PWRRM

pwrrm@retaqs.com

244 discussions

Fw: Question on SNM Annual Audit
by ddgoff＠aep.com 27 Oct '09

27 Oct '09

DC Cook is reviewing the requirements for performing an annual review/audit of the SNM system. Previously, 10CFR70.58.c.2 stated: "Provision for a review at least every 12 months of the nuclear material control system by individuals independent of both nuclear material control management and..." ANSI N15.8-1974, Nuclear Material Control Systems for Nuclear Power Plants, stated: "10. System Review and Audit Procedures shall be established for a review, no less often than annually, of the nuclear material control system. Such a review shall include an audit of the nuclear materials records by individuals responsible to the utility management and independent of both nuclear material control management personnel and..." ANSI N15.8-2009, Special Nuclear Material Control and Accounting Systems for Nuclear Power Plants, states "12 System Review and Assessment Review of the SNM program should be conducted periodically. The results of the review should be documented and reported in accordance with the requirements of the utility?s quality assurance or self-assessment program." However, 10CFR70.58 has been deleted and referenced to 10CFR74. However, I don't see 10CFR74 covering a Power Plant. Does anyone know where there is a requirement to do a annual audit/review of the SNM program? If there isn't one anymore, are you still doing them? thanks Glen M Bradham, 269-465-5901 X1538 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

1 0

New Reactivity Management Key Performance Indicator Free Training
by Kenneth R Pike 27 Oct '09

27 Oct '09

RETAQS, Inc. announces some Free Training on the New Reactivity Management KPI to all plant Reactor Engineering groups is now available for use. You will need a Windows Media player to view the streaming media. On our home page, http://www.retaqs.com/ you will find the training for the Reactivity Management KPI upgrade that we have just completed. This training video is approx 23 minutes long and is intended for you to use to update your Reactivity Management Oversight Committee and other station management you deem appropriate. We prepared this to help with a smooth transition from the current method to the new process. Ken Pike 610.277.8991 x 253

1 0

Fw: [RCRC] TracWorks Fuel Movement Sheet Preparation
by gmbradham＠aep.com 27 Oct '09

27 Oct '09

DC Cook uses ShuffleWorks. We have a procedure to create and verify the sheets. Each type of shuffle has its own checklist. Glen M Bradham, 269-465-5901 X1538 ----- Forwarded by Glen M Bradham/BC1/AEPIN on 10/27/2009 06:26 AM ----- David D Goff/BC2/AEPIN 10/26/2009 03:13 PM To Glen M Bradham/BC1/AEPIN@AEPIN cc Subject Fw: [Pwrrm] [RCRC] TracWorks Fuel Movement Sheet Preparation David Goff Reactor Engineer Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 269-465-5901 x1465 ----- Forwarded by David D Goff/BC2/AEPIN on 10/26/2009 03:12 PM ----- <Rosanne.Carmean(a)exeloncorp.com> Sent by: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com 10/26/2009 03:04 PM Please respond to PWR Reactivity Management <pwrrm(a)retaqs.com> To <pwrrm(a)retaqs.com> cc Subject [Pwrrm] [RCRC] TracWorks Fuel Movement Sheet Preparation At Exelon, most sites use ShuffleWorks/Crystal Reports to create fuel movement sheets, however, two of our sites use TrackWorks for move sheet generation. During TracWorks training, it was noted that there currently is no procedure governing the use of TracWorks for the development of move sheets. 1. Do you use TracWorks to create move sheets? 2. If yes... a. do you have a governing procedure? b. how do you control that the move sheets are verified? c. would you be willing to share the procedure? Thank you for your time and responses. Rosanne Carmean Exelon Nuclear Spent Fuel and Decommissioning Phone: (630) 657-2166 Fax: (630) 657- 4331 <mailto:Rosanne.Carmean@exeloncorp.com> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

1 0

New Work Hour Rules
by SCHAWE, BARTON P 24 Oct '09

24 Oct '09

FCS has implemented the new work hour rules such that Reactor Engineers are covered workers. Are Reactor Engineers at other plants considered covered workers? A quick response would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Barton P. Schawe, P.E. Principal Reactor Engineer Omaha Public Power District Tel: 402-533-7211 email: bschawe(a)oppd.com<mailto:bschawe@oppd.com> This transmission contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. It is intended for the named addressee only. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorized to receive it on behalf of the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please contact the sender. Thank you for your cooperation. This e-mail contains Omaha Public Power District's confidential and proprietary information and is for use only by the intended recipient. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, this e-mail is not a contract offer, amendment, nor acceptance. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

12 11

Re: [Pwrrm] New Work Hour Rules
by Hanek, Olga 22 Oct '09

22 Oct '09

FPL has determined that Reactor Engineers at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 are not covered workers. They do not manipulate any safety related equipment. Although REs perform flux maps and this activity involves movement of in-core instrument probes, it does not result in a change of state or condition of a risk significant SSC; therefore, it is does not meet the definition of covered work. In addition, all direction provided by REs in the control room is provided through an Operations supervisor. Olga Hanek Licensing Engineer Turkey Point Nuclear -----Original Message----- From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com]On Behalf Of SCHAWE, BARTON P Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:14 AM To: 'pwrrm(a)retaqs.com' Cc: SMITH, MICHAEL R Subject: [Pwrrm] New Work Hour Rules FCS has implemented the new work hour rules such that Reactor Engineers are covered workers. Are Reactor Engineers at other plants considered covered workers? A quick response would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Barton P. Schawe, P.E. Principal Reactor Engineer Omaha Public Power District Tel: 402-533-7211 email: bschawe(a)oppd.com<mailto:bschawe@oppd.com> This transmission contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. It is intended for the named addressee only. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorized to receive it on behalf of the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please contact the sender. Thank you for your cooperation. This e-mail contains Omaha Public Power District's confidential and proprietary information and is for use only by the intended recipient. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, this e-mail is not a contract offer, amendment, nor acceptance. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. ************************************************** 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. **************************************************

1 0

William V Ferguson is out of the office.
by wvferguson＠aep.com 16 Oct '09

16 Oct '09

I will be out of the office starting 10/16/2009 and will not return until 10/26/2009. I will respond to your message when I return.

1 0

Reactivity Management
by SCHAWE, BARTON P 16 Oct '09

16 Oct '09

>From INPO 06-006: Repetitive tasks controlled by procedures or work documents are distinctively marked to highlight those steps or sections that will impact reactivity. Can anyone provide an example of how they meet this characteristic of the INPO guideline? FCS generally has a "Precaution and Limitation" at the beginning of a procedure, or a "Caution" prior to a step that affects reactivity. But, this is not always consistent. Barton P. Schawe, P.E. Principal Reactor Engineer Omaha Public Power District Tel: 402-533-7211 email: bschawe(a)oppd.com<mailto:bschawe@oppd.com> This transmission contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. It is intended for the named addressee only. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorized to receive it on behalf of the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please contact the sender. Thank you for your cooperation. This e-mail contains Omaha Public Power District's confidential and proprietary information and is for use only by the intended recipient. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, this e-mail is not a contract offer, amendment, nor acceptance. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

5 4

RCS time to boil
by ddgoff＠aep.com 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

I'd like to know how others are handling decay heat projections. Our Ops procedures here at Cook were recently changed to link containment closure time requirements to RCS time-to-boil projections. Our operators are asking for more realistic, less conservative (.i.e., longer) times. First, the source term. We are still using the old Branch Technical Position paper ASB 9-2 that was part of earlier NUREG-0800 revisions. The latest NUREG-0800 now references ANSI/ANS-5.1-2005 for calculating decay heat. We would start using that; however, we cannot find a defensible value for R ("atoms of U-239 produced per second per fission per second evaluated for the reactor composition at the time of shutdown; the value of R shall be supplied and justified by the user") for the heavy element contribution in section 4. The examples in the appendices use R=0.6. What are you using for decay heat calcs? Second, the sink term. We have no heat transfer modeling of our vessel and RCS. Rather, we make some very conservative assumptions about vessel internal volumes and then credit only the water volume within the vessel for cases when the cavity is not flooded. Now, we know that there is metal and air and concrete as well as natural circulation within the RCS that will act as the decay heat sink. We just can't model all that. How do you model the decay heat sink for time-to-boil calcs? Thanks. David Goff Reactor Engineer Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 269-465-5901 x1465 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Re: [Pwrrm] Fw: RCS time to boil
by unfriedm＠firstenergycorp.com 08 Oct '09

08 Oct '09

David, I can respond to your second question. BVPS-1 & 2 have RCS loop stop valves so we do not need to drain down below the reactor pressure vessel flange by more than one foot (except when the fuel is removed from the reactor vessel). The time to boiling volumes we credit are in accordance with NUREG-1269, “Loss of Residual Heat Removal System”: 100% of core volume, 100% of upper plenum volume, 100% of reactor head volume (as applicable), 10% of vessel downcomer volume (above the lower core plate), a portion of the hot leg volumes (to the closed loop stop valves), and the specific heat capacity of the core fuel assemblies. No other credit is given in the draindown configuration and the local boiling temperature of 210.6 degrees F is applied. When the PRZR is filled to the operating minimum of at least 22% (and no other RCS vent exists), then the PRZR surge line volume and 22% level in the PRZR is credited in the time to boiling. Also the static head with volume in the PRZR (> 22%) results in an increased core boiling temperature of approximately 238 degrees F. We are hoping to do some detailed analysis using MAAP5, but that is still in the future. Michael Unfried BVPS Staff Nuclear Engineer 724-682-5993 Anthony R Burger/FirstEner gy To Michael 10/07/2009 08:21 Unfried/FirstEnergy@FirstEnergy AM cc Subject Fw: [Pwrrm] RCS time to boil Mike, Jay deferred to you. See email below. AR ----- Forwarded by Anthony R Burger/FirstEnergy on 10/07/2009 08:21 AM ----- James D Lutz/FirstEnergy To 10/07/2009 07:25 Anthony R AM Burger/FirstEnergy@FirstEnergy cc Subject Re: Fw: [Pwrrm] RCS time to boil (Document link: Anthony R Burger) Unfried is your best bet. Anthony R Burger/FirstEner gy To James D Lutz/FirstEnergy@FirstEnergy 10/06/2009 02:49 cc PM Subject Fw: [Pwrrm] RCS time to boil Jay, I know your probably busy, but I received the following request from DC Cook regarding time to boil. I've got the answer for the first part on decay heat, however could you provide information on the second item - sink term? Or would Mike Unfried be the person? AR ----- Forwarded by Anthony R Burger/FirstEnergy on 10/06/2009 02:46 PM ----- ddgoff(a)aep.com Sent by: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com To pwrrm(a)retaqs.com cc 09/30/2009 09:07 AM Subject [Pwrrm] RCS time to boil Please respond to PWR Reactivity Management <pwrrm(a)retaqs.com > I'd like to know how others are handling decay heat projections. Our Ops procedures here at Cook were recently changed to link containment closure time requirements to RCS time-to-boil projections. Our operators are asking for more realistic, less conservative (.i.e., longer) times. First, the source term. We are still using the old Branch Technical Position paper ASB 9-2 that was part of earlier NUREG-0800 revisions. The latest NUREG-0800 now references ANSI/ANS-5.1-2005 for calculating decay heat. We would start using that; however, we cannot find a defensible value for R ("atoms of U-239 produced per second per fission per second evaluated for the reactor composition at the time of shutdown; the value of R shall be supplied and justified by the user") for the heavy element contribution in section 4. The examples in the appendices use R=0.6. What are you using for decay heat calcs? Second, the sink term. We have no heat transfer modeling of our vessel and RCS. Rather, we make some very conservative assumptions about vessel internal volumes and then credit only the water volume within the vessel for cases when the cavity is not flooded. Now, we know that there is metal and air and concrete as well as natural circulation within the RCS that will act as the decay heat sink. We just can't model all that. How do you model the decay heat sink for time-to-boil calcs? Thanks. David Goff Reactor Engineer Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 269-465-5901 x1465 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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._______________________________________________ PWRRM mailing list PWRRM(a)retaqs.com http://www.keffective.com/mailman/listinfo/pwrrm

1 0

OE29438 Questions
by Charlene N Chotalal 28 Sep '09

28 Sep '09

Good Afternoon, Attached to this email is a document that contains a Surry OE that was generated by our Corporate personnel regarding source range detector response during Core Onload (Basically, the SRD indication for an elevated count rate would still occur but could be later than expected). If you have not yet read this, please take the time to do so. Once read, please answer the following questions to the best of your ability: Is your plant aware of this? If so, have you done anything to safeguard against a potential core misloading and/or a boron dilution event? At Surry Power Station, during cold shutdown a dilution is prevented by closing the demin water valve. Surry will also be taking a look at our historical source range detector response and come up with a lesser 1/M stop criteria during onload. We will also be providing training to Operations and Fuel Handling so that they are aware of this condition. If you require more information on this OE, please do not hesitate to contact me. __________________________________________________________ Charlene Chotalal Lead Reactor Engineer Surry Power Station Dominion Generation Work: (757)-365-2819 __________________________________________________________ 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.

2 2

← Newer
1
...
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
...
25
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

PWRRM