Upload
donald-knight
View
233
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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