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.commailto:kara.gibson@xenuclear.com Please consider the environment before printing this email
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.
I would say 3.10 because the error was used. Potential and not actual consequence is what I consider for these issues. If a TS violation is discovered it would be a 2.12.
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."
It would still be a 3.10 but if it's not impacting the current cycle I would tend to take the hit based on the last analysis performed using the data. These are always tricky. Not sure if this helps.
-Andy
Andrew Kelliher Reactor Engineer R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Phone: (585) 771-3457
"I'm just sayin', I don't like fun." - Karl Pilkington
From: pwrrm@retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Gibson, Kara A. Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:52 AM To: 'pwrrm@retaqs.com' Subject: [Pwrrm] Vendor File Error and Reactivity Managment SL
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.commailto:kara.gibson@xenuclear.com Please consider the environment before printing this email
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use the information in this e-mail in any way, delete this e-mail and notify the sender. -EXCIP
Level 3 for the existing error. My thought on the other unit that had the error in the previous cycle is that provided it did not affect that unit within the past 12 months, I probably wouldn't include it. I didn't see anything in the BWR Guideline that discussed that situation.
________________________________
From: pwrrm@retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Gibson, Kara A. Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:52 AM To: 'pwrrm@retaqs.com' Subject: [Pwrrm] Vendor File Error and Reactivity Managment SL
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 mailto:kara.gibson@xenuclear.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email
----------------------------------------- ************************************************** 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. **************************************************
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.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.
If you were able to use margin in the vendor design documents and you did not have to change any site Reactivity Management Related documents or code then it would be a Level 6 since no changes to site documents occurred.
If you had to change a site Reactivity Management Related Document or code then it would be a Level 3.10.
Howard C Crawford TMI Reactor Engineering Manager 717-948-8412 howard.crawford@exeloncorp.com
Safety in word and deed Trust we build together Ownership that makes all of us accountable Respect each other, our work, and the environment Initiative drives us to better serve
From: pwrrm@retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Gibson, Kara A. Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:52 AM To: 'pwrrm@retaqs.com' Subject: [Pwrrm] Vendor File Error and Reactivity Managment SL
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 mailto:kara.gibson@xenuclear.com
Please consider the environment before printing this email
----------------------------------------- ************************************************** 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. **************************************************
-
aburger＠firstenergycorp.com -
edward.mcvey＠exeloncorp.com -
Gibson, Kara A. -
Howard.Crawford＠exeloncorp.com -
Kelliher, Andrew P