1 CMBG 2009 Planning for Obsolescence June 27, 2009 John Parler South Carolina Electric & Gas

2 CMBG 2009 For the Uninformed here is the answer to all your obsolescence issues.

3 CMBG 2009 Obsolesence – What? Our Plant defines obsolescence as material that is still required to operate the plant but is no longer available or is hard to obtain (soon to be unavailable). Materials obsolescence directly impacts the ability to have needed spares to support plant operations.

4 CMBG 2009 Is it a real concern? The Nuclear Utilities Obsolescence Group (NUOG) developed the Proactive Obsolescence Management System (POMS) through PKMJ Technical Services to identify items. A download of all plant equipment with model numbers was done, PKMJ contacted the manufacturer of each specific model number and asked if they were still supported.

5 CMBG 2009

6 CMBG 2009

7 CMBG 2009

8 CMBG 2009 The Results (as of 2005) Total Equipment numbers 631,000 Equipment with no model 199,000 Waiting on manufacturer 273,000 Response from manufacturer 159,000 Bad model information 54,000 Obsolete 34,500 Still available 70,500 »Numbers are approx.

9 CMBG 2009 What that means As an industry for the identified equipment: We don't know what 31% of our equipment really is. We know that only 11% is still supported by the manufacturer 22% of the equipment that we have received a response from the manufacturer on, is obsolete

10 CMBG 2009 Is it better today?

11 CMBG 2009

12 CMBG 2009 What is being done? Concern was identified by Supply Chain initially and NUOG was formed (2/2000) With the help of RAPIDS the “Obsolete Items Replacement Database” (OIRD) was established Joint efforts between utilities addressed specific concerns Increased industry awareness expanded involvement to include more engineering

13 CMBG 2009

14 CMBG 2009

15 CMBG 2009

16 CMBG 2009 Available Guidance NX-1037 was produced by NUOG and distributed by INPO which outlines a basic program (12/2003) In November of 2008 EPRI issued report # which built on NX-1037 and provided specific recommendations for program development and ownership Current EPRI has a task team working on additional enhancements to their guidance

17 CMBG 2009 VCS Specific Program Overview Our program originally implemented in 2002 and we are currently on revision 3 with revision 4 in development It is based on the direction in NX-1037 It is a Station Administrative Procedure since it impacts multiple departments. SAP-1287

18 CMBG 2009 VCS Specific The program is "owned" by our Materials Group, who administer the process It does not matter who owns the program as long as there is a defined lead When an item is determined to be obsolete it is entered into our Corrective Action Program It is coded as obsolete and assigned to Materials

19 CMBG 2009 VCS Specific The potential impact of the obsolescence is determined and scored under our Plant Health Committee process The process is documented and tracked under our CAP program Actions are assigned to Materials to: –Update the OIRD for industry sharing –Identify replacement options

20 CMBG 2009 VCS Specific The options considered for resolution include: –Identification of an available equivalent replacement –Location of an after market supply –Reverse engineering the item –Modification to the plant

21 CMBG 2009 VCS Specific When a recommended solution has been determined by Materials it is sent to Plant Support Engineering for concurrence This review is to assure that the solution is in line with the long term plans for the system The solution is then incorporated into the schedule and worked based on its priority

22 CMBG 2009 VCS Specific If the solution is determined to be: –An equivalency the action is assigned to Materials (Procurement Engineering) to process –Reverse engineering Materials has the lead with support from PSE –A modification PSE has the lead to provide the project recommendation and submit it to Design Engineering

23 CMBG 2009 VCS Specific We found that the simple equivalency resolutions were able to be worked fairly quickly When setting the PHC score a major input is when the impact is expected and most obsolescence issues don't involve a current failure If the resolution involved a modification it normally does not have a high enough PHC score to be worked proactively

24 CMBG 2009 VCS Specific Recently we made a change to our PHC process because of the issue of not being able to proactively resolve these issues We now target obsolescence issues on our Plant Focus List for resolution, even when they score lower than other risks Currently two of the eleven items on our Focus List are proactive obsolescence items

25 CMBG 2009 VCS Specific Currently our challenge is the fact that the POMS data that we received indicates that 24% of our equipment is obsolete This equals over 7,200 components and our current process is not designed to address that large an input. One reason why we are currently developing a process revision

26 CMBG 2009 Summary The issue is major and growing bigger everyday As we upgrade our equipment most everything that is produced today has some digital component The Department of Defense has done detailed studies on the concern and the following graph shows the average timeline for a digital system The times are inline with what is expected at a nuclear plant

27 CMBG 2009

28 CMBG 2009 Summary It is not important who coordinates your program, what is important is that you have a defined program with a defined lead Programs that involve numerous organizations without a responsible lead tend to fail. Obsolescence is a Plant concern not just Materials or Engineering

29 CMBG 2009 Questions?