PWRRM

pwrrm@retaqs.com

244 discussions

OE 30841 SG Blowdown Volumetric flow rate
by Kenneth R Pike 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

Has anyone looked into this S/G BD issue yet? If so, did it impact your plant? If yes did you choose to recalibrate the Dp instrumentation to resolve the problem or modify any software assumptions downstream to be consistent with the existing instrumentation calibration? Ken Pike (610) 277-8991 Ext.253

1 0

Maximum Time for Leaving an "Orphan" Assembly Latched in Containment
by Dicus, Mark 17 Oct '10

17 Oct '10

During our recent core offload at Turkey Point, we had an issue with our upender on the Spent Fuel Pool side. When the upender issue happened, we had an assembly latched in containment, waiting by the upender. We could not place the assembly in the upender until the equipment issue was resolved. This raised a question: how long we would wait until we moved the assembly back to the vessel? My question to you is this: Does your plant have a formal (or even informal) time limit on how long a fuel assembly can be latched in containment, outside the reactor vessel, and unable to be placed in the upender before you would return the assembly to the reactor vessel and fully lowered (or another safe storage location if you have one)? Mark Dicus Turkey Point Reactor Engineering mark.dicus(a)fpl.com 305-246-6185

8 7

Manual calorimetric Feedwater Enthalpy determination
by Kenneth R Pike 16 Oct '10

16 Oct '10

What method do you use to assign an Enthalpy to Feedwater, given FW Temperature and S/G pressure when using your backup Manual calculation? Do you use compressed liquid steam tables at a single pressure and iterate on the temperature to assign a value, or iterate on both temp and pressure. If you use a single value of pressure, is it nominal full power S/G press or something different? Ken Pike (610) 277-8991 Ext.253

3 2

INPO RE Seminar Registration Is Now Available
by edward.mcvey＠exeloncorp.com 06 Oct '10

06 Oct '10

Here's the link. You'll have to type your INPO password. It's under Plant Operations and Support Tab/Engineering Under the Meetings and Seminars and then On Line Registration. The below link should get you right there. INPO does limit the number of registrants, so if you wish to participate, get your registration in ASAP. Note that the registration says Dec 13 to 15, but it's actually just Dec 14 to 15. They plan to have joint BWR/PWR meeting on Day 1 and breakouts for Day 2. http://www.inpo.org/engineering/OnlineRegForm/onlineforms.asp ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** 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

PWR RE Training Assessment
by frank.trikur＠exeloncorp.com 12 Aug '10

12 Aug '10

I've been tasked by our management to assess what other utilities are doing to qualify their PWR reactor engineers. To obtain this benchmarking information the following survey was developed. It would be appreciated to have your responses by the end of the month (July 2010). 1. Particularly important to me is how long does it typically take to train a new hire to become certified as a QNE? As a follow-on question, do you put the new hire on a schedule and track their progress? Do you provide them with any incentives? Do you provide them with incentives for on-time completion? 2. What initial training do you give to your new hires? (e.g., General employee training, system training, blueprint reading, chemistry, etc..) 3. How many RE's per year are typically trained? Do you coordinate training for a group of RE's to be trained or do you qualify them individually? 4. Do you have internal process/procedures that you follow to qualify or certify the reactor engineers? 5. Do you provide each new hire with a dedicated mentor through their qualification? 6. Does the qualification process include both classroom and performance (or experience) based objectives? Note that I use the term qualified nuclear engineer (QNE) to indicate that the reactor engineer is qualified/certified. 7. Do you have your own QNE training classes or do you use a vendor for QNE training? If you use a vendor, who do you use? 8. How do you cover core monitoring code proficiency (monitoring and predicts)? 9. If applicable, how much simulator time or training with operations is required prior to being qualified? 10. Does QNE qualification include special nuclear material control or custodial qualifications or do you treat this separate from the QNE? 11. After the RE completes all the training and experience objectives, does the RE have to obtain a final approval by an oral review board? If this is the case, who comprises the board? 12. If there is a need for remediation to obtain final approval, how is this done? 13. Provide your QNE re-qualification requirements, if applicable. 14. Can you provide me with what your typical program costs to take a new hire and have that new hire qualified as a QNE? 15. Are there any lessons learned you have in regards to QNE training? Please provide your responses to frank.trikur(a)exeloncorp.com I will provide at your request an anonymous summary of these results. Frank W. Trikur RE Oversite and Emergent Issues Nuclear Fuels Exelon Corp. Phone: 630-657-2182 ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** 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. **************************************************

3 2

FW: Industry RM Comparison
by edward.mcvey＠exeloncorp.com 14 Jun '10

14 Jun '10

PWR RE's, please see the below email I sent to the BWROG RCRC distribution list. It recently came to my attention that many plants in the industry are not reporting information on the RM Performance Indicator properly. According to the data request (see below), you are required to report the values in accordance PWROG document PA-PSC-0578 dated September 2009. If you are not reporting in accordance with that document, you are hurting us all as the changes were made in an attempt to be able to identify the superior RM programs out there, programs that we could use to benchmark to. In the new PI, I would have to say that it would be very difficult for a plant to have above 99 much less perfect score of 100, yet there are more than 30 PWR's above 99 and 10 at 99.9 or above. There is a joint meeting in late July between BWROG/PWROG and probably INPO to look closely at the new PI and its implementation. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to give me a call at 630-657-2185. I would appreciate any feedback on what may be causing your plant to not implement the PI as requested by INPO or what confusion you might have on its implementation. Thanks. Ed McVey <<Industry RM Performance.pdf>> _____________________________________________ From: McVey, Edward A.:(GenCo-Nuc) Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:16 PM To: 'rcrc(a)retaqs.com' Subject: RE: Industry RM Comparison Folks, I am including the data entry requirements specified by INPO for the RM PI below. There is obviously much confusion about this (not sure why). This is taken off the INPO website. If you go to the button on the left of the INPO homepage called "Consolidated data entry" and then on the right hand side under "Documents and Publications" look for "CDE Data Element Manual" you will find the below information in that huge document. INPO asks you for the information below. Most importantly is 7.2.18 which is the value of the RM PI calculated for the given month. That DOES NOT mean you take your numbers of events and their multipliers and subtract them from 100 for that month. That represents absolutely nothing with respect to the RM PI. It means you give them the actual number for that month. Therefore, you should not be coming up with numbers like 99.7, etc. Also, it does require you and your utility to report it in accordance with the RCRC guideline dated July 13, 2009 (Rev 13) or for the PWR to report in accordance with the PWROG document PA-PSC-0578. If you are not doing that, then you need to start because you're not providing the info that INPO has requested. There is no such thing as a monthly RM PI. Likewise, there is no such thing as an annual number. The number is, what it is, at any given time based on RCRC or PWROG Guidelines where you take all the current hits to your PI that are currently being counted and subtract them from 100. If you have any questions about this, please call me. 630-657-2185 or 815-370-9855 Ed McVey Reactivity Management Events - Unit Level Guidance for reporting these data elements is provided in the following: * BWROG-TP-09-025, Reactivity Controls Review Committee (RCRC), Guidelines for Excellence, Section 5.0, Monitoring of Reactivity Management Issues, July 13, 2009 * PWR Reactivity Management Performance Indicator, PA-PSC-0578 Reactivity Management Performance Indicator 7.2.18 The value of the Reactivity Management Performance Indicator calculated for the given month. Reactivity Management Events Significance Level 1 7.2.5 Severe Reactivity Events: A Reactivity Management Event that results in a severe adverse effect on plant safety or indicates a high potential for future significant events. In either case, the event was caused by or aggravated by a fundamental organizational breakdown. In addition to the failure of multiple barriers, the event indicates a broader problem over multiple work groups and/or processes. These issues normally require a Root Cause to identify Corrective Actions and to resolve the organizational issues. Reactivity Management Events Significance Level 2 7.2.6 Major Reactivity Management Events: A Reactivity Management Event that places the plant outside of the Design or Licensing Basis or significant events that compromise fuel-related limits, or directly result in fuel failure. Reactivity Management Events Significance Level 3 7.2.7 Minor Reactivity Management Events: A Reactivity Management Event that represents a violation of process or procedures. Reactivity Management Events Significance Level 4 7.2.8 Reactivity Management Precursors: A Reactivity Management Issue that indicates degradation of a barrier to proper Reactivity Management or creates an elevated potential for the occurrence of a Reactivity Management Event. Reactivity Management Events Significance Level 5 7.2.9 Reactivity Management Concerns: A Reactivity Management Issue that indicates less than optimal Reactivity Management but does not classify as a SL 1 through SL 4 issue. ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** 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

Use of Power Range NI Detectors for Low Power Physics Testing
by Gore, Duane 10 May '10

10 May '10

At STP we use one of our power range nuclear instrumentation (NI) detectors for our reactivity measurements during low power physics testing (LPPT). Recently, on the Unit 2 cycle 15 startup, the gamma compensation (bucking) current for the lower half of the NI detector used for the measurement behaved in an atypical manner. Although the reactivity computer passed its checkout test, the measured worth of the heaviest control rod bank was over-predicted using Westinghouse's Dynamic Rod Worth Measurement (DRWM) technique. Ultimately, we shutdown the reactor, checked connections and cables, and switched NI detectors. The reactor was restarted and LPPT was successfully performed. Since the NI detectors are used in such a low current range for LPPT, it was decided that the detector which was unsuitable for LPPT use would still provide proper response at power. Once previously we replaced all of the NI detectors after connecting the reactivity computer and examining detector responses. The detector cables were inspected found to be degraded. In that case, we had not begun reactor startup. Questions: 1. Have you had a similar experience? 2. As a result, did you change out the NI(s) that cycle? 3. Does this phenomenon foretell detector failure in the power range in subsequent cycles? 4. What procedural guidance in your LPPT procedure is given to decide if an NI is not usable and a new NI should be selected? 5. Does your plant I&C group have a method, other than using the reactivity computer, to determine if an NI is acceptable for use for LPPT? Thank you in advance for your responses. Duane Gore Supervisor, Reactor Engineering STPNOC (361) 972-8909

2 1

Use of Spreadsheets for Surveillances
by Gore, Duane 03 May '10

03 May '10

We at STP use spreadsheets to perform surveillance calculations. The results are then independently verified by a second engineer using an independently generated spreadsheet. Neither spreadsheet has been formally verified per our station Software Quality Assurance procedure. In cases where the results are used without further verification, we do properly QA the spreadsheets (usually in the cases where other groups use the spreadsheets). Our QA department is of the opinion that at least one of these spreadsheets used for surveillances must by fully verified and documented per our station Software Quality Assurance procedure. It would help my case if I could cite other Rae's practices with regards to the use of spreadsheets. What is the practice at your plant? Thank you, Duane Gore Supervisor, Reactor Engineering STPNOC (361) 972-8909

8 8

New RM KPI Measure
by Fago, Carl D 27 Apr '10

27 Apr '10

Duke has adopted the PWROG RM KPI but were trying to determine good performance thresholds. Initially, we were going to adopt 1st quartile as green, 2nd quartile as yellow and below as red. However, INPO PIC hasn't been updated to reflect the BWROG or PWROG RM KPI so the quartile information appears to not be available yet. What thresholds, using the PWROG KPI definition, have other stations set for green / yellow / red? Thanks! Carl Carl D. Fago Event Recovery Manager 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>

1 0

PWROG RM Coding Questions
by Fago, Carl D 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

During our transition to the use of the PWROG RM event coding, several questions arose and we'd like to get some feedback on how others are handling similar issues. Specifically... 1. For multi-unit sites, if there is an issue generic to all units (e.g., vendor core design analysis method error), are you applying the "hit" to all applicable units equally? 2. For those sites with dry storage (or event multi-unit sites with dry storage), how are you addressing issues with cask transport to dry storage (e.g., while transporting a cask the trailer/transporter breaks)? Is this an issue of less than adequate fuel handling equipment performance while handling fuel or control component (no fuel/component damage), L5? If so, for multi-unit sites, which unit would get the RM hit based on dry storage? 3. ONS has a shared fuel pool between Unit 1 and 2. For fuel handling practices / equipment issues, we are proposing to apply any RM hit against the unit to which the specific fuel assembly or control component last operated. As far as we can tell, there is no "hit" if the fuel bridge or other equipment fails when fuel is not being handled, therefore, there will always be a unit that can be associated with the event. 4. ONS Fuel Damage Event (SEN-280) has been classified as L4 based on fuel handling that results in damage to fuel assembly or control component. While the RM level isn't indicative of the organizational significance of the event, this is the classification we came up with. Any comment or insights into how others might classify this event? (While we weren't "handling fuel" at the time, we conservatively said it met the intent.) Note that there was no specific RM impact in the event (again, this was a big event for ONS but we're specifically focusing on RM for this question.) Thanks in advance for all the feedback! 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>

3 4

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...
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