PWRRM September 2011

pwrrm@retaqs.com

11 participants
4 discussions

Exelon Survey on Vendor Reload Product "Acceptance Reviews" performed by Utilities
by edward.mcvey＠exeloncorp.com 28 Sep '11

28 Sep '11

Please respond in the attached WORD Document. We'd appreciate responses by October 4 if possible. This is to support a Common Cause Analysis that we are currently performing in our Nuclear Fuels Department. We're looking at Vendor Technical Errors that made it through our review/acceptance process and into documents like COLR's, input decks, Curve Books, etc. Thanks for your assistance. Ed McVey ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** 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

Reactivity Management Grading
by Adina K Lafrance 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

Good Afternoon all, We recently had a discussion on site about how to grade a reactivity management legacy issue in a calculation. Does your site have any guidance on how you would grade a legacy issue, such as: Would you grade it in RM space if it is a calculation that is still in effect? If the document is beyond a certain age, would that change the grading? If the document had been in use, was removed from use, then the error discovered, would you grade it in RM space? Thank you in advance. 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.

8 8

SNM from fuel leaks
by MCKINNEY, MICHAEL R 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

Request for industry peer feedback - I have the following 3 questions: Does your site / utility account for washout or tramp SNM that may collect throughout the plant? If you do account for the SNM, do you estimate the amount or use a method to quantify the amount? Do you report the loss (as inadvertent losses or otherwise) on DOE/NRC form 742 or other forms? Entergy has had fuel leaks in the past and one fuel leak currently. Trace amounts of Special Nuclear Material (SNM) may be present in the reactor coolant, clean-up, and/or rad waste systems due to present or past fuel failures. The SNM is difficult to measure in the coolant system and therefore cannot be accounted for. But this SNM may be quantified in rad waste prior to disposal. Entergy Nuclear's fleet SNM Control program does not currently address the accounting treatment of this SNM. Thanks, Mike Michael R. McKinney Supervisor, PWR Fuels mmckinn(a)entergy.com 601-368-5450

4 3

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

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

PWRRM September 2011