ML20116F340
| ML20116F340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1996 |
| From: | OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20116F338 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9608060319 | |
| Download: ML20116F340 (104) | |
Text
- - _-- -
FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS w.arJillisliian, ..
ww ~ _
- W' JUNE 1996 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COST EFFECTIVENESS _
'l $geogg$ckoI8oSbas
. P PDR
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT JUNE 1996 Production Engineering Division System Engineering Test and Performance Group JUNE 1996 W
I FORT CALHOUN STATION June 1996 Monthly Operating Report OPERATIONS
SUMMARY
During the month of June 1996, the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) operated at a nominal 100% power until 1741 hours0.0202 days <br />0.484 hours <br />0.00288 weeks <br />6.624505e-4 months <br /> on June 7th, when one of four Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCP), RC-38, was verified to have excessive vibrations. Abnormal Operating Procedure AOP-5, Emergency Shutdown, was entered to reduce power .
. and remove RC-3B from service. At 1920 hours0.0222 days <br />0.533 hours <br />0.00317 weeks <br />7.3056e-4 months <br />, the reactor was made subcritical.
The plant was taken to Cold Shutdown for repair of the RC-3B motor Anti-Rotation Device (ARD) and bearing aisassembly, inspection and cleaning. Following completion of repairs to the RC-3B motor, the reactor was made critical on June 21, 1996. Power was returned to a nominal 100% on June 26 at 0130 hours0.0015 days <br />0.0361 hours <br />2.149471e-4 weeks <br />4.9465e-5 months <br />. Normal plant maintenance, surveillance, equipment rotation activities and scheduled on-line modification were performed during the month.
On June 5th at 0349 hours0.00404 days <br />0.0969 hours <br />5.770503e-4 weeks <br />1.327945e-4 months <br />, a 1-hour notification was made to the NRC pursuant to 10CFR50.72(b)(1)(v), Lost Emergency Notification System (ENS). The notification was made using the alternate phone. It was determined that a button to the headset was depressed, cutting out the handset. The FCS ENS was returned to service on 0556 hours0.00644 days <br />0.154 hours <br />9.193122e-4 weeks <br />2.11558e-4 months <br /> on June 5th.
On June 10th at 1325 hours0.0153 days <br />0.368 hours <br />0.00219 weeks <br />5.041625e-4 months <br />, a four hour notification was made to the NRC pursuant to 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(vi), Offsite Noti # cation. The media was informed via a written press release that the nuclear station was shutdown on June 7th due to the vibration problem noted above on RCP RC-3B.
During a structural inspection of the Auxiliary Building in conjunction with the new !
Maintenance Rule procedure SE-PM-AE-1001, Auxiliary Building Structural )
Inspection, it was identified that three (3) of the four (4) pressure relief panels in the i South end of the floor in Room 81 had structural steel equipment supports and
~
braces attached to their top surfaces with expansion anchor bolts. This condition l
made the panels incapable of providing sufficient vent area to limit the differential pressure in the event of a tornado. On June 15th at 2251 hours0.0261 days <br />0.625 hours <br />0.00372 weeks <br />8.565055e-4 months <br />, a four hour !
l notification was made to the NRC pursuant to 10CFR50.72(b)(2)(i), Degraded While !
l Shutdown. The structural obstructions were removed an compensatory actions I implemented. Details of this condition and corrective actions will be provided in !
Licensee Event Report (LER)96-005. 1 l
1 l
l I
i i
I
+ FortCalhounindexValue l
- _ inau.tr o soi.ninoenvaiue I""I l
I 90 .
g4 85 ,
83 83 83 80 ,
&- = = = = =
l l
l 79 i
. A i
(e 70 .. industry 3 Median Projected 60 .
l l
L Value for the 2nd ChJarter of 1996 is 82.86%
50 . I l 40 i . . , i i 95/1 95/2 95/3 95/4 96/1 96/2 July Aug sept Oct Nov Dec 1
PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND For the index calculation unit capability factor, unplanned capability loss factor, unplanned automatic scrams per 7000 hours0.081 days <br />1.944 hours <br />0.0116 weeks <br />0.00266 months <br /> critical, safety system performance, collective radiation exposure, and volume of 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.
~
li
6 I
. gM AXIMUM VAltE m IPOEX POINTS May '96 a f tOEX POINTS June '96
$0 l
16.00 .
14.00 - 8 a
12 00 .
30 00 .
.S .a S8 SSS S8S
- 888 888 8.00 - 8 -
6.00 . EE SS8 ? ?
0.00 . _
i i y ;
UCF UCLF HPSI AFW EACP UAs7 CRE FRi TR CR Rad. ISAR Weste This graph shows the difference between the Maximurn 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 Performance Indicator UCLF Unplanned Capability Loss Factor CPI Secondary Chemistry Indicator HPSI High Pressure Safety injection Rad Waste Volume of Radioactive Waste Buried AFW Auxiliary Feedwater ISAR Industrial Safety Accident Rate EACP Emergency AC Power UAS7 Unplanned Auto Scrams /7000 Hours 1CRE Co!!ective Radiation Exposure FRI FuelReliabilityInd' ator lii
s s . . ,
)
l l
l l
l -
.MN@@$8N Year-to-Date Value k OICE E Performance Cateaories Unplanned Unplanned 3 ,
UnitCapability Factor $4;ff[f Capability Auto Scrams Performance E Performance better than !'
$)k i Loss Factor : Industry Average Trend Performance better than
[! j
- *' ~ - - " 1996 OPPD Goal e<@we ;
IMIEljl$$l$ff !)?# Performance Not Meeting : HPSI Safety AFW Safety EDG Safety _ IDT'#'4*/sl l i. 1996 OPPD Goal System System System l Fuel Performance Performance Performance i Reliability 111 111 1111
,, ym,y r ,,,_ ,,,_ ,,,
! hlI[ lll)ll lb lCl!blll lll[ lll CMC l fD l [ j [ lIl 1996 1996 1996 moimum ma inn aiuol un man i un a imhnm .unnun nunumuuumam ,j i 1 >, 1 m ,,
1 Chemistry Collective j Volume of Industrial , June.-1996 Best possib:e Safety Accident I 1996 Year-End : Index Radiation l Low-Level Year-to-Date i RadWaste Rate Pedonnance 1 l l Exposure !! ! Value J u,, i M
~
il- l . ! O! Li i illi ll l !l 54 , l WANO Performance Indicators ; e
_.-.._-_........_m. .
- - . _ . . - - _ . ~ . - _ . . _ . __ -
l i Unplanned Auto Scrams Year-To-Date Value Performance Cateaories Significant Performance better than Industry Average Trend S st vents Actuations Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal IM il l l Safety l horced Outage Performance Not Meeting 1996 OPPD Goal System ; Rate Failures i ill e llIII111 Mar. Apr. May
!N!$![hbik$Nk$! 1996 1996 1996 Collective Lf Equipment g ,
Forced Radiation June-1996 Best Possible Outages Exposure Year-to-Date 1996 Year-End i i ._ Value Performance { i j . l [] g , ,, Performance NRC Performance Indicators
l 4 l FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT May 1996-
SUMMARY
POSITIVE TREND REPORT POSITIVE TREND REPORT (cont. l 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 i the stated goalis exhibiting a positive trend per Nuclear Temocrary Modifications Operations Division Quahty Procedure 37 (NOD-QP. (Page 59) < 37). l The following performance indicators exhibited positive End of Positive Trend Report. trends for the reporting month- . \ Safetv Svstern FaHures (p,9 19) ADVERSE TREND REPORT Hiah Pressure Safety Iniection Svstem Safety System A performance indicator with data representing three I Performance consecutive months of declining performance or three I (Page 5) consecutive months of performance that is trending l toward declining as determined by the Manager - Auxiliary Feedwater System Station Engineering, constitutes an adverse trend per (Page 6) Nuclear Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37). A supervisor whose performance Emeroency A C Power System 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. Emeraency Diesel Generator Unit Reliability (Page 20) The foHowing performance indicators exhibited adverse trends for the reporting month: Diesel Generator Reliabildv (25 Demands) (Page 21) Fuel Reliability Index (Page 9) Emeroency Diesel Generator Unreliabihty (Page 22) Maintenance Workload Backloas (Page 47) Missed Surveillance Tests Results in Licensee Event Reoorts Preventative Maintenance items Overdue (Page 28) (Page 48) Unofanned Safety System Actuations (INPO) End of Adverse Trend Report. , . (Page 34) l Secondary System Chemistry ; (Page 35) Hazardous Waste Produced , (Page 54) l Vi
}
I 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 Qualty Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37). I Disablina Iniury/ Illness Freauency Rate (Page 15) j l Nunber of On-line and Outaae Control Rom ) Eau 1ornent Deficiencies
- j (Page 24) l Eauiment Forcad Outaae Rate (Page 38)
Cants cer Kil m att Hour (page 44) Percentaae of Total f4JDs Comoletad oer Month Idantified as Rework (Page 49) PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT IMPROVEMENTS / CHANGES End of Report Improvements / Changes Report. e G t 1 I i vii
Table of Contents / Summary GOALS .. . .. em
............................................xii WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS . . . . . . . . ........ . ............. .. . . . . .... 1 Unit Capability Factor ... ... ........ .. .. . ....... .... .. ... ..... ....... .2 l
Unplanned Capability Loss Factor .... . .. . .. . . . ............. .... ...... ...3 Unplanned Automatic Reactor SCRAMS per 7000 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .4 High Pressure Safety injection System . ....... ... ... .. ..... .... ... ... ........5 Auxiliary Feedwater System .. ... .... . ....... . .. .. ...... . .. ..... .. 6 Emergency AC Power System . . . ..... .. . .. ..... . ........ ... 7 Thermal Performance .... ... . . . ...... ... .. ... ....... ............ ..... 8 Fuel Reliability indicator ..... ...... ..... ... ...... . ...... ... ..... .. ..... 9 Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................10 1 Collective Radiation Exposure . . . . . . ... . . .... . . ................... .. .... 11 Volume of low level Radioactive Waste . ......... . .... .. .......................12 Industrial Safety Accident Rate . . . . . . . . . ... ..... .. .......... .............13 SAFE OPERATIONS Disabling injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Recordable injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate ...... . ... ...... ... . .. ..........16 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations
>1,000 Disintegrations / Minute per Probe Area .. . . . .. . .......... ............. 17 , Preventable / Personnel Error LERs . . ... .. ..... . .. . ...............18 Safety System Failures .. . ......... .. ........... ....... .. ....... . . . 19 l
1
~
Emergency Diesel Generator Unit Reliability . .. . . . .... . ... .. ...................20 ! Reliability (25 Demands) .. . ... .... ... . ... ... .. . .................21 Unreliability .... ... ..... ... .... .... ... .......... ..... . . . . . . . . 22 Control Room Equipment Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 On-line and Outage Controt Room Equipment Deficiencies .. .. . ........ .. . . ... . 24 viii -
Table of Contents / Summary Maximum individual Radiation Exposure ..... ........ ...... ... ... ..... ........... 25 Violation Trend . .... .. .... ... .. ..... . ..... ....... .......................26 Significant Events .. . .... ... . . . .. ... ...............................27 Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in LERs ......... ..... . .........................28 PERFORMANCE . Station Net Generation .......................................................30 Forced Outage Rate ........ .. . .. ............ ...... .... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
- Unit Capacity Factor .. ..... .. ................................................32 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . . ..............................................33 Unplanned Safety System Actuations INPO Definition .. ................ ....... .......... ........ ............. 34 NRC Definition , ...... ... ...... . .... . ...........................35 Gross Heat Rate . ... .......... .... . ..... ............ ................... . 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 Lithium % Hours Out of Limit ..........................................42 COST C e nts P e r Kilow att H o u r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Spare Parts inventory Valee ... . . . ...... .. ... ...............................45 .
e ix
1 i Table of Contents / Summary l DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ; Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage) ....... .. . . ... .... ... ......47 Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance . . . ...... .. ..... . ..............48 Percentage of Total MWOs Completed per month identified as Rework ................49 Overtime .. . .... . . . .. . .. ...... . ... ........ ..... ..... 50 Procedural Noncompliance incidents ... .. .. .. . . . . .. . ..... .. .... 51 Daily Schedule Performance
- Percent of Completed Scheduled Activities ... . ... ........ . ... ... 52 . In-Une Chemistry Instruments Out-of-Service ... .. . ... .......................53 ,
Hazardous Waste Produced . .. ...... ... ...... . .... 54 l 1 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area .... .. ... ... .. . ..... . . .... .. . 55 ' l i Radiological Work Practices Program . .. . . . ............ ......... .......... 56 l I Document Review .. ... .. .... . ............ . . .. .. .. ...... . .. 57 Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) .... ............................58 . i 1 Temporary Modifications ... . .. ... .... ... . ........ ..... . ... . .. . . 59 Outstanding Modifications . . . . . . . .... ..... ... .... . ..... ................60 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Engineering Change Notices Status . . . .... . .. .. ..... .................. ...... 62 Open ..... ... . ..... .... . . . .... . .. .. . . ....... . . . 63 Ucensee Event Report (LER) Root Cause Breakdown . . . . . . ........ . ... ........ . 64 Ucensed Operator Requalification Training .. ..... .. ...... . ........65 Ucense Candidate Exams . . . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .... . . . . 66 Condition Reports . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . ... .. . ... 67 I Cycle 17 Refueling Outage l MWO Planning Status . . .. .. .... . .. . . .... .'. .. . 68 l Overall Project Status . . ... . ... . . .... ... ...... . .. . . . . 69 l Outage Modification Planning . ... . . . .... .... . . . .... . . 70 l On-Une Modification Planning . . . . .. . ... . . .. . ....... ..... .. . 71 I Progress of 1996 0n-Line Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ..... .. ........ 72 i
. J l
X l
6 F T l ACTION PLANS. DEFINITIONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION LIST
- i l
Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . ..... .... .... ..................................... .... 73 i i k l r Performance indicator Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 . Safety Enhancement Program index . .......... ............... .......................... 86 { Report Distribution Ust ... ... .
......... ............................ .......... 88 l
l i 3 l i j l
. l I'
xi l. 4
OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Priorities l 1 MISSION ' The safe, reliable and cost effective ger.eration of electricity for OPPD customers through the professional use of nuclear technology. The Company shall conduct these operations , prudently, efficiently and effectively to assure the health, safety and protection of all ! personnel, the general public and the environment. ! GOALS Goal 1: SAFE OPERATIONS ! , Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 3 & 4 A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and personal initiative and open communication. 1996 Priorities:
. Improve SALP ratings.
. Improve INPO rating.
Reduce NRC violations with no violations more severe than level 4.
. No unplanned automatic reactor scrams or safety system actuations.
Objectives to support SAFE OPERATIONS. OBJECTIVE 1-1: No challenges to a nuclear safety system. OBJECTIVE 1-2: Conduct activities in accordance with applicable policies, technical specifications, procedures, standing orders and work instructions.
. Less than 1.4 NRC violations per 1,000 inspection hours.
. Fewer significant Corrective Action Docurr.ents (CADS) originating from activities.
OBJECTIVE 1-3: Identify conditions BEFORE they affect plant safety and reliability. OBJECTIVE 1-4: l Achieve all safety-related 1996 performance indicator goals in the Perfom1ance Indicator Report. 1 OBJECTIVE 1-5: Zero Lost Time injuries and recordable injuries rate BELOW 1.5 percent. l l Xii l
l l l l OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Priorities Goal 2: PERFORMANCE Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 2 and Goal 4, Obj: 1 Achieve high standards of performance at Fort Calhoun Station resulting in safe, reliable and cost effective power production. 1996 PRIORITIES:
= Improve Quality, Professionalism and Teamwork.
. Improve Plant Reliability. ,
=
Meet or exceed INPO key parameters and outage performance goals. Reduce the number of Human Performance errors. Identify Programmatic performance problems through effective self assessment. Objectives to support PERFORMANCE: OBJECBVE 2-1: Achieve an annual plant capacity factor of 82% and a unit capability factor of 83.56%. ; OBJECTIVE 2-2: Execute the 1996 refueling outage in 42 days; emphasize shutdown plant safety. OBJECTIVE 2-3: Achieve all performance related 1996 performance indicator goals in the Performance Indicator Report. OBJECTIVE 2-4: All projects and programs are pfar.ned, scheduled, and accomplished according to schedules, resource constraints, and requirements. OBJECTIVE 2-5: Team / Individual ownership, accountability, performance and teamwork is evident by improved plant reliability; improved ratings for both INPO and NRC; reduced number of human performance , errors and identification of performance problems by effective self assessment and for l individuals as measured by the successful completion of department goals & objectives and other 1 specific measures. , 1 i
l i l , OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Priorities l Goal 3: COSTS Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 2, Obj: 1,2 and 3, and Goal 6, Obj: 1 Operate Fort Calhoun in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as an economically viable contribution to OPPD's " bottom line". Cost consciousness is exhibited l at all levels of the organization.
~
l 1996 Priorities:
. Maintain total O&M and Capital Expenditures within budget.
a Streamline work process to improve cost effectiveness. Objectives to support COSTS: OBJECTIVE 3-1: Conduct the nuclear programs, projects, and activities within the approved Capital and O&M budgets. OBJECTIVE 3-2: Implement nuclear related Opportunity Review recommendations according to approved schedules and attain the estimated cost savings. 1 l l l l Goals Source: Lounsberry (Manager) , i l l ~ XIV l 1 1 I -
.- _ _. l
l = t l i i WANO l PERFROMANCE IND CATORS i i r i
- I l
1
, , Monthly Unit Capabirtty Factor N
l ....... Year-to Date Unit Capability Factor
# 36-Month Unit Capability Factor l x 1996 Fort Calhoun Goals GOOD
- INPO Industry Goals Yeat 2000 100% . _ _ _ _ _
_ ..- _ _ . .. ... .n.. 80%.. $ """' 1 -*
*** ~ '( ,, 1 N --
" -~
I - 2 'b
.. . . . . .e-l 60%.. 4
- 1
~
40% . 20%..
, 0% . . .
1 . 3 E @ U o S E $ N E @ E
" < m O z o , u. 2 4 2 '
- s 1996 UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unit Capability Factor (UCF) value, the year-to-date l UCFs, the 36-month average UCFs, and the UCF goals. UCF is defined as the ratio of the !
available energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy generation (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under i reference ambient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage (refu-cling periods excluded). The UCF for June 1996 was reported as 46.3%. The year-to-date UCF was 81.2%, the UCF for the last 12 months was 90.4%, and the 36-month average UCF was reported as 83.6% at the end of the month. 1 Energy losses for May and August 1995 are explained on page 31. l 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. l Energy losses for June 1996 are due to a forced outage when the Anti-Rotation Device on
. RC-38-M failed.
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 June the FCS Value was 2.016. This compares to the previous month's value of 15.29. Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: None 2 1
, Monthly UnplannedCapability Loss Factor i
l GOOD l _,_ Year-To-Date Unplanned capability Loss Factor
%_ 12-Month Average Unplanned Capability Loss Factor y
+ Fort Calhoun Goal (3.00%)
+ Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (4.5%)
_,, Industry Current Best Quartile 60%
~
50%. 40%.- 30%.- 20%.. h j ___ - 7 : ' Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l1996l UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (UCLF), the year-to-date UCLF z.nd 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-tions), expressed as a percentage. The UCLF for the month of June 1996 was reported as 55.47%. 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 11.63%, the UCLF for the last 12 months was 6.83%, and the 36-month average UCLF was reported as 6.0% at the end of the month. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 3.0% and the industry current best quartile value is - approximately 3.2% or lower. The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 3.0%. The maximum index point value for this indicator is 12. For the month of June the FCS Value was 0.00. This compares to the previous month's value of 7.64. Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: Needs increased Management Attention. 3
o FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,c00 Hours criticalYear-to-Date
+ FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical for last 36 months
+ Fort Calhoun Goal (0.0)
- Year 2000 INPO industry Goal (1)
# Industry Upper 10%(1 per 7,000 hours critical) 3 ..
2_. A. _ _ _ _ _ _
/4 1
p 5 7 E L I, ; ; ; IM 0 4 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June ~ 1996 FCS Reactor Scrams -1996 4. 3 3._ 2 2.. .. 1 1 1. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ; O - ; - ; ; - ; , 92 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
]
UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL The upper graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams per 7,000 hours critical (as defined in INPO's 12/93 publication " Detailed Descriptions of Intemational Nuclear Power Plant Performance Indicators and Other Indicators") for Fort Calhoun Station. The lower graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams that occurred during each month for the last twelve months. The year-to-date station value was 0.0 at the end of June 1996. The value for the 12 months from July 1,1995, through June 30,1996 was 0.858. The value for the last 36 months was 0.923. The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is a maximum l of one unplanned automatic reactor scram per 7,000 hours critical. The industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 0.48 scrams per 7,000 hours critical. The maximum index point value for this indicatoris 8. Forthe month of June the FCS Value was 8.0. This compares to the previous month's value of 8.0. Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs) Accountability: Chase Trend: Needs increased Management Attention (Above FCS Goal) 4
m Monthly High Pr:szura s fetyinjection system Un!.vritability vdue _x_ Year-to-Date High Pressure safetyinjection system UnavailabilityValue
+ Fort Calhoun Goal (0.003) GOOD l
+ Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (0.02) 1P 0.02 .. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
0.015 .. 0.01 . 4 0.005 . I C O O O O O O O O O O 3 O ;, - 1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l1996l 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 Systeni Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month. The High Pressure Safety injection System unavailability value for the month of June 1996 was 0.0002. There were 0.20 hours of planned unavailability, and 0 hours of unplanned unavailability, during 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 0.000043. There has been a total of 0.5 hours of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours of unplanned unavailability for the high pressure safety injection system in 1996. There was a total of 13.39 hours of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours 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. l The maximum index point value for this indicator is 9. For the month of June the FCS Value was 9. This compares to the previous month's value of 9. l Data Source: Skiles/Schaffer (Manager / Source) Accountability: Skiles/Schaffer
- Trend: Positive 5
i
. . < Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater System unavailability x Year-to-Date AFW Unavailability l GOOD l
...o... Fort Calhoun Goal (0.01)
Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (0.025) CD2 -- :. :. : : : : : : : : : 0.018 .. C416__ 0.014 ._ . 0.012 ._ 0.01 __ o.....o.....o.....o..........o.....o.....o.....g.....o.....o.....o 0.008 _. o.coass 0406 .. o.co4s7 0404 .4.co2s . CA02 0
, y 0 r
0 r 0
; i i
., , , - ; i ,
1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l1996 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 June 1996 was 0.00. There were 0.0 hours of planned and 0.0 hours of unplanned unavailability during the month. The year-to-date unavailability value was 0.00115 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.00327 at the end of the month. There has been a total of 2.0 hours of planned unavailability and 6.8 hours 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 goalis 0.025.
The maximum index point value for this indicatoris 9. For the month of June the FCS Value was 9. This compares to the previous month's value of 9. Data Source: Skiles/Fritts (Manager / Source) Accountability: Skiles/Fritts Trend: Positive e j i I a
j ggg Monthly Ernergency Ac Power unmila'Ay Value x Year-to-Date Ernergency Ac Power Unavailability Value
+1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (0.024) l GOOD l e _ Year 2000 INPo Industry Goal (0.025) y i 0.14 ._
0.12 .. 0.1 . 0.08 . 0.06 .. . 0.04 .. 0.02 ._ : : : : : : : : : 0__x. ,
,x, x @x ,---- yx [* Dx . .x, .x, ,
3 E & E o 8 S % E & E
' < m O z o ,E a 2 4 2 4 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 June 1996 was 0.006. During the month, there were 9.3 hours of planned unavailability, and 0.0 hours of unplanned unavail-ability for testing and repairs. The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value year-to-date was 0.006 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.0117 at the end of the month. There has been a total of 55.1 hours of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours of unplanned 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 June 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
e MonthlyThermalPerformance
, i 12-Month Average N
+ Year to-Date Average MonthlyThermalPerformance
+ Fort Calhoun Goal (99.6%)
+ Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (99.S%)
100%_ w 5 - . - - E a =M M -; ; ; ; ; l 99% .. 98% l i i 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 June 1996 was 99.62. The year-to-date average monthly thermal performance value was 99.6, at the end of the month. The average monthly value for the 12 months from July 1,1995, through June 30,1996, was 99.73%. 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%. I The maximum index point value for this indicator is 6. For the month of June the FCS Value l was 5.19. This compares to the previous month's value of 5.55. I Data Source: Skiles/Naser(Manager / Source) Accountability: Skiles/Gorence Trend: None 8
a-- Fuel Reliability (E-4) 7, Year 2000 INPO Industry Fuel Defect Reference (5 x 10-4 Microcuries/ Gram) l GOOD l o_ 1996 Goal (9/1/96 through 12/31/96) 200 -. 180 169 159.9 E g 160 . y 140 -- 121.9
.g 120 ..
y100.. 75.52 73.4 78.42
.g 80 -~ 51.37 55.38 2 60 -- 37.39
} 40 17.29 4
- T - - TT T- T- -T- 1 5 3 E S U o 8 $ % E D E
' < O 2 o ,E <
m L 2 2 y l1996l FLIEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR The FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR (FRI) for June 1996 was 159.9 X 10d microcuries/ gram. The purpose of the FRIis to monitor industry progress in achieving and maintaining a high level of fuelintegrity. An effective fuel integrity and performance monitoring program provides a means to detect fuel failures and assess the fuel failure number, physical condition, exposure, mechanism, and location. The June FRI value is based on data from June 1-6 and 26-30. 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 16 plant operation started on April 13* and attained 100% on April 23'8,1995. During the months of June and July, 1995 the plant operated at 100% power. The plant tripped at the end of August but operated at 100% during the months of September,1995 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*. l Ascension to 100% power began on March 31,1996. The plant has operated at 100% power since April 3,1996. Power l was reduced to 95% on May 25th and 26th for Moderator Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity testing per Technical Specification 3.10(2)3. i The June FRI value of 159.9 X 10d microcuries/ gram indicated a slight decline from the May FRI value of 169.0 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 June 30,1996, per-formed by Nuclear Engineering, indicated ten failed rods at core average power. The Cesium isotopic analysis indicated , , failures in several different burnup 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. . I
- 1) states the industry Goal for fuel reliability 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. Avalue larger than 5.0 x 104 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 lii. j l The maximum index point value for this indicator is 7. For the month of June the FCS Value was 0.. This compares to the previous month's value of 0.0. Data Source: Bostelman/Riva Accountability: Chase /Stafford Trend: Adverse 9 (
e SecondarySystem GPi o_._12-Month Average j GOOD l
+ Fort Calhoun Goal (1 A) 1.6 . V 1.5 ..
1A. 1.3 ._ 1.2 . ^ -
, um ,
o a - > e o u w x , 5 $ $ 0 $ 4 E $ k $ 5 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 June was 1.15. The 12-month average CPI value was 1.17 at the end of the month. The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) had 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 Perfor-mance Index to be higher than in the past. The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) was above the goal in July due to slightly higher than average sodium and chloride values. Also the values provided as industry averages by INPO for 1995 are considerably lower than FCS historically has been able to achieve for secondary chemistry values. Iron, the one industry average that we are below, almost by half, does not assist in lowering the CPI because of the way the CPI is calculated. The maximum index point value for this indicator is 6. For the month of June the FCS Value was 5.67. This compares to the previous month's value of 5.9. Data Source: Spires /Reneaud (Manager / Source) Accountability: Spires Trend Positive due to performance better than goal 10
g Monthly PersonnelRadiation Exposure
+ Cumulative Personnel Radiation Exposure
_.o FCS Goal 138 person-REM j 0000 g U : : : : : : : : e a 130.. 120.. 110.. 100.. 90 ._ E 80 __ - n: 6 70 .. 2 j 60 __ - 50 ._ 40 .. 30 .. 20 .. 10 .. 0, m E i i ; i j i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l 1996 l COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure for the year is set at138.0 person-REM. The exposure for June 1996 was 21.766 person-Rem (ALNOR). The year-to-date exposure through the end of June was 43.364 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 7/93 through 6/96 was 117.364 person-rem per - year. The maximum index point value for this indicator is 8. For the month of June the FCS Value was 8. This compares to the previous month's value of 8. Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /Gebers ! Trend: None SEP 54 l 11 l l
)
l g Radioactive Waste Buried This Month (cu.ft.) l . ei Year-to oate Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried jGooDl _.o_. Fort calhoun Cbal (1500 cu.ft.) ! ~ Y 1100 . c : : : : : : : : : : o 900.. l 800.. I 700..
, 600.
l f500.. '
, 400..
300.. 200 -- 113.20 117.00 100. 0.00 0.20 0.80 0 - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec 1996 VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE This indicator shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumulative year-to-date radioactive waste buried, the Fort Calhoun and INPO goals, and the approxi-mate industry upper 10%. Cu.Ft. Amount of solid radwaste shipped off-site for processing during current month 0 Volume of solid radwaste buried during current month 19.6 Cumulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1996 136.6 Amount of solid radwaste in temporary storage 264.8
. The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for the volume of solid radioactive waste (buried) is 600 cubic fret. The Year 2000 INPO industry goalis 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 June the FCS Value was 5. This compares to the previous month's value of 5. Data Source: Chase /Breuer (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /Gebers i Trend: None SEP 54 12 l l 1
l l Year-to-Date _ _ FCS Average Rate FCS IndustrialSafety) (Last 12 Months Accident Rate (INPO Definition) e Industry Current Best Quart
+ FCS Year-End Goal (<0.50) ile (.24) )IGOODl
_ _ Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (<0AO
._,__1995 industrial Safety Accident Rate (INPO Defination)
If 2. 1!b - - - - 0.5 g ; ; ; ; ; - - A- . . - 0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar ?+r May June INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE 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 ir.ddstrial safety perfor-mance for utility personnel permanently assigned to the station." The INPO industrial safety accident rate value year-to-date was 0.30 at the ered of June 1996. The value for the 12 months from July 1,1995, through June 30,1996, was OA4. There were no restricted-time and no lost-time accidents in June 1996. The values for this indicator are determined as follows: (number of restricted-time accidents + lost-time accidents + fatalities) x 200.000 ' (number of station person-hours worked) The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal is 50.50. The Year 2000 INPO industry goalis 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 June the FCS Value was 4.58. This compares to the previous month's value of 3.73. Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source) Chase / Booth (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /B; shop Trend: Improving 13
I i l l l 4 ( i l l i SAFE OPERATIONS 4 i
- Goal: A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is l
- exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals l demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and per-i sonal initiative and open communication.
I i i , i-1 k l 1 . 14
+ 1996 Disabling injury /lliness Frequency
_x__1995 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency _e Average Rate (Last 12 Months) l GOOD l
-e 1996 Goal (0.50) 2.
1.8 . 1.6 x
~
1:". 0.8 __ l - g 0.2 .. O ; , Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June l1996l DISABLING INJURY / ILLNESS FREQUENCY RATE (LOST-TIME ACCIDENT RATE) This indicator shows the 1996 disabling injury / illness frequency rate. The 1995 disabling injury / illness frequency rate is also shown. The disabling injury / illness frequency rate year-to-date was 0.30 at the end of June 1996. There were no disabling injury / illness cases reported for the month. j The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for the 12 months from July 1,1995, through June 30,1996, was 0.44. The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.5. l l Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source) ! Accountability: Chase / Bishop Trend: Need increased Management Attention SEP 25,26 & 27
~
15 l i
e_ 1995 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency x 1995 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency lI 0000 lI
.___&__ Average Rate (Last 12 Months)
...o... Fort Calhoun Goal 2.25 ..
2__ i 1.75 ._ 1.5 h .h .A5. . . . . . . ope ......o..... ......o...............o 1._ 0.75 . 0.5 .. - 0.25 ._ 0 , , , ; c ' Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June l1996l RECORDABLE INJURY / ILLNESS FREQUENCY RATE This indicator shows the 1996 recordable injury / illness frequency rate. The 1995 record-
$ injuifi'.Iness 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 7 recordable injury / illness cases in 1996. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate year-to-date was 2.10 at the end of June 1996. There was 1 recordable injury / illness case reported for the month of June. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate for the 12 months from July 1,1995, through June 30,1996, was 2.05. The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 1.5. l Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source) Accountability: Bishop Trend: Needs Management Attention SEP 15,25,26 & 27 16 l
g Contamination Events i Monthly) _. Contarnination Events LYTD) lGoODI
., . . FCS Goal (39 for 1996) i I 60 .. '
lI l 50 ._ 1 l l . 40 __ l c .
. 1 .
2 .a , , -; 30 .. l 20 _. ! 1s 5: 10 __ 3 3 0' = ; . Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec l1996l 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 2 contamination events in June 1996. There has been a total of 15 contami-nation events in 1996 through the end of June. This compares to 42 at this time last year. Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 15 & 54 17
m PersonnelErrors (Each Month)
+ Preventable (18-Month Totals) o_. Personnel Error (18-Month Totals) 20 _ _
15 __ l l 10 .. 5 \ . . - c c : 0 - c a O E- , , i . ,B, ; ; Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May l1996 PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERs 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. In May 1996, there was one event which was subsequently reported as an LER. No LERs were categorized as Preventable or Personnel Error for the month of May. The total LERs for the year 1996 (through May 31,1996) is three. The total Personnel Error LERs for the year 1996 is one. The total Preventable LERs for the year is two. Due to the manner in which documentation is closed out, data for this Performance Indi-cator 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) i Accountability: Chase l Trend: None SEP 15 18
, , , Stii~rtup i-. y Shutdown -
l l l e Operations
. . .o. . . Industry Average Trend I
i
]
l an 2, y E !
- To l
I 1 i b i
*--G- . a . - . . .c ...o . .g.... , ,,, ...a....a.....o ...e Eo e '
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 This indicator illustrates the number of NRC Safety System Failures as reported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual Performance 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 for the borated water source of the safety injection system was not seismically qualified. This could have resulted in a failure of the system to meet design requirements during a seismic event. 4th Quarter 1993: 1) During surveillance Ssting, 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 recire 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 l l compressor rupture disc failure and a release of freon. l There were no safety system failures in the 1st quarter of 1995. Data Source: Nuclear Regt'latory Commission _ Accountability: Chase Trend: Positive 19
m Failure $120 Demands a Failuresl50 Demands egg Failures /100 Demands l GOOD l
-u- Trigger valuest20 Demands
; Trigger valuesI50 Demands Trigger Values-100 Demands II 8 -- : : : : : : : : : : : :
7__ 6_.
- 5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
4__ m . . ,, ,, ., ., ., ., .~., ., . 2 0 ,
, , i Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June l1996l EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY This bar graph shows three monthly indicators pertaining to the number of failures that were reported during the last 20, 50, and 100 emergency diesel generator demands at the Fort Calhoun Station. Also shown are trigger values which correspond to a high level of confidence that a unit's diesel generators have obtained a reliability of greater than or equal to 95% when the failure values are below the corresponding trigger values. The Fort Calhoun 1996 goal is to have fewer failures than these trigger values.
The demands counted for this indicator include the respective number of starts and the respective number of load-runs for both Diesel Generators combined. The number of 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
i i DG1 Failures /25 Demands e DG2 Failures /25 Demands
' {oOODl 5'
- lf
- 4. e : : : : : : : : : 3 3.
2. 1 1 1 1 5 9 1 1 i 1 , m . o 8 8 o o o. o o . o o o e o a a - > e o u 6 x e 5 $ $ 0 $ 4 $ $ d $ ' E 1996 DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS) This indicator shows the number of failures experienced by each emergency diesel gen-erator during the last 25 start demands and the last 25 load-run demands. A trigger value of 4 failures within the last 25 demands is also shown. This trigger value of 4 failures within 25 demands is the Fort Calhoun goal for 1996. It must be emphasized that, in accordance with NUMARC criteria, certain actions will take place in the event that any one emergency diesel generator experiences 4 or more fail-ures within the last 25 demands on the unit. These actions are described in the Defini-tions Section of this report. A System Engineering Instruction has been approved for the Fort 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. Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source) Accountability: Skiles/Ronning Trend: Positive due to performance better than goal. 4 21 l I
m DG.1 Unreliability Value e DG2 UnreliabilityValue
+ Station UnreliabilityValue l GOOD l
+ 1996 Goal 0.07 .. Y 0.06 .
0.05 .. e : : : : : : : : : : 0.04 ..
^**
0.03 .. [ 02028 j 0.02 __ )
~- eo oo o o o o o eo eo oo oo o 8
O : . 3 E I E o 8 E $ $ E D E
' < m O 2 o , w 2 < 2 4 l1996l ,
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 i when the Field Flash Relay on DG-2 failed. The year-to-date station EDG unreliability at the end of June 1996 was 0.0. The 1996 goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.05. l For DG-1: There were 3 start demands for the reporting month w!!h 0 failures. In addition, there were 2 load-run demands without a failure. For DG-2: There were 4 start demands for the reporting month with 0 failures. In addition, there were 2 load-run demands without a failure. Emergency diesel generator unreliability is calculated as follows: vclue 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.
I e ControlRoom Deficiencies Added
, i Control Room Deficiencies Cornpleted e Completed within Target Completion Date 50 . . 100.0 %
Coal.Cortplate 60%of C.R Darcanoes byTarge CorryidenDate 40 u 40
- 2 ' ' ' ' - 80.0% .,
f is g y-
$ 7.*
- sia ,s s 3m a
30 .. los e s s.ss
.. 60.0% y E
E 22 3, ,, 2 2 ,, 4 s.16 2 20 .. 40.0% y y " . u 'u ss f Z $ )
. 10 .. .
20 0% 34 1 0 0.0% Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Control Room 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 goal is to close at least 80% of all CRDs within the Target Due Date. I There were 30 Control Room Deficiencies completed during June 1996, and 16 were 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.
Data Source: Chase /Kermoade (Manager / Source) Accountability: Short/Faulhaber
- Trend
- None
~
23 l
t 4 i
. Overdue
+ Number of On-Line control Room Deficiencies 30 -- as l 25 .
20 _. ; 4 Goal . Lase ttunn 8 overd ue $ " to 0 $4
, - . i
, s O . I I l l l 1 ] Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June i l Number of on-Line CRDs l , l i - l 1 g Overdue l
+ Number of Outage Control Room Deficiencies I 30 _. - -
25 __ ,, ,
.. .C' :
i tbte: Overdue tems are those older than 18 rrenths 1 10 _ 3 Goal . None Ow erdue S-- 2 : : : : : : O === ; ; } ; ; 1 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May l Number of Outage CRDs l l 1 NUMBER OF ON-LINE AND OUTAGE l CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCIES a { This indicator shows the total number of On-Line and Outage Control Room Deficiencies, and the number of overdue Control Room Deficiencies. 1 ) There were 14 on-line (6 were overdue) and 18 outage (2 were overdue) Control Room i Deficiencies at the end of June 1996. - 1 The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for these indicators are less than 8 overdue on-line and no l overdue outage Control Room Deficiencies. 1 1 1 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 4 1
, ,Hghest WntNy hdNidual Exposure (1996)
+ Fort Calhoun Lkrd 1000 : : : : : : : : ; ; ;
900. 800. 700. 600. 500. 400. # 300. 24 228
- 175 172 -
73 100. O Jan Feb Wr Apr Wy Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec 1996 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE During June 1996, an individual accumulated 364 mrem, which was the highest indi-vidual exposure for the month. The OPPD limit for the maximum yearly individual radiation exposure is 4,500 mrem / year. The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goalis a maximum of 1,500 mrem. Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None 25
g FCS Clted Violations (Monthly)
, , FCS Non-Cited Violations (Monthly)
FCS Cited Violations (12-Month Average) __o_ FCS Non-Cited Violations (12-Month Average) l MD l g Region IV Cited Violations (12-Month Average for Region IV top quartile) II
= = =
~K ' _ _
4-- N_ - - N b b o 0 Hell i im , i iM , EM , ,
, r
, bi' x a a * > o e m w w x e 4 $ $ 0 $ $ 4 E $ k $ '
5 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 June 1996: IER No. Title 96-03 Resident Monthly 96-05 Special Inspection - LTOP Event 96-06 RP - Fuel Failure Consequences To date, OPPD has received seven violations for inspections conducted in 1996. Level ill Violations 0 Level IV Violations 5
^
Level V Violations 0 Non-Cited Violations 2 Total 7 . 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
I m_ NRC Significant Eventsindustry Average Trend l ' [ GOOD l 1 i 1 .. y 0.5 .- 0 , 0 0 , r r r - - r - - -
, 92 93 94 95-1 95-2 95 3 95-4 96-1 96-2 96-3 96-4 l Year -Quarter l INPO Significant Events (SERs)
J l* *\ 3 __ 2 2 y 2.. 3 y 1.- o o
- O : ; ;
92 03 94 95-1 95-2 95-3 95 4 96-1 96-2 96-3 96-4 l Year-Quarter l SIGNIFICANT EVENTS NRC SIGNIFICANT EVENTS The following SEs were identrfied between the 2nd Quarter of 1992 and the 1st quarter of 1995 (as reported in the NRC's ' Performance Indicators for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors' report dated June 30,1995): 3rd Quarter 1992: The failure of a Pressurizer Code Safety Valve to reseat initiated a LOCA with the potential 4 to degrade the reactor coolant pressure boundary, l 4th Quarter 1994: A potential accident scenario involving a large break LOCA or a main steam line break inside containment could result in the inoperability of both control room A.C. units. INPO SIGNIFICANT EVENTS The following SEs have been identified since 2nd Quarter of 1992 by INPO: 2nd Quarter 1992: Intake of transuranics during letdown filter change-out. 3rd Quarter 1992: Safety Valve malfunction (RC-142). 1st Quarter 1993: Inoperability of Power Range Nuclear Instrumentation Safety Channel D. 2nd Quarter 1993: Inadequate control of Switchyard activities. - 3rd Quarter 1993: Loss of reactor coolant due to malfunction of Pressurizer Safety Valve. 1st Quarter 1994: 1) Unexpected CEA withdrawal. (Event occurred November 13,1993 but was not identified as an SE until 1st Quarter 1994). , 2) Unplanned dilution of Boron concentration in the Reactor Coolant System. 1st Quarter 1996: During pressurizer solid plant operation, the Low Temperature Overpressurization (LTOP) protection for the RCS was inadvertently disabled, subjecting the RCS to a potential unprotected overpressure accident. 2nd Quarter 1996: RC Pump Anti-Reverse Rotation Device (ARD) failure No SE reports have been received from INPO on the 1996 SEs as of July 17,1996. Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission & INPO Accountability: Chase Trend: Positive 27
l Missed STs Resultingin LIRs l l 3 .. GOOD l l V l 2.. l l 1 1__ l 0 . 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 ' 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jtsi Jti Aug Sep Oct Nov 1996 NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS This indicator shows the number of missed Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Lic-ensee Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting month. The graph on the left shows the yearly totals for the indicated years. There were no missed surveillance tests resulting in LERs during June 1996. , 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. [ Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs)
- Accountability: Chase /Skiles Trend : Positive SEP 60 & 61 28
t i ) i l 4 i i l l l i l l l PERFORMANCE i i i j Goal: To strive for Excellence in Operations utilizing the high-l est standards of performance at Fort Calhoun Station that l result in safe, reliable plant operation in power production. i . I l i i e i 4 29 h 1
i , Forced Outage Rate (Monthly)
+ Forced Outage Rate (12 Months) l 0000 l e_1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (1.4%)
50%.. 3g _ 45%.. 40%.. 35%.. 30%.. 25% .. 20% .. 15%.. 10%.. 5%.. s.m
~
p tass , _,7s ; ; ; ; ; : : 0 _j 0% n;m . >
~
~
O 93 94 95 Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 1996 FORCED OUTAGE RATE The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 5.1% for the twelve months from July 1, 1995, through June 30,1996. The 1996 year-to-date FOR was 9.3% at the end of the month. Energy Losses are explained on Page 2. 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
Net Generttion (10,000 MWh) l 34.75 35.08 34.29 33.85 34.55 30.46 30 _ Mini . O uta ge Ei RCP
- @ 20.16 Outage g20 .
g 15.16 cr 10 .. 0 l [ ; j [ i l j l [ i E < I b $ $ ,E $ $ k a _!,
~
1996 STATION NET GENERATION During the month of June 1996, a net total of 151663.8 MWh was generated by the Fort Calhoun Station. Cumulative net generation for Cycle 16 was 4,404,004.9 MWh at the end of the month. Energy losses for June 1996 were attributed to a failure of the Anti-Rotation Device (ARD) associated with Reactor Coolant Pump Motor RC-3B. Energy losses for March 1996 were attributed to (1) a planned mini-outage, and (2) con-denser tube leakage repair. Energy losses for August 1995 were attributed to a plant trip during testing 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 attributed to: (1) the component cooling water, which , was leaking into the tube oil system of RC-3D reactor coolant pump motor; and (2) the generator and reactor were again manually tripped because of a similar leak. The gen-erator was put on-line after replacement of all of the reactor coolant pump lube oil cooler heat exchangers. Data Source: Station Generation Report Accountability: Chase Trend: None 30
i , Monthly EAF __m _ Year-to-Date Average Monthly EAF
%_ 12-Month Average EAF
+ Industry Median Value (76.7% for a 3. Year Average) 100%.. s r.:s _ _ _ _
r 3 - -
'$' W . - . J
~/
il T
~
"" - ~~ -
= = =
60%__"O l 40%__ " 20%_ 0% ; , ,
, i 92 93 94 95 Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 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 June 1996 was reported as 43.2%. The year-to-date monthly average EAF was 78.7% at the end of the month. The Fort Calhoun average monthly EAF for the three years prior to this report was 87.2%. The industry median EAF value for the thee-year period from 7/90 through 6/93 was 76.7%. l l l Data Source: DietzNandervort (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Chase i Trend: None 33
i i Monthly Unit Capacity Factor Year-to-Date Unit Capacity Factor
...m...
e Unit Capacity Factor for Cycles 15 & 16 g 36-Month Average Unit Capacity Factor l G000 l
" 1996 FCs Goal (81.49%)
110% 100% I 90%__ r .... + e
. e c 0 0 80%.. -
p-,- T --+" " ~ ~ ' I - 1
-=- -
E
= : : : T "
E R
~a-70%__ -.-- -"'
,,.... .m.
60%__ 50%_. 40%__ - 4 30%. 20%.. 10%. - 0% i ' ' 3 F & E o 2 i # E # 8
' < m o z o ,E m 2 < s z 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 44.07%, and the Unit Capacity Factor for the last 36 months was 84.71%. The 1996 Fort Calhoun annual goal for this indicator i is 82.00%. 1 The year-to-date value is 89.58%. Energy losses are explained on Page 2. The Unit Capacity Factor is computed as follows: Net Electrical Enerav Generated (MWH) Maximum Dependable Capacity (MWe) X Gross Hours in the Reporting Period
- I Data Source: Monthly Operating Report I Accountability: Chase Trend: None 32
m Safety System Actuations (NRC Definition) i Fcs Goal (0) _ CriticalHours 12-Month Running Total ssAs (NRC Definition) 10 ,. . 800 8 . we
, __600
- 6.. - 500
< s l 4
__400 :E E #- 3 3 __300 y
# ~'"
- 2. =======-
========a..100 0, ,
- :=:=:=:_. . > > .
- 0 92 93 94 95 AMJJAsONDJFMAMJ JAsONDJFMAM l'"dl l*5] 9 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(NRC DEFINITION)
This indicator shows the number of unplanned safety system actuations (SSAs), which includes the High and Low Pressure Safety injection Systems, the Safety injection Tanks, , and the 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
m SafetySystem Actuations (INPo Definition)
+ FCs Goal (0)
- Ind:Jstry Upper 10 Percentile (0) 3 ..
2.. 1.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .
- : i
- 1 92 93 94 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 95 96 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(INPO DEFINITION)
There were no INPO unplanned safety system actuations during the month of June 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 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 dunng i.he month of July 1992 due to the loss of an inverter and the subsequent reactor trip on 7/3/92. The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0. l Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports Accountability: Skiles/Foley/Ronning Trend: Positive 34
+ The rmal output
-s Fort Calhoun 1495 MW Goal c_ Tech Spec 1500 MW Umit 1600 HM H3-U '3-0-~U 'J-t.w.3 'H2 'HHJ- 'H2- 'J-u 'H w.w.3 1200.
o 1000. g800. 600. 400. I l 200. I O . . . . . . .. _ # ~' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [0[1[2[3[4[5[6[7[8[92021222324252627282930 JUNE DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT The thermal output graph displays the daily operating power level during June 1996, the 1500 thermal megawatt average technical specification limit, and the 1495 thermal mega-watt Fort Calhoun goal. Data Source: Bostelman/Willett (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /Short Trend: None 37
l 4 e Gross Heat Rate Year-to-Date Gross Heat Rate j [ # lGooDj l o_ Fort Calhoun Goal f 10.75 .. p l I 10.5 __ i 10.25 . ., S2 e2s x ', . 3
- 10 .
, m l 8 . l 5 i 9.75 .. - - ! 9.5 -. 9.25 92 93 94 95 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
- 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 10,430 for the month of June 1996. The 1996 year-to-date GHR was 10,104 at the end of the month. The GHR varies with fluctuations in river water temperature. In general, the GHR im- - proves during the winter months and degrades during the summer. This is because the gross heat rate is not normalized to the design river water temperature of 60 degrees , Fahrenheit. ! The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is 10,166. Data Source: Bostelman/Willett (Manager / Source) ! Accountability: Chase /Skiles Trend: None i 36 I
I y -. om==< cm 9mes i 18. _ _Tatd czegories 14 . _/ / 8. in 4 2.
- e. . : : e. g
=
l O F M A M J J A S O N D J-94 F M A M J A ge/N o rmal Us e 46.1% P rocedure Error 2% Initial ins tattatio n 2.3 % Testing A ction 4.7% Manufacturing M aint ena nce C- Defect 16*4 Other Devices 116 % Engineering / Design ! 4.7 % COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)
SUMMARY
The top chart illustrates the number of component categories, application categories and total categories in which the Fo 1 Calhoun Station has significantly higher (1.645 standard de f ations) failure rates than the industry failure rates during the past 18-month Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) reporting period (from September 1994 through February 1996). Fort Calhoun Station 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 the 257 application categories (main steam stop valves, auxiliary / emergency feedwater pumps, control element drive motors, etc.) during the past 18-month CFAR period. The pie chart depicts the breakdown by INPO cause categories (see the " Definitions" section of this report for descriptions of these categories) for the 48 failure reports (failure discovery dates within the 18-month CFAR period) with known failure causes that were submitted to INPO by Fort Calhoun Station. A total of 74 failure reports were submitted to INPO with disc 0very dates within the 18-month CFAR period. Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source) Accountability: Skiles/ Dowdy Trend: None - ' 39
+ Number of Equipm:nt Forced out:ge3 (Monthly)
# Equipment Forc::d outag: Rate /1,000 Critic:1 Hrs. (12-Month Int:rv21) GOOD l
+ Fort Calhoun Year-End Gcals (0.2) y 2.
1_. c - 0 0 . : : : 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 The equipment forced outage rate per 1,000 critical hours for the 12 months from July 1, 1995, through June 30,1996, was 0.367. The year-to-date rate per 1,000 critical hours for the months from January 1996 through June 1996 was 0.527. An equipment forced outage occured during the month of June due to the failure of the Anti-Rotation Device associated with RC-3B-M. An equipment forced outage occured at the end of the March due to condenser tube leakage. 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 . reactor coolant. Two equipment forced outages also occurred during May 1995, which were attributable to - the component cooling water, which was leaking into the lube oil system of RC-3D reactor coolant pump motor. The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.20. Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs) Accontability: Chase /Skiles Trend: Needs increased Management Attention _
~
38
l CHEMISTRY ACTION LEVELS EXCEEDED 1 j Event Days + Average Event Days : Lirnit l e. 5. 4 c . . am. l:- . 0 qEaaa=-- I 8 d 8 Y 8 8 8
!8 [8 k 8
E 8 [8 Y 8 E s k 8 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. j 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. 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. Data Source: Chase / Spires Accountability: Spires Trend: None
~
41
+ Components with more than One Failure )
lGOOD1 l
+ Components with more than Two Failures i I I 15 .
37 l i
)
10 7 6 6 6 6 5.. . f , 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0?
- -? ?
?
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 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 cnd Evaluation of Operational Data (NRC/AEOD). The NRC requirement for a Maintenance Effectiveness Performance Indicator has been discontinued, but station management considers it useful to continue to track repetitive component failures using the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS). 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 September 1994 through February 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 of 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 Static Inverter
- HCV-2918-O-1 Air Intensifier for HPSI Pump G2C Discharge isolation Valve .
(CHAMPS Tag Number IA-HCV-2918-BP) + HCV-2987-O-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 Coil VA-8B CCW Outlet Valve Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase Trend: None 40
l 7.00 6.00 Goal 5.00
!!! 4.00 .
I 3.00 . 2.00 . 1.00 . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0.c0 _
, . . p. _4 .. . _3. . . i_____,_+ , _,..M ,E, ,
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Wr Apr Wy June l 1996 I PRIMARY SYSTEM LITHlUM % HOURS OUT OF LIMIT The Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit indicator tracks the hours per month that the primary system lithium is out of specification. The Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit was 0.56% for the month of June 1996. Lithium exceeded its limits for 2.5 hours during the month.
. The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is a maximum of 5% hours out of limit Data Source: Chase / Spires (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Spires Trend: None 42
l
- 1 I
l i ! i ; 1 1 ! i i l i Cost ,i i 1 i Goal: Operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that cost l effectively maintains nuclear generation as an economi-
- cally viable contribution to OPPD's bottom line. Cost con-l sciousness is exhibited at all levels of the organization.
i l t I 4 ) 43 I i i i i
+ Actual _ _ Revised Budget Original Budget Plan 4.00 .
3.75 _. 3.50 . I 3 25 . . 3 : 3.00 j. o 2.75 . 2.50 _.
. 2.25 -.
2.00 ; ; , , , , D91 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. 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-month rolling average unit price (period of June,1995 through May,1996) aver-aged below the budget due to 12-month rolling generation exceeding the budget expecta-tions, even though the 12-month rolling expenses were slightly overspent. The 12-month rolling average (06/95 through 05/96) is 2.76 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 2.83 Data Source: Lounsberry/Jamieson (Manager / Source) Accountability: Lounsberry Trend: Needs Management Attention - 44
+ Spare Parts inventoryValue ($ Million) 16.30000 ..
16.20000 .. 16.10000 __ 16.00000 __ , 15.90000 _.
- c o 15.80000 ..
E 5 15.70000 . 15.60000 __ 15.50000 __ 15.40000 __ 15.30000 1 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 1996 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of June 1996 was reported as $15,311,228. Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source) Accountability: Willrett/McCormick Trend: None
~
45
i i i l i i \ l l i l l l l DIVISION AND ! l DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE i INDICATORS 1 Goal: Achieve high standards at Fort Calhoun Station
- resulting in safe, reliable and cost effective power pro-duction.
e i 1 ) { gg 2 l t i a
m corrective Maintenance e Preventive Maintenance m Non-Corrective /Plantimprovements _.e Fort Calhoun Goal 1000 ~~ 777 834 759 782 830 890 BIO 752 771 3 E S U o S $ I E @ E
' < m O z o ,E w 2 4 2 4 e
5] l Non-Outage Maintenance Work Order Backlog l f 5 DE l M MWOs Past Completio l 1 2 3 4 5 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 breaktown i 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 461. To ensure that the MWO backlog is worked in a timely rnanner, non-outage maintenance completion goals have been established as follows: Goal Priority 1 Immediate Action 2 days Priority 2 Urgent 5 days Priority 3 Operational Concerns 21 days Priority 4 Routine Corrective 90 days Priority 5 Non-Essential 180 days Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: Adverse SEP 36 47
Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance 80%.. 70%.. l llllllll 3 F & m t o z B 8 o , i a s E h & m l1996l a z
, . ,, Preventive Maintenance items Overdue
_o_ Fort Calhoun Goal 2% .. V 1%.. n*/. ; ; ; ; ; ! j [ ; ; i ; a a - > o e a w x e 5 4 5 o $ $ 4 E 5 E' $ E l1996l RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total com-pleted non-outage maintenance. The ratio was 54.0% for the month of June 1996. . The lower graph shows the percentage of scheduled preventive maintenance items that are overdue. During June 1996,533 PM items were completed. . The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for the percentage of preventive maintenance items over-due is a maximum of 0.5%. Data Source: Chase /Schmitz/Meistad (Manager / Sources) Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: Adverse SEP 41 & 44 48
m Rework as identified by Craft
,_ Fort Calhoun Goal (<3%)
6% .. 6.3 % 5%.. ' 3 T 3 4%.. 3.s t, g 3.7% s .2 % 3.2 % j3%__ 2.e s 2. s H o F l j 2%-- "' us us l us 1%.. D*A = M i I e i ,- l i F- 1 l l l Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar /Pr May June l1996l 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 of May to the 15th of June, due to the delay in closing open MWOs at the end of each month.
The Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is <3%. A detailed review is conducted of rework items each month to identify generic concems. Data Source: Faulhaber/Schmitz (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None _ 4g i
1 i 2 ! g Maintenance Overtirne j + 12-Month Average Maintenance Overtime goog j + Fort Calhoun "On-Line" Goal (10%)
- 30%..
V ! 25%.. , 20%-- 1 j - ( j 15%_- i ' 10% - c : : : :>---- - 1 I I i l 1 i i l l I i m O z 5 ,. . 6 2
. 4
. .I .
s ' l1996l 1 l l MAINTENANCE OVERTIME I The Maintenance Overtime Indicator monitors the ability to perform the desired mainte-l nance activities with the allotted resources. 1 i The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 20.0% for the . l month of June 1996. The 12-month average percentage of overtime hours with respect j to normal hours was reported as 10.0 % at the end of the month. { i The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly "on-line" goal for this indicator is a maximum value of i 10%. J j Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source) j Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber ] Trend: None - 1 50 - i 4 i ) ,
l i ! l i
- I l Human Performance CRs(Maintenance) !
l 20 . .
)
1 l i 1 f 18 .. j 16 .. i 1 i i ! 14 .. } ts I i i j g 12 .. ) i i i 4
- g 10 ..
I 1 2o j 8.. I 6..
- 4.
l 2.. i 0 , j j ___ g ...l ; j Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June i j PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS
. (MAINTENANCE) e This indicator shows the number of Condition Reports related to procedural noncompli-1 -
ance incidents assigned to the Maintenance Department. Data Source: Faulhaber Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 15,41 & 44 1 51
1 A l 0% Scheduled Activities Completed ' 0% Emergent Activities 100.0% . 88.1 % 90.0% __
.= '
80.0% .. 73.2 % 70.0% -- 67.0% 60.0% __ ' 50.0 % .
- 40.0% __ ill l
- 30.0% - 4.8%
23.4 % 3.8% 0.7% 9.2% 20.0% -- 10.0% -- ,' i O.0% i i : Fe b-96 Ma r-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 1 DAILY SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE
- PERCENT OF SCHEDULED ACTIVITIES COMPL.ETED l This indicator shows the percent of Integrated Plant Schedule activities completed on
- schedule. All work groups and activities are included.
4 The percent of emergent work is calculated as a percentage of the total number of sched-uled and emergent activities. - The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for completed scheduled maintenance activities is
~
2 85%. 4 NOTE: Statistics form the June RC-3B Outage were not included in these numbers. 1 Statistics from the weeks of June 10 and June 17 were not kept. 4 Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 33 52
1 m % of Hours the in-Line Chemistryinstruments are Inoperabie GOOD 1996 Fort Calhoun Coal (10%) I 26% - 24% r - 21% __ ' 19%. l 17% y_ ! UsI 11% ' l 9% 1 1 I 6 % .L i i 1 l l E I I I i i i l
,s y e u s v e = 1 e :
< m o z o , w s < s a
{1996l i IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT-OF-SERVICE l 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 June 1996, the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instru-ments were inoperable was 10.73%. The following instruments were out of service during the month:
- SL PASS Containment Grab Sample; leaking fitting in sample circuit SL-34 has been out of service since 01/18/96 l Instruments are above the goal because of three PASS sequences that have been out of service for more than one month. In addition, the Condensate Pump Discharge and Feedheater No. 6, Dissolved Oxygen monitors were out of service following the RCP l outage and not repaired in June.
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
m WC.te Produced Each Month (Kilograms)
.-e Monthly Avercge Wzta Produced During the laat 12 Months (Kilogr:ms)
Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal (150 kilograms)
+ Federal & state Monthly Limit (Max.of1,000 kg) 1000; x ; x y y x x x x x x l
l 800. j i 600.. E ' l' en
- S I
- 400.. ,
200__ c : : : : - o l 0 i ? ? ? _ : : Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June l1995l HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED .i This indicator shows the total amount of hazardous waste produced by the Fort Calhoun Station each month, the monthly average goal and the monthly average total for hazard-ous waste produced during the last 12 months. This hazardous waste consists of non-halogenated hazardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous waste ; produced. During the month of June 1996, 0.0 kilograms of non-halogenated, 0.0 kilograms of halogenated and 0.0 kilograms of other hazardous waste was produced. The total haz- - l ardous 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 l
.-_.._..._.m_..- _ . _ __ _
J m Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area [ o__ Fort Calhoun (bal(10%)
]
l V 10% _- c : : : : : : : : : a r 9%_. 8% ; i ; ; j. , ....p... i i .i _. i A I b $ $ ! ! $ k I f F=1 i CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA This indicator shows the percentage of the Radiologically Controlled Area that is contami-nated based on the total square footage. The 1996 monthly non-outage goal is a maxi-mum of 10.0% contaminated RCA. At the end of June 96, the percentage of the total square footage of the RCA that was contaminated was 9.4%. Data Source: Chase /Gundal(Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP54 55
identified PRWPs(YTD) Fort Calhoun Goal (<20) 3: : : : : : : : : : : : 18. 16 . 14 . t 12 . 10 . , 8. 6. 2 2 2
- 2. O
^ ^ ^
0-Jan Feb hr Apr Wy June July Aug Sep oct Nov Dec 1 RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM i 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 June 1996, there was 1 PRWP identified. There have been 3 PRWPs in 1996. The 1996 year-end goal for PRWPs is a maximum of 20. Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 52 56
f c) Documents Scheduled for Review g Documents Reviewed g Documents Overdue 300.. 250 - 200.. - l 150._~ - l 100.. , 1 i 50 __ 0 m i E l l , l 3 E S U o S $ E E & E l
' < m O z o ,E A 2 4 2 z 1996 DOCUMENT REVIEW This indicator shows the number of completed, scheduled, and overdue (greater than 6 l 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 June 1996, there were 254 document reviews scheduled, while 36 reviews were completed. At the end of the month, there were 18 document reviews more than 6 months overdue. There were 7 new documents initiated during June 1996. Beginning in Sep-tember 1995, these figures include PED and NOD procedures. j Data Source: Chase /Plath ! Accountability: Chase /Skiles l Trend: None SEP 46 l 57 l l
3 System Failures O Mystem Failures lGoool 30 . . 28 a l 25 .. 21 20 3 s e e ! w e 1s _. . . j 3 3 3 3 o , , . . . . . . Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June ! l LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY) ! i This graph shows the Loggable/Repodable incidents (Security) Indicator and depicts (1)
- the total number of loggable/ reportable incidents concerning system failures which oc-j curred during the reporting month, and (2) the total number of loggable/ reportable inci-
- dents non-system failures concerning Security Badges, Access Control and Authoriza-
- tion, Security Force Error, and Unsecured Doors.
l During the month of June 1996, there were 22 loggable/ reportable incidents identified. j System failures accounted for 86% of the loggable/repodable incidents. Although there was a significant increase in the reporting month, total system /non-system failures de- . clined 20% in the second quarter of 1996. The three non-system errors, which were human related, included a lost / unattended security badge and two tailgating incidents by plant personnel. - 1 ! This indicator provides information on security performance for Safety Enhancement Pro-gram (SEP) Item No. 58. l j Data Source: Sefick/Woemer (Manager / Source) j Accountability: Sefick i Trend: None SEP 58 l; j 58 i
l l i i Temporary Modifications >1-c)cle old (ret > requred for removal) gggg TemporaryModifications >6 months old(Removable ordne)
+ Fort Calhoun Goals for >1 cycle and >6 morths old i 1
~~
6 6 6 6._ 5._ 4.- 3__
]1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 00 00 00 0
, _ , _ , , ; _ _ _ , _ , , , , , x < x x l Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Nhr Apr May June 1996 l l 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 greater than six months old. The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goals for this indicator are zero. There are currently no temporary modifications that are greater than one-fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage to remove. In addition, at the end of June 1996, there are O temporary modification installed that are greater than six months old that can be removed on-line. At the end of June 1996, there was a total of 14 TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station. 8 of the 14 installed TMs require an outage for removal and 6 are removable on-line. In 1996, a total of 14 temporary modifications have been installed. Data Source: Skiles/ Turner (Manager / Source) Accountability: Skiles/Gorence Trend: Positive SEP 62 & 71
~
59
l l i , Total Modification Packages open
- Fort Calhoun Year-End Goal (68) 100 90 I 80 .
,, 72 73 7s 7s IU *' = = = c c c
= c o l 60 __ ,, i 50 . _
40 __ 30 __ 20 _. 10 . O ;
- ' ' , i 1 .
i i 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 Cateaorv '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 Month Form FC-1133 Backlog /In Progress 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Mod. Requests Being Reviewed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Design Engr. Backlog /In Progress 0 0 0 9 5 15 29 Construction Backlog /In Progress 4 0 9 21 0 0 34 Design Engr. Update Backlog /In Progress 1 2 7 1 0 0 11 Totals 5 2 16 31 5 16 75 (outage + online) (3+2) (0+2) (7+9) (20+11) (0+5) (16+0) (46+29) At the end of June 1996,11 modification requests have been issued this year and 3 modification requests have been cancelled. The Nuclear Projects Review Committee - (NPRC) has conducted 36 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
80 - EARS Requiring Enginwring Closeout - Not in Closeout 60 _. O sE O DEN 40 .
~
20 __- - - 0 - , - - > m 1
-in, ,
; i i M M , M Apr May June Apr May June Apr May June Apr May Jun 0-3 Months 3-6 Months 612 Months >12 Months O Engineering Response g Closeout (sE) 30 _
20 . 10 __ _ .
, 0 ,
I I ; i I Priority 0 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6 l, i Priority 1 & 2 u ,: Priority 3
. . .o.. . Total open EARS l 200 .
150__ U., 100__ " " ' U " " " U ' " " U ' ' " o - - - o - - - G - . . . o . . . . . . _ g. , , , , , ,g Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 1995 1996 60 EARS on te overdue 77 EARS 26 EARS g,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, R equiring Resolved $2.4 % 18.3 % Response " " 8 I" 76.2% Clo s e c ut 23.8% 30 Overdue Clo sec uts 28.3% 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. i Total EAR breakdown is as follows: 1 EARS opened during the month 3 EARS closed during the month 7 Total EARS open at the end of the month 98 Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source) Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 62
~
61
Y N 12 5 178 US CLOSEOUT DEN 0-3 M onths CO 3.s M onths ECN Status -Overall Backlog #% g Backlogged O Received g Completed ,
.l s ;;; %'
157 15 4 16 2 F3 #8 157
'3 3 Months 150. , , .
As% . 50 ' 23 " i. H so:o
- 2s %
r P 4~t'"1 N 3.
-50 .
st 2s Jan Feb Mar Apr May June >s Months 3-s Months J4% 16 % Design Engineering 260. 200. # o.s s-* 1so . M onths M . .ih.
, , , ,, . , .. n an "5 m -. .. ,, .. a ip
>s M o nths Jan Feb Mar A pr May June System Engineering 250. 3,, a ss 200.. 17 s 160.
172 5 " 4
, "9.l;%} fg ,,
i - W ' Months " . , ~ , side p.. 7.. p .. , ... g o nths 23 , , Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May '** u% y,,,, Procurement / Construction *% 250. 200. 4
- 150
'" n Nbrths
,,, 12: su 83'4 -
I 53 50 . ,.. 3... - ,.7 ~.,, 3-6 0-3 0 T Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Drafting / Closeout ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source) Accountability: Jaworski/Skiles Trend: None SEP 62 62 ~
s4 17 s PC TYP E 113 5& P 'I 'Y _) ~
.-$ e3 -,. ; ,. ,fpn-e c: "a .
k > ,,, aT. s
~ '
s s Total Open ECNs = 580 P riority 3&4 Total Open ECNs = 580 62% 0 DEN . Closeout of Drafting Not Coppiete pg p S Maintenance / Construction /Procuremerit . mrk Not Conviete E&S e system Engineering . ftespons e. Corfirmation Not Coppiete 22 S DEN . Engineering Not Complete 5% #%
. 300..
200. as sea w2 ers tre 7 s 2 12 2 I : I I t P rio rity Jan 96 Fet>SS Mar-M A 94 Ma Jun-96 3&4 FaciM)fChange @ rSG 89% 350. do
,,, ,, as 300. 2s4 res asy 296 P rio rity P rio rity Jan-96 Feb-96 Mw 96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 P g* '," Y Substitute Replacement item ECNs Open s,g 100.
80 . 76 y, 7; " ##
, ,,,',', 2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June s&S
* "'l*g *#
Document Change ECNs open sn ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager Source) Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 62 63
O Administrative ControlProblem a Licensed operator Error g Other Personnel Error g Maintenance Problem O Design / Construction / Installation / Fabrication Prob:em g Equipment Failures 2. 4 1__ _ . _ 0 ; , . . , j , l Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May I' " 51 P9 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN This indicator shows the LERs by event date broken down by Root Cause Code for each of the past twelve months from June 1,1995, throuqh 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 - this report. There was one event in May 1996 that resulted in an LER. Data Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase Trend: None - 64 1
O Total Requalification Training Hours a simulator Training Hours g Non-Requalification Training Hours 3 Number of Exam Failures , 1 n .. 35.- 34 32 - 32.5 32 30 .. 26 25 ..- 16 5.5 15 .- # 4 2 2
~
10 .. 3 3 s 3 5 .5 5
-~
2.5 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0___ l j l , , , l [ 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 hours of General Employee Training.
LICE'NSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING This indicator provides information on the total number of hours of training given to each crew during each Cycle. The simulator training hours shown on the graph are a subset of the total training hours. Non-Requalification Training Hours are used for APO/EOP verification & validation, INPO commitments, GET, Fire Brigade, Safety Meetings, and Division Manager lunches. Exam failures are defined as failures in the written, simulator, and Job Performance Measures (JPMs) segments of the Licensed Operator Requalification Training. Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source) Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 65
- g SRO Exams Administered O sRoExams Passed O Ro Exams Administered i g Ro Exams Passed 10 ..
l l l , l l 5_. O ; ; l 3
' E @ U o 3 $ I E D E
< m O z o ,E w 2 < =
2 ' l F'*1 l$$1 LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS This indicator shows the number of Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Reactor Opera- . tor (RO) quizzes and exams taken and passed each month. These internally adminis-tered quizzes and exams are used to plot the SRO and RO candidates' monthly progress. During the month of June 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 begin in July 1996. Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source) Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None . SEP 68 66
i a Ready to Cbse e Closed
+ Total CRs
-+- open 1400 1200.
1000. 800. _0 ;I ; ; ; ' AW ~ . j$
..- <aca ,
400. ( / MgFbMN# _ gy,k%:: "W M, g.e q 16-Feb 1-Wr 15-Wr 29-Wr 12-Apr 26.Apr 10-Wy 24-Wy Jun-96 CONDITION REPORTS BY LEVEL This indicator shows the total number of Condition Reports which are Closed, Ready to Close, Open and the Total Number of Condition Reports to date. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Leuel6 Total Open 20 6 82 651 40 39 839 Closed 2 0 21 215 178 35 451 171 Condition Reports are " READY" to "CLOSE" At the end of June,1996 there were 205 "OPEN" incident Reports, of which, 53 were Significant. As of September 21,1995, Incident Reports were no longer issued. Data Source: Tesar/Burggraf(Manager / Source) Accountability: Andrews/Gambhir/Patterson Trend : None 67
O Total Outage MWos a MWOs ReadytoWork 1000. 900. 800. S/stem 700. 600.. M 100. O j ; s== j
=
i Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 l MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUELING OUTAGE) This indicator shows the total number of Maintenance Work Requests (MWRs) and Main-tenance Work Orders (MW0s) that have been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage. This graph indicates:
- Parts Holds - Planning Complete, Awaiting Parts - System Engineering Holds - Awaiting System Engineering input to Planning , - Planner Holds - Maintenance Planner has not completed planning the work package. . - ECN Hold - Awaiting Substitute Replacement items ECN from DEN.
Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source) Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 31 68
1996 Outage Projects Status Report g Last Month a This Month 100. O For schedule ,, 90 __
~~
74 76 4 75 76 75 75 y4 5 5 5 yg i w E E 3 i E ! E i 17 35 i a si t s i e i e
" !; i li ei 11 82 i
h h
- a SPECIAL SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
, OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage)
This performance indicator shows the status of projects which are in the scope of the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage. SSED's 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
1 l 0 Baseline Sched* for PRC Approval Projected / Actual $chedule forPRC Approval
--Final Design Pkg lssued (2 FD DCP ssued Pre rto 05/Ot95)
To tal M odificate n Packages (22)(11 Added After 05/0795) 9 m 8. .:.
/ ;
1
- 7. e 6.
u&T s. ,mmm/ i 2E
$ it 4 .
15 5 - j g 3. - z&2 - l o. 1
!1 O.
5 9 f$N $$5 f$5 8 E
$$5 $$
M 4 S f$ S PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE (1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING) ' (FROZEN SCOPE OF 9 OUTAGE MODIFICATIONS) This indicator shows the status of Modifications approved for installation during the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage. Modifications added to the outage list after May 1,1995, are not l 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 i to May 1,1995, PRC approved by March 22,1996. 11 Modifications added after May 1, . 1995, not included. l June 1996 Modifications added: 0 Deleted = 0 - Graph corrected to represent the baseline schedule. Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 70 l l
l MODS ADDED TO 96 REFUELING OUTAGE AFTER FREEZE DATE (05/01/96) l 0 l f 9BS6. l l _: ' l s.- 1l gp- .g.g.g.g .g.g.; Q 7/11/96. 6/21/96 . $ ,
~
6/1f36 95- 96 95 95- % 95- 95- 96- 95- E 025 001 023 011 002 013 022 008 007 020 MODIFlCATlON NUMBER ($ TARETPRCAPPROW 5 ACfuALPRCAPPRCME l PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE (1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING) (1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING) 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.
June 1996 Modifications Added: 0 Deleted = 2 Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source) Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 p
l l
+ Baseline Schedule for PRC Approval
.-a-- Projected / Actual schedule for PRc Approval
+ Total Modification Packages (10)(4 Added After 05A)1f35) 6 : - : y -- y 4 x x - r - x y x x x x x x x x o S._
14 _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
/ ' ' ' ' ' '
g3.. E 2__ . 2 1 : : : : : : : . 0 , . - - - i E M E la n E E E 2 ln E E E R E E E a l E 2 E 2 E E E h a e ; a a M M 4 4 m a a 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 twseline schedule (established June 16, 1995) and the current schedule. This information '.s taken from the Modification Variation , Report produced by Design Engineering Nucier/. I The goal for this indicator is to have all modWcation packages which were identified prior to May 1,1995, PRC approved by March 25,1996.1 Modification added after May 1, ' 1995, not included. June 1996 Modifications Added: 0 Deleted = 0 , Graph corrected to represent the baseline schedule. Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source) j Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 33 72
h
~
ACTION PLANS e 73
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. In accordance with Revision 3 of NOD-QP-37, the following performance indicators would require action plans based on three (3) consecutive months of performance cited as
. "Needing increased Management Attention"-
- Fuel Reliability Indicator (page 9)
. 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 performance indicator goal. The elevated FRI has resulted in lowering the plant performance indicator index to an undesirable value. ga _G_oal: Reduce the reactor coolant activity levels for Cycle 16 operations and take measure to achieve zero defect fuel performance for Cycle 17 and beyond. P_!an 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. > 74 -
- Fuel Reliability i
SHORT TERM (CYCLE 16 OPERATIONS) ITEM ACTION RESP. DATE DUE STATUS
- 1. Evaluate replacement of two-micron filter in CVCS with one- Holthaus Completed Complete.1/4/96. Filter replacement will micron filter. result in improved particulate removal 01/04/96 and consequently lower dose rates.
Ia. Install one-micron filters in CVCS 01/31/96 Complets d m/13/96
- 2. Evaluate benefits ofincreasing letdown flow. Holthaus/Spilker Completed Prev.c- , evaluated in Radiological 01/19/96 Analysis 95-005, which supports increased letdown flow.
- 3. Evaluate need for and effectiveness of more frequent of Holthaus Completed Complete. 01/04/96. Resin bed effective purification and cation ion beds. 01/04/96 in minimizing RCS activity. Resin beds replaced in November 1995.
ITEM 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 Nuclear Network entry.
- 5. Evaluate installation of silver mordenite filtration system Holthaus/ Spires Completed Received general (unclassified) for increased iodine removal. 01/26/96 information on system used at i . Savannah River Project.
- 6. Identify number of old design assemblies to be placed Completed Previously identified eight assemblies to in peripherallocations for second cycle and consider Holthaus/Guinn 01/12/96 be placed on core periphery for second replacement with new design assembly. cycle.
75
t 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 Completed Complete. 01/12/96. Westinghouse has assemblies for Cycle 17. Also, can Fuels Division Holthaus/ Hanger 01/12/96 indicated that they can fabricate the provide necessary uranium. assembEes. Cost estimates by Fuels Division is approx.12M. Discount from Westinghouse also requested.
- 9. Evaluate Cycle 18 preliminary pattern same as 5 & 6 Holthaus/Guinn Completed Cycle 18 preEminary pattern indicates 01/17/96 four additional assembles would be I required. Cost $1.0M
- 10. Evaluate Cycle 19 preEminary pattern same as 5& 6 Holthaus/Guinn Completed Cycle 16 preEminary pattern indicates 01/17/96 eight additiona! assembles would be required.' Cost $2.0M
- 11. Analyze additional assembEes to be procured Holthaus/ Hanger Completed Total cost is $5.0M for 20 additional 01/17/96 assembEes.
- 12. Evaluated cost / benefit with assumption of Holthaus/ Hanger Completed
$10,000/ person exposure. 01/25/96 1 '
1 76
.5 i f i 6 , The action plan for Maintenance Workload Backlog (page 47) is as follows: i l A detailed review is being conducted to determine which stage of the maintenance process has a higher than expected backlog. Areas being reviewed are: i ! Planning - 1 i Scheduled Maintenance ! l Bulk Work l i i i I I 4 i t i j 4 a l
~
77
l PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS t 1,000 PERFORMANCE DlSINTEGRATIONS/ MINUTE PER PROBE AREA The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable The personnel conlarrunation events in the clean controlled area. hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the auxiliary Thisindicator tracks personnel performance for SEP #15 & 54. feedwater system for the reporting period divided by the critical hours for the reporting period multiplied by the number of trains CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA in the auxiliary feedwater system. The percentage of the Radiation Controlled Area, which includes COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE the auxiliary building, the radwaste building, and areas of the
- C/RP building, that is contaminated based on the total square Collective radiation exposure is the total extemal whole-body footage. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #54. >
dose received by al on site personnel (including contractors and visitors) dunng a time period, as measured by the DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT
- thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). Collective radiation exposure is reported in units of person-rem. This indicator This indicator shows the daily core thermal output as measured tracks radiological 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 daily goal for the reporting month are also shown.
SUMMARY
DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 Demands) The summary of INPO categories for Fort Calhoun Station with sigtv6cantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than This indicator shows the riurnber of failures occumng for each the rest of the industry for an eighteen-month time period. emergency diesel generator dunng the last 25 start demands Failures are reported as component (i.e., pumps, motors, rnain and the last 25 load-run demands. steam stop valves, control element motors, etc.) categories. DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE Failure Cause Categories are: (LOSS TIME ACCIDENT RATE) Age / Normal Use -thought to be the consequence of This indicator is de6ned as the number of accidents for all utility expected wear, aging, end-of-life, or normal use . personnel permanently assigned to the station, involving days away from work per 200,000 man-hours worked (100 man-Manufacturing Defect - a failure attributable to inadequate years). This does not include contractor personnel. This assernbly or initial quality of the responsible component or indicator tracks personnel performance for SEP #25,26 & 27. system. DOCUMENT REVIEW (BIENNIAL) Engineenng/ Design - a failure attnbutable to the udequate design of the responsible component or system. The Document Review indicator shows the number of documents reviewed, the number of documents 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, includng for the repor+ing month. A document review is considered associated devices. overdue if the review is not complete within six months of the assigned due date. This indicator tracks performance for SEP Maintenance / Action - resulting from improper maintenance, #46. lack of maintenance, or personnel errors that occur dunng maintenance activitieson the component.. EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Testing 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 eniergency 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 reporting period multiplied by the number of trains in the emergency AC power system. CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun Stabon. The cents per kilowatt The hdicator shom the number of failures that were toported during the hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per last 20, So, and 100 emergency desel generator demands at the Fort kilowatt hour on a twelve-month average for the current year. Cahoun Staten. h shom are tngger values whch correlate to a high The basis for the budget curve is the approved yearly budget. level f c nfidence that a unirs desel generators have obtained a The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating #h(g*.',I, n Report. 78 .-
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS and the successful test that fol!ows repair to venfy operability
- 1) Number of Start Demands: All valid and inadvertent start should not be counted as demands or failures when the EDG demands, including all start-only demands and all start has not been declared operable again.
demands that are followed by load-run demands, whether by automatic or manualinitiation. A start-only demand is EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY a demand in which the emergency generator is started, but no attempt is rnade to load the generator. This indicator measures the total unreliability of emergency i diesel generators. in general, unreliability is the ratio of l
- 2) Number of Start Failures: Any faik:re within the unsuccessful opemtions (starts or load-runs) to the number of (
emergency generator system that prevents the generator valid demands. Total unreliabihty is a combination of start I from achieving specified frequency and voltage is classified unreliability and load-run unreliability. l as a valid start failure. This includes any condition identified in the course of maintenance inspections (with ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR) the emergency generator in standby mode) that definitely BREAKDOWN would have resulted in a start failure if a demand had occurred. This indicator shows a breakdown, by age and priority of the EAR, of the number of EARS assigned to Design Engineering
- 3) Number of Load-Run Demands: For a valid load-run Nuclear and System Engineenng. This indicator tracks demand to be counted, the load-run attempt must meet performance for SEP #62.
one or more of the following cnteria: ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) STATUS A) A load-run of any duration that results from a real automatic or manualinitiation. The number of ECNs that were opened, ECNs that were completed, and open backlog ECNs awaiting completion by B) A load-run test to satisfy the plant's load and duration DEN for the reporting month. This indic, tor tracks performance l as stated in each test's specifications. for SEP #62. C) Other special tests in whien the emergency generator ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN is expected to be operated for at least one hour while loaded witn at least 50% of its design load. This indicator breaks down the number of Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) that are assigned to Design Engineering
- 4) Number of Load-Run Failures: A load-run failure should Nuclear (DEN), System Engineering, and Maintenance. The be counted for any reason in which the emergency graphs provide data on ECN Facility Changes open, ECN generator does not pick up load and run as predicted. Substitute Replacement items open, and ECN Document Failures are counted dunng any valid load-run demands. Changes open. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #62.
- 5) Exceptions: Unsuccessful attempts to start or load-run EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL should not be counted as valid demands or failures when HOURS they can be attnbuted to any of the following:
Equipment forced outages per t,000 cntical hours is the inverse A) Spunous tnps that would be bypassed in the event of of the mean time between forced outages caused by equipment an emergency. failures. The mean time is equal to the number of hours the reactor is enticalin a pened (1,000 hours) divided by the number B) Malfunction of equipment that is not required during of forced outages caused by equipment failures in that period. an emergency. EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR C) Intentionaltermination of a test because of abnormal conditions that would not have resulted in major This indicator is defined as the ratio of gross available diesel generator damage or repair. generation to gross maximum generation, expressed as a percentage. Available generation is the energy that can be D) Malfunctions or operating errors which would not
- produced if the unit is operated at the maximum power level have prevented the emergency generator from being permitted by equipment and regulatory limitations. Maximum restarted and brought to load within a few minutes. generation is the energy that can be produced by a unit in a given period if operated continuously at maximum capacity.
E) A failure to start because a portion of the starting system was disabled for test purpose, if followed by FORCED OUTAGE RATE a successful start with the starting system in ts normal alignment. This indicator is defined as the percentage of time that the unit was unavailable due to forced events compared to the time Each emergency generator failure that results in the generator planned for electrical generation. Forced events are failures or being declared inoperable should be counted as one demand other unplanned conditions that require removing the unit from and one failure. Exploratory tests during corrective maintenance service before the end of the next weekend. Forced events 79
k l l PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS i 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 unit is available but not in sennee). } IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT OF SERVICE FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR Total number of irAne chemistry instruments that are out-of-This indicator is defined as the steady-state primary coolant I- service in the Secondary System and the Post Accident 131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium contribution and Sampiang System (PASS). normalized to a common punfication rate. Tramp uranium is fuel which has been deposited on reactor core intemals from UCENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS previous defective fuel or is present on the surface of fuel elements from the manufacturing process. Steady state is This hdicator shows the number of SRO and/or RO quizzes and defined as continuous operation for at least three days at a exams that are administered and passed each month. This ; i power level that does not vary more than + or -5% Plants indicator tracks training performance for SEP #68. l should conect data for this indicator at a power level above 85%, I } when possible. Plants that did not operate at steady-state power UCENSED OPERATOR REQUAUFICATION TRAINING i 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 during each cycle. Also provided are the simulator training hours l 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., Vi non-REQUALIFICATION training hours and the number of exam
= 0.02146) divided by the specific volume of coolant at normal failures. This indicator tracks training performance for i letdown ternperature (120* F at outlet of the letdown cooling heat SEP # 68.
2 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 indicator shows the number and root cause code for j Gross heat rate is defined as the ratio of total thermal energy in Licensee Event Reports. The root cause codes are as follows: i 5 Bntish Thermal Units (BTU) produced by the reactor to the total gross electrical energy produced by the generator in kilowatt. 1) Administrative Control Problem - Management and 4 hours (KWH). supervisory deficiencies that affect plant programs or l activities (i.e., poor planning, breakdown or lack of ! 4 HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED adequate management or supervisory control, incorrect procedures, etc). 2 The total amount (in Kilograms) of non-halogenated hazardous , waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous 2) Ucensed Operator Error - This cause code captures waste produced by FCS each month, errors of omission / commission by licensed reactor operators during plant activibes. i HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFETY
! SYSTEM PERF0FsMANCE 3) Other Personnel Error - Errors of omission / commission a committed by non-licensed personnel involved in plant The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable activities.
j hours and the eshmated 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 criucal hours forthe reporting period multiplied by the number of capture the full range of problems which can be attributed
! trains in the high pressure safety inject on system. in any way to programmatic deficiencies in the rnaintenance fMetsonal organization. Activities included in 4 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE INPO this category are maintenance, testing, surveillance, calibration and radiation protection.
j This indicator is defined as the number of accidents per 200,000
- rnar@ours worked for all ut"ity personnel permanently assigned 5) DesigrVConstruchon4nstallation/ Fabrication Problem -
l ! to the station that result in any of the following: This cause code covers a full range of programmatic I deficiencies in the areas of design, construction,
- 1) One or more days of restricted work (excluding the day of hstallation, and fabrication (i.e., loss of control power due the accident); to underrated fuse, equipment not qualified 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) - This code is used for
- 3) Fatalities. spunous failures of electronic piece-parts and failures due to meteorological conditions such as lightning, ice, h'gh
~
80
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS winds, etc. Generally, it includes spurious or one-time MAXIMUM INDMDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE failures. Electric components included in this category are circuit cards, rectifiers, bistables, fuses, capacitors, diodes, The total maximum amount of radiation received by an individual resistors, etc. person working at FCS on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY) MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUELING The total number of secunty incidents for the reporting month OUTAGE) depicted in two graphs. This indicator tracks secunty performance for SEP #58. The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have been approved for hclusion in the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage and the , MAINTENANCE OVERTIME number that are ready to work (parts staged, planning complete, and all other paperwork ready for field use). Also included is the The percent of overtime hours compared to normal hours for number of MWOs that have been engineering holds (ECNs, maintenance. This includes OPPD personnel as well as procedures and other miscellaneous engineering holds), parts
- contract personnel, hold,(parts staged, not yet inspected, parts not yet arrived) and planning hold Gob scope not yet completed). Maintenance Work MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS Requests (MWRs) are also shown that have been identified for the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage and have not yet been converted This indicator shows the backlog of non-outage Maintenarte to MWOs.
Wbrk Orders remaining open at the end of the reporting month. Maintenance classifications are defined as follows: NUhBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUPIWENT DEFICIENCIES Corrective - Repair and restoration of equipment or A control room equipment deficiency (CRO) is deflned as any components that have failed or are malfunctioning and are not component which is operated or contro5ed from the Control performing their intended function. Room, provides indication or alarm to the Control Room, provides testing capabihties from the Cortrol Room, provides I Preventive. Actions taken to maintain a piece of equiprnent automatic actions from or to the Control Room, or provides a within design operating conditions, prevent equipment failure, passive funcbon for the Cottrol Room and has been identified as and extend its life and are performed prior to equipment deficient,1.e., does not perform under all conditions as designet failure. This deflnihon also applies to the Altemate Shutdown Panels Al-179, Al-185, and Al-212. ' Non4orrective/ Plant improvements - Maintenance actNties performed to implement station improvements or to A plant -w,- A which is deficient or inoperable is considered repair non-plant equipment. an" Operator Work Around (OWA) Item"if some other action is required by an operator to compenaate for the cordtion of the Maintenance Work Priorities are defined as: component. Some examples of OWAs are: Emergency Conditions which significantly degrade stabon 1) The control room level indicator does not work but a local safety or availabihty. sight glass can be read by an Operator out in the plant; immediate Action - Equipment deficiencies which 2) A dolciert pump cannot be repaired because replacement significantly degrade station reliability. Potential for unit parts require a long lead time for purchase / delivery, thus shutdown or power reduction. requring the rockJndant pump to be operated continuously; Operations Concern Equipment deficiencies which hinder 3) Special actior;s are required by an Operator because of , station operation. equipment design problems. These actions may be described in Operations Memorandums, Operator Notes, Essential Routine corrective maintenance on essential or may require changes to Operating Procedures; station systems and equipment.
- 4) Deficiert piart equipmert that is required to be used during ]
Non Essential - Routine corrective maintenance on non- Emergency Operating Procedures or Abnormal Operating , essential station systems and equipment. Procedures; j Plant improvement Non corrective maintenance and plant 5) System indication that provides cribcalinformation during improvements. normal or abncrmal operations. This indicator tracks maintenance performance for SEP #36.
~
81
1 1 1 1 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS NUlWEER OF htSSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESUL11NG This indicator shows the status of the projects which are in ths IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS scope of the Refueling Outage. l The number of Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Licensee PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER l Evert Reports (LERs) during the reporting month. This indicator MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK ; tracks massed STs for SEP #60 & 61. l The percentage of total MWOs completed per month identified OPEN INCIDENT REPORTS as rework. Rework activities are identified by maintenance l planning and craft. Rework is: Any additional work required to This hdicator displays the total nurnber of open incident Reports correct deficiences discovered dunng a failed Post Maintenance (irs), the number of irs that are greater than six months old and Test to ensure the component / system passes subsequent Post the number of open significant irs. Maintenance Test. OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES The number of Modification Requests (MRs) in any state between the issuance of a Modification Number and the The percent of the number of completed maintenance activities completion of the drawing update, as compared to the number of scheduled maintenance activities each month. This percentage is shown for all maintenance
- 1) Form FC-1133 Backlog /in Progress. This number crafts. Also shown are the number of emergent MWOs.
represents modification requests that have not been plant Maintenance activities include MWRs, MWOs, STs, PMOs, approved during the reporting month. calibrations, and other miscellaneous activities. This indicator tracks Maintenance performance for SEP #33.
- 2) Modification Requests Being Reviewed. This category includes: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR INDEX A) Modification Requests that are not yet reviewed. This indicator index is calculated from a weighted combination of twelve performance indicator values, which include the B) Modification Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear following: Unit Capability Factor, Unit Capability Loss Factor, Projects Review Committee (NPRC). HPSI, AFW, Emergency AC Power System, Unplanned Automatic Scrams, Collective Radiation Exposure, Fuel C) Modification Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear Reliabikty, Thermal Performance, Secondary System Chemistry, Projects Committee (NPC). Radiation Weste, and industrial Safety Accident Rate.
These Modification Requests may be reviewed several times PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERs before they are approved for accomplishment or canceled. Some of these Modification Requests are retumed to This indicator is a breakdown of LERs. For purposes of LER Engineering for more hformation, some approved for evaluation, event classificabon, a " Preventable LER" is defined as: some approved for study, and some approved for planning. Once planning is completed and the scope of the work is clearty An event for which the root cause is personnel error (i.e., defined, these Modification Requests may be approved for inappropriate action by one or more individuals), inadequate accomplishment with a year assigned for construction or they administr&tive controls, a design construction, inctallation, may be canceled. All of these different phases require review. instaBation, tabrication problem (involving work completed by or supervised by OPPD personnel) or a maintenence problem
- 3) Design Engineering Backlog /In Progress. Nuclear (attributed to inadequate or improper upkeep / repair of plant Planning has assigned a year in which construction will be equipment). Also, the cause of the event must have occurred completed and design work rnay be in progress, within approximately two years of the " Event Date" specified h the LER (e.g., an event for which the cause is attnbuted to
- 4) Construction Backlog /In Progress. The Construction a problem with the original design of the plant would not be Package has been issued or construction has begun but considered preventable).
- the rnodification has not been accepted by the System Acceptance Committee (SAC). For purposes of LER event classification, a " Personnel Error
- LER is defined as follows:
- 5) Design Ersk.c49 Update Backlog /In Progress. PED has received the Modification Completion Report but the An event for which the root cause is inappropnate action on drawings have not been updated. the part of one or more individuals (as opposed to being attributed to a department or a general group). Also, the The above mentioned outstanding modifications do not include happropnate action must have occurred within approximately modifications which are proposed for cancellation. two years of the " Event Date* specified in the LER.
OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (REFUELING OUTAGE) 82
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS Additionally, each event classified as a " Personnel Error" should SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES also be classified as " Preventable." This indicator trends personnel performance for SEP ltem #15. Safety system failures are any events or conditions that could prevent the fulfillment of the safety functions of structures or PRIMARY SYSTEM LITHlUM % OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT systems. If a system consists of multiple redundant subsystems or trains, failure of alltrains constitutes a safety system failure. The percent of hours out of limit are for IAhium divided by the Failure of one of two or more trains is not counted as a safety total number of hours possible for the month, system failure. The definition for the indicator parallels NRC reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. The PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS fonowing is a list of the major safety systems, sub-systems, and (MAINTENANCE) components monitored for this indicator: , The number of identified incidents conceming maintenance Accident Monttonng Instrumentation, Auxiliary (and procedural problems, the number of closed irs related to the Emergency) Feedwater System, Combustible Gas Control, use of procedures (includes the number of closed irs caused by Componer! Cooling Water System, Containment and ~ procedural noncompliance), and the number of closed Containment isolation, Containment Coolant Systems, Control procedural noncompliance irs. This indicator trends personnel Room Emergency Ventilation System, Emergency Core performance for SEP #15,41 and 44. Cooling Systems, Engineered Safety Features Instrumentation, Essential Compressed Air Systems, PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE MODIFICATION Essential or Emergency Service Water, Fire Detection or PLANNING Suppression Systems, Isolation Condenser, Low Temperature Overpressure Protection, Main Steam Line This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for Isolation Valves, Onsite Emergency AC & DC Power completion dunng the Refueling Outage. w/Distnbubon, Radiation Monitoring instrumentation, Reactor Coolant System, Reactor Core isolation Cooling System, PROGRESS OF 1995 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING Reactor Tnp System and instrumentation, Recirculation Pump Trip Actuation Instrumentation, Residual Heat Removal This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for Systems, Safety Valves, Spent Fuel Systems, Standby Uquid completion during 1995. Control System and Ultimate Heat Sink. RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEM!STRY PERFORMANCE INDEX The number of ident2fied poor radiological work practices (PRWPs) for the reporting month. This indicator tracks The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) is a calculation based radiological work performance for SEP #52. on the concentration of key impurities in the secondary side of the plant. These key impurities are the rnost likely cause of RADIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & detenoration of the steam generators. Criteria for calculating the PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE CPI are: The ratio of preventive maintenance (including surveillance 1) The plant is at greater than 30 percent power, and testing and calibration procedures) to the sum of non-outage corrective maintenance and preventive maintenance completed 2) the power is changing less than 5% per day. over the reporting penod. The ratio, expressed as a percentage, is calculated based on man-hours. Also displayed are the The cpl is calculated using the following equation: percent of preventive maintenance items in the month that were not cornpleted or administratively closed by the scheduled date CPI = ((sodium /0.79) + (Chloride /1.52) + (Sulfate /1.44) +
- plus a grace period equalto 25% of the scheduled interval. This (Iron /3.30) + (Copper /0.30)+(Condensate 02/2.90))/5 bdicator tracks preventive maintenance activities for SEP #41.
Where: Sodium, sulfate, chloride and condensate dissolved ; RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FREQUENCY oxygen are the monthly average blowdown concentrations in j RATE ppb, iron and copper are monthly time weighted average
- l feedwater concentrations in ppb. The denominator for each of 1 The number of injuries requiring more than normal first aid per the five factors is the INPO median value. If the monthly 200,000 man-hours worked. This indicator trends personnel average for a specific param(ter is less than the INPO median performance for SEP #15,25 and 26. valu, the median value is used in the calculation.
REPEAT FAILURES SIGNIFICANT EVENTS The number of Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) components with more than one failure and the number tf Signi5 cant events are the events identified by NRC staff through NPRDS components with more than two failures for the detaGed screening and evaluation of operating experience. The eighteen-month CFAR period. screening process includes the daily review and discussion of 83 l
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS all reported operating reactor events, as well as other instrurnents are not considered as temporary modifications. operational data such as special tests or construction actrvities. An event identified from the screening process as a significant 3) Scaffold is not considered a temporary rnodification. event 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 public was have been submitted will be considered as temporary { inyolved. Specific examples of the type of entena are modifications until final resolubon of the MR and the jumper summanzed as follows; or block is removed or is permanently recorded on the drawings. This indicator tracks temporary modifications for
- 1) Degradation ofimportant safety equipment; SEP #62 and 71.
- 2) Unexpected plant response to a transient; THERMAL PERFORMANCE o
- 3) Degradation of fuel integrity, primary coolant pressure The ratio of the design gross heat rate (corrected) to the boundary, important associated features; adjusted actual gross heat rate, expressed as a percentage.
- 4) Scram with complication; UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR 1
- 5) Unplanned release of radioactivity; The ratio of the available energy generation over a given time pened to the reference energy generation (tne energy that could l
- 6) Operation outside the limits of the Technical Specifications; be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power 1 under reference ambient conditions) over the same time period,
- 7) Other. expressed as a percentage.
INPO significant events reported in this indicator are SERs UNIT CAPACITY FACTOR (Significant Event Reports) which inform utilities of significant events and lessons leamed identified through the SEE-IN The net electncal energy generated (MWH) divided by the screening process. product of maximum dependable capacity (net MWe) times the gross hours in the reporting period expressed as a percent. Net SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE electrical energy generated is the gross electrical output of the unit measured at the output terminals of the turbine generator The dollar value of the spare parts inventory for FCS dunng the minus the normal station service loads dunng the gioss hours of reporting period the reporting penod, expressed in megawatt hours. STAFFING LEVEL UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 CRITICAL HOURS The actual staffing level and the authonzed staffing level for the Nuclear Operations Division, The Production Engineering This indicator is defined as the number of unplanned automatic Division, and the Nuclear Services Division. This indicator scrams (reactor protection system logic actuations) that occur tracks performance for SEP #24. per 7,000 hours of entical operation. STATION NET GENERATION The value for this indicator is calculated by multiplying the total number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams in a specific time The net generation (sum) produced by the FCS during the period by 7,000 hours, then dividing that number by the total reporting month. number of hours criticalin the same time period. The indicator is further defined as follows: TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS
- 1) Unplanned means that the scram was not an anticipated The number of temporary mechanical and electrical part of a planned test.
configurations to the plant's systems.
- 2) Scram means the automatic shut' lown of the reactor by a
- 1) Temporary configurations are defined as electncaljumpers. rapid insertion of negative reactivity (e.g., by control rods, electncal blocks, rnechanical jumpers, or mechanical blocks liquid injection system, etc.) that is caused by actuation of which are installed in the plant operating systems and are the reactor protection system. The scram signal may have not shown on the latest revision of the PalD, schematic, resulted from exceeding a set point or may have been connection, winng, or flow diagrams. spurious.
- 2) Jumpers and blocks which are installed for Suneihnce Tests, Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Proced, ires, 3) Automatic rneans that the initial signal that caused actuation Special Procedures or Operating Procedures are not of the reactor protectioa system logic was provided from one coredered as temporary modifications unless the jumper or cf the sensor's monitoring plant parameters and corv',itions, block remains in place after the test or procedure is rather than the manual scram switches or, manual turbine complete. Jumpers and blocks installed in test or lab tnp switches (or push-buttons) provided in the main control 84 -
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS room, shipped off-site for processing, and the volume of solid dry radioactue waste which has been shipped off-site fcr
- 4) Critical means that dunng the steady-state condition of the processing. Low-level solid radioactNe waste consists of dry reactor prior to the scram, the effective multiplication (k ,, ) actue waste, sludges, resins, and evaporator bottoms generated was essentially equal to one. as a result of nuclear power plant operaten and rnaintenance Dry rudcactwe waste includes contarrunated rags, cleaning UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR malensis, disposable protective clothing, plastic containers, and any other material to be disposed of at a low-level radcactive The ratio of the unplanned energy losses dunng a given period waste disposal site, except resin, sludge, or evaporator bottoms.
of time, to the reference energy generation (the energy that Low-level refers to all radioactue waste that is not spent fuel or could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full a by-product of spent fuel processing. This indicator tracks power under reference ambient conditions) over the same tirne radiological work performance for SEP #54. ' period, expressed as a percentage. UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS - (INPO
+ DEFINITION)
This indicator is defined as the sum of the following safety system actuations:
- 1) The number of unplanned Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) actuatens that result from reaching an ECCS actuation set ,noint or from a spurious / inadvertent ECCS signal.
- 2) The number of unplanned emergency AC power system actuations that result from a loss of power to a safeguards bus. An unplanned safety system actuation occurs when an actuaten set point for a safety system is reached or when a spurious or inadvertent signal is generated (ECCS only),
and major equpment in the system is actuated. Unplanned means that the system actuation was not part of a planned test or evolution. The ECCS actuatens to be counted are actuations of the high pressure injection system, the low pressure injection system, or the safety injection tanks. UNPLANNED SAFE 1Y SYSTEM ACTIONS -(NRC DEFINITION) The number of safety system actuations which include (o&) the High Pressure Safety injection System, the Low Pressure Safety injecten System, the Safety injection Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC classification of safety system actuations includes actuations when major equipment is operated grg when the logic systems for the above safety systems are challenged. VIOLATION TREND
. TNs hicebris defined as Fort Calhoun Staten Cited Violations and NorWeed Velations trended over 12 months. Additionally,
- Cited Violations for the top quartile Region IV plant is trended over 12 months (lagging the Fort Calhoun Station trend by 2-3 months). It is the Fort Calhoun Station goal to be at or below the cited violation trend for the top quartile Region IV plant.
VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE This indicator is defined as the volume of lowkvel sohd radcactue waste actually shipped for burial. This indicator also shows the volume of low-level radioactNe waste WhiCh is in temporary storage, the amount of radioactive oil that has been 85
$AFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX The purpose of the Safety Enhancernent Program (SEP) Performance Indicators index is to list i performance indicators related to SEP items with parameters that can be trended.
SEP Reference Number is P.ans.
. Increase HPES and IR Accountability through use of Performance Indicators Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 ,
Recordable InjuryAliness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . ................................16 l Clean Controlled Area Contaminations >1,000 Disintegrations / Minute Per Probe Area ........... 17 ' Preventable / Personnel Error LERs ... ............ ............................18 l 1 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 Disabung injuryAliness Frequency Rate ..... .. .... ...... ... .......... .......... 15 Recordable InjuryAliness Cases Frequency Rate . . ...... .................... . .... 16 SEP Reference Number 31
. Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Manual and Conduct Project Management Training MWO Planning Status (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage) .
....... .... ...................... 68 SSED's Overall Project Status . . . . . . . . . .
.. ... ................................69 i Overall Project Status (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 I Progress of Cycle 17 0utage Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 SEP Reference Number 33
. Develop On-Line Maintenance and Modification Schedule l Percent of Completed Scheduled Maintenance Activities (All Maintenance Crafts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 1996 On-Ene Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................72 SEP Reference Number 36
. Reduce Corrective Non-Outage Backlog
, Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage) ... .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 SEP Reference Numbers 41&_44
. Develop and implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule
- Compliance With and Use of Procedures Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Procedural Noncompiance incidents (Maintenance) . . . .... . ... .......... . . ... .. 51 86
d SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX SEP Reference Number 46
. Design a Procedures Controland Administrative Program Document Review . . .... .. . .. ... . .. . ...... . .. ... .. .. .. .. . . . . 57 SEP Reference Number 52 Ease.
. Establish Supervisory Accountability for Workers Radiological Practices Radiological Work Practices Program . . . ...... ....... . ... .. . ..... . . 56 ,
SEP Reference Number 54
. Complete implementation of Radiological Enhancement Program l
Clean Controlled Area Disintegrations >1,000_ Counts / Minute Per Probe Area . .. . . . . . 17 I . Collective Radiation Exposure . . ... . . .. .. .. . .. . .. ..... .. . . 11 Volume oflow-Level Solid Radioactive Waste . . .. .... ....... ... .. .. . . . . . 12 : Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area .... ... .. . ... .. .. . . .. . . . 55 l SEP Reference Number 58
- . Revise Physical Security Training and Procedure Program l
Loggable/ 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 . . . . . . .. . .. .. 28 l SEP Reference Number 62
. Establish interim System Engineers 2
; Temporary Modifications . .. ... .. . . .. ... ... .......... 59 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . ... ...... .. ..... .. . . .. .. 61 Engineering Change Notice Status .. . ... .... . .. . ... . . ...... ... .. 62 Engineering Change Notices Open .. .... .. .. .... ... . . . .. . .. .. ... . 63
] SEP Reference Number 68 . ! . Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Training and establish means to monitor Operator Training License Operator Requalification Training .. ... .. . .... . .. . .. . . . . 65 *
- License Candidate Exams ..... .. ... ... . .. ... . ... .. ...........66 4
SEP Reference Number 71
. Improve Controls over Temporary Modifications Temporary Modifications ..... . .. . . . . . ... . .. ... ..... ... 59 87
ReponT DISTRIBUTION I,lST l l l R. L. Andrews C. A. Marasco
- G. C. Bishop T. J. Mcivor l C. E. Boughter K. A. Miller l J. L. Bostelman P. A. Mruz
! C. J. Brunnert R. J. Mueller l J. W. Chase Nuclear Ucensing g) R. G. Conner T. L. Patterson i G. M. Cook R. L. Plott ! M.R. Core W.J.Ponec ( T. R. Dukarski D. G. Ried H. J. Faulhaber M. J. Sandhoefner S. K. Gambhir F. C. Scofield j J. K. Gasper H. J. Sefick 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 l A. L. Hale M. A.Tesar K. R. Henry J. J. Tesarek J. B. Herman J. W. Tills R. L. Jaworski D. R. Trausch J. W. Johnson B. J. Van Sant W. C. Jones L. P. Walling D. D. Kloock G. R. Williams J. B. Kuhr U) S. J. Willrett L.T.Kusek B. R. Livingston O l I 1 l 88
FORT CALHOUN STATION OPERATING CYCLES AND REFUELING OUTAGE DATES EVENT DATE RANGE PRODUCTION (MWH) CUMULATIVE (MWH) Cycle 1 09/26/73 - 02/08/75 3,299,639 3,299,639 1st Refueling 02/080 5- 05/11/75 Cycle 2 05/11/75- 10/01/76 3,853,322 7,152,961 2nd Refueling 10/01/76- 12/13/76 Cycle 3 12/13/76 - 09/30/77 2,805,927 9,958,888 ) 3rd Refueling 09/30/77 - 12/09/77 Cycle 4 12/09/77 - 10/13/78 3,026,832 12,985,720 4th Refueling 10/13/78 - 12/24/78 - Cycle 5 12/24/78 - 01/18/80 3,882,734 16,868,454 5th Refueling 01/18/80 - 06/11/80 Cycle 6 06/11/80 - 09/18/81 3,899,714 20,768,168 eth 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 1 Cycle 8 04/06/83 - 03/03/84 3,406,371 27,736,405
* =
8th Refueling 03/03/84 - 07/12/84 l Cycle 9 07/12/84 - 09/28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 l 9th Refueling 09/28/85 - 01/16/86 Cycle 10 01/16/86 - 03/07/87 4,356,753 36,834,646 j 10th Refueling 03/07/87 - 06/08/87 l 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 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 15th Refueling 02/20/95 - 04/14/95 Cycle 16 04/14/95 - 09/21/96 18th Refueling 09/21/96 - 11/02/96 (Planned Dates) , FORT CALHOUN STATION CURRENT PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS " RECORDS" First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5:47 p.m.) First Electricity Supplied to the System August 25,1973 Commercial Operation (180,000 KWH) September 26,1973 Achieved Full Power (100%) May 4,1974 Longest Run (477 Days) June 8,1987-Sept. 27,1988 Highest Monthly Not Generation (364,468,800 KWH) October 1987 Most Productive Fuel Cycle (5,451,069 MWH - Cycle 13) May 29,1990-Feb.1,1992 Shortest Refueling Outage (52 days) Feb. 20,1995-April 14,1995
~
j I e
- _}}