CMBG Performance Indicator Workshop Facilitated By: Keith Harvey- Wolf Creek Keith Reinsmith- Susquehanna

CM P.I.’s CM P.I. Background and History P.I. Development requested by CMBG attendees Steering committee commissioned a team to develop Developed P.I.s around CM Equilibrium diagram Defined P.I.s to measure effectiveness, timeliness, and cost of each CM sub-process (CM001- CM004) Also created P.I.’s for overall program effectiveness

Facilities Using CM P.I.s (6 Generator and 2 DOE) Cooper “Program Health” P.I. Other P.I.s focused on FCI Wolf Creek P.I.s in development Don’t have proper capability to bin yet Modeling P.I.s after Duke Fermi Use CR process for problem I.D. Low tolerance level for identification Use cause codes for trending Don’t have overall CM P.I.

Facilities Using CM P.I.s (6 Generator and 2 DOE) Susquehanna P.I.s developed for some of NEI CM P.I.s Several focused on mod process effectiveness Have overall CM Process effectiveness P.I. (Roll up of seven CM indicators) Columbia KPIs based on INPO 03-004 5 CM P.I.s based on INPO OEOs. These align with CM P.I.s Use CRs with cause codes

Facilities Using CM P.I.s (6 Generator and 2 DOE) Bruce Have CM P.I.s as part of site wide P.I. System Track obvious backlogs Yucca Mtn Fully functional P.I. System Focused now on requirements mgt not CM Use CRs to identify Los Alamos Getting 17-18 facilities to implement CM program Have same P.I.s across all fac. Some are CM.

Performance Comparison Important to enable industry benchmarking of performance (apples to apples) Agreement to identify a subset of CM P.I.’s to focus on and share across industry Use as pilot for broader application over time Would normalize to account for program and facility differences (e.g.; use % vs. actual numbers) Would require plant profiles to aid in comparison Would focus on trends

Performance Comparison Identified a list of 5-6 common “easy” P.I.s 5 volunteers agreed to work as a team to develop detailed description of each P.I. Team will share results with others from workshop Each plant would capture data periodically (monthly, quarterly?) and send to common place for publication Discussed putting on CMBG website Would revisit effectiveness at ’05 conference