Text

Performance Indicators Jan 1994
	ML20063M023
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	01/31/1994
From:	; OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20063M022	List: LIC-94-0042, Forwards Fort Calhoun Station Performance Indicators Jan 1994; ML20063M023;
References
	NUDOCS 9403080290
	Download: ML20063M023 (95)
	v • d • e

- - - - - - - -

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS N

I Illi

. ; ~.~

,/

JANUARY 1994 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COST EFFECTIVENESS Ese 88!e 8s8ss 6 R

PDR

E t

h i

t 0%wd e as%a s wn, auduh...

l g

l d woo!nss wudan, wnd sowndjud nal...

y l

d is e, y%, cans 'm cornandrnad...

g s e, y 3 p...g s % 66 g e

9u zu y 6,,6.

a s 1

l w

u u,nitu -un e a s

i NY Ni y

l ws an, wnd ik pak wnd $%%

l ikicorns /arn, % ik 9V knd af l

) - ). c'e _

i i

l i

e 4

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

l Prepared By:

Production Engineering Division System Engineering Test and Performance Group JANUARY 1994

FORT CALHOUN STATION JANUARY 1994 MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT 1

OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

The station was operated at 100% power fmm January 1 through January 7 when power was de-creased to 60% to repair a leaking tube in condenser FW-1 A. One condenser tube was plugged and two previously plugged tubes were replugged.

Following repairs, a power increase to 100% commenced on January 8, but was stopped at 90%

on January 9 due to a failed lower motor bearing on heater drain pump FW-5B and a subsequent

]

motor winding failure on heater drain pump FW-5C. A power decrease was initiated on January l

9 to 50% due to a failed level control valve on the heater drain tank.

After the failed level control valve was mpaired, a power increase to 90% initiated on January

10. The plant reached 90% power on January 11 and maintained that level. A heater drain pump FW-5C motor was replaced on January 12 and power was increased to 100% on January 13.

On January 18, a power excursion occurred (1508 Mwth maximum) which resulted in reactor l

power exceeding 100% (1500 MWth) for greater than one hour. A Limiting Condition for Op-eration (LCO) was entemd in accordance with the plant Technical Specifications. Actions were taken to reduce reactor power and the LCO was exited. No Technical Specifications related to power level were violated. The cause of the power excursion was determined to be impmper i

flushing of a Chemical and Volume Control System (CVCS) purification ion exchanger follow-ing the addition of new resin. FCS remained at 100% power through the end of January.

On January 30, Diesel Generator No. I was removed from service for scheduled maintenance and modification.

The following NRC inspections were completed during this reporting penod:

IER No. Descriotion j

4 94-01 Station Blackout Program 94-02 Erosion / Corrosion - Flow Accelerated Corrosion 94-06 SpecialInspection: AFW Event (LER 93-019), Toxic Gas Monitor Event (LER 93-020), and Power Excursion Event The following LERs were submitted during this period:

LER No. Descriotion 93-018 Reactor Trip due to Turbine Trip on Low Hydraulic Fluid Pressure i

l 1

FORT CAL HOUN STATION JANUARY 1994 MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT I

OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

(enntinivd) 1 FR No. Description 93-019 Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps Inoperable due to Inappropriate Testing Lineup 93-020 Ventilation Mode Requirement not met while Toxic Gas Monitors were Inoperable J

Source: Nuclear Licensing & Industry Affairs il

12 Month Value Performance Catec_ ories I

a Performance in Industry l ;l Unplanned 1lll111 I

l11II,

!Lunplanned

% Wi Upper 10% and better I

l ~ Scnunsa,000/

(Automatic 2 peig'orMahce than 1993 OPPD goal l

Unit l l Capability lll,!

Capability l

~'i Factor

Loss Factor l g g: l j

Performance Better Than ll j ll l !l

lll ll

"^l

~

m 1993 OPPD Goal i

i ii

.I FW Sekty EDG Safety he!

Performance Not Meeting HPSI Safety SyMem Symem MiW@

1993 OPPD Goal System Performance Performance 10tileW Qr p

l l

!l l

^

93 S3 93 October November December l

?%

i,,,,,,,,

Chemistry l

Collective Volume of WM-Index (New

.j Radiation Low-Level 4,

Safety ^ ^

January 1994

'TL @' Rate,

Calculation in l

Exposure Radioactive 12 Month 1994) l l

l l1 Weste Value f

j l

l l-l

. ^

Performance INPO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Performance for the twelve months from February 1,1993 through January 31,1994.)

Note that 12 month values are compared to 1993 OPPD goals.

E j

9 i

o

' J.._.. Abto?,

u.

7

+ W hite"-

,,,p 12 Month Value Performance Cateaories

~

Q Performance BetterThan Peer Average Trend

-^

g y e

$$@Sifety2 Significant ll Events 4

a

. ' Actuadons] '

Performance Better Than 1993 OPPD Goal 4

s

._ mg-.

n we m

'$s 2:j

^

c

^

1 Performance Not Meeting 1993 OPPD Goal or Peer Average Trend Safety Forced System Outage Failures Rate October November December

'93

'93 l

January 1994 12 Month Equipment Collective Value pg Radiation Performance Outages /1,000 Crit. Hrs.

Exposure NRC PERFORMANCE 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 from February 1,1993 through January 31,1994.)

Note that 12 month values are compared to 1993 OPPD goals.

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT JANUARY 1994 -

SUMMARY

i POSITIVE TREND REPORT INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT A performance indicator with data representing three A performance indicator with data for the reporting period consecutive months of improving performance or three that is inadequate when compared to the OPPD goal is consecutrve months of performance that is superior to defined as 'Needing increased Management Attention

i the stated goalis exhibiting a positive trend per Nuclear per NODCP-37.

j Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NODCP-37).

The following performance Indicators are cited as need-The following performance indicator 0 exhibited positive ing increased management for the reporting month:

trends for the reporting month:

Fuel Reliability Indicator Remrdable Iniurv/tlinesses Cases Freauency Rate I

(Page 11)

(pag 4)

The recordable injury / Illnesses cases frequency rate Emernancy Diesel Generator Unit Reliabilitv value for the reporting month (3.80) is above the 1994 (Page 12) goalof a maximum value of 1.5.

j 1

Diesel Generator Rehability f25 Demandst Number of Control Room Eauioment Deficiencies

]

(Page 13)

(Page 15)

The total number of control room equipment deficiencies Emeroency Diesef Generator Unreliabihty for the reporting month (60) exceeds the 1994 goal of a (Page 14) maximum of 45.

Number of Missed Surveillance Tests Resultina in Lic.

Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Umit ensee Event Rooorts (Page 38) 4 j

(Page 20)

The primary system percent of hours out of limit for the reporting month (3.1%) exceeds the 1994 goal of a maxi-

]

Forced Outane Rate mum of 2%

~

(Page 23)

Unclanned Safety System Actuations -(INPO) p 7

(Page 28)

The number of temporary modifications >6 months old

- C**

0*

Percentaae of Total MWOs Comoleted Per Month identi.

fied as Rework Outstandira Modifications (Page 47)

(Page 58)

The number of outstanding modifications for the report-Hazardous Waste Produced ing month (104) exceeds the 1994 goal of 80.

(Page 52) 4 Enaineerino Assistance Raouest Breakdown

}

(Page 59)

End of Positive Trend Report.

The total number of EARS open at the end of the report-l ing month (158) exceeds the 1994 goal of 140.

t ADVERSE TREND REPORT End of Management Attention Report, j

A Performance Indicator with data representing three (3) t consecutive months of declining performance; or four or more consecutive months performance that is trending towards declining as determined by the Manager Sta-tion Engineering, constitutes an adverse trend per NOD-OP 37. A supervisor whose performance indicator ex-hibits an adverse trend by this definition may specify in written form (to be published in this report) why the trend is not adverse.

?

j There were no performance indicators exhibiting adverse trends for the reporting month.

1 i

End of Adverse Trend Report.

v

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT JANUARY 1994 -

SUMMARY

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT IMPROVEMENTS / CHANGES This section lists significant changes made to the report and to specific indicators within the report since the pre-vious month.

Industria! Safety Accident Rate - INPO (Page 2)

The following indicators have been added to the report:

This indicator has been added to the report. This action was necessary because the Disabling injury / Illness Fre-Proaress of Cvele 16 Outaae Modifcation Plannina (Fro-quency Rate performance indicator calculation is no ren Scooe of 21 Modifications) longer identical to the INPO Safety Accident Rate calcu-(Page 67) lation.

Proaress of 1994 On-Line Modification Plannina (Frozgn Recordablo Iniurv/fliness Cases Frecuency Rata scone of 19 Modifcations)

(Page 4)

(Page 68)

The 1993 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate has been revised.

The following indicator has been deleted from the report:

haventablePersonnel Error LERs Number of Hot Scots l

(Page 6)

This indicator was formerly titled " Number of Personnel Errors Reported in LERs". It has been revised to im-prove continuity of information on LERs and depict a End of Performance Indicator Report improvements /

trend.

Changes Report Secondary System Chemistry (Page 39)

The INPO calculation for the Chemistry Performance Index has been revised for 1994.

Procedural Noncomo!iance incidents (Page 49)

The graph for this indicator has been revised to show 1 procedural noncompliance incident for the month of Sep-tember 1993.

Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area (Page 53)

This indicator was formerly titled " Decontaminated Ra-diation Controlled Area'.

L'rensee Event Reoort fLER) Root Cause Breakdown (Page 62)

This indicator is now based on the LER event date rather the report date. This revision was necessary to be con-sistent with the " Preventable / Personnel Error LERs* indi-Cator.

Table of Contents / Summary EAGE l

l l

G06L3.....................

..............XI l

l SAFE OPERATONS EAGE IN DUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE IN PO................................................................................ 2 t

l DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE.

3 RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FREQUENCY RATE

...............................................................-.......................4 i

l CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS i

21,000 DISlNTEGRATIONS/ MINUTE PER PROBE AREA..................................-............... 5 l

l PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERs..............................-........................

..6 SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES.

..................7 SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY:

INJECTION SYSTEM..

.................................8 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM =

..............9 EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM.............,..

-.10 i

l 1

FUEL REllABILITY INDICATOR 11 1

EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT REflABIL!TY.

...............................12 i

i EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS)........

...............-............13 i

t i

EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY..

.........,....14 NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES...

..............................15 COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE.

16 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATON EXPOSURE..

=17

.......... =

VOLATIONS PE R 1,000 IN SPECTON HOURS....... -.................... -................................................,18 SIGNIFICANT EVENTS.......

...........,,....19 NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEllLANCE TESTS RESULTING IN LERS.......,.......................... 20 l

l PERFORMANCE EAGE STATON NET GENERATON..........-...

..... 22 FORCED OUTAGE RATE

...............................-.......23 V11 l

\\

t

-.,. ~.,,

PERFORMANCE (continued)

EAGE EQUlVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR..

..... 24 UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR..........-.....

................................................-...................25 UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR..............................................

...... 26 UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAM S P ER 7,000 HOU RS CRITICAL.,...................................... -.................................

... 27 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATONS -(INPO DEFINITON)..

.. 28 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATONS - (N RC DEFINITON)..............................

...... 29

z.....

GROSS HEAT RATE

.... 30 THERMAL PERFORMANCE.....................

...... 31 DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT........

. 32 EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS..-............

.... 33 COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

..... 34 REPEAT FAILURES..........

..... 35 CHECK VALVE FAILURE RATE..........

.. 36 VOLUME OF LOW LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE 37 PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERCENT OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT.

....................................................38 CHEMISTRY INDEX/ SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY :-

.39 COST E,ME CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR..

...... 41 STAFFING LE VEL..............................

..... 42 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE.,

..... 43 DfVISDN AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS EAGE MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS (CORRECTIVE NONCUTAGE)........................

....... 4 5 viii

_ ~... _.. _ _

DIVISDN AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (continued)

P. AGE 1

i RATO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE

& PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE :

.......~...................................................46 l

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK............~........ 47 1

MAINTENANCE OVERTIME.........................

............ 48 PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE 1

INCIDENTS (MAINTENANCE)............

... 49 i

PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.

...... 50 (ALL MAINTENANCE CRAFTS).......... -................

IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT-OF-SERVICE.......

. 51 HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED

...... 52

....=.....

l CONTAMINATED RADIATON CONTROLLED AREA.........................

..... 53

............. ~.

RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM.............~..

...... 54 DOCUMENT REVIEW..

.. 55 LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY).............

................56 TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS.....

... 57 OUTSTANDING MODIFICATONS.....

. 58 ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR) BREAKDOWN.....

.......................-...........59 l

E NGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS.......................................

.... 60 l

ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE BREAKDOWN........

......................61 LER ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN...............

. 62 LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING.......

.... 63 LICEN SE C ANDID ATE EXAMS..............................-.............

... 64 OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTON REPORTS AND INCIDENT REPORTS......

..................65 MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 16 REFUELING OUTAGE).........

.......................66 PROGRESS OF CYCLE 16 MODIFICATION PLANNING...................

.... 67 PROGRESS OF 1994 ON LINE MODIFICATON PLANNING.................

...... 68 l

l l

lx -

t 1

i

4 ACTION PLANS. DEFINITIONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION LIST Efgg l

ACTION PLANS FOR ADVERSE TRENDS.

............. 6 9 l

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS.....

........... 71 SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX............

x78 REPORT DlSTRIBUTION LIST..............................

.........-.......................-..80 1

1 i

i i

I l

4 X

..,.. - ~

)

4 OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS I

Vice President - 1994 Priorities MISSION The safe, reliable and cost effective 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 genemi 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 enviro. ment, in the control room and thmughout the OPPD nuclear organi-zation, that assures safe operation so that Fort Calhoun Station is recognized as a nuclear indus-try leader.

1994 Priorities:

Improve SALP ratings.

Improve INPO rating.

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

No unplanned automatic reactor scrams or safety system actuations.

Goal 2: PERFORMANCE 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.

1994 Priorities:

Improve Quality, Professionalism, and Teamwork.

Improve Plant Reliability.

Meet or exceed INPO key parameters and outage performance goals.

Reduce the number of human performance errors.

Identify programmatic performance problems through effective self assessment.

Goal 3: COSTS Operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as a viable source of electricity.

1994 Priorities:

Maintain total O & M and Capital expenditures within budget.

Streamline work processes to improve cost effectiveness.

Goals Source: Scofield (Manager) xi

"-^-" ---

t r

y

,q-yj-,,,ie--W' g+

94 r

l j

i l

SAFE OPERATIONS i

I l

Goal: To ensure the continuation of a " safety culture" in the l

OPPD Nuclear Program and to provide a professional work-

)

ing environment in the control room and throughout the

)

OPPD Nuclear Organization that assures safe operation so j

that Fort Calhoun Station is recognized as a nuclear indus-try leader.

i i

)

i b

1 3

l l

j 1

1 j

4 Year to-Date INPO Industrial Safety Accident Rate

--O-Fort Calhoun Goal lGOODI -

Industry Upper 10%

--O-1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 0.50) 0.6 -

0.5 -

C O

O O

0.4 -

0.3 -

A A

0.2 -

0.1 -

0 0

i i

Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE-INPO l

As stated in INPO's December 1993 publication ' Detailed Descriptions of World Asso-ciation of Nuclear Operators (WANO) Performance Indicators and Other Indicators for Use at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants': "The purpose of this indicator is monitor progress in improving industrial safety performance for utility personnel permanently assigned to the station. Accident rate was chosen by INPO as the personnel safety indicator over other indicators, such as the injury rate or severity rate, because the criteria are clearly de-fined, utilities currently collect this data, and the data is least subjective."

The INPO industrial safety accident rate value year-to-date was 0.0 at the end of Janu-ary. The value for the 12 months from February 1,1993 through January 31,1994 was 0.76.

The values for this indicator are determined as follows:

(number of restricted -time + lost-time accidents + fatalities) X 200.000 (number of station person-hours worked)

The 1995 INPO industry goalis 50.50. The approximate industry upper ten percentile value (for the period from 7/92 through 6/93) is approximately 0.24.

Data Source: Sorensen!Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Chare / Booth (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Conner Adverse Trend: None 2

l

-.4-1994 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate l GOOD l

--M--

1993 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate V

1.2 -

1-0.8 -

0.6 -

0.4 -

f.2 -

0 M

m i

JarO4 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE (LOST TIME ACCIDENT RATE)

This indicator shcws the 1994 disabling injury / illness frequency rate. The 1993 dis-abling injury / illness tre.,quency rate is also shown.

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for January 1994 was 0.0. There were no lost time accidents reported for the month.

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for the 12 months from February 1,1993 through January 31,1994 was 0.379.

Data Source: Sorenson/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Conner Adverse Trend: None SEP 25, 26 & 27 3

5-

--@ - 1994 Recordable Injury / Illness Frequency Rato j

l' 1993 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency Rate IGCODI 4.5 -

V

-O-1994 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 1.5) 4 --

9 3.5 -

3-2.5 -

2-1.5 -

C O

O O

q s

1-M n

0.5 -

0 h

i i

i Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FREQUENCY RATE j

This indicator shows the 1993 recordable injuw/ illness cases frequency rate. The 1993 recordable injury / illness cases frequency ra' 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 correct [ve 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 1994 was reported as 3.80. There were 2 recordable injury / illness cases reported for the month of January.

The recordable injury / illness rate for the 12 months from February 1,1993 through January 31,1994 was 1.64.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator a maximum value of 1.5.

l Data Source: Sorenson/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner Adverse Trend: None SEP 15,25,26 & 27 4

I

Contamination Events

--O-Fort Calhoun Goal y

75-70 -

65 -

C C

60 -

$ 55-5 50-t$

45-5 40-

!35-30-g25-0 20-15-10-5-

8 0

i i

Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 CLEAN. CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS 21,000 DISINTEGRATIONS /

MINUTE PER PROBE AREA This indicator shows the Personnel Contamination Events in the Clean Controlled Area for contaminations 21,000 disintegrations / minute per probe area for the reporting month There has been a total of 6 contamination events in 1994. All of these contamination i

events were classified as non-outage and 0 were classified as outage contamination l

events.

The 1994 year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum of 65 contamination events.

Data Source: Chase /Little (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP 15 & 54 5

l

i

--5--

Preventable (18 Month totals)

--C}-

Personnel Error (18 Month Totals)

E Personnel Errors (Each Month) 40-35-30-25-20-

=

E 15-10-5-

~

0 i

i i

i kkb$b

?bk$k

$hb$

PREVENTABLEPERSONNEL ERROR LERs This indicator has been revised to show 18 month totals for numbers of " Preventable" and " Personnel Error" LERs. The purpose of the revision is to improve continuity of information on LERs and depict a trend. The definition for this performance indicator has also been revised to describe the meanings of the terms.

The Preventable / Personnel Error LERs indicator is reported for the months from July 1, 1992 through December 31,1993. The graph shows the 18 month totals for prevent-able LERs, the 18 month total for personnel error LERs and the personnel errors for each month. The LERs are trended based on the event date as opposed to the report date.

In December 1993, there were 3 events that were subsequently reported as LERs. All 3 of the LERs were categorized as Preventable, and 1 of the LERs was categorized as a Personnel Error LER.

The total LERs for the year 1993 is 19. The total personnel error LERs for the year 1993 is 5.

The 1994 goals for this indicator are that the year-end values for the 18 month totals be no more than 12 Preventable and 5 Personnel Error LERs. (Note: Because this indica-tor is based on an 18 month period, the 1994 year-end totals willinclude LERS occur-ring in 1994 and the last 6 months of 1993.)

Data Source: Short/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None SEP 15 6

l Safety System Failures

- Fort Calhoun Trend

-O-Peer Plant Average Trend lGOODI g

B%

-4>--

Industry Average Trend V

u.

E 3

3 dj kNhi 2

5 "- hp

@f u

j 1-B ev "C'"

m T)

Y i$$$

'O' 1

go n

e n

91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 Year - Quarter SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES This indicator illustrates the number of NRC Safety System Failures as reported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual

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

The foliowing NRC safety system failures occurred between the second qwter 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 inoperable. 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 mode selector 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. 9) The station batteries were declared inoperable due to cracks developing in the cell casings. This was caused by inadequate design of the terminal post seats. 3) An error in an operating procedure could cause improper manipulation of nitrogen backup bottles for instru-ment cir. This could cause a loss of the containment spray system.

First Ouarter 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 7

1994 Monthly High Pressure Safety injection System Unavailability E

Value 1994 High Pressure Safety injection System Unavailability Value Year-to-Date

--O-1994 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 0.004) 1995 INPO Irdustry Goal (0.02)

--O-Industry Upper 10% (0.0011) 0.02-A A

A A

l GOOD l 0.015 -

y 0.01 -

s Not Available 0.005 -

C O

O O

0.00036 D-D 0

0 0

0 D

D

,0 1993 Unavailability Value Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 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.

Data for this indicator was not available for January 1994.

The High Pressure Safety injection System unavailability value for the month 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 planned unavailability for surveillance tests during the month. The 1993 year-to-date HPSI unavailability value was 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 maintenance and surveil-lance tests) and no hours of unplanned unavailability for the HPSI system in 1993.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum of 0.004. 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 Adverse Trend: None 8

E Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value 1994 Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailabihty Value Year to-Date lGOODI

-O-1994 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 0.01)

V -

1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 0.025)

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

A A

0.02-0.015 -

0.01 - C C

C C

0.005 -

D--C O---C O

D--C D--C O

O O

,0 i

1993 Unavailability Value Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 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 January 1994 was 0.00146.

The value for the last 12 months was 0.00183 at the end of January.

There has been a total of 1.25 hours2.893519e-4 days 0.00694 hours 4.133598e-5 weeks 9.5125e-6 months of planned unavailability (for surveillance tests) and 0.93 hours0.00108 days 0.0258 hours 1.537698e-4 weeks 3.53865e-5 months of unplanned unavailability for the auxiliary feedwater system in 1994.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.01.

The 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 Adverse Trend: None 9

E Monthly Emergency AC Power Unavailability Value

--W-Emergency AC Power Unavailability Value Year-to-Date

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal l GOODI

--b--

1995 INPO Industry Goal (0.025) 9 0.03 -

--G-Industry Upper 10% (0.004) 0.025 -

0.02 -

E o.015 -

0.01 -

-O O

O O

O

~

0 Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the Emergency AC Power System unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value for January 1994 was 0.0196.

There were 29.15 hours1.736111e-4 days 0.00417 hours 2.480159e-5 weeks 5.7075e-6 months of planned unavailability for testing and maintenance for the month. The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value for the last 12 months was 0.00426 at the end of January.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.025.

The 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 0.004.

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Adverse Trend: None 10

E Fuel Reliability Indcator

-a-1995 INPO Industry Fuel Defect Reference (5 X 10-4 Microcuries/Grarn) lGOODI

~

--O-1994 & 1993 Fort Calhoun Goals Y

b 8~

C O

O O

O 6-Cycle 15 g

Refueling y

Outage E

man M

EE O

i i

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR The Fuel Reliauility Indicator (FRI) value for January 1994 was 0.701 X10-* microcuries/

gram. The purpose of the FRIis to monitor industry progress in achieving and maintain-ing a high level of fuelintegrity. The January FRI value, which is less than the zero defect threshold value, discussed below, indicates a defect free core. Except for a power reduction from January 8 through January 12 for condenser and heater drain pump repairs, the plant operated at full power. The January FRI was calculated based on fission product activities present in the reactor coolant during steady state full power operation, January 16 through January 31.

The January 1994 FRI value of 0.701 X 10

microcuries/ gram is comparable to the December 1993 FRI value of 0.944 X 10-* microcuries/ gram.

Cycle 15 plant operation started on November 25,1993. Fission product activity data from January 1994 full power operation and power reduction show no Xenon-133 activ-ity 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 Industry" (INPO No.92-011) states that "..the 1995 industry goal for fuel reliability is that units should strive to operate with zero fuel defects. A value larger than 5.0 X 10-4 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. D.

1994 Fort Calhoun Station FRI performance indicator goal will be to maintain a moninly FRI below 5.0 X10-' microcu-ries / gram.

Data Source: Holthaus/Guliani Accountability: Chase /Spilker Positive Trend 11

E Number of Failures /20 Demands

-g-Trigger Values for 20 Demands O

Number of Failures /50 Demands

-V-Trigger Values for 50 Demands Trigger Vaiues for 100 Demands E

Number of Failures /100 Demands 8-

@0Dl

+

6-Y Y

Y Y

V

?

Y Y

4-

=

2 2

1 1

1 00 00 00 00[ 00 00 00?

00 00 00$ 00' 00 0

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 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 Calhoun 1994 goalis to have fewer f ailures than these trigger values.

The demands counted for this indicator include the respective number of starts and 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 and all start demands that are followed by load-run demands, whether by automatic or manual initiation. 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 12

O DG-1 Failures /25 Demands lGOODI E

DG-2 Failures /25 Demands y

5-C Failure Trigger Value for 25 Demands / Fort Calhoun Goal t-C C

C C

3-2-

1-0 0

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 i

i i

i l

i i

i j

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 1

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 is the Fort Calhoun goal for 1994.

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 13

)

E DG-1 Unreliability Value E

DG-2 Unreliability Value lGOODI

--+-- Station Unreliability Value

~

Industry Upper 10% (0.002 for j

0.0025 -

a Three Year Average) 0.002 -

C C

O O

0.0015 -

0.001 -

0.0005 -

I

^

0 i

i i - i i

i i

i i - i i - i i

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 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 genera-tor unreliability.

G The year-to-date station EDG unreliability value at the end of January 1994 was 0.0.

The 1994 goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.05.

For DG-1: There were 2 start demuds for the reporting month without failures.

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 unsuccessful load-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 14

-r 1

w w,-

i l

4 O

Control Room Equipment Deficiencies Repairable On-Line lGOODI Q

Total Number of Control Room Equipment Deficiencies i

Y j

80-

--O-Fort Calhoun Goal For Total Equipment Deficiencies 70-f

]

h y

60-g m

7 7

40 7

h-

/

^

):

30-I I'

k 4

20-

-l I;

j

,l l'

2 k

,5;

?

I:

j j

10-ll j

3 0

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 Q

Operator Work Around items Repairable On-Line O

Total Number of Operator Work Aroui,d Items 10-

--O-Fort Calhoun Goal for Total Operator Work Around items 8-6-

C O

O O

,9,9,O, Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES 1

1 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 60 control room equipment deficiencies at the end of January 1994.

48 of these deficiencies are repairable on-line and 12 require a plant outage to repair.

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

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicatoris a maximum of 45 deficiencies and 5 OWAs.

Data Source: Chase / Tills (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None 15

l

[]

Monthly Personn:1 Radiation Exposure (Non-Spent Fuel R2 rack) Personnel Cumulative Radiation Exposure (Non-Spent Fuel Rerack) l GOOD l Y

--O-Fort Calhoun Annual Goal ( 44 Person-Rem) l h40-C O

O O

C 30-l h20-v> 10 -

I lii o i

I e

i i

i e

i a

Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 4

1 i

Monthly Personnel Radiation Exposure for Spent Fuel Rerack Personnel Cumulative Radiation Exposure for Spent Fuel Rerack l GOOD l V

-O--

Fort Calhoun Annual Goal ( 23 Person-Rem) b Eg:

O O

$]:

i e

e e

i i

i e

i i

D-Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure, excluding the spent fuel rarack,.ls less than 44 person-Rem.

I The exposure for January 1994 was 1.941 person-Rem.

The year-to-date exposure was 1.941 person-Rem at the end of January.

The Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure to complete the Spent Fuel Rerack is 23 person-Rem.

i

}

The Spent Fuel Rerack exposure for January was 0.024 person-Rem.

i The Spent Fuel Rerack exposure year-to-date was 0.024 person-Rem at the end of January.

i The collective radiation exposure for January (i.e. the sum of non-spent fuel rerack i

exposure and spent fuel rerack exposure) was 1.965 person Rem. The collective radiation exposure for the last 12 months was 156.819 person-Rem.

l The 1995 INPO industry goal for collective radiation exposure is 185 person-rem per year. The industry upper ten 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 from 2/91 through 1/94 was 152.986 person rem per year.

~

Data Source: Chase /Little (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP54 I

16 1

O Highest Exposure for the Month (mrem)

O Highest Exposure for the Year (mrem) 5000 -

l OPPD 4500 mrem /yr. Limit l

l 4000-3000 -

l 2000-Fort Calhoun 1,000 mrem /yr. Goal l

1000 -

i l

217 217 I

b 0

l January 1994 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE During January 1994, an individual accumulated 217 mrem, which was the highest individual exposure for the month.

The maximum individual exposure for the year was 217 mrem at the end of January.

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

year. The 1994 Fort Calhoun year-nnd goalis a maximum of 1,000 mrem.

Date Source: Chase /Little (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None 17

Violations per 1,000 Inspection Hours l GOOD l 4-e

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal ( 1.5) y b

3.03 Elg3_

l2-N i

C C

12

&p1-

.Q E

~

0 i

i i

91

'92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 VIOLATIONS PER 1,000 INSPECTION HOURS 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.

The violations per 1,000 inspection hours indicator was reported as 1.404 for the twelve months from January 1,1993 through December 31,1993.

The following inspections ended during this reporting period:

IER No.

Ilug No. of Hours 94-01 Station Blackout Team inspection 200 94-02 Erosion / Corrosion 40 94-06 Special inspection 80 To date, OPPD has received no violations in 1994:

Level lli Violations (0)

Level IV Violations (0)

Level V Violations (0)

Non-Cited Violations (NCV)

(0)

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator was a maximum of 1.5 violations per 1,000 inspection hours.

Data Source: Short/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Short Adverse Trend: None 18

C NRC Significant Events 1 GOOD]

Fort Calhoun Trend

-O-Industry Average Trend 1

1 0

O O

91-2 91-3 91-4 92 1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93 1 Year - Quarter Q INPO Significant Events (SERs) j

~

1 1

1 V///////b V/////)lb lV//////b '

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

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS This indicator illustrates the number of NRC and INPO Significant Events for Fort Calhoun l

Station as reported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual " Performance Indicators for Operating Commercial Nuclear l

Power Reactors" report and INPO's Nuclear Network.

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

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 itED 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 nonessential inverter 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 to 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 chanaels of the reactor protection sys-tem.

Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission & INPO Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 19 l

L

3-

@ Number of Missed STs Resulting in LERs 2-1-

'J 0

0 0

3 4

i I

4 i

i i

i l

i i

I

'92

'93 Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT FIEPORTS 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 January 1994.

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 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0.

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

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Positive Trend SEP 60 & 61 20

i 2

PERFORMANCE 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.

21

1 i

i E Net Generation (10,000 Mw hours) i i

(

40-l 35.03 35.12 34.6 32.51 32.14 31.21 e

g 30-28.01 Cycle 15 j

25.03 Refueling j

2 Outage 19.94 i

10-i 1.54 E

0 i

i i

i j

i Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 STATION NET GENERATION During the month of January 1994 a net total of 346,505.5 MWH was generated by the Fort Calhoun Station. Energy losses for the month were attributable to derates to repair condenser tubes and a failed level control valve on a heater drain tank.

]

l Energy losses for the month of December 1993 were a result of 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 were 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 1993 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 retumed to 100%

power on July 2nd.

Planned energy losses for the months of April and May 1993 were the result of a main-tenance outage.

Data Source: Station Generation Report Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 22

l Forced Outage Rate l GOOD l

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal ( 2.4%)

y g_

10.1 i

9.7 10%-

9.3 8%-

Cycle 15 6%-

Refueling Outage i

l 4%-

C C

C y

l i

i i

D'

~

i 6

i i

'90

'91

'92 Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 FORCED OUTAGE RATE The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 1.38% for the twelve months from Febru-ary 1,1993 to January 31,1994.

A forced outage occurred on December 6,1993 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 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum of 2.4%. 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 23

Monthly EAF Year-to-Date Average Monthly EAF 4

IGOODI l

-g-Industry Median Value (76.7%)

100% -

Cycle 15 g%

{

Refueling ff y

D ghi

$ff h

jg Outage f

{g 76.2 80%- m i

M Z

u E

d

.i.

h_%

=

b PG 40s g

H g

g T

y h

ke k

b h

h b

i 60.8

~

g gg 60%- g

3 g

R d

m s

q 3

h h

hk k

1 Et

.m g

g&

g#

g a

g$

y a

w 9

<a

+M

~

40%-

M Ri a

h~[ @

[a if s;

$$i 6

E

-c g

aq q

$4

&g g

g

.m i

m gj i

sk gm e

p-y$

M Fr w

L i g

,2 4

p.,. g*

y$.t g:

f 44 20%-

g

%g 9

g 9

n M

h pk y

tf

${

Q]

fl u.

M M

F

?4

!: I i, N

$$k 7

Si d

g

4) h h[

nk h

! in p

0%

I i

i i

'91

'92

'93 Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF), the year to-date average monthly EAF for 1993, and the EAF for the previous 3 years.

The EAF for January 1994 was reported as 95.53%. Energy losses for the month were due to derates for condenser tube repair and a failed level control valve on a heater drain tank.

lThe 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 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 i

24 l

G Monthly Unit Capability Factor

--et--

Year to Date Unit Capability Factor 4

--+- 36 Month Average Unit Capability Factor 4

l

--O-Fort Calhoun Goal l GOOD l 1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 80%)

Industry Upper 10% (85.4% for a Three Year Average)

Cycle 15 Refueling g

{

]

%_ Outage 7

u t-c m c

i

-c gn 60%-

Y f%

M M

l F4 L2 h

h M

40%-

i d

I e

E a

W s

2 *- a i

i i

i l

i I

I I

I Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94

~

UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unit Capability Factor (UCF) value, the 1994 and 1993 year-to-date UCFs, the goals, the 36 month average UCFs, the 1995 INPO Indus-i try goal and the approximate industry upper ten percentile value. UCF is defined as the i

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 continu-ously at fuH power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage.

]

The UCF for January 1994 was reported as 95.8%. Energy losses for the month were i

due to derates to repair condenser tubes and a failed level control valve on a heater l

drain tank. The UCF for the last 12 months was 76.5%. The 36 month average UCF was reported as 76.2% at the end of January.

The UCF for December 1993 was reported as 92.4%. Energy losses for the month 1

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 UCF for June 1993 was reported as 82.6%. Energy losses for the month were due to Moderator Coefficient Testing and a forced outage from June 24 through June 27.

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 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 96.03%.

Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 25

1 70%-

5 Monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

)

60%-

- Year to-Dale Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

--O-.

Fort Calhoun Goal l GOOD]

50%-

1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 4.5%)

I 40%-

Industry Upper 10% (1.65% for a Three Year Average) 1 j

30% -

Cycle 15 Refueling Outage 20%-

5 4

10%-

-C Q

C C

b f

C C

C O--

W",",",",",",~",I 0%

=

i Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 4

UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (UCLF), the 1993 1

year-todte 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.

t The UCLF for the month of January 1994 was reported as 4.2%. Unplanned energy losses for the month were due to derates to repair condenser tubes and a failed level control valve 3

}

heater drain tank. The UCF for the last 12 months was 3.85%. The 36 month average UUF

{'

was reported as 8.68% at the end of January.

i j

The UCLF for the month of December 1993 was reported as 7.2%. Unplanned energy losses for i

the month were the result of a plant trip that occurred on December 6 during EHC testing, i

1 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 percontile value (for the three year period from 7/90 through 6/93) is approximately 1.65%.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 3.97%.

Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 2

26

i 0~

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

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

-O-1994 & 1993 Fort Calhoun Goals S-1995 INPO Industry Goal 4-

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

^

~

.4 0

f7

~

$$5W[1--C,$$$$

5 $5

'~

o-3 0 r-O T-O t-C O r-O r-> i 0

i Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 Jan34 3

E Numberof FCS Reactor Scrams Cycle 15 4-3-

Refueling

)2 7

2-Outage 3

3

,h,h,0 1~

0 0

'90 11 92 '93 Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 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 1994 station value is 0.0 at the end of January. The value for the 12 months from February 1,1993 through January 31,1994 is 1.98. The value for the last 36 months is 1.66.

An unplanned automatic reactor scram occurred on December 6,1993 during EHC testing. 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.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0. The 1995 INPO industry goal is a maximum of one unplanna !., < natic reactor scram per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical. The

)

industry upper ten percerr,atue 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.

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

Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 27

3-E Safety System Actuations (INPO Definition)

O Fort Calhoun Goal O

Industry Upper 10 Percentile 2-1 1-Cycle 15 Refueling Outage

,0 0

O O

O,C O

O O

i

'91 '92 '93 Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(INPO DEFINITION)

There were no INPO unplanned safety system actuations during the month of January 1994.

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 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0.

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

Accountability: Jaworski/Foley/Ronning Positive Trend 28

- 12 Month Running Total SSAs (NRC Definition)

-+-- Critical Hours

@ Safety System Actuations (NRC Definition) io-1000 900 cycle is 800 j s-Refustin 700 e cycle 14 Refuelin Outage 3

6-600 g,g, g

)

500 3

}4-400 g 300 o g

200 g2-7 b

b b

o e;

'91 '92 93 FMAMJ JASONDJ FMAMJ JASONDJ 1992 1993 1994 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(NRC DEFINITION)

This indicator shows the number of unplanned safety system actuations (SSAs), which includes l

ihe 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 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.

An unplanned safety system actuation occurred on August 22,1992 due to the failure of are. ,/

DC converter in the Turbine Electro Hydraulic Control system. Pressurizer safety valve RC-i42 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 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0.

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

Accountability: Jaworski/Foley/Ronning Adverse Trend: None 29

E Monthly Gross Heat Rate

--h-Year-to-Date Gross Heat Rate lG00Dl V

-G-1994 81993 Fort Calhoun Goals 10.5-l 10300 g

~

Refueling c

Cycle 15 g

10177 c

g Outage 3

~

m10-a 9.5 -

9-i i

i i

91

'92

'93 Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 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 10,298 for the month of January 1994.

The GHR was not calculated for the months of October and November 1993 because of the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage.

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

The 1994 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is 10,190.

Data Source: Holthaus/ Gray (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Adverse Trend: None 30

l 3

Monthly Thermal Perforrnance

- Year-to-Date Avera9e Monthly Therrnal Performance

--O--

1994 & 1993 Fort Calhoun Goals l GOOD l

--+-- 1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 99.5%)

L Industry Upper 10% (99.9%)

t s

A a

1 A

A a

a a

99% -

00 %

i i

i Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 THERMAL PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the Thermal Performance value for the reporting month, the year-to-date average thermal performance value, the 1994 and 1993 Fort Calhoun goals, the 1995 INPO industry goal and the approximate industry upper ten percentile value.

The thermal performance value for January 1994 was 99.25%. The value for the 12 months from February 1,1993 through January 31,1994 was 99.5%.

The thermal performance values for the months of November and October 1993 were 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 1993 was attributed to circu-lating 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 abnormal degradation of the pump impeller. Inspections during the April maintenance outage indicated considerable fouling of condenser tubes, a leaking divider plate gasket in FW-4B, and a tom backwash valve seat. The condenser was cleaned and equipment repairs made.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is 99.55%. The 1993 Fort Cal-houn Goal was 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 Adverse Trend: None g

.-. j

O Thermaioutput

-O-Fort Calhoun 1495 MW Goal

- Tech Spec 1500 MW Limit 1500 y

z 1450 -

~

e,

~~

gy 4

...,f

/ ^

3-1400 -

v.

'^<

" ' ^

1350 -

~

nn 1300 -

(

1250 -

-4 s

4 1200 -

lWi:

v N b-;

/

z 1100 -

1050-

^

1000-P

~

M%

>w 950-r 900-850 - -

..?.

800 1

3 5

7 9

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT The thermal output graph displays the daily operating power level during January 1994, the 1500 thermal megawatt average technical specification limit, and the 1495 thermal megawatt Fort Calhoun goal. Energy losses during the month are due to condenser tube repair and repair of a failed level control valve on a heater drain tank.

Data Source: Holthaus/ Gray (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Tills Adverse Trend: None 32

I~

~46-Equipment Forced Outage Rate /1,000 Critical Hours 4

i

-O-1994 Fort Calhoun Goal 0.75-0.5 0.5 -

0.25-0 i

i i

i 0

0,

'91

'92

'93 Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS The equipment forced outage rate per 1,000 critical hours was 0.0 for the month of January 1994. The value for the 12 months from February 1,1993 through January 31, 1994 is 0.0.

The last equipment forced outage occurred in August 1992 and continued through September. It was due to the failure of an AC/DC converterin the Turbine Electro Hydraulic control System.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.20.

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

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Adverse Trend: None

a fi 4 # of Component Categories i

40-

-+- # of Application Categories 35-

-a-Total # of Categories h

N O15-

/0 10 1

j 0

i

,,iii i

i i

A92 S O

N 092 J93 F M

A M

J J

A S

O N D93 J94 1

3 WearOut/ Aging Q Other Devices

@ Manufacturing Defect O Maintenancetresting 3.0%

8.0%

0 Engineering / Design

@ Error f

4.0%

l 10.0 %

Percent of Total Failures During the 1

Past18 Months j

l

/ L

/

j 36.0 %

U 9.0/hllllll COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

l 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 May 1992 through October 1993). Fort Calhoun Station reported a higher failure rate in 5 of the 87 component categories (valves, pumps, motors, etc.) during the past 18 months. The station reported a 4

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.

The pie chart depicts the breakdown by INPO cause categories (see the " Definitions" section of this report for descriptions of these categories) for the 94 failure reports that were submitted to INPO by Fort Calhoun Station during the past 18 months. Of these, the failure cause was known for 80. The pie chart reflects known failure causes.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Edwards (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/ Edwards Adverse Trend: None 34 4

4

l l

Components With More Than One Failure V

-X--

Components With More Than Two Failures 25-21

~

18 15-11 11 11 11 11 10-9 9

8 5

3, 3

3, 3,

3' 2

2 2

n n

m o

7 0

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Noe Dec Jan94 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).

1 This indicator shows the number of NPRDS components with more than one failure during the last eighteen months and the number of NPRDS components with more than two failures during the last eighteen months.

During the last 18 reporting months there were 8 NPRDS components with more than 1 failure.1 of the 8 had more than two failures. The tag number of the component with I

more than two failures is AC-100. Recommendations and actions to correct these I

repeat component failures are listed in the quarterly Component Failure Analysis Re-port.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Edwards (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 35 l

i l

6-i l

- Calculated Check Valve Failure Rate per Million Component Hours 5-

--b-Industry Check Valve Failure Rate per Million Component Hours I

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal l GOOD l

+

e l

a 3-L L

& ^O A

l 2-C O

O O

i 1

1 1

l

~

l

\\

O 90 '91 '92 Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 l

No. of Check Valve Failures CHECK VALVE FAILURE RATE This indicator shows the calculated Fort Calhoun check valve failure rate, the Fort Calhoun goal and the industry check valve failure rate. This rate is based upon failures during the previous 18 months. The number of check valve failures at Fort Calhoun Statiors for the previous three years are shown on the left.

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 January 1994, the Fort Calhoun Station reported an actual check valve failure rate of 0.602 E-6, while the industry reported an actual failure rate of 1.96 E-6. At the end of January 1994, the Fort Calhoun Station reported a calculated check valve failure rate of 0.0045 E-6.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 1.75 E-6.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Edwards (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Rollins Adverse Trend: None SEP 43 36

E Radioactive Waste Buried This Month (in cubic feet)

Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried l GOOD l V

--O-Fort Calhoun Goal For Waste Buried (500 cubic feet) 750 - -

1995 INPO Industry Goal (3,884 cubic feet)

--D-Industry Upper 10% (1,740.2 cubic feet)

C O

O O

450 -

300 -

150 -

j 0

i i

Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun94 VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE This indicator shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumulative annual total for radioactive waste buried, the Fort Calhoun and INPO goals, and the approximate industry upper 10%.

Amount of solid radwaste shipped off-site for processing during January (cubic feet) 2,200.0 Volume of Solid Radwaste Buried during January (cubic feet) 0.0 Cumulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1994 (cubic feet) 0.n Amount of solid radioactive waste in temporary storage after July 1,1994 (cubic feet) 0.0 A graph will be added to this indicator in July 1994 to depict the amount of solid radioac-tive waste in temporary storage.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for the volume of solid radioactive waste which has been buried is 500 cubic feet. The 1995 INPO industry goal is 110 cubic meters (3,884 cubic feet) per year. The industry upper ten percentile value from 7/90 through 6/93 is ap-proximately 49.27 cubic meters (1,740.22 cubic feet) per year.

Data Source: Chase /Breuer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP 54 37

i i

I E

Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit l GOOD l

-O--

1994 & 1993 Fort Calhoun Goals V

3%-

j

~

l 2%-

C C

C O

C j

Cycle 15 Refueling Outage

}

M i

i i

i I

j Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERCENT OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT l

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 j

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.

1 i

The Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit was 3.1% for the month of

)

January 1994. Hours out of specification are due to 23.6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months for lithium and 113.4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months for hydrogen. Total available hours was 4,464.

3 l

The 1994 and 1993 Fort Calhoun monthly goals for this indicator are a maximum of 2%

Hours Out of Limit.

J i

Data Source: Smith / Spires (Manager / Source) 2 Accountability: Chase / Smith Adverse Trend: None

]

38 4

4 3

Secondary System CPI j

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal 4

1.5 -

O O

O 1

i j

1-i o.5 -

0 i

i i

Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Doc 94 SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY Criteria for calculating the Secondary System Chemistry Performance index (CPI) are:

1) The plant is at greater than 30% power; and 2) the power is changing at less than 5%

per day. The calculation for the CPIis-l CPI = (Sodium /0.90) + (Chloride /1.70) + (Sulfate /1.90) + (Cocoer/0.30) 5 Where: Sodium, sulfate and chloride are the monthly average blowdown concentrations in ppb, and iron and copper are monthly time weighted average feedwater concentra-4 tions in ppb.

The denominator for each of the five factors is the INPO median value. If the monthly average for a specific parameter is less than the INPO median value, the median value is used in the calculation.

The CPI for January 1994 was 1.47.

The CPI for December 1993 was 1.92. This relatively higher number was due primarily to iron transport following the plant startup.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for the CPI is a maximum value of 1.5.

The CPI calculation is different from that reported in 1993 in that it reflects the recent INPO revision to the calculation. This revision addresses the penalties for the beneficial effect of alternative chemistry,i.e., morpholine, such as used at Fort Calhoun Station, and focuses more on specific impurities.

Data Source: Smith / Spires (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Smith Adverse Trend: None 39

\\

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

i i

l 40

l

--N--

Actuals

-C}- Budget A

Plan 3.75 -

3.5 -

I3 f 3.25 -

s O

3-2.75 -

I i

i i

i g

a i

3 D91 D92 D93 J94 F M

A M

J J

A S

O N D94 C95 DCh D97 D98 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 and 1994 revised budget. The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating Report.

l The December 31 amounts are also shown for the prior years 1991,1992 and 1993. In addition, the report shows the plan amounts for the years 1995 through 1998 for refer-ence. The basis for the dollars are the Nuclear Long Range Financial Plan and the 1

1994 Corporate Planning and Budget Review. The basis for the generation is provided by Nuclear Fuels.

Data Source: Scofield/Jamieson (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Scofield Adverse Trend: None 41

I i

)

i O Actus) oivision starting E Authorizred Division Starfing i

{

600 -

t 1

500 -

455 453 i

l 400 -

l 1'

300 -

1 192 191 200 -

116 117 0-i i

i Nuclear Operations Production Engineering Nuclear Services j

STAFFING LEVEL The authorized and actual staffing levels at the end of January 1994 are shown for the three Nuclear Divisions.

Data Source: Ponec (Manager & Source)

Accountability: Ponec Adverse Trend: None SEP 24 42

)

Spare Parts inventory Value ($ Million)

Cycle 15 17-Refueling Outage 16-i 15-14-13-12-11 -

10 Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of January 1994 was reported as $15,874,262. The rise in inventory value is the result of several fac-tors:

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

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.

l Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Willrett/McCormick Adverse Trend: None 43

l l

DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS These indicators may be deleted from this report if the responsible group con-tacts the Manager - Station Engineering to request their removal, Indicators referencing SEP ltems require documentation to ensure that the original intent and scope of the SEP ltem will not be altered by removal of the Indicator from this report.

l l

l

10000-9000 -

O TotalBacklog(Manhours) 10000-E Backlog >3 Months Old (Manhours) 9000 -

8000 -

7000 -

m 7000 -

g 5000-Cycle 15 g 6000-Cycle 15 g 5000-Refuelin9 e 5000 -

Refueling g 4000-Outage 8 4000-Outage 2

3000 -

2000 -

1605 1587 1464 2000 -

1371 1361 1024

~

~ E 5 M 5555551 M 55M RI i

i i

November 93 December 93 January'94 November 93 December 93 January'94 g

afety Related Backlog Safety Related Backlog >3 S

WanNum) 5000 -

Months Old (Manhours) 5000 -

4000 -

Cpb i5 C

15 a

m y 3000-Refueling f 3000- R E 2000-Outage E 2000-Outage 2

2 1000 -

__ 884 _

434 1000 -

712 768 800 r17 0

0 i

i i

i November'93 December'93 January'94 November'93 December'93 January'94 2000 -

O H' h Priority Backlog (Manhours) g a 1500-5 E 1000-Cycle 15 g

Refueling 2 500 -

Outage 0

0 0

0 i

i November 93 December'93 January'94 MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD B ACKLOGS (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.

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None SEP 36 45

O Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance 100 % -

7 Y

'"~

90%-

~+

np' 17 gi a

7 e

80%~

?

W M

n w/

K h

y.,:.c g

g' hg g

g.m e.

g fjf.

70%-

^'

A e

W 60%-

d 9%

50%-

$r

[

g k

hk 3[

IL.

i$

)

3[

"F^

$s d

"{

?

i M

Mi-40%-

[Y D

9 5

[

30%-

d A

$a q-20%-

r W

g g

gj.;

g~.;

n we p

,4 4

jiP s

10%- g.

/s gg

!g 6

j; 0%

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 2%-

Preventive Maintenance items Overdue GOOD

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal 1%-

Data Unavailable C

O O

O due to Cycle C

O 15 Refueling 0%

Oute I

i i

i Feb94 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 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 93.9% in January 1994.

The lower graph shows the percentage of preventive maintenance items overdue.

During January,431 PM items were completed. 2 of these PM items (0.46% of the total) were not completed within the allowable grace period.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for the percentage of preventive maintenance items over-due is a maximum of 0.5%.

Accountability: Chase /Bobba Data Source: Chase /Schmitz/Brady (Manager / Sources)

Adverse Trend: None SEP 41 46

.=

- - = - _ _ _ - - _.,

i l

E Rework As Identified By Planning or Craft

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal j

i i

l I

^

4%-

C l

Cycle 15 N

l Refueling j

Outage i

E h3%-

2.71 %

m 2.56 %

2.57%

2.58 %

l i

O 2.38 %

l 2.13%

- ~

'o E

h 1.06 %

$1%-

j 0%

i i

i Jul93 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 l

I PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK l

This graph indicates the percentage of total MWOs completed per month identified as j

rework. Rework activities are identified by maintenance planning and craft.

l The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is <3%.

i

\\

{

Data Source: Bobba/Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Bobba i

Positive Trend

!j 47

w-,

rw-e.-n,-v.,-w.---+---,--e-~

~ ~ - ~ ~ -

~

E Maintenance Overtime l GOOD I

--M-12 Month Average Maintenance Overtime

+

70%-

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

Cyck 15 50%-

Refueling Outage 40%-

30%-

20%-

0 O

10%-

1O E

E'E M

0%

Feb93-Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 MAINTENANCE OVERTIME The Maintenance Overtime Indicator monitors the ability to perform the desired mainte-nance activities with the al!otted resources.

1 The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 5.6% for the month of January 1994. The 12 month average percentage of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 12.07% at the end of the month.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun "on-line" goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 10%.

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Bobba Adverse Trend: None 48

0 Open irs Related to the Use of Procedures (Maintenance) 3-

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

E Procedural Noncompliance irs (Maintenance) 1 8-e 1

s_

4 000 000 000 00 000 000 000 0 0

0 000 000 000 i

i i

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 PROCEDURAL 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 inat 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 January 1994.

There was 1 procedural noncompliance incident (IR 930225) reported in September 1993.

Data Source: Chase / Keister (Manager / Source)

Accountabi;ity: Chase / Conner Adverse Trend: None SEP 15,41 & 44 49

i E

Completed scheduled Activities (All crafts) l O Number of Emergent MWOs completed O

Fort calhoun Goal 110 m

~

100 90%-

- 90 o

e 80%-

e 80 73 o

y Cycle 15 Refueling Outage

/,j

- 70 i

Data Not Available 60 g 50%-

so y E

/

o 40% -

j

- 40 30%-

- 30

,p

] 20%-

- 20 6 m

z E 10%-

10 E00%

//

-0 i

j October '93 November December January '94 j

PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES (ALL MAINTENANCE CRAFTS)

This indicator shows the percent of the number of completed scheduled maintenance activities as compared to the number of scheduled maintenance activities concerning ali Maintenance Crafts. Maintenance activities include MWRs, MWOs, STs, PMOs, cali-brations, and miscellaneous maintenance activities. The number of emergent MWOs completed for the month is also shown.

The percent of the number of completed scheduled maintenance activities as compared to the number of scheduled maintenance activities for January 1994 was 78.7%. Also, there were 73 emergent MWOs completed during the month.

l Due to the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage, data for this indicator was not available until after the first month on line during Cycle 15.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 80%.

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None SEP 33 so

-~ _..___ _.._-

_ _ _ _ ~ _

i i

Number of Instruments Out-of Service

)

--O-Fort Calhoun Goal y

24 -

20-j 18 18 1

17 17 Cycle 15 Refueling 16-14 Outage l

12-11 p,

p j

0 i

i i

i Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 Jan94 a

IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT-OF-SERVICE j

l This indicator shows the total number of in line chemistry system instruments out of-l service at the end of the reporting month. The chemistry systems involved in this indi-l cator include the Secondary System and the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS).

At the end of January 1994 there was a total of 4 in-line chemistry instruments out-of-service. Of these 4 instruments,4 were from the Secondary System and 0 were from 4

PASS, I

The trend for PASS instruments for this reporting period has decreased from 1 to 0.

The trend for Secondary instruments this reporting period has decreased from 5 to 4.

l The water plant sample panel had 2 instruments out-of-service, the secondary instru-i ment panel had 1 Instrument out of service and the blowdown sample panel had 1 instrument out-of service at the end of the reporting month.

l 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.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum of 5. Six out-of-service chemistry instruments make up 10% of all the chemistry instruments that are counted for this indicator.

Data Source: Chase /Renaud (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski i

i Adverse Trend: None 51 1

1

Waste Produced Each Month (Kilograms)

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

-O-Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal

--G--

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

0 2

800 -

E 600 -

!8 8'g 400-200 -

O--h---C O---Q -C O

O O

~ ~ ' ' '

i i

i i -,

i Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 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.

l During the month of January 1994,0.0 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 hazard-ous waste produced during the last 12 months is 24.9 kilograms.

Hazardous waste is counted based upon a full drum of waste.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun monthly average goal for this indicator is a maximum of 100 kilograms.

Date Source: Chase /Henning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Henning Positive Trend 52

E Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area lG00D]

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal (non-outage months) 80%-

I

-O-Fort Calhoun Goal (outage months) i 15%-

O C

C C

C O

10%-

I 4

5%-

J 0%

Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA This indicator shows the percentage of the RCA that is contaminated based on the total square footage. The 1994 non-outage goalis a maximum of 12% contaminated RCA and the outage goal is a maximum of 15% contaminated RCA.

At the end of January 1994, the percentage of the total square footage of the RCA that was contaminated was 9.6%.

Data Source: Chase /Gundal(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP 54 4

53

1 i

Number of Identified PRWPs IGOODI a

--G-1994 Fort Calhoun Goal (<25)

V 30-25-O C

C C

4 20-i 15-10-5-

1 E

0 I

i 1

I I

4 i

i i

i Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 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 number of PRWPs which are identified each month should indirectly provide a means to qualitatively assess supervisor accountability te their workers' radiological performance.

During the month of January 1994, there was 1 PRWP identified. The PRWP occurred when an individual entered the RCA without cigning in on HIS-20..

The 1994 goal for the number of PRWPs is a rnaximum of 25.

Data Source: Chase /Little (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP52 54

I O Documents Scheduled for Review

@ D cuments Reviewed 300 -

M Overdue Documents 250 -

200 -

9

_11

"'I._'

1, 150 -

m 1M-

~

g 50-0 Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 DOCUMENT REVIEW 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 document reviews are performed in-house and include Special Procedures, the Site Security Plan, Maintenance Procedures, Preventive Maintenance Procedures, and the Operating Manual.

During January 1994 there were 118 document reviews completed while 172 document reviews were scheduled. At the end of January, there were 12 document reviews more than 6 months overdue.

There were 26 new documents initiated in January.

Data Source: Chase / Keister (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Adverse Trend: Although the number of document reviews more than 6 months over-due has been increasing, an adverse trend is not indicated because the number overdue at the end of the month is a " snapshot" of an ongoing process, i.e., on 2/11/94 there were 5 biennial reviews over-due. Maintenance of schedule and attention to detail by all document reviewers will be re-emphasized so that the performance demonstrated in March through September is routine.

SEP 46 55

l E Non-System Failures 30-25 -

V 20-15-12 12 1

0 i

i i

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94

@ System Failures l GOOD l 90-80-y 70-60 -

50-38 30 31 33 30 31 32 40-30-24 25 26 e

i i

i Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 LOGG AB LE/ 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 Error, and Unsecured Doors. The bottom graph shows the total number of loggable/

reportable incidents conceming system failures which occurred during the reporting month.

During the month of January 1994, there were 18 loggable/ reportable incidents identi-fled. System failures accounted for 15 (88%) of the loggable/ reportable incidents. The 3 non-system failures involved 2 lost / unattended security badges and 1 unsecured secuilty door. The Security Department continues to educate plant personnel concern-ing lost / unattended security badges. Plastic straps are placed at both access portals for employee use. Further, personnel are reminded at initial and requalification General Employee Training to utilize the straps, and, periodically, articles are placed in plant publications.

Data Source: Sefick/Woerner (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Sefick Adverse Trend: None SEP 58 56

E Temporary Modifications >1 cycle old (RFO required for Removal)

O Temporary Modifications >6 months old (Removable on-line)

Fort Calhoun Goals for Temporary Modircations >1 cycle old &

4 Temporary Modifications >6 months old 8-7 6-

////'

If II S

0~

hhhh

/////

4-N bh/hh h/

hhhh

$hhh$

3-ihh j ((

Ihh Nhy s'%R by%h h'"k:

'S

S Sh 0

O 0,o O

October '93 November '93 December '93 January '94 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. The 1994 Fort Calhoun goals for this indicator are 0.

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 January 1994 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, in which ECN 93-183 is approved for accomplishment prior to 8/31/94; 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-48, which is awaiting completion of MWO 931325, scheduled start date 1995 Refueling Outage.

At the end of January 1994, there was a total of 17 TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station. 9 of the 17 insta!!ed TMs require an outage for removal and 8 are removab!c on-line. In 1994 a total of 5 temporary modifications have been installed.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Turner (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Gorence Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 & 71 57

E Total Modification Packages Open 250-

-O-Fort Calhoun Monthly Goal i

200-150-C O

O O

100 -

50-4 0-

'91

'92

'93 Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec Jan94 OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS This indicator shows the total number of outstanding modifications (excludina outstand-ing modifications which are orocosed to be cancelled).

Cateoorv Reoorting Month Form FC 1133 Backlog /In Progress 1

Mod. Requests Being Reviewed 7

Design Engr. Backlog /In Progress 47 j

Construction Backlog /in Progress 39 Design Enar. Uodate Backloo/In Proaress 10 i

Total 104 At the end of January 1994,2 additional modification requests had been issued this year and 18 modification requests had been cancelled. The Nuclear Projects Review Committee (NPRC) had completed 27 backlog modification request reviews this year.

The Nuclear Projects Committee (NPC) had completed 2 backlog modification request reviews this year.

The 1994 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum of 80.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Turner (Manager / Source)

Scofield/Lounsbery (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Scofield/Phelps Adverse Trend: None 58

EARS Requiring Engineering CI:seout - N:t in CI:seout j

0 DEN 3 sE 40-40-40-40-30-30-30-30-20-20-

,,_,,,, 20 -

20 -

10-10-10-10-

-.7 E 0

,0

,0 -

y Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan 0-3 months 3-6 months 6-12 months

>12 months January '94 Overdue EARS C Closeout O Engineering Response b(

!!I 3!E 10-r"""""""I O

Priority 0 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority G O

Pdority 1 & 2 8

Priority 3 Total Open EARS j

200 -

1 so-

~

De

^

100 -

Nd

%h 3

Available %

50-Mt i

i i

i Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 O 38 Overdue Responses G 50 EARS Resolved and in Closeout E 40 Overdue Closeouta O 108 EARS Requiring Response Q 80 EARS on Schedule 25.3 %

24.

ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST BREAKDOWN This indicator shows a breakdown of the number of EARS assigned to Design Engineer-ing and System Engineering. The 1994 goal for this indicator is a maximum of 140 outstanding EARS.

Total EAR breakdown is as follows:

EARS opened during the month 21 EARS closed during the month 17 Total EARS open as of the end of the month 158 Data Source: Phelps/Pulverenti (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Phelps Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 59

E ECNs Backlogged in DEN O ECNs Received During the Month 250-

@ ECNs Completed During the Month 225-200-175-150-125-100-75-50-1 25-0 Jan94-Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec94 ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS This indicator shows the number of Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) awaiting completion by DEN, the number of ECNs opened during the reporting month, and the number of ECNs completed by DEN during the reporting month.

At the end of January 1994, there was a total of 213 DEN backlogged open ECNs (54 Facility Change,69 Substitute Replacement items, and 90 Document Change type).

There were 39 ECNs received by DEN, and 34 ECNs completed during the month.

Data Source: Phelps/Pulvere nti (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 j

l

i O DEN Engineering not complete Q System Engineering Engineering complete, response under review

@ Maintenance / Construction MWO/CWO scheduled, but work not complete M DEN - Closeout, Drafting Not Complete 51

)

60 -

27 19

/ 4 21 40-22 20 13

/

9 20-5 10 3 @3 i

l i

0 i

0 - 3 months 3 6 months

> 6 months ECN FACILITY CHANGES OPEN i

O DEN - Engineering not complete

@ System Engineering - Engineering complete, response under review E Procurement Engineering / Maintenance / Construction E DEN - Closeout, Drafting Not Complete 60-45 J

,0 ggt 22 i

^!:

'2 47 13 6

x a

i i

0 3 months 3 - 6 months

> 6 months ECN SUBSTITUTE REPLACEMENT ITEMS OPEN O DEN - Engineering not complete Q DEN Drafting Not Complete 4

@ System Engineering Walkdown or confirmation not cornplete 80-63 52 60 -

40-27 30 V///////)

20 W/

V////A 1

k%W/f/A I

\\

0 0 3 months 3 - 6 months

> 6 months ECN DOCUMENT CHANGES OPEN ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE BREAKDOWN System DEN Engineering Proc /Constr.

DEN Close Facility 54 17 88 44 Changes Substitute 69 59 52 59 Fleplacement ite m s Document 90 117 28 C hances Data Source: Phelps/Pulverenti (Manag e r/ Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Jaworski Adverse Trend: None SEP 62

\\

61 1

1 i

l Q Administrative Control Problem O Licensed Operator Error

@ Ottier Personnel Error 8 Maintenance Problem l

3-E Design / Construction / Installation / Fabrication Problem S Equipment Failures

?

2-l E

l E

5 i

.l 1_

I,,,1-lll l 0

,,,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 event date broken down by Root Cause Code for I

each of the past twelve months from January 1,1993 through December 31,1993. This indicator was previously based on the LER report date rather than the event date.

However, this indicator has been revised to be consistent with the Preventable / Person-nel Error LERs indicator. This indicator is now one month behind the reporting month.

This is necessary since there is typically 30 days between the event date and the sub-mittal of the LER.

l The cause codes are intended to identify possible programmatic deficiencies. For l

detailed descriptions of these codes, see the " Performance Indicator Do'initions" section l

of this report.

l There were 3 events in December 1993 that resulted in LERs.

Data Source: Short/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None l

62

1 Total Requalifica'. ion Training Hours O Simulator Training Hours Non-Requalification Training Hours i

50 -

E Numberof Exam Failures 40-E E

E E

E 30-27 20-14 12

- 13 10-8 7

7 7

.7 e

'/

sa 4

/<

3 3

h

/j 2 2

j 3

y 2

0 i

i i

e i

.i i

i Cycle 931 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.

2 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 l

Measures (JPMs) segments of the Licensed Operator Requalification Training.

4 l

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 /Guliani (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gasper /Guliani Adverse Trend: None SEP 68 I

63 i

l i

O 35-O SRO Exams Passed 30-3 RO Exams Administered O RO Exams Passed 25-20-15-10-NRC Exams

!T if!tlI O

i i

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 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 January 1994.

Currently, there is no Hot Ucense class being conducted. The next Ucensed Operator class will convene in April 1994.

Data Source: Gasper /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gasper /Guliani Adverse Trend: None SEP 68 64

i G TotalOpen CARS Q TotalOpenIRs O Open CARS > Six Months Old E Open irs > Six Months Old 280-280 Cyde 15 5

=

240-Refueling 240 Outage 2

200-

~

200 160-

=

160 120-120 5

80-n

- 80 I

1

'r l

I l:

?

~

40-4 g

is 1

q 3

g i

l y

40 7

E

'[

I 9

0 0

e i

i i

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 E Open Significant CARS Cycle 15 60 60 -

Refueling 50-0 Open SignificantiRs uta9* 45 E

37 40-28 27 30-25 24 23

"~~

~

go.

10-3 3

2 2

4 5

5 4

0 Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan94 OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORTS AND INCIDENT REPORTS This indicator shows the total number of open Corrective Action Reports (CARS), 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 January 1994 there were 64 open CARS. 21 of these CARS were greater than 6 months old. There were 4 Open Significant CARS at the end of the month.

Also, at the end of January there were 256 open irs. 48 of these irs were greater than 6 months old. There were 60 Open Significant irs at the end of the month.

The 1994 monthly goal for the number of CARS greater than 6 months old is less than 30.

Data Source: Orr/Gurtis (Manager / Source) & CHAMPS Accountability: Andrews/Gambhir/ Gates Adverse Trend: Although the number of irs has increased in recent months, an adverse trend is not indicated because the increase is a result of the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage and a revision to Standing Order R-4.

65 Engineering Hold

-+- Planning Complete

-O-Planning Hold

-N-Ready

-V-Part Hnid Total 325-300 -

275-250 -

m 225-200 -

175-4 3150-b 125-100-75-50 -

25-0 3

Dec93 Jan94 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan95 Feb Mar 95 MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 16 REFUELING OUTAGE)

This indicator shows the total number c f Maintenance Work Requests (MWRs) and Maintenance Work Orders (MWOs) thnt have been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 16 Refueling Outage. This graph indicates:

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

Accountability: Chase /Johansen Adverse Trend: None SEP 31 66

Baseline Schedule for PRC Approval & Projected / Actual Schedule for l

~

PRC Approval Final Design Package issued l

Total Modification Packages (21) (2 under review to cancel or move) 25-

: lll

::: : : lll llllllll ll lll: :::

lll: : ll 20-15-

!Gx 8

10-c 5-0 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Ia R

s a

s s

s a

PROGRESS OF CYCLE 16 OUTAGE MODIFICATION PLANNING i

(FROZEN SCOPE OF 21 MODIFICATIONS) i This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for installation during the Cycle 16 Refueling Outage. The data is represented with respect to the baseline l

schedule (established 1/14/94) and the current schedule. This information is taken from the Modification Variation Report produced by the Design Engineering group.

The goal for this indicatoris to have all modification packages PRC approved by Octo-ber15,1994.

i Data Source: Skiles/Ronne (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Skiles Adverse Trend: None SEP 31 67

Baseline Schedule for PRC Approval & Projected / Actual Schedule for PRC Approval

--+-

-X--

Final Design Package issued (6 FD DCPs issued prior to 1/14/94) l Total Modification Packages (19) (3 under review to cancel or move) 25-720-lll: '::: l'

:,!!!': ll: : ll:,l

!l,: ll E :"

2 13 8 E 515-E%

.a e 8e E

S k1o-8 0 o g

(....

z g 5-c.

E o

h h

h b

h l

i s

s a

s s

s a

a PROGRESS OF 1994 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 19 MODIFICATIONS)

This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for on-line installation during 1994. The data is represented with respect to the baseline schedule (established 1/14/

94) and the current schedule. This information is taken from the Modification Variance Report produced by the Design Engineering Nuclear group.

The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages PRC approved by August 15,1994.

Data Source: Skiles/Ronno (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Skiles Adverse Trend: None 68

ACTION PLANS FOR ADVERSE TRENDS l

69 l

ACTION PLANS FOR ADVERSE TRENDS i

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.

The action plan for Engineering Change Notice Status follows:

Actions to reverse the Adverse Trend cited in the December 1993 Performance Indica-tors Report -

1) Focus resources on backlog reduction.

2) Reduce the number of ECNs entering the system.

3) Implement a consistent method for tracking / counting ECNs that enter and exit the system.

Item 2) will be discussed to reach an agreement with Production Engineering Division and the NPRC to reduce the total number of ECNs entering the system to a maximum of 500 per year. Then DEN's goal will be to maintain the backlog to a level that pre-cludes an adverse trend.

i 70

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS 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 kilowatt hour indicator represents the budget and actual auxiliary feedwater system for the reporting period di-cents per kilowatt hour on a 12 month rolling average for vided by the critical hours for the reporting period 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 CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS Compares the Fort Calhoun ched valve failure rate to 21,000 DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE the industry check valve f ailure rate (failures per 1 million AREA component hours). The data for the industry f ailure rate The personnel contamination events in the clean con-is three months behind the Pl Report reporting month-trolled area. This indicator tracks personnel performance This indicator tracks performance for SEP #43.

for SEP #15 & 54.

COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA Collective radiation exposure is the total external whole-The percentage of the Radiation Controlled Area, which body dose received by all on-site personnel (including includes the auxiliary building, the radwaste building, and contractors and visitors) during a time period, as mea-areas of the C/RP building, that is contaminated based sured by the thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). Col-on the total square footage. This indicator trads perfor-lective radiation exposure is reported in units of person-mance for SEP # 54.

rom. This indicator tracks radiological work performance for SEP #54.

DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT This indicator shows the daily wre thermal output as COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR) measured from computer point XC105 (in thermal mega-

SUMMARY

watts). The 1500 MW Tech Spec limit, and the unmet The number of INPO categories for Fort Calhoun Station portion of the 1495 MW FCS daily goal for the reporting i

with significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) fail-month are also shown.

ute rates than the rest of the industry for an eighteen month time period. Failures are reported as component DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS)

(i.e. pumps, mot' ors, valves, etc.) and application (i.e.

This indicator shows the number of failures occurring for charging pumps, main steam stop valves, control ele-each emergency diesel generator during the last 25 start ment drive motors, etc.) categories.

demands and the last 25 load-run demands.

Failure Cause Categories are:

Wear Out/ Aging - a failure thought to be the conse-DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE quence of expected wear or aging.

(LOST TIME ACCIDENT RATE)

Manuf acturing Defect - a f ailure attributable to inad-This indicator is defined as the number of accidents for equate assembly or initial quality of the responsible com-all utility personnel permanently assigned to the station, ponent or system.

involving days away from work per 200,000 man-hours Engineering / Design - a f ailure attributable to the inad-worked (100 man-years). This does not include contrac-equate design of the responsible component or system.

tor personnel. This indicator tracks personnel perfor-Other Devices a f ailure attrbutable to a failure or mance for SEP #25 & 26.

misoperation of another component or system, including j

associated devices.

DOCUMENT REVIEW (BIENNIAL)

Maintenance / Testing - a f ailure that is a result of im-The Document Review Indicator shows the number of j

proper maintenance or testing, lack of maintenance, or documents reviewed, the number of documents sched-personnel errors that occur during maintenance or test-uled for review, and the number of document reviews ing activities performed on the responsible component or that are overdue for the reporting month. A document system, including failure to follow procedures.

review is considered overdue if the review is not com-Errors failures attributable to incorrect procedures that plete within 6 months of the assigned due date. This were followed as written, improper installation of equip-indicator tracks performance for SEP #46.

ment, and personnel errors (including f ailure to follow procedures property). Also included in this category are EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM failures for which the cause is unknown or cannot be as-PERFORMANCE signed to any of the preceding categories.

The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavail-able and the estimated unavailable hours for the emer-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.

71

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS Ei4ERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABIL-EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIAB8LITY ITY This indicator measures the total unreliability of emar-This indicator shows the number of failures that we a gency diesel generators, in general, unreliability is the reported during the last 20,50, and 100 emergency die-ratio of unsuccessful operations (starts or load-runs) to sel generator demands at the Fort Calhoun Station. Also the number of valid demands. Total unreliability is a shown are trigger values which correlate to a high level combination of start unreliability and load-run of mnfidence that a unit's diesel generators have ob-unreliability, tained a reliability of greater than or equal to 95% when the demand failures are less than the trigger values.

ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR)

1) Number of Start Demands: All valid and inadvertent BREAKDOWN start demands. including all start-only demands and all This indicator shows a breakdown, by age and priority of start demW that are followed by load-run demands, the EAR, of the number of EARS assigned to Design En-whether by automatic or manual initiation. A start onty 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 failura within the emer-ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) BREAK.

gency genomfor system trat prevents the genarator from DOWN achieving specified frequency and voltage is classified as This indicator breaks d wn the number of Engineering a valid start failure. This includes any condition identif>ed Change Notice.9 (ECNs)inat are assigned to Design in the course of maintenance inspections (with the emer.

Ermineering N. clear (DEN), System Engineering, and gency generator in standby mode) that definitely wo!!J Maintenance. The graphs provide data on ECN Facility have resulted in a start failure if a demand had occurred.

Changes open. ECN Substitute Replacement Parts

3) Number of Load-Run Demands: For a valid load-run open, and ECN Document Changes open. This indicator demar.d to be counted the load-run attempt must meet tracks performance for SEP #62.

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 tomatic or manualinitiation.

The number of ECNs that were opened. ECNs that were B) A load-run test to satisfy the plant's load and duration mmpleted, 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 CRITI-

4) Number of Load-Run Failures: A load-run failure CAL HOURS should be counted for any reason in which the craer-Equipment forced outages per 1000 cntical hours is the gency generator does not pick up load and run as pre-inverse of the mean time between forced outages dicted. Failures are counted during any valid load-run caused by equipment failures. The mean time is equal

demands, to the number of hours the reactor is critical in a period

)

5) Exceptions: Unsuccessful 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; j

A) Spurious trips that would be bypassed in the event of EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR an emergency.

This indicator is defined as the ratio of gross available B) Malfunction of equipment that is not required during generation to gross maximum generation, expressed as 1

an emergency, a percentage. Available generation is the energy that C)intontionaltermination of a test because of abnormal can be produced if the unit is operated at the maximum conditions that would not have resulted in major diosel power level permitted by equipment and regulatory limi-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 load 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 cessful start with the starting system in its normal align-the unit was unavailable due to forced events mmpared ment.

to the time planned for electrical generation. Forced Each emergency generator failure that results in the gen-events are f ailures or o'her unplanned conditions that erator being declared inoperable should be munted as require removing the unt from service before the end of one dsmand and one f ailure. Exploratory tests during the next weekend. Forced events include start-up fail-

)

corrective maintenance and the successfultest that foi-ures and events initiated while the unit is in reserve shut-lows repair to verify operability should not be munted as down (i.e., the unit is available but not in service).

demands or f ailures when the EDG has not been de-clared operable again.

72

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR UCENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAIN-This indicator is defined as the steady-state primary cool-ING cnt 1-131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium contri-The total number of hours of training given to each crew bution and normalized to a common purification rate.

during each cycle. Also provided are the simulator train-Tramp uranium is f uel which has been deposited on re-ing hours (which are a subset of the total training hours),

actor core internals from previous defective fuel or is the number of non-requalification training hours and the present on the surface of fuel elements from the manu-number of exam f ailures. This indicator tracks training facturing process. Steady state is defined as continuous performance for SEP #68.

operation for at least three days at a power level that does not vary more than + or - 5%. Plants should collect UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE data for this indicator at a power level above 85%, when BREAKDOWN possible. Plants that did not operate at steady-state This indicator shows the number and rc,ot cause cade for power above 85% should collect data for this indicator at Licensee Event Reports. The root cause codes are as the highest steady-state power level attained during the follows:

month.

1) Administrative Control Problem - Management and The density correction f actor is the ratio of the specific supervisory deficiencies that affect plant programs or volume of coolant at the RCS operating temperature activities (i.e., poor planning, breakdown or lack of ad-(540 degrees F., V', - 0.02146) divided by the specific equate management or supervisory control, incorrect volume of coolant at normalletdown temperature (120 procedures, etc.)

i degrees F at outlet of the letdown cooling heat ex-

2) Licensed Operator Error This cause code captures changer, Vf - 0.016204), which results in a density cor-errors of omission / commission by licensed reactor opera-rection factor for FCS equal to 1.32.

tors during plant activities.

3) Other Personnel Error - Errors of omission /commis-CROSS HEAT RATE sion committed by non-licensed personnelinvolved in Gross heat rate is defined as the ratio of total thermal plant activities.

Energy in British Thermal Units (BTU) produced by the

4) Maintenance Problem - The intent of this cause reactor to the total gross electrical energy produced by code is to capture the full range of problems which can the generator in kilowatt-hours (KWH).

be attributed in any way to programmatic deficiencies in the maintenance functional organization. Activities in-

)

NAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED cluded in this category are maintenance, testing, surveil-The total amount (in Kilograms) of non-halogenated haz-lance, calibration and radiation protection.

trdous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other

5) Design / Construction / Installation / Fabrication Problem hazardous waste produced by FCS each month.

This cause code covers a full range of programmatic deficiencies in the areas of design, construction, installa-HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJEC110N SYSTEM tion, and f abrication (i.e., loss of control power due to SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE underrated fuse, equipment not qualified for the environ.

The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavail-ment, etc.).

able hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the

6) Equipment Failures (Electronic Piece-Parts or Envi-high pressure safety injection system for the reporting ronmental Related Failures) - This code is used for spuri-period divided by the critical hours for the reporting pe-ous failures of electronic piece-parts and failures due to riod multiplied by the number of trains in the high pres-meteorological conditions such as lightning, ice, high sure safety injection system.

winds, etc. Generally, it includes spurious or one-time failures. Electric components included in this category INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE-INPO are circuit cards, rectifiers, bistables, fuses, capacitors, This indicator is defined as the number of accidents per diodes, resistors, etc.

200,000 man-hours worked for all utility personnel per-manently assigned to the station that result in any of the LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY) following: 1) one or more days of restricted work (ex-The total number of security incidents for the reporting ciuding the day of the accident),2) one or more days month depicted in two graphs. This indicator tracks se-away from work (excluding the day of the accident) and curity performance for SEP #58.

3) fatalities. Contractor personnel are not included for l

this indicator.

MAINTENANCE OVERTIME The % of overtime hours compared to normal hours for IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT OF SER-maintenance. This includes OPPD personnel as well as VICE contract personnel.

Total number of in-line chemistry instruments that are out-of-service in the Secondary System and the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS).

UCENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS This indicator shows the number of SRO and/or RO quiz-zes and exams that are administered and passed each rnonth. This indicator tracks training performance for SEP #68.

73 l

l

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS NUMBER OF h5SSED SURVEILULNCE TESTS RE-3 This indicator is a breakdown of the manhours associ.

SULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS ated corrective non outage maintenance work orders by The number of Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in several categories. Safety related MWOs are those Licensee Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting MWOs in which the Equipment Data Base in CHAMPS month. This indicator tracks missed STs for SEP #60 &

has identified the equipment as Critical Quality Equip.

61.

I ment (COE). Thorsfore, this indicator is identifying those MWOs that have been identified as COE and reports the OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORTS & INCIDENT l

number of estimated manhours associated with the REPORTS j

backlog. This indicator tracks maintenance performance This indicator displays the total number of open Correc-for SEP #36.

tive Action Reports (CARS), the number of CARS that are

]

older than six months and the number of open significant f

MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RAD (AllON EXPOSURE CARS. Also displayed are the number of open Incident j

The total maximum amount of radiation received by an Reports (irs), the number of irs that are greater than six j

individual person working at FCS on a monthly, quarterly, months old and the number of open significant irs.

and annual basis.

OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 15 REFUELING The number of Modification Requests (MRs)in any state between the issuance of a Modification Number and the OUTAGE) i The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have completion of the drawing update.

been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 15 Refueling

1) Form FC-1133 Backlog /in Progress. This number rep.

4 4

Outage and the number that are ready to work (parts resents modification requests that have not been plant staged, planning complete, and all other paperwork approved during the reporting month.

ready for field use). Also included is the number of

2) Modification Requests Being Reviewed. This category MWOs that have engineering holds (ECNs, procedures includes:

4 and other miscellaneous engineering holds), parts hold, A.) Modification Requests that are not yet reviewed.

(parts staged, not yet inspected, parts not yet arrived) 8.) Modification Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear and planning hold (job scope not yet completed). Main.

Projects Review Committee (NPRC).

tenance Work Requests (MWRs) are also shown that C.) Mod fication Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear have been identified for the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage Projects Committee (NPC) and have not yet been converted to MWOs.

These Moddication Requests may be reviewed several times before they are approved for accomplishment or NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFl.

cancelled. Some of these Modification Requests are i

CIENCIES retumed to Engineering for more information, some ap-A control room equipment deficiency (CRD) is defined as proved for evaluation, some approved for study, and any component which is operated or controlled from the some approved for planning. Once planning is com-Control Room, provides indication or alarm to the Control pleted and the scope of ti,e work is clearly defined, these Room, provides testing cepabilities from the Control Modification Requests may be approved for accomplish-Room, provides automatic actions from or to the Control ment with a year assigned for construction or they may Room, or provides a passive function for the Control be cancelled. All of these different phases require re-Room and has been identified as deficient, i.e., does not

view, perform under all conditions as designed. This definition

3) Design Engineering Backlog /in Progress. Nuclear also applies to the Alternate Shutdown Panels Al.179, Planning has assigned a year in which construction will

]

Al-185, and Al 212.

be completed and design work may be in progress.

1 A plant component which is deficient or inoperable is

4) Construction Backlog /in Progress. The Construction considered an

Operator Work Around (OWA) ltem" if Package has been issued or construction has begun but some other action is required by an operator to compen.

the modification has not been accepted by the System sate for the condition of the component. Some examples Acceptance Committee (SAC).

of OWAs are: 1) The control room levet indicator does

5) Design Engineering Update Backlog /in Progress. PED not work but a local sightglass can be read by an Opera.

has received the Modification Completion Report but the for out in the plant; 2) A deficient pump cannot be re-drawings have not been updated.

paired because replacement parts require a long lead The above mentioned outstanding modifications do not time for purchase / delivery, thus requiring the redundant include modifications which are proposed for cancella-pump to be operated continuously; 3) Special actions tion.

are required by an Operator because of equipment de-sign problems. These actions may be described in Op-erations Memorandums, Operator Notes, or may require changes to Operating Procedures. 4) Deficient plant equipment that is required to be used during Emergency Operating Procedures or Abnormal Operating Proce-dures. 5) System indication that provides criticalinfor-mation during normal or abnormal operations.

74

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (REFUEUNG OUTAGE) PROCEDURAL NONCOMPUANCE INCIDENTS This indicator shows the status of the projects which are (MAINTENANCE) in the scope of the Refueling Outage.

The number of identified incidents concerning mainte-nance procedural problems, the number of closed irs PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER related to the use of procedures (includes the number of MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK closed irs caused by procedural noncompliance), and The parcentage of total MWOs completed per month the number of closed procedural noncompliance irs.

identified as rework. Rework activities are identified by This indicator trends personnel performance for SEP maintenance planning and craft. Rework is: Any main-

15,41 & 44.

trnance work repeated to mrrect a deficiency which has ts-occurred within 60 days following similar work activi-PROGRESS OF CYCLE 16 REFUEUNG OUTAGE ties. Any additional work required to correct deficiencies MODIFICATION PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 21 discovered during a f ailed Post Maintenance Test to en-MODIFICATIONS) sure the component / system passes subsequent Post This indicator shows the status of modifications ap-Maintenance Tests. This definition can be found in S. O.

proved for completion during the Refueling Outage.

M.101.

PROGRESS OF 1994 ON-UNE MODIFICAT10N PLAN-PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTE.

NING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 19 MODf FICATIONS)

NANCE ACTIVITIES This indicator shows the status of modifications ap-The % of the number of completed maintenance activi-proved for completion during 1994 ties as compared to the number of scheduled mainte-nance activities each month. This % is shown for all RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM maintenance crafts. Also shown are the number of The number of identified poor radiological work practices emergent MWOs. Maintenance activities include MWRs, (PRWPs) for the reporting month. This indicator tracks MWOs, STs, PMOs, calibrations, and other miscella-radiological work performance for SEP #52.

neous activities. This indicator tracks Maintenance per-formance for SEP #33.

RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE &

PREVEN 11VE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERs The ratio of preventive maintenance (including surveil.

This indicator is a breakdown of LERs. For purposes of lance testing and calibration procedures) to the sum of I.ER event classification, a preventable LER is defined non. outage corrective maintenance and preventive main-es: An event for which the root cause is personnel error tenance completed over the reporting period. The ratio, (i.e.,inappropr ate action by one or more individuals),

expressed as a percentage, it calculated based on man-i inadequate administrative controls, a design /construc-hours. Also displayed are the % of preventive mainte-tion /installationMabrication problem (involving work com-nance items in the month that were not completed by the pleted by or supervised by OPPD personnel)or a main-scheduled date plus a grace period equal to 25 % of the tinance problem (attributed to inadequate or improper scheduled interval. This indicator tracks preventive upkeep / repair of plant equipment). Also, the cause of maintenance activities for SEP #41.

the event must have occurred within approximately two years of the

Event Date" specified in the LER (e.g., an RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FRE-svent for which the cause is attributed to a problem wrth OUENCY HATE the original design of the plant would not be mnsidered The number of injuries requiring more than normal first preventable),

aid per 200,000 man-hours worked. This indicator For purposes of LER event classification, a " Personnel trends personnel pe:formance for SEP #15,25 & 26.

Error" LER is defined as follows: An event for which the root cause is inappropriate action on the part of one or REPEAT FAILURES 1

more individuals (as opposed to being attributed to a de-The number of Nuclear Plant Reliabihty Data System partment or a general group). Also, the inappropriate (NPRDS) components with more than 1 failure and the action must have occurred within approx!mately two number of NPRDS components with more than 2 f ailures 1

years of the

Event Date" specified in the LER.

for the last eighteen months.

Additionally, each event classified as a " Personnel Error" should also be classified as " Preventable." This indicator trends personnel periormance for SEP ftem #15.

PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY % OF HOURS OUT OF UMIT The % of hours out of limit are for six primary chemistry parameters divided by the total number of hours possible for the month. The key parameters used are: Lithium, Chloride, Hydrogen, Dissolved Oxygen, Fluoride, and tiuspended Solids. EPRIlimits are used.

75

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS SAFETY SYSTEk FAILURES safety equipment; 2) Unexpected plant response to a i

Safety system f ailu6es are any events or conditions that transient; 3) Degradation of fuelintegrity, primary cool-could prevent the fotfillment of the safety functions of ant pressure boundary, important associated features; structures or syr'.en.s. If a system consists of multiple

4) Scram with mmplication: 5) Unplanned release of redundant subsy tams or trains, f ailure of all trains con-radioactivity; 6) Operation outside the limits of the Tech-stitutes a safety system failure. Failure of one of two or nicalSpecifications; 7) Other.

more trains is nd counted as a safety system f ailure.

INPO significant events reported in this indicator are The definition for the indicator parallels NRC reporting SERs (Significant Event Reports) which inform utilities of requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. The significant events and lessons leamed identified through following is a list of the major safety systems, sub-the SEE-IN screening process.

systems, and components monitored for this indicator; j

Accident Monitoring instrumentation, Auxiliary (and SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE Emergency) Feedwater System, Combustible Gas Con-The dollar value of the spare parts inventory value for trol, Component Cooling Water System, Containment FCS during the reporting period.

and Containment isolation, Containment Coolant Sys-tems, Control Room Emergency Ventilation System, STAFFING LEVEL Emergency Core Cooling Systems, Engineered Safety The actual staffing levet and the authorized staffing level Features Instrumentation, Essential Compressed Air for the Nuclear Operations Division, the Production Engi-Systems, Essential or Emergency Service Water, Fire neering Division, and the Nuclear Services Division. This Detection or Suppression Systems, Isolation Condenser, indicator tracks performance for SEP #24.

Low Temperature Overpressure Protection, Main Steam Line isolation Valves, Onsite Emergency AC & DC STATION NET GENERATION Power w/ Distribution, Radiation Monitoring instrumenta-The not generation (sum) produced by the FCS during tion, Reactor Coolant System, Reactor Core isolation the reporting month.

Cooling System, Reactor Trip System and instrumenta-tion, Recirculation Pump Trip Actuation instrumentation, TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS Residual Heat Removal Systems, Safety Valves, Spent The number of temporary mechanical and electrical con-Fuel Systems, Standby Liquid Control System and Ulti.

figurations to the plant's vstems.

mate Heat Sink.

1) Temporary configurations are defined as electrical jumpers, electrical blocks, mechanical jumpers, or me-SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMSTRY PERFORMANCE chanical blocks which are installed in the plant operating INDEX systems and are not shown on the latest revision of the The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) is a calculation P&lD, schematic, connection, wiring, or flow diagrams.

based on the concentration of key impurities in the sec.

2) Jumpers and block. Mcn are installed for Surveil-ondary side of the plant. These key impurities are the lance Tests, Maintenance Proceduros, Calibration Pro-most likely cause of deterioration of the steam genera-cedures, Special Procedures, or Operating Procedures lors. The chemistry parameters are reported only for the are not considered as temporary modifications unless the period of time when the plant is operated at greater than jumper or block remains in place after the test or proco-30 percent power.

dure is complete. Jumpers and blocks installed in test or The CPI is calculated using the following equation: CPI.

lab instruments are not considered as temporary modifi-(sodium /0.90) + (Chloride /1.70) + (Sulfate /1.90) + (Iron /

cations.

4.40) + (Copper /0.30)/5 Where: Sodium, sulf ate and

3) Scaffolding is not considered a temporary modifica-chloride are the monthly average blowdown concentra-tion. Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for tions in ppb, iron and copper are monthly time weighted which MRs have been submitted will be considered as average feedwater concentrations in ppb. The denomi.

temporary modifications until final resolution of the MR nator for each of the 5 f actors is the INPO median value.

and the jumper or block is removed or is permanently if the monthly average for a specific parameter is less recorded on the drawings. This indicator tracks tempo-than the INPO median value, the median value is used in rary modifications for SEP #62 & 71.

the calculation.

THERMAL PERFORMANCE SIGNIFICANT EVENTS The ratio of the design gross heat rate (corrected) to the Significant events are those events identified by NRC adjusted actual gross heat rate, expressed as a percent-staff through detailed screening and evaluation of operat. age, ing experience. The screening process includes the daily review and discussion of all reported operating re-UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR actor events, as well as other operational data such as The ratio of the available energy generation over a given special tests or construction activities. An event identi-time period to the reference energy generation (the en-fied from the screening process as a significant event ergy that could be produced if the unit were operated candidate is further evaluated to determine if any actual mntinuously at full power under reference ambient con-or potential threat to the health and safety of the public ditions) over the same time period, expressed as a per-was involved. Specific examples of the type of criteria centage.

are summarized as follows: 1) Degradation of important 76

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS i

i UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS (NRC l

7,000 CRITICAL HOURS DEFINITION)

This indicator is defined as the number of unplanned au-The number of safety system actuations which include tomatic scrams (reactor protection system logic actua-(Q&) the High Pressure Safety injection System, the Low tions) that occur per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months of critical operation.

Pressure Safety injection System, the Saf ety injection The value for this indicator is calculated by multiplying Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC the total number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams classification of safety system actuations includes actua.

in a specific time period by 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months , then dividing tions when major equipment is operated A0d when the that number by the total number of hours critical in the logic systems for the above safety systems are chal-same time period. The indicator is further defined as lenged.

follows:

1) Unplanned means that the scram was not an antici-VIOLATIONS PER 1,000 INSPECTION HOURS pated part of a planrM tast.

This indicator is defined as the number of violations sited

2) Scram means the automatic shutdown of the reactor in NRC inspection reports for FCS per 1,000 NRC inspec-by a rapid insertion of negative reactivity (e.g., by control tion hours. The violations are reported in the year that the rods, liquid injection system, etc.) that is caused by ac-inspection was actually performed and not based on when tuation of the reactor protection system. The scram sig-the inspection report is received. The hours reported for nal may have resulted from exceeding a setpoint or may each inspection report are used as the inspection hours.

have been spurious.

3) Automatic means that the initial signal that caused VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE actuation of the reactor protection system logic was pro-WASTE vided from one of the sensors monitoring plant param-This indicator is defined as the volume of low-level solid stars and conditions, rather than the manual scram radioactive waste actually shipped for burial. This indica-switches or, in manual turbine trip switches (or push-but-tor also shows the volume of low-level radioactive waste tons) provided in the main control room, which is in temporary storage, the amount of radioactive

4) Critical means that during the steady-state condition of oil that has been shipped off site for processing, and the the reactor prior to the scram, the effective multipication volume of solid dry radioactive waste which has been factor (k,) was essentially equal to one.

shipped off site for processing. Low-level solid radioactive waste consists of dry active waste, sludges, resins, and UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR evaporator bottoms generated as a result of nuclear power The ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given plant operation and maintenance. Dry radioactive waste period of time, to the reference energy generation (the includes contaminated rags, cleaning materials, dispos-energy that could be produced if the unrt were operated able protective clothing, plastic containers, and any other

~

continuously at full power under reference ambient con.

material to be disposed of at a low-level radioactive waste ditions) over the same time period, expressed as a per-disposal site, except resin, sludge, or evaporator bottoms.

I contage.

Low-level refers to all radioactive waste that is not spent fuel or a by-product of spent fuel processing. This indica-UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS-tor tracks radiological work performance for SEP #54.

(INPO DEFINITION)

This indicator is defined as the sum of the following safety system actuations:

1) The number of unplanned Emergency Core Cooling i

i System (ECCS) actuations that result from reaching an ECCS actuation swtpoint or from a spurious / inadvertent ECCS signal.

2) The number of unplanned emergency AC power sys-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 reached or when a spurious or inadvertent signal is gen-erated (ECCS only), and major equipment in the system I

is actuated. Unplanned means that the system actuation l

was not part of a planned test or evolution. The ECCS actuations to be counted are actuatione cMbe high pres-sure injection system, the low pressure injection system, or the safety injection tanks.

I l

l 77

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX The purpose of the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Performance Indcators index is to list perfor-mance indicators related to SEP items with parameters that can be trended.

SEP Reference Number 15 Pape increas0 HPES and IR Accountability Through Use of Performance Indicators 4

Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenaace).

.49 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations 21,000 Didntegrations/ Minute Per Probe Area..

.5 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate.

.4 Preventable / Personnel Error LERs..

.6 SEP Reference Number 24 Complete Staff Studies Staffing Level

.42 SEP Reference Number 25 Training Program for Managers and Supervisors implemented Disabling injury /lliness Frequency Rate.

.3 Recordable injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate.

.. 4 SEP Reference Number 26 Evaluate and implement Station Standards for Safe Work Practice Requirements Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate..

.3 Recordable injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate.

.4

~

SEP Reference Number 27 Implement Supervisory Enforcement of industrial Safety Standards

.. 3 Disabling injury /lliness Frequency Rate.

Recordable injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate..

.4 SEP Reference Number 31 Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Manual and Conduct Project Management Training MWO Planning Status (Cycle 16 Refueling Outage).

. 66 Overall Project Status (Cycle 16 Refueling Outage)...

..Not Reported Untillaterin 1994 Progress of Cycle 16 Outage Modification Planning..

. 67 SEP Reference Number 33 Develop On-Line Maintenance and Modification Schedule Percent of Completed Scheduled Maintenance Activities (All Maintenance Crafts).

. 50 SEP Reference Number 36 Reduce Corrective Non-Outage Backlog Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage)..

.45 SEP Reference Number 41 Develop and Implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue.

. 46 Procedural Noncompliance incidents.

.49 SEP Reference Number 43 Implement the Check Valve Test Program Check Valve Failure Rate.

.36 78

e SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX (continued)

SEP Reference Number 44 Eaga i

Compliance With and Use of Procedures Procedural Noncompilance incidents (Maintenance)..

..... 49 SEP Reference Number 48 Design a Procedures Control and Administrative Program i

Docu ment R eview.......................................................

. 55 SEP Reference Nurnber 52 Establish Supervisory Accountability for Workers Radiological Practices 4

Radiological Work Practices Program................................

............ 54 SEP Reference Number 54 Complete implementation of Radiological Enhancement Program

{

Collective Radiation Exposure.................................................

............16 l

Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste.......................................

.. 37 i

Clean Controlled Area Disintegrations 21,000 Counts / Minute Per Probe Area..

..5 4

Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area..

................53

-l SEP Reference Number 58 1

Revise Physical Security Training and Procedure Program 1

Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Secu rity).....................,............................

.. 56 i

SEP Reference Number 60 Improve Controls Over Surveillance Test Program i

Number of Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in Licensee Event Reports.................. 20 i

i SEP Reference Number 81 Modify Computer Program to Correctly Schedule Surveillance Tests Number of Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in Licensee Event Reports...................... 20 1

SEP Reference Number 62 Establish interim System Engineers

]

Te mpo rary Modifications................................................................................ 57 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown........................................... 59

)

Engineering Change Notice Status......................................

............. 60 j

Engineering Change Notice Breakdown...............

...............61 SEP Reference Number 68 Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Training and Establish Means to Monitor Operator Training Licensed Operator Requalification Training....................................................... 63 i

i License Candidate Exams.......................

... 64 d

SEP Reference Number 71 Improve Controls over Temporary Modifications 4

Temporary Modifications..

.............. 57 1

79

REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST R. L. Andrews M. P. Lazar D. L. Lovett G. L. Anglehart K. L. Belek J. H. MacKinnon B. H. Biome J. W. Marcil J.P.Bobba N. L. Marfice R. D. Martin C. E. Boughter C. J. Brunnert T. J. Mcivor G. R. Cavanaugh K. A. Miller J. W. Chase Nuclear Licensing A. G. Christensen

& Industry Affairs J. T. O'Connor O. J. Clayton R. P. Clemens W. W. Orr R. G. Conner T. L Patterson R. T. Pearce J. L. Connolley G. M. Cook R. L. Phelps D.C.Dietz R. L. Plott H. J. Faulhaber W. J. Ponec M. T. Frans C. R. Rice l

D. P. Galle A. W. Richard S. K. Gambhir D. G. Ried G. K. Samide J. K. Gasper W. G. Gates M. J. Sandhoefner M. O. Gautier F. C. Scofield S. W. Gebers H. J. Sefick L. V. Goldberg J. W. Shannon R. W. Short R. H. Guy J. B. Herman C. F. Sirnmons 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. Wdirett 80

FORT CALHOUN STATION OPERATING CYCLES AND REFUELING OUTAGE DATES f

~

Event Date Range Production (MWH)

Cumu!:silve (MWH)

Cycle 1 09/26/73 02/01/75 3,299,639 3,299,639 1st Refueling 02/0195 05/09R5 Cycle 2 05/09/75 -10/01/76 3,853,322 7.152,961 2nd Refueling 10/01R6 -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 p 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 3,561,866 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 01/16/06 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 41,771,535 11th Refueling 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 13th Refueling 02/01/92 - 05/03/92 Cycle 14#

05/03/92 -09/25/93 4,981,485 56,022,013 14th Refueling 09/25/93 11/26/93 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

..

ML20063M023

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search