRI Regional Stack Model

Load

Market Price

Market Price

$50/ton CO2


2030: Massive Additions of Non-emitting Generation, Much Higher Fossil Dispatch Costs

Source: EPRI Regional Stack Model

$0

$50

$100

$150

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

Cumulative Regional Capacity (MW)

Dispatch Price ($/M

Wh)

GasCoalNuclearRenewablesBiomass

Midwest Regional Supply Stack in 2030

$0/ton CO2

$50/ton CO2



EIA Analysis of Waxman Markey w. NEMS

• Based on AEO 2009 w. stimulus (ARRA)• Covered many policy scenarios and sensitivity cases

• Today we focus on results for three scenarios


NEMS CO2 Price to Meet Abatement Target

0

50

100

150

200

250

2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028

2007

$/m

etric

ton

Basic No Nuc+CCS & No Int Offs No Int Offs AEO2009

CO2 Price Paths Highly Sensitive to Scenarios

Limited Nuclear + CCS, No International Offsets

No International Offsets

EIA Reference Case



Electric Consumers See Price Increases, Masked by Allocation of Free Allowances

Average Electricity Price

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028

2007

cen

ts/k

Wh

AEO2009 Basic No Nuc+CCS & No Int Offs No Int Offs AEO2009


Cumulative Capacity Additions - Basic Case

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028

GW

DG

RenewableNuclear

Conv CT

Adv CT

Conv CCAdv CC w/Seq

Adv CC

Conv Coal

IGCC w/SeqIGCC

Cumulative Capacity Additions – Basic Case

Additions by 2030

95 GW nuclear

69 GW CCS coal



Cumulative Capacity Additions - No Int Offs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028

GW

DG

RenewableNuclear

Conv CT

Adv CT

Conv CCAdv CC w/Seq

Adv CC

Conv Coal

IGCC w/SeqIGCC

Cumulative Capacity Additions – No International Offsets Case

Additions by 2030

134 GW nuclear


Cumulative Capacity Additions – No Nuclear or CCS and No International Offsets Case

Cumulative Capacity Additions - No Nuc+CCS & No Int Offs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028

GW

DG

RenewableNuclear

Conv CT

Adv CT

Conv CCAdv CC w/Seq

Adv CC

Conv Coal

IGCC w/SeqIGCC



Nuclear Additions Concentrated in a Few Regions

2030 Cumulative Regional Additions of Nuclear by Scenario

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ECAR

ERCOTMAAC

MAINMAPP NY NE FL

SERCSPP

PNW RM CA

Ren

ewab

le A

dditi

ons

(GW

)

AEO2009 (9 GW)

Basic (95 GW)

No Int Offs (134 GW)

No Nuc+CCS & No Int Offs (9 GW)


Implications for the Electric Sector

• Higher power prices for customers

• Gap between peak and off-peak power prices will grow– Challenges for operators– Increased value for long-line transmission and storage

• As electric sector becomes carbon-free operating costs become small fraction of total cost– CO2 price no longer matters for electric consumers– Spot prices too low to cover investment costs



The Big Questions

• Will there be a binding societal commitment to drastically cut emissions?

• If so, how big the cuts, and how soon?– How stringent the goals– How easy the offsets

• What will be the relative successes of non-emitting generation options?– Nuclear– CCS coal– Grid-integrated wind

110© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.Image from NASA Visible Earth



Review of 2010 Projects

EPRI Technical Staff



2010-01 Alloys 690/52/152 PWSCC Research for New Plants





Task Description• Identify vulnerabilities of Alloys 690/52/152 to PWSCC and develop

guidelines for material procurement and fabrication/installation of Alloy 690 components to maximize their resistance to PWSCC.

Potential Benefit of Project• Improved guidelines for material specification and for fabrication,

installation and repair of thick-wall Alloy 690 components • Extended inspection intervals to reduce cost and exposure• Life prediction models to facilitate informed asset management • Flaw disposition curves Highly Leveraged Research• MRP Alloy 690/52/152 PWSCC annual research budget over $1M• International collaboration in partnership with NRC RES, and many

others


Approach to Work• Identify material production steps (e.g. re-melting) and

product forms that degrade PWSCC resistance• Quantify effect of fabrication/installation induced cold work

on PWSCC resistance • Establish PWSCC resistance of evolutionary A52

compositions to alleviate DDC and hot cracking• Investigate effect of welding procedures (and repairs

including grinding) on PWSCC (e.g., minimize residual stresses and hot cracking)

• Develop guidance for material procurement and component fabrication/installation and technical basis for inspections





Project DeliverablesDeliverable Title Planned

Completion Date Deliverable Type

Alloy 690 material procurement and fabrication/installation guidelines (Rev. 1)

6/30/2011 Technical Update

PWSCC characterization of evolving weld metals 6/30/2012 Technical Report

Technical basis for inspection relief for new plants 12/31/2012 Technical Report

Alloy 690 material procurement and fabrication/installation guidelines (Rev. 2)

12/31/2012 Technical Report

Flaw disposition curves for new plants 12/31/2012 Technical Report



Project Costs 2010 2011 2012 Total

Alloys 690/52/152 PWSCC Research for New Plants $385K $385K $385K

$1,155K



Environment Assisted Fatigue for New Plants

• NRC Issued as Regulatory Guide 1.207(RG-1.207, “Guidelines for Evaluating Fatigue Analyses Incorporating the Life Reduction of Metal Components Due to the Effects of theLight-Water Reactor Environment for New Reactors,” March 2007)– Applies ONLY to new plant design– License renewal remains covered by GALL requirements – no

change– RG includes a new stainless steel (SS) air fatigue curve

• Is different than the air curve used to develop Section III SS fatigue curve– Environmental effect factor Fen applicable for all locations exposed

to the environment• SIGNIFICANT Fen factors for LAS and SS can increase design and

analysis cost substantially to meet RG requirements and not necessarily result in a more reliable design


• Each NSSS vendor is developing its approach to address this issue for new plants

– The NRC will need to review and approve multiple (often conflicting) approaches, likely causing delays and rework

– A industry approach that unifies industry ideas and maximizes its impact in depth and breadth is needed

• A collaborative research framework is proposed:– ANT, Materials Reliability Program (MRP) and BWR Vessel Internals Project

(BWRVIP) work under one umbrella and coordinate with NSSS vendors, NRC (NRR, NRO and RES) and others to integrate existing research and, if necessary, perform additional research to:

• Work to convince the NRC that the existing rules, such as RG 1.207 are too conservative and unrealistic; propose alternate rules. NRC RES will be invited to participate actively so our approach is not a surprise to NRR and NRO.

• Develop guidelines on treatment of transients, strains, strain rates and multitude of other parameters that go into calculating the fatigue usage factor ensuring consistency in submittals from utilities and ready NRC acceptance

• Transfer such rules and guidelines to the ASME code




Current Activities• An EAF advisory panel consisting of experts from NSSS vendors,

utilities, research organizations and NRC has been convened. Twoconference calls conducted in November and January – Significant concern and interest in timely resolution of this issue – EAF effect is real but the NRC rules are unrealistically

conservative (arbitrary?)– There is sufficient vagueness in requirements that are open to

multiple interpretations and analysis approaches with little assurance of being accepted by the NRC

– A unified industry approach is needed; five potential tasks are being discussed

Next Steps• Meeting planned On Feb 2 during ASME Code week in Atlanta • Plan to present panel recommendations to the ANT TAC meeting in

April and to MRP and BWRVIP in their upcoming meetings in May and June


2010-02 Filmless RT




2010-02 Filmless RT

Task Description• Evaluation of filmless radiography systems

– Equipment performance demonstrations– Planar and volumetric fabrication flaws– Digital detector panels, phosphor plates, and high energy

electronic sourcesPotential Benefit of Project• Expedited ASME Section III volumetric examination of piping welds

with CR (phosphor plate) or DR (solid state detectors)• Volumetric option/complement to UT• Minimization of weld repairs with ASME Section III volumetric

examination• Digital storage of images instead of processed film and associated

chemical processing.


2010-02 Filmless RT

Approach to Work• EPRI staff will manage the project

– Contract with equipment and service providers– EPRI will witness and document results of performance

demonstrations



2010-02 Filmless RT


Evaluation of Filmless Radiography 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 12/31/2012

Technical Updates/ Final Report

Project Deliverables

Project Costs 2010 2011 2012 Total

Evaluation and Qualification of Filmless Radiography Systems

$90K $90K $90K

$270K

2010-03 Startup Program Guideline





Task Description• This task will provide lessons learned from prior Startups for

incorporation into new plant Startup programs• Investigate and recommend methods to adapt prior Startup strategy

into the new plant construction environment • Assess impact of new requirements on Startup testing (i.e., ITAAC -

Inspections, Test, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria)Potential Benefit of Project• Improve Startup program effectiveness • Identify issues that need further analysis or resolution• Identify application or development of technologies that can improve

equipment testing, health monitoring and reliability



Approach to Work• Utilize EPRI TAG process• Engage EPRI and utility Startup subject matter experts• Utilize available international expertise





Project Costs 2010 2011 Total

Startup Program and Technology Guideline $185K $23K

$208K


Startup Program and Technology Guideline 3/31/2011 Technical Report

2010-04 Water Chemistry Guidelines Assessment for New Plants




2010-04 Assessment of Water Chemistry Guidelines for New Plants

Task Description• Assess Water Chemistry Guidelines (GLs) against new plant Design

Control Documents (DCD) to determine which parts of GLs are applicable and identify gaps. Prioritize gaps with a short description on proposed path forward. Assess and provide, as feasible, water chemistry guidance for hot functional testing.

Potential Benefit of Project• Facilitate the transfer of operating experience and lessons learned from

the current fleet leading to specific recommendations and identification of gaps requiring further work.

• Support identification of any beneficial design or procedural improvements.

• Cost savings associated with avoided adhoc solutions during the early operation of the plant.



Approach to Work• Establish an Industry Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for

each plant type (PWR & BWR):– AP1000 and ABWR will be reviewed in 2010– 5-8 Utility Chemistry Experts (establish cross-

functionality where appropriate, e.g., expert on both Committees)

– EPRI Chemistry Staff– EPRI Contractors (directly involved in GLs)– New plant design vendors (invited)




Project Costs



Technical Report: Assessment of Water Chemistry for New Plants – AP1000 and ABWR 12/20/2010 Technical Report

Technical Report: Assessment of Water Chemistry for new Plants – AREVA U.S. EPR, MHI U.S. APWR, GEH ESBWR

12/20/2011 Technical Reports

2010 2011 Total

Water Chemistry Guideline Assessment for New Plants $230K $430K

$660K

$330K $530K $660K$230K $430K

2010-05 NDE Digital Data





Task Description• Research the present requirements for digital data archiving at

member utilities and investigate the technical reqs. for digital archiving• Conduct survey(s) to gather information on old NDE data types,

format, media types and equipment. Interface with vendors on theconversion process and readability of old NDE data

• Conduct a workshop for NDE examiners, information technology (IT) personnel, archivists/document control personnel, and local/state/federal regulators

• Generate a NDE Digital Data Guidance Doc. for utility implementationPotential Benefit of Project• Assist utilities in transferring, retrieving, and archiving their NDE data

and allow them a path for any future digital NDE data needs• Provides a consistent and acceptable process for archiving digital NDE

records, versus converting them to paper records



Approach to Work• Work will be performed by EPRI staff with utility, vendor

and regulator engagement• Workshops will be used as a forum to gather and

exchange information among the various stakeholders




2010 2011 Total

NDE Digital Data Guidelines $88K $33K

$121K


Project Costs


NDE Data Records Management, Storage and Conversion 9/30/2011 Technical Report

2010-06 Ferritic Stainless Steel Testing





Task Description• This project will identify advanced electromagnetic NDE

methodologies that may be suitable to provide integrity assessment of duplex and ferritic stainless steel tubing and identify the gaps that impede implementation– Existing carbon steel tubing mockups will be utilitized– Additional tubing mockups will be fabricated to evaluate sensor

technology on duplex material– Addressing gaps may include fabrication of prototype sensors for

demonstration with follow-on incorporation of demonstration results into test parameters, hardware, software, and technique sheet/guidelines

– Field trials on actual components will be used to demonstrate approach(s)



Potential Benefit of Project• Provide method for integrity assessment of duplex and ferritic

stainless steel tubing– Identify advanced electromagnetic and other suitable NDE

methodologies for ferritic stainless steel tubing– Accurately quantify different types of damage forms, improve free-

span small volume flaw characterization, and optimize detection and sizing capabilities of tubing flaws underlying support structures

Approach to Work• EPRI will manage the project

– Sensor R&D will be contracted to sensor and equipment manufacturers

– EPRI will fabricate the mockups– EPRI will oversee demonstrations and provide documented

evaluation results





Project Costs


Report on Advanced NDE Methods for Testing Ferritic Stainless Steel Tubes 12/31/2010 Technical Update

Report on R&D Results for Testing Duplex and Carbon Steel Tubes 12/31/2011 Technical Update

Final Report on Advanced NDE Methods for Testing Duplex, Carbon Steel and Ferritic Stainless Steel Tubes.

12/31/2012

Technical Report, Sensors, and

Associated Data Analysis Software

2010 2011 2012 Total

Development of Advanced NDE for Duplex, Carbon Steel and Ferritic Stainless Steel Tubes

$137K $146K $134K

$417K

2010-07 Digital I&C Training





Task Description• This task will develop guidance and training materials on digital I&C

issues with particular attention to new plants• Target audiences will include both engineers and managers Potential Benefit of Project• Cost-effective training on key digital I&C issues

– For people new to I&C, digital technology, or the nuclear industry– Technical transfer format optimized for direct use by utility

engineers and managers• Guidance and training tailored to new plant issues (wholesale digital

implementation)– Based on the latest technical and regulatory information– Leverage existing materials developed for operating plants will save

significant resources



Approach to Work• Leverage the 2009 updates to the existing Digital I&C training to:

– Reflect the latest information on regulatory issues and new standards

– Incorporate information from newer EPRI guidelines • Project TAG input to develop new training syllabus from existing

material– Modules for use in technical staff initial and continuing training,

e.g., software V&V, evaluation of commercial grade equipment, requirements engineering, regulatory issues, obsolescence management strategies….

– Modules for specific new build issues, e.g., flexible communications architectures and human-machine interfaces, cyber security, digital tech specs, EMI site plan

– Modules for program/project management familiarization





Project Costs


Interim Progress Report 12/31/2010 Technical Report

Guidelines on Specific Topics 04/30/2011 Technical Reports

Training Modules on Specific Topics 12/31/2011 Training Course

2010 2011 Total

Digital I&C Training Modules for New Plant Personnel $138K $138K

$276K

2010-08 Development of HFE Training Modules





Task Description• This task will develop a Human Factors Engineering Training Course for new

plant engineers that will:– Support interactions with suppliers and regulators for improved designs and

easier acceptance– Consist of course material that includes lectures and training exercises

Potential Benefit of Project• Provide competency in complying with NRC requirements and other NRC

guidance• Provide understanding of human factors and HFE for discussions with NRC and

its contractors• Facilitate interactions with new plant suppliers to play a stronger role in the

design, evaluation, and acceptance of the designs of the control room, remote shutdown station, other local control stations, and other HSIs including the simulator and maintenance HSIs to help assure that plant is getting what it needs / desires

• Enable engineers to set up the plant lifetime HFE program that takes advantage of the original supplier’s HFE program and design basis established for the control room and other HSIs

• Provide guidance for including HFE into procedures and other work practices



Approach to Work• Training course material will be developed to:

– Specifically address compliance with applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., NUREG-0800 Chapter 18, NUREG-0711)

– Address latest information and guidance on regulatory issues, including industry positions

– Take advantage of EPRI HFE guidance, e.g., EPRI 1010042– Focus on utility interaction with the design teams, HFE verification

and validation, and use of HFE throughout the life-cycle of the plant

• Training course material will be used in a pilot delivery of the course, from which feedback will be obtained and appropriate revisions made





Project Costs


HFE Training Course for New Plants 12/31/2010 Training Course Materials

2010 Total

HFE Training Modules $160K $160K

2010-09 Impaction of Radionuclides




2010-09 Impaction of Radionuclide / Source Term

Task Description• Scope out possibility of increasing Decontamination

Factor for containment impaction creditPotential Benefit of Project• This project would evaluate the data and science to

support NRC approval of impaction credit for new builds • Simplification of designs – by allowing credit for aerosol

impaction / plate out, several NSSS designs could simplify their Engineered Safety Systems due to lower dose

• Additional design margin could be obtained for both new and potentially operating units



Approach to Work• Evaluate RAI history for this issue• Develop roadmap for reinstatement of Decontamination

Factor• Socialize the plan with the NRC





Project Costs


Project Plan / Study of testing required to demonstrate impaction and plate out phenomenon 8/1/10 Technical Update

2010 Total

Project Plan for Impaction Research $30K

$30K

2010-10 Concrete Embedded Sensors





Task Description• Evaluate use of embedded sensors to monitor aging

– Identify structures– Identify data parameters– Evaluate available sensor technology with consideration for 60+

years of life– Identify technology gaps and recommend R&D



Potential Benefit of Project• Optimize inspections

– The use of embedded sensors in concrete will provide informationon aging without the need of an outage and simplify considerablythe execution of inspections

• Long term asset management– Access to real-time materials property data will allow better

mitigation and repair strategies to be employed over the life of the civil structures

• Potential Regulation– EPRI has recently learned that the UK regulatory body will require

that embedded sensors be included in new EPRsApproach to Work• Project will be primarily accomplished by EPRI staff collaborating with

EdF and ORNL





Concrete structures in nuclear power plants that will benefit from embedded sensors 12/31/2010 Technical Report

General guidelines on the use and benefits from embedded sensors in concrete structures 12/31/2011 Guidelines


Project Costs 2010 2011 Total

Evaluation and Associated Guidelines for Embedded Sensors in Civil Infrastructure in New NPPs

$28K $28K $56K

2010-11 Methodology for Risk Informed Procurement





Task Description• This task will develop a methodology document and pilot plant

application needed to enable NRC’s approval of Risk Informed Procurement for new plants

• This methodology will be used to identify low safety significantcomponents that no longer need to meet stringent ASME (e.g., N-stamp) and other (e.g., QA) requirements

Potential Benefits of Project• Will reduce the required number of N-stamp components and

replaced them with less costly industrial/commercial grade components

• Will reduced the number of components subject to QA requirementsper Appendix B

• Other opportunities will be investigated (e.g., Cat. I vs Cat. II)• Process can be used for assessing “significance” pre and post

operation (e.g. Reactor Oversight Process)


Approach to Work• Revise existing methodology for applicability to New Build:

– Less passive (ABWR, EPR, APWR)– More passive (AP1000, ESBWR)

• Identify licensing changes, if any, to gain further benefit– Exemption from QA requirements per 10CFR50, Appendix B– Seismic Cat. I vs Seismic Cat. II

• Support pilot plant submittal and approval






Project Costs

Deliverable Title Planned Completion Date

Deliverable Type

Initial Methodology Document 12/31/2010 Technical Update

Test Cases for various designs 12/31/2011 Technical Update

Revised Methodology Report with Test Case Results and Regulatory Approval Protocol 12/31/2012 Technical

Report

2010 2011 2012 Total

Risk Informed Procurement Methodology for Code Case $302.5K $302.5K $165K

$770K

2010-12 Use of HDPE for Above-Ground Piping Systems





Task Description• Evaluation of design computer codes • Testing to determine damping values for seismic events• Testing to determine modulus of elasticity at seismic strain

rates• Testing to verify that wraps can be used to protect HDPE

from fire in areas that cannot be separated• Testing to seismically qualify PE vent and drain valves• Support of above-ground Code rules through ASME review

and approval process



Potential Benefit of Project• Carbon steel has not performed well in raw water systems

of current fleet– Leaks, inspections, repairs, water treatment, fouling

• HDPE does not corrode, foul, or form tubercles• Material costs ~same as carbon steel but ¼ to 1/50th the

cost of high alloys• Fabrication and installation costs much lower than metal • Does not require a lining• Does not require water treatment




Approach to Work• Evaluation of design computer codes

– Comparison of sample piping designs using large displacement finite element codes, including creep effects, with standard piping design codes. Identification of needed changes to design practices

• Damping values for seismic event– Damping of metal pipe is function of frequency– Measurement of logarithmic decay of vibration

amplitude of piping with different natural frequencies



Approach (continued)• Modulus of elasticity at seismic strain rates

– Measure modulus of elasticity of test samples as function of temperature and strain rate

• Fire Protection of HDPE – Fire test a fire-wrapped simple piping and pipe support

configuration• Seismic qualification of PE vent and drain valves

– Shake table testing of typical valve configurations• Support of Code rules

– Attendance at Code committee meetings, support of committee assignments





Project Costs 2010 Total

Technical Basis for HDPE Above-Ground Use

$292K $292K


Seismic Design Properties of HDPE Pipe 12/31/2010 Technical Report

Fire Protection Methods for HDPE Pipe 12/31/2010 Technical Report

Seismic Qualification of HDPE Vent & Drain Valves 12/31/2010 Technical Report

2010-13 SACTI




Task Description• This project will remove SACTI from the archive and

provide several necessary upgrades and options to the model that have been requested by the user community

• The new model can be used by both utilities in modeling potential cooling tower impacts on the environment and plant design/operation, as well as by the NRC in their COLA reviews

Potential Benefits of Project• This project will provide an updated code to EPRI

Members providing increased flexibility and options for completing neccesary environmental evaluations for permitting of new plants

2010-13 SACTI


Approach to Work• Bechtel can provide EPRI a code that incorporates some

of the upgrades desired as part of this project • EPRI programmers would work closely with Bechtel to

ensure the code meets all EPRI requirements for software• The code would then be made available to the EPRI

Members for their use in analyzing environmental cooling tower impacts

• Bechtel would be provided a license for the final, upgraded EPRI code

2010-13 SACTI



2010-13 SACTI


Project Costs


Revised SACTI Model 12/31/10 Software

2010 Total

Revised SACTI Model $275K

$275K


ANT Program Financial Update

Tom Mulford





2010 ANT Membership Breakdown

Current 2010 Membership…$4.125M

2010 Potential…~$3.1M 2010 “Drops”


2010 ANT Program Funding

$4,125

$903$765

$150

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

2010 Committed

Utilities & Vendors

EPRI Base

$5,943 To-Date

DOE / NRC

EPRI TI

*

**

* Includes additional 150K for final report production and website repository of results

** SMR only. New Plant Water Issues TBD



ANT Program Budget

TBD$7,320TOTAL Approved Spending

$6,201$7,578TOTAL Available Funding

$150**$390Technology Innovation Funding

$258$794Prior Year Carry Forward

TBD$258Program Contingency

$765$1,391DOE/NRC Co-Funding

$4,125$4,100Supplemental Funding

$903*$903Base Funding

2010 ($K)Projected(Scenario #1)

2009 ($K)Actual (12/31/2009)

* Significant increase requested for 2011

** Current allocation for SMR only, New Plant Water Availability/Use Project amount TBD


$3,383

$2,818

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

2010

AN

T Fu

ndin

g

Estimated Active Projects / ANT Commitments

Available to Fund NEW Projects

* Subject to APC Approval During August 2009 APC Meeting

2010 ANT Program Budget Scenario

Assumes Budget Scenario #1 on Previous

Slide



Budgets for 2010 Projects

417134146137Advanced NDE for Ferritic Stainless Steel Tubing 2010-6

12103388NDE Digital Data 2010-5

6600430230Assessment of Water Chemistry Guidelines for New Plants 2010-4

208023185New Plant Startup Program Guidelines 2010-3

270909090Digital RT 2010-2

31400314New Nuclear Plant Construction Technology Project 16

830083Guidelines for Meeting ASME Owners Certificate Requirements 5

770165302.5302.5Methodology For Risk Informed Procurement 2010-11

5602828Concrete Sensors 2010-10

13300133FME Guidelines for Nuclear Construction 12

27500275SACTI Model Update 2010-13

230023207Cooling Tower Guidelines for New Plants 3

$1,575.5

242 150

0

0

0

138

385

2011 Budget

2760138Digital I&C Training 2010-7

$4,690$774$2,340.5Totals (above line projects)

847 150143 0462 0BWRVIA model assessment for ABWR (Revised budget schedule as shown)15

2920292Technical Basis for HDPE Above-Ground Use 2010-12

30030Impaction of Radionuclide/Source Term 2010-9

1600160HFE Training 2010-8

1,155385385Alloys 690/52/152 PWSCC Research for New Plants 2010-1

Project Totals

2012 Budget

2010 Budget

Project TitleCandidate ID#


$2,563KTOTAL REQUESTED 2010 BUDGET FOR 2008/2009 ONGOING PROJECTS

Safety Related Stationary Battery Qualification2009-08

$150K$25K$125KNext-Generation Attenuation (NGA) Model for CEUS (NGA-East)2009-07

EPRI Fuel Reliability Guidelines – Implications for New Plants2009-05

$121K$121KGuidance on EMI Protection for Instrumentation and Control Systems

2009-04

Modular Equipment Testing, Shipping and Storage -Benchmarking and Guidelines

2009-02

$250K$250KAchieving New Nuclear Virtual Plant Configuration Management2009-01

$42K$42KEquipment Reliability for New Nuclear Plants: Lessons Learned from Operating Plants

2008-07

$280K$280KNDE and Reduction of Repairs in Nuclear Construction2008-06

$315K$90K$225KMaterial Management Matrices for ABWR(s), EPR and APWR Designs

2008-05

$1,179K$310K$607K + $262K

CEUS Seismic Source Characterization (including NRC scope)2008-04

$76K$76KNew Plant Welding and Fabrication Guidelines2008-03

$150K$150KNDE Risk-Informed PSI & ISI Methodology2008-01

TOTAL Requested Budget - 2010

Additional Requested Budget - 2010

Original Requested Budget - 2010

Task TitleTask Number

Budgets for Ongoing 2008/2009 Projects



Review of EPRI Activities Underway for SMRs and Water Availability/Use for New Plants

Tom Mulford, ANT Program Manager



ANT Support of Industry Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Activities

• Successful proposal to use Technology Innovation (TI) funds for a 2010 project in SMRs

• Includes a URD Volume I update and the subsequent industry production of Volumes IV for ALWR SMRs. URD Volumes V and VI could follow to accommodate HTGR SMRs and “other” SMR technologies

• Inline with objectives of URD, new volume would:1. Assist in establishing a stabilized regulatory basis

for new technologies2. Provide standardized requirements for use in design

certification3. Provide standardized requirements for future owner

bid packages• Existing project on Module Testing scope includes SMRs



EPRI / Nuclear / ANT Water Initiative

• EPRI-wide effort to address water issues at all steam power plants being initiated

• Utility survey completed which will help focus subject activities in the Advanced Nuclear Technology Program

• Survey responses will:– Be used to prioritize EPRI-wide R&D for water cooling and

availability issues for steam power plants. More specific to nuclear plants, used to identify the issues that should be addressed by ANT starting in 2010 using Technology Innovation funding.

– Compiled such that the responses are anonymous and not traceable external to EPRI to any individual, plant, utility or region of the U.S.

– Three ANT Executive Sponsors and corresponding TAG Members identified


Review of Action Items and 2010 Events

Bryan Dolan, ANT APC ChairpersonTom Mulford, ANT Program Manager




Review Actions and Upcoming Meetings

Actions for APC Approval– Approve program budget and initial projects for 2010– Others…

Upcoming Meetings– February 6-13 - ANT Program Meetings with Finnish and UK

interested parties– March 2010 – Concrete Sensor TAG, Charlotte, NC– March 2010 – Configuration Management TAG, Charlotte, NC– April 19/20, 2010 – MMM Project Meeting, Doosan, South Korea– April ?, 2010 – TAC Meeting, Charlotte, NC– May ?, 2010 – ANT APC, Location TBD


Summer 2010 APC / NPC Information

August 30-September 2, 2010

Denver Marriott City Center

1701 California Street

Denver, Colorado 80202 USA

Telephone: 1-303-297-1300 or 800-228-9290


183© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.Image from NASA Visible Earth

Antitrust Guidelines

for EPRI Advisory Meetings

The antitrust laws and other businesslaws apply to EPRI, its members,funders, and advisers; violations can lead to civil and criminal liability.

These guidelines apply before, during,and after EPRI meetings, including in the hallways, over cocktails and atdinner.

Collaborative research anddevelopment to benefit the energy industry, its customers and the publicthrough cost-effective, efficient, andenvironmentally sound electricitygeneration, delivery and use.

Follow the meeting agenda; provideadvice on EPRI’s technical programand how to make EPRI results most useful.

Pricing, production capacity, or costinformation which is not publiclyavailable; confidential marketstrategies or business plans; andother competitively sensitiveinformation.

(over)

WHY

When and Where

Do NotDiscuss

Your Role

EPRI’s PrimaryPurpose

Your use of particular vendors,contractors or consultants for non-EPRI projects; and we will notpromote or endorse commercialproducts or services of third parties.You must draw your own conclusionsand make your own choicesindependently.

In any discussions of goods and services offered in the market byothers, including your competitors,suppliers, and customers.

To discriminate against or refuseto deal with (i.e., “boycott”) a supplier;or to do business only on certainterms and conditions; or to set price,divide markets, or allocate customers.

Or advise others on their businessdecisions, and do not discuss yours(except to the extent that they arealready public).

For advice from your own legalDepartment if you have questionsabout any aspect of these guidelinesor about a particular situation oractivity at EPRI; or ask the responsible EPRI manager to contact EPRI’s Legal Department.

We Will NotRecommend

Be Accurate,Objective &

Factual

Do Not Tryto Influence

Ask

Do Not Agreewith Others