Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station - NRC: Home Page · 2012. 11. 18. · Davis-Besse July 9, 2003...

July 9, 2003Davis-BesseNuclear Power Station

1IMC 0350 Meeting

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station


2

Desired Outcome• Provide an update on remaining Mode 4/3 activities and

Operations readiness

• High Pressure Injection Pump Modification Update

• Discuss the quality of performance by Operations,Engineering, and Maintenance

• Provide information on numerous actions taken to regainand improve safety margin

• Status our milestones and remaining restart actions

Lew MyersFENOC Chief Operating Officer


3

Meeting Agenda

•Containment Activities; Remaining Mode 4/3 Activities; DesiredOutcomes - First Mode 4/3 ……………………………….Mark Bezilla

•High Pressure Injection Pump Modification Update…….Bob Schrauder

•Operations Performance ………...…..…..………...………..Mike Roder

•Engineering Performance ………...………………………...Jim Powers

•Maintenance Performance ………..………………………Mike Stevens

•Safety Margin Improvements……….………………….…...Lew Myers

•Restart Milestones/Actions..………………………….……..Clark Price


4

Containment Activities; Remaining Mode 4/3Activities; Desired Outcomes - First Mode 4/3

Mark BezillaVice President/Plant Manager


5

Desired Outcome

•Leave you with a better understanding on the following:– Containment Activities– Mode 4/3 Preparations– Mode 4/3 Desired Outcomes


6

Containment Activities

•Containment Health Actions

•Containment Work

•Containment Closure

•Containment Ownership


7

Containment Closure

Closure of Containment June 25, 2003

•Activities completed included–Replacement of Reactor

Pressure Vessel Head–Rework of Containment Sump–Containment Dome Painting–Installation of FLÜS Online

Leak Monitoring System–Replacement of Containment

Air Coolers–Rework of Decay Heat Tank–Thorough Cleaning and

Inspection of ContainmentBuilding


8

Containment Ownership

Replacement of Reactor Pressure Vessel Head


9


Rework of Containment Sump


10


Containment Dome Painting


11


Installation of FLÜS Online Leak Monitoring System


12


Replacement of Containment Air Coolers


13


Rework of Decay Heat Tank


14


•Containment HealthOwnership TransferredFrom Containment HealthProgram Owner toSuperintendent of PlantOperations on July 3

Containment Health Program Ownerand Superintendent of Plant Operations


15

Remaining Mode 4/3 Activities

•Complete Mode 4/3 Activities– Conduct Restart Readiness

Meetings– Complete Mode 4/3 restraints– Conduct normal operating

pressure check of ReactorCoolant System

– Inspection for leakageinclude

–RPV Replacement Head–IMI Incore Nozzles

IMI Incore Nozzles

RPV Replacement Head


16

Desired Outcomes - First Mode 4/3

•Assess our People

– Performance / Behavior / Attitude

•Assess our Plant

– Performance

•Assess our Processes

– Exercise various processes (eg: procedure change,

emergent work, online work management, online risk

assessment)


17

High Pressure Injection PumpModification Update

Bob SchrauderDirector - Support Services


18

• Project Status• Preliminary Findings• Pump Guinard Modifications• Project Completion Plans


High Pressure Injection (HPI) Pump


19

•Project Status– Modification design concept is

complete• Stress and hydraulic design analyses

complete• Failure Modes and Effects analysis under

review

– In-plant testing satisfactorilycompleted

– Initial assumptions for testing set– Mock-up testing in progress– Pumps disassembled awaiting

modifications



20


Mock-Up Testing


21

Mock-Up Test Fixtures



22

Preliminary Findings•Strainer design with 90 mil holes operated satisfactory (noplugging), however …

•Debris through 90 mil strainer filled hydrostatic bearing pads(soft debris was not “ground up”)

•Sieved debris (to simulate strainers with smaller holes) did notfill bearing pads, but hard debris 12 mil in size caused shaftsleeve wear

•Debris (primarily fiber) became lodged part way throughclearances in wear fixtures, forming a debris pad or mat thatcaused local wear of softer material due to high contact force

•Initial findings indicate conditions more closely modelingexpected containment environment is warranted


23

Hydrostatic Bearing Design


24

Hydrostatic Bearing Configuration


25

Pump Guinard Design Change•French and Davis-Besse pumps have difference that impactdebris operation

– 4500 rpm operation increases centrifugal effect reducing debrisconcentration at new hydrostatic bearing supply take-off

– Hydrostatic bearing AND shaft sleeve hardfaced– Labyrinth seals between stages instead of wear rings

•French pump modifications slightly different– Hydrostatic bearing supply take-off on discharge side of impeller instead

of suction– Used discharge side seal as strainer– Installed hydrostatic bearing instead of central volute bushing (for

rotordynamics)– Modified hydrostatic bearing pads for no supply flow conditions


26

Project Completion Plans

• Pump modification continues to be main successpath

• Revise initial assumptions to more closely modelactual containment environment

• Continue testing• Refine modifications as necessary• Determine final resolution


27

Operations Performance

Mike RoderManager - Plant Operations


28


•Performance Improvement

– Continuous ImprovementBusiness Practice

– Performance Indicators

– 2003 Operations ExcellencePlan

– Operations Readiness forMode 4/3


29


•ContinuousImprovementBusiness Practice(DBBP-OPS-0004)

– Purpose

– Inputs

– Outputs

– AssessmentProcess


30

Operations PerformancePerformance Indicators -June 2003

•Ranking Criteria• Green - Strength• White - Satisfactory• Yellow - Improvement needed• Red - Weakness


31

Operations PerformanceClearance Control

•Purpose– Assess Operations’ ability to ensure

personnel and equipment safety arenot compromised during theclearance process

•Key process•Low thresholds•Action taken•Overall improvement


32

Operations Performance Configuration Control Performance

• Purpose– Tracks any equipment or component

configuration events caused byOperations personnel

• Key process• Early detection of negativetrends

• Plans in place to improve


33

Operations Performance Operation Self Identification Rate

• Purpose– Measures self-identification rates to

Operations generated ConditionReports

• Measure of self-critical• Previous year had decreasingtrend

• Improved performance


34


• Control Room Deficiencies,Operations Work Arounds,and TemporaryModifications

–All scheduled for completionOPEN TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Rem

aini

ng T

emp

Mod

s

Add Close Actual

Add 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 2

Close 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0

Ac t ua l 11 11 11 11 11 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 12 14 14 15 12 14

1/ 5 1/ 12 1/ 19 1/ 26 2/ 2 2/ 9 2/ 16 2/ 23 3/ 2 3/ 9 3/ 16 3/ 23 3/ 30 4/ 6 4/ 13 4/ 20 4/ 27 5/ 4 5/ 11 5/ 18 5/ 25 6/ 1 6/ 8 6/ 15 6/ 22 6/ 29 7/ 6 7/ 13 7/ 20 7/ 27

Good


35

Operations Readiness for Mode 4/3

•Training– ‘Just in Time’ Simulator Training– Modifications– Evaluations

•Plant Activities– System alignment– Turnover of Containment– 50# / 250# Test– Secondary plant startup

•Restart Readiness ReviewPreparation


36

Jim PowersDirector - Engineering

Engineering Performance


37

•Desired Outcome– Focus

– People– Quality of Products– Processes



38

•Actions Taken– Design Reviews Conducted

– System Health Assurance Plan– Latent Issue Reviews– Safety Function Validation Project– Topical Area Reviews– Review of ~ 1500 Calculations

– Program Reviews Conducted– > 60 Key Programs

– Oversight– Engineering Assessment Board

– Over 700 Engineering products reviewed– INPO Engineering Team Evaluation



39

•Engineering Quality and Rigor– Improvements

– Issued Engineering Principles/Expectations Handbook– 50.59 Program and Operability Determinations enhancements– Root Cause Training– Program Ownership clarified– Created Engineering Assessment Board– Contractor oversight strengthened– Modifications to recapture/gain safety margins



40

Engineering PerformancePerformance Indicators - June 2003

Last Mon Yr. End Last Mon Yr. End

Safety

Last Mon Yr. End Last Mon Yr. End Last Mon Yr. End Last Mon Yr. End Last Mon Yr. End

People

Last Mon Yr. End Last Mon Yr. End

Reliability

Last Mon Yr. End

Cost

Excellent Improvement Needed

Satisfactory Performance Weakness

Unassessed Data Not Available to be Analyzed Yet

Condition Report Workload

Davis-Besse Nuclear Engineering Department

June 2003 - Performance Summary

Industrial Safety Personnel Dose

Yr End

Current Measure (page #)

Corrective Action Workload

Engineering Vendor

Performance

Operability Evaluations

Total Expenditures VS.

Budget

Previous

Quality of Engineering Work

Products

Human Performance Error

Design Change Development


41

Engineering PerformanceQuality of Engineering Work Products

•Purpose– Tabulation of overall

Engineering productquality based upon anumber of standardattributes divided by the total number ofproducts evaluated bythe EngineeringAssessment Board


42

Engineering PerformanceEngineering Vendor Performance

•Purpose– Indicator represents the

Engineering AssessmentBoard's assessment ofcalculations and plantchanges prepared byvendors


43

Engineering PerformanceDBNED Condition Report Workload

•Purpose– Measures the overall

effectiveness for thedepartment incoordinating ConditionReport investigationsand providing timelyresolution of issues tosupport continued andreliable services to thePlant


44

Engineering PerformanceDBNED Corrective Action Workload

•Purpose– Measures the effectiveness

of the department inproviding timelyimplementation and closureof Corrective Actionscommensurate with theestablished schedule datesand priorities/risksignificance of the actionsbased on supportingcontinued and reliableservices to the Plant


45

Engineering PerformanceDBNED Operability Evaluations

•Purpose– Measures the overall

number of OperabilityEvaluations performedby engineering andprovides a summarystatus of completed siteactions, along withopen activities


46

Engineering PerformanceDBNED Design Change Development

•Purpose– Identifies the overall

number and status ofDesign Changes inprogress and/or pendingwithin Engineering


47

Engineering PerformanceDBNED Human Performance and Program

and Process Errors•Purpose

– Measures humanperformance andprograms and processerrors that have areasonable potential toaffect plant safety,personnel safety,regulatory position,financial liability,environmental impact,or power production

DBNED Human Performance and Program and Process Errors

PERFORMANCE MEASURE

Quarter Avg: YTD Avg: Best Possible Year-End Rate: GREENGREEN GREEN

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

YTD

Ave

rage

Num

ber o

f Er

rors

per

10k

per

son-

hrs

Avg Error Rate (YTD)

Challenge GoalGOOD


48

•Actions to Sustain Improved Performance– Organizational development (People)

– FENOC Organization– Roles and responsibilities– New hires

– Opportunities for improvement captured in CorrectiveAction Program (Quality)

– Engineering Work Management System (Process)

•Engineering continues to improve and is ready tosupport Modes 4 and 3



49

Mike StevensDirector - Maintenance

Maintenance Performance


50


•Improvement areas– Work Preparations– Supervisory Field Involvement– Equipment return to service

•Comprehensive Plan– Focus on Fundamentals– Intermediate Improvements– Ownership at all levels


51


•Vision 1 - Operations is the #1 Customer,

•Vision 2 - Maintenance Embraces Continuous Improvement,

•Vision 3 - Maintenance has Ownership of Equipment Deficiencies,

•Vision 4 - Maintenance Values Performance Feedback, and

•Vision 5 - Maintenance Leadership is consistent


52

•Four areas - Safety,People, Reliability,and Cost, align toFENOC Business plan

•Lowered threshold forperformanceimprovement

Maintenance PerformanceIndicators

Las t M on Y r . E nd La s t M on Yr . E nd L as t M on Y r. E nd Las t M o n Y r . En d Las t M on Y r . E nd

S a fe ty


P e o p le

Las t M on Y r . E nd La s t M on Yr . E nd L as t M on Y r. E nd


R e li a b il ity

Las t M on Y r . E nd La s t M on Yr . E nd L as t M on Y r. E nd

Las t M on Y r . E nd La s t M on Yr . E nd

C o s t

E xc e ll e n t Imp r o v e me nt N ee d e d

S a ti s fa c to ry P er fo rm a nc e W e akn ess

U nas ses se d D ata N o t A v a il ab l e to b e A na l yz ed Y e t

Main tena nce S hop Availab ility ( 17 )

Co llect ive Rad iat ion E xpos ure (3)

M ain tenanc e S ect ion C lock (7)

ALAR A P la nn ing Efficiency (4 )

2nd -Ln Mgmt . T r ain ing O bs. P er fo r mance (14 )

S elf- Ide n tificat ion R ate (1 0)

Main tena nce C aused NR C V io lat ions (15)

1st -Ln Supe rvisor E ffec tiveness (1 3)

O pen CR E S T C orr ect ive Ac tions (12)

O ve rt ime Pe rfo r m ance (23)

D a v is -B e ss e M a in ten a n ce S e c t io nJ u n e 2 0 0 3 - P e r fo rm a n ce S u m m a r y

Industria l S afety ( 2)

C O R /E LE W or k O r der Ba cklog (22)

R ew ork (21 )P roc edure Alte rat ion P er fo rm ance (20)

Main tena nce S hop C omplet ion E ffic iency

(18)

F ield O bser vat ion Pe rfo r man ce (6 )

C ond it ion R eport In it ia tion (5 )

C urre nt M e a sur e (pa g e # )

H um an P er fo r m ance E r ro r (8)

O rga n iz at ional Er r o r (24)

O pe n Cond it ion R epor ts ( 11)

P lan t Lea ks (19)

P r e v i o u s Yr E n d

For eign Ma te ria l E ven tsC ommunic at ion E rr o r ( 9)

Inc lu d e?

In c lu de ? Inc lud e? Inc lud e?

In c lu de ?

In c lu de ?In c lu de ? In c lu de ? In clud e ?

Inc lu d e?

In clud e ?

In c lu de ? In c lu de ?

In clud e ?In c lu de ?Inc lu d e?Inc lu d e?In c lu de ?In c lu de ?

In c lu de ? Inc lu d e?

In c lu de ?

In c lu de ?

Da ta ?

Da ta ?

Data?Da ta ?

Da ta ?Da ta?Data?Da ta ?Da ta ?Da ta ?

D ata ?Da ta ?

Da ta ?

Data?

Da ta ?Da ta?

Da ta?

Data?

D ata ?

D ata ?Da ta ?

Data?D ata ?

In c lu de ?

D ata ?


53

•No Lost Time Injury >5 years

•Over 10000 activitiesperformed

•Rolling 12 month cycle•Objective is preventinjuries through carefulplanning and workimplementation

Maintenance Performance Industrial Safety Performance

Month End: RED GREEN No OSHA Recordables or First-Aid Incidents for 2 months.Last Month End: GREEN WHITE No OSHA Recordables or First-Aid incidents.

Year End Forecast: WHITE YELLOW 1 OSHA Recordable or First-Aid incident.RED 2 or more OSHA Recordables or First-Aid incidents.

Month YTD0 00 1 Month Injury Type Injury Date Shop Injury Activity2 3 Nov-02 FA 11/23/2002 MNSV Sprained Ankle Step down from motor platform

39,525.0 244,192.0 Nov-02 OSHA 11/22/2002 MNSV Bumped Head Moving from scaffold ladder to deck Part of the body injured Feb-03 FA 2/12/2003 Mech Strained Right Shoulder Pulling on torque wrench

0 0 Mar-03 OSHA 3/6/2003 I&C Finger Laceration Drilling hold in sheet metal1 1 Jun-03 FA 6/13/2003 MNSV Minor Puncture Removing Insulation1 3 Jun-03 FA 6/15/2003 MNSV Heat Stress Removing Scaffold0 0

DEFINITION This indicator depicts the number of First-Aid and OSHA Recordable incidents for DB Maintenance Section In-House Employees. OBJECTIVE/GOAL

The objective is to prevent industrial accidents by careful work planning, supervisory involvement, and employee attention to detain and thoughtful work practices. ANALYSIS There were 2 first-aid injuries in the Maintenance section for the month of June. The First-Aid recordable rate was 10.12 per 200,000 work-hours for the month of June with a 12-month rolling average of 2.51. The OSHA recordable rate was 0.00 per 200,000 work-hours with a rolling average of 0.82.THE ERROR RATES ARE CURRENTLY BEING ESTIMATED BY AVERAGING THE WORK-HOURS OVER THE LAST 5 MONTHS.

CURRENT INITIATIVES

DB Maintenance Industrial Safety Performance

Lost Time Accidents OSHA Recordables First-Aids

RANKING CRITERIA

Upper Extremities Lower Extremities

Work-Hours

Head Torso

DB Mai nte na nc e Mi no r Injurie s

0

1

2

3

4

Elec (Minors ) I&C (Min ors )Mech (Minors ) MNSV (Min ors )Staff (Min ors) S ection Rolling Firs t-Aid Rate

DB Main te na nc e OS HA Re c ord ab les

0

1

2

3

4

Elec (OSHA) I&C (OSHA) Mech (OSHA)MNSV (OS HA) Staff (OS HA) Section Rolling OS HA RateRolling Rate Goal


54

•The number of CR's initiatedis an indication of CRthreshold sensitivity

•The objective is to carry outsafety-conscious workpractices by identifyingissues in the plant

•More are being written, morepeople are writing CR’s

•Result of My focus and Mygroups focus on safety

Maintenance PerformanceNumber of Condition Reports (CR)

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

Msu p In itiated Mech In itiated I&C In itiatedElec Init FIN In itiated Mn s v In itiatedSection Initiated 12 Month Rollin g Avg Section In itiated / Pers on S ection In itiated / Person Roll Avg


55

•A human performanceerror is defined as aninappropriate actionspecific to an individualor individuals due to afailure in the use of ourEvent Free Tools

•Lowered threshold foridentification

•Used to providefeedback and trainingimprovement

Maintenance PerformanceHuman Performance Errors

02468

101214161820222426283032343638

Ele c HP Errors I&C HP Errors Me c h HP Errors Mnsv HP Errors Msup HP Errors Ma in HP Errors


56

•CR's initiated by Maintenanceand Maintenance is determinedto be the cause organization outof all CR’s assigned toMaintenance

•This provides an indication ofhow well Maintenance finds andfixes its own problems

•CR's that are initiated outside theMaintenance organization andCR's initiated as a result of aself-revealed issue are notconsidered self-identified

Maintenance PerformancePercent of Self-Identified Condition Reports

83%

47%43% 40%

58%

100%

30%

83%

100%

70%

89%

62%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Jul-0

2

Aug

-02

Sep

-02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr

-03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Sect ion Self-ID Index Goal 12 Month Rolling Average


57

•This indicator depicts theMaintenance Superintendentsdirect monitoring of training

•The monthly amount is thenumber of observationsperformed

•The rolling rate averages thelast 12 months of observations

•Observation of training ensuresthat management is engagedand directs the trainingprogram

Maintenance PerformanceNumber of Training Observations

02

468

10121416182022

242628

3032

Domin y Bru nkh orst Steag all S tru ms ky Goal 12 Rollin g Averag e


58

•This indicator depicts thenumber of maintenancereworks

•A rework is defined as the re-performance of any physicalmaintenance task prior toreturn to service

•This includes, but is notlimited to, failure duringtesting, or an identical problemwhich was performed within12 months on the sameequipment or component

Maintenance PerformanceRework

Maintenance Defic iencies by Shop

1.37%

2.52%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

Elec Rework % I&C Rework % Mech Rework %Main Rework % Main Rework % Rolling Avg Maint. Deficiency Goal (%)


59

•This indicator depicts theMaintenance section'snumber of Non-Outagecorrective maintenance workorders

•The goal is to achieve lessthan 250 non-outagecorrective work orders

•Corrective maintenancedetermined by Work Controlin accordance with Industrydefinitions

Maintenance PerformanceCorrective Work Orders

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Ope

n W

ork

Ord

ers

WOs 296 290 2 93 286 28 6 2 94 291 29 0 289 285 2 83 275 271 2 63 259 25 7 257 258 2 55 257 25 9 259 251 25 5 249

Clos e 31 17 9 19 12 10 9 12 10 13 3 10 10 13 6 5 3 2 6 2 3 3 9 4 8

Add 33 11 11 12 12 18 6 11 9 9 1 2 6 5 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 3 1 8 2

1/ 05 1/12 1/19 1/ 26 2/ 2 2 /9 2/ 16 2/23 3/2 3/ 9 3/16 3/ 23 3/30 4 /6 4/ 13 4/20 4/ 27 5/ 4 5/11 5/ 18 5/25 6 /1 6/8 6 /15 6/ 22 6 /29

Goal < 250


60


•Summary– Improved alignment in maintenance– Improved identification of issues– Improved morale– Improved teamwork

• Maintenance is ready to support Operations toMode 4/3 testing


61

Safety Margin Improvements

Lew MyersChief Operating Officer - FENOC


62

FENOC Definitions

Safety Culture

That assembly of characteristics and attitudes inorganizations and individuals which establishes anoverriding priority towards nuclear safety activitiesand that these issues receive the attention warranted bytheir significance.

Safety Conscious Work Environment

That part of a Safety Culture addressing employeewillingness to raise issues and management’s responseto these issues.



63

•Focus our attention– People– Plant– Design Improvements



64

•People– Policy Level Commitment

– Executive Leadership Team Strategy Meeting– New FENOC Vision– Strategic Objectives– Fleet Goals– New Policies on Safety Culture– New Policy on Safety Conscious Work Environment



65

•People– Davis-Besse Management Commitment

– Strengthened Organization– Management Team Meeting– Picture of Success to 2004– Revised Management Behaviors– Prepared for Employee Meeting (end of July)



66

DAVIS-BESSE SITE ORGANIZATION June 2003

Nuclear Training

Radiation Protection*

Vice President - Nuclear/PlantManager

Mark B. BezillaExperience: Davis-Besse, Perry,SalemBS - Nuclear EngineeringTechnologySRO License - DBPNS and TMI26 years experience (10 years FE)

Chemistry

Plant Operations

Maintenance*

Outage Managementand Work Control

Director - OrganizationalDevelopmentJ. Randel Fast

Experience: Beaver Valley, Farley,Restart STP, WestinghouseBS - Technology and Management25 years experience (4 years FE)

Human Resources

Director Support ServicesRobert W. Schrauder

Experience: Restart Davis-Besse1985BS - Nuclear EngineeringSRO Certification - PNPP25 years experience (16 yearsFE)

Director DB Nuclear EngineeringJames J. Powers III

Experience: PerryBA - ChemistryPE - New YorkSRO License - PNPP26 years experience (8 years FE)

FENOC Chief Operating OfficerLew W. Myers

Experience: Browns Ferry,FENOC, South Texas, Waterford

MBABS - Mechanical EngineeringSRO License - Waterford and St.Lucie20 years experience (7 years FE)

President - FENOCRobert F. Saunders

BS - Mechanical EngineeringPE28 years experience (3 years FE)

Design BasisEngineering

Plant Engineering

Project Management

Regulatory Affairs

Quality Services

Security

Restart DirectorMichael J. Ross (Contractor)

Experience: Return TMIAssociate’s Degree in Science

*Position yet to be resolved


67

•People– 8 million man-hours worked with no Loss-Time Accident– Continue Communication and Alignment

– 4C Meetings (Compliments, Communications, Concerns, and Changes)– Town Hall, All Site, and Department Meetings– Stand Downs

– Implemented Operator Leadership Plan– Reinstate Senior Reactor Operator Class– Strengthened Individual Ownership and Commitment

– Engineering Rigor– Operability Decision-Making– Operator License Responsibilities Training– Shift Manager Command Responsibility

– Raised Standards/Lowered Thresholds



68

•Plant– Replacement of Reactor Pressure Vessel Head– Installed Permanent Reactor Cavity Seal– Rework of Containment Sump– Containment Dome Painting– Installation of FLÜS Online Leak Monitoring System– Replacement of Containment Air Coolers– Rework of Decay Heat Tank– Fuel Inspection and Vessel Cleaning– Higher Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test– Electrical Transient Analysis Program– Diesel Air Start/Diesel Room Temperature– High Pressure Injection Pump modification– Containment Spray Pump Cyclone Separator modification



69

•Design Improvements– Building Blocks

– Containment Health Assurance Plan– Design Reviews

– System Health Assurance Plan– Latent Issue Reviews– Safety Function Validation Project– Topical Area Reviews– Review of ~ 1500 Calculations

– Procedures and Programs– Air Operated Valve Program– Boric Acid Control Program– Reactor Coolant Leak Rate Program– Operating experience

– Self-Assessments and Quality Assurance Oversight– Operational Readiness Review



70

•Summary– Improvements to areas that increase safety

margin, including people, plant, designimprovements help ensure the plant is ready forsafe and reliable operations



71

Restart Milestones/Actions

Clark PriceOwner - Restart Action Plan


72


•Current Focus for Normal Operating Pressure Test– Critical Path for Mode 4 and 3

– High Pressure Injection Pump installation– High Pressure Injection Pump Minimum Recirculation

modification installation– Electrical Transient Analysis Program (ETAP) modifications– Thermal Overload Heater installation

– Other Work for Mode 4 and 3– Air Operated Valve modifications– Safety Features Actuation System testing– Restart Readiness Review Meetings


73

Field Complete In Progress Hold - Plant Conditions N/A - Not Applicable



74 Field Complete In Progress Hold - Plant Conditions N/A - Not Applicable



75 Field Complete In Progress Hold - Plant Conditions N/A - Not Applicable



76

Restart Action PerformanceTOTAL RESTART CONDITION REPORT

EVALUATIONS

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Num

ber o

f Res

tart

CR

s

Add Close

Tot a l Closed 3100 3201 3402 3553 3676 3827 3983 4167 4445 4685 4823 4990 5103 5217 5295 5357 5436 5517 5582 5645 5702 5753 5810 5862 5925 5991 6089

Tot a l Ope n 1834 1774 1671 1614 1578 1480 1373 1224 979 793 696 606 531 475 446 421 375 351 377 343 355 376 363 329 292 247 163

Close 82 101 201 151 123 151 156 184 278 240 138 167 113 114 78 62 79 81 65 63 57 51 57 52 63 66 98

Add 8 41 98 94 87 53 49 35 33 54 41 77 38 58 49 37 33 57 91 29 69 72 44 18 26 21 14

1/ 5 1/ 12 1/ 19 1/ 26 2/ 2 2/ 9 2/ 16 2/ 23 3/ 2 3/ 9 3/ 16 3/ 23 3/ 30 4/ 6 4/ 13 4/ 20 4/ 27 5/ 4 5/ 11 5/ 18 5/ 25 6/ 1 6/ 8 6/ 15 6/ 22 6/ 29 7/ 6 7/ 13 7/ 20 7/ 27

Closed

Open


77

Restart Action PerformanceTOTAL RESTART CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Num

ber o

f R

esta

rt C

As

Add Close

Total Closed 1316 1460 1618 1815 2007 2257 2443 2693 3071 3384 3733 4062 4237 4461 4723 4829 5037 5339 5519 5617 5781 5893 5959 6031 6140 6254 6301

Total Open 3048 3214 3382 3428 3383 3264 3186 3079 2824 2642 2388 2180 2072 1907 1713 1650 1486 1242 1123 1083 986 901 912 871 805 762 738

Close 97 144 158 197 192 250 186 250 378 313 349 329 175 224 262 106 208 302 180 98 164 112 66 72 109 114 47

Add 80 310 326 243 147 131 108 143 123 131 95 121 67 59 68 43 44 58 61 58 67 27 77 31 43 71 23

1/ 5 1/ 12 1/ 19 1/ 26 2/ 2 2/ 9 2/ 16 2/ 23 3/ 2 3/ 9 3/ 16 3/ 23 3/ 30 4/ 6 4/ 13 4/ 20 4/ 27 5/ 4 5/ 11 5/ 18 5/ 25 6/ 1 6/ 8 6/ 15 6/ 22 6/ 29 7/ 6 7/ 13 7/ 20 7/ 27

Open

Closed


78

Closing Comments

Lew MyersChief Operating Officer - FENOC

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station - NRC: Home Page · 2012. 11. 18. · Davis-Besse July 9, 2003...

Documents

Transcript of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station - NRC: Home Page · 2012. 11. 18. · Davis-Besse July 9, 2003...