Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu BWR questions honeypot

Author Topic: BWR questions  (Read 70310 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
BWR questions
« on: Jun 14, 2011, 08:49 »
Need a license to speak.
« Last Edit: Jun 25, 2011, 09:29 by Starkist »

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #1 on: Jun 14, 2011, 10:04 »
This will help answer some of your questions.

http://tinyurl.com/6gvtq3f

Money answers others.
« Last Edit: Jun 14, 2011, 10:08 by TheHiggs »
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #2 on: Jun 14, 2011, 11:43 »
I am not sure of your concern for the jet pumps. IIRC, each manifold is semi-circular which goes 5 jet pump risers spaced equally apart. And you realize the PIDs don't reflect 100% reality, right?

And you can't figure out why a vessel has different thicknesses in different regions? Don't think so much pressure, think neutron bombardment...., and money. Why pay for a uniformly thick vessel when you don't need it? Trim a little fat, as it were.

And head corrosion can be a concern if not properly maintained. I am not sure what you have there, but we had hydrogen water chemistry control at PB.

« Last Edit: Jun 15, 2011, 12:06 by TheHiggs »
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #3 on: Jun 15, 2011, 12:14 »
I modified my answer because I changed my mind about feeding you answers.  8)


This is what I remember of a recirc manifold. (I won't confirm/deny that I still have all of my BWR notes. :P)

« Last Edit: Jun 15, 2011, 12:15 by TheHiggs »
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #4 on: Jun 15, 2011, 12:22 »
You are over thinking it.
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #5 on: Jun 15, 2011, 12:34 »
Well, it is a simple system that you want to over complicate. It is two 28 inch recirc loops going into 2 semi circular 22 inch distribution manifolds, each feeding 5 jet pump risers. Each riser feeding two jet pumps. Whatever pressure differences you think are there, are negligible at best. Is flow equal through each jet pump? No, of course not..., but many things play into that, maybe some of what you think. Flow differences are tech spec. That is all I know about that part of the system. That is all I was taught in my license class. Sorry. Maybe Broadzilla can shed some more light.
« Last Edit: Jun 15, 2011, 12:37 by TheHiggs »
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #6 on: Jun 15, 2011, 12:44 »
You won't see them all on the boards, unless they are better than pb. We only had 4, 2 per loops. The nlos took the rest in the field. Although, you can probably bring it up on the plant computer if theu dont have board indicators for all of them.
« Last Edit: Jun 15, 2011, 12:45 by TheHiggs »
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #7 on: Jun 15, 2011, 09:28 »
Flow is not the same through all the jet pumps in a manifold - you will see the extremes will have a little lower flow. Ask your RO to see the numbers for his daily jet pump operability test. You will see that engineering provides a plotted range for what each jet pump can be expected to be for a given loop flow.

The valve you were asking about is a manifold-to-manifold crosstie, originally designed to be open during single recirc pump operation. I can't think of any BWR that uses it, though, since the system oscillations were quite severe when it was field tested.

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #8 on: Jun 15, 2011, 10:28 »
So my thoughts were correct :)

We just care about average flow between the 2 loops being the same right?

First I've heard of the crosstie, I'll have to ask about it.




Yeah, that is what I said.

Above/below a certain total core flow, your loops have to be within a certain deviation. At PB, below a certain total core flow, you could have a bigger loop deviation..., above a certain total core flow, you had a tighter band.

That is diffferent than what he was talking about, the daily jet pump ST, because like I said, many things determine what the flow is through the jet pump, their position in the manifold being a small part of that (last time I was at PB, the outer jet pumps weren't always the lowest flow). So, engineering will give you data that you compare your readings to to ensure they are operating properly. So they have to be within whatever band is provided. If not, you enter the jet pump inoperable AOP.

Also, in case you weren't aware, a jet pump is basically a nozzle.
« Last Edit: Jun 15, 2011, 10:33 by TheHiggs »
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #9 on: Jun 15, 2011, 10:42 »
What is level 3?

And what is slow?

We had variable speed recirc pumps that would "run back" on certain conditions, such as a condensate pump trip, or reactor scram.
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #10 on: Jun 15, 2011, 12:08 »
Recirc pumps go to "slow" at the low level scram to protect the pumps/loops from cavitation effects of an increasingly lowering level.

Of course you are a BWR/6, so your recirc runbacks are primarily achieved by 2 pumps speeds and a variety of recirc loop flow control valve positions. Most of the rest of the BWRs use variable speed pumps with no control valves in the loop.

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #11 on: Jun 15, 2011, 12:15 »
By the way Starkist, you will have to preface most of your BWR/6 questions with exactly what you are talking about and not the lingo. Most BWR folks aren't familiar with things like the Level 8 scram, and Levels 3, 2, 1 are actually the opposite of what most understand them to be. HPCS, aux building, Div III DG, etc are also going to be different.

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #12 on: Jun 15, 2011, 12:17 »
low level scram. we have 2 speed pumps. why is it an automatic function with a scram signal I guess is what im asking

Ah, I see now what these Levels are for your unit.

Here;

http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/GEMANUAL.pdf

I am really shocked that you can't get this information from your training department. Or... some licensed guy that has notes on the intranet.
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #13 on: Jun 15, 2011, 12:20 »
That .pdf explains all of your level trips, and gives a mini-basis for them.
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #14 on: Jun 15, 2011, 03:31 »
GE control rod design has holes in the blades. Why?

edit: instructors dont know, google is bringing up nothing. been looking through STM's and stuff too.

Flow for cooling.

Also cladding is not required in the upper head because steam tends to be non corrosive.

Offline cypher89

  • Very Lite User
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: 5
  • Gender: Male
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #15 on: Jun 15, 2011, 07:37 »
Recirc loop flows can change even under steady state conditions based on the piping layout in the risers and how random the flow pattern becomes.  At out plant this can cause up to half a percent power change known as bistable flow.  Not all bwr's have it but many do.  Check the ISO drawing to see actual piping layouts for the recirc loops.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #16 on: Jun 15, 2011, 08:37 »
Recirc loop flows can change even under steady state conditions based on the piping layout in the risers and how random the flow pattern becomes.  At out plant this can cause up to half a percent power change known as bistable flow.  Not all bwr's have it but many do.  Check the ISO drawing to see actual piping layouts for the recirc loops.


Not entirely correct.

Offline Bigchris

  • Light User
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Karma: 537
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #17 on: Jun 15, 2011, 09:27 »
Hello Starkist,


2) The vessel is head is, relatively speaking, much thinner then the rest of the vessel. Again. Why? I understand the vessel head has less pressure then the bottom of the assembly, but its almost 40% thinner.

I would like to take a shot at question #2.

My experience is not in Nuclear Power Plants; however there may be some principles from ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code  (BPVC) Section I Power Boilers that may explain why the upper head is thinner than the shell and bottom head. (See PG 27 Cylindrical Components Under Internal Pressure, PG 29 Dished Heads and PG 33 Compensation Required for Openings in Shells and Formed Heads etc.)

Is it possible that the top head is thinner than the sides of the vessel because the minimum required thickness is less, due to the differences in the formulae used to calculate thickness in heads and cylindrical vessels subject to internal pressure?

The reason the bottom head is thicker than the top head (if that is what you have said), may be due to the hydrostatic head and the weight of the vessel internals and due to the compensation in thickness required because of  the number of openings in the bottom of the vessel for control rod drives etc. That is my guess.

The required thickness of the head is probably determined by using the calculations shown in the code (ASME Section III?). Different parts of a pressure vessel require different calculations. I would expect that ASME BPVC Section III would explain the calculations needed for nuclear construction and Section II to list the allowable stresses for the listed materials.

The required thickness for a material depends on the shape of the object, among other things. A sphere for example would be subject to about half the stress at a given internal pressure than a cylindrical object of the same material and thickness at the same pressure and temperature. The BWR head, although it may not be exactly semi- hemispherical, may benefit from this.  We can see this if we consider the following.

The stress of a “thin” (according to code) sphere, can be calculated by the formula S=PR/2t. Now imagine the sphere cut in half and then welded to the end of a cylindrical vessel. This is something like what we have when bolt or weld a head to a cylindrical vessel. “The stresses in the longitudinal direction on a cylindrical vessel carrying internal pressure can readily be seen to be the same as those in a spherical vessel. These stresses are often considered as those tending to blow the heads off cylindrical vessels.” 

The stresses in the circumferential direction of the cylinder can be pictured by imagining a cylindrical vessel cut in half lengthwise. The circumferential stresses would act along theses (imagined) seams. This stress is calculated by the formula S=PR/t.

Comparing S=PR/2t with S=PR/t we can see that the stresses on the longitudinal seam are twice that of the circumferential seam. 

This is why dished heads can be thinner than the sides of a cylindrical vessel. The stress along the longitudinal seam is twice that of the circumferential seam and the dished head. This explanation seems to correspond with your observation that the head is almost 40 % thinner, which I would suggest, may be related to the half as much stress shown above.
 
Not to confuse the matter, but consider this, circumferential stresses will tend to open a longitudinal seem while longitudinal stresses will tend open a circumferential seam, if I am not mistaken.

I think you are correct that the upper head has less pressure than the bottom. This might be due to the weight of steam and water mixture or hydrostatic head. To see more on static head and other loads in Power Boilers, go to BPVC Section I PG 22.1.

If you are saying that the bottom head is much thicker than the top, I guess this is due to an increase in material thickness in order to compensate for the number of holes cut into the bottom head in order to allow control rod assemblies to enter the head, possibly some increases in thickness due to the weight of the internal components and possibly some consideration of the hydrostatic head.

In general, at least for Power Boilers, if there are enough openings of sufficient size cut into the vessel material (and close enough to each other), then in some circumstances the thickness of the remaining material must be increased to compensate for the reduction in strength that the openings would cause in the material. This is because the area around the opening is subject to the forces that would have been applied to the material that was removed to make the opening. The area above, below and to either side of the hole, that is relatively close to the hole which may be considered to carry the extra stress, is referred to as the ‘limits of compensation’. This area can be built up around each opening with a pad or the whole head can be made thicker to compensate for the openings. Sometimes, some parts of the materials connected to the hole may also be considered as compensation.

Sometimes if you calculate the amount of metal removed in making the openings and then increase the thickness of the material around the openings, by an amount that would equal the amount of material removed, then that is sufficient compensation. In other words, the amount of material removed from the area of the openings is the same as the amount of material added to the area around the openings. At least that is the general principle and it can work if the openings are close together, otherwise some of the added thickness would be outside of the ‘limits of compensation”.

This might explain why the top head is thinner than the sides of the vessel and the bottom head. Of course I would like to know the ‘real reason”  :)the top head is thinner than the rest of the reactor vessel, if anybody cares to reply.

1. http://www.asme.org/kb/standards
2. The ASME Code Simplified Power Boilers Carroll
3. The ASME Code Simplified Power Boilers Carroll http://books.google.com/books?id=peRSAAAAMAAJ&q=%22longitudinal+seam+are+seen%22
4.  Ibid Carroll

Thank you.
Bigchris

Offline Bigchris

  • Light User
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Karma: 537
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #18 on: Jun 15, 2011, 09:36 »
Sorry about the misuse of the quote function above. :(
Thank you.
Bigchris

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #19 on: Jun 15, 2011, 09:42 »
The bottom is thicker than the top due to the CRD, Nuclear Instrument, and RWCU Taps.

Offline jams723

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Karma: 72
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #20 on: Jun 15, 2011, 10:15 »
The bottom is thicker than the top due to the CRD, Nuclear Instrument, and RWCU Taps.

'sup
 Mike, I need a good bwr6 primer... Got anything for me?

Offline HydroDave63

  • Retired
  • *
  • Posts: 6295
  • Karma: 6629
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #21 on: Jun 16, 2011, 01:05 »
I can email you STM's if you wish. 

They aren't copyrighted or proprietary, right?

Offline RDTroja

  • Site Heretic
  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4015
  • Karma: 4558
  • Gender: Male
  • I knew I got into IT for a reason!
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #22 on: Jun 16, 2011, 06:32 »
Fair use act. read it up please sir.

I once had a copyright holder's attorney explain to me that the Fair Use Act when applied to educational purposes was a courtroom defense and he offered me the chance to put it to use.

I declined the invitation.
"I won't eat anything that has intelligent life, but I'd gladly eat a network executive or a politician."

                                  -Marty Feldman

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to understand that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
                                  -Ronald Reagan

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.

                                  - Voltaire

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #23 on: Jun 16, 2011, 02:22 »
Fair use act. read it up please sir.




If you're working for a Utility I wouldn't bet my job on them giving a you know what.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #24 on: Jun 16, 2011, 02:23 »
'sup
 Mike, I need a good bwr6 primer... Got anything for me?

I have a bunch of BWR 4 stuff. Six isn't much different and I can help you with the differences.

Offline Neutron_Herder

  • SRO / STA
  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Karma: 362
  • Gender: Male
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #25 on: Jun 16, 2011, 07:26 »
Jams

Are you at Grand Gulf?  If so I can email you a link to some notes on the network, or even a link to all of the lesson plans if you're really in the mood to punish yourself.

Send me a PM with your work email, and I'll send it over.

If worst comes to worst, I have copied some of the notes over to my laptop and can copy them over to a thumb drive for you.  They aren't really detailed on the explantion side, just basic explanations and setpoints.

Jay
"If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking" - Gen. George S. Patton

Offline jams723

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Karma: 72
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #26 on: Jun 16, 2011, 07:34 »
I have a bunch of BWR 4 stuff. Six isn't much different and I can help you with the differences.

Thanks, getting a handle on the licensing end, now need to learn more about the plant.

Offline jams723

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Karma: 72
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #27 on: Jun 16, 2011, 07:37 »
Jams

Are you at Grand Gulf?  If so I can email you a link to some notes on the network, or even a link to all of the lesson plans if you're really in the mood to punish yourself.

Send me a PM with your work email, and I'll send it over.

If worst comes to worst, I have copied some of the notes over to my laptop and can copy them over to a thumb drive for you.  They aren't really detailed on the explantion side, just basic explanations and setpoints.

Yes, I am. 
jseiter@ you know the rest.

Your email was hidden.


Jay

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #28 on: Jun 16, 2011, 07:42 »
"General Description of a GE Boiling Water Reactor (BWR/6)"

This is the sales tech manual. It can be purchased in paperback, and also found here: http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/ge-bwr6.pdf

Operationally, it is not quite the way BWR/6s operate today, but the systems description is accurate.


Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #29 on: Jun 16, 2011, 08:13 »
Ah, I see now what these Levels are for your unit.

Here;

http://www.houseoffoust.com/fukushima/GEMANUAL.pdf

I am really shocked that you can't get this information from your training department. Or... some licensed guy that has notes on the intranet.

Just a bump for another reference posted earlier, that has some BWR4 stuff for those interested. Plus, there is a good read on corrosion, cracking and other metallurgical problems with BWRs posted earlier in the thread.
« Last Edit: Jun 16, 2011, 08:16 by TheHiggs »
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

MacGyver

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #30 on: Jun 17, 2011, 09:55 »
I can email you STM's if you wish. 

They aren't copyrighted or proprietary, right?

Fair use act. read it up please sir.

I once had a copyright holder's attorney explain to me that the Fair Use Act when applied to educational purposes was a courtroom defense and he offered me the chance to put it to use.

I declined the invitation.

If you're working for a Utility I wouldn't bet my job on them giving a you know what.

Im not understanding...

Allow me to translate. 

You have THREE (read that as the number "3") current or previous training instructors and currently employed utility professionals tell you to "cease and desist" regarding sending someone (outside your plant site) your company information (i.e. STM).

I hope that helps your "understanding" on "fair use".

I'm just saying ...

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #31 on: Jun 17, 2011, 04:05 »
I weas rather hoping he had the problem solving ability to put it together himself. Guess I was wrong.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #32 on: Jun 17, 2011, 05:01 »
No one said don't assist. Just do it smartly and don't risk your job to do it.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #33 on: Jun 17, 2011, 05:13 »
Whether they are RP Techs or not is immaterial. What they are are industry veterans who understand when something is issued by your utility it's meant to stay within your utility unless someone of sufficient authority gives a written release.
I'll venture a guess your utility has a procedure that says exactly that.

MacGyver

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #34 on: Jun 17, 2011, 05:21 »
No but we love tuna! ;P

Offline HydroDave63

  • Retired
  • *
  • Posts: 6295
  • Karma: 6629
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #35 on: Jun 18, 2011, 09:40 »
Im just a tuna with good taste, I dont taste very good ;)



To steal your last post. this is how it seems when you guys lecture me :p

Naaaah, all of your head-dive efforts to 'swim' into every topic has me picturing you more of an "Incredible Mr. Limpet", actually! ;)


« Last Edit: Jun 18, 2011, 09:41 by HydroDave63 »

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #36 on: Jun 18, 2011, 07:40 »
eh whatever man, I get bashed in my own posts, so what does it matter?


Again,


"Allow me to ask this, I've had a few requests for information on BWR stuff at the NLO level. How do I know what I can and cant share? I was under the impression all these documents are public information."

What am I allowed and not allowed to share?



The point is none of us is your Operations Manager, you should ask him.

nrt

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #37 on: Jun 22, 2011, 09:03 »
Starkist - loved your Foghorn rant.  I feel your pain. :-[

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #38 on: Jun 22, 2011, 08:55 »
Lol. I've been a member here for 6 years. I should be used to it by now. Guess I still get upset when I offer help and get jumped on by the entire site seniority.



Like you're the only one. ;D
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #39 on: Jun 23, 2011, 03:19 »
Just want to ensure you are checking your site's Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and Design Basis Documents (DBDs) for these questions first. If not, find a trainer to give you a 10-min tutorial on where these electronic files reside; once you know where they are, getting accustomed to doing word searches within the pdfs will be an invaluable skill.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #40 on: Jun 23, 2011, 04:31 »
why does LPCS have an "AOV" check valve. What does it do?

That's called a Testable check valve. It supplies just enough pressure to allow the valve to open with no D/P. It it feels reverse flow it closes even with air pressure on it. It's used to cycle the valve after maintenance.

Offline HydroDave63

  • Retired
  • *
  • Posts: 6295
  • Karma: 6629
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #41 on: Jun 25, 2011, 09:28 »
Before I spend hours wasting my time, can I find the basis for safety limits in tech specs?

The fortune cookie answer to nearly all Tech Specs is "to avoid breaking cladding". A very few are to avoid fuel peak centerline temp., but ultimately it is all about keeping fission fragments out of the people tank. Just like your last job  :P

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #42 on: Jun 25, 2011, 10:15 »
Yes it's either going to be in section 2.0 Safety Limits or in the Basis for TS 2.0 in the Basis Section of TS. It depends on the version.

Your RPS setpoints which are derived from the Safety limits will be in section 3.3.1.1of the Basis portion of TS. In the old version I don't quite remember where they were at but they were either in section 2.0 or in the Basis in the back of TS.

The difference is the TS they now call standard TS have a huge basis document with all kinds of great information. The older TS have a section in the back of the book that is not so robust.

Offline jams723

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Karma: 72
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #43 on: Jun 25, 2011, 10:26 »
Echoing Broadzilla on reading the bases. You can find it in eB or linked from you RBS Licensing home page. If you still have trouble let me know and I will show you where on Monday

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #44 on: Jun 25, 2011, 08:50 »
Steam Flow Trip:

If one of the 4 steam lines Isolate the other 3 pass more steam. That is if other trips don't take you out.

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #45 on: Jun 29, 2011, 12:15 »
Ok, I've tried finding a good answer, but I am failing...

Why do we only have the capacity to inject oxygen into one condensate pump line?

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #46 on: Jun 29, 2011, 01:07 »
That is plant specific. Only your plant can answer that but most likely it's because you only needed one line so there was no sense paying money for more.

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #47 on: Jun 29, 2011, 07:20 »
That is plant specific. Only your plant can answer that but most likely it's because you only needed one line so there was no sense paying money for more.

Arg. All right. Im beginning to see much of everything here boils down to $afety....

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 17047
  • Karma: 5147
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #48 on: Jun 29, 2011, 08:16 »
Arg. All right. Im beginning to see much of everything here boils down to $afety....

Some of us prefer risk analysis. Though sometimes I think actuaries from insurance companies are involved.


Hmmmm... PAAA... would that would mean???

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #49 on: Jun 29, 2011, 08:56 »
Some of us prefer risk analysis. Though sometimes I think actuaries from insurance companies are involved.


Hmmmm... PAAA... would that would mean???

Ok I did my look up. What in the world is "Sandia"? lol Looks like an engineering firm, but I cant open their page for some reason.

Offline Nuclear NASCAR

  • Electrician
  • Forum Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Karma: 3094
  • Gender: Male
  • Everyone needs a Harley. Mine's furry with 4 legs.
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #50 on: Jun 29, 2011, 11:24 »
http://www.sandia.gov/

Love me some google.   :P
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge."

  -Bertrand Russell

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #51 on: Jun 29, 2011, 11:52 »
http://www.sandia.gov/

Love me some google.   :P

lol no I got that, but its not opening up for me for some reason (403: Invalid configuration??? new one for me...). Ill try it tomorrow I suppose :p.


RAD-GHOST

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #52 on: Jun 30, 2011, 05:02 »
Ok I did my look up. What in the world is "Sandia"? lol Looks like an engineering firm, but I cant open their page for some reason.

Good Question... :)

It's a very special place, full of very special people, doing very special things!

I know this, because they told me so!

RG.... ;D

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #53 on: Jun 30, 2011, 08:53 »
Good Question... :)

It's a very special place, full of very special people, doing very special things!

I know this, because they told me so!

RG.... ;D


lol, Im assuming you work there then?

Offline HydroDave63

  • Retired
  • *
  • Posts: 6295
  • Karma: 6629
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #54 on: Jun 30, 2011, 09:25 »

lol, Im assuming you work there then?

You know what happens when you as-sume...  :P

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #55 on: Jun 30, 2011, 09:56 »
You know what happens when you as-sume...  :P


Yeah yeah :p



Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #56 on: Jul 07, 2011, 06:33 »
New question... More of a "industry wide" question...

Looking at reports, and vermont yankee being the predominant offender here, how exactly does tritium leak out of the plant. Im not understanding how it can happen. The only thing slightly possible I could understand is a leak from RPCCW into service water, but RPCCW is at a lower pressure, at least at my plant.



Also, following that up, cesium, strontium, and yttrium being found offsite. those are fission products, wouldnt that be indicative of a fuel element failure? O.o I understand the fuel defects having uranium outside the cladding, but is that enough to allow a measurable amount of radiation leakage outside of the plant? Or is this merely fear mongering by the media?



Offline GLW

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5490
  • Karma: 2523
  • caveo proditor,...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #58 on: Jul 07, 2011, 07:07 »
New question... More of a "industry wide" question...

Looking at reports, and vermont yankee being the predominant offender here, how exactly does tritium leak out of the plant. Im not understanding how it can happen. The only thing slightly possible I could understand is a leak from RPCCW into service water, but RPCCW is at a lower pressure, at least at my plant.



Also, following that up, cesium, strontium, and yttrium being found offsite. those are fission products, wouldnt that be indicative of a fuel element failure? O.o I understand the fuel defects having uranium outside the cladding, but is that enough to allow a measurable amount of radiation leakage outside of the plant? Or is this merely fear mongering by the media?



check your PM's,....

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #59 on: Jul 07, 2011, 07:21 »
check your PM's,....

cheers! :) explains a LOT!

Food for thought...

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1012/ML101270439.pdf

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/buried-pipes-fs.html

I appreciate you taking the time to find me those, but Im really asking HOW they are leaking. I dont understand what underground piping systems are carrying primary water, as all of ours are located within primary or secondary containments, closely monitored systems, etc etc.

I think I just had a "eureka" moment... our discharge piping is underground... HOWEVER, before it even begins to leave the site, its measured for contamination/radiation content.
Am I on the right track here? :p

Pman52

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #60 on: Jul 07, 2011, 07:32 »
I appreciate you taking the time to find me those, but Im really asking HOW they are leaking. I dont understand what underground piping systems are carrying primary water, as all of ours are located within primary or secondary containments, closely monitored systems, etc etc.

Did you miss the "controlled releases" ?

or

Quote from: NRC

As a result of one or more of the causes listed below, radioactive materials (most notably tritium) have been identified in ground moisture or ground water at several commercial nuclear power plants:

system leaks (e.g., pipes, valves, tanks)
evaporation of liquids
condensation of vapors
as the result of routine, approved releases


???  


Now YOU have to consult your plants P&ID's for the REAL answers.   ;)
« Last Edit: Jul 07, 2011, 07:35 by Pman52 »

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #61 on: Jul 07, 2011, 08:14 »
Did you miss the "controlled releases" ?


Lol no, I just dont understand how we have radioactive water in buried pipes under the ground, and didnt think to check on them from time to time.

AFAIK, the only potential system we have is discharge, I just need someone to validate my thoughts :p Im all about doing my own research, Im just not sure how yet. PID's wont exactly tell me where leaks are :p


I would like to point out to some of those who are supposedly "ignorning me" that I do not have an SRO license, I have zero experience in a commercial plant, and I have very very little information searching ability. Thanks :)



« Last Edit: Jul 07, 2011, 08:18 by Starkist »

Pman52

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #62 on: Jul 07, 2011, 08:27 »
PID's wont exactly tell me where leaks are :p


Man Charlie...you just HAVE TO HAVE THE ANSWER GIVEN TO YOU!!  :P

P&IDs obviously won't SHOW YOU WHERE LEAKS OCCUR.  But they will show you drains and associated piping routes that could potentially corrode and create leaks (imagine that!), or elude to paths where leaks could occur.  I don't think anyone KNOWS exactly where the leak occurs, but I'm sure they have ideas and well thought out solutions to the issues at hand (ie. tritium leaks).  P&ID's are useful by showing where piping is located.  Further research could lead to an understanding where underground connections or interconnected systems could lead to potential leaking.

I thought "OPERATORS" were supposed to learn their plant?!   ;)

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #63 on: Jul 07, 2011, 08:43 »
how exactly does tritium leak out of the plant

Check your CST. Isn't it outside? Ever wonder how the water gets to/from the reactor from there?

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #64 on: Jul 07, 2011, 08:48 »
Man Charlie...you just HAVE TO HAVE THE ANSWER GIVEN TO YOU!!  :P

P&IDs obviously won't SHOW YOU WHERE LEAKS OCCUR.  But they will show you drains and associated piping routes that could potentially corrode and create leaks (imagine that!), or elude to paths where leaks could occur.  I don't think anyone KNOWS exactly where the leak occurs, but I'm sure they have ideas and well thought out solutions to the issues at hand (ie. tritium leaks).  P&ID's are useful by showing where piping is located.  Further research could lead to an understanding where underground connections or interconnected systems could lead to potential leaking.

I thought "OPERATORS" were supposed to learn their plant?!   ;)

Hardy har. Well my plant isnt leaking tritium is partly my point. I dont have access to vermont yankee's PID's and all online information is super vague, even from the NRC.

No disrespect intended, but you have even less experience then I do. Ill take lecturing when applicable, but you really arent answering my questions. Please dont get smug because a bitter SRO is giving you positive karma for "showing me up". Im willing to do my own research, but I dont think you understand how many control systems and automatic functions we have to PREVENT inadvertent leakage yet. I truly appreciate your assistance, but its not answering my question.

And yes, "OPERATORS" DO learn their plant. You will find that out when you get hired as one.


Check your CST. Isn't it outside? Ever wonder how the water gets to/from the reactor from there?

Lemme rephrase this to a more direct question. What system did vermont yankee have those large tritium leaks from? Besides, CST is covered on rounds, and ours has a drywell around it.... O.o
« Last Edit: Jul 08, 2011, 01:54 by Starkist »

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #65 on: Jul 08, 2011, 04:55 »
Lemme rephrase this to a more direct question. What system did vermont yankee have those large tritium leaks from? Besides, CST is covered on rounds, and ours has a drywell around it.... O.o

The Condensate Storage Tank (an outside tank) communicate with the reactor primary system by buried piping, aka the Condensate Transfer System. Your plant has this, and so does Vermont Yankee. This is how tritiated water gets into the groundwater via leaks. "Covering it on rounds" is not going to reveal this - your environmental ground well monitoring is about the only way, unless it is a large leak that radwaste processing balances can reveal. It is not a Tech Spec system and therefore has been neglected on monitoring/upkeep in the past.

Offline Neutron_Herder

  • SRO / STA
  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Karma: 362
  • Gender: Male
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #66 on: Jul 08, 2011, 07:21 »
From what I remember reading the leak was from some drain lines off of the Offgas system.  The drains sprung a leak, and the floor drain in the Offgas tunnel was clogged.  This allowed the water level to rise a little in the tunnel until it found a way out of the tunnel and into the surrounding soil.
"If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking" - Gen. George S. Patton

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #67 on: Jul 08, 2011, 03:25 »
The Condensate Storage Tank (an outside tank) communicate with the reactor primary system by buried piping, aka the Condensate Transfer System. Your plant has this, and so does Vermont Yankee. This is how tritiated water gets into the groundwater via leaks. "Covering it on rounds" is not going to reveal this - your environmental ground well monitoring is about the only way, unless it is a large leak that radwaste processing balances can reveal. It is not a Tech Spec system and therefore has been neglected on monitoring/upkeep in the past.


Au Contraire. The CST and Underground piping is TS Equipment subject to inspection. It's required to support HPCI and RCIC. TS 3.5.1 and 3.5.3.

In most cases it's leaking Rad Waste Release Piping.

Some plants built new Off Gas Systems in the late 80s, early 90s and didn't do a great job of determining the right type of building to put them in.
« Last Edit: Jul 08, 2011, 03:35 by Broadzilla »

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #68 on: Jul 08, 2011, 04:07 »

Au Contraire. The CST and Underground piping is TS Equipment subject to inspection. It's required to support HPCI and RCIC. TS 3.5.1 and 3.5.3.


Incorrect. Straight from the Emergency Core Cooling System Tech Spec Bases:

"Although no credit is taken in the safety analyses for the condensate storage tank (CST), it is
capable of providing a source of water for HPCI and RCIC"

The suppression pool is the credited source, which it why the instrumentmation to swap the suction to the suppression pool at low CST level or high suppression pool level are the only Tech Spec required components.

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #69 on: Jul 08, 2011, 04:22 »
Incorrect. Straight from the Emergency Core Cooling System Tech Spec Bases:

"Although no credit is taken in the safety analyses for the condensate storage tank (CST), it is
capable of providing a source of water for HPCI and RCIC"

The suppression pool is the credited source, which it why the instrumentmation to swap the suction to the suppression pool at low CST level or high suppression pool level are the only Tech Spec required components.

Thats odd, at my plant the CST is the primary suction source for RCIC.


Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #70 on: Jul 08, 2011, 04:27 »
Thats odd, at my plant the CST is the primary suction source for RCIC.


It is also for HPCI, but that doesn't make it the Tech Spec required source.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #71 on: Jul 08, 2011, 04:35 »
Incorrect. Straight from the Emergency Core Cooling System Tech Spec Bases:

"Although no credit is taken in the safety analyses for the condensate storage tank (CST), it is
capable of providing a source of water for HPCI and RCIC"

The suppression pool is the credited source, which it why the instrumentmation to swap the suction to the suppression pool at low CST level or high suppression pool level are the only Tech Spec required components.


Sigh. FRigging NUBS:

The ECCS pumps are provided with minimum flow bypass lines, which
discharge to the suppression pool. The valves in these lines
automatically open to prevent pump damage due to overheating when
other discharge line valves are closed. To ensure rapid delivery of water
to the RPV and to minimize water hammer effects, all ECCS pump
discharge lines are filled with water. The LPCI and CS System discharge
lines are kept full of water using a "keep fill" system (jockey pump
system). The HPCI System is normally aligned to the CST. The height of
water in the CST is sufficient to maintain the piping full of water up to the
first isolation valve. The relative height of the feedwater line connection
for HPCI is such that the water in the feedwater lines keeps the remaining
portion of the HPCI discharge line


TS Required system.

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #72 on: Jul 08, 2011, 04:42 »

Sigh. FRigging NUBS:

The ECCS pumps are provided with minimum flow bypass lines, which
discharge to the suppression pool. The valves in these lines
automatically open to prevent pump damage due to overheating when
other discharge line valves are closed. To ensure rapid delivery of water
to the RPV and to minimize water hammer effects, all ECCS pump
discharge lines are filled with water. The LPCI and CS System discharge
lines are kept full of water using a "keep fill" system (jockey pump
system). The HPCI System is normally aligned to the CST. The height of
water in the CST is sufficient to maintain the piping full of water up to the
first isolation valve. The relative height of the feedwater line connection
for HPCI is such that the water in the feedwater lines keeps the remaining
portion of the HPCI discharge line


TS Required system.

You can lose that source from the CST to HPCI, and as long as you put HPCI on the suppression pool it is operable. It does not work the other way around. When in all your experience have you ever declared a CST "inop"? CST is not required for HPCI or RCIC operability.
« Last Edit: Jul 08, 2011, 04:48 by Nuclear Renaissance »

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #73 on: Jul 08, 2011, 04:49 »
Incorrect. Are you familiar with the concept of a TS required SUPPORT System?

Twice in fact. When HPCI swapped to the suppression pool due to an instrument failure and we declared it inoperable due to loss of the CST as a TS required SUPPORT function. Both times backed up absolutely correct by Licensing.

Browns Ferry did it too about 2.5 years ago.

When have you ever been in a position where you had to MAKE that decision?


You might also reference 3.5.2 where the CST is a TS Required SOURCE for OPDRVs.

Frigging NUBs.

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #74 on: Jul 08, 2011, 04:54 »
It is also for HPCI, but that doesn't make it the Tech Spec required source.

Not here, our HPCS is normally aligned to our suppression pool, not the CST. Upon low level, it cycles to CST automatically. RCIC here is the opposite.

Im also confused, LPCS and LPCI are two different systems at my plant. O.o
« Last Edit: Jul 08, 2011, 04:55 by Starkist »

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #75 on: Jul 08, 2011, 04:59 »
HPCS and HPCI are two different things. I forgot you are at a BWR 6!!!

LPCI and LPCS are different systems at all BWRs at least from BWR 3 on up.

LPCI technically isn't a system. It's a Mode of RHR. reaching back here but at a BWR the modes of RHR were LPCI, Suppression Cooling, Suppression Spray, Drywell Spray, Shutdown Cooling and the Infamous Fuel Pool Cooling Assist which we successfully avoided everytime it got brought up at Fermi. The one time I know of that we did try it the pipes shook horribly and we turned the reactor cavity into the color of mud.

Fermi had LPCI Loop select too, which outside of ADS was one of the prime growing grounds for inane test questions.
« Last Edit: Jul 08, 2011, 05:01 by Broadzilla »

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #76 on: Jul 08, 2011, 05:01 »
Aren't you the guy that guaranteed Fukushima was an explosion from main generator gas and guaranteed that they weren't in Severe Accident Guides and said there was absolutely no way they'd be needing to be doing primary containment flooding?

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #77 on: Jul 08, 2011, 05:03 »
They did explode Main Generator Gas and no I never stated they wouldn't need Containment Flooding WHICH BTW is an EOP step at Fukushima not a SAG.

Aren't you the guy who has no practical experience at a BWR and hasn't qualified Shift Manager? Do you need the concept of Support System explained to you?

Frigging NUBs

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #78 on: Jul 08, 2011, 05:08 »
;D

"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #79 on: Jul 08, 2011, 05:23 »
They did explode Main Generator Gas and no I never stated they wouldn't need Containment Flooding WHICH BTW is an EOP step at Fukushima not a SAG.

Aren't you the guy who has no practical experience at a BWR and hasn't qualified Shift Manager? Do you need the concept of Support System explained to you?

Frigging NUBs


these are all yours, and every single one has proven to be wrong:

that looks more like a turbine building explosion to me that blew away the blowout panels on the refueling floor. wanna bet they released hydrogen from the generator and it went poof?

check out the explosion, looks exactly like a generator h2 release.

i'll guarantee they are not flooding containment.

once they covered the core none of that was credible.

and they did cover the core.

the explosion emanated outside containment and it looks like the blowout panels did their job.

there is no mechanism for getting hydrogen inside the secondary containment and a internal drywell explosion is impossible.



Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #80 on: Jul 08, 2011, 05:37 »

these are all yours, and every single one has proven to be wrong:


You're really using his assumptions based on misinformation provided by the Japanese and american media to debunk his entire technical expertise???

O.o
You can lose that source from the CST to HPCI, and as long as you put HPCI on the suppression pool it is operable. It does not work the other way around. When in all your experience have you ever declared a CST "inop"? CST is not required for HPCI or RCIC operability.

And yes, I looked it up, at my plant tech specs require 125,000 gallons in CST >= 18ft.

3.5.2-2; rev 3.

Your plant has different tech specs then mine I believe. O.o
« Last Edit: Jul 08, 2011, 05:41 by Starkist »

Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #81 on: Jul 08, 2011, 05:41 »
3.5.2-2; rev 3.

3.5.2 is a shutdown spec. CST level is allowable as an alternative to suppression pool level when cold.

Offline Starkist

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Karma: 166
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #82 on: Jul 08, 2011, 06:01 »
3.5.2 is a shutdown spec. CST level is allowable as an alternative to suppression pool level when cold.

ah I see, right you are.

I did  see this chart though, can you explain it to me? I reads as if its monitored all the time, but the only other place I can find it is the shutdown portion and RCIC.

Table 3.3.5.1-1

d. Condensate Storage
Tank Level - Low


applicable modes : 1, 2, 3,
4(c), 5(c)

where c is : When HPCS is OPERABLE for compliance with LCO 3.5.2, "ECCS - Shutdown," and aligned to the condensate
storage tank while tank water level is not within the limit of SR 3.5.2.2.



3.3.5-2 states you need to declare RCIC inoperable when CST is low as well. But you have 7 days to fix that issue.

« Last Edit: Jul 08, 2011, 06:05 by Starkist »

Offline DDMurray

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • Karma: 994
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #83 on: Jul 08, 2011, 06:12 »
New question... More of a "industry wide" question...

Looking at reports, and vermont yankee being the predominant offender here, how exactly does tritium leak out of the plant. Im not understanding how it can happen. The only thing slightly possible I could understand is a leak from RPCCW into service water, but RPCCW is at a lower pressure, at least at my plant.
Also, following that up, cesium, strontium, and yttrium being found offsite. those are fission products, wouldnt that be indicative of a fuel element failure? O.o I understand the fuel defects having uranium outside the cladding, but is that enough to allow a measurable amount of radiation leakage outside of the plant? Or is this merely fear mongering by the media?

From NRC website:
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1033/ML103350632.html
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/vy/vy-groundwater-issue.pdf
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1013/ML101390117.pdf
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1013/ML101390116.pdf
« Last Edit: Jul 08, 2011, 06:24 by DDMurray »
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
T. Roosevelt


Nuclear Renaissance

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #85 on: Jul 09, 2011, 11:38 »
Incorrect. Are you familiar with the concept of a TS required SUPPORT System?

Twice in fact. When HPCI swapped to the suppression pool due to an instrument failure and we declared it inoperable due to loss of the CST as a TS required SUPPORT function. Both times backed up absolutely correct by Licensing.

Browns Ferry did it too about 2.5 years ago.

When have you ever been in a position where you had to MAKE that decision?


You might also reference 3.5.2 where the CST is a TS Required SOURCE for OPDRVs.

Frigging NUBs.

Just because the operating crew errs conservative and licensing says ‘yes’ to the answer you’re looking for, doesn’t make it so. For your precedence, I can offer precedence from my site where the HPCI CST suction had a stem separation, and once it was fully aligned to the suppression pool it was operable. Tech Specs ensures the plant can minimally react per the safety analysis, and if the safety analysis doesn’t credit it, then Tech Specs doesn’t need it. The only credit for the CST is for an alternative source to the suppression pool during cold shutdown condition.

I bring up Fukushima because just the same, when people offer facts that counter Broadzilla – even counter arguments that turned out to be accurate – he devolves to name calling and bluster about why he is better than the other poster. It’s childish, and makes it difficult to have a constructive thread.

Offline jams723

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Karma: 72
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #86 on: Jul 09, 2011, 12:25 »
Just because the operating crew errs conservative and licensing says ‘yes’ to the answer you’re looking for, doesn’t make it so. For your precedence, I can offer precedence from my site where the HPCI CST suction had a stem separation, and once it was fully aligned to the suppression pool it was operable. Tech Specs ensures the plant can minimally react per the safety analysis, and if the safety analysis doesn’t credit it, then Tech Specs doesn’t need it. The only credit for the CST is for an alternative source to the suppression pool during cold shutdown condition.

I bring up Fukushima because just the same, when people offer facts that counter Broadzilla

– even counter arguments that turned out to be accurate – he devolves to name calling and bluster about why he is better than the other poster. It’s childish, and makes it difficult to have a constructive thread.

Licensing does not say yes just because Ops makes a call. It is our job to ensure the report ability is accurate. We report the facts not conservative calls. If those sites made the call and Licensing agreed... That means for their TS and bases the call was correct.

Fermi2

  • Guest
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #87 on: Jul 09, 2011, 06:38 »
Sorry, again you don't know the definition of SUPPORT system do you?

jams, hey man. A bit incorrect. Licensing will look at subsequent analysis and retarct a report but can never overturn an Ops Operability call.

Offline jams723

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Karma: 72
Re: BWR questions
« Reply #88 on: Jul 09, 2011, 09:10 »
Broad, nope, not what I meant.  I agree that Ops has the call (and the responcibility) What I tried to point out that Licensing was involved and a part of the process. If during the reportability determination, we found facts that put the original operability in doubt then that would be comminicated to Ops potentially to produce a revised operability (yes, by Ops).  That way we do not make a report that has to be retracted. All that assuming we have enough time... And with HPCS it would be a 8 hour report so there would be time.

Hey got a compliment from the Assistant Ops Manager. He said I was not a pipe. Heck of a compliment to me!

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2024 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?