ML16152A719
| ML16152A719 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1988 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8807290155 | |
| Download: ML16152A719 (29) | |
Text
JUL 14 1988 Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287 License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55 Duke Power Company ATTN:
Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President Nuclear Production Department 422 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28242 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
NRC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS As you are aware the NRC Performance Indicators (PIs)
Program is fully implemented under the direction of our Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD).
Currently, there are seven approved PIs for monitoring in the program:
automatic scrams while critical, safety system actuations, significant events, safety system failures, forced outage rate, equipment forced outages and collective radiation exposure.
An interoffice task group is currently developing PIs for maintenance.
The following candidate maintenance PIs were recommended for further evaluation and validation in the next few months (not listed in any priority order) and are defined in the
Enclosure:
Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance Corrective Maintenance Backlog Greater than Three Months Old Preventive Maintenance Items Overdue Maintenance Staff Turnover Rate Maintenance Rework Ratio of Deficiencies Discovered During Surveillance to those Discovered During any Demand (i.e., Demand During Surveillance or Event)
Number and Duration of BOP Equipment Out of Service Safety System Performance Indicator Mean Time to Return to Service Backlog of Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) Related to Equipment Performance Safety System Function Trend Unplanned Automatic Scrams while Critical Due to Maintenance Post-Maintenance Tests Your Oconee site is one of thirteen sites to be visited for data collection.
As this effort should be long term to our mutual benefit, I would like to solicit your assistance in this effort.
The expected impact upon your staff will vary between one and three members during the one-week data collection period. The NRC data collection team will consist of three to five members made up of NRC Headquarters, Regional, Resident and Contractor personnel. Our visit to your site is scheduled for the week of July 18-22, 1988.
8:-0729C 155 :880,7 14 P' I ADOriC CK 0500C(02 69?
F PDC
JUL 14 1988 Duke Power Company 2
I would like to stress that this is not an inspection but an effort to collect raw data, which will be analyzed to evaluate the capability to predict safety performance from a maintenance perspective.
Our effort will include discussions with your plant maintenance staff. Any insight you may provide in this area would be very helpful.
If you have any questions concerning this effort, please do not hesitate to contact T. A. Peebles, extension 4197, of my staff.
Sincerely, (Original signed by J.N. Grace)
J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator Enclosure Candidate Maintenance Performance Indicators cc w/encl:
M. S. Tuckman, Station Manager bcc w/encl:
NRC Resident Inspector DRS Technical Assistant H. Pastis, NRR Document Control Desk State of South Carolina RI RHI RH RII V.
KLg nis:vyg ees LReyes ME st 71\\U/88 7// //88 7/!1/88 7/11/88
JUL 14 1988 ENCLOSURE CANDIDATE MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS DEFINITIONS:
- 1. Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance. The definition of this indicator is identical to the one used by INPO.
It is the ratio of non-outage preventive and surveillance testing man-hours to total non-outage mainte nance (corrective and preventive maintenance, and surveillance testing) man-hours performed within a reporting period.
- 2. Corrective Maintenance Backlog Greater than Three Months Old.
This indicator (used by INPO) is defined as the percentage of total outstanding open corrective maintenance work requests (MWRs), not requiring an outage to perform that are greater than three months old at the end of the period reported.
- 3. Preventive Maintenance Items Overdue. This indicator (used by INPO) is defined as the percentage of all preventive maintenance items in the period that were not completed by the schedule date plus a grace period equal to 25% of the schedule interval beginning at the last time preventive maint enance was performed.
- 4. Maintenance Staff Turnover Rate. It is the number of vacancies in a functional group, e.g., mechanical maintenance department, created by voluntary resignation divided by the average number of employees in that group.
Retirement, death, promotion, termination for cause and part-time employment are not considered in the turnover rate.
- 5. Maintenance Rework. Several definitions can apply for this indicator, viz, (i) the number of MWRs reopened within a reporting period, (ii) the number of maintenance activities which could not be declared operable after maintenance work was completed, (iii) the number of repeat corrective maintenances performed on the same component, or (iv) the number of repeat corrective maintenances performed on a class of components.
- 6.
Ratio of Deficiencies Discovered During Surveillance to those Discovered During any Demand (i.e., Demand During Surveillance or Event).
(self-explanatory)
- 7.
Number and Duration of BOP Equipment Out of Service. It is the total number of BOP equipment that are out of service in a period. The out of service duration of each BOP equipment in a period is added to obtain the duration of BOP equipment out service.
(see data needs sheets for additional details)
- 8.
Safety System Performance Indicator. This performance indicator (used by INPO) is calculated separately for three systems. The systems for PWRs are:
high pressure safety injection; auxiliary feedwater; and emergency AC power.
JUL 14 1988 The systems for BWRs, are: high pressure coolant injection or high pressure core spray; reactor core isolation cooling or isolation condenser; residual heat removal; and emergency AC power.
For each system, this indicator is defined as the sum of the unavailabilities of the components in the system during a time period, divided by the number of trains in the system.
- 9. Mean Time to Return to Service. It is defined as the sum of the out of service durations of equipment in a period divided by the number of equipment. Only major equipment (e.g., those in the NPRDS) that are out of service due to failures are considered.
- 10.
Backlog of Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) Related to Equipment Per formance. It is defined as the percentage of ECNs generated by plant staff to correct equipment performance problems that were not completed within the schedule plus a grace period equal to 25% of the scheduled completion time.
- 11.
Safety Systems Function Trends. This indicator estimates of the unavailability and mean time between failures of seven selected safety systems, based on train-level data. The train data are:
(1) The number of hours each of these trains is taken out of service while the reactor is critical; and (2) the number of train failures (ie loss of train function).
The selected systems for PWRs are:
KFW, HPI, SWS, Emergency Power/AC, Emergency Power PC, RPS trip breakers and logic, and containment spray (or containment cooling).
For BWRs, the selected systems are:
RCIC, HPCI (or HPCS) SSWS, Emergency Power/AC, Emergency Power/DC, RPS trip breaker and logic, and containment spray (or containment cooling).
- 12.
Unplanned Automatic Scrams while Critical Due to Maintenance. The definition of this indicator is identical to the one used by INPO.
It is the number of unit unplanned automatic reactor scrams that occurred while the reactor was critical and that were caused by maintenance activities.
- 13.
Post-Maintenance Tests. The number of post-maintenance performed and the number of post-maintenance tests reported as failed within a reporting period.
JUL 14 1988 CANDIDATE PI:
Safety System Function Trend.
ATTRIBUTE:
Impact on Safety System/Train Availability. This indicator monitors the effectiveness of plant programs aimed at maintaining the availability and reliability of selected safety systems/trains.
DATA NEEDS:
(1) One time data (See Table 1)
(2) Quarterly data (See Table 2).
1
JUL 14 1988 TABLE 1 ONE TIME DATA:
SAFETY SYSTEM FUNCTION TRENDS Surveillance Number Success Criteria:
i.e.,
Test of Trains Number of Trains needed System Interval in System to perform system function AFW (RCIC)
HPI (HPCI/HPSI SwS (SSWS)
EPS/AC EPS/DC RPS Trip Breakers
.Logic Containment Spray (Containment Cooling)
Table 2:
SAFETY SYSTEM FUNCTION TRENOS Plant/Unit:
Type of Record:
Name:
Date:
System*/Train*/Component Tech Train Draft/Time*
Date/Time*
For Train or System Failures.
Spec Failure*
Removed Restored Summarize Trouble, method of Paragraph (i.e.. loss from to Service discovery (i.e.. surveillance Number of Train Service test? real demand? EQ?)
Function Causes, and work done Yes or No CI>
C otes:
Means Mandating Data; Collect the other data it convenient.
JUL 14 1988 CANDIDATE PI:
Safety System Performance Indicator (INPO)
ATTRIBUTE:
Impact on Safety System/Train Availability. This indicator monitors the effectiveness of plant programs aimed at maintaining the availability of selected safety systems/
trains.
DATA NEEDS:
PWRs -
For HPSI, AFW and Emergency AC Power Systems BWRs -
For HPCI/HPCS, RCIC/Iso Condenser, Emergency AC Power Systems (1) Component Unavailable Hours in a quarter -
known and estimated.
(2) Hours Systems required.
(3) Number of trains.
CANDIDATE PI:
(1) Number and duration of BOP Equipment out of service (e.g., IA Compressor CCW Pump etc.)
(2) Amount of maintenance done on BOP equipment vs. safety related equipment.
ATTRIBUTE:
Impact on BOP Systems/Transients DATA NEEDS:
(1) Equipment Name/ID, Date and Time taken out of service, Date and Time placed in service.
(2) No. of BOP (non-safety) MWRs, No. of safety-related MWRs.
(3) See Table 3 for list of BOP components
'ABLE 3. 8OP EQUIPMENT JUL 14 1988 Ccndensate and Makeup System
- Condensate and booster pumps (ncludes driver)
Low press heaters
- Condenser Coid*^sate storage tArks Condensate demineralizers Valves in rsfn flow path F e.dwater System
- Pwsp and drivor
.aters Control nystem Valves in main flow path Heater Drain Systen
- Pumps Valves in main flow path Circulating Water System Pumps
- Traveling Screens Valves in main FlowpAth Non Ruclear Service Wate System Pumps Traveling screen (Heat exchanger in CCW) a Valves in rain flow path Closed Cooling Water Systen (Non-Nuclear)
Heat exchanger Valves in main flow path Irstrient/Service Air System Compressor Dryors Accumulators Regulators (reducing stations)
Valves in main flow path JUL 14 1988 AC Power Station, aux, man transformers Busses X-ties Main poer breakers and associated relays Control power Turbine Generator and Support Turbine Generator MSR (Main Steam Reheati Turbfne control and bypass valves Turbine Lube 1l1 Voltage/frquency regulatinn (includes ovepspead protection)
JUL 1 4 1988 CANDIDATE PI:
Repeat Equipment Failures in Individual Systems ATTRIBUTE:
(1) Repeat corrective maintenance on the same component.
Maintenance repeated on the same component for the same anomaly exhibited in a follow-up test or demand.
(2) Repeat corrective maintenance on identical components.
Maintenance performed on identical components exhibiting the same failure cause.
DATA NEEDS:
(1) Utilize NPRDS to count, sort, and evaluate for repeat corrective maintenance (2) Plants work order tracking system System Cause, Equipment ID, date of failure, component type, cause of failure, selected NPRDS engineering and failure fields.
(3) No. of corrective MWRs on the same equipment in a quarter (only major equipment considered).
(4)- Alternately, No. of corrective MWRs re-opened in a period.
CANDIDATE PI:
Maintenance Staff Turnover Rate ATTRIBUTE:
Maintenance Department Staffing/Turnover. Organizational factor indicating work force stability and accumulated experience DATA NEEDS:
(1) Number of vacancies, by type (e.g., I&C group), created by voluntary resignation from the maintenance department in a quarter. Retirement, death, promotion, termination for cause and part-time employed are not considered as part of the vacancies.
(2) Average number of employees by type in the quarter
g JUL 14 1988 CANDIDATE PIs:
(1) Corrective Maintenance Backlog Greater Than Three Months Old (INPO).
(la) Corrective Maintenance Backlog due to Spare Parts (2) Preventive Maintenance Items Overdue (INPO).
(3) Normalized Corrective Maintenance Backlog.
ATTRIBUTE:
Maintenance Backlog. Effectiveness of work priortization and backlog controls.
DATA NEEDS (1) Same as for INPO (la) Those in Item 1 due to Spare Parts.
(2) Same as for INPO.
(3) Same as in Item 1 and the estimated man-hours to close those MWRs.
CANDIDATE PI:
Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance Manhours (INPO).
ATTRIBUTES:
Resources/Preventive Maintenance. Effectiveness in avoiding equipment failures and a measure of maintenance effort on preventive measures.
DATA NEEDS:
Same as for INPO.
JUL 14 1988 CANDIDATE PI:
Automatic Scrams While Critical due to Maintenance (INPO).
ATTRIBUTES:
Scram/Cause Codes DATA NEEDS:
Same as for INPO.
CANDIDATE,PI:
Backlog of Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) related to Equipment Performance.
ATTRIBUTE:
The percentage of ECNs generated by the plant staff to correct equipment performance problems that were not completed within the schedule plus a grace period equal to 25% of the scheduled completion time.
DATA NEEDS:
(1) Total of ECNs (2) Number of ECNs which exceeded 25% of scheduled time.
SJ UL 14 1988 CANDIDATE PI:
Ratio of Deficiencies discovered during an actual demand (event) to deficiencies discovered by all measures (e.g.,
surveillance, events, and other means) for systems/
components under surveillance.
ATTRIBUTES:
Effectiveness of Surveillance Programs DATA NEEDS:
(1) No. of surveillance tests that discovered deficiencies in a quarter.
(2) No. of deficiencies discovered during any demand in a quarter CANDIDATE PI:
Post-maintenance tests ATTRIBUTE:
Quality and Effectiveness of Post-Maintenance Testing.
DATA NEEDS:
(1) Number of Post-maintenance tests in a quarter.
(2) No. of failed post-maintenance tests in a quarter.
CANDIDATE PI:
Mean Time to Return to Service.
The sum of the out of service durations of failed equipment in a period divided by the number of equipment.
Only major equipment (e.g., those in NPRDS) that are out of service due to failures are considered.
ATTRIBUTES:
Effectiveness of maintenance implementation and work control.
DATA NEEDS:
For selected major equipment.
(i) Date and time failure discovered, (ii) Dateand time equipment declared operable.
0 JUL 14 N8 8
Maintenance Staffing Indicator Sheet During Previsit, request that licensee provide the following:
- 1.
Total number of positions approved in maintenance department.
- 2. Total number of positions filled in the maintenance department.
- 3. Average years of service in maintenance department position.
- 4. Average years of maintenance department personnel with the company.
- 5. Number of vacancies by department/group in maintenance. Do not include vacancies due to retirement, death, promotion, termination for cause and part-time employees.
JUL 14 1988 List of Potential Data Sources LCO LER -
further support of MWO & LCO MWO/MWR Operations logs - Support MWO & LCO may include others NPRDS -
Support MWO Clearance Logs -
Support MWO Maintenance history -
Support MWO Spare Parts inventory P.M. Program/Schedule NRC Monthly Operating Report Engineering change notices Surveillance test records Post maintenance records
- Technical Specification
- Equipment lists
- P&IDs and Electrical one line diagrams
J Ut 14 1988 Totals and Other Items not Applicable on a Form Total number of BOP Equipment out of service (for selected equipment see table 3)
Total number of all safety related MWO/MWR Total number of all BOP related MWO/MWR Number of corrective MWRs on the same component.
Number of corrective MWRs re-opened (re-issued)
Number of maintenance work orders backlogged due to spare parts unavailability Number of PM items completed during quarter Number of PM not completed within allowable interval Estimated man-hours required to complete backlog of MWO/MWRs Man-hours expanded on PMT Man-hours expended on technical specification surveillance Man-hours expended on CM's Total Number of ECNs Number of ECNs exceeding 25% of schedule implementation time Number of deficiencies discovered during any demand Number of deficiencies discovered during surveillance testing Number of PMT Number of failed PMT
JUL 14 1988 Data Elements Found on Typical LCO Plant/Unit:
System/Train/Component:
/
Tech. Spec. Paragraph Number:
Train Failure Yes or No:
Date equipment taken or declared out of service:
Time equipment taken or declared out of service:
Date equipment returned to service (declared functional):
Time equipment returned to service (declared functional):
- Summary of event include:
methods of discovery, cause, corrective action etc.:
Notes:
- 1.
Number of Trains -
use Table 1.
- 2.
Hours systems required - can be calculated from Tech. Spec. requirements at NRC monthly operating report.
- 3.
Component unavailable hours in a quarter.
Known - difference in dates and time above.
Estimated - ? (half the time below tests....)
- This data element will most likely have to be taken from either operators log (use dates and time to find) or a MWO/MWR (see, if the associated MWO/MWR is identified on LCO)
JUVL 14 W~8 Data Elements found on Typical MWO/MWR System Component:
Component type:
Date failure discovered:
Time failure discovered:
Date returned to service:
Time returned to service:
Method of discovery 2 Cause/failure mode:
Corrective action:
Man-hours expended:
Corrective or preventive maintenance:
Post maintenance test performed:
- 1. System determine whether BOP or safety.
- 2. Was deficiency discovered during surveillance or other demand.
- 3. Component unavailable hours can be calculated by taking the difference in the dates and times above.
Summary of Maintenance Action include:
method of Discovery, cause/failure mode, corrective action
- g JUL 14 1988 Data Source Feedback Sheet (shall be prepared right after the first visit)
- 1. Plant/Unit:
- 2.
For each data element (see attachment 1) respond to the following questions:
- a.
Can the information on the data element be extracted from plant records?
- b. If yes to a); Identify the specific plant record/records that can provide the needed information.
For each record specify the time span of existence (e.g., 5 yrs, etc.), and the record format (computerized, internally generated document, eligible hard copy, etc.)
- c.
Review at least 10 sample sheets from the record and determine what portion of the sample sheets contained the needed information (e.g.,
if the needed information for the data element was missing in 2 of the 10 sample sheet you may report 80% coverage).
- d. If multiple records provide information on the same data element, make a recommendation as to what data record is more appropriate to be considered for data collection phase. The main selection criteria are:
i) high coverage (item c) ii) data span greater than 5 yrs iii) ease of data extraction
- 3. Group the data elements based on their common data sources. Provide separate sheets for all the data elements with a common data source which can be used for data collection phase.
- 4.
Provide one sheet identifying those data elements that can not be collected and shall not be pursued.
- 5. Note any other positive or negative expects or the data sources reviewed.
gJUL 14 J8d8 A short Guide for Identifying Potential Data Problems
- 1. Are records computerized, hard copy copy, microfilm, microfiche, etc.
A. If computerized is the output fixed or can it be tailored to the needs of this program is it P.C. compatible is it up to date is it complete or do the computerized files makeup a limited subject of the actual record B. If hard copy is it filed in an organized method is it legible is it manageable C. If Microfilm or microfiche is it organized in any useable format is it legible is it manageable
- 2. If logs or record books Do they capture the information required by the program or are they only an accounting function
- 3. Are individual items of the record recorded in a standardized fashion (for example; are component IP's analyzed or are they listed in several different ways)
- 4. Are other documents required to identify computers such as P&IDs or equipment lists.
If so are they available.
- 5. Does the MWO address a single component, train or system, or are multiple components identified on a MWO.
g JUL 14 98 8 Maintenance Performance Indicators Data Elements Surveillance test intervals (operability trends)
Number of trains in system Safety system function success criteria Plant/unit Type of record System/train/component Technical specification paragraph number Train failure (loss of train function yes or no)
Date/time removed from service (taken out of service) (failure)
Date/time restored to service Summary of event method of discovery cause corrective action Component unavailable hours in a quarter (known and estimated)
Hours system required functional Component ID (equipment IP)
- Total number of BOP equipment out of service (really total number of BOP MWRs for specified components)
- Total number of all safety related MWRs Component Type System Cause of failure or failure mode Number of corrective MWRs on the same component in a quarter Number of corrective MWRs re-opened (re-issued in a period)
Component manufacturer Component manufacturer model number Total number of positions approved in maintenance Total number of positions filled in maintenance Average years of service in positions Average years with the company Number of vacancies (see exclusions)
Average of employees by department/group in the quarter.
Number of maintenance work orders backlogged due to spare parts unavailability Number of preventive maintenance actions completed during quarter Number of preventive maintenance items not completed within the allowable interval Estimated man-hours required to complete backlog of MWRs Man-hours expended on preventive maintenance completed during the quarter Man-hours expended on technical specifications surveillance during the quarter Man-hours expended on corrective maintenance work requests completed during the quarter.
Number of unplanned automatic SCRAMS while critical caused by or occurred during maintenance related activities.
Total number of engineering change notices
SJUL 14 1988 Number of engineering change notices which exceeded 25% of scheduled implementation time Date ECW scheduled Date ECW issued Date ECW implemented Number of deficiencies discovered during any demand in a quarter Number of surveillance tests that discovered deficiencies in a quarter Number of post maintenance tests in a quarter Number of failed post maintenance tests in a quarter
- DATA NEEDS FOR EACH INDICATOR*
JUL 14 1988 I. Safety System Function Trend (One time data) o Data elements appear in Table 1 (attached)
- Surveillance Test interval (Tech Spec)
Number of Trains in System (Actual)
Success Criteria (Tech Specs)
- Operability tests o
Quarterly Data Data elements appear in Table 2 (attached)
Plant/Unit Type of record Data collected by Date data collected System/Train/component Tech spec paragraph number Train failure (loss of train function Yes or No)
Date/time removed from service Date/time restored to service Summary of event.
o method of discovery 0
cause o
corrective action Possible Sources:
Plant Data Other Data o LCO's 0 NPRDS o LER's o MWO's/MWRs (1) o Operators Logs II. Safety System Performance Indicator Component unavailable hours in a quarter (known and estimated)
Hours system required Number of trains This is provided in the Quarterly Plant Performance Indicator Data, supplied to INPO each quarter.
III. Number and Duration of Selected BOP Equipment out of Service (see table 3, attached)
Equipment Name/ID Date/Time taken out of service Date/Time restored to service Total number of above events (1) automated (computerized) work order tracking system.
- JUL 14 1988 Amount of maintenance done on BOP Equipment vs. Safety related equipment.
Total number of MWRs associated with all BOP components.
Total number of MWRs associated with all safety system components.
-Possible Sources:
Plant Other MWO's/MWRs (1)
NPRDS Clearance Logs Operators Logs Maintenance history IV. Repeat Equipment Failures in Individual Systems
- 1. Repeat corrective maintenance on the same component.
o Equipment ID o
Date of failure 0
Component type o
System o
Cause of failure/failure mode o
Number of corrective MWR's on the same equipment in a quarter o
Number of corrective MWR's re-opened (re-issued) in a period.
- 2. Repeat corrective maintenance on identical components.
Same as above and, o
Manufacturer o
Manufacturer model number Possible sources:
Plant Other MWOs/MWRs (1)
NPRDS Maintenance history V. Maintenance Staff Turnover Rate Maintenance Department staffing/turnover o
Total number of positions approved in maintenance o
Total number of positions filled o
Average years of service in position o
Average years with company (1) automated (computerized) work order tracking system.
JUL 14 1988 o
Number of vacancies, by department/group in maintenance. Do not include vacancies due to retirement, death, promotions, termination for cause and part-time employees.
o Average numbers of employees by department/group in the quarter.
Possible sources:
Human Resources or Personnel departments.
VI.
- 1. Corrective Maintenance Backlog greater than three months old.
Equipment Name/ID Date/time taken out of service Date/time restored to service This is provided in reduced form in the Quarterly Plant Performance Indicator Data, supplied to INPO each quarter.
(la) Corrective Maintenance Backlog due to Spare Parts.
Of the maintenance work orders, identified in (1) above, determine which ones are backlogged due to spare parts unavailability.
- 2. Preventive Maintenance Items Overdue Number of PMs completed during the quarter.
Number of PM's not completed within the allowable interval (125% of scheduled interval)
Also: a cursory review/evaluation of the Preventive Maintenance program should be performed. Key areas include, o
In-house project management system to track P.M.
program o
Method in place for determining/evaluating P.M.
program (does formal program exist?)
o P.M. Schedule (is it implemented?)
This is provided in the Quarterly Plant Performance Indicator Data, supplied to INPO each quarter.
- 3. Normalized Corrective Maintenance Backlog Same as item (1) above plus the estimated man-hours required to complete those MWRs.
(No Specific plant Data)
(1) automated (computerized) work order tracking system.
SJUL 14 1988 Possible Sources:
Plant MWO/MWRs (1)
Maintenance history Spare parts backlog inventory P.M. program/schedule VII. Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance Man-hours.
Man-hours expended on preventive maintenance completed during the quarter.
Man-hours expended on technical specification surveillence during the quarter.
Man-hours expended on corrective maintenance work requests completed during the quarter.
This is provided in the quarterly Plant Performance Indicator Data, supplied to INPO each quarter.
Possible Sources:
Plant MWOs/MWRs (1)
Maintenance history P.M. program/schedule VIII.Automatic Scrams While Critical due to Maintenance Man-hours.
The number of unplanned automatic scrams while critical that were caused by or occurred during maintenance related activities.
This is provided in the Quarterly Plant Performance Indicator Data, supplied to INPO each quarter.
Possible sources:
NRC monthly operating Report.
(not Greybook)
NRC Interoffice Group Report.
(1) automated (computerized) work order taracking swse
JUL 14 1988 IX. Backlog of Engineering Changes Notices (ECNS) Related to Equipment Performance o
Total # of ECN's o
Number of ECN's which exceeded 25% of scheduled implementation time o
Date scheduled o
Date issued o
Date implemented Possible sources:
Look for a record such as a ECN logbook or computer tracking system.
X.
Ratio of Deficiencies discovered during an actual demand (event) to deficiencies discovered by all measures for systems/components under surveillance.
Number of deficiencies discovered during any demand in a quarter Number of surveillance tests that discovered deficiencies in a quarter.
Possible Sources:
Plant Other MWO/MWR (1)
NPRDS Operator logs Surveillance Test Records LCOs LERs XI.
Post-Maintenacne Tests (PMT)
Quality and effectiveness of post maintenance testing.
number of PMTs in a quarter.
number of failed PMTs in a quarter.
(1) automated (computerized) work order tracking system.
JUL 1 4 1988 Possible sources:
Post Maintenance Tests MWO's/MWRs (1)
LCO LER Maintenance history Operators Logs XII. Meantime to Return to Service Effectiveness of maintenance implementation and work control.
The sum of the out-of-service durations of failed components in a period divided by the total number of components that failed.
Date/time failure discovered Date time failure corrected Total number of failures Possible Sources:
Plant Other MWO's/MWRs (1)
NPRDS Maintenance history LCO (1) automated (computerized) work order tracking system