Advanced Nuclear Technology (ANT) Action Plan Committee ...mydocs.epri.com/docs/ANT/August 2009 APC...

Advanced Nuclear Technology (ANT)

Action Plan Committee Meeting - Summer 2009

August 25-26, 2009Chicago, IL

8/20/2009

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

August 25 - 26, 2009 The Westin Chicago River North

Chicago, IL

DAY 1 - August 25, 2009 1300-1330 Introductions / Meeting Objectives / ANT Program Status Bryan Dolan - Duke Tom Mulford – EPRI 1330-1515 Review of 2010 Candidate Tasks: Utility Sponsors / EPRI SMEs

o Start-Up Program Guidelines

o Alloys 690/52/152 Research for New Plants

o Cooling Tower Guidelines for New Plants

o Digital I&C Training

o Update BWRVIA model to include ABWR

o Methodology for Risk-Informed Procurement

o Assessment of Water Chemistry Guideline for New Plants

o Concrete Sensors

o NDE Digital Data

o Digital RT

1515-1545 Break 1545-1730 Review of 2010 Candidate Tasks: (cont.)

o HFE Training

o FME Guidelines for New Construction

o Guidelines for Meeting ASME Owners Certificate Requirements

o Advanced NDE for Ferritic Stainless Steel Tubing

o Technical Basis for HDPE Above-Ground Use

o New Nuclear Plant Construction Technology Project

o Impaction of Radionuclide/Source Term

o SACTI Model Update

1730 Adjourn 1830 Hosted ANT Member Dinner Location: Keefer’s

20 W Kinzie St Chicago, IL Phone 312-467-9525 http://www.keefersrestaurant.com

8/20/2009

Agenda

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

August 25 - 26, 2009 The Westin Chicago River North

Chicago, IL

DAY 2 – August 26, 2009 0800-0830 EPRI Customer Satisfaction Survey Ken Barry EPRI 0830-0930 Group Discussion of 2010 Candidate Tasks and Approval Vote Bryan Dolan - Duke Tom Mulford - EPRI 0930-1015 Mexico's Nuclear Future (El Futuro Nuclear de México) Rafael Fernandez de la Garza CFE 1015-1045 Break 1045-1130 Financial Review 1130-1200 Review Decisions, Actions and Upcoming Meetings Bryan Dolan - Duke Tom Mulford - EPRI 1200 Adjourn / Lunch ---------------------------------------------------- 1300-1600 ANT Vendor Session ANT APC and Invited Vendors 1600-1700 ANT APC Feedback Session ANT APC

ANT Action Plan Commitee Meeting

Chicago, IL - August 25-26, 2009 1


Introductions / Meeting Objectives / ANT Program Status

Tom Mulford, Program ManagerBryan Dolan, ANT APC Chairperson

Chicago, IL August 25, 2009

2© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Summer 2009 APC Meeting Objectives

• Review proposed 2010 candidate tasks• Discuss and vote final prioritization of 2010 candidate

tasks• Engage key industry vendors for ANT activities




APC Agenda – August 25-26, 2009

Tuesday – August 25th

1300-1330 Introductions / Meeting Objectives / ANT Program Status

1330-1730 Review of 2010 Candidate Tasks

1730 Adjourn

1830 Hosted ANT Member Dinner

Wednesday – August 26th

0800-0830 EPRI Customer Satisfaction Survey

0830-0930 Group Discussion / Vote of 2010 Candidate Tasks

0930-1015 Mexico's Nuclear Future (CFE)

1045-1130 Financial Review

1130-1200 Review Decisions, Actions and Upcoming Meetings

1200 Adjourn / Lunch

1300-1600 ANT Vendor Session

1600-1700 ANT APC Feedback Session


• New nuclear power plants must overcome a number of regulatory, economic, technical, and social challenges prior to becoming a reality

• Program efforts focused around:

– Facilitating standardization across the new fleet– Transferring technology to new plant designs– Ensuring top plant performance from start of operations– Reduce overall deployment risk and uncertainty

Advanced Nuclear Technology Program Objectives




ANT APC Organization Chart

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

ChairmanBryan Dolan (Duke)

Executive Committee (EC) EPRI Staff

ProjectExecutive Sponsors

Vice-ChairmanDan Keuter (Entergy)

Project Technical Advisory Groups (TAG)

Technical AdvisoryCommittee (TAC)

• Bryan Dolan (Duke)• Dan Keuter (Entergy)• Marilyn Kray (Exelon)• Marty Gettler (FPL)• Gene Grecheck (Dominion)

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

* Subject Matter Experts


EPRI’s ANT Program…Leveraging the Industry




2009 ANT Program Funding

$4,100

$1,391

$903

$390

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

2009 Committed

Utilities & Vendors

DOE / NRC

$6,784 To-Date

EPRI Base EPRI TI


Spring Meeting(Charlotte; May 13, 2009)

• Review status of new work initiated in CY

• Discuss projects and funding for next CY

2009 ANT Operational Calendar

Winter Meeting (@NPC)

(Long Beach: Jan 27-28, 2009)

Summer Meeting (@NPC)

(Chicago: August 25-26, 2009)

• Finalize budget for current CY

• Review status of ongoing R&D

• Review new projects for next CY

• Set priority list for next CY

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting -

New Task Identification(Charlotte; March 31, 2009)

• 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 2009)

• Review status of ongoing work

• Confirm budget needs for projects continuing into next CY




2008 ANT New Plant Deployment Projects

2008-07

2008-06

2008-05

2008-04

2008-03

2008-02

2008-01

Project ID# Project Title

EPRI Project Manager

Executive Sponsor

NDE Risk-Informed PSI & ISI Methodology Pat O’Regan Joe Turnage (CEG)

New Plant Procurement Specifications Marc Tannenbaum

Gene Grecheck (DOM)

New Plant Welding and Fabrication Guidelines Steve McCracken / Eric Willis

Jack Bailey (TVA)

CEUS Seismic Sources Characterization (SSC) Project

Jeffrey Hamel Doug McComb (SNC)

Materials Management Matrix (MMM) for ESBWR, AP1000, ABWR, EPR and APWR

Jeffrey Hamel Steve Blossom (STP)

NDE and Reduction of Repairs in Nuclear Construction (ASME Sect III)

Steve Swilley Dave Lewis (PSEG)

Equipment Reliability for New Plants Leonard Loflin Scott Bond (AmerenUE)


2009 ANT New Plant Deployment Projects

2009-09

2009-08

2009-07

2009-05

2009-04

2009-02

2009-01

Project ID#

Doug McComb (Southern)

Wayne Johnson

Safety Related Stationary Battery Qualification

Project Title

EPRI Project Manager

Executive Sponsor

Achieving New Nuclear Virtual Plant Configuration Management

Ken Barry Doug McComb (Southern)

Modular Equipment Testing, Shipping and Storage -Benchmarking and Guidelines

Ken Barry Brad Stokes (SCE&G)

Guidance on EMI Protection for Instrumentation and Control Systems

Joe Naser Doug McComb (Southern)

EPRI Fuel Reliability Guidelines – Implications for New Plants

Kurt Edsinger Brad Stokes (SCE&G)

Next-Generation Attenuation (NGA) Model for Central and Eastern United States (NGA-East)

Jeffrey Hamel Doug McComb (Southern)

EUR/URD Comparison Project Jeffrey Hamel Pablo Lopez (ENDESA)




Review of 2010 Candidate Tasks

EPRI Technical Staff



Advanced Nuclear Technology Program2010 Potential Projects

SACTI Model Update18

Impaction of Radionuclide/Source Term17

New Nuclear Plant Construction Technology Project16

Update BWRVIA Model to Include ABWR15

Technical Basis for HDPE Above-Ground Use14

Advanced NDE for Ferritic Stainless Steel Tubing13

FME Guidelines for Nuclear Construction 12

HFE Training11

Digital RT10

NDE Digital Data9

Concrete Embedded Sensors8

Assessment of Water Chemistry Guidelines for New Plants7

Methodology For Risk Informed Procurement 6

Guidelines for Meeting ASME Owners Certificate Requirements5

Digital I&C Training4

Cooling Tower Guidelines for New Plants3

Alloys 690/52/152 PWSCC Research for New Plants2

New Plant Startup Program Guidelines1

Candidate Task TitleCandidate Task ID#



Project ID #1 - Startup Program Guideline

Bo Clark

Advanced Nuclear Technology (ANT)Chicago, IL August 25, 2009



Summary of Issue• Previous Startup experience and lessons learned have not been

captured• The effects of new construction techniques, requirements and EPC

arrangements upon Startup need to be evaluated

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 for 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

Vendor Engagement• Vendors will be encouraged to participate in TAG• EPC feedback will be key to ensuring that the guideline can be

implemented




Project Deliverables

Project Costs 2010 2011 Total

Startup Program and Technology Guideline $185K $23K

$208K

Deliverable Title Planned Completion Date Deliverable Type

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



Project ID #2 – Alloys 690/52/152 PWSCC Research for New Plants

Christine King



Project ID #2: Alloys 690/52/152 PWSCC Research for New Plants

Summary of Issue• Ongoing EPRI research demonstrates general PWSCC

superiority of A690/52/152 over A600/82/182 (primarily for RPV CRDM penetrations) but it also indicates that:– some microstructures, product forms and thermo-mechanical

processing (cold work, HAZ) can reduce PWSCC superiority of A690 significantly

– ductility dip cracking (DDC) and hot cracking of Alloy 52 (and 52M) can be confused with PWSCC in operating plants (e.g. SONGS). Also, there is concern if such cracking can promote PWSCC.

• These issues need to be resolved to realize maximum benefit to the industry for using these materials including likely extended inspection intervals





Task Description• This task will 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

• The research will utilize test data to develop technical basis to request extension of inspection intervals for Alloy 690 components from the NRC



Potential Benefit of Project• Improved guidelines for material specification (base and

weld metal) and for fabrication/installation/repair of thick-wall components to maximize PWSCC resistance

• Extended inspection intervals to reduce cost and worker exposure

• Life prediction models to facilitate informed asset management

• Flaw disposition curves




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



Highly Leveraged Research• MRP Alloy 690/52/152 PWSCC annual research budget

over $1M• International collaboration in partnership with NRC RES,

US Naval Reactors contractors, EDF, UNESA, Rolls Royce, Ringhals, KAERI and more (multimillion $ annually)

• New Plants personnel from NRC (NRO) part of the collaboration

• DOE/EPRI Long Term Operation (80 year life) program





Vendor Engagement• Material suppliers (e.g., Valinox and Sumitomo) and

component suppliers (e.g., Westinghouse, AREVA, MHI, Doosan) will be engaged interactively during execution by iterating material procurement and test results feedback

• These vendors will be given opportunity to participate in development of guidelines for material procurement and component fabrication/installation




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

Project ID #3 - Cooling Tower Sourcebook for New Nuclear Plants

Leonard Loflin





Project ID #3 - Cooling Tower Sourcebook for New Nuclear PlantsSummary of Issue• Cooling Tower experience is limited in the industry

– Selection of tower type– Project impact of selection– Project impact of support systems– Compiled experience– Performance complications

• Existing cooling towers had problems– under performance– operations/maintenance issues

• Environmental issues are significant– Water consumption – Operation (blow down, drift, chemicals)

• Permits will complicate design– mandating tower designs with limited or no nuclear

experience



Task Description• Create a sourcebook to

support– Design / Application– Operation– Maintenance

• Addressing– Natural draft– Mechanical– Dry– Hybrid





• Include for each design (as a minimum)– Pros and cons of each type– Design and construction issues and

recommendations– Support systems and auxiliaries (i.e.,

chemicals)– Key operations insights– Key maintenance insights– Monitoring, testing and trending

capabilities– Lessons learned from

• Worldwide nuclear fleet• Worldwide fossil and other industrial



Potential Benefit of Project• Increase assurance that tower design

and installation achieve– Plant capacity– Environmental requirements– Project cost and schedule targets

• Establish the foundation for effective– Operations– Maintenance

Approach to Work• EPRI staff supplemented by contracts as needed• ANT TAG (members, tower vendors, EPCs)• Leverage 2009 NMAC Cooling Tower Guide





Vendor Engagement• Immediate engagement of cooling tower vendors for

information gathering and TAG involvement.


Project Costs


Cooling Tower Sourcebook covering design, operations and maintenance 06/30/2011 Technical Report

2010 2011 Total

Cooling Tower Guidelines for New Plants $207K $23K

$230K

Project ID #4 - Digital I&C Training

Ray Torok






Summary of Issue• Nuclear utilities relatively inexperienced with digital I&C• Many new people coming in to support and operate new

plants – people new to I&C, digital and nuclear• I&C training needed for new build engineers and managers

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 familiarizationVendor Engagement• Great majority of training modules will be generic• Vendors to be used for review of draft materials as appropriate (per

consensus direction of TAG)



Course Structure for Existing Technical Track

3.1‐1 16 Req'ts. Characteristics3.1‐2 17 Safety Req'ts. (CS # 3)3.1‐3 17 Requirements Expression

Requirements Phase (3.1)3.1‐1 16 Req'ts. Characteristics3.1‐2 17 Safety Req'ts. (CS # 3)3.1‐3 17 Requirements Expression

Requirements Phase (3.1)

3.2‐1 19 Licensing

3.2‐2 16 SW Safety Plans3.2‐3 19 SW V&V

3.2‐4 20 COTS3.2‐5 13 COTS Compensation

3.2‐6 22 Digital PRA3.2‐7 12 Failure Analysis Tech. (CS # 5)3.2‐8 12 Cyber Security

Related Processes (3.2)3.2‐1 19 Licensing

3.2‐2 16 SW Safety Plans3.2‐3 19 SW V&V

3.2‐4 20 COTS3.2‐5 13 COTS Compensation

3.2‐6 22 Digital PRA3.2‐7 12 Failure Analysis Tech. (CS # 5)3.2‐8 12 Cyber Security

Related Processes (3.2)

3.3‐1 12 Digital Characteristics 13.3‐2 18 Digital Characteristics 2

3.3‐3 12 CDR Introduction3.3‐4 19 CDR Process (CS #4)3.3‐5 10 Architectural Concepts

3.3‐6 13 CCF Part 13.3‐7 12 CCF Part 23.3‐8 11 CCF Part 3

Design Phase (3.3)3.3‐1 12 Digital Characteristics 13.3‐2 18 Digital Characteristics 2

3.3‐3 12 CDR Introduction3.3‐4 19 CDR Process (CS #4)3.3‐5 10 Architectural Concepts

3.3‐6 13 CCF Part 13.3‐7 12 CCF Part 23.3‐8 11 CCF Part 3

Design Phase (3.3)

3.4‐1 11 Testing Overview3.4‐2 7 IEEE 1012 (1998) Test Phase3.4‐3 11 O&M Support (CS # 2)

Implementation, Test, O&M Phases (3.4)

3.4‐1 11 Testing Overview3.4‐2 7 IEEE 1012 (1998) Test Phase3.4‐3 11 O&M Support (CS # 2)

Implementation, Test, O&M Phases (3.4)

1.1‐1 10 Introduction1.1‐2 10 Digital Delta1.1‐3 13 Lifecycle Overview

1.1‐4 13 EPRI DI&C Program1.1‐5 9 Ten NRC Questions

Overview (1.1)1.1‐1 10 Introduction1.1‐2 10 Digital Delta1.1‐3 13 Lifecycle Overview

1.1‐4 13 EPRI DI&C Program1.1‐5 9 Ten NRC Questions

Overview (1.1)

2.1‐1 17 50.59, NEI 96‐07, TR 1023482.1‐2 23 Digital Component Architectures2.1‐3 14 Communication Architectures

2.1‐4 11 Digital Delta Impact (CS # 1)2.1‐5 24 Digital Risk

2.1‐6 21 Software Risk2.1‐7 8 Process Variations

Tech Basics (2.1)2.1‐1 17 50.59, NEI 96‐07, TR 1023482.1‐2 23 Digital Component Architectures2.1‐3 14 Communication Architectures

2.1‐4 11 Digital Delta Impact (CS # 1)2.1‐5 24 Digital Risk

2.1‐6 21 Software Risk2.1‐7 8 Process Variations

Tech Basics (2.1)






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

Project ID #15 - BWRVIA Model for ABWRs

Susan Garcia






Summary of Issue• EPRI BWRVIA (BWR Vessel and Internals Assessment) Model does not include new

reactor designs• Model calculates the optimum amount of hydrogen injection for IGSCC mitigation of

plant internals• Excess hydrogen injection can impact operating dose rates and increase the need for

shieldingTask Description• Develop a BWRVIA Model for ABWR usePotential Benefit of Project• ABWR owners will benefit by the model’s ability to monitor and predict important plant

chemistry conditions such as:– Oxidant levels (oxygen, peroxide)– Electrochemical corrosion potential (ECP)– Optimum hydrogen injection levels

• The updated model will support key design decisions such as the amount of shielding needed to reduce operating dose rates and interface with the RAMA code to do dose calculations for N-16



0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50

Feedwater Hydrogen Concentration (PPM)

Nor

mal

ized

MSL

RM

Act

ivity

Hydrogen concentration can significantly impact operating dose rates

MSLRM Impact with Hydrogen Injection




Approach to Work• Collect plant design and operation information from vendors• Update model for ABWR design• Run model and verify results• QA model• Release model for member use

Vendor Engagement• Vendors will play a key role in this project as plant-specific design and

operational information will be needed to update the model• ABWR vendors that may be included:

– Toshiba– GE-Hitachi




Project Costs


Status report 2010 Technical Update Report

Model code for beta-testing 2011 Beta Code

Final BWRVIA Code for ABWRs 2012 Software Code and Users Manual


2010 2011 2012 Total

Updated BWRVIA code for ABWR designs $462K $242K $143K

$847K



Project ID #6 – Methodology for Risk Informed Procurement

Patrick O’Regan




Summary of Issue• Nuclear power plants must comply with regulatory

accepted codes and standards (e.g., ASME Section III) for safety-related components

• Requirements apply to the design, procurement, construction and acceptance of pressure boundary components

• Existing codes & standards are deterministically based

• Recent experience with the operating fleet identifies path to burden reduction for New Build





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 significant components 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 requirements per 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

Vendor Engagement• The results of this project will be technology neutral, therefore:

– Only one design will need to piloted– Only one COLA will need to be submitted– Once approved, the methodology and process can be used by any

Vendor, any COLA, any support organization





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 $303K $303K $164K

$770K



Project ID #7 – Water Chemistry Guidelines Assessment for New Plants

Keith Fruzetti



Project ID # 7 - Assessment of Water Chemistry Guidelines for New Plants

Summary of Issue• Water chemistry impacts materials integrity, fuel integrity, radiation source term

reduction.• Guidelines only known to be applicable for the current operating 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)

Vendor Engagement• New plant design vendors will be invited to participate throughout the project as

part of the TAG to:– Provide information about new plant design (if available)– Participate in identification and evaluation of gaps between GL and designs– Take back information from project to incorporate (as needed or possible) in

new plant designs




• Higher core boiling and impact on corrosion product behavior (transport and deposition)

• Materials (i.e., Alloy 600/690) and hydrogen concentration requirements.

• No VCT. Direct injection (continuous or batch) and management of hydrogen

• Primary side sampling system design and impact on sampling/monitoring requirements

• Impact of canned rotor reactor coolant pump operation and location (near SG)

• CVCS systems located in containment – impact on filter/resin management and radiation protection

• High duty core impact on zinc chemistry

• Low steam generator blowdownflow rate impact on SGBD chemistry

• Chemistry control guidance for new passive systems and components (used in emergency scenarios)

Examples of Potential Impact of New Plant Design on Water Chemistry Guidelines





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 $860K

Project ID #8 - Concrete Embedded Sensors

Ken Barry






Summary of Issue • Concrete structures are an integral part of the nuclear

station and assessment of integrity is needed for licensees to make informed mitigation and repair decisions with regard to long term operations

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 EPRs





Approach to Work• Project will be primarily accomplished by EPRI staff

collaborating with EdF and ORNL

Vendor Engagement• NSSS and AE engagement on construction attributes of

using embedded sensors– This will primarily occur during the second year of this project




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



Project ID #9 - Filmless RT

Steve Swilley




Summary of Issue • There have been advances made in filmless radiography

that could benefit new construction in the areas of examination of cast stainless steel, dissimilar metal welds, and austenitic welds

Task Description• Evaluation of filmless radiography systems

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

electronic sources





Potential 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.



Approach to Work• EPRI staff will manage the project

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

demonstrations

Vendor Engagement• Equipment and service providers will be engaged to bring

the latest technology for demonstration and evaluation– GE, VMI, Fuji, Carestream Health (Kodak), Varian, L&R

Research, BAM, RTD, and JME






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

Technical Updates/ Final Report


Project Costs 2010 2011 2012 Total

Evaluation and Qualification of Filmless Radiography Systems

$165K $165K $165K

$495K

Project ID #10 - NDE Digital Data

Steve Swilley






Summary of Issue• Archival NDE data is required to support the QA basis of

new construction. In the past, this was typically a paper report for UT, ET, and RT with accompanying radiographic images. With today’s technology, most NDE methods have the capability to provide digital records that should be acceptable for providing evidence of the examinations

• Many document control departments will not accept digital data and in many cases require conversion to hard copy for storage/retention

• The digital data format is often an issue with regard to record life and future readability



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

member utilities and investigate the technical reqs. for digital archiving• Conduct a workshop for NDE examiners, information technology (IT)

personnel, archivists/document control personnel, and local/state/federal regulators

• 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

• 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

Vendor Engagement• Regulator and vendor input will be received through

workshop forums



2010 2011 Total

NDE Digital Data Guidelines $161K $61K

$222K


Project Costs


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



Project ID #11 - Development of HFE Training Modules

Joe Naser




Summary of Issue• Utility personnel require training in the application of human factors

engineering (HFE) principles and processes in design, verification and validation, and acceptance of new plant control rooms and other digital human-system interfaces (HSIs) to: – Improve interface designs– Reduce the likelihood of human errors and potential unplanned

outages caused by them• This training is lacking for utility engineers in general and new build

engineers in particularTask 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 madeVendor Engagement• Training modules will be generic and not vendor specific• Vendors were engaged in the development of EPRI 1010042• Vendors were engaged in developing industry positions for human

factors issues under NEI Task Force / NRC Task Working Group related to Highly Integrated Control Room – Human Factors







Project Costs


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

2010 Total

HFE Training Modules $160K $160K

Project ID #12 - FME Guidelines for Nuclear Construction

Marty Bridges






Summary of Issue• Past plant construction techniques focused on FM removal versus

prevention and resulted in plants beginning commercial operationwith “legacy” FM

• Many of today’s fuel failures and equipment failures can be attributed to “legacy” or plant construction origin FM

Task Description• Development of practical and implementable FME construction

policies and practices based on input from operating plant FME subject matter experts and new plant construction management

Potential Benefit of Project• Not implementing adequate FME construction practices could lead to

chronic equipment and fuel failures • Minor changes to new plant construction processes could significantly

reduce the occurrence of FM intrusion


Approach to Work• EPRI Project Manager will form a Technical Advisory

Committee (TAG) consisting of construction and FME subject matter experts

• Together the TAG members will develop realistic FME practices for nuclear plants being constructed which would be issued as an EPRI “FME Guidelines for Nuclear Construction”

Vendor Engagement• Construction management involvement is critical to

developing an implementable plant construction FME program







Project Costs


FME Guidelines for Nuclear Construction 12/31/2010 Technical Report

2010 Total

FME Guidelines for New Nuclear Construction

$133K $133K

Project ID #5 – Guidelines for Meeting ASME Owners Certificate Requirements

Steve McCracken






Summary of Issue• The Owner has specific requirements under ASME

Section III, NCA-3200, “Owner’s Responsibilities”– Section III permits delegation of requirements provided

Owner retains overall responsibility for compliance with all requirements

– Potential for increase in construction costs if the ASME Owner requirements are left to the discretion of NSSS vendors, system designers, or constructors without significant Owner involvement in the review and approval processes

• Industry guidelines for meeting ASME Section III Owner’s requirements do not exist



Task Description• Develop guideline document which provides detailed

analysis of options and associated risks with different methods to meet ASME “Owner’s Responsibilities”

Potential Benefit of Project• Detailed summary of ASME Section III Owner’s

responsibilities and requirements• Concise matrix of options and associated risks for

meeting ASME Owner’s responsibilities• Established road map and plan detailing an effective,

efficient, and low risk way to implement ASME Owner’s responsibilities and ensure compliance with requirements




Approach to Work• Solicit input and support from ASME experts to define

requirements• Coordinate with utilities that have defined an approach

and identify best practices• Communicate with regulators, as necessary, to ensure

proper understanding of the interface and expected oversight of Owner’s responsibilities and requirements

• Develop and write guidelinesVendor Engagement• Communicate and coordinate with NSSS vendor(s),

EPCs, etc., to determine level of Owner’s responsibilities delegated to and accepted by vendor(s)





Project Costs 2010 Total

ASME Owners Requirements $83K

$83K


ASME Owner’s Certificate Guidelines 12/22/2010 Technical Report



Project ID #13 - Ferritic Stainless Steel Testing

Steve Swilley




Summary of Issue• Duplex and ferritic stainless steel tubing is being selected

more frequently in BOP heat exchanger and condenser applications due to its enhanced material properties and corrosion resistance

• Existing electromagnetic techniques are inferior in providing accurate and repeatable results for proper tube integrity assessments

• The challenges are even more formidable for detecting flaws underlying support structures





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

resultsVendor Engagement• ET sensor and equipment manufacturers will be engaged for

assessment and contracted for R&D






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

$211K $267K $245K

$723K

Project ID #14 - Use of HDPE for Above-Ground Piping Systems

Doug Munson






Introduction• Three EPRI organizations have been working in support of

ASME Code Case N-755 for below-ground applications– NDEC is supporting activities related to examination– BOP Corrosion is supporting activities related to design

• PE industry does not have the materials and engineering data to support Code rules or satisfy the regulator

• > $2M committed to date– WRTC is supporting activities related to fusing and repair

• All of the work is directly applicable to above-ground applications



Summary of Issue• Above ground is different• Some different loads, e.g.,

– Ground causes displacement of below-ground pipe– Buildings cause vibration of above-ground pipe

• Some additional material properties will be needed• Some different events, e.g., fire• Questions about piping design tools

– HDPE creeps and undergoes large displacements– Computer codes assume small displacement & no creep





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





Vendor Engagement• Frequent communications with AP1000 vendor• Intended applications

– Compressed and Instrument Air Systems– Component Cooling Water System– Storm Drain System– Fire Protection System– Gravity and Roof Drain Collection System– Raw Water System– Sanitary Drainage System– Service Water System– Turbine Building Closed Cooling Water System– Central Chilled Water System– Liquid Radwaste System– Radioactive Waste Drain System– Waste Water System




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



Project ID #16 – Construction Technology

Jeffrey Hamel




Summary of Issue• It is imperative for new plants to meet proposed

schedules and budget• New construction technologies that have potential large

benefit for cost/time savings, need to be evaluated for application in new build activities

Task Description• This project will update a previous DOE report while

factoring in recent international experiences and U.S. licensing experiences





Potential Benefits of ProjectThis project will:• Provide an industry-wide look at several high impact

construction technologies that can directly benefit new plants

• Understand and build off of limitation / constraints being faced today at major new nuclear plant construction projects around the world

• Provide risk mitigation options for aggressive new nuclear plant construction schedules (many first-of-a-kind plants)



One Example –

Steel-Plate Reinforced Concrete (SC) vs. Traditional Reinforced Concrete (RC):

• This project would look at all recent licensing experience with SC, and collaboratively develop a revised set of “recommended actions”

• These recommended actions could include working with AISC N-690 and ACI 349 to develop (and justify) a generic “design specification” including neccesary generic testing and analyses (building on body of knowledge being developed today)

• Current industry effort is insufficiently supported (volunteer basis) and has no driver to be completed

From DOE-MPR 2610




Approach to Work• Workshops to understand and document “state of the technology” and

how/if its being used/licensed– Asia, Europe, U.S.

• Collaborate w/ KHNP and others building today…• Incorporate above into revision of DOE report…deeper dive into what

is needed technically to fully utilize advanced technologies

Vendor Engagement• Vendors will be invited to participate in TAG• EPCs will be key players…nuclear and non-nuclear• WEC work for shield building acceptance will be built upon





Project Costs


EPRI Technical Report Documenting the Advanced Construction Technologies Evaluated During Phase 1

12/31/2010 Technical Report

Various EPRI Technical Reports / Updates from R&D initiated under Phase 3 Various Technical Reports /

Updates

2010 Total

New Nuclear Plant Construction Technology Project – Phase 1 $314K

$314K



Project ID #17 - Impaction of Radionuclides

Ken Barry



Project ID #17 - Impaction of Radionuclide / Source Term

Summary of Issue• Credit for the impaction of radionuclides was recently disallowed by

the NRC during AP1000 licensing activitiesTask Description• Scope out possibility of increasing Decontamination Factor for

containment impaction creditPotential Benefit of Project• This project would firm up 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

Vendor Engagement• Will need Westinghouse engagement to evaluate possible

approaches based on past RAI responses and access to proprietary data





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



Project ID #18 – SACTI

Jeffrey Hamel




Summary of Issue• Several new reactor license applicants have proposed to

use cooling towers for normal operation heat dissipation as well as for their safety-related ultimate heat sink

• The potential impacts on the environment and plant design/operation have been historically evaluated using the Seasonal/Annual Cooling Tower Impact (SACTI) prediction code

• The original code issued by EPRI in 1984 was archived in the late 1990’s. In addition, the code has several glitches in the main program that have frustrated end users for decades




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



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

Vendor Engagement• EPRI will work with Bechtel under an exclusive contractor

arrangement. Bechtel was an original licensee and has invested in the SACTI code over the last several years







Project Costs


Revised SACTI Model 12/31/10 Software

2010 Total

Revised SACTI Model $275K

$275K


Day 2 Material




EPRI Customer Satisfaction Survey

Ken Barry, Senior Project Manager



ANT Chairman’s Comments

• ANT Program in present form is relatively new with products in various stages – some completed, numerous ongoing and initiation of others being considered

• ANT Members provide informal feedback on the Program throughout the year

• Formal feedback on all EPRI Programs is done once a year -today is that opportunity to provide ANT Program feedback

• Recommend reflecting on ANT Program’s overall impact and not any single project




Nuclear Member Satisfaction 2008 Survey Results

100%95%I would recommend this program to my industry peers.

55%79%The program staff proactively communicates its results to policy makers, regulators, other organizations and the public at large as appropriate.

94%97%The program staff is responsive.

57%72%I am satisfied with the financial management of the program.

69%72%It is simple to access my EPRI reports and products

27%51%The program provides information on how other members have applied results.

85%89%The program provides enough information to enable my company to use the results.

69%86%Program results are received in a format I can use.

81%76%I am satisfied with the financial leverage my company gets from its investment in this program.

21%60%Program results arrive in time to help my business.

69%92%The quality of program results is high.

69%81%The program staff keeps me informed as the work progresses.

87%87%The program results help me improve the performance of my company’s assets.

87%90%The program’s work addresses my company’s needs.

53%85%The program provides the vision to help my company prepare for the future.

2008 ANT Results

2008 Nuclear Results

(Percentages are the sum of “Excellent” and “Good” rankings)


Why is your response important?

Allows EPRI to hear the “Voice of the Member”Provides direction on improvement initiativesFocuses EPRI on what is important

Your survey response is important because

“You are EPRI too." Bill Naughton, Exelon Corporation




2008 Member Feedback

4 Biggest Areas to Improve• Produce Timely & Useful EPRI

Products

• Improve Ease of Doing Business

• Overcome Technology Transfer Gaps

• Strengthen International Support

Areas to improve

Strength areas. Need to maintain


Timely & Useful EPRI Products

Simpler, Faster Access to Products– More focus research portfolio

• Consolidated programs & projects (25 – 30% fewer )• Reduced/consolidated number of products (20% less)

– Categorization of products – 4 buckets– Web Site Access

• Improved search capability: filtered results, exact match listedfirst, superseded documents noted

Shorter, Smoother Product Cycle Times– Increased planning cycle flexibility (financial planning & approval)– Leveled workload – to minimize product delivery overload at year

end




Nuclear Deliverable Implementation Categories

*Key Drivers:

• Regulatory: (e.g. NEI-03-08/US-NRC/WANO/ OSART/country-specific regulatory actions)

• Industry commitment (e.g. fuel integrity initiative)

• Codes & standards (e.g. ASME code application)

Examples: Fuel Reliability Guidelines, Materials Reliability Program / Boling Water Reactor Vessels Internal Program Inspection & Evaluation Guidelines

* key driver will be included as an Implementation note

Includes:

• Options for improvement to plant operations, safety, reliability, and/or overall performance in a cost-effective way

• Industry focus area or emerging issues

Examples: Emerging issues, process or procedural guidelines, technical options for adoption of industry improvement practices

Reference Types*:

Benchmarking – includes plant operating experience and/or benchmarking studies

Early R&D - basic/early phase of R&D findings (3-5 yr outlook)

Planning guides - planning or program guides; action plans

Proceedings - documentation from key member meetings

Skills development – training material or courses (including Computer Based Training and Qualification Programs)

Technical basis - background or fundamental information that substantiates a Category 1 or Category 2 item

* Reference type will be included as an Implementation note

Includes:

• Items with long-term focus (e.g. technology innovation scope, 5-10 yr outlook) and/or provides strategic insight for the industry

• Including, but not limited to: new technology, new techniques, proposed rule-making/regulatory changes, strategic planning documents.

Examples: Fuel Fragmentation Studies, Advanced Technologies for Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, Nanotechnology

Category 1Category 1 Category 2Category 2

ReferenceReference Strategic–Long TermStrategic–Long Term


Ease of Doing Business

Sector Simplification - Simpler & More Transparent– Funding flow map for every member – where your dollars go– Simplified and standardized advisory structure – Promoted one standard process for project prioritization and

funding– Simplified Sector’s Nuclear Strategic Plan – a living document,

updated yearly by members– New and improved Sector Operations Protocol– Simplified, member-focused Orientation Materials




Enhanced International Support

Increasing Technical Interfaces– Local EPRI presence (in-country account manager)– Direct Technical interactions: regional technical meetings or

workshops – International Activities Dashboard – Tracking engagement and

progress– Resident Researcher Program– Develop joint projects using member’s R&D resources

Overcoming communication and cultural barriers– Initiated webcasts with simultaneous translation– Translation into 4 to 8 languages of key report summaries and

newsletters– Pre-briefing for International NPC members


EPRI’s ANT Program Websitehttp://www.epri.com/ant




Member Satisfaction Survey – Front Page

Rate each category by circling

5 = Excellent

1 = Very Poor

Program specific comments hereAnything you scored 3 or

lower, please provide your comments to help us improve


Member Satisfaction Survey – Back Page

1

3

2

5

4

Circle DK if you “Don’t Know”.

Rate Program statements by indicating your level of agreement

5 = Strongly Agree

1 = Strongly Disagree

Anything you scored 3 or lower, please provide your

comments to help us improve

Rank the top 5 questions, indicating your level of importance. Only rank 5.

1 = Highest

5 = Lowest




APC Discussion of 2010 Candidate Tasks and Prioritization



Process for New Task Approval

• Today, FINAL prioritization of 2010 Candidate Task– Eliminate any tasks that should not be considered for

prioritization via APC nomination and vote– Rank all projects High, Medium or Low– Results will be voted upon later by APC and

established as “ANT 2010 priorities”• Ongoing tasks (2008/2009) will be reviewed in detail

during mid-October 2009 webcast along with detailed project budget updates– Requests for 2010 budgets will be presented and

voted upon• “ANT 2010 priorities” and all ongoing tasks will be

authorized at January APC meeting




Mexico’s Nuclear Future(El Futuro Nuclear de México)

Rafael Fernandez de la GarzaComisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE)



Financial Review

Tom Mulford, Program Manager





2009 ANT Program Funding

$4,100

$1,391

$903

$390

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

$4,500

2009 Committed

Utilities & Vendors

DOE / NRC

$6,784 To-Date

EPRI Base EPRI TI

*

* Includes 300K of DOE funds expected in 4Q09


2010 ANT Membership Breakdown

2010 Expected Membership…$3.925M

2010 Potential…~$3.2M

2010 “Drops”




ANT Program Budget

TBD$7,255TOTAL Approved Spending

$5,966$7,578TOTAL Available Funding

$400$390Technology Innovation Funding

$323*$794Prior Year Carry Forward

TBD$323Program Contingency

$415$1,391DOE/NRC Co-Funding

$3,925$4,100Supplemental Funding

$903$903Base Funding

2010 ($K)Projected(Scenario #1)

2009 ($K)Actual (8/19/2009)

* As of 8/19/09


$3,304

$2,662

$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 Candidate Tasks

847143242462Update BWRVIA model to include ABWR 15

31400314New Nuclear Plant Construction Technology Project 16

300030Impaction of Radionuclide/Source Term 17

495165165165Digital RT 10

222061161NDE Digital Data 9

5602828Concrete Sensors 8

8600530330Assessment of Water Chemistry Guidelines for New Plants 7

723245267211Advanced NDE for Ferritic Stainless Steel Tubing 13

13300133FME Guidelines for Nuclear Construction 12

29200292Technical Basis for HDPE Above-Ground Use 14

$2,165

0

0

302.5

0

138

23

385

23

2011 Budget

2300207Cooling Tower Guidelines for New Plants 3

$7,129$1,103$3,862Totals

2750275SACTI Model Update 18

1600160HFE Training 11

770165302.5Methodology For Risk Informed Procurement 6

83083Guidelines for Meeting ASME Owners Certificate Requirements 5

2760138Digital I&C Training 4

1,155385385Alloys 690/52/152 PWSCC Research for New Plants 2

2080185New Plant Startup Program Guidelines 1

Project Totals

2012 Budget

2010 Budget

Project TitleCandidate ID#


Items Needing ANT APC Approval

• APC approval needed to accept final “ANT 2010 priorities”project list

• APC approval needed to add $65K of additional funding (from the Program Contingency Fund) to allow the MMM project to address the GE-H design as well – EC approved in July




Review Decisions, Actions and Upcoming Meetings

Tom Mulford, Program ManagerBryan Dolan, ANT APC Chairperson



Upcoming Meetings

• August 27th – Configuration Management Project (2009-01) Information Handover Guide TAG meeting – webcast – Contact Ken Barry

• September 11th – ABWR MMM Project Meeting with GEH/HGNE in San Jose – Follow on webcast with Toshiba (date TBD) – Contact Jeffrey Hamel

• September 14-18 – Meetings with KHNP in Korea, including Shin Kori site visit

• October meetings with potential European ANT Members– RWE UK / E.ON UK (UK new build)– ENEL (Italian/Spanish/Slovakia/Romania new build)– RESUN (Switzerland new build)– GenEnergija (Slovenia new build)– CEZ (Czech Republic new build)

• Mid-October webcast to discuss ongoing project status




Other Items of Business

• Webcast will be held in Mid-October to discuss the status and 2010 budget needs for the ongoing tasks– We predict there will be puts and takes from ongoing projects– As a heads up:

• Additional funds will be requested for the CEUS Seismic Source Characterization Project (2008-04) to support final report development and public website development

• Welding and Fabrication Guidelines Project (2008-03) will likely de-commit request for 2010 funds

• E/R Project (2008-07) will ask for additional funds to conduct pilot plant assessment

• Configuration Mgmt Project (2009-01) will ask for additional funds to continue development of Standard Reference Model

• Modules Project (2009-02) will request funds for ITAAC work

PLEASE JOIN US… ANT APC Dinner at Keefer’s Restaurant August 25, 2009 Located at 20 West Kinzie in Chicago's River North neighborhood, Keefer's Restaurant has the reputation as one of the best steakhouses in the United States and has the freshest of seafood, which is flown in daily from the East Coast. Publications and programs like Wine Spectator and Playboy, as well as The Food Network, Chicago Magazine, and Crain's Chicago Business have given Keefer’s many accolades. Please join us in the Kaffe room for a reception where we will be serving appetizers and beverages at 6:30pm. Dinner will begin at 7:15pm, followed by dessert. On the menu for tonight’s event: Appetizers: Asparagus Wrapped in Prosciutto & Jumbo Shrimp Cocktail To Start: House Salad Entree: Choice of New York Strip, Large Filet Mignon, Sautéed Halibut, or Organic Salmon Sides: Sautéed Green Beans Au Gratin Potatoes Dessert: Choice of Chocolate Cake, Cheesecake or Apple Tart Drink Options: Open Bar Chardonnay: 2007 Sonoma Cutrer, Russian River Ranches and Sonoma Cabernet Sauvignon: 2005 Provenance, Napa

Directions: From: The Westin Chicago River North Hotel To: Keefer’s Restaurant

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

Advanced Nuclear Technology (ANT) Action Plan Committee ...mydocs.epri.com/docs/ANT/August 2009 APC...

Documents

Transcript of Advanced Nuclear Technology (ANT) Action Plan Committee ...mydocs.epri.com/docs/ANT/August 2009 APC...