NMAC Tech Note

Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance with Section 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 only copyrightprotection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice s upersedes theexport control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in thedocument prior to publication.

LICENSED
M AT E R I A L

SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE WRAPPING MATERIAL. THIS AGREEMENT CONTINUES ON THE BACK COVER.
BY OPENING THIS SEALED REPORT YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED REPORT TO EPRI AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED.

1. GRANT OF LICENSE EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this report only for your own benefit and the benefit of your organization. This means that the following may use this report: (I) your company (at any site owned or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities, if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to disclose the report outside of its organization or to use the report for its own benefit or the benefit of any party other than your company. This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between most U.S. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License Agreement may get one on request. 2. COPYRIGHT This report, including the information contained in it, is owned by EPRI and is protected by United States and international copyright laws. You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce, translate or modify this report, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this report. 3. RESTRICTIONS You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this report to any person or organization, or use the information contained in this report, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless such use is with the prior written permission of EPRI. You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of this report. Except as specified above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or any other intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of this report.

(continued on back cover)

EPRI

Powering Progress

R E P O R T

S U M M A R Y

Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

Assessing the effectiveness of maintenance practices requires a consistent set of measures that will quantify successful practices and provide an opportunity for improvements. This tech note presents a set of measures that could be used for temporary as well as continuous evaluation of maintenance practices used at nuclear power plants.

INTEREST CATEGORIES Nuclear plant operations and maintenance Engineering and technical support KEYWORDS Maintenance Performance Productivity AUDIENCE Maintenance, engineering, and operations managers Maintenance and technical staff

BACKGROUND Determining the impact of changes in practices and techniques require some sort of measuring instrument. The measuring instrument must be based upon values that are acceptable and agreed upon by people that will use these values. The values have to be tied to some fairly repeatable standards that can be obtained in a routine fashion. Currently, processes are implemented and a plant department is tasked to look at the cost benefit of implementing certain practices. These measurements are not intended to focus on cost as a general factor but to look at what technical benefits can be obtained from implementing practices. However, there is little data that provides guidance or recommends an approach to this task. This report is the first attempt at providing guidance in this area and suggestions that can be used for comparison between power plants. OBJECTIVES To suggest a set of measurements that can be used to assess the impact of maintenance 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 various papers was done to analyze the thought processes that have been employed in the industry related to maintenance and maintenance activities. The terminology as it relates to maintenance has become commingled with other activities. Many practices have been implemented in plants and the overall impact of these practices cannot be determined. An attempt has been made to provide a set of terms and suggestions for things that a plant can measure in order to determine the impact that practices could have on plant operations. RESULTS A set of measures to assess maintenance effectiveness have been presented. The report presents recommendations for plants to determine which measures will be useful according to their plant objectives. These measures are geared toward maintenance activities in particular but can be used for other activities in general.

EPRI TR-107759s

Electric Power Research Institute

December 1996

EPRI PERSPECTIVE This document provides a tool that can be used to evaluate maintenance activities. Plants have made substantial improvements in maintenance practices, and the report recommends ways to measure these improvements. The measures presented in this document are not meant to be the final word but a primer for maintenance assessment practices. Plants are encouraged to use this report as an implementation document for the concept of maintenance performance measures. The measures will require revision and updating 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, call EPRI Technical Information Specialists, 415/855-2411.

Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

TR-107759

December 1996

Prepared by S (Sonny) Kasturi Maintenance and Operations Support Services (MOS)

Prepared for Nuclear Maintenance Applications Center 1300 W.T. Harris Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28262 Operated by Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304 EPRI Project Manager Wayne E. Johnson Nuclear Power Group

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 INFORMATION
PRICE: $10,000 Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the Nuclear Maintenance Applications 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.

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

PREFACE

Assessing and improving maintenance effectiveness requires a consistent set of measures that will identify opportunities for improvement and provide a basis for comparison with industry 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 program improvements

This tech note proposes a set of measures that could be used for this purpose. It should be noted that use of the information conveyed by these measures must be tempered with sound judgment. One should also bear in mind that in comparison with peer plants, valid and justifiable differences or deviations could exist, and that a remedial and/or corrective action plan is warranted only when trends or other conditions point to a potential for adverse consequences.

NMAC Tech Note

iii

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

FOREWORD

The purpose of this document is to provide plants with a tool with which to evaluate maintenance activities. Plants have made changes to maintenance practices because of actual or perceived plant problems without any means to measure the impact of those changes. Many changes have been costly and have not yielded the anticipated results. This document presents some suggested 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 part), and to suggest others that might be useful. This document is the first attempt to provide a tool for industry comparison and feedback. This is an implementation document that introduces the concept of maintenance performance measures to the industry and will require revision and improvement as the industry gains experience with this concept.

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

CONTENTS

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 TERMINOLOGIES ...................................................................................... 3 WHAT CAN BE MEASURED? ................................................................... 7 MAINTENANCE MEASURES ..................................................................... 9 4.1 4.2 Maintenance-Induced Plant Trips ................................................. 10 Maintenance-Induced Violations and Licensee Event Reports (LERs) ................................................................................. 11 Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) Availability ....... 12 Component Count .......................................................................... 14 Percentage of Non-Outage Maintenance ...................................... 15 Craft Productivity Measures .......................................................... 16 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 4.6.4 Work Order Count ................................................................ Craft Resource Utilization Ratio ........................................... Work Orders Per Wrench Week ........................................... Man-Hours for Selected Equipment Type ............................ 17 18 18 19

4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

NMAC Tech Note

vii

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

4.7

Staff Productivity Measures .......................................................... 20 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 Craft Man-Hours to Support Staff Man-Hour Ratio .............. 20 Work Orders Per Staff Week ................................................ 20 Percentage of Procedure Changes Per Period ................... 21

4.8 5.0

Percent of Contracted Maintenance ............................................. 21

SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 23

viii

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Figure 2

Historical Trend in Nuclear Plant O&M Cost ............................... 1 Breakdown of Maintenance Types ............................................... 4

NMAC Tech Note

ix

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 5-4 Table 5-5

Component Count Included in Maintenance Program ............ 15 Percent of Non-Outage Maintenance ........................................ 16 Work Order Count Comparison ................................................ 17 Maintenance Performance Measures ....................................... 24 Maintenance Scope/Coverage Measures ................................. 25 Maintenance Productivity Measures ........................................ 26 Maintenance Personnel Safety Measures ................................ 27 Gross Maintenance Performance Measures ............................ 27

NMAC Tech Note

xi

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

1
INTRODUCTION

Nuclear power plants have embarked on ways to improve their power production costs while maintaining an acceptable level of safety. Over the past few years, the industry has successfully implemented several programs to achieve cost reductions as shown by Figure 1.
ANNUAL O&M COST TREND
22

x x x

O&M COST ($/MWh)

20 18 16 14 12 10

x x

x
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993

YEAR

Figure 1 Historical Trend in Nuclear Plant O&M Cost Source: EPRI Journal May/June 1995

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

A key contributor to the cost of operating a nuclear plant is the cost of activities related to maintaining structures, systems, and components (SSCs). Maintenance ensures a level of equipment availability and reliability that should allow a plant to operate at its highest practical level. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs amount to roughly 20% of overall power production costs. Aging of the SSCs population could have adverse effects on plant operations unless it is balanced with appropriate countermeasures, such as effective maintenance. A maintenance program should focus timely action where needed and minimize unscheduled emergency maintenance. Therefore, effectiveness of maintenance becomes a key factor in improving overall cost efficiency of a plant. However, assessing maintenance effectiveness is a difficult task. A set of performance measures1 that would measure performance in a consistent manner and across a spectrum of power plants would aid in assessing a plants maintenance program. They would also provide a basis for comparison across the industry. This tech note presents a series of performance measures along with definitions of related terminologies that could be used to assess maintenance effectiveness. The intended audience for these measures is plant maintenance management and their staff. The data needed to establish values for these measures are obtainable from the maintenance process management systems and tools currently used in the nuclear industry. Where appropriate, optimal values for performance measures have been proposed. These values are provided to give initial boundary 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 of zero or near zero breakdowns requiring emergency repairs and maintenance-induced violations or plant trips during two successive monitoring periods. Where optimal values are given as zero, they should be interpreted as close to zero as practical. In the near term, NMAC expects to validate and, if necessary, revise these optimal values based on feedback from nuclear power facilities.
Performance measures, such as "unit unplanned capability loss factor" and "thermal performance," 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.
1

Caution: Remember that the real value of a number lies not in its magnitude but in the information it conveys. As a first step, users should develop baseline values for the measure set to be used at their plant(s). These values should be based on historical data accumulated during a significant operating period including a minimum of two refueling cycles (for example, two to five years). A corresponding set of values for these measures should be developed for a reference group2 of nuclear plants. These two sets of data should form the basis for initial assessment, ongoing evaluation, goal setting, targeting specific areas, and establishing relative priorities for program improvements.

Reference 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.

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

2
TERMINOLOGIES

A discussion of performance measures invariably involves the use of terms that could be subject to varying interpretations or meanings depending upon the users vantage point. Therefore, it is imperative that terminologies with non-standard meanings be listed, defined, and (if necessary) explained in order to ensure that they are consistently understood and used. This section identifies and defines the key terms used in this tech note. Where appropriate, additional descriptions and illustrative examples are included. Reliability: Reliability is the probability that a system will perform satisfactorily for a specified period of time when used under specified conditions. For example, a statement that the High Pressure Core Injection (HPCI) system has a reliability of 98% means that: The probability that the HPCI system will start, inject water into the core within the required time, and continue to do so until it is no longer required during and following a designed basis event is 98%. In other words, there is a finite (2% in this case) probability that the system might not perform as intended. Plant safety objectives dictate that system reliability be maintained as high as practical. Reliability predictions assist in selecting the courses of action that affect reliability. For example, after a few years in operation, if the HPCI system reliability was estimated to be 86%, then the plant management would want to identify and evaluate the options (for example, enhanced condition monitoring or design modification for the offending component) available to improve that reliability.

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

Availability: Availability is the probability that a system is operating satisfactorily at any point in time when used under specified conditions, where the total time considered includes the operating time and down time. Operating time: Operating time is the time during which the system is operating in an acceptable manner. Down time: Down time is the time period for which the system is not operating or not capable of operation in a satisfactory manner. Maintenance type: Essentially, maintenance 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 usually a planned activity and the common names used for this type of maintenance include preventive maintenance, planned maintenance, and periodic maintenance. The second is commonly known as corrective maintenance. Corrective maintenance can be performed on a planned or emergency basis, depending upon 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):

Maintenance Program

Preventive

Corrective

Periodic

Scheduled

Predictive

Emergency

Figure 2 Breakdown of Maintenance Types

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

Preventive maintenance: Maintenance performed on a planned basis to minimize unexpected failures is subdivided into: Periodic maintenance: Activities that consist of routine maintenance performed at preset intervals without regard to equipment condition, except to the extent that these activities are recommended either by the vendor or by a plants operating experience. Predictive maintenance: Activities performed to assess equipment condition, and initiate and/or perform preventive maintenance activities. These activities are also used to adjust the intervals at which predictive data is obtained. Another term that might be encountered is condition monitoring, which really is the act of applying predictive maintenance.

Corrective maintenance: Maintenance performed upon detection of a fault or failure. This type of maintenance can also be subdivided into: Scheduled corrective maintenance: Maintenance that is generally prioritized and performed according to a schedule or other planning basis. Emergency corrective maintenance: Maintenance performed in cases where immediate repair is required to ensure safe and continuous operation of a plant or system.

Monitoring period: Refers to the suggested time period for collecting data for the purpose of ongoing assessment of maintenance effectiveness.

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

3
WHAT CAN BE MEASURED?

A nuclear power plant is an aggregation of structures, systems, and components (SSCs). Systems are in themselves an collection of equipment items or components. Availability of equipment or components impacts the availability of systems, which in turn can impact the availability of a plant. Maintenance activities are primarily focused at the equipment 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 support a set of maintenance policy objectives. Assessment tools should measure the extent to which the policy objectives are met. A typical set of maintenance policy objectives for a nuclear power plant might be stated as follows: SSCs availability objectives: Ensure that safety systems, structures, and components meet the required reliability and availability goals. Ensure that systems, structures and components that affect continued operation of a plant meet stated reliability and availability goals. Ensure that the cost of maintenance as a percentage of the overall plant O&M cost is as low as practical, and is comparable to industry peers. Ensure that the life cycle of SSCs are managed to obtain the longest practical service life.

Economic objectives:

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance 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.

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

4
MAINTENANCE MEASURES

Often, there is a need to know how ones own company compares with its peers in delivering similar products and services. This information can assist in budgetary and resource allocation decisions, identify areas needing improvements, or just provide relative points of comfort. Broad-based measures, such as those listed below, can be used for a quick-look type of comparison with peer group plants: Total maintenance budget dollars expressed as a percentage of the O&M budget:
Refers to that portion of corrective maintenance categorized as "emergency maintenance," see page 5 for definition of emergency maintenance.
3

cost of preventive maintenance activities as a percentage of overall maintenance budget cost of corrective maintenance activities as a percentage of overall maintenance budget 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 breakdowns for special tasks, such as predictive maintenance or emergency3 maintenance activities (see Section 2). Other

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

divisions could also be made along the lines of support activities, such as modifications, but usually these will be stand-alone projects. When categorized by routine versus outage periods, these measures can provide useful check points for evaluating outage performance. While these measures could provide a broad view of maintenance activities, an effectiveness assessment to determine if the maintenance activities are meeting plant objectives will require a more in-depth assessment. A set of maintenance performance measures that might be used for an in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of a plant maintenance program in meeting plant objectives are listed below: SSCs availability objectives:
Because the refueling period varies from plant to plant (12-24 months), it believed that using an eighteen month interval 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.
4

Number of maintenance-induced plant trips. Number of maintenance-induced violations and licensee event reports (LERs) Component availability Component count (covered in the maintenance system and their breakdown) Percentage of non-outage maintenance Craft productivity measures Staff productivity measures Percentage of contracted maintenance Lost man-hours due to injury Annual worker exposure

Economic objectives:

Personnel safety objectives:

It is recommended that measure data be generated using a monitoring period that includes at least one refueling (for example, an eighteen month4 period). The measures for personnel safety objectives are straight forward, well understood, and implemented in plants. Thus, they are not discussed further in the document. The same cannot be said about the measures for SSCs availability and economic objectives. Therefore, to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the relevant factors, a further discussion of each of the proposed measures in these two categories follows.

4.1

MaintenanceInduced Plant Trips

This measure is derived from plant trip data. Only those trips that are directly attributable to a maintenance action should be included. An example would be miscalibration of a reactor protection system trip unit resulting in an unplanned plant trip. Care should be taken to avoid including plant trips attributable to indirect maintenance-related causes. For example, a trip caused by a defective part in an uninterruptible power supply (UPS), which was replaced during a maintenance activity, should not be charged as a

10

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

maintenance-induced plant trip. All trips determined to be attributable to a maintenance-related cause, whether or not they are reportable to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), should be included. To ensure objectivity in the collection of this type of data, consideration should be given to having an independent entity (for example, Nuclear Assurance Department) determine the chargeable items. Note: The goal for this measure is zero.

Even if there is only one trip during any given eighteen month period, it warrants a root cause analysis and corrective action. An increasing trend or a constant value other than zero for this measure in any two consecutive periods might indicate ineffective maintenance activities, such as procedures, practices, and/or staff training.

4.2

MaintenanceInduced Violations and Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

This measure is derived from the plant LER data. Only those violations or LERs generated as a direct result of a maintenance action should be included. An example would be the improper setting of a safety relief valve resulting in an unplanned challenge to a safety system, or a later discovery of a condition deviant from plant technical specifications. If a plant trip is experienced, then this item should already have been included in the previously discussed measure, and hence it should not be included in this measure again. Care should be taken to avoid including LERs and violations attributable to indirect maintenance-related causes. For example, a violation or LER resulting from a plant trip caused by a defective spring installed in a relief valve during a maintenance activity should not be charged to this measure. Only those violations determined to be attributable to a maintenance activity and reportable to the NRC should be included. To ensure objectivity in the collection of this type of data, consideration should be given to have an independent entity (for example, Nuclear Assurance Department) determine the chargeable items during the review process 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 month period, it warrants a root cause analysis and prompt corrective action. An increasing trend or a constant value other than zero in this measure for any two consecutive periods could indicate ineffective maintenance activities such as, procedures, practices, and/or staff training.

NMAC Tech Note

11

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

4.3

Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) Availability

This measure provides information about whether or not maintenance is focused (that is, components) where it is needed. It also conveys information about the adequacy of component selection, maintenance practices, allocation between maintenance types, and frequencies. At a specific component level, it should identify areas that require special attention. The availability for each component can be calculated from the data contained in a typical plant maintenance management information system. Consider the HPCI system as an example. The term system is used for ease of reference, but this discussion would apply to any monitoring level. In a given monitoring period, for most of the time, the HPCI system remains in a standby condition. For a few hours, it is tested to verify operability. In addition, the system might be out of service for planned and/or corrective maintenance activities. Two cases arise as follows in determining the operating 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 performing its mission successfully between tests. Therefore, tu = tsi - tD tD = tpmi - temi Availability = (operating time / total time in the period) 100% where: tu = total operating time total down time duration between successful tests time for periodic maintenance in the period time for corrective maintenance in the period

tD = tsi = tpmi = temi = Notes:

All times are in hours. The time in a surveillance test is assumed to be operating time unless a failure results. The time in corrective maintenance should include the elapsed time between the discovery of a failure to the time when the system is returned to service.

Case II.

A failure occurs during a surveillance test or a failed condition was discovered during a planned maintenance activity.

If a failure occurs or is discovered during a test or a periodic maintenance activity, then a determination should be made as to whether or not the system was in an operationally ready status until discovery, and if not, when did it

12

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance 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 operating time. Except in rare cases, it is impractical to determine the time of failure. To resolve this indeterminate condition, for purposes 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 period) 100% where: tu tD tsi tsui tpmi temi = = = = = = total operating time total down time duration between successful tests duration between successful and unsuccessful tests time for periodic maintenance in the period up to the last surveillance test or PM, which ever occurred last time for corrective maintenance in the period up to the last surveillance test or PM, which ever occurred last time for periodic maintenance in the first half of the period between successful and unsuccessful tests

tpmsui = Note:

Unsuccessful tests as used above should be interpreted to mean either a surveillance test or a periodic maintenance, whichever led to the discovery of an unacceptable condition.

Note that the period used for the purposes of maintenance performance measurement might not generally be synonymous with that between surveillance tests. There might be one or more surveillance test(s) in this period. The goal for this indicator might vary from 85% to 95% over a period of 8,760 hours. The required value depends upon component type, its parent system configuration (including redundancies and sparing), frequency of surveillance test, and the maintenance type(s) to which it is subject to. For example, the availability for the reactor trip portion of the plant protection system at the train level might be set at 95%, whereas for the diesel generator, a train level availability of 85% might be sufficient. The availability goals should be set initially taking into account relevant factors including the frequency of surveillance tests and the system configuration. The MMIS should be programmed to calculate component availability at the preset interval. Trending the component availability semi-annually could provide early warning of the potential for system level availability degradation.

NMAC Tech Note

13

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

4.4

Component Count

This could be a temporary measure. It can be of use in the implementation stages to identify areas that might require further review and optimization. Substantive changes in this measure is generally not expected as a function of time. However, it might be appropriate to revisit this measure once in three years in order to ensure that changes, if any, in the intervening period are consistent with the plant maintenance program goals. Reliability-centered maintenance data, if available for a system, could provide this information. However, it is not necessary to have done RCM studies to establish or use this measure. This information should be available for most plants based on technical specifications, surveillance requirements, and an evaluation of the equipment items critical for power production. This data relates to the total number of components included in the plant maintenance program, their breakdown based on safety classification, and by maintenance type. Specific data to be included under this category for comparative purposes are shown in Table 4-1. The total number of components included under a plant maintenance program might vary with plant type and vintage. The same will be true for the breakdown of the total by their classification, that is, non-safety and augmented-safety classes, or by maintenance type. For example, a recent vintage Westinghouse PWR can have as many as 6,000 components covered under the maintenance program, whereas an early vintage Westinghouse PWR might only include 3,000 components. Depending upon the importance of the item to the safe and continued operation of the plant, some equipment could be run to breakdown, and thus will 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. Comparison of this data between plants should ensure that differences in plant vintage and type are taken into account.

14

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

Table 4-1 Component Count Included in Maintenance Program

Maintenance Type 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 Our Plant Reference Plant Avg. Industry Goal

4.5

Percentage of Non-Outage Maintenance

This might be a temporary measure for most plants. It is intended to be of use in the implementation stages to identify areas that could require further review and optimization. Substantive change in this measure is generally not expected over time. However, it might be appropriate to revisit this measure once in three years in order to ensure that changes, if any, made in the intervening period are consistent with the goals of an optimized maintenance program. This data relates to the amount of periodic, predictive, and corrective maintenance performed during non-outage periods. It is generally true that performing more maintenance during non-outage periods should result in more cost-efficient maintenance. The factors that influence the decision as to when to perform maintenance include: risk of impacting plant/system availability personnel exposure in-house staffing

Specific data to be included under this measure category for comparative purposes are shown in Table 4-2.

NMAC Tech Note

15

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

Table 4-2 Percent of Non-Outage Maintenance

Maintenance Type Periodic Maintenance Safety equipment Periodic Maintenance Non-safety equipment Corrective Maintenance Safety equipment Corrective Maintenance Non-safety equipment Predictive Maintenance Safety equipment Predictive Maintenance Non-safety equipment Total Safety equipment Total Non-safety equipment Our Plant Reference Plant Avg. Industry Goal

Existing special plant programs, such as the MOV program or check valve program, might already provide this information.

This data is expressed as a percentage of the component or task count so as to avoid any unwarranted bias if man-hours, cost, or other such parameters are used. This data will be sensitive to plant type and vintage. Also, it can be appropriate to segregate this data by major equipment types (for example, motor-operated valves (MOVs), motors, etc.)5 and review them. A close review of this data can reveal specific inefficiencies that might exist in a plant maintenance program. It should be noted that a higher percentage in a certain category in comparison to a reference plant group does not necessarily indicate need for change. For example, the plant-specific equipment configuration and built-in maintainability considerations can justify a higher percentage. However, some conditions might be correctable through appropriate plant modifications to improve maintainability.

4.6

Craft Productivity Measures

This set of measures provides information on the effectiveness of the utilization of craft resources. Specifically, this set consists of the following: Work order count Craft man-hours by maintenance type and discipline Craft resource utilization ratio Work orders per craft period Man-hours for selected equipment type

16

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

4.6.1

Work Order Count

This data relates to the total number of work orders serviced over a monitoring period and their breakdown. It provides information about the work load handled by the maintenance department and how it compares with peer group plants. Specific data to be included under this category for comparative purposes are shown in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3 Work Order Count Comparison
Item Our Plant Reference Plant Avg. Industry Goal

Total number of work orders serviced during monitoring period (for example, an eighteen month period) Percent of work orders for periodic maintenance program Percent of work orders for corrective maintenance program Percent of work orders for predictive maintenance program 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 though the total component 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 periodic/predictive maintenance line item in the plant maintenance management system should be counted as a work order assigned 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 training and/or procedures

Work order backlog count is not included as a measure of maintenance effectiveness, because it is considered to be strictly a function of available resources and internal management. Plants attempt to keep this backlog as low as

NMAC Tech Note

17

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

practical. If the backlog is abnormally high, it could impact plant performance and would be reflected in one or more of the following measures: maintenance-induced LERs and violations maintenance-induced plant trips high percentage of emergency repairs

Thus, work order backlog alone is not considered to be a valid measure of maintenance effectiveness.
4.6.2 Craft Resource Utilization Ratio

This measure reflects how effectively maintenance craft resources are utilized. It shows how much time is spent actually performing the hands-on work. It is well-known that in a nuclear plant, less than a third of the craft time is spent on actual hands-on work. The rest of the time apparently goes into related administrative and preparatory tasks, such as dressing out, waiting for proper clearances, obtaining permits (such as radiation work permits), and so on. This data should be generated at the maintenance department level and for each discipline or work category.
[sum of the reported actual on the job (wrench time) hours for the period]

Craft resource = 100 utilization ratio (total craft man-hours at work for the period)

Notes:

Total craft man-hours should include only hours craft personnel are in attendance at work (that is, time off such as holidays, sick time, and vacation should be excluded). The goal for this measure is 40%.

4.6.3

Work Orders Per Wrench Week

This data is a measure of the maintenance department productivity.

(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]

Work orders per wrench week =

N = number of hours in a normal work week

18

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

4.6.4

Man-Hours for Selected Equipment Type

This data relates to the breakdown of craft man-hours expended on a selected equipment type. Specific types of equipment for which this data might be useful include the following: 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

It is noted that even though the total man-hours spent in maintenance could be comparable to a peer plant, analysis of the breakdown of hours spent by major equipment categories can help in identifying areas where improvements might be warranted. This data might indicate one or more of the following: Aging of equipment Excessive periodic/predictive maintenance activities Poor maintainability conditions Need for training in equipment maintenance Overly complex procedures

NMAC Tech Note

19

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

4.7

Staff Productivity Measures

This set of measures provides information related to the effectiveness of the persons or programs that are used 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
Craft Man-Hours to Support Staff Man-Hour Ratio

4.7.1

This measure provides information about the efficiency of the support resource utilization in a plant. Typically the maintenance craft is supported by a staff of planners, schedulers, procedure writers, and other administrative and supervisory staff. This measure should be calculated at the department level.
(total craft man-hours expended for the period) Craft to support = 100 man-hours ratio (total staff support man-hours)

4.7.2

Work Orders Per Staff Week

This measure provides information on the efficiency of support staff utilization. Support staff man-hours to be included in this calculation are those for planners, schedulers, procedure writers, and other administrative and first line supervisory staff. This measure should be calculated at the department and discipline levels.
(total number of work orders processed in the monitoring week) N (sum of the support staff hours for the period)

Work orders = per staff week

N = number of hours in a work week Note: Total craft man-hours should include only hours craft personnel are in attendance at work (that is, time off such as holidays, sick time, and vacations should be excluded).

20

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

4.7.3

Percentage of Procedure Changes Per Period

This measure provides information of systemic problems in the adequacy of procedures. Ideally, plants should have a stable system of procedures for performing maintenance. Changes, if any, should be minimal and directed at either correcting errors and omissions, or at addressing areas previously unaddressed by the procedures. However, if a plant experiences a high number of procedure changes on a continuing basis, it might indicate a weak procedural system. This measure can be treated as a temporary measure if the historical data indicates an acceptable level of < 5% or less.
(number of procedures subject to change during the period) (total number of maintenance and surveillance procedures)

Procedure change = 100 percentage per period

Note:

The goal for this measure is < 5%.

When counting the number of procedures that were subject to change during a monitoring period, if a procedure was changed more than once during the period, then each occurrence should be counted as an individual procedure change. The intent is to identify systemic problem(s) so that corrective action can be taken.

4.8

Percent of Contracted Maintenance

Most plants use some level of contract maintenance to meet specialized manpower needs and/or to support additional short-term demands during outages.
[total expenditure for contracted maintenance (including the in-house maintenance staff support for the same)] (total budget for maintenance)

Percent of contracted = 100 maintenance

Only regularly contracted maintenance items such as inverter and battery charger maintenance, power-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 overhaul should be excluded. Expressed as a percentage of the total maintenance cost, this measure denotes the effectiveness of in-house resource utilization and control of maintenance. Note: The goal for this measure should be < 5%.

NMAC Tech Note

21

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

5
SUMMARY

Plant maintenance activities will be tied closely to plant or system availability and reliability goals. Generally, the constraints on system reliability and availability will be equipment or component related; however, system or plant needs dictate when equipment must operate and thus maintenance activities must be directed toward meeting operational requirements. One important aspect of reliability and availability balancing that must be considered is work control. The best technical know how and skills can be available at a plant, but if the work control process has not been fine tuned to remove bottle necks, such as lengthy tag outs, spare parts issues, and poor procedures, a reasonable balance cannot be achieved. To accomplish a reasonable level of availability, the planning and scheduling department and other departments with technical responsibilities must work closely together. The actual times to perform certain tasks are well defined in most plants and throughout the industry. Often, problems associated with availability are attributable to the manner in which business is done (scheduled versus emergency). The reliability portion of the balancing activity is more difficult to obtain. Reliability is often tied directly to the amount of maintenance expended on a piece of equipment. However, when equipment has a high level of maintenance and continues to have failures, this could point to potential problems in the performance of maintenance activities, the equipment aging, or the misapplication of equipment.

NMAC Tech Note

23

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

Ongoing assessment of maintenance program effectiveness is an important tool to identify problems. Such an assessment will require a set of measures that can be applied consistently throughout the industry. Tables 5-1 through 5-5 summarize the set of measures proposed in this document to assist in assessing the effectiveness of a plant maintenance program.

Table 5-1 Maintenance Performance Measures

Measure submeasure(s) Number of maintenance-induced plant trips Number of maintenance-induced violations and LERs Component availability Reference/ Goal Baseline Value TBD TBD Current Value TBD TBD

0 0 80%95%

24

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

Table 5-2 Maintenance Scope/Coverage Measures

Measure submeasure(s) Component count covered in the maintenance system and their breakdown: 1. Total number of equipment items covered under all types of maintenance program 2. Percent of total included in periodic maintenance program 3. Percent of total included only under corrective maintenance program 4. Percent of total included in predictive maintenance program 5. Percent of safety-related equipment included in periodic maintenance program 6. Percent of non-safety equipment included in periodic maintenance program 7. Percent of safety-related equipment included in predictive maintenance program 8. Percent of non-safety equipment included in predictive maintenance program 9. Total safety equipment 10. Total non-safety equipment Percent non-outage maintenance: 1. Percent of all periodic maintenance performed when the plant is operating at power 2. Percent of all corrective maintenance performed when the plant is operating at power 3. Percent of periodic maintenance on safety SSCs performed when the plant is operating at power 4. Percent of periodic maintenance on non-safety SSCs performed when the plant is operating at power 5. Percent of predictive maintenance on safety SSCs performed when the plant is operating at power 6. Percent of predictive maintenance on non-safety SSCs performed when the plant is operating at power TBD Reference/ Goal Baseline Value Current Value

TBD

NMAC Tech Note

25

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

Table 5-3 Maintenance Productivity Measures

Measure submeasure(s) Craft Productivity Measures Work order count and their breakdown: 1. Total number of work orders serviced over an eighteen month 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 Craft man-hours by maintenance type and discipline: Periodic maintenance Predictive maintenance Corrective maintenance Emergency maintenance Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation and control (I&C) Craft resource utilization ratio Work orders per wrench week 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 Staff productivity measures: Craft to staff man-hours Work orders per staff week Procedure change percent per period Percent of contracted maintenance Reference/ Goal TBD Baseline Value Current Value

TBD

> 40% TBD TBD

< 40% TBD < 5% < 5%

26

NMAC Tech Note

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

Table 5-4 Maintenance Personnel Safety Measures

Measure submeasure(s) Lost man-hours due to injury Annual worker exposure Reference/Goal TBD TBD Baseline Value Current Value

Table 5-5 Gross Maintenance Performance Measures

Measure submeasure(s) Total maintenance budget: Annual dollar budget Annual man-hour budget Proposed Reference/ Goals (Routine) TBD Baseline Value Current Value

Breakdown of maintenance budget: Percent of maintenance budget allocated to preventive maintenance Percent of maintenance budget spent on corrective maintenance Percent of maintenance budget spent on training 60% 30% 10%

Breakdown of maintenance man-hours: Percent of man-hours expended on preventive maintenance Percent of man-hours expended on corrective maintenance Percent of man-hours expended on training 70% 25% 5%

NMAC Tech Note

27

EPRI
Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 (P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA 94303) 800-313-EPRI www.epri.com About EPRI Electricity is increasingly recognized as a key to societal progress throughout the world, driving economic prosperity and improving the quality of life. The Electric Power Research Institute delivers the science and technology to make the generation, delivery, and use of electricity affordable, efficient, and environmentally sound. Created by the nations electric utilities in 1973, EPRI is one of Americas oldest and largest research consortia, with some 700 members and an annual budget of about $500 million. Linked to a global network of technical specialists, EPRI scientists and engineers develop innovative solutions to the worlds toughest energy problems while expanding opportunities for a dynamic industry. EPRI. Powering Progress

LICENSED
M AT E R I A L

(continued from front cover)

4. TERM AND TERMINATION This license and this agreement are effective until terminated. You may terminate them at any time by destroying this report. EPRI has the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this agreement. Upon any termination you may destroy this report, but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect. 5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION 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.

TR-107759

6. EXPORT The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this report, and you agree not to export or re-export this report or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States and foreign government approvals. 7. CHOICE OF LAW This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entirely in California between California residents. 8. INTEGRATION You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement between you and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No waiver, variation or different terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.

Printed on Recycled Paper Printed in USA