ML20155G289

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 880324-25 Meeting W/Res & INPO Re Determination of Current Status of INPO Initiatives Re Maint.Proposed Agenda & Handouts for Meeting Encl
ML20155G289
Person / Time
Issue date: 06/03/1988
From: Mckenna E
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Gody A
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
IEB-85-003, IEB-85-3, NUDOCS 8806170237
Download: ML20155G289 (58)
v • d • e


Text

O3 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Anthony Gody, Chief DISTRIBUTION: %.

Performance Evaluation Branch VCentraL E11e ' "

Division of Licensee Performar.ce and PDR ,

Quality Evaluation EMcKenna JJankovich FROM: Eileen McKenna, Section Leader DPersinko Section B, Performance Evaluation Branch MDey, RES Division of Licensee Performance and TXing, RES Quality Evaluation JRoe JZwolinski

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH INSTITUTE FOR NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS (INP0) l On May 24-25, 1988, I attended a meeting with representatives of the office  ;

of Research at INP0 offices. A list of attendees is provided in Enclosure 1.

j The purpose of the meeting was to determine the current status of INP0 initiatives relating to maintenance. The proposed agenda of topics for the meeting is in Enclosure 2 (The order and duration of some of the topics varied from this plan during the meeting). Also enclosed are handouts used during the meeting.

For each topic, INP0 discussed the status and future plans. Each is summarized below.

Evaluation Process - INP0 described how they conduct overall evaluations of plants, which includes maintenance. This includes in-office preparation, two weeks on-site, and internal meetings to develop the overall assessment rating.

Check Valves - INP0 issued a significant operating event report (SOER) in 1986 on check valves in response to industry events. Two major aspects were misapplication in design and inadequate preventive maintenance of surveillance. Plants are following up on the INP0 recomendations for key systems where valve failures could lead to overpressurization, water hammer on steam binding.

l Motor Operated Valves (M0V)s - In response to valve failures and to complement j NRC actions (Bulletin 85-03, AE00 studies), INP0, in conjunction with EPRI and a NUMARC, has several MOV initiatives. These include detailed review and analysis of failures, extra evaluators on teams specifically to review MOV ,

maintenance, and workshops. Problem areas identified are: preventive i maintenance, post-maintenance testing, root cause analysis and torque switch  !

setpoint controls. '

Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) - NPRDS is the industry-wide source of equipment performance data. The system includes component failure records coded to aid in data retrieval. In the past, industry participation in NPRDS was mixed due to problems with ease of use and data quality. Since Mnge gp 9'

% 4q D d/  ;

I

1984, efforts have been in place to improve the system, both for new records and in filling in missing information. Workshops and assistance visits to encourage NPRDS utilization are also being conducted during 1988.

Component Failure Analysis System (CFAS) - This program used NPRDS to perform statistical tests to identify trends, such as a higher failure rate for one  !.

group of components compared to the overall population. An engineering analysis is then performed to evaluate possible causes. For example, a higher failure rate of a component at one plant may be attributable to differences in maintenance, housekeeping or the environmental conditions of the component.

These analyses are done to support the evaluation visits or MART (see below).

Performance Indicators (PI) - INP0 has been tracking overall plant performance indicators, such as reactor' scrams, across the industry. In addition, they have been collecting data for several indicators related to maintenance.

Based on the results to date, they believe the following maintenance indicators should be continued:

1) ratio of preventive to total maintenance
2) corrective maintenance backlog greater than three months old
3) preventive maintenance items overdue
4) unplanned automatic scrams while critical associated with maintenance activities.

Maintenance Assistance Review Teams (MART)/Self Assessment - In 1985, INP0 issued "Guidelines for the Conduct of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Stations".  ;

INP0 requested each licensee to conduct a self-assessment of their maintenance program against the guidelines and to provide results of the review to INP0 by December 1987. As of May 1988, 72 of 75 sites had responded; the other three cases involved special circumstances and a response is coming later. Based on analysis of the results, INPO will update the guidelines.

A related activity are the MART visits. A team composed of members from INPO, the plant utility, other in'dustry groups, and other utilities conducted these visits to sites where assistance seemed appropriate. The purpose was to identify specific recommendations to improve maintenance by focusing on root causes of problems. Twelve MART visits have been completed; in addition, four visits were made to plants with good performance. Further visits are under  ;

consideration. INP0 is compiling the "lessons-learned" from these visits for  ;

distribution to the industry. l Following the presentations, we reviewed some sample self-assessment and MART ,

reports to determine format, depth of review and breadth of coverage. The MART reports were very comprehensive and frank. Since submittal of results were i requested, the self-assessment responses were more variable.

Orldnal Eileen hace b McKenna,ySection Leader i Section B, Perforn.ar.ce Evaluation Branch Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation

Enclosures:

As stated Ph)D)QQ EMcKenna  :

6/ 3 /88 1

? i l

Enclosure 1 l NRC/INP0 MEETING NAME AFFILIATION i

Tom King NRC/RES Moni Dey NRC/RES Eileen McKenna NRC/NRR l

Rick Jacobs INP0 Sam Johnson INP0 l Ed Moore INP0  !

Ron Wells INP0 I Bob Bauman INP0 i Gary Fader INP0 I l

I l

l l

l I

i l

1

~

l l

1 AGENDA l NRC DISCUSSIONS - MAINTENANCE May 24, 1988 Conference Room 1415 8:30 - 9:00 -

Visit Overview / Status of E. McKenna NRC Rulemaking R. H. Jacobs 9:00 - 9:30 INP0 Evaluation Process C. E. Moore 9:30 - 10:00 k is Related to Maintenance Pj S. W.' Johnson 10:00 - 10:15 Check Valves R. M. Wells .

10:15 - 10:45 MOVs S. W. Johnson 10:45 - 11:30 NPRDS J. R. Bauman 11:30 - 12:00 CFAS G. B. Fader Noen - 12:45 Lunch 12:45 - 1:30 Self-Assessment / S. W. Johnson Maintenance Assistant Teams 1:30 - 3:30 Review of MARTS Reports S. W. Johnson 3:30 Wrap Up C. E. Moore S. W. Johnson R. H. Jacobs (5/18/88)  :

i MA88-572 .

I

}

Introductory Remarks for NRC/INP0 Meeting on INP0 Maintenance Initiatives May 24 and 25,1988 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Atlanta, GA l

Moni Dey,, Task Manager Advanced Reactors & Generic Issues Branch Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

l l

COMMISSION DIRECTION STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMO (M880107), DATED 2/25/88, DIRECTED THE STAFF TO DEVELOP A NOTICE OF PROPOSED RVLEMAKING, "The proposed rule should spell out NRC's expectations in maintenance within the framework of the attached final ,

policy statement, yet still encourage industry initiatives  :

to achieve excellence. In preparing the proposed rule, the staff should consult in some open fashion with interested persons, including representatives of the regulated industry, and should consider maintenance approaches in other countries. Staff should also review practices in other industries in this country in which human performance and equipment reliability play an important role in safe operations, and regulatory activities which ensure the adequacy of these practices. The staff should periodically brief the ACRS and seek their input during i the development of the notice of proposed rulemaking. In this regard, the Chairman suggested that the staff should also schedule public workshops to solicit early public and regulated industry participation in the formulation of the proposed rule, and that the ACRS should consider monitoring one or more of these workshops as a part of their review activities."

\

PLANNED STAFF EFFORT LEADING TO NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

  • REVIEW STANDARDS COMMITTEE INITIATIVES (ASME, IEEE, ANS)
  • CONSIDER MAINTENANCE APPROACHES IN JAPAN, FRANCE AND FRG l REVIEW PRACTICES IN AIRLINE INDUSTRY AND NAVY
  • DEVELOP PROPOSED RULE, REG. GUIDE AND OUTLINE OF NUREG
  • CONDUCT PUBLIC WORKSHOP (JULY 11-13, 1988, MAYFLOWERH0TEL)

PERIODICALLY BRIEF ACRS (FIRST BRIEFING IS 6/15/88)

NEhTOCOMMISSIONDECEMBER1,1988 4

2

4/1 6/1 8/1 LO/1 -12/1 4/1 6/1 8/1 10/1 1/ /83 ~.

! l l l I ) I l l \ l I l 1 l  ! .

Pkg. Pkg.

Pkg.to Comm. to to Final pkg CRGR Comm.

workshop Briefing concur CRGR Comm. Public Comment Review Comments v Revise Rule + R.G. V to concur. V V V V V V V V V Period Draf t Rule + R.G. V

+ NUREG Outline v Finalize NUREG V Draft Reg. Analysis v v Final Reg. Analysis v v V V '

Preliminary Eval. Provide detailed. ,

IEEE, and ANS stds, input on IEEE and ANS stds initiatives v Prepare SRP Revision v v v v Preliminary Eval. of Provide detailed FAA, Industry, input on FAA, Foreign Country Industry, Foreign Mant. Programs Country Maint. Programs for input to R.G. + NUREG 1 i

V V V Provide Preliminary Provide final input on '

input on Maintenance Maintenance Performance ~

g3 Performance Indicators Indicators i

V V V Provide Preliminary Provide detailed input on
on maintenance practices from NPAR practices from NPAR program and ASME program'and ASME maintenance .

caintenenar.ce Full Comm.

9 g

, ACRS y y y Sub Comm.

Sub Comm. Sub Comm. Full Comm.

a e

1 T

w.

. _ - _ _ . - _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _____-_-_-__m___. _ _ _ - . m. _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ - - -

I ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND REVIEW AT NRC/INP0 NEETING ON MAY 24 AND 25, 1988 Items for Discussion

  • What guidance does INP0 use to define what is a good maintenance program?

How does it address:

- technical requirements planning

- work control (communicatiuns) requirements

- monitoring requirements (see attached sheet for further detail)

How should a utility monitor the effectiveness of its maintenance program? How does INP0 do it? What should be monitored?

Industry Standards used?

Have they looked at foreign maintenance programs? How do they compare?

FAA?

! tens for Review Reports on self-assessment of nuclear station maintenance programs. j Maintenance Assistance and Review Team (MART) reports. 1 1

4 4

4

MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MAJOR OBJECTIVES / FUNCTIONS CICI E M ibh/PERSOMMEL PERFORM MATiiTUiARCE

  • Corrective mainterrance.
  • Preventive maintenance.
  • Post-maintenance testing and return-to-service activities; e i PLAN I l0PERATIONSl 3

PLANT (Components. Systems MAINTEMAliCEACTIVITIES g l COPMUNICATE and Structures) -

I

' J[ EQUIPMENT /

PROCEDURES HUMAN RESOURCES

  • Internal communications CORPORATE l
  • Maintenance records;
  • Maintenance management  ! MA*INTENANCE Crew between the maintenance MANAGEMENT l
  • Management of parts. and organization in the l
  • Staff organization and plant tools and facilities; areas of operations and support  !
  • Procedures; - Planning. I groups; -

I

  • Engineering support and - Scheduling. l
  • Communications between plant modificatons; - Staffing. plant and corporate management l

- Shift coverage.  ! and the maintenance organization

-

  • Radiolog(ical control ALARA); exposure - Resource allocation;  !
  • Maletenance recommendations
  • Personnel qualification l ENGINEERING l g or requirements of and training; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

individual vendors;

  • Control of contracted

" Quality assurance and maintenance services; quality control; l

MONITOR STATUS OF PLANT KIRDUlT1ETENANCE PROGRAM

  • Equipment history and

, trending; r

  • Predictive maintenance;
  • Surveillance;
  • Measures of overall program effectiveness;

'This functional sdematic follows the framework of the Commission Policy Statement on Maintenance and groups the listed maintenance activities into the major objectives / functions of a Maintenance Program.

04/08/88 1 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

t I

t l

MOTOR-0PERATED VALVE l l

ACTIVITIES l l

SAM JOHNSON MANAGER MAINTENANCE REVIEW PROJECT I

l 4

4 5

OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND l i

1:0 TOR-0PERATED VALVE FAILURES  !

l RESPONSES BY NRC TO EVENTS f i

o NRC IE BULLETIN 85-03 l o AEOD REVIEWS OF MOV PERFORMANCE I

i i

t l

t i

i i

i i

i I

4

{

~

v OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND (CONTINUED)

INP0 ACTIONS FOR MOTOR-0PERATED VALVES o EXPERIENCE DISSEMINATION (SERs, S6ERs, O&MRs) o EVALUATION / REVIEWS E

o INTERACTION / COORDINATION WITH EPRI, NUMARC l

MOV INITIATIVE IN PROGRESS 1

1 l

l 1

MOTOR-OPERATED VALVES o 3 SIGNIFICANT OPERATING EXPERIENCE REPORTS (SOER) o 20 SIGNIFICANT EVENT REPORTS o 11 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE REMINDERS (0&MR) o I SIGNIFICANT EVENT NOTIFICATION (SEN) f 4

\

MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE INITIATIVE INP0 INITIATIVES INITIATIVE RESULTS FUTURE PLANS l

l 1

l L

MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE INITIATIVE o MOV PROBLEMS OVER THE PAST YEARS DAVIS-BESSE LOSS OF AUX FEEDWATER - (JUNE 1985)

SAN ONOFRE UNIT 3 RAPID C00LDOWN (DECEMBER 1985) o MOV PROBLEMS ADDRESSED TO INDUSTRY FOR ACTION

- INP0 REPORTS (SERs. SOERs, O&MRs)

INPO EVALUATIONS / VISITS NRC AEOD REVIEW (DECEMBER 1986)

NRC IE BULLETIN 85-03 o INPO INITIATIVE TO IMPROVE HOV PERFORMANCE IN INDUSTRY PLAN CONTAINS SE/ERAL ELtMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH EPRI AND NUMARC i l

m?

4 i

MOTOR-0PERATED VALVES ACTION PLAN ELEMENTS o LETTER TO SENIOR UTILITY MANAGEMENT TO HIGHLIGHT MOV PROBLEMS AND IMPORTANCE OF RESOLUTION  ;

- LETTER MAILED IN SEPTEMBER 1987 o DETAILED REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF NPRDS FOR MOV FAILURES -

EVALUATIONS AND MART o INCREASED EMPHASIS ON MOV MAINTENANCE DURING INP0 EVALUATIONS AND ASSIST VISITS HANDS-0N TRAINING FOR EVALUATORS COMPLETED

- EXTRA EVALUATOR ON SELECTED EVALUATIONS AND ASSISTANCE VISITS TO REVIEW MOV MAINTENANCE (14 TRIPS)

REVIEW 0F SOER 83-9 IMPLEMENTATION s

- n -- , _-

I e

MOTOR-0PERATED VALVE ACTION PLAN ELEMENTS (CONTINUED) 1 o SUPPORT EPRI NUCLEAR MAINTENANCE l ASSISTANCE CENTER (NMAC) IN ADDRESSING MOV TECHNICAL REPAIR ISSUES l TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP

- STEERING COMMITTEE

- MOV TECHNICAL REPAIR GUIDELINE REVIEW o VISITS TO PLANTS THAT HAVE GOOD MOV PERFORMANCE TO GATHER INFORMATION

- COMPLETED FEBRUARY 1988 o COMMUNICATE MOV PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS TO THE INDUSTRY

- WORKSHOP SUBJECTS DISCUSSIONS WITH INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES

, , ,-, , , - - - , . , ,, - ,-, ,.-w.

MOTOR-0PERATED VALVE INITIATIVE (CONTINUED)

OTHER ACTIVITIES o NRC-AE0D REPRESENTATIVE ACCOMPANYING INP0 TEAM o REVIEW 0F MOV RELATED REPORTS

- BY MOV EXPERT AT INP0 ISSVES IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS NOTED DURING IN-DEPTH REVIEWS:

o PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE o POST-MAINTENANCE TESTING .

o MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND TROUBLESHOOTING PROCEDURES o ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS o TORQUE SWITCH SETPOINT CONTROLS I

l l

l

e MOTOR-0PERATED VALVE INITIATIVE (CONTINUED)

FUTURE PLANS o CONTINUED REVIEW 0F MOV PROGRAMS AT PLANTS

- EVALUATIONS ASSISTANCE VISITS o MAINTENANCE MANAGERS WORKSHOP (OCTOBER 1988) l l

1 l

l 4

l NUCLEAR PLANT RELIABILITY DATA SYSTEM ,

(NPRDS)

J. R. BAUMAN Manager, NPRDS Department o scope and contents ,

o history o current status o actions to fix problems

1 2 j l

)

WHAT IS NPRDS?  !

l I

o a database on the INPO computer o data are supplied by all commercial i U.S. units, except Yankee and Big l Rock Point o data are available to all INPO j members and participants; also I to NRC and DOE participants o the only industry-wide source of equipment performance data l

-- ,---,__.-,~,--------.----,,__--,_,-,y. . _ ,

~

. 3 NPRDS COVERS THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT o approximately 30 systems per unit most safety-related systems like reactor recirculation and reactor

. protection some major balance of plant systems like main steam, condensate, and feedwater o approximately 5,000 components per unit major equipment such as diesels, pumps, motors, valves l generally equipment in main system flow path, or necessary for safe operation and shutdown o generally, systems and components that:

initiate a significant plant transient on loss of function provide functions needed for accident mitigation

4 THEM ARE TWO KINDS OF DATA IN NPRDS  !

o engineering records (one for each component) -- one-time submittal:

before commercial operation and when replace with a different type

'W20 fields:

manufacturer and model number design characteristics operating environment test types and frequencies o failure records (one for each component failure) -- 4(25 fields:

narrative descriptions of:

failure cause l

fix codes to facilitate search 1

l relevant dates l

l NPRDS COMPONENT FAILURE CANNED REPORT 1

- t Type- GENERAL ELECTRIC

= _ _ _---_ -_----_----_--_---------_-_- _ _ _ _ - --

COMPONENT FAILURE REPORT ._________

COMPONENT ENGINEERING DATA

) ENTRY DAT

1. Ut il ity/ Plant / Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . IELDAC1 ( D d4 W E ARmotD 07/16/84 LNIRY DATE: 01/03/85

, 2. NPRDS Component Code........... ENGINE Application Code........LiLN

3. Utility Component ID.......... 1G021ENG Location................

(NPRDS SystemEMERGENCY POWER 2

4. Discovery Date.................840617 Code: EEA) ,
5. Discovery Number.............. 1 Utility System Code. . . . 24.01

, 6. Report Date....................840716

7. LER Report Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . 331-84021 Data Start Date........ 831231

' 8. System Affected by Failure. . . . .EEA-EMERGENCY POWER In-Service Date........ 740227

9. Date Failure Occurred.........

840617 Out of-Service Date.....

i

10. Time Failure Occurred.........
11. Date Failure 20:55 Safety Class. ......... 1E Ended............ 840630
12. Time Failure Ended............ 00:20 Critical Operation Mode. STANDBY CONDITION Drawing / Doc Number....
13. Status Code....................F-SUBSYS/CHNL IN TEST Manufacturing Std.......DEMA
14. Severity Level Code.......... .J-IMMEDIATE
15. Failure Symptom Code...........s-PHYSICAL FAULT Internal Environment. . . . AMB TEMPERATURE 120F TO 1807 i
16. FailureCategory 17 Cause DetectionCode............K-UNKNOWN Code.........C-SURVEILLANCE TESTING SECONDARY COOLANT / TREATED WATER
18. Cause Description Codes. . . . . . . . AD-NORMAL / ABNORMAL WEAR DIL
19. System Effect Code.............C-DEMAND FAULT External Environment....AMBAIR TEMPERATURE 120F TO 1807
20. Plant Ef fect Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-RESULTED IN UNIT OFF-LINE 21 Corrective Action Code.........AH-REPLACE PART(S)

! 22. Documentation Codes............D-FAILURE REPORTED TO COMPONENT Manufacturer. . . . . . . . . . . .FAIRBANKS MORSE ENGINE DIV /

MANUFACTURER - CDUT F-FAILURE ANALYSIS PERFORMED Manufacturer Model No. . 3800TD8-1/8 Manufacturer Serial No. 38D871077TDSM12

23. Failure Description Warrative...
DURING SURVEILLANCE TEST AT 58% POWER . SCAVENGING AIR BLOWER SEIZED- SuppIler. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BECHTEL GROUP INC Supplier Id No.......... MIS-73-10 i . ENGINE TRIPPED FROM HIGH CRANKCASE PRESSURE FROM BLDWER AIR GOING THROUGH EXPIRED .DAMAGED OIL SEALS . REACTOR SHUT DOWN BEFORE 7 DAY LCO Engineering Codes I
24. Cause of Failure Narrative...... A. Type...................TW0 STROKE RECIP IN-LINE ROTOR LOBES RUBBED ON BLOWFR HOUSING . RESULTING HIGH HEAT AND BLOCK l

! THERNAL EXPANSION CAUSED SIGNIFICANT INTERNAL DAMAGE AND SEIZURE . B . Fuel C. . . . . . .Rating........1000 Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . .DI ESEL OR NO

- 5000 HP2 FUEL OIL i

ROOT CAUSE FOR RUBBING BELIEVED TO BE FROM LONG TERM THERMAL G. Power Rating. . . . . . . . . .'.3956 HP INDUCED CREEP WHICH CAUSED LDBE GROWTH . H. Cylinders............. 12 i

25. Corrective Action Narrative..... J. Rotational Speed...... 900 RPM BLOWER WAS REPLACED . YEARLY MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES ARE BEING j

CHANGED TO INCLUDC MEASUREMENT OF CLEARANCES . PLANT IS STUDYING  % Time Operating When Reactor is Critical.. 1 %

( DESIGN & OPERATIONAL CHANGES TO REDUCE BLOWER TEMPERATURE .  % Time Operating When Reactor is Shutdown.. 1 %

ENGINEERING STUDIES BY UTILITY AND MANUFACTURER ARE CONTINUING . Testing Performed Frequency / Period

.--- Mrs Out of '

i 1

Service 1 Check Testing 0 / NOT DONE O j Functional Testing 1 / MONTII O 1

Calibration Testing 0 / NOT DONE O

c.n a

^l 6 l 1

COMPUTER SOFTWARE THREE TYPES DURING CONVERSION PERIOD o Data entry - SEEK on Prime' o Data retrieval - SEEK on Prime SRCH on IBM NPRDS Plus! on IBM

)

I

- , , - - , . . - , - , - , . - , - - , - - - . , , . , _ , , - - , _ , _ _ , - , . . , , . . . . . , , , - - , . _ , , . - , . , . . , . , _ , . ~ . . - - - . , - , .

. 7 l l

HOW DATA GETS INTO DATABASE o NPRDS coordinator and reporter (s) o Reporter (s) scope plant vs. manual; enter engineering records for reportable components o Reporter (s) screen plant documents; enter failure reports for reportable failures on reported components o INPO auditors check incoming reports for data quality (since ' 84) 4

,-.-,.-..-.-.,-,,,.-,----,--,.__.,,_,-.n--,,,,-,- , . _ , - _ - - _ . , , - . - , . . , . , -

-a j

- 8

~

WHY NPRDS WAS CREATED o reliability engineers from U.S.

utilities and the NRC needed data for safety studies o a voluntary reporting system was designed; 2/3 EEI, 1/3 NRC funding of i SwRI contract l l

1 o utilities began reporting data in l 1974 1

9 d

J 550,000 -

GROWTH IN NPRDS ENGINEERING RECORDS i

500,000 - 500,000 l 450,000 - 444,000 1

l 400,000 400,000 -

350,000 - 345,000

) [

300,000 -

285,000 l 250,000 -

.i 202.000 1

4 200,000 -

! 168,000 i 150,000 - 140,000 l l i'

i l

100,000 -

i 50,000 -

i l 0 - i 1981 1982 1983 1984 , 1985 1986

! 1987 i

~

_ -O 0 7 0 8 0, 9 5 1 6

0 6 0 8 3, 9 3 1 5

i 0 5 S 0 T 0 8 R 9 1

0 4

  • 3 E

R t E

R .

U L 0 0 I

A 0 0 4 F 4, 7, 8 9

S 5 1 1 D 2 2 R

P N

/

N I

H 0 3 T

W 0 8 O 2, 9 R 5 1

G 1 0

0 2 4, 8 9

0 1 1

0 1 0 8 9, 9 1

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0, 0

0, 0

0, 0

0, 0

0, 0

0, 0

0, 0

0, 0

0, 0

0, g 0 0 0,

0 0,

0 5

, 0, 0 5 0 S 0 5 0 5 0 5 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 3 5 1 1 ii l i IIijldi {l{l)1 4 ,

11 9

e WHY INPO BECAME INVOLVED o participation was at a l'ow level for first 5 years o reporting decreased after TMI o database users were experiencing i problems software -- SEEK is difficult to learn and to use ,

data quality -- missing components; much failure data incomplete, incon i ts s ent, or inaccurate o NRC threatened to require NPRDS  !

reporting (along with LERs) l o U.S. utilities promised to resume reporting and asked INPO in 1982 to manage NPRDS

-.--_.-,,e.-,,,_.._.---...,.,,n.,,.,_,,,__,,,.,-,,_,,.,,,,_,,__,__,,___w.,-.,n_n. n.,, ,--ee,_ ,y-e , , - ,,

12 l FOCUS OF EARLY INPO EFFORTS

('83 -

'85) o database was moved to INPO's Prime i Computer l 1

o database was streamlined to  !

facilitate use, per NPRDS User Group  ;

, inputs; also, some BOP was added l o scoping guidance was defined and issued in 4 manuals, with drawings ,

that showed system boundaries, l interfaces, and reportable components i

o reporting procedures manual and data l retrieval manual were revamped for ease of use o monitoring function was set up to ensure quality of incoming data i

. - - ._. , - - _ _ _ _ __ ____ - __ - - - _,. - - ,._.~ . . - _ - .. - - , .,_, - ,, , -.

. 13 THE CURRENT STATUS OF NPRDS o all U.S. units (except Yankee Rowe ,

and Big Rock) are reporting o the number of engineering records  !

more than doubled from '84 through  ;

'87 -- currently over 500,000 o the number of failure reports more l than quadrupled from '84 through '87 l

-- currently over 75,000 o there are now 1,600 new failure reports each month ,

1

.,,-,,v,,_,,-,,ne.,------,n, - -,-,--wm. , <

-,,-..,.--_,-,,-,--,,--,-.,,,,,,v._-.-, _ -

14 INPO AND UTILITY ACTIONS TO FIX SOFTWARE PROBLEMS CONVERSION FROM SEEK AND SRCH TO NPRDS Plus!

o Release 1 -- 12/87 -- data retrieval only

'very user friendly; easy to learn and to use menu-driven; no knowledge of software, commands, or codes needed many on-screen tutorials, and help info for all prompts easy-to-use report formatting 1

user-friendly access and data retrieval manuals o Release 2 -- 5/88 -- data retrieval only replaces SEEK retrieval and SRCH l on 8/1/88 sophisticated calculations 11 preformatted reports; more to l follow

15 INPO AND UTILITY ACTIONS TO FIX SOFTWARE PROBLEMS CONVERSION FROM SEEK AND SRCH TO NPRDS Plus!

(Continued) o Release 3 -- late ' 88 -- data entry only l

replaces SEEK in early '89 sophisticated computer edits for l quality l i

data entry and on-screen revision, '

without deletion l

a

-, ,, - ,.n - -- --- -,.,_._y, ,-, _,.y , y _.y,--,., p.,wwmyw,-,,,y,_,,4,mm- ym www w,ygr,4,y---,,-,,,,1

16 9

INPO AND UTILITY ACTIONS TO FIX DATA QUALITY PROBLEMS o Monthly management reviews of '

reporting for problem plants timeliness: eng records before commercial op failure reports within'60 days of discovery i completeness data quality

-o Management follow-up actions --

evaluation if coincident 1

DM calls NPRDS coordinator  !

DM calls plant manager G VP calls EPOC formal letters l

\

__ _ . ___ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ ._ __, _ ____,_____,____,..,_._ __,____ _ ____ ___. - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ , _ _ . _ ___ _,,m

INPO AND UTILITY ACTIONS TO FIX DATA QUALITY PROBLEMS (Continued) o Key component project -- 300 BWR; 450 PWR '

application code for easy l retrieval l 3 & 4/88 letters requested missing eng records & failure reports ,

o Standard Model ID project -- 288,000 common components standard model ids for easy, accurate retrieval INPO did 65%

5 letters in 3 to 9/88 (to levelize) requesting model info on 35%

\

,,-.----,-.,,,m.,. ,n,---_ ,n,-, , , , , _ , , . , , _ , . , _ , , , , . , , _ _ _ ,_n ,.,n,_._ wn_ _ _

.. 18 INPO AND UTILITY ACTIONS TO FIX DATA QUALITY PROBLEMS (continued) o Data Quality Reporting and Tracking System track all known deficiencies

-to correction  ;

working in groupings of similar deficiencies on priority basis o Regional workshops for reporters 5/88 TVA, Chattanooga 6/88 Commonwealth Edison, Chicago (2) l l

2 others in '88  ;

o Assistance visits -- 12 in '88

)

. _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ ,, ,,,_._--._.-~.__,_,.-.....y..c,_,__.,-. ,,m.. . . - , . ~ . . . . , - - - .

1 CFAS DESCRIPTION 1

=

Identify Adverse Failure Rate Trends Using NPRDS 1

l .

thousands of component applications (plant specific an(

industrywide) statistical tests to identify significant trends j -= Engineering Analysis of Computer Results i

l i l

i

Seven Statistical Screening Tests

= increasing failure rate for several consecutive time periods

= significant increase in failure rate between one time period and the previous tirne period a significant increase in failure rate between one time period and the historical failure rate

= significant failure rate of one group compared to another group

= failure rates significantly greater than expected failure rate

= failures related to time in-service (wcar-out) i

= long-term increasing failure trend

CURRENT MAINTENANCE INDICATORS  !

RECOMMENDED FOR RETENTION l

1. RATIO 0F PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE
2. CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG GREATER THAN THREE MONTHS OLD I
3. PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE l
4. UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC SCRAMS WHILE CRITICAL ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTENANCE  !

ACTIVITIES l RECOMMENDED FOR DELETION l l

S. MAINTENANCE RADIATION EXPOSURE

6. MAINTENANCE OVERTIME WORKED
7. LOST TIME ACCIDENT RATE FOR PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN MAINTENANCE
8. RATIO 0F HIGHEST PRIORITY MWRS TO TOTAL MWRS 1

RATIO 0F PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE DEFINITION:

RATIO 0F NON-0UTAGE PREVENTIVE )

MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE TESTING MAN-HOURS TO TOTAL NON-0VTAGE MAINTENANCE MAN-HOURS (CORRECTIVE AND j PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE i TESTING).

l RECOMMENDATION TO INDUSTRY:

RETAIN THE INDICATOR AND INCLUDE OUTAGE WORK AS A SECOND INDICATOR 1 2

INDUSTRY TREND IS UPWARD (IMPROVING) l I <

~. .- . . _ , , . . . - - . _ - _ _ . , _ _ , , . _ _ , - , _ _ , - _ , , _ , . . . . _ . . . - - , _ _ . , _ , . _ . , . _ _ _ . _ _ ,

l

)

i 9 l [ Ralio of Preventive to Total Maintenance

!~

Industry Average 21

tJ
45- 42.3 y
I 325- 5.

a

e a l 220-  ?.J. g 9 #

1S_ g 3 E.

1 10- K E.

0 1984 1985 1986 1987 E N

t

I CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG GREATER THAN THREE MONTHS ,

DEFINITION: l THE PERCENTAGE OF OPEN CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE WORK REQUESTS, NOT REQUIRING AN OUTAGE, THAT ARE GREATER THAN THREE MONTHS OLD.

l RECOMMENDATION TO INDUSTRY:

I RETAIN THE INDICATOR AND INCLUDE OUTAGE WORK AS A SECOND INDICATOR l INDUSTRY TREND IS STEADY 1

a

9 I

L Corrective Maintenance Backlon U Grealer Than 3 Months Old 2 i

s Industry Average 5

! 9 3

a 55- 52 53 51 $.

d i

i i::

n a40-V / Vx V /

i E

1 =

i

35- $g5 g

f30-f 25-

$[E

~

, e ,s_

! E / k i c10-i 0 [ / 7 j 1984 1985 1986 1987 E

=

o E

! w l

1

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE l

DEFINITION THE PERCENTAGE OF 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.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE INDUSTRY:

RETAIN THE INDICATOR AND INCLUDE OUTAGE WORK AS A SECOND INDICATOR INDUSTRY TREND IS STEADY l

i 1

i 1

--_-,__---,..._m. , . - , - , _ , , - _ _ _ _ , -._,_ _ , , ,,,,m. . _ , _ _ . . _ _ , , _ _ , . . _ , . , _ , , _ ,_ ._ . ,,, ,,

l l 1 l l Preventive Maintenance llems Overdue l E-i Industry Average .

3  ;

12-10.8 21 l =

! / !d 10- 9.2 "

! 8.8 8.6 8

t 8-

/ , w av

! " 6- " E I E O 5 i

l 5 58

- 4- E

$ i I

I

! 2- a i O

n / , . > a l 1984 1985 1986 1987 i

1

! o i

}

l l 1

l

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC SCRAMS WHILE CRITICAL ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES DEFINITION:

THE NUMBER OF UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC SCRAMS THAT OCCUR WHILE THE REACTOR IS CRITICAL AND THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES (i.e. THEY ARE CAUSED BY OR OCCUR DURING ANY ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH MAINTENANCE).

RECOMMENDATION TO THE INDUSTRY:

RETAIN THE INDICATOR BUT RESTRICT DEFINITION TO SCRAMS CAUSED DIRECTLY BY MAINTENANCE INDUSTRY TREND IS D0WNWARD (IMPROVING)

~

-. --- , - - - . . . , , , . - . , , , , , , , - . . . . - - - --,---. ,,.,,-.n w ..,,,wn,.,,--,_,n,-,-, ,-,--,--v. - - . -.- , . , --- , ,,nv.,,-,.,vm-,. , .n,n,n. - , . . . , ,,,

e m.

1 "

l Unplanned Automatic Scrams While Critical

5. -

5 Associated With Maintenance Activities a

4 c

! Industry Average .g

.i =

a a.

! 3.4 >

l 3.50- e 3.00-1 - *i 2.5 -

' 2.2 2.2 5 g =4

E1.50- 1*4 E-
e ,  ;;-

) E E l 1.00- y l

A>/ .A A ll0~ b 1984 1985 1986 1987 Z

=

! 5-

.~ ,

_n i

l. .

i t_________________--___________ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _- . - . - _ _

I l

MAINTENANCE RADIATION EXPOSURE DEFINITION:

l THE COLLECTIVE RADIATION DOSE FOR ALL UTILITY AND CONTRACT PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN MAINTENANCE AT A UNIT, EXPRESSED IN ,

MAN-REM. THIS INCLUDES BOTH OUTAGE AND  :

NON-0VTAGE EXPOSURE.

RECOMMENDATION TO INDUSTRY: I l

DELETE THE INDICATOR l i

INDUSTRY TREND IS DOWNWARD (IMPROVING)

I l

I i

(

9

[ Maintenance Radiation Exposure

[ PWR Average 21 i

  • w g

4 400-340 g e.

300-

= q E

! s 228 2 2 l t 216 E. :c 206 E Y l

i 100- )E o '

1984 1985

  • 1986 1987 i

l i

A l

9 r

i Maintenance Radiation Exposure j~ BWR Average .

_m.

j 500- 459 1

1 417 g

E-
400- /, E 8

= E s

s i

284 2 2

m300- g, E y x
243 o g.

1 E E E' 200-i E x

\

E

! 100-i 0

1984 1985

  • i 1986 1987 i

j .

1 4 =

MAINTENANCE OVERTIME WORKED DEFINIT 70N:

THE RATIO Or OVERTIME HOURS WORKED TO NORMAL (NON-0VERTIME) HOURS WORKED, FOR ALL UTILITY AND CONTRACT PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN MAINTENANCE.

RECOMMENDATION TO INDUSTRY:

DELETE THE INDICATOR INDUSTRY TREND IS SLIGHTLY D0WNWARD (IMPROVING) 1

- -- - - - , , - . , . - . . , . . _ - . - - , - _ . - .,-_,,,__,,,._-n,,_,, -

. , _ -_.~...,..,,n,_,_, ,__ . , -n,.

1 9

g-l i Maintenance Overtime %rked

}~ Industry Average I

1 5' m i 22.5 "'

i e ti

! F 20- 19 1 18.6

! 18.3 e ,

c $

! r,-

==

o 2 i .E k9

/

~

l 8 ' *~ j.

l s- / // '

t

{

, A /5 '(/b A 1984 1985 1986 1987 i

i i

0 4

LOST-TIME ACCIDENT RATE FOR PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN MAINTENANCE DEFINITION: .

THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS INVOLVING DAYS AWAY FROM WORK PER 200,000 MAN-HOURS WORKED FOR ALL UTILITY AND CONTRACT PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATION TO INDUSTRY:

DELETE THE INDICATOR INDUSTRY TREND IS STEADY 0

i l

l 9

K Lost-Time Accident Rate for Personnel involved in Maintenance z.

! li Industry Value L.#

I 2.50-  ?

H l 7 2.19 g-2 g a

o
  • 2.00- >

g i e E' 8 a

, .c H -

8 gi.50-E (X

$F 58

! o 1.00- 0.93 0.93  % ;

r 0.85 0.50-0.00 1984 1985 1986 1987 5' l 3 E.

! =

4  :-

k O

I 1

RATIO 0F HIGHEST PRIORITY MWRS TO TOTAL MWRS DEFINITION:

THE RATIO 0F THE NUMBER OF HIGHEST PRIORITY, NON-0UTAGE, CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE WORK REQUESTS TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF NON-0UTAGE, CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE WORK REQUESTS COMPLETED.

RECOMMENDATION TO INDUSTRY:

DELETE THE INDICATOR INDUSTRY TREND IS D0WNWARn (IMPROVING) I 4

e

' - , - -,m -,,a._, -sn- ,,,, -.,- ,- , -_ . , , ,. ,,,_ - _ -

,....w .e ms ,e,,.e.,,,_.mn,,,me,s,-n,.,m,...,m,.,,,,w.,, y,.,,a.,,, , -, ,,,

l l

9

[ Rolio of Highest Priorily MWRs to Total MWRs Compleled 2; j Industry Average .s x

5.

O 10-o, 8.4 E 8-

[' k y 6.6 2

b -

6- 3 3.

i 5.1 E4 7 / 4.6 97

% / ,

e3

. 54-ao

[/ $

o 2- E O ' <o 1984 1985 1986 1987 1 no

~

2.

_

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20155G289&oldid=3043853"