ML20006B678
| ML20006B678 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1989 |
| From: | OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006B677 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002050237 | |
| Download: ML20006B678 (133) | |
Text
, .
- ' O i
l FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS DECEMBER,1989 C +-
DN..
M g , 7, ;
l . .,,n,
~~ . = ~
L Wo+ di '
.u. =. _.= ; g. .
.: L. ,fy v ..,
~~
i t;_
.:::.k .t,
/
.. /. /
Prepared by:
Production Engineering Division Special Services 9002050237 DR 900124 p ADOCK 05000283 PDC
h i
l l
1 OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT l FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS !
F a
PREPARED BY:
PRODUCTION ENGINEERING DIVISION i SYSTEM ENGINEERING l
DECEMBER, 1989 s
. l
4- 4 e a 4 e w w w n m ...
a a a m a w % ...
a s e p, -e, m. . .
a w a m 4 ep...a w % sja 4 s pa w, m w.ua a - w .a w,na4 m m, a w - - 4 a-A
- - wa w 4 wa saq-m m, "& a % % + %.
9 - 9. o'c _ ;
r TABLE OF CONTENTS f.ME.
Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1989 Performance Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .
1990 Fort Calhoun Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 !
Adverse Trend Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 -
Index to Performance Indicator Graphs . . . . . . . 10 Performance Indicator Graphs. . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Escalated Enforcement History . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Significant Items of Interest . . . . . . . . . . 108 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Basis for Establishing 1989 Performance '
, Indicator Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Operating Cycles and Refueling Outage Dates . . . 122 1
j Production and Operation Records. . . . . . . . . 123 Data Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 l~
l
'k l
l i
l 1.
n . - ., - - - . . - - . . . . - - - - .. .-
L . .
L DISTRIBUTION V. W. Anderson M. J. Guinn C. W. Norris R. L< Andrews R. H. Guy J. T. O'Connor W. R. Bateman R. M. Hawkins R. G. Odden K. L. Belek M. C. Hendrickson W. W. Orr A. D. Bilau K. R. Henry L. L. Parent C. N. Bloyd J. B. Herman T. L. Patterson J. P. Bobba G. J. Hill F. M. Peterson C. J. Brunnert K. C. Holthaus G. R. Peterson M. W. Butt L. G. Huliska S. M. Peterson R. H. Cagle R. L. Jaworski R. L. Phelps C. A. Carlson R. A. Johansen T. J..Pirruccello G. S. Cary J. W. Johnson S. C. Presler J. W. Chase D. W. Jones T. M. Reisdorff G. R. Chatfield W. C. Jones A. W. Richard A. G. Christensen J. D. Kecy T. J. Sandene R. P. Clemens J. D. Keppler F. C. Scofield P. G. Conner D. D. Kloock L. G. Sealock J. L. Connolley D. M. Kobunski H. J. Sefick G. M. Cook G. J. Krause J. W. Shannon M. R. Core G. A. Krieser R. W. Short P. J. Cotton L. J. Kripal A. L. Shrum S. R. Crites J. B. Kuhr C. F. Simmons D. W. Dale L. T. Kusek E. L. Skaggs R. C. DeMeulmeester R. C. Learch F. K. Smitli W. D. Dermyer R. E. Lewis R. L. Sorenson R. D. DeYoung R. C. Liebentritt R. T. Spetman D. C. Dietz C. J. Linden D. E. Spires D. E. Dirrim B. R. Livingston K. E. Steele K. S. Dowdy J. M. Lofshult W. Steele J. A. Drahota J. H. MacKinnon H. F. Sterba R. G. Eurich G. D. Mamoran R. K. Stultz H. J. Faulhaber J. W. Marcil G. A. Teeple {'
M. A. Ferdig N. L. Marfice M. A. Tesar J. J. Fluehr D. J. Matthews P. L. Thompson F. F. Franco J. M. Mattice J. W. Tills J. F. W. Friedrichsen T. J. McIvor D. R. Trausch I R. M. Fussell R. F. Mehaffey P. R. Turner S. K. Gambhir K. A. Miller C. F. Vanecek J. K. Gasper R. A. Miser L. P. Walling W. G. Gates K. J. Morris J. M. Waszak M. O. Gautier D. C. Mueller W. O. Weber J. T. Gleason R. J. Mueller G. R. Williams L. V. Goldberg W. L. Neal S. J. Willrett D. C. Gorence J. B. Newhouse D. D. Wittke R. E. Gray M. W. Nichols P. A. Yager 1 i
iv i
e .
I PREFACE I PERF0kMANCE INDICATORS REPORT IMPROVEMENTS Three indicators have been changed for the month of December, 1989.
These three indicators are in the Maintenance Section.
The Ace _ of Outstandino Maintenance Orders (Corrective Non-outaos )
Indicator found on page 42 has been changed for the month of f December, 1989. This indicator now breaks down the number of ;
corrective non-outage maintenance work orders (MWO's) remaining +
open at the end of the reporting month by their age in months. '
Previously, all non-outage MWO's that were remaining oi>en at the end of the reporting month were broken down by their age in months.. ;
The Maintenance Work Order Breakdown _ (Corrective Non-outaae' Indica tor found on page L3 has been changed for the month of Decem)er, 1989. This indicator now shows the total number of ,
corrective non-outage maintenance work orders that were remaining ;
open at the end of the reporting. month, along with a breakdown by several key categories. Previously, this indicator categorized all '
non-outage MW0's that were remaining open at the end of the reporting month.
- The Maintenance Overtime Indicator has been changed for the month of December, 1989. A Fort Ca'houn goal has been added to this -!
indicator. The Fort Calhoun goal for the percent of maintenance- J overtime has been set at 35% for non-outage months and 50% for i outage months. A 12 month average value has also been added to this ;
inditator. '
l Three indicators have been deleted from the Performance Indicators Report for the month of December, 1989. Two of these indicators are in the Maintenance Section and one of these indicators is found in the Safety Section. i The two indicators that were deleted from the ' Maintenance Section include; the Ratio of Hiahest Priority MWO's- no Total MWO's Comoleted (Non-outaae) Indicator and the Prevent < ve Maintenance .!
Backloo Indicator. These indicators were deleted. due to the f act that they were not INP0 related indicators.
The indicator that was deleted fron the Safety Section was the 1 Minor Iniurv Cases ner Month Indicp_tgr. t This indicator was deleted l due to. the fact that this indicator did not show a good ' indication !
of the state of the entire Fort Calhoun Safety Prograu.- )
I PURPOSE This program titled " Performance Indicators is intended to provide selected Fort Calhoun plant performance information to OPPD's personnel responsible for optimizing unit performance. The -
information is presented in a way that provides ready identification of trends and a means to track progress toward .
reaching corporate goals. The information can be used for assessing and monitoring Fort Calhoun's plant performance, with emphasis on safety and reliability. Some performance indicators show company goals or industry information. This information can be used for comparison or as a means of promoting pride and motivation.
i 2
i !
! l l SCOPE l l l l
In order for the Performance Indicator Program to be effective, the following guidelines were followed while implementing this )
program:
Select the data which most effectively monitors Fort Calhoun's performance in key areas.
P Present the data -in a straight forward graphical format -
using averaging and smoothing techniques. l Include established corporate goals and industry information for comparison.
Develop formal definitions for each performance parameter.
This will ensure consistency in future reports and allow comparison with industry averages where appropriate.
Comments and input are encouraged to ensure that this program is tailored to address the areas which are most meaningful to the people using the report.
i l'
j i
1989 PERFORMANCE
SUMMARY
GOALS MET: l 1989 1989 Indicator Paoe Number Goal Performance j Forced Outage Rate 16 2.1% 1.4%
Unplanned Automatic 18 1 Scram 0 Scrams i Reactor Scrams While Critical Unplanned Safety System 20 1 Actuation 0 Actuations Actuations Fuel Reliability 26 1.0 nanocuries 0.13 nanocuries Indicator. / gram / gram '
Personnel Radiation 28 125 man-rem 96.1 man-rem **
Exposure .
Diesel Reliability 39 95% 95%(D-1)
(100 Demands) ,
Diesel Reliability 41 95% 100%(D-1)
- (20 Demands) 95% (0-2)
Ratio of Preventive '
, 47 60% 65.3%
1 to Total Maintenance i
Preventive Maintenance 49 1.2% 0.6%
j ltems Overdue I.
Maintenance Work Order 55 600 MWO's open 521 MWO's open !
Backlog
- Violations per 1000 100 8.6 Violations 7.7 Violations inspection Hours per 1000 Hours per 1000 Hours j
- i
! Indicators that track performance for Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Items. '
The cumulative exposure for 1989 was calculated using the pencil dosimeter readings
- for December, 1989. 1 1
i
1989PERFORMANCESUMARY(CONTINUED)
GOALS NOT MET:
1989 1989 Indicator Paae Number Goal Performance Gross Heat Rate 22 10,500 BTV/KWH 10,560 BTV/KWH Equivalent Availability 24 84.4% 76.9%
Factor Volume of low-level 30 6000 cubic feet 6195 cubic feet Solid Radioactive Waste DisablingInjury 32 0.31% 0.40%
Frequency Rate
- Diesel Reliability 39 95% 93%(D-2)
(100 Demands)
Number of Out-of-Service 51 7 Instruments 11 Instruments Control Room Instruments In-line Chemistry 63 3 Instruments 14 Instruments Instruments Out-of-Service Total Skin and Clothing 68 110 contaminations 157 contaminations Contaminations Indicators that track performance for Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Items.
l J
.s 1989 PERFORMANCE SUfMARY (CONTINUED) 1989 Industry Indicator Paoe Number Performance Performance Forced Outage Rate 16 1.4% 0.0% **
Unplanned Automatic 18 0 Scrams 0 Scrams **
' Reactor Scrams While Critical Unplanned Safety System 20 0 Actuations 0 Actuations **
Actuations Gross Heat Rate 22 10,560 BTV/KWH 9,989 BTU /KWH **
Equivalent Availability 24 76.9% 83.5% **
Factor Fuel Reliability 26 0.13 nanocurios 0.07 nanocuries Indicator / gram / gram **
Personnel Radiation Exposure 28 96.1 man-rem 175 man-rem **
Volume of Low-level 30 6,195 cubic feet 2,895.5 cubic feet **
Solid Radioactive Waste Disabling Injury 32 0.40% 0.0% **
Frequency Rate
- Corrective Maintenance 45 44.1% 52.8%
Backlog > 3 Months Old Ratio of Preventive 47 65.3% 57.4%
to Total Maintenance Preventive Maintenance 49 0.6% 1.5%
Items Overdue Number of Out-of-Service 51 11 instruments 9 instruments Control Room Instruments Secondary System CPI 58 0.30 CPI 0.20 CPI-Auxiliary System 62 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> 2.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> Chemistry Hours Outside Station Limits Total Skin and Clothing 68 157 contaminations .129 contaminations Contaminations *
. IndicatorsthattrackperformanceforSafetyEnhancementProgram(SEP) Items.
Industry upper ten percentile figures for industry performance is shown for these indicators. Industry upper quartile figures for industry performance-is shown for the other indicators.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ . - - - J
1990 FOP.T CALHOUN GOALS 1990 l Indicator Pace Number Goal ,,,, !
Forced Outage Rate 16 2.4%
i Unplanned Reactor Scrams 18 1 Scram i While Critical
]
Unplanned Safety System 20 0 Actuations Actuations ;
Gross Heat Rate 22 10,200 BTU /KWH !
Equivalent Availability 24 65.4%
Factor t
Fuel Reliability Factor 26 1.0 nanocuries
/ gram a i
Personnel Radiation 28 287 man-rem '
Exposure i volume of Low-level 30 5000 cubic f eet !
Solid Radioactive Waste i DisablingInjury 32 0.31%
Frequency Rate.* '
Daily Thermal Output 33 1495 thermal megawatts Diesel Reliability 39 95%
(100 Demands) l l
Diesel Reliability 41 95% 1 (20 Demands)
Ratio of Preventive 47 60%
to Total '4aintenance ,
Preventive Maintenance 49 1.2%
Items Overdue Maintenance Overtime 53 35%(non-outage) 50%(outage) 1 Maintenance Work Order 55 600 open MWO's Backlog
- 1 In-Line Chemistry 63 3 instruments Instruments Out-of-Service o I
IndicatorsthattrackperformanceforSafetyEnhancementProgram(SEP) Items.
l 7
1990FORTCALHOUNGOALS(CONTINUED) 1990 Indicator Paoe Number Goal Total Skin and Clothing 68 150 contaminations Contaminations *
(23 skin)
Gaseous Radioactive Waste 72 360 curies Being Discharged to the Environment Liquid Radioactive Waste 74 256s curies Being Discharged to the
' Environment Violations per-1000 100 8,2 violations Inspection Hours per 1000 hour0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br />s-IndicatorsthattrackperformanceforSafetyEnhancementProgram(SEP) Items.
<L. . . . . . ..
j 1
ADVERSE TREND REPORT The Adverse Trend Report explains the conditions under which L certain indicators are showing adverse trends. An indicator that is 1 defined as an Adverse Trend is one in which the current month's i data has more deficiencies than the data presented two months 1 prior. ;
Doerations and Maintenance Budaet Indicator - Page 36 The actual expenditures for operations have been above budget since March,1989. This is due to the fact that several items were not :
adequately included in the 1989 budget. These items include; extension of the 1988 Refueling Outage, contract security support, and radiation protection support. L Document Review Indicator - Page 37 I
The number of biennial document reviews that are overdue have been increasing since September,1989. Out of the 88 document reviews that were overdue at the end of December, 1989, 81 were maintenance documents.
Amount of Work on Hold Awaitinu Parts (Non-outaae) Indicator - Page 78 The percentage of MWO's that are on hold awaiting parts has ,
increased from 4.5% in October,1989, to 7.1% in December,1989.
This increase is due to inventory and a shelf life inspection which '
occurred in December.
Temoorary Modifications (Excludina Scaffoldina) Indicator - Page 86 Temporary mechanical modifications continue to increase due to the age of the plant, discovery of design basis discre?ancies, the length of time required to resolve design discrepancies, and the need for outage conditions to resolve many items currently being satisfied with temporary modifications. >
l l
1 i
-g-i
0 '
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INDEX TO GRAPHS INDUSTRY KEY PARAMETERS 1987 and 1988 Forced Outage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Forced Outage Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1987 and 1988 Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams While Critical. 17 Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams While Critical. . . . . . . . 18 1987 and 1988 Unplanned Safety System Actuations . . . . . . . . 19 Unplanned Safety System Actuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1987 and 1988 Gross Heat Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Gross Heat Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1987 and 1988 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . . . . . . . 23 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1988 Fuel Reliability Factor . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Fuel Reliability Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1987 and 1988 Personnel Radiation Exposure (Cumulative 27
.).
Personnel Radiation Exposure (Cumulative). . . . . . . . . . . 28 1987 and 1988 Volume of Low-level Solid Radioactive Waste. . . . 29 Volume of Low-level Solid Radioactive Waste. . . . . . . . . . . 30 1987 and 1988 Disabling Injury Frequency Rate. . . . . . . . . . 31 Disabling Injury Frequency Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INDEX TO GRAPHS (CONTINUED)
OPERATIONS 1987 and 1988 Forced Outage Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Forced Outage Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 16 1987 and 1988 Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams While Critical. 17 Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams While Critical. . . . . . . . 18 1987 cnd 1988 Unplanned Safety System Actuations . . . . . . . . 19 Unplanned Safety System Actuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1987 and 1988 Gross Heat Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Gross Heat Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1987 and 1988 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . . . . . . . 23 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1988 Fuel Reliability Indicator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Fuel Reliability Indicator . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . 26 I
Daily Thermal Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 l 1987 and 1988 Ecuipment Forced Outages per 1000 Critical Hours . 34 Equipment Forcec Outages per 1000 Critical Hours . . . . . . . . 35 1
Operations and Maintenance Budget. . . . . . . . ._. . . ... . . 36 Document Review. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 i MAINTENARGE 1 1987and1988DieselGeneratorReliability(100 Demands 38 :i Diesel Generator Reliability (100 Demands) . . . . . . .). .-. . . .. . 39 <
1987 and 1988 Diesel Generator Reliabilit Diesel Generator Reliability (20 Demands)y (20 Demands). . 40
. . . ... . . . . . . . . 41 Age of Outstanding Maintenance Work Orders . ... . .-. . . . . . 42-Maintenance Work Order Breakdown . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43 1988 Corrective Maintenance Backlog >3 Months Old. . . . . . . . 44 i Corrective Maintenance Backlog >3 Months Old . . . . . . . . . . 45 1988 Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . 46
. Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 1988 Preventive Maintenance Items Overdue. . . . . . . . . . . 48 !
Preventive Maintenance Items Overdue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
-i 1
l 1
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INDEX TO GRAPHS (CONTINUED)
MAINTENANCE (CONTINUEDI l
1987 and 1988 Number of Out-of-Service Control Room Instrua nts. . 50 Number of Out-of-Service Control Room Instruments. . . . . . . . . 51 Craft Work Activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Maintenance Overtime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 :
ProceduralNoncomplianceIncidents(Maintenance).........'54 Maintenance Work Order Backlog (Corrective Non-Outage) . . . . . 55
-NumberofNuclearPlantReliabilityDataSystem(NPRDS)
Reportable Failures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 j CHEMISTRY AND RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION 1987and1988PersonnelRadiationExposure(Cumulative . . . . 27 Personnel Radiation Exposure (Cumulative) . . .-. . .).
. . . . . 28 4 1987 and 1988 Volume of Low-level Solid Radioactive Waste. . . . 29-Volume of Low-level Solid Radioactive Waste. . . . . . . . . . . 30-1987 and 1988 Secondary System Chemistr 57 Secondary System Chemistry . . . .. .. ..y.. .. .. .. ..- .. .. .. ... .. . 58 1987 and 1988 Primar i of Limit . . . . . .y System Chemistry - Percent of Hours Out
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 !
Primary System Chemistry - Percent of Hours Out of Limit . . . . 60' 1987 and 1988 Auxiliary Systems Chemistr Station Limits . . . . . . . . . ... . .y Hours Outside
. . . . . . . . . . . . . - . 61 1
Auxiliary Systems Chemistry Hours Outside Station Limits . . . . 62 H In-Line Chemistry Instruments Out-of-Service . . . . . . . . . . .
63 '
Hazardous Waste Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 1987 and 1988 Maximum Individual Radiation Ex 65 ]
Maximum Individual Radiation Exposure. . ........-...66-
. posure. . . . . . . !
1987 and 1988 Total Skin and Clothing Contaminations . . . . . . 67 !
Total Skin and Clothing Contaminations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 1987 and 1988 Decontaminated Auxiliar i Decontaminated Auxiliary Building. .~y Building. . . ... .... 69
. . . ... . . . . . . . . . 70-1988. Gaseous Radioactive Waste Bein the Environment. . . . . . . . . . g Discharged to . . . . . . . 71 Gaseous Radioactive Waste Being Discharged to the Environment. . 72 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INDEX TO GRAPHS (CONTINUED)
CHEMISTRY AND RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION (CONTINUED) 1988 Liquid Radioactive Waste Bein the Environment.-. . . . . . . . .g Discharged to
...............73 Liquid Radioactive Waste Being Discharged to the Environment . . 74-SECURITY Loggablo/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Security Incident Breakdown. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 MATERIALS AND OUTSIDE SERVICES 1988 Amount of Work On Hold Awaiting Parts _.,. . . . . . . . . . 77 Amount of Work On Hold Awaiting Parts. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78 1987 and 1988 Spare Parts Inventor 79 Spare Parts Inventory Value. ... ..y. Value... ..........
. . . . . . . . . . . . 80 i 1987 and 1988 Spare Parts Issued . . . . . . . . . 81 Spare Parts I ssued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ..... . . 82 1 DESIGN ENGINEERING 1987 and 1988 Outstanding Modifications. . . . . . . . 83 Outstanding Modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . 84 1987 and 1988 Temporary Modifications. . . . . . . . 85' Temporary Modifications. . . . . . . .-. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .... .
86 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY 1987 and 1988 Disabling Injury, Frequency Rate. . . . . . . . . . 31 {
Disabling Injury Frequency Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 'l 1987 and 1988 Recordable Injury Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . 87 i
Recordable Injury Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 l
HUMAN RESOURCES 1987 and 1988 Number of Personnel Errors Reported in LERs. . . . 89 Number of Personnel Errors Reported.in LERs. . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Personnel Turnover Rate. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Staffing Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INDEX T0 GRAPHS (CONTINUED)
TRAINING AND OVALIFICATION SRO License Examination Pass Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 R0 License Examination Pass Ratio. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 94
-R0 Hot License Exams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
95 Hotlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Classroom (Instructor) Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97 Total Hours of Student Training. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98-OUALITY ASSURANCE 1988 Number of Violations per 1000 Inspection Hours. . . . . . . 99 Number of Violations per 1000 Inspection Hours . . . . . . . . . 100-
~
1987 and 1988 Percent of DR/QR's Greater Than Six Months'01d . . 101 Percent of DR/QR's Greater Than.Six Months Old . . . . . . . . . 102 DR/QR's Issued versus Significant DR/QR's Issued versus. . . .. . 103 NRC Violations Issued versus LERs Reported.
r
~
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INDEX TO GRAPHS (CONTINUED)-
TRAINING AND 00ALIFICATION SR0 License Examination Pass Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93-R0 License Examination Pass Ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 R0 Hot License Exams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 i Hotlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 l
Classroom (Instructor) Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
97
, Total Hours of Student Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 l
00ALITY ASSURANCE 1988 Number of Violations per 1000 Inspection Hours. . . . . . . 99 Number of Violations per 1000 Inspection Hours . . . . . . . . . 100 i
1987 and 1988 Percent of DR/QR's Greater Than Six' Months Old . . 101 -!
Percent of DR/QR's Greater Than Six Months Old . . . . . . . . . .102 DR/QR's Issued versus Significant DR/QR's Issued versus. . . . .'.103 l:RC Violations Issued versus LERs Reported i l
r
- Forced Outage Rate G- Fort' Calhoun Goal
-G- Industry Upper 10 Percentile 5-g... . .g. .. ..g.....g. .. . .g.....e ._ ...e . .... e.. . . . e . .. . e .. . .. e .. .. o 4- !
R a t 3-t e
2-0 D D 'G O~'~C 0 1- U U~ Q 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May -Jun Jul Aug- Sep Oct Nov- Dec 1987 1
- Forced Outage Rate G- Fort Calhoun Goal
-G- Industry Upper- 10 Percentile 6-i 5- !
i 4-1 R
a3 t
i e G --- ~ ~& -----& --- --9 -----G ----- G ----- G ----- G --- - - G ----- G ----- G ---- - O ,
2- :
e _ - - e -- - - g _ _..- G O O G G G B O -O O
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep- Oct Nov Dec 1988 1
l
- Forced Outage Rate'-
6 -G- Fort Calhoun Goal C Industry Upper 10 Percentile 5-1 GOOD 4
R a-t 3-e 2- &~ ~~ O ---+- ~~O-~ ~ O----O --- G ---+ -~ ~ ~~ G-~ ~ ~ O-~~ O 1 O C D E{ 0
'86 '87 0
'88 0
\
'N Jan Feb Mar Air May En 51.A7g sip Oct NIv Dec 1989 l
FORCED OUTAGE RATE I There were zero forced outage hours logged j for the Fort Calhoun Station during December, '
1989. The present 12 month average forced outage rate is 1.4%. i The last forced outage at Fort Calhoun !
occurred in September of 1989. '
The industry upper ten percentile _ value for-the forced outage rate is-0.0%. i The 1989 goal for forced outage rate is' 2.1%-
and is based on seven days of forced outage j
time. The basis for establishing the 1989' performance goals can be found on page 120.
-i Adverse Trend: None i
l
E Reactor Scram 8_
3
, 4- Industry Upper Quartile c 6-r -
. a 4- 0 0 & ---O---O O O O -0 0 ---C --O i m -
L 2- i
[ .
O Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct- Nov. Dec 1985 t-l 10-Reactor Scram J 8- .G- Fort Calhoun Goal i
-s- Industry Upper Quartile c 6-r -
a 4- 0 0 --C --+- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O l m . '
2-
. e......e... .e ...__ e .____e _.... e .. .
e
__.e. . ._ _ .e._ . ..e._ _... e ... .. o .' ,
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul -Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l 1986 l 10-
- Reactor Scram 8'
G- Fort Calhoun Goal 3
c6 -G- Industry Upper 10 Percentile r
a4 m '
l 2- G C. C C C C C ~C S l
e......e.... .g. _ _ _g....-e.....e __ ___ e _ __..e ___ __ e.g....e _g 3 0 '
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep- Oct Nov Dec" 1987 3
10-Reactor Scram 8-G- Fort Calhoun Goal' S
c6 C Industry Upper 10 Percentile' r -
a-4 m .
2-e a a ___ _.e.. __.e = -e _-_-_e ___ __ e ___ __ e.___ _ e ____ e____ _.o l 0 - - - -
a w
l Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec e 1988 t
i
a J 5- Reactor Scram G- Fort Calhoun Goal- J
-& Industry Upper 10 Percentile 4- i
.I j
3-f GOOD r 4 a t m C 2- '
1- G---- e-----e----e----e----e ----e----e ---e ----s----e.--- e 0 0 0 ~ - -
0 - - - - - - - - I
'85 '86 '87 '88 Jan Feb Mar- Apr- May Jun Jul AEg Sep Oct -Nov Dec.
1989 UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS' WHILE CRITICAL .
There were no un automatic reactor 4 scrams in December. planned It has been ~ 1,278 days "!
since the last unplanned automatic reactor scram which occurred.on July 2, 1986. ,
The 1989 goal for unplanned automatic reactor-scrams while critical has been set at 1.
The industry upper ten percentile value is '
zero scrams' per unit ~ on an annual basis. The 'i
-Fort Calhoun ' Station is currently in the upper ten percentile of nuclear plant-performance in this area. '
Adverse Trend: None i'
l t
- l
.j 4- ;
. Safety' System Actuations '
o
- e. -
G- Fort Calhoun' Goal.' i 9 Industry Upper 10 Percentile '
3- l A l C
t ;
- l. u-a 2-t i
o' -
n ;
s 1- 'O- O e- C- a e e a e-----e-----o-----o 1
i y
0 - - -
Jan Feb Mar: Apr May Jun< Jul Aug. Sep 0Yt Nov Dec.
1987, s
4 ..- Safety-System Actuations j; G- Fort-Calhoun Goal-
. G Industry' Upper 10 Percentile :
I a
.3- .,
A C i I
t.
u a2 t i
.j 1 o
y n 1 s j 1- .
l l
. l l
0 C C C C C C c - - - - -
Jan Feb Mar Apr- .l May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1988
4- .
Safety System Actuations e- Fort Calhoun Goal e- Industry Upper 10 Percentile 3-A c
t u
, GOOD k 2-
- o n
s i
1- -!
&---G----G -- -e---G----G----& --- G---- G----G-- -G---- O 1
-l y
1 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
0 ~ ' ' " " " ~~ '
'86 '87 '88 Jan fib MIr AYr MIy Nn 51-AIg-Sip OIt NIv DIc 1989 I J
UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS l
"-i There were no unplanned safety system actuations- during the month of- December, -i 1989.
The 1989 goal for the number ofi unplanned safety system actuations is zero. This' goal is based on past performance at .the Fort :
Calhoun Station.
The. industry upper ten percentile value for !
the number of unplanned safety system actuations )er year is zero. The Fort !
Calhoun Stat < on is currently in the upper ten- percentile of- nuclear plants for this ,
indicator.
Adverse Trend: None i
a 1 1 Monthly Gross Heat Rate p
' --- Year to Date Gross Heat Rate-
.10750-
.G- Fort Calhoun Goal Industry Upper 10 Percentile
.I
-10500- '
B T
U
/
K 10250-W '
H e----- e _ _ ---e ----.s.- _ -- e ---. _s.y ^
q.--_e----- e --_-e _----e 10000-U ) U ~~~
U U~* = '
1 9750 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun. Jul. Aug .Sep .Oct- Nov.. Dec 1987 I IMonthly Gross Heat Rate
- Year?to Date Gross Heat Rate ;
10750 -G- Fort Calhoun-Goal ;
O Industry Upper 10 Percentile i B
10500- ;
U l
/
K l
l10250- 7 - l
/
e.--__ g ___ _e. ---.e._3p ,-. _g. - _-.
. .e_ .. . ._e._ _ . _e. . . _ _.e.--. e __ _ _.e .
10000-i U
hN 't3 0 0 8 O 9 0 0 C 9750 !
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov j
.Dec 1988 1 1
l
I IMonthly Gross Heat Rate
, - Year to Date Gross Heat Rate G- Fort Calhoun Goal
-e Industry Upper 10 Percentile GOOD I 10750-4 I
g -
B - 10500- G--- -AG---G- 4 Yb --G --
O ---G----O ' .l u
10284 10270 K H
I10014I I W 1025 U- G--G s a 10000- ~
e-s-e a e -e-- e i
i I !
9750 I
'86 '87 '88 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct : Nov Dec i 1989 -l 1
l GROSS HEAT RATE 3 The gross heat rate for the Fort Calhoun-' Station during -
December, 1989 was 10,429 BTU /KWH.
i The gross- heat rate values for this cycle of operation will ~
be increased due to the removal of the first stage of the high pressure turbine.
The 1989. year to date gross ~ heat rate value is 10;560 i BTU /KWH. The 1989 goal is 10,500 BTU /KWH. This goal value of-l 10,500 BTU /KWH is the theoretical best heat rate that the Fort Calhoun Station can obtain'in its present configuration. 3 The gross heat ~ rate industry upper ten percentile value is 9,989 BTU /KWH.
a Adverse Trends: None l IMonthly EAF-
- 12 Month Average EAF G- Fort Calhoun Goal
-e- Industry Upper 10 Percentile i 100-I g g g - g - m - m- - m
-D g.. . . .
. .e. .. - _. .e._ _ _ _e. - e _ ...e ...._e.____e.-_. .s. ...
. s. __.
. .e - --
-e
- 60-c .
e .
n 40- _ .;
.t 20-0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov: Dec 1987 l l l Monthly EAF.
l 12 Month Average EAF l -e- Fort Calhoun' Goal
-e- Industry Upper 10 Percentile ,
t i 100-
/
A N C
/
80- O p#-C O -O O O O O- E O
. C N-G- - - --G-----O- ---
-G- ---
-O-- ---
-G-- - -- G----- G -- -- - ---O -
P e 60-r C
8 40-n t -
20-(
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul .Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1988
. .. i I IMonthly EAF
- 12 Month Average EAF G- Fort.Calhoun Goal GOOD 0 Industry Upper 10 Percent'ile ;
100-
-85 O --s-- .e--- -e. ---gp -q-. q- = .g =qmg- = g- = .-g 80- C O' E--B' y 71 ;
66 -
/[.
[_60- _
j /
r x J
-c -
e
- n 40-f 20-0 I
'86 '87 '88 Jan Feb. Mar - Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep: 0ct Nov Dec 1989
- j. 4 i
EOUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR' The Equivalent . Availability Factor (EAF) was reported as 95.8% for the month of December.
The 1989 EAF goal is 84.4% while the present 12
- . month average EAF for Fort Calhoun is 76.9%;
~
The EAF industry upper ten percentile value is 83.5%.
1 Adverse-Trends:. None-4 r
i i
e
-M- Fuel Reliability Indicator -
-G . Fort Calhoun Goal !!
5-
-O- Industry Upper 10 Percentile l
I' n 4-a n
O c
3 u
r ;
i '
s i
/
9 i r
a .i '
m 1-O C ; a m m - - - - - - ,
'Jan Feb Mar Apr 'May En Jul Aug. sip- - OIt NIv DIc 1988.
q 5-
.++- Fuel Reliability Indicator e- Fort Calhoun Goal
-G- Industry Upper 10 Percentile 4-n a 1 n
C 3-16 u GOOD l
5 +
e r-a m
1- O ---&--- e---e----e----s--- G---e----&---O --- G---e 3 ,
0 O 8 -G~
0
_n ,,
o a m -n
'86 '87 '88 Jan Feb Mar Apr - May= Jun fu'l Aug S'e'p 0'c't Nov DSc 1989 1
l FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR The Fuel Reliability Indicator: (FRI)- was reported as 0.0 nanocuries/ gram for the month of December. This FRI-value
-indicates that there have- been no fuel . failures since-startup in January, 1989. l The 1989 fuel reliability goal has been set at- 1.0 i nanocuries/ gram.
i The fuel reliability indicator industry u l
ten-percentile value is 0.07 nanocuries/ gram. pper The Fort Calhoun Station is currently in the- upper ten percentile 1 of nuclear plants for this indicator >
Adverse Trend: None '
i i
- Personnel Radiation Exposure G- Fort'Calhoun Goal O Industry Upper _10 Percentile 400 G -O O O -O O O n "
--O
-~ O '" ~9,....o.
300- p --G-~ ~~ ~ e.-- -O- g
, a a R ' /
E l
M l 200- ,0 l' .
l
/
100-00 C Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1987
- Personnel Radiation Exposure 400- G- Fort Calhoun Goal
-G- Industry Upper 10 Percentile 300- e g g R
O C 8 C C C ,D O'
C / C E 200- /
M l Q
100- /
/
,1
' .w
_.-g---Y OL
'Jan Fea Mar Apr May Jun Jul -Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec-1988
'l
I Psrsonn31 Radiation Exposure 1 388 400 e- Fort Calhoun Goal
-e Industry Upper 10 Percentile ;
- 1 300- GOOD l
272 4
e O O R \
E- 200- 1 M
D-O O O O 8- O O O
-& -O ,
100- - O~~~ #,,,g.
74 -O ~~~e
& g ~
. - -&~~ ~0 B
'86 '87 '88
, Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURE (CUMULATIVE)
During December, 1989, 6.8 man-rem was recorded by pencil dosimeters worn- by personnel while working at the Fort Calhoun Station.
' - 1 The monthly cumulative exposure goal for l November was 125 man-rem while the actual i recorded exposure through November was 89.3 man-rem.
4 The personnel radiation exposure industry upper ten percentile is 175 man-rem per unit per year. I 1
Adverse Trend: None 4
a a
6 7 :.
sp-
12500-E M nthly Radi@ active Waste Shipped
- Cumulative Radioactive Waste Shipped G- Fort Calhoun Goal l')000-
-e- Industry Upper 10 Percentile C
a
. g__. O g g a e a a g s
bg 7500- G----- e -----o-----e----- e -----e-----e---- - o -----e- -- --o-----o-----o c O O O F
e 5000- y e
t i 1
2500- l
,i
.I 0-Jan Feb EERE Mar- Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov E
Dec-1987 l
12500- O Monthly Radioactive Waste Shipped
- Cumulative Radioactive Waste Shipped
-G- Fort Calhoun Goal 10000 -B- Industry Upper 10 Percentile l C
u i b 7500- !
i C ,
l e
F .
e 5000- '
e D 8 0 0 9 0 8 8 O O G G t . O'---- G --- --O---- G-- --- G-----O -----G--- -- G - ----G ---- e-- --- O -----O j i
2500- !
- i 0
- # i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1988
. . +
._ Monthly Radioactive Waste Shipped.-
12500-a cumulative Radioactive Waste Shipped G- Fort Calhoun Goal .
43- Industry Upper 10 Percentile
--10000-C -
u b
GOOD c 7500; 4 F
e .
O --- G----O---- G----O----G----G---G----G--- G----Of 4
5000-G- O O #
/ I 2500,
'S O O O O O O Bi-8 4096l454l1722
^
0
- i. '86 '87 '88 Jan Feb Mar Apr May' Jun Jul Aug .Sep. 0ct Nov Dec '
l 1989 VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE The above graph shows the amount of low-level radioactive waste i shipped off-site for disposal. The table below lists the amount of-
[
waste actually shipped off-site for disposal plus the change in i
inventory of waste in on-site storage in final form ready for bur ial.
~
l Thevolumeofsolidradioactivewasteis-(cubicfeet):
e l Amount Shipped in December -
676.5 '
i Amount-in Temporary Storage -
0.0 l 1989 Cumulative Amount Shipped -
6195.0 L 1989 Goal -
6000.0 ,
l There are two: reasons for the very high amount :of 1.ow-level solid radioactive waste that was shipped- in January, 1989. One ~ reason is i that the 1988 refueling outage produced a large volume of radioactive ,
l waste. Also, shipping of low-level solid radioactive waste stopped :in. '
E October, 1988, due to samples being sent off-site for isotope analysis
( that could not be completed at the Fort Calhoun Station.
The industry upper ten percentile value is'2,895.5 cubic feet per unit per year. The Fort Calhoun Station was in the upper ten percentile of nuclear plants for this indicator in 1986, 1987 and 1988. ;
Adverse Trend: None a
-m_. , ~ .,, - . - , , ,. . .,, ,-%, ..J., ,,-..,u - . _ .
3 - Disabling Injury Frequency Rate j G- Fort Calhoun Goal )
1
-e- Industry Upper 10 Percentile d l
2- l 1-
' & ---- O --- & ---- G ---- - O ----- G -----G ---- - - - -----
O '
O y O _O O O O '-4 O G O O Jan Feb Mar Apr- May Jun- .Jul Aug Sep. ' Oct' Nov Dec 1987 3-i
- Disabli$g Injury Frequency Rate
. G- Fort Calhoun Goal O Industry Upper 10 Percentile 2-4 1-i
- e. ._ _ e _ _ _ e __ _ e . ---- G -----G -----&---- + -- - -+ ----G----- O ----- O i
0' JIn Fib MIr Apr MIy JYn JY1 AYg Sep Oct NYv DYc 1988 i 4
+ Disabling Injury Frequency. Rate
-G- Fort Calhoun~ Goal 3 e Industry Upper 10 Percentile 2-p GOOD-1.6 a . +
e 1- ,
1t
.5 .
G----O -- G ----G----O---- O --- G--- e ---G --- G --- G----O O
'86 i'87 '88 O C m C C C C C C C C C Jan Feb Mar . Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rates for 1986, 1987, 1989-and 1988 show the year-to-date rate for '
the month of December DISABLING INJURY FRE0VENCY RATE ]
(LOST TIME ACCIDENT RATE) j a
There were zero disabling. injuries reported.at-the Fort; Calhoun Station in December. The total number of i disabling injuries in - 1989 is two. During' '1989: one disabling injury was reported during the month of March and one disabling . injury was reported during the month 1 of June.. ;
The 1989 disabling injury frequency rate goal was set at 0.31% and was based on one disabling injury occurring in 1989. '
q The industry upper ten percentile disabling injury- ;
frequency rate is 0%.
lt The year end disabling injury frequency rates for 1986, 1987, and 1988 were 0.0, 0.6, and 1.6 respectively.
j
.I This indicator tracks personnel performance for ' Safety.
EnhancementProgram(SEP) Item 26.
Adverse Trend:: None 3
--+- Thermal Output
- Technical' Specification Limit
-G Fort Calhoun Goal 1500 1495 9
a 1490-W 1 a j t
t l s 1485- I i
1480 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .
1 7 14 21 28 December 1989 DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT.
The above thermal output graph displays the ~ daily I operating power level, ' the 1500 thermal- -megawatt average technical specification limit, and the 1495 thermal megawatt Fort Calhoun_ goal. The cross hatched area represents the difference between the maximum allowable operation and the actual plant operation.
The average percent power operation of the Fort .
Calhoun Station- was 99.5% for the month of !
December.
Adverse Trend: None l
-r , ,;
?
'b w Equipmerit Forced Outage Rate )
l 1
.9- i 1
l
.8- '
.7-t
.6-l R ..
a t
.5-
,4-.
.3- ;
I
.2-
.1- -
0 A > \ \ #
dan Fe'b Ma'r Apr May J'un du'l Au'g S'e'p 0'c't Nov- ' D'e'c 1987
.2-
- Equipment Forced Outage Rate t
i l R ,
.t'I' e
i 0 ,, ., . .s . .: :: .
Jan- Feb Mar Apr- May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l 1988 i
t
-1 1
- , - . - . . . - . , . . - .. , ,.. . ... : . .l 1
,- - , - -q 1- 'l
-H- Equipment Forced Outage Rate i
.8-
.6- GOOD 2 R
a .
t
.4-
.2-
.12-0 0 0
'86 '87 '88 Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma'y Ju'n Jul- Au'g Sep Oct: Nov Dec 1989 q
ECUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES j f ER 1000 CRITICAL HOURS l
There were zero forced outage hours reported for the Fort Calhoun: Station i during the month of December, 1989.- The-current value for the number of ' equipment' ]
forced outages, per 1000 critical' hours for-1989 is 0.14.' i
'i The last equipment forced outage occurred- !
in September of 1989 and was due to a cable problem with the resistive . temperature detector on reactor- coolant pump . motor : 1 RC-3A.
Adverse Trend: None !
)
.l
- Actual Operati8ns Expenditures l
-X- Operations Budget 80-M i ,
1d 60-1o i1 o1 40- >
na H sr s 20-0-
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug. Sep Oct Nov Dec .j 1989 15- -
- Actual Maintenance Expenditures <'
M y 12- -+- Maintenance Budget i '
1d 9 1o i1 '
o 1 6-na s sr 3- '
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May- Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct- Nov Dec 1989 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET
~
The Operations and Maintenance Budget Indicator shows the budgst year to date as well as the actual expenditures for_ operations. and : maintenance for :
the Fort Calhoun Station. t The- budget year to date- forl Operations was 64.6 million dollars for December while the actual cumulative expenditures for_ December totaled 78.8-million dollars.
The' budget year to date for Maintenance was 11.9 million dollars for December while the actual. cumulative expenditures for December totaled 11.4- o 3
million dollars. +
Adverse Trends: Since March the actual expenditures for operations have-been above budget. This is: due -to the fact that- several items: were. not '
adequately included for in the 1989 budget-. These. items include;' extension <
of- the 1988 Refueling Outage, contract security su) port, and radiation ' l protection support. No adverse trend associated with tle maintenance-budget a has been observed. ~
-500-
. . Documents' Scheduled for Review
, X- Documents Reviewed
- Overdue Documents 400-ND x ii
.", 300- ,/ \_
bu 1 , 2 . ,i e m.
re V' i
,/ \,\
n gon, I
-',, j
.f s N. ,i ~\
- t. '. I \
-! \ :
\
100- *\ X. '
/ '
I $
.X' j
%"'z g ,/ .- . ,
X. Y .s 7
0 '- -*~~~/-
'Jan Feb- Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep l0ct Nov Dec 1989 q
DOCUMENT REVIEW
1 This indicator shows the number of biennial reviews completed during the reporting month, the number of biennial reviews scheduled for the j '
reporting month, and the number of biennial ~ reviews-that are. overdue.
These document reviews are performed in house and- include S3ecial
-Procedrres, the Site Security Plan, Maintenance' Procec ures, Preventive Maintenance, and the-~0perating Manual. The' documents o included in the Operating Manual are Standing Orders, the Technical Data Book, the Radiological Emergency' Response Plani Emergency- Plan Implementin '
Procedures,gAbnormal Procedures, Operating Operating Procedures, Procedures, Operating .' Emergency Operating Instructions,; ;
the Radiological Protection Manual,-'the Chemistry Manual, the Fuel .{
Management Manual, Surveillance Tests, and Calibration Procedures.. '
During December there were 76 document reviews completed while, 54' l document reviews were scheduled. Atl the end ofEDecember,. there were ;
88 document reviews overdue. The overdue document reviews atLthe end >
'of December consisted primarily of maintenance' documents.
4, Adverse Trend: The number of overdue document reviews has been increasing since September, 1989. Of the 88 document reviews that are
'k overdue for the month of December, 1989, 81 are maintenance '
documents. -
1 i
i
-+- Diesel Generator No.1 '
-x- Diesel Generator No. 2 ,
IN j j 1
96 3 96- ;
94-P -
l l l l l l l X e 92- [ xl X -x X - ->( x Xs sy y -...x ' l 7 .
r c 90-e n 88- -
t !
86-84- !
t 82- e 80 Jan Feb Mar Apr May- Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ;
1987 l Diesel Generator No. 1 I
-X- Diesel Generator No. 2 100-
, , G- Fort Calhoun Goal -
93 ,
+
96-g.. .. . .s_. . .. g... . 9. . ..q .. . ..g. . .. . s... .. g .... . g ... . .g. . . .. g. . .. ..o l 94- X- x x----x At l : ; ; ; ; -
p -
l ; ;. lx m X X X X X X- X -i l e 92 i r .
c 90 ;
e . -!
n gg.
t .
86-84- -
82-80 .-
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct1 Nov Dec. l 1988 :
-y
100- : Diesel Generator No. 1 98-
-X- Diesel Generator No. 2
, G- Fort Calhoun Goal 96-
- 3. . . . e. . . . . . . ...g . . .. q. .. . .e . . . . 3. . . . e. . . . . e .. . . 3 . . . . e. . . . . e 94 x . , _ - X-- - X- -- --X -X x
'X '
X X-- - X --X-----X P
e r 90-c -
e 88-n t
t 86-GOOD 84-82-80 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov- Dec 1989 DG RELIABILITY LAST 100 )F M Diesel generator D 1 has a 95 percent reliability factor over the last 100 valid demands.
Diesel generator D.2 has a 93 percent reliability factor over the last 100 valid demands.
The Fort Calhoun goal for the diesel generator reliability is 95%. Presently D-1 meets this s goal.
Adverse Trend: None l
e.
l
+- Diesel Generator No.1 l
-N- Diesel Generator No. 2 i s
1 100- X X -x x X X- X X i
\ ;
s i
N 95- *
- X !+: '
r P '
e
- r i c 90- l l l l l l j
e n . !
t 85-k
'80 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1987
! Diesel Generator No. I' !
-X- Diesel Generator No. 2 I G- Fort Calhoun Goal i 100- : l l l :
5 95- e----- e-- -- e--- -- e - - -- - s ---- -----e----- e----- e- ----G ----- e --- --o ,
P
\
e x r 'N .-
c 90- X X X X- ----X X- X X e
n .
t i
85-80 Jan- Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1988 l
i
- Diesel Generator No. 1 l
-X- Diesel Generator No. 2
-O- Fort Calhoun Goal !
100- ; l : l- l l : :
I 95- & ---- G --- - - e --- - e -- -- G---- - -- +----G- --- - B -- - -+ - -- - G-- --- E '
P e \
r x
/ i C \ '
I e 90- X X X n
t 85- i GOOD i
T 80 Jan feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nuv Dec 1989 ,
i DG RELIABILITY LAST 20 DEMANDS i P
Diesel generator D-1 has not had a failure in the last 20 demands on the unit. The present reliability factor for D-1 is 100% over'the last 20 demands.
- Diesel generator D-2 has had one failure in the last 20 demands. D-2 has a 95% reliability factor over the last 20 demands.
The Fort Calhoun goal for the diesel generator -
reliability for the last 20 demands is set at 1 95%. Diesel = D-1 and diesel D-2 presently meet this goal. ]
Adverse Trend: None 1
l l
i
I
\j 400- i l
December 1989 l
. E January 1990 )
l IFebruary 1990 j 0 300 t
1 .
t, 200-n
- 9 O -
g .
G r 100-5
{
0 0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 >12
- Age in Months
- l i
AGLQf OUTSTANDING MAlhTENAhCE WORK ORDERS l (CORRECTIVE N0N-0VTAGE)
This indicator has been changed for the month of December, 1989. - The Age of Outstanding Maintenance Work Orders Indicator now shows the- age of corrective non-outage maintenance work orders (MW0's) remainin month. gPreviousl open at theall end open of the reporting non-outage MWO's were shown. y, Adverse Trend: None I
?
4 P
..ww=,.,-wsw+e-,
l 1 .
600-
- December 1989 l
L January 1990
- I IFebruary 1990 i
ii 400-l -
l 200- j i
E i
0-- " .
Total Open Total Open Open !
Open MW0s Open Safety High MW0s > 3 Months Safety l
, Related Priority i Old Related MW0s MW0s >
MW0s > 3 Months Old
- 1 1
l- H Qf]ENANCE WORK ORDER BREAKDOWN I l '
(CORRECTIVf NON-0UTAGE)
This indicator has been changed for the month of December,1989. The Maintenance Work Order (MWO)
Breakdown Indicator now.shows the total number of corrective non-outage MWO's remaining open at the end of the reporting month, along with a breakdown by several key categories. Previously, all open non-outage MWO's were shown.
Adverse Trend None i
)
.3
)
i 2
1
i l
i i
t
-l
)
- Corrective Maintenance Backlog > 3 Months Old
+- Industry Upper Quartile ,
80 '
s
?
60- _
P - !'
e ^ ^ >
Q " O O O O O- 4 O O ,
c 40-
- e ,
n '
l t l
20- ;
l O i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1
1988 i l
i l
4 l
i r
v p,a.--- w
j
- Corrective Maintenance Backlog > 3 Months Old ;
<>- Industry Upper Quartile I l
80-I 4
{
i 60- ;
l r
C 40-o O <>-4 O O- O O v
/ 0 -O 4
\
j e -;
n t -
GOOD :
20- 0 1
0 Jan' Feb Mar Apr May Jun- Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 l
l CORFECTIVE 4AINTENAME BACKLOG
. GREATER THAN 3 >0tTHS OLD (NON-0VTAliE)
This indicator shows the percentage of open corrective non-outage maintenance work orders that are greater than three months old at the end of the.
reporting month.
The percentage of open corrective non-outage maintenance work orders that are greater than three months old at the end of December was reported as ,
52.8% ;
The industry upper quartile value for corrective ;
maintenance backlog greater than 3 months old is 44.1%.
Adverse Trend: Notie t
l l
l t
)
t P
l !
+
t
- Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance l
-O- Industry Upper Quartile [
90-e- Fort Calhoun Goal j 80- j 70- ;
P >
, 60- O-----e----- o ----- --- -- o -----s ---- -----e----- o-----G----- G----- O r -
c 50- O -O - O- -O--+ 0 0 0 0 O--@ -O ,
e
- 40-l t ;
30-20 '
10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec !
1988 l
\
e k
l 6
k
.l '
- Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance
+- Industry Upper Quartile 90 e- Fort Calhoun Goal 80-I 70-P 60- ---G-----G--- ----
C .
Q-V ---- V9 - --- -v Q~-----Q v - -- - +V-'~ N-----Q * ---- g e
^
n 50- O O '-
t ,
40- ^
GOOD 30-20 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO T TAL MAINTENANCE (NON-0UTAGO The ratio of preventive to total maintenance indicator shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to tot *1 completed non-outage maintenance. The ratu of preventive to tota' maintenance at the Fort Calhoun Station dccreased to 65.3% in December.
The Fort Calhoun goal- is to have a ratio of prevent.ive to total maintenance greater than 60%.
The industry up>er quartile value for the .
ratio of prevent've to total maintenance is 57.4%. The Fort Calhoun Station is currently in the upper quartile of nuclear plant performance in this area.
Adverse Trend: None
_______x__.__---_ - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l i.
i 20-
- Preventive Maintenance Items Overdue i
-O- Industry Upper Quartile !
. G- Fort Calhoun Goal :
t 15-P - i e
r c 10- '
e n
t ,
i 5- j h h- h Q- -4 O O O ^
O O -- - -o -
0 0 0 0 0 0 g O u m O O w Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1988 f
t l
t N
l
- Preventive Maintenance Items Overdue 20- H>- Industry Upper Quartile
-e- Fort Calhoun Goal 15-P -
e GOOD r
c 10- +
e n
t -
5-p___p ea@::::rs.... sy.....G. Q $ .....@
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS-OVEROUE The purpose of this indicator is to monitor progress in the administration and execution of preventive maintenance programs. A small percentage of preventive maintenance items overdue indicates a i station comitment to the preventive maintenance program and an ability to plan, schedule, and perform preventive maintenance tasks as programs require, i
The preventive maintenance items overdue value !
increased to 0.6% for the month of December. There were a total of 1135 preventive maintenance items completed during the - month with 7 preventive maintenance items not completed within the-allowable grace period.
The Fort Calhoun goal is to have less than 1.2% ;
preventive maintenance items overdue. The industry !
upper quartile for preventive maintenance items '
overdue is 1.5%. The Fort Calhoun Station is currently performing in the industry upper. quartile for this i dicator i Adverse Trend: None i
J i
35-
- j. E C@ntrol Rooo Instruments Out-of-Service I
-+>- Industry Upper Quartile 30-25-l 20-15-
]
oE Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1987 35- M Control Room Instruments Out-of-Service
-O- Industry Upper Quartile 30-e rart Calhoun Goal l Jan'. Feb Mar Apr' May. Jun- Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec. t 1988
i E Total Control RooQ Instruments Out-of-Service !
E Out-of-Service Instruments Added During the Month l IOut-of Service Instruments Corrected During the Month 35-
-O- Industry Upper Quartile For Total Out-of-Service Instruments G- Fort Calhoun Goal For Total Out-of-Service Instruments 30-25-GOOD 20- q,
.I .. ..
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989
.tM EER OF OUT-OF-SERVICE ;
CONTROL ROOM INSTRUMENTS This indicator shows the total number of out-of-service control room i
L instruments at the end of the reporting month, the number of out-of-service control room instrum?nts that were corrected during. the
! reporting month and the number- of control room instruments that were added to the out-of-service control room instruments list during the reporting month, There was a total of 11 out-of-service control room instruments at the end of December. During the month of December, 7 out-of-service instruments were corrected and 7 instruments were added to the out-of-service instruments list.
)
The Fort Calhoun goal h to have less than 7 out-of-service control room i instraments, i The industry upper quartile value for the number of out-of-service control room instruments is 9.
Adverse Trend: None I
EM GM MM
-+ ^
3 --
+...,
\d ...
\li t ^:
j[ t
\
n., , .. .
@ Modifications (MOD) l lMaint.WorkOrders(MWO) li[{
'u
[ y E Unestimated (UNE)
Ni]! '
)
E Preventive Maintenance (PM)
E Training (TRA) s E Calibration Procedures (CP) \
f~~lSurveillanceTests(ST)
E Maint. Work Requests (MWR) L- !
CRAFT WORK ACTIVITY The Craft Work Activity Indicator shows the percentage of a t each craft (plant personnel only) performed during the month.ype Theofcrafts work that are represented in this indicator are Electrical Maintenance (EM),
General Maintenance (GM), Mechanical Maintenance (MM), Pressure Equipment (PE),andInstrumentationandControl(I&C).
WORK ACTIVITY (IN PERCENT)
CRAFT R MWO ,_y.Ng_ PM TRA CP ST MWR EM 4.71 41.96 7.66 14.98 22.68 0.00 8.01 0.00 GM 0.00 65.59 14.82 0.00 5.99 0.00 0.00 13.60 m 0.00 45.34 15.97 11.13 7.01 0.00 1.48 19.07 PE 4.74 65.91 13.83 10.16 5.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 I&C 9.60 32.02 5.78 9.80 15.76 15.87 11.17 0.00 Adverse Tred: None m -
.- .. 1
~ I
- Maintenance Overtime X 12 Month Average
-G- Fort Calhoun Goal 60-GOOD P ,
+
e \
\
rC 40- -
's e
n 'O -----& -----G-----G- - -- G-----G -----O -- --G---- G----- G----- C g .
\
I 20 X X x: P4 X X X X x X.
i 0-Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 4
Sep Oct Nov Dec l 1989 !,
MAINTENANCE OVERTIME j
' This indicator has been changed for the month of December, 1989. A Fort Calhoun goal and a 12 month i average for maintenance overtime have been added.
The Maintenance Overtime. Indicator monitors the ability '
to perfor1n the desired maintenance activities with the allotted resources. Excessive overtime indicates insufficient due to fatigue. resource allocation and can lead to errors The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was re December,1989. portedas 13.5% during the month of 4 The 12 month average percentage of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 16.0%.
The Fort Calhoun goal for 'the percent of maintenance i overtime hours worked has been set at 35% for non-outage months and 50% for outage months.
Adverse Trend: None
200-1 IIdentified Incidents
. . Incident Reports Opened E Incident Reports Closed u 80-m b .
e r
60-o f
I
" 40- '
i d -
' l t
n t 20- .,
m 0
_gJ, ' " -
1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct- Nov Dec j 1989 PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIAtCE-INCIDENTS (MAINTENANCE)
This indicator shows the number of procedural noncompliance IR's closed for the reporting month. This reporting method is due to the process in which IR's receive category codes. IR's receive their category code when they are being closed. This categorization method is being used to be consistent with the process in which Deficiency Reports (DR's) and Quality Reports - (QR's) are being closed.
During the month of December,1989,1 procedural' noncompliance IR involving maintenance was closed.
This indicator provides information on personnel performance for SafetyEnhancementProgram(SEP)ItemNo.15.
Adverse Trend: None ,
i 900-
- Open MWO's e- Fort Calhoun Goal 800-o 700-
"I .
N h 600- &----G- - --- - G -----& ---- G - - ---&- -- - G - -- --& - --- G -- - --&---- O e0 -
r' 500- -
400-300 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1989 1990 MAINTENANCE WORK ORDER BACKLOG (CORRECTIVENON-0UTAGEMAINTENANCE)
This indicator shows the number of corrective non-outage maintenance work orders that are open at the end of the reporting month.
The goal for this indicator is to have less than 600 corrective non-outage maintenance work orders remaining open. At the end of December, 1989, there were 521 corrective non-outage maintenance work orders remaining open.
This indicator was added to the Performance Indicators Report to trend Safety Enhancement Program (SEP)ItemNo.36.
Adverse Trend: None l
1 1
50-
. 40- -
q uf '
a a 30 bi i eI .
ru !
r o e 20-fs 10- -
0- - - - SN Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 NUMDER OF NUCLEAR PLANT RELIABILITY DATA SYSTEMS (NPRDS)
ItEPORTABLE FAILURES This indicator shows the total number of NPRDS .
component failures and the number of confirmed NPRDS component failures. The total number of NPRDS component failures is based upon the number i of failure reports sent to INP0. The number of l confirmed NPRDS component failures is based upon L
the number of failure reports that have been accepted by INPO. The difference of these two figures is the number of failure reports still under review by INPO.
During December, 1989, there was a total of 2 i confirmed NPRDS component failures. ;
Adverse Trend None l ,
I 100- ;
, - Hours Chemistry is Outside OG Guidelines
}
80- i H 60-o ;
l - !
- u r -
s 40-1 20-
! 0
- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1987 1.5- - Secondary System CPI
+- Secondary System CPI Limit '
i 1 +.....+......p....p.....+......+.....p......p....p......+......p.....+ '
C P l I
.5
~
. N ^
i 0' .>
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1988 -
800-
, - Hours Chemistry is Outside OG Guidelines 600-
+- Industry Upper Quartile H .
l o
u 400-I .
s :
200 3
o- --o-- --o ---o -o o o o o o o O
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec .
1988
- Secondary Systcm CPI
+- Secondary System CPI Limit 4- Industry Upper Quartile 1- -+----+---+---+---+---+----+----+----+----+--~~A-~~-"
g , GOOD
.36 1 +
.5- p N
E o o o- o o o- o o 0
'87 '88- Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 1988 1989 800-
- Hours Chemistry is Outside OG Guidelines 600-GOOD
$400- + ,
u ~
s !
200-
'87 0
'88 0
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug .Sep Oct Nov
\
1988 1989 SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY The top graph, Secondary System Chemistry Performance Index (CP! t ,
is a calculation based on the concentration of key impurities 'n the secondary side of the plant. These key impurities are the most likely cause of deterioration of the steam generators.-The monthly CPI is plotted relative to the EPRT chemistry limit for CPI. The CP1 was reported as 0.28 for the tench of November. The industry upper quartile value for this indicator is 0.20.
The bottom graph, Hours Chemistry is Outside Owners Guidelines, tracks the total hours of 13 parameters exceeding guidelines during power operation. In November,1989, there were zero hours outside owners grou) guidelines. The industry upper quartile value for this indicator s no longer available.
The above two chemistry indicatort are one month behind the reporting period due to the time 'nt -sd for data collection and ovaluation of the station chemistry data.
3,dverse T.r.gn_di: None
10-
- Primary System Chemistry Out of Limit 8-
)
P l e 6- !
r C .
e n4 i t :
i l
2- -
l .
l l
0 -
l Ji n Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1987 '
10-
- Primary System Chemistry Out of Limit ;
8- ,
P e 6- ,
r C -
e-n4 t
)
2-t 0 '
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct. Nov Dec 1988
- 10-
- Primary System Chemistry Out of Limit
\ ,
8-P 6- i
! GOOD ;
i n
+ i i
t 4- ,
3.0 l 2- l l0 r
0
'87 '88 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov '
1988 '
1989 PRINARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERCEN" 0F HOURS OUT OF LIMIT The Primary System Chemistry - Percent of Hours Out of Limit indicator tracks the '
primary system chemistry performance. by monitoring six key chemistry parameters.
The Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit was rer *ted as 0.0% for the month of November.10a equates to' all six parameters being out of limit for the month.
Adygtse Trend: None t
___..)
+ Auxiliary System Chemistry Out Of Liait !
4 - Industry Upper Quartile- !
100- !
O O O O O O O O O O -O O !
80- ,
i H 60- I o !
u -
r :
s 40- .
20 t
0 -
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1987 4
w Auxiliary System Chemistry Out Of Limit 4- Industry Upper Quartile 100-O O O
\
1 80-
\,
f
\
H 60- \
\
u -
t ,
, r \
L s 40- \
\ ,
\
20- \
D 0 0 0 0 O- O' O--O -
l.
t
! 0 . . . .
. A j Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1988 l
^
l w Auxiliary System Chemistry Out Of Limit
-<>- Industry Upper Quartile 40-GOOD
+
30-H o
u 20-r s
'O O O C
\
10- \\
\
0 0 C GMM O 4 O= 4
'87 '88 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 1988 1989 AUXILI ARY SYST EM ICCW1 CHD; STRY HOURS OU"SID ES"ATION L,1.TS I
The Auxiliary System Chemistry Hours Outside Station Limits indicator tracks the monthly hours that the Component Cooling Water (CCW) system is outside the. station chemistry limit. The above chemistry indicator is one month behind the reporting period due to the time needed for data collection and evaluation of the chemistry data for the station.
The auxiliary system chemistry hours outside station limits for the month of November, 1989 was reported as zero.
The industry ' upper quartile value for auxiliary systems chemistry hours outside station limits is 2.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. The ' Fort Calhoun Station is currently performing in the industry upper quartile for this area.
Adverse Trend: None
l E Number of Out-of-Service Instruments l 25 e- Fort Calhoun Goal 20-I Nn -
@+=
ME us E T ' '- -
1 b p .
. m eu -
Ei
' ~
rm 5 e 10- I- . ' -
on ".L ft .
.T E j s -- .
1:
5-
-([
m
- .t.._=
[p$ ...e.. ...e.....e.....e.....g.....e
=
1 1- .1 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 1989 1990 _
IN-LINE CHENISTRY INfTRUMENTS NT-0F-S ERVIC E This indicator shows the total number of in-line chemistry system instruments that are out-of-service at the end of the reporting month.
The chemistry systems involved in this indicator include the Secondary S Sampling System (PASS). ystem and the Post Accident At the end of December there were a total of 14 in-line chemistry instruments that were out-of-service. Nine of these instruments were from the Secondary System and five were from PASS.
The Fort Calhoun goal for the number of in-line chemistry system instruments that are out-of-service is 3.
Adverse Trend: None
9000-E Waste Oil Non-Halogenated Hazardous Waste Halogenated Hazardous Waste 7200-1 iOther Hazardous Waste K
i0 1 f 5400-o gW .
r a
- !3600-s' 1800-
~
0 o n. . l i . . Jul. . . . _ .. __
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Aug Sep Oct_ Nov Dec 1989 HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED This indicator shows the amount , of waste oil, non-halogenated hazardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous waste produced by Fort Calhoun each month.
During the month of December 26.9 kilograms of waste oil was produced, 0.0 kilograms of non-halogenated hazardous waste was produced, 15.1 kilograms of halogenated hazardous waste was. produced, and 0.0 kilograms of other hazardous waste was produced.
Adverse Trends None
5000, R Month j E Quarter
~
4000 l E Year j 3000, R "
E 2000 1000, O- -
1987 5000, ,
I iMonth
~
l E Quarter 4000 E Year 3000-m R _
E 1988
l
-5000-1 IMonth t Quarter OPPD I Year Limit ;
4000-1 1
3000- 1 a; )
R .
I E.
2000-November 1989-l NAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE e The Maximum Individual Radiation Exposure graph is one l l month behind the reporting period due to the lag time involved with. collecting and calculating the radiation exposure for the station.
..During November, 1989 an individual accumulated ~142
~m Rem which was the highest individual exposurecat. the.
Fort Calhoun Station for the month.
The maximum individual exposure so far for the fourth quarter of 1989 was-369 mrem.
The maximum individual exposure for.. the year so 'far
!. was 1149 mrem.
~ '
The maximum: accumulated 1988 in'dividur.1 exposure was \1 2,371. mrem,. received by a visiting- contractor during the refueling outage.
The " OPPD limit .for the maximum yearly: individual.
radiation-exposure i 4,500 mrem / year. 1 Adverse' Trend: 'None.
^
i t
I :- ._ .
a.- _ -~. a -~ a ~ 4 - a
3
.500-Monthly Contaminations-
- Cumulative Contaminations-400- + Industry Upper Quartile P
e 300-
.. r
{ s .
o
" 200-e-
1 100- ,C
, O. O 94 4 .c n -g g /
_ 9 0--- -
-Jan-t Feb; Mar ~ JApr May' Jun Jul. .- Aug Sep Oct Nov: Dec 1987 '
500 - Monthjy' Contaminations
- Cumulative Contaminations
-G- Fort Calhoun Goal-400-
+ Industry Upper' Quartile-p .
e r 300-s o .
n
".200-1 100- C O W-~C O 4-*4-
~~ ---G-- -G-~"+-
0 - ' - - MM Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1988 1
D Monthly Contaminations 5001
- Cumulative Contaminations G- Fort Calhoun Goal 400 nus[{pperQuarme 357 P e
r s 300-GOOD n
n 4
e 200-161 I O,-C O O & O 100- O v I
- e. -O-~~~O
- & * ** O ,,, g. -- & -
g,,,g ;
'87 '88 O " " "" - " " " " -
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 'Sep Oct. Nov Dec i
1989 8 i-TOTAL SKIN AND CLOTHING CONTAMINATIONS !
There was a total of 8 skin and clothing contaminations-reported for the Fort Calhoun Station during December. l
.1989. These contaminations consisted of 1 skin i contamination and 7 clothing contaminations.
There was . total of 157 skin and clothing contamination! in 1989., The 1989 goal for_ skin and clothing is 110 contaminations. i 1
The November, 1989, Performance Indicators Re> ort ;
stated that there ~ had been 114 skin and clot 11ng
- contaminations from January, 1985, through November, 1989. The actual number .of skin and clothing-3 contaminations from January through November was 149.
The industry upper quartile value for total skin and clothing contaminations is 129 per unit annually. .i This indicator provides - information on. l performance for safety Enhancement Program (personnelSEP) Item No. 15.
Adverse Trend: None l i
-i i
100- - Decontaminated Auxiliary Building
. -G- Fort Calhoun Goal a
80-
^
O O
-O O O O O. -O O O O \
e 60- -
r C -
e i
n 40- '
t 20-0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul -Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1987 e 100- - Decontaminated' Auxiliary Building I
-e- Fort Calhoun Goal 80-C d O O O O O 'O O O O O p
\ -
N_ _
e 60-r C -
e D
40-t 20-l 1
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1988 I
.1
.- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . . _- -. . ._. -~
- i l
- Decontaminated Auxiliary Building 100- I
. 4
'80- L
.I 60 e-n -
t j 40-
/\ l GOOD 20- -
. i 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec-1989 DECONTAMINATED AUXILIARY BUILDING This graph shows the percentage of - the auxiliary building which --is; decontaminated ' i (clean) based'onthetotal,squarefootage. t 5
As of December- 31, 1989, 83.6%. of the total' '
square-footage-.of the auxiliary building was. o decontaminated. '
Adverse Trend:~ None. ,
~!
i u_____. . . = . - - . -- --. . - - -- - - - .-
3 i
l l Monthly Radioactive Gas Discharged 800 - Cumulative Radioactive. Gas Discharged G- Cumulative Goal-600-C u
P e.-_-. e.--..e_..-_9 ....g ___' e.--.. e..._ e-._ 9 .. _.e._ ....e ....e j 400-i e
s -
1 f 1 200-j l' l 0 '
.i Jan Feb Mar. Apr. May Jun 2dul iAug 'Sep 'Oct Nov Dec ;
1988 ;
d I
- . i j
.- j
'I
=
i i f 1
l l
.- . j
)
1 l l Monthly Radioactive Gas Discharged
- Cumulative Radioactive Gas Discharged .
G- Cumulative Goal 785 800-GOOD 4 3 C 600- ,
u r
432 I 400-Is 200-e..__e_...e... g.___ e. e.. _ e.__.e....s....e.__.e... o 0
'87 '88 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -
1989 i
1
' GASEOUS RADIOACTIVE WASTE BEING DISCHARGED TO THE ENVIRONMlENT The gaseous radioactive waste .being l discharged to the environment is shown .for l 1989. A total of 51.3 ~ curies have been released to the environment from January
'through June of 1989. The Fort Calhoun
~ Station goal is 145 curies- for this indicator.
! The gaseous radioactive waste - being: -
discharged. to the environment is calculated i every six months.
( Adverse Trend: None u
l t
I l
l t
. .. 4 j
I 1
l l
i l- l Monthly Radioactive Liquid Discharged 400- - Cumulative Radioactive Liquid Discharged !
G- Cumulative Goal--
3 300-u
^
- r. 200-
. O - -- G -----O----- G - ----G----- G -- ---O----- G -----G--- v ---- v--
i-e -
.100-
-0 ' 'I !' 'I I' ' ' F I Jan Feb. Mar- Apr May Jun Jul Aug .Sep Oct Nov.. Dec 1988 l
-200-B o .
i
'i f i
1G 150-
. I aE .
i'l f ,
l-; o 1 f 100-
- i. no1 '
L s nu se 50-o n f t l 0 I II II Il II II II 'l l I '
' Jan Feb - Mar Apr May Jun Jul- 'Aug Sep Oct Nov~ 'Dec !
-1988 e .
i a
4
- i. .
i-t e , , +
I IMonthly Radioactive Liquid Discharged
- Cumulative Radioactive Liquid Discharged G- Cumulative Goal 228 231 400-180 C 300- G-G-- O-O - -e-e-e-G-O u
r GOOD i 200-I e- + ;
100-
'86 '8F '88 0
' [I ' I-Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 192 g a 200-i f-132 1fE i1f II o1 f 100-no1 snu se 50-o n f t o I li it il I
'86 '87 '88 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 LIOUID RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE BEING DISCHARGED TO THE ENVIRONMENT The liquid radioactive waste being ' discharged. to the environment is shown . for 1989. The liquid radioactive waste that was discharged to the environment totaled 78.8 curies and 83.7 billions ,
of gallont of liquid effluent (radioactive liquid i l-waste plus dilution = water) - from January through ,
June 1989.
.The high amount. of waste that was discharged l during the month of May was due to the dilution of t
coolant for .the maintenance - outage - that occurred
! in May. The Fort Calhoun Station goal for .1989 is l> 320 curies.
The liquid radioactive ~ waste being discharged to the environment is calculated every six months. ;
Adverse Trend: None i
=-. _ _ . - - . - - _ _ - . _ . _ _
p s, . ..
U.
i.
l L -+- Security Loggable/ Reportable Incidents l-L -
50 <
u 40 l m '
b e
l r
30 1 o '
-f l I i n 20 c
i 10
-t s
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May- Jun Jul Aug Sep .0ct Nov' Dec 1989' LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDEHLS, (SECURITY)-
The Loggable/ Reportable L Incidents (Security) Indicator shows : the total
, number Vehicles of (loggable/
LDV's), inattentiv'e reportable security incidentsofficers,1 concerning -Licensee security DesignatedL badges, o securit '
month. y key control, escorting, and access . control for the- reporting During the month - of December,1989, .there- were 12: loggable/ reportable-incidents identified. Secur1ty" Badge -incidents continue ;to occur. In.
December, 1989, ' all 5 incidents- were' the result ofi . lost / unattended badges. Key control and escort = control incidents declined ~ during the month as ea result of increased emphasis in those ' areas. Continued; -
heightened - awareness of access control -proc'edures by Security: 0fficers at the vehicle / personnel search portals resulted -in additional seizures of. contraband.
This indicator provides information on security performance for Safety ;
Enhancement Program (SEP) Item No. 58.
Adverse Trend:' None n
1
?
l LicenseeDesignatedVehicles(LDV) ]
lill Inattentive Security Officer l l l Security Badges Security Key Control iii!!!ili Escorting Access Control
- V e ; ,
, [
l
- l b j i '
b
-I 1
i SECURITY INCIDENT BREAKDOWN t
'This indicator shows the ' percentage of incidents concerning the -following items for the reporting month. These itemsiinclude; Licensee Designated Vehicles (LDV's), inattentive-security officers, security badges,. security L
-key control, escorting, and access control.
Security Items Number of Incidents '
i NOV 1989 DEC 1989 LicenseeDesignatedVehicles(LDV's) 0 '1 l-Inattentive Security Officers 0 0 Security Badges 4 5 l
-Security Key Control 4' .1 Escorting 4 :2 Access Control 4 3 :
Tota? 16 -12 This indicator provides information ' on sei,urity performance:. for Safety -
Enhancement Program (SEP) Item No.: 58.
Adverse Trend: None
(
t L
- c. ..
1
--l
- Amount of Work On Hold Awaiting. Parts 10
-I P
e 6- \
r C
e n 4-
.t .
i 2- _-
O Jan Feb Mar. Apr May Jun' Jul Aug- Sep Oct 1 - Nov s.- j 1988- i 4
l
'l
-1
15-
- Amount of Work On Hold Awaiting Partr
^12 -
I GOOD P 9-' +
e.
.r C -
e n i t 6- '
3-oj l
0 -
5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul- 'Aug Sep Oct =Nov Dec 1989 1 AMOUNT OF' WORK ON HOLD AWh1 TING PARTS i (NON-0UTAGE) -)
This procurement indicator displays the !
amount of open, non-outage, maintenance items that are on hold awaiting parts, to the total amount of open,. non-outage,- .i maintenance items, expressed as a '
percentage.
i The. percentage of work on hold a,,aiting ,
parts increased to.7.1% in December.
As of December 31, 1989, there ' were a total of 1,155 open....non-outage, maintenance items with 83 of these items on hold awaiting-parts.
Adverse Trend: The increase inz the ,
percentage of work on hold awaiting parts was due - to the inventory and -shelf life inspections which took place; during December.
-__ _ _ _ _ _ _.....__.. .... . - . . --- - -- i J
l'
.8-
. - Spare Parts Inventory Value i
i L 1 1
.i 07 ,
n S-0 *
.f _
D'6- y
- 1 L -- 1
- a -
r S
5 Jan -Feb -Mar
-Apr May Jun _Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec' 1987
- g. -- Spare Parts Inventory Value-t
-M i '
1
'1-i t
- 7- i n '
S N
, f I
D ,!
o 6-1
-1.
a r
s 5
Jan Feb; Mar Apr May Jun~ :Jul Aug, Sep. Oct Nov' Dec 1 1988
10-
- Spare Parts Inventory Value M
i- 9-
,1 o
f o '
f D 7 o
1 1 .
s 6-1 5
Jan Feb Mar Apr. May >Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 'Dec 1989 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE
.The spare parts' inventory value at the Fort-Calhoun - Station at the end of December, !
1989 was reported as $7,733,400.
i
' Adverse Trend: None l,
'I i
1
.___.-___-l-------------
4- g-500-
- Spare Parts Issued T' -
'h.
0 400-s a
n d 300-s o
i 200-D.
~
O
'l
.1 100- '
a r -
s 0
Jar. Feb Mar- Apr May- Jun Jul Aug .Sep Oct Nov' Dec 1987.
500 T - Spare Parts Issued h
o u 400-s a .
n f300-o --
f 200-D o -
1 1 100 -
r '
s 0
.Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun' Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec '
1988 o -i i
500-
~
- Spare Parts Issued
- f. .
o u 400- i s )
a -
l n !
-d 300- l s
.o.
f-200- 3 D
o 1 -
1 100-a r .;
s !
O l Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 'Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989-i
. i l
SPARE PARTS ISSUED-The value of the spare parts issued during . '
December, 1989, totaled $130,474. 4 Adverse Trend: None 4
l l
o
700- - Total Modification Packages Open 600-N 500-400-300-200 Jan Feb Mar _Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1987 700- !
- Total Modification Packages Open '
600-500- i
-l 400- ,
300- i 200 --
Jan Feb Mar -Apr May Jun Jul -Aug Sep Oct Dec Nov. ,
1988 j
u
y .
1 700-
- Total Modification Packages Open 640 l-600-1 L
500- .!
425 __
II400-300-
{
200
'86 '87 '88 Jan Feb. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 i
OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS
-The total number of outstanding modifications increased by 7 during the month of-December. !
CATEGORY-
~
OCT'- M NOV ' 89 gC.,,,,31 Form FC-1133 Backlog /In Progress 64 -63 66 Mod Requests Being' Reviewed -133- 127- 128 Design Engr. Backlog 0 0 0 ;
Design Engr. In-Progresr, 99 96. 95 Construction Backlog /In Progress 53- l 63 66 e Desian Enar. Undate Backloo/In Proaress Total E J' . ],Q q 416L --418 425L 1
- - 1 As-of the end of November, 83 additional modification requests ~have '
-been issued this, year.: The Nuclear Projects Review Committee (NPRC):
has completed 468 backlog modification request reviews, this year.
The Nuclear Projects Committee- (NPC) has completed 353~ backlog-modification request reviews this year. The number of- reviews completed :is high due to -the fact that some of these reviews were
-reviewed more than once. ,
Adverse: Trend None 4 3.
1 g
a
, .- ,1 60-l Temporary Electrical-Modifications 6-' Temporary Mechanical = Modifications o
Nd u'i 40- '
mf b is ec -
ra 4 ,
i fo n' A b ---'h i s -^ - 6----- A L ---b ~~~.-g. -b-----b ~~ ~$ ----g.- --h ~ ~~-g---
'f 0 T Jan Feb' : Mar Apr' fay' Junl Ju1 ~' Aug Sep . 0ct- .Nov Dec- -
1987 !
-+- Temporary Electrical Modifications M : 80- 6 Temporary Mechanical Modifications ,
o .
Nd '
u i 60- - ' -
mf 31
, [ l l : :
e c 40-ra .
,,s-----s- . -.g -
-b------h------s o 20 -g- -& - ~S-----O' fa _
g----- s n
s-0 <
l Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun. Jul Aug Sep Oct1 NovL Dec-L 1988 M 40-o I IYear End,1988 Nd L- u i 30-L-
mf '
bi :
e c 20- i ra .
t l o i 10- l t fo -
n L s0 '
I 0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 > 12 Age in Months' ,
t
, ,,-y g
- Tcaporary Electrical Modifications
.M 40-~ '
.6- Temporary Mechanical Modifications __
Nd ...-6.., ,,J.g' 30- '
,,,3... ,,,,,,,,f,,,
e c 20-ra W. ' 1 of10-fo
" 0 5- Apr' 4 Jan Feb- Mar May Jun Jul Aug. Sep. Oct Nov Dec.
1989 !
October 1989 i, N " November.1989 30 Nd l IDecember 1989 -
u'i i mf 20-bi .
ec s 0- --
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 > 12 ;!
Age in Months TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS (EXCLUDING SCAFFOLDING) o The. top graph, Number of Temoorary Modifications, displays a monthly. trend of-installed electrical and mechanical 1 temporary modifications.- There was a 'u'l total of 30: electrical jumpers and 38 temporary mechanical' jumpers existing. . .
in the Fort Calhoun Station at the- end of December,- 1989. The bottom graph,. i Aae of Temoorary Modificatio1s, displays. the age of.c all electrical and mechanical temporary modificat<ons by months installed.in the plant.- '
(
- l. This indicator monitors performance for. Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Item
[ 71.
Adverse Trend:
Temporary modifications continue to increase!due to the agej j
of the plant, ' discovery .of- design basis discrepancies, the ' length 'ofc time- -
required to resolve design discrepancies, and the need for outage conditions to resolve many items' currently being satisfied with- temporary ,
modifications.- The . decrease in the number of temporary modifications 0 is-expected- due to greater awareness and . control ofs the number. and - types. of' temporary modifications currently in the plant. New procedures, . such as GEI-60, are also being established to decrease the number- of- temporary, '
modifications.
-t
i 112-' i
- Recordable Injury Cases Frequency Rate 10-F r
- 8- 4 u .
e-' *
"C . 6- .
y -
R4 '
a t- -
e 2- !
O Jan t Feb- Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep. Oct Nov Dec 1987 i
12- ,
- Recordable Injury Cases Frequency. Rate-10- i F !
r e
q 8- <
l .u .
e n
c 6-y -
'R: 4- i a-t >
2
'O Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 'Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov- Dec 1988 l'
it
12 - Recordable Injury Cases Frequency Rate 10- -
F [
r e 8- -
-q <
u .
e-n 6-c y .
GOOD .
t R
4-k a
t 2.8 'e .
2-
.1.2II.9 I
- ' 86L '87 '88 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 'Aug .Sep Oct Nov Dec:
Rates'for 1986, 1987 1989 and-1988 show the-year-to-date' rate-for the month of December '
RECORDABLE' INJURY CASES FREOUENCY RATE A recordable injury case is reported if Nuclear Production Division-personnel are injured on the job and . require . corrective medical q
treatment. The recordable cases frequency - rate . is ' computed on a ;
year-to-date basis.
There was 1 recordable injury case: reported for the month of" December. There have been a total of 11' recordable Linjury cases .so-.
far in 1989. One recordable injury was reported - for the month ;of March, 1 recordable injury was reported for the Dmonth of May, : 2 l recordable injuries were reported for the month"of June.J4' recordable injuries were-reported for the month of Au
- were reported for. the month of September,'
andgust, 2 recordable injuries-1 recordabletinjury was:
reported for the. month of December.
There were eleven recordable cases reported in- 1988, eight reported.
in 1987, and four reported in.1986. The year? end recordable injury '
frequency- rates for 1986, 1987, and : 1988 were 1.6, ' 2.5, and 2.6 :
respectively.
This indicator provides -information on personnel performance for --
SafetyEnhancementProgram(SEP)ItemNo.15andSEPItem.26.
t Adverse Trend: None
- ,7 - g -,!
50-Licensee Event Reports
- Cumulative Licensee Event Reports l
40-30-3 \
20-
.i 10-i 0 " "
Jan' Feb- Mar. 'Apr May Jun- Jul Aug Sep Oct .Nov -Dec 1987 M' Licensee Event Reports- , f 50-R Personnel Errors Reported in LERs !
. - Cumulative. Licensee Event-Reports Cumulative Personnel Errors Reported in LERs 40-t 30-
.j 20- j
/
10-
/ '~, , f ~~ ,,
,, 7 _l 0
Jan Feb- Mar Apr May' Jun Jul Aug' Sep Oct Nov Dec- 1 1988 t
-..i-n . - - - - - - - - - - -
- - . E .- -
2 6
,,, %[
xxxxx,/////s% %TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4 p4, p,,,,,Y /Q,/ ;
1 1.0 EmEn 5! NEE l-l E u
= laa
!!!!!!!=
l.25 1.4 '
l.6 l
< 150mm >
< 6" >
4 % ,, / 4%
- ?Rp h//// _ _ ,; = = < g , _ _ %,,h.;,$
p,p WEBSTER NE YORK 14580 (716) 265 1600
7-- '
,;. ;w .
- 7. ,
h' E! k .
p ._, Licensee Event Reports I -l Personnel Errors Reported in LERs
, - Cumulative Licensee Event Reports
- l. Cumulative Personnel-Errors Reported in LERs
- .- 50-46
39' 40 30-26 1
L 20-l 10- -
f }
5 s' 0- - '
'86 '87 '88 Jan Feb- Mar .Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct- Nov Dec 1989 4
.i NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ERRORS REPORTED IN LER'S
-l The Licensee Event Reports (LERs) are reported for the month that they are submitted to the NRC. 3 y
In December, 1989 there were 2 LERs . submitted. j There was one LER attributable to personnel error.
There have been 31 LERs reported so far in 1989 'i with only 12 attributable to personnel errors.
This indicator provides information on personnel I performance for - Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) 1 Item No. 15.
Adverse Trend: None
)
f;, :,
y W
I INuclear Divisions Turnover Rate
- OPPD Corporate Turnover Rate j
s
, i 5'
- j
-T 4- i u-
- r. . ,
n-G. 3-y *
- g. .
r 2-
'R.
a -
t l- ,
e 1 i
O Nuclear Operations Production Engineering Quality Division Division and Environmental
!. Affairs ,
L:
PERSONNEL TURNOVER RATE ;
The turnover rate for three Nuclear t Divisions is shown for the last twelve months.
The personnel turnover rate is plotted against the OPPD corporate turnover rate of 4.0%. This OPPD corporate turnover rate is
. based on the turnover rate over the last three years.
1 Adverse Trend: None i
4
]
4 1
v + _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
~~ ~
4 p: . - ;. i.
t 600- W Actual Staffing 537 I IAuthorized Staffing 533 1
P 400-e r
s o -
n n
e 210 203 1 200-l l
48 45 ;
I 0- .
l Nuclear Operations Production Engineering Quality Division Division and Environmental 1 Affairs I l
i STAFFING LEVEL The authorized and actual staffing levels
- . are shown for the three Nuclear Divisions.
Adverse Trend: None l
1 I
l l
1 i
L !-
L
,. , t
. I i SR0 Initial Exam -
kW SRO Requalification Exam 100-80-p .
60-s R
a t 40-i 0 .
20-l I 0' 1987 1988 1989
- l. SR0 LICENSE EXAMINATION PASS RATIO There were zero Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) exams taken during December.
OPPD ADMINISTERED NRC ADMINISTERED Requal Exam Initial Exam Requal Exam DATE % PASS RATIO % PASS RATIO % PASS RATIO March 87 -
100 100 June 87 - -
100 l 1
i February 88 80 - -
l l March 88 100 100 67 l April 88 100 - - ;
July 88 -
100 -
l April 89 - -
67 May 89 100 - -
September 89 - - -
October 89 -
100 -
Adverse Trend: None l
e rg ,
-i i i RO Initial Exam
^ R0 Requalification Exam j 100-80- 1 J
P a 60-
. s
. s. ,
R a
40- 3 i
o -
20 No Requal L Exams l Taken t 0 - - . - - . . . -
1987 1988 1989
. R0 LICENSE EXAMINATION PASS RATIO l
There were zero Reactor Operator (RO) exams taken in December.
OPPD ADMINISTERED NRC ADMINISTERED Requal. Exam Initial Exam Requal Exam DATE- % PASS RATIO % PASS RATIO % PASS RATIO June 87- -
100 -
l
. February 88 100 - -
March 88 100 100 100 July 88 -
100 -
April 89 -
100 100 May 89 100 - -
September 89 - - -
October 89 - - -
l Adverse Trend: None ,
l l
l I
4 . .
.E 20-Mr R0 Hot License Exams' Administered l- IR0 Hot License Exams Passed -
N u 15-m' b
e r
010-f
'E x-a-
l- '
m 5-
- s-
-0 Jan- Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 i
i R0 HOT LICENSE EXA]iS, -
- The R0 Hot License Exams indicator shows the number of R0 Hot License exams or quizzes taken and passed each month.- l During the.' month of December, 1989, zero exams were administered.
Adverse Trend: None ;
1
)
j s ,_ .:-
V vg,
!!!!! Hotlines Initiated- '
50-
~
Hotlines Closed
,; E _Hotlines Open Under 4_ Weeks v.
45-Hotlines Open Over 4 Weeks N*
'u 40-
-m
' b 35- #
e-P '
30-o >
f 25- -
3
^
H 39 @ ,
o I t E E!
l 1.15- :: E
}
l- i jj i; =; y .
1
" 10-g j ; ;< j j Q % ij, lld, n[ .lisl&ljl4. lll.J llkilu [lgL
'Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov- Dec ,
1989 1
HOTLINES
, This indicator shows the number of Hotlines-l-
initiated during 'the reporting month, the -
number of Hotlines closed during the H reporting month, the number of Hotlines that remain open and are less than- four weeks old, and the number of Hotlines that remain 3 open and are older than four weeks old.
During the month of December, 1989, there were 10 Hotlines initiated, 18 Hotlines closed, 2 Hotlines that remained open and i
were less than four weeks old, and 2 Hotlines that remained open and was older .I than four weeks old.
Adverse Trend: None l
w
+ 1
.4-
@jPlannedClassroomHours '
I IActuel Classroom Hours T ,
h=
3 ,- ,
h - -
s a #
j )_ i w' $
} _
s 2- Ei -
f 3 E f I h
9 v H $
o u l-s fg -
f g;
r jg }
( .
s 2 -t r .
g .
{
- =
- b I '
O s Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 CLASSROOM (INSTRUCTOR) HOURS This indicator displays the number of planned classroom hours and the number of actual classroom hours for the Fort Calhoun Station.
The planned classroom hours for January and February are low because Maintenance and General Employee Training were not figured into the schedule for these months.
This indicator is one month behind the reporting month due to the time to collect and process the L needed information.
l Adverse Trend: None l' j L i 1
y-R Operations' 25- Illi Maintenance Chemistry and Radiation. Protection Technical Support
- !$!: General Employee Training T 20- Other h
o u
-s a
15-n 1 1i r8
$!!!!!!! l u .....
s l Jl g
_p ... _. . --
5 --
..=
O Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 TOTAL HOURS OF STUDENT TRAINING 1
l This indicator shows the total number of student hours for Operations, ,
L . Maintenance, Chemistry and Radiation Protection, Technical Support, General Employee Training, and Other training conducted for the Fort Calhoun Station.
This indicator is ona month behind the reporting month due to the time l needed to collect an4 evaluate the data. '
Total Hours TRAINING OCT 1989 NOV 1989 i
, Operations 3,088 2,395 Maintenance 2,645 1,775 l Chemistry and 2,993 2,463 Radiation Protection Technical Support 4,368 3,714 ,
, General Employee Training 2,330 2,833 !
Other 141 426 Total l 15,565 13,606 Adverse Trend: None 1
l l
l l
-,- y
,J, 4
- Violations per 1000 Inspection Hours G- Fort Calhoun Goal 15-
\
12- 1 9- - O--- - G----- O ---- -----G----- e----- e -----e-- ----s----- e -----s---- e i
6-l
- j. -
l L- 3-i l
l !
O Jan Teb Mar- Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct No.v Dec 1988
\; ;l
- -1 1
-1 1
i 1
i l..
l -:
1 i
1
-99 1
- p ..;
[-
4
- Violations per 1000 Inspection Hours
-G- Fort Calhoun Goal
. 34 15-GOOD 10.'6 +
c 9- g._ _ _ , _ _ _
_ __ _g __ _9_ _ _9_ __ gl___
%, _ _ __,_,_g 6-3-
q 0
- '86 '87 '88 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep' Oct Nov Dec 1989 VIOLATIONS PER 1000 INSPECTION HOURS This indicator displays the number of NRC violations cited in inspection reports per 1000 NRC inspection j hours. This indicator was calculated using the -
number of violations and the number of inspection hours from the months of December, 1988, through !
November, 1989.
This indicator is one month behind the re)orting month due to the time involved with collect ng and processing the data.
The violations per 1000 inspection hours indicator '
was reported as 7.7 for the month of November, 1989.
There were 3 violations cited for the month of !
November. There have been a total of 30 violations cited with 3,877 inspection hours in 1989. l The goal for the number of violations per 1000 inspection hours is less than 8.6.
Adverse Trend: None
-100-
n -
+- 2003
- Total Outstanding 'DR/QR's ]
Outstanding DR/QR's:> Six Months Old .
150- !
f D i
.R- lf
- / 100- !
Q ;
50-(
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec j
1987
.r 200- -
- Total Outstanding DR/QR's
- v Outstanding DR/QR's > Six Months Old 150- ;
t i
R -
/ 100-Q R
e Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1988
-101-
. +
t ,
- Total' Outstanding DR/QR's ,
. Outstanding DR/QR's > Six Months Old Outstanding DR/QR's That Are Modification Related -
200- ,
150-D R .- -
I ,
Q L R:100-e 0
L Jan Feb Mar Apr. May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l 1989 L OUTSTANDING DEFICIENCY AND OUALITY REPORTS -
This indicator shows the total number of outstanding - Deficiency and Quality Reports (DR/QR's), the number of outstanding DR/QR's that are greater than six months old, and the ~
number of outstanding DR/QR's that are modification related.
As - of the end of December, 1989 there were i 175 outstanding DR/QR's reports, 60 DR/QR's
- that are greater than six months old, and 10 DR/QR's that are modification related. .
Adverse Trend: None
-102-l l
l ,.
1988 1989' OPPD- SIGNIFICART NRC OPPD SIGNIFICANT NRC-SALP FUNCTIONAL AREA FR/0R DR/0R VIOLATIONS LER'S DR/0R DR/0R ' VIOLATIONS LER'S :.=
A. Plant Operations 38 1 8 11 11 (8) 0 8.-(1) 2; B. Radiological Controls 53 0 5 1 30 (6) 1 2 (1) 1_
C. Maintenance / 58 2 3 16 140 (17) 8 (1) 2 (1)' '10 Surveillance l
D. Emergency 11 0 0 1 8 0 0 .0 Preparedness E. Security 49 0 10 11 26 2 6- 10 (1)
F. Engineering / 30 1 2 3 134 (28) 2 6 7 (1):
Technical i Support G. Safety Assessment / 110 0 10 3 68 (1) 0 'I O Quality Verification
,' H. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tctal 349 4 38 46 417 (60) 13 (1) 25 (3) 31 (2)
DR/0R'S ISSUED VERSUS SIGNIFICANT DR/0R'S VERSUS MRC VIOLATIONS ISSUED VERSUS LER'S REPORTE_D_
The above matrix shows the number of Deficiency Reports (DR's) and Quality Reports (QR's) issued by the Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs Division ~ versus the number of Significant DR/QR's . issued by the Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs Division versus-the number of violations issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the Fort Calhoun Station in 1988 and 1989. Included in tnis table is the number of Licensee Event Reports (LER's) issued by the. station each year. The number of NRC violations reported are one month behind the reporting month due to the time involved in collecting
^
and processing the violations.
In December,1989, there were 60 DR/QR's issued,1 Significant DR/QR issued, and 2 LER's -
issued. During November 3 NRC violations were issued. The monthly distribution of DR/QR's, Significant DR/QR's, NRC violations, and LER's are shown in parentheses.
This indicator monitors performance for. Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Items 20 and 21.
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ __ -- - _ ~ ~- _-_ - . . - - -.
Q, ,.
ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT HISTORY Escalated enforcement includes ' level III, II, and I violations issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission for deficiencies i discovered at the Fort Calhoun Station. Escaltted enforcement also i includes civil penalties which are usually assessed with level III J and higher violations. Listed below is the escalated enforcement l history for the Fort Calhoun Station.
l ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT
- 1. February 1985 Site Security Multiple Level IV and V Violations that were escalated to a Level III.
A civil penalty of $21,425 was assessed.
- 2. April 1986 Qualification of Electrical Penetrations - Level III Violation.
No civil penalty was assessed.
- 3. May 1986 Radiological Protection _ - Level III Violation.
No civil penalty was assessed. .
- 4. December 1986 Physical Security - Level IV Violation.
A civil penalty of $15,000 was assessed. .
- 5. January 1987 Lack of Adequate Safety Evaluation for Emergency ,
Modification - Level III Violation.
A civil penalty of $50,000 was assessed.
- 6. January 1988 Unlocked High Radiation Doors and Lack of Health Physics Coverage to very High Radiation Areas -
Level III Violation.
A' civil penalty of $75,000 was assessed.
l 6
- 7. February 1988 Design Evaluation, Design Implementation and Classification / Reporting, ' and Corrective Action of Water Intrusion into the Instrument Air System - 3 Level III Violations.
A civil penalty of $175,000 was assessed.
- 8. May 1988 Unlocked Very High Radiation Door and ,
deficiencies identified in the Radiological Protection Program - 2 Level III Violations.
A civil penalty of $112,500 was assessed.
l
-104-i
L l
ESCALATEDENFORCEMENTHISTORY(CONTINUED)
ESCALATED ENFORCEMENT i
- 9. October 1988 A missing cap on a 3/8' inch containment line, SIRWT check valve test failures, and Safety-Analysis for Operability - Level III violation.
A civil penalty of $50,000 was assessed. *
- 10. October 1988 Errors in Cycle 11 Setpoint Analysis and incorrect information submitted in a response.
No civil penalty was assessed.
- 11. November 1989 Two instances of safeguards documents left unattended outside the plant's protected area. Instances of inadequate package and vehicle searches. Inadequate measures to compensate for degraded security systems - Level III violation. A civil penalty of $25,000 was assessed. ;
- 12. November 1989 Inadequate testing of a turbine driven auxiliary feedwater-pump - Level III violation. No civil penalty was assessed. -
-105-
.~
ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES AND MANAGEMENT MEETINGS Enforcement conferences ;are held with the NRC on potential higher level violations. Listed below are the recent enforcement conferences and j management meetings held with the NRC. '
RECENT ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES AND MANAGEMENT MEETINGS
- 1. August 1988 Two management meetings were held with the NRC -
in August. One meeting was held to discuss the security program while another meeting was held on -
the OPPD independent appraisal results.
y,
- 2. October 1988 Two management meetings were held with the NRC-in October. One meeting was held concerning the security-program while another meeting was held . to discuss the ;
training program and the radiation protection program. c
- 3. November 1988 Two mana meetings were held with the NRC . in r
November. gement One meeting was held concerning the Safety i Enhancement Program while another was held to discuss Decay Heat Removal.
- 4. January 1989 One management meeting was held with the NRC in January.
This meeting was held concerning the new Site Security Plan.
- 5. February 1989 One Enforcement Conference was held with the NRC in February. This Enforcement Conference was held l concerning the Radiological Protection Program.
- 6. February 1989 One management meeting was held with the NRC in February. This management meeting was held concerning.
the Safety Enhancement Program.
- 7. April 1989 One Enforcement Conference was held with the NRC in April. This Enforcement Conference was held concerning Security.
- 8. May 1989 One management meeting was held with the NRC in May.
This management meeting was held concerning the Safety Enhancement Program.
l 9. July 1989 One Enforcement Conference was held with the NRC -in July. This Enforcement Conference was held concerning auxiliary feedwater pump FW-10 controller operability.
t 10. August 1989 One Enforcement Conference was held with the NRC in
! August. This Enforcement Conference was held concerning various security problems.
l-1 -106-
).
~
i t l__
' ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCES AND' MANAGEMENT MEETINGS (CONTINUED)
-11.' September 1989. Two management meetings were held with the NRC in September. One management meeting was held .;
r concerning the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP). The -Q i i:- other management meeting concerned the Committee -
c- ReviewofGenericRequirements(CRGR). !
9 s
c a
1~
I
-107-
Q > l~
SIGNIFICANT ITEMS OF INTEREST
^
This section is intended to provide information on events which'are significant to the Fort Calhoun Station and will give a " heads-up" t look at what'is scheduled!in the coming months. ;
The Fort Calhoun Station went critical on January 29, 1989 at 9:27 a.m. following the 1988 Refueling Outage. . ,
- The Fort Calhoun Station went on-line on January 31, 1989 at 4:46 p.m. following the 1988 Refueling. !
Outage.-
The 1990 refueling outage is scheduled for February, 15,-1990 through March 14, 1990.
An INP0 Assist Visit concerning Outage Management is i planned for March 12 through March 24, 1990.
The NRC Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) inspection is scheduled for April, 1990.
The 1990 INP0 Plant Assessment is seneduled to start on June 18, 1990.
F 1 Y 1
l -108-l t
FORT.CALHOUN PERFORMANCE' PARAMETER DEFINITIONS 1
-AGE OF OUTSTANDING MAINTENANCE WORK ORDERS l This indicator tracks the total number of outstanding corrective non-outage Maintenance Work Orders at the Fort Calhoun Station versus their age in months.
AMOUNT OF WORK ON HOLD AWAITING PARTS-This indicator is defined as the percentage of open, non-outage, maintenance work orders that are on hold awaiting parts, to the total number.of open, non-outage, maintenance work orders.
AUXILIARY SYSTEMS CHEMISTP.Y HOURS OUTSIDE STATION LIMITS The cumulative hours that the Component Cooling Water system is outside the station chemistry limit. The hours are accumulated from the first samale exceeding the limit until additional sampling shows the parameter to be back with n limits.
CLASSROOM (INSTRUCTOR) HOURS The number of planned classroom hours and the number of actual classroom ,
hours for the Fort Calhoun Station.
CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG GREATER THAN 3 MONTHS OLD The percentage of total outstanding corrective maintenance items, not requiring an outage, that are greater than three months old at the end of the period reported.
CRAFT WORK ACTIVITY The percentage of a type of work performed by each craft during the reported month involving plant personnel.
DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT The daily core thermal output as measured from computer point XC105 in thermal megaw tts.
DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY A Diesel Generator (DG) unit consists of the engine, generator, combustion air system, cooling water system, fuel supply system, lubricating oil system, starting air system, autostart controls, manual controls, and diesel generator breaker.
Reliability of each DG unit will be reported for two situations, one for the last 20 demands and one for the last 100 demands. Reliability is the ratio of the number of successful runs to the number of demands, for each individual DG unit.
-109-
TORTCAul0VNPERE0RMANCEPARAMETERDEFINITf0NS(CONTINUED) i DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (CONTINUED)
A successful run is defined as a start of a DG unit and the loading of this unit to a minimum of 50% rated load (1250 KW) for a minimum time period of 60 minutes.
A failure'is defined as- the failure to start, accelerate, and assume the design rated load for the given time period as specified for an emergency or a valid test.
The total number of demands (or valid tests) will be equal to the sum of the failures and the successful runs. .
This definition of DG Reliability was taken .from the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission " Regulatory Guide 1.108, Revision 1". This is the definition being applied in calculating the diesel generator. reliability at the Fort Calhoun Station. '
DISABLING INJURY FRE0VENCY RATE (LOST TIME ACCIDENT RATE)
This indicator is defined as the number of accidents for all utility personnel permanently assigned to the station, involving days away from work per 200,000 man-hours worked (100 man-years).-This does not include contractor personnel. This indicator tracks personnel performance for ,
SafetyEnhancementProgram(SEP) Item 26.
DOCUMENT REVIEW (BIENNIAL)
'The Document Review Indicator shows the number of documents reviewed during the reporting month, the number of documents scheduled for review i
during the reporting month, and the number of document reviews that are overdue.
L E0VIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1000 CRITICAL HOURS L Equipment forced outages per 1000 critical hours is the inverse of the l mean time between forced outages caused by equipment failures. The mean time is equal to the number of hours the reactor is critical in a period (1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br />) divided by the number of forced outages caused by equipment failures in that period.
I E0VIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR This indicator is defined as the ratio of gross available generation to gross maximum generation, expressed as a percentage. Available generation is the energy that can be produced if the unit is operated at the maximum power level permitted by equipment and regulatory limitations. Maximum generation is the energy that can be produced by a unit in a given period if operated continuously at maximum capacity.
-110- ,
l
if( ,
, 1 FORTCALHOUNPERFORMANCEPARAMETERDEFINITIONS(CONTINUED) l FORCED OUTAGE RATE I
This indicator is defined as the percentage of time that the unit was ,
unavailable due to forced events compared to the time planned for I
electrical generation. Forced events are failures or other unplanned i conditions-that require removing the unit-from service before the end of I the next weekend. Forced events include startup failures and events initiated while the unit is in reserve shutdown (i.e., the unit is available but not in service.
FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR This indicator is defined as the steady-state primary coolant I-131 activity, corrected for the tram). uranium contribution and normalized to a common purification rate.
Tramp uranium is fuel-'which has been deposited on reactor core internals l from previous defective fuel or is present on the surface of fuel elements from the manufacturing process.
Steady state is defined as continuous operations above 85 percent power for at least seven days.
GASEOUS RADIOACTIVE WASTE BEING DISCHARGED TO THE ENVIRONMENT
! This indicator displays the total number of Curies of all gaseous
! radioactive nuclides released from the Fort Calhoun Station, i
i GROSS HEAT RATE Gross heat rate is defined as the ratio of total thermal energy in l British Thermal Units (BTV) produced by the reactor to the total gross electrical energy produced by the generator in kilowatt-hours (KWH).
HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED 1
l The . amount (in Kilograms) of waste oil, non-halogenated hazardous waste, l halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous waste produced by the Fort Calhoun Station each month.
HOTLINES The number of Hotlines that are initiated, closed, overdue, and open for a given month. A Hotline is a training document sent out for immediate review. The Hotline should be reviewed and signed within 5 days of receipt of the Hotline.
-111-
t FORTCALHOUNPERFORMANCEPARAMETERDEFINITIONS(CONTINUED)
HOURS CHEMISTRY IS OUTSIDE OWNERS GROUP GUIDELINES Total hours for 13 secondary side chemistry parameters exceeding guidelines-during power operation. Power operation is defined as. greater than 30% power. The 13 parameters tracked are steam generator pH, cation conductivity, boron silica, chloride, sulfate, sodium, feed water pH, dissolved oxygen, hydrazine, iron, copper, and condensate pump discharge i dissolved oxygen.
IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT-0F-SERVICE Total number of in-line chemistry ' instruments that are out-of-service in
- the Secondary System and the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS). :
LIOUID RADIOACTIVE WASTE BEING DISCHARGED TO THE ENVIRONMENT This indicator displays both the total volume of liquid effluent (radioactive liquid waste plus dilution water) and the associated Curies discharged from the Fort Calhoun Station to the Missouri River.
LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)
The total number of security incidents for the reporting month.
MAINTENANCE WORK ORDER BACKLOG The number of corrective non-outage maintenance work orders that remain ;
open at the end of the reporting month. This indicator was added to the Performance' Indicators Report to trend open corrective non-outage j maintenance work orders as stated in Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) l Item No. 36. '
MAINTENANCE WORK ORDER BREAKDOWN This indicator is a breakdown of corrective non-outage maintenance work l orders by several categories that remain open at the end of the reporting month.
MAINTENANCE OVERTIME The percentage of overtime hours compared to normal hours for ,
maintenance. This includes OPPD personnel as well as contract personnel. .l MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE The total maximum amount of Gamma and Neutron (Whole Body) radiation received by an individual person working at the Fort Calhoun Station on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis.
-112-
e ..
FORT-CALHOUNPERFORMANCEPARAMETERDEFINITIONS(CONTINUED)
NUMBER- 0F NUCLEAR PLANT RELIABILITY DATA SYSTEM (NPRDS) FAILUM REPORTS-SUBMITTED The data plotted is - the total number of NPRDS component failures (confirmed and possible) and the number of confirmed NPRDS component failures. The' total number of NPRDS component failures are based on the number of. failure reports that have been sent to the Institute of Nuclear Operations (INPO). Confirmed NPRDS component failures are based upon failure reports that have been accepted by INP0. Possible NPRDS com)onent failures are based upon failure reports that are still under rev ew by 4 INPO.
NPRDS is the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System, and is a utility industry users group program which has been outlined by INPO and implemented at the Fort Calhoun Station.
NUMBER OF OUT-0F-SERVICE CONTROL ROOM INSTRUMENTS A control room instrument that cannot perform its design function is considered as out-of-service. A control room instrument which has had a Maintenance Work Order (MW0) written for it and has not been repaired by the end of the reporting )eriod is considered out-of-service and will be ,
counted. The duration of tie out-of-service condition is not considered.
Computer CRTs are not considered as control room instruments.
NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ERRORS REPORTED IN LER'S The number of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) attributed to personnel error on the original LER submittal. This indicator trends personnel '
performance for SEP Item No. 15.
NUMBER OF~ VIOLATIONS PER 1000 INSPECTION HOURS l This indicator is defined as the number of violations sited in NRC l' inspection reports for the Fort Calhoun Station per 1000 NRC ins)ection hours. The violations are reported in the year that the inspect on was actually performed and not based on when the inspection report is l received. The hours reported for each inspection report are used as the inspection hours.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET The year to date budget compared to the actual expenditures for operations and maintenance.
OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS The number of Modification Requests (MR'S) in any state between the issus ce of a Modification Number and the completion of the drawing updatu
-113-
N ,,1 1 1
TORTCAul00NPERFORMANCEPARAMETERDEFIRITIONS(CONTINUED)
OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS (CONTINUED')
Modification Requests Being Reviewed i This category includes:
]
1.) Modification Requests that are not yet reviewed-2.)
ModificationRequestsbeingreviewedby)the NuclearProjectsReviewCommittee(NPRC l 3.)
Modification Requests Nuclear Projects being(reviewed Committee NPC) by the j These Modification Requests may be reviewed several times l before they are ap3 roved for accomplishment or cancelle:1. Some !
of these Modificat'on Requests are returned to Engineering for j more information, some- approved for evaluation, some approved for study, and some approved for planning. Once planning is !
completed and the scope of the work is clearly defined, these l' Modification Requests may be approved for accomplishment with a year assigned for construction or they may be cancelled. All of these different phases require review.
Design Engineering Backlog l Nuclear Planning has assigned a year in which construction will l be completed, but PED has not started design work.
Design Engineering In Progress l'
L Nuclear Planning has assigned a year in which construction will be completed and design work is in progress.
L Construction Backlog /In Progress The : Construction Package has been issued or construction ' has begun but the modification has not been accepted by. the System Acceptance Comittee (SAC).
p L Design Engineering Update Backlog /In Progress PED has received the Modification Completion Report but the drawings have not been updated.
1
-114-
t 3- .
ll \
FORTCALHOUNPERFORMANCEPARAMETERDEFINITIONS(CONTINUED)
PERCENT OF DR/0R'S GREATER THAN SIX MONTHS OLD This indicator displa l Quality Reports (QR s)ysthat the are.percentage greater thanofsix Deficiency Reports (DR's) and months old. l 1
PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURE (CUMULATIVE) i l
Collective radiation exposure is the total external whole-body dose i received by all.- on-site personnel (including contractors and visitors) !
, during a time aeriod, as measured by the thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD).
Collective radtation exposure is reported in units of man-rem.
PERSONNEL TURNOVER RATE 1
The ratio of the number of turnovers to average employment. A turnover is -1 a vacancy created by voluntary resignation from the company. Retirement, death, termination, transfers within the company, and part-time employees are not considered in turnover.
l PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE This indicator is defined as the percentage of preventive maintenance '
items in the month that were not completed by the scheduled date plus a grace period equal to 25 percent of the scheduled interval.
3 L PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY - PERCENT OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT -1 The percent of hours out of limit are for six primary chemistry parameters divided by the total number of hours possible for the month. The key parameters used are: Lithium, Chloride, Hydrogen, Dissolved Oxygen, Fluoride, and Suspended Solids. EPRI limits are used.
l PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS (MAINTENANCE)
The number of identified incidents, the number of opened incidents, and the number of closed incidents each month involving maintenance. This indicator trends personnel performance for SEP Item No. 15.
RATIO 0F PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE The ratio of preventive maintenance (including surveillance testing and l calibration procedures) to the sum of non-outage corrective maintenance l- and preventive maintenance completed over the reporting period. The ratio, L expressed as a percentage, is. calculated based on man-hours.
RECORDABLE INJURY CASES FRE0VENCY RATE (RECORDABLE INJURY RATE)
The number of injuries requiring more than normal first aid per 200,000 i manhours worked. This indicator trends personnel performance for SEP Item No. 15 and SEP Item 26.
l
-115-l l i
l
e
.~ .= .
FORTCALHOUNPERFORMANCEPARAMETERDEFINITIONS(CONTINUED) !
R0 HOT LICENSE EXAMS .
i This ' indicator shows the number of- R0' Hot License exams or~ quizzes taken -
and passed for the month they were taken.
R0 LICENSE EXAMINATION PASS RATIO The ratio of station candidates passing both the oral and written NRC.- 1 Reactor Operator (RO) license examination to the total number of candidates taking examinations.
SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERFORMANCE INDEX
-The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) is a calculation based on the concentration of key impurities in the secondary side of the plant. These key impurities are the most likely cause of deterioration of the steam
. generators. The chemistry parameters are reported only for the period of time greater than 30 percent power.
The following equation'is how the CPI is calculated:
CPI =((Ka/1.2)+(Na/20)+(C1/20)+(SO/20)+(0/10))/5 4 2 Where the following parameters are monthly averages of;-
Ka = Steam Generator Blowdown Cation Conductivity Na = Steam Generator Blowdown Sodium Concentration C1 = Steam Generator Blowdown Chloride Concentration SO Steam Generator Blowdown Sulfate Concentration 02 4 == Condensate Pump Discharge Dissolved Oxygen Concentration SECURITY INCIDENTS This indicator shows a percentile breakdown of the types of Security '
incidents for the reporting month.
l The following-items are the types of Security incidents represented in this indicator.
Licensee Designated Vehicles (LDV's)
Incidents related to the use of LDV's, e.g. keys left in the vehicle, loss of keys, or failure to return keys. -
Security Badges Incidents involving lost / unattended badges, badges removed from site, or failure to wear badges.
Escorting ,
Incidents involving escort responsibilities, e.g. improper controlorescortofavisitor(s).
-116-
y>
lC , +
7 .
. FORTCALHOUNPERFORMANCEPARAMETERDEFINITIONS(CONTINUED) !
,' ' SECURITY INCIDENTS (CONTINUED) !
Inattentive Security Officers
' Incidents involved with the inattentiveness of. Security officers.
Security Key Control Incidents involving Security key control, e.g. lost Security keys, -Security keys removed from site, or failure to return Security keys. This type of incident does not reflect incidents '
concerning LDV keys..
t Access Control ,
Incidents involving the inspection and control of personnel, packages, and vehicles, e.g. failure to properly search personnel, packages, and vehicles. This item also includes the
- introduction or contraband or prohibited items into the .
Protected Area, or the attempted _ introduction of such items.
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE
.The dollar value of the spare parts inventory at the end of the reporting period.
SPARE PARTS ISSUED
- c. The dollar value of the spare parts issued for the Fort Calhoun Station J L during the reporting period.
1 ,
SR0 OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION PASS RATIO o
L The' ratio of station candidates passing both the oral and written NRC i Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license examination to the total number of '
candidates taking examinations.
TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS L The number of temporary mechanical and electrical configurations to the i plant's systems. 4 Temporary configurations are defined as. electrical jumpers, electrical blocks, mechanical jumpers, or mechanical blocks which are installed in the plant operating systems and are not shown on the latest revision of i
i the P&ID, schematic, connection, wiring, or flow diagrams, L -117-i l
l I
a~
- p FORTCALHOUNPERFORMANCEPARAMETERDEFINITIONS(CONTINUED) l l
TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS (CONTINUED)
Jumpers and blocks which are installed for Surveillance Tests, l Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Procedures, Special Procedures, or !
Operating Procedures are not considered as temporary modifications unless .
the jumper or block remains in place after the test or procedure is I complete. Jumpers and blocks installed in test or lab instruments are not ;
considered as temporary modifications. ;
i Scaffolding is not considered a tem)orary modification. Jumpers and ,
blocks which are installed and for whici EEAR's have been submitted, will ;
be considered as a temporary modifications until final resolution of the EEAR and the jumper or block is removed or is permanently recorded on the !
drawings. !
TOTAL HOURS OF STUDENT TRAINING The total number of student hours of trainin for Operations, Maintenance, Chemistry and Radiation Protection. g Technical Support, ;
General Employee Training, and Other training conducted for the Fort 1 Calhoun Station.
TOTAL SKIN AND CLOTHING CONTAMINATIONS l
Reportable skin and clothing contaminations above background levels greater than 5000 dpm/100 cm squared. This indicator trends personnel i performance for SEP Item No. 15. ,
UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS WHILE CRITICAL >
This indicator is defined as the number of unplanned automatic scrams (reactor protection system logic actuations) that occur while the reactor is critical. The indicator is further defined as follows:
Unplanned means that the scram was not part of a planned test or evolution.
Scram means the automatic shutdown of the reactor by a rapid insertion of all control rods that is caused by actuation of the reactor protection system. The scram signal may have )
resulted from exceeding a setpoint or may have been spurious.
Automatic means that the initial signal that caused actuation I of the reactor protection system logic was provided from one of ,
the sensors monitoring plant parameters and conditions, rather l than the manual scram switches (or pushbuttons) in the main I control room.
Critical means that during the steady-state condition of the reactor prior to the scram, the effective multiplication factor 1 (keff)wasequaltoone, l l
-118-l l
l
zny ,
1 I !
FORTCALHOUNPERFORMANCEPARAMETERDEFINITIONS(CONTINUED) i UNPL ANNED $4FETY SYSTEM ACTilATIONS i i
This indicator is defined as the sum of the following safety system actuationst )
r
- the number of unplanned Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) )
actuctions that result from reaching an ECCS actuation setpoint i or from a spurious / inadvertent ECCS signal
- the number of unplanned emergency AC power system actuations j that result from a loss of power to a safeguards bus l An unplanned safety system actuation occurs when an actuation setpoint for a safety (system is generated is reached ECCS only), or when and major a spurious equipment or inadvertent in the system signal is actuated. ;
Unplanned means that the system actuation was not part of a planned test or evolution.
The ECCS actuations to be counted are actuations of the high pressure ,
injection system, the low pressure injection system, or the safety injection tanks.
VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE This indicator is defined as the volume of low-level solid radioactive '
waste produced, in final form ready for burial, during a given period. It is calculated using the amount of waste actually shipped for dis >osal, plus the change in inventory of waste in on-site storage in final form ready for burial. The volume of radioactive waste that is not yet in '
final form ready for shipment is not included. Low-level solid radioactive waste consists of dry active waste, sludges resins, and evaporatorbottomsgeneratedasaresultofnuclearpowerpiantoperation and maintenance. Dry active waste includes contaminated rags, cleaning materials, disposable protective clothing, plastic containers, and any other material to be disposed of at a low-level rabactive waste disposal site, except resin, sludge, or evaporator bottoms. Low-level refers to all radioactive waste that is not spent fuel or a by-product of spent fuel processing.
-119-
F, .
BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING 1989 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR GOALS This section will explain the basis used in establishing the 1989 performance goals.
FORCED OUTAGE RATE AND EOUIVALENT AVAILABillTY FACTOR The Forced Outage Rate (FOR) and Eguivalent Availability factor (EAF) goals have been established from 198v to 1992. The following table is a breakdown of the hours allotted for each category over the next five years.
STARTUP GENERATOR FORCED OUTAGE PLANNED ON LINE OUTAGE TIME OUTAGE PERIOD EAF FOR
,1[R (HOURS) (HOURS) (HOURS) (HOURS) (HOURS) .(_4.), f,%,),
1989(**) 7783 168 172 737 8760 84.4 2.1 1990(*) 7036 168 172 1464 8760 75.9 2.3 1991(*) 7036 168 172 1464 8760 75.9 2.3 1992 8520 240 0 0 8760 92.9 2.7
(**))The1988RefuelingOutagecontinuedintoJanuary,1989
(* Refueling Outage Years UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS WHILE CRITICAL The 1989 goal for Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams While Critical has ,
been set at one. The Fort Calhoun Station has had one unplanned automatic reactor scram in the past three years of operation.
UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS The Unplanned Safety System Actuations goal for 1989 has been established at zero. The Fort Calhoun Station has not had an unplanned safety system actuation in the last five years.
$825.5 HEAT RATE The 1989 Gross Heat Rate goal for the Fort Calhoun Station has been set at 10,500 BTV/KWH. This heat rate goal is based on the 1988 goal of 10,075 BTV/KWH less 20.6 MW(e) stated in memo TS-FC-83-233H, written on July 17, 1983. This states that operation without the governing stage of the turbine results in a gross electrical output loss of 20.6 MW(e).
-120-
BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING 1989 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR GOALS (CONTINUED)
FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR The 1989 Fuel Reliability Indicator (FRI) goal has been set at 1.0 nanocuries/ gram. This level allows for approximately one to two fuel pin failures. Although Cycle 11 was completed without any apparent fuel pin failures, there are a number of ANF assemblies entering into a third or fourth cycle of operation. When a fuel pin has been used for three or four fuel cycles there is an increased probability of fuel failure. The Failed Fuel Action Plan, Standing Order 0-43, allows for approximately four fuel pin failures prior to implementing any increased action levels.
PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURE (CUMULATIVE)
The 1989 Personnel Radiation Exposure (Cumulative) goal is 130 man-rem.
This goal was based on 50 man-rem of cumulative exposure for the month of January,1989, and approximately 7.5 man-rem of cumulative exposure for the months of February, 1989, through December, 1989.
VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE The 1989 Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste goal is 6,000 cubic :
feet. This goal was based on a recommendation made by the Fort Calhoun ALARA Committee and approved by the Division Manager of the Nuclear Production Division.
DISABLING INJURY FRE00ENCY RATE i The Disabling Injury Frequency Rate 1989 goal has been set at 0.31. This l goal allows for one lost time accident in the Nuclear Production Division during 1989.
i
-121-
e .
TORT Call!0Uli STATI0fi OPERATING CYCLES AND REFUELING OUTAGE DATES PRODUCTION CUMULATIVE EVENT FROM - TO (MWH) (MWH)
Cycle 1 09/26/73 - 02/01/75 3,299,639 3,299,639 First Refueling 02/01/75 - 05/09/75 Cycle 2 05/09/75 - 10/01/76 3,853,322 7,152,961 Second Refueling 10/01/76 - 12/13/76 Cycle 3 12/13/76 - 09/30/77 2,805,927 9,958,888 Third Refueling 09/30/77 - 12/09/77 Cycle 4 12/09/77 - 10/14/78 3,026,832 12,985,720 Fourth Refueling 10/14/78 - 12/24/78 Cycle 5 12/24/78 - 01/18/80 3,882,734 16,868,454 Fifth Refueling 01/18/80 - 06/11/80 Cycle 6 06/11/80 - 09/18/81 3,899,714 20,768,168 Sixth Refueling 09/18/81 - 12/21/81 Cycle 7 12/21/S1 - 12/06/82 3,561,866 24,330,034 Seventh Refueling 12/06/82 - 04/07/83 Cycle 8 04/07/83 - 03/03/84 3,406,371 27,736,405 Eighth Refueling 03/03/84 - 07/12/84 Cycle 9 07/12/84 - 09/28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 Ninth Refueling 09/28/85 - 01/16/86 Cycle 10 01/16/86 - 03/07/87 4,356,753 36,834,646 Tenth Refueling 03/07/87 - 06/08/87 Cycle 11 06/08/87 - 09/27/88 4,936,859 41,771,505 i
Eleventh Refueling 09/27/88 - 01/31/89 l Cycle 12 01/31/89 - 02/15/90*
l Twelfth Refueling 02/15/90*- 05/11/90*
Cycle 13 05/11/90*- 09/01/91*
1 l -122-L l
e .
FORT CALHOUN STATION .
PRODUCTION AND OPERATION RECORDS -
1 The following seven items are the current production and operation ;
" records" for the Fort Calhoun Station. '
- 1. First Sustained Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . August 5,1973(5:47p.m.)
- 2. First Electricity Supplied to the System . . . . . August 25, 1973 .
t
- 3. Commercial Operation (180,000 KWH) . . . . . . . . September 26, 1973
- 4. Achieved Full Power (100%) . . . . . . . . . . . .May 4,1974 ;
- 5. '.ongest Run (477 days) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 8,1987 - Sept. 27,1988 ;
i 6.111ghest Monthly Net Generation (364,468,800 KWH) .0ctober 1987 ,
7.hostProductiveFuelCycle(4,936,859 MWH) . . . . June 8,1987 - Sept. 27,1988 (Cycle 11) -
l F
W b
i
-123-
1 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DATA SOURCES ,
i PERFORMANCE INDICATOR _ _ MANAGER / INDIVIDUAL :
I Age of Outstanding Maintenance Work Orders Peterson/Shrum !
)
Amount of Work On Hold Awaiting Parts Peterson/McCormick -j Auxiliary Systems Chemistry Hours Outside Station Limits Jaworski/Henning )
Classroom (Instructor) Hours Gasper /Newhouse Corrective Maintenance Backlog > 3 Months Old Peterson/Shrum Craft Work Activity Peterson/Shrum Daily Thermal Output Holthaus/ Gray Decontaminated Auxiliary Building Peterson/Christensen Diesel Generator Reliability DG Log Disabling Injury Frequency Rate Sorenson/Skaggs Document Review Peterson/McKay {
DR/QRs Issued Versus NRC Violations Issued Orr/Krieser
! Equipment Forced Outages per 1000 Critical Hours Holthaus/ Gray Equivalent Availability Factor Dietz/Kulisek .
Forced Outage Rate Holthaus/ Gray Fuel Reliability Indicator Holthaus/Lofshult Gaseous Radioactive Waste Discharged to the Environment Jaworski/Stultz L Gross Heat Rate Holthaus/ Gray Hazardous Waste Produced Schmidt/Sayre Hotlines Gasper /Kobunski In-Line Chemistry Instruments Out-of-Service Schmidt/Renaud Liquid Radioactive Waste Discharged to the Environment Jaworski/Stultz l Maintenance Work Order Backlog (Corrective Non-Outage) Peterson/Shrum l Maintenance Work Order Breakdown Peterson/Shrum Maintenance Overtime Peterson/Shrum
-124-L L l
ko .
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DATA SOURCE (CONTINUED) i Maximum Individual Radiation Exposure Peterson/Mattice >
Number of NPRDS Reportable failures Jaworski/ Dowdy Number of Out-of-Service Control Room Instruments Peterson/Trausch .
Number of Personnel Errors Reported in LERs LER File i
Number of Violations per 1000 Inspection Hours Orr/Krieser Operations and Maintenance Budget Gleason/ Parent Outstanding Modifications Jaworski/ Turner Percent of DR/QR's Greater Than Six Months Old Orr/Krieser PersonnelRadiationExposure(Cumulative) Peterson/Mattice Personnel Turnover Rate Jaworski/Yager Preventive Maintenance Items Overdue Peterson/ Linden Primary System Chemistry - Percent Hours Out of Limits Jaworski/Henning ProceduralNoncomplianceIncidents(Maintenance) Peterson/ Smith Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance Peterson/Shrum Recordable Injury Cases frequency Rate Sorenson/Skaggs R0 Hot License Exams Gasper / Herman i
R0 License Examination Pass Ratio Gasper / Herman Secondary System Chemistry Jaworski/Henning Spare Parts Inventory Turnover Ratio Steele/ Miser Spare Parts Inventory Value Steele/Huliska SR0 License Examination Pass Ratio Gasper / Herman Staffing Level Jaworski/Yager Temporary Modifications Jumper Log Total Hours of Student Training Gasper /Newhouse Total Skin and Clothing Contaminations Peterson/Christensen
-125-
pg ,;
" ^ ~
TERTORluti C IliGICATOR DATA SO'RCE J
(CONTINUED)
Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams.While Critical Holthaus/ Gray
/ -Unplanned Safety System Actuations Holthaus/ Gray
, Volume of. Low-level Solid Radioactive Waste Peterson/Bilau a
L o
l' L
-126-L
n- ,
t o O
! REFERENCES J
INPO Good Practices OA-102, " Performance Monitoring - Management !
Information" 2
IEEE Standard 762, 'IEEE Trial Use Standard Definitions for Use in Reporting Generating Unit Reliability, Availability and Productivity" INPO Report Dated November 1984, " Nuclear Power Plant Operational Data" U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
f
?
I i
r 1
l l
l l
l 1
-127-l l