ML20129F193

Performance Indicators for Aug 1996

ML20129F193
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	08/31/1996
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20129F164	List: LIC-96-0143, Forwards Fort Calhoun Station Performance Indicators for Aug 1996 ML20129F193
References
NUDOCS 9610010280
Download: ML20129F193 (106)

Text

- - -- - -

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

? Am .

lill@lf5h -

eone

. ; . Y , ,, -

. p," l AUGUST 1996 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COSTEFFECTIVENESS sea 1888R 82888883 R PDR

l l

l 0%al e w&na w wn, alidwb,...

9 l d bnvan wudo,in, wnd wwndjudynad... l d w a, y%, caww-%g enunihnal...

d w a, way g e fL...d w dang lkjd>

qu l6,6l 6, S 6 .

Jt w owns-diwhd, rud ik wd g e Kl pw m,aw a wn,afawJA uk l

- - wna l6 gA wng 4 w

u _p % tL 9u w 3e pewn,, utjud &n, dang ik 9V l%ny.

i

)wm).O'Cm e

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION ,

l PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT AUGUST 1996 ,

t i

i

! i i

Production Engineering Division System Engineering Test and Performance Group AUGUST 1996

1 l l

FORT CALHOUN STATION August 1996 l Monthly Operating Report  !

OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

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

During August, an additional eight detectors failed in the in-Core Instrumentation (ICl) system, rendering eighteen of the twenty-eight detector strings inoperable. An engineering evaluation verified operability of the In-Core Instrumentation (ICl) system for monitoring the Linear Heat Rate, Peaking Factors and internal Axial Shape Index. Due to the lack of symmetry for the remaining operable in-core detectors in the predetermined tilt groups, the ICl System is invalid for the calculation of Azimuthal Tilt. Azimuthal Tile is now being determined with the ex-core detectors. All failed detectors will be replaced during the 1996 refueling outage.

l i

i e

l

+ Fort Calhoun index Value

+ Industry MedianIndex Value r=1 100 .

l 90 .

85 M 83 83 83

_ x x x

,, ,i 79 fe 70 .. industry

} Median Projected 60 .

i Value for August 1996 is 84.27%

l

, 50 .- 1 l

l 40 -

i .

95/1 95/2 95/3 95/4 96/1 96/2 July Aug sep Oct Nov Dec j i

l I

PERFORMANCE INDEX 1 REND l l

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 l 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 i responsive to changes in plant perforrnance. l li

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

g M AXIMUNI VALUE e IPOEX POINTS JULY '96 OltOEXPOINTS AUGUST'96 l 18 00 .

!FE

~33 ,

14.00 - 8 .

a 12.0c ,

3a m . 888 888 888 -

sas ss6 66s ggg ggg -

o.00 . . . .

_+ _4_ -.4_ ._+- i i e i i i i --.

a UCF UCLF HFEl AFW EACP uAS7 CRE FRI TR CR Rad. EAR t j

Weste 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.

4 UCF Unit Capability Factor TPI Thermal Performance Indicator UCLF Unplanned Capability Loss Factor CPI Secondary Chemistry Indicator HPSI High Pressure Safety injection Rad Waste Volume of Radioactive Waste Buried ,

AFW Auxiliary Feedwater ISAR Industrial Safety Accident Rate EACP Emergency AC Power UAS7 Unplanned Auto Scrams / 7000 Hours CRE CoIIective Radiation Exposure FRI Fuel Reliability Indicator r i

lii b

ll i:

l '

,i Year-to-Date Value Performance Categories Unit Capability Unplanned Unplanned Thermal Factor Capability Auto Scrams E Performance better than Performance 1 Loss Factor Industry Average Trend

@ Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal mm e:vtw a_ g

$$l$3%l f ~, Performance Not Meeting l HPSI Safety AFW Safety EDG Safety l*D~M@*C'M ,- 1996 OPPD Goal System System System Fuel Performance Performance Performance Reliability 9 .gu a -

~

i .

l ~ i i  ;

g ,  ; .i May June July ,

l, n! 1996 1996 1996 ii l l '! l I

Volume of Industrial Best Possible i

. Chemistry , Collective jl j August.-1996 l l Safety Accident 1996 Year-End l Index  ! i Radiation l I l l Low-Level l Year-to-Date l  ;, g

,l  !; Exposure I l

{ RadWaste Rate Value l j l ; I l l -l l l lll[ Performance I a i l

t i i illl Il l i l .

l l

WANO Performance Indicators k

Unplanned Auto Scrams Year-To-Date Value Performance Cateaories Safety Significant E Performance better than Industry Average Trend System Actuations

• • "'" i Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal Safety Forced Outage 54 Performance Not Meeting 1996 OPPD Goal System Rate Failures a

May June July 1996 1996 1998 l . Equipment Colisctive Forced August-1996 ____Best Possible  !

Radiation Year-to-Date 1996 Year-End Outages Exposure Performance Value  ;

Performance

......:,,.... .. . . . !ha... -

NRC Performance Indicators

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT August 1996-

SUMMARY

POSITIVE TREND REPORT POSITIVE TREND REPORT (cont.

A performance indicator with data representing three Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area consecutive months ofimproving performance or three (Page 55) consecutrve months of performance that is superior to the stated goalis exhibting a positive trend per Nuclear Temocrary Modifications )

Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP. (Page 59) l 37).

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

trends for the reporting month-1 Sa ' stem Failures

<pa e 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 dderrnined by the Manager -

Auxiliary Feedwater System Station Engineering, s4gtutes an adverse trend per (Page 6) Nuclear Operationt Dhnur41 Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37). A vp#sor whose performance Emeroency A C. Power System indicator exhibits an 46.'est.1 trend by this definition (Page 7) may specify in wntten form (to be published in this ,

report) why the trend is not adverse. j Emeroency Diesel Generator Unit Reliabildv l (Page 20) The following performance indicators exhibited adverse  !

trends for the reporting month:

Diesel Generator Reliability (25 Demands)

(Page 21) Fuel Reliability Indicator j (Page 9) l Emeraenev Diesel Generator Unreliability (Page 22) Maintenance Werkload Backloas (Page 47)

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

Unolanned Safety System Actuations flNPO) 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 with data for the reporting period that is inadequate when compared to the OPPD goal is defined as "Needing increased Management Attention

• per Nuclear Operations Division Quahty Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37).

Disabhna iniurv/ Illness Frecuency Rate (Page 15)

Ntsnber of On-Line and Outace Control Room Eau 1oment Deficiencies (Page 24)

Eauioment Forced Outaae Rate (Page 38)

Cents cer Kdtowatt Hour (page 44)

Percentaae of Total SDs Camoleted oer Month Idantified as Rawork (Page 49)

PERFORMANCE INDICATG1 REPORT IMPROVEMENTS / CHANGES i

End of Report Improvemt.nts/ Changes Report.

t t

l l

l l

l Vii i

1 i

1 1

• 4 Table of Contents / Summary i em '

GOALS....................................................................... . . xil l 1

WA NO PERFORM A NCE INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 i

Unit CapabiGty Factor . . . . . . . . . ... ....... .. .... . ............. ...... .... .....2 Unplanned Capabiity Loss Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ .......3 Unplanned Automatic Reactor SCRAMS per 7000 Hours . .. .......................... ..... 4 i High Pressure Safety injection System . . . ..... .... .. ... ..... . ... ... . .......S i i

l

. AuxiRary Feedwater System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . .. .. 6 l 1

1 Emergency AC Power System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... .. ... 7 j Thermal Pe rformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .8 Fuel Reliability indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. ..... . .. ..9 ll I

Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =. . . . . 10 Collective Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................11 l Volume of low level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Industrial Safety Accident Rate . . . . . . . . . . ...... ......... . ..... .. ..... . . . . . . . 13 SAFE OPERATIONS DisabEng 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 U n reli a bility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........ .. ... 22 Contro! Room Equipment Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ........... 23 On-line and Outage Control Room Equipment Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 l

viii I

i Table of Contents / Summary Maximum individual Radiation Exposure . ............... ....................... .... .. 25 Violation Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ............. .. 26 Significant Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ ....... . 27 Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in LERs .... ......... ........ ..... ......... .... 28 PERFORMANCE Station Net Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... .. .. . ...... ... 30 Forced Outage Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .. ... ........ ..... ............. . . 31 Unit Capacity Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. ............. .... ... 32 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..............33 Unplanned Safety System Actuations INPO Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. ...... ..............34 NRC Definition .......... ... ........................... .... . ...........35 l

Gross Heat Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ................. ............................ 36 Daily Thermal Output ........... . .. ................................ ...........37 Equipment Forced Outages per 1,000 Critical Hours ... ... ... ................. . . . . 38 Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Repeat Failures .. .... ........... ........ . . ......... .... ..... ... ... . . 40 Chemistry Action Levels Exceeded - Event Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Primary System uthium % Hours out of umit . ....... ..... .. ... . ...... ............ 42 COST Cents Per Kilowatt Hour . . . ......... .... ..... .. . .. ............. ... ...... .... 44 Spare Parts inventory Value ....................................................45 lx

}

Table of Contents / Summary DMSION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATOR!i Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. ... . 48 Percentage of Total MWOs Completed per month ident fied as Rework ...... ......49 Overtime .... .. . ...... ..... ..... . ... . .. .... ... . . . . . . . 50 Procedural Noncompliance Incidents . . . . . . . ... . ...... .... ........ . . . . . . 51 Daily Schedule Performance

- Percent of Completed Scheduled Activities ............ ...... ... .. . 52 In-Une Chemistry Instruments Out-of-Service ....... .. .. .. .. . ............53 Hazardous Waste Produced . . . . . . . . . ... .. . ... ... .. . .. ... . .. .. 54 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area . .. .. ..... .. . .... . .. .. ...... . 55 Radiological Work Practices Program .... . .. .... ... ..... .. ............ . ...... 56 1

Document Review . .. ......... ... .. ... .. ..... .. .. ...... . . . . . 57 l 1

Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . ..... 58 Temporary Modifications ... .. .... . ... .. . .. .. .. . . .. .... 59 Outstanding Modifications . . . . . .... . ..... . ..... ... . .. . .... . 60 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown .. . .. . . . .. . C1 Engineering Change Notices Status ... .. . . ... . ........ ... .. ......... . ... . . . . . . . . . 62 j 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 i996 0n-Une Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... 72 x

i I

. i ACTION PLANS. DEFINITIONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION UST j Actio n Pla n s ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 Performance indicator Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Safety Enhancement Program index ....... ....................... .. ....... ......... 86 j l

Report Distribution List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 1

I I

4 I

f e

XI

O OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Priorities MISSION The safe, reliable and cost effective generation of electricity for OPPD customers through conservative decision making and the professional use of nuclear technology. We will conduct these operations to assure the health, safety;, and protection of our personnel, the general public, and the environment.

j GOALS J

Goal 1: SAFE OPERATIONS

! Supports: April 1995 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 3 & 4

A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and personal initiative and open communication.

1996 Priorities:

• Improve SALP ratings.

• Improve INPO rating.

• Reduce 1996 NRC violations with no violations more severe than level 4.

• No unplanned automatic reactor scrams or safety system actuations.

Objectives to support SAFE OPERAT10NS.

OBJECTIVE 1-1:

No challenges to a nuclear safety system.

OBJECTIVE 1-2:

Comply with applicable policies, technical specs, procedures, standing orders and work instructions..

OBJECTIVE 1-3:

Identify conditions BEFORE they affect plant safety and reliability. Address every safety concem.

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.

xii

l OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Priorities

' Goal 2: PERFORMANCE Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 2; G-4, Obj: 1,2, & 3; G-6, Obj 3  ;

Nuclear teamwork achieves high performance at Fort Calhoun Station as exhibited by safe, L reliable and cost effective power production.

. 1996 PRIORITIES:

. Improve Quality, Professionalism and Teamwork.

. Maintain High Plant Reliability.

l . Pursue efficient, cost-effective work processes.

. 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.

. Maintain a high level of readiness in the ERO.

Objectives to support PERFOP.klANCE:

OBJECTIVE 2-1: l

, Achieve an annual plant capacity factor of 81.4% and a unit capability factor of 83.56%. I OBJECTIVE 2-2:

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

OBJECTIVE 2-3: I Training meets the needs of the plant and the National Academy accreditation objectives.

. Line managers use training to present, discuss & reinforce performance standards.

. Line managers monitor and assess personnel performance to determine how well standards j are met.

. Line managers through personal involvement in training emphasize the importance of conducting activities within approved procedures / practices.

. Executive Training Committee: j

. invites line supervisors to discuss the direction training is going for their specific area. I e invites the line and training supervisors responsible for each accredited program to l provide a status of intemal accreditation assessments.

. ensures items such as training attendance, attentiveness, punctuality, etc. are uniformly emphasized.

OBJECTIVE 2-4:

Achieve all performance-related 19% performance indicator goals in the Performance Indicator Report. Focus on performing basic skills well while pursuing efficient, cost-effective work processes.

Identify the barriers to excellence and resolve them. l xiil l

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .._. __ _ --.I

OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Priorities i

Goal 2: PERFORMANCE (Continued)

OBJECRVE 2-5:

Teamwork is evident by improved plant reliability, an effective emergency response organization, reduced number of human performance errors and effective self assessment..

OBJECVVE 2 6 Through the Utilities Services Alliance (USA) attain operating efficience and lower cost through e cooperative effort among several utilities. Initial focus is on sharing of personnel for outage supp. mmbined purchasing and contracting, common dosimetry reading, sharing of equipment, including test equipment, standardization of plant access and general employee training.

Goal 3: COSTS , j Supports: April 1995 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 2, Obj: 1,2 and 3, and Goal 6, Obj: 1 l I

Operate Fort Calhoun cost effectively to contribute to OPPD's " bottom line". Cost l consciousness is exhibited at all levels of the organization. l 1996 Priorities:

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

. Streamline work process to improve cost effectiveness.

• Implement Opportunity Review recommendations.

Objectives to support COSTS:

OBJECEVE 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.

I Goals Source: Lounsberry (Manager) xiv

Me 2A.. J.,w.-a- 4 .4 4.. M.- ,w-4 3 p g. A.hm -44...J z24M m.4.4.244 ..,A*_,4ei- .J4 A rd f.F,- +45e4 4-Ld4A& J,_4.--- -

di m. 4 i-i 4

x 9

4 5

3 t

L J

?

a

.I e

9 1

1 f,

i 3

'l j

B 1

I i

I I

a I

)

l 1

l i

i 1

l l

4 l

-~ _

a i

i I

I i

4 l

l a

l SAFE OPERAT ONS i

l Goal: A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and per-sonal initiative and open communication.

1

. a a a , e --am, . sen..am n m . m. --wa - n. 4. ~ su s .-~-s-a.a,e ->-m-au---aa ua a - >> a a m . m==. . - - . - - - - - ~ - - - - - ar.- --- ~--- .-w=.------s,

. I r

I I

4 I

4 l

1 _

l f

t e

I 1 i

i 5

4 i

1 h I i

? I i

i 1 I, t 1

e i

+

4 1

J l

i-i.

1 P

O s

I 1 1 4

1

+I-i Jt I 1

I

+

1 4

l 4

4 4

4 1

1

--- - - .- - + ---c -

r-. . ._m-.- .

• , Monthly Unit Capat@ty Factor i

.. . . . Year-to-Date Unit Capability Factor N

_. # 36-Month Unit Capability Factor

+ 1996 Fort Calhoun Goals GOOD INPo industry Goals Year 2000 100% .. _. _ _

f . ..

80% j, ,, 1 $ I ~~

d 5~ ~~5 '5' i 60%..

~

40% .

20%..

0%  ;  ;  ; ,l , ,  ;  ;

S U o 8 S  % E D $ $ Y O ,E a <

m 2 o 2 2 4 , y 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 available energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy generation (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage (refu-cling periods excluded).

The UCF for August 1996 was reported as 100.0%. The year-to-date UCF was 88.1%, the UCF for the last 12 months was 91.4%, and the 36-month average UCF was reported as 83.6% at the end of the month.

Energy losses for May and August 1995 are explained on page 30.

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

Energy losses for May 1996 are due to a reduction in power to 95% for Moderator Coefficient Testing. l Energy losses for June 1996 are due to a forced outage when the Anti-Rotation Device on Reactor Coolant Pump RC-3B-M failed.

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 87% and the industry current best quartile value (for the three-year period ending 12/94) is approximately 85%. The 1996 Fort Calhoun annual goal for this indicator is a minimum of 83.56%.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 16. For the month of August the FCS 1 Value was 14.71. This compares to the previous month's value of 14.71.

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

i

, , Mo7Fily unplanned capability Loss Factor l GOOD l

_a_ Year-T@ ate Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

% 12-Month Average Unplanned Capability Loss Factor y

% Fort Calhoun Goal (3.00%)

e_. Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (4.5%)

Industry Current Best Quartile 60% ~~-"

50%_I 40%..

30%..

20% .

0 [.__h [___,- i-- : b  ! ,

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l1996l UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR i 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 August 1996 was reported as 0.0%. Unplanned energy loss is )

defined as energy not produced as a result of unscheduled shutdowns, outage extensions, I or load reductions due to causes under plant management control. Energy losses are con- l sidered to be unplanned if they are not scheduled at least four weeks in advance. The year-to-date UCLF was 8.68%, the UCLF for the last 12 months was 5.79%, and the 36-month j average UCLF was reported as 6.4% at the end of the month.

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 3.0% and the industry current best quartile value is approximately 3.2% or lower. The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 3.0%.

l The maximum index point value for this indicator is 12. For the month of August the FCS Value was 5.82. This compares to the previous month's value of 5.82.

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

3 l

. e FCS Reactor Scr.m> P r 7,000 Horrs Critic:.I Yzr-to4) ate

+ FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical for last 36 months

._, Fort Celhoun Goal (0.0)

_e Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (1)

_e Industry Upper 10%(1 per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical) 3 2.

' U5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5' e -

= a 0  :  :  :\  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

E m y o 2

S o ,E S w

2 <

E i 2

E $

E.

ja 4

1996 s FCS Reactor Scrams -1996 4 ..

3 3.

2 2.-

U j y 1..

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,

, 3 92 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul /Wg Sep Oct Nov Dec I

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL The upper graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical (as defined in INPO's 12/93 publication " Detailed Descriptions of intemational Nuclear Power Plant Performance Indicators and Other Indicators") for Fort Calhoun Station. The lower graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams that occurred during each month for the last twelve months.

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

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

The maximum index point value for this indicatoris 8. For the month of August the FCS Value was 8.0. This compares to the previous month's value of 8.0.

Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs) i Accountability: Chase '

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

m Monthly High Prxcura SIfetyinjection System Unxilabihty vclue ,

1. Year-to-Date High Pressuse safety injection system Unavailability Value GOODj Fort Calhoun Goal (0403)

Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (042) V 022 ._  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

0415 0.01 .

l 0.005 _

C O O O O O O O O O O O O , , , . , , , , , , _ _ , , , , , , , , ,

1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec j1996l 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 August 1996 was 0.0. There were 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of planned unavailability, and 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability, 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 0.000041263.

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 August the FCS Value was 9. This compares to the previous month's value of 9.

Data Source: Skiles/Schaffer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Schaffer 5 1 Trend: Positive '

m Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater systern Unavailability x Year.to-Date AFW Unavailability

...o... Fort Calhoun Goal (0A1) 3 Year 2000 INPo industry coal (0425) 0 42 ..  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

0.018 ..

O D16 ..

0.014 .

0.012 ..

021 .. o.....o.....o.....o.....o.....o.....o.....o.....o.....o.....o.....o 0.008 .. o.co4ss 0.006 .. oco4s7 OD0356 0.004 .4.co2s ,

0.002 .. -

o o o o rf O  ; _

r , , , ,

sep oct 1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Nov Dec l1996 l l

AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM I 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. l The AFW System Unavailability Value for August 1996 was 0.00356. There were 5.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of planned and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability during the month. The year-to-date unavailability value was 0.00133 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.00269 at the end of the month.

There has been a total of 7.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 6.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability for the AFW system in 1996. The unplanned unavailability on FW-10 was due to a failed relay on HCV-1045B.

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

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 0.025.

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

Data Source: Skiles/Fritts (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Fritts Trend: Positive 6

m Monthly Emergency Ac Power Unavailability value x Year to-Date Emergency Ac Power unavailability Value 1996 Fort Calhoun coal (0.024) l Good l l e_. Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (0.025) y 0.14 .

0.12 _

0.1 __

0.08 __

0.06 ..

0.04 ..

^

0.02 .  :  :  : 0 0 E, ,

=*u ,

• u

=x x. ,

.x,

.x  ;

a t 9 t = a r *

• Ji o z 5 , u. s < s a 4 8, EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE j 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 August 1996 was 0.022. During the month, there were 33.4 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 un-availability for testing and repairs. The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value year-to-date was 0.011 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.016 at the end of the  !

month. l There has been a total of 142.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned i

unavailability for the emergency AC power system in 1996.

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

l The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 0.025. l The maximum index point value for this indicator is 9. For the month of August the FCS Value was 8.75. This compares to the previous month's value of 9. l Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Phelps/Ronning Trend: Positive i

7

i .

e MonthlyThermalPerformance g 4

, ,12-Month Average

+ Year-toDate Average MonthlyThermalPerformance i

o _ Fort Calhoun Goal (99.6%)

+ Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (99.5%)

hN]

100%..

E man GW- X m a  : NM Y-E ~* -

99% _

j

, 98% ' '

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

The thermal performance value for August 1996 was 99.81. The year-to-date average monthly thermal performance value was 99.7, at the end of the month. The average monthly value for the 12 months from September 1,1995, through August 31,1996, was 99.73%.

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

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 6. For the month of August the FCS Value was 5.19. This compares to the previous month's value of S.16.

Data Source: Phelps/Naser(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Gorence Trend: None 8

l m FueIReliabilRy(E-4)

+ Year 2000 INPO Industry Fuel Defect Reference (5 x 10 4 Microcuries/ Gram) l0000l o_ 1996 Goal (9/1/96 through 12/31/96) l E57.07 260..

217.6 220...

l 240 .

!$7 189 159.9 y l$ 7 121.9 8 120 .. 78.42 g 100. 62A1 75.52 73.4 m 80 - 51.37 55.38 b

" 20 g n T "" T T T T T T T , T T I .

& y 5 W ,5 i k E P  !

• 5 as z o u. 2 < z 4 g 4

l1993l FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR The FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR (FRI) for August 1996 was 257.07 X 10d microcuries/ gram.

The purpose of the FRI is to monitor industry progress in achieving and maintaining a high level of fuel integrity. An effective fuelintegrity and performance monitoring program provides a means to detect fuel failures and assest, the fuel failure number, physical condition, exposure, mechanism, and location.

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

The August FRI value of 257.07 X 10d microcuries/ gram indicated a slight increase, when compaired to the July FRI value of 217.6 X 10d microcuries/ gram. The latest Cycle 16 Coolant Activity Evaluation Update from the fuel vendor, Westinghouse, predicts 15 leaking fuel rods at core average power based on the lodine 131 and Xeon 133 Activity levels. This is an increase from the previous prediction of 10 leakers at core average power. The number of leakers increases if their rod power levels are lower than core average power. The previous prediction for leaking rods at lower power levels, between 40 to 50 leakers, has not changed because of indications that some of the existing defects increased in size form " tight" leakers to "open" leakers. Open defects are indicated by the higher than expected lodine 134 activity levels. The latest Cesium isotopic analysis indicate failures in twice-and-thrice bumed assemblies.

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 FRl Performance Indicator goal is to maintain a monthly FRI below 5.0 x 10d microcuries/ gram. A value larger than 5.0 x 104 microcuries/ gram indicates a high probability of reacto. 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 August the FCS Value was

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

Data Source: Guinn/Guliani Accountability: Chase /Stafford g Trend: Adverse

e SecondarySystem CPI o_12-Month Average l GOOD l

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

1A--  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

1.3 ._

i l 1

& 3 8 j ,li 1 2 o.

1. 8 i, 3 m z w s s z g 1996 SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY Criteria for calculating the Secondary System Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) are:

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

The CPI for August was 1.15. The 12-month average CPI value was 1.13 at the end of the month.

The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) was above the goal in July due to slightly higher than average sodium and chloride values. The six chemistry parameters that are used in the CPI calculation have been evaluated against the best industry standards. As a result of this comparison, condensate dissolved oxygen, feedwater copper, and blowdown chloride con-centrations have been targeted for reduction.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 6. For the month of August the FCS Vclue was 5.8. This compares to the previous month's value of 6.0.

Data Source: Spires /Reneaud (Manager / Source)

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

I g Monthly PersonnelRadiation F4posure

+ Cumulative Personnel Radiation Exposure j

+ FCs ooal138 person-REM 140__  :  :  :  : a e  :  :  :  :  :

130__

120..

110__

100__

90 __

[ 80 __

70 _

f60 .

50 __

40 __

30 .

20 __

10 __

07 Imum E ,

M M  : l  ; i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l 1996 l COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE 1

The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure for the year is set at 138.0 l person-REM. i l

The exposure for August 1996 was 3.679 person-Rem (ALNOR).

J The year-to-date exposure through the end of August was 50.371 person-Rem (ALNOR).

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal for collective radiation exposure is 120 person-rem per l year. The current industry best quartile is 145 person-rem per year. The yearly average for i Fort Calhoun Station for the three years from 9/93 through 8/96 was 119.065 person-rem per year.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 8. For the month of August the FCS  !

Value was 8. This compares to the previous month's value of 8.

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

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP54 11 I l

)

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

e - Year _to.Date Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried lGoool

_o__. Fort Calhoun Goal (1050 cu.ft.)

1100..

c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : e a 1000 900.

800.

700..

600.

$ 500 .

400 300_.

200.- 113.20 117.00

- '- 145.90 100.- 0.00 020 0.80 O  :  ; _ ,  ; ,  ; , ,  ;  ;  ;

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 VOLUME OF LOW. LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE ,

This indicator shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumulative  !

y:ar-to-date radioactive waste buried, the Fort Calhoun and INPO goals, and the approxi- I mate industry upper 10%. j Cu.Ft.  !

Amount of solid radwaste shipped off-site for processing during current month 0 Volume of solid radwaste buried during current month 0 )

Cumulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1996 145.9 Amount of solid radwaste in temporary storage 264.8 i

The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for the volume of solid radioactive waste (buried) is 600 cubic f:et. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 45 cubic meters (1,589 cubic feet) per year. The l industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 27.33 cubic meters (965.3 cubic feet) I p:r year.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 5. For the month of August the FCS Vclue was 5. This compares to the previous month's value of S.

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

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 54 12 l 1

I

e

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

+ FCS Year-End Goal (<0.50) l o Industry Current Best Quartile (.24)  :

j e Year 2000 INPO Industry Gaal(<0.40)

,_.1995 Industrial Safety Accident Rate (INPO Defination)

If i

2. j 1.5 g

~ ;; =

"0i!

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

$[ 'Ni Feb Mar Apr May T-June July Aug INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE ,

1 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 0.22 at the end of August 1996. The value for the 12 months from September 1,1995, through August 31,1996, was 0.44.

There were no restricted-time and no lost-time accidents in August 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 August the FCS Value was 4.58. This compares to the previous month's value of 4.62.

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Chase / Booth (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Bishop 13

?'.

I 4

l l  !

I 1

l I

! I i

! SAFE OPERAT ONS l

l l

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

?

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

1 14 ,

,.n.-_. . . - . . . . . - ..-..- _ .--- .--.- . ~ . . - - . . - - - - _ = - . . . . _ _ - - . - . .

'1 f .

4 1 .

d

. i 4

s. I t

j 1 i i a L

1 i r

I i.

s i 4 ,

i +

I 1 ,

2 i

i i, i  !

I .

e i

l I

l l

I t

l p

l- 1 i

1 l

1 i

l k

l 4

I f -

i

+ 199'6 Disatding Injury / Illness Frequency

-x 1995 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency

+ Average Rate (Last 12 Months) l GOOD l ,

_o 1996 Goal (030) l 2.

1E ..

l 1.6 .

1A__ N _,

1.2 .x, N g f. .

1 .' )

0.8 __

0.6 __ .

c  : c  : c c c c  : ^ M n OA .

0.2 __

0 - - >

e .  ;

O u o 8 $ N E N E b I O z ,% <

m o a 2 2 y 5 5 l1996l DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS 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.

l The disabling injury / illness frequency rate year-to-date was 0.45 at the end of August 1996.

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

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for the 12 months from September 1,1995, through August 31,1996, was 0.59.

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

- -th . 1996 Recordable injurydliness Frequency

% 1995 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency j 0000 l a_ Average Rate (Last 12 Months) l I

...o... Fort Calhoun Goal 7

^

1.75 .

1.5N A g...... QN -- ......o..... .......o.......o.......o........o.......o 1.25 ..

1..

0.75 .

0.5 .

0.25 0 '  ;

1 sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May July June Aug l1996l RECORDABLE IN]URY/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 personnelfrom 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 10 recordable injury / illness cases in 1996. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate year-to-date were 2.27 at the end of August 1996. There was 1 recordable injury / illness case reported for the month of August.

The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate for the 12 months from September 1, 1995, through August 31,1996, was 2.22.

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 i 16

m contamination Events (Monthly)

__ Contamination Events (YTD) 60 ..

50 ..

40 .

30 .. ,

i 20 20 ..

II 16 13 10 .. y n

Jan Feb M

Mar M

Apr N5 May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS 21,000 DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA This indicator shows the Personnel Contamination Events in the Clean Controlled Area for contaminations 11,000 disintegrations /minuta per probe area for the reporting month.

There were 5 contamination events in August 1996. There has been a total of 20 con-tamination events in 1996 through the end of August.

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Chase /Gebers l Trend: None SEP 15 & 54 17 i l

l

I l

g PersonnelErrors (t.ach Month) l J

_e Preventable (18.MonthTotals) e PersonnelError(18-MonthTotals) 20 .

15 ._

10 __

5 - -

c c c ^ -

0 , ,  ; ,

,E; ,

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July 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. l 1

In July 1996, there were no events which were subsequently reported as an LER. No LERs were categorized as Preventable or Personnel Error for the month of July. The total LERs for the year 1996 (through July 31,1996) 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

, , startup

. Shutdown p

m. Operations lg, 1

...o... Industry Average Trend no Ei i

o1--

.g .....a......o......a ..., ... ,.... ...; ... n...... ......

l ... e zo .

V t ;  ;

j..

l 92-2 92-3 92 4 93-1 93-2 93 3 93-4 94-1 94-2 94-3 944 95-1 Year-Quarter 3AFETY SYSTEM FAILURES This indicator I!!ustrates the number of NRC Safety System Failures as reported by the Nuclear Regulatory ,

Comrr'ission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual" Performance Indica- '

tors for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Rextors" report. I The following safety system failures occurred between the 2nd quarter of 1992 and the 1st quarter of 1995:

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

2nd Quarter 1993: A section of the piping configuration forthe 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 during multiple attempts. The failures were a result of differential expansion caused by a loop seal, excessive venting line back pressure, and cracked valve disks; 2) Calibration errors of the offsite power low signal relays could have prevented offsite power from tripping and the EDGs from starting in the required amount of time during a degraded voltage condition; 3) Both AFW puraps 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

i e

m FailuresI20 Demands

, , FailuresI50 Demands e Failuresl100 Demands l GOOD l

_ . Trigger ValuesI20 Demands

+ Trigger Valuesf50 Demands II

_ Trigger Values.100 Demands 8 . :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

7..

6 -

5  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

4 .

':Ma44444M6-4 m

& V o B z B o ,5 f a

N m

E

< s z

y 5

,a l1996l EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY This bar graph shows three monthly indicators pertaining to the number of failures that were reported during the last 20, 50, and 100 emergency diesel generator demands at the Fort Calhoun Station. Also shown are trigger values which correspond to a high level of confidence that a unit's diesel generators have obtained a reliability of greater than or equal to 95% when the failure values are below the corresponding trigger values. The Fort Calhoun 1996 goal is to have fewer failures than these trigger values.

The demands counted for this indicator include the respective number of starts and the respective number of load-runs for both Diesel Generators combined. The number of stari demands includes all valid and inadvertent starts, including all start-only demands and all start demands that are followed by load-run demands, whether by automatic or manual initiation. Load-run demands must follow successful starts and meet at least one l 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 i I

demand criteria in the Definitions Section of this report).

l l

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Skiles/Ronning l Trend: Positive due to performance better than goal.  ;

20

i i DG-1 Fallures/25 Demands e 'DG2 Failures /25 Demands { Good l 5~

V 4- c  : = = = = = = = = = a 3.

2.

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

0 8~ o o o o o o - o' ,

o .' o{ o o

@ U o z o

o 8 ,E $

m z 5

E D s

E $ 3 m

z ,

p 1996 DIESEL GENERATOR R.ELIABILITY (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. l 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 rero failures during the last year, and zero failures during the last 25 demands on the unit. Diesel Generator DG-2 has experienced zero failures during the last 25 demands on the unit.

1 l

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Skiles/Ronning Trend: Positive due to performance better than goal.

21

1 1

g DG1 UnreliabilifyValue e DG2 UnreliabilityValue

+ Station UnreliabilityValue h0000l 1996 Goal DD7 .. l 0.06 .-

OD5 - c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

" o;c: e one o.o g o , , , ,

OD2 __

OD1 _, , , , , ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, , ,

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May July t June Augus l1996l EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the likelihood that emergency AC power generators will respond to off-normal events or accidents. It also provides an indication of the effectiveness of maintenance, opera-tion and test practices in controlling generator unreliability. The last event occured on September 1,1995 I l

when the Field Flash Relay on DG-2 failed.

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

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

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

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

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

Emergency diesel generator unreliability is calculated as follows:

value per DG = SU + LU - (SU x LU) i l

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

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

22 1

i l

l -

1 l

A new tracking system was initiated in July / August. The new system is still in the process of sorting out the pertinent information. No new data for this PI will be available until the end of September.

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

l Target Completion Dates are established by the Emergent Work Committee. The goalis I 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 comple? ion of CRDs.

Data Source: Chase /Kermoade (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Short/Faulhaber Trend: None 23 ,

i l

l l

A new tracking system was initiated in July / August. The new system is still in the process of sorting out the pertinent information. No new data for this PI will be available until the end of September.

l NUMBER OF ON-LINE AND OUTAGE CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCIES l This indicator shows the total number of On-Line and Outage Control Room Deficiencies, and the number of overdue Control Room Deficiencies. l 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 /Kermoade (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Short/Faulhaber/ Herman ,

Trend: Needs increased Management Attention - Number of On-Line CRDs

<8 Overdue exceeds goal i 24 l

1 l

g Nghest Nbrthly hdtvdual Exposure (1995) l

, , Year-to-date l

+ Fort Calhoun Goal 1500mR 1500  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

1400.

1300.

1200.

1100.

1000_

l i

900.  !

800.

700. l 600.

500.

400. l 300. '

l 200.

i 100.-

0 E )

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

l MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE i

For the month of August 1996, and individual accumulated 290 mrem, which was the I highest individual exposure for the month.

From January 1996, through August 1996, an individual has accumulated a total of 697 mrem.

4 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.

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers j Trend: None  !

l 25

. l 1

m FG5 ClteifViolations (Monthly) a FCS Non-Cited Violations (Monthly) u FCS Cited Violations (12-Month Average) l l o_. FCS Non. Cited Violations (12-Month Average) l I m Region IV Cited Violations (12-Month Average for Region IV top quartile) 10 .  : -

- .. - - a

4. l, L

'% c  : a c o o M  ;

,b,M ,M ,

E , . .

o $ E 1 Y E $, E

.S 3 z $ ,E w s < s '

= 4 1996 VIOLATION TREND This indicator illustrates a 12-month trend for Fort Calhoun Station Cited Violations, Non-Cited Violations and Cited Violations for the Top Quartile plants in Region IV. Additionally, ,

the Fort Calhoun Station cited and non-cited violations for the past 12 months will be )

illustrated monthly. The 12-month trend for the Region IV top quartile lags 2-3 months behind the Fort Calhoun Station trend. This lag is necessary to compile information on other Region IV plants.

The following inspections were completed during August 1996:

IER No. Title 96-07 Resident Monthly To date, OPPD has received nine violations for inspections conducted in 1996.

Levellli Violations 1 LevelIV Violations 4 Non-Cited Violations _4_

Total 9 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 28

g NRC Significant Events

,- Industry Average Trend l GOOD l 1 a 1 _- 37 0.5 .- o o 0 ,

= ,

= ,

r -

r -

r -

92 93 94 95-1 95-2 95-3 95-4 96-1 96-2 96-3 96-4 l Year -Quarter l INPO Significant Events (SEs) 000 1F 22 1 1 F ,

92 93 94 95-1 95-2 95-3 95-4 96-1 96-2 96-3 96 4 l Year-Quarter l SIGNIFICANT EVENTS 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 Nuclear Power Reactors' report dated June 30,1995):

3rd Quarter 1992: The failure of a Pressurizer Code Safety Valve to reseat initiated a LOCA with the potential to degrade the reactor coolant pressure boundary.

4th Quarter 1994: A potential accident scenario invoMr.3 a large break LOCA or a main steam line break inside containment could result in the iriceerability of both control room A.C. units.

l 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. l 3rd Quarter 1992: Safety Valve malfunction (RC-142). I ist 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 ist 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.

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

Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission & INPO Accountability: Chase Trend: Posnive 27

Missed STs Resulting in LERs 3 .. GOOD l

Y 2..

1 1.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l - l  ;

i i

l l 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 August 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 GO & 61 28

i i l

4 l

i PERFORMANCE i

I ,

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

29

L+.m.Q.sa,.mmes.h4n_m.-4-Jim,dh.pM,a Ag p a maux m m.m am A Im .4. L4J.4.au.a m Wes.he om gps 3e.is. hhweso, . sw ar.e A.futhin w4 m,.m.a (1. p er p wm r_454 m gael shm 44 Jw.um m a 5 da che s.msemasa w ar m e

j. .

4 4

t 4

4 h

5.

,I .

1, J .

j 't

1 1

1 1

1 i.

e.

i ,

4 I i l s

?

! i I

I >

I p

I I '

I a

! i i

i I i 1 i

f i

8

.[

l l

d i

i i'

I I

a i

i i

I ll l

l'

I k

l Net Generation (10,000 MWh) l 35.08 34.65 34.84 34.81 34.29 33.86 30 .

4 f

z se RCP Outage h 15.16 e

10 .

0 i i i i i i i i , i i i a t $ g e g - g > e b y

$ o z o 4 w E < E E 4 g I #

1996 ,

j l STATION NET GENERATION During the month of August 1996, a net total of 348,115.t MWh was generated by the Fort Calhoun Station. Cumulative net generation for Cycle 16 was 5,100,563.8 MWh at the end of the month.

Energy losses for June 1996 were attributed to a failure of the Anti-Rotation Device (ARD) associated with Reactor Coolant Pump Motor RC-3B. l Energy losses for March 1996 were attributed to (1) a planned mini-outage, and (2) con-denser tube leakage repair.

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

l l

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

4

, , Forced Outage Rate (Monthly)

+ Forced Outage Rate (12 Months) l 0000 l

_o 1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (1.4%)

50%.. V _

45%..

40%..

35%-

30%..

25%..

20% ..

15%..

10% ..

5%._ s .its T e :m

q;

" '" 087% c 5 5 5C "

I _N ';"/ -

"- 3 0% n , r-

~

93 95 Oct Dec Feb Apr June August 1996 FORCED OUTAGE RATE The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 4.52% for the twelve months from Sep-tember 1,1995, through August 31,1996. The 1996 year-to-date FOR was 6.9% 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

l i

- i _i MontMy Unit Capacity Factor

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

_s 36-Month Average Unit Capacity Factor { M D]

" 1996 FCS Goal (81.49%)

110%..

g 7-+..........,a....,,'**---

100%_._ - - -

^

90% .. , ,

0 2 -

-p y 80%. 7

_ = = t  :

70%. 8" ' '

• 60%_.

50%.

40%_.

30%..

20% .

10%.

0% i

& V o 2

,E 1 W E

1. E ,$ ]

m o z 5 w s s z p 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 97.89%, and the Unit Capacity Factor for the last 36 months was 84.67%. The 1996 Fort Calhoun annual goal for this indicator is 82.00%. l The year-to-date value is 91.80%. l l

Energy losses are explained on Page 2. I l

l The Unit Capacity Factor is computed as follows: )I i

Net Electrical Enerav Generated (MWH) l Maximum Dependable Capacity (MWe) X Gross Hours in the Reporting Period )

l l

Data Source: Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: None 32  !

l

, , Monthly EAF

__e_ Y.;cr-to-Date Average Monthly EAF ,

+ 12 Month Average EAF w Industry Median Value (76.7%for a 3. Year Average) 100% -- "j% _

p g _ _

e s.:s A $ N 80%. ,, , , g

_ x x x x x x x x x x x x 60%.."O 40% _.

20%..

0% i i i . .

92 94 Sep Nov Jan Mar May July 1996 EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF), the year-to-date average monthly EAF, and the year-end average monthly EAF for the previous three years.

The EAF for August 1996 was reported as 95.34%. The year-to-date monthly average EAF was 85.40% at the end of the month.

The Fort Calhoun average monthly EAF for the past three years is 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

l m Safety System Actuations (INPo Definition)

FCS Goal (0)

+ Industry Upper 10 Percentile (0) 3 2.

1 1 1..

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' ' '

: l 92 94 oct Dec Feb Apr June August 95 96 4

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(INPO DEFINITION) i I

There were no INPO unplanned safety system actuations during the month of July 1996. '

There was one unplanned safety system actuation during the month of August 1995. It ,

occurred on August 24,1995, when the plant was tripped during a test of a backup auto- l matic 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 j which initiated a SGIS Safeguards signal. As a result, the MSIVs closed which caused a j simultaneous turbine and reactor trip.  !

l l

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

I i

l Dr.ta Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports Accountability: Skiles/Foley/Ronning Trend: Positive i

34 I

J

e safety Systern Actuations (NRC~DelT6Tfion)

, , Fcs coal (0)  ;

+ CriticalHours 12-Month Running Total ssAs (NRc Definition) 10 _ -_800

..700

...... . I 8.. **

__600 )

.I >

ii __500 g 6__ g

< 8 E -.400 x 4

i 3

• 4- __300 j

{m __200 I I

__100 0 4 ,

-l ;l .

: _ : : _ :: : J,

O l

92 9394 95 JAsONDJ FMAMJ JAsoNDJFMAMJJA 9 3 (1995l UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(NRC DEFINITION)

This indicator shows the number of unplanned safety system actuations (SSAs), which includes the High and Low Pressure Safety injection Systems, the Safety injection Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC classification of SSAs includes actua-tions when major equipment is operated and when the logic systems for these safety systems are challenged.

An unplanned safety system actuation occurred in December 1993 when the main turbine and reactor tripped during Electro-Hydraulic Control pump start testing. Also, there was 1 an unplanned SSA during the month of February 1994 when supervisory relay 86B/CPHSS l failed, which resulted in a concurrent turbine and reactor trip.

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

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

Accountability: Skiles/Foley/Ronning Trend: None  :

35 l

l

\

l l

r m Gross Heat Rate

+ Year 4o-Date Gross Heat Rate lGoOol e Fort Calhoun Goal 10.75 ..

37 4

+

10.5 .

)

e223 10.25 .,, ,, c2s  %, .,

$ } c c A c ^

. I 10 j h .

u 9.75 -

9.5 ..

a 9.25 92 94 Sep Nov Jan Mar May July 1996 l

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

The gross heat rate for Fort Calhoun Station was 10,401 for the month of August 1996.

The 1996 year-to-date GHR was 10,188 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

+ ThermaTUUtput o_. Fort Calhoun 1495 MW Goal 4

+ Tech Spec 1500 MW Limit I

\

1500 ,  ;;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; - ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;%

i i

1499_

1498__

1497.

1496 .-

.c 1495 .e== = = = = ==== = = cccc e====, b=c = = 7 1494__

1493.

1492..

- > ' - ' =

1491 - 1 - i i - '

;a ; i i i - > < 1 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 1

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

l l

1 i

Data Source: Guinn/Willett (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Short i Trend: None l 37 I

+ Number of Equipment Forced Outages (Monthly)

+ Equiprnent Forced Outage Rateli,000 CriticalHrs.(12 Month Interval) 5D]

,, ,_ Fort Calhoun Year-End Goals (0.2) qg 2.

1..

C  : ^

-  :  :  :  :  :  : 3 0 - - -

93 04 95 Jan Fe b Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS l

i The equipment forced outage rate per 1,000 critical hours for the 12 months from Sep- i t::mber 1,1995, through August 31,1996, was 0.365. The year-to-date rate per 1,000 critical hours for the months from January 1996 through August 1996 was 0.378.

l An equipment forced outage occured during the month of June due to the failure of the Anti-Rotation Device associated with RC-3B-M. l An equipment forced outage occured at the end of the March due to condenser tube I:akage.

An equipment forced outage also occurred on February 20,1995, when the plant experi-enced a problem with a control element assembly motor drive and a related small leak of reactor coolant.  !

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

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

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

Accontability: Chase /Skiles Trend: Needs increased Management Attention 38

e e

g -+ Carr,gniert Categcnes 18.

+

.___Tcu cdegories

/ [

.h l' ~ii A \A' '

lM e.

2

: m - - -

s--

0 A M J J A S O N D J-Se F M A M J J A A gelN o rmal Us e 68.2%

P rocedure Error 19%

Initial ins tallatio n 19%

Testing A ction M a n uf a c turing Defect Maintenance 18% 1 A ctio n Other Devices 14A% 12.8 %

EngineeringIDesign 18%

COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

The top chart illustrates the number of component categories, application categories and total categories in which the Fort Calhoun Station has significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than the industry failure rates during the past 18-month Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) reporting period (from November 1994 through April 1996). Fort Calhoun Sta-tion 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 higher failure rate in 7 of the 174 application categories (main steam stop valves, auxiliary / emergency feedwater pumps, con-

trol element drive motors, etc.) during the past 18-month CFAR period.

The pie chart depicts the breakdown by INPO cause categories (see the " Definitions" section of this report for descriptions of these categories) for the 55 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 84 failure reports were submitted to INPO with discovery dates within the 18-month CFAR period.

Data Source: Phelps/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/ Dowdy

Trend

None 39

e F

e

+ Com ponents with m ore than One Failure Com ponents with m ore than Two Failures f  !

16 . . qy to 10 .

7 7 6 6 6 6 f f

6. 4

% 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 y

0 0 f' Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June J uly August 1996 REPEAT FAILURES The Repeat Failures Indicator (formerly called the " Maintenance Effectiveness Performance Indicator") was d;veloped in response to guidelines set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis l and Evaluation of Operational Data (NRC/AEOD). The NRC requirement for a Maintenance Effectiveness Performewe Indicator has been discontinued, but station management considers it useful to continue to treu repeWe component failures using the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS).

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

During the last 18-month CFAR period, there were 10 NPRDS components with more than one failure.

Three out of these 10 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 th3 NPRDS reportable components with more than one failure are listed below:

• EE-8J 125VDC/120VAC StaticInverter

• IA-HCV-2987-BP Air Intensifier for HPSI Pump SI-2C Discharge Isolation Valve

(> 2 Failures)

= 1A-HCV-2918-BP Air intensifier for HPSI Attemate Header isolationValve.

• RC-10-08 Control Element Drive Mechanism a RC-3D-M Reactor Coolant Pump Motor i

• V/P-402C Valve Positioner for Cont. Cooling Coil VA-8A CCW Outlet Valve l V/P-403C (> Two Failures) Valve Positioner for Cont. Cooling coil VA-8B CCW Outlet Valve

• FW-56 Auxiliary Feedwater Pump FW-56 Diesel Engine

• HCV-1106-0 Valve Operator for SG RC-28 Feed Regulation Bypass Valve

• YE 116A QSPDS Heated Junction Thermocouple Probe for Reactor Vessel RC-1 l

D:ta Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Chase Trend: None l

40

CHEMISTRY ACTION LEVELS EXCEEDED j ,mem Event Osys + Average Event Osys + LM 6.

5.

2

$ 4.

l 8 3.

1 p -

.2. -

, e , , 8, , , ,

Ig a, ,

a s & s s a &  %

MONTH CHEMISTRY ACTION LEVELS EXCEEDED - EVENT DAYS i

The Chemistry Action Levels Exceeded indicator tracks the number of days in which chemistry parameters exceeded a corresponding action level for the reporting month, as well as a 12-month average of days an action level is exceeded. The parameter action levels are delineated in Chem-istry procedure CH-AD-0003, Plant System Chemical Limits and Corrective Actions.

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

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

The number of event days can exceed the number of days in a month since each event is counted

separately and there can be multiple events per day.

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

Historical data is used to calculate the monthly average event days. The 12-month average was calculated by dividing the number of event days by the number of preceding months, until twe!ve 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 ,

y i

1 7.00 6.00 Goal 5.00 l

2 4.00 '

8

} 3.00 2.00 1.00 E j 0.00 E Oct Dec Feb Apr June August 1996 i

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

The Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit was 0.00% for the month of Au-gust 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 Data Source: Chase / Spires (Manager / Source)

Accountability; Spires Trend: None 42

O I

i W

1 i

l l

l l

l e

f i

d I

i

(

i i

I h

E i

f i

l'-

5

}

i i

I l

i .

l i

)

l i

i COST i

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

1 43

l 8  ;

O I.

1 i a  !

f 1 f

I l

t-I I

i I

I I

i-4 1

4 l

1 l

4 1

i

, + Actual Revised Budget

.. originalBudget >

Plan 4.00 . .

3.75 .

3.50 ._

Z 3.25 .

{

!. 2 2.50 -

2.25 .

2h0 , ; ,

,  ; ,  ; ,  ;  ;  ;  ; , , , , l ,  ;

D91 D92 D93 D94 D95 J96 F M A M J J A s o N D D96 D97 D98 099 Months CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR l

The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun Station.

The cents per kilowatt hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per kilowatt hour on a 12-month rolling average for the current year. The basis for the budget curve is the approved 1995 and 1996 revised budgets. The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating Report.

The Decembdr 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 Nucleer Fuels.

The 12-month rolling average unit price (period of June,1995 through July,1996) aver-aged above the budget due to 12-month rolling generation not meeting the budget expec-tations, while 12-month rolling expenses met the budget expectations. The 12-month rolling average (06/95 through 07/96) is 2.81 cents per kilowatt hour. The year-to-date average is trending negatively.

Cents per KWH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee Budget Y-T-D 2.79 2.84 2.85 2.81 2.82 2.76 2.73 2.74 2.19 2.95 3.06 3.00 Actual Y-T-D 2.91 2.77 2.96 2.94 2.83 2.98 2.91 Data Source: Lounsberry/Jamieson (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Lounsberry Trend: Needs Management Attention 44

~

1 1

+ Spare Parts inventoryValue ($ Minion) 16.30 ..

16.20 !.

16.10 ..

16.00 _

, 15.90 ._

Q o 15.80 ..

E I 15.70 .

15.60 .. -

15.50 __

15,40 ..

15.30  ;

. . . 1 . i Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July August 1996 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of August 1996 was reported as $16,608,057.

Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Willrett/McCormick l Trend: None I 45 1

r i'

i

! i

l l ,

l DIVISION AND .

l i

DEPARTMENT .

l i

PERFORMANCE l lNDICATORS i

i f

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

i 46

e corrective Maintenance m Preventive Maintenance e Non4orrective/Plantimprovements . + Fort Calhoun Goal

~

777 834 752 759 830 590 870 780 771 782 720 1 0 l cn . .

2 o

u. 2

. 4 2

. ., m ya 4

s f93] [ Non& age Maintenance Work Order Backlog l l1996l g Total MWOs j Total MWOs 4

Riorty Riorty Riorty Riorty Riorty

[ 1 2 3 4 5 i

MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOG l This indicator shows the backlog of non-outage Maintenance Work Orders remaining open at the

end of the reporting month. It also includes a breakdown by maintenance classification and

! priority. The 1996 goai for this indicator is 400 non-outage corrective maintenance MWOs. The current backlog of corrective MWOs is 526. 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 Concems 21 days Priority 4 Routine Corrective 00 days Priority 5 Non-Essential 180 days

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

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: Adverse SEP 36 47

4 1

i a

No data as of 09/10/96 RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total com-pleted non-outage maintenance. The ratio was 80.8% for the month of July 1996.

1 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) I Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: Adverse SEP 41 & 44 48 l 1

i

I e

e Rework as identined by Craft I

4_ Fort Calhoun Goal (<3%)

t 5% .- 4.8 s j 5%--

I 4% . a.s s

}o 4 %. s .7%

{ .a s a.a s 25 3%_. _

)3%._

w o

• ~~

$ 18% 18%

j tes y 2% td%

E 1% _

1%._

n */. i i  ; i i , , .

, i i

sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July August l1906l l

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. l This indicator is calculated from the 15th of July to the 15th of August, due to the delay in closing open MWOs at the end of each month.  !

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

)

)

1 Data Source: Faulhaber/Schmitz (Manager / Source) i Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber t Trend: None

g Maintenance overtime j

+ 12-Month Average Maintenance Overtime gooo

__o Fort calhoun "On_Line" Goal (10%) l 30% ..

25% _.

20%.

15% .. l l

10%

O i , i i

, , , i ,

i F

Pl 1 MAINTENANCE OVERTIME The Maintenance Overtime Indicator monitors the ability to perform the desired mainte-nance activities with the allotted resources.

l The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 7.0% for the month of August 1996. The 12-month average percentage of overtime hours with re- ,

spect to normal hours was reported as 10.0 % at the end of the month.

l 1

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

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

! Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None 50 l

l

l .

l Human Performance CRs(Maintenance) 20 ..

I.

18 .

16 ..

14 ..

1 l c 12 .. i 10 .. ,

5 2 \

j 8.

I I I I I I i Feb Mar Apr May June July August l

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 -

1 A

=

g% Scheduled Activities Completed 0% Emergent Activities l

i 100.0% ..

8.1% 83. 5 80.G 90.0% __

l 80.r4 _

73.2%

77.7%

70.0% -

f 1

60.0% _ _

l j so.r4 _ 1 i

j . 40.0% -.

i 30.0% -- 3.8%

0.7% 9.2% 0.1% 8.6%

3- 20.r4 -

j l 10.0% __ l

}

O.r4 -  ; -; i  :  %

i. Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 i

l DAILY SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE PERCENT OF SCHEDULED ACTIVITIES COMPLETED This indicator shows the percent of Integrated Plant Schedule activities completed on

schedule. All work groups and activities are included.

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

. The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for completed scheduled maintenance activities is j 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 u.--

5 m % of Hours the in-Line Chemistry instruments are Inoperable GOOD o 1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (10%) i 26% ..

24%_.

Iki  :

9 .

is'. , , ,

,m,E,E,E,B, ,

E,E,

& E E 2 ,E 1 W E # 8 ,i 3 m O z o a 2 4 2 4 p l1996l IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRtIMENTS OUT-OF-SERVICE i

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

At the end of August 1996, the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instru-ments were inoperable was 5.52%. The following instruments were out of service during the month:

Feedheater No. 6 Dissolved Oxygen, YE-6783 Condensate Pump Discharge Dissolved Oxygen, YE-6776 B Steam Generator pH, pHe-6772B PASS sequences which were previously out of service have been retumed to service.

Three instruments are out of service at month's end-  :

i

1. Feedheater No. 6 Dissolved Oxygen I

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

Data Source: Chase /Reneaud (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Skiles Trend: None 53

m Wu te Produced Each Month (Kilogr;m';) '

Monthly Average Waste Produced During the last 12 Months (Kilograms) e_, Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal (150 kilograms) w_. Federal & state Monthly Limit (Max, of 1,000 kg) x x x x  : x x y ,: x 1000 x x 800 .

1 1 i l

, 600..

E 400..

l 200..

e = = = = = = c = = = a

= =  ; =  :  :

0: _  :

t 1 W E @  ! 3  %

& o B

z E ,E w s < s a g e o z l

< 1 l_1995 HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED This indicator shows the total amount of hazardous waste produced by the Fort Calhoun Station each month, the monthly average goal and the monthly average total for hazard-ous waste produced during the last 12 months. This hazardous waste consists of non-halogenated hazardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous waste produced.

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

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

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

Data Source: Chase /Shubert (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Spires Trend: Positive 54

c e Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area ]

_o__ Fort Calhoun Goal (10%)

V 10% -- c = = = = = = = = = = a i

9% -

1 8% i ,. .i . j _. ...,_. _;_ __; ._ ._p_ __; . . . __t . _ i  ;

t 5 8 i W E # E 3  %

.& o ,5 w <

z a s s z 4 g PN CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA This indicator shows the percentage of the Radiologically Controlled Area that is contami-nated based on the total square footage. The 1996 monthly non-outage goal is a maxi-mum of 10.0% contaminated RCA.

At the end of August 96, the percentage of the total square footage of the RCA that was i contaminated was 8.4%. l l

Data Source: Chase /Gundal(Manager / Source) l Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP54 l

55  !

l I

e

Identified PRWPs(YTD)

Fort Calhoun Goal (<15) 16

. = = = = = = = = = = =

14 .

12 .

10 .

8.

6.

4.

2.

0 0

'/

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

RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM The Radiological Work Practices Program Indicator shows the number of Poor Radiologi- 1 I cal Work Practices (PRWPs) which were identified during the reporting month.

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

l I

During the month of August 1996, there was 1 PRWP identified.

There have been 5 PRWPs in 1996.

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

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 52 .

l 56

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

i

}

g SystemFaNures goog l4

O Non-System Failures 30 . .  ;

i 28  !

Y j 25

! 2,  ;

20 .., , e i

1 15 .. u .

10 ._

5' . 4 2 2 2 2 0  ;  ; ,  ;  ;  ;  ;

sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July August

, LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)

J l 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 August 1996, there were 22 loggable/ reportable incidents identified.

System failures accounted for 69% of the loggable/ reportable incidents. Due to the in-cicment weather conditions during the reporting month,56% of the system failures were  ;

environmental. The 6 non-system failures included 2 lost / unattended security badges,1 security force error, 2 access control errors (tailgating and failure to control visitors), .and 1 vital area door found unsecure due to 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 Treg: None SEP 58

• \

i

, , Temporary Modifications >1-cycle old (RFO required for removal) )

e Temporary Modifications >6 months old (Removable on. fine) 4

+ Fcrt Calhoun Goals for >1-cycle and >6 months old 7 .. , ,

6..

5_. ,

4.-

3..

2 ., , , , , ,

' * " ,E, oT

a a

a b & b A 2 5  % i f 4 b 4

1996 l

TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS This indicator provides information on the number of temporary modifications greater than one fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage (RFO) for removal and the number of temporary modi-fications removable on-line that are greater than six months old. The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goals for this indicator are zero. ,

l There are currently no temporary modifications that are greater than one-fuel cycle old requinng  !

I a refueling outage to remove. At the end of August 1996, there was 1 temporary modification installed that was greater than six months old that could have been removed on-line.

Temporary Modification, TM 96-011, PIC-827 Configuration per Technical Requirements, was installed 02/27/96 and was still installed in the plant at the end of August 1996. TM 96-011 has since been closed out using a construction work order.

I At the end of August 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 i total of 16 temporary modifications have been installed.

Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source)

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

, , Total Modification Packages Open

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

90 ..

80 . 73 7s 7s 7s 78 70 .. . *d _h n-- 7 o

__#_o - - - -

a 60 . ,,

50 . __

40 ..

30 .

20 ..

10 .

O i , - -

- i -

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

Reporting l Cateoorv '93 '94 '95 '96 9

'9Z '98 Month Form FC-1133 Backlog /In Progress 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 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 D: sign Engr. Update Backlog /In Progress 1 2 7 1 0 0 11 Totals 5 2 16 31 5 17 76 (outage + online) (3+2) (0+2) (7+9) (20+11) (0+5) (17+0) (47+29)

At the end of August 1996,12 modification requests have been issued this year and 3 modification requests have been cancelled. The Nuclear Projects Review Committee (NPRC) has conducted 42 backlog modification request reviews this year. The Nuclear Projects Committee (NPC) has completed 7 breklog modification request reviews this y:ar.

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

Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Scofield/Lounsberry (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Scofield/Jaworski Trend: None 60

er 80 - EARS Requiring Engineering Closeout - Not in Closeout )

60 -- g sE O DEN 40 .

_ _ )

20 __-

0 -

,0, ,m,m,  ; ;O,o:a ,-  :

- -  ; l June July Aug June July Aug June July Aug Jun Jul Aug 0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-12 Months >12 Months i

~ "E gineering Response g Closeout (sE) 30 - . , _ _

20 ..

10 I I '

0 - - > '

Priority 0 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6 40 EARS en 30 Owrdue 14 E A R s sched ule R epe nses 74 EARS Resolved 18.8%

a nd in 82.4 %

R e q uiring Respense Clo s so ut l 84.7% 15.2 %

I 1

14 ontdve cie se..is 29.3%

l l

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

l Total EAR breakdown is as follows:

EARS opened during the month 12 EARS closed during the month 13 l

Total EARS open at the end of the month 92 Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 62 61  ;

l l

e 6

87 12 5 CLO SEOuT DEN *"

• C

• 12

-6 Months ECN Status -Overall Backlog g Backlogged O Received g Completed o.: nths 250. ~

m2 #2 "'

,, ,,3 22 150 - r 55 3-s Month dose '# 8'

• • 2s n :2 '

So -

50 .

Mar ds3, Apr

$s May a

June July August m

>s Months 4s%

Design Engineering 360 . 12 Mo hs 38 60 .

System Engineering 250.. ,,, 25.  ;

W 4 Monbs a l l,... l 1 1

': b Feb l

Mar Apr c

May 1; ly,g,h.

June July M o nt ha y

Procurement / Construction 250.

,_ Months 79%

150. . , , 128 52 ,,,

[

wnths s s

g 3, g g g gy 9% 13%

< s '

, <

Drafting / Closeout ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Skiles Trend: None SEP 62 62

o l

l

[

7 153 gg ,

70  !

FC TYP E P rio rity 10 7

Y l 1 '4 .[ g l k j_ ,,,  ;

P rio rity ' 2 7-y , g j i

s: 3 SR PE Total Open ECNs = 526 **

Total Open ECNs = 548 l

O DEN . Closecut or Draft 6ng Not Cortplate 23 26 j

3 Maintenance / Construction /Procurarnent. Work Not Complete P rio rity P rio rity 6&E 22 5 SystemEng6neering Response, Confirmation Not Cortplete i

5 DEN . Eng6neering Not Cornp6ete 15 % #%

j Mar-94 A pr-96 y J ul-96 A ug-SE g f

! l

! 350' 38 79 1 309 34 30s 303 287 298 P rio rlty P rio rity 61 2 42 ESS 22 2 57 8 i 250 - 13 % 2s%

8 8 I

Mar-96 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 P ',', Y Substitute Replacemert item EDes Open .,s i

l 100. 2

) e4 Priority

80 . ,, ,, 7

,,

74 to 1L2

" to F M 60 - to a  :

i 4C - as a e 0

=; - ..

if 8

a a e  : n k P 'I'*Y M ,,

Priortty Document Change ECNs Open sas 3g, I

so% m i ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN i

Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Managar Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 62 >

1 63 I

. _ . \

l O Admiriistrative Control Problem g Licensed Operator Error g other Personnel Error g Maintenance Problem O Design / Construction / Installation / Fabrication Problem g Equipment Failures 2.

1. . . . . .

0 1.  :

1, , ,

June Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May July N N LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN I

This indicator shows the LERs by event date broken down by Root Cause Code for each of the past twelve months from August 1,1995, through July 31,1996. To be consistent with the Preventable / Personnel Error LERs indicator, this indicator is reported by the LER ovent date, as opposed to the LER report date. 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. l l

There were no events in July 1996 that resulted in an LER.  !

Data Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase l Trend: None 1 64

O Total Requalification TrTaing Hours a simulator Trmining Hours a Non-Requalification Training Hours a Number of Exam Failures ,

e .. --

34 34 I 35 - 32.5 33 32 30 __

l 25 -.

20 --

7 16 54 4 14 4 15 - ,

10 j 8 7.5 8

.5 6 6 5 5 4

5 3 1 1 0 0 0-_ + _p. I i - i i i j

Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle 95 3 95 4 95-5 95-6 96 1 96-2 964 96-5

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

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

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

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

Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 65

4 g SROExams Administered O sROExams Passed O RoExams Administered g RoExams Passed 30 _

25 .

.l 20 _

4 15 _

10 _

5..

0 1 . , . . , ,

& V B 2 i

• E & a b  %

e o z o , m a < z 4 g 4

fs'9] 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 intemally adminis-tered quizzes and exams are used to plot the SRO and RO candidates' monthly progress.

During the month of August 1996, there were O RO and 28 SRO exams given.

Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani l Trend: None SEP 68 66 l l

l l

l

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

[ .

, g Heady to Oose j g Cosed j + Total CRs j -+ open 1600

) 1400.

I 1200.

1000.

i 1-Wr 15%r 29&r 12-Apr 26 Apr 10 May 24-hy Jun-96 Aug-96 i

l t

l

! CONDITION REPORTS BY LEVEL )

l This indicator shows the total number of Condition Reports which are Closed, Ready to l Close, Open and the Total Number of Condition Reports to date.

l Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Total i Open 17 7 82 693 51 39 894

closed 5 0 36 323 213 48 625 i

! 191 Condition Reports are " READY" to "CLOSE".

l At the end of August,1996 there were 147 "OPEN" incident Reports, of which,32 were l Significant.

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

i

! Data Source: Tesar/Burggraf (Manager / Source)

) Accountability: Andrews/Gambhir/Patterson Trend : None l

1 67 I I

l

4 O MWWO a wnwwrk 1a00.

900 ,

800 . MWO HOLDS g, System Ranner Engineering

) ggg 600. 7%

. ECNs 200 .

Parts 100 . 71 %

0- -

1 i MyG6 oknG6 .k M G Ages j

1 I

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 I

. 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 4

68

li. .'ll lll

>i  !

guEi2 TAD r ca 1

9y h CT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1

0 1

1 1

2 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e ct 9ci s noa l

,6 e p

duS n o 31 e 8

8 t

au 07r ,

br dRo r f

a ah _ "

ic l

ie t :

y:

aem y f sua S

P p en E s5 oe!- ,

lic .

r ine og C I

"!=

r i NSS t

o On ui d A L

okk t t c U! .

nl ee i

i l haa eg S 7 e ss t o O R E -

//

BS R .e s r V V e

ow ue f uSo Sh (

CE I s

g a e Ew y RC "ie. !u a 1 hr l i

cAE " 9 egn nDs 9 t l 6

r i n

g s' t h eLS 1

i e O Og e 7 L E s u

( uo , Ogg t M s R PN as1~$. , a al at a t '

a g i t eR G " FTL oha g

e n e ts u f uOI r is P

a s s t g s o s t eJN l

cMM hoo j r

o n EE e

r aho f i u5g

" enn e

/ r a t

vp r g CE " dt t c S ul hh ts de O TRI o e S u a aj o ,

t r

c e

t el e c l

. p ts uS aT N t

EisI~$.

e s

n a

t u

) r g A G "

s o w R j

eh ci

)eTU ED  ;

p e

o t c sh S P ea $E r

t c

o ar A '

me R -

pl ni r e

t t eh M

E 6: $: " .

de bs N ,

y c T E L33 Ap o a g

u e "?: -l_ " .

S uo -

6 E s f _

9 P t 2t h 3 ,3 e 1 .

lll1 , lll1j jl 1 j f lj l l;

9

-+- Baselme Schedule for PRC Approval

--E Projected /ActualScheduleforPRC Approval

- - Foal Design Pkg iss ued (2 FD DCP lasued Pro r to 05/0Y95)

Total M odif cate n Packages (22)(11 Added After 05/0T95) 9 ,,

E 8. _-

"7. <

12

6. <l g,lj s . ~~~(

=e MI4-35a 3. --- . _ _ ~ --c, b: /- J ip2  : : : : : -

$1 a

0:

5 9

f$$$ f$ f$

- N 5 5 a n 5 $$f V W 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-t blished June 16,1995) and the current schedule.

(

The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages which were identified prior to May 1,1995, PRC approved by March 22,1996. 11 Modifications added after May 1, 1995, not included.

August 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 1

70

s MODS ADDED TO 96 REFUELING OUTAGE AFTER FREEZE DATE (05/01/96) o .Eg l (a 9/9/96 .

4 * '

s/2cm O g!  !

$ $ "" ~

k 7/11/96. ,

[h*l*lth *h*h*l g 6/21/96 . ,

6/1/96 95- 96- 95 95- 96- 95- 95- 96- 95 95 025 001 023 011 002 013 022 008 007 020 MODIFlCATION NUMBER leunenconem enemncunem l 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 pa:kages PRC approved by their target date.

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

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski

( Trend: None SEP 31 l

71 l

b

+ Baseline schedule for PRc Approval Total Modrfication Packages (10)(4 Added After 05/01/95) 6 ,

5._

l4-- -

0

__f:::::

5, 3 ._

g E

]2 .

2 1  : ::::::.

O  ;; ; ,....  ;;.;;;;i;; .,; . i, 5

l$@

• 5 lE $

S E R E

E S

E 5

E S

S 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, l 1995) and the current schedule. This information is taken from the Modification Variation Report produced by Design Engineering Nuclear. j 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.

l August 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 33 72 l

O k

ACT ON PLANS l

l I

l

?

i i

I l

I I

1 h

i i

i Ii L

l.

k I

I 73 h

l ,

.e.

I ACTION PLANS i

This section lists action plans that have been developed for the performance indicators cited as Adverse Trends during the month preceding this report. Also included are Action Plans for indicators that have been cited in the preceding month's report as Needing increased Management Attention for three (3) consecutive months.

In accordance with Revision 3 of NOD-OP-37, the following performance indicators would require action plans based on three (3) consecutive ~ months of performance cited as r "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, faQal Reduce the reactor coolant activity levels for Cycle 16 operations and take measure to achieve zero defect fuel performance for Cycle 17 and beyond Elan 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 1

l

Fuel Reliability r

SHORT TERM (CYCLE 16 OPERATIONS) jlEM ACTION RESP. DATE DUE STATUS

1. Evaluate replacement of two-micron fWter in CVCS with one- Hothaus Completed Complete.1/4/96. Filter replacement will i

(

micron fWter. resuR in improved parbculate removal 01/04/96 and consequently lower dose rates.

1a. Install one-micron Sters in CVCS 01/31/96 Completed 03/13/96

2. Evaluate benetts of increasing letdown flow. Hothaus/Spilker 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 Hothaus Completed Complete. 01/04/96. Resin bed effectve i puri# cation and cationion beds. 01/04/96 in minimizing RCS actnnty Resin beds replaced in November 1995. -

ggM ACTION RESP. Date Due STATUS 3a. Replace resin beds during Spring 1996 outage. Spires 03/22/96 Canceled Prepare and issue Nuclear Network request for industry Completed Complete. 01/12/96. Transmdted 4..

experience in reducing FRI. 01/12/96 proposed inquiry to Licensing for Nuclear Network entry.

Evaluate installation of silver mordenite ERration system Hothaus/ Spires Completed Received general (unclassi6ed) -

5.

01/26/96 information on system used at forincreased lodine removal.

Savannah River Project.

Identify number of old design assemblies to be placed Completed Previously identiied eight assemblies to 6.

in peripherallocations for second cycle and consider Hohhaus/Guinn 01/12/96 be placed on core periphery for second replacement with new design assembly. cycle.

75

Fuel Reliability

7. Evaluate whether these assembEes could be used for Holthaus/Guinn Completed more than one cyc!e to reduce cost. 01/19/96

8. Determine if Westinghouse can supply the above fuel Completed Complete. 01/12/96. Westinghouse has assembles for Cycle 17. Also, can Fuels Division Holthaus/ Hanger 01/12/96 indicated that they can fabricate the ,

provide necessary uranium. assembEes. Cost estimates by Fuels Divisionis approx.12M. Discount';om Westinghouse also requested.  ;

9. Evaluate Cycle 18 preEminary pattern same as 5 & 6 Holthaus/Guinn Completed Cyc!e 18 preliminary pattem indicates 01/17/96 four additional assembles twould be required. Cost $1.0M

10. Evaluate Cycle 19 preliminary pattern same as S& 6 Holthaus/Guinn Completed Cycle 19 preEminary pattem indicates 01/17/96 eight additional assemblies would be required. Cost $2.0M

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

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

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

76

.- ..,_n. ._ .-_ _ _ - -__.__ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -

v

. I t .

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 77

d m

r t

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY ftYSTEM CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAhENATIONS ?,1,000 PERFORMANCE DtSINTEGRADONS/RENUTE PER PROBE AREA The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable The personnel conisminallon events in the clean controlled area.

hours and the estirnated unavailable hours for the auxiliary This indicator tracks personnel performance for SEP #15 & 54.

feedwater system for the reportmg period divided by the critical hours for the reportmg penod multiplied by the number of trains CONTAh8NATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA in the auxiliary feedwater system.

The percentage of the Radiaten Controlled Area, which includes COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE the auxiliary buildmg, the radweste buildmg, and areas of the C/RP buildmg, that is contaminated based on the total square Collective redation exposure is the total extemal whole-body footage. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #54.

dose received by all orweile personnel (includeg contractors and visitors) dunng a time pered, as measured by the DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). Collectrve radiation exposure is reported in units of persorprem. This indicator This indicolor shows the daily core thermal output as measured tracks radiolog6 cal work performance for SEP #54. from computer point XCt05 (in thermal megawatts). The 1500 MW Tech Spec hrnit, and the unmet portion of the 1495 MW COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR) FCS daily goal for the reporting month are also shown.

SUMMARY

DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 Demands)

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

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

DISABLING INJURYALLNESS FREQUENCY RATE Failure Cause Categones are: (LOSS TIE ACCIDENT RATE)

Age / Normal Use -thought to be the consequence of This indmator is defined as the number of accidents for all utihty expected wear, agog, end-of-life, or normal use . personnel permanently assigned to the station, involving days away from work per 200,000 marwhours worked (100 man-Manufacturing Defect . a failure attributable to inadequate years). This does not include contractor personnel. This assembly or initial quality of the responsible component or indicator tracks personnel performance for SEP #25,26 & 27. <

system. I DOCUMNT REVIEW (BIENNIAL)

EngineeringOesign 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 assocated devices. overdue if the review is not complete within six months of the assigned due date. This indicator tracks performance for SEP Mamtenance/ Action resuitmg from improper maintenance, #46.

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

CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR ENERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun Station. The cents per kilowatt The mdimdor shows the nunter of Isaures that were reported during the hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per test 20% and mrwgency desel generator derner.ds et the Fort idlowett hour on a twelve-month average for the current year, Cabun klon. A che are trigger values dich correisie to a high The benis for the budget curve is the approved yearty budget. ind f c nn enu that a unts dead generators have obiained a The beeis for the actual curve le the Financel and Operstmg ieu n Report.

78

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

1) Number of Start Demands: All valid and inadverterd start should not be counted as demands or failures when the EDG demands, including all start-only demands and all start has not been declared operable again.

demands that are fonowed by load-run demands, whether by automatic or manualinitiation. A start-only demand is EERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY a demand in which the emergency generator is started, but no attempt is made to load the generator. This indicator rnessures the total unrehabihty of emergency diesel generators. In general, unrehability is the ratio of

2) Number of Start Failures: Any failure witNn the unsuccessful operatens (starts or load-runs) to the number of emergency generator system that prevents the generator vahd demands. Total unrehabihty is a combination of start from achievbg speceed frequency and voltage is classified unreliabihty and load-run unrehabihty, as a vahd start failure, This includes any conddion identifled in the course of maintenance inspections (wth ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR) i the emergency generator in standby mode) that definitely BREAKDOWN 4- would have resuRed in a start failure if a demand had occurred. This indecator 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 s vahd load 4un Nuclear and System Engineenng. This indicator tracks demand to be counted, the load 4un attempt must meet performance for SEP #62.

one or more of the following criteria:

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

j 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. TNs indicator breaks down the number of Engineenng Change Notices (ECNs) that are assagned to Design Engineenng

4) Number of Load-Run Failures: A load-run failure should Nuclear (DEN), System Engineenng, and Maintenance. The

. be counted for any reason in wNch the emergency graphs provlde data on ECN Facihty Changes open, ECN generator does not pick up load and run as predicted. Substitute Replacement items open, and ECN Document Failures are counted during any valid load-run demands. Changes oport TNs indicator tracks performance for SEP #62.

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

Equipmerd forced o(anges per 1.000 critical hours is the inverse A) Spunous inps that would be bypassed in the event of of the mean time between forced outages caused by equipment an emergency. failures. The mean time is equal to the number of hours the rea:: tor is crthcalln a pernod (1,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />) divided by the number B) Malfunction of equipmerd that is not required dunng of forced outages caused by equipment failures in that penod.

an emergency.

EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR C) Intertionalterminston of a test because of abnormal

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

E) A failure to start because a portion of the starting system was disabied for test purpose,if followed by FORCED OUTAGE RATE a successful start with the starting system in its normal shgnment- 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 electncal generation. Forced events are failures or being declared inoperable should be counted as one demand other unplanned conddens that require removing the unit from and one Isaure. Exploratory tests during corrective maintenance service before the end of the next weekend. Forced events 79

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

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS include start-up failures and events intrated while the unM ls in Contractor personnel are not included for this indicator.

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

IN-LINE CHEhESTRY INSTRUNENTS OUT OF SERVICE FUEL RELIABILITYINDICATOR Total number of in-line chsmatry instruments that are out-of-This indicator is defined as the steady-state pnmary coolant I- service in the Secondary System and the Post Accident 131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium contribuhon and Samphng System (PASS).

normalized to a common punlication rate. Tramp uranium is fuel which has been deposited on reactor core intemals from LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS previous defective fuel or is present on the surface of fuel elements from the manufactunng process. Steady state is This indicator shows the number of SRO and/or RO quizzes and defined as conunuous opershon 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 colect data for this indicator at a power level above 85%,

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

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

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

Bnhsh Thermal Unns (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 piant programs or ,

activihes (i.e., poor planning, breakdown or lack of l HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED adequate management or supervoory control, incorrect procedures, etc).

The total amount (in Kilograms) of non-halogenated hazardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous 2) Licensed Operator Error - This cause code captures waste produced by FCS each month. errors of omission / commission by heensed reactor operators dunng plant activihes.

HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFE 1Y SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 3) Other Personnel Error - Errors of omission / commission committed by norWicensed personnel involved in plant The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable activities.

hours and the eshmated unavaliable hours for the high pressure safety injection system for the reporting penod dnnded by the 4) Maintenance Problem The intent of this cause code is to critical hours for the reporting period multiphed by the number of capture the full range of problems which can be attributed trains in the high pressure safety infechon system. In any way to programmatic deficiencies in the rnaattenance funchonal organization. Achvities included in INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE INPO this category are maintenance, testing, surveillance, cahbration and radiahon protection.

This indicator is defined as the number of accidents per 200,000 man-hours worked for all utihty persnnreptmanently assigned 5) DesigrtConstructionanstallation/ 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 installabon, and fabncation (i.e., loss of control power due the accident); to underrated fuse, equipment not quahfied for the environment, etc.).

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

3) Fatainies. spunous failures of electronic piece-parts and failures due to rneteorological conditions such as hghtning, ice, high i  ;

80

e PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS winds, etc Generally, it includes spurious or one- MAXIMUM INDNIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE time fa; lures. Electric components included in this category are circutt cards, rechfiers, bistables, fuses, The total maximum amourt of radstion received by an individual capacitors, diodes, resistors, etc. person working at FCS on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis.

LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)

MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUELING The total number of securty incidents for the reporting month OUTAGE) depicted in two graphs. This indicator tracks securty performance for SEP #58. The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have been approved forincluseonin the Cycle 17 Refuehng Outage and the MAINTENANCE OVERTinE number that are ready to work (parts staged, planning complete, and al other paperwork ready for held use). Also included is the The percent of overtirne hours compared to normal hours for number of MW3s that have been engineering holds (ECNs, maintenance. This includes OPPD personnel as well as procedures and other miscellaneous engineering holds), parts contract personnel. hold,(parts staged, not yet inspected, parts not yet arrived) and .

planning hold Gob scope not yet completed). Maintenance Work 1 MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS Requests (MWRs) are also shown that have been identified for I the Cycle 17 Rebeling Outage and have not yet been converted This indicator shows the backlog of non. outage Maintenance to MWOs.

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

Mairtenance classifications are defined as follows: NUhERER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUFhENT DEFICIENCIES Corrective - Repair and restoration of equipment or A control room equipment deficiency (CRD) is dehned as any components that have failed or are malfunctioning and are not component which is operated or controlled from the Control ,

performing their intended function. Room, provides indcation or alarm to the Control Room, I provides testing capabihbes from the Control Room, provides Preventive - Actions taken to maintain a piece of equipment automatic actons from or to the Control Room, or provides a within design operating conditions, prevent equipment failure, paseke Ibnchon Ibr the Control Room and has been identified as and extend its hfe and are performed prior to equipment dellesert,i.e., does not perform under all conditions as designed.

failure. This definibon also aoples to the Altemate Shutdown Panels Al-179, Al-185, and AJ-212.

Non-Corrective / Plant improvements - Maintenance actulbes performed to implement staten improvements or to A plant +-4 whirA is deficient or inoperable is considered repair non-plant equipment. an " Operator Work Arot,vl (OWA) ltem" if some other action is required by an operator e compensate for the condition of the Maintenance Work Priorities are defined as: component. Some examples of OWAs are:

Emergency Condations which signrhcantly degrade staten 1) The control room levelindicator does not work but a local safety or availability, sight glass can be read by an Operator out in the plant; immediate Action - Equipment deficiencies which 2) A dellesert pump cannot be repaired because replacement significantty degrade station reliability. Potential for unit parts require a long lead time for purchase / delivery, thus shutdown or power reduction. requinng the redundant pump to be operated continuously; Operations Concern Equipment deficiencies which hinder 3) Special actions are required by an Operator because of station operation. equipment design problems. These actions may be described in Operations Memorandums. Operator Notes, Essential - Routine corrective maintenance on essential or rnay require changes to Operating Procedures; stabon systems and equipment. I l

4) Dellciert piart equipmert that is required to be used dunng Non-Essential - Routine correctrve maintenance on non- Emergency Operating Procedures or Abnortnal Operating l essential station systems and equipment. Procedures; l Plant improvement - Non-corrective maintenance and plant 5) System indication that provides crthcal information during improvements. normal or abnormal operations, j This indcator tracks maintenance performance for SEP #36.

81 l l

l

i I

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS  !

i NUSEBER OF 14SSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESULTING This indcator 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 COWPLETED PER Everd Reports (LERs) dunng the reporting month. This indcator MONTH IDENTirlED AS REWORK tracks missed STs for SEP #60 & 61. .

The percentage of total MWOs completed per month identmed l OPEN INCIDENT REPORTS as rework. Rework activibes are ident fied by maintenance I This hdicator displays the total number of open Incident Reports planning and craft. Rework is: Any additional work required to correct deficiencies discovered during 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 COWLETED SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTMTIES The number of Modification Requests (MRs) in any state between the issuance of a Modificabon Number and the The percent of the number of completed maintenance activities completion of the drawing update. as compared to the number of scheduled maintenarce activities )

each rnonth. This percentage is shown for all maintenance I

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

represents modification requests that have not besn plant Maintenance activities include MWRs, MWOs, STs, PMOs, l approved during the report ng 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, yhich include the B) Modincation Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear following: Unit Capatulity Factor, Unit Cap *oility Loss Factor, Projects Review Committee (NPRC). HPSI, AFW, Emergency AC Power System, Unplanned Automatic Scrams, Collective Radiation Exposure, Fuel C) Modincation Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear Rellatety, Thermal Performance, Secondary System Chemistry, Projects Committee (NPC). Radiabon Waste, and Industrial Safety Accident Rate.

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

Some of these Modocahon Requests are retumed to This indsator is a breakdown of LERs. For purposes of LER Engineenng for more hformation, some approved for evaluabon, 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 clearly An event fe which the root cause is personnel error (i.e., j defined, these Modification Requests may be approved for inappropnate action by one or more individuals), inadequate accomplishment with a year assigned for construchon or they administrative controls, a design construction, installation, may be canceled. All of these different phases require review. instatation, 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 construction will be equipment). Also,the cause of the event must have occurred completed and design work may be in progress. within approximately two years of the " Event Date" specified in the LER (e g., an event for which ine cause is attributed to

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

the 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) Desagn Engmeenng Update Backlog /in Progress. PED has received the Modificaten Completion Report but the An event for which the root cause is inappropnate action on drawings have not been updated. the part of one or more individua!s (as opposed to being attributed to a department or a general group). Also, the The above mentioned outstanding modificahons do not include inappropnate action must have occurred within approximately modificahons which are proposed for cancellation. two years of the " Event Date" specified in the LER.

OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (REFUELING OUTAGE) 82 1

e PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS Addibonaly, each event classified as a " Personnel Error" should SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES stso be classified as " Preventable." This indicator trends 1 personnel performance for SEP ltem #15. Safety system failures are any events or conditions that could prevent the fulfillment of the safety functions of structures or PRIMARY SYSTEM LITHlUM % OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT systems. If a system cormsts of muft pie redundant subsystems or trains, failure of al trains constitutes a safety system failure. ,

The percent of hours out of limit are for lithium divided by the Failure of one of two or more trains is not counted as a safety I total number of hours possible for the month. system failure. The definibon for the indicator parallels NRC reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. The PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS following is a list of the major safety systems, sub-systems, and l (MAINTENANCE) components rnonitored for this indicator:

The number of idenbfied incidents concoming maintenance Accident Monitonng instrumentation, Auxiliary (and j procedural problems, the number of closed irs related to the Emergency) Feedwater System, Combustible Gas Control, use of procedures (includes the number of closed irs caused by Cornponent Coohng Water System, Containment and procedural noncomphance), and the number of closed Containmert isohtson, Containment Coolant Systems, Control procedural noncompliance irs. This indicator trends personnel Room Emergency Ventilabon System, Emergency Core performance for SEP #15,41 and 44. Coohng Systems, Engineered Safety Features Instrumentabon. Essential Compressed Air Systems, PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE MODIFICATION Essential or Emergency Service Water, Fire Detection or PLANNING Suppression Systems, Isolabon Condenser, Low Temperature Overpressure Protection, Main Steam Line This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for Isolabon Valves, Onsite Emergency AC & DC Power completion during the Refuehng Outage. w/Distnbubon, Radiabon Monitonng Instrumentation, Reactor Coolant System, Reactor Core isolation Cooling System, PROGRESS OF 1995 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING Reactor Tnp System and insbumertation, Recirculation Pump Trip Actuabon Instrumentation, Residual Heat Removal This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for Systems, Safety Valves, Spent Fuel Systems, Standby Liquid completion during 1995. Control System and Ultimate Heat Sink.

RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERFORMANCE INDEX The number of identified 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 SF.P #52. on the concentration of key impurlbes in the secondary side of the plant. These key impurities are the most likely cause of RADIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & deteriorabon of the steam generators. Crieria for calculating the PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE CPI are:

The ratio of preventrve maintenance (including surveillance 1) The plant is at greater than 30 percent power; and testing and cahbrabon procedures) to the sum of non-outage correctue maintenance and preventrve maintenance completed 2) the power is changing less than 5% per day.

over the reporting penod. The ratio, expressed as a percentage, is calculated based on man-hours. Also displayed are the The cpl is calculated using the following equation:

percert of preventrve maintenance items in the month that were not completed or administratrvely closed by the scheduled date CPI = ((sodium /0.79) + (Chloride /1.52) + (Sulfate /1.44) +

plus a grace penod equalto 25% of the scheduled interval. This (Iron /3.30) + (Copper /0.30)+(Condensate 02/2.90))/6 indicator tracks preventive maintenance activibes for SEP #41.

Where: Sodium, sulfate, chlonde and condensate dissolved RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FREQUENCY oxygen are the monthly average blowdown concentratnns in RATE ppb, iron and copper are monthly time weighted average feedwater concentrations in ppb. The denominator for each of The number of injuries requinng more than normal first aid per the five factors is the INPO median value. If the monthly 200,000 man-hours worked. This indicator trends personnel average for a specific 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 1he number of Nuclear Plant Reliabihty Data System (NPRDS) components with more than one failure and the number of Significard everts are the events identified by NRC staff through NPRDS components with more than two failures for the detailed screening and evaluation of operating experience. The eighteern-month CFAR period. screening process includes the daily review and discussion of 83

{

a PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS all reported operating reactor events, as well as other instruments are not considered as temporary mod 4 cations.

operationaldata such as special tests or construction actuaties.

An event idestfied from the screerwng process as a signifcant 3) Scaffold is not considered a temporary mod 6 cation.

overt candidate hWrther evaluated to determine if any actual or Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for which MRo potential threat to the health and safety of the pubic was have been submitted will be considered as temporary involved Specn c examples of the type of crtterla are mod 4 cations until final resolution of the MR and the jumper summartzed as fol,ows: or block is removed or is permanentty recorded on the drawings. This indcator tracks temporary modMcations for

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

2) Unexpected plant response to a transient, THERMAL PERFORMANCE

3) Degradation of fuel integnty, primary coolant pressure The ratio of the design gross heat rate (corrected) to the boundary, important associated features; adjusted ctual gross heat rate, expressed as a percentags.

4) Scram with complication; UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR

5) Unplanned release of radoactwity; The ratio ef the available energy generation over a gNen time period to tlw reference energy generation (the energy that could

6) Operation outside the hmits of the Technical SpecMcations; be produced if 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 learned identifled through the SEE-IN The net electrical energy generated (MWH) duided by the screening process. product of maximum dependable capacity (net MWe) times the gross hoursin the reporting penod expressed as a percent. Het SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE electncal energy generated is the gross electncal output of the unit measured at the output terminals of the turbine generator The dollar value of the spare parts inventory for FCS dunng the minus the normal station seryce loads dunng the gross hours of ,

I reporting penod. the reporting penod, expressed in megawatt hours.

STAFFING LEVEL UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 CRITICAL HOURS l The adual staffing level and the authorized stamng level for the l Nuclear Operations Divraion, The Production Engineenng bis indcator is defined as the number of unplanned automat 6c Divtsion, and the Nuclear Services Division. This indcator 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 entical operation.

STATlON NET GENERATION The value for this indcator is calcutated by multiptying the total number of unplanned automate reactor scrams in a specifc 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 drviding that number by the total reporting month. number of hours enticalin the same time period. The indicator is further defined as follows:

TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS

1) Unplanned means that the scram was not an antcipated The number of temporary rnechanica and electncal 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 electncal jumpers, rapid insertion of negatwo 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 PalD, schemate, resulted from exceeding a set point or may have been connection, wiring, or flow diagrams. spurious.

2) Jumpers and blocks which are installed for Surveillance Tests, Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Procedures, 3) Automatc means that the initial signal that caused actuation Special Procedures or Operating Procedures are not of the reactor protection system logic was provided from one considered as temporary modifcations 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 instatted in test or tab tnp switches (or push-buttons) provided in the main control 84

~ . - -. . . -

e PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS room. shipped off-site for processmg, and the volume of solid dry radioactNe waste which has been shipped off-site for l

4) Crtical means that during the steady-state conditon of the processmg Low 4evel solid radioactive waste consists of dry l reactor prior to the scram, the effectNe multipiscation (k ,) actNe wade, sludges, rooms, and evaporator bottoms generated ]

was essentially equal to one. as a resut of nuclear power plant operaton and rnaintenance.  ;

Dry radioactive waste includes contaminated rags, cleaning  !

UNPLANNED CAPA81UTY LOSS FACTOR rnalertals, deposable protective clothiW, plaste containers, and any other material to be disposed of at a low-level radioactNe I The ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given period waste deposal site, except resin, sludge, or evaporator bottoms.

of time, to the reference energy genersten (the energy that Low-level refers to all radioactNe waste that is not spent fuel or could be produced if the unit were operated contmuously at full a by-product of spent fuel processing. This indcator tracks power under reference amtxent condnens) over the same time radiological work performance for SEP #54.

period, expressed as a percentage.

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS . (INPO

+ DEFINITION)

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

1) 'The number of unplanned Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) actuations that result from reachmg an ECCS actuabon set point or from a spuriousfinadvertent ECCS signal.

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

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

)

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTIONS .(NRC DEFINITION)

The number of safety system aduations which include (QDk) the High Prosauro Safety infecton System, the Low Pressure Safety ingedon System,the Safety injec6on Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC classification of safety system actuations includes actuations when major equipment is operated gjft when the logic systems for the above safety systems are challenged.

VIOLATION TREND 1his indcator is deflned as Fort Calhoun Stahon CMed Vlotations and Nor41ted Violabons trended over 12 months. AddRionally, Cited Vlotations for the top quartile Regen IV plant is trended over 12 months (lagging the Fort Calhoun Station trend by 2-3 months). It is the Fort Calhoun Station goal to be at or below the cited violation trend for the top quartile Region IV plant.

VOLUhE OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTNE WASTE This indcator is deflned as the volume of low-level solid radcactive waste adually shipped for bunal. This indicator also shows the volume of low 4evel radioactrve waste which is in temporary storage, the amount of radioactive o8 that has been 85

w SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM lNDEX 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 Eagg

. Increase HPES and IR Accountability through use of Performance Indicators Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 51 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................16 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations >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 Practice Requirements

. Implement Supervisory Enforcement of Industrial Safety Standards Disabling injury /lliness Frequency Rate .......... ... .. ...... ... ............15 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . .. . .. .. ... ... ... . . 16 ,

i SEP Reference Number 31 l

. Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Manual and Conduct Project Management Trammg ,

1 MWO Planning Status (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage) ......... .. .... . . ... ...... .. 68 l SSED's Overall Project Status . . ... ... . ....... .. . .. ............ .... . .. .. 69 l 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 On-line Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . ...............72 SEP Reference Number 36

. Reduce Corrective Non-Outage Backlog )

i Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage) . . ..... ...............47 l i

SEP Reference Numbers 41 & 44

. Develop and implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule

. Compliance With and Use of Procedures Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue . . . . . . . . . . 48 Procedural Noncompliance Incidents (Maintenance) . . .. ... .......... .. ...... . .. . 51 I l

86

w SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX DEP Reference Number 46

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

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

. Complete implementation of Radiological Enhancement Program Clean Controlled Area Disintegrations >1,000 Counts / Minute Per Probe Area . . .. . . . . 17 Collective Radiation Exposure ........ ... . . ... .......... . . .. ..... . . . 11 Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste . .. . .. ... . .. ... .... 12 l Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area .. ........ . .. . . . . .. . .. .... 55 SEP Reference Number 58 I

. Revise Physical Security Training and Procedure Program Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . .. ...... 58 SEP Reference Numbers 60 & 61 1

. Improve Controls Over Surveillance Test Progmm

. Modify Computer Program to Correctly Schedule Surveillance Tests Number of Missed Surveillance Tests resulting in Licensee Event 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 Ucense Candidate Exams . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... ... .. . . .... ... .... . 66 SEP Reference Number 71

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

REPORT DISTRIBUTION llST 1 R. L. Andrews C. A.Marasco G. C. Bishop T. J. Mcivor C. E. Boughter K. A. Miller J. L. Bostelman P. A. Mruz C. J. Brunnert R. J. Mueller J. W. Chase Nuclear Licensing (7)

R. G. Conner T. L. Patterson G.M. Cook R. L. Plott M.R. Core W.J.Ponec T. R. Dukarski D. G. Ried H. J. Faulhaber M. J. Sandhoefner S. K. Garnbhir F. C. Scofield J. K. Gasper H. J. Sefick W. G. Gates R. W. Short S. W. Gebers J. L. Skiles D. C. Gorence R. D. Spies (2)

R. H. Guy D. E. Spires A. L. Hale M. A.Tesar  ;

K. R. Henry J. J. Tesarek j J. B. Herman J. W. Tills <

R. L. Jaworski D. R. Trausch J. W. Johnson B. J. Van Sant W. C. Jones L. P. Walling D. D. Kloock G. R. Williams J. B. Kuhr (7) S. J. Willrett L.T.Kusek B. R. Livingston l

88

FORT CALHOUN STATION -

l OPERATING CYCLES AND REFUELING OUTAGE DATES l EVENT DATE RAF GE 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 Sth Refueling 01/18/80 - 06/11/80 l Cycle 6 06/11/80 - 09/13/81 3,899,714 20,768,168 l 6th Refueling 09/18/81 - 12/21/81 f

Cycle 7 12/21/81 - 12/03/82 3,561,866 24,330,034 l *

• 7th Refueling 12/03/82 - 04/06/83 _

l Cycle 8 04/06/83 - 03/03/84 3 406,371 27,736,405 8th Refueling 03/03/84 - 07/12/84 Cycle 9 07/12/84 - 09/28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 9th Refueling 09/28/85 - 01/16/86 Cycle 10 01/16/86 - 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 Refueling 02/01/92- 05/03/92 Cycle 14 05/03/92- 09/25/93 4,981,485 56,022,013 14th Refueling 09/25/93 - 11/26/93 Cycle 15 11/26/93 - 02/20/95 5,043,887 61,065,900 15th Refueling 02/20/95- 04/14/95 Cycle 16 04/14/95 - 09/21/96 18th Refueling 09/21/96 - 11/02/96 (Planned Dates)

FORT CALHOUN STATION CURRENT PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS

• RECORDS" First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5:47 p.m.)

First Electric upplied to the System August 25,1973 Commercial lon (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 Net 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

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .