ML20205J818

Performance Indicators, for Feb 1999

ML20205J818
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	02/28/1999
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20205J813	List: LIC-99-0032, Forwards Fort Calhoun Station Performance Indicators, for Feb 1999 ML20205J818
References
NUDOCS 9904120207
Download: ML20205J818 (65)

Text

I I

I OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT I

I l ..

~ 7 ,4 4 & n

~

r

. ,.: m y e r .

~

s

. Y. r _

g .

I '

I FORT CALHOUN STATION l 3ERFORMANCE INDICA- ORS I FEBRUARY 1999 I  ;;r1888I::888ae, R PDR I

I I

I OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT I

I .

I =

I

~ij ;L!

i 144

. ;L gg -j.

L~-. no .,

..g-

L i-, l r{a~*-

1. ~~

I qu a p . -  :- ,,

hit. II .

Q?a l g _

I i l

I I

FORT CALHOUN STATION l PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I FEBRUARY 1999 I pa:= =gb 7 I

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

! FORT CALHOLN STATION l l THE MAIN THING l Safe - Event Free Nuclear Production of Electricity g j Being the Best Is A Matter Of: g i

C ritical Self-Assessment

,  ! l'

! 11 uman Performance is Exemplary ,

O perations are event free  !

I nitiatives in high visibility areas have strong performance l i C orrective Actions are Broad and Lasting l E xcellance in materiel condition g Get Back to Basics!

l VALUES g

. Safety Conscious l

- Individual Respect l!

i

. Integrity

. Accountability l{l l

. Teamwork l . Simplicity l

DO THE RIGHT WORK - AT THE RIGHT TIME - THE RIGHT WAY

--- FOLLOW THE RIGHT PROCESS--

l

I t l Table of Contents Page  ;

( TABLE OF CONTENTS .... . .. . .... .. . . .. . .. 1 l MONTHLY

SUMMARY

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

SUMMARY

REPORT .. . . . .5 WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS j WANO Performance index Trend . . .. . . . . .. . . ... . .. .7 WANO Performance Index Indicators . . . . . .. ..... .. .8 Unit Capability Factor . .. ... ... .. . . .. . . . .9 Unplanned Capability Loss Factor .. . . . .. ... .. . .10 Unplanned Automatic Reactor SCRAMS per 7000 Hours . . . ... . .. . . .11 High Pressure Safety injection System . . . . . ... . 12 Auxiliary Feedwater System . . . ... .. . . . .13 Emergency AC Power System . . . . . . . . ... ... .... . . . . .. .14 Thermal Performance . . . . . . . . ... . . . .15 Fuel Reliability Indicator . .. . . .. .. ... . . .. .. ... .. . .. 16 )

Secondary System Chemistry . . .. . ... .. ... . .. . .. .. . . .17 Col lective Radiation Exposure .. . ... . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . .18 i

Industrial Safety Accident and Disabling. Injury / Illness Rate .. . . . . .. .. .19 '

Volume of Low Lovel Radioactive Waste . . . . .. .. . .20 NRC PERFORMANCE INDICATOR NRC Model For Evaluating FCS Performance . . .. .. . .. . . . . . 22

" Initiating Events" Unplanned Scrams per 7000 critical hours (automatic and manual scrams) . . . .... 23 Risk-significant scrams per 3 years . . . . . ... .. . . . .. 24 Transients per 7000 critical hours .. .. .. . .. . . . 25 i

1 r

Table of Contents

• Mitigation Systems" Emergency Power Unavailability . . ... .. . . . . .. .. 26 LPSI (RHR) Unavailability . ... . . . . 27 AFW Unavailability . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. 28 l

l HPSI Unavailability . . ..... . . . .. . . . 29 l

l Safety System Failures . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . 30 l

" Barriers"

Fuel Cladding - Reactor Coolant System (RCS) specific acSty .. . .. 31 IE Reactor Coolant - RCS Leak Rate . . . . .. ... . . .. 32 l System Containment - Containment Leakage .. . . . 33 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS

CHOICE CRITICAL SELF ASSESSMENTS l

Problem identification Rate (Self & Site) . ... . .. . . .......35 Self Assessment Quality Index . . . . .. .. . . . . 36 l

JiUMAN PERFORMANCE IS EXEMPLARY Individual Error Human Perfonnance LERs . .. . . . . . .. . . 38 Organizational / Programmatic Error LERs .. . .. . 39 Average Number of Days Between Human Performance Errors . . . 40 OPERATIONS ARE EVENT FREE INPO Identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events . . . . .. .. ... .. ..... 42

- INITIATIVES IN HIGH VISIBILITY AREAS HAVE STRONG PERFORMANCE I 1999 Outage Schedule Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Ucensed Operator Requalification Training .. . . 45 2

1 J

r l Table of Contents License Candidate Exams 1999 . ... ... ..... . . . .. . .. 46 MWO Planning Status (Cycle 19 Refueling Outage) . . . . .. . . .47 Component Testing /Special Services 1999 Outage Project Status .. . . . . . 48 1999 Refueling Outage Modification Progress (Cycle 19) . . , . . . ... . . . . . ... 49 1999 Refueling Outage Modificatior.,'ECNs Added After Freeze Date (Cycle 19) .. . . .. . . . 50 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE BROAD AND LASTING Condition Reports identification of RCpeat or Similar Events . . . . ....... . ... . 52 Condition Reports identifying Less than Effective Use of Operating Experience . .. . .. . ... .. .. . 53 Condition Reports >6 months old (Level 1-4) . .... .. ... . .. .. . . . . . 54 Condition Reports identifying Repetitive Maintenance . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . ... . . . 55 EXCELLENCE ACHIEVED IN PLAN' MATERIEL CONDITION Non-Outage Corrective Maintenance Ba. Alog .. ... ..... .. . . . ... . .... . ... 57 Ratio of Preventative to Total Maintenance & Overdue Status . . ... .. ..... .... . 58 Temporary Modification .. .. . .. . . .... . . . . ... . ... . . 59 l

Wlaintenance Rule SSC Unavailability . ...,.. . .. .... .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. . 60 On-Line Modification Planning Progress . . . . .... ... .... . . ..... . . .. . ... 61 Monthly Performance indicator Sources . .... ..... .. .. .. . . . 62 Current Production and Operations" Records"/ Station Operating Cycles and RFO Dates . .. . 63 I

3

r I

FORT CALHOUN STATION I Monthly Summary I g OPERATIONS l During the month of February 1999, the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) operated at a nominal 100% power until  ;

1202 hours0.0139 days <br />0.334 hours <br />0.00199 weeks <br />4.57361e-4 months <br /> on February 3,1999, when the station entered Technical Specification (TS) 2.0.1 and began a i required shutdown due to failure to meet TS 2.5 (1). The steam driven auxiliary feedwater pump (FW-10) had been declared inoperable after it failed to meet the acceptance criteria in Surveillance Test (ST) IC-ST-IA-3009,

" Operability test of lA-YCV-1045.C and Close Stroke Test of YCV-1045." A one-hour non-emergency I notif; cation was made to the NRC pursuant to 10CFR50.72 (b)(1)(i)(A) for a TS required shutdown.

At 1424 hours0.0165 days <br />0.396 hours <br />0.00235 weeks <br />5.41832e-4 months <br /> on February 3,1999, the power reduction was terminated at 59% power after declaring FW-10 operable following successful completion of IC-ST-lA-3009 and SE-ST-AFW-3006, " Auxiliary Feedwater Pump 1 FW-10, Steam Isolation Valve, and Check Valve Tests." Power ascension began at 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> on February 4, 1999, after secondary chemistry limits returned to normal. At 1005 hours0.0116 days <br />0.279 hours <br />0.00166 weeks <br />3.824025e-4 months <br /> on February 5,1999, the station I reached 100% power where it remained through the month end. Normal plant maintenance, surveillance, and equipment rotation was performed during the month.

WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The overall WANO Performance Index was 88% during the Th Quarter of 1998. Significant percentage point losses are attributed to the WANO Performance Indicators listed below:

1. The Unit Capability FactorIndicator, calculated over the previous 24 months, contributed to a 1.3 point loss as a result of unplanr:ed energy losses associated with the 1997 extraction steam pipe rupture event and the 1998 Refueling outage exceeding its planned duration.

2. The Unplanned Capability Loss FactorIndicator calculated over the previous 24 months contributed to a 5.5 point loss as a result of unplanned energy losses associated with 1997 extraction steam pipe rupture event and the 1998 Refueling outage exceeding its planned duration.

3. The Collective Radiation Exposure Indicator, calculated over the previous 24 months, contributed to a 3.3 point loss which was attributed to fuel failures and high exposure jobs during the Refueling outage. l

4. The Emergency AC Power Indicator, calculated over the previous 24 months, contributed to a 1.5 point loss, which was a result of on-line maintenance to make the die,els available for outage needs.

5. The Chemistry Performance Index Indicator, calculated over the previous 12 months, contr;buted to a 0.4 point loss, which is due to copper tubes in heat exchangers and restart from the '98 Refueling outage.

I

,F

,u 1

I L

1 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

SUMMARY

REPORT POSITIVE TREND REPORT ADVERSE TREND REPORT i l

A performance indicator with data representing three A performance indicator with data represonting three consecutive months of improving performance or three consecutive months of declining performance or three consecutive months of performance that is superior to consecutive months of performance that is trending the stated goal is exhibiting a positive trend per Nuclear toward declining as determined by the Manager - Nuclear Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-OP-37). Licensing, constitutes an adverse trend per Nuclear The following performance indicators exhibited positive Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-OP-37). j I trend for the reporting month:

Unit Cwability Factor (Page 9)

A supervisor whose performance indicator exhibits an adverse trend by this definition may specify in written form (to be published in this report) why the trend is not adverse. The following performance indicators exhibited Unolanned Caoability Loss Factor (Page 10) adverse trends for the reporting month. l Unolanned Automatic Reactor Scrams (Page 11) Temocrary Modifications (Page 59)

Hiah Pressure Safety Iniection System Safety System INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED MANAGEMENT Performance (Page 12) ATTENTION REPORT Thermal Performance (Page 15) A performance indicator with data for the reporting period that is inadequate when compared to the OPPD goalis Industrial Safety Accident & Disrblina Iniurv/fliness defined as "Needing increased Management Attention" (Page 19) per (NOD-OP-37).

Emeraency AC Power (Page 14)

Fuel Reliability Indicator (Page 16) j 1

RCS Snecific Activity (Page 31) l Individual Error Human Performance LERs (Page 38)  ;

i MWO Plannina Status (Page 47)

Non-Outaae Corrective Maintenance Backloa (57) i l

I 1

a

=

l 5

I

~

I I

"I I

I I

WANO I PERFORMANCE

,I INDICATORS I

I I

I I

cg I

I I '

I

I I WANO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND

-e- Index Mdan -e- IndexBest Char 1ile -*-. IndexWxst Chartile --o- Rxt Calhoun (89) (93) 100 -- -- 100 95- . . -

- 95 90-s : : 4WC ' 90 l

A; ^ " ~

h --

((

A. M 75 -

60

s" .

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

l l l

- = =-

l l

- 75

.g 60 888U8883888$888$8883888$

sssssssssssssssssssssss$

Fod Calhoun hdex Calculation Dec-98 OVERALL PERFORMANCE NDICATOR WEIGHT VALUE NDEX PRODUCT Unit Capability Factor (2yr) 0.16 85.8 91.6 14.7 Unpl. Cap. Loss Factor (2yr) 0.12 s.9 54.0 s.5 Unplanned Auto Scrams (2yr) o.ca 0.0 100.0 a.o Safety System Pedormance:

I PWR High Press. hl.

PWR Aux. Feedwater (2yr)

(2yr) 0.10 0.10 0.000 0.002 100.0 100.0 10.0 10.0 I Emergency AC Power Thermal Performance (2yr)

(1yr) 0.10 0.06 0.01s 100.0 85.0 100.0 a.5 s.o Fuel Rel. (Most recent atr) 0.08 1.5E-04 100.0 a.o Chemistry Perf. Ind. (1yr) 0.07 1.15 94.4 s.s Collective Rad. Emosure (2yr) 0.0a 223 58.9 4.7 bd. Safety Acc. Rate (1yr) 0.05 0.17 l 100.0 5.0 TOTALINDEX St.o 7

WANO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND INDICATORS 18.00 8 16.00 -

O 3 M A XlMU M V A L U E gThird Otr 90 g Fourth Otr '98 14.00 - 8 12.00 -

888 000 888 8 000 10.00 -

Oo{g*

"@ ggg ggg 8.00 - 8 *** 888 l E 0.00 -

UCF l

UCLF l

HPSI l

AFW 1

EACP 1 BHlHl i CRE I

UA7 1

FRI CPI TPI l

ISAR l

l This graph shows the difference between Third Qtr '98 and Fourth Qtr '98 actual values achieved by Fort I Calhoun. These values are updated quarterly.

CALCULATED OVER A24 MONTH PERIOD M AXNUM/ ACTUAL VALUES QTR. TREND UCF Unit Capabilty Factor 16/14.70 Positive UCLF Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 12/ 6.50 Positive HPSI High Pressure Safety injection 10/10.00 Positive AFW Auxiliary Feedwater 10/10.00 Positive EACP Emergency AC Power 10/ 8.50 Negative i UA7 Unplanned Auto Scrams / 7000 Hours 8 / 8.00 Pesitive i CRE Collective Radiation Exposure 8/ 4.70 Neutral  !

CALCULATED OVER A12 MONTH PERIOD l TPI Thermal Performance Indicator 6/ 6.00 Positive CPI Secondary Chemistry Indicator 7 / 6.60 Positive ISAR Industrial Safety Accident Rate 5 / 5.00 Positive CALCULATED OVER A QUARTERLY PERIOD FRI Fuel ReliabilityIndicator 8 / 8.00 Positive i

1 l

I UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR l l

I Monthly Unit Capability Factor  ! !

-m- 24 Month Unit Capability Factor  ! i

-r WANO Industry 1 year Median (87.0%) ,

130.0% $ # # $ $ g g g 120.0% o g # $$o g 9 o o o 9 g #

" "# # # o o #

i 88888 }

89 ES o$*88 kC 080 0l 110.0% . 88* g o g  : 1 100.0%

-8 Y 5 89 5 ", " " " "

' ~

- f ~~8

~

90.0% ' '" ~ N

'%a-E f aa a

- i

-~ '~

~D

~

80.0 % a -

a -A --

2 -

-r # -

-m u Z$' " ~8 l 70.0% -

7' m-.m a- m -m -m-a -

a -a 1

60.0%  !

50.0% 1998 RFO l 40.0% - ]  ;

I 30.0% -

20.0%

10.0%

00% -e l

rrrrr1 , v --

1. g

$ y i

f 55 $5 55 5 5 s$58888$8 8 88 $88 88 26 i <2 t ,s '4 < I o O zB 6 ,4 4 A $ # ,$sI68z8A 4

a 2 2 '

< m 5,$ 4 a I '5 Year to Date ' 12 Month 24 Month 36 Month 99% 81.4 % 85.8% 83.2 %

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 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 83.9 82.5 83.2 83.2 I INDUSTRY MEDIAN

( 3 Year Average) 82.8 83.6 >85.1 l

Definition:

Unit Capability Factor (UCF) is defined as the ratio of the available energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy generation over the same time period. expressed as a percentage.

Analysis:

The 24 Month UCF value remains steady with the exception of a brief 40% down power due to the FW-10 surveillance testing issue. The 12/31/98,24 month calculation of the WANO UCF indicator was 14.70 points out of 16 points. At the end of the Fourth Cuarter 1998 the FCS Value was 14.70 which compared to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 12.30.

I 9

t

I l

UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR I g:: 3 M enthly Unplanned Capability Lose Factor - m- 2 4 M o nth R olling A ve ra g e Fort C alhoun G oal (3.0% ) -- e--- W A N O Ind u s try 1 y e a r M ed ia n (3.9 % )

60% -

50% -

40% - .

30% - $

" l 1998RFo 20% -

10% - r - - - -

D os mr, vr,,

_ M ,

n = - = = = =

l 558 1 2 <{ j I i% 5E23

% 5 % % % 5 5 5 E

- i

$ $ 4 ki{ j $Ik8

, 2 $ 5in 5 5 g$

2 l

l l

l Year to Date 12 Month 21 Month 36 Month a

0.9% 4% 6.9% 7.2%

UNPLANNED CAP. LOSS FACTOR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2005: 2003 (percent)

ANNUAL GOAL 3.0 1.58 3.5 3.0 4.1 J.

• 0 3.1 4.1 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 7.9 9.9 3.8 1.0 THREE YEAR AVG. 6.6 9.3 7.2 I Definition:

Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (UCLF) is cabulated, as the ratio of Unplanned Energy Losses during a given period of time 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 in advance.

Analysis:

The 24 Month UCLF value rerr.ained steady but level, wth tho exception of the brief down power for the FW-10 surveillance testing I issue year fo. This 1998 andwill not improve throughout Februaryunt81999.April, The FCSassuming 24-month UCLF continuing of 6.9% s100%

xceedscapability performance.

the 3.9% median 12/31/98, the 24 month calculation of the WANO UCLF indicator was 6.50 points out of 12 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter the FCS Value was 6.50, which compared to the Third Quarter value of 5.40.

FCS for the industry. At has perform 10

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL

-o- 24 Month Rolling Average

--+-- FCS Rea c tor S c ra m s Pe r 7,0 0 0 Hours Critic al f or la s t 3 6 m o nth s Fort Calhoun Goal (0.0)

-e- W ANO Industry 1 yea r M edia n (0.0)

-m- FC S R e a c to r S c r a ra s 2 --

1--

Or r r r r r r r r = r = = 2 r  : 2 = =

I  ; Year to'0ste 12 Month 24 Motsth 36 Month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

UNPLANNED Automatic Reactor 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Scrams per 7000 Hours critical l

ANNUAL GOAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.48 0.31 0.0 Definition:

Unplanned Automatic Scrams per 7000 Crtical Hours (UA7) is defined as the number of unplanned automatic scrams (RPS Logic Actuations) that occur per 7000 hours0.081 days <br />1.944 hours <br />0.0116 weeks <br />0.00266 months <br /> of critical operation. The value is calculated by muniplying the total of automatic scrams by the total hours crRical in the same time period and dividing by 7000.

l Analusis:

FCS continues to perform in the upper industry quartile with Automatic Trp Free Operation. The last event at FCS, that resuked from an automatic trip, was in August 1995. On 12/31/98, the 24 month calculation of the UA7 indicator was 8.0 i points out of 8 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 8.0 which compared to the Third l Quarter 1998 value of 8.0.

l l

i I

11 i

1 J

I I

HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJEG TION SYSTEM 1 SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Monthly HPSI System Unavailabilty Value

-e- 24 Month Rolling Average

-- Fort Calhoun Goal (0.003)  ;

-*- WANO bdustry 1 year Median (0.004) m 10.0 - d 5.0 - 5

$$N

_ _ ess22 22 o o o o N o o o No N 2 22 22 2 N $N N

,.g;  !

0.O -------------------- '

l Year to Date 12 Month 2

' 4 Month 36 Month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 %

HPSI SAFETY SYSTEM 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (SP1)

ANNUAL GOAL 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.00 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 YTD ACTUAL PEP.FORMANCE F 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.0 0.001 0.0 0.0 Definition:

High Pressure Safety System (SP1) h defined as the sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and 2) the estimated fault exposure unavailable hours for the high pressure safety injection system for the reporting period, divided by 1) the crkical hours for the reporting period and 2) thw number of trains in the high pressure safety injection systam.

Analysis:

The avaliabhy of the HPSI System remains at 100 percent due to high equipment reliability and Judicious planning and scheduling of maintenance. This places FCS as one of the best performers in the industry for this indicator. On 12/31/98 the 24 month calculation of the SP1 Indicator was 10.0 points out of 10 poents. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 10.0 which compares to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 10.0.

12 I

AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Monthly Auxillery Feedwstor System Unavallability

--o-24 Month Rolling AFW Unavailability Fort Calhoun Goal (0.01) 0.1 -

---

W ANo indi,stry 1 year M es m (0.004) 0 0 ogo 6 o @ o E* o o o o o o o o o o ,, o o o o

o. m - ; 7 y -m - - - - -- ome -- m_=_ p-ty_:v ; , - -

- E g 2 % "2 5 $ S 5 8 8 8 I E E E I i k I $ 3 5' <i z ,8 '$ <$'  % $ z$ o $ ,8 4 w a 4 2 '

i i i $ $ <$' ?> $$ $$4 o ' '

Year to Date 12 Month 24 Month . 36 Month 0006 0.002 0.002 0.003 j AFW SAFETY SYSTEM (SP2) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ANNUAL GOAL 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 YTD ACTUAL PFRFORMANCE 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.019 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.001 Onel 0.002 Definition:

Auxillary Feedwater Safety System (SP2) is defined as the sum of : 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable )

hours and 2) the estimated faut exposure unavailable hours for the auxiliary feedwater system for the reporting period, divided by: 1) the critical hours for the reporting period and 2) by the number of trains in the auxiliary feedwater system.

Analysis:

I On February 2,1999, FW-10 pump was declared inoperable during performance of a surveillance test. The pump failed the surveillance test and remained inoperable. It was then discovered that there was an error in the testing methodology. The test was revised and preformed, and FW-10 passed the test and was declared operable on February 3,1999. The plant reached 59% power before FW-10 was declared operable. On 12/31/98, 24 month calculation of the SP2 indicator was 10.0 points out of 10 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value vcas 10.0 which compared to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 10.00.

I 13

l t

1 EMERGENCY AC POWER SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE m M o n th ly E m o rg e n c y A C P o w e r u n a va ila b liity V e f u o

+ Y e a r to D a te E m e rg e n c y AC P o w o r u n a va ila b ility V a lu e F o rt C a lh o u n G o n l (0.0 2 4 )

-*--- WANO In d u s try 1 ye a r M e d ia n (0.010 )

0.07 -

0.06 - g 9P l

0.05 - 6 g

O.04 - E 5

' g O.03 - o.

0.02 - E c -

0.01 - "

0 i i i i i

'" i i i i i i s a g a s a a a a a a a l I I  ! 4  % I A 8 5 $ 4 8 lI Me , _ -

l DG-1 Hours DG-2 Hours Total Hours Total Hours YTD f Planned Hours Unavailatsity 2.7 11.4 14.1 26.4 l DG-1 Hours DG.2 Hours Trital Hours Total Hours YTD Unplanned Hours Unavailability 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i EMERGENCY AC POWER SAFETY 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 SYSTEM (SP5)

ANNUAL GOAL 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 YTD ACTUAL PERFORM ANCE 0.010 0.015 0.017 0.013 Definition:

Emergency AC Power Performance (SPS) is defined as the sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours. 2) Ths astimated faut exposure unavailable hours for the emergency AC power system for the reporting period.

I dMded by the: 3) Number of hours in the reporting period hours for the number of trains in the emergency AC power system.

Analysis:

To maintain outage DG availabihty, planned on-line DG maintenance outages were conducted in July and August. The scope and duration of these outages proceeded as planned in December 1998, failure of the water jacket temperature I switch on DG-1 resuked in 29.85 hours9.837963e-4 days <br />0.0236 hours <br />1.405423e-4 weeks <br />3.23425e-5 months <br /> of unavailabRy. The 1998 performance goalwas achieved . This performance places FCS at the median of the industry for this indicator. On 12/31/98 the 24 month calculation of the SPS indicator was 8 % points out of 10 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS VahJe was 8.5 which compares to the Third a4 arter 1998 value of 8.8. This parameter is currently under review for prevk u reporting discrepancy.

I 14

I I THERMAL PERFORMANCE I mang Monthly Therm al Pe rform a nce A c==3 12-Month RoHing Average g Fort Calhoun Goal (99.7%) HM

+ W ANo Industry 1 year Median (99.7%)

b b b

• h 98 Rro g g g g f. g 8 g g g 100% , _ _

g_ g_, & 8 r g g g 99% b '= ==

9s% -

- + - - -+--- - + + + -+- + *' l + -

-+ ~*

L N k k f k f b - $ $

4 b

Year to Date ' 12 RAonth 24 RAonth 36 RAonth 99.5 % 100 % 100 % 99.9 %

THERMAL PERFORMANCE (TPI) 1996 1997 1998 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 99.5 i 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 gross heat rate, expressed as a percentage.  ;

Analysis:  ;

FCS continues to perform at the expected thermal efficiencies. Variations in the monthly Thermal Performance are the result of environmental factors, which are seasonally dependent. Unplanned I equipment outages or degradation has not affected the units efficiency. This performance places FCS in the 3rd quartile of performance in the industry for this indicator. On 12/31/98, the 12 month calculation of the TPI indicator was 6.0 points out of 6 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 ,

the FCS Value was 6.0 which compared to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 5.7. A 24 month  !

calculation of the TPIindicator was 6.0 points out of 6 points.

I 15

1 I

I FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR m Fuel R eliability (E-04 Microcu rie s /G ra m )

A E nd of 19 9 9 G oal (5.0 E-0 4 Micro cu rie s /G ra m )

-e--- W AN O In d u s try 1 ye a r M e dia n (2.3 0 E-0 4 Micro cu rie s /G ra rn )

g 3-M o n th R ollin g Ave ra g e y 100 -

h 5.2 5.5 10 - 4.7 5.4 6 1 ,

I l 0.1 ' -

0.01 0.01 ,

A ug Sep O ct Nov Dec J a n -9 9 F e b -9 9 Year to Dets 12 Month 24 Month - 38 MonthY 1.5 32 60 93 I FUEL RELIABILITY (FRI)(xE-04 Micro curies / Gram) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ANNUAL GOAL 147 17.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 99 5.2 5.75 Definition: _

Fuel Reliability (FRl) is defined as the steady-state primary coolant 1-131 activity, corrected for the tramp I

uranium contribution and power level and normalized to a common purification rate, and average linear heat generation rate.

Analysis:

Elimination of the initial Westinghouse fuel design. which resulted in spacer grid induced fretting of numerous fuel rods in Cycles 15-17, was completed for Cycle 18. Additional improvements originally I implemented in Cycle 18 will continue to be used for Cycle 19. Ccolant activity data through February 1999 shows the presence of four defective fuel rods. This is an increase from two failed ods through January. The increase is attributed to an increase in Xe-133 activity. In February the FRI value wm 5.5 I E-04 uci/gm compared to 44.9 E-04 uci/gm at the same time point in Cycle 17. The 12/31/98 recent or arterly calculation of the FRI indicator was 8.0 points out of a possible 8.0 points. At the end of the

, ', ourth Quarter 1998, the FCS Value was 8.0, which compared to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 8.0.

16

I SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY I 3::':Z3 M ontnly Chem istry Indicator i

1999 Fort Calhoun Goal (1.2)

-e-W ANO Industry 1 ye ar M edian (1.04) ,

s .4 _ t .a s 1.2 - , .o . h T ,h, , 2 1.1 i .o o 1.1j 7

, - g - -

y  % -

4 3*

-s , -

o .s -  ?  %^  % w P s  %

• • ~  % $s  % y% q @ O y n; , y  % &; x,

?

• 4- g d j

%  ? sd M 4

& I

• ~ * ^'

• W 5 h

~

o o & ,,  ? 3 l  %

i 5 5 $ '

I $ $ $ o $ $

,5 $

l

, Year to Date :  : 12 aponth 24 bionth -36Rionth.

1.06 1.27 1.29 13 SECONDARY SYSTEM 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

! CHEMISTRY (CPI)

ANNUAL GOAL 1.4 1.1 <1.2 <1.2 <1.15 <1.15 <1.15  !

YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 133 1.16 1.06 Definition:

Secondary System Chemistry (CPI) is defined as a calculation based on the concentration of key impurities in the secondary side of the p' ant. These key impurities are the most Ikely cause of deterioration of the I steam generators. Criteria for calculating the CPI are: 1) The plant is at greater than 30 percent power; and 2) the power is changing less than 5% per day.

Analt; sis:

Following the 1998 Refueling Outage, tne CPI, as spected, ran high due to Normal Startup outage recovery. There ware no unusual or unanticipated chemistry events during 1998 or during Jan/Feb of 1999.

I The 1998 CPI performance goal was met and the 1999 CPI goal has been set to a lower value. Note: The theoretical minimum CPI value range for FCS is 1.1 to 1.2 which is due to the Secondary system copper contant and a lack of Condensate Polishing & Blowdown Recovery systems. This performance places FCS h the lowest quartie of plants for this indicator. On 12/31/98, the 12 month calculation of the CPIindicator was 6.6 points out of 7 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 6.6 which compared to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 6.6.

17

COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE m M onthly R a d ia tio n Dose (S R D) g .s. W A NO 3 year M edian (116000)

Y --as-- - Y TD A c c u m ulated Dose based on SRD re a din g 250000 - g _ _ _

= -

- ~

200000 - G

$ 150000 - # #

4 4 #

$100000 - ,

50000 - S E E D E

• N O $ M I

E S E.--  % $ $ $ "

0 ii-,- i ii i - - i -- i- .in i i

~

k" # '

5 4 <

? e U O Z E 8 8 1 2 m O 6 1 I

I ' Veer to Date ' 12 Month - 24 Month 36 Month 3.281 REM 216.12 REM 131.85 REM 161.17 REM COLLECTIVE RAD EXPOSURE 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (CRE)(MAN-REM)

ANNUAL GOAL 138.0 38.0 224.0 200.0 TBD TBD TBD TBD YTD ACTUAL PERFORM ANCE 226.02 40.8 223.855 3.281 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 117.0 138.0 163.28 I INDUSTRY MEDIAN 3 YEAR AVG. l 145.0 144.0 116.0

• TBD - To Be Determined Definition:

Collective Radiation Exposure (CRE) is defined as the total extemal whole-body dose received by all on-site personnel (including contractors and visitors) during a time period, as measured by the thermoluminescent dosirneter (TLD). Collective radiation exposure is reported in units of person-rom.

t Analysis:

Excellent cooperation and adherence to ALARA principles by all radiation workers coupled with daily monitoring of accumulated exposures, thorough job planning and structured pre-job briefings, resulted in achievhg the 1998 ,

CRE goal, in spite of exceeding the planned outage dose. The outage dose was exceeded due to emergent but i planned additions to the outage. This performance places FCS in the lowest quartile of plants for this indicator.

The 12/31/98,24 month calculation of the CRE indicator was 4.7 points out of 8 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 4.7 which compared to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 4.7.

I

~

l 18 i l

i I

I l I

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE Y-T-D ind u s trial Sa fe ty A ccide n t & Dis ablin g in ju r y/ Min e s s Rate

-,ar-- 12 M onth Rolling A ve rag e FC S Ye ar En d Goal (<0.40)

--en--- Ye ar 2000 W ANo Indus try Goal (<0.40)

I 0.6 -

-- g -- W AHo Indu s try 1 ye at M e dlan (<0.23)

"5~

I 0.4 - T 3

8 g

M 4  ;;

I

~

N =

v

=

0.3 - - _ _ h - * '

0.2 - - = = '

a  ; a ,%.- -af 0.1 - ,a"

.:. e o 0 , , , , , ,

Apr May June J uly Aug Sep Oct Hov Dec J a n-9 0 Fe b

~ Year to Date 12 Month - 24 Month ' 36 Month 0.0 0.31 0.16 0.21 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

.AC7ENT RATE (ISAR) i I f6 JAL GOAL YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE

<0.5 0.29

<0.5 0.0

<0.4 0.18

<0.4 0.0

<0.4 <0.4

<0.4 <0.4 Definition:

Industrial Accident Safety Rate (ISAR) is defined as the number of accidents for all utility personnel permanently assigned to the station, involvhg days away from woA por 200,000 man-hours worked (100 man-years). The purpose of this indicator is to monitor progress in improving industrial safety performance for u*ility personnsi permanently assigned to the station. Contractor work-hours are not includedin this indicator.

Analysis:

The 1998 iSAR goal was achieved. Two lost time accidents occurred in 1998, one in March and a second in October, there have been zero lost time accidents in 1999. The March event ended a 545 day continuous accident free run, a new FCS record. This performance places FCS in the third quartile of plants for this indicator, except for l minor 10% variatbns resulting from total hours worked. The 12 month value of the indicator will remain constant through March 1999 assuming no accidents occur. On 12/31/98 the 12 momh calculation of the ISAR indicator was 5.0 points out cf 5.0 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 5.0 which compares to l' the Third Quarte.r 1998 value of 5.0.

l I

19 l

i I

1 VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE '

m Monthly Volume of LLRW (cu. meter) l Year-to-Date Cumulatim Radioactive Waste Buried

-.e- WANO Industry 1 year Median (28cu. meter)

Fort Cahoun Goal (23 cu. meter) 60.00 -

50.00 - l 3 l g 40.00 -

30.00 = =

_ = =

20.00 -

l '" ~

0.00 E

a E

8 E $m a ,

3 $  !' a 3 0 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Ncw Dec Jan-99 Feb-99 i

I Year to Date , 12 Month , 24 Month 36 Month L 0.0 74 67 53 I VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE (RWV) 1936 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 l

ANNUAL GOAL 18.6 34.0 <23.0 <23.0 <15 TBD TBD TBD YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 18.38 22.20 17.09 U.43 Defit:ition:

Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) is defined as the volume of low-level solid radioactive waste actually shipped for burial. This indicator also shows the volume of low-level radioactive waste which is in temporary storace, the amount of radioactive oil that has been shpped off-site for processing, and the volume of solid dry radioactive waste which has been shipped off-site for processing. Low-level refers to all radioactive waste that is not spent fuel or a by-product of spent f uel processing Analysis:

I The volume of radioactive waste buried h 1998 was higher than desired due to the Cycle 1Ts high RCS activity created by failed fuel. Cycle 18's fuel performanco improvements are expected to reduce waste generation.

I This performance places FCS in the worst quartile of plants for this bdicator. The LLRW indicator is no longer calculated as part of the WANO Pl Index by INPO.

I 20

T NRC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1

21

I I NRC MODEL FOR EVALUATING I. FCS PERFORMANCE I

I .

ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE -Increased Regulatory Response Band l . Cornerstone objectives met w/ minimal reduction in safety margin

. Outside bounds of nominal performance g . Within Technical Specification Limits

. Changes in performance consistent w/ changes of Core Damage Frequency (CDF)<E-5 ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE - Required Regulatory Response Band I .

. Cornorstone objectives met w/significant reduction in safety margin

. Technical Specification limits reached or exceeded l . Changes in performance consistent w/ changes of CDF<E-4 I

I I

'I i

' UNSAFE PERFORMANCE l I l I

g n I

'l " INITIATING EVENTS" Unplanned Scrams Per 7000 Critical Hours l (Autontatic And Manual Scrams) 1 l

INITIATING EVENTS: Unplanned Scrams Per 7000 Hrs Critical l

1 8  ?  ?  ? a  ?  ? a  ?  ? 8  ?

^ #

,$ S 2 k ,$ ,s F & s B 8 ,s t a 2 2 < m O z o t 0.00 '

0.50 - /

r 1.00 f-1.50 2,00 --- - -

2.50 - g LCENSEE RESPONSE (3)

NCREASED REGULATORY RESPONSE 3.50 -

Definition:

This measure is a count of the events that upset plant stability and challenge safety f unctions. The indicator is I the number of manual and automatic scrams per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> crit'c al for the last 12 month period. The indicator does not count scrams directed by normal operation or test procedures but includes scrams occurring during, performance of pmcedures of scram but the scram was not planned.

Analysis:

FCS conthues to perform with trip free operation. The last automatic trip was in August 1995. The last manual trp was in April 1997.

I 23 I

i l

l "lNITIATING EVENTS" Risk-Significant Scrams Per 3 Years Months E $ 8

{A $ $

k g $

E E $ $ 8 8 l 0

$ E E $ k  ? $ E E k $

I 1

0.5 j 1

1.5 2.5 3 'k i rewger nrnonuer idi _ _ _.

IN C R E AS E D R E G'U L ATd R Y R'E S P ON S E 4.5 V -

I Definition:

I This measure is a count of the events that upset plant stability and challenge safety functions. Risk significant scrams is a count of risk-important scrams occurring over a moving three year period.

Risk-Significant Scrams are:

I

. Scrams with LOCA,SGTR. LOOP, Total Loss of Heat Sink, Total Loss of Feodwater, or

. Scrams with a failure of one or more trains of Emergency Diesel Generator Power, High Pressure Safety injection, Residual Heat Removal, or Aux. Feedwater.

Analysis:

FCS has not experienced a Pisk-Significant Scram event in the last three years. FCS last experienced a Risk I Sign #icarti Scram June 24,1993 when a loss of load was caused by an inadvertent actuation of a breaker failure lock-out reky in the switchyarri during switchyard work.

I 24 I

I 1

I

" INITIATING EVENTS" Transients per 7000 Critical Hours l l

M o n th E E E E E E m E E E E E E E 6 ^ # 6

,$ 4 @ ,$ ,$ F 6 s $ ,$ 4 t 2 2 < m o z o a 0.00 - > > ' ' ' ' > > '

1.00 - - - -

2.00 - -----

3.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - 1 4.00 -

5.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6.00 -

I A

7.00 -

_-a ru Mwn was e . a LICE N SE E RE S P O NS E (A)- n 8.00 - - m un e n a cy,ne w ucn ,y n , me 9.00 - y Definition:

, This indicator coun4 unplanned events (excluding scrams) that could, in certain plant conditions, challenge lM safety functions, it may be a 'eading indicator of risk-significant events. The indicator includes uncontrolled l "4 excursions of more than 20% in reactor power as well as unplanned controlled power reductions of more than 20% during the last 12 months. Unplanned power reductions are those that are initiated before the end of the weekend the discovery of an off-normal condition.

I Analysis:

On February 3,1999, power was reduced from 100% to 59% due to a FW-10 surveillance testing issue.

I I

I 25 I

c I

l " MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Emergency Power Unavailability Emergency AC Power Unavaliability M o nth s I 0,00 98 Jan Feb M ar A pr May Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct Nov Dec 99 Ja n Feb 0.01 W.-

LIC E N S E E RE S PO NS E (0.025) 0.02 --

Limi--.am- .i.mm mu. mm NCRE ASED RE GULATOR RE SPONBE 0.03 --

0.04 I 0.05 0.06 0.07 -

Definition:

Emergency AC Power Performancs (SPS) is defined as the three year running average of the sum of: 1) The known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours. 2)The estimated fault exposure unavailable hours for the emergency AC power system for the reporting period, divided by the: 3) Number of hours in the reporting period hours, and 4) the number of trains in the emergency AC power system.

Analysis:

To maintain outage DG availability, planned on-line DG maintenance outages were conducted in July and August. The scope and duration of these outages proceeded as planned. In December 1998, failure of the water jacket temperature switch on DG-1 resulted in 29.85 hours9.837963e-4 days <br />0.0236 hours <br />1.405423e-4 weeks <br />3.23425e-5 months <br /> of unavailability. In January 1999,0.008 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> were required for the monthly and quarterly surveillance testing.

26 l

l l

II

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" LPSI(RHR) System Unavailability Monthly LPSI System UnavaMabihty Value

-m- 36 Month Rolling Average YTD LPSI Unavailabdity Value Jan-Mar Apr May June J uly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 99 Feb 0 = '

= '

= = '

= '

= = = = = '

= = -

0.005

~

I LICENSEE RESPONSE (0.015) A INCREASED FIEGULATORY RESPONSE 0.02 v Definition:

The LPSI Unavailability for NRC Safety System Performance is defined as the three year running average of the I sum of : 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and 2) the estimated f ault exposure i unavailable h^ ,s for the LPSI system for the reporting period; dkided by: 1) the number of hours in the reporting period and 2) the number of trains in the LPSI system. l Analysis:

LPSI System availability remains at essentially zero due to the low hours of unavailability.

l 27 l

l t

l 1

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" AFW System Unavailability m Monthly A ux'lliary Feedw ater System Unavailability

-mH-30 Month AFW Unavailability

--+-- Fort Calhoun Goal (0.01)

E Y I E O II o E S s #". s , , 4 m o z o a a 0 -

0.004 [ 0 0 0 o u u O O 0

0.008 , _ _ , , ,

0.qc s , , , ,

0.012 O.016 Licensee Response (0.02) n' _ _

00 0.028 1 -

0.032 - -

0.03S 0.04 v.u a u Definition:

Auxiliary Feedwater Safety System (SP2) 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 estirnated fault exposure unavailable hours for the auxiliary feedwater system for the reporting period, divided by: 1) the critical hours for the reporting period, and 2) the number of trains in the auxiliary feedwater system.

Analysis:

On February 2,1999, FW-10 pump was declared inoperable during performance of a survellbnce test. The pump failed the surveillance test and remained inoperable. It was then discovered that there was an error in the testing methodology. The test was revised and preformed, and FW-10 passed the test and was declared operable on February 3,1999. The plant reached 59% power before FW-10 was declared operable.

28

l J

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" HPSI System Umvailability m Monthly HPSI S y s tem Unavailability V alue

-e- 3 6 M o ri tn R o lbn g A v e r a g e

-m- Y T D H PS I U n a v a ila bihty v a lu e a Fort Calhoun Goal (0 003) 99 Mar A pr May June J u ly A ug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 0 -m e e = e at ze-----e w a = a-----

x- - *

• x x x-

• x x x

• x 0.0 0 s y --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

0.01 - - - - -^- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.015 g _

-f f [ ~ ' ' ' '-

0.02 ---V- - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Definition:

I High Pressure Safety System (SP1) for the NRC Safety System performance is defined as the three year I running average of sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and :2) the estimated fault exposure unavailable hours for the high pressure safety injection system for the reporting period, divided by: 1) l the critical hours for the reporting period and 2) the number of trains in the high pressure safety injection system.

l Analysis:

The availability of the HPSI System remains at 100 percent due to high equipment reliability and judicious planning and scheduling of maintenance. This places FCS as one of the best performers in the industry for this I indicator.

l l

l I

29

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Safety System Failures a SSF/QTR O SSF/Last 4 Quarters 97-4 98-1 98-2 98-3 0- - i w 1--

3 l 4 ^

5

, _ LICENSEE RESPONSE (5). _ , l 6

V Definition:

This measure is a count of the number of events or conditions that did prevent, or could have prevented, the fulfillment of the safety function of any of 26 safety-related structures, systems, and components. For systems I consisthg of multple redundant trains, failure of all trains is necessary for a safety system failure. The indicator also counts failu es that cause at least one hdependent train or channel to become inoperable in multiple systems.

Analysis:

Source of data is NUREG-1187 " Performance Indicators for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors."

Calculational Method - The number of safety system f ailures in the last four quarters are summed (a four-quarter moving sum). Because the NRC currently classifies Safety System Failures based on LER information, there is a time lag for this hdicator due to the analysis and publication of results.

O d

x 4

I

" BARRIERS" Fuel Cladding - Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Specific Activity Month - 1998-9 z z

$m E E > E D C $ > 0 4 m I

l-m m < n. < a a a w 0 O w s m o> u. 2 < 3 < v) O z a en u.

0.0001 i ih D

• 0.001

$- \s y 0.01 x w -

0.1

'" 2 I E

h\ / _ UCENSEiRISPONSE 0.50)

Nynt:ASED REER.ATC mf RESPONk

, ,7 b 1_ i l i O

10 m  ;

l I Definition:

l This performance indcator provides an objective means of measuring f uel cladding integrity. The indcator is the l maximum calculated activity level (mico-curier per gram dose equivalent lodhe-131) recorded each month.

Analysis:

Monthly Dose Equ'walent lodine (DEI) transient peaks were observed during the power ramp downs prior to the 1998 Refueling Outage in March and April of 1998. Rep;acement of fuel assemblies containing leaking fuel pins with assemblies of a new spacer grid design and re-insertion of previously discharged ABB fuel during the refueling outage resulted in marked a'nprovement in fuel cladding integrity. At the end of February 1999, four fuel phs were estimated to be leaking.

31 k

" BARRIERS" Reactor Coolant - RCS Leak Rate

(

Month 1998/9 Leakrate (gpm)

E 2 S = & & s  ? e U B e 2 S u a a 2 < s ,5 , < m o z o e a

' ' u a o 1 - t < - . < . - - > - < '

2 h

4-- . _ . ._

. ,,,, . ..... . LICENSEE RESPONSE (5) _ , , _

6-- NCREA SED REGULATORY RESPONSE 8 'I -

3y REQUIRED REGULf. TORY RESPONSE (10) 12 l

l Definihon: 1 This performance indicator provides an objective means of measuring the RCS integrity. The indicator is the  !

I maximum calculated leakape rate (gallons per mhute) recorded for a given calendar month: Identified {known}

_plus unidentified { unknown}

l Analysis:

Mauarnum monthly RC3 Leak rates indicate the RCS boundary is performing as expected. These maximum monthly values are 160% to 200% higher than routhe daily measured values.

32

" BARRIERS" System Containment - Containment Leakage I

I 0 1st Or 98 2nd Or 98 ouarter 3rd Or 98 4th Otr 98 1st Qtr 99 10 20 30 40 a

50 LEENSEE RESPONSE _

60 - W MM hh 70 I 4 Definition:

The " running total" of Local Leak Rate Test results provides an indication of the leak-tight integrity of the containment barrier. This indicator is the expected total local leakage (fraction of the design basis leak rate, La) from containment valves and penetrations under design basis accident conditioric it is computed using "ie MWrnum Pathway Leakage Rate (MNPLR) total of all Type B and Type C penetrattm. Note: The "Licusee Response" threshold is shown n' Technical Specification Limit <60% of La.

Analysis:

The ' running total

• containment leakage, based on Local Leak Rate Tec'. at the conclusion of the 1998 Refueling Outage, continues to trend well within acceptable limits.

P 4

I I

33 l

t J

CRITICAL SELF-ASSESSMENT Strategic Objective: To promote a learning organization and to continuously strive towards improving safety and operational performance. Self-Assessments compare actual performance to industry standards of excellence and management expectations to identify and correct areas needing improvement.

"Mormance Indicators:

l &!v~ators being developed by CHOICE Team.

. Self-Assessment Quality index Existing Indicators being used.

Problem identification Rates (Self & Site) l Key Actions Taken to date:

The 30 Program Review Project has been the most visble and intensive sifort conducted by plant staff.

Most Functional areas have performed formal self-assessments in 1998.

The Development of the Self-Evaluation Report (SER) Data base within the Trabing Area.

Operations, Radiation Protection, and Training (via Accreditation teams) have all performed team self-assessments that have performed well.

Plant " Scorecard" system is an assessment tool airned at providing ret .no feedback concoming performance.

I 360 Degree Performance Feedback process conducted with many station managers has influenced Leadershp behaviors.

Results Achieved:

• Emphasis on the conduct of Formal Self-Assessments in 1997 and 1998 has contributed towards I .

improved station performance.

Irnproved focus on the completion of Post Job Critiques to capture operating experience, identify and track performance problems.

j . The formal self-assessment process is recognized as an industry strength in the latest INPO g evaluation.

I l

I 34 L

T

-. . . _ ~

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION RATE (Self & Site)

% of Self identified Problems:

Self Mentification Ratios (1998 CR Data)

I l

Calender Quarters l (1998) 5% Work &oup Identified a % Pbn-Overste Goup Mentified m% Overste Group Mentified a % External Mentified 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Target Performance N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Actual Performance 69.2 61.9 63.6

% of Site identified Problems:

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Target Performance N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Actual Performance 98.6 97.5 97.1 Definition:

This is a measure of our ability to identry problems intemally. The ratios represent the percentage of Condition Reports identified by the Work Group, Non-Oversite Work Groups, Overste Work Groups, and Extemal Work Groups (defined as: Self Revealing, NRC, or IN t'O).

l The Goals are to continue to increase the number of self-identfied problems and reduco the number of Extemalidentified problems. i Analysis:

During 1998 the Self-identification rate has steadily declined over 10% indicating a negative trend.

35

SELF-ASSESSMENT QUALITY INDEX l Performance Indicator Under Development i

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Actual Performance N/A N/A N/A l

Definition: '

This performance indicator is information gathered as a result of Scorecarding conducted on each Self-Assessment. By department line management and the NSRG.

Analysis: i 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.

The formal self-assessment process is recognized as an industry strength in the latest iNPO evaluation.

I I

36 I

HUMAN PERFORMANCE IS EXEMPLARY Strategic Objective: To promote a high quality, well-motivated work force willing to work I together as a team to increase productivity while also reducing the orobability for human error through the utilization of high quality work practices related to organizational, leadership and individual human performance behaviors.

Performance Indicators:

Lnnicators being developed by CHOICE Teant o Organizational / Programmatic Error LERs o Average Number of Days Between Human Performance Errors o Supervisory Presence in Field l ExistinginditalRTLbeingJisett g

. Individual Error Human Performance LERs Kent Actions Taken to date:

Vice President briefings to establish the sense of urgency to change our behavior The use of a "Four Key Question" concept within the pre-job briefing process as a means of improving on the early identification and elimination of error-likely situations.

The adoption of a Focus Manager program designed to apply supervisory oversight focused on the prevention of error-likely situations.

Ir. creased training and routinely scheduled discussions among managers on issues involving the improvement of leadership skills.

Weekly Leadership Sessions.

Training of Shift Technical Advisors and other selected personnel on the INPO " Human Performance Fundamentals" course. Training of engineering and operations personnel on the INPO

• Excellence in Human Performance document" (Titanic training).

Increased focus of operations simulator training on the use of self and peer-checking concepts.

O l 37 l

f I

I INDIVIDUAL ERROR HUMAN PERFORMANCE LERS

,I

-+-Total Events 35 - -e- Preve nta ble

! -*-Personel Error 12 Month Totals

, 30 25 20 -

D8 N g 15 ,

37 p, ,

l 15 15 14 15 14 15 15 10 -

l 6 6 6 5I 5 5

- 2 2 3 3 4

4

_ l

! 5 = 4- 4-

! O 2- * - -+ - - -~~- -

-2 s * = s a s s s a s s a b 5 h h k b h $ $ h h k 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number of Human Performance Licensed Events Report I Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A 2 1 1 0 0 Actual Performance 2 4 4 Definition:

LERs caused by personnel error such as inappropriate action by one of more individuals, as opposed to being attributed 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 underlying organizational or programmatic weakness. These are typically indicated by the failure of more than one defensive barrier.

Analysis:

Human Performance trends as indicated in the quarterly trend report show an overall decline in the number and percentage of causal factors attributed to human performance errors in several categories. Trends related to the number of significant condition reports, which are attributed to human error causal factors has declined significantly I during the third quarter of 1998 reaching the lowest level noted during the last two years.

Note: Due to the way LERs are tracked & reported, this indicator lags by one month.

38 1

l l

ORGANIZATIONAUPROGRAMMATIC ERROR LERS Performance Indicator Under Development 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 4 Definition:

This performance indicator monitors organizational / programmatic performance error LERs where the root cat e is personnel error such as a department or general group, as opposed to being attributed to inappropriate action by one or more individuals. LER's falling in 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 failure of more than one defensive barrier.

Analysis:

under development

.I l

l i

lI l

I l

39 I .

I

I l

AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEH HUMAN l PERFORMANCE ERRORS l

Performance Indicator Under Development l

l Number of days 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A 40 50 60 90 90 Actual Performance 20.6 17.3 38.7 l

Definition:

I Level 1 or 2 condition reports falling in this category would include those events which meet the criteria for resetting of the site wide event clock.

i Analtisis:

under development j I

I 40 I

OPERATIONS are EVENT FREE Strategic Objective: To ensure that weak barriers are identified and strengthened g to prevent events.

Performance Indicators:

Judicators being developed bu CHOICE Team

. Transients per 7000 Critical Hours Existing Indicators being used.

I . INPO Identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events

. Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams per 7000 Hours

. Unplanned Capability Loss Factor Key Actions Taken to date:

I Enhanced Formalityin Operations.

Completed pilot " behavior based" Operations self-assessment through joint efforts of USA.

Operations procedures reviewed prior to use during the Refueling Outage.

Development of Scorecard Observation Process.

j Establishment of Pre-job Briefing Expectations.

}

Noteworthy event definition setup for all Plant Manger direct reports.

Strategic agreements between line organization and Training that require review of Condition i 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 for radiation workers to identify, I

I

.I "

I

INPO identified S!gnificant/ Noteworthy Events l

mSignificant O Noteworthy m Historical OTotal(Significant+

m Current Events TotalNoteworthy) (Total - His torical) 16 16 - 1 .

14 -

12 - 1010 11 10 10 10 9

I b CC, 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 I Definition:

FCS Events, are screened and designated by INPO as Significant events that exhbit one or more of the following characteristics: 1) severe or unusual transients,2) safety system malfunctions or improper operations, 3) major I equpment damage caused by lengthy unplanned outages or signfbant reductbns 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 "Signficant," but indicative of (Le indicates the existence of precursors) maintenance, operations, administrative or management problems. Historical Events are events classified by OPPD as caused by conditbns greater than eighteen months old.

Analysis:

Significant Events for February 1999.

. None Noteworthy Events since start of N'O Cycle.

. Fast Transfer of safety-Related Buses Due to Switchyard Cable Being Cut During Excavation Work.

P40toworthy htorical Events since start of lif0 Cycle.

. .n.

j I l 42 l

I

INITIATIVES IN HIGH VISIBILITY AREAS HAVE STRONG PERFORMANCE Strategic Objective: TO ensure that initiatives in high visibility areas have strong pedoimance. Areas Of interest are defined as an issue, area, initiative Or activity thct has major impact On:

1) Safe and Event Free Nuclear Production of Electricity

2) Being Successfulin a Competitive Environment

3) Building and Maintaining Trust with Regulators, Emp.oyees and Customers Performance Indicators:

Indicators being developed by CHOICE Team Milestone schedules for high visibility areas will be monitored. These areas are:

. Work management Process (Herman)

. 1999 Refueling Outage (Herman)

Improvements in Preventive Maintenance and Predictive Maintenance Programs (Swearngin)

- Operations Training Accreditation Renewal (Westcott)

. Y2K(Henry)

. Rams (Henry)

. Switchyard Modifications (Short) 1999 Graded Exercise (Simmons)

. Resolution of INPO findings (Frans)

Existiny Indicators beine used.

. 1999 Refueling Outage Milestones

. NRC Licensed Operator Requalification

. Licensed Operator Requalification Training

. Licensed Candidate Exams 1999

. M WO planning Station I

. Component Testing /Special Services 1999 Outage Project Status l

. 1999 Refuelino Outage Modification Progress

. 1999 Refueling Outage Modification /ECNs Added After Freeze Date Key Actions Taken to date:

1998 Refueling Outageoutage Safety Goals met. Plant has operated >200 days following completbn of the outage.

Resolution of Fuel Reliability issue Severe Accident Management Guidelines implemented Maintenance Rule inspection / implementation SuccessfulINPO Evaluation Results Achieved: l

. The 1998 Refue og Outage safety goals were met and the plant has operated for over 200 days following completion of the refueling outage. l

. High Integrky Containers Shpment- The handling and shhment of three High integrity Containers containing spent resin I shpments were successfupy completed.

. Resolution of Fuel Reliability 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 Guidelines (SAMG) implementation <ompleted the project on schedule. Soll-assessment confirmed that SAMGs can be implemented per NRC commitment date.

. Switchyard Modrication- The project is on schedule for comNotion by June 1999,

. Preparations for the 1999 Refusing Outage-WRh the exceptem of the first milestone (identification of modification and ECN list) all mRestones have been met.

43

1999 Outage Schedule Milestones OUTAGE MILESTOE WEEKS PRIOR MILESTOE OWER STATUS TO START DUE DATE

1. Mod, ECN, & Project (approved for planning) Freeze Date 79 03/14/98 Phelps 2.Sydeen WindowStrisctare Finalized 63 07M4/98 Stading

3. ' Backbone" Schedule Developed & Issmed 63 07/25/98 Stading

4. Med & ECN (appmved for ace "" d) Freeze Date 52 09/19/98 Phelps

5. Special Project (approved for ac, ,~ no Freeze Date 44 11/14/98 Wylie

6. PMO and ST Freeze Date 40 12/12/98 Stading

7. PreNednery Prwject Schedule Due Date (au Outage Projects) 34 01/23/99 Phelpe

8. AN Parts Regeests Sulunitted to Procuresnent for Mods /ECNS 26 03/20/99 Skiler ,7.

9. Moddication FM Design Package Due Date 26 03/20/99 Skilos 47J I 10. Overall Outage Scope F eese Date

11. Modification & ECN Plan & Schedule Due Date 26 16 03/20/99 05/29/99 Herman Skiles 7

l

12. Project Plan & Sckdale Due Date 16 05/29/99 Core /Skilos l 'l

13. Satunit Matertal & Parts Requests for Frozen Outage Scope 16 05/29/99 Gomez/Skilos l -

14. Prem ni==ry Octage Schedule Issued 12 06/26/99 Stading l l

15. Outage Managesnent Teams Ident&d 12 06/26/99 Herman l l

16. Modification AFCN Construction WoriOrder Due Date 9 07/17/99 Wylie l l

17. Resouste Avaanhalty Identified 8 07/24/99 Clemens l

18. Malmienance West Orders " Ready to Wort" 8 07/24/99 Gomez 19 Issue Hnal Detaned Outage Schedule for Review 6 08/07/99 Stading l l

20. AE Material and parts for the Frozen Outage Scope On-Site 4 04/21/99 McCormick l l

21. Maangesment Meeting to Approve Final Outage Sched de 4 08/21/99 Herman l

22. NSRG and Operations Review (and approval) of Schedule 4 08/21/99 Trausch l l

23. Complete all Reload Engineerhig Aunlyses 3 08/28/99 Skilee

24. Modification AECN Constrwtion Work Order Due thete 09/11/99 Gobers 1

l

25. Breakers Open Original Outage Start Date 0 O V18/99 Ridanours  !

KLT Breakers open Revised Outage Start Date n/a 10/02/99 Ridonouro l l j green E Mlle tone Met red E Mlle stone Not Met and currently completed black M Milestone Not Met and curren8y Not w. , : -: i yeSow < Milestone Approaching within 50 days

{

7 Approach 60 day Milestone which may not be met J I

I 44 1

l

I Licensed Operator Requalification Training l 0 TotalRequalifi,cationTraining Hours 3 SimulatorTrairJngHours E Non-Requalification Training Hours I 3 Number of Exem reilures l

32 _ 32 3 30 -

I 25 -

20 -

I 15 -

2 4 14 14 y

10 - 9 9 8 g , ,, ,

5- 4 0 0 000 0 0-- i --

, .- i- i i I

i i

Cycle 98-1 Cycle 98-2 Cycle 98-3 Cycle 98-4 Cycle 98-5 Cycle 98-6 Cycle 98-7 Cycle 99-1 Definition:

The total number of hours of training given to each crew during each cycle. Also provided are the sirnulator training hours (which are a subset of the total training hours), the number of non-REQUALIFICATION training hours and the number of exam failures.

I Analysis:

I Exam failures are defined as failures in the written, simulator, and Job Performance Measures (JPMs) segments of the Licensed Operator Requalification Training.

I I

45 I

l \

I LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS 1999 3 SRO Exams Administered ,

E SRO Exams Passed I O ROExams Administered I "

O RO Exams Passed 18 188 18 18 I

I 15 --

122 122 12 1 21 12! 12 10 -- 99 5-- 44 44 44 3

.I 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0 l l 1 1 1 l l 1 l l l l Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Definition:

This indicator shcws the number of Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Reactor Operator (RO)

I quizzes and exams taken and passed each month. These internally administered quizzes and exams are used to plot the SRO and RO candidates monthly progress.

Analysis:

Februsty 1999, there were 12 (SRO) exams administered and 4 (RO) exams administered.12 SRO exams were passed and 4 RO exams were passed.

I I

I I

.I I

I

MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 19 REFUELING OUTAGE)

C3 R E A D Y MW O 'S EE3 W h* NOT Y ET PROCESSED 700 -

600 -

500 -

82 300 -

407 23 200 -

gjgg 342 3

109 -

.gg ;-

~~

$ 57 0 . , ,

D e c -9 8 J a n -9 9 F e b -9 9 Definition:

This indicator shows the total nurnber of Maintenance Work Requests (MWRs) and lAsintenance Work Orders (MWOs) that have been approved for inclusion in Cycle 18 RFO.

Analysis:

This graph Indicates:

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

ECN Hold - Awaiting Substitute Replacement items ECN from DEN.

In Review - Planning Complete awaiting SE, ISI and QC review.

I l

l l

I '

47 I

1

I I

i l

COMPONENT TESTING /SPECIAL SERVICES 1999 OUTAGE PROJECT STATUS nLAST REPORT asTHIS REPORT OFOR SCHEDULE 100 -

90 -

80 -

70 -

60 - 4948 4848 4848 4848 44 48 45 48 4548 4648 5148 48 48 l

0 E  : O P E P .

8 8 8 E E 5

~

j E b $ E $*

I 5 3

E D

5 1

5

?

k o @

b 3

0 O

2 E m a b h y 4

$ 2 lI E o

[o f R

8 Definition:

The % completion of 1999 outage projects for which Component Testing /Spwial Servlees is reported against the schedulad/ planned status, Analysis:

As indicated by the graph,1999 Refueling Outage Project preparation remains on schedule.

I 48 I

1 l

1999 REFUELING OUTAGE MODIFICATION PROGRESS (CYCLE 19) i 1999 Re fueling Outa ge M ods a l PRC Approved - March 22,1999 120% -

95% 100*/ 9 0'/* 1

% 95%

100% -

80% - 70% 60%

I 1!!

I E"

60%

40%

30%

5 0 */.

20%

20% -

1 0% , , , , , ,

p . . ,

0%

, i

$ D $ 5 8 E E E 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 E E E E E E E E E E $

M o d Ifica tio n s l OPercent Complete Definition:

This summarizes the status of Modifications approved for installation during the Cycle 19 Refueling Outage, j

, Analysis:

The goal of this indicator is to have all modification packages which were approved for accomplishment prior to September 25,1998, PRC approved by March 21,1999. __

l 49 l

{

1

! I 1999 REFUELING OUTAGE MODIFICATION /ECNS ADDED AFTER FREEZE DATE (CYCLE 19) i There Have Been No MODS or ECNs added since Freezu Date  !

PROGRESS OF CYCLE 19 OUTAGE MODS AND ECN'S ADDED TO 1999 REFUELING OUTAGE AFTER FREEZE DATE Definition: _

This indicator will show the status of Modifications and ECN's approved for installation during the Cycle

, 19 Refueling Outage. The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages PRC approved by i their target date. '

Analysis:

Target date was September 25,1998.

Status as of February 1999 Modifications /ECN's Added = 0 Deleted = 0 i

I I

j l 1 l l 50 l

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS are Broad and Lssting Strategic Objective: To proactively identify, evaluate, take corrective action and monitor results of problems, potential problems and non-consequential events. To l identify the root causes, the generic implications and the appropriate corrective actions to prevent a recurrence. To address the fundamental causes of problems rather than the sytnptoms.

Performance Indicators:

Indicators being developed by CHOICE Teant

. Condition Reports identification of Repeat or "Similar" Events

. Condition Reports identifying "Less than Effective Use of Operating Experience" a Conditions Reports >6 months old (Level 1-4)

. Repeat Maintanance Performance indicator i Existing Indicators being used.

None Key Actions Taken to date:

Common Cause Analysis (CCA) completed to identify Programmatic and Organizational issues.

La Operating Experience categories and packages developed for refueling outage tasks.

knplementation of a "7-week" maintenance planning cycle.

The Training Department has developed a Self-Eva!uation Report (SER) database.

At the access to the radiologically controlled area, the role of Radiation Protection Shift Technicians have changed from information providers to information verifiers.

Organizational & Programmatic / Root Cause Analysis (O&P/RCA) training was completed for a select group of personnel.

51

l 1

1 l

i CONDITION REPORTS IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT OR "SIMILAR" EVENTS I

l Performance Indicator Under Development I 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 FCBU AnnualGoal N/A WA WA TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD FCBU Performance WA WA WA Definition:

The nurnber of repeat or similar events as indicated in the CR database. Definitions of repeat and simi!w events are under development.

Analysis:

Further analysis will be developed with development of the indicator and definition. i I

I 52

i I CONDITION REPORTS IDENTIFYING A LESS THAN EFFECTIVE USE g OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE Performance Indicator Under Development I Repeat or "Sirnilar" Events:

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 FCBU Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD FCBU Performance N/A N/A N/A Definition:

The number of CRs which could have been prevented through more effective use of the operating experience program.

Analysis:

under development l

I  ;

I i I

53

I CONDITION REPORTS >6 MONTHS OLD (LEVEL 1-4)

Performance Indicator Under Development l

CR's Relating to Less Than Effective use s Jperating Experience:

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 FCBU AnnualGoal N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD FCBU Performance N/A N/A N/A Definition:

' der development Analysis:

under development I

I I

54

I I CONDITION REPORTS IDENTIFYING REPETITIVE MAINTENANCE I Performance Indicator Under Development 18 :

6-0 Mar-96 S e p-96 Mar-97 Sep-97 Mar-98 Sep-98 Repeat Maintenance Performance Indicator:

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 FCBU AnnualGoal WA N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD FCBU Performance N/A N/A N/A -

l Definition:

_ Any maintenance work performed to correct a deficiency which has re-occurred within 60 days following similar work activities. (Ref. S.O.-M-101-Section 3.43 R46).

Analysis:

No t%intenance Rule (n)(1) Structure, Systems or components (SSCs) dispositioned to category (a)

(2) in 1997 were returned to (a)(1) in 1998 due to ineffective corrective actions.

55

E i

Excellence in Materiel Condition Strategic Objective:To review existing programs and policies, along with equipment histories and provide process improvement and equipment repairs / upgrades that will assure excellent materiel condition through decommissioning and beyond. j Performance Indicators:  ;

Indicators being developed bu CHOICE Team

. Capacity Factor

. No Plant transients >20% caused by equipment performance

. Number of Temporary Modifications caused by materiel condition problems

. Number of Condition Reports (Levels 1-3) caused by equipment problems

. Number of Operator Work Arounds Number of Control Room Deficiencies (on-line)

. Non-outage maintenance backlog Existing Indicators being nSetL WANO Performance Indicators (HPSI/LPSI/DG/UCLF/ CHEM /FRI) l

. Thermal Performance l

. Non-Outage Corrective Maintenance Backlog

= Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Overdue Status

. Temporary Modification Status

. Maintenance Rule SSC Unavailability a On-Line Modification Planning Progress Key Actions Taken to date:

Formed Reliability Engineering Dept.to focus on preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance and Maintenance Rule programs.

Developed action plan under Maintenance Rule.

Reviewed Preventive Maintenance processes.

Results Achieved:

. Improved reliability and availability of diesel driven AFW pump and instrument Air compressors.

. No Maintenance or operational unavailability of equipment during 1998 which resulted in I, exceeding Maintenance Rule performance criteria

. Maintenance Rule (a)(1) list of equipment exceeding performance criteria reduced from 16 at the beginning of 1998 to 6 items awaiting corrective action completion

. Implementation of new process to review preventive maintenance programs established for plant systems.

3 56

I I NON-OUTAGE CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG I

s Corrective Maintenance a Other Maintenance O Non-Correclive/ Plant im provements 900 -- 808 3 U 800 - 696 723 732 754 l 692 700 --

I 600 500 522 516 4gg e

100 --

0 y

l l l l l 1 1 -1 i I i l I E un n N on-o uta ge_M a intena n c e_W_ork_Do c u m e nt B a c klos Definition:

I This indicator shows how effective and how timely we are at keepins, Nr plant equipment in excellent working condition. The goal represents the number of backlogged activities at any one time.

Analysis:

I I

I I

I

'I l 57 I

r-

! RATIO OF PREVENTATIVE TO TOTAL l

MAINTENANCE & OVERDUE STATUS l

l M Ra tio of Preve ntive to Total M aintena nce 1

1 l 100% - 93%

! 00% - T 80% - 75% 74% 77% 76% jh 78% 77 %

i 1

70% r '

m 59% SW -

vs E 7 7 7v [ e l

60% ~

f y!G T v +

.g ;9 f, ~l r .

Q ,

50% - ,

4 g-}j 1 (,{l -

g 40% - ,p

'^

g ., lu ,jp '

g h 30% - ~, l-f!;; q'j (#l ,fj y}j p[."', i f; g 4, 20% - a ',

c gj  % jj g .jjj g;>

g (ij.

Z

'I 10% - 4. .

1 "

~7' r.) M ~

"l M yj y ,< c , s 4 u.

Proventive M aintenance item s Overdue Fort Calhoun Goal 2%  !

i

"' G .0 2 %

6% --

~~

I 4% --

3% ..

4.01 %

2.8 0 % 2.6 0 %

3.50%

2% -- - -

0.80% 0.70 %

1%-- 0.50%

0% i- 1 I I 0 0 I I I I I I I i ,

j E Y I I T j S 2 3 4 2 .g

,$ < [ 0 o g g

, u.

Definition:

The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total completed noneutage maintenance. The ratio of preventive to total maintenance was 72% for the month of February 1999. The lower graph shows the percentage of scheduled preventive maintenance Items that were not completed by the late finish date. From the period of (January 15th thru February 15th) RAMS Late PMO Data not yet avaltable.

Analysis:

l l 58

TEMPORARY MODIFICATION m Terrporary fedNications ,1-f uel cycle old (Fro required for termval)

. Tenporary WdNications >6 rronths old (Rerrovable on-ine)

- Fort Chihoun Goals f or both Tenporary fkddicatons' categories (0)

V 8r I 7-7 7 6-6-

4 e 4-I 3-2-

2 2 2 3

?

1 1 I 1-0- ,

0 0 0 0 ~

0 0 0 0 0 0 Mar Apr Wy June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Definition:

This indicator provides information on the number of Temporary Modtications (TMs) greater than one fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage (RFO) for removal and the number of TMs removable o.,-hne that are greater than sk months old.

Analtisis:

At the end of February 1999, there were no TMs that were ryeater than one-fuel cycle old requiring an outage for removal.

At the end of February 1999, there were seven (7) TM's installed that were greater than sk months old whch coub be

, removed on-Ene. DCN #0006121 (TM 96-039), Railroad Siding / Corridor 26 Door, was installed Nevernber 1,1996.

DCN #0006164 ( TM 97-021), CCW corrosbn montor, was instated February 18,1998. DCN #0006186 (TM 98-003),

F1-1112, FW-54 Suction Flow Indicator, was installed March 16,1998. DCN #0006187 (TM 98 004), TPCW System Corrosion Montor was installed March 24,1998. DCN #0006188 (TM 98-005), YlT 6286 A&B YlT 6288 A&B was I installed February 27,1998. DCN #0006197 (TM 98-014), FW t o Speed Control Loop, was installed May 29,1998.

DCN #0010016 (TM 98-019), PS-ERAY-0301 TIP Bypass, was instaBed August 13,1998.

At the end of February 1999, there .vas a total of twelve (12) TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station. Four (4) of the I twelve (12) instated TVs require a RFO for removal and eight (8) are removable on-line. In 1999, a total of one (1) new TM ha.been installed. At the end of February 1999, there were five (5) procedural or maintenance configuration aterations (PMCAs) (a apacial classfication of TM) installed in the Fort Calhoun Station using PRC approved procedures which are controRed by Standing Order O-25.

59

MAINTENANCE RULE SSC UNAVAILABILITY I MAINTENANCE 3ULE UNAVAILABILITY PERFORMANCE I 8 7

M #SSCs Exceeding Unavailability Criteria -*-% Exceeding Unavailability Criteria 7.0%

-+-Goal < 4% Exceeding Criteria j 6.0%

i6 1

5.0%

0 0  :  :  : 4.0%

8*

I g

0%

63 n.

^

l -

~

2.0%

2 -

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0*4 l 0 . 0.0% l 4-96 1-97 2-97 3-97 4-97 1-98 2-98 3-98 4-98 QTR l

Definition:

This indicator measures the percent of the total SSC's n onitored (63), which are exceedlag the 3-year Maintenance Rule performance criteria for unavailability.

Analysis:

As of the fourth quarter of 1998, only one SSC, the non-safety related bypass transformer EE-4S, is exceeding it's three yetr unavailability performance criteria. Performance is indicative of success in Maintenance, Planning & Scheduling, and Ope ations effarts to control equipment out of service t8me.

i 60

I l

ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING PROGRESS Progress of on-line Modifications I gPercent Complete aTarget Approw Date l ' 32% -

11/21/98  ;

l 100 % , 11/1/98 A

, - 98 % a -

10/12/98  ;

l 96 % 9/22/98 -.E L  ;

I 94 % 4 9/2/98 92 % -

8/13/98 l 90 % 7/24/98 88 % 7/4/98 86 % 6/14/98 l 3

84% - 4 4 + + t + ' u--4--4 4-+-  : +m -H- 5/25/98 l 4 GE35R I 5"$8EEEE 2 l 00$$$$$ I

88888 j I Definition:

This indictior shows the status of modifications approvad or in review for approval for on-line installation during 1998.

Analysis:

The goal for this indicator is to have all MOD /ECN packages approved by their scheduled date.

February 1999 MOD /ECN Added:0 Deleted:0

. I l

61 l

L

l MONTHLY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SOURCEG I

WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATOf4S ARE IN BLUE Indicator Source Extension INPO Noteworthy /Significant Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donna Guinn 6937 i

l Unit Capability Factor Unplanned Capability Factor Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams per 7000 Hours Critical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mike Edwards 6929 I High Pressure Safety injection System Safety System Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chuck Schaffer 6830 Auxiliary Feedwater System Safety System Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Craig Fritts 6554 Emergency AC Power System Safety System Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rich Ronning 6887 l l

1

, Thermal Pe rformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ke vin Naser 6889 l I

Fuel Reliability Indica *or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susan Baughn 7215 l Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Ostien 7109 l Industrial Safety Accident Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duane Booth 6558 l

Collective Radiation Ex posure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colette Williams 7103 l

Volume of Low-Level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Breuer 7193 I

t -

i L

Fort Calhoun Station Operating Cycles and Refueling Outage Dates EVENT l DATE RANGE l PRODUCTION (MWH) l CUMULATIVE (MWH) l Cycle 7 12/21/81 12/03/82 3,561,866 24,330,034 Cycle 8 04/06/83-03/03/84 3,406,371 27,736,405 Cycle 9 07/12/64-09/28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 Cycle 10 01/16/86-03/07/87 4,356,753 36,834,646 Cycle 11 06/08/87 09/27/88 4,936,859 41,771,505 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 11/25/97-04/01/98 5,183,108 71,815,678 Cycle 18 06/04/98-10/02/99 CURRENT PRODUCTION AND OPERATIO'NS ** RECORDS" First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5:47p.m.)

First Electricity Supplied to the System August 25,1973 Commercial Operation (160,000 KWH) September 26,1973 Achieved Full Power (100%) May 4,1974 Longest Run (477 Dayr) June 8,1987-September 27,1988 Highest Monthly Not Generation (364,468,800 KWH) October 1987 Most 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 l 63