building strong foundations

Produced by:

Building Strong Foundations

Dan SawyerOutage Manager – Ontario Power Generation

• 881 Mw (Net) 2650 Mw(th)• 15% of Ontario’s Supply• 2700 Full-time Staff• Common Structure• 3 Year Outage Cycles• 55-60 Day Duration• $80 M Budget• 1% FLR •>10 M Man-hrs since last LTA

D1 1992

D2 1990

D3 1993

D4 1993

D1 1992

D3 1993

D4 1993

D2 1990

D1 1992

D3 1993

D4 1993

The Bigger Picture

Creating the Roadmap

•Ownership; Accountability; Distribution; Recovery

The Foundational Three

Key points to Take Home

Questions

AGENDA

5

SS002 3.1STRATEGIC PLANNING

SS002 3.2GENERATION

PLANNING

SS002 3.3PROJECT

EVALUATION & RANKING

SS002 3.4LONG-RANGE

PLANNING

SS002 3.5BUDGETING

SS002 3.6PLANT/FLEET VALUATION

LEADERSHIP

AP-940NUCLEAR

ASSETMANAGEMENT

ER001SCOPING/IDENT

CRITICAL COMPONENTS

ER002PERFORMANCE

REPORTING

ER003CORRECTIVE

ACTION

ER004CONTINUING

ER IMPROVEMENT

ER005LIFE-CYCLE

MANAGEMENT

ER006PM

IMPLEMENTN

AP-913EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY

MS001INVENTORY

MANAGEMENT

MS003PROCUREMENT

OF SERVICES

MS002PROCUREMENT OF MATERIALS

MS006UNNEEDED MATERIAL

DISPOSITIONING

MS004WAREHOUSING

MS005REPAIR -

REFURBISH - RETURN

AP-908MATERIALS &

SERVICES

WC003-004SCOPING

WC005-006PLANNING & SCHEDULING

WC007-009CONDUCT OF

WORK

AP-928WORK

MANAGEMENT

WC001-002MINOR

MAINTENANCE

CM001EVALUATION

CM002DESIGN CHANGE

CM003PHYSICAL

CONFIGURATION CHANGE

CM004CONFIGURATION

INFORMATION CHANGE

AP-929CONFIGURATION

MANAGEMENT

PLANTOPERATIONS

MSSP

Standard Nuclear Performance Model (SNPM)

6

The Bigger Picture LONG TERM STRATEGY (to 2050)

LONG-RANGE PLAN (10 yrs)

GENERATION/OUTAGE PLAN (6 yrs)

BUSINESS PLAN (5 yrs)

OUTAGE PLAN (2 yrs)

ON-LINE PLAN (2 yrs)

BUDGET (1 yr)

- Strategic Planning

9

Target White Red ActualSAFETY EnvironmentalReportable Spills (Category A/B/C) 0 n/a > 0 0 Conventional SafetyHigh MRPH events 0 n/a > 0 0Lost Time Accidents 0 n/a > 0 0Medical Treated Injuries < 2 3 4 2Fire Events 0 n/a > 0 0 Radiation ProtectionUnplanned Exposures 0 1 > 1 0Total WB Dose (rem) < 157 rem 157 - 173 > 181.5 rem 130 remInternal Dose (rem) < 9.4 9.4 - 10.4 > 10.9 4.6 rem Work ProtectionWork Protection Performance Index 95% 92 90 87Work Protection Level 1 Events (0 Barriers left) 0 n/a > 0 2Work Protection Level 2 Events (1 Barrier left) < 2 3 > 3 0Work Protection Level 3 Events (2 Barriers left) < 5 6 > 6 3 Nuclear SafetyOP & P License Violations 0 n/a > 0 0S99 Reportable Events (missed SRSTs) 0 n/a > 0 0Unplanned increase in shutdown risk threshold 0 n/a > 0 0Unplanned Reactor Trips or Transients 0 n/a > 0 0

SCOPEShutdown Backlog EM Total at brkr close < 100 > 150 > 275 n/aShutdown Backlog CM Total at brkr close < 3 > 3 > 5 n/aPlant Reliability List Completions 76 n/a < 76 73Scope Completion (breaker open to close) > 97% 96 < 95% 98.2

COSTBudget < $80M $84M > $87M 81.1-83.6

DURATIONOutage Duration 57 days 60.5 > 62.8 days 56Work-Off Rate in Maintenance Window 275 256 < 245 275Unit Reliability After Start-Up > 100 days n/a <100 days TBDPrimavera-Passport Mismatch 80 90 100 100-165

Recent

Campaign Results

Project Building Blocks

CON’T

MILESTONES

DURATION

ASSESSMENT

R

WALKDOWNS

CO

NTR

OLLIN

G

COSTSCOPE

M S P P

CO

NTR

OLL

ING

Materials

Resources

PermitryProcedures

Schedule

Contingency

Creating the Roadmap

Slide 11

• a scheduled event signifying the completion of a major deliverable or a set of related deliverables

• used as a project checkpoint to validate how the project is progressing and revalidate work.

• used as high-level snapshots for management to validate the progress of the project

Traditional meaning: You’re on the right path

- Milestones

• Activities are completed in accordance with milestone definitions

• Sub-owners understand their deliverables

• Recovery plans (if necessary) are approved and executed

• Approval obtained for milestone close-out

• Milestone completion is formally documented

12

Milestone Owner Ensures;

13

Milestone Accountability Model

Driving Accountability

Slide 14

Identify Major Work Scope

Identify Outage Budget

Identify Pre-Outage Prep.

Team

Order Materials

Begin Assessments

Determine Addtional Staff

Required

Review & Issue Workplans

Issue Pressure Boundary Packages

Award Contracts

Complete Assessments

Reactor Safety Review

Develop Detailed Schedule

Schedule Review & Approval

Begin Contractor Ramp-up

Greenman Team

Established

Begin Pre-Outage Work

Complete Pre-Outage Work

Key

High Confidence

Medium Confidence

Low Confidence

Outage Begins

Develop Level 1 Schedule

Approve Scope

Set Outage Duration

Prepare Permitry

Missing a Milestone

•Traumatic

•Accountability

The Best Laid Plans….

16

Milestone Recovery Plans

•Performance >5% above projected work down (burn) curve (yellow status) for >2 weeks•At Outage Manager or Milestone Owner’s discretion•Failure to achieve milestone completion date

•Formal•Approved at a high level •Identifies ;

•Cause•Course of action to recover•Effect on downstream milestones•Due dates

Covering All the Bases (46)

CON’T

MILESTONES

DURATION

ASSESSMENT

R

WALKDOWNS

CO

NTR

OLLIN

G

COSTSCOPE

M S P P

CO

NTR

OLL

ING

Materials

Resources

PermitryProcedures

Schedule

Contingency

5

7

4

3

6

1

4

5 2 1

1

1

Controlling 8

20

Wouldn’t It Be Nice …..

Rem

ain

ing

W

ork

What you’d like

What they’d like

Typical

The Foundational Three

DURATION

# Milestone Accountable Manager Due Date (months)

2 Major Scope Freeze Director - Engineering +244 Scope Loaded into OMS Potential Manager - Outage +205 Scope Ranked & Approved in OMS Manager - Outage +18

12 Scope/Cost/Duration Reconciliation & Approval Director – Work Management +12.513 Scope Freeze Manager – Outage +12

27

Scoping Milestones

Typical Approved Scope Composition

Business Plan AssumptionPM 1085CM/ EM 228OM 438

Business Plan AssumptionPM 1085CM/ EM 228OM 438

Scope Risk Ranking

Slide 30

Probability Grading

Slide 31

Grade Interpretation Definition

1Low. Probability of this event occurring is highly unlikely (<10%)

Event is not known to have occurred under similar circumstances using the planned approach

2Minor. Probability of this event occurring is unlikely (<40%)

Event is known to have occasionally occurred under similar circumstances. Current plan does not have identified shortcomings that increase the likelihood of the undesired event occurring.

3Moderate. Probability of this event occurring is likely (40% to 75%)

Current plan has identifiable shortcomings that often result in this undesirable event occurring.

4Significant. Probability of his event is highly likely (>75%)

Current plan has usually led to this event occurring under similar circumstances

5High. Probability of this event is nearly certain (>90%).

Past experience indicates that this event almost always occurs under similar circumstances using the current plan.

Consequence Grading

Slide 32

Grade Interpretation Technical Consequence

1 LowA successful outcome is not dependent on this issue; the technical performance shall be met. There would be minimal or no impact on the success of the breaker to breaker ops. (Component fails or degrades but no action required)

2 Minor

The resulting technical performance would be below the goal but within acceptable limits. There would be no need to change the basic design, process, or approach. There would be no impact on the success of the breaker to breaker ops. (Component fails or degrades; maintenance or other actions can restore functionality)

3 Moderate

The resulting technical performance would be below the goal. The basic design, process, or approach could be retained with only minor changes, and the overall system performance would still be acceptable as a result of workarounds such as the reallocation of functions or performance goals. There would be only a limited impact on the success of the breaker to breaker ops. (Failure results in a significant workaround for operations)

4 Significant

The resulting technical performance would be unacceptable below the goal. The design, process, or approach would require a significant change to achieve an acceptable performance level. Additional workarounds such as the reallocation of functions or performance goals could also be required. The success of the breaker to breaker ops could be jeopardized. (Component failure requires shutdown for repair, maintenance activity to repair equipment results in High Risk work activity)

5 HighThe resulting technical performance would be unacceptably below the goal. There are no known alternatives or solutions. The success of the breaker to breaker ops would be in doubt. (Failure results in unit trip or significant transient requiring operator response)

Level 1 Schedule

34

Scope / Cost / Duration Summary

SCOPE(1750 WO’s)

DURATION

(60 Days)CO

ST($

69M

)

$4.9M

SD# Report DateOriginal Scope

on SFDOriginal Scope

Still InCurrent Scope

Scope Additions

Deferred Scope

Cancelled Scope

SU+RP WO's in Scope

Potential Scope

Scope Variance

D1111 16-May-11 1953 1650 2032 382 184 119 53 8 35.07%

GREEN RED

Scope Variance (SV) =

# Deferred + # Cancelled + # Added

#Original Scope WO's

TARGETS: Green <10%, Yellow 10%-

20%, Red >20%

D1111 Work Order Scope Variance

o Develop a strategyIf you do not know where you are going, then any road will do -Lewis Caroll …aka; the path

of least resistance leads to the land of nothing done. - Bill Purdin

o Milestones point the way Strike a balance Cover all the bases Establish ownership Demand accountability Measure and control

o Learn your lessons

Key Points to Take Home

Questions ?

[email protected]

building strong foundations

Documents