Kara,

Beaver Valley was also impacted by this latest vendor software error. You may remember that this actually occurred three years ago also. In 2010 Beaver Valley classified it as a level 4 due to slight differences in the 3.10 wording between 2010 and 2013 for 3.10. The current 3.10 states:
"Use of a Reactivity Management-Related Product with a Technical Error That Does Not Result in Violation of the Design or Licensing Basis or Exceeding Tech Specs."

The 2010 version stated:
"Use of a Reactivity-Related Product Containing a Technical Error That Impacts Operation But Does Not Result in Violation of the Design or Licensing Basis or Exceeding Reactivity-Related Tech Specs"

The difference being "impacts operation". This error does not impact operation so in 2010 we classified as a level 4. However, with the new wording we will classify this as a level 3 reactivity impact.

This error does not impact our previous cycle. If it had, that was more than 12 months ago and if it does not impact the Tech Spec for that cycle I would not include it. Just take the 3.10 for the current cycle.

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@firstenergycorp.com

From: "Gibson, Kara A." <Kara.Gibson@xenuclear.com>
To: "'pwrrm@retaqs.com'" <pwrrm@retaqs.com>
Date: 02/28/2013 10:53 AM
Subject: [Pwrrm] Vendor File Error and Reactivity Managment SL
Sent by: pwrrm@retaqs.com

Prairie Island was just made aware that we received a file from the vendor for our flux map processing code that could impact our margin to the Fq TS limit. This error applies to the current operating cycle on one unit and a past cycle on the other unit. An assessment was done and the current operating cycle has enough margin to the TS Fq limit given the error. A past assessment needs to be performed for all the flux maps in the current operating cycle and all the flux maps in the past cycle.

Two questions:

If it is found that there is no impact on the Fq margin for past flux maps in the current operating cycle given the error should this still be classified as a level 3.10? The incorrect file was used, but without any violation of TS limits.

For the previous cycle, would this event still be a level 3.10 if no TS limits were exceeded given the error? The Technical basis document, although not official, does state that the “SL of an issue is based on time of discovery and the impact of the technical error if it is implemented.”

Your input would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Kara

Kara Gibson
Xcel Energy | Responsible By Nature
Reactor Engineer
1717 Wakonade Dr. East Welch, MN 55089
P: 651.388.1121 x4719 F: 612.330.5743
E: kara.gibson@xenuclear.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email
_______________________________________________ PWRRM mailing list PWRRM@retaqs.comhttp://www.keffective.com/mailman/listinfo/pwrrm
----------------------------------------- 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.