PWRRM

pwrrm@retaqs.com

244 discussions

PWROG Reactivity Management Performance Indicator
by Fago, Carl D 28 Aug '09

28 Aug '09

At Duke, we plan on implementing the proposed PWROG RM Performance Indicator and are working through our change management plan to do so by the end of the 1st quarter 2010. Management has asked the question about who doesn't plan on implementing this at their station or is anyone planning on implementing but taking specific exception to any aspect of it? The intent of the question is not so much to allow someone to put up a bulls-eye on themselves as much as management, while in general agreement with the purpose and many of the details, doesn't necessarily agree with some minor points of the directions being taken with the latest revision and wants to gauge how others are reacting. I've provided feedback to senior management that if there are specific issues that they disagree with they need to take that feedback to INPO OPS organization who can then provide feedback or provide direction to the PWROG and BWROG representatives for action. Thanks for your help! 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>

2 1

RCS B10 depletion impact on Boron Inj Safety Systems?
by Kenneth R Pike 16 Jul '09

16 Jul '09

In developing a B10 depletion lesson recently I discovered a concern that I have not seen raised before. Does your Safety Analysis for your boron injection or S/D systems (Accumulators, Boron Injection Tank or RWST) consider anything less than nominal B10 abundance (19.9 a/o) in the boron ppm requirement? If the analysis assumes nominal B10 and there is some B10 depletion then the negative reactivity assumed could be more than that actually available (non-conservative) upon injection. Is this accounted for in some fashion? Thanks in advance Ken Pike Retaqs, Inc. 610.277.8991 x 253

4 3

Re: [Pwrrm] RCS B10 depletion impact on Boron Inj Safety Systems?
by Wellbaum, Daniel A 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

At Duke, our safety analyses have an allowance for a small amount of B-10 depletion. Our B-10 surveillance program ensures B-10 in safety-related sources stay above the allowed value. We don't measure B-10 in all tanks, but we measure B-10 in the source for makeup to those tanks. If B-10 at source gets close to allowed value we stop boron recycle and make up with fresh boron. Dan Wellbaum Reactor Engineering Catawba Nuclear Station From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Kenneth R Pike Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 10:16 AM To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com Subject: [Pwrrm] RCS B10 depletion impact on Boron Inj Safety Systems? In developing a B10 depletion lesson recently I discovered a concern that I have not seen raised before. Does your Safety Analysis for your boron injection or S/D systems (Accumulators, Boron Injection Tank or RWST) consider anything less than nominal B10 abundance (19.9 a/o) in the boron ppm requirement? If the analysis assumes nominal B10 and there is some B10 depletion then the negative reactivity assumed could be more than that actually available (non-conservative) upon injection. Is this accounted for in some fashion? Thanks in advance Ken Pike Retaqs, Inc. 610.277.8991 x 253

1 0

RM Event Classification and Performance Indicator
by Sanders, Gene Jr 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

Oconee Nuclear Station (Duke Energy) has recently identified in our Problem Identification / Corrective Action program (PIP) where past (>12 months ago) storage configurations in our spent fuel pools were not in full compliance with Tech Specs. These events were encountered during refueling outages and the station was in a noncompliant condition for short periods ranging from a few days to a few weeks before TS compliance was subsequently restored. (It is apparent during these instances that the operators were not aware that a TS noncompliance existed and afterward, the plant was restored to a compliant condition via an "inadvertent compliance" action where a portion of the SFP fuel was reloaded back into the reactor vessel.) These past occurrences would be characterized as an L4 (or possibly L3) RM event. The questions we request input on are: 1) Should we characterize this current "PIP" as an L4 (or possibly L3) RM event(s) which affects our current RM performance indicator (PI), and if not 2) What justification / interim actions would be deemed required / appropriate to avoid penalizing our RM PI, (i.e., was this type of scenario, discovery of past events, addressed during the development of the PWR RM PI?) Thanks in advance for your response, T E (Gene) Sanders ONS Rx Engineering 864.873.3377

3 2

Re: [Pwrrm] PWRRM Digest, Vol 28, Issue 4
by edward.mcvey＠exeloncorp.com 10 Jul '09

10 Jul '09

This event is clearly as I understand it meet the definition of a Level 2 event. If you violated TS, then it is reportable which is the basic definition of a Level 2 event. Also, under the current PWROG Guideline, I believe you have an event worded something like "Fuel Assembly in Fuel Pool that violates reactivity constraints" That is a Level 3 event, but again, if you determined it was reportable due to not meeting Tech Specs, that makes it a Level 2. Also, by the way, under the new RM PI guideline that I just met with INPO yesterday, we have clariifed exactly that, since my determination above does provide a little contradiction between 2 or 3. The Level 2 event that applies here in our new approved PI is: 2-9 Fuel Bundle in the Reactor Core, Spent Fuel Pool, or Dry Cask That Violates Reactivity Constraints Similarly, Level 3 in the new PI reads: 3-11 Fuel Placement Error in the Spent Fuel Pool or Dry Cask That Does Not Violate Reactivity Constraints Bottom line, I believe it meets Level 2 under either two versions of the PI. Minimum would be a 3, but if you violated TS, you're in Level 2 space. Ed McVey - -----Original Message----- From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of pwrrm-request(a)retaqs.com Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:00 PM To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com Subject: PWRRM Digest, Vol 28, Issue 4 Send PWRRM mailing list submissions to pwrrm(a)retaqs.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.keffective.com/mailman/listinfo/pwrrm or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to pwrrm-request(a)retaqs.com You can reach the person managing the list at pwrrm-owner(a)retaqs.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of PWRRM digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RM Event Classification and Performance Indicator (Sanders, Gene Jr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:29:25 -0400 From: "Sanders, Gene Jr" <Gene.Sanders(a)duke-energy.com> Subject: [Pwrrm] RM Event Classification and Performance Indicator To: "pwrrm(a)retaqs.com" <pwrrm(a)retaqs.com> Message-ID: <22A8474FC8468A439A927EF628FED52B12B821C666(a)IMCLUSEXCP55.nam.ent.duke-energy .com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Oconee Nuclear Station (Duke Energy) has recently identified in our Problem Identification / Corrective Action program (PIP) where past (>12 months ago) storage configurations in our spent fuel pools were not in full compliance with Tech Specs. These events were encountered during refueling outages and the station was in a noncompliant condition for short periods ranging from a few days to a few weeks before TS compliance was subsequently restored. (It is apparent during these instances that the operators were not aware that a TS noncompliance existed and afterward, the plant was restored to a compliant condition via an "inadvertent compliance" action where a portion of the SFP fuel was reloaded back into the reactor vessel.) These past occurrences would be characterized as an L4 (or possibly L3) RM event. The questions we request input on are: 1) Should we characterize this current "PIP" as an L4 (or possibly L3) RM event(s) which affects our current RM performance indicator (PI), and if not 2) What justification / interim actions would be deemed required / appropriate to avoid penalizing our RM PI, (i.e., was this type of scenario, discovery of past events, addressed during the development of the PWR RM PI?) Thanks in advance for your response, T E (Gene) Sanders ONS Rx Engineering 864.873.3377 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.keffective.com/pipermail/pwrrm/attachments/20090709/8e684f96/atta chment-0001.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ PWRRM mailing list PWRRM(a)retaqs.com http://www.keffective.com/mailman/listinfo/pwrrm End of PWRRM Digest, Vol 28, Issue 4 ************************************ ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** 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

Dry Cask Storage Delay
by WILLETT, JOSEPH E 10 Jul '09

10 Jul '09

Fort Calhoun Station has run into a delay with respect to Dry Cask storage operations. Our cask crane has issues preventing us from removing the canister and transfer cask from the SFP. Our concerns are as follows: 1) Leaving the TC and DSC in the pool for an extended length of time. 2) The fuel is in the DSC with spacers installed, (spacers ha flow holes) 3) Placing the spacers on the SFP racks above fuel assemblies (if we want to move fuel back to the SFP) A) Has anyone had similar issues? B) What other concerns would you have? J. E. Willett ---------------------------------------------------- Joseph E. Willett, P.E. Principal Reactor Engineer-Fuel Nuclear Operations Division E-mail: jwillett(a)oppd.com<mailto:jwillett@oppd.com> Omaha Public Power District Phone: (402) 533-7213 Fort Calhoun Station Pager: (402) 561-3899 9610 Power Lane FAX: (402) 533-6747 Blair, NE 68008 Mail Station: FC-1-1 Plant ---------------------------------------------------- -------- 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.

2 1

Anthony R Burger/FirstEnergy is out of the office.
by aburger＠firstenergycorp.com 10 Jul '09

10 Jul '09

I will be out of the office starting 07/09/2009 and will not return until 07/13/2009. I will be out of the office starting Thursday 7/9/2009. I will be returningMonday 7/13/2008. Please contact Bob Huston for any immediate reactor engineering concerns. ----------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete the original message.

1 0

Johnny Henderson/NUC/VANCPOWER is out of the office.
by Johnny.Henderson＠dom.com 10 Jul '09

10 Jul '09

I will be out of the office starting 07/09/2009 and will not return until 07/20/2009. I will respond to your message when I return. 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

Tomonto, Bob is out of the office.
by Bob_Tomonto＠fpl.com 09 Jul '09

09 Jul '09

I will be out of the office starting 07/08/2009 and will not return until 07/20/2009. I will be out of the office until July 20, please contact Paul Czaya at (x7150).

1 0

Tomonto, Bob is out of the office.
by Bob_Tomonto＠fpl.com 08 Jul '09

08 Jul '09

I will be out of the office starting 07/08/2009 and will not return until 07/20/2009. I will be out of the office until July 20, please contact Paul Czaya at (x7150).

1 0

← Newer
1
...
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
...
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