1 / 39

INPO Update Operational Excellence Outcomes and Configuration Management

INPO Update Operational Excellence Outcomes and Configuration Management. Glenn J. Neises, INPO Sr. Evaluator June 2004 CMBG. Session Content. INPO Mission and Cornerstones Operational Excellence Outcomes Overview Configuration Management Overview INPO Perspectives

aram
Download Presentation

INPO Update Operational Excellence Outcomes and Configuration Management

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. INPO UpdateOperational Excellence Outcomes and Configuration Management Glenn J. Neises, INPO Sr. Evaluator June 2004 CMBG

  2. Session Content • INPO Mission and Cornerstones • Operational Excellence Outcomes Overview • Configuration Management Overview • INPO Perspectives • Configuration Management Current Themes • Future

  3. INPO’s Mission To promote the highest levels of safety and reliability – to promote excellence – in the operation of nuclear electric generating plants

  4. Accreditation and Training Analysis INPO Cornerstones Evaluations Assistance

  5. Evaluations Plant Evaluation Areas • Organizational Effectiveness • Equipment Reliability • Operational Focus • Performance Improvement • Configuration Management • Radiological Protection • Work Management • Maintenance • Engineering • Operations • Chemistry

  6. Analysis Analysis • Analysis of industry trends and data • Detect emerging industry trends • Predict future performance issues • Evaluation focus areas

  7. Operational Excellence Outcomes

  8. 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

  9. Sustainable, Event-Free Operations Sustainable, High Levels of Plant Performance Avoidance of Unplanned, Long-Duration Shutdowns Operational Excellence Well-Managed and Understood Safety, Design, and Operational Margins Highly-Skilled, Knowledgeable, and Collaborative Workforce High Levels of Plant Worker Safety

  10. CM.1 Maintaining Margins Consistent with Design Requirements Well-Managed and Understood Safety, Design, and Operational Margins CM.2 Operational Configuration Control CM.3 Design Change Processes

  11. Configuration Management Overview

  12. 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

  13. Evaluating Configuration Management CM.5 Reactor Cores Designed & Operated within Performance Limits CM.3 CM Processes Clearly Defined & Implemented CM.1 Performance & Configuration Consistent with Design Requirements Well Managed Margins CM.2 Activities Maintain Configuration, Operating & Design Margins CM.4 Engineering Provides Technical Information & Support

  14. Evaluating Configuration Management Approved Programs For Fuel Movement & Storage Quality Design Requirements Documented & Retrievable Rigorous Programs For Core Design, Reactivity Mgmt, & Core Monitoring Design Authority is Clear Sound Engineering Programs Personnel Trained On Plant Changes Defect Free Fuel Operation FME Controls Infrequently Performed T&E Controlled Reactor Engineers Provide Support Written Guidance Controls CM Functions Degraded Conditions Evaluated Design Interfaces Effective Good Craft Workmanship CM.5 Reactor Cores Designed & Operated within Performance Limits SSCs Meet Requirements Temp Mods Controlled CM.3 CM Processes Clearly Defined & Implemented Design Control Is Rigorous CM.1 Performance & Configuration Consistent with Design Requirements Margins Verified Thru Testing Field Changes Evaluated Safety Evaluations Are Thorough Well Managed Margins PM & PdM Validates Margins CM.4 Engineering Provides Technical Information & Support Physical Plant Matches Documentation EOP and AOP Bases Documented Design &Operating Margins Documented CM.2 Activities Maintain Configuration, Operating, & Design Margins Design Authority is Clear Process Controls Maintain D &L Limits Vulnerabilities Identified Proper Vendor Oversight OP and MA Maintain Status Plant Training Addresses Roles Degraded Conditions Resolved Aggressively Sound Parts Evaluations Contingencies Planned Comprehensive Testing & Engineering Programs Extent of Condition Investigated Quality Engineering Products Emergent Issues Promptly Investigated

  15. Evaluating 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

  16. INPO Perspectives

  17. Performance Indicator Index *2004 values as of March 31, 2004

  18. Performance Indicator Index All components of the index have declinedslightly • Unit capability factor • Forced loss rate • Unplanned automatic scrams • Safety system performance • Fuel reliability • Chemistry performance • Collective radiation exposure • Industrial safety

  19. 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

  20. Declining Equipment Performance

  21. Declining Equipment Performance

  22. Configuration Management Current Themes

  23. CM Areas for Improvement

  24. Engineering Product Quality • Examples: • Engineering results not supported with rigorous documentation • Modification delays • Vendor errors • Temporary modification control • Calculation errors

  25. Engineering 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

  26. Operational 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

  27. Operational 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

  28. Margin 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

  29. Margin 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

  30. Reactor 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

  31. Engineering 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

  32. Recurring Causes • Management oversight • Human performance • Oversight of non-station personnel • Procedure / process adherence or adequacy

  33. Future What else is out there

  34. Transformers Grid Margins / Power Uprate Fuel Emerging

  35. Actions • Evaluations • Margin Focus • Programs Review • Engineering Program Excellence Guidelines • Initiatives • Nuclear Fuel • Engineering Work Management • Non-station Personnel • Transformers and Switchyards

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. Margins • “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. Pate WANO Biennial General Meeting March 2002

  39. Discussion

More Related