asessing maintenance

7/29/2019 Asessing Maintenance

1/46

Assessing MaintenanceEffectiveness

NMAC Tech Note

SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENTTHIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE(EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE WRAPPING MATERIAL. THIS AGREEMENTCONTINUES ON THE BACK COVER.

BY OPENING THI S SEALED REPORT YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERM S OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOTAGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED REPORT TO EPRI AND THEPURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED.

1. GRANT OF LICENSEEPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontr ansferable right during the term of this agreement to use thisreport only for your ow n benefit and the benefit of your organization. This means that the follow ing m ay usethis report: (I) your com pany (at any site owned or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or otherrelated entities; and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities, if the consultant has entered intoa contract agreeing not to disclose the report outside of its organization or t o use the report for it s ownbenefit or the benefit of any party other than your company.

This shrink-wr ap license agreement is subordinate to the term s of the Master Utility License Agreementbetween most U.S. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a MasterUtility License Agreement may get one on request.

2. COPYRIGHTThis report, including the inform ation contained in it, is ow ned by EPRI and is prot ected by United States andinternational copyright laws. You m ay not, without the prior w ritten permission of EPRI, reproduce, translateor m odify this report, in any form , in whole or in part, or pr epare any derivative work based on this report.

3. RESTRICTIONSYou may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this report to any person or organization, or use theinform ation contained in this report, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than asspecified above unless such use is with the prior written permission of EPRI. You agree to take allreasonable steps to pr event unauthorized disclosure or use of this report. Except as specified above, thisagreement does not gr ant you any r ight to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks orany other intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of this report.

(continued on back cover)

L I C E N S E DMATERIAL

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance withSection 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export

Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to onlycopyrightprotection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes theexport control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material noticesembedded in thedocument prior to publication.


2/46


3/46

EPRI TR-107759s Electric Power Research Institute December 1996

R E P O R T S U M M A R Y

INTEREST CATEGORIES

Nuclear plant operationsand maintenance

Engineering and technicalsupport

KEYWORDS

MaintenancePerformanceProductivity

AUDIENCE

Maintenance, engineering,and operations managers

Maintenance and technicalstaff

Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

Assessing the effectiveness of maintenance practices requires a con-sistent set of measures that will quantify successful practices andprovide an opportunity for improvements. This tech note presents a setof measures that could be used for temporary as well as continuousevaluation of maintenance practices used at nuclear power plants.

BACKGROUND Determining the impact of changes in practices and tech-niques require some sort of measuring instrument. The measuring instrumentmust be based upon values that are acceptable and agreed upon by people thatwill use these values. The values have to be tied to some fairly repeatable

standards that can be obtained in a routine fashion. Currently, processes areimplemented and a plant department is tasked to look at the cost benefit ofimplementing certain practices. These measurements are not intended to focuson cost as a general factor but to look at what technical benefits can be ob-tained from implementing practices. However, there is little data that providesguidance or recommends an approach to this task. This report is the firstattempt at providing guidance in this area and suggestions that can be used forcomparison between power plants.

OBJECTIVES

To suggest a set of measurements that can be used to assess the impact ofmaintenance and other practices implemented at power plants.

To provide a plan and process to obtain measurement values.

APPROACH Discussion with power plant personnel and review of variouspapers was done to analyze the thought processes that have been employed inthe industry related to maintenance and maintenance activities. The terminologyas it relates to maintenance has become commingled with other activities.Many practices have been implemented in plants and the overall impact ofthese practices cannot be determined. An attempt has been made to provide aset of terms and suggestions for things that a plant can measure in order todetermine the impact that practices could have on plant operations.

RESULTS A set of measures to assess maintenance effectiveness have beenpresented. The report presents recommendations for plants to determine which

measures will be useful according to their plant objectives. These measures aregeared toward maintenance activities in particular but can be used for otheractivities in general.

EPRIPowering Progress


4/46

EPRI PERSPECTIVE This document provides a tool that can be used toevaluate maintenance activities. Plants have made substantial im-provements in maintenance practices, and the report recommendsways to measure these improvements. The measures presented in thisdocument are not meant to be the final word but a primer for mainte-nance assessment practices. Plants are encouraged to use this reportas an implementation document for the concept of maintenance

performance measures. The measures will require revision and updat-ing as the industry gains more experience with the overall concept.

PROJECT

TR-107759

EPRI Project Manager: Wayne E. Johnson

Nuclear Power Group

Contractor: Maintenance and Operations Support Services (MOS)

For further information on EPRI research programs, callEPRI Technical Information Specialists, 415/855-2411.


5/46

Assessing Maintenance Effectiveness

TR-107759

December 1996

Prepared byS (Sonny) Kasturi

Maintenance and Operations Support Services (MOS)

Prepared forNuclear Maintenance Applications Center1300 W.T. Harris BoulevardCharlotte, North Carolina 28262

Operated byElectric Power Research Institute3412 Hillview AvenuePalo Alto, California 94304

EPRI Project ManagerWayne E. JohnsonNuclear Power Group


6/46

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF

WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.

(EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW,

NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH

RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM

DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR

PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY

OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT

IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING

ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN

ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE

OF THIS REPORT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM

DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT:

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES (MOS)

S (SONNY) KASTURI

ORDERING INFORMATIONPRICE: $10,000

Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the Nuclear MaintenanceApplications Center (NMAC), 1300 W.T. Harris Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28262,800/356-7448. There is no charge for reports requested by NMAC member utilities.

Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of Electric Power

Research Institute, Inc. Copyright 1996 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights

reserved.


7/46

NMAC Tech Note iii

EPRI Licensed Material

Assessing M aintenance Effectiveness

PREFACE

Assessing and improving maintenance effectiveness requires a consistent set of

measures that w ill identify opportu nities for imp rovement and provide a basis

for comp arison with ind ustry peers. Such a set of measures can consist of:

temporary measurements to review program condition and to achieve an

initial comparison with peers

ongoing measurements for monitoring, periodic assessment, and pro-

gram improvements

This tech n ote proposes a set of measures that could be u sed for this pu rpose.

It should be noted that use of the information conveyed by these measures must

be tempered with sound judgm ent. One should also bear in mind that in

compar ison with p eer plants, valid and justifiable differences or deviations

could exist, and that a remedial and/ or corrective action p lan is warranted only

when trends or other cond itions point to a potential for adverse consequences.


8/46


9/46

NMAC Tech Note v



FOREWORD

The purpose of this docum ent is to provide plants with a tool with w hich to

evaluate maintenance activities. Plants h ave made changes to m aintenance

practices because of actual or perceived p lant problems without any means to

measure the impact of those changes. Many changes have been costly and h ave

not yielded the anticipated results. This docum ent presents some su ggested

measures that can be used to evaluate maintenance practices and suggests a

basis for comparison between plants. Plants are encouraged to use these

measures (in whole or p art), and to suggest others that m ight be useful. This

docum ent is the first attemp t to provide a tool for indu stry comparison and

feedback. This is an imp lementation d ocument th at introdu ces the concept of

maintenance performance measures to the ind ustry an d will require revision

and improvement as the industrygains experience with this concept.


10/46


11/46

NMAC Tech Note vii



CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

2.0 TERMINOLOGIES ...................................................................................... 3

3.0 WHAT CAN BE MEASURED? ................................................................... 7

4.0 MAINTENANCE MEASURES ..................................................................... 9

4.1 Maintenance-Induced Plant Trips ................................................. 10

4.2 Maintenance-Induced Violations and Licensee EventReports (LERs) .................................................................................11

4.3 Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) Availability ....... 12

4.4 Component Count .......................................................................... 14

4.5 Percentage of Non-Outage Maintenance ...................................... 15

4.6 Craft Productivity Measures .......................................................... 16

4.6.1 Work Order Count ................................................................ 174.6.2 Craft Resource Utilization Ratio........................................... 184.6.3 Work Orders Per Wrench Week ........................................... 184.6.4 Man-Hours for Selected Equipment Type ............................ 19


12/46

viii NMAC Tech Note



4.7 Staff Productivity Measures .......................................................... 20

4.7.1 Craft Man-Hours to Support Staff Man-Hour Ratio .............. 204.7.2 Work Orders Per Staff Week ................................................ 204.7.3 Percentage of Procedure Changes Per Period ................... 21

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

5.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 23


13/46

NMAC Tech Note ix



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Historical Trend in Nuclear Plant O&M Cost ............................... 1

Figure 2 Breakdown of Maintenance Types ...............................................4


14/46


15/46

NMAC Tech Note xi



LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1 Component Count Included in Maintenance Program ............ 15

Table 4-2 Percent of Non-Outage Maintenance........................................ 16

Table 4-3 Work Order Count Comparison ................................................ 17

Table 5-1 Maintenance Performance Measures ....................................... 24

Table 5-2 Maintenance Scope/Coverage Measures ................................. 25

Table 5-3 Maintenance Productivity Measures ........................................ 26

Table 5-4 Maintenance Personnel Safety Measures ................................ 27

Table 5-5 Gross Maintenance Performance Measures ............................ 27


16/46


17/46

NMAC Tech Note 1



1INTRODUCTION

Nu clear power p lants have embarked on ways to improve their pow er

prod uction costs wh ile main taining an acceptable level of safety. Over the

past few years, the industry has su ccessfully implemented several programs

to achieve cost redu ctions as show n by Figure 1.

x

x

x

xx

xx

ANNUAL O&M COST TREND

YEAR

O&MCOST($/MWh)

1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 199310

12

14

16

18

20

22

Figure 1

Historical Trend in Nuclear Plant O&M Cost

Source: EPRI Journal May/June 1995


18/46

2 NMAC Tech Note



A key contributor to the cost of opera ting a nu clear plan t is the cost of

activities related to m aintaining stru ctures, systems, and comp onent s (SSCs).

Maintenance ensures a level of equipment availability and reliability that

shou ld allow a plant to op erate at its highest p ractical level. Operations and

main tenance (O&M) costs amou nt to roughly 20% of overall power prod uc-

tion costs. Aging of the SSCs pop ulation could have ad verse effects on plantoperations un less it is balanced with ap prop riate counterm easures, such as

effective maintenan ce. A maintenan ce program shou ld focus timely action

wh ere needed and minimize unschedu led emergency maintenance. There-

fore, effectiveness of maintenan ce becomes a key factor in imp roving ov erall

cost efficiency of a p lant. However, assessing m aintenan ce effectiveness is a

d ifficult task. A set of perform ance measu res1 that wou ld measure perfor-

man ce in a consistent mann er and across a spectrum of power p lants would

aid in assessing a plants maintenance program. They wou ld also provide a

basis for comparison across the indu stry.

This tech note p resents a series of performan ce measu res along with d efini-

tions of related terminologies that could be used to assess maintenance

effectiveness. The intend ed au dience for these measures is plant mainten ance

man agement and their staff. The data needed to establish values for these

measures are obtainable from th e maintenance process m anagement systems

and tools currently used in the nu clear indu stry. Where approp riate, optimal

values for performance measures hav e been p roposed. These values are

provided to give initial bound ary values or a range of values for certain

activities. They were developed from a mini-survey of nuclear power plants

and other non-nuclear installations. The optimal values were chosen based

on a guiding criterion ofzero or near zero breakdowns requiring emergency

repairs and maintenance-indu ced violations or plant trips d uring two su cces-

sive monitoring periods. Where optimal values are given as zero, they shou ld

be interp reted as close to zero as pr actical. In the near term , NMAC expectsto validate an d, if necessary, revise these optimal values based on feedback

from n uclear power facilities.

Caution: Remember that the real value of a number lies not in its magni-

tud e but in the information it conveys.

As a first step, users shou ld d evelop baseline values for the measure set to be

used at their plant(s). These values should be based on h istorical data accu-

mu lated d uring a significant operating period includ ing a minimum of two

refueling cycles (for example, two to five years). A correspond ing set of

values for these measures shou ld be d eveloped for a reference group 2 of

nu clear plan ts. These two sets of data sh ould form the basis for initial assess-

men t, ongoing evalu ation, goal setting, targeting sp ecific areas, and estab-lishing relative priorities for program improvements.

1 Performance measures, such as

"unit unplanned capability loss

factor" and "thermal perfor-

mance," have long been used in

the nuclear power industry to

provide comparative performance

measures at the plant level. They

are not the focus of this tech note.

2Reference group refers to plants

that are comparable in vintage,

type, balance-of-plant (BOP)

design, and other locational

factors that could influence the

cost of maintenance.


19/46

NMAC Tech Note 3



2TERMINOLOGIES

A discussion of perform ance measures invariably involves the use of terms

that could be subject to varying interpretations or m eanings depend ing up on

the u ser s vantage point. Therefore, it is imp erative that term inologies with

non-standard meanings be listed, defined, and (if necessary) explained in

order to ensu re that they are consistently u nd erstood and used. This section

identifies and defines the key terms used in this tech n ote. Where approp ri-

ate, additional descriptions and illustrative examples are included.

Rel iabili t y : Reliability is the p robability that a system w ill perform satisfacto-

rily for a specified per iod of time w hen u sed u nd er specified conditions. For

examp le, a statement that the H igh Pressure Core Injection (HPCI) system

has a reliability of 98% mean s that:

The probability that the H PCI system will start, inject water into th e core

within the required time, and continue to do so un til it is no longer

required du ring and following a designed basis event is 98%. In other

word s, there is a finite (2% in this case) probability that the system might

not perform as intended .

Plant safety objectives d ictate that system reliability be mainta ined as high a spractical. Reliability p redictions assist in selecting the courses of action that

affect reliability. For examp le, after a few years in operation, if the H PCI

system reliability was estimated to be 86%, then the plant m anagem ent

wou ld w ant to identify and evaluate the options (for example, enhan ced

condition monitoring or design modification for the offending component)

available to improve tha t reliability.


20/46

4 NMAC Tech Note



Av ailabi li t y :Availability is the probability that a system is op erating satis-

factorily at an y p oint in time when used un der sp ecified conditions, where

the total time considered includes the op erating time and dow n time.

Operating time: Operating time is the time d uring w hich the system is

operating in an acceptable manner.

Dow n t ime: Down time is the time period for which the system is not operat-

ing or not capable of operation in a satisfactory m anner.

Maint enance type: Essentially, mainten ance can be classified into two broad

types:

1. maintenance performed to prevent failure

2. maintenance performed to restore equipment to service after a failure

occurs

The first is usu ally a p lanned activity and the common names u sed for this type

of maintenance includ e p reventive m aintenance, planned maintenance, and

period ic maintenance. The second is comm only know n as corrective mainte-nance. Corrective maintenance can be performed on a planned or emergency

basis, depend ing up on the functional importance of the item to ensure safe

plant operation. To promote consistent interpretation and use of these terms,

this document classifies maintenance type as follows (see Figure 2):

MaintenanceProgram

Preventive

Periodic

Predictive Emergency

Scheduled

Corrective

Figure 2

Breakdown of Maintenance Types


21/46

NMAC Tech Note 5



Prev ent iv e maint enance: Maintenance performed on a planned basis to

minimize un expected failures is subd ivided into:

Periodic m aintenance: Activities that consist of routine main tenance

performed at p reset intervals without regard to equipm ent condition,

except to th e extent that these activities are recomm end ed either by th e

vendor or by a p lants operating experience.

Predict iv e maint enance: Activities performed to assess equipment

condition, and initiate and/ or perform p reventive maintenance activities.

These activities are also used to ad just th e intervals at which p redictive

data is obtained. Another term that m ight be encountered is condition

monitoring, which really is the act of app lying pred ictive maintenance.

Correctiv e maintenance: Maintenance performed up on d etection of a fault or

failure. This type of main tenance can also be subd ivided into:

Scheduled corrective maintenance: Maintenan ce that is generally priori-

tized an d p erformed according to a schedule or other p lanning basis.

Emergency correct iv e maint enance: Maintenance p erformed in cases

wh ere imm ediate repair is required to ensure safe and continuou s opera-

tion of a plant or system.

Monit oring period: Refers to the suggested time period for collecting d ata for

the purpose of ongoing assessmen t of main tenance effectiveness.


22/46


23/46

NMAC Tech Note 7



3WHAT CAN BE MEASURED?

A nuclear power p lant is an aggregation of structures, systems, and compo-

nents (SSCs). Systems are in themselves an collection of equ ipment items or

components. Availability of equipment or components impacts the availability

of systems, which in tu rn can impact the availability of a plant. Maintenance

activities are primar ily focused at the equ ipment and structure level, thus it

makes sense to focus maintenance performance measures at the same level.

Most plant maintenance programs are developed and implemented to

sup por t a set of main tenance policy objectives. Assessment tools shou ld

measu re the extent to wh ich th e policy objectives are m et. A typical set of

main tenance policy objectives for a nu clear pow er plant m ight be stated

as follows:

SSCs availability objectives:

Ensure that safety systems, structures, and components meet the

required reliability an d availability goals.

Ensure that systems, structures and components that affect continued

opera tion of a plant meet stated reliability and availability goals.

Economic objectives:

Ensure that the cost of maintenance as a percentage of the overall plant

O&M cost is as low as p ractical, and is comp arable to indu stry peers.

Ensure that the life cycle of SSCs are managed to obtain the longest

pr actical service life.


24/46

8 NMAC Tech Note



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.


25/46

NMAC Tech Note 9



4MAINTENANCE MEASURES

Often, there is a need to kn ow h ow on es own company comp ares with its

peers in d elivering similar prod ucts and services. This information can assist

in bud getary and resou rce allocation decisions, iden tify areas needing im-

prov ements, or just p rovide relative points of comfort. Broad-based mea-

sures, such as those listed below, can be used for a quick-look typ e of

comparison with peer group p lants:

Total maintenance budget dollars expressed as a percentage of the O&M

budget:

cost of preventive maintenance activities as a p ercentage of overall

maintenance bud get

cost of corrective maintenance activities as a percentage of overall

maintenance bud get

cost of maintenance training as a percentage of overall maintenance

budget

Breakdown of manpower utilization by general tasks expressed as a

percentage of total man -hours:

percent of man-hours expended on preventive maintenance

percent of man-hours expended on corrective maintenance

percent of man-hours expended on maintenance training

There might be a need for breakdown s for special tasks, such as pred ictive

maintenance or emergency3 maintenance activities (see Section 2). Other

3 Refers to that portion of

corrective maintenance

categorized as "emergency

maintenance," see page 5 for

definition of emergency

maintenance.


26/46

10 NMAC Tech Note



divisions could also be mad e along the lines of supp ort activities, such as

mod ifications, but u sua lly these will be stand -alone projects. When catego-

rized by routine versus ou tage periods, these measures can provide useful

check points for evaluating outage performance.

While these measures could p rovide a broad view of maintenan ce activities,

an effectiveness assessment to d etermine if the maintenan ce activities aremeeting p lant objectives will require a more in-depth assessment. A set of

maintenance performance measures that might be used for an in-dep th

assessment of the effectiveness of a plant mainten ance program in meeting

plan t objectives are listed below:

SSCs availability objectives:

Number of maintenance-induced plant trips.

Number of maintenance-induced violations and licensee event reports

(LERs)

Component availability

Economic objectives:

Component count (covered in th e maintenance system and their

breakdown)

Percentage of non-outage maintenance

Craft productivity measures

Staff productivity measures

Percentage of contracted maintenance

Personn el safety ob jectives:

Lost man-hours due to injury

Annual worker exposure

It is recomm ended that measure d ata be generated u sing a monitoring period

that includ es at least one refueling (for examp le, an eighteen m onth 4 period).

The measu res for personn el safety objectives are straight forward, well

un derstood, and implemented in p lants. Thus, they are not discussed further

in the documen t. The same cann ot be said about th e measures for SSCs

availability and economic objectives. Therefore, to ensure un iform interpreta-

tion and app lication of the relevant factors, a further d iscussion of each of the

proposed measures in these two categories follows.

4.1 Maintenance-Induced Plant Trips

This measure is d erived from plant trip d ata. Only those trips that are di-rectly attributable to a mainten ance action shou ld be includ ed. An example

wou ld be miscalibration of a reactor protection system trip u nit resulting in

an u np lanned p lant trip. Care should be taken to avoid including p lant trips

attribu table to indirect mainten ance-related causes. For example, a trip

caused by a defective part in an uninterrup tible pow er sup ply (UPS), which

was replaced du ring a maintenance activity, should not be charged as a

4 Because the refueling period

varies from plant to plant (12-24

months), it believed that using

an eighteen month int erval will

ensure a valid comparison.

Regardless of what duration is

chosen for the monitoring period,

it should include one refueling in

order to ensure that valid basis

for comparison across the

industry exists.


27/46

NMAC Tech Note 11



maintenance-indu ced plant trip. All trips d etermined to be attributable to a

maintenance-related cause, whether or not they are reportable to the Nuclear

Regulatory Com mission (NRC), should be included. To ensu re objectivity in

the collection of this type of data , consideration shou ld be given to having an

independ ent entity (for example, Nuclear Assurance Department) d etermine

the chargeable items.Note: The goal for this measu re is zero.

Even if there is only one trip du ring any given eighteen mon th p eriod, it

warran ts a root cause analysis and corrective action. An increasing trend or a

constant value other than zero for this measure in an y two consecutive

per iods might ind icate ineffective maintenance activities, such as p rocedures,

practices, and / or staff training.

4.2 Maintenance-

Induced Violationsand Licensee EventReports (LERs)

This measure is derived from th e plant LER data. Only those violations or

LERs generated as a direct result of a mainten ance action shou ld be includ ed.

An examp le would be the imp roper setting of a safety relief valve resulting in

an u np lanned challenge to a safety system, or a later discovery of a condition

deviant from p lant technical specifications. If a p lant trip is experienced, then

this item should already have been includ ed in th e previously discussed

measure, and h ence it should not be includ ed in this measure again.

Care should be taken to avoid including LERs and violations attributable to

ind irect maintenan ce-related causes. For example, a violation or LER resulting

from a p lant trip caused by a defective spring installed in a relief valve du ring

a maintenan ce activity should not be charged to this measure. Only those

violations determined to be attributable to a m aintenance activity and report-

able to the NRC should be included . To ensu re objectivity in the collection of

this type of data, consideration should be given to have an independ ent entity(for examp le, Nuclear Assurance Department) d etermine the chargeable items

dur ing the review p rocess for the LERs or cited violations.

Note: The goal for this measure is zero or near zero.

Even if there is only one violation or LER during any given eighteen m onth

per iod, it warran ts a root cause analysis and p romp t corrective action. An

increasing trend or a constant value other th an zero in this measure for any

two consecutive periods could ind icate ineffective maintenance activities

such as, procedures, practices, and/ or staff training.


28/46

12 NMAC Tech Note



4.3 Structures,Systems, andComponents

(SSCs) Availability

This measure p rovides information about whether or not m aintenance is

focused (that is, components) where it is needed. It also conveys inform ation

abou t the ad equacy of component selection, mainten ance practices, alloca-

tion between main tenance types, and frequen cies. At a specific compon ent

level, it shou ld id entify areas that requ ire special attention. The availability

for each component can be calculated from the data contained in a typ icalplant m aintenance managem ent information system.

Consider the HPCI system as an examp le. The term system is used for ease of

reference, but th is discussion wou ld apply to any m onitoring level. In a

given monitoring p eriod, for most of the time, the HPCI system remains in a

stand by cond ition. For a few h ours, it is tested to ver ify operability. In

add ition, the system m ight be out of service for planned and / or corrective

main tenance activities. Two cases arise as follows in d etermining the op erat-

ing time and down time for use in availability calculations:

Case I. No discovery of a failed condition during a periodic maintenance

or surveillance test in the monitoring period.

The system can be assumed to be in an operable condition and capable of

per forming its m ission su ccessfully between tests. Therefore,

tu

= tsi

- tD

tD

= tpm i

- tem i

Availability = (operating time / total time in the p eriod) 100%

where:

tu

= total opera ting t ime

tD

= total d ow n tim e

tsi

= duration between successful tests

tpm i

= time for periodic maintenance in the period

tem i

= time for corrective maintenance in the period

Notes: All times are in hours.

The time in a surveillance test is assum ed to be opera ting time

un less a failure results.

The time in corrective maintenance should include the elapsed time

between th e discovery of a failure to the time wh en the system is

returned to service.

Case II. A failure occur s du ring a su rveillance test or a failed cond ition was

discovered d uring a p lanned maintenance activity.

If a failure occurs or is d iscovered d uring a test or a period ic maintenance

activity, then a d etermination should be made as to whether or not th e system

was in an operationally ready statu s un til discovery, and if not, when did it


29/46

NMAC Tech Note 13



become unsatisfactory. If an evaluation of the defect reveals that the system

could not have performed its mission satisfactorily, then an allowance must be

made to the opera ting time. Except in rare cases, it is impractical to determ ine

the time of failure. To resolve this ind eterminate condition, for pu rposes of

maintenance effectiveness assessment, the following approach is suggested:

tu

= tsi

- tD

+ (tsui

2)

tD

= tpmi

+ temi

+ tpmsui

Availability = (operating time / total time in the p eriod) 100%

where:

tu

= total operat ing t ime

tD

= total d ow n tim e

tsi = duration between successful tests

tsui

= du ration between successful and unsuccessful tests

tpm i

= time for periodic maintenance in the period up to the last

surveillance test or PM, which ever occurred last

tem i

= time for corrective maintenance in the period up to the last

surveillance test or PM, which ever occurred last

tpmsui

= time for periodic maintenance in the first half of the period

between successful and unsuccessful tests

Note: Unsuccessful tests as used above should be interpreted to mean

either a surveillance test or a period ic maintenance, whichever ledto the discovery of an unacceptable condition.

Note that the period u sed for the purp oses of maintenance performance

measurement m ight not generally be synonym ous w ith that between surveil-

lance tests. There might be on e or more surveillance test(s) in this p eriod.

The goal for this indicator might vary from 85% to 95%over a period of

8,760 hours. The required value d epends up on compon ent type, its parent

system configuration (includ ing redu nd ancies and sparing), frequency of

surveillance test, and the maintenan ce type(s) to wh ich it is subject to. For

examp le, the availability for the reactor trip portion of the plan t protection

system a t the train level might be set at 95%, whereas for the d iesel generator,

a train level availability of 85% might be sufficient.

The availability goals should be set initially taking into account relevant factors

includ ing the frequency of surveillance tests and the system configuration. The

MMIS should be programm ed to calculate compon ent availability at the preset

interval. Trending the comp onent availability semi-annu ally could provide

early warn ing of the potential for system level availability degradation.


30/46

14 NMAC Tech Note



4.4 ComponentCount

This could be a temporary m easure. It can be of use in the imp lementation

stages to identify areas that might require further review an d optimization.

Substantive changes in th is measure is generally not expected as a fun ction

of time. How ever, it might be approp riate to revisit this measu re once in

three years in ord er to ensu re that changes, if any, in the interv ening p eriod

are consistent with the p lant maintenance program goals.Reliability-centered mainten ance da ta, if available for a system, could pro-

vide th is information. However, it is not necessary to have done RCM stud ies

to establish or use this measure. This information shou ld be available for

most p lants based on technical specifications, surveillance requirements, and

an evaluation of the equ ipment items critical for power produ ction.

This d ata relates to the total num ber of comp onents includ ed in th e plant

maintenance program, their breakdown based on safety classification, and by

main tenance type. Specific data to be includ ed u nd er this category for

comparative pu rposes are shown in Table 4-1. The total number of compo-

nents included u nd er a plant maintenance program might vary with plant

type and vintage. The same will be true for the breakdow n of the total bytheir classification, that is, non-safety and augmen ted-safety classes, or by

maintenance type.

For example, a recent vintage Westinghou se PWR can h ave as m any as 6,000

components covered u nd er the maintenance program, wh ereas an early

vintage Westinghou se PWR might only includ e 3,000 components. Depend -

ing up on the imp ortance of the item to the safe and continued operation of

the plant, some equipment could be run to breakdow n, and th us w ill be

included only in the corrective maintenance program . The percentage of

items included in this category will also be a function of the plant vintage

and design. Comp arison of this data between plants should ensu re that

d ifferences in plant vintage and typ e are taken into account.


31/46

NMAC Tech Note 15



Table 4-1

Component Count Included in Maintenance Program

Maintenance Type Our Plant ReferencePlant

Avg. IndustryGoal

Periodic MaintenanceSafety equipment

Periodic MaintenanceNon-safety equipment

Corrective MaintenanceSafety equipment

Corrective MaintenanceNon-safety equipment

Predictive MaintenanceSafety equipment

Predictive MaintenanceNon-safety equipment

TotalSafety equipment

TotalNon-safety equipment

4.5 Percentage ofNon-Outage

Maintenance

This might be a temporary measure for most p lants. It is intended to be of

use in the imp lementation stages to identify areas that could requ ire furth er

review and op timization. Substantive chan ge in this measu re is generally not

expected over time. However, it might be app ropr iate to revisit this measu re

once in three years in ord er to ensure that changes, if any, mad e in the inter-

vening p eriod are consistent w ith the goals of an optimized m aintenance

program. This data relates to the amou nt of periodic, pred ictive, and correc-

tive maintenance performed du ring non-outage p eriods. It is generally true

that performing more maintenance dur ing non-outage periods should result

in m ore cost-efficient maintenan ce. The factors that in fluen ce the d ecision as

to wh en to perform m aintenance include:

risk of impacting plant/ system availability

p erson nel exp osu re

in -house st affing

Specific data to be includ ed u nd er this measure category for compar ative

pu rposes are shown in Table 4-2.


32/46

16 NMAC Tech Note



Table 4-2

Percent of Non-Outage Maintenance

Maintenance Type Our Plant Reference Plant Avg. IndustryGoal

Periodic MaintenanceSafety equipment

Periodic MaintenanceNon-safety equipment

Corrective MaintenanceSafety equipment

Corrective MaintenanceNon-safety equipment

Predictive MaintenanceSafety equipment

Predictive MaintenanceNon-safety equipment

TotalSafety equipment

TotalNon-safety equipment

This data is expressed as a percentage of the comp onent or task coun t so as

to avoid any u nwar ranted bias if man-hours, cost, or other such p arameters

are used . This da ta will be sensitive to plant typ e and vintage. Also, it can be

app ropriate to segregate this data by major equipm ent types (for example,

motor-operated valves (MOVs), motors, etc.)5 and review them. A close

review of th is data can reveal specific inefficiencies that might exist in a p lant

maintenance program. It should be noted that a higher p ercentage in a

certain category in comparison to a reference plant grou p d oes not necessar-

ily ind icate need for change. For examp le, the p lant-specific equip men t

configuration and built-in maintainability considerations can justify a higher

percentage. However, some conditions might be correctable through appro-pr iate plant mod ifications to improv e maintainab ility.

5 Existing special plant pro-

grams, such as the MOV

program or check valve program,

might already provide thisinformation.

4.6 CraftProductivity

Measures

This set of measu res prov ides information on the effectiveness of the u tiliza-

tion of craft resources. Specifically, this set consists of the following:

Work ord er cou nt

Craft man-hours by maintenance type and discipline

Craft resource utilization rat io

Work orders per craft per iod

Man-hours for selected equipment type


33/46

NMAC Tech Note 17



4.6.1 Work Order Count

This d ata relates to the total num ber of work ord ers serviced over a m onitor-

ing period an d th eir breakdow n. It provides information abou t the work load

hand led by the maintenance departm ent and h ow it comp ares with peer

group plants. Specific data to be includ ed u nd er this category for compara-

tive pu rposes are show n in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3

Work Order Count Comparison

Item Our Plant ReferencePlant

Avg. IndustryGoal

Total number of work orders serviced during monitoringperiod (for example, an eighteen month period)

Percent of work orders for periodic maintenance program

Percent of work orders for corrective maintenanceprogram

Percent of work orders for predictive maintenanceprogram

Percent of work orders for safety-related equipment

Percent of work orders for non-safety equipment

Percent of work orders attributable to rework

Percent of work orders attributable to emergency work

Note that even thou gh the total comp onent count could be comparable to a

peer plant, the work order count and breakdown might not be. Some plants

do not initiate a work order for periodic/ predictive maintenance items. In

such cases, each p eriodic/ predictive m aintenance line item in the p lant

maintenance management system should be counted as a work order as-

signed to that item. This data could indicate one or more of the following:

More frequent breakdowns can indicate a need for certain equipment

replacement

Excessive periodic/ predictive maintenance activities

Inadequate t ra ining and/ or procedures

Work ord er backlog count is not included as a measure of maintenance effec-

tiveness, because it is considered to be strictly a function of available resources

and internal management. Plants attempt to keep this backlog as low as


34/46

18 NMAC Tech Note



practical. If the backlog is abnormally high, it could impact plant performance

and wou ld be reflected in one or more of the following m easures:

maintenance-induced LERs and violations

maintenance-induced plant trips

high percentage of emergency repairs

Thus, work ord er backlog alone is not considered to be a valid m easure of

main tenance effectiveness.

4.6.2 Craft Resource Utilization Ratio

This measu re reflects how effectively mainten ance craft resources are uti-

lized. It shows how mu ch time is spent actually p erforming th e hand s-on

wor k. It is well-known that in a nu clear p lant, less than a th ird of the craft

time is spent on actual hand s-on w ork. The rest of the time app arently goes

into related ad ministrative and preparatory tasks, such as d ressing ou t,

waiting for proper clearances, obtaining permits (such as radiation workperm its), and so on. This data shou ld be generated at the m aintenance

depar tment level and for each d iscipline or work category.

= 100

[sum of the reported actual on the job

(wrench time) hours for the period]

(total craft man-hours at work for the period)

Craft resource

utilization ratio

Notes: Total craft man-hours should include only hours craft personnel are

in attend ance at work (that is, time off such as h olidays, sick time,

and vacation shou ld be excluded ).

The goal for this measu re is 40%.

4.6.3 Work Orders Per Wrench Week

This d ata is a measure of the m aintenance dep artment p rodu ctivity.

Work orders per

wrench week=

(total number of work orders processed

in the monitoring period) N

[sum of the reported actual on the job

(wrench time) hours for the period]

N = nu mber of hours in a normal work week


35/46

NMAC Tech Note 19



4.6.4 Man-Hours for Selected Equipment Type

This data relates to the breakdown of craft man-hours expended on a selected

equipm ent type. Specific types of equipm ent for wh ich th is data m ight be

useful include the following:

Main tu rb ine generator

Diesel gen er ator

Reactor coolan t pump

Feed water p um ps

Main and feedwater isolation valves

Main and auxiliary transformers

Plant protect ion system

Nuclear instrumentation system

Radia tion monitor ing system

Secu rity system

It is noted that even thou gh the total man-hours spen t in maintenance could be

comparable to a peer plant, analysis of the breakdow n of hours spent by m ajor

equipm ent categories can help in identifying areas wh ere imp rovements might

be warranted. This data might indicate one or m ore of the following:

Agin g of equ ip m en t

Excessive periodic/ predictive maintenance activities

Poor maintainability condit ions

Need for training in equipment maintenance

Overly complex procedures


36/46

20 NMAC Tech Note



4.7 Staff ProductivityMeasures

This set of measu res prov ides information related to th e effectiveness of the

persons or program s that are u sed to facilitate and track the progress of

maintenance-related activities. These are some recommended measures that

can be used to govern these efforts:

Craft man-hours to support man-hours ratio

Work orders per staff week

Percentage of procedure changes per period

4.7.1 Craft Man-Hours to Support Staff Man-Hour Ratio

This measure provides information about the efficiency of the support

resource ut ilization in a p lant. Typically the main tenance craft is suppor ted

by a staff of planners, schedulers, procedure writers, and other administra-

tive and sup ervisory staff. This m easure should be calculated at the d epart-

men t level.

= 100 (total craft man-hours expended for the period)

(total staff support man-hours)

Craft to support

man-hours ratio

4.7.2 Work Orders Per Staff Week

This measure provid es information on the efficiency of sup por t staff utiliza-

tion. Sup por t staff man -hours to be includ ed in th is calculation are those for

planners, schedulers, procedu re writers, and oth er ad ministrative and first

line sup ervisory staff. This measure shou ld be calculated at the d epartment

and discipline levels.

=

(total number of work orders processedin the monitoring week) N

(sum of the support staff hours for the period)

Work orders

per staff week

N = n umber of hours in a work week

Note: Total craft man-hours should include only hours craft personnel are

in attend ance at work (that is, time off such as h olidays, sick time,

and vacations shou ld be excluded ).


37/46

NMAC Tech Note 21



4.7.3 Percentage of Procedure Changes Per Period

This measure provides information of systemic problems in the adequacy of

procedures. Ideally, plants shou ld hav e a stable system of procedu res for

performing m aintenance. Changes, if any, should be minimal and directed at

either correcting errors and omissions, or at addressing areas previously

un add ressed by the p rocedu res. However, if a p lant experiences a h ighnu mber of procedure changes on a continu ing basis, it might ind icate a weak

procedural system. This measure can be treated as a temp orary m easure if

the h istorical da ta ind icates an acceptab le level of < 5% or less.

= 100

(number of procedures subject to change

during the period)

(total number of maintenance and

surveillance procedures)

Procedure change

percentage per period

Note: The goal for this m easure is < 5%.

When counting the nu mber of procedures that were subject to change d uring

a monitoring period, if a procedu re was changed m ore than once du ring the

period, then each occurrence should be counted as an ind ividu al procedu re

change. The intent is to identify systemic problem(s) so that corrective action

can be taken.

4.8 Percent ofContracted

Maintenance

Most plan ts use som e level of contract maintenan ce to meet specialized

manpow er needs and/ or to supp ort additional short-term demands du ring

outages.

= 100

[total expenditure for contracted

maintenance (including the in-house

maintenance staff support for the same)]

(total budget for maintenance)

Percent of contracted

maintenance

Only regularly contracted m aintenance items such as inverter and battery

charger m aintenan ce, pow er-operated relief valve (PORV) testing, or outage

staff augmentation support should be included in this calculation. Special

infrequently contracted maintenance expenditures such as those for steam

generator retubing or condenser overhau l should be excluded . Expressed as a

percentage of the total m aintenan ce cost, this measure den otes the effective-

ness of in-hou se resource utilization and control of mainten ance.

Note: The goal for this measure should be < 5%.


38/46


39/46

NMAC Tech Note 23



5SUMMARY

Plant maintenan ce activities will be tied closely to plant o r system availabil-

ity and reliability goals. Generally, the constraint s on system reliability an d

availability will be equip ment or compon ent related; how ever, system or

plant needs dictate when equipment m ust operate and thu s maintenance

activities mu st be d irected toward meeting operational requirements.

One imp ortan t aspect of reliability and availability balancing that mu st be

considered is work control. The best technical know how and skills can be

available at a plant, but if the work control p rocess has not been fine tuned

to remove bottle necks, such as lengthy tag outs, spare par ts issues, and

poor procedures, a reasonable balance cann ot be achieved. To accomp lish a

reasonable level of availability, the planning and scheduling department

and other d epartments with technical responsibilities mu st w ork closely

together. The actual times to perform certain tasks are well defined in m ost

plants and throughou t the ind ustry. Often, problems associated w ith

availability are attributable to the man ner in which business is done (sched-

uled versus em ergency).

The reliability p ortion of the balancing activity is more d ifficult to obtain.

Reliability is often tied d irectly to the amou nt of mainten ance expend ed ona p iece of equipment. How ever, when equipment has a h igh level of

maintenance and continues to have failures, this could point to p otential

problems in the performance of maintenance activities, the equipment

aging, or the m isapplication of equipment.


40/46

24 NMAC Tech Note



Ongoing assessment of maintenance program effectiveness is an important

tool to identify problems. Such an assessment will require a set of measu res

that can be app lied consistently throu ghou t the indu stry. Tables 5-1 throu gh

5-5 summ arize the set of measures prop osed in this d ocum ent to assist in

assessing the effectiveness of a plant mainten ance program.

Table 5-1

Maintenance Performance Measures

Measuresubmeasure(s)

Reference/Goal BaselineValue

CurrentValue

Number of maintenance-induced plant trips 0 TBD TBD

Number of maintenance-induced violations and LERs 0 TBD TBD

Component availability 80%95%


41/46

NMAC Tech Note 25



Table 5-2

Maintenance Scope/Coverage Measures



CurrentValue

Component countcovered in the maintenance system andtheir breakdown:

1. Total number of equipment items covered under all types ofmaintenance program

2. Percent of total included in periodic maintenance program

3. Percent of total included only under corrective maintenanceprogram

4. Percent of total included in predictive maintenance program

5. Percent of safety-related equipment included in periodicmaintenance program

6. Percent of non-safety equipment included in periodicmaintenance program

7. Percent of safety-related equipment included in predictivemaintenance program

8. Percent of non-safety equipment included in predictivemaintenance program

9. Total safety equipment

10.Total non-safety equipment

TBD

Percent non-outage maintenance:

1. Percent of all periodic maintenance performed when theplant is operating at power

2. Percent of all corrective maintenance performed when theplant is operating at power

3. Percent of periodic maintenance on safety SSCs performedwhen the plant is operating at power

4. Percent of periodic maintenance on non-safety SSCsperformed when the plant is operating at power

5. Percent of predictive maintenance on safety SSCsperformed when the plant is operating at power

6. Percent of predictive maintenance on non-safety SSCsperformed when the plant is operating at power

TBD


42/46

26 NMAC Tech Note



Table 5-3

Maintenance Productivity Measures


Reference/Goal Basel ineValue

CurrentValue

Craft Productivity Measures

Work order count and their breakdown:

1. Total number of work orders serviced over an eighteenmonth period

2. Percent of work orders for periodic maintenance program

3. Percent of work orders for corrective maintenance program

4. Percent of work orders for predictive maintenance program

5. Percent of work orders for safety-related equipment

6. Percent of work orders for non-safety equipment

7. Percent of work orders attributable to rework

8. Percent of work orders attributable to emergency repairs

TBD

Craft man-hours by maintenance type and discipline:

Periodic maintenance

Predictive maintenance

Corrective maintenance

Emergency maintenance

Mechanical

Electrical

Instrumentation and control (I&C)

TBD

Craft resource utilization ratio > 40%

Work orders per wrench week TBD

Man-hours for selected equipment type:

Main turbine generator

Diesel generator

Reactor coolant pump

Feedwater pumps Main and feedwater isolation valves

Main and auxiliary transformers

Plant protection system

Nuclear instrumentation system

Radiation monitoring system

Security system

TBD

Staff productivity measures:

Craft to staff man-hours

Work orders per staff week

Procedure change percent per period

< 40%

TBD

< 5%

Percent of contracted maintenance < 5%


43/46

NMAC Tech Note 27



Table 5-4

Maintenance Personnel Safety Measures



CurrentValue

Lost man-hours due to injury TBD

Annual worker exposure TBD

Table 5-5

Gross Maintenance Performance Measures


ProposedReference/Goals(Routine)

BaselineValue

CurrentValue

Total maintenance budget:

Annual dollar budget Annual man-hour budget

TBD

Breakdown of maintenance budget:

Percent of maintenance budget allocated to preventivemaintenance

Percent of maintenance budget spent on correctivemaintenance

Percent of maintenance budget spent on training

60%

30%

10%

Breakdown of maintenance man-hours:

Percent of man-hours expended on preventivemaintenance

Percent of man-hours expended on correctivemaintenance

Percent of man-hours expended on training

70%

25%

5%


44/46


45/46


46/46

L I C E N S E DMATER IAL

(continued from front cover)4. TERM AND TERMINATIONThis license and this agreement are effective until terminated. You may terminate them at any time bydestroying this report. EPRI has the right t o term inate the license and this agreement im mediately if youfail to comply w ith any term or condition of this agreement. Upon any termination you m ay destroy this report,but all obligations of nondisclosure w ill remain in effect.

5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMI TATION OF LIABILITIESNEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ONBEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) M AKES ANY W ARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IM PLIED, (I ) W ITH RESPECTTO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, M ETHOD, PROCESS OR SIM ILAR ITEM DI SCLOSED IN THISREPORT, INCLUD ING M ERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (I I) THAT SUCH USEDOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYSINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERSCIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANYCONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THEPOSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANYINFORMATION, APPARATUS, M ETHOD, PROCESS OR SIM ILAR I TEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.

6. EXPORTThe laws and regulations of th e United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this report,and you agree not to export or r e-export this report or any related technical data in any form without theappropriate United States and foreign governm ent approvals

TR-107759

EPRI

Electric Power Research Institute3412 Hillview AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94304(P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA 94303)800-313-EPRIwww.epri.com

About EPRI

Electricity is increasingly recognized

as a key to societal progressthroughout the world, drivingeconomic prosperity and improvingthe quality of life. The Electric PowerResearch Institute delivers thescience and technology to make thegeneration, delivery, and use ofelectricity affordable, efficient, andenvironmentally sound.

Created by the nations electricutilities in 1973, EPRI is one ofAmericas oldest and largest researchconsortia, with some 700 membersand an annual budget of about $500

million. Linked to a global network oftechnical specialists, EPRI scientistsand engineers develop innovativesolutions to the worlds toughestenergy problems while expandingopportunities for a dynamic industry.

EPRI. Powering Progress

asessing maintenance

Documents