ML20134Q062

Performance Indicators for Oct 1996

ML20134Q062
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	10/31/1996
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20134Q060	List: LIC-96-0187, Forwards Fort Calhoun Station Performance Indicators for Oct 1996 ML20134Q062
References
NUDOCS 9612020097
Download: ML20134Q062 (112)

Text

_ _ _ - - -

, %~ 6 FORT CALHOUN STATION

, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

"'C

_ j- -

OCTOBER 1996 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COSTEFFECTIVENESS I

Pb R

k8 Oh PDR 85

kwde)wa%awwn,allLL...

d uk uarden, wnd wwndjud ganal...

a w a,4!%, cama a

' ng carnandmad...

d w a, u>ay gef!!>...d w dang ik p ?>

9 W l6,62 6, S 6 . Jt w una-diachd, mi ik wwlt g o wievnd pa a,a w a wn,afawa,uk

-- aa,iu 4 aa sn as _p % tL 9u w 3 e pean,, utjat u dang ik 9V k p.

Jaans).O'%ns

l; 6 i

j OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT i

l FORT CALHOUN STATION

! PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT 1

f l

4 i

1 l

4 i

OCTOBER i l

1996 i

i l

1 i Production Engineering Division l* System Engineering

, Test and Performance Group i

!~

{ OCTOBER 1996 i.

1 1

i 1

4

FORT CALHGUN STATION October 1996 Monthly Operating Report i OPERATIONS

SUMMARY

Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) Unit No.1 operated at a nominal 45% power level until October 4th at 1529 when power was reduced in preparation for the scheduled refueling outage. The generator was taken offline at 2207 hours0.0255 days <br />0.613 hours <br />0.00365 weeks <br />8.397635e-4 months <br /> and on October 5th at 0339 hours0.00392 days <br />0.0942 hours <br />5.605159e-4 weeks <br />1.289895e-4 months <br />, the reactor was made subcritical. Scheduled maintenance and modifications are being completed and all twenty-eight incore nuclear detector strings have been replaced.

~

On October 5th at 1339 hours0.0155 days <br />0.372 hours <br />0.00221 weeks <br />5.094895e-4 months <br />, FCS was performing a plant cool down to 400*F per procedure OP-3A when steam generator low pressure trip signals were received on two of the four reactor protective system (RPS) channels. The reactor tripsignaloccurredas a result of not installing the bypass keys prior to reaching the low pressure trip set point.

A four-hour notification was made to the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72(b) (2) (ii). This event is described in Licensee Event Report (LER)96-007.

A discrepancy between FCS procedure OI-FH-1, " Fuel handling Equipment Operation," and the Design Basis Control Room Habitability Radiological Consequences Calculation was identified on October 8th. An Operation Memorandum was generated to ensure both CR filtration units are placed in the filtered air makeup mode and that at least one of the units is in service during irradiated fuel movements. Appropriate controls have i

been implemented throughout the current refueling outage. A four-hour non-emergency notification was made to the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(iii)(D). This event is described in LER 96-003.

The steam generator primary side manways were removed on October 12th causing radiation levels in containment to rise above the containment radiation high signal

set point. A VIAS resulted, which ensured that the release remained below the limits specified in 10 CFR 20. A four-hour non-emergency notification was made to the NRC

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72(B)(2)(ii). This event is described in LER 96-008.

On October 17th, Wyle Labs notified OPPD that the "AS FOUND" lift pressure of Pressurizer Safety Valves (PSV) RC-141 and RC-142 appeared to be outside of the specified lift setting acceptance criterion. This event is described in LER 96-009.

On October 18th, a four-hour non-emergency notification was made to the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(iii)(C). A breach of containment closure was identified during core offload. Refueling operations were stopped and maintenance was dispatched to close the flow path. Refueling operations were permitted to resume until containment was walked down to verify closure. This event is described in LER 96-010.

A four-hour non-emergency notification was made to the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(iii)(C) again on October 30th. A breach of containment closure was identified during fuel reload. The flow path was though an open secondary manway on "A" SG through a needle valve that was 1/16th inch open This event is described in LER 96-011.

I

. . _ . _ - . m. . ._ _ . - _ m. . . .

l i

I

4. FortCalhounindexValue d i l

--w Industry Median index Value 100.

~

, 85 N 83 83 83 -

82 -

l j

80 ,  !

i 79 A

S S 70 .

e industry

} Median 1996 RFO 60 ..

l l

Value forThird Warter 1996 is 98.3%

60 l

40 . , i ' - - . . . ,

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

PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND i

For the index calculation unit capability factor, unplanned capability loss factor, unplanned automatic scrams per 7000 hours0.081 days <br />1.944 hours <br />0.0116 weeks <br />0.00266 months <br /> critical, safety system performance, and collective radiation exposure. The indicators 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. .

INPO no lionger uses the volume of low-level radioactive waste as a plant indicator. The value will still be tracked, but the value will no longer be used in calculating the Stations Performance Index.

The low indicator of 68% is due to the 1996 refueling outage.

l t

il i

. = '

t i

, a MAXM.N VALUE a NDEX PoNTS Third Quarter M O oct-96 9

e "e <

16.00 - 9 '

n N

14.00 - 8 [

N ooo coo o

• 12.00 .

ggg ggg g g ;g 10.00 - oo ooo o

$$o= N Y O o a.m . , se ,

UCF UQ.F FPSI AFW EACP CRE uAS7 FRI CF1 TPI ISAR 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 Capabi5ty Factor TPl Thermal Performance Indicator 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 Hours CRE Collective Radiation Exposure FRI Fuel Reliability Indicator Per INPO, the Performance Indicator for the Volume of Low Level Radioactive Waste buried, will no longer be used in calculating the Stations Performance Index. All other parameters have been adjusted to reflect this change.

iv

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _i

> Year-to-Date Value EE E (M E . E E E y E E E Performance Categories Unit Capability Unplanned Unplanned 3 ,,

Factor Capability Auto Scrams B Performance better than

' Performance Loss Factor Industry Average Trend E .

'E E E ll$ll Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal ygn x:c~a: m:wwm E E E E E E E E E ' f$j Ski Uf;[}%[@g g P Performance Not Meeting HPSI Safety AFW Safety EDG Safety hfkwh',"'"

1996 OPPD Goal System System System Reliability Performance Performance -

Performance (;; y, ry a - ,

, E E' E; .. ,ea glW~# J - ' ?G} .

ninnu n.nnunnn,n.nn . ----r-~ <- in,n.n nnonnunn ninini, yy- u- wr July Aug Sep HIMHNH3MI ERHIMHIMW :J:d

- *** 1995 $$$$

WNW1UNIW HNf  !#silllNHND nv-numunmmumm collective

mnunnunmuumnnnunn Pi? Best Possible

-! gg industrial 4s Oct.-1996 Radiation 1996 Year-End Year-to-Date Exposure l " y$

1. Safety Rate Accideni h$ hpj Value EHRHLE $$ EE0lEU$$$$',l!$$$NE$$$$ "

WANO Performance Indicators a

Unplanned Auto Scrams a

Year-To-Date Value Performance Cateaories Safety System Significant E Performance better than Industry Average Trend vents Actuations Performance better than 1996 OPPD Goal I

Safety Forced Outage Performance Not Meeting 1996 OPPD Goal

1. 2f6

. System Rate Failures July Aug Sep 1996 1996 1996 Equipment Collective Forced Radiation October-1996 Best Possible l Outages Exposure Year-to-Date 1996 Year-End Value Performance j Performance  !

NRC Performance Indicators i

l l

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT i

October 1996-

SUMMARY

l l

I

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) consecutive months of performance that is superior to j the stated goalis exhibiting a positive trend per Nuclear Temocrary Modifications "

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

~

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

trends for the reporting month-Sa * "

pag 19 ADVERSE TREND REPORT Hiah Pressure Safety Iniection System Safety System A performance indicator with data representing three Performance consecutive months of declining performance or three  ;

(Page 5) consecutive months of performance that is trending toward declining as determined by the Manager -

Auxiliary Feedwater System Station Engineering, constitutes an adverse trend per ,

(Page 6) Nuclear Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 l (NOD-QP-37). A supervisor whose performance Emeroenev 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:

Emeroency Diesel Generator Urlt Reliability I (Page 20) Fuel Reliability Indicator l (Page 9)

Diesel Generator Reliability (25 Demar 3s)

(Page 21) Maintenance Workload Backloos (Page 47)

Emeroency Diesel Generator Unreliabiftty (Page 22) Preventative Maintenance items Overdue (Page 48)

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

(Page 28) -

Unolanned Safety System Actuations (lNPO)

(Page 34)

Secondary System Chemistry (Page 35)

Hazardous Waste Produced (Page 54) i vi

i I

, INDICATORS NEEDIN3 INCREASED l MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT l

< A performance indicator with data for the reporting period that is inadequate when compared to the OPPD goal is defined as "Needing increased Management  !

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

Disablina iniuryminess Freauency Rate I (Page 15)

Ntsnber of On-Line and Outace Control Room Eauiumert Deficiencies )

. 'Page 24) {

l Eggignent Forced Outaae Rate (Page 38)

Cents oer Kilmatt Hour (page 44)

Percentaae of Total P4Jos Camoleted eer Month Identified as Rework j (Page 49) l l

l l

1 1

i PERFORi%NCE INDICATOR REPORT  !

IMPROVEMENTS / CHANGES l

! End of Report improvements / Changes Report.

4 a

Vil

)f

d Table of Contents / Summary enae GOALS......................................... ..................... . . . . . . . . . xii WANO PERFORM ANCE INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 U nit Ca pa bility Fa cto r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ,

1 1

Unplanned Capability Loss Factor ............ .. . .................... ................. 3 '

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

i Auxiliary Feedwater System . . . . . .. ..... ...... ................................ . .. 6 1

Emergency AC Power System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 I Thermal Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ............................ 8 Fuel Reliability Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 l Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Collective Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................11 Volume of low level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Industrial Safety Accident Rate . . . . ..... ... ......................................13 i

SAFE OPERATIONS

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

1 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate ... ......... ........ . ..... . ...... ... 16 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations 11,000 DisintegrationsMinute per Probe Area ........... .............................17 Preventable / Personnel Error LERs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .

Safety System Failures ....................................................19 Emergency Diesel Generator Unit Reliability ... ... . . .................... ......... .. .... ......... 20 Reliability (25 Demands) ........ . . . .. ............ ......... ........ . ... 21 Unreliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. ................... 22 Control Room Equipment Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............23 On-line and Outage Control Room Equipment Deficiencies ... ........ . .. .......... ... 24 viii

Table of Contents / Summary Maximum individual Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Violation Trend . . .................................................................... 26 Sig nifica nt Ev ents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

, Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in LERs .............................................28 PERFORl4ANCE Station Net Gene ratio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Forced O utag e R ate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Unit Ca pa city Fa ctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Unplanned Safety System Actuations I N PO Defi niti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 NRC Definition ................................................................ 35 G ross H e at Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Daily The rmal Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Equipment Forced Outages per 1,000 Critical Hours ........................................ 38 i

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

Repeat Failures ....................................................................40 l

I Chemistry Action Levels Exceeded - Event Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Primary System Lithium % Hours Out of umit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

.C.9.3.I Ce nts Per Kilowatt H ou r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Spare Parts inventory Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4 i

l I

1 1

I i

i i

I i

I I

, ix

Table of Contents / Summary DMSION 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 Ov e rti me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 5 0 Procedural Noncompliance incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Daily Schedule Performance

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

• In-Une Chemistry Instruments Out-of-Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............53 Hazard ous Waste Produced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Radiological Work Practices Program ............ ....................................... 56 Document Review ........................... ......... ............. ............... 57 Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Temporary Modificatio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Outstanding Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Engineering Change Notices i Status .. .. ............................. ................................... 62 i Open.....................................................................63 l l

Ucensee Event Report (LER) Root Cause Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 -

Ucensed Operator Requalification Training ....... . ...............................,.65 Ucenso Candidate Ex ams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . ....... 66 C ondition R e po rts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 67 , j Cycle 17 Refueling Outage MWO Planning Status ..............................................68 Overall Project Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Outage Modification Planning ...... . .... ......... ............... .. ... . . 70 On-Une Modification Plannlag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .... .... ....... 71 Progress of i996 On-Une Modification Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 1

X l

l l

i l

l ACTION PLANS. DEFINITIONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION LIST i i

l Actio n P;a ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 -

Performance Indicator Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Safety Enhancement Programindex ..................................................... 86 t i

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

l i l l l

1 -

i i e t i

)

h p

I' t

i

+

3 h

f i

I i

f

[

r F

4 t

I i

I i

6 Xi I i

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

GOALS Goal 1: SAFE OPERATIONS Supports: April 1995 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 3 & 4 A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and personal initiative and open communication.

1996 Priorities:

. Improve SALP ratings.

. Improve INPO rating.

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

. No unplanned automatic reactor scrams or safety system actuations.

Objectives to support SAFE 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 14:

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

OBJECTIVE 1-5:

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

xii

4 I N

i I

i j

OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS

! 1996 Priorities ]

I f I

[ fanaL2: PERFORMANCE j Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 2; G-4, Obj: 1,2, & 3; G-6, Obj 3 j i

Nuclear teamwork achieves high performance at Fort Calhoun Station as exhibited by safe, l l, reliable and cost effootive power production. I 1996 PRIORITIES:

1 . Improve Quality, Professionalism and Teamwork. j

!* . Maintain High Plant Reliability.

! . Pursue efficient, cost-effective work processes.  !

! . Meet or exceed INPO key parameters and outage performance goals.

l

. Reduce the number of Human Performance errors.

. Identify Programmatic performance problems through effective self assessment. i

. Maintain a high level of readiness in the ERO. j i  !

j Objectives to support PERFORMANCE: '

i I OBJECTIVE 2-1:

l Achieve an annual plant capacity factor of 81.4% and a unit capability factor of 83.56%. l 1  ;

! OBJECTIVE 2-2: I i Execute the 1996 refueling outage in 42 days or less; emphasize shutdown plant safety. j i

l OBJECTIVE 2  !

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

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

! = Line managers monitor and assess personnel performance to determine how well standards  ;

I are met.  !

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

l . Executive Training Committee:

l

{

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

i, e invites the line and training supervisors responsible for each accredited program to i

provide a status of intamal accreditation assessments.  ;

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

{, emphasized.

1

{ OBJECTIVE 2 4: l l Achieve all performance-related 1996 performance indicator goals in the Performance Indicator  !

i Report. Focus on performing basic skills wellwhile pursuing efficient, cost-effective work proce.sses.

j identify the barriers to excellence and resolve them. ,

i l t I 4

i xiii 3

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..

OBJECTIVE 2-6 Through the Utilities Services Alliance (USA) attain operating efficience and lower cost through ,

a cooperative effort among several utilities. Initial focus is on sharing of personnel for outage support, combined purchasing and contracting, common dosimetry reading, sharing of equipment, 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.

Goals Source: Lounsberry (Manager) xhr

FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT l

October 1996-

SUMMARY

l POSITIVE TREND REPORT POSITIVE TREND REPORT (cont.1 A performance indicator with data representing three Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area consecutive months of improving performance or three (Page 55) consecutive months of performance that is superior to the stated goalis exhibiting a positive trend per Nuclear Temocrary Modifications Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP. (Page 59) 37).

The following performance indicators exhibited pos&e End of Positive Trend Report.

trends for the reporting month:

Safe Svstem Failures (p. 19) ERE MND EPN Hioh Pressure Safety Iniection System Safety System A performance indicator with data representing three Performance consecutive months of declining performance or three (Page 5) consecutive months of performance that is trending toward declining as determined by the Manager -

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

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

Emeroenev Diesef Generator Unit Reliability (Page 20) Fuel Reliability Indicator (Page 9)

Diesel Generator Reliability (25 Demands)

(Page 21) Maintenance Workload Backloas (Page 47)

Emeroenev Diesel Generator UnreliabilRv (Page 22) Preventative Maintenance items Overdue (Page 48)

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

(Page 28)

Unoianned Safety System Actuations (INPO)

(Page 34)

Secondary System Chemistry (Page 35)

Hazardous Waste Produced (Page 54) l l

Vi

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

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

Disablina Inlurv/ Illness Freauenev Rate (Page 15)

Ntaber of On-Line and Outaae Control Room Eauioment Deficiencies (Page 24) ,

Eauinment Forced Outaae Rate I (Page 38) j

[gits Der K11Natt Hour l (page 44)

Percentaae of Total HOs Canoleted oer Month i Identified as Rework - '

(Page 49) j PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT i IMPROVEMENTS / CHANGES i

End of Report Improvements / Changes Report.

O vil

1 l.

Table of Contents / Summary G OA LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xii ..........

WANO PERFORM ANCE INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 i i

i U nit Ca pa bility Fa cto r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

, Unplann ed Capability Loss Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Unplanned Automatic Reactor SCRAMS per 7000 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 High Pressure Safety injection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1

1 Auxiliary Feedwater System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................. 6 Emergency AC Power System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The rmal P erfo rma n ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Fuel Reliability Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Collective Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 l Volume of Low level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1

Industrial Safety Accide nt Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 i SAFE OPERATIONS l

l Disabling injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate .. ...................................16 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations ,

4

>1,000 Disintegrations / Minute per Probe Area .......................................17 '

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

~

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

I l

Table of Contents / Summary Maximum individual Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 l

Vi olati on Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Sig nifica nt Ev e nts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in LERs ...............................................28 ,

PERFORMANCE Statio n Net G e ne ratio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 i

Forced Outag e Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1 4

Unit Capacity Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... ......... .......................... 32 Equivalent Availability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 i Unplanned Safety System Actuations INPO Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ......................... 34 NRC Definition ........................................ . ..................... 35 l 1

i G ross Heat Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 l 4

i i

l Daily The rmal O utput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 l Equipment Forced Outages per 1,000 Critical Hours ........ ..................... ......... 38 Component Failure Analysis Report (CFAR) Summary . ................... ........ ....... 39 i Repeat Failures .....................................................................40 Chemistry Action Levels Exceeded - Event Days ... .. ....... ............... ............ 41 Primary System Lithium % Hours Out of Limit .. ... ......... ....... ................. ... 42 1

1 9.QEI I Cents Per Kilowatt Hour ............. .. . .... ........... ......... ................ 44 l

Spare Parts invento ry Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 .

l l

IX l

Table of Contents / Summary DMSION 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 lncidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Daily Schedule Performance

- Percent of Completed Scheduled Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 In-Une Chemistry Instruments Out-of-Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Hazardous Waste Produced .. ......... . ........ ....... ................... ...... 54 Contcminated Radiation Controlled Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Radiological Work Practices Program ............ ................... ...... ............ 56 Document Review ........... ............. .. ....... ........ . .... . . . . . . . 57 Loggable/ Reportable Incidents (Security) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Temporary Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ........ .... ................ .... . 59 Outstanding Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............................60 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown ............................ ........... 61 Engineering Change Notices Status ....... ............ ............. ...... .. ....... ................. 62 Open . . . . . . . . ...... ... ..... ..... .......... ........ .......... ........ 63 Ucensee Event Report (LER) Root Cause Breakdown . . . . . . . . .... . ....... .... .. ... 64 Ucensed Operator Requalification Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... . . . . 65 Ucense Candidate Exams . . . . . .... . .... ........ .. . ... .. ............. 66 Condition Reports .............. ... .. . . ... . ...... ... . .... .. .. .. . . . . 67 Cycle 17 Refueling Outage MWO Planning Status .... ... ......... ....... . ..................68 Overall Project Status . .......... .......... . . .... . ... . ... .. .. . . 69 Outage Modification Planning . .. .... . ...... . ..... .. .... ...... . 70 On-Une Modification Planning . . . . .. .. . ... . ....... ..... . .... ... 71 Progress of 1996 0n-Une Modification Planning . . . . . .. . .... . .. ..... . ... . . . 72 X

ACTION PLANS. DEFINITIONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION LIST Actio n Pla n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Performance indicator Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Safety Enhancement Programindex ..................................................... 86 Report Distribution Ust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 e

e xi

OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Priorities MISSION The safe, reliable and cost effective generation of electricity for OPPD customers through conservative decision making and the professional use of nuclear technology. We will ,

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

GOALS Goal 1: SAFE OPERATIONS Supports: April 1995 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 3 & 4 A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and personal initiative and open communication.

1996 Priorities:

= lmprove SALP ratings. ,

. Improve INPO rating. l

. 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.. 4 OBJECTIVE 1-3:

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

OBJECTIVE 1-4:

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

OBJECTIVE 1-5:

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

xii

OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Prio;ities Goal 2: PERFORMANCE Supports: April 1994 Corporate Strategic Plan Goal 3, Obj: 2; G-4, Obj: 1,2, & 3; G-6, Obj 3 2

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

1996 PRIORIBES:

. 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:

OBJECTIVE 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 refueling 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 internal 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

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

l 1

OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS 1996 Priorities I

i 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..  !

j OBJECTIVE 2-6 *

, Through the Utilities Services Alliance (USA) attain operating efficience and lower cost through  ;

a cooperative effort among several utilities. Initial focus is on sharing of personnel for outage "

support, combined purchasing and contracting, common dosimetry reading, sharing of equipment,  !

- 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. i 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.

Goals Source: Lounsberry (Manager) xiv I

l

~. - .

i e

i l

i 1

l l-l I

i i

WANO PERFO_RMANCE 1

INDICATORS l

O I

i i

i i

i 1

J

}

1 1

,* pM-eseum .a h a-A 1+naMS ..e.W;-a ..-,w,_AE .a 44 M A- M 4,4.a2 s.. 4a. _ A 4 C_1J__JA A A_ eJR 4,_ 4.-Ja .a 4 J *A o4 6- 4 6 Bat.- AAa. .mWe.= 4.- .Je r. 6ee,J.444 ,4E4 53. -4 m. 6 ,,---Aem 4

e r

l I

J 1

{

.J r

I Y

I l

/

c i

4 l

J i

i l

1

)

-l F

d I

J l

1 i

4 I

1 l

r--- - - -r.-

y-g - - -,,

c-

i , Monthly Unit CapabiHty Factor

...s... Year.to-Date unit Capability Factor N 4 i

._ + _. 36-Month Unit Capability Factor '

1996 Fort Calhoun Goals GOOD h INPo Industry Goals Year 2000 100% .. _ _

p ..... ,, _ _

. .... .s.

80% . [_ hM T -~~

C -

5 'b- ~5 $' .. $

60%.. ]

40% .. 7 20% ..

0%  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; , ,

n; Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct 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 cvrilable energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy generation (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under r;ference ambient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage (refu-cling periods excluded).

The UCF for October 1996 was repeded as 5.5%. The year-to-date UCF was 79.7%, the UCF for the last 12 months was 82.4%, and the 36-month average UCF was repoded as 84.0% at the end of the month.

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

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

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

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

. R:: actor Coolant Pump RC-3B-M failed.

Energy losses for September and October 1996 due to the scheduled Refueling Outage.

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

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 16. For the month of October the FCS Value was 13.32. This compares to the previous month's value of 14.55.

Dr.ta Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: None 2

I i

i

, i Monthly Unplanned CapabiHty Loss Factor l GOOD l

--aF- Year-To-Date unplanned Capability Loss Factor

+ 12-Month Average Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 1P

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (3.00%)

_, Year 2000 INPO Industry Goal (4.5%)

_ Industry Current Best Quartile 60%.. ~~~

50%

40%.

30%.-

~

20%.

b,!

• f,j- ,

6,  ;

5 ,

E ,

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

l1996l 2

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

The UCLF for the month of October 1996 was reported as 0.0%. Unplanned energy loss is defined as energy not produced as a result of unscheduled shutdowns, outage extensions,

or load reductions due to causes under plant management control. Energy losses are con-sidered to be unplanned if they are not scheduled at least four weeks in advance. The year-to-date UCLF was 6.94%, 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. i l

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 3.0% and the industry current best quartile value is - !

approximately ' .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 October the FCS Value was 5.82. This compares to the previous month's value of 5.82.

Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trend: Needs increased Management Attention. l 3

l I

+ ICS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical Year-toCate  :

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

+ Fort Calhoun(bal(OD) <

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..

1ji k b b b b d'M i e a 2 0, . . . . . . . . . . .

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

4 ..

l 3

3.

2 2

)

1 1 1

1__

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

' O . . - .

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

~

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS l PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL l 1

Th2 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 (Es defined in INPO's 12/93 publication " Detailed Descriptions of Intemational Nuclear Power Plant P;rformance Indicators and Other Indicators") for Fort Calhoun Station. The lower graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams that occurred during each month for the last twelve months.

Tha year-to-date station value was 0.0 at the end of October 1996. The value for the 12 months from November 1,1995, through October 31,1993 was 0.0. The value for the last 36 months was 0.913.

~

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

. vrlue is approximately 0.48 scrams per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical.

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

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

Accountability: Chase Tr:nd: Positive 4

1 e Monthly High Pr=ure S:fety injection systern unavailability Value  ;

1. Year-to-Date High Pressure safety injection system Unavailability Value GooDj

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (Oh03)

+ Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (0.02) 1 P 0.02 . .  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

i l

0A15..

041 ..

Oh05 ..

c  : c = = = c  : c a c 0  ;; y _ ; :- - ; - ;7 ,7  ; , x _ ;

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

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 i month.

The HPSI System unavailability value for the month of October 1596 was 0.000. There were 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of planned unavailability, and 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability, during the month.

The 1996 year-to-date HPSI unavailability value was 0.00004 at the end of the month. The unavailability value for the last 12 months was 0.000041263.

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 unavailability for the HPSI system in 1996.

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

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

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

Data Source: Skiles/Schaffer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Schaffer 5

Trend: Positive

I 1

m Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater system Unavailability x Year-to-Date AFW Unavailability l Good l .

...o... Fort Calhoun (bal(0.01) f 3 Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (0.025) V 042 .. o a  ;  ; a a a  ; a a a 0.018 ..

0.018 ..

I 0.014 ..

,. 0.012 ..

0.01 .. o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o. . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o . . . . . o Oh08 . o.co4ss 0.006 .. Oh0493 o.coas?

0.00356  ;

) 0.004 .4.ooza -

0.002 .- 0 0 0 Q ":

0  ;  ; 1 y ,

r rT'; ,E 'E:  ; ' '

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

l l AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE i

l This indicator shows the Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System Unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month. l Th3 AFW System Unavailability Value for October 1996 was 0.0. There were 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of pl:nned and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability during the month. The year-to-date un-cvrilability value was 0.0017 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.00244 ?t the end of the month.

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 unnvailability for the AFW system in 1996. The unplanned unavailability on FW-10 was due to a failed relay on HCV-10458.

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 October the FCS Value was 10. This compares to the previous month's value of 10.

D:ta Source: Skiles/Fritts (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Fritts Trend: Positive 6

m Monthly Ernergency AC Power Unavailability Value i x Year-to-Date Emergency Ac Power UnavailabilityValue

+ 1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (0A24) [ 000D l c Year 2000 INPo industry Goal (OA25) qy 0.14 ..

0.12 ..

0.1 ..

1 048 ..

• l 0A6 .

i 0.04 .

^

OA2..  :  :

0 =x r-" x e-

_x f

• 5 x. yx. ,

.x r; =A

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

EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM i SA.FETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE l This indicator shows the Emergency AC Power System unavailability value, as defined by i INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month.

The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value for October 1996 was 0.002. 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 un-availability for testing and repairs. The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value year-to-date was 0.0109 and the value for the last 12 months was 0.014 at the end of the month.

There has been a total of 154.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> of planned unavailability and 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of unplanned unavailability for the emergency AC power system in 1996.

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

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal is 0.025. ,

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 10. For the month of October 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

_~

l m MonthlyThermalPerformance 1

i ,12-Month Average j + Year-toaste Average MonthlyThermalPerformance

o_. Fort Calhoun Goal (99.6%) l E oD l

+ Year 2000 INPo industry Onal(99.5%)

l 100% ..

f b, g 54 - E E

5 El  ?

l E E  : q%M A E E E  :  :-

. . .  ?.

i i 99% -- 1996 l RFO I  !

i l i

i 98%  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; ,  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

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

The thermal performance value for October 1996 was N/A. The value was not recordable dus to the 1996 refueling outage. The year-to-date average monthly thermal performance value prior to the RFO was 99.7, at the end of the September. The average monthly value for the 12 months from November 1,1995, through October 31,1996, was 91.41%.

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 October the FCS Value was N/A. The value for September was 5.19.

Data Source: Phelps/Naser(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Gorence Trend: None 8

I l

m FuelRellatetWE-4)

Year 20001190 industry Rael Defect Reference (5 x 10 4 MicrocuriesA3 ram)

_ o_. 1996 Goal (9/1/96 through 12/31/96) 299.16 300_.

280. 257.07 l

240.

l l l260..

220..

217.6 ,

I E 200 -. 169 150.9 l180.. ,

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

""I l I

FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR The FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR (FRl) for October 1996 was Not Reportable due to the 1996 RFO. 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 INPO "WANO Performance Indicator Program Utility Data Coordinator Reference Notebook" (INPO No.94-009, Rev.1) states the Industry Goal for fuel reliability is: " units should strive to operate with zero fuel defects". The 1996 Fort Calhoun Station FRI Performance indicator goal is to maintain a monthly FRI below 5.0 x 10d microcuries/ gram. A value larger than 5.0 x 10d microcuries/ gram indicates a high probability of reactor core operation with one or more fuel defects. The 1996 year end goal can be met after the 1996 Refueling Outage See page lii. ,

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 8. For the month of October the FCS Value was

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

Data Source: Guinn/Guliani Accountability: Chase /Stafford l

Trend: Adverse 9

i

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

?

i j

a

{ g secondarysystem GPi j _ o_.12-Month Average 1

+ Fort Calhoun Goal (1 A) l Good]

1.6 .. 1 f j 1.5 ..

A 1A -  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : l 1.3 ..

l

, 12 .. ^ -

I I E i 1 I I I I I l Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct

\

3 SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY i Criteria for calculating the Secondary System Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) are:

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

i

, The CPI for October was not calculated because the station was powering down for a i refueling outage and did not meet the criteria for CPI determination. The 12-month average '

CPI value was 1.19 at the end of the September.

. The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) was above the goal in July due to slightly higher i than average sodium and chloride values. The six chemistry parameters that are used in the j 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-c:ntrations have been targeted for reduction.

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 7. For the month of October the FCS l, Value was NIA. This compares to the previous month's (September) value of 6.26.

Data Source: Spires /Reneaud (Manager / Source)

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

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

g Monthly P.rsonnel Radiatson Exposure Cumulative P;rsonnel Radiation Exposura i 0000 t

+ FCS Goal 138 percon-REM I I 150..

'"* c = = = = = = = = = a 130..

120 .

110._

100..

E

$ 80..

f70 .

E 60 __ '

50 __

40 ._

30 ..

20 ..

10 .

Os ,

m E ,

m Q Q. j i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep oct Nov Dec l 1996 l COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE The 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure for the year is set at 138.0 person-REM.

The exposure for October 1996 was 92.605 person-Rem (ALNOR).

The year-to-date exposure through the end of Octoberwas 146.816 person-Rem (ALNOR).

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

The Year 2000 INPO industry goal for collective radiation exposure is 120 person-rem per year. The current industry best quartile is 145 person-rem per year. The yearly average for Fort Calhoun Station for the three years 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 October the FCS Value was 6.8. 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 lGooo l

_o._ Fort Calhoun Goal (1050 cu.ft.) i Y

1100..

c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : a 1000..

900..

800 .

700..

600..

o 1 g 500 ..

l 400..

300.. g 8 8 8 8 8 " 8 " 8 i

200..

f g h 0 '  ? "

100. 8 @ S d d o o . . , . _ . . . . _ aman g - i i i - i [ j i  ;

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 i

VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE i

This indicator shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumulative yttr-to-date radioactive waste buried, the Fort Calhoun and INPO goals, and the approxi-mite industry upper 10%.

Cu.Ft.

Amount of solid radwaste shipped off-site for processing during current month 2080 l

Volume of solid radwaste buried during current month 140.0 Cumulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1996 285.9 Amount of solid radwaste in temporary storage 264.8

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

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

! Data Source: Chase /Breuer (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trcnd: None SEP 54 12 l

+ Year.to FcS Date FCS Average IndustrialSafety)

Rate Last 12 Months Accident Rate (INPO Definition)

- Industry Current t Quar

+,__1995 FCS Year-End Goal <0.50) tile (.24)O) 5 Year 2000lNPoindustryGoal(<0A Industrial Safety Accident Rate (INPO Defination) l I 2._

1.5 ._

IA __ ~ '

1.  ;

0.5 j

- - - A - - - -

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

l 4

4 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE l

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."

1 The Fort Calhoun Station industrial safety accident rate value year-to-date was 0.35 at the end of October 'i996. The value for the 12 months from November 1,1995, through OctoNr 31,1996,

, was 0.43.

i There were no restricted-time and no lost-time accidents in October 1996.

The values for this indicator are determined as follows:

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

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

The maximum index point value for this indicator is 5. For the month of October the FCS Value was 4.6. This compares to the previous month's value of 4.58.

Data Source: Sorensen/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Chase / Booth (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Bishop 13

i 1

l l

4 i

i l

i 1-

}

i

!, - .g SAFE OPERATIONS t

l Goal: A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization. Individuals

, demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and per-

! sonal initiative and open communication.

i 4

1 i

l 1

i l

1 1

i 14 i

i

I

_, 1996 Disabhng injuryfmness Frequency

._x 1995 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency q__ Average Rate (Last 12 Months)

_.,_1996 Goal (0.50) l GOOD l 2 .. I 1A..  !

l 1A.. '

1

• 1A..

1.2 .. x -

1..

02 ..

02 ..

l c'

~

~

~

~

- - - M_ .

l OA . . M ~

0.2 .. '

O .

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

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

illness frequency rate is also shown.

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate year-to-date was 0.53 at the end of October 1996.

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

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for the 12 months from November 1,1995, through October 31,1996, was 0.44.

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicatoris 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

1

,_ 1996 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency x 1995 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency F0000l

Average Rate (Last 12 Months) I I

...o... Fort Calhoun (bal Ip 2.5 . .

2.25 - -

, 2.. I 1.75 ..

1.5 l  : ......c...... .......o........o.......o.......o.......o.......o.......o 1.25 ..

• 1..

0.75 .. .

0.5 ..

0.25 .

O  ;  ; .  ; *  ;  ;  ; ,  ;  ;  ;

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct l1996l RECORDABLE IN]URY/ 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 of the Nuclear Divisions are injured on the job and require corrective medical treatment beyond first aid. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate is computed on a year-to-date basis.

There have been 12 recordable injury / illness cases in 1996. The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate year-to-date were 2.10 at the end of October 1996. There was 1 recordable injury / illness case reported for the month of October. This injury occured when a worker cut his/her right index finger on a band saw. The injury required sutures. ,

The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate for the 12 months from November 1, 1995, through October 30,1996, was 1.91. .

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 1s

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

4  :

m Contamination Events (Monthly) .

+ Contamination Events (YTD) l 60 . .

1 l

1 s2 50 ..

l

! 40 ..

k l 30

! 2 i

20 l

20 .

i # w

! u -

10 .. y s

ni 5 E S i , ,  ;

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

! i l1996l l

1 l'

^

CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATION 5

>1,000 DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA i This indicator shows the Personnel Contamination Events in the Clean Controlled Area

for contaminations >1,000 disintegrations / minute per probe area for the reporting month.

1.

• l There were 26 contamination events in October 1996. There has been a total of 52 contamination events in 1996 through the end of October.

}

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

i

) 17 4

4

._ ._ m .

g Personnel Errors (Each Month) '

+ Preventable (18-MonthTotals) 1 --e.-. PersonnelError(18-MonthTotals) 20 . .

15 .

l 10 .. l S~

~ P :::  ?=N:  : : ,

1 0  ;

E: .

>;,;iE:

Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep l1996l PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERs This indicator depicts 18-month totals for numbers of " Preventable" and " Personnel Error" LERs.

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

In September 1996, there was one event which was subsequently reported as an LER. l One LER was categorized as Preventable or Personnel Error for the month of Septem- i ber. The total LERs for the year 1996 (through September 30,1996) is five. The total Personnel Error LERs for the year 1996 is two. The total Preventable LERs for the year .

is three.

Due to the manner in which documentation is closed out, data for this Perfonnance 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.

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

Accountability: Chase Trend: None SEP 15 18

l 1

, i Startup m Shutdown m Operations i l g ,l  ;

...g... Industry Average Trend

2. II E

2 d

-1

.8 G .c...... ..

... a.... . , .... a......a...... ....a 92 2 92 3 92 4 93-1 93-2 93 3 93 4 94-1 94-2 944 94-4 95-1 Year-Quarter SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES This indicator illustrates the number of NRC Safety System Failures as reported by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual" Performance Indica-tors for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" report.

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

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

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

4th Quarter 1993: 1) During surveillance testing, both PORVs for the LTOP system failed to open during l multiple attempts. Tive failures were a result of differential expansion caused by a loop seal, excessive venting line back pressure, and cracked valve disks; 2) Calibration errors of the offsite power low signal relays could have prevsnted offsite power from tripping and the EDGs from starting in the required amount of time during a degraded voltage condition; 3) Both AFW pumps were inoperable when one was removed from service for testing and the control switch for the other pump's steam supply valve was out of the auto

, position; 4) Only one train of control room ventilation was placed in recirc when both toxic gas monitors became inoperable. Later during surveillance, the other train auto-started and brought outside air into the control room for a six-minute period.

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

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

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

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

m Fallures120 Demands g----j Failuresl50 Demands -

e Failuresl100 Demands i

- . Trigger Values /20 Demands Trigger ValuesISO Demands E Trigger Values.100 Demands II 8 --  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

7._

6._

5__  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

l 4..

m . , _ . , _ . , _ . , _ . , _ . , _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ .

2__ y , , y 9 , y9 9$ , , ,

i

~'

FE ,

FE , " * . "E . "E . "E .

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

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

The demands counted for this indicator include the respective number of starts and the respective number of load-runs for both Diesel Generators combined. The number of start demands includes all valid and inadvertent starts, including all start-only demands and all start demands that are followed by load-run demands, whether by automatic or manual initiation. Load-run demands must follow successful starts and meet at least one of the following criteria: a load-run that is a result of a real load signal, a load-run test .

expected to carry the plant's load and duration as stated in the test specifications, and a special test in which a diesel generator was expected to be operated for a minimum of one hour and to be loaded with at least 50% of design load (see exceptions and other -

demand criteria in the Definitions Section of this report).

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

20 l

, , DG1 Failures /25 Demands e DG-2 Failures /25 Dernands lGoool 5- o 1996 Goal V l 4- c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  : o

3. 1

2. j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l

1. j o e ' o o o o- o o oe o o o o o Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 1996 j DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS)

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

It must be emphasized that, in accordance with NUMARC criteria, certain actions will take place in the event that any one emergency diesel generator experiences 4 or more fail-ures within the last 25 demands on the unit. These actions are described in the Defini-tions Section of this report. A System Engineering Instruction has been approved for the Fort Calhoun Station to institutionalize and formally approve / adopt the required NUMARC actions.

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

m DG1 Unreliabilityvalue e DG2 UnreliabildyValue

+ Station UnreliabilityValue l GOOD l 0.07 . .

I OD6 ..

045 .. c  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :

0.04 __

0.03 .. ';' " 0 028 0.02 .. .

0.01 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  ; , ,

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

• l1996l EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the likelihood that emergency AC power generators will respond to off-normal events or accidents. It also provides an indication of the effectiveness of maintenance, opera-tion and test practices in controlling generator unreliability. The last event occured on September 1,1995 when the Field Flash Relay on DG-2 failed.

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

For DG-1: There were 7 start demands for the reporting month with 0 failures.

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

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

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

Emergency diesel generator unreliability is calculated as follows:

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

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

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

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

22

i 1

i m Controf Room Deficiencies Added

, i Control Room Deficiencies completed m CompletedwithinTargetCompletion Date

+

s* . 100.0 %

60 ._ c.s.conw.sesor ca.osa-== nyrnsa cowwienon.

s 2.1%

80 M y

, 1 50 .. s s.7s e l o

! h sa.s 41 s s.s s y

o 40 . . e r ,, _

', 60.0%

g a p

1 h 30__ er y 8 s 22 21 24 24

.. 40.0% c.}

j y 21 3:n j E 20 __ ,

sr ,, g

= 4 o l

.. 20.0% at 10 __ I O + 0.0%

j Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct l Control Room Deficiencies

! 4 i

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

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

There were 52 Control Room Deficiencies completed during October 1996, and 34 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

i 1

l g Overdue

+ Number of On-Line Control Room Deficiencies

]

30 .

25 .. o,., . t,,, in,, , ,,,,,,, 2s 20 ..

l '

s 1 I- I I i 1 l Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct l Number of On-Line CRDs l i

e Overdue

+ Number of outage Control Room Deficiencies 35 _. ,,

30 ., Goal- None Owordus 25 .

Not overdue te are those older ten 18 rrorths "

5 10 ._ ,

5__ 2 2 2 2 2 a 0  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

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

There were 15 on-line (9 were overdue) and 34 outage (5 were overdue) Control Room Deficiencies at the end of October 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

l l

l g Nghest Nbrthly hdividual Exposure mR(1996)

, , Year-to-date

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

1400.

1300. l 1200. I 1100. I 1000.

, 900.

800.

700. -

600.

. 500.

400.

300. ,

200.

"E l Jan Feb Wr Apr my Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE For the month of October 1996, and individual accumulated 1.09 Rem, which was the ,

highest individual exposure for the month.

From January 1996, through October 1996, an individual has accumulated a total of 1.09 Rem.

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

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

Data Source: Chase /Cartwright (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None 25

e K;5 Citea violaalons (Monthly)

, , FCS Non-Cited Violations (Monthly)

_o 3 FCS Cited Violations (12-Month Average)

FCS Non-Cited Violations (12-Month Average) lNl

+ Region IV Cited Violations (12-Month Average for Region IV top quartile) l I 10 . .

: l 8_. 7- N -

6__ C U

_ =  ; e 7 4--  %  :  :  :  :  : o l 2 1 0  :

M ;E  :  ; e i

.E  ;  ; ,b

'

8 i = a e s  ; r e v Z o , 6 2 4 2 = , < m O 1996 i VIOLATION TREND This indicator illustrates a 12-month trend for Fort Calhoun Station Cited Violations, Non-Cited Violations and Cited Violations for the Top Quartile plants in Region IV. Additionally, the Fort Calhoun Station cited and non-cited violations for the past 12 months will be illustrated monthly. The 12-month trend for the Region IV top quartile lags 2-3 months ,

behind the Fort Calhoun Station trend. This lag is necessary to compile information on other Region IV plants.

The following inspections were completed during October 1996:

IER No. Title 96-10 Resident Monthly 96-11 Radioactive Effluents 96-12 ISI/ Maintenance To date, OPPD has received fourteen violations for inspections conducted in 1996.

Levellil Violations 1 LevelIV Violations 8 Non-Cited Violations _5 .

Total 14 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

m NRCSignificantEvents Industry Average Trend 1

l 0000 l I--

1f  ;

0.5 .- 0 0 0 r ,

r ,

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

1 INPO Significant Events (SEs) l GOOD l 3 2 2 2$ 1 1 II l

1-. 0 0

^

0 '

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

l Year-Quarter l

$1GNIFICANT EVENTS

, NRC SIGNIFICANT EVENTS The following SEs were ie%fied between the 2nd Quarter of 1992 and the 1st quarter of 1995 (as reported in the NRC's ' Performance !;odicators for Operating Nudear Power Reactors' report dated June 30,1995):

3rd Quarter 1992:

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

4th Quarter 1994: A potential accident scenario involving a large break LOCA or a main steam line break

, inside containment could result in the inoperability of both control room A.C. units.

INPO SIGNIFICANT EVENTS i 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.

i 2nd Quarter 1993: Inadequate control of Switchyard activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missed STs Resulting in LERs l

V 2.. ,

1 .

1..

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  ;  ; ,  ;  ; ,  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; ,  ; ,

93 94 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS l 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.

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

~

On December 28,1994, during the performance of OP-ST-SHIFT-0001, data was not  !

entered for Steam Generator level per Surveillance Requirements. I 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

f i

i i

1 l*

i l

l PERFORMANCE i

i l Goal: To strive for Excellence in Operations utilizing the high-

! est standards of performance at Fort Calhoun Station that l result in safe, reliable plant operation in power production.

I l

l i

i 29 i

i i

.___._____.______.m._.-......__.

p _ __ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 j Net Gent:(Ction (10,000 MWh) j 40 .

36.27 36.23 35.08 34.55 34.84 34.81 33.85

! 30.08 3 30 ..

seins .

' O uta ge en

!  !!i RCP 1996

$ 20.16 outage RFO g 20 .. 16.94 g 15.16

j. e 10 ..

l l

0 I i l i l I I l l I I I Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 1996 STATION NET GENERATION l During the month of October 1996, a net total of 16,944.0 MWh was generated by the l Fort Calhoun Station. Cumulative net generation for Cycle 16 was 5,418,326.6 MWh at l the end of the month.

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

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

l.

7 I

! I 4

i Data Source: Station Generation Report

} Accountability: Chase l Trend: None l 30 i

, i Forced Outage Rate (Monthly)

Forced Outage Rate (12 Months) l GOOD l e 1996 Fort calhoun Goal (1.4%)

1 50% ..

45% -.

4 40% --

35% ..

30% ..

25% __

20% ..

15%._

1 10%..

, 5%_. 3.m  ; :____ _

e 0%  ;  ;  ; , T ,  ;  ;

O O 0

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

l i

FORCED OUTAGE RATE l l l The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 4.9% for the twelve months from Novem-ber 1,1995, through October 31,1996. The 1996 year-to-date FOR was 6.0% at the end of the month.

l i l

Energy Losses are explained on Page 30.

J i

The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 1.4%. l 1

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

, i Monthly Unit Capacity Factor J

...m... Year-to-Date Unit Capacity Factor g

Unit Capacity Factor for Cycles 15 & 16 36-Month Average Unit Capacity Factor l GOOD l l

' 1996 FCS Goal (81.49%) 1 110% ..

i 100 % .- -

.e- .....a....,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,_,7 )

90% .. g .c c 7 h-

^ ^

m-80 % . C_

, ,, y-  :  :  : -

t ~

E -

45 - '

70% .

60%..

50%..

40% ..

, 30% ..

20%..

10% .

0% -

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct l 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. l At the end of the month, the Cycle 16 Unit Capacity factor was 85.23%, and the Unit Capacity Factor for the last 36 months was 85.22%. The 1996 Fort Calhoun annual goal for this indicator is 82.00%.

The year-to-date value is 82.18%.

Energy losses are explained on Page 2.

The Unit Capacity Factor is computed as follows:

Net Electrical Enerav Generated (MWH)

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

, , L.;,yEAF

+ Y;ar-to-Date Average MonthlyEAF

+ 12-Month Average EAF

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

- r 3 - -

e s.3 % A $ - ~+

,,, ~

p < 4; - ._,

"f' x x x x x x x x x x x h 60%.."O

~

40%__

20%.-

i 0%  ;  ;  ;  ; ,  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; ,  ;  ;  ;  ;;

92 93 94 95 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 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 October 1996 was reported as 4.88%. The year-to-date monthly average EAF was 77.40% at the end of the month.

The Fort Calhoun average monthly EAF for the past three years is 85.16%. 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

m Safety system Actuations (INPO Definition)

+ FcS Goal (0)

+ Industryuppet10 Percentile (0) 3.

, 2..

1 1 1__

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

l  : ,

e > ,

e .

: ; e ,

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

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

Th:re 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-metic shutdown system. The generator was brought back on-line at 3:43 p.m. on August 26th, after a two-day outage.

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

1

- Tha 1996 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is 0.

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

e safety system Actuations (NRC Definition)

, , FcS Goal (0)

+ CriticalHours

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

. 800 eni. am.no 8.. .

. ..600 3

3 6-- - 500 ts -

e g __400 &

li.

" 4- ]

3 __300 g

?

..200

2. ===-

1 1

==========- *- "

0!,  ; ; l l l l_::: .::::::: l ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; i l :::: 0 92 93 94 95 SONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASO 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 challenged.

An unplanned safety system actuation occurred in December 1993 when the main turbine -

and reactor tripped during Electro-Hydraulic Control pump start testing. Also, there was an unplanned SSA during the month of February 1994 when supervisory relay 86B/CPHSS ,

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

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

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

Accountability: Skiles/Foley/Ronning Trend: None 35

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

l I

I j- m Goss Heat Rate

_w Year-to-Date Goss Heat Rate lG000l l o Fort Calhoun Goal 11.50 _.

qy l 11.25 _.

i 11.00 ..

i j 10.75 ..

x 10.50 .

k b E

" #*' S28 10 .25 .nm ave

! k M c ~

- - ma m .,

l .:

f N. J j 10.00 ..

i 9.75 _.

{ 9.50 .

l l 9.25 l 92 93 94 95 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct ,

l 1996 i i  !

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

j The gross heat rate for Fort Calhoun Station was 11,418 for the month of October 1996.

l The 1996 year-to-date GHR was 10,212 at the end of the month.

I The GHR varies with fluctuations in river water temperature. In general, the GHR im l proves during the winter months and degrades during the summer. This is because the j gross heat rate is not normalized to the design river water temperature of 60 degrees j' Fahrenheit.

I i The 1996 Fort Calhoun year-end goal for this indicator is 10,166.

1 Data Source: Guinn/Willett (Manager / Source) i Accountability: Chase /Skiles j Trend: None 1

, 36 f

J + Thermaloutput Fort Calhoun 1495 MW Goal

+ Tech Spec 1500 MW Umit 1600..

1400..

1200.. ,

1000..

800 .

gg g a <

600..

400..  ;

1 200..

i

)

I 0  ; ; ; ; , : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

l 1 234 56 78 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 1 l

DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT l

The thermal output graph displays the daily operating power level during October 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

f

+ Number of Equiprnent Forced Outages (Monthly)

GOOD l l

1. Equipment Forced Outage Rate /1,000 Critic;l Hrs. (12-Month interval) o_. Fort Calhoun Year-End Goals (0.2) 2..

l 1

l 1._

l i

- ': M 0 -

95 94' 95 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun [ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS Th3 equipment forced outage rate per 1,000 critical hours for the 12 months from Novem-ber 1,1995, through October 31,1996, was 0.264. The year-to-date rate per 1,000 '

critical hours for the months from January 1996 through October 1996 was 0.327.

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 Irkage.

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 rcretor 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 Tr::nd: Needs increased Management Attention 38

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

g -

18 .

- Tdaicnyries u

h '

}12/

O 40 '\ N .

I '

~ /

j 6. 5 5 5 j  %

( , , . - -

• 2.

0 ,

J J A S O N D J-96 F M A M J J A s o A ge/ N o rmal Us e 68.2%

P rocedure Error 19%

initial Ins tallatio n 19%

Testing Action E.8 %

M anuf acturing Maintenance Defect is. %

, Engineering /D esign 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 January 1995 through June 1996). Fort Calhoun Station reported a higher failure rate in 6 of the 83 component categories (valves, pumps, motors, etc.) l during the past 18-month CFAR period. The station reported a higher failure rate in 8 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 60 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 88 failure reports were submitted to INPO with discovery dates within the 18-month CFAR period.

Data Source: Phelps/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/ Dowdy Trend: None 39

_, Components with more than One Failure

+ Components with more than Two Failures  !

15 ..

qy 10 ..

1 7 5 f f 2 2 s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 i Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 1996 REPEAT FAILURES ThD 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

znd Evaluation of Operational Data (NRC/AEOD). The NRC requirement for a Maintenance Effectiveness i

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).

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

th) 18-month CFAR period.

1 During the last 18-month CFAR period, there were 9 NPRDS components with more than one failure.

Three out of these 9 NPRDS reportable components had more than two failures. Recommendations and actions to correct these repeat failures are listed in the Biannual CFAR. The description and tag numbers of tha 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

- a 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 Coit VA-8B CCW Outlet Valve FW-56 (> Two Failures) Auxiliary Feedwater Pump FW-56 Diesel Engine HCV-1106-0 Valve Operator for SG RC-2B Feed Regulation Bypass Valve

• YE iiaA COPCE Hested Junction Thermocouple Probe for Reactor Vessel RC-1 4

Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Tr:;nd: None 40

1 l

1 CEMISTRY ACTION L' /ELS EXCEEDED 4

Event Days + Average bent Days + LkWt 6.

1 5.

$ 4.

8 W ,

$2 p  :  :  :  :

j fs fa !i a

i 8

E k

Y k

l

!I 8

i 8

l s

i s

R 8

MONTH ,

l CHEMISTRY ACTION LEVELS EXCEEDED - EVENT DAYS l The Chemistry Action Levels Exceeded indicator tracks the number of days in which chemis,try l 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.

An action level is considered to have been exceeded for the purpose of this indicator, whenever the parameter exceeds the CH-AD-0003 action level for the current system mode, with the excep-  ;

tion of the Steam Generators during Mode 1.

I The Steam Generators are corisidered 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% por day, i The number of event days can exceed the number of days in a month since each event is counted 4

separately and there can be multiple events per day.

l 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 j months were reached.

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

Data Source: Chase / Spires

! Accountability: Spires Trend: None 4

41 i l j l

l l

l l

7.00 C.00 j

5.00 Roal l E 4.00 g 4 j 3.00 l 2.00 1 I

1.00  ;

0.00 M E )

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Wy Jun Jul Aug Sep oct l 1996 l 1

l l

l l

PRIMARY SYSTEM LITHlUM % HOURS OUT OF LIMIT Th3 Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit indicator tracks the hours per  ;

month that the primary system lithium is out of specification.

Th3 Primary System Lithium Percent Hours Out of Limit was 0.00% for the month of Octo-b:r 1996. Lithium exceeded its limits for 0.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> during the month.

. Th31996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for this indicator is a maximum of 5% hours out of limit Data Source: Chase / Spires (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Spires Tr:nd: None 1

42 I

i 4

i J

j 1

jo J

l l-4 i

COST

.i i

i Goal: Operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as an economi-

cally viable contribution to OPPD's bottom line. Cost con-l sciousness is exhibited at all levels of the organization.

4 i

i l

!- I i

1 i

l J

j j 43

A- -aw& n a, 4m- --- -u Jm6-.,n ,;a M--4 ka aA,_- _Wp , - _aA- -+ + - ae_,,

I k

p 9

e l

l l

1 I

i

= i l

e l

4 d

i .

l .

l I

+ Actual _ Revised Budget

%_ Original Budget -

Plan 4.00 . .

3.75 ..

3.50 ..

2 3.25 .

E - - -

3.00 1 -

ii U 2.75 __

2.50 ..

2.25 ..

2.00 ,  ;  ;  ;  ; ,  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

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

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

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

l l

The 12-month rolling average unit price (period of August,1995 through September, l 1996) averaged below the budget due to 12-month rolling expenses exceeding the bud-get expectations, while 12-month rolling generation surpassed the budget expectations. l

. The 12-month rolling average (08/95 through 09/96) is 2.79 cents per kilowatt hour.

The year-to-date average is trending negatively.

Cents per KWH Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Budget Y-T-D 2.79 2.84 2.85 2.81 2.82 2.76 2.73 2.75 2.80 2.97 3.11 3.09 l Actual Y-T-D 2.91 2.77 2.96 2.94 2.83 2.98 2.91 2.85 2.84 Data Source: Lounsberry/ Dent (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Lounsberry Trend: Needs Management Attention 44

_.,__ Spare Parts inventoryValue ($ Million) 16.20 ..

16.10 o 16.00 .. .

15.90 .. -

5

% 15.80 ..

o o

E S 15.70 ..

E 15.60 .. - -

15.50 .

15.40 ..

15.30 .

i -

Nov Dec Jan F& Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 1996 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of October 1996 j was reported as $15,588,962. j l

Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Willrett/McCormick i Trend: None 45

l i

l i

i 1

1 l

l l

l DIVISION AND l l

DEPARTMENT  !

1 PERFORMANCE l INDICATORS i

l l Goal: Achieve high standards at Fort Calhoun Station

resulting in safe, reliable and cost effective power pro-i, duction. I O

46

i l

Gorrective Maintenance Preventive Maintenance i Non-Corrective / Plant improvements Fort Calhoun Goal

._e

~~

830 - 570 834 771 782 780 l

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

1 f] l Non Outage Maintenance Work Order Backlog l l1996l i

. \

. wwMwmi "." ;

o mpletion gg D ate 600 Total 400. va [v!! 6@ 7"M ' E MM MWOs 200. .y 0 ff[ 0 )N fi hf =

Nh 31 %

o a *' '

~ (' d)

Riorty Riorty Riorty Riorty Riorty 1 2 3 4 5 l l

l l

l MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOG  !

This indicator shows the backlog of non-outage Maintenance Work Orders remaining open at the end of the reporting month. It also includes a breakdown by maintenance classification and priority. The 1996 goal for this indicator is 400 non-outage corrective maintenance MWOs. The current backlog of corrective MWOs is 440. To ensure that the MWO backlog is worked in a '

timely manner, non-outage maintenance completion goals have been established as follows:

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

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: Adverse SEP 36 47

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

t j

j Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance j 90% ..

80%..

l 70% ..

l 60% ..

50% ..

l 40% ..

j 30%..

20% ..

! 10%..

0% l I i I

!  ! I I I I I I -1 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct -

i l1996l e Preventive Maintenance items Overdue iGOODI

._e Fort Calhoun Goal I I 3% .. f 2%..

1%..

n% l i j E;  ;  ; E; l l , i ,

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct l1996l RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total com-pleted non-outage maintenance. The ratio was 82.1% for the month of October 1996. .

l The lower graph shows the percentage of scheduled preventive maintenance items that are overdue. During October 1996,483 PM items were completed. .

The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for the percentage of preventive maintenance items over-due is a maximum of 0.5E Data Source: Chase /Schmitz/Meistad (Manager / Sources)

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

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

m R o w o rk a s id e ntifla d by C ra f t

+ Fort Calhoun Gesl(<3%)

6% - ,,,g 1 '

4% .

s .8 %

j 'g e .7 %

3% 8- %

l  !

! 2%. 88%

y t85 s.e s l s.4 %

1%.. , ,, g , ,, g 0%  : i i i , , i i , , ,

New Dec Jan Feb M ar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep cet

! m No. Maintenance terns Corrpeted + % Identried as Repeat 400 8.0%

]

! 350. . 7.0% i 300. . 6.0%

252 i 238 ,

250. 217 214 . 5.0%

207 j 180 200. 1

. 4.0%  !

! 150. . 3.0%

i i 100. . 2.0%

50 . .1.0% '

i O. , i i i i  ; , i i i nns <

l Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Wy Jun Jd Aug Aug I

j PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED .

j PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK / REPEAT l 4  :

l l'. This graph indicates the percentage of total MWOs completed per month identified as 4 rework. Rework activities are identified by maintenance planning and craft.

I

!* This indicator is calculated from the 15th of July to the 15th of August, due to the delay in I 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) 1 Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None 49

- _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _.. _ _ . ...-.__m__--_ _ _ _ _ . . _ . -

m Maintenance Overtime

+ 12-Month Average Maintenance Overtime IG0001 e- Fort Calhoun"On-Line" Goal (10%) l I 30%..

MINWUTAGE V 25% ..

ARD OUTAGE 20% ..

s 15%..

x \ l 10%._

RFO 5%._

0*A Nov i

Dec i

Jan I "

Feb t-Mar

-t Apr I l-tit-May t

Jun Jul Aug I "l Sep Oct l

l1996l MAINTENANCE OVERTIME The Maintenance Overtime Indicator monitors the ability to perform the desired mainte-nance activities with the allotted resources.

The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 29% for the -

month of October 1996. The 12-month average percentage of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 12.0 % at the end of the month.

High overtime due to the 1996 RFO.

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

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None 50

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

1 i

Human Performance CRs(Maintenance) 20 . .

18 ..

I i 16 ..

14 ..

l l' g 12 ..

l 3 10 .. ,

j 8..

i 6 6.. 5 i  ; - i i  ; i i Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct i

, PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS

l. (MAINTENANCE)

This indicator shows the number of Condition Reports related to procedural noncompli-ance incidents assigned to the Maintenance Department.

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

1 51 1

4 . , , . _ . . . . .

~

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

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

• The 1996 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for completed scheduled maintenance activities is ,

85%.

NOTE

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

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

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

, Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 33 i

52 I

I m % of Hours the in-Line Chemistry instruments are Inoperable l POODl l e_1996 Fort Calhoun Goal (10%) l

11% .. Y

9%

i 1' 6% l dU1, &

L2: ..

i i

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

' I l

IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS l OUT-OF-SERVICE i

l f

This indicator shows the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instruments j

are inoperable for the reporting month. The chemistry systems involved in this indicator include the Secondary System and the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS).

At the end of October 1996, the percentage of hours the in-line chemistry system instru- 4

y ments were inoperable was 3.55%. There were no instruments that were out of service 3

for the entire month.

1 J

. The entire instrument channel is considered inoperative if

1) the instrument is inopera-4 tive,2) the chart recorder associated with the instrument is inoperative, or 3) the alarm 4

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.

1

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

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

I W_ste Produced Each Month (Kilogr.m2) l

^

Monthly Awrage Waste Produced During the last 12 Months (Kilograms) I c Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal (150 kilograms)

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

800..

I 600._

m E .

2 E

E 400.. 1 l

200..

c l

- i C -

0i  :  ;  ? 9 9 9 7

. Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep oct l1995l HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED d

This indicator shows the total amount of hazardous waste produced by the Fort Calhoun j Station each month, the monthly average goal and the monthly average total for hazard- i aus waste produced during the last 12 months. This hazardous waste consists of non- i halogenated hazardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous waste i produced.

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

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

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

Data Source: Chase /Shubert (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase / Spires Trend: Positive 54

. . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ ~ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _

i j

m Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area

._e_., Fort Calhoun Goal (10%)

1P l 10% -- c = = = = = = = = = =

=

l 9%..

a% j  ! p_ .j. ..,. _,_ g. .

i i i i Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 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 October 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 SEP54 55

+1dentified PRWPs(YTD)

Fort Calhoun Goal (<15)

'* T l

"  :  :  :  :  :  : - - - l

~ ~ ~

14 .

12 -

12 ,

l

10. '

4 8.

6

6. 5 4

4. -

2. .

0 0

Jan Fb Mar Apr Wy June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1

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

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

During the month of October 1996, there was 6 PRWP identified.

There have been 12 PRWPs in 1996.

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

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

Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP 52 56

O Documents Scheduled for Review 5 Documents Reviewed g Documents Overdue 350 .

~

300_.

250 .

200 .

150..

100 .

50 0._ i_ 4_ n+_ 4_ 4_ 4_ Ee_ +_ + i_ +_ y Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 1996 DOCUMENT REVIEW This indicator shows the number of completed, scheduled, and overdue (greater than 6 months past the scheduled due date) biennial reviews for the reporting month. These document reviews are performed in-house and include Special Procedures, the Site Se-curity Plan, Maintenance Procedures, Preventive Maintenance Procedures, and the Op- 3

• erating Manual. l l

During October 1996, there were 315 document reviews scheduled, while 38 reviews )

were completed. At the end of the month, there were 29 document reviews more than 6 months overdue. There were 9 new documents initiated during October 1996. Begin- {

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

Data Source: Chase /Plath <

Accountability: Chase /Skiles Trend: None SEP 46 l

57 )

l

)

i

__ __.___ ____.___ ._ _ . . _ - _ . ~ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ ._ . _ . . _ _ . - . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _

) O System Fcliures j O Myskm Failures Goool 40 .

38 Y

j 35 .

i 2.

i j 25 .

j 21 1 20 .. s s s j

• v 15 .

• 0  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

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

i LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY) i

! This graph shows the Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) Indicator and depicts (1) l the total number of loggable/ reportable incidents conceming system failures which oc-j curred during the reporting month, and (2) the total number of loggable/ reportable inci-

dents non-system failures concerning Security Badges, Access Control and Authoriza-j tion, Security Force Error, and Unsecured Doors.

s

! During the month of October 1996, there were 38 loggable/ reportable incidents identi-  !

l fled. This resulted in a 153% increase of the overallincidents reported during the previ- i

) ous period. System failures accounted for 50% of the loggable/ reportable incidents. Non-

system failures consisted of five lost / unattended security badges, three access control l j

errors, and eleven (11) security force errors. Due to the increase in security force errors, l security management has conducted focus meetings with all security force personnel. j

! Emphasis is being placed on personal accountability and human performance improve- ,

ments through the use of such techniques as D.U.C.S. & S.T.A.R. Security management l also continues to closely monitor badging and access issues.

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

Data Source: Sefick/Woerner (Manager / Source) 4 Accountability: Sefick l Trend: None SEP 58 58

, , Temporary Modifications >1 cycle old peu required for removal) m Temporary Modifications >6 months old (Removable on-line)

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

6..

5..

4..

3..

1 1

~]1 1

" " aa aa o -

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

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

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

seven (7) of the 13 installed TMs require an outage for removal and 6 are removable on-line. In 1996, a total of 22 temporary modifications have been installed.

Data Source: Skiles/ Frank (Manager / Source)

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

i . TotrA Modification Packages open

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

90 .

80 -. ,, 72 73 7s 7s 7s 7s 7s y

= '"'

= = c = c = S ""

c o 50 __ -

40 _.

30 .

20 _. ,

10 _.

O  ; 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 orocosed to be cancelled).

Reporting Cateaory '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 4 14 29 Construction Backlog /in Progress 4 0 8 28 1 0 34 Design Engr. Update Backlog /in Progress 1 2 6 0 0 0 11 Totals 5 2 14 28 5 17 71 (outage + OnLine) (3+2) (0+2) (6+8) (19+9) (0+5) (16+1) (45+30)

At the end of October 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) l Accountability: Scofield/Jaworski l Trend: None 60

80 .- EARS Requiring Engineering Closeout - Not in Closeout 60 E sE D DEN 40 __ _

20 ._ -

O b b;  ;  ;  ; ,  ; ,C C;n;  ;

e  ; Ilm E

Aug sep Oct Aug sep Oct Aug sep Oct Aug sep Oct 0-3 Months 3 6 Months 6-12 Months >13 Months O Engineering Response 3 Closeout (sE) 30 20 f.

,. 'I  ;  ; F""1  ;  ; I i . . .

+

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

16 EARS 87 EARS Resolved 4 4 g, ,, ,,

Requiring and in sened we

' 8 0 "8 "*

Response Closecut 42.7%

88 15.6 % $"

c i. ... ..

16.6%

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

Total EAR breakdown is as follows:

EARS opened during the month 10 EARS closed during the month 12 Total EARS open at the end of the month 103 Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Jaworski Trend: None SEP62 61

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

1 110 s' 45 DEN 0-3 Months CLCSEOUT 22*4  %

6

% S-S Month ECN Status -Overall Backlog .

g Backlogged O Received g Completed *8,","'"* g .,

3-e u .jm 250. *

1. 3 #8 150. us m m 50 -

hhksa: n May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

• * " ,*['

Design Engineering 250.

12 200. go 3.s 160 . 0-3 Months 100.. M onths ~'

17 %

,, e7

,, ,, y, o . .

S Months M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 88%

,,, System Engineenng

~

W 250..,,,

ai o-3 uontn.

. ilLLLLL Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Procurement / Construction ses 250. g 200. Marths

• 150..m its M - .,'

100.

77 83 43 s

,4s 3-6 jjbrths

"~

O G :

May Jun

. "s Jul b

Aug h asm"E Sep Oct

";"' s= 2 1

Drafting / Closeout ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS

Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source)

) Accountability: Jaworski/Skiles Trend: None SEP 62 i

l 62

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

} l 1

i >

i

j.  !

SS 13 2 87 '

! DC TYP E FC TYP E P rio rity god j W **

2o$

) T "m ,

l 1

2g4 SRI TYP E

'j P rio* ity 884 f:

l s9% Total Open ECNs = 495 s9%

Total Open ECNs = 495

, . {

1. 24

. O DEN .C60seout ot Draftin0 Not Cow, mete P riority P rio rity '

l 5 MaintenancelConstruction/Precurement.1Abek N01 Complete s&S M2  !

j* 5 Sptem Engineering Response, Confirmation Not Couplete H% 18 %

j 5 DW4.Eng6neenng Not Conpiete 178 17e go 13 2 l 2 o P riority

I l 1 I I gg,

, MaySS Jur>98 Jul-98 A Sep06 Oct-96 37%

j MOmge Open 4

M- ses sw ,,, ,,,

40 7e 8 2*4 P riority 300 . s1 #

P riority l se 2 2 as s&S m2

! May.96 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-96 Se # Od-06 P rio rity

• l Substite Wllem ECNs Open ,,'(

i 100. 2 84 p g,ity

. 73 8' 15 70 66

< 3% .,

8 is t

3f May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Pr rtty Document Change ECNS Open sas  !

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 / Installation / Fabrication Problem g EquipmentFailures 2..

1.- . _ _ _ _ _ _

0 .

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep l' " 51 F*l LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN This indicator shows the LERs by event date broken down by Root Cause Code for each of the past twelve months from October 1,1995, through September 30,1996. To be consistent with the Preventable / Personnel Error LERs indicator, this indicator is reported by the LER event date, as opposed to the LER report date. -

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

this report.

There was one event in September 1996 that resulted in an LER.

1 i

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

Accountability: Chase i Trend: None 64

! l i O Total Requalification Training Hours i g simulator Training Hours  ;

i 5 Non-Requalification Training Hours i

g Number of Exam Failures e.. --

y 35 . y j 32 32.5 32 l 30 ..

i l 25 .. I l

20 .

7

'! 16 5.5 4 14 4 i

• 15 .

10 .. 8 8 3 7.5 )

.5 6 0 5 5 S.. 3 0 0 0._ i l l l 1 l l Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle 954 954 95 4 954 96-1 96 2 96 4 96 4

• Note 1:The simulator was outof service during Cycle 944.

" 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 l Meetings, and Division Manager lunches.

Exam failures are defined as failures in the written, simulator, and Job Performance )

Measures (JPMs) segments of the Licensed Operator Requalification Training.

Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 65

l g SRO E:xams Administered O SRO Exams Passed O ROExams Administered g ROExams Passed 30 ..

25 ..

l 20 .. -

l 15 ..

10 .

O  ; ,  ;

i .

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep f"1 1***l LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS This indicator shows the number of Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Reactor Opera- ,

tor (RO) quizzes and exams taken and passed each month. These internally adminis-tered quizzes and exams are used to plot the SRO and RO candidates' monthly progress.

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

Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 4

66

. - . . . . . . - . ~ - . - . . . . - ~ . . . . . - - . . . - - - - - . . . . ~ - - - -

I I

i 1

i j m Ready to Cbse

! e Oosed

} + Total CRs

--+- open 2000 l 1800.

l 1600.

)

1400.

f* 1200.

! 1000. 0 800 e  ;  :  : :  ;  ; ~

l 400 i

j 200 l n l 22-Wr 4-Apr 19-Apr 3- W y 17-Wy 31-Wy Jul-96 sep.96 I

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

l l Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Total i Open 21 10 87 669 53 32 878 Closed 5 2 56 542 258 70 933 l

l 203 Condition Reports are " READY" to "CLOSE".

I

(. At the end of October,1996 there were 120 "OPEN" incident Reports, of which, 27 were Significant.  ;

! l a

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

l 1

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

! Accountability: Andrews/Gambhir/Patterson i Trend : None i

e f 67 ,

i l

l l

w . ._

a Toimioutagemas a w n W V*rk 1200.

1000. MWO HOLDS System .

800. NFEVEW 9% N 4% 1%

200.

see. pwt 74 %

0  ; i i i Jdes A ges sepas mas 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 i.Micates:

- Parts Holds - Planning Complete, Awaiting Parts

- System Engineering Holds - Awaiting System Engineering input to Planning ,

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

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

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Faulhaber Trend: None SEP 31 68

1996 Outage Projects Status Report g Last Month 5 This Month O M Schedule 120__

110_

100_ __II

=

.!I a _!!

a I! II II .II a  !! :II .II 2 2 a 90 _.

• 80 _.

g 70 __

h 60_.

50 .

40 __

30 __

20 __

10 .

O. , _

i , y i i

$ j

!" 5 g I  ! I  ! j 17 3

g 3 e i E s

=

ji 8 t E . 8 y hl7 EM i 5 5 g 55 i i i  ? Is e a g a

SPECIAL SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

, OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (Cycle 17 Refueling Outage)

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

Data Source: Skiles/Swearngin (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Skiles/Boughter Trend: None SEP 31 69

--+-- Baselme Schedule for PRC Approval

+ Projected /ActualScheduleforPRC Approval Foal Design Pkg issued (2 FO DCP issued Pro rto 05/0m)

Total M odicate n Packages (22)(11 Added After 05/0195) 9 12 E j 6, [

5. -

=e 2 <2 4 .

003 z,2_ k ......

$1 cf.

0-j E

hbb$ h$

N.

5 E E

5 S h ,

PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE (1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING)

(FROZEN SCOPE OF 9 OUTAGE MODIFICATIONS)

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

tablished June 16,1995) and the current schedule.

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.

October 1996 Modifications added: 0 Deleted = 0 -

Graph corrected to represent the baseline schedule.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 70

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

'M-o e eg

( ._ 9/12/96 . 4 C::

, .g a.

U o 7/14/96 , .i .i .i .i a s s s s

.i g

.gs .i s

{ 6/24/96 6/4/96 .

.{

g < 5/15/96.

g E 4/25,96 .

4/5/96 95 96- 95 95- 96 95- 95- E 95- 95-025 001 023 011 002 013 022 008 007 020 MODIFlCATION NUMBER l$MRGETPRCAPPRO4 B ACRMPRCAPPROW l PROGRESS OF CYCLE 17 OUTAGE (1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING)

(1996 MODIFICATION PLANNING)

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

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

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

Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 1

71

+ Baseline Schedule for PRC Approval

1. Total Modification Packages (10)(4 Added After 05/01/95) 6  : - u  ; - : ,

5._

T 4_. . : : : :  ;

$, 3 .. ...._ /_

~

g t

e *

? 2__

2 E

5 1  : : : : : : : .

0  ; l

, ; ' '  ; i .. .

';';;;il  ;;

$ k m o e $ m b 8 o

8

- E

• 5 y E g E S E R 5 S 5 S S PROGRESS OF 1996 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 6 MODIFICATIONS)

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

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

~

October 1996 Modifications Added: 0 Deleted = 0 ,

Graph corrected to represent the baseline schedule.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)

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

1 i

O ACTION PLANS 0

0 73

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

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

. Fuel Reliability Indicator (page 9)

. Maintenance Workload Backlogs (page 47)

FAILED FUEL ACTION PLAN Problem Statement:

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

_GQa.1:

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

. Plan:

The plan below is compromised of both short term corrective actions to address the Cycle 16 operations goals identified above and long term corrective actions for Cycle 17 and beyond.

74

Fuel Reliability SHORT TERM (CYCLE 16 OPERATIONS)

IIgg ACTION RESP DATE DUE STATUS

1. Evaluate replacement of two-micron firer in CVCS with one- Holthaus Completed Complete.1/4/96. Filter replacement will micron filter.

result in improved particulate removal 01/04/96 and consequenth lower dose rates.

l 1a. Installone-micron Siters in CVCS 01/31/96 CO6v',,ted 03/13/96

2. Evaluate benetts ofincreasing letdown flow. Holthaus/Spilker Coup: :.d Previoush evaluated in Radiological 01/19/96 Anahsis95-005,which supports increased letdown flow.

3. Evaluate need for and effectiveness of more frequent of Holthaus Con,:. d Complete. 01/04/96. Resin bed effective purincation and cation ion beds. 01/04/96 in mmimizing RCS activity. Resin beds replacedin November 1995.

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

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

5. Evaluate installation of silver mordenite sitration system Holthaus/ Spires C66v:.,,d Received general (unclassited) forincreased iodine removal. 01/26/96 information on system used at Savannah River Project.

6. Identify number of old design assemblies to be placed Completed Previously identiled eight assemb5es to in peripherallocations for second cycle and consider Holthaus/Guinn 01/12,96 be placed on core periphery for second replacement with new design assembly. cycle.

75

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. Wes6nghouse has assemblies for Cycle 17. Also, can Fuels Division Holthaus/ Hanger 01/12/96 indicated that they can fabncate the provide necessary uranium. assembles. Cost es6 mates by Fuels Division is approx.12M. Discount from Westinghouse also requested.

9. Evaluate Cycle 18 preEminary pattem same as 5 & 6 Holthaus/Guinn Completed Cycle 18 prelminary pattem indicates 01/17/96 four addi6onal assembles would be required. Cost $1.0M

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

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

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

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

76

1 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 O

4 77

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS > 1,000 PERFORMANCE DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable The personnel contamination events in the clean controlled area.

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

feedwater system for the reporting period divided by the critical hours for the reporting period multiplied by the number of trains CONTAMINATED RADIATICN CONTROLLED AREA in the auxiliary feedwater system.

The pertertage of the Radiabon Controlled Area, which includes COLLECTWE RADIATION EXPOSURE the auxiliary building, the radwaste building, and areas of the C/RP building, that is contaminated based on the total square Collective radiation exposure is the total extemal whole-body footage. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #54.

+ dose received by al or> site personnel (including contractors and visitors) during a time period, as rneasured by the DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). Conective radiabon exposure is reported in units of person 4em. This indicator This indicator shows the daily core thermal output as measured tracks radiological work performance for SEP #54. from computer point XC105 (in thermal megawatts). The 1500 MW Tech Spec limit, and the unmet portion of the 1495 MW COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR) FCS daily goal for the reporting month are also shown.

SUMMARY

DIESEL GEfGATOR RELIABILITY (25 Dernands)

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

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

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

Age / Normal Use -thought to be the consequence of This indicator is 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)

EngineenngOesign a failure s'.tributable 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 mordhs of the assigned due date. This indicator tracks performance for SEP Maintenance / Action - resulting from irnproper maintenance, #46.

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

CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun Station. The cents per kliowatt The hdcalor shes the number of idures that were reported dunng the hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per test 20,50, and 100 emergency desel generator demands at the Fort kilowatt hour on a twelve-month average for the current year. Caham Staton. Aho shan are ingger values whch correlate to a high The basis for the budget curve is the approved yearly budget *" **'*""#***'8'"*'**"*h*" D"*d

• The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating than t lues Report.

78

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS and the successful test that follows repair to vedfy operabaty '

t) Number of Start Demands: All valid and inadvertent start should not be counted as demands or failures when the EDG .

demands, includog aN start-only demands and aN start has not been deciered operable again.

demands that are followed by lood-run demands, whether by automauc or manuel initiation. A start-only demand is EtERGENCY DESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABEJTY a demand in whidi me emergency generator is started, but no attempt is made to load the generator. This indmetor moneures the total unreHebEly of emergency diesel generators in general, unreliabWty is the ratio of

2) Number of Start Failures: Any fauure within the ur-==8ul opershons (starts or load-runs) to the number of

• emergency generator system that prevents the generator valid demands Total unrebabiNty is a combination of start kom adusvmg spended toquency and vollege is classilled untensbety and lood<un unrebabiNty as a valid start failure. . This includes any condition identlRed in the course of maintenance inspections (with ENGSIEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR) a the emergency generator in stan@y mode) that deAndely BREAKDOWN would have reouted in a start failure if a demand had occurred. This indicolor shows a breakdown, by age and priority of the EAR, of the number of EARS seeigned to Design Engineering

3) . Number of Load Run Demands: For a valid lood-run Nuclear and System Engmeeting This indicator tracks demand to be counted, the lood-run attempt must meet performance for SEP 902. j one ormore of the folowing crNorie:

ENGBIEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) STATUS A) A load-run of any duration that results from a real automebc or manuelinitiation. The number of ECNs that were opened, ECNs that were completed, and open bacidog ECNs awahng compistion by B) A loed<un test to estisfy the plant's load and durabon DEN for he reportng month. This indestor tracks performance as stated in each test's specNicotions for SEP 862.

C) Other special tests b which the ernergency generator ENGSIEERSIG CHANGE NOTICES OPEN is expected to be operated for at least one hour whte loaded with et least 50% of Rs design load This indmetor breaks down the number of Engmeeting Change Noboes (ECNs) that are assigned to Design Engineering

4) Number of LondJtun Failures: A load-run feMure should Nuclear (DEN), System Engineering, and Maintenance. The be counted for any reason in which the emergency graphs provide data on ECN Facety Changes open, ECN generator does not pick up lood and run as predicted Substitute Replacement items open, and ECN Document Failures are counted during any valid load run demands Changes oport This indumtor tracks performance for SEP 862.

5) Exceptions: Unsuccessful attempts to stort or lood run EQUIPRENT 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 followmg Eqdpmerd forood odages per 1,000 critical hours is the inverse

.A) Spurious trips that would be bypassed in the event of of the mean tme between forced oulages caused by equipment an emergency. failures. The meen time is equel to the number of hours the roedor is craicalin a pedod (1,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />) divided by the number B) Malfunchon of equipment that is not required during of forced outages caused by equipment feiures in that portod.

an emergency.

EQUfVALENT AVas ans TYFACTOR C) treenbonel terminobon of a test because of abnormal condmons that would not have resulted in major This indicator is deilned as the ratio of groes avatsbie diesel generator damage or repair.' generston to groes maximum genershon, expressed as a percentage. Avoimble genershon is the energy that con be D) Melfundions or operating errors which would not produced if the unit is operated at the maximum power level have prevented the emergency generator frorn being permitted by equipment and regulatory hmitehons Maximum restarted and brought to load within a few minutes generation is the energy that can be protJood by a unit in a given period if operated conhnuously at maximum cepecity E) A fanure to start because a portion of the starting system was disabled for test purpose,if fotowed by FORCED OUTAGE RATE a successful start with the starting system in its normal alignmort This indmetor is dellned as the percentage of time that the unit was unavatable due to forced events compared to the time Each emergency generator feRure that results in the generator pionned for electncal generation. Forced events are fodures or being declared inoperable should be counted as one demand other unplanned conditions that require removing the unit from and one Sature. Exploratory tests during corrective maintenance service before the end of the next weekend. Forced events 79

l PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS include start-up fanures and events irubated whHe the unit is in Contractor personnel are not included for this indicator, reserve shutdown (i.e., the unit is available but not in service).

IN4JNE CHEheSTRY INSTRUhENTS OUT OF SERVICE FUEL RELIABILITYINDICATOR Total number of in4ne chemistry instruments that are out-of-This indicator is deAnod as the steady-state primary coolant l- service in the Secondary System and the Post Accident 131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium contribubon and Sampling System (PASS).

rermalred to a common purteetion rate. Tramp uranium is fuel

. which has been depoolled on reactor core inlemais from LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS previous defective fuel or is present on the surface of fuel elements from the manufacturing process. Steady state is This indcolor shows the number of SRO and/or RO quizzes and defined as conhnuous opershon for at least three days at a exams that are admmistered and poseed each month. This e power level that does not very more then + or -5%. Plants indicator tracks traavng performance for SEP 868.

ahould coged dels for this indicator at a power level above 85%,

when posetde. Plants that did ret operate at steady-state power LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRABilNG above 85% should collect date for this indicator at the tughest steady-state power level attained during the month. Tie total number of hours of training given to each crew during each cycle. Also provided are the simulator training hours The density correction factor is the ratio of the specinc volume (which are a subset of the total trairung hours), the number of of coolant at the RCS operstmg temperature (540 degrees F., Vf norWtEQUALIFICATION training hours and the number of exam

= 0.02146) divided by the specine volume of coolant at normal failures. This indmetor tracks trainmg performance for istdown temperature (120* F at otset of the letdown cooling heat SEP # 68.

exchanger, Vf = 0.016204), which results in a density correction factor for FCS equalto 1.32. LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN GROSS HEAT RATE This indicator shows the number and root cause code for Gross host rate is defined as the ratio of total thermal energy in Lxanese Event Reports. The root cause codes are as folows Brtish 'Ihermal Units (BTU) produced by the reactor to the total gross electrical energy produced by the generator in kHowatt- 1) Adminestrative control Problem . Management and hours (KWH). supervisory deficiencies that affect plant programs or activities (i.e., poor planning, breakdown or lock of HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED adequate management or supervisory control, incorrect procedures, etc).

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

H10H PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 3) Other Personnel Error - Errors of omiseen/commesson committed by non4 censed personnel involved in plant The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable activities.

hours and the echmeted unavailable hours for the high pressure safety injection system for the reportmg period devided by the 4) Maintenance Protilem . The intent of this cause code is to craical hours forthe reportmg period mulbplied by the number of capture the full range of problems which can be attributed trains in the high pressure safety inpochon system. In any way to programmate de6ciencies in the mamlenance functional organization. Activities included in INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE -INPO this category are maintenance, testing, surveiNance, calibraten and radeten protection.

This hdicolor is delned as the number of accidents per 200,000 manhours worked for ad utiNty personnel permanently assigned 5) r.2 1 - - "^ "abrication Problem -

to the staten that result in any of the foHowing: This cause code covers a fug range of programmetic deficiencies in the areas of design, constructen,

1) ' One or more days of restncted work (excludog the day of instaustion, and febncaten (i.e., loss of control power due the accident); to underrated fuse, equipment not qualrhed for the environment, etc.).

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

3) Fatahbes. apunous failures of electronic piece-parts and inHures due to meteorological conditons such as hghtning, ice, high 80 l

l

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS winds, etc. Generalty, R includes spurious or one-time MAXIMUM INDMOUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE failures. Electnc components included in this category are circut cards, rechters, bistables, fuses, capacitors, diodes, The total maxknum amount of radiation received by an individual resistors, etc. person working at FCS on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis.

LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)

MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 17 REFUELING The total number of securty incidents for the reporting month OUTAGE) depicted in two graphs. This indicator tracks securty -

performance for SEP #58. The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have been approved forinrhnq in the Cycle 17 Refueling Outage and the MAINTENANCE OVERTlhE number that are ready to work (parts staged, planning cornpiete, and af other paperwork ready for field use). Also included is the

• The percent of overtime hours compared to normal hours for number of MWOs that have been engineering holds (ECNs, maintenance. This includes OPPD personnel as well as procedures and other rnascetaneous engineering holds), parts contract personnel hold, (parts staged, not yet inspected, parts not yet arrived) and planning hold Gob scope not yet completed). Maintenance Work MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS Requests (MWRs) are also shown that have been identified for the Cycle 17 Refusing Outage and have not yet been converted This indicator shows the backlog of non-outage Maintenance to MWOs Work Orders remaining open at the end of the reporting month.

Maintenance classifications are defined as follows: NUhEBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUPRENT DEFICIENCIES Corrective - Repair and restoration of equipment or A controt room equipment deficiency (CRD) is defined as any w,w, e.that have iniled or are rnalfunctioning and are not component which is operated or controued from the Control performing their intended function. 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 automatic actions from or to the Control Room, or provides a within design operating conditions, prevent equipment failure, paselve fundion for the Control Room and has been identified as and extend its life and are performed prior to equipment delicient, l.e., does not perform under all conditions as designed.

failure. This deGnibon also applies to the ARemate Shutdown Panels Al-179, Al-185, and Al-212. i Non-Corrective / Plant improvements - Maintenance '

actMbes performed to implement station improvements or to A plant w,r e which is deficient or inoperable is considered repair non-plant equipment. an " Operator Work Around (OWA) Item"if some other action is required by an operator to compensate for the condition of the Maintenance Work Priorities are denned as: component. Some examples of OWAs are:

Emergency Conditions which significantly degrade station 1) The control room level indicator does not work but a local safety or availability, sight glass can be read by an Operator out in the plant; immediate Action - Equipment deficiencies which 2) A dolcient 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. requring the redmdant pump to be operated continuously;

}

l Operations concern - Equipment deficiencies which hinder 3) Specia! achons are required by an Operator because of station operation. equipment design problems. These actions may be

~

described in Operations Memorandums, Operator Notes, Essential - Routine corrective maintenance on essential or may require changes to Operating Procedures; station systems and equipment.

4) Deficient pinrt equipment that is required to be used during Non EssentW < Routine corrective maintenance on non. Emergency Operstmg Procedures or Abnormal Operating essential FAstson systems and equipment. Procedures; Plant improvement - Non-corrective rnaintenance and plant 5) System indication that provides critical information during improvements. normal or abnormal operations.

This indicator tracks maintenar.ce performance for SEP #36.

81

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS NUNEER OF MSSED SURVE!LLANCE TESTS RESULTING This indicator shows the status of the projects which are in the IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS scope of the Refueling Outage.

The number of Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Licensee PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER Event Reports (LERs) dumg the reporting month. This irxhcator MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK tracks missed STs for SEP #60 8 61.

The percentage of total MWOs completed per rnonth identified OPEN INCIDENT REPORTS as rework. Rework activities are idenbfied 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 runber 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 activities each month. This percentage is shown for all maintenance

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

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

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

some approved for study, and some approved for planning.

Once planning is completed and the scope of the work is 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 construction, installation, may be canceled. All of these different phases require review, instalation, fabrication problem (involving work con.pleted by or supervised by OPPD personnel) or a maintenance problem

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

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

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

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

OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (REFUELING OUTAGE) 82

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS Addtionally, each event classified as a " Personnel Error" should SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES also be classified as

• Preventable " This indicator trends personnel performance for SEP ftem #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 conscsts 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 more trains is not counted as a safety total number of hours possible for the month. system failure. The definition for the indicator parauels NRC reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. The '

PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLlANCE INCIDENTS lbilowing is a list of the major safety systems, sut> systems, and (MAINTENANCE) components monitored for this indicator The number of identified incidents conceming maintenance Accident Monitoring instrumentation, Auxthary (and -

procedural problems, the number of closed irs related to the Emergency) Feedwater System, Combustible Gas Control, use of procedures (includes the number of closed irs caused by Component Coolig Water System, Containment and procedural noncompliance), and the number of closed Containmert isolation, Containment Coolant Systems, Control procedural noncompliance irs. This indicator trends personnel Room Emergency Ventilation System, Emergency Core performance for SEP #15,41 and 44. Coonng 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 Thrs indicator shows the status of modifications approved for Isolation Valves, Onsite Emergency AC & DC Power completion during tne Refuehng Outage. w/Destritdion, Radiation Monitoring instrumentation, Reactor Coolant System, Reactor Core isolation Cooling System, PROGRESS OF 1995 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING Reactor Trip System and instrumentation, Recirculation Pump Trip Actuation instrumentation, Residual Heat Removal This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for Systems, Safety Valves, Spent Fuel Systems, Standby Liquid completion during 1995. Control System and Ultimate Heat Sink.

RACIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMSTRY PERFORMANCE INr:gx The number of identified poor radiological work practices g (PRWPs) for the reporting month. This indicator tracks Che U.*E=try Performance hdex (CH; is a calculation based radiological work performance for SEP #52. on tne concertiden ef My gpf*ses in the secondary side of the plant. Thesa key impWs are the most likely cause of RADIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & detenoration of the steam generators. Critena for calculating the PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE CPI are:

The ratio of preventive maintenance (including surveillance 1) The plant is at greater than 30 percent power, and testing and cahbration procedures) to the sum of non-outage 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 CPI is calculated using the fellcwing equation:

perurt of prevertive rnaintenance items in the month that were not completed or administratively closed by the scheduled date CPI = ((sodium /0.79) + (Cnlerir a/1.52) + (Sulfate /1.44) + ,

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

Where: Sodium, sulfate, chloride and condensate dissolved RECORDABLE INJURY /1LLNESS CASES FREQUENCY oxygen are the monthly average blowdown concentrations in RATE ppb, iron and copper are rnonthly time weighted average feedwater concentrations in ppb. The denominator for each of The number of injunes requinng more than normal first aid per the five factors is the INPO rnedian value, if the monthly 200,000 man-hours worked. This indicator trends personnel average for a specific parameter is less than the INPO median performance for SEP #15,25 and 26. value, the median value is used in the calculation.

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

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.

evert candidate is further evaluated to determine if any actual or Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for which MRs potential threat to the health and safety of the public was have been submitted will be considered as temporary invoked. Specific examples of the type of criteria are moditentions until final resolution of the MR and the jumper summartzed as follows- or block is removed or is permanently recorded on the drawings. This indicator tracks temporary modifications for

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

2) Unexpected plant response to a transient; THERMAL PERFORMANCE o 3) Degradation of fuel integrity, pnmary coolant pressure The ratio of the design gross heat rate (corrected) to the boundary, important associated features; adjusted actual gross heat rate, expressed as a percentage.

4) Scramwithcomplication; 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 produmd if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference arnbient conditions) over the same tirne 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 lemmed 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 b the reporting period expressed as a percent. Net GPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE electrical energy generated is the gross electrical output of the unit measured at the output terminals of the turbine generator The dotarvalue of the spare parts inventory for FCS during the minus the rormal station service loads during the gross hours of reporting period. the reporting period, expressed in megawatt hours.

STAFFING LEVEL UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 CRITICAL HOURS The actual 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 performance for SEP #24. per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of critical operation.

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

TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS

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

configurations to the plant's systems.

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

1) Temporary configurations are defined as electricaljumpers, rapid insertion of negatrve reactrvity (e.g., by control rods, electncal blocks, mechanical jumpers, or mechanical blocks liquid injection system, etc.) that is caused by actuation of which are installed in the plant operating systems and are the reactor protection system. The scram signal may have not shown on the latest revision of the PalD, schematic, resulted from exceeding a set point or may have been connection, wiring, or flow diagrams. spurious.

2) Jumpers and blocks which are installed for Surveillance Tests, Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Procedures, 3) Automatic rneans that the initial signal that caused actuation Special Procedures or Operating Procedures are not of the reactor protection system log!c was provided from one conssdered 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 tnp switches (or push-buttons) provided in the main control l

l

PERFORMANCE lNDICATOR DEFINITIONS room. shipped off4ite for processang, and the volume of solid dry radioactwo waste which has been shipped off-site for

4) Crtlical means that dunng the steady-state condshon of the procesems Low-level solid radioactive weste consists of dry reactor prior to the screm, the effective multipicebon (k ,) aceve weste, sludges, resins, and evaporator bottoms generated was essenhety equel to one, as a roeult of nuclear power plant opershon and maintenance Dry redescove waste includes contaminated rags, cimening UNPLANNED CAPABluTY LOSS FACTOR rnstennis, W protective clothing, piestic containers, and any other meterial to be disposed of at a low-level radioactive The ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given ported weste cioposal she, except resin, sludge, or =g ;- bottoms

• of time, to the reference energy generation (the energy that Low levoi refers to su redoective weste that is not spent fuel or could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full a by-product of spent fuel y,9-  ? . This indicator tracks power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time radeiogical work performance for SEP #54.

period, expressed as a percentage '

UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS . @NPO

+0EFNdIT10N)

This indicator is defined as the sum of the following safety system actuohons

1) The numberof unplanned Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) actuohons that result from reaching an ECCS actuaten set point or from a spunous/ inadvertent ECCS signal

2) The number of unplanned emergency AC power system j actuebons that result from a loss of power to a safeguards bus. An unplanned esisty system actuation occurs when an edumbon not point for a safety system is reached or when a spurious or inadvertent signal is generated (ECCS only),

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

UNPLANNED SAFETYSYSTEM ACTIONS OdRC DEFINITION)

The number of safety system aduations which include (ggk) the High Pressure Sately inischon System, the Low Pressure Safety ingsction System,the Safety tryocton Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The NRC classification of safety system actuations idades actuations when rnajor equipment is operated 3[g when the logic systems for the above safety systems are ci agenged. i

I V10LATION 7 AEND I

- This hckzetoris desned es Fort Calhoun Station Cited Violations and Nor40ed Vloistions trended over 12 months. Additionegy, Cited Violatons for the top quartile Regen IV plant is trended over 12 months (legging the Fort Calhoun Station trend by 2-3 j mordhs). It is the Fort Calhoun Staten goal to be at or below the '

caed violation trend for the top quartile Region IV plant.

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

SAFEW ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX The purpose of the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Performance indicators Index is to Est performance indicators related to SEP items with parameters that can be trended.

SEP Reference Number 15 Eagt.

. Increase HPES and IR Accountability through use of Perfonnance indicators

,, Procedural NoncompEance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . ... ........................... 51 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . ......................... ... 16 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations >1,000 Disintegrations / Minute Per Probe Area ...........17 Preventable / Personnel Error LERs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............................18 SEP Peference Numbers 25. 26.& 27

. Training Program for Managers and Supervisors implemented

. Evaluate and implement Station Standards for Safe Work Practice Requirements

. Implement Supervisory Enforcement of industrial Safety Standards Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate ...............................................15 Recordable injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 SEP Reference Number 31

. Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Manual and Conduct Project Management Training MWO Planning Status (Cycle 17 RefueEng Outoge) .......... ............................ 68 SSED's Overall Project Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Overall Project Status (Cycle 17 Refueing 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 (Correetive Non-Outage) ...............................47 SEP Reference Numbers 41 & 44

, . Develop and implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule

. Compliance WNh and Use of Procedures Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 86

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX SEP Reference Number 46

. Design a Procedures Controland Administrative Program Document Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ............ 57 SEP Reference Number 52 East

. Establish Supervisory Accountability for Workers Radiological Practices .

Radiological Work Practices Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 SEP Reference Number 54 '

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

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

. Improve Controls Over Surveillance Test Program

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

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

. Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Training and establish means to monitor Operator Training Ucense Operator Requalification Training . ... ........... . ... ............. . . . . . 65 .

Ucense Candidate Exams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. ....... 66 SEP Reference Number 71 '

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

DPORT DISTRIBUTION llST R. L Andrews C. A. Marasco G. C. Bishop T. J. Mcivor C. E. Boughter K. A. Miller J. L Bostelman P. A. Mruz

• ~ C. J. Brunnert R. J. Mueller J. W. Chase Nuclear Licensing (7)

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

R. H. Guy D. E. Spires A. L. Hale M. A.Tesar K. R. Henry J. J.Tesarek J. B. Herman J. W. Tills R. L. Jaworski D. R. Trausch J. W. Johnson B. J. Van Sant W. C. Jones L P. Waling D. D. Kloock G. R. Wiliams M. Edwards (7) S. J. Willrett L.T.Kusek B. R. Livingston 4

88 l