International Equipment
Reliability Index (I-ERI)
Subcommittee Update
International ERWG Subcommittee
Helsinki, November 2016
1
 James Purss – (EDF – UK)
 Miroslav Zelenay – (Slovenske elektrarne – Slovakia)
 Marko Leino (Fortum - Finland)
 Fernando Mirallas (ANAV - Spain)
 Ren Hebin (CGN – China)
 Dagmar Jurova (CEZ – Czech Republic)
I-ERI
Subcommittee
Team in Helsinki
 Ondrej Zlamal (CEZ – Czech Republic)
 Matti Vaaheranta (TVO – Finland)
 Yuril Sheiko (Energoatom - Ukraine)
 Alberto Porras – (CNAT)
 Jane Antoine (ERWG chair)
 Susan Van Wyk (ESKOM – South Africa)
 Kenny Christian (INPO)
 Mark White (INPO – USA)
 Jan Sinke (Borselle)
 Ulrich Mezui – (EDF – France)
2
 Provide an International Equipment Reliability Index which
provides a stable platform for measuring key performance areas
 Allow Benchmarking of worldwide ER performance
I-ERI
Subcommittee
 I-ERI to utilise best practise identified from ERWG and utilities
internal measures
Objectives
 Work towards updating WANO PI manual for an automated I-ERI
 Publish a guidance document summarising work (Revision 001
currently on Nuclear Community)
3
Summary Table for “Lagging” I-ERI Sub-Indicators
•ERI Sub-Indicators
I-ERI Indicators
•Source
•No.
•Points
•Data
Type
•Statio
n / Unit
Forced Loss Rate (WANO FLR)
WANO
1.1
7
Lagging
Unit
Unplanned Total Scrams Per 7,000 Hours
Critical (WANO US7)
WANO
10
Lagging
Unit
5
Lagging
Unit
8
Lagging
Unit
Unplanned Shutdown LCO Entries ≤ 72 hours
(in Last 3 months) – have added to WANO PI
manual
Safety System Unavailability (WANO
Indicators)
1.2
INPO
2.1
WANO
3.1
•
Summary Table for “Leading” I-ERI Sub-Indicators
Deficient Critical Work Backlog (Online)
INPO
Deferral of Critical PM’s (as per ERWG rev 0 –
Jan 16)
INPO
Critical PM’s Open in 2nd Half of Grace (does
this include plant testing?)
INPO
Work Week Critical Scope Survival
INPO
ER Project Delivery Effectiveness
Age of Red & Yellow Systems
Chemistry Performance (WANO CPI)
4.1
8
Leading
Unit
8
Leading
Unit
10
Leading
Station
5.1
10
Leading
Station
INPO
6.1
12
Leading
Station
INPO
6.2
15
Leading
Unit
WANO
7.1
7
Leading
Unit
4.2
4.3
4
 Each sub-measure discussed within the group and agreed as
appropriate for revision 002 of the I-ERI document
Helsinki
discussions
 Focus to agree sub-measures which are clearly defined to remove
any subjective interpretation
 Distribution of points between lagging and leading indicators
changed to a 30/70 split to focus on leading indicators
 Points re-distribution discussed with sub-measures ranked and
given points to give a total of 100
 Ways to improve committee working away from IERWG meeting
 Sub-measures leads agreed
 Routine teleconference with wider comms to all IERWG members
5
 Leads agreed for sub-measures as follows:
Next Steps







1 – Electrical Generation - Ondrej
2 – Challenge to Operations - James
3 – System Health - Ondrej
4 – Maintenance - Fernando
5 – Work Management - Fernando
6 – Long Term Planning - Miroslav
7 – Monitoring & Trending – Marco
 Monthly teleconferences to be held on second last Thursday of
each month in the afternoon – meetings to be advertised and
everyone is welcome to dial in!!
6
 Publish rev 002 of I-ERI guidance document (90% complete during
this meeting) – Nov 16
 Setup monthly teleconferences and publicise to IERWG members
– Nov 16
Helsinki
actions
 Produce a survey and distribute before year end to establish next
areas of focus for additional sub-measures – Dec 16
 Publish results of survey to allow Prague face to face meeting to
discuss IERWG next focus areas for sub-measures – Feb 17
 Collect plant data where available for agreed 11 sub-measures
from utilities – Mar 17
 Review scoring thresholds of sub-measures against Fortum results
of implementation of I-ERI rev 002 – March 2017
7
Questions?
8