ML17291B195
| ML17291B195 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1996 |
| From: | Dyer J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Parrish J WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9601220091 | |
| Download: ML17291B195 (99) | |
Text
UNITED STATES CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI REGION IV 611 RYAN PLA2A DRIVE, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON,TEXAS 76011.8064 JAN I 2 1996 Washington Public Power Supply System ATTN:
J.
V. Parrish, Vice President Nuclear Operations 3000 George Washington Way P.O.
Box 968, MD 1023
- Richland, Washington 99352
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC MEETING WITH WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ON DECEMBER 18, 1995 This refers to the NRC Oversight Panel meeting open to public observation conducted on December 18, 1995 in, the NRC Region 'IV Office, in Arlington, Texas.
This meeting was the third'eeting between the NRC Oversight Panel and the Washington Public Power-Supply System (Supply System) regarding the operation of the WNP-2 facility.
Attendees at the meet'ing are listed in Enclosure 1 to this letter.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss several areas of the Supply System's Performance Enhancement Strategy (PES),
which included a general
- overview, plant operations, engineering, radiation protection, and oversight activities.
The discussions provided your perspectives of the status and progress of the initiatives which are part of the PES.
These discussions were beneficial in furthering our understanding of your areas of emphasis.
We were interested to hear your perspective on management changes you are making, particularly as they relate to your desire to strengthen management in the areas you recognized to have performance problems.
We were also interested to hear that your management team is giving added focus to the February-March timeframe, a
period when you have historically suffered from a lapse in performance.
A copy of the slides presented by the Supply System are provided in Enclosure 2.
As discussed in the meeting, the next Oversight Panel meeting is scheduled for February 1996.
We will be contacting the Supply System staff to establish the specific date of the meeting.
It is our intention to include as part of this meeting a discussion of your planned activities related to the spring refueling outage.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice,"
a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, J.
E. Dyer, Director Division of Reactor Projects 960i22009i 960ii2 PDR ADQCK 05000397 P
Washington Public Power Supply System
Enclosures:
1.
Attendance List 2.
Presentation Slides Docket:
50-397 License:'PF-21 cc w/enclosures:
Washington Public Power Supply System ATTN:
J.
H. Swailes, WNP-2 Plant Manager P.O.
Box 968, MD 927M
- Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Washington Public Power Supply System ATTN:
Chief Counsel 3000 George Washington Way P.O.
Box 968, MD 396
- Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ATTN:
Frederick S. Adair, Chairman P.O.
Box 43172 Olympia, Washington 98504-3172 Washington Public Power Supply System ATTN:
D. A. Swank, WNP-2 Licensing Manager P.O.
Box 968 (Mail Drop PE20)
- Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Washington Public Power Supply System ATTN:
P.
R.
Bemis, Director Regulatory and Industry Affairs P.O.
Box 968 (Mail Drop PE20)
- Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Benton County Board of Commissioners ATTN:
Chairman P.O.
Box 190
- Prosser, Washington 99350-0190 Winston
& Strawn ATTN:
M. H. Philips, Esq.
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005-3502
Washington Public Power Supply System JAN l 2 l996 Resident Inspector MIS System RIV File Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)
M.
Hammond (PAO, WCFO)
E-Mail report to D. Nelson (DJN)
E-Mail report to NRR Event Tracking System (IPAS) r 2
"-Keg-;to.,;DMB..(.IE45)., ~ ~.-
bcc distrib.
by RIV:
L. J. Callan DRS-PSB Branch Chief (DRP/E, WCFO)
Senior Project Inspector (DRP/E, WCFO)
Leah Tremper (OC/LFDCB, MS; TWFN 9E10)
To receive copy of document, indicate inborn
"C" ~ Copy without enclosures "E" ~ Copy with enclosures "tt" ~ No copy RIV:C:DRP/E HJWon ;df*
I/10/96 D:WCFO KEPerkins*
1/10/96 0:DRP JEDyer I//~/96
- prev>ous y concurre OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Washington Public Power Supply System JAN I 2 l996 E-Hail report to D. Nelson (DJN)
E-Hail report to NRR Event Tracking System (IPAS) bcc to DHB (IE45) bcc distrib.
by RIV:
L. J. Callan DRS-PSB Branch Chief (DRP/E, WCFO)
Senior Project Inspector (DRP/E, WCFO)
Leah Tremper (OC/LFDCB, HS:
TWFN 9E10)
Resident Inspector HIS System RIV File Branch Chief (DRP/TSS)
H.
Hammond (PAO, WCFO)
Te receive copy of document, indicate inborn "C" ~ Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" ~ No copy RIV:C:DRP/E HJWon ;df~
1/10/96 D:WCFO KEPerkins*
1/10/96 D:DRP JEDyer I//~/96'previous y concurre OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
ENCLOSURE I ATTENDEES AT NRC/WPPSS MEETING ON DECEMBER 18, 1995 Washin ton Public Power Su 1
S stem J. Parrish, Vice President, Nuclear Operations J. Swailes, General Plant Manager P.
Bemis, Director, Regulatory and Industry Affairs G. Smith, Director, equality J.
McDonald, Assistant Engineering Director C. Schwarz,
- Manager, Operations J. Albers, Man'ager, Radiation Protection M. Hatcher, Staff Attorney NRC L. Callan, Regional'dministrator J.
Dyer, Director, Division of Reactor Projects K. Perkins, Director, Walnut Creek Field Office W.
- Batemam, Director, Reactor Projects Regions III/IV, NRR K. Brockman, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety H.
Wong, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch E
J. Clifford, Senior Project Manager R. Barr, Senior Resident Inspector (by phone)
Others D. Williams, Nuclear Engineer, BPA J.
- Engbarth, Executive Board Auditor
...960122009]
er ormance n ancement trate Washington Public Power Supply System December 18, 1996
nro uc ion oen na emar s i>
eGen c'.bande
~
~
r ailiza iopial
unctiona rea resenters
>>nro uc iono resen ers
en a
0
~ MPBI I II I'g R.G I I Id I t(S e PES Status o uneratians
~ Engineering Direct"r o Engmeenng e Health Physics
~ Corrective Action
~ Discussion a t.'Inc:inn Remarked:
~ ~~ ~ ~ tg 5 %~ ~ ~ 5%% ~
~
~. 'v'. r arrisn P
P Agmis A C~ I4 l
% ~ Vs VII IIllI C. J. Schwarz J. H. SwaBes J. A. IicDona!d J. P. Atbers G.O. Smith
,I V Parrish
ro ess onitorin an ssessment
>> Introduction and Goal
>>Attention on All Performance Enhancement Objectives
unctiona rea ro ess ssessment e EVOIVir1g iv1etr>OuOIOgv vViih 'Reai
>> Bi MOnthlv Fi)nCtiOnsl P%>N VN>I I IVI I LN BUwlvane\\e ~ Diss@ AIIrcpwaeva4 C'~na ae en Illlnaea
~ a ~wa~n4 Q4~
~~ I LJ~M~ ~I I )wl~cawul mlllm>IL MlallucII~~
ideniiivina Res uits
1-ont unctiona ssessment
~ Critical Assessment of Objectives and Initiatives
~ Example:
Implementation of Site Wide Ol-9 and Gold Card
~ Example:
Changes to Procurement Work Process Improvements
usiness an i nment a DrWSIrlne Ya ar4HInnel I Inn~a W I I MV IUVN
~ I RUILIVIIRI L III'QQI khssess ment OT YloGl ess
~ 'near Results Contrasted Against Qualitative Assessment a h era Ie na Ahlnr 4hsnc end I~I4I~4Iii~~
'W ~WWLII %@M,:
%asF MJ WVLI V CiW ClI ILI.,I I I I Ling L/g ++
are ppropr!ate W
easurement tan ar s
enti in esu ts
~ Objective Progress lIeasures Progress e Existing Measurement Standard Alignment
~ Develop New Measurement Standards o Continue Refining Measurement Standards
ssessment ree "
o or" an es e Kio Cnanoes Are Pianned
~
II lne 1 996 Self Assessvpe fit is plarIped r OIYlAIeheflslxle Self ]5,,ssessment KJlail ResLlir in performance Assessment Change
onC uSion
~ Cautiously Optimistic o Continue to Exercise and Refine Performance Enhancement Strategy
~ Anticipate Changes and Enhancements
err ant ana el T.~~~ ')hlnvlr W
I 'QCll I I IIVIA
>> Consisieni Team Focusea Goais
>> Ciear Expeciaiions Regarding teamwork and C'nial'8 ina4 inn M%st W I %4 ~ ~ ~ 'M Ir~ %J ~ ~
i> l2eiriforr e Iles(md RaheyIrarc
~ Efficjenny
>> Do it R(cCht The First Time
>> Maximize Multi-Task Workforce Ability
>> Continue Emphasis on Corrective Action Pro+ram
~ institLit!ona! !z!ng Lxcel!ence Oyerailolnls Set an4 Rel>>force Per lorrnance $[andards
>> ElllIIIIIale Perlo48 ol IIIcolIsis lent Perrormance 0
OCUS
~ Improve Safety Culture e Create a Management Oversight Presence
~ Foster Conservative Decision Making Environment
n anne cram s 2f' E. F~~
<L~k&~~; +4~
Akfg+~7 441<<< ~%
June July Aug Sept
&PAY 6 'p Gci iJov
stem er ormance Systems Unavailability 10 9
8 7
6 4
3 2
1 0
CIC Check Valve Problems
" O1 IP&e K4P$ 441li~la"f M
July Aug Sept Oct Nov 0 HPCS/RCIC IN RHR w Emerg AC Pwr
n anne stem ctuations
mer enc enerator
'reia ii June July Aug Sept Oct Nov
a aci actor 1 20 )
100 3 So -I 85.7 94.5 R~~
ann e I VC.Q 97 A 4U: ]
20 $
Jul~
Aug Sept
n anne a
a 11 actor OSS e
10 9.2 1.8 0.5 July Sept Oct Nov
ota s WNP-2 Operations servation 600 3 inn 486
~K%
512 511 CGA W
I RIRÃ5 400 )
300 J 200 1
<oo )
erations O'
rea v
cores 100 90 80 70 00 60 CO 50 40 30 20 10 g8 g 997 98.5 98.7 99.1 99.5 IOct IINov Procedure Use RO Awareness Hanging COs
WNP-2 Operations Significant PERs 12 2P nV June July Aug Sept IIiaiion T~t aperations
v j.wA Management Oversight Program Oversight Program data accumulation ongoing s Total Observations
@Avg Score Nov Dec Jan
WNP-2 Operations OV Tech Spec Violations Ju)y AUg 5 LERs Sept IIIXOvs Oct Nov
July Aug Sept Oct Nov
~ULLlMellU. j. IUglcklll onservative ecision B. 1n Sept
~ DYAVLAI+I AA ~P/I ~ A ~ ~A~
r lVga'OV IVllbubC Ort
ana ement nvo vement o Create environment in which Operations staff accepts, implements and reinforces management expectations at all times.
KNP-2 Operations HPI - Clearance Order Performance ED UJ 4?
/X
/
0 Aprii
/YIBy June Juiy Aug Sept Oct Nov 0
Gold Card Program wners i ccounta i i 1
50 40 E
30 20 0
L
'10 Z
Aug Sept
~ Proper Use Misuse Oct Nov
WNP-2 Operations Aubrey Daniels Training 30 q
,27 OU 30 20 3 W Total Participants Sl Ann DarHntn~~fn EKI ~PM I C4I Ll'&IRAQIILV 0
Feb Mar Month of Class
ro em enti ication
~ Increase the number of PERs generated as a result of Operations'nvolvement in plant activities.
~ Develop a common understanding among Operations staff regarding the need to document problems so that they can be properly characterized and fixed.
WNP-2 Operations PER Initiation 90 80
-I I 0 003 50 I
40 J so 2U
~o
-I 9Q MR MR 22 68 M
81 RM 30 18 Sept Oct Nov a Ops<enerated 0 Ops Dispositioned 0
ro em eso ution o Improve the system for reviewing chronic problems and operator work-arounds.
Clearly communicate system to Operations staff.
erations erator or aroun s
70 q 69 64 56 4p )
5 TotBI Open IIC1osed 10 0-
-WSep
%Get t-Nov
+Dec 0.
WNP-2 Operations Control Room Deficiencies 60 50 0.8 40 30 32.8 20 10 Sept Oct Average per month Nov
WNP-2 Operations Open Work Status 40 q noVemoer
.i ~zv 30/
30 25 20 )
21
~Open Ql >30 days l0
~ V 0
va<uion Tags TeAlp MOOS LCoiinop (Broke/Fix) 0.
lIB i o
erations
~ Improve the process and common understanding of issues among Operations staff which leads to preventing recurrence of minor events.
WNP-2 Operations A PER Rejections
~ %J Y
II 7 Jl 7V 6f 4f' sV V.
2 I
0 l-'
(y4~P e~
JUlg
"-'@FAN'P.q P fg '
Q 8>>: )
f+Aeg~fh~
Sept Oct blov
WNP-2 Operations Control Rod Mispositioning Events 0
Jan Mar May July Sept Nov
WNP-2 Operations ngineering Communiiations AV
~r 1
P~gRk) gP)t~
~W-'5:-':.
i%If Sept R
Oct Nov n~ Good m Poor
Gold Card Program roce ure om iance
~ 10 E
8 o
4 0
L 2
E Z
0 Aug Sept
~ Proper Use Misuse Oct Nov
Gold Card Program ective ommunications 4h I M
'1-8 J CA 63
'U (3
4 e-2~
Z AV PUri Sept
~ PI'OPer USe ~iMISUSe O~4 NOV
Gold Card Program e
ec in I
'10 8
E 4
0 0
L Z
Proper Use Misuse Aug Sept Oct Nov
uestionin Gold Card Program ttitu e e
SO)
~~
25 J D
V) 0s 2U]
o
<5-I
~0 cn g)
I ll E
5$
Aua Sept Oct
~Prone'ice
~ IVIici~c~
~
~ ~ %sf %4%@ %g
ro ams an roce ures
~ Assure all staff members strictly follow procedures e Ensure Operations management makes decisions regarding the need for procedure deviations in accordance with approved procedures
WNP-2 Operations HPI - Procedure Compliance 12 11/
8
,I Sl z
4
//
g 7
Jt!po Nov
~
WNP-2 Operations HPI - Configuration Control I
3 Ill 0
2 E
z 0
April May June Ju/y Aug Sept Qct NOV
WNP-2 Operations Procedure Deviations 8r. Change Requests Arininafnrl hei An@ nnrennnnl.
~ I lg II ICl I M%A LJf ~ PM PM I MUI I I IM I can 100
-I 80 )
Po 8U1 l0 J z
20 -I 0
101 95 SII June 36'uiy 56 Aug Sept OGt I
15 ~
NOV g P~g~dI Ire DeylgtinnS ml Plhl ePII II'8 Charm@ Poq1 5aetc e.
orr ective ctions o Ensure Operations staff accepts issues brought to them by other station personnel
~
ew n ineerin irector wR1 es a Vision ior ihe Future
~ Djrectorate Assessment a Critic aj issues o Engineering Directorate Mission a Timino
ne enent e
ssessment o
n ineerin
~ Performance Unchanged
~ Problem Identification:
>> Some favorable indications.
~ Problem Resolution:
>> Performance has remained inconsistent.
>> Good at obvious problems, weakness on subtle problems.
~ Alignment:
>> Still some mis-alignment of priorities.
>> Too many corrective actions of little value.
LLI'l0.'4P '4IIQ.L Lll LJ L LL ssessment o
n ineerin cont.
PisN~ ~ sg~ ~~ ~
r rruqrcar!!v.
>> Mod!f!cation development YifQQess gets inh done but it is!nefficient QonrJ p! on! ess nn fi!e paotect!oq seal p~og~~+
and relief vulva nrnnrem Va ~ ave a wasws w ea ~ s ~ gas <<gs va ~ ~ ~ ~
0 pERs.
AAo/ A4i nII DCDi see IHHAA4A CKRaKAavs n WW IO VI aII I I IXV QOOIQIIQL4 lV I llglllgg[lf,/g,
>> Problem systems
- p!ant stack monitor, RCiC.
CMS and coritainment bypass paths.
LJ.i%4.L PL QLLL LLL LJL LJ.
ssessment o
n ineerin cont.
~ Backlogs:
>> Significant effort to disposition TERs but 533 still pending Engineering evaluation.
>> Number and age of Temporary modifications a concern:
13 open temporary mods.
6 open longer than six months.
1 open since 1988.
n ineerin uman er ormance ren Human Performance PERs in Enaineerino A///
W/
Mat'-85 glpy 95 lg) 95 Sep-95
n ineerin 01'C 0
~ PTL Work items greater in 1995 compared to 1994.
~ PTL Backlog continues to grow in 1995.
e.
esource or va uations
~ System Engineering priorities defined.
o Plant goals.
~ Estimated overload in man-years.
~ Evaluated 96 project list.
esource or oa-atc va uations-cont.
e auneluereu uruC;VS> lmurOVementS.
a 7Aa ~ brae eA kIIAn+4 e+~VAAAlh w c.ei v uaeau uLIugaa a@ps vavi > ~
a Eisalgated Po) itine Dailu d Cfiyikjea
~ Re( QmmendatlQns I'evlelpfed ~ith plant.
stem n ineerin rimar I es Onsl 1 ltles
~ Maintain knowledge of system status
>> Review logs, instrumentation, observe operation
>> Evaluate surveillance test results
>> Evaluate system or program performance
>> Prepare, direct and document special tests
~ Provide follow-up corrective action for items identified o Support maintenance activities.
~ Maintain a system improvement plan
stem n ineerin ime ocation Plant Nods 7%
Perf Mon 2%
PERs 18%
Maint Support 26%
A ply~ m a OOI 0 /0 Admin ae IV Other
%P IV ee' Nir~5@~K<
LA)~II Procedure V8 V 2%
Ops Support 220/
$0/
Work Load/ Resource Actions In Concert with Affected Organizations
~ Goal: Accountability o Reallocate resources.
~ Re-evaluated projects/programs.
~ l3rop low priority activities.
~ Process changes.
o Backlog reduction.
ommon oa s
~ Dose QIIYFlifirant DnIe~nvlAI c ch
%etIQI ~ ~ IIvc4~ IL
~ ~I ++) gg g'Q$ L [ [ Qf
~ system Perrormance indicators y Qhronir Problems e Work Grder Aoe and Bar kion
~ Contro! Room Deficiencies e Capability Factoj.
~ Valve Function:
>> Outboard primary containment isolation valve for RCIC vacuum pump discharge.
>> Line routes noncondensibles to suppression pool.
~ Safety Significance:
>> Classified as QC1 and SR
~ Engineering Analysis:
>> RCIC able to perform its function without use of vacuum pump and components.
Ddie A/0 E/A<
.J/ I VlJ3 9/17/95 9/18/95 10/16/95 Eveni RCIC-Y -28 didn't open; aeciared -inoperable."
Valve declared "operable but degraded."
P 1 A C1GAPA cllnAAe+inrr
~~~~~41~ l "+2, 2
J ))
a i Lm uayaaww SupfJAJI llllf vpvi QUIQ bUl uvgr dUVU, Identified weekly stroKing not performed.
Valve fails test:.but not declared lno+crab le.
11/16/95 XlQ ILIA QAltOttAN finnr inn t~~
CLl.,Y:V,ClglLClllUll L L.M&i3 Y CLl-Y-Mo~
Analysis shows RCIC-V-28 not needed for on crab i1it'll RCIC 12/8/95 Valve changed to stainless swingcheck.
CtionS
~ FAOs will not be issued without assigning formal responsibility for actions required
. for operability.
~ Engineering and Operations management provide clear guidance to engineers regarding shared responsibility with Operations for operability determinations.
ctions - conf e Dvstem crigirleer involvement A w~wI Iva4'n kll~4'it ~ ~< >~i r' t%&MLJLIIILClklIlllj( Clll4 Pl o I L 'es e Lesson L arned Or, Use of FAQ 0.
5.3E uali o Health Physics Collective Radiation Exposure,...
250 Man-Rem 200 150 100 50 IIMan-Rem
.~C 4Q".
1 95 395 595 795 995
on uta e
vera e
ont hllANfk'la) hAOAP DI~ IA DAVAAVDAKVAAAKfA IIN
~g <w<v>>Lissy uvaav u)ua uv> uc) ncpleoellLo 21.5 IKAa SAfHI A 'L(AV6AA 'FAV BRAID s> <uuva> y nv viage
<v> uwv n.
I Cia ~
~
10.z VeV Jan -Mug93 Sep 93 - Aug 94 Sep 94-Aug 95 Sep - Nov 95
ose ie in ro'eels
~
Shieldin of RHR Pum Room "B".Pi in
~
Reduction of General Area dose rates near piping from 30-40 mrem/hr to 12-14 mrem/hr. Reduction of contact dose rates on piping from 600 mrem/hr to 160 mrem/hr.
Shieldin of Instrument Rack P004
~
Shielded several hot spots (to 30 R/hr) around SDV Tank, reducing general area dose rates from an average of 250 mrem/hr to 100 mrem/hr. This effort
'esulted in relaxing posting requirement from High-High Radiation Area to High Radiation Area.
~
Shieldin of Instrument Rack P026
~
Shielded several level switches in and around the SDV Tank, reducing general area dose rates from 400 mrem/hr to 200 mrem/hr.
DOSE REDUCTION EFFORTS SHIELDING PROGRAM Chaalrdinn nf Chil Lln~r4na hh~asa P Qll LlP I l>n vasss svsas vs vu v a avcav~a nuvvs vayu a avy a Reduction of contact dose rates on the header by approximatelv 70% and fhn nnnaral orna Ana O rafnC:"nn %ha firma halnaas the hnvrlev I ss ~
~
a..
s ~ sv /vs svs Ns Ns vQ %4vvv
~ 4svv vs ~ ls ~ %t
~ svva u'lr ~ %JIB s ~ sg a agggga ug Qppf QXim)4[e/y 25"/o.
~
Hot S ot RemovaT: A 8 8 RNCUHoTd-u Pum Rooms
'" Roo;= Reduc~n-in-generaI-area dosevates from~0 mrem jhr to 30 mremihr.
"R" +oo, = +eductioA in-generaI-Brea dense r8168-XmfA460 fArem/hr to I 6 mremihr.
~
Hot S ot Removal - RNCU Precoat Tank Area ReuuctioA in general area. dose rates Irom 260 rnlfemjhrio 20 mremjhr, allowing for the elimination of High-High Radiation Area.
DOSE REDUCTION EFFORTS FLUSHING PROGRAM
~
RWCU Suction Manifolds Pre-Flush contact dose rates 600 mrem/hr to 5 R/hr. Post-flush contact dose rates 500 mrem/hr to 2 R/hr. Approximate 20'/0 reduction.
RFW Low.Point Drains Pre-flush contact dose rates 20-25 R/hr. Post-flush contact dose rates 100 mrem/hr to 1 R/hr. Approximate 30'/0 reduction contact dose rates, 30'/0 reduction general area dose rates.
~
RHR Sensor Lines Pre-flush contact dose rates 450 R/hr; general area dose rates 28 R/hr post-flush contact dose rates 400 mrem/hr. Approximate 70'/0 reduction in general area dose rates.
DOSE REDUCTION EFFORTS FLUSHING PROGRAM PAP I snn C4n~wa T) IKAAIO'A Qsswaaa~
a us W
a
~ ~ ay = VlQQII I I LllIIIQ'I lV OUIII S
Pre-flush contact dose rate (hnt ~nay) on R/hr p
~'fl h
~ ie
~
~ ~
~
~ M<l I I44 I I 4' I I 1CI4l Aweam en4ra lkw4 wmm4%
A 5'II uvre I,aLQ [IIVLOPVlJ IeV Rlflfe RPV M4 8 N~ozztes
-Post4'lush-general area dose~te
- factor of4 general area dose rediiction
~
ISI - RWCU Pi in 10$ Valve Area Post-flush results - approximate 30 person-rem savings overal,
DOSE REDUCTION EFFORTS FLUSHING PROGRAM 0
~
Radwaste Bld 437'rocessin Area Drain Lines Pre-flush contact dose rates R/hr; general area dose rates 3-5 mrem/hr. Post-flush contact dose rate 100 mrem/hr; general area dose rates <1 mrem/hr. Approximate 4 rem savings.
~
RWCU-V-136 ISI NDE - approximate 2 rem savings.
~
RFW-V-70/71 lSI NDE - approximate 1 rem savings.
~
RWCU Hold-u Pum Rooms A 8 B - approximate factor of 2 general area dose rate reductions.
o RWCU Pi in Chemical Decontamination
- approximate 15 rem savings.
DOSE REDUCTION EFFORTS FLUSHING PROGRAM
~
Reactor Bid~422'DR Lines (HPCS 8, CRD AiixRooms>
Flushing efforts have reduced qeneral area dose rates bv a factor of 3. !upon completion of. ongoing vrork in these areas, totals dose savings to tie determined)
~
I%ad vvasL8 Bld 467'.Pre-Coat Tank Aiea Pipin" removal a factor of 4.
has.resulted in general area dose rate reduction by
Dose Reduction EHorts Throu Scheduling EHiciency
~
1995 Percent Worked to Schedule 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
R-10 Outage 495 6 95 8 95 10 95
DOSE REDUCTION THROUGH AREA DECONTAMINATIONEI'I'ORTS
~
Reactor Bld 522'Elevation c 'a cdhL PILIVUUIIIuldLOIAled W~c:f Rirl~ hr r IImlll~tnrhrn~
0
% %%sF lt 4'
%% w' 1V%%
~ ~ %e IVY'hW 0
~
1 ~ V'Vl
- P004 Instrument Panel
- P026 Instrument. Panel
= East Side-Reach-c-Flmv-Contml HCU
- 'A'est Side-Recure-FIow-Cmtrol HCU
~
Reactor B!d: 606'levation
- West End of Refueling Floor
- Stack Monitor PlaiformiFloor Area
~
Radwaste Bldg Elevation
~ -437'atwalk 8 Valve Access Area at RwCl l Batch Tank
~
- 437'atwalk 8 Valve Access Area at RWCU Batch Tank
~
- 467'DR Pumo Area A 8 B Vabte-AHey-
-487 Hot I 8 Q Shop Turbine Generator
- 441-'-Condenser northeast corner.
~
- 471'ehind shieidwaii (entire}
S 50'I
~ Behind e Qjeldhgll lent
DOSE REDUCTION THROUGH AREADECONTAMINATIONEFFORTS
~
Reactor Bld 606'll floor space (except shroud laydown)
- 548'orth 5 South Pipechase
- 522'orth Pipechase
- 501'estside Pipechase, Steam Tunnel Entrance, SW 8 East Valve room
-471'W Corner Pipechase, West pipe/valve room
~
Radwaste Bld
- 507'ntire floor
- 487'ot Machine Shop to equipment
- 467'll valve alleys not posted HR/HHR
~
Turbine Generator Bld
-441'7 Sump Area Note: these areas have traditionally been maintained as contaminated zones, however decontamination of these area can be reasonably achieved.
DOSE REDUCTION THROUGH DECONTAMINABLECOATING APPLICATIONS Area IEleyation) Blrln)etc )
Flnnr Cnyerage (ft )
Wall Cnyerage lft~)
Total Cnyerane /ft~l 441'G 471'G 501'G 437) Rw
'A&BFEEDPUMP ROOM 422'X RCIC 12)136 7,200 20,520 42 525 1 1,837 5,600 1)380 9,600 31 200:
37,504 7,100 3.180
-422 RX HPCS 422'X LPCS 422'X RHRC Jhtl) I\\V P)IA) AlIV rv) II10 AOCA
%CC BA-RVV HVArulV)r V~l:~
422'X - CRD PUMP AREA SWPH 1A & 1B I)h 8 VC%
628 840 A)III I )%$ V 1,452 5,780 C)JUU 2,700 4.200 w r))r I)PCS 1,660 7,040 TOV)ILS(~)
T 105,04"2 115,909 NOTE: Areas shown above include equipment and hardware 19,336 30,120 73 725 49,341 12,700 4)560 3,824 3,328 5)040 3)045 3 112 12)820 220,951
ose e uction orts in
'nera ccess reas
~ Reduction in Average MREM per RCA Hour: 0.035 mrem/hr
~ Hours Spent by Employees in General Areas:
26,675 hour0.00781 days <br />0.188 hours <br />0.00112 weeks <br />2.568375e-4 months <br />s/month
~ Total Monthly Dose Savings JenUery g October Data:
erson
ose e uction orts in enera ccess reas hlI V
0.5 ~
0.3 0.2 U
~
I II1995 A ygr3n 6 i"vl R E Iv) per RCA H'our 0
Oct
0 ren in PERs Classified as "Personnel Error" PER Occurrences 1.5 0.5 0
0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
uman er ormance n icators 0 PBffOl'NBACB mVBr"slgrI I. OuservatiQns L
n t a
w2<Ar 30-(
0 b
25 3FP CT
.nor LJ I
uman er ormance n icators
~ Human Performance Weaknesses 90 80 70 P
e e
60 r
r 50 c
r e04o n
r 30 20 10 0
AUG SEP 4kr~lQfgA
uman er ormance Improve human performance at WNP-,2 0 IUlanaaement initiative to jmnroye hiram
~ an~
wAsetw se wa a va ra m ra ~ wa sa I~ 4 ~ al
@&I I LJ I I I ICIIIlr&'VMlI IPIVlVUs s
WIINQli l1hYfhl'NQI1hh nhAIAIHA4AI AA 4:
~ Iae ~ ~ Isa ~ ~ y%ri IvlI ~ IQIIv%r VVVIlAIIIClVI fJUOIlIUIl esiaoiisiiea.
~ internal ancl exter nal attitudes regarding human peHqrmance identified.
e Current initiatives to imorove human performance "ompleted.
0 Assess devices being-Used to FAonltor hu>> ian ance completed.
WNP-2 Personnel Success Index Assess Effectiveness of Departmental Human Performance 1.60 Errors er 10,000 Hours Worked 1.30 1.00 0.70 0.40 0.10
-0.20 3
5 7
9 11 1
3 5
7 9
94 94 94 94 94 94 95 95 95 95 95 95
WNP-2 Significant Errors Goal WNP-2 Personnel Errors
Personnel Errors By Organization November 1995 eaaa etatm'eS>a~a,IVVV~ CVuWVwse(e,ta'vi '
t'~VvWca Vv4 >V AV+ ~ V'VVIA OP:NPFiVJAACW8&eC FCAVl4%4%$%~
Of
>iA 3LI E] Personnel Errors 5 ~ig) <indicant. rrrors If N'l 5
0.3 Corrective Action Improve the effectiveness of corrective actions in correcting and preventing the recurrence of significant deficiencies.
~ Corrective Action Review Board (GARB}formed and implemented.
~ Ongoing review of Significant PERs to assess adequacy of corrective actions.
o Ongoing GARB feedback to PER dispositioners.
orrective ction eview PEK DisnnSifinnS - Annrnyed A~ l~
IN anol i7V /0 80o/o-
~nol lV/o 60 J 50 /o 40'9'/o 20o/o-10o/o 0'/o m mpproVeo.
10-21-
-- JUI-J8-21=
11-23-13=
Aug Sep Gci Oct Nov 0-
orrective ction eview
'ar 40%
35%
30%
25%
20o/
15%
10%
50/
00/
IIReturned I
10-24-7-
21-4-
18-2-
16-30-13-27-Jul Jul Aug Aug Sep Sep Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov
113.
1 0
UB 1 ssurance
~ Address Qualitv Assessment of Performance Enhancen.ent Strategj;
~ Quality Assessmerit of PERs O.
UB 1 ssessment o
~ CA Audit 295-073
>> Assessed Implementation Plan and Measurement Standards
~ Nine Surveillance's, Four Audits Since October 1995
>> Seven PES Initiatives Evaluated During Audits
>> Five Initiatives Evaluated During Surveillance's
~ Initiatives Are Being Implemented
~ Initiatives Appear on Track
~ Further Formal Audits on Semi Annual Basis
S CV1CWC QB 1 140< ~a I 207 ann&
60 T
~la Totei
~lg Modified 20+
AV tun Jul
~~C4KM~
Jul Aug Aug Sep
eturne e...
0 is ositions 40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
50/
00/
10-JUI 31-Jul 21-Aug 11-Sep 2-Oct 23-Oct S Returned 13-Nov
'A