PWRRM June 2011

pwrrm@retaqs.com

8 participants
5 discussions

SNM Inventory Practice Benchmark Survey
by edward.mcvey＠exeloncorp.com 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

SNM Industry Peers, Please review the SNM Inventory event summarized below and respond with answers to the short Benchmark Survey that follows. Event Summary During the Triennial NRC MC&A Inspection, the inspector identified an error in the Byron 2010 Annual SNM Inventory. The inventory report misidentified the position of two normally inaccessible storage locations in the SFP V rack. Inaccessible locations VA05 & VB05 were mismarked as containing fuel, while VA04 & VB04 which contained fuel were identified as empty. The error did not impact the inventory result (ie total piece count). Error Precursors Repetitive Actions / Monotony * The SFP inventory consists of documenting fuel locations in thousands of pool storage cells. The SFP at Byron is nearly full, and the monotonous task requires repeated counting of rows and columns in the racks. A loss of focus resulted in mismarking two locations. Failed Defenses Self Check / STAR * The error originated with the performer in the field. The error was not detected during the Review step of STAR or during comparison of the field result with the expected TracWorks configuration. The large number of assemblies (>2400) made the task susceptible to recording errors and also made errors difficult to detect. Peer Check * The peer check in the field failed to detect the error for likely the same reason as STAR. A peer check of the comparison with TracWorks was not performed because it was procedurally not required, and the peer was not available following the field activity. 1. How does your site document Location/Piece Count inventories of the SFP? * Do you markup blank maps or printouts from an Inventory Control program? * If using blank maps, do you mark every SFP location, or just the exceptions? (e.g. Only marking empty cell locations in a mostly full SFP) 2. What Human Performance tools do you use to ensure an error free inventory? * Are both a Performer and Reviewer (Peer Checker) required for the field activity? * Do they perform the task Concurrently or Independently? * Or is a review only conducted outside of the RCA? * Is a copy of the expected configuration available to the Performer/Reviewer during the field activity? * Or is the inventoried reconciled with the expected configuration only after the field activity? * Is the reconciliation also reviewed (peer checked)? Please respond to Jeff Dunlap (jeffrey.dunlap(a)exeloncorp.com) by 7/1/2011. Responses will be collected and a summary will be sent out to all respondents Thanks for your help ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain Exelon Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the Exelon Corporation family of Companies. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. Thank You. **************************************************

2 1

Core loading and gap checks
by Jeremy A Custer 23 Jun '11

23 Jun '11

All, At Kewaunee, we're considering a change from the standard bridge pattern of core on-load to a modified crescent. I have the following questions for the industry: 1. What core loading pattern do you use? 2. Do you use software/equipment to physically measure the gaps between assemblies? 3. If so, what is the software/equipment? Thank you in advance for any information you can offer. Jeremy Custer Reactor Engineer Kewaunee Power Station Phone: 920-388-8778 Pager: 920-305-0119 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may be legally confidential and/or privileged and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional express written confirmation to that effect. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.

4 3

Test 1
by Carlos Vidal 07 Jun '11

07 Jun '11

Please disregard this message, it is just a test of the mail list server. Carlos Vidal Retaqs LLC

1 0

Re: [Pwrrm] Core Performance Tools Benchmarking
by Adina K Lafrance 03 Jun '11

03 Jun '11

1) What codes do you use to verify / check a vendor-developed core loading pattern? N/A, in house core designs are used 2) Do you use a tool to assess the risk of cladding failure due to Pellet Cladding Interaction (PCI)? If so, which one? Core design reviews the Westinghouse(fuel vendor) calculations provided and verifies the applicable acceptance criteria are met. 3) What software tools do you use to measure power distribution limits? (e.g. Beacon, Incore) Incore instruments/PCS data input into Simulate/Cecor 4) Do you use any other tools or codes for core performance monitoring? If so, what are they, and what do you use them for? We have some qualified spreadsheets that perform the reactivity anomaly calculation, etc Adina LaFrance Reactor Engineer Nuclear Analysis and Fuels, Surry Power Station Dominion Generation Phone: 757-365-2658; Internal: 8-798-2658 E-mail: Adina.K.LaFrance(a)dom.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may be legally confidential and/or privileged and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer relating thereto which binds the sender without an additional express written confirmation to that effect. The information is intended solely for the individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.

1 0

Core Performance Tools Benchmarking
by wvferguson＠aep.com 03 Jun '11

03 Jun '11

Hello, I'll apologize in advance. If some of you are on more than one mailing list, you may receive this more than once. At the Cook Nuclear Plant, our Nuclear Engineering department is conducting a benchmark to support a self assessment, and we have developed the following questions. if you could take a few minutes to answer the questions, we would appreciate it. You may respond either to me at wvferguson(a)aep.com, or to pwrrm(a)retaqs.com. thanks, wvf Core Performance Tools Questions I will tabulate the results of this benchmarking effort and provide a summary of the responses to everyone who responds. Please respond to the questions below by 6/3/11, if possible. 1) What codes do you use to verify / check a vendor-developed core loading pattern? 2) Do you use a tool to assess the risk of cladding failure due to Pellet Cladding Interaction (PCI)? If so, which one? 3) What software tools do you use to measure power distribution limits? (e.g. Beacon, Incore) 4) Do you use any other tools or codes for core performance monitoring? If so, what are they, and what do you use them for? William Ferguson, P.E. AEP Nuclear Fuels Group 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, MI 49107-1373 (269) 697-5139 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it from the Nuclear Generation Group of American Electric Power are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

PWRRM June 2011