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.

North Carolina 28262 Operated by Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto. Johnson Nuclear Power Group .T.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. California 94304 EPRI Project Manager Wayne E. Harris Boulevard Charlotte.

000 Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the Nuclear Maintenance Applications Center (NMAC). ANY COSPONSOR. All rights reserved. Inc. PROCESS. OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S CIRCUMSTANCE. Harris Boulevard. OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT. (EPRI). OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT. INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1300 W. APPARATUS. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of Electric Power Research Institute. There is no charge for reports requested by NMAC member utilities. NEITHER EPRI. METHOD.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. PROCESS. OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. METHOD. INC. 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. THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW. Charlotte. Copyright © 1996 Electric Power Research Institute. INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. Inc. ANY MEMBER OF EPRI. 800/356-7448. (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION. ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES (MOS) S (SONNY) KASTURI ORDERING INFORMATION PRICE: $10. NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER. NC 28262. .T. APPARATUS.

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

.

NMAC Tech Note v . Plants have made changes to maintenance practices because of actual or perceived plant problems without any means to measure the impact of those changes. This document presents some suggested measures that can be used to evaluate maintenance practices and suggests a basis for comparison between plants.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. Many changes have been costly and have not yielded the anticipated results. 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.

.

.....4 Work Order Count ....... 15 Craft Productivity Measures ............................. 1 TERMINOLOGIES .........3 4......................2 Maintenance-Induced Plant Trips ....3 4.................................. 14 Percentage of Non-Outage Maintenance .................. 16 4..6................................ Systems............................6................................................................................................................ and Components (SSCs) Availability ........ 12 Component Count ....................................................... Craft Resource Utilization Ratio ..........................................................................5 4.........................EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness CONTENTS 1.......0 INTRODUCTION ..............................0 4..................................2 4.. 9 4................................................................. Work Orders Per Wrench Week .............................................................................1 4...........6 NMAC Tech Note vii ....... Man-Hours for Selected Equipment Type .... 7 MAINTENANCE MEASURES ..... 3 WHAT CAN BE MEASURED? .........0 3......... 10 Maintenance-Induced Violations and Licensee Event Reports (LERs) ...................4 4.....0 2.........1 4..............................6... 11 Structures...........6.... 17 18 18 19 4............

.....8 5................ 21 SUMMARY ...........................7................................ 20 Work Orders Per Staff Week ..............7....0 Percent of Contracted Maintenance .............................EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness 4........................... 20 4................ 20 Percentage of Procedure Changes Per Period .................. 23 viii NMAC Tech Note ................7.. 21 4....7 Staff Productivity Measures .........2 4..............1 4............................................3 Craft Man-Hours to Support Staff Man-Hour Ratio .............

.... 4 NMAC Tech Note ix ...... 1 Breakdown of Maintenance Types .........................EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Historical Trend in Nuclear Plant O&M Cost ............................................

.

..................................................................................................... 15 Percent of Non-Outage Maintenance . 25 Maintenance Productivity Measures ............... 16 Work Order Count Comparison ....................................................... 27 NMAC Tech Note xi .. 26 Maintenance Personnel Safety Measures ............. 24 Maintenance Scope/Coverage Measures . 27 Gross Maintenance Performance Measures ................. 17 Maintenance Performance Measures ..................................................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 ..................

.

the industry has successfully implemented several programs to achieve cost reductions as shown by Figure 1.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. ANNUAL O&M COST TREND 22 x 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 1 .

These values should be based on historical data accumulated during a significant operating period including a minimum of two refueling cycles (for example. balance-of-plant (BOP) design. Where appropriate. type. optimal values for performance measures have been proposed. In the near term. such as effective maintenance. systems. goal setting. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs amount to roughly 20% of overall power production costs. As a first step. assessing maintenance effectiveness is a difficult task. They were developed from a mini-survey of nuclear power plants and other non-nuclear installations. 1 Caution: Remember that the real value of a number lies not in its magnitude but in the information it conveys. revise these optimal values based on feedback from nuclear power facilities. such as "unit unplanned capability loss factor" and "thermal performance. Aging of the SSCs population could have adverse effects on plant operations unless it is balanced with appropriate countermeasures. they should be interpreted as close to zero as practical. A corresponding set of values for these measures should be developed for a reference group2 of nuclear plants. These values are provided to give initial boundary values or a range of values for certain activities. The intended audience for these measures is plant maintenance management and their staff. They would also provide a basis for comparison across the industry. These two sets of data should form the basis for initial assessment. 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. and establishing relative priorities for program improvements.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. and other locational factors that could influence the cost of maintenance." have long been used in the nuclear power industry to provide comparative performance measures at the plant level. A maintenance program should focus timely action where needed and minimize unscheduled emergency maintenance. 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 plant’s maintenance program. They are not the focus of this tech note. Maintenance ensures a level of equipment availability and reliability that should allow a plant to operate at its highest practical level. 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. NMAC expects to validate and. Performance measures. Where optimal values are given as zero. effectiveness of maintenance becomes a key factor in improving overall cost efficiency of a plant. 2 Reference group refers to plants that are comparable in vintage. two to five years). targeting specific areas. if necessary. Therefore. 2 NMAC Tech Note . However. ongoing evaluation. users should develop baseline values for the measure set to be used at their plant(s). This tech note presents a series of performance measures along with definitions of related terminologies that could be used to assess maintenance effectiveness. and components (SSCs).

if the HPCI system reliability was estimated to be 86%. there is a finite (2% in this case) probability that the system might not perform as intended. This section identifies and defines the key terms used in this tech note. In other words. Reliability: Reliability is the probability that a system will perform satisfactorily for a specified period of time when used under specified conditions. it is imperative that terminologies with non-standard meanings be listed.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 user’s vantage point. Reliability predictions assist in selecting the courses of action that affect reliability. Plant safety objectives dictate that system reliability be maintained as high as practical. inject water into the core within the required time. NMAC Tech Note 3 . then the plant management would want to identify and evaluate the options (for example. Therefore. and continue to do so until it is no longer required during and following a designed basis event is 98%. enhanced condition monitoring or design modification for the offending component) available to improve that reliability. defined. after a few years in operation. For example. For example. Where appropriate. and (if necessary) explained in order to ensure that they are consistently understood and used. additional descriptions and illustrative examples are included. 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.

this document classifies maintenance type as follows (see Figure 2): Maintenance Program Preventive Corrective Periodic Scheduled Predictive Emergency Figure 2 Breakdown of Maintenance Types 4 NMAC Tech Note . and periodic maintenance. The second is commonly known as corrective maintenance. 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 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. where the total time considered includes the operating time and down time. maintenance performed to prevent failure 2. Corrective maintenance can be performed on a planned or emergency basis. Maintenance type: Essentially.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. planned maintenance. Operating time: Operating time is the time during which the system is operating in an acceptable manner. depending upon the functional importance of the item to ensure safe plant operation. To promote consistent interpretation and use of these terms. maintenance can be classified into two broad types: 1.

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. These activities are also used to adjust the intervals at which predictive data is obtained. and initiate and/or perform preventive maintenance activities. which really is the act of applying predictive maintenance. Another term that might be encountered is condition monitoring. • Corrective maintenance: Maintenance performed upon detection of a fault or failure. Predictive maintenance: Activities performed to assess equipment condition. 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. Monitoring period: Refers to the suggested time period for collecting data for the purpose of ongoing assessment of maintenance effectiveness. except to the extent that these activities are recommended either by the vendor or by a plant’s operating experience. Emergency corrective maintenance: Maintenance performed in cases where immediate repair is required to ensure safe and continuous operation of a plant or system. NMAC Tech Note 5 .

.

Ensure that the cost of maintenance as a percentage of the overall plant O&M cost is as low as practical. and components (SSCs). and components meet the required reliability and availability goals. Availability of equipment or components impacts the availability of systems. structures and components that affect continued operation of a plant meet stated reliability and availability goals. structures. Assessment tools should measure the extent to which the policy objectives are met. thus it makes sense to focus maintenance performance measures at the same level. which in turn can impact the availability of a plant. Systems are in themselves an collection of equipment items or components. systems. Economic objectives: • • NMAC Tech Note 7 . Maintenance activities are primarily focused at the equipment and structure level. A typical set of maintenance policy objectives for a nuclear power plant might be stated as follows: SSCs availability objectives: • • Ensure that safety systems. Most plant maintenance programs are developed and implemented to support a set of maintenance policy objectives. Ensure that the life cycle of SSCs are managed to obtain the longest practical service life. Ensure that systems.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness 3 WHAT CAN BE MEASURED? A nuclear power plant is an aggregation of structures. and is comparable to industry peers.

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness Personnel safety objectives: • • Ensure that a worker’s exposure is kept to a minimum. 8 NMAC Tech Note . Ensure that lost time from a personnel injury is kept as low as practical.

or just provide relative points of comfort. Other NMAC Tech Note 9 . This information can assist in budgetary and resource allocation decisions. 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. there is a need to know how one’s own company compares with its peers in delivering similar products and services. Broad-based measures. such as those listed below. 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.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness 4 MAINTENANCE MEASURES Often. identify areas needing improvements." see page 5 for definition of emergency maintenance. such as predictive maintenance or emergency3 maintenance activities (see Section 2).

Thus. but usually these will be stand-alone projects. an effectiveness assessment to determine if the maintenance activities are meeting plant objectives will require a more in-depth assessment. to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the relevant factors.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness divisions could also be made along the lines of support activities. 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). such as modifications. Care should be taken to avoid including plant trips attributable to indirect maintenance-related causes. these measures can provide useful check points for evaluating outage performance. it should include one refueling in order to ensure that valid basis for comparison across the industry exists. For example. When categorized by routine versus outage periods. 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. which was replaced during a maintenance activity. an eighteen month4 period). well understood. The measures for personnel safety objectives are straight forward. An example would be miscalibration of a reactor protection system trip unit resulting in an unplanned plant trip. and implemented in plants. While these measures could provide a broad view of maintenance activities. it believed that using an eighteen month interval will ensure a valid comparison. 4 Number of maintenance-induced plant trips. Regardless of what duration is chosen for the monitoring period. a further discussion of each of the proposed measures in these two categories follows. they are not discussed further in the document. The same cannot be said about the measures for SSCs availability and economic objectives. a trip caused by a defective part in an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). Therefore. should not be charged as a 10 NMAC Tech Note . 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.

NMAC Tech Note 11 . 4. All trips determined to be attributable to a maintenance-related cause. Note: The goal for this measure is zero or near zero. consideration should be given to having an independent entity (for example. An increasing trend or a constant value other than zero for this measure in any two consecutive periods might indicate ineffective maintenance activities. practices. or a later discovery of a condition deviant from plant technical specifications. and/or staff training. then this item should already have been included in the previously discussed measure. Even if there is only one violation or LER during any given eighteen month period. whether or not they are reportable to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). it warrants a root cause analysis and corrective action. Nuclear Assurance Department) determine the chargeable items during the review process for the LERs or cited violations. For example.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness maintenance-induced plant trip. consideration should be given to have an independent entity (for example. To ensure objectivity in the collection of this type of data. should be included. and/or staff training.2 MaintenanceInduced Violations and Licensee Event Reports (LERs) This measure is derived from the plant LER data. Note: The goal for this measure is zero. Care should be taken to avoid including LERs and violations attributable to indirect maintenance-related causes. Even if there is only one trip during any given eighteen month period. procedures. it warrants a root cause analysis and prompt corrective action. such as procedures. 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 or LERs generated as a direct result of a maintenance action should be included. 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. Nuclear Assurance Department) determine the chargeable items. To ensure objectivity in the collection of this type of data. Only those violations determined to be attributable to a maintenance activity and reportable to the NRC should be included. If a plant trip is experienced. practices. and hence it should not be included in this measure again. An example would be the improper setting of a safety relief valve resulting in an unplanned challenge to a safety system.

Therefore. 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. maintenance practices. The availability for each component can be calculated from the data contained in a typical plant maintenance management information system.3 Structures. No discovery of a failed condition during a periodic maintenance or surveillance test in the monitoring period. tu = ∑tsi . components) where it is needed. and if not. the system might be out of service for planned and/or corrective maintenance activities. it is tested to verify operability. but this discussion would apply to any monitoring level. In a given monitoring period. allocation between maintenance types. Systems.tD tD = ∑tpmi . It also conveys information about the adequacy of component selection.∑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. Case II. and frequencies.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness 4. The term system is used for ease of reference. The system can be assumed to be in an operable condition and capable of performing its mission successfully between tests. when did it 12 NMAC Tech Note . then a determination should be made as to whether or not the system was in an operationally ready status until discovery. Two cases arise as follows in determining the operating time and down time for use in availability calculations: Case I. and Components (SSCs) Availability This measure provides information about whether or not maintenance is focused (that is. In addition. for most of the time. If a failure occurs or is discovered during a test or a periodic maintenance activity. A failure occurs during a surveillance test or a failed condition was discovered during a planned maintenance activity. At a specific component level. it should identify areas that require special attention. For a few hours. The time in a surveillance test is assumed to be operating time unless a failure results. Consider the HPCI system as an example. the HPCI system remains in a standby condition.

and the maintenance type(s) to which it is subject to. whichever led to the discovery of an unacceptable condition. If an evaluation of the defect reveals that the system could not have performed its mission satisfactorily. To resolve this indeterminate condition. frequency of surveillance test. The required value depends upon component type. which ever occurred last time for corrective maintenance in the period up to the last surveillance test or PM. the availability for the reactor trip portion of the plant protection system at the train level might be set at 95%. the following approach is suggested: tu = ∑tsi . Trending the component availability semi-annually could provide early warning of the potential for system level availability degradation. There might be one or more surveillance test(s) in this period.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.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness become unsatisfactory. The goal for this indicator might vary from 85% to 95% over a period of 8. Except in rare cases. its parent system configuration (including redundancies and sparing). NMAC Tech Note 13 . a train level availability of 85% might be sufficient. for purposes of maintenance effectiveness assessment. The MMIS should be programmed to calculate component availability at the preset interval.760 hours. then an allowance must be made to the operating time. whereas for the diesel generator. Note that the period used for the purposes of maintenance performance measurement might not generally be synonymous with that between surveillance tests. 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. it is impractical to determine the time of failure. The availability goals should be set initially taking into account relevant factors including the frequency of surveillance tests and the system configuration. For example.

This information should be available for most plants based on technical specifications. or by maintenance type. 14 NMAC Tech Note .000 components. it is not necessary to have done RCM studies to establish or use this measure. The total number of components included under a plant maintenance program might vary with plant type and vintage. and thus will be included only in the corrective maintenance program. However.4 Component Count This could be a temporary measure.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness 4. if available for a system.000 components covered under the maintenance program. their breakdown based on safety classification. This data relates to the total number of components included in the plant maintenance program. could provide this information. Depending upon the importance of the item to the safe and continued operation of the plant. and by maintenance type. and an evaluation of the equipment items critical for power production. The same will be true for the breakdown of the total by their classification. Comparison of this data between plants should ensure that differences in plant vintage and type are taken into account. in the intervening period are consistent with the plant maintenance program goals. Substantive changes in this measure is generally not expected as a function of time. it might be appropriate to revisit this measure once in three years in order to ensure that changes. if any. It can be of use in the implementation stages to identify areas that might require further review and optimization. that is. The percentage of items included in this category will also be a function of the plant vintage and design. non-safety and augmented-safety classes. Specific data to be included under this category for comparative purposes are shown in Table 4-1. whereas an early vintage Westinghouse PWR might only include 3. surveillance requirements. Reliability-centered maintenance data. However. For example. some equipment could be run to breakdown. a recent vintage Westinghouse PWR can have as many as 6.

This data relates to the amount of periodic. 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. made in the intervening period are consistent with the goals of an optimized maintenance program. However. it might be appropriate to revisit this measure once in three years in order to ensure that changes. Industry Goal 4.5 Percentage of Non-Outage Maintenance This might be a temporary measure for most plants. if any.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness Table 4-1 Component Count Included in Maintenance Program 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. predictive. 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 . and corrective maintenance performed during non-outage periods.

Also. motor-operated valves (MOVs). 5 This data is expressed as a percentage of the component or task count so as to avoid any unwarranted bias if man-hours.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. A close review of this data can reveal specific inefficiencies that might exist in a plant maintenance program. cost. or other such parameters are used. 4. 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. it can be appropriate to segregate this data by major equipment types (for example. However. For example. such as the MOV program or check valve program. some conditions might be correctable through appropriate plant modifications to improve maintainability. might already provide this information. 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 .)5 and review them. the plant-specific equipment configuration and built-in maintainability considerations can justify a higher percentage. motors. Industry Goal Existing special plant programs. This data will be sensitive to plant type and vintage. etc.6 Craft Productivity Measures This set of measures provides information on the effectiveness of the utilization of craft resources. Specifically.

Specific data to be included under this category for comparative purposes are shown in Table 4-3. the work order count and breakdown might not be.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness 4. Some plants do not initiate a work order for periodic/predictive maintenance items. because it is considered to be strictly a function of available resources and internal management.6. each periodic/predictive maintenance line item in the plant maintenance management system should be counted as a work order assigned to that item. Table 4-3 Work Order Count Comparison Item Our Plant Reference Plant Avg.1 Work Order Count This data relates to the total number of work orders serviced over a monitoring period and their breakdown. 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. 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. It provides information about the work load handled by the maintenance department and how it compares with peer group plants. Plants attempt to keep this backlog as low as NMAC Tech Note 17 . In such cases. Industry Goal Total number of work orders serviced during monitoring period (for example.

It is well-known that in a nuclear plant.6. waiting for proper clearances. 4. This data should be generated at the maintenance department level and for each discipline or work category. time off such as holidays. such as dressing out.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness practical. 4. (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 . It shows how much time is spent actually performing the hands-on work.2 Craft Resource Utilization Ratio This measure reflects how effectively maintenance craft resources are utilized.3 Work Orders Per Wrench Week This data is a measure of the maintenance department productivity. and so on. obtaining permits (such as radiation work permits). sick time.6. 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. and vacation should be excluded). The rest of the time apparently goes into related administrative and preparatory tasks. less than a third of the craft time is spent on actual hands-on work. work order backlog alone is not considered to be a valid measure of maintenance effectiveness. [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. The goal for this measure is ≥ 40%.

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 .4 Man-Hours for Selected Equipment Type This data relates to the breakdown of craft man-hours expended on a selected equipment type.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness 4.6. analysis of the breakdown of hours spent by major equipment categories can help in identifying areas where improvements might be warranted. 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.

EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness 4. schedulers.2 Work Orders Per Staff Week This measure provides information on the efficiency of support staff utilization. sick time. This measure should be calculated at the department level. schedulers. 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. and vacations should be excluded). 20 NMAC Tech Note . (total craft man-hours expended for the period) Craft to support = 100 × man-hours ratio (total staff support man-hours) 4. time off such as holidays.7.7. and other administrative and supervisory staff. Typically the maintenance craft is supported by a staff of planners. and other administrative and first line supervisory staff.1 This measure provides information about the efficiency of the support resource utilization in a plant. procedure writers. This measure should be calculated at the department and discipline levels.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. procedure writers. Support staff man-hours to be included in this calculation are those for planners. (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.

However. or at addressing areas previously unaddressed by the procedures. Expressed as a percentage of the total maintenance cost.7. 4. [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. The intent is to identify systemic problem(s) so that corrective action can be taken. (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%. or outage staff augmentation support should be included in this calculation. This measure can be treated as a temporary measure if the historical data indicates an acceptable level of < 5% or less. plants should have a stable system of procedures for performing maintenance. it might indicate a weak procedural system. if any. NMAC Tech Note 21 . 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.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.3 Percentage of Procedure Changes Per Period This measure provides information of systemic problems in the adequacy of procedures. should be minimal and directed at either correcting errors and omissions. Special infrequently contracted maintenance expenditures such as those for steam generator retubing or condenser overhaul should be excluded.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness 4. Ideally. then each occurrence should be counted as an individual procedure change. Note: The goal for this measure should be < 5%. power-operated relief valve (PORV) testing. Changes. this measure denotes the effectiveness of in-house resource utilization and control of maintenance. if a plant experiences a high number of procedure changes on a continuing basis.

.

However. or the misapplication of equipment. but if the work control process has not been fine tuned to remove bottle necks. and poor procedures. problems associated with availability are attributable to the manner in which business is done (scheduled versus emergency). To accomplish a reasonable level of availability. Reliability is often tied directly to the amount of maintenance expended on a piece of equipment. system or plant needs dictate when equipment must operate and thus maintenance activities must be directed toward meeting operational requirements. The best technical know how and skills can be available at a plant. The reliability portion of the balancing activity is more difficult to obtain. however. Often. Generally. NMAC Tech Note 23 . the equipment aging.EPRI Licensed Material Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness 5 SUMMARY Plant maintenance activities will be tied closely to plant or system availability and reliability goals. the planning and scheduling department and other departments with technical responsibilities must work closely together. the constraints on system reliability and availability will be equipment or component related. this could point to potential problems in the performance of maintenance activities. The actual times to perform certain tasks are well defined in most plants and throughout the industry. spare parts issues. such as lengthy tag outs. when equipment has a high level of maintenance and continues to have failures. a reasonable balance cannot be achieved. One important aspect of reliability and availability balancing that must be considered is work control.

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 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.

Percent of non-safety equipment included in predictive maintenance program 9. Percent of total included in periodic maintenance program 3. Percent of safety-related equipment included in periodic maintenance program 6. Percent of predictive maintenance on safety SSCs performed when the plant is operating at power 6. Percent of total included in predictive maintenance program 5. Percent of total included only under corrective maintenance program 4. Percent of periodic maintenance on non-safety SSCs performed when the plant is operating at power 5. Total non-safety equipment Percent non-outage maintenance: 1. Total safety equipment 10. Percent of periodic maintenance on safety SSCs performed when the plant is operating at power 4. Percent of non-safety equipment included in periodic maintenance program 7. Total number of equipment items covered under all types of maintenance program 2. Percent of safety-related equipment included in predictive maintenance program 8. 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 . Percent of all corrective maintenance performed when the plant is operating at power 3. Percent of all periodic maintenance performed when the plant is operating at power 2.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.

Percent of work orders for periodic maintenance program 3.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. Percent of work orders for corrective maintenance program 4. Percent of work orders for safety-related equipment 6. Percent of work orders attributable to rework 8. Total number of work orders serviced over an eighteen month period 2. 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 . Percent of work orders for predictive maintenance program 5. Percent of work orders for non-safety equipment 7.

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 .

.

.

(I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION. INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Upon any termination you may destroy this report. The Electric Power Research Institute delivers the science and technology to make the generation. CA 94303) 800-313-EPRI www. TR-107759 6. OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S CIRCUMSTANCE. EPRI. PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.com About EPRI Electricity is increasingly recognized as a key to societal progress throughout the world. APPARATUS. 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. 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. Printed on Recycled Paper Printed in USA . ANY COSPONSOR. EXPORT The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this report. EPRI scientists and engineers develop innovative solutions to the world’s toughest energy problems while expanding opportunities for a dynamic industry. 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. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. INTEGRATION You have read and understand this agreement.epri. PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT. APPARATUS. Created by the nation’s electric utilities in 1973. CA 94304 (P. Linked to a global network of technical specialists. 5. delivery.EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto. with some 700 members and an annual budget of about $500 million. Box 10412.O. and use of electricity affordable. METHOD. No waiver. signed by an officer of EPRI. Palo Alto. TERM AND TERMINATION This license and this agreement are effective until terminated. OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. You may terminate them at any time by destroying this report. 7. METHOD. EPRI is one of America’s oldest and largest research consortia. but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect. OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS. efficient. complete and exclusive agreement between you and EPRI concerning its subject matter. variation or different terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent. ANY MEMBER OF EPRI. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES NEITHER EPRI. and acknowledge that it is the final. Powering Progress LICENSED M AT E R I A L (continued from front cover) 4. 8. and environmentally sound. 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. superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER. driving economic prosperity and improving the quality of life.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful