1

Information Handover at UniStarLessons Learned

Presented By:Bob Renuart

UniStar

2

UniStar

• Wholly owned by Electricite de France (EdF) since November 2010

• AREVA USEPR 1600 MWe NSSS

• Two Plants in Active COLA Application– Calvert Cliffs 3 – Bell Bend (PPL)

3

Information Handover During EPC

• Objectives: – Ensure timely Handover of Information

(data/documents/relationships) in specified content and format to support Owner/Operator (O/O) activities required before Operations

– Define requirements, content, and quality, for final Information Turnover during Commissioning.

• Definitions:– Handover = Electronic Delivery of controlled Information before

Commissioning at specified milestones to support preoperational requirements. EPC retains Configuration Control.

– Turnover = Final electronic delivery of controlled Information during Commissioning and transfer of Configuration Control to the O/O.

3

4

A Good Place to

Start

(TR 1019221 available no charge to anyone on

www.EPRI.com)

5

Lessons Learned

1. Don’t prolong the development of an Information Handover Specification (IHS)– Your EPC contract likely doesn’t have enough detail– Without any detailed direction from the O/O, AEs will

focus on their information needs to produce deliverables to fulfill your contract.

– Most AEs and NSSS are document centric. The contract likely can be satisfied for the most part with PDF documents.

5

6

Typical EPC Contracts Specified Information Handover from this medium

in the 80’s ….

6

7

….to this today

7

8

Lessons Learned

1. Don’t prolong the development of an Information Handover Specification (IHS)– Your contract doesn’t have enough details– Without any detailed direction from the O/O, AEs will focus

on their information needs to produce deliverables to fulfill your contract.

– Most AEs and NSSS are document centric. The contract likely can be satisfied for the most part with PDF documents.

– Ideally the IHS should be published before Detailed Design begins; since most of us haven’t done this, a use case can be developed to implement most anytime in EPC despite the cost of “Backfitting.”

8

9

Lessons Learned

1. Don’t prolong the development of an Information Handover Specification (IHS)

2. Modern Plant Lifecycle Management Systems are Data Driven(Ventyx, eB, Teamcenter, SAP); Specify the Data Requirements to meet the Owner/Operator Plant Lifecycle Management (PLM) Requirements.

9

10

Owner/Operator PLM Systems Depend on Data Content not just Documents

• Specify that data from all sources (Specifications, Engineering Programs, 2D/3D models, Data Lists, COLA Requirements, etc.) be consolidated and turned over as a “single source of truth.”

• Specify that the quality of data required during Handover be consistent with the importance of the data to ensure confidence by the End User, i.e., a graded CM Approach.

• Don’t assume Configuration Control of Data can be done within the Authoring Tools (Intergraph, Bentley, AVEVA). There are too many ways to manipulate Data in the Authoring Tool that can circumvent formal change approval processes.

• Specify the level of maintenance and control of the 3D Model during EPC to be consistent with the Lifecycle End Use of the O/O after Turnover.

11

Lessons Learned

1. Don’t prolong the development of an Information Handover Specification (IHS)

2. Specify the data requirements to meet the Owner/Operator PLM Requirements.

3. Specify the Level of Relationships Desired among Requirements/Data/Documents.

11

12

Level of Data/Document Relationships

• Data without relationships to Documents and other Data is just………data.

• Specify the level of detail of Requirements (Contract, Licensing Basis, etc.) to be Defined and Related to the Detailed Design

• Relationships Include:– Document to Document (design inputs/outputs)– Data to Data – Documents to Data

12

13

Data/Document/Relationship Development Lifecycle

Requirements

Contract COLADCD

ITAAC

14

Data/Document/Relationship Development Lifecycle

Requirements Engineered Item(TAG Number)

Contract COLADCD

ITAAC

SystemLocationProgram

SpecificationsP&ID

Schematics

15

Data/Document/Relationship Development Lifecycle

Requirements Engineered Item(TAG Number)

Procured Item(Mgf/Model)

Contract COLADCD

ITAACSpecifications

SystemLocationProgram

SpecificationsP&ID

Schematics

Vendor ManualVendor Drawing

BOMSpecifications

16

Data/Document/Relationship Development Lifecycle

Requirements Engineered Item(TAG Number)

Procured Item(Mgf/Model)

Installed Item(Mgf/Model/Serial)

Contract COLADCD

ITAACSpecifications

SystemLocationProgram

P&IDSchematics

Specifications

Vendor ManualVendor Drawing

BOMSpecifications

Test ReportInspection

ReportPM Record

Test ResultsITAAC Pkg

18

Lessons Learned

1. Don’t prolong the development of an Information Handover Specification (IHS)

2. Specify the data requirements to meet the Owner/Operator PLM Requirements.

3. Specify the Level of Relationships Desired among Requirements/Data/Document.

4. Specify Vendor Information Expectations

18

19

Vendor Information Expectations need to be Explicit

• Specify what data and documentation is required from the vendors and how it will be related in the Data Model.

• Specify how Vendor data will be integrated and turned over; if you don’t, you will likely get a boatload of CD-ROMs:– Bills of Material, Spare Parts List, Equipment Specs– INPO AP 913, Equipment Reliability Requirements

• PM Templates• Performance Monitoring Data

19

20

Lessons Learned

1. Don’t prolong the development of an Information Handover Specification (IHS)

2. Specify the data requirements to meet the Owner/Operator PLM Requirements.

3. Specify the Level of Relationships Desired among Requirements/Data/Document.

4. Specify Vendor Information Expectations5. Since the Utility PLM will be populated from the

EPC, the IHS must Specify the Requirements of Information Interoperability

20

21

Specify the Requirements of Information Interoperability for the O/O PLM

• End Goal is to “Seamlessly” Move Information from the EPC into the O/O PLM during Handover

• Specify Information Exchange “Rules”– Should Handover be at Discrete Intervals or Continuous?– When does Handover begin, i.e., after achieving certain

Design Development Milestones?– How will Information Handover be Configuration

Controlled? How is Information Lifecycle Status monitored?

– What meta data is required at Handover? – What Data Modeling Standards will be followed?– What level of Data Quality is Required?

21

22

SummaryDesired End Results

• Information quality that can be confidently used by all levels of applications at specified Development Milestones.

• Data and Document Relationships that will build a Design Basis Taxonomy to support Configuration Control of changes and Operability Determinations of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions.

• Data structured in a manner to minimize data entry requirements, maximize relationships, and facilitate future maintenance of the data.

• Ability to manage as-licensed, as-designed, as-procured, and as-tested life cycle configurations of the plant that reflect design margins.

• Access to data and documents via the 2D and 3D Models

23

Breakout Session

• Co-facilitator Matt Davidsaver, AREVA (Nuclear Island Designer for UniStar)

• Areas that can be explored; we will poll the group quickly to decide what the Group want to focus on– IHS Content (specific areas)– How O/O should communicate data, data relationships, and content desired– Vendor Data Content – Options on how to Configuration Control Data during EPC

Next Presentation