NukeWorker Forum
Career Path => NRC => Topic started by: Roll Tide on May 01, 2007, 03:56
-
I was noticing a few components of a power plant that are difficult to manage. What would be the solution for some of those? I know some solutions are prohibitively expensive, but some would actually save a utility money. Real suggestions only please, Polysci is the place for fantasy discussions.
Here is my first suggestion: if you plan on building a new 2-unit facility, plan on building 2 simulators. This would free up simulator time, allowing more classes to be run at the same time. The simulators would run the same program, so the software would be about the same price. Additionally, when a new core is loaded (or significant operating modification), you could update the program on only 1 of the simulators if desired.
-
Run hardpipes with site glasses from the Vents to the floor drains.
Place the CVCS Controls with the rest of the Reactivity Controls!
AND most IMPORTANTLY!!! IF you have instruments labeled Instrument 1,2,3 and 4 and Power supplies labelled 1,2,3 and 4 how about wiring it so each power supply powers it's corresponding instrument number!!!!!! (Sequoyah Pet Peeve!!)
For multi Units have no unit interdependence.
Mike
-
For multi Units have no unit interdependence.
While all of the items listed were excellent, this one has to be the biggest. When dual-unit outages were common, these requirements were envisioned to be workable. Now it is absurd for any safety-related system, with the possible exception of SFP.
-
!
AND most IMPORTANTLY!!! IF you have instruments labeled Instrument 1,2,3 and 4 and Power supplies labelled 1,2,3 and 4 how about wiring it so each power supply powers it's corresponding instrument number!!!!!! (Sequoyah Pet Peeve!!)
Mike
Likewise everything else that can be mixed up because of this poor labeling design. Personal pet peeve, label the H2 mixing fan to match the RCP that it's placed over! >:(
-
Working platforms for major equipment.
Also piping with as FEW bends as possible.
Mike
-
Cartridge style RWCU pumps - on the cold side of the HX
Pumps, HX, Demins in separate shielded cubicles
Go back to reach rods for valves in hi rad rooms - there's actually a nice cable style that works well.
Fiber optic, WiFi, etc - everywhere....at least run the conduit, then when technology changes its just a cable pull...
If it is going to need scaffolding 3x/yr, then build a platform for it
Yeah, I'm tired of frying for stupid designs.... :-\
-
It should be possible to design an area so that you can actually walk upright through it. Contray to what some of the designers think we are not all 4 ft tall
-
Vent and drains in logical or at least reachable places, so you don't have to set up scaffolding for a 15 min test. Stop using butterfly valves as isolation valves in the condensate system. Design a RW system such that you don't have to discharge (it is possible, Clinton hasn't done a liquid discharge in about 18 years), keep the RW evaporators in good working condition so you aren't spending exorbitant prices for last minute work. Better yet, get rid of the RW evaporators and replace them with a more efficient system. Digital FW control in all new plants. Stator can rotor recirc pumps. Fix the damn RR pump seal issues. etc.. etc.. etc..
-
My demands are modest...
More than one elevator in the turbine building.
More than one elevator in the auxiliary building.
Maybe a level indicator on the CVCS/RCS chemical injection add tank (shooting lithiated water into the overhead is fun!!!)
Maybe something silly as sample points piped into the laboratories from the spaces.
Maybe something even sillier as automated online analysis of borons (would make S/U and S/D less of a communication folly)
Hmm, howabout biscuit and gravy dispensers on all levels.
-
How about building ONE standard PWR and ONE standard BWR, or maybe just ONE standard reactor design,...
The savings from economy of scale over the life of the fleet has got to override any spot market considerations during initial construction, plus the recouped costs from across the board lessons learned, standardized training, etc.,...
(The French do at least one thing right other than food)..... :P
In order to achieve that we will need one utility (like France) that is state supported (like France) which would put us one step closer to a socialist governemnt (like France). No thanks, I will put up with the differences.
-
My demands are modest...
Hmm, howabout biscuit and gravy dispensers on all levels.
Are you working at a nuclear plant in the Southeast??
-
My demands are modest...
Hmm, howabout biscuit and gravy dispensers on all levels.
One morning during my brief stint at SQN, I could chewed out by the Ops manager for standing in line to get a biscuit (BTW SQN has a great dining facility) when I should have been out in the plant starting my rounds. I might have taken him a little more seriously if he hadn't been in line behind me at the time! 8)
How about Diesel Generators with enough capacity to handle accident loading without having to load shed.
-
One morning during my brief stint at SQN, I could chewed out by the Ops manager for standing in line to get a biscuit (BTW SQN has a great dining facility) when I should have been out in the plant starting my rounds. I might have taken him a little more seriously if he hadn't been in line behind me at the time! 8)
How about Diesel Generators with enough capacity to handle accident loading without having to load shed.
How about the OPs Manager finished deligating tasks and expecting his personnel to go to work and accomplish their job instead of seeing that person in front of him waiting to get a biscuit. It's pretty clear he was in the right place and you weren't.
-
Sorry about the above post. It's none of my buisness, I'm just having a tough morning.
-
The rule of 5s Marssim and its valid for every message board on which I post. After the 5th post the thread starts going awry, by post 15 nothing resembles the original topic but if it survives to about 35 or 40 posts it tends to get back on topic.
Len61 when were you at the finest PWR in the country :)
I'm not sure Standardization will help. The reactor side is pretty much standard by design anyway and the BOP doesn't really make a difference. Plus if theres a generic flaw....
More communications equipment with a paging system in each corner of each floor. Also Sound Powered Phones.
Mike
-
One morning during my brief stint at SQN, I could chewed out by the Ops manager for standing in line to get a biscuit when I should have been out in the plant starting my rounds.
Normal ops at some plants, inconceivable at others. Perhaps now that you are at a different site, you see a different baseline.
Lots of good ideas so far. Standardization is only a major benefit if your license transfers. I think it is pretty cool that whether I drive my Chrysler or my son's Ford pickup, I get to use the same driver's license...
-
Len61 when were you at the finest PWR in the country :)
Mike
During the "downsizing" in 1996 just after BFN U3 restart, transfered from BFN to SQN. AUO at SQN all of 1996 and part of 1997 then back to BFN.
-
Meeting rooms designed by Dr.Evil, complete with trap door, sharks with laser beams, the whole bit.
When someone asks a stupid question that could drag the meeting out two hours...
Swoosh. Splash. Meeting adjourned.
-
One thing I'd really like os a good numbering scheme for plant equipment and procedures.
GE's equipment system numbering system is an example of one that works well if you fully implement it. Most importantly (in my mind) is that it includes the train/division indicator. Some plants (like my current one) use a Bechtel system, where the 455th pump added to the plant design becomes P-455, with no inidcation as to what train it is in. The 3 AFW pumps (il)logically become P-140, P-141, and P-504. Gues which one belongs to which safety train, because it's certainly not obvious!
Some plants really confuse things by using both the vendor and AE numbering schemes, depending on who added the component to the plant. Thus, in a given line the valve next to valve 1G33F001A (GE) is valve S1-1305-HV-9004 (Bechtel).
For Perry (at least in the old days), the equipment numbering system was even tied into the procedure numbering. Thus, the system operating instruction for the E12 (RHR) system was SOI-E12. The surveillance instructions for the system were SVI-E12-..., etc. This whole scheme made it very easy to find a procedure if you didn't know it's number.
A coherent numbering system is a big error reduction tool.
-
One thing I'd really like os a good numbering scheme for plant equipment and procedures.
A coherent numbering system is a big error reduction tool.
I have to agree. Though I haven't seen a good one yet...