A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry and the CMBG

A Brief History of CM in the A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry Nuclear Industry and the CMBGand the CMBG

A Brief History of CM in the A Brief History of CM in the Nuclear Industry Nuclear Industry and the CMBGand the CMBG

Presented By:

John ParlerCMBG Steering Committee

June 25, 2012Chicago, Illinois

A 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 requirements

MIL-STD-973 (1992), ”Configuration Management” (later replaced by ANSI/EIA-649-1998)

DOE STD 1073-93 “Configuration Management” Applicable to DOE nuclear facilities in the

operational phase.

DOE-STD-1073 was updated in 2003


Nuclear plants in mid 60’s to early 80’s typically designed by AEs under contract

Final design documents typically turned over to the utility at the end of construction

Little knowledge transfer of design info to utility engineering organization

Utilities struggled to deal with long term design maintenance and related document upkeep


Early indicators that the nuclear plant design basis knowledge was becoming disconnected from the physical plant

IE Bulletin 79-14 uncovered • calculation discrepancies• undocumented modifications • document discrepancies • as-built problems


Salem ATWS event (1983) Generic implications identified in NUREG-1000 and

NRC Generic Letter 83-28 • compliance with vendor recommendations• part and procurement issues• vendor manual controls

Industry initiatives by INPO, NUMARC and EPRI to provide guidance and consistency


Davis Besse Loss of Feedwater event (1985) Led to NRC Safety System Functional Inspections

(SSFIs) and NUREG-1154 • difficulties maintaining operational readiness of

safety systems• lack of understanding design bases

Voluntary design basis reconstitution, DBDs and self-evaluation

NUREG-1397, NUMARC 90-012, INPO 87-006 and NUREG/CR-5147


Browns Ferry (1985) Browns Ferry fire in Unit 1 (1975) led to changes in

NRC standards for Fire Protection All 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 shutdown


NRC specialized SSFIs for safety systems• Electrical Systems (EDSFI) • Service Water Systems (SWOPI)

SECY-92-193: intent to issue generic letter to require utilities to address how they were dealing with the problems - withdrawn


Nuclear Information and Records Management Association (NIRMA) CM Committee developed solution

• control of technical information by engineering and operations personnel

• mature records management and document control process

PP02-1994 “Position Paper on Configuration Management Program”


First Nuclear CM benchmarking conference hosted by PPL Susquehannain Fall 1994

Forum to exchange informationon CM processes and methodsat work in the industry

17 US utilities were represented• Each utility made presentation

about their CM program• No motivational speeches• No sales promotions by service providers


The CMBG Idea Grows

Interest from industry to hold another similar conference

Second conference hosted byOntario Hydro in 1995

Drafted plans for continuing organization - approved in 1996

Adopted name: Configuration Management Benchmarking Group

Formed Steering Committee Wrote Mission Statement “…forum for peer-level

information sharing…” Defined ground rules for holding future conferences

CMBG is not affiliated with any other single organization

Independent of regulatory and oversight agencies Conference costs are paid by registration fees

and supplemented by host utility Host utility pays for web site Activities limited to information exchange Written Principles and Practices guide our

endeavors.

CMBG Accomplishments

Annual Conferences Participation in development of industry documents

(e.g.; ANSI-NIRMA CM 1.0-2000, INPO AP-929, INPO AP-932)

Web Site (www.cmbg.org)• CMBG history• Conferences (proceedings from all previous

conferences and info on upcoming conference)• Steering Committee members• IAEA Activities• CM Links• Papers and publications• Industry Contact Database

CMBG Google Group

CMBG ConferencesYear Host Location

1994 PP&L Poconos, PA

1995 Ontario Hydro Ontario, Canada

1996 Houston Lighting & Power Galveston, TX

1997 Commonwealth Edison Chicago, IL

1998 NAESCO Boston, MA

1999 Duke Power Charlotte, NC

2000 Consolidated Edison Tarrytown, NY

2001 Progress Energy Raleigh, NC

2002 PSEG Nuclear Atlantic City, NJ

2003 PPL Susquehanna Hershey, PA

2004 Wolf Creek Nuclear Kansas City, KS

2005 First Energy Cleveland, OH

2006 Dominion Richmond, VA

2007 SCE&G Charleston, SC

2008 Pacific Gas and Electric Shell Beach, CA

2009 Entergy Boston, MA

2010 Duke Energy Charlotte, NC

2011 PSEG Nuclear Philadelphia, PA

2012 Exelon Chicago, IL

NIRMA TG19-1996 “ Configuration Management of Nuclear Facilities” Built on the NIRMA PP-02 document Presented elements and attributes that facilities

needed to establish of a good CM program. Later became basis for ANSI/NIRMA CM-1.0-2000

Criteria• Program management • Design requirements • Information Control • Change control• Assessment• Training


Millstone Spent Fuel Pool Cooling (1996) NRC had lost confidence in utility’s ability to know

and maintain its design basis and to implement design and licensing requirements

10CFR50.54(f) letter in October 1996 to all licensees that required a response on how design basis information was controlled and maintained.

More far-reaching implications than letter that NRC was persuaded not to issue in 1993


Millstone Spent Fuel Pool Cooling (1996) 10CFR50.54(f) letter helped to solidify CMBG as a

viable resource for the industry Demonstrated how the CMBG "network" could be

used to find and distribute valuable CM information between utilities, including good practices and lessons learned


DC Cook Design issues (1997) Extended shutdown due to inability to respond to

design basis event and other configuration issues Contributed to INPO decision to modify the

evaluation performance objectives and criteria to include configuration management and to the formation of a new CM evaluation department.


INPO AP-929 (1998) “Configuration Control Process Description” Focused on changes to

plant configuration Configuration Control

Obtain licensing approvalof proposed change

Prepare safety, licensing,and design basis

documents

Design Basis Change

Configuration changed

Prepare designrequirement change

9

Implement configurationchange

Does changerequire altering approved

design?

Accept changedconfiguration

Business Need:Change Configuration

Configuration Change

Does changerequire altering hardware

or approved design ?

Define the configurationchange needed

Does need meetdefinition of configuration

change?

12

10

112

5

1

3

8

Change does not alterconfiguration

Design Change

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Does changerequire altering design

basis?

7

Prepare nondesignoperational configuration

change

4

Prepare hardwareequivalency changes

6


CMBG Contributions to Industry

CM Guidance Documents

ANSI/NIRMA CM 1.0 -2000 “ Configuration Management of Nuclear Facilities” Based on NIRMA TG-19 CMBG members participated in development, review

and issuance. Drafts reviewed at CMBG conferences


2002 CMBG Conference - initiative to reach agreement between INPO and NEI documents

NEI CM Community of Practice (2002) CM Process and PI’s included in NEI Standard

Nuclear Performance Model (2003)



IAEA TECDOC-1335 (2003) "Configuration Management in Nuclear Power

Plants“ Contained elements of INPO AP-929

and ANSI/NIRMA CM-1.0




INPO - Margin Management (2003) INPO reorganization emphasized, “Evaluating

Configuration and Margin Management”

Greater than design basis range

Operating Point Limit

Normal Operating Point

Design or Tech Spec Basis Limit

Functional/Design Failure

Allowed operating range

Analyzed transient 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 )


INPO 03-04 (November 2003)

“Performance Objectives and Criteria”

Configuration Management CM.1 Maintaining Margins Consistent with

Design Requirements CM.2 Operational Configuration Control CM.3 Design Change Processes CM.4 Conduct of Engineering CM.5 Reactor Engineering and Fuel

Management


INPO 05-03 (May 2005)

“Performance Objectives and Criteria”

Configuration Management CM.1 Maintaining Margins Consistent with

Design Requirements CM.2 Operational Configuration Control CM.3 Design Change Processes CM.4 Reactor Engineering and Fuel

Management


INPO AP-929, Rev 1 (2005) “Configuration Management Process Description”

“Three-Ball model became “CM Equilibrium Model” Return to CM Equilibrium (new) Margin Model (new)



IAEA Draft Safety Report. “Application of Configuration Management in Nuclear Power Plants”

Contains elements of AP-929 (Rev 1)



ANSI/NIRMA Standard-CM-1.0, Rev 1 (August 2007) “Configuration Management of Nuclear Facilities”



INPO Good Practice 09-003 Excellence in the Management of Design and Operating Margins



What’s next?

The Next Big Thing in Nuclear CM

We need your help in identifying the CM issues important to your station

CM for new plants• CMBG 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 fleet

YOUR CMBG will continue to provide a forum for industry benchmarking on CM issues