Information Handover at UniStar
Lessons Learned
Presented By:
Bob Renuart
UniStar
1
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)
2
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.
33
A Good
Place to
Start
(TR 1019221 available
no charge to anyone on
www.EPRI.com)
4
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
5
Typical EPC Contracts Specified
Information Handover from this medium
in the 80’s ….
6
6
….to this today
7
7
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
8
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
9
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.
10
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
11
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
12
Data/Document/Relationship Development Lifecycle
Requirements
Contract
COLA
DCD
ITAAC
13
Data/Document/Relationship Development Lifecycle
Requirements
Contract
COLA
DCD
ITAAC
Engineered Item
(TAG Number)
System
Location
Program
Specifications
P&ID
Schematics
14
Data/Document/Relationship Development Lifecycle
Requirements
Contract
COLA
DCD
ITAAC
Specifications
Engineered Item
(TAG Number)
System
Location
Program
Specifications
P&ID
Schematics
Procured Item
(Mgf/Model)
Vendor Manual
Vendor
Drawing
BOM
Specifications
15
Data/Document/Relationship Development Lifecycle
Requirements
Contract
COLA
DCD
ITAAC
Specifications
Engineered Item
(TAG Number)
System
Location
Program
P&ID
Schematics
Specifications
Procured Item
(Mgf/Model)
Vendor Manual
Vendor
Drawing
BOM
Specifications
Installed Item
(Mgf/Model/Serial)
Test Report
Inspection
Report
PM Record
Test Results
ITAAC Pkg
16
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
18
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
19
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
5. Since the Utility PLM will be populated from the
EPC, the IHS must Specify the Requirements
of Information Interoperability
20
20
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
21
Summary
Desired 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, asprocured, and as-tested life cycle configurations of the
plant that reflect design margins.
• Access to data and documents via the 2D and 3D
Models
22
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
23