ML20134H200

Performance Indicators, for Sept 1996

ML20134H200
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	09/30/1996
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20134H197	List: ML20134H195 ML20134H200
References
NUDOCS 9611130569
Download: ML20134H200 (103)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' '

h 9

0 FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I

lli i  !

s-m

~

~~. .s .,

,. /

• d'"

SEPTEMBER 1996 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COSTEFFECTIVENESS PIk**SOSSEoIOoS0es P PDR

i i -

l OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT l FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT i

i SEPTEMBER i l 1996 l l

Production Engineering Division System Engineering Test and Performance Group SEPTEMBER 1996

1 l

FORT CALHOUN STATION September 1996 Monthly Operating Report I

I OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

During the first half of September, Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) operated at a

, nominal 100% power level. On September 20 at 1524 hours0.0176 days <br />0.423 hours <br />0.00252 weeks <br />5.79882e-4 months <br />, a power reduction was commenced. Power was s,'owly reduced over a two day period stabilizing around the 70% level where it was maintained until September 28th. A second power reduction began on Sepismber 28th at 1603 hours0.0186 days <br />0.445 hours <br />0.00265 weeks <br />6.099415e-4 months <br />, with the power level ret'uced to approximately 45% by September 29th. These power reductions were pe. formed to minimize fission gas releases to containment and dose to personnel fro the upcoming refueling outage in October. Normal plant maintenance, surveillance, equipment rotation activities and scheduled on-line modifications were i performed during the month. i I

There are 66 incore nuclear detectors failed, rendering 18 of the 28 detector strings i inoperable. Preparation have been made to replace all 28 incore detector strings during this refueling outage.

i i

l l

l j + Fort Calhoun index Value

+ Industry MedianindexValue l

90 ._

83 83 83 4 x = x 7

.0 79 A

.I S 70 . I e industry

! 3 Median Projected 60 ..

Value forThird Chaarter 1996 is 82%

j $0 .

40 . .

. 1 . . .

95/1 95/2 95/3 95/4 96/1 96/2 96/3 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb i

l l PERFORMANCE INDEX 1 REND l For the index calculation unit capability factor, unplanned capability loss factor, unplanned l automatic scrams per 7000 hours0.081 days <br />1.944 hours <br />0.0116 weeks <br />0.00266 months <br /> critical, safety system performance, collective radiation l exposure, and volume of low-level solid radioactive waste indicators are calculated for a two-year period instead of the normal three-year period to allow the index trend to be more responsive to changes in plant performance.

i li l

l'

a MAXIMUM VALUE a NDEX PoNTS AUGUST M Dlhird Quarter 1996 dm 16.00 .

}

14.00 - 8 '

12.00 . 8 8 8 8 8 m Sg3 Sg2 Egg 888 888 8~

o 6as 656

~

Q 8 O mm 2.

0.00 - -i -+- t i H- t i i i a UCF UCLF HPSI AFW EACP CRE UAs7 FRI CF1 TPt ISAR 1

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 month of July.

UCF Unit Capability Factor TPI Thermal Performance Indicator i UCLF Unplanned Capability Loss Factor CPI Secondary Chemistry Indicator HPSI High Pressure Safety injection ISAR Industrial Safety Accident Rate AFW Auxiliary Feedwater EACP Emergency AC Power UAS7 Unplanned Auto Scrams!7000 Hcurs ,

CRE Collective Radiation Exposure l FRI Fuel Reliability Indicator i Per INPO, the Performance Indicator for the Volume of Low Level Radioactive Waste buried, will no longer be used in determing the Stations Perfromance index. All other parameters have been adjusted to reflect this change.  !

iii  !

t i

i r

I I

j  !

i i Year-to-Date Value i r

- Performance Categories  ;

Unit Capability Unplanned Unplanned 3 , ,,, _

Factor Capability Auto Scrams 5 Performance better than Performance Loss Factor Industry Average Trend lll Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal i

l}$ Performance Not Meeting HPSI Safety AFW Safety EDG Safety 7 -

-, 1996 OPPD Goal Fuel System System System Performance Performance Performance Reliability r

June July Aug l

' 1996 1996 1996 l l Best Possible

! Chemistry l Collective Volume of ,

Industrial Sep.-1996

, l Low-Level Safety Accident 1996 Year-End Index l Radiation i Year-to-Date RadWaste Rate "" '**"C'

, j Exposuie Value f Performance WANO Performance Indicators E

Unplanned

, Auto Scrams l

Year-To-Date Value Performance Cateaories I

Significant E Performance better than Industry Average Trend Y*'** Events Actuations Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal Safety Forced Outage SWR Performance Not Meeting 1996 OPPD Goal System Rate l Failures June July Aug 1996 1996 1996  ;

Equipment Collective ] September-1996 Best Possible Forced Radiation Outages Exposure Year-to-Date 1996 Year-End  !

g Value Performance 0l .dllilllldlOklIlMi

.11lIi Performance I

NRC Performance Indicators l,

l 1

l

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT September 1996-

SUMMARY

l f

POSITIVE TREND REPORT POSITIVE TREND REPORT (cont.1 A performance indicator with data representing three Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area consecutive months ofimproving performance or three (Page 55) consecutue months of performance that is superior to  ;

the stated goalis exhibiting a positive trend per Nuclear Temocrary Modifications Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP- (Page 59) 37).

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

trends for the reporting month:

Safe 8vstem FaHurn (p g 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, constdutes an adverse trend per (Page 6) Nuclear Operations Division Qualdy Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37). A supervisor whose performance Emeraenev A C Power System indicator exhibits an adverse trend by this definition (Page 7) may specify in written form (to be published in this report) why the trend is not adverse.

Secondary Chemistry (Page 10) The following performance indicators exhibited adverse trends for the reporting month:

Emeraency Diesel Generator Unit Reliability (Page 20) Fuel Reliability Indicator (Page 9)

Diesel Generator ReliabilMy (25 Demands)

(Page 21) Maintenance Workload Backlocs (Page 47)

Emeraenev Diesel Generator Unreliabiltty (Page 22) Preventative Maintenance items Overdue (Page 48)

Missed Surveillance Tests ResuMs in Licensee Event Reports End of Adverse Trend Report.

(Page 28)

Unolanned Safety System Actuations (INPO)

(Page 34)

Secondary System Chemistry (Page 35)

Hazardous Waste Produced (Page 54) vi

l l l \

l i l

INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT l

A performance indicator with c'ata for the reporting l period that is inadequate when cor, pared to the OPPD l

goal is defined as "Needing increased Management i Attention" per Nuclear Operations Division Quatrty '

l Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37).

Disablino Iniurv/ Illness Freauency Rate (Page 15)

Ntsrber of On-Line and Outaae Control Rorm i Eauioment Deficiencies (Page 24)

Eauioment Forced Outaae Rate (Page 38)

Cents Der Kiloaatt Hour (page 44)

Percentaae of Total Hos Comoleted oer Month Identified as Resork (Page 49)

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

i vii l

Table of Contents / Summary ease G OA LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ........ ....... . . . . . . . . . . . x ii WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. ........1  !

1 Unit Capability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ........... ............. ... .. 2 i

Unpla r.ned Capability Loss Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 l l

Unplanned Automatic Reactor SCRAMS per 7000 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ............. 4 I i

High Pressure Safety injection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ...........5 i Auxiliary Feedwater System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................6 Emergency AC Power System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ .................. 7 l Thermal P erforma nce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. ............ 8 i

Fuel Reliability Indicator . . . . . . . . .. .. ....... ...... . ....... . . .... . . . .......9 i

Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ...................10 '

L Collective Radiation Exposure .. ......... . .. .....................................11 '

Volume of low level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Industrial Safety Accident Rate . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............13 EAFE OPERATIONS l Disabling injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate ........................................16 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations 11,000 Disintegrations / Minute per Probe Area ..... . ... ... ............... ........... 17 l

Preventable / Personnel Error LERs . . . . .. . ...... ... ............ .. . .. . . . . . . 18 Safety System Failures . ........ . . ...................................19

! Emergency Diesel Generator Unit Reliability .....................................................20 Reliability (25 Demands) .. . ........ .. ...... ......... .... ... .. ... ... 21 Unreliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ..... .. . . .... .. ..... . . . . . 22 Controt Room Equipment Deficiencies . . .. .. .. ... .........................23 On-line and Outage Control Room Equipment Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 viii l

l i

1

l i

I 1

1 Table of Contents / Summary Maximum individual Radiation Ex posure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Vio lation Tre nd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Sig nifica nt Ev ents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ..... .... 27 Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in LERs ..............-..............................28 PERFORMAMf&

Station Net Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ... 30 Forced Outage Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ ....... . ....... . .... ............. 31 Unit Capacity Factor . . . . . . . . .. ...... ... . .. .. . .......... .... ... .. . ... 32 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . ........... ... . . . 33 Unplanned Safety System Actuations I N PO Definitio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 NRC Definition ..... . .. .... ..... ................... . . .. ........ . ... 35 Gross He at Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... ....... .. .. 36 Daily Thermal Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ............... ................... 37 Equipment Forced outages per 1,000 Critical Hours ...................................38 i

Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 l

Repeat Fallures .................................................................40 Chemistry Action Levels Exceeded - Event Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 F rimary System uthium % Hours out of umit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................42 )

l

.GRE i Cents Per Kilowatt H our . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 l Spare Parts inventory Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ... ... ..... ........ ......45 t

1 l

l l

I I

ix l

1 l

l l

I l

i i

i Table of Contents / Summary DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-outage) . . . . . . . . . . ....... . ... . . . . . 47 Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance . . ..,.......... . .. . .. ............48 Percentage of Total MWOs Completed per month identified as Rework .... .. .......49 Overtime . .. ..... .. ........ ........... . . .. ....... ...... .. . 50 Procedural Noncompliance incidents .. ...... .... . . .. ...... ..... ..... . 51 1 Daily Schedule Performance l

- Percent of Completed Scheduled Activities . . . . . ... ..... .. ...... 52 In-Une Chemistry Instruments Out-of-Service .. ... .. .. .. . ... .. .. 53 Hazardous Waste Produced . . .... . ... . .. ... . . . ... .. . . . . . 54 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area . . . . . . . . .. .... ... ... ... ... .. . . 55 Radiological Work Practices Program ... . .... ... .. ... ... .. ... .. .... 56 Document Review .... . ...... .... .. .. .. ... ....... ... .......... 57 Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . ... . ... ....... .... .... . . . 58 Temporary Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... . ... . ..... ...... ... 59 i

Outstanding Modifications . . . . . ... . ...... .......... .. .. ...........60 I Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... ... ....... 61 Engineering Change Notices Status .... ......... . ....... .. . ....... ........... .. .... .... 62 Open . . . . . . ... .... ....................................63 Ucensee Event Report (LER) Root Cause Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... 64 Ucensed Operator Requalification Training . . . . . .. .. . .... . ........65 Ucense Candidate Exams ..... ... . .. . .... . .. . . . .... . ... ... . ... 66 Condition Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. ... ... .. ... . ... .... .. 67 Cycle 17 Refueling Outage MWO Planning Status .. .. ..... . .. ... ... .... ... ...... . . .. 68 Overall Project Status . . . . . . . . .. .... . . ..... .... . .. . . . 69 Outage Modification Planning . . .. . .. .... ... . . ... .. . 70 On-Une Modification Planning . . ...... ... . ...... . . .. . . ..... 71 Progress of1996 On-Une Modification Planning . . ... . ....... .... . . 72 X

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

f ACTIQN PLANS. DEFINITIONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION LIST e

i Actio n Pla ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

) Performance Indicator Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78  !

j Safety Enhancement Programindex ................... ............. ................... 86 9

l Report Distribution Ust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 4

a 6

r 4

i

'I a

.i g

't f

1 8

1 i

7 1

e I

I I

1 i

i l

i i

l 1

i N

xi

d

\

i I i I OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS l

, 1996 Priorities -

! i 4

l i

l MISSION

The safe, reliable and cost effective generation of electricity for OPPD customers through

. conservative decision making and the professional use of nuclear technology. We will l i

conduct these operations to assure the health, safety;, and protection of our personnel, the i general public, and the environment.

j GOALS  :

Goal 1: SAFE OPERATIONS  !

Supports: April 1995 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 3 & 4 i A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and personal initiative and open communication. I 1996 Priorities: l

. Improve SALP ratings. j

. Improve INPO rating. j Reduce 1996 NRC violations with no violations more severe than level 4.

. No unplanned automatic reactor scrams or safety system actuations.

Objectives to support SAFE OPERATIONS.

OBJECTIVE 1-1:

No challenges to a nuclear safety system.

OBJECTIVE 1-2:

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

OBJECTIVE 1-3:

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

OBJECTIVE 1-4:

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

OBJECTIVE 1-5: I Zero Lost Time injuries and recordable injuries rate BELOW 1.5 percent. l xii

OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS  !

1996 Priorities Goal 2: PERFORMANCE Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 2; G-4, Obj: 1,2, & 3; G-6, Obj 3 Nuclear teamwork achieves high performance at Fort Calhoun Station as exhibited by safe, ,

reliable and cost effective power production. '

1996 PRIORITIES:

. . Improve Quality, Professionalism and Teamwork.

. Maintain High Plant Reliability.

. Pursue efficient, cost-effective work processes. .

Meet or exceed INPO key parameters and outage performance goals.

. Reduce the number of Human Performance errors. <

. Identify Programmatic performance problems through effective self assessment.  !'

= Maintain a high level of readiness in the ERO.

Objectives to support PERFORMANCE:

OBJEC11VE 2-1:

Achieve an annual plant capacity factor of 81.4% and a unit capability factor of 83.56%. ,

OBJECTIVE 2-2:

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

OBJECTIVE 2 3:

Training meets the needs of the plant and the National Academy accreditation objectives,.

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

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

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

. Executive Training Committee:

invites line supervisors to discuss the direction training is going for their specific area.

. invites the line and training supervisors responsible for each accredited program to provide a status of intemal accreditation assessments.

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

OBJECTIVE 2-4:

Achieve all performance-related 1996 performance indicator goals in the Performance Indicator Report. Focus on performing basic skills well while pursuing efficient, cost-effective work processes.

Identify the barriers to excellence and resolve them.

xiii

- . . - - = . - - . . . . . . - . -- -

i OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Priorities Goal 2: PERFORMANCE (Continued)

, OBJECTIVE 2-5:  !

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

i l i OBJECTIVE 2-6 Through the Utilities Services Alliance (USA) attain operating efficience and lower cost through l a cooperative effort among several utilities. Initial focus is on sharing of personnel for outage I support, combined purchasing and contracting, common dosimetry reading, sharing of equipment, l including test equipment, standardization of plant access and general employee training.

Goal 3: COSTS Supports: April 1995 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 2, Obj: 1,2 and 3, and Goal 6, Obj: 1 Operate Fort Calhoun cost effectively to contribute to OPPD's " bottom line". Cost consciousness is exhibited at all levels of the organization.

1996 Priorities:

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

. Streamline work process to improve cost effectiveness.

Implement Opportunity Review recommendations.

Objectives to support COSTS:

OBJECTIVE 3-1:

Conduct the nuclear programs, projects, and activities within the approved Capital and O&M budgets.

OBJECTIVE 3-2:

Implement nuclear related Opportunity Review recommendations according to approved schedules and attain the estimated cost savings.

l i

l l

l Goals Source: Lounsberry (Manager) xiv l

4 i

8 i

a l

h 1

l WANO 1

PERFORMANCE IND CATORS l

l l

l l

4 4

4

+

4 1

I J

i 1

5

, , Monthly Unit Capabilty Factor

...s... Year-to.Date Unit Capability Factor N 4_ 36-Month Unit Capabilty Factor 1996 Fort Calhoun Goals GOOD h INPo industry Goals Year 2000 100% .. - _ _

80%.. g. .... 5. 1 -

5 'b~ 5 -

60%..

~

40%.-

20% ..

0% i

,  ; i

i , , ,

oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep 1996 UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unit Capability Factor (UCF) value, the year-to-date UCFs, the 36-month average UCFs, and the UCF goals. UCF is defined as the ratio of the cvailable energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy generation I (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage (refu-cling periods excluded).

The UCF for September 1996 was reported as 87.9%. The year-to-date UCF was 88.1%,

the UCF for the last 12 months was 90.5%, and the 36-month average UCF was reported as 83.8% at the end of the month.

Energy losses for May and August 1995 are explained on page 30. j Energy losses for March 1996 are due to a scheduled mini-outage and condenser tube re-pair.

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

j Energy losses for June 1996 are due to a forced outage when the Anti-Rotation Device on  ;

Reactor Coolant Pump RC-3B-M failed.

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

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 16. For the month of September the FCS Value was 14.55. This compares to the previous month's value of 14.71. l Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase ,

Trend: None 2

i l

l l

i i Monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor j 000Dl

_,_. Year-To-Date Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

+ 12-Month Average Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 1 f

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (3.00%)

e Year 2000 INPo industry Gual(4.5%)

,_ Industry Current Best Quartile 1 60% _

l 50% .

40%.-

30%..

20% __

" $, j- h-  : b ,

5 ,

5  ;

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

~

l1996l UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (UCLF), the year-to-date UCLF and the goal. UCLF is defined as the ratio of the unplanned energy losses 1 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. l l

l The UCLF for the month of September 1996 was reported as 0.0%. 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 7.73%, the UCLF for the last 12 months was 5.79%, and the 36-month average UCLF was reported as 6.4% at the end of the month.

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

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

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

3

e_. -FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical Y;ar-to-Date

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

__, Fort C'alhoun Goal (0.0)

Year 2000 INPO industry Goal (1) e industry Upper 10%(1 per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical) ,

3 ..  !

2..

1 e 1 i I I I is .- . . .

0 . . . , . . , . . , ,

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

3 3.

2 2 .

1__

h fj 1 1 0

• f

'd O

i O

i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

i - , ,

92 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL The upper graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical (as defined in INPO's 12/93 publication " Detailed Descriptions of Intemational Nuclear Power Plant Performance Indicators and Other Indicators") for Fort Calhoun Station. The lower graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams that occurred during eacn month for the last twelve months.

The year-to-date station value was 0.0 at the end of September 1996. The value for the 12 months from October 1,1995, through September 30,1996 was 0.0. The value for the last 36 months was 0.917.

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. For the month of September the FCS Value was 8.0. This compares to the previous month's value of 8.0.

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

Accountability: Chase Trend: Positive 4

m Monthly High PrOecura s fetyinjection system unavailability VLlue  ;

Year-to-Date High Pressure safety injection system Unavailability Value

_e._ Fort Calhoun Goal (0.003) Good l

Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (0.02) 1P 0.02 _ _

0.015 _

0.01 _

0.005 .

C O O O O O O O O

)

O O 3 0  ;; - ; x ; x ;;, x ; 7 , 7 ; x ;  ;  ;

1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l1996l HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the High Pressure Safety injection (HPSI) System unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

The HPSI System unavailability value for the month of September 1996 was 0.0001. There were 0.2 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 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 0.00004 at the end of the month.

The unavailability value for the last 12 months was 0.000041263.

4 There has been a total of 0.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned l unavailability for the HPSI system in 1996. j 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 HPS) injection system in 1995.

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

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 10. For the month of September the FCS Value was 10. This compares to the previous month's value of 9.

Data Source: Skiles/Schaffer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Schaffer 5

Trend: Positive

Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater system unavailabin;y-a Year-to-Date AFW Unavailability lG000l

...o... Fort Calhoun Goal (0.01)

Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (0425) 0.02 . .  ;  ; a a a a a a a 4

0.018 OA16 ..

0 014 .

I 0A12 ..

0.01 .. o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o. . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o 0A08 _

o.coass 0.006 .. o.co4s7 040493

+

0.00356 OA04 .4.co2s OA02 -_ 0 0 q 0 -

1 l

0 '

r "T '

l El l l l 1994 1995 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec l1996 l AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System Unavailability value, as defined l by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

The AFW System Unavailability Value for September 1996 was 0.00493. There were 7.1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 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 0.0017 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.00299 at the

, end of the month.

3 There has been a total of 14.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-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.

4 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. For the month of September the FCS Value was 10. This compares to the previous month's value of 9.

Data Source: Skiles/Fritts (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Fritts Trend: Positive 6

m Monthly Ernergency AC Power Unay,ilability Value x Year-to-Date Emergency AC Power Unavailabilityvalue

1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (0.024) l GOOD l

._e Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (0.025) 7 0.14 ..

0.12 ..

0.1 ..

0.08 ..

0.06 __

0.04 __

022  :  :  : 0 ^

0 0 .

x X m,x x, ,% , x ,- *

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

l EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM i SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE I This indicator shows the Emergency AC Power Sy. stem unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month. j The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value for September 1996 was 0.0059.

During the month, there were 8.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability, and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability for testing and repairs. The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value year-to-date was 0.011 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.015 at the end of the month.

There has been a total of 151.4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability for the emergency AC power system in 1996.

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

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 0.025.

The maximum index point value for this indicator in 10. For the month of September the FCS Value was 9.75. This compares to the previous month's value of 8.75.

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Ronning Trend: Positive 7

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

4 m MonthlyThermalPerformance g i i 12-Month Average  !

+ Year-to Date Average Monthly Thermal Performance e Fort Calhoun Goal (99.6%) l Gooo l

+ Year 2000 INPo lndustry Goal (99.5%)

100% .. I m E EK N M.

E4 M E - ,

M E  : A E E E _;  ;

99%..

i 98%  ;  ; i

;  ;  ;  ;  ; i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec l1996 l THERMAL PERFORMANCE i 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 September 1996 was 99.9. The year-to-date average monthly thermal performance value was 99.7, at the end of the month. The average monthly value for the 12 months from October 1,1995, through September 30,1996, was 99.73%.

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

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

Data Source: Phelps/Naser(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Gorence Trend: None 8

g FuelHellabilRy(E4) 4

__p Yur 2000 INPO Industry Fuel Defect Refersnca (5 x 10-4 Microcurie:/&cm) lGOODl

.:.e 1996 Goal (9/1/96 through 12/31/96) 1 f 299.16 280 .

257.07 260

! 240_. 217.6

" 220..

,g  :; 169 159.9 l m: : 12u y

~

g 75.52 73.4 78.42 80 -- 51.37 55.38 i

3 kOBEEE Oct Nov Dec m

Jan m

Feb m

Mar m

Apr May Jun m

Jul Aug Sep FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR l *!

The FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR (FRl) for September 1996 was 299.16 X 10A microcuries/

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

The August FRI value is based on averaged data from September 1 through 21. The days selected are when the plant chemistry values are at 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 operated at 100%

power until September 20. A planned power reduction to 70% power commenced on September 21 and then again to 45% power on September 28. Power reductions were in preparation for the 16th refueling outage scheduled to start on October 5. This is the last monthly value for cycle 16.

The September FRl value of 299.16 X 104 microcuries/ gram indicated an increase from the August FRI value of 257.07 X 10d microcuries/ gram. Based on the Septemberlodine 131 and Xenon 133 activity levels, the number of predicted leaking rods (15 at core average power, between 40 to 50 leakers at lower power levels) has not changed from the August prediction. The fuel vendor, Westinghouse, does predict however that the defects have increased in size and that open blisters on the fuel cladding may exist due to secondary hydriding. Cesium isotopic analysis from previous shutdown indicate failures in twice and thrice bumed fuel assemblies. Chemistry sampling (Cesium) during the planned shutdown on October 4,1996 will confirm the bumup values. Fuel inspection during October 1996, including in-mast sipping (all assemblies) and ultrasonic testing ( indicated '

leaking fuel retuming to the core) will help confirm the actual number of fuel failures.

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

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 8. For the month of September the FCS Value was 0. This compares to the previous month's value of 0.0.

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

i I

m Secondarysystem CPI

_o._.12. Month Average I

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (1 A) l GOOD l i 1.6 .. l f 1.5 .  ;

i 1A-- 1  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

1 1.3 ..

l [ g j  ; ,

oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep 1996 SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY Criteria for calculating the Secondary System Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) are:

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

The CPI for September was 1.15. The 12-month average CPI value was 1.19 at the end of the month.

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

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 7. For the month of September the FCS l Value was 6.26. This compares to the previous month's value of 5.8. I l

Data Source: Spires /Reneaud (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Spires l Trend : Positive due to performance better than goal 10 l l

g Monthly Personne En 11ation Exposure

+ Cumulative Perso tr1 Radiation Exposure

, e FCS Goal 133 y rsco-REM 0000 l 1I

, '"* n = = = = = = = = = = a j

, 130._ l 120._

110._

j 100.-

90 .

E 80 __

a:

g 70 __

j 2

f 60__

50 __

40 __

30 __

20 __

10 ._

0e sups E m M M  ; i i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec i l 1996 l COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure for the year is set at 138.0 person-REM. I The exposure for September 1996 was 3.840 person-Rem (ALNOR).

The year-to-date exposure through the end of Septemberwas 52.411 person-Rem (ALNOR). l The Year 2000 INPO industry goal for collective radiation exposure is 120 person-rem per year. The current industry best quartile is 145 person-rem per year. The yearly average for Fort Calhoun Station for the three years from 10/93 through 9/96 was 116.78 person-rem per year.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 8. For the month of September the FCS Value was 8. This compares to the previous month's value of 8.

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 54 11

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

+ Year to-Date Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried l GoOo l

_.o Fort calhoun Goal (1050 cu.ft.)

1100_.

c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : o 900_. l i

800..

l 700.. '

~

f 600 .

I

$ 500_.

400..

300__ g 8 8 8 s = e 200..  % # I h h

~~

100_ 8 8 8 -

6 6 o O  ;  ; _ , , , , , , , , , ,

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

i VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE  !

)

This indicator shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumulative year-to-date radioactive waste buried, the Fort Calhoun and INPO goals, and the approxi-

, mate industry upper 10%. l Cu.Ft. l Amount of solid radwaste shipped off-site for processing during current month 2080 l Volume of solid radwaste buried during current month 0 l Cumulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1996 145.9 Amount of solid radwaste in temporary storage 264.8 1

l The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for the volume of solid radioactive waste (buried) is 600 cubic feet. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 45 cubic meters (1,589 cubic feet) per year. The  :

industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 27.33 cubic meters (965.3 cubic feet) per year.

4 ,

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 M 12

p Year-to-Da FCS Averate te FCS Rate Industrial (Last Safety) Accident Rate (INPo Definition) 12 Months

+eFCS Year-End Industry Current BestGoal Quar (<0.50) tile (.24)

IapoD!

-e I YearIndustrial 1995 2000 INPo industry Safety AccidentGoal Rate (<0.40)INPo

( Defination) l If 2.

1.5 l

~ ~

1 .

0.5 j ,  ;  ;  ;  ; ,b 4_  ; - -

.__ d 0

d 5 5

5 5

0 c 'a Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug sep I

l 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 perfor-mance for utility personnel permanently assigned to the station."  !

l The Fort Calhoun Station industrial safety accident rate value year-to-date was 0.40 at the end of September 1996. The value for the 12 months from October 1,1995, through September 31, 1996, was 0.58.

There were no restricted-time and one lost-time accidents in September 1996. A workerinjured his back while removing a snow blower from the back of a truck.

The values for this indicator are determined as follows:

(number of restricted-time accidents + lost-time accidents + fatalities) x 200.000 (number of station person-hours worked)

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal is 50.50. The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 50.40. The approximate industry upper ten percentile value (for the period from 7/93 through 6/94) is 0.12.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is S. For the month of September the FCS Value was 1.16. This compares to the previous month's value of 4.58.

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Chase / Booth (Manager / Source) 13

4 l -

i 1

i 1

1 l

i l

l i

l SAFE OPERAT ONS i

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

9 i

I i

4 i

! 14 I

1

1995 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency

._x._1995 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency

+ Average Rate (Last 12 Months) lGOODj

_e 1996 Goal (0.50) 2 ._ V i

. 1.8 .. I 1.6 ._

1 A 7N 1.2 .. x ^

1..

O.8 ..

0.6 OA L f -

~

~

~

~

~

- - - #1 M

0.2 ._

0  ;  ; ,

, , , , ,  ; l Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep l1996l DISABLING INJURY / ILLNESS FREQUENCY RATE (LOST-TIME ACCIDENT RATE)

This indicator shows the 1996 disabling injury / illness frequency rate. The 1995 disabling injury /

illness frequency rate is a'so shown.

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate year-to-date was 0.97 at the end of September 1996.

There was one disabling injury / illness cases reported for the month.

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for the 12 months from October 1,1995, through September 30,1996, was 0.95.

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

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

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

1996 Recordable InjuryAliness Frequency x 1995 Recordable injuryllDness Frequency

Average Rate (Last 12 Months) II 0000 l'

...o... Fort Calhoun Goal y

i 1.75 ..

1.5 f....... h h , ......o..... .......o.......o.......o.......o.......o.......o 1.25 .-

1..

{

0.75 ..

0.5 ..

0.25 _.

0 -

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

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

There have been 11 recordable injury / illness cases in 1996. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate year-to-date were 2.19 at the end of September 1996. There was 1 recordable injury / illness case reported for the month of September. This injury occured l when a worker injured his/her back while removing a snow blower from the back of a truck.

l The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate for the 12 months from October 1, 1995, through Septembert 30,1996, was 2.05.

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

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

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

m ContaminationEvents(Monthly)

_ Contamination Events (YTD) 60 . .

50 .

l 40 ..

j i

! 30 ..

2s 20 20 .-

l 1s is 13 10 .. 7 l 0 E E E i  :  ; i l

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l1996l 1

l CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS i 21,000 DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA  !

This indicator shows the Personnel Contamination Events in the Clean Controlled Area for contaminations 21,000 disintegratbns/ minute per probe area for the reporting month.  ;

I l There were 6 contamination events in September 1996. There has been a total of 26  !

contamination events in 1996 through the end of September.

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

Accountability: Chase /Gebers ,

Trend: None SEP 15 & 54 17 I

l m PersonneIPrrors (F.ach Month)

+ Preventable (18-Month Totals) c Personnel Error (18-Month Totals) l l

20 ..

l l

15 __

10 _.

" =

W  ;;?=N:  ;

iEi

~

0 i . i i i i i i e i i i i i Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug l1996]

PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERs  !

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

The graph shows the 18-month totals for preventab!e LERs, the 18-month totals for Per-sonnel Erro" LERs and the Personnel Error totals for each month. The LERs are trended based on the LER e vent date as opposed to the LER report date. I in August 1996, therewere no events whichwere subsequently reported as an LER. No LERs were (;ategorized as Preventable or Personnel Error for the month of August. The total LERs for the year 1996 (through August 31,1996) is four. The total Personnel Error LERs for the year 1996 is one. The total Preventable LERs for the year is two.

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

The 1996 goal for this indicator is that the year-end values for the 18-month totals be no more than 12 Preventable and 5 Personnel Error LERs.

. Data Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None SEP 15 18

I i

i i Startup Shutdown I r.. u Operations l GOOD lI

...o... Industry Average Trend 2

2 1

14.

'B 1 --  ; ,

fm

.....n............, ...., ... .... .

...;...............y.... -

20  ; , ,  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

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

The following safety system failures occs tred between the 2nd quarter of 1992 and the 1st quarter of 1995: 1 1st Quaster 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 erron of the offsite power low signal )

relays could have prevented offsite power from tripping and the EDGs from starting in the required amount I of time during a degraded voltage condition; 3) Both AFW pumps were inoperable when one was removed l from service for testing and the control switch for the other pump's steam supply valve was out of the auto position; 4) Only one train of control room ventilation was placed in recirc when both toxic gas monitors became inoperable. Later during surveillance, the other train auto-started and brought outside air into the control room for a six-minute period.

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

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

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

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

m Failure 5120 Demands

, , Failures 150 Demands e Failures 1100 Demands l GOOD l '

._._. Trigger Values /20 Demands

Trigger Valuesf50 Demands j Trigger Values-100 Demands 1I J 8 ..

:  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

7..

6..

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

4..

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

2 9, y y q3 3q j j 9 9 3 3 0  ; ,  ;  ; ,

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

The demands counted for this indicator include the respectiv, 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, includio all start-only demands and all start demands that are followed by load-run demands, %ue by automatic or manualinitiation. Load-run demands must follow successful starL : , meet at least one of the following criteria: a load-run that is a result of a real load ss .31, a load-run test expected to carry the plant's load and duration as stated in the test specifications, and a special test in which a diesel generator was expected to be operated for a minimum of one hour and to be loaded with b;least 50% of design load (see exceptions and other demand criteria in the Definitions Section of this report).

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Ronning -

Trend: Positive due to performance better than goal.

20

)

l l

I i , ,DG1 Failures /25 Demands e DG-2 FaHures/25 Demands l GOOD l j 5~ * "'

V l 4- c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : o 3_

2.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 0  ;

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

l l

DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS)

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

It must be emphasized that, in accordance with NUMARC criteria, certain actions will take place in the event that any one emergency diesel generator experiences 4 or more fail- I ures within the last 25 demands on the unit. These actions are described in the Defini- I 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: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

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

21

DG 1 Unreliability VR:Je DG 2 Unreliability Value

+ Station Unrellability Value l GOOD l 0.07 ._

0.06 ._

0.05 .. c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

0.04 ..

0.02: ...,,

0.03 __ Of28 0.02 .

0.01 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

0 , , , . ,  :

, 2 ,

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep l1996l EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the likelihood that emergency AC power generators will respond to off-normal events or acciderds. 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 September 1996 was 0.0. The 1996 goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.05.

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

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

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

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

Emergency diesel generator unreliability is calculated as follows:

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

l LU = Load-run Unreliability = number of unsuccessfulload-mns number of valid load-run demands Station Value = average of DG-1 and DG-2 vah.

Data Source: Skiles/Ronning (Manager / Source)

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

22

4 3

m ControlRoom Deficiencies Added i , Control Room Deficiencies Completed e Completed within Target Completion Date

~ Completion Rate

, SO .. . 100.0 %

l 8 2.7* Goal.Corrplate80% f C.R.Osteenmes try 7arge CorrpistonDate 1 m 8 40 .. N 37,,

3 .. 80.0% 5 as

, , ,, g ,,

1 g 30 -- 27 .. 60.0 % 4 f 8 22 4 s.7% l

0. . 20.0ve O 0.0%

.o - =- x . x l S S I S j k k $

5 5 i 15.

5 Control Room Deficiencies l

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

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

1 There were 24 Control Room Deficiencies completed during September 1996, and 9 were completed within the target completion date.

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

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

Data Source: Chase /Kermoade (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Short/Faulhaber Trend: None 23

g Overdue

+ Number of On.Line Control Room Deficiencies 30 ..

25 .. , as 20 .. G* 4"sthans overdu.

k g 0  ; E l E i Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep j Number of On-Line CRDS l m Overdue Number of Outage Control Room Deficiencies 30 __ <-

25 .. ,,,,,g,,,o,,,,,,

q gq 2e -

~: . ..

Note: overdue iterns are those older than 18 months 10 ..

5..  :  :  :  : 2 8 0 l l l l ,

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep l l Number of Outage CRDs l NUMBER OF ON-LINE AND OUTAGE CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCIES This indicator shows the total number of On-Lir.e and Outage Control Room Deficiencies, and the number of overdue Control Room Deficiencies.

There were 26 on-line (15 were overdue) and 18 outage (3 were overdue) Control Room Deficiencies at the end of September 1996.

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

<8 Overdue exceeds goal 24

1 l

l m Hghest NbrtNy hdivdual Exposure (199ti)

, , Y ear-to-date Fort Calhoun Goal 1500mR 1500  :  :

1300.

1200.

1100.

1000.

900.

800.

700. -

600.

500.

400.

300.

200. -

i g l 100..

0 E -

E l Jan Feb Wr Apr by Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec r

l MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE For the month of September 1996, and individual accumulated 134 mrem, which was l the highest individual exposure for the month.

From January 1996, through September 1996, an individual has accumulated a total of 739 mrem.

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 25

m FCS cited Violations (Monthly) j

, , FCS Non-Cited Violations (Monthly) a FCS Cited Violations (12-Month Average) l GOOD l l o FCS Non-Cited Violations (12-Month Average)

+ Region IV Cited Violations (12-Month Average for Region IV top quartile) Y 10 - - -

8- N 6..

c 0 0 0 0 N  : c  ; _M j 4_ c = c c c j o

2 0 > >E .B  :  ;  ; .

1 B -

l  ;

D o E $ 5 E D E O z o ,E w 2 < 2 E

m ,$ S

' 4 m 1996 l

VIOLATION TREND This indicator illustrates a 12-month trend for Fort Calhoun Station Cited Violations, Non- '

Cited Violations and Cited Violations for the Top Quartile plants in Region IV. Additionally, the Fort Calhoun Station cited and non-cited violations for the past 12 months will be illustrated monthly. The 12-month trend for the Region IV top quartile lags 2-3 months behind the Fort Calhoun Station trend. This lag is necessary to compile information on other Region IV plants. i a

The following inspections were completed during September 1996:

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

l Levellil Violations 1 LevelIV Violations 6 Non-Cited Violations .A Total 11 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

NRC Significant Events

_ Industry Average Trend 1

l 0000 l ,

1 -- , 3r l 0.5 .- 0 0 0 m r r ,

r , r , r ,

, r -

92 93 94 95-1 95-2 95 3 95-4 96-1 96-2 96 3 96 4 I

l Year -Quarter l INPO Significant ' cau (SEs) j0000l 3" 2 2 f

2 1 1 1V '

1 [D '

0 0 l 0

92 93 94 95-1 95-2 95-3 95-4 96-1 96-2 96-3 96-4 l Year-Quarter l 1

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 Nudear Power Reactors' report dated June 30,1995): 1 3rd Quarter 1992: The failure of a Pressurizer Code Safety Valve to reseat initiated a LOCAwith the potential I 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:

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

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

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

2nd Quarter 1993: Inadequate control of Switchyard activities.

3rd Quarter 1993: Loss of reactor coolant due to malfunction of Pressurizer Safety Valve.

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

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

1st Quarter 1996: During pressurizer solid plant operation, the Low Temperature Overpressurization (LTOP) protection for the RCS was inadvertently disabled.

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

Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission & INPO Accountabilrty: Chase Trend: Positive 27

~

l 1

Missed sTs Resulting in LERs 3 _. GOOD l

Y 2..

1 1_.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l - l l i i i e i i

i l l l 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 P

NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS This indicator shows the number of missed Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Lic-ensee Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting month. The graph on the left shows the yearly totals for the indicated years.

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

On December 28,1994, during the performance of OP-ST-SHIFT-0001, data was not entered for Steam Generator level per Surveillance Requirements.

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

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

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

l i i 1

I I

i i

i t

l 4

PERFORMANCE i

)

I l Goal: To strive for Excellence in Operations utilizing the high- l l est standards of performance at Fort Calhoun Station that 4 1

result in safe, reliable plant operation in power production.

I i

l i I l

! I i

j l

l l

i 1

l 29 I

$ ' Net Generttion (10,000 MWh) 40 ..

36.04 36.27 36.23 35.85 l

33.85 4 l 30.08 30 ..

I Mini . i O uta ge p

i

$ 20.16 Outage 20 _.

g 15.16 i 5 10 .

l 0  ; i  ; i l j i i  ;

i i Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep 1996 STATION NET GENERATION i

I During the month of September 1996, a net total of 300,E24.8 MWh was generated by the Fort Calhoun Station. Cumulative net generation for Cycle 16 was 5,401,388.6 MWh j at the end of the month.

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

t i Energy losses for March 1996 were attributed to (1) a planned mini-outage, and (2) con-

[ denser tube leakage repair.

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

i i

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

l l

l l , , Forced Outage Rate (Monthly)

+ Forced Outage Rate (12 Months) l GOOD l

._o 1996 Fort Calhoun (bal(1.4%)

50%.. 3 y_

45%.

40% ..

35% ..

30%..

25%..

1 20% .

15%..

l 10%..

5%. a.m , , , , , T ,

0% O 4 0 0 O O 93 94 95 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1996 FORCED OUTAGE RATE i The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 4.52% for the twelve months from Octo-ber 1,1995, through September 30,1996. The 1996 year-to-date FOR was 6.1% at the end of the month. 1 Energy Losses are explained on Page 30.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 1.4%.

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

I 1

l i i Monthly Unit Capacity Factor l

....... Year-toCate Unit capacity Factor g e Unit Capacity Factor for Cycles 15 & 16

36-Month Average Unit capacity Factor l GOOD l 110 %

" 1996 FCS Goal (81.49%)

100 % _._ - - -

,;s-.....-+ ..... ,,,,,, ,,,.. . _

80%--

80% . -

A _

=

=

= t c

~--_

^

R

% r 1 --

3.

70%_ a- - -

60%_

50%..

40%_. -

i 30%_. l 20%__

10%__

0% , ,  ; , ,  ;  ;  ;  ;

& t B 2 i a a #

• u m O z o , w 2 < 2 ,3 4 5

=

1996 UNIT CAPACITY FACTOR l This indicator shows the plant monthly Unit Capacity Factor, the Unit Capacity Factor for the i current fuel cycle, year-to-date and the 36-month average Unit Capacity Factor.

I At the end of the month, the Cycle 16 Unit Capacity factor was 87.41%, and the Unit Capacity Factor for the last 36 months was 85.08%. The 1996 Fort Calhoun annual goal for this indicator is 82.00%.

The year-to-date value it 91.30%.

En'ergy losnes 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 Accountability: Chase Trend: None 32

, , Monthly EAF

. -a- Y;ar-to.Date Average Monthly EAF

+ 12-Month Average EAF

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

r n - -

e s.s s / A i \ .

~ + - -a 80%__ 7, ,, g 1

- x x x x x x x x x x x x l 60%__T I

~

40%..

20%__

0%  ;  ; ,  ;  ;

1 92 93 94 95 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1996 EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF), the year-to-date average monthly EAF, and the year-end average monthly EAF for the previous three years.

The EAF for September 1996 was reported as 85.5%. The year-to-date monthly average EAF was 85.40% at the end of the month.

The Fort Calhoun average monthly EAF for the past three years is 87.12%. The industry median EAF value for the three-year period from 7/90 through 6/93 was 76.7%.

Data Source: DietzNandervort (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None 33

r. _.. _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ - .

e Safety system Actuations (INPo Definition)  !

+ FCS Goal (0) l

+ Industry Upper 10 Percentile (0) 3 ..

l 2 ...

I l

1 l 1..

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' '

:  : l : ' ' ' '

l  :  :  : :4 92 93 94 oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 95 96 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(INPO DEFINITION)

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

There was one unplanned safety system actuation during the month of August 1995. It occurred on August 24,1995, when the plant was tripped during a test of a backup auto-matic shutdown system. The generator was brought back on-line at 3:43 p.m. on August i 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: Skiles/Foley/Ronning Trend: Positive 34

I g Safety System Actuations (NRC Definitbn) i i FCs Goal (0)

+ CriticalHours l _e 12-Month Running Total ssAs (NRC Definition) 10 .. . 800

..700

, _ ...y. .

, ..600

} }u 6-- - 500 e

< =

E ..400 :E

$ 4 'il

~

..300

?

" ..200 2- s-e--ee l

..100 0 . ; ;;;;;ii;: ;_;=;_, ; ; e i;;i;; i>; O 92 93 94 95 AsONDJFMAMJJAsONDJ FMAMJJAs T

l1994l l1995l 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 chdienged. '

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

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

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

Accountability: Skiles/Foley/Ronning Trend: None 35

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

f g Gross Heat Rate j + Year-to Date Gross Heat Pate lGoool l = Fort Calhoun Goal 10.75 ..

l 7 l

1 l 10.5 ..

1025. . m22s l , , c.2s

g e  ; = = = = - -

E 3 10 . .

+\= '

J t m l 9.75 .

! 9.5 .

9.25 '

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

1996 l

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

The gross heat rate for Fort Calhoun Station was 10,895 for the month of September  !

1996. The 1996 year-to-date GHR was 10,204 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

l

+ Thermaloutput i

o_., Fort calhoun 1495 MW Goal

+ Tech Spec 1500 MW Umit l 1600.

; ;;;;;;;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ^ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;;

1400__

1200.

1000_ '

j 800.

2 600..

\

400..

j 1

200__

0  : ; ; l >

l ; - - '

; i i

l l ;>

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT The thermal output graph displays the daily operating power level during September 1996, the 1500 thermal megawatt average technical specification limit, and the 1495 thermal megawatt Fort Calhoun goal.

The graph shows a down ward trend, attributed to RFO coastdown.

Data Source: Guinn/Willett (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Short Trend: None 37

+ Number of Equiprnent Forced Outage 2 (Monthly) -

1. Equipment Forced Outage Rate /1,000 Critic 1 Hrs. (12-Month interval) .

__e_. Fort Calhoun Year-End Goals (0.2) 7 2 ..

1._

h l C O O O . O O b 3.. 0 0 0 -

0 _  :  : e 93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS i The equipment forced outage rate per 1,000 critical hours for the 12 months from Octo-ber 1,1995, through September 30,1996, was 0.365. The year-to-date rate per 1,000 critical hours for the months from January 1996 through Geptember 1996 was 0.333.

l An equipment forced outage occured during the month of June due to the failure of the Anti-Rotation Device associated with RC-3B-M.

An equipment forced outage occured at the end of the March due to condenser tube I:akage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

l g kT^ A M 18.

____Totad cdepies 14 hy l s 10 ~

l $s/

g6 /  :

~

/

~

2!

! 0

M J J A 5 0 N D J 96 F M A M J J A s l A ge/N o rmal Use 68.2%

Procedure Error 19%

initial ins tallatio n 19%

Testing Action l 5.6%

) M a nuf a cturing Maintenance t A ctio n Other Devices W.4% 12.8 %

Enginee ringID e sign 18%

COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

The top chart illustrates the number of component categories, application categories and total categories in which the Fort Calhoun Station has significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than the industry failure rates during the past 18-month Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) reporting period (from December 1994 through May 1996). Fort Calhoun Station reported a higher failure rate in 6 of the 83 component categories (valves, pumps, motors, etc.)

during the past 18-month CFAR period. The station reported a higher failure rate in 7 of the 174 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 58 failure reports (failure discovery dates within the 18-month CFAR period) with known failure causes that were submitted to INPO by Fort Calhoun Station. A total of 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 m ore than One Failure se Com ponents with m ore than Two Failure s 16 . .

q l

10 .. 10 p

7 7 6 6 6 6 6.. f  :  :#

3 3 g j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,

• V e _

Uct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun J ul Aug Sep i 1996 l l

REPEAT FAILURES The Repeat Failures indicator (formerly called the " Maintenance Effectiveness Performance Indicator") was d::veloped in response to guidelines set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis l cnd Evaluation of Operational Data (NRC/AEOD). The NRC requirement for a Maintenance Effectiveness Performance Indicator has been discontinued, but station management considers it useful to continue to tr:ck repetitive component failures using the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS). l This indicator shows the number of NPRDS reportable components with more than one failure during the 18-month Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) period (failure discovery dates from November 1994 through April 1996) and the number of NPRDS reportable components with more than two failures during 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. Recommendations and actions to correct these repeat failures are listed in the Biannua8 CFAR. The description and tag numbers of the NPRDS reportable components with more than one failure are listed below:

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

(> 2 Failures)

IA-HCV-2918-BP Air intensifier for HPSI Altemate Header IsolationValve.

RC-10-08 Control Element Drive Mechanism RC-3D-M Reactor Coolant Pump Motor V/P-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 FW-56 (> Two Failures) 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 Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None 40 ,

1 I

t

CHEMISTRY ACTION LEVELS EXCEEDED l,,,,, &ent Days + Average bent Days + Lmt l 6.

5.

j24 .

8 3.

g

$2. -

g  ;  ;  ;  ;

@ F k  ? E @? F t E g &

$ 7 7  ? w h y 8 s 8 8 8 8 8 @ 8 I s 8 .

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

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

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

The number of event days can exceed the number of days in a month since each event is counted separately and there can be multiple events per day.

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

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

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

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

7.00 1

)

6 00 Goa ti.00 2 4.00 8

j 3.00 2.00 1.00 E 0.00 M E Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1996 i

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

Tin Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit was 0.00% for the month of Sep-teraber 1996. Lithium exceeded its limits for 0.0 Murs during the month.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is a maximum of 5% hours out of limit Data Source: Chase / Spires (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Spires Trend: None 42

d i

1 1

i l l COST l l l i

i i ,

I l Goal

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

i i

i J

i l

i l

4 4

i l

i '

43 d

l

+ Actual Revised Budget

,,__ original Budget ' Plan 4.00 _ _

3.75 3.50 __

I 3.25 .

lJ! 3.00_d.

---a E -

u 2.75 .

I 2.50 .

2.25 ..

l I

2h0  : ; ,  ;  ;  ; ,  ; , ,  ;  ; , ,  ;  ;  ;  ; , ,

D91 D92 D93 D94 D95 J96 F M A M J J A s O N D D96 D97 D98 D99 Months CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun  !

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

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

The 12-month rolling average unit price (period of July,1995 through August,1996) averaged below the budget due to 12-month rolling expenses surpassing the budget ex-pectations, while 12-month rolling generation did not met tie budget expectations. The 12-month rolling average (07/95 through 08/96) is 2.77 cenw. per kilowatt hour. The year-to-date average is trending negatively.

Cents per KWH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Budget Y-T-D 2.79 2.84 2.85 2.81 2.82 2.76 2.73 2.75 2.81 2.98 3.12 3.05 Actual Y-T-D 2.91 2.77 2.96 2.94 2.83 2.98 2.91 2.25 Data Source: Lounsberry/Jamieson (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Lounsberry Trend: Needs Management Attention 44

l I

i l

l l

DIVISION AND l

i DEPARTMENT a

PERFORMANCE i

l INDICATORS 1

l Goal: Achiave high standards at Fort Calhoun Station

' resulting in safe, reliable and cost effective power pro-duction.

l l

1 1

a l l

l 1

_ Spare Parts inventoryValue ($ Million) 16.20 ._

a 16.10 ..

16.00 ..

15.90 __

lii

% 15.80 ..

O o

E

.9 15.70 ..

5 15.60 .. - -

15.50 _

15.40 ..

15.30 i

; i Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1996 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of September 1996 was reported as $16,128,210.

Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Willrett/McCormick Trend: None 45

I i

l 1

l 1

I l

No data provided 1

4 RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total com-pleted non-outage maintenance. The ratio was 80.8% for the month of July 1996.

The lower graph shows the percentage of scheduled preventive maintenance items that are overdue. During July 1996,503 PM items were completed.

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

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

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

J

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

l i

, m Rowerk as ;wentiflad by Craft Fort Calhoun Goal (<3%)  !

l l 6%..

l l

l j 4%.. s.e g '

} y s.7 s l 3.3 %

3% .

8- %

i 1

tes its tas

'2%.

Oct I I Nov m No. Mantenance items Competed Dec Jan Fe b Mar Apr

.I l M ay

+% Identified as Repeat Jun J ul h

Aug Sep 400 8.0%

m 350. . 7.0%

288 300. . 6.0%

250. 22 217 214 . 5.0%

200. 16 180

. 4.0%

150. . 3.0%

100. . 2.0%

50 . .1.0%

o , . .

, nnu Oct Nov Dec Jer. Feb Mar A pr May Jun Jul A ug PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK / REPEAT 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 July to the 15th of August, due to the delay in closing open MWOs at the end of each month The Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is <3%. A detailed review is conducted of rework items each month to identify generic concems.

Data Source: Faulhaber/Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None 49

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

. . corrective Maintenance Preventive Mantenance

.. fion-Corrective /PIsnt improvements Fort Calhoun Goal 1000 " '"

834 752 769 771 830 782 780 i

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

[1995l l Non-Outage Maintenance Work Order Backlog l l

lD W Nl Total o pietio n c ate i 43 MWos 72%

i a

{ g, -

um 28 %

! 200. S _38 6 j # l,  : 72 }

0. -i uman i i a

Rorty Riarty Rirty Rorty Riarty

i 2 3 4 5 1

i j MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOG J

This indicator shows the backlog of non-outage Maintenance Work Orders remaining open at the i

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

l priority. The 1996 goal for this indicator is 400 non-outage corrective maintenance MWOs. The current backlog of corrective MWOI is 490. To ensure that the MWO backlog is worked in a i timely manner, non-outage maintenance completion goals have been established as follows:

Goal

Priority 1 Immediate Action 2 days i Priority 2 Urgent 5 days j Priority 3 Operational Concems 21 days Priority 4 Routine Corrective 90 days Priority 5 Non-Essential 180 days

{

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber j Trend: Adverse SEP 36 i

) 47 i

+ Spare Parts inventoryValue ($ Million) 1620..

e 16.10 ._

16.00 .

15.90 ..

N 5 15.80 ..

O o

E S 15.70 7 5

15.60 ..

15.50 ..

15.40 ..

1530 >

- i >

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1996 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of September 1996 was reported as $16,128,210.

Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Willrett/McCormick Trend: None 45

i l

i I

I a  !

l No data provided i

i

)

)

l RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total com-pleted non-outage maintenance. The ratio was 80.8% for the month of July 1996.

The lower graph shows the percentage of scheduled preventive maintenance items that are overdue. During July 1996,503 PM items were completed.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for the percentage of preventive maintenance items over-due is a maximum of 0.6%.

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

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

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

i l

l m Raw ork as ide ntif6e d by Craft a

+ Fort Calhoun Ooal(<3 %)

5 % --

4.s s i 4% s .e s 4

y s.r s f s .2 %

3% -- 1- %

!I 2% -- t'%

tan ts%

<

• t4%

1% .. ,

1 0% l l t i  ;  ; i i i  ; , g j Oct Nov Dec Jan Fe b Mar Apr M ay Jun J ul Aug Sep i m No. Maintenance tems Competed + % identNied as Repeat 1

4 400 8.0%

350 . 7.0%

300.

247 252 250. 22 238 217 214 . 5.0%

200. 16 180 4.0% j 150. . 3.0%

100. . 2.0%

l 50 . . 1.0 %

n , i i

nnu Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED l PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK / REPEAT d

This graph indicates the percentage of total MWOs completed per month identified as l rework. Rework activities are identified by maintenance planning and craft.

This indicator is calculated from the 15th of July to the 15th of August, due to the delay in

! closing open MWOs at the end of each month.

4 The Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is <3%. A detailed review is conducted of -

rework items each month to identify generic concerns.

l

't i

) Data Source: Faulhaber/Schmitz (Manager / Source)

! Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None 49 4

l

l l i

, e Maintenance Overtime

1. 12-Month Average Maintenance Overtime 3 -_.o _ Fort Calhoun "On-Line" Goal (10%) GOOD l j 30%.- '

MINI-OUTAGE V 4 25% .-

l ARD OUTAGE

! 20%.-

15%..

x x x 10%-- o o o- ---- ----o----- e =

RFO l l 1 i l 1 I I i I l

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep l1996l l

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

The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 5.0% for the month of September 1996. The 12-month average percentage of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 10.0 % at the end of the month.

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

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None 50

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

l l

4 Human Performance CRs(Maintenance) l 20 ..

i 18 .

! 16 ..

I 14 .

I l

1 g 12 .

l I

! fc .

g 10 ..

t s

8o 8 j 8 6

6 -

5 5 L

l 2

}

i l

l

!:: Mar 1 I.

Apr May Jun h I.

Jul Aug Sep

PROCEDLIRAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS (MAINTENANCE) i l This indicator shows the number of Condition Reports related to procedural noncompli-ance incidents assigned to the Maintenance Department.

i l

i i

j Data Source: Faulhaber

! Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber

,i Trend: None SEP 15,41 & 44

]

)-

l 51 4

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

a l

i A l g% Scheduled Activities Completed I l

t O% Emergent Activities l GOOD l j 100.0% ..

i 90.0% .. 88 3 83.3% 80.5% 79.4%

1 l 80.r4 ..

73.2%

i j 70.0% ..

60.0% __

j 50.0% --

i

! 40.0% ..

1 i

{

30.0*/. - [p 3.8% ,yg

}

20.0% - h zu 9.2% 0.1% 8.6%

i $$

! 10.0% - E I i

0.0% _ W i i i g May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 Sep-96 i

i j DAILY SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE j PERCENT OF SCHEDULED ACTIVITIES COMPLETED 1

l This indicator shows the percent of Integrated Plant Schedule activities completed on j schedule. All work groups and activities are included.

1 I The percent of emergent work is calculated as a percentage of the total number of sched-j uled and emergent activities.

i i 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 /Sourca)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 33 52

m % of Hours the In4Jne Chemistryinstruments are Inoperable GOOD 2 1996 Fort CahounGoal(10Y4 l 26% .. Y 24%._

21%._

19%._

17%._

15%..

13%._

11%._

9%._

l I E I I I I I i l i i l Oct Nw Dec Jan Feb Nhr Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1996l IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS 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 September 1996, the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instruments were inoperable was 4.80%. There were no instruments that were out of  ;

service for the entire month.

I The entire instrument channel is considered inoperative if: 1) the instrument is inopera- l 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.

D 'a Source: Chase /Reneaud (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Skiles Trend: Positive - Better than OPPD Goal 53

m Wmte Produced Each Month (Kilogr.mi)

., Monthly Average Wcste Produced During the la:t 12 Months (Kilogr m2) e_ Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal (150 kilograms)

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

x x  ;; ,

800 .

j l

600 .

E 5

400..

200..

c  :  :  :  :  : 2  :  :  : o 2 2 0, i _  :  :  ?  ?  :

?  ?

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep l1995l HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED This indicator shows the total amount of hazardous waste produced by the Fort Calhoun Station each month, the monthly average goal and the monthly average 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 September 1996,0.0 kilograms of non-halogenated,0.0 kilograms of halogenated and 0.0 kilograms of other hazardous waste was produced. The total hazardous waste produced during the last 12 months is 191.1 kilograms.

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

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

Data Source: Chase /Shubert (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Spires Trend: Positive 54

i i .

I i e Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area l GOOD l

, e fbrt Calhoun Goal (10%)

, if 10% ._ e  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; =  ; o 4

9%.

I 4

\j\,\\,

l 8% i i  ; i i  ; ,

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

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

At the end of September 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

Identsfied PRWPs(YTD)

_ Fort Calhoun Goal (<15) 16 .

14 .

12 .

10 .

8.

6 6- 6 4

4. .

2. ~ ~

+

Jan

/

Feb hr Apr Wy June July Aug Sep Oct ibv Dec i

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

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

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

There have been 6 PRWPs in 1996.

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

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 52 56

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

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

i _

I 250.. -

i i

l 200_. -

i u

150.." -

100_.

1 50 .

I O___ (

Oct Nov i_ 4 Dec Jan i- (_

Feb

(_

Mar

(_ k_

Apr May Jun

+

Jul

+

Aug Sep y

1996 I

DOCUMENT REVIEW

This indicator shows the number of completed, scheduled, and overdue (greater than 6 l months past the scheduled due date) biennial reviews for the reporting month. These

! document reviews are performed in-house and include Special Procedures, the Site Se- l curity Plan, Maintenance Procedures, Preventive Maintenance Procedures, and the Op-erating Manual. l i During September 1996, there were 283 document reviews scheduled, while 84 reviews were completed. At the end of the month, there were 23 document reviews more than 6 months overdue. There were 12 new documents initiated during September 1996. Be-

! ginning in September 1995, these figures include PED and NOD procedures.

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

57 l

l g System Failures O Mystem Failures Good l 30 _

i Y 25 ._

22 22 20 20 ._ , ,

l 15 ._

• w e

1 4

10 __

7 i

j 5._ 4 ,

l 2 2 2 2 0  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; ,

, , , , ,  ; j j Oct Dec Feb Apr June August

{

l LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY) l l This graph shows the Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) Indicator and depicts (1) l 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-l dents non-system failures concerning Security Badges, Access Control and Authoriza-j tion, Security Force Error, and Unsecured Doors.

)-

During the month of September 1996, there were 15 loggable/ reportable incidents iden-tified. This resulted in a 32% decrease of the overall incidents reported during the previ-l ous period. System failures accounted for 73% of the loggable/ reportable incidents. En-

! vironmental failures accounted for 54% of the system failures. The 4 non-system failures '

j cccounted for 54% of the system failures. The 4 non-system failures included 1 security badge removed from site,1 security force error, and 2 vital area doors found unsecure.

i i

i This indicator provides information on security performance for Safety Enhancement Pro-1 gram (SEP) Item No. 58.

4

Data Source

Sefick/Woerner (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Sofick Trend: None SEP 58 1 58 i

I

~

l l

i

, i Temporary Modifications >1 cycle old peu required for removal) m Temporary Modifications >6 months old (Removable online)

1. Fort Calhoun Gaals for >1-cycle and >6 months old

~~

e e 5._

4.

3 _

]1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

aa CE Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep 1996 i

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 1 modifications removable on-line that are greater than six months old. The 1996 Fort Calhoun  !

monthly goals for this indicator are zero.

There are currently no temporary modifications that are greater than one-fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage to remove. At the end of September 1996, there were O temporary modifi-cations installed that were greater than six months old that could have been removed on-line. ,

At the end of September 1996, there was a total of 13 TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station.

seven of the 13 installed TMs require an outage for removal and 6 are removable on-line. In 1996, a total of 16 temporary modifications have been installed.

Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source)

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

i i Total Modification Packages Open .

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

90 .

80 .. ,, ,, ,, 7, ts 7s to 7s 7s 7, 0^- -

-:-  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : o 60 .. ,,

50 .. ,

j 40 ..

30 . I

, 20 ..  !

10 .

O i

i . . .

;  ; i . ,

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

Reporting Cateaorv '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 Month Form FC-1133 Backlog /In Progress 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Mod. Requests Being Reviewed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Design Engr. Backlog /in Progress 0 0 0 0 5 17 29 Construction Backlog /In Progress 2 0 8 29 0 0 34 Design Engr. Update Backlog /In Progress 3 2 8 1 0 0 11 Totals 5 2 16 30 5 17 75 (outage + online) (3+2) (0+2) (7+9) (29+11) (0+5) (16+1) (45+30)

At the end of September 1996,12 modification requests have been issued this year and 3 modification requests have been cancelled. The Nuclear Projects Review Committee (NPRC) has conducted 44 backlog modification request reviews this year. The Nuclear Projects Committee (NPC) has completed 7 backlog modification request reviews this year.

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

Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Scofield/Lounsberry (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Scofield/Jaworski Trend: None 60

80 -- .

EARS Requiring Engineering Closeout-Not in Closcout 60 --

g sE O DEN 40 ._

20 __

0  ;

. i

rm ; , ,

C,C;O; , um , um g4 July Aug Sep July Aug sep July Aug sep Jul Aug sep 0-3 Months 3 6 Months 6-12 Months >12 Months O Engineering Response g Closeout (sE) 20 ..

Priority 0 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Prority 6 48 EARS on 30 Overdue R qu r ng Response 52 % 18 3 o

14 Overdue c i. ... ..

29.3%

l l

ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST BREAKDOWN TK: 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 10 EARS closed during the month 5 Total EARS open at the end of the month 101 Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 62 61

1 I

1 78 77 112 i

0 3 Months l CLOSEQUT DEN M%

CONST. s .

j 1 ECN Status -Overall Backlog I 4

30 3 6 M emh e.s u ..w. as '

]i g Backlogged O Received a Completed ns ,

250.

1. 3

l 1s2 150. -

3 7 ,

tzs ,t2

) 50 ' oro 8

2s

" 21 "

2

. 5" t %.  ?% $~kil 2-E .

. es 50 - " "*"**

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep l 4g Design Engineering M- s 200. 0-8

• Mo nths I'8 150. 12 % M *"'h5 28%

"g , as g 68 87

>S Months Apr May Jun Jul

• Aug SyaM61 Engineering as. au

, 250 .. me, tis 12 2

• t

b; j 200.. " _ ' ll i. o

• 8 y v:c: : A. .;:

Months h-g iS**

hMar si c Apr May

% A Jun Jul Aug 36 u%

M o nths l Procurement / Construction 8%

, 250.

200.

• 150.. t22 "1 its

,, ['.' 7. - *'

O [ .

4%

h*

rths Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 15%

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

Accountability: Jaworski/Skiles Trend: None SEP 62

)

. 62 1

t

14 7 88 PC TYPE P flo ritY 10 8 8% ESS P riority g, "(y Wi -

gy 21%

N ((:

,,, q SRI TYP E ses y

Total Open ECNs = 520 P ,g,,it 88%

egg ~^ gy " " ~ - -

Total Open ECNs = 520 21 25 0 DEN - Closecut or Drafting Not Cornplete P rio rity P rio rity 5 Maintenance / Construction /Precurement Work Not Complete 5&S 1&2 W System Engineering Response,Confirmetton Not Complete 14 % 17 %

5 DEN Engineering Not Complete 18 2 17s 17s 16 e Pr ity s&4 A pr-SS MapH J un-98 J ukH A ug-M Sep-M ES%

1 FaciWhnge m Open 1

3$g ~ 40 31 298 30s 3 16 30s ses 307 P riority P riority 8 8 1 1 I I I I P riority Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 Se p-96 and Substitute Replacement item ECNs Open st%

l T u Pr rey 80 . ,,

n 1, sc y

ii 60 . ,, 22

I 8 2  : }; ;i :.h

1. - 2e 0

, . Mygggq ,

'?

20 . ,

, l'

-j)]?jb , '8Y 15 37 41%

0 i i i i  : i p,,,,,,

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep sas Docurnent Change ECNs Open ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 62 63

O Administrative Control Problem g Licensed Operator Error g Other PersonnelError

, g Maintenance Problem O Design / Construction 4nstallation/ Fabrication Problem g Equipment Failures 2.

i

1. . _ _ _ _

l 1

1 t

0 m

t O Z B

B c

E 7

f 6

, _l 2

2 E

4 2

E 4

3 4

l1995l 1

l l

LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN l l

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

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

There were no events in August 1996 that resulted in an LER.

Data Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Trend: None 64

[-} Total Requalification T,*.'.ung Hours a simulator Training 1+. ors g Non-Requalificatic Training Hours B Number of Exam Failures 35 34 y 32 32.5 32 g

30 ..

25 ..

20 ..

7 16 5.5 4 14 15 .. 4 10 .. 8 7.5 8 7.5

.5 6 6 5 5

5. 4 3

0 0

0. i l j j .u 3 Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle C)cis (,yle 95-3 95 4 95-5 95-6 96-1 96-2 9E-3 96-5

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

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

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

1 Exam failures are defined as failures in the written, simulator, and Job Performance Measures (JPMs) segments of the Licensed Operator Requalification Training. I Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 65

I g SROFxams Administered O sRo Exams Passed O RoExams Administered g RoExams Passed 30 .

] 25 .

20 .

15 ._

10 ..

5_.

0 . . mi ,

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep l1995l l1996l l

1 LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS This indicator shows the number of Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Reactor Opera-tor (RO) quizzes and exams taken and passed each month. These internally adminis-t:: red quizzes and exams are used to plot the SRO and RO candidates' monthly progress.

1 During the month of September 1996, there were O RO and 0 SRO exams given.  ;

Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 66

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

l r

m Ready to Close e Oosed

+ Total CRs

-+- Operi 1800 i

l 1600.

1400.

/

l 1200.

! 1000.

I l 800.

g  ; _:  ;:  :  :  : -

i 400.

. 200 ,

i n 8-Mar 22-Mar 4-Apr 19-Apr 3- W y 17-Wy 31-May Jd-96 sep-96 l

l l

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

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

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Total Open 18 6 78 637 55 38 834 l Closed 5 2 48 452 224 59 790 l

2 j 226 Condition Reports are " READY" to "CLOSE".

I

! At the end of September,1996 there were 141 "OPEN" incident Reports, of which, 32 were Significant.

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

I i

! Data Source: Tesar/Burggraf(Manager / Source) j Accountability: Andrews/Gambhir/Patterson i Trend: None j 67 i

i i

I

l l

0 Total outage MWos a MWos ReadytoWork i

1000..

900. l MADlWE j 800.. S/ ern

reaev m Evarru 700.. 6%  %

4 El I

300 .

Rrts l 72 %

200._

100.

O i j ,

Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 Sep-96 l 3

i MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUELING OUTAGE)  ;

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

! - Parts Holds - Planning Complete, Awaiting Parts i

- System Engineering Holds - Awaiting System Engineering input to Planning i - Planner Holds - Maintenance Planner has not completed planning the work package.

l - ECN Hold - Awaiting Substitute Replacement Items ECN from DEN.

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber 4

Trend: None SEP 31 l

. 68 j

ji j!! . !ii ii! :i . J!;i':  ! i;:l 4!!! 1:i*!l1  !! ,lI l]jj 'iii ;i g oEo 3.

TAD r ca 1

9y h CT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

8 9 ,

g 1

1 0

1 2

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

,6 e p ,

duS n o 31 e g

t au 07r f Emel# .3 -

_ br dRo r .3 ic l

yti: e aem y f sua S

P i

g p enc i!0t18 r i l E .3 ine og C I

"3e3 .3 r i NSS t

o On uid A

L g

okk t t c "82 nl ee i

i l haa S .I e ss eg t o E .

.t

//

BS R .e r O R e V i

s owe f S h (

CE V g gu a uSo I

e y RC "iEe %5- .I li Ew 1

hr t

e r

n g nDs g s' t cAE l

eLS .

.t 9 9

6 Og e h i

n 1 L E O 7 u

(

uo si2eiI Ogg t M t al at s R PN .I g

a a

n g i a e tst u eR uOI G f

.t I bhaTL r is s

e P

a s t

_ g so s t eJN ". cMM r o

e aho f l

iEE n a e!e .3 hoo e nn j

e

/r r a t

vp g CE .3 dt t uhh c

S t s

de O TRI o r l e

u a aj o ,

S t

e uS aT N t

r g a c .e l

l c t t u

)

e p t r s g AG me 3sE iI .3 s

o .3 jw R eh ci

)eTU ED ,

p e .

o t c sh SP e 22E 3

.2 r

t c

oa A .3 mer R pl ni T ..

e t t eh M

E 0W 3I .3

.3 de bs N i y c T 3 Ap o 2s2t23 3 u

g e *i3 _)7 3 S uo y 6 E sf 9 P t 3 2t h 1 ,3 e

+ Basehne SchedJeforPRC Approval

+ Projected /ActualScheduleforPRC Approval

-- Fral Design Pkg Issued (2 FD DCP issued Pno r tc 05/0195)

Total M odicato n Packages (22)(11 Adoed After 05/0795) 9 3B.

7.

s. ,!

r$ s-

=e j R 4. l EUa: 3. ~ .

i

.2_ /- - - - - l t l g1 _

o esll5misak5sa

[ y -

5 5 $

m 5 i, s S l l l

' PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE (1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING)  !

(FROZEN SCOPE OF 9 OUTAGE MODIFICATIONS)

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

l 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.

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

Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 70

i, MODS ADDED TO 96 REFUELING OUTAGE AFTER FREEZE DATE 1 (05/01/96)

O W2/96 . , ,

I

( 9/12/96 . 4 ::

t a

p a/23s6 o

• 8 * *

• 7 s6 a

.6/4/96 g < 5/15/96.

g E 4/25/96 .

4/5/96 i 95 E 95- 95- 96- 95- 95 E 95 025 001 023 011 002 013 022 008 007 020 MODIFlCATION NUMBER jeMRMPRCAPPRO4 E ACRMPRCAPPRCMI l N

i 1

PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE (1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING) i (1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING) i i

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

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

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

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 71

+ Baseline schedule for PRC Approval g_. Total Modification Packages (10)(4 Added After 052155) 6 - --

, x ,

7 - ,

S..

}4--  : : : : :

5 . . ..

g3_.

5 c.

}2 .

.8 E

1  : ::::::.

O i; ; i. >> > .

h k e b b o m b b b o b a E h 3 5 E E E E E S E S S PROGRESS OF 1996 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 6 MODIFICATIONS)

This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for on-line installation during 1996. Modifications added to the on-line list after May 1,1995, are not part of this indica-tor. The data is represented with respect to the baseline schedule (established June 16, 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.

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

l Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 33 72

4

?

I I

s N

4 l

t i

t

),

i 1 3

k 4

1 h

i l

s ACTION PLANS l

l l

l l

l l

73

1 1

- l l

ACTION PLANS This section lists action plans that have been developed for the performance ind;ce. tors  !

cited as Adverse Trends during the month preceding this report. Also included are Action l Plans for indicators that have been cited in the preceding month's report as Needing I Increased Management Attention for three (3) consecutive months.

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":

. Fuel Reliability Indicator (page 9)

. Maintenance Workload Backlogs (page 47)

FAILED FUEL ACTION PLAN Problem Statement:

Fuel failures in Cycle 16 have caused elevated reactor coolant system activities subsequently resulting in higher radiological dose rates ( and exposuses with access problems) as well as a fuel reliability indicator (FRI) which does not meet the performance indicator goal. The elevated FRl has resulted in lowering the plant performance indicator index to an undesirable value.

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

P_lan

-The plan below is compromised of both short term corrective actions to address the ,

Cycle 16 operations goals identified above and long term corrective actions for '

Cycle 17 and beyond.

l l

i 74

1 ,

I l

Fuel Reliability l

l SHORT TERM (CYCLE 16 OPERATIONS)

[IEM - ACTION RESP. DATE DUE STATUS

1. Evaluate replacement of two-micron firer in CVCS with one- Holthaus Completed Complete.1/4/96. Fi!ter replacement will micron firer. resultin improved particulate removal i 01/04/96 and consequently lower dose rates, 1a. Install one-micron Sters in CVCS 01/31/96 Completed 03/13/9

2. Evaluate benests ofincreasing letdown flow. HoRhaus/Spilker Completed Previously evaluated in Radiological 01/19/96 Analysis95-005, which supports ['

increased letdown flow.

3. Evaluate need for and effectiveness of more frequent of Holthaus Completed Complete. 01/04/96. Resin bed effective puri# cation and cation ion beds. 01/04/96 in minimizing RCS activity. Resin beds replaced in November 1995.

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

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

5. Evaluate installation of silver mordenite #1tration system Hokhaus/ Spires Completed Received general (unclassited) for increased iodine removal. 01/26/96 information on system used at Savannah River Project.

6. Identify number of old design assembles to be placel C mpleted ' Previously identi#ed eight assemblies to in peripherallocations for second cycle and consider Holthaus/Guinn 01/12/96 be placed on core periphery for second i replacement with new design assembly. cycle.

75

Fuel Reliability

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

8. Determine if Westinghouse can supply the above fuel Completed Complete. 01/12/96. Westinghouse has assembEes for Cycle 17. Also, can Fuels Division Holthaus/ Hanger 01/12/96 indicated that they can fabricate the provide necessary uranium. assemblies. Cost estimates by Fuels Division is approx.12M. Discount from Westinghouse also requested.

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

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

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

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

$10,000/ person exposure. 01/25/96 76

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _j

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

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

Planning Scheduled Maintenance Bulk Work 77 l

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS t1,000 PERFORMANCE DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA

)

1 l

The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable The personnel contaminabon events in the clean controlled area. I hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the auxiliary This indicator tracks personnel performance for SEP #15 8 54. I feedwater system for the reporting period divided by the cribcal hours for the reporting period multiplied by the number of trains CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA in the auxihary feedwater system. i The percentage of the Radiabon Controlled Area, which includes l COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE the auxihary building, the radwaste building, and areas of the

]

C/RP building, that is contaminated based on the total square Collective radiation exposure is the total extemal whole-body footage. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #54.

dose received by all ornite personnel (including contractors and visitors) during a time period, as measured by the DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). Collective radiation exposure is reported in units of person-rem. This indicator This indicator shows the daily core thermal output as measured tracks radiological work performance for SEP #54. from computer point XC105 (in thermal megawatts). The 1500 MW Tech Spec limit, and the unmet portion of the 1495 MW COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR) FCS daily goal for the reporting rnonth are also shown.

SUMMARY

DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 Demands) l The summary of INPO categones for Fort Calhoun Station with i

segrvficantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) failure rates than This indicator shows the number of ;ailures occurring for each I the rest of the industry for an eighteen-month time period. emergency diesel generator dunng te last 25 start demands Failures are reported as component (i.e., pumps, motors, main and the last 25 load-run demands.

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

DISABLING INJURY /lLLnESS FREQUENCY RATE Failure Cause Categones are: (LOSS TIME ACCIDENT RATE)

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

system.

DOCUMENT REVIEW (BIENNIAL)

Ergneenng/ Design - a failure attributable to the inadequate design of the responsible component or system. The Document Review Indicator shows the number of documents reviewed, the number of documents scheduled for Other Devices - a failure attributable to a failure or review, and the number of document reviews that are overdue misoperation of another component or system, including for the reporting month. A document review is considered associated devices. overdue if the review is not complete within six months of the assigned due date. This indicator tracks performance for SEP lhintenance/ Action - resutbng from irnproper maintenance, #46.

lack of maintenance, or personnel errors that occur during maintenance activibeson the component.. EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Testing Action - resulting from improper testing or personnel errors that occur dunng testing activibes. The surn of the known (ptanned and unplanned) unavailable and the estimated unavailable hours for the emergency AC power initial Installation Error - caused by improper initial system for the reporting period divided by the number of hours installation of equipment in the reporting penod multiplied by the number of trains in the emergency AC power system.

CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun Station. The cents per kilowatt This hdador shows the number of failures that were reported during the hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per last 20,50, and 100 omergency diesel generator demands at the Fort idlowatt hour on a twelve-month average for the current year. Cahoun Stahon. Aho shown are trigger values whch correlate to a high The bases for the budget curve is the approved yearly budget. level f confidence that a unirs diesel generators have obtained a The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating t an t tr er a Report.

78

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

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

demands that are followed by load 4un demands, whether by automatic or manual irit ation. A start-only demand is EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY a demand in whi::h the emergency generator is started, but no attempt is made to load the generator. This indicator measures the total unreliabihty of emergency diesel generators. In general, unreliability is the ratio of

2) Number of Start Failures: Any failure within the unsuccessful operations (starts or load-runs) to the number of emergency generator system that prevents the generator valid demands. Total unreliability is a combination of start from achieving speedled tequency and voltage is classified unreliability and load-run unreliability.

as a valid start failure. This includes any conddion identified in the course of maintenance inspections (with ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR) the emergency generator in standby mode) that definitety BREAKDOWN would have resulted in a start failure if a demand had occurred. This indicator shows a breakdown, by age and priority of the EAR, of the number of EARS assigned to Design Engineering

3) Number of Load 4 tun Demands: For a valid load-run Nuclear and System Engineenng. This indicator tracks demand to be counted, the load-run attempt must treet performance for SEP #62.

one or more of the following criteria:

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

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

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

5) Exceptions: Unsuccessful attempts to start or load-run EQUIPfWENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL should not be counted as valid demands or failures when HOURS  !

they can be attributed to any of the following:

Equpmert formd outages per 1,000 crit; cal hours is the inverse 1 A) Spunous tnps that would be bypassed in the event of of the mean trne between forced outages caused by equipment i an emergency. failures. The mean time is equal to the number of hours the  !

readoris critical h a period (1,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />) divided by the number l B) Malfunction of equipment that is not required dunng of forced outages caused by equipment failures in that period. l an emergency.

EQUlVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR j C) Interdional termination of a test because of abnormal conditions that would not have resulted in major This indicator is defined as the ratio of gross available l diesel generator damage or repair. generation to gross maximum generation, expressed as a percentage. Available generation is the energy that can be D) Malfunctions or operating errors which would not produced if the und is operated at the maximum power level have prevented the emergency generator from being permitted by equipment and regulatory limitations. Maximum restarted and brought to load within a few minutes. generation is the energy that can be produced by a unit in a given period if operated continuously at rnaximum capacity.

E) A failure to start because a portion of the starting system was disabled for test purpose,if followed by FORCED OUTAGE RATE a successful start wth the starting system in its normal abgnment. This indicator is defined as the percentage of time that the unit was unavaliable due to forced events compared to the time Each emergency generator failure that results in the generator planned for electrical generation. Forced events are failures or being declared inoperable should be counted as one demand other unplanned conditions that require removing the unit from and one failure. Exploratory tests during corrective maintenance service before the end of the next weekend. Forced events 79

. _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _.._ _ _ __ _ _ - - - ~_-__m . ___ _ - - - a 1

1 i

}

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS i

include start-up failures and events initiated while the unit is in Contractor personnel are not included for this indicator, j '

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

IN4.INE CHEMSTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT OF SERVICE j FUEL RELIABILITYINDICATOR Total number of irWine chemistry instruments that are out-of-1 This indicator is defined as the steady-state primary coolant l- service in the Secondary System and the Post Accident j- 131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium contribubon and Sampling System (PASS).

normaltred to a common puntcaten rate. Tramp uranium is fuel

which has been deposited on reactor core intomais from LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS previous defective fuel or is present on the surface of fuel

elements from the manufacturing process. Steady state is This indicator shows the number of SRO and/or RO quizzes and i

defined ac continuous operation for at least three days at a exams that are admrustered and passed each month. This power level that does not vary more than + or -5% Piart indicator tracks training performance for SEP #68.

[ should colect data for this indicator at a power level above u5%,

when poestile. Plants that did not operate at steady-sue power LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAMNG J above 85% should collect data for this indicator at the highest

! steady-state power level attained during the month. The total number of hours of training given to each crew riuring

! each cycle. Also provided are the simulator training hours The density correction factor is the ratio of the specific volume (which are a subset of the total training hours), the number of of coolant at the RCS operstmg temperature (540 degrees F., Vf norFREQUAUFICATION training hours and the number of exam 1

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

j exchanger, Vf = 0.016204), which results in a density correction

! factor for FCS equal to 1.32. LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE l BREAKDOWie GROSS HEAT RATE This indicator shows the number and root cause code for i Gross heat rate is defined as the ratio of total thermal energy in beenmee Event Reports. The root cause codes are as foHows:

d Brlhoh Thermal Units (BTU) produced by the reactor to the total i gross electrical energy produced by the generator in kilowatt- 1) Administrative Control Problem Management and i hours (KWH). supervisory deficiencies that affect plant programs or

! activities (i.e., poor planning, breakdown or lack of j HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED adequate management or supervisory control, incorrect l 1he total amount (in Kilograms) of non-halogenated hazardous I waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous 2) Licensed Operator Error - This cause code captures weste produced by FCS each month, errors of omasion/ commission by licensed reactor 4

operators dtAng plant activities.

l HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFETY l SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 3) Other Personnel Error - Errors of omission /commesion

committed by non-licensed personnel involved in plant j The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable activities.

hours and the cebmeted unavailable hours for the high pressure r safety injection system for the reporbng period divided by the 4) Maintenance Problem.The intent of this cause code is to

craical hours for the reporting period multiphed by the number of capture the fur range of problems which can be attributed trains in the high pressure safety injection system. . In any way to programmatic defk

sonces in the j moellenancefunctionalorganizaten. Actrvitiesincludedin i INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE -INPO this category are maintenance, teshng, surveHlance, t calibration and radiation protection.

This indicator is deined as the number of accidents per 200,000 man-hours worked for an utility personnel permanently assigned 5) P7 ^ ^ - _ - -  ?-- --^S ~abrication Problem -

] to the station that result in any of the fouowing: This cause code covers a fun range of programmatic

deficiencies in the areas of design, construction,

.1) One or more days of restricted work (excluding the day of installation, and fabrication (i.e., loss of control power due i the accident); to underrated fuse, equipment not qualilled for the 4 erwironment, etc.).

2) One or rnore days away from work (excludmg the day of

the accident); and 6) Equipment Failures (Electronic Piece Parts or

. Environmental 4teisted Failures)- This code is used br 4

3) Fatalities. spunous failures of electronic piece-parts and failures due

! to meteorologscal conditions such as lightning, ice, high

)

.L 80 4

4 4

4

. . -r , , - - . , , .,

I PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS winds, etc. Generally, it includes spurious or one-time MAXIMUM INDMDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE failures. Electnc components included in this category are cmsit cards, rectilers, bistables, fuses, capacitors, diodes, The total maximum amount of radiation received by an individual resistors, etc. person working at FCS on a monthly, quarterty, and annual basis.

LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)

MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUELING The total number of security incidents for the reporting month OUTAGE) l depicted in two grapns. This indicrtor trackt, security performance for SEP #58. The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have been approved forinclusaon in the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage and the MAINTENANCE OVERT ME nurnber that are ready to work (parts staged, planning complete, and al other paperwork ready for Geld use). Also included is the The percent of overtime hours compared to normal hours for number of MWOs that have been engineering holds (ECNs, maintenance. This includes OPPD personnel as well as procedures and other miscellaneous engineering holds), parts contract personnel. hold, (parts staged, not yet inspected, parts not yet arrived) and plannrig hold Gob scope not yet completed). Maintenance Work MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS Requests (MWRs) are also shown that have been identified for the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage and have not yet been converted Tlvs indcator shows the backlog of norwutage Maintenance to M W Os.

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

Maintenance classifications are defined as follows: NUhBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPhENT DEFICIENCIES

! Corrective - Repair and restoration of equipment or A control room equipment deficiency (CRD) is denned as any

- Lthat have failed or are malfunctioning and are not component which is operated or controBed from the Control performing their intended funcbon. Room, provides indication or alarm to the Control Room, provides testing capabilities from the Control Room, provides Preventive Actions taken to maintain a piece of equipment automate actions from or to the Control Room, or provides a within design operatang condibons, prevent equipment failure, possive lirichon for the Cortrol Room and has been identined as and extend its life and are performed prior to equipment defksert Le., does not perform under a5 conditions as designed.

failure. This delnition also applies to the Altemate Shutdown Panels Al-Non4orrective/ Plant improvements - Maintenance activibes performed to implement station improvements or to A piart-w A which is deficient or inoperable is considered repair non-plant equipment. an" Operator Work Around (OWA) ltem"if some other action is required by an operator to compenaee im the condition of the Maintenance Work Priorities are defined as: component. Some examples of OWAs . re:

l Emergency Condsbons which significantly degrade station 1) The controi room level indicator does not work but a loca!

safety or availabihty, sight glass can be read by an Operator out in the plant; l

Irnmediate Action - Equipment deficiencies which 2) A deficiert pump cannot be repaired because replacement ,

significantly degrade station reliability. Potential for unit parts require a long lead time for purchase /dehvery, thus  !

shutdown or power reduction. requirrig the redundant pump to be operated continuously; l' Operations Concern - Equipment deficiencies which hinder 3) Special achons are required by an Operater because of

! station operation. equipment design problems. These actions may be described in Operations Memorandums, Operator Notes, Essential - Routine corrective maintenance on essenbal or may require changes to Operating Procedures; station systems and equipment.

4) Delceert pinrt equipmert that is required to be used during Non-Essential Routane corrective maintenance on non- Emergency Operating Procedures or Abnormal Operahng essential station systems and equipment. Procedures; Plant improvement - Norg.orrective maintenance and plant 5) System indication that provides critical information during l

improvements. normal or abnormal operations.

l This indicator tracks maintenance performance for SEP #36.

I l

81

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS NUNIER OF MSSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESULTING This indicator hows 6, status of the projects which are in the IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORYS scope of the Refueling Outage.

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

The percentcge of total MWOs completed per month identified OPEN INCIDENT REPORTS as rework. Rework actrvibes are identified by maintenance planning and craft. Rework is: Any additional work required to This indicator displays the total number of open incident Reports correct deficiencies discovered during a failed Post Maintenance (irs), the number of irs that are greater than six months old and Test to ensure the component / system passes subsequent Post the number of open significant irs. Maintenance Test.

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

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

represents modification requests that have not been plant Maintenance actrvities include MWRs, MWOs, STs, PMOs, approved during the reporting month. calibrations, and other miscellaneous activities. This indicator tracks Maintenance performance for SEP #33.

2) Modification Requests Being Reviewed. This category includes: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR INDEX A) Modification Requests that are not yet reviewed. This indcator index is calculated from a weighted combination of twelve performance indicator values, which include the B) Modificaton Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear following: Unit CapabilPy Factor, Unit Capability Loss Factor, Projects Review Committee (NPRC). HPSI, AFW, Emergency AC Power System, Unplanned Automatic Scrams, Collective Radiation Exposure, Fuel C) Modification Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear Reliability, Thermal Perbrmance, Secondary System Chemistry, Projects Committee (NPC). Radiaton Waste, and industrial Safety Accident Rate.

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

Some of these Modification Requests are retumed to This indicator is a breakdown of LERs. For purposes of LER Engineenng for more informaton, some approved for evaluation, event classification, a " Preventable LER"is 61 fined as:

some approved for study, and some approved for planning.

On planning is completed and the scope of the work is clearly An event for which the root cause is personnel error (i.e.,

defined, these Modification Requests may be approved for inappropriate action by one or more individuals), inadequate accomplishment with a year assigned for construction or they administrative controls, a design con.truction, installaten, may be canceled. All of these different phases require review. installation, fabrication problem (involving work completed by or supervised by OPPD personnel) or a maintenance problem

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

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

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

5) Design Engmeenng Update Backlog /In Progress. PED has received the Modification Completion Report but the An event for which the root cause is inappropriate action on drawings have not been updated. the part of one or more individuals (as opposed to being attributed to a department or a general group). Also, the The above mentioned outstanding modificatnons do not include inappropriate acton must have occurred within approximately modifications which are proposed for cancellaten. two years of the " Event Date" specified in the LER.

OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (REFUELING OUTAGE) 82

I PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS Additionaty, each evert classified as a " Personnel Error" should SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES also be classified as " Preventable? This indicator trends personnel performance for SEP ltem #15. Safety system failures are any events or conditions that could prevent the fulfillment of the safety functions of structures or PRIMARY SYSTEM LITHlUM % OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT systems. If a system consists of multiple redundant subsystems or trains, failure of all trains constitutes a safety system failure.

The percent of hours out of limit are for lithium divided by the Failure of one of two or rnore trains is not counted as a safety total number of hours possible for the month. system failure. The definition for the indicator parallels NRC reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. The PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS lollowing is a list of the major safety systems, sub-systems, and (MAINTENANCE) components monitored for this indicator The number of identified incidents conceming maintenance Accident Monitonng instrumentation, Auxiliary (and procedural problems, the number of closed irs related to the Emergency) Feedwater System, Combustible Gas Control, use of procedures (includes the nu'nber of closed irs caused by Component Cooling Water System, Containment and procedural noncompliance), and the number of closed Containment isolation, Contar1 ment Coolant Systems, Control procedural noncompliance irs. This indicator trends personnel Room Emergency Ventilation System, Ernergency Core performance for SEP #15,41 and 44. Cooling Systems, Engineered Safety Features instrumentation, Essential Compressed Air Systems, PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE MODIFICATION Essential or Emergency Service Water, Fire Detection or PLANNING Suppression Systems, Isolation Condenser, Low Temperature Overpressure Protection, Main Steam Line This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for isolation Valves, Onsite Emergency AC & DC Power completion dunng the Refueling Outage, w/Distnbubon, Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation, Reactor Coolant System, Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System.

PROGRESS OF 1995 ON4.INE MODIFICATION PLANNING Reactor Trip System and instrumertation, Recirculation Pump Trip Actuation instrumentation, Residual Heat Removal This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for Systems, Safety Valves, Spent Fuel Systems, Standby Liquid i

I completion during 1995. Control System and Ultimate Heat Sink.

RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERFORMANCE INDEX The number of identified poor radiological work practices (PRWPs) for the reporting month. This indicator tracks The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI)is a calculation based radiological work performance for SEP #52. on the concentration of key impurities in the secondary side of the plant. These key impurities are the most likely cause of i RADIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & deterioration of the steam generators. Criteria for calculating the l PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE CPI are: l The ratio of preventive maintenance (including surveillance 1) The plant is at greater than 30 percent power, and testing and calibration procedures) to the sum of nona>utage corrective rnaintenance and preventive maintenance completed 2) the power is changing less than 5% per day.

over the reporting penod. The ratio, expressed as a percentage, is calculated based on man-hours. Also displayed are the The CPIis calculated using the following equation: i percert of prevertive maintenance items in the month that were l

not completed or administratively closed by the scheduled date CPI = ((sodiumo.79) + (Chloride /1.52) + (Sulfate /1.44) +

plus a grace period equalto 25% of the scheduled interval. This (Ironf3.30) + (Copper /0.30)+(Condensate 02/2.90))/G indicator tracks preventive maintenance actuities for SEP #41.

Where: Sodium, sulfate, chloride and condensate dissolved RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FREQUENCY oxygen are the monthly average blowdown concentrations in RATE ppb, iron and copper are monthly time weighted average feedwater concentrations in ppb. The denominator for each of The number of injunes requiring more than normal first aid per the five factors is the INPO median value, if the monthly 200,000 marehours worked. This indicator trends personnel average for a specific parameter is less than the INPO median performance for SEP #15,25 and 26. value, the rnedian value is used in the calculation.

REPEAT FAILURES SIGNIFICANT EVENTS The number of Nuclear Plant Reliabdity Data System (NPRDS) components with more than one failure and the number of Sigrvficart events are the events identified by NRC staff through NPRDS components with more than two failures for the detailed screerung and evaluation of operating experience. The eighteen-month CFAR period. screening process includes the daily review and discussion of 83

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

operational data such as special tests or construction activities.

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

event candidate is further evaluated to determine if any actual or Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for which MRs potential threat to the health and sa'ety of the public was have been submitted will be considered as temporary involved. Specific examples of the type of cnteria are modifications until final resolution of the MR and the jumper summarized as follows: or block is removed or is permanently recorded on the drawings. This indicator tracks temporary rnodificabons for

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

2) Unexpected plant response to a transient. THERMAL PERFORMANCE 1

3) Degradation of fuel integnty, pnmary coolant pressure The ratio of the design gross heat rate (corrected) to the ,

boundary, important associated features; acijusted actual gross heat rate, expressed as a percentage, l

4) Semm with complication; UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR

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

6) Operation outside the limits of the Technical Specifications; be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power l under reference ambient conditions) over the same time period,

7) Other. expressed as a percentage.

INPO significant events reported in this Indicator are SERs UNIT CAPACITY FACTOR (Significant Event Reports) which inform utilities of significant events and lessons leamed identified through the SEE-IN The net electrical energy generated (MWH) divided by the screening process. product of maximum dependable capacity (net MWe) times the gross hours in the reporting period expressed as a percent. Net SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE electrical energy generated is the gross electrical output of the unit measured at the output terminals of tne turbine generator The dolar value of the spare parts inventory for FCS during the minus the normal station service loads during the gross hours of reporting period. the reporting penod, expressed in megawatt hours. j STAFFING LEVEL UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 CRITICAL HOURS The actual staffing level and the authorized staffing level for the Nuclear Operations Division, The Production Engineering This indicator is defined as the number of unplanned automatic Division, and the Nuclear Services Division. This indicator scrams (reactor protection system logic actuations) that occur tracks parformance for SEP #24. per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of critical operation.

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

TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS

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

configurations to the plant's systems.

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

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

2) Jumpers and blocks which are instatied for Surveillance Tests, Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Procedures, 3) Automatic means that the initial signal that caused actuation Special Procedures or Operating Procedures are not of the reactor protecton system logic was provided from one corsidered as temporary modifications unless the jumper or of the sensor's monitoring plant parameters and conditions, block remains in place after the test or procedure is rather than the manual scram switches or, manual turbine complete. Jumpers and blocks installed in test or lab trip switches (or push-buttons) provided in the main control 84

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

4) Critical means that during the steady-state condition of the processing. Low-level solid radioactive waste consists of dry reactor prior to the scram, the effectrve multiphcation (k ,) actwe waste, sludges, resins, and evaporator bottoms generated was essentially equalto one. as a result of nuclear power plant operation and rnaintenance.

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

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

period, expressed as a percentage.

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS - (INPO

+ DEFINITION)

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

1

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

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

and major equipment in the system is actuated. Unplanned means that the system actuation was not part of a plant.ed 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 DEFINmON)

The number of safety system actuations which include (g&) the High Pressure Safety injection System, the Low Pressure Safety Irjechon System, the Safety injecbon Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC classificaton of safety system actuations includes actuations when major equipment is operated Erg when the logic systems for the above safety systems are challenged.

A VIOLATION TREND This indicator is defined as Fort Calhoun Station Cited Volations )

and NonCited Velations trended over 12 months. Additionally, Cited Violations for the top quartile Region IV plant is trended over 12 months (lagging the Fort Calhoun Station trend by 2-3 months). It is the Fort Calhoun Station goal to be at or below the cited violation trend for the top quartile Region IV plant.

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

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX The purpose of the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Performance Indicators index is to list 1 performance indicators related to SEP items with parameters that can be trended.

SEP Reference Number 15 gagg

. Increase HPES and IR Accountability through use of Performance Indicators Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Recordable injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations.>1,000 Disintegrations / Minute Per Probe Area . . . . . . . 17 i 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 e

implement Supervisory 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 MWO Planning Status (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage) . .. ......... ......................68 SSED's Overall Project Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................69 Overall Project Status (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 70 Progress of Cycle 17 Outage Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 71 SEP Reference Number 33

. Develop On-Line Maintenance and Modification Schedule  ;

Percent of Completed Scheduled Maintenance Activities (All Maintenance Crafts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 1996 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 l

Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 86

1

- l SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM lNDEX SEP Reference Number 46

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

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

. Complete implementation of Radiological Enhancement Program i

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

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

. Improve Controls Over Surveillance Test Program  !

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

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

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

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