ML20100M336

Performance Indicators, for Jan 1995

ML20100M336
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	01/31/1996
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20100M310	List: LIC-96-0030, Forwards Fort Calhoun Station Performance Indicators, for Jan 1996 ML20100M336
References
NUDOCS 9603050304
Download: ML20100M336 (107)

Text

.- - - - - - - _ - - - - - -

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

- w -

</,

i JANUARY 1996 seR 288 M M 888ses R PDR SAFE OPERATIONS I PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COSTEFFECTIVENESS i

l <

. l

. 4 I

l

l l

Lil 9e w1a%un w wn, aEdads... .

d unados a>tden, wnd wwndjudynal...

d w a, y%, cwmang cenandenwnl...

d w a, u>ay 9 e yL...d w dabng Ljd>

9W t u , h t t ,, g iano. t Jtw una-diwhd, val L wdl 9 e udnuno!,

i pawn,, a w a an, wle awJA a6

- ,wns tu 4 wnd A w

aozceni g % t6 9u 6t 3 e pawn,, rudjnd w doing ik 9 V i%p. l

p j. s>c _  ;

i A

1 e

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

JANUARY 1996 j l

l 1

l 1

Production Engineering Division i System Engineering l Test and Performance Group l

' j 1

JANUARY 1996

-e. . .n. r - ---- - ..-- ---- -.-- _-._---

~

i FORT CALHOUN STATION January 1996 Monthly Operating Report I

J OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

During the month of January 1996, the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) operated at a nominal 100% power. Normal plant maintenance, surveillance, equipment rotation activities and scheduled on-line modifications were performed during the month.

Monitoring of a Control Element Drive Mechanism (CEDM) mechanical seal leak continued.

On January 19th, an ice jam formed upstream of Sioux City, Iowa, causing Missouri River levels to lower approximately five feet over a 24-hour period. Preparations were made to respond to potentialicing or low river level conditions. On January 19th, the low river level Abnormal Operating Porcedure (AOP-01) was implemented when it was projected that the river level would drop below 983 feet above sea level. As required by the procedure, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was requested to increase releases from Gavins Point Dam on January 20th. The  !

Corps could not comply because flooding would occur upstream of the ice jam. I Pursuant to 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(vi), a four hour non-emergency notification was '

subsequently made to the NRC to report the off-site notification made to the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. The FCS Technical Specifications require the reactor to 4 be placed in cold shutdown if the river level is less than 976 feet, 9 inches. The I lowest actual river level observed at FCS during this event was 982 feet,6 inches l

with the level retuming to normal after.two days.

On January 24th, approximately 50 gallons of hydrazine leaked from a hydrazine I storage container into the Turt,ine Building. Hazardous Materials personnel responded to isolate and clean up the spill. The spill exceeded the State limit, therefore, a notification was made to the State of Nebraska. A four-hour non- l emergency report was made to the NRC pursuant to 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(vi). I Several of the incore nuclear detectors have recently failed rendering 2 of the 28 strings of detectors inoperable. These failures occurred in new detectors that were installed during the 1995 refueling outage. These failures are under investigation l with assistance from ABB/CE and the detector vendor, i

t

d

+ FortCalhounindeaValue

-* Industry M edian index Value 100..

90 ..

80 .. _

_ r x -

-A. I Industry Median 60 ..

'**# 1 I

'" 40 ..

30 ..

20 ..

10 ..

4 0 . , , . . . , , , , ,

92/192/2 92/3 92/4 93/193/2 93/3 93/4 94/194/2 94/3 94/4 95/195/2 95/3 95/4 J-96 F-96 Performance Index Trend For the index calculation unit capability factor, unplanned capability loss factor, unplanned automatic scrams per 7000 hours0.081 days <br />1.944 hours <br />0.0116 weeks <br />0.00266 months <br /> critical, safety system performance,  ;

collective radiation exposure, and volume of low-level solid radioactive waste '

indicators are calculated for a two-year period instead of the normal three-year period to allow the index trend to be more responsive to changes in plant performance.

1 11

. . . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _______.~ .. .

t.

I

+ Fort Calhoun index Vabe N l

100.. w Industry Medianindex Value 90 ..

80 .. m

_~ 3 l

~ 4.", Industry

\

! SO .. Median l Probcted

~ ~

50 .

i 40 ..

30 ,

20 ..

l l 10 ..

! O - - - - - - - - - - -

j

( 92/192/2 92/3 92/4 93/193/2 93/3 93/4 M194/2 94/3 94/4 95/195/2 95/3 95/4 J 06 F 86 i

l l l

t 1 1

\

Performance Index Trend For the index calculation unit capability factor, unplanned capability loss factor, unplanned automatic scrams per 7000 hours0.081 days <br />1.944 hours <br />0.0116 weeks <br />0.00266 months <br /> critical, safety system performance, collective radiation exposure, and volume of fow-level solid radioactive waste indicators are calculated for a two-year period instead of the normal three-year l period to allow the index trend to be more responsive to changes In plant performance.

l

! .i

' il

--._- .- ._ . - ~ _ .- - .- - - --- - _ - ...- - ... -.._.- . -..- - - - - - - - . . - _- - .. - - - - .. - -. -.-

I

?

i f5YIlIEhIM$$[jhygg}lyy2%GQ Year-to-Date Value

~

( -

Performance Categories 1

-$$Id@@Th lA$IddIf5MI  !'bh N SMA @$ h:Nh hW@Y8*jlglFJ

, LJnit Capability  ; kJnplanned Auto (( hbW $f l Factor  ;

-h scrams p eqj Thermal j - Perfonnance betterthan Industry Average Trend p

p%6+.sm kg ('v.;l g eqpw.:9.a r~"*

- ^f Performance  ;

io r

> 3 5 FY-f

&#di!Li dhb: is O ME gsc['?:di..Ddie: @M:Mwm yMjg $$. Performance better than  ;

Ae= o. 1996 OPPD Goal v.:sngwx myg  ;

E - Nhkhhh b khk h- ~ ; .fQ jQ $$ Performance Not Meeting  ;

m :s. . .:w 79 :9 1996 OPPD Goal i HPSI Safety . AFW Safety J- gg' - t qt .

l System l System l j ReliabiW Performance ._ Performance

u : en.......J= ~:'

- b  :

. h v. Dec.

! ... aamuunny,....)I

! Chemistry Collective Jan-1996 Best Possible Index Radiation Year-to-Date

" Y' i Exposure * *"**

Value

~~" I " " "* """"'*

i 1

INPO Perfromance Indicators

• I i

4 I

db

t i

Unplanned i Auto Scrams l ,

l Year-To-Date Value Performance Cateaories Safety Significant E Performance better than Industry Average Trend

. System Ennts I

Actuations l

I lll0@ Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal Safety Performance Not Meeting 1996 OPPD Goal Forced Outage I$$[@

System RMe Failures Oct. Nov. Dec.

1995 1995 1995 Equipment Collective Forced Radiation Jan-1996 Best Possible Outages Exposure Year-to-Date 1996 Year-End Value Performance

'{ Performance NRC Performance Indicators

. I FORT cal,HOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT December 1995 -

SUMMARY

POSITIVE TREND REPORT ADVERSE TREND REPORT A performance indicator with data representing three A performance indicator with data representing three consecutive months of irnproving performance or three consecutive months of declining performance or three consecutive months of performance that is superior to consecutive months of performance that is trending the stated goalls exhibiting a positive trend per Nuchar towerd declining as determined by the Manager -

Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP- Station Engineering, constitutes an adverse trend per 37). Nuclear Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37). A supervisor whose performance The following performance indicators exhibiteri positive indicator exhibits an adverse trend by this definition trends for the reporting month: may specify in written brm (to be published in this report) why the trend is not adverse.  ;

Safety System Failures (Page 7) The following performance indicators exhibited adverse trends for the reporting month: ,

jiiah Pressure Safety Iniection System Safety System Performance Fuel Reliability index (Page 8) (Page 14)

Emeraency A C. Power System Maintenance Woho Sackloos (Page 10) (Page 48) -

Emeroency Diesel Generator Unreliability Thermal Perfortrgg;g l (Page 11) (Page 33)

Diesel GeneratotRehabdity (25 Demands) End of Adverse Trend Report.

(Page 12)

Emeroency Diesel Generator Unreliabilfty INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED (Page 13) MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT Stanificant Events A performance indicator with data for the reporting (Page 20) period that is ino6quate when comparad to the OPPD goal is defined as 'Needing increased Management M!ssed Surveillance Tests Results in Licensee Event Attention" per Nuclear Operations Division Quality E22931 Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37). i (Page 21)

Industrial Safety Accident Rate Unoianned Safety System Actuations - INPO Definition (Page 2)

(Page 30)

Disablina Iniurv/ Illness Freauenev Rate Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of (Page 3)

LhDR (Page 39)

Secondary System Chemistry (Page 40)

Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area (Page oti) .

End of Positive Trend Report.

V 4

s

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT December 1995 -

SUMMARY

1 i INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT ,

(continued)

Number of Control Room Eauioment Deficiencies (Page 15) l Number of On-l.ine and Outaae Control Room Eauiomer,t Deficiencies (Page 16)

Forced Outaae Rate (Page 24) 1 Eauioment Forced Outace Rate 1 (Page 35)

Percentaae o' Total MWOs Completed eer Month identrfied as Rework (Page 50)

Temporary Modifications (Page 60)

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT IMPROVEMENTSICHANGES I This section lists signifcant changes made to the report and to specific hdicators within the report since the previous month. I Two new Chemistry Performance Indicators were added to the November Perfonnance Indicator Book.

See pages 41 and 42,

< l End of Report improvements / Changes Report.

VI i

A

l I

l i

e Table of Contents / Summary enae GOALS...............................................................................x SAFE OPERA 110NE Industrial Safety Accident Rate - INPO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disabling injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate ............................................ 4 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations 2.1.000 Disintegrations / Minute per Probe Area ............................................. 5 ,

L Preventable / Personnel Error LERs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Safety System Failures ..................................................................~7~-

Safety System Performance:

High Pressure Safety injection System ..... ....................................... 8 i Auxiliary Feedwater System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Emergency AC Power System ..................................................10 Emergency DieselGenerator ,

Unit Relability ............................................... ................ 11 Reliability (25 Demands) .......................................................12 U nmE a bility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1's Fuel Re Rability Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Control Room Equipment De'iciencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 On-Une and Outage Control Room Deficiencies . . . . . . ...............................16 Coll 3ctive Radiation Ex posure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Maximum individual Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Violation Tre nd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Sig nificant Eve nts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .= . . . 30 Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in LERs ................................. ............ 21 PERFORMANCE Station Net G e n eratio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Fo rced O utage Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 U nit C a pacity Fa cto r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Eq uivalent Availability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 vii

l l

Table of Contents / Summary 1

)

PERFORMANCE fcontinued) E69g Unit Cap a bilty Fa ctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 Unplanned Capability Loss Fr.ctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 i 1

1 Unplanned Automatic Reactor 1 Scrams per 7,000 Hours critical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 l Unplanned Safety System Actuations I N PO Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 NRC Definition ................................................................ 31

, G ross H eat Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-.. . . . . . . .y , - .. J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Thermal Performance .................................................................33 Daily Th ermal output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Equipment Forced Outages per 1,000 Critical Hours .... ................................... 35 Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 i

Repeat Failures .................................................. .... .............. 37 l

Vium of Las-Lud Scid Rzca#At the ................................. .i......... 38 Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 C h e mistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 C h e rnistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 GQEI C ents Per Kilow att H o ur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Staffing Lev el . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Spare Parts inventory Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 DIVISION AND DEPARTHENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non. Outage) ..................... 47 Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance Items Overdue .. 48 Percentage of Total Slos Completed per month identified as Rework ......... 49 Overtime ....................... .............. 50 Procedural Noncompliance Incidents ......................... 51 Daily Schedule Performance Percent of Completed Scheduled Activities ....... 52 viil

1 1

1 l

I Table of Contents / Summary DMSION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS R&pg in-une Chemistry instruments Out-of-Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Hazaidous Waste Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Radiological Work Practices Program ............................... .................... 56 Document Review ...............................................,................ ... 57 Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Modifications Te mpo ra ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9 Outstanding .................................................................60 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Engineering Change Notices Status .......................................................................62 Open.......................................................................63 Ucensee Event Report (LER) Root Cause Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Ucensed Operator Requalification Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 U ce ns e C a n did ate Ex a ms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Ope n incid ent R epo rts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Cycle 17 Refueling Outage MWO Planning Status ..........................................................68 Overall Project Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Outage Modification Planning ................. .................................. 71 ,

On-Une Modification Planning ..... ................. ........................... 72 l Progress of 1995 On-Une Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 ACTION PLANS. DEFINmONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION LIST Action Plans . . . . ................ ............ . ... . . .......... ...... ........ 73 i

Performance indicator Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ............. 80 Safely Enhancement Program index ........... .................... 7 ...... .. ...... 88 Report Distribution Ust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 90 lx

r i

! OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS Vice President- 1996 Priorities

^

l MISSION The safe, reliable and cost effective generation of electricity for OPPD customers through the l'

professional use of nuclear technology. . The Company shall conduct these operations prudently, efficiently and effectively to assure the health, safety and protection of all i personnel, the general public and the environment.

GOALS -

fanaL1: SAFE OPERATIONS Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 3 & 4 A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and personal initiative and open communication.

1996 Priorities:

= improve SALP ratings. '

l . Improve INPO rating.

l .

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

l

. No unplanned automatic reactor scrams or safety system actuations.

i

! Objectives to support SAFE OPERATIONS. I l

OBJECTIVE 1-1:

No challenges to a nuclear safety system.

l OBJECTIVE 1-2:

l Conduct activities in accordance with applicable policies, technical specifications, procedures, standing orders and work instructions.

l

. Less than 1.4 NRC violations per 1,000 inspection hours.

. Fewer significant Conective Action Documents (CADS) originating from activities.

l OBJECTIVE 1-3:

j identify conditions BEFORE they affect plant safety and reliability.

l OBJECTIVE 1-4:  ;

Achieve all safety-related 1996 performance indicator goals in the Performance Indicator Report.

j OBJECTIVE 1-5:

I Zero Lost Time injuries and recordable injuries rate BELOW 1.5 percent.  !

I i

X I

-, , _ - ~ _ - . . . _ . _ - - . . - . . . . . _ . _ - - . . - - - - . .- ... .. ...

1 o

OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS Vice President- 1996 Priorities 1 Goal 2: PERFORMANCE r Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 2 and Goal 4, Obj: 1 Achieve high standards of performance at Fort Calhoun Station resulting in safe, reliable and cost effective power production.

1996 PRIORITIES:

. Improve Quality, Profess,lonalism and Teamwork.

= improve Plant Reliability. ,

e Meet or exceed INPO key parameters and outage perforrnance goals.

. Reduce the number of Human Performance errors. -

. Identify Programmatic performance problems through effective self assessment.

Objectives to support PERFORMANCE:

OBJECTIVE 2-1:

- Achieve an annual plant capacity factor of 82% and a unit capability factor of 83.56%.

)

OBJECTIVE 2-2:

Execute the 1996 refueling outage in 42 days; emphasize shutdown plant safety, i l

l OBJECTIVE 2 Achieve all performance related 1996 performance indicator goals in the Performance Indicator ~

Report.

OBJECTIVE 2 4: .

All projects and programs are planned, scheduled, ar.d accomplished according to schedules, I resource constraints, and requirements.

OBJECTIVE 2-5:

Teamfindividual ownership, accountability, performance and teamwork is evident by improved plant reliability; improved ratings for both INPO and NRC; reduced number of human performance

. errors and identification of performance problems by effective self assessment and for individuals as measured by the successful completion of department goals & objectives and other speci&c measures.

)

xi i

_ .. _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . __ v_ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ .

S d

, OPPD NUCl. EAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1 Vice' President - 1996 Priorities 6 -

fangla: COSTS Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 2, Obj: 1,2 arfd 3, and Goal 6, Obj: 1 Operate Fort Calhoun in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as an economically viable contribution to OPPD's " bottom line". Cost consciousness is exhibited at alllevels of the organization.

1996 Priorities:

. Maintain total O&M and Capital Expenditures within budget.

. Streamline work process to improve cost effectiveness.

Objectives to support COSTS:

OBJEC11VE 3-1:

Conduct the nuclear programs, projects, and activities within the approved Capital and O&M Sudgets.

OBJECTIVE 3-2: .. . . . . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ ._

Implement nuclear related Opportunity Review recommendations according to approved schedules and attain the estimated cost savings.

I I

t I Goals Source: Scofield (Manager) i e

Xii

l 2

P j,

SAFE OPERAT ONS s

Goal: A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the ruclear organization. Individuals demonstrate professionalisne through self-ownership and per-sonal initiative and open communication. I E

1 i

k l

1

_ ___m_ _ _ .__

w --

I 4

Year-to.Dete FCS indur. trial safety Accident Rate (NPO Definition)  !

FCS Average Rate (Lact 12 Months)  !

+ FCS Year-End Goal (<0.50) g Industry Current Scst Quartile (.24) l l

+ Year 2000 INPOlndustry Goal (<040)

V 2.

1.5 .

e 1 .L 0.5 :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

C C C C C C C C C C C C 0f - -

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

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE

~

As stated in INPO's December 1993 publication 'Detailec Descriptions of World Association of i l

Nuclear Operators (WANO) Performance Indicators and Other indicators for Use at U.S. Nuclear Power Plant': 'The purposo of this inpicator is to monitor progress in improving industrial safety performance for utility personnel permanently assigned to the station."

The INPO industrial safety accident rate value year-to-date was 0.00 at the end of January l 1996. The value forthe 12 months from February 1,1995, through January 31,1996, was 1.22.

1 There were no restricted-time and zero lost-time accidents in January 1996. j l

i l

The values for this indicator are determined as follows:

)

(number of restricted-time accidents + lost-time accidents + fatalities) x 700.000 (number of station person-hours worked)

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal is 50.50. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 50.40. The approximate industry upper ten percentile value (for the period from 7/93 through 6/94) is 0.12.

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Chase / Booth (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Conner Trend: Meeds increased Management Attention 2

1

.m

,_.1995 Disat*ng injury /Inness Frequency

-x- 1995 Disabling injury 6liness Frequency q_._ Average Rate (Last 12 Months) l GOOD l 1996 Goal (0.50) 2.

12 _.

1.6 ..

4 x- -x I# "

N 4 1.2 .. z- -A 1_.

0 A .x, ,

0.6 ..

l il "

:  :  :  :  :  :  : o O.2 _

0  ;  ;  ;  ;

Feb Mar Apr ,*Aay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan ,

l1996l DISABLING INJURY / ILLNESS FREQUENCY RATE (LOST-TIME ACCIDENT RATE)

This indicator shows the 1996 disabling injury / illness frequency rate. The 1995 disabling injury /

illness frequency rate is also shown.

The disablir.g injury / illness frequency rate year-to-date was 0.00 at the end of January 1996.

There were zero disabling injury / illness cases reported for the month.

The disabling injury / illness, frequency rate for the 12 months from February 1,1995, through January 31,1996, was 1.23. ,

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.5.

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

, Accountability: Chase / Conner Trend: Need increased Management Attention SEP 25,26 & 27 3

I

r f

. l 1996 Recordebleinjur%Ilness Frequency <

l' x 1995 Recordoble injurpliness Frequency goong Average Rate (Last 12 Months) I

...o... Fort cahoun Goal 4p .

2.5 .. )

2.25 .. )

I 2..

1J5 3

- m

- - m 1.6 o....... ......o..... .......b........"....6 .......o  :

~

1.25 ..

1..

0J5 .

0.5 ..

0.25 ..

O  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

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

1996l 1

RECORDABLiE IN]URY/ ILLNESS FREQUENCY RdTE l

This indicator shows the 1996 recordable injury / illness frequency rate. The 1995 record-able injury / illness cases frequency rate is also shown.

A recordable injury / illness case is reported if personne! from any of the Nuclear Divisions ,

are injured on the job and require corrective medical treatment beyond first aio! The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate is computed on a year-to-date basis. l There have been 0 recordable injury / illness cases in 1996. The recordable injury / illness w cases frequency rate year-to-date was 1.50 at the end of January 1996. There were 0 recordable injury /illnes's cases reported for the month of January.

The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate for thy 12 months from February 1,  !

1995, through January 31,1996, was 1.50.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 1.5. l i

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

Accountability: Conner .

Trend: None SEP 15,25,26 & 27 i

4 I

i amus contaminat6on Events (Monthly) '

Contamination Ewnts (YrD) l l f

60 . - J' V i 50 .

$ l l

l l

40 .

]

30 ..

l

)

20 .. l l

10 ..

1

^

O  ;

Jan l1995l j

CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS 21,000 DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA This indicator shows the Personnel Contaml nation Events in the Clean Controlled Area for contaminations 21,000 disintegrations / minute per probe area for the reporting month.

There was 1 contamination event in January 1996. There has been a total of 1 contami-nation event in 1996 through the end of January. This compares to 3 at this time last year.

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 15 & 54 4

5

m PersonnelEirrors(EschMonth)

+ Preventable (18-MonthTotals)

PersonnelError(18-MonthTotals) 20 . .

l 15 _.

10 __

o C 0 a

O C C C ,

0  ;  ;  ;  ; ;E;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; ;  ;  ;  ; ;E:

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 1994l l

l PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERs This indicator depicts 18-month totals for riumbers of " Preventable" and " Personnel l Error" LERs.

• 1 The graph shows the 18-month totals for preventable LERs, the 18-month totals for Per- tj sonnel Error LERs and the Personnel Error totals for each month. The LERs are trended based on the LER event date as opposed to the LER report date.

In December 1995, there was one event which was subsequently reported as an LER.

No LERs were categorized as F,eventable and as Personnel Error for the month of De- 1 cember. The total LERs for the year 1995 (through December 31,1995) is eights The l total Personnel Error LERs for the year 1995 is two. The total Preventable LERs for the year is three.  ;

The 1996 goal for this indicator is that the year-end values for the 18-month totals be no more than 12 Preventable and 5 Personnel Error LERs.

Data fiource: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source) i Accoun* ability: Chase l Trend: None SEP 15 6

l

I I m Shutdown uu Operatiorts 1

...o... IndustryAverageTrend <

,2.. If 2

E ,

g1 _

_ u ,

G .....o...... ...,y ,,, ,,, ,

,,, ,,y,,,,,,y,,,,, ,,4 20  ;  ;

1 92-2 92-3 92 4 93-1 93-2 93-3 93-4 94-1 94-2 94-3 94 4 95-1 Year-Quarter l

i l

SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES

, 1 This in ficator 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 Indica- l tors for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" report.

l The following safety system failures occurred between the 2nd quarter of 1992 and the 1st quarter of 1995:

1st Quarter 1993: The SG low pressure scram signal block reset values, for all 4 channels of both SGs, i were greater than the allowed limits, rendering this scram input inoperable dunng certain operating condi-tions. .

2nd Quarter 1993: A section of the piping configuration for the borated water source of the safety injection system was not seismically qualified. This could have resulted in a failure of the system to meet design requirements during a seismic event. .

4' 4th Quarter 1993: 1) During surveillance testing, both PORVs for the LTCP system failed to open during multiple attempts. The failyes were a result of differential expansion caused by a loop seal, excessive venting line back pressure, and cracked valve disks; 2) Calibration errors of the offsite power low signal relays could have prevented offsite power from trippic g and the EDGs from starting in the required amount of time during a degraded voltage condition; 3) Both AFW pumps were inoperable when one was removed i from service for testing and the control switch for the other pump's steam supply valve was out of,the auto l positian; 4) Only one train of control room ventilation was placed in recire when both toxic gas monitors became inoperable. Later during surveillance, the other train auto-started and brought outside air into the contrcl room for a six-minute period.

i ist Quarter 1994: A design basis review determined that an ESF relay could result in loss of safety 3 .

injection and spray flow, due to premature actuation of recirculation flow. '

4th Quarter 1994: An accident scenario was identified that.could result in the inoperability of both control room air conditioning units. Following certain accident conditions, CCW temperature could rise causing compressor rupture disc failure and a release of freon.

I There were no safety system failures in the 1st quarter of 1995.

Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Accountability: Chase Trend: Positive 7

m Monthly Heh Pressure Safety Injection System Unavailability Value

1. Year-to-Date High Pressure safety injection system UnavailabilityValue

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (0.003) Good l

Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (0.02)

1. industry Upper 10% (0.0011) 1I 0.02 ..  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

0.015 .

0.01 ..

0.005 .. >

c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : o 0

- ;f; , , ,  ;  ;  ;  ;

1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l199El 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 reporting month.

The High Pressure Safety System unavailability value for the month of January 1996 was 0. There were 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of planned unavailability, and 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavail-ability, during the month. The 1996 year-to-date HPSI unavailability value was 0.0 at the end of the month. The unavailability value for the last 12 months was 0.00057.

There was a total of 13.39 hours4.513889e-4 days <br />0.0108 hours <br />6.448413e-5 weeks <br />1.48395e-5 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability for the high pressure safety injection system in 1995.

There has been a total of 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability for the high pressure st,fety injection system in 1996.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.003. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 0.02 and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the three-year period from 1/92 through 12/94) is approximately 0.001.

Data Source: Skiles/Schaffer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Schaffer Trend: Positive 8

. i l

Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability i x tear tocate Eimergency AC Power Unavailability l GOOD l

... .. rat cathounGoat(0.01) I

Year 2000 IPPOlndustryGoal(0.025) y Industry Upper 10%(0.0021) l l

OA2 ..  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

O.018 . ,

0.016 .. l 0.014 .-

0.012 ..

0.01 .. o.....o.....o.....o.....e.....o.....o.....o.....e.....o.....o.....o 0.008 ._

0.006 .. .co4s .co4s 0.004 .4.ooas 0.002 .. a c  : c c c c  ; c ,

0 .

i >

e 1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996l 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 1996 was 0.00457.

There were 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of planned and 6.80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability , due to a broken relay, during the month. The year-to-date unavailability value was 0.00457 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.00396 at the end of the month.  !

There has been a total of 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 6.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability for the auxiliary feedwater system in 1996.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.01.

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 0.025 and the industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 0.002.

l Data Source: Skiles/Nay (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Nay Trend: None .

9

Monthly Emergency Ac Power LkiavaRabilityValue

-x Year toCate Emergency AC Power LkiavaBabilityValue

+1996 Fort Cahoun Goal (0A24)

+ Year 2000IQindustryGoal(0A25) 0.16 .

O II I 0.14 .. ,

0.12 ..

0.1 ..

0D8 ..

ODG ..

0D4 ..

0A2.. 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 mM e"-- '

0 Feb fe-- Apr J4ar

-=s @=ssHMay Jun Jul W Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan l

. 1 EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE I

This indicator shows the Emergency AC Power System unavailability value, as defined by l lNPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

l The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value for January 1996 was 0.009. During the month, there were 13.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability, anci 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability for testing and repairs. The Emergency AC Povter System unavailability value year-to-date was 0.009 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.011 at the end of the month.

l There has been a total of 13.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> of planrad unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned l unavailability for the emergercy AC power system in 1996.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.024.

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 0.025 and the industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 0.0035.

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Ronning Trend: Positive due to performance better than goal.

10

~

- m Failures /20 Demands

, , Failures /50 Demands e Failures /100 Demands l GOOD l

_. Trigger Values /20 Demands a T:'igger Values /50 Demands

_.,_. Trigger Values 100 Demands II 8 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7._

6. f 5--  :.  :. = = -

..  :. a  :

4._ .

m . .- . . .. - . . ., , , - . . .,

2 _ j, ,, 94 ,, ,, 9y ,, , , ,, , ,

0 ,

i

> i Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan l1996l EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY This bar graph shows three raonthly 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 va'ues 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 Iailure values are below the corresponding trigger values. The Fort Calhoun 1996 goal is to have fewer failures 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 t tart 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 manualinitiation. Load-run demands must follow successful starts and meet at least one of the following criteria: a load-run that is a result of a real load signal, a load-run test expected to carry the plant's load and duration as stated in the test specifications, and a special test in which a diesel generator wa' s expected to be operated for a minimum of one hour and to be loaded with at least 50% of design load (see exceptions arid other demand criteria in the Definition Section of this report).

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Ronning Trend: Positive due to performance better than goal.

11 l

, , DG 1 FaHures/25 Demands DG-2 Failures /25 Demands

• I l Good l 5- *#

yy c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : l

: a 3

2.  ;

1 i 1 1 1 1 1 t i 1 i q q - - - _

g a

oa o e

o o e Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan l1996l l

DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS)

This indicator shows the number of failures experienced by each emergency diesel gen-erator 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 1996.

It must be emphasized that, in accordance with NUMARC criteria, certain actions will take I place in the event that any one emergency diesel generator experiences 4 or more fail-ures within the last 25 demands on the unit. These actions are described in the Defini- -

tions Section of this report. A System Engineering Instruction has been approved for the Fort Cahoun Station to institutionalize and formally approve / adopt the required NUMA.RC actions.

Diesel Generator DG-1 has experienced one failure during the last year, and zero fail-ures during the last 25 demands on the unit. Diesel Generator DG-2 has experienced one failure during the last 25 demands on the unit.

Special diesel testing during hot weather took place during July. This testing enabled the diesel high temperature operability I;mits to be raised.  ;

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Ronning Trend: Positive due to performance bet.ter than goal.

12 l

4 ,

=

1 DG.1 UnreliatetyValue I m DG-2 UnreliabiktyValue

+ StationUnreliabilityValue IGOOD

+ 1996 Goal I e industry Upper 10%(0.002 for a 3-Year Average) 0.06 ..

ODS._ e  :  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

0.04 ._

0.03 __ I" "' 8 "' e .o n s ,

4 0.02 -_

0.01 0 .[Feb

[

Mar

[

Apr

[

May

[

Jun

'[

Jul 8

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan l1996 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the likelihood that emergency AC power generators will respond 1 s

to off-normal events or accidents. It also provides an indication of the effsctiveness of maintenance, opera- l tion and test practices in controlling generator unreliability. The last event occured on September 1,1995 i when the Fied Flash Relay on DG-2 failed.

The year-to-date station EDG unreliapility at the end of January 1996 was 0.0. The 1996 goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.05.

For DG-1: There were 3 start demands for the reporting month with 0 failures.

In addition, there were 2 load-run demands without a failure.

For DG-2: There was 1 start demand for the reporting month with 0 failures.

l In addition, there were 0 load-run demands without a failure.

i Emergency diesel generator unreliability is calculated as follows:

value per DG = SU + LU - (SU x LU) l where SU = Start Unreliability = number of unsuccessful starts number of valid start demands LU = Load-run Unreliability = number of unsuccessfulload-runs number of valid load-run demands i Station Value = average of DG-1 and DG-2 values Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source) 1 Accountability: Skiles/Ronning Trend: Positive due to perfonnance better than goal.

13

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

4 e

Fuel RehatWHty

+ Year 2000 INPO Industry Fuel Defect Reference (5 x 10 4 Microcuries/ Gram) l GOOD l o 1996 Goal (9/1/95 through 12/31/96) 90 . .

80 ..

! 70 .. '

60 ._

j G0 ..

l 40 _

,g cycte is Refu une 2 30 .. outes.

] 20 .. )

" 10 .. l 8  !

I I - I f I I I I I I I I Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan l1996l FUEL REL1ABIL!!TY INDICATOR The FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR (FRI) for January 1996 was 75.52 X 104 microcuries/ gram. The purpos.e of the FRI is to monitor industry progress in achieving and maintaining a high level of fuelintegrity.

An effective fuelintegrity and performance monitoring program provides a means to detect fuel failures and assess the fuel failure number, physical condition,. exposure, mechanism, and location.

The January FRI value is based on data from January 18 through 31". The days selected are when the plant chemistry values were at equilibrium for steady-state full power operation.

Cycle 16 plant operation started on April 13* and attained 100% on April 23* . During the months of June and July the plant operated at 100% power. The plant tripped at the end ofi:ugust but has operated at 100% during the months of September through January.

The January FRI value of 75.52 X 104 microcuries/g:am indicated an increase from the December FRl value of 63.86 X 104 microcuries/ gram. No new fuel failures were determined to have occurred during the month based on changes in the equilibrium Xenon and lodine data. This is consistent with the normal increase of fission products during a cycle and the increased power production of the peripheral assemblies due to shim bumout and the subsequent power distribution changes with power shifting from the center of the core to the periphery. Recent analysis through January 31,1996, performed by nuclear engineering, indicated four to six failed rods at core average power. The Cesium isotopic analysis indicated failures in several different bumup levels. OPPD personnel estimate that 15 to 25 rods are failed based on the results from the Cycle 15 and 16 RCS chemistry data and the end of Cycle 15 fuelinspection project.

\

The INPO July 1995 report, "WANO Performance Indicator Program Utility Data Coordinator F.eference , )

Notebook" (INPO No.94-009. Rev.1) states the Industry 1995 Goal for fuel reliability is: " units should strive j to operate with zero fuel defects". The 1996 Fort Calhoun Station FRI Performance Indicator goal is to maintain a monthly FRI below 5.0 x 10d microcuries/ gram. A value larger than 5.0 x 10d microcuries/ gram

)

l indicates a high probability of reactor core operation with one or more fuel defects. The 1996 goal can be met after the 1996 RFO.

Data Source: Bostelman/Riva Accountability: Chase /Stafford Trend: Needs increased Mansigement Attention 14

m ControlRoom Deficiencies Added i i Control Roorn Deficiencies Completed d

e CompletedwithinTargetCompletionDate e CompletionRate 50 . .

. 100.0 %

l 4s Goal.Corrpiele80%of CRDefonernes tyTarget CorrpletionDete

, 40 .. . 80.0% e

3 es.ss j 33

, ] 3. 5 s3;os .7,os

.g,

"o 30 .. ~ '

60.0% y I *%

$. 2424 ,, y i

l l

0 20 .. " #

25 =

j b g 38.0%

.. 40.0% $

16 16 I i 54 " 14 E 10 .. .. 20.0%

4 0 i 0.0%

Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov osc Jan-96 ControlRoom Deficiencies l

! i l l 1

i i NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES i i i l

This indicator measures the timeliness of closing Control Room Deficiencies.

i i Target Completion Dates are established by the Emergent Work Committee. The goal is

! to close at least 80% of all CRDs within the Target Due Date.

l 2

There were 33 Control Room Deficiencies completed during January 1996, and 21 were completed within the target completion date.

I

! A Scheduling Coordinator has been assigned to track performance on a weekly basis and j identify problem areas. Revisions have been made to the scheduling process to allow for

! more timely compidion of CRDs.

4 i

i 4

j Data Source: Chase /Kermoade (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber j Trend: Needs increased Management Attention - Performanco Below Goal i

j 15 1

i i

I

. l

~

l m overdue

+ Number of on-Line Control Room Deficiencies 30 '

15 .. " is  !

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-96 l Number of on-Une CRDs l m Overdue

+ Number of Outage control Room Deficiencies 2/  ;  : ::

God . Deone Ovadus j

' ' -- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 l 0

)

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-96 l Number of Outage CRDs l NUMBER OF ON-LINE AND OUTME CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCIES This indicator shows the total number of On-Line and Outage Control Room Deficiencies, and the number of overdue Control Room Deficiencies.

There were 10 on-line (4 were overdue) and 30 outage (2 were overdue) Control Room Deficiencies at the end of January 1996.

1 The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for these indicators are less than 8 overdue on-line and no overdue outage Control Room Deficiencies.

1 Data Source: Chase /Kermoade (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber/ Herman Trend: Needs increased Management Attention - Number of On-Line CRDs

<8 Overdue exceeds goal 16

\

Monthly Personnel Radiation Exposure  ;

e_. Cumulative PersonnelRadiation Exposure

._o_ SCS Goal 138 person-REM {0000g lf l

'"* u = = = = = = = = = = -e 130.. I 120..

110..

100..

90 ..

l

[ 80 ..

og g 70 ..

,b 60 ..

50 ..

40 ..

30 ..

20 .. '

10 .. '

O h  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; ,  ;  ;  ;  ;

Jan Feb IAar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996l COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure for the year is set a 138.0 l person-REM. I The exposure for January 1996 was 1.435 person-Rem (ALNOR), up from 1.061 Rem for November 1995.

. The year-to-date exposure through the end of January was 1455 person-Rem (TLD).

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal for collective radiation exposure is 120 person-rem per year. The current industry best auartile is_.145perspn-rem oer vear._The yearly average , _

for Fort Calhoun Station for the three years from 2/93 thmugh 1/96 was 106.29 person-rem per year.

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: . Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 54 17

~

D Highest Exposure (Month) ,

a HighestExposure(Year) l 5000_.

I OPPD 4500 rnRemlyr.Umit l .>

4000_.

3003 .

4 l

i 2000__

l 1

1000_

l l

1 l

73 73 0 - -

i January-96 l l

MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE I l

During January 1996, an individual accumulated 73 mrem, which was the highest indi-vidual exposure for the month.

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

year. The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal is a maximum of 1,000 mrem.

~

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None 1

18

m FCSCitedViolations(Monthly)

Q FCS Non.0Jted Violations (Monthly)

FCS Cod Violations (12-Month A j erage) GOOD l FCS Non-Cited Violations (12-Math Amrage)

--lis-- Region IV Cited Violdions (12-Month Amrage for Region IV top quartile) 1 I 14 -- k_ _

2  ;

~ ~ ~

~

g.. 3 l

~

8- ~

l C U N3

~

4- 0 0 0 l

~ ~

2-- ~

0 " l 5

'" ' ' " l l lblm l mm l

• W a j a i 8 ,I F U

o z o j ,i 4 JJ 1996l VIOLATION TREND This indicator illustrates a 12-month trend for Fort Calhoun Station Cited Violations, Non-Cited Violations and Cited Violations for the Top Quartile plants in Region IV. Additionally, the Fort Calhoun Station cited and non-cited violations for the past 12 months will be illustrated monthly. The 12-month trend for the Region IV top quartile lags 2-3 months behind the Fort Calhoun Station trend. This !ag is necessary to compile information on other Region IV plants.

The following inspections were completed during January 1996:

IER No. Title 94-24 Monthly Resident inspection To date, OPPD has received fifteen violations for inspections conducted in 1995.

Levellil Violations O LevelIV Violations 10 LevelV Violations 0 Non-Cited Violations _5 Total 15 The 1995 Fort Calhoun Station Goal for this performance indicator is to be at or below the cited violation trend for the top quartile plant in Region IV.

Data Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Tills Trend: None l 4 19

a i

o g NRC Significant Events I

_ industry Av : rage Trend l l GOOD l i

1 1 .- r 3

0.5 .- ,

I 0 e ,

r r - - - - - -

i , , , , ,, ,  :

92-2 92 3 92 4 93 1 93-2 93-3 93 4 94-1 94-2 94-3 944 95-1 i

l Year - Quarter l INPO Significant Events (SERs) 0000g 2 -- y 3y i i i 1-. _

0 - - -

92-2 92 3 92-4 93-1 93-2 93 3 93 4 94 1 94-2 94 3 94-4 95-1 l Year-Quarter l 1

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS This indicator illustrates the number of NRC and INPO Significant Events for Fort Calhoun Station as re-ported 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 and INPO's Nuclear Network.

The following NRC significant events occurred between the 2nd quarter of 1992 and the 1st quarter of 1995:

. 3rd 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.

4th Quarter 1994: A potential accident scenario involving a large break loss of coolant accident or a main i

steam line break inside containment could result in the inoperability of both control room A.C. units.

The following INPO significant events, as reported in Significant Event Reports (SERs), occurred between the 2nd quader of 1992 and the 1st Quader of i995:

2nd Quarter 1992: Intake of Transuranics during Letdown Filter Change-out.

3rd Quarter 1992: 1) RC-142 LOCA; and 2) Premature Lift of RC-142.

1st Quarter 1993: Inoperability of Power Range Nuclear instrumentation Safety Channel D.

2nd Quarter 1993: SBFU Breaker Relay (Switchyard) Plant Trip 4th Quarter 1993: Unexpected CEA Wihdrawal.

1st Quarter 1994: Unplanned dilution of Boron concentration in the RCS, Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission & INPO Accountability: Chase Trend: Positive 20 l

Missed STs Resulting in I.ERs 3 .. ,

GOOD l I

Y 2 .

1 1_

0 0 0 0 ,

93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov ,

1996 4 l

l NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TEST l RESULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS i 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 1996.

On December 28,1994, during the performance of OP-ST-SHIFT-0001, data was not i entered for Steam Generator level per Surveillance Requirements.  !

l The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is 0.

Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs) l Accountability: Chase /Skiles Trend : Positive SEP 60 & 61 21 I

1 >

k

• i

! l I

i i: .

i 1

j 1

i i

1 l

l PERFORMANCE  :

l i

> l j Goal: To strive for Excellence in Operations utilizing the high-i est standards of performance at Fort Calhoun Station that l l result in safe, reliable plant operation in power production.  ;

d i

i!

A i

i i

1 i

I 1

22 i

I

j .

i .

f Not Generation (10,000 MWh) l 40 . .

34.75 34.29 35.08 34.12 i

1 30 ..

l 5

t M2 21.19 g 20 ..

15.29 4

g i e-i i

lC".,

ow i

0 0

{ I i i i i l i  ! 1 I I I

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

) 1996l STATION NET GENERATION During the month of January 1996, a net total of 362257.6 MWh was generated by the i

Fort Calhoun Station. Cumulative net generation for Cycle 16 was 3,008,015.7 MWh at

the end of the month.

Energy losses for August 1995 were attributable to a plant trip during a test of a backup automatic shutdown system, which began on August 24th. The generator was brought

back on-line at 3

43 p.m. on Saturday, August 26th, after a two-day outage.

Energy losses for May 1995 were attributable to: (1) the component cooling water, which was leaking into the lube oil system of RC-3D reactor coolant pump motor; and (2) the generator and reactor were again manually tripped because of a similar leak. The gen-erator was put on-line after replacement of all of the reactor coolant pump lube oil cooler

heat exchangers.

Data Source: Station Generation Report I Accountability: Chase Trend: None  !

23 1

4

, , Forced Outage Rate (Monthly)

% Forced Outage Rate (12 Months) l CDoD l e ' Fort Calhoun Goal (1 A%)

40% . .

3f 35% .

30%.. '

l 25%.. l 20%..

15% ..

i i

10%..

5%-- 3.m , , _ , .

taas . yg -

g. - - .- 2  :~  :  : -

0% O ; rm i i k$'h,-[ i

; i 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 96 .

l i

FORCED OUTAGE RATE The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 3.7% for the twelve months from February  ;

1,1995, through January 31,1996. The 1996 year-toalate FOR was 0.0% at the end of )

the month. l l

Energy losses for August 1995 were attributable to a plant trip during a test of a backup l automatic shutdown system, which began on August 24th. The generator was brought l back on-line at 3:43 p.m. on Saturday, August 26th, after a two-day outage.

! l Energy losses for May 1995 were attributable to two separate shutdowns to repair com-ponent cooling water leaks in the lube oil system of RC-3D reactor coolant pump motor oil.

The generator was put on-line after replacement of all four of the reactor coolant pump lube oil cooler heat exchangers.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 1.4%.

Date Source: Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: Needs increased Management Attention 24

1 l

J .

i i Monthly LNt Capacity Factor

...s... Yaar-to.nete thit CapacityFactor g

thit Capacity Factor for Cp:les 15 & 16

36-Month Awrage thit Capacity rector GOOD l

" FCS Goal (82.0%)

4 110%..

100%.. _

4 . _ _ _ _ T  : --

E E i a,  ;-  ;  ;  ;

3=

• g . ............ .. >

70%.. ^*""

~, y / -

-, , , . .e, . . . .

60% ..

u "*'#g ..

50*/. _

40%..

]

30*/. .. cyci. e Refu.fing 20%.. o.

10%..

0% I  !

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 1996l l

i UNIT CAPACITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unit Capacity Factor, the Unit Capacity Factor for the current fuel cycle, year-to-date and the 36-month average Unit Capacity Factor.

At the end of the month, the Cycle 16 Unit Capacity factor was 89.94%, and the Unit Capacity Factor for the last 36 months was 81.8%. The 1996 Fort Calhoun annual goal for this indicatoris 4)2.00%.

The year-to-date value is 101.86% '

Energy losses for May and August 1995 are discussed on the previous page.

The Unit Capacity Factor is computed as follows:  !

Net Electrical Enerav Generated (MWH)

Maximum Dependable Capacity (Mwe) X Gross Hours in the Reporting Period 1

i

, l Data Source: Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: None 25

t a

i i Monthly EAF

__e _ Year-to-Date Average Monthly EAF

+ 12-Month Average EAF w Industry Median Value (76.7%for a 3 Year Average) i 100% . . e 7.as e s.ss , , ,

_ -  :-  :. , = =

X X X X j O'T M--K

~

60%..'

40%..

Cycle 15 R ef ueHng outase 20%..

0% -

92 94 Fet>95 Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF), the year-to-date average monthly EAF, and the year-end average monthly EAF for the previous three years.

The EAF for January 1996 was reported as 98.95%. The year-to-date monthly average EAF was 85.2% at the end of the month.

Energy losses for May and August 1995 are explained on page 24.

i The Fort Calhoun average monthly EAF for the three years prior to this report was 88.73%.

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

Data Source: Dietz/Kulisek (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None 26 ,

l l

, , Monthly Unit capatWRy Factor

...m... Year-to-Date Unit capability Factor N

+ 36-Month unit Capability Factor

+ FortCalhoun(bals

INPoindustry Goals Year 2000 100% . . - - - - - - -

80%.. -+---f-

~~

y ~'"! -f~ _,

j, , , , .[ -h C i l ',,, a. ..... a- " '

60% . - - -

'm ...a.....m~'

40% .. -

i Cycle 15 Ref ue* tag -

20%.. 0 **2'

)

l j 0%  ;  ; i .

I Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jan l1995l l1996l l

l UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR l This indicator shows the plant monthly Unit Capability Factor (UCF) value, the year-to-

! date UCFs, the 36-month average UCFs, and the UCF goals. UCF is defined as the ratio l of the available energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy l generation (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage (refueling periods excluded).

l The UCF for January 1996 was reported as 100.0%. The year-to-date UCF was 81.2%,

the UCF for the last 12 months was 81.2%. and the 36-month average UCF was reported as 88.4% at the end of the month.

1 Energy losses for May and August 1995 are explained on page 24. I The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 87% and the industry current best quartile value (for the three-year period ending 12/94) is approximately 85%. The 1996 Fort Calhoun an-nual goal for this indicator is a minimum of 83.56%.

l Data Scurce: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: None 27 9

, , MonefyU$lamedQpatstyLoss factor lGOODj 4 Year-ToOnteUhplannedOnpabihtyLossFactor  ;

12-Month Auerage lhplanned Opabeyl. ass Factor y  ;

+xFortOlhamChal(3.00W

Year 2000 tPOlndustryGoal(4.5% l

.-e hdustryOwrentBestnartile l 10%.

A 0% =  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jm Jd Aug Sep Oct f&w Dec 1996l l

l UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unplanned Capability Less Factor (UCLF), the year-to-date UCLF and the goal. 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 l could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conditions), expressed as a percentage.

The UCLF for the month of January 1996 was reported as 0.00%. Unplanned energy loss is defined as the energy that was not produced during the period of unscheduled shutdowns, outage extensions, or load reductions due to causes under plant manage-ment control. Energy los;ses are considered to be unplanned if they are not scheduled at least four weeks in advance. The year-to date UCLF was 0.00%, the UCLF for the last 12 months was 8.53%, and the 36-month average UCLF was reported as 4.5% at the end of the month.

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 3.0% and the industry current best quartile value is approximately 3.2% or lower. The

• 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a ,

maximum value of 3.0%. l Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: Needs increased Management Attention.

m 28 C

q ._- - .__

e FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical Year-to-Date

+ FCS Reactor scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical for last 36 months Fort Calhoun Goal (0.0)

., Year 2000 INPo industry Goai(1)

= Industry Upper 10% (1 per 7,003 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> critical) 3..

2 - -

N _ _ _ _

1- - - - -  ! 'T T = 1 1 C 5 5 5 5 5 '

5 5 5' 5 5 5 0:  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jan

' FCS Reactor Scrams 1990 4.

3 3 .

2 2..

1 1 1 1..

0 0  :  ; l  ;

92 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL The upper graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical (as defined in INPO's 12/93 publication " Detailed Descriptions of Interna- '

tional Nuclear Power Plant Performance Indicators and Other Indicators") for Fort Calhoun Station. The lower graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams that occurred during each month for the last twelve months.

The year-to-date station value was 0.0 at the end of January 1996. The value for the 12 months from Febuary 1,1995, through January 31,1996 was 1.0. The value for the last  ;

36 months was 1.21.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is a maximum of one unplanned automatic reactor scram per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical. The indus-try upper ten percentile value is approximately 0.48 scrams per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical.

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

Accountability: Chase Trend: Needs increased Management Attention (Above FCS Goal) 29

i 1 -

i Safety System Actumbons ONPO Ekfruban)

_e_ R:SGoal(0)

+ IndustryUpper10 Percentde(0) 3.

l 2._ ,

i i l

I 1 1 1 1 .

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

92 94 Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan46 l

j l UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(INPO DEFINITION)  ;

. \

1 There were no INPO unplanned safety system actuations during the month of January 1996.

There was one INPO unplanned safety system actuation during the month of August 1995. It occurred on August 24,1995, when the plant was tripped during a test of a j backup automatic shutdown system. The generator was brought back on-line at 3:43 i p.m. on August 26th, after a two-day outage.

An INPO unplanned safety sytem actuation also occurred during the month of July 1992 l due to the loss of an inverter and the subsequent reactor trip or. 7/3/92.

l The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0.

Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports Accountability: Skiles/Foley/Ronning Trend: Positive 30 l

e m safety system Actuations (NRC Defintion)

, , FCs Goal (0) criticalHours

_.,_. 12-Month Running Total sSAs (NRC Definition) 10 . .

. 800 4

n ..700

, _ on.

, ..600

.h 3 6-- ..500 u e

< =

E ..400 S

1. .G

{J 1

..300 E*

I E

..200 l

2. h::::=-

_ _ _ _ . .100 .

O l, , .ill l

; - - ;;1 '

_;t;;;

:::_. '

0 92 9394 95 DJFMAMJ JAsONDJFMAMJJASONDJ l1994l l1995l l

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(NRC DEFINITION)

This indicator shows the number of unplanned safety system actuations (SSAs), which includes the High and Low Pressure Safety injectl5n Systems, the Safety injection Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRO classification of SSAs includes actua-tions 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. Also, there was l an unplanned SSA during the month of February 1994 whec supervisory relay 86B/CPHSS failed, which resulted in a concurrent turbine and reactor trip.

There have been no unplanned safety system actuations in the last 12 months. The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0.

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

Accountability: Skiles/Foley/Ronning Trend: None 31

- . . . - . - . - - - - . . - . - - - - - . . . - _.--.- -. - - . - . .- _-_ - - ~. - -- -

.l i

f e Gross Heat Rate

1. Ysar.to-Date Gross Heat Rate Fort Calhoun (bal 10.75 .

7 10.5 10266 0' 'e sit use E --

{ 10 .. g'

, creie is 9.75 .. oUe*e" e

9.5 __

9.25 92 93 94 95 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jan 95 l

GROSS HEAT RATE This indicator shows the Gross Heat Rate (GHR) for the reporting month, the year-to-date GHR, the goals and the year-end GHR for the previous three years.

The gross heat rate for Fort Calhoun Station was 10,026 for the month of January 1996.

The 1996 year-to-date GHR was 10,196 at the end of the month.

! "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 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is 10,166. l Data Source: Bostelman/Willett (Manager / Source) ,

Accountability: Chase /Skiles Trend: None*

l 32

9 e

e MonthlyThermalPerformance g

, ,12-Month Average

+ Year-tocate Average MonthlyThermalPerformance

_.o Fort Cahoun Goal (99.6W

+ Year 2000 INPO lndustry Goal (99.5%) l l c industry Upper 10%(99.7N 100% -.

c  : O C C C C C o

= c  :  : -c  : = c o 99 % .

l l

I i

l 98 % - '  ;

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l1996l THERMAL PERFORMANCE ,

This indicatcr shows the Therm al Performance Value for the reporting month, the year-to-date average monthly thermal performance value, the Fort Calhoun goals, the 1996 INPO l industry goal and the approximate upper ten percentile value.

l The thermal performance value for January 1996 was 99.15. The year-to-date average i monthly thermal performance value was 99.15, at the end of the month. The average monthly value for the 12 months from February 1,1995, through January 31,1996, was 99.35%.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a minimum of 99.6%. The 1995 Fort Calhoun goalwas a minimum of 99.5%. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 99.5%

and the industry upper 10 percentile value is approximately 99.9%. l Data Source: Skiles/Naser(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Gorence Trend: Adverse 33

e 9

+Ihoffnd output s-. Fort Ca0WJn 1406 MWGoal

TodiSpec1800 MWL knit j 1500,,.g.._#...4.. 4.......,_ #. . .. . . &..#.._ , _ , 3. 3 #..... ...g. .t._6._.a,. g . 3 .& ..t _.i._ , .t i

1400 .

1408. i 1

1st.

140s : ============================--a 1404. >

1483.

14E2 . ,

1 23 4 567 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728203031 DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT The thermal output graph displays the daily operating power level during January 1996, the 1500 thermal megawatt average technical specification limit, and the 1495 thermal megawatt Fort Calhoun goal.

Data Source: Bostelman/Willett (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Short Trend: None 34

^

I

,_ Number of Equipment Forced Outages (Monthly)

1. Equipment Forced Outage Rate /1,000 Critical Hrs. (1244onth Interval) GOOD l

__e_ Fort Calhoun Year-End Goals (0.2) q7 2.

l l

1__

i I

l u n j c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : o l 0 -  :

93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES s PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS  ;

The equipment forced outage rate per 1,000 critical hours for the 12 months from Febru-  !

ary 1,1995, through January 31,1996, was 0.41. The year-to-date rate per 1,000 critical hours for the months from January through November 1995 was 0.459 An equipment forced outage also occurred on February 20,1995, when the plant experi-enced a problem with a control element assembly motor drive and a related small leak of reactor coolant.

i Two equipment forced outages also occurred during May 1995, which were attributable to the component cooling water, which was leaking into the lube oil system of RC-3D reactor coolant pump motor.

The 1996 Fort CElhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.20.

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

Accontability: Chase /Skiles Trend:

Needs increased Management Attention 35

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

o 4

g ==9 -

is.

-*- N D 16.

, '%3._... ,,.._....+......_.3 g ,, . s .

~,_

~

e s. s -7 6 - - -

"N j j j 4; . .

2.

O i S. O N D J- F M A M J J A s 0 N D ..

94 95 Ds A getN e rm al Use 83.8%

in itia l in s t a lla tie a 4.6 %

. j T e sting A ctle n 4.5 % l M alatenance M anuf acturing

' i O the r D evices *'

9 % 4 S%

E n gin e e rin glD e sig n COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

The top chart illustrates the number of component categories, application categories and total categories in which the Fort Calhoun Station has significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than the industry failure rates during the past 18-month Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) reporting period (from April 1994 through September 1995). Fort Calhoun Sta-tion reported a higher failure rate in 6 of the 87 component categories (valves, pumps, motors, etc.) during the past 18-month CFAR period. The station reported a higher failure rate in 7 of the 173 application' categories (main steam stop valves, auxiliary / emergency feedwater pumps, con-trol element drive motors, etc.) during the past 18-month CFAR period.

The pie chart depicts the breakdown by INPO cause categories (see the " Definitions" section of this report for descriptions of these categories) for the 44 failure reports (failure discovery dates within the 18-month CFAR period) with known failure causes that were submitted to INPO by Fort Calhoun Station. A total of 72 failure reports were submitted to INPO with discovery dates within the 18-month CFAR period.

Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/ Dowdy Trend: None 36

4

+ Components with more than One Failure

+ Components with more than Two Failures 15 .

7 10 .

, 7 6 6  ;

5 4 4 4 N' _A'

' i 1 1 1 0 - -

0 0

0 0

F45 Mar Apr May Jun, Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J46 i

REPEAT FAILURES l The Repeat Failures indicator (formerly called the

• Maintenance Effectiveness Performance indicator) was l developed in response to guidelines set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis I and Evaluation of Operational Data (NRC/AEOD). The NRC requirement for a Maintenance Effectiveness  ;

Performance Indicator has been discontinued, but station management considers it useful to continue to track repetitive component failures using the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS).

l This indicator shows the number of NPRDS reportable components with more than one failure during the 18-month Component FaBure Analysis Repori (CFAR) period (failure discovery dates from April 1994 through i SeptemberJuly 1995) and the number of NPRDS reportable components with more than two failures during I the 18-month CFAR period.

During the last 18-month CFAR period, there we e 6 NPRDS components with more than one failure. One of these 6 NPRDS reportable components had more than two failures. Recommendations and actions to l correct these repeat failures are listed in the Biannual CFAR. The description and tag numbers of the 1 NPRDS reportable components with more than one failure are listed below:

• Raw Water Pumps AC-10A, and AC-100 Reactor Protection System Channel'A' Axial Power Distribution Trip Calculator Multiplier / Divider Module Al-31A-AW15-B4,5 Reactor Coolant Pump Motor RC-3D-M

• Containment Cooling Coil VA-88, CCW Outlet Valve V/P-403C Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None 37

g Radianctive Waste Buned This Month (cu.ft.)

- Year-to-Date Cumulatsw Radioactive Waste Buned Good

_o___ Fort Calhoun Goal (600 cu.ft.) ,

Y 600.00 .. e c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

500.00 ._

400.00 ..

Y l

$ 300.00..

o 200.00 ..

l 100.00 .

l 0.00  :  ;  ;  ;  ;  :  :  :

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996l VOLUME OF LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE This indicator shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumula-tive year-to-date radioactive waste buried, the Fort Calhoun and INPO goals, and the approximate industry upper 10%.

. Cu.Ft.

Amount of solid radwaste shipped off-site for processing during current month 0  ;

Volume of solid radwaste buried during current month 0  !

Cumulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1996 0 Amount of solid radwaste in temporary storage 184.1 The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for the volume of solid radioactive waste (buried) is 600 cubic feet. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 45 cubic meters (1,589 cubic feet) per year.

The industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 27.33 cubic meters (965.3 cubic .

feet) per year. ]

Data Source: Chase /Breuer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers l Trend: None ,

SEP 54 38

< s e SecondarySystem CPI e 12 Month Average l

+ Fort Cahoun Goal (1 A) 0000 l i 1.6 . .

y 1.5 _

1A .

1.3 ..

1.2 ..

1.1 ._ g i I  ! I I l I I I I I I l- l Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan l 1996l 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 CPI for January 1996 was 1.37. The 12-month average CPI value was 1.29 at the end of the month.

The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) has risen in January 1996 because the new INPO industry median values are in affect. These values are generally lower, while the Fort Calhoun Station values have not changed. This will continue to cause the Chemistry Perfromance Index to be higher than in the past.

The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) was above the goal in July due to slightly higher than average sodium and chloride values. Also the values provided as industry averages by INPO for 1995 are considerably lower than FCS historically has been able to achieve for secondary chemistry vahes. Iron, the one industry average that we are below, almost by half, does not assist in lowering the CPI because of the way the CPI is calculated.

Data Source: Spires /Reneaud (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Spires Trend : Positive due to performance better than goal 39

1 CHEMISTRY Action LEVELS EXCEEDED l Event Days + Average Event Days +Limt l 4

3.5 3

2.5 2 - -

o5-g _

~g i If 11 i !r * $ i 2 i y li a 8 & & 8 8 s & 8 & s s M ONTH h

CHEMISTRY ACTION LEVELS EXCEEDED - EVENT DAYS 1

l The Chemistry Action Levels Exceeded indicator tracks the number of days in which chemistry l parameters exceeded a corresponding action level for the reporting month, as well as a 12 month  !

average of days an action level is exceeded. The parameter action levels are delineated in Chem- l istry procedure CH-AD-0003, Plant System Chemical Limits and Corrective Actions.

i An action level is considered to have been exceeded for the purpose of this indicator, whenever the parameter exceeds the CH-AD-0003 action level for the current system mode, with the excep-tion of the Steam Generators during Mode 1.

The Steam Generators are considered tu have exceeded an action level in Mode 1 when the plant power is greatei than 30% and the power is changing less than 5% per day. l 1

The number of event days can exceed the number of days in a month since each event is counted separately and there can be multiple events per day.

]

The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is the 12 month average of two event days per month. There is no goal established for the number of event days per individual month.

Historical data is used to calculate the monthly average event days. The 12 month average was calculated by dividing the number of event days by the number of preceding months, until twelve months were reached.

Two events occured in which hydrazine was low out of specification in the feedwater sys-tem due to problems with the chemical injection system.

Data Source: Chase / Spires Accountability: Spires Trend: None 40 1

l

o l

l

! Goal 5.00 i

4.00 . __

i I

l g 3.00 . = _

8 x

l 8 2.00 . _

l 1.00 -__ _

0.00 i i i i i ...,.. i t i i i Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan M onth t

l PRIMARY SYSTEM LITHlUM % HOURS OUT OF LIMIT i The Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit indicator tracks the hours per

month that the primary system lithium is out of specification.

j The Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit was 0.0% for the month of Janu-ary 1996.

l The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is a maximum of 5% hours out of limit t

i i

i

Data Source

Chase / Spires (Manager / Source)

Accountability

Spires i Trend: None 43 1

I

l i

t COST Goal: Operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as an economi-cally viable contribution to OPPD's bottom line. Cost con-sciousness is exhibited at all levels of the organization.

I i

42 4

0 e Actual e Revised Budget

- . . . . Original Budget Plan 4 .,.

3.75 ..

3.5 .. -

g 3.25 ..

!s 3d.

i u 2.75 ..

2.5 ..

2.2r ..

2  ; ; , , ,  ;  ; , ,

D91 D92 D93 D94 D95 J96 F M A M J J A s O N D D96 D97 D98 D99 Months ,

l CENTS PER KILOWAT HOUR j 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 kilowatt hour on a 12-month rolling average for the current year. The basis for the budget curve is the approved 1994 and 1995 revised budgets. The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating Report.

The December 31 amounts are also shown for the prior years 1991 through 1994. In addition, the report shows the plan amounts for the years 1996 through 1999 for refer-ence. The basis for the dollars are the Nuclear Long Range Financial Plan and the 1995 Corporate Planning and Budget Review. The basis for the generation is provided by Nuclear Fuels.

The 12-month average unit price (3.16 cents per kilowatt hour for December 1995) aver-aged above the budget due to 12-month generation not meeting the budget expectations, and 12-month expenses exceeding the budget. The Unit Price for the current month (January 1996) is not available at this time.

Data Source: Scofield/Jamieson (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Scofield Trend: None 43

~

j g NuclearServices Division 3

O Prom Wrmering Division

g NuclearOperationsDMsion

! 5 TotalNuclear

) 8G0 .. "' ns vs.

' M7 M7 ng yg 700.. l i

j 600..

500 .. 4s7 4ss 4s2 y ,,,

j 400..

f 300..

"2 "'

f 200__ So os in Sri

.l tu 117 tis tu t tu 100.. ,

O I I I 1 I I i I  :

3 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Mar-95 Jun45 Sep-95 Dec-95 Mar-96 Jun-96 AdualStarrmg Level l STAFFING LEVEL The actual staffing levels for the three Nuclear Divisions are shown on the graph above. l The authorized staffing levels for 1995 and 1996 are:

l Authorized Staffing 1995 1996 439 432 Nuclear Operations Division 185 175 Production Engineering Division 115 113 Nuclear Services Division 739 720 Total l Data Source: Ponec\Balis (Manager)

Accountability: Ponec Trend: None SEP 24 44

. s 1

+ Spare Parts inventoryValue ($ Million) 16.6 .. -

o 16.5 _

16.4 __

16.3 ._

, 16.2 __

o

} 16.1__

- o 1 E 1 2 16 __

15.9 ..

15.8 _,_

15.7 __

15.6 .

, l l

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan SPARE PARTS INVENTORY The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of January 1996 was reported as $15,614,869.

• Parts being resupplied and replenished following last outage.

Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Willrett/McCormick Trend: None*

45

DIVISION AND l DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Goal: Achieve high standards at Fort Calhoun Station resulting in safe, reliable and cost effective power pro-duction.

i 46 w 'v wy - - _ . - - - __ _ _ _ _ __ -- ----__ ___.____

... - - . . - - . ~ - . - . . . .- . - . - _ . - - - . . - - - . . . ..

l Corrective Mairitenance m Preventive Maintenance hective/ Plant knprovements Fort Calhoun Goal 1000 " "

760 791 72 84 752 759 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 1995l Non outage Maintenance Work Order Backlog l 1996l e Tatad MWosl 493  % Overdue = 58% ,

gy 1 2 3 4 5 Total MWOs = 759 i

l I

MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOG This indicator shows the backlog of non-outage Maintenance Work Orders remaining open at the end of the reporting month.' It also includes a breakdown by maintenance classification and priority. The 1996 goal for this indicator is 400 non-outage corrective maintenance MWOs. The current backlog of corrective MWOs is 473. To ensure that the MWO backlog is worked in a timely manner, non-outage maintenance completion goals have been established as follows:

Goal Priority 1 Immediate Action 2 days Pnonh 2 Urgent 5 days Priority 3 Operational Concems 21 days Priority 4 Routine Corrective 90 days Priority 5 Non-Essential 180 days Continued management attention is required.

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: Adverse SEP 36 47 l

. . - - . . . - . . - . - . . . . - _ - . - . - . - . . - . . . _ . ~ . - . - . - - . . - - - . . . .. - . -

l Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance 100%..

90% ..

80%..

, 70%..

60%.

50% .

0 0% l [ j j  ;  ; j j j  ; g Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan l1996l e Preventive Maintenance items Overdue Fort Calhoun Goal 2% . .

f 1

1%..

I 0% _q . . .-- ..;.

.. _4 4_. . . ; + .j Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan l

RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total com- l pleted non-outage maintenance. The ratio was 55.15% for the month of January 1996. I The lower graph shows the percentage of scheduled preventive maintenance items that are overdue. During January 1996,571 PM items were completed.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for the percentage of preventive maintenance items over-due is a maximum of 0.5%.

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz/Meistad (Manager / Sources)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 41 & 44 l 48

- = - - - .- -. . __

i l

l.

1 l

i e Rework as identfied by Craft  !

_e Fort Calhoun Goal (<3%) l

! 6% . 8 8%

s.:s l

l 5% _

l

I

! I j ill: 4% s .* %

)

l O l h z .2 % .2 %

H f3% .

8 %

8'%

! .s s '

i I

h **%

g 2% ..

, (4 s i

j 1%-.

i l

0% .., .,

l i _. ., j i ...,. ._4_ ... ; ._ .; 9 _. i Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

{

[1996l PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED

, PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK l

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

l This indicator is calculated from the 15th of December to the 15th of January, due to the delay in closing open MWOs at the end of each month.-

! The Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is <3%. A detailed review is conducted of rework items each month to identify generic concems.

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

Accountability

Chase /Faulhaber Trend: Improving i

1 - . _ - _ , _ . . - . - . . . . _ . . _ - . ,

_ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . , ~ . . . _ _ - - .

5 l

• l e Maintenance overtinie

+ 12. Month Average Maintenance Overtime 9 + Fort Calhoun"On-Line" Goal (10%)

i' 45% ..

j lI

{ 40%..

i 35%..

l 30%..

i l 25%..

20%

l .

('

l i 15%.

4

I I, l ,.,

I u. n

. /

10%.. _ c 7 e a l j i I

! 5% .

0% i .;. . ; ... .. ; . _

_;. ... i g_ . .. ;  ;  ; j Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

{ ,  !

N '

l  !

MAINTENANCE OVERTIME The Maintenance Overtime Indicator monitors the ability to perform the desired mainte- -

nance activities with the allotted resources, i The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 12.0% for the month of January 1996. The 12-month average percentage of overtime hours with  !

respect to normal hours was reported as 14.0 % at the end of the month.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly "on-line" goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 10%.  ;

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

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None i 50 l

l l-i Human Performance CRs(Maintenance) l 20 _ .

l 18 __

l i

16 __

m i

! 14 ..

12 ..

10 _.

) u i 3 j j 8__

i 6._

No information Amilable forthe

. 4,_ Months of Sept. and Oct.

2__

0 i l i I I I l Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan i

t PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS (MAINTENANCE)

This indicator shows the number of Condition Reports related to procedural noncompli-ance incidents assigned to the Maintenance Department.

Data Source: Faulhaber Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 15,41 & 44 51

l g% Scheduled ActivitiesCompleted +

. e t Y i t:

0% Emergent Activities. ""

)

~

100.0% -.

l 90.0% -_ a6.5% as.1%

n2% 80.1%

a0.0% -- -

70.0% -- )

ao.c% -.

50.0% ..

40.0% ..

30.0% -- 24.7 %

21.9 % --

19.0% , 19.0 %

20.0% .-

10.0% ..

0.0% .  : .

i i H Oct Nov Dec 85 Jan-86 4

DAILY SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE

PERCENT OF SCHEDULED ACTIVITIES COMPLETED This indicator shows the percent of Integrated Plant Schedule activities completed on schedule. All work groups and activities are included.

. The percent of emergent work is calculated as a percentage of the total number of sched-uled and emergent activities.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for completed scheduled maintenance activities is 85%.

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 33 52 g

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

. i

, l

mas %critmasthehunsoummaryksenantsareinoperaue GOOD

,_.1986rertcahamenl(imt i

2e%.. Y ae%..

22%..

20%..

18%..

10%.. "

14%..

12%. i '

10%.. .  !

8%.. t 8%..

4%..

2%..

% I" I I I l 1 I i  ! I E'g I i

feb Mar Apr May .An .M As Sep 0:t Nw Dec Jan

'"l IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT-OF-SERVICE  ;

This indicator shows the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instruments are inoperable for the reporting month. The chemistry systems involved in this indicator include the Secondary System and the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS).

At the end of January 1996, the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instru-ments were inoperable was 4.32%. The following instruments were out of service during the month:

CE-1547A - Primary Water Storage Tank Specific Conductiviy: awaiting ECN for replacemnet.

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.

Data Source: Chase /Reneaud (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Skiles Trend: None 53

4 m Waste Produced Each Month (KHograms)

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

. _ Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal (150 kilograms)

%__ Federal & State Monthly Limit (Max.of1,000 kg) 1000: x x x x x x x x x x x 800_.

, 600_.

E 2

400 200_.

c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

0  ; I I I I l'  ;  ; -

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec Jan l1995l 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 wast produced during the last 12 months. This hazardous waste consists of non-halogenated hazardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous waste l produced. ]

During the month of January 1996,0.0 kilograms of non-halogenated,0.0 kilograms of halogenated and 0.0 kilograms of other hazardous waste was produced. The total haz-ardoun waste produced during the last 12 months is 470.6 kilograms.

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

The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly average goal for hazardous waste produced is a maxi-mum of 150 kilograms.

Data Source: Chase /Shubert (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Spires Trend: Positive 54

. l l

3 I

e Contammated Radiaten Contro5ed Area Go0D

_e_ FortCahounGoal(1rA)

V 19A - c = = = = = = = = = = a 4

t a

9% .

1. 1. "  ! l l  ! 1 I i 1 ,  ! I I Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 1996l CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA This indicator shows the percentage of the Radiologically Controlled Area that is contami-nated based on the total square footage. The 1996 monthly non-outage goal is a maxi-mum of 10.0% contaminated RCA.

At the end of January 1996, the percentage of the total square footage of the RCA that

. was contaminated was 9.5%.

I Data Source: Chase /Gundal(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: Positive SEP 54 l

55

i

• 1

+ Identified PRWPs (Year to Date)

Fort Calhoun Goal (<20) 20 -

V 18 ..

16 ..

I 14 .

1

& 12 .

1,10

. m.

.2 ,

8.

1 a:

6..

4 .

2..

0 0  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec N

1 RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM '

The Radiological Work Practices Program Indicator shows the number of Foor Radiologi-cal Work Practices (PRWPs) which were identified during the reporting month.

4 The number of PRWPs which are identified each month should indirectly provide a means r to qualitatively assess supervisor accountability for their workers' radiological performance.

During the month of January 1996, there were 0 PRWPs identified.

There have been 0 PRWPs in 1996.

The 1996 year-end goal for PRWPs is a maximum of 20.

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 52

! O Documents Scheduled for Review j g Documents Reviewed

3 Docements Overdue ,

250..

200..

150.

l  !

i "I 100..

50 ..

i i

0 -

Feb 1l Mar

+

Apr i ma+

May Jun i- E+

Jul Aug i

Sep i- k Oct Nov i- E+

Dec Jan k

l 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 Se-curity Plan, Maintenance Procedures, Preventive Maintenance Procedures, and the Op-erating Manual.

During January 1996, there were 217 document reviews scheduled, while 73 reviews were completed. At the end of the month, there were 9 document reviews more than 6 l months overdue. There were 4 new documents initiated during January 1996. Begin-  !

ning in September 1995, these figures include PED and NOD procedures.  !

Data Source: Chase /Plath Accountability: Chase /Skines Trond: None SEP 46 57

-. . - - - . . - . --. - - - - . . - . . . - . . - . - . _ . - . . . - . . . _ _ _ ~ ~

g System FaBures o Non-System Failures D]

38 ..

30 ..

25 . 3 21 21 0 - . . . . - . . - . . .

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)

This graph shows the Loggable/ Reportable Incidents (Security) Indicator and depicts (1) the total number of loggable/ reportable incidents concerning system failures which oc-curred during the reporting month, and (2) the total number of loggable/ reportable inci-dents non-system failures concerning Security Badges, Access Control and Authoriza- i tion, decurity Force Error, end Unsecured Doors.

During the month of January 1996, there were 28 loggable/ reportable incidents identi-fied. System failures accounted for 93% of the loggable/ reportable incidents. Thirteen (13) of the twenty-six (26) system failures were environmental failures due to inclement weather. However, it should be noted that most of the microwave non-environmental failures were also due to the extreme cold weather. There were two non-system failures, one was due to a lost / unattended security badge, and the other was due to security force error.

This indicator provides information on security performance for Safety Enhancement Pro-gram (SEP) Item No. 58.

Data Source: Sefick/Woerner (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Sefick Trend: None SEP 58 58

. - . _.- . - . - . . - - . - - __ - - -. . - .- - = .- -- . . _ - - _ .

4

, , Temporary Modmcations >1-cycle old (rev required for removal) m Temporary Modifications >6 months old (Removable on-line) )

+ Fort calhoun Goals for >1-cycle and >6 months old i 7 -. ' '

o , , , , , , , , , , ,

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan j j1996l 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 modi- l fications removable on-line that are greater than six months old. The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly 1 goals for this indicator are zero. However, one temporary modification (BAST level indication)  !

has been approved by management to exceed these goals due to cost effectiveness consider- i ations (reference PED-STE-94-042).  !

There is currently 1 temporary modification that is greater than one-fuel cycle old requiring a i refueling outage to remove: RC-3D cover gasket pressure indicator, which is awaiting comple-  ;

tion of MWO 940868, which is scheduled for a future refueling outage whenever cover gaskets i are replaced. In addition, at the end of January 1996, there were 6 temporary modifications  ;

installed that were greater than six months old that can be removed on-line. These were: 1) Local indication for BAST CH-11A and CH-11B, in which Licensing sent FLC 94-001 to the NRC 6/27/

95 for approval; 2) Control system for intensifier on HCV-2987, which is awaiting completion of  ;

ECN 94-280, scheduled for completion 12/95; 3) brace to instrument air (IA) header "T' to water i plant, which is awaiting cornpletion of ECN 94-482, scheduled for completion 12/95; 4) braces on )

main lA header, which is awaiting completion of ECN 94-482, scheduled for completion 12/95; 5) '

HE-3 Crane safety line, which is awaiting completion of ECN 95-054, scheduled for completion 2/

96. 6) "A" Channel RPS VHPT capacitor, which is awaiting completion of MR-FC-95-010, DEN-Electrical to issue a 1996 on-line mod; 7) Wire spliced on Inverter D bypass transformer EE-4R which has a completion date of 02/08/96.

At the end of January 1996, there was a total of 28 TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station. 9 of the 28 installed TMs require an outage for removal and 19 are removable on-line. In 1996, a total of 5 temporary modifications have been installed.

Data Source: Skiles/ Turner (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Gorence i Trend: Continued Management Attention is Needed SEP 62 & 71 59 i

4 i

. i TotalModficaten Packages open

,, _e FortcahounYearEndGoal 100 ..

90 ..

" " es as

:  :  :  :  :  : o 80 ..

40 ..

30 .. 1 20 ..

10 ..

0  : l  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 96 OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS This indicator shows the total number of outstanding modifications (excludina outstandina modifications which are proposed to be cancelled).

Reporting Cateoorv '93 '9f '25 '9Q '9Z '9@ Month I Form FC-1133 Backlog /In Progress 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Mod. Requests Being Reviewed 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 Design Engr. Backlog /in Progress 0 0 0 19 1 11 31 ,

Construction Backlog /in Progress 5 0 12 10 0 0 27 Design Engr. Update Backlog /In Progress 0 3 4 0 0 0 7 Totals 5 3 16 33 1 11 69 (Outage + OnLine) (3+2) (0+3) (7+9) (20+13) (0+1) (11+0) (41+28) i At the end of January 1996,1 modification request had been issued this year and 0 modification requests have been cancelled. The Nuclear Projects Review Committee (NPRC) has conducted 4 backlog modification request reviews this year. The Nuclear  :

Projects Committee (NPC) has completed 0 backlog modification request reviews this year.

The 1996 year-end Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum of 65 outstanding modifications.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Scofield/Lounsberry (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Scofield/Skiles Trend: None 60

- - ~ . . . .._ _-_ . _. ~ - _ - . - .- . . . . . . _ - . . _

1 4

80 -. EARS Requiring Engineering Closeout . Not in Closeout 60 -- g SE O DEN 40 __ -

20 ..-

o _ , , m n n m r, . r--i E , , M.

j Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan Nov Dec Jan j 0 3 Months 3 6 Months 612 Months >12 Months

O Engineering Response a closeout (sE)

! 20 ..

O  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

M  ; ,

j Priority 0 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6

, Priority 1 & 2 Priority 3 l, . . .o. . . Total Open EARS l 200..

i G******'G""'8"**'**G"""'

150 _

'""*'s"- o......o......o......o.......g..

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

! 1995 1996 73 EARS 67 EARS on 20 overdue R equiring sched ule "**

'fg Response g,, 52.4%

ciosf"s' ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST BREAKDOWN l

{ This indicator shows a breakdown of the number of EARS assigned to Design Engineering and System Engineering. The 1996 year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum of 140

! outstanding EARS.

i Total EAR breakdown is as follows: l EARS opened during the month 6 EARS closed during the month 6 Total EARS open at the end of the month 109 i i Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Man'ager/ Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski

~

Trend: None SEP 62 61 i__

._. s. _ . -- - - . . ~ . - . - _ - . . _ . . - . . . . . . - . . - - - . . - . . - _ - . - - . ~ . - . . . . - - _ - - - - _ - _ ,

e e

~4 DEN 03M nths CLO EOUT 65 CONS  % 1 gg -6 M onths l 12 %

ECN Status-Overall Backlog B Bacidogged O Received g Completed n

250 . o 3 Mornhs

., es wr 34 no ,, as%

Ok k k I: L k ..

40- Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jarl 86 Months 3-6 Months se% 15 %

Design Engineering 2M. ,,,

2"- " ;" N .

is0 . .. ......

100. '8 78 72 78 * * " * .t hs s%

b b N E0 I"". k '

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan  !

System Engineering 260

• U2 200. . , , , ,g , ,,, ur we #8 >$ '

'8" 4 3.s 0 .I"N o nth Aug Sep Oct iby Dec Jan 13 % m n, m

Procurement / Construction a

250. 3 3 s uesas o-s usems 7" 200 4 54 Jan "

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Drafting / Closeout ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Skiles Trend: None SEP62 62

- - _ _- _ ___ _ _ _ _._ ___ _ - .- - .. ~ . _ _ . _ . .. _.... .. .- . .. .. - - -. _ _. .. - .~ . . - .

j

c 4

201 31 DC TYP E 5&s P 3

"'",fg' ' Total Open ECNs = 550 Total Open ECNs = 550 0 DEN . Closecut or Drafting Not Cornplete 30 27 3 Maintenance / Construction /P recurement . Work Net Conglete P rio rity P riority 5 System 5nelneering . Response, confirmation Not Complete 5&s 142 5 DEN - Eng6neering Not Complete 15 % 13 %

250..

200.- we w4 we we ws 281

, ,. 8, , ,  ;

144 Aug Sep g ec.ps J an-96 # '# I g4

, 72%

32 75 27s 2H Priority 22 281 261 269 Priority

25) . 50 548 1&2 n w

, e s2 3 17 0 i i i i i Priority 8

Aug Sep Od Ptw Dec OS M , ,"%

u w m a n o ,en ,

l 100. P riority 77 "

30 , u 7s s% l o

, p 0 i i i P 'lly I g

i i Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec-96 Jan-96 as% Priormy Document Change ECNs Open ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Trend: None 63 1

I

O Administrative Control Problem a Licensed operator Error g other PersonnelError g Maintenance Problem O Design / construction / installation / Fabrication Problem g EquipmentFailures 2.

1.. .

0  ;  ;

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l1995l LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN This indicator shows the LERs by event date broken down by Root Cause Code for each of the past twelve months from January 1,1995, through December 31,1995. To be consistent with the Preventable / Personnel Error LERs indicator, this indicator is reported by the LER event date, as opposed to the LER report date.

The cause codes are intended to identify possible programmatic deficiencies. For de-tailed descriptions of these codes, see the " Performance Indicator Definitions" section of this report.

There was one event in December 1995 that resulted in an LER.

Data Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None 64

e O Total Requalmcation TraininD Hours a simulator Training Hours a Non-Requalification Training Hours a Number of Exam Failures 40 . . 37 35.5 34,3 35 35 -- g 32 30 ..

< 26 25 .. ~

20 _

97 5 16 4

15 ..

u 2 2 10 .. .5 8 6 5 3 4 5.. 3 2.5 3 2

0 0 0 0 0 0._ j l _

l [ j [ l Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle 94-7 95 1 95-2 95 3 95-4 95-5 954 95-7

• Note 1:The simulator was outef-service during Cycle 94-4.

" Note 2: Includes 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of General Employee Training.

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 APO/EOP verification & validation, INPO commitments, GET, Fire Brigade, Safety Meetings, and Division Manager lunches.

Exam failures are defined as failures in the written, simulator, and Job Performance Measures (JPMs) segments of the Licensed Operator Requalification Training.

Requalification Training Rotation 95-7 was not completed during January. Therefore, no data is available.

Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 65 l

d g SROExams Administered O SRo Exams Passed O Ro Exams Administered g RoExams Passed j 10 ..

)

=.

5..

O  ;  ;

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l1994l l1995l 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.

During the month of January 1996, there were O RO and 0 SRO exams given, due to Requalification Training Rotation 95-7 not being completed during the month of January.

Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 66

g OpenIRs >6 Months Oki l

, i OpenSignificantIRs l

._, TotalOpenIRs l

600 ..

500..

400..

300.. as4 33 249 228 22

. 200.. s ,, ,, ,,

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jd Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec. Jan 1996 OPEN INCIDENT REPORTS This indicator shows the total number of Open irs, irs greater than 6 months old, and the number of open significant irs.

Also, at the end of January 1996, there were 351 open irs. 284 of these irs were

' greater than 6 months old. There were 99 Open Significant irs at the end of the month.

These numbers have been restated to reflect the elimination of CARS from the system.

As of April 21,1995, CARS are no longer being issued. As of September 21,1995 Inci-dent Reports are no longer issued. All future corrective actions will be documented on Condition Reports.

Data Source: Conner /Plott (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Andrews/Gambhir/Patterson Trend : None 67 i

O Totah hatage MWOs a MwosReadytoWork a00 . 728 g

700..

MWOHOLDE 600 ..

em 500.. e% y NFB/EW 100.- e%

0 i i i i Oct P4w Dec Jan-06 l

MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUELING OUTAGE)

This indicator shows the total number of Maintenance Work Requests (MWRs) and Main-tenance Work Orders (MWOs) that have been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 16 Refueling' Outage. This graph indicates:

Parts Holds - Planning Complete, Awaiting Parts System Engineering Holds - Awaiting System Engineering input to Planning Planner Holds - Maintenance Planner has not completed planning the work package.

- ECN Hold - Awaiting Substitute Replacement items ECN from DEN.

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 31 68-

NO DATA AVAILABLE AS OF 02/15/96 4

SPECIAL SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage)

This performance indicator shows the status of projects which are in the scope of the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage. SSED's goal is to have all projects completed by August 23, 1996, 30 days prior to the Refueling Outage start date.

Data Source: Skiles/Sweamgin (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Boughter Trend: None SEP 31 69

o e

- Baselane SchedtAs for PRC Approval

+ Projected /ActualScheduleforPRC Approval m'--Final Design Pkg Isaued (2 FD DCP lasued Pro r t0 05/0795)

Total M oddicate n Packages (20)(9 Added After 05/0795)

I 9 -

lir 8 .

5

57. j 1 12 6.

g 1

}u y h t.

\

cl3.

x h 2. -

$1 l U-0 . - l 5 Es 5 -

y55_5- M 5 PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE (1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING)

(FROZEN SCOPE OF 9 OUTAGE MODIFICATIONS)

This indicator shows the status of Modifications approved for installation during the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage. Modifications added to the outage list after May 1,1995, are not part of this indicator. The data is represented with respect to the baseline schedule (es-tablished June 16,1995) and the current schedule. This information is taken from the modification variation report produced by Design Engineering Nuclear.

The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages which were identified prior to May 1,1995, PRC approved by March 22,1996. 6 Modifications added after May 1, 1995, not included.

January 1996 Modifications added: 0 Deleted = 0 Graph corrected to represent the baseline schedule.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 70

e v

Baselme Schedule for PRG Approval

_ Projected /ActualSchedule for PRc Approal 10 . .

m 59 -

2 3.5o.

i} 8._ i t i >. .: ;;; - '

' .i;;  ;;.;  ;; i: l ,i 1M/95 2/10/95 3/1785 4G155 5/2655 640/95 8/4/95 95/95 10/13/95 PROGRESS OF 1995 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 9 MODIFICATIONS)

This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for on-line installation during 1995. The data is represented with respect to the baseline schedule (established 1/13/

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

The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages which were identified prior to January 13,1995, PRC approved by October 30,1995.1 modification added after January 13,1995, not included.

This goal was met 09/21/95.

January 1996 Modifications Added: 0 Deleted = 0 Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 71

Y

+ paseline schedule for PRC Approval

.--ab Projected / Actual schedule for PRC Approval Final Des n Package issue

+ Total ification Packages (10)(3 Added After 05S155) 6  :;; g y ,, ,; y, x y - ;; ;; g x 7, , ,; x x ;, ; .; 7 ;; ,, , p ; ;, ;; g y x x ,, _ y 7, ,; g 7 5..

I y 4..

E j 3..

s 2..

1.. -

O  ; ; ; - -

; ; ; _;g ,

6/1645 7/21S 5 8/2555 9G945 11/385 12545 1/1256 2/16 S 6 3/2246 1

PROGRESS OF 1996 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING  !

(FROZEN SCOPE OF 6 MODIFICATIONS)

This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for on-line installation during 1996. Modifications added to the on-line list after May 1,1995, are not part of this indica-tor. The data is represented with respect to the baseline schedule (established June 16, 1995) and the current schedule. This information is taken from the Modification Variation Report produced by Design Engineering Nuclear.

The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages which were identified prior to May 1,1995, PRC approved by March 25,1996.1 Modification added after May 1, 1995, not included. I January 1996 Modifications Added: 0 Deleted = 0 Graph corrected to represent the baseline schedule. '

l Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)  !

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski l Trend: None SEP 31 72 i l

La u,-a.,a-ma-46A>,Am-elb-4A&b'9-.h bBAnMamb ae44 set a A Am4-so neem-a- AG*'MM M-O- m4Ks,Aa -eoA-,Aande-W=-JJ--w-'~w am-n4m---Esm--.a44We a'Ade m mm m,aama,m,s.a., _ ,,a,____

!I 6

0 4'

l I I

l

)

i I .

l 6

~

ACTION PLANS i

e t

O e

1 i

73 "w m - + r- --- -- -

w- ---- --- - -- ~ _ _ .-- -_---_u -

_ _ - _ ._._m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . .. .__ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ __

ACTION Pt.ANS This section lists action plans that have been developed for the performance indicators cited as Adverse Trends during the month preceding this report. Also included are Action Plans for indicators that have been cited in the preceding month's report as Needing Increased Management Attention for three (3) consecutive months, in accordance with Revision 3 of NOD-QP-37, the following performance indicators would require action plans based on three (3) consecutive months of performance cited as "Needing increased Management Attention";

. Fuel Reliability index (page 14) ,

l

. Thermal Performance (page 33) l

. Maintenance Workload Backlogs (page 47)

THERMAL PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT ACTION PLAN A. PROBLEM STATEMENT-Plant Heat Rate as measured by the INPO Performance Indicator has shown a  !

decreasing performance trend. This is based on decreases seen in total station electrical output, turbine first stage pressure, condenser inlet / outlet differential temperature, and condenser vacuum compared to previous operating cycles.

Another loss is suspected as a result of non-optimum operation of the condensate cooler which controls cooling water to the generator hydrogen coolers, generator stator coolers, and generator field rectifier banks. Operation of this cooler with temperatures below optimum values rejects excessive amounts of thermal energy to the river and decreases overall plant efficiency.

B. GOALS-

1. Improve Plant Heat Rate as measured by the INPO Performance Indicator above the OPPD goal of 99.6%.

2. Improve Plant Heat Rate during periods when the river water temperature exceeds 65'F - 70*F.

3. Improve Plant Efficiency to ensure maximum station electrical generation is achieved and maintained.

74 -

k 4 C. Action (s) Reouired to Accomolish Gals Resp. Date Comments l

1. Review the calculations utilized to justify the power ,

3 increase from 1420 MWT to 1500 MWT as it relates to S.E. 10/30/95 in Progress  ;

secondary plant performance and the condenser evaluation completed during the 93/94 Power Upgrade Study. i i

Action (s) Reouired to Accomplish Goals Resp. Dyg Comments I

2. Evaluate the temperature correction factor utilized to S.E. Completed White Paper submitted correct actual plant heat rate data to design conditions for to Supervisor- System INPO reporting purposes. This mathematical correlation Engineering on 12/07/95 may not accurately reflect the plant derating experienced  ;

at elevated river water temperatures

3. Review current operations procedures for condensate cooler operations. Implement changes required to implement changes to ensure a minimum amount of heat is rejected to the river S.E. Completed Ol-ST-1, P.C. No. 44466 while providing sufficient protection for operating approved 10/11/95.

equipment.

(

75 J

_ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __..__ _______________ _ _ ____________ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ . ..~ .- - . _

i

4. Continue to evaluate operating plant systems to Currently, S.E.  !

determine components operating at less than optimum S.E. O.ngoing reviewing all plant values or requiring maintenance to ensure no impact on parameters on a daily station efficiency. basis.

Resp Date Due Comments l Action (s) Reauired to Accomolish Goals ,

S.E. Ongoing Currently, working <

5. Continue to develop better tools to monitor plant toward another program  !

performance, development of better computer models to thatwill provide predict and quantify equipment performance impacts on computer analysis and i station efficiency. troubleshooting ,

assistance.

i

6. Complete EAR 95-077, Evaluation of Best Method of DEN /SYE Complete EAR response received Measuring Circulating Water Flow 10/30/95

7. Implement corrective actions as outlined in EAR 95-077 DEN /SYE Later Date to be determined using the ECN process by NPRC t

76 I

_ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =w_.___ ___h -

--u---m --_-_?- _a'-a_m_ we,__.-+-m ._ * .- +- -- .

"r .- ---.w-M7

=  :

Fall Fn FUEL ACTION PLAN ,

Problem Statement:

Fuel failures in Cycle 16 have caused elevated reactor coolant system activities subsequently resulting in higher radiological dose rates ( and exposures with access problems) as well as a fuel reliability indicator (FRI) which does t not meet the performance indicator goal. The elevated FRI has resulted in lowering the plant performance indicator index to an undesirable value.

Goal Reduce the reactor coolant activity levels for Cycle 16 operations and take measure to achieve zero defect fuel performance for Cycle 17 and beyond.

Elan i The plan below is compromised of both short term corrective actions to address the Cycle 16 operations goals identified above and long term corrective actions for Cycle 17 and beyond.

SHORT TERM (CYCLE 16 OPERATIONS) ggg ACTION BEEE DATE DUE STATUS i

1. Evaluate replacement of two-micron filter in CvCS with one- Holthaus 1/31/96 Complete.1/4/96. Filter replacement will micron filter. result in improved par 9culate removal and consequenth lower dose rates. ,

1 a. Install one-micron Elters in CVCS Lovett 01/31/96  !

2. Evaluate bene 11ts ofincreasing letdown flow. Holthaus/Spilker 01/19/96 Previoush evaluated in Radiological Analysis95-005,which supports increased letdown flow. ,

i

)

77 t

i  !

! 3. Evaluate need for and effectweness of more frequent of Holthaus 01/12/96 Complete. 01/04/96. Resin bed effec 5ve i purificaton and ceWon ion beds. In minimizing RCS activity. Resin beds ,

replaced in November 1995. ,

IIEM ACTION RESP. Date Due STATUS

, 3a. Replace resin beds dunng Spring 1996 outage. Spires 03/22/96 -

4. Prepare and issue Nuclear Network request for industry 01/12/96 Complete. 01/12/96.Transnitted i experiencein reducing FRI. proposed inquiry to Licensing for  ;

Nuclear Network entry. i t'

5. Evaluate installaton of silver mordenite Altration system Holthaus/ Spires 01/26/96 Received general (unclassited) forincreased iodme removal. Informaton on system used at Savannah River Project.

6. Iden#fy number of old design assemblies to be placed Previously iden##ed eight assembUes to in peripheral locahons for second cycle and consider Holthaus/Guinn 01/12/96 be placed on core periphery for second  ;

replacement with new design assembly cycle.

7. Evaluate whether these assemblies could be used for Holthaus/Guinn 01/19/96 more than one cycle to reduce cost.

8. Determme if Westinghouse can supply the above fuel Complete. 01/12/96. Wes#nghouse has assembEes for Cycle 17. Also, can Fuels Division HolthausHanger 01/12/96 indicated that they can fabricate the provide necessary uranium. assemblies. Cost estmates by Fuels  ;

Division is approx.12M. Discount from I

Westinghouse aiso requested.

9. Evaluate Cycle 18 prelminary pattem same as 5 & 6 Holthaus/Guinn 01/19/96

10. Evaluate Cycle 19 pre 5minary pattem same as S& 6 Holthaus/Guinn 01/19/96

11. Analyze additional assemblies to be procured Holthaus/ Hanger 01/20/96

12. Evaluated cost /benett with assumpton of Holthaus/ Hanger 01/26/96

$10,000/ person exposure.

l 78

_ . _ _ . - . _ . . . . - _ _ . . - _ _ - - - ~ . . - - . - _ _ . - , -- - - _ _ - _

-..-.-n ---- - _ - - _ _ _ - - - _ _ . . - - - - - - , - - . . _ - _ . - - . -

i l .

p The action plan for Maintenance Workload Backlog (page 48) is as follows:

l  !

! A detailed review is being conducted to determine which stage of the maintenance r i process has a higher expected backlog. Areas being reviewed are:  ;

Planning l l Scheduled Maintenance  !

Bulk Work l

l l

e e

l 79

. - . _ ~ ~ - - - - - - - . - - ~ - ._ ~ __- .-.. - - - - - . . - -_ _- .-.

i e i 4

• l I

i i

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS i I

AUMILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM CLEAN CONTROLLED AIEA CONTAtmiATIONS E 1,000 PERFORMANCE DISBfTEGRATIONS4ANUTE PER PROSE AREA

)

i

- The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) uneveestde The personnel cordaminsten overds- in the oleon contround eres.

hours and the esumated unevegetdo hours for the euxulary This tidmetor tracks personnel performance for SEP #15 & 54. ,

loodseter system for the reportm0 period dhridad by the crtlical i hours for the repothnB ponod mumphed by the numter of trains - CONTARANATED RADIAlt0N CONTROU.ED AREA l in the eunulary feedwater system I The percordage of tie Rottellon Controned A'oe, which includes COLLECTWE RADIATION EXPOSURE l the auxtery buedme. the redseets buikhng, and stees of the 1 C/RP bunding, that is conisminated bened on the total equore l Conecuve reenhon exposure is the total wiemel .JL M; footage. This indmotor tracks performance for SEP 864.

does received by ed onete personnel (inclueng contractors and visitors) during a time portod, as measured by the DALY THERMAL OUTPUT thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). Cotective redobon exposure is reported in units of persorwom. This indmotor This hecolor shows the deHy core thermal output as rneesured tracks radiokqpoel work performance for SEP 854. tom computer point XC105 (in thermal megewelts). The 1500 MW Tech Spec hmit, and the unmet portion of the 1496 MW COtrONENT FALURE ANALYStB REPORT (CFAR) FCS deny goal for the reporgng month are also shown.

SURAAARY DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (28 Demands)

The summa'y of INPO estegones for Fort Cahoun Stehon wth sydtcardy higher (1.646 standard deviouons) lature rates than This indiostor shows the number of teauros occurnn0 for each the rest of the industry for en eighteerwnonth time period. emergency diesel generator during the lost 25 esort demands Feburos are reported se component (i.e., pumps, motors, rnein and the last 25 lood run demands steem stop velves, control element motors, etc.) estegones DISABLBIG BiJURYJLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE Fogure Cause Categories are: (LOSS TIRE ACCDENT RATE)

)

AgefNormal Use -thought to be the consequence of This hdcator is deAned as the number of socklents for el ulNRy expected weer, aging end-of-life, or normal use . personnel permanonlly seeigned to the stehon, irwolvin0 days swer from work per 200,000 menhours worked (100 men-Menutecturing Defect a failure attrtadable to inodoquete years). This does not include contractor personnel. This eseembly or intel quellty of the ; , - .m component or inecator tracks personnel performance for SEP #25,26 & 27.

system.

DOCURENT REMEW(BGBRAL)  :

Engineering l Design e indure attributable to the inodoquele '

design of the responeltdo component or system. The Document Revow indicolor shows the number of documords reviewed, the number of documents edieduled for Other Devices - a, feNure attribulatdo to a ladu o or review, and the number of document reviews that are overdue misoperobon of another component or system, includmg for the reporting month. A document review is considered e-w devices overdue if the review is not complete WNhin six months of the seeigned due date. This indiceior trooks performance for SEP MaintonencefAction - roeuning from improper maintenance, #46.

look of maintenance, or personnel errors that occur during memtenance actvlbeson the component.. EhERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORBAANCE Testing Actlen resistmg from improper testing or personnel errors that occur during toseng activities. The sum of tie known (planned and unplanned) unevenable and the echmeted unevetalde hours for the emergency AC power in4 Gal instemation Error - caused by improper initiet system for the reportmg pened divided by the number of hours a insteeston of T n.,; in the reportmg period rmdtiplied by the number of trains in the emergency AC power system.

CENTS PER KLOWATT HOUR EREft0ENCY DESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILre"Y The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the econommel opershon of Fort Calhoun Staten. The cents per ktowatt Thinidinasar shows ow meidier of seawes that suore reported during the hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents por lost 20, so, and 100 emergency densi ponersior demands et the l'on knowse hour on a twelve-more everage sor the current year. c sioun smam.h-im essene.neish eenmio k a high The beeis ter tie buttet curve is the approved yearty budget ## **' ' #* " N * *

• The bees for the actunt curve is the Financel and Operetng Report.

,,,h ,,,, "**"****"""'

80 e w w % ,.~ _ m -,.,,e-,. , .-- w - - - - . . -,.-..m.. ~ - , . - - , . - - --

\

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS and the successful test that follows repair to venfy operability

1) Numberof Start Demands: All valid and inadvertent start should not be counted as demands or faHures when the EDG demands, includ ng au start-only demands and all start has not been declared operable again.

demands that are followed by load-run dernands, whether by automatic or rnanualinitiation. A start-only demand is EERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY a demand h which the emergency generator is started, but no attempt is made to load the generator. This indicator measures the total unreliability of emergency diesel generators. in general, unreliability is the ratio of

2) Number of Start Failures: Any failure within the unsuccessful operations (starts or load-runs) to the number of emergency generator system that prevents the generator valid demands. Total unreliabHRy is a combination of start from achieving speeded frequency and voRage is classified unreliability and load-run unreliability.

as a valid start failure. This includes any condition identified in the course of maintenance inspechons (with ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR) the emergency generator in standtry mode) that definnefy BREAKDOWN would have resulted in a start failure if a demand had occurred. This indicator shows a breakdown, by age and priority of the EAR, of the number of EARS assigned to Design Engineering

3) Number of Load-Run Demands: For a valid load-run Nuclear and System Engineenng.' This indicator tracks demand to be counted, the load-run attempt must meet performance for SEP #62.

one or more of the following criteria:

ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) STATUS A) A load-run of any duration that resuRs from a real automebc or manualinihabon. The number of ECNs that were opened, ECNs that were completed, and open backlog ECNs awaiting completion by B) A lookun test to satisfy the plant's load and duration DEN for the reportmg month. This indicator tracks performance as stated in each test's specrlications. for SEP #62.

C) Other er-I tests in which the emergency generator ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN is expected to be operated for at least one hour while loaded with at least 50% of its design load. This indicator breaks down the number of Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) that are as .igned to Design Engineering

4) Number of Load 4 tun Failures: A load-run failure should Nuclear (DEN), System Engineering, and Maintenance. The be counted for any reason in which the emergency graphs provide data on ECN Facility Changes open, ECN generator does not pick up load and run as predicted. Subshtute Coplacement items open, and ECN Document Failures are counted during any valid load-run demands. Changes open. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #62.

5) Exceptions: Unsuccessful attempts to start or load-run EQUIPENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL should not be counted as valid demands or failures when HOURS they can be attributed to any of the following:

Equpment forced odages per 1,000 crnical hours is the inverse A) Spunous tnps that would be bypassed in the svent of of the mean time between forced outages caused by equipment an emergency. failures. The mean bme is equal to the number of hours the reactor is crthcalin a penod (1,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />) divided by the number B) Malfunction of equiprnent that is not required during of forced outages caused by equipment failures in that period.

an ernergency.

EQUfVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR C) Intenbonal termination of a test because of abnormal ,

conditions that would not have resuRed in major This indicator is defined as the ratio of gross available j diesel generator damage or repair. generation to gross maxrnum generation, expressed as a percentage. AvaRable genersten is the energy that can be D) Malfunctions or operating errors which would not produced if the unit is operated at the maximum power level have prevented the emergency generator from being permitted by equipment and regulatory limitations. Maximum restarted and brought to load within a few minutes. generation is the energy that can be produced by a unit in a given period if operated continuously at maximum capacity.

E) A failure to start because a portion of the starbng system was disabled for test purpose,if followed by FORCED OUTAGE RATE a successful start with the starting system in its normal abgnment. This indicator is defined as the percentage of time that the unit was unavailable due to forced events compared to the time Each emergerey generator failure that results in the generator planned for electrical generation. Forced events are fabures or being declared inoperable should be counted as one demand other unplanned conditions that require removing the unit from and one fature. Exploratory tests dunng correcove maintenance service before the end of the next weekend. Forced events 81 l

, - - - - - - -- . . . . - . - . . - ~ . . - _ . - - . - ~- - - - - - . ~ .. -..~.-. - - - -. . .

~

d

, o PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS include start-up tellures and events initiated while the unit is in Contractor personnel are not included for this indicator. I reserve shutdown (i.e., the unit is available but not in service). '

W UNE CHEt4STRY INSTRUAE!NTS OUT OF SERVICE l FUEL REUA51UTYINDICATOR l Total number of irWine chenuotry instruments that are out-of- j This indicator is dellned as the steady-etate primary cooient I- service in the Secondary System and the Post Accident l 131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium contribubon and Sampling System (PASS).

normstred to a common punAcabon rate. Tramp uranium is fuel which has been deposited on reactor core intomals from UCENSE CANDCATE EXAMS prevbus defective fuel or is present on the surface of fuel elements from the manufacturing procoes Steady state is This kickstor shows the number of SRO and/or RO qutrzes and defInod as continuous operation for at loest three days at a exams that are administered and poseed each month. This power level that does not very more than + or -5%. Plants indicator tracks training performance for SEP #68.

should cutoct date for this indicator et a pow 3r level above 85%, '

when poestile. Plerds that ced not operate at steedy-state power UCENSED OPERATOR REQUAUFICATION TRAINING above 86% should cotect data for this ink'or at the highest steady-state power level attained during the mor@ The total number of hours of training gNon to each crew during each cycle. Also provided are the simulator training hours The density correction factor is the ratio of the specinc vdime (which are a subset of the total tJaining hours), the number of  ;

of coolert at sie RCS operating temperature (540 degrees t ., Vf norWtEQUAUFICATION training hours and the number of exam i

= 0.02146) divided by the specac volume of coolant at normal failures. This indcator tracks training performance for letdown temperature (120* F at ouest of the letdown cooling heat SEP #68.

exchanger, Vf = 0.016204), which reauts in a density correction j factor for FCS equel to 1.32. UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN OROSS HEAT RATE This indmetor shows the number and root cause code for Gross heet rate is deAned as the ratio of total thermal energy in Ucensee Event Reports. The root cause codes are as fotows:  !

Bresh Therme! Units (BTU) produced by the reactor to the total I gross electncel energy produced by the generator in idlowett- 1) Administrative Control Problem - Management and hours (KWH). supervisory donciencies that affect plant programs or activities (i.e., poor pionning, breakdown or lack of HAZAR0008 WASTE PRODUCED adequate management or supervisory control, incorrect procedures, etc).

The total amount (in Kilograms) of non.helogensted hazardous weste, hologensted hazardous waste, and other hazardous 2) Ucensed Operator Error - This cause code captures weste produced by FCS each month. errors of omesion/commmemn by liconeed reactor operators during plant activities.

HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 3) Other Personnel Error - Errors of omisoson/commmelon committed by non hcensed personnel involved in plant The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavainble activities. '

hours and tie cebmetod unevailable hours for the high pressure safety injection system for the reporting period d'vided by the 4) Maintenance Problem.The k16ent of this cause code is to creical hotss br the reportmg period mulbplied by the number of capture the ful range of problems which can be attributed trains in the high pressure safety injection system. In any way to programmate deSciencies in the mortononce Amctionalorganization. Activitiesincludedin INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE tNPO this category are maintenance, tesbng, surveillance, calibration and redebon protection.

This indestor is degned as the number of accidents per 200,000

5) E

^

men. hours worked for al utilty personnel permanently assigned 7 -- t ^ _- ^ ?abrication Problem-to the station that result in any of the fonowing This cause code covers a fue range of programmatic denciencies in the areas of design, construebon,

1) One or more days of restncted work (excluding the day of instatation, and fabrication (i.e., loss of control power due the accident); to underrated fuse, equipment not.quehfled for the erwironment, etc.).

2) One or more days away from work (excluding the day of the accident); and 6) Equipment Failures (Electronic Place Perts or Emtronmental Related Fauures) This code is used for

3) Fatanties. spurtous failures of electronic piece-parts and failures due to meteorological condibons such as lightning. Ice, high 82

_ .. -. . . < - . . . _ - - - - - _ , _ _ _ ~ . . . . . - . -. . - - - _ _ _

d

• g 1

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS

- winds, etc, Generally, it includes spurious or one-tune MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE fetures. Elodric components included in this category are ceout cards, redders, biotables, fuses, cepecitors, dedos, The total maximum amount of radiation received by an individust resistors, etc. person wortung at FCS on a monthly, quarterty, and annual

' beeis.

LOGGABLE#tEPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)

MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUELING The total number of secunty incidents for the reporting month OUTAGE) depicted in two graphs This indicator tracks securtly ,

performance for SEP #58. The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have been  !

approved forinclueen in the Cycle 17 RefueHng Outage and the MAINTENANCE OVERTilWE numbergist are ready to work (parts staged, pienning complete, and al osier paperwork ready for field use). Also included is the The percent of overtime hours compared to normal hours for number of MWOs that have been engineenng holds (ECNs, maintenance. This includes OPPD personnel as weg as procedures and other miscobeneous engineering holds), parts contract personnet, hold, (parts eleged, not yet inspected, parts not yet arrived) and pionning hold Gob scope not yet completed). Meinionence Work MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS Requests (MWRs) are also shown that have been identmed for tie Cyde 17 Rekseling Outage and have not yet been converted This indicator shows the bocidog of non-outage Maintenance to MWOs.

Work Orders remaining ogen at the end of the reportng month.

' Maint(mance cineescetior,s are defined as follows: NURSER OF CONTROL ROOM EQurtENT DEFICENCIES Corrective - Repair and restoration of equipment or A control room equipment deficiency (CRD) is defined as any components that have failed or are malfunctionir.g and are not component which is operated or controted from the Control performing theirintended functon Room, provides indicaten or alarm to the Control Room, provides testing capabitties from the Control Room, provides Proventivo - Actions taken to maintain a piece of eqtepment automatic actions from or to the Control Room, or provides a wRhin design operahng conditions, prevent equipment faHure, pesolve kandion for gie Cortrol Room and has been identitled as and extend its ble and are performed prior to equipment detaent,l.e., does not perform under au condihons as designed i faHure. This doenten also appiles to the Altemate Shutdown Panels Al-17g, Ai-185, and Al-212.

Non CorrectivedPlant improvements - Maintenance adMbes performed to implernent station improvements or to A pierd componerit which is deficient or inoperable is considered repair non-plant equipment. an" Operator Work Around (OWA) Item" if some other action is required by an operator to compensate for the condihon of the Maintenance Work Priorities are deflned as: component Some examples of OWAs are:

Emergency Conditions which signdcantly degrade station 1) The control room levelindicator does not work but a local i safety or availobuity. sight glass can be read by an Operator out in the plent; immediate Action - Equipment deficiencies which 2) A deteient pump cannot be repaired because repiscement

. significantly degrade station reliebiuty. Potential for unit parts require a long lead time for purchase / delivery, thus shutdown or power reduchon. requring tie redundant pump to be operated continuously; Operations concern - Eqtepment deficiencies which hinder 3) Special actons are requred by an Operator because of station operation. equipment design problems. These actions may be described in Operatens Memorandums, Operator Notes, Essential - Routne corrective maintenance on essenhol or may require changes to OperatPig Procedures, station systems and equipment

4) Dolcent plert equipmant that is requred to be used during Non Essential Routine corrective maintenance on non. Emergency Operating Procedures or Abnormal Operating essential station systems and equipment. Procedures, Plant kiiprovement - Norworrective maintenance and plant 5) System indcation that provides critical information during improvernents, norrnal or abnormal operations.

This indicator tracks maintenance performance for SEP #36.

83

i a

e O

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS l NUnmER OF MSSED SURVEK1ANCE TESTS RESULTWG This indicator shows the status of the projects which are in the IN UCENSEE EVENT REPORTS scope of the Refuehng Outage.

The number of Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Licensee PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MW0s ConPLETED PER Evert Reports (LERs) dunng the repo ting month. This indicator MONTH IDENTIFED AS REWORK tracks mesed STs for SEP #60 & 61. l The percentage of total MWOs completed per month identmed OPEN INCIDENT REPORTS as ework. Rework activites are identmed by maintenance plannmg and craft. Rework is: Any additional work required to This indicator dapinys the total number of open incident Reports correct delleiencies discovered during a failed Post Maintenance ).

(irs), the number of irs that are greater than six rnonths old and Test to ensure the component / system passes suboegur,nt Post the number of open significant irs. Maintenance Test.

• OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONC PERCdNT OF COnFLETED SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTMTIES The number of Modification Requests (MRs) in any state betwos6 the issuance of a Moddcation Nurnber and the The percent of the number of completed marntenance activites j

compleoon of the drawing update. as mmpared to the number of scheduled maintenance activites  ;

each month. This percentage is shown for all maintenance i

1) Form FC-1133 Backloglin Progress. This number crafts. Also shown are the number of emergent MWOs represents modmcation requests that have not been plant Maintenance activihes include MWRs, MWOs, STs, PMOs, )

approved during the reporting month. calibrabons, and other miscellaneous actMtes. Tain indicator l tracks Maintenance performance for SEP #33. l

2) p~es* Requests Being Reviewed. This catepry j includes: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR INDEX i A) Modificebon Requests that are not yet reviewed. This indcator index is calculated from a weighted c7mbination of ten overperformance indicator values, which include Unit l B) Modecatdn Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear Capability Factor, Unit Capability Lou Factor, HPSI, AFW, ,

Projects Review Committee (NPRC). Ernergency AC Power System. Unplanned Automatic Scrams, Collective Radiation Exposure, Fuel Relialblity, Thermal ,

C) Modecahon Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear Performance, Secondary System Chemistry, Radiation Whste,

]

Projects Committee (NPC). and Industrial Safety Accident Rate.

These Modification Requests may be reviewed several times PREVENTABLElPERSONNEL ERROR LERs  ;

before they are approved for accomphshrnent or canceled.

Some of these Mod 4 cation Requests are retumed to This indicator is a breakdown of LERs. For purposes of LER Engrwenng for rnare information, sorne approved for evaluation, event classification, a

• Preventable LER" 6s defined as:

some approved for study, and some approved for planning.

Once planrmg is mrnpleted and the scope of the work is clearty An event for which the root cause is personnel arror (i.e.,

defined, these Modification Requests may be approved for inappropriate schon by one or more individuals), inadequate accomplishment with a year assigned for construction or they administratrve controls, a design construction, installabon, rnay be canceled. All of these different phases require review. Instatehon, fabricabon problem (involving work completed by or supervised by OPPD personnel) or a maintenance problem

3) Design Enginesting Backlog /In Progress. Nuclear (attributed to inadequate or improper upkeep / repair of plant Plannng has assigned a year in which construction will be equpment). Also,the cause of the event must have occurred completed and design work may be in progress, within approximately two years of the " Event Date" specmed in the LER (e.g., an event for which the cause is attributed to

4) Construction Backlog /in Progress. The Construction a problem with the original design of the plant would not be Package has been issued or construction has begun but considered preventable).

the rnodification has not been accepted by the System Acceptance Committee (SAC). For purposes of LER event classification, a " Personnel Error" LER is defined as follows:

5) Design Engmeeting Update Backloglin Progress. PED has received the ModMcation Completion Report but the An event for which the root cause is inappropriate schon M drawings have not been updated. the part of one or more individuals (as opposed to being attributed to a department or a general group). Also, the The above mentioned outstanding modMcations do not include inappropriste adion must have occurred within approxirrately modifications which are proposed for cancehation, two years of the " Event Date" speeded in the LG.

OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (R3 FUELING OUTAGE) 84

. . - - -_- . .- - - . -. . . _ .- . - - - - - . .~- - - - -. _ . ~ -

i 1- l

. I v i i 9 i  !

! PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS Adchonety, each everd da==hd as a

• Personnel Error" should SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES I also be closested as " Preventable

• This indicator trends personnel performance for SEP llem #15. Safety system failures are any events or condeons that could 4 i prevent the fulHilment of the safety funchons of structures or 1 PRIMARY SYSTEM UTHIUM % OF HOURS OUT OF LAST systems, if a system conmuts of muniple redundant subsystems i or trains,Isilure of all trams cor=Nhdag 3 ggfgty gygtem failure.

] The percent of hours out of hmit are for lithium divided by the Failure of one of two or more trains is not counted as a esfoty l totel number of hours possible for the month. system failure. The delnihon for the indmetor parallels NRC  !

reportmg requeemords in 10 CFR 50,72 and 10 CFR 50.73. The j PROCEDURAL NONCOMPuANCEINCIDENTS fonowiry is a list of the major safety systems, outsystems, and -(

(MAINTENANCE) components monitored for this indicator:

The number of identined incidents concoming meintenance Accident Monitoring instrumentation, Auxiliary (and

. procedural probioms, the number of closed irs related to the Emergency) Feedwater System, Combustible Gas Control, i use of pronodures (indudes the number of closed irs caused by Component Cooling Water System, Containment and t

procedural noncomphence), and the number of closed Coraminment lealebon, Cordemmert Coolant Systems, Control  ;

proceduralnoncomphence irs. This indmotor trends personnel Room Emerrency Venblabon System, Emergency Core i

performance for SEP #15,41 and 44. Cooling Systems, Engineered Safety Features 3 Instrumentaten. Essenhal Compressed Air Systems,  !

PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE MODIFICATION Essenhal or Emergency Service Water, Fire Detection or ,

j PLANNING Suppreseson Systems, isolation Condenser, Low '

i Temperature overpressure Protechon, Main Steam Une  ;

y This indicator shows the status of modlheshons approved for isoleton Valves, Oneite Emergency AC & DC Power  ;

complebon dunng the Refueling Outage,

i. wlDelitdon, Radiation Monitoring Instrumentshon, Remotor

{: Coolant System, Reactor Core leoistion Coolmg System,

PROGRESS OF 1996 ON LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING Reutor Trip System and Instumentation, Recirculation Pump Trit Actuation instrumentaten, Residual Hoot Removal  !

This indcator shows the status of modl6 cations approved for Systems, Safety Valves, Spent Fuel Systems, Standby Liquid I completon during 1995. Control System and Ultimate Heat Sink.

l

RAD 10 LOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM SECONDARY SYSTEM CHERSSTRY PERFORMANCE .

INDEX I

• The number of identiAed poor redelogical work practices  !

(PRWPs) for the reportmg month. This indmetor tracks The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) is a calculebon based t redelogmel work performance for SEP #52. on ttw concentration of key impurtties in the secondary side of ,

the plant. These key impurthos are the most likely cause of RADIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & detenorshon of the steem generators. Criterie for calculating the PREVENTIVE MANTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE CPI are:

The mtio of prevenhve maintenance (including surveillance 1) The plant is at greater then 30 percent power; and testmg and calibraten procedures) to the sum of norwutage correctwo mairdenence and preventive maintenance completed 2) the power is changing less then 5% per day.

over the reportng penod. The rate, expressed as a percentege, is calculated bened on man-hours. Also displayed are the The CPlis calculated ucing the fonowmg equation:

percert of preventive maintenance llems in the month that were not comNeted or admirustratively closed by the scheduled date CPI = ((sodium /0.79) + (Chloride /1.52) + (Sulfate /1.44) +

plus a grace penod equel to 25% of the scheduled interval. This (Iron /3.30) + (Copper /0.30)+(Condensate 02/2.90))/6 inchcotor tr6cks preventive rneintenance activities for SEP #41.

Where: Sodium, sulfate, chloride and condensate dissolved RECORDABLE INJURYllLLNESS CASES FREQUENCY oxygen are the monthly everage blowdown concentretens in RATE ppb, iron and copper are monthly time weighted average feedwater concentrations in ppb. The denominator for each of The number of injuries requinng more then normal trat aid per the five factors is the INPO medan value. If the monthly 200,000 man-hours worked. This indcotor trends personnel everage for a specenc parameter is less then the INPO median performance for SEP #15,25 and 26. value, the meden value is used in the calculation.

REPEAT FAILURES SIGNIFICANT EVENTS T?e nurttier of Nucteer Plant Reliability Data System (NPROS) components with more then one failure and the number of Signincant events are the events identined by NRC etaff through NPRDS components with more then two failures for the detaled easenmg end evalusten of operstmg experience. The eighteeremonth CFAR period. screerung process includes the deity review and discussion of 5

i

• i O ,

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS all reported operating reactor events, as well as other hatruments are not considered as temporary mod:Acations.

operatonal data such as special tests or constructen activibes.

An event identrAed from the screening process as a sign 6 cant 3) Scaffold is not considered a ternporary rnodecaten. 1 overt candidate is further evaluated to determine if any actual or Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for which MRs j potential threat to the health and safety of the public was have been submitted will be considered as temporary j involved. Specrhc exampies of the type of creeria are modecatens untN flnal resolubon of tne MR and the jumper summertzed as fotows: or block is removed or is permanenUy recorded on the ]<

drawings. This indicator tracks temporary mod;Acabons for l t) Degradaten ofimportant safety equipment; SEP #62 and 71.

2) Unexpected plant response to a transient; THERMAL PERFORMANCE l

3) Degradahon of fuel integnty, primary coolant pressure The rate of the design gross heat rate (corrected) to the i boundary,important assocested features; adpusted actual gross heat rate, expressed as a percentage.

4) Scramwithcomplicahon; UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR

5) Unplanned release of radeactivity; The ratio of the availabie energy genersbon over a given bme period to the reference energy generation (the energy that could

6) Operaton outside the limits of the Technical Specifications; be producedif the unn were operated continuously at fuu power under reference arnbient conditions) over the same tune period,

, 7) Other. expressed as a percentage. ,

INPO signi5 cant events reported in this indcator are SERs UNil CAPACITY FACTOR 4 (Signmcant Event Reports) which inform utillbes of signincant  !

events and lessons loamed ident6ed through the SEE-IN The not electrical energy generated (MWH) divided try the screening process, product of maximum dependable capacity (not MWe) tunes the poes hours b the reporting period expressed as a percent. Net SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE electrical energy generated is the gross electrical output of the unit measured at the output terminals of the turbene generator The dotarvalue of the spare parts inventory for FCS during t! A minus the normal alation service loads during the gross hours of reporting period. the reporting period, expressed in megawatt hours.

STAFFNG LEVEL UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 CRITICAL HOURS The actual staffing level and the authortred staffing level for the Nuclear Operations DMaion, The Producten Engineenng This indicator is deAned as the number of unplanned automatic Division, and the Nuclear Services Division. This indicator scrams (reactor protecten syttom logic actuatons) that occur tracks performance for SEP #24. per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of critical operation.

STATION NET GENERATION The value for this indcator is calculated by multiplying the total number of unplanned automebc reactor scrams in a specific time The net generaten (sum) produced by the FCS during the period by 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, then dividing that number by the total reporting month, number of hours criticalin the same twne period. The indicator is further defined as fotows:

TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS

1) Unplanned means that the scram was not an anticipated The number of temporary mechanical and electncal part of a planned test.

con 6gurations to the plant's systems.

2) Scram means the automatic shutdown of the reactor by a

1) Temporary con 6gurations are dehned as electrical jumpers, raped insertion of negative reactivtty (e g., by control rods, electrical blocks, trechanical jumpers, or mechanical biocks liquid injection system, etc.) that is caused by actuation of which are installed in the plant operahng systems and are the reactor protection system. The scram signal may have not shown on the latest revision of the P&lD, schemabc, resulted f om exceeding a set point or may have been connechon, wiring, or now diagrams. spurious.

2) Jumpers and blocks which are installed for Surveillance Tests, Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Procedures, 3) Automabc means that the initial signal that caused actuation Special Procedures or Operabng Procedures are not of the reactor protechon system logic was provided from one consedered as temporary modificahons unless the jumper or of the sensor's monitoring plant parameters and conditons, block remains in place after the test or procedure is rather than the manual scram switches or, manual turbine complete. Jumpers and blocks installed in test or lab trip switches (or push-buttons) provided in the main control 86

~

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS room. shipped off-site for processing and the volume of solid dry radcactwe waste which has been shipped off-site for

4) Critcal means that dunng the steady-state condition of the processing. Low-level solid radioactive waste consists of dry reactor pror to the scram, the effectue multip;ication (k ,,) actwo waste, sludges, resins, and evaporator bottoms generated was essentially equal to one, as a result of nuclear power plant operaten and maintenance.

Dry radioactue waste includes contaminated rags, cleaning UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR rnaterials, esposable protectue clothing, plastic containers, and any other rnatenal to be disposed of at a low 4evel radioactive The ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a gNen period waste dsposal site, exce% resin, sludge, or evaporator bottoms.

of time, to the reference energy generaton (the energy that Low 4evel refers to all radioactwo waste that is not spent fuel or could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full a by-product of spent fuel processing. Thu indicator tracks power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time radiological work performance for SEP #54.

penod, expressed as a percentage.

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS . (INPO

+ DEFINITION)

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

1) The number of unplanned Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) actuatens that result fram reaching an ECCS actuation set point or from a spunous/ inadvertent ECCS signal.

2) The number of unplanned emergency AC power system actuations that result from a loss of power to a safeguards bus. An unplanned safety system actuation occurs when an actuaton set point for a safety system is reached or when a spurious or inadvertent signal is generated (ECCS only),

and major equipment in the system is actuated. Unplanned means that the system actuation was not part of a planned test or evolution. The ECCS actuations to be counted are actuations of the high pressure injection system, the low pressure injection system, or the safety injection tanks.

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTIONS -(NRC DEFINITION)

The number of safety system actuations which include (o,nh) the High Pressure Safety Iryecten System, the Low Pressure Safety injecton System, the Safety injection Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC classification of safety system actuations includes actuations when major equipment is operated grg[ when the logic systems for the above safety systems are challenged.

VIOLAT10N TREND This indicator is defined as Fort Calhoun Station Cited Violatens and Non Cited Violations trended over 12 months. Additionally, Cited Violations for the top quartile Region IV plant is trended over 12 months (lagging the Fort Calhoun Station trend by 2-3 months). It is the Fort Calhoun Staten goal to be at or below the cited volaten trend for the top quartile Region IV plant.

VOLUME OF LOW LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE This indicator is defined as the volume of low-level solid radoactwe waste actually shipped for bunal. This indicator also shows the volume of low-level radioactwe waste which is in temporary storage, the amount of radioactNe oil that has been 87

o O

$AFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX i l

The purpose of the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Perforrnance Indicators index is to Est performance indicators related to SEP ltems with parameters that can be trended.

SEP Reference Number 15 Enga l

= Increase HPES and IR Accountability through use of Performance Indicators  !

l Procedural NoncompNance Incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Recordable injuryAliness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations 11,000 Disintegrations / Minute Per Probe Area ............ 5 Preventable / Personnel Error LERs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 SEP Reference Number 24 1

. Complete Staff Studies Stafilng Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 '

SEP Reference Numbers 25. 26. & 27 i

. Training Program for Managers and Supervisors implemented

. Evaluate and implement Station Standards for Safe Work Practice Requirements e implement Supervisory Enforcement of Industrial Safety Standards I

Disabling injuryAliness Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Recordable injuryAliness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 i

SEP Reference Number 31 i

. Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Manual and Conduct Project Management Training l MWO Planning Ctatus (Cycle 17 RefueNng Outage) ........................................ 70 Overall Project Status (Cycle 17 RefueNng Outage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 i Progress of Cycle 17 Outage Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 SEP Reference Number 33

. Develop On-Line Maintenance and Modification Schedule Percent of Completed Scheduled Maintenance Activities (All Maintenance Crafts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 49 )

SEP Reference Number 36

. Reduce Corrective Non.Outsge Backlog Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-outage) ................,................ 47 SEP Reference Numbers 41 & 44

. Develop and implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule

. Compliance With and Use of Procedures Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue . . . . . . . . , . . . . 48 Procedural NoncompNance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 88

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM lNDEX SEP Reference Number 46

• Design a Procedures Control and Administrative Program Document Review . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 SEP Reference Number 52 Eggg

. Establish Supervisory Accountability for Workers Radiological Practices Radiological Work Practices Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 SEP Reference Number 54

. Complete implementation of Radiological Enhancement Program Clean Controlled Area Disintegrations 11,000 CountsMinute Per Probe Area ................... 5 Collective Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area ............ ..... .............. .............. 55 SEP Reference Number 58

. Revise Physical Security Training and Procedure Program Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 SEP Reference Numbers 60 & 61 i . Improve Controls Over Surveillance Test Program

. Modify Computer Program to Correctly Schedule Surveillance Tests Number of Missed Surveillance Tests resulting in Licensee Event Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 SEP Reference Number 62

. Establish interim System Engineers Temporary Modifications .............................. .................. ........... 59 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Engineering Change Notice Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Engineering Change Notices Open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 SEP Reference Number 68

. Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Trair:ing and establish means to monitor Operator Training j License Operator Requaliilcation Training .......................... ........... . . . . . . . 65 Ucense Candidate Ex ams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 l

SEP Reference Number 71

. Improve Controls over Temporary Modifications Temporary Modifications .......... ...................................... ..... .. 59 89

e, bPORT DISTRIBUTION 1,lST I

R. L. Andrews M. J. Sandhoefner i B. H. Blorne F. C. Scofield j C. E. Boughter H. J. Sefick C. J. Brunnert ]

R. W. Short i G. R. Cavanaugh E.L.Skaggs J. W. Chase J. L. Skiles A. G. Christensen F. K. Smith O. J. Clayton D. E. Spies (2)

R. G. Conner D. E. Spires i G. M. Cook R. L Sorenson i M.R. Core K. E. Steele D.W. Dale -

M. A.Tesar D.C.Dietz J. J. Tesarek T. R. Dukarski J. W. Tills M. L. Ellis D. R. Trausch H. J. Faulhaber J. M. Waszak M. T. Frans L. P. Walling S. K. Gambhir G. R. Wiliams l J. K. Gasper S. J. Willrett W. G. Gates S. W. Gebers L. V. Goldberg j D. C. Gorence R. H. Guy A. L. Hale K. R. Henry 1 J. B. Herman T. L. Herman L. P. Hopkins  ;

', R. L Jaworski J. W. Johnson W. C. Jones D. D. Kloock J. B. Kuhr (5)

L.T.Kusek M. P. Lazar B. R. Livingston N. L. Martice T. J. Mcivor K. G. Melstad K. A. Miller P. A. Mruz Nuclear Ucensing

& Industry Affairs (8)

T. L Patterson R. J. Phelps W.J.Ponec A. W. Richard D. G. Ried 90

_ m _ . . _ _. - - _ - _ . . _ ~ . _ _ _ _ . . _ - . ___ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _

FORT CALHOUN STATION OPERATING CYCLES AND REFUELING OUTAGE DATES EVENT DATE RANGE PRODUCTION (MWH) CUMULATIVE (MWH)_

Cycle 1 09/26/73 - 02/08/75 3,299,639 3,299,639 1st Refueling *

• 02/08/75 - 05/11/75 Cycle 2 05/11/75 - 10/01/76 3,853,322 7,152,961 2nd Refueling 10/01/76 - 12/13/76 *

• Cycle 3 12/13/76 - 09/30/77 2,805,927 9,958,888 3rd Refueling 09/30/77 - 12/09/77 *

• Cycle 4 12/09/77 - 10/13/78 3,026,832 12,985,720 4th Refueling 10/13/78 - 12/24/78 *

• Cycle 5 12/24/78 - 01/18/80 3,882,734 16,868,454 5th Refueling 01/18/80 - 06/11/80 *

• Cycle 6 06/11/80 - 09/18/81 3,899,714 20,768,168 6th Refueling *

• 09/18/81 - 12/21/81 Cycle 7 12/21/81 - 12/03/82 3,561,866 24,330,034 7th Refueling *

• 12/03/82 - 04/06/83 C_ycle 8 04/06/83 - 03/03/84 3,406,371 27,736,405 Sth Refueling *

• 03/03/84 - 07/12/84

Cycle 9 07/12/84 - 09/28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 9th Refueling *

• 09/28/85 - 01/16/86 Cycle 10 01/16/86 - 03/07/87 4,356,753 36,834,646 10th Refueling *

• 03/07/87 - 06/08/87 I. Cycle 11 06/08/87 - 09/27/88 4,936,859 41,771,505 11th Refueling 09/27/88 - 01/31/89 *

• Cycle 12 01/31/89 - 02/17/90 3,817,954 45,589,459 1 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 - 02/20/95 5,043,887 61,066,900 15th Refueling 02/20/95 - 04/14/95 l

i  !

( Cycle 16 04/14/95 - 09/21/96 16th Refueling 09/21/96 - 11/02/96 (Planned Dates) l FORT CALHOUN STATION CURRENT PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS " RECORDS" l First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5:47 p.m.)

1 First Electric Sup led to the System August 25,1973

, Commercial (180,000 KWH) September 26,1973 l Achieved Full 100%) May 4,1974 Longest Run (477 Da ) June 8,1987-Sept. 27,1988 Highest Monthly Not ion (364,468,800 KWH) October 1987 Most Productive Fuel Cycle (5,451,069 MWH - Cycle 13) May 29,1990-Feb.1,1992 Shortest Refueling Outage (52 days) Feb. 20,1995-April 14,1995

. , - , . . . - . - - - - - - - - - - ---