Text

Performance Indicators, for Dec 1993
	ML20063C440
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	12/31/1993
From:	; OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20063C439	List: LIC-94-0034, Forwards Fort Calhoun Station Performance Indicators, for Dec 1993; ML20063C440;
References
	NUDOCS 9402040269
	Download: ML20063C440 (152)
	v • d • e

-

L xsawww r .

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS O

JNj gB~~-

h -_ =_p;' _ .

EE N jillliiB , ??

= . ~'=a

~?f

,f

. j' /

DECEMBER 1993 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COST EFFECTIVENESS EsR20;ggg gg;gg,,

R PDR g

u hwd at wxn%a w wn, albink... .

s a inush wudan, wnd wwndjud gunad... .

d w a,2Shan,cwuwu 'ang, cunananad...

4 d w a, way, se 24 6,...d w do&ng, ikjob

,ayktik/hudhun,way, hun. Stw 1 bwns khd, wd LG wwll of winund, 1 puwa, a w owv ow,n, af wodk wh an, au wnd ik pa wnd wh !adioin, 9

as _ /_ % e6 9u wt e,e paaa,, udjud on, dn&ng, ik 9V L%p.

9 - ). o'e _

1 FORT CALHOUN STATION l PERFORMANCE INDICATORS !

l "S ,.

/

DECEMBER 1993 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COST EFFECTIVENESS

)

2Ag2cgggg ggggg g 9

l OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT l

l Prepared By: \

Production Engineering Division System Engineering 7

Test and Pedormance Group I

DECEMBER 1993

FORT CALHOUN STATION DECEMBER 1993 MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

On December 1, the station was operating at 90.5% power following the 1993 maintenance and refueling outage. Power ascension continued with the plant reaching 100% power on December 3.

A reactor trip occurred at approximately 0227 on Monday, December 6 during weekly testing of the turbine Electm-Hydraulic Control (EHC) system pumps. The trip resulted from inadequate design of a Facility Change Engineering Change Notice (ECN) which had reconfigured the EHC fluid lines to the EHC pressure transmitters. The ECN was installed during the 1993 Refueling Outage to eliminate an equipment vibration problem. Following the plant trip, the EHC fluid lines were reconfigured and tested prior to restan of the plant. Details of this event were pro-vided in License Event Repon (LElt)93-018 dated January 5,1994. The reactor was taken criti-cal at 0146 on December 7. The generator was synchronized to the grid at 0536 on December 7, and a power ascension commenced at a rate of less than 3% per hour to approximately 95%.

Power was held at 95% for Technical Specification moderator temperature coefficient testing.

On December 9, surveillance test SE-ST-AFW-3005, an Inservice Inspection (ISI) test on the Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFW), was satisfactorily conducted. However, a one-hour notifi-cation was made to the NRC because it was realized that the surveillance test procedures ren-dered both AFW pumps inoperable for an 18 minute period. Funher information on this event can be found in LER 93-019 dated January 10,1994.

On December 12, power ascension from 95% to 100% occurred, with 100% operation continu-ing throughout the remainder of December.

The following LERs were submitted during this reponing period:

LER No. Descriotion 93- 014 Failure of a Power Operated Relief Valve to Open During Testing Rev.1 93-015 Manual Emergency Boration following Spurious Increase in Indicated Reactor Power 93-016 Unplanned Control Rod Withdrawal and Subsequent Manual Reinsenion 93-017 Time Delays for Offsite Power Low Signal Found Out of Tolerance Source: Nuclear Licensing & Industry Affairs i

12 Month Value Performance Cateaories III!IIII !l Illlllll Unplanned! YberM$1l I

Q Performance in industry Upper 10% and better l

Unit ill Unplanned (? Automatic? . peipo'rrhhhbe than 1993 OPPD goal Capability il Capability l Scrams /7,000 b Factor ii Loss Factor LHours~Criticalj Performance Better Than i ii i i!iiil i! !!!l!!! 1993 OPPD Goal

i ,

HPSI Safety AFW Safety System EDG Safety System

@ Performance Not Meeting RpllvbillJy -

1993 OPPD Goal System Performance e rmance rf rmance IWe i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3 3

?

lCb tfy l Collective Radiation Volume of Low-Level industrial :

(SafetyJ

!l lhbei !

li l Exposure Radioactive /Accidentj (Rate l; December 1993 12 Month Value

- ll 1 l

Waste Performance jj

^

l l!

I INPO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Performance for the twelve months from January 1,1993 through December 31,1993.)

l JAuto9

?Scramsi tWhilel l Critical.7 12 Month Value Performance Cateaorles 5 Performance Better Than Peer Average Trend iSafety? 1Significantl l . LSystem;!: ); Events:- 7-FActuations.5 j_ Performance Better Than 1993 OPPD Goal t

Performance Not Meeting 1993 OPPD Goal or Peer Average Trend Safety Forced System Outage Failures Rate September October November 93 '93 S3 December 1993 12 Month Value Equipment Collective Performance Forced Outages /1,000 Radiation Crit. Hrs. Exposure NRC PERFORNANCE INDICATORS (Safety System Failures and Significant Events ratings are averages for April '

1991 through March 1993. All other indicator values are for the twelve months g from January 1,1993 through December 31,1993.)

_ . . __ _ __ ~_ . ._ ,

' FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT :

I DECEMBER 1993 -

SUMMARY

POSITIVE TREND REPORT A performance indicator with data representing three Check Va!ve Fa!!ure Rate consecutive months of improving performance or three (Page 71) {

consecutive months of performance that is superior to ;

the stated goalis exhibiting a positive trend por Nuclear Volume of low-level Solid Radioactive Waste ;

Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NODCP-37). (Page 73)

The following indicators are exhibiting positive trends for Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Umit M the reporting month: (Page 75) l Recordable Iniurv/lllness Cases Frecuency Ra A Percentaos of Total MWOs Comoteted oer Month Identi-(Page 7) fied as RewoA .

(Page 91) l HPSI Safe 5r System Performance j (Page 15) Harardous Waste Produced (Page 1011) !

AFW Safety System Pedermance (Page 17) Decontaminated Radiation Controlled Area ;

(Page 103)

Emeroency AC Power System Safety System Perfor-mance Outstandina Modifications (Page 19) (Page 115) i l Fuel Reliabihtv Indicator i

.i (Page 21) End of Positive Trend Report Emeroenev Diesel Generator Unit Reliabihtv l (Page 23) ,

}-

Diesel Generator RoFabihty (25 Demands) ;

(Page 25)

I ADVERSE TREND REPORT Emeroency Diese! Generator Unreliability (Page 27) A Performance indicator with data representing three (3) A consecutive months of declining performance; or four or Collecthre Radiation Exoosure more consecutive months periormance thet is trending - [

(Page 31) towards declining as determined by the Manager - Sta- l tion Engineering, constitutes an adverse trend per NOD- !

Maximum Individual Radiation Exonsure OP 37. A supervisor whose performance indicator ex-(Page 33) hibits an adverse trend by this definition may specify in -

e se n s repoM me ked Number of M ssed Surveillance Tests Resultina in Lic- is not adverse.

ensee Event Reoorts ,

(Page 39)

E* **"#* *" "9 ""

Forced Outaos Rate ' verse trend for the reporting month: >

(Page 45)

Eno!neerina Chance Notice Status ,

Unit Canability Factor gg,g, 3 37)

(Page 49) An adverse trend is indicated based on three consecu- !

Unclanned Canabi!Pv Loss Factor ,

k wf in DEN.

(Page 51) l Unolanned Sa'etv system Actuations -(!NPO Defin! tion) i (Page 55) End of Adverse Trend Report, f

Thermat Performance ,

(Page 61)

Eauioment Forced Outaces ner 1.000 Critical Hours (Page 65)

N ;

o 1

i

INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED l MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT A performance indicator with data for the reporting period Document Review 4 that is inadequate when compared to the OPPD goal is (Page 109) defined as 'Needing increased Management Attention

The number of biennial reviews greater than 6 months per NODOP overdue for the reporting month (10) exceeds the 1993 Fort Calhoun monthly goal of 0.

The following performance indicators need increased Temocrary Modifications management attention for the reporting month: (Page 113) ,

?

The number of temporary modifications >6 months old Number of Personnel Errors Reoorted in LERs that are removable on-line for the reporting month (4)

(Page 11) exceeds the 1993 monthly goal of 0.

The percentage of total LERs submitted from 1/1/93 through 11/30/93 that have been attributed to personnel Encineerino Assistance Recuest Breakdown i errors (28.57%) exceeds the 1993 Fort Calhoun goal of a (Page 116) maximum of 12%. The total number of EARS open at the end of the report-ing month (153) exceeds the 1993 Fort Calhoun goal of Number of Contml Room Eculoment Deficiencies a maximum of 150 total open EARS. -

(Page 29) '

The total number of control room equipment deficiencies at the end of the reporting month (61) exceeds the 1993 ,

Fort Calhoun monthly goal of a maximum of 45. End of Management Attention Report.

Viola + ions Per 1.000 Insoection Hours (Page 35)

The number of violations per 1,000 inspection hours for the 12 months from 12/1/92 through 11/30/93is 2.40, which exceeds the 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals of PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT a maximum of 1.5. IMPROVEMENTS / CHANGES Uno!anned Automatic Reactor Scrams oer 7.000 Hours This section lists significant changes made.to the report Cntical and to specific indicators within the report since the pre-(Page 53) vious month.

The number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical year-to-date (1.98) exceeds the 1993 MWO Plannino Status (Cycle 16 Refuehno Outace) goalof O. (Page 127) ;

This indicator has been added to the report. e Unnianned Sa'e+v System Actuations (NRC Definition)

The number of NRC unplanned safety system actuations 111. Violations Per 1.000 Insoecten Hours (Pace 35) & 6 year-to-date (3) exceeds the 1993 Fort Calhoun goai of LER Root Cause Breakdown (Pace 121)

O. These indicators have been revised to be consistent with the Performance Measures Program that has been es-Gross Heat Rate tablished.

(Page 59)

The GHR for the year (10,223 BTU /KWH) exceeds the QRen CorrectMe Action Reoorts 1993 goal of a maximum of 10,168 BTU'KWH. (Page 126) l The number of open significant CARS for the month of Secondary System Chemistrv November has been changed f rom 2 to 5 to correct an (Page 77) error in last month's report.

The INPO CPI value for the reporting month (0.846) ex- !

ceeds the 1993 Fcrt Calhoun goal of a maximum value of 0.60.

End of Performance Indicator Report improvements /

In-Line Chemistry ins'ruments Out.of-service Changes Report (Page 99)

The number of in-line chemistry instruments out-of-ser-vice for the reporting month (6) is above the 1993 monthly goal of a maximum of 5.

V V

=. -

Table of Contents / Summary

'E6GE GOALS .. .._-- .. .. . . . . . . .. X .

SAFE OPERATONS EAQE DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE. .5 RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FREQUENCY RATE.. .7 CONTAMINATONS 22.000 COUNTS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA .... . . . . .9 NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ERRORS REPORTED IN LERs ... . .11 SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES . ...

.., . 13 SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY:

INJECTON SYSTEM . . . - - - 15 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM. .._.. . 17 EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM . .. .. . . 19 FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR 21 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY .... .. .. .. .. . . 23 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR ;

RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS) . . . - . . =.25 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY - . . . . . . : : .. _.27 NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES., . . . . . . . 29 COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE (pmovem) . 31 l

MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL i RADIATON EXPOSURE (mRom).. . . . . . . . . . . . 33 VOLATIONS PER 1,000 INSPECTION HOURS . .. . 35 SIGNIF! CANT EVENTS . .. . . . 37 NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESULTING IN LERS . .... 39 PERFORMANCE PAGE STATON NET GENERATON (10.000 Mwh) . .. . .. . 43 FORCED OUTAGE RATE. ... . . _ . . . . . 45 vi vi

PERFORMANCE (continued) PAGE EQUlVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR....--- ... . . . .. 47 UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR . -

. =49 UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR .- .. .. .. - 51 UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 HOURS CRITICAL.. . . . . . . 153 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATONS - (INPO DEFINITON) . . 55 i UNPLANNED SAFE IY SYSTEM ACTUATONS - (NRC DEFINITON).. .. .. . . - . 57 GROSS HEAT RATE-- . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . ... 59 THERMAL PERFORMANCE.. - - . . . .. .. . 61 ,

DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT . . . . , 63 ,

t EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS ....-. = . .. . 65 COMPONENTFAILURE ANALYSIS .

REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

... . . . - . . . . . . 67 i

REPEAT FAILURES.. .. .. . . . . . . . . - . 69 CHECK VALVE FAILURE RATE . .. .- .. .. =71 )

VOLUME OF LOW. LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE 73 PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERCENT OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT.. .. . 75 CHEMISTRY INDEX/ SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY.. -- . . . . = -... 77 COST IMGE CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR . . . .. . . 81 STAFFING LEVEL.. ...~.. . . . . . .. ., . 83 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE.. ... . ... .- . 85 DIVISON AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE !NDICATQBS PAGE MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS (CORRECTIVE NON. OUTAGE) -- . . . . . . 87 vii

DIVISDN AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (continued) PACaE RATO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE

& PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE. . . . .

-89 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK.. . . . . -91 MAINTENANCE OVERTIME . . . . ~ . . . . . . . .93 PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS (MAINTENANCE). .. . . . . . . -- . . . . .. . .. .. 95 PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIVmES

. . 97 (ALL MAINTENANCE CRAFTS). .. -.

IN.LINE CHEMISTRh INSTRUMENTS OUT.OF. SERVICE . .... . . . . . .. 99 HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED) . . . .. .101 DECONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA .. .... .. . ..- .. . .103 RADOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM . . ..- .. -105 NUMBER OF HOT SPOTS - .. . 107 DOCUMENT REVIEW.. . . . . . . . .. ... 109 LOGGABLE/REPCfDABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY) .. . . - - - . . . . .111 TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS . ... . . . . . 113 OUTSTANDING MODIFICATONS -115 ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR) BREAKDOWN - .. . . . . . . . . . 116 ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS . . 117 ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE BREAKDOWN .... .- . ... 119 LER ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . .. .. ... . 121 ;

LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATON TRAINING.. .. .. . . . . . . . . .

.123 LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS .. . ... .. _ . . .125 OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTON REPORTS AND INCIDENT REPORTS .. . . . . . . . . .. .126 MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 16 REFUELING OUTAGE)..-. .. .. .... ... .. .. 12 7 viii

1- .

I ACTON PLANS. DEFINITONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION LIST PAGE ACTON PLANS FOR ADVERSE TRENDS - .. . 128 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITONS ... .. .. =130 SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX . ... .. ... 137 REPORT DISTRIBUTON LIST-. ... .. 139 5

b t

f e

9 ix '

l OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS Vice President - 1993 Priorities MISSION The safe and reliable generation of electricity for OPPD customers through the professional use of nuclear technology. The Company shall conduct these operations prudently, efficiently and effectively to assure the health, safety and protection of all personnel, the general public and the environment.

GOALS Goal 1: SAFE OPERATIONS To ensure the continuation of a " safety culture" in the OPPD Nuclear Program and to provide a professional working environment, in the control room and throughout the OPPD nuclear organi-zation, that assures safe operation.

1993 Priodties:

I Improve SALP ratings.

Improve INPO rating.

Reduce 1993 NRC violations with no violations more severe than level 4.

l No unplanned automatic reactor scrams or safety system actuations.

1 i Goal 2: PERFORMANCE l To strive for Excellence in Operations utilizing the highest standards of performance at Fort Calhoun Station that result in safe reliable plant operation in power production.

t l 1993 Priorities:

l Improve Quality, Professionalism, and Teamwork.

l Improve Plant Reliability.

Meet or exceed INPO key parameters and outage performance goals.

Reduce the number of human performance errors, l

l Goal 3: COSTS Operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as a

viable source of electricity.

l 1993 Priorities:

Maintain total O & M and Capital expenditures within budget.

Streamline work processes.

Goals Source: Scofield (Manager) r X

e

I, FOREWORD i l

l Performance indicator graphs for the years 1991 and 1992 are included in this :

report.- The graphs are provided where appropriate comparisons can be made. In j some instances, for example when the method of reporting an indicator has changed during 1993 or when an indicator has been added to the report, the graphs for the previous years are not included.

I t

1 1

1 t

i 5

f i

(This page intentionally left blank.)

6 N

'l l

1 t

9 f

2

l l

SAFE OPERATIONS !

Goal: To ensure the continuation of a " safety culture" in the OPPD Nuclear Program and to provide a professional work- i ing environment in the control room and throughout the .

OPPD Nuclear Organization that assures safe operation.

i

?

+

I i

3

+

1992 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate (for all Divs.)

X Fort Calhoun Goal (0.30) l GOOD l V

1.2 -

1-0.8 -

0.6 -

i 0.4 -

X X X X X X X X X X X X

, 0.2 -

l t

( 0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

l Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 l 1992 l

l t

l 1991 Disabling injury /lliness Frequency Rate (for N.O.D. only) )

i lGOODI I.

1.2 -

X Fort Calhoun Goal (0.31) V 1-0.8 -

l i 0.6 -

0.4 -

X X X X X X n X X X X X 0.2 -

0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 4

I 1

l 1993 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate

-X- 1992 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate l GOOD l j V

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal ( 0.50) i 1.2 -

1- l 0.8 -

0.6 -

C O O 0.4 -

0.2 -

0 X , ,, , A , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE (LOST TIME ACCIDENT RATE) ,

This indicator shows the 1993 disabling injury / illness frequency rate. The 1992 dis-abling injury / illness frequency rate is also shown.

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for January through December 1993 was 0.50. There were no lost time accidents reported for the month of December. The total number of lost time accidents that have been reported during 1993 is 4.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.50.

Data Source: Sorenson/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Richard Adverse Trend: None SEP 25, 26 & 27 5 l I

1992 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency Rate (for all Divs) l GOOD l

~

X 1992 Fort Calhoun Goal (2.0) y 4.5 -

4-3.5 -

3-2.5 -

2- X X X X X X X X X X X X 1.5 - #

1-0.5 -

0 , , , , , , , , , i i ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 :

1991 Recordable injury /fliness Frequency Rate (for N.O.D. only) 5- lGOODI 4.5 -

Y

--X- 1991 Fort Calhoun Goal (2.0) 4-3.5 - _

i 3- -

2- X X X X X X X X X X X X 1.5 -

1-0.5 -

0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 l 1991 6

I 1

1 J

l 5- 1993 Recordable injury /lliness Frequency Rate )

X 1992 Recordable injury / illness Frequency Rate IGOODI 4.5 - ,

k ;

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goat (s2.0) 4-3.5-3-

2.5 -

2- C O O O O O O O O O O O 1.5- M 1- N O.5 -

O , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FREQUENCY RATE This indicator shows the 1993 recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate. The 1992 recordable injuryAliness cases frequency rate is also shown.

A recordable injury / illness case is reported if personnel from any of the Nuclear Divi-sions are injured on the job and require corrective medical treatment beyond first aid.

The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate is computed on a year-to4 ate basis.

The recordable injury / illness rate for January through December 1993 was reported as 1.38. There was 1 recordable injury / illness case, a thumb injury, reported for the month

~~~~

of December. There have been 11 recordable injury / illness cases in 1993.

The 1993 goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 2.0.

Data Source: Sorenson/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Richard Positive Trend SEP 15,25,26 & 27 7

b i

f t'

i o . t P

I P

{

,f

-l (This page intentionally left blank. This indicator was revised in 1993.)

i

.}

?

l i

t.

W t

I s

s 1

1 1

1 1I

'i l

1

j Personnel Contamination Rato 0.6 -

12 8

f0.4- '

g ~_

8 O.

5 70.2-C~

O Q.

0 ;

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 ,

Days of the Month CONTAMINATIONS 22,000 COUNTS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA j This indicator shows the Personnel Contamination Rate for contaminations 22,000 counts / minute per probe area forthe reporting month. !

There has been a total of 139 reportable / recordable contaminations in 1993. 37 of ,

these contaminations were classified as non-outage and 99 were classified as outage '

contaminations. (3 outage contaminations occurred during the maintenance outage.)

The 1993 year-end on-line goal for contaminations 22,000 counts / minute per probe area is OA PCR/1,000 RWP hours. The 1993 year-end outage goal for contaminations 22,000 counts / minute per probe area is 1.5 PCR/1,000 RWP hours.

Data Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP 15 & 54 9

1 l~

x Licensee Event Reports 1

b Personnel Errors Reported in LERs Cumulative Licensee Event Reports 40-

-+- Cumulative Personnel Errors Reported in LERs )

30- l l

l l

l 20- !

i 10-

- - - . A A vv w

v v v A A 0 , , , , ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 l 1992 I

i i

% of Total LERs that are Attributed to Personnel Error (Year-to-Date) 60%-

50% -

40% -

30% - -

/

20% -

l 10%-

1 0% , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 10

l

@ Licensee Event Reports 40- O PersonnelErrors Reported in LERs 32 33 Cumulative Licensee Event Reports 31

~

--+- Curnulative Personnel Errors Reported in LERs 20-l,l__

s '~

11 10 3 :

E TA h'~

k,,

/

u ,-

i :9 -i'i'i'i i i i i i i i i i i i

'89 '90 '91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93

% of Total LERs that are Attributed to Personnel Error (Year-to-Date)

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Year-End Goal ( 12%)

60%-

$ 50%-

31 % -32 % 40%-

24 % 30 % - N

~~~'

20% -

10%- C O i , , , ,0% , , , , , , , , , , , ,

'89 '90 '91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ERRORS REPORTED IN LERS The top graph shows the number of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) submitted during each month in 1993, the LERs attributed to personnel error for each month and the cumulative totais for each item. The bottom graph shows the percentage of total LERs submitted that have been attributed to personnel error. The year-end totals for the four previous years are also shown for both graphs. This indicator has been revised to be consistent with the Performance Measures Program. It is now one month behind the reporting month because there is typically a 30 day delay related to generation of LERs.

In November there was 1 LER reported. The percentage of total LERs submitted year-to-date that have been attributed to personnel error was 28.57% at the end of November.

The following LERs have been attributed to personnel error in 1993:

LER 93-006 Failure to Maintain Continuous Fire Watch for impaired Halon System LER 93-007 Unplanned Emergency Diesel Generator Start and Reactor Trip Signal LER 93-010 Failure to Address Low Halon Tank Pressure Following Surveillance Test LER 93-011 Reactor Trip on Loss of Load During Switchyard Maintenance The 1993 goal for this indicator is that a maximum of 12% of the total LERs submitted will be attributed to personnel error.

Data Source: Short/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Awountability: Chase '

Adverse Trend: None SEP1S 11

~

4 4->=sJ-4 6 .. 4g,e ., AJ 1

4 4

u l

J

]

l i l

(This page intentionally left blank.) ;

1 f

I

+

B h

t h

h i

n t

+

t f

r 4

1 i

12 t

3 i

Safety System Failures

- Fort Calhoun Trend !

a -O- Peer Plant Average Trend IGOODI 1

~

2

$ 0 Industry Average Trend V ?

I I-e3 3 3 +

2- N

$ yTW Esb pfQ' q is $ _ gfR %

$ kNs $ gh g**g $ ' Mo ;

60 , , , , , , , ,

z 91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 ,

Year - Quarter ,

i SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES This indicator illustrates the number of NRC Safety System Failures as reported by the Nuclear l Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the blannual

' Performance Indicators for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" report.

s The following NRC safety system failures occurred between the second quarter of 1991 and the first quarter of 1993: .

Second Quarter 1991: 1) Failure of high energy auxiliary steamlines in various equipment rooms could render equipment vital for safe shutdown .aoperable. 2) All 4 channels of the ;

pressurizer pressure low signal trip could have been nonconservatively calibrated due to an inadequate calibration procedure. 3) A steam generator blowdown was performed while the radiation monitor was inoperable. This was caused by the modo selecte: switch on the monitor being left in the calibrate position.

Third Quarter 1991: 1) Both EDGs could have been rendered unable to perform their design function due to radiator exhaust damper failure. The dampers had cracked pins in their cou-plings. 2) The station batteries were declared inoperable due to cracks developing in the cell !

casings. This was caused by inadequate design of the terminal post seals. 3) An error in an operating procedure could cause improper manipulation of nitrogen backup bottles for instru-ment air. This could cause a loss of the containment spray system. ;

I First Quarter 1992: 1) Defective control switches in the 4KV switchgear could have rendered safety equipment inoperable. 2) All 4 channels of the SG DP trip for RPS had been calibrated nonconservatively. This occurred due to an incorrect procedure which specified a tolerance band that was too wide.

Second Quarter 1992: Fuse and breaker coordination problems for the DC buses could cause a loss of the entire bus if a fault occurred on one of the loads.

Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 13

E 1992 Monthly High Pressure Safety injection System Unava!! ability Value

--t$- 1992 High Pressure Safety injection System Unavailability Value Year-to-Date

-O- 1992 Fort Calhou, Goal (s0.008) 1995 INPO Industry Goal (0.02)

-D- Industry Upper 10% (0.0012) 0.02 - A A A A A A A A A Cycle 14 0.015 - Refueling l GOOD l Outage 4

0.01 -

O C O O O O O O O l

0.005 - l W- "

C "

_1 O C H 0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct - Nov Dec92 1 1992 E 1991 Monthly High Pressure Safety injection System Unavailability Value 1

- 1991 High Pressure Safety injection System Unavailability Value Year-to-Date

-O- 1991 Fort Calhoun Goal (s0.01) lG00Dl y

l 0.015 -

0.01 - C C O O O O O O O O O O 0.005 -

0-Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 14

1993 Monthly Hgh Pressure Safety injection System g Unavailability Value i

1993 High Pressure Safety injection System Unavailability Value Year-to-Date l MD l

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal (s0.008) y

-A-- 1995 INPO Industry Goal (0.02)

-O- Industry Upper 10% (0.0011) 0.02 - A A A A A A A A A A Cycle 15 0.015- Refueling l

i 6

Outage 0.01 - -)

C O O O O O O O O O 0.005- ;

1 I I O I I I I I I I I I i l i 1992 Unavailability Value Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the High Pressure Safety injection System unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the report-ing month.

The High Pressure Safety injection System unavailabi'. tty value for the rnonth of Decem-ber 1993 was 0.00074. There was 1.6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months of plant./ unavailability for surveillance.

tests during the month. The 1993 year-to-date HPSI unavailability v ' te .ts 0.00036 at the end of December.

There was a total of 7.68 hours7.87037e-4 days 0.0189 hours 1.124339e-4 weeks 2.5874e-5 months of planned unavailability (for maintent se and surveil-lance tests) and no hours of unplanned unavailability for the HPSI system in 1993.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator was a maximum of 0.008. The 1995 INPO industry goal is 0.02 and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the three year period from 7/90 through 6/93)is approximately 0.0011.

Data Source: Jaworski/Schaffer Accountability: Jaworski/Schaffer Positive Trend 15

E 1992 Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value 1992 Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value Year-to-date

-O- 1992 Fort Calhoun Goal (s0.01) l GOOD l 1995 INPO Industry Goal k

-O- Industry Upper 10% (0.0038) 0.025 - A A A A A A A A A 0.02 -

0.015 -

0.01 - 0 0 O O 0.005-D 0-Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 E 1991 Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value

-M- 1991 Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value Year-to-date 0.025 -

-O- 1991 Fort Calhoun Goal (s0.02) l GOOD l t

0.02 - C O O O O O O O O O O O 0.015 -

0.01 -

0.005 -

0- -

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct . .Nov Dec91 1991 16 L

l E Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value 1

1993 Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value 4 Year-to-date l l

lGOODI j

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal (5:0.01)

V

--b- 1995 INPO Industry Goal (s;0.025)

-O- Industry Upper 10% (0.0029) 0.025- A A A A A A A A A A A 3 i

0.02- Cyde 15 !

Refuehrg 0.015 - Outage .

t

^ '

0.01 - C O O O O O O O C 'O

0.0062

" 5-N _

, 0- , , , , , , , , , , , ,_

1992 Unavailability Value Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM (

SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE :

This indicator shows the Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability value, as defined by ,

INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

The Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value for December 1993 was 0.00064. l The 1993 year-to date AFW unavailability value was 0.0022 at the end of December. 1 There was a total of 28.93 hours0.00108 days 0.0258 hours 1.537698e-4 weeks 3.53865e-5 months of planned unavailability (for maintenance arid surveil-lance tests) and 2.02 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months of unplanned unavailability for the auxiliary feedwater sys- 'l tem in 1993. 4

- The 1993 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator was a maximum value of 0._01. ;

Tha 1995 INPO industry goal is 0.025 and the industry upper ten percentile value (for ,

the three year period from 7/90 through 6/93) is approximately 0.0029. _

. Data Source: Jaworski/Nay :

Accountability: Jaworski/Nay ~

Positive Trend i

n j i =

)

i 17

3 1992 Monthly Emergency AC Power Unavaitability Value 1992 Emergency AC Power Unavailability Value Year-to-Date

-O- 1992 Fort Calhoun Goal (0.024) l GOOD l t

-A- 1995 INPO Industry Goal (0.025) 1 In usty Upr W. (25) 0.03 -

0.025- e e ; -g .o e ; ; ; ; e 4 I

0.02 -

0.015 - !

.i' 0.01 - j 0.005 - O O O O O O O i 0 - -46 T--#- l--#

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 ,.

1992 l E 1991 Monthly Emergency AC Power Unavailability Value l 1 -4$- 1991 Emergency AC Power Unavailability Value Year-to-Date l GOOD l 1 a oun al 0.024) 0.06 - i 0.055 -

0.05 - [

0.045 - f 0.04 - l 0.035-2 0.03 -

0.025 - c c c 0.02 - ;

0.015 -

0.01 -

0.005-0- _

l Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 i P

18

I E Monthly Emergency AC Power Unava!! ability Value

--M- Ernergency AC Power Unavailability Value Year-to-Date

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal (50.023) l GOOD l i 1995 INPO Industry Goal (0.025) 9 0.03 -

-O- Industry Upper 10%(0.004) :

0.025 - A A A A A A A A A A A A !

C O O O O O O O O O O O l 0.02 -

0.015 -

Cyde 15 i Refueling 0.01 - Outage 3

)

0.005- m ,.,

g ;

0.001

, 0- .i 3

1992 Unavailability Value Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93.

EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM ,

SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE .[

This indicator shows the Emergency AC Power System unavailability value, as defined I by INPO in the Safety System Performance indicator Definitions, for the reporting i

month.

j e

The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value for December 1993 was 0.0.

There were no hours of planned or unplanned unavailability for the month. The Emer- -j gency AC Power System unavailability value was 0.0028 for 1993.

There was a total of 41.04 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months of planned unavailability for surveillance tests and _'

maintenance, and 0.22 hours2.546296e-4 days 0.00611 hours 3.637566e-5 weeks 8.371e-6 months of unplanned unavailability _for the emergency AC power system in 1993.

3 f

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator was 50.023. The 1995 INPO industry goal !

is 0.025 and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the three year period from 7/90 j through 6/93) is approximately 0.004. .;

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning j Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Positive Trend 19

(This page intentionally left blank. The method of calculating the FRI was revised in 1993.)

i a

i E Fuel Reliability indicator

-A-- 1995 INPO Industry Fuel Defect Reference (5 X 104 Microcuries/ Gram) lGOODI

~

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal Y l C C C C C C C C O O >

s.g 6 - ,

g A A A A A A A A A A ,

M 4- Cycle 15

) Refueling Outage

$$ 2-0 E ;

E;m;m;_;.;E;m;E; ;

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93

Beginning in Jan. 33 FRI uses INPO's revised calculation method. >

FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOFi The Fuel Reliability Indicator (FRI) value for December 1993 was 0.944 X10-* microcu-ries / gram. The purpose of the FRlis to monitorindustry progress in achieving and maintaining a high level of fuelintegrity. The December FRI value indicates a defect free core. The December FRI was calculated based on fission product activities present in the reactor coolant during steady state full power operation, December 16 through December 31. :

Cycle 15 plant operation started on November 25 and the plant attained 100% power on December 3. A trip occurred on December 6 due to turbine EHC problems. The plant restarted and gradually increased power, achieving 100% power on December 13.

Fission product activity data from plant full power operation, trip and restart shows no Xenon-133 activity increases and no iodine spiking present. This is an indication of a defect free core. The last detected fuel failure was during Cycle 13. ,

The INPO September 1992 Report " Performance Indicators for U.S. Nuclear Utility i Industry" (INPO No.92-011) states that "...the 1995 industry goal for fuel reliability is l that units should strive to operate with zero fuel defects. A value larger than 5.0 X 10-d microcuries/ gram indicates a high probability of unit operation with one or more fuel defects. The determination of current defect-free operation requires more sophisticated analysis by utility reactor engineers." The value of 5.0 X 10-* microcuries/ gram is de-fined as a " Fuel Defect Reference" number or a "Zero Leaker Threshold". Each utility will calculate whether the core is defect free or not. The 1994 Fort Calhoun Station FRI .

performance indicator goal will be to maintain a monthly FRI below 5.0 X10-d microcu-ries / gram. ,

Data Source: Holthaus/Guliani >

Accountability: Chase /Spilker '

Positive Trend 21

l

@ Numberof Failures /20 Demands Trigger Values for 20 DemarvJs i O Numberof Failures /50 Demands -V- Trigger Values for 50 Demands' i

f. E Numberof Failures /100 Demands - - Trigger Values for 100 Demands i~ 8-1 i

6-I 7 Y Y 7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 l 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 E E E E. E a .

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'O O 4

0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 l

1992 i

@ Numberof Failures /20 Demands Trigger Values for 20 Demands 1

.l O Numberof Failures /50 Demands -V- Trigger Values for 50 Demands l

! E Number of Failures /100 Demands - - Trigger Values for 100 Demands

) 8-i .

6-V T V . . , Y Y Y Y Y Y 4 4 4- 4 j 4-3 ,3 _3 _3 _

' 2 2 2 22 22 2 2 2 2 22 2- m 10111 0

0 0 0 0 I I I I I. 1 I I i i I i Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1

1991 !

l 22

@ Number of Failures /20 Demands --G- Trigger Values for 20 Demands O Number of Failures /50 Demands -V- Trigger Values for 50 Demands E Number of Failures /100 Demands --

Trigger Values for 100 Demands l GOOD l

+

6-V V ? ? ? ? Y ? Y Y Y Y ,

4- !

2 2 2 2 2 -

2-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a

y 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 -00 00t" 00 0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 ;

EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY :

This bar graph shows three monthly indicators pertaining to the number of failures that were reported during the last 20,50, and 100 emergency diesel generator demands at the Fort Calhoun Station. Also shown are trigger values which correspond to a high

level of confidence that a unit's diesel generators have obtained a reliability of greater than or equal to 95% when the failure values are below the corresponding trigger val-ues. The Fort CGihoun 1993 goalis to have fewer failures than these trigger values.

The demands counted for this indicator include the respective number of starts arid the respective number of load-runs for both Diesel Generators combined. The number of ;

start demands includes all valid and inadvertent starts, including all start-only demands .j and all start demands that are followed by load-run demands, whether by automatic or manualinitiation. Load-run demands must follow successful starts and meet at least '

one of the following criteria: a load-run that is a result of a real load signal, a load-run test expected to carry the plant's load and duration as stated in the test specifications, ;

and a special test in which a diesel generator was expected to be operated for a mini-mum of one hour and to be loaded with at least 50% of design load (see exceptions and other demand criteria in the Definition Section of this report).

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Positive Trend I

23

O DG-1 Failures /25 Demands M DG-2 Failures /25 Demands lGOODI t

S- --C>- Failure Trigger Value for 25 Demands / Fort Calhoun Goal 4- C O O O O O O O O O O O 3-2 2-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- e 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O , , , , , ,'O , , , , , j Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 O DG-1 Failures /25 Demands ;

I E DG-2 Failures /25 Demands lGOODI l 5- -O- Failure Trigger Value for 25 Demands / Fort Calhoun Goal 4- C O O O O O O O O O O O 3-

2. 2 2 2 2 1

1-r 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

l l

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 l

l 1991 l

24

l O DG-1 Failures /25 Demands lGOODI E DG-2 Failures /25 Demands y 5- O Failure Trigger Value for 25 Demands / Fort Calhoun Goat 4- C O O O O O O O O O O O 3-2-

1 1 1 1-0~ 0 0 ^

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 i , i , , , , , , , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS)

This indicator shows the number of failures experienced by each emergency diesel generator during the last 25 start demands and the last 25 load-run demands. A trigger value of 4 failures within the last 25 demands is also shown. This trigger value of 4 failures within 25 demands was the Fort Calhoun goal for 1993.

It must be emphasized that,in accordance with NUMARC criteria, certain actions will take place in the event that any one emergency diesel generator experiences 4 or more failures within the last 25 demands on the unit. These actions are described in the Definitions Section of this report. A System Engineering instruction has been approved for the Fort Calhoun Station to institutionalize and formally approve / adopt the required NUMARC actions.

Diesel Generator DG-1 has not experienced any failures during the last 25 demands on ;

the unit.

Diesel Generator DG 2 has not experienced any failures during the last 25 demands on the unit.

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Positive Trend 25

]

l

~

E DG-1 Unreliability Value

"'*"" Y"'"*

0.0025-l GOOD l

-+- Station Unreliability Value j V '

O.002 - Industry Upper 10% (0.001 for ' l a Three Year Average) 0.0015 - ;

0.001 - C C C C C C C C C C C C ,

0.0005- ,

00 0 0 00 0~0 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 O O , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 !

1992 E DG-1 Unreliability Value

@ DG-2 Unreliability Value lGOODI I

-+-- Station Unreliability Value :

0.11 - V '

O.1- .

{

0.09 -

0.08- .

i 0.07-0.06 -

0.05 - p 0.04 - M 0.03 -

0.02- :

{

0.01 - -

O O , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , , , , , , ,

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul _Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 ' ]

1991 i I

2s 1

E DG-1 Unreliability Value

@ DG-2 Unreliability Value l GOOD l

-+-- Station Unreliability Value

~

Industry Upper 10% (0.002 for 0.0025- a Three Year Average) 0.002 - C C C C C C C C C C C C 0.0015-0.001 -

0.0005-0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 00 0,0 0,0

' i '

4

' i ' I ' i ' l ' i ' l I I I I Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the likelihood that emergency AC power generators will respond to off-normal events or accidents. It also provides an indication of the effectiveness of maintenance, operation and test practices in controlling gene a-tor unreliability.

The year-to-date station EDG unreliability value at the end of December 1993 was 0.0.

For DG-1: There was 1 start demand for the reporting month without failure.

In addition, there was 1 load-run demand without failure.

For DG-2: There was 1 start demand for the reporting month without failure.

In addition, there was 1 load-run demand without failure. ,

Emergency diesel generator unreliability is calculated as follows:

value per DG = SU + LU - (SU x LU) where SU = Start Unreliability = number of unsuccessful starts number of valid start demands LU = Load-run Unreliability = number of unsuccessfulload-runs number of valid load-run demands Station Value = average of DG-1 and DG-2 values ,

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Positive Trend 27

(This page intentionally left blank. The method of reporting this indicator has changed in 1993.)

m

' - - - , - .o

l O Control Room Equipment Deficiencies Repairable On-Line l GOO 3 O Total Number of Control Room Equipmerit Definencies V -

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal For Total Equipment Deficiencies 80-70- . ~

~ - -

60- [ , - - _

4 - , - - ,

" ' , / .,

30- .

( / ; ;, / . ,

'. ' ' ',- ',- / '7

'.f . - -

20- ,

, L / ,/

/ , , /,

f 10-0

] ,

?

j

[,-

j-i

(

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93

@ Operator Work Around items Repairable On-Line O Total Number of Operator Work Around items 10~ -O- Fort Calhoun Goal for Total Operator Work Around items 8- _

6-C O O O O O C O O O O O 1 1 4 i i i i b i b i S 4 I i Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES This indicator shows the number of control room equipment deficiencies that are repair-able during plant operations (on-line), the total number of control room equipment defi-ciencies, the number of Operator Work Around (OWA) Items repairable on-line, the total number of OWAs and the Fort Calhoun goals.

There was a total of 61 control room equipment deficiencies at the end of December 1993. 47 of these deficiencies are repairable on-line and 14 require a plant outage to repair.

There were no identified Operator Work Around items at the end of the month.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun monthly goals are to have a maximum of 45 control room equip-ment deficiencies (total) and a maximum of 5 OWAs (total).

Data Source: Chase / Tills (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None 29

i O Monthly Personnel Radiation Exposure Personnel Cumulative Radiation Ex msure (Person-Reta)

-O- Fort Calhoun Annual Goal (250 Person-Rem) 1995 INPO Industry Goal (185 Person-Rem) l GOOD l V

-O- Industry Upper 10% (115.6 Person-Rem for a Three Year Average)

~

Cycle 14 Refueling Outage C O O O O O O O -M Cr u 200 - ^

A ^

A ^ ^

A A ^

A D O- O O O O O O O O O 0

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 5 Monthly Personnel Radiation Exposure Personnel Cumulative Radiation Exposure (Person-Rem)

-O- Fort Calhoun Annual Goal (75 Person-Rem) l GOOD l

--b- 1995 INPO Industry Goal (185 Person-Rem) V

-O- Industry Upper 10 Percentile (106 Person-Rem) 200 -

A ^

A ^ ^

A O O O O O O O O O O O O 100 -

C O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 30 1

e

r

/ i b

D Monthly Personnel Radiation Exposure ,.

Personnel Cumulative Radiation Exposure (Person-Rem) a

-O- Fort Calhoun AnnualGoal(200 Person-Rom)

--A-- 1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 185 Person-Rem) 300- 4 Industry Upper 10% (109 Person-Rem for a Three Year Average) 256 IGOODI Cycle 15 Refueling V outage 200- C O O O O O O O- O O O O ;

a a a a a a a a a a a a i

100- [

52 N

r, e i i 0

'90 '91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 ?

COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE During December 1993,4.161 person-rem was recorded by TLDs worn by personnel .

while working at the Fort Calhoun Station. The 1993 exposure was 156.59 person-rem.

The Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure for 1993 was a maximum of 200 person-rem.

The 1995 INPO industry goalis 185 person-rem per year. The industry upper ten 7 i percentile value (for the three year period from 7/90 through 6/93) is approximately 109 ,

person-rem per year. The yearly average for Fort Calhoun Station for the three years l from 1/91 through 12/93 was 154.7 person-rem per year.

[

Data Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Positive Trend SEP54 -

i 31 I

,,.i

i d

Highest Exposure for the Month (mrem)

'~ Highest Exposure for the Year (mrem) 5000-OPPD 4500 mrem /yr. Limit 4000-3000-2000- 1860

.a ~

s e ,.s.

^

1000-

R-hhf!/ ~ '

374 .2 s l n!:@5t 0 ,

December 1992 Highest Exposure for the Month (mrem)

Highest Exposure for the Year (mrem) 5000-OPPD 4500 mrem /yr. Limit 4000-3000-2000-1182 1000 - _. u , c- ;

>;W ,

Xl; 259 ,[. I / #9 I

0 ,

December 1991 32 m

Highest Exposure for the Month (mrem) j

- Highest Exposure for the Year (mrem) 5000 ,

OPPD 4500 mrem /yr. Limit I

4000- ,

3000-2000 -

Fort Calhoun 1500 mrem /yr. Goal -

.1217 1000- $5 wf IE5m$9E ' M .

st;v:xs <<

r g ,,4Re~ ;~ W l

[fh$h!$ipapa $

s$ 'NpWh 7 ,

152 +"

o m ,

g c ~< >, , : ax ,

December 1993 i

MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE During December 1993, an individual accumulated 152 mrem, which was the highest - f individual exposure for the month. ;

The maximum individual exposure for the year was 1,217 mrem at the end of Decem-ber. {

The OPPD limit for the maximum yearly individual radiation exposure is 4,500 mrem / -

year. The 1993 Fort Calhoun year-end goalis a maximum of 1,500 mrem. l i

Date Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source) . _;

Accountability: Chase /Lovett '

\

Positive Trend i a

l

-- [

> j Violations per 1,000 Inspection Hours l l GOOD l c)

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal (s1.5) Y l

4- ,

0

)

I 3-e

.9

_E '

g2-O. ,.

i c . c c c c c c c c c O l

E 3-

=

1 1

.9 1 i

5 0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92- -

1992 .]

Violations per 1000 Inspection Hours .

i 4-l GOOD l }

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal (s1.6) g e

o i

r

-E 3 - l C

.9 1 l

-E !

82-O. ;

E C c c c c O c -O c O t

8. !

E l

-S1-m T2 !

0 , , , , , , , , , ,. , , ;

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 l 1991 !

1

!1

! -j

l Violations per 1,000 Inspection Hours GOOD f

-O Fort Calhoun Goal (s1.5) ~ j 4- V l E i

-S :

3.03 (9

J 4

l 2- \_ _

12 C O 'O O O O O O O O O O E_ 1

$ l i

E 91 i

92 i

o . . . . . , ,

Dec92 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ' Jul 'Aug Sep Oct Nov93 l

I VIOLATIONS PER 1,000 INSPECTION HOURS !

i This indicator displays the number of NRC violations cited in inspection reports per . !

1,000 NRC inspection hours. This indicator is one month behind the reporting month due to the time involved with collecting and processing the data. .,

1 The violations per 1,000 inspection hours indicator was reported as 2.40 for the twelve months from December 1,1992 through November 30,1993. .

The following inspections ended during this reporting period:

IER No. Ii1[g No. of Hours ';

i None. ,

To date, OPPD has received a total of 9 violations in 1993:

^:

Lovellli Violations (0)

LevelIV Violations (4)< .l

-Level V Violations (0) :

Non-Cited Violations (NCV) (5) -)

l 1 The 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals for this indicator are a maximum of 1.5 viola- i tions per 1,000 inspection hours.

Data Source: Short/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source).

4

_ Accountability: Short

_. Adverse Trend: None

. 35

j 1

(This page intentionally left blank.)

l l

l I

l i

O NRC Significant Events Fort Calhoun Trend

--{"}- Industry AveraDe Trond 1

Od!:

O.2g -

7, _

Ei .-- __

91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 Year - Quarter

@ INPO Significant Events (SERs)

~

1 1 1 VS///b' Y$WS WWhb '

91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 Year - Quarter SIGNIFICANT EVENTS This indicator illustrates the number of NRC and INPO Significant Events for Fort Calhoun Station as reported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the blannual " Performance Indicators for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" report and INPO's Nuclear Network.

The following NBC significant events occurred between the second quarter of 1991 and the first quarter of 1993:

Second Quarter 1991: Safety related equipment was not adequately protected from a high energy line break.

Third Quarter 1992: The failure of a Pressurizer Code safety valve to reseat initiated a LOCA with the potential to degrade the reactor coolant pressure boundary, The following 1HEQ significant events, as reported in Significant Event Reports (SERs), oc-curred between the second quarter of 1991 and the first quarter of 1993:

Second Quarter 1992: Personnel and accessible building areas were contaminated with tran- ;

suranic, alpha-emitting radionuclides. ;

Third Quarter 1992: The failure of a nonessentialinverter during troubleshooting caused a turbine load rejection. This resulted in a high reactor coolant pressure automatic scram and the opening of the pressure relief valves and one of two pressurizer safety valves. One pressurizer safety valve subsequently reopened at a lower reactor coolant system pressure and remained partially open, resulting in a release of reactor coolant tc containment via the pressurizer quench tank.

First Quarter 1993: The plant operated for 4 months with reversed upper and lower nuclear )

instrument excore detector input signals to one of four channels of the reactor protection sys- l tem. j Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission & INPO Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 37

i i

l k

3- @ Number of Missed STs Resulting in LERs ;

2-t 1-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '

0 i , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1 1992 3- @ Number of Missed STs Resulting in LERs 2-1-

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan91 -Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 2

I 3-

@ Number of Missed STs Resulting in LERs l

2-1-

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i ,

7/f , . . . . . . . i i i i i

'91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS This indicator shows the number of missed Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Lic-ensee Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting month. The graph on the left shows the yearly totals for the indicated years.

There were no missed surveillance tests resulting in LERs during December 1993.

During the month of January 1993 it was discovered that during December 1992 an ASME Section XI Code required surveillance was not completed nor corrective mainte-nance performed as a result of AC-10A falling into the " Alert Range" (LER 93-003 Fail-ure to Satisfy Inservice Testing Requirements for Raw Water Pump).

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is zero.

Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Positive Trend SEP 60 & 61 s

1 I

(This page intentionally left blank.)

^l I

l f-i i

r i

h

l PERFORMANCE 1 Goal: To strive for Excellence in Operations utilizing the highest standards of performance at Fort Calhoun Station that result in safe, reliable plant operation in power produc-tion.

l 41

l 50-3 Net Generation (10,000 Mw hours) 40-35.95 36.18 g

h30- Cycle 14 u e 24.62 0

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92

~

E Net Generation (10,000 Mw hours) 40-34.61 35.05

. 31.18 8 30- 27.9 26 9

l;;;;;y;;,;

0 j ; ;

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 42

E Net Generation (10,000 Mw hours) 40-35.03 35.12 32.51 32.14 31.21 Cycle 15 g

g 30- 28.01 Refueling 25.93 l 2 l o 20-10-1.54 0 g i j i ; ; ; i i ; ; i l

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 STATION NET GENERATION During the month of December 1993 a net total of 335,608 MWH war, generated by the Fort Calhoun Station. Energy losses for the month are attributable to the rampup from the Cycle 15 refueling outage and a forced outage that began on December 6 and ended on December 7. The outage was caused by an EHC test failure.

Energy losses for September, October and November 1993 are attributable to the shutdown for the Cycle 15 refueling outage, which began on September 25 and ended on November 26.

Unplanned energy losses for the months of June and July were attributable to a forced outage that began on June 24 when the inadvertent jarring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine and reactor trip. The plant returned to 100% power on July 2nd.

Planned energy losses for the months of April and May were the result of a mainte-nance outage.

Data Source: Station Generation Report Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None y

'i

)

J l

-1 l

Forced Outage Rate .

i

-O- 1992 Fort Calhoun Goal (s2.4%) ?

1 16%- i 14%-

f 12%- '!

i 10%- ;

8% - l

?

6% -

4%-

1 gg_ C C C C C C C C C. C C O 0% , , , , , , , , , , , , ;

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Decs2 }

1992 :

Forced Outage Rate ;

-O- 1991 Fort Calhoun Goal (s2.4%)

16%-

14%- .l 12%-

10%- l

' l, 8% -

s 6% -

4%-

t 2%- C O O O O O O O O O O O j 0% , , , , , , i i , ' i , i :

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug_ Sep Oct Nov Dec91 ;

1991 :

44 i

l l

i Forced Outage Rate l GOOD l g,, _ -O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal (s2.4%) y

)

9.7 ~

9.3 8%-

Cycle 15 }

6%- Refueling Outage 4%-

C C C C C C C C C C g _ C f N #

i i i i 0% , , , , , , , , , , , ,

'89 'w0 '91 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 FORCED OUTAGE RATE The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 1.38% for the twelve months from Janu-ary 1,1993 to December 31,1993. A forced outage occurred on December 6 when the plant tripped during weekly testing of the turbine EHC system. The generator was off-line for 27.1 hours1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

There was one forced outage during the month of June 1993. This outage, which occurred when the inadvertent jarring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine and reactor trip, lasted 70.6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months .

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for the Forced Outage Rate was a maximum of 2.4%.

Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & NERC GAD Forms Accountability: Chase ,

Positive Trend l

i l

45 i l

l l

l 1

Monthly EAF i

1992 Year-to-Date Average EAF i 100 % - -

.. . u -

m 'hb #

W. - @, t. . .

p 3 m '

80%- is.

n Cycle 14 N e

~

ap $msII I

e Refuehng y. g "g @ - ,

4 Outage gli % _ g g%,. @

60%- 3$

sy:

s a 1sg$

D jf; o;

Ai R a* .ssss*8' s= ,

Mi v: -

4

)

. - @, 4.,@.

,,na ss** N

.e A.:

p: 4 4.;

1.->- +

g^ .;;

r i$:U did J ; $ ,' , esss8 ,w x v se 73:y .

40%- gg m s*

M; ',. 1s f.e v1 / M m 7 hy <

M . Y"{: Rii:

??

E-U $@.o s .<

~

sd.3

-yg,4

? o :

+ W. .

ex

-m::: -e: ;

a 20%- %.K r - J ?4 M:t at i.

.2 s df 5(!s# @i!

M ;M W !.(Ql::

%m. s 's - JPJ su & g -

5%.i $$ b kin $.$

M. S*D

- $# td;z: r;g W4 %

0% 6 I i i i i 4 4 I i 4 i Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct - Nov Dec92 1992 e

Monthly EAF 1991 Year-to-Date EAF 100% - -

@ $ NE "f""' ' [ ., d 22 un a N 3 4 M I?isij kb I Ik b $hl 80%- ga g

p

g p

.g p p $a$gpg g) <

v4 W gN W; w z;:

@el" t3L :Pn d.mit x:;y:.

'/h. :; .

e% gs e;3 1"4a f.

g -K3 gg- ..<.

db .eW v ? -f g } 7 sJg e M .

ng'"

60%, - M u; y Rm %ppi 6, QL & < ,

g W w

c. v, m.3 '. n. .

mx 5-11

p,Y ; y&' x~ 2: &.s&

li:R:-

m p ..

f.: $.!. .e}y 3 .. . . .x. . .i.V .n :;.,:.

~

4.. .c.,q- 5

't'<{' fy . "

[ .-y.' $f . *f - . e 5

-: a m$. ,

e -

- w'f - y -

40%- ks R.g. 6~ ?/ W M ns in D. # -

J"g

-[

1 N M #[ .he N $$ $mf fe [e! . @$ l wf at w

y 4 %n

$f '

i yc gy W et a.

a

-*g: l e #+. ,

20%- v .'

r

^

d>va kK -~

i t,a a.su f @on W; - ey'

^

"U 4 g[f"$,

t -

'4 S fjps i:$k.~:

QT ,

mhiff

$., v< P jg,1 gQ Si $v.![ $,<. . j'. Lg w - .,,,, .,.v.i < ., ,. ..

hU

~

'O.a 5 fd$/, "7.ij kN u.o; '

k. -

~IN' e'

i h- '

0% i e i i i i e i i i i i ,

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 '

1991 ,

7 I

46 1

l s

Monthly EAF 1993 Year-to-Date Average Monthly EAF 4

OODI Industry Median Value (76.7%)

100% - Cycle 15

/4 $\_ - -

Refueling Oumge 85.6 N ':[h h ,,,. 4 *

sc ( w _ ~

w. E b E @ _

b y a # * . g -

60.8 h $$ *h:

56.6 #

60%- E

@4 4* k[

p T

g i

M s

- 1, 31 >

$h *$ 3 h fk h h $f i dh 40%- h 2' m q g" g e s e a '

<>. 4 Vf- (W f$ < W s '

g ' ^? Q[ gj u

[

~

G 20%-

^

n , %

@ E @

I 'a- d n:- y i -

g- y

,1 n

y -

p i i i 0% , , , , , , , , , , , ,

90 91 92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Eqt alent Availability Factor (EAF), the year-to-date average monthly EAF for 1993, and t EAF for the previous 3 years.

The EAF for December 1993 was reported as 95.7% Energy losses for the month were due to rampup from the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage and a reactor trip that oc-curred on December 6 during weekly testing of the EHC system. The year-to-date average monthly EAF was reported as 76.2% at the end of December.

The April, May and June 1993 EAF values are the result of a maintenance outage and a forced outage that occurred when the inadvertent jarring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine and reactor trip.

The industry median EAF value for the three year period from 7/90 through 6/93 was 76.7 %

Data Source: Dietz/Parra (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 47

a 1992 Monthly Unit Capability Factor !

-4t- 1992 Year-to-Date Average Unit Capability Factor n

-+-- 36 Month Average Unit Capability Factor _

GOOD

--O- 1992 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 69.2%)

1995 INPO Industry Goal (80%)

Irdustry Upper 10% (89.6% for a Three Year Average) 100% - Cycle 14 -

P Refueling Ti;r $g!. .' s ,

jg S 80%- Outage ji g; j if a -

': -c

^

o 6

^

f -

o- 6 6 6 a - - -

g~ hj M 60%- $I ;[@ W !@! - S..

m i

q 7 40%-

h; pEL

.m .

MM :

-Jf ,

@4 1 .. ;

$l ,- in i 20%- -

00 pi: s._ -

!. 's [I M 'l 4 4 g 3 55 e c 0% , , , , , , , , , , , i Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 Q 1991 Monthly Unit Capability Factor A

1991 Year-to-Date Average Unit Capability Factor -

-O- 1991 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 90%)

100% -

3T r M5 mm IEN 7 E F :: --

M 3 f--- Q 80%- . -

f eq- S. h

.s % - nd W

@! if$ IN IN $.$

60%- M4 $$ gl l .l:c, j$I.-

7 Mn % l l -

y, ?a J r 3 # .

'* :Ei i .gQ [IQ !

40%- g ' *: * -

w g g ,

(; ; .

& R:h sfi l

$pf g

& %}@ % &

20%-

if -,

~

ky %y w gr i

L , j .

4 p?

0%

!{ll 5

.f, h l Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug. Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 48

O Monthly Unit Capability Factor

-W- Year to-Date Unit Capability Factor }

- +- 36 Month Average Unit Capability Factor

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal l GOOD l ;

1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 80%) :

Cycle 15 i Industry Upper 10% (85.4% for a Three Year Average) Refueling 4 Outage 100% -

80%- b 3 w :

N n 7, w N

a a

- 7 w

4o _

h hff ,

20%- !

., hn >l c ,. n ,

M n h~? )e g i i l i I i 4 4 i 1 4 6 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 ,

UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unit Capability Factor (UCF) value, the 1993 and 1992 - ,

year-to-date UCFs, the goals, the 36 month average UCFs, the 1995 INPO industry goal and the approximate industry upper ten percentile value. UCF is defined as the ratio of the available ,

energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy generation (the energy ,

that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage. :

The UCF for December 1993 was reported as 92.4%. Energy losses for the month were due to '

rampup from the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage and a plant trip that occurred on December 6 during testing of the EHC system. The 1993 UCF was reported as 76.8%. The 36 month l average UCF was reported as 75.4% at the end of December. ,

The UCF for June 1993 was reported as 82.6%. Energy losses for the month were due to t Moderator Coefficient Testing and a forced outage from June 24 through June 27, l The UCF for May 1993 was reported as 88%. Energy losses for the month were due to the maintenance outage that began on April 24 and continued through May 1 and the subsequent !

rampup. The UCF was reported as 77.1% for the month of April 1993. Planned energy losses for April were the result of the maintenance outage from April 24 through 30.

The 1995 INPO industry goal is 80% and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the three year period from 7/90 through 6/93) is approximately 85.4%.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for Unit Capability Factor was 74.1%. The basis for this goal was 56 days for the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage,20 days rampup (10 full power equivalent days), j unplanned loss of 11.5 full power equivalent days, and 10 day ramp up (5 full power equivalent l days), mini outage of 7 full power equivalent days, and 10 day ramp up (5 full power equivalent )

days).

Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report !

Accountability: Chase Positive Trend i 49 i

9 i

s 1992 Monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor .

-- M - 1992 Year-to-Date Average Unplanned Capability Loss Factor i

-O- 1992 Fort Calhoun Goal ,

1995 INPO Industry Goal (4.5%)

V Industry Upper 10% (1.85% for a Three Year Average) .!

r 70%- .!

60%-

50%-

40%-

30%-

I 20%- T _

W - -

10%- !! .

Q Q t m--et = --C O O 0% - , ., , - , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 ;

.l-Q 1991 Monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor l F

-et- 1991 Year-to-Date Average Unplanned Capability Loss Factor GOOD :

-O- 1991 Fort Calhoun Goal y 1995 INPO Industry Goal ,

70%-

60%- m P r 50%- f [

40%- eg 30%-

20%- %y e g- ;

w _

g 10%- , ,- = r ,

J g g - -

0*/*

U ' " " ~

" d i i i i i i e i i i i i :

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct - Nov Dec91 .

1991 1 50 I

70%-

O Monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 60%- -M-- Year-to-Date Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

--O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 4.5%) lGOODI 1995 INPO IMustry Goal ( 4.5%)

40%- Industry Upper 10% (1.65% for a Three Year Average) 30%- Cycle 15 Refueling Outage 20%-

.,}

A 10% -

N.

[

o-o o O O O o-O--C ~

0 0 0 i

0% # , # , M , # , o , , , , , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (UCLF), the 1993 year-to-date UCLF, the goal, the 1995 INPO industry goal and the approximate industry upper ten percentile value. UCLF is defined as the ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given period of time, to the reference energy generation (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conditions), expressed as a percentage.

The UCLF for the month of December 1993 was reported as 7.2%. Unplanned energy losses for the month were the result of a plant trip that occurred on December 6 during EHC testing. The 1993 UCLF was 3.5%. The 36 month average UCLF was reported as 9.3% at the end of November.

The UCLF was reported as 16.6% for the month of June 1993. Unplanned energy losses for the month were the result of a forced outage that occurred as a result of the inadvertent jarring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard.

The 1995 INPO industry goal is 4.5% and the industry upper ten percentilo value (for the three year period from 7/90 through 6/93) is approximately 1.65%.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for Unplanned Capability Loss Factor was 4.5%. The basis for this goal was an unplanned loss of 11.5 full power equivalent days and 10 day rampup (5 full power equivalent days).

l Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase i Positive Trend l 51 l

- FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical (Year-to-date)

- + - - FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical (for the last 36 months)

-O- 1992 Fort Calhoun Goal

-&- 1995 INPO Industry Goal

-O- industry Upper 10% (0.6 per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical over a 36 month time period) 8- <

7- !

6-5-

4-3- ]

2- i

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ I 1

A-0 m ,

W W

, . %@May , y , . , k,$,h,h, m m Jan92 Feb Mar Apr Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 4- E Numberof FCS ReactorScrams 3-

~

1 1 1 l~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , ,- , , , , , , , , ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep ' Oct Nov Dec92 1992 FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical (Year-to-date)

FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical (for the last 36 months) .

7- -O- 1991 Fort Calhoun Goal 6-5- -+- 1995 INPO Industry Goal 4~

-O- Industry Upper 10% (1.7 per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical over a 36 month time period) 3-l 2-O O ^

O

^

O^

O

^

O^

O

^

O

^

O

^

O^

O

^

O

^

1- 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g , U , U , U , U , U , U , U , U , U , U , W Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 4.

3~

E Number of FCS Reactor Scrams 2-l~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 52

8- - FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical (Year-to date) 7'

--+- FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical (for the last 36 months) 6-

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal ,

5- -a- 1995 INPOIndustry Goal ,

4-

-D- Industry Upper 10% (0.51 per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical over a 36 month time period) 3-E . . . .

1- A $ $ A A"m $ a u u u A 0 6[-O C

Jan93 Feb O O Mar O

Apr C

May M , O , 0- r-C Jun O

Jul O

Aug O

Sep O

Oct D

i D

O-Nov Dec93-Y $

3 E Numberof FCS ReactorScrams Ref 2- Outage

$ j 3 0 0 0 $ l~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

~

s i i i i 0 , , , , , , , , , , , i

'89 '90 '91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 HOURS CRITICAL -

The upper graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical (as defined in INPO's 12/92 publication " Detailed Descriptions of Interna-tional Nuclear Power Plant Performance Indicators and Other Indicators") for Fort Cal-houn Station. This value is calculated by multiplying the total number of scrams in a specified time period by 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months , then dividing that number by the total number of critical hours in the same time period. The lower graph shows the number of unplanned - ,

automatic reactor scrams that occurred during each month for the last twelve months. -

The 1993 station value is 1.98 at the end of December. An unplanned automatic reac-tor scram occurred on December 6 during EHC testing. The value for the last 36 months is 1.67.

An unplanned automatic reactor scram occurred on June 24,1993 when the inadvertent jarring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine and reactor trip. ,

l 1

The 1993 and 1992 goals for unplanned automatic reactor scrams per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months )

critical have been set at zero. The 1995 INPO industry goalis a maximum of one unplanned automatic reactor scram per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical. The industry upper ten I

percentile value is approximately 0.51 scrams per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical for the 36 month time period from 7/90 through 6/93.

- 1 Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs) 1 Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 53 ,

1

i 3-

-E INPO Safety System Actuations

--O- 1992 Fort Calhoun Goal - ,

O Industry Upper 10 Percentile ;

g-t 1- l t

0- f Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul - Aug Sep - Oct Nov Dec92 1992 3- -

INPO Safety System Actuations

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal :

r C Industry Upper 10 Percentile _3 2- lj I

4

'h ~

,. 1-P 1

0 0 , O , O , O , O , O , O , O i O , O i O , O ,

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 i

+

l l

~

y '-

)

3-D Safety Systern Actuations (INPO Definition) ;

-O- 1993 & 1992 Fort Calhoun Goals O Industry Upper 10 Percentile 2-Cycle 15 Refueling q 1-g Outage 31 d $

d M

'I$

i

'7! % .

!j g

$ 0 h i

i ."i o 0 i O i O i O i O i O i O i O i O i O i O i O i

'90 '91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS-(INPO DEFINITION)

There were no INPO unplanned safety system actuations during the month of Decem-ber 1993. The Cycle 15 Refueling Outage, which began on September 25, ended on .

November 26.

The last INPO unplanned safety system actuation occurred during the month of July 1992 and was due to the loss of an inverter and the subsequent reactor trip on 7/3/92.

The 1993 goal for the number of INPO unplanned safety system actuations is zero.

Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

Accountability: Jaworski/Foley/Ronning I

Positive Trend l

l 5

- 12 Month Running Total NRC SSAs -

-O- CriticalHours G NRC Safety System Actuations (SSAs) 10- -1000 900 8- 800

.$ 700

e j 6- 600 g E -500 5 3

$4- 400 W O

b

300 2- n 200

/: 100 0 0 I J91 F M A M J J A S O N 091 ;

1991 l

1

12 Month Running TotrJ SSAs (NRC Definition)

-+-- Critical Hours

@ Safety System Actuations (NRC Definition) 1o- -1000 )

900 7 p Cycle 15

"" Tii Retuoling 700 e h 6- huI; "'*9' 600 E Outa9' 500 }-

k4- -400 $

I- ;

- 300 b f g

gg2- 200 I 4 i i i o - - ,

. N N NN -

N

'90 '91 '92 J FMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND 1992 1993 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS-(NRC DEFINITION)

This indicator shows the number of unplanned safety system actuations (SSAs), which includes the High and Low Pressure Safety injection Systems, the Safety injection Tanks, and the Emer-gency Diesel Generators. The NRC classification of SSAs includes actuations when major equipment is operated and when the logic systems for these safety systems are challenged.

An unplanned safety system actuation occurred in December 1993 when the main turbine and reactor tripped during Electro-Hydraulic Control pump start testing.

An unplanned safety system actuation occurred in June 1993 when the inadvertent jarring of a .

345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine and reactor trip.

An unplanned safety system actuation occurred on April 30,1993 when a non-licensed operator 1 mistakenly opened the wrong potential fuse drawer causing a low voltage alarm on bus 1 A1, a loadshed on bus 1 A1 and an auto start of an EDG. l An unplanned safety system actuation occurred on August 22,1992 due to the failure of an AC/

DC converter in the Turbine Electro Hydraulic Control system. Pressurizer safety valve RC-142 then opened prior to reaching design pressure during a plant transient and trip. Two unplanned safety system actuations occurred in July 1992: 1) On July 3 there was an inverter failure and the subsequent reactor trip; 2) On July 23 there was an unplanned diesel generator start when an operator performing a surveillance test inadvertently pushed the normal start button instead of the alarm acknowledge button. An unplanned safety system actuation occurred on May 14, 1992 when the turbine generator tripped on a false high level moisture separator trip signal which caused a simultaneous reactor trip and subsequent anticipatory start signal to both diesel generators.

There have been 0.75 unplanned safety system actuations/ quarter for the last 12 months. The 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals for this indicator are 0.

Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Ucensee Event Reports (LERs)

Accountability: Jaworski/Foley/Ronning Adverse Trend: None 57 l

5 Monthly Gross Heat Rate

-- A - 1992 Year-to-Date Gross Heat Rate 10.5-O 1 1 i i i 1992 E Monthly Gross Heat Rate

-A- 1991 Year-to-Date Gross Heat Rato Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 m

4 E Monthly Gross Heat Rate

--4-- 1993 Year-to-Date Gross Heat Rate lG00Dl O 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal (s10,168) V 10.5-10304 10300 10177 j Cycle 15 A i

. g Refueling O l Outage ;

3 m10- '

! +

i 9.5 - !

i i i 9-

, '90 91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 i GROSS HEAT RATE

! This indicator shows the Gross Heat Rate (GHR) for the reporting month, the year-to-date GHR, the 1993 goal and the year-end GHR for the previous 3 years.

The gross heat rate for Fort Calhoun Station was 10,051 for the month of December

1993. The GHR for the year was 10,223.

The GHR was not calculated for the months of October and November 1993 because of '

l the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage.

l l The GHR varies with fluctuations in river water temperature. In general, the GHR im-prc , during the winter months and degrades during the summer. This is because the l gross noat rate is not normalized to the design river water temperature of 60 degrees j Fahrenheit. ,

The 1993 year-end gross heat rate goalis a maximum of 10,168 BTU /KWH. l l l j

Data Source: Holthaus/ Gray (Manager / Source) I l Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Adverse Trend: None 59

1992 Monthly Thermal Perfortnance 1992 Year-to-Date Average Thermal Performance

-+- 1992 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 99.3%)

Dl V

O 1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 99.5%)

Industry Upper 10% (99.8%)

100% -

-h j i

1 99%- Cycle 14 g. ff Refueling )(g JE Outage 1 !$

ll$

$. !!!k

-gj{ W e sg vu x fc M

!!$4 .@

98% -

; , , ; ; , ; ; ; ; g Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 l

g Monthly Thermal Performance

- 1993 Year-to-Date Average Monthly Therrnal Perforrnance 4

--O-- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 99.4%) l GOOD l

+ 1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 99.5%)

-a- Industry Upper 10% (99.9%)

A / A A A A A A A f. A 09% ""

, ; ; ; g j g ; - ; i , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 THERMAL PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the Thermal Performance value for the reporting month, the year-to-date average thermal performance value, the 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals, the 1995 INPO industry goal and the approximate industry upper ten percentile value.

The thermal performance value for December 1993 was 99.54%. The average monthly ,

thermal performance value from January through December (excluding April, October and November) was 99.4%.

The thermal performance value for the months of November and October 1993 was not calculated due to the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage. The thermal performance value for April 1993 could not be calculated (per INPO guidance) because the plant was operated at less than 80% power from April 1 through 23 prior to the maintenance outage.

The decline in thermal performance values through March was attributed to circulating water flow reductions possibly caused by condenser fouling and/or circ. water pump degradation. Inspection of CW-1B during the B" cell outage on 4/93 showed no abnor-mal degradation of the pump impeller. Inspections during the April maintenance outage indicated considerable fouling of condenser tubes, a leaking divider plate gasket in FW-48, and a tom backwash valve seat. The condenser was cleaned and equipment repairs made.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal for this indicatorwas a minimum of 99.4%. The 1995 INPO industry goal is 99.5% and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the one year period from 7/92 through 6/93)is approximately 99.9%.

Data Source: Jaworski/Popek Accountability: Jaworski/Popek Positive Trend g

-- d 4; -p 1

I (T his page intentionally left blank.) .:

i t

i b

i

-N t

t i

f T

l 1

W

I l

i l

B ThermalOutput

-O- Fort Calhoun 1495 MW Goal

- Tech Spec 1500 MW Limit 1500 , e ,ee,,,.-.....,,,,..

l

", 1:; ;

. ;f :.;

1400 +::

T JU(;f:

gm g'4 l .

, n 1300- D. m.; : 1-U: )u 1

s: - ,

/[ ' < M' . yi:h: J[ j i

.).

. :;y_ yf a.: f

-' ;?

1200 '

: i mt. l

.. * 's %. ,

.:4 ; :;

1100 ,l 'I . i

+: i

::, L$. j 1000 .y 'M naw; - E 'Tg '

p.. ' jay s i

' ~

, i

.y L I

. ! Q:f;

900 [ 3 l p 3gt t 1 g- . .;.c. <gy ;3 l

' 800 F . .

9%( i k, .

~

f v:l '

s. .

.' 2 ;;, .: q l

$: q !

700 g-s

.: .l :(-['7

. , n. ve . y

'] p , '$ . L {

600 I' .

. .1.f..L' a

y. . -y3p- ;

e .. .

>f

.g';.fhp7> -4 500 '.2 % 4

' ' ' ' ^ " ~ * ' "

.1... .

" ' ~

400 i 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 l

l l DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT i The thermal output graph displays the daily operating power level during December i

1993, the 1500 thermal megawatt average technical specification limit, and the 1495 l thermal megawatt Fort Calhoun goal. The Cycle 15 Refueling Outage ended on No-l vember 26. On December 6 a reactor trip occurred during weekly testing of the turbine

EHC system.

1 Data Source: Holthaus/ Gray (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Tills l Adverse Trend: None 83 i

l 1

1

Equipment Forced Outage Rate 2- -O- 1992 Fort Calhoun Goal (s0.2) 1.8 -

1.6 -

1.4 -

1.2 -

1-0.8 -

0.6 -

0.4-0.2 - C C C C C C C C C O O % % % -

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 2- Equipment Forced Outage Rate 1.8 -

1.6 -

1.4 -

l 1.2 -

1-l 0.8 -

0.6 -

0.4-0.2 -

0 Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 64

l

'~ --t>- Equipment Forced Outage Rate /1,000 Critica! Hours

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal (s0.20) l GOOD V

0.53 .

0.5 j 0.5-Cyde 15_ !

Refueling ;

Outage s 0.25- ;

C O O ---C O O O O O O O O i

i

~

i e i 0 0,0, .: ,0,;,;,0,0,;i ,0, l

'90 *91 92 Jan93 Feb Mac Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 l EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS l The equipment forced outage rate per 1,000 critical hours was 0.0'for the months from January through December 1993. The value for the last 12 months is 0.0. ;

The last equipment forced outage occurred in August 1992 and continued through l

September. It was due to the failure of an AC/DC converter in the Turbine Electro Hydraulic control System. :

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.20.

I Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Positive Trend 5

1

, l

)

-E-- # of Component Categories ;

--+-- # of Apphcation Categories l

40- + Total # of Categories 35-l 30-en

.@ 25- .

8> ,A y20-0 15- ;, i 10- - E 5-0 , , , i e i i i e i i i i 8 i i i 8 J91 F M A M J J A S O N D J92 F M A M J J92 g WearOut/ Aging S Other Devices

@ Manufacturing Defect O uaintenancerresting O Engineering / Design Q Error j 53.3%

0.5% Percent of TotalFailures '

During the Past18 Months DECEMBER 1992

/ 8.0%

/ (.

/ h

/ (:

15.1 %

. ll1 1EJlllilllilli 06

of Component Categories 40- -+- # of Application Categories

'35- -*- Total # of Categories g30-

'E25-20-

^

215- f ?

N Y

~

10- V _ _

_ m" "

5-0 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

J92 A S O N D92 J93 F M A M J J A S O N D93 3 WearOut/ Aging Q OtherDevices

@ Manufacturing Defect O Maintenance / resting 2.0%

8.0% 0 Engineering / Design @ Error 2M.

8.0%

Percent of Total Failures During the Past 18 Months

/

I j /

F 5.0 llll COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

The top chart illustrates the number of component categories, application categories and total categories in which the Fort Calhoun Station has significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than the industry failure rates during the past 18 months (from April 1992 through September 1993). Fort Calhoun Station reported a higher failure rate in 8 of the 87 component categories (valves, pumps, motors, etc.) during the past 18 months. The station reported a higher failure rate in 8 of the 173 application categories (main steam stop valves, auxiliary / I emergency feedwater pumps, control element drive motors, etc.) during the past 18 months. I The pie chart depicts the breakdown by INPO cause categories (see the " Definitions" section of ~

this report for descriptions of these categories) for the 100 failure reports that were submitted to j INPO by Fort Calhoun Station during the past 18 months. Of these, the failure cause was i known for 86. The pie chart reflects known failure causes, i

Data Source: Jaworski/ Dowdy (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/ Dowdy .

Adverse Trend: None '

67

Components With More Than One Failure X Components With More Than Two Failures V 25-20 20- 18 18 1_8 _

g 15- #

13 w 10-w, 5- 4 4 4 i ; 2 2j( k 0

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992

Components With More Than One Failure 25-GOOD X Components With More Than Two Failures y 20-15-12 10 :

10- ;

6 5- 4 4 5

5 /

/ ,4, ,4, 2,

2,

,2,

,2 r

2, er

['

2,

q <

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 {

l, OB

i

--+-- Components With More Than One Failure ': :

--M-- Components With More Than Two Failures V 25-21 >

~

18 15-11 11 11 11 11 10- 9 9/ ,

5 3,, 3, 3 ,3 3 .3' n n < %.2 n n 2 2 O +

Jan93 Feb- Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep'- Oct - Nov Dec93 REPEAT FAILURES The Repeat Failures indicator (formerly called the " Maintenance Effectiveness" perfor-mance indicator) was developed in response to guidelines set forth by the Nuclear -

Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (NRC/

AEOD). The NRC requirement for a Maintenance Effectiveness Performance Indicator has been dropped, but station management considers it useful to continue to track repetitive component failures using the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS).

This indicator shows the number of NPRDS components with more than one failure - -- ;

during the last eighteen months and the number of NPRDS component 3 with more than two failures during the last eighteen months.

During the last 18 reporting months there were 11 NPRDS components with more than .[

1 failure. 2 of the 11 had more than two failures. The tag numbers of the components ,

with more than two failures are AC-100 and CH-18. Recommendations and actions to -

correct these repeat component failures are listed in the quarterly Component Failure ,

Analysis Report. .

7 Data Source: Jaworski/ Dowdy (Manager / Source) >

Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None m l i

t

I 6-Calculated Check Valve Failure Rate per Million Component Hours 5- --A- Industry Check Valve Failura Rate per Million Component Hours

--O- Fort Calhoun Goal ( 2.00 E-6) 4-so LU 3-A- AA - -i 2- C O O O O O O O O O O O 1-0 Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 6-1991 Calculated Check Valve Failure Rate per Million Component Hours 5- - Industry Check Valve Failure Rate per Million Component Hours

-O-- Fort Calhoun 1991 Goal ( 2.00 E-6) 4-9

3- A W A A _

2- O O O O O O O O O O O 1-0 l Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 l 1991 70

-i

6-Calculated Check Valve Failure Rate per Million Component Hours i

S- --or- Industry Check Valve Failure Rate per Million Cornponent Hours

-O-- Fort Calhoun Goal (s2.00 E-6) l GOOD l

+ .

o y 3-A A A M A '

2- C C C C C C O --C - C C O 1 1 1 -

1-W0 1

, , , 3 ,

N ,i;,,,,

90 '91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 No. of Check Va!ve Failures CHECK VALVE FAILURE RATE This indicator shows the calculated Fort Calhoun check valve failure rate, the Fort Calht' goal and the industry check valve failure rate. This rate is based upon failures durin: he previous 18 months. The number of check valve fanures at Fort Calhoun StatP for the previous three years are shown on the left. l The data for the industry check valve failure rate is three months behind the reporting month due to the time involved in collecting and processing the data.

For September 1993, the Fort Calhoun Station reported an actual check valve failure rate of 0.0, while the industry reported an actual failure rate of 2.16 E-6. At the end of December 1993, the Fort Calhoun Station reported a calculated check valve failure rate of 0.0045 E-6.

The 1993 Fod Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum failure rate of 2.00 E-6. !

Data Source: Jaworski/ Dowdy (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Rollins Positive Treno SEP 43 71

l Cumulative Dry Active Waste Sent For Processing (in cubic feet) 25000- , _ _

20000- : :

15000 -

10000-5000 -

0 -

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 E Radioactive Waste Buried This Month (in cubic feet)

Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried

-O- Fort Calhoun Goat For Waste Buried (3,000 cubic feet) [

1995 INPO Industry Goal (3,864 cubic feet) ,

-O- Industry Upper 10% (2,077.9 cubic feet) 4000- A a a a a a ; a a a a a 3000 - C O O O O O O O O O O O 20 D C D O O O O O O O , , , , , , , , , , , ;

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 25000- -

Cumulative Dry Active Waste Sent For Processing (in cubic feet) 20000-15000- - .

10000- ~ ' '

5000-O , -

[ , , , , , , , , , , .

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 Radioactive Waste Buried This Month (in cubic feet)

Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal For Waste Buried (4,500 cubic feet) 1995 INPO Industry Goal (3,884 cubic feet)

-O- Industry Upper 10 Percentile Waste Buried (3,072 cubic feet) 4000 - k k k k k k k k k k k k 3000- D O O O O O O O O O O O 2000-1000 -

0 , , , , , , , , , , , 3 Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 72

25000- : Cumulative Dry Active Waste Sent For Processing (in cubic feet) 20000-15000-10000-5000 -

_/

0 : , T~,~, , , , , , , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 i B Radioactive Wasts Buried This Month (in cubic feet)

Cumulative Radio'rtive Waste Bured t

-O- Fort Calheur ..at For Waste Buried (1,000 cubic feet)

-A- 1995 INPC Justry Goal (3,884 cubic feet)

-O- Industry Upper 10% (1,740.2 cubic feet) 4000- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

~

2278 .

2000- O D 1334 C 1000- C O O O O O O O O O OJ i x"4 us/f AO , , , , , , , , , , , ,

'91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 6 Year-end Total VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE The upper graph shows the volume of dry radioactive waste sent for prwessing. The lower graph shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumulative annual total for radioactive waste buried, and the year-end totals for radioactive waste j bu'ied the previous 2 years. ,

Cumulative amount of solid radwaste shipped off-site for processing (cubic feet) 12,740.0 Amount of solid radwaste shipped off-site for processing during December (cubic feet) 0.0 ,

Volume of Solid Radwaste Buried during December (cubic feet) 352.6 i Cumulative volurne of solid radioactive waste buried in 1993 (ajbic feet) 857.8 i Amount of solid radioactive waste in temporary storage (cubic feet) 0.0 The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for the volume of solid radioactive waste which has been l buried is 1,000 cubic feet. The 1995 INPO industry goalis 110 cubic meters (3,884 cubic feet) per year. The industry upper ten percentile value from 7/90 through 6/93 is approximately 49.27 cubic meters (1,740.22 cubic feet) per year.

Data Source: Chase /Breuer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Positive Trend SEP 54 73 I

I

E Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit 3%- j

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal (s2%)

^

c i

Cycle 14 ;

2%-l Refueling C C C C C Outage 1%-

i J

0% - l Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 i

1992 i

3%- E Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit i

-O- For1 Call sn Goal (s2%) ,

7/.- C C C C C C C C C C C I

1%-

0%-

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Oct Nov Dec91 1991 1

74 l

E Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit l GOOD l 3%- -O-- Fort Calhoun Goal (s2%)

2%- C O O O O O O O O C O Cycle 15 Refueling Outage 1%-

0%- ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERCENT OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT ,

The Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit indicator tracks the pri-mary system chemistry performance by monitoring six key chemistry parameters. The key parameters are: lithium, dissolved oxygen, chlorides, fluoride, hydrogen and sus-pended solids.100% equates to all six parameters being out of limit for the month.

The Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit was 0.9% for the month of :

December 1993.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is a maximum of 2% Hours Out of Limit. :

Data Source: Smith / Spires (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Smith Positive Trend b

l

1 l

l

)

E Semndary System CPI

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal (0.45) 9 usty &al(020) !

1.5 -

l Semndary System CPI Limit ;

-O- Industry Upper 10% (0.20) 1 1- + l l l l l l l l Cycle 14 Refueling )

Outage 0.5 -

0 3 ; ; ; ; i ; i ; ; ; i Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 l 1992 1

2%-

E % of Hours Chemistry is Outside OG Guidelines l

i

~

Cycle 14

{ Refueting l Odage I;;ii";iiii.g ;

0. i i . )

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 76

i i

E Secondary System CPI I

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal l GOOD l

--6-- 1995 INPO Industry Goal (0.30) Y 1.5 - l Secondary System CPI Limit ,

--O- Industry Upper 10% (0.18) ,

1- l l 1 l ; l l l l +

1 i i i 1 6 1 i i i i i i i . I

'90 '91 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 E % of Hours Chemistry is Outside OG Guidelines 3_l GOOD l t :

Cycle 15 1%- Refueling 0% i i g i i Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul I j i i

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 Data Not Available

i 1

SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY The top graph, Secondary System Chemistry Performance Index (CPI)', is calculated l using the following three parameters: cation conductivity in steam generator blowdown, i sodium in steam generator blowdown, and condensate pump discharge dissolved oxygen. The bottom graph shows the percent of total hours of 13 parameters exceed-ing the Owners Group (OG) guidelines during power operation.

The INPO CPI for December 1993 was reported as 0.846. The average monthly CPI for the last 12 months (excluding October and November due to the Cycle 15 Refueling )

Outage)is 0.562. The OPPD CPI value for December was 1.13. The percent of hours exceeding the OG guidelines for December was not available. ;

The 1993 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for the CPIis a maximum value of 0.60. The INPO 1995 Industry goalis 0.30. The Fort Calhoun goal is based on site specific chem-istry treatment, i.e. morpholine. The INPO goal does not consider the influence of '

morpholine and the by-products of morpholine from thermal decomposition.

The industry upper ten percentile value for this indicator was approximately 0.18 for'the twelve months from 7/92 through 6/93.

~

Data Source: Smith / Spires (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Smith Adverse Trend: None .n i

'~

i

{

(This page intentionally left blank.)

i i

8 3

i

'I P

h

-?

i o

i I

v - , - .,.

i i

COST l i

Goal: To operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as a viable source of electricity. ,

i i

o a

r p

4

\

79 I

--M- Actuals -O- Budget 6-5.75-5 25 5 -.

7 4.75-34.5-I425-3.75 _ -

~

3,5 -

3.25-3-

2.75-2.5 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 Months The unit price budget in 1992 is unusually high since the rescheduling of the Fall 1991 outage is not accounted for in the 12 - month budget average.

k i

4

~

--R- Actuals --C}- Budget A Plan 3.75 -

3.5 -

I 3:

I 3.25-

if O

3-2.75 -

2.5 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

D91 D92 J93 F M A M J J A S O N D93 D94 095 r)96 D97 Months CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun Station.

The cents per kilowatt hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per kilo-watt hour on a 12 month rolling average for the current year. The basis for the budget curve is the approved 1993 budget. The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating Report.

The December 31 amounts are also shown for the prior years 1991 and 1992. In addi-tion, the report shows the plan amounts for the years 1994 through 1997 for reference.

The basis for the dollars are the Nuclear Long Range Financial Plan and the 1993 Corporate Planning and Budget Review. The basis for the generation is provided by Nuclear Fuels.

The actual production expense is approximately $5 million below the revised budget.

The actual generation of 3,092,354,900 KWH (net)is 155,000,000 KWH below budget.

The combination of these resulted in a unit production cost of 3.24 cents /KWH.

Data Source: Scofield/Jamieson (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Scofield Adverse Trend: None 81

l l

O Actual Division Staffing e

E Authorized Division Staffing 600-500- 469 472 400- -

300-203 207 ,

200- '

130 113 100-0- - i _

i i Nuclear Operations Production Engineering Nuclear Services ;

1992 I

j O Actual Division Staffing E Authorized Division Staffing

~

558 )

54 500- {

400- l I

300-206 204 200-100-50 52

- o_ _ i .

1 I Nuclear Operations Production Engineering Nuclear Services 1991 i

I

4 O ActuaioivisionStatfing E Authorized Division Staffing 600 - l 500 - 468 6

I 400--

s 300 -

{

r 192 1M 200 -

100 -

0- -

i ; i Nuclear Operations Production Engineering Nuclear Services .

t STAFFING LEVEL The authorized and actual staffing levels at the end of December 1993 are shown for -l the three Nuclear Divisions. i t

Data Source: Ponec (Manager & Source)

Accountability: Ponec Adverse Trend: None SEP 24 L

4 f

83 i

4 e

.i l

i l

l 17-

- Spare Parts inventory Value ($ Million) l l

16-Cycle 14 15- Refueling Outage 14-

~

13- --

12- 1 11-10 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 17- j

- Spare Parts inventory Value ($ Million) l 16-l 1.5 -

14- j 13-12-11 -

10 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov. Dec91 i 1991 i i

I i

W !

ycle 15

- Spare Parts inventory Value ($ Million) ,

17-Outage 16-15-14-7 :

13-12- ,

q 11 - ,

10 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 '

\

SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE -

i

- The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of December 1993 was reported as $15,766,426.. The rise in inventory value is the result of several factors:

1. Prior to July, incorrect reports from MMD gave low inventory values.

i

2. Significant amounts of material previously purchased as "non-stock"-

have been added to the inventory.

3. Significant amounts of material purchased and staged for outage use were not used and remain in the inventory.

Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Willrett/McCormick Adverse Trend: None 85

l 1

l DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT :

PERFORMANCE l INDICATORS f

?

These indicators may be deleted from this report if the responsible group con-tacts the Manager - Station Engineering to request their removal. Indicators I referencing SEP items require documentation to ensure that the original intent -l and scope of the SEP ltem will not be altered by removal of the indicator from this report. ,

l t i

n j l

m l l

'l

10000-0 TotalBacklog(Manhours) 10000- 3 Backlog >3 Months Old (Manhours) 9000- 9000-8000-e 7000- Cycle 15 , 0- Cycle 15 6000- Refueling Refueling g 6000-c 5000- Outage .c 5000- Outage g 4000- E 4000-3000- 2594 2 3000-2069 1605 1587 2000- 2000- p 1371 1361

'000 -

1 -

155_5 iIElWI H32Ei$2l i

. i i i October'93 November 93 December'93 October 93 November'93 December 93 Safety Related Backlog Safety Re!ated Backlog >3 g (Manhours) g MonthsOld(Manhours) 5000- 5000 -

4000- 4000-Cycle 15 Cycle 15 e E g 3000- Refueling g 3000- Refding j 2000- 2000- Outage 2 1138 2 800 712 768 1000- f///4 ,, ,,. 1000-O [6'I$[' , $$' 65[/ ,

'dihYi , 0 ,I%%M NN i October 93 November'93 December 93 October 93 November 93 December'93

~

O High Priority Backlog (Manhours) e 1500-Cycle 15 1000-g Refueling 2 500 - Outage 0 0 0 0 , i i October '93 November 93 December '93 MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS (CORRECTIVE NON-OUTAGE)

This indicator shows the estimated manhours for corrective non-outage MWOs remain-ing open at the end of the reporting month, along with a breakdown by several key categories.

Action plans for adverse trends will not be addressed until after January 1,1994 be-cause of the inability to perform non-outage work during the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage.

l Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None SEP 36 l

87

l M Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance 0 1992 Fort Calhoun Non-Outage Goal (265%)

l Cycle 14 100*/. - Refueling 90%- Outtge 80%- i 70*/. - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

C I 60%- ,

l ll l 50%- I 40% -- : l:l l

30%- .

l l ll l 0*. ,

l 0% "'

'-' - ^^' -

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 I

~

E Preventive Maintenance items Overdue

-O- 1992 Fort Calhoun Goal (s0.5%)

1%-

C C C C C 0% -- l Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 '

1992 l

1 8B

l 6 Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance 100 % - l 90%- i'ijj[j lg' l lQy }l N ( l l;

j 80%-

]1 l l l

ll 1

l l '

]1 ll l ';

0

[:

70%- l ,

l l

l l j; j

]'!

,' ll : ll 60%~ l l l l

l lll l l ll j ,

l[l 50%- l u l, :, (: i

}

l l l ll l ll 99 :

f', l[ 1 i ll '

b ! !

40%- l l l1 ,

ll l l l l n "l "

30%- h l !l [lf 1 if [ ,

l ! lL ll l

20%- l h

l %, i l l P' h ,

)

id bj b l

$l,,

' %- $ I 0%

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 2%- I Q Preventive Maintenance iterns Overdue GOOD y -O- Fort Calhoun Goal (s0.5%)

1%- Data Unavailable O O O O due to Cycle a 6M'r&

Im$b

%d h$$ h3si unas mum

.0 15 Refueling M Outage RRR 0%, i i i i i i i i i i i e Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total completed non-outage maintenance.

The ratio of preventive to total maintenance was 92.01% in December 1993. l The lower graph shows the percentage of preventive maintenance items overdue.

During December,630 PM items were completed. 3 of these PM items (0.48% of the total) were not completed within the allowable grace period.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goalis to have less than 0.5% per month of the preventive j

maintenance items overdue.

1 l

Accountability: Chase /Bobba Data Source: Chase /SchmitzlBrady (Manager / Sources)

Adverse Trend: None SEP 41 5 i i

(This page intentionally left blank. This indicator was added to the report in 1993.)

i 5 Rework As identified By Planning or Craft

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal (<4.0%) ,

4%- C O O O O O O Cycle 15 a y Refueling j Outage

~

2.71 %

2.57 % 2.58 %

$ 2.56 %

2.38 %

2.13 %

i ~~cu

E 2%- 1.82 %

E i E

8 5

Q-1%-

0% i ; ; ; ; ; ;

Jun93 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK ,

This graph indicates the percentage of total MWOs completed per month identified as rework. Rework activities are identified by maintenance planning and craft.

The 1993 goal for this indicator is to maintain less than 4% rework per month.

l Data Source: Bobba/Schmitz (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Chase /Bobba .

l l

Positive Trend 91 l

i

'i i

g Maintenance Overtirne

]

--X- 12 Month Average Maintenance Overtirne

~

--O-- 1992 Fort Calhoun "On-Line" Goal 60%-

Cycle 14 j 50%- Refueling ;

Outage 40%- _ ,

jQ .

l

.e ,

30%- t. ; ; j 20%- l.

9 O*' '-

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul _Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 -l' 1992 80%-

r Maintenance Overtirne 70%- -H- 12 Month Average

)

60%- --O- Fort Calhoun Goal for Non-Outage Months 1

50%- 1 40%-

30%-

c o e o o o o o e o o o 20%-

10%- -

g,, g'. ,

E5 E M E Jan91~ Feb Mar ' Apr' May Jan Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov- Dec91 1991 1

92

I

, .I Q Maintenance Overtirne .!

80%-

lGOODI

-)(- 12 Month Average Maintenance Overtime

+

70%- -O-- Fort Calhoun "On-Line" Goal 1

60%-

Cyck 15 ;

50%- Refueling :

Outage j 40%- '

30%-- ,

20%- X f 10%- ^

, O v 0 W O 't Q@d m 0% -

M E -

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct ' Nov Dec93 .3 MAINTENANCE OVERTIME The Maintenance Overtime indicator monitors the ability to perform the desired mainte- ,

nance activities with the allotted resources. i I

The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 13.09% for the month of December 1993. The 12 month average percentage of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 12.36% at the end of the month. !

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for the "on-line" percentage of maintenance overtime hours worked is a maximum of 10%. .

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source) [

i j

Accountability: Chase / Bobba Adverse Trend: None -!

r I

4 - ,

O Open irs Related to the Use of Procedures (Maintenance) 8 Closed irs Related to the Use of Procedures (Maintenance)

E Procedural Noncompliance irs (Maintenance) 10-9 9-B- !

7- -

6- !

5- I:

4 :, 4 4- -

3-2 % 2 l 2-. , g !

1- h l; h, 1 l I3 0 $0 0 0 0 00 00 0 00 00

,O h 0 h, Ok , , , , , , , , , ;

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 ,

1992 i I

O Open irs Related to the Use of Procedures (Maintenance)

~

Q Closed irs Related to the Use of Procedures (Maintenance) 9~ E Procedural Noncompliance irs (Maintenance) 8-7- ,

6-5 5 5- !,

i@ 4 4 4-3

$g 3 3- g -

2- . $ l' .

1 ! 1 1 .1 : 1 1- -i % :., ,

0 O ! 0 000 000 000 0 0 000 0 0 O f. 0 0 ;

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 94

- _ - - - - - - _ - - - - 1

[] Open irs Related to the Use of Procedures (Maintenance)

@ Closed irs Related to the Use of Procedures (Maintenance)

E Procedural Noncompliance irs (Maintenance) 2-1 1 1 1- - -

000 000 000 000 00 000 000 000 0 0 00 000 000 0- , , , , , , , , , , , 3 ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 PROCEDUR AL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS (MAINTENANCE) .

This indicator shows the number of open Maintenance incident Reports (irs) that are ,

related to the use of procedures, the number of closed irs that are related to the use of procedures, and the number of open and closed irs that received procedural noncom-pliance cause codes for each of the last twelve months.

There were no procedural noncompliance incidents for maintenance reported for the month of December 1993.

Data Source: Chase / Keister (Manager / Source)

' Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None SEP 15,41 & 44 1

l es

i j

l (This page intentionally left blank. The method of reporting this indicator was revised in 1993.)

9 p

E t

B Completed Scheduled Activities (AllCrafts)

O Numberof EmergentMWOsCompleted O Fort Calhoun Goal ( 85%)

110

.g 00b 100

. 90%- - 90 80%- - 80 -

5 70 % - - 70 b

8 Cycle 15 g

.s 60%- Refueling - 60 j::

y 50%- Outage 2

- 50 : E y

o o -

3 40% - - 40 9 '

a

. 3 Data Not .y 6 30%- Available 30 .Lu W .-

E 20%- - 20 h ,

s z ,

10 g 10%-

b 0% , , , , 0-September '93 October November December'93 - -

PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES (ALL MAINTENANCE CRAFTS)

This indicator shows the percerd of the number of completed maintenance activities as -

compared to the number of scheduled maintenance activities concerning all Mainte-nance Crafts. Maintenance activities include MWRs, MWOs, STs, PMOs, calibrations, ;

and miscellaneous maintenance activities. The number of emergent MWOs completed for the month is also shown.

Because of the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage, data for this indicator will not be available j until after the first month on-line during Cycle 15.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun Station monthly goal for the percent of completed scheduled maintenance activities is a minimum of 85%

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Bobba !

I Adverse Trend: None SEP 33 97 :

@ Number of instruments Out-of-Service

-O-- Fort Calhoun Goal (s6) 24 - 23 20 - 19 g l 17 17 16- 15 15 15 12-4-

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 24- Number of Instruments Out-of-Service l

--O- Fort Calhoun Goal (s6) 17 16-12-

'5: 25: O O-- ---O---- ,

's -- ----O---- -

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 o

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

E Nurnber of instruments Outef-Service

--O- Fort Calhoun Goal (s5) y 24 -

18 18 17 17-16 Cycle 15 .

16- Refueling ;

14 Outage i 12- 11 10 4

I-Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT-OF-SERVICE Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 j

l r

i This indicator shows the total number of in-line chemistry system instruments out-of- i servica at the end of the reporting month. The chemistry systems involved in this indi- !

cator include the Secondary System and the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS).

At the end of December 1993 there was a total of 6 in-line chemistry instruments out-of- i service. Of these 6 instruments,5 were from the Secondary System and 1 was from i PASS. i The trend for PASS instruments for this reporting period has not changed. The trend for [

Secondary instruments this reporting period has decreased from 9 to 5. The water plant sample panel had 2 instruments out-of-service, the secondary instrument panel.had 2 ,

instruments out-of-service and the blowdown sample panel had 1 instrument out-of- !

service at the end of the reporting month. :

i The entire instrument channel is considered inoperative if: 1) the instrument is inopera-tive, 2) the chart recorder associated with the instrument is inoperative, or 3) the alarm function associated with the instrument is inoperative. If any of the functions listed !

above are not operational, then the instrument is not performing its intended function.

'l The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for the number of in-line chemistry system instruments that .

are out-of-service has been set at a maximum of 5. Six out-of-service chemistry instru- e ments make up 10% of all the chemistry instruments that are counted for this indicator. ,

1 Data Source: Chase /Renaud (Manager / Source) ;

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski .

Adverse Trend: None g

3 Waste Produced Each Month (Kilograms)

Monthly Average Waste Produced During the Last 12 Months (Kilograms)

Z Federal & State Monthly Limit (Max. of 1,000 Kg) 1000- Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z BOO -

$ 600-G E

Q 400-200 -

0 i i i i i i i i i i i i Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec02 1992

- Waste Produced Each Month (Kilograms)

Monthly Average Waste Produced During the Last 12 Months (Kilograms)

Z Federal & State Month!y Limit (Max. of 1,000 Kg) 1000- S Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 800 -

y 600-E

?

5 400-200 -

~

0 " MM- - - -- ~A i i i i e i i i i a i i Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 100

@ Waste Produced Each Month (Kilograms)

Monthly Average Waste Produced During the Last 12 Months (Kilograms)

-O- Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal ( 100 Kg)

--H- Federal & State Monthly Limit (Max. of 1,000 Kg) ,

100G- E E = Z = 3 2 = 3 2 = 3 t

800 -

$ 600-2 5"

g 400-200 -

C O-- -C C C O- --C C C O o , , , , , , . , , , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED This indicator shows the total amount of hazardous waste produced by the Fort Calhoun Station each month, the monthly average goal and the monthly average total for hazard-ous waste produced during the last 12 months. This hazardous waste consists of non- ,

halogenated hazardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous waste produced.

During the month of December 1993,0.0 kilograms of non-halogenated hazardous waste was produced,0.0 kilograms of halogenated hazardous waste was produced, and 0.0 kilograms of other hazardous waste was produced. The total for hazardous waste produced during the last 12 months is 299 kilograms. The monthly average for hazardous waste produced during the last 12 months is 24.9 kilograms.

Hazardous waste is counted based upon a full drum of waste.

The 1993 and 1992 monthly average goals for hazardous waste produced are a maxi-mum of 100 kilograms.

Date Source: Chase /Henning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Henning Positive Trend 101

l E Decontaminated Radiation Controlled Area

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal (nonautage rnc7ths) 100% -

Cycle 14 j

Refueling 90%- Outage :

50 o Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 l

E Decontaminated Radiation Controlled Area t

' I 100% - -O- Fort Calhoun Goal (nonautage rnonths) i 90%-

l 80%-

70%-

I l

I 60%-

50*'

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 102 4

E Decontaminated Radiation Controlled Area

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal (non-outage months) 100 % -

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal (outage rnonths)

R eling Outage 90%-

J 80%-

4 l 70%- !

60%-

. I 1

{

50% -

i Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 DECONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA This indicator shows the percentage of the RCA that is decontaminated (clean) based on the total square footage. The 1993 non-outage goalis a minimum of 88% decon-

, taminated RCA and the outage goalis a minimum of 85% decontaminated RCA.

At the end of the reporting month,89% of the total square footage of the RCA was not contaminated.

Data Source: Chase /Gundal(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Positive Trend SEP 54 4

103 j l

l

l l

l 4

@ Number of Identified PRWPs j

i Cycle 14 Refueling Outage ,

59 60 -

55 - ;

50 - .

45- '

l 39 40_ 7 i

35- ,

30-25 -

20-I' I

15 15- '

33 l 10-5 4

3 4 7 0

. .' '. i i . . . . . . . !

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 i

20 -

@ Number of Identified PRWPs 8

15-1 10-l i

5- 4 3

2 : 2 2 0 4 4 4 i 4 i i i i i i I Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 i 1991 :

l l 104 .

r

I

@ Number of Identified PRWPs Cycle 15 R ue

--O-- Fort Calhoun Non-Outage Goal ae 18 15-10- C C C C C C C C C -

O 5-I-

3 .

i 1

1 1 1 0

3 3 3 4 4 4 4 6 i 4 i i Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM The Radiological Work Practices Program Indicator shows the number of Poor Radio-logical Work Practices (PRWPs) which were identified during the reporting month. The PRWPs are identified through supervisory review of the Radiological Occurrence Re-ports and Personnel Contamination Reports written during the reporting month.-

The number of PRWPs which are identified each month should indirectly provide a means to qualitatively assess supervisor accountability for their workers' radiological performance.

During the month of December 1993, there was 1 PRWP identified. The PRWP oc-Ourred when an individual removed their booties and stepped on the floor in the posted CA instead of the step off pad. The individual was immediately counseled by RP super-vision and the affected area was surveyed to ensure there was not a spread of contami-nation. IR 93-373 was written.

The 1993 monthly non-outage goal for the number of PRWPs is a maximum of 10 per month.

Data Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP 52 105

i (This page intentionally left blank. This indicator was revised in 1993.) .

F 4

5 1

l 106 ;

l i

i

E Total Nurnber of Hot Spots O Nurnber of Additional Hot Spots Identified

@ Rernovat Planned

--+-- Curnulative Hot Spots Rernoved (Year-to-Date) -.,

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal for Hot Spots Removed (1/rnonth) 100 Cycle 15 80 Refueling i Outage 60 40 l 20 y 7 x y z - v v i J _a i t GRi

'?ao g

4 2 i i i il ~~E i

_i i i e i e a e Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec93 i

NUMBER OF HOT SPOTS I This indicator shows the total number of hot spots which have been identified to exist in l the Fort Calhoun Station and have been documented through the use of a hot spot ,

identification sheet. A hot spot is defined as a smalllocalized source of high radiation.

A hot spot occurs when the contact dose rate of an item or piece of equipment is at ,'

least 5 times the General Area dose rate and the item or piece of equipment's dose rate is equal to or greater than 100 mrem / hour in rad areas. l At the end of December 1993, there was a total of 13 hot spots identified. There were ;

no new hot spots identified during the month. There were 5 hot spots removed during ,

the month: 2 hot spets were removedin Rm 14 on a shutdown heat exchanger; 1 hot ;

spot was removed in Rm 59 on a containment spray line; and 2 hot spots were re-moved in Rm 15 on a shutdown heat exchanger.

Removalis planned for 2 hot spots. There was a total of 51 hot spots removed in 1993. )

The decrease in the total number of hot spots from October to November is due to .,

criteria defining point sources, as established in RP-306

Hot Spot & Point Source j identification and Tracking Procedure". The total number of hot spots reported prior to !

November included both hot spots and point sources. ,

i The 1993 Fort Calhoun gs, was to remove three hot spots per quarter and achieve a l net reduction of one he tpot per quarter.

Data Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source) {

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None 3o7 ,

Documents Scheduled for Review 8 Documents Reviewed I

.4 Overdue Documents 600-500-400 - _ _

300-200- ;

-hj

_lE 100- -.

, _7; - -7,7 9 ;7 7,

O 3i ~'l i

m i

'd3 i

$ri i ,r :

, i i Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 O Documents Scheduied for Review L

< Documents Reviewed

~

2 Overdue Documents 500-400- h 300 - P 200- : f/

100- _ f j y j I_ rF -d-l,, b rirl, -l

~

0 i i I i i i i i

~l rbi i L1ai !

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 108 r

O Documents Scheduled for Review

@ Documents Reviewed 0-

@ Overdue Documents 550-500-450-400-350-300-250-200-150- -

100- : -

50-

-3 1,3 0

_F_ $,- ,r' E ,r , ,

_ik i Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 DOCUMENT RE v~iE?! 4 t

This indicator shows the number of completed, scheduled, and overdue (greater than 6 months past the scheduled due date) biennial reviews for the reporting month. These l j document reviews are performed in-house and include Special Procedures, the Site l l Security Plan, Maintenance Procedures, Preventive Maintenance Procedures, and the l Operating Manual.

l l During December 1993 there were 48 document reviews completed while 42 document l reviews were scheduled. At the end of December, there were 10 document reviews more than 6 months overdue.

There were 5 new documents initiated in December.

I The 1993 monthly goal for this indicator is no (0) documents more than 6 months over-due. I Data Source: Chase / Keister (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Adverse Trend: None SEP 46 109

I 30- 3 Non-System Failures i 25- 19 20- 14 Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 l 1992 ,

I

@ System Failures

72 i e i i i i e i i i i i Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 l 30-E Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Does not include System Failures) n:

15-

' 2 3 2 4 2 2 3 5 0 1 1 1 0 , , ,", , , , , , , , ,

Jan91 Feb Mar t.pr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991

@ Security System Failures 90- 82 84 p

63 67 l

! 61 58 56 50- f f -

7/> 42- i i i i i i i i i i i i .: !

Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun. Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 .

1991 l l

110 l

i L

E Non-System Failures 30-25- V i 20- !

15- 12 12 '

10- 8 7 7 5 6 i i ; ; i i"i i i i ; i Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dac93 i

90- @ System Failures l GOOD l 80- y 70-60-40- 30 31 33 30 31 32 26 30-f - 24 25 7 g 7

9 1 i I 6 4 1 I I 6 4 8 I Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 LOGG ABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY) ]

The Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) Indicator is depicted in two separate graphs. The top graph depicts the total number of loggable/ reportable non-system !

failures concerning Security Badges, Access Control and Authorization, Security Force l Error, and Unsecured Doors. The bottom graph shows the total number of loggable/

reportable incidents concerning system failures which occurred during the reporting month.

During the month of December 1993, there were 23 loggable/ reportable incidents identi-fied. System failures accounted for 17 (74%) of the loggable/ reportable incidents. As depicted in the bottom graph, this was a significant decrease from the preceding month.

Further, non-system failures declined in 1993 approximately 14% (from 79 to 68) from 1992, and system failures declined in 1993 approximately 23% (from 461 to 355) from 1992.

I i

Data Source: Sefick/Woerner(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Sefick Adverse Trend: None SEP 58 111

I r

4 . Temporary Modifications >1 cycle old (RFO required for Rernoval) ,

=i 8- - . Temporary Modifications >6 months old (Removable on-line) -[

7- Fort Calhoun Goals forTemporary Modifications >1 cycle old &

-Temporary Modifications >6 months old (0) !

6- ,

i 5- .i 4 .;

4- 7

/.

/

.#j

'/ 3 .

3- ,, ,.,

'/ /,. .

<, r, 22 22 2 2 2 2 '/'

2 2 2 /- 2 ,

2 /- -

/, / '

.; /, f '/ /, f. '/ // /. {

/, / 's /, f 't /, / 'i // /

's /, '/

, /, V 't /, / 't // /.

's /, 1/ '/ /, Y 's /, / 't // / ;

1- 's /, / /, / '/ /, / '/ // / >

l

's /, V ',t

/, J '/ /, / '/ // /. ,

's /, J ',i /, / 't /, / 'd // / '

's /, / / /, / 't /, / '/ // /

03 ,

Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep. Oct Nov Dec92 .j 1992 I

b l

k I

i 1

l 6

112

>L

'I i

,I

E Temporary Modifications >1 cycle old (RFO required for Removal)

/ Temporary Modifications >6 months old (Removable on-line) 1 Fort Calhoun Goals for Temporary Modifications >1 cycle old &

Temporary Modifications >6 months old (0) 8-7

////;

h 6-5 IhhhI 5- ,jj jppp, 4 ///// /ppp( 4

~ hhhhh h/// '////.

'////

3~ '%% ;%h$ %% %%:

'//// y/// '///// '////.

~

/

?,?//,! ///// ////, '////,

I% $

~

h hh $ /hhh:

0 , //// 0 ,ff/// 0 ,f//fi 0 ,;fff/,-

0 - i - i - , - i September '93 October '93 November '93 December '93 TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS This indicator provides information on the number of temporary modifications greater than one fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage (RFO) for removal and the number of temporary modifications removable on-line that are greater than six months old. Also provided are the Fort Calhoun goals for temporary modifications.

There are currently no temporary modifications that are greater than one fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage to remove. In addition, at the end of December 1993 there were 4 temporary modifications installed that were greater than six months old that can be removed on-line. These were: 1) Local indication for BAST CH-11 A and CH-11 B, in which Operations is reviewing a draft FLC. After review, Licensing is to issue an FLC, and the NRC is to approve; 2) LP-30 transformer, which is awaiting NPRC review for installation date of ECN 93-183; 3) Refrigerated air dryer for Rm-057, which is awaiting installation of MR-FC-84-155D, scheduled completion date of 6/30/94; and 4) Epoxy repairs to ST-4B which is open, awaiting DEN Mechanical response.

At the end of December 1993, there was a total of 14 TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station. 4 of the 14 installed TMs require an outage for removal and 10 are removable on-line. In 1993 a total of 65 temporary modifications were installed.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Turner (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Gorence Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 & 71 113

l 350 - !

E TotalModification Packages Open 300-250-200- 189 1 ; i ; [ ; ; i j l l J g Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 -l i

tal m n adages @n 350-1 312 309 306 301 1 00- 286 287 2n m 50-

. ~ . _

114 1

350-E Total Modifcation Packages Open 300 - 1993 Fort Calhoun Monthly Goal ( 150)

-O-264 250-200- .

150- n O O O O O O O O O O O 136 133 i , , i 100 -

'90 '91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS This indicator shows the total number of outstanding modifications (excludina outstand-ina modifications which are crocosed to be cancelled).

Cateoorv Reoortino Month Form FC-1133 Backlog /in Progress 1 Mod. Requests Being Reviewed 7 Design Engr. Backlog /In Progress 48 ,

Construction Backlog /in Progress 34 Desian Enor. Uodate Backloc/in Proarens 10 Total 100 At the end of December 1993,22 additional modification requests had been issued this year and 104 modification requests had been cancelled. The Nuclear Projects Review Committee (NPRC) had completed 231 backlog modification request reviews this year.

The Nuclear Projects Committee (NPC) had completed 58 backlog modification request reviews this year.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun monthly goal is a maximum of 150 total outstanding modifica-tions.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Turner (Manager / Source)

Scofield/Lounsbery (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Scofield/Phelps Positive Trend 115

EAR 3 Requiring Engineering Closeout - N:t in Closecut {

O DEN E sE ;

40- 40- 40- 40- _

30- 30- 30- 30- .

20- -

_ 20- _ 20 --- -

20-10-

] 10- p. ] 10-

,0-10-0 , , ,0 , , , , ,0 , , ,

Oct Nov Dec Oct Nov Dec Oct Nov Dec Oct Nov Dec O-3 months 3-6 months 612 months >12 months December '93 Overdue EARS C Closeout O Engineering Response ,

IO q s8:

?8: . ,

p==5 Priority O Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6 Priority 1 & 2 1 Priority 3 Total Open EARS .;

200-150-ata 100- Not 50-

[ E 2 5 5 Available

%,$,%,3 ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 O 59 OveMue Responses ;

D 57 EARS Resolved and in Closeout E 45 Overdue Cioseouts O 96 EARS Requiring Response Q 49 EARS on Schedule 37.3 38.6*/

62.7 % j _

emmer ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST BREAKDOWN This indicator shows a breakdown of the number of EARS assigned to Design Engineer- '

ing and System Engineering. The 1993 goal for this indicator is a maximum of 150 outstanding EARS.

Total EAR breakdown is as follows:

EARS opened during the month 17 EARS closed during the month 8 Total EARS open as of the end of the month 153 ;

Data Source: Phelps/Pulverenti (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Phelps ,

Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 116

~

E ECNs Backlogged in DEN ;

350- O ECNs Received During the Month 300- @ ECNs Completed During the Month 250- ;

200-l 150-Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 s

ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS ,

This indicator shows the number of Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) awaiting .l completion by DEN, the number of ECNs opened during the reporting month, and the j~

number of ECNs completed by DEN during the reporting month.

At the end of December 1993, there was a total of 171 DEN backlogged open ECNs.

There were 50 ECNs received by DEN, and 27 ECNs completed during the month.

Although the number of open ECNs is currently high, activities are in progress to reduce i the backlog of open ECNs.

Data Source: Phelps/Pulverenti (Manager / Source) i Accountability: Phelps/Jaworski Adverse Trend: An adverse trend is indicated based on three consecutive months of increasing values for the number of ECNs backlogged in DEN.

SEP 62 117

I O DEN - Engineering not complete

@ System Engineering - Engineering complete, response under review

@ Maintenance / Construction - MWO/CWO scheduled, but work not complete E Maintenance / Construction - MWO/CWO complete, awaiting closeout 100- 77 85 80-60-40- 33 25 20- 5 0 "

0 0 I N1- - - - 0 i

O - 3 months 3 - 6 months > 6 months ECN FACILITY CHANGES OPEN - December 1992 ,

O DEN - Engineering not complete Q System Engineering - Engineering complete, response under review

@ Maintenance / Construction - MWO/CWO scheduled, but work not complete Q Maintenance / Construction - MWO/CWO complete, awaiting closeout l ,

80-56 i 60-L 40- 31 20- 13 0

0 M ;,8 , 1.Q g 0 - 3 months 3 - 6 months > 6 months ECN SUBSTITUTE REPLACEMENT ITEMS OPEN - December 1992 80- O DEN - Engineering not complete

@ System Engineering - Wakdown or confirmation not complete :

60-40- 36 20- 14 1 2 1 ,

I I i 0 - 3 months 3 - 6 months > 6 months ECN DOCUMENT CHANGES OPEN - December 1992 DECEMBER 1992 118 1

1 0 DEN - Engineering not complete G System Engineering - Engineering complete, response under review

@ Maintenance / Construction - MWO/CWO scheduled, but work not complete 5 Maintenance / Construction - MWO/CWO complete, awaiting closecut ,

119 120 -

100 -

80-2g- , 17 .

7 0 0 I

19

, 5 0 2 6

l (_ 6 g 1

0 - 3 months 3 6 months > 6 months ECN FACILITY CHANGES OPEN O DEN - Engineering not complete O System Engineering - Engineering complete, response under review

@ Maintenance / Construction - MWO/CWO scheduled, but work not complete Q Maintenance / Construction - MWO/CWO complete, awaiting closecut 72 12

j. 7 3 , d2 4 ,

0 - 3 months 3 - 6 months > 6 months ECN SUBSTITUTE REPLACEMENT ITEMS OPEN O DEN - Engineering not complete O System Engineering - Walkdown or confirmation not complete 79 80- .

60- 44 20 9 0

5 2

' ' \ i 0 - 3 months 3 - 6 months > 6 months '

ECN DOCUMENT CHANGES OPEN ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE BREAKDOWN This indicator shows a breakdown of the number of Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) that are assigned to Design Engineering Nuclear (DEN), System Engineering, and Maintenance or Construction for December 1993. The graphs provide data on ECN Facility Changes Open, ECN Substitute Replacement items Open, and ECN Document Changes Open.

Data Source: Phelps/Pulverenti (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Jaworski Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 119

ti O Administrative Control Problem s O Licensed Operator Enor

@ Other Personnel Error ,

@ Maintenance Problem 5- E Design / Construction / Installation / Fabrication Problem G Equipment Failures I i

4- r L

3- ;

2- - y ,

> f s

4 I

s , ;

1- -- -

-g - -

l ,

z g

- . , L. , g 3 / t $ 5 i 0 i i i i i i i i i i i Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 l 1992 l O Administrative Control Problem O Licensed Operator Error 8 Other Personnel Error

@ Maintenance Problem E Design / Construction / Installation / Fabrication Problem 3-Q Equipment Failures 2- -

/

/ 1

'. f

'.' /

1- 7 = - '

/ = = : f =

/ = = s, / =

/ = = i, / =

/

', / =

l i i i i i I Jun91 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 ,

120 ,

l'

@ Administrative Control Problem -

O Licensed Operator Error

@ Other Personnel Error Q Maintenance Problem 3- 3 Design /Constructiorvinstallation/ Fabrication Problem - ;

@ Equipment Failures 2- - i i

f 1- -- - -- --

5 5 '

- E

: i O , i , , , , , , ,- , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN This indicator shows the LERs by report date broken down by Root Cause Code for l each of the past twelve months from December 1,1992 through November 30,1993. j This indicator is one month behind the reporting month due to the time required for l

processing the data.

The cause codes are intended to identify possible programmatic deficiencies. For '

detailed descriptions of these codes, see the " Performance Indicator Definitions" section of this report. l There was 1 LER submitted in November 1993.

l Data Source: Short/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 121

Total Regt.alification Training Hours O Simulator Training Hours Non-Requalification Training Hours 50- ,

Number of Exam Failures 40- 36 36 36 36 30 30 30- - -

25 l

l l 20-14 14 14 l - '" ~

11 10 10 10-6 5 6

-, / -

8 -

'/

-4 4 4 4 /, 4 fi

[ ,k '

, ! 0 0 h 0 i i i i i i i l Cycle 92-1 Cycle 92-2 Cycle 92-3 Cycle 92-4 Cycle 92-5 Cycle 92-6 Cycle 92-7

1992

Note: The Simulator was out-of-service for maintenance and modificationsduring Cycle 92-7.

l

! Total Requalification Training Hours Simulator Training Hours 60-

@ Non-Requalification Training Hours i 50_ N Number of Exam Failures 41 40-36 36 Y',

30- Y, 2e c, _

' i' . 24 24

[/ 22 es 20- 18

/.

f;. -

18

~

/f y 16 j;j,,- _

37 16

/, 14 f , , ,

/,

- 12 j y, ?,

['

10- ;$',

,i, 5,

s

[

y e

-y, -

s -[

. i, 4 4 /, // 7 j, 4 .?, .

0 i i i i a i a 3

Cycle 91-1 Cycle 91-2 Cycle 91-3 Cycle 91-4 Cycle 91-5 Cycle 91-6 Cycle 91-7 1991 122

O Total Requalification Training Hours O Simulator Training Hours ,

60 - !

O Non-Requalification Training Hours j 50 - @ Numberof Exam Failures I

40- 36 33 33 33 33

~

30- 27 20-U 12 10- 7 7 p 7 8

7 6

,, i, /, ,, i, 4

/, y /, 3 / // y // 3 /,' g 0 i i i i i .. . -

Cycle 93-1 Cycle 93-2 Cycle 93-3 Cycle 93-4 Cycle 93-5 Cycle 93-6 Cycle 93-7

Note: The Simulator was out-of-service for maintenance and modifications during Cycle 93-6. .

LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING This indicator provides information on the total number of hours of training given to each crew during each cycle. The Simulator training hours shown on the graph are a subset of the total training hours. Non-Requalification Training Hours are used for AOP/EOP '

verification & validation, INPO commitments, GET, Fire Brigade, Safety Meetings, and Division Manager lunches.

Exam failures are defined as failures in the written, simulator, and Job Performance '

Measures (JPMs) segments of the Licensed Operator Requalification Training.

There were 2 simulator exam failures during Cycle 93-7. There were no written exam failures. The individuals who failed the simulator exam were remediated prior to the end of the week.

Data Source: Gasper / Lazar (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gasper / Lazar Adverse Trend: None SEP 68 123 1

O SRO Exams Administered j O SRO Exams Passed E RO Exams Administered O RO Exams Passed 35-30-25-20-15- J

-- /

' ~

10- _ ;j

, , , /

5- / -

j g

i i

.{

i

/

i i i w i i i i Jan92 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec92 1992 O SRO Exams Administered O SRO Exams Passed 35-E RO Exams Administered 30- O RO Exams Passed

?

25- '

20- j 7 7 E i 15- ; .; .f 5

/ -

/

10- i j - ,'

/

',' l $ ,7m 5~ !: g 0 , , , , , , i i i , , i Jan91 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec91 1991 124

1 35_ @ SRO Exams Administered 1 l

O sRO Exams passed 1 i

~30- E RO Exams Administered O RO Exams Passed ;

25- j 20-15-10-NRC Exams 5-0 Jan93 lIfi it !T Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS This indicator shows the number of Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Reactor Opera-tor (RO) quizzes and exams taken and passed each month. These internally adminis- ,

tered quizzes and exams are used to plot the SRO and RO candidates' monthly progress.

There were no OPPD Reactor Operator or Senior Reactor Operator exams adminis-tered during Decernber 1993.

Currently, there is no Hot Ucense class being conducted. The next class is tentatively scheduled to begin in April 1994.

Data Source: Gasper / Lazar (Manager / Source) ;

Accountability: Gasper / Lazar Adverse Trend: None SEP 68 125

O TotalOpen CARS 9 TotalOpenIRs 0 Open CARS > Six Months Oid @ Open IRS > Six Months Oki 280 l 280- -

1 cycle 15 : 240 240- Refueling _

Outage 200- : 200 2 2 2 160 160-120- : : : : : 120 80- _

: 80

i: : -

40- r , -

- n- ;

$ -40 k'

5

-" -" '5 " $k , '

,-0 0 , , , , , , , , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 Cycle 15 60 - E Open Significant CARS Refuenng Outage 45 50 -

O Open Significant irs -

28 30- 25 24 23 21 20 -

10- 4 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 0

, ,-- , , , , , ," , i Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORTS AND INCIDENT REPORTS This indicator shows the total number of open Corrective Action Reports (C.4f.s), CARS

>6 months old, the total number of Open irs, irs >6 months old, the number of open significant CARS and the number of open significant irs.

At the end of December 1993 there were 59 open CARS. 23 of these CARS were greater than 6 months old. There were 5 Open Significant CARS at the end of the month.

Also, at the end of December there were 266 open irs. 46 of these irs were greater than 6 months old. There were 51 Open Significant irs at the end of the month.

The 1993 monthly goal for the number of CARS greater than 6 months old is a maxi-mum of 30.

Data Source: Orr/Gurtis (Manager / Source) & CHAMPS Accountability: Andrews/Gambhir/ Gates Adverse Trend: Although the number of irs has increased, an adverse trend is not indicated because the increase is a result of the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage and revised IR definitions.

126

Engineering Hold -+- Planning Complete 300 - -O- Planning Hold -M- Ready 275- # --V- Part Hold --e- Total 250 -

225-200 -

v>

3 175-s k150-g 125-H 100 -

75-50- g i

25-0 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dec93 Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan95 Feb Mar 95

[

1 MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 16 REF" ' 'NG OUTAGE) i This indicator shows the total number of Maintonance Work Requests (MWRs) and I Maintenance Work Orders (MWOs) that have been approved for inclusion in the Cycle '

i 15 Refueling Outage. This graph indicates:

l l Parts Holds (part hold removed when parts are staged and ready for use)

Engineering Holds (Engineering hold removed when appropriate engineering paper-work or support is received for the package)

Planning Holds (Planning hold removed when planning is completed to the point when '

package is ready or other support is necessary to continue the planning process)

Planning Complete (status given when only items keeping the job from being ready to work are parts or engineering support)

Ready (status when all planning, supporting documentation, and parts are ready to go) -

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Johansen Adverse Trend: None SEP 31 m

ACTION PLANS FOR ADVERSE TRENDS 128

ACTION PLANS FOR ADVERSETRENDS This section lists action plans that have been developed for the performance indicators cited as exhibiting adverse trends during the three months preceding this report.

There nave been no performance indicators cited as exhibiting adverse trends during the three months preceding this report.

The action plan for Engineering Change Notice Status (page 117 of this report) 'ill be included in the January 1994 report.

l l

I 129 a

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEMNITIONS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR PERFORMANCE The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economi-The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavail- cal operation of Fort Calhoun Station. The cents per able hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the kibwatt hour indicator represents the budget and actual auxiliary feedwater system for the reporting period di- cents per kilowatt hour on a 12 month roiiing average for vided by the critical hours for the reporting penod multi- the current year. The basis for the budget curve is the plied by the number of trains in the auxiliary feedwater approved 1993 budget. The basis for the actual curve is system, the Financial and Operating Report.

CHECK VALVE FAILURE RATE CONTAMINATIONS 22,000 COUNTS' MINUTE PER Compares the Fort Calhoun check valve failure rate to PROBE AREA the industry check valve failure rate (failures per 1 million Reportable skin and clothing contaminations. This indi-component hours). The data for the industry failure rate cator tracks personnel performance for SEP #15 & 54.

is three months behind the PI Report reporting month.

This indicator tracks performance for SEP #43. DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT This indicator shows the daily core thermal output as COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE measured from computer point XC105 (in thermal mega-Collective radiation exposure is the total extemal whole- watts). The 1500 MW Tech Spec limit, and the unmet body dose received by all on-site personnel (including portion of the 1495 MW FCS daily goal for the reporting contractors and visitors) during a time period, as mea- month are also shown.

sured by the thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). Col-l lective radiation exposure is reported in units of person- DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS) rem. This irdicator tracks radiological work performance This indicator shows the number of failures occurring for for SEP #54. each emergency diesel generator during the last 25 start demands and the last 25 load-run demands.

COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

DECONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED The number of INPO categories for Fort Calhoun Station AREA with significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) fail- The percentage of the Radiation Controlled Area, which ure rates than the rest of the industry for an eighteen includes the auxiliary building, the radwaste building, and month time period. Failures are reported as component areas of the C/RP building, that is decontaminated based (i.e. pumps, motors, valves, etc.) and application (i.e. on the total square footage. This indicator tracks perfor-charging pumps, main steam stop valves, control ele- mance for SEP # 54.

j ment drive motors, etc.) categories.

t Failure Cause Categories are: DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE Wear Out/ Aging a failure thought to be the conse- (LOST TIME ACCIDENT RATE) quence of expected waar or aging. This indicator is defined as the number of accidents for Manuf acturing Defect - a f ailure attributable to inad- all utility personnel permanently assigned to the station, equate assembly or initial quality of the responsible com- involving days away from work per 200,000 man-hours ponent or system, worked (100 man-years). This does not include contrac-Engineering / Design - a f allure attributable to the inad- tor personnel. This indicator tracks personnel perfor-l equate design of the responsible mmponent or system. mance for SEP #25 & 26.

Other Devices - a f ailure attributable to a failure or misoperation of another component or system, including DOCUMENT REVIEW (BIENNIAL) associated devices. The Document Review Indicator shows the number of Maintenance / Testing - a f ailure that is a result of im- documents reviewed, the number of documents sched-proper maintenance or testing, lack of maintenance, or uled for review, and the number of document reviews personnel errors that occur during maintenance or test- that are overdue for the reporting month. A document ing activities performed on the responsible component or review is considered overdue il the review is not com-system, including failure to follow procedures. plete within 6 months of the assigned due date. This l Errors - failures attributable to inwrrect procedures that indicator tracks performance for SEP #46.

l were followed as written, improper installation of equip-mont, and personnel errors (including f ailure to follow EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM procedures property). Also included in this category are PERFORMANCE 1 f ailures for which the cause is unknown or cannot be as- The sum of the known (phnned and unplanned) unavali- i signed to any of the preceding categories. able and the estimated unavailable hours for the emer- I gency AC power system for the reporting period divided by the number of hours in the reporting period multiplied by the number of trains in the emergency AC power sys-tem.

l l

l 130

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS I I

EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABIL. EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY This indicator measures the total unreliability of emer.

ITY gency diesel generators. In general, unreliability is the This indicator shows the number of failures that were ratio of unsuccessful operations (starts or load-runs) to reported during the last 20,50, and 100 emergency die.

selgenerator demands at the Fort Calhoun Station. Also the number of vaiid demands. Total unreliabi!ity is a combination of start unreliabiiny and load-run j shown are trigger values which correlate to a high level j of confidence that a unit's diesel generators have ob. unreliability, tained a reliability of greater than or equal to 95% when the demand f ailures are less than the trigger values. ENGINEERING ASSISTANCEREQUEST(EAR)

BREAKDOWN

1) Number of Start Demands: All valid and inadvertent This indicator shows a breMown, by age and priority of start demands, including all startenly demands and all start demands that are followed by load-run demands, the EAR, of the number of EARS assigned to Design En-whether by automatic or manualinitiation. A start only gineering Nuclear and System Engineering. This indica-demand is a demand in which the emergency generator tor tracks performance for SEP #62.

is started, but no attempt is made to load the generator.

2) Number of Start Failures: Any failure within the emer. ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) BREAK-gency generator system that prevents the generator from DOWN achieving specified f requency and voltage is classified as This indicator breaks down the number of Engineering a valid start failure. This includes any condition identified Change Notices (ECNs) that are assigned to Design in the course of maintenance inspections (with the emer. Engineering Nuclear (DEN), System Engineering, and Maintenance. The graphs provide data on ECN Faci!rty gency generator in standby mode) that definitely would have resulted in a start f ailure if a demand had occurred. Changes open, ECN Substitute Replacement Parts open, and ECN Document Changes open. This indicator

3) Number of Load-Run Demands: For a valid load-run tracks performance for SEP #62.

demand to be counted the load run attempt must meet one or more of the following criteria:

A) A load-run of any duration that results from a real au. ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) STATUS The number of ECNs that were opened, ECNs that were tomatic or manualinitiation.

B) A load-run test to satisfy the plant's load and duration completed, and open backlog ECNs awaiting completion as stated in each test's specifications. by DEN for the reporting month. This indicator tracks C) Other special tests in which the emergency generator performance for SEP #62.

is expected to be operated for at least one hour while loaded with at least 50% of its design load. EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRIT 1-CAL HOURS

4) Number of Load-Run Failures: A load-run failure should be counted for any reason in which the emer. Equipment forced outages per 1000 critical hours is the inverse of the mean time between forced outages <

gency generator does not pick up load and run as pre.

dicted. Failures are counted du.ing any valid load-run caused by equipment failures. The mean time is equal to the number of hours the reactor is critical in a period demands.

5) Exceptions: Unsucx:essful attempts to start or load-run (1000 hours0.0116 days 0.278 hours 0.00165 weeks 3.805e-4 months ) divided by the number of forced outages should not be counted as valid demands or failures when caused by equipment failures in that period.

they can be attributed to any of the following:

A) Spurious trips that would be bypassed in the event of EQUfVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR >

This indicator is defined as the ratio of gross available an emergency.

B) Malfunction of equipment that is not required during generation to gross maximum generation, expressed as an emergency. a percentage. Available generation is the energy that can be produced if the unit is operated at the maximum C)Intentionaltermination of a test because of abnormal power level permitted by equipment and regulatory limi-conditions that would not have resulted in major diesel generator damage or repair. tations. Maximum generation is the energy that can be D) Malfunctions or operating errors which would have not produced by a unit in a given period if operated continu-prevented the emergency generator from being restarted ously at maximum capacity.

and brought to ioad within a few minutes.

E) A f ailure to start because a portion of the starting sys. FORCED OUTAGE RATE tem was disabled for test purpose, if followed by a suc- This indicator is defined as the percentage of time that the unit was unavailable due to forced events mmpared cessful start with the starting system in its normal align.

to the time planned for electrical generation. Forced ment.

events are failures or other unplanned mnditions that Each emergency generator failure that results in the gen.

orator being declared inoperable shoutr8 be counted as require removing the unit from service before the end of one demand and one failure. Explorat try tests during the next weekend. Forced events include start-up fail-corrective maintenance and the sucx:es sful test that fol. ures and events initiated while the unit is in reserve shut-lows repair to verif y operability should n it be counted as down (i.e., the unit is available but not in service).

demands or f ailures when the EDG has xt been de-clared operable again.

131

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS FUEL REUABluTY INDICATOR UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE This indicator is defined as the steady-state primary cool- BREAKDOWN ant 1-131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium contri- This indicator shows the number and root cause mde for bution and normalized to a common purification rate. Licensee Event Reports. The root cause codes are as Tramp uranium is fuel which has been deposited on re- follows:

actor core internals from previous defective fuel or is 1) Administrative Control Problem - Management and present on the surface of fuel elements from the manu- supervisory deficiencies that affect plant programs or facturing process. Steady state is defined as continuous activities (i.e., poor planning, breakdown or lack of ad-operation for at least three days at a power level that equate management or supervisory control, incorrect does not vary more than + or - 5%. Plants should collect procedures, etc.)

data for this indicator at a power level above 85%, when 2) Licensed Operator Error - This cause code captures possible. Plants that did not operate at steady state errors of omission / commission by licensed reactor opera-power above 85% should collect data for this indicator at tors during plant activities.

the highest steady-state power level attained during the 3) Other Personnel Error - Errors of omission /commis-month. sion committed by non-licensed personnel involved in The density corredion iactor is the ratio of the specific plant activities.

volu,me of coolant at the RCS operating temperature 4) Maintenance Problem - The intent of this cause (540 degrees F., Vf = 0.02146) divided by the specific code is to capture the full range of problems which can volume of coolant at normalletdown temperature (120 be attributed in any way to programmatic deficiencies in degrees F at outlet of the letdown cooling heat ex- the maintenance functional organization. Activities in-changer, Vf 0.016204), which results in a density cor- cluded in this category are maintenance, testing, surveil-rection factor for FCS equal to 1.32. lance, calibration and radiation protection.

5) Design / Construction / Installation / Fabrication Problem GROSS HEAT RATE - This cause code covers a full range of programmatic Gross heat rate is defined as the ratio of total thermal deficiencies in the areas of design, construction, installa-energy in British Thermal Units (BTU) produced by the tion, and f abrication (i.e., loss of control power due to reactor to the total gross electrical energy produced by underrated fuse, equipment not qualified for the environ-the generator in kilowatt-hours (KWH). ment, etc.).

6) Equipment Failures (Electronic Piece-Parts or Envi-HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED ronmental-Related Failures) - This code is used for spuri-The total amount (in Kilograms) of non-halogenated haz- ous failures of electronic piece-parts and failures due to ardous waste, halogsnated hazardous waste, and other meteorological conditions such as lightning, ice, high hazardous waste produced by FCS each month. winds, etc. Generally, it includes spurious or one-time failures. Electric components included in this category l HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM are circuit cards, rectifiers, bistables, fuses, capacitors, SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE diodes, resistors, etc.

The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavail-able hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY) high pressure safety injection system for the reporting The total number of security incidents for the reporting period divided by the critical hours for the reporting pe- month depicted in two graphs. This indicator tracks so-riod multiplied by the number of trains in the high pres- curity performance for SEP #58. .

sure safety injection system.

MAINTENANCE OVERTIME IN-UNE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT OF SER- The % of overtime hours compared to normal hours for VICE maintenance. This includes OPPD personnel as well as Total number of in-line chemistry instruments that are contract personnel out-of-servic? in the Secondary System and the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS). MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS This indicator is a breakdown of the manhours associ- .

UCENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS ated corrective non-outage maintenance work orders by This indicator shows the number of SRO and/or RO quiz- several categories. Safety related MWOs are those zes and exams that are administered and passed each MWOs in which the Equipment Data Base in CHAMPS month This indicator tracks training performance for has identified the equipment as Critical Quality Equip-SEP #68. ment (COE). Therefore, this indicator is identifying those MWOs that have been identified as COE and reports the UCENSED OPERATOR REQUAUFICATION TRAIN- number of estimated manhours associated with the ING backlog. This indicator tracks maintenance performance The total number of hours of training given to each crew for SEP #36.

during each cycle. Also provided are the simulator train-ing hours (which are a subset of the total training hours), MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE the number of non-requahfication training hours and the The total maximum amount of radiation received by an number of exam f ailures. This indicator tracks training individual person working at FCS on a monthly, quarterly, performance for SEP #68. and annual basis.

132

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 15 REFUELING have occurred within approximately two years of the

Event Date" specified in the LER. This indicator trends OUTAGE)

The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have personnel performance for SEP #15.

- been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 15 Ref ueling Outage and the number that are ready to work (parts NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RE-staged, planning complete, and all other paperwork SULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS ready for field use). Also included is the number of The number of Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in MWOs that have engineering holds (ECNs, procedures Licensee Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting and other miscellaneous engineering holds), parts hold, month. This indicator tracks missed STs for SEP #60 &

(parts staged, not yet inspected, parts not yet arrived) 61.

and planning hold (job scope not yet completed). Main-tenance Work Requests (MWRs) are also shown that OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORTS & INCIDENT have been identified for the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage REPORTS and have not yet been converted to MWOs. This indicator displays the total number of open Correc-tive Action Reports (CARS), the number of CARS that are NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFl. older than six months and the number of open significant CIENCIES CARS. Also displayed are the number of open incident A control room equipment deficiency (CRD)is defined as Reports (irs), the number of irs that are greater than six any component which is operated or controlled from the months old and the number of open significant irs.

Control Room, provides indication or alarm to the Control Room, provides testing capabilities from the Control OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS Room, provides automatic actions f rom or to the Control The number of Modification Requests (MRs)in any state ;

Room, or provides a passive function for the Control between the issuance of a Mod:fication Number and the i Room and has been identified as deficient, i.e., does not completion of the drawing update. !

perform under all conditions as designed. This definition 1) Form FC-1133 Backlog /In Progress. This number rep- ,

also applies to the Afternate Shutdown Panels Al-179, resents modification requests that have not been plant t Al-185, and Al-212. approved during the reporting month.

A plant component which is deficient or inoperable is 2) Modification Requests Being Reviewed. This category considered an " Operator Work Around (OWA) Item" if includes: ,

some other acton is required by an operator to compen. A.) Modification Requests that are not yet reviewed. !

sate for the condition of the component. Some examples B.) Modification Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear i of OWAs are: 1) The controi room level indicator does Projects Review Committee (NPRC). ,

not work but a local sightglass can be read by an Opera- C.) Modification Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear Projects Committee (NPC) I tor out in the plant; 2) A deficient pump cannot be re-paired because replacement parts require a long lead These Modification Requests may be reviewed several [

time for purchase / delivery, thus requiring the redundant times before they are approved for accomplishment or pump to be operated continuously; 3) Special actions cancelled. Some of these Modification Requests are i are required by an Operator because of equipment de. returned to Engineering for more information, some ap-sign problems. These actions may be dt scribed in Op- Proved for evaluation, some approved for study, and erations Memorandums, Operator Notes, or may require some approved for planning. Once planning is com- ;

changes to Operating Procedures. 4) Deficient plant pleted and the scope of the work is clearly defined, these equipment that is required to be used during Emergency Modification Requests may be approved for accomplish- ,

Operating Procedures or Abnormal Operating Proce. ment with a year assigned for construction or they may dures. 5) System indication that provides critical infor, be cancelled. All of these different phases require re- ,

mation during normal or abnormal operations. view.

3) Design Engineering Backlog /in Progress. Nuclear NUMBER OF HOT SPOTS Planning has assigned a year in which construction will !

The number of radiological hot spots which have been be completed and design work may be in progress. :'

identified and documented to exist at FCS at the end of 4) Construction Backlog /in Progress. The Construction the reporting month. A hot spot is a smalllocalized Package has been issued or construction has begun but l source of radiation. A hot spot occurs when the contact the modification has not been accepted by the System }

dose rate of an item is at least 5 times the General Area Acceptance Committee (SAC). .

dose rate and the item's dose rate is equal to or greater 5) Design Engineering Update Backlog /in Progress. PED !

than 100 mrem / hour. has received the Modification Completion Report but the drawings have not been updated.

NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ERRORS REPORTED IN The above mentioned outstanding modifications do not i LERS include rnodifications which are proposed for cancella-The number of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) attributed tion.

^

to personnel error on the original LER submittal. A Per-sonnet Error is an event for which the root cause is inap. OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (REFUELING OUTAGE) propriate action on the part of one or more specified indi- This indicatN shows the status of the projects which are viduals (as opposed to being attributed to a department in the scope d the Refueling Outage, or a general group). Also, the inappropriate action must 133

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER scheduled date plus a grace period equal to 25 % of the l i

scheduled interval. This indicator tracks preventive MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK The percentage of total MWOs completed per month maintenance activities for SEP #41. l identified as rework. Rework activities are identified by l RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FRE. l maintenance planning and craft. Rework is: Any main-tenance work repeated to correct a deficiency which has QUENCY RATE

e-occurred within 60 days following similar work activi- The number of injuries requiring more than normal first '

l ties. Any additional work required to correct deficiencies aid per 200,000 man-hours worked. This indicator discovered during a failed Post Maintenance Test to on- trends personnel performance for SEP #15,25 & 26.

sure the component / system passes subsequent Post Maintenance Tests. This definition can be found in S. O. REPEAT FAILURES M 101. The number of Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) components with more than 1 failure and the number of NPRDS components with more than 2 f ailures PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTE. for the last eighteen months.

NANCE ' ;TIVITIES The % ofine number of completed maintenance activi- SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES ties as compared to the number of scheduled mainte- Safety system failures are any events or conditions that nance activities each month. This % is shown for all could prevent the fulfillment of the safety functions of maintenance crafts. Also shown are the number of structures or systems. If a system consists of multspie emergent MWOs. Maintenance activities include MWRs, redundant subsystems or trains, failure of all trains con-MWOs, STs, PMOs, calibrations, and other miscella- stitutes a safety system failure. Failure of one of two or neous activities. This indicator tracks Maintenance per- more trains is not counted as a safety system failure.

formance for SEP #33. The definition for the indicator parallels NRC reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. The PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY % OF HOURS OUT following is a list of the major safety systems, sub-OF UMIT systems, and components monitored for this indicator:

The % of hours out of limit are for six primary chemistry Accident Monitoring Instrumentation, Auxiliary (and parameters divided by the total number of hours possible Emergency) Feedwater System, Combustible Gas Con-for the month. The key parameters used are: Lithium, trol, Component Cooling Water System, Containment Chloride, Hydrogen, Dissolved Oxygen, Fluoride, and and Containment isolation, Containment Coolant Sys-Suspended Solids. EPRI limits are used. tems, Control Room Emergency Ventilation System.

Emergency Core Cooling Systems, Engineered Safety PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS Features instrumentation, Essential Compressed Air (MAINTENANCE) Systems. Essential or Emergency Service Water, Fire The number of identified incidents concerning mainte- Detection or Suppression Systems, Isolation Condenser, nance procedural problems, the number of closed irs Low Temperature Overpressure Protection, Main Steam related to the use of procedures (includes the number of Line isolation Valves Onsite Emergency AC & DC closed irs caused by procedural noncompliance), and Power w/ Distribution, Radiation Monitoring instrumenta-the number of closed procedural noncompliance irs. tion, Reactor Coolant System, Reactor Core isolation This indicator trends personnel performance for SEP Cooling System, Reactor Trip System and instrumenta-

15,41 & 44. tion, Recirculation Pump Trip Actuation instrumentation, Residual Heat Removal Systems, Safety Vatves, Spent PROGRESS OF REFUELING OUTAGE MODIFICA- Fuel Systems, Standby Liquid Control System and Ulti-TION PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 24 MODIFICA- mate Heat Sink.

TIONS)

This indicator shows the status of modifications ap- SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERFORMANCE proved for completion during the Refueling Outage. INDEX ,

The Chemistry Performance index (CPI) is a calculation >

RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM based on the concentration of key impurities in the sec.

The number of identified poor radiological work practices ondary side of the plant. These key impurities are the (PRWPs) for the reporting month. This indicator tracks most likety cause of deterioration of the steam genera-radiological work performance for SEP #52. tors. The chemistry parameters are reported only for the penod of time when the plant is operated at greater than RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & 30 percent power.

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE The CPI is calculated using the following equation: CPI -

The ratio of preventive maintenance (including surveil- (Ka/0.8) + (Na/20) + (0,/10) / 3 where the following are lance testing and calibtation procedures) to the sum of monthly averages of: Ka - average blowdown cation non-outage corrective maintenance and preventive main- conductivity, Na = average blowdown sodium concen-tenance completed over the reporting period. The ratio, tration, O, - average condensate pump discharge dis-expressed as a percentage, is calculated based on man- solved oxygen concentration.

hours. Also displayed are the % of preventive mainte-nance items in the month that were not completed by the 134

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS SIGNIFICANT EVENTS THERMAL PERFORMANCE Significant events are c,ase events identified by NRC The ratio of the design gross heat rate (mrrected) to the staff through detailed screening and evaluation of operat- adjusted actual gross heat rate, expressed as a percent-ing experience. The screening process includes the age.

daily review and discussion of all reported operating re-actor events, as well as other operational data such as UNIT CAPAB!LITY FACTOR special tests or construction activities. An event identi- The ratio of the available energy generation over a given fied from the screening process as a significant event time period to the reference energy generation (the en-candidate is further evaluated to determine if any actual orgy that could be produced if the unit were operated or potential threat to the health and safety of tN public continuously at full power under reference ambient con-was involved. Specific examples of the type of criteria ditions) over the same time period, expressed as a per-are summarized as follows: 1) Degradation of important contage.

safety equipment; 2) Unexpected plant response to a transient; 3) Degradation of fuelintegrity, primary cool- UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER l ant pressure boundary, important associated features: 7,000 CRITICAL HOURS

4) Scram with complication; 5) Unplanned release of This indicator is defined as the number of unplanned au-radioactivity; 6) Operation outside the limits of the Tech- tomatic scrams (reactor protection system logic actua- i nicalSpecifications; 7) Other. tions) that occur per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months of critical operation.

INPO significant events reported in this indicator are The value for this indicator is calculated by multiplying SERs (Significant Event Reports) which inform utilities of the total number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams significant events and lessons loamed identified through in a specific time period by 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months , then dividing the SEE-IN screening process. that number by the total number of hours critical in the same time period. The indicator is further defined as SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE follows:

The dollar value of the spare parts inventory value for 1) Unpianned means that the scram was not an antici-FCS during the reporting period. pated part of a planned test.

2) Scram means the automatic shutdown of the reactor STAFFING LEVEL by a rapid insertion of negative reactivity (e.g., by control The actual staffing level and the authorized staffing level rods, liquid injection system, etc.) that is caused by ac-for the Nuclear Operations Division, the Production Engi- tuation of the reactor protection system. The scram sig-neering Division, and the Nuclear Services Dwision. This nal may have resulted from exceeding a setpoint or may indicator tracks performance for SEP #24. have been spurious.

3) Automatic means that the initial signal that caused STATION NET GENERATION actuation of the reactor protection system logic was pro-The not generation (sum) produced by the FCS during vided from one of the sensors monitoring plant param- ;

the reporting month. eters and conditions, rather than the manual scram '

switches or, in manual turbine trip switches (or push-but- ,

TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS tons) provided in the main contrt! room.

The number of temporary mechanical and electrical con- 4) Critical means that during the steady-state condition of figurations to the plant's systems- the reacter prior to the scram, the effective multiplication

1) Temporary configurations are defined as electrical factor (k,) was essentially equal to one.

Jumpers, electrical blocks, mechanical jumpers, or me-chanical blocks which are installed in the plant operating UNPLANNED CAPABluTY LOSS FACTOR systems and are not shown on the latest revision of the The ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given PatD, schematic, connecton, wiring, or flow diagrams, period of time, to the reference energy generation (the

2) Jumpers and blocks which are installed for Surveil- energy that could be produced if the unit were operated lance Tests, Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Pro- continuously at full power under reference ambient con-cedures, Special Procedures, or Operating Procedures dit'ons) over the same time period, expressed as a per-are not considered as temporary modifications unless the centage.

jumper or block remains in place after the test or proce-dure is complete. Jumpers and blocks installed in test or UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS.

lab instruments are not considered as temporary modifi- (INPO DEFINITION) cations. This indicator is defined as the sum of the following

3) Scaffolding is not considered a temporary modifica- safety system actuations:

tion. Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for 1) The number of unplanned Emergency Core Cooling which MRs have been submitted will be considered as System (ECCS) actuations that result from reaching an temporary modifications untilfinal resolution of the MR ECCS actuation setpoint or from a spurious / inadvertent and the jumper or block is removed or is permanently ECCS signal recorded on the drawings. This indicator tracks tempo- 2)The number of unplanned emergency AC power sys-rary modificatons for SEP #62 & 71. tem actuations that result from a loss of power to a safe-guards bus. An unplanned safety system actuation oc+

curs when an actuation setpoint for a safety system is ,

135

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS reached or when a spurious or inadvertent signalis gen-erated (ECCS only), and major equipment in the system 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 pres-sure injection system, the low pressure injection system, or the safety injection tanks.

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS(NRC DEFINITION)

The number of safety system actostions which include (gnk) the High Pressure Safety injection System, the Low Pressure Safety injection System, the Safety injec-tion Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC classification of safety system actuations includes actuations when major equipment is operated and when the logic systems for the above safety systems are chal-lenged.

VIOLATIONS PER 1,000 INSPECTION HOURS This indicator is defined as the number of violations sited in NRC inspection reports for FCS per 1,000 NRC in-spection hours. The violations are reported in the year that the inspection was actually performed and not based on when the inspection report is received. The hours reported for each inspection report are used as the in-spection hours.

VOLUNIE OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RI.DIOACTIVE WASTE This ind cator is defined as the volume of low-level solid radioactive waste actually shipped for burial. This indica-tot also shows the volume of low-level radioactive waste which is in temporary storage, the amount of radioactive oil that has been shipped off-site for processing, and the volume of solid dry radioactivo waste which has been shipped off.slte for processing. Low-level solid radioac-tive waste consists of dry active waste, sludges, resins, and evaporator bottoms generated as a result of nuclear power plant operation and maintenance. Dry radoactive waste includes contaminated rags, cleaning materials, disposable protective clothing, plastic containers, and any other material to be disposed of at a low-level radio-active 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. This indicator tracks radiological work per-formance for SEP #54.

136

)

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX The purpose of the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Performance Indicators Index is to list perfor-mance indicators related to SEP items with parameters that can be trended.

SEP Reference Number 15 Ea2R increase HPES and IR Accountability Through Use of Perfornr Ace Indicators Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . . . .. 95 Contaminations 22,000 Counts / Minute Per Probe Area . . . .9 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . .. .. .7 Number of Personnel Errors Reported in LERs . . .11 SEP Reference Number 24 Complete Staff Studies Staffing Level .. . . 83 >

SEP Reference Number 25 Training Program for Managers and Supervisors implemented Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate . .5 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate .. . .7 SEP Refererre Number 26 Evaluate and implement Station Standards for Safe Work Practice Requirements Disabling injury /lliness Frequency Rate . . . .5 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . .7 SEP Reference Number 27 Implement Supervisory Enforcement of Industrial Safety Standards Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate . . .5 Recordable injury / illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . .7 SEP Reference Number 31 Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Manual and Conduct Project Management Training MWO Planning Status (Cycle 16 Refueling Outage) . . .. .127 Overall Project Status (Cycle t6 Refueling Outage).. ..Not Reported Untillater in 1994 Progress of Cycle 16 Outage Modification Planning . ..Not Reported Unti/ Later in 1994 SEP Reference Number 33 Develop On-Line Maintenance and Modification Schedule .

Percent of Completed Scheduled Maintenance Activities (All Maintenance Crafts). . _ . . 97 SEP Reference Number 36 Reduce Corrective Non-Outage Backlog Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage). . 87 SEP Reference Number 41 Develop and implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue. .89 Procedural Noncompliance incidents . . . .. 95 SEP Reference Number 43 Implement the Check Valve Test Program Check Valve Failure Rate. . 71 137

l l

l SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX (continued)

SEP Reference Number 44 EaQ2 Compliance With and Use of Procedures Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . .. . . .. 95 SEP Reference Number 46 Design a Procedures Control and Administrative Program Document Review .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .109 SEP Reference Number 52 '

r Establish Supervisory Accountability for Workers Radiological Practices Radiological Work Practices Program. .. . . . . . .105 SEP Reference Number 54 Complete implementation of Radiological Enhancement Program Collective Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . 31 Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste. . . .. . . - . . . . 73 Contaminations 22.000 Counts / Minute Per Probe Area . . . .9 Decontaminated Radiation Controlled Area. . .. . . .103 r

SEP Reference Number 58 Revise Physical Security Training and Procedure Program Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . . . 111 SEP Reference Number 60 Improve Controls Over Surveillance Test Program Number of Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in Licensee Event Reports. . . 39 SEP Reference Number 61 Modify Computer Program to Correctly Schedule Surveillance Tests Number of Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in Licensee Event Reports. . .39 ,

5 SEP Reference Number 62 Establish interim System Engineers ,

Temporary Modifications. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . 113 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . . .. _.116 Engineering Change Notice Status . . . . . . .. . . . . . 117 '

Engineering Change Notice Breakdown . . . . . . . . .., . . 119 SEP Reference Number 68 Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Training and Establish Means to Monitor Operator Training Licensed Operator Requalification Training . .. . . . . .. ..123 License Candidate Exams .. .. .. .. ... . . .125 SEP Reference Number 71 improve Controls over Temporary Modifications Temporary Modifications. . . . .. .. . . . . . .113 e

138

REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST M. P. Lazar ;

R. L. Andrews G. L. Anglehart D. L. Lovett .

K. L Belek J. H. MacKinnon B. H. Biome J. W. Marcil ,

J.P.Bobba N. L Mage -

C. E. Boughter R. D. Martin C. J. Brunnert T. J. Mcivor G. R. Cavanaugh K. A. Miller Nuclear Licensing J. W. Chase

& Industry Affairs A. G. Christensen O. J. Clayton J. T. O'Connor -

W. W. Orr R. P. Clemens ,

R. G. Conner T. L. Patterson ,

J. L. Connolley R. T. Pearce R. L Phelps G. M. Cook R. L. Plott D. C. Dietz H. J. Faulhaber W.J.Ponec-M. A. Ferdig C. R. Rice M. T. Frans A. W. Richard D. G. Ried S. K. Gambhir G. K. Sam,ide J. K. Gasper W. G. Gates M. J. Sandboefner M. O. Gautier F. C. Scofield S. W. Gebers H. J. Sefick L. V. Goldberg J. W. Shannon R. H. Guy R. W. Short C. F. Simrnons J. B. Herman K. C. Holthaus E.L.Skaggs C. K. Huang J. L Skiles C.J. Husk F. K. Smith T. W. Jamieson R. L. Sorenson R. L Jaworski K. E. Steele R. A. Johansen M. A. Tesar W. C. Jones J. J. Tesarek J. D. Keppler J. W. Tills D. D. Kloock J. M. Waszak L.T.Kusek S. J. Willrett

?

+

139

FORT CALHOUN STATION OPERATING CYCLES AND REFUELING OUTAGE DATES Event Date Range Production (MWH) Cumulative (MWH)

Cycle 1 09/26/73 -02/01/75 3,299,639 3,299,639 1st Refueling 02/01/75 05/09/75 Cycle 2 05/09/75-10/01/76 3,853,322 7,152,961 2nd Refueling 10/01/76-12/13/76 Cycle 3 12/13/76- 9/30/77 2,805,927 9,958,888 3rd Refueling 09/30/77-12/09/77 Cycle 4 12/09/77-10/14/78 3,026,832 12,985,720 4th Refueling 10/14/78 12/24/78 Cycle 5 12/24/78 01/18/80 3,882,734 16,868,454 5th Refueling 01/18/80 - 06/11/80 Cycle 6 06/11/80 - 09/18/81 3,899,714 20,768,168 6th Refueling 09/18/81 - 12/21/81 Cycle 7 12/21/81-12/06/82 3,561,806 24,330,034 7th Refueling 12/06/82- 04/07/83 Cycle 8 04/07/83- 03/03/84 3,406,371 27,736,405 8th Refueling 03/03/84 - 07/12/84 Cycle 9 07/12/84 09/28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 9th Refueling 09/28/85- 01/16/86 Cycle 10 01/16/86 - 03/07/87 4,356,753 36,834,646 10th Refueling 03/07/87 - 06/08/87 Cycle 11 06/08/87 - 09/27/88 4,936,859 41,771,505 11th Retueling 09/27/88 - 01/31/89 Cycle 12 01/31/89-02/17/90 3,817,954 45,589,459 12th Refueling 02/17/90- 05/29/90 Cycle 13 05/29/90 02/01/92 5,451,069 51,040,528 131h Refueling 02/01/92- 05/03/92 Cycle 14# 05/03/92-09/25/93 4,981,485 56,022,013 1 14th Refueling 09/25/93- 11/26/93 l Cycle 15 11/26/93- 03/11/95 15th Refueling 03/11/95- 04/29/95 (Planned Dates)

FORT CALHOUN STATION CURRENT PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS " RECORDS" First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5:47 p.m.)

First Electricity Supplied to the System August 25,1973 Commercial Operation (180,000 KWH) September 26,1973 Achieved Full Power (100%) May 4,1974 Longest Run (477 days) June 8,1987-Sept. 27,1988 Highest Monthly Net Generation (364,468,800 KWH) October 1987 Most Productive Fuel Cycle (5,451,069 MWH)(Cycle 13) May 29,1990-Feb.1.1992 J

ML20063C440

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search