Rick Nielsen

1
Rick Nielsen
Director, Plant Evaluations
Pete Knoetgen
Director, Plant Evaluations
2
Supplemental Personnel Performance INPO Update
Rick Nielsen Maintenance/ Work Management
3
(No Transcript)
4
Unit Capability FactorOne-Year Median Values
March 31, 2006
5
Forced Loss RateOne-Year Median Values March
31, 2006
6
Top Equipment Problems

• Main Generators
• Large Transformers
• Large Electric Motors
• Air-Operated Valves

7
Industry Significant Events
8
Significant Events in 2004/2005

• PLANT TRANSIENT/OPERATOR PERFORMANCE
• SEN 248 Calvert Cliffs Complicated scram,
  cooldown
• SER 3-05 Various/River Bend Weaknesses in
  operator fundamentals
• SEN 253 Surry Unplanned reactor operations
  below the point of adding heat
• SEN 254 Perry Repeat reactor recirculation
  pump downshifts and lack of timely operator
  response to exit reactor instability region
• EQUIPMENT
• SER 4-04 Vermont Yankee Bus duct electrical
  faults
• SEN 252 Cooper Turbine blade failure
• SER 1-05 Hope Creek Secondary plant pipe break
• SER 2-05 Various Gas intrusion in safety
  systems
• SEN 256 Turkey Point Main transformer failure
• SEN 257 Kewaunee Flooding issues related to
  plant design
• SEN 259 Koeberg Main generator fault
• SER 2-01 Quad Cities Electromatic Relief Valve
• INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
• No SEN Point Beach Diver entangled in intake
  crib
• SEN 249 Hatch Worker injured when pulled into
  waterbox

9
Analysis of Events

• Topical report TR2-14 adverse trend
• Analysis report 03-002 reports causal factors
• TR2-14, A1 continuing trend

10
Percent of all events involvingSupplemental
Personnel
11
How big a problem?From 1999-2005

• Events triple 1999 to 2005
• Percent of all events increase by 2.5
• Significant events reduce
• Half of significant events
• Shutdowns, power reductions, outage extensions
• Addressed in10 percent AFIs

12
Supplemental Personnel Performance

• Still an issue
• Overall trend worsening
• No new causal factors

13
Causes

• Oversight not rigorous
• knowledge, skill, experience
• Production over process/procedure
• Loss of experience
• Limited training
• Note recent analysis shows no new causes

14
Success Factors(AP-930)

• Inclusiveness
• Engagement
• Relationship
• Preparation
• Teamwork

15
INPO actions

• Analysis
• Process document AP-930
• Assistance and working meetings
• Evaluation focus
• Frequent member communication
• Assistance Strategy

16
Supplier Performance

• Subset of Supplemental Personnel issues
• Anecdotal evidence
• Substantial impacts
• Varied causes
• Utility specifications
• Product quality
• Application errors

17
Improvement Strategy

• NUPIC EPRI INPO Utilities
• Identify problems
• Identify causes
• Encourage change
• Advise

18
What Can Suppliers Do?

• Work more closely with utilities
• Bolster corrective action programs
• Institute human performance tools

19
Summary

• Industry performance good!
• Some stagnation, though at high levels.
• Equipment performance issues continue
• Supplemental personnel performance increasing
  role.

20
Portable Qualifications ProjectUtility Service
AllianceExecutive SummitJune 22, 2006
National Academy for Nuclear Training e-Learning
Pete Knoetgen, Project Manager
21
Pick the shape that best fits your personality
22

• Intelligent, rational, objective, tough
• Steady, hardworking, deliberate, orderly,
  dependable
• Creative, quick-thinking, sees big picture,
  cheerful, open
• Dreamer, preoccupied with the opposite sex,
  playing golf, and beer

23
Purpose

• Provide an industry process for common training
  and qualification of supplemental workers
• Satisfies industry, insurer, regulator
• Remote access over the Web
• Standard generic content
• Qualifications accessible through PADS

24
Benefits

• Cost savings by reducing training time
• Supplemental workers move more efficiently from
  site to site
• Less burden, more flexibility for training staffs
  

25
Background

• Supplemental staffing concern for industry
• Supply of workers
• Qualification of workers
• Redundant training from site to site
• CNOs requested NEI conduct 2005 pilot project
• USA Power e-Learning Center hosted pilot

26
Pilot Project

• Pilot project second half 2005
• Trained workers for St. Lucie and Turkey Point
  RFOs
• Generic PAT, RWT, human performance tools
• FPL provided Web-based site-specific training
• Successful demonstration, average 1 day
  training time saved
• CNOs approved national system for 2006

27
Project Status

• NANTeL managed, operated by INPO
• Available now
• FPL used for spring 06 outages
• 975 course completions
• 150 Administrators trained

28
System Features

• Web access, not through INPO Web site
• Generic Content
• Initially RWT, PAT, HU Tools
• OSHA industrial safety planned
• Site-specific content provided by utilities
• Classroom, CBT, or hosted on NANTeL

29
Process Overview

• Accessed through https//www.nantel.org
• Generic PAT, RWT Web training
• Utilities responsible for site-specific component
  of training
• Administrators control student access
• Proctors verify identity and monitor exams
• Quals entered by site into PADS

30
(No Transcript)
31
Generic PAT, RWT, Proctor
Human Performance Tools
Site Specific
32
(No Transcript)
33
Utility Implementation

• By July 31, all stations participating
• Accept generic quals
• Completion recorded in PADS
• Site-specific training avoids duplicating generic
  objectives
• Administrators trained, system is accessible

34
Supplier Implementation

• System available to support plant access
• Initial training or annual requal
• Communication, coordination with supported plants
  are key
• Proctors vital to process integrity
• Web access for off-site training

35
Proctors

• All supplemental worker exams proctored
• Verify identity, monitor exam
• Vital to system integrity
• Exams linked with Proctor ID
• Proctor designation
• Station approves local proctors
• Web based proctor training on NANTeL
• Record of acknowledgment

36
Effectiveness Measures

• Did the system deliver the expected results?
• Saved training time for in-processing?
• Workers move from site-to-site more efficiently?
• Whats the effect on worker performance?

37
Key Points

• Industry-wide participation July 31
• Web based Plant Access Rad Worker Training
• Saves in-processing time
• Efficient, flexible delivery
• Minimizes redundant training
• Communicate with supported plants

38

• Contact Info
• Pete Knoetgen, project manager
• 770-644-8737
• knoetgenpm_at_inpo.org