PWRRM

pwrrm@retaqs.com

244 discussions

Reactivity plan approval and revisions/ramp rate alarm
by Adina.K.Lafrance＠dom.com 08 Jul '08

08 Jul '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) 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.

3 2

Re: [Pwrrm] Reactivity plan approval and revisions/ramp rate alarm
by paul_gurney＠fpl.com 30 Jun '08

30 Jun '08

For Seabrook, 1: All plans require Shift Manager approval. 2: No specific thresholds for plan revisions. The need for a revision will generally be driven by the impact of the change on the original plan. Paul Gurney RE Supv Adina.K.Lafrance(a)dom.com Sent by: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com 06/30/2008 09:20 AM Please respond to "PWR Reactivity Management" To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com cc: 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._______________________________________________ PWRRM mailing list PWRRM(a)retaqs.com http://www.keffective.com/mailman/listinfo/pwrrm

1 0

PWR RE Peer Committee
by WILLIAMS, PATRICK J 16 Jun '08

16 Jun '08

Please add my name to the Peer Committe. Patrick Williams Reactor Engineering Supervisor Arkansas Nuclear One 1448 SR 333 Russellville, AR 72802

1 0

Point Beach Question:
by VANCE, KEVIN 23 Jan '08

23 Jan '08

Do you step control rods to the end-of-travel to verify rod position for a Rod Position Indication outside of limits? If not, what method is used to verify rod position prior to adjusting indication? Background: Point Beach has two control rods that exhibit unusual rod position indication variations. We have shown rod position indication takes step change swings (+/- 20 steps) following control rod shroud fan temperature changes. We have moved the control rod drive shaft of these two rods from bank D control banks to shutdown banks, and the problem has followed the drive shaft. Most other rod position indications vary by +/- 5 steps, with no large "swings." Research into why these two drive shafts exhibit different properties has not been successful. It is believed that these drive shafts have some residual magnetism causing the Rod Position Detectors to indicate erroneously. These jack shafts were replaced in 1998.

3 2

FW: Point Beach Question:
by Tom Tomlinson 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

From: Hawes, Mark W [mailto:mwhawes@duke-energy.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:22 AM To: pwrrm-bounces(a)retaqs.com Subject: FW: [Pwrrm] Point Beach Question: At Catawba (Westinghouse-4 loop) we don't have issues with DRPI (rod position indication) associated with rx vessel head ventilation. We do, however, withdraw each control rod beyond "end of travel" . . . hard stop position is 231 Steps Wd at CNS, so rods are withdrawn to indicated position of 235. The rods are then reinserted to specified fully withdrawn (parked) positions. This evolution is performed upon reaching full power following any unit shutdown which required reactor trip breakers to be opened. The acknowledged problem being 1 to 2 steps of uncertainty with regard to where drive rods are engaged, and withdrawn from, when breakers are reclosed. Mark Hawes CNS Reactor Engineering (803) 831-3855 _____ From: Keller, Lee A Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:47 PM To: Hawes, Mark W Subject: FW: [Pwrrm] Point Beach Question: Pls address _____ From: pwrrm-bounces(a)retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm-bounces@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of VANCE, KEVIN Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:29 PM To: pwrrm(a)retaqs.com Subject: [Pwrrm] Point Beach Question: Do you step control rods to the end-of-travel to verify rod position for a Rod Position Indication outside of limits? If not, what method is used to verify rod position prior to adjusting indication? Background: Point Beach has two control rods that exhibit unusual rod position indication variations. We have shown rod position indication takes step change swings (+/- 20 steps) following control rod shroud fan temperature changes. We have moved the control rod drive shaft of these two rods from bank D control banks to shutdown banks, and the problem has followed the drive shaft. Most other rod position indications vary by +/- 5 steps, with no large "swings." Research into why these two drive shafts exhibit different properties has not been successful. It is believed that these drive shafts have some residual magnetism causing the Rod Position Detectors to indicate erroneously. These jack shafts were replaced in 1998.

1 0

PWR RE Peer Committee
by aburger＠firstenergycorp.com 15 Jan '08

15 Jan '08

Please add my name to the Peer Committe. Anthony (A.R.) Burger Supervisor, Reactor Engineering FENOC - Beaver Valley Power Station Phone: (724) 682-4108 Cell: (724) 601-3224 FAX: (724) 682-4250 Email: aburger(a)firstenergycorp.com ----------------------------------------- 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.

2 1

CRDM exercise requirements for plants with new Rx Heads.
by Kenneth.R.Pike＠dom.com 04 Dec '07

04 Dec '07

Assuming you have added CRDM exercise (in/out) cycling requirements to your startup procedures to accomodate the Vender recommendations for the first startup with the new Rx Head, did you leave these requirements in place as long term requirements ( to be perfored every cycle from now on)? Did you make them conditional for longer term use (for example if you see poor CRDM trace data) then exercise CRDM. Or did you remove the CRDM exercise cycling requirements after the first cycle with the new Rx Head was completed? Thanks much Kenneth Pike RxEng Kewaunee Phone (920) 388- 8624 ----------------------------------------- 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

Paul V. Gurney/NAESCO is out of the office.
by paul_gurney＠fpl.com 29 Nov '07

29 Nov '07

I will be out of the office starting 11/28/2007 and will not return until 12/03/2007.

1 0

SOER 07-01
by wvferguson＠aep.com 29 Nov '07

29 Nov '07

Hello, we are drafting our response to SOER 2007-01, and I have a few reactivity related questions: 1. who approves reactivity plans which are provided to operations from reactor engineering (reactor engineering supervisor, Unit supervisor, shift manager...)? 2. does a second reactor engineer have to review/sign the reactivity plans? 3. are the reactivity plans updated during the power maneuvers, if the plant schedule changes? 4. if on week-end or night shift, does a second reactor engineer need to come on site to review the revision to the reactivity plan? 5. how frequently does reactor engineering personnel participate with operators in the plant simulator? (routinely, prior to reactor start-up, once per fuel cycle....)? thank you for your response, wvf William Ferguson American Electric Power Nuclear Fuels and 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.

4 3

Actual vs. Predicted ECP values
by John.F.Helfenberger＠dom.com 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

What do the other sites typically have for pcm differences in ECP actual vs. predicted? Kewaunee recently had a MOL startup and we were about 175 pcm out from predicted, which is well within our procedural acceptance criteria of +/-400 pcm. On the previous 2 startups at BOL, we were within 25 pcm of predicted. What are typical values seen by other plants? John Helfenberger, Lead Reactor Engineer Kewaunee Power Station Phone: 920-388-8294 Dominion Tie-line: 8-691-8294 Pager: 920-704-4471 ----------------------------------------- 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 1

← Newer
1
...
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
...
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