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
I think you can cite ANSI N45.2.11 as a basis for saying the information is prepared by one person and independently checked by another. The ANSI standard doesn't care so much as how the information is prepared or checked (though there are three methods allowed) as long as the two methods are independent. If you can show that the tool used by the independent checker was not the same tool (nor developed originally by the same individual for instance) then you're meeting QA requirements.
We do something similar to do hand checks of plant computer EFPD data and for validating rod drop timing. Other spreadsheets used without additional checking get Software QA checked like yours.
Hope this helps.
Carl
Carl D. Fago Reactor Engineering Supervisor Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas Phone: (864) 873-3047 Fax: (864) 873-3374 Email: Carl.fago@duke-energy.commailto:Carl.fago@duke-energy.com
From: pwrrm@retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Gore, Duane Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:22 PM To: 'PWR Reactivity Management' Subject: [Pwrrm] Use of Spreadsheets for Surveillances
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
At FCS, if a spreadsheet is used to perform a surveillance calculation, the spreadsheet is V&Vd and documented. For instance, if our plant computer is down, a spreadsheet may be used to perform secondary calorimetric calculation. This spreadsheet is V&Vd with documentation. This allows the independent verifier to review the input data for accuracy versus independently performing the calculation.
In some cases, as I'm sure with your plant, the spreadsheets are just used as a calculator. The performer and reviewer both independently perform the entire calculation with a calculator or spreadsheet. In this case, the spreadsheet does not need a V&V.
Barton P. Schawe, P.E. Principal Reactor Engineer Omaha Public Power District Tel: 402-533-7211 email: bschawe@oppd.commailto:bschawe@oppd.com From: pwrrm@retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Gore, Duane Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 1:22 PM To: 'PWR Reactivity Management' Subject: [Pwrrm] Use of Spreadsheets for Surveillances
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
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, nor 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.
Duane, At North Anna, when we use spreadsheets for surveillance calcs. or reactivity calcs., and the spreadsheet is not a "Nuclear Quality Code", our procedures require an independent check of the results. Typically this would be a hand calculation or a spreadsheet created separately, by a different person, from the original one.
Rob McAndrew North Anna Reactor Engineering 540-894-2859 From: pwrrm@retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Gore, Duane Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:22 PM To: 'PWR Reactivity Management' Subject: [Pwrrm] Use of Spreadsheets for Surveillances
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
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.
Most of the spreadsheets that are used per our procedures (reactivity anomaly, NI single point calibration, manual calorimetric) are quality programs (QA qualified). For those programs, the normal practice is to have an independent verification of the inputs to the qualified program. We usually attached the signed inputs page to the procedure using the program. But we do have a few spreadsheets that are not qualified that are used. One takes the raw data from the plant computer and formats it for the qualified program. The preparer verifies the input against the hard data and the reviewer does an independent verification. It was determined to not be worth the time to qualify this spreadsheet in this case. The procedure has a signoff for the IV.
If we use a spreadsheet to do manual calculations (taking the average of hours of data, for instance), then the reviewer will perform some type of independent verification to confirm the results (recreating the spreadsheet and matching results, verifying the equations in the existing spreadsheet and checking the calculations, or using another independent method of verify the results-like the NIST tables).
Adina LaFrance
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. -Albert Einstein
Nuclear Analysis & Fuel Reactor Engineer Surry Power Station Email: Adina.K.LaFrance@Dom.commailto:Adina.K.LaFrance@Dom.com Phone: 757-365-2658 Pager #: 4290
From: pwrrm@retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Gore, Duane Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:22 PM To: 'PWR Reactivity Management' Subject: [Pwrrm] Use of Spreadsheets for Surveillances
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
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.
Hi, Duane,
We at Cook also use spreadsheets and stand-alone programs for many tasks, including surveillances. All products must be either independently reviewed or use software is controlled via our station's software control procedure. Typically, spreadsheets fall into the former category, while compiled programs are controlled.
David Goff Reactor Engineer Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 269-465-5901 x1465
"Gore, Duane" degore@stpegs.com Sent by: pwrrm@retaqs.com 09/28/2009 02:22 PM Please respond to PWR Reactivity Management pwrrm@retaqs.com
To "'PWR Reactivity Management'" pwrrm@retaqs.com cc
Subject [Pwrrm] Use of Spreadsheets for Surveillances
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 _______________________________________________ PWRRM mailing list PWRRM@retaqs.com http://www.keffective.com/mailman/listinfo/pwrrm
---------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
Beaver Valley response:
We use spreadsheets to perform some reactor engineering surveillance calculations. The reviewer independently verifies the calculations either by hand, or an independent spreadsheet.
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
"Gore, Duane" <degore@stpegs.co m> To Sent by: "'PWR Reactivity Management'" pwrrm@retaqs.com pwrrm@retaqs.com cc
09/28/2009 02:22 Subject PM [Pwrrm] Use of Spreadsheets for Surveillances
Please respond to PWR Reactivity Management <pwrrm@retaqs.com >
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 _______________________________________________ PWRRM mailing list PWRRM@retaqs.com http://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.
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 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
At VC Summer, we use Gammametrics intermediate range instruments to feed our reactivity calculation on the plant computer during LPPT (using boron dilution). So we don't have any experience with DRWM or power range NIs.
1 - no 2 - n/a 3 - n/a 4 - We do a doubling time test that has to match within 4% of the predicted reactivity for a given startup rate. Also, the detector has to pass the statistical reliability (chi squared) test. 5 - no
From: pwrrm@retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Gore, Duane Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:50 AM To: 'PWR Reactivity Management' Subject: [Pwrrm] Use of Power Range NI Detectors for Low Power Physics Testing
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 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
-
aburger＠firstenergycorp.com -
Adina K Lafrance -
BRYSON, DAMON V -
ddgoff＠aep.com -
Fago, Carl D -
Gore, Duane -
Rob McAndrew -
SCHAWE, BARTON P