Text

Monthly Indicator Rept, Feb 1996
	ML20137N238
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie, Turkey Point
Issue date:	03/19/1996
From:	; FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20137K821	List: ML20137K816; ML20137K910; ML20137K940; ML20137K961; ML20137K972; ML20137K998; ML20137L016; ML20137L023; ML20137L046; ML20137L065; ML20137L077; ML20137L081; ML20137L092; ML20137L116; ML20137L130; ML20137L141; ML20137L162; ML20137L191; ML20137L205; ML20137L226; ML20137L346; ML20137L359; ML20137L389; ML20137L786; ML20137M723; ML20137M926; ML20137N194; ML20137N205; ML20137N211; ML20137N220; ML20137N238; ML20137N278; ML20137N314; ML20137N327; ML20137N343; ML20137N366; ML20137N431; ML20137N791;
References
	FOIA-96-485 NUDOCS 9704080301
	Download: ML20137N238 (61)
	v • d • e

,

l l

FPL NUCLEAR DIVISION j

TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR STATION i

ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR STATION l

l l

MONTHLY INDICATOR l

REPORT l

February 1996 i

l t

l l

i 1

k -

l i..ued: MarcN9 996 4

40 1 970402 i

DINDER96-485 PDR

FPL NUCLEAR DIVISION TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR STATION ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR STATION MONTHLY INDICATOR REPORT February 1996 l

i 1

i

/

) Lb Issued: Marc 9 1996 40 1 970402 DINDER96-485 PDR

4 I

I l

1 FOREW'RD O

i The Nuclear Division Monthly Indicator Report presents a compilation of performance indicators which provide a quantitative indication of performance. Specific areas of j

focus include nuclear and personnel safety, plant reliability, and economic performance.

The specific indicators included in this report have been se'ected by senior management as key indicators of operating performance.

Summaries of NRC indicator and WANO indicator performance have been incorporated in this raport.

Data contained herein will be refined on the basis of feedback from data providers, of continuing quality control efforts, and of comparisons to other data sources. Each monthly report will reflect the best available data.

i l

l I

i I

I

l f

l l

}

j TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreward i

D. PERSONNELINDICATORS Table of Contents ii OSHA Recordables.......

_ D.1

-=

LostTime injuries Regular Staffing.

....... D-2 Management Summary lii D-3 Nuclear Division Business Plan Indicator Overview y

E.TRAININGINDICATORS l

NRC Indicator Performance Overview Turkey Point vi Operator Exam Performance-Turkey Point Operator Exam Performance-St. Lucie

. E.1 NRCIndicator Performance Overview St. Lucie vii E-2 WANO Indicator Performance Overview viii WANO Indicator Variance Explanations fx Overdue Condition Ryorts...

QA Findings.

.... F.1 F-2 A. WANOINDICATORS NRC Violations: Cited and Non-Cited.

F-3 Ucenseo Event Reports (LF.Rs)

F.4 WANOWeightedOverallPerformance

.. A-1 INPO Astessment Ratings.

F-5 Unit Capability Factor....

...... A-2 NRCSALPCategoryRati1gs

.F-6 Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

... A 3 Unplanned Auto Trips Per 7000 Hours Critical.

. A.4 High Pressure Safety injection System Performance._.. A-5 G. MATERIALSINDICATORS Auxiliary Feedwater System Performance

.... A-6 Ernergency AC Power System Performance..-

Thermal Performance...

... A-7 inventory.

..... G-1 A-8 Fuel Reliability.

A-9 Chemistryindex..

... A.10 l

Radiation Exposure. ~.

H. TECHNICAL / ENGINEERING INDICATORS

... A-11 LowLevelWaste. -

. A 12 Open Plant Changes 2dLGuns

. H-1 IndustrialSafety Performance.

.. A-13 Open TemporarySystem Altera* ions....

H-2 B. OPERATIONSINDICATORS L RADIATIONPROTECTIONINDICATORS Equivalent Avaitability Factor...

B-1 Contaminated Floor Space..

.. 11 Capacity Factor (MDC Net)...

B-2 DryActrveWaste: Generated,ShippedOff-Site.

1-2 Fuel Utilizatien (PTN)

B-3 Personnel Contamination F. vents--

.... 1-3 Fuel Utilization (PSL)..... ~.-

. B-4 Radiation Exposure (Y.T-D)

.... l.4 Forced Outage Rate..... -

B-5 Unplanned Auto Trips.

..B-6 J. BUSINESSINDICATORS C. MAINTENANCEINDICATORS O&M Budget - DMsion'""

~ J-1

< vital Budget. Division."..".""""""_.".""""""" """~~ ". J-2 Open PWO's............ ~.....

. C-1 PWO Aging Curve..

C-2 PWO's Greater Than 12 Months 01d.......

... C-3 Appendix

{.

Non-Outage PWO's..

.. C-4 Control Room instruments Out of Service.

....... C-5 Distribution List.:

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

. Z.1 4

.U I

11 l

i l

l MANAGEMENT

SUMMARY

OPERATING PERFORMANCE Turkey Point Unit 3. Unit 3 achieved an EAF of 65.6%; power losses resulted from: an unplanned automatic trip (53.6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months ); Turbine Valve test (3.8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months ); waterbox and TPCW cleanings (0.6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months ); Amertap screen cleaning (4.3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months ); repair to the Feedwater Check Valve (1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months ); repair to 3B Feedwater Heater Fump (41.9 hours1.041667e-4 days 0.0025 hours 1.488095e-5 weeks 3.4245e-6 months ); grass intrusion (83.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months ); Rod Control card reading failure which resulted in a manual insertion of rods for shutdown (32.3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months ), and Chemistry hold (4.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months ). For the year, EAF was 83.3%

l which is below the 95.0% Y-T-D target.

l Turkey Point Unit 4. Unit 4 achieved a 100.0% EAF through February, exceeding the Y-T D target of 93.5%.

St. Lucie Unit 1. For the month, Unit 1 EAF was 88.9%. Power losses were the result of: a dropped CEA rod (64.9 hours1.041667e-4 days 0.0025 hours 1.488095e-5 weeks 3.4245e-6 months ) and waterbox cleanings (12.2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months ). For the year, EAF was 94.5% which is slightly below the Y-T-D target of 94.8%.

St Lucie Unit 2. Unit 2 essentially operated at full power achieving an EAF of 99.8% for the month. Power i

losses of 1.4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months res'ilted from repair to MSR Block Valves and Turbine Valve testing. Year-to-date, EAF l

was 87.9% which is below the target of 95.0%.

Y-T-D Equivalent Availability for the Nuclear Division was 91.4% which is below the 94.6% targeted through the period.

l An Unplanned Automatic Trip occurred at Turkey Point Unit 3; on February 9th, the 'B' Steam Generator Feed Pump was stopped to monitor its discharge check valve closing stroke which did not strike closed as expeted. The resulting feed flow transient caused the 'C' Steam Generator level to increase resulting in a turbine trip which tripped the reactor.

A summary of key plant operating statistics is summarized below.

PTN Unit 3 PTN Unit 4 February Y-T D February Y-T D Gross Generatior,!WMh) 323,526 862,310 504,313 1,046,564 Net Generation (Mvh) 306,886 821,685 481,644 999,512 l

Net Heat Rate (Btu 4 JVh) 11104.4 10921.9 10809 2 10786.7 Equivalent Availability 65.6 %

83.3 %

100.0 %

Capacity Factor 66.2 %

85.7%

103.9 %

104.2 %

Auto Trips 1

1 0

0 Forced Outage Rate 24.3 %

11.8 %

0.0%

PSL Unit 1 PSL Unit 2 l

February Y-T-D February Y-T-D l

Gross Generation (WMh) 541,339 1,191,589 620,620 1,115,020 Net Generation (MWh) 510,704 1,127,346 588,788 1,051,424 Net Heat Rate (Btu /KWh) 11066 2 11063.4 10815.0 10893.6 Equivalent Availability 88.9 %

94.5 %

99.8%

87.9 %

Capacity Factor 87.5 %

93.3 %

100.8 %

87.0 %

Auto Trips 0

0 0

0 Forced Outage Rate 9.1%

4.4%

0.0%

3.4%

iii

l MANAGEMENT

SUMMARY

REGULATORY PERFORMANCE No NRC Violations were received in February. However, St. Lucie reported four (4) potential violations as follows:

96-01 Temporary Procedure changes were made which involved changes of intent, without prior FRG review as required byTechnical Specifications. Exit Meeting Date: 2/20/96.

96-03 Operators failed to follow procedures for boron dilution. Exit Meeting Date: 2/8/96.

96-03 Inadequate design control of RCS boron dilution procedure. Exit Meeting Date: 2/8/96.

96-03 Inadequate 50.59 safety evaluation of change to boron dilution procedure. Exit Meeting Date:

2/8/96.

COST PERFORMANCE O&M expeditures for the month of February were $31.2 million which represented a budget underrun of $5.5 l

million (or 14.9%). This vnriance was primarily due to: St. Lucie non-outage project underruns, and underruns in materials and conracted services at Turkey Point due to outage cash flow revisions.

Febnjary O&M budget performance variances are stratified as follows:

Turkey Point Site Specific

$3.0 million (or 17.4%) below budget St.Lucie Site Specific

$1.5 million (or 10.0%) below budget Other Nuclear Division

$1.0 million (or 21.9%) below budget Capital expenditures for February were $2.5 million. This represented a budget underrun of $4.6 million (or 65.0%). The favorable variance was primarily due to: an underrun in the Cteam Generator Replacement Project (SGRP) due to a change in the outage start date, and during year cash flow revisions for various St.

Lucie plant projects.

For the month, Capital budget performance variances are detailed as follows:

Turkey Point Site Specific

$0.3 million (or 88.2%) below budget St. Lucie Site Specific

$4.0 million (or 60.2%) below budget Other Nuclear Division

$0.3 million (or 307.8%) below budget l

v

l l

This page intentionally left blank i

i i

l l

I L

l

NUCLEAR DIVISION BUSINESS PLAN INDICATOR OVERVIEW (DATA THROUGH FEBRUARY 29,1996) 1996 1996 1996 Indicator Plant Y-E YTD Y-T-D Comments Target Target Actuals Collective Radiation Exposure PTN s 275.0 s10.0 9.5 Turkey Point and St. Lucie were (Man Rem)

PSL s485.0 $25.0 9.0 below Y-T-D Man-Rem targets.

The SALP for St. Lucie ending I

NRC SALP Ratings 1/6/96 was 1.50;for PM, the period ends Aug.31.1996.

No NRC Violations were reported in y

February. PSL has four potential 0

NRC Violations violations for the month.

I W

1 Unplanned AutomaticTrips s3 PTN4 0

Turkey Point Unit 3 experienced PSL1 0

one automatic tripon February 9th.

PSL2 0

For tne year, O&M and Capital Capital 39.2 7.1 2.5 actuals. were below Year-End l

Budget Performance O&M 253.0 36.7 31 2 targets; underruns were mainly due

($ Millions)

Div. Total 292.2 43.8 33.7 to schedule revisions and project i

urjderruns.

PTN3 95.0 95.0 83.3 PTN4 exceeded the Y-T-D EAF PTN4 82.0 93.5 100.0 target in February.

Division EAF l

Equivalent Availability Factor (%)

PSL1 78.5 94.8 94.5 Y T D was 91.4%, which is below l

PSL2 95.0 95.0 87.9 the 94.6% Y-T-D target.

PSL Inventory was higher than the M&S Inventory Levels PTN s 38 372 i

Y E target due to retum of $2.5M of l

($ Millions)

PSL s 38 42.3 inventory.

Production Cost PTN 1.75 1.59 1.36 Production Costs ( /KWh) were (O&M and Fuel)

PSL 1.55 1.34 1.23 below the Y-T D targetin February.

'E in February, Division Total Cost r

Total Cost (O&M, Fuel, and Div. Total 4.56 4.09 j

Capital Carrying Costs)

(cKWh) was belowthe Y-E target.

FPL 2045.0 1971.0 Total Nuclear Division Staffing Level Nuclear Division LT Contr 463.0 460.0 year tcKiate was below the Y-E Staffing Levels Total 2508.

2431.0 target.

anuary Sh Mure RefueHng Refueling Outage PTN Outage schedules are as follows:

l Duration (Days)

PSL1 63 0

PTN3 03/08/97 PSL104/29/96 l

PSL2 NA 5

PTN4 03/04/96 PSL2 04/15/97 l

Lost Time injuries per 200,000 No Lost Time injuries or Restricted 0.

}

Hsurs Worked (12 Month Duty Cases were reported in Running)

February.

~

i y

4 NRC INDICATOR PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW t

t for Turkey Point (Data through Quarter Ending September 30,1995) usea Plant Self Trend Deviations Frorn Peer

,Z Short Term Group Median Lono Term OPERATIOj,$

Declined imoroved Worse Better Automatic Scrams While Critical Q

-0.22 Safety System Actuations 00 9

0.0 0.45 Significant Events 0.0 0.0

- 0.30 Safety System Failures 0.27

-0.30 0.0 Cause Codes (ALL LER's)

N Admnstrative Contml Problem 0.0 l 0.0 0.0 0.18E ucensed operator Problem 0.0 0:her PersonnelError 0.

00 Maintenance Pmblem

,' 0.

OD oesigntconstruenonanstanaten 0.25 009 I Fabrication Problem o.0 g,

Mscellaneous 00

{

SHUTDO M 00 0.18

- 0.04) l Safety System Actuations 3

0.0 0.78 kNN\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1

)

\\ 0.0 0.0 Significant Events 5.40 0.57 b%W

-0.51 Safety System Failures 0.53 2.40 j

Cause Codes (ALL LER's) g

-0.37 i

Admnstrative Control Problem a

0.29 030 A

025 Ucensed operator Problem 030 0.06l

{

Other PersonnelError 00 0.17E 99 0.10 Maintenance Prebiem E 0.05 0.12E Ah h h W W 120 3 0.10 Design /Construedorvinstanaten 04l 033J Fabncaton Problem Mhw 0.90

- 0.08E Oj 0#

4 Mscellaneous EORCED OUTAGES g

MM 0.06 l 0.04 Forced Outage Rate 0.05 0.03 Equipment Forced Outages

0 64 007

- 0.37 E

/1000 Commercial Hot s 0.26 i

i l

l l

1 I

I I

i 1

I 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 j

Not Calculated br Ope *ational Cycle Performance Index Performance Index NOTES Plant Self-Trend Short Term: Based on the slope of 8 linear regression kne plotted over each plant's data. Time intervals used in the trends are 4 Quarters for " Operations

and Forced Outages' indicators and 6 quarters for Snutdown' indicators.

Deviations from Peer Grouc Median Lona Term: Compansons are made of each plant to the performance of its peers over a 12 Quarter time interval Peer Grouos: PTN 3&4 Older Westinghouse 3-Loop.

\\i i

NRC INDICATOR PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW for St. Lucie (Data through Quarter Ending September 30,1995) lEGEM Plant Self Trend Deviations FromPeer Ed Short Term

.Grpu0 Median Lena Term Declined Improved Worse Better OPERATIONS Automatic Scrams While Critical

-0.56 0.18 030

-0.36 Safety System Actuatons Significant Events 00 0

0.0 0.22 Safety System Failures 0.0 0.67 Cause Codes (ALL LER's)

OD Adminstrative Control Problem 0.08 A

30 DE lxensed Operator Problem l

0.64 Other Personnel Error

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\N 0.72

-0.48 Maintenance Problem 028 0.28 l

DesignConstructioMrstanation l M025 0.40 l

Fabncation Problem I

loo A

0.40 Mscellaneous 0

0.18E mxN 0.45 SHUTDOWN ll l M Safety System Actuatons 0.0

-0.15 g Significant Events 00 0.22 0.01 Safety System Failures

\\

0.0 1.34 7

Cause Codes (ALL LER's) m

~

DM

- 0.06 Adminstrative Control Problem g

0.44 Licensed Operator Problem

.f 0.30 M

,Xher Personnel Enor E 0.00 0

020E Maritenance Problem l

DesgnConstrxtion/ Installation l

$0.20 o.0 Fabncation Problem i

10.0 M 017 f0 MsceRaneous FORCED OUTAGiS l

0.83

-0.10 l Forced Outage Rate

0.0 M 0.49 Equipment Forced Outages.

2.45

. - 0.82

/1000 Commercial Hours 0.0

@ 0.13 I

I I

i 1

I I

I i

l I

i i

I j

1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 i

N1 CaeJated for Ooeratonaf Cvele Performance inder Performance Index l

ID.IES l

Bant Self-Trend Short Term: Based on tne slope of a linear regression line plotted over each plant's data. Time intervals used in the trends are 4 Quarters for " Operations

and Forced Outages" indicators and 6 quarters for Shutdown

indicators.

Deviat'ons %m Peer Grouc Median Lena Term: Comparisons are made of each plant to the performance of its peers over a 12 Quarter time interval.

Pee Grouo: PSL 1&2 Combustion Engineenng with core protection calculator plants.

Vii

j WANO OVERALL INDICATOR PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW l

(Feb 9ary 29,1996)

Unit or Station Values Industry MedianValues* l PerformanceIndicators 3 year oistribution i

PTN 3 PTN 4 PSL1 PSL2 g/92 - 6/95) 2000 Goals l Unit Capability Factor (Unit %, 3-Yr.

3 88.6 %

87.3 %

77.8%

'77.7%

79.7 %

l 87.0%

Distribution Ending February 96)

Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (Unit 11.0*he4.4%i 6.0%

3.0%

2.9%

4.3%

7

%,3-Year Distr. Ending February 96)

Unplanned Automatic Scrams Per 7000 Hours Critical (Per Unit, 3-Year Distri-0.6 0.9 31.6) 0.7 1.0 1.0 bution Ending February'96)

W High Pressure Safety injection T

U System (Per Unit,3 Yeat Distribution 0.008

. _0.009.

t 0.025' 10.010:

0.003 0.008 not g

Ending December'95) available t-$

Auxiliary Feedwater System (Per '._a

.1,.d not j

Unit, 3-Year Distribution Ending

0.014 300111 0 0.010-

[0.014 '

O.004- 0.009 available g

December'95) cn

'm 4

d Emergency AC Power System (Per j

Unit, 3-Year Distribution Ending 0.003 0.003 30.019' O.012 0.009 - 0.014 "i

avaiable December'95)

Therrnal Performance (Ratio of Design i

to Actual Gross Heat Rate, 1 Yr.

99.9%

100.1 %

98.9%[

598.2 %I 99.4% "

99.5%

)

Distribution Ending February'96)

Collective Radiation Exposure (Man-y

~

Rem per unit per year,3-year running

'161^

161 -

1227N J227J 157 120 avg.ending February '96) f

^ ~ '

1 Volume of Low-level Solid Radioactive Waste (Cubic m' eters per unit per year, 362 36.2 53.0 53.0 62.0 #

45.0 3-year avg.ending February'96)

Chemistry Index (12-Mo. average 1.19 1.04 1.06 1.19 1.19 "

1.10 through February 96)

Industrial Safety Lost-time Accident Rate (Station rate per 200,000 man-hours 1

022 0.30 0.51 *,

0.40 worked ending February'96)

Fuel Reliability (Unit microcuries/g, 1.00E-6 1.51 5 1.69E 5 1.00E-6 Refe e c month ending February,96) 5.0E-04*"

NOTE: Shaded area denotes FPL performance is unfavorable to actual industry median.

l Source ofIndustry Data:

1995 Mid Year Report for Performance Indicators fer the U.S. Nuclear Utility Industry g/92 6/95 Distribution).

- 1995 Mid-Year Report for Performance indicators for the u.S. Nuclear Utility Industry p/94-6/95 Distribution).

- - 1995 Mid Year Report for Performance indicators for the u.S. Nuclear Utility industry (4/95-6/95 Distribution).

1

1995 Mid Year Report for Performance indicators for the u.S. Nuclear Utility Industry (1/9212/94 Distribution).

yj Rev. 3/20/96

i I

WANO OVERALL INDICATOR PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW Discussion of FPL Performance Unfavorable to industry Median (February 29,1996)

UNirCAPABILITY FACTOR i

(3 Years Ending 2/29/96)

St. Lucie Unit i. The 3-year running Capability Factor for the unit was 77.8%. Capability loss is attributed to the following: Refueling Outage and extension from ar29/93 to 6/17/93 (7.4%); Hot Leg Valve MV-3480 leak repairs from 3/29/94 to 4/2/94 (0.4%); Main Transformer trip from 6/6/94 to 6/11S4 (0.4%); Quench Tank leak repairs from 2/27/95 to 3/8/95 (0.9%); 1 A2 Reactor Coolant Pump seal repairs from 8/2/95 to 8/9/95 (0.7%); inoperable Power Operated Relief Valves from 8/9/95 to 8/17/95 (0.7%); and, inadvertent Containment Spray actuation and clean-up from 8/17/95 to 9/3/95 (1.3%) 182 Diesel Generator failure from 9/1/95 to 9/6/95 (0.5%); 1 A Diesel Generator Radiator leakage from 9/6/95 to 9/10/95 (0.4%); and, Code Safety Valve repairs and modfications from 9/11/95 to 10/13/95 (2.4 %). Other miscellaneous unplanned outages and derates accounted for the remaining 7.1% Unit Capability Factorloss.

St. Lucie Unit 2. Capability Factor for the three years ending 2/29/96 was 77.7%. CaManity loss is attributed to the following: 2A1 Reactor Coolant Pump repairs due to high vibration from 1/13/93 to 3/2/93 (02%); Pressurizer Nozzle leak repairs initiated on 3/2/93 through 4/1/93 (2.7%); dropped CEA's on 5/21/93 (0.5%); Condenser Tube leak repairs from 8/9/93 to 8/11/93 (02%); refueling outage from 2/13/94 to 4/22/94 (4.6%); shutdown for auto reactor trip investigation on 4/23/94 (0.3%); and, a refueEng outage from 10/9/95 to 1/5/96 (7.9%). Other unplanned outages and power reductions acx:ounted for the remaining 5.9% Unit Capability Factor loss.

UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR (3-Years Ending 2/29/96)

St. Lucie Unit 1. The Unplanned Capability Loss Factor for the three years ending 2/29/96 was 11.0% compared to an industry medan of 6.0%. Unplanned outages and power reductions contributing to this performance included:

Refueling Outage extension from 6/1/93 to 6/17/93 (1.6%); Waterbox cleaning due to jelly fish intrusion from 9/18/93 to 9/29/93 (0.7%); Hot Leg Valve MV 3480 leak repairs from 3/29/94 to 4/2S4 (0.4%); Main Transformer trip from 6/6/94 to 6/11/94 (0.4%); Quench Tank leak repairs from 2/27S5 to 3/8/95 (0.9%); 1 A2 Reactor Coolant Pump seal repairs from 8/2/95 to 8/9/95 (0.7%); inoperable Power Operated Relief Valves from 8/9/95 to 8/17/95 (0.7%);

inadvertent Containment Spray actuation and clean-up from 8/17/95 to 9/1/95 (1.3%) 1B2 Diesel Generator failure from 9/1/95 to 9/6/95 (0.5%); 1 A Diesel Generator Radiator leakage from 9/6/95 to 9/10/95 (0.4%); and, Code Safety Valve repairs and modifications from 9/11/95 to 10f31/95 (2.4%). Other miscellaneous unplanned outages and derates accounted for the remaining 1.0% Capability Loss.

St. Lucie Unit 2. The Unplanned Capability Loss Factor for the three years ending 1/31/96 was 9.4%. Major unplanned occurrences contributing to this performance included: 2A1 Reactor Coolant Pump repairs due to high vibration from 1/13/93 to 3/2/93 (0.2%); Pressurizer Nozzle leak repairs initiated on 3/2/93 through 4/1/93 (2.7%);

dropped CEA's on 5/21/93 (0.5%); shutdown for auto reactor trip investigation on 4/23/94 (0.3%); and, refueling l

outage extension from 12/1/95 to 1/5/96 (3.2%). Other unplanned outages and power reductions accounted for the l

remaining 2.5%in Capability Loss.

I i

IX

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC SCRAMS PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL (3 Years Ending 2/29/96)

St. Lucie Unit 1.

Increased rate for Unit I was the result of five auto trips occurring on 3/18/94,4/3/94, 6/6'94, IW26S4 and 7/855.

i HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM j

(3 Years Ending 12/31/95) i Turley Point Unit 4. Average performance was affected due to last year's on-line replacement of the HPSI pump motors following discovery of cracked rotor bars.

l i

St. Lucie Unit 1. Average peifogn.nce for the last three years was affected by on line Motor Operated Valve testing i

in the 3rd Quarter of 1994 and a breaker failure on 2B HPSI pump in the 1st Quarter of 1995.

1 St. Lucie Unit 2. In the 1st Quarter of 1995, average performance was affected as a result of Component Cooling Water (CCW) Heat Exchanger cleaning which placed the respective HPSI pump OOS due to lack of dedicated seal cooling.

l AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM (3 Years Ending 12/31/95) l Turkey Point. Average performance for both units was affected by the B AFW Turbine failure in the 4th Quarter of

^

1994 due to malfunction of the mechanical overspeed trip device;in the 3rd Quarter of 1995, performance was affected j

by: Part 21 repairs on the Trip and Trottle Valves, and Unit 3 outage work.

l St. Lucio. Average performance for three years was affected by failure in the 4th Quarter of 1994 of the 1C AFW Pump Govemor, in the 3rd Quarter of 1995, performance was attributed to: failure of the AFW PP 2C Steam l

Admission Valve MV-08-13 to open, a mechanical trip linkage for AFW PP 2C when the Electrical Overspeed Solenoid l

was energued, and a discrepancy between field wiring and plant wiring draw!"2 for the AFW PP 28.

i i

i EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR SYSTEM (3 Years Ending12/31/95) s St. Lucie Unit 1. Unit 1's average performance for three-years was the result of a high water jacket temperature trip of 1 A EDG and failure of the govemor on 182 during monthly surveillance run which closed off fuel to the 12 cylinder i

engine in the 2nd Quarter of 1995,18 diesel 12 cyinder engine valve failure in the 3rd Quarter of 1995, and 1B diesel i

due to replacement of the cooling water valves in the 4th Quarter 1995.

COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE - MAN-REM i

(3-Years Ending 2/29/96)'

j Turkey Point. The three-year running average Collective Radiation Exposure level for Turkey Point was 161 Man-Rem per unit which was greater than the industry median of 157 Man-Rem. Site performance was influenced by r

j scheduled refueling outages.

St. Lucie. Collective Radiation Exposure three-year running everage level for St. Lucie was 227 Man-Rem per unit j

which was greater than the industry median of 157 Man-Rem. Site performance was influenced by unplanned and j

scheduled outages.

a X

3

.. ~.

~.. -.. -

~. -

j WANO WEIGHTED OVERALL PERFORMANCE 100.0 c

FTN 3

+ * * * +

= = + FTN 4 j >

90.0 I

O PSL 2 a

i 80.0

]

.'o..'Q I

Q 70,0 O'

)

OM 60.o

.1 I

i 50.0

! sMlUptvli

'3991

.1982 1983 1984. ^1986

' 1J80

' 9 98 1W88 M

.;SSS 4.8f98 '

. 7JB6

.'W96

W55'

_10786' 1W36 12PU6

.r-MW33 57.5 71.2 90.7 91.9 91.5 91.3 90.4 e a MM4W 61 2 68.8 90.5 88.7 912 93.8 93.5

< * -PKli n*i 71.7 73.8 80A 84.7 64.8 65.4 86.0 l

t c.FSL2 7 ' f 81.8 81.1 74.6 73.0 67.4 67.8 72.5 DEFINmON -

1 The WANO Overall Performance Index is a composite indicator utilized to trend nuclear station performance.

The index is a weighted combination of the following 10 individual performance indicators:

1. Unit Capability Factor (16%)

5. Emergency AC Power (9%)

9. Thermal Performance (6%)

2. Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (12%)

6. Unplanned Auto-Scrams (8%)

10.Chemistryindicator(6%)

3. High Pressure Safety injection (9%)

7. Collective Radiation Exposure (8%) 11. Low-level Radwaste Volume (5%)

4. Auxiliary Feedwater System (9%)

8. PWR Fuel Reliability (7%)

12. Industrial Safety Accidents (5%)

4 INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE'-

STATIST;0_AL

SUMMARY

3 i

WANO-

)

i Through 2nd Quarter 1995 '.ndustry Median: 81.0%

l 1

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

i s

h l

}

1 A-1

UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR (3 Year Running Average) 100.0 0

PTN 3

=e FTN 4 9S.0

+ PSL 1

=* O

PSL2 i

industry Avg.

90.0 N

,q 4..

4 Dmsson Y-E 87.5% a g 85.o I.

O-O-4, j

' so.o 75.o O'

O...(

l 70.0 65.o

? tik iM 4 21001

.,eem 1003 rteet M

r.3AS

($58: 1328. 1438:

.. ems

-: ess' :7ms Wes' m 1025 11Jes 1856 VV* Fftt3M L 47.9 52.7 64.6 85.o 88.9 88.9 88.6 1

c:.W Ptste t d. k-42 2 61.8 63.7 86.7 87 2 87.3 87.3 i e fiesl1 M k 77.5 78 4 82.7 84.6 77.9 78.o 77.8 w e913.-3 C '

81.4 81.3 81.3 74.1 74.0 75.1 77.7 4tualmeFAut!

72.3_ -

74.8 76.5 78.8 81.2

?

'DEFINm0N-l Unit Capability Facter is the ratio of the available energy generation over a given time period to tre reference energy gereration over the same time l

period, expressed as a percentage with both energy generation terms determined relative to reference ambient conditions. Available energy j

generation is the energy that could have been produmd under referenm ambent conditions considering only imitations within control of plant management. i.e., plant equipment and personnel performance, and work control. Reference energy generation is the energy that mJld be produced 4

if the unit were operated continuously at fu!! power under referena ambient cordbons throughout the period. Reference ambient conditions are ermronmerft.' 2-%.'ns representative of the annual rnean (or typical) ambent conditions for the unit.

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE Est Y.-T4 3-vr Runnina Y-E Taroet i

WANO PTN 3 65.6 %

83.3 %

88.6 %

2 95.0 %

PTN 4 100.0 % 100.0 %

87.3 %

2 82.0 %

July 1992 June 1995 Median 79.7 %

PSL1 88.9%

94.5 %

77.8 %

2 78.0 %

12-mo.thruJuly1995 Median 84.5 %

PSL2 99.8 %

87.9%

77.7%

2 95.0 %

1995 Goal 80.0 %

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

I St. Lucie Unit land 2's Unit Capability Factor (3-yr. running average) performance through February 1996 was telow WANO's 3-yr. runn;ng industry median.

Data Source: GADS Report s3

J UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR

)

(3-year Running Average) 16.o O

PTN 3

)

+ - PTN 4

--O-- PSL 1

~

4

(

. O. PSL 2

.O'..i f

12.0 g-O.

Industry Avg.

l o '-*

y

'.) !

l io.o l

n-

\\

e.0 e

j 6.o O

Dmsen Y E: 3.2%

l 2.o o.o 674fnR1 11991 M00E 1ees 1984 1 988 t148 W 1328 14M0 888. 4eS1 328 ems

-926' 1946 3146 1936

%i1PTN 3 -

15.2 4.e 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.1 2.9 PTsid u 11.5 6.5 3.6 5.o 4.4 4.4 4.3

a

Pet.1 r N 5.1 5.9 2.6 42 10.8 10.8 11.o 4GL2 W 3.1 5.5 11.9 12.5 13.0 11.9 9.4 I

'induey Aes.)

82 7.6 8.4 5.5 4.6 DEFINITION j

Unplanned Capability Loss Factor is defined as the ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given period of tne to the reference energy generation, expressed as a percentage. Unplanned energy loss is energy that was not produced dunng the period because of unplanned shutdowns, outage extensions, or unplanned load reduchons due to causes under plant management mntrol. Causes of energy losses are i

considered to be unplanned if they are not scheduled at least four weeks in advance. Reference energy generation is the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conditions throughout the period. Reference ambient conditons are environmental conditions representativa of the annual mean (or typical) ambient condibons for the unit.

4 1

j

. STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE f

3-yr Running Avg WANQ PTN 3 2.9%

PTN 4 4.3%

July 1992. June 1995 Median 6.0%

PSL1 11.0 %

12 Mo.ending June 1995 Median 4.2%

PSL2 9.4%

1995 Goal 4.5%

1996 T3rget (all units): s 3.2%

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

' St. Lucie Units 1 and 2's Unplanned Capability Loss Factor performance for 3-yr running through February 1996 was higher than the WANO 3-year running industry median.

Data Source: GADS Report A-3

- - ~.

UNPLANNED AUTO TRIPS PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL (3-year Running Average) 1.e 4

^

PTN 3

'l

)

1.e O

* + *

PTN 4

--C-= PSL 1 I

]

9,4 k

O PSL 2 g

Industry Avg.

k *.

4 u

/

1.0 51 N """ ?

i i

g 0.e m

}

h p...

o... o 50.6 O

O

/

^

l 1

t

's l

i o

s

.4

~..

/

i i

r o.2 0.0 i

Mi".tinR P t1get 1ega iges 1 984 11985 2145

SDS

'Msi ti4SS' 398

5 98 745 846

GMG-1026 1 958 sats N4Fftl3 m ^

1.6 1.o o.o 0.3 o.3 o.3 0.6 J"7FfDf 4 :

1.7 1.4 o.0 1.3 o.9 o.9 o.9 i -

CEMt h 1.3 1.o o.9 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 49Est*

o.6 o.6 0.3 o.7 o.7 o.7 o.7 tedestryAug..

1.5 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 4

1 DERNmON i

i

?

Unplanned Automatic Scrams per 7000 Hours Criticalis defined as the number of unplanned automatic scrams that occur per 7000 hours0.081 days 1.944 hours 0.0116 weeks 0.00266 months of critical i

operation. Unplanned means that the scram was not an anticipated part of a planned test. Scram rneans the automatic shutdown of the reactor b a rapid insertion of negabye reactuity (by control rods, liquid injection shutdown system, etc.) caused by actuation of the reactor protection system.

j The scram signal may have resulted from exceeding a setpoint or may have been spurious. Automatic means that the inibal signal that caused I

actuaton of the reactor protecton system logic was provided from one of the sensors monitonng plant parameters and conditions rather than from I

the manual scram switches or, in certain cases described in INPO 94-009, from manual turbine trip switdies provided in the main control room.

j Critical means that dunng the steady-state condition prior to the scram, the effective reactor multiplication factor was essentially equal to one.

j STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE i

Through February i

12-mo.

aftmg.

N Division Totals:

l 1996 0.5 0.9 July 1992 June.995 Median 1.0 1995 4.1 1.0 12h endingJune 1995 Median 0.8 J

1995 Goal 1.0 4

DivisionTarget: s 3.0 auto tnps PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

,=

Turkey Point Unit 3 experienced an automatic trip on February 9th. The "B" Steam Generator Feed Pump was stopped to monitor its discharge check valve closing stroke which did not strike closed as expected. The resulting feed flow transient caused the 'C' Steam Generator level to increase resulting in a turbine trip which tnpped the reactor. Unit 3's 3-year running i

average of 0.6 was below the industry median.

St. Lucie Unit 1's 3-year running average of 1.6 exceeded WAN0's 3-year running average of 1.0 as a result of four trips occuringin 1994 and one in 1995.

A.4

i 1

i HIGH PRESSURE AND SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE (3-yr Running Average) 0.o40 l

0 PTN 3

-4 PTN4 0.035

--O-- PSL 1 O

PsL 2 0.030 e

industry Avg.

~

Dnnson Ye s 0.025 o.o25 l

l g o.o2o o.015 q

/

o.oto

/

~

o.005 i

~

o.ooo i

"tr /

M.

IN M.

' 4Ms '

GMe 1aMS I

I h$f M l,.i n

.1W1 M

1MB

24 1M I a PTN S 6 a 0.007 0.003 0.007 0.000 0.008 i

7 Pf884 tv7 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.00s 0.000 s

0.081 0.026 0.017 0.011 0.025

" M"l o

"* M 1*'r*

0.011 0.00s 0.018 0.007 0.010 f

seudustryAug/

0.00s 0.000 0.010 0.00s 0.00s i

~ DEFINITION This Safety System Performance indicator morutors the readiness of the Safety injechan (SQ System at Turkey Point and the High Pressure Safety injection (HPSQ System at St. Lucie to respond to offcormal events or accidents. The indicator is determined from the unavailabilites, due to all causes, of the components in the system during a time period, divided by the number of trains in the system. The definition is further explained:

--manent unavailability is the ratio of the hours the component was unavailable (unavailable hours) to the hours the system was required to be m

available for service. Data is reported on a quartetty basis.

Unavailability = (Known Unav=a=* Hours) + (Estimated Unavaitahia Hours)

(Hours System Required) x (Number of Trains)

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE 4

4th Ott 1995 Yr1995 3 vr Ava Endina 1995 PTN 3 0.002 0.003 0.008 g&NQ Unavailability 9

PTN 4 0.001 0.003 0.009

{

PSL1 0.000 0.023 0.025 July 1992 June 1995 Median (PWR) 0.003 0.008 i

PSL2 0.000 0.008 0.010 1995 Goal 0.020 Targets:

EIN ESL 1995 Y-E Target 5 0.016 s 0.023 1996 Y-E Target 5 0.025 5 0.025 7

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Turkey Point Unit 4's 3-year running average for Safety injection System performance was slightly above the industry mtdian.

j St. Lucie Units 1 & 2's High Pressure injection System performance for 3-years running was higher than the industry median, 1

=

i 4

i, 4

Data Providers: (PTN) Ed Lyons 246-6967/Carlos Melchor 246-6964 (PSL) Chuck Wood 467-7034/ Catherine Swialek 467 7081 4

A.C

4 SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE - AUXlLIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM (3-year Running Average)

PTN 3

. 4.. PTN 4

+ PS'.1 0.040 j

O =

PSL 2 l

i industry Avg.

f, l

f.030 i.

0 Dmson Y-E': s 0.025 I I e

s 0.020 A

[

j o

0.010 4

0.000 9%",4fnk W <

1 981 1 932

1993

1994 01NS VOE W?

SfBE P1 6

< W96 WB6 1N96 s

.--< rPIN 3

d 0.008 0.025 0.016 0.021 0.014 7.** PTN 4 ~ m 0.012 0.031 0.020 0.019 0.011 f." ? PSLP M 0.012 0.044 0 028 0.029 0.010 n POL't eM 0.017 0.014 0.012 0.000 0.014 a

f 3 buesstry AugJ 0.014 0.014 0.012 0.012 0.009 4

4 DEFINITION' This Safety System Performance indicator monitors the readiness of the Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System to respond to off-n events or accidents. The indicator is determined from the unavailabilities, due to all causes, of the components in the system during j

time period, div.ded by the number of trains in the system. This definition is further explained: comoonent unavailabiMV is the ratio of hours the component was unavailable (unavailable hours) to the hours the system was required to be available for service.

4 AFW Unavailability = (Known Unavailable Hours) + (Estimated Unavailable Hours)

(Hours System Required) x (Number of Trains)

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE 4th Qtt1995 Yr1995 3-vr Ava Endino 1995 WANO Unavailability PTN 3 0.006 0.009 0.014 PTN 4 0.013 -

0.011 0.011 July 1992 June 1995 Median (PWR) 0.004 0.009 PSL1 0.002 0.003 0.010 PSL2 0.000 0.029 0.014 1995 G0a!

0.025 Targets:

EIN

!sil, 1995 Y-E Target s 0.020 s 0.021 1996 Y E Target 5 0.025 s 0.025 PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 Auxiliary Feedwater System performance for 3-years running through 1995 was lower than the yearend target and higher than the industry median.

St. Lucie Units 1 & 2 Auxiliary Feedwater System perfumance for 3-years running ending 1995 was below the year-end 4

i target and higher than the industry median.

4 Data Providers: (PTN) Jose Donis 246-6008/ Woody Raasch 246-6527 (PSL) Chuck Wood 467-7034/ Mark Wolaver 467-7083 A.#

I SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE - EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM i

(3-year Running Average) 1 O.026 Dmson Y-E so.02$ E I 2

l 0.024 I

j 0.022

= +

FTN 4 i

0.020

--O---PSL 1 0.018 0.016 0.014

d. -

\\

/

~

3 j

g c.012 c

4 0.010 0.008 0

Y j

0.006 t

I 0.004 l

0.002 g

0.000 j

J < Lunk 4 4 1991 1982

1983

'1004 r2005 W of 3fB6 dC

.W88 efts '

W

.12fts O PTN3 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.003

- PTN 4 -4 0.015 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.003

' erPSL1 h 0.013 0.019 0.012 0.010 0.019 W 98Lau4 0.010 0.003 0.011 0.007 0.012 j

indueluyAug.*

0.017 0.017 0.020 0.014 0.014 1

i DEFINITION.

Emergency AC Power System is defined as the sum of the emergency diesel generator unavailabilities divided by the number of emergency generators at a station. Data is collected at the train level. The emergency generator includes subsystems 2

such as air start, lube oil, fuel oil, cooling water, etc. However, for this safety system performance indicator, unavailable hours are counted only when the emergency generator is unavailable to start or load-run. For example, if a component fails in one train of a redundant support system the emergency generator is still operable, and no unavailable hours are counted.

STATISTICAL.

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE

,V j.H5 3 vr Av0 Endino 1995

)NARQ Unavailability 4th Ott 1995 i

PTN 3A&B 0.007 0.004 0.003 PTN 4A&B 0.007 0.003 0.003 July 1992 June 1995 Median (PWR) 0.009 0.014 2

PSL1A&B 0.049 0.046 0.019 PSL 2A&B 0.004 0.002 0.012 1995 Goal 0.025 Targets:

EIN PSL 1995 Y E Target 5 0.015 s 0.016 1996 Y E Target 5 0.025 s 0.025 PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 Emergency AC Power performance for 3-years running ending 1995 was below the year-end target and industry median.

St. Lucie Unit 1 Emergency AC Power performance was higher than the year-end target and industry median for 3-years running through 1995. Unit 2 performance was below the year-end target and industry median for this period.

Data Providers: (PTN) Dan Tornaszewski246-6158/ Jim Freyre 246-6539 (PSL) Chuck Wood 467 7034/ Roger Kulavich 467-7080 A."1

THERMAL PERFORMANCE (12-Month Running Average) j 101.o 2

%=PTN 3

- +

PTN 4

+ PSL 1

,,a,

+-+

.. o..Pst a a

industry Avg.,

4

,' i g-Dmsion Y-E: 99.5% l I 88 0 e

3 i

m

..c.

o...o 98.o

', /

D' 97.0 M.Ahe ; M

tet - ;m m

124' *1ms

1ms

m.

2228' s4fse

.sms. sales

' 713 6 -

4 afs6

. 8f86' 1m 11tes 1226 I

? phi 9 V w 99.3 9J.2 100.4 100.3 99.8

~99.8 99.9

4 MPFN 4 m 98.7 99.0 99.7 99.7 100.1 100.1 100.1

^ - P8L1'.m 99.0 99.3 90 2 99.0 90.0

.g 9 98.9 x

T/188.3 * :

99.8 99.3 97.8 98.5 98.1

'12 982 i

lasustryAug.t 99 2 99.3 99.4 99.4 99.4 DEFINmON "

i r

l Thermal Performance is tiu ratio of the design gross heat rate (corrected) to the adjusted actual gross heat rate. Gross heat rate is defined as the ratio of total thermal energy produced by the reactor core to the total gross electrical energy produced by the i

generator during a given time period. Design gross heat rate (corrected) is the minimum theoret cal heat rate that can be attained at design operating conditions for 100 percent power, expressed in British thermal units (BTUs) per idlowatt-hour (electric).

Adjusted actual gross heat rate is the gross heat rate attahed in the normal equipment lineup during one 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months pericd each month, expressed in BTUs per kilowatt-hour (electric) power level should be greater than 80 percent.

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE 1

1 Enh 12-uo Avernoe W.8MQ PTN 3 100.0 %

99.9 %

PTN 4 100.0 %

100.1 %

July 1994 July 1995Medi3n 99.4 %

PSl;1 99.2 %

98.9 %

1995 Goal 99.5 %

l PSL2 99.3 %

98 2 %

1 l

1996 Target (all units): 99.5%

n.

l PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 Thermal Performance for February 1996 was higher than the year-end target. For 12-mo. running l

average, Units 3 and 4 performance was higher than WANO's 12-mo. running industry average.

St. Lucie Units 1& 2 Thermal Performance for the month was below the year-end target. Performance for 12-mo. running was l

below WANO's 12-mo. ruaning average.

j Contacts: Jennifer Nicholson (PTN) 246-6827 4

Marty Smit (PSL) 4677257 A.9

i FUEL RELIABILITY l

(Fuel Cycle / Monthly) 4 i

1.ooE@

i c

PTN 3

}

-O--PSL 1

+ Pru.

= O - PSL 2 I

T A4 1.ooE42 4

8

[g.

\\.

f, 1.00E43 m

1.ooE-o4 Fuel Defect Reference E_0EQ J l uJ 1)

.J 1.00E4s 1

1.ooE46 O

O i

l 1.ooE47

=

)

veialmit %

< EPry.sous Q + CyclesM '-

c1me: 3 28-aafse t4fse '.sies'

efse M

< afse tafse - 1cfB6 1146 1afe6 4

s m-Mu s c a 44ssa 1 44s 4 s 70s4 i 7ssa ases4 ims4 im4 5:

PTN41 a sJ4s4 1.oes4 7 4ss.4 i cos4 smE4

t. sis 4 l

= PSt.1' a ases4 a41s4 s17s4 1 oos4 4.ars4 i ess4 4

ePSI;219 1 01 s 4 1 71s 4 seas 4 esos4 s eas4 1.ons4 ims4 j

incuatrydWat:

5.cos4 i

DEFINITION.

l TNs indicator is defined as the steady-state primary molant iodine-131 activity (truerocuries/ gram) corrected for the tramp contribution and power

~

level, and normalized to a common purification rate and average Enear heat generation rate. The indicator value is calculated based on the average i

of the three montNy values for the most recent quarter of steady-state operation above 85 percent power. Steady state is defined as mntinuous operation for at least three days at a power level that does not vary more than i 5 percent.

l Note: If a calmfated monthly value for a unit is less than 1.0E-6 merocunes per gram, the value is replamd by 1.0E 6 microcuries per gram.

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

i Enh Cyde No.

W.&tQ PTN 3 1.00E-06 15 j

PTN 4 1.51E45 15 1994 Fuel Defect Reference Threshold (PWR) 5.00 E-04 j

PSL1 1.69E-05 13 1994 Median 7.36 E 05 i

PSL 2 1.00E-06 9

1994 Best Quartile 3.00 E-06 i

DivisionTargetforeachunit s4.50E-03

)

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Unit 3 and 4's Fuel Reliability continues to indicate zero fuel defects in Cycle 15.

i e

For Unit 1, Reactor Coolant System radioisotopic data and spiking iodine following a reactor shutdown at the end of 4

February and in July indicate the presences of one third <ycle failed fuel rod in the current Cycle 13.

Unit 2 Fuel Reliabihty continues to indicate zero fuel defects in Cycle 9.

e Data Source: Modesto Jimenez 694-3323 d

A.O

CHEMISTRY lNDEX (12 Month.e. Running Average) 1.40

[

O PTN 3 l

+ - PTN 4

{

130

--O-- PSL 1

(

- O - PSL 2 Industry Avg.

()

R

} 1.20 Dmsion Y-E: s 1.20 1.15 i

l 1.10 l

=

l 1.00 l

l wh:.4anit,* A

test ateeE.'1ees e

tees

.1as

.mes sans' e m

ens 7 Fee ans tems-m was 1ses j

'5PrN 3 x 4 1.18 1.18 1.19

)

(

w PTN d' ' ^1 1.04 1.04 1.04 I

a PSL1 %

124 120 1.06 s L PS4:2 ' u 1.17 1.19 1.19 j

'ingiusky Aug.'-

1.19 DEFINmON -

The Chemistry index compares the concentration of selected impurities to the laniting values for those impurities. Each impunty value is divided by the limiting value for the impurity, and the sum of these ratios is normalized to 1.0. The limiting values are the ' achievable values

defined by intemational industry-accepted values.

1 l

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE Enh Edl 12-Mo. Erdna WAtQ PTN 3 1.05 1.04 1.19 (PWR's with Recirculating Steam Generators not on Molar Ratio l

PTN 4 1.04 1.04 1.04 Control)

PSL1 1.07 1.04 1.06 July 1994 June 1995 Median 1.19 l

PSL2 1.16 1.22 1.19 1995 Lowest Chemistry index Value Attainable 1.00 1996Targetforeachunit 51.20 PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

l Turkey Point and St. Lucie's Chemistry Index performance for 12-mo. running was below the year-end target of s 1.20 and the j,

industry median.

i Data Sources:

Bob Frechette (PTN) 246-6118 R. Steinke (PSL) 465 3213 a.m

I RADIATION EXPOSURE (3-year Running Average) l

'00 l

! PTN

-<>- PSL 3so - - ^

l

-*-Industry Avg.

I 300 l

h gso h

C 3

PSL:35 Avg g l 8

Tatget s229.2

% M l

E 2

PTN: 3y Avg g ;

W TarDet s.170.8 Y

100 l

I so o

P. + Plant m

?tSS1

'1982

1908 1994 1905 5146 T286 ISWE 4 35' LEGE EfBS -

17JB6

'448

<tOS 1026 11/58 1248

' hFrN r / s 350 332 257 181 162 162 161

e. pE.C AJ 274 238 193 202 230 229 227 GudebyAss;I%

183 193 193 144 157 DEFINmON -

Collective Radiation Exposure is the total extemal whole-body dose received by all personnel (including contractors and visitors) coming en site during a time period, as measured by the prmary dostmeter, thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) or film badge.

Exposure measured by direct reading dosimeters should be included only for those periods or situations when more accurate data is not available to the utility from TLD's or film badges. in order to correlate this indicator with the new 10 CFR 20 reporting guidelines, U.S. utilities report deep dose equivalent (DDE) and the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE).

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

- INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE 3-vr Runntna ner Unit ITN 161.2 PSL 227.4 (PWR's) Median 3-yr Detribution (7/92 6/95) 157 Te MM PTN: Y E thru 1996 s 170.8 1995 Goal 185 PSL: Y-E thru 19%

s 229 2 PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Turkey Point Collective Radiation Exposure for 3-years running through February 1996 was 161.2; performance was slightly higher than WANO's 3-yr. running median of 157, i

St. Lucie's Collective Radiation Exposure for 3-years running through February 1996 of 227.4 was higher than WAN0's 3-yr. running median.

Data Providers:(PTN) John Lindsey 246-6548 (PSL) H.M. Mercer 467 7302

e LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE (3-year Running Average) ido

- +- PTN g

--0-- PSL 120

-*-industry Avg.

100 E

d 2g PSL Y E: 67.5 l M

C 3

m WE: 55.6 1 4

W 20 l

o Ft v plant C ctGB1 - IM

tdes

'JSD4 19905

1AS~

ists 7308' rats "mGS

'8 88 7J88: :M

'ans 1tWpe 11/88 12fBS M JPfpl 2" -<;

125.3 102.3 81.2 63.4 37.4 36.7 36.2

'1-c - PSI;'.% 121.1 103 8 80.7 75.4 53.7 53.3 53.0 i

(

Meg,W.] 85.o 87.0 45.0 46.0 62.0 l

l

. DEFINITION i This indicator is defined as the volurne of low-level solid radioactive waste that has been processed and is in frial form (for exarnple, cornpacted or solidified) ready for deposal during a given period. It is calculated using the amount of waste in final form, including the container, actually shipped for disposal from both on-site and off-site facilities, plus the change in inventory of final-form waste in storage at both on-site and off-site facilities.

1 STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

~.

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE 3-vr Runnino thru Feb foer unit)

M 362 (2 Unit Site)

Median 3-yr Distribution Median (1992 1994) 62.0 MonTgts.

199512 Mo. average ending one 1995 29.0 25W 110.0 PTN 1996 Y E 67.5 cu. mtr..per unit l

PSL 1996Y-E 55.6 cu. mtr. per unit PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Turkey Point and St. Lucie's Solid Waste Disposal performance for 3-yrs. running was below WANO's 3-yr. industry i

median.

Data Sources: Bob Schuber 246-7227 Bruce Somers 467-7305 4 19

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE (12-Month Running Average) 1.00 l

-+ - PTN

--O-- PSL

~

0.80

~

t sM 2g 0.70 k

I,,,

/K

\\

0.80 0.40 f

v x

i L - s0E 0.30 0

0

! l j

020 0.10 0.00

- Plant t~

'1991

.1002 1983

1994

'1995

128. *228 "3SS 438

'548 446

!7/98

' af98

.946 10SE 11JBS 1928

~. FTN r 0.25 0 67 0.36 0.50 022 0.22 022

- PSLt '

O.75 0.81 0.50 0 51 0.40 0.30 0.30 adustyAuf a 0.97 0.77 0.77 0.64 0.50

+

DEFINITION -

Industrial Safety Accident Rate is defined as the number of accidents per 200,000 man-hours worked for all utility personnel permanently assigned to the station that result in any of the following: (1) one or more days of restricted work (excluding the day of the accident); (2) one or more days away from work (excluding the day of the accident); and, (3) fatalities. Contractor personnel are 4

notincluded for thisindicator.

Industrial Safety Accident Rate = (number of restncted-time + lost-time accidents + fatalities) x 200.000 (number of station marrhours worked)

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE j

124Ao-Endine (Feb)

July 1994 June 1995 Median 0.51 1994 Average 0.64 195 W 0.50 Division Targets:

PTN 1996 Year-End 030 PSL 1996 Year-End 0.30 PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Turkey Point's industrial Safety Accident Rate for 12-mo. running through February 19% was below the year-end target e

andindustry median.

St. Lucie's rate of 0.30 for 12 m0. running through February 1996 was equal to the year end target and below the industry

[

median.

Contact:

W. Korte 6944 235 l

\\

A.11

._m

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

se EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR (Year to Date) 100.0 90.0 j(..{ g'

,y o=='oa Tar 9et 87 e% ii

- + -PTN 4l c

PTN 3 70.0

'f

---O-PSL 1 I0 ll a0

- O PSL 2 h 50.0 a

i, 40.0

/

30.0 20.0 b

10.0 0.0

& Unt "

'1991 c1Sta-

1883 (1984

' 1m5.. clas, 4338 7348-4 35 ISfBE -.M N

FW361 :Wes:

.1Wes

11/ss

1245

- PfM3 3 22.3 66.3 94.6 83.5 88.7 99.9 83.3 4H841 13.9 85.5 81.1 83.1 97.4 100.0 100.0 a flgL 1 "-

78.5 95.4 74.0 84.5 75.3 99.6 94.5

/W6 96.5 73.2 71.8 77.4 72.9 76.8 87.9 DEFINITION Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF) is the ratio of the actual energy production capability to the energy that would be produced operating at full power for the same period expressed as a percent. Equivalent Availability provides an indication of the effectrveness of plant programs and practices in maxirnizing electncal generation.

EAF% = Available Hours -(Eauivalent Unit Derated Hours) x 100%

Period Hous STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

o I

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE Egk 9 Y T-D Taroet 3-vr Run. Av NERC/ GADS PTrJ 3 65.6 %

83.3 %

95.0 %

88.6 %

1W s) 77.8 %

PTN 4 100.0 % 100.0 %

93.5 %

87.3%

l PSL1 88.9 %

94.5 %

94.8 %

77.8%

1 R's)

PSL 2 99.8 %

87.9%

95.0 %

77.7%

1990 M M M 7 l.2'/.

Division 88.6 %

91.4 %

94.6 %

82.8 %

u

- uly MS Man 82.4*/.

1996 Division Y-E Target-87.6 %

19% Year-End Forecast 87.1 %

5 Average 77.4 %

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

l Major contributors to February 1996 Equivalent Availability loss for the Division was as follows:

PTN Unit 3: Reactor Trip Steam Generator High on 2/9/96 (54 hours6.25e-4 days 0.015 hours 8.928571e-5 weeks 2.0547e-5 months ); Off-line grass influx (83 hours9.606481e-4 days 0.0231 hours 1.372354e-4 weeks 3.15815e-5 months ); and Rod Control System 4

failure (32 hours3.703704e-4 days 0.00889 hours 5.291005e-5 weeks 1.2176e-5 months ).

PSL Unit 1: Dropped CEA #47 on 2/23/96 (64 hours7.407407e-4 days 0.0178 hours 1.058201e-4 weeks 2.4352e-5 months ).

Data source: GADS Report n.i

.__ _ __. ~....

I l

CAPACITY FACTOR (MDC NET) i (Year-to-Date) 110.0 c

PTN 3'

%* * * +

O 100.0

.. +.. PTN 4-

--o-- PSL 1 90.0

- O PSL 2 83.0 4**

I

,0 =

o' 70.0 D'

1 J 80.0 I

!?

1

$ 50.0 40.0

/

1 30.0 20.0 k

b 10.0 0.0 j

htsntt 7 1991 J1982 "1983

1994 5 905

'148, tags r3SS

4 TBS.

WBS - '848*

'726-

- 8/95 948 1856

.1126 12/96' j

"M3; 22.5 58.4 97.0 84.8 89.5 103.9 85.7 emd 13.7 79.3 81.4 83.0 99.5 104.5 104 2 4

i PSL.1 %. '

7G.8 96.9 73.9 84.1 75.0 98.8 93.3 j

s PSI.2 A 101.1 73.7 64.1 78.3 71.9 74.1 87.0

)

4 DEFINITION i

1 Capacity Factor (CF) is the index of the actual electncal energy produced by the unit with respect to its potential.

CapacityFactor =

Net ElectncalGeneration X 100 j

Maximum Dependable Capacity (839 or 666) X Period Hours

)

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

~

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE NERC/ GADS feh Y-T-D 12-mo. end.in 1994 Avg PWR's 76.7 %

PTN 3 66.2 %

85.7 %

86.6 %

I 1994 Avg AllTypes 72.8 %

PTN 4 103.9 % 1042 %

99.5 %

1990-1994 PWR's 72.8 %

PSL1 87.5 %

93.3 %

74 2 %

19901994 AllTypes 69.5%

PSL2 100.8 %

87.0%

70.8 %

WANO Division 89.6%

92.6%

82.8 %

July 1994-July 1995 Median 82.4 %

July 1994 July 1995 Average 77.4 %

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Major contributors to February 1996 Capacity Factor loss for the Division was as follows:

PTN Unit 3: Reactor Trip Steam Generator High on 2/9/96 (54 hours6.25e-4 days 0.015 hours 8.928571e-5 weeks 2.0547e-5 months ); Off-line grass influx (83 hours9.606481e-4 days 0.0231 hours 1.372354e-4 weeks 3.15815e-5 months ); and Rod Control System failure (32 hours3.703704e-4 days 0.00889 hours 5.291005e-5 weeks 1.2176e-5 months ).

PSL Unit 1: Dropped'CEA #47 on 2/23/96 (64 hours7.407407e-4 days 0.0178 hours 1.058201e-4 weeks 2.4352e-5 months ).

Data source: 1192 Reoort i

I l

ft.9

PTN FUEL UTILIZATION FACTOR Turkey Point Unit #3, Cycle 15 Turkey Point Unit #4, Cycle 15 500.

500 450 Planned Refuehng Date: March 8.1997 450 Planned Refueling Date: March 1.1996 Revised Date: March 4,1996 350 350 -

E 300 -

300<

250 250 -

U 200 200-kJ 150 -

150 -

100 -

tug 50 -

50 -

o 0

n Prties ta Mhit.

'elser

Osc. idas (gr b i& Mar JApr.

14Asy h

Je8 Ass Sep Oct

> tior

>Dec

.Jun e

.gr ir ear':

e W flunneeT4 5

35 86 98 127 158 188 219 249 281 312 342 373 403 435 486 494 501 wi4 mud W7 18 47 78 109 128

Verlease(ed.)*

13 12 12 11 1

wy pgglG8 ye helumnse W+

4 34 64 91 121 150 180 209 239 269 298 328 357 387 417 445

' ? 4W -- N 13 42 73 101 125 155 186 215 246 276 306 337 366 397 428 457 f

Melange (44 '

9 8

9 10 4

3 6

6 7

7 8

9 9

10 11 12 i

~

DEFINm0N'.

Fuel utilization plots the amount of nuclear coergy used during the current fuel cycle. The amount of nuclear energy loaded into th core is expressed in effective full power days (EFPD). One EFPD is the equivalent of operating the reactor at maxrnum thermal rating (2200 at PTN or 2700 at PSL) for a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months period. Planned energy is compared to actual energy used during the cycle. Fue l

utifization is directly related to plant performance The significance of variance EFPD(+/-) is the difference between planned and actual energy consumption. Fuel utilization can be used to project longer or shorter operating fuel cycles.

Actual Energy / Calendar Days : Fuel Utillastion Factor Fuel Cycle Operating Assumptions

.P.INJ In accordance with the April 26,1995 Approved Operating Schedule (AOS), Unit 3, Cycle 15 is scheduled to run 498 l

calendar days (Ocbber 27,1995 to March 8,1997) with design energy to rur 501 (EFPD) days. NQIE: Due to the 34 day l

outage, startup began on October 7,1995,20 days earlier than planned PTN 4: Unit 4, Cycle 15 ended on March 4,1996.

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Unit 3 achieved a Fuel Utilization Factor of 65.0% and operated for 454 effective full power hours in the month of February. For e

j the period October 27,1995 to February 29,1996, the Fuel Utilization Factor was 102.0%.

i Unit 4 achieved a Fuel Utilization Factor of 99.6% and operated for 693 effective full power hours in the month of February. For the period of November 27,1994 to February 29,1996, the Fuel Utilization Factor was 102.7%.

Data provider: Jimmie Perryman 694-3330 n.1

f 4

PSL FUEL UTILIZATION FACTOR St. Lucie Unit #1, Cycle 13 St. Lucie Unit #2, Cycle 9 5m Onginal Planned Refuehng: April 8,1996 P'

RhW h W 4 W Revaed Date: April 29.1996 400 400 -

}

( 350 -

YM^

I 250 -

3..

3,.

2 B

B; 150~

150 -

100 -

too.

50 -

4 a

o 0J

pst,et o

-Nov

.Dec Jan Feb RAer Jor~

90ey

.Jun

.Jul '.

Aug

Sep

' Out Nov Dec

'Jen Feb

, lier Apr:

" flanned O 11 41 68 98 127 158 187 217 247 276

'J06 335 366 396 423 453 461 L. Actual 4

29 60 86 109 139 170 199 227 227 227 244 271 302 331 357 4

Marianos N-)

18 19 18 11 12 12 12 10

-20

-49

-62

-64

-64 65 66

"- v P81.82 w e

- Planned --

5 36 67 95 126 155 186 215 247 276 306 336 365 397 427 455 485 500

. Actual : -

0 0

23 52

]

Variance M-) -

-5

-36

-44

-43 l

DERNmON-Fuel utilization plots the amount of nuclear energy used during the current fuel cycle. The amount of nuclear energy loaded into the cere is expressed in effective fuH power days (EFPD). One EFPD is the equivalent of operating the reactor at maximum thermal rating (2200 at PTN or 2700 at PSL) for a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months period. Planned energy is compared to actual energy used during the cycle. Fuel utilization is directly related to plant performance. The significance of variance EFPD(+/-) is the difference between planned and

{

actual energy consumption. Fuel utiftzation can be used to project longer or shorter operating fuel cycles.

Actual Energy / Calendar Days :: Fuel Utilization Factor

)

Fuel Cycle Operating Assumptions PSL1: In accordance with the October 28,1994 Approved Operating Schedule (AOS), Unit 1, Cycle 13 was scheduled to begin operation December 20,1994. This provided for a cycle of 475 calendar days with design energy to run 461 effective fun power 3

days (EFPD). Unit 1, Cycle 13 actually began operation November 29,1994 and is currently scheduled to refuel April 29,1996.

[LQTE: Per the revised AOS dated February 8,1996, the unit will shutdown 21 days later than previously scheduled, 4

i ESL2: In accordance with the April 26,1995 AOS, Unit 2, Cycle 9 was scheduled to begin operation November 24,1995. This provided for a cycle of 508 calendar days with design energy to run 500 EFPD. Unit 2, Cycle 9 actually began operation January 5, 1996 and is currently scheduled to refuel April 15,1997.

- PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Unit 1 achieved a Fuel Utilization Factor of 81.2% and operated at 565 effective fuH power hours in the month of February. For the period of December 20,1995 through February 29,1996, the Fuel Utilization Factor was 78.1%.

Unit 2 achieved a Fuel Utilization Factor of 99.3% and operated at 691 effective full power hours in the month of February. For e

the period of November 24,1995 through February 29,1996, the Fuel Utilization Factor was 54.7%.

Data provider. Ruben Rodriouez 694-3345 J

4.J

1 FORCED OUTAGE RATE i

(Year-to-Date) f 30.o i

3 0

PTN 3!

- + - PTN 4 25.0

--O--- PSL 1 O

PSL 2

[I.

[

l 20.0 l

\\

I.f 0

15.0 0"

y 10.0

' o '.

1 O,

e e

s 5.o

/

(

'1 o.O 2

^

- LUnitO

'19et' L190a.

'1983

'1984

.1985

.t186'.

.3 58 ists

^405 - 6 4 90'

7/06

<448 See 14W96 1126 1345

)

MN3u 12 15.6 1.8 1.9 0.5 0.0 11.8 VM354 r 1.8 132 2.0 3.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 h

- fWit i 1.2 3.5 2.'

39 21.8 0.0 4.4

' 49M/3 e 0.0 8.1 2: 5 2.3 2.4 7.0 3.4 i

. DEFINITION l

Forced Outage Rate is the percentage of time that the unit was unavailable due to forced events compared to the j

full power operation. A forced outage exists when the unit requires immediate removal from service, i.e. the unit i l

to the grid. This type of outage usually results from immedete n.:'chanical/electricakhydraulic controls systems and ope iniatiated trips in response to unit alarms.

Forced Outage Rate Forced Ouloe Hours x 100%

Forced Outage Hour 4 + Service Hours STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

o INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE Egh Y-I-Q 12 Mo. Endino NERC/ GADS PTN 3 24.3 % 11.8%

2.6%

1994 (PWR's) 8.1%

PTN 4 0.0%

0.0%

1.5%

1994 (Alltypes) 10.6%

PSL1 9.1%

4.4%

22.5 %

1990-1994 (PWR's) 7.6%

PSL 2 0.0%

3.4%

2.0%

1990- 1994 (M types) 10.8%

i 3

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

3 Turkey Point Unit 3 Forced Outage Rate for February resulted from an automatic trip, repair to tne Feedwater Check j

to 3B Feedwater Heater Pump, and grass intrusion. Unit 3's 12 month ending average was below industry median.

Unit 1 Forced, Outage Rate for February was the result of a dropped CEA rod. Unit l's 12-month ending average of 22.5%

higher than the industry median.

i a

Data Source: GADS Report 1

B-5

f i

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC TRIPS WHILE CRITICAL (Year-to-Date) 5 0

PTN3

+==PTN4

---O-- PSL1

)

-- O PSL4 4

^

Division Target s 3,

3 I

k 2

l

's A

e g

/

l o

O O

504fnN '

1991.

1982.

1983'.

.1004

.1005 W X

M/

4 36;

W96 iefts -

! 7 JOB.

itf06.

> $198 '

1WOG l.11/96_

12/96,j uMN3..

0 0

0 1

0 0

1 M MN4 "

0 1

1 2

0 0

0 wpSL11 2

1 0

4 1

0 0

-tPGL2 ?

0 1

1 0

0

)

DEFINITION An Uplanned Auhmatic Scram is a non-manual actuation of the reactor protection system that results in a scram signal any time the unit is critical Scrams that are planned as part of special evaluations or tests are not included in this definition. This indicator provides an indication of success in improving plant safety by reducing the number of undesirable and unplanned thermal-hydrauliv and reactivity transients requiring reactor scrams STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE Etk H-Q 12-Month EndiDg LNPQ Trios oer unit PTN 3 1

1 1

Trips per 7000 CriticalHours PTN 4 0

0 0

3-yr Distribution Median (7/92495) 1.0 PSL1 0

0 1

1994 Median 0.8 PSL2 0

0 0

1995 Goal 1.0 Division Total:

1 1

2 N_RQ (19953rd Otr Performance Indicator Rpt)

QuarterlyTrips Annualized 1.0 1996 Division Target s 3 Quarterly Trips per 7000 Critical Hours 1.2 PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Turkey Point Unit 3 experienced an automatic trip on February 9th; the 7 Steam Generator Feed Pump was stopped to e

monitor its discharge check valve closing stroke which did not strike closed as expected. The resulting feed, flow transient caused the 'C' Steam Generator level to increase resulting in a turbine trip which tripped the reactor.

Data Providers:

PTN: J. Knorr 246-6757 PSL K.Korth 467 7054 ne

OPEN PWO'S 2.000

-+-- PTN 1.a00 -

_o_ pgg 1.600 1,400

.= ' "

E 8-1,000

.00 l

l 600 400 200

+

0

% ttJnit "

1991' 71982 1983 t1984' 1985' k148 6'

/358 440' s.aMS -

WW8

748'

W98 1996

-1026

.11/06 1996

" PT18 f u 1.321 1.466 1.589 l

PSL+ W 454 1.008 1.920 DEFINITION' This indicator includes Work Type 1 (Planned Miscellaneous), Work Type 3 (Projects), WorkType 5 (Trouble & Breakdown and includes all hold codes, status 22 through 48.

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

+-

~ INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE l

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Prior to 1996, each site was counting Open Pwo's differently. St. Lucie was counting only Work Type 5 noneutage corrective and Turkey Point was counting Work Types 1 and 5. Each site now agrees to report per the above definition.

St. Lucie numbers have increased due to intensive system walkdowns by Operations and Tech based on upper management

(

directives. Also the February numbers now include 232 work type T which were excluded from the Jan report.

i Data Providers:

PSL: Joe Marchese 467 7107 PTN: Greg Heisterman 246-6796 l

r.1

.____..m I

I i

PWO AGING CURVE I

1200 O

PTN Actual

]

- <> - PTN Goal 1000

---e--PSL Actual

- O - PSL Goal i

800 E

l e.

i 5 e00 e,

O. *.

i 1

l j

400 E ':..

' trNe ~...4 4 J tint '

4' NALS e.. hi '

i'.3

e a,. e

!'l

+6 / e!!

l4

.!v 9 4 i^i

^ ? 112.,

t "' Over12 PTti Actual -

1091 475 248 139 18 0

PR$Gael 9w 546 273 137 68 0

POI. Actual'%1 1103 690 190 105 74 44 PS1;Geel %"?

600 300 150 75 0

J

' DEFINITION l

l l

PWO Aging curves includes Work Types 1 (Planned Misc) Work Type 3 (Projects) and Work Type 5 (Trouble & Breakdown),

l and excludes short notice outages (SNO, SNW), HC2-Startup, HC3-Hot Standtry, HC4440t Shutdown, HC5-Cold Shutdown, and HC6-flefueling. This only includes status 22 through 48.

t Goal: To halve the backlog every three months.

1 STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE l

i Ii l

l PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

i i

Data oroviders:

PSL: Joe Marchese 467-7107 PTN:Greg Heisterman 246-6796 1

i C-2

=

PWO'S GREATER THAN 12 MONTHS 4

(GOLDEN OLDIES) 1

,U,,, POar

'REF PWOf PWO TITLE Orig. Dele Wks on Ust i

~ 1 95001652 CV 3 3729. Velve teded open(AWP/ENG) 01n395 l

2 a " *744 CV46347B, Vahe lacks

~

Ot"20/95 3

9X6154 4421. G,,,e easy. needs to be Ot"2695 1

4

- - 513 HSC 3152.G.acrack risut on wres 0147SS 5

- - 512 HSC-3-153. C,^;-crock risut on wres (AWP hold) 4 01!27& S j

6 0 "

514 HSC 3151,0.^ecrack sleul on wres (AWP hold) 0147S5

~

l 7

950P 127 CV 34347B, Asest Mecn. wWi velve reper 022845 TT e427 VenousdoorsWfloutplant,sistoldnp6., onchors 0301/95 l

9 E- '?8 D0061 Door, WaterrWrumon 0301/95

)

10 DPC 3-3728,.Ad'"d D/P 0302/95 sT.u e i

1 91036158 UNE I4 CW 99 HAS SEVERE PITS 11/2W91 2

93021318 REPLACE MOTOR HEATERS. HEATERS DEFECTIVE 8v443 4

3 93034478 OVERHAUL SPARE HVS 1 A MOTOR.

12/30/93 4

94006444 WSTALL REPLACEMENT VLV DURING SL114 3/19S4 i

5 94015819 REPLACE US47 2C AND PIS47 2C WITH 62394 6

94018623 REBUILD SPARE COMPRESSOR MOTOR 7/2544 l

7 94018561 PUMP DEGRADING / OVERHAUL 745/94 j

8 94020286 PLUG ON SEAL LEAKNG 8/1144 9

94024396 DlSASSEMBLE AND INSPECT REPAIR AS NEEDE 9/26S4 10 94024431 DISASSFMBLE AND INSPECT REPAIR AS NEEDE 94694 11 94025159 REPLACE VALVES REMOVE DRIP PAN.

10/444 j

12 94025282 UPPER LEFT COOUNG FAN INOPERABLE 10/5/94 1

13 94025253 METER MOVEMENT STICKY AND OUT OF CAL 1G'594 i

4 14 94025159 REPLACE VALVES REMOVE DRIP PAN.

10/1744

)

15 94026367 U/2 XPMR COOUNG FAN MOTOR REPAlR 1020S4

)

1 16 94077708 LAMP TEST /RELAYTEST SWITCH 11/5S4 A

17 94028901 TEMP. REPAIR WAS WORKED CN W/0 64026229 11/1944 18 94029456 BROKEN 'LB' AND CONDUIT 10319G 11/2 11/25S4

{

19 94029484 REPLACE SWTTCH 11/26S4 l

3 l

20 94029464 REPLACE BISTABLE MODULE 206 PRESSURIZER 11/2644 f

i 21 94029853 A-7 GAUGE GLASS AND ISO VALVE HAVE BEEN 11/2844 l

22 94029654 THE A-7 GAUGE GLASS IS REMOVED ON PWO 11/2844

{

j 23 94031063 REPAIR STEAM LEAK-REMOVE DRIP PAN 12/1344 j

i 24 95000079 ASSIST MECHANICAL MANTENANCE 1/3S5 25 95000584 BROKEN ANNUNCIATOR WINDOWS 1/545 4

26 95000764 REPLACE VALVE.

1/9/95 l

27 95001003 INSTALL LEVEL INDICATOR FOR POOL LEVEL 1h145 L

28 95001138 NO SAFE ACCESS TO THE TROLLEY 1h2/95 29 95001552 EDGEWISE CONNECTORD1) BAD. REPLACE &TES 1A745 30 95001728 GAUGE IS BUSTED In895 31 95002431 U-1 GNTY TROLLY / BRIDGE MTR OH 1G585 i

J2 95002359 VALVE LEAKS BY SEAT / REPLACE 14595

~

33 95002361 VALVE LEAKS BY SEAT / REPAIR VALVE 1/2545 34 95002363 VALVE LEAKS BY SEAT / REPLACE 14595 i

35 95002356 VALVE LEAKS BY SEAT / REPAIR VALVE 145S5 j

36 94018623 REBUILD SPARE COMPRESSOR MOTOR 24/95 2

37 95003580 VENT FANS AGING /ERDADS COMPUTER CABINET 2395 38 95003560 FANS ARE AGING. REPLACE FANS.

2S 95 j

39 95usmine U 2 DSG 2A ANN.62 ALARM 2/6/95 j

40 95004053 REPAIR VALVE LEAK REMOVE DRIPPAN 2495 q

41 95004054 OtL LEAK FROM PUMP TO FLOOR 2SS5 0

42 95004363 MOTOR SUPPORT PLATE IS NOT FLAT, CAUSIN 2n3/95 l

43 95004362 VLV LEAKS BY SEAT 2n&95

}

44 95005489 ANNUCIATOR O-26 CAME h AT HIGHER VALUE 2/2395 1

45 95005523 CHECK THE UMTTS ON SOLENOID.

. 2/2395 h

46 95005529 GAUGE PEGGED LOW /RECAUBRATE GAUGE 2/2395 4

47 95005529 GAUGE PEGGED LOW /RECAUBRATE GAUGE 2/23/95 4

4 PWO Greater than 12 month's, Work Types 1 through 5, excluding Outage hold codes (SNO, SNW, HC2, HC3, HC4, HCS, HC6) status 22 48.

Data Providerr (PTN) Greg Hetsterman 246 6796 (PSL) Joe Marchese 467 7107

r.,

NON-0UTAGE PWO'S i

I 1400 1200

'-+-- PTN

-O-PSL 1000 eD ks 9

600 82 400 200 I

0 z' Uniti tk-1981 1983 "1983' W (1985

'113 6

2 58 6

6-

!SS$

446 7/96 '.SS6 SS6 ilWBS 11/b5 1 956 f 'aff9f o --

1024 1091

PSL:

1247 1103 a

' DEFINITION -

Non-Outage PWO's includes Work Types 1 (Planned Mise) Work Type 3 (Projects) and Work Type 5 (Trouble & Breakdown),

and excludes all outage hold codes. Short notice outages (SNO, SNW), HC2 Startup, HC3-Hot S'andby, HC4-Hot Shutdown,

,l HC5-Cold Shutdown, HC6-Refueling and includes status 22-48.

"l STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

4 Data oroviders:

PSL Joe Marchese 467-7107 PTN: Greg Heisterman 246-6796

c. -

m._

CONTROL ROOM INSTRUMENTS OUT-OF-SERVICE 60.o

+ PTN 55.0 C

January Outage Tags 50.0 PTN 32 PSL 12 o

g45.o 2

4c.o s

h35.0 a:

1 B oo.o 25.0 0

)

20.0 g ? thik2

m M

1983 1994 1985 rims 7258' '9 00' lets 2

ets M

.848-3 96 1&t6 11/06 1246

. arm 2 as 40 42 F6t. :

54 46 25 DEFINITION This indicator defines the number of control room instruments for each unit that cannot perform their design funcbon, regardless of the reason. Instruments on the control room back panels are readily available for use by the control room crews and are included; however, instruments in adjoining areas where operators are not normally stationed (such as computer rooms) are not included. Count deficency tags that are in status 05 to 48.

l l

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE l

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

j A correction has been made to PTN data for Year End 1995 and January. The data reflects the corrected numbers.

}

Data oroviders:

PSL: Joe Marchese 467-7107 PTN: Greg Heisterman 246-6796 na er

i t

OSHA RECORDABLES (Year-to-Date) l 35

^

e i

g

--+-- PTN

- PSL l

\\

]

25 a

f 20-

\\

4 EE:

j l

4 4

15 I h, 10 j

1 5

j I

o l

t t ~ ' Unit ' '.4

+1981 119 5

-1988 "1984

1988 W CESS 13SS

$4Af8

.SSS

.ESS K726

? W98 '

iWDS

.1998 11/98

'1248 s frIDE *

35 33 33 27 17 0

1

. PSt.t 20 15 19 23 25 1

1 y

i 1

DEFINmON '

l The definition by Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) is an injury occurring on the job that requires medical j

treatment beyond first aid as defined by 29 CFR 1904.

i j

i STAllSTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE -

Month yT-Q

]

PTN 1

1 j

PSL 0

0 Nuclear Division Y-ETarget 1.75 Corporate Y-ETarget 3.75 i

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

4

(

i One OSHA Recordable injury was reported at Turkey Point; a mechanic cut his finger requiring suturea vAlen the crane window on the cask crane closed on his finger.

i1,

i Data provider: W. Korte 6954235 ni

LOST TIME INJURIES l

(Year to-Date) 5 j

1

--+-- PTN

--O-PSL i

3 1

E i

P 2

i i

1 f-i j

o W

EMJ

1991' tieu 1988 1984

1985 s1 ABS 338i

.afat - 1456' EfBE 8/96 JJW6 '

545 6'

.14f96

'11/96 1858 Pfl0?t 0

0 0

1 0

0 0

i

> i PS.* *.

2 4

3 1

2 0

0 i

j

~

DEFINITION >

A Lost Trne injury as defined by Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) is an occupational injury that requires an employee to miss a full day (8 hour9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months shift) beyond the day of injury.

i i

}

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

~

+

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE i

1

.%Eltb YI:D I

UN 0

0 PSL 0

0 1

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

f No Lost Time injuries were reported in February 1996.

1 i

i Data provider: W. Korte 694-4235 D $

REGULAR STAFFING 1

FPL Employees and Long-Term Contractors by Department Turkey Point j joSo.

-G-- Actual

-O-Planned i

C 3

950 -

1

~

l

o l

1100 St Lucie l

l 1050 -

1?

1A10 l

~

3 1.00 1.00 I

g$o.

900 Engineering & Ucensing

~

318 316 l

200 -

l 5

I 100 -

l 0

Nuclear Assurance 106 106 103 104 l

0 Nuclear Operations i

n a

3 31 l

E 20 -

l 3

E 10 -

7 I

l 0

Nuclear Business Services 11 11 8

C 3

10 10 N

5-g O

i l.me l ms, l ses l.ees s l-sies I ens.I viss 1'nos l - nies ' l - toies I stres l snies -l Data Provider. Alicia Simpson 694-3275 Data Source: ND Staffing Report DA l

i a

OPERATOR EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE

~

Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 100.0 %

4 i

E ROSRO Pus %

i EOper Reg Pass %

95.0%

b a

j j 90.0%

E E

E i

85.0 %

i

)

00.0*4

1991 ' ;199a

1993 1994 1986

-1/98 02f96

';9f96 ; t496 af06 8106'

.7/96 4 96 8/96 1 0/96 1146 12f96

- Exeunen s

~nortn0Tenen o 39 5

8 13 crossed '

39 5

8 13 90fanopese% d 100 0%

100 0 %

100.0 %

100 0%

< Oper nog Tehen -

47 78 69 63 58 64

' pommed --

44 75 66 60 56 64 Aber nog pose % -

94 0%

98.0%

96 0%

95 0 %

96 s %

100.0 %

DEFINITION Initial License Examination (RO/SRO) results are reported for all candidates taking an Initial License Exam as conducted by the NRC.

Operator Requalification Examination results are reported for both RO's and SRO's. This examination is administered annually by the utility and may be jointly administered by the NRC. Retests of operators who failed examinations are not included.

STATlSTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE in ROSRO Wense Enms The NRC at their last Regional Training Managers Meeting No Taken No. Fassed Pass e%

g g

p YTD 1995 13 13 100.0 %

inmai NRc Exams NRc Recual Erams RO's Pass Rate 94.6 %

RO's Pass Rate 91.0 %

Operator Requal Exams instant SRO's Pass Rate 94.4 %

SRO's Pass Rate 85.0 %

No.Taken NQ. Passed Pass Rate %

Upgrade SRO's Pass Rate 94.7%

Average Overall 88.0 %

YTD 1996 64 64 100.0 %

Amage Oman 94.6 %

YTD 1995 58 56 96.5%

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

No Initial RO/SRO License Exams were given in February 1996.

Operator Requalification Exams were given in January and February. Of the 64 operators tested,64 passed.

Data provider: K. E. Beatty 694-4217 E.1

\\

l i

OPERATOR EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE l

St. Lucie Units 1 & 2 i

100.0 %

)

l E RO/SRO Pass %

E Oper Reg Pass %

l 95.0 %

d.

8.

s} 90.0 %

8 2

I 85.0 %

I

?

80.0 %

l

1 Emams:

1981 1 992 t1993 l'1994 1 996 c1/96 W 73/96

4/96 F5/96 6/96

7/96

,4/96 9/06 10/96 11/96

'12/96 l

cnoteno Tetonr 15 8

10 11 c.Poseed 15 8

10 11 ROrltHO Peas % -

100 0 %

100 0%

100.0 % 100.0%

- Opernegfehea r 65 69 68 75 73 s Passed

61 60 68 68 71 4

l l Oper Reg Pese %

94 0 %

e70%

100.0 %

91 0%

97.s %

(

DEFINITION '

Inital Ucense Examinaten (RO/SRO) results are reported for all candidates taking an inrtial Ucense Exam as conducted by the NRC.

Operator Requalification Examination results are reported for both RO's and SRO's. This examination is administered annually by the utility and may be jointly administered by the NRC. Ratests of operators who failed examinations are not included.

i STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE f

initial RO/SRO Ucense Exams

'lhe NRC at their last Regional Training Managers Meeting No Taken No. Passed Pass Rat %

(for fiscal year 1994) provided the following data:

l WD 1995 0

0 0.0%

InitalNRC Erams NRC Recua! Erams RO's Pass Rate 94.6 %

RO's Pass Rate 91.0%

Operator Requal Exams instant SRO's Pass Rate 94.4 %

SRO's Pass Rate 8s.0%

No.Taken No. Passed Pass Rate %

Upgrade SRO's Pass Rate 94.7%

Average Overan 88.0 %

YTD 1996 0

0 0.0%

Averago Overa#

94.6 %

i YTD 1995 73 71 97.5 %

l PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

~

1 No Initial RO/SRO License or Operator Requalification Exams were given in February 1996. Inital RO/SRO Ucense Exams are scheduled to be given in March.

i i t i,

Data provider: K. E. Beatty 694-4217 Fa

1 OVERDUE CONDITION REPORTS i

100 i

. so

{

--+~ PTN 1

--0-- PSL 80

\\

70 i

\\

m e l

b IS 0

l J40

\\

i O

m b

l to i

l o

j eg umm e

iset m

-tees m essseb

ses. m arbass sens.

ses was-

, ass. "wes m iws ises

>PT98 $ 5 6 4 0 0

' a. pet.1 l 95 25

DEF!NmON 1

i Currently, the Nuclear Division is transitioning to a consistent Condition Report. The project is scheduled to be completed by May 1, i

1996 at alllocations. This graph shows Condition Repotts that exceed assigned priority timeframe.

i j

Severity Levels are as follows:

A = 3 working days B = 10 calendar days C = 30 calendardays i

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

4

-lNDUSTRY PERFORMANCE 1

i 4

4

'l PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

l St Lucie has 25 priority 1,2 or 3 STAR's overdue as of 2/29!96. The STAR database includes both STAR's and PMAl's. St. Lucie is currently transferring to the CR process (by April 1). There are 740 STAR's remaining that predate the priority process that are being converted to CR's or PMAl's.

i j

Dan Pmm (PTN)Julio Balaguero 2464971 vid (PSL) Bob Dawson 467 7154 5

F.1

l QA FINDINGS 6

B.

EPTN 4

0PSL urum 7

1 3

8,<

I 1

2-

o i

I 1

hi.2 l

1__..._.

p

UnN c

~ 0 3 5 -. -.

44 * * *

' '

74 -

ct10-12, -

!:13 15 /

4 P1818.:.

194p 3

v Piti

0 1

0 0

0 P&L -

0 6

3 2

1 1

0 DEFINITION This indicator represents the time it takes for verifcation of implementation of corrective action for audit findings. The clock for the QA group starts when the audited organization notifies QA that implementation of audit finding corrective actions are complete and ready for verification. The process is complete when QA closes the audit finding and notifies the audited organization that the audit finding corrective action is complete.

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE i

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Da*.a Pmders- (PTN) Tom Abbabello 246f?+1and (PSL) Wes Bladow 467 7111 eo

P i

1 NRC VIOLATIONS Cited and Non-Cited (Year-to-Date) 22 c

PTN NOVs 2o

,,.. PTN NCVs 18

--o-- PSL NOVs I

I, f

O PSL NCVs 1

16 1

l.< \\

l 5"

\\\\

.s...f :.\\

02

\\.

/,J 1

3 e

l l

~

z 4

[

1996 Y-ETarget s7 I t

\\,

1 4

o........... ox 1

W o

rPR$NOre a 13 8

4 4

1 0

0 R PTNedCOs 21 7

13 12 15 0

1 PSLefOra t-8 8

7 9

21 0

0 j

s#PM.IWe f 3

3 3

3 12 1 l 1 i

DEFINITION

!{

vuiouvus are wwwviuau in inuns vi uve seves= oi nevainy av miun usou sciouve unpama. cevemy i evels a ano si are viciouvos that involve actual or high potential impact on the public. Severity Level ill Violations are cause for significant concem. Severity Level IV violations are less serious, but are of more than minor concem; i.e., if left uncorrected, could lead to a more serious concem.

a 1

Seventy Level V violations are minor safety or environmer:tal concem. Violations are counted on the date of the inspection exit meeting. Violations are r.ow counted with respect to the date of occurrence (using the date of the inspection exit meeting) instead of the date of the inspection report, as was done in the past.

l STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE-4

{

Egh

.YIQ Year End Target NRC Violabons j

1994 IBG Group Mean 16.2 PTN Cited 0

0 7

1994 Region 11Mean 13.1 i

PTN Non-Cited 0

1 1994 IBG Top Quartile Mean 9.0 l

PSL Cited 0

0 7

1994 RegionilTop Quartile Entry 8.0 PSL Non-Cited 0

1 i

i PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Turkey Point reported no NRC Violations for February; one non-cited violation was reported as follows:

i

96-01-01: Use of contaminated tools in clean system. Exit Meeting date: 2/12/96.

St. Lucie reported no NRC Violations for the month: however, there are four potential violations pending investigation:

-#96-01-01: Temporary Procedure changes were made which involved changes of intent, without prior FRG review as required by Technical Specifications. Exit Meeting Date: 2/20/96.

96-03-01: Operators failed to follow procedures for boron dilution. Exit Meeting Date: 2/8/96.

96-03-02: Inadequate design control of RCS boron dilution procedure. Exit Meeting Date: 2/8/96.

96-03-03: inadequate 50.59 safety evaluation of change to boron dilution procedure. Exit Meeting Date: 2/8/96.

4 Data Prowders (PTN) Gary Holinger 246-6078 and (PSL) Ed Weinkam 467 7162 p.t

l LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS (Year-to-Date) 25 i

-+- PTN

--O-PSL 20 a

15 i

10

^

l l

N 3

5 3

o 2,,Una.Z mt "1500

1008

1904

1985 1J05

~.148 ' c385

m' afg5

'488'

' 7Jes efes

. ef96 1888 11/88 12/58 FEN ':

c to 24 9

12 7

1 1

PET:4 9

10 8

15 18 1

1 l

.DEFINmON:,

l License Event Reports (LER) are submitted to the NRC by the licensee to report unusual occurrences presenbed by 10CFR50.73.

l STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE-l M

M l

NN 0

1 l

l PSL 0

1 PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

i Turkey Point reported one Voluntary Reportable Event as follows:

LER #96401-00: " Intake Cochng Water System Flow Rates Found With Potential to be Less Than Required by Design B' asis" 4

dated March 1,1996. The event occurred January 31,1996.

i :

St. Lucie has reported one LER for the year LER #9640100:

Manual Reactor Trip due to High Main Generator Cold Gas Temperature" dated January 24,1996. The i

event occurred January 5,1996.

No LER's have been reported in February 1996.

Da+a Prmadarr (PTN) Gary Hoarger 2464078 and (PSL) Ed Wertam 467-7162 I

F4

i i

i j

INPO ASSESSMENT RATINGS 1

I j

4.50 1

.m sem iso DPSL h.@

I 3,,

i

r 1

g sa.

=

1 a

.0

=

1

^

15 I

=

j o.30 i

l om.

suws Leme wr-

, -sees -

tsee n

-noso mi-

. sm -

sees-

.som :

ms..

1w.

JTN o 4 00 em 3m 4.00 100 1CC 2.00 1.00 i

,PSL.

1 22 12 1.00 1.00 4

INPO ASSESSMENT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Institute of Nuclear Power Ope ations (INPO) conducts periodic evaluations of bite activities to make an overall determination of plant j

safety, to evaluate management systems and controls, and to identify areas needing improvernent. Information is assembled from l

discussions, interviews, observations, and reviews of documentation.

Evaluation Frequency: INPO's goal is to visit eaci t*W An an average of every 18 rnonths. However, this frequency may vary depending l

upon the previous assessment ratings. For instance, if a plant is rated a "1' or *2", the interval between assessments is usually 20 24 1

months; if a plant is rated a '4' or a '5" the assessment interval is s 18 months I

j Performance Catecorv Ratinas:

Category 1: Overall performance is excellent. Industry standards of excellence are rnet in most areas. No signrhcant weaknesses noted.

l Category 2: Overall performance is exemplary. Industry standards of excellence are met in rnost areas. No significant weakresses noted.

i Category 3: Overall performance is generally in keeping with the high standards required in nuclear power. However, improvements are j

needed in a number of areas. A few significant weaknesses may e. list.

Category 4: Overall performance is acceptable, but improvements are needed in a wide range of areas. Signifcant weaknesses are noted in l

severalareas.

j Category 5: Overall performance does not meet the bdustry standard of acceptable performance. The margin of nuclear safetyis measurably reduced. Strong ard ir7nediate management action to correct deficiencies is required. Special attenton, assistance, and follow <sp are required.

1 NOTE: If a plant is found to be operating without an adequate margin of nudear safety,INPO will request that the plant be shutdown, or not started up.

4 PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

i Turkey Point and St. Lucie received an lNPO category rating of 'i' in 1995. The next evaluations for Turkey Point and St.

Lucie are expected in the last quarter of 1996 and first quarter of 1997, respectively.

4 Dati ProvHerr (PTN) Gary Holknger 2464078 and (PSL) EdWer*arn 467 7162 4

U.4

i NRC SALP CATEGORY RATINGS 2.50 1

E PTN Rating j

2.00 -

i DPSL Rating 1

J Es 1.50 -

E S

j N 1.00 -

I 1

0.50 -

i i

j j

o.co.

i 1986 :

c1987 ?

19004 J1989 -

19903 71991' 11992; c1993:.

'1994

~1996<

11996.:

j PTNftedag h 2.27 2.18 225 2.14 1.86 1.38 1.38 129 1.00 Poseed asm8ao -

&OW86 5'31/87 6/30/88 7/31/89 7/31/90 9/28/91 1/30/93 8,"27/94 psLiksang.

-A r

1.55 120 129 1.14 1.00 1.00 1.50 i

Feded Badhen I' ' N 4/30/86 10/31/87 4/30/89 1G"J1/90 52/92 1/1/94 1/696 i

j SALP PROGRAM DESCRIP110N ~

R e the pokcy of the NAC to use the System 3c Assessmert of Lcensee Perfornance ($ ALP) process to artcAate me agenc/s etservacons and ms@ts on bconsee safety performance l

The SALP report corrruncates ihose oteervancms and neights.

1 FvhMn Fremervv The NRC wil nonresy renew and evaluate each power reactor Scenese that p=aa= an cperatng Ecerse at least ewry 18 rncr.ths. Men me NRC determnes Ihat me performance warrants a more frequert r<aluation, the ncemal SALP fre@ency may be hereasect The assessment penod rney be extended to a maximum of 24 rnanths when a piant

}

recewes a Category 1 ranng m d tour luncuanal areas.

Fureral Amar Per ormance is genera #y evaluated bi bur (4) functonal aanas:

r j

1. Pet Oce ser't hs luncecnal area corsets cruefly d me contrd and -8nt of admnes drocty relased to operatm0 a plant R inchades actmbes such as piart startup, power j

coeratons, paart shutdown, and system kneups. R also mdudes abal and requahicaban tranng of bcensed operaters.

j

2. Maintenance. This luncnonal area meivi%s d actmees aa==wuth either chagnosac, preciceve. preveneve, or correene mantenance of plant structures, systems, and components, j

or mornenance of the physcal condnan d me plant

3. Encmeeme. Ths luncnonal area addresses me ademacy of techrscal and engmsem0 support par d plant acewtes R mdudes allIcensee actmees===w e desgn contrd; the 9

e desgi, estananon, and tesong of piart rnodin,atms; ergneemg and tochtmal support br operatons, etAages, enameenance, tesimg, surveillance, and procuremert admbes; j

confrpanon rnanagement; dempcass mlormaton and its retneval; and support kr Ecanung admees.

j

4. Pet he'. This luncnonal area covers a5 acevrees relaled to part suppcrt kmctiori; Midng radeiogca' coritrots, emergency preparochess, securtry, cherrestry, and Ere pactecton.

l Housekeeping contrds are also mduded m tus area.

M~~wv e careev Re bcensee performance in each lunceanal area is assessed by assynng a eseg)ry raang as escussed below-Category 1. Ucansee attennon and swcNemert have been properly locused on safety and resAsd h a supenorlevel of salety pedormance i

Categcry 2. Ucensee atenbon and rwoNement are normaly wellocused and resulted m a good legl of safety perbr' nance j

Category 3. Lcensee attention and rwafvement have resulted m an acceptable lent of pericrmance. However, performance may exhbet one or more d me ic60wmg charactensnes-j ineffecove pregrams and segraficant issues, ladt of conocDve schon thoroughness, and de6aelees si root cause analyst Because me margn to unacceptable performance m j

ercortart aspects a small, mersased NRC and iconsee atteneon a required.

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

4 Turkey Porit St.Imoe Pror Mos1 Recent Prior Most Recent Functional Area:

j Plant Operations 1

1 1

2

i Marttenance 21mproving 1

1 2

Engineenng 21mproving 1

1 1

Plant Support Na 1

1 1

Emergency Preparedness 1

Na Na Na Radiological Controis 1

Na Na n/a Security 1

Wa Na Na Self Assessment / Quality Venfication 1

da da da Overalt 129 1.00 1.00 1.50 j

Da+a Provideer (PTN) Gary Hothnger 2464078 and (PSQ Ed Werkam 467 7162 i

t' e

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

P INVENTORY VALUE ACCOUNT 154.300 120 i

j l-4-- PTN too 4

1 --O-- PSL l'

- so b

e F

i e

c 3

~

I N

+. - - - +

1996 Y-E Target s 38 ($M) 1 I i

I 20 l

i

\\

o

)

eilWthek s ?

r131 F,tet. 41985

1994

'1985 t1SS

. 358 "3 05' M

':sfB5 4ESS t7Jts aft 6 LSB8

10f86 11/56 12fBS l

Y- -48BDi w 79.1 74.7 54.6 42.4 37.4 37.4 37.2

' M73.

58.6 65.2 60.2 43.7 39 4 42.0 42.3 j

er-

-i-DEFINITION.

e This indicator teflects the valve of Account 154.300. This account reflects materials needed to keep operational the physical equipment and facilities of the plant (e.g., spare parts, consumables, commodities, tools). The information is pulled from SAR i

Report #G0009R72-501. The Passport system utilizes SAR for system data reporting.

3 8

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE

-m -

i s

M End %Chanae YETaraet IBG (Year 1994)

'_Tp.tgl i

I Average

$43.6 Million PTN Monthly 37.4 37.2

-0.5%

Top Quartile Entry

$34.7 Million YTD 37.4 37.2

-0.5%

538M Top 0uartile Average

$28.9 Million PSL Monthly 42.0 42.3 0.7%

Y-T-D 39.4 42.3 7.4%

538M s

i

'Value does not include Capital as defined by PRUC PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

1 Turkey Point Regu!ar inventory decreased.2M in February.

i St. Lucie's Regular inventory increased by.3M for the month.

Data Providers:

PSL Tom Kreinberg 465-4183 i

j PTN Dick Rose 246-6692 A

G1

___m._2

_m.

m - _ __ _ __

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

4 OPEN PLANT CHANGES / MODIFICATIONS (PC/Ms) d 350 300

--+- PTN i

-O-PSL i

l 2

aso e

i c

150 5'

hi 100 50 0

'...q unk :'"I

11091 61992

'19M 11994 Mrgt$ '186 7396

'~3fBS

'488

' 938... ASS'

.' 7/96'

8PBt.

W96

'1W98 11/OS

1998 n erreg,.

240 242 4 A PSt.

316 326 DEFINm0N This indicator tracks the total number of PCMs in the engineering department. The purpose is to provide management a snapshot of the number of PCMs. Inclur,es all jobs that have been approved by plant management, and are in design, operability review, or implementation phases. The PC/M is consdered open until System Acceptance Tumover Sheet (SATS) j and drawing updateis complete.

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE Deson Review WQrking Vodate Iglal PTN 242 PSL 58 47 126 108 326 PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

St. Lucie has excluded the Steam Generator Replacement Project PC/M's which accounts for 20-30 PCMs. St. Lucie is working on a Generic PC/M to convert the open ARP's and As Fail PCMs; thus a future reduction is anticipated.

Data Providers:

PTN Jim Reed 246-6903 PSL Kris Mohindroo 467-7432 u.1

i OPEN TEMPORARY SYSTEM ALTERATIONS i

18

(

t

--+-- PTN

--O-PSL 14 e 12 If to 1&'

6 d

2 o

c,4Una2Sr.A '1951 m JS85 Jtes

.1985 stAIS m M,

.458 2,

m 2

JMS

SMS

1996 11/98 1938

&tro PT94 0 0 5

5 2

. PSL % <

17 15 1e DEFINm0N '

A temporary system alteration is a modifcation made to plant equipment, components, or systems that does not conform with approved drawings or other design documents; a modifcation that is necessary for continued safe plant operation; a modication that will remove a nuisance or distraction to the Plant Operators; a modifcation necessary to enable the plant to start upin a safe manner.

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

- 7

. INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE.

Egb Year End Goal PTN 5

5 PSL 16 10 PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

l Data Provider:

PSL Kris Mohindroo 467-7482 PTN Julio Balaguero 246-6971 H.?

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

l l

j CONTAMINATED FLOOR SPACE

--+-- PTN

]

-O-PSL 1

I 4

i

=

1 j

f i

I I

1000 l

i I

o I

< t + Unit ;', ' '

test 1982

'1903

'1984 11985

' 1f88

sf3E ' M:

4fBS iSSB eft $

7758 m

.Sfts 1Gf08

'1126

?2955

PV10 -

1750 50 330 700

% ' Pet.' '

5610 4351 4600 2848 1480 250 280

DEFINITION...

c This indicator, designed to measure contaminated floor space with removable activity ;t1000 dpm/100cm sh beta / g dpm/100cm sq. alpha, is counted against the base. Areas that can be specifically exempted from the base inctJde: reactor containment building, chemical volume control system domineralizer mom and long term process areas such as the decontaminaten facility. Contaminated components such as charging pumps,.,vaporators, etc. are not included as part of " recoverable" floor space (i.e. not considered floor area you can wak or step on).

PTN; Total Base (117,746 sq. ft.) Exempted Area (6,110 sq. ft.)

PSL: Total Base (112,422 sq. ft.) Exemoted Area (7,722 sq. ft.)

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE Etb IEan!

PTN 700 50 PSL 280 50 l

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

1 1

Data Providers: (PTN) John Lindsay 246-6548 and (PSL) Hank Buchannon 467-7300 i

l T.1

a j

j DRY ACTIVE WASTE: GENERATED, SHIPPED OFFSITE (Year-to Date) 12000 6

l

^

PTN Generated

}

10000

- + PTN Shipped

-- PSL Generated j

- PSL Shipped j

aooo d

s A

e000 e

d' a

4000 4

i aoa N

o O Lttset..

1991 190E l1983 1984 (SSN N

3 85 Jab 8 W W

GS$

728 448

' OfB6 14f58 11/06 1295 pggsennesened.s 8100 425 61s qugestedsped un 2560 0

0 PSLemansuend f -

11740 1040 820 j

pgLW # i 11600 404 12060

[

DEFINmON /

4 Generated is an estimate based on the number of ' yellow bags" initially generated prior to surveying for free release or shipment as radwaste.

Calculation: Number of yellow bags x 5 cubic feet = Estimated Monthly Generated Waste figure.

a Shionsd offsite - The amount of dry active radioactive waste that FPL ships to either Scientific Ecology Group inc. (SEG) or American Ecology Recycle Center (AERC) for processing.

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE i

PSL made 6 shipment to SEGin 1995.

l PTN made 3 shipments to SEG in 1995.

i PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

PTN projects to ship 2 Sealand Containers to SEG in 1996.

PSL projects to ship 4 Sealand Containers to SEG in 1996.

1 1

Data Providers: (PTN) John Lindsay 246-6548 and (PSL) Hank Buchannon 467 7300

iI PERSONNEL CONTAMINATION EVENTS

),

(Year-to Date) 180

-+-- PTN i

160

_o.,pgg 5

140

\\

j 120 2

5 h

j

$ 100

^

1-1 2

5" so I

i l

4o i

20 j

i o

1 i thdt.Tae.;

1991-

.3032 153 M

19 5

.1J38.

.2 38

'.2ft$

4b6

WB6

=428

"?ft$

326

' tfB6

1048' 11/B8 1248

+ PTN -

163 85 95 100 73 4

9 f

' ^ PM. V 87 76 84 82 0

2 I

,DEFINmON J This indicator is designed to monitor personnel contamination. A personnel contamination exists when 5000 dpm per 100cm2 l

j on skin or personal clothing as detected by Personal Contamination Monitor and 2100 counts per minute (net) using the l

Friskeris observed.

l INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

1 Ed Y:I:D PTN 5

9 PSL 2

2 a

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

i 1

4 Data Providers: (PTN) John Lindsay 246-6548 and (PSL) Hank Buchannon 467-7300 1.1

__m_

.-.._.___._____,_._.._.__m

m.. ~ _. _ _.. _..

4 f

RADIATION EXPOSURE l

(Year-to-Date) 1000

)

i

--+-- PTN Y T D gag

--0-- PSL Y T-D 4

700 1

1-n

\\

f s\\

A PSL Y-E Target 485 l l 1

Su8 l

N PTN Y-E Target 275 I I ex i

^

O I

W u una va!

Iest

>1ees 1ess

1ees toes r1ues

ses

mes

4es ses

'ses

~7ms ass.

mes 1oss 1tses 1ams j

'PTN Y T4 7 938.0 324.9 281.8 4762 214.6 5.3 9.5

' paLT-T4.-.

451.3 244.5 459.9 504.7 412.8 3.0 9.0

. DEFINITION.

Collective Radiation Exposure is the total effective dose equivalent received by all on-site personnel (including contractors and visitors), it includes external deep dose as measured by the thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD's) plus intemal dose. It is reported in man-rem for the station. Current month readings may be taken from the direct reading dosimeters (DRD's).

j d

STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE Ed E

YTD Taroet 12-Mo. Endina Man-Rem WANO (PWR's)

(two units)

PTN 4.2 9.5 10.0 218.8 PSL 6.0 9.0 25.0 397.6 1995 Median (7/92 6/95) 270 1995 Goal (12-Mo. ending 6/95) 370 Year-End Targets:

PTN: 275.0 PSL: 485.0 PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

+

Turkey Point's 12-Mo. ending of 218.8 was below industry median in Febru: y.

e St. Lucie's Man-Rem 12-mo, ending totaled 397.6 which is higher than the 12-mo, ending industry median.

Data Providers: (PTN) John Lindsay 246-6548 and (PSL) Hank Buchannon 467 73' 0 0

u

h O&M BUDGET-DMSION (Year-to-Date) 350.0

+ Actual Budget 250.0 E 200.0 e

-g E iso.0 100.0 so.o O.0

19et..1982 1993

.1996

1006 1/95 stb 2BS M.

lam 6 a45 7/36 045

.946 14f96 11/96 12f96

+

, '.+Ashesi 342.4 2952 290.6 2852 269.5 13.4 31.2

.s tudget**-

333.3 314.6 326.4 302.0 279 2 17.8 36.7 75.8 104.8 129 6 147.4 164.0 180.0 201 2 216.0 233.9 252.8 JVerlanes (%);

2.7

-6.2 11.0

-5.6

-3.5 24.b 14,9 DEFINITION '

Operating and Maintenance Expenditures include Nuclear Division operation and maintenance expenses associated with direct employees, contractors and consultants, equipment, tools, design, engineering and other items /actnaties required to sustrin the electrical generation of the plants and to provide required support. Fuel costs, corporate administrative and general expenses, and charges f.om other departments outside the Nuclear Division are excluded.

Y-T-D Actual Excenses Y T-D Budgeted Expenses x 100% = 08M Variance %

Y T-D Budgeted Expenses STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE O&M Budoet Y-T-D Actual ($M) Y-T-D Variance ($M)

IBG Actual 1994 Avg.

$297.0M IBG Top Quartile Entry

$270.0M Jan '96 31.2 ($M)

-5.5 ($M)

-14.9%

IBG Top Quartile Avg.

$213.2M Jan '95 27.8 ($M) 7.7 ($M)

-21.8%

IBG Projected 1995 Avg.

$284.0M 1996 Y-E Budget: 252.8 ($M)

Projection (per dual unit site) derived by trending 1986-94 Actual data and 1995 Budgeted data for IBG Group.

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

1 i

O&M Expenditures in February 1996 were $31.2 million which represented a budget underrun of $5.5 million (or 14.9%). The variance was the result of: underrun primarily due to St. Lucie non-outage project underruns; and underruns in materials and contracted services at Turkey Point due outage cash flow revisions.

Data provider. T. O. Nasby 694-4188 l

s. v

CAPITAL BUDGET-DMSION (Year to-Date) 180.0 160.0 Budget 140.0

\\,.

120.0 E

l 100.0

/,

a

\\,. N.

80.0

^-

e0.0 40.0

,,,..... e*****

^***

20.0 0.0 JM/Mf9 P1991' 11008

.1983

1994 1 908 OldB8 M

JS$ " 2435' W m

a

,tME S48

'1046 11/96 1935 iAchsela*

150.7 68.4 90.3 76.5 47.2 1.5 2.5

.Sugget+

179.6 75.1 101.4 87.7 64.7 4.8 7.1 11.1 15.7 17.9 19.8 22.6 26.3 27.8 30.1 33.1 39.2 ifaelange(10 t

-16.1

-9.0 11.0 12.7

-27.0

-67.6

-65.0

' DEFINITION Capital Expenditures are those directly incurred / budgeted by the Nuclear Division for the construction of new utility plant additions and improvements made to increase efficiency, reliability or safety. Capital fuel costs are excluded.

Y-T-D Actual Excenses - Y-T-D Budaeted Excenses x100% = CapitalVariance %

Y T-D Budgeted Expenses STATISTICAL

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE CaoitalBudoet Y-T-D Actual ($M) Y-T-D Variance ($M)

IBG Actual 1994 Avg.

$63.1M IBG Top Quartile Entry

$28.3M Jan '96 2.5 ($M)

-4.6 ($M)

-65.0%

IBG Top Quartile Avg.

$21.1M Jan '95 3.6 ($M)

-3.7 ($M)

-50.4%

IBG Projected 1995 Avg.

$58.5M 1996 Y-E Budget 39.2 ($M)

Projection (per dual unit site) derived by trending 1986-94 Actual data and 1995 Budgeted data for IBG Group.

PERFORMANCE

SUMMARY

Capital Expenditures in February 1996 were $2.5 million which represented a budget unoerrun of $4.6 million (or 65.0%). The variance was primarily due to: underrun in the Steam Generator Replacement Project (SGRP) due to a change in the outage start date; and during year cash flow revisions for various St. Lucie plant projects.

Data provider: T, O. Nasby 694-4188 17

INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:

R. J.

Acosta JNA/JB D. E.

Jemigan PTN/ PLT T. V.

Abbatiello PTN/ PLT H. H.

Johnson PTN/ PLT K. E.

Beatty JN0/JB V. A.

Kaminskas PTN/ PLT L W.

Bladow PSUPLT T.

Kreinberg PSUPLT l

W. H.

Bohlke PSUPLT H. N.

Paduano JPN/JB G. J.

Boissy JNO/JB J. G.

Pizzutelli JNE/JB J. B.

Brady CC/JB T. F.

Plunkett JEX/JB J. L Broadhoad JEX/JB T. E.

-Roberts JPN/JB C. L Burton PSUPLT R. E.

Rose PTN/ PLT R. L Castro JDC/JB D. A.

Sager JNA/JB J.

Clay PSUPLT J.

Scarola PSUPLT K. R.

Craig JPN/JB C. H.

Shotwell JHR/JB J. L Danek JNS/JB R.

Sipos PSUPLT D. J.

Denver PSUJB D. L.

Smith JPN/JB R. E.

Dawson PSUPLT R. A.

Symes JNA/JB M. S.

Dryden JNUJB C.

Villard JPN/JB i

P. L Fincher PSUPLT W. E.

Walker PSUPLT J. C.

Hampp ETS/JB E.

Weinkam PSUPLT J. R.

Hartzog PTN/ PLT D. H.

West PSUPLT R. G.

Heisterman PTN/ PLT J. A.

West PSUPLT G.

Hollinger PTN/ PLT R.

West FTN/ PLT R. J.

Hovey PTN/ PLT l

\\

l l

l EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:

W. R. Corcoran W. Kleinsorg 21 Broadleaf Circle Nuclear Regulatory Commission' Windsor,CT 06095 101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323-0199 D. B. Miller, Jr.

l Supervisor Nuclear Safety & O/ Sight Kerry D. Landis, Region 11 j

NEU Services Company Nuclear Regulatory Commission j

P. O. Box 270 101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 2900 t

Hartford, CT 06141 0270 Atlanta,GA 30323 T. P. Johnson NRC Senior Residentinspector PTN/ PLT Z1

' anal Form Version: 0 Mtj P M Al C o rre ctive A ctio n F o rm PMAI Site:P_SL Source Orlainstor Number: PM9645-023 Document: MAINT RULE dept: SCE Due Dete: 06/15/96 Assigned Department: ENQ ENG/ DENVER Q

Implementor Name Unit Outage Mode SNO NCR OWA

Title:

MAINT RUW

==

Description:==

DEVELOP A PROGRAM FOR MONITORING AND TRENDING OF PSL STUCTURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH NUREG 1526 AND vel DRAFT GUIDELINES. EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES ARE ATTACHED.

)

Due Date Extension / Transfer Responsibility Requests bi'

'lIeoI4(>

E.ht%)dl.Lla,4%AppvdBy M/URf4/9h6 /WhRf /f't

/4

[

Extend To Date Request by /Date IMlf Itshenting Dept.

Orgiriaffhg Dept.

Impidmef1 tang Dept-i$upervisor /Date

/Date Manager

/Date Appvd By F_xtend To Date Request by /Date implementing Dept.

Onginatsnr Dept.

Implementing Dept.

Supervisor /Date

/Date Manager

/Date Reasons:

s A /J J

1

$(dl)yl.)]s(k f A.k

(-t h / Appycgy

{?N R,y.,, Ho n

XFtH Resp. To Rdquest by /Date

'Irrfplementing Dept.

Implementing Dept. "Vecipse itVept. /Da:e l

Supervisor /Date Manager /Date l

Reasons:

Sc.eaA h. mar fos, tac inutgmetTwDeJ oG Tu mamW Completion Section g g w a y m e op sa wnvrs-Comp 6etion Date:

Close-Out Documents:ADhA l'hoS AOM b6 od/L AfD0c6750k.@ OI*U-b SC2-LA 9a Comments:

ofd cleMOarr bocumcurs bide Titf aMede2)oJ5/6diDGbdE5/MD Mb>deMB65 i

.nc r% flungAm % imA_Ema.lTmbJ of '7M (hdhJ A11c1 /MLG feL 57RpdlM65 l

kist 1Mcf a)tTW 10 c}L sb.toS'~.

1 Wr%%ylan' 'l h9,dt.htalmar Q,W sMPLEMNThhl oC 7W m4griaI61 g tutf foL-nsatMd(n TM EWCLWh)2:6 oP61blc2LM5 kTTAMalaff3' ADhA 11.B!A Vd-kTTNJfMajf 4 6C26-03 40 bM

/ h@ bLL6ud M l Date:

Implementor:

.b h 7!O!

~

Reviewed By:

/ N A

Daie:

Md0 0

Date:

7 #

Approved By:

Reviewed By:

s

/ N br4 Id8 Date:

7 78 Origilatmg h.' 7 (Signature)

/ '(Print)

QPy%

9 O

PMAI 96-05-023 ATTACHMENT 1 36 PAGES GNCLUDING Tills SiiEET) l 1

1 I

j

)

l

')

O System 73 "" :_, 5 _,; t, M Structurae M,

N 11!/a2 a2 Fundion This system captures all the safety-related structures as listed in the FSAR that were not scoped 1

as.part of other Maintenance Rule systems. (See Table 3.21) l

's em ca the-foty' ted pip' as list in the FSAQ Tha uh goped

]

l inal em.

N l

foty ports s

rs

,inthis tem.

I N

l Key Components Unit 1 Structures Unrt 2 Structures u,houme.h %e\\b S\\

ceaatnmed 5%\\b &hh-Reactor Auxiliary Building Reactor Auxiliary Building Diesel Generator Building Diesel Generator Building Fuel Handling Building Fuel Handling Building Reactor Building interior Structures

-Reactor Building interior Structures Component Cooling Area Structure Diesel Oil Storage Tank Building Condensate Storage Tank Building k

Steel Missile Barriers

\\\\l (,--

Spent Fuel Pool and Liner Spent and New Fuel Storage Racks h

Main Steam Trestle

' Biological Shielding wrthin RAB and FHB Roots of Safety Related Structures Spent Fuel Cask

('jc C\\m%fd C,

p & ln ynpst' (CI(V afety Related Picino (Both Units)

/

Reacto tant Safety,)hjecti Sh own C ling Ch ical olume and.p,ontrol

'me Contain nt S aste anpa 4

Contatimenttool' Co one ! C.ing Wat (In,take) lin ater Mdin am nd Fee ater A'uxiliary Fe at Emerge Powe Shie[d B ' ding V tilation Ventila,ti$n Syst6ms

[lodinePemoval)

.lho ennhhgrs are listed in the $eismic Snubber List,8770-B-122 [2998-B-122].

I Maintenance Rule System 73. PtPES DRAFT 1

950045.r0 March 28,1995

T 0

I

.J J

Proerams in Ploce All SSCs nated uality A, B C are red E Boiler nd Press V

l Code requi nts for ing a inspect'

. Cla

, ll, and

'ng is tica est three times eye ten ye;. Pipe 4' hav irsu rtsin and ids e

'ned DE).

All SSCs designated Quality Group A, B or C or seismic Category I are designed, consttucted and operated under the provisions of the Quality Assurance program requirements of Chapter 17 of the FSAR consstent with their effect on safety.

Ol 10h- [and OSP 73.01, GuitfelinesJdr the lmolasrientationdthe

, Contrednsoection and Monitorino othh&im2Aind HvdsatWe ShocicArrestors (Snubbers f

P(oorarff. ensuredsting ormed jVa'ccordjwice withpWnt Tec%I exa tions are Specifications and ASM Sec,ti XI.

l Relative Risk Slanificance This.s,eie,Teis%1TsTiisi~ riificant.

g N SI *0 'G l

j R

rM l

The Shield Building and Containment Vessel are E:;:d ury eyete.T 00 - Gontatrwnent-Structure!.The piping i

for the Containment Isolation System and the Sampling System containment penetrations are tested as part of Appendix J and are also included in this system.

The Combustible Gas Control is scoped under 27 - Hydrogen Sampling /Recombiner.

I Shield Building Ventilation is not subject to ASME testing. The integnty of the system is tested during safeguards and a failure would be counted in this system.

j Emergency Power, Reactor Coolant Gas Vent, Fuel Pooling Cooling and Radiation Monitoring are all scoped 1

under their main systems.

The intake Structure is scoped under system 21B - Circulating Water.

Perfor ce Cdfe_ rig

/

petitive unctional ailures < 1 per#a4o operatin ycles.

/

The inition o failure is es lished in a ordance wrt SME Boiler,and Press,ure Vessel Cpde and A Se ion XI re irements.

Failures f component not included in ASME, eg< seismic co, onents arp racked a trended t ough the STA rogram.

/

C Tl(

L Maintenance Rule System 73 PIPES DRAFT 2

950045.ro. March 28,1995

)

NUREG-1526 i

l Lessons Learned from Early Implementation of The Maintenance Rule at i

Nine Nuclear Power Plants I

l

\\

i 1

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation y

s,sw f' i

5 C. D. Petrone, R. P. Correia, S.C. Black n'euq'**

5 l

's,...../

was beiq; monitored at the system level ormance criteria with equipment trending 4

i ather than the train level, which could w

ever possible.

low unreliable components to go u elected.

Moni ring of standby systeTns or sy ens with r undant trains. Ensure that train j

Trendi of zero failures. At many f the does not the poor perfo ofa sites visit, licensees had establi zero redundant rstandbytrain. Acco plishthis i'

MPFFs or 00-percent reliability as goal or task by mo 'toring at the folio ' g levels.

)

perfo criterion for many of SSCs under the of the rule. The le intends

1. Monitor le train risk-gnificant that licensees afforded maxi m flexibility systems at system i el.

in establishing oals and perfo ce criteria.

i However, the e also intend that where

2. Monitormulta e nsk-sigmficant failures are likel to cause lo ofan intended systems at the evel.

j function, moniton g should predictive, 1

giving earlywarnin ofde dation. The team

3. Monitor single

' non-risk-signi6 cant j

was concerned that w d be difBcult to use g.

y at the' system level.

i trending to help pred anticipate failures j

when failure datais th nlyinformation being

4. Monitor mul pie train n-risk-significant 3

momtored.

systems h are used in dby service at i

the train I el.

j Conclusions l

5. Monitor normally operating, Coordination of tr adin and goals. Most sign fi systems at the plant 1 j

licensees had est ished tr ding programs.

Trendi ofzero fsDures. Where reliance on i

Trending was not equired f r all SSCs under j

the rule although t should be nsidered. The the use. f zero MPFFs or 100-percent

~

trending bemg rformed by st licensees reliability as a goal or performance criterion was not well rdinated and ' tegrated with may prochade prdicdve trending, consider j

the goals and rformance crite 'a established establishing additional goals and performance j

under the rul criteda ht can be trendM.

i

.4.6 Mo toring and Trending of Monitoring f standby systems systems Structures with redu ant trains. Certain n n-risk.

l l

significant stems used in standby rvice The rule requires that the performance or i

were bein monitored at the niant i I rather condition of structures be monitored in a j

than at t system or train level as req ired.

manner sufBeient to give reasonable assurance

]

Trendi g of zero failures. Reliance o the that those structures are capable of fulfilling their intended function. The statements of i

use of cro MPFFs or 100-percent reli 'lity as a goal or performance criterion may prec de consideration for the rule states *[w]here Predi tive trendmg.

failures are likely to cause loss of an intended function, monitoring should be predictive in i

Re mmendstions nature, providing early warning of degradation. NUMARC 93-01, paragraph C ordination of trending and goals.

9.4.2.4 lists examples of structural monitoring oordinate and integrate goals and activities meludmg nondestructive NUREG-1526 24 i

I 4

l examination, visual inspection, vibration analysis, and measurement of deflection.

needed. The team believes that the licensee should establish performance criteria and goals under the rule which take credit for the Findings _

' existing monitoring activities and build upon them.

The team reviewed the monitoring and trending of structures at the nine pilot sites and found that most licensees considered One licensee had established performance _

monitoring of structures under the rule to be a criteria for most structures under the scope of low priority. Some licensees had not the rule. However, the performance criteria established goals or performance criteria for for many of these structures was that the monitoring most structures at their sites.

structure would not degrade to the point Many licensees considered most structures to where it es=1 a loss offunction ofsystems be inherently reliable. Some licensees believed contained in the structure or supported by it, that as long as a structure such as a building For example, the roof of a building that was did not fall down and damage the equipment leaking would meet the performance criteria inside, the structure itself need not be until the water leaking into the building caused monitored. At some sites, the onsite personnel the system inside the building to fail. However, were not aware of existing preventive such performance criteria are not acceptable i

maintenance and monitoring activities that because they are not predictive and do not give early warning ofdegradation. The team were being performed on these structures by believes that a more appropriate performance i

offsite structural or civil engineering groups.

criterion would have been "no water leaks."

l One licensee took the position that their 1

structures had performed acceptably for the Anotherlicensee had determined that all past 20 years, not causing a loss of function of structures within scope of the rule, except the the systems contained in or supported by the primary containment, were m' herently reliable these structures, and were not expected to and therefore did not require goal setting begin a more rapid degradation from aging in underparagraph(aXI)of the rule or i

the future. Therefore, believing these monitoring against performance criteria under structures "very reliable," they found it paragraph (aX2) of the rule. The licensee's unnecessary to establish goals or performance representative stated that these structures are criteria to monitor them. However, they also routinely examined by plant ' personnel during stated that inspection and maintenance is their walkdown inspections of the plant. They i

necessary to ensure degradation of these believe that this monitoring activity is sufficient structures does not cause a loss offunction, to verify that preventive maintenance is The structures are monitored during the adequate. The team believes that shhough normal operator rounds, management condition-monitoring is an appropriate method l

walkaround inspections, and inspection by of monitoring structures, the lack of specific other plant departments in the course of criteria to monitor against would make it normal work activities. Deficiency cards and difficult to detect degradation of these structures.

maintenance work orders are generated when conditions adverse to quality are found. The Conclusions team believes that the existence of these longstanding monitoring activities contradicts Most licensees considered the monitoring of the licensee's position that no monitoring is structures under the rule to be a low pnon,ry.

Some licensees incorrectly assumed that many i

(

25 NUREG-1526

of their structures are inherently reliable. The 2.4.7 Functional Failures performance criteria for monitoring the performance or condition of some structures statements ofconsideration for the e

are not predictive and do not givs early state t where one or more mainte warning of degradation.

prew lblefailures occur on SSCs er

~

paragra (a)(2) of the rule, the eff 'veness

~

Certain structures such as the primary of maintenanceisnolo ger containment can be monitored by fulfilling demonstrat, and the SSC most hen be established testing requirements such as those treated und graph (a)(1) the rule. This in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J. However, term was chan ed 'm NUMAR 93-01 to other structures such as reactor buildinga, maintenance ntiblefunc analfailuresto auxiliary buildings, and cooling towers may be emphasize that o a failure ' which the item more amenable to condition-monitoring.

actually failed the

. 'on Id be counted Some licensees are developing programs for as a failure that d req ' goal setting and monitoring structures that will include doing monitoring under p grap (a)(1).

plant walkdown inspections and engineering evaluations to establish condition-monitoring Findings criteria. This program should include the establishment of specific criteria for Twolicensees focused nctionalfailures monitoring.

rather thanjust mainte eprewntible i

functionalfailures as in NUMARC Recommendations 93 01. Theseli did because it was easier to process bot types failures

1. Reevaluate the monitoring of structures (maintenance relat or not)' the same and determine, using the methods manner because would not wif the described in NUMARC 93-01, paragraph failure was maint

-preven le until after 9.3.2, to determine whether performance the root cause tion had performed, criteria or goals are needed to monitor the The team revie this approach noted performance or condition ofindividual that all functio failures would be usted structures.

and disposition in the same mann as maintenance-eventible functional f ' res.

2. Review the existing structural monitoring activities and use them, with enhancements Conclusion i

as necessary, as a basis for establishing a l

monitoring program under the rule.

The use of nctionalfailures in stead of mainte

-prenntiblefunctionalfailure is

3. Do not use veryreliable orinherently acceptable Approaches other than those reliable to describe structures that require described NUMARC 93-01 are acceptable j

preventive mamtenance or monitoring.

the lice can demonstrate that the i

alternati e gives the same level of assurance

4. Establish performance criteria or goals that that requirements of the rule will be are predictive and give early warning of satisfi failure.

5. Take credit for existing plant walkdown ivoections or other structural inspection activities under the rule.

}

NUREG-1526 26

-

ML20137N238

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Contact:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY