This document discusses efforts to reduce variability in thermal output and maximize safe power production at a nuclear plant. A cross-functional team was formed and implemented standardized work practices for reactor operation. This reduced variability by 39% for Unit 1 and 44% for Unit 2. Process capability charts show improvements in reducing excursions outside specification limits from March 2005 to March 2006. The standardized approach generated an additional $500k in annual revenue.

1. 3458.03457.53457.03456.53456.03455.53455.03454.5
LSL USL 3458
Unit 1 MW T March 05 8 hr avg.
3458.03457.53457.03456.53456.03455.53455.03454.5
LSL USL 34583458
Unit 2 MW T March 05 8 hr avg
Before Improvement 2 Weeks After Kaizen
XO-1
XO-2
3457.753457.153456.553455.953455.353454.753454.15
LSL USL 3458
Unit 1 8 hr avg MW Thermal Sept 07
3457.53457.03456.53456.03455.53455.03454.5
LSL USL 3458
Unit 2 8 hr avg. MW Thermal Sept. 07
“THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE” BENEFITS / RESULTS
Operator Variability was present Shift to Shift and Crew to Crew
Team implemented Stardardized Work
> All Crews Applied same method for operating the Core Thermally <
Results = additional $500K revenue / year

2. SMART Goal / Purpose:
Establish clear guidance and improved tools to monitor and
safely maximize power production at steady state full power
Project Scope Information:
Reduce variability in Reactor Thermal output by establishing
a best practice.
Deliverables / Desired Outcomes:
•Clear guidance
•Plant Computer and/or tool modifications
•Training required for Operations and Management
Sponsor: Tim Clouser
Team Leader: Brian St. Louis
Coach: Scott Helm / Todd
McCann / Bob Phillips
Team Members:
• Doug Basinger
• Jim Dunlap
• Clint Burgett
• Joe Egan
• Tim Hope
• Mark Winkelblech
• Cody Lemons
Event Dates: 2-08-06 to 6-30-06
Team Charter For: Maintain 3458 MWth

3. 3458 MWth Improvement Progression Path
“Tightening Up the Capability of the Process STEP 1”

4. 3458 MWth Improvement Progression Path
“Tightening Up the Capability of the Process STEP 2”

5. 3458.03457.53457.03456.53456.03455.53455.03454.5
LSL USL 3458
Unit 1 MW T March 05 8 hr avg.
3458.03457.53457.03456.53456.03455.53455.03454.5
LSL USL 34583458
Unit 2 MW T March 05 8 hr avg
Before After
3458 Team
Unit 1
Note Spec Limits + .5 MWt
Variation reduced 48%
SPC and
Best Practices
3457.53457.03456.53456.03455.53455.03454.5
LSL USL 3458
Unit 2 Dec 07 MWt 8 hr avg.
3457.83457.23456.63456.03455.43454.83454.23453.6
LSL USL 3458
Unit 1 Dec 07 MWt 8 hr avg.
Unit 2

6. 3457.83457.23456.63456.03455.43454.83454.2
LSL USL 3458
Process Data
Sample N 730
StDev (Within) 0.187127
StDev (O v erall) 0.432405
LSL 3456
Target *
USL 3457
Sample Mean 3456.64
Potential (Within) C apability
C C pk 0.89
O v erall C apability
Pp 0.39
PPL 0.50
PPU 0.27
Ppk
C p
0.27
C pm *
0.89
C PL 1.15
C PU 0.63
C pk 0.63
O bserv ed Performance
PPM < LSL 52054.79
PPM > USL 171232.88
PPM Total 223287.67
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL 285.53
PPM > USL 28784.30
PPM Total 29069.84
Exp. O v erall Performance
PPM < LSL 68000.45
PPM > USL 205597.01
PPM Total 273597.46
Within
Overall
Unit 1 Dec. 06 8 hr. avg. Process Capability
3457.85
3457.60
3457.35
3457.10
3456.85
3456.60
3456.35
3456.10
LSL USL 3458
Process Data
Sample N 744
StDev(Within) 0.0976995
StDev(O verall) 0.241094
LSL 3456.5
Target *
USL 3457.5
Sample Mean 3456.93
Potential (Within) C apability
C C pk 1.71
O v erall C apability
Pp 0.69
PPL 0.59
PPU 0.79
Ppk
C p
0.59
C pm *
1.71
C PL 1.46
C PU 1.95
C pk 1.46
O bserved Performance
PPM < LSL 45698.92
PPM > USL 2688.17
PPM Total 48387.10
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL 6.16
PPM > USL 0.00
PPM Total 6.16
Exp. O v erall Performance
PPM < LSL 38223.62
PPM > USL 8748.98
PPM Total 46972.60
Within
Overall
Unit 1 March 08 MWt 8 hr avg.
3458.03457.63457.23456.83456.43456.03455.6
LSL USL 3458
Process Data
Sample N 738
StDev (Within) 0.15937
StDev (O v erall) 0.343769
LSL 3456
Target *
USL 3457
Sample Mean 3456.93
Potential (Within) C apability
C C pk 1.05
O v erall C apability
Pp 0.48
PPL 0.90
PPU 0.07
Ppk
C p
0.07
C pm *
1.05
C PL 1.95
C PU 0.14
C pk 0.14
O bserv ed Performance
PPM < LSL 8130.08
PPM > USL 474254.74
PPM Total 482384.82
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL 0.00
PPM > USL 336706.30
PPM Total 336706.30
Exp. O v erall Performance
PPM < LSL 3328.45
PPM > USL 422543.39
PPM Total 425871.84
Within
Overall
Unit 2 Dec. 06 8 hr. avg Process Capability
3458.03457.63457.23456.83456.43456.03455.63455.2
LSL USL 3458
Process Data
Sample N 369
StDev (Within) 0.157203
StDev (O v erall) 0.395786
LSL 3456.5
Target *
USL 3457.5
Sample Mean 3456.83
Potential (Within) C apability
C C pk 1.06
O v erall C apability
Pp 0.42
PPL 0.27
PPU 0.57
Ppk
C p
0.27
C pm *
1.06
C PL 0.69
C PU 1.43
C pk 0.69
O bserv ed Performance
PPM < LSL 178861.79
PPM > USL 37940.38
PPM Total 216802.17
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL 18903.58
PPM > USL 9.17
PPM Total 18912.75
Exp. O v erall Performance
PPM < LSL 204702.40
PPM > USL 44407.83
PPM Total 249110.23
Within
Overall
Unit 2 March 08 MWt 8 hr avg.

7. 3457.63456.83456.03455.23454.43453.6
LSL USL 3458
Process Data
Sample N 721
StDev (Within) 0.12954
StDev (O v erall) 0.6198
LSL 3456
Target *
USL 3457
Sample Mean 3456.2
Potential (Within) C apability
C C pk 1.29
O v erall C apability
Pp 0.27
PPL 0.11
PPU 0.43
Ppk
C p
0.11
C pm *
1.29
C PL 0.52
C PU 2.06
C pk 0.52
O bserv ed Performance
PPM < LSL 294036.06
PPM > USL 67961.17
PPM Total 361997.23
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL 60617.29
PPM > USL 0.00
PPM Total 60617.29
Exp. O v erall Performance
PPM < LSL 373016.51
PPM > USL 98603.62
PPM Total 471620.12
Within
Overall
Process Capability of 8 hr 1
3457.63456.83456.03455.23454.43453.6
LSL USL 3458
Process Data
Sample N 709
StDev (Within) 0.121947
StDev (O v erall) 0.38627
LSL 3456
Target *
USL 3457
Sample Mean 3457.1
Potential (Within) C apability
C C pk 1.37
O v erall C apability
Pp 0.43
PPL 0.95
PPU -0.08
Ppk
C p
-0.08
C pm *
1.37
C PL 2.99
C PU -0.26
C pk -0.26
O bserv ed Performance
PPM < LSL 9873.06
PPM > USL 623413.26
PPM Total 633286.32
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL 0.00
PPM > USL 783483.59
PPM Total 783483.59
Exp. O v erall Performance
PPM < LSL 2281.40
PPM > USL 597745.39
PPM Total 600026.79
Within
Overall
Process Capability of 8 hr 1
The results show an increase of
0.9 MWth and a 39% reduction in
variation
March 2005
March 2006
Unit 1 Thermal MW data
8 Hour average
Operating System
Initiative 19.09 –
Maintain 3458MWth

8. 3458.0
3457.5
3457.0
3456.5
3456.0
3455.5
3455.0
3454.5
LSL USL 34583458
Process Data
Sample N 469
StDev (Within) 0.104038
StDev (O v erall) 0.658612
LSL 3456
Target *
USL 3457
Sample Mean 3455.85
Potential (Within) C apability
C C pk 1.60
O v erall C apability
Pp 0.25
PPL -0.08
PPU 0.58
Ppk
C p
-0.08
C pm *
1.60
C PL -0.48
C PU 3.69
C pk -0.48
O bserv ed Performance
PPM < LSL 582089.55
PPM > USL 19189.77
PPM Total 601279.32
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL 926819.78
PPM > USL 0.00
PPM Total 926819.78
Exp. O v erall Performance
PPM < LSL 590739.05
PPM > USL 40250.15
PPM Total 630989.20
Within
Overall
Process Capability of 8 hr 2
3458.03457.53457.03456.53456.03455.53455.03454.5
LSL USL 3458
Process Data
Sample N 721
StDev (Within) 0.13827
StDev (O v erall) 0.369146
LSL 3456
Target *
USL 3457
Sample Mean 3457.18
Potential (Within) C apability
C C pk 1.21
O v erall C apability
Pp 0.45
PPL 1.06
PPU -0.16
Ppk
C p
-0.16
C pm *
1.21
C PL 2.83
C PU -0.42
C pk -0.42
O bserv ed Performance
PPM < LSL 2773.93
PPM > USL 712898.75
PPM Total 715672.68
Exp. Within Performance
PPM < LSL 0.00
PPM > USL 898276.78
PPM Total 898276.78
Exp. O v erall Performance
PPM < LSL 722.95
PPM > USL 683095.25
PPM Total 683818.20
Within
Overall
Process Capability of 8 hr 2
The results show an increase of
1.2 MWth and a 44% reduction in
variation
March 2005
March 2006
Unit 2 Thermal MW data
8 Hour average
Operating System
Initiative 19.09 –
Maintain 3458MWth

9. From: Clouser, Tim
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:17 AM
To: Mccann, Todd
Subject: RE: February 3458 Results
To: Basinger, Doug; Phillips, Bob; Clouser, Tim; St Louis, Brian; Helm, Scott; Dunlap, Jim; Egan, Joseph; Burgett, Clinton; Lemons, Cody; Winkelblech, Mark; Hope, Timothy
Cc: Mitchell, Brian; Ross, Greg; Goodwin, Dave; Harvey, Scotty; Fuller, David; Davis, Doug; Vines, Dale; Flores, Rafael
Subject: RE: February 3458 Results
To everyone,
I am not one to look backward all of the time, but I can vividly recall the big picture course of events that led up to the this Best in Class Guidance of operating our plant thermally.
Kick-off: Brain St. Louis Facilitating the team, at the NOSF.
Sincerely, What I saw was a high potential team of people being built to create a safe and reliable standard of work with how we thermally trim reactor power.
Together we exposed fears and aspirations about what we were getting ourselves into in the forthcoming workflows, building guidance and then implementing the guidance, measuring our efforts, checking and
adjust what we said we were going to do with the guidance to continuously improve. Tim Clouser’s unconditional support for the team, which from my perspective was pivotal to success.
Our time out at STC and the formation of a cross functional self directed work team focused on working through the potential barriers and operational traps. Outside In View: Doug B. volunteering to call other
stations regarding their current guidance and mode of thermal operation. Eye Opening!
Tim Hope’s support and insights from the perspective of Regulatory Affairs, and our alignment to the letter of the law if you will.
Mark Winkelblech’s unveiling of the inner workings of the Calometric measurement and the HOW it Happens, versus what we see on the screen in the control room. I believe Mark was a big part of the
formation of new mental models of operation through sharing information and this information positively impacted and promoted our learning process and new found knowledge of digital control operation.
I think we referred to the Calometric as a little black box, (I know I did) My ignorance of the controls combined with intellectual curiosity plus being a nuclear neophyte, drove my active listening to a higher level
during the communications of the HOW the controls work.
This awareness of ignorance and change in mindset took me to a new level of operational understanding. Thanks Mark and Team, you helped create new knowledge.
Our religion and commitment around proper communications demonstrated by the team then Sharing the new knowledge through providing exceptional formal training before any changes were operationally
implemented coupled with constant during implementation and then reviewing for necessary course corrections and then making them happen. The PDCA Plan Do Check Act continuous improvement cycle at
work…
The biggest part was all of the operations folks, not just the team members, who deliberately pulled their thoughts together to create superior guidance for themselves to support the entire station, always
keeping nuclear safety at the forefront, taking new found knowledge and situational awareness to a new level when interfacing with the Calometric and properly implementing new guidance for trimming the
plant thermally to a reach Superior levels of performance. A picture of Excellence.
Thanks to all who contributed and sorry for the winded storyline..