ML20195E862

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Performance Indicators, for Apr 1999
ML20195E862
Person / Time
Site: Fort Calhoun Omaha Public Power District icon.png
Issue date: 04/30/1999
From:
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20195E848 List:
References
NUDOCS 9906140120
Download: ML20195E862 (69)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION 4

?

r . " A 'N

- [.s';,'j

~ 3. ~ ...:y ^ ' ) n.. i 4

; xe

_n m. ' een 4 4 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS APRIL 1999

a62WR??Ao$s R

I OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT l FORT CALHOUN STATION l n, L' a 1 I4'* 5 s. -. ;i; - r . c= j '.. h? n ,,ti _,,,lj. .,.4 - 4 q ;., 7 eg any c;,1 g ,y s ": m gg ~ q;g-tr ;;n-9- 1 n+.

f. j
  • *! i l*7 l i f }f' hli

.Ib ~~ li5IIf Y~ gT 3ITf M y s(k. t y~ n ? n. d i ~ 1 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS [ APRIL 1999 l ra " Eau M iE ' J l R L

lJ FORT CALHOUN STATION ll' THE MAIN THING scie - Event Free Nuclear Production of Electricity l Being the Best is A Matter Of: Ii g C ritical Self-Assessment H uman Performance is Exemplary ] O perations are event free ,lI I nitiatives in high visibility areas have strong performance C orrective Actions are Broad and Lasting ll E xcellance in materiel condition Get Back to Basics! I VALUES Safety Conscious g Individual Respect Integrity Accountability l Teamwork Simplicity l l DO THE RIGHT WORK - AT THE RIGHT TIME - THE RIGHT WAY FOLLOW THE RIGHT PROCESS b l

Table of Contents Page TABLE OF CONTENTS..................... ..1 MONTHLY

SUMMARY

REPORT............................. ....... 4 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

SUMMARY

REPORT... .5 INPO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND.................. ........... 6 INPO PERFORMANCE INDEX INDICATORS................. .. 7 WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Unit Capability Factor.......................................... .. 9 Unplanned Capability loss Factor.......................... 10 Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams per 7000 Hours............................. .. 11 High Pressure Safety injection System..................................... 12 Auxiliary Feedwator System........................ 13 Emergency AC Power System........................................ . 14 Thermal Performance............. 15 Fuel Reliability Indicator............................... 16 Secondary System Chemistry......................................... 17 Collective Radiation Exposure......... 18 Industrial Safety Accident and Disabling Injury / illness Rate............ . 19 Volume of Low Level Radioactive Waste................................... . 20 MRC PERFORMANCE INDICATOR NRC Model For Evaluating FCS Performance........................ ................. 22 Initiatina Events NOTE: Subcategories within the NRC Green Monitoring Band are in development the following indicators were based on: Top 1/3-Green / Green, Middle 1/3-Green / White, Bottom 1/3 as Green / Yellow Unplanned Scrams per 7000 critical hours (automatic and manual scrams)......... . 23 Scrams with Loss of Normal Heat Removal........ . 24 Unplanned Power Changes Per 7000 Critical hours.... 25 1

[ [ Table of Contents Mitlaation Svstems Page Safety System Unavailability, Emergency AC Power... 26 Safety System Unavailability, High Pressure injection System............ . 27 [ Safety System Unavailability, AFW System................. .... 28 Safety System Unavailability, LPSI System........................... 29 Safety System Functional Failures............................ .. 30 Barriers Reactor Coolant System Activity...... 31 f Reactor Coolant System leakage................................................ 32 Containment Leaka ge........................................................ . 33 Emeraency Preparedness ERO Drill / Exercise Performance............................ ........................... 34 Emergency Response Organization Drill Participation............................ ... 35 [ Alert and Notification System Reliability................................................. 36 Occupational Exposure Control Effectiveness.................... .. 37 Public Radiation Safety RETS / ODCM Radiological Effluent Occurrence....................................... 38 Physical Protection f Protected Area (PA) Security Equipment Performance index 39 Personnel Screening Program Performance......................... . 40 Fitness - For Duty (FFD) Personnel Reliability . 41 [ CHOICE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Critical Self Assessments ( Problem identification Rate (Solf & Site)............................. . 44 Self Assessment Quality index................................. ... 45 2

Table of Contents Page Human Performance is Exemplarv Average Days for Resetting the Site Wide Event Clock......................,........ .... 47 Individual Error Human Performance LERs................................................... 48 Organizational / Programmatic Error LERs.................................................. 49 Operations Are Event Free INPO identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events..........,.................................... S1 Initiatives in Hlah Visibility Areas Have Strona Performance initiatives and High Visibility issues....................................................... 53 Corrective Actions Are Broad and Lastina Recurring or Repetitive Condition Reports... .............................................. 56 in Progress Condition Reports (Level 1-4) Total and >6 Months Old............................. 57 Open Action items (Level 1-4) Total and >6 Months Old...................................... 58 Number of Repeat Maintenance Activities................................................. 59 Excellence Achieved in Plant Material Condition Number of Plant Transients >20% caused by Equipment Performance........... ............... 61 i Number of Temporary Modifications Caused by Materiel Condition Problems ... 62 Number of Condition Reports (Level 1,2,3) Caused by Equipment Problems...................... 63 Number of Operator Work Arounds Caused by Materiel Condition Problems..................... 64 Number of On-Line control Room Deficiencies......................................... 65 Non-Outage Corrective Maintenance Backlog........................................... 66 Current Production and Operations" Records"/ Station Operating Cycles and RFO Dates.............. 67 I L 3 m

{ FORT CALHOUN STATION j Monthly Summary OPERATIONS f During the month of April 1999, the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) operated at a nominal 100% power. Normal plant maintenance, surveillance and equipment rotation activities were performed during the month. [ WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The overall WANO Performance Index was 90.5% during the 1st Quarter of 1999. Significant percentage point losses are attributed to the WANO Performance Indicators listed below: { 1. The Unit Capability Factorindicator, calculated over the previous 24 months. 2. The Unplanned Capability Loss FactorIndicator, calculated over the previous 24 months.

3. The Emergency AC Power, calculated over the previous 24 months.

4. The Collective Radiation Exposure, calculated over the previous 24 months. 5. The Secondary ChemistryInd/cator, calculated over the previous 12 months. ( l

{ { PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

SUMMARY

REPORT f E TREND REMRT INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED 1 MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT A performance indicator with data representing three consecutke months of improving performance or A performance indicator with data for the reporting three consecutive months of performance that is period that is inadequate when compared to the superior to the stated goal is exhbiting a positive OPPD goal is defined as "Needing increased [ trend per Nuclear Operations Division Quality Management Attention" per NOD-OP-37. Procedure 37 (NOD-OP-37). The following indicators With Neantive Trends p:rformance indicators exhbited positive trends for the reporthg month: Thermal Performance (Page 15) industrial Safety Accident Rate (Page 19) RCS Activity (Page 31) f ERO Drill / Exercise Performance (Page 34) Individual Error Human Performance LERs { (Page 48) Non-Outage Corrective Mantenance Backlog (Page 66) ADVERSE TREND REPORT A performance indicator with data representing three consecutive months of declinbg performance or three consecutive months of performance that is trendhg toward declinhg as determbed by the Manager - Nuclear Licensing, constitutes an adverse trend per NOD-OP-37. A supervisor whose pstformance indicator exhibits an adverse trend by this definition may specify in wrMten form (to be published in this report) why the trend is not adverse. { The following performance indicators exhbited adverse trends for the reporting month. There are no adverse trends this month. ( l 5

INPO PERFORMANCE INDEXTREND I --e-IndexMdan -+-.IndexBestQiartle -*-IndexWtxstQJartile -+-FbrtCalhoun (@ (q (90.5) 96-- -- 95 g 3 85 '~ 75 - ..A .UI- -- 75 [_' _A 00 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 60 e e e e m m g g s s e o cn 5 E 1 l 1 Fort Cahoun hdexLElculation 4 .First Quarter 1999 ' OVERALL PERF0FNANCE INDICATOR WElGHT VALUE -NDEX-PRODUCT-Unit Capability Factor (2yr) 0.1s 85.7 91.4 14.s 1 Unpl. Cap. Loss Factor (2yr) 0.12 s.9 54.0 s.s Unplanned Auto Scrams (2yr) 0.08 0.0 100.0 8.0 Safety System Performance: l PWR High Press. Inl. (2yr) 0.10 0.001 100.0 10.0 PWR Aux. Feedwater (2vr) 0.10 0.002 100.0 10.0 1 Emergency AC Power (2yr) 0.1n o.016 85.0 a.s Thermal Performance (1vr) 0.06 100.0 100.0 s.o Fuel Rel. (Most recent atr) o.os 3.2E-04 100.0 s.o l Chemistry Perf. Ind. (1yr) 0.07 1.13 96.7 s.s Collective Rad. Exposure (2vr) o.os 132 89.4 7.2 bd. Safety Acc. Rate (1yr) 0.05 0.16 100.0 s.0 TOTALINDEX so.s ' [ I" 6 I

[ INPO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND INDICATORS { mM AXIMUM VALUE nForthQr TJ8 EFirst Qr TJ9 [ En im Nd g 1* d 888 888 8 [ did did 588 oo $35 ogo .o de Se$ 888 SEE o ooo 00 i i i i i i i i i i [ This graph shows the difference between Fourth Qtr 18 and First Qtr 19 actual values achieved by Fort Calhoun. These values are updated quarterly. CALCULATED OVER A 24 MONTH PERIOD MAXBEMACI.UALYALUES QTR. TREND [ UCF Unit Capability Factor 16/14.60 Negative UCLF Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 12/ 6.50 Neutral UA7 Unplanned Auto Scrams / 7000 Hours 8/ 8.00 Neutral [ HPSI High Pressure Safety injection 10/10.00 Neutral AFW Auxiliary Feedwater 10/10.00 Neutral EACP Emergency AC Power 10/ 8.50 Neutral ( CRE Collective Radiation E90sure 8/ 7.10 Neutral CALCULATED OVER A12 MONTH PERIOD [ TPl Thermal Performance Indicator 6/ 6.00 Neutral CPI Secondary Chemistry Indicator 7/ 6.80 Positive ISAR Industrial Safety Accident Rate 5/ 5.00 Neutral CALCULATED OVER A QUARTERLY PERIOD Fal Fuel Reliability Indicator 8 / 8.00 Neutral [ { I L

c;. [ t [ [ [ WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS { [ ( (

UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR I Monthly Unit Capability Factor --o-24 Month Unit Capability Factor I - WANO Industry 1 year Median (87.0%) 130 % - l 120 % - 110 % - 100 % - e a i b i-h 70% - V 50% 1998 RFO 40% - I 30% - 20% - 10%- 0% 1 kk kk kk k k8 E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E hkbhhbhhkhb$$kb$hbhbkhbk I UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR '1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 002 2003 (PERCENT) ANNUAL GOAL 83.6 96.0 87.5 84.3 95.9 85.5 82.2 95.9 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE 78.1 90.1 81.4 99.0 1 THREEYEAR AVERAGE 83.9 82.5 83.2 DOUSTRY MEDIAN 82.8 83.6 >85.1 ( 3 Year Avera08) l Definition: Unit Capabaity Factor (UCF) is defined as the ratio of the avaHable energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy generation over the same time period, expressed as a percentage. Analysis: 1 The 24 month calculation of the WANO UCF bdicator was 14.80 pohts out of 16 pohts. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 14.80 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 14.70. The reduction h pohts was a result of the power reduction associated with hoperabNity of AFW pump FW-10 h February. The three months dropphg off the hdicator were all 100% power months. Next quarter's data may l significantly improve with the dropphg off of Apri and May 1997 data at 69.5% and 43.7% capability factors respecWely. Manager Jim Title Data Source Ruth Bilau [ L 9

UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR fo*J'nV3'*o"o".*03.H.*f""' '*" '"'" = J'Js"ln"J.*is"i N1'r%.n <3.0% > ':=' 60% - 60% - l 40% - 8"5 - i... aro l 20% - 10% - D V 'Q _ - 1 x r - . ~ ~ - '. ~.". 0% m i i 111ili1!1111111il11!11 l l UNPLANNED CAP. LOSS FACTOR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (percent) ANNUAL GOAL 3.0 1.5 3.5 3.0 4.1 3.0 3.1 4.1 I YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 7.9 9.9 3.8 0.6 THREE YEAR AVG. 6.6 9.3

7.2 Definition

I Unplanned CapabRity Loss Factor (UCLF) is defhad as the ratio of Unplanned Energy Losses durbg a given period of tr' ne to Reference Energy Generation. Unplanned Energy Loss is defined as energy not produced such as: unscheduled shutdowns, outage extensions, or load reductions due to causes under plant management control N they are not scheduled at least four weeks b advance. Analysis: The 24 month calculation of the WANO UCLF indicator was 6.50 pohts out of 12 pohts. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 6.50, which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 6.50. The only unplanned capabHRy loss durbg 1999 occurred h February when a unit shutdown was hRiated following expiration of a 24 hour LCO on FW-10. Next quarter's data is expected to improve as the AprH and May 1997 poor performance WRI not be hcluded, assumhg continued good performance this year. llianager Jim Tills Data Source Ruth Bilau [ [ 10

{ UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS I PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL f - -o-12-Month Rolling Average -+- FCS Reactor dram s Per 7,000 Hours Critical for last 36 months Fort Calhoun Goal (0,0) { -as-W ANO Industry Media n (0) -m--- FC S Re a c tor S c ra m s - 1997-98 2 -- f 1998 RFO O-l { UNPLANNED Automatic Reactor 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 { Scrams per 7000 Hours Critical ANNUAL GOAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 l THREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.48 0.31 0.00 Definition: Unplanned Automatic Scrams per 7000 Critical Hours (UA7) is defined as the number of unplanned automatic ( scrams (RPS Logic Actuations) that occur per 7000 hours of crtical operation. The value is calculated by multpfying the number of unplanned automatic scrams by the total hours critical in the same (kne period and dividing by 7000. Analysis: The 24 month calculation of the UA7 indicator was 8.0 points out of 8 points. At the end of the First Quarter f 1999 the FCS Value was 8.0 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 8.0. { "m;r Roos Ridonoure Data Source Ruth Bilau I 11

[ HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM I SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE [ -. mn"twn,au"' ""~""'- Fort Calhoun G al(0.003

  • - WANO induetry 1 year MegIan (0.004)

+ 0.007 - 0.006 - 0.005 - [ [ [ f - - - - '\\ / - - - - - 0.002 - e ~ ,=,= J.=,=,=,=,;.=.=.=,;,=,;,=,; =,=, =, .0 0 5 5 E 4 " 5 5 5 5 { E E ! k ' S $ 8 E E k e] E E 55%4E55%%$$ Ek8 $h8EEk& [ [ HPSISAFETY SYSTEM (SP1) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 [ ANNUAL GOAL 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 f THREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.000 0.001 0.000 Definition: High Pressure Safety System (SP1) is defined as the sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and

2) the estimated fault exposure unavaBable hours for the high pressure safety injectbn system for the reporting perbd, dMded by: 1) the critical hours for the reporting period and 2) the number of trains in the high pressure safety injectbn

( system. Analysis: The availability of the HPSI System remains high due to high equhment reliability and judicbus planning and scheduling of mestenance. This places FCS as one of the best performers in the industry for this indicator. As of 03/31/99 the 24 month cabulatbn of the SP1 Indicator was 10.0 points out of 10 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was { 10.0 which compares to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 10.0. Manager Merl Core Data Source Chuck Schaffer { r 12

{- AUXILIARY FEEDWATER b SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE [ c =aw"~m:1u;~-"* ret camioun I(0.01) --*-- WANO Industry 1 par Medan (0.004) 0.040 -- 0.035 -- 0.030 -- 0.025 -- 0.020 -- 0.015 -- 0.010

"*0: 7 M + 4 + t t =~, e M t ? ? * * ;

a b i 1111111111111111111111i [ [ AFW SAFETY SYSTEM 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (SP2) b ANNUAL GOAL 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 YTD ACTUAL 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.006 { PERFORMANCE THREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.001 0.001 0.002 Definition: Auxiliary Feedwater Safety System (SP2) is defined as the sum of : 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and 2) the estimated fault exposure unavalable hours for the auxiliary feedwater system for the reporthg period, divided by: 1) the critical hours for the reporthg period and 2) by the number of trahs h the auxiliaryfoodwater system. [ Analysis: [- The 24 month calculation of the SP2 bdicator was 10.0 pohts out of 10 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 10.0 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 10.00. ( Manager Mort Core Data Source Russ Cusick [ r 13 r a

i EMERGENCY AC POWER SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE tms Monthly Em ergency AC Power Safety System -e -24 Month Rolling EACP Unavailability Fort Calhoun Goal (0.024) -e-WANO Industry 1 year Median (0.010) 0.027 - p p-p' ' q gy 0.025 - 0.023 - yy o ,,? h, 0.021 - !,1 IQ bl O i9 y,1 in t '-- i 0.019 - a 0.017 - ti !2 LI or !J i?- r; +; h D; 0.015 - U y :3 ls];} pg e; i [Q !T;; {j h 0.013 - p 0.011 p if p rn -0 b f h ' ' !! 3 0 8:8s: P R R r i i i i W i ; ; d E r.:. $ $ ! [O fj y g~ - _,,, _ _ dL. 0.001 , m -- q -0M1-{'{y'g}s 8124m ael 3!a8!242s& g g 'g g ' 'g g g'

; g'g'g'g g s Ji a !

l 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 EMERGENCY AC POWER SAFETY SYSTEM (SP5) ANNUAL GOAL 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.010 0.015 0.017 0.015 Definition: Emergency AC Power Performance (SPS) is defhed as the sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavalable hours and the estirnated fault exposure unavailable hours for the emergency AC power system for the reporthg period and dMded by the number of hours h the reporting period hours for the number of trahs in the emergency AC power system. Analysis: The 24 month calculation of the SPS bdicator was 8.5 points out of 10 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 8.5 which compares to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 8.5. This parameter is currently under review for previous reporthg discrepancy. Manager Mori Core Data Source Rich Ronning 14

THERMAL PERFOHMANCE Monthly Therm al Perform ance -dr Month Rolling Avera e Fort Calhoun Goal (99.7 W ANO Industry 1 year M la n (99.7%) 139 % - j K, 3 ~ 1 x 98 RFC 99% k f I THERMAL PERFORMANCE (TPt) 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (percent) ANNUAL GOAL 99.6 99.6 99.7 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 99.7 99.9 100 99 l THREE YEAR AVERAGE 99.7 99.9 99.9 . Definition: Thermal Performance (TPI) is defined as the ratio of the design gross heat rate (corrected) to the adjusted actual groes heat rate, egressed as a percentage. 4 Analysis:. Unplanned equipment outages or degradation has not affected the unit's offieleimy. This performance places FCS in the 3rd quartile of performance in the hdustry for this indicator. The 12 month calculation of the TPI indicator was 6.0 pohts out of 6 pohts. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 6.0 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1996 value of 6.0. A 24 month calculation of the TPI hdicator was 6.0 pohts Gut of 6 pohls. Manager Mort Core ' Data Source Kevin Naser I 15

l..; l-FUEL REUABluTY INDICATOR Fuel Rollability (E-04 Microcuries/ Gram) f. A End of 1999 Goal (5.0 E-04 Microcuries/ Gram) WANO Industry 1 year Median (2.30 E-04Microcuries/ Gram) ( -e-3-Mo n th R ollin g Ave ra g e v {. 100 - f 10 - 1-g 0.1 - n 3 a ~da 3 0.01 Jan 99 Feb-99 M a r-99 Apr 99 FUEL RELIABNY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 f (FRt)(xE.04 Micro curloemram) ANNUAL GOAL 147 17.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ( YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 99 5.2 4.5 { DeRnition: Fuel Reliebuty (FRI) is deihed as the steady-state primary coolant 1-131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium contrbution arid power level and normalized to a common purfication rate, and average linear heat { generation rate. Analysis: f Elimination of the initial Westhghouse fuel design, which resulted h spacer grid hduced fretthg of numerous fuel rods in Cycles 15-17, was completed for Cycle 18. Addhional improvements originally implemented h Cycle 18 wHi continue to be used for Cycle 19. Coolant actMty data through AprH 1999 shows the presence of eleven defective fuel rods. This is an herease from ten fated rods through March. The herease is attet>uted to an increase h Xe-133 activty, in Apri the FRl value was 2.3 E 04 ucFgm compared to 66.0E-04 ucVgm at the same time point h Cycle 17. The Apri FRl value was approximately one-foudh the previous month's value. This declhe h FRl is a result of statistical difficulties when dealhg wth large amounts of tramp material (1-134) h the core compared to the amount of I-131 which is comhg out of the faled fuel rods. The recent quarterly calculation of the FRl hdicator was 8.0 pohts out of a possble 8.0 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999, the FCS Value was 8.0, which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1994 value of s.0. mag., Ruh.n w iier, oata - .u.ar, m.f,r, 16

{ SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY tassa 80onthly ChemietryIndicator ( 1999 Fort Calhoun Goal (1.2) --+-- W ANO laduetry 1 year Idadian (1.04) 1.s -- 1.21 1.07 1.05 1.03 1.09 1.2 -. pwa (f (( [.] 4 1.12 1,1 g,og 1.1g o q, 1-- m7 gg m e,5 os- { h} 84 - y ) f ] o.2 - e ( k I k I k I ( SECONDARY SYSTEM 1997 1999 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 CNEMISTRY(CPI) ANNUAL GOAL 1.4 1.1 <1.2 <1.2 <1.15 <1.15 <1.15 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 1.33 1.16 1.06 DeHnition: Secondary System Chemistry (CPI) is defhed as a calculation based on the concentration of key knpurities h the { secondary side of the plant. These key impurities are the most Ikely cause of deterioration of the steam generators. Criteria for calculating the CPI are: 1) the plant is at greater than 30 percent power, and 2) the poweris changhg less than 5% por day. Analysis: The theoretical minimum long term CPI value range for FCS is 1.1 to 1.2 which is due to the secondary system { copper content and a lack of Condensate Polishhg & Blowdown Recovery systems. This performance places FCS in the lowest quartile of plants for this indicator. The 12 month calculation of the CPIindicator was 6.8 pohts out of 7 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was S.8 which compared to the Fourth { Quarter 1998 value of 6.6. The low number h February and March were due to cleanup of naos out durbg the February 3rd power reduction. The CPI value is egocted to rise slightly for the remainder of the year due to a combhation of a long run buiding up sodium in the steam generators and due to the placing of the inline IC hto long term layup To better utlize budget and man power. This is not an operational impact but is an impact on the hdicator. RAanager Ruben Hamilton Data Source Mark Oetion f 17

i COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE j 11:23 Monthly Radiation Dose (SRD) W ANO 3 year Median (116 -4th qtr.98) - e-YTD Accumulated Dose based on SRD reading FSC Goal 225 - 200 - 175 - 150 - 3 125 - E 100 - ?!: a a a e 25 - g 0 S COLLECTIVE RAD EXPOSURE 1996 id97 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (CRE)(MAN-REM) ANNUAL GOAL 1380 38.0 224.0 200.0 TBD TBD TBD TBD YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 226.0 40.8 223.8 6.81 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 117.0 138.0 163.2 NdDUSTRY MEDIAN 145.0 144.0 116.0 3 YEAR AVG.

  • TBD - To Be Determined Definition:

Collective Radiation Exposure (CRE) is defined as the total extemal whole-body dose received by all on-site personnel (hcluding contractors and visitors) during a time period, as measured by the thermolumbescent dosimeter (TLD). Collective radiation exposure is reported in units of person-rem. Analysis: The 24 month calculation of the CRE bdicator was 7.1 points out of 8 pohts. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 7.1 which compared to the Fourth Quartrr 1998 value of 7.1. hienager Mark Puckett Data Source Gary Collett l (- 18

i INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT LATE l 1998 Y-T D bdustrial Saf ety Accident & Disabling hjury/Bness Rate j -n-1999 Y-T D bdustrial Safety Accident & Disabling hjury/Wness Rate Year 2000 WANO bdustry and FCS Goal (<0.40) - *- WANO bdustry 1998 Median (<0.23) l 0.70 - l 0.60 - l 0,50 0.40 - ^ ^ 0.30 - ^ 4 0.20 - ~ A A A 0.10 - 0.00 D r-fls-r-a i-C ,5 S 5 } P F g 8 B 8 a 2 2 l z o 4 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 RATE (ISAR) ANNUAL GOAL <0.5 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 d.4 <0.4 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.29 0.00 0.18 0.00 1 Definition: l Industrial Safety Accident Rate (ISAR) is defhed as the number of accidents for all utHity personnel permanently assigned to the station. hvolving days away from work per 200,000 person-hours worked (100 person-years). The l purpose of this indicator is to monitor progress h improving industrial safety performance for ut!!ity personnel permanently assigned to the station. Contractor work-hours are not included in this indicator. l Analysis: The 12 month calculation of the ISAR bdicator was 5.0 pohts out of 5.0 pohts. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 5.0 which compares to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 5.0. l Manager Ron Short Data Source Duane Booth 19 l l L

VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE c-3 Monthly Volume of LLRW (cu. meter) -as-Year-to Date cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried + W ANO Industry 1 year Median (28cu. meter) Fort Cahoun Goal (23 cu. meter) v 60.00 - ~ 50.00 - 40.00 - g 30 00 ' ? ? Y 20.00 - g g h d I N O Ob 10.00 - g 0.00 M May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 99 Feb Mar Apr I I VOLUt*E OF LOW-LEVEL 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 RADIOACTIVE WASTE (RWV) ANNUAL GOAL 18.5 34.0 <23.0 <23.0 <15 TBD TBD TBD YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 18.38 22.20 17.09 11.75 Definition: l Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) is defhed as the volume of low-level solid radioactive waste actually shhped for burial. Analysis: The volume of radioactive waste buried in 1998 was higher than desired due to the Cycle 17's high RCS activity I created by fared fuel. Cycle 18's fuel performance improvements are spected to reduce waste generation. This performance places FCS h the worst quartie of plants for this indicator. The LLRW indicator is no longer calculated as part of the WANO Pl Index by INPO. Manager Mark Puckott Data Source Mark Breuer [

r {' I NRC I PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I l I ( 21

r " INITIATING EVENTS" Unplanned Scrams Per 7000 Critical Hours (Automatic And Manual Scrams) U a a la n n e d R e rm um e a a r ?.0 0 0 N ta l ..f. Definition: The number of unplanned scrams during the previous four quarters, both manual and automatic, while critical per 7,000 hours. Analysis: No unplanned scrams occurred during the previous four quarters. Manager Ross Ridenoure Data Source Ruth Bileu i 23

"lNITIATING EVENTS" Scrams with Loss of Normal Heat Removal S e re ne s w l.h L a n e e t N e r m a l H e e. It e m e v a l l .4 1 Definition: The number of unplanned scrams while crtical, both manual and automatic, during the previous 12 quarters 1 that also kwolved a loss of the normal heat removal path through the main condenser. Analysis: No unplanned scrams occurred during the previous twelve quarters. Manager Ross Ridonoure Data Source Erick Metzke i I [ [ r L 24

r i j "lNITIATING EVENTS" Unplanned Power Changes per 7000 Critical Hours l g,a a la n n a d P e m e r C h a n e e n a e r 7 0 0 0 C title a t M o u rs ) e. Definition: The number of unplanned changes h reactor power of greater than 20% full-power, per 7,000 hours of crtical operation excluding manual and automatic scrams. Analysis: The changes indicated h the first and second quarter of 1998 are carryovers from 1997. The change hdicated in the first quarter of 1999 was a result of surveRiance test faRure of steam driven auxRiary feedwater pump (FW-

10) due to an incorrect testing methodology. The power reduction (from 100% to 60%) was a result of reaching the Tech. Spec. LCO time limR for FW-10.

Manager Ross Ridenoure Data Source John Drahota 1 l l I 25 )

r-l l l l " MITIGATION SYSTEMS" L Safety System Unavailability, Emergency AC Power S afete S v e ta n U m a v alla h Hite. E m e rm a n e w A C P a w a r 4 F.. Definition: Emergency AC Power Performance is defhed as the three year running average of the sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and 2) the estimated fault egosure unavailable hours for the Emergency AC Power system for the reporting period, divided by 3) number of hours in the reporting period hours, and 4) the number of trains in the emergency AC power system. Analysis: The 24 month calculation of the SPS indicator was 8.5 points out of 10 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 8.5 which compares to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 8.5. Manager Mori Core Data Source Rich Ronning l l 26

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Safety System Unavailability, High Pressure injection System .................m......................... l = " - l j ] i Definition: High Pressure Safety System for the NRC Safety System performance is defined as three year running average of sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavalable hours, and 2) the estimated fault e@osure l unavagable hours for the high pressure safety injection system for the reporting period, divided by: 1) the critical l hours for the reporting period, and 2) the number of trains h the high pressure safety injection system. Analysis: a 'The avalab8ty of the HPSI System remains high due to high equ' ment reliabilty and judicious planning and p scheouling of mahterance, Rienager RAeri Core Data Source Chuck Schaffer l 27

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" l Safety System Unavailability, AFW System l ............o....n.,im.m....... F.. Definition: Auxiliary Feedwater Safety System for the NRC safety system performance is defined as the three year running average sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and 2) the estimated fault egosure unavailable hours for the auxiliary feedwater system for the reporting period, divided by 1) the critical hours for the reporthg period, and 2) the number of trains h the auxiliary feedwater system. Analysis: The 24 month calculation of the SP2 indicator was 10.0 points out of 10 pohts. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 10.0 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 10.00. Manager Mort Core Data Source Russ Cusick 28

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Safety System Unavailability, LPSI System S afe tv $ vate um U a av allab ill.v. L P G 19 vate un i 4.

7..
11..

Definition: Residual Heat Removal System for the NRC safety system performance is defined as the three year runnhg average sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and 2) the estimated f ault exposure unavailable hours for the auxiliary feedwater system for the reporting period, divided by 1) the critical hours for

r. reporting period, and 2) the number of trains in the Residual Heat Removal System.

Analysis: Perfonnance conting as to be exemplary. Manager Mort Core Data Source Chuck Schaffer i I t 29

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Safety System Functional Failures My S vstem Fu n ctio n al F ailu res 10/98 2Q /98 3 98 4 Q /98 1Q99 0 5 10 in dic ato r 15 20 25 Definition: The number of events or conddions that have been reported in LERs that prevented, or could have prevented, the fulfillment of safety functions specified in NEl-99-02 in the previous four quarters. Analysis: Performance is showing a strong positive trend. Manager Ralph Phelps Data Source Erick Matkze 30

1 l " BARRIERS" Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Activity R eactor C o olan t S ystem A ctivity M onth

      1. //ftst//s 0

10 20 30 40 j indicator 50 60 70 80 l 90 100 - Definition: The maxirnum monthly RCS actMty h micro-Curies per gram (uCVgm) dose equivalent lodine 131 per the technical specNications, and expressed as a percentage of the technical specNication I' it. m Analysis: Current Delis at about 3% of Technical Spectication Limk. If we were to tr' DEI could be expected to reach p 60% of limit after this point in time. It is projected that TS lirnit will be exceeded at the end of the operating cycle for a rapid shutdown. Manager Ruben Hamilton Data Source Jim Hoffman 31

" BARRIERS" Reactor Coolant System Leakage R C S Id e n tifie d L e a ka n e M onth

      1. fferst///

0 to 20 30 40 in d le ato r 50 - 60 70 80 90 100 - Dennidon: The maximum RCS identfied Leakage in gallons per minute each month per the technical spectications and egressed as a percentage of the technical specNication limit. Analysis: RCS leakage continues to be a small fraction of the allowable Tech Spec limit. Manager Rose Ridonours Data Source John Drahota 32

" BARRIERS" Containment Leakage C on tain m ent Leakan e M onth

      1. fferts///

0 l p............ 40 20 i j 30 40 In d lo ato r 50 60 - ^ 70 80 -, 90 ' 100 Definition: Contahment Leakage is the monthly maximum total Type B and Type C leakage as a percentage of the design basis leak rate (L.), as determined in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J. Analysis: The " running total' containment leakage, based on Local Leak Rate Test at the conclusion of the 1998 Refuelhg Outage, continues to trend well within acceptable limits. Manager Mori Core Data Source Glen Miller 33

" EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS " ERO Drill / Exercise Performance E R O D rill /E xe rcise P erfo rm a n ce 100% 90% - In dle ato r 80% 70% 60% 10/98 20/98 S Q /9 g,,, g,,4 Q /9 8 1Q99 i Definition: The percentage of all drII, exercise, and actual opportunities that were performed timely and accurately during the previous eight quarters. j Analysis: ERO Drtl Exercise Performance needs knprovement. This indicator is very near the white level of performance. i 14mnager John Setick Data Source Carl Simmons ~ ) 34

" EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS" Emergency Response Organization Drill Participation E R O P a rticlo atio n In d ic ato r -~ 70% 1 Q/98 20/98 3Q/9( ,4 Q /9 8 1Q99 i i Definition: Ths percentage of key ERO members that have particpated in a drill, exercise, or actual event durng the previous eight quarters, as measured on the last calendar day of the quarter. Analysis: Drill partichation is currently very good. Manager John Sofick Data Source Carl Simmons 35 a.

" EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS" Alert and Notification System Reliability Alert & N otificatio n S ystem R elia bility 100%.. 98% 96% In dic ato r 88% 84% ~ ~ ' 82 % ~ ~ 80% 10/98 2 Q /98 3 0 /9 g y,,,,,4 Q /9 8 1Q99 Definition: Th3 percentage of ANS sirens that are capable of performhg their function, as measured by periodic siren testing h the previous 12 months. Analysis: Siren reliabilty conthues to hiprove. Manager John Sofick Data Source Carl Simmons as

" OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION " Occupational Exposure Control Effectiveness i O ccu patio n al E xpo su re C o n trol E ffec tive n e ss 10/98 2 Q/9 8 3 98 4 Q /98 1Q99 0 2 i 4 6 In dicato r 8 12 14 Definition: The performance indicator for this comerstone is the sum of the following, Technical Specification high radiation area occurrences, Very high radiation area occurrences, Unintended exposure occurrences, over the previous 12 quarters. Analysis: Two Events have affected the Occupational Exposure Control Effectiveness performance indicator. The events aro associated with TS RHRA (dose rates greater than 1000mr/hr). The first event occurred in April 1998. The second event occurred in April 1999. A RCA is being conducted and will investigate to determine if there are any simbarities between the events. Manager Mark Puckett Data Source Mark Puckett 37

1 "PUBLIC RADIATION SAFETY" l RETS/ODCM Radiological Effluent Occurrence R ETS/O D C M R ad iolo alcal E fflu en t 10/98 20/98 3 98 4 Q /98 1Q99 ~. j 2 in d icato r 3 4 i s f \\ Definition: Radiological effluent release occurrences per reactor unit over the previous 4 quarters. Analysis: l Current goals would not em:eed 10% of the threshold values. Manager Rubin Hamilton Data Source Bruce Reneaud I i 38

7.. l. " PHYSICAL PROTECTION " l Protected Area (PA) Security Equipment Performance index P ro te c te d A re a S e c u rity E a u in m e n t P e rfo rm a n c e 10/98 2 Q/98 3 9s 40/98 1Q99 i 0.0 la d leate r 0.1 { -- 0.15 0.2 . Definition: PA Securty equipment performance is measured by an index that compares the amount of the time CCTVs and IDS are unavailable, as measured by compensatory hours, to the total hours h the period. A normalization factor is used to take hto account site variablity h the ske and comple::ity of the systems. ( Analysis: Performance conthues to be acceptable h this area. t Manager John Sofick Data Source Don Leiber { l l '39.

" PHYSICAL PROTECTION " Personnel Screening Program Performance Personnel Screenina Proa ram 10/98 20/98 3 98 4 Q/98 1Q99 0 - 3 1 f ~ 2 3 Indicator 4 5 ~ 6 l ~ ,1 Definition: Ths number of reportable failures to properly implement the regulatory requirements, over the previous 4 qu rters. _ Analysis: Performance conthues to be acceptable h this area. Manager John Sofick Data Source Don Leiber f l 40

" PHYSICAL PROTECTION " Fitness -For Duty (FFD) Personnel Reliability F F D /P e rs o n n e l R elia b ility Q u ar te r 10/98 20/98 3 Q /98 4 Q /98 1Q99 0 - v 1 2 ~ 3 Indicator 4 r s 6 7 8 Definition: Thz number of reportable faRures to property implement the requirements of 10 CFR Part 26 and 10 CFR 73.56, over the previous 4 quarters. Analysis: Performance continues to be acceptable in this area. Manager John Sofick Data Source Don Leiber 41

i CHOICE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 42 s

CRITICAL SELF-ASSESSMENT Strategic Objective: To promote a learning organization and to continuously strive towards improving safety and operatienal performance. Self-Assessments compare actual performance to industry standards of excellence and management expectations to identify and corr:ct areas needing improvement. Performance Indicators: Self-Assessment Quality index Problem identification Rates (Self & Site) e Kny Actions Taken to date: Tha 30 Program Review Project has been the most visible and intensive effort conducted by plant staff. Most Functional areas have performed formal self-assessments in 1998. Tha Development of the Self-Evaluation Report (SER) Data base within the Training Area. Operations, Radiation Protection, and Training (via Accreditation teams) have all performed team self-tss:ssments that have performed well. Plint " Scorecard" system is an assessment tool aimed at providing real time feedback conceming performance. 360 Degree Performance Feedback process conducted with many station managers has influenced L*adership behaviors. Risults Achieved: Emphasis on the conduct of Formal Self-Assessments in 1997 and 1998 has contributed towards improved station performance. Improved focus on the completion of Post Job Critiques to capture operating experience, identify and track performance problems. Tha formal self-assessment process is recognized as an industry strength in the latest INPO evaluation. 43

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION RATES (Self & Site) 100.0 p 90.0 e0.0 70,0 y 60.0 - Y 50,0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 1 1996 1997 1998 1999 g

%of Sof-kntried Problems

%of Ste-hntWied Protdems i i % of SeN klen2Nied Protdeme: 1996 1997 1998' 1999 (YTD) 2000 2001 2002 2003 Target Performance WA WA WA 85.0 TBD TBD TBD TBD l Actual Perfo?msnce 68.8 61.0 [ 83.9 % of Site identMiest Proideme: 1996 1997 1998 1999 (YTD) 2000 2001 2002 2003 Target Performance WA WA WA >98.0 TBD TBD TBD TBD Actual Performance 98.6 97.8 97.3 98.5 DeHnition: This is a measure of our abuty to identNy problems intomaly. The first ratb (% of Set-ldentfied Problems) represents the percentage of CondNbn Reporto identfied by the Work Group. The second ratio (% of Site-identfied Problems) represents the percentage of CondNbn Reports identfied by the Work Group, Non-OversNe Woric Groups, and Oversite Work Groups (does not include NRC or INPO identfied problems). The Goals are to continue to increase tbs number of son-identfied problems and readce the number of External identNied problems. Analysis: Yser-end Projection: An improving trend is egected. Further efforts are planned to improve the "Sef Evaluatbn" culture. Tw to<iste Perfo mence: During the first quarter of 1999, the SeN-identWicatbn rate has increased by approximately 15% _irgwitng a poskive trend. The SNo-identNicatbn rate cort!nues to oe high. BAenager DelTrausch Data Source Ken Steele 44 m _

SELF-ASSESSMENT QUALITY INDEX e 100% - 90% ] 80% !A_ i [ 70% - ~ v 60% - 1 30% - 50%- j 40% - 1 20% - 10% - 0% 5 E k E k 8 h 1-t 8 4 a 8 = a 2 o Calendar Quarter -e-Engineering -+--Operations -t-Wintenance -+--- Piard Support 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A 85 90 90 90 90 Actual Performance N/A N/A N/A Definition: This performance hdicator is based upon evaluation of individual area self-assessment activties. Self-assessment activities are grouped into the areas of Operations, Maintenance, Engineering and Plant Support. Assessment qu 1Ry is evaluated by the NSRG through the use of e self-assessment scorecard. Data is provided as 12 month Rolling Averages. Analypis: Data provided beginning 4th quarter 1998. Self assessments performed in the 1st quarter 1999 hclude; Cycle 17 Maintenance Rule Periodic Assessment of Mahtenance Effectiveness, Self Assessment of Accredited Training Programs. No Maintenance assessments were completed over the last two quarters. Manager DelTrausch Data Source Ken Steele 45

HUMAN PERFORMANCE IS EXEMPLARY l Strategic Objective: To promote a high quality, well-motivated work force willing to work tog:ther as a team to increase productivity while also reducing the probability for human error through the utilization of high quality work practices related to organizational, leadership and individual human performance behaviors. Performance Indicators: Average Days for Resetting the Site Wide Event Clock individual Error Human Performance LERs a Organizational / Programmatic Error LERs o K y Actions Taken to date: Vics President briefings to establish the sense of urgency to change our behavior Th3 use of a "Four Key Question" concept within the pre-job briefing prr::ess as a means of improving on the orrly identificatiori and r ;mination of error-likely situations. Th3 adoption of a Focus Manager program designed to apply supervisory oversight focused on the prevention of error-likely situations. Increased training and routinely scheduled discussions among managers on issues involving the improvement of 1:idership skills. Weekly Leadership Sessions. Training of Shift Technical Advisors and other selected personnel on the INPO " Human Performance l Fundamentals" course. Training of engineering and operations personnel on the INPO " Excellence in Human Pz rformance document" (Titanic training). j increased focus of operations simulator training on the use of self and peer-checking concepts. 46

n I AVERAGE DAYS FOR RESETTING THE SITE WIDE EVENT CLOCK l l \\ 60.0 1 50.0 - 40.0 - l 30.0 - l l 20.0 - 10.0 - ] 0.0 1 E E 8 b Z c 7 a 2 B 4 s i l 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Average Days for Resetting the Site Wide Event Clock Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A 40 50 60 90 90 Actual Performance 20.6 17.3 38.7 43.1 Definition: The she wide event clock is reset following the occurance of a significant condkion report (Level 1 or 2) that adversely affects plant operating status or safety margin and which was wkhin the organizations abNity to i prevent. This indicator tracks a 12 month rolling average of the number of days between succeeding event clock resets. Analysis: Tnend for this hdicator remains stable above the 1999 goal. With no additional Condition Reports FCS wHl meet the 1999 goal. l Manager Mary Tesar Data Source John Kollams 3 47

i i l INDIVIDUAL ERROR HUMAN PERFORMANCE LERS 1 -+--T,otal Eve.nts .5 - ,.v.nt. --*--Personel Error 12 Month Totals 30 - 25 - 20 - 15 " ^ 15 15 15 15 15 94 94 10 I '7 6 4 3 3 5 - 5 = = 2 2 = 7 s-o 8 g 8 8 8 8 g lj 8 I 4 4 I A 8 8 4 Number of Human Performance 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Licensed Events Report Annual Goal 2 2 2 2 1 .1 0 0 Actual Performance 2 4 4 1 Definition: LERs caused by personnel error such as inappropriate action by one of more individuals, as opposed to being attrbuted to a department or general group. LERs falling into this category would include those events which can be shown to have been created or driven by an undertying organizational or programmatic weakness. These are typically indicated by the failure of more than one defensive barrier. Analysis: Human Performance trends show an overall decline h the number and percentage of causal factors attrbuted to human performanca errors in several categories. Note: Due to the way LERs are tracked & reported, this indicator lags by one month. Manager Mary Teear Data Source Erick Matzke 48

1 i ORGANIZATIONAUPROGRAMMATIC ERROR LERS Perfonmence Related LERs 3 l 2 o 1 g g,. a g$ e$ h 0 Apr-98 May-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 Aug-98 Sep-98 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jan99 Feb-99 Mar-99 Number of Organizational / 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Programmatic Errors Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A 5 4 4 3 3 Actual Performance 9 5 5 1 Definition: This performance indicator monitors organizational / programmatic performance error LERs where the root cause is personnel error such as a department or general group, as opposed to being attrLuted to happropriate action by one or more individuals. LER's falling h this category would include those events which can be shown to have been created or driven by an underlying organizational or programmatic weakness. These are typically indicated by the faRure of more than one defensive barrier. Analysis: The trend for 1999 is vety positive. Manager Mary Tomar Data Source Erick Metzko I i 49 L

OPERATIONS are EVENT FREE Strategic Objective: To ensure that weak barriers are identified and strengthened to prevent events. Performance Indicators: { INPO Identified Sign;ficant/ Noteworthy Events e Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (WANO indicator, page 10) e Transients per 7000 Critical Hours (NRC indicator, page 23) e { Unplanned Reactor Scrams per 7000 Hours (NRC indicator, page 24) e K y Actions Taken to date: Enhanced Formality in Operations. Completed pilot " behavior based" Operations self-assessment through joint efforts of USA. Operatbns procedures reviewed prior to use during the Refueling Outage. Development of Scorecard Observation Process. [ Establishment of Pre-job Briefing Expectations. Noteworthy event definition setup for all Plant Manager direct reports. [ Strategic agreements between line organization and Training that require review of Condition Reports, Operating Experience and Human Performance errors. [ Use of focus instructors and focus managers in the simulator. { Operating Experience categories and topics established for the Refueling Outage and recent events discussed at each Plan of the Day meeting. { Radiological posting information made easier fcr radiation workers to identify, [ ( { r" 50 I L

INPO identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events a Significant O Noteworthy a Historical OTotal(Significant+ Noteworthy) torical) E Current Ewnts Total (Total - His 16 16 - 14 N: 100 11 10 10 10 9 7 77 8 10 - 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 0 0 0 0 ' ' =, 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Definition: FCS Events, are screened and designated by INPO as Significant events that exhbit one or more of the following chcracteristics: 1) severe or unusual transients,2) safety system marunctions or improper operations,3) major equpment d;m:ge caused by lengthy unplanned outages or signricant reductions in power levels, replacement of or extensive repairs to major equpment, fuel rod failures requiring a shutdown, and 4) other events invoMng nuclear safety and plant reliability. Noteworthy events are determined to be not "Significant," but indicative of (Le indicates the existence of precursors) maintenance, operations, administrative or management problems. Historical Events are events classified by OPPD as ciused by conditions greater than eighteen months old. Analysis: Significant Events since start of inPO Cycle: None r Noteworthy Events she start of INPO Cvele: Survemance Procedure Deficiency Leads to Entry into Technical Spectication Required Shutdown due to Auxiliary Feedwater Inoperabliity. Noteworthy Historical Events since start of DiPO Cycle: None Meneger Jim Tills Data Source Donna Guinn 51

INITIATIVES IN HIGH VISIBILITY AREAS HAVE STRONG PERFORMANCE Strategic Objective: To ensure that initiatives in high visibility areas have strong performance. Areas of interest are defined as an issue, area, initiative or activity that has major impact on: 1) Safe and Event Free Nuclear Production of Electricity 2) Being Successful in a Competitive Environment 3) Building and Maintaining Trust with Regulators, Employees and Customers Performance Indicators: 3 Mlleetone schedules nor high visibility areas will be monitored. These areas are: Cork management Process (Wylie) e 1999 Refueling Outage (Wylie) = improvemente in Preventive Maintenance and Predictive Maintenance Programs (Sweamgin) Y2K(Henry) = swnchyard Modancations(short) i e 1999 Graded Exercise (Simmons) e Roeolution ofINPO findings (Frans) Zebre Museet hitletive (Hamilton) e RAMS Project (Chamberlain) e 1999 Refueling Outage Mlleetones e Key Actions Taken to date: 1998 Refuenng Outage-Outage Safety Goals met. Plant has operated >200 days fotowing r-ompletbn of the outage. Resolutbn of Fuel Reliability issue Severe Accident Management Guidelines implemented Maintenance Rule inspection /implementatbn Successful INPO Evaluation Results Achieved: The 1998 Refueling Outage se.foty goals were met and the plant has operated for ovei 200 days foNowing completion of the refusing outage. High Integrity Containers Shhment-The handling and shipment of three High Integrty Containers containing spent resin shhn9nts were successfuly completed. Resolutbn of Fuel Retabluty issue-Compared to last cycle when we had approximately 100 failed pins, we have only 2 failed pins 200 days into the cycle. Severe Accident Management Guidennes (SAMG) implementation <:ompleted the project on schedule. SeN-assessment confirmed that SAMGs can be implemented per NRC commitment date. Switchyard Modficatbn-The project is on schedule for completion by Jm e 1999. Preparatbns for the 1999 Refusing Outage-Wth the exceptbn of the first milestone (identWicatbn of modNication and ECN list) all miselones have been met. Project Plan le developed and on schedule. White Project le generally on schedule however some milestones have been missed or reacheduled. hh; Project Plan has not been developed and is No project plan has been developed to date and WW not overdue or the protect is behind schedule, le overdue. 52

r l l lNITIATIVES AND HIGH VISIBILITY ISSUES Yegow l. Resolution of itPO findings lFrans Tw c action requests (26939 and 26944) have been issued to FCS management to provide descrptions of the action plans, status of ir@iemontation of the action plana, and any resuts-to-date ior each of the 19 NO 1999 plant evaluation fhdings. The due dates for theee ac#on requests are 6/25/99, for AR 26939, to alow the action plans, atatus, and results to be presented at the 7/23/99 SARC meeting, and 8/20/99, for AR 26944, to provide the 6 month status to ff0 due on or bef ore 9/17/99. 1 I Yebw : 1 . Rams Project lCharrt>ertain Progress is being made on resolving RAMS issues. Some of the biggest open issues include; buking proficiency in use of RAMS; report w riting conthues to be a concern-although progress has been made; and resolution of some of the items is behind schedule, Ike FCD. Yegow..l Work Management Process. lWyle A project plan for this initiative has not been prepared. t is expected that this plan w Il be available by May 31,1999. The goals for this project are as foilow s: To benchmark /streanine rnahtenance work management process. Succesa of this project wII l be measured by reduchg correc#ve mahtenance bacidog and signNicantly inprovhg plant materiel condition and relability. l Whte l, Improvemente in Preven,tive Mair,tenance and, Predictive Maintenance Programs. lSw earngh hprovement off orts yieldhg excelent results. The PM hprovement Process, ushg the System Engineers to review Maintenance Fkale System for PM adequacy is in progress. This is a signNcant burden on (SE) resouces, and the PM Engineer. Additional resources have been requested to support hpiementation of changes resutthq f rom the SE review s. Adcitional bsues, addressed by a team consisting of personnel f rom Retablity Engineering, Plannhg & Scheduling, and naintenance are: FNs not conpleted in a timely manner (past late date). PM change request bacidog (FC 1065). Whte l . 1999 Gradod Exerclee. Preparation of lSimnons The next major rriesone :s the submittal of the Exercise Scenario to the mC and FEMA on June 11,1999. subtrittalis b progress. l Whte l 1999 Refueling Outage Mllestones lSolyrnossy During the first quarter of 1999, tw o RFO Miestone dates w are not met. Both w ere related to outage rrodifk:ations. The irrpact of nisshg these dates w as assessed and subsequent corrpletion dates estabished. Although the nissed dates did not meet expectations for FFO preparations, there is no know n hyact to pre-outage or outage activities as a resut. Therefore the performance of this high vist>lity activity is assessed as *w hite" or generapy on schedule. i Bforts consnue to conplete software detaled assessments with four assessments remainhg to be issued for review. Wesion critical conponent testing and remediation work continues to meet the June 30 date for subtrittal of our response to Generic Letter 96-01. An hitial draft of the integrateo Y2K conth ency plan has been conpleted and is behg review ed. 9 l l 53 ) L i i L:

V: INITIATIVES AND HIGH VISIBILITY ISSUES White l ,. Switchyard Modifications lShort Ehhanced processes and controls put h place fotow hg the January 21,1999 f ast tranaf er event continue to be off octive as no chalenges to the plant have occurred shoe January 21,1999. l . Zobra Museel Contr01 initiative, . Harriton Qienistry is currently on track w ith the Zebra Wesel action plan that w as approved in 1995. t was review ed and considered appropriate. The plan w R be updated and reissued w ith edtorial changes. The deterninations of EAR 95-059 are considered vald. Oienistry intends to provkie recognition training to personnel w ho f requently w ork in the intake structure, j Training Accreditation Renewal & Operator Hot License lWestcott Uconsed Operator accreditation le conplete. Bforts are underw ay 10 prepare for succesaf ul accredtation for au programs with the inproved accredtation procesa atarting in 2000. j r

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS are Broad and Lasting Strategic Objective: To proactiveiy identify, evaiuate, take corrective action and monitor resuits of problems, potential problems and non-consequential events. To identify the root causes, the generic implications and tho rppropriate corrective actions to prevent a recurrence. To address the fundamenu.1 causes of problems rather than th) symptoms. 1 Performance Indicators: Recurring Repetitive Condition Reports in Progress Condition Reports (Level 1-4) Total and >6 Months Old e Open Action Items (Level 1-4) Total and >6 Months Old . Number of Repeat Maintenance Activities K:y Actions Taken to date: Canmon Cause Analysis (CCA) completed to identify Programmatic and Organizational issues. Operating Experience categories and packages developed for refueling outage tasks. Implementation of a "7-week" maintenance planning cycle. Th3 Training Department has developed a Seli Evaluation Report (SER) database. 1 At the access to the radiologically controlled area, the role of Radiation Protection Shift Technicians have changed from information providers to information verifiers. Organizational & ProgrammaticlRoot Cause Analysie (O&P/RCA) training was completed for a sflect group of personnel. 55

E [ RECURRING OR REPETITIVE CONDITION REPORTS f-Level 3 CRs written per month 16 14 h M[ 12 [. to a--[- 6-- b k 4-- C /, v u

a, p.

e 2 y [ k + ( ( p M p 3 e p 8 8 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 8 h b b b b k h b h ( DeHnition: f The number cf repeat or similar events as indicated in the CR database. These are identified as Level 3 Condition Reports (CRs). ( Analysis: A change in management philosophy caused a significant reduction of level 3 CRs in August 1998. The trend has been relatively steady since. In April 1999, another philosophy and procedural change, occurred which also has the potential to limit the number of level 3 CRs. The criteria for a level 3 CR is more selective, but also requires the performance of a Root Cause Analysis for prevention of recurrence. [ Manager Rich Clemens Data '"ce Mike Burggraf ( { l I ( se t

\\ IN PROGRESS CONDITION REPORTS (LEVEL 1-4) TOTAL AND >6 MONTHS OLD Level 1 -4 CRs In progress mTotal m>6 Months 80o 600 E a m ,oo 8 8 8 E 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 E k k k Definition: This Indicator shows the total number of in-Progress Condition Reports (Level 1 4) and the total number of in Progress Condition Reports (Level 1-4) greater than 6 months old. An: lysis: A concerted effort was made in mid 1998 to reduce the CR backlog. Most actions were essentially done. The documentation had just not been completed. Since that time, the trend for CRs and Action items has been steady. Manager Rich Clemens Data Sou;2e Mike Burggraf 57 u

OPEN ACTION ITEMS (LEVEL 1-4) TOTAL AND >6 MONTHS OLD O p e n A c tio n ite m s To tal an d > 6 M on th s Old E3 Total m > 6 Months 1 700-I 600 -- 500 -- ~ 400 -- 300 -- 200 -- D: 0 pi, 100 -- 8 8 8 8 8 E R E 8 E 8 8 8 k s' k8 4 lii ^ z o u. 2 s Definition: This indicator shows the total number of Open CR Action items (Level 14) and the total number of Open CR Action items (Level 1-4) greater than 6 months old. Analysis: A concerted effort was modo in mid 1998 to reduce the CR backlog. Most actions were essentially done. The documentation had just not been completed. Since that time, the trend for CRs and Action items 'as been steady. Manager Rich Clemens Data Source Mike Burggraf 58

NUMBER OF REPEAT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 16 - 14 - 12 ': - RAMS Da:a is nc: Avaiaae. 6-4- J 2_ l 0 Mar-96 Sep-96 Mar-97 Sep-97 Mar-98 Sep-98 Definition: Th3 number of corrective maintenance activities that were re-performed (i.e., repeated) within 12 m:nths of the initial performance of the task. Antlysis: RAMS data is not yet available. M: nager Rich Clemens Data Source Mark Ellis 59

l Excellence in Materiel Condition 1 Strategic Objective: To review existing programs and policies, along with equipment hi: tories and provide process improvement and equipment repairs / upgrades that will coeure excellent materiel condition through decommissioning and beyond. Performance Indicators: Number of Plant transients >20% caused by equipment performance Number of Temporary Modifications caused by materiel condition problems e Number of Condition Reports (Levels 1-3) caused by equipment problems Number of Operator Work Arounds Caused by Materiel Condition Problems Number of on-line Control Room Deficiencies Non-Outage Maintenance Back;og e WANO Performance Indicators (UCLF/HPSI/EACP/FRl/ CHEM) pages 10,12,14,16,17 Thermal Performance K:y Actions Taken to date: Fermed Reliability Engineering Dept. to focus on preventive maintenance, predictive i maintenance and Maintenance Rule programs. D:veloped action plan under Maintenance Rule. R: viewed Preventive Maintenance processes. R:sults Achieved: Improved reliability and availability of diesel driven AFW pump and Instrument Air compressors. N3 Maintenance or operational unavailability of equipment during 1998 which resulted in exceeding Maintenanco Rulo performance criteria. M:Intonance Rule (a)(1) list of equipment exceeding performance criteria reduced ftom 16 at the beginning of 1998 to 6 items awaiting corrective action completion. Implementation of new process to review preventive maintenance programs established for pl:nt systems. 60

NUMBER OF PLANT TRANSIENTS >20% CAUSED BY EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE a Monthly Equipment Performance D Fort Calhoun Goal 0 100 % - 80% - 60% - 40% - 20%- 0% May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan-99 Feb March April Definition: Number of Plant Transients >20% Caused by Equipment performance is defined as any down-power below 30% power caused by equipment materiel condition problems. Not included in this indicator are down-powers below 30% for scheduled preventive maintenance tasks or down-powers below 80% due to human pwformance errors. Analysis: Equipment has not caused down-power over the past 12 months. The last down-power below 30% power was on February 2,1999 and was attributed a human performance error. Manager Mort Core Data Source Russ Plott i L L 61 l.

NUMBER OF TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS CAUSED BY MATERIEL CONDITION PROBLEMS GREATER THAN 1 FUEL CYCLE mm Ternporary Modifications >1-fuelcycle old um Ternporary Modifications installed as Result of MaterialCondition - Fort Calhoun GoalTernporary Modifications 0 7-6-- 5-4 3-- 2-- 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t - - ---l- --- t-- A t----t------ + - - --t-l E I J k I I E 5 Definition: Any Temporary RAodification installed due to equipment deficiencies. Not included in this indicator are procedural temporary modifications thet are installed due to equipmeent calibration, weather conditions, design deficiencies, etc. Analysis: The gos! for this indicator is 0 temporary modifications installed for greater than one fuel cycle. Currently their are 6 temporary modifications installed as a result of materiel condition probieras, however, none have been installed for greater than one fuel cycle. nianager leeri Core Data Source Russ Plott 62

l NUMBER OF CONDITION REPORTS (LEVEL 1,2,3) CAUSED BY EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS Level 1,2,3 Condition Reports Fort Calhoun Goal 20 20 - 18 - 16 - 12 14 - 12 - 10 - 8-6- 4-2- 0 i i i i i i i i i April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Definition: The indicator is intended to trend open level 1,2, or 3 condition reports that have RS (Reliability) or UF (Unexpected failures) in the "Cause" field not included in this indicator are maintenance rule condition reports as they are separately trended. Goal for this indicator is 20. Analysis: There are currently 12 opea Level 1,2, or 3 condition reports caused by notoriel condition deficiencies. There is no historical data for this indicator and it will be trended from April 1999. Manager Merl Core Data Source Russ Plott 63

j NUMBER OF OPERATOR WORK AROUNDS CAUSED BY MATERIEL CONDITION PROBLEMS OW As Caused by Materiel Condition Deficiencies Fort Calhoun Goal <5 1 16 - 14 - 12 - 10 - 8-6- 4 4-2- 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l Definition: An equipment materiel condition deficiency that requires compensatory operator actions or j complicated plant operations. This is a subset of the established OWA list maintained by the t Operatbns Department. Not included in this indicator are design deficiencies or other OWAs not directly caused by equipment deficiencies. Analysis: i l There are currently 4 OWAs caused by materiel condition deficiencies. There is no historical data for this indicator and will be tracked from April 1999. This indicator definition may change, in the near J future, due to program enhancements being considered by the Operations Department. l l Manager Mori Core Data Source Russ Plott i 1 l l 1 l i 64 ]

NUMBER OF ON-LINE CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCIES CRDs Caused by Materiel Condition Deficiencies Fort Calhoun Goakio on-line CRDs>15 days old. 16 - 14 - 12 - 10 - 8-6- 4-2- O i i i i i i i i i Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Definition: i The number of control Room Deficiencies, as indicated on the Operations Department CRD list that are caused by materiel condition problems. This is a subset of the established CRD list maintained by the Operations D=;- ^___r.:. Not included in this indicator are design deficiencies or other CRDs not directly caused by equipment deficiencies. Analysis: There are currently 9 CRDs caused by materiel condition deficiencies that are greater than 15 days old. There is no historical data for this indicator and will be tracked from April 1999. This indicator definition may change, in the near future, due to program enhancements being considered by the Operations Department. The goal for this indicator is 10 or less on-line CRDs that a o greater than 15 days old. Manager Mori Core Data Source Russ Pkdt 65

NON-OUTAGE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG m Corrective Maintenance O Non Corrective V 800 -- 730 715 700 -- 554 547 524 4gg 600 --514 !!!!!illiiiH ! O I l-1 I I I I I I I I l l b k h h Non-Qutage BlakLte.7*nce W nr.lLD.o_cyntent Bac ktoa Definition: This indicator shows how effective and how timely we are at keeping our plant equipment in excellent working condition. The data represents the number of backlogged activities at any one time and includes all work requests and work orders. Anclysis: The proposed goal for this backlog is 200, pending further definition of "open" backlog. The actual Unplanned back log (not ready) is 455 since 291 documents are ready to print or ready to validate. The backlog is high relative to industry standard and is resource (planner) dependent in most cases. Refueling outage woik planning is currently a high priority. The goal is to have the RFO backlog addressed by June and then resources will focus on the on-line backlog. 84anager Rick Wylie Data Source Martin Johnson l ) i l 1 6.

Fort Calhoun Station Operating Cycles and Refueling Outage Dates OUTAGE YTD EVENT l DATE RANGE l PRODUCTION (MWH) l CUMULATIVE (MWH) l Cycle 7 12/21/81-12/03/62 3,561,866 24,330,034 Cycle 8 04/06/83 03/03/84 3,406,371 27,736,405 Cycle 9 07/12/84-09/28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 Cycle 10 01/16/86-03/07/87 4,356,753 36,834,646 b Cycle 11 06/08/87-09/27/88 4,936,859 41,771,505 l Cycle 12 01/31/89-02/17/90 3,817,954 45,589,459 Cycle 13 05/29/90-02/01/92 5,451,069 51,040,528 Cycle 14 05/03/92 09/25/93 - 4,981,485 56,022,013 Cycle 15 11/26/93-02/20/95 5,043,887 61,065,900 Cycle 16 04/14/95-10/05/96 5,566,108 66,632,007 Cycle 17 11/25/96-04/01/98 5,183,108 71,815,678 Cycle 18 06/04/98-10/02/99 CURRENT PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS " RECORDS" First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5:47 p.m.) First Electricity Supplied to the System August 25,1973 C8mmercial Operation (180,000 KWH) September 26,1973 Achieved Full Power (100%) May 4,1974 Longest Run (477 Days) June 8,1987-September 27,1988 Highest Monthly Not Generation (364,468,800 KWH) October 1987 Moct Productive Fuel Cycle (5,451,069 MWH Cycle 13) May 29,1990-February 1,1992 Shortest Refueling Outage (53 days) February 20,1995-April 14,1995 October 4,1996-November 27,96 67 _ _ _ _}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20195E862&oldid=4120744"