Page 20 - Nuclear Plant Journal - March April 2013
Basic HTML Version
20
Nuclear Plant Journal, March-April 2013
Successes &
Challenges
of Extended
Power Uprate
By Dave Dellario, Phil Amway, and
Kathy Picciott, Constellation Energy
Nuclear Group.
Dave Dellario
Dave Dellario is currently the Manager
– Engineering Services, overseeing
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group’s
(CENG) Fukushima response efforts.
Dave joined CENG in 1991 as a system
engineer and has served as Mechanical
Engineering Supervisor, Director of the
Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 Head Replacement
Project, Director of Fleet Projects and
Director of Project Management for the
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Extended Power
Uprate Project at Nine Mile Point.
Phil Amway
Phil Amway is currently the Fleet
Technical Lead for CENG’s Fukushima
Project at Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station. He has 32 years of nuclear
experience in the fields of Quality
Assurance, Reactor Engineering and
Operations. Phil joined CENG in 1991
as a licensed Senior Reactor Operator at
Nine Mile Point Unit 2. Phil also served
more than eight years in the U.S. Navy
Nuclear Program as an operator and
maintenance mechanic.
Kathy Picciott
Kathy Picciott is currently the Project
Lead for CENG’s Fukushima Project
at Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station and
has more than 25 years experience in
the nuclear industry. She started at
Nine Mile Point in 1985 as a structural
engineer. She also served in other
engineering positions and then moved
into project management progressing to
General Supervisor. Picciott also held
the position of Manager – Performance
Improvement.
Response to questions by Newal
Agnihotri, Editor of Nuclear Plant
Journal.
1.
What was the approximate cost for
the plant’s power plant uprate?
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group
invested nearly $250 million in the long-
term reliability of Nine Mile Point Unit 2
and helping us meet the growing demand
for additional clean air energy.
The cost breakdown is:
Project Management, Site Labor, and
•
Oversight: $23,800,000.
Engineering Services: $74,800,000.
•
Construction and Implementation:
•
$89,800,000.
Licensing: $3,500,000.
•
Equipment and Materials: $43,600,000.
•
I&C and Instrumentation: $4,200,000.
•
2.
Provide an overview of the successes
and challenges in accomplishing the
extended power uprate.
Like any major project, there are
numerous challenges and successes
experienced along the way to
implementation. Significant successes
include:
Restoration of full core flow
•
capability through replacement of jet
pump inlet mixers. Senior managers
maintained an operational focus by
dedicating resources to ensure that
the operators were not challenged by
reduced core flow capabilities.
Since Extended Power Uprate (EPU)
•
implementation, there have been no
plant de-rates required as a result of
the uprate.
The power ascension test program
•
was completed safely and event-free,
including numerous Infrequently
Performed Tests and Evolutions
(IPTEs).
Better-than-expectedelectricaloutput
•
was achieved through replacement of
the turbine high pressure rotor.
Feed water minimum flow valve
•
radiography was completed safely
and event free.
The ratio of the cost of the EPU
•
compared to the increase in electrical
output is low compared to the
industry average of power uprates.
EPU Project Engineering was
•
responsible for technical support of
the Licensing submittal and U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) review process, design of
over 50 permanent and temporary
modifications, and execution of the
power ascension test program.
Some of these modifications were not
•
directly related to the implementation
of the EPU project, but positively
contribute to the long-term reliability
of the station.
Power ascension was implemented
•
successfullywithnomajor challenges
through the effective use of internal
and external operating experience
to identify best practices, including
benchmarking other plants that
completed (or were in the process of
completing) similar EPU projects.
Our significant challenges include:
Material handling/lifting and rigging
•
events during the implementation
outage resulted in challenges in
safety performance on the job.
Steam dryer modifications to support
•
the higher steam flows at EPU
conditions; challenges in this area
resulted in longer time durations for
the modifications and increased dose
to workers.
3.
Were there any fuel upgrades or
modifications done to accomplish the
extended power uprate?
The same fuel design was used to
implement the EPU. To achieve the higher
power level, a higher batch fraction of new
fuel assemblies were needed with average
enrichment remaining approximately the
same as pre-uprate conditions.
4.
What instrumentation modifications,
including converting analog to digital,
were accomplished during the recent
extended power uprate?
Numerous changes to power
conversion system instrumentation were
required to implement the EPU. These
changes were primarily rescaling or
