PWRRM April 2010

pwrrm@retaqs.com

3 participants
3 discussions

Use of Spreadsheets for Surveillances
by Gore, Duane 03 May '10

03 May '10

We at STP use spreadsheets to perform surveillance calculations. The results are then independently verified by a second engineer using an independently generated spreadsheet. Neither spreadsheet has been formally verified per our station Software Quality Assurance procedure. In cases where the results are used without further verification, we do properly QA the spreadsheets (usually in the cases where other groups use the spreadsheets). Our QA department is of the opinion that at least one of these spreadsheets used for surveillances must by fully verified and documented per our station Software Quality Assurance procedure. It would help my case if I could cite other Rae's practices with regards to the use of spreadsheets. What is the practice at your plant? Thank you, Duane Gore Supervisor, Reactor Engineering STPNOC (361) 972-8909

8 8

New RM KPI Measure
by Fago, Carl D 27 Apr '10

27 Apr '10

Duke has adopted the PWROG RM KPI but were trying to determine good performance thresholds. Initially, we were going to adopt 1st quartile as green, 2nd quartile as yellow and below as red. However, INPO PIC hasn't been updated to reflect the BWROG or PWROG RM KPI so the quartile information appears to not be available yet. What thresholds, using the PWROG KPI definition, have other stations set for green / yellow / red? Thanks! Carl Carl D. Fago Event Recovery Manager Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas Phone: (864) 873-3047 Fax: (864) 873-3374 Email: Carl.fago(a)duke-energy.com<mailto:Carl.fago@duke-energy.com>

1 0

PWROG RM Coding Questions
by Fago, Carl D 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

During our transition to the use of the PWROG RM event coding, several questions arose and we'd like to get some feedback on how others are handling similar issues. Specifically... 1. For multi-unit sites, if there is an issue generic to all units (e.g., vendor core design analysis method error), are you applying the "hit" to all applicable units equally? 2. For those sites with dry storage (or event multi-unit sites with dry storage), how are you addressing issues with cask transport to dry storage (e.g., while transporting a cask the trailer/transporter breaks)? Is this an issue of less than adequate fuel handling equipment performance while handling fuel or control component (no fuel/component damage), L5? If so, for multi-unit sites, which unit would get the RM hit based on dry storage? 3. ONS has a shared fuel pool between Unit 1 and 2. For fuel handling practices / equipment issues, we are proposing to apply any RM hit against the unit to which the specific fuel assembly or control component last operated. As far as we can tell, there is no "hit" if the fuel bridge or other equipment fails when fuel is not being handled, therefore, there will always be a unit that can be associated with the event. 4. ONS Fuel Damage Event (SEN-280) has been classified as L4 based on fuel handling that results in damage to fuel assembly or control component. While the RM level isn't indicative of the organizational significance of the event, this is the classification we came up with. Any comment or insights into how others might classify this event? (While we weren't "handling fuel" at the time, we conservatively said it met the intent.) Note that there was no specific RM impact in the event (again, this was a big event for ONS but we're specifically focusing on RM for this question.) Thanks in advance for all the feedback! Carl Carl D. Fago Reactor Engineering Supervisor Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas Phone: (864) 873-3047 Fax: (864) 873-3374 Email: Carl.fago(a)duke-energy.com<mailto:Carl.fago@duke-energy.com>

3 4

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

PWRRM April 2010