ML20116D296

Rev 2 to Nuclear Generation Group Manual 305-05, Prioritization Process

ML20116D296
Person / Time
Site:	Harris, Brunswick, Robinson
Issue date:	08/31/1992
From:	CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
References
305-05, 305-5, NUDOCS 9211050293
Download: ML20116D296 (26)

Text

.. -. .

~

c.. .p. ,aL w e - r NGGM 305 05

$t CT ION -

TE N ICA1.

NUCLEAR GENERATION -

GROUP MANUAL SU83tCT:

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS APPLICABILITY: Nuclear Generation Group and Nuclear Assessment ,

Department  !

l PURPOSE: The Nuclear Prioritization Process provides a means of:  !

• Assigning priority numbers to work activities based on their single most significant attribute.

. Ranking larger, more complex projects by assigning Schedule Index o (SI) to them based on their total weighted contribution to key attributes.

. Facilitating managener ' decisions on implementing major projects based on their Schedule Index as well as the expected economic consequences of their implementation.

Proper use of the Prioritization Process contributes to a common language and to a common understanding among all Nuclear Generation Group employees concerning the relative importance of work activities. This will result in a more efficient decision inaking process, yielding better resuurce allocation decisions in our planning and budgetin6 functions.

ATTACHMENTS: (1) Nuclear Prioritization Process Flowchart (2) Work Activity Priority Procedure (3) Work Activity Priority Table (4) Scheduling Index Procedure (5) Scheduling Index Workshest (6) Schedule Index Attribute Definitions, Weights, and Scaling Factors (7) Scheduling Index Flowchart (8) Financial Evaluation Procedure (9) Cost Benefit Worksheet (10) EESY Worksheet ADDENDA: (1) Brunswick Nuclear Project PRA Guidance (2) Robinson Nuclear Project PRA Guidance (3) Harris Nuclear Project PRA Guidance

REFERENCES:

(1) NGCM 305 08 Plant Modification Screening and Selection Process (2) Integrated Plannin5, Budgeting, and Scha+: ling 0300ia.u Process 9211060293 920031 - n PDR ADOC". 05000261

! E PDR / [, A}(

h h (

DatE: PAGE; gpgggg NCGM/305 05a 1 of 4

c.. e. , a ues n e-e-e NGGM 305 0$

SE CTION -

TECHNICAL NUCLEAR GENEFtATION GFIOUP MANUAL svencT:

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS l DEFINITIONS: (1) Explicit commitment: A written or oral comitment to a regulatory agenc;- for specific actfon. (Failure to perform would likely result in a Material false Statement or a Violation.)

(2) Implicit commitment: A commitment made through 1 licensing documents which does not meet the  ;

criteria for an explicit commitment but which requires some action to maintain full compliance.

I (3) Compensatory action: Any action designed to compensate for or substitute for an item of equipment, barrier, or other device such that the purpose of the equipment, barrier, or other device, which has malfunctions, is met by other j regulatory acceptable means.

CENERAL INFORMATION: The Nuclear Prioritization Process utilizes three

" tools:" (1) the Vork Activity Priority System (2) the Schedule Index, and (3) the Economic Evaluation System.

(1) The Work Activity Priority System provides a means of prioritizing available work activities in eder of importance based on their single, mo s.: important attribute. The resulting priority order indicates the sequence in which work activities should be addressed, all other thines brinc caual. Particular circumstances may require some adj us tment , however, this should only be to the extent that is necessary.

(2) The Schedule Index Systes provid6s a ranking of maj or proj ects (as defined in Reference 1) in terms of their overall contribution based on the multiple attributes of the Schedule Index. The sequencing and scheduling of major projects is based on the Schedule index as well as other considerations including:

• prgency

• external commitments

• goals and objectives (3) The Economic Evaluation System (EESY) is designed to perform standard economic analyses for proj ects throughout CP6L. EESY is an interactive system which employs a cash flow methodology using present value concepts in evaluating the

._ n .. n~

DATE M P PaGE:

AUG 1992 R E y y Necanos.osa 2 of 4 2

c...*=e e. , a M cm NGGM 305 05 SE CT ION '

tem 1 CAL NUCLEAR GENERATION GROUP MANUAL svex ct' PRIORITIZATION PROCESS econorsic desirability of a project. The authorization for final design and installation of teost major projects is based on consideration of the EESY econornic analysis and the Schedule Index as well as other external considerations.

The relationships between these three " tools" is depicted on Attachment 1.

Additional specificity shall be provided in the area of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) of safety impact.

The general guidance provided herein will serve to guide the procasa and facilitate communication and anderstanding until plant specific guidance is available. Revisions incorporating plant specific guidance based on revised / improved PRA will receive limited Review / Approval Transmittal prior to final approval, SCOPE OF COVERAGE: 1. Types of Vork to Vhich Prioritization Proe m _11 Molicable:

(1) Plant modifications (2) Plant, people, and process enhancernents/

improvements (3) Preparations and support for re5ulatory inspections (4) Programs to meet regulatory requirements or NRC tasks (5) Adverse condition Reports (including self-initiated ACRs)

(6) INPO, NUr4 ARC, NHL, ANI, Cresap, and similar agency / consultant follow up items (7) Corrective action for significant conditions adverse ro quality, reliability, commercial concerns, or personnel safety (8) VR&A's (9) Work to curport:

a. fea3, design

b. Lice" sing

c. mo4A11estian dauelopment

d. PSAR aneMempt

e. procedure revision (10) Special trainitig (11) Administrative support of prioritized projects (12) Engineering support of prioritized projects (13) Procurement of materials to support prioritized projects D'EG 1992 R E V 2 3 of 4 NGCM/305 05a_

' ~

c..

cp&L

.e. aticee m N:GM 305 05 SE CTION

• TEGNICAL NUCLEAR GENERATION GROUP MANUAL svenc1:

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

2. Tyres of Work to Vhich the Prioritization Protram is NOT Applicable:

(1) Baseload day to day operations activities, e.g.:

a. Housekeeping

b. Chemistry and radiological controls activities (2) Administrative tasks (3) Personnel management (4) Routine training

($) Total Quality tnis ef forts (6) Corporate projects

a. rate case / prudence audit support

b. United Way/ Project Share / PAC / Blood Drives c, support of EPRI, IEEE, etc.

d. support of professional society committees

e. support of various owners groups

f. preparations of responses to intervenors, allegations, regulatory inquirios (7) Accounting (8) Planning 6 Scheduling (9) Routine procurecient ANNUAL FEEDBA K OF LESSONS IZARNED: 1. Each Department is responsible for gathering and consolidating on an s.nnual basis lessons learned and suggestions for process improvement.

2. Nuclear Services Administration Section is responsible for s9nding a letter requesting departmental feedback during the third quarter of each year. Any revisions resulting from the feedback should be developed and approved by January 15 of the following year to support the business planning and budgeting cycle.

TRANSITION CUIDANCE: It is recognized that, full compliance with this revision will not be achieved within a few months. Departments should initiate a transition plan'such that compliance with this guideline is achieved concurrent with the l development and submittal of the initial Department Integrated Schedule. I PAGE:

DaTE

• M2 R t i ;c ,

Ncca/305-osa 4 of 4

1 m etREy2 j NCG 385-65 Attachment I  ;

i i

NUCLEAR PRIORITIZATION PROCESS '

FLOWCliART i I

t t

START U

INITIAtt i Ac@t, __. WORK ACilVITY PRIORITY FROCEDURE

-i o

i ' I i i i 1 i

i ho U$t I

[ND PRIQRITY l I i i t 1 i i i vt$ 1 i i i " I i i i AS$10N I -

l ""$"ll' SCHEDULINGINDEXPROCEDUP.E I

... ,....... .............l..............., f i 1

?" 1 4 i DON ' T - I l' - . - - = = =

RNOW I USE it$ AS$10N l IN!flATE N00W 30$.08 SCHEDLLC > SCHEDULE > PROJECT W AND -

l thDEA lhD(A l PAPERWORK l IPOS 1P l t i L. .

I i CONDUCT l No l PRELIMINARY 6....... ....................y....... 4..........................,

EVALVATION i  !

-IP l l PL' ACE ON WORK -i ko ho 4 CONCEPTUAL PLAN PER 4 4 >$$9K 4 1250K SCOPE 8 4--

PRIORITY & -1 - -

? I CO$T EST 5 WORK AREA. '. 4 1 SCHEDULIho I Yt$ Yt$ . I PRACilCES I i 1 U l l

s -o q

U l PERFORW i i CO$f 6thEF11 .PERFORW l --

m 4- OR (($V -([$Y l N00W 305 84l ChD l ANALY$l$ ' ANALY$l$ l - AND r 1- *

-+ . IPBS 6..........,. .................... ,.

db

3. .

~ FINANCIAL EVAltjATION PROCED'JRE L

Y w,r--e +nc .c,,,, -s,. e,---, , . , - , ,. 4-  ;.nn-, , ~ , , , - , . . , , - , ..,, ., . ,---,-.-,n,g-n,..w..e,,--

,,nr+

Aus n92 R E V 2 sCCa 30s.os Attachm2nt 2 Page 1 of 1 t VORK ACTIVITY PRIORITY SYSTEM

Introduction:

All proposed work, subject to this process, will be initially ,

categorized, evaluated, and prioritized using this procedure.

~

Purpose:

To provide instructions for the use of ths Vork Activity  !

Priority _ System to assign priority to proposed work. (

e Procedure: The assignment of priority to proposed work consists of using  !

the Work Activity Priority Table (Attachment 3).

Action  ;

Initiate paperwork for the work activity in accordance 1.

with appropriate plant, department, or interdepartmental procedures.

2. Locate the Work Item category (WIC) on Attachment 2 which most accurately describes the credominant characteristic of the work to be done. The base priority number is given in the left hand column '

adjacent to the WIC definition.

NOTE: With the exception of priority "9," each priority has 2 or more WIC's associated with it, forming a priority " group." Ranking of WIC's within a priority group is *ndicated by alpha designators, i.e. , "A" WIC's are higher in rank than "B" WIC's which are higher in rank than "C" WIC's, etc.

The- complete priority designator consists of the base priority number together with the alpha designator, e.g., the priority of work item associated with

" Action to support a PT or ST" would be *4C."

3. Enter = the Priority on the appropriate work activity ferms, i

I l

l l-1 i

l l-l=

JW121502.BRM

-}

4 WORK ACTIVITY PRIORITY TABLE P9tORITY WORK ITEM CATEGORY A. ACTION TO CORRECT AN EXISTING OR IMMfNENT CONDITION INVOLVING NUCLEAF: SAFETY WHICH WILL PRESERVE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBUC OR PLANT PERSONNEL. [

r

} B. ACTION TO CORRECT AN EXISTING CONDITION WHERE A THREAT OF PSRSONNEL INJURY iS IMMINENT.

C. ACTION TO CORRECT AN EXISTIM' CONDITION WHERE A Tf TREAT OF ACUTE RADIAT!GN EXPOSURE >SREM TO AN INDIVIDUAL l$ IMMINENT.

A. ACTION TO CORRECT A CONDITIDN WHICH 8S IN VIOLATION OF A REGULATORY REQUIREMENT AND FOR WHICH COMPENSATORY ACTION CANN"JT BE PROVIDED.

B. ACTION TO CORRECT t CONDITION WHsCH. IF NOT CORRECTED, WILL RESULT IN NEAR TERM (<7 DAYS) VIOLATION OF A REGut.ATORY REQUtREMENT FOR WHICH COMPENSA1Osd ACTION CANNOT BE PROVIDED.

C. ACTION REQUIRED TO CORRECT A CONDITION WHCH SEVEEY H1NDERS APPROPRIATS RESPONSE TO ACCIDENT OR OPER ATIONAL TR ANSIENTS.

A. ACTION TO CORRECT A CONDITION WHICH WILL REQUIRE IMMEDtATE OR NEAR TERM (<7 DAYSI UNIT SHUTDOWN OR SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN CAPACtTY *

(250 MWe).

• 3 B. ACTI N T C RRECT A CONDITION WHICH DELAYS START-UP OR RETURN TO SERVICE. I C. ACTION BECOMETO SUPPORT A PRIORITY EVALUATION 1 ITEM OF A CONDITION WHtCH MAY BECOME A PRtORIT 1 ITEM OR TO CORRECT A CONDITION WHICH M OR G LIKELY TO IF NOT ADDRESSED. i t

A. ACTION TO SUPPORT EVALUATION OF A CONDITION WHICH MAY BECOME A PR10P 2 ITEM OR TO CORRECT A CONDITION WHfCH WILL OR H tl*RY TO j BECOME A PRIORITY 2 ITEM IF NOT ADDRESSED.

/

B. ACTION REQUIRED TO MEET AN EXPUCIT COMMITMENT TO A REGULATORY AGEn i C. ' ACTION REOutRED TO SUPPORT A PT OR ST.-

t D. ACTION REQUIRED TO MEET AN EXPUC2T INPO COMMITMENT.

E. ACTION REOutRED TO SUPPORT A PM ON SAFETY REL ATED EQUIPMENT. lr A. ACTIO LIKELY1TO TOBECOME SUPPORT EVALUATION A PRIORITY 3A OR OF38AITEM CONDtTION WHICH MAY BECOME A PRlORITY 3 A OR 3B ITEM OR TO CORRECT A CONDITION WHICH E OR 15 IF NOT ADDRE551D.

i B. ACTION TO CORRECT A CONDITION WHICH (S CAUSING OR WILL CAUSE OR RESULT IN A NEAR TERM (<7 DAYS) UNIT POWER REDUCTION 2 S MWe. ,

5 C. ACTI N T iMPR VE OR MAINTAIN UNIT AVAILAB!UTY (ENCLUDfNG REUAB8UTY OF POWER PRODUCING EQUtPMENT4.

D. ACTION REQUIRED TO SUPPORT NONREGULATORY REQUfRED TESTING OF POWER. PRODUCING EQUIPMENT. l 4

E. ACTION REQUIRED TO IMPROVE OR MAINTA6N UNIT CAPACITY (tNCluDtNG EFFICIENCY OF POWER PRODUC1NG EQUtPMENT) ,

j A. ACTION TO MAINTAIN THE PLANT'S HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE CONFIGURATION tN ACCORDANCE WITH UCENSE REQU1REMENTS. U I

, B. ACTION REOutRED TO MEET WRITTEN MANAGEMENT STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE. .

}. A - ACTION REQUIRED TO REDUCE CHRONIC RADIATION EXPOSURE TO PERSOMe . t .[

B. ACTION REQUlRED TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR A THREAT TO PERSOM 7 AFE1 C A. ACTION REQUtRED TO SUPPORT A PM ON NONSAFETY RELATED EQUtPMENT.' i B. A

' CTION REQUIRED TO SUPPORT NONREGULATORY REOUIRED TESTING OF NONPOWER PRODUCING EOulPMENT.

t g A.' ANY OTHER ACTION WHICH HAS BENEFIT. [

g 'I

.%... t 2 l _.

a I

.e

- + . - +.

< - . ~

,$ 1

" '* ' 5' 5 M WREV"~ acecchm3ne ( ,

Page 1 of-3 ,

SCHEDUI.ING INDEI PROCEDURE

Introduction:

The " Scheduling Index" proc e r,c is used fr % liminary Engineering and for 0&M and Capital modi *w ',Lons and proj ects , including people / process initiatives and/or improvements. It is intended to facilitate the selection (and/or scheduling) of larger projects based on weighted numerical scores. The more " worthy" project is the one with the highest numerical score. These scores, however, do not reflect the actual economic consequences . that would : result from selecting and implementing a specific project. For this reason, a Financial Evaluation (per Attachment 8) shall be developed to facilitate the management decision to proceed-with a project.

The Schedule Index procedure sets forth the basic elements of establishing the Schedule Index for a given project and for establishing the implementation schedule for the project using the Index.-- Reference is made to a generic scheduling process to illustrate the tie between prioritization =and. the establishment of project implementation schedules. Scheduling procasses may be site- or department specific but should use the ehedule Index in a consistent manner.

Purcose: To allow consistent evaluation, selection, and scheduling of larger, more complex proj ects that uniquely compete for-limited resources (labor, time, money, material).

Procedure:

Action

1. Initiate appropriate proj ect initiation and approval paperwork (in accordance with department or.

interdepartmental procedures). (Refer to process flowchart - Attachment 7.)

2. Evaluate item for. applicability of this procedure.

- Criteria are:

A. Is a major modification or major project that is uniquely funded (0&M line items 5 or 6; or Capital, excluding procurement of nonplant equipment and . programmatic proj ec ts ,- e.g.,

turbine overhaul) or that requires - assistance -

outside the Plant General Manager's staff.

OR Is an IPBS (reference 2) proposal or plan-(preliminary engineering).

JW121502.BRM

r 9 I NGCM 305 05 AUG 199211 E y 2 Attcch=3"t '

Page 2 of 3 ,

Action OR B. Any activity so designated by unit manager or higher.

NOTE: Development of a Schedule Index for items which have a priority of 1, 2, or 3 is not required. A Schedule index of 100 is assigned to insure appropriate ordering of projects on reports.

3. Determine the Scheduling Index for Priority 4 or lower proj ec ts by completing a Scheduling Index Work Sheet (Attachment 5). Evaluate People and Process projects with a view towar.1 which system (s) they will impact and the extent of that impact. If there is no *em(s) impact, the applicable attributes are Industrial safety, AIARA, and Plant Enhancement.

A. Indicate if this is an initial or a revisited determination.

B. Evaluate project's impact positive or negative, HICH, MEDIUM, IDV, or NO IMPACT -

on each attribute, and assign scaling factor accordingly.

Assignment of Scaling Factors is accomplished by matching the proj ect's anticipated impact with the Scaling Factor Guideline statement which most closely describes that irpact. See Attachment 6 for attribute definitions and scalin5 factors.

Note: Plant-specific NUCLEAR SAFETY Attribute cuidelines are provided. These are contained in the plant specific addends to this procedure. The addenda are to be used '

to select the Nuclear Safety Attribute scaling faccor based on the assessed impact of the project on the listed system (s).

C. Multiply scaling factor by predetermined weight factor, and sua the results.

D. The lines beside each attribute should be used to provide the basis for the particular scaling factor assigned, Specifically, all nuclear safety scaling factors, including 0, require a basis with reference to 50.59 evaluation,-

Probabilistic Risk Assessment, FSAR reference, Justification for Continued Operation, etc. A zero scaling factor for attributes other than nuclear safety requires no basis (leave basis blank).

JW121502.BRM

m M 305 05 AUG 1992 R E V 2 Attcchment:4~

. Pcgo-3 of-3

4. If a project results from an . explicit - or implicit-commitment to a regulatory agency, an INPo commitment or- --

is _ an action required ~to maintain the plant's configuration in accordance with license requirements.

(Priority 4B, 4D, or 6A), evaluate the Scheduling Index against a threshold value of 6. If the Scheduling Index is above 6, attach the worksheet to the paperwork from-Step 1, and route for review and approval. If below this threshold value, the project should be reconsidered for implementation, in accordance with department procedures (see fli,schart).

5. Evaluate the Schedule Index of projects, other than those outlined in Step 4, again t the- department-specific threshold value for plant betterment activities. If above threshold, attach Scheduling Index Worksheet to paperwork from Step 1, and route for review and approval. If below, process per Reference 1.

6. Determine initial schedule for new nroieces, based on the Scheduling Index and resource allocations. - In det3rminin5 the schedule, consideration may also be given to:

outage schedules coordination with other projects

- regulatory requirements or sensitivity the impact on other scheduled projects in the-Lon5-Range Plan the funding requirements of the project - O&M, Capital, or Preliminary Engineering

- Business Plan objectives other departmental considerations Guidelines--for review and approval of project schedules, including the impact to axisting project ' schedules -in -

the Long-Range Plan, should be established by each department, as appropriate.

7. Circumstances may indicate . that a revisiting of the Scheduling Index initially established is warranted due to changes in rankings of individual attributes (such as

-during proposal or plan development). .When a revisit is warranted, complete a new Scheduling Index worksheet,-

and mark the " Revisit" block.

8. If, for any reason -it becomes evident that the priority of a project-needs to be revised, contact the project i.ii tiator. If a revision is warranted, the initiator sitould initiate a _ revision in accordance -with the pci.oritization procedure and appropriate-departmental p rc.cedure s .

JW121502,BRM

• 3 5' 5 AUG 1992 R E V 2 Attachment 5 NUCLEAR PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS SCHEDULING INDEX VORKSHEET

1) Project I.D. Priority No. Date Title

2) Scheduline Index Determination Initial Revisit IMPACT SCALING FACTOR High Positive Impact 1.0 Medium Positive Impact 0.5 Low Positive Impact 0.2 No Impact 0 Low Negative Impact -0.2 Medium Negative Impact -0.5 High Negative Impact -1.0 S_cA1.Lcg Attribute Fa c t o,r ygighi Basis for Scaline Factor Nuclear Safety X 32 -

Industrial Safety X 29 -

Unit Availability X 12 -

Unit Capacity X 10 -

AIARA X 9 -

Plant Enhancement X 8 -

TOTAL Scheduling Index (Round TOTAL to nearest whole number)

3) Reviews /A0erovals Initiator Date others* Date-

• Department specific JW121502 BRM

SCHEDULE INDEI ATTRIrUTE DEFINITIONS, IGHTS, AND SCALING FACTOR CUIDELINES ATTRIBUTE WEIGHT SCALING FACTOR Nuclear Safety 32 The extent to which this project contributes to maintaining or improving the health and safety of the general public and plant employees, including reductions in core melt frequency, challenges to safety systems, release of radiation off-site, or increase in safety systems availabilities.

S S19 nificantly improves the availability of systems of high importance 1.0 in preventing core damage or containment releases by improving C reliability or operator performance.

L

• Significantly improves the availability of systems of moderate 0.5

{ importance, or moderately improves the availability of systems of

[4 high importance, in preventing core damage or containment releases by

(} improving reliability or operator performance.

p =

Impact on system availability improvement is: 0.2 Ik - significant for systems of low impot;ance; or

(] - moderate for systems of moderate or low importance; or qp - small for systems of high or moderate importance

() in preventing core damage or containment release by improving

(( reliability or operator performance.

No impact on important systems or low impact on systems of low 0 importance.

(}

• Impact on system availability degradation is: -0.2 k) - significant for systems of low importance; or I - moderate for systems of moderate or low importance; or >>

- small for systems of high or moderate importance

[) [j E in preventing core damage or containment release by degrading 55

[, reliability or operator performance. ro I

• Significantly decreares the availability of systems of moderate -0.5 pq importance, or moderately decreases the availability of systems of DU high importance, in preventing core damage or containment releases by -0.

decreasing reliability or operator performance. g3 S

Significantly decreaser the availability of systems of high -1.0 importance in preventing core damage or containment releases by decreasing reliability or operator performance.

IAh

_ -r 5

mms \mr:Mts\ scat t uc.uts 1

SCHEDULE INDEI ATTRIBUTE DEFINITIONS, WEIGHTS. AND SCALING FACTOR GUIDELINES A*1 TRIBUTE NEIGHT SCALING FACTUR Industrial Safety 29 The extent to which this project contributes to the reduction or elimination of an actual or potential situation that could cause injury to employees or the psgic.

• Eliminates a condition which has resulted in a lost time 1.0 S accident in the past or a condition which poses an immediate C threat of a rose time accident.

A

, L

• Eliminates a potential lonst time accident threat to 0.5 personnel safety which is not considered to be an immediate N threat; or a condition which has resulted in a doctor attended a cident in the past.

G p

• Eliminates a potential threat to personnel safety which is 0.2 not considered to be a condition which could result in a A iost time accident.

C T

• uo impact. O O

R

• Produces a potential threat to personnel safety which could -0.2 G result in a doctor attended injury.

1 I

D >

c o

E L

• Produces a potential threat to personnel safety which could -0.5 h N

result in a lost time accident.

{ =c N m E <

to S __

• Produces a potential threat to personnel safety which would -1.0 probably result in a lost time accident.

el NOMS \ MODO \NLB\$CALING.NLS .

2 U

i I

i 1 .

l SCHLDULE INDEI ATTRIBUTE DEFINITIONS. WEIGHTS, AN7 SCALING FACTOR GUIDELINES ATTRIBUTE WEIGHT SCALING FACIOR Unit Availability 12 The extent to which this project contributes to increasing unit availability, including reliability.

S Corrects a condition which has resulted in a loss of 1.0 generation'for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or more (or equivalent).

C A

L l

• Corrects a condition which has resulted in a loss of 0.5 generati n f r less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (or equivalent).

N G

p

• Corrects a deficiency which has a potential for a loss of 0.2 unit availability.

C I

• No impact. O O

R G Creates a deficiency which has a potential for a less of unit availability.

-0.2 I

D y E E L

• Creates a deficiency which has a lixelihood of producing . -0.s 5 loss of unit generation for less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (or N

}

equivalent). W N D E

S a

• Creates a deficiency which has the potential for producing a -1.0 loss of unit generation for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or more (or equivalent).

A l 'e a

noMsysxiointatstAtimG.mts 3

, . ab,'

SCHEDULE INDEI ATTRIBUTE DEFINITIONS. WEIGHTS. AND SCALING FACTOR GUIDELINES ATTRIBUTE WEIGHT SCALING FACTOR Unit capacity 10 l

'The extent to which this project contributes to increasing unit capacity, in megawatt hours, including efficiency.

3 Contributes an increase in unit capacity of SMWe/ hour or 1.0 more. '

A L  !

i l Contributes an increase in unit capacity equal to or. greater 0.5  ;

N th*" 2 ""*/h "'/h"h 2**" ***" 5 MWe/ hour.

G 6

p

• Contributes an. increase in unit capacity of less than 0.2 1 MWe/ hour.

A

-C  :

m d 1

• No impact'. 0 l 0 -i R;

G *-

Creates a condition which could cause a unit capacity loss -0.2 U of less than 1 MWe/ hour.

1 I D

E L

• Creates a condition which cousa cause a unit capacity loss -o.s k.

r -i i

} equal to or greater than 1 MWe/ hour /but less than 5 $

MWe/ hour. g. ,

M.

E S

WL Creates a condition which could cause a unit capacity loss -3.0 >

of 5 MWe/ hour or more. +

if:

L.E

. ii E

00ft3\ MODO \NL B\$ cat. thG.WL S 4

.c. -. , .

T'C~EDULE INDEI ATTRI"UTE DEFINITIONS, WEIGHTS, AND SCALING FACTOR CUIDELINES ATTRIBUTE WEIGHT SCALING FACTOR ALARA 9 The extent to which this project contributes to the cumulative radiation exposure to personnel.

S Produces a net dose savings for the remaining life of the 1.0 plant of greater than or equal to 20 person-rem.

A L

{

• Produces a net dose savings for the remaining life of the 0.5 P l ant of greater than 10 person-rem but less than 20 N person-rem.

G l'

I p

• Produces a net dose savings for the remaining life of the 0.2 l plant of greater than or equal to 1 person-rem up to 10 person-rem.

C T

• nesults in a net dose savings or expenditure for the O Q remaining life of the plant of less than 1 person-rem.

R G

• Reaults in a net dose expenditure for the remaining life of -0.2 the plant of greater than or equal to 1 person-rem up to 10 person-rem.

I D >

E Si L

• Results in a net dose expenditure for the remaining life of -0.5 h

{ the plant of greater than 10 person-rem but less than 20 person-rem.

M

c N

m E <

S so Results in a net dose expenditure for the remaining life of -1.0 the plant of greater than or equal to 20 person-rem.

5

.i.aE WO45VKDO\Nt s \ SCAL I hG. N'.s 5

SCHEDULE INDEI ATTRIBUTE DEFINITIONS, WEIGHTS, AND SCALING FACTOR GUIDELINES ATIRIBUTE WEIGHT SCALINO FACTOR Plcnt Enhancetnant 8 The extent to which this project contributes to improvement in the operations and/or maintenance of the power plant, including consideration of improvements to programs, procedures, surveillance requirements, etc.

$ Signi*icant increase in worker productivity, motivation, or 1.0 error avoidance not related to capacity or availability improvements.

A L

J

• Moderate increase in worker productivity, motivation, or 0.5

• '" ' "" id*" * " ' ***d * '*P*'i'Y " *"** *'i2i'Y N improvements.

G p

• Minimal increase in worker productivity, motivation or error O.2 avoidance not related to capacity or availability A improy ments.

C T

• Inconsequential impact. o.o O

R G "ini=*i decr**** ia worker Producti,1ty, motivation, or -0.2 error avoidance not related to capacity or availability U decreases.

I D

E g b

• Moderate decrease in worker productivity, motivation, or -0.5 *

} error avoidance not related to capacity or availability G decreases.

N ru E :o m

S <

Significant dccrease in worker productivity, motivation, or -1.0 error avoidance not related to capacity or availability decreases.

{ i g, I .5 N04S\ MODO \NLB\SC AL ING.edLB 6 .*

iIl Ill! li 7Qy vow 8Ow yG 9 hj;t);*r e '

cg) @9m g N :< 04 s

s t S fo 5e  !

um nE E tt EE k u 3 aII ndaasE D Co aI e a t m( ee EDIT e I1 Ds fT sC t

l eg Ef offsP nS sE e PJta eJu u' ODuT oI IOe Rl u um ecs oa 6uot o9DGaQMsm t

s Ea Pe ai mD C P S ePfCt t

s etECfi MoPmSat E * = e

• S eee

^

W" i

o o N n

/

tD S E S HD T R S 5tE tE E A O E fit uT T T tau

!5D4 f IT .a T4P?O s1p ED O. N a7 HN Ca G.L1 E G f0(

50O Sm N EM S E

R T nd R EoM A

l T

ATRA UC aN L

i LAGP C aPN 6 i

d vmO j

EIL .

W  : 0 s

a O C I

0 L F I 8 C

F E E S

/

S l P

S E6 L3 ce T a O R E Y

u f

X  !

hD 5Ds U

7 lTO T.AP7 5

SF E EL 1fE HD O Ln G.Ui E

C D a s

o CN 6 C Tw n

SI M E T U N aE R GM N

S I 5 E

Pm Ee

IK SE S

E

• DY S NG D E EA G e

• Y CE A

N 7 Iim

• I E 7 . ee Lu 10A T L Ua I46 L C 5D 5R F E E U 1(E e s 1O 4 I80 C

w 0 J

D CO Si R4 P

A A C P E

l f

l C o n

S ,

I E

sal AE GUI OT 1DE E A $ED TDE SHM CIL ACI EDI S JNF EA  ;

RC S

E T

G s a O C

l Sl e Il N E TlEn D EuDE ? N EDNT s

E e(II e R C C S

0 e

RDC s I!T E TCf PPE f T Cla T0 uT e*e C8DGI ElW Ji OmJ t E1N1R LRA5O aIc RRN Ef 5I PFo wCC Sf AR ED EPP A P D

a*e l  ! l l l f

'.j!  ;'

NGCM 305 05 AUG 1992 R E V 2 Attachasnt 8 Page 1 of 1 FINANCIAL EVALUATION PROCEDURE

Introduction:

The " Financial Evaluation" process is used to quantify the financial lupact of work items. Used in conjunction with the Scheduling Index, it provides management with the information to judge the relative merits of tasks and to allocate resources to best achieve the Company's goals, missions, and objectives.

This two part quantification process should facilitate long-range planning and budget.ing.

Enrpose: To provide the appropriate toolt for cost-effective financial analysis which allows consistent evaluation for selecting proj ec ts .

Procedure:

Action

1. Initiate appropriate proj r ct initiation and approval-documentation in accordance with departmental or interdepartmental procedures.

2. Evaluate item for applicability to this procedure. The criteria are the same as for initiation of the Scheduling Index Vorksheet per Attachment 4.

3. Prepare the appropriate financial analysis based on preliminary cost estimates.

A. If preliminary cost estimate is 2 $250,000 prepare the computer based EESY Financial Analyais, Attachment 10.

B. If preliminary cost estimate is < $250,000, the Cost Benefit Vorksheet, Attachment 9, should normally be prepared. However, there are cases where the EESY estimste would be more appropriate and should be

.. used.

JW121302.BRM

Attachmsnt 9 92 R E y 2 COST BENEFIT WORKSHEET (TO BE USED WEN EESY NOT USED)

CASE Do project as scoped - compared to base.****

!. Dittet* cost of project:

2. Projected futute incremental costs **

e- ==mamar.iar

.,s ~~ c , , , , .~

sW L 4:;

TitA10 Wl'4  : 117 if;p.'

1***

2 l

3 I

e I

s I,

6 7

8 9

10

2. Overall benefit / cost ratio is based on expected benefits over _ years.

4 This project is expected to break even in years or -

This proj ect is not economically viable -

5. Explanation of ecornmic viability and risks:

l .

/

SUBMITTED / DATE APPROVED / DATE

• Cirect coste are costs associated wit.h design / study. construction, training, etc., i.e., implementation o rp enditur es .

• • Projected coste in current year dollars. Positive cost is cost increase. Regative coat is savings. No consideration of tazes or AFUDC la required.

• • • Year one is the first year project to in service for any part of the year. Projections are performed only es necessary to prove economic viability.

• • • • • %ltiple a ssee may be prepared cegazing the proj ect as defined to other optione. Attach additional erplanation describing bes t s for ccampartoon.

JW121502.BRM

,e NOCM 305 05  !

'Attachasnt: 10?

~

AUG M2 R E V 2

- 05/19/92 CAROLINA POWER & LICHT COMPANY-ECONOMIC EVALUATION SYSTEN PFRIOD: 1991 THRU 1995 F.IECUTIVE PROJECT

SUMMARY

I. INDICATOR OF PROJECT VALUE:

NET PRESENT VALUE OF THE PROJECT (IN 1991 DOLIARS) $.0 II. INDICATOR FOR PROJECT RANKINC:

BENEFIT COST RATIO

.0 III. INDICATOR OF PROJECT RISK:

BREAK EVEN POINT (YEARS)

N/A (A VALUE OF NA-INDICATES NO BREAK EVEN POINT)

IV. SHORT TERM IMPACTS ($000) - DETAILS ON SEPARATE REPORTS 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995-NET INCOME O O O O 0.

NET CASH FLOW 0 0 0 0 0-V. CASE SENSITIVITIES APPLIED:

VI. COMMENTS:

EVALUATION REVIEWED BY: DATE:

I JW121502.23M

. - . ,. .-e-. .r--g -- , m.. , -

e w.- ,- ,_..%.- -. ---y-- 9~ - . -

NGow 303 08 AM P(DUM 1 AUG 1992 R E V 2 BRUNSWICK NUCLEAR PROJECT I

l i

l I

l l

l l

l' JW121502.8RH

AUG 1992 }{ E y g ADDENDUM A. The guidance provided within this addendum is used while assigning the Nuclear Safety Scaling Factor during the Nuclear Project Prioritization Process while utilizing.the Brunswick PRA Model, when possible. Limitations associated with the use of the PRA Model are listed below:

1. Model does not take into account risks associated with plant startup/ shutdown.

2. Model does not consider external events (hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, external flooding, and fires).

3. Use of engineering judgement will apply, especially when assessing people and process initiatives.

4. Although the model does include operator actions in response to an accident, the methodology used for the prioritization process does not consider these actions.

5. hodel to be used for equipment to be enhanced and not out of service.

6. Level 2 (containment failure) and Level 3 (release to public) PRA studies are not included.

B. Procedure for Assigning Nuclear Safety Scaling Factors Figure 1 flowcharts the procedure described below. Use of Figmre 1 may be helpful in assigning nuclear safety scaling factors.

Table 1 is provided to define the systems at Brunswick which have the most importance in preventing and mitigating severe accidents.

1. Determine the systemis) which the plant initiative (hardware or people / process) affect (s) .

2. Determine if the initiative is within the limitations (listed above) of the PRA Model.

3. If the initiative is not within the limitations of the model, contact the PPA Group to determine if insight from the model or other studies can ce used in assign! g the scaling factor.

4. Reference Table 1 to determine if the system (s) is included.

5. If the system (s) is not included in Table 1, engineering judgement will be required to determine if the initiative affects the operability / availability of systems important

AUG 1992 R E , ,

to safety. Reference the Scaling Factors Guidelines (Attachment 6 of NGGM 305-05) to assess significance.

Also, contact the PRA Group to determine if the initiative affects the plant PRA Model and to assist in assigning the scaling factor.

6. If the initiative does not affect the operability /nvailability of systems important to safety and the system (s) is not included in Table 1, assign a zero scaling factor.

7 If the system (s) is included in Table 1, use the highest ranked system in assessing the significance of the initiative. Using the highest ranked system is especially useful in assessing people / process initiatives that affect multiple systems.

8. Using engineering judgement, determine the initiative impact from Table 1 and the Scaling Factor Guidelines (Attachment 6) .

9. Contact the PRA Group, if required, for further guidance in assigning the scaling factor in the event Table 1 and Attachment 6 do not provide sufficient guidance.

. . . -~ .-.. ~..- ._. . . . . - ~ ~. - - , . - - .- .. .. . . - -

.kDy4 FIGURE 1 ASSIGNMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY SCALING FACTORS PLANT INfilATIVE (HARDWARE OR PEOPLE /PFOCESS)

NO IS HnATIVE WilHN LMi AT10NS OF Pf% WOEL 01 YUB

_ Y CONstAT MM 00t3 "

GTOUP FOR QUOANCE INITMTIVE A1TIET NO M NT pg ON W rA04JTY ANY BYSTE*AiON y ONIAVNM OF LOOL 1. TAaLA 1 " " " "

TO M W 07

\ N m

V V EIENN2 SCAUNG PACTOR Guestpets ASSGN KFC (ATT.6) TO ASSoss SCALINQ FACTOR

!JGN4FICANCE 03 12 V V OCTEftdhE MTMTIVE FUTJWME SCAUNG wACT HOW TABLE 1 FACTog etsosuses ANOSCAUNOPACTOM (ATT.8) TD AmmL*F oudosteess (ATT,s sapenCANCE CONSULT PRA my pyg -

GAOUP FOR FUFme agouppon OUOANCE IF FUFMG GUOANCE MOLAND 06 -

V V ASSEN Ase60N SCALNG FACTOR SCAUNG FACT 06 os qt

AUG 1992 H E y g TABLE 1 NUCLEAR SAFETY SCALING FACTORS

- POSTnVE IMPA.T NO L_ NEGATIVE IMPACT ^-

SYREM, lilCH MEDIUM LOW . )IMPACri ILOW4 MEDitmi :lNiag 0 Emergency Diesel Genentors j

Scryge Water F

4 Plant Electncal(Loss of Off.

1.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 4.5 3 >

Site Power Transient) 1.0 RHR

nstmment Air /Nieogen Plant Electncal l (On Site AC Power) h i M,un Steam

$ (MSIV Closure Transient) f(; CAC (Venung) 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 4.2 -0.2 -0.5 2.

l

, RPS l

i. Condensate an:1 Feedwater Ed l HPCI ll b

DC Power I! Fire Suppression 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 Di (Diesel Dnven and Motor-Driven Pumps) i

.mw -