Presentation on theme: "A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry and the CMBG"— Presentation transcript:
1A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry and the CMBG Presented By:John ParlerCMBG Steering CommitteeBrief History of Nuclear Configuration Management in the USCMBG’s role in that historyCM documentsCM Fundamentals Workshop this afternoon. Discuss the concepts and processes mentioned in this presentation in more detail.Presentation is somewhat chronological with some segways along the way
2A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry Configuration Management in military and aerospace industry geared towards product conformance to facilitate interchangeability of parts while still satisfying the overall design requirementsMIL-STD-973 (1992), ”Configuration Management” (later replaced by ANSI/EIA )First couple of slides are focused on U.S. govt CM initiativesMilitary CM started in the post WWII era of jet aircraft development.Many contractors and parts manufactures involved.Rapidly evolving designs.
3A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry DOE STD “Configuration Management”Applicable to DOE nuclear facilities in the operational phase.DOE-STD-1073 was updated in 2003DOE had numerous facilities for handling nuclear materials and needed to define controls of the processes to change these facilities.This became the early model for nuclear CM
4A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry Nuclear plants in mid 60’s to early 80’s typically designed by AEs under contractFinal design documents typically turned over to the utility at the end of constructionLittle knowledge transfer of design info to utility engineering organizationUtilities struggled to deal with long term design maintenance and related document upkeepCommercial nuclear powerNot much structure – Get the documents and dump them into Records
5A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry Early indicators that the nuclear plant design basis knowledge was becoming disconnected from the physical plantIE Bulletin uncoveredcalculation discrepanciesundocumented modificationsdocument discrepanciesas-built problemsA series of commercial nuclear industry events led to regulatory actions.IE- NRC Inspection and Enforcement bulletins are predecessors to Generic LettersIE Bulletin was focused on hangers/pipe supports
6A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry Salem ATWS event (1983)Generic implications identified in NUREG-1000 and NRC Generic Letter 83-28compliance with vendor recommendationspart and procurement issuesvendor manual controlsIndustry initiatives by INPO, NUMARC and EPRI to provide guidance and consistencyINPO recently formed following 1979 TMI accident.Salem event – Feb SG low low level event and there was no trip.Happened twice in a couple of weeks.Challenged the Reactor Protection System.
7A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry Davis Besse Loss of Feedwater event (1985)Led to NRC Safety System Functional Inspections (SSFIs) and NUREG-1154difficulties maintaining operational readiness of safety systemslack of understanding design basesVoluntary design basis reconstitution, DBDs and self-evaluationNUREG-1397, NUMARC , INPO and NUREG/CR-5147Bottom Line it lead to:A range of industry regulation and guidance issued as a result of these inspections.NUREG 1397 and NUMARC Design control and design reconstitution\INPO and NUREG/CR-5147 Fundamentals for CM program for Design control
8A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry Browns Ferry (1985)Browns Ferry fire in Unit 1 (1975) led to changes in NRC standards for Fire ProtectionAll three Browns Ferry units shut down voluntarily in March 1985 due to CM related problems - containment isolation testing (Unit 1), reactor water level instrumentation (Unit 2)Unit 1 restarted in May 2007 after 22 year shutdownLed to creation of Appendix R to 10CFR50“Train Seperation”
9A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry NRC specialized SSFIs for safety systemsElectrical Systems (EDSFI)Service Water Systems (SWOPI)SECY : intent to issue generic letter to require utilities to address how they were dealing with the problems - withdrawnSSFI’s (Safety System Functional Inspection) in late 80’sSSFI concept developed by NRC as another means to find deficiencies in the industry. Used as a proactive deep dive into utility programs/ processes.Revealed serious CM problems existed. Utility documentation, change control, information accuracy, retrievability was very poor.SECY is a letter from the NRC secretary.
10A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry Nuclear Information and Records Management Association (NIRMA) CM Committee developed solutioncontrol of technical information by engineering and operations personnelmature records management and document control processPP “Position Paper on Configuration Management Program”In the early ’90sMostly focused on control of the Paper.
11A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry First Nuclear CM benchmarking conference hosted by PPL Susquehanna in Fall 1994Forum to exchange information on CM processes and methods at work in the industry17 US utilities were representedEach utility made presentation about their CM programNo motivational speechesNo sales promotions by service providersSo here’s where CMBG comes into the picture.The next several slides focus on the history and operations of CMBG
12The CMBG Idea GrowsInterest from industry to hold another similar conferenceSecond conference hosted by Ontario Hydro in 1995Drafted plans for continuing organization - approved in 1996Adopted name: Configuration Management Benchmarking GroupFormed Steering CommitteeWrote Mission Statement “…forum for peer-level information sharing…”Defined ground rules for holding future conferences
13CMBG is not affiliated with any other single organization Independent of regulatory and oversight agenciesConference costs are paid by registration fees and supplemented by host utilityWeb site developedActivities limited to information exchangeWritten Principles and Practices guide our endeavors.P & P’s on CMBG.org website
14CMBG Conferences Year Host Location 1994 PP&L Poconos, PA 1995 Ontario Hydro Ontario, Canada1996 Houston Lighting & Power Galveston, TX1997 Commonwealth Edison Chicago, IL1998 NAESCO Boston, MA1999 Duke Power Charlotte, NC2000 Consolidated Edison Tarrytown, NY2001 Progress Energy Raleigh, NC2002 PSEG Nuclear Atlantic City, NJ2003 PPL Susquehanna Hershey, PA2004 Wolf Creek Nuclear Kansas City, KS2005 First Energy Cleveland, OH2006 Dominion Richmond, VA2007 SCE&G Charleston, SC2008 Pacific Gas and Electric Shell Beach, CAEntergy Boston, MADuke Energy Charlotte, NCPSEG Nuclear Philadelphia, PAExelon Chicago, IL2013 Southern Co. Atlanta, GACMBG ConferencesMake a pitch of prospective future sites for CMBG. Talk to steering committee members if potentially interested. Provides great industry and regulator visibility of your fleet/ station’s commitment to CM.
15CMBG Accomplishments Annual Conferences Participation in development of industry documents (e.g.; ANSI-NIRMA CM , INPO AP-929, INPO AP-932)Web Site (www.cmbg.org)CMBG historyConferences (proceedings from all previous conferences and info on upcoming conference)Steering Committee membersIAEA ActivitiesCM LinksPapers and publicationsCMBG Google Group
16A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry NIRMA TG“ Configuration Management of Nuclear Facilities”Built on the NIRMA PP-02 documentPresented elements and attributes that facilities needed to establish of a good CM program.Later became basis for ANSI/NIRMA CMCriteriaProgram managementDesign requirementsInformation ControlChange controlAssessmentTrainingTG= Technical GuideEffort driven out of early CMBG conferences with involvement of participants in Tech Guide development.
17A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry INPO AP-929 (1998)“Configuration Control Process Description”Focused on changes to plant configurationAP’s were intended to apply to the expected next generation of nuclear reactors. INPO applied these guidelines to existing nuclear fleet.Again CMBG participants worked with INPO on development of this document.
18CMBG Contributions to Industry CM Guidance Documents ANSI/NIRMA CM“ Configuration Management of Nuclear Facilities”Based on NIRMA TG-19CMBG members participated in development, review and issuance.Drafts reviewed at CMBG conferencesCriteriaProgram managementDesign requirementsInformation ControlChange controlAssessmentTraining
19CMBG Contributions to Industry CM Guidance Documents 2002 CMBG Conference - initiative to reach agreement between INPO and NEI documentsNEI CM Community of Practice (2002)CM Process and PI’s included in NEI Standard Nuclear Performance Model (2003)
20CMBG Contributions to Industry CM Guidance Documents IAEA TECDOC-1335 (2003)"Configuration Management in Nuclear Power Plants“Contained elements of INPO AP-929 and ANSI/NIRMA CM-1.0CriteriaProgram managementDesign requirementsInformation ControlChange controlAssessmentTrainingInternational Atomic Energy Agency
21A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry INPO - Margin Management (2003)INPO reorganization emphasized, “Evaluating Configuration and Margin Management”Functional/Design FailureGreater than design basis rangeDesign margin( This is a prohibited range of operation and represents the additional conservative margin to account for uncertainties in design and construction )Design or Tech Spec Basis LimitAnalyzed transient range( 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)Operating Point LimitOperating marginAllowed operating range( The allowed operating range provides the normal margins operators use without violating setpoints )Normal Operating Point
22A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry INPO (November 2003)“Performance Objectives and Criteria”Configuration ManagementCM.1 Maintaining Margins Consistent with Design RequirementsCM.2 Operational Configuration ControlCM.3 Design Change ProcessesCM.4 Conduct of EngineeringCM.5 Reactor Engineering and Fuel ManagementINPO began to focus on Configuration Management as a performance area.
23A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry INPO (May 2005)“Performance Objectives and Criteria”Configuration ManagementCM.1 Maintaining Margins Consistent with Design RequirementsCM.2 Operational Configuration ControlCM.3 Design Change ProcessesCM.4 Reactor Engineering and Fuel ManagementMoved the Conduct of Engineering PO&C to OP area.23
24CMBG Contributions to Industry CM Guidance Documents INPO AP-929, Rev 1 (2005) “Configuration Management Process Description”“Three-Ball model became “CM Equilibrium Model”Return to CM EquilibriumMargin Model
25CMBG Contributions to Industry CM Guidance Documents IAEA Draft Safety Report. “Application of Configuration Management in Nuclear Power Plants”Contains elements of AP-929 (Rev 1)
26CMBG Contributions to Industry CM Guidance Documents ANSI/NIRMA Standard-CM-1.0, Rev 1 (August 2007) “Configuration Management of Nuclear Facilities”
27CMBG Contributions to Industry CM Guidance Documents INPO Good Practice Excellence in the Management of Design and Operating MarginsDeveloped with partnership of INPO and industry (including many CMBG participants)Have had presentations and breakout sessions on this topic at past conferences.
29The Next Big Thing in Nuclear CM We need your help in identifying the CM issues important to our Nuclear Station HealthCM for new plantsCMBG is a forum for sharing lessons learned from the current generation of operating plants in developing CM controls/ processes for the next generation of the nuclear fleetYOUR CMBG will continue to provide a forum for industry benchmarking on CM issuesYour participation and feedback are critical to keeping CMBG a meaningful forum for the industry.New plants have a significant opportunity to learn from the mistakes/ successes of the existing fleet in the area of effective CM.In addition to this conference, we encourage you to use the network available to you on our CMBG Google Group to benchmark the industry and share your plant’s approach to current issues in CM.Another Plug for HostingAndParticipation with presentations – breakouts.Feedback on future suggestions