ML062220120

E-mail from Blough to Lochbaum, Correspondence from PSEG to NRC Fyi

ML062220120
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	10/29/2004
From:	Blough A Division of Nuclear Materials Safety I
To:	Lochbaum D Union of Concerned Scientists
References
FOIA/PA-2005-0194
Download: ML062220120 (40)

Text

o-Corr pond Ce from PSEGto NRC, FYI.

Page ii r

1 1.

Vi.(o-Corresp qnqepce from PSIE649 NRC, FYI.

Pa-g-e-l* I From:

To:

Date:

Subject:

A. Randolph Blough "Dave Lochbaum" <dlochbaum@ucsusa.org>; Cohen, Norm; 10/29/04 3:59PM Correspondence from PSEG to NRC, FYI.

NRC Region 1 has received a letter from PSEG providing metrics and a progress report on their efforts to improve SCWE at Salem and Hope Creek. Since our ADAMS external service is down, I am sending you a courtesy copy for your info.

The second file is very large and may take awhile to download and open.

Randy Blough Information in irs record was dol*iod in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exempti ns"-

FOIA-l

October 29, 2004 LR-N04-0481 Mr. Samuel Collins, Regional Administrator 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

Reference:

1) NRC Letter dated January 28, 2004; Work Environment For Raising and Addressing Safety Concerns at the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations

2) PSEG Letter Dated February 27, 2004; PSEG Plan for Addressing and Improving the Work Environment to Encourage Identification and Resolution of Issues

3) PSEG Letter Dated June 25, 2004; PSEG Plan for Improving the Work Environment, Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations

4) NRC Letter dated July 30, 2004; Work Environment at the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations

Dear Mr. Collins:

This letter provides a copy of the published PSEG Nuclear quarterly metrics used to objectively measure the effectiveness of the Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) improvements at Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations.

Mr. Samuel Collins October 29, 2004 LR-N04-0481 In response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) letter of January 28, 2004, (Reference 1), our letter of February 27, 2004, (Reference 2) provided the plan of Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) to conduct an in-depth assessment of the work environment for raising and addressing safety concerns at the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. This effort was described in further detail at a public meeting on March 18, 2004. An Independent Assessment Team completed this in-depth assessment in April of 2004. The Independent Assessment Team also reviewed available data, including NRC inspection records, the comprehensive survey administered by Synergy in December 2003, and the results of the assessment conducted by the Utility Service Alliance (USA). Additionally, the independent assessment also included a review of the impact on the work environment of operational decision-making, the corporate/site interface, the problem identification and resolution process (including timeliness of corrective action and communication), and the work management process.

The Independent Assessment Team Report, along with the USA Assessment Report, and the executive summary of the Synergy survey, were submitted to the NRC in May of 2004. The USA Assessment and the Independent Assessment Team concluded that Salem and Hope Creek were safe for continued operation, but identified issues that needed to be addressed.

The issues identified by these reports and management reviews of these reports were used to revise our Business Plan for the remainder of 2004 and for 2005.

We presented a summary of our action plans at a public meeting on June 16, 2004.

During that meeting we discussed a number of short-term actions we were taking in parallel with the development of our longer-term action plans and we stated that we would follow up with a written summary of our actions to improve the work environment, the identification and resolution of issues, and the work management process. In our follow up June 25 letter (Reference 3) we restated our actions and the commitments made during the public meeting. These commitments included implementing, monitoring and publishing quarterly metrics to objectively measure the effectiveness of our SCWE improvements at Salem and Hope Creek.

In a follow up response letter, dated July 30, 2004, (Reference 4) the NRC acknowledged receipt and review of the PSEG action plan and stated that the PSEG plan appeared to address the key findings of both the NRC and PSEG assessments. The July 30 letter made reference to a July 27 telephone conversation with PSEG wherein an additional commitment was agreed upon with respect to the quarterly submittals. PSEG Nuclear agreed to include a brief description of any significant changes to the PSEG action plan. At this time, there have been no substantive changes to the PSEG action plan.

Mr. Samuel Collins October 29, 2004 LR-N04-0481 The following is a discussion of the performance indicators and an analysis of progress to date.

Performance Metrics The metrics identified to the NRC in the June 25 letter are listed below, with minor title changes. Titles were modified to more accurately reflect the parameter being measured:

1.

Knowledge of Alternative Avenues

2.

Employee Perception of Management Commitment

3.

Supervisor Communication Effectiveness

4.

Trust and Respect Between Management & Site Personnel

5.

SCWE Management Training Attendance

6.

Executive Review Board (ERB) Action Approvals

7.

Employee Concerns Program (ECP) Concerns Confidentiality/

Anonymity Request

8.

Total Notifications Generated

9.

Online Corrective Maintenance Backlog

10.

Online Elective Maintenance Backlog

11.

Corrective Action Problem Resolution

12.

Nuclear Condition Report Activities Overdue

13.

Open Nuclear Condition Report Evaluations with Due Date Extensions

14.

Repeat Maintenance Issues

15.

Operational Challenges

16.

Unplanned Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO) Entries

17.

Safety System Unavailability In the metric package (attached), we have included more than seventeen charts since some measurement areas require multiple charts to view a complete picture.

Fundamentally, these indicators address three principal areas: people, processes and plant.

People:

We have focused our efforts on the fair and consistent treatment of employees through the creation of an Executive Review Board (ERB). The ERB is serving its function of ensuring that proposed personnel actions (e.g. promotions and disciplinary actions) are conducted in a manner consistent with PSEG policy.

The approval rate for the Board has shown improvement since the Board's inception in April. A near-term temporary decline in rate is expected as the result of the recent introduction of a broader range of supplemental personnel issues.

Overall, a greater degree of management awareness of the process is required.

Mr. Samuel Collins October 29, 2004 LR-N04-0481 Therefore, formal training to address this awareness began in September and will be completed in the first quarter of 2005.

A number of the indicators that focus on the relationship between management and the work force (Knowledge of Alternative Avenues, Employee Perception of Management Commitment, Supervisor Communication Effectiveness and Trust and Respect Between Management & Site Personnel) rely on current survey data. Consistent with our Business Plan objectives, these survey and assessment tools are under development and will serve to establish an understanding of future areas of focus. Currently, the Synergy Assessment, a key component to this understanding, will be administered during the first quarter of 2005 and will assess employees' perception of management commitment, mutual trust and respect between management and associates, communication effectiveness, and associate knowledge of safety concern avenues.

Processes:

Process adherence is improving as evidenced by the results of the Corrective Action Closure Board and maintenance backlogs. Our principal focus this quarter on quality and completeness in evaluating our issues has resulted in improvement. Correspondingly, our focus on adhering to work week schedules has resulted in a steady reduction of items in our maintenance backlogs.

Our next process focus area will be on the timely response to fixing our problems. Improvements in evaluating both the quality and completeness of our issues have been achieved, in part, at the expense of timeliness. This is demonstrated by the lack of improvement in overdue items and extensions metrics. This was an expected outcome. Management attention is now being focused on the objective of improving our response time to issues. In parallel, we will work to ensure sustainable performance with the quality improvements recently achieved in the evaluation portion of the process.

Plant:

Overall, we have not experienced consistent improvement in equipment performance nor was this expected at this point in the plan. Equipment performance is anticipated to improve as a result of our first addressing the people and process issues. Specific information regarding individual performance of key systems for Salem and Hope Creek is included in the attached performance indicators. While equipment performance is meeting our goals in some areas, we have further work to do in other areas.

We extended the scope and duration of both the Salem Unit 1 refueling outage last spring as well as the current Hope Creek refueling outage in order to reduce

Mr. Samuel Collins October 29, 2004 LR-N04-0481 our backlogs and improve our plant performance. Major scope added includes extensive work on our control rod drive mechanisms. This was an item of concern identified in the USA assessment and by our operators. We also added maintenance to both outages that would normally be performed on line.

Management Assessment The overall performance represented by our key metrics demonstrates progress and improvement. The key to sustained improvement is to improve the foundation, which is why we have concentrated our efforts on our corrective action program and work management. It is not surprising that we have made the most measurable progress in those areas. That progress is represented by positive trends in backlog, schedule adherence and corrective action quality.

Additionally, we have improved our communications with employees, specifically as they relate to operational decision-making. While the results of our efforts will not be evident until our Synergy Assessment is conducted in the first quarter of 2005, I feel we are making progress. This is based on recent feedback I have received from our operating crews and other employees.

The area that is expected to require the most time to demonstrate marked improvement is equipment performance. These metrics have not shown consistent progress at this time. However, as we focus on our corrective action program and work management process, I expect improvement in our equipment performance will follow.

Over the last quarter, equipment performance has affected our operation and the impact is evident in our Unplanned LCO Metrics. Equipment performance issues have also affected unit reliability. In September, Salem Unit 2 automatically tripped offline due to loss of excitation in the main generator. More recently in October, Hope Creek was manually taken offline due to a pipe break in the Turbine Building.

The causes of these events, as well as our response, demonstrate a gap still exists between our current organizational performance and excellence. However, the manner in which we responded demonstrates to me progress has been made relative to fostering a SCWE.

In closing, I want to reaffirm our commitment to operate our plants safely. Our fundamental responsibility for the safe operation of these facilities will not be compromised, and we continue to have the full resources and support of the Corporation. We are making measured progress in improving our performance and work environment. I expect that to continue. I also remain confident that should a safety issue arise, we will not hesitate to take timely, deliberate action to address such an issue up to and including plant shutdown. I feel we clearly demonstrated this most recently in our response to the pipe break at Hope Creek and our decision to transition directly into the scheduled refueling outage.

Mr. Samuel Collins LR-N04-0481 October 29, 2004 If you have any further questions please contact me.

Very truly yours, A. Christopher Bakken, III President & CNO PSEG Nuclear, LLC Attachments

Mr. Samuel Collins LR-N04-0481 C

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Mr. D. Collins, Project Manager Salem & Hope Creek U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Mail Stop 08C2 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 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 October 29, 2004

SCWE Effectiveness Metrics

ý%C w5i OZN-E=

I.

Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations

U 1-,

r.. f

'r ;

rý5Pý rU

• i*k*,

Metrics Wit be published following the first quarter 2005 Employee Survey for:

A KNOWLEDGE OF ALTERNATIVE AVENUES

• EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION OF MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT

• SUPERVISOR COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS TRUST AND RESPECT BETWEEN MANAGEMENT & SITE PERSONNEL

4,;

4, AY

. PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status I

Definition Attendance for Safety Conscious Work ErMronrnent (SCWE) Training - PSEG SCWE MANAGEMENT TRAINING ATTENDANCE Updated: Monthly Nuclear Management.

Chart Owner Nuclear Training Manager Goal:

43 associates by year end History Intent of Metric Nuclear provides a significant amount of training on a broad range of subjects. This metric measures the training to enhance managementfs understanding of key Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCVVE) policy attributes and our collectiye roles and responsibilities for proper implementation. This is a full day of training.

Analysis and Actions New Indicator for 2004 Safety Conscious Work Errvironment training for management is scheduled to be completed by the end of January 2005.

200 1

1...

.A t t e n d e d 150 159 1

125

-- &-Goal

" 100

- U-Remaining 75 to Attend

-- Expected j

50 to Enroll 25 16 12 Sept 2 Sept27 Septl28 Oct 12 Oct1is Oct 19 Oct 2S N'ov I Noy 8 Noyv12 NOV 29 Doec6 Doc 13 3

T*-

!?fw wq]w-w e,-

T PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition Executive Review Board (ERB) reviews EXECUTIVE REVIEW BOARD (ERB) ACTION I

proposed personnel actions to ensure no APPROVALS Updated: Monthly retaliation or chilling effect implications.

Chart Owner Safety Conscious Work Environment Manager Goal:

No Adverse Trend History Intent of Metric The Executive Review Board (ERB) was established to ensure that no adverse action is taken or perceived to be taken against site personnel for raising nuclear safety issues. This Board reviews significant proposed discipline, promotions, transfers and terminations for PSEG employees and supplemental (contract) personnel.

Analysis and Actions New Indicator for 2004 The ERB process was initiated in April. with a follow-up letter sent to all supplemental (contractor) personnel vendors in July. As expected, initial approvals were low.however, the approval rate has significantly improved as management has become more knowledgeable and experienced in the process 20 15......

11 a Total Cases 10 10 Reporting I data entry 8

starts in April 0 Approved Cases S4-A-...

4. 4 1

1 0

eJ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 4

~

.',PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM (ECP) -

The number of Employee Concerns Program (ECP) concerns filed anonymously CONCERNS CONFIDENTIALITY I ANONYMITY Updated: Monthly Iconfidentiallyversus total number of R EQU EST

_concerns per month. Chart does not include Ca n NRC 30-day requests.

Chart Owner Employee Concerns Program Manager Goal:

No Adverse Trend History Intent of Metric This metric shows the total number of concerns brought to our Employee Concerns Manager. This is 50*

an alternate means to have issues addressed outside.of line management.

40 -

~33

a.

30-C.)

Wu Analysis and Actions o 20-During the current year. there have been twenty-seven concerns (non-NRC referred) brought to E

10--

the attention of the Employee Concerns Program. Four were submitted anonymously or with a 0

F specific request for confident aity. A review of the concerns indicates no adverse trend.

20o3 a Confidentialay Requested EAnonymous UTotal Number of Concers 0~*

7 M Monthly Total Confidentiality/

Q 6-Anonymously

(.

8.

s t"

4 -

o:1M onthty Total

-*3 3

3 Number of 0+

,,n Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Doc 5

• ~.i:~- -

"k' s~~!~Cg: ~3~I A*

%P J

• 4,Aal.. ° A

.-*. *.*:.£ 0 "

H ~ "

uc l e a r, L L ".'

S e p t e m b e r 4 0 U U4 5 1 a

[l u s -

e fl l iI UIIn Total notifications generated on a monthly TOTAL NOTIFICATIONS GENERATED Updated: Monthly basis.

Chart Owner Corrective Action Program Manager Goal:

No Adverse Trend History Intent of Metric Site personnel write a notification in our Correctve Action Program (CAP) to identify an issue that 0..

needs attention. This metric illustrates the total number of notifications written each month by site personnel. We are monitoring to be sure the volume of issues is consistent with expected trends.

2000..

based on our own past performance as well as industry perspective.

o 1l679 z

z 1500.,

Analysis and Actions 1000..

This performance indicator identfied a normal increase seen during the spring refueling outage period. Subsequent monthly data shows a return to typical non-outage levels.

500...

0 2002 20M 3,000 2,750 2,500 2,339 2,250 -

.2.190.....

2,000 1.837

.916 7.M t

1,60 1.740 ra Monthly 1,750 -

1.590 Total 500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 6

"'Ir

1. Pj 714 PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 1 Status Definition The number of open online corrective maintenance ONLINE CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE U

M hems.

BACKLOG Updated: Monthly Chart Owner Salem Maintenance Manager and Hope Creek Maintenance Manager Goal:

215 by year end History Intent of Metric This metric measures our total backlog of on-line correcrte maintenance. These are items that have an impact on plant operations and can be fixed while the unit is in service, Benchmariing indicates the industry median at 90. with top performance at 45 for our site. Our goal is to achieve top performance by the end of 2005.

Historical Data Not Available Analysis and Actions This indicator is on target to meet the year-end goal.

500 4 50 -

Va.

S 1:*

450.

A ctual 400 350

=....S2Actual 4.300 -

20 --

HC

• ~

250Actual 150 /

.7.............-.--.-----.......

-00 0~~(

(1 0,

1-1 1

N~'

(0 N

0 0

n D

nO 001t

(

No

(')

<( <<0 000 z z z

z z

~

7

flY

~

~

.~jr~\\.jr

• PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition The number of open online eleclde maintenance work ONLINE ELECTIVE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG Updated: Monthly ftems.

Chart Owner Salem Maintenance Manager and Hope Creek Maintenance Manager Goal:

1900 by year end History Intent of Metric This metric measures our total bactdog of on-line elective maintenance. These are items that do NOT have an impact on plant operations and can be fixed while the unit is in service. Benchmarldng indicates the industry median at 1450, with top performance at 1200 for our site. Our goal is to achieve top performance by the end of 2005.

Historical Data Not Available Analysis and Actions This indicator is on target to meet the year-end goal.

2,750 2,500 Good 2,250

=Si 2.000 Actual 1.750 111

=S2 1.500 S2 0

Actual 1 o 1,250

,-H 1,00

.,.Actual 750

//

7

/

/

fr-Goat 500

/

/-

~

250

//<

~ ~ ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

0 t~U N~

0(

~(

()0c

-~u o tf N

C)~CI F,(

N0-

-(

(n4

2.

Q N

N a

-(

0 0,

.(N N

o

(

4(

V) U) 0 0

0 0

00 z

z z

z z

o 0

Qa0 8

YT~~

PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition r

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

Corrective Action Program Manager Goal:

96%

History Intent of Metric Site personnel wtite a notification in our Corrective Action Program (CAP) to identify an issue that needs attention. This metric tracks the quality of the corrective actions that resulted with a goal of greater than or equal to 95% Closure Board acceptance rate. meaning the correct actions resulted from the notification. Items that are not accepted by the Board are not closed until the issue is reworked and the Board approves.

New Indicator for 2004 Analysis and Actions Improvement has been achieved in the quality and completeness of corrective action closures.

This indicator is trending to achieve the 95% acceptance goal.

10 95%

95%

95% -

95%"

I-95%.- 95%-

9 95%

750 IGooa 90%

8 650 80% -

457 550 70%

45(

450.:

=Goal 60%

Reporting I>

50%

data entry 350 c

40%starts in 2553 95

-8 86 25 Actual March%

Mar250 E

S30%

150

--*Number 20% -Rev~iewed 10%

50 0%

50 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 9

PSE Nuclear, LLC 1September 2004 1Status I Definition Percentage of Nuclear Condition NUCLEAR CONDITION REPORT ACTIVITIES OVERDUE Updated: Montly Report actes overdue on a monthly basis, measured as activities with an actual finish date Chart Owner occurring after the due date.

Corrective Action Program Manager Goal:

5%

History Intent of Metric Site personnel write a notification In our Corrective Action Program (CAP) to identify an Issue that needs attention. This metric tracks the timeliness of our review and corrective actions, by measuring the percentage overdue, with a goal of less than or equal to 5%.

New Indicator for 2004 Analysis and Actions The number of nuclear condition report activities overdue has not improved. This was expected because we chose to concentrate on CAP quality first, which has improved.

and we will now begin focusing on CAP timeliness as part of a methodical process improvement strategy.

25%

H Good 20%

• Monthly 15%.Overdue 11%

10%

8%

.%........--Goal CL 6%

5% -

-IN=

I 0%

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

10

PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status.

Definition The number of due date extensions OPEN NUCLEAR CONDITION REPORT approved for open Nuclear Condition OPENNUC EARCON ITIN RE ORTUpdtedMonhlyReport evaluations.

EVALUATIONS WITH DUE DATE EXTENSIONS Updated Monthly' Chart Owner Corrective Action Program Manager Goal:'

No Adverse Trend History Intent of Metric Site personnel write a notification in our Corrective Action Program (CAP) to identify an issue that needs attention. This metric looks at the timeliness of our review and corrective actions by tracking the number that have a due date extension, which is allowed by our process. By tracking those that are extended, we expect to see an improvement trend in overall timeliness.

New Indicator for 2004 Analysis and Actions The trend for this Indicator has not Improved. This was expected because we chose to concentrate on CAP quality first, which has improved, and we will now begin focusing on CAP timeliness as part of a methodical process improvement strategy.

100 8089 71 6

70 -

6.

69 o_* 60 4{0

-Toa 40 Reporting data entry' starts in May z

3 0 20 10..

50 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 11

S T A re PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition*

The number of repeat maintenaRce

[]

~identified on safety related equiprWnt.*

SALEM UNIT 1 REPEAT MAINTENANCE ISSUES Updated: Monthly n=ayead Chart Owner Corrective Action Program Manager Goal:

No Adverse Trend History Intent of Metric This metric monitors the number of issues that were not fixed correctly the first time on safety-related equipment. We track items that have been fixed and need to be reworked within twelve months. This is a new metric to ensure we see a reduction as our corrective action program improves.

z New Indicator for 2004 Analysis and Actions Review of the data for the past quarter does not indicate an adverse trend. Analysis of the cr specific component challenges reported as repeat maintenance Indicates that valve issueo*p the largest contibutor. A review wil be performed and corrective actions will be issued if.* 0 required.

r2 30 -

25

-2 25

• O 20 a16 mMonthly 15 -

Actual C

12 Reporting I data entry starts In July Jne10 b

M.r Apr M.y Jun Ju Aug.Sep Ot Nov 5

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec r.

I.3 1 z

MC:

G) z 0- M 0

0 z

12

.,,.DSTAre?ý.

IPSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definitlo SALEM UNIT 2 REPEAT MAINTENANCE ISSUES The number of repeat maintegra identified on safety related equ k'**,o**'

Updated: Monthly Chart Owner Corrective Action Program Manager Goal:

No Adverse Trend History Intent of Metric This metric monitors the number of issues that were not rfed correctly the first time on safety-related equipment. We track items that have been fixed and need to be reworked within twelve months. This is a new metric to ensure we see a reduction as our corrective action program improves A

z New Indicator for 2004 Analysis and Actions Review of the data for the past quarter does not indicate an adverse trend. Analysis of tm r- "

specific component challenges reported as repeat maintenance indicates that valve issut:rg the largest contributor. A reviewwiln be performed and corrective actions Will be issued if;> 0 required.

r Z LU-o>

30 c"

25.

21 20

~

20 20 -_-"

_El Monthly S15 -Actual M

Reporting I data entry starts in July 5

0 n

1

_e M1_

Apr

..1 Jun-Ju_

Iug S

IpOt NoDe Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Noy Dec z

a 0

0-4

MCd, 0 >

13

to STArev PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definito**

The number of repeat mainteoanlsI identified on safety related equ mme?

HOPE CREEK REPEAT MAINTENANCE ISSUES Updated: Monthly 0

Chart Owner Corrective Action Program Manager Goal:

No Adverse Trend History Intent of Metric This metric monitors the number of issues that were not fixed correctly the first time on safety-related equipment. We track items that have been fixed and need to be reworked within twelve months. This is a new metric to ensure we see a reduction as our corrective action program improves z

New Indicator for 2004 Analysis and Actions n

Review of the data for the past quarter does not indicate an adverse trend. Analysis of tug r specific component challenges reported as repeat maintenance indicates no specific (n M M component trends evident.

5 0 0 300 30 -

0 255-.

t20

[a Monthly

+/-15 Actual

.G Reporting I data entry starts in July 0

10.

5 M

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec in 0C z

C 0)r-m z

14

PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition IThe number of plant operational issues that L

warrant implementation of the Operational SALEM UNIT 1 OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES Updated: Monthly I

Challenges Response Team.

Chart Owner Salem Plant Manager Goal:

No Adverse Trend

_History Intent of Metric We established a procedure to allow our operating crews to request additional assistance to address emergent issues. These are called "Operational Challenges. This metric measures the number of times each month our operators engage this assistance. Our goal is to minimize the chanenges to our operating crews. By tracking and reviewing the challenges, we can investigate common causes and potential trends.

Analysis and Actions New Indicator for 2004 Two operational challenges were e~pedenced year to date. The first involved a chatlenge to performance of station battery testing Within the required frequency. The second challenge was common to both Salem Units 1 and 2 and consisted of reconfiguration of the control room air conditioning system. In both cases the events were re'viewed and appropriate corrective actions were taken. No adverse trends were identified.

10 7

El Monthly a5 Total 4

IReporting I data entry starts in April 2

1 Ja0 0

0 0A Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Noy Dec 15

I PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition I

The number of plant operational issues that I

warrant implementation of the Operational SALEM UNIT 2 OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES Updated: Monthly Challenges Response Team.

Chart Owner Salem Plant Manager Goal:

No Adverse Trend History Intent of Metric We established a procedure to allow our operating crews to request additional assistance to address emergent issues. These are called "Operational Challenges. This metric measures the number of times each month our operators engage this assistance. Our goal is to minimize the challenges to our operating crews. By tracWng and reviewing the challenges, we can investigate common causes and potential trends.

Analysis and Actions New Indicator for 2004 Six operational challenges were experienced year to date. Equipment issues caused four of the challenges and were corrected by repairs and or design improvements. The fifth challenge involved the cleanup of chemical residue. The leak was elminated and residue removed. The final challenge was common to both Salem Units 1 and 2 and consisted of reconfiguration of the control room air conditioning system. In all cases, the events were reviewed and appropriate corrective actions were taken. No adverse trends were identfied.

10 9

7 5...

oMonthly

~Total 04 0

Reporting I data entry starts in April 2

0 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 16

Chart Owner Hope Creek Plant Manager Goat:

Intent of Metric We established a procedure to allow our operating crews to request additional assistance to address emergent issues. These are called "Operational Challenges*. This metric measures the number of times each month our operators engage this assistance. Our goal is to minimize the challenges to our operating crews. By tracldng and reviewing the challenges, we can investigate common causes and potential trends.

Analysis and Actions New Indicator tor 2004 Six operational challenges were eoperienced year to date. Four challenges involved equipment deficiencies that were corrected by replacement or repair. One challenge involved instability of the transmission line. and the remaining challenge was due to diesel maintenance. Although a trend has been established, the events were reviewed and appropriate corrective actions were taken.

10 9

8 e

C 0

7 6

5 LL~J 4

3 2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 17

• '7 PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 I Status l

Definition I

The number of Unplanned Shutdown Technical SALEM UNIT 1 UNPLANNED SHUTDOWN Specification Urniing Conditions of Operalfon LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO)

Updated: Monthly (LCOs) enered during the month.

ENTRIES Chart Owner Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

2 per Month History Intent of Metric 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).

Historical Data Not Available Analysis and Actions During the third quarter, there were fourteen shutdown limiting conditions of operation, including:

five caused by issues associated with the containment fan cooling units (CFCUs) (factors that will be eliminated by the CFCU closed-loop cooling project); two associated with batteries: and seven other associated with maintenance.

10 10 Good 8

JI GodMonthly Shutdown LCOs

-.- Monthly

4.

Shutdown LCOs Goal 0

Feb, Mar Aan A

Sep O

Jon Feb Mar Apr may Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Noy Doc 18

S..

,/Q!!

,PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition The number of Unplanned Non-Shutdown Technical SALEM UNIT 1 UNPLANNED NON-SHUTDOWN Specification.imiting Conditions of Operation SALEM UNIT COs) entered during the month.

LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO)

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

6 per Month History Intent of Metric 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 non-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 6/month).

Historical Data Not Available Analysis and Actions The unfavorable performance in Maywas primarily due to monitoring and instrumentation issues.

A mutlt-year capital improvement project is underway to upgrade the monitors. Nuclear instrumentation issues were addressed during the refuel outage.

20 s

!--]

Good Goo.

Monthly Non -

18 Shutdown 14 LCOs ui 12.......

C.)

1 0 Monthly w

Non -

15

-Shutdown LCOs Goal Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 19

NV...na~efl.,,.w ~

wpr~*rttrfl~4r.

~~-flSf eqwrmn.rnw,,wn,.nnarn.rw,*n,.,.ymfwn,,

r~rm,.n'.e..

4'$

~,.

~**II*

PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition The number of Unplanned Shodown Technical SALEM UNIT 2 UNPLANNED SHUTDOWN IISpecification Urnhing Conditions ofOperation LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO)

Updated: Monthly (LCO9) entered during the month.

ENTRIES Chart Owner Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

2 per Month History Intent of Metric 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 2. compared to the emected number at top performing nuclear units (less than or equal to 2.month).

Historical Data Not Available Analysis and Actions Performance outlined in the third quarter has met monthly goals.

10-

• J Good a

r Monthly Lu Shutdown ICOs

--L-c.

M o nth ly Shutdown LCOs Goal Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20

PSEG Nuclear, LLC Definition i"he number of Unplanned Non-Shuldown technical *pecificition LJmiling Cond;tions of 0p*ration 0-COs) *nttred during the month.

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

ENTRIES Updated: Monthly The number of Unplanned Non-Shutdlown Technical Specification Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCOs) entered during the month.

Chart Owner Salem System Engineering Manager I

Goal:

6 per Month History Intent of Metric

+ 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 non-shutdown LCO.

meaning the equipment must be fbied in a defined period of time, or unit shutdown is required. 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 8/month).

Historical Data Not Available Analysis and Actions Unplanned Non.-shutdown Entries are meeting the goal.

20 18 1

Good 16 1 wj 0

14 12-1 10 4 Monthly Non -

Shutdown LCOs

---

Monl:My Non -

Shutdown LCOs Goal 8-6 4

2 0

r-5F--1 I

i I

I _ I w

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 21

?,"AIZT PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition The number of Unplanned Shutdoaw Technical HOPE CREEK UNPLANNED SHUTDOWN

• Speciication Um.hing Conditions of Operation (LCOs)

LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO)

Updated: Monthly entered during the month.

ENTRIES Chart Owner Hope Creek System Engineering Manager Goal:

2 per Month History Intent of Metric 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 Hope Creek. compared to the expected number at top performing nuclear units (less than or equal to 2lmonth).

Analysis and Actions Historical Data Not Available Challenges with the service water system were the primary cause of this metric being above goal. A multd-year capital improvement project for the service water system is being developed.

10 Good

=1 Monthly Shutdown LCOs Monthly Shutdown D

6 LCOs Goal 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 22

19 PSEG Nuclear, LLC

-September 2004 Status Definition

• 1..

IUNThe number of Unplanned Non-Shurdown Technical HOPE CREEK UNPLANNED NON-SHUTDOWN Specification Urniting Conditions of Operation (LCOe)

LIMITING CONDITION OF OPERATION (LCO)

Updated: Mornthty entered during the month.

ENTRIES N

Chart Owner Hope Creek System Engineering Manager Goal:

6 per Month History Intent of Metric 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 non-shutdown LCO, meaning the equipment must be rt)ed 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 performingi nuclear units (less than or equal to 6fmonth).

Analysis and Actions Historical Data Not Available Unplanned Non-shutdown Entries are meeting the goal.

18 -

1i -

41 Good

'Li 0

14 12 10 8

6 4-2-

0 Monthly Non -

Shutdown LCOs

n-Monthly Non -

Shutdown LCOs Goal e~r3 F4 3ý F3 I

F-2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 23

i* -

PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition 1;i"*

fThe sum of the planned and unplanned hours that SALEM UNIT I EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR Updatedthe Emergency Diesel Generaors were not U N A V A I L A B I L I T YC h r O w e Chart Owner Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

27 hours3.125e-4 days <br />0.0075 hours <br />4.464286e-5 weeks <br />1.02735e-5 months <br /> per month (P4 nonlth olling avorigol History Intent of Metric Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment. This alows equipment to be 160 removed from service for maintenance. This metric monitors the amount of time the Emergency Diesels are out of seace. compared against the industry median. The total represents the sum of the unavailable hours of the three 125 Emergency Diesel Generators at Salem Unit 1. This is a long-term trend of our performance.

100 79 Analysis and Actions This metric illustrates our performance on a 36 month rolling average. Each diesel generator is taken out of Sservice for at least one planned maintenance window during an 18 month operating cycle. All maintenance 26 over the last year has been planned, thus demonstrating progress to achieving our goal.

2002 2003 M

175 150 125 100 75 50 Good Monthly Actual 3 - 36 Month Rolling Actual

-&--36 Month Industry Median Goal 25 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 24

N IP ý11 IFIRM f

PSEG Nuclear, LLC t uSeptembers...

s Definition The sum of the planned and unplanned hours that SALEM UNIT 2 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR Uthe Emergency Diesel Gener3tors were not UNAVAILABILITYUpae.Mnhymlb.

Chart Owner 27 hours3.125e-4 days <br />0.0075 hours <br />4.464286e-5 weeks <br />1.02735e-5 months <br /> per month Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

27 ronh po111nU

,wermone)

History Intent of Metric 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 the industry median. The total represents the sum of the unavailable hours of the three 125 Emergency Diesel Generators at Salem Unit 2. This is a long-term trend of our performance.

.~too 7 5 Analysis and Actions 502 Diesel unavailability hours are current meetng the goal.

?25 0El 2W2 2003 175 150

"- l Good..

Mon thy 125v -Actual 100

- u-36Month Rolling Actual 5

75 so 36 Month 20Industry 25

-Median Goal Jn e

M M

J Jl A.u Se c

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apt May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Noy Doc 25

4ý1 Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition I

The sum of the planned and unplanned hours that HOPE CREEK EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR the Emergency Diesel Generators were not UNAVAILABILITY Updated: Monthlyj avail3ble.

Chart Owner Hope Creek System Engineering Manager Goal:

36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> per month History Intent of Metric Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment. This allows equipment to be tso.

removed from service for maintenance. This metric monitors the amount of time the Emergency Diesels are out of 1"

service. compared against the industry median. The total represents the sum of the unavailable hours of the four S125 Emergency Diesel Generators at Hope Creek. This is a long-term trend of our performance.

2:

s

.Analysis and Actions 49 This metric is tracking above goal due to three unplanned maintenance windows in 2002. AN maintenance 0

performed this year. Wth the exception of thirty hours, has been planned maintenance designed to improve system reliability.

0 I=*

203 175 150 125 100 75 C

D:

Monthly Actual 3

-36Month Rolling Actual t --- 36 Month Industry Median Goal 50 25 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 26

w

~,..t

,~-.* Sr.

r-~r-vr-i-v-.

r*'.,

4WflflWU.d'CinW~flbflDMUWNrflSIJ&flSflC4MOCWflhdLMWrfl~fl 1 tfl

~~4~tj 4~

PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition

~.*',

SAL M NI..AU ILIRYFE.

S

.The sum of the planned and unplanned hours that SALEM UNIT 1 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM UpatdhMnel awaiabl e. dae yteswr o UNAVAILABILITY CUpdated:

Month a

es Chart Owner 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> per month Salem System Engineering Manager Go.l:

13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> pli month History Intent of Metric Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment. This allows equipment to be 1removed from serce for maintenance. This metric monitors the amount of time the Salem Unit 1 Auxiliary 109 Feedwater ystemr is out of service compared against the industry median. The total represents the sum of the loo.

three Aui.liary Feedwater Systems on Salem Unit 1. This is a long-term trend of our performance.

Analysis and Actions 5

This metric is tracldng above goal due to one unplanned maintenance window in 2003 and emergent and planned maintenance on the steam admission vale on the turbine driven auxdliary feedmwter pump in 2004.

25

• .Additional maintenance on this system is planned. Testing and monitoring will be performed to ensure that 8

the corrective actions are effective.

2002 2003 60 50 40

• 30 20 10 0

Mont"y Actual

- n - 36 Month Rolling Actual 36 Month Industry Median Goal Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 27

~

P G

c r_-tilaulio..

The sum of the planned and unplanned hours that SALEM UNIT 2 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM Updated: Monh the Auwdiary Feedwater Systems were not UNAVAILABILITYCarOweUpte:Mnh9valb.

J.

Chart Owner Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> per month (36 month Folling averagel History Intent of Metric Nuclear plants are designed with a series or 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 2 Auxiliary Feedwater System is out of service compared against the industry median. The total represents the sum of the three AuMliary Feedwater Systems on Salem Unit 2. This Is a long-term trend of our performance.

A Analysis and Actions so During the current year. planned maintenance has been performed to maintain system reriability.

25.

13 9

2OO2 Z12 RA3 o=

"r" 60 50 40 30 20 10 11

_ai Good Monthly Actual N -36 Month Rolling Actual

-tt:36 Month Industry Median Goal 6 * --1111

" Iff i.i IS I.

I...

i I

I 4

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 28

I PSEG Nuclear, LLC I September 2004 Status Definition The sum of the planned and unplanned hours that HOPE CREEK RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM the Residualea UNAVAILABILITY Updated: Monthly avble e

Chart Owner 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per month Hope Creek System Engineering Manager Goal:

12 hous p wer a mo

)

(

. F" History Intent of Metric Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment. This allows equipment 125 -

to be removed from service for maintenance. This metric monitors the amount of time the Hope Creek S1Residual Heat Removal Systems are out of service compared against the industry median. The total represents the sum of the both Residual Heat Removal trains at Hope Creek. This is a long-term trend of our 0 100 performance.

Analysis and Actions 50 -

During the current year. planned maintenance has been performed on this system to meet goal.

i 25

1.

7 o

2 233O33 60 Good c

Monthly 50 540 i

Actual 40 40

"'U -36 Month 3Rolling Actual 20 20r 36 Month

_Industry 10 Median Goal Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 29

PSEG Nuclear, LLC

[ September 2004 Status 1

Definition I

The sum of the planned and unplanned hours that SUthe Chemical Volume Control and Safety Injection SALEM UNIT 1 CHEMICAL VOLUME CONTROL ANDUpte:Mnhyyemweentaiab.

SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITY Updated: monthly Systems were not avaiable.

Chart Owner Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> per month History Intent of Metric Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment. This allows equipment to be so removed from service for maintenance. This metric monitors the amount of time the Salem Unit I Chemical Volume Control and Safety Injection Systems are out of seivice compared against the industry median. The total represents S40 the sum of the four trains on S3lem Unit 1. This is a long-term trend of our performance.

30.

301 Analysis and Actions 20 P,

This metric Is tracldng above goal due to historical performance issues. Duding the current year. all maintenance with the exception of some maintenance in June. was scheduled to improve system reliability.

0 2002 2MO3 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0

Monthly Actual

- X - 36 Month Rolling Actual 36 Month Industry Median Goal Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 30

A N-N IN 1A, W's

. PSEG Nuclear, LLC September 2004 Status Definition SHCThe sum of the planned and unplanned hours that SALE UNI 2

HEMIAL OLUM CO TROLANDthe Chemical Volume control and Safety Injection SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITY Updated: Monthly jytem a we ue Cotrav anlfyneo Chart Owner Salem System Engineering Manager Goal:

14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> per month (36 month rolling average)

History Intent of Metric Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment. This allows equipment to be so removed from service for maintenance. This metric monitors the amount of 5me the Chemical Volume Control and Safety njection Systems are out of service compared against the industry median. The total represents the sum of

~the four trains on Salem Unit 2. This is a long-term trend of our performance.

040.3 30

-25Analysis and Actions 2O This metric is tracking above goal due to historical performance issues. During the current year. an maintenance was scheduled to Improve system reliability.

10 2002 2MO 175 150

.]

Good Monthly Actual 125 10 U -38Month

• 100 Rolling Actual 75 D---

36 Month 50 industry Median 25 29 Goal 0 +

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 31

I

~

A I*

It l

1 N-'-

ruclear, LIt..

September 2uu4

-Satus LieTinm lon HOPE CREEK HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION AND The sum of the planned and unplanned hours that the High Pressure Injection and Reactor Core REACTOR CORE ISOLATION COOLING SYSTEM Updated Monthly Isolation Cooling Systems were not available.

SUNAVAILABILITY Chart Owner Hope Creek System Engineering Manager Goal:

18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> per month l

(06 molih 101l1119 avelag/e)

History Intent of Metric Nuclear plants are designed with a series of redundant safety systems and equipment. This allows equipment to be 5o

• 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 the industry median. The total represents the sum of both systems at Hope Creek. This is a long-term trend of our performance.

.30 Analysis and Actions

2.

The system unavailability was impacted by planned maintenance and an original design discrepancy which was discovered and corrected.

2OM3 175 150-Monthly Actual 125 o10

. 36 Month Rolling Actual X 75

-- a-- 36 Month

50.

Industry Median Goal 25 7

0 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 32