1. Page 1 Evaluation Improvement Initiative A New Evaluation Approach 0616 CMBG Discussion on Revised Evaluation Approach.PPT Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Suite 1042 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339 DAVID M. FARR Manager Configuration Management 770-644-8432 Farrdm@inpo.org

2. Page 2 RROP - A “Risk Based Approach” NRC’s Mission: To protect the health and safety of the public. –Desired end states: Minimize core damage frequency Avoid a large, early radioactive release –Manage risk through ensuring the health of these cornerstones: Initiating events Mitigating system performance Containment and fission barrier performance Emergency Preparedness Security Cross cutting issues: –Human performance –Safety conscience work environment

3. Page 3 Shouldn’t INPO be “Risk Informed?” What is INPO’s “risk model?” (What is it that INPO is charged with avoiding?) –A significant operational event such that the continued viability of the unit is challenged or one that challenges the ongoing operation of other units in the industry. –The undetected degradation of a major component or equipment such that safety margins are significantly compromised. –A unplanned, long-duration shutdown requiring substantial upgrades to station programs, processes and/or people to recover the unit. –Operation outside of plant design and safety margins. –Withdrawal of accreditation of one or more training programs. –Long-term poor performance of a station, as measured by INPO assessments and the WANO performance indicators.

4. Page 4 INPO’s Mission – Excellence! INPO is not about “risk avoidance” or even “risk management.” INPO is about plants “striving for operational excellence.” ERG input: –INPO should modify the risk model (the avoidance end states) to focus on desired outcomes.

5. Page 5 Operational Excellence Outcomes

6. Page 6 Why look at Configuration Management? Plant safety degraded, long-term shutdowns caused by problems with:  Inadequate operating and design margins  Problems with design basis validity  Deficiencies in plant status and configuration control  Poor design product quality  Inadequate oversight of engineering programs

7. Page 7 CM.1 Plant equipment configuration is rigorously maintained and performance is consistent with design and licensing requirements CM.2 Roles and responsibilities for establishing and maintaining licensing and design basis are understood and applied consistently OR.5 Station leadership establishes a culture that thoughtfully manages safety, design, & operational margins CM.4 Processes that are used to control plant design bases are defined and validated CM.3 Day-to-day activities are conducted in a way that ensures operational and design margins are maintained Well-Managed and Understood Safety, Design, and Operational Margins Well Managed Margins An “Enabler” The “Outcome”

8. Page 8 Operating Point Limit Normal Operating Point Design or Tech Spec Basis Limit Functional/Design Failure Allowed operating range Analyzed transient range Greater than design basis range Operating margin Design margin ( Design allows operation in the transient range. However operating restrictions consistent with the design, such as the magnitude and frequency of excursions into this range apply) ( The allowed operating range provides the normal margins operators use without violating setpoints ) ( This is a prohibited range of operation and represents the additional conservative margin to account for uncertainties in design and construction ) Design and Operating Margins Model

9. Page 9 Margin Examples Turbine lube oil TCV found almost fully closed during operation. Safety Related Service Water throttle valve position changed, reducing EDG starting margin. Power uprates.

10. Page 10 Reduced Operating Margin Example

11. Page 11 ER Station processes and practices effectively support day- to-day activities and result in high levels of equipment reliability and availability Sustainable, High Levels of Plant Performance OR An accountable, engaged, and motivated workforce that achieves station goals OR Station leadership has a vision of excellence and acts to keep station on a continuous path of improvement OR Leaders emphasize nuclear safety and establish core values that drive organizational behaviors OF Integrated processes promote teamwork and align resources to common goals and priorities that support safe and reliable operation ER Programs & organizational behaviors are focused on the prevention of unanticipated or repeat equipment failures High Levels of Plant Performance

12. Page 12 OF #7 Station leadership promotes and uses sound operational decision- making OF #8 Plant activities are controlled to manage risks and provide compensatory actions OF #6 Operators recognize and respond correctly to plant conditions Sustainable, Event- Free Operations PI Station personnel are committed to and accountable for achieving performance improvement by identifying and correcting problems, applying lessons learned from industry operating experience, and comparing station standards and performance to industry standards of excellence PI The frequency and consequences of human errors are minimized by the application of individual and organizational error reduction and mitigation techniques ER Programs & organizational behaviors are focused on the prevention of unanticipated or repeat equipment failures ER Station processes and practices effectively support day-to- day activities and result in high levels of equipment reliability and availability Sustainable, Event-Free Operations

13. Page 13 OR #14 The organization and leadership team inspires stakeholder confidence in their ability to address problems OR #15 Station staff and infrastructure are capable of responding to emerging problems without adversely affecting routine station activities Avoidance of Unplanned, Long- Duration Shutdowns OR #16 Effective change management plans that consider unintended consequences PI Station personnel are committed to and accountable for achieving performance improvement by identifying and correcting problems, applying lessons learned from industry operating experience, and comparing station standards and performance to industry standards of excellence ER Vulnerabilities to the long-term reliability and availability of important plant equipment are recognized and mitigation and contingency plans have been developed Avoidance of Long-Duration Shutdowns

14. Page 14 RP Plant conditions and processes promote health and safety RP Radiological and industrial safety hazards are anticipated, recognized and managed High Levels of Plant Worker Safety RP Station leaders establish and promote a culture that supports worker safety RP Station personnel exhibit ownership for industrial and radiation safety High Levels of Worker Safety

15. Page 15 OR Management executes a long-term human resource strategy PI Management and leadership skills are systematically developed and reinforced Highly-Skilled, Knowledgeable and Collaborative Workforce PI Training is used as a strategic tool to provide highly skilled and knowledgeable personnel for safe, reliable operations and to support performance improvement PI The frequency and consequences of human errors are minimized by the application of individual an organizational error reduction and mitigation techniques Highly Skilled Workforce

16. Page 16 Evaluation Timeline

17. Page 17 Analysis Group Functions Plant Information Center (PIC) Data –Event history –Indicators Plant Specific CAP database Plant Specific Information on Engineering Programs Self assessments –“Conduct of”

18. Page 18 Analysis Group Output Identifies areas of focus –“High value” enablers and attributes Targets EN programs for review –Based on performance data from plant –Based on self-assessment information Targets systems or components for “vertical slice” –Based on performance data from plant –Consolidate with ER review Makes Team Augmentation Recommendation

19. Page 19 CM Questionnaire Used to gain insight into roles & responsibilities (CM-2) Questionnaire is sent in hard copy format as part of the advance information request. Target audience is: –No more than 60 people. Distributed equally between: Maintenance supervision and craft Operations supervision and RO/NLO Engineering supervision and individual contributors CM evaluator analyzes results during prep-week

20. Page 20 Evaluating Operational Excellence Six Outcomes: –Sustainable high levels of performance –Configuration and margin management –Sustainable event free operation –Avoidance of extended shutdowns –High levels of worker safety –Highly skilled workforce Five Cross Functional Areas: –Equipment Reliability (ER) –Configuration and Margin Management (CM) –Operational Focus (OF) –Performance Improvement (PI) –Personnel and Organizational Performance (OR)

21. Page 21 Advance information gathering PED/Analysis Division (3-4 months) Data analysis of station CAP Special evolution observations Previsit Station Self assessment in “conduct of” OR/CC questionnaires Discriminate areas that are functioning well from those that are questionable or unknown Analyze data and determine focus areas TM/ORTM/Analysis (1-2 months) Cross-Functional Evaluation team (12 total) Develop evaluation plan in conjunction with station leadership Functional areas OEO building blocks Cross-function focus areas Output: team focus areas TM/ORTM/Site Leadership (1 month) Team Manager Self-Evaluation and Learning Organization (PI) Design, Configuration and Engineering Program (CM - EN) OR and Personnel Performance (ORTM) Operational Focus Reactor Safety (OF - OP) 1-2 Functional Evaluators Host Peer 3 Industry Peers (OF, CM, ER) Industry Advisor Equipment Performance (ER - MA) Special INPO reviews NRC PIs, inspections, reports and public meetings SARC minutes Information Request Previous evaluations PIs, PIC and events Analyze data considering: Operational Excellence Outcomes Operating Experience (TBD) Framework Document Lessons Learned from S/Ds Department specific indicators Deciding how to focus INPO resources

22. Page 22 Executive Summary APS 1. Operational Focus (Goddard) 2. Performance Improvement (Hamlin) 3. Configuration Management (Farr) 4. Equipment Reliability (P. Wagner) 5. Organizational Effectiveness (Link) 6. Personnel Safety (Moss) 7. Events (Heublein) AFI’s & Strengths  Cross-functional  Functional Based on Significance and Consequence (Would require utility response) Appendix One page per functional area (OP,TR,CY,MA,EN,RP,WM)  Items for CAP (previously lower level AFI)  Strengths  Additional Perspective (No Utility Response Required) Discussion on outcomes of interest -Tools to Evaluate Outcome - Analysis - Second Week Meeting - Report Week Discussion -DM review during report week Audience: CEO Owner: TM Check: Pre-exit Audience: CNO Owner: DM Check: TM Audience: SVP Owner: Team Check: DMs Audience: SVP/PM Owner: Evaluators Check: DM/TM SOER and Operating Experience Use Status and Any AFI’s Audience: SVP Owner: ORTM Check: TM Revised Report Structure

23. Page 23 Evaluation References

24. Page 24 Evaluation References

25. Page 25 Evaluation References

26. Page 26 Evaluation References