NULL
Empty 1
NULL
Empty 2

News

The Reactivity Management Gap Focus Area assessments looked in detail at both equipment reliability and human performance aspects pertaining to issues impacting the Reactivity Management KPIs for the USA Fleet Member Stations. The assessment combined interviews, document reviews, and meeting observations. Identified GAPs and recommendations from each assessment are entered into the sites tracking program and monitored along with several key performance indicators.

In summary, findings and recommendations fell into the following two primary categories:

Risk Communication
The risk/impact of reactivity management related work is not consistently communicated at daily operational focus/alignment meetings as observed multiple times by the assessment teams. In addition, tools designed to communicate/identify reactivity management related work on approved work schedules and work instructions are not clearly understood and in some cases, have not been implemented as recommended during previous reactivity management assessments.

Reactivity Management Program Oversight Committees

• We need to ensure we have the right processes in place to provide oversight of reactivity management related self- assessments activities.

• Some stations have process/procedures that may be too much of an administrative burden as they are not yielding results for the effort expended to meet their administrative requirements and in some cases, are not doing what their procedures requires.

• We are not consistently using management observations/in the field time to strengthen reactivity management performance.

The USA Fleet average for the Reactivity Management KPI improved from 91.09 prior to the Gap Focus Area Assessment and is projected to continue improving following early 2017 outages and peak period performance.

The assessments identified the following strengths and opportunities to share information across the USA Fleet:

• Procedures governing the control, supervisory oversight and human performance aspects of reactivity management related tasks and evolutions are aligned with industry standards.

• Core Performance/Reactor Engineering overall engagement in reactivity management related activities, including planned evolutions and Reactivity Management Oversight Committees, is strong throughout the fleet.

• Issues affecting the Reactivity Management Performance Indicator are well understood with plans in place to resolve the issues. For further clarification, fuel defects/leakers were not in the scope of the assessment and as such are not considered in this strength.

• Control room and simulator observations identified that the use of human performance tools and supervisory oversight is aligned with industry best practices

Follow-up visits to each site to status progress and actions are scheduled for June-July 2017.