ML20134B505

Performace Indicators, for Dec 1996

ML20134B505
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	12/31/1996
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20134B503	List: LIC-97-0012, Forwards Fort Calhoun Station Performance Indicators, for Dec 1996 ML20134B505
References
NUDOCS 9701300171
Download: ML20134B505 (97)

Text

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS A

m w ,. . 2 X ill k .. -

~

• d' z

DECEMBER 1996 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COSTEFFECTIVENESS gu nanM8sjjr

I OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT j FORT CALHOUN STATION i

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT

(

l 4

i e

l DECEMBER 1996 i

i i

i i

!. Production Engineering Division i System Engineering i Test and Performance Group i

i 4

DECEMBER 1996 4

FORT CALHOUN STATION .

December 1996  !

Monthly Operating Report OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

Following the 1996 refueling outage, from December 1 through December 6, the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) increased power to 97%. On December 6, at 0902 hours0.0104 days <br />0.251 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.43211e-4 months <br />, power ,

was reduced to 93% to complete Moderator Temperature Coefficient testing. This testing  !

was completed on December 8 at 1109 hours0.0128 days <br />0.308 hours <br />0.00183 weeks <br />4.219745e-4 months <br />.

l On December 8 at 1440 hours0.0167 days <br />0.4 hours <br />0.00238 weeks <br />5.4792e-4 months <br />, power was reduced to 85% to facilitate turbine control valve testing. The testing was satisfactorily completed at 1800 hours0.0208 days <br />0.5 hours <br />0.00298 weeks <br />6.849e-4 months <br /> and power ascension commenced.

$ Unreliable emergency response facility (ERF) computer operation caused reactor power to be maintained between 95% and 98% between December 9 and December 16. This was done to maintain Peak Linear Heat Rate (PLHR) less than 90% of the limit (15.5 KW/ft l as defined in Technical Specification 2.10.4 and the Core Operating Limits Report).

Technical Specification 2.10.4(c)i would have required power to be reduced to 80%

(rodded) or 85% (unrodded) if the ERF computer had failed while at a higher power level.

Hardware problems were detected when the "C" host was running as the active computer.

Circuit boards were reseated, power was cycled and the "D" host was selected as the active computer. This resolved the problem and on December 16 at 0910 hours0.0105 days <br />0.253 hours <br />0.0015 weeks <br />3.46255e-4 months <br />, the ERF computer tested satisfactorily and reactor power was increased to 100%.

On December 31 at 1100 hours0.0127 days <br />0.306 hours <br />0.00182 weeks <br />4.1855e-4 months <br /> FCS began an AOP-05 Emergency Shutdown, due to a non-isolatable steam leak on a drain line going to the condenser. At 1128 hours0.0131 days <br />0.313 hours <br />0.00187 weeks <br />4.29204e-4 months <br />, a Notification of Unusual Event (NOUE) was declarei per EAL 11.6, " Plant Conditions Warrant increased Awareness By Plant Staff or Govemment Authorities" Appropriate NRC, state and local authorities were notified of the NOUE. At 1130 hours0.0131 days <br />0.314 hours <br />0.00187 weeks <br />4.29965e-4 months <br />, the turbine was manually tripped and the leak was isolated. The reactor remained critical at approximately 10% power during the repairs. At 1333 hours0.0154 days <br />0.37 hours <br />0.0022 weeks <br />5.072065e-4 months <br />. AOP-05 was exited and at 1340 hours0.0155 days <br />0.372 hours <br />0.00222 weeks <br />5.0987e-4 months <br /> the '

NOUE was terminated. The leak was repaired and the turbine / generator was placed on line at 1821 hours0.0211 days <br />0.506 hours <br />0.00301 weeks <br />6.928905e-4 months <br />. On December 31 at 2400 hours0.0278 days <br />0.667 hours <br />0.00397 weeks <br />9.132e-4 months <br />, FCS was at 30% power waiting to clear steam generator chemistry holds prior to increasing power.

l l

I

,.__ .._.__._..__._.-._...m_.m__.-_..__..- . _ _

i i

] e Fort Camoun index Vahse j + Industry Median index Value i

n 1 100..

a q Industry Asedian Projected 90 .

M M l

" 83 83 83 .

. J.

^

s0 ,

j 79 i

>] 70 .

l- j 4

, 60 .

Value for the 4th Quarter 1988 is 88.13 s0 ..

)

i n i

4

. 40 <

l

! 95/1 95/2 95/3 95/4 96/1 96/2 96/3 96/4 Jan Feb 97/1 1

! l I l l

i PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND l The performance index trend calculation is made up of eleven variables each weighted to j arrive at an overall index value. The thermal performance, secondary system chemistry, i and industrial safety accident rate values are calculated for a one-year period. Fuel reliability is calculated on a quarterly basis. The remaining values (unit capability factor,

unplanned (unit) 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, and collective radiation exposure) are calculated for a two-year l' period. This method allows the index trend to be more responsive to changes in plant

j. performance.

INPO no longer uses the volume of low-level radioactive waste as a plant indicator. The

value will still be tracked, but the value will no longer be used in calculating the Stations 1

Performance Index.

i b

} ii o

i 4

1

I g MAXMUMVALUE g 3rd Quarter '96 Cl4th Quarter '96

! 16.00 8 j 14.00 . g

, n 2.00 ggg ggg g,g 3g g9 SSS SSS SyS

I 85 888 8 8 i 8.00 . d ** "** *

• 8o8 i s*s. 8.,

i 6 00 "o l  :!::

j 0.00 .._

UCF UCLF

_e HPSI

_s AFW

_s EACP

_w CRE

_e UAS7

-__r FRI CR

_r TR i

[8 ISAR y

l i

! 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 fourth quarter of 1996.

)

1 l UCF Unit Capability Factor TPI Thermal Performance Indicator

UCLF Unplanned Capability Loss Factor CPI Secondary Chemistry Indicator j HPSI High Pressure Safety injection ISAR Industrial Safety Accident Rate AFW Auxiliary Feedwater EACP Emergency AC Power

! UAS7 Unplanned Auto Scrams / 7000 Hours

CRE Collective Radiation Exposure FRI Fuel Reliability Indicator l

i

Per INPO, the Performance Indicator for the Volume of Low Level Radioactive Waste buried, will no longer be used in

.I 1 iii

ljl Year-to-Date Value

, BM ' rM O" "

j Performance Cateaories Unit Capability Unplanned Unplanned Thermal Factor Capability Auto Scrams E~ Performance better than Performance Loss Factor Industry Average Trend l lllll Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal l [($jj l l $$11 Performance Not Meeting ,

9 al HPSI Safety AFW Safety EDG Safety Fuel ]l System System System Reliability ll l

Performance Performance Performance Value Not Available due to RFO llll . m ,1, i l" "" "

Oct

, i Sep Nov

, , i , , , , , , , i ,

198!I l } [ test M ll!OI!OEIOl' "

Volume of Rad I I SS ** *S Chemistry Collective l lhdustbNI l Dec.-1996 Best Possible i Index Radiation Safety Accident Waste not used 1996 Year-End l [

Exposure Rate Performance i,i.

.,i .

t WANO Performance Indicators i

r [

i

< i Unplanned  !

Auto Scrams Year-To-Date Value Performance Cateaories i

Safety System Significant E Performance better than industry Average Trend vents Actuations I

Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal l l

Safety Forced Outage j$!$} Performance Not Meeting 1996 OPPD Goal System Rate Failures Sep oct Nov 1996 1996 96 Equipment Collective ~  ;

Radiation Best Possible Forced December-1996

, . j l Outages Exposure 1996 Year-End Performance

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ u. .

NRC Performance Indicators  !

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT December 1996-

SUMMARY

POSITIVE TREND REPORT POSITIVE TREND REPORT (cont.)

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

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

trends for the reporting month:

Safety System Failures (Page 19)

ADVERSE TREND REPORT Hiah Pressure Safety Iniection System Safety System A performance indicator with data representing three Performance consecutive months of declining performance or three (Page 5) consecutive months of performance that is trending toward declining as determined by the Manager -

Auxiliary Feedwater System Station Engineering, constitutes an adverse trend per (Page 6) Nuclear Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37). A supervisor whose performance Eme aency A C. Power System indicator exhibits an adverse trend by this definition (Page 7) may specify in wntten form (to be published in this report) why the trend is not adverse.

(p,g," 'O The following performance indicators exhibited adverse trends for the reporting month:

Emeraenev Diesel Generator Unit Reliability Maintenance Workload Backloos

1. 9' (Page 47)

Diesel Generator Reliability (25 Demands)

(Page 21) End of Adverse Trend Report.

Emeroency Diesel Generator Unreliability (Page 22)

Missed Surveillance Tests Results in Licensee Event Reports (Page 28)

Uno!anned Safety System Actuations (INPO)

(Page 34)

Secondary System Chemistry (Page 35)

Hazardous Waste Produced (Page 54) vi

1 l

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

t Fuel Reliability index (Page 9) l teuiomont Forced Outace Rate (Page 38)

Cents Der Kilowatt Hour (page 44)

Percentace of Total MW0s Comoletad oar Month identifiad as Rawork (Page 49) l 1

l l PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT l IMPROVEMENTS / CHANGES End of Report improvements / Changes Report.

I l 1

\ l l

I i

E q vii l

l

Table of Contents / Summary GOALS .

em

. . . . . . . . . .. .... . . . . . . . . . xii WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS .. .. . .. .... ... .. 1 Unit Capability Factor . .. . . . ... .. . . . , , 2 Unplanned Capability Loss Factor .. .. .. . .... . 3 Unplanned Automatic Reactor SCRAMS per 7000 Hours .. ... . .. .. .. 4 High Pressure Safety lnjection System . . .. . . . . ... ... ... 5 Auxiliary Feedwater System . . .. . . .. .6 Emergency AC Power System . . . . . . . .. . . 7 Thermal Performance . .. . . . . . . . .8 Fuel Reliability Indicator . .. .. .. . . .. . .. 9 Secondary System Chemistry . . . . .. . .. 10 Collective Radiation Exposure .... .. .. ... .. 11 Volume of Low Level Radioactive Waste . . . .. . 12 Industrial Safety Accident Rate . . . . ... .. . 13 SAFE OPERATIONS Disabling injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate . . . 15 Recordable Injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate . .. . 16 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations

>1,000 Disintegrations / Minute per Probe Area . .. . . . . 17 Preventable / Personnel Error LERs . . .. . 18 Safety System Failures . . .. .. . 19 Emergency Diesel Generator Unit Reliability . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 20 Reliability (25 Demands) . .. . . 21 Unreliability .... ... . . .. . .. 22 Control Room Equipment Deficiencies . . . . . 23 On-line and Outage Control Room Equipment Deficier.cies . 24 viii

4 Table of Contents / Summary 4

Maximum Individual Radiation Exposure . .. .. . ... . ... 25 Violation Trend . . . . . . .... .. .... .. .. . 26 l l

Significant Events ., ...... . .. .. .... .. . . .. . 27

, Missed Surveillance Tests F.osulting in LERs . . ... . . .. . . .... 28 i PERFORMANCE Station Net Generation . . . . .. . . ..... . . ... . 30

Forced Outage Rate .. . . .. . . . . . 31 1

Unit Capacity Factor . ...... . . .. . . .. . .. . 32 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . ... . . .. . . .. ... 33

Unplanned Safety System Actuations INPO Definition . . .. . . ..... . 34 NRC Definition . .. . . .... . . . .. 35 Gross Heat Rate . . . .... . ... . ... .. .. 36 Daily Thermal Output . .. .. . . .. .. .. ... . .. . . 37 j Equipment Forced Outages per 1,000 Critical Hours . . . . . . . 38 Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) Summary . ... ... 39 Repeat Failures . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . ... . . 40 Chemistry Action Levels Exceeded - Event Days .. . . .. . .. 41 Primary System Lithium % Hours Out of Limit . . 42 1 COST Cents Per Kilowatt Hour . . 44 Spare Parts inventory Value . . . 45 4

ix

Table of Contents / Summary i

l l DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I

l Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage) . . ... . 47 Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance . . . . .. .. . . . . 48 Percentage of Total MWOs Completed per month identified as Rework .. ... 49 Overtime . . .. . .. .. . .. . . 50 Procedural Noncompliance Incidents .

.. . 51 Daily Schedule Performance

- Pes, ant of Completed Scheduled Activities . . .. 52 In-Line Chemistry Instruments Out-of-Service . . 53 Hazardous Waste Produced .. . . . 54 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area . .. . 55 Radiological Work Practices Program . .. . .. . 56 Document Review . . . ... . .. 57 Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . . 58 Temporary Modifications .... 59 Outstanding Modifications . .. . .... 60 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . . 61 Engineering Change Notices Status . . .. .. 62 Open . ... . . . . 63 Licensee Event Report (LER) Root Cause Breakdown . . . ... 64 Licensed Operator Requalification Training 65 License Candidate Exams . . . . 66 Condition Reports . . 67 Cycle 17 Refueling Outage MWO Planning Status 66 Overall Project Status . . . . . 69 Outage Modification Planning . 70 On-Line Modification Planning 71 Progress of 1996 On-Line Modification Planning . 72 x

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

i l

l l ACTION PLANS. DEFINITIONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION LIST Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 l Performance indicator Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 i Safety Enhancement Program Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

! Report Distribution List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 i

i i

i i

f i

1 l

l l

c 4

A i

1 1

i:

xi f

i e

J s

vrr n w . v w-

1 l

l l

1 a

l i

i I i

i '

1 1 i

! i i

4 4

i i

l l

WANO PERFORMANCE i

I IND CATORS i

i k

(

i i

h i

i i

s k

i i

d i

i i

i t

J

,4 s

I i

1 1

i.

d

i i , Monthly Unit Capability Fattor l

...x . . Yxr to-Da1 Unit Capability Factor '

36-Month Unit Capability Factor 1996 Fort Calhoun Goals 1 INPO Industry Goals Year 2000 100% - .x . . . . . . _x . _ _

{

s. [ yr; d

.wii g= g 4e .x.....

a

.x

~

60%__

l

~

40%.

20% .

0% ,

n , ,

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec 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 i 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. j The UCF for December 1996 was reported as 95.4%. The year-to-date UCF was 72.3%, the UCF for the last 12 months was 72.3%, and the 36-month average UCF was reported as 83.4% at the end of the month.

Energy losses for March 1996 are due to a scheduled mini-outage and condenser tube re-l pair. 1 Energy losses for May 1996 are due to a reduction in power to 95% for Moderator Coefficient Testing.

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

Energy losses for Sept., Oct.. & Nov.1996 due to the scheduled Refueling Outage.

Energy losses for Dec.1996 are due to MOV-CV leakage. '

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. At the end of the fourth quarter, the FCS Value was 11.96. This compares to the third quarter value of 14.55.

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

l i i MontNy Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

_ s_ Year To-Da:e unplanned Capability Loss Factor

+ 12-Month Avarage Unplanned Capability Loss Factor  ;

+ Fort Cathov,i Goal (3.00%) '

+ Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (4.5%)

_o_ industry Current Best Quartile 60% ,

50% j. -

40%1 30% I 20% I

$ $ pe , b 5 5 3 5- ---,.5 ,

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

The UCLF for the month of December 1996 was reported as 1.57%. Unplanned energy loss is defined as energy not produced as a result of unscheduled shutdowns, outage exten-  !

sions, or load reductions due to causes under plant management control. Energy losses are  !

considered to be unplanned if they are not scheduled at least four weeks in advance. The year-to-date UCLF was 8.41%, the UCLF for the last 12 months was 8.41%, and the 36-month average UCLF was reported as 6.6% at the end of the month. ,

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

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 12. At the end of the fourth quarter the FCS Value was 4.77. This compares to the third quarter value of 5.82.

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

3

_e FC5bactor Scrams Per 7,0D0 Hours CHticalYear-to-Date

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

_ Fort Calhoun Goal (0.0) e, Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (1)

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

l 1= = =. = =~a 1 1 1 1 1 -

c C C C C  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;' M 0l - - - - - -

Jan feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec FCS Reactor Scr.ims .1996 4

3 3.

A 2 21 % 7 0 N 1 1 1-  ; p l g y '{ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,

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

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL The upper graph shows the number of unplanned autematic 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 Psiformance 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 December 1996. The value for the 12 months from January 1,1996, through December 31,1996 was 0.0. The value for the last 36 months was l 0.609.

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

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 8. At the end of the fourth quarter, the FCS Value was 8.0. This compares to the third quarter value of 8.0.

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

Accountability: Chase Trend: Positive 4

. , Monthly High Pres;ure safety injection system Unavailability vilue Year-to-Date High Pressure safety injection system Unavailability value Fort Calhoun Goal (0.003)

Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (0.02)

)

0.02 --  :.  :.  :.

l O.015 _

0.01 _.

0.005 __

:  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : )

1' 0 _

1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY IN]ECTION SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE l

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 December 1996 was 0.002. There was 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 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 0.00006 at the end of the month.

The unavailability value for the last 12 months was 0.00003572.

There has been a total of 1.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 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 10. At the end of the fourth quarter the FCS Value was 10. This compares to the third quarter value of 10.

Data Source: Phelps/Schaffer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Schaffer Trend: Positive 5

l l

, ,i Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater system Unavailability '

x Year.to-Date AFW Unavailability l GOOD l 4 Fort Calhoun Goal (0.01)

Year 2000 INFO Industry Goal (0.025) 0 02

:  :  :  :  :  :.  :  :  :  :

0.018 +

0.016 1 0.014 I 0.012 0.01  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : 3 ,

0.008 .- c.oo4ss 0.006 0.00493 0.00504 ooo437 0.004 . o.0028 - --

a  ;

l D o.oot?

g "- i,

"'t 4 < $g; R L-J e.

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

SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE l

This indicator shows the Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System Unavailability value, as defined l by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

The AFW System Unavailability Value for December 1996 was 0.00504. There were 7.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-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 0.00205 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.00205 at the end of the month. l There has been a total of 21.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-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.

i 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 10. At the end of the fourth quarter the FCS Value was 10. This compares to the third quarter value of 10.

Data Source: Phelps/Fritts (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Fritts Trend: Positive o

l

, ,,, Monthly Emergency AC Power Unavailability Value

-x Year-to-Date Emergency AC Power Unavailability Value

,_ 1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (0.024) l GOOD l Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (0.025) y 0.14 7

0.12 1 0.1 _

O.08 __

0.06 7

0.04 1 0.02 l

_ F .

0 P11 r-E x mx , , .,x r"d w d 1 4,4; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the Emergency AC Power System unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value for December 1996 was 0.004. Dur-ing the month, there were 6.1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of planned unavailability, and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned  ;

unavailability for testing and repairs. The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value year-to-date was 0.010 and tM value for the last 12 months was 0.010 at the end of the month.

There has been a total of 1167.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 3.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability for the emergency AC power system in 1996.

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

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 0.025.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 10. At the end of the fourth quarter the FCS Value was 10.00. This compares to the third quarter value of 9.75.

Data Source: Phelps/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Ronning Trend: Positive 7

l i ~ .. i Monthly Thermal Performance l i 12-Month Average I i

+ Year-to-Date Average Monthly Thermal Performame

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (99.6%)

+ Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (99.5%)

100 % ,

5 -

(3 h

$ l 1 E E!

W n

5

.- w I- g n[A L,- , l l 2 4 Y 3 <

[-

e.  :' s g i u h f y k y 99%

7 ,

Q jf f g

? A fj l

{ j

$ $ e [

, .'3 ) .4 N 1996

{

1. WO k f har , .tj i 7:. S & at, f 1 L

t? . %2 4 t, !t i i ,

~

[ ( $ $ h i i l 98%  ;

E I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec 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 December 1996 was 99.6%. The year-to-date average monthly thermal performance value prior to the RFO was 99.7, at the end of the September.

The average monthly value for the 12 months from January 1,1995, through December 31, 1996, was 99.69%.

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

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 6. At the end of the fourth quarter the FCS Value was 5.07 The value at the end of the third quarter 5.19.

Data Source: Phelps/Naser(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Gorence Trend: None 8

l r--eq Fuei Relabdity(E 4)

Year 2000 INPO Industry Fuel Defect Reference (5 x 10-4 Microcuries/Grarn)

+ 1996 Goal (9/1/96 through 12/31/96) 300 , 299.16 2804 257.07 l

E ho 2 217.6 2 220 _

169 ho 7 159.9 8 ] 121.9

$ 120 -- 1996 3 100. 75.52 73.4 78.42 RFO

2g_ g _,

y .E ,

4;5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec FLIEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR t

The FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR (FRl) for December 1996 was 4.5E 4. This is the first monthly FRI value for Cycle 17.

1 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 i fuel failures and assess the fuel failure number, physical condition, exposure, mechanism, and loca-tion.

The December FRI value is based on data form December 14 through early morning of the 31st. The days selected are when the plant chemistry values are a equilibrium for steady-state power operation <

( above 85% power for at least 3 days) and the letdown flow is at a constant value. The plant reduced l power to approximately 7% on December 31st to allow the isolation of Main Steam control valve piping to repair a leak.

The 'WANO Performance Indicator Program Utility Data Coordinator Reference Notebook" (INPO No.94-009, Rev.1) states the Industry Goal for fuel reliability is: " units should strive to operate with zero fuel defects" The 1996 Fort Calhoun Station FRI Performance Indicator goal is to mcintain a monthly FRI below 5.0 x 104 microcuries/ gram. A value larger than 5.0 x 10d microcuries/ gram indicates a high probability of reactor core operation with one or more fuel defects.

While the December FRI is below this zero-defect threshold value, based on previous cycle's fuel performance history and CADE, a fuel failure prediction code, FCS personnel assessment is that there is 1 failed fuel pin in Cycle 17. Radiochemistry samples taken during the down power on De-cember 31st indicated an lodine 131 spike which cnfirms tha failed pin assessment. The fuel vendor, Westinghouse, has not provided a fuel failure predicition at this time.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 8. At the end of the fourth quarter the FCS Value was 8.0. This compares to the third quarter value of 0.0.

Data Source: Guinn/Guliani Accountability: Chase /Stafford Trend: Needs Management Attention 9

g;jjgjjgja Secondary System CPI

_.,_.12-Month Average

{G O e Fort Calhoun Goal (1 A) 2.6 ,_ y 2.51 2A 1 2.31 2.2 _

2.1 .

2__

1.9 _

1.81 1.7 J_

1.6 __

1.5 __

1.41 ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

1'3 9'2 T 1996 RFO A-

, ,, TT%'

1 E E 5 m Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 December 1996 was 2.54. The 12-month average CPI value was 1.32 at the end cf the December.

The Chemistry Performance index (CPI) value is higher than those experienced prior to the 1996 RFO. Of the six param-eters used to calculate the CPI four of them are above the target values. These parameters are steam generator chloride end sodium, condensate pump discharged dissolved oxygen and feedheater #6 copper. The chloride value for the month is consist 6nt with those observed before outage. The oxygen value is 30% higher than seen before the outage. The sodium I v:lue is 100% higher than before the outage. The copper value is significantly higher than before the outage. There has I been a conesrted effort made in locating the sources of these increases. Condenser in-leakage testing has been con-ducted separately by FCS personnel and Conco inc. Several suspected leaks have been located and repairs are under- l

~

way. At the end of December a source of the increased sodium has been attributed to a high sodium content found in the inservice hydrazine tote (1.2 ppm). The limit for sodium, per the purchasing specification is 1 ppm. The purchasing inspection has been amanded to require a receipt inspection prior to acceptance. Makeup samples have been sent a laboratory to determine contaminants associated with organic compounds. The higher than expected copper values are due to the high level of ammonia that was present in the condensate and feedwater in December. Ammonia is corrosive to copper and copper containing components in the feed and steam systems. These components include the condenser

.ubesheet, auxiliary steam system building heater, heat exchangers and the generator hydrogen coolers. Ammonia in the feedheater #6 was approximately 7 ppm compared to 1.5 ppm before the outage. On 12/29/96 @ 0400 the condenser cvacuation pumps (FW-8's) were rotated from FW-8A and FW-8C to FW-8A and FW-8B. Almost immediately the ammonia tvels and the CPD dissolved oxygen began to drop. See CR 199601645. After ammonia was reduced the feedheater #6 copper value and CPD dissolved oxygen retumed to within specifications. Efforts are continuing to further reduce the concentrations of those parameters used to determine the cpl.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 7. At the end of the fourth quarter the FCS Value was 7.0. This compares to the third quarter value of 6.4.

Data Source: Spires /Reneaud (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Spires Trend Positive due to performance better than goal 10

l

-.. , Monthly Personnel Radiation Exposure

+ Cumulative PersonnelRadiation Exposure e FCS Goal 138 person. REM Googg 240 230 I e 220 .

210 _-

200..

190--

180..

l 170. ,

160 I 150.

E 140 g  ;  ; 3

$ 130 4 g 120 ..

g 110 --

2 100..

90 _ -

80 __

70 __ -

J 60 -

50 _ _  :

20 -

y s: - e Jan Fe b Mar Apr May Jun J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure for the year is set at 138.0 person-REM.

The exposure for December 1996 was 2.444 person-Rem (ALNOR).

The year-to-date exposure through the end of December was 230.393 person-Rem (AL-NOR).

This indicator is a " COLLECTIVE"inaicator. INPO does not differentiate between on-line and 1

outage exposure.

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal for collective radiation exposure is 120 person-rem per year. The current industry best quartile is 145 person-rem per year. The yearly average for Fort Calhoun Station for the three years frorn 10/93 through 9/96 was 116.78 person-rem per year.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 8. At the end of the fourth quarter the FCS Value was 5.73. This compares to the third quarter value of 8.02.

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 54 11

l gigg Radioactive Waste Buried This Month (cu.ft.)

__x._ Year-to-Date Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried l Good l

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

k 1100..

900 _

800__

700 .,_

g 600 h

$ 500__ 4

$ 8 *5*

400 g N

300__ g 8 8 200 .,_ O g

100 1 8 R S *'~~~~~~*

6 j 6 6 0 -x x x ,

. , , . , , j i

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

VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE 4 This indicator shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumulative year-to-date radioactive waste buried, the Fort Calhoun goals, and the approximate indus- l try upper 10%

Cu.Ft.

Amount of solid radwaste shipped off-site for processing during current month 1334 Volume of solid radwaste buried during current month 167.0 Cumulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1996 656.6 Amount of solid radwaste in temporary storage 136.3 The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for the volume of solid radioactive waste (buried) is 600 cubic feet. The Year 2000 INPO industry goalis 45 cubic meters (1,589 cubic feet) per year. The industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 27.33 cubic meters (965.3 cubic feet) per year.

This indicator is no longer used by INPO. The indicator will still be tracked, but will no longer be used in computing the Stations Index Number.

Data Source: Chase /Breuer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 54 12

--o-- Year.40 Dete FCS Industrial Safety Accident Rate (NPO Definition)

, -e- FCS Average Rate (Last 12 Months)

-e- FCS Year-End (bel (<0.50)

, -e- Industry Current Best Quartile (.24)

-*- Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (<0.40) 2 --

1.5 --

sw_ -

l 1-0.5 ,  ; ,& =  ; = = -

-5 -

=

5 5 5 'E od id 5[' 5  : , , , , , , ,

5 E

Jan Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Fef INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE As stated in INPO's December 1993 publication ' Detailed Descriptions of World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) Performance Indicators and Other Indicators for Use at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants:

"The purpose of this indicator is to monitor progress in improving industrial safety performance for utility personnel permanently assigned to the station."

The Fort Calhoun Station industrial safety accident rate value year-to-date was 0.29 at the end of December 1996. The value for the 12 months from January 1,1996, through November 31,1996, was 0.44.

There were no restricted-tirne and no lost-time accidents in December 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 <0.40. 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 S. At the end of the fourth quarter the FCS Value was 4,6 This compares to the third quarter value of 2.73.

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs(Manager / Source)

Chase / Booth (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Bishop 13

I i

4 i

j i I

i

l i

l i

i '

l SAFE OPERATIONS -

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

4 I

i e

i 4

i 1

}

i i

i i

i i

i 14 1

i

+ 1996 Disabling hjurylltiness frequency

+ Average Rate (Last 12 Months)

+ 1996 Goal (0.50) l GOOD l

)

l 2 _. 1f 1.8 1

1.6 L 1.4 .

1 1.2 - -

l 1

l .

1 t

0.8 +  ;

I I _

_ _ .. X _ _

0.47 M I ~i 1 0.2 l

0  ;

Jan Fhb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l1996l  ;

DISABLING INJURY /ILL' NESS 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.

1 The disabling injury / illness frequency rate year-to-date was 0.49 at the end of December 1996.

l There were no disabling injury / illness cases reported for the month.

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for the 12 months from January 1,1996, through December 31,1996, was 0.44.

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

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

Accountability: Chase / Bishop Treed: Meeting OPPDs Gaol SEP 25,26 & 27 15 I

l

1996 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency i

i Average Rate (Last 12 Months)

... .. Fort Calhoun Goal 2.5 ..

=

2 -

1.75 .. - - -

1.5 e......

.......e.......e......e.......ew.......e.......s.......e.......s.......e.......e 1.25 1.

0.75 +

0.5 ._

0.25 .

0: ,  ;

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

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

There have been 14 recordable injury / illness cases in 1996. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate year-to-date was 2.03 at the end of December 1996. There was 1 recordable injury / illness case reported for the month of December. This injury occured when a worker injured his/her right eye in the basement of the turbine building.

1 The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate for the 12 months from October 1, 1995, through November 31,1996, was 1.85.

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

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

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

l l

,_u Contamination Events (Monthly)

_, Contamination Events (YTD) 100..

90 _

80 80 80 __ _

70 __ )

60 __ i 50 .

52  !

40 __

30 a 20 20 35 ,

7 7

10 __

5 0 I sei E E Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l1996l CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS 21,000 DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA This indicator shows the Personnel Contamination Events in the Clean Controlled Area for contaminations 21,000 disintegrations / minute per probe area for the reporting month.

There were O contamination events in December 1996. There has been a total of 80 contamination events in 1996 through the end of the month.

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

Accountability: Chase /Gebers l Trend: Needs Management Attention SEP 15 & 54 l

17 l

m . _

i gig Personnel Errors (Each M55th)

+ Preventable (18-MonthTotals) e._ Personnel Error (18-Month Totals) 20 --

15 .

10 4

o 5

. A

?=N;;

0 ,

E , , ,

E4 ,

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERs This indicator depicts 18-month totals for numbers of" Preventable" and " Personnel Error" LERs.

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

In November 1996, there were three events which were subsequently reported as LERs.

One LER was categorized as Preventable and no LERs were categorized as Personnel Error for the month of November. The tota' LERs for the year 1996 (through November 30,1996) is fourteen. The total Personnel Error LERs for the year 1996 is six. The total Preventable LERs for the year is eight.

1 Due to the manner in which documentation is closed out, data for this Performance Indica-tor 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: Needs increased Management Attention SEP 15 18 l

l

)

l l

, i Startup Shutdown IGOOD M Operations  !

...o... Industry Average Trend

2. Y

=

2 o 1 -,- -

G - a ... ...

...c... . ... ...a......c...... ...c 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 93 2 93-3 93-4 94-1 94-2 94-3 94 4 95-1 Year-Quarter SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES l This indicator illustrates the number of NRC Safety System Failures as reported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual" Performance Indica-tors for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

m Failures /20 Demands

, , Failures /50 Demands EEEE Failures /100 Demands

-e. Trigger Values /20 Demands

Trigger values /50 Demands

-- Trigger Values 100 Demands 8 -

T 6.L 5:I  :  :  :  :  :  :

4._

3--

8 2-- - m 2 -~ '8 2~~~ M r -- - s -- - u - - e - ---- - m - - - - m -- - m --- e -a 1~ 11 11

~-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

" O 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0g 0 0g 0 0g 0 0g 0 0g Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY This bar graph shows three monthly indicators pertaining to the number of failures that were reported during the last 20, 50, and 100 emergency diesel generator demands at the Fort Calhoun Station. Also shown are trigger values which correspond to a high level of confidence that a unit's diesel generators have obtained a reliability of greater than or equal to 95% when the failure values are below the corresponding trigger values. The Fort Calhoun 1996 goal is to have fewer failures than these trigger values.

The demands counted for this indicator include the respective number of starts and the respective number of load-runs for both Diesel Generators combined. The number of start demands includes all valid and inadvertent starts, including all start-only demands and all start demands that are followed by load-run demands, whether by automatic or i manualinitiation. Load-run demands must follow successful starts and meet at least one 1 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 j one hour and to be loaded with at least 50% of design load (see exceptions and other '

demand criteria in the Definitions Section of this report).

Data Source: Phelps/Ronning (Manager / Source)

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

20

i i DG 1 Failures /25 Demands ggg DG 2 Failures /25 Demands S.

4.  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

3.

2.

i 1 1 8 e i e 1a _

o o o o o o o oo oo oo oo e o Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec 1996

)

DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS)

This indicator shows the number of failures experienced by each emergency diesel gen-erator during the last 25 start demands and the last 25 load-run demands. A trigger value of 4 failures within the last 25 demands is also shown. This trigger value of 4 failures within 25 demands is the Fort Calhoun goal for 1996.

It must be emphasized that, in accordance with NUMARC criteria, ce:tain actions will take

, place in the event that any one emergency diesel generator experiences 4 or more fail-

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

, actions.

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

Data Source: Phelps/Ronning (Manager / Source)

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

~

21

DG 1 Unreliability Value DG-2 Unreliability Value l GOOD l

,_ FCS Goal e Industry Upper 10%(0.002 for a 3 Year Average) Y 0.08 _ _

0.07 _

0.06 -

0.05 __

0.04 __

0.03 __

0.02 __

0.01 .. o o o

_o o_ o o o s_ o o_o o, o o_ o o_ o o_ o o, , ,

0 = = = = = = = = = =

=

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

EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY '

The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the likelihood that emergency AC power generators will respond to off-normal events or accidents. It also provides an indication of the effectiveness of maintenance, opera-tion and test practices in controlling generator unreliability. The last event occured on September 1,1995 when the Field Flash Relay on DG-2 failed.

The year-to-date station EDG unreliability at the end of December 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 i load-run demand without a failure.

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

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

Emergency diesel generator unreliability is calculated as follows:

value per DG = SU + LU -(SU x LU) where SU = Start Unreliability = number of unsuccessful starts number of valid start demands LU = Load-run Unreliability = number of unsuccessfulload-runs ,

number of valid load-run demands Station Value = average of DG-1 and DG-2 values Data Source: Phelps/Ronning (Manager / Source)

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

l 22 l l

l l

e Control Room Deficiencies Added i i Control Room Deficiencies Completed e Completed within Target Completion Date Completion Rate 90 _,_ l ~

e4 _ _ 100.0%

80 -

s2.7% coat.conowie so% orc.a.oeschnews ey7arrescon,wtion osi.

7 70 .,. 80.0%

g ,, .4 % .:

g g 60T j s.4% as.es j

h

--g .

60.0% g 47.7 4.0% 44 p o 40

• i

3 ,,

3'

. 40.0% _%

j $ 30 , 27 33,og 7 y

g

Z20.l22 3

87 g

e4 20.0% at I 10 l

. 0 8 0.0%

May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec Control Room Deficiencies I

l NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES

\ l

) This indicator measures the timeliness of closing Control Room Deficiencies. l 1

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

i There were 44 Control Room Deficiencies completed during December 1996, and 41 4 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 i more timely completion of CRDs.

, Due to a new tracking system initiated in July / August, data for August 1996 was not avail-

! able.

Data Source: Chase /Cronin (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Short/Faulhaber Trend: None 23

e Overdue c.. . Less chas e

+ Number of On-Une Control Room Deficiencles ever4ee 30 25 24 20 ,7 is 1e +

• Dah WA n  ; , , 4  ; ,  ;

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l Number of On-Une CRDs l Overdue ca i.None onroue

+ Number of Outage Control Room Deficiencies 3'

I Note: Overdue iterra are those older than 18 rronths 25 15 --

10 5 3 **

2 2 2 Data N/A Data N/A .

0 i -

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

No data was available for the month of November.

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

Data for August was not available.

Data Source: Chase /Kermoade (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Short/Faulhaber/ Herman Trend: None 24 l

l

NO DATA AS OF 01/09/97 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE For the month of November 1996, an individual accumulated 1.415 Rem, which was the highest individual exposure for the month.

From January 1996, through November 1996, an individual has accumulated a total of 1.475 Rem.

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

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

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None l

25 )

i

sgiig fGFCited Violahons (Mv ,y,;y)

, FCSNon-CitedViolations(Monthly) c FCS Cited Violabons (12-Month Average) COOD 0 FCS Non-Cited Violations (12-Month Average)

--m--. %gion IV Cited Viobtions (12-Month Average for kgion IV top quartile) lI 10 , _ _ _

~

8..

C 6.

N 3 g g gp - ~ , 3 l 4* M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 I o Eiil ,M 5: U ; sin 0E,b, ,

e o - - x . x . . ~ >

o A I $ N & 4 A & 8 & 8

.l 1996 I

VIOLATION TREND 1 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 I 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 i other Region IV plants.

l

{

The following inspections were completed during December 1996:

15R No. Ilila 96-16 Resident Monthly inspection 96-17 Special Inspection - PASS To date, OPPD has received fifteen violations for inspections conducted in 1996.

Level ill Violations 1 LevelIV Violations 9 Non-Cited Violations .5 Total 15 The 1996 Fort Calhoun Station Goal for this performance indicator is to be at or below the cited violation trend for the top quartile plant in Region IV.

Data Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Tills Trend: None 26

I 9 l sa.iisIndustry RRC53 aificiiEvents Average Trend l GOOD l  ;

1 1 i 1 ,. _ y I 0.51 0 0 l 0 I--- r --- , r r r r r r r - I 92 93 94 95 1 95 2 95-3 95-4 96 1 96-2 96-3 96-4 i j Year - Quarter l INPO Significant Events (SEs) l GOOD l 3

7 2 f. 2 y

11 -

0 0 O d g.

92 93 94 95-1 95-2 95-3 95-4 96 1 96-2 96-3 96-4 j Year-Quarter 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 involving a large break LOCA or a main steam line break inside containment could result in the inoperability of both control room A.C. units.

INPO SIGNIFICANT EVENTS The following SEs have been identified since 2nd Quarter of 1992 by INPO:

1 2nd Quarter 1992: Intake of transuranics during letdown filter change-out.  ;

1 3rd Quarter 1992: Safety Valve malfunction (RC-142).

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

2nd Quarter 1993: Inadequate control of Switchyard activities. l 3rd Quarter 1993: Loss of reactor coolant due to malfunction of Pressurizer Safety Valve.

1st Quarter 1994: 1) Unexpected CEA withdrawal. (Event occurred November 13,1993 but was not identified as an SE until 1st Quarter 1994).

2) Unplanned dilution of Boron concentration in the Reactor Coolant System.

1st Quarter 1996: During pressurizer solid plant operation, the Low Temperaturo Overpressunzation (LTOP) protection for the RCS was inadvertently disabled. l 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. J Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission & INPO Accountability: Chase Trend: Positive 1

27

Missed sTs Resulting in LERs 3.

2+

1 1__ _

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =

93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS This indicator shows the number of missed Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Lic-cnsee Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting month.

There were no missed surveillance tests resulting in LERs during November 1996.

On December 28,1994, during the performance of OP-ST-SHIFT-0001, data was not cntered 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 /Phelps Trend - Positive SEP 60 & 61 28

d l

j i

i i

5 l

l PERFORMANCE i

i

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

i i

i i

i i

i 29

l

! Net Generation (10,000 MWh) 40 l I l 36.23 35.85 33.85 34.55 R81 34,43 ls 30 -

M ini -

l ouuse j j 20.16 gp

~

9' 16.94 l g 15.16 1996 l

Si MO l I l 9.746 10 .,_

l 4

n.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct l;,

Nov Dec l

) STATION NET GENERATION 1

l i

i i

i During the month of December 1996, a net total of 344367.7 MWh was generated by the I

Fort Calhoun Station. Cumulative net generation for Cycle 16 was 5,418,326.6 MWh .

Cumulative net generation for Cycle 17 was 354114.00 MWh at the end of the month.

Energy losses for June 1996 were attributed to a failure of the Anti-Rotation Device l (ARD) associated with Reactor Coolant Pump Motor RC-3B.

Energy losses for March 1996 were attributed to (1) a planned mini-outage, and (2) con-denser tube leakage repa!r.

l Energy losses for December were attributed to a steam leak on the turbine control valves j (MOV-CV).

l 1 Data Source: Station Generation Report i Accountability: Chase j Trend: None

)

30 l

l 4

1

i i forced Outage Rate (Monthly)

_.e Forced Outage Rate (12 Months) 1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (1.4%) 1 50%__ l t

45%.

40%__

35%__

30%__

25%__

20%__

15% .

10%.

5% ,_ s.m

^

0% - G 0 O ^ ^

0 0 A 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 FORCED OUTAGE RATE The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 5.38% for the twelve months from Janu-ary 1,1996, through December 31,1996. The 1996 year-to-date FOR was 5.38% at the 1 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%. i l

Date Source: Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: None 31

Monthly Unit Capacity Factor

. .. Year-to-Date Unit Capacity Factor g Unit Capacity Factor for Cycle 17 4 36-Month Average Unit Capacity Factor

! GOOD l

+ 1996 fCS Goal (81.49%)

110%..

100%_ -

90%_- 85.20 %

80%.

70% _,-

60%.

50% + Cycle 17 40%__

30% _

20% +

10%__

0% ,

C-16 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec I

UNIT CAPACITY FACTOR l 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.

Cycle 16 Unit Capacity factor was 85.23%,.  !

At the end of the month Cycle 17 unit Capacity was 50.60% and the Unit Capacity Factor for the last 36 months was 85.24%. The 1996 Fort Calhoun annual goal for this indicator is 82.00%.

The year-to-date value is 76.76%.

Energy losses are explained on Page 2.

The Unit Capacity Factor is computed as follows:

Net Electrical Enerav Generated (MWH)

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

~ _

I r i NN l

_,._ Year to-Date Average Monthly EAF l

+ 12-Month Average EAF {

i

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

97.2% _ _

I es.ss $ 1 v

Y _

e a

- 1 =

7 '_3 * .

60%. 'D

~

40%_

l 20% _

1996 RFO 0% ,

b f~l 92 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec I 1996 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 December 1996 was reported as 94.28%. The year-to-date monthly aver-age EAF was 72.6% at the end of the month.

The Fort Calhoun average monthly EAF for the past three years is 84.99%. The industry me' ca 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

1 m safety System Actuations (INPO Definition) ,

+ FCS Goal (0) l

__ industry upper 10 Percentile (0) 3_ l l

2__

l 1 1 I 1___ __

l M $

f) $ '

O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '

, ,e  :  :  :  :  : : : :  :  :  :

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

There were no INPO unplanned safety system actuations during the month.

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-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 which initiated a SGIS Safeguards signal. As a result, the MSIVs closed which caused a simultaneous turbine and reactor trip.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0.

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

1

e safety System Actuations (NRc Definition) i i FCs Goal (0)

+ Critical Hours l 10 -- .800 I 7

, c..g.;

, . E00 l 8 l a

$6 ,

- 500 4

E l

_ 400 $

"li # 't' '

I 300 E li 3 g

!  ! . 200 2 .li I I '

f

.i

/ __100 1

0 ' -

0 92 93 94 95 NDJFMAMJJAsONDJ FMAMJJAsOND TM-l1994l l1995l l

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(NRC DEFINITION)

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

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

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

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

Accountability: Phelps/Foley/Ronning Trend: None 35

l l l

1 i Gross Heat Rate e

w._. Year-to-Date Gross Heat Rate l

__, _ Fort Calhoun Goal l

I  !

i 14.75 .

1 14.25 .

13.75 .-

! 13.25

{12.75I_ ,

12.25 __

1 m

g 11.75 _,_

o.

11.25 .- -

10.75 .,_

10.25 __"## "" Ol '

x MN sua ___

9.75 -,_

/

925 ' - -

92 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 l

GROSS HEAT RATE l l

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 10,064 for the month of December i 1996. The 1996 year-to-date GHR was 10,207 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

+ The rmal output

+ Fort Calhoun 1495 MW Goal

-3_ Te ch Spec 1500 MW Limit 1600 I.. . . . . . . _

1 . . x+

1400.

1200-1000I j800.

a s00 .

400 200.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT The thermal output graph displays the daily operating power level during December 1996, the 1500 thermal megawatt average technical specification limit, and the 1495 thermal megawatt Fort Calhoun goal.

I Data Source: Guinn/Willett (Manager / Source) ,

Accountability: Chase /Short Trend; None .

37 1

+ Number of Equipm:nt Forecd outages (Monthly)

+ Equipm:nt For:cd Outage Rateli,000 Criticil Hrs. (12-Month Interval) Good l

+ Fort Calhoun Year-End Goals (0.2) y 2

1 .-

'; V Y . ,

: 0 .  :

:  :  : i 0 - - - - - . .

b 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITILAL HOURS The equipment forced outage rate per 1,000 critical hours forthe 12 months from January 1,1995, through December 31,1996, was 0.286. The year-to-date rate per 1,000 critical hours for the months from January 1996 through December 1996 was 0.286.

An equipment forced outage occured during the month of June due to the failure of the i Anti-Rotation Device associated with RC-38-M. l An equipment forced outage occured at the end of the March due to condenser tube Irakage.

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

cnced a problem with a control element assembly motor drive and a related small leak of I reactor coolant.

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

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

Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs) I Accontability: Chase /Phelps Trend: Needs increased Management Attention 38

-+ CanpomrtCategares 3

18

+

16 .

f N

/ N/

4

. _ . ~ . _

j 6  ? .?  ? j .# Ni .

4.

2.

0-A 5 O N D ]-96 F M A M ] ] A 5 O N D hitial hstalaton Age %rnul use 2% 60%

Procedure Error 2%

Testrg Acton 5%

Manufacturing Other Devices Defect 12% Engineering /De3ffn 2%

COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

The top chart illustrates the number of component categories, application categories and total l categories in which the Fort Calhcun Station has significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than the industy failure rates during the past 18-month Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) reporting period (from March 1995 through August 1996). Fort Calhoun Station reported a higher failure rate in 8 of the 83 component categories (valves, pumps, motors, etc.)

during the past 18-month CFAR period. The station reported a higher failure rate in 9 of the 174 l application categories (main steam stop valves, auxiliary / emergency feedwater pumps, control element drive motors, etc.) during the past 18-month CFAR period.

The pie chart depicts the breakdown by INPO cause categories (see the " Definitions" section of this report for descriptions of these categories) for the 60 failure reports (fa!!"re discovery dates within the 18-month CFAR period) with known failure causes that were submitted to INPO by Fort Calhoun Station. A total of 86 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

,_ Components with more than One Failure w Components with more than Two Failures 15 ,.

I l

10 10 10 1 10 + . I f

ff'. '

7 6 6 6 S J. f f 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ol ,

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

REPEAT FAILURES l 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 cnd Evaluation of Operational Data (NRC/AEOD). The NRC requirement for a Maintenance Effectiveness i

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

This indicator shows the number of NPRDS reportable components with more than one failure during the 18-month Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) period (failure discovery dates from March 1995 through August 1996) and the number of NPRDS reportable components with more than two failures during the 18 month CFAR period.

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

Three out of these 10 NPRDS reportable components had more than two failures. The description and tag numbers of the NPRDS reportable components with more than one failure are listed below:

• 1A-HCV-2987-BP Air Intensifier for HPSI Pump SI-2C Discharge isolation Valve

(> 2 Failures) 1A-HCV-2918-BP Air Intensifier for HPSI Altemate Header IsohtionValve.

• RC-10-08 Control E!ement Drive Mechanism

• RC-3D-M Reactor Coolant Pump Motor

• VIP-402C Valve Positioner for Cont. Cooling Coil VA-8A CCW Outlet Valve V/P-403C (> Two Failures) Valve Positioner for Cont. Cooling Coil VA-8B CCW Outlet Valve 4

FW-56 (> Two Faiiures) 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 a 1 B38-4 AC-3A Circuit Breaker Data Source: Phelps/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None 40 i

CHEMISTRY ACTloN LEVELS EXCEEDED l us Event Days + Average Event Days + Lrnit l 6,

5-C4 5 3 g

N b *1.} $~ -

g g 0

i E

?

E i8  ?

8 I

8 t8

• 8 i 8

V 8

?

8 fs g 3

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

An action level is considered to have been exceeded for the purpose of this indicator, whenevet the parameter exceeds the CH-AD-0003 action level for the current system mode, with the exception of the Steam Genera-tors 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 1Q96 Fort Calhoun goal for this ndicator is the 12-month average of two event days per month. There is no goi ; established for the number if 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 oays by the number of preceding months, until twelve months were reached.

There were two event days in december.

High sodium in steam generator blowdown during a powerdown on 12/08/96. See CR 199601570.

Feedwater #6 copper out of specification high, due to hagher tahn normal ammonia levels. See CR 199700011.

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

1 12.00 11.00 E 10.00 E l 9.00 E i 8.00 E g 7.00 E i E E i

5 6.00 g 5.00 i E E l 4.00 E E E t

3.00 E E 2.00 EE ~E' l 1.00 ! E E E E 0.00 I E E - M E E Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 i

i l l

4 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 2.93% for the month of De-c:mber 1996. Lithium exceeded its limits for 21.83 hours9.606481e-4 days <br />0.0231 hours <br />1.372354e-4 weeks <br />3.15815e-5 months <br /> during the month.

Lithium was out of specification due to boron concentration changes during plant startup followint the 1996 RFO.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is a maximum of 5% hours out of limit 2

Data Source: Chase / Spires (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Spires Trend: None 42

4 i

l

l

l COST 4

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.

43

l l

l

-.+ Actual ._e._ Revised Budget- l

_ original Budget Plan l 4.0 0 . .

3.75 ..

l 3.50 .L '

g 3.25 3.00 U 2.75 .

/

2.50 +

2.25 __

2.00 D91 D92 093 D94 D95 J96 F E A M J J A S o N D D96 D97 098 D99 Months CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun Station.

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

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

The 12-month rolling average unit price (period of October,1995 through November, 1996) averaged above the budget due to 12-month rolling expenses falling below the budget expectations, while the 12-month rolling generation die not meeting the budget expectations. The 12-month rolling average (10/95 through 11/96)is 3.17 cents per kilo-watt hour.

The year-to-date average is trending negatively.

Cents per KWH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Budget Y.T-D 2.79 2.84 2.85 2.81 2.82 2.76 2.73 2.75 2.80 2.97 3.12 3.15 Actual Y-T-D 2.91 2.77 2.96 2.94 2.83 2.98 2.91 2.85 2.84 2.98 3.23 Data Source: Lounsberry/ Dent (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Lounsberry Trend: Needs Management Attention 44

.-e spare Parts inventory Value ($ Million) 16.30 .

16.10 ..

15.90 ..

15.70 I

^

e 15.50 +l o

E r 0 15.30 ..

i 15.10 ..

14.90 -

14.70 .

i 14.50 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of December 1996 was reported as $15,123,901.

Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Willrett/McCormick T rend: None 45

l l

i i

! DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT i

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS i

i i

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

i 46

,.. ., Corrective Maintenance Preventive Maintenance

-- Non-Corrective / Plant im provem ents

._e_ Fort Calhoun Goal 1000 830 N " 780 759 771 782 720 1

800 684 742 729 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l Non-Outage Maintenance Work Order Backlog l l

lO Total MWOs l p$, )

o m pie tio a 510 Da te 600 Total

~~

400 * -~

q97 .<

MWOs 200. 3 16 33 %

0_ ramt d )

Rioray Riorty Riority Riorty Riority

{

1 2 3 4 5 )

MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOG This indicator shows the backlog of non-outage Maintenance Work Orders remaining open at the end of the reporting month. It also includes a breakdown by maintenance classification and prior-ity. The 1996 goal for this indicator is 400 non-outage corrective maintenance MWOs. The cur-rent backlog of corrective MWOs is 440. To ensure that the MWO backlog is worked in a timely l manner, non-outage maintenance completion goals have been established as follows- l l

G931 Priority 1 Immediate Action 2 days Priority 2 Urgent 5 days Priority 3 Operational Concems 21 days Priority 4 Routine Corrective 90 days Priority 5 Non-Essential 180 days Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber

. Trend: Adverse SEP 36 47

3 l Ratio of Preventive toTotal Maintenance f 90%

80% . . -

i 70%1 ..

60%I 50% 1

) 40%. -~

)

] 30%__

' 20% -

10%.

0%

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

l r...i Preventive Maintenance items Overdue

+ Fort Calhoun Goal l I 3% . lf 2.60%

3%

7 ,

1.28 %

1% + 0.75Y.

0.60 % 0.25%

I 0.35% 0.37 % 0.40 % 0.39% 0.39%

c " ^ ^ E ^ ^ ^ ^

o  !

1 0% 1 M  !

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 77.46% for the month of December 1996.

The lower graph shows the percentage of scheduled preventive maintenance items that are overdue. During December 1996,393 PM items were completed.

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

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

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: Meets OPPD Goal SEP 41 & 44 l

48

g Rework as identified by Craft

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (<3%)

'o 5% . 4.s%

b 3N

{4%-_ 3,n 8 2.n E 3% +

3o

[o 2% Le% te% '"

ts L5%

~

o.s% 0.M f 1%.. --

o.8%

y .

$ 0% < , ,

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec i~ No. Maintenance terns Competed + % Identified as Repeat 800 - 729 . 8.0% l 700. 7.0% l 600. 526 60%

500 I 5.0%

355 288 400 4.0%

300. 220 217 214 2 3.0%

200 '

207 200 + ---

. 2.0% l 100- + 1.0%

0 0.0%

Jan Feb Nhr Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct N3v Dec

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED

! PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK / REPEAT I

1 This graph indicates the percentage of total MWOs completed per month identified as ,

rework. Rework activities are identified by maintenance planning and craft.

This indicator is calculated from the 15th of November to the 15th of December, 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.

Data Source: Faulhaber/Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None 49 i

u 1

l gigg;g Maintenance Overtime 12-Month Average Maintenance Overtime RFO l

j <

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

1

! 45%_- 4'5%

! 40%__

i 35% _,.

l MINI-OUTAGE 30%.. 28% 29%

26%

j 35% __

l ARD OUTAGE j 20%

i 20%-_

16%

! 15%__

l 12%

10%._

. 6% 7%

j 5% +

l.

j 0% ,

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

! l 1

l 1

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

Tne percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 26% for the month of December 1996.

High overtime due to the 1996 RFO.

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

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None 50

)

i Human Performance CRs (Maintenance) 20 .

i 18 i

16 14 --

g 12 __

1 i

10 -,_

i o a j 8--

6 6 6+ 5 l

Jun Ia Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov ll Dec l

PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS I

(MAINTENANCE) I This indicator shows the number of Condition Reoorts related to procedural noncompli-

ance incidents assigned to the Maintenance Departmerit.

l l

! Data Source: Faulhaber i Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 15,41 & 44 l

i l

51

t DATA IS AVAILABLE ON-LINE VIA NUCLEAR NEWS NETWORK DAILY SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE PERCENT OF SCHEDULED ACTIVITIES COMPLETED This indicator shows the percent of integrated Plant Schedule activities completed on schedule. All work groups and activities are included.

The percent of emergent work is calculated as a percentage of the total number of sched-uled and emergent activities. l The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for completed scheduled maintenance activities is 85%.

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

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

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 33 s2

gg % of Hours the In-Line Chemistry Instruments are Inoperable

,_. 1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (10%)

11% ,.

9% 10.73 % 7.93%

7.01 % 6.67%

618%

6% 5.41 % 5 52 %

4.32'/s 4% . 3.55% 3.45% 3.72 %

i  ; i ,

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

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

At the end of December 1996, the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instruments were inoperable was 3.72%. The following instruments were out of service for the entire n.onth 6f-November 1996:

OL PHE-6775 CPD pH YE-6776 CPD Dissolved Oxygen 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: Positive - Better than OPPD Goal 53

, i-i Waste Produced Each Month (Kilograms)

._e Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal (150 kilograms)

Federal & state Monthly Umit (Max. of 1,000 kg) 1000  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

800-600 +

n N

2 400 200__

0 > .

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

i i

i t

gjjjgg Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area f -w FC'It Calhoun Goal (10%)

10% e  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

I l

4 I

i _

i I 9% +

4

-w .. _ . -

~

8% ~~

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

l 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 goalis a maxi-mum of 10.0% contaminated RCA.

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

Data Source: Chase /Gundal(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 54 55

Identifed PRWPs[iiTD)

Fort Calhoun Goal (<15) 16 l 14 .

12 12 12 12 . - -

10 . i l

8.

6

6. 5 4

4. -

2 -

0 0

Jan Feb Mar Apr IVhy June July Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l

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

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

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

There have been 12 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 SEP52 56

O Documents Scheduled for Review g Documents Reviewed g Documents Overdue 400 7

_ l 350 _

~

300.

~

l 250. -

l 200 - 1 1501 -

100 T

50 .

0 B B E, El > E '

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 DOCUMENT REVIEW This indicator shows the number of completed, scheduled, and overdue (greater than 6 i months past the scheduled due date) biennial reviews for the reporting month. These i document reviews are performed in-house and include Special Procedures, the Site Se- ,

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

During December 1996, there were 369 document reviews scheduled, while 27 reviews were completed. At the end of the month, there were 38 document reviews more than 6 months overdue. There were O new documents initiated during December 1996.

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

G System Failures O Non-System Failures { ~O 30 .

is V

25 +

22 22 20 - nn a

15 __ .

a 4 4 2 -

2 2 2

Jan Fe b Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)

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

During the month of December 1996, there were 25 loggable/ reportable incidents identi-fied. Overall for 1996, there were 248 loggable/ reportable incidents identified. This is a decrease of 17% from 1995. System failures decreased 22%, while non-system failures increased 10%.

System failures in December 1996, accounted for 88% of the loggable/ reportable inci-dents, nine (41%) of which were environmental failures. Non-system failures consisted of two lost / unattended security badges and one unsecured vital area door.

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

Data Source: Sefick/Woerner (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Sefick Trend: None SEP 58 58

i i Temporary Modifications >1-cycle old (RFO required for removal) g!!!gg Temporary Modifications >6 months old (Removable on-line)

+ Fort Calhoun Goals for >1-cycle and >6 months old 7

6--

'T 4 .,_

31 '

" i i

~  : i o o oo oo oo oo o oo oo o Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS This indicator provides information on the number of temporary modifications (TMs) greater than one fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage (RFO) for removal and the number of temporary modifications removable on-line that are greater than six months old. The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goals for this indicator are zero.

There is currently one temporary modification that is greater than one-fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage to remove. TM 96-014, Reactor Coolant Gas Vent Line Pressure High Alarm, was scheduled and repairs were made during the 1996 Refueling Outage, but function testing of the repairs cannot be performed because the reactor coolant gas vent line pressure is currently too high to test the equipment. At the end of December 1996, there were 3 temporary modifica-tions installed that were greater than six months old that could have been removed on-line.

At the end of December 1996, there was a total of 11 TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station.

Four (4) of the 11 installed TMs require an outage for removal and 8 are removable on-line. In 1996, a total of 36 temporary modifications have been installed.

TM 96-018 Equipment Drain Header Soft Rubber Patch TM 96-022 Containment Low Flow Purge TM 96-024 Replacement of Prefilters VA-18A/B/C with Carbon Filters > 6 months old Data Source: Phelps/ Frank (Manager / Source)

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

, i TotalModificatonPackages Open

_,_ FbrtCalhounYear-EndGoal(68) 100__ ._.

90 .

80 + n 7s 7s 75 76 75

,, ,, yo n y 7, 70 __ -

l -

. . . . . . . . T. . . .

50 __ _

40 __

30 __

20 10 _

0  ; ,

93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jtsi Jtd Aug Sep Oct Nw Dec 96 OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS This indicator shows the total number of outstanding modifications (excluding outstanding modifications which are orocosed to be cancelled).

Reporting Categorv '9.3 '94 '9.fi '9fi '9.Z E Month Form FC-1133 Backlog /In Progress 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mod. Requests Being Reviewed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Design Engr. Backlog /In Progress 0 0 0 0 4 16 20 Construction Backlog /in Progress 4 1 8 5 1 2 21 3 Design Engr. Update Backlog /in Progress _1 1 _fi .21 _Q _Q _23 Totals 5 2 14 26 5 18 70 (outage + online) (3+2) (0+2) (6+8) (17+9) (0+5) (17+1) (43+27)

At the end of December 1996,13 modification requests have been issued this year and 3 modification requests have been cancelled. The Nuclear Projects Review Committee (NPRC) has conducted 46 backlog modification request reviews this year. The Nuclear Projects Committee (NPC) has completed 7 backlog modification request reviews this year.

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

Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Lounsberry/Belek (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Scofield/Jaworski Trend: None 60

40 EARS Requiring Engineering Closeout- Not in Closeout 30 32 32 20.f19 -

20 fgSE D E 10 10 g 10 8 3 3 - 4- 4~ 4-0 m .p IE 5 E Oct Nov Dec Oct Nov Dec Oct Nov Dec Oct Nov Dec 0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-12 Months >12 Months O Engineering Response g Closeout (SE) 20 15 13 10 - 8 2 1 o 1 3 #

0 3 0 I I 0 0 Priority 0 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6 83 E ARs R equidag Res po ns e 16 E ARs d " 4 gy,g Res o hred I 43

' "'.4 % - ove rd ee g,,,,,,,

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

Total EAR breakdown is as follows:

EARS opened during the month 0 EARS closed during the month 6 Total EARS open at the end of the month 99 Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 62 61

64 39 91 0 3 Heasas s

ECN Status - Overall Backlog g Backlogged O Received g Completed ,,

58 M achs

.,SO . 43 Meaths 4

m

' $0 , "5 us in to e, ,,

50I Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 24 Heoths Design Engineering '"

200 +

I w IN 3 e es

<w. ,,

,, , r.  ?,

" ;*= ~ ,,

"~

Ifdi b R E"? I"a lA"  %*'

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec System Engineering 27s zar ass 300.. ,,, ,,, 26,

.. . s, , , . . . . . . .

12 *s n, ns ,1 ns es e ,o Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Procurement / Construction 250 m

>6 f" ,,

,, ";;;' Q - N "!4 E k"Ml"5115"lNi""- uohk Jul Aug Sep Oct 2v Dec I

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

Accountability: Jaworski/Phelps Trend: None SEP 62 62

07 97 FC TYPE P rio rity 10 5 12 '

2

< / , y 294 5 kit PE 3 Total Open ECNs = 492 59%

Total Open ECNs = 492 l O DEN Closeout or Drafting Not Complete 20 23 5 Malatenance/ Construction /Frecurement- Work Noe Complete P rio rity Priodcy B 5ys tem Engineering - kespons e, Confirmation Not Complete San 6 ser2 5 DEN Engineering Not Complete 15 % 17 %

, , , , , i j ul-96 Aug 96 5p Oc - Nov-96 Dec 96 3

0 294 294 294 41 H 30 42 38 88 83 PdoricY 250 P riodcy sans ing 200. 14 %

27%

1 42 Jul-96 e

Aug-96 Sep-96 5

Oct 96 Substitute Replacementitem ECNs Open Nov-96 4

De c-96 Pdedy 3,n 59%

80 74 70 70 + H Pd de

' '# " 4 see 60 19 ' is 7 3%

4 2s 8 43 30 1

7 4' 3 as 33

, , d, ,,

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Priodcy Document Change ECNs Open ,$

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

Accountability: Phelps/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 62 j

63 l

4

O Administrative Control Problem g Licensed Operator Bror E Other Personnel Error g Maintenance Problem O Design /Constructionlinstallation/ Fabrication Problem g Misc.

3 ._ _

2

1. . _ _ _ _ _

0 >

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov l1995l l1996l LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN This indicator shows the LERs by event date broken down by Root Cause Code for each of the past twelve months from December 1,1995, through November 30,1996. To be consistent with the Preventable / Personnel Error LERs indicator, this indicator is reported by the LER event date, as opposed to the LER report date.

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

There were three events in November 1996 that resulted in LERs.

Data Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None 64

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

O Total Requalification Training Hours g SimulatorTrainingHours g Non-Requalification Training Hours g Number of Exam Failures n., ~ =

g 34 35 " 32 32.5 32 30 _1.

25 .

20 __

I 16 5.5 15 _,.

'4 14 4 10 _. 8 8 8 7.5 7.5 5 .5 5 5 #

-3 -

0___

Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle

_+_

Cycle Cycle Cycle h

Cycle k

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

• Note 1:The Simulator was out-of-service during Cycle 94-4.

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

LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING This indicator provides information on the total number of hours of training given to each crew during each cycle. The simulator training hours shown on the graph are a I 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, cimulator, 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

a SRO~ Exams Administered O sRO Exams Passed O RO Exams Administered g RO Exams Passed 3 0 .,.

-=

l l

25 4 20 ..

15 +

l 10 +

5._

l 0 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l

J 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 November 1996, there were O RO and 0 SRO exams given.

Data Source: Conner /Guliani (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani

, Trend: None SEP 68 66

, e Ready to Dose a

e Oosed

+ Total CRs

+ open 2500 4

j

] 2000 1500 i

^

4 1000 .

/

l l

! O 4-Apr 19-Apr 3-Wy 17-Wy 31-Wy JuL96 sep-96 Nov-96 l

l CONDITION REPORTS BY LEVEL l This indicator shows the total number of Condition Reports which are Closed, Ready to

! Close, Open and the Total Number of Condition Reports to date.

a I Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Total l Open 23 11 90 806 34 21 985 l Closed 8 2 71 612 326 90 1109 265 Condition Reports are " READY" to "CLOSE".

l J

\

At the end of December,1996 there were 79 "OPEN" Incident Reports, of which,27 were i

! Significant.

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

i i

Data Source: Tesar/Burggraf (Manager / Source)

Accountability

Andrews/Gambhir/Patterson

. Trend : None

}

67 l

i

l 2

i l

, a Totalomgeu.vos a wwos %towcrk 1200.

1 1

i MWO HOLDS 800- Ranner System 1

32 % e gneenno

5%

200.

menw 3% l 0 ' i

sepes oct-ss u one.es l

l 4

l MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUELING OUTAGE) 1

! This indicator shows the total number of Maintenance Work Requests (MWRs) and Main-1 t nance Work Orders (MWOs) that have been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage. This graph indicates:

-]

Parts Holds - Planning Complete, Awaiting Parts

- System Engineering Holds - Awaiting System Engineering input to Planning

- Planner Holds - Maintenance Planner has not completed planning the work package.

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

Data Source: Chase / Johnson (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 31 68

I l

NO NEW DATA SPECIAL SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage)

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

Data Source: Phelps/Swearngin (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Boughter Trend: None SEP 31 69

1 d

-+-- B as eline $ chedule forP RC Approval

+ P rojectei/ Actual $chedune forP RC Approval

- FinalDesign P kg b:ved (2 f D DCP ksued P riorto 05SWS) m Toul Modification P ackages (22)(ll Added Aher 050W5) 9 E8

!e7_ /

1?

= .g 6 5

te 2 E 4.

s3e3 . _ - - ~ __.

5%

g g, 2 - _: : : : : .J' 1 i m

0]

5 g l$

$ $$5 l$

E E

E R

5 S

S l$ S J

PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE (FROZEN SCOPE OF 9 OUTAGE MODIFICATIONS)

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

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.

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

Data Source: JaworskiN/alling (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 70

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

'==

o g 9,1= .7

. .s

.~

a mm. .I a E

07 8' =

$ {g /14/96 *

.I ak .l s

.I S

9 E S

.I

$ .l s .$

I  !

g 6/24/96.

.g G. < 6/4/96 .

5/15/96 .

E 4/25/96 4/5/96 95- 96- 95- 95- 96- 95- 95- 96- 95- 95-025 001 023 011 002 013 022 008 007 020 MODIFICATION NUMBER j.wcmacaram memacmam l i

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

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

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

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 71

l l

+ Baseline schedule for PRc Approval Total Modification Packages (10)(4 Added After 05/01/95) s 5..

4 _ .......

3.

2 -

Nu i  : : ^: l l

0 '

1 , ,

m m m e e e e

$ 2 $ $ $ * $ $ $ $

• N

$ E y 5 E R 5 S 5 5 5 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, 1995) and the current schedule. This information is taken from the Modification Variation Report produced by Design Engineering Nuclear.

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

December 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

i I

I i

i a

1 i

i I

t i

i

)

ACTION PLANS l

i 1

73

l 1

Action PLANS This section lists action plans that have been developed for the performance indicators  ;

cited as Adverse Trends during the month preceding this report. Also included are Action i Plans for indicators that have been cited in the preceding month's report as Needing  ;

increased Management Attention for three (3) consecutive months.  !

1 In accordance with Revision 3 of NOD-QP-37, the following performance indicators would i require action plans based on three (3) consecutive months of performance cited as "Needing increased Management Attention":

. Maintenance Workload Backlogs (page 47)

A Work management System improvement project is currently in progress. The purpose of this project is to stream line the maintenance process at Fort Calhoun Station. This will significantly improve our " WRENCH TIME" by removing inefficiencies and related hurdles that prevent work from being accomplisbad in a timely manner. In addition, it is expected that schedule compliance v ;so increase and our maintenance backlog will decrease. This project is scheduled to be fully implemented by July 1997.

74

T PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINmONS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS 21,000 t PERFORMANCE DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable The personnel contamination events in the clean controlled hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the auxiliary area. This indicator tracks personnel performance for SEP feedwater system for the reporting period devided by the critical #15 & 54.

hours for the reporteg period multiplied by the number of trains I.

in the auxlhary feedweter system. CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA

, COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE The percentage of the Radiation Controlled Area, which

! includes the auxiliary building, the radweste building, and 4

Collective radiation exposure is the total extemal whole-body areas of the C/RP buildmg, that is contaminated based on the dose received by all on-site personnel (including contractors total square footage. This indicator tracks performance for ,

and visitors) during a tirne period, as measured by the SEP #54.

thermoluminescent dosameter (TLD). Collective radiation exposure is reported in units of person-rom. This indicator DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT i tracks radiological work performance for SEP #54.

This indicator shows the daily core thermal output as

COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR) measured from computer point XC105 (in thermal megawatts). >

3

SUMMARY

The 1500 MW Tech Spec limit, and the unmet portion of the  ;

1495 MW FCS daily goal for the reporting mor,th are also

The summary of (NPO categones for Fort Calhoun Station with shown.

significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than the rest of the industry for an eighteen-month time period. DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 Demands)

Failures are reported as component (i.e., pumps, motors, main steam stop valves, control element motors, etc.) categones. This indicator shows the number of failures occurring for each emergency diesel generator during the last 25 start demands Failure Cause Categones are: and the last 25 load-run demands.

Age / Normal Use -thought to be the consequence of OISABLINO INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE expected wear, aging, end-of-hfe, or normal use . (LOSS TIME ACCIDENT RATE)

Manufacturing Defect - a failure attributable to inadequate This indicator is defined as the number of accidents for all assembly or initial quahty of the responsible component or utility personnel permanently assigned to the station, involving system. days away from work per 200,000 man-hours worked (100 man-years). This does not include contractor personnel. This Engineering / Design a failure attnbutable to the indicator tracks personnel performance for SEP #25,26 & 27.

inadequate design of the responsible component or system.

DOCUMENT REVIEW (BIENNIAL)

Other Devices - a failure attnbutable to a faihire or misoperation of another component or system, rc,luding The Document Review Indicator shows the number of associated devices. documents reviewed, the number of documents scheduled for review, and the number of document reviews that are overdue Maintenance / Action - resulting from improper for the reporting month. A document review is considered maintenance, lack of maintenance, or personnel errors that overdue if the review is not complete within six months of the occur during maintenance activiteson the component.. assigned due date. This indicator tracks performance for SEP

1. 46.

Testmg Action - resulting from improper testing or personnel errors that occur during testing activites. EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Initial Installation Error - caused by improper initial installation of equipment The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable and the estimated unavailable hours for the emergency AC CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR power system for the reporting period divided by the number of hours in the reporting period multiplied by the number of The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical trains in the emergency AC power system.

operation of Fort Calhoun Station. The cents per kilowatt hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY kilowatt hour on a twelve-month average for the current year. The basis for the budget curve is the approved yearly This indicator shows the number of fadures that were reported dunng the budget. The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and last 20. 50, and 100 ernergency diesel generator dernands at the Fort Operating Report. Calhoun staton. Also shown are tngger values which correlate to a high level of "9nfidence that a unit's diesel generators have obtained a 75

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

PERFORMANCE INDICA'IOR DEFINITIONS rei atety of greater than or equal to 95% when the dernand failures are Each emergency generator failure that results in the generator less than the trwer values. being declared inoperable should be counted as one demand and one failure. Exploratory tests during corrective

1) Number of Start Demands: All valid and inadvertent maintenance and the successful test that follows repair to start demands, including all start-only demands and all venfy operabildy should not be counted as demands or failures start demands that are followed by load-run demands, when the EDG has not been declared operable again.

whether by automatic or manual initiation. A start only demand is a demand in which the emergency generator EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY is started, but no attempt is made to load the generator.

This indicator measures the total unreliabihty of emergency

2) Number of Start Failures: Any failure within the desel generators. In general, unreliability is the ratio of emergency generator system that prevents the generator unsuccessful operations (starts or load-runs) to the number of from achieving specifed frequency and voltage is valid demands. Total unreliability is a combination of start classified as a valid start failure. This includes any unreliabihty and load-run unreliability, condition identifed in the course of maintenance inspections (with the emergency generator in standby ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR) mode) that definitely would have resulted in a start failure BREAKDOWN if a demand had occurred.

This indicator shows a breakdown, by age and prionty of the

3) Number of Load-Run Demands: For a valid load-run EAR, of the number of EARS assigned to Design Engineering demand to be counted, the load-run attempt must meet Nuclear and System Engineering. This indicator tracks one or more of the following cnteria: performance for SEP #62.

A) A load-run of any duration that results from a real ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) STATUS automatic or manualinitiation.

The number of ECNs that were opened, ECNs that were B) A load-run test to satisfy the plant's load and completed, and open backlog ECNs awaiting completion by duration as stated in each test's specifications. DEN for the reporting month. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #62. .

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

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

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

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

C) Intentional termination of a test because of EQUIVALENT AVAP ABILITY FACTOR abnormal conditions that would not have resulted in major desel generator damage or repair. This indicator is defined as the ratio of gross available generation to gross maximum generation, expressed as a D) Malfunctions or operating errors which would not percentage. Available generation is the energy that can be have prevented the emergency generator from produced if the unit is operated at the maximum power level being restarted and brought to load within a few permitted by equipment and regulatory limitations. Maximum minutes. generation is the energy that can be produced by a unit in a E) A failure to start because a portion of the starting system war. disabled for test purpose, if followed by a succewful start with the starting system in its normal Mgnment.

76 1

j l

1

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINmONS FORCED OUTAGE RATE

1) One or more days of restncted wo* (excluding the day of the accident);

This indicator is defined as the percentage of time that the unit

2) One or more days away from work (excluding the day of was unavailable due '.o forced events compared to the time the accident); and planned for electrical generation. Forced events are failures 3) Fatalities, or other unplanned conditions that require removing the unit from service before the end of the next weekend. Forced Contractor personnel are not included for this indicator, ewents include start-up failures and events initiated while the i unit is in reserve shutdown (i.e., the unit is available but not in l IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT OF SERVICE service).

Total number of in line chemistry instruments that are out-of-FUEL REllABILITY INDICATOR service in the Secondary System and the Post Accident Sampling Systens (PASS).

This indicator is defined as the steady-state pnmary coolant l-131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium contribution and LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS normalized to a common purification rate. Tramp uranium is fuel which has been deposited on reactor core internals from This indicator shows the number of SRO and/or RO quizzes previous defective fuel or is present on the surface of fuel and exams that are administered and passed each month, elements from the manufacturing process. Steady state is This indicator tracks training performance for SEP #68.

defined as continuous operation for at least three days at a power level that does not vary more than + or -5%. Plants LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING should collect data for this indicator at a power level above '

85%, when possible. Plants that did not operate at steady. The total number of hours of training given to each crew during state power above 85% should collect data for this indicator at each cycle. ' Also provided are the simulator training hours the highest steady-state power level attained dunng the month. (which are a subset of the total training hours), the number of non-REQUALIFICATION training hours and the number of The density correction factor is the ratio of the specific volume exam failures. This indicator tracks training performance for J of coolant at the RCS operating temperature (540 degrees F., SEP # 68.

Vf = 0.02146) divided by the specific volume of coolant at normal letdown temperature (120' F at outlet of the letdown LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE cochng heat exchanger, Vf = 0.016204), which results in a BREAKDOWN density correction factor for FCS equal to 1.32.

This indicator shows the number and root cause code for GROSS HEAT RATE Licensee Event Reports. The root cause codes are as follows:

Gross heat rate is defined as the ratio of total thermal energy 1) Administrative Control Problem Management and in Bntish Thermal Units (BTU) produced by the reactor to the supervisory deficiencies that affect plant programs or total gross electrical energy produced by the generator in activities (i.e., poor planning, breakdown or lack of kilowatt-hours (KWH). adequate management or supervisory control, incorrect procedures, etc).

HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED s

2) Licensed Operator Error - This cause code captures

) The total amount (in Kilograms) of non-hr'ogenated hazardous errors of omission / commission by licensed reactor 3

waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous operators during plant activities.

{ waste produced by FCS each month.

j

3) Other Personnel Error Errors of omission / commission  !

j HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFETY committed by non-licensed personnel involved in plant 1 i SYSTEM PERFORMANCE activities.

The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable 4) Maintenance Problem -The intent of this cause code is

hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the high to capture the full range of problems which can be j pressure safety injection system for the reporting period attributed in any way to programmatic deficiencies in the

divided by the critical hours for the reporting period multiplied maintenance functional orga3ization. Activites included l by the number of trains in the high pressure safety injection in this category are maintenaica testing, surveillance, q system. calibration and radiation protection.

e j INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE-INPO 5) Design / Construction / installation / Fabrication Problem

- This cause code covers a full range of programmatic This indicator is defined as the number of accidents per deficiencies in the areas of design, construction,  :

200.000 man-hours worked for all utility personnel permanently installation, and fabrication (i.e., loss of control power due j assigned to the station that result in any of the following: to underrated fuse, equipment not qualified for the environment, etc.).

)1

! 77

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS

6) Equipment Failures (Electronic Piece-Parts or MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE Environmentat-Related Failures) This code is used for spunous failures of electronic piece-parts and failure'; due The total maximum amount of radiation received by an to meteorological conditions such as lightning, ice, high individual person working at FCS on a monthly, quarteny, and winds, etc. Generally, it includes spurious or one-time annual basis.

failures. Electnc components included in this category are circuit cards, rectifiers, bistables, fuses, capacitors, MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUELING diodes, resistors, etc. OUTAGE)

LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY) The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage and The total number of secunty incidents for the reporting month the number that are ready to work (parts staged, planning depicted in two graphs. This indicator tracks secunty complete, and all other papenvork ready for field use). Also performance for SEP #58. included is the number of MWOs that have been engineenng holds (ECNs, procedures and other miscellaneous engineering MAINTENANCE OVERTIME holds), parts hold, (parts staged, not yet inspected, parts not yet arrived) and planning hold (job scope not yet completed).

The percent of ove:1ime hours compared to normal hours for Maintenance Work Requests (MWRs) are also shown that maintenance. This includes OPPD personnel as well as have been identified for the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage and contract personnel. have not yet been converted to MWOs.

MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUtPMENT DEFICIENCIES This indicator shows the backlog of non-outage Maintenance Work Orders remaining open at the end of the reporting month. A control room equipment deficiency (CRD) is defined as any Maintenance c:assifications are defined as follows: component which is operated or controlled from the Control Room, provides indication or alarm to the Control Room, Corrective - Repair and restoration of equipment or provides testing capabilities from the Control Room, provides components that have failed or are malfunctioning and are automatic actions from or to the Control Room, or provides a not performing their intended function. passive funcbon for the Contr il Room and has been identffied as deficient, i.e., does not perform under all conditions as i Preventive - Actions taken to maintain a pece of equipment designed. This definition sIso applies to the Attemate I within design operating conditions, prevent equipment Shutdown Panels Al-1i9, Al-185, and Al-212.

failure, and extend its life and are performed prior to equipment failure. A plant component which is deficient or inoperable is j considered an " Operator Work Around (OWA) ltem" if some i Non-Corrective / Plant improvements - Maintenance other action is required by an operator to compensate for the  ;

activities performed to implement station improvements or condition of the component. Some examples of OWAs are:

to repair non-plant equipment.

1) The control room level indicator does not work but a local Maintenance Work Priorities are defined as: sight glass can be read by an Operator out in the plant; Emergency - Conditions which significantly degrade station 2) A deficient pump cannot be repaired because safety or availability. replacement par'.s require a long lead time for purchase / delivery, thus requiring the redundant pump to immediate Action - Equipment deficiencies which be operated continuously; l significantly degrade station reliability. Potential for unit '

shutdown or power reduction. 3) Special actions are required by an Operator because of l equipment design problems. These actions may be l Operations Concem - Equipment deficiencies which hinder described in Operations Memorandums, Operator Notes. I station operation. or may require changes to Operating Procedures; j Essential - Routine corrective maintenance on essential 4) Deficient plant equipment that is required to be used station systems and equipment. dunng Emergency Operating Procedures or Abnormal Operating Procedures; Non-Essential- Routine corrective maintenance on non-essential station systems and equipr nt. 5) System indication that provides entical information during normal or abnormal operations. l Plant Improvement - Non-corrr j e maintenance and '

plant improvements.

This indicator tracks maintenance performance for SEP #36.

78

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

j l

The number of Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Licensee '

Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting month. This PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK Indicator tracks missed STs for SEP #60 & 61.

The percentage of total MWOs completed per month ident6ed l OPEN INCIDENT REPORTS as rework. Rework activites are identified by maintenance planning and craft. Rework is: Any additional work required .

This indicator displays the total number of open incident to correct deficiences discovered during a failed Post Reports (irs), the number of irs that are greater than six Maintenance Test to ensure the componerrisystem passes months old and the number of open significant irs. subsequent Post Maintenance Test.

OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES The number of Modification Requests (MRs) in any state between the issuance of a Modification Number and the The percent of the number of completed maintenance completion of the drawing update. activities as compared to the number of scheduled maintenance activites each month. This percentage is shown

1) Form FC-1133 Backlog /In Progress. This number for a!! maintenance crafts. Also shown are the number of represents modifca ion requests that have not been plant emergent MWOs. Maintenance actuities include MWRs, approved during the reporting month. MWOs, STs, PMOs, calibrations, and other miscellaneous actulties. This indicator tracks Maintenance performance for

2) Modification Requests Being Reviewed. This category SEP #33.

includes:

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR INDEX A) Modification Requests that are not yet review:ed.

This indicato;index is calculated from a weighted combination B) Modification Requests being reviewed by the of eleven performance indicator values, which include the Nuclear Projects Review Commrttee (NPRC). following: Unit Capability Factor, Unit Capability Loss Factor, l HPSI, AFW, Emergency AC Power System, Unplanned l C) Modification Requests being reviewed by the Automatic Scrams, Collective Radiation Exposure, Fuel J Nuclear Projects Committee (NPC). Reliability, Thermal Performance, Secondary System l Chemistry, and Industrial Safety Accident Rate.

These Modification Requests may be reviewed several times before they are approved for accomplishment or canceled. PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR Leks l Some of these Mod 6 cation Requests are retumed to Engineering for more information, some approved for This indicator is a breakdown of LERs. For purposes of LER evaluation, some approved for study, and some approved for event classification, a " Preventable LER"is defined as:

planning. Once planning is completed and the scope of the l work is clearty defined, these Modification Requests may be An event for which the root cause is personnel error (i.e.,

approved for accomplishment with a year assigned for inappropnate action by one or more individuals), inadequate construction or they may be canceled. All of these different administrative controls, a design construction, installation, l phases require review. installation, fabncation problem (involving work completed ,

by or supervised by OPPD personnel) or a maintenance i

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

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

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

$) Design Engineering Update Backlog /In Progress.

PED has recerved the Modtlication Completion Report but An event for which the root cause is inappropriate action on the drawings have not been updated. the part of one or more individuals (as opposed to being attributed to a department or a general group). Also, the The above mentioned outstanding modifications do not include inappropriate action must have occurred within modifications which are proposed for cancellstion. approximately two years of the " Event Date" specified in the LER.

OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (REFUELING OUTAGE) 79

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS Additionally, each event classifed as a " Personnel Error" NPRDS components with more than two failures for the should also be classifed as

• Preventable." This indicator eighteen-rnonth CFAR period.

trends personnel performance for SEP ltem #15.

SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES PRIMARY SYSTEM LITHlUM % OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT Safety system failures are any events or conditions that could The percent of hours out of hmit are for lithium divided by the prevent the fulfillment of the safe *v functions of structures or total number of hours possible for the month. systems. If a system consis s of multiple redundant subsystems or trains, failure of all trains constitutes a safety PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS system failure. Failure of one of two or more trains is not (MAINTENANCE) counted as a safety system failure. The definition for the indicator parallels NRC reporting requirements in 10 CFR The number of identifed incidents conceming maintenance 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. The following is a list of the major procedural problems, the number of closed irs related to the safety systems, sub-systems, and components monitored for use of procedures (includes the number of closed irs caused this indicator-by procedural noncompliance), and the number of closed procedural noncompliance irs. This indicator trends Accident Monitoring instrumentation. Auxiliary (and personnel performance for SEP #15,41 and 44. Emergency) Feedwater System, Combustible Gas Control, Component Cooling Water System, Containrnent and PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE MODIFICATION Containment isolation, Containment Coolant Systems, PLANNING Control Room Emergency Ventilation System, Emergency Core Cooling Systems, Engineered Safety Feat tres This indicator shows the status of modificatiorts approved for instrumentation, Essential Compressed Air Systems, completion during the Refueling Outage. Essential or Emergency Service Water, Fire Detection or Suppression Systems. Isolation Condenser, Low PROGRESS OF 1995 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING Temperature Overpressure Protection, Main Steam Line Isolation Valves, Onsite Emergency AC & DC Power This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for w/ Distribution, Radiation Monitoring instrumentation, completion dunng 1995. Reactor Coolant System, Reactor Core isolation Cooling System, Reactor Trip System and instrumentation, RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM Recirculation Pump Trip Actuation instrumentation, ,

Residual Heat Removal Systems, Safety Valves, Spent The number of identified poor radiological work practices Fuel Systems, Standby Liquid Control System and Ultimate (PRWPs) for the reporting month. This indicator tracks Heat Sink.

radiological work performance for SEP #52.

SECONDARY S9 TEM CHEMISTRY PERFORMANCE RADIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & INDEX PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) is a calculation bar,ed The ratio of preventive maintenance (including surveillance on the concentration of key impuntes in the secondary side of testing and calibration procedures) to the sum of non-outage the plant. These key impurities are the most likely cause of corrective maintenance and preventive maintenance detenoration of the steam generators. Criteria for calculating completed over the reporting period. The ratio, expressed as the CPI are:

a percentage, is calculated based on man-hours. Also displayed are the percent of preventive maintenance items in 1) The riant is at greater than 30 percent power, and the month that were not completed or administratively closed by the scheduled date plus a grace penod equal to 25% of the 2) the power is changing less than 5% per day, scheduled interval. This indicator tracks preventwe maintenance actrvities for SEP #41. The CPI is calculated using the following equation:

RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FREQUENCY CPI = ((sodium /0.79) + (Chloride /1.52) + (Sulfate /1.44) +

RATE (Iron /3.30) + (Copper /0.30)+(Condensate 02/2.90))/6 The number of injuries requiring more than normal first aid per Where: Sodium, sulfate, chloride and condensate dissolved 200,000 man-hours worked. This indicator trends personnel oxygen are the monthly average blowdown concentrations in performance for SEP #15,25 and 26. ppb, iron and copper are monthly time weighted average feedwater concentrations in ppb. The denominator for each of REPEAT FAILURES the five factors is the INPO median value. If the monthly average for a specific parameter is less than the INPO median The number of Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) value, the median value is used in the calculation.

components with more than one failure and the number of 80

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS j SIGNIFICANT EVENTS 2) Jumpers and blocks which are installed for Surveillance Tests, Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Procedures, Significant events are the events identified by NRC staff Special Procedures or Operating Procedures are not I through detailed screening and evaluation of operating consdered as temporary mod 6 cations unless the jumper exponence. The screening process includes the daily review or block remains in place after the test or procedure is i and discussion of all reported operating reactor events, as well complete. Jumpers and blocks installed in test or lab i as other operational data such as special tests or construction instruments are not considered as temporary activities. An event identrfied from the screening process as modrfications.

a significant event canddate is further evaluated to determine if any actual or potential threat to the health and safety of the 3) Scaffold is not considered a temporary mod 6 cation.

public was involved. Specific examples of the type of cnteria Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for which MRs are summarized as follows: have been submitted will be considered as temporary modifications until final resolution of the MR and the

1) Degradation of important safety equipment; jumper or block is removed or is permanently recorded on the drawings. This indicator tracks temporary

2) Unexpected plant response to a transient; mod 6 cations for SEP M2 and 71.

3) Degradation of fuel integnty, primary coolant pressure THERMAL PERFORMANCE boundary, important associated features; I The ratio of the design gross heat rate (corrected) to the

4) Scram with complication; adjusted actual gross heat rate, expressed as a percentage.

5) Unplanned release of radioactivity; UNIT CAPABluTY FACTOR

6) Operation outside the limits of the Technical The ratio of the available energy generation over a given time Specifications; period to the reference energy generation (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuousty at full

7) Other, power under reference ambent conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage.

INPO significant events reported in this indicatur are SERs (Significant Event Reports) which inform utihtes of significant UNIT CAPACITY FACTOR i events and lessons leamed identified through the SEE-IN screening process. The net electrical energy generated (MWH) divided by the product of maximum dependable capacdy (not MWe) times the SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE gross hours in the reporting period expressed as a percent.

Net electrical energy generated is the gross electrical output The dollar value of the spare parts inventory for FCS during of the unit measured at the output terminals of the turbine the reporting period. generator minus the normal station service loads during the gross hours of the reporting period, expressed in megawatt STAFFING LEVEL hours.

The actual staffing level and the authorized staffing level for UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 the Nuclear Operations Division, The Production Engineering CRITICAL HOURS Division, and the Nuclear Services Division. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #24. This indicator is defined as the number of unplanned automatic scrams (RPS logic actuations) that occur per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of STATION NET GENERATION cntical operation.

The net generation (sum) produced by the FCS during the The value for this indicator is calculated by multiplying the total reporting month. number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams in a specific time period by 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, then dividing that number by the TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS total number of hours entical in the same time period. The indicator is further defined as follows:

The number of temporary mechanical and electrical configurations to the plant's systems. 1) Unplanned means that the scram was not an anticipated part of a planned test.

1) Temporary configurations are defined as electncal jumpers, electrical blocks, mechanical jumpers, or 2) Scram means the automatic shutdown of the reactor by a mechanical blocks which are installed in the plant rapid insertion of negative reactivity (e.g., by control rods, operating systems and are not shown on the latest revision liquid injection system, etc.) that is caused by actuation of of the P&lD, schematic, connection, wiring, or flow the reactor protection system. The signal may have diagrams. resulted from exceeding a set point or spurious.

81

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS

3) Automatic rneans that the initial signal that caused VOLUME OF LOW 4EVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE actuation of the reactor protection system logic was ^

provided from one of the sensor's monitoring plant This indicator is defined as the volume of low ~ level solid parameters and conditions, rather than the manual scram radioactive waste actually shipped for bunal. This indicator switches or, manual turbine trip switches (or push-buttons) also shows the volume of low-level radioactive waste which is provided in the main control room. in temporary storage, the amount of radioactive oil that has been shipped off-site for processing, and the volurne of solid

4) Cnbcal means that dunng the steady-state condition of the dry radioactive waste which has been shipped off-site for reactor pnor to the scram, the effective multiplication (k ,, processing. Low-level solid radioactive waste consists of dry

) was essentially equal to one. active waste, sludges, resins, and evaporator bottoms generated as a result of nuclear power plant operation and UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR maintenance. Dry radioactive waste includes contaminated rags, cleaning materials, disposable protective clothing, plastic The ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given period containers, and any other material to be deposed of at a low-of time, to the reference energy generation (the energy that level radioactive waste disposal site, except resin, sludge, or could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full evaporator bottoms. Low-level refers to all radioactive waste power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time that is not spent fuel or a by-product of spent fuel processing.

period, expressed as a percentage. This indicator tracks radiological work performance for SEP

1. 54.

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS . (INPO

+ DEFINITION)

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

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

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

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

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTIONS -(NRC DEFINITION)

The number of safety system a&ations which include (sLnjy,)

the High Pressure Safety injection System, the Low Pressure Safety injection System, the Safety injection Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC classification of safety system actuations includes actuations when major equipment is operated gng when the logic systems for the above safety systems are challenged.

VIOLATION TREND This indicator is defined as Fort Calhoun Station Cited Violations and Non-Cited Violations trended over 12 months.

Addrtionally, Cited Violations for the top quartile Region IV plant is trended over 12 months (tagging the Fort Calhoun Station trend by 2-3 months). It is the Fort Calhoun Station goat to be at or below the cited violation trend for the top quartile Region IV plant.

82 l

l

I

i i'

l J

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

SEP Reference Number 15 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 Superv!sory Enforcement of industrial Safety Standards Disabling Injury / Illness Frequency Rate ..... . .... . .. . .... .. 15 Recordable Injury / illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . ... ...... . .... . 16 SEP Reference Number 31

. Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Manual and Conduct Project Management Training i

MWO Planning Status (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage) . ... . . .... . . ....... ..... 68 i SSED's Overall Project Status . ... ... .. . .... .. . .. . .. . .... .. 69  ;

Overall Project Status (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage) .. ... . . .... .... . . 70 '

Progress of Cycle 17 Outage Modification Planning ...... . .. . . .. ......... . 71 SEP Reference Number 33

. Develop On-Line Maintenance and Modification Schedule Percent of Completed Scheduled Maintenance Activities (All Maintenance Crafts) .. . . . 52 1996 On-line Modification Planning . . . . . . . . .. ... .. .. .. ... ... . . 72 SEP Reference Number 36

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

. Develop and implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule

. Compliance With and Use of Procedures Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue 48 Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . . . .. 51 83 u _ -_.

i ,

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX SEP Reference Number 46

. Design a Procedures Control and Administrative Program Document Review . . . . . .. . .. ...... .. .... ....... .... 57 SEP Reference Number 52 Eggg j . Establish Supervisory Accountability forWorkers Radiological Practices 4 Radiological Work Practices Program ... .......... ..... .. ..... . . . 56 <

1

SEP Reference Number 54 i . 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 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area . . . . . . . . . .. ......... ....... . .. . 55

SEP Reference Number 58 e Revise Physical Security Training and Procedure Program i

Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) . .. . .. .. . . .... . . . . 58 i

SEP Reference Numbers 60 & 61

. Improve Controls Over Surveillance Test Program j . Modify Computer Program to Correctly Schedule Surveillance Tests Number of Missed Surveillance Tests resulting in Licensee Event Reports . .. ... ... ' 28 i SEP Reference Number 62 i . Establish Interim System Engineers l Temporary Modifications . . . . . . . .. . ... .. ... . . 59

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

$EP Reference Number 68

. Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Training and establish means to monitor Operator Training License Operator RequaliQnUca Training . .. . .. . . 65 License Candidate Exams . . . .. ... . . . . 66 SEP Reference Number 71

. Improve Controls over Temporary Modifications Temporary Modifications . . . . . . ... 59 84

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

REPORT DISTRIBUTION I,lST R. L. Andrews C. A. Marasco G. C. Bishop T. J. Mc!vor C. E. Boughter K. A. Miller C. J. Brunnert P. A. Mruz l

J. W. Cnase R. J. Mueller R. G. Conner Nuclear Licensing (7)

G. M. Cook T. L. Patterson '

M.R. Core R. L Plott T. R. Dukarski W.J.Ponec M. L. Ellis D. G. Ried H. J. Faulhaber M. J. Sandhoefner S. K. Gambhir 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. 8. 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 M. Edwards (7) S. J. Willrett L.T.Kusek B. R. Livingston 85