UPRATING Of Older US Nuclear Plants

[Joe Neubarth]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uprates-20110418,0,7739985.story

U.S. is increasing nuclear power through uprating
Turning up the power is a little-publicized way of getting more electricity from existing nuclear plants. But scrutiny is likely to increase in the wake of Japan's nuclear crisis.

The U.S. nuclear industry is turning up the power on old reactors, spurring quiet debate over the safety of pushing aging equipment beyond its original specifications.

The little-publicized practice, known as uprating, has expanded the country's nuclear capacity without the financial risks, public anxiety and political obstacles that have halted the construction of new plants for the last 15 years.

The power boosts come from more potent fuel rods in the reactor core and, sometimes, more highly enriched uranium. As a result, the nuclear reactions generate more heat, which boils more water into steam to drive the turbines that make electricity...

 

[Joe Neubarth]

Hummmmmm? Higher power brings greater potential problems if you have an emergency, including longer time to shut down. Though I am certain there are enough safety parameters to allow this, right now it almost seem like we are spitting into the wind.

 

[Astronuc]

Actually, one can increase the core average linear hear rate, and even reduce the peak linear heat rate by judicious core design. The enrichments are still limited to 5%, but the max is about 4.95% to allow for some uncertainty.

The batch sizes on high duty plants is generally increased. BWRs take advantage of modern 10x10 fuel designs.

Many plants had a lot of margin in the original design, particularly BWRs and moderate/low duty PWRs. Many of the BWRs and moderate/low duty PWRs are on 24-month cycles.

Also, improvement in high and low pressure turbines can grab an extra 2-3% thermal efficiency.

 

[NUCENG]

US plants are also getting license renewals from 40 to 60 years.

And a number of US plants have extended operating cycles from 18 months to 2 years.

All plants are working to reduce the length of refueling outages by detailed planning, shifting some maintenance from outage to online, and performance monitoring that allows some maintenance periods to be extended. Lubricating oil analysis, vibration monitoring of rotating machinery, thermography, and heat balance monitoring are examples of monitoring techniques.

Finally the performance trend of US plants has shown a tremendous improvement in reliabilty at the same time. SCRAM reduction programs and all the other programs (including power uprates) have led to continuous growth in nuclear production without building new plants.

 

[Joe Neubarth]

US plants are also getting license renewals from 40 to 60 years.


... the performance trend of US plants has shown a tremendous improvement in reliabilty at the same time. SCRAM reduction programs and all the other programs (including power uprates) have led to continuous growth in nuclear production without building new plants.

"A tremendous improvement in reliability" Now, that sounds reassuring. Sell it as a reliability and durability improvement program, and I am not too concerned. Sell it as Reaching and Stretching to get more and more from old plants, and I feel uneasy; as I said, as if we are spitting into the wind.

All I know from experience is that when you reach too far, sometimes you can topple the ladder.

 

[gmax137]

Also consider that the plants don't uprate without NRC approval (it is a change to the operating license, which specifies the maximum core power). The NRC acceptance of the proposed uprates (at least recently, as in the past few years) depends upon showing the uprate to be 'risk-neutral.' This means that actual improvements have been made to the plant (as opposed to simply using the original margin, which may be substantial as Astronuc points out). Improvements might be uprated safety injection pumps, bigger or faster safety relief valves, improved emergency feedwater system, etc.

 

[Dmytry]

Sounds like the sure way to bring down safety. Something they're going to be doing until it backfires.

After the Fukushima incident, reading of all the other things that happened - control rods falling out resulting in criticalities, pressure vessels reshaped after getting bent during annealing, the Tokaimura incident - in my opinion nuclear industry had a of respect they never deserved, with a public image of reliability and regulation they never had. On 11th march, they were - as usual - projecting images of the backups for the backups, multiple redundancy, and other stuff - with noise of the reassuring keywords - approvals, regulation, reliability, redundancy, containment. Then we learned of electrical stuff in the flooded basement, of TEPCO not having enough dosimeters for all the workers, of TEPCO being unable to measure radiation past 1Sv/h , etc. Then it became a level 7, and in few months or few years there is a good possibility it'll be recognized as the worst accident in history (Chernobyl being demoted to second worst).
Now I see nuclear industry as a particularly poorly regulated kind of of toxic chemicals industry.
Operating with very tight profit margin (versus toxic chemicals that don't have nontoxic alternatives) and as such, incapable of affording protection anywhere near that of the toxic chemicals industries. I feel I had been duped. Even ignoring the Fukushima itself - just reading the accidents paint entirely different picture in my mind. A picture of routine violation of protocols and regulations, sporadically resulting in accidents. A picture of plants owners who do not understand the devices they own any more than a regular joe understands his laptop - or his laptop battery. A picture of regulations that are adjusted due to pressure from industry.
It will take a while for the 'pro nuclear' experts to convince me again they have any clue what they are talking about, after what they said on 11th march. Infinite time, really.
Optimists cannot do safety. I am working in the software industry. Optimists are always behind the schedule, always over budget, and always have highly bugged code. I see same in nuclear industry. Optimism, behind schedule, over budget, and screwing up big time, and immense arrogance of people who are so sure they know how stuff works they'll tell stuff on 11th that then turns out to be grossly false. People who can't do elementary calculations (Iodine aerially deposited into #4 spf lol).
I believed in all the safety they claimed before this accident. Not all, but most of it. Now I'm rather pissed I was lied to, and embarrassed I even believed the crooks.

I still believe though that EU's nuclear energy is different. That the designs are less clouded by arrogance. That the safety is not designed by optimists.

 

[NUCENG]

"A tremendous improvement in reliability" Now, that sounds reassuring. Sell it as a reliability and durability improvement program, and I am not too concerned. Sell it as Reaching and Stretching to get more and more from old plants, and I feel uneasy; as I said, as if we are spitting into the wind.

All I know from experience is that when you reach too far, sometimes you can topple the ladder.

What do you think is reaching too far? We are focused on the events at Fukushima which clearly exceeded the conditions in their design basis. The plant wasn't expected to see these conditions of a 9.0 earthquake and a 14+ m tsunami. There is a massive economic loss and significant impact on the lives of the workers and people who live in Japan. So far, the only deaths have been industrial accident to a crane operators and two drownings during the tsunami. Some workers may be getting doses that could affect their long term health. If you want to indict the nuclear industry for the performance at Fukushima daiichi I would direct that effort to researching earthquakes and external flooding events. If the Fukushima design had included those natural phenomena, Fukushima might be back on line now. But there would still have been thousands of Japanese dead and hundreds of thousands displaced.

Joe, I will provide information as truthful and as accurate as I can, based on my knowledge, experience, and training. If I am wrong about something, I will admit it as soon as I know. I will try to provide evidence to support my arguments as well. I can't and won't argue with sarcasm. I won't belittle you and will try to keep my own sarcasm to a simmer. If you want to challenge me, give me the courtesy of a specific argument or question. I have worked on three power uprates. at different plants. What do you want to know?

 

[Dmytry]

What I can't get over with is what was told on 11th and how much it differed from reality. However you turn that, it is inexcusable. It is obvious that if I had been anti nuclear "because a basement flood could take a reactor out" before Fukushima I would of been totally ridiculed anywhere as ignorant of the safety systems and redundancy etc, naive, n stuff. (Hell, I could of myself ridiculed someone proposing that!) I had been indeed myself duped into believing all the propaganda, believing in safety, believing that backup generators can be brought on site and be trivially connected right to the pumps bypassing any switchboard, believing that there would be big helicopters to deliver this stuff on site quickly, believing standard voltages and frequencies are used to permit regular backup gens to be used. (That is very much the case in EU from what I know but how I can trust myself not to be duped about that either?)
The fact that it was caused by tsunami is no excuse for the lies (direct, indirect, and lies by omission) that made me believe flooded basement can't possibly result in this.

The European perspective is that: we have specialized accident mitigation equipment despite lacking significant earthquake or tsunami risk (http://www.khgmbh.de/wEnglisch/intro_fernhantierung.php" , Areva has equivalent).
Japanese a: did not have anything equivalent even after Tokaimura criticality incident, b: had extreme reluctance/delay accepting help (obviously, to accept help is to acknowledge that they themselves could of been more prepared than they were), c: got robots on site 37 days after the accident, versus few hours for KHG.
Americans a: uprate their reactors a lot (20%), b: are apologetic for the Japanese unreadiness as if it was normal not to be prepared for disaster flooding a nukeplant basement (here it is not normal at all), c: Japanese are using those puny US military bomb disposal etc bots, not special nuclear accident robotics, which is sort of indicative of US also lacking specialized equipment ala KHG (correct me if I am wrong). (I still believe EU reactors are a lot safer even though I am far less sure in validity of my judgement after being shown I can be duped about reactors elsewhere)

 

[NUCENG]

Sounds like the sure way to bring down safety. Something they're going to be doing until it backfires.

After the Fukushima incident, reading of all the other things that happened - control rods falling out resulting in criticalities, pressure vessels reshaped after getting bent during annealing, the Tokaimura incident - in my opinion nuclear industry had a of respect they never deserved, with a public image of reliability and regulation they never had. On 11th march, they were - as usual - projecting images of the backups for the backups, multiple redundancy, and other stuff - with noise of the reassuring keywords - approvals, regulation, reliability, redundancy, containment. Then we learned of electrical stuff in the flooded basement, of TEPCO not having enough dosimeters for all the workers, of TEPCO being unable to measure radiation past 1Sv/h , etc. Then it became a level 7, and in few months or few years there is a good possibility it'll be recognized as the worst accident in history (Chernobyl being demoted to second worst).
Now I see nuclear industry as a particularly poorly regulated kind of of toxic chemicals industry.
Operating with very tight profit margin (versus toxic chemicals that don't have nontoxic alternatives) and as such, incapable of affording protection anywhere near that of the toxic chemicals industries. I feel I had been duped. Even ignoring the Fukushima itself - just reading the accidents paint entirely different picture in my mind. A picture of routine violation of protocols and regulations, sporadically resulting in accidents. A picture of plants owners who do not understand the devices they own any more than a regular joe understands his laptop - or his laptop battery. A picture of regulations that are adjusted due to pressure from industry.
It will take a while for the 'pro nuclear' experts to convince me again they have any clue what they are talking about, after what they said on 11th march. Infinite time, really.
Optimists cannot do safety. I am working in the software industry. Optimists are always behind the schedule, always over budget, and always have highly bugged code. I see same in nuclear industry. Optimism, behind schedule, over budget, and screwing up big time, and immense arrogance of people who are so sure they know how stuff works they'll tell stuff on 11th that then turns out to be grossly false. People who can't do elementary calculations (Iodine aerially deposited into #4 spf lol).
I believed in all the safety they claimed before this accident. Not all, but most of it. Now I'm rather pissed I was lied to, and embarrassed I even believed the crooks.

I still believe though that EU's nuclear energy is different. That the designs are less clouded by arrogance. That the safety is not designed by optimists.

You have every right to question nuclear safety. But if you worked in the industry you would have learned to question it every day, not just when there has been an accident. Have we been perfect, No. At Fukushima they didn't get the earthquake or tsunami design basis correct. You list examples of other accidents and near misses. I could point out many more. But the reason we know about them is that we in the industry try to learn from mistakes and prevent recurrence. Airplane and auto manufacturers have the same profit motive and learn from their accidents as well. You know that more people die in accidents while flying or driving than from nuclear accidents. So how mad are you about that? Are they also crooks? We'd better start building more prisons.

Optimism may not work with safety, but if pessimism is carried to excess we'd still be living in caves with a life expectancy of 30 years. Progress requires a balance of both. If you think the EU approach is safer, you haven't looked up accidents they have had.

 

[Dmytry]

You have every right to question nuclear safety. But if you worked in the industry you would have learned to question it every day, not just when there has been an accident. Have we been perfect, No. At Fukushima they didn't get the earthquake or tsunami design basis correct. You list examples of other accidents and near misses. I could point out many more. But the reason we know about them is that we in the industry try to learn from mistakes and prevent recurrence. Airplane and auto manufacturers have the same profit motive and learn from their accidents as well. You know that more people die in accidents while flying or driving than from nuclear accidents. So how mad are you about that? Are they also crooks? We'd better start building more prisons.

Optimism may not work with safety, but if pessimism is carried to excess we'd still be living in caves with a life expectancy of 30 years. Progress requires a balance of both. If you think the EU approach is safer, you haven't looked up accidents they have had.

Lies about safety, that is what is unforgivable. Nuclear industry flat out lied to create image of a plant that can't be taken out by a basement flood (whatever is the cause). You want it to be specific - a tsunami, that was not predicted, geophysicist's fault. No, it is a general design fault, a really big one. Electrical stuff in basement, inability to power the pumps if that equipment is taken out, etc. Single point of failure - an open door during a flood.

edit: also this attitude, 'have we been perfect'. Right, have you been perfect the plant would of kept running. Have you had common sense, there would have been generators and connection equipment ready for chopper delivery to any plant within hours, connecting to pumps directly. You do not need to predict tsunami to be able to handle it without meltdown. All you need is awareness of extent of own imperfection.

 

[gmax137]

Lies about safety, that is what is unforgivable.

I agree completely.

Nuclear industry flat out lied to create image of a plant that can't be taken out by a basement flood

What does that mean? People can lie, an 'industry' cannot. Who lied to you? I have worked in nuclear for over 30 years and I never lied to you.

 

[Dmytry]

I based my opinion on the safety on what various people working in the industry say, combined. The end result was - I was deceived into believing that a nuclear power plant cannot be taken out like this by a basement flood, not here, nor anywhere else (except maybe places like iran, north korea, etc) . Not just me, but pretty much everyone I know wouldn't ever have thought it is a possibility. It is equivalent to how nearly everyone in soviet union was deceived regarding safety of RBMK.

edit: what's about you. When you heard basement was flooded - did you think it would result in massive core damage at 3 reactors and fuel fire at SPF #4 ? Did you even suspect they wouldn't be able to power pumps by delivering some generators by chopper or something? Or were you also duped into believing that nuclear reactors are more robust against unexpected? Are you surprised that accident robots have trouble taking radiation readings because camera on one robot can't see dial of radiation monitor carried by another robot? Or does that not surprise you?

 

[Astronuc]

Sounds like the sure way to bring down safety. Something they're going to be doing until it backfires.

After the Fukushima incident, reading of all the other things that happened - control rods falling out resulting in criticalities, pressure vessels reshaped after getting bent during annealing, the Tokaimura incident - in my opinion nuclear industry had a of respect they never deserved, with a public image of reliability and regulation they never had. On 11th march, they were -

What does this rant have to do with "Uprating of older US nuclear plants"?

What do "control rods falling out resulting in criticalities, pressure vessels reshaped after getting bent during annealing, the Tokairmura incident" have to do with Fukushima or Uprating US NPPs? As far as I know, there is no indication of control rods falling out of Fukushima units, their vessels haven't been annealed, and Tokaimura is at another site, and has nothing to do with commercial NPP for power production. The Tokaimura accident was a research project, and obviously they were not following safety procedures of the kind that are mandatory at a commercial NPP.

As for Fukushima, no one here at PF made any guarantees, since we did not know the situation. I don't remember any professional from the nuclear industry here making promises or guarantees about Fukushima.

And none of this has anything to do with uprating US power plants.


As far as I know, there have been no changes to safety limits on US plants. We have done the uprates because of better analysis and better monitoring of the plants.

I heard from one contact that by March 12, his particular utility had already instituted reviews of emergencies procedures and the design bases of all their plants to ensure they wouldn't be caught off-guard like FK. They didn't wait to be told by the NRC or INPO, but rather they were being proactive. As far as I know, they didn't discover any deficiencies.

In addition to supervision by NRC and INPO, US utilities have internal surveillance programs, and they are always identifying areas for improvements.

 

[Dmytry]

You don't understand. It is an organizational issue, whenever plants can be uprated or not. Whenever you can trust that the safety evaluations would be carried out accurately. Not a technical issue. It is obvious enough that a plant can technically be uprated. It is less obvious that you aren't doing it like this - the design core probability of accident is say 1 accident in 20 000 core-years, the actual is somewhere better than that, and you're bringing it down to 20 000. Even then, the probability of getting the safety calculations wrong seems much larger than estimated probability of accident, rendering the estimates moot.

 

[Dmytry]

for the control rods falling out:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070323a3.html

It's up to OP to decide if my points are relevant when he's forming an opinion whenever he can or can't trust up-rating. My opinion - 20% up-rating cannot be trusted due to the commercial pressure for go-ahead. Sorry, it is not technical. I don't think anyone here has the time (years) to evaluate uprating project in detail by himself to form an opinion on technical grounds.
edit: for the other fail.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/fukushima-engineer-says-he-covered-up-flaw-at-shut-reactor.html
The Fukushima is useful as example because it is in a spotlight at the moment - it provides insight in the daily life of a nuclear plant, which was 'chosen' by natural disaster. It may seem totally irrelevant to uprating to you - technically it is - but it provides insight into the 'human factor' involved.

 

[NUCENG]

Sorry, it is not technical. I don't think anyone here has the time (years) to evaluate uprating project in detail by himself to form an opinion on technical grounds.

I have spent years working on power uprates at three different plants. And I was not alone. Every project had a core team of about 10 full time engineers covering every engineering discipline, environmental, regulatory, health physics, operations and many other expertise areas. We were supported by contractors, vendors, and the original plant design companies. Every product was independently verified. In addition the project analysis was reviewed by NRC staff so numerous it seemed we were their only project. The final reports were issued for public comment and hearings. NRC staff work was reviewed by the ACRS a gaggle of PhD's who were very knowledgeable about risks and design bases.

This may not help your opinion of us, but about ten years ago I was involved in technical assist reviews at a number of plants PWRs and BWRs. In 3 plants I found exactly the issue that killed Fukushima (i.e., safety related electrical switchgear, batteries, and diesels in turbine building basements that were vulnerable to flooding. These conditions were corrected at those plants by protecting the equipment from internal and external flooding. At one plant I even submitted a contention report to NRC based on evidence that the resident NRC inspectors at that plant had knowledge of that vulnerability without taking action. Those findings and their solutions were published in operating experience reports, industry alerts, and regulatory generic communications. The Japanese had access to those reports. I don't know whether they took action or not. Even if they did and used the design basis tsunami, their actions didn't handle a 14+m surge.

If you find an industry more focused on safety, please let us know and we will learn from them. If you know how to predict the unpredictable, you can become a very rich man. If you just want to be mad and rant about arrogance and stupidity, you will probably be ignored.

 

[Dmytry]

If you find an industry more focused on safety, please let us know and we will learn from them.

Almost every single hi-tech consumer product design that can cause fire or otherwise kill a human. Cars, tvs, laptops, cellphones - things that exist in the number of millions. An one out of million risk "probably" won't affect a company that builds nuclear power plants due to small number of plants. An one out of million risk will ruin a battery manufacturer, or cause a *huge* loss, probably. If a gas pedal can get stuck in a popular car one time out of million, directly as a result of design failure - that will probably result in a huge loss after a few cases and investigation. If control rods can get stuck one time out of million - all chances are, we won't ever know, it probably won't happen, too few plants.

If you know how to predict the unpredictable, you can become a very rich man. If you just want to be mad and rant about arrogance and stupidity, you will probably be ignored.

You need to be aware that there are things you won't predict. It has to be possible to bypass switchgear, it has to be possible to power the pumps directly, it has to be possible to deliver generators on site. It should not rely so much on someone spotting electrical equipment in basements.
I don't trust this reviewing, you know. I would of been sure that the electrical equipment placement - and the possibility of it being damaged - is chosen just as accurately as uprating. Without relying on you to spot the possibility of flooding. I don't see why uprating should be more important than design of critical systems.

 

[pcr01]

You know that more people die in accidents while flying or driving than from nuclear accidents. So how mad are you about that? Are they also crooks? We'd better start building more prisons.

I know the question was not addressed to me, but with all due respect, a person dying in a car crash does not effect me, nor can it effect generations of people into the future.

In other words, when a plane or car crash occurs, no particular situation is permanent other then the loss of the love one so people can still, albeit reluctantly, move on.

Furthermore, it's a game of hot potatoes with nuclear waste at the moment, sure, things may be safe for you and I NOW (even safer then flying/driving), but what about 500 years into the future when the problems with waste catches up? Or does that not matter since none of us will be here to be held accountable for it?

 

[Dmytry]

I know the question was not addressed to me, but with all due respect, a person dying in a car crash does not effect me, nor can it effect generations of people into the future.

In other words, when a plane or car crash occurs, no particular situation is permanent other then the loss of the love one so people can still, albeit reluctantly, move on.

Furthermore, it's a game of hot potatoes with nuclear waste at the moment, sure, things may be safe for you and I NOW (even safer then flying/driving), but what about 500 years into the future when the problems with waste catches up? Or does that not matter since none of us will be here to be held accountable for it?

Also, when a car crashes due to design fault, that really hurts the manufacturer even if it's one in a million chance, whereas if it's core shroud breaking and core sliding and control rods getting stuck, if it's one in a million chance we won't even know (larger number of cars vs reactors). Then the general design. An apartment building can't keep electrical stuff in the basement (what if a water pipe bursts? what's about risk to electrician?). A nuclear plant, apparently, can - the water pipes are probably all developed by multiple PhDs and certified not to ever burst. Nuclear industry has a lot to learn from industries where you can't use redundancy and the components are unreliable and unexpected things happen, yet it has to be safe. Yet their attitude about learning is - it was brilliantly summarized above, straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[NUCENG]

I know the question was not addressed to me, but with all due respect, a person dying in a car crash does not effect me, nor can it effect generations of people into the future.

In other words, when a plane or car crash occurs, no particular situation is permanent other then the loss of the love one so people can still, albeit reluctantly, move on.

Furthermore, it's a game of hot potatoes with nuclear waste at the moment, sure, things may be safe for you and I NOW (even safer then flying/driving), but what about 500 years into the future when the problems with waste catches up? Or does that not matter since none of us will be here to be held accountable for it?

Ok, you are welcome to chime in as well. Do you know anyone who has been killed in a car crash, or injured in a car crash or had property damage from a car crash? If not, you need to buy a lottery ticket. If you pay for auto insurance you are much more directly affected by auto accidents than by the Fukushima accident. As terrible as the consequences of Fukushima are, they are insignificant compared to the damage, destruction and death from the earthquake and tsunami.

Spent fuel can be reprocessed or stored. The only real impediments to those solutions are political, not technical. There is no such thing as a risk free life and never will be. We have a choice of managing risk or losing the benefits of technology. Technology with risk management has increased life expectancy, not reduced it.

 

[Astronuc]

Also, when a car crashes due to design fault, that really hurts the manufacturer even if it's one in a million chance, whereas if it's core shroud breaking and core sliding and control rods getting stuck, if it's one in a million chance we won't even know (larger number of cars vs reactors). Then the general design. An apartment building can't keep electrical stuff in the basement (what if a water pipe bursts? what's about risk to electrician?). A nuclear plant, apparently, can - the water pipes are probably all developed by multiple PhDs and certified not to ever burst. Nuclear industry has a lot to learn from industries where you can't use redundancy and the components are unreliable and unexpected things happen, yet it has to be safe. Yet their attitude about learning is - it was brilliantly summarized above, straight from the horse's mouth.

Actually, the nuclear industry has learned many lessons in 40+ years, and there is a lot of redundancy and passive safety features in modern plants.

There are also a lot of improvements made to Mk I containment in the US. It is not clear however that those improvements were all incorporated into the Fukushima plants.

Waste and spent fuel are separate issues. They will have to be addressed eventually - preferably in my lifetime.

Uprating gets more energy from essentially the same amount of fuel. If one can get 1250 MWe from the same fuel as when generating 1050 MWe, that's a good deal. With 4 units, that's almost the equivalent of a 5th unit without additional spent fuel.

 

[Dmytry]

right, they learned lessons such as - running the plant for longer between refuelling, at higher neutron flux, rushing the refuelling and inspection to minimize downtime, all while the core shroud does not behave as expected. And doing this to avoid building new safer plants. Awesome.

 

[NUCENG]

right, they learned lessons such as - running the plant for longer between refuelling, at higher neutron flux, rushing the refuelling and inspection to minimize downtime, all while the core shroud does not behave as expected. And doing this to avoid building new safer plants. Awesome.

If sarcasm was argument, you would win. Instead, you are on my ignore list. Babble on.

 

[Astronuc]

right, they learned lessons such as - running the plant for longer between refuelling, at higher neutron flux, rushing the refuelling and inspection to minimize downtime, all while the core shroud does not behave as expected. And doing this to avoid building new safer plants. Awesome.

No - actually the flux doesn't necessarily increase, nor does the fluence on the vessel. We can use better core designs to reduce leakage. Some core shrouds have been fixed/repaired or modified.

We've also improved water chemistry to mitigate degradation of core structural components.

We've also developed more sensitive inspection techniques, and instituted a materials reliability program.

Refueling is not rushed, as far as I know, but they are optimized and heavily planned - like a military operation. Some maintenance can be done while the plant is operating. By being more diligent throughout the cycle, one can do less replacement or repair during an outage.

And there's lots more - with the idea of maintaining safety levels - while getting more out of the plants, and reducing exposure of personnel.

 

[Dmytry]

I've read NRC's page about uprating.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/power-uprates.html
See stretch power uprates.
Running stuff right at the design maximum, top of operating margin.

Really, please, stop with propaganda. It just looks precisely the same as the propaganda that led me to believe that reactors can't be taken out by basement flood, not ever. The focus on all the nice sounding stuff and omission of all the not so nice sounding stuff.

 

[Astronuc]

I've read NRC's page about uprating.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/power-uprates.html
See stretch power uprates.
Running stuff right at the design maximum, top of operating margin.

Really, please, stop with propaganda. It just looks precisely the same as the propaganda that led me to believe that reactors can't be taken out by basement flood, not ever. The focus on all the nice sounding stuff and omission of all the not so nice sounding stuff.

The fuel and plant are not run up to design limits. Utilities like to operate with margins to design limits. I've done a lot of work with utilities to improve margins.

I am not providing proganda, but rather correcting one's mis-statements. If one wants to disagree with plant uprates, then feel free. But do so with correct statements.

 

[Dmytry]

When you talk about uprating, you do not talk about stretch power uprates, you talk about two other types of uprates, one of which (turbine improvement, transformer improvements, etc) shouldn't even be included there other than for propaganda reasons as it has nothing to do with reactor itself and is just used to offset the focus.
Such biased focus is what did let me to mistakenly believe plants would not be taken out by damage to switchboard, and that switchboard wouldn't be in basement, and that generators can be delivered and connected to pumps even if other electrical equipment is damaged. In my book, biased focus is propaganda.

edit: on topic. How will you justify lack of generic safety feature of being able to bring backup generators on site by chopper and connect them to pumps even if the electrical equipment is flooded? How are we to trust uprating if we can't trust plants to have such obvious, generic safety features, and instead rely on perfect prediction of tsunamis etc? (The features that German nuclear plants have btw)

nukeng: he's been only convincing me this stuff is not safe, better than greenpeace ever could. I don't look at his work, its probably classified. I look at his attitude, and I think - is this attitude good for safety? Is it good that when I talk of generic safety features - which are standard in Germany - he returns and returns to tsunami and deaths from the tsunami and otherwise expresses his attitude that those generic safety feartures require prediction of unpredictable, and otherwise expressing lack of understanding of such thing as generic safety features for the accidents you didn't predict. His good luck it was tsunami and not a pipe burst or any other cause.

 

[Drakkith]

edit: on topic. How will you justify lack of generic safety feature of being able to bring backup generators on site by chopper and connect them to pumps even if the electrical equipment is flooded? How are we to trust uprating if we can't trust plants to have such obvious, generic safety features, and instead rely on perfect prediction of tsunamis etc? (The features that German nuclear plants have btw)

How about because the issue of a flooded generator building was already thought to be taken care of by other safety features such as a sea wall?

The fact here is that NOTHING short of a Meteor destroying the reactor would be acceptable for you. If the generator building had been built on a hill instead and a typhoon or tornado had destroyed it you would be whining because we didn't anticipate those.

If a terrorist had bombed the reactor you'd probably whine that we should have had armed guards everywhere and security features already in place.

The reasons you can trust the uprating have already been given to you. You have had several people who work first hand in the industry tell you the many many safety related things that happen in their jobs. You have chosen to ignore and ridicule them instead of actually asking relevant questions to improve your knowledge and allow you to make an informed decision. And if you let ONE person's demeaner on a forum heavily influence your opinion of an entire industry, then you simply don't care about the facts at all.

Is it good that when I talk of generic safety features - which are standard in Germany - he returns and returns to tsunami and deaths from the tsunami and otherwise expresses his attitude that those generic safety feartures require prediction of unpredictable, and otherwise expressing lack of understanding of such thing as generic safety features for the accidents you didn't predict. His good luck it was tsunami and not a pipe burst or any other cause.

ALL safety features are directly the result of past accidents and future predictions. You say that these things are generic safety features, are you sure about that? And EVEN IF the japan industry was woefully unprepared, does that say that the entire industry is like that? No.

 

[Dmytry]

How about because the issue of a flooded generator building was already thought to be taken care of by other safety features such as a sea wall?

Indeed. Way to go. Believing you can take care of every scenario and not preparing a common response for all the scenarios you didn't foresee.

 

[joema]

...How will you justify lack of generic safety feature of being able to bring backup generators on site by chopper and connect them to pumps even if the electrical equipment is flooded? How are we to trust uprating if we can't trust plants to have such obvious, generic safety features...

The thread title is uprating of *US* nuclear plants. You're talking about a situation in *Japan* which you admit has possible site-specific design, siting and procedural flaws not found in other nations.

Other Japanese nuclear plants in the same area were hit by the same earthquake and tsunami. They are doing OK.

You can't extrapolate a problem at a single plant to a worldwide blanket safety posture of an entire industry, anymore than a single airliner crash in one country reflects the global safety posture of the entire commercial airline industry worldwide.

 

[Dmytry]

Well I think I helped answer OP's question, even if in indirect way (the responses by nuceng had been highly illuminating as of the attitude of the engineers towards safety). I made a thread about US nuclear industry.

 

[Drakkith]

Well I think I helped answer OP's question, even if in indirect way (the responses by nuceng had been highly illuminating as of the attitude of the engineers towards safety). I made a thread about US nuclear industry.

I think you severely confused the issue and took the topic way off track. And I don't agree with your opinion on engineers and safety. So, yeah, thanks for all that.

 

[Dmytry]

Well, sorry, I have somewhat interview-like approach. I evaluate people. If I want to know how programmer is at programming something specific - I ask unrelated questions in interview, answers to which i can test. You disagree with the very idea of preparation for unexpected (KHG style) - you say "ALL safety features are directly the result of past accidents and future predictions." - well, if that is true in your country, then your nuclear safety is a total joke compared to Germany. I do not know if it is true, but I get another sample point. You see preparations for unexpected as unnecessary, extraordinary thing that nobody does - another confirmation. Anyways we should take this to my thread with questions about US nuclear reactor safety.

 

[Drakkith]

Well, sorry, I have somewhat interview-like approach. I evaluate people. If I want to know how programmer is at programming something specific - I ask unrelated questions in interview, answers to which i can test. You disagree with the very idea of preparation for unexpected (KHG style) - you say "ALL safety features are directly the result of past accidents and future predictions." - well, if that is true in your country, then your nuclear safety is a total joke compared to Germany. I do not know if it is true, but I get another sample point. You see preparations for unexpected as unnecessary, extraordinary thing that nobody does - another confirmation. Anyways we should take this to my thread with questions about US nuclear reactor safety.

I don't see how you could base safety off of anything other than past experiences and predictions for the future. That results in everything from planning for power outages to things that haven't even happened yet. You must be assuming (incorrectly) that somehow current safety features aren't drawn from experience or predictions. ALL of them are.

Preparations for the unexpected are MANDATORY. The problem is that these things are unexpected! You cannot plan for every unexpected thing! It isn't possible! Which is why you have to have basic safety features that work in as many circumstances as possible. Did the plant in Japan have adequate safety features? I have no idea. I'm not a nuclear engineer or safety inspector.

How about you stop taking my posts as you WANT to see them and actually read them and not try to pull things from them that aren't there. Oh, I don't know what you mean by saying you have an interview-like approach here, because you've done nothing like that this entire thread.

 

[Dmytry]

Sigh. See post #30.
The general ability to deploy replacement generators is a solution for many unexpected things, not just the tsunami or terrorist attack or burst pipe (lol, or many cases of meteorite strike). I'm not saying you should plan for every unexpected scenario. This is precisely a basic safety feature that works in very many circumstances - unforeseen circumstances.
By interview, i meant, bit like job interview. Except i don't have to be working with you so i can obtain more honest answers in argument.

 

[Drakkith]

Sigh. See post #30.
The general ability to deploy replacement generators is a solution for many unexpected things, not just the tsunami or terrorist attack or burst pipe (lol, or many cases of meteorite strike). I'm not saying you should plan for every unexpected scenario. This is precisely a basic safety feature that works in very many circumstances - unforeseen circumstances.
By interview, i meant, bit like job interview. Except i don't have to be working with you so i can obtain more honest answers in argument.

None of which you can judge to any degree of accuracy or intent. Just stick to the facts of the posts, you'll do much better.

 

[Dmytry]

What facts? The number of people reviewing uprating proposal? Reviewing some specific uprating proposal in full detail myself? Come on. The only thing I can test is whenever attitude towards safety is what I consider to be correct attitude required for safe uprating. That's all. It's a question about human factor. And I am subjectively forming an opinion. I speak of the safety features EU has - and see reaction. No we don't need it is the reaction. I've subjectively formed an opinion that it is unsafe, and if i ever have to vote on what plant to build - it won't be US plant.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Some points I'd like to address from Dmytry. The large three phase systems (AC) that are used in large industry is a completely different beast then the one phase (AC) system used in household wiring. In a house the maximum wattage of power you will find is around 4.4 kW, an industrial setting can see 7.5 kW in the smallest setting (a 10 hp motor). If an industry system gets flooded it is just not a matter of drying out the system and plugging it back in. Because of the massive amount of energy involved every part of the system must be gone over by a fine tooth comb to cheek for unexpected insulation breakdown due to arc over during surges due to shorts in the switching gear.

Japan also has the misfortune of having two different electrical systems inside the country. Half of the island has a 120V 60Hz like the USA, and the other half has a 120V 50Hz system. This brings up the problem that equipment that works on one side of the island won't work on the other side, generators included.

As for the uprating this seems fine given the following points. What has been pointed out that newer and better equipment/practices has allowed for better utilization of heat produced, and longer operation with that heat. And I have yet to meet a good engineer that doesn't err on the side of caution, epically with new technology. Given this it stands to reason that the name plate capacity of nuclear power plants are on the very conservative side.

 

[Dmytry]

Some points I'd like to address from Dmytry. The large three phase systems (AC) that are used in large industry is a completely different beast then the one phase (AC) system used in household wiring. In a house the maximum wattage of power you will find is around 4.4 kW, an industrial setting can see 7.5 kW in the smallest setting (a 10 hp motor). If an industry system gets flooded it is just not a matter of drying out the system and plugging it back in. Because of the massive amount of energy involved every part of the system must be gone over by a fine tooth comb to cheek for unexpected insulation breakdown due to arc over during surges due to shorts in the switching gear.

All very true, but it is a pump which if you don't power it - you can kiss multi billion $ reactor goodbye. Plus this leaves a question of bringing and connecting a replacement pump.

Japan also has the misfortune of having two different electrical systems inside the country. Half of the island has a 120V 60Hz like the USA, and the other half has a 120V 50Hz system. This brings up the problem that equipment that works on one side of the island won't work on the other side, generators included.

Well, that's stupid but it leaves entire half of the island that's same frequency.

As for the uprating this seems fine given the following points. What has been pointed out that newer and better equipment/practices has allowed for better utilization of heat produced, and longer operation with that heat.

That is attempt at muddling the water. There is the kind of uprating where thermal output of the power plant (as well as time between refuelling) is increased, and that's what is of interest. Stretch uprating.

And I have yet to meet a good engineer that doesn't err on the side of caution, epically with new technology. Given this it stands to reason that the name plate capacity of nuclear power plants are on the very conservative side.

Hmm. In that thread I just met an engineer who literally couldn't understand the point of ability to deliver and connect replacement for critical equipment (ability which I a: thought they have, b: Germans have) and would avoid that and switch to topic of how many people tsunami killed outside the plant etc as justification for failure. He said he's involved in derating. Sorry, uprating. I was thinking of safety.
He also expressed belief that his industry is the most safety conscious, which is kind of strange given a huge number of other things that can kill people by design mistake resulting in massive loss of revenue, products that exist in the number of millions, not http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.oprconst.htm" . One laptop battery in 1000 explodes - that'd DECIMATE the manufacturer. One laptop battery in million explodes - that'd be a product recall and massive loss. One in 1000 reactors explodes - chances are we won't even know. Ditto for car design mistakes that result in accelerator pedal getting stuck etc. A lot of industries got extremely low tolerance to catastrophic failures attributable to design mistake.

Really, my opinion is that reactors are only as safe as they need to be - one per few hundreds lifetime probability of serious accident, right on the threshold of empirical detectability., safe enough to build them and expect none to blow up.
Like space shuttle:
http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/challenger-appendix.html
Uprating, well, you first convince me that nuke reactor design process is fundamentally different from what was described by Feynman.

 

[mhs25]

One laptop battery in 1000 explodes - that'd DECIMATE the manufacturer. One laptop battery in million explodes - that'd be a product recall and massive loss. One in 1000 reactors explodes - chances are we won't even know. Ditto for car design mistakes that result in accelerator pedal getting stuck etc. A lot of industries got extremely low tolerance to catastrophic failures attributable to design mistake.

You're kidding right? Are you really comparing a car accelerator sticking under normal operating conditions to getting hit with the fourth largest recorded earthquake in history?? Followed by a 15m tsunami?? Get Real.

Toyota isn't exactly going under right now, despite all the claims of their accelerators sticking. Planes crash all the time because of mechanical failure and kill lots of people.

By your reasoning, all cars should go under review because if you were in your car in Sendai when the tsunami hit, you're probably dead now. By your reasoning, we shouldn't go in any of our buildings or live in any of our housings because they are not rated for an Earthquake that's most likely never going to happen.

 

[Astronuc]

I took the list of 137 uprates from the NRC website:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operati.../status-power-apps/approved-applications.html

And tabulated them. The order (number) of approval shows that some plant did an uprate, then waited before commiting to another uprate. The earliest uprates happened 34 years ago at Calvert Cliffs, then 32 years ago at Millstone 2 and H. B. Robinson, and since.

NO. = Order of approval
Plant
% Uprate for each uprate
Total Plant Uprate = sum of all uprates for plant
MWt = Megawatt Thermal for each uprate
Total MWt = Sum of MWt of all uprates at plant
Type E = Extended, MU = Measurement Uncertainty, S = Stretch

NO.  PLANT(Reactor)           Total 
                        %     Plant          Total
                      UPRATE  Uprate   MWt    MWt    DATE APPROVED  TYPE   ACCESSION #

 79  ANO-2              7.5     7.5    211    211      4/24/2002      E    ML021140674
 65  Beaver Valley 1    1.4             37             9/24/2001     MU    ML012690049
112  Beaver Valley 1     8      9.4    211    248      7/19/2006      E    ML061720274
 66  Beaver Valley 2    1.4             37             9/24/2001     MU    ML012690049
113  Beaver Valley 2     8      9.4    211    248      7/19/2006      E    ML061720274
 56  Braidwood 1         5       5     170    170      5/ 4/2001      S    ML033040016
 57  Braidwood 2         5       5     170    170      5/ 4/2001      S    ML033040016
114  Browns Ferry 1      5       5     165    165      3/ 6/2007      S    ML070680307
 42  Browns Ferry 2      5       5     164    164      9/ 8/1998      S    ML042670047
 43  Browns Ferry 3      5       5     164    164      9/ 8/1998      S    ML042670047
 37  Brunswick 1         5             122            11/ 1/1996      S    9611070136*
 82  Brunswick 1        15      20     365    487      5/31/2002      E    ML021550485
 38  Brunswick 2         5             122            11/ 1/1996      S    9611070136*
 83  Brunswick 2        15      20     365    487      5/31/2002      E    ML021550485
 54  Byron 1             5       5     170    170      5/ 4/2001      S    ML033040016
 55  Byron 2             5       5     170    170      5/ 4/2001      S    ML033040016
 13  Callaway           4.5     4.5    154    154      3/30/1988      S    ML021650524
  1  Calvert Cliffs 1   5.5            140             9/ 9/1977      S    ML010400337
126  Calvert Cliffs 1   1.4     6.9     37    177      7/22/2009     MU    ML091820366
  2  Calvert Cliffs 2   5.5            140            10/19/1977      S    ML003774265
127  Calvert Cliffs 2   1.4     6.9     37    177      7/22/2009     MU    ML091820366
 76  Clinton            20      20     579    579      4/ 5/2002      E    ML021680108
 68  Comanche Peak 1    1.4             47            10/12/2001     MU    ML012890389
121  Comanche Peak 1    4.5     5.9    154    201      6/27/2008      S    ML081510157
 47  Comanche Peak 2    1               34             9/30/1999     MU    ML021820306
 69  Comanche Peak 2    0.4             13            10/12/2001     MU    ML012890389
122  Comanche Peak 2    4.5     5.9    154    201      6/27/2008      S    ML081510157
123  Cooper             1.6     1.6     38     38      6/30/2008     MU    ML081540278
  6  Crystal River 3    3.8             92             7/21/1981      S    ML020600420
 91  Crystal River 3    0.9             24            12/ 4/2002      S    ML023430072
115  Crystal River 3    1.6     6.3     41    157     12/26/2007     MU    ML073610197
 92  D.C. Cook 1        1.66    1.66    54     54     12/20/2002     MU    ML023570144
 94  D.C. Cook 2        1.66    1.66    57     57      5/ 2/2003     MU    ML030990132
124  Davis-Besse        1.6     1.6     45     45      6/30/2008     MU    ML081420569
 52  Diablo Canyon 1     2       2      73     73     10/26/2000      S    ML003764792
 71  Dresden 2          17      17     430    430     12/21/2001      E    ML013620048
 72  Dresden 3          17      17     430    430     12/21/2001      E    ML013620048
  9  Duane Arnold       4.1             65             3/27/1985      S    ML021890435
 70  Duane Arnold      15.3    19.4    248    313     11/ 6/2001      E    ML013050389
 40  Farley 1            5        5    138    138      4/29/1998      S    ML012140259
 41  Farley 2            5        5    138    138      4/29/1998      S    ML012140259
 15  Fermi 2             4        4    137    137      9/ 9/1992      S    ML020720520
 39  Fitzpatrick         4        4    100    100     12/ 6/1996      S    9612180303*
  5  Fort Calhoun       5.6     5.6     80     80      8/15/1980      S    8008280223*
111  Ginna             16.8    16.8    255    255      7/11/2006      E    ML061380133
 84  Grand Gulf         1.7     1.7     65     65     10/10/2002     MU    ML022890295
  4  H. B. Robinson     4.5            100             6/29/1979      S    7907180064*
 85  H. B. Robinson     1.7     6.2     39    139     11/ 5/2002     MU    ML023110291
 28  Hatch 1             5             122             8/31/1995      S    ML013020073
 45  Hatch 1             8             205            10/22/1998      E    ML013030084
 98  Hatch 1            1.5    14.5     41    368      9/23/2003     MU    ML032691360
 29  Hatch 2             5             122             8/31/1995      S    ML013020073
 46  Hatch 2             8             205            10/22/1998      E    ML013030084
 99  Hatch 2            1.5    14.5     41    368      9/23/2003     MU    ML032691360
 64  Hope Creek         1.4             46             7/30/2001     MU    ML012120005
120  Hope Creek         15     16.4    501    547      5/14/2008      E    ML081230540
 96  Indian Point 2     1.4             43             5/22/2003     MU    ML031500465
103  Indian Point 2     3.26    4.66   101.6  144.6   10/27/2004      S    ML042960007
 88  Indian Point 3     1.4             42.4          11/26/2002     MU    ML023370080
105  Indian Point 3     4.85    6.25   148.6  191      3/24/2005      S    ML050870383
 97  Kewaunee           1.4             23             7/ 8/2003     MU    ML031910330
101  Kewaunee            6      7.4     99    122      2/27/2004      S    ML040611088
 48  LaSalle 1           5             166             5/ 9/2000      S    ML003716743
132  LaSalle 1          1.6     6.6     57    223      9/16/2010     MU    ML101830361
 49  LaSalle 2           5             166             5/ 9/2000      S    ML003716743
133  LaSalle 2          1.6     6.6     57    223      9/16/2010     MU    ML101830361
 30  Limerick 1          5             165             1/24/1996      S    ML011560244
136  Limerick 1         1.6     6.6     57    222      4/ 8/2011     MU    ML110691095
 21  Limerick 2          5             165             2/16/1995      S    ML011560773
137  Limerick 2         1.6     6.6     57    222      4/ 8/2011     MU    ML110691095
  3  Millstone 2         5       5     140    140      6/25/1979      S    7907240100*
125  Millstone 3         7       7     239    239      8/12/2008      S    ML082180137
 44  Monticello         6.3     6.3    105    105      9/16/1998      E    ML020920138
 23  Nine Mile Point 2  4.3     4.3    144    144      4/28/1995      S    9505090259*
 11  North Anna 1       4.2            118             8/25/1986      S    ML013460131
128  North Anna 1       1.6     5.8     47    165     10/22/2009     MU    ML092250616
 12  North Anna 2       4.2            118             8/25/1986      S    ML013460131
129  North Anna 2       1.6     5.8     47    165     10/22/2009     MU    ML092250616
102  Palisades          1.4     1.4     35.4   35.4    6/23/2004     MU    ML040970623
 32  Palo Verde 1        2              76             5/23/1996      S    ML021710572
107  Palo Verde 1       2.9     4.9    114    190     11/16/2005      S    ML053130286
 33  Palo Verde 2        2              76             5/23/1996      S    ML021710572
100  Palo Verde 2       2.9     4.9    114    190      9/29/2003      S    ML032731029
 34  Palo Verde 3        2              76             5/23/1996      S    ML021710572
108  Palo Verde 3       2.9     4.9    114    190     11/16/2005      S    ML053130286
 20  Peach Bottom 2      5             165            10/18/1994      S    ML011490143
 86  Peach Bottom 2     1.62    6.62    56    221     11/22/2002     MU    ML031000317
 25  Peach Bottom 3      5             165             7/18/1995      S    ML021580312
 87  Peach Bottom 3     1.62    6.62    56    221     11/22/2002     MU    ML031000317
 50  Perry               5      5      178    178      6/ 1/2000      S    ML003724441
 95  Pilgrim            1.5     1.5     30     30      5/ 9/2003     MU    ML031320794
 89  Point Beach 1      1.4     1.4     21.5   21.5   11/29/2002     MU    ML023370142
 90  Point Beach 2      1.4     1.4     21.5   21.5   11/29/2002     MU    ML023370142
130  Prairie Island 1   1.6     1.6     27     27      8/18/2010     MU    ML102030573
131  Prairie Island 2   1.6     1.6     27     27      8/18/2010     MU    ML102030573
 73  Quad Cities 1     17.8    17.8    446    446     12/21/2001      E    ML013620116
 74  Quad Cities 2     17.8    17.8    446    446     12/21/2001      E    ML013620116
 51  River Bend          5             145            10/ 6/2000      S    ML003762072
 93  River Bend         1.7     6.7     52    197      1/31/2003     MU    ML030350194
 10  Salem 1             2              73             2/ 6/1986      S    ML011660249
 58  Salem 1            1.4     3.4     48    121      5/25/2001     MU    ML011520386
 59  Salem 2            1.4     1.4     48     48      5/25/2001     MU    ML011520386
 60  San Onofre 2       1.4     1.4     48     48      7/ 6/2001     MU    ML012180237
 61  San Onofre 3       1.4     1.4     48     48      7/ 6/2001     MU    ML012180237
104  Seabrook           5.2            176             2/28/2005      S    ML050590334
110  Seabrook           1.7     6.9     61    237      5/22/2006     MU    ML061430044
 80  Sequoyah 1         1.3     1.3     44     44      4/30/2002     MU    ML021230531
 81  Sequoyah 2         1.3     1.3     44     44      4/30/2002     MU    ML021230531
 67  Shearon Harris     4.5     4.5    138    138     10/12/2001      S    ML012880381
 77  South Texas 1      1.4     1.4     53     53      4/12/2002     MU    ML021130083
 78  South Texas 2      1.4     1.4     53     53      4/12/2002     MU    ML021130083
  7  St. Lucie 1        5.5     5.5    140    140     11/23/1981      S    ML013530273
  8  St. Lucie 2        5.5     5.5    140    140      3/ 1/1985      S    ML013600080
 26  Surry 1            4.3            105             8/ 3/1995      S    ML012710328
134  Surry 1            1.6     5.9     41    146      9/24/2010     MU    ML101750002
 27  Surry 2            4.3            105             8/ 3/1995      S    ML012710328
135  Surry 2            1.6     5.9     41    146      9/24/2010     MU    ML101750002
 22  Susquehanna 1      4.5            148             2/22/1995      S    9503070354*
 62  Susquehanna 1      1.4             48             7/ 6/2001     MU    ML011970199
116  Susquehanna 1      13     18.9    463    659      1/30/2008      E    ML081050530
 19  Susquehanna 2      4.5            148             4/11/1994      S    ML010170334
 63  Susquehanna 2      1.4             48             7/ 6/2001     MU    ML011970199
117  Susquehanna 2      13     18.9    463    659      1/30/2008      E    ML081050530
 14  TMI-1              1.3     1.3     33     33      7/26/1988      S    ML003779786
 35  Turkey Point 3     4.5     4.5    100    100      9/26/1996      S    ML013390234
 36  Turkey Point 4     4.5     4.5    100    100      9/26/1996      S    ML013390234
 31  V. C. Summer       4.5     4.5    125    125      4/12/1996      S    ML012320013
109  Vermont Yankee     20      20     319    319      3/ 2/2006      E    ML060050024
 16  Vogtle 1           4.5            154             3/22/1993      S    ML012330056
118  Vogtle 1           1.7     6.2   60.6   214.6     2/27/2008     MU    ML080350345
 17  Vogtle 2           4.5            154             3/22/1993      S    ML012330056
119  Vogtle 2           1.7     6.2   60.6   214.6     2/27/2008     MU    ML080350345
 75  Waterford 3        1.5             51             3/29/2002     MU    ML020940202
106  Waterford 3         8      9.5    275    326      4/15/2005      E    ML051030082
 53  Watts Bar          1.4     1.4     48     48      1/19/2001     MU    ML010260074
 24  WNP-2 (Columbia)   4.9     4.9    163    163      5/ 2/1995      S    ML022120154
 18  Wolf Creek         4.5     4.5    154    154     11/10/1993      S    ML022030519

137  Total MWt                       17,543.20
     Total MWe                         5848

Some caveats from the NRC page:
*Documents can be requested from the Public Document Room
Capacity Recapture Power Uprates for Provisional Operating License Plants are not included in this table. These are Haddam Neck uprate of 24% in 1969, Oyster Creek uprate of 14% in 1971, Palisades uprate of 15% in 1977, Ginna uprate of 17% in 1984, Maine Yankee uprate of 10% in 1989, and Indian Point 2 Uprate of 11% in 1990.

NOTE:The NRC staff approved an MUR power uprate for Fort Calhoun on January 16, 2004, which authorized an increase in the licensed thermal power limit to 1,524 megawatts-thermal. The Omaha Public Power District was subsequently informed by Westinghouse that the potential instrument inaccuracies in the Advanced Measurement and Analysis Group (AMAG) ultrasonic flow meter would not allow implementation of the MUR power uprate at Fort Calhoun. As a result, on May 7, 2004, prior to implementation of the MUR power uprate, the Omaha Public Power District submitted an exigent license amendment request to return Fort Calhoun�s licensed thermal power limit to 1,500 megawatts-thermal, the pre-MUR level. On May 14, 2004, the NRC staff approved this license amendment.

 

[Astronuc]

I combined uprates for each plant and summed the total % and MWt, and then looked at the combinations.

Uprates   No
 MU       19
 E         9
 S        30
 MU+E      4
 MU+S      5
 S+MU     19
 S+E       3
 S+MU+E    2
 S+E+MU    2
     
          93

                                   Total
NO   Reactor           Uprate      Plant    Total
                                  Uprate     MWt     
1    ANO-2               E          7.5      211
2    Beaver Valley 1     MU+E       9.4      248
3    Beaver Valley 2     MU+E       9.4      248
4    Braidwood 1         S          5        170
5    Braidwood 2         S          5        170
6    Browns Ferry 1      S          5        165
7    Browns Ferry 2      S          5        164
8    Browns Ferry 3      S          5        164
9    Brunswick 1         S+E       20        487
10   Brunswick 2         S+E       20        487
11   Byron 1             S          5        170
12   Byron 2             S          5        170
13   Callaway            S          4.5      154
14   Calvert Cliffs 1    S+MU       6.9      177
15   Calvert Cliffs 2    S+MU       6.9      177
16   Clinton             E          20       579
17   Comanche Peak 1     MU+S       5.9      201
18   Comanche Peak 2     MU+S       5.9      201
19   Cooper              MU         1.6       38
20   Crystal River 3     S+MU       6.3      157
21   D.C. Cook 1         MU         1.66      54
22   D.C. Cook 2         MU         1.66      57
23   Davis-Besse         MU         1.6       45
24   Diablo Canyon 1     S          2         73
25   Dresden 2           E         17        430
26   Dresden 3           E         17        430
27   Duane Arnold        S+E       19.4      313
28   Farley 1            S          5        138
29   Farley 2            S          5        138
30   Fermi 2             S          4        137
31   Fitzpatrick         S          4        100
32   Fort Calhoun        S          5.6       80
33   Ginna               E         16.8      255
34   Grand Gulf          MU         1.7       65
35   H. B. Robinson      S+MU       6.2      139
36   Hatch 1             S+E+MU    14.5      368
37   Hatch 2             S+E+MU    14.5      368
38   Hope Creek          MU+E      16.4      547
39   Indian Point 2      MU+S       4.66     144.6
40   Indian Point 3      MU+S       6.25     191
41   Kewaunee            MU+S       7.4      122
42   LaSalle 1           S+MU       6.6      223
43   LaSalle 2           S+MU       6.6      223
44   Limerick 1          S+MU       6.6      222
45   Limerick 2          S+MU       6.6      222
46   Millstone 2         S          5        140
47   Millstone 3         S          7        239
48   Monticello          E          6.3      105
49   Nine Mile Point 2   S          4.3      144
50   North Anna 1        S+MU       5.8      165
51   North Anna 2        S+MU       5.8      165
52   Palisades           MU         1.4       35.4
53   Palo Verde 1        S          4.9      190
54   Palo Verde 2        S          4.9      190
55   Palo Verde 3        S          4.9      190
56   Peach Bottom 2      S+MU       6.62     221
57   Peach Bottom 3      S+MU       6.62     221
58   Perry               S          5        178
59   Pilgrim             MU         1.5       30
60   Point Beach 1       MU         1.4       21.5
61   Point Beach 2       MU         1.4       21.5
62   Prairie Island 1    MU         1.6       27
63   Prairie Island 2    MU         1.6       27
64   Quad Cities 1       E         17.8      446
65   Quad Cities 2       E         17.8      446
66   River Bend          S+MU       6.7      197
67   Salem 1             S+MU       3.4      121
68   Salem 2             MU         1.4       48
69   San Onofre 2        MU         1.4       48
70   San Onofre 3        MU         1.4       48
71   Seabrook            S+MU       6.9      237
72   Sequoyah 1          MU         1.3       44
73   Sequoyah 2          MU         1.3       44
74   Shearon Harris      S          4.5      138
75   South Texas 1       MU         1.4       53
76   South Texas 2       MU         1.4       53
77   St. Lucie 1         S          5.5      140
78   St. Lucie 2         S          5.5      140
79   Surry 1             S+MU       5.9      146
80   Surry 2             S+MU       5.9      146
81   Susquehanna 1       S+MU+E    18.9      659
82   Susquehanna 2       S+MU+E    18.9      659
83   TMI-1               S          1.3       33
84   Turkey Point 3      S          4.5      100
85   Turkey Point 4      S          4.5      100
86   V. C. Summer        S          4.5      125
87   Vermont Yankee      E         20        319
88   Vogtle 1            S+MU       6.2      214.6
89   Vogtle 2            S+MU       6.2      214.6
90   Waterford 3         MU+E       9.5      326
91   Watts Bar           MU         1.4       48
92   WNP-2 (Columbia)    S          4.9      163
93   Wolf Creek          S          4.5      154

Ten units have not uprated.
ANO-1
Catawba 1
Catawba 2
Diablo Canyon 2
McGuire 1
McGuire 2
Nine Mile Point 1
Oconee 1
Oconee 2
Oconee 3

See above post for comment on Oyster Creek.

 

[pcr01]

Ok, you are welcome to chime in as well.

Thank you, pleasure to be here.

There is no such thing as a risk free life and never will be. We have a choice of managing risk or losing the benefits of technology. Technology with risk management has increased life expectancy, not reduced it.

Yes, but even though technology has granted a longer life for billions of people, at the same time, they often live a life that is not even worth living due to extreme poverty.

Also, technology has contributed to improving the infant mortality rate which contributes to the overpopulation in the underdeveloped world and for the most part the non-Caucasoid world.

Another point, why should such a risky energy producing technology be used to power ipods, TVs, kitchen appliances, and over all, such degenerate run of the mill societies such as North America (ie, divorce rate over 50%, highest incarceration rate in the world, epidemic obesity)?

200+ years ago when people talked under candlelight/fire people were less sleep deprived (humans literally got more sleep), and people were more industrious and mature down to the children regardless if they couldn't read or write.

 

[Astronuc]

Sorted by magnitude of uprate:

                              Total   Total
Reactor           Uprate      Plant    MWt  
                            % Uprate  
Sequoyah 1          MU         1.3      44
Sequoyah 2          MU         1.3      44
TMI-1                S         1.3      33
Palisades           MU         1.4      35.4
Point Beach 1       MU         1.4      21.5
Point Beach 2       MU         1.4      21.5
Salem 2             MU         1.4      48
San Onofre 2        MU         1.4      48
San Onofre 3        MU         1.4      48
South Texas 1       MU         1.4      53
South Texas 2       MU         1.4      53
Watts Bar           MU         1.4      48
Pilgrim             MU         1.5      30
Cooper              MU         1.6      38
Davis-Besse         MU         1.6      45
Prairie Island 1    MU         1.6      27
Prairie Island 2    MU         1.6      27
D.C. Cook 1         MU         1.66     54
D.C. Cook 2         MU         1.66     57
Grand Gulf          MU         1.7      65
Diablo Canyon 1     S          2        73
Salem 1             S+MU       3.4     121
Fermi 2             S          4       137
Fitzpatrick         S          4       100
Nine Mile Point 2   S          4.3     144
Callaway            S          4.5     154
Shearon Harris      S          4.5     138
Turkey Point 3      S          4.5     100
Turkey Point 4      S          4.5     100
V. C. Summer        S          4.5     125
Wolf Creek          S          4.5     154
Indian Point 2      MU+S       4.66    144.6
Palo Verde 1        S          4.9     190
Palo Verde 2        S          4.9     190
Palo Verde 3        S          4.9     190
WNP-2 (Columbia)    S          4.9     163
Braidwood 1         S          5       170
Braidwood 2         S          5       170
Browns Ferry 1      S          5       165
Browns Ferry 2      S          5       164
Browns Ferry 3      S          5       164
Byron 1             S          5       170
Byron 2             S          5       170
Farley 1            S          5       138
Farley 2            S          5       138
Millstone 2         S          5       140
Perry               S          5       178
St. Lucie 1         S          5.5     140
St. Lucie 2         S          5.5     140
Fort Calhoun        S          5.6      80
North Anna 1        S+MU       5.8     165
North Anna 2        S+MU       5.8     165
Comanche Peak 1     MU+S       5.9     201
Comanche Peak 2     MU+S       5.9     201
Surry 1             S+MU       5.9     146
Surry 2             S+MU       5.9     146
H. B. Robinson      S+MU       6.2     139
Vogtle 1            S+MU       6.2     214.6
Vogtle 2            S+MU       6.2     214.6
Indian Point 3      MU+S       6.25    191
Monticello          E          6.3     105
Crystal River 3     S+MU       6.3     157
LaSalle 1           S+MU       6.6     223
LaSalle 2           S+MU       6.6     223
Limerick 1          S+MU       6.6     222
Limerick 2          S+MU       6.6     222
Peach Bottom 2      S+MU       6.62    221
Peach Bottom 3      S+MU       6.62    221
River Bend          S+MU       6.7     197
Calvert Cliffs 1    S+MU       6.9     177
Calvert Cliffs 2    S+MU       6.9     177
Seabrook            S+MU       6.9     237
Millstone 3         S          7       239
Kewaunee            MU+S       7.4     122
ANO-2               E          7.5     211
Beaver Valley 1     MU+E       9.4     248
Beaver Valley 2     MU+E       9.4     248
Waterford 3         MU+E       9.5     326
Hatch 1             S+E+MU    14.5     368
Hatch 2             S+E+MU    14.5     368
Hope Creek          MU+E      16.4     547
Ginna               E         16.8     255
Dresden 2           E         17       430
Dresden 3           E         17       430
Quad Cities 1       E         17.8     446
Quad Cities 2       E         17.8     446
Susquehanna 1       S+MU+E    18.9     659
Susquehanna 2       S+MU+E    18.9     659
Duane Arnold        S+E       19.4     313
Clinton             E         20       579
Vermont Yankee      E         20       319
Brunswick 1         S+E       20       487
Brunswick 2         S+E       20       487

Of the 93 units that have uprated, 56 units (60%) uprated less than 6%, 17 units (18%) upreated from 6 to 7%, and 20 units (22%) uprated by more than 7%, and some the latter realized uprates of 20%. And some units have received license extensions of 20 years.

One can access reports to review what is involved in the uprates and license extensions.

 

[Drakkith]

pcr01, I find everything in your post completely absurd and based almost entirely on your own opinion. And what does it even have to do with the thread?

 

[pcr01]

pcr01, I find everything in your post completely absurd and based almost entirely on your own opinion. And what does it even have to do with the thread?

I'm just arguing the merits of technology.

 

[NUCENG]

Thank you, pleasure to be here.





Yes, but even though technology has granted a longer life for billions of people, at the same time, they often live a life that is not even worth living due to extreme poverty.

Also, technology has contributed to improving the infant mortality rate which contributes to the overpopulation in the underdeveloped world and for the most part the non-Caucasoid world.

Another point, why should such a risky energy producing technology be used to power ipods, TVs, kitchen appliances, and over all, such degenerate run of the mill societies such as North America (ie, divorce rate over 50%, highest incarceration rate in the world, epidemic obesity)?

200+ years ago when people talked under candlelight/fire people were less sleep deprived (humans literally got more sleep), and people were more industrious and mature down to the children regardless if they couldn't read or write.

Yes, we Americans live in the worst country in the world, except for all the other ones. There is extreme poverty in the world, but would that condition really be better without uprates or nuclear power? Would throwing people out of work really help? I know the United States has usually been the first on the scene in cases of natural disasters. I spent as much time in the military on humanitarian assistance than I ever did in combat. We have made mistakes, but it has mostly been with the best intentions. 200 years ago there were no cures or vaccines for polio, yellow fever, smallpox, malaria, or the plague. Kings, Queens, and Emperors ruled and their subjects had no rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. I wonder about how much sleep they really got with hunger and disease and 16 hour work days.

Just to keep this focused on the topic of this thread, yes, power uprates may be powering ipods, and televisions, and kitchen appliances. But they are also powering plants that produce medicines. They have allowed scientists to use computers to develop implrovements in agricultural production that feeds the world and hopefully soon even more of the world. Power uprates may be powering kitchen appliances - like refrigerators that have drastically cut hunger or poisoning due to spoilage. I guess that eliminating refrigerators might cut down on obesity. As bad as you think things are, do you really believe it would be better if prople didn't know how to read and write?

So what is your solution for the people whose lives aren't worth living? Overpopulation can be solved by allowing disease to return. Do you really want to go back two centuries just to get more sleep? Perhaps you would be better going back only 70 years, just before nuclear power, at a time when Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin decided there were millions of lives not worth living.

 

[Drakkith]

Is there a point to this thread anymore? It just looks like it's devolved into pointless arguing.

 

[berkeman]

Thread locked temporarily pending Moderation...