ML072710663: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 06/06/2006 | | issue date = 06/06/2006 | ||
| title = Viewgraphs of Use of Ultrasonic Flow Measurement to Determine Reactor Power | | title = Viewgraphs of Use of Ultrasonic Flow Measurement to Determine Reactor Power | ||
| author name = Lyon W | | author name = Lyon W, Nakoski J | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NRO/DCIP/CQVB, NRC/NRR/ADES/DSS | | author affiliation = NRC/NRO/DCIP/CQVB, NRC/NRR/ADES/DSS | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:WLA/ýi[ Or'A USE OF ULTRASONIC FLOW MEASUREMENT TO DETERMINE REACTOR POWER-PURPOSE OF THIS PRESENTATION. | {{#Wiki_filter:WLA/ýi[ Or'A USE OF ULTRASONIC FLOW MEASUREMENT TO DETERMINE REACTOR POWER | ||
* To inform the ET and the LT of the status of the staffs review of the application of ultrasonic flow meters (UFMs) in determining reactor power* MEASURE FOR SUCCESS OF THIS PRESENTATION | -PURPOSE OF THIS PRESENTATION. | ||
+ ET and LT are aware of staff activities | * To inform the ET and the LT of the status of the staffs review of the application of ultrasonic flow meters (UFMs) in determining reactor power | ||
+ ET and LT are advised of potential need for regulatory action to address deficiencies in the application of UFMs PRESENTERS: | * MEASURE FOR SUCCESS OF THIS PRESENTATION | ||
Warren Lyon Presentation Date: June 8, 2006 1 K.'.' | + ET and LT are aware of staff activities | ||
John Nakoski 2 BACKGROUND | + ET and LT are advised of potential need for regulatory action to address deficiencies in the application of UFMs PRESENTERS: Warren Lyon Presentation Date: June 8, 2006 1 | ||
,/ UFMs uses: Feedwater flow measurement for MURs and power recovery v/ Appendix K to 10 CFR 50.46 changed to allow decrease in 2% uncertainty assumption for reactor power used in LOCA analyses V Importance is tied to compliance with the licensed thermal power upon which accident and transient analyses are conducted V Currently, 2 UFM devices have approved topical reports* Caldon -Check and CheckPlus* Westinghouse/AMAG | K.'.' | ||
-Crossflow 3 CROSSFLOW UFM HISTORY 1999 Generic Crossflow UFM topical report approved. | |||
Licensees beging requesting MURs January 2003 -Byron/Braidwood operating above rated thermal power (RTP). Region III requests NRR assistance on review of allegation related to Crossflow application at Byron/Braidwood. | John Nakoski 2 | ||
July 2003 -Ft. Calhoun submits first MUR LAR based on Crossflow August 2003 -Byron/Braidwood reduce power, staff begins assessment of basis for operating above RTP. Power recovery application of Crossflow UFM.January 2004 -NRC approves Ft. Calhoun MUR LAR February 2004 -NRC establishes task group to review UFMs May 2004 -Ft. Calhoun licensed RTP returned to pre-MUR level July 2004 -NRC task group identifies issues and recommends actions.January 2005, Calvert Cliffs and March 2005, Ft. Calhoun submit MUR LARs based on Crossflow August 2005 -Westinghouse, Calvert Cliffs, & Ft. Calhoun provided issues related to Crossflow 4 CROSSFLOW UFM HISTORY (con't)* September 2005 -New issue identified with Crossflow use at Calvert Cliffs. Swirl in feedwater flow adversely affects Crossflow measurement. | |||
* October 2005 -Staff places Calvert Cliffs and Ft. Calhoun MUR reviews on hold* October 2005 to January 2006 -Calvert Cliffs, Ft. Calhoun, W/AMAG, Owners Group, & NRC continue interactions on issue resolution. | BACKGROUND | ||
NRC obze.es tracer testing at Calvert Cliffs.* February 2006 -NRR staff completes theoretical assessment of Crossflow uncertainty claim.Additional RAIs provided to W/AMAG* March 2006 -NRC & W/AMAG meet to discuss RAI responses* April 2006 -NRC provides detailed RAls on issues that must be resolved for use of Crossflow. | ,/ UFMs uses: Feedwater flow measurement for MURs and power recovery v/ Appendix K to 10 CFR 50.46 changed to allow decrease in 2% uncertainty assumption for reactor power used in LOCA analyses V Importance is tied to compliance with the licensed thermal power upon which accident and transient analyses are conducted V Currently, 2 UFM devices have approved topical reports | ||
NRR issues User's Need memo to RES to peer review theoretical assessment. | * Caldon - Check and CheckPlus | ||
W/AMAG describe model being developed that confirms original bases. Staff informs W/AMAG of schedule for and issues to be resolved for completion of reviews.* May 2006 -RES provides response to NRR User's Need memo. RES substantiated NRR position that Crossflow does not obtain sufficient information to support uncertainty analyses.+ June 2006 -W/AMAG provide additional information on theoretical and empirical bases for Crossflow uncertainty claim.5 OVERVIEW$ Caldon Check and CheckPlus UFMs are acceptable | * Westinghouse/AMAG - Crossflow 3 | ||
$ Westinghouse/Advanced Measurement and Analysis Group (W/AMAG)review is ongoing. Anticipated staff finding is unacceptable. | |||
RES supports NRR position on capability of Crossflow UFM.,$ Use of external UFMs for power recovery under 10 CFR 50.59 has not been shown to be acceptable 6 | CROSSFLOW UFM HISTORY 1999 Generic Crossflow UFM topical report approved. Licensees beging requesting MURs January 2003 - Byron/Braidwood operating above rated thermal power (RTP). Region III requests NRR assistance on review of allegation related to Crossflow application at Byron/Braidwood. | ||
PLANT-SPECIFIC STATUS -RECENT MUR LARs/ Seabrook (Caldon) UFM is acceptable (ML061360034, May 22, 2006)V Calvert Cliffs (W/AMAG) is on hold -an amended LAR is anticipated V Ft. Calhoun (W/AMAG) is on hold pending generic review completion 7 | July 2003 - Ft. Calhoun submits first MUR LAR based on Crossflow August 2003 - Byron/Braidwood reduce power, staff begins assessment of basis for operating above RTP. Power recovery application of Crossflow UFM. | ||
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Traceability | January 2004 - NRC approves Ft. Calhoun MUR LAR February 2004 - NRC establishes task group to review UFMs May 2004 - Ft. Calhoun licensed RTP returned to pre-MUR level July 2004 - NRC task group identifies issues and recommends actions. | ||
-relating a measurement to a standard Standard maintained by a national laboratory | January 2005, Calvert Cliffs and March 2005, Ft. Calhoun submit MUR LARs based on Crossflow August 2005 - Westinghouse, Calvert Cliffs, & Ft. Calhoun provided issues related to Crossflow 4 | ||
-National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)Each step between measurement and standard -clearly defined and no unverified assumptions Unbroken path between measurement and standard Total measurement uncertainty reflects aggregate uncertainties of each step Applicability | |||
-provide accurate information over range of use* Sound basis (theoretical understanding or equivalent) | CROSSFLOW UFM HISTORY (con't) | ||
* September 2005 - New issue identified with Crossflow use at Calvert Cliffs. Swirl in feedwater flow adversely affects Crossflow measurement. | |||
* October 2005 - Staff places Calvert Cliffs and Ft. Calhoun MUR reviews on hold | |||
* October 2005 to January 2006 - Calvert Cliffs, Ft. Calhoun, W/AMAG, Owners Group, & NRC continue interactions on issue resolution. NRC obze.es tracer testing at Calvert Cliffs. | |||
* February 2006 - NRR staff completes theoretical assessment of Crossflow uncertainty claim. | |||
Additional RAIs provided to W/AMAG | |||
* March 2006 - NRC & W/AMAG meet to discuss RAI responses | |||
* April 2006 - NRC provides detailed RAls on issues that must be resolved for use of Crossflow. | |||
NRR issues User's Need memo to RES to peer review theoretical assessment. W/AMAG describe model being developed that confirms original bases. Staff informs W/AMAG of schedule for and issues to be resolved for completion of reviews. | |||
* May 2006 - RES provides response to NRR User's Need memo. RES substantiated NRR position that Crossflow does not obtain sufficient information to support uncertainty analyses. | |||
+ June 2006 - W/AMAG provide additional information on theoretical and empirical bases for Crossflow uncertainty claim. | |||
5 | |||
OVERVIEW | |||
$ Caldon Check and CheckPlus UFMs are acceptable | |||
$ Westinghouse/Advanced Measurement and Analysis Group (W/AMAG) review is ongoing. Anticipated staff finding is unacceptable. RES supports NRR position on capability of Crossflow UFM. | |||
,$ Use of external UFMs for power recovery under 10 CFR 50.59 has not been shown to be acceptable 6 | |||
PLANT-SPECIFIC STATUS - RECENT MUR LARs | |||
/ Seabrook (Caldon) UFM is acceptable (ML061360034, May 22, 2006) | |||
V Calvert Cliffs (W/AMAG) is on hold - an amended LAR is anticipated V Ft. Calhoun (W/AMAG) is on hold pending generic review completion 7 | |||
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Traceability - relating a measurement to a standard Standard maintained by a national laboratory - National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) | |||
Each step between measurement and standard - clearly defined and no unverified assumptions Unbroken path between measurement and standard Total measurement uncertainty reflects aggregate uncertainties of each step Applicability - provide accurate information over range of use | |||
* Sound basis (theoretical understanding or equivalent) | |||
Calibration is constant or change is fully understood, predictable, and verifiable 8 | Calibration is constant or change is fully understood, predictable, and verifiable 8 | ||
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ASSESSMENT V Caldon Check and Checkplus meet all criteria/ VW/AMAG Crossflow has not been shown to meet criteria, but staff has not completed review of all submitted information 9 | |||
Ultrasonic Flow Meter Comparison Caldon Check & CheckPlus W/AMAG Crossflow | ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ASSESSMENT V Caldon Check and Checkplus meet all criteria | ||
*W/AMAG CROSSFLOW REGULATORY IMPACT Potentially effected measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates: Plant % Uprate MWt 1 Increase Salem 1&, | / VW/AMAG Crossflow has not been shown to meet criteria, but staff has not completed review of all submitted information 9 | ||
,/ Theoretical, analytical, and understanding basis is weak ,/ Empirical data basis is weak/ Meter self-assessment does not appear viable S"'An unbroken path from calibration used during meter operation to reference standards has not been achieved ,/ NRC-approved topic report is no longer valid ,/ NRC review is nearing completion although work remains/" Regulatory action may be required to address the use of Crossflow and other external UFMs for MURs and power recovery applications 12}} | |||
Ultrasonic Flow Meter Comparison Caldon Check & CheckPlus W/AMAG Crossflow | |||
... .. m . ...... .. ........ | |||
rn I~.A M -7.7; ... | |||
1-IJ .LL | |||
:1 4:. | |||
,4: | |||
10 | |||
*W/AMAG CROSSFLOW REGULATORY IMPACT Potentially effected measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates: | |||
Plant % Uprate MWt 1 Plant % Uprate MWt Increase Increase Salem 1&,82 1.4 48 x 2 =96 Pilgrim 1.5 30 Hope Creek 1.4 46 Hatch 1&2 1.4 48 x 2 = 96 SONGS 2&3 1.42 48 x 2 =96 Kewaunee 1.4 23 STP 1&2 1.4 53 x 2= 106 Palisades 1.4 35.4 | |||
* Total MWt increase from Use of Crossflow based MURs = 528 MWt | |||
* This equates to about 185 MWe | |||
* Regulatory impact from the use of Crossflow for power recovery has not been fully assessed 11 | |||
W/AMAG CROSSFLOW CONCLUSIONS | |||
,/ Theoretical, analytical, and understanding basis is weak | |||
,/ Empirical data basis is weak | |||
/ Meter self-assessment does not appear viable S"'An unbroken path from calibration used during meter operation to reference standards has not been achieved | |||
,/ NRC-approved topic report is no longer valid | |||
,/ NRC review is nearing completion although work remains | |||
/" Regulatory action may be required to address the use of Crossflow and other external UFMs for MURs and power recovery applications 12}} |
Latest revision as of 15:36, 22 March 2020
ML072710663 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Calvert Cliffs, Byron, Braidwood, Fort Calhoun |
Issue date: | 06/06/2006 |
From: | Lyon W, John Nakoski NRC/NRO/DCIP/CQVB, NRC/NRR/ADES/DSS |
To: | |
References | |
FOIA/PA-2007-0255 | |
Download: ML072710663 (12) | |
Text
WLA/ýi[ Or'A USE OF ULTRASONIC FLOW MEASUREMENT TO DETERMINE REACTOR POWER
-PURPOSE OF THIS PRESENTATION.
- To inform the ET and the LT of the status of the staffs review of the application of ultrasonic flow meters (UFMs) in determining reactor power
- MEASURE FOR SUCCESS OF THIS PRESENTATION
+ ET and LT are aware of staff activities
+ ET and LT are advised of potential need for regulatory action to address deficiencies in the application of UFMs PRESENTERS: Warren Lyon Presentation Date: June 8, 2006 1
K.'.'
BACKGROUND
,/ UFMs uses: Feedwater flow measurement for MURs and power recovery v/ Appendix K to 10 CFR 50.46 changed to allow decrease in 2% uncertainty assumption for reactor power used in LOCA analyses V Importance is tied to compliance with the licensed thermal power upon which accident and transient analyses are conducted V Currently, 2 UFM devices have approved topical reports
- Caldon - Check and CheckPlus
- Westinghouse/AMAG - Crossflow 3
CROSSFLOW UFM HISTORY 1999 Generic Crossflow UFM topical report approved. Licensees beging requesting MURs January 2003 - Byron/Braidwood operating above rated thermal power (RTP). Region III requests NRR assistance on review of allegation related to Crossflow application at Byron/Braidwood.
July 2003 - Ft. Calhoun submits first MUR LAR based on Crossflow August 2003 - Byron/Braidwood reduce power, staff begins assessment of basis for operating above RTP. Power recovery application of Crossflow UFM.
January 2004 - NRC approves Ft. Calhoun MUR LAR February 2004 - NRC establishes task group to review UFMs May 2004 - Ft. Calhoun licensed RTP returned to pre-MUR level July 2004 - NRC task group identifies issues and recommends actions.
January 2005, Calvert Cliffs and March 2005, Ft. Calhoun submit MUR LARs based on Crossflow August 2005 - Westinghouse, Calvert Cliffs, & Ft. Calhoun provided issues related to Crossflow 4
CROSSFLOW UFM HISTORY (con't)
- September 2005 - New issue identified with Crossflow use at Calvert Cliffs. Swirl in feedwater flow adversely affects Crossflow measurement.
- October 2005 - Staff places Calvert Cliffs and Ft. Calhoun MUR reviews on hold
- October 2005 to January 2006 - Calvert Cliffs, Ft. Calhoun, W/AMAG, Owners Group, & NRC continue interactions on issue resolution. NRC obze.es tracer testing at Calvert Cliffs.
- February 2006 - NRR staff completes theoretical assessment of Crossflow uncertainty claim.
Additional RAIs provided to W/AMAG
- March 2006 - NRC & W/AMAG meet to discuss RAI responses
- April 2006 - NRC provides detailed RAls on issues that must be resolved for use of Crossflow.
NRR issues User's Need memo to RES to peer review theoretical assessment. W/AMAG describe model being developed that confirms original bases. Staff informs W/AMAG of schedule for and issues to be resolved for completion of reviews.
- May 2006 - RES provides response to NRR User's Need memo. RES substantiated NRR position that Crossflow does not obtain sufficient information to support uncertainty analyses.
+ June 2006 - W/AMAG provide additional information on theoretical and empirical bases for Crossflow uncertainty claim.
5
OVERVIEW
$ Caldon Check and CheckPlus UFMs are acceptable
$ Westinghouse/Advanced Measurement and Analysis Group (W/AMAG) review is ongoing. Anticipated staff finding is unacceptable. RES supports NRR position on capability of Crossflow UFM.
,$ Use of external UFMs for power recovery under 10 CFR 50.59 has not been shown to be acceptable 6
PLANT-SPECIFIC STATUS - RECENT MUR LARs
/ Seabrook (Caldon) UFM is acceptable (ML061360034, May 22, 2006)
V Calvert Cliffs (W/AMAG) is on hold - an amended LAR is anticipated V Ft. Calhoun (W/AMAG) is on hold pending generic review completion 7
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Traceability - relating a measurement to a standard Standard maintained by a national laboratory - National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Each step between measurement and standard - clearly defined and no unverified assumptions Unbroken path between measurement and standard Total measurement uncertainty reflects aggregate uncertainties of each step Applicability - provide accurate information over range of use
- Sound basis (theoretical understanding or equivalent)
Calibration is constant or change is fully understood, predictable, and verifiable 8
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ASSESSMENT V Caldon Check and Checkplus meet all criteria
/ VW/AMAG Crossflow has not been shown to meet criteria, but staff has not completed review of all submitted information 9
Ultrasonic Flow Meter Comparison Caldon Check & CheckPlus W/AMAG Crossflow
... .. m . ...... .. ........
rn I~.A M -7.7; ...
1-IJ .LL
- 1 4:.
,4:
10
- W/AMAG CROSSFLOW REGULATORY IMPACT Potentially effected measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates:
Plant % Uprate MWt 1 Plant % Uprate MWt Increase Increase Salem 1&,82 1.4 48 x 2 =96 Pilgrim 1.5 30 Hope Creek 1.4 46 Hatch 1&2 1.4 48 x 2 = 96 SONGS 2&3 1.42 48 x 2 =96 Kewaunee 1.4 23 STP 1&2 1.4 53 x 2= 106 Palisades 1.4 35.4
- Total MWt increase from Use of Crossflow based MURs = 528 MWt
- This equates to about 185 MWe
- Regulatory impact from the use of Crossflow for power recovery has not been fully assessed 11
W/AMAG CROSSFLOW CONCLUSIONS
,/ Theoretical, analytical, and understanding basis is weak
,/ Empirical data basis is weak
/ Meter self-assessment does not appear viable S"'An unbroken path from calibration used during meter operation to reference standards has not been achieved
,/ NRC-approved topic report is no longer valid
,/ NRC review is nearing completion although work remains
/" Regulatory action may be required to address the use of Crossflow and other external UFMs for MURs and power recovery applications 12