Obsolescence

Plant Support Engineering: Proactive Obsolescence
Management
Program Implementation and Lessons Learned
Place Image Here

Plant Support Engineering:
Proactive Obsolescence
Management
Program Implementation and Lessons Learned
1019161
Final Report, December 2009
EPRI Project Managers

M. Tannenbaum
E. Sisk
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT 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 DOCUMENT, 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 PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
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 DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHERSHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

1300 West W. T. Harris Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28262
Principal Investigators
M. Tannenbaum
E. Sisk
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Plant Support Engineering: Proactive Obsolescence Management: Program Implementation and

Lessons Learned. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1019161.
iii
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
This report describes the results of research conducted as part of the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) Plant Support Engineerings Obsolescence Initiative. The objective of the
initiative is to develop methodologies that can be used to minimize the impact that obsolescence
has on plant production and cost. This report builds upon the concepts discussed in two previous
EPRI reports, Plant Support Engineering: Obsolescence Management A Proactive Approach
(1015391), a technical update published by Plant Support Engineering in November 2007 and
Plant Support Engineering: Obsolescence Management Program Ownership and Development
(1016692), a technical report published by Plant Support Engineering in November 2008.
This report provides additional insight to the basic process developed in 1016692 for managing
the impact of obsolescence. It discusses considerations for developing and implementing an
obsolescence management program and emphasizes that although identification of the population
of obsolete equipment and parts is a good starting point, the key to an effective obsolescence
management program lies in the ability to effectively identify and prioritize known obsolescence
issues. In addition, processes can be implemented to track precursors to obsolescence or early
warning signs that equipment may become obsolete in the future.
Results and Findings

Based on available information, an industry average of approximately 20% of identifiable plant
equipment is obsolete (that is, no longer available in the marketplace). Attempts to categorize
equipment in a single U.S. plant can result in the identification of a population of obsolete
equipment that nears 10,000 in number. Clearly, it is not possible to develop a proactive solution
for each obsolete piece of equipment and/or the entire population of spare and replacement parts
before each is needed to support planned work.
Equipment for which spares and replacements will be needed must be identified and prioritized
to implement an effective and practical proactive obsolescence program. Although an
obsolescence management program owner must be defined, an effective obsolescence program
should be a plant-wide/fleet-wide endeavor because it involves providing information to and
soliciting collaboration from several key plant organizations.
Prioritization can be integrated with other plant programs that identify equipment and parts
important to safety and plant reliability. Designations assigned as part of critical spares, single
point of vulnerability (SPV), and similar analyses can also be used in the prioritization of
obsolete equipment and parts.
v
Meaningful key performance indicators (KPIs) can be established for proactive obsolescence
programs, including indicators related to system health as well as indicators related to the
population of items classified as obsolete and the availability of replacement solutions for these
items.
It is possible to look for precursors to obsolescence that can be noticed during the execution of
normal procurement processes. Identifying equipment and parts that will likely be obsolete in the
future allows proactive steps to be taken before they are unavailable in the marketplace.
Challenges and Objectives

This report should be read by individuals responsible for establishing or maintaining a proactive
obsolescence program. The approach to managing obsolescence presented in the report builds
upon industry experience and includes actual program information from EPRI members who
have already implemented proactive obsolescence programs.
Applications, Value, and Use

This report can be used to assist in the development and implementation of a proactive
obsolescence program or to assess and enhance the effectiveness of an existing obsolescence
program. In addition, it can be used to demonstrate that an effective obsolescence program
requires the active participation of several plant organizations.
EPRI Perspective
The methodology contained in this report is based upon the collaboration of individuals and
organizations involved in addressing plant obsolescence issues and implementing proactive
obsolescence programs.
Approach
A group of utility members collaboratively developed a basic process that could be implemented
by an organization that owns the obsolescence program to address a proactive approach toward
obsolescence. The group of individuals included members who actively participate in the
Nuclear Utility Obsolescence Group (NUOG), the EPRI Joint Utility Task Group (JUTG), and
the Equipment Reliability Working Group (ERWG). This guide provides an outline that can be
used to start or improve an obsolescence program using information gathered through
benchmarking activities from plants that are recognized as having implemented successful
obsolescence programs and from existing products available to the nuclear industry.
Keywords
Design change
Equivalency evaluation
Obsolete
Obsolescence
Proactive
Reverse engineer
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
EPRI would like to thank the following individuals who made significant contributions to the
development of this report. Their valuable insight and experience were essential in the successful
completion of this project.
Gary Cain Constellation Energy
Syed Jaffery Exelon
Michael Kennedy Energy Northwest
Howard LeCompte DTE Energy
Kevin Matthews Duke Energy
Ujjal Mondal CANDU Owners Group
Bhavesh Patel Progress Energy
Dan Philipps FirstEnergy Corporation
Rob Santoro PKMJ, Incorporated
Robert Stipcevich Exelon
Paul Tobin PKMJ, Incorporated
Michael P. Tulay Sequoia Consulting Group, Inc.
vii
CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Key Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Quick Reading Matrix by Job Position ......................................................................... 1-3
2 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS .......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Definition of Key Terms Used in This Report ............................................................... 2-1
2.2 Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 2-2
3 PROACTIVE OBSOLESCENCE MANAGEMENT ................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Basic Process for Managing Obsolescence ................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Proactive Obsolescence Management Process .......................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Collect Equipment and Part Data ........................................................................ 3-5
3.2.1.1 Narrative ........................................................................................................ 3-5
3.2.1.2 Responsible Organization and Role .............................................................. 3-6
3.2.1.3 Tools and Resources .................................................................................... 3-6
3.1.2.4 Challenges .................................................................................................... 3-6
3.1.2.5 Lessons Learned ........................................................................................... 3-7
3.2.2 Determine Vendor Support for Equipment and Parts.......................................... 3-8
3.2.2.1 Narrative ........................................................................................................ 3-8
3.2.2.2 Responsible Organization and Role .............................................................. 3-8
3.2.2.3 Tools and Resources .................................................................................... 3-9
3.2.2.4 Challenges .................................................................................................... 3-9
3.2.2.5 Lessons Learned ........................................................................................... 3-9
3.2.3 Identify Obsolete Equipment and Parts............................................................. 3-10
3.2.3.1 Narrative ...................................................................................................... 3-10
3.2.3.2 Responsible Organization and Role ............................................................ 3-11
ix
3.2.3.3 Tools and Resources .................................................................................. 3-11
3.2.3.4 Lessons Learned ......................................................................................... 3-12
3.2.4 Early Warning Tracking/Precursors to Obsolescence....................................... 3-12
3.2.4.1 Narrative ...................................................................................................... 3-12
3.2.5 Implement Enhanced Processes to Flag Issues ............................................... 3-13
3.2.5.1 Narrative ...................................................................................................... 3-13
3.2.5.4 Lessons Learned ......................................................................................... 3-15
3.2.5.5 Challenges .................................................................................................. 3-15
3.2.6 Rank and Prioritize Issues ................................................................................ 3-16
3.2.6.1 Narrative ...................................................................................................... 3-16
3.2.6.4 Challenges .................................................................................................. 3-18
3.2.6.5 Lessons Learned ......................................................................................... 3-18
3.2.7 Obtain Funding and Develop Solutions............................................................. 3-19
3.2.7.1 Narrative ...................................................................................................... 3-19
3.2.7.4 Challenges .................................................................................................. 3-20
3.2.7.5 Lessons Learned ......................................................................................... 3-21
3.2.8 Monitor Performance......................................................................................... 3-22
3.2.8.3 Challenges .................................................................................................. 3-24
3.2.8.4 Lessons Learned ......................................................................................... 3-24
4 BENCHMARKING AND LESSONS LEARNED ..................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Overview of the Benchmarking Questionnaire............................................................. 4-1
4.2 Summary of the Benchmarking Questionnaire Results ............................................... 4-1
x
5 PRIORITIZATION ................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Existing Prioritization Models ....................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 First Prioritization Example DTE Energy .......................................................... 5-2
5.2.1.1 Basis for Prioritization.................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.2 Second Prioritization Example Exelon Nuclear ................................................ 5-4
5.2.3 Third Prioritization Example FirstEnergy .......................................................... 5-6
5.3 Identification of the Highest Priority Obsolescence Issues .......................................... 5-8
5.4 ERWG Standard Cause Codes for Obsolescence ...................................................... 5-9
6 AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR ADDRESSING OBSOLESCENCE ISSUES ..................... 6-1

6.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Supplier-Provided Resources ...................................................................................... 6-3
6.2.1 Shared Inventory Programs (PIM and Others).................................................... 6-3
6.2.1.1 Pooled Inventory Management (PIM)............................................................ 6-3
6.2.2 RapidPartSmart................................................................................................... 6-4
6.2.3 Obsolete Items Replacement Database (OIRD) ................................................. 6-4
6.2.4 Proactive Obsolescence Management System (POMS) .................................... 6-5
6.2.4.1 POMS PM Forecasting.................................................................................. 6-7
6.2.4.2 POMS Obsolescence Manager Prioritization Tool ........................................ 6-8
6.2.4.3 POMS Configuration Management Information System (CMIS) ................... 6-9
6.3 PKMJ Obsolescence Watch List .................................................................................. 6-9
6.4 Update on USA/STARS Pilot Project ........................................................................... 6-9
6.4.1 Concept and Project Approach ........................................................................... 6-9
6.4.2 Alliance Component Ranking .............................................................................. 6-9
6.4.3 Solution Development ....................................................................................... 6-10
6.4.4 Anticipated Benefits .......................................................................................... 6-11
7 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS TO OBSOLESCENCE

ISSUES ...................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Concept ....................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Collaborative Project Approach ................................................................................... 7-1
7.2.1 Identification of Common Issues ......................................................................... 7-2
7.2.2 Identification of Demand Quantities .................................................................... 7-2
xi
7.2.3 Identification of Available Solution Type ............................................................. 7-2
7.2.4 Selection of Solution Type .................................................................................. 7-2
7.2.5 Consolidation of Participants Technical Requirements ...................................... 7-2
7.2.6 Requests for Quote ............................................................................................. 7-2
7.2.7 Supplier Selection ............................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.8 In-Process Controls and Surveillances ............................................................... 7-3
7.2.9 Receipt Inspection............................................................................................... 7-3
7.3 Sharing Project Information and Development Costs .................................................. 7-3
8 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS .................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................................ 8-1
8.2 Potential Key Performance Indicators.......................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Existing Key Performance Indicators ........................................................................... 8-3
9 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 9-1
A ROLLOUT TRAINING ........................................................................................................... A-1
B OBSOLESCENCE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS................................................................ B-1
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Basic Elements of the Generic Process ................................................................... 3-1

Figure 3-2 Second-Level Obsolescence Program Implementation Process Map, 1 of 2........... 3-3
Figure 3-3 Second-Level Obsolescence Program Implementation Process Map, 2 of 2........... 3-4
Figure 3-4 Process Map Key ..................................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-5 Prioritizing Obsolescence Issues ............................................................................ 3-18
Figure 5-1 Prioritization Ranking Scheme ................................................................................. 5-7
Figure 5-2 Sample Format for Identification of Prioritized Obsolescence Issues....................... 5-8
Figure 8-1 Percentage of Unknown Equipment and Stock Codes ............................................. 8-2
Figure 8-2 Overall Availability of Solutions for Obsolete Items .................................................. 8-2
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Content Identification by Job Title .............................................................................. 1-3

Table 4-1 Organizations Responsible for Identifying and Resolving Obsolescence Issues ...... 4-2
Table 4-2 Current Obsolescence Programs Strengths and Weaknesses ................................. 4-4
Table 5-1 Obsolescence Value Ranking Calculation Basis DTE Energy ............................... 5-3
Table 5-2 Obsolescence Value Ranking Calculation Basis Exelon Nuclear ........................... 5-5
Table 5-3 Obsolescence Value Ranking Calculation Basis First Energy ................................ 5-6
Table 6-1 Overview of External Resources and Product Capabilities........................................ 6-2
Table 6-2 POMS Data Elements ................................................................................................ 6-6
Table 6-3 Preventive Maintenance Forecasting Data Elements ................................................ 6-8
Table 6-4 USA STARS Collaborative Solution Development Ranking Scheme ...................... 6-10
Table 6-5 Replacement Evaluation Input Sources and Review Requirement ......................... 6-11
Table 8-1 Example of Key Performance Indicators for Obsolescence Programs ...................... 8-3
Table 8-2 Example of Key Performance Indicators for Obsolescence Programs ...................... 8-4
Table B-1 Detailed Results of the Obsolescence Questionnaire ............................................. B-2
xv
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION
1.1 Executive Summary
This technical report is the third in a series of reports addressing obsolescence issues at nuclear
power plants. This report builds upon the concepts discussed in two previous EPRI reports, Plant
Support Engineering: Obsolescence Management A Proactive Approach (1015391) [1], a
technical update published by Plant Support Engineering (PSE) in November 2007 and Plant
Support Engineering: Obsolescence Management Program Ownership and Development
(1016692) [2], a technical report published by Plant Support Engineering in November 2008.
The objectives of the report are to:

Provide information on implementing each key step in the process of addressing
obsolescence in a format that can be directly applied to improve existing or new proactive
obsolescence management programs
Discuss plant resources typically involved in successful obsolescence program
implementation and provide a current list of commercial tools and products available to assist
with program management
Provide lessons learned and challenges experienced by plants that have implemented a
proactive obsolescence management program
Although the commercial nuclear power industry has little or no control over when a given
manufacturer decides to discontinue supporting or fabricating replacement components or parts,
it is possible to address the issue of obsolescence in a way that can reduce the impact
obsolescence has on the plant. The proactive approach and associated processes described in this
report include three basic elements.
First, the plant needs to identify the scope of installed equipment and replacement parts that
are currently obsolete.
Second, the list needs to be prioritized based upon the criticality of the obsolete equipment
and the likelihood that replacements for the obsolete parts will be needed.
Third, the plant needs to effectively develop and implement replacement solutions in a timely
manner.
1-1
Executive Summary and Introduction
This approach requires participation from various plant organizations including engineering,
maintenance, operations, work management, plant health committee, and supply chain. With
participation from various organizations, plant management needs to play a supporting role in the
obsolescence program. Without the support of management, difficulties may be encountered in
gaining support from the other plant organizations that are needed to have a successful program.
To date, the impact of obsolescence has largely been mitigated due to the ability of engineering
and supply chain organizations to successfully respond to emergent needs. In fact, the
effectiveness of site rapid-response organizations such as fix-it-now (FIN) teams tends to conceal
the true impact of obsolescence and can promote a reactive culture, which may hinder
comprehensive initiatives to address obsolescence issues in a truly proactive manner.
Key challenges to a proactive obsolescence program include understanding the extent of

condition, identification and prioritization of obsolete equipment, incorporation of obsolescence
information into existing plant processes and decision making, and recognition of the value of
applying resources proactively. It is also important to make effective use of industry-wide
obsolescence data and obsolescence management tools.
The obsolescence program needs to identify the obsolescence status of plant equipment and
replacement parts (obsolete or not obsolete) and communicate this information to all plant
personnel and organizations. In turn, when plant organizations and personnel are working on
equipment, they can recognize that the equipment is obsolete and provide pertinent information
about the equipment to the obsolescence program if necessary. The information provided can
then be used to prioritize obsolescence issues and justify development of proactive solutions.
Proactive in this context means well in advance of the plants normal T-week schedule.
The implementation methodology, detailed examples, and lessons learned outlined in this report
can be incorporated into existing plant processes and used in a way that proactively identifies
obsolete equipment, prioritizes obsolescence issues, and enables proactive development of
replacement solutions.
1.2 Key Conclusions
Effective obsolescence programs involve input and participation from various plant
organizations. Although the program is often owned by supply chain or engineering, the program
owner is unlikely to succeed without participation from other organizations.
Projects to proactively develop replacements for obsolete items are competing for funding with
other plant projects, such as proposed modifications, and other expenditures evaluated by
organizations, such as the plant health committee, associated with work and equipment that is
important to equipment reliability and plant health.
Metrics should be established to monitor the effectiveness of the obsolescence program and to
provide a basis for continued support.
1-2
Executive Summary and Introduction
1.3 Quick Reading Matrix by Job Position
Table 1-1 suggests content that should be reviewed by personnel in various positions. This
matrix is intended to assist individuals in identifying content that is most pertinent to their area of
responsibility.
Table 1-1
Content Identification by Job Title
Position Section Section Section Section Section Section Section App.

1 3 4 5 6 7 8 A
Corporate X X
Executive
Engineering X X X X X X
Management
Engineers X X X X X X X
Procurement X X X X X
Management
Buyers X X X X
Procurement X X X X X X X
Engineering
Operations X
Management
Maintenance X X
Supervision
1-3
2
DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS
2.1 Definition of Key Terms Used in This Report
equipment ID The number used to identify a specific piece of equipment

installed in the plant.
obsolete equipment Items in plant service that are no longer manufactured or

supported by the original manufacturer or that are otherwise
difficult to procure and qualify [4] (INPO NX-1037, Revision
1 1).
obsolescence issue A need (or logical grouping of needs) associated with obsolete
plant equipment, for example, the need to replace an obsolete
component or a part associated with an obsolete component. An
issue may include a logical grouping of needs to facilitate
development of a comprehensive solution.
obsolescence program The plant organization that is responsible for implementing the
owner obsolescence program or process.
T-week schedule Task or work week schedule. A T-week schedule typically

identifies tasks that must be completed to support successful
execution of scheduled work and identifies the time period
before scheduled execution that the tasks must be completed.
For example, if the schedule for a maintenance task indicates
all parts must be requested by T-6, it means that all parts
required for the maintenance task must be requested no later
than 6 weeks prior to execution of the task to ensure successful
execution of the work.
1
Access to INPO reports and materials is restricted to organizations authorized by INPO. The information is
confidential and for the sole use of the authorized organization.
2-1
Definitions and Acronyms
2.2 Acronyms and Abbreviations
AFI area for improvement
BOM bill of materials
CMIS configuration management interface system
EAM enterprise asset management
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
ER equipment reliability
ERI equipment reliability index
ERWG Equipment Reliability Working Group
FIN fix it now
ID Identify or identification
IR incident report
INPO Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 2
JUTG Joint Utility Task Group
KPI key performance indicator
LCM life cycle management
LCO limiting condition of operation
LLC Limited Liability Corporation
NUOG Nuclear Utilities Obsolescence Group
OEM original equipment manufacturer
OES original equipment supplier
2
2-2
Definitions and Acronyms
OIRD RAPID Obsolete Items Replacement Database
OWL obsolescence watch list
PE procurement engineering
PHC plant health committee
PIM pooled inventory management
PKJM PKJM, Incorporated
PM preventive maintenance
POMS Proactive Obsolescence Management System
POMS CMIS Proactive Obsolescence Management System Configuration Management

Interface System
POMS OM Proactive Obsolescence Management System Obsolescence Manager
POMS PM Proactive Obsolescence Management System Preventive Maintenance

Forecasting
PSE Plant Support Engineering
QA Quality assurance
RAPID Readily Available Parts Information Database (RapidPartSmart by

Scientech Division of Curtiss-Wright)
SPV single point of failure vulnerability
STARS strategic teaming and resource sharing
TAG technical advisory group
TBD to be determined
USA Utilities Service Alliance
WO work order
2-3
3
PROACTIVE OBSOLESCENCE MANAGEMENT
The purpose of this section is to expand upon the guidance presented in EPRI report Plant
Support Engineering: Obsolescence Management Program Ownership and Development
(1016692) [2]. The process flow charts that were included in 1016692 form the basis for the
modified flow chart included in this section.
Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.8 provide detailed information pertaining to how each step in the
proactive obsolescence management process can be implemented into plant processes and
procedures.
Information included in this section is based upon implementation practices noted during
benchmarking visits to the following plant sites that are recognized as having successful and
innovative obsolescence programs:
Detroit Edison Fermi, June 23, 2009
Exelon Peach Bottom, August 11, 2009
3.1 Basic Process for Managing Obsolescence
Figure 3-1 illustrates the major elements of the generic process.
Figure 3-1
Basic Elements of the Generic Process
3-1
Proactive Obsolescence Management
The three basic steps identified in Figure 3-1 are the foundation for the eight major elements to
have an effective and proactive obsolescence program. The plant needs to do the following:
Collect the equipment and part data.
Determine the vendor support for the equipment and parts.
Identify the obsolete equipment and parts in the plant.
Identify precursors to obsolescence and track them to provide early warning of obsolete
equipment and parts.
Implement a system to flag issues that involve the obsolete equipment and parts.
Obtain funding and develop solutions for the obsolete equipment and parts.
Monitor performance of the program.
The topics mentioned above are explained in detail in the following sections to provide
information on how to perform each step using best practices and lessons learned from existing
proactive programs in the industry. Each step provides the responsible and supporting personnel
and/or organizations that are needed to complete the step and the resources either at the plant or
in the industry that are available to support step completion.
3.2 Proactive Obsolescence Management Process
Each of the major elements involved in establishing and implementing a proactive obsolescence
management program is depicted in the following process mapsFigures 3-2 and 3-3.
Figure 3-4 provides a key that describes the information provided for each step.
The intent of including the process maps is to provide a perspective on how the program
elements discussed in this report fit together in practice and to emphasize the plant processes and
organizations that are a vital part of a proactive obsolescence management program by
integrating obsolescence considerations into day-to-day activities.
3-2
Figure 3-2
Second-Level Obsolescence Program Implementation Process Map, 1 of 2
3-3
Figure 3-3
Second-Level Obsolescence Program Implementation Process Map, 2 of 2
3-4
Figure 3-4
Process Map Key
3.2.1 Collect Equipment and Part Data
Collect
Equipment and
Part Data
1
3.2.1.1 Narrative
The first step in establishing a proactive obsolescence management program is to develop a

baseline listing of equipment and associated items in the plant. Typically, this entails compiling a
list of plant equipment and replacement parts associated with each piece of equipment. Although
this information is typically contained in existing plant databases and information systems, in
some cases information in plant databases may not be current, correct, or complete for certain
equipment.
Inaccurate data can result in incomplete or inaccurate obsolescence status since the minimum
information required to determine if an item is obsolete consists of manufacturer and model
information or part number.
3-5
Compiling equipment and part number data may involve mining information from several
databases, such as the plant equipment database, equipment bills of material, and information
systems that include manufacturer model and part information.
In the event that large populations of data are missing or cannot be interpreted, analysis should
be performed to determine if a data cleanup effort is warranted or if other sources of information
exist. Typically, equipment and part data exist for equipment that is classified as safety-related or
critical and for equipment that is included in preventive maintenance programs, although
variations in the level of data verification and accuracy likely exist at each site.
3.2.1.2 Responsible Organization and Role
The obsolescence program owner is typically responsible for developing the equipment and part
baseline and may work with information technology as well as organizations responsible for
maintaining equipment data, bills of material, and item purchasing descriptions to ensure that the
information is accurately captured and understood.
3.2.1.3 Tools and Resources
The resources required to collect plant equipment and part data can vary based upon the location,
completeness, and correctness of existing data. Plant information systems such as Ventex Asset
Suite, SAP, and Maximo typically contain equipment and part data.
Bills of materials (BOMs) that are linked to equipment identification (ID) numbers may provide
lists of parts and consumable items associated with each equipment ID. In some cases, BOMs
contain both verified (approved) and unverified (unapproved) items. Unverified items may or
may not be included in the obsolescence program scope. Facilities that do not have formal BOMs
may be able to create an unverified ad hoc BOM by using work order history to identify items
that have been requested from the warehouse to perform work on the specific equipment ID.
Commercially available products identified in Table 6-1 such as PKMJ, Incorporateds Proactive
Obsolescence Management System (POMS) can be used to facilitate the collection of this
information and load updated equipment information into the plant database in a timely and
efficient manner.
3.1.2.4 Challenges
The biggest challenge faced during the collection of plant equipment and part data is related to
the quality and accessibility of the existing data. The resources (staff and funding) required for
collecting and developing equipment and part data decrease as the quality of the existing data
increases.
3-6
3.1.2.5 Lessons Learned
Effectively mining and verifying existing equipment data and dedicating resources is essential to
making existing plant data a reliable and useable source to proactively develop obsolescence
information.
In some cases, data from enterprise asset management (EAM) systems may be incorrect or
incomplete. This is often the case when equipment data have been migrated multiple times to and
from legacy systems. If possible, it is a good practice for the plant to review the data and verify
its accuracy and completeness. Particular attention should be paid to plant systems that have
recently been modified to ensure that current equipment and part data are included in the
program scope and that equipment and part data for removed or abandoned equipment are
removed from the program scope.
When modifications to systems and equipment are completed, the plant may consider making
information identifying the abandoned or removed equipment and its associated parts known to
other licensees that use the same manufacturer and model number items. This information can
assist another plant in avoiding an obsolescence issue.
A complete equipment database with manufacturer and part information sets the foundation for a
successful obsolescence program. However, data cleanup efforts should be carefully considered
and prioritized. Data for safety-related and critical equipment and their associated parts should be
addressed first.
Alternatives exist to systematically collect equipment manufacturer and model number

information that is incorrect or incomplete in plant information systems. A list of equipment with
missing or inadequate information can be created and used to prompt the collection of missing
data from equipment nameplates when plant personnel are working on or in the vicinity of the
equipment. For example, data collection could be systematically completed in the following
ways: System engineers can collect missing data when they are walking their systems down.
Design, procurement, and rapid-response team engineers can collect missing data during the
development of engineering evaluations. Maintenance personnel can collect missing data during
the performance of work on or in the vicinity of a piece of equipment. Work planning personnel
can collect missing data during the development of work packages. Operators can collect missing
data when they are performing their daily rounds. A system can be created to identify what
equipment needs to be looked at, and then the collected information can be batch loaded into the
plant equipment database to save time versus manually entering information for each piece of
equipment separately.
3-7
3.2.2 Determine Vendor Support for Equipment and Parts
Determine
Vendor
Support for
Equip & Parts
2
3.2.2.1 Narrative
After a manufacturer and model number are identified for plant equipment, an effort must be
made to determine if the original manufacturer still supports the product by providing
replacement equipment and spare parts. If not, further effort must be made to determine if
responsibilities for providing support for the make and model number have been transferred to a
different supplier or vendor. A proactive approach involves contacting each identified vendor on
a periodic basis. This is a perpetual process because suppliers may elect to stop supporting
product lines that impact plants at any time. Therefore, once the last vendor on the list has been
contacted, the process of contacting the entire population of vendors starts again with the vendor
at the top of the list. This is necessary to capture vendors who have ceased to support equipment
in the period subsequent to when they were last contacted.
It is important to determine that a vendor that offers to support a piece of equipment or part no
longer supported by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or original equipment supplier
(OES) has been authorized to do so by the OEM or OES. Such authorization is typically
accomplished by purchasing the rights to manufacture the equipment from the OEM/OES along
with a complete set of original design information. Unauthorized vendors have knowingly and
unknowingly provided counterfeit or fraudulent replacement items in the past. Therefore, sources
other than the OEM/OES should be carefully screened before they are accepted.
The supply chain organization is typically responsible for determining if equipment and parts in
the obsolescence program scope are still supported by the original or other approved vendor.
Supply chain organizations have access to vendor contact information as well as knowledge of
acquisitions, mergers, and other transactions that transfer responsibility for product lines from
one organization to another. Because the vendor contact process can be resource intensive,
commercial sources of information regarding the status of vendors can be used to facilitate the
process.
3-8
The predominant industry product available to support this step is PKMJs Proactive
Obsolescence Management System (POMS) database.
An important feature of POMS is the PKMJ vendor contact program. PKMJ contacts suppliers to
determine if they still support the model numbers captured in POMS. POMS provides users with
a report of equipment and parts that are no longer supported and are considered obsolete. Plants
can also feed information back into POMS when they determine that a vendor is available for
equipment and parts that were originally identified as obsolete. With the input from PKMJ and
the plants, all POMs users benefit from the new information.
3.2.2.4 Challenges
Many scenarios exist in how suppliers support product lines, and it may not always be clear
whether a piece of equipment or part should be considered obsolete. Incompleteness and
inaccuracy of existing plant data and a lack of availability of resources to systematically contact
vendors can create a barrier in determining vendor support for equipment and replacement parts.
Information obtained via communication with suppliers is not always accurate or up to date.
Instances have occurred where POMS has shown a model number as obsolete based upon
supplier input, when the part was, in fact, still available. This typically occurs when an
equipment line has been sold or transferred several times, and the manufacturer information
listed in the plant equipment data is no longer current. When contacted, the manufacturer reports
that the model is obsolete. Therefore, a site subject matter expert should verify the unavailability
of equipment or parts before development of a replacement solution is initiated.
An example of this scenario is the Pacific Scientific snubbers. The vendor contacted by the
POMS Vendor Contact program was not aware that this line of Pacific Scientific products was
sold to Basic Engineers and listed the model numbers as obsolete. When the discrepancy was
noted and the availability of the snubbers from Basic Engineers was confirmed, POMs was
notified, and the system was updated accordingly.
Because nuclear orders may account for a very small percentage of any suppliers sales, the
approach used to request information should make it as easy as possible for the vendor to
respond. At a minimum, a list of all model and part numbers that the manufacturer provides
should be prepared to submit to the supplier so the supplier can address a plants or fleets needs
at one time. The list should be well organized, checked for duplicates, include provisions for
feedback, and automated to the extent possible.
3-9
In some cases, replacement parts may be available from alternative sources. Items such as
consumables that were originally provided by the original equipment or component manufacturer
may be available from other sources. For example, many facilities have consolidated lubricants
and have established a primary source for items such as fasteners, packing, and gaskets. Inquiries
to determine obsolescence for these types of items should be addressed to the current supplier,
which may be different from the original supplier. If the current supplier ceases support, the
original supplier or other suppliers may still be able to support consumables, materials, or parts
that are not unique to a single manufacturer.
A list of items that could not be identified for analysis by the responsible vendor can be
maintained. This list can then be used to systematically gather adequate identification
information and be an indicator of program performance.
PKMJs Vendor Contact program was cited by the utilities benchmarked as an effective and
efficient way to determine vendor support for equipment and parts. This program results in
additional efficiencies for vendors as it consolidates manufacturer, model, and part information
for all subscribers into the Proactive Obsolescence Management System (POMS).
If it is determined that a part identified in POMS as obsolete is still available, this information
should be promptly communicated via the feedback mechanisms provided in the system.
It may still be necessary to contact certain vendors on a case-by-case basis to obtain information
required for planning specific maintenance tasks, modifications, or inventory optimization efforts
to ensure that parts for a specific task will still be available.
3.2.3 Identify Obsolete Equipment and Parts
Identify
Obsolete
Equipment &
Parts
3
3.2.3.1 Narrative
Identification of obsolete equipment and parts can be accomplished by a flag or a code that is
embedded in the plant information systems that include equipment data, bills of material (that
link equipment IDs to spare and replacement items), stocked item (part) data, and purchasing
descriptions. This flag or code can be added to the equipment data by the information technology
organization using batch uploads based on results obtained from the vendor contact effort to
collect equipment and part data, The organizations that maintain the plant equipment and parts
databases, such as design engineering, procurement engineering, or supply chain, can also add
the flags using established manual data entry processes.
3-10
In addition to information obtained from the vendor contact program, means to report an
equipment or part obsolescence issue should be provided for all organizations and personnel who
might discover that certain equipment or parts are obsolete.
It is important to flag or code/obsolete equipment and their related items so that plant personnel
working on the equipment are aware of the possible obsolete status and can consider the status
when making decisions and can provide feedback to the obsolescence program owner regarding
the condition or importance of the equipment so that the priority ranking can be adjusted
accordingly. Finally, identification of obsolescence status can be incorporated into applicable
procedures to prompt actions, such as returning obsolete equipment or parts to the warehouse or
to the supply chain organization to enable options for remanufacture, refurbishment, or repair
when replacement is no longer a viable option. Processes enhanced to consider obsolescence can
reduce the burden of known obsolete items that may impact plant operations and maintenance.
Identifying equipment or items as obsolete supports accurate prioritization and development of

replacement solutions to support the plant. The timing for resolution of the obsolete equipment
or item will be influenced by the change in the supply available over time. The obsolete
equipment or part used in the field may need to be returned to the supply chain to be
remanufactured, refurbished, or repaired. These controls, when put in place through use of a
plant procedure, can help control known obsolete equipment from becoming a larger burden on
the plant.
Ownership for identification of obsolete equipment and parts should be defined in station
procedures/processes. Any site work group should have the opportunity to identify and document
an obsolescence issue through normal site processes. The program owner typically manages
identification of obsolete equipment and parts. The supporting organizations should be
engineeringboth procurement and designand the inventory or bill of materials organizations.
Procurement engineering or design engineering can update the equipment information with
obsolete information and any known solutions to replace the part. Procurement engineering,
inventory, or the bill of materials group can update parts and stock code information that will
replace the obsolete part. This support to the program owner ensures that the part information is
being updated for obsolete equipment and parts.
The existing plant equipment, bill of materials, and stocked item databases can be used as tools
to store equipment and item obsolescence status. Including the obsolescence status in existing
plant references enables all plant personnel to identify equipment and items that are obsolete.
Subscribers to POMS can develop automated queries that use current POMS data to periodically
update the obsolescence status for equipment and items in the obsolescence program scope and
place the information into the plant databases.
3-11
The process and flags or markers used to identify the obsolescence status of equipment and
associated items in plant information systems should be understood by all plant organizations
and personnel. In addition, plant personnel should be trained to understand why it is important to
identify obsolete equipment and parts and to be aware of equipments obsolescence status.
Some information systems may include obsolescence markers or flags that carry a different
meaning, such as the item can never be used again, even if it is available and in stock. Any
existing flags with different meanings should be distinguished from flags used by the
obsolescence program.
The obsolescence status of equipment and associated items should be periodically updated to
ensure that information is current and up to date.
3.2.4 Early Warning Tracking/Precursors to Obsolescence
Early Warning
Tracking
4
3.2.4.1 Narrative
In addition to the identification of plant equipment and items that are already obsolete, early
warning indicators can be developed to identify equipment and items that are likely to become
obsolete in the near future. Developing obsolescence issues can then be detected through
monitoring early warning signs, such as significant increases in price or lead time, that are
typically precursors to obsolescence.
A significant increase in an items cost or lead time since the last procurement indicates that it is
probably more difficult to produce. This can be an indication that obtaining raw materials or
parts is becoming more difficult or that the item is no longer standard and is considered a special
production run item. Both of these circumstances could be considered as precursors to
obsolescence.
Plant information systems typically include historical information such as average unit price and
vendor lead time for each stocked item. Using this or similar data, buyers may be able to identify
items that are being bid at a purchase price significantly higher than the average unit price and/or
items for which the quoted lead time is significantly longer than the average lead time in the
system.
During the purchasing process, buyers can inquire as to why the price or lead time has increased.
If the supplier indicates that the raw materials are more difficult to obtain or provides another
reason that could be considered a precursor to obsolescence, the buyer could notify the
3-12
obsolescence program owner. Significant advantages can be gained if items that are almost
obsolete can be identified because opportunities still exist to arrange for a special production run
that would permit licensees to purchase enough quantity to support the life of the plant before the
item is no longer available.
These issues can automatically form the top layer of prioritized issues. First, a known demand
exists, and current information is available to determine future demand. Second, there is a
defined timeframe to address the problem before it becomes more complex since production is
still an option. In addition, the obsolete information can then be shared to facilitate research at
other sites (to determine similar demand) as well as to facilitate collaborative development of
solutions.
The supply chain organization is best positioned to recognize precursors to obsolescence and
report them to the obsolescence program owner.
Plant information systems that contain historical information or averages are necessary to obtain
baseline information such as average unit price or average supplier lead time.
Automated reports can be developed to identify purchased items for which the unit price or
quoted lead-time is substantially higher than historical values stored in the system.
3.2.5 Implement Enhanced Processes to Flag Issues
Implement
Enhanced
Processes to
Flag Issues
5
3.2.5.1 Narrative
The object of this step is to enable plant organizations to be able to flag or elevate the importance
of known obsolescence issues so that they can be prioritized accordingly. Existing work
processes can be enhanced when obsolescence information is readily available to plant
organizations and workers. Similar to the way in which the supply chain might identify items
that have increased in price or lead time, each plant organization involved in the obsolescence
program can identify opportunities to incorporate obsolescence information into their daily work
activities and processes and report pertinent information back to the obsolescence program
owner.
3-13
For example, if maintenance is aware that the equipment they are assigned to work on is
obsolete, processes can be adjusted accordingly. The fact that the equipment or part is obsolete
can be included in the pre-job briefing. Work planning can include prompts for the mechanics to
assess the condition of the equipment and provide an estimate of remaining life in a post-job
briefing. In addition, if maintenance personnel are aware that a replacement might be difficult to
obtain and that the item is obsolete, this can be considered in the maintenance approach to work
to minimize the impact on the item.
Prioritization of obsolescence issues should be established in site procedures/processes. The

program owner may be responsible for working with site organizations to determine the types of
input each organization can provide to help prioritize obsolescence issues. Means for each
organization to communicate prioritization information to the program owner should be
established, as well as the types of training, reports, or information that can be provided to each
organization to facilitate the process enhancements.
Each organization involved in the obsolescence program should identify existing processes that
can be enhanced by incorporating obsolescence information. Typically, these processes would
include assess equipment, maintain equipment, incorporate obsolescence status into the health
reports, and evaluate the proposed modifications. The program owner can maintain a list of these
plant processes that include provisions for gathering information that can be used to prioritize
obsolescence issues.
When new obsolete items are identified, the plant equipment database should be updated to
communicate with all plant personnel that may need to use those items.
Simple reports that identify obsolete equipment and parts of interest to each organization can be
very effective tools. Reports showing obsolete equipment included the T-week schedule,
obsolete parts requested to support the T-week schedule, and obsolete equipment in a particular
system can be used to inform organizations such as maintenance and system engineering when
equipment that they are responsible for maintaining is obsolete.
Obsolescence information can also be integrated into system health reports and other existing
tools that provide information about plant equipment and information that may be used to
prioritize the obsolescence issues.
Reports can be generated to flag work orders that include requests for obsolete equipment and
parts. These reports could be reviewed to ensure that unavailability of obsolete items will not
impact the work management schedule and process.
3-14
Reports can be generated periodically to identify recently procured stock codes that have
experienced a significant change in price or lead time. As discussed in Section 3.2.4, these types
of changes may indicate an emerging obsolescence issue and prompt a discussion with the
supplier. If the discussion indicates that the item is becoming obsolete (raw materials are more
difficult to obtain, the product is no longer manufactured on a regular basis, etc.), orders can be
initiated for a quantity sufficient to address the anticipated needs for the life of the plant.
Engineering can identify obsolescence issues on a caseby-case basis when they are alerted to
them during discussions with suppliers.
System engineers can provide their known list of obsolete equipment and give priorities
regarding which equipment is more important.
A list of stock codes for obsolete items should be readily available, including stock codes for
obsolete items with zero quantity on hand or with demand exceeding the available inventory.
Working together, the program owner and other organizations can support the identification of
the plant obsolescence issues using the different organizations knowledge of specific equipment
and parts.
Incentive systems can be established for obsolete items that encourage maintenance to return
items identified as obsolete to the warehouse so that they can be evaluated to determine if repair
is possible. Typically, these incentives would involve crediting the maintenance work order with
an amount based upon the average unit price of the returned item.
A step should be incorporated at the appropriate point in the T-week scheduling process to
identify work orders that contain obsolete equipment or parts. Early identification of obsolete
items required for planned work can be used to escalate the priority of associated reorders and
material requests to ensure that as much lead time as possible is available to find a replacement
solution. If it is determined that a replacement solution cannot be found in time to support
planned work, the work order should be delayed until a solution is available.
Providing materials, planning, and purchasing personnel access to obsolescence data (such as the
POMS database) helps to ensure that information is current and that planning takes obsolescence
status into consideration.
3.2.5.5 Challenges
Implementations of processes that flag issues and develop priority information of equipment by
program owner require management sponsorship. Without the support of management, it can
become difficult to obtain the resources necessary for plant organizations to effectively support
prioritization of obsolescence issues.
3-15
Management support will also be necessary to ensure that resources are available to update
procedures and to train personnel to ensure that the implementation of new processes is effective.
3.2.6 Rank and Prioritize Issues
Rank and
Prioritize
Issues
6
3.2.6.1 Narrative
Known obsolete equipment and parts can be grouped into obsolescence issues. An issue can be
associated with a single equipment ID, a group of equipment IDs, a make and model, or a make
and model and the associated parts and consumables. Grouping associated equipment, models,
and parts into issues can be an effective tool in prioritization.
After issues are identified and mechanisms for collecting feedback on issues are enabled, the
obsolescence program owner can base prioritization of obsolescence issues on the feedback
received and reprioritize as new information and feedback are gathered. Prioritization of issues
may involve several steps. For example, the total population of issues might first be stratified
into high-, medium-, and low-priority issues. The high-priority issues can then be ranked using a
more detailed analysis to determine the top obsolescence issues. Initial ranking may be based
upon component criticality classification and prioritization schemes developed by plant
organizations. Plant criteria used to evaluate system health, equipment reliability, and risk can be
gathered to develop an evaluation tool consistent with existing plant priorities.
A comprehensive ranking scheme can be developed by establishing a set of evaluation factors,

ranking the factors in the order of precedence, developing an algorithm for determining which
factors take precedence by assigning weighting factors to each criterion, and developing a
comprehensive weighted average value for each obsolescence issue.
Ranking schemes can take into consideration the following:

Equipment criticality
Single point of vulnerability (SPV) classification
System health
Safety classification
Seismic and environmental classification
Maintenance and demand history of stocked items
Priority of scheduled work
Remaining inventory
3-16
Severity of failure of the part if replacement is not available

Availability of an existing solution
Other relevant factors
Ranking schemes can assess both the probability and the consequence or risk that the
obsolescence issue may pose to the plant. This risk is considered against other risks evaluated
during the prioritization process.
One effective way to identify the obsolescence issues that will be proactively resolved using the
established prioritization scheme is to periodically publish a top 10, 20, or 30 list. These lists are
created based on the prioritization scheme and can serve as a starting point for determining
which issues get funded so that a replacement solution can be developed. Typically, a committee
or group of people that represent all organizations involved in the plant obsolescence program
review the top issues list to agree on the obsolescence issues that that pose the most risk to
plant operations and maintenance.
Benchmarking indicates that a plant obsolescence committee is an effective way to manage

priorities and to ensure that the correct obsolescence issues are pursued. Committees usually
include engineering, maintenance, operations, supply chain, management, etc. The program
owner is typically responsible for coordinating meetings of the committee and ensuring that
solutions are developed for the high priority issues.
The primary tool required for the ranking and prioritization of issues is the use of an algorithm
that emulates plant priorities to identify high priority issues. Ideally, the algorithm is automated
to the extent possible so that priorities can be automatically updated when additional information
is provided by plant organizations or adjustments are made to the ranking scheme and weighting
factors.
Several organizations benchmarked use a bolt-on application for POMS called Obsolescence
Manager. The program provides development of a ranking system based on plant priorities
looking at plant-specific scenarios and information to identify the highest risk obsolescence
issues.
Plant system and equipment-level health reports related to obsolete equipment and parts can also
provide valuable information. For example, if a system is being upgraded to address health
issues, identification of obsolete items that exist in that system can create an opportunity to add
replacement solutions to the scope of the modification. Information technology resources may be
required to develop an automated algorithm for the plant and establish the capabilities necessary
to provide for automated or real-time ranking. Factors typically considered when prioritizing
issues are illustrated in Figure 3-5.
3-17
Figure 3-5
Prioritizing Obsolescence Issues
3.2.6.4 Challenges
Even if the highest priority issues are clearly identified, it may be difficult to obtain the funding
required to develop replacement solutions. Precedence may need to be given to high priority
emergent plant issues and work week schedule items.
Maintaining a top-10 list and other priority lists is a good practice that can be valuable as a
visible way to track the most important obsolescence issues.
The status of resolution for obsolescence issues can be incorporated in day-to-day engineering
priorities. Establishing goals to resolve an appropriate quantity of obsolescence issues also helps
to ensure that issues are resolved on a proactive basis.
A corporate-funded top-10 or top-20 list can be developed for nuclear fleets so that the entire
fleet can share prioritization and solution information and ensure that issues that impact multiple
plants are prioritized accordingly.
3-18
Obsolescence issues related to planned work can be associated with work packages in the work
week schedule. This practice allows for earlier recognition of the time needed to develop
replacement solutions for obsolescence issues that will impact planned work. Earlier planning on
obsolescence-related work packages, including expectations for earlier resolution, can result in
reductions in impact on scheduled work. This can result in less emergent work impact on the
station through reallocation of resources from a shorter term to longer term focus.
Engaging the plant health committees is an effective way to prioritize the obsolescence issues
and support timely resolution of issues.
3.2.7 Obtain Funding and Develop Solutions
Obtain
Funding and
Develop
Solutions
7
3.2.7.1 Narrative
After plant obsolescence issues are prioritized and high priority issues are identified, funding
must be obtained to pursue the development of replacement solutions. The types of solutions can
vary from minor design changes and equivalency evaluations to reverse engineering and major
modifications.
If possible, it is beneficial for the plant obsolescence program to have a dedicated budget set
aside for the development of obsolescence solutions. A dedicated budget ensures that funding is
available to begin development of solutions for the highest priority obsolescence issues without
delays that may sometimes be experienced while waiting for funding to be approved.
Responsibility for the development of replacement solutions can involve various organizations.
Procurement engineering may perform equivalency evaluations. Design engineering may
develop modifications. Purchasing may be called upon to search for possible alternatives.
Suppliers may be requested to perform special production runs or engaged to reverse engineer,
evaluate, or qualify proposed replacement solutions. In some cases, ad hoc teams are formed to
develop replacement solutions.
In addition, licensees may sometimes work together to develop a common replacement solution
or to share existing solutions such as equivalency evaluations and minor modifications.
The program owner is typically responsible for identifying priority candidates for the proactive
development of solutions. Although the program owner is responsible for allocating any funds or
budget dedicated to obsolescence solutions, the plant health committee and other entities that are
authorized to allocate available funding may be involved in deciding which issues are selected
3-19
for proactive resolution. In cases where additional funding is required, the obsolescence program
owner should build a case for each of the top issues and have them presented to the applicable
plant organizations.
In addition to funding, engineering and sometimes supply chain personnel are required to
develop replacement solutions. Replacement solution projects may be assigned to and managed
by the responsible organization, or the assigned staff can report to the obsolescence program
manager. Available scheduling and budgetary tracking tools should be used to ensure timely and
cost-effective solution development.
There are several resources available that promote sharing of solutions. First, embedded in
Curtiss-Wright/Scientechs RAPID (Readily Accessible Parts Inventory Database) is the
Obsolete Items Replacement Database (OIRD), which contains replacement solutions for
obsolete parts as well as the supporting engineering equivalency evaluations. Organizations that
participate in RAPID voluntarily input replacement item and equivalency evaluation data in the
OIRD system.
Second is the Configuration Management Interface System (CMIS) developed by PKMJ. CMIS
is a database containing obsolescence solutions developed by multiple plants. CMIS is structured
so that a plant that develops an equivalency evaluation can easily transfer the data contained in
their equivalency evaluation forms to CMIS. A plant that would like to use the equivalency can
easily download the data in a format that matches their existing equivalency evaluation format
(without retyping the information).
3.2.7.4 Challenges
The plant may not want to fund projects to address nonemergent obsolescence issues. A strong
case for every issue is essential to identify the risk associated with ignoring the obsolescence
issue and waiting until a replacement is required for emergent work. The probability that funding
will be allocated to address the issue increases with a good obsolescence program.
A challenging aspect of managing the obsolescence program is maintaining the schedule and
budget for multiple replacement solutions that are being developed simultaneously. The program
manager may be responsible for overseeing emergent as well as proactive solution development.
Managing and prioritizing the needs of multiple plants can be difficult when managing a fleet-
level obsolescence program.
It can be challenging to convince engineers to manually upload solution information into RAPID
OIRD and/or POMS CMIS. However, this is a good practice because shared solutions benefit all
participants.
3-20
Obtaining support for the development of proactive solutions from engineering organizations
that typically focus on resolving emergent issues can be difficult unless the issues and the
associated vulnerabilities are clearly identified.
Inputting replacement solution information into OIRD and CMIS is a good practice that can
reduce the time and manpower required for solution development at each plant. When a plant
uses a solution obtained from ORID or CMIS, it is essential for engineering personnel to perform
a review of the engineered solution to ensure that it is acceptable for use.
The support of executive and senior management is essential. Clear management support can
help manage the strategic diversion of resources from emergent to proactive development of
solutions. As the obsolescence program matures, it has a greater impact on plant system health
and equipment reliability.
Involving a committee in the prioritization process can promote support for the development of
proactive solutions from multiple organizations.
Many plants have been successful in taking a reactive approach to managing obsolescence issues
as they emerge. Although issues are addressed in time to support plant needs, time may not be
available to develop the optimal solution, or a short lead time may result in large expediting fees
and a significant diversion of plant engineering staff. The costs associated with a reactive
approach may be hidden; therefore, plants that are successful at being reactive may have
difficulty in establishing the need for a proactive program. In these cases, development of a
business case can help to identify the value added by a proactive approach.
It is important to ensure that resolved obsolescence issues are properly closed. Closure involves
updating the issue in or removing it from the issue database and priority lists, as well as ensuring
that the replacement and engineering information is provided to OIRD and or CMIS. Plant action
tracking programs are effective ways to assign work, identify owners, and monitor the status of
replacement development projects.
When resolving an obsolescence issue in a fleet environment, the benefit of developing a

solution that can resolve similar issues at other plants should be considered.
3-21
3.2.8 Monitor Performance
As is the case with any program, it is important to monitor the effectiveness of the program and
continuously seek to improve performance and efficiency. In addition to employing existing
tools such as the plant corrective action system, monitoring performance of the obsolescence
program may include the development of key performance indicators and the collection of data
related to the expense of obsolescence, which may include avoided costs and/or lost generation
attributable to the obsolescence program.
Obsolescence issues can be added to the corrective action database. Codes should be available
for events that are caused by obsolescence or have obsolescence issues that result in an extension
of outage. Outage and cost impact should be documented to the extent possible, realizing that the
impact and cost caused by obsolescence may be estimated. Documenting obsolescence issues is
one way to capture meaningful data that quantifies to what extent the impact of obsolescence is
affecting the plant. Underlying causes of events attributable to obsolescence should also be
considered. For example, an equipment failure caused by lack of completion of a PM could be
attributed to a PM deferral that resulted from an obsolescence issue. To increase awareness of the
importance of managing obsolescence, communicate successes, such as when proactive solutions
to an obsolescence issue improve the plant, and also communicate when an obsolescence issue
results in consequences adverse to the plant.
The obsolescence program owner is responsible for maintaining and monitoring the effectiveness
of the obsolescence program. Performance indicators in maintenance, operations, work
management, supply chain, and engineering provide opportunities for ongoing monitoring of the
obsolescence program effectiveness and improvement.
3-22
One way to monitor performance of the obsolescence program is using the equipment reliability
(ER) index, which monitors PM deferrals caused by obsolescence and the length of time during
which a system is red or yellow. Other ways to monitor the program include verifying the work
week schedule stability. For example, consider the following:
Are PMs greater than 50% through the allowable grace period following the target
completion date (deep in grace)?
Does a high corrective maintenance backlog exist?
Is the total corrective and elective maintenance backlog increasing?
Are operators experiencing an increase in workarounds?
Monitoring these indicators typically reflects upon how effectively the organization is managing
obsolescence issues. Section 8 of this report provides additional discussion on performance
indicators.
An effective monitoring tool that engages other plant organizations is the system health report.
Obsolescence can be incorporated as a parameter of system health. If a system has a large
number of outstanding obsolescence issues that could impact the reliability of the system, the
health report reflects the increased risk due to obsolescence.
The evaluation frequency of the obsolescence issues for a system should be based on the quantity
of issues for the system. If a system has a large number of unresolved obsolescence issues, it
should be monitored more often for resolution then a system that has few obsolescence issues.
Frequency might also be influenced by the criticality of the affected equipment in the system.
Metrics can be used by the plant to help in monitoring performance. To capture the information,
the event tracking systems in the plant should contain a cause code that can be added to an event
or issue that is caused or has been affected by obsolescence. The following topics could be
tracked to determine the effect that obsolescence has on plant performance and reliability:
Loss of generation due to obsolescence (dollars)
System unavailability attributable to obsolescence (incorporate obsolescence codes to assist
tracking)
Deferred PMs attributable to obsolescence (incorporate obsolescence codes to assist tracking)
Quantity of obsolete equipment and parts that have no known solution
Percentage of critical components with no known solution
3-23
3.2.8.3 Challenges
When first starting the program, the amount of obsolescence issues the plant has when compared
to solutions is very uneven, and there will be more unresolved issues than resolved. Monitoring
the program and ensuring that solutions are being performed and organizations that support the
program are performing their duties is important.
It is often difficult to capture the number of emergent issues involving obsolescence or the
amount of resources expended on resolving the issues in a reactive mode. Therefore, it may be
difficult to demonstrate savings achieved as a result of incorporating a proactive obsolescence
program.
Monitoring performance may be impacted by funding, poor data that impact consistent
monitoring, or the plant creating different tracking mechanisms that makes correlating
performance inaccurate or highly inconsistent between different systems.
Monitor the goals and milestones for the obsolescence program on at least a quarterly basis.
Organizations must be accountable for their part in the obsolescence process. If the process is not
followed, the use of the corrective action system may be an effective way to identify and track
issues for resolution.
Identify and share successes and failures associated with obsolescence issues.
Benchmark other plants to determine if the processes and programs that are being used at the
plant are effective when compared to how other plants or companies are handling obsolescence.
Significant improvements have been recognized in the industry in the past few years, providing
an excellent opportunity to improve the effectiveness of managing obsolescence.
3-24
4
BENCHMARKING AND LESSONS LEARNED
In addition to visiting nuclear sites reputed to have excellent obsolescence programs, information
contained in this report was gathered through responses to a questionnaire distributed to
obsolescence program managers representing 38 nuclear units.
The results of this questionnaire are summarized in the following sections, and a detailed
summary is provided in Appendix B.
4.1 Overview of the Benchmarking Questionnaire
During 2009, EPRI PSE and the project TAG developed a benchmarking questionnaire
consisting of 17 questions, which make up the subsections in Section 4.2 of this report. Seven
utilities with obsolescence programs responded to the questionnaire. These seven utilities
represent 38 nuclear units, which correlates to roughly a third (36%) of the total number of
operating units in the United States.
4.2 Summary of the Benchmarking Questionnaire Results
The numbered questions below represent the scope of issues addressed in the obsolescence
benchmarking questionnaire, which was issued in early 2009. A summary of the responses,
including key points, are provided for consideration. A more detailed summary of the responses
is provided in Appendix B.
Does your plant have an obsolescence program?
Most utilities and plants do have some form of an obsolescence program or are working on
implementing a new program at their plant.
Is obsolescence part of an existing program, or is it separate?
Survey respondents indicated two models. Although some utilities handle obsolescence as a
stand-alone program, other respondents that did not maintain a stand-alone obsolescence
program reported that obsolescence considerations were incorporated into plant equipment
reliability programs.
4-1
Benchmarking and Lessons Learned
How is obsolete equipment identified?
Obsolete equipment is identified in plant information systems as well as third-party

commercial applications in use, and the information is made accessible to plant personnel. The
following list includes examples of systems used by respondents to identify obsolete equipment,
parts, and consumables:
Enterprise asset management systems (Ventex Asset Suite, SAP, Maximo, etc.)
Material information
Plant health reports
Inventory database
POMS
System health reports
Corrective action reports
The program most widely used by survey respondents to identify obsolescence is PKMJs POMS
database.
Which plant organization "owns" the obsolescence program?
Respondents indicated that an engineering organization (design, procurement, or plant

engineering) typically owns the obsolescence program.
Which plant organizations participate in the determination and resolution of obsolete parts,
and what role does each play?
Table 4-1 below identifies the organizations that identify and/or also resolve obsolescence issues
at different plants. These are suggested ideas on the supporting organizations and do not indicate
that all these organizations would participate.
Table 4-1
Organizations Responsible for Identifying and Resolving Obsolescence Issues
Organization Identify Obsolescence Issues Resolve Obsolescence Issues

Supply Chain Yes Yes
Procurement Engineering Yes Yes
Plant Engineering Yes Yes
Design Engineering Yes Yes
Operations Yes No
Maintenance Yes No
Materials Management Yes No
Maintenance Planning Yes No
4-2
Once equipment is identified as obsolete, what is the basic process that is taken for resolution?
Processes used to resolve obsolescence issues varied with the different organizational structures
and the responsibilities assigned to each organization.
How is the obsolete equipment prioritized to resolve the most important issues?
Respondents indicated that the following considerations and tools were used to prioritize
POMS Obsolescence Manager
Plant health reports
Criticality of the equipment
Technical review board
T-week schedule
Risk of component failure
How do you obtain funding to work on resolving obsolescence issues that do not directly
impact the current T-week schedule?
Most survey respondents indicated success in obtaining funding by incorporating obsolescence

information into system health reports. When obsolescence drives poor system health, funding is
made available to improve system health and reduce risk.
Respondents also indicated that funding can be obtained through the normal budgeting process
on an issue-by-issue basis or as an annually budgeted amount allocated to resolving the highest
priority issues identified by the obsolescence program owner.
Is the process of identifying and resolving obsolete equipment continuous at your plant, or is it
only on an as-needed basis?
Two different ways of identifying and proposing resolution of obsolescence issues were
reported. Some respondents maintain a continuous process that uses all plant organizations to
track new obsolescence issues and identify them in a database. Other respondents performed a
single assessment to identify obsolescence issues and prioritize them for resolution.
Survey respondents noted that a best practice is to continuously monitor and update equipment
obsolescence status and periodically reprioritize to ensure that the impact of obsolescence on
plant reliability is minimized.
4-3
Have you established reporting capabilities that enable you to monitor factors such as changes
(increases) in lead time and cost on current procurements that could be leading indicators that
an item you currently procure is becoming obsolete? If so, how do you react when an item that
may soon be obsolete is identified?
Survey responses indicate that precursors to obsolescence such as significant increases in lead
time and price are not yet monitored or used to provide early indication of items that may
become obsolete in the near future.
What are your obsolescence programs strengths and weaknesses?
Obsolescence programs strengths and weaknesses reported by survey respondents are

summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2
Current Obsolescence Programs Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths Weaknesses
A real-time update is provided to the supply chain There is a need to collaborate more on
when an obsolescence status changes so that solutions using the EOS model.
stocking levels can be adjusted accordingly.
The program is proactive, but is lacking in
The supply chain maintains a stocking plan for progress on resolving incomplete and
addressing obsolete items. unidentifiable equipment identification
data to declare parts either obsolete or
Real-time updates are made to plant/system health not obsolete.
reports to identify associated obsolescence issues.
There is no dedicated program manager.
PKMJ POMS and CMIS and Curtiss-Wright
Scientech RAPID OIRD systems are used. Difficulties have occurred in retaining
resources/engineering personnel.
POMS is used to maintain current obsolescence
status for plant equipment. The ability to focus resources on known
proactive obsolescence issues has been
Strong management support is provided for the lacking.
obsolescence program and its objectives.
Program members are involved in the Nuclear

Utility Obsolescence Group (NUOG).
An Obsolescence Working Committee is

maintained.
The PKMJ POMS Obsolescence Manager bolt-on

application is used to track and prioritize
obsolescence issues scattered throughout plant
databases.
4-4
What are your program successes?
The following obsolescence program successes were noted in survey responses:

Reductions in the impact of preventive maintenance (PM) task deferrals resulting from
obsolete part issues.
Early identification of obsolete parts associated with planned work. One respondent indicated
that reservations for PM parts are initiated 52 weeks prior to the planned work week to
ensure that parts are available at least 35 days in advance of the work.
Shift from a reactive to a proactive approach.
Zero INPO or regulatory concerns related to plant obsolescence.
Successful integration of the obsolescence program and system health report process that
resulted in recognition of system-specific obsolescence issues by system engineers.
Creation of a Foxboro instrumentation replacement program that consolidated and resolved
obsolescence issues that were impacting a group of equipment and related parts that was
impacting several plant systems.
Ability to successfully control and track obsolete transmitter replacements.
Ability to successfully control and track recorder replacements.
Creation of an Obsolescence Program Implementation Team consisting of individuals from
various plant organizations
A fleet-wide obsolescence procedure has been published, implemented, and accepted
The corrective maintenance and emergent work job backlog is being maintained at excellent
levels due to successful identification, prioritization, and resolution of obsolescence issues.
During the past two years, no instances of a failed obsolete component resulted in extended
plant shutdown or limiting condition of operation (LCO) time
Engineering changes and stocking replacements for obsolete components are proactively
performed.
Better trending and tracking of plant obsolete equipment and parts.
Better and more frequent updating of OIRD with solutions.
4-5
What lessons have been learned (what could have been done better) from your obsolescence
program development and implementation?
The following is a summary of lessons-learned that were reported by survey respondents:

Establishing the ability to tie critical spares closer to obsolescence in the plant health report
and more clearly include them in life cycle management (LCM) and long term planning will
increase the ability to address obsolescence issues before they impact plant operations and
maintenance.
Recognizing the need to have an official program is important to a successful proactive
obsolescence management program because normal priorities will not drive success.
Training plant personnel to use systems that contain obsolescence information such as
POMS, RAPID, and OIRD is important.
Identifying and updating procedures to support the Obsolescence Program helps to ensure the
success of the program.
Obsolescence issues need to be identified, prioritized, and approached systematically.
Has the program completely accomplished the original goal, or is there still work remaining?
In all cases, the respondents indicated that there was significant work remaining, although in
those cases where a program had been established and implemented for a while, much progress
had been made.
If you could start all over or make any desirable changes, what would be different?
In general, the respondents indicated that the following recommendations for organizations in the
process of implementing a new proactive obsolescence management program today are as
follows:
Develop a project plan.
Make more effective use of plant staff and program acceptance by creating subject matter
experts at each plant site.
Review and update existing equipment identification data before determining vendor
support/obsolescence status.
Identify and apply resources/individuals dedicated to identification and resolution of
proactive obsolescence issues.
Make more effective use of POMS and PM Forecaster software.
Develop a better way to consistently prioritize obsolescence issues.
Implement the POMS system earlier.
4-6
How do you measure success? What are your key performance indicators?
Key performance indicators (KPIs) cited by survey respondents are noted below. Several
respondents indicated that formal KPIs have not yet been established for their obsolescence
programs. Additional discussion regarding KPIs is included in Section 8 of this report.
ER Index top quartile with full points in obsolescence influencing parameters such as PM
deferrals, PMs greater than 50% in grace, >50%, work week schedule stability, operator
workarounds, total maintenance backlog, long-range planning effectiveness.
Number of INPO and Regulatory open issues concerning obsolescence
Number of deferred or late PM work orders due to obsolescence
Amount of expediting costs due to obsolescence issues
Number of proactive resolutions of known obsolescence issues
Number of instances of power reduction due to obsolescence issues
Having the needed part or replacement component when you need it
Request for resolution (RFR) backlog, used for requesting and performing engineering
evaluations, change requests, replacement item equivalencies, and administrative changes
associated with obsolescence
Operations Focus Index
Support equipment reliability program
Number of critical components without a replacement in inventory or replacement solution
available
Number of priority obsolete components in the backlog
Number of days priority components have existed in the backlog (dwell time)
Number of existing known issues
Number of issues identified during the course of work
Advance warning of developing issues (time)
4-7
5
PRIORITIZATION
5.1 Overview
Prioritization of obsolescence issues should consider the factors noted in Figure 3-2 of this
report:
Safety classification
Equipment criticality classification
Precursors to obsolescence
Probability that a replacement will be needed
Available supply of replacement items
These factors are related to the relative importance of equipment to the plant. Additional factors
that can be considered are the difficulty and expense associated with developing a replacement
solution. For example, a repair may be less expensive or time consuming than an equivalency
evaluation, and in turn, an equivalency evaluation may be less expensive and time consuming
than a modification. The value of a particular solution or its applicability to other plants in the
fleet might also be worth consideration.
The prioritization schemes noted during development of this report incorporate various factors
into the ranking system. The relative importance of each factor is determined, and a relative
weight or importance is mathematically assigned. Prioritization schemes should be based upon
and consistent with established plant priorities.
5-1
Prioritization
5.2 Existing Prioritization Models
5.2.1 First Prioritization Example DTE Energy
5.2.1.1 Basis for Prioritization
In this first example, a system is established to prioritize the resolution of all identified obsolete
equipment performed at the equipment level (not for individual parts and consumables) and takes
the following main categories of factors into consideration:
Component classifications (safety class, criticality classification, and so forth)
Work order information (priority, type of work, historical and planned demand)
Stock history (quantity on hand and historical usage or demand for the item)
Pertinent data for each obsolete equipment ID is contained in the POMS Obsolescence Manager,
and the factors are weighed using the software, which provides a prioritized list that is utilized
for input into the Station Long Range Plan, Obsolescence Program Health Reports, and
System/Component Health Reports.
The software calculates an Obsolescence Value Rating (OVR) that is used to prioritize each
component. The following scheme is then used to quickly identify priority assigned by the
obsolescence program in reports:
00.49 = Green
0.500.99 = White
1.001.99 = Yellow
> 2.00 = Red
The OVR scheme used for prioritization of obsolescence issues at DTE Energy is illustrated in
Table 5-1.
5-2
Prioritization
Table 5-1
Obsolescence Value Ranking Calculation Basis DTE Energy
Parameter Weight Points Associated with Classification
5 Points 3 Points 1 Point
Quality Classification (Reflects 8% Safety Related Augmented Non Quality

Equipment Importance to Plant)
Criticality Classification 7% Critical Non Critical
Technical Specification 7% Yes

Probabilistic Risk Assessment 7% Yes
Classification
Maintenance Rule 5% Yes
Environmental Qualification 5% EQ
Seismic Category 5% Seismic Two over One
Manufacturer/Model Count (Total 4% >20 6-20 <6

installed)
Fire Protection 3% Yes Appendix R
In-Service Inspection 3% Yes

Emergency Core Cooling System 3% I or 2
Division
ASME Section XI Testing 2% Yes
Design Change 2% Yes
Stock Quality Code (Reflects 8% Safety Related Augmented

difficulty in procuring item) Quality
Commercial Grade Engineering
Dedicated Review Required
Work Order Priority 7%

Job Type 1 3% Corrective
Job Type 2 2% Preventive
Job Type 3 1% Elective
Historical Usage over 5 years 5% >11 6-10 <6

Lead Time (Days) 5% >151 61-150 <61
Quantity In-Stock 5% 0 1-10 >11

Future Demand 3% 0-6 6.1-11.9 >12
5-3
Prioritization
5.2.2 Second Prioritization Example Exelon Nuclear
In this example, a tiered approach to prioritization is taken. First, a value from 0 to 7 is assigned
that is associated with the difficulty in developing a solution using the criteria illustrated in
Figure 5-1. This value is then multiplied by the component AP-913 classification score assigned
to equipment (1 = critical, 2 = non-critical, 3 = run-to-failure). The result provides a ranking for
each equipment ID ranging from 1 to 21, which forms the first tier of prioritization.
To further prioritize (since several different equipment IDs can have the same score), the POMS
Obsolescence Manager system is used to calculate an OVR for each component. The OVR is
used to stratify groups of equipment with the same first tier ranking result. For example, if 40
equipment IDs had a first tier ranking of 19, the OVR would be used to identify and rank each of
the 40 equipment IDs.
The ranking and weighting scheme programmed into POMS Obsolescence Manager was
developed by a team consisting of personal from engineering, system managers, supply chain,
and maintenance organizations.
The obsolescence value ranking scheme used for prioritization of obsolescence issues at Exelon
Nuclear is illustrated in Table 5-2
5-4
Prioritization
Table 5-2
Obsolescence Value Ranking Calculation Basis Exelon Nuclear
Parameter Weight Points Associated with Classification
5 Points 3 Points 1 Point 0 Points

Component Type 3% Instrumentation Mechanical
or Electrical
Technical Specification 5% Yes
Functional Quality 10% Safety Related Safety Augmented Non Quality
Assurance Classification Active Related Quality Related
Passive
Regulatory Guide 1.97 3% Category 1, 2 3, None
Cat.
Maintenance Rule (MR) 4% Risk Significant In Not in MR
Maintenance Scope
Rule Scope
Environmental 5% EQ Not EQ
Qualification
Seismic Category 5% Seismic Seismic 2 Non
Category 1 over 1 Seismic
Fire Protection 3% Yes No
Class 1E Interface 1.5% Interfaces No Interface
with Class with Class
1E 1E
Probabilistic Safety 3% In Scope of Not in
Analysis (PSA) PSA Program Scope of
PSA
ASME Section XI Testing 2.5% Yes
Fire Safety Safe 3% In-Scope In Scope, no Not in
Shutdown Augmented QA scope
QA or higher requirements
Outage Risk 2% Both 1 of the 2 Evaluations
Management evaluations evaluations do not
indicate risk indicate risk indicate risk
Pressure Boundary In- 1% Yes No
Service Testing
Reliability Centered 10% Critical Non-Critical Run to
Maintenance Category Failure
Action Request Type 5% Equipment Routine
Trouble
Work Order Task Type 5% Corrective Elective
Total Lead Time (weeks) 5% > 12 3 to 12 <3
Average Unit Price ($) 5% > 50 10-50 < 10
Stock Type 10% Not Stocked Stocked
5-5
Prioritization
5.2.3 Third Prioritization Example FirstEnergy
Table 5-3 contains a prioritization scheme used by FirstEnergy to rank obsolescence issues. The
ranking algorithm clearly takes anticipated availability of replacements into consideration, as
lead-time, months until depletion of available stock, and available spares are heavily weighted.
Functional safety and reliability-centered maintenance classifications are also highly influential.
Table 5-3
Obsolescence Value Ranking Calculation Basis First Energy
Parameter Weight Points associated with classification
1000 800 Points 600 Points 400 Points 200 Points

Points
Plant Health 15% >=5 4 3 2 1

Red/Yellow Actions
Open PM, CM, EM 10% >=15 >=10<15 >=5<10 >=3<5 >=1<3

Orders
Component AP 913 10% >=50 >=35<50 >=20<35 >=10<20 >=3<10

Critical
Components PSA 2.5% >=15 >=10<15 >=5<10 >=3<5 >=1<3

High
Components SPV 2.5% >=15 >=10<15 >=5<10 >=3<5 >=1<3
Components Tech 2.5% >=15 >=10<15 >=5<10 >=3<5 >=1<3

Spec LCO <= 72 hrs
Components AP 913 2.5% >=50 >=35<50 >=20<35 >=10<20 >=3<10
Non-Critical
Components Quality 1% >=50 >=35<50 >=20<35 >=10<20 >=3<10
Components EQ 1% >=15 >=10<15 >=5<10 >=3<5 >=1<3

Components ASME 1% >=15 >=10<15 >=5<10 >=3<5 >=1<3
Components Seismic 1% >=15 >=10<15 >=5<10 >=3<5 >=1<3

Total Stock Cost 1% >=50K >=30K<50K >=15K<30K >=10K<15K >=5K<10K
Months Until Depleted 20% =<3 >=4<6 >=7<9 >=10<12 >=13<15
Spares Available 20% =<2 >=3<10 >=11<15 >=16<20 >=21<25

Days Lead Time 10% >=90 >=60<90 >=30<60 >=14<30 >=7<14
5-6
Prioritization
Figure 5-1
Prioritization Ranking Scheme
5-7
Prioritization
5.3 Identification of the Highest Priority Obsolescence Issues
Figure 5-2 provides an example format for identifying prioritized obsolescence issues
Top Ten Obsolescence Issues
Sponsor Sponsor Name
Month, Day, Year
Site/Corporate Logo
SME Name/Extension
or Name Purpose: To provide a high-level tool to
ensure organizational alignment and Updated XX/XX/XXXX
sponsorship for resolution of Equipment
Obsolescence Issues Reference ER-AA-550, Latest Revision
# Issue Stock # Application Resolution Owner Due

Code # and ATI # Date
Recent Obsolescence Concerns/Successes
# Issue Stock # Application Completed Contact Completed

Code # Action/ATI Date
#
Figure 5-2
Sample Format for Identification of Prioritized Obsolescence Issues
5-8
Prioritization
5.4 ERWG Standard Cause Codes for Obsolescence
The Equipment Reliability Working Group (ERWG) has developed a guidance document titled
"Corrective Action and ER Interface to gain consistent cause coding in the corrective action
program on critical component failures with the goal of reducing critical component failures in
the industry and improving the ability to apply lessons learned across the industry. The guidance
document focuses on applying cause codes to the major building blocks of INPO AP-913
Equipment Reliability Process Description3. One of the AP-913 building blocks, Long-Term
Planning and Life Cycle Management, contains obsolescence management considerations. A
specific obsolescence cause code has been provided in the ERWG guidance document. The
cause code is as follows: (AP-913) aging/obsolescence concern, asset management/life cycle
management plans less than adequate. The AP-913 cause codes are entered by station EPIX
reporters as part of the normal EPIX reporting process for high critical component failures
starting in 2008. EPIX failure AP-913 obsolescence cause coding can now be used to ensure that
industry lessons learned on similar manufacturer/model number equipment in similar
applications are factored into the prioritization and resolution of obsolescence issues.
3
5-9
6
AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR ADDRESSING
OBSOLESCENCE ISSUES
6.1 Overview
The purpose of this section is to discuss the various internal and external resources available to
licensees for proactively addressing obsolescence issues and developing cost-effective and
timely solutions. An overview of the various products and their capabilities is provided in
Table 6-1.
6-1
6-2
Available Resources for Addressing Obsolescence Issues

Overview of External Resources and Product Capabilities
Table 6-1
NUOG
EOS
USA Obsolescence Initiative
USA OIRD Pilot
PIM/Alliances
OIRD
RAPID
POMS OWL
POMS CMIS
POMS Prioritization Tool
POMS Obsolescence Manager

POMS PM Forecasting
POMS
EPRI
Collaborative Development of
X
New Solutions
Prioritize Industry Issues

X
X
Utilities Identify Their Extent of
X
Condition
Identify Precursors to
X
Obsolescence
Prioritize Utility Issues

X
Shared Inventory Data

X
Shared Inventory Items

X
Share Existing Replacement

X
Solutions for Obsolete Items
Share Existing Equivalency

Evaluations and Obsolete Make/
X
Model Information
Vendors Access Utility Data to

Proactively
X
Develop/Recommend Pertinent
Solutions
Utilities Share Existing

X
X
Solutions
Guidance for Developing and

Implementing an Effective Plant
X
Obsolescence Program
6.2 Supplier-Provided Resources
Several products designed to facilitate the management of obsolescence are currently available to
the nuclear generation industry. The most widely used tools include:
Pooled Inventory Management (PIM)
RapidPartSmart (RAPID)
Obsolete Items Replacement Database (OIRD)
Proactive Obsolescence Management System (POMS)
POMS Preventive Maintenance Forecasting (POMS PM)
POMS Obsolescence Manager (POMS OM)
POMS Configuration Management Information System (POMS CMIS)
6.2.1 Shared Inventory Programs (PIM and Others)
Shared inventory programs are arrangements between units and/or plants to maintain a pool of
inventory that is available to the plant that needs it first.
6.2.1.1 Pooled Inventory Management (PIM)
An example of a shared inventory program is PIM. The PIM program is a collaborative program
to procure and store long lead-time and high-cost equipment that includes 23 owners of 54 U.S.
nuclear generating units. The PIM program is organized under the Pooled Equipment Inventory
Company, which is a not-for-profit company and open to all U.S. nuclear generating units. The
day-to-day operations of the PIM program are conducted through a management contract that is
currently held by Southern Nuclear Services, LLC, which is an affiliate of the Southern
Company.
Equipment included in the program can be used by a members nuclear unit if a failure of a
similar component occurs at their facility. In recent years, the PIM program has expanded its
scope beyond long lead-time, high-cost emergency equipment. This allows the program to
address issues involving smaller components, critical spares, and obsolescence.
PIM equipment is stored and maintained in a centrally located warehouse that meets the
applicable requirements of a 10CFR50, Appendix B [3] quality assurance program.
6-3
6.2.2 RapidPartSmart
In October 1992, recognizing that vendors of safety-related material were beginning to abandon
the nuclear industry, eight utilities owning and operating nuclear plants began using the Readily
Accessible Parts Inventory Database (RAPID) to pool their on-hand nuclear plant inventory and,
when necessary, make it available to participants in need.
Today, RAPID (a membership service of Scientech, a Curtiss-Wright Flow Control company)

collects and puts in one place the on-hand inventory of every nuclear power plant in North
America and makes this information available to its members. RAPID also provides a wide array
of databases and web-based tools designed and developed to directly interface OEMs and
equipment suppliers with utility purchasing, engineering, and maintenance organizations; to
support utility investment recovery efforts; to proactively address equipment obsolescence; and
to provide direct communication and collaboration between members and industry focus groups.
RAPID can be used by utilities to do the following:
Locate sources to fulfill emergent part needs
Identify multiple sources for routine restocking of parts
Avoid purchases by reserving material for contingent need
Survey industry supply status to reset stocking levels
Communicate and manage multi-site inventories within one company
Automatically generate part procurements and purchase orders
Liquidate surplus material
Match utility supply demands to industry supplies
Identify replacement manufacturers for discontinued parts
Display parts in stock that are obsolete and the replacement solutions for them
6.2.3 Obsolete Items Replacement Database (OIRD)
In 2000, the Nuclear Utility Obsolescence Group (NUOG) and Scientech worked together to
design and develop the Obsolete Items Replacement Database (OIRD) and to seamlessly
integrate it with the inventory databases in RAPID.
The initial utility data entered in OIRD were the contents of the EPRI Obsolete Item Database
(OID), which consisted of item equivalency evaluation information provided by EPRI-member
utilities.
6-4
The development of OIRD enabled participants and their OEM and/or vendor firms to begin
sharing information about components and spare parts that have been determined to no longer be
manufactured or no longer exist in their original form. Information shared includes manufacturer
model and part number, impact of obsolescence on utility and supplier inventory, replacement
solutions, and the replacements supporting engineering equivalency evaluations.
Entry of data to OIRD is accomplished by an online interface, or data can be submitted in bulk
to RAPID for upload. When members add an obsolete part to OIRD, a notification that the part is
obsolete and information about its replacement solution, if provided, are automatically sent by e-
mail to all utility members having the obsolete part listed in their inventory data pool. If an
obsolete item is added and a replacement solution is unavailable, both the member utilities
having the part in inventory and RAPID vendor members are notified. Member utilities stocking
a part listed in OIRD that was added without an associated solution are notified when the
obsolete part listing has been updated with replacement solution information.
Recognizing that all nuclear plants participating in both NUOG and POMS are also members of
RAPID, PKMJ and Scientech, working closely with NUOG, are identifying and capitalizing on
the synergies between the two programs to avoid duplication of services and/or the routine tasks
and/or processes required of a utility to support both programs. A seamless interface has been
established between the two programs to share the inventory and installed component data
submitted by member utilities. If a part is identified by the POMS OEM/vendor contact initiative
to be obsolete and it does not already exist in OIRD, it is automatically added to OIRD. POMS
notification reports are available to its members at rapidpartsmart.com along with access to
individual plant/fleet and industry wide obsolescence reports compiled by POMS from the
obsolescence data maintained by both programs. POMS/RAPID members can gain access to
either program from the RAPID or POMS web site to share and/or obtain information related to
obsolescence.
6.2.4 Proactive Obsolescence Management System (POMS)
The Proactive Obsolescence Management System (POMS) is a service designed to determine

what installed equipment is no longer supported by the manufacturer. This is done by collecting
equipment information from member utilities and contacting each manufacturer of installed
equipment on a regular basis to determine if the model number is still supported. This
information is made available to members through a web-based application.
Tools developed to address deficiencies in bills of materials (BOMs) led to the inception of
POMS. Originally, equipment information was collected for plant equipment and linked to
associated spare and replacement parts. The resulting data were used to leverage multiple
stations existing BOM data to create a single bill of materials for each installed piece of
equipment.
6-5
PKMJ analyzed sample data from several different nuclear plant sites and determined that a
significant number of shared manufacturer model numbers were installed. PKMJ initiated a
program to contact the suppliers of installed equipment to determine if the equipment was still
supported and offered the service of analyzing equipment information, contacting suppliers for
utilities to minimize the impact of multiple utilities contacting the same suppliers on a regular
basis, and consolidating industry equipment information in a single location.
Installed equipment/component information is collected from each participating POMS member.

The required fields for this information are listed in Table 6-2. This information is analyzed, and
a distinct list of model numbers by manufacturer is generated. The POMS Vendor Contacting
Team then contacts all manufacturers once a year to determine if each model number is still
supported.
Table 6-2
POMS Data Elements
Equipment Data BOM Data Stock Data WO History Data
Site Name Equipment Tag Site Name Equipment Tag

Number Number
Equipment Number Stock Number Stock Number Associated Stock

Number
Manufacturer Manufacturer WO Start Date
Model Number Manufacturer Part Number WO Completion Date
Equipment Type Description WO Number
Equipment Description Stock Level WO Description
Criticality Classification Stock Reorder Point WO Status
System Name Obsolete

System Number Quality Class
Quality Class
Single Point of
Vulnerability Classification
ASME Classification
Plant equipment data are gathered from utilities information systems by working with their
information technology departments. Data are collected in two ways: (1) data can be transferred
directly from the utility to the POMS data team, or (2) data can be uploaded via the RAPID
Gateway, which was modified to automate the process of uploading data to POMS. The
information gathered includes work orders, inventory, bills of materials, and master equipment
lists. Use of the RAPID Gateway automates the data transfer process and allows utilities to keep
their information current with minimal impact on resources.
6-6
In addition to gathering data from utilities, POMS incorporates third-party databases such as
OIRD industry equipment performance indices. OIRD provides utility-entered part-level
obsolescence information, while industry performance indices provide a record of equipment
failures for the industry. Industry failure data can then be used as input for prioritization of
The POMS Vendor Contacting Team contacts the manufacturers once each year to ensure that
the data are current. The POMS vendor contacting process collects the following information for
installed equipment:
Whether the model number is obsolete
The vendor-recommended replacement
Whether the vendor supports spare parts
Whether the vendor provides refurbishment services
Any additional vendor comments
Vendor contact information (name, phone, e-mail, and so on)
Information provided by vendors is used to populate and update POMS. This information is
supplied to each participating utility through the online POMS searching tool, the online POMS
reports, and OIRD notifications. OIRD notifications are generated in POMS and are distributed
through RapidPartSmart. The RapidPartSmart and POMS tools are integrated to allow easy
navigation between systems. This is beneficial to POMS members because RapidPartSmart
contains utility inventory.
The POMS Vendor Contacting Team has experienced excellent success in tracking down and
receiving information from vendors. Of approximately 13,000 vendors currently in the POMS
Vendor Contacting program, only seven have chosen not to support the initiative. Overseas
vendors have been very supportive, with an average response time of one week. On average, the
POMS Vendor Contacting Team makes eight calls before obtaining obsolescence information.
POMS also contains an extensive listing of current vendors and their various vendor and supplier
associations that is updated on an ongoing basis through the POMS vendor contact process.
6.2.4.1 POMS PM Forecasting
POMS PM Forecasting uses maintenance information such as what parts and quantity of parts
are required for maintenance, scheduled maintenance dates, and equipment obsolescence data to
forecast when obsolescence issues will impact site schedules. For most sites, about 85% of
weekly activity is repetitive work. The objective of PM Forecasting is to enable nuclear facilities
to determine when the available stock of a specific obsolete part or piece of equipment will be
depleted. The required fields needed for PM Forecasting are listed in Table 6-3.
6-7
POMS uses plant data to extrapolate the anticipated usage of replacement parts (based upon
planned maintenance activities and actual use) in order to determine an estimate of when parts in
stock will no longer be available.
Table 6-3
Preventive Maintenance Forecasting Data Elements
Equipment Data Maintenance Plan Data
Single Point Vulnerability Number

Description
Next Schedule Date
Frequency
Interval
Parts
Part Quantity
Part Cost
Steps
Step Hours
The PM Forecasting module extrapolates obsolescence impact to planned PM work over five-,
ten-, and twenty-year time frames. With this information, plant organizations can predict when
obsolescence issues will impact site work schedules and use this information to prioritize
obsolescence issues. A PM Forecasting Impact Graph can be produced that indicates which
equipment, parts, and PM tasks will be affected by obsolescence and when the impact will occur,
based upon available inventory and planned maintenance. This graphical representation of an
obsolescence impact can be used as an aid in prioritizing and planning for the timely
development of solutions to future obsolescence issues.
6.2.4.2 POMS Obsolescence Manager Prioritization Tool
The Obsolescence Manager is a software tool designed by PKMJ to facilitate the prioritization
and resolution of obsolescence-related issues. This tool enables plants to identify the highest
impacting obsolete issues by using both site-specific and industry-wide data. The Obsolescence
Manager quickly provides a prioritization of all identified obsolete issues, utilizing an industry-
tested algorithm customized for each site. Suitable action plans can be developed using the
Proactive Obsolescence Management System (POMS), PM Forecasting, and CMIS.
6-8
6.2.4.3 POMS Configuration Management Information System (CMIS)
The CMIS application designed by PKMJ assists engineers in the creation of design changes,
equivalency changes, and temporary modifications. CMIS is set up to maximize automation of
data sharing and integrity to promote efficiency when using an existing engineering product as a
starting point for a new product. CMIS collects data from engineering evaluations produced by
subscriber organizations and is capable of recreating (or cloning) that data in other subscriber
organizations engineering evaluation formats. CMIS is customized to match each subscriber
sites procedural requirements. In addition, CMIS tracks progress and status throughout
evaluation development. CMIS can clone evaluation packages across fleets and between
different subscriber organizations and can be integrated into site-specific data management
systems to ensure that configuration is maintained from the development of the package through
post-installation records updating. The current membership of CMIS includes 24 nuclear units
and over 6,000 total evaluations.
6.3 PKMJ Obsolescence Watch List
A recent product from PKMJ is the Obsolescence Watch List (OWL). This tool can be used to
monitor precursors to obsolescence to predict obsolescence in the plant. PKMJ leverages their
vendor contact program and monitors other variables such as significant changes in price and
decreases in available inventory and lead times.
6.4 Update on USA/STARS Pilot Project
6.4.1 Concept and Project Approach
The Utility Service Alliance and STARS partnered with PKMJ and Curtiss Wright Flow Control
to develop a collaborative solution pilot project beginning in 2009. The projects focus is
proactive development of obsolescence solutions across multiple sites that share common
equipment (same model numbers). The goal of the project is to demonstrate that collaborative
solution development is a viable option to reducing plant risk due to obsolescence, reducing
obsolescence backlog, and reducing solution development and evaluation costs to participating
utilities.
6.4.2 Alliance Component Ranking
To meet project objectives and maximize the value to participating utilities, the list of
components to be addressed had to be determined. To accomplish this task, each facility within
the USA/STARS alliance that was interested in participating submitted a top 10 list of ranked
obsolete components. The lists were created based upon each facilitys individual ranking
method and criteria.
6-9
For example Energy Northwests list was comprised of longstanding obsolescence issues
including high priority issues that the equipment reliability program had identified through
system health reports and known upcoming obsolescence issues. All top-10 lists were submitted
to PKMJ for data manipulation and ranking based upon the ranking scheme illustrated in Table
6-4. The compiled lists were supplemented with site-specific data taken from the POMS database
for each site. PKMJ will develop a composite list that ranks all issues submitted.
Table 6-4
USA STARS Collaborative Solution Development Ranking Scheme
Criteria Score
Top 10 List from Utility 10

Safety Related 5
Critical 4
Stocked Component 3
Affected 1
No Impact 0
6.4.3 Solution Development
Each high-ranking item will be further reviewed to determine if the ranking is appropriate and to
confirm if the need still exists for a replacement solution. Factors that will be considered when
making the final decision include:
Possible existing solutions
Site impact
Immediacy of need
Lead time
It is anticipated that once a final decision is made by the sites involved that will benefit from the
solution, the obsolete components will be evaluated by PKMJs engineering group. Curtiss
Wright Flow Control (CWFC) will provide product subject matter expertise (SME) to support
PKMJs evaluation of any hardware solutions options previously identified within the industry.
In situations where no previously identified hardware solutions exist, CWFC will provide
support to identify or develop potential hardware solution candidates.
Although multiple-site facilities may use the same model number, the component may be
installed in very different applications, which can make it difficult to perform a generic
equivalency evaluation. Also, since the requirements for preparation and review of replacement
item evaluations are unique to each site, each evaluation will be slightly different. PKMJ will
perform the generic evaluations, but will use input provided by each site according to Table 6-5.
6-10
PKMJ will complete replacement evaluations under the auspices of their quality assurance
program using inputs provided by the sites, and each site will review and approve the evaluation
as it applies to their site.
Table 6-5
Replacement Evaluation Input Sources and Review Requirement
Document Preparation Complete Under PKMJ QA Program
Key Characteristics Site must prepare and review Site must prepare and review
Comparison evaluation evaluation
Site must prepare site-specific Site must prepare site-specific

Partial Evaluation information and review evaluation information and review evaluation
Full Evaluation Site must review evaluation Site accepts completed full evaluation
6.4.4 Anticipated Benefits
Some of the anticipated benefits associated with joint development of replacement evaluations
and hardware solutions for obsolete are the following:
Using a contractor with expertise in obsolescence solutions adds consistency and efficiency
to the process and does not pull station engineers off normal value-added tasks and
assignments.
The contractor has multiple industry contacts that can be employed to ensure that a
technically correct and low-cost solution is pursued.
Draft engineering equivalency evaluations can be approved as is or can be easily converted to
a design change package if required.
Software can be used to develop engineering equivalencies where a proposed solution
already exists in OIRD.
The overall effect is lower costs while completing a higher volume of obsolescence solutions.
There is the opportunity for external assessments to recognize collaboration teams for
pursuing an effective obsolescence management program that actively supports nuclear
safety and equipment reliability.
6-11
7
COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS TO
OBSOLESCENCE ISSUES
7.1 Concept
The majority of equipment found in any plant in the current U.S. fleet can typically be found in
one or more other plants in the fleet. Therefore, opportunity exists to collaborate with other
plants or licensees when developing proactive replacement solutions that involve external
suppliers and engineering services. Collaboration enables participants to share the cost of
solution development that is suitable for multiple applications.
In addition, organizations that elect to forgo participation in a given project are nevertheless
aware of the project and can update the equipment records in their obsolescence database to
reflect that a solution is in development. When development of the solution is complete, records
can be updated again to reflect that a staged replacement solution exists.
7.2 Collaborative Project Approach
Participants can share the cost of projects involving the development of replacement solutions.
Any single organization that is working on a replacement solution that involves external
suppliers has an opportunity to collaborate. Ideally, collaboration would involve several
licensees working together with a supplier from the onset of the project to develop a one-size-
fits-all solution. However, this may not always be possible because it is unlikely that several
licensees would have the same obsolescence issue ranked as their highest priority issue.
A more basic form of collaboration involves communication. Organizations that are working on
a replacement solution can simply notify other organizations that share the impacted equipment
or parts that there is work in progress on a solution. This will ensure that other organizations do
not duplicate the effort when and if they need the replacement solution.
The basic steps to a collaborative project are provided here.
7-1
Collaborative Development of Solutions to Obsolescence Issues
7.2.1 Identification of Common Issues
Industry-wide data such as that available in POMS can be used to identify plants that use the
same equipment manufacturer model number and likely have common obsolete equipment and
parts. When a candidate solution development project is being planned by one organization, they
can search available data to identify and notify candidates for collaboration.
7.2.2 Identification of Demand Quantities
Demand information or the estimated quantity of items that will be required in the future can
play an important role in gaining the support of external solution providers (suppliers). In some
cases, suppliers may be willing to consider anticipated demand when determining the cost of
solution development.
7.2.3 Identification of Available Solution Type
The organizations collaborating can identify the various options available for resolving the
obsolescence issue, such as a generic modification or equivalency evaluation that employs an
existing non-obsolete device or reverse engineering the obsolete device.
7.2.4 Selection of Solution Type
The type of solution selected is typically based upon estimated costs, lead times, effectiveness of
the solution, and ability for the solution to meet future replacement needs.
7.2.5 Consolidation of Participants Technical Requirements
Each licensee can submit applicable technical requirements and can collaborate with each other
and possible suppliers to develop a specification that meets the needs of all licensees involved in
the project.
7.2.6 Requests for Quote
Quotes are requested from qualified suppliers. The collaboration team may wish to provide
anticipated demand information with the request for quotes as well as a request for the supplier
to provide a model for compensating the participants in the project in the event that the solution
is sold to a nonparticipant. Participants could be fairly compensated for sale of the solution to
nonparticipants through prearranged royalty agreements or discounts.
7.2.7 Supplier Selection
The collaboration team reviews the requests for quote and selects a supplier.
7-2
Collaborative Development of Solutions to Obsolescence Issues
7.2.8 In-Process Controls and Surveillances
The collaboration team works with the supplier to establish appropriate in-process design
reviews, tests, inspections, and surveillances.
7.2.9 Receipt Inspection
Each licensee performs receipt inspection on the replacement items upon arrival. Solutions are
updated in shared databases such as POMS, OIRD, and CMIS.
7.3 Sharing Project Information and Development Costs
Typically, one licensee works with a single supplier on a particular replacement solution. As
mentioned in Section 7.2, an opportunity exists to make other licensees that use the same
equipment aware of the replacement solution project so that they may elect to join (and share
costs of) the project. In instances where a licensee decides not to participate in the project, they
can still update their obsolescence program information to reflect that the solution is being
developed.
Should the need ever arise for the replacement solution, the licensee who did not participate will
be aware of the solution and can request the replacement item and other information from the
licensees that funded the project. Ideally in these cases, the supplier would provide some form of
credit or rebate to the licensees who funded the replacement solution. The rebate offsets the
licensees original investment in solution development. In addition, it serves as an incentive for
licensees to move forward with development of additional solutions. When a licensee initiates a
project to develop a replacement solution that can find application in other licensees facilities,
provisions should be included in the contract with the supplier to address credit, rebates, or
royalties available to the licensee when the solution for which they funded development is sold
to other licensees.
7-3
8
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
8.1 Key Performance Indicators
As noted in Section 4 of this report, key performance indicators (KPIs) and their use were an
issue addressed in the benchmarking questionnaire. For those respondents who had developed a
proactive obsolescence program and had some implementation experience, a few had developed
KPIs; some of these process measurement tools are summarized below:
ER Index top quartile with full points in obsolescence influenced the parameters such as PM
deferrals, PMs deep in grace, work week stability, operator workarounds, total maintenance
backlog, long range planning effectiveness
Number of INPO and regulatory open issues
Number of deferred or late PM work orders due to obsolescence
Amount of expediting costs due to obsolescence issues
Number of proactive resolution of known obsolescence issues
Number of instances of power reduction due to obsolescence issues
Having the needed part or replacement component when you need it
Request for resolution backlog
Operations focus index
Support equipment reliability program
Number of critical components that fail without a replacement available
Number of priority obsolete components in the backlog
Number of days priority components have existed in the backlog
8.2 Potential Key Performance Indicators
In addition to the KPIs noted above, the TAG discussed other KPIs that could be developed to
track the overall progress of the obsolescence program. These KPIs would address critical
component and single point of vulnerability exposure, monitoring the total number of
unidentifiable pieces of equipment (equipment for which the OEM or OES cannot be
determined) and the number of pieces of obsolete equipment (and perhaps supporting parts and
consumables) for which no solution exists.
8-1
Key Performance Indicators
Figure 8-1
Percentage of Unknown Equipment and Stock Codes
Figure 8-1 illustrates a KPI that could monitor the percentage or total quantity of unknown
equipment IDs and stock codes (for example, catalog IDs, material numbers) for which actual
manufacturer and model or part number information is not available, resulting in the inability to
determine the obsolescence status for these equipment IDs and stock codes. The percentage of
unknowns should decrease over time.
Figure 8-2
Overall Availability of Solutions for Obsolete Items
Figure 8-2 illustrates a KPI that could monitor the percentage of obsolete stock codes for
inventory that remains on hand, no inventory, and inventory that has a known solution. Over
time, the percentage of obsolete stock codes for inventory that remains on hand will likely
decrease and the percentage of stock codes for inventory with known solutions should gradually
increase.
8-2
8.3 Existing Key Performance Indicators
The following performance indicators shown in Tables 8-1 and 8-2 are provided for illustrative
purposes only to demonstrate how plants can measure certain criteria regarding the effectiveness
of their obsolescence program.
Table 8-1
Example of Key Performance Indicators for Obsolescence Programs
Color Performance Score Action
Green Excellent 9 Requires no additional attention at this time
White Acceptable 10-12 Current performance and /or activities are acceptable
Yellow Needs improvement 13-15 Needs additional attention

Red Not acceptable >16 Risks high and/or requires excessive resources to maintain
Category Green White Yellow Red
Possible points score 0 1 2 3
INPO and regulatory No open One violation N/A One violation or INPO
health obsolescence issues, or INPO AFI AFI with no action plan in
process violations, or with an place
findings approved
action plan in
place
Obsolescence 0 1 IR written 2 IRs written >2 IRs written against

programmatic health Investigation against against programmatic
request (IR) programmatic programmatic obsolescence issues
written obsolescence obsolescence
against issues issues
programmatic
obsolescence
issues
Corporate self Corporate Corporate self- Corporate self- Corporate self-

assessments self- assessment assessment assessment not performed
(performed annually) assessment performed performed annually
performed annually with annually with
annually with 712 open 13 open items
6 open items
items
System health report < 10 system 1120 system 2125 system 26 system health
obsolescence ratings health health health monitoring report with
monitoring monitoring monitoring rating yellow or red ratings
Measuring health of report with report with report with
obsolescence in rating yellow rating yellow or rating yellow or
systems using the or red ratings red ratings red ratings
Ship reports.
8-3
Table 8-2
Possible points score 0 1 2 3

Operator Workaround 0 1 2 3
due to obsolescence
Number of elective 25 50 75 100

orders on obsolete
equipment
Number of obsolete 0 1 2 3
orders rescheduled
between T5 and T0
average over the last
3 months (work week
stability)
Number of corrective 0 1 2 3
orders on obsolete
equipment
Number of critical <2% <4% <6% <8%

component PMs
closed deep in grace
(>50% grace) over the
past month on
obsolete equipment
Deferred/late 0 1 PM missing 2 PMs missing 3 PMs missing

preventive critical dates critical dates critical dates
maintenance (PM),
due to obsolescence
Expediting cost of < $5k <$15k <$25k >$35k

procured
items/services due to
obsolescence issues
(includes expediting
across fleet plants)
Age of site Top-10 05 items 67 items 89 items 10 or more items

obsolete list items
Greater than 1 year Greater than 1 Greater than 1 Greater than 1
old online and 2 yrs year old online year old online year old online and
outage and 2 yrs outage and 2 yrs 2 yrs outage
outage
8-4
Table 8-2 (continued)

Number of proactive > 2 (different critical 1 (different critical N/A 0

resolved issues out of manufacturer manufacturer
the number of critical model number) out model number)
top 10 open items of the [number of out of the
critical open items] [number of critical
open items]
13-week template 0 or 1 work items 2 work items 3 work items 4 work items
impacted due to impacted due to impacted due to impacted due to impacted due to
obsolescence reactive reactive reactive reactive
obsolescence obsolescence obsolescence obsolescence
Total Score
8-5
9
REFERENCES
1. Plant Support Engineering: Obsolescence Management A Proactive Approach. EPRI, Palo

Alto, CA: 2007. 1015391.
2. Plant Support Engineering: Obsolescence Management - Program Ownership and

Development. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2008. 1016692
3. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 1, Appendix B to Part 50, Quality
Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants, Washington,
D.C.: August 2007.
4. ANSI/ASME N45.2 1977, Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear

Facilities. ASME, New York, NY. 1977.
9-1
A
ROLLOUT TRAINING
The following set of PowerPoint slides can be used to instruct your organizations staff with
respect to the content of this report.
A-1
Rollout Training
A-2
Rollout Training
A-3
Rollout Training
A-4
Rollout Training
A-5
Rollout Training
A-6
Rollout Training
A-7
Rollout Training
A-8
Rollout Training
A-9
B
OBSOLESCENCE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
The purpose of this appendix is to provide detailed responses to the obsolescence questionnaire
summarized in Section 4 of this report.
B-1
Obsolescence Questionnaire Results
Table B-1
Detailed Results of the Obsolescence Questionnaire
2) Is obsolescence part of an existing program or is it
1) Does your plant have an obsolescence program 3) How are obsolete equipment identified?
separate?
Yes, as described in our business practice document and The business practice is an equipment reliability business They are coded in plant systems when identified as
it applies to the fleet. practice governed by the Equipment Reliability program. obsolete during restocking, discussion with vendors/and
identification in OIRD. Now also using POMS to assist in
understanding of what is obsolete at the equipment level.
Although we do not currently have a formal program, we Obsolescence will be part of our Critical Spares program Typically when we are unable to purchase an item.
are in the process of putting one together. which is included in our equipment reliability program.
No, it is still a project in development. Separate. Identified in POMS database.
Yes. Yes, Part of Equipment Reliability Program. Identified in POMS database. Identification is based on
Manufacturer name, Model number, and criticality ranking..
Yes. It is an Engineering Department Program. Identified in POMS and Vendor/Manufacturer Inquiries.
Yes. The obsolescence program is a separate program. Procurement problems, low stock, and failed parts or
equipment.
Yes. Obsolescence is a separate program specifically entitled Primarily through POMS and/or Action Requests (ARs)
obsolescence program. written by the station. These ARs are typically written by
the Materials Management (procurement) organization
when they receive vendor notification of an obsolete
component or they call the vendor to re-order a
part/component. Recent procedure changes allow plant
personnel the option to complete a POMS feedback form
to update the POMS database as opposed to writing an
AR.
B-2
Table B-1 (continued)

4) Which plant organization "owns" 5) Which plant organization(s) participate in the determination and 6) Once equipment is identified as obsolete what is the
the obsolescence program? resolution of obsolete parts and what role does each play? basic process that is taken for resolution?
Obsolescence is not identified as a Starts with Supply Chain - then Procurement Engineering - if needed to In addition to emergent work, Plant Health short and long
separate program, but is part of the ER support short term T-week schedule and requires an equivalence it then goes term improvement plans are used. Issue resolution starts
program. Engineering owns the ER to Rapid Response. Plant health Reporting also identifies obsolete parts with a PIE (parts interchangeability evaluation) with
program and thus obsolescence. The associated with components. System Engineers can place these in their Plant Procurement Engineering. It requires an equivalency,
business practice describes everyone's Health Report improvements plans to increase their priority. Procurement Engineering, Rapid Response or Engineering
role in the process and individual Design can resolve, although typically Rapid Response
organizations either describe their addresses equivalencies. Larger engineering changes are
activities in their business practices or done by Design Engineering and approved by the PHC
refer to the ER obsolescence business using a Fleet Value Rating Form (based on Safety,
practice for alignment. Equipment Reliability, and Cost).
Engineering and Supply Chain. Supply Chain identifies that it can no longer be purchased. Engineering Supply chain documents issue in an improvement plant
verifies and identifies replacement. and sends a corrective action to Engineering, who verifies
and identifies a replacement. Eng creates an equivalent
change package to allow replacement.
Procurement Engineering. To be determined (TBD).
Plant Engineering. Plant Engineering, Design Engineering, Procurement Engineering, Determine alternate available, repairable, excess inventory
Operations, and Maintenance as part of site Obsolescence Steering available, and/or find internal or third party solution to
Committee member. resolve issue.
Engineering. Engineering - Component/Module Equivalencies (1) Engineering Service Request Initiated (2)Technical
Procurement - Part Equivalencies. Review Board (TRB) Prioritization (3) May require Long
Term Action Monitoring (LTAM) by System Engineer in
System Health Report (SHR) (4) 20/40 List (Sometimes
bypassed) (5) Assignment of Engineer to perform
equivalency (6) Use of RAPID/POMS to determine
possible solution (7) Perform equivalency, modification, or
other solution path.
Design Engineering. Materials (identify), Planning (identify), Engineering (resolution). A RFR (Request for Resolution) is written in the CAR
(Corrective Action Request) System. RFR is sent to
screening for format. RFR is then prioritized. RFR is sent
to Engineering for resolution.
Engineering Programs which is part of Engineering Programs identifies and resolves obsolescence issues to prevent
the Plant Engineering organization equipment reliability problems, schedule and facilitate Obsolescence Working
owns the obsolescence program. Committee (OWC) Meetings, perform the initial review of obsolescence
related issues to determine priority.
Plant Engineering- Participate in proactive obsolescence reviews conducted

by the OWC, system engineers maintain system Health Reports which
discuss system obsolescence issues, component engineers resolve
obsolescence issues (including developing minor design changes) as
assigned by the OWC, identify obsolescence issues associated with individual
systems, and system engineers present obsolescence related modification
requests to the PHC for prioritization and funding.
B-3

9) How do you obtain funding to work on resolving
8) How are the obsolete equipment prioritized to resolve the
7) How and are obsolete equipment documented? obsolescence issues that do not directly impact
most important issues?
the current T-week schedule?
Documented in SAP material master at stock level. Plant Health Reporting also uses an obsolescence value rating Through Plant Health Committee approval. Sites fund
Also documented in the Equipment Reliability (OVR) to allow the system engineer to see a broader picture of what the improvements/updates, aligned with Fleet Value
Workbench Plant Health Reporting. components are affected by a particular stock code. This could be Rating (used on all site projects). Plant Health Report
beyond the systems owned by a particular system engineers so is should reflect this in the improvement plan.
something the supervisor, manager must be cognizant of. The OVR
ranking by stock code, highest to lowest is available in the Plant
Health Report. OVR is based on risk (probability and consequence);
similar to what is available in POMS.
Supply Chain will flag in inventory database. Top priority is assigned to issues identified by the critical spare Elective work that is simply worked in or put off.
program and those identified during purchasing.
POMS Obsolescence Manager. Baseline budget.
Documented in POMS. And site Top Thirty items POMS Obsolescence Manager based on Obsolescence Value For site issues through Plant Health Committee'
documented in internal database called 'Portfolio Ranking (OVR) process. (PHC). For fleet issues (affecting more than one sites
Director' for tracking and resolution. and number of applications) through Corporate Project
Review Committee (PRC).
Obsolete equipment is documented in each SHR Our Technical Review Board (TRB) does the prioritization based on Major issues such as obsolete controller replacements
under the Obsolescence Tab. This information is SE, SE Manager applicable input and other plant factors. goes to the Plant Health Committee for approval and
automatically downloaded periodically from POMS. then to the Project Review Committee (PRC) for
The component ID, Description, AP-913 Classification allocation of the needed funds.
and SPV Classification are displayed to aid SE in
prioritization. A hot link from the SHR to POMS is
available to aid SE in the identification of other plant
locations where the component model may be
installed and possible solutions.
RFR in the CAR System. T-week schedule and refuel schedule Impact Authorization to work on obsolescence issues that do
Weekly meeting to discuss RFR backlog and priority. not impact current schedule is based on Callaways
prioritization of the RFR and System Health Risk.
In the POMS database, by INDUS action requests, Initial prioritization is based on consequences of component failure If a major modification is required to replace the
and in the INDUS Master Materials Catalog screen. (extended plant or system downtime, AP 913 SPV/critical/non obsolete part, it is prioritized along with all
critical, economics involved should the part fail), stocking level, modifications by the Engineering Change Committee.
reliability/risk (past failure history, number of applications in the These changes are then presented to the Plant Health
plant), availability of repair parts on site, difficulty with obtaining a Committee. If it is a minor modification, resources are
replacement (component type, safety/non-safety, EQ, ASME, arranged through the appropriate plant engineering
industry identified replacement, number of other utilities using same supervisor or manager. If the component that needs to
piece of equipment), upcoming PMs, and cost of the component. be stocked is high cost, then the request is presented
The OWC is essential to provide input on factors that are not to PHC.
quantified in POMs. For example, Operations knows the
consequences of component failure and Materials Management
knows the difficulty with obtaining a replacement. Major
modifications involving obsolescence are prioritized by the
processes for the Engineering Change Committee and the PHC.
B-4

11) Have you established reporting capabilities that enable you
to monitor factors such as changes (increases) in lead-time
10) Is the process of identifying and resolving
and cost on current procurements that could be leading 12) What are your obsolescence program strengths
obsolete equipment continuous at your plant or
indicators that an item you currently procure is becoming and weaknesses?
is it only on an on an as needed basis?
obsolete? If so, how do you react when an item that may soon
be obsolete is identified?
Continuous. Built into the day to day process in our No, typically Supply Chain is cognizant of changes impacting ability Strength- Critical component classification alignment
business practices. Typically to address restraints to obtain stock. Min/max levels have been adjusted on critical components to stock. Real time update provided from
but Plant Health can go beyond that. Plant Health components and associated stock to ensure that impact from classification change to Supply Chain to adjust stocking
can be updated on a daily basis, although a formal increased in lead time and cost are minimized. levels. Supply Chain maintains a stock plan that reflects
report is published only once a quarter. this. Other strength is real time update to Plant Health of
any obsolescence issues. Other strength is robust
configuration management system. Weakness- need to
collaborate more on solutions.
As needed basis. No reporting capabilities. Strengths - attempting to start with most important - critical
spares, cat A.
As needed basis. No reporting capabilities.
Continuous. A Built-in Obsolescence process. Proactive and lack of progress on resolving incomplete
and unidentifiable equipment data to declare those items
either obsolete or not obsolete.
Identification is on a continuous basis via POMS. No, we have not done this nor do we currently have the capability. Strengths:
Resolution is based more on immediate or projected Use of POMS
needs and/or budgeted funds. Obsolescence Information in System Health Reports
Management support of obsolescence program
Involvement in NUOG
Weaknesses:
Information input to RAPID OIRD
No dedicated program manager
Engineering personnel - resources
Tracking/trending of items from a plant view vs. system
view
Continuous for T-schedule and Refuel Support. As New obsolescence program was approved in February 2009. Still New obsolescence program was approved in February
need basis for unscheduled obsolete items. under review. 2009. Still under review.
Continuous. No. Strengths: Obsolescence Working Committee and the
ability to use POMS Obsolescence Manager to track
obsolescence issues scattered throughout plant
databases.
Weaknesses: Ability to focus resources on known

proactive obsolescence issues.
B-5

14) What lessons have been learned (what could have
15) Has the program completely accomplished the
13) What are your program successes? been done better) from your obsolescence program
original goal, or is there still work remaining?
development and implementation?
Strengths noted in 12 above. Reductions in impact in PM Tie critical spares closer to obsolescence in Plant Health More work remaining with utilization of POMS/EOS
deferral due to obsolescence parts. Focusing now on more Report and more clearly include them in LCM and long collaboration and linking to engineering change process
focus now on PM forecasting to head off long lead time term planning. and Plant Health reporting.
issues. Other success is strong effort to align PMs to PM
basis (living document in ER Workbench that has a truth
table to ensure stay aligned with basis). PM parts
reservations are initiated 52 weeks prior to work week to
ensure parts available 35 days in advance of the work.
None. We need to have an official program. Normal priorities will Lots of work remaining.
not drive success.
We have started to develop a program. -
Proactive approach, early identification of obsolete items, Review and update existing equipment ID data. Still need some enhancements and cleanup.
no external assessment or regulatory concerns,
obsolescence process integration with System health
process put system specific obsolescence issues in front
of system engineers' attention.
Foxboro Instrumentation Replacement Program Better communication of NUOG Information No, there is still work to do.
Obsolete transmitter replacements More training of individuals in POMS, Rapid, and OIRD
Recorder Replacement Program Better trending and tracking of plant obsolete items
Obsolescence HIT team - Implementation Better more frequent update of OIRD with items and
Fleet Obsolescence Procedure solutions
New obsolescence program was approved in February Identification and Updating of procedures that support the New obsolescence program was approved in February
2009. Still under review. Obsolescence Program. 2009. There is still work remaining to do.
The CM and EM job backlog are maintained at excellent
levels.
During the past two years, no instances of a failed In the beginning, we were trying to perform engineering Still work remaining.
obsolete component causing extended plant shutdown or changes for all known obsolete components. Need to
LCO time. Of course, this may just be a coincidence. In prioritize issues and approach systematically. Doesnt
addition, we are proactively performing engineering make since to resolve all obsolescence issues before the
changes and stocking replacements for obsolete component fails. Depends on the importance of the
components. component.
B-6

16) If you could start all over, or make any desirable changes, what would be
17) How do you measure success? What are your key performance indicators?
different?
More utilization of plant staff - creation of subject matter experts at sites (mostly driven by ER Index top quartile with full points in obsolescence influenced ERI parameters such as
fleet who are active members on NUOG, JUTG, etc.). PM deferrals, PMs deep in grace, work week stability, operator workarounds, total
maintenance backlog, long range planning effectiveness.
Program is still in development. No KPI. Creation of a successful program.
Project Plan.
Review and update existing equipment ID data. No external assessment or regulatory open issues, No deferred or late PMs due to
obsolescence, No expediting cost due to obsolescence issues, number of proactive
resolution of known obsolete items, and no power reduction due to obsolescence issues.
Dedicated individuals and use of PKMJ Obsolescence and PM manager software. We do not have any set performance indicators. Success is having the needed part or
replacement component when you need it. We have not lost any production due to
obsolescence issues but have had to scramble at times to get the needed component.
Find a better way to consistently prioritize obsolescence items. RFR backlog
Ops Focus Index
Support Equipment Reliability Program
Earlier implementation of the POMS system. Key performance indicators are critical components that fail without a replacement
available, number of priority obsolete components in the backlog, and number of days
priority components have existed in the backlog.
B-7
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute Inc., (EPRI, www.epri.com)
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with the spe- conducts research and development relating to the generation, delivery
cific understanding and requirement that responsibility for ensuring full and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. An independent,
compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regu- nonprofit organization, EPRI brings together its scientists and engineers
lations is being undertaken by you and your company. This includes as well as experts from academia and industry to help address challenges
an obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder in electricity, including reliability, efficiency, health, safety and the
who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted access environment. EPRI also provides technology, policy and economic
under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations. In the analyses to drive long-range research and development planning, and
event you are uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully supports research in emerging technologies. EPRIs members represent
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it more than 90 percent of the electricity generated and delivered in the
is your obligation to consult with your companys legal counsel to deter- United States, and international participation extends to 40 countries.
mine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make available EPRIs principal offices and laboratories are located in Palo Alto, Calif.;
on a case-by-case basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. Charlotte, N.C.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass.
export classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your
Together...Shaping the Future of Electricity
company acknowledge that this assessment is solely for informational
purposes and not for reliance purposes. You and your company ac-
knowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and
ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company understand and
acknowledge your obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellec-
tual Property hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or
foreign export laws or regulations.
Programs:
Nuclear Power
Plant Support Engineering
2009 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power
Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER...SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are
registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
1019161
Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774650.855.2121askepri@epri.comwww.epri.com

Obsolescence

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Obsolescence

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Plant Support Engineering: Proactive Obsolescence

Place Image Here

Final Report, December 2009

EPRI Project Managers

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

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

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

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

This report was prepared by

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Plant Support Engineering: Proactive Obsolescence Management: Program Implementation and

Results and Findings

Challenges and Objectives

Applications, Value, and Use

Gary Cain Constellation Energy

Syed Jaffery Exelon

Michael Kennedy Energy Northwest

Howard LeCompte DTE Energy

Kevin Matthews Duke Energy

Ujjal Mondal CANDU Owners Group

Bhavesh Patel Progress Energy

Dan Philipps FirstEnergy Corporation

Rob Santoro PKMJ, Incorporated

Robert Stipcevich Exelon

Paul Tobin PKMJ, Incorporated

Michael P. Tulay Sequoia Consulting Group, Inc.

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1-1

2 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS .......................................................................................... 2-1

3 PROACTIVE OBSOLESCENCE MANAGEMENT ................................................................. 3-1

4 BENCHMARKING AND LESSONS LEARNED ..................................................................... 4-1

6 AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR ADDRESSING OBSOLESCENCE ISSUES ..................... 6-1

7 COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF SOLUTIONS TO OBSOLESCENCE

8 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS .................................................................................... 8-1

9 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 9-1

A ROLLOUT TRAINING ........................................................................................................... A-1

B OBSOLESCENCE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS................................................................ B-1

Figure 3-1 Basic Elements of the Generic Process ................................................................... 3-1

Table 1-1 Content Identification by Job Title .............................................................................. 1-3

1.1 Executive Summary

The objectives of the report are to:

Key challenges to a proactive obsolescence program include understanding the extent of

1.2 Key Conclusions

1.3 Quick Reading Matrix by Job Position

Position Section Section Section Section Section Section Section App.

2.1 Definition of Key Terms Used in This Report

equipment ID The number used to identify a specific piece of equipment

obsolete equipment Items in plant service that are no longer manufactured or

T-week schedule Task or work week schedule. A T-week schedule typically

2.2 Acronyms and Abbreviations

AFI area for improvement

BOM bill of materials

CMIS configuration management interface system

EAM enterprise asset management

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

ERI equipment reliability index

ERWG Equipment Reliability Working Group

FIN fix it now

INPO Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 2

JUTG Joint Utility Task Group

KPI key performance indicator

LCM life cycle management

LCO limiting condition of operation