PWRRM

pwrrm@retaqs.com

244 discussions

Question about UFM
by Daniel Agnew 09 Dec '11

09 Dec '11

Surry Power Station has Cameron UFMs installed at our plant and were wondering if any other sites have seen ambient temperature changes cause UFM Transducers to decouple (i.e. gains increase and Signal to Noise ratio decrease). The temperature change seen at Surry was approximately 30 degrees in 20 minutes. Daniel Agnew Reactor Engineer Nuclear Analysis & Fuels, Surry Power Station Dominion Generation Phone: 757-365-3183; Internal: 8-798-3183 E-mail: Daniel.Agnew(a)dom.com 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

fuel inspection
by ddgoff＠aep.com 02 Dec '11

02 Dec '11

DC Cook Reactor Engineering is looking at possible extraneous work to remove from the refueling outages. Cook is a PWR which performs a fuel core offload and reload. Currently our Quality Control department performs a 4-sided camera inspection of the assemblies as they leave containment on unload and as they enter containment on reload. We are looking at reducing the inspections to occur only on unload, eliminating the reload inspection. My Questions: What organization at your plant performs the fuel inspections? Do you perform the inspection on Unload? Do you perform the inspection on Reload? What method do you use to perform the inspection, 4 cameras, 1 camera, binoculars, eyeball, etc.? thanks Glen M Bradham, 269-465-5901 X1538 gmbradham(a)aep.com

4 3

Reactivity Management Oversight
by WILLETT, JOSEPH E 28 Nov '11

28 Nov '11

I was asked to do a little electronic benchmarking related to your Reactivity Management Oversight Committee meetings. 1) How frequently do you meet; (What is required? Monthly? Quarterly? Semi-Annually? 2) What level of your organization is the meeting focused? Working level (Supervisors)? Middle Management (Department Heads/ Managers)? Senior Management (Division/Director)? 3) What is the required attendance? Is there a quorum? 4) What functional areas are required / represented? Operations, Engineering (Systems, Design, Programs, Reactor), Work Management, Maintenance, RP, Chemistry, Licensing? 5) What agenda items are required? Performance Indicator(s)? Corrective Action Program? Deficient Equipment? 6) Are there any specific goals for the committee? Performance improvement targets; 7) Are any of Reactivity Management goals forward looking? 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, or 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

Re: [Pwrrm] Feedback on quantifying SNM due to leaking fuel rod
by edward.mcvey＠exeloncorp.com 08 Nov '11

08 Nov '11

A survey from TVA. Please be sure and respond directly to Kathleen Cunningham (kacunningham(a)tva.gov). Thanks. Ed McVey ________________________________ From: Cunningham, Kathleen Anne [mailto:kacunningham@tva.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:47 AM To: McVey, Edward A.:(GenCo-Nuc) Cc: Keck, James M; Faulkner, Craig S; Kniedler, Gregory S; Barnes, Steven A Subject: Feedback on quantifying SNM due to leaking fuel rod Hi Ed - hope you are doing well. I noticed your name as the RCRC Chairman so I was wondering if you could forward on the following request for feedback from the other BWROG members. We have a step in our corporate TVA procedure on Special Nuclear Material that requires us to quantify the amount of fuel rod pellets/fragments if fuel washout has occurred from a leaking fuel rod. We have been introduced to handbooks from Advanced Nuclear Technology who have developed PWRFUELRELEASE 1.0 and BWRFUELRELEASE 2.0, computer models to assess the amount of fissile materials and tramp uranium on core surfaces. This in turn would help us quantify the amount of SNM "displaced" from the fuel rods. We are looking to incorporate these methodologies in our procedure but I was wondering if any other utilities have done this already and if so, would be willing to share their thoughts and possibly their implementation procedures. Also, if they do not quantify the amount of SNM from a leaking fuel rod, please provide thoughts/justification for not providing this info per SNM reporting requirements. Thank you! Kathleen Cunningham Program Manager, Fuel Program Oversight and Fuel Inventory NPG, Nuclear Fuel Engineering kacunningham(a)tva.gov LP4G-C 423.751.3094 w 423.486.5911 m ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** 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

Boric Acid Weight Percent in Batching Tanks
by John F Helfenberger 24 Oct '11

24 Oct '11

Have any PWR plants recently increased their boric acid weight percent (for example, 8.0 to 10.0 weight percent) in their batching tanks? I am interested in knowing if any plants have recently increased their boric acid concentrations and any operating experience you may have related to this. Thanks, John F. Helfenberger, Lead Reactor Engineer, Kewaunee Power Station bus. 920.388.8294 Dominion Tie-line - 8.691.8294 pag. 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.

3 2

Boric acid Weight Percent Modification Question
by Kenneth R Pike 24 Oct '11

24 Oct '11

1 0

Fw: [Respvr] BEACON Topical Question
by Kenneth R Pike 19 Oct '11

19 Oct '11

Putting this out on pwrrm for responses ----- Original Message ----- From: Mayer, Mark To: 'respvr(a)retaqs.com' Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:41 PM Subject: [Respvr] BEACON Topical Question Diablo Canyon has a request for all BEACON users - A recent review of our BEACON topical indicates a potential discrepancy between the BEACON topical and our Technical Specifications. The issue stems from the number of MIDS thimbles required to be used during a flux map. The BEACON topical in places states that the required number of thimbles is 75% with at least four thimbles per quadrant. Our Tech Specs only require two per quadrant. The draft COLR in the topical (provided to the NRC in an RAI on the topical) and the NRC SER on BEACON acknowledges the use of four per quadrant. We requested approval to use BEACON PDMS through a license change that did not identify any deviations from the BEACON topical. At this time, we have a conflicted licensing basis and are looking for input from other plants which may have a similar quandary. a.. How many thimbles do you require? (% and #/quadrant?) b.. Do you have a similar issue? c.. Did you identify this as a difference between the topical and your application of BEACON? d.. Do you have any other insights to share with respect to the use of BEACON? Thanks in advance, Mark Mayer Diablo Canyon Power Plant 805-545-4674 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Respvr mailing list Respvr(a)retaqs.com http://www.keffective.com/mailman/listinfo/respvr

1 0

Exelon Survey on Vendor Reload Product "Acceptance Reviews" performed by Utilities
by edward.mcvey＠exeloncorp.com 28 Sep '11

28 Sep '11

Please respond in the attached WORD Document. We'd appreciate responses by October 4 if possible. This is to support a Common Cause Analysis that we are currently performing in our Nuclear Fuels Department. We're looking at Vendor Technical Errors that made it through our review/acceptance process and into documents like COLR's, input decks, Curve Books, etc. Thanks for your assistance. Ed McVey ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** 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. **************************************************

2 1

Reactivity Management Grading
by Adina K Lafrance 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

Good Afternoon all, We recently had a discussion on site about how to grade a reactivity management legacy issue in a calculation. Does your site have any guidance on how you would grade a legacy issue, such as: Would you grade it in RM space if it is a calculation that is still in effect? If the document is beyond a certain age, would that change the grading? If the document had been in use, was removed from use, then the error discovered, would you grade it in RM space? Thank you in advance. Adina LaFrance Reactor Engineer Nuclear Analysis and Fuels, Surry Power Station Dominion Generation Phone: 757-365-2658; Internal: 8-798-2658 E-mail: Adina.K.LaFrance(a)dom.com 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.

8 8

SNM from fuel leaks
by MCKINNEY, MICHAEL R 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

Request for industry peer feedback - I have the following 3 questions: Does your site / utility account for washout or tramp SNM that may collect throughout the plant? If you do account for the SNM, do you estimate the amount or use a method to quantify the amount? Do you report the loss (as inadvertent losses or otherwise) on DOE/NRC form 742 or other forms? Entergy has had fuel leaks in the past and one fuel leak currently. Trace amounts of Special Nuclear Material (SNM) may be present in the reactor coolant, clean-up, and/or rad waste systems due to present or past fuel failures. The SNM is difficult to measure in the coolant system and therefore cannot be accounted for. But this SNM may be quantified in rad waste prior to disposal. Entergy Nuclear's fleet SNM Control program does not currently address the accounting treatment of this SNM. Thanks, Mike Michael R. McKinney Supervisor, PWR Fuels mmckinn(a)entergy.com 601-368-5450

4 3

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
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