I

Robust Fuel Program

xfdwkh it sunmfeffm km VW M1I2I WR~~ECONPOEEN7A4L PJORMAhON- Not job.l *rpf. s~

Utilities Formed TheIn 1998

* Today's demanding operatingconditions have reducedoperating margins

* Competitive environment lesseability to fund R & D to ensurefuel performs "as advertised"

* RFP is aimed at ensuring- Optimal fuel performance;

avoiding operational surprises- Regulatory stability- Operating flexibility- Burnup extension

Robust Fuel Program

2.jddt1o~~ho if. io*ro rmER 1 2

1

A-,TACVw~J-T P-

More Demanding Environment

* Increasing discharge bumups and long cycle length

* Increased fuel peaking and enrichment

* Plant uprates

* New water chemistry environments- Elevated pH/lithium and Zn injection for PWRs- NMCA, hydrogen water chemistry and Zn Injection for

BWRs

* Fuel design changes and introduction of newmaterials

Reduced margins and increased unknowns

Fig A > COI PTflAL iORMRM1N-Mdftb h w tjuw d hmEffPAd St P21=121

Trends In Cycle Length -U.S.

650

Sao

100

5500

450

400

350

1990 1991 19 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1"8 1"9 2000 2001 2002p

Year

4an F BAN- ad Aged - t s~l 4Pa Pt ~~~COMtER~~NAL MNOAMATION-Nfof IDh be b"BEsr&ew~hg rf~i*eztohPA' 1=2

2

Trends In Average Initial Enrichment -U.S.

4AW%.

4.600%4.40%

4.20%

1991 t992 199 1994 1t95 M96 1299 199S M99 2000 2001 2002p

Year

g CtFORao dud iil

I Number Of Uprated Applications In U.S.

90

so 11_70 _ EPU - 20%

60 0 Stretch - 7%

so OMUR<2%

40

30

20

10

Approved Over Under Review As Expected OverLast 30 Years of May 2002 Next 5 Years

1i l1ugT__- CONFDeNTALS WAOR TMATIobe ped dbrtrildewkf .,1fnf.b0 adhton mm EEPNal

3

IRobust Fuel Program Utility Steering Committee

SerCor Repmsentave I

Execuysv Comnltte

t BvdqW APb'3I

4 bvod ramWn* UP

Pay.yi

PR 12?uL WMdDH7ZA UEPORw-I brrWurrhnde mm WmRI a2 21

Executive Committee Members

Lyle Bohn, Nuclear Management CompanyKen Canady, Duke EnergyBill Eaton, EntergyLou Long, Southern NuclearJim Malone, Exelon CorpJoe Sheppard, South Texas Project (Chairman)Ausaf Husain, Fuelco

Gary Fader, INPOAlex Marion, NEI

1I?-OA CON~iE7?AL W8VATZ47-RoE b s doitb.ewodwr fM nmfhkmw, ro EP I 2BIF

4

ChairmenNice-Chairmen & ProjectManagers

Working Group I

Working Group 2

Working Group 3

Working Group 4

Chairman

Dan Bryant(South Texas)

Nicolas Waeckel(EdF)

Vice Chairman

Kenny Epperson(Duke Power)

Bob Tsai(Exelon)

Prolect Manager

Jeff Deshon

Odelli Ozer

Kurt Edsinger

Bo Cheng

Dave Hoppes(South Texas)

Bruce Hunt(Southern Nuclear)

Ed Armstrong(Exelon)

1F#-t Pt 14- COfA4MOEn7AL IFORM MAIf-H oE becWddb&O~SWhetgAfft.f 8.0wZnd- fl ci.,m Of=fall

International Participation

2004 Members

US (19 utilities, 80 units)

AmerenUE

Constellation Energy

Detroit Edison

Duke Energy

Energy Northwest

Entergy

Exelon

FirstEnergy Corp.

Nuclear ManagementCorp

Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

PPL Corporation

Public Service Elec. & Gas

So. Tx. Project Nucl. Oper. CoSouthern California Edison Co

Southern Nuclear Operating

Tennessee Valley Authority

TXU Electric

Wolf Creek Nuct. Oper. Corp

International (9 utilIties, 113 units)

EdF (France)

Japan Atomic Power Co. (Japan)

Kansal Eectric Power Co. (Japan)

Kyushu Electric Power Co. (Japan)

Lelbstadt (Switzerland)

Shikoku Electric Power Co. (Japan)

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Japan)

UNESA (Spain)

Vattenfall (Sweden)

Close Collaboration withINPO; NEI; NRC Research; Global Nuclear Fuel; Westinghouse and Framatome ANP

Iew F-A Pr CONM;fE MN4J FtOMUiiT tofp 1komdwId.ft~ wNh*w*tw Aob.*&d..m PWR 21711

5

Key Issues Addressed

F"1r.&' t I_7"' CONFI6NMlL WORMADOH-AW to b~e opIdfbsdwdithbo.*wIWNf.t..mOIMIOO kanzpm C-=FIrl

Key Fuel Performance Issues

• BWR:- Large number of BWRs experiencing fuel failures, and many

of the root causes are unknown- Needs to assess the impact of Noble Metal Chemical

Application (NMCA) and Zn injection on fuel performance- Excessive channel bow Interferes with control blade insertion

at some BWRs

* PWR:- Grid-rod fretting continues to be the main failure root cause- Axial offset anomaly (AOA) persists but occurrence frequency

and severity are down significantly- RCCA cracking and deformation

~ f~ 12Plew P~~~~t~~r___CONFVENMLtrh 9w4o.,twV.,M ,,fioWktto. E PR) ral

6

Fuel Failure Trend 1980 To 2002

' _

12 M. t _L mLLI60 61 62 83 64 65 6 67 66 66 90 612 60 N0 64 N 66 9 66 6 00 01 02

Ye

o nr13Few PC C-F~~~~~~c@14waf~* ~h, ~fil ~al~o fu, Pr l2

7

Trend In PWR Fuel Failure Root Causes

II

aIs

Ez2

1990 1991 1992 1993 1194 1995 199 1997 199 1999 2o0 201 2D02 acW

Year

.9ef d 1 ,,,,,. 15PR CP -- KMWFRM--ob o#dwf&bw~~rwu.*d i A ~~

RFP Focus

Resolve existing operation and reliability problems- Failure root cause investigations

* Two hot cell shipments planned in late 2003 to identify BWRfailure root causes

* Assisted members In failure root cause investigations- Impact of NMCA and Zinc injection on fuel performance

* Data indicate apparent Increase in clad corrosion and crud* Collect data to quantify the Impact* Work with BWRVIP and Chemistry group to Issue guidelines* Conduct tests to identify alternatives

- Mitigate axial offset anomalies (AOA) and crud deposits* Interim mitigation measures available-UT cleaning, reload core

design, chemistry control, mitigation tool available (BOA code)* Potential solutions are being investigated

new AtFT___ COMME~n'"ra-01im TM .MW ft hcopkc.d 16 . f<dw9 wdnffeah.-tj FM E Pi21

8

Hot Cell Projects To DetermineFailure Root Cause

l

I KKL PCI-like I(GNF fue

.2Il1 l5 ll1

failure La Salle PCI-like failure I'I) I I (Fraratome) l

i-. l-1 10 11I I I ,l , i

, , , , , , _

95 97 99

Xi I |

01 031 05

: f '

07

| TMI C10 Failure crud-| Induced (Framatome fuel) I

Browns Ferry-2 C12| Corrosion failure (GNF) I

Hot cell exams have been successful in identifying failure rootcauses

Fe" 19 Pr__COtdON2IALU WO 17 em 1121ftOMI-lAWIOf be@ASSdadS&ftdW.SswkN w.fahoful, tn PA 1

NMVCA Implementation Status

777775:1 - r-,77- '777r-r

[ Dane'Arnoldfrs i mp etdN CA~n1961

-uane Am IV had scn& app 11t99 nin1,

27 Wks bad N~c~ ~ fJn002OO.,

c1Id,8 ~ewtotst, ioI~I. r, PS 2 2

9

BWR Chemistry Optimization

Materials

Degradation

Requirements for aneffectve NMCA program

and Answedin refief

Fuel PerformanceControl of Claddfng

Conmsion andCnud Deposition

Radiation FieldsZin Injection essential

to control dose rtee Increase

ft ~~~~~~~~ ~19 r wh.wUe,.*f.IffrmER 21 2

RFP Focus (cont'd)

Proactively collect data to ensure margins under high dutyconditions- No data available for modern high-duty fuel- Minimum number and scope hot cell campaigns

performed/planned- The data are crucial to ensure margins AND can also be used for

burnup extension

* Regulatory stability- NRR wants Improved technical basis for licenses already granted- RES and regulatory agencies worldwide are funding research to

revise regulatory criteria for RIA & LOCA* RFP submitted a RIA Topical to NRC for review in 2002* RFP is working closely with NRC to develop the LOCA criteria for

advanced high bumup fuel

20CONFW~mwFGRMN-Nofolmep~dardsri~b*. ftdwolt w,*ton agthwuato.,frunEP 21=2F1a

10

Quantify Operating Margins By Hot cell Exams

Quantify margins of key fuel designs under prototvyical andlimiting conditions by examining fuel with

- Minimum time to reach practical discharge limits (i.e., achievablewithin 5% enrichment limit)* High power* Long cycles

- Representative water chemistry- High temperature (PWR)

The program is designed to avoid the really big surprises!

g!W2> C0n4L~ff0RwN- _Kb0bdt 2fsFIhbrlftjtgwon, EI E2

Hot Cell Projects To Quantify MarginsNorth AnneaI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[- Robinson 72 GWdIMTU North Anna 70 GWdNMTU 70 GWdWM

(Zry-4) (ZIRLO) (M5)

Vn V )i1 F

U-~~~~~U

498 i9 ~'ec '01 '02 .93 '04 Yes 'c6

Limerick 52 GWd/MTU M Limerick 55 & 65 GWdMTU l

I |,(Zry- Process 5) (Zry-2, Process 5 & Process 6. NMCA)

Major designs covered with minimum number of programsAll hot cell exams complete in 2006

R W [ a CONlF l e I WTO#RUAJtON-N..Io bceoi vsqfrlbhdorrw*gdp o snitnhrEIn fmPRI at1121

11

Strategies: Ultrasonic Fuel Cleaning

PWRs that have now ultrasonically cleaned fuel:CallawayPumose: AOA avoidance

Callaway experienced varying degrees of AOA from Cycle 4 through11. In combination with reducing fuel duty, CY12 was free of AOAand CY13 has had no indications through 7500 MWD/MTU

South Texas Project Unit IPunpose: AOA avoidance, allowed a reduction in fuel assembly

purchases* First cleaning performed in October 2002

South Texas Project Unit 2Purpose: AOA avoidance following SG replacement & up-rate, allowed a

reduction in fuel assembly purchases* First cleaning performed in April 2003

1R""F 1- It?" cDezL FOM1O-Eo pId Y dww*lt23

Strategies: Ultrasonic Fuel Cleaning

Next PWR planning to ultrasonically clean fuel:Vogtle Unit IPlanned Date: October 2003

Purvose: AOA avoidance (in anticipation of Injecting Zn) and dose ratereduction

.......... *.................*............*....*a.............

First BWR planning to ultrasonically clean fuel:Quad Cities Unit 2Planned Date: Spring 2004

Purpose: Dose rate reduction* Mock-up testing taking place at Vallecitos, 16 discharged assemblies will

be cleaned on a pre-trial basis in Fall 2003. Anticipate cleaning first reloadassemblies in Spring 2004.

«tF-tco~~~ss~~rut 24

12

Mission Of WG2 (Response To Transients)

RFP WG2 is the industry's interface with NRCon fuel related regulatory and technical issues

NRR

-Through NEI on regulatory and licensing issues

RES

-MOU between EPRI and RES

>LOCA tests In ANL

>Cabri International Program

~ CGlfOlA11o DbcpderdOmnalfel25Rew rlk~f~ C0KF&WrMN0VRW7M kWI. b oorddsb~fotsd.U.jw~fla.U1zrtofn fm EPRI 2-=I~t

Three Main Regulatory Focus Areas

*RIA- Submitted RIA Topical Report on licensing criteria at high

burnup (for Zr-4)- Participated in the Cabri International Project to confirm margins

* LOCA- Work with NRC to define appropriate LOCA limits for high

burnup fuel rods- Tests on representative high-burnup rods and LOCA tests in

Japan, France and Norway- LOCA response of advanced claddings (eg. Zirlo, M5)

* Industry Guide for licensing burnup extensions- Identify burnup-dependent fuel design criteria and how to

demonstrate compliance at high-burnup

Rew PC CONRDEHT14L VRMA BON- Not gob. 26 dhf rue..dwrI etwWn mmad.ffl" aom E -FPRJ Eral

13

Proposed RIA Criteria

I Coolabilliy Lmit

AVX- 0 IJ - I -----

ISM00 -~ ~ -- Fuel Rod Failure Threshold.---III I I~~~~- - - -II

2 I-- - - - -4 - -I- 8 - - - - - - - - I -I

0 i I 0 so W I so 9

I I I~Ro Avfg Bu u (G I I

I I I I I I I I

I Ongoing LOCA Experimental Programs

Four major international experimental LOCA programs1) NRC-ANL LOCA criteria-related tests on irradiated fuel

Industry collaborate closely with NRC* Provided Robinson and Limerick high-bumup rods and un-

Irradiated Zircaloy archive material from Robinson, Limerick

* Framatome and W provided M5 and Zirlo

* Selected tests with irradiated M5 and Zirlo

2) Separate-effects tests at EDF/CEA in France on unirradiated &pre-hydrided Robinson and Limerick claddings (RFP funded) aswell as M5 and Zr-4 to study oxidation, quench and phasetransformation kinetics

3) JAERI LOCA test program (ALPS) on irradiated fuel

4) HALDEN LOCA tests using high burnup fuel rods

7 28Swf 2 E122FiF~~r CONRU~~nU XFORMTM-M ftb ca~o ddft.Wwltwc,,wNW aw, amk M C1=5l

14

I Separate Effects Tests- Collaboration With EdF

Clad temperature

i} t i m~~~~~~.ie

EDGAR-RFP CINOG-RFP*Metallographic characterization *Oxidation tests*Mechanical properties *quench tests

1w ' P - COmD~NtnL WfORW4T-oto b1 Xed ea~ wdWlboli S .nagA.t.f ft. PRm MR=f2 =I2

I Industry Guide For Burnup Extension

* Being prepared in response to NRC's mandate for anindustry-wide, consistent approach to the licensing ofbumup extensions- 75 GWD/T rod average for PWR and 70 GWD/T for BWR

* Approach:- Reviewed current criteria and design limits (SRP 4.2 and non-

proprietary vendor topicals) - Determined which criteria dependon bumup

- Determine what changes (if any) are needed and what data willbe required to demonstrate compliance with the new limits

* Status:- The draft Industry Guide Is complete except for LOCA-dependent

.Cladding residual ductility" criterion- The LOCA section is being drafted by a 'focus group' including

utilities and vendor LOCA experts- To be submitted to NRC in 2004

IR I Y"' COMFIVNigh 30 mlf on EP e

15

Summary

* Active International participation

* Have addressed several key industry operational andtechnical issues and are well-positioned to obtain datato ensure margins and avoid big surprises- UT cleaning and AOA model & guidelines

- NMCA data and BWR water chemistry guidelines on NMCA &Zn concentrations

- RIA Topical report

* Robust Fuel Program is aimed to ensure- Reliable and efficient fuel operations

- Industry wide collaboration to resolve safety & regulatoryissues in an integrated and effective manner

Rf~ COW LO;Dsu 31_ q 9 pWwdwstbubd .wfto.* wff. aoUMorka~o, m r -. F II l

Industry Interactions

&-I Mfr. M_ &I i�

321qW F.Apr---- COXFIDMMt.MMMA TM -AW to be mpWod1"*~wMmNwft&nzW-ft&t1wftM Mit CEPrall

16

Ultrasonic Fuel Cleaning Technology

NRR

Washington D.C.

October 1, 2003

J DeshonEPRI

Oct: 2X3 _ EPtz Cony D~fILMEPORATIOf-A.Eh 4.Ilwfr.fdwl tsfle t Esdhoutwt. R6 f P Al

ftbo..bn hn an .

CIFI2I Fuel Cleaning Technology Background

* Identified advanced ultrasonics technology for this use (1997)- Omni-directional ultrasonic field provides enhanced bundle penetration efficiency

* Commissioned mockup testing facility and began development ofQA testing procedures (1998)

* Confirmed fuel pellet integrity (1999)- Cladding vibration amplitudes measured in mockup facility- Cladding vibrations bounded by normal operating flow-induced vibration amplitudes- Fuel vendor review, concurrence obtained- No problems during Callaway start-up ramps & trip (November 1999)

* Manufactured and deployed single channel commercial prototypesystem at Callaway (1999) - to demonstrate technology with crudreduction and AOA avoidance in mind

3dowam3 -2- pe

1

MERM Fuel Cleaning System Employs AdvancedUltrasonic Transducers

Push-pulltransducer

Omni-directionalenergy field enhances

bundle penetration

OcdolmrZO -3- ", ~ r. n --

SsSchematic of Ultrasonic Fuel Cleaning System

ii

11qz

-

.--FuetOrpple

1. Fud .appmed yWpp

j Ultaoonc Trmodu=~

F dc AsoudfbW ei d

CLcming FcbM c

Cleaning fxture may be suspendedby cables or set on the bottom orthe pod

Filtration unit Is supported by theedge of tFe pool

CRilPkm-

Rigid pIp Conncts to home. Pipe has r diameter hole forL . draining & fitling nd alo provides flow path for dcay hedremoval rough natural cornection 1 pump falls

-4-P44-t P-C

2

Callaway Plant 50.59 Evaluation

* Thermal-hydraulic analyses of forced and naturalconvection cooling of hot fuel assembly

* All seismic issues satisfied* Fuel Pellet and cladding vibrations are bounded by normal

operating flow-induced vibration amplitudes

* Fuel vendor review completed, concurrence obtained

Odctorbe3 2 DDp s

Installation of Prototype Fuel Cleaning System: Callaway

Filtration Module

Cleaning ModuleO�er 2�3 4-Octbr 2DX3 4-6

3

Demonstration Cleaning at Callaway(16 reload assemblies during RFIO, October 1999)

Before After F F

Fuel Cleaning Continues at Callaway

Endorsed by plant management for Refuel 1 1 & 12:- To Eliminate AOA risk on high duty, second cycle fuel

- To Reduce risk of early AOA onset on feed fuel by eliminatingredistribution of reload CRUD from low to high peaking assemblies

- To Control particulate inventory long term, recognizing that high dutyfuel deposits do not effectively dissolve by established shutdownchemistry evolutions

- To Minimize personnel radiation exposure during refueling outages,recognizing that lower particulate inventory results in lower shutdownradiation fields

Odober 2003 4- P6Wt F

4

Fuel Cleaning Performance at Callaway

* Safe and efficient demonstration of production cleaning inspent fuel pool

* Equipment operating procedures field proven* 10CFR50.59 approved by plant safety review committees* No adverse radwaste releases

- No HP alerts- Acceptable filter handling and storage

* Outstanding plant staff efforts

October 2003 4- , Z ,-_ V--_ -

Advancements in Ultrasonic Fuel Cleaning Design

* The second generation fuelcleaner is a dual chamber, freestanding design.

* Each chamber includes aIfWlfWtl transducer basket assembly

Installed inside a reflectorhousing.

* Vertically mounted transducerslabd on all sides were used in this

design vs. horizontally mountedtransducers on two opposingsides in the Callaway design,allowing ten transducers to beused for effective cleaning vs.sixteen for Callaway.

Octber 2003 -10- irY C -R._ 13Ac

5

Advancements in Ultrasonic Fuel Cleaning Design

. A dual chamber design allows oneassembly to be Inserted and

i ! | S cleaned while the spent fuel bridgeoperators return the previouslycleaned assembly to its storage

* g blocation in the spent fuel racks.* Software records all of the

monitored data points for each fuelassembly, Including the Incrementalchange In filter dose rate. This dataalong with activity analysis ofcleaner effluent samples drawnduring the cleaning allow for a curie

i , l a l removal mapping for the core. Thisinformation may be helpful to theplant staff in determining where thecrud is building up on the core.

-II- :r-O -

FezM Fuel Cleaning SystemCleaning Fixture Internal Cross Section

T.,.&,=c --

Trandum Suppon1 Forac

Vericel Suppunt and GuiIS

Od� *12-

WOW2M0 -12-

6

Cooling Safety Feature (dual channel)

* For the dual channel system,emergency cooling ports have

lW A-Id* been provided at the bottom ofeach cleaning fixture to allownatural convection (driven by the

| rye I decay heat of the fuel). This wasdone to ensure flow would besupplied only the channel in use.

* Using bounding assembly anddecay heat conditions,engineering calculationsdemonstrate that the maximumclad temperature achieved whileIn the natural circulation mode iswell below DNB.

Odcaer 2D03 _13_ ,, ,-._

7