PWRRM August 2011

pwrrm@retaqs.com

7 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

incore functional test
by Jeremy A Custer 12 Aug '11

12 Aug '11

I've got a couple of questions related to the functional check of the incore system during outage. 1. Do you allow people in containment during the functional test? 2. If so, what type of barrier do you put in place to prevent inadvertent radiation exposure? 3. Is there a minimum decay time since the last flux map before this would be allowed? Thank you in advance for any info 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.

5 4

Re: [Pwrrm] incore functional test
by Hansford Chuck H 11 Aug '11

11 Aug '11

If you mean in containment in general, yes we do. If you mean near the MIDS while it is running, the answer is no. For a general containment entry there are no special precautions and the dose isn't too bad after the detectors have decayed during the outage. We have done limit switch work near a detector after about a month of cooling time. Chuck Hansford MIDS System Engineer Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp. 620-364-8831, x8231 chhansf(a)wcnoc.com From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy A Custer Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:47 PM To: 'pwrrm(a)retaqs.com' Subject: [Pwrrm] incore functional test I've got a couple of questions related to the functional check of the incore system during outage. 1. Do you allow people in containment during the functional test? 2. If so, what type of barrier do you put in place to prevent inadvertent radiation exposure? 3. Is there a minimum decay time since the last flux map before this would be allowed? Thank you in advance for any info 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.

1 0

AUTO: RYAN LITTLE is out of the office. (returning 08/04/2011)
by Ryan.Little＠sce.com 03 Aug '11

03 Aug '11

I am out of the office until 08/04/2011. I will respond to your message when I return. If you need Reactor Engineering assistance contact Fred Gershkoff at 83605 or Jon Ko at 83206 Note: This is an automated response to your message "Re: [Pwrrm] PWR Low Power Physics tests WHY?" sent on 8/3/2011 11:45:54 AM. This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.

1 0

PWR Low Power Physics tests WHY?
by Kenneth R Pike 03 Aug '11

03 Aug '11

Dealing with Both BWR and PWR in my current job points out a glaring difference between the BWR and PWR Reload Testing and Power Ascension programs. BWR generally only verify SDM and do not do any other Low Power Physics testing such as ITC/MTC, Zero Power Flux Maps, Boron End Point (Reactivity Anomaly) etc. I have found Reg Guide 1.68 that applies to Initial New Reactor Testing requirements Appendix A.3 and A.4 , but have found no such Reg Guide for Reload Testing Requirements. ANSI/ANS 19.6.1 "Reload Startup Physics Tests for PWR" is generally referenced in procedures. Where does the NRC endorse the 19.6.1 as acceptable, and to meet the requirements of what regulation/document? Has anyone tried to remove the LPPT program or reduce it to just SDM (Rodworth)?

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

PWRRM August 2011