Scaffold Program Optimization and Dose Reduction Guide Lisa Edwards Program Manager TAC Meeting January, 2010
Background Why? Scaffold Programs are Expensive Typical Single Outage Costs: $1-3 Million Additional Liabilities High Dose Industrial Safety Unplanned Trips Regulatory Compliance Aggressive Schedules No Single Comprehensive Guide 2
Average Task Exposure for High Dose Tasks (Utility Data) 25 10 20 15 10 5 0 Number of utility data points 5 14 35 22 1 20 17 21 4 7 3 5 2 3 Average Task Exposure (person-rem) Dissimilar Metal Defects SGR RP Activities Refueling PWR SG Primary Side Decontamination Scaffolding Inspections & Testing Valve, Pump, Piping Maint & Mods Shielding Instrument & Cable Maint Insulation BWR CRD Maintenance Diving
Scaffold Guide - 1021102 Objective Develop Comprehensive Guidance that Targets Vertical Access Program Efficiency and Quality that Will Result in Reductions to Collective Radiation Exposure. Focus: Outage Directly Applicable to On-Line Activities As Well 4
Report Comprehensive Report Based on Industry Standards, Best Practices and Technologies, Regulatory Requirements and Letters of Interpretation. Target Audience: Scaffold Program Managers. 21 Industry Experts 8 Scaffold Work Shops EPRI Vertical Access Performance Database Numerous Station Procedures Service & Product Vendor Info 18 EPRI Scaffold Assessments 5
Key Element: Senior Management Support Dedicated Program Manager Scope Control Mandate Accurate Work Plans and Required Financial Resources for the Program 6
Key Element: Planning & Scheduling Accurate Planning & Scheduling Processes Standards for Unplanned Builds that Mirror Other Unplanned Work Requirements Performance Indicators 7
BWR Number of Builds Number of Builds 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 On-Line Outage Total 8
BWR Exposure 50.000 45.000 40.000 Exposure (person-rem) 35.000 30.000 25.000 20.000 15.000 10.000 5.000 0.000 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 B-18 B-19 Reactor Data Point 9
PWR Number of Builds 2500 2000 Number of Builds 1500 1000 500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On Line Outage Total 10
P-31 P-33 PWR Exposure 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Exposure in person-rem 10 0 P-1 P-3 P-5 P-7 P-9 P-11 P-13 P-15 P-17 P-19 P-21 P-23 P-25 P-27 P-29 Early Data -Outage-1 Early Data -Outage-2 2006 2007 11
18 16 16.1 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.135 0.06 0.137 0.5 0.739 0.585 5.96 2.578 0.25 12 10.263 0.098 0.739 0.3 0.3 0.739 0.03 P-17 P-18 P-19 P-20 P-21 P-22 P-23 P-24 P-25 P-16 P-13 P-14 P-15 PWR On-Line Exposure Plant Exposure in person-rem P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 P-11 P-12
Key Element: Optimized Technology Application Alternative Advanced Technologies Laser Scanning Quick Erect Scaffolding Communication Tools 13
Key Element: Training & Worker Awareness Aggressive Training For New-To-Nuclear Union Halls On-Site Training Includes Classroom & Building in PC s Nuclear Plant Standards vs. Conventional Construction OJT on Conventional Builds Prior to RCA Builds 14
Aggressively Challenge Need For Scaffolding Ladders New Generation Tie-Offs Permanent Platforms Hard Iron for Frequent Build Areas Permanent Towers Small Portable Lifts Optimized Preventative Maintenance Scope / Remote Monitoring For Inspections 15
Formal Incorporation of Scaffold Requests Into Work Planning Look for Multi-User of Single Tower or Build Parent Child Work Orders Area Based Planning & Scheduling Work Scope Freeze Dates 16
EPRI Scaffold Assessment - Overview Matrix of <200 criteria Four Days On-Site 32 Man-Hours Minimum Pre-Assessment Preparation Review- 80 Hours Report - Approximately 30 Days Over 37 Years Experience -Priceless 17
Plant A Assessment Plant Feedback Scaffold Program Manager: Very thorough scrub of program that will be beneficial to the station Recommendations (>50) Install Permanent Towers for Select Locations 8 Work Control Priority Recommendations Perform Laser Scanning of Drywell and Rx Building Create a Permanent Scaffold Crew Assigning a Dedicated Senior RP Technician to Support the Scaffold Group Each Outage using Project Engineering Budget to Report Directly to Project Engineering Group ~30 Procedure Related Recommendations Benefits Potential for ~30% reduction in number of builds/effort LOP Savings: Labor = $12.2M, Dose = 75 person-rem 18
Plant B Assessment Plant Feedback Plant Manager: was especially impressed (with the assessment) and expressed his support to the entire leadership team RP Technical Support Lead: Management at my level and up were very positive about (the) observations and recommendations Recommendations (>60) Training improvements: contractor certification program, DLA, site specific, new-to-nuclear Technology: wireless comm., scaffold material, mobile platforms Enhanced use of existing laser scans for planning and design development 9 programmatic: technology selection, planning, links in work control software Procedure enhancement recommendations Benefits Potential LOP Savings Labor ~$3.8M; ~45 person-rem 19
Plant C Assessment Plant Feedback Plant Interim ALARA Supervisor: Excellent review of the program Recommendations (>50) Planning: walkdowns, work crew engagement, digital photo management, Develop parent child work orders in Maximo Training improvements: Maximo use for scaffold crew leads, contractor OSHA training, DLA, site specific, new-to-nuclear Data management: tracking sheet enhancements, collection process during outages, snubber location maps by elevation Improve the use of existing laser scan for surrogate tours and build designs Installing the service water intake access modification Benefits Potential LOP Savings Labor ~$10M; ~60 person-rem 20
Together Shaping the Future of Electricity 21