Date post: | 04-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | dyandra-arhamaqila-purnomosunu |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 46
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
1/46
Assessing MaintenanceEffectiveness
NMAC Tech Note
SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENTTHIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE(EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE WRAPPING MATERIAL. THIS AGREEMENTCONTINUES ON THE BACK COVER.
BY OPENING THI S SEALED REPORT YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERM S OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOTAGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED REPORT TO EPRI AND THEPURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSEEPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontr ansferable right during the term of this agreement to use thisreport only for your ow n benefit and the benefit of your organization. This means that the follow ing m ay usethis report: (I) your com pany (at any site owned or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or otherrelated entities; and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities, if the consultant has entered intoa contract agreeing not to disclose the report outside of its organization or t o use the report for it s ownbenefit or the benefit of any party other than your company.
This shrink-wr ap license agreement is subordinate to the term s of the Master Utility License Agreementbetween most U.S. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a MasterUtility License Agreement may get one on request.
2. COPYRIGHTThis report, including the inform ation contained in it, is ow ned by EPRI and is prot ected by United States andinternational copyright laws. You m ay not, without the prior w ritten permission of EPRI, reproduce, translateor m odify this report, in any form , in whole or in part, or pr epare any derivative work based on this report.
3. RESTRICTIONSYou may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this report to any person or organization, or use theinform ation contained in this report, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than asspecified above unless such use is with the prior written permission of EPRI. You agree to take allreasonable steps to pr event unauthorized disclosure or use of this report. Except as specified above, thisagreement does not gr ant you any r ight to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks orany other intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of this report.
(continued on back cover)
L I C E N S E DMATERIAL
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance withSection 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export
Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to onlycopyrightprotection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes theexport control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material noticesembedded in thedocument prior to publication.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
2/46
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
3/46
EPRI TR-107759s Electric Power Research Institute December 1996
R E P O R T S U M M A R Y
INTEREST CATEGORIES
Nuclear plant operationsand maintenance
Engineering and technicalsupport
KEYWORDS
MaintenancePerformanceProductivity
AUDIENCE
Maintenance, engineering,and operations managers
Maintenance and technicalstaff
Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness
Assessing the effectiveness of maintenance practices requires a con-sistent set of measures that will quantify successful practices andprovide an opportunity for improvements. This tech note presents a setof measures that could be used for temporary as well as continuousevaluation of maintenance practices used at nuclear power plants.
BACKGROUND Determining the impact of changes in practices and tech-niques require some sort of measuring instrument. The measuring instrumentmust be based upon values that are acceptable and agreed upon by people thatwill use these values. The values have to be tied to some fairly repeatable
standards that can be obtained in a routine fashion. Currently, processes areimplemented and a plant department is tasked to look at the cost benefit ofimplementing certain practices. These measurements are not intended to focuson cost as a general factor but to look at what technical benefits can be ob-tained from implementing practices. However, there is little data that providesguidance or recommends an approach to this task. This report is the firstattempt at providing guidance in this area and suggestions that can be used forcomparison between power plants.
OBJECTIVES
To suggest a set of measurements that can be used to assess the impact ofmaintenance and other practices implemented at power plants.
To provide a plan and process to obtain measurement values.
APPROACH Discussion with power plant personnel and review of variouspapers was done to analyze the thought processes that have been employed inthe industry related to maintenance and maintenance activities. The terminologyas it relates to maintenance has become commingled with other activities.Many practices have been implemented in plants and the overall impact ofthese practices cannot be determined. An attempt has been made to provide aset of terms and suggestions for things that a plant can measure in order todetermine the impact that practices could have on plant operations.
RESULTS A set of measures to assess maintenance effectiveness have beenpresented. The report presents recommendations for plants to determine which
measures will be useful according to their plant objectives. These measures aregeared toward maintenance activities in particular but can be used for otheractivities in general.
EPRIPowering Progress
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
4/46
EPRI PERSPECTIVE This document provides a tool that can be used toevaluate maintenance activities. Plants have made substantial im-provements in maintenance practices, and the report recommendsways to measure these improvements. The measures presented in thisdocument are not meant to be the final word but a primer for mainte-nance assessment practices. Plants are encouraged to use this reportas an implementation document for the concept of maintenance
performance measures. The measures will require revision and updat-ing as the industry gains more experience with the overall concept.
PROJECT
TR-107759
EPRI Project Manager: Wayne E. Johnson
Nuclear Power Group
Contractor: Maintenance and Operations Support Services (MOS)
For further information on EPRI research programs, callEPRI Technical Information Specialists, 415/855-2411.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
5/46
Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness
TR-107759
December 1996
Prepared byS (Sonny) Kasturi
Maintenance and Operations Support Services (MOS)
Prepared forNuclear Maintenance Applications Center1300 W.T. Harris BoulevardCharlotte, North Carolina 28262
Operated byElectric Power Research Institute3412 Hillview AvenuePalo Alto, California 94304
EPRI Project ManagerWayne E. JohnsonNuclear Power Group
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
6/46
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
(EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW,
NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY
OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT
IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE
OF THIS REPORT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT:
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES (MOS)
S (SONNY) KASTURI
ORDERING INFORMATIONPRICE: $10,000
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the Nuclear MaintenanceApplications Center (NMAC), 1300 W.T. Harris Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28262,800/356-7448. There is no charge for reports requested by NMAC member utilities.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. Copyright 1996 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights
reserved.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
7/46
NMAC Tech Note iii
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
PREFACE
Assessing and improving maintenance effectiveness requires a consistent set of
measures that w ill identify opportu nities for imp rovement and provide a basis
for comp arison with ind ustry peers. Such a set of measures can consist of:
temporary measurements to review program condition and to achieve an
initial comparison with peers
ongoing measurements for monitoring, periodic assessment, and pro-
gram improvements
This tech n ote proposes a set of measures that could be u sed for this pu rpose.
It should be noted that use of the information conveyed by these measures must
be tempered with sound judgm ent. One should also bear in mind that in
compar ison with p eer plants, valid and justifiable differences or deviations
could exist, and that a remedial and/ or corrective action p lan is warranted only
when trends or other cond itions point to a potential for adverse consequences.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
8/46
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
9/46
NMAC Tech Note v
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
FOREWORD
The purpose of this docum ent is to provide plants with a tool with w hich to
evaluate maintenance activities. Plants h ave made changes to m aintenance
practices because of actual or perceived p lant problems without any means to
measure the impact of those changes. Many changes have been costly and h ave
not yielded the anticipated results. This docum ent presents some su ggested
measures that can be used to evaluate maintenance practices and suggests a
basis for comparison between plants. Plants are encouraged to use these
measures (in whole or p art), and to suggest others that m ight be useful. This
docum ent is the first attemp t to provide a tool for indu stry comparison and
feedback. This is an imp lementation d ocument th at introdu ces the concept of
maintenance performance measures to the ind ustry an d will require revision
and improvement as the industrygains experience with this concept.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
10/46
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
11/46
NMAC Tech Note vii
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
2.0 TERMINOLOGIES ...................................................................................... 3
3.0 WHAT CAN BE MEASURED? ................................................................... 7
4.0 MAINTENANCE MEASURES ..................................................................... 9
4.1 Maintenance-Induced Plant Trips ................................................. 10
4.2 Maintenance-Induced Violations and Licensee EventReports (LERs) .................................................................................11
4.3 Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) Availability ....... 12
4.4 Component Count .......................................................................... 14
4.5 Percentage of Non-Outage Maintenance ...................................... 15
4.6 Craft Productivity Measures .......................................................... 16
4.6.1 Work Order Count ................................................................ 174.6.2 Craft Resource Utilization Ratio........................................... 184.6.3 Work Orders Per Wrench Week ........................................... 184.6.4 Man-Hours for Selected Equipment Type ............................ 19
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
12/46
viii NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
4.7 Staff Productivity Measures .......................................................... 20
4.7.1 Craft Man-Hours to Support Staff Man-Hour Ratio .............. 204.7.2 Work Orders Per Staff Week ................................................ 204.7.3 Percentage of Procedure Changes Per Period ................... 21
4.8 Percent of Contracted Maintenance ............................................. 21
5.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 23
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
13/46
NMAC Tech Note ix
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Historical Trend in Nuclear Plant O&M Cost ............................... 1
Figure 2 Breakdown of Maintenance Types ...............................................4
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
14/46
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
15/46
NMAC Tech Note xi
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1 Component Count Included in Maintenance Program ............ 15
Table 4-2 Percent of Non-Outage Maintenance........................................ 16
Table 4-3 Work Order Count Comparison ................................................ 17
Table 5-1 Maintenance Performance Measures ....................................... 24
Table 5-2 Maintenance Scope/Coverage Measures ................................. 25
Table 5-3 Maintenance Productivity Measures ........................................ 26
Table 5-4 Maintenance Personnel Safety Measures ................................ 27
Table 5-5 Gross Maintenance Performance Measures ............................ 27
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
16/46
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
17/46
NMAC Tech Note 1
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
1INTRODUCTION
Nu clear power p lants have embarked on ways to improve their pow er
prod uction costs wh ile main taining an acceptable level of safety. Over the
past few years, the industry has su ccessfully implemented several programs
to achieve cost redu ctions as show n by Figure 1.
x
x
x
xx
xx
ANNUAL O&M COST TREND
YEAR
O&MCOST($/MWh)
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 199310
12
14
16
18
20
22
Figure 1
Historical Trend in Nuclear Plant O&M Cost
Source: EPRI Journal May/June 1995
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
18/46
2 NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
A key contributor to the cost of opera ting a nu clear plan t is the cost of
activities related to m aintaining stru ctures, systems, and comp onent s (SSCs).
Maintenance ensures a level of equipment availability and reliability that
shou ld allow a plant to op erate at its highest p ractical level. Operations and
main tenance (O&M) costs amou nt to roughly 20% of overall power prod uc-
tion costs. Aging of the SSCs pop ulation could have ad verse effects on plantoperations un less it is balanced with ap prop riate counterm easures, such as
effective maintenan ce. A maintenan ce program shou ld focus timely action
wh ere needed and minimize unschedu led emergency maintenance. There-
fore, effectiveness of maintenan ce becomes a key factor in imp roving ov erall
cost efficiency of a p lant. However, assessing m aintenan ce effectiveness is a
d ifficult task. A set of perform ance measu res1 that wou ld measure perfor-
man ce in a consistent mann er and across a spectrum of power p lants would
aid in assessing a plants maintenance program. They wou ld also provide a
basis for comparison across the indu stry.
This tech note p resents a series of performan ce measu res along with d efini-
tions of related terminologies that could be used to assess maintenance
effectiveness. The intend ed au dience for these measures is plant mainten ance
man agement and their staff. The data needed to establish values for these
measures are obtainable from th e maintenance process m anagement systems
and tools currently used in the nu clear indu stry. Where approp riate, optimal
values for performance measures hav e been p roposed. These values are
provided to give initial bound ary values or a range of values for certain
activities. They were developed from a mini-survey of nuclear power plants
and other non-nuclear installations. The optimal values were chosen based
on a guiding criterion ofzero or near zero breakdowns requiring emergency
repairs and maintenance-indu ced violations or plant trips d uring two su cces-
sive monitoring periods. Where optimal values are given as zero, they shou ld
be interp reted as close to zero as pr actical. In the near term , NMAC expectsto validate an d, if necessary, revise these optimal values based on feedback
from n uclear power facilities.
Caution: Remember that the real value of a number lies not in its magni-
tud e but in the information it conveys.
As a first step, users shou ld d evelop baseline values for the measure set to be
used at their plant(s). These values should be based on h istorical data accu-
mu lated d uring a significant operating period includ ing a minimum of two
refueling cycles (for example, two to five years). A correspond ing set of
values for these measures shou ld be d eveloped for a reference group 2 of
nu clear plan ts. These two sets of data sh ould form the basis for initial assess-
men t, ongoing evalu ation, goal setting, targeting sp ecific areas, and estab-lishing relative priorities for program improvements.
1 Performance measures, such as
"unit unplanned capability loss
factor" and "thermal perfor-
mance," have long been used in
the nuclear power industry to
provide comparative performance
measures at the plant level. They
are not the focus of this tech note.
2Reference group refers to plants
that are comparable in vintage,
type, balance-of-plant (BOP)
design, and other locational
factors that could influence the
cost of maintenance.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
19/46
NMAC Tech Note 3
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
2TERMINOLOGIES
A discussion of perform ance measures invariably involves the use of terms
that could be subject to varying interpretations or m eanings depend ing up on
the u ser s vantage point. Therefore, it is imp erative that term inologies with
non-standard meanings be listed, defined, and (if necessary) explained in
order to ensu re that they are consistently u nd erstood and used. This section
identifies and defines the key terms used in this tech n ote. Where approp ri-
ate, additional descriptions and illustrative examples are included.
Rel iabili t y : Reliability is the p robability that a system w ill perform satisfacto-
rily for a specified per iod of time w hen u sed u nd er specified conditions. For
examp le, a statement that the H igh Pressure Core Injection (HPCI) system
has a reliability of 98% mean s that:
The probability that the H PCI system will start, inject water into th e core
within the required time, and continue to do so un til it is no longer
required du ring and following a designed basis event is 98%. In other
word s, there is a finite (2% in this case) probability that the system might
not perform as intended .
Plant safety objectives d ictate that system reliability be mainta ined as high a spractical. Reliability p redictions assist in selecting the courses of action that
affect reliability. For examp le, after a few years in operation, if the H PCI
system reliability was estimated to be 86%, then the plant m anagem ent
wou ld w ant to identify and evaluate the options (for example, enhan ced
condition monitoring or design modification for the offending component)
available to improve tha t reliability.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
20/46
4 NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
Av ailabi li t y :Availability is the probability that a system is op erating satis-
factorily at an y p oint in time when used un der sp ecified conditions, where
the total time considered includes the op erating time and dow n time.
Operating time: Operating time is the time d uring w hich the system is
operating in an acceptable manner.
Dow n t ime: Down time is the time period for which the system is not operat-
ing or not capable of operation in a satisfactory m anner.
Maint enance type: Essentially, mainten ance can be classified into two broad
types:
1. maintenance performed to prevent failure
2. maintenance performed to restore equipment to service after a failure
occurs
The first is usu ally a p lanned activity and the common names u sed for this type
of maintenance includ e p reventive m aintenance, planned maintenance, and
period ic maintenance. The second is comm only know n as corrective mainte-nance. Corrective maintenance can be performed on a planned or emergency
basis, depend ing up on the functional importance of the item to ensure safe
plant operation. To promote consistent interpretation and use of these terms,
this document classifies maintenance type as follows (see Figure 2):
MaintenanceProgram
Preventive
Periodic
Predictive Emergency
Scheduled
Corrective
Figure 2
Breakdown of Maintenance Types
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
21/46
NMAC Tech Note 5
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
Prev ent iv e maint enance: Maintenance performed on a planned basis to
minimize un expected failures is subd ivided into:
Periodic m aintenance: Activities that consist of routine main tenance
performed at p reset intervals without regard to equipm ent condition,
except to th e extent that these activities are recomm end ed either by th e
vendor or by a p lants operating experience.
Predict iv e maint enance: Activities performed to assess equipment
condition, and initiate and/ or perform p reventive maintenance activities.
These activities are also used to ad just th e intervals at which p redictive
data is obtained. Another term that m ight be encountered is condition
monitoring, which really is the act of app lying pred ictive maintenance.
Correctiv e maintenance: Maintenance performed up on d etection of a fault or
failure. This type of main tenance can also be subd ivided into:
Scheduled corrective maintenance: Maintenan ce that is generally priori-
tized an d p erformed according to a schedule or other p lanning basis.
Emergency correct iv e maint enance: Maintenance p erformed in cases
wh ere imm ediate repair is required to ensure safe and continuou s opera-
tion of a plant or system.
Monit oring period: Refers to the suggested time period for collecting d ata for
the purpose of ongoing assessmen t of main tenance effectiveness.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
22/46
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
23/46
NMAC Tech Note 7
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
3WHAT CAN BE MEASURED?
A nuclear power p lant is an aggregation of structures, systems, and compo-
nents (SSCs). Systems are in themselves an collection of equ ipment items or
components. Availability of equipment or components impacts the availability
of systems, which in tu rn can impact the availability of a plant. Maintenance
activities are primar ily focused at the equ ipment and structure level, thus it
makes sense to focus maintenance performance measures at the same level.
Most plant maintenance programs are developed and implemented to
sup por t a set of main tenance policy objectives. Assessment tools shou ld
measu re the extent to wh ich th e policy objectives are m et. A typical set of
main tenance policy objectives for a nu clear pow er plant m ight be stated
as follows:
SSCs availability objectives:
Ensure that safety systems, structures, and components meet the
required reliability an d availability goals.
Ensure that systems, structures and components that affect continued
opera tion of a plant meet stated reliability and availability goals.
Economic objectives:
Ensure that the cost of maintenance as a percentage of the overall plant
O&M cost is as low as p ractical, and is comp arable to indu stry peers.
Ensure that the life cycle of SSCs are managed to obtain the longest
pr actical service life.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
24/46
8 NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
Personnel safety objectives:
Ensure that a workers exposure is kept to a minimum.
Ensure that lost time from a personnel injury is kept as low as practical.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
25/46
NMAC Tech Note 9
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
4MAINTENANCE MEASURES
Often, there is a need to kn ow h ow on es own company comp ares with its
peers in d elivering similar prod ucts and services. This information can assist
in bud getary and resou rce allocation decisions, iden tify areas needing im-
prov ements, or just p rovide relative points of comfort. Broad-based mea-
sures, such as those listed below, can be used for a quick-look typ e of
comparison with peer group p lants:
Total maintenance budget dollars expressed as a percentage of the O&M
budget:
cost of preventive maintenance activities as a p ercentage of overall
maintenance bud get
cost of corrective maintenance activities as a percentage of overall
maintenance bud get
cost of maintenance training as a percentage of overall maintenance
budget
Breakdown of manpower utilization by general tasks expressed as a
percentage of total man -hours:
percent of man-hours expended on preventive maintenance
percent of man-hours expended on corrective maintenance
percent of man-hours expended on maintenance training
There might be a need for breakdown s for special tasks, such as pred ictive
maintenance or emergency3 maintenance activities (see Section 2). Other
3 Refers to that portion of
corrective maintenance
categorized as "emergency
maintenance," see page 5 for
definition of emergency
maintenance.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
26/46
10 NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
divisions could also be mad e along the lines of supp ort activities, such as
mod ifications, but u sua lly these will be stand -alone projects. When catego-
rized by routine versus ou tage periods, these measures can provide useful
check points for evaluating outage performance.
While these measures could p rovide a broad view of maintenan ce activities,
an effectiveness assessment to d etermine if the maintenan ce activities aremeeting p lant objectives will require a more in-depth assessment. A set of
maintenance performance measures that might be used for an in-dep th
assessment of the effectiveness of a plant mainten ance program in meeting
plan t objectives are listed below:
SSCs availability objectives:
Number of maintenance-induced plant trips.
Number of maintenance-induced violations and licensee event reports
(LERs)
Component availability
Economic objectives:
Component count (covered in th e maintenance system and their
breakdown)
Percentage of non-outage maintenance
Craft productivity measures
Staff productivity measures
Percentage of contracted maintenance
Personn el safety ob jectives:
Lost man-hours due to injury
Annual worker exposure
It is recomm ended that measure d ata be generated u sing a monitoring period
that includ es at least one refueling (for examp le, an eighteen m onth 4 period).
The measu res for personn el safety objectives are straight forward, well
un derstood, and implemented in p lants. Thus, they are not discussed further
in the documen t. The same cann ot be said about th e measures for SSCs
availability and economic objectives. Therefore, to ensure un iform interpreta-
tion and app lication of the relevant factors, a further d iscussion of each of the
proposed measures in these two categories follows.
4.1 Maintenance-Induced Plant Trips
This measure is d erived from plant trip d ata. Only those trips that are di-rectly attributable to a mainten ance action shou ld be includ ed. An example
wou ld be miscalibration of a reactor protection system trip u nit resulting in
an u np lanned p lant trip. Care should be taken to avoid including p lant trips
attribu table to indirect mainten ance-related causes. For example, a trip
caused by a defective part in an uninterrup tible pow er sup ply (UPS), which
was replaced du ring a maintenance activity, should not be charged as a
4 Because the refueling period
varies from plant to plant (12-24
months), it believed that using
an eighteen month int erval will
ensure a valid comparison.
Regardless of what duration is
chosen for the monitoring period,
it should include one refueling in
order to ensure that valid basis
for comparison across the
industry exists.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
27/46
NMAC Tech Note 11
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
maintenance-indu ced plant trip. All trips d etermined to be attributable to a
maintenance-related cause, whether or not they are reportable to the Nuclear
Regulatory Com mission (NRC), should be included. To ensu re objectivity in
the collection of this type of data , consideration shou ld be given to having an
independ ent entity (for example, Nuclear Assurance Department) d etermine
the chargeable items.Note: The goal for this measu re is zero.
Even if there is only one trip du ring any given eighteen mon th p eriod, it
warran ts a root cause analysis and corrective action. An increasing trend or a
constant value other than zero for this measure in an y two consecutive
per iods might ind icate ineffective maintenance activities, such as p rocedures,
practices, and / or staff training.
4.2 Maintenance-
Induced Violationsand Licensee EventReports (LERs)
This measure is derived from th e plant LER data. Only those violations or
LERs generated as a direct result of a mainten ance action shou ld be includ ed.
An examp le would be the imp roper setting of a safety relief valve resulting in
an u np lanned challenge to a safety system, or a later discovery of a condition
deviant from p lant technical specifications. If a p lant trip is experienced, then
this item should already have been includ ed in th e previously discussed
measure, and h ence it should not be includ ed in this measure again.
Care should be taken to avoid including LERs and violations attributable to
ind irect maintenan ce-related causes. For example, a violation or LER resulting
from a p lant trip caused by a defective spring installed in a relief valve du ring
a maintenan ce activity should not be charged to this measure. Only those
violations determined to be attributable to a m aintenance activity and report-
able to the NRC should be included . To ensu re objectivity in the collection of
this type of data, consideration should be given to have an independ ent entity(for examp le, Nuclear Assurance Department) d etermine the chargeable items
dur ing the review p rocess for the LERs or cited violations.
Note: The goal for this measure is zero or near zero.
Even if there is only one violation or LER during any given eighteen m onth
per iod, it warran ts a root cause analysis and p romp t corrective action. An
increasing trend or a constant value other th an zero in this measure for any
two consecutive periods could ind icate ineffective maintenance activities
such as, procedures, practices, and/ or staff training.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
28/46
12 NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
4.3 Structures,Systems, andComponents
(SSCs) Availability
This measure p rovides information about whether or not m aintenance is
focused (that is, components) where it is needed. It also conveys inform ation
abou t the ad equacy of component selection, mainten ance practices, alloca-
tion between main tenance types, and frequen cies. At a specific compon ent
level, it shou ld id entify areas that requ ire special attention. The availability
for each component can be calculated from the data contained in a typ icalplant m aintenance managem ent information system.
Consider the HPCI system as an examp le. The term system is used for ease of
reference, but th is discussion wou ld apply to any m onitoring level. In a
given monitoring p eriod, for most of the time, the HPCI system remains in a
stand by cond ition. For a few h ours, it is tested to ver ify operability. In
add ition, the system m ight be out of service for planned and / or corrective
main tenance activities. Two cases arise as follows in d etermining the op erat-
ing time and down time for use in availability calculations:
Case I. No discovery of a failed condition during a periodic maintenance
or surveillance test in the monitoring period.
The system can be assumed to be in an operable condition and capable of
per forming its m ission su ccessfully between tests. Therefore,
tu
= tsi
- tD
tD
= tpm i
- tem i
Availability = (operating time / total time in the p eriod) 100%
where:
tu
= total opera ting t ime
tD
= total d ow n tim e
tsi
= duration between successful tests
tpm i
= time for periodic maintenance in the period
tem i
= time for corrective maintenance in the period
Notes: All times are in hours.
The time in a surveillance test is assum ed to be opera ting time
un less a failure results.
The time in corrective maintenance should include the elapsed time
between th e discovery of a failure to the time wh en the system is
returned to service.
Case II. A failure occur s du ring a su rveillance test or a failed cond ition was
discovered d uring a p lanned maintenance activity.
If a failure occurs or is d iscovered d uring a test or a period ic maintenance
activity, then a d etermination should be made as to whether or not th e system
was in an operationally ready statu s un til discovery, and if not, when did it
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
29/46
NMAC Tech Note 13
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
become unsatisfactory. If an evaluation of the defect reveals that the system
could not have performed its mission satisfactorily, then an allowance must be
made to the opera ting time. Except in rare cases, it is impractical to determ ine
the time of failure. To resolve this ind eterminate condition, for pu rposes of
maintenance effectiveness assessment, the following approach is suggested:
tu
= tsi
- tD
+ (tsui
2)
tD
= tpmi
+ temi
+ tpmsui
Availability = (operating time / total time in the p eriod) 100%
where:
tu
= total operat ing t ime
tD
= total d ow n tim e
tsi = duration between successful tests
tsui
= du ration between successful and unsuccessful tests
tpm i
= time for periodic maintenance in the period up to the last
surveillance test or PM, which ever occurred last
tem i
= time for corrective maintenance in the period up to the last
surveillance test or PM, which ever occurred last
tpmsui
= time for periodic maintenance in the first half of the period
between successful and unsuccessful tests
Note: Unsuccessful tests as used above should be interpreted to mean
either a surveillance test or a period ic maintenance, whichever ledto the discovery of an unacceptable condition.
Note that the period u sed for the purp oses of maintenance performance
measurement m ight not generally be synonym ous w ith that between surveil-
lance tests. There might be on e or more surveillance test(s) in this p eriod.
The goal for this indicator might vary from 85% to 95%over a period of
8,760 hours. The required value d epends up on compon ent type, its parent
system configuration (includ ing redu nd ancies and sparing), frequency of
surveillance test, and the maintenan ce type(s) to wh ich it is subject to. For
examp le, the availability for the reactor trip portion of the plan t protection
system a t the train level might be set at 95%, whereas for the d iesel generator,
a train level availability of 85% might be sufficient.
The availability goals should be set initially taking into account relevant factors
includ ing the frequency of surveillance tests and the system configuration. The
MMIS should be programm ed to calculate compon ent availability at the preset
interval. Trending the comp onent availability semi-annu ally could provide
early warn ing of the potential for system level availability degradation.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
30/46
14 NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
4.4 ComponentCount
This could be a temporary m easure. It can be of use in the imp lementation
stages to identify areas that might require further review an d optimization.
Substantive changes in th is measure is generally not expected as a fun ction
of time. How ever, it might be approp riate to revisit this measu re once in
three years in ord er to ensu re that changes, if any, in the interv ening p eriod
are consistent with the p lant maintenance program goals.Reliability-centered mainten ance da ta, if available for a system, could pro-
vide th is information. However, it is not necessary to have done RCM stud ies
to establish or use this measure. This information shou ld be available for
most p lants based on technical specifications, surveillance requirements, and
an evaluation of the equ ipment items critical for power produ ction.
This d ata relates to the total num ber of comp onents includ ed in th e plant
maintenance program, their breakdown based on safety classification, and by
main tenance type. Specific data to be includ ed u nd er this category for
comparative pu rposes are shown in Table 4-1. The total number of compo-
nents included u nd er a plant maintenance program might vary with plant
type and vintage. The same will be true for the breakdow n of the total bytheir classification, that is, non-safety and augmen ted-safety classes, or by
maintenance type.
For example, a recent vintage Westinghou se PWR can h ave as m any as 6,000
components covered u nd er the maintenance program, wh ereas an early
vintage Westinghou se PWR might only includ e 3,000 components. Depend -
ing up on the imp ortance of the item to the safe and continued operation of
the plant, some equipment could be run to breakdow n, and th us w ill be
included only in the corrective maintenance program . The percentage of
items included in this category will also be a function of the plant vintage
and design. Comp arison of this data between plants should ensu re that
d ifferences in plant vintage and typ e are taken into account.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
31/46
NMAC Tech Note 15
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
Table 4-1
Component Count Included in Maintenance Program
Maintenance Type Our Plant ReferencePlant
Avg. IndustryGoal
Periodic MaintenanceSafety equipment
Periodic MaintenanceNon-safety equipment
Corrective MaintenanceSafety equipment
Corrective MaintenanceNon-safety equipment
Predictive MaintenanceSafety equipment
Predictive MaintenanceNon-safety equipment
TotalSafety equipment
TotalNon-safety equipment
4.5 Percentage ofNon-Outage
Maintenance
This might be a temporary measure for most p lants. It is intended to be of
use in the imp lementation stages to identify areas that could requ ire furth er
review and op timization. Substantive chan ge in this measu re is generally not
expected over time. However, it might be app ropr iate to revisit this measu re
once in three years in ord er to ensure that changes, if any, mad e in the inter-
vening p eriod are consistent w ith the goals of an optimized m aintenance
program. This data relates to the amou nt of periodic, pred ictive, and correc-
tive maintenance performed du ring non-outage p eriods. It is generally true
that performing more maintenance dur ing non-outage periods should result
in m ore cost-efficient maintenan ce. The factors that in fluen ce the d ecision as
to wh en to perform m aintenance include:
risk of impacting plant/ system availability
p erson nel exp osu re
in -house st affing
Specific data to be includ ed u nd er this measure category for compar ative
pu rposes are shown in Table 4-2.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
32/46
16 NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
Table 4-2
Percent of Non-Outage Maintenance
Maintenance Type Our Plant Reference Plant Avg. IndustryGoal
Periodic MaintenanceSafety equipment
Periodic MaintenanceNon-safety equipment
Corrective MaintenanceSafety equipment
Corrective MaintenanceNon-safety equipment
Predictive MaintenanceSafety equipment
Predictive MaintenanceNon-safety equipment
TotalSafety equipment
TotalNon-safety equipment
This data is expressed as a percentage of the comp onent or task coun t so as
to avoid any u nwar ranted bias if man-hours, cost, or other such p arameters
are used . This da ta will be sensitive to plant typ e and vintage. Also, it can be
app ropriate to segregate this data by major equipm ent types (for example,
motor-operated valves (MOVs), motors, etc.)5 and review them. A close
review of th is data can reveal specific inefficiencies that might exist in a p lant
maintenance program. It should be noted that a higher p ercentage in a
certain category in comparison to a reference plant grou p d oes not necessar-
ily ind icate need for change. For examp le, the p lant-specific equip men t
configuration and built-in maintainability considerations can justify a higher
percentage. However, some conditions might be correctable through appro-pr iate plant mod ifications to improv e maintainab ility.
5 Existing special plant pro-
grams, such as the MOV
program or check valve program,
might already provide thisinformation.
4.6 CraftProductivity
Measures
This set of measu res prov ides information on the effectiveness of the u tiliza-
tion of craft resources. Specifically, this set consists of the following:
Work ord er cou nt
Craft man-hours by maintenance type and discipline
Craft resource utilization rat io
Work orders per craft per iod
Man-hours for selected equipment type
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
33/46
NMAC Tech Note 17
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
4.6.1 Work Order Count
This d ata relates to the total num ber of work ord ers serviced over a m onitor-
ing period an d th eir breakdow n. It provides information abou t the work load
hand led by the maintenance departm ent and h ow it comp ares with peer
group plants. Specific data to be includ ed u nd er this category for compara-
tive pu rposes are show n in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3
Work Order Count Comparison
Item Our Plant ReferencePlant
Avg. IndustryGoal
Total number of work orders serviced during monitoringperiod (for example, an eighteen month period)
Percent of work orders for periodic maintenance program
Percent of work orders for corrective maintenanceprogram
Percent of work orders for predictive maintenanceprogram
Percent of work orders for safety-related equipment
Percent of work orders for non-safety equipment
Percent of work orders attributable to rework
Percent of work orders attributable to emergency work
Note that even thou gh the total comp onent count could be comparable to a
peer plant, the work order count and breakdown might not be. Some plants
do not initiate a work order for periodic/ predictive maintenance items. In
such cases, each p eriodic/ predictive m aintenance line item in the p lant
maintenance management system should be counted as a work order as-
signed to that item. This data could indicate one or more of the following:
More frequent breakdowns can indicate a need for certain equipment
replacement
Excessive periodic/ predictive maintenance activities
Inadequate t ra ining and/ or procedures
Work ord er backlog count is not included as a measure of maintenance effec-
tiveness, because it is considered to be strictly a function of available resources
and internal management. Plants attempt to keep this backlog as low as
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
34/46
18 NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
practical. If the backlog is abnormally high, it could impact plant performance
and wou ld be reflected in one or more of the following m easures:
maintenance-induced LERs and violations
maintenance-induced plant trips
high percentage of emergency repairs
Thus, work ord er backlog alone is not considered to be a valid m easure of
main tenance effectiveness.
4.6.2 Craft Resource Utilization Ratio
This measu re reflects how effectively mainten ance craft resources are uti-
lized. It shows how mu ch time is spent actually p erforming th e hand s-on
wor k. It is well-known that in a nu clear p lant, less than a th ird of the craft
time is spent on actual hand s-on w ork. The rest of the time app arently goes
into related ad ministrative and preparatory tasks, such as d ressing ou t,
waiting for proper clearances, obtaining permits (such as radiation workperm its), and so on. This data shou ld be generated at the m aintenance
depar tment level and for each d iscipline or work category.
= 100
[sum of the reported actual on the job
(wrench time) hours for the period]
(total craft man-hours at work for the period)
Craft resource
utilization ratio
Notes: Total craft man-hours should include only hours craft personnel are
in attend ance at work (that is, time off such as h olidays, sick time,
and vacation shou ld be excluded ).
The goal for this measu re is 40%.
4.6.3 Work Orders Per Wrench Week
This d ata is a measure of the m aintenance dep artment p rodu ctivity.
Work orders per
wrench week=
(total number of work orders processed
in the monitoring period) N
[sum of the reported actual on the job
(wrench time) hours for the period]
N = nu mber of hours in a normal work week
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
35/46
NMAC Tech Note 19
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
4.6.4 Man-Hours for Selected Equipment Type
This data relates to the breakdown of craft man-hours expended on a selected
equipm ent type. Specific types of equipm ent for wh ich th is data m ight be
useful include the following:
Main tu rb ine generator
Diesel gen er ator
Reactor coolan t pump
Feed water p um ps
Main and feedwater isolation valves
Main and auxiliary transformers
Plant protect ion system
Nuclear instrumentation system
Radia tion monitor ing system
Secu rity system
It is noted that even thou gh the total man-hours spen t in maintenance could be
comparable to a peer plant, analysis of the breakdow n of hours spent by m ajor
equipm ent categories can help in identifying areas wh ere imp rovements might
be warranted. This data might indicate one or m ore of the following:
Agin g of equ ip m en t
Excessive periodic/ predictive maintenance activities
Poor maintainability condit ions
Need for training in equipment maintenance
Overly complex procedures
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
36/46
20 NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
4.7 Staff ProductivityMeasures
This set of measu res prov ides information related to th e effectiveness of the
persons or program s that are u sed to facilitate and track the progress of
maintenance-related activities. These are some recommended measures that
can be used to govern these efforts:
Craft man-hours to support man-hours ratio
Work orders per staff week
Percentage of procedure changes per period
4.7.1 Craft Man-Hours to Support Staff Man-Hour Ratio
This measure provides information about the efficiency of the support
resource ut ilization in a p lant. Typically the main tenance craft is suppor ted
by a staff of planners, schedulers, procedure writers, and other administra-
tive and sup ervisory staff. This m easure should be calculated at the d epart-
men t level.
= 100 (total craft man-hours expended for the period)
(total staff support man-hours)
Craft to support
man-hours ratio
4.7.2 Work Orders Per Staff Week
This measure provid es information on the efficiency of sup por t staff utiliza-
tion. Sup por t staff man -hours to be includ ed in th is calculation are those for
planners, schedulers, procedu re writers, and oth er ad ministrative and first
line sup ervisory staff. This measure shou ld be calculated at the d epartment
and discipline levels.
=
(total number of work orders processedin the monitoring week) N
(sum of the support staff hours for the period)
Work orders
per staff week
N = n umber of hours in a work week
Note: Total craft man-hours should include only hours craft personnel are
in attend ance at work (that is, time off such as h olidays, sick time,
and vacations shou ld be excluded ).
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
37/46
NMAC Tech Note 21
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
4.7.3 Percentage of Procedure Changes Per Period
This measure provides information of systemic problems in the adequacy of
procedures. Ideally, plants shou ld hav e a stable system of procedu res for
performing m aintenance. Changes, if any, should be minimal and directed at
either correcting errors and omissions, or at addressing areas previously
un add ressed by the p rocedu res. However, if a p lant experiences a h ighnu mber of procedure changes on a continu ing basis, it might ind icate a weak
procedural system. This measure can be treated as a temp orary m easure if
the h istorical da ta ind icates an acceptab le level of < 5% or less.
= 100
(number of procedures subject to change
during the period)
(total number of maintenance and
surveillance procedures)
Procedure change
percentage per period
Note: The goal for this m easure is < 5%.
When counting the nu mber of procedures that were subject to change d uring
a monitoring period, if a procedu re was changed m ore than once du ring the
period, then each occurrence should be counted as an ind ividu al procedu re
change. The intent is to identify systemic problem(s) so that corrective action
can be taken.
4.8 Percent ofContracted
Maintenance
Most plan ts use som e level of contract maintenan ce to meet specialized
manpow er needs and/ or to supp ort additional short-term demands du ring
outages.
= 100
[total expenditure for contracted
maintenance (including the in-house
maintenance staff support for the same)]
(total budget for maintenance)
Percent of contracted
maintenance
Only regularly contracted m aintenance items such as inverter and battery
charger m aintenan ce, pow er-operated relief valve (PORV) testing, or outage
staff augmentation support should be included in this calculation. Special
infrequently contracted maintenance expenditures such as those for steam
generator retubing or condenser overhau l should be excluded . Expressed as a
percentage of the total m aintenan ce cost, this measure den otes the effective-
ness of in-hou se resource utilization and control of mainten ance.
Note: The goal for this measure should be < 5%.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
38/46
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
39/46
NMAC Tech Note 23
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
5SUMMARY
Plant maintenan ce activities will be tied closely to plant o r system availabil-
ity and reliability goals. Generally, the constraint s on system reliability an d
availability will be equip ment or compon ent related; how ever, system or
plant needs dictate when equipment m ust operate and thu s maintenance
activities mu st be d irected toward meeting operational requirements.
One imp ortan t aspect of reliability and availability balancing that mu st be
considered is work control. The best technical know how and skills can be
available at a plant, but if the work control p rocess has not been fine tuned
to remove bottle necks, such as lengthy tag outs, spare par ts issues, and
poor procedures, a reasonable balance cann ot be achieved. To accomp lish a
reasonable level of availability, the planning and scheduling department
and other d epartments with technical responsibilities mu st w ork closely
together. The actual times to perform certain tasks are well defined in m ost
plants and throughou t the ind ustry. Often, problems associated w ith
availability are attributable to the man ner in which business is done (sched-
uled versus em ergency).
The reliability p ortion of the balancing activity is more d ifficult to obtain.
Reliability is often tied d irectly to the amou nt of mainten ance expend ed ona p iece of equipment. How ever, when equipment has a h igh level of
maintenance and continues to have failures, this could point to p otential
problems in the performance of maintenance activities, the equipment
aging, or the m isapplication of equipment.
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
40/46
24 NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
Ongoing assessment of maintenance program effectiveness is an important
tool to identify problems. Such an assessment will require a set of measu res
that can be app lied consistently throu ghou t the indu stry. Tables 5-1 throu gh
5-5 summ arize the set of measures prop osed in this d ocum ent to assist in
assessing the effectiveness of a plant mainten ance program.
Table 5-1
Maintenance Performance Measures
Measuresubmeasure(s)
Reference/Goal BaselineValue
CurrentValue
Number of maintenance-induced plant trips 0 TBD TBD
Number of maintenance-induced violations and LERs 0 TBD TBD
Component availability 80%95%
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
41/46
NMAC Tech Note 25
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
Table 5-2
Maintenance Scope/Coverage Measures
Measuresubmeasure(s)
Reference/Goal BaselineValue
CurrentValue
Component countcovered in the maintenance system andtheir breakdown:
1. Total number of equipment items covered under all types ofmaintenance program
2. Percent of total included in periodic maintenance program
3. Percent of total included only under corrective maintenanceprogram
4. Percent of total included in predictive maintenance program
5. Percent of safety-related equipment included in periodicmaintenance program
6. Percent of non-safety equipment included in periodicmaintenance program
7. Percent of safety-related equipment included in predictivemaintenance program
8. Percent of non-safety equipment included in predictivemaintenance program
9. Total safety equipment
10.Total non-safety equipment
TBD
Percent non-outage maintenance:
1. Percent of all periodic maintenance performed when theplant is operating at power
2. Percent of all corrective maintenance performed when theplant is operating at power
3. Percent of periodic maintenance on safety SSCs performedwhen the plant is operating at power
4. Percent of periodic maintenance on non-safety SSCsperformed when the plant is operating at power
5. Percent of predictive maintenance on safety SSCsperformed when the plant is operating at power
6. Percent of predictive maintenance on non-safety SSCsperformed when the plant is operating at power
TBD
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
42/46
26 NMAC Tech Note
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
Table 5-3
Maintenance Productivity Measures
Measuresubmeasure(s)
Reference/Goal Basel ineValue
CurrentValue
Craft Productivity Measures
Work order count and their breakdown:
1. Total number of work orders serviced over an eighteenmonth period
2. Percent of work orders for periodic maintenance program
3. Percent of work orders for corrective maintenance program
4. Percent of work orders for predictive maintenance program
5. Percent of work orders for safety-related equipment
6. Percent of work orders for non-safety equipment
7. Percent of work orders attributable to rework
8. Percent of work orders attributable to emergency repairs
TBD
Craft man-hours by maintenance type and discipline:
Periodic maintenance
Predictive maintenance
Corrective maintenance
Emergency maintenance
Mechanical
Electrical
Instrumentation and control (I&C)
TBD
Craft resource utilization ratio > 40%
Work orders per wrench week TBD
Man-hours for selected equipment type:
Main turbine generator
Diesel generator
Reactor coolant pump
Feedwater pumps Main and feedwater isolation valves
Main and auxiliary transformers
Plant protection system
Nuclear instrumentation system
Radiation monitoring system
Security system
TBD
Staff productivity measures:
Craft to staff man-hours
Work orders per staff week
Procedure change percent per period
< 40%
TBD
< 5%
Percent of contracted maintenance < 5%
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
43/46
NMAC Tech Note 27
EPRI Licensed Material
Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness
Table 5-4
Maintenance Personnel Safety Measures
Measuresubmeasure(s)
Reference/Goal BaselineValue
CurrentValue
Lost man-hours due to injury TBD
Annual worker exposure TBD
Table 5-5
Gross Maintenance Performance Measures
Measuresubmeasure(s)
ProposedReference/Goals(Routine)
BaselineValue
CurrentValue
Total maintenance budget:
Annual dollar budget Annual man-hour budget
TBD
Breakdown of maintenance budget:
Percent of maintenance budget allocated to preventivemaintenance
Percent of maintenance budget spent on correctivemaintenance
Percent of maintenance budget spent on training
60%
30%
10%
Breakdown of maintenance man-hours:
Percent of man-hours expended on preventivemaintenance
Percent of man-hours expended on correctivemaintenance
Percent of man-hours expended on training
70%
25%
5%
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
44/46
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
45/46
7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance
46/46
L I C E N S E DMATER IAL
(continued from front cover)4. TERM AND TERMINATIONThis license and this agreement are effective until terminated. You may terminate them at any time bydestroying this report. EPRI has the right t o term inate the license and this agreement im mediately if youfail to comply w ith any term or condition of this agreement. Upon any termination you m ay destroy this report,but all obligations of nondisclosure w ill remain in effect.
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMI TATION OF LIABILITIESNEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ONBEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) M AKES ANY W ARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IM PLIED, (I ) W ITH RESPECTTO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, M ETHOD, PROCESS OR SIM ILAR ITEM DI SCLOSED IN THISREPORT, INCLUD ING M ERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (I I) THAT SUCH USEDOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYSINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERSCIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANYCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THEPOSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANYINFORMATION, APPARATUS, M ETHOD, PROCESS OR SIM ILAR I TEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.
6. EXPORTThe laws and regulations of th e United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this report,and you agree not to export or r e-export this report or any related technical data in any form without theappropriate United States and foreign governm ent approvals
TR-107759
EPRI
Electric Power Research Institute3412 Hillview AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94304(P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA 94303)800-313-EPRIwww.epri.com
About EPRI
Electricity is increasingly recognized
as a key to societal progressthroughout the world, drivingeconomic prosperity and improvingthe quality of life. The Electric PowerResearch Institute delivers thescience and technology to make thegeneration, delivery, and use ofelectricity affordable, efficient, andenvironmentally sound.
Created by the nations electricutilities in 1973, EPRI is one ofAmericas oldest and largest researchconsortia, with some 700 membersand an annual budget of about $500
million. Linked to a global network oftechnical specialists, EPRI scientistsand engineers develop innovativesolutions to the worlds toughestenergy problems while expandingopportunities for a dynamic industry.
EPRI. Powering Progress