PWRRM

pwrrm@retaqs.com

244 discussions

Request for Information: Automatic Rod withdrawal
by Charlene.N.Chotalal＠dom.com 23 Sep '08

23 Sep '08

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!" 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.

4 3

Re: [Pwrrm] Fw: Standard Ramp Plans
by ddgoff＠aep.com 23 Sep '08

23 Sep '08

> ----- Forwarded by William V Ferguson/BC2/AEPIN on 09/16/2008 01:46 PM ----- > > Adina.K.Lafrance(a)dom.com > Sent by: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com > > 09/16/2008 12:39 PM > > Please respond to > PWR Reactivity Management <pwrrm(a)retaqs.com> > > > > Two Questions involving standard ramp plans (the plans given to ops > for common ramping needs- turbine balance shot, misaligned rod, > backing off RTP, securing MFP): > > How many cases are run for the standard ramp plans given to ops? > (our sites run between six per month per unit to 16 per quarter) > > How often are standard ramp plans updated at each site? (we do > monthly for two of our sites, quarterly at the other two) > Operations has requested and Reactor Engineering provides, at the beginning of each cycle, reactivity plans for the following scenarios: 100% to 55% over one hour, 100% to 55% over four hours, 100% to 17% over four hours, and 100% to 17% over five hours. A set of plans is provided at 1 GWd/MT intervals for the entire cycle. These plans are based on design data provided by the vendor model in the NuPOP. Cook does not have an online core model, so updating the plans would have no effect; they are all provided at BOC. 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

Tramp or background Reduction
by wvferguson＠aep.com 18 Sep '08

18 Sep '08

Hello all, at Cook Unit 1, we experienced 7 fuel defects in the previous fuel cycle, so our 'tramp' or 'background' levels are a little higher than we have seen in recent history. Has anyone made attempts to reduce the 'background' or 'tramp' levels at their site? thanks, wvf William Ferguson American Electric Power Nuclear Fuels and Safety Analysis (269) 697-5139 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

3 2

Re: [Pwrrm] Request for Information: Automatic Rod withdrawal
by Bob_Tomonto＠fpl.com 16 Sep '08

16 Sep '08

Florida Power & Light Company Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 disabled automatic rod withdrawal years ago. |---------+----------------------------> | | Charlene.N.Chotal| | | al(a)dom.com | | | Sent by: | | | pwrrm(a)retaqs.com | | | | | | | | | 09/16/2008 02:45 | | | PM | | | Please respond to| | | "PWR Reactivity | | | Management" | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com | | cc: | | 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!" 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._______________________________________________ PWRRM mailing list PWRRM(a)retaqs.com http://www.keffective.com/mailman/listinfo/pwrrm

1 0

Standard Ramp Plans
by Adina.K.Lafrance＠dom.com 16 Sep '08

16 Sep '08

Two Questions involving standard ramp plans (the plans given to ops for common ramping needs- turbine balance shot, misaligned rod, backing off RTP, securing MFP): How many cases are run for the standard ramp plans given to ops? (our sites run between six per month per unit to 16 per quarter) How often are standard ramp plans updated at each site? (we do monthly for two of our sites, quarterly at the other two) 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.

6 7

William V Ferguson is out of the office.
by wvferguson＠aep.com 17 Aug '08

17 Aug '08

I will be out of the office starting 08/14/2008 and will not return until 08/25/2008. I will respond to your message when I return.

1 0

Test 1
by Carlos Vidal 17 Aug '08

17 Aug '08

Test 1

1 0

Re: [Pwrrm] Cycle Length Prediction Error when using Westinghouse1.5xIBFAs
by Elam, Kevin Scott 15 Jul '08

15 Jul '08

My memory tells me Exelon's Byron and Braidwood units were similar to what is described below. Our Nuclear Fuels core designers assumed the end of core life would occur when the design was at ~30 ppm. They can correct me if I am wrong. At Watts Bar, we have the opposite experience. We get more energy out of the core than predicted. (Remember, we have Trittium producing inserts that nobody else has.) The following are estimates: Cycle 6 +10 ppm (Mild CIPS) Cycle 7 +20 ppm (Moderate CIPS) Cycle 8 +40 ppm (No CIPS) Cycle 9 +60 ppm (In progress at 3800 MWD/MTU) Kevin S. Elam Reactor Engineer (423)365-8806 Pager 14211 ________________________________ From: Greer, C. Dale Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:43 AM To: Elam, Kevin Scott Subject: FW: [Pwrrm] Cycle Length Prediction Error when using Westinghouse1.5xIBFAs Would you respond to Duane Gore at STP about this question? ________________________________ From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of BRYSON, DAMON V Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 8:30 AM To: PWR Reactivity Management Subject: Re: [Pwrrm] Cycle Length Prediction Error when using Westinghouse1.5xIBFAs At VC Summer we have been having cycle length prediction errors for many cycles, with at least 4 different IFBA concentrations. Since we do our own core design with APA, we have done a lot of investigations of the problem. W also did a root cause on why so many units are having problems with this. That's part of the reason behind the upgrade to ANC 9.0. Unfortunately, not all of the reactivity errors are going in the same direction, so when they benchmark ANC, they try to hit the average. A major factor in this issue is each utility's method for determining calorimetric reactor power. In other words, each unit may be operating at a different place within the ~2% calorimetric uncertainty, and a 1% change in core power will cause a reactivity change of around 35 ppm at the end of the second fuel cycle (at least in our unit - 3-loop core at 2900 MWth). We tend to have a reactivity shortfall of about 300-600 pcm at the end of cycle. In the last few cycles we have implemented a bias factor on the eigenvalue, based on the average of the last 3 cycles. This has given us fairly good results, as long as there are no core modeling or fuel design changes. I have given some presentations at the RxE seminar and the Tech User's Group on this issue. The BEACON User's Group has also discussed it, since the reactivity bias is programmed into the software. I'll be happy to discuss it further if anyone is interested. Damon Bryson (803) 345-4814 dbryson(a)scana.com From: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Gore, Duane Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 5:44 PM To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com Subject: [Pwrrm] Cycle Length Prediction Error when using Westinghouse 1.5xIBFAs STP has been experiencing a difference between predicted cycle lengths and actual EOC burnup (specifically, over-predictions of cycle length). This effect seems to have begun when we started using 1.5x (B-10 loading) IFBA. Westinghouse uses their APA package for our core design. Has any other utility had a similar experience? Duane Gore Supervisor, Reactor Engineering STPNOC (361) 972-8909

2 1

Johnny Henderson/NUC/VANCPOWER is out of the office.
by Johnny.Henderson＠dom.com 14 Jul '08

14 Jul '08

I will be out of the office starting 07/13/2008 and will not return until 07/21/2008. 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

Cycle Length Prediction Error when using Westinghouse 1.5x IBFAs
by Gore, Duane 14 Jul '08

14 Jul '08

STP has been experiencing a difference between predicted cycle lengths and actual EOC burnup (specifically, over-predictions of cycle length). This effect seems to have begun when we started using 1.5x (B-10 loading) IFBA. Westinghouse uses their APA package for our core design. Has any other utility had a similar experience? Duane Gore Supervisor, Reactor Engineering STPNOC (361) 972-8909

3 2

← Newer
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...
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