INPO Update

Operational Excellence Outcomes and

Configuration Management

INPO Update

Operational Excellence Outcomes and

Configuration Management

Glenn J. Neises, INPO Sr. EvaluatorJune 2004 CMBG

Glenn J. Neises, INPO Sr. EvaluatorJune 2004 CMBG

Session ContentSession Content

• INPO Mission and Cornerstones

• Operational Excellence Outcomes Overview

• Configuration Management Overview

• INPO Perspectives

• Configuration Management Current Themes

• Future

• INPO Mission and Cornerstones

• Operational Excellence Outcomes Overview

• Configuration Management Overview

• INPO Perspectives

• Configuration Management Current Themes

• Future

INPO’s MissionINPO’s Mission

To promote the

highest levels of

safety and reliability

– to promote

excellence –

in the operation of

nuclear electric

generating plants

To promote the

highest levels of

safety and reliability

– to promote

excellence –

in the operation of

nuclear electric

generating plants

INPO CornerstonesINPO Cornerstones

Accreditation and Training

Accreditation and Training

AssistanceAssistanceAssistanceAssistance Analysis

EvaluationsEvaluations

EvaluationsEvaluations Plant Evaluation Areas

Organizational Effectiveness

Equipment Reliability Operational Focus Performance

Improvement Configuration

Management Radiological

Protection

Work Management Maintenance Engineering Operations Chemistry

Analysis

Analysis of industry trends and data

Detect emerging industry trends

Predict future performance issues

Evaluation focus areas

AnalysisAnalysis

Operational Excellence Outcomes

Operational Excellence Outcomes

Why OEO?Why OEO?

• Changed industry

• High levels of safety and reliability

• A few stations unable to keep pace

• Events revealed increased effort needed in several areas

• A few activities important to operational excellence not evaluated

• Robust self-assessment and corrective action programs

• Changed industry

• High levels of safety and reliability

• A few stations unable to keep pace

• Events revealed increased effort needed in several areas

• A few activities important to operational excellence not evaluated

• Robust self-assessment and corrective action programs

Sustainable, Event-Free Operations

Sustainable, Event-Free Operations

Sustainable, High Levels of

Plant Performance

Sustainable, High Levels of

Plant Performance

Avoidance of Unplanned,

Long-Duration Shutdowns

Avoidance of Unplanned,

Long-Duration Shutdowns

Well-Managed and Understood Safety, Design,

and Operational Margins

Well-Managed and Understood Safety, Design,

and Operational Margins

Highly-Skilled, Knowledgeable

, and Collaborative

Workforce

Highly-Skilled, Knowledgeable

, and Collaborative

Workforce

Operational Excellence

Operational Excellence

High Levels of Plant Worker

Safety

High Levels of Plant Worker

Safety

CM.1Maintaining

Margins Consistent with Design

Requirements

CM.1Maintaining

Margins Consistent with Design

Requirements

CM.2Operational

Configuration Control

CM.2Operational

Configuration Control

Well-Managed and Understood Safety, Design, and Operational

Margins

Well-Managed and Understood Safety, Design, and Operational

Margins

CM.3Design Change

Processes

CM.3Design Change

Processes

Configuration ManagementConfiguration Management

OverviewOverview

Why Configuration Management?Why Configuration Management?

• Plant safety degraded, long-term shutdowns caused by problems with:• Operating and design margins

• Design basis validity

• Plant status and configuration control

• Design product quality

• Quality and oversight of engineering programs

• Plant safety degraded, long-term shutdowns caused by problems with:• Operating and design margins

• Design basis validity

• Plant status and configuration control

• Design product quality

• Quality and oversight of engineering programs

Well Managed Margins

CM.1Performance & Configuration

Consistent with Design Requirements

CM.2 Activities Maintain

Configuration, Operating & Design

Margins

CM.5Reactor Cores Designed

& Operated within Performance Limits

CM.3CM Processes Clearly

Defined & Implemented

CM.4Engineering ProvidesTechnical Information

& Support

Evaluating Configuration ManagementEvaluating Configuration Management

Evaluating Configuration ManagementEvaluating Configuration Management

Well Managed Margins

Design Authority is

Clear

CM.1Performance & Configuration

Consistent with Design

Requirements

PhysicalPlant Matches Documentation

TrainingAddresses

Roles

SSCsMeet

Requirements

PM & PdM Validates Margins

VulnerabilitiesIdentified

Extent of Condition

Investigated

OP and MAMaintain

Status Plant

Emergent IssuesPromptly Investigated

Degraded ConditionsResolved Aggressively

DegradedConditionsEvaluated

Sound Engineering

Programs

Good CraftWorkmanship

Infrequently Performed T&E

Controlled

CM.2 Activities Maintain

Configuration, Operating, & Design Margins

Sound Parts Evaluations

CM.4Engineering ProvidesTechnical Information

& Support

CM.4Engineering ProvidesTechnical Information

& Support

Design InterfacesEffective

Margins VerifiedThru

Testing

Contingencies Planned

CM.5Reactor Cores Designed

& Operated within Performance Limits

Written GuidanceControls

CM Functions

ProperVendor

Oversight

CM.3CM Processes

Clearly Defined & Implemented

Design ControlIs Rigorous

Safety EvaluationsAre Thorough

Personnel TrainedOn Plant Changes

Field ChangesEvaluated

Design &Operating Margins

Documented

Quality Design Requirements Documented & Retrievable

Process Controls Maintain D &L Limits

Temp Mods Controlled

ComprehensiveTesting & Engineering

Programs

Quality EngineeringProducts

FME Controls

Rigorous Programs For Core Design,Reactivity Mgmt,

& Core Monitoring

Reactor EngineersProvide Support

Defect Free Fuel Operation

Approved ProgramsFor Fuel Movement &

Storage

EOP and AOP Bases Documented

Design Authority is Clear

Evaluating Configuration ManagementEvaluating Configuration Management

• Advance Screening (analysis)• Historical or present issues and initiatives

• Preliminary Evaluation Plan (3-4 weeks prior)• General focus areas• Specific document reviews

• Refined Evaluation Plan (1 week prior)• Interview schedule• Specific focus areas

• In-field activities / observations (on-site weeks)• dialogue on impacts, causes, extent of condition

• Advance Screening (analysis)• Historical or present issues and initiatives

• Preliminary Evaluation Plan (3-4 weeks prior)• General focus areas• Specific document reviews

• Refined Evaluation Plan (1 week prior)• Interview schedule• Specific focus areas

• In-field activities / observations (on-site weeks)• dialogue on impacts, causes, extent of condition

INPO PerspectivesINPO Perspectives

Performance Indicator IndexPerformance Indicator Index

75.1 74.379

85.489.4

95.1 95 96.5 95.6 93.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004*

Med

ian

Inde

x V

alue

*2004 values as of March 31,

2004

Performance Indicator IndexPerformance Indicator IndexAll components of the index have declined slightly

• Unit capability factor

• Forced loss rate

• Unplanned automatic scrams

• Safety system performance

• Fuel reliability

• Chemistry performance

• Collective radiation exposure

• Industrial safety

All components of the index have declined slightly

• Unit capability factor

• Forced loss rate

• Unplanned automatic scrams

• Safety system performance

• Fuel reliability

• Chemistry performance

• Collective radiation exposure

• Industrial safety

Why?Why?

• Equipment performance has declined

• Grid and switchyard problems are challenging operations

• Non-station personnel not well trained or supervised

• Senior managers are less focused on operations

• Short-term and long-term needs are out of balance

• Equipment performance has declined

• Grid and switchyard problems are challenging operations

• Non-station personnel not well trained or supervised

• Senior managers are less focused on operations

• Short-term and long-term needs are out of balance

Declining Equipment PerformanceDeclining Equipment PerformanceSafety System Performance

70

8492 94 94 95 96 94 97 95 94

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

per

cen

t

Percentage of Systems Achieving 2005 Industry Goal Each Year*2004 values as of March 31, 2004

Declining Equipment PerformanceDeclining Equipment PerformanceFuel Reliability

4650

7176

83 83 85 8477 74 73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

per

cen

t

Percentage of Units Reporting Zero Defects*2004 values as of March 31, 2004

Configuration ManagementConfiguration Management

Current ThemesCurrent Themes

CM Areas for ImprovementCM Areas for Improvement

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Engineering ProductQuality

OperationalConfiguration Control

Margin Management Reactor Engineering /Fuels

Engineering Programs

Engineering Product QualityEngineering Product Quality

• Examples:• Engineering results not supported with

rigorous documentation

• Modification delays

• Vendor errors

• Temporary modification control

• Calculation errors

• Examples:• Engineering results not supported with

rigorous documentation

• Modification delays

• Vendor errors

• Temporary modification control

• Calculation errors

Engineering Product QualityEngineering Product Quality

• Causes:• Supervisor engagement

• Lack of operating experience use

• Preparation & verification not thorough

• Lack of human performance tool use

• Inadequate modification review meetings

• Inadequate vendor oversight

• Insufficient verification or testing for vendor-supplied designs

• Causes:• Supervisor engagement

• Lack of operating experience use

• Preparation & verification not thorough

• Lack of human performance tool use

• Inadequate modification review meetings

• Inadequate vendor oversight

• Insufficient verification or testing for vendor-supplied designs

Operational Configuration ControlOperational Configuration Control

• Examples:• Changes to the plant without approved

engineering documents• Uncontrolled temp power / temp mods• Long term open operability determinations• Mispositionings resulting in equipment

damage • Uncontrolled equipment and setpoint changes• Blocking of protective equipment trips • Protective doors locked open

• Examples:• Changes to the plant without approved

engineering documents• Uncontrolled temp power / temp mods• Long term open operability determinations• Mispositionings resulting in equipment

damage • Uncontrolled equipment and setpoint changes• Blocking of protective equipment trips • Protective doors locked open

Operational Configuration ControlOperational Configuration Control

• Causes:• Personnel lack an understanding of the design

change process

• Indicators limited to component mispositionings

• Human performance weaknesses

• Inadequate engineering management oversight

• Tolerance of temporary, unauthorized changes

• CM viewed by station personnel as a design engineering role as opposed to a station role

• Causes:• Personnel lack an understanding of the design

change process

• Indicators limited to component mispositionings

• Human performance weaknesses

• Inadequate engineering management oversight

• Tolerance of temporary, unauthorized changes

• CM viewed by station personnel as a design engineering role as opposed to a station role

Margin ManagementMargin Management

• Examples:• Low operational margin on safety-related components

• Safety-related heat exchanger tube blockage

• Design documents & calcs not updated

• Errors in operability determinations

• Modifications don’t consider all operating regimes

• Modifications cause significantly reduced operational margins

• Examples:• Low operational margin on safety-related components

• Safety-related heat exchanger tube blockage

• Design documents & calcs not updated

• Errors in operability determinations

• Modifications don’t consider all operating regimes

• Modifications cause significantly reduced operational margins

Margin ManagementMargin Management

• Causes:• Lack of operating margin focus

• Inadequate testing and monitoring programs

• Insufficient understanding of design information

• Station management did not challenge and question power uprate evaluations

• Power uprate was a fast-track project, and time pressure contributed to insufficient reviews

• Causes:• Lack of operating margin focus

• Inadequate testing and monitoring programs

• Insufficient understanding of design information

• Station management did not challenge and question power uprate evaluations

• Power uprate was a fast-track project, and time pressure contributed to insufficient reviews

Reactor Engineering & FuelReactor Engineering & Fuel

• Examples:• Fuel Failures• Reactor engineering support & communication with

operations• Incorrect values entered into computer calculations

• Causes:• High localized power due to control rod movement• No long-term, integrated plan to achieve zero fuel

defects• Unclear expectations for reactor engineering support• Inadequate human performance tool use

• Examples:• Fuel Failures• Reactor engineering support & communication with

operations• Incorrect values entered into computer calculations

• Causes:• High localized power due to control rod movement• No long-term, integrated plan to achieve zero fuel

defects• Unclear expectations for reactor engineering support• Inadequate human performance tool use

Engineering ProgramsEngineering Programs

• Examples:• Program results not verified or in error• Testing not adequately performed

• Causes:• Inadequate management oversight• Insufficient coordination between modification &

testing program• Inadequate program and component health

monitoring • Turnover of program engineers

• Examples:• Program results not verified or in error• Testing not adequately performed

• Causes:• Inadequate management oversight• Insufficient coordination between modification &

testing program• Inadequate program and component health

monitoring • Turnover of program engineers

Recurring CausesRecurring Causes

• Management oversight

• Human performance

• Oversight of non-station personnel

• Procedure / process adherence or adequacy

• Management oversight

• Human performance

• Oversight of non-station personnel

• Procedure / process adherence or adequacy

FutureFutureWhat else is out thereWhat else is out there

TransformersTransformers GridGrid

Margins / Power Uprate

Margins / Power Uprate

FuelFuel

EmergingEmerging

• Evaluations• Margin Focus

• Programs Review• Engineering Program Excellence Guidelines

• Initiatives• Nuclear Fuel

• Engineering Work Management

• Non-station Personnel

• Transformers and Switchyards

• Evaluations• Margin Focus

• Programs Review• Engineering Program Excellence Guidelines

• Initiatives• Nuclear Fuel

• Engineering Work Management

• Non-station Personnel

• Transformers and Switchyards

ActionsActions

Good News!Good News!• Many strengths continue to be written (31)

• CM steering committee used to raise awareness on low margin components

• Improved procurement process for critical station components

• Calculation simplification to reduce the probability design errors

• Benchmarking to improve configuration management activities

• Effective fleet communications to implement notable CM improvements

• Operation without fuel defects for ten years

• Many strengths continue to be written (31)• CM steering committee used to raise awareness on low

margin components

• Improved procurement process for critical station components

• Calculation simplification to reduce the probability design errors

• Benchmarking to improve configuration management activities

• Effective fleet communications to implement notable CM improvements

• Operation without fuel defects for ten years

Good News!Good News!

• Improved evaluation process• Pre-evaluation activities leading to better core team

preparation

• Improved counterpart dialog

• Better developed causes, contributors, and insights

• Higher-level, vulnerability AFIs

• More issues related to manager and supervisor performance

• Improved cross-functional evaluation process is being well received

• Improved evaluation process• Pre-evaluation activities leading to better core team

preparation

• Improved counterpart dialog

• Better developed causes, contributors, and insights

• Higher-level, vulnerability AFIs

• More issues related to manager and supervisor performance

• Improved cross-functional evaluation process is being well received

MarginsMargins• “By decreasing our margins, we are

relying more and more heavily on our operators, engineers, and managers to make the right decisions, and to make them in a timely manner.”

Zack T. PateWANO Biennial General Meeting March 2002

• “By decreasing our margins, we are relying more and more heavily on our operators, engineers, and managers to make the right decisions, and to make them in a timely manner.”

Zack T. PateWANO Biennial General Meeting March 2002

DiscussionDiscussion