ML20115A886

FCS Performance Indicators Rept for May 1996

ML20115A886
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	05/31/1996
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20115A885	List: LIC-96-0087, Forwards FCS May 1996 Performance Indicators Rept ML20115A886
References
NUDOCS 9607090075
Download: ML20115A886 (100)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

? q MAY 1996 a

SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COSTEFFECTIVENESS

$87 00ck $08$$ss PDR p ,,

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

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT l

i i

1 l

i

! MAY i

1996 l l

l I

i 5

I

Production Engineering Division System Engineering l Test and Performance Group MAY 1996 1

i 1

k

FORT CALHOUN STATION  ;

May 1996 .

Monthly Operating Report OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

During the month of May 1996, the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) operated at a nominal 100% power until 2105 hours0.0244 days <br />0.585 hours <br />0.00348 weeks <br />8.009525e-4 months <br /> on May 24, when power was reduced to 95%

for the end-of-cycle Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) test. At 1200 hours0.0139 days <br />0.333 hours <br />0.00198 weeks <br />4.566e-4 months <br /> on May 27, power was retumed to a nominal 100% for the remainder of the month.

Normal plant maintenance, surveillance, equipment rotation activities and scheduled on-line modification were performed during the month.

On May 2nd at 1600 hours0.0185 days <br />0.444 hours <br />0.00265 weeks <br />6.088e-4 months <br />, a four-hour notification was made to the NRC pursuant to 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(iii)(A) for an error in the Technical Data Book (TDB) procedure, TDB-V.9, Shutdown Margin Worksheet. An investigation of previous usages oithe procedure determined that during Cycle 14 (August 25,1992) while performing rod testing, the required 4% shutdown margin was not maintained.

Technical Specification 2.10.2(1) states "Whenever the reactor is in hot shutdown, hot standby or power operation conditions, the shutdown margin shall be< 4% Ak/k, initiate and continue boration until the required shutdown margin is achieved." The minimum value of shutdown margin was estimated to be 3.35%. An investigation revealed no other violations of the shutdown margin requirement.

On May 26th, at 0343 hours0.00397 days <br />0.0953 hours <br />5.671296e-4 weeks <br />1.305115e-4 months <br />, the Nebraska State patrol notified the FCS Control Room that a boating accident occurred near the plant about one-half mile downstream. The injured people were taken ashore just south of the Security '

Building which is outside the protected area but on the owner-controlled property.

A four-hour notification was made to the NRC pursuant to 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(vi) for offsite notification.

Seventeen (17) additional incore detectors failed in May 1996, rendering fifteen (15) of the twenty-eight (28) detector strings inoperable. Because less than 75% of the total incore strings are operable, an increase of 1% to the total uncertainties has been applied to the planar, integrated and total radial peaking factors, as a conservative measure. The frequency for surveillance test RE-ST-RX-0001, Determination of the TotalIntegrated and Pianar Radial Peaking Factors, has been increased from monthly to a minimum of once every 15 days. All failures have occurred in detectors that were installed during the 1995 refueling outage. These failures are under investigation with assistance from ABB/CE and the incore detector vendor.

i

s N '

+ FortCalhounindexVakJe

+ Industry Median index Value 90 - 86 M 83 83 83

.. A " "

= r so i

~

Y l l

i 81 79 E

S*

70 . ,

Industry j g

/, - Median Projected 60 .

4 Monthly Value for May 96 is 85.79%

50 .

i 40 . - - .

95/1 95/2 95/3 95/4 96/1 Apr May 96/2 Jul Aug 96/3 4

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.

11

. _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ = . . . . ......_m.

. _ _ ..._ _._ _ _ _ _ - ____ _ . - - ... _. _ . - .... _ _ _. _ -.. ..__ . _ .. _ m . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ - _ _ _ . _ _ - . . . _ . ~ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ .

l 4 ,

gM AXIMUM VALIE e IPOEX Poltfrs April 'M OttOEX POINT 5 May 'M i 4 *,?

i ec '

16.00 .

14.00 .

12.00 .

10.00 . kk kk k

i g 88 88 UCF UCLF HPSI AFW EACP UAS7 CRE FR1 1Ti CF1 Rad. ISAR

['

wast.

This graph shows the difference between the Maximum No. Of points for each INPO indicator and the actual value achieved by Fort Calhoun for the month of April.

UCF Unit Capability Factor TPI Thermal Perfromance Indicator UCLF Unplanned CapabiEty Loss Factor CPI Secondary Chemistry Indicator HPSI High Pressure Safety Injection Rad Waste Volume of Ratioactive Waste Buried ,

AFW AuxiBary Feedwater ISAR IndustrialSafeif AccidentRate EACP Emergency AC Power UAS7 Unplanned Auto Scrams / 7000 Hours CRE Collective Radiation Exposure FRI Fuel ReHabiHty indicator iii

• I

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

i .

.I h!][ht I Year-to-Date Value l  !

l % llf Performance Cateaories

. Unit Capability Unplanned Unplanned ,

Thermal Factor Capability Auto Scrams Performance L E Performance better than l lI  ;

industry Average Trend Loss Factor j j li j Pe:formance better than lI g ,,4,,,, l u u j, ,,

1996 OPPD Goal

~wzwsumm flllll!lllb!!!! !!!! l ll hf,, l llllllll ll $ $$ { @pljl f 4 Performance Not Meeting 1996 OPPD Goal HPSI Safety AFW Safety EDG Safety !

System System Fuel '

System ReHabiHty  ;

Performance Performance Performance l i iuiuiiiiiuiiiii, a iiii6iiiiui,, iui u i t ioiui i i.i i gii,i i iu,ioi ui, iyuque9 Feb. Mar. Apr.

9 , , ,

lll $ll!bI!!!Oh!!! l1 l  ! j l ig) I lE m@ l 1996 1996 1996 ll 1 f ni .n l

ai Lu ui i uu i

, num inuiu  !! a i i il I 1 1

!!!mmiim ll industrial Best Possible jlun l Chemistry ' Collective j j Volume of  ;

May.-1996 M Year-End Index l Radiation  ! l Low-Level Safety Accident Year-to-Date ll  ! Rate Performance j i i

{ Exposure j RadWaste -

Value

! ,u, , ,,

M M H h  ! l0 ll l l lll l b WANO Performance Indicators E

.I

f 1

1 Unplanned Auto Scrams Year-To-Date Value Performance Cateoories Safety System Significant 8 Performance better than Industry Average Trend ,

Events Actuations  ;

L lll l Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal Safety Forced Outage TMgt Performance Not Meeting 1996 OPPD Goal  !

i System Rate l Failures  ;

Feb. Mar. Apr.

1996 1996 1996 l Equipment Collective Forced Radiation May-1996 Best Possible Outages Exposure Year-to-Date 1996 Year-End j Value Performance t

. . . . ._ uliil . .

Performance NRC Performance Indicators

1. 6

l l

l l

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT May 1996-

SUMMARY

l POSITIVE TREND REPORT POSITIVE TREND REPORT (cont. ,

A performance indicator with data representing three Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area consecutive months of improving performance or three (Page 55) consecutive months of performance that is superior to the stated goalis exhibiting a positive trend per Nuclear Temocrarv Modifications Operations Division Quahty Procedure 37 (NOD-QP- (Page 59) 1 37). .

The following performance indicators exhibited positive End of Positive Trend Report.

trends for the reporting month:

Saretv S tem reliums gp g,59 ADVERSE TREND REPORT Hioh Pressure Safety iniection System Safety System A performance indicator with data representing three Performance consecutive months of declining performance or three consecutive months of performance that is trending (Page5) toward declining as determined by the Manager -

Auxiliarv Feedwater System Station Engineering, constitutes an adverse trend per (Page 6)

Nuclear Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 l (NOD-QP-37). A supervisor whose performance Emeroenev A C. Power Svstem indicator exhibits an adverse trend by this definition (Page 7) may specify in written form (to be published in this report) why the trend is not adverse.

Emeroenev Diesel Generator Unit Reliability (Page 20) The following performance indicators exhibited adverse trends for the reporting month:

Diesel Generator Reliability f 25 Demands)

Fuel Reliability Index (Page 21)

(Page 9)

Emeroenev Diesel Generator Unreliability (Page 22) Maintenance Workload Backloos (Page 47)

Missed Surveillance Tests Results in Ucensee Event Reports Preventative Maintenance items Overdue l (Page 28) (Page 48)

- UnDlanned Safety System Actuations flNPO) End of Adverse Trend Report.

4 (Page 34)

Secondary System Chemistry (Page 35)

Hazardous Waste Produced ,

(Page 54) I l

l vi

INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT A performance indicator with data for the reporting period that is inadequate when compared to the OPPD goal is defined as "Needing increased Management Attention" per Nuclear Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37).

Industrial Safety Accident Rate (Page 13)

Disablina Iniurv/ Illness Freauency Rate (Page 15)

Ntnber of On-Line and Outaae Control Room Eau 1oment Daficiancies (Page 24)

Eauiument Forced Outaae Rate (Page 38)

Cents oer Kil matt Hour i (page 44)

Percentaae of Total P4JDs Camoleted oer Month Identified as Rework (Page 49) l PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT IMPROVEMENTS / CHANGES i In the May Perfonnance Indicator Book, the 12 j indicators that make up the INP0 Perfonnance j Index Trend Graph have been moved up to the front of the book under the section entitled "WANO  ;

PERFORi%NCE INDICATORS."

Also an additional graph has been added that ca1 pares the maximan index points to the monthly FCS index points.

The indicator that shows Stamng Levels has been deleted.

End of Report improvements / Changes Report. ,

vii i

i

- _. ~ . _

Table of Contents / Summary enaa GOALS........................................... ................................xii WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... ......... 1 Unit C apa bility Fa ctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 !

Un planned Capability Loss Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1

Unplanned Automatic Reactor SCRAMS per 7000 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 High Pressure Safety injection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Auxiliary Feedwater System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. .......... .... .... 6 Eme rge n cy AC P owe r Syste m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Thermal P erfo rmance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Fuel Reliability Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... ....... ..... ... 9 Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................................10 Collective Radiation Ex posure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 j

\

I Volume of low level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 j 1

Ind ustrial Safety Accident Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 SAFE OPERA TIONS Disabling injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... . . . 15 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate ...........................................16 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations 11,000 DisintegrationsMinute per Probe Area .............. . ... ... . ... . .... . . 17 Preventable / Personnel Error LERs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Safety System Failures ............ .............. ........... .. ........ . . . . . . . . . 19 Emergency Diesel Generator Unit Reliability ............................................................20 Reliability (25 Demands) ........................................ ...... ........ 21 Unreli ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Control Roo'n Equipment Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 On-line and Outage Control Room Equipment Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 viii

9 Table of Contents / Summary Maximum individual Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Violation Tre nd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Sig nifica nt Ev e nts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in LERs ..... ...... ..... ........................ 28 PERFORMANCE Statio n N et G e n erati o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 Forced Outage Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ... .................. ............... 31 U nit C apa city Fa cto r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................33 Unplanned Safety System Actuations I N PO Defi niti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 NRC Definition .............................................................35 G ross He at R ate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Daily Thermal Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. . .............. ... .. 37 Equipment Forced Outages per 1,000 Critical Hours ............. . ..................... . 38 Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Repeat Failures ........... ... .............. ....... .............. ...............40 Chemistry Action Levels Exceeded - Event Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Primary System uthium % Hours Out of Umit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

.GQEI Cents Per Kilowatt Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................44 Spare Parts inv entory Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 4 5 lx

Table of Contents / Summary i

1 I

DMSION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Maintenance .

Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 )

Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 )

Percentage of Total MWOs Completed per rnonth identified as Rework ...... .......... 50 Ov e rti me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 l Procedural Noncompliance incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52  !

, Daily Schedule Performance ,

- Percent of Completed Scheduled Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 i I

in-Une Chemistry Instruments Out-of-Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Hazardous Waste Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 ,

1 l

Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 )

Radiological Work Practices Program ......... ..................... ....... ...... .... 57 l

Document Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...........................58 l Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4

Te mporary Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Outstanding Modifications . . . . . . . . ........ ...... ...... .............. .. . . . . . . . . 61 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 62 s

Engineering Change Notices Status ............... .................. ................ .... ............ 63 Opel . ................................ .................. .. ...... ....... 64 Ucencee Event Report (LER) Root Cause Breakdown . . ........ ...................65 Ucensed Operator Requali6 cation Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ......... .... 66 Ucense Candidate Exams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ..... 67 C ond itio n Re po rts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Cycle 17 Refueing Outage MWO Planning Status ......................................................69 Overall Project Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Outage Modification Planning ................. .. ............................... 71 On-Une Modi 6 cation Pla nning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Progress of 1996 On-Une Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 x

O l

ACTION PLANS. DEFINITlONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION UST i

i Action Pla ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 l

Performance Indicator DeAnitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Safety Enhancement Program lndex ..................................................... 86 -

Report DistribuSon Ust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 ,

f t

{

f xi

mm .eA . e a e-ma 4.4 u_m.i-.A..m--..., 4-s am- e.ma s.,a.mAe,sw -:me._..ashea .___ama-_ -:e...a_ - ,.m.w .--.--mea. + , . - .----.---- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

l I

i l

4 a

l 1

4 1

(

i i

Y i

1 s

.)

I d

j i

!.4 t

WANO 4

PERFROMANCE l NDICATORS i

i i

1 l

s l

I l l

)

i t

4 I

f i

i t

1

e

, MontMy Unit capatMy Factor O

.. .s . . Year.to.Date unit Capability Factor  !

+ 36-Month unit Capability Factor l 1996 Fort Calhoun Goals GOOD  !

+ INPO Industry Goals Year 2000 j 100% .. _ _ _ _ _ _ .....

**' -R- -- - -8

,.' , m .. . .. l 7 ---

T --

2 ~

V

- ~

i 80% .. [F E 5 5 g

- *~ * * '

,,. .... .m.

60%.. _

40% _.

20%..

1 0% - - - 1 i Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1996 UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR 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 of the cvailable energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy generation (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage (refu-cling periods excluded).

I The UCF for May 1996 was reported as 99.6%. The year-to-date UCF was 81.2%, the UCF for the last 12 months was 94.9%, and the 36-month average UCF was reported as 84.7% at i the end of the month.

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

Energy losses for March 1996 are due to a scheduled mini-outage and condenser tube re-pair.

Energy losses for May 1996 are due to a reduction in power to 95% for MTC Testing.

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 annual goal for this indicator is a minimum of 83.56%.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 16. For the month of May the FCS Value was 15.29. This compares to the previous months value of 15.29.

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

s i i MannyWmpetsityLossFactor l GOOD l

+ Year-ToDatelkplannedOpabiEtyLossFactor 12-Month Aerage %med Opabiktyloss Factor y

+ FortQhamGbal(3.00Y4

_e__ Year 2000 t@OlnchJstryGoal(4.574

+ inchstryOrrentBestQartile 30% ,.

20 % -

10%.

• N_. . .

0% 5: N i  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jd Aug Sep Oct Nw Dec 1996 UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unplanned Capability Loss 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 could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient condi- i tions), expressed as a percentage. I The UCLF for the month of May 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 management control. En-ergy losses are considered to be unplanned if they are not scheduled at least four weeks in advance. The year-to-date UCLF was 2.98%, the UCLF for the last 12 months was 2.28%, )

and the 36-month average UCLF was reported as 4.9% at the end of the month. l 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 i maximum value of 3.0%.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 12. For the month of May the FCS Value was 7.64. This compares to the previous months value of 7.64.

Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: Needs increased Management Attention. )

3 1

4 i

r i

g FC5 Reactor Scr.mJ Pmr 7,000 Hourd Criticti YJar-to-Date

+ FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical for last 36 months i + Fcyt Calhoun (bal(0.0) g, Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (1)

Industry Upper 10%(1 per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical) 3 T

2.

N A. .

i I /A  ; , 5 L I  ;  ;  ;

t.

o -

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1996 l FCS Reactor Scrams 1996 4 ..

3 3.. _.

2 I

2. .

l 1 1  !

1 . .

l 0 0 0 0 l 0

0 i

, l l l 92 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL Ths 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 (es defined in INPO's 12/93 publication " Detailed Descriptions of intemational Nuclear Power Plant PIrformance 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 May 1996. The value for the 12 months from June 1,1995, through May 31,1996 was 0.82. 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 industry upper ten percentile vilue is approximately 0.48 scrams per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 8. For the month of May the FCS Value was 8.0.

This compares to the previous months value of 8.0.

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

Accountability: Chase Trend: Needs increased Management Attention (Above FCS Goal) 4

g Monthly High Prza ura sr.fety injectNn system Univillability V:lue

1. Year-to-Date High Pressure safety injection system Unavailability Value Goo 0l Fort calhoun Goal (0.003) e Yeat 2000 INPO Industry Goal (0.02) V 0.02 -  :  :  :  :  :  :.  :  :.  :

0.015 ..

0.01 .

e 0.005 __

c = c = = = = = = = = 0 0  ; _ ,

i - ; == ; x ; -: ;x ,m , , ,  ; , ,  ;

1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec I

l1996 HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM

> SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the High Pressure Safety injection System unavailability value, as de-fined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

1 The High Pressure Safety System unavailability value for the month of May 1996 was 0.00.

There were 0.0 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 unavailability, dur-  !

ing the month. The 1996 year-to-date HPSI unavailability value was 0.00003 at the end of the month. The unavailability value for the last 12 months was 0.00043.

4 There has been a total of 0.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 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 1996 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 un-availability for the high pressure safety injection system in 1995.

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.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 9. For the month of May the FCS Value was 9. This compares to the previous months value of 9.

Data Source: Skiles/Schaffer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Schaffer Trend: Positive l

l 1

m Monthly Auxiliary Redwater system unavailability n Year-to-Date AFW unavailability l0000l

...o... Nrt Calhoun Goal (0.01)

Year 2000 lNPo lndustry Ooal(OA25) 042..

:  :  :  :  :  :  :  ;  ;

0518..

0A16 ..

OC14 ..

CA12 .

041 .. o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . .e . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . e . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o 0.008 .. o.coass 0.006 .

o.coas7 0.004 .4. cons 0 - -

0 8 , - :

l 1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec j 1996 l 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 May 1996 was 0.00. There were 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of planned and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability during the month. The year-to-date unavailability value was 0.00029 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.00315 at the end of the month.

There has been a total of 2.0 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 unplanned unavailability on FW-10 was due to a failed relay on HCV-1045B.

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.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 9. For the month of May the FCS Value w:s 9. This compares to the previous months value of 9.

D^.ta Source: Skiles/Fritts (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Fritts Trend: Positive 6

1 Monthly Emergency ^C Power Unavailability value x Year.to Date Emerpacy AC Power Unavailability Value

+ 1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (0.024) l GoODj

+ Year 2000 INPoindustry Goal (0A25) 3g 0.14 ..

0.12 ._

0.1 .-

0 A8 ..

0.06 ..

O A4 ..

042 .

2 0 C 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 m. x ,

=x _ x . R R , x H **- x- , .x C

• 5 x. ,

_x.  ;

Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May l I EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the Emergency AC Power System unavailability value, as defined by )

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

The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value for May 1996 was 0.0042. During the month, there were 6,3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability, and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavail-ability for testing and repairs. The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value year-to-date was 0.0052 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.0116 at the end of the month. l l

Thare has been a total of 45.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned i unavailability for the emergency 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.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 9. For the month of May the FCS Value was 9. This compares to the previous months value of 9.

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Ronning Trend: Positive 7 l l

g MonthlyThermalPerformance

, ,12-Month Average

+ Year-to-Date Average MonthlyThermalPerformance

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (99.6%) lEODl

+ Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (99.5Y.4 100%..

N

. N.. - -: ~ _:

. e.

99%

98% . >

- ' i

i .

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec l1996l THERMAL PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the Thermal Performance Value for the reporting month, the year-to-date average monthly thermal performance value, the Fort Calhoun goals, the 1996 INPO industry goal and the approximate upper ten percentile value.

The thermal performance value for May 1996 was 99.85. The year-to-date average monthly th:rmal performance value was 99.5, at the end of the month. The average monthly value for tha 12 months from June 1,1995, through May 31,1996, was 99.60%..

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

ha maximum index point value for this indicator is 9. For the month of May the FCS Value w s 9. This compares to the previous months value of 9.

Data Source: Skiles/Naser(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Gorence Trend: None 8

Pues ReIlabuny[E-4)

+ Year 2000 lNPo lndustry Fuel Defect Reference (5 x 10 4 Microcuries/ Gram)

%6]

+ 1996 Goal (911/96 through 12131/06) qy 200 .

18' 180 -_

g160 .

140. 121.9 120 -

75.52 73.4 7sA2 f 10080 -"

g 51.37 55.38 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May l

FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR The FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR (FRI) for May 1996 was 169.0 X 10d microcuries/ gram. The purpose of the FRIis to monitor industry progress in achieving and maintaining a high level of fuel integrity. 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 May FRl value is based on data from Ma,y 1* through 31*. The days selected are when the plant chemistry values were at equilibrium for steady-state operation (above 85% power for at least 3 days).

Cycle 10 plant operation started on April 13* and attained 100% on April 23'* ,1995.. During the months of June and July the plant operated at 100% power. The plant tripped at the end of August but has operated at 100% during the months of September through March 14,1996. On March 15, a mini-outage powerdown commenced and the plant remained at zero per cent power until March 24, when power ascension began. The plant then tripped on March 29 Ascension to 100%

power began on March 31,1996. The plant has operated at 100% power since April 3,1996. Power was reduced to 95%

on May 25th and 26th for Moderator Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity testing per Technical Specification 3.10(2)3.

The May FRl value of it9.0 X 10d microcuries/ gram indicated an increase from the April FRI value of 121.9 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 normalincrease 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 February 29,1996, performed by nuclear engineering, indicated frve to ten 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 "WANO Performance indicator Program Utility Data Coordinator Reference Notebook"(INPO No.94-009, Rev.

1) states the Industr/ Goal for fuel reliabihty is: " units should strive to operate with zero fuel defects". The 1996 Fort Calhoun Station FRI Performance Indicator goalis to maintain a monthly FRI below 5.0 x 10d microcuries/ gram. A value larger than 5.0 x 10d microcuries/ gram indicates a high probability of reactor core operation with one or more fuel defects.

The 1996 year end goal can be met after the 1996 RFO. See page iii.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 7. For the month of May the FCS Value was 0.. This compares to the previous months value of 0.214.

Data Source: Bostelman/Riva Accountability: Chase /Stafford Trend: Adverse 9

e secondary system CPI o_ 12-Month Average l 0000 g

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (1 A) 1.6 .. 1 f 1.5 .

1A..  :  : 1 1.3 ..

1 -

l 1 I I l l l l  ! I 1 I I Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May l

1996 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 May was 1.11. The 12-month average CPI value was 1.18 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 effect. These values are generally lower, while the Fort Cal-houn 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 thin 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 s:condary chemistry values. Iron, the one industry average that we are below, almost by f half, does not assist in lowering the CPI because of the way the CPI is calculated.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 6. For the month of May the FCS Value w s 5.90. This compares to the previous months value of 4.4.

D:ta Source: Spires /Reneaud (Manager / Source) 1 Accountability: Spires y Tr nd : Positive due to performance better than goal 10

.- 1 i

e Monthly Per.onnel Radiation Fxposure '

+ Cumulative Personnel Radiation Exposura l 0000 g

_ Fcs Goal 138 person-REM 1P

"* u = = = = = = = = = = a 130..

120._

110.-

100..

• 90 ..

[ 80 ._

70 .. -

60 ..

50 ..

40 ..

30 ._

20 ._ /

10 ..

OC- , ,  ; ,  ;  ; )

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

1 COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure for the year is set a 138.0 person-REM.

1 The exposure for May 1996 was 6.189 person-Rem (ALNOR).

l The year-to-date exposure through the end of April was 21.594 person-Rem (ALNOR).

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal for collective radiation exposure is 120 person-rem per year. The current industry best quartile is 145 person-rem per year. The yearly average for Fort Calhoun Station for the three years from 5/93 through 4/96 was 110.442 person-rem per j year.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 8. For the month of May the FCS Value was 8. This compares to the previous months value of 8. j Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None l 1

11  !

e e Ramoactive Waste Buried This Month (cu.ft.)

-o-- Year.to-Date Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried lGoODj o _ Ibrt calhoun Goal (1500 cu.ft.)

k 1100..

c  : -

:  :  : .  : a 1000.

900__

800__

700..

600..

f500_

400..

300--

200.. 113.20 100. 0.00 0.20 0.80

117.00 0  :  : _ , ,  ;  ;  ;  ; ,  ;  ;

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 r

VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE This indicator shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumulative y: r-to-date radioactive waste buried, the Fort Calhoun and INPO goals, and the approxi-mtte inductry 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 3.8 Cumulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1996 117.0 Amount of solid radwaste in temporary storage 132.0 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.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 5 For the month of May the FCS Value l

w s 5. This compares to the previous months value of 5.

Data Source: Chase /Breuer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP54 12

Year-to-Date FCS Average Rate FCS(Last Industrial Safety) Accident Rate (INPO Definition) 12 Months

+ FCS Year-End Goal (<0.50)

[0000i

' I e Industry Industrial Current Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (<0.40

,_.1995 Safety Accident Best Rate Quartile (IN (.24) ) PO Defination)

V 2.

t 1.5 ..

= =~- -

1,g_ - --

0.5 - - - - - - - - A - -

g g~ = = = = = = = = /= = 3 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ [ [ $  ;

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

l l

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE I i

As stated in INPO's December 1993 publication' Detailed Descriptions of World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) Performance Indicators and Other Indicators for Use at U.S. Nuclear Power Plant': "The purpose of this indicator is to monitor progress in improving industrial safety perfor-mance for utility personnel permanently assigned to the station."

The INPO industrial safety accident rate value year-to-date was 0.36 at the end of May 1996. The value for the 12 months from June 1,1995, through May 31,1996, was 0.73.

There were no restricted-time and no lost-time accident in May 1996.

l The values for this indicatcr are determined as follows: l (number of restricted-time accidents + lost-time accidents + fatalities) x 200.000 (nuraber of station person-hours worked) l l

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.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 5. For the month of May the FCS Value was 3.73. This compares to the previous months value of 2.97.

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Chase / Booth (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Bishop Trend: Needs increased Management Attention 13  !

I l

i SAFE OPERATIONS Goal: A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and per-sonalinitiative and open communication.

14

+ 1996 DisabDng injuryfEiness Frequency x-- 1995 Disabling injuryminess Frequency

+ Average Rate (Last 12 Months) l GOOD l

+ 1996 Goal (0.50) 2..

1A x 12 -

1.4 .. N 1.2 .

,. a -

02 .-

. A. _ ,

0.2 ..

0 , , ,  ; , ,  ; . ,  ; ,

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May F'b 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 disabling injury / illness frequency rata year-to-date was 0.36 at the end of May 1996. There were no disabling injury / illness cases reported for the month.

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for the 12 months from June 1,1995, through May 31,1996, was 0.73.

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 / Bishop Trend: Need increased Management Attention SEP 25,26 & 27 15

~

e n

_e_ 199lfRecordable injurylillness Frequency y 1995 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency I Good I Average Rate (Last 12 Months) i I

__r

...o... Fort Calhoun Goal y 2.25 .. . ,

~

2_.

1.75 ..

1.5 ac5 . . . . . " 4. 5Aj . . . . . . 5h: . ..... ..... .......'.......o s

1.25 __

1.

0.75 .-

0.5 ..

0.25 ..

O  ;

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May l1996l RECORDABLE INJURY / ILLNESS FREQUENCY RATE 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 personnel from any of the Nuclear Divisions are injured on the job and require corrective medical treatment beyond first aid. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate is computed on a year-to-date basis.

There have been 6 recordable injury / illness cases in 1996. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate year-to-date was 2.14 at the end of May 1996. There was 1 record-able injury / illness cases reported for the month of April.

The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate for the 12 months from June 1,1995, through May 31,1996, was 2.49.

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

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Bishop Trend: None SEP 15,25,26 & 27 16

e o

N

.-, .. FCS Goal (39 for 1996)

) [O000l 60 ..

9I 50 .

40 .. a. --s g .. .r. w. w. .+ , .a. ,

30 ..

20 .-

ts 10 ..

s s 0 -  :  ; l Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec j1996l CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS 21,000 DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA This indicator shows the Personnel Contamination Events in the Clean Controlled Area for contaminations 21,000 disintegrations / minute per probe area for the reporting month.

There were 4 contamination events in May 1996. There has been a total of 13 contami-nation event in 1996 through the end of May. This compares to 39 at this time last year.

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 15 & 54 17

e l

l g PersonnelErrors (Each M6Efh) w Preventable (18-MonthTotals) e PersonnelError(18-MonthTotals) 20 -

15 .

10 .

\. _

O O c -

o E, . . .

,E: ,

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr l1996 1

1 PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERs ,

I This indicator depicts 18-month totals for numbers of " Preventable" and " Personnel Error" LERs.

The graph shows the 18-month totals for preventable LERs, the 18-month totals for Per-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. i in April 1996, there were no events which were subsequently reported as LERs. No LERs were categorized as Preventable or Personnel Error for the month of April. The total LERs for the year 1996 (through April 30,1996) is two. The total Personnel Error LERs for the year 1996 is one. The total Preventable LERs for the year is one.

Due to the manner in which documentation are closed out, data for this Performance Indicator is always one month behind.

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 Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None SEP 15 18 i

e e

, , startup e Shutdown

. Operations  ! g!

...o... Industry Average Trend Ei i

Io 1..

• • G .c......o ....o ... g.... ....o......a......a ...c

...o

$0 i i i i i i i 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 SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES 1 1

This indicator illustrates the number of NRC Safety System Failures as reported by the Nuclear Regulatory l Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual" Performance Indica-tors for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" report.

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, were greater than the allowed limits, rendering this scram input inoperable during certain operating condi-tions.

2nd Quarter 1993: A section of the piping configuration forthe borated water source of the safety injection system was nct seismically qualified. This could have resulted in a failure of the system to meet design requirements during a seismic event.

4th Quarter 1993: 1) During surveillance testing, both PORVs for the LTOP system failed to open during multiple attempts. The failures 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 tripping 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 from service for testing and the control switch for the other pump's steam supply valve was out of the auto position; 4) Only one train of control room ventilation was placed in recirc when both toxic gas monitors became inoperable. Later during surveillance, the other train auto-started and brought outside air into the control room for a six-minute period.

1st Quarter 1994: A design basis review determined that an ESF relay could result in loss of safety 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.

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

Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 Accountability: Chase Trend: Positive 19

~

e  ;

l

{

m f alluresf20 Demands a Failures /50 Demands e Failurest100 Demands l Good l

-. Trigger Values /20 Demands

Trigger Values /50 Demands

+ Triggar Values 100 Demands II 8 ..  :  : .,  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

7..

6..

5.  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

4 -

m . . . ,, ,, ., ., ., ., ... ., .,

Mus H H a 444+UI Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May l1996l EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY l

This bar graph shaws three monthly indicators pertaining to the number of failures that were reported during the last 20,50, and 100 emergency diesel generator demands at the Fort Calhoun Station. Also shown are trigger values which correspond to a high level l of confidence that a unit's diesel generators have obtained a reliability of greater than or equal to 95% when the failure values are below the corresponding trigger values. The Fort Calhoun 1996 goal is to have fewer failures than these trigger values.

1 The demands counted for this indicator include the respective number of starts and the respective number of load-runs for both Diesel Generators combined. The number of start demands includes all valid and inadvertent starts, including all start-only demands and all start demands that are followed by load-run demands, whether by automatic or manual initiation. Load-run demands must follow successful starts and meet at least one of the following criteria: a load-run that is a result of a real load signal, a load-run test expected to carry the plant's load and duration as stated in the test specifications, and a special test in which a diesel generator was expected to be operated for a minimum of one hour and to be loaded with at least 50% of design load (see exceptions and other demand criteria in the Definition Section of this report).

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

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

20

, , DG1 Failures /25 Demands e DG-2 Failures /25 Demands l000Dl 5"

lf 4- C  :  :  :  :  ;- --  :  :  : 3 3.

2.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

$ 1 1

~

7 7 '

o 8 8 0 o o o o e . e o o .

o j Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May l 1996 j 1

l DIESEL GENERATOR RELIA'BILITY (25 DEMANDS) i i

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 place in the event that any one emei gency diesel generator experiences 4 or more fail-  ;

ures within the last 25 demands on the unit. These actions are described in the Defini- l tions Section of this report. A System Engineering Instruction has been approved for the Fort Calhoun Station to institutionalize and formally approve / adopt the required NUMARC actions.

Diesel Generator DG-1 has 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 limits to be raised.

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

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

21

a m DG-1 UnreliabilityValue m DG 2 UnreliabilityValue

+ StationUnreliabilityValue lOOODl 1996 Goal DD6 ..

ODS ..  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

OD4 ..

0.03 .. D328 0.02 -

-- oe oo o o o o e o oe oo oo o ,

O  : ,

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May (1996l EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the likelihood that emergency AC power generators will respond to off-normal events or accidents it also provides an indication of the effectiveness of maintenance, opera-tion and test practices in controlling generator unreliability. The last event occured on September 1,1995 when the Field Flash Relay on DG-2 failed.

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

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

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

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

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

Emergency diesel generator unreliability is calculated as follows:

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

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

22

g control Room Deficiencies Mded

, i control Room Defic'encies Completed e Completed withh Target complebon Date

+ . 100A%

50 .-

Cod.Corrplee 80%cf CR Defcene byTarge CbngdionDue

• 8 %

40 y 8 8 78' 80A% y

% .rs n sg -

• e s2.ss .. 60A% (

9 30 .. ,s

.' i 8

1 22 ,, ,, 2 2 ,, ,

• l u 20 .m 38- , ,. . 40A% }

3 w u #

o E o i 3

I

• 10 .. .. 20A% $

s 0 QA%

oct tbv Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May ControlRoom Deficiencies NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES This indicator measures the timeliness of closing Control Room Deficiencies.

, Target Completion Dates are established by the Emergent Work Committee. The goalis

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

I There were 21 Control Room Deficiencies completed during May 1996, and 17 were j completed within the target completion date.

A Scheduling Coordinator has been assigned to track performance on a weekly basis and identify problem areas. Revisions have been made to the scheduling process to allow for more timely completion of CRDs.

i 4

Data Source: Chase /Kermoade (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Short/Faulhaber Trend: None

! 23

e m Overdue

+ Number of Outage Control Room Deficiencies 30 88 8 e:

20 __ -- -'

15 -- Note: Overdue tems are those older than 18 rrenths 10 .. o,,,u ,,o,,,,

5..  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

0 -

i -

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

[ Number of Outage CRDs l g Overdue

+ Number of On-Line control Room Deficiencies 30 .. zu 25 -

as 20 -

15 __ '8

,, ,, , 3g , ,,,, ,,

10 .. . 8_ "" 7 5..

n M , i i M 3  :

M i M i i Oct Nov Dec Jan reb Mar Apr May l Number of on4Jne CRDs l NUMBER OF ON-LINE AND OUTAGE CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCIES This indicator shows the total number of On-Line and Outage Control Room Dpficiencies, and the number of overdue Control Room Deficiencies. /

/

There were 13 on-line (7 were overdue) and 22 outage (2 were overdue) Control Room Deficiencies at the end of May 1996.

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

Data Source: Chase /Kermoade (Manager / Source)

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

<8 Overdue exceeds goal 24

~

a Hghest WrtNy bdivdual Sposure (1996)

+ Fort Calhoun Limit 1000  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

900.

800 .

700.

600.

500.

400.

300. 244 228 172 - 175 _,_,

- ~~""

73 100.

O Jan Feb Wr Apr Wy Ja Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec 1996 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE During May 1996, an individual accumulated 228 mRern, 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 25 l

g PG5 Cited Violations (Monthly)

, , FCS Non. Cited Violations (Monthly)

FCS Cited Violations (12. Month Average) l 000D l

_ FCS Non. Cited Violations (12. Month Average)

._w__ Region IV Cited Violations (12. Month Average for Region IV top quartile) II p - n a

• W:

4.  : o l 0 M - M ,

b'N M ;E - E  ;

a 4 4 r m e t O

B z 6 e

g i w 2 a a 4 s r

' 1996 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 lag is necessary to compile information on other Region IV plants.

The following inspections were completed during May 1996:

IER No. Title None To date, OPPD has received five violations for inspections conducted in 1996.

Levellil Violations 0 LevelIV Violations 5 Level V Violations 0 Non-Cited Violations _0 Total 5 The 1996 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)

Accountability: Tills Trend: None 26

m NRC5ignmcantEvents I Industry Awrage Trend l l GOOD l 1 s 1

1. y i 0.5 -

O f 0 m ,_r ,

l 92 93 94 95-1 95-2 95 3 95-4 96 1 96-2 96-3 96-4 ,

l

{ Year -Quarter l lNPO Significant Ewnts (SERs) 000 1F 22 1 1 1 1.. 0 0  ;

l 92 93 94 95-1 95-2 95-3 95-4 96-1 96-2 96-3 96-4 l Year-Quarter l SIGNIFICANT EVENTS This indicator inustrates the number of NRC and INPO Significant Events for Fort Calhoun Station as reported by the  ;

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual"Perfor-mance Indicators for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" report and INPO's Nuclear Network.

l 1

The following NRC significar t 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 resent initiated a LOCA with the potentbl 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 steam line break inside containment could result in the inoperability of both control room A.C. units.

1st Quarter 1996. During pressurizer solid plant operation, the Low Tempe ature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) protection for the RCS was inadvertently disabled, subjecting the RCS to a potential unprotected overpressure accident.

The following INPO significant events, as reported in Significant Event Reports (SERs), occurred between the 2nd quader of i992 and the 1st Quader of 1995:

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 Tnp 4th Quarter 1993: Unexpected CEA Withdrawal.

1st Quarter 1994: Unplanned dilution of Boron concentration in the RCS.

1st Qurtter 1996. During pressurizer solid plant operation, the Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) protection for the RCS was inadvertently disabled, subjecting the RCS to a potential unprotected overpressure accident.

Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Cornmi.ssion & INPO Accountability: Chase Trend: Positive 27

g Missed sTs Resulting in LERs 3 .. GOOD l

V 2..

1 1..

o o 0 0 0 3 0 0 ,  ; , ,  ; , ,  ; , , , ,

93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 1996 NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TEST RESULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS This indicator shows the number of missed Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Lic-ensee Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting month. The graph on the left shows the '

yearly totals for the indicated years.

There were no missed surveillance tests resulting in LERs during May 1996. i On December 28,1994, during the performance of OP-ST-SHIFT-0001, data was not entered for Steam Generator level per Surveillance Requirements.

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

l

\

l l

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

Accountability: Chase /Skiles Trend : Positive SEP 60 & 61 28

i, - 1 i

j-4 6

4 4

i

't 1

4

}

I l PERFORMANCE l

1

! i

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

f I

i i

}

i

)

1 l

29 i

• i Net Generation (10,000 MWh) i

. 40 M.75 35.08 M.55 M.12 M.29 33.85 30.46 30 M Ini .

O utage f 20.16 20 .

Il e

10 .

n , , i  ; , , i g i j , i Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1996 STATION NET GENERATION During the month of May 1996, a net total of 358517.3 MWh was generated by the Fort Calhoun Station. Cumulative net generation for Cycle 16 was 4,252,341,1 MWh at the end of the month.

Energy losses for March 1996 were attributed to (1) a planned mini-outage, and (2) con-d:nser tube leakage repair.

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 l 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 hsat exchangers.

i i Data Source: Station Generation Report l Accountability: Chas a Trend: None 30 i

a Forced Outage Rate (Monthly)

+ Forced Outage Rate (12 Months) l GOOD l

+ 19 98 Fort Calhoun Goal (1.4%)

40%. 3r 35% ..

80% ..

25% ..

20%..

15% ..

(

I 10%..

'*ft 6  : b b b 5 5~f f f _ _

93 94 96 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1996 FORCED OUTAGE RATE The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 1.02% for the twelve months from June 1, 1995, through May 31,1996. The 1996 year-to-date FOR was 1.G% at the end of the month.

Energy losses for the month of March were attributed to a forced shutdown due to a condenser tube leak.

Energy losses for the month of May were due to a reduction of power to 95% in order to support MTC Testing.

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 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: None 31

• j e

i , Monthly Unit Capacity Factor  ;

...s... Year-to-Date Unit Capacity Factor g e Unit Capacity Factor for Cycles 15 & 16

_a_ 36-Month Average Unit Capacity Factor l G000 l 1996 FCS Goal (81.49%) i 100% _

• --C... ,,,,,,,,,, , , , , ,

90% .

o 80% - .. T v- E E E " 4

~~~ ~ "

70%.. .- U-60%_.

h{**

s' 50% .

40%-

30%..

20% . ,

10% .

< 0%  ;  ; ,  ;  ;  ; ,

t

l l

Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1996 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 92.13%, and the Unit Capacity Fcctor for the last 36 months was 85.74%. The 1996 Fort Calhoun annual goal for this indicator is 82.00%.

The year-to-date value is 99.24%

Energy losses for March 1996, are due to the unit being shutdown for: 1) a planned mini-outage and 2) condenser tube leak repair.

Energy losses for May 1996 are due to a temporary reduction of power to allow for MTC Testing.

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 D ta Source: Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: None 32

g---) Monthly EAF Year-to-Date Average MonthlyEAF

+ 12 Month Average EAF

+ Industry Median Value (76.7% for a 3 Year Average) 100% _. n.2 %

p _

e s.s s s $

- L 6

_Q ~a 1 , d  :/

.- e -  ? - .. .. .. -

60%..

40%..

20%..

O Y. ' . - ' < > ' ' ' ' ' ' -

92 93 94 95 Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1996 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 May 1996 was reported as 97.6%. The year-to-date monthly average EAF was 87.9% at the end of the month.

Energy losses for March 1996 are due to a scheduled " mini-outage" and repair to a ruptured condenser tube.

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

The Fort Calhoun average monthly EAF for the three years prior to this report was 88.022%.

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

Data Source: DietzNandervort (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None 33

a j

g safetysystem Actuations(INPoDefinition)

_ FCS Goal (0)

+ Industry Upper 10 Percentile (0) -

i 3 ..

2..

1_.

1-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' '

l 92 93 94 Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 95 96 UNPLANNED SAFETY 3YSTEM ACTUATIONS -(INPO DEFINITION)

There were no INPO unplanned safety system actuations during the month of April 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 l backup automatic shutdown system. The generator was brought back on-line at 3:43 p.m. on August 26th, after a two-day outage.

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

i The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0. i 6

Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports Accountability: Skiles/Foley/Ronning  !

Trend: Positive i

34 i

. l I

g Safety System Actuations (NRc Definition) j

, , Fcs Goal (0)

+ CriticalHours

_ 12-Month Running Total ssAs (NRC Definition) 10 . . . 800  ;

i l

. 700 c,ci wn.eu.i.ns 8.. Cao'

..600 ,

.h j6 "

I k i g . 400 :$

- 4 .

E .2

. .300 E 0 p 3

2.  : : : : : -

100 0 , - ; l

l

_:::::: _, ; ; '

' . O j 92 9394 95 AMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAM l1994l l1995l TO'ICl l

l UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(NRC DEFINITION) ,

This indicator shows the number of unplanned safety system actuations (SSAs), which j includes the High and Low Pressure Safety injection Systems, the Safety injection Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC 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 an unplanned SSA during the month of February 1994 when 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 35 l

m Gross Heat Rate

1. Year-to.Date Gross Heat Rate l GOOD l

+ Fort Calhoun Goal -

10.75 .

3g l

10.5 .

10.25 . ., 58 mas l

~

B

- ~

10 __

h '

a.

" 9.75 .

j 9.5 ..

9.25 92 93 94 95 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1996 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 10,089 for the month of May 1996. The 1996 year-to-date GHR wss 1ft,074 at the end of the month.

"The GHR varies with fluctuations in river water temperature. In generci, 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.

t l 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 36 i

L _------ _ _ _ .--___ _ _ -__-_____-___ _ _ _ _ _ - ..

I Thermal output

+ Fort Calhoun 1495 MW Goal l

+ Tech Spec 1500 MW Umit 1500 . ;;; ; ; ; ; ;;;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;;;;;;

- - ^ - ^ -

gu,__

- 2 : :

_ _ _ c h_

-.2

, . 2_ 2_1

_ _ .-. .. . . _ 7 1480 1460 -

1440._

l d

1420.

1400..

1380 i '

1 2 3 4 56 78 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT l The thermal output graph displays the daily operating power level during May 1996, the 1500 thermal megawatt average technical specification limit, and the 1495 thermal mega-watt Fort Calhoun goal.

l l

1 Data Source: Bostelman/Willett (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Short Trend: None 37 l

r a i

+ Num bor of Equipment Forced Outages (M onthly)

1. Equipment Forced Outage Ratoli,000 Critical Hrs. (12-M onth interval) l GOOD l

+ Fort Calhoun Yea r-End Goals (0.2) qg 2 .-

1..

e c  :

_  :  :  :  :  : o 0 -

93 94 95 Jan Fe b Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS )

l The equipment forced outage rate per 1,000 critical hours for the 12 months from June 1, l 1995, through May 31,1996, was 0.235. The year-to-date rate per 1,000 critical hours for the months from January 1996 through May 1996 was 0.293. ,

1 An equipment forced outage occured at the end of the March due to condenser tube lerkage. l 1

An equipment forced outage also occurred on February 20,1995, when the plant experi- )

cnced a problem with a control element assembly motor drive and a related small leak of  !

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

coolant pump motor.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.20. i D:ta Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs) l Accontability: Chase /Skiles l Trcnd: Needs increased Management Attention ,

38

)

. l g, ""+~ W l l

s MiCategories 93 , -

._ _Totnicae gones

. u.

E 12

h. qs/

^ h/v e

Mi i Wp '

2.

O J-95 F M A M J J A S O N D J-96 F M A M A ge/N o rmal Us e 85.1%

Procedure Error 2%

initial installatio n 2.3 %

Testing Action 4.7 %

M eintena nce M anufacturing i gtg Other Devices 00%

115 % Engineering / Design 4.7 %

COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

i 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 August 1994 through January 1996). Fort Calhoun Sta-tion reported a higher failure rate in 6 of the 83 component categories (valves, pumps, motors, etc.) during the past 18-month CFAR period. The station reported a higher failure rate in 12 of ints 257 application categories (main steam stop valves, auxiliary / emergency feedwater pumps, control element drive motors, etc.) during the past 18-month CFAR period. l

. 1 The pie chart depicts the breakdown by INPO cause categories (see the " Definitions" section of this report for descriptions of these categories) for the 47 failure reports (failure discovery dates 1 within the 18-month CFAR period) with known failure causes that were submitted to INPO by Fort l Calhoun Station. A total of 73 failure reports were submitted to INPO with discovery dates within l the 18-month CFAR period. )

Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source) I Accountability: Skiles/ Dowdy Trend: None 39 1

1

+ Components with more than One Failure

% Components with more than Two Failures  !  !

15 . 37 10 -.

l 7 l 6 6 l 6

5 4 - - -

4

?

i 1 1 1 1 1 1  ;

0,  ?

?

?

?

1 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1 1996 REPEAT FAILURES The Repeat Failures Indicator (formerly called the ' Maintenance Effectiveness Performance Indicator") was ,

developed in response to guidelines set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis end Evaluation of Operational Data (NRC/AEOD). The NRC requirement for a Maintenance Effectiveness P;rformance 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).

This indicator shows the number of NPRDS reportable components with more than one failure during the 18-month Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) period (failure discovery dates from August 1994 through January 1996) and the number of NPRDS reportable components with more than two failures during the 18-month CFAR period.

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

• EE-8J 125VDC/120VAC Staticinverter

• HCV-2918-O-1 Air Intensifier for HPSI Pump SI-2C Discharge Isolation Valve (CHAMPS Tag Number IA-HCV-2918-BP)

• HCV-2987-0-1 Air intensifier for HPSI Attemate Header IsolationValve.

(CHAMPS Tag Number IA-HCV-2987-BP)

• RC-10-08 Control Element Drive Mechanism

• RC-3D-M Reactor Coolant Pump Motor

• V/P-403C (Two Failures) Valve Positioner for Containment Cooling Coll VA-8B CCW Outlet Valve Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None 40

l CHEMISTRY ACTION LEVELS EXCEEDED Event Days + Average Event Days  :

Lrnal l

6.

6. )

l3m . . . . m. "

E

~ ~

E aEm o

= = - E i8 g I 8

i 8

e 8

i 8

F 8

i8 i8 i s

?

E I

M ONTH CHEMISTRY ACTION LEVELS EXCEEDED - EVENT DAYS The Chemistry Action Levels Exceeded indicator tracks the number of days in which chemistry 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-istry procedure CH-AD-0003, Plant System Chemical Limits and Corrective Actions. )

An action levelis 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. l l

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

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.

The ECN to the chemical feed system has been completed. There has been no action levels exceeded due to the chemical feed system since the ECN has been completed. ,

I Data Source: Chase / Spires i Accountability: Spires Trend: None 41

l l

1 7.00 1

! 6.00 Goal i 5.00 f! 4.00 8

3.00 l 4

2.00 1.00 E E 0.00 m

Jul Aug Sep Oct tbv Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1996 l i

l

! PRIMARY SYSTEM LITHlUM % HOURS OUT OF LIMIT l

The Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit indicator tracks the hours per month that the primary system lithium is out of specification.

2

The Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit was 0.34% for the month of May 1996. Lithium exceeded its' limits for 2.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> during the month.

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

j D:ta Source: Chase / Spires (Manager / Source)  !

Accountability: Spires  !

Trend: None 42

1 l

1 l

COST l i

I 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 a

t 4 43 J

e

+ Actual -as. Revised Budget Orighal Budget Plan 4.00 . .

3.75 .

3.50 _.

E $25 - . _

3h0 .d.

I o 2.75 ..

2.50 .

2.25 .

2h0 ,

091 D92 D93 D94 D95 J96 F M A M J J A S O N D D96 D97 D98 D99 Months CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun Station.

The cents per kilowatt hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per kilowatt ,

hour on a 12-month rolling average for the current year. The basis for the budget curve is  ;

the approved 1995 and 1996 revised budgets. The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating Report. l The December 31 amounts are also shown for the prior years 1991 through 1995. In addition, the report shows the plan amounts for the years 1997 through 2000 for refer-ence. The basis for the dollars are the Nuclear Long Range Financial Plan and the 1996 Corporate Planning and Budget Review. The basis for the generation is provided by Nuclear Fuels.

The 12-m'onth rolling average unit price (period of May,1995 through April,1996) aver-aged below the budget due to 12-month rolling generation exceeding the budget expecta-tions, and 12-month rolling expenses being below the budget expectations. The 12-month rolling average (05/95 through 04/96) is 2.86 cents per kilowatt hour.

Cents per KWH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Budget Y-T-D 2.79 2.84 2.85 2.81 2.82 2.79- 2.75 2.76 2.81 2.96 3.09 3.06 Actual Y-T D 2.91 2.77 2.96 2.94 l

Data Source: Lounsberry/Jamieson (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Lounsberry Trend: Needs Management Attention 44

,__ Spare Parts inventoryValue ($ MWion) 16.3 .

16.2 __

16.1 ._

16 ..

Ili g 15.9 .

3 E

e 15.8 ..

5 <

I 15.7 ._

15.6 ..

15.5 ..

15A i - - - '

Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1996 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY The spare pcrts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of May 1996 was reported as $15,456,310.

Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Willrett/McCormick Trend: None 45

DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT l

PERFORMANCE i

i INDICATORS i

! Goal: Achieve high standards at Fort Calhoun Station

! resulting in safe, reliable and cost effective power pro-

! duction.

i i

i i

e i

i i

46 t

e corrective Maintenance g Preventive Maintenance m Non-Corrective /Plantimprovements ._e._ Fort Calhoun Goal 830 3N 759 771 782 777 752 O __ 668 671 726 O i j Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May j l Non-Outage Maintenance Work Order Backlog l f9 Total MWos Past ls Tote m l Mwos completio n Date ip 678 Al%

I 2

a.

6- 12 i 89 - ,~, , W -

0.__ i ---

l Ruty R uty Ruty Ruty Fnorty 1 2 3 4 5 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 469. To ensure that the MWO backlog is worked in a timely manner, non-outage maintenance completion goals have been established as follows:

4 Goal Priority 1 Immediate Action 2 days l

Priority 2 Urgent 5 days

Priority 3 Operational Concems 21 days y Priority 4 Routine Corrective 90 days Priority 5 Non-Essential 180 days 4

Dats Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: Adverse SEP 36 47 m - -

Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance 80% ._

I 70%..

60% .-

! 50%.

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

._e Fort Calhoun Goal 2%. y 1

1%._

. o 0% l  : i l i i I i l I Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May f9 i

RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE

! The top graph shows the rado of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total com-4 pleted non-outage maintenance. The ratio was 66.0% for the month of May 1996.

The lower graph shows the percentage of scheduled preventive maintenance items that are overdue. During May 1996,500 PM items were completed.

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

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

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: Adverse SEP 41 & 44 l

48 )

l

m Rework as identified byCraft

._o Fort calhoun Goal (<3%)

6% ..

s.ss 5%.

I e

s .s %

4%.

s .2 % s .2 %

2'S 2%

f3%.. 2.6 %

re t'S ,. , g j 2%.

' t4%

1% .

'N 2 i

" i i l i l i I i 1 i Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

[1996l PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK This graph indicates the percentage of total MWOs completed per month identified as rework. Rework activities are identified by maintenance planning and craft.

This indicator is calculated from the 15th cf April to the 15th of May, 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 concerns.

Data Source: Faulhaber/Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None 4g

f g Maintenance overtime 12-Month Awrage Maintenance Overtime

# coopg l

._o__ Fort Calhoun "On-Une" Goal (10%)

30% .

25%. I l

1 i

20%.-

15%.

x = r ,

10%. -

o ,  ;  ;  ; i i i l l [ t i Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May MAINTENANCE OVERTIME The Maintenance Overtime Indicator monitors the ability to perform the desired mainte-nance activities with the allotted resources.

The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 8.4% for the month of May 1996. The 12-month average percentage of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 10.0 % at the end of the month.

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

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None 50

l Human Performance CRs(Maintenance) l 1 18 .

16 ..

]

, 14 ..

13

$ 12 ..

? ,

i a i j

g 10 ..

g 8..

6 ..

1 I I i -l Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS (MAINTENANCE)

This ind;cator 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 i

I A

I  ;

g% Scheduled Activities Compteted

]

l GOOD l 0% Ernergent Activities .

100.0% ..

• l*

90.0% ..

'~

80.1 %

67.7/.

, 70.0% ..

i

! 60.0%

50.0% ..

i 1

40.0% ..

i 30.0% 4.8%

3.4%

0.7'/. 9.2%

' 9.0%

20.0% ..

l 10.0% ..

0.0% . _+- w l

i i i

Jan-96 Feb-96 Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 DAILY SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE PERCENT OF SCHEDULED ACTIVITIES COMPLETED j 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 ic 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%.

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

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 33 i

{

52 l

mas % ct Mxas ttn inUne ammetryinstrumerts are w GOOD 1996 Rrt ChhamGbal(10*/4 l Y

2s%..

24%..

22%._

20%..

18%..

16%._

14%..

12%._

10%..

s%.-

I i i i I i E I I I I I I Jm Jd Aug Sep Oct Nw Dec Jan Feb hr Apr Wy 1996l I IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS

! OUT-OF-SERVICE i 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 May 1996, the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instruments i were inoperable was 5.61%. The following instruments were out of service during the month:

< SL PASS Containment Grab Sampla; leaking fitting in sample circuit.

] SL-34 has been out of service since 01/18/96 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

i I

m Waste Produced Each Montit (Kilograms)

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

Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal (150 kilograms)

+ Federal & State MonthlyLimit (Max.of1,000 kg) 1000 :  ; ,, , x  :: -

,, ,, x 800..

600 I

i 400..

200..

c  : c c c c = = = ~

o

= -- --

0 'i 2 2 _

)

Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 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 te'al 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 produced.

During the month of May 1996,0.0 kilograms of non-halogenated,0.0 kilograms of halo-genated and 0.0 kilograms of other hazardous waste was produced. The total hazardous waste produced during the last 12 months is 191.1 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

4

\

! e Contaminated Radiation contro8ed Area lNl e_. Fort Calhoun Goal (10%)

= if l

10%._ c

:  :  :  :  :  :  :  : 3

'I 4

i 9%,.

I i

i i

a% i i i i  ;  ; i ,

i i i Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May l P9 1

l l CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA

This indicator shows the percentage of the Radiologically Controlled Area that is contami-j 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 May 96, the percentage of the total square footage of the RCA that was contaminated was 9.4%.

4 i

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

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 54 1

55 1

. i l

1

-e Identified PRWPs tYear to Date) m Fort calhoun Goal (<20) 1 P 20 -  :  :  :  :  :

18 .

16 ..

14 __

a. 12 __

1

.g 10 __

.V 8._

a:

j 6. (

4.. I 2 2 2 2.. - - -

1 0 0  ; ,  ;  ;  ; , l Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec puw]

RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM The Radiological Work Practices Program Indicator shows the number of Poor Radiologi-cal Work Practices (PRWPs) which were identified during the reporting month.

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

During the month of May 1996, there were O PRWPs identified. 1 l

There have been 2 PRWPs in 1996. l The 1996 year-end goal for PRWPs is a maximum of 20.

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP52

I e

c) Documents Scheduled for Review g Documents Reviewed g Documents Overdue 300..

250..

200..

~ '-

150..

100..

]

50 ..

O _-l _ E+ l _

41 -l_ (_ k_ k_Mark_Aprk_Mayh l Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 1996 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 May 1996, there were 205 document reviews scheduled, while 68 reviews were completed. At the end of the month, there were 13 document reviews more than 6 months overdue. There were 8 new documents initiated during May 1996. Beginning in Septem-ber 1995, these figures include PED and NOD procedures.

Data Source: Chase /Plath Accountability: Chase /Skites Trend: None SEP 46 57

- I I

g SystemFailures lGooDj O Non-System Failures 30 . )

Y

, 25 .

4 to 20 . , , , ,

7 17 j Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May i

. LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)  !

This graph shows the Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) Indicator and depicts (1)

.! the total number of loggable/ reportable incidents conceming system failures which oc-

curred during the reporting month, and (2) the total number of loggable/ reportable inci- '

dents non-system failures conceming Security Badges, Access Control and Authoriza-tion, Security Force Error, and Unsecured Doors.

During the month of May 1996, there were 13 loggable/ reportable incidents identified.

l System failures accounted for 92% of the loggable/ reportable incidents. Eleven (11) of l

. the thirteen (13) system failures were environmental. Non-system failures continue to l improve, however, lost / unattended security badges still remains an area of concem. Plant l management and Security management continue to address this indicator.

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

l Data Source: Sefick/Woemer(Manager / Source)  !

Accountability: Sefick

< Trend: None SEP 58 58

a i

I i

l

, , Temporary Modifications L n-cycle old (P'"TrequT:J for removal) .

m Temporary Modifications >6 morohs old (Removable on-line) l

+ Fort Calhoun Goals for >1-cycle and >0 months old

, I , , , ,

y ,

x ,

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1 1996 )

i l

I 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-fications removable on-line that are greaterthan six months old. The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly I goals for this indicator are zero.

There are currently no temporary modifications that are greater than one-fuel cycle old requiring l i

a refueling outage to remove. In addition, at the end of May 1996, there are O temporary modification installed that are greater than six months old that can be removed on 'ine.

At the end of May 1996, there was a total of 10 TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station. 6 of the ,

10 installed TMs require an outage for removal and 4 are removable on-line. In 1996, a total of 8 l temporary modifications have been installed.

Data Source: Skilestrurner (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Gorence Trend: Positive SEP 62 & 71  :

59

e

, , Total Modification Packages Open

,_ Fort calhoun Year-End Gal (68) l i

100..

90 .

80 .. ,, ,, ,, 7: 7:

{

70 .. , e c e e c  :  :

60 __ ,,

50 ..

40 ..

30 ..

20 .

10 .

0 '

' ' 1

l 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 <

Cateaory '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 Month Form FC-1133 Backlog /In Progress 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Mod. Requests Being Reviewed 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Design Engr. Backlog /In Progress 0 0 0 15 4 11 30 Construction Backlog /In Progress 4 0 9 18 0 0 31 Design Engr. Update Backlog /in Progress _1. 2 7 0 0 0 10 Totals 5 2 16 35 5 12 75 (Outage + OnLine) (3+2) (0+2) (7+9) (25+10) (0+5) (12+0) (42+29)

At the end of May 1996,10 modification requests have been issued this year and 3 modification requests have been cancelled. The Nuclear Projects Review Committee (NPRC) has conducted 28 backlog modification request reviews this year. The Nuclear Projects Committee (NPC) has completed 7 backlog modification request reviews this year.

The 1996 year-end Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum of 68 outstanding modifications.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Scofield/Lounsberry (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Scofield/Jaworski Trend: None 60

l I l 80 - EARS Requiring Engineering closeout - Not in Closeout 60 - g sE D DEN 40 . _

20 .. -

0 ,-  ;

,O;m  ; ;n C, ,

,E,m;  ;

Mar Apr May Mar Apr May Mar Apr May Mar Apr Apr 0-3 Months 3 6 Months 6-12 Months >12 Months  !

l O Engineering Response E Closeout (sE) 20 ..

, , , , i 1 , ,

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

li i Priority 1 & 2 m Priority 3 . . .o. . . Total Open EARS l 150._ " " ' " G' .., j 100 .

• • • ***'*''***"~0.~-G.*3....g......c

, Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1995 1996 87 EARS en 20 Overdue n an. =;; g- "7,*,";"

ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST BREAKDOWN 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.

Total EAR breakdown is as follows:

EARS opened during the month 3 EARS closed during the month 5 Total EARS open at the end of the month 103 Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski

Trend: None SEP 62 61 4

4 4

128 j 13 1 17 5 0-3 Months CLOSEOUT DEN 23 %

>6 onths 207 5.E.

$ CONST. 9% $8 37% S-E Months ECN Status -Overall Backlog g Backlogged O Received a Completed

~ 6 '

pg 4? , so N b T'8 es s2 es j 57 37 1 50 . Dec b his k b k Jan Feb Mar Apr May H

a

>$ Months as%

==

3-8 Mosahs 13 %

I Design Engineering .

gg 38 MI 3 M onths 10 % 33 l gg, 03 >G Months

" M o nths 73 %

100. 7s 8' "

4 is%

Syst Engineering 250. .. 3,7

'" '" 12 2

, 200.. 57, sra ;i >s

' ' I I ,

11#

L. .. L Dec Jan LLFeb Mar Apr May 10 % u ,,,n, y

! Procureinent/ Construction 18 5 250.

l 200. ,6 n SM 150.. $2. o, Wr hs [ 9 ,

0

• i Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 6% i Drafting / Closeout ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS l Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Skiles Trend: None SEP 62 62 4

. \

17 s too

y j  % -Q j g

sri tyP e y

Total Open ECNs = 560

, ,g,,,

T x ,y S4% Total Open ECNs= 537 56%

0 DEN . Closecut or Drafting Not Complete p ,3,,ggy p ,3,,3,y B Maintenance / Construction / Procurement . Work Not Complete $&S 1&2 3 System Engineering . Res p6gs e, Confirmatkn Not Complete 1.% 15 %

5 DEN . Engineering Not Cornplete 3oo .

2oo _ <- #4 ,.. ,.. ,,, ,7.

l 4 7 7 12 :

I I I P rio rity Do....

se...,,ggg.,,jg g,,... er ...

309 39 76 300, as4 2es 2sr 2n

7s P riority P rio rity

, .; ,  ;  ; g Dec-95 Jan-M Feb-M Mar.M Apr-M May-M p rio rity Substitute Replacement item EENs Open sa4 63%

80 . " 78 7: 2 71 St Priority 33 Dec Jan Feb Document Change ECNs Open Mar Apr May 48 %

ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Trend: None 63

l l

O Administrative control Problem a Licensed Operator Error g Other PersonnelError g Maintenance Problem D Design /Constructionlinstallation/ Fabrication Problem a EquipmentFailures 2.-

1.- - - - -

0 ,  ; ,  ;  ; , , ,  ; ,

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

l l1995l l1996l LICENSEE EVENT R5 FORT (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 June 1,1995, through May 31,1996. 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 l this report i i

There were no events in May 1996 that resulted in an LERs. I Data Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase j Trend: None 1 64 l

O Total Requalmcation Training Hours a simulator Train!ng Hours g Non-Requalification Training Hours g Number of Exam Failures

~

35 . 32.5 32 n 30 -

26 l

25 -.~

20 -. g 16 5.5

• j 15 ~

2 2 10 .. .5 8 .5 8

.5 8 s 5

~- 3 2.5 2 2 9

0 0 0 0 O __ i i  ; i l  ! j i Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle 95 2 95 3 95 4 95-5 95 6 96 1 96-2 96-3

• Note 1:The simulator was out-of 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 Requa!ification Training.

Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 65

g SROExams Adminhtered O SRo Exams Passed O ROExams Administered '

g ROExams Passed 10 .

d 6.

L 0 >

l

- i > >

Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May f9 I"l

LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS l 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- 1 tered quizzes and exams are used to plot the SRO and RO candidates' monthly progress.

During the month of May 1996, there were O RO and 0 SRO exams given. There is no Licensed Operator training class currently in progress. The next class is scheduled to l begin in July 1996. 1 l

l Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source) l Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 se l 1

, , Ready to aose m Cosed

+ Tctal CRs

-+ open 1200 1000.

800.

. . p 2-Feb 16-Feb 1-Mar 15%r 29 hr 12-Apr 26-Apr 10&y 24-Wy i

CONDITION REPORTS BY LEVEL This indicator shows the total number of Condition Reports which are Closed, Ready to j Close, Open and the Total Number of Condition Reports to date.

i

! Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Total l Open 18 6 76 572 23 34 732 l Closed 1 0 15 202 162 33 413

! Ninety-four (94) Condition Reports are " READY" to "CLOSE".

l At the end of May,1996 there were 205 "OPEN" incident Reports, of which, 53 were l Significant.

As of September 21,1995, incident Reports were no longer issued.

i

Data Source

Tesar/Burggraf (Manager / Source) j Accountability: Andrews/Gambhir/Patterson j

i Trend : None I

67

[

O Totalmtagelmas a hWosReadytoWork i 900.

"- MWO HOLDS 700. system egneerN soo . Rmr 7%

g, 15% EENs 11%

i 100.

l 0 i i i i l

ret >es unr.as Apr a Meyes l

1 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 i - Planner Holds - Maintenance Planner has not completed planning the work i

package.

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

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

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

l 1996 Outage Projects Status r<eport l

3 g Last Month 5 This Month 100.. O For Schedule 90 ..

l 80 .. 7,

' IO 7 7:

88 "

70 __ ,, ,

a a a s a a

! s2 60 ._ 88 st es

! ke 50 ._

o

$ 40 __

30 __

2:84 l

I 20 ., is is 10 ._

0. -# _ i i  : i i y

$ h b -$ $ $ $ b5 bh I

g si oE io o

! 3 j

3  !

e EE o g mm

!E $

" ]g s 5 0 S ii 5"

i i 3 SPECIAL SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OVERALL PROJECT STATUS l (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage)

This performance indicator shows the status of projects which are in the scope of the  !

l Cycle 17 Refueling Outage. SSED's goalis to have all projects completed by August 23, 1996,30 days prior to the Refueling Outage start date.

Data Source: Skiles/Swearngin (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Boughter Trend: None SEP 31 69

,c

-+- Baselne $chedule forPRC Approval

-e- Projected / Actual Schedule for PRC Approval

- -Fnal Design Pkg issued (2 FD DCP issued Pro rto 05/0795)

Total M o dicatio n Packages (22)(tI Added After 05/0795) 9 E 8.

7. e 12 5 j 6. ,/

5.

,mww!

4' S<

oooc 3 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

x } 2_ ......

di c.

0:

y @ -

~

5 5 E $ 5 ,

l 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. Modifice4ns 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.

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. 11 Modifications added after May 1, 1995, not included.

May 1996 Modifications added: 1 Deleted = 0 Graph corrected to represent the baseline schedule.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 ,

70

e e

e Actual PRC App' oval Date

+ PRC Approval Target [hte 9/1:v96 . - .

. /

8/3/96 .  :

i 7/14/96 .

I 6/24/96 .

6/4/96 .

5/15/96 l 95 E 95- 95 96 95 95- 95 96- 95- 95 025 001 023 011 002 008 013 022 008 007 020 PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE (1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING)

(1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING) i This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for installation during the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage. These modifications were added to the outage list after May 1, 1995. The data is represented with respect to the baseline schedule (established May 1, 1996).

The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages PRC approved by their target date.

May 1996 Modifications Added:1 Deleted = 0 Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 71

"^

o i

+ Baseline Schedule for PRC Approval

_e_. Projected /Actualschedule for PRc Approval

1. Total Modification Packages (10)(4 Added After 05A)1/95) 6 y . _x :w ,. y ,. x -- x x y f =7 x -

,x - -

5._

] 4._ . : : : : : .

.E . ..... .

p3 _

m

? 2..

1 5 1-  : : : : : : : .

O  ; ; ,

..  ;;;;;..  ;;;;. < 1 E

E E

E E

S E

y l

c E

E E

R E

y E

R le n

E 5

E 4

E S

E E

E E

3 ,

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.

May 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 72

b 4

ACTION PLANS 73 l

5 ACTION PLANS 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.

4 In accordance with Revision 3 of NOD-OP-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 Indicator (page 14)

. Maintenance Workload Backlogs (page 47)

FAILED 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 not meet the l performance indicator goal. The elevated FRI has resulted in lowering the plant  !

performance indicator index to an undesirable value.

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

PJan-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.  ;

l l

1 I

l 74

l-Fuel Reliability l

SHORT TERM (CYCLE 16 OPERATIONS)

IIgg ACTION EESE. DATE DUE STATUS

1. Evaluate replacement of two-mecron firer in CVCS with one- Holthaus Completed Complete.1/4/96. Firer replacement will micron firer. result in improved particulate removal 01/04/96 and consequently lower dose rates.

Ia. Install one-micron Alters in CVCS 01/31/96 Completed 03/13/96

2. Evaluate benetts ofincreasing letdown flow. Holthaus/Spilker Completed Previously evaluated in Radiological 01/19/96 Analysis95-005,wluch supports i

increased letdown flow.

3. Evaluate need for and effectiveness of more frequent of Holthaus Completed Cornplete. 01/04/96. Resin bed effectile puri# cation and cation ion beds. 01/04/96 in nwumizing RCS actnnty. Resin beds replaced in November 1995.

IIEM ACTION RESP. Date Due STATUS 3a. Replace resin beds during Spring 1996 outage. Spires 03/22/96 Canceled

4. Prepare and issue Nuclear Network request for industry Completed Complete. 01/12/96. Transmitted experience in reducing FRI. 01/12/96 proposed inquiry to Licensing for Nuctsar Network entry.

5. Evaluate installation of silver mordenite 81tration system Holthaus/ Spires Completed Received general (unclassi6ed) for increased iodine removal. 01/26/96 information on system used at Savannah River Project.

6. Identify number of old design assemblies to be placed Completed Previously identiled eight assemt.bes to in peripheral locations for second cycle and consider Holthaus/Guinn 01/12/96 be placed on core periphery for second replacement with new design assembly. cycle.

75 ,

O

, _ _ _ _ _ ______m_ _ _ _ - ._. _ - . ~ r . --- -, ,. r , , . _ , .w , , , ___,_m. .__. .-

w i

Fuel Reliability

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

~

8. Determine if Westinghouse can supply the above fuel Ceiis;ed Complete. 01/12/96. Westinghouse has assemblies for Cycle 17. Also, can Fuels Division HolthausManger 01/12/96 indicated that they can fabncate the provide necessary uranium. assembles . Cost estimates by Fuels Division is approx.12M. Discount from Westinghouse also requested.

9. Evaluate Cycle 18 preEminary pattem same as 5 & 6 Holthaus/Guinn Completed Cycle 18 preliminary pattem indecates 01/17/96 four addeonal assemblies would be required. Cost $1.0M

10. Evaluate Cycle 19 preEminary pattem same as S& 6 Holthaus/Guinn Cornpleted Cycle 19 preEminary pattem indicates  ;

01/17/96 eight addeonal assemblies would be required. Cost $2.0M

11. Analyze additional assembEes to be procured Holthaus/ Hanger Completed Total costis $5.0M for 20 addeonal 01/17/96 assembEes

12. Evaluated cost / bene 11t with assumption of Holthaus/ Hanger Completed  !

$10,000/ person exposure. 01/25/96 t

76

O i

?

a The action plan for Maintenance Workload Backlog (page 47) is as follows:

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

Planning  ;

i Scheduled Maintenance Bulk Work .

1 a

f 4

4 i

4 I .

I 77

o PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMNATIONS > 1,000 PERFORMANCE DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA l The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavatable The personnel cortammalen everts in the clean controBed areac )

hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the auxHiery This indcator tracks personnel performance for SEP #15 & 54. I feedwater system for the reportmg period dWided by the crlhcal l hours for the reportog penod rnuluplied by the number of trains CONTAMNATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA in the auxdiary feedwater system.

The percerdage of the Radebon Controlled Area, which includes COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE the auxiliary budding, the radwaste building, and areas of the C/RP bulideg, that is contaminated based on the total square Colectwo radiation exposure is the total extemal whole-body footage. This indcator tracks performance for SEP #54.

does receked by al onete personnel (includog contractors and visRors) during a time period, as measured by the DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). CobectNe radetion cxposure is reported in unsts of person-rem. This indcator This indicator shows the daily core thermal output as measured tracks redologcal work performance for SEP #54. from computer point XC105 (in thermal megawatts). The 1500 MW Tech Spec limit, and the unmet portion of the 1495 MW COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR) FCS daHy goal for the reportog month are also shown.

SUMMARY

DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (26 Dornands) 1 The summary of INPO categories for Fort Calhoun Staten with signitcanpy higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than This indicator shows the number of failures occurring for each the rest of the industry for en eighteen-month time period. emergency desel generator during the last 25 start demands FaHures are reported as component (i.e., pumps, motors, main and the last 25 load-run demands.

steam stop valves, control element motors, etc.) categories.

I Failure Cause Categories are: (LOSS TihE ACCIDENT RATE)

AgelNormal Use -thought to be the consequence of Thisindcator is defined as the number of accidents for all utility personnel permanenny assigned to the station, involving days l expected wear, agmg, end-of-life, or normal use .

away from work per 200,000 man-hours worked (100 man-Manufacturing Defect . a faHure attributable to inadequate years). This does not include contractor personnel. This

assembly or initial quality of the responsible component or indicator tracks personnel performance for SEP #25,26 & 27.

system.

DOCUIENT REVIEW (BIENNIAL)

C.., -...,Mn a faHure attributable to the inadequate design of the responsible component or system. The Document Review Indicator snows the number of documents reviewed, the number of docum6nts scheduled for Other Devices a failure attributable to a failure or review, and the number of document reviews that are overdue misoperation of another component or system, including for the reporting month. A document review is considered associated devices. overdue if the review is not complete within six months of the assigned due date. This indcator tracks performance for SEP Mainlanance/ Action - resulting from improper maintenance, #46.

lack of maintenance, or personnel errors that occur during maintenance activitieson the component.. EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Toadng Action resulting from improper testing or personnel errors that occur during testing activities. The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable and the estimated unavailable hours for the emergency AC power initial installation Error . caused by improper initial system for the reporting period divided by the number of hours installation of equipment in the reportmg period multiplied by the number of trains in the emergency AC power system.

CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNfT RELIABILITY The purpose of this indestor is to quantify the economica' operstbn of Fort Calhoun Staten. The cents per kBowatt The hdador shom the nurrter of failures that were reparkd durzg the hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per last 20,5o. and W ernergency desel generator demands at the Fort kBowatt hour on a twelve-month everage for the current year. C""" *" "'* *h""" *'* '"99*' "** '#d h 88"'b '8 8 hSh 8*" '

The basis br the budget curve is the approved yearfy budget. ,,,,""than or h The tesis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operatog less than the ingger values.

Report.

78

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

_ __ _ ._ _ __-_ _ _._ _ _ __. 7 ._._

Y a

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS i

and the successful test that follows repair to verify operabdity i should not be counted as demands or Insures when the EDG

1) Neesdnerof Start Demands: Al valld and inadvertent etsit .

demands, includmg e5 start-only demands and el etert has not been deciered operable again. '

1 demands that are followed by lood-run demands, whetter by eWometic or manuelinnistion. A start only demand is EMRGENCY DESEL GENERATOR UNftELIASE.ITY l

e demand in which the emergency generefor is started, but no attempt is made to toed the generator. This truscator measures the total unrebabGlty of emergency 1 diesel generators. In general, unrollsbuity is the reto of ]

?) Number of Start Feitures: Any failure within the unsuccessful operations (starts or lood runs) to the number of j valid demands Total unrelisbully is a combinsbon of stort 5 emergency generator system that prevents the generator unrohobdity and lood run unreinbigty. l

! tem echtsvirgi epoolled toquency and voltage is classilled as a vahd start inMure. This includes any condition ,

idengAed in the coures of maintenance inspedions (with ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE ftEQUEST (EAR) j the omorgency generator in elendby mode) that definitely BREAKDOWN l

f. would have resulted in a stort lature if a demand had  !

occuned This indicator shows a breakdown, by age and priority of the I

EAR, of the number of EARS assigned to Design Enginsonne Nuclear and System Engmeenng This indicator tracks i

3) Number of Load Run Darnands

For a valid lood-run '

demand to be counted, the lood-run ettempt must meet performance for SEP 862.

one or more of the fonowing crNorte:

ENOWdEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) STATUS A) A lood-run of any duraten that resuRs from a real l automatic or manuelinibabon. The number of ECNs that were opened. ECNs that were .

' completed, and open bacidog ECNs awaiting completon by f j B) A lood run test to satisfy the plant's load and duration DEN for sie reportng month. This indicator tracks performance {

for SEP #62. j as stated in each test's spoetAcebens.

F 1

, C) Other special toets in which the emergency generator ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN i

' is expeded to be operated for et loest one hour whee loaded with at least 50% of its design loed. This indicolor brooks down the number of Engmooring Change  !

l*

Nobces (ECNs) that are seeigned to Design Engineering j

[ 4) NienberofI.ned4 tun FeMures: Aloserunin8ure should Nuclear (DEN), System Engmeeting, and Maintenance. The t

! be counted for any reason in which the emergency graphs provide dets on ECN Facety changes open, ECN ,

generator does not pick up load and run as predicted Subelltule Repiscement items open, and ECN Document  ;

Failures are counted during any valid lood-run demande. Chongos open. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #62.

j l

5) Exceptions Unsucceeolut ettempts to etert or lood-run EQUIPMNT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL j f should not be counted as valid demands or inilures when HOURS 4 they con be attributed to any of the fonowing Equipment forced odeges per 1,000 orthcal hours is the inverse ,

, A) Spunous trips that would be bypeseed in the event of of the meanIlms between forced outages caused by equipment t

!- en emergency, failures. The moon time is equel to the number of hours the

! reactor is crticed in a ported (1,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />) divided by the number i i B) Melfuncbon of equipment that is not requeed dunng of forood outages ceuesd by equipment indures in that period.

i emnergency, i EQUIVALENT AVa' * 'TY FACTOR j

}

' i C) Inlardionet terminetson of a test because of abnormal condlhons that would not have resuRed in mehr This indicator is defined as the rete of groes available  !

diesel generator damage or repair. genersbon to groes maximum genersbon, expressed as e i percentage. Avellable genersten is the energy that can be l

, D) McNunctens or operating errors which would not produced if the unit is operated at the maximum power level i have prevented the emergency generator Dom being permitted by equipment and regulatory hmiletons Maximum I resterted and brought to load within a few minutes generation is the energy that can be produced tW e unit in e [

l given period K operated congnuously at maximum ospecity.  !

I

, E) - A feaure to etert because a porbon of the etertmg 1' system was desbled for test purpose, ll fotowed by FOftCED OUTAGE RATE  !

, a successful start with the startmg system in its  !

, normal alignment This indicator is defined as the percentage of time that the unit i was unevetable due to forced events compared to the time  !

Each emergency generator fauure that results in the generator planned for electncel genersten Forced events are feNures or  !

being dociered inoperable should be counted as one demand other unplanned conddions that require removing the unN tom  ;

e and one Indise. Exploratory tests during correcthre meintenance servee before the end of the next weekend Forced events 1 i 79  !

I

s PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS include start-up failures and events initiated while the unit is in Contractor personnel are not included for this indicator.

reserve shutdown (i e., the unM is available but not in service).

IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUhENTS OUT OF SERVICE FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR Total number of hiine cherrustry instruments that are out-of.

This indcator is defined as the steady-state pnmary coolant l- service in the Secondary System and the Post Accident 131 activty, corrected for the tramp uranium contribution and Samphng System (PASS).

normatted to a common purHlcation rate. Tramp uranium is fuel whch has been deposted on reactor core intemals from LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS previous defective fuel or is present on the surface of fuel elements from the manufactunng process. Steady state is Thisindicator shows the number of SRO and/or RO quizzes and defined as continuous operation for at least three days at a exams that are admirustered and passed each month. This power level that does not vary more than + or -5% Plants indicator tracks training performance for SEP #68.

should colod data for this indcator at a power level above 85%,

when posaiole. Plants that did not operate at steady-state power LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING above 85% should collect data for this indicator at the highest steady-state power level attained during the month. The total number of hours of training given to each crew dunng each cycle. Aho provided are the simulator training hours The density correction factor is the ratio of the specific volume (which are a subset of the total training hours), the number of of coolant at the RCS operating temperature (540 degrees F., Vf non-REQUALIFICATION training hours and the number of exam

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

exchanger, Vf = 0.016204), which results in a density correction factor for FCS equal to 1.32. LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN GROSS HEAT RATE This indcator showc the number and root cause code for Gross heat rate is defined as the retto of total thermal energy in Licensee Event Reports. The root cause codes are as fonows:

British Thermal Units (BTU) produced by the reactor to the total gross electncal energy produced by the generator in kliowatt- 1) Administrative Control Problem Management and hours (KWH). supervisory deficiencies that affect plant programs or activities (i.e., poor planning, breakdown or lack of HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED adequate management or supervisory control, incorrect procedures, etc).

The total amount (in Kilograms) of non-halogensted hazardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous 2) Licensed Operator Error - This cause code captures waste produced by FCS each month, errors of omission / commission by Icensed reactor operators dunng plant activities, HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 3) Other Personnel Error - Errors of omission / commission committed by non-licensed personnel involved in plant The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable activities.

hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the high pressure safety injection system for the reporting period divided by the 4) Maintenance Problem.The htent of this cause code is to cntical hours for the reporting period multiphed by the number of capture the fuH range of problems which can be attributed trains in the high pressure safety injection system. In any way to programmate deficiencies in the maritenance tLinctional organization. ActMties included in INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE -INPO this category are maintenance, testing, surveluance, cahbration and radiation protection.

This indcator is dehned as the number of accidents per 200,000 manhours worked for an utility personnel permanently assigned 5) Desagn/ Construction / Installation / Fabrication Problem -

to the station that result in any of the fonowing: This cause code covers a full range of programmate deficiencies in the areas of design, construction,

1) One or more days of restricted work (excluding the day of installation, and fabncation (i.e., loss of control power due the accident); to underrated fuse, equipment not quahfied for the environment, etc.).

2) One or more days away from work (excluding the day of the accident); and 6) Equipment Failures (Electronic Piece-Parts or Environmental Related Failures) Thrs code is used for

3) Fatauties, spurious failures of electronic piece-parts and failures due to meteorological conditions such as lightning, ice, high 80

I PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS .

winds, etc. GeneraHy, it includes spunous or one-time MAXIMUM INDMDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE toAures. Eisdnc components included in this category are dmut cards, recliters, taistables, fuses, capeoltors, diodes. The total maximum amourt of radioten received by an individual resistors, etc. person working at FCS on a monsdy, quarterty, and annual basis.

l LOGGASLEstEPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)

MWO PLANNWG STATUS (CYCLI 17 REFUELNG The total number of security incidents for the reportmp mordh OUTAGE) j depicted in two graphs. This indcator tracks securty performance for SEP #58. The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have been approved for nolumen in the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage and the MANTENANCE OVERTitE nurriber fut are ready to work (perts staged, planning complete, and as other poponsork ready for fleid use). Also included is the '

' The percent of overtime hours compared to normal hours for number of MWOs that have been engmeenng holds (ECNs, maintenance. This includes OPPD personnes as well as procedures and other miscouaneous engmeering holds), parts ,

contract personnel. hold,(parts almged, not yet inspected, parts not yet arrived) and planning hold Gob ocope not yet completed). Maintenance Work MANTENANCE WOftKLOAD SACKLOGS Requests (MWRs) are also shown that have been identined for i the Cycle 17 Refusing Oulege and have not yet been converted This indicator shows the backlog of non outage Maintenance to M W Os Work Orders remaining open at the end of the reporting month.

Maintenance cissoincatens are deAned as fotows: NURSER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUFhENT DEFICENCIES Corrective - Repair and restoraten of equipment or A control room equipment deficency (CRD) is defined as any componards tiet have foisd or are malfunctenmg and are not component which is operated or controlled from the Control performing their intended function. Room, provides indmeten or alarm to the ConLol Room,  ;

provides testag evahile=s from the Control Room, provides j Psewntive Actens taken to maintain a piece of equipment automate actens from or to the Control Room, or provides a wNiin dosip1 operating condihons, prevent equipment failure, possive kmeten for tie Control Room and has been identiAed as and extend its ble and are performed prior to equipmeN detcart, Lo., does not perform under au conditions as designed. j faRure. This delnden also apphes to the Altemete Shutdown Panois Al-179, Al-185, and Al-212.

Non Correctiverlant improvements - Maintenance A plert componert which is deficient or inoperable is considered i activtes performed to implement staten improvements or to repair non-plant equipment an" Operator Work Around (OWA) Item"if some other action is ,

required by an operator to componeste for the condition of the Maintenance Work Priorities are denned as: component Some examples of OWAs are: ,

Emergency - Conditens which signincently degrade station 1) The controt room level indcator does not work but a local selety or availability. sight glass can be read by an Operator out in the plant; immediate Action - Equipment defciences which 2) A detaart pump connot be repaired because replacemert signiecently degrade ntation rehabitty. Potential for unit parts require a long lead time for purchase /doNvery, thus shutdown or power reduchon. requinns the redundant pump to be operated continuously; Operations Concern - Equipment denciencies which hinder 3) Special actens are required by an Operator because of atsten operation. equipment design problems. These actens may be described in Opershons Mornorandums, Operator Notes, Essential - Rouhne corrective maintenance on essenhal or rney require changes to Operahng Procedures; station systems and equipmert.

9 Deecert plant equipmert that is required to be used dunng Non Essential - Routine correctare maintenance on non- Emergency Operstmg Procedures or Abnorme! Operating essential station systems and equipment. Procedures, Plant , __ '- Nor> corrective maintenance and plant 5) System indcaten that provides crlhcal informaton during improvements normel or abnormal operatens.

This indmetor tracks maintenance performance for SEP #36.

81  ;

m - -

s

.i PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS NUteER Op nanasin SURVER.LANCC TESTS RESULTNG This indicator shows the status of the projects which are in the W UCENSEE EVENT REPORTS scope of the Refuehng Outage The number of Survesence Tests (STs) that result in Licensee PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs CotrLEND PER Everd Reposts (LERs) dunng me reportng month. TNs indicator MONTH IDENTIFED AS REWORK tracks trueeed STs for SEP #60 & 61.

The percentage of total MWOs completed per month identmed OPEN WCIDENT REPORTS as rework. Rework activities are identmed by mairAenance planning and craft. Rework is: Any addihonal work required to TNJ indcator deploys the total number of open incident Reports conect detciences secovered during a failed Post Maintenance (irs), the number of irs met are greater then six months old and Testto arture the component / system passes subsequent Post the number of open signdcant irs. Maintenance Test.

OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS PERCENT OF COIWPLETED SCHEDULED MAWTENANCE ACTMTES The number of Modmcatson Requests (MRs) in any state between the issuance of a Modscation Number and the The percent of the number of a,,9 j meintenance scbythes cornpistson of the drewing update. as compared to the number of scheduled maintenance activities each month. This percentage is shown for all rnaintenance

1) Form FC 1133 Backloglin Progress. TNs number crafts. Also shown are the number of emergent MWOs represents modflcaten requests that have not been plant Maintenance activities include MWRs, MWOs, STs, PMOs, approved during the reporting rnonth. calibrations, and other miscellaneous actMties. TNs indmetor tracks Mantenance performance for SEP #33.

2) umanahmi Requeds Being Reviewed. The category includes: PERFORMANCE WDICATOR INDEX A) Modmcation Requests that are not yet reviewed. This Indicator index is calculated from a weighted comtanshon of ten overperformance indscator values, which include Unit B) Mdamhan Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear Capabihty Factor, Unit Capability Loss Factor, HPSI, AFW, Projects Review Committee (NPRC). Emergency AC Power System, Unplanned Autometc Scrams, Collective Radiation Exposure, Fuel Rehetblity, Ther7tal C) M~e8=han Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear Performance, Secondary System Chemistry, Radiation Weste, Projects Committee (NPC). and industrial Safety Accident Rate.

These Modscetion Requests may be reviewed several times PREVENTABLE! PERSONNEL ERROR LERs before they are approved for accomphshment or canceled.

Some of these ModiAcetion Requests are retumed to TNs indicator is a breakdown of LERs. For purposes of LER Engineering for more inlormaton, some approved for evaluston, event classmcahon, a " Preventable LER"is deflned as:

some approved for study, and some apprond for planning.

Once plannmg is completed and the scope of the work is clearty An event for wNch the root cause is personnel error (i.e.,

defined, these Modecation Requests may be approved for inappropnote action by one or more individuais), inadequate tccompleshment with a year assigned for constructen or they adminstrative controls, a design constructen, installation, may be conceled. All of these different phases require review. Inststelen, fabncation problem (involving work completed by or supervised by OPPD personnel) or a maintenance problem

3) Design Engineenng Backlog /in Progress. Nuclear (attributed to inadequate or improper upkeep / repair of plant Plannmg has assigned a year in which constructen will be equipment). Aino,the cause of the event must have occurred completed and design work may be in progress. wtNn approxtmately two years of the " Event Date" specmed in the LER (e.g., an event for which the cause is attributed to

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

.no modmcattor has ret been accepted by the System Acceptance Comtruttee (SAC). For purposes of LER event classification, a " Personnel Error" LER is defined as foHows:

l 5) Design Engineering Update Backloglin Progress. PED has received the Modmcation Completion Report trat the An event for wNch the root cause is inappropriate acton on l drawings have not been updated. the part of one or more indviduals (as opposed to being I

attributed to a department or a general group). Also, the The above menhoned outstandmg modincations do not include inappropnote acten rnust have occurred within approximately modlAcatens whch are proposed for cancelisten. two years of the " Event Date" specified in the LER.

OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (REFUELW3 OUTAGE) l 82

.-_g_.

o  !

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS ,

Addhonety, each overt cieseNied as a " Personnel Error" should SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES l

also be closened as " Preventable" TNs indcator trends 5 personnel performance for SEP ltem #15. Safety system fedures are any events or condbons that could prevent the fulnllment of the safety funobons of structures or ,

systems. If a eyelem conhists of multple redundant subsystems i Pftl MARY SYSTEM UTHluM % OF HOURS OUT OF LIBET  ;

or trains, feeure of aN trains constRules a esfoty eyelem failure.

Failure of one of two or more trains is not counted as a safety  !

The percent of hours out of hmit are for hthium divided by the system feaure. The doenition for the indcator peratels NRC l totel number of hours possible for the month, repoeng requrements in 10 CFR 50.72 and to CFR 50.73. The - ,

?

fotowmg is a tot of the major safety systems, sub systems, and PftOCEDURAL NONCORE'LIANCE INCEDENTS '

components monitored for this indcator (MAINTENANCE)

The number of identdod incidents concoming mentenance Accident Monitonng instrumentatori, Auxibery (and procedural problems, the number of closed irs reisted to the Emergency) Feedwater System, Comtuded= Gas Control,  ;

use of procedures (includes the number of closed irs caused by Component Cootng Water System, Contamment and j

- 2), and the number of cloeod Contemment leolabon, Contomment Coolant Systems, Control .

procedural ,wa~a procedursi noncomphence irs. This indcator tr3nds personnel Room Emergency Ventilation System, Emergency Core l Cooling Systems, Engineered Safety Features performance for SEP #15,41 and 44. I instrumentaten, Essenbal C,+- -f Air Systems, Essenhol or Emergency Service Water, Fire Detecten or f

- PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE MODIFICATION I PLANNING Suppression Systems, leoisten Condenser, Low Temperature Overpressure Protechon, Main Steam Line This indicator shows the status of modlRcahons approved for isolation Valves, Onsae E:nergency AC & DC Power [

w/Dutribubon, Radation Monitonng instrumentaten, Reactor r E4 2n dunng the Refuehng Outage, "

Coolant System, Reactor Core leoistion Coolmg System,

• Reactor Trip System and instrumentaten, Recyculation Pump PROGRESS OF 1995 ON4JNE MODIFICATION PLANNING Tnp Actuaten instrumentation, Residual Heat Removal  ;

This indicator snows the status of modtAcatens approved for Systems, Safety Velves, Spent Fuel Systems, Standby Liquid ,

I completion during 1995. Control System and Uthmete Heat Smk.

RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM SECONDARY SYSTEM CHERESTRY PERFORMANCE N ,

I The number of identded poor redologmal work practces (PRWPs) for the reportmg month. This indcator tracks The Chernistry Performance index (CPI) is a ceiculation bened I redological work performance for SEP #52. on the concentrabon of key impurthes in the secondary side of the plant. These key impurthes are the most Nkely cause of l RADIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & deteriorsuon of the elsem penerators. Crterie for celcuishng the l cpl are:

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE l

~

The rate of preventive maintenance (includmg surveNience 1) The plant is at grooter then 30 percent power; and testing and ceNbraten procedures) to the sum of non-outage r

correcibe mairtenance and prevenhve maintenance completed 2) the power is changing less then 5% per day. l E

, over the reporting period. The rate, expressed as a percentage, is ceiculated bened on man-hours Also deployed are the The CPils calculated using the following equaten.

3 j

percent of provertive maintenance iterns in the month that were not completed or admrustratively closed by the scheduled date CPI = ((so&um/0.7g) + (CNortde/1.52) + (Sulfate /1.44) +

j

• i plus a grace period equelto 25% of the scheduled interval. TNs (Ironf3.30) + (Copper /0.30)+(Condensate 02/2.90))/6 bduator tracks prevenhve maintenance activnies for SEP #41.

Where: Sodium, sulfate, chloride and condensato dissolved .  !

4 RECORDABLE INJURY / ILLNESS CASES FREQUENCY oxygen are the monthly average blowdown concentratens in i

< RATE ppb, iron and copper are monthly time weighted average

' feedwater concentrations in ppb. The denominator for each of ,

The number of injuries requiring more than normal Arst aid per the Sve factors is the INPO median value, if the monthly  !

I 200,000 man hours worked. TNs indicator trends personnel average for a specdc parameter is less then the INPO median

performance for SEP #15,25 and 26. value, the medan value is used in the calculaten 1 1 -

4 REPEAT FAILURES SIGNIFICANT EVENTS The number of Nucteer Plant ReliablNty Data System (NPRDS) components with more then one failure and the number of Signikard everts are tie events identifled by NRC staff through ,

NPRDS components w"h more then two failures for the dotated screenmg and evatusten of opershng experience. The eighteen month CFAR penod. screening process includes the deHy revow and discussen of i 83 l

. . - ~; - -

i e

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS til reported operating reactor events, as well as other instnanents are not considered as temporary modifications.

4 operahonal data such as special tests or construebon activibes.

An event identified from the screening process as a significant 3) Scaffold is not conssdered a temporary modrheation.

evert candidate is further evaluated to determine if any actual or Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for which MRs potential threat to the health and safety of the pubic was have been submnted will be considered as temporary involved. Specific examples of the type of criteria are mod

Acatens until final resolution of the MR and the jumper sum.narned as follows: or block is removed or is permanently recorded on the drawings. This indicator tracks temporary modificatens for

1) Degradation of important safety equipment; SEP #62 and 71.

l 1

2) Unexpected plant response to a transient; THERMAL PERFORMANCE

3) Degradation of fuel integrdy, prirnary coolant pressure The ratso of the design gross heat rate (corrected) to the boundary, importard associated features; adjusted actual gross heat rate, expressed as a percentage.

4) Scram with compicaten; UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR ,

5) Unplanned release of radcactivity; The ratio of the available energy generation over a given time i penod to the reference energy generahon (the energy that could

6) Operaton outside the bmits of the Technical Specifications; be produced if the unit were operated conhnuously at full powr;r l under reference ambient conditions) over the same time Mind,

7) Other, expressed as a percentage.

INPO significant events reported in this indcator are SERs UNIT CAPACITY FACTOR (Significant Event Reports) whch inform utilities of significant svents and lessons leamed idenufied through the SEE-IN The net electncal energy generated (MWH) divided by the screening process. product of maximum dependable capacity (net MWe) times the i gross hours in the reporting penod expressed as a percent. Net SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE electreal energy generated is the gross electncal output of the unit measured at the output terminals of the turbine generator lhe dollar value of the spare parts inventory for FCS dunng the minus the normal staten service loads dunng the gross hours of reporting penod. the reporting period, expressed in megawatt hours.

STAFFING LEVEL UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 4

s CRITICAL HOURS 3

The actual staffing level and the authorned staffing level for the Nucleer Operations Division, The Producten Engineenng Thisindicator is defined as the number of unplanned automate Division, and the Nuclear Servces Division. This indcator scrarns (reactor protection system logic actuatons) that occur i tracks performance for SEP #24. per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of cnbcal operaten.

STATION NET GENERATION The value for this indicator is calculated by muttsplying the total number of unplanned automate reactor scrams in a specifc time The net genersbon (sum) produced by the FCS dunng 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 time penod. The indicator is further defined as follows

TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS

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

configurations to the plant's systems.

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

1) Temperary mnfigurations are defined as electrical jumpers, rapid insertion of negative reactivey (e.g., by control rods, eledncal blocks, mechanical jumpers, or mechanical blocks hquid injection system, etc.) that is caused by actuabon of which are installed in the plant operahng systems and are the reactor protecten system. The scram signal may have not shown on the latest revraion of the PalD, schemate, resulted from exceeding a set point or may have been connection, winng, or tiow diagrams. spunous.

2) Jumpers and blocks whch are installed for Surveillance Tests, Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Procedures, 3) Automate means that the initial sgnal that caused actuation Special Procedures or Operating Procedures are not of the reactor protecten system logic was provided from one considered as temporary modificatons unless the jumper or of the sensor's monitoring plant parameters and conditons, block remains in place after the t6st or procedure is rather than the manual scram switches or, manual turbine complete. Jumpers and blocks installed in test or lab tnp switches (or push-buttons) provided in the main controt 84

7 .y e

o 1

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS toom. shipped off-eNo for i,E-- 6, and the volume c' notd dry radmactwo weets wNch has been eNpped off ete for

4) Calhool means that during the steady-state condlhon of the processang Law 4evel notd radoecewe weste conmets of dry ,

reacher prior to the screm, the ofisctwo tr=Whnn (k ,) gggyg ggggg, gkgggg, pggng, and evaporator bottoms generated j was essenbesy equelto one. as a result of nucieer power piant opwebon and maintenance Dry radmechve waste includes contenunsted rags, cieerung i UNPLANNED CAPARIUTY LOSS FACTOR motortels, e protechve clothng, pimenc contaners, and  !

any other meteral to be deposed of at a low 4evel radmedive The robo of the unplanned energy loeces during a given period weste deposal she, except resin, sludge, or oveporotor bottoms  ;

of time, to the reference energy generation (the energy that Low 4evel refers to au redmactwo weste that is not opent fuel or  !

could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at fug e by-product of spent fuel procesang This indmotor tracks l

' power under reference ambient condihons) over the same time redelogical work performance for SEP g54.  ;

portod, C:M se a percentage i UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS . ONPO

+DEPINITION) k This indmetor is deined as the sum of the fonowing safety j system actuohons

1) The number of unplanned Emergency Core Cootng System (ECCS) actuatens that resun from toeching an ECCS actuation set point or from a spurious / inadvertent ECCS j signet t i

2) The number of unplanned emergency AC power system actuohons that result from a loss of power to a safeguards ,

bus. An uripiermed endely system actuation occurs when an {

actuohon est poet for a esfety system la reached or when a  ;

apurious or inadvertent signal is generated (ECCS only), j and mejor ocpJipment in the system is actuated. Unplanned means that the system actuohon was not past of a pionned [

lost or evolution. The ECCS actudons to be courned are .

actuatens of the high preneure inpocton system, the low pressure inpochon system, or the safety injecten tanks. {

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTIONS .OdRC DEFINm0N)

Ttw number of seesty system actuations wNch include (gg) the j High Pneeum Solsty hyschon System, the Low Pressure Safety i l

irgecean System, the Selety injechon Tanks, and the Emergency

! Dionel Generators The NRC closesAcehon of safety system  !

actuohons includes actuatens when major equipment is

! operated gag when the logic systems for the above oefety j systems are challenged.

VIOLATION TREND 4

This iniscator is delmed as Fort Calhoun Station Cited Violatons i

, and Non. Cited Vloistens trended over 12 months. AdditeneNy, j Chad Violations for the top quartse Regen IV plant is trended i over 12 mornho (leggmg the Fort Calhoun Station trend by 2-3 mordhs). R is me Fort Catmun Staten goal to be at or below the  ;

cited violation trend for the top quartse Region IV plant. i i

VOLUBE OF LOW 4.EVEL SOLE RAD 00ACTWE WASTE a

}

This indicolor is deAnod as the volume of low-level solid vedonathre weste edushy shpped for burtel This inchcolor eleo shows the volume of low-level radmactive weste which is in temporary esorage, the er,munt of radioechve oH that hos been

]

85 J

- 1 i

o SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM lNDEX .

The purpose of the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Performance Indicators Index is to Est  !

performance indicators related to SEP items with parameters that can be trended.

SEP_ReferenceRumber_15 East l

. Increase HPES and IR Accountability through use of Performance indicators ,

l l

Procedural Noncompiance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Recordable injuryAliness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations >1.000 Disintegrations / Minute Per Probe Area ........ ... 5 Preventable / Personnel Error LERs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 SEP Reference Number 24

. Complete Staff Studies Staffi ng Leve l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 SEP Reference Numbers 25. 26. & 27

. Training Program for Managers and Supervisors implemented

. Evaluate and implement Station Standards for Safe Work Practice Requirements

= implement Supervisory Enforcement of industrial Safety Standards Disabling injuryAliness Frequency Rate ............... .................................. 3 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SEP Reference Number 31 l

. Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Eanual and Conduct Project Management Training MWO Planning Status (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage) ....................... ............... 68 l Overall Project Status (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 i Progress of Cycle 17 Outage Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 l l

SEP Reference Number 33

. Develop On-line Maintenance and Modification Schedule Percent of Completed Scheduled Maintenance Activities (All Maintenance Crafts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 SEP Reference Number 36

. Reduce Corrective Non-outage Backlog Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage) ............... ................. 47 SEP Reference hiumbers 41 & 44

. Develop and implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule

. Compliance With and Use of Procedures Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance Iterns Overdue . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 86

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

1

=

i SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX i t

SEP Reference Number 46 ,

. Design a Procedures Control and Administrative Program Docume nt R eview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 57 SEP Reference Number 52 Eaga '

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

. Complete implementation of Radiological Enhancement Program i

Clean Controlled Area Disintegrations .>1,000 CountsMinute Per Probe Area . ........ ........ 5 Collective Radiation Ex posure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 j Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 i

I Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area ................................................ 55 i

SEP Reference Number 58

. Revise Physical Security Training and Procedure Program Loggeble/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 SEP Reference Numbers 60 & 61 *

. 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 l

SEP Reference Number 62

. Establish interim System Engineers Temporary Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sg  !

Engincering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Engineering Change Notice Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ............ 62 l Engineering Change Notices Open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 d

i SEP Reference Number 68 l

. Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Training and establish means to monitor Operator Training '

! License Operator Requalification Training .........................................65 i License Candid ate Ex ams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66  ;

SEP Reference Number 71

. Improve Controls over Temporary Modifications Temporary Modifications ............................................................Sg ,

l l

1 l

87 l l

I a

__________J

f Report DISTRIBUTION blST R.L Andrews C. A.Marasco G. C. Bishop T. J. Mcivor C. E. Boughter K. A. Miller J. L. Bostelman P. A. Mruz l C. J. Brunnert R. J. Mueller J. W. Chase Nuclear Ucensing (7) i R. G. Conner T. L. Patterson l G.M. Cook R. L Plott M.R. Core W.J.Ponec T. R. Dukarski D. G. Ried H. J. Faulhaber M. J. Sandhoefner j S. K. Gambhir F. C. Scoleid J. K. Gasper H. J. Se6ck l W. G. Gates R. W. Short S. W. Gebers J. L. Skiles <

D. C. Gorence R. D. Spies (2) )

R. H. Guy D. E. Spires 1 A. L. Hale M. A.Tesar K. R. Henry J. J.Tesarek J. B. Herman J. W. T.Js R. L Jaworski D. R.Trausch J. W. Johnson B. J. Van Sant D. D. Kloock L. P. Walling J. B. Kuhr (7) G. R. Williams L.T.Kusek S. J. Willrett B. R. Uvingston i

88

y. _ . _ _ . __ _ __ _ -_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _

,m _

1 9

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

Cycle 1 09/26/75 - 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 j Cycle 4 12/09/77 - 10/13/78 3,026,832 12,985,720 l 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 l 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 Cycle 8 04/06/83 - 03/03/84 3,408,371 27,736,405 8th Refueling 03/03/84- 07/12/84 Cycle 9 07/12/84 - 09/28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 9th Refueling 09/28/85 - 01/16/86 ._

Cycle 10 01/16/86 - 03/07/87 4,356,753 36,834,646 10th Refueling 03/07/87-06/08/87 Cycle 11 06/08/87 - 09/27/88 4,936,859 41,771,505  :

11th Refueling 09/27/88 - 01/31/89 ,

Cycle 12 01/31/89 - 02/17/90 3,817,954 45,589,459 12th Refueling 02/17/90 - 05/29/90 4

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 61,065,900 a 15th Refueling 02/20/95 - 04/14/95 Cycle 16 04/14/95 - 09/21/96 18th Refueling 09/11/96 - 11/02/96 (Planned Dates) i FORT CALHOUN STATION 4 CURRENT PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS " RECORDS" 2 First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5

47 p.m.)

, First Electric pplied to the System August 25,1973 Commerciel tion (180,000 KWH) September 26,1973 i Achieved Full wer 00%) May 4,1974 Longest Run (477 Da June 8,1987-Sept. 27,1988 Highest Monthly Not neration (364,468,800 KWH) October 1987 May 29,1990-Feb.1,1992 Most Productive Fuel Cycle (5,451,069 MWH - Cycle 13) i Shortest Refueling Outage (52 days) Feb. 20,1995-April 14,1995

,