EXAMPLE CMBG TRIP REPORT
The Configuration Management Benchmarking Group (CMBG) has been providing a focus for configuration management(CM) issues since 1994. It is recognized as the CM Community of Practice by NEI and has worked closely with INPO, EPRI, NIRMA and IAEA to promote CM good practices and publish CM Guidance documents.
The 2012 CMBG conference was held June 24-27 at the Weston Lombard Yorktown Center in Chicago, IL. The conference was hosted by Exelon Nuclear and the theme was “Don’t Let your Configuration Management get Blown Away.” In recent years there has been an increased interest in new builds by the conference participants. To accommodate this interest while maintaining relevance to existing facilities, the CMBG has allocated time for new build presentations and breakout sessions. Although some of the topics may be specifically slanted towards new builds, they also provided insights on technology advances and CM program development for existing plants.
The presentations and Breakout sessions are summarized below:
MONDAY AM JUNE 23 PRESENTATIONS
CM and CMBG History, John Parler– South Carolina Electric & Gas, CMBG Chair
This presentation presented a chronology and evolution of configuration management as a practice and reviewed the history and role of CMBG in Nuclear CM.
INPO Perspective, Bob Gambrill – INPO
INPO presented an update of engineering Configuration Management activities including tempmodsand temporary configuration changes, the trend in Part 21s, the Byron NPP open phase event, and the INPO CM initiatives/focus areas for 2012.
Temporary Configuration Changes, Mike Hayes, Exelon Nuclearand Conference Host
This presentation focused on the CM good practices as well as challenges associated with the varied types of temporary configuration changes such as Equipment in use, Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE), Procedurally Controlled Temporary Configuration Changes (Pre-Engineered), Temporary Alterations Evaluated under Maintenance Rule, and Temporary Configuration Change Packages (temporary modifications). The presentation was a lead-in to an afternoon breakout.
Vogtle 3 & 4 Turnover and Information Handover, Elizabeth Johnson, SNC
This presentation provided lessons learned during Southern Nuclear Company (SNC) Commercial Facility Turnover and the mitigation strategy produced to minimize turnover issues in the future.Attendees were also informed of the similarities of Commercial Turnover and Plant Turnover and how to capitalize on a turnover strategy that is beneficial for both turnover processes. The presentation also focused on Information Handover and the challenges SNC needed to address.
New Nuclear Plant Configuration Information Management – Transition to the Data Centric Paradigm, Steven Fipps, South Carolina Electric & Gas
This presentation provided insight on the use of standard basic design engineering principles in the development of New Nuclear Power Plant Configuration Information Management philosophy and programs.It identified lessons learned and challenges of a current EPC holder/constructor and their application for futureEPC’s. Emphasis was placed on configuration management not being just a program; it is a behavior, attitude, and philosophy exhibited by all entities.For best results, participants should research industry initiatives (EPRI, INPO, NEI, etc.) in data centric inter-connective Configuration Management and come with an open inquisitive mind.
MONDAY (6/23) AFTERNOON BREAKOUTS
CM 101
Instructor –Robert Renuart,Renuart Consulting Services
Thissession was based on a PowerPoint presentation developed by the CMBG that walked the audience through the fundamental concepts, terms, and examples of Configuration Management (CM), including design and operating margin management. The objective of the sessionwas to attract those conference attendees new to the configuration management process and provide them with a capsule summary of the workings of the CM process to provide an understanding of how the different plant organizations contribute to and support configuration control of our design, processes, and equipment. The session discussed industry three ball process model for CM equilibrium, ways the CM equilibrium can be upset, how to restore the equilibrium, and using CM to protect design and operating margins.
Configuration Management Lessons Learned & Information Handover
Facilitators: Elizabeth Johnson, SNC/StevenFipps,SCE&G
This was aquestion answer session with current EPC New Nuclear projects to openly discuss configuration management:status, lessons learned, and challenges.Topics of discussions were:defining the program scope, obtaining Senior Staff endorsement, placement in the EPC, vendor involvement, fleet challenges, and integration with existing software programs. The desired participant take-away was an enhanced understanding of how to apply the lessons learned for augmentation of future EPC contracts.Control your destination, not to decide is to decide.
MarginManagement
Facilitator- Mike Hayes, Exelon
The breakout discussed the attributes of a successful Margin Management program. The session focused on benchmarking best practices and lessons-learned including how to implementamarginmanagement program.Attendees were encouraged to describe techniques that were successful (or not) in each of these areas.
Beyond Design Basis
Facilitator: John Parler, South Carolina Electric & Gas
This session was intended to facilitate discussion on the heightened scrutiny of the Nuclear Industries efforts in preparations and strategies related to the Beyond Design Basis events we may be subject to.Participants discussed what actions are being taken at their utility/organization in response to recent industry events and any CM issues identified in the months since the events.For equipment or programs in place how were they accounted for in the CM program/processes?A focus was to identify any CM related program or process issues that participants need to take back to their organizations for review and assessment.
.
Developing CM Programs for New Build
Facilitator - Lloyd Hancock, LRH Consulting
Thisbreakout expanded on the guidance provided in EPRI TR-1022684 for establishing a CM Program. Breakout attendees were asked to review Section 5, “Attributes of a Configuration Management Program Description Document” prior to the session. Specific suggestions were offered for building a robust CM Program from the ground up. The participants had an opportunity to ask questions, collect information and share lessons learned. The breakout material was also useful to an existing plant needing to upgrade or overhaul its CM Program.
Temporary Changes
Facilitator - Mike Hayes, Exelon
This breakout expanded on the morning presentation and discussed the physical plant configuration control principles associated with control of Temporary Configuration Changes, the actions required to maintain the plant configuration within its design, the types of Temporary Configuration Changes and when they are used, and examples of uncontrolled configuration changes.
Switchyard Configuration Control
Facilitators: John Parler, SCE&G and Paul Davis, PSEG Nuclear
This breakout session was intended to provide an open discussion of methods used to manage and provide oversight of onsite work efforts provided by non-nuclear internal company groups. Most plants use an internal transmission organization to support design and modification work within the switchyard. This can be done in various ways and provides unique configuration control and management oversight challenges. Participants were asked to come prepared to discuss and share how they approach these CM, management and oversight issues.
Development of Nuclear CM Information Technology (IT) Systems
Facilitator: Kent Freeland, Worley Parson
CM software and IT solutions play an increasing important role in meeting commitments for Nuclear Power safety and viability.To begin, a 30-45 Minute overview presentation of technology and IT decisions for nuclear CM and MRO systems was given, based on IAEA TECDOC-1651, “Information Technology for Nuclear Power Plant Configuration Management", followed by a structured discussion.Following this, discussion topics included: Functional requirements for Enterprise Nuclear IT Systems, Software "Buy vs. Build" Decisions, Selecting solution providers, Strategic IT computing and infrastructure needs, Repatriation/migration of legacy and "rogue" databases, Deployment of Plant Lifecycle Management (PLM)-based systems, Vertical (3-Tier) IT strategies and solutions, "Rapid Deployment" CM/Design Control and Document software solutions for new-buildNPP's, Integration of suppliers/vendors, ISO-15926 and metadata-based system designs, and understanding how CM/MRO systems work with Design Creation and 3D "Digital NPP" platforms (Intergraph SPF, Bentley, AVEVA, NX, etc.) to define, generate and publish NPP design basis and CM.Also included were discussions of how CM IT relates to Integrated Management System (IMS) and Nuclear Knowledge Management (NKM) programs.
TUESDAY AM JUNE 24 PRESENTATIONS
CM for Digitaland Digital Upgrades, Maintaining CM after Installation- John Connelly, Exelon Nuclear
Implementation of digital technology is an industry wide challenge. IER 11-2 identifies adverse trend in SCRAMS between 2005 and 2010. INPO 10-008 examined events from 2003 to 2007 that identified significant operational and safety challenges.Digital technology, while vastly superior in nearly every dimension, requires different competencies to implement correctly. ACAD 98-04 Rev 2 now contains vastly expanded requirements for digital technology and Cyber Security.
NRCExpectations for CM under 10CFR52- Tom Kozak, NRC
Although there are no regulations that specifically require the establishment of Configuration Management, there are elements of the 10CFR52 construction and operational readiness inspections that address engineering activities and ITAAC – Inspections, Tests, Analysis and Acceptance Criteria. As with existing plants, the NRC has expectations for the licensee to know and maintain the plant’s design and licensing bases.The presenter provided guidance on what the NRC expects to see in a new build, including design control measures, the identification of requirements and assuring that they are satisfied, management ofITAACs, and operational readiness.
Vendor Perspective: Their Procedures or Our Procedures- Eric Helm, AREVA
Requirements Management (RM) is a key subject which serves operating plants and new builds alike.This vendor perspective examined the definitions of RM from the CM and Systems Engineering standards, some key features of a vendor RM process, and the benefits of making RM central to vendor CM programs.
Introduction to EPRIPlant Information Model (PIM)- Russell Adams & Bob Renuart
This presentation provided an historical perspective of the PIM development, described the data structure/relationships within the model, the establishment of a CM Taxonomy and a Standard Handover Framework for documents and data, identified use cases for the model, andgavea glimpse of what w0uld be demonstrated in the afternoon Workshop.
Vendor / Contractor Design Product Quality- AdamAnnis, Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy Fleet performed benchmarking on performance of projects and use of engineering vendors.This presentation shared benchmarking results from 2010, current challenges at Xcel Energy with engineering vendors, and the actions taken to improve and manage quality performance from vendors.There was a breakout session during the afternoon to discuss how other plants are handling the challenges of vendor designs and what tools are being used to monitor performance.
TUESDAY(6/24) AFTERNOON BREAKOUTS
Digital and Digital Upgrades
Facilitator – John Connelly, Exelon Nuclear
"Industry and operating experience show that weaknesses in the preparation of digital system project modifications may be attributed to: (a) insufficient knowledge and skills with new technology, (b) inadequate failure modes and effects analysis, (c) over-reliance on the expertise of vendors and supplemental personnel, (d) less than adequate requirements in procurement specifications, and (e) less than adequate understanding of software and software management and change control (reference INPO 10-008 Good Practice document titled “Ensuring Engineering Quality in Digital System Projects”).
Based on the above, the breakout focused on the software/firmware/hardware procurement and change control, the unique aspects of digital system projects, software and hardware testing, knowledge based human performance, training and qualification, operation and maintenance considerations, and performance monitoring of digital systems."
Vendor Design Product
Facilitator - Adam Annis, Xcel Energy
This breakout session discussed how plants are handling the challenges of vendor designs and what tools are being used to monitor performance.
CM for Unattended Openings
Facilitator –Paul Davis, PSEG Nuclear
10CFR73.55 states “Unattended openings that intersect a security boundary such as underground pathways must be protected by a physical barrier and monitored by intrusion detection equipment or observed by security personnel at a frequency sufficient to detect exploitation.” This breakout examined the problems encountered with meeting this requirement and took input from other attendees on successful measures used.
FCI Backlog Reductions
Facilitator - Paul Davis, PSEG Nuclear
Participants in this breakout had an opportunity to discuss and share ideas on various ways to reduce FCI backlogs, including drawings, calculations, and other Engineering documents. This included use of supplemental resources (internal or external), special or streamlined processes for bulk FCI updates, or any software or other tools to assist in managing and reducing the backlogs. Participants discussed examples of FCI backlog reduction efforts at their respective sites.
Vendor Perspective – Their Procedures or Our Procedures
Facilitator - Eric Helm, AREVA
Utilities often request contract engineering service providers to use some or all of the utilities’ processes, methods, procedures, and tools. This generally falls under a generic description of using the utilities’ QA program. The breakout examined a variety of options and, from the contractor’s standpoint, the benefits and struggles of using the customer’s systems, procedures and tools.
Workshop - EPRI Plant Information Model (PIM) Demonstration
Facilitators - Russell Adams, EPRI Consultant & Bob Renuart, UniStar
This was an online demonstration of the PIM conducted to show the existing functionality and how it fulfills most of the use cases presented in the morning session. Workshop attendees were given an appreciation of the power of the PIM tool and were able to visualize the data inter-relationships, the CM Taxonomy and the Standard Handover Framework for documents and data through on-line demonstrations. A methodology going from the PIM to building an EPC or Owner/Operator data model was discussed. Attendees had an opportunity to ask questions and get clarification on model specifics.
WEDNESDAY AM, JUNE 22 PRESENTATIONS
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory– Paul C.Czarapata,Deputy Division Head Accelerator Division
Thispresentation provided an overview of the accelerator facility at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, IL.Mr. Czarapata also discussed CM related experiences from 40 years at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory such as design reconstitution, component obsolescence, and effective maintenance strategies.
Announcement about 2013 CMBG
Andrew Neal from Southern Nuclear Corp. announced that the 2013 CMBG conference is scheduled to be held in Atlanta, GA in June.
Panel Discussion – Significant “Take Aways” from the conference
Audience members wereasked to describe useful information, insights, or peer consensus that they will take back to their facilities to improve their CM. The discussion was intended to encourage attendees to leverage the learning from the conference to improve their CM Programs.
CONFERENCE ADJOURNED
1