LR-N06-0301, 2Q 2006 PSEG Metrics for Improving the Work Environment

2Q 2006 PSEG Metrics for Improving the Work Environment

ML062920239
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	07/27/2006
From:	Levis W Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Collins S Region 1 Administrator
References
LR-N06-0301
Download: ML062920239 (36)

Text

GI 'L William Levis PSEG Nuclear LLC Senior Vice President and CNO EO. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 tel: 856.339.1100 fax: 856.339.1104 LR-N06-0301 JUL 2 7 2006 Mr. Samuel Collins -,.

Regional Administrator 0 LJ United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 PSEG METRICS FOR IMPROVING 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 second quarter 2006. PSEG put these metrics in place to objectively measure the effectivenessof 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.

In 2004, NRC identified concerns with our environment for raising and addressing safety issues. In-depth assessments were conducted into these matters and actions were established to address the identified concerns. PSEG completed the actions to resolve the concerns, resulting in significant improvements in the work environment as well as the CorrectiveAction and Work Management Programs at Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations.

Assessments of our work environment conducted in 2006 confirmed that substantial and sustainable improvements have been made. Synergy Consulting Services Corporation completed a survey of the workforce during the first quarter 2006. The survey results showed good performance in the key cultural metrics since the last survey conducted in 2005. The rate of improvement was characterized as strong, providing a solid foundation for sustainable improvement. The Synergy Survey Results Comparisons metric was reported in the first quarter 2006 and will not be resubmitted with this submittal. In the second quarter 2006, PSEG commissionedan independent peer assessment team with extensive management, regulatory, and SCWE-related

JUL 2 7 2006 Mr. Samuel Collins 2 LR-N06-0301 experience to assess the work environment at Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. The team interviewed more than 170 site personnel, observed station activities and meetings, and reviewed programs, procedures, policies, metrics, past assessments and resulting actions. The team confirmed that substantial SCWE improvements were realized and a solid foundation exists for sustaining these improvements.

Since the NRC identified work environment concerns in 2004, the actions taken have collectively produced substantial and visible improvement at the stations. Maintenance backlogs have been maintained low and the improvements in implementationof the Corrective Action Program remain in place. Operational challenges have been reduced and most safety system performance indicators remain at the annual top quartile performance levels. Insights from recent work environment assessments were used to identify further improvement opportunities. Sitewide communicationscontinue to be used to align the organization and maintain our operational focus.

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

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

The initiation rate for Notificationscontinues to demonstrate that site personnel have a low threshold for problem reporting. Improved engagement of personnel, effective communication between personnel and their supervisor, and an increased confidence in station leadership have established 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 (LCO) Entries, and Safety System Unavailability (Le., 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 3 darl 2 7 2006 LR-N06-0301 Metrics and plant performance show that problem resolution has substantially improved.

The Corrective Action Program (CAP) remains healthy due to engagement of station leadership and alignment of the organization with expectations for the programs use. Timely evaluations and effective corrective actions improve the ability of the station to resolve problems.

Many long-standingequipment deficiencies have been resolved during planned refueling outages and effective online maintenance has maintained low 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.

The stations focus on equipment reliability has 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 in all cases.

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 second quarter, station and contractor personnel actively used the program with no adverse trends discovered in the anonymous or confidential concerns being entered into ECP. Outreach efforts by the ECP staff to communicate the important elements of the ECP program to the workforce continue to yield positive benefits.

95-4933

Mr. Samuel Collins 4 JUL 3 7 2006 LR-N06-0301 Pillar 4: OetectionlPrevention of Retaliation h Chilling Effect The metrics monitoring this pillar are Synergy Survey Results Comparisons and Executive Review Board (ERB) Action Approvals.

In the second 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. Management actions continue to reflect a sound understandingof and respect for the work environment.

A change management plan was completed to transition the functions of the SCWE Team Leader to the Line Management, the ECP staff, or Human Resources personnel, as appropriate based on the activity. For example, administration of the ERB process was transitioned from the SCWE Team Leader to Human Resources personnel. The Executive Protocol Group provided oversight of these activities to ensure an effective transition.

In summary, actions have been completed to improve our work environment and recent assessments, as well as the performance metrics for each SCWE pillar, indicate substantial improvement and that processes are in place to sustain the improvement.

Our organization remains operationally focused with well-defined roles and responsibilities, clear accountability, and consistent direction. PSEGs demonstrated ability to resolve problems has improved plant performance and fostered a healthy work environment that promotes problem identification and resolution. Effective communicationsremain an essential element to sustain these improvements.

PSEG will continue to monitor and improve performanceto industry top quartile levels.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (856) 339-1 100.

Sincerely, Attachment 95-4933

i Mr. Samuel Collins LR-N06-0301 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 08B1 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 95-4933

. 1 Mr. Samuel Collins Attachment I LR-N06-0301 ATTACHMENT 95-4933

r 1

Executive Review Board (ERE) reviews proposed EXECUTIVE REVIEW BOARD (ERB) ACTION personnel actions t o ensure no retaliation or U p d a t e d Monthly chilling effect implications APPROVALS Chart Owner 1 Safety Conscious Work Environment Manager I Goal: No Adverse T r e n d 2005 perceived to be taken against site personnel for raising nuclear safety issues. This Board reviews 40 I 36761 significant proposed discipline, promotions, transfers and terminations for P S E G employees and 35 -I- mI supplemental (contract) personnel.

Analvsis: The Executive Review Board (ERB) reviewed 67 proposed actions during the 2nd Quarter o 2006. The ERE did not object to any of the proposed actions. The success rate of cases for tht Quarter w a s 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 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I =Total Cases OAaaroved Cases/

35 30 27 27 26 26 26 26 =Total Cases 25 . . . .

15 15 oApproved Cases

~ .- .. . . - ..

10 - __ . .- - . .

5 -

0 Jan Feb Jun Jul Aug Sep OCI Nov Dec Credc G STATIONS 2

Updated Monthly CON FIDENTIALITY/ANONYMITY REQUEST 100 -

. . . _.._- 87 90 -

80 __ .. .. . . . .

E 70- ___^I_ ...... .. -. .

malvsis A n analysis of the 2nd Quarter Anonymous and Confidential concerns identified there IS n o c o m m o g 60 51 - - . --- - i e m e or organization regarding the types of concerns raised to ECP The large number of overall c o n c e r n s I v 50 _ ................................ ......... __......_ ,pril w a s attributed to the Hope Creek 13th Refueling Outage rctions: Continue to monitor the n u m b e r s and types of confidential and anonymous concerns

-*5---- -

2003 2004 2005 0 ConZdentlaldy Requested La Anonymous I Totel Number of Concerns a Monthly Anonymous Monthly Total of

....................................................... ............................................... Concerns

-~ ~...- .- . . . . . . . . . . . .~- .-

Monthly Total

................ Confidentiality

................................................... ................................................................ Requested 0 Monthly Total of Ope1

. I . __ Concerns

._ - I _ _ -

Jan Feb Mar APr aY Jun Jul Aug Sep OCt Nov Dec 3

Total notificationsgenerated on a monthly basis Updated Monthly TOTAL NOTIFICATIONS GENERATED Chart Owner 1 Corrective Action Program Manager Goal: No Adverse Trend I

ISite tmsonnel write a notification in the Corrective Action Proqram (CAP) to identify an issue that I needs attention This metric illustrates the total number of noifications written each month by site 3,500 personnel Monitoring ensures that the volume of issues is consistent with expected trends, based c on past performance as well as industry perspective g 3,000 . . ._

2,500 -/--- 238- -

^-I .-

Analysis The number of notifications in the 2nd Quarter show an increase in the monthly average from the 1st Quarter Overall there has been an increasing trend in the number of notifications generated for the 2nd Quarter of 2006 in comparison with notifications generated during the 2nd Quarter of 2005 Actions No actions are required 2002 2003 2004 2005 I

3,500 3,250 ... __ .- ... ._ ...._

3,000 ... .............. -. . . .- . . . ................

2,624 __ .

I mMonthly 2.750 Actual 2,500 2,250 __ 2,152 ~

2.000 1,750 1,500 1,250 1,000 750 500 Jan Feb Mar AQr May Jun Jul Oct Nov Dec Creek G STATIONS 4

ONLINE CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Updated Monthly Chart Owner Salem Maintenance Manager and Hope Creek Maintenance Manager I Goal: 45 per month 250 2UUb I impact on plant operations and can be fixed while the unit IS in sewice Benchmarklng indicates the industry median at 90,with top performance at 45 for the site The goal IS to achieve top performance by the end of 12005.

Quarter of 2006 Actions Sustain performance at or below goal 60 1

a 1

50 Good SlBacklog 40 c

a, (I

S2Backlog 0

I m

30 20 mrm HCBacklog 10 -.- SiteGoal 0

Jan Feb Mar APr May Jun Jul nu9 OCt NOV Dec a/ett$$mC& 1 GENERATING STATIONS 5

NLINE ELECTIVE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG Updated Monthly 2.000 1,750 5 -'

1.500 ! ___-

- HC BaCklOQ 0 S2 Backlog - S'l BacKlog +Goal

' I Good Jan Feb Mar Jun Jul Oct Nov Dsc 1

a SlBacklog S26aoklog tmza HCBaoklog SkeQoal v j GENERATING STATIONS 6

Updated Monthly Closure Board review. based on the problem resolution criteria The performance indicator is a Corrective Action Program Manager I Goal: 96%

490%

?DO%

90%

- 80%

(u A=.

ma 70%

E u

60%

5 50%

5 40%

30%

20 %

?O%

0%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct NOV Dec

-Actual -Number Reviewed 1,000 900 U G o o d 800 700 c 3 600 -Actual 2

500 s(u -m- Number 400 5 Reviewed z

300

-Goal 96%

200 100 0

Jan Feb Mar Ap r May Jun Jul Aug SeP Oct Nov Dec 7

Percentage of Nuclear Condition Report activities overdue on a monthly basis, CONDITION REPORT ACTIVITIES OVERDUE Updated Monthly measured as activities w t h an actual finish date occurring after the due date Chart Owner 1 5%

LUUO that needs attention. This metric tracks the timeliness of our review and corrective actions by 12%

, I measuring the percentage overdue, with a goal of less than or equal to 5%

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

-Monthly Overdue 7 ' r G o a l J

E 12%

10%

8%

v I Good Monthly 6 6% ... ........ __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .

-I Overdue m

m A

&-"-T$o I

c Y Y UI

4%

I a

+Goal 2%

0%

Jan Feb Mar Jun Jul Oct Nov Dec sa/eQmCM GENERATING STATIONS 8

I OPEN CONDITION REPORT Updated Monthly EVALUATIONS WITH DUE DATE EXTENSIONS Corrective Action Program Manager Goal: No Adverse Trend 2005 Actions No action required Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JUI Aug Sep Oct NOV Dec I Monthly Total 10 E lMonthly Total Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec w 1 GENFRATIN GS T A T I O N S 9

safety-related equipment SALEM UNIT 1 REPEAT MAINTENANCE ISSUES Updated Monthly No Adverse Trend 2005 equipment. Items that have been fixed and need to be reworked within twelve months are tracked. This metric i s to ensure a reduction as the corrective action program improves.

20 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct NOV Dec I IMonthlyActual I l_l___l I , .. - . ___ . -

_I_.,_ - ~

.I-_ . ...... ...................................

- ___.___I__ __ __..I__._---I ____-

Monthly Actual

.... ._ . ........... .. ._-._l^_l ....

[L 2 -~ .-. .... . - .. .... .. -- .... ----I.---

1 0

0 Jan Feb Mar APr May Jun Jul Au g SetJ Oct Nov Dec 10

The number of repeat maintenance issues identified on safety-related equipment SALEM UNIT 2 REPEAT MAINTENANCE ISSUES Updated Monthly Chart Owner 1 2005 equipment. Items that have been fixed and need to be reworked within twelve months are tracked. This 20 Actions: The items identified in the 2nd 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.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct NOV Dec I MonthlyActual I 20 la 16 .... .- ...... __-_ ...

... ._ . . . ..I.._____. . . . . .....__I___ . ..........

..- . _ .. .~ .... ................... ............ ~. ... ...... ... ... . . . .......... - -.

&/e+ ' CM GENERATING STATIONS 11

The number of repeat maintenance issues identified on safety-related equipment HOPE CREEK REPEAT MAINTENANCE ISSUES Updated Monthly Chart Owner 1 Hope Creek Maintenance Manager Goal: N o Adverse Trend 2 15

-B 0,

c

-- ?O E

Actions The items identified in the 2nd Quarter are being addressed in the Corrective Action and Corrective m

2 Maintenance Programs and actions are being implemented Equipment reliability will be further enhanced CL through the Plant Health Committee and Material Condition Improvement Process

$ 5 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct NOV DeC I

20 0

Jan Feb Mar APr Jun Jul aug SeP Oct Nw oec sa/+mecm GENERATING STATlONS 12

SALEM UNIT I OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES Updated Monthly Salem Plant Manager Goal: No Adverse Trend 2005 IA procedure was established to allow operating crews to request additional assistance to address emergent issues. This metric measures the number of times each month operators engage this assistance. The goal is to minimize the events which require responses to the operating crews By tracking and reviewing the event responses, common causes and potential trends can be investigated Analysis No adverse trend was identified There were four Event Response Teams initiated in the 2nd Quarter This is an average of 1 3 per month for the 2nd Quarter Previous trends were 2 0 per month in 2004 and 1 5 per month in 2005 0

Actions. Maintain focus on equipment reliability improvements to minimize Event Response Team requests.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JuI Aug Sep Oct NOY Dec I IMonthly Total I L I Monthly Total Jan Feb Mar APr Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 13

imp emen a ion o Updated Monthly Salem Plant Manager I Goal: No Adverse Trend i procedure was established to allow operating crews to requestaddltlonal assistance to address 2005 mergent issues This metric measures the number of times each month operators engage this issistance The goal IS to minimize the events which require responses to the operating crews By racking and reviewing the event responses. common causes and potential trends can be investigated I

There were no Event Response Trarris initiated in thP 7nd Quarter h o adverse trend has been jentified Previous trends were two per month in 2004 and 1 7 5 per month in 2005 s m Maintain focus on equipment reliability improvsments to minimiie Event Response Team equests Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct NOV Dec I Monthly Total J

Monthly Total 0 0 0 0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep OF1 Nov Dec Sale* Cwr eI e k 0

GEN~RATING STATIONS 14

The number of plant operational issues that warrant implementation of the Event Response Team HOPE CREEK OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES U p d a t e d Monthly Hope Creek Plant Manager Goal: No Adverse Trend procedure was established to allow operating crews to request addittonal assistance to address

' 2 2005 mergent issues. This metric measures the number of times each month operators engage this ssistance. The goal is to minimize the event responses to the operating crews. By tracking and reviewing le event responses, common causes and potential trends can be investigated.

6

- 4 a No adverse trend was identified There was one Event Response Team initiated in the 2nd luarter This is an average of 0 3 per month for the 2nd Quarter Previous trends were 1 1 per month in 004 and 1 3 Der month in 2005 m:Maintain focus on equipment reliability improvements to minimize Event Response Team

?quests.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JUI AUg sep oct NOV Dec IMonthly Total I Monthly Total Jan Feb Mar APr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec 15

The number of Unplanned Shutdown Technical SALEM UNIT I UNPLANNED SHUTDOWN Specification Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCOs) entered during the month LIMITING CONDITION O F OPERATION (LCO) Updated Monthly ENTRIES Chart Owner 1Q 2006 2 0 2006 Salem System Engineering Manager I Goal: 2 per Month 2005 e operators to enter a shutdown LCO.

time, or unit shutdown is required. This 8 ~ .-

- - - -I 1 t 1 , compared to the expected number at top h w a s 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 Boai a Good I I Monthly Shutdown LCO!

-Monthly Shutdown LCOs Goal Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au g SeP Oct Nov Dec

\

e Creek s a w 1lGENERATING STATIONS 16

' I The number of Unplanned Non-Shutdown Technical SALEM UNIT 1 UNPLANNED NON-SHUTDOWN Specification Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCOs) entered during the month LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO) Updated Monthly ENTRIES Chart Owner 1 Salem System Engineering Manager Goal: 6 per Month I

INuclear Dlants are ooerated under a fundamental set of rules f r o m the Nuclear Requlatow

- Commission (NRC) called Technical Specifications. Certain rules require operators to enter a non-shutdown L C O ,

meaning the equipment m u s t be fixed in a defined period of time, or you are required t o take compensatory measures. This metric measures the unplanned entries m a d e at Salem Unit 1, compared to the expected number at top performing nuclear units (less than or equal to Wmonth).

monthly goal for this Quarter was m e t .

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Actions: Sustain performance at or below goal.

[7 Monthly Non - Shutdown LCOs +Monthly Non - Shuldown LCOS Goal m

'm C

E w -Monthly Non -

0 Shutdown LCOs Y

n m

c m

c a

c 3 +Monthly Non Shutdown

~

4 LCOs Goal

- Feb Mar APr May Jun Jul Aug SeP Oct Nov Dec Jan sa/+rnC& ' G E N E R A T I N G STATIONS 17

The number of Unplanned Shutdown Technical SALEM UNIT 2 UNPLANNED SHUTDOWN Specification Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCOs) enlered during the month LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO) Updated Monthly ENTRIES Chart Owner IQ 2006 2005 meaning the equipment m u s t be fixed in a defined period of time. or unit shutdown IS required This metric measures the unplanned entries m a d e at Salem Unit 2 . compared t o the expected number at top performing nuclear units (less than or equal to Zfmonth) two LCOs per month w a s met.

Actions: Sustain performance at or below goal.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct NOV Dec I -Monthly Shutdown LCOs +Monthly Shutdown I cos Goal I a Good

-Monthly Shutdown Shutdown LCOs Goal Jan Feb Mar APr Jun Jul Oct Nov Dec 18

The number of Unplanned Non-Shutdown SALEM UNIT 2 UNPLANNED NON-SHUTDOWN Technical Specification Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCOs) entered during the month LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO) U p d a t e d Monthly ENTRIES Chart Owner 1 Salem System Engineering Manager Goal: 6 per Month (NRC) called Technical Specifications Certain rules require operators to enter a non-shutdown LCO.

40 meaning the equipment m u s t be fixed in a defined period of time. or you are required to take compensatory measures This metric measures the unplanned entries m a d e at Salem Unit 2 ,

a compared to the expected number at top performing nuclear units (less than or equal to Glmonth) 6 -&-

4 El monthly goal for this Quarter w a s m e t 2 Actions Sustain performance at or below goal 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec c 7Monthly Nun - Shutdown LCOS -+-Monthly Non - Shutdown LCOs Goal a

10 B

Good m M o n i h l y Non.

Shutdown E

LCOS 2

Shutdown LCOs Goal 0 Jan Feb Mar APr Jun Jul Aug Sep 0ct Nov Dec

%I+mc& I GENERATING STATIONS 19

The number of Unplanned Shutdown Technical HOPE CREEK UNPLANNED SHUTDOWN Specification Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCOs) entered during the month LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO) Updated Monthly I ENTRIES Chart Owner 1Q2005 2Q2006 Hope Creek Site Engineering Director I Goal: 2 per Month 2005 INuclear 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 m u s t be fixed in a defined period of time, or unit shutdown is required. This metric measures the unplanned entries m a d e at Hope Creek, compared to the expected number at top performinc I nuclear units (less than or eaual to 2lmonthl.

__- There were 13 Unplanned-Shutdown L C O s in the 2nd Quarter T h e g o a l of two per month has achieved during 2006 Actions These issues are being addressed in the Corrective Action and Equipment Reliability Programs Jan

-Feb Mar Apr May Jun Monthly Shutdown LCOs JuI Aug Sep

-:-Monthly Oct N O ~Dec Shutdown LCOs Goal Additionally, a c o m m o n cause evaluation of Equipment Reliability Clock Resets is scheduled for August 2006 Unolanned entries into Shutdown L C O s of < 14 davs are considered E R Clock resets and wll be included in that evaluation.

a 10 Good

-Monthly Shutdown LCOs

+Monthly Shutdown LCOs Goal Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SeP Oct Nov Dec Sid*ki@i9C& GENERATING STATIONS 20

The number of Unplanned Non-Shutdown Technical HOPE CREEK UNPLANNED NON-SHUTDOWN Specification Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCOs) entered during the month LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO) Updated Monthly ENTRIES Chart Owner I

~~

Hope Creek Site Engineering Director Goal: 6 per Month I

Nuclear plants are operated under a fundamental set of rules from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2005 (NRC) called Technical Specifications. Certain rules require operators to enter a non-shutdown LCO.

meaning the equipment m u s t be fixed in a defined period of time, or you are required to take compensatory measures This metric measures the unplanned entries made at Hope Creek, compared to the expected P , I number at top performing nuclear units (less than or equal to 6/month)

Analysis: There were nine Unplanned Non-Shutdown L C O s in the 2nd Quarter. The goal of six per month was met.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Actions: Sustain performance at or below goal 0 Monthly Non - Shutdown LCOs -Monthly Non - Shutdown LCOS Goal 0

ID Good

[7 Monthly Non -

Shutdown LCOs I I n

n

-Monthly 5 Non - Shutdown LCOs Goal Jan Feb Jun Jut Aug SeP Oct Nov Dec v j G E N E R A r I N G STATIONS 21

I he sum ot tne pianneu ana unplanneu nours mat tne Emergency Diesel Generators were not available SALEM UNIT 1 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR Updated Monthly UNAVAlLAB1LlTY Chart Owner 21.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> per month Salem System Engineering Manager Goal: (36-month rolling average) 100 removed from setvice for maintenance. This metric monitors the amount of time the Emergency Diesels are out c service, compared against industry top quartile. The total represents the sum of the unavailable hours of the three C I Emergency Diesel Generators at Salem Unit 1. This is a long-term trend of our performance.

hours on a 36-month rolling average The Quarterly goal was met as projected In May, 1C EDG incurred 47 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> of unavailability to repair a cooling water leak that developed on an engine cylinder head fuel injection nozzle sleeve Sustain performance at or below goal 2002 2003 2004 2005 g

40 35

__.._______....I-_--.-.

~

~

E __

. .. ._.._______I_

-Monthly Good Actual

• W -36Month Rolling Actual

-36 Month Industry To QuartiIe Creek 22

The sum of the planned and unplanned hours that the Emergency Diesel Generators were not available SALEM UNIT 2 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR Updated Monthly

! UNAVAl LAB1L ITY Chart Owner 1 Salem System Engineering Manager I 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-iaoiilh rolling average)

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 Emergency Diesels are out of service. compared against industry top quartile. The total represents the sum of the unavailable hours of the three 0

Emergency Diesel Generators at Salem Unit 2 . This is a long-term trend of our performance.

Analvsis Salem Unit 2 Emergency Diesel Generator (LDG) unavailability was 7 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 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.

m:Sustain petformance at or below goal.

2002 2003 2004 2005 35 D -Monthly Good Actu?

25 +- __

- -36 Month Rolling Actual

-36 Month Industry Top QuatiiIe v j G E N ~ R A T I N GSTATIONS 23

RGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR Updated Monthly 29.2hours per month Hope Creek System Engineering Manager Goal: C36-11ioiithrolliiin average) 150 removed from service f& maintenance. This metric monitors the amount of time the Emergency Diesels are out of service. compared against industtytop 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 met the 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 There were no unplanned unavailability hours in the 2nd Quarter In April and June, there were 31 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability The 36 month rolling average goal was met Actions Continue to maintain a high level of availability 2002 2003 2004 2005 I

160 125

-by.-

..._I__

-Monthly a Good Actua 100 137.1I 75

- -36Month Rolling Actual 60 R 28.3 26.6 I 25 -36 Industry MonthTop Quarlile 00 0

Jan Feb Mar Ap r May Jun Jul Aug Sw Oct Nov Dec 24

' I The sum ofthe planned and unplanned hours that the SALEM UNIT 1 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM Auxiliary Feedwater Systems were not available Updated Monthly UNAVAlLAB1LlTY r

I Chart Owner 102006 2Q2006 7.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per month Salem System Engineering Manager Goal: (36-iiioiiih rolliilg average)

Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment. This allows equipment to be 125 removed from service for maintenance. This metric monitors the amount of time the Salem Unit 1 Auxiliary Feedwater System is out of service compared against industy 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.

u' 100 I"

m

.n a

.- 75 m

m 3.

3 f 50 2

m B

25 Corrective actions implemented relacwe to scheduling maintenance during refueling outdges w II continue ti improve system availability

'I 2 0

2002 2003 2004 2005 50 40 0 Good I I Monthly Actual

- rn - 36 Month Rolling Actual

--&+-36 Month I I Y L a Industry 31 TOP 00 10 00 00 00 Quartile 0 , 4 - ,

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SeP Oct Nov Dec LJ I GENFRATINGS T A T I O N S 25

The sum ofthe planned and u n p l a n n e d h x t h e -

, SALEM UNIT 2 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM Updated Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater Systems were not available UNAVAlLABILITY Chart Owner 1 2 Salem System Engineering Manager 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 (36-1nonthrolling average) 125 removed from service f i r 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.

Analvsis: Salem Unit 2 Auxiliay Feedwater unavailabilitywas 5.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-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 average. The Quarterly goal was met. In May 20.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of unavailability were accrued for the 22 auxiliaty ol 2 25-- - - - - -- -- I feedwater pump when proactive repairs were made to the pump's associated steam generator level control valve.

13 9 12 These repairs were completed to prevent a future failure. which would have a negative impact on system reliability.

2 0 1 Actions. Corrective actions which entail performing scheduled maintenance during refueling outages has improved 2002 2003 2004 2005 and continued to maintain system unavailability at optimum hours.

50 40 a- Good Monfhbq Actual

$ 30 ._ ..... -_. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. ..... .... .. . .- -

- -36Montt Rolling Actual

+36 Montt 10 Industry TOP Quartile 0

sa/e+cM G E N E R A T I N G STATIONS 26

The sum of the planned and unplanned hours that the HOPE CREEK RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM Residual Heat Removal Systems were not available Updated Monthly UNAVAILABILITY Chart Owner 1

9 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per month Hope Creek Site Engineering Director Goal: (36- non nth rolling averaye)

I~ .. ..

to be removed from s e k e for maintenance. This metric monitors the amount of time the Hope Creek Residual Heat Removal Systems are out of service 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 I performance.

Analysis RHR System unavailability met the goal of 9 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 throughout the 2nd Quarter B

Actions Continue to maintain a high level of availability 0

2002 2003 2004 2005 I

a Good

-Monthly Actua'

- -36Month RollingActual

+36 Month lndustwTop Quattile saI+~C& ) GENERATING S T A T I O N S 27

The sum ofthe planned and unplanned hours that the SALEM UNIT 1 CHEMICAL VOLUME CONTROL AND Updated Monthly Chemical Volume Control and Safety InjectionSystem were not available SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITY Chart Owner 1Q2006 202006 Salem System EngineeringManager 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 rolling average)

Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment. This allows equipment to b k removed from service for maintenance. This metric monitors the amount of time the Salem Unit 1 Chemlcal Volume 40 I 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.

&a-&&: Salem Unit 1 HPSl unavailability was 14.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> versus a goal of 7.3 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.

The goal was not met this Quarter due to the negative impact of system performance in 2003 through the 1st half of 2005. In April 2006, 11.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of unavailability accrued due to removal of the 12 charging pump from service on two occasions to clean the lube oil cooler, which exhibited biofouling. Continuing at the current level of performance, the goal will be met by September 2007

-A Minimizing unavailability by limiting on-line maintenance work resulted in improved system availability in 2005 I 2002 2003 2004 2005 This strategy will continue in 2006.

40 35 30 .. .............. ___.............. ___ .- . .._I_____. ... -. - .. . .. -

a -Monthly Good 25 Actual P

m 20 3

m 15

- -36Month Rolling Actual 10

-36 Month Industry To 5 6)ua rt iIe 0

G E N E b A T I N G STATIONS 28

The sum ofthe planned and unplanned hours that the SALEM UNIT 2 CHEMICAL VOLUME CONTROL AND Chemical Volume Control and Safety Injection Systems were not available Updated Monthly SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITY Chart Owner 102006 292006 7.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> per month Salem System Engineering Manager Goal: (36.n1onth rolling average)

~.

removed from service fk maintenance This metric monitors the amount of time the Chemical Volume Control and Safety Injection Systems are out of sewice compared against industy 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 goal was not met this Quarter due to-the negative impact of system performance in 2003 through the; st halfof 2005 In April 2006,40 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of unavailability accrued due to removal of the 21 and 22 charging pumps from sewce to clean their lube oil coolers which exhibited biofouling. in addition to removal of the 22 charging pump from serwce to repair the associated discharge check valve which was experiencing unacceptable back leakage Continuing at the current level of performance, the goal will be met by Januay 2007 2002 2003 2004 2005 Minimizing unavailability by limiting on-line maintenance work resulted in improved system availability in 2005 This stratem will continue in 2006 50 45 i

40 35 -Monthly e Actual

$ 30 m

zx m

E 20

- -36Month Rolling 3 Actual 15 10 e 3 6 Month IndustryTo 5 0ua rt iIe 0

Jan Feb Mar May Jun Jul Aug SeP Oct Nov Dec Salel*~Credr GENERATING STATIONS 29

High Pressure Injectionand Reactor Core Isolation Updated Monthly Cooling Systems were not available Hope Creek Site Engineering Director I Goal:

14.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> per month (36-month rolling average) 30 removed from service for maintenance This metric monitors the amount of time the High Pressure Injection and I - -- - _-

Reactor Core kclabon Cooling Systems are out of sewice compared against industry top quartile The total represen the sum of both systems at Hope Creek This is a long-term trend of our performance

-A Continue to maintain a high level of availability 2

2002 2003 2004 2005

. .. __ - .. . . . - .. . .. . -_.. 07 Good

-Monthly Actual

- -36Monlh Rolling Actual

-36 Monlh

. - - Industry To1 Quartile 00 00 00 00 Jan Feb Mar APr May Jun Jul Aug SeP Oct Nov Dec n

Creek 30