planning for obsolescence
DESCRIPTION
Planning for Obsolescence. John Parler South Carolina Electric & Gas. June 27, 2009. For the Uninformed here is the answer to all your obsolescence issues. Obsolesence – What?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
3
CMBG2009 Obsolesence – What?
• Our Plant defines obsolescence as material that is still required to operate the plant but is no longer available or is hard to obtain (soon to be unavailable).
• Materials obsolescence directly impacts the ability to have needed spares to support plant operations.
4
CMBG2009
Is it a real concern?
• The Nuclear Utilities Obsolescence Group (NUOG) developed the Proactive Obsolescence Management System (POMS) through PKMJ Technical Services to identify items.
• A download of all plant equipment with model numbers was done,
• PKMJ contacted the manufacturer of each specific model number and asked if they were still supported.
8
CMBG2009 The Results (as of 2005)
• Total Equipment numbers 631,000
• Equipment with no model 199,000
• Waiting on manufacturer 273,000
• Response from manufacturer 159,000
• Bad model information 54,000
• Obsolete 34,500
• Still available 70,500» Numbers are approx.
9
CMBG2009
What that means
As an industry for the identified equipment:
• We don't know what 31% of our equipment really is.
• We know that only 11% is still supported by the manufacturer
• 22% of the equipment that we have received a response from the manufacturer on, is obsolete
12
CMBG2009
What is being done?
• Concern was identified by Supply Chain initially and NUOG was formed (2/2000)
• With the help of RAPIDS the “Obsolete Items Replacement Database” (OIRD) was established
• Joint efforts between utilities addressed specific concerns
• Increased industry awareness expanded involvement to include more engineering
16
CMBG2009 Available Guidance
• NX-1037 was produced by NUOG and distributed by INPO which outlines a basic program (12/2003)
• In November of 2008 EPRI issued report #1016692 which built on NX-1037 and provided specific recommendations for program development and ownership
• Current EPRI has a task team working on additional enhancements to their guidance
17
CMBG2009 VCS Specific Program Overview
• Our program originally implemented in 2002 and we are currently on revision 3 with revision 4 in development
• It is based on the direction in NX-1037
• It is a Station Administrative Procedure since it impacts multiple departments. SAP-1287
18
CMBG2009
VCS Specific
• The program is "owned" by our Materials Group, who administer the process
It does not matter who owns the program as long as there is a defined lead
• When an item is determined to be obsolete it is entered into our Corrective Action Program
• It is coded as obsolete and assigned to Materials
19
CMBG2009
VCS Specific
• The potential impact of the obsolescence is determined and scored under our Plant Health Committee process
• The process is documented and tracked under our CAP program
• Actions are assigned to Materials to:– Update the OIRD for industry sharing– Identify replacement options
20
CMBG2009
VCS Specific
• The options considered for resolution include:– Identification of an available equivalent
replacement– Location of an after market supply– Reverse engineering the item– Modification to the plant
21
CMBG2009
VCS Specific
• When a recommended solution has been determined by Materials it is sent to Plant Support Engineering for concurrence
• This review is to assure that the solution is in line with the long term plans for the system
• The solution is then incorporated into the schedule and worked based on its priority
22
CMBG2009
VCS Specific
• If the solution is determined to be:– An equivalency the action is assigned to
Materials (Procurement Engineering) to process
– Reverse engineering Materials has the lead with support from PSE
– A modification PSE has the lead to provide the project recommendation and submit it to Design Engineering
23
CMBG2009
VCS Specific
• We found that the simple equivalency resolutions were able to be worked fairly quickly
• When setting the PHC score a major input is when the impact is expected and most obsolescence issues don't involve a current failure
• If the resolution involved a modification it normally does not have a high enough PHC score to be worked proactively
24
CMBG2009
VCS Specific
• Recently we made a change to our PHC process because of the issue of not being able to proactively resolve these issues
• We now target obsolescence issues on our Plant Focus List for resolution, even when they score lower than other risks
• Currently two of the eleven items on our Focus List are proactive obsolescence items
25
CMBG2009
VCS Specific
• Currently our challenge is the fact that the POMS data that we received indicates that 24% of our equipment is obsolete
• This equals over 7,200 components and our current process is not designed to address that large an input.
• One reason why we are currently developing a process revision
26
CMBG2009
Summary
• The issue is major and growing bigger everyday
• As we upgrade our equipment most everything that is produced today has some digital component
• The Department of Defense has done detailed studies on the concern and the following graph shows the average timeline for a digital system
• The times are inline with what is expected at a nuclear plant
27
CMBG2009
Over 70% of the electronic parts are obsolete before the first system is installed!
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
System Installation date
% o
f E
lect
ron
ic P
arts
Un
avai
lab
le
Year1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
28
CMBG2009
Summary
• It is not important who coordinates your program, what is important is that you have a defined program with a defined lead
• Programs that involve numerous organizations without a responsible lead tend to fail.
• Obsolescence is a Plant concern not just Materials or Engineering