International Equipment Reliability Index (I-ERI) Subcommittee Update International ERWG Subcommittee April 2015

I-ERI Subcommittee Team James Purss (EDF-Energy UK) Chair Ted Broadbent - (EDF-Energy UK) Acting Chair / Lead Patrick Ryckaert (Electrabel - Belgium) Miroslav Zelenay (ENEL – Slovakia) Fernando Mirallas (ANAV (Vandellos) Lubos Cvrcek (CEZ – Czech Republic) Sheng Zhang (CGN (Suzhou Nuclear Power Research Institute) Mark White (INPO – USA) I-ERI Subcommittee Team

I-ERI Subcommittee Status @ Oct 14 Reviewed the US ERI Revision 10 (including previous and proposed future revisions) Discussed as a diverse group, which sub-indicators would be of value for the IERWG to use as an indicator Put them in Four Categories – Accept as is (Green) Accept with minor differences (White) Accept with major differences and further review (Yellow) Remove completely (Red) I-ERI Subcommittee Status @ Oct 14

US ERI Revision 10 Sub-indicator Review ERI Sub-Indicators No. Data Type Notes Forced Loss Rate (INPO Definition – 18/24 month Running Average) 1.1 Lagging Use WANO Definition of Forced Loss Rate (will include 12 month Fueling Cycles) Unplanned Power Reductions per 7000 hrs Critical (NRC Indicator) 1.2 Remove – This is a US NRC performance indicator Quarterly Forced Loss Events 1.3 Keep as is Unplanned Shutdown LCO Entries (in Last 3 months) 2.1 Only include ≤ 72 LCO entries caused by equipment failures (prev and future ERI rev) Operator Work Arounds 2.2 Consequential Failure Events (No. Events in Last 3 months) 2.3 Mitigating System Failure Margin (MSPI) 3.1 Use old ERI revision – WANO safety system unavailability indicators System Health Improvement Effectiveness 3.2 Leading Review what is best for the IERWG Corrective Critical Work Backlog (Non-Outage) 4.1 Combine with Deficient, include Outage work? Deficient Critical Work Backlog (Non-Outage) 4.2 Combine with corrective, include Outage? Deferral of Critical PM’s (Outage and Non-Outage) 4.3 Timely Completion of PM’s (1st Half of Grace) 4.4 Work Week Scope Survival (Average of Last 3 months) 5.1 Critical Only - combine with schedule completion Work Week Schedule Completion (Average of Last 3 months) 5.2 Critical Only - combine with scope survival Long Range Plan Implementation Effectiveness 6.1 Age of Red & Yellow Systems 6.2 Older than a cycle (allow 12 month cycles) Chemistry Effectiveness 7.1 Use WANO Chemistry Indicator PM Change Backlog (AP-913 Critical and Non-Critical > 60 Days) 8.1 Use old ERI revision of % of PM Feedback US ERI Revision 10 Sub-indicator Review

Path Forward Agreed @ Oct 14 Share with full IERWG group, subcommittee suggestions and receive feedback Create a IERWG guidance document for IERWG approval in April Meeting Pilot the I-ERI to determine were the point thresholds should be to adequately measure, compare performance, and drive equipment reliability improvements Path Forward Agreed @ Oct 14

Progress since Oct 14 meeting Creation of a draft I-ERI guidance document complete Sharing of guidance document with sub-committee members for review and approval Items not completed Resolution of all sub-measures for inclusion within I-ERI hence document is not ready for approval Point thresholds have not been adequately trialed to measure, compare performance, and drive equipment reliability improvements Progress since Oct 14 meeting

Adopt phased approach to producing an approved I-ERI measure over the next 12 month period Phase 1 – focus on established and agreed sub-measures Forced Loss Rate (WANO definition) Unplanned Automatic Scrams per 7,000 Hours Critical (WANO UA7) Unplanned Shutdown LCO Entries ≤ 72 hours (in last 3 months) Safety System Unavailability (WANO indicator) Work Week Critical Scope Survival and Completion Chemistry Performance (WANO CPI) Phase 2 – focus on sub-measures with minor changes required Phase 3 – completion of sub-measures with major differences with potential incorporation of INPO ERI revision 11 successes – such as Unmitigated SPVs or Maintenance Rework Index. Proposed forward path

Proposed action timeline Phase 3 Full Deployment December 2016 (4.1, 4.2, 5.2, 6.1) + 22 points = 100 / 100 points Sept 16 I-ERWG Presentation and approval of phase three analysis Phase 2 results published Mid-2016 (1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 6.2) + 45 points = 78 / 100 points Apr 16 I-ERWG Presentation and approval of phase two analysis Phase 1 results published January 2016 (ERI sub-measures 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 7.1) 33 / 100 points Sept 15 I-ERWG Presentation and approval of phase one analysis 8 I-ERWG Sub-committee, Nuclear Generation, NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Questions?