LR-N06-0179, Iq 2006 PSEG Metrics for Improving the Work Environment

Iq 2006 PSEG Metrics for Improving the Work Environment

ML062920235
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/28/2006
From:	Levis W Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Collins S Region 1 Administrator
References
LR-N06-0179
Download: ML062920235 (36)

Text

William Levis Senior Vice President and CNO

%\\d' PSEG Nuclear LLC EO. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 tel: 856.339.1100 fax: 856.339.1104 LR-N06-0179 APR 2 8 2006 Mr. Samuel Collins Regional Administrator United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 PSEG METRICS FOR IMPROVIhlG THE WORK ENVIRONMENT SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS QUARTERLY REPORT DOCKET NOS. 50-272,50-311 AND 50-354

Dear Mr. Collins:

This letter provides a copy of the PSEG Nuclear (PSEG) Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) metrics for the first quarter 2006. PSEG put these metrics in place to objectively measure the effectiveness of the SCWE improvements at Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. PSEG conducted an analysis of each metric and decided whether and to what extent the results warrant additional actions.

e lmdepth assessments of the work environment were conducted in the first half of 2004.

Business Plan initiatives were established and implemented to address the findings of those assessments. Self-assessments and NRC inspections were also conducted throughout 2005 to examine progress in improving the work environment, including the Corrective Action Program, Employee Concerns Program, and the overall Safety Conscious Work Environment. Opportunities for continued improvement were identified and entered into the Corrective Action Program.

Synergy Consulting Services Corporation completed a survey of the workforce during the first quarter 2006. The survey results showed improvement in essentially all cultural metrics since the last Synergy survey conducted in 2005. Furthermore, the rate of improvement was characterized as strong, providing a solid foundation for sustainable improvement. Consistent with reporting previous Synergy survey results, an additional metric has been added to the attached report that documents these results.

Mr. Samuel Collins LR-NO6-0179 d

2 APR 8 8 2006 Collectively, the actions taken have resulted in substantial and visible improvement at Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. Significant reductions in maintenance backlogs and significant improvements in implementation of the Corrective Action Program were achieved in 2005 and this progress has been sustained in 2006.

Operational challenges have been reduced as a result of improved equipment reliability due to more effectively managing our problem resolution processes. Most safety system performance indicators remain at the annual top quartile performance levels achieved in 2005. Visible facility improvements have also been made. These provide renovated workspaces for our staff and have improved our internal communications by bringing the workforce together.

An overall evaluation of our progress toward sustained performance against the pillars of a healthy SCWE yielded the following results:

Pillar 1 : Willingness to Raise Concerns The metrics monitoring this pillar are Synergy Survey Results Comparisons and Total Notifications Generated.

J The initiation rate for Notifications continues to demonstrate that site personnel have a low threshold for problem reporting. Survey results reflect that a healthy environment exists for employees to raise concerns and the workforce is confident that these concerns will be resolved. improved engagement of personnel, effective communication between personnel and their supervisor, and an increased confidence in station leadership provide a solid foundation to sustain a culture that

. values problem reporting and learns from its issues.

Pillar 2: Effective Problem Resolution The metrics monitoring this pillar are Synergy Survey Results Comparisons, Online Corrective and Elective Maintenance Backlogs, Corrective Action Problem Resolution, Condition Report Activities Overdue, Open Condition Report Evaluations with Due Date Extensions, Repeat Maintenance Issues, Operational Challenges, Unplanned Shutdown Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO) Entries, Unplanned Non-Shutdown Limiting Condition of Operation ( K O ) Entries, and Safety System Unavailability (i.e., Emergency Diesel Generators, Auxiliary Feedwater System, Chemical Volume Control and Safety Injection System, High Pressure Injection and Reactor Core isolation Cooling Systems, and Residual Heat Removal System).

95-4933

Mr. Samuel Collins LR-N06-0179 d

3 APR 2 8 2006 Metrics and plant performance show that problem resolution has substantially improved.

During 2005, substantial progress was made to resolve long-standing equipment deficiencies and significantly reduce online corrective and elective maintenance backlogs. Effective work management processes, including the Plant Health Committee and the Material Condition Improvement Plan, have sustained these reduced backlogs, minimized operational challenges at the stations, and established a long-term strategy for continued equipment and system health.

Efforts to improve equipment reliability have resulted in improved safety system performance as reflected by metrics that remain at annual top quartile performance levels. Performance in prior years is causing the three-year rolling average goal not to be met in some instances. PSEG will remain focused on sustaining annual top quartile performance levels to continue the improvement in the three-year rolling average metrics as historical performance data is replaced. The results of these efforts are also expected to reduce unplanned entries into Technical Specification shutdown Limiting Conditions of Operation, which have not met goal.

PSEG improved its implementation of the Corrective Action Program (CAP) in 2005 through engagement of station leadership and alignment of the organization with expectations for the programs use. As a result, the number of open evaluations and corrective actions was substantially reduced and overall problem resolution improved. The ability of the station to resolve problems was examined during a self-assessment as well as an NRC Problem Identification and Resolution (PI&R) inspection in late 2005. These assessments confirmed the CAP improvements and identified further opportunities that warrant additional focus, such as the need for continued attention to the quality of low level CAP evaluations. Furthermore, the Synergy survey results point to increased confidence in station leadership, which has clearly communicated and reinforced its expectations for use of the CAP.

Based on the progress in 2005 and ongoing improvement actions, the substantive NRC cross-cutting issue in area of PER was closed for Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations in their respective 2005 annual assessment letters dated March 2, 2006. PSEGs improvement actions continue and strong performance in the CAP was demonstrated during the first quarter of 2006 through timely evaluations and effective corrective actions. A sustained focus on the behaviors that foster effective problem resolution has resulted in metrics that show the positive outcomes of these efforts, including improved plant performance and generally low safety system unavailability.

95-4933

Mr. Samuel Collins LR-N06-0179 d

4 APR 2 8 2006 Pillar 3: Alternate Mechanisms to Raise Concerns The metrics monitoring this pillar are Synergy Survey Results Comparisons and Employee Concerns Program - Concerns Confidentiality/Anonymity Request.

The Employee Concerns Program (ECP) continues to provide an effective, alternate means for identifying issues. During the first quarter, station and contractor personnel actively used the program with no adverse trends discovered in the anonymous or confidential concerns being entered into ECP. The Synergy survey also showed the positive results of outreach efforts by the ECP staff to communicate the important elements of the ECP program to the workforce.

Pillar 4: DetectionIPrevention of Retaliation & Chilling Effect The metrics monitoring this pillar are Synergy Survey Results Comparisons and Executive Review Board (ERB) Action Approvals.

In the first quarter, Executive Review Board (ERB) reviews found that none of the proposed personnel actions (e.g., personnel movements, discipline) had retaliation or chilling effect implications, which demonstrates continued strong performance in this pillar. ECP data showed no substantiated retaliation/discrimination issues in the first quarter. Management actions continue to reflect a sound understanding of and respect for the work environment. This is further supported by Synergy survey results that reflect positive improvements in employees perception of management and supervision.

As ERB data was being gathered for the ERB Action Approval metric, it was identified that the historical data for cases approved by ERB in 2004 should have been 69 cases rather than 64 cases. There were no instances of retaliation or chilling effect implications in these cases. The error had no effect on the conclusions reached in previous quarterly reports and was entered into the Corrective Action Program.

In summary, performance in each pillar has shown substantial and sustained improvement. Completion of the 2004/2005 Business Plan work environment actions, the use of self-assessments to continue to identify opportunities for improvement, and PSEGs demonstrated ability to resolve problems has resulted in improved plant performance and fostered a healthy work environment that promotes problem identification and resolution. These improvement efforts included establishing an operationally focused organization with well-defined roles and responsibilities, clear accountability, and consistent direction. The ability to sustain these substantial work J

9 5 - 4 9 3 3

APR 2 8 2006 Mr. Samuel Collins LR-NOG-0179 d

5 environment improvements has been demonstrated through metrics, Synergy survey results, and strong performance in the Work Management and Corrective Action Programs.

Upon concluding that substantial and sustainable progress was made, PSEG commissioned an independent assessment of the work environment. A group of industry experts completed this assessment in April 2006. The teams preliminary conclusion was that there has been substantial improvement with a solid foundation for continued improvement in the safety conscious work environment at Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. The final independent assessment report is expected in May 2006 and will be provided to the NRC.

PSEG will continue to monitor its performance and report quarterly to the NRC. If you have any questions, please contact me at (856) 339-1 100.

Sincerely, d-k$$y William Levi Senior Vice President and CNO Attachment 95-4933

Mr. Samuel Collins LR-NO6-0179 d

6 C

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Mr. S. Bailey, Project Manager Salem & Hope Creek U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 08Bl Washington, DC 20555-0001 USNRC Senior Resident inspector - HC (X24)

USNRC Senior Resident Inspector - Salem (X24)

Mr. K. Tosch, Manager IV Bureau of Nuclear Engineering PO Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625 APR 3 8 2006 95-4933

Mr. Samuel Collins LR-NO6-0179

.-/

Attachment I ATTACHMENT 95-4933

\\ i Adequate to Good Safety Conscious Work Environment Manager 65 I

Goal:

Improvement Good to Very Good Track progress improvements in the work environment 93 Metric based on employee surVey data. See below for details Good to Very Good 3 85 Good 3 66 The results of an employee surwy were received at the end of March Results for each of the fou metrics have improved since the initral2003 survey These metrics reflect a continued improvement in the site's overall safely conscious work emronment actions Action plans are being created based on a review of the survey results Nominal Improvement.

2003 to 2006 improvemen! 2 4%

Notable Improvement.

2003 to 2006 improvement 4 6%

METRIC Trust and Respect Between Management & Employees 1 2003' 3,50 1

348 Knowledge of Alternative Avenues 1

388 Employee Perception of Management Commitment 1

376 Supervisor Communication Effectiveness RATING 1 2005' Good to Very 3,74 Good 1

352 Adequate to Good RATING Good Very Good Good to Very Good Good 2006' I RATING I ANALYSIS Good to Very Significant Improvement.

3'74 1

Good 1 2003 to 2006 improvement. 7 5%

Notable Improvement.

2003 to 2006 improvement 2 6%

'Scale 1 to 5: I - Strongly Disagree. 2. Disagree. 3 - Generally Agree, 4 - Strongly Agree, 5 - Fully Agree G F W R A T I ~ C swrtous 2

Updated Monthly chilling effect implications Safety Conscious Work Environment Manager Goal:

No Adverse Trend perceived to be taken against site personnel for raising nuclear safety issues This Board reviews LUUS 40 T I ______

- ? C ? C I significant proposed discipline. promotions. transfers and terminations for PSEG employees and 35 1 33-.

mi 30 u) 25 E

20 5

15 0

m 10 5

0 1 supplemental (contract) personnel Jan Feb Mar Apr May ~ u n Jul Aug s e p oci NOV

~ e c

=Total c a s e s DApproved Cases Analvsis The Executive Review Board (ERB) reviewed 75 proposed actions during the 1 st Quarter o 2006 The success rate of cases for thc Quarter was 100% and IS 100% year to date There continues to be no indication of retaliation o chilling of the work environment Actions Continue to monitor for trends The ERE did not Object to any of the proposed actions 35 30 5

0 29 29 27 27 Jan Feb Mar Jun Jul 9

OCI N ov Dec

=Total Cases oApproved Cases 3

EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM -

CONCERNS C 0 N F I DENT I AL I TY/AN 0 NY M I TY REQUEST Chart Owner Updated: Monthly

[The number of Emalovee Concerns Proaram 1

concerns filed anonymously/confidentially versus total number of concerns per month Chart does not include NRC 30-day requests 1

Employee Concerns Program Manager Goel:

No Adveise Tieiicl 100 90 80 k?

70

$ 60 2 50 5

40 z 30 20 10 0

5 87 2003 2004 2005 0

Confidentialdy Requested

!a Anonyrnou~

Ka Total Number of Concerns 20 8

6 4

2 0

8 6

4 2

0 8

This metric shows the total number of concerns brought to the Employee Concerns Manager This is ar alternate means to have issues addressed outside of line management I

Analysis There has been an upwara trena in the overall number of Confidential and Anonvmous concerni

~~

received for the 1 st Quarter of 2006 An analysis of the issues has identified there is no common theme o organization regarding the types of concerns brought forward None were determined to be a harassment intimidation. retaliation or discrimination issue related to engaging in protected activities Actions Continue to monitor the numbers and types of confidential and anonymous concerns 10 15 7

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

E Monthly Anonymous I

Monthly Total of Concerns 0 Monthly Total Confidentiality Requested oMonthly Total of Opei Concerns Jan Feb Mat AP r May Jun Jul Aug Sep O C t NOV Dec 4

TOTAL NOTIFICATIONS GENERATED Corrective Action Program Manager Goal:

No Adverse Trend 3,500 g

3,000 2,500 5

2 2,000 e

1.500 0

m I

(Y m

?

1,000 4' -

50 0 5

0 0

I 2.218 2302 2003 2004 2305 Site personnel write a notification in the Corrective Action Program (CAP) to identify an issue that needs attention This metric illustrates the total number of notifications written each month by site personnel Monitoring ensures that the volume of issues is consistent with expected trends, based on past performance as well as industry perspective increase compared to the previous average for 2005 The 1st Quarter 2006 monthly average number of Notificatons generated is 2395 The site's personnel continue to document problems in notifications when issues are identified The overall yearly trend is positive Actions No actions are required 3,500 3,250 3.000 2.750 2.500 2.250 2,ODO 1,750 1.500 1,250 1,000 750 500 Jan Feb Mar Jun Jul Au4 Sep Oct Nov Dec sMonthly Actual si+>lQ.mx!k GFBFRATING STAIfOYS 5

CORRECTIVE ACTION PROBLEM RESOLUTION Updated' Monthly Chart Owner The percent of corrective action closures determined to be acceptable by Corrective Action Closure Board review. based on the problem resolution criteria The performance indicator is a monthly value 1

Corrective Action Program Manager Goal:

96%

Actions Continue implementation of the CAP Excellence Plan to sustain performance at or above goal Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ItSA55iActual +Number Reviewed I 100%

70%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SeP oct N ov Dec 1.000 900 fl Good 800 700 600 P

500 5 400 5 7 3 a,

II z

-Actual

--c Number Reviewed

-Goal 96%

300 200 100 0

8

CONDITION REPORT ACTIVITIES OVERDUE Chart Owner activities overdue on a monthly basis.

measured as activities with an actual finish date occurring after the due date Updated Monthly Corrective Action Program Manager 5%

\\Site krsonnel write a notification in our Corrective Action Proqram (CAP) to identifv an issu 2005 12%

40%

3 8%

8%

6X c

4%

4%

4%

4%

4 b

nl -

2%

a 0%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JuI Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

&Monthly Overdue -?Goal I

that k e d s attention This metric tracks the timeliness of our review and correctiveactions I measuring the percentage overdue. with a goal of less than or equal to 5%

overdue condition report activities remained below goal for the 1 st Quarter 2006, and have consistently remained below goal for the past four quarters Actions No action required 1 2Yv 10% -

ao/, -

P 6

4%

a 2%

0%

Jan Feb Mar A V May Jun Jul Aug SeP Oct Nov Dec n

Good Monthly Overdue

-&-Goal h

9

'\\

The number of due date extensions approved for open Nuclear Condition Report evaluations Updated Monthly OPEN CONDITION REPORT EVALUATIONS WITH DUE DATE EXTENSIONS 402005 1

Chart Owner Corrective Action Program Manager Goal:

No Adverse Trend 2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I

I p1 Monthly Total needs attention This metric looks at the timeliness of review and corrective actions by tracking the number that have a due date extension. which is allowed by the process By tracking those that are extended, an improvement trend in overall timeliness is expected Actions No action required 40 30 (n

c 0

(n c

a' x

I 2 20 E,

a' L2 z

10 0

Jan Feb Mar APr May Jun Jul Aug SeP oct Nov Dec Monthly 1

Total I

GFNFRITING STATIONS 10

i SALEM UNIT I REPEAT MAINTENANCE ISSUES Chart Owner The number of repeat maintenance issues identified on safely-related equipment Updated Monthly 1

Salem Maintenance Manager 2005 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jui AUQ Scp Ocl Nov oec I

CDMonthlyActual 1

I Goal:

No Adverse Trend nis metric monitors the numher of issues that were nul fixea correctly the flr4 time 011 hafPty-reratPd qLipnieiit Iteirib ttial nave been fixea and need to be revvorkrd witn ii twelve moriths arc traced Tn s metric

, to en%re a rcouct on as rhe correcttve actiuri pruyram imprudrs malysis There was no adverse trend There was a total of two Repeat Issues in the 1 st Quarter The items identified in the 1 st Quarter are being addressed in the Corrective Action and Corrective laintenance Programs and actions are being implemented Equipment reliability will be further enhanced Trough the Plant Health Committee and Material Condition Improvement Process 18 16 5 14 12 m

m -

c m

t 10 f

a m

a R

0 l 6 4

2 0

I1I 1

1 Jan Feb Mar AP May Jun Jul Au Y SeP Oct N ov Dec 11

SALEM UNIT 2 REPEAT MAINTENANCE ISSUES Updated Monthly Chart Owner Salein Maintenance Manager No Adverse Trend 2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec lmetric is to ensure a reduction as the corrective action program improves Analvsis There was no adverse trend There was a total of three Repeat Issues in the 1 st Quarter Actions The items identified in the 1 st Quarter are being addressed in the Corrective Action and Corrective Maintenance Programs and actions are being implemented Equipment reliability will be further enhanced through the Plant Health Committee and Material Condition Improvement Process 20 18 -

16 -

% 1 4 -

12 -

I D -

Y)

Y) -

c m.-

c 2

8 -

m (Y a w

6 -

4 -

n 2

0 Monthly Actual 1 Jan Feb Mar APr May Jun Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec GFNFRLTING STATIONS 12

Chart Owner 4 0 Hope Creek Maintenance Manager No Adverse Trend Goal:

2005 This metric monitors the number of issues that were not fixed correctly the first time on safely related equipment Items that have been fixed and need to be reworked within twelve months are tracked Thls metric is to ensure a reduction as the corrective action program improves 20 I

15 8

5 70 m,

Y L

m Actions The items identified in the 1st Quarter are being addressed in the Corrective Action and Corrective through the Plant Health Committee and Material Condition Improvement Process c

m Maintenance Programs and actions are being implemented Equipment reliability wlll be further enhanced E

m, a

5 0

Jan FED Mar Apr May Jun JUI AUQ Sep oct NOV Dec I

MonthlyActual 4

3 I

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au g Sep oct Nov Dec Monthly Actual sak&,Hopem G E h E R I I T l N G STATIONS 13

C

The number of plant operational issues that warrant implementation of the Event Response Team Updated Monthly SALEM UNIT 2 OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES (Includes Unit 2, Unit 3, and Common)

Chart Owner 402005 1

Salem Plant Manager I

Goal:

No Adverse Trend 2005 5

4 YI m

nl c

m r

s 3

2 e 4 0 -

L a

Acrlons Maintain focus on equipment reliability improvements to minimlze Event Response Team 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JuI Aug Sep Oct NOV Dec 0 Monthly Total Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au 9 Sep Oct N ov Dec mMonthly Total 'I 15

I i

Chart Owner the event responses common causes and potential trends can be investigated 5

?

Jan reb Mar Apr May Jun JuI Aug Sep Oct NOV Dec IP Monthlv Data I Quarter This is an average of 1 0 per month. previous trends were 1 1 per month in 7004 and 1 3 per Actions Maintain focus on equipment reliability improvements to minimize Event Response Team requests Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JUI Aug Sep o c t N ov Dee i 1 n Monthly Total V

G F N ~ R A T ~ N G STATIONS 16

SALEM UNIT 1 UNPLANNED SHUTDOWN LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO)

Updated Monthly Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

2 per Month 2005 Nuclear plants are operated under a fundamental set of rules from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) called Technical Specifications Certain rules require operators to enter a shutdown LCO meaning the equipment must be fixed in a defined period of time. or unit shutdown is required This metric measures the unplanned entries made at Salem Unit 1, compared to the expected number at top performing nuclear units (less than or equal to 2/month)

Analvsis two LCOs per month was not met Actions These issues are being addressed in the Corrective Action and Equipment Reliability Programs For the 1st Quarter 2006, there were seven Unplanned Shutdown LCOs on Unit 1 The goal o Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct NOV Dec

-Monthly Shutdown LCOs

-:-Monthly snutuown Lcos Qoal Jan Feb Mar Jun Jul Oct Nov Dee msfal Monthly Shutdown LCO:

-%-Monthly Shutdown LCOs Goal 17

I

\\

\\

I I

IThe number of Unplanned Non-Shutdown Technical Specification Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCOs) entered during the month SALEM UNIT 1 UNPLANNED NON-SHUTDOWN LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO)

ENTRIES Updated Monthly Chart Owner 10 2006 Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

6 per Month I

(NRC) called Technical Specifications Certain rules require operators to enter a non-shutdown LCO, meaning the equipment must be fixed in a defined period of time. or you are required to take compensatory measures This metric measures the unplanned entries made at Salem Unit 1, compared to the expected number at top performing nuclear units (less than or equal to Glmonth) 2005 goal for this Quarter was met Actions Sustain performance at or below goal Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

-Monthly Non - Shutdown LCOs

-*I Monthly Non - Shutdown LCOs Goal 10 0

4 2

2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul n u 9 SeP Oct Nov Dec a

Good

-Monthly Non -

Shutdown LCOs

-&-Monthly Non - Shutdown LCOs Goal h

18

SALEM UNIT 2 UNPLANNED SHUTDOWN LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO)

ENTRIES Updated Monthly Chart O w n e r 8

6 c

c Lu --

0 Y

a 4

c L

m a

c 3

2 0

Salem System E n g i n e e r i n g M a n a g e r The number of Unplanned Shutdown Technical Specification Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCOs) entered during the month 4Q 2005 1 Q 2006 Goal:

2 per Month meaning the equipment must be fixed in a defined period of time. or unit shutdown IS required This metric measures the unplanned entries made at Salem Unit 7. compared to the expected number at top I

lperforming nuclear units (less than or equal to Zlmonth) two LCOs per month was not met Actions These issues are being addressed in the Corrective Action and Equipment Reliability Programs Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JuI Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Monthly Shutdown LCOs Monthly Shutdown LCOs Gnal Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee n

Good F,,

Monthly Shutdown Monthly Shutdown LCOs Goal 19

I i-l--+---.-

(NRC) called Techni'cal Specifications Certain rules require operators to enter a ion-shbtdown LCO, meaning the equipment must be fixed in a defined period of time. or you are required to take compensatory measures This metric measures the unplanned entries made at Salem Unit 2.

compared to the expected number at top performing nuclear units (less than or equal to G/month) nt SIX per munth was not met in Maicl-I. the overall monthly goal for tnis Ouarter was met AcJiqni Sustain perforrriancc at or below goal.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jui Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I

-Monthly Non - Shutdown LCOs -+-Monthly Non - Shutdown LCOS Goal I

10 L

A 5

Jan Feb 7--

7 Mar 4 r May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct N ov Dec il Good

-Monthly Shutdown LCOs Goal

~

• WM GFNFRATING STATIONS 20

entered during the month LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO)

Updated Monthly Chart Owner Hope Creek Site Engineering Director Goal:

2 per Month 2005 Nuclear plants are operated under a fundamental set of rules from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission called Technical Specifications Certain rules require operators to enter a shutdown LCO. meaning the equipment must be fixed in a defined period of time, or unit shutdown IS required This metric measures the unplanned entries made at Hope Creek, compared to the expected number at top performini nuclear units [less than or eaual to 2 h o n t h l I

70 I I

I

~~

n m

4 a

2 3

0 Analvsis For the 1 st Quarter of 2006, there were 12 Unplanned Shutdown LCOs The goal of two LCOs c

m per month was not met Actions These issues are being addressed in the Corrective Action and Equipment Reliability Programs I

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Monthly Shutdown LCOs Monthly Shutdown LCOS Goal 10 a

(0 m

c UI 6

0 f?

E 4

73 m

a c

3 2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au g Sep o c t Nov Dee a

Good

-Monthly Shutdown LCOS

+-Monthly Shutdown LCOs Goal n

21

LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO)

Updated Monthly Hope Creek Site Engineering Director 6 per Month 2005 4

4 4

3 2

1 1

1 (NRC) called Technical Specifications Certain rules require operators to enter a non-shutdown LCO.

meaning the equipment must be fixed in a defined period of time. or you are required to take compensato measures This metric measures the unplanned entries made at Hope Creek, cornDared to the expecter number at top performing nuclear units (less than or equal to Glmonth)

Analvsis. For the 1 st Quarter there were a total of 14 Unplanned Non-Shutdown LCOs The goal of SIX F month was met Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JIJI

~ u g sep oCt N~~

D~~

A m

Sustain performance at or belowgoal

-Monthly Non - Shutdown LCOs M onthly Non - Shutdown LCOS Goal Jan Feb 6

Mar

-Monthly Non -

Shutdown LCOs

+Monthly Non - Shutdown LCOs Goal APr May Jun Jul Aug SeP oct Nov Dec h

22

I Updated Monthly SALEM UNIT 1 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNAVAILABILITY Chart Owner I

lThe sum ofthe olanned and unolanned hours that the Emergency DieLel Generators were not available I

1 Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

21.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> per month (36-tnot1ih tolling.wetage) 100 79 2002 2003 2004 2005 removed from service for maintenance This metric monitors the amount of time the Emergency Diesels are out of service, compared against industry top quartile The total represents the sum of the unavailable hours of the three Emergency Diesel Generators at Salem Unit 1 This is a long-term trend of our performance Analvsis Salem Unit 1 Emergency Diesel Generator unavailability was 14 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> versus a goal of 21 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> on a 36-month rolling average The Quarterly goal was met as projected A

m Sustain performance at or below goal 10 5

0 Jan Feb Mar AP May Jun Jul Au g SeP Oct Nov Dec Monthly Actual

- m -36Month Rolling Actual

+-36 Month Industry Tr 0 u a rl i I e 23

Updated Monthly SALEM UNIT 2 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR U NAVAl LAB1 LlTY 21.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> per month 29 2002 2003 2004 2005 removed from sewice for maintenance This metric monitors the amount of time the Emergency Diesels are out of service. compared against industry top quartile The total represents the sum of the unavailable hours of the three Emergency Diesel Generators at Salem Unit 2 This is a long-term trend of our performance Analysis Salem Unit 2 Emergency Diesel Generator unavailabilitywas 10 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> versus a goal of 21 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> on a 36-month rolling average The Quarterly goal was met as projected A

Sustain performance at or below goal 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 6

0 12 7

= - - - - I -,,

Jan Feb Mar Jun Jul SeP Oct Nov Dec 0

Good

-Monthly Actual

-36 Month Rolling Actual

-.+36 Month Industry Top Quartile 24

Updated Monthly HOPE CREEK EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR U NAVAl LAB1 LlTY Hope Creek System Engineering Manager 126 2002 2003 7004 2005 removed from service Gr maintenance This metric monitors the amount of time the Emergency Diesels are out of service. compared against industry top quartile The total represents the sum of the unavailable hours of the four Emergency Diesel Generators at Hope Creek This IS a long-term trend of our performance Analysis Hope Creek Emergency Diesel Generator unavailability was 28 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> versus a goal of 29 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> on a 36-month rolling average The revised goal was met as projected There were no unavailability hours for the month of March All 1st Quarter unavailability hours occurred in January and February and were the result of planned maintenace windows A

Continue to maintain a high level of availability 150 125 25 0

Jun Jul Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar AP 1 May n Good

%2

- rn -36Month Rolling Actual

-+36 Month Industry Top Quartile 25

SALEM UNIT 1 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM U N AVA I LAB I L ITY Updated Monthly Chart Owner Salem System Engineering Manager 125 109 25 2002 2003 2004 2005 4Q2005 1Q2006 I Goal:

7.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per month (36-1no1rtIi iolliiiq.wer.ige) es of redundant safety systems and equipment This allows equipment to b removed from service for maintenance This metric monitors the amount of time the Salem Unit 1 Auxiliary Feedwater System is out of sewice compared against industry top quartile The total represents the sum of the three Auxiliary Feedwater Systems on Salem Unit 1 This is a long-term trend of our performance Analvsis Salem Unit 1 Auxiliary Feedwater unavailability was 41 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> versus a goal of 7 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> on a 36-month rolling avetage The goal was not met this Quarter due to the impact of previous system performance (2003-2004) 1 op quartile performance will be achieved in March 2007 Actions Corrective actions implemented relative to schedullng malntenance during refuellng outages will Continue improve system availability 50 40 L?

2 30 S

m

.a m

m 20 5

10 0

41 8 m -,

0 Good Monthly Actual

- 36 Month Rolling Actual

-+- 36 Month Industry TOP Quartile 26

Updated Monthly SALEM UNIT 2 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM U NAVAl LAB1 LlTY Chart Owner Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

lhe sum of the planned alia unp annea ho-rs that the 4~x81 aty Feedwater Systems wete not arailable 7.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per month (3G.month rolling average)

Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment This allows equipment to b removed from service for maintenance This metric monitors the amount of time the Salem Unit 2 Auxiliary Feedwater System is out of service compared against industry top quartile The total represents the sum of the three Auxiliary Feedwater Systems on Salem Unit 2 This is a long-term trend of our performance 2 -

I 15 (u

Jjy m

m 10 3

c I

Y 5

4 Salem Unit 2 Auxiliary Feedwater unavailability was 6 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> versus a goal of 7 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> on a 36-month erage The Quarterly goal was met Corrective actions which entail performing scheduled maintenance during refueling outages has improver nued to maintain system unavailability at optimum hours n

2002 2003 2004 2005 n

50 Jan Feb Mar APr May Jun Jul A w Sep Oct Nov Dec

-. I Good Monthly Actual

-36Month Rolling Actual i t -

36 Month Industry Top Quartile 27

The sum ofthe planned and unplanned hours that the Residual Heat Removal Systems were not available Updated Monthly HOPE CREEK RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITY Chart Owner 402005 I

Hope Creek Site Engineering Director Goal:

9.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per month (36-monlh rolling average) n 1 2 2002 2003 2004 2005 Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment This allows equipmenl to be removed from sewice for maintenance This metric monitors the amount of time the Hope Creek Residual Heat Removal Systems are out of sewice compared against industry top quartile The total represents the sum of both Residual Heat Removal trains at Hope Creek This is a long-term trend of our performance Analysis RHR System unavailability is meeting its goal There were zero hours of unavailability during January and February In March the " A RHR System incurred 12 5 unavailability hours as a result of a planned pre-outage maintenance window Unplanned unavailability of 0 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> was incurred due to a failure of the BC F006A valve to close due to failed contacts on the operator pushbutton Actions Continue to maintain a high level of availability Jan Feb Mar Ap r May Jun Jul Auy Sep Oct Nov Dee a

Good Monthly Actual

-36Month ROlllnQ Actual 36 Month InduStyTop Quarlile 28

Updated Monthly SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITY 30 -

5 35 -

f 20 -

D a'

IT -

m m

3 1 5 -

10 -

5 -

O T Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

7.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> per month (36-month lolling wetaye) 30 30 2002 2003 2004 2005 Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment This allows eqipment to be removed from service for maintenance This metric monitors the amount of time the Salem Unit 1 Chemical Volume Control and Safety Injection Systems are out of service compared against industry top quartile The total represents the sum of the four trains on Salem Unit 1 This is a long-term trend of our performance Analysis Salem Unit 1 HPSl unavailability was 16 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> versus a goal of 7 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> on a 36-6nth roKaverage The goal was not met this Quarter due to the impact of previous system performance Continuing at the current level of performance. the goal will be met by September 2007 Acrlons Limting planned maintenance activities to refueling outage windows has resulted in improved CVClSl syster unavailability in 2005 and 2006 I - - -

16 0

i.

i.

I 1..

L.

i I

0.0 00 0 0 Actual

-36 Month Rolling Actual

-36 Month Industry To Ouarlile Jan Feb Mar APr May Jun Jul Aug SeP Oct Nov Dec 29

j Updated Monthly Salem System Engineering Manager I

Goal:

7.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> per month (36-month iolliiig.iveiaqe) 35 2002 2003 2004 200s removed from service for maintenance This metric monitors the amount of time the Chemical Volume Control and Safety Injection Systems are out of service compared against industry top quartile The total represents the sum of the four trains on Salem Unit 2 This is a long-term trend of our performance The Salem unit 2 Chemical Volume Control and safety Injection System unavailability was 13 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> versus a goal of 7 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> on a 36-month rolling average ?he Quarterly goal was not met Continuing at the curren level of performance, the goal will he met by July 2007 m

s 2005 This strategy will continue in 2006 Minimizing unavailability by limiting on-line maintenance work resulted in improved system availability in 40 35 30 5 25 20 3 15 10 r

a) -

m 5

0 19.8 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee 0

Good

-Monthly Actual

-36 Month Rolling Actual

+-36 Month Industry To Quarlile si3(3Lmm GEhFHAlliNC STATIONS 30

HOPE CREEK HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION AND REACTOR CORE ISOLATION COOLING SYSTEM U N AVAl LAB1 L I TY Updated Monthly Chart Owner The sum ofthe planned and unplanned hours that the High Pressure Injection and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Systems were not available 1

Hope Creek Site Engineering Director Goal:

14.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> per month (3G-nionth rolling avera!je)

Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment This allows equipment to be removed from service for maintenance This metric monitors the amount of time the High Pressure Injection and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Systems are out of service compared against industy top quartile The total represents the sum of both systems at Hope Creek This is a long-term trend of our performance Y 20

.a m

m c

3 g 10 C T 2

A m

Continue to maintain a high level of availability 0

2002 2003 2004 2005 I

0 0 0 0 Jan Feb Mar AP r May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 3

Good

-Monthly Actual

-36Monlh Rolling Actual

-?--36 Month Industry To[

Qua rl i I e v GENFRATlNG STATlONS 31