Vendor Technical Information

1. May 18, 2012 Cleveland 2005 1 Vendor Technical Information Bill Kline FENOC

2. May 18, 2012 2 Cleveland 2005 Introduction Feedback From 2004 Conference Survey Vendor Technical Information popular topic What does a “good” program look like? How is it structured to be successful? Initial benchmarking results VTI not a specific focus of INPO evaluations INPO Good Practice for VTI not identified Focus has shifted Identify types of “critical” vendor information Priorities with problem/critical equipment w/ low margin

3. May 18, 2012 3 Cleveland 2005 Vendor Interface History NRC Generic Letter 83-28 Establish/maintain complete vendor information Safety-Related components NRC Generic Letter 90-03 Clarified NRC position in GL 83-28 Recognized INPO managed programs NPRDS - Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System SEE-IN - Significant Event Evaluation/Info. Network INPO 84-010 (NUTAC) and INPO 87-009 Both cancelled prior to 1999

4. May 18, 2012 4 Cleveland 2005 VETIP Components Licensee access to vendor updates Changes to design, maintenance, testing, parts Validated by licensee periodic vendor contact Reasonable and prudent OE review Interface w/ component safety significance Compensate for lack of vendor backup Obtain additional technical data Focus on equipment maintenance, replacement, and repair

5. May 18, 2012 5 Cleveland 2005 INPO 05-003 Links Performance Objectives & Criteria (PO&Cs) PO - CM.1 Criteria 3 Programs confirm assumed design margins PO - CM.2 Criteria 5, 6, 7, 8 Communication of technical information Documents are kept current as changes are made Physical configuration consistent w/documentation PO - CM.3 Criteria 3, 4, 5, 8 Interdisciplinary input and review

6. May 18, 2012 6 Cleveland 2005 Basic Requirements Identification and review scope Vendor manuals, technical information, technical bulletins, misc. vendor correspondence New or revised information Match operating characteristics to plant equipment Proper detail for settings, tolerances, clearances Changes to preventive maintenance identified Need to annotate for plant specific requirements Identify changes to existing CM documents

7. May 18, 2012 7 Cleveland 2005 Positive Program Attributes Centralize receipt of new information Compare vendor info to plant end use Correlate to plant specific component location Know what vendor documents you have Manuals contain many technical documents Baseline the manual contents Identify what you need for your specific plant Set up database tracking for identified items

8. May 18, 2012 8 Cleveland 2005 Positive Program Attributes Modifications to plant equipment Interface w/ vendor re: design assumptions Update vendor information promptly Technical approval for non-mod changes Validate testing requirements are realistic Consolidate vendor contacts/inquiries Some plants use outside firm for vendor contact Vendor combines and streamlines requests

9. May 18, 2012 9 Cleveland 2005 Challenges to Success Availability of “proprietary’ information Vendor ownership changes/market factors Vendor loss of technical expertise Effects on initial vendor design assumptions Power uprate pushing the “limit” Secondary side - industry “rule of thumb” Identifying information we “need to know” Resource limitations to implement

10. May 18, 2012 10 Cleveland 2005 Response to Challenges Aggressive position regarding proprietary info Expectation - access is part of doing business Prioritize information needs Identify critical component lists PM optimization Equipment Reliability (ER) templates Integrate w/ design margin management Troublesome equipment Improve detail in purchase specifications

11. May 18, 2012 11 Cleveland 2005 Change in Focus Approach at higher level Critical system and function margins Focus on risk to safety and reliability Incorporate PSA insights Identify critical component criteria Correlate w/ Plant Health Reports Enhance attention re: testing activities Trickle-down effect on VTI Margin management will enhance VTI content

12. May 18, 2012 12 Cleveland 2005 Recent Issues/Concerns Lack of ownership for program requirements Integrity of satellite file locations Need for impact review Design, licensing basis, and affected documents Revisions outside modification process Process undefined re: review responsibilities Periodic vendor contact process Lack of follow-up for vendor lack of response

13. May 18, 2012 13 Cleveland 2005 Conclusions Vendor information needs have changed More detail vs. less Process responsibilities must be clear Technical review required - non-mod changes Integrate w/ margin management initiatives Enhanced use of OE Validate plant specific testing requirements Improve purchase specifications

14. May 18, 2012 Cleveland 2005 14 Questions?Comments?Discussion