ML20117F838

Performance Indicators Report, for July 1996

ML20117F838
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	07/31/1996
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20117F836	List: LIC-96-0129, Forwards Fort Calhoun Station Performance Indicators ML20117F838
References
NUDOCS 9609040266
Download: ML20117F838 (100)

Text

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

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS lllli

.s ..~.

s+'

JULY 1996 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COSTEFFECTIVENESS

$$0' $$$II NoShg5 i .

e

• Fuuud g e wra%a w wn, aihhab,...

d tau >ek u>bsden, wnd muijudgewnl...

d w a, 7 Mira, cwm 'nng canandawnl...

f d w a,u>ay 9 e!6 f,...d w da&ng ikjd>

q u lk,bl 6 ,w g 6 . Jt w iauna-dimbd, not ik wn?L e urinund, 9

paa,aw a wn,feu>ed,u6

- - a,ui tu 4 aa Aw tw _p % tL 9u w g e pwn,, neljud u doing ik 9V k p.

Jaana, ). 0%ns O

4

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT l FORT CALHOUN STATION

, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT i

i

?-

i j

JULY l

i i

1996 l l

I I

Production Engineering Division System Engineering Test and Performance Group JULY 1996 r.

I i

1 FORT CALHOUN STATION 1 July 1996 Monthly Operating Report l

~

OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

f During the month of July,1996, the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) operated at a '

nominal 100% power. Normal plant maintenance, surveillance, equipment rotation activities and scheduled on-line modification were performed during the month.

On July 17th at 0949 hours0.011 days <br />0.264 hours <br />0.00157 weeks <br />3.610945e-4 months <br />, a 1-hour non-emergency notification was made to the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(1)(v), Lost Emergency Notification System (ENS), due to spurious intermittent ringing of the ENS phone. The operability of the ENS phone was not affected, thus, the notification was made using the ENS phone.

AT&T is troubleshooting the problem.

Three additional incore nuclear detectors failed in July 1996, rendering sixteen of

the twenty-eight strings inoperable. All failures have occurred in detectors that were installed during the 1995 Refueling Outage. The failed detectors are scheduled for replacement during the 1996 Refueling Outage.

In order to reduce fission gas releases to Containment and minimize doses received during outage activities, the 42-day 1996 Refueling Outage which was scheduled I

. to commence on September 21,1996 is now scheduled to begin on October 5, 1996. Around September 20th, it is planned that reactor power will be slowly reduced to take advantage of radioactive decay and continue the clean up of the i Reactor Coolant System (RCS). '

O i

+ Fort Calhoun index Value d

--ee Industry Median index Value i 100.

]

e 90 .

85 i , 83 83 83

=

So ,

! 79

.5 a

S" 70 .

{ Industry j Median l Projected 60 .

Value for . haly 1996 is 84.3%

50 .

40  ;

95/1 95/2 95/3 95/4 96/1 96/2 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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.

ii

__.----.-___.m._ m._-__.-...------. . . - - - . _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ . - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - . - - -

g M AXIMUM VALUE e ItOEX PO!NTS June '98 0ItOEX PotNTS July '96 16.00 14.m g a

12.00 10 #  !!!  !!! bk! 888 saa 888 ssa g bII EE $ 888 8ga UCF UCLF HFBI AFW EACP UAS7 CRE FRI TF1 CFI Rad. ISAR Wask This graph shows the difference between the Maximum No. of points for each INPO indicator and the actual value achieved by Fort Calhoun for the

month of July.

UCF Unit Capability Factor TPI Thermal Performance Indicator UCLF Unplanned Capability Loss Factor CPI Seconda'y 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 CRE Collective Radiation Exposure FRI Fuel Reliability Indicator lii

l i

Year-to-Date Value Performance Cateaories Unit Capability Unplanned Unplanned The m i Factor Capability Auto Scrams Performance 3 Performance better than Loss Factor Industry Average Trend

l l Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal l

(f$ Performance Not Meeting EDG Safety 1996 OPPD Goal HPSI Safety AFW Safety System System Fuel System Performance Reliability Performance Performance i

June l

Apr. May l [

1996 1996 1996 l

1 Volume of Industrial July.-1996 Best Possible Chemistry Collective Safety Accident 1996 Year-End Index Radiation low-Level Year-to-Date f RadWaste Rate *# ""*"

• I Exposure Value i Performance j

l WANO Performance Indicators r

• e a

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

I i

I f

i f

i l Unplanned l Auto Scrams l Year-To-Date Value Performance Cateaories t 3 ,,' Significant Performance better than Industry Average Trend Actuations Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal Safety Forced Outage Performance Not Meeting 1996 OPPD Goal '

System Rate i Failures Apr. May June

!!EAMb$hb$$I 1996 1996 1996 Equipment Collective Forced Radiation July-1996 Best Possible Outages posure Year-to-Date 1996 Year-End Value Performance

g. ,

Performance NRC Performance Indicators i

l l

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT l July 1996-

SUMMARY

l

) POSITIVE TREND REPORT POSITIVE TREND REPORT (cont. )

A performance indicator with data representing three Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area S

consecutive months ofimproving performance or three (Page 55) ,

consecutive months of performance that is superior to  !

e the stated goalis exhibiting a positive trend per Nuclear Temocrary Modifications Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-

)

(Page 59) 37).

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

trends for the reporting month:

Safetv Svstem Failures gp,9 19 ADVERSE TREND REPORT Hiah Pressure Safety Iniection System Safety System A performance indicator with data representing three Performance consecutive months of declining performance or three (Page 5) consecutive months of performance that is trending 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 ]

Emeraency A C. Power System indicator exhibits an adverse trend by this definition ,

(Page 7) may specify in written form (to be published in this j report) why the trend is not adverse.

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

Diesel Generator Reliability (25 Demands)

(Page 21) Fuel Reliability Indicator (Page 9)

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

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

Unolanned Safety System Actuations (INPO) End of Adverse Trend Report.

. (Page 34) ,

Secondary System Chemistry (Page 35)

Hazardous Waste Produced (Page 54) vi

INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT A performance indicator wnh data for the reporting period that is inadequate when compared to the OPPD goal is defined as *Needing increased Management .

Attention" per Nuclear Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37).

Disablina fniurv/fllness Freauency Rate (Page 15)

Ntriber of On-Line and Outaae Cont rol Rom Ecuiment Deficiencies (Page 24)

Ecuionent Forced Outace Rate (Page 38)

. Cents Der Kilowatt Hour (page 44)

Percentaae of Total HJJs Camoleted Der Month Identified as Pework j (Page 49) 1 I PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT IMPROVEMENTS / CHANGES i

End of Report Improvements / Changes Report.

4 0

4 4,

1 a

vii

.> l

Table of Contents / Summary esa GOALS..................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii WA NO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 1

U nit C a pabiEty Fa ctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 '

Unplanned Capabinty Loss Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ........... . .................... 3 i

Unplanned Automatic Reactor SCRAMS per 7000 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 I High Pressure Safety injection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 l

Auxiliary Feedwater System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 I Emergency AC Power System . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ............ . .. .................. 7 The rma l Pe rfo rma n ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 8 i

Fuel Reliability lndicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . , , , , , , , , , , , , , g i

Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 l 1

C ollective Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . , , 11 l l

Volume of low level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 j Industria! Safety Accident Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 SAFE OPERATIONS  ;

1 Disabling injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate .............................................15

{

Recordable injury / Illness 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 Emergency Diesel Generator Unit Reliability ............... ... ........................... ..............20 Reliability (25 Demands) ...... ......... ................ . .. ....... ......... 21 l U nre lia bility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1

l Control Room Equipment Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .........................23 l

l On-line and Outage Control Room Equipment Deficiencies .... .... . ....... ..... . 24 viii l

l l

l

Table of Contents / Summary Maximum individual Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Vi olati o n Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Sig nifica nt Ev e nts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in LERs .............................................28 PERFORMANCE Station N et G e n e ration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 Forced O utag e Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Unit C a pa city Fa ctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. .... ............... 33 Unplanned Safety System Actuations I N P O D efinitio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... 34 NRC Definition ............................................................35 l G r oss U m R a te . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Daily Th ermal Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Equipment Forced Outages per 1,000 Critical Hours ............ ............................ 38 1 Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 l Repeat Failures ..................................................................40 Chemistry Action Levels Exceeded - Event Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 l 1

Primary System uthium % Hours Out of umit ..............................................42 '

COST Cents Per Kilowatt Hour . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ... . .. . ........... .......... . . 44 1

! Spare Parts inventory Value .......................................................45 l

l 1

i i

l l

l 1

l 4

l l

l l

l 1

Table of Contents / Summary l

4 J

DMSION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Maintenance l Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage) ............... .. .......... ......... 47 i Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48  !

Percentage of Total MWOs Completed per month identified as Rework ................49 Ove rtime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................50 Procedural Noncompliance incidents . ....... . ..........................51 Daily Schedule Performance j

- Percent of Completed Scheduled Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 l

\

In-Une Chemistry instruments out-of-Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

. l Hazardous Waste Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area . . . ..... ....... .......... . ............ . 55 l 1

Radiological Work Practices Program ... ... .... ............ ................. . . . 56  !

1 1

Document Review ......... ........... .... . ....... . . .... ........... ... ... 57 l

Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Temporary Modifications . . . . . ........... ... ................... ........ .. .. . 59 )

1 a  !

Outstanding Modifications . . . . . . . . . . .............................................60 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 )

i Engineering Change Notices j Status ..... .... ...... .................. .... .. ............. ...., .... 62 Open...................................................................63 Ucensee Event Report (LER) Root Cause Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 64 Ucensed Operator Requalification Training . . . . . . . . . . .... ...... ... .. ... ........65 Ucense Candidate Exams . .... .. ... ........ ....... .. .................. .... . 66 Condition Reports . ........ ...... .... ... ........... ............ ....... ... .. 67 Cycle 17 Refueling Outage MWO Planning Status . .. . ...... ... . . ... . . . ...............68 Overall Project Status . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .... ... .. . ... ......69 Outage Modification Planning . ... ....... .. ... . ..... ... . . ...... ....... 70 On-Une Modification Planning ................... .. .... ... ... ...... . 71 Progress of 1996 On-Une Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . ... . .... ... . .. .. . . 72 X

1 l

ACVON PLANS. DEFINITIONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION LIST )

Actio n Pla ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Performance Indicator Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . , , , , , , , , 7g Safety Enhancernent Programindex .... .................... ..... ..................... 86 i

Report Distribution List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 88 l

l I

i 1

I I

l 1

e 9

I l

xi

i j

OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Priorities MISSION The safe, reliable and cost effective generation of electricity for OPPD customers through the professional use of nuclear technology. The Company shall conduct these operations prudently, efficiently and effectively to assure the health, safety and protection of all personnel, the general public and the environment.

GOALS SpAL1: 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. j

. Improve INPO rating. l e 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. {

1 OBJECTIVE 1-2 Conduct activities in accordonce with applicable policies, technical specifications, procedures, standing orders and work instr.Jctions.

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

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

OBJECTIVE 1-3:

Identify conditions BEFORE they affect plant safety and reliability.

OBJECTIVE 1-4:

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

OBJECTIVE 1-5:

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

xil

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:

OBJECTIVE 2-1:

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

OBJECTIVE 2-2:

Execute the 1996 refueling outage in 42 days; emphasize shutdown plant safety.

OBJECTIVE 2-3:

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

OBJECTIVE 2-4:

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

OBJECTIVE 2-5:

Team //ndividua/ 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

• J individuals as measured by the successful completion of department goals & objectives and other l

specific measures. l l

l xiii

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

OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Priorities 1 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 at all levels of the organization.

1996 Priorities:

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

. Streamline work process to improve cost effectiveness.

Objectives to support COSTS:

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.

l Goals Source: Lounsberry (Manager)

XIV

'I l

s l

t i

1 .

l -

)

i e

]

1 WANO l

i

{

PERFORMANCE NDICATORS  ;

e t 1 l

l G

S 1

, , Monthly Unit Capability F ctor

...m... Year-to Date unit Capability Factor N .

._ # __ 36-Month Unit Capability Factor 1996 Fort Calhoun Goals GOOD h INPo industry Goals Year 2000 100%.. _ _ _

_m .....

80% ..[ j, 5 '5

- ~ ' -

' b' -

60% ._

= _

40% ..

20% __

0% , ,  ;  ; ,  ; , ,  ;  ;  ;  ;

E E U o 8 E $ E E D E D

< m O 2 o n 6 2 4 2 '

m 4 1996 UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unit Capability Factor (UCF) value, the year-to-date UCFs, the 36-month average UCFs, and the UCF goals. UCF is defined as the ratio of the cvailable energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy generation (tha energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under rcftrence ambient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage (refu-cling periods excluded).

Tha UCF for July 1996 was reported as 100.0%. The year-to-date UCF was 86.4%, 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.

En:rgy losses for May and August 1995 are explained on page 30.

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

En:rgy iosses for May 1996 are due to a reduction in power to 95% for Moderator Coefficient Testing.

En:rgy losses for June 1996 are due to a forced outage when the Anti-Rotation Device on Reactor Coolant Pump RC-3B-M failed.

Tha Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 87% and the industry current best quartile value (for the

. thrce-year period ending 12/94) is approximately 85%. The 1996 Fort Calhoun annual goal for this indicator is a minimum of 83.56%.

Th3 maximum index point value for this indicator is 16. For the month of July the FCS Value was 14.71. This compares to the previous month's value of 12.016.

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

, , Monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

_a__ Year-To-Date Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

[ Good l

+ 12-Month Average Unplanned Capability Loss Factor y

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (3.00%)

__e Year 2000 INPo lndustry Goal (4.5%) 1

._,.__ industry Current Best Quartile 60%..

""~

• 50%..

40%__

30%__ j 20% .. l 0 , h --n i'  : , , , ,

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l1996l  ;

l l

UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (UCLF), the year-to-date UCLF and the goal. UCLF is defined as the ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given period of time, to the reference energy generation (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient condi-tions), expressed as a percentage.

The UCLF for the month of July 1996 was reported as 00.0%. Unplanned energy loss is defined as energy not produced as a result of unscheduled shutdowns, outage extensions, or load reductions due to causes under plant management control. Energy losses are con-sidered to be unplanned if they are not scheduled at least four weeks in advance. The year-to-date UCLF was 9.94%, 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 July the FCS Value was 5.82. This compares to the previous month's value of 0.00.

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

3

o FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours CrnicalYear-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 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical) 3 _.

2..

1  : -

r 1 1 r 1 1 TN - -

t. _ _ _ _ d d 0 0  : a j 0 .

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 1996 FCS Reactor Scrams -1996 4.

3__

2 2 .

.o 1 1 1 .

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L '

1 1

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

Tha year-to-date station value was 0.0 at the end of July 1996. The value for the 12 months from August 1,1995, through July 31,1996 was 0.858. The value for the last 36 months was 0.923.

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

Tha maximum index point value for this inoicator is 8. For the month of July the FCS Value was 8.0.

This compares to the previous month's value of 8.0.

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

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

l 1

m Monthly High Pr::::ura sifety injection Lystem Un;vailabilty v;lue

1. Year-to-Date High Pressure safety injection system Unavailability Value Gooog Fort Calhoun Goal (0.003)

Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (0.02) 1 P 0.02  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

]

0.015 .

0.01 ..

• i 0.005 _.

C l 0 ,  ; r, , , ,m  ; - ,r  ;

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 (HPSI) System unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

The HPSI System unavailability value for the month of July 1996 was 0.0002. There were 0.20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability, and 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> 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 0.0000415.

There has been a total of 0.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability for the HPSI system in 1996.

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

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.003. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 0.02.

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

Data Source: Skiles/Schaffer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Schaffer 6

Trend: Positive

.. Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater system unavailability x Year-to-Date AFW Unavailability lMl

...o... Fort Calhoun Goal (041)

Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (0.025)

OA2 -  :.  :.  :.  :  :  :  :  :

0418..

0416__

0414 _

0.012 _

0A1..

o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o. . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o 0A08 . o.oo4ss 1 0.006 .- c.co4s7 0404-4.co2s ,

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 (AFW) System Unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

Tha AFW System Unavailability Value for July 1996 was 0.00. There were 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of pt nned and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability during the month. The year-to-date un-tvrilability value was 0.00115 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.00327 at the end of th3 month.

l Thrre has been a total of 2.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 6.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of unplanned i un:vailability for the AFW system in 1996. The unplanned unavailability on FW-10 was due  ;

to a failed relay on HCV-1045B. l Tha 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.01.

, Th3 Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 0.025. '

Tha maximum index point value for this indicator is 9. For the month of July the FCS Value w s 9. This compares to the previous month's value of 9.

Data Source: Skiles/Fritts (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Fritts Tr;:nd: Positive 6

m Monthly Emergency AC Power Unavailability Value

-x Year-to Date Emergency Ac Power UnavailabilityValue

1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (0.024) l 0000 l Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (0.025) qy 0.14 ..

0.12 .. ,

0.1 ..

0.08 .. ,

O.06 ..

0.04 __

0.02 ..  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

0. m. x ,

d* *DX DX. ,

.x. .x ,- N F & t B 2 g 2 m a t  ! *  :

< m O Z c 9 6 2 4 2 4 4 1 l

EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM i 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 July 1996 was 0.037. During the month, there were 54.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability, and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavail-ability for testing and repairs. The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value year-to-date was 0.01 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.014 at the end of the month.

There has been a total of 109.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability for the emergency AC power system in 1996.

l I

l 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. j The maximum index point value for this indicator is 9. For the month of July the FCS Value was 9. This compares to the previous month's value of 9.

1 I

Data Source:

Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Ronning Trend: Positive l

l 7

i e MonthlyThermalPerformance i , ,12-Month Average g

+ Year-to-Date Average MonthlyThermalPerformance

_.o Fort Calhoun Goal (99.6%) l GOOD l

, + Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (99.5%)

, , 100%-

1 i

\

E W

- .u e a _

4 m  ;

99%._

1 i i

) .

l l

98% i

;  ; i > - . < , i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec 4

l1996l THERMAL PERFORMANCE d

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. l Tha thermal performance value for July 1996 was 99.77. The year-to-date average monthly 1 th:rmal performance value was 99.7, at the end of the month. The average monthly value for l tha 12 months from August 1,1995, through July 31,1996, was 99.72%.

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

Tha maximum index point value for this indicator is 6. For the month of July the FCS Value was 5.16. This compares to the previous month's value of 5.19.

Data Source: Skiles/Naser(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Gorence Trend: None 8

g Fuel ReliabiHty(E 4)

+ Year 2000 INPO Industry Fuel Defeet Reference (5 x 10 4 MicrocuriesK3 ram) l GOOD l

_o 1996 Goal (9/186 through 12/3156) 1 517.6 220..

l200..

180.

e 160..

169 159.9

}, 140 .. 121.9 3 120.. '

f 100 -- 75.52 73.4 78A2

.9 80 . 62A1 55.38 51.37 n

T~ T --r- I E h U o E ,E $ E E D E D

< m O 2 o w 2 4 3 4 4

l1996l FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR The FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR (FRI) for July 1996 was 217.6 X 10d microcuries/ gram. The purpose of the FRl is to monitor industry progress in achieving and maintaining a high level of fuel l integrity. An effective fuelintegrity and performance monitoring program provides a means to detect fuel failures and assess the fuel failure number, physical condition, exposure, mechanism, and loca-tion.

The July FRI value is based on data from July 1 through 31. The days selected are when the plant chemistry values were at equilibrium for steady-state operation (above 85% power for at least 3 days).

The July FRI value of 217.6 X 10d microcuries/ gram indicated a slight decline from the June FRl value of 159.9 X 10d microcuries/ gram. A recent OPPD Coolant Activity Data Evaluation (CADE).

assessment indicated a total of approximately 13 leaking fuel rods at core average power in the core.

The most recent analyses through April 30,1996 performed by Westinghouse indicated 10 failed fuel i rods at core average power. The latest Cesium isotopic analysis indicated failures in twice- and thrice-bumed assemblies. Both OPPD and Westinghouse conservatively estimate that as many as 40 to 50 rods could be failed based on the results from Cycle 15 and 16 RCS chemistry data and the end of Cycle 15 fuel inspection project.

The INPO "WANO Performance Indicator Program Utility Data Coordinator Reference Notebook" ,

(INPO No.94-009, Rev.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 goal is to maintain a monthly FRI below 5.0 x 104 microcuries/ gram. A value larger than 5.0 x 10d microcuries/ gram .

indicates a high probability of reactor core operation with one or more fuel defects. The 1996 year end goal can be met after the 1996 Refueling Outage See page iii.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 7. For the month of July the FCS Value was 0..

This compares to the previous month's value of 0.0.

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

l m secondary system CPI

._o._12-Month Average

[000D l l

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

id --  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

l

. 1.3 ..

1.2 .. - -

1.1 ..

1 I I I I I E I I 1 I I l 1 F & t O

B 2 ,i 1

• E k  !

• 4 m Z c a 2 4 2 4 4

1996 l

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 July was 1.10. The 12-month average CPI value was 1.2 at the end of the month.

The Chemistry Performance index (CPI) was above the goal in July due to slightly higher thin average sodium and chloride values. Also the values provided as industry averages by INPO for 1995 are considerably lower than FCS historically has been able to achieve for s:condary chemistry values. Iron, the one industry average that we are below, almost by 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 July the FCS Value was 6. This compares to the previous month's value of 5.67.

Data Source: Spires /Reneaud (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Spires

! Trend Positive due to performance better than goal 1

10

m Monthly Personnel Radiation Exposure

+ Cumulative Personnel Radiation Exposure

+ FCs Goal 138 person-REM j 0000 g O

U = = = = = c c c a 130__

120..

110..

100.

- l 90 __ i l 80 x

g 70 __ i f 60__

50 ._ l 40 ..

30 .. l 20 ..

10 ._

O'W . . . .

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 at 138.0 person-REM.

The exposure for July 1996 was 3.38 person-Rem (ALNOR).

The year-to-date exposure through the end of July was 46.69 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 8/93 through 7/96 was 118.13 person-rem per .

year.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 8. For the month of July 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 SEP54 11

4 Radioactive Waste Buried This Month (cu.ft.)

.-e-- Year-to-Date Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried (0000 l  ;

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (1050 cu.ft.) ,

i Y l t'M_.

c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : o  !

c. c

%D.

l 600. I

. 700_

C00 .

500..

400.

300.

200 - 113.20 117.00

~

100- 0.00 0.20 0.80 0 -

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

VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE  ;

This indicator shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumulative i yrar-to-date radioactive waste buried, the Fort Calhoun and INPO goals, and the approxi-mtte 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 9.3 Cu nulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1996 145.9 Amount of solid radwaste in temporary storage 264.8 l , The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for the volume of solid radioactive waste (buried) is 600 cubic frct. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 45 cubic meters (1,589 cubic feet) per year. The industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 27.33 cubic meters (965.3 cubic feet)

. per year.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 5. For the month of July the FCS Value w:s 5. This compares to the previous month's value of 5.

D:ta Source: Chase /Breuer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers i Tr:nd: None SEP54 12

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

+g_. FCSIndustryCurrent Year-End stGoalQuar <0.50) tile (.24) I0000g I '

,__1995 Industrial safety Accident Rate (Ie_. Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (<0.4.0) N II 2 ..

1.5 *

= z w_ _

1 - -

0.5 - - - - - - AW - - - A L = = Q

~

= = = = /z  : r v 0 $ $ $ $ [ $ $ $ $

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE As stated in INPO's December 1993 publication' Detailed Descriptions of Worid Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) Performance Indicators and Other Indicators for Use at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants: "The purpose of this indicator is to monitor progress in improving industrial safety perfor-mance for utility personnel permanently assigned to the station."

The Fort Calhoun Station industrial safety accident rate value year-to-date was 0.51 at the end of July 1996. The value for the 12 months from August 1,1995, through July 31,1996, was 0.58.

There were no restricted-time and no lost-time accidents in July 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 goal is 50.40. The approximate industry upper ten percentile value (for the period from 7/93 through 6/94) is 0.12.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 5. For the month of July the FCS Value was 4.62. This compares to the previous month's value of 4.58.

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Chase / Booth (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Bishop Trend: Improving 13

l 1 ,

(

i l

l- 1 i

I l

SAFE OPERAT ONS i

1 Goal: A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is  !

exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals l demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and per-sonalinitiative and open communication.

1 O

i 14

+ 1995 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency x 1995 Disablinglajurys1liness Frequency

_4_ Average Rate (Last 12 Months) l GOOD l

+ 1996 Goal (0.50) 2 ..

1.8 .

1.6 .

1A x Nm 1.2 . *

^

10 0.8 __

,, 7 N - - - M 0.2 .

0 ,  ;

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July

[1996l 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 0.51 at the end of July 1996. There were two disabling injury / illness cases reported for the month.

, 1. A person injured his/her shoulder while opening a metal security door.

2. A piece of plastic pipe hit the safety glasses of an employee causing the glasses  ;

to impact the person's forehead thereby causing a cut to the forehead..

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for the 12 months from August 1,1995, through July 31,1996, was 0.58.

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

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

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

i e_ f9KRecordable injuryAltness Frequency x 1995 Recordable injuryAliness Frequency I a000 l 4 Average Rate (Last 12 Months) I I

...o... Fort Calhoun Goal

. i 1.75 .

1.5[ g .hN . . . . . . .e%w ......o..... .......o......o.......e.......o 1.25 .. .

1.

0.75 __

0.5 __

0.25 ..

O  ;  ; ,  ;  ; . ,  ;  ; ,

Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July l1996l RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE This indicator shows the 1996 recordable injury / illness frequency rate. The 1995 record-able injury / illness cases frequency rate is also shown.

A recordable injury / illness case is reported if personnel from any of the Nuclear Divisions are injured on the job and require corrective medical treatment beyond first aid. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate is computed on a year-to-date basis.

There have been 9 recordable injury / illness cases in 1996. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate year-to-date were 2.29 at the end of July 1996. There was 2 recordable injury / illness cases reported for the month of July.

The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate for the 12 months from August 1, 1995, through July 31,1996, was 2.16.

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

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Bishop Trend: Needs Management Attention SEP 15,25,26 & 27 16

m Contamination Events (Monthly)

Contamination Events (YTD) 60 I

'l 3 -

50 .- 1 40 ..

30 _.

l i

20 ..

1. w 13 10 .

y l 6

0 ' i . . . .

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l1996l 4

CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS

>1,000 DISINTEGRATIONSIMINUTE PER PROBE AREA

!' This indicator shows the Personnel Contamination Events in the Clean Controlled Area for contaminations >1,000 disintegrations / minute per probe area for the reporting month.

There were O contamination events in July 1996. There has been a total of 15 contami-nation events in 1996 through the end of July. This compares to 46 at this time last year.

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

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

g PersonnelF.rrors (F.ach Month)

--,__ Preventable (18-Month Totals)  ;

e._ PersonnelError (18-Month Totals)  ;

20 -. l l

13 ..

• 10 ..

5 - -

c  :  : -

c -

l 0 - i i > > '

E- - . .

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June j 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 June 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 June. The total LERs for the year 1996 (through June 30,1996) is four. 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)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None SEP 15 18

+a a 1

l

, , startup Shutdown Operations l l

...m... Industry Average Trend b

=

51..

.i .....o......o......o. .... ,,, ,,,,, , , ,,, ,,..... ....., .....

zo , , , , , , , ., , , ,

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 I

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

. 1st Quarter 1994: A design basis review determined that an ESF relay could result in loss of safety injection and spray flow, due to premature actuation of recirculation flow.

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

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

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

m Fallures/2D Demands a Failures /50 Demands e Failures /100 Demands l GOOD l

- . _ . Trigger Values /20 Demands

• Trigger Values /50 Demands E Trigger Values.100 Demands Y 8 ._  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  ;  ;  ;

I 7.. ,

6..

l 5._  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  :  :  : ,

4..

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

2 0 ,

sep Aug Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 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 I 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 cnd 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 Definitions Section of this report).

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

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

20

i i DG-1 Failures /25 Demands e DG2 Failures /25 Demands l Good l 5- + 996 & al V

4. e  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : 3 3.

2.

1 1 1 1 t i 1 i i e i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0

.. 0 0

& & o $ b A a' 5  % & y 2:

1996 i

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 zero failures during the last year, and zero failures 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.

21

i I

DG 1 Unreliabihty Value DG 2 UnreliabilityValue

+ Station UnreliabilityValue lCOODl

+ 1996 Goal 0.07 .. Y 0.06 .

0.05 .- c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : 2 0.04 . -

0.03 ._ 2"  ;" 88" o .o n s 0.02 _

OM . .,, , ,

, , , ,, ,, ,, c, cc c )

0 . , , ,

o E @ E $ 8 S N E D b

< m O z o ,5 w 2 4 E 2 4 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 when the Field Flash Relay on DG-2 failed.

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

For DG-1: There were 4 start demands for tha reporting month with 0 failures, in addition, there was 1 load-run demands without a failure.

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

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

Emergency diesel generator unreliability is calculated as follows:

value per DG = SU + LU - (SU x LU) where SU = Start Unreliability = number of unsuccessful starts number of valid start demands .

LU = Load-run Unreliability = number of unsuccessfulload-runs number of valid load-run demands ,

i Station Value = average of DG-1 and DG-2 values Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

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

22 4

I

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

4 i

l i

e control Room Deficiencles Added I , , Control Room Deficiencies completed e Completed within Target Completion Date 50 _- f s . 100.0%

Goal. Corrpiste 80%of CR. Deficianoes by Target Corrplation Date i.8 %

" ei 1 .

g 40 w N ,,

8 " -

80.0% y J Q

g i n . s .n i s

. 30 .

e e r.s%

__ 60.0%

,, 22 4 s .7%

t 2 20 .

3 * " ", ,,

is

__ 40.0% ]

g I b

• 10 .. $

{ . . 20.0% at 0 l 0.0%  !

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Control Room Deficiencies i

NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES This indicator measuras the timeliness of closing Control Room Deficiencies.

Target Completion Dates are established by the Emergent Work Committee. The goalis to close at least 80% of all CRDs within the Target Due Date.

There were 21 Control Room Deficiencies completed during July 1996, and 14 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

m overdue

+ Nutriber of on-Line Control Room Deficiencies 30 .. 2, 25 .. l 20 ..

God . Less tb 8 ovard un i j _ 10 g -

a s -

0  ; E i  ; E  ; E ,

i i i Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July .

l Number of on-Line CRDs l

. . . .; Overdue

._, Number of Outage control Room Deficiencies 30 .  : y 4-25 .. ,

20 .. .

-~

tbte: overdue tems are those older than 18 nonths cod NoneOvadue 5..  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

0 --

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July l Number of Outage CRDs l NUMBER OF ON-LINE AND OUTAGE CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCIES This indicator shows the total number of On-Lirie and Outage Control Room Deficiencies, and the number of overdue Control Room Deficiencies.

There were 17 on-line (6 were overdue) and 18 outage (2 were overdue) Control Room Deficiencies at the end of July 1996. .

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

Data Source: Chase /Kermeade (Manager / Source)

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

<8 Overdue exceeds goal 24

, ,Hghest WrtNy bdrvdual Exposure (1996)

+ Fort Calhoun Goal 1500mR 1500  :

1400.

1300.

1200, 1100.

1000.

900.

800.

. 700.

600.

500. g 300 172 175 200. 73 __

100.

O R Jan Feb Wr Apr Wy Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 l

l MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE l

During July 1996, an individual accumu'ated 257 mrem, which was the highest indi-vidual exposure for the month.

The OPPD limit for the maximum yearly individual radiation exposure is 4,000 mrem /

year. The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal is a maximum of 1,500 mrem.

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

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None 25

m FCS Cited Vloiations (Monthly)

, , F:S Non-Cited Violations (Monthly) c FCS Cited Violations (12. Month Average) l GOOD l e_. FCS Non-Cited Violations (12-Month Average) m Reglon IV Cited Violations (12-Month Average for Region IV top quartile) lI 10 . .

4 .

N 2

0 E ,

,E ,M  ;- , , ,

b;b, .

E @ U o 8 ,E $ N E D E D l 4 m O z o w 2 4 2 m "

1 1396 l 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 July 1996:

IER No. Title 1 96-04 Resident Monthly I To date, OPPD has received eight violations for inspections conducted in 1996.

Levellli Violations 1 LevelIV Violations 5 Level V Violations 0 Non-Cited Violations _2 Total 8 .

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 .

l 1

I NRC Significant Events

-_,_ Industry Average Trend l GOOD l 1 .. y 0.5 __

o o l 0 m r ,

, r ,

i

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

INPO Significant Ewnts (SEs) 4 3 __ 2 2 q j, 2.. 1 1 1._ 0 0 0, ,

; i - e i '

i 92 , 93 94 95-1 95-2 95-3 95-4 96-1 96-2 96 3 96-4 l Year-Quarter j SIGNIFICANT EVENTS l NRC SIGNIFICANT EVENTS The following SEs were identified between the 2nd Quarter of 1992 and the 1st quarter of 1995 (as reported in the  ;

NRC's ' Performance Indicators for Operating Nucl ear Power Reactors' report dated June 30,1995) ,

i 3rd Quarter 1992: The failure of a Pressurizer Code Safety Valve to reseat initiated a LOCAwith the potentia to degrade the reactor coolant pressure boundary. '

4th Quarter 1994: A potential accident scenario involving a large break LOCA or a main steam line break inside containment could result in the inoperabikty 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.

l 2nd Quarter 1996: RC Pump AntLReverse Rotation Device (ARD) failure No SE reports have been received from INPO on the 1996 SEs as of August 1, l 1996.

Data Sou&- Nuclear Regulatory Commission & INPO Accountability: Chase Trend: Positive 27

Missed sTs Resulting in LERs I .

Y 2-_ ,

)

1 1._

• l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' ' ; -

93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 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 July 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

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

e i

29

Net Generttion (10,000 MWh)

, 40 -

36.04 36.27 36.23 35.85 35.08 34 84 34.29 34.55

.I s 30.46

30 .

M ini .

j O uta ge 20.16 RCP

! jll 20 _ 80' 2

, g 15.16 e

10 __

1 i

j n  ;

; j p  ; , g j i en o. ~ > o e .o w w > e x

& & o E 8 A E $  % 5 ,8 4

1996

STATION NET GENERATION

During the month of July 1996, a net total of 348,443,500.0 MWh was generated by the  !

i Fort Calhoun Station. Cumulative net generation for Cycle 16 was 4,752,448.4 MWh at the end of the month. l i '

)'

Ensrgy losses for June 1996 were attributed to a failure of the Anti-Rotation Device (ARD) associated with Reactor Coolant Pump Motor RC-38.

I Ensrgy losses for March 1996 were attributed to (1) a planned mini-outage, and (2) con-I 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.

Data Source: Station Generation Report Accountability: Chase Trend: None 30

i

, i Forced Outage Rate (Monthly)

+ Forced Outage Rate (12 Months) l Good l o_ 1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (1.4%)

50%.. 3y 1 1

45% .

i 40% .. . l 35% ..

30%..

• 25% .

20%..

15%.

10%..

5% .

s.m

~

ym

^ ^ ^

0% ,

0 93 94 95 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July {

1996 I FORCED OUTAGE RATE The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 5.14% for the twelve months from August 1,1995, through July 31,1996. The 1996 year-to-date FOR was 7.9% at the end of the month.

Energy Losses are explained on Page 30.

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

i i Monthly Unit C; pacity Factor Y;ar-to Data Unit Capacity Factor

...m...

Unit Capacity Factor for Cycles 15 & 16 g

e __

36-Month Average Unit Capacity Factor l GOOD l

" 1996 FCS Goal (81.49%)

110% ..

100 % .. - -

+

? " "

.....m...... ar..... w

~. .JL 90 % .

.~ e 0 0 0 --

o 80%- T-* "

2 I  :  : 2 w -

'g. .... .u- -- -=

70%.. m.. . - -

60%.

50% ..

, 40%.. -

30%.

20%_.

10%..

0% > ' ' - -

i - - - - < a a a - > e a w - > . x 5 E o $ b A 0 $ 5 $ $ h 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 97.98%, and the Unit Capacity Factor for the last 36 months was 84.71%. The 1996 Fort Calhoun annual goal for this indicator is 82.00%.

The year-to-date value is 89.49%.

Energy losses are explained on Page 2.

The Unit Capacity Factor is computed as follows:

Net Electrical Enerav Generated (MWH)

• Maximurn Dependable Capacity (MWe) X Gross Hours in the Reporting Period Data Source: Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: None 32

, , Monthly EAF

_.o._ Y;ar-to-Date Average Monthly EAF

+ 12-Month Average EAF

1. industry Median Value (76.7% for a 3. Year Average) 100% .. e 7.a s r 3 - -

a, m . . /

// ' I 4 80%.. ,, ,, g h- V

- - x x x x x x x x x x x 60%.."O ,

~~~

40% .

20% ..

1 0% - i l , l l l  ;

. l , l , l l , , l 92 93 94 95 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 1996 EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR i 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 July 1996 was reported as 95.44%. The year-to-date monthly average EAF was 84.0% 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 three-year period from 7/90 through 6/93 was 76.7%.

Data Source: DietzNandervort (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None 33

I m Safety system Actuations (INPo Definition) l

+ FCs Goal (0) I

+ Industry Upper 10 Percentile (0) 1 ,

3..

2 -

1 1 1 1..

I l

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

e  : ; ,

; ,e  ;  ;

92 93 94 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July l ss se  !

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(INPO DEFINITION)

Th re were no INPO unplanned safety system actuations during the month of July 1996.

i Th:re was one unplanned safety system actuation durirs Uis iiicnth of August 1905. It 1 occurred on August 24,1995, when the plant was tripped during a test of a backup auto-metic shutdown system. The generator was brought back on-line at 3:43 p.m. on August 26th, after a two-day outage.

In February 1994, a reactor trip occurred as a result of an inadvertent ESF actuation. A short in the 86B/CHPS associated supervisory relay energized the 86B/CPHS lockout which initiated a SGIS Safeguards signal. As a result, the MSIVs closed which caused a

, simultaneous turbine and reactor trip.

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

Tha 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0.

Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports Accountability: Skiles/Foley/Ronning Trend: Positive 34

m Safety System Actuations (NRC Definiton) i FCs Goal (0)

+ CriticalHours 12-Month Running Total ssAs (NRC Definition) 10 . .

. 800 cycie w n.eumme

. 700 .

8.. mese

, ..600

?O '

j " 500 6--

t

< e

=

E

..400 :E

$ 4 'il

" ~

..300

?

_ _200

2. m: : : : d

- 'oa 0 y

_; .l  ;  ;  ; . . . ,

_

=;_;;===;

i . . > -

=0 = _ = = =-

9't 93 94 95 J JASoNDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJ

{1994g j1995g TFF6~

UNPi ANNED 5AFETY SYSTElVI 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 868/CPHSS -

failed, which resulted in a concurrent turbine and reactor trip.

There have beeri 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 l Trend: None 35

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

m Gross Heat Rate

+ Year-to-Date &oss Heat Rate l Good l c Fort Calhoun Goal 10.75 ..

q 7

, 10.5 ..

. 10.25 _ ,, vars ,2, cm i - - . -

to .

I w:

9.75 ..

9.5 _. .

9.25 92 93 94 95 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 1996

.i ,

i 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.

2 The gross heat rate for Fort Calhoun Station was 10,394 for the month of July 1996. The

1996 year-to-date GHR was 10,394 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: Guinn/Willett (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Skiles Trend: None 36

+ Inermaloutput

_.e_ Fort Calhoun 1495 MW Goal

+ Tech Spec 1500 MW Limit 1500 ; ;;; ;; ; ; ;;;; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ;;; ; . ; ;; ;;

1499__

1498 .

l 1497.

{

l 1496..

1495;,e ee eeee eeec e c eee eeee , , e e eee e 1494..

1493..

1492  ; . . ' > '

1 -

; ; e - i ,

e i 1 2 3 4 56 78 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 l

l DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT The thermal output graph displays the daily operating power level during July 1996, the 1500 thermal megawatt average technical specification limit, and the 1495 thermal mega-watt Fort Calhoun goal.

• l Data Source: Guinn/Willett (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Short Trend: None 37 I

l

d

+ Number of Equipm:nt Forced outage)(Monthly)

1. Equipment Forced outage Rate /1,000 Critic:1 Hra. (12-Month interv;l) o000)

__o Fort Calhoun Year-End Goals (0.2) y 2 ..

1__

c  :  : -

-  :  :  :  :  :  : o 0 -

93 94 95 [an Feb 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 August 1,1995, through July 31,1996, was 0.367. The year-to-date rate per 1,000 critical hours for the months from January 1996 through July 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 larkage.

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

, enced a problem with a control element assembly motor drive and a related smalileak of renctor coolant.

. Two equipment forced outages also occurred during May 1995, which were attributed to th3 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

g_ -+ bPmd M 18.

+

16.

14 12 [

f 10.

j U

o N/

[

• 3 j

4 4

l 2.

Of )

M A M J J A S O N D J.94 F M A M J J A ge/N o rmal Us e 59.3%

P rocedure Error

19%

Initial ins tallatio n 19%

Testing Action 6.6 %

, M anuf act uring I

D ef ect

M aintena nce --

0.0%

' " " Othe evices Engineering / Design 3.7%

, COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

i The top chart illustrates the number of component categories, application categories and total categories in which the Fort Calhoun Station has significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than the industry failure rates during the past 18-month Component Failure Analysis ,

Report (CFAR) reporting period (from October 1994 through March 1996). Fort Calhoun Station reported a higher failure rate in 7 of the 83 component categories (valves, pumps, motors, etc.)

! during the past 18-month CFAR period. The station reported a higherfailure rate in 14 of the 257 -

I application categories (main steam stop valves, auxiliary / emergency feedwater pumps, control element drive motors, etc.) during the past 18-month CFAR period.

1 The pie chart depicts the breakdown by INPO cause categories (see the " Definitions" section of this report for descriptions of these categories) for the 54 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 81 failure reports were submitted to INPO with discovery dates within

, the 18-month CFAR period.

Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/ Dowdy Trend: None 39 l

I

-+ Components with more than One F;11ure

+ Components with more than Two Failures l l 15 .

V 10 . j i

7 7 l S. 4 _

0

. ./.

0 ~

l 3 3 2

3 3 3 .

I 2

I 0 - - - , , ,

7, ", , , ,

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 1996 REPEAT FAILURES Th2 Repeat Failures indicator (former1y called the ' Maintenance Effectiveness Performance indicator") was d;veloped 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 ,

PIrformance Indicator has been discontinued, but station management considers it useful to continue to ^

tr:ck 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 Repcrt (CFAR) period (failure discovery dates from October 1994 through March 1996) and the number of NPRDS reportable components with more than two failures during tha 18-month CFAR period.

During the last 18-month CFAR period, there were 7 NPRDS components with more than one failure. Two out cf these 7 NPRDS reportable components had more than two failures. Recommendations and actions to correct these repeat failures are listed in the Biannual CFAR. The description and tag numbers of the NPRDS reportable components with more than one failure are listed below:

• EE-8J 125VDC/120VAC Staticinverter

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

• HCV-2987-O-1 Air Intensifier for HPSI Alternate Header isolationValve, (CHAMPS Tag Number IA-HCV-2987-BP) (>2 Failures)

• 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 a FW-56 Auxiliary Feedwater Pump FW-56 Diesel Engine D:ta Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Tr:nd: None 40

CHEMISTRY ACTION LEVELS EXCEEDED bent Daya + Average bent Days + Lrrst l 6.

5.

$ 4. ~

8 3.

g E, 2 . - -

g  :  : ,

l ' '

g E' @ iF F  ? E @ E $

s is s & i kii&

Mof(IH 1 b8  !

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

The Steam Generators are considered to have exceeded an action levelin 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.

T The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicatoris 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 have 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 43

l 7.00

. 6.00 Goal 5.00 2 4.00 8

j 3.00 2.00 f 1.00 E 0.00 m E Sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Wr Apr May June July ,

1996 i

PRIMARY SYSTEM LITHlUM % HOURS OUT OF LIMIT Tho Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit indicator tracks the hours per month that the primary system lithium is out of specification.

Tho Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit was 0.00% for the month of July 1996. Lithium exceeded its limits for 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> during the month.

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

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

'Accountability: Spires Trend: None 42

COST .

Goal: Operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as an economi-cally viable contribution to OPPD's bottom line. Cost con-sciousness is exhibited at all levels of the organization.

3 e

43

+ Actual _ Revised Budget l

.# Original Budget >

Plan 4.00 . .

l 3.75 .

3.50 . l l

3.25 .

3.00 L Q

= ,

, o 2.75 .. .I 2.50 ..

2.25 .. l l

2M  ; ;  ; ,  ;  ; ,  ;  ;  ; ,  ;  ; ; ,  ; , ,

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 und 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 July,1995 through June,1996) aver-aged above the budget due to 12-month rolling generation not meeting the budget expec- I tations, and 12-month rolling expenses met the budget expectations. The 12-month roll-ing average (07/95 through 06/96) is 2.73 cents per kilowatt hour. The year-to-date aver-age is trending negatively.

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 2.76 2.74 2.76 2.81 2.97 3.10 3.04 Actual Y-T-D 2.91 2.77 2.96 2.94 2.83 2.98 l l

Data Source: Lounsberry/Jamieson (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Lounsberry Trend: Needs Management Attention 44 -

i i

l i

Spare Parts inventoryValue ($ Minion) 16.30 ._

16.20 __ ,

16.10 .. ,

1 16.00 _

t

, 15.90 ..

o O

} 15.80 ._

8 E

2 15.70._

15.60 __

15.50 ..

15.40 ..

15.30  ;

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 1996 I l

l SPARE PARTS INVENTORY The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of July 1996 was reported as $16,600,016.

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

Accountability: Willrett/McCormick )

Trend: None 45

i t

l l

i DIVISION AND l

DEPARTMENT  !

i a

PERFORMANCE ,

i l

l INDICATORS l i

l l

j Goal: Achieve high standards at Fort Calhoun Station l resulting in safe, reliable and cost effective power pro-i duction. '

I i

l -

i l

l I

i j

)

4

{ 46 l

i l -

m Corrective MaTitenance e Preventive Maintenance m Non-Corrective /Plantimprovernents Fort Calhoun Goal 1000 E I U o E E i U E D E 4 m O Z o 9 L 2 4 2 ,$

, 4 l Non4utage Maintenance Work Order Backlog l l1996l Total MWOs Past g Taud MEsl MWOs Compietion 3 '

R uty Raty Ruty Ruty R aty 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 breakdown by maintenance classification and priori'.y. The 1996 goal for this indicator is 400 non-outage corrective maintenance MWOs. The current backlog of corrective MWOs is 470. To ensure that the MWO backlog is worked in a timely manner, non-outage maintenance completion goals have been established as follows:

Goal Priority 1 Immediate Action 2 days 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

I Ratio of Preyentive to Total Maintenance

, 90%..

! 80%.

, 70%..  ;

60%.. I

. 50%..

dlIIll11 m d

a y

0 o

e 4

a if w

k x

I.:

.x jj l1996l I j m Preventive Maintenance items Overdue lGOODI l _.e Fort Calhoun Goal  ! 3 2% ..

l 1f

)

'l  ;

, 1%..  !

i 05 l l l i l l  !  ! 1 l i l

! F & E E 8 S W E P  ! 3

< O z o ,5 m <

j m 2 s 4 4 l'"Sl l RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE l PREVENT!VE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE j The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total com-

pleted non-outage maintenance. The ratio was 80.8% for the month of July 1996.

l The lower graph shows the percentage of scheduled preventive maintenance items that are

] overdue. During July 1996,503 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/Melstad (Manager / Sources)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: Adverse SEP 41 & 44 48

m Rework as identified by Craft

_e_ Fort Calhoun ooal(<3%)

6%

o s.:s 5%.. 4,,

4%.- 3.s s 3.7%

3.2 % 3.2 %

3%. 2.os ,g 2%. "%

t,g t,, 1 us Per I..j_e 1%.

0% i l ._4_ .p _; ... 4 .. _; .. i Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 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 concerns.

Data Source: Faulhaber/Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None

,g

I ]

l e Maintenance overtime

1. 12-Month Average Maintenance Overtime

)GoODI o_ Fort Calhoun "On-Line" Goal (10%) i I 30%..

V 25%..

l 20%. ,

I l

15% ..

u u u u u 10% .- c 0 0 0 0

h E E

m E

O u ll z

o 8 o ,E $

w I

3 E

N I I D

g E 3

D m

MAINTENANCE OVERTIME The Maintenance Overtime Indicator monitors the ability to perform the desired mainte-nance activities with the allotted resources.

The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 8.0% for the .

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

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

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None 50

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

4 Human Performance CRs(Maintenance) 20 .

18 . i 16 ..

. 14 .

I e 12 __

10 ._

n i

s j 8 _

) l 0  ; [ l l  ;  ;

[

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS

, (MAINTENANCE)

This indicator shows the number of Condition Reports related to procedural noncompli-

, ance incidents assigned to the Maintenance Department.

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

I i

. A g% Scheduled Activities Completed D% Emergent Activities 100.0% -.

90.0% ..

83.3 % ,

80.0% _- 77.7 . 73.2Y.

l 70.0% __ -

67.0%

j 60.0% _

i

50.0% ..

! 40.0% __

. 30.0% -- 4.8%

3.8%

, 0.7%

i 9.2% 0.1%

20.0% .

10.0% -

0.0% . i --

i i  :  % ,

Ma r-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 I '

l

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

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

4 l '

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

NOTE: Statistics from the June RC-3B Outage were not included in these numbers.

Statistics from the weeks of June 10 and June 17 were not kept.

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 33 52

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

4 1

5 e, % of Hours the In-Line c$emistry Instruments are Inoperable GOOD l

-.e 1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (10%) g Y

.  !!N::

' 21% ..

19%..

17%

i 15%..

I 13%.. l j *- 11%.. ,

9%.. l 6%...

~

4%

i M ,

f' I l l i i i i ' '

• 8 i s s a s a s',  ;

[,

l1996l l IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS i OUT-OF-SERVICE j This indicator shows the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instruments j 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 July 1996, the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instru-ments were inoperable was 7.93%. The following instruments were out of service during

the month

! Feedheater No. 6 Dissolved Oxygen YE 6783 1 Condensate Pump Discharge Dissolved Oxygen YE-6776  !

j PASS sequences which were previously out of service have been returned to service.

i Three instruments are out of service;

1. Feedheater No. 6 Dissolved Oxygen

2. Condensate Pump Discharge Dissolved Oxygen

, 3. Steam Generator RC-2B pH, pHe-67728.

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 i function associated with the instrument is inoperative. If any of the functions listed above f are not operational, then the instrument is not performing its intended function.

?

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

Accountability: Chase /Skiles

} Trend: None 4

f 53 1

1

m Wate Produced Each Month (Kilogrim2)

+ Monthly Average W=t3 Produced During the last 12 Months (Kilograms)

._o Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal (150 kilograms)

+ Federal & state Monthly Limit (Max. of 1,000 kg) 1000: x  ; n  ;; x  ;; 7  ;,  ;;  ;;  ;;

800..

600__

E 2

• 400__

200..

c  :  :  :  :  :  :  : e c  : o 0  : -

?

?  ? _

Aug Sep. Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July l1995l HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED 4

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 July 1996,0.0 kilograms of non-halogenated,0.0 kilograms of halo-genated and 0.0 kilograms of other hazardous waste was produced. The total hazardous ,

waste produced during the last 12 months is 191.1 kilograms.

Hazardous waste is counted based upon a full drum of waste. . i The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly average goal for hazardous waste produced is a maxi-mum of 150 kilograms.

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

Accountability: Chase / Spires Trend: Positive 54 I

e contaminated Radiatbn Controlled Area e Fort Calhoun Goal (10%)

{

V 10% -- c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

9%_.

E I

I m

l U

O l

o z

I O

o I

,E I

w l

3 E

l E

l Y

2 l IIl 4

1 D

4 N

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- i mum of 10.0% contaminated RCA. I At the end of July 96, the percentage of the total square footage of the RCA that was l contaminated was 8.4%

Data Source: Chase /Gundal(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 54 55

Identified PRWPs(YTD)

+ Fort Calhoun G Jai (<15) 16 14 . ,

12 .

10 .

8.

, 6.

4

4. -

-4

2. -

0 0

Jan Feb mr Apr Wy June July Aug Sep Oct fev Dec 4

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

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

During the month of July 1996, there were O PRWP identified.

There have been 4 PRWPs in 1996.

• The 1996 year-end goal for PRWPs is a maximurn of 15.

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP52 56

O Documents scheduled for Review g Documents Reviewed g Documents Overdue 300 .

250- -

200- -

~

150 _

100 .

50 .

O__ i i_ k i_ (_ k_ k_ k_ k_ k_ + -l

?

4 e

m t

O B

2 8

o ,s 1 L

=

2 t

4 t

2 a y 4 ,

1996.

DOCUMENT REVIEW This indicator shows the number of completed, scheduled, and overdue (greater than 6 months past the scheduled due date) biennial reviews for the reporting month. These document reviews are performed in-house and include Special Procedures, the Site Se-curity Plan, Maintenance Procedures, Preventive Maintenance Procedures, and the Op-

. erating Manual.

During July 1996, there were 267 document reviews scheduled, while 39 reviews were completed. At the end of the month, there were 39 document reviews more than 6 months overdue. There were 4 new documents initiated during July 1996. Beginning in Septem-ber 1995, these figures include PED and NOD procedures.

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

l 4

_ g System Fcilures O Non. System Failures GOOD l 28 25 ._

21 20 ._ , , ,

j v v 15 .. .

2 2 Aug sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 4

4 LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)

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

During the month of July 1996, there were 18 loggable/ reportable incidents identified.

System failures accounted for 67% of the loggable/ reportable incidents. The failure of two microwave zones resulted in 6 of the 9 microwave system failures. The 6 non-system ,

failures included 2 lost / unattended security badges,2 security force errors, and unse-cured vital area doors. The cause of the unsecured door incidents was determined to be air pressure problems. .

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

Data Source: Sefick/Woemer(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Sefick Trend: None SEP 58 58

1 Temporary Ma.atens >14:ycle oM trev required for removan m Temporary Modifications >6 months old(Removable on4ine)

+ Fort calhoun Goals for >1 cycle and >6 months old i <

. 5._

4._

3._

]1 5 s 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , _ , _  ; _ , _  ; _ , , _  ; = x ,  ;  ;  ;  ;

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 1996 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 July 1996, there were 0 temporary

. modification installed that are greater than six months old that can be removed on-line.

At the end of July 1996, there was a total of 15 TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station. 7 of

. _ the 15 installed TMs require an outage for removal and 8 are removable on-line. In 1996, a total of 16 temporary modifications have been installed.

Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Gorence Trend: Positive SEP 62 & 71 59

, i Total Modification Packages Open

,, ,_. Fort Calhoun Year-End Goal (68) 100..

90 __

80 .

,, ,, 72 7 7s 75 7s IU " -

= =  :  :  :  :  :  : :  : o 60 _. ,,

50 .. _

40 .

• 30 ..

20 10 .

0 -

l

; i - i

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

Reporting Cateoorv '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 3 5 15 29 Construction Backlog /In Progress 4 0 9 27 0 0 34 Design Engr. Update Backlog /In Progress 1 2 7 1 0 0 11 1 Totals 5 2 16 31 5 16 75 (outage + OnLine) (3+2) (0+2) (7+9) (20+11) (0+5) (16+0) (46+29) I At the end of July 1996,11 modification requests have been issued this year and 3 modification requests have been cancelled. The Nuclear Projects Review Committee .

(NPRC) has conducted 39 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 l Trend: None 60 l

l

80-- EARS Requiring Engineering Closeout - Not in Clossout 60 - g sE O DEN 40 . _ _

20 . - -

0 -  ;

-  ;  ; rm ; rm ,  ;

C,  ;

e , um  ; um ,

May June July May June July May June July May Jun Jul 0-3 Months 34 Months 6-12 Months >12 Months O Engineering Response 5 Closeout (sE) 20 ..

10 0 -

I 1 .

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

)

l 14 EA R s 74 EARS 2s overove R e s olv ed 4e EARo on Requiring Reponses and in schedule R e s po n s o 18.3 %

Closecut $2.4%

s 4.1%

.s%

$4 overdue Clo seo uts 29.3%

ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST BREAKDOki  !

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

. outstanding EARS.

Total EAR breakdown is as follows:

EARS opened during the month 0 EARS closed during the month 9 Total EARS open at the end of the month 88 Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 62 61

I 4

10 8 14 5 "4 CLCSEQUT DEN * * '

• CONST 3 44 % I~I " *h" 16 %

i ECN Status -Overall Backlog l o-a Montes a Backlogged O Received g Completed .;a; "tg ':;4

, 250.

es sa #8

er ,,

5

• 4 H uonths

50 - Feb Mar Apr May June July 4f4 Design Engineering I

860 . e q,

200 . 8

Me hs t

4 .. .

m , ;-

ss red war A pr may June July f *

• 5.*s""'

System Engineering 250. nie 4 4 e Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Procurement / Construction l 250 .

• j 200 -

'9% .

{ 150. . , , , is: 18' tas

}

0 b Feb Mar Apr May June b July

("f" d"h*

l Drafting /Closecut

! ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS i Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source) i Accountability: Jaworski/Skiles l Trend: None SEP 62 62 .

4 I

l l

l "8 #3 74 E P r6e rny DC TYPE gg3

Pr ty 14 %

,/ ; ,

< A ,,,  ; wup 1 BRI TYP E 30 _

g4 k '* I b <j)." 'j ,S ;[ -

8'%

ss% Total Open ECNs = 548 Total Open ECNs = S48 ,

• • :s o o s a . c i..... ., or.n u. . c.. . P ria ri'r P rie rier a m .im.n. .,c. u-u.w e ..... . w.,n u.i c..,i. . *** 1**

s e ,. .. s no...,i,. . ..,. ., c .,,i,..u.. u .i c.. , .

5' 5 57

• e osu . s .n u.i c... .

200. m. ,,

. I p ,se ri,y 0

3&4

, . s..

... .,,jgg.g g.. m. ...

350 as s2 ass aos m ses h or 300. ses as,

$ss 2 s 8 7 e is I I i i I i P rio rity Fe b-96 M ar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 s&4 Substitute Replacement item ECNs Open so%

100. ,

'd P norny 0 i i i i i t as 33 Feb Mar Apr M ay June July P rtortty P nority Document change ECNs Open s3$ ,3, ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 62 63

l l

D Administrative Control Problem B Licensed Operator Error j

g OtherPersonnelError g Maintenance Problem l

O Designiconstructionlinstallation/ Fabrication Problem g Equipment Failures )

2. l 1

I 1- _

I 0

Jul F"I

- I Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

.I.

Mar Apr May June

[** l i

t i

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 July 1,1995, through June 30,1996. 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. . l l

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 June 1996 that resulted in an LER. l Data Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Chase Trend: None 64 i

l

i

$ 0 Total Requallfication Training Hours l g Simulator Training Hours E Non Requalification Training Hours 4

g Number of Exam Failures 32 32.5 32 30 .

26 J

25 ..-

O 20 ..

7 16 53

1. 4 15 ..

1 10 .. .5 8 8

.5 5 3 6 5

-~

3 2.5 2 2 9

0 0 0 0 0.__ l l t i i  ; i Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle 4

95-2 95 3 95 4 95 5 95 6 96-1 96-2 96-3

• Note i:The simulator was out of service during Cycle 94 4.

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

LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING This indicator provides information on the total number of hours of training given to each crew during each cycle. The simulator training hours shown on the graph are a subset of the total training hours. Non-Requa!ification Training Hours are used for AOP/EOP verification & validation, INPO commitments, GET, Fire Brigade, Safety Meetings, and Division Manager lunches.

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

Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 4

65

g SRO Exams Adminislered O sROExams Passed O ROExams Administered g ROExams Passed 10 .

=

S.

0 , ,

E E U o E E $ 5 E D E D 4 m O z o 7 6 2 4 2 s 4 l1995l l1996l 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 July 1996, there were O RO and 0 SRO exams given. An SRO Training Class is schedulaed to start this month.

Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 66

.- . . - . . - w ----...a. . _ . . . . ~ - . . ~ - - . . - - . . . . . - . _ . _ _ . - . . - - - _ . - - - - _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ .

I l

M eady R to Close I h m dosed TotalCRs

! + Pen

! 1600 J i

i 1400. ,

1

, 1200.

1 . -

I j 1000. f ~

l j n# , A;  ; 0  ;~- -  ; -

f '

j

ie-l 400. j l l 200. '

l i n 23-Feb 8. W r 22-Wr 4-Apr 19-Apr 3- 2 y 17-2y 31- W y Jul-96 .

1 I

1 I l

i l CONDITION REPORTS BY LEVEL j 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, i Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Total

! Open 20 7 85 670 36 36 858 Closed 1 0 30 270 206 47 555 191 Condition Reports are " READY"to "CLOSE".

).

l At the end of July,1996 there were 192 "OPEN" incident Reports, of which,49 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 WW MWos g MWosReadytoWork 1600..

1400.

ImoHIDs 1200. p nmr EN 1000. m 6 Apr-96 May46 Jun46 Jul46 MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUELING OUTAGE)

This indicator shows the total number of Maintenance Work Requests (MWRs) and Main-tenance Work Orders (MWOs) that have been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 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 I

1996 Outage Projects Status Report This Month O For Schedule 120 .

. 110..

100_ n" 90 .. ,

esos s i

w

$ $  ! $ I  ! I 35 !E I II i  ! 5 $I 5 f E.E $ !=

I

~

I ""

$$ li $ $ 5

" $5

! i w

! !a 38 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/Sweamgin (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Boughter Trend: None SEP 31 69

--+-- Basebre SchedLne for PRC Approval

+ Projected /ActualSchedtdeforPRC Approval

--Final Desgn Pkg lasued (2 FD DCP issued Pnot to 05/0195)

Total M odifcation Packages (22) (11 Added After 05/Ot95) 9

28. __

7.

is ' '

E j 6. l

$s. w IE

! !t 4 -

E 3. d-f5 xy2

/, - - - - ......

/

21 c.

0:

5 E

hk b$h$ h$ $$

5 E R E M E h h, h PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE (1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING)

(FROZEN SCOPE OF 9 OUTAGE MODIFICATIONS)

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

j The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages which were identified prior to May 1,1995, PRC approved by March 22,1996. 11 Modifications added after May 1, ,

1995, not included.

July 1996 Modifications added: 0 Deleted = 0 .

Graph corrected to represent the baseline schedule.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 70

MODS'ADDED TO 96 REFUELING OUTAGE AFTER FREEZE DATE (05/01/96) o

{ 9/9/96 .

s

< m *

• 33

$ @! "'**~

y Q m1/96.

ll*hafth af*haf 6/21/96 .

s 6/1/96 5  % 95- E  % 95- 95 E 95- 95-025 001 023 011 002 013 022 008 007 020 MODIFlCATlON NUMBER letw armee n x aac w mee m u 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.

. July 1996 Modifications Added: 0 Deleted = 0 Modifications Pre-Approved: 6 Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 71 I

+ Baseline Schedule for PRc Approval

, Total Modification Packages (10) (4 Added After 05M1SS) 6 -

u  :-

~

,  ;; a 5..

14..  : : : : : :

33..

32..

2 E

S1 /

O i ii;i;-l  ;. .. >>>

-l E

5 E

2 l% E 5

E E

E E

E 8

E 8

E E G E

l E

8 E

E E

E l

e

- e n n n n 4 < m m o PROGRESS OF 1996 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 6 MODIFICATIONS)

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

The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages which were identified prior to May 1,1995, PRC approved by March 25,1996.1 Modification added after May 1, 1995, not included. -

July 1996 Modifications Added: 0 Deleted = 0 Graph corrected to represent the baseline schedule.

Data Source: hworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 33 1 72

9 e

ACTION PLANS O

e 73

ACTION PL.ANS This section lists action plans that have been developed for the performance indicators cited as Adverse Trends during the month preceding this report. Also included are Action Plans icr 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.

g

_Qoal:

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

. Plan:

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 SHORT TERM (CYCLE 16 OPERATIONH1 IIEM ACTION RESP. DATE DUE STATUS

1. Evaluate replacement of two-micron filter in CVCS with one- Holthaus Completed Complete.1/4/98. Filter replacement will micron fitter.

result in improved particulate remova!

01/04/96 and consequently lower dose rates.

1a. !nstall one-micron filters in CVCS 01/31/96 Completed 03/13/96

2. Evaluate benefits ofincreasing letdown flow. Holthaus/Spijker Completed Previously evaluated in Radiological 01/19/96 Analysis95-005, 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 Ucenning for l

Nuclear Network entry. '

5. Evaluate installation of silver mordenite filtration system Holthaus/ Spires Completed Received general (unclassified) forincreasediodine removal. 01/26/96 information on system used at 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. cycie.

75

Fuel Reliability l

7. Evaluate whether these assembNes 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 assembNes for Cycle 17. Also, can Fuels Division Holthaus/ Hanger 01/12/96 indicated that they can fabricate the provide necessary uranium.

assembles. Cost estimates by Fuels Division is approx.12M. Discount from l

Westinghouse also requested. '

9. Evaluate Cycle 18 preliminary pattern same as 5 & 6 Holthaus/Guinn Completed Cycle 18 preliminary pattem indicates 01/17/96 four additional assembNes would be required. Cost $1.0M

10. Evaluate Cycle 19 preliminary pattern same as 5& 6 Holthaus/Guinn Completed Cycle 19 preNminary pattem indicates 01/17/96 eight additional assentlies would be i

required. Cost $2.0M

11. Analyze additional assembNes to be procured Holthaus/ Hanger Completed Total cost is $5.0M for 20 additional 01/17/96 assemblies.

12. Evaluated cost /benett with assumption of Holthaus/ Hanger Completed

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

76

.m.

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

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

Planning Scheduled Maintenance Bulk Work 9

77

PERFORMANCE NDICATOR DEFINITIONS AUXIUARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM CLEAN CONTROLLED ARM CONTAM! NATIONS t,1,000 PERFORMANCE DtSINTEGRATIONS/MANUTE PER PROBE AREA The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable The personnel contamination events in the clean controlled area.

, hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the auxihary The indicator tracks personnel performance for SEP #15 & 54.

leedwater 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 auxikary feedwater system.

, . The percentage of the Radiation Controlled Area, which includes COLLECTIVE RADIAT10N 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 all orda personnel (including contractors and visitors) during a time penod, 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 riaily 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 REUABluTY (25 Demands)

The summary of INPO categories for Fort Calhoun Station with segndicantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than This indicator shows the number of failures occumng for each the rest of the industry for an eighteen-month time period. emergency diesel generator during the last 25 start demands Failures are reported as component (i.e., pumps, motors, main and the last 25 load-run demands.

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

DISABUNG INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE Failure Cause Categories are: (LOSS TIME ACCIDENT RATE)

Age / Normal Use -thought to be the consequence of This indicator is defined as the number of accidents for all utihty 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 assembly or initial quality of the resremible component or indicator tracks personnel performance for SEP #25,26 8 27.

system.

DOCUMENT REVIEW (BIENNIAL)

Engineering / Design - a failure attributable to the inadequate 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, including for the reporting month. A document review is considered associated devices. overdue if the review is not complete within six months of the assigned due date. This indicator tracks performance for SEP Maintenance / Action - resutting 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 tasting or personnel errors that occur during testing activitses. The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable and the estimated unavailable hours for the emergency AC power

, initial installation Error - causea by improper initial system for the reporting period divided by the number of hours insta!!ation of equipment in the reporting penod multipled by the number of trains in the emergency AC power system.

CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT REUABluTY The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun Station. The cen5 per kilowatt The bdostar shows the number of failures that were reported dunng the hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per last 20,50, and 100 ernergency diesel generator dernands at the Fort kilowatt hour on a twelve-month average for the current year. M un maton. h sham are tnggw values which correlate to a high The bass for the budget curve is the approved yearty budget. Iml f c niden e that a un(s desel g%erators have otAained a The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating n a w a$ues Report.

78 i

l

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS and the successful test that follows repair to verify operabihty

1) Number of Start Demands: All vahd and inadvertent start should not be counted as demands or failures when the EDG demands, including all startanly 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 made to load the generator. This indicator measures the total unreliability of emergency diesel generators. In general, unrehability is the ratio of

2) Nurnber of Start Failures: Any failure wthin the unsuccessful operations (starts or load-runs) to the number of ,

emergency generator system that prevents the generator valid demands. Total unreliabihty is a cornbination of start from achieving specified frequency and voltage is classi$ed unreliability and load-run unreliability.

as a valid start failure. This includes any condition identified in the course of maintenance inspections (wth 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 Engineering. This indicator tracks demand to be counted, the load-run attempt must meet performance for SEP #62.

one or more of the following critena:

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 br the reporting month. This indicator tracks performance as stated in each test's specifications. for SEP #62.

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

4) Ntanberof Load 4 tun Failures: A load-run failure should Nuclear (DEN), System Engineering, and Maintenance. The be counted for any reason in which the emergency graphs provide data on ECN Facility Changes open, ECN generator does not pick up load and run as predicted. Substitu'e Replacement items open, and ECN Document Failures are counted during any valid load-run demands. Changes open. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #S2.

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

Equpment forced outages per 1,000 critical hours is the inverse A) Spurious tnps that would be bypassed in the event of of the mean trne between forced outages caused by equipment an emergency. failures. The mean time is equal to the number of hours the reactor is crtical b a penod (1,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />) divided by the number B) Malfunction of equipment that is not required during of forced outages caused by equipment failures in that penod.

an emergency.

EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR C) Intentional termination 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 rnaximum 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 hmitations. 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 star? because a portion of the starting system was disabled for test purpose,if followed by FORCED OUTAGE RATE a successful start with the startirg system in its 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 dunng corrective maintenance service before the end of the next weekend. Forced events 79

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

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

IN LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT OF SERV!CE FUEL REUABILITYINDICATOR

, Total number of in-hne chemistry instruments that are out-of-This indicator is defined as the steady-state primary coolant l- service in the Secondary System and the Post Accident 131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium contnbution and Sampling System (PASS).

normahzed 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 manufactunng process. Steady state is This indicator 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 power level that does not vary more than + or -5% Plants indicator tracks training performance for SEP #68.

should collect data for this indicator at a power level above 85%,

when possible. Plants that did not operate at steady-state power UCENSED OPERATOR REQUAUFICATION TRAINING aoove 85% should couect data for this indicator at the highest steady-state power level attained during the rnonth. The total number of hours of training given to each crew during each cycle. Also provided are the simulator training hours The density correction factor is the ratio of the specific volume (which are a subset of the total training hours), the number of of cootart at the RCS operating temperature (540 degrees F., Vf non-REQUAUFICATION training hours and the number of exam

= 0.02146) divided by the specific volume of coolant at normal fai!ures. This indicator tracks training performance for letdown temperature (120' F at outlet of the letdown cooling heat SEP # 68.

exchanger, Vf = 0.016204), which results in a density correction factor for FCS equal to 1.32.

UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN GROSS HEAT RATE This indicator shows the number and root cause code for Gross heat rate is defined as the ratio of total thermal energy in Licensee Event Reports. The root cause codes are as fonows:

Brtsh 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 hours (KWH). supervisory deficiencies that affect plant programs or activibes (i.e., poor planning, breakdown or lack of HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED adequate management or supervisory control, incorrect procedures, etc).

The total amount (in Klograms) of non-halogenated hazardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous 2) Licensed Operator Error This cause code captures waste produced by FCS each rnonth. errors of ornission/ commission by hcensed reactor operators during plant activities.

HIOH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 3) Other Personnel Error - Errors of omission / commission committed by non-hcensed persennel involved in plant The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable activibes.

hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the high pressure safety injection system for the reporting penod divided by the 4) Maintenance Problem -The intent of this cause code is to crtcal hours for the reporting penod multiplied by the number of capture the full range of problems which can be attribu'ed trains in the high pressure safety injechon system. in any way to programmatic deficiencies in the maintenance functional organization. Activities included in INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE INPO this category are maintenance, testing, surveillance, calibration and radiation protechon.

This indicator is defined as the number of accidents per 200,000

, man hours worked for all utility personnel permanerfJy assigned 5) DesigrWConstructioninstallation/ Fabrication Problem -

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

1) One or more days of restricted work (excluding the day of installation, and fabncation (i e., loss of control power due the accident); to underrated fuse, equipment not 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, high 80 1

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS winds, etc. Generapy , t includes spunous or one-tirne MAXIMUM INDMDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE failures. Electnc components included in ttus category are circuit cards, rectiRors, bistabios, fuses, capacitors, dodes, - The total maxknum amourt of radiaten received by an individual resistors, etc. person wortong at FCS on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. ,

LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (bECURITY)

MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUEUNG The total number of security incedents for the reporting month OUTAGE) depicted in two graphs. This indicator tracks securtly ,

performance for SEP #58. The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have been approved forinclueen in the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage and the MAINTENANCE OVERTIRE number that are ready to work (perts staged, planrung complete, andalotherpaperwork ready for fleid use). Also included is the The percent of overtime hours cornpared to normal hours for number of MWOs that have been engmoenng holds (ECNs, maintenance. This mcludes OPPD personnel as wet as procedures and other mecebeneous engineering holds), parts

- contract personnel. hold, (parts staged, not yet inspected, parts not yet arrived) and planneig hold Gab scope not yet completed). Maintenance Wbrk MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS Requests (MWRs) are also shown that have been identined for the Cycle 17 Reibseng Outage and have not yet been converted This indicator shows the bocidog of non-outage Maintenance to MWOs.

Work Orders remaining open at the end of the reporting month.

Maintenance classincations are deAnod as fogows:

NUteER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUPRENT DEFICIENCES Corrective - Repeir and restoraten of equipment or A control room equipment deficiency (CRD) is defined as any components that have Isiled or are malfunctioning and are not component which is operated or contro8ed from the Control performing their intended funchon. Room, povides indication or alarm to the Control Room, provides testing capabdibes from the Control Room, provides Preventive - Actions taken to maintain a piece of equipment automatic actons Itom or to the Control Room, or provides a wthin design operetag condibons, prevent equipment failure, pesante Ibndon for 31e Control Room and has been identdied as and extend Rs lie and are performed prior to equiprnent doncent, Le., does not perform under au conditens as designed.

failure. This dodnten also apphes to the ARemote Shutdown Panels Al-179, Al-185, and Al-212.

Non CorrectivetPlant m. ._ - Maintenance adMbes performed to implement station improvements or to A plant cartement whidiis doncient or inoperable is consadored repair non-plant equipment an " Operator Work Around (OWA) llem"lf some other action is required by en operator to componeste for the condibon of the Maintenance Work Priortties are defined as: componard Some examples of OWAs are:

g Emergency - Condihons which signincently degrade station 1) 1he control room levelindcator does not work but a local safety or availability. sight glass can be read by an Operator out in the plant; immediate Action - Equipment deficsoncies which 2) A deMiert pump cannot be repeired because replacement signdlcantly degrade station reliabikty. Potental for unit parts requere a long lead time for purchese/ delivery, thus shutdown or power reductort reqtarmg the redundant pump to be operated continuously, Operations Concern - Equipment deAciences which hinder 3) Special schons are requesd by an Operator because of station operation. equipment design problems These actions may be a described in Operations Memorandums, Operator Notes, Essential - Routine corrective meintenance on essential or may require changes to Operating Procedures; station systems and equipment.

4) Delcort plart equipmert that is requesd to be used during ,

Non Essential - Routine corrective maintenance on non- Emergency Operating Procedures or Abnormal Operating essential station systems and equipment. Procedures, Plant L._.._/ Non corrective maintenance and plant 5) System indcation that provides criticalinformation during improvements. normal or abnormal operations.

This indestor tracks maintenance performance for SEP #36.

81

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS NUNBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESULTING This indicator shows the status of the projects which are in the IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS scope of the Refueling Outage.

The number of Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Licensee PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER Evert Reports (LERS) dunng the reporting month. This indicator MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK tracks missed STs for SEP #60 & 61.

The percentage of total HWOs completed per month identified OPEN INCIDENT REPORTS as rework. Rework activit.es are identified by maintenance

, planning and craft. Rework is: Any additional work required to

'lhis indcator displays the total number of open incident Reports correct dehciencies 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 completon of the drawing update. as compared to the number of scheduled maintenance activities each month. This percentage is shown for all rnaintenance

1) Forrn FC-1133 Backlog /In Progress. This number crafts. Also shown are the number of emergent MWOs.

represents rno$fication requests that have not been plant Maintenance activities include MWRs, MWOs, STs, PMOs, approved dunng 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) Modi #caton Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear following: Unit Capability Factor, Unit Capabihty Loss Factor, Projects Review Committee (NPRC). HPSI, AFW, Emergency AC Power System, Unplanned Automatic Scrams, Collective Radiation Exposure, Fuel C) Mcdrhcaton Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear Renabiisty, Thermal Performance, Secondary System Chemistry, Projects Commrttee (NPC). Radiation Waste, 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 rnore information, some approved for evaluation, event classification, 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 clearfy 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 administrative controls, a design construction, installation, may be canceled. All of these different phases require review. instaBation, fabrication problem (involving work completed by or supervised by OPPD personnel) or a maintenance problem

3) Design Engineering Backlog /In Progress. Nuclear (attributed to inadequate or improper upkeep / repair of plant Planning has assigned a year in which construebon win be equipment). Also,the cause of the event must have occurred

, completed and design work may be in progress. wthin approximately two years of the " Event Date" specified in the LER (e g., an event for which the cause is attributed to

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

, the modification 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 Ogh-cmg Update Backlog /In Progress. PED has received the Modification Completion Report but the An event for which the root cause is inappropriate action on drawings have not been updated.

the part of one or more individuals (as opposed to being attnbuted to a department or a general group). Also, the The above mentioned outstanding mod;fications do not include inappropnate 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 l

( .

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS Addhonssy, each evert 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 fauures are any events or conditions that could prevent the fulfiumert of the safety functions of structures or PRIMARY SYSTEM LITHlUM % OF HOURS OUT OF LiteT systems. If a system consists of mulbpie redundant subsystems e or trains, failure of at trains constitutes a safety system failure.

The percent of hours out oflimit are for lithium 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 requrements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. The e PROCEDURAL NONCOWLIANCE INCIDENTS fotoweig is a list of the major safety systems, sutrsystems, and (MAINTENANCE) components monitored for this indicator:

The number of idenbfied inesdorts concernmg maintenance Accident Monitoring instrumentahon, Auxiliary (and procedural problems, the number of closed irs related to the Emergency) Feedwater System, Combushble Gas Control, use of procedures (includes the number of cbsed irs caused by Component Coolmg Water System, Containment and procedural noncompliance), and the number of closed Cortesimert leciation, Containmort Coolant Systems, Control promdura1 noncompliance irs. This indicator trends personnel Room Emergency Ventilation System, Ernergency 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 Detechon or PLANNING Suppression Systems, Isolation Condenser, Low Temperature overpressure Protection, Main Steam Line This indicator shows the status of moddications approved for isolation Valves, Onsite Emergency AC & DC Power compiehon during the Refueling Outage. w/Distribubon, Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation, Reactor Coolant System Reactor Core isolation Cooling System, PROGRESS OF 1996 ON4.INE MODIFICATION PLANNING Reador Trip System and Inalrumentation, Recirculation Pump Trip Actuation Instrumentation, Residual Heat Removal This indicator shows the status of modificatiuns approved for Systems, Safety Valves, Spent Fuel Systems, Standby Liquid completion during 1995. Control System and Uthmate Heat Sink.

RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMSTRY PERFORMANCE INDEX The number of identrlled 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 impurtbes in the secondary side of the plant. These key impurlbes are the most likely cause of RADIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & deteriorebon of the steam generators. Criterin for calculating the PREVENTIVE MAPITENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE CPI are:

The ratio of preventive maintenance (including surveiNance 1) The plant is at greater than 30 percent power; and testing and calibration procedures) to the sum of non-outage corrective mairtenance 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 CPlis calculated using the following equation:

percert of preventive maintenance items in the month that were not completed or administratively closed by the scheduled date plus a gram period equalto 25% of the scheduled intervai. This CPI = ((sodium /0.79) + (Chloride /1.52) + (Sulfate /1.44) +

(Ironr3.30) + (Copper /0.30)+(Condensate 02/2.90))M

• Indicator tracks prevenhve maintenance activities for SEP #41.

Where: Sodium, suffete, chloride and condensate dissolved RECORDABLE INJURYlILLNESS CASES FREQUENCY oxygen are the rnonthly average blowdown concentrations in RATE ppb, iron and copper are monthly time weighted average 4 feedwater concentrations in ppb. The denominator for each of The number of injunes requinng 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 person >iel average for a specific parameter is less than the INPO median performance for SEP #15,25 and 26. value, 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 faGure and the number of Signdicart events are the events identified by NRC staff through NPRDS components with more than two failures for the detaled screermg and evaluation of operating experience. The eighteen-month CFAR period.

screening process includes the daily review and discussion of 83 i

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS all reported operating reactor events, as well as other instn.iments are not considered as temporary modifications.

operational data such as special tests or construction activities.

An event identded from the screening process as a significant 3) Scaffold is not considered a temporary modification.

evert candidate is further evaluated to determine if any actual or Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for which MRs

, potential threat to the health and safety of the public was have been submitted wiu be considered as temporary involved. Specific examples of the type of cnteria are modr5 cations until final resolution of the MR and the jumper summarized 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

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

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

6) Operation outside the limits of the Techn.tal Specifications; be producedif the unit were operated continuously at full power 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 teamed identified through the SEE-IN The net electncal energy generated (MWH) divided by the screening process. product of maxirnum dependable capacity (net MWe) times the gross hours in the reporting period expressed as a perceni. Net SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE electncal energy generated is the gross electrical output of the unit measured at the output terrrunals of the turbine generator The dollarvalue of the spare parts inventory for FCS dunng the rninus the normal station service loads during the gross hours of reporting period. the reporting period, expressed in megawatt hours.

STAFFING LEVEL UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 CRITICAL HOURS The actual stamng level and the authorized staffing level for the Nuclear Operations Division, The Produchon 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 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of critical 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 dunng the period by 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, then dividing that number by the total reporting month. number of hours criticalin the same time period. The indicator is further defined as follows:

TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS e

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

configurations to the plant's systems.

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

, 1) Temporary configurations are defined as electricaljumpers, rapid insertion of negative reactivity (e.g., by control rods, electncal blocks, mechanical 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 P&lD, schemabc, resulted from exceeding a set point or rnay have been connection, winng, or flow diagrams. spurious.

2) Jumpers and blocks which are installed for Surveillance Tests, Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Procedures, 3) Automabe means that the initial signal that caused actuation Special Procedures or Operating Procedures are not of the reactor protecbon system logic was provided from one considered as temporary modifications unless the jumper or of the sensor's monitonng plant parameters and conditions, 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 l

1

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS toom, shipped off-site for processing, and the volume of sohd dry radioactive waste which has been shipped off-site for

4) Critical means that dunng the steady-state condition of the processing. Low-level solid radioactive waste consists of dry reactor prior to the scram, the effective multiplication (k ,) active waste, sludges, resins, and evaporator bottorns generated was essentially equal to one, as a result of nuclear power plant operaten and maintenance.

Dry radioactive waste includes contaminated rags, cleaning UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR materials, disposable protective clothing, plastic containers, and any other material to be disposed of at a low-level radioactive The ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given period waste disposal site, except resin, sludge, or evaporator bottoms. .

of time, to tne reference energy generation (the energy that Low-level refers to all radioactive waste that is not spent fuel or could be produced If the unit were cperated continuously at full a by-product of spent fuel processing. This indicator tracks power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time radiological work performance for SEP #54.

penod, expressed as a percentage.

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS . (INPO

+ DEFINITION)

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

1) The numberof unplanned Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) actuatens that result from reaching an ECCS actuation set point 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 actuation set point for a safety system is reached or when a spunous or inadvertent signal is generated (ECCS only),

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

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTIONS -(NRC DEFINITION)

The number of safety system actuations which include (ot) the High Pressure Safety inlecton System, the Low Pressure Safety inlechon System, the Safety Irjechon Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC classification of safety system actuations includes actuations when major equipment is operated gng when the logic systems for the above safety systems are challenged.

e VIOLATION TREND lbs indicatoris defined as Fort Calhoun Station Cited Violations and Non-Cited Violations trended over 12 months. Additonally, Cited Violations for the top quartile Region IV plant is trended over 12 rnonths (lagging the Fort Calhoun Station trend by 2 3 morths). It is the Fort Cahoun Station goal to be at or below the cited violation trend for the top quartile Region IV plant.

VOLUME OF LOW 4.EVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE This indicator is defined as the volume of low-level solid radioactive waste actualty shipped for burial. This indcator also shows the volume of low-level radioactive waste which is in temporary storage, the amount of radioactive oilthat has been 85

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

SEP Reference Number 15 Eggg

. Increase HPES and IR Accountability through use of Performance Indicators Procedural Noncompiance incidents (Maintenance) ..... .... . ....... ................ 51 Recordable injuryAliness Cases Frequt ncy Rate . . . . . . . ....... ......... .... ... . . 16 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations 3.1,000 Disintegrations / Minute Per Probe Area ...... . . 17 Preventable / Personnel Error LERs . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... . . ... . ...... .. ..... .. 18 SEP Reference Numbers 25. 26. & 27

. Training Program for Managers and Supervisors implemented

. Evaluate and implement Station Standards for Safe Work Practica Requirements

. Implement Supervisory Enforcement of Industrial Safety Standards Disabling injuryAltness Frequency Rate ..... .. ....... ..... . ........... ..... . 15 Recordable injury /llness 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 Overall Project Status (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage) . . . . . . . . . ........ . ..... . . . . . 70 Progress of Cycle 17 Outage Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 SEP Reference Number 33

. Develop On-Line Maintenance and Modification Schedule Percent of Completed Scheduled Maintenance Activities (All Maintenance Crafts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 1996 0n-line 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 i

. Compliance With and U.*e of Procedures Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue .. ... ... 48 Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

/

86

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX SEP Reference Number 46

. Design a Procedures Control and Administrative Program Docu me nt Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 ,

SEP Reference Number 52 EAST.

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

. Complete implementation of Radiological Enhancement Program Ciean Controlled Area Disintegrations 11.000 Counts / Minute Per Probe Area ..................17 Collective Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area ............ ........ .. ......... ....... ..... 55 SEP Reference Number 58

. Revise Physical Security Training and Procedure Program Loggable/ Reportable Incidents (Security) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 SEP Reference Numbers 60 & 61

. Improve Controls Over Surveillance Test Program

. Modify Computer Program to Correctly Schedule Surveillance Tests Number of Missed Surveillance Tests resulting in Ucensee Evont Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 SEP Reference Number 62

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

. Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Training and establish means to monitor Operator Training License Operator Requalification Training ...... .. ...................................65 License Candidate Exams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 '

SEP Reference Number 71

. Improve Controls over Temporary Modifications Temporary Modifications .... ................ ........ . .. ............... ..... . 59 87

e

%\

4 e

s 4

T 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 *

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

10/01/76 - 12/13/76 Cycle 3 12/13/76 - 09/30/77 2,805,927 9,958,888 3rd Refueling 09/30/77 - 12/09/77 *

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

• 10/13/78- 12/24/78 Cycle 5 12/24/78- 01/18/80 3,882,734 16,868,454 5th Refueling *

• 01/18/80 - 06/11/80 Cycle 6 06/11/80 - 09/18/81 3,899,714 20,768,168 Sth Refueling *

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

• 12/03/82 - 04/06/83 Cycle 8 04/06/83 - 03/03/84 3,406,371 27,736,405 sth Refueling *

• 03/03/84 - 07/12/84 Cycle 9 07/12/84 - 09/28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 9th Refueling *

• 09/28/85 - 01/16/86 Cycle 10 01/16/86 - 03/07/87 4,356,753 36,834,646 10th Refueling *

• 03/07/87 - 06/08/87 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 fiefueling *

• 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 I (Planned Dates) ,

FORT CALHOUN STATION CURRENT PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS " RECORDS" First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5:47 p.m.)

First Electric Supplied to the System August 25,1973 Commercial ion (180,000 KWH) September 26,1973 Achieved Full ower (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

..