ML20204F660

Rev 0 to Pom 12.000.022, Performance Evaluation Program

ML20204F660
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	02/04/1987
From:	Breymaier R, Karas L DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20204F025	List: ML20204F018 ML20204F170 ML20204F285 ML20204F328 ML20204F381 ML20204F490 ML20204F512 ML20204F551 ML20204F599 ML20204F660 ML20204F729 ML20204F762 ML20204F858 ML20204F902 ML20204F974 ML20204G019
References
POM-12.000.022, NUDOCS 8703260235
Download: ML20204F660 (33)

Text

-

I 4

FERMI 2 PROCEDURE - ADMINISTRATIVE TITLE: Performance Evaluation Program PROCEDURE NUMBER: 12.000.022 REVISION: 0 SAFETY CLASSIFICATION: SR Larry Karas Name of preparer C. Noga/s/ Date 12/04/86 Administrative Format Reviewer R Breymaler/s/ Date 12/02/86 Technical Reviewer (s)

Date Date i sg Date /-2 7- dAupervisor, OA Date /-A T-77 Resp Section Head or OSRO v~ v // Member / Alternate Further Approval Required for SR or SP Procedures:

b, Date / /2 7 f f T OSRO Chairman or Alternate

} I. .

Date fir /tr. Plant Manager l

The following approved Procedure Change Requests are incorporated in this revision:

This revision [Xldoes lldoes not constitute periodic review.

Revision Summary:

This procedure introduces the Performance Evaluation Program (PEP).

F01VK 0\ OLY ARMS - INFORMATION SYSTEMS DTC TPPADM DSN kCM \t .V;1e . r. A3Rev 0 Date 3 - @ 4 - F ~l PlS PIS File 1703 02 Recipient T 2 't #

D

i. .

POM 12.000.022 Revision 0

' Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3 1.0 Purpose 3 2.0 Scope 3 3.0 References 4 4.0 Abbreviations / Definitions 5 5.0 Organization and Responsibility 7 6.0 General 8 7.0 System impact Evaluation and Component identification 9 8.0 Component impact Evaluation 9 9.0 Determination of Performance Parameters and Analysis Requirements 12 10.0 Coordination with Other Plant Programs 13 11.0 Performance Test Procedores and Scheduling 14 12.0 Performance of Scheduled Performance Evaluations 16 13.0 Trending of Performance Evaluation Parameters 17 14.0 Reports 17 15.0 Records ENCLOSURES 1 Examples of Systems and Equipment to be included in the Peformance Evaluation Program (011487) 2 System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification Guidelines (011487) 3 Component Monitoring Evaluation Guidelines (011487) 4 Example Monitoring Tests Parameters and Indicators (011487) 5 Sample Performance Evaluation Form (011487) 6 Performance Evaluation Review (011487)

ATTACHMENTS 1 System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification (011487) 2 Component Monitoring Evaluation (011487) e

POM 12.000.022 R:visiin 0 Page 3 1.0 PURPOSE To improve system and unit reliability and availability by placing equipment important to station operation under a routine monitoring program.

2.0 SCOPG 2.1 The Performance Evaluation Program (PEP):

2.1.1 Provides a systematic review of all systems and components which could affect unit heat rate, unit availability, or unit capacity factor to determine which components should be periodically monitored 2.1.2 ldentifies parameters. testing frequencies, and analyses necessary to evaluate the performance (both efficiency and reliability) of systems and components that are periodically monitored 2.1.3 Coordinates with other plant programs (Surveillance and Preventive Maintenance) and incorporates various plant activities, such as preventive i maintenance inspections, into the overall performance monitoring program 2.1.4 Establishes and coordinates plant performance monitoring activities, such as instrument calibration, scheduling. baseline data collection, data analysis, and trending i

2.1.5 Reviews industry experience for its appilcability to plant programs impacting reliability 2.1.6 Documents program activities and the basis for including systems and components in this program 2.1.7 Periodically reports to management summaries of program results and recommendations 2.2 The scheduling and performance of routine activities (surveillances) defined in the Fermi 2 Technical Specifications are administered in accordance with Plant Operations Manual (POM) 12.000.018 The coordination of these activities is within the scope of this procedure.

2.3 The scheduling and performance of routine maintenance activities are administered by POM 12.000.017. The coordination of these activities is within the scope of this procedure.

l

3.0 REFERENCES

3.1 Use References 3.1.1 Nuclear Operations interfacing Procedure (NOIP) 11.000.049, Document Control and Records Management 3.1.2 NOIP 11.000.125, General Regulatory Reporting Requirements

a c-I POM 12.000.022 Revisizn 0 Page 4 3.1.3 Plant Operations Muust (POM) 12.000.013, Radiation Work Permit 3.1.4 POM 12 000 017 Presentive Maintenance Program 3.1.5 POM 12.000.018. Surveillance Program 3.1.6 POM 12.000.029, Material lasue end Return 3.1.7

• POM 12.000.052, Deviatir,n and Corrective Action Reporting 3.1.8 POM Procedure 41.000.26 Control and Storage of Air Balance Oroup Measuring and Test Equipment 3.2 Source References 3.2.1 POM Procedure 12.000 015, PN-21 (Work Order) Processing 3.2.2 POM 12.000.051, Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System 3.2.3 INPO Good Practice TS-414 A.104/OE-903 d

4.0 ABBREVIATIONS / DEFINITIONS 4.1 Component - A mechanical, electrical, assembly (panel, rack, skid, packaged unit) or structural assembly of interconnected parts that as a whole peform a specific function.

Examples of components wot.id be instrument taps, transmitters, recorders, indicators, controllers, process variable switches (temperature, pressure, level, flow, ete-), pumps, valves, penetrations, turbines, pressure retaining vessels (tanks, condensate domineralizers, etc). orifice plates, heat exchangers or other sub-assemblies of a larger device that meet this definition. Examples of items that are not components are diodes, resistors, bearings, bolts, jumper wires, connectors, terminal blocks, relays, panel mounted control switches (pushbuttons, selector switches, CMC switches) or other parts not meeting this definition.

NOTE: In order to implement the requirements of Environmental Qualification, Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System, NRC Generic Letter 83-28 and other commitments, components that do not meet the above definition have been assigned a Plant identification System (PIS) Number. Additional components are individually identifica' when required by similar situations.

4.2 Component Test - Evaluates the performance of a specific component.

4.3 Discrepancy - Any problem encountered while performing a performance evaluation activity related to obtalning required plant conditions, procedural steps, or required results.

4.4 Effielency - A measure of the overall power steem cycle thermal performance.

4.5 Nuclear Plant Rollability Data System (NPRDS) - An information source providing reliability information on those systems and components necessary for accident mitigation or for which loss of functlon can initiate significant plant transients.

t

POM 12.000.022 R:visi:n 0 Page 5 4.6 Performance Evaluation Procedure - Any approved plant procedure used to collect data to help evaluate the condition of plant equipment.

4.7 Performance Evaluation Program (PEP) Package - Comprised of a Performance Form (Enclosure 5) and. If applicable, a performance evaluation procedure which is used to perform a specific activity.

4.8 Performance Form (PF) - (Enclosure 5) - Used to initiate PEP activities and provide a means to document their completion. In addition, the form is used to initiate a Radiation Work Permit if required, record discrepancies, and record action taken to correct discrepancies.

4.9 Reliability - A measure of the ability of a plant, system, or component to operate properly when called upon. For example, repeated trips of the main turbine have a severe impact on plant reliability, but the steam cycle efficiency is not affected.

4.10 Section Heads - The Operations Engineer, the Technical Engineer, the Maintenance Engineer, the RadChem Engineer, the Reactor Engineer, and the General Supervisor, Radweste.

4.11 Surveillance Box - Box located in the Control Room where the performance evaluation

packages are placed after completion for retrieval by the Lead Plant Performance Engineer / designee.

l 4.12 System Test - Quantifies overall system (s) performance of more than one component; may also provide performance data for specific components.

l 5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 The Technical Engineer is responsible to the Superintendent, Operations for the i implementation of the PEP, and assigns thein-Service Inspection Programs Supervisor to implement the PEP.

I 5.2 The In-Service Inspection (ISI) Programs Supervisor:

l 5.2.1 Develops, implements, and maintains the PEP 4 5.2.2 Determines which plant systems and components are included in the PEP and which parameters are trended

5.2.3 Coordinates with other departments, as necessary 5.2.4 Assigns a Lead Plant Performance Engineer to handle the day-to-day program implementation I

5.2.5 identifies failures which could affect plant availability and develops a plan to mitigate the effects

)

5.2.6 Generates weekly, monthly, and annual program status reports l

! 5.3 The Maintenance Engineer:

5.3.1 Supports the conduct of performance tests, as necessary i

i

• e

POM 12.000.022 llevision 0 Page 6 -

5.3.2 Informs the ISI Programs Supervisor of maintenance activities that could affect system and component performance 5.3.3 Performs appropriate corrective and preventive maintenance activities indicated by the results of performance tests 5.3.4 Assures that adequate parts are in stock for probable failure components as

' identified by the Technical Section 5.4 The Operatione Engineer:

5.4.1 Supports the conduct of performance tests with system lineups and personnel, as necessary 5.4.2 Ensures that the plant is operated as efficiently as possible, and in a manner that enhances reliability 5.4.3 Ensures that the Shift Supervisors and Operators are alert to, and correct, thermal losses caused by improperly operating or malfunctioning valves and level controls in extraction steam, heater drain, feedwater, and similar systems 5.5 The Surveillance Engineer reports to the ISI Program Supervisor. The Surveillance Engineer is assigned the responsibility to develop and implement the performance evaluation scheduling program. The PEP Coordinator reports to the Surveillance Engineer and provides the necessary support to implement the performance evaluation scheduling program. The Surveillance Engineer / PEP Coordinator; 55.1 initiate / schedule routine performance evaluations by lasuing PFs to the responsible Section Head and placing the performance evaluations, as required, on the Plan of the Day 55.2 Provide each responsible Section Head with a list of the scheduled performance evaluations to be performed during a specified period NOTE: The Surveillance Engineer / PEP Coordinator schedules active procedures to satisfy performance evaluation requirements. The responsible Section Head may schedule performance evaluation procedures to verify the procedural content using inactive procedures. This procedure verification is not considered en activity to satisfy a performance evaluation requirement. When the responsible Section Head activates the procedure, the Surveillance Engineer / PEP Coordinator schedules the performance evaluation as a routine activity.

5.5.3 Adjust / update / revise the PEP es necessary 5.5.4 Provide the Mode Change List for non-Technical Specification activities to the Operations Engineer, as needed 5.5.5 Coordinate the scheduling of IST-related activttles with the ISI Program Supervisor 5.6 The Lead Plant Performance Engineer (LPPE).

5.6.1 Evaluates and updates the scope of monitoring activities l

l t

l l

POM 12.000.022 Revision 0 Page 7 5.6.2 Provides input for program status reports 5.6.3 Recommends corrective actions based on program results 5.6.4 Maintains the Performance Evaluation Test files and system impact evaluation forms 5.6.5 ' Performs trending and analyses of component and system performance evaluation results 5.6.6 initiates investigative and/or corrective action, as necessary, based on degraded component or system performance or reduced unit efficiency observed as a result of the PEP 5.6.7 Adjusts, updates, and revises the PEP, as necessary 5.7 The responsible Section Head:

5.7.1 Prepares and revises procedures for performance evaluation activities assigned to their section 5.7.2 Ensures that personnel performing evaluation activities are properly qualified, tralned, and supervised 5.7.3 Coordinates efforts to resolve discrepancies discovered while performing Performance Evaluation activities, as necessary 5.8 The responsible Lead Person:

5.8.1 Performs the Performance Evaluation in accordance with an approved Performance Evaluation procedure and uses the proper test equipment 5.8.2 Reports any equipment malfunctions to the Nuclear Shift Supervisor (NSS),

records all discrepancies on the PF, and initiates a report in accordance with POM 12.000 052 or NOlP 11.000.125, if required 5.8.3 Resolves any discrepancies as directed by the NSS and documents the corrective action taken and parts used on the PF S.O OENERAL The PEP is flexible. The process described in this procedure results in the determination and documentation of program scope and specific testing to be performed. However, these program requirements may be modified based on test results and Industry and plant experience. As requirements are changed, the program documentation is updated to show the new requirements and the reason for the changes. Enclosure 1 provides examples of systems and equipment that should be included in the PEP.

e

e- ,

I POM 12 000.022 Revisi:n 0 Page8 l

7.0 SYSTEM IMPACT EVALUATION AND COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION Each plant system should be reviewed for its potential impact on plant performance, from both efficiency and reliability perspectives. This review is documented on a System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form (Attachment 1) for each system. It may take several pages to document a given system. The form should be completed by following these steps (see Enclosure 2 for additional guidelines):

7.1 Section I - General Enter the system name, system PIS number, date of the evaluation, and person performing the evaluation.

7.2 Section 11 - System impact Evaluation Evaluate the impact this system has on plant efficiency and reliability. The basis for this evaluation should be clearly presented. If there is a potentialimpact on efficiency or reliability, check the *Yes* bloch in this section. If no impact exists. check *No". This does not mean that every system with potentialimpact is monitored nor does it imply the scope of the monitoring to be done. This is determined in subsequent sections. The following are examples of items that should be reviewed and/or considered when performing the impact evaluation:

7.2.1 Heat balance diagram - megawatts lost due to reduced system performance -

impact of system failure 7.2.2 Past plant problems related to this system 7.2.3 System interactions with other systems 7.2.4 Industry experience (NPRDS, SOERs SERs, etc.)

7.2.5 Repair cost 7.2.6 Impact of reduced system performance 7.2.7 Impact of system partial or complete failure 7.2.8 Engineering judgment 7.3 Section 111 - System Components with Potential impact List those components that could Impact system performance based on the analysis discussed in Section 7.2. This is an initial conservative listing not requiring a detal!ed analysis. Each component listed is analyzed for potential impact on plant efficiency and reflability per Section 8.0 of this procedure. The components identified are typically heat exchangers, pumps, motors, turbines, major valves, orifices / venturi piping susceptible to fouling or erosion, high voltage bus connections, etc. See Enclosure 1 for more examples of components to be included in this program.

If any potential impact by the systems is identiffed (*Yes" block checked in Section 11),

completion of the remalnder of the System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form involves identification and feasibility of system performance tests and analysis and is covered in Section g.1 of this procedure.

t

r POM 12.000.022 Revision 0

• Page 9 8.0 COMPONENT IMPACT EVALUATION Each component identified in the System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form, Section lil,is evaluated for its specific impact on system and unit performance. This review is documented by completing a Component Monitoring Evaluation form (Attachment 2) for each component. The form is completed as follows (see Enclosure 3 for additional guidelines):

8.1 Section 1 - General Enter the component name, component number or identification, the system name and number (from the related System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form), the person performing the evaluation, and the date of the evaluation.

8.2 Section 11 - Component impact Evaluation This section should enhance the evaluation of the associated System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form. If further evaluation is not needed, either summarize or reference the System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form evaluation. The basis of the evaluation should be clearly documented in either case. if there is a potential impact on efficiency or reliability, check the "Yes* block in this section. If no impact exists, check "No*. This does not mean that each component marked "Yes" is monitored, nor does it imply the scope of the monitoring to be done.

This is determined in subsequent sections. The following are examples of items to be considered during this evaluation:

8.2.1 System evaluation on Enclosure 1 8.2.2 Component effect on the system 8.2.3 Impact of reduced component performance 8.2.4 Impact of component failure and the need for spare parts to limit plant impact 8.2.5 Applicable items in Section 7.2 8.2.6 Vendor manual information on component operating characteristics if any potential Impact by the component is identified (*Yes" block checked in Section ll).

complete the remainder of the Component Monitoring Evaluation form which involves identifying and determining the feasibility of component performance tests and analysis (see Section 9.2).

9.0 DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS 9.1 System Testing Each system should now have been evaluated for its potential impact on plant efficiency and reliability per Section 7.0, and the results documented on a separate Component Monitoring Evaluation form for each system. For each system with potential impact (the

' 'Yes" block of the System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form, e

1

I POM 12.000.022 Revision 0 l Page 10 4

Section 11 is marked), the appropriate monitoring requirements (if any) should now be determined.

g.1.1 Section IV - System Parameters and Performance indicators in Section IV of the System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form, list the process parameters / performance indicators and associated tests best suited for quantifying the potential impact (s) of the system identified in

'Section 11 of the System Monitoring Evolustion and Component identification form. These should be system (or at least more than one component) or integrated plant parameters and performance indicators. (Component performance is determined by Section g.2.) Appropriate parameters and indicators can be determined from sources such as the following:

1. Vendor manuals and bulletins

2. System descriptions

3. Codes and standards

4. Industry and plant operating experience

5. Engineering judgment (See Enclosure 4 for some examples of various parameters and performance indicators to consider).

For each parameter or performance Indicator and associated test, specify the necessary instruments and their accuracy and sensitivity, desired test conditions, target value of the parameter or performance indicator, potential causes of deviations, potential corrective actions, test frequency, and resources needed.

g.1.2 Section V - Cost / Benefit for System Monitoring Not all (and perhaps none) of the potential impacts and associated tests from Section IV can be effectively monitored or performed. Those tests to be included as part of the program must be justified by a cost / benefit analysis.

For each test identified in Section IV of the System Monitoring Evaluation and Component Identification form, perform a cost / benefit snelysis in Section V.

This analysis should include items such as the following:

1. Cost of adding instrumentation to the plant,if necessary

2. Cost of additional measuring and test equipment (M&TE),if necessary

3. Anticipated megewett savings due to correcting performance problems

4. Cost of repair should equipment degrade to the point of failure

5. Man-hours to run the test and potential plant impact

6. Plant conditions necessary to run the test e

r 7-'

mr-

,y

.' .i '

=

i POM 12.000.022 Rowslon 0 '

o ,

Page 11 ,

d i

7. Testing frequency .

8. Whether failure coutJ cause a unit load reduction, sigkificant trentient.hr unit trip .

g.1.3 Section, fV 2 System Monitaring Reqdrs'nents '

, List the recommended perf rmance snonitoring tests and associated ptremeters or perfar nance indicstors for tha sgttam, based on the System Mom!aring .

Evaluation and Compur.ent identif: cat'on form evaluatlan. If tests are already -

being done by other plant programs, they should still be listed. Indicate the test procedure number and the recommentfed test frequency. Aleo Indicate whether the parameter of performance indicator shoh ld be trended. (See -

Section 13.0.) The decision to trend should tw based tpon wheth3r the test accept &nce criteria are so narrow thet a vah,e ist!s outside tne acceptsnce bind '

Defore in adverse trend is ostected. Any additir;nal equipment needrJ1 to" conduct the test, manpower, vend ts. etc, thould h Iquicated. -

g.1.4 Approval The ISI Programs Supervisor approves occh romrieted System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification forr:: by"Joning and dating the I

• Approved By* block of Section 1.

g.2 Component Testing ,

Per Section 8.0, each component identified in Sect;on 111 of the SyttJ.n Monitcrin,1  ;

Evaluation and Component identification form has be&tf evaluated for its potemes:Impeo on plant efficiency and reliability, and the resutts have t een documented on a Joperatt Component Monitoring Evaluation form. For each component with potential impa.'.t (tne t ;

"Yes* block of the Component Monitoring Evaluation form, $ ction  ? 11, is marked), ths - '

appropriate monitoring requirements (if anyJ'should be dett rmined g.2.1 Section III - Component Parameters and hrformeri fo Indicators in Section ill of the Component Monitoring Evaluation form, list the process e parnmeters or performance indicators and associated tests best suited for quantifying the potential.1,mpact of the component 0.1 plant efficiency ano/or reliability.

Appropriate peran.eters and intaicators can be determined from sources si.ch as '

the following:

1. Vendor manuals ,

2. System descriptiont 4 3. Codes and standards .

4. Inclustry and plant opersting experience

5. Engineering judgment ,

.~

I

]

__ , . . _ _ - _ . - _ , _ . , _ _ , , , _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ . _ , , , _ . _ . . ~ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , _ _--,, . , , _ -[

(. -. . . - . _ -.

) POM 12.000.022 Revision 0

~

\?

+ Page 12

> See Enclosure 4 for some examples of various parameters and performam.e

. Indicators to consider.

For each parameter or performance indicator and associated test, specify the necessary instruments and their accuracy and sensitivity, desired test conditions, target values of parameters / performance indicator, potential causes y

of deviations, potential corrective actions, test frequency, and resources needed 9.2.2 Section IV - Cost / Benefit for Component Monitoring  ;

s.

Not all (and perhaps none) of the potential impacts and associated tests from Section Ill can be effectively monitored or performed. Those tests to be included in the program must be justified by a cost / benefit analysis. Complete Section IV of each Component Monitoring Evaluation form by performing a l cost / benefit analysis using the guidance of Section 9.1.2 of this procedure.

9.2.3 Section V - Component Monitoring Requirements I

• This section of the Component Monitoring Evaluation form lists the

k- . recommended performance monitoring tests and associated parameters or id performance indicators for the compon. t, based on the Component Monitoring i

s Evaluation form evaluation. If tests already are being done by other plant j programs, they should still be listed. Indicate the test procedure number and the required frequency. Also indicate whether the parameter or performance l -

-hdicator should be trended (see Section 13.0). The decision to trend should be

' based upon whether the test acceptance criteria is so narrow that a value will i

fall outside the acceptance band before an adverse trend could be detected.

Any additional resources needed to conduct the test (i.e., test equipment, i reenpower, vendors, etc.) should be listed.

j 9.2.4 Approval l The ISI Programs Supervisor approves each completed Component Monitoring

! Evaluation form by signing and dating the

• Approved By* block in Section 1.

i 10.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER Pl. ANT PROGRAMS

}

(

r. The System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form and Component Monitoring Evaluation form are used to evaluate and document the entire scope of plant performance monitoring. Many of the tests may already have been established at the I. time the evaluation forms were filled out, and/or they may fall under other plant l programs such as the Surveillance Program or Preventive Maintenance Program. In any

' case, in Sections VI and V of the System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form and Component Monitoring Evaluation form respectively, document all

! the tests to be performed on a system or component for the purpose of optimizing plant I efficiency or equipment reliability.

i Whenever possible, system and component testing requirements should be consolidated l(

fr to a single test procedure or coordinated with the test procedure. This minimlaes unnecessary run time on equipment, reduces radiation exposure, and results in more j effective manpower utilization. Consolidated tests should clearly state which parameters t

and acceptance criteria are related to Technical Specifications.

i i

i l

l, '4 s.

i - - . . ~ - . - -

POM 12.000.022 Revision 0 ,

. Page 13 Interfaces should be established so that changes in plant equipment or testing changes in other plant programs, (i.e.; surveillance program), are reviewed for impact on the l performance monitoring program tests and documentation.

Interfaces also need to be established so information on equipment failures (NPRDS.

maintenance history, etc.) for analysis by the LPPE. (See Section 12.2.)

11.0 PERFORMANCE TEST PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULING 11.1 Performance Test Procedures A specific procedure should be wntten to specify all the data that will be necessary to evaluate the systems and components per Attachments 1 and 2. The specific procedure '

may reference a generic procedure for performance of common tests such as vibration, pump performance, heat exchanger performance, etc. The test procedures should include the following items:

11.1.t Verification of instrument in calibration. This may be required prior to the performance for especially sensitive tests. As a minimum, calibration tests should be a complete loop calibration from sensor through final readout device.

4 11.1.2 Reference to the particular System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form and Component Monitoring Evaluation form.

n 11.1.3 Clearly defined test conditions to allow for repeatsbility rnd comparison of results with past data.

11.1.4 Cotoponent anc/or system acceptance criteria.

11.2 Scheduling 11.2.1 The Surveillance Engineer uses the PEP computerized scheduling system to schedule Performance Evaluation activities. A manual scheduling system will be used as backup.

11.2.2 The Performance Evaluation activity is scheduled using the Performance Evaluation calendar event number as the unique identifier. The computer program schedules Performance Evaluations at a given frequency. This program prints the necessary schedules and updates the schedules and scheduling records.

11.2.3 The LPPE acquires the following reports by using the computer program, as required:

1. Performance Evaluation General Calendar Summary - This report lists all Performance Evaluation activities that have been input into the computer program. This report is used primarily as a reference listing.

2. Performance Evaluation Periodic Report - This report lists the Performance Evaluations scheduled for a given period. -

11.2.4 A

• simplified schedule" based on weeks rather than days has been developed to schedule Performance Evaluaticas. This simplified schedule assists the Section

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

POM 12.000.022 Revision 0

. Page 14 Heads to establish a routine for performing evaluation activity and is used if necessary.

11.2.5 Frequency of Performance Evaluation testing may be changed, and tests may be deleted or added based on test results and maintenance activities. Upon initial test implementation, unit start-up from outages, and significant maintenance, appropriate tests are run to establish baseline data. Trend graphs (see

,Section 13.0) are updated with new baseline data.

12.0 PERFORMANCE OF SCHEDULED PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS 12.1 The LPPE distributes a Performance Evaluation Periodic Report to each responsible Section Head identifying the Performance Evaluation activity to be performed during a given period. This report is issued with sufficient lead time so that proper planning may be performed.

12.2 The Supervisor, Operational Assurance is supplied with a Performance Evaluation Periodic Report to determine if Performance Evaluations performed on safety-related equipment should be observed. The Supervisor, Operational Assurance informs the responsible Section Head and the LPPE of their intent to observe a Performance Evaluation. The Lead Person contacts the Supervisor, Operational Assurance when the Performance Evaluation is to be performed.

12.3 The LPPE initiates a PF (Enclosure 5 is a sample PF) for each Performance Evaluation scheduled. He also notifies the appropriate Maintenance Support Engineer (MSE), if required, of the scheduled evaluation. The MSE documents acknowledgment by signing the PF in the appropriate space and returns the PT to the LPPE. The LPPE distributes the PFs to the responsible Section Head for assembl; of the PEP Package.

12.4 The LPPE , after consideration of the impact on plant activities / operations, places the Performance Evaluation on the Plan of the Day. The Plen of the Day is provided to the NSS so that plant conditions may be adjusted if required to perform specific Performance Evaluations.

12.5 If applicable per Step 12.2, the responsible Section Head contacts the Supervisor, Operational Assurance when a Performance Evaluation is performed so that they may observe the activity.

12.6 The responsible Section Head assigns quellfied personnel to perform the Performance Evaluation. A Lead Person is designated to log and resolve all diserspancies. Qualified persor'nel perform the Performance Evaluation under the direction of the Lead Person and the LPPE.

12.7 The Lead Person takes the PEP Package to Health Physics to determine if a specific Radiation Work Permit (RWP) is required. If a specific RWP is not required, the Health Physics Supervisor checks the appropriate box and signs the appropriate area of the PF.

If the speelfic RWP is required, the RWP is issued in accordance with POM 12.000.013.

The Health Physics Supervisor checks the appropriate box and signs the appilcable area on the PF.

12.8 The Lead Person takes the PEP Package to the Control Room to obtain concurrence from the NSS to perform the performance activity. The NSS signifies concurrence to perform e

D v -

. i POM 12.000.022 Revision 0 .

Page 15 '

the Performance Evaluation by signing the applicable line on the PF. The Lead Person signs on with the Control Room NSO to signify start of the Performance Evaluation.

12.9 The Lead Person verifies that the test equipment being used is appropriate or as specified by the procedure. The Test Equipment is properly logged out for use as described in POM 41.000.26.

12.10 The Lead Person ensures that the Performance Evaluation is performed in accordance with the steps set forth in the Performance Evaluation procedure. Materials used, as directed by the Performance Evaluation procedure, are controlled in accordance with POM 12.000.029 and are recorded in the appropriate space on the PF.

12.11 If a discrepancy is encountered while performing the Performance Evaluation (i.e.,

problems with obtaining required plant conditions, procedure steps, or required results),

the Lead Person will not proceed any further until contacting the NSS and noting the discrepancy on the PF. The Lead Person works with the NSS to resolve the

discrepancy, if the discrepancy is resolved, then the Lead Person notes the resolution on the PF and continues the Performance Evaluation with concurrence of the NSS.

12.12 If the discrepapcy cannot be readily resolved, the Lead Person initiates corrective action. The responsible Section Head ensures timely completion of the corrective action. The Lead Person notes the corrective action on the PF.

t Discrepancies encountered may require generation of special reports per POM 12.000.052 and NOIP 11.000.125. Special reports are documented on the PF.

The NSS may require the Performance Evaluation to be repeated if in the NSS's judgment an excessive amount of time has elapsed to complete the required corrective action or changes to plant operating conditions have invalidated tne Performance Evaluation results. The Lead Person obtains a new PF from the LPPE. A new copy of the applicable Performance Evaluation procedure is attached to the new PF. This combined with the original PEP Package constitutes the new PEP Package. The ,

responsible Section Head ensures timely completion of the repeated Performance Evaluation.

12.13 Once the Performance Evaluation is completed or a discrepancy which cannot be corrected in a timely manner is identified, the Lead Person fills in the applicable s

completion block and remarks section and signs the appropriate line on the PF. The i Lead Person presents the G Package to the NSS who reviews the Performance Evaluation results.

l Unless otherwise directed by the NSS, the Lead Person remains present during the NSS review of the PEP Package to answer any questions the NSS may have.

l The NSS signifies review of the Performance Evaluation by signing the appropriate line on the PF. The NSS places the PEP Package in the

• Surveillance Box *.

i 12.14 The LPPE retrieves the completed package from the

• Surveillance Box

• and performs a review of the PEP Package using the guidelines of Enclosure 6 and,if required, should initiate any appropriate action.

12.15 The LPPE updates the Performance Evaluation Scheduling Program and signs the Final Review line on the PF.

y, - - --- - - - , , - , - - - , . .,.,, --- -- ---,

t POM 12.000.022

. Revision 0 Page 16 12.16 The LPPE transmits safety-related PEP Package to the Supervisor, Operational Assurance for review. Upon completion of the review, the Supervisor, Operational Assurance signs the appropriate line of the PF and returns the package to the LPPE.

12.17 The LPPE trends / files the completed PEP Package in the Performance Evaluation Test ,

Files. l 13.0 TRENDING OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PARAMETERS 13.1 The LPPE maintains a list of the parameters to be trended for each Performance Evaluation procedure.

13.2 Completed Performance Evaluations are routed to the LPPE for analysis, trending, and recommendations. The LPPE evaluates the test data per the procedure acceptance limits and the requirements of Section IV of the specific System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form (s) or Section V of the specific Component Monitoring Evaluation form (s).

As specified on the the System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form and Component Monitoring Evaluation form, certain data and calculated results are trended by updating the trend graphs and evaluating any significant deviations. A file a with the trend graphs is kept by the LPPE. These files are available for review by other groups as required. Trend graphs show the test data points, the acceptance band, design values, and baseline value. Trend graphs are annotated with the cause of significant deviation from normal (desired) valves, as well as significant maintenance done. When possible, trend graphs for related parameters should be shown on the same sheet (with the same time axis) to facilitate data analysis.

The background analysis detailed en the System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form and Component Monitoring Evaluation form may be useful when evaluating the impact of test result deviations. They may also indicate additional tests not part of the normal program that could be performed to help identify a particular problem. A computerized model of the plant could be used to evaluate the potential cause for undetermined decreases in plant performance.

If degraded conditions exist for a particular component or system, the LPPE indicates so on the PF.

If any degraded conditions are detected, the LPPE notes this for possible inclusion in the weekly or monthly reports as specified in Section 14.0.

13.3 Reliability Data Analysis Failures of equipment with no impact on plant efficiency or plant reliability fall outside the scope of the trending application of this program.

Some reliability information may be gained from performance test results as discussed in Section 13.2. If test results consistently show degraded conditions and corrective maintenance is frequently needed, equipment reliability may be suspect.

For those systems and components identified on the System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form and Component Monitoring Evaluation form as affecting plant reliability, the appropriate Nuclear Engineering System Engineer receives and

POM 12.000.022 Revision 0

. Page 17 reviews information and failure data (i.e., NPRDS reports, LERs related to equipment problems, maintenance history reports, post-trip reports, etc.) from the LPPE. This data is reviewed for reliability significance and annotated on system or component trend graphs (see Section 13.2) as appropriate.

When analyzing for reliability significance, the LPPE should look at reliebility date on similar components in other systems, industry data such as NPRDS and vendor projections of effective lifetime (i.e., mean time between failures).

If significant reliability problems are identified, the LPPE and Nuclear Engineering System Engineer should investigate possible solutions and recommend corrective actions to improve plant reliability.

14.0 REPORTS ,

14.1 Weekly Reports A brief weekly report shall be prepared by the ISI Programs Supervisor containing program status, current plant / equipment performance degradation, corrective action being taken (or recommended), megawatts being lost, etc. This report is distributed to Section Heads, Plant Superintendents, and the Plant Manager.

14.2 Monthly Reports A monthly report similar to the weekly report is prepared by the ISI Programs Supervisor.

The monthly report includes various key performance graphs, performance monitoring management information and indicates the progress toward meeting corporate plant performance goals. This report shall be forwarded to the Plant Manager for his distribution.

14.3 Annual Program Status Report An annual program status report is prepared by the ISI Programs Supervisor with the assistance of the LPPE. This report summarizes program effectiveness for the previous Year; procedures cancelled, added, or performed late; trend graph updating problems; recommended test or test frequency changes and the basis for the recommendations; mejor program results for the year; and major plans for the coming year.

l l 14.4 Equipment Operating Point Recommendations Report This report transmits recommendations to the Operations Section for equipment operation to maximize equipment and plant performance and reliability. This report shall be issued once and then reissued only if recommendations change. These recommendations could include such items as feedwater heater level control bands, circulating water pump combinations for various power levels, etc.

15.0 RECORDS l

15.1 The LPPE rreintains the fo' lowing records:

15.1.1 Program Summary - A program summary is maintained that lists the current pro;; ram scope by system and compunent. This scope is a compilation of

POM 12.000.022 Revision 0

. Page 18 Section VI of the System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification form and Section V of the Component Monitoring Evaluation form, monitoring requirements.

15.1.2 Trend Graphs and Tabulations - The LPPE is responsible for the Trend Graph Files and associated data.

15.1.3 Past Reports - The LPPE maintains past copies of all reports required by

' Section 14.0.

15.2 The following records are tranferred monthly to information Systems for life of plant retention:

15.2.1 System Monitoring Evaluation and Component identification forms 15.2.2 Component Monitoring Evaluation forms 15.2.2 PEP Package END OF TEXT l

l l

l

(

POM 12.000.0}?

Enclosure 1, Page 1 of 1

, 011487 EXAMPLES OF SYSTEMS AND EQUlPMENT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM o Main steam system piping and valves between main steam isolation valves and main turbine o Condensate and feedwater pumps, piping, motor-operated valves, check valves, control valves, and flow control system o Condensate polishing system including controls and instrumentation o Main turbine, generator, electro-hydraulic control system, lube oil system, generator cooling system, and hydrogen seal oil system -

o Main turbine gland seal steam pressure controller o Main condenser, circulating water pumps, intake screens, and air removal system o Feedwater heaters, moisture separator reheaters, extraction steam piping, heater drain valves, and heater level control system o Service water system pumps, motor-operated valves, strainers, and piping o Turbine building closed cooling water system o Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems in reactor building, control building, and auxiliary building, including chillers o Instrument air compressors, air dryers, and filters o Main transformers, unit auxiliary.and unit startup transformers o 4160 VAC and 480 VAC buses, breakers, and relays affecting the above listed equipment o Reactor coctrol systems and motor / generator power supplies (not reactor protection

(

system) l l o Non Safety-% elated instrument bus and power supply inverter SAMPLE LIST ONLY l

l r

l l

l l

l

POM 12.000.022 Enclosure 2, Page 1 of 1 011487 SYSTEM MONITORING EVALUATION AND COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION GUIDELINES

1. General System Name:

System Number:

Completed By: Date:

Approved By: Date:

11. System impact Evaluation Potential (efficiency and/or reliability) impact?

Yes No NOTE: Supporting Evaluation as long or short as necessary.

Ill. System Components with Potential impact (list)

List all components with potential system impact.

(Use additional sheets if necessary.)

IV. System Parameters and Performance Indicators List guidelines for judging system condition.

(Use additional sheets if necessary.)

V. Cost / Benefit for System Monitoring Provide supporting information to justify monitoring.

(Use additional sheets if necessary.)

VI. System Monitoring Requirements Test Parameters & Current Proc. # Freq. Trend Addit.

Perf. Indic. Program Yes/No Resourc.

(One row for each test and parameter / performance indicator)

(Use additional sheets if necessary.)

POM 12.000.022 Enclosure 3, Page 1 of 1 011487 COMPONENT MONITORING EVALUATION GUIDELINES

1. General

]

Component Name:

Component Nolldentification:

System. Name/No.: /

Completed By: Date:

Approved By: _Date:

II. Component impact Evaluation '

Potential (efficiency and/or reliability) impact?

Yes No NOTE: Supporting Evaluation as long or short as necessary.

Ill. Component Parameters and Performance Indicators List guidelines for judging component condition.

(Use additional sheets if necessary.)

IV. Cost / Benefit for Component Monitoring Provide supporting information to justify monitoring.

(Use additional sheets if necessary.)

V. Component Monitoring Requirements

/

Test Parameters & Current Proc. # Freq. Trend Addit.

Perf. Indic. Program Yes/No Resourc.

(One row for each test and parameter / performance indicator)

POM 12.000.022 Enclosure 4, Page 1 of 1 011487 EXAMPLE MONITORING TESTS, PARAMETERS, AND INDICATORS VIBRATION MONITORING: displacement, velocity and full spectrum analysis for rotating equipment INFRARED SURVEYS: valve leak-through, loose electrical connections, poor / loose insulation ULTRASONIC: ' weld cracking, extraction steam line erosion EDDY CURRENT: heat exchanger tube well thickness, condenser tube profilometry to detect deformation MAGNETIC PARTICLE: main turbine components, weld surface cracking DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE: various pumps, heat exchangers TERMINAL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE: various heat exchangers DRAIN COOLER APPROACH TEMPERATURE: feedwater heat exchangers FLOWS various pumps, heat exchangers, etc.

HEAD VS FLOW: various pumps UNIT HEAT RATE: plant steam cycle efficiency AIR IN-LEAKAGE: main condenser CONDENSER CLEANLINESS FACTOR: measure of main condenser tube fouling CONDENSER BACKPRESSURE: indication of various main condenser problems HELIUM LEAK DETECTION: main condenser tubes, various valves and flanges BEARING TEMPERATURE: various rotating equipment VARIOUS PROCESS PARAMETERS: many of these can be obtained from the process computer and analyzed PLANT WALKDOWN: look for various performance problems such as dump valves not reset, steam trap leaks, valve leak-through to the condenser, miscellaneous steam leaks, oscillating feedwater level control, etc.

OIL ANALYSIS (INCLUDING FERROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS): various rotating equipment and transformers to determine wear and insulation breakdown

Pons 12.000.022 Enclosure 5 Page 1 of 1*

011487 SAssPLE PERFORs8ANCE EVALUATION fores DATE: 86/12/24 PAGEs 4 Di Thb[ ElsIS(W - Ft.RMI 2 TINES 03:54 PE P. RPT . 3. 2 PERFe sMANil' EVAlt4 flON FHOCEld IRC -

SELECTED BY DATE RANGE FEhFORMANtE ffAM SORTED BYs PIS NUMBER

++++++++++ JOB I N I T I AT I ON AND APPROVAL + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +++ + + + + + + + JOB

+ +

00 PRICA I T Y J + NATERI ALS USED +

+ PIS NUMBER SU + [CSC lilP T ILW OUANTITY ROS OR PO NUM 0 0 ~ +

+ H3OR800 +

+ +

+ _ _ _

+

+ COMPONENT t(SC : Sera >ENCE OF EVENT RECORIER (SERD SYSTEM +

+ TERMINAL EVENT LOGGER (CRT) +

+

+

+

+

+ +

+

+ LOCATION BLDO: FLOORS CRIDs _____- +

RCOMs + .

+ ELEV +

886/12/3I sRWP REVIEW REQUIRED + _ _____-

+

+ DESIRED COMP +

+ JOB ID s AA7tO61224 N sTECH SPEC .4P +

N sSAFETY RELATED JOB + PERFORMER CHECK AS APPLICABLE +

+ RELATED WORK NOs +

+ PERIODICITY s 4W N sNPRDS REPORTABLE JOB 4

+

N 8 ISI REVII W REedflRED + -_ COMPLETED AS EXPECTED

+ PHEV FLD COMP s 86/I2/02 -

+ __ COMPT ETED DUT PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED. SEE MY REMARKS BELOW+

+ Y sOSG REVIEW REOUIRFD +

+ __ PARTIAL COMPLETION. SEE MY REMARKS BELOW +

+ TASK DESCRIPTION: + +

+ PERFORN WEEKLY PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE + __ DID NOT COMPLETE. SEE MY REMARKS PELOW +

+ +

SEE MY REMARKS BELOW +

+ + __ ISSUED PN2I NO.

COMMITMENT NOs +

+ ADDITIONAL JOB INFORMATIONs + +

+ PERFORM MI-IC-6009 AS SPECIFIED IN THE TASM. + REMARKS +

+ (SEO. OF EVENTS) + +

+ + +

• + +

+ + ,

+

. + .

. + --

+ +

DATE: _. -

+

+ OSO APPROVALS + .- ___

+

+ +

ALARA REVIEW +

+ SPECIFIC RWP REOUIRED e + +

+ +

8 _ +

+ SPECIFIC RWP NUMPER + WORK Okt(R +

+ + MANHOURS TO COMPLETE JOB e ___ _ MANHOURS +

+ - +

DATE s___ DATE 8 +

+ HEALTH PHYSICS REVIEWER s _____

+ FtRFORMED BY : ___

. + +

+ 04 REVIEW REQUIRED s ___ + NSS ORICR CONFtETE

+ DATE e _______+

+ AND REVIEWED ____

+

+ +

- - __DA T E _______ +

+ SHIFT SUPERVISOR REVIEWED _

+ t.ECTION HEAD +

+ DATE : __

+ F INAL RI:VI E W s _ _

+ . .

+ + (4 +

+ NSO (START PERFORMANCE) 3 ________ _________IMIE 3 ,_

-DATE s

+ FINAL hEVIEW 3 ________ +

+ +

+

...........+...+...++++e*e ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+ese+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.. 44+++++++......

POM 12 000.022 Enclosure 6, Page 1 of 1 011487 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REVIEW

1. All procedural steps have been completed.

2. Test Equipment called out in the procedure has been used.

3. Test Equipment used is within its calibration cycle.

4. Independe'nt Verification performed by someone other than the person performing the Performance Evaluation, if required

5. The Lead Person has resolved all discrepencies encountered while performing the Performance Evaluation.

~

6. Does the performance evaluation procedure require revision?

7. Parameters trended as designated by the LPPE/ designee.

POM 12.000 022 Attachm:nt 1, Page 1 cf 5 011487 SYSTEM MONITORING EVALUATION AND COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION

1. General System Name:

System Number:

Completed By: Date:

Approved By: Dete:

11. System impact Evaluation Potential (efficiency and/or reliability) impact?

Yes No I

POM 12.000.022 Attachment 1, Page 2 of 5 011487 SYSTEM MONITORING EVALUATION AND COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION ll1. System Components with Potential impact 6

i I

a i

POM 12 000.022 Attachment 1. Pagt. 3 of 5 011487 l SYSTEM MONITORING EVALUATION AND COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION IV. System Parameters and Performance Indicators l

l

POM 12.000.022 Attachm:nt 1, Pago 4 cf 5 011487 SYSTEM MONITORING EVALUATION AND COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION V. Cost / Benefit for System Monitoring I

l l

l l l l

L _ - - _ . . _ _ _ _

POM 12.000.022 Attachm:nt 1, P:ge 5 cf 5 011487 SYSTEM MONITORING EVALUATION AND COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION VI. System Monitoring Requirements Test Parameters & Current Proc. # Freq. Trend Addit.

Perf. Indic. Program Yes/No Resourc.

e J

l f

I l

t

{

l 1

l

POM 12.000.022 Attachment 2, Page 1 of 4 011487 COMPONENT MONITORING EVALUATION

1. General Component Name:

Component No/ identification:

System Name/No.: /

Compte.ted By: Date:

Approved By: Date:

11. Component impact Evaluation Patential (efficiency and/or reliability) impact?

Yes ,to l

POM 12.000.022 Attachm:nt 2, Pag') 2 of 4 011487 COMPONENT MONITORING EVALUATION 111. Component Parameters and Performance' Indicators O

hii i i

POM 12.000.022 Attachment 2, Page 3 of 4 011487 COMPONENT MONITORING EVALUATION IV. Cost / Benefit for Component Monitoring 9

i i

POM 12.000.022 Attachment 2. Page 4 of 4 011487 COMPONENT MONITORING EVALUATION V. Component Monitoring Requirements Test Parameters & Current Proc.# Freq. Trend Addit Perf, indic. Program Yes/No Resourc.

END I

l l

L__ _____ _ _.