Eric, Looking at our 2011 data we had 16 PCEs associated with our unit 1 fall outage (U1R16) and 30 PCEs associated with our unit 2 spring outage (U2R16). This translates into a rate of 4.75 PCEs / 10,000 entries and 9.28 PCEs / 10,000 entries, respectively. The 2011 non-outage PCE rate for 2011 was 0.6 PCEs / 10,000 entries.
"clean area PCEs" for 2011 35% of total, for 2010 47% of total (outage and non-outage) We label any small contaminant as a "discrete particle" vs. distributed contamination when classifying personnel contamination events. We then look at causal factors to determine if the PCE was due to poor worker practices, contamination control failure, etc. we do not make the distinction that "particle" contamination PCEs are due to failure by HP's contamination control program while only distributed contamination PCE can be poor worker practices. For this latter component, if that contention were correct it would be the fault of the training department, not RP :) Seth From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 9:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Powernet: Questions on PCEs Got three "benchmark" questions on PCEs: First, do any of you have a PCE occurrence rate you can send to me? In other words, number of PCEs per 10,000 RCA entries or something like that? Make it a little easier to compare performance due to outage scope. Secondly, for both outage and online PCEs, what's a ballpark percentage that you declare "clean area PCEs"? Those we define as having occurred when a worker entered the RCA, never went into a CA, and then came back to the control point with some contamination - typically on a shoe but no obvious source can be found. Lastly, some folks call any small contaminant a "particle." I'd like to restrict true particle contamination to pure Co-60 discrete pieces of either Stellite or pure fission products from fuel (that are not the problem they used to be). The reason I'm asking is that we've seen some contract non-HP personnel take the position that "particle" contamination PCEs are due to failure by HP's contamination control program while only distributed contamination PCE can be poor worker practices. Gives them an excuse for not working hard to correct behavior. Does anyone make this distinction or have in place some specific definitions? Thanks in advance, Eric Eric M. Goldin, CHP Southern California Edison, San Onofre <[email protected]> ----------------------------------- Powernet - a service of the Health Physics Society Power Reactor Section Powernet archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Reply to: [email protected] If Questions, contact Mike Russell, CHP at [email protected] --- NOTICE --- This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy or printout. Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of this e-mail. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, we accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments, or for any delay or errors or omissions in the contents which result from e-mail transmission.
