institute of nuclear power operations inpo update: 2017

I n s t i t u t e o f N u c l e a r P o w e r O p e r a t i o n s

INPO Update:

2017 North American ISOE

ALARA SymposiumJanuary 2017 Paul McNultyINPO Radiation Protection Manager

1© 2017 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations

2

Update Topics• Industry Performance Summary:

–U.S. Industry Performance–AFI Trends–Continuous Monitoring

• INPO 05-008

© 2017 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations

Radiological Protection770-644-ext Paul McNulty

ManagerExt. 8021

Brad MitchellPrincipal Evaluator

Ext. 8346

Jim TwiggsSr. Evaluator

Ext. 8280

Dave KallenbachSr. Evaluator

Ext. 8917

Mark TravisSr. Evaluator

Ext. 8263

Tim HallidaySr. Evaluator

Ext. 8726

Neal McKenneySr. Evaluator

Ext. 8309


Phil KlarSr. Evaluator

Ext. 8987

Terry WilkersonSr. Evaluator

Ext. 8901

Moses ColemanSr. Evaluator

Ext. 8

http://myion/News/welcome/New%20Employees/Halliday%20301693.jpg

© 2017 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 4

CRE PWR Performance

75 76

68 6966

69.4

59.9

54.9 54.3

44.942.8 42.2

37 38.5

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

pers

on-r

em

U.S. Collective Radiation Exposure (PWR)Median Values – 3rd Quarter 2016


CRE PWR Performance

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65Pe

rson

-rem

per

uni

t

U.S. Collective Radiation Exposure (PWR)Median Values 3rd Quarter 2016

Median30 rem


CRE BWR Performance

137131

155 155

140133

129 126131

127121

109 106 106102.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Q3

pers

on-r

em

U.S. Collective Radiation Exposure (BWR)Median Values – 3rd Quarter 2016

7

CRE Performance


27.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

pers

on-r

em p

er u

nit

U.S. Collective Radiation Exposure (BWR)Median Values – 3rd Quarter 2016

Median102.7 rem

Industry Performance and Trends (PIC Data)Total High Radiation Events


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Quarterly Events

Even

tsRo

lling

12

mon

ths

Total HRA Events Quarterly Total High Rad Area Controls Reference

Industry Performance and Trends (PIC Data)Unplanned Dose


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Quarterly Events

Even

tsRo

lling

12

mon

ths

Quarter Cycle Reference

Industry Performance and Trends (PIC Data)RAM Events


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Quarterly Events

Even

tsRo

lling

12

mon

ths

Quarter Reference Cycle

Industry Performance and Trends (PIC Data)PCEs


0

2

4

6

8

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Quarterly Events

Even

tsRo

lling

12

mon

ths

Quarter Cycle Reference

13

RP Performance Indicator


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99

3rd Quarter 2016

14

RP Performance Indicator


88

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Radiation Protection Performance Indicator3mos Index Reference

15

RP Performance Indicator Drivers


Performance Monitoring Drivers

• Collective radiation exposure

• High radiation area events

Common Themes <80 Points

• CRE above goals

• High CRE with HRA Events

• Internal dose and RAM events

0102030405060708090

100

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97

3rd Quarter 2016


RP and RS AFIs Through 3rd Qtr 2016

16

15

12

5

1

0

4

0

2

0

1

8

6

2

1 1

7

6

12

7

2

9

8 8

10

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Dose Control (RP.2) Radioactive Material Control (RP.4) Contamination Control (RP.3)

Collective Radiation Exposure RP.1 and RS.1 (Fundamentals)

2016 AFIsFundamentals (RP.1, RS.1, NP.1)• Radiation workers not following procedures for HRA and RAM controls

• Radiation protection technicians not applying fundamentals for HRAs

• RP Supervisor’s oversight of radiological work for changing radiological conditions

• Radiation protection not communicating radiological hazards

• Radiation protection technicians not following expectation for work plans

• Radiation protection technicians and supervisors not apply standards

• Qualified radiation workers not communicating radiological hazards

• Radiation workers not monitoring and communicating radiological hazards


2016 Fundamental AFIs CausesFundamentals (RP.1, RS.1)

- RP Supervisors and technicians do not correct deviations or rationalize deviations because of perceived low risk or low consequence

- Radiation workers deviate because of perceived low risk or low consequence.

- Contributing, supervisors, including radiation protection supervision, are not correcting or coaching to the standard.


Pending 05-008 RevisionRevision 3 of INPO 05-008

INPO Document Hierarchy

• Tier 1: The standard of excellence expected to be met.

– PO&Cs; Principles for Excellence in Risk Management; Leadership and Team Effectiveness Attributes; Level 1 and 2 IERs

• Tier 2: Provides information to assist members pursuit of excellence. Intent is the document content is met, strict compliance is not required.

– Consists of Guidelines; Process Descriptions; Operating Experience

• Tier 3: Reference. Does not need to come from INPO.

– Good Practice; Manuals; Reports; Must Know OE


Why 05-008 ChangeTier 1 – PO&C RP.2-3: Radiological procedures specify posting and control requirements for high radiation areas to prevent inadvertent entry. Access to these areas is controlled through administrative and physical barriers.

Tier 2 - 05-008 guidance: Procedures establish posting, barriers and barricades for various high radiation conditions. Requirements for posting and controlling areas during changing plant conditions are also procedurally established. Procedures related to work in HRA/LHRA/VHRAs are used to clearly define radiation worker, RP technician and supervision responsibilities and accountabilities.

Tier 2 – Process Description for Postings:


≥ 80 & < 800mrem/hour

• A barrier is required for the boundary except while the area is accessed. A SOP is not considered as a barrier.

• Ensure posting of access points that require the removal of bolts and/or the use of lifting equipment. Add posting insert to “Contact RP Prior to Opening.”

Triangle shaped HRA Sign with the following:• RP BRIEF REQUIRED FOR

ENTRY

05-008 Change• Currently resolving comments to document.

• Revision 3 gets issued by end of January 2017

• 05-008 Details:

– Move previous revision content to new format

– Work with RP CFAMs and RP DNP Task Force

• Strategic issuance of documents throughout 2017

• Aligned to PO&Cs

• Capture standard practice and process

• Reflect Excellence


Continuous Monitoring


Designed for 2023 End state• All stations achieve industry goals staying

within 1-2 bandwidth, occasional 3• Repeated INPO 3 assessments are rare• No assessments of 4 or 5 • No surprise decreased assessments• No significant events• Rare accreditation probation

Continuous Monitoring


Measures• Organization: Monitor, Elevate, Escalate,

Recovery• Functional Area Performance:

– Excellence, Solid, Acceptable– Trajectory – Improving, Stable, Declining

Monitoring• Data – KPIs, OE, Reports, Plant Visits, CFAM, Contact

RP and Continuous Monitoring


Radiological Protection• Is not a functional area to drive out of ‘Monitor’• Program of concern drivers

– Multiple radiological events• Events causes are tied to fundamentals, or past AFIs• Typically accompanied with high CRE, but not exclusive

– No change or cyclic performance• Persistent low performance assessments• Multiple evaluations with similar AFIs• Assistance not effective

RP and Continuous Monitoring


• Eleven Programs in ‘Decline’– Nine INPO members, two WANO members

• ‘Turning Decline’ Engagement– Notification to RPM– Assistance (formal and informal)– Recovery plan accountability (formal)

• Collaborative plan with RP manager and Plant Manager

• Criteria for exiting

• Milestones to check

I n s t i t u t e o f N u c l e a r P o w e r O p e r a t i o n s

Questions & Comments


institute of nuclear power operations inpo update: 2017

Documents