PWRRM

pwrrm@retaqs.com

244 discussions

Definition of When Startup is Complete
by WILLETT, JOSEPH E 24 Nov '08

24 Nov '08

FCS has two requirements regarding a dropped rod. First, if we drop more than one rod at power, we trip the reactor. Second, if we drop a single rod during startup, we trip the reactor. What we don't have is a definition of when startup is considered complete, with regards to a dropped rod. Do other plants have similar requirements and do you have a definition of when startup is complete with regards to a dropped rod? 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.

6 6

RETAQS RxEng Posters and 2009 Calendars
by Kenneth R Pike 14 Nov '08

14 Nov '08

Disregard if this is a repeat email for you. Trying to be sure I get all PWRs. Thanks To all PWR RE Supervisors, please provide current mailing address info and number of Calendars need for your RE Staff. We will send you a Reactivity Mgmt, FME and Zero by 2010 posters as well as the infamous RETAQS RxEng Calendar 2009 edition. If this email was received in error and you are not the current RE Supervisor please forward to the person performing that function or reply providing me that information. Thanks "Your life is made of time, not money" Ken Pike 610.277.8991 x 253

7 6

Re: [Pwrrm] RETAQS RxEng Posters and 2009 Calendars
by paul_gurney＠fpl.com 05 Nov '08

05 Nov '08

Ken, 5 calendars for Seabrook would be appreciated. Thanks Paul Gurney RE Supervisor FPL Energy - Seabrook Station PO Box 300 Seabrook NH 03874 "Kenneth R Pike" <krpike(a)retaqs.com> Sent by: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com 11/04/2008 12:32 PM Please respond to "Kenneth R Pike"; Please respond to "PWR Reactivity Management" To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com cc: Subject: [Pwrrm] RETAQS RxEng Posters and 2009 Calendars Disregard if this is a repeat email for you. Trying to be sure I get all PWRs. Thanks To all PWR RE Supervisors, please provide current mailing address info and number of Calendars need for your RE Staff. We will send you a Reactivity Mgmt, FME and Zero by 2010 posters as well as the infamous RETAQS RxEng Calendar 2009 edition. If this email was received in error and you are not the current RE Supervisor please forward to the person performing that function or reply providing me that information. Thanks "Your life is made of time, not money" Ken Pike 610.277.8991 x 253 _______________________________________________ PWRRM mailing list PWRRM(a)retaqs.com http://www.keffective.com/mailman/listinfo/pwrrm

1 0

Re: [Pwrrm] Definition of When Startup is Complete
by Wellbaum, Daniel A 04 Nov '08

04 Nov '08

At Catawba Nuclear Station, we also trip the reactor if more than 1 rod drops. For beginning of cycle reactor startup including low power physics testing and for mid-cycle reactor startups, our requirement is to reinsert rod banks if a single rod drop occurs. For BOC, requirement applies as long as we are in the test procedure for low power physics testing. For other reactor startups, we have a test procedure for approach to criticality (in addition to the normal operating procedure). The requirement to reinsert rod banks if a single rod drop occurs is applicable while we are in the test procedure for reactor startup. In both cases once we are out of the test procedure for reactor startup and back into the normal operating procedure for unit startup, there is no shutdown requirement for a single dropped rod. Effectively, our definition of startup for the purposes of response to single dropped rod is "while in test procedure for reactor startup/physics testing" The transition from test procedure to operating procedure occurs at approximately 10-8 amps on intermediate range, about a decade below point of adding heat. Other potential definitions of reactor startup with respect to single dropped rod could be: 1. Mode 2, k-eff < 1 2. Mode 2, below point of adding heat 3. Mode 2 Except for physics testing, the time spent in mode 2 during reactor startup is usually so small that it doesn't make much difference which definition you use. I do not think it is necessary to extend definition of reactor startup into mode 1. Dan Wellbaum Reactor Engineering Catawba Nuclear Station ________________________________ From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com Sent: Tue Nov 04 09:02:17 2008 Subject: [Pwrrm] Definition of When Startup is Complete FCS has two requirements regarding a dropped rod. First, if we drop more than one rod at power, we trip the reactor. Second, if we drop a single rod during startup, we trip the reactor. What we don't have is a definition of when startup is considered complete, with regards to a dropped rod. Do other plants have similar requirements and do you have a definition of when startup is complete with regards to a dropped rod? 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%20> 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.

1 0

Mark Dicus/Ptn/Nuclear/FplNuc is out of the office.
by Mark_Dicus＠fpl.com 24 Oct '08

24 Oct '08

I will be out of the office starting 10/23/2008 and will not return until 11/03/2008. I will be out of town on vacation until November 1 and back in the office November 3. Please contact Julio Balaguero at x6741 if you require Reactor Engineering assistance in my absence.

1 0

Power Maneuvers and Shift Turnover
by Mark_Dicus＠fpl.com 23 Oct '08

23 Oct '08

At Turkey Point, we normally schedule downpowers so they don't cross shift turnover. Recently, however, we had an emergent downpower that was in progress at shift turnover. At the time, the reactivity plan called for rod insertion every 15 minutes for axial power distribution control. During shift turnover (about 30 minutes), Ops did not move rods, so the axial shape diverged from predicted. It was still in the target band, but more positive than we wanted. (And it stayed more positive the rest of the way down.) Based on this experience, I wanted to find out how other sites manage Ops shift turnover during power changes. Does your site keep turnover time sacred with no reactivity changes, do you make maintaining the core "on track" a priority, or do you balance the two? Mark Dicus PTN Reactor Engineering mark_dicus(a)fpl.com 305-246-6185

4 3

Re: [Pwrrm] Power Maneuvers and Shift Turnover
by Fago, Carl D 23 Oct '08

23 Oct '08

At ONS we typically don't require operator action at a frequency of less than an hour or so. Rod control is automatic. However, we would have turnover during a period of no action required. Or RxE would update the prediction to account for the delay. Carl Carl D Fago Reactor Engineering Supervisor Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy 864-885-3047 ________________________________ From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com Sent: Wed Oct 22 18:17:58 2008 Subject: [Pwrrm] Power Maneuvers and Shift Turnover At Turkey Point, we normally schedule downpowers so they don't cross shift turnover. Recently, however, we had an emergent downpower that was in progress at shift turnover. At the time, the reactivity plan called for rod insertion every 15 minutes for axial power distribution control. During shift turnover (about 30 minutes), Ops did not move rods, so the axial shape diverged from predicted. It was still in the target band, but more positive than we wanted. (And it stayed more positive the rest of the way down.) Based on this experience, I wanted to find out how other sites manage Ops shift turnover during power changes. Does your site keep turnover time sacred with no reactivity changes, do you make maintaining the core "on track" a priority, or do you balance the two? Mark Dicus PTN Reactor Engineering mark_dicus(a)fpl.com 305-246-6185

1 0

Re: [Pwrrm] Reactivity plan approval and revisions/ramp rate alarm
by Elam, Kevin Scott 08 Oct '08

08 Oct '08

SOER 07-01 recommendation 3 stated that "plans for significant reactivity changes are reviewed and approved by appropriate station and shift operations management..." and "If plant conditions delay power changes, the reactivity plan is revised to meet the new plant conditions and approved by management". Does anyone have specific thresholds for: 1) the level of review a plan requires (such as <10% requires shift supervision, >10% requires shift management, >50% requires station management) The level of review is the same no matter how large the reactivity maneuver. Our procedures do recommend a challenge board for extra special complicated reactivity maneuvers but this option has never been implemented and our Ops, quite frankly, have no idea on when they might want to exercise that option. The review includes RXE originator, RXE reviewer, RXE Supervisor review, and Ops Management review. Then, an on-shift SRO must activate any plan for the particular reactivity maneuver to be performed. We typically will develop a plan for any maneuver for which we enough time to develop the plan. or 2) when a reactivity plan must be revised (such as > 1 hour delay, rods > 10 steps from the predicted value, current power level step >2% from predicted) We have no proceduralized criteria for requiring a revised plan. Yet again, it depends upon the time available to revise the plan. We have had delays during downpowers or power escalation for which the delay is indeterminate until Ops says, "OK, it is fixed." Reactivity Maneuver guidance is just that, guidance. When such delays occur, the overall guidance such as actions, limits, etc. don't change. The only thing that changes in these cases are the predicted amounts and timing of borations and dilutions. On the other hand, whenever we anticipate a schedule that could float, we will typically produce calculations that bound the schedule on either end and provide guidance on how to interpolate the predicted numbers depending on how long a particular activity takes. WBN could make some improvements in this area. Additional question How do other stations incorporate any ramp rate restrictions that may apply? (Ramp rate alarm, operator training, ramp plan) The ramp rate restrictions are included in a detailed governance procedure with a single paged "Reactivity Briefing Sheet" with a summary of the limits that apply to the reactor at the current time. The guidance for the "Reactivity Control Plan" for the particular reactivity maneuver complies with the ramp rate restrictions. We currently have no alarm, but we have a request for computer people to create one for us. We trained the operators over a year ago, but they need a refresher. Call me and I can share information more informally and more freely. Kevin S. Elam Reactor Engineer (423)365-8806 Pager 14211 ________________________________ From: Greer, C. Dale Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:53 AM To: Elam, Kevin Scott Subject: FW: [Pwrrm] Reactivity plan approval and revisions/ramp rate alarm Please respond. ________________________________ From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Vandergriff, Jon-Michael Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:16 PM To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com Subject: Re: [Pwrrm] Reactivity plan approval and revisions/ramp rate alarm 1) the level of review a plan requires (such as <10% requires shift supervision, >10% requires shift management, >50% requires station management) Any plan > 15% (or at OPS request) where we have more than 6 hours to prepare, requires a formalized plan from Reactor Engineering. These plans must be approved by the Ops Shift Manager, Control Room SRO, and RO at the controls prior to commencement. 2) or 2) when a reactivity plan must be revised (such as > 1 hour delay, rods > 10 steps from the predicted value, current power level step >2% from predicted) IF Reactor Engineering is providing continuous coverage for a maneuver IF actual plant conditions deviate from the guidance by * 3% Rated Thermal Power, maneuver guidance SHALL be updated per Limit and Precaution 6.3.1. * IF control rod position is within 15 steps of Rod Insertion Limit OR IF T-Avg deviates more than three degrees from prediction or T-Ref at any time step, it is recommended that maneuver guidance be updated per Limit and Precaution 6.3.2. Maneuver guidance MAY also be updated at the discretion of Operations and Reactor Engineering. Additional question How do other stations incorporate any ramp rate restrictions that may apply? (Ramp rate alarm, operator training, ramp plan) The ramp rates are accounted for during the generation of the plan. Jon-Michael Vandergriff Catawba Nuclear Station Reactor Engineering (803) 701-4029 jvandergriff(a)dukeenergy.com Rule #113 - Don't look for opportunities; make them. ________________________________ From: Keller, Lee A Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 9:33 AM To: Vandergriff, Jon-Michael Subject: FW: [Pwrrm] Reactivity plan approval and revisions/ramp rate alarm Pls answer. ________________________________ From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Adina.K.Lafrance(a)dom.com Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 9:20 AM To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com Subject: [Pwrrm] Reactivity plan approval and revisions/ramp rate alarm SOER 07-01 recommendation 3 stated that "plans for significant reactivity changes are reviewed and approved by appropriate station and shift operations management..." and "If plant conditions delay power changes, the reactivity plan is revised to meet the new plant conditions and approved by management". Does anyone have specific thresholds for: 1) the level of review a plan requires (such as <10% requires shift supervision, >10% requires shift management, >50% requires station management) or 2) when a reactivity plan must be revised (such as > 1 hour delay, rods > 10 steps from the predicted value, current power level step >2% from predicted) Additional question How do other stations incorporate any ramp rate restrictions that may apply? (Ramp rate alarm, operator training, ramp plan) Thank you. Adina LaFrance Nuclear Analysis & Fuel Reactor Engineer Surry Power Station Email: Adina.K.LaFrance(a)Dom.com Phone: 757-365-2658 Pager #: 4290 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

Re: [Pwrrm] Reactivity plan approval and revisions/ramp rate alarm
by Vandergriff, Jon-Michael 07 Oct '08

07 Oct '08

1) the level of review a plan requires (such as <10% requires shift supervision, >10% requires shift management, >50% requires station management) Any plan > 15% (or at OPS request) where we have more than 6 hours to prepare, requires a formalized plan from Reactor Engineering. These plans must be approved by the Ops Shift Manager, Control Room SRO, and RO at the controls prior to commencement. 2) or 2) when a reactivity plan must be revised (such as > 1 hour delay, rods > 10 steps from the predicted value, current power level step >2% from predicted) IF Reactor Engineering is providing continuous coverage for a maneuver IF actual plant conditions deviate from the guidance by * 3% Rated Thermal Power, maneuver guidance SHALL be updated per Limit and Precaution 6.3.1. IF control rod position is within 15 steps of Rod Insertion Limit OR IF T-Avg deviates more than three degrees from prediction or T-Ref at any time step, it is recommended that maneuver guidance be updated per Limit and Precaution 6.3.2. Maneuver guidance MAY also be updated at the discretion of Operations and Reactor Engineering. Additional question How do other stations incorporate any ramp rate restrictions that may apply? (Ramp rate alarm, operator training, ramp plan) The ramp rates are accounted for during the generation of the plan. Jon-Michael Vandergriff Catawba Nuclear Station Reactor Engineering (803) 701-4029 jvandergriff(a)dukeenergy.com<mailto:jvandergriff@dukeenergy.com> Rule #113 - Don't look for opportunities; make them. ________________________________ From: Keller, Lee A Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 9:33 AM To: Vandergriff, Jon-Michael Subject: FW: [Pwrrm] Reactivity plan approval and revisions/ramp rate alarm Pls answer. ________________________________ From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Adina.K.Lafrance(a)dom.com Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 9:20 AM To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com Subject: [Pwrrm] Reactivity plan approval and revisions/ramp rate alarm SOER 07-01 recommendation 3 stated that "plans for significant reactivity changes are reviewed and approved by appropriate station and shift operations management..." and "If plant conditions delay power changes, the reactivity plan is revised to meet the new plant conditions and approved by management". Does anyone have specific thresholds for: 1) the level of review a plan requires (such as <10% requires shift supervision, >10% requires shift management, >50% requires station management) or 2) when a reactivity plan must be revised (such as > 1 hour delay, rods > 10 steps from the predicted value, current power level step >2% from predicted) Additional question How do other stations incorporate any ramp rate restrictions that may apply? (Ramp rate alarm, operator training, ramp plan) Thank you. Adina LaFrance Nuclear Analysis & Fuel Reactor Engineer Surry Power Station Email: Adina.K.LaFrance(a)Dom.com Phone: 757-365-2658 Pager #: 4290 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

Fw: Request for Information: Automatic Rod withdrawal
by ddgoff＠aep.com 29 Sep '08

29 Sep '08

The CNP philosophy is operate with Rod Control in Automatic. We believe automatic operation provides the fastest response to an unanticipated transient. There are no plans to disable the automatic rod withdrawal feature. David Goff Reactor Engineer Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 269-465-5901 x1465 ----- Forwarded by David D Goff/BC2/AEPIN on 09/24/2008 07:27 AM ----- -----Original Message----- From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Charlene.N.Chotalal(a)dom.com Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:46 PM To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com Subject: [Pwrrm] Request for Information: Automatic Rod withdrawal At Surry Power Station, we had an event where our control rods automatically stepped out 2 steps due to an incorrect Tave-Tref deviation indication. There has been talk of disabling automatic rod withdrawal here at the station and I wanted to know what other plants have done regarding this system. Has your plant disabled the Automatic rod withdrawal function? If not, why not? Are there plans to do so? Charlene Chotalal Reactor Engineer Surry Power Station Work: (757)-365-2819 Email: Charlene.N.Chotalal(a)dom.com "I have to go count neutrons at the plant. Conservation of mass. It's the law!"

1 0

← Newer
1
...
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
...
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