ML20206G264

Performance Indicators Rept for Mar 1999

ML20206G264
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	03/31/1999
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20206G260	List: LIC-99-0043, Forwards Fort Calhoun Performance Indicators Rept for Mar 1999 ML20206G264
References
NUDOCS 9905070144
Download: ML20206G264 (45)

Text

_ _ _ _ _.

0 8

A e

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTNICT FORT CALHOUN STATION l

l 4

3e

,,r-**

O e A nw$nse

'~

l

\\

I 1

1 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I

MARCH 1999

(

??A"18s!AZ?888883 R

PDR

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTNICT FORT CALHOUN STATION

-e

3.

g7

r

, ; o-a

.r

, ; cp *

,J ',

<oi, i

s

.' { f.

t f

,r l

l'*

, 9. y&

_f J

i

+

.p l

a, w u,w.

x r

l ypyd'*

( { $lj ~

IY fa

>a p

.n

(p 3 li1..,,

• h,

^

l

~'

p.

f

. df d "~~

i'/'

07 7I Nk fi M

[

l I

I I

I

[

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

[

MARCH 1999 E

[

w 9905070144 990428 PDR ADOCK 05000285 R

P DR.._

l;

.._-..__........a

--A FORT CALHOUX STATION I

THE MAIN THING l

Safe - Event Free Nuclear Production of Electricity

{

Being the Best Is A Matter Of:

l C ritical Self-Assessment II uman Performance is Exemplary I

O perations are event free I nitiatives in high visibility areas have strong performance C orrective Actions are Broad and Lasting l

E xcellance in materiel condition g

Get Back to Basics!

VALUES Safety Conscious Individual Respect

=

I Integrity Accountability l

Teamwork Simplicity g

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

---

FOLLOW THE RIGHT PROCESS----

I I

I Table of Contents Page TABLE OF CONTENTS

..... 1 MONTHLY '3UMMARY REPORT...

.4 PERFOR.MANCE.. 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 lnjection System

...... 12 Auxiliary Feedwater System...

............................................ 13 Emergency AC Power System.

................... 14 Thermal Performance........

15 Fuel Reliability lndicator

.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 NRC PERFORMANCE INDICATOR NRC Model For Evaluating FCS Performance......

.22 Initiatina 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 1

Table of Contents Mitlaation Systems Emergency Power Unavailability......

26 LPSl (RHR) Unavailability.....

27 AFW Unavailability......

28 HPSI Unavailability............................

. 29 Safety System Failures..........................

. 30 Barriers Fuel Cladding Reactor Coolant System (RCS) specific activity 31 i

Reactor Coolant RCS Leak Rate.....................

.. 32 ystem Containment - Containment Leakage......

33 l

CHOICE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CRITICAL SELF ASSESSMENTS Problem identification Rate (Self & Site)...

... 36 Solf Assessment Ouality lndex..................................

.......37 HUMAN PERFORMANCE IS EXEMPLARY Average Days for Resetting the Site Wide Event Clock..........

39 Individual Error Human Performance LERs..........

40 Organizational / Programmatic Error LERs.

41 OPERATIONS ARE EVENT FREE INPO identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events............

..........43 INITIATIVES IN HIGH VISIBILITY AREAS HAVE STRONG PERFORMANCE 1999 Outage Schedule Milestones.

45 G.QRRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE BROAD AND LASTING Recurring or Repetitive Condition Reports.......

. 47 I

I 2

Table of Contents Condition Reports >6 months old (Level i-4).....................

............48 l

Number of Repeat Maintenance Activities...

49 EXCELLENCE ACHIEVED IN PLANT MATERIEL CONDITION Non-Outage Corrective Maintenance Backlog.....

..... 51 Monthly Performanco lndicator Sources.....................

... 52 Current production and Operations aecords / station Operating Cycles and RFO Dates.

. 53 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

L

[

[

3

-I FORT CALHOUN STATION Monthly Summary OPERATIONS During the month of March 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.

j 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 Capabrilty 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 prev!ous 24 months.

5.

The Secondary ChemistryInd/cator, calculated over the previous 12 months.

4

l I

I PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

SUMMARY

REPORT POSITIVE TREND REPORT INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED MANAGEMENT A performance indicator with data representing three consecutive months of improving performance or three A performance indicator with data for the reporting period consecutive months of performance that is superior to that is inadequate when compared to the OPPD goal is the stated goal is exhibiting a positive trend per Nuclear defined as "Needing incra Ted Management Attention" Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37),

per (NOD-QP-37).

The following performance Indicators exhibited positive trends for the reporting month:

Indicators With Neaative Trends Secondary Chemistry Indicator (Page 17)

Fuel Reliability Indicator (Page 16)

RCS Specific Activity (Page 31)

Individual Error Human Performance LERs (Page 38)

I ADVERSE TREND REPORT A performance indicator with data representing three consecutive months of declining performance or three consecutive months of performance that is trending toward declining as determined by the Manager - Nuclear Licensing, constitutes an adverse trend per Nuclear Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37).

A supervisor whose performance indicator exhibits an tdverse trend by this definition may specify in written form (to be published in this report) why the trend is not cdverse. The following performance indicators exhibited adverse trends for the reporting month.

Thermal Performance Indicator (Page 15) 5

i I

i l

INPO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND

- e-indexMdan -+-IndexBest Chartle -*- indexWxstChartile -e-Rrt Calhoun (80)

(4 100 --

-- 100 95--

-- 95 I

90-

: : :W' '

- 90 Art ~M

g g g:

Ia

==

-- 75 75 --

70--

-- 70 65 +-,

-- 65 l

60 l

l l

l l 4 ;

l 60 i

88@$88@$88@$88@$88@$88@$8 ssss4444ssessgpsAAAsssses 8 @ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ E o> ai N @ @ @ @ $ $,_ @ $ $

l i

First Quarter 1999 :

I Fort Cahoun hdex Calculation -

VALUE

-NDEX LPRODUCT-OVERALL~ PE 4FORMANCE INDICATOR' ' WEIGHT Unit Capability Factor (2yr) 0.1s as.7 91.4 14.s j

_Unpl. Cap. Loss Factor (2yr) 0.12 s.9 54.0 s.s l

Unplanned Auto Scrams (2yr) o.os o.o 100.0 s.o j

Safety System Performance:

PWR High Press. Ini.

(2yr) 0.10 0.001 100.0 10.0 PWR Aux. Feedwater (2yr) 0.10 0.002 100.0 10.0 Emeroency AC Power (2yr) 0.10 0.016 85.0 a.s l

Thermal Performance (1yr) 0.06 100.0 100.0 s.o i

I Fuel Rel.

(Most recent otr) 0.os 3.2E-04 100.0 a.o j

Chemistry Perf. Ind.

(1yr) 0.07 1.13 96.7 s.s Collective Rad. Exposure (2yr) 0.os 132 89.3 7.1 ind. Safety Acc. Rate (1yr) 0.05 0.16 100.0 s.o l

TOTALINDEX 90.5-l i

i 6

I INPO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND INDICATORS EMAXIMUM VALUE uFourthQtr 98 E First Otr '90 I

8eR8 l

1am, " i g

14'"

d 888 888 8

ikOO.

NNN NNN N??

888 8eo I

.h

((}

"Y gg g 888 8.00 a00 -

om o 4.00 I

2.00 O.00e r

r r

r r

UT UC15 (R7 W Si AFW EACP TPI FM CPI GE IMR I

This graph shows the difference between Fourth Qtr '98 and First Qtr '99 actual values achieved by Fort Calhoun. These values are updated quarterly.

CALCULATED OVER A 24 MONTH PERIOD MAKIMUMAGIUALVALUES QTR. TREND UCF Unit Capability Factor 16 /14.60 Negative UCLF Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 12 / 6.50 Neutral

,a E

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 I

EACP Emergency AC Power 10/ 8.50 Neutral CRE Collective Radiation Exposure 8/ 7.10 Neutral CALCULATED OVER A 12 MONTH PERIOD TPI 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 FRI Fuel Reliability Indicator 8 / 8.00 Neutral I

I I

I I

I I

I s

I I

I WANO I

PERFORMANCE I

INDICATORS I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR Monthly Unit Capability Factor

-m--

24 Month Unit Capabikty Facto 6

- *-- WANO Industry 1 year Median (87.0%)

130.0 % -

120.0 % -

110.0 % -

100.0%

m a

_ _N 90.0% -

m-m 80.0% -

-g y.

_- l g

L 70.0% - E' y y

60.0% -

50.0% _

1998 RFC 40.0% -

30.0% -

20.0% -

10.0% -

0.0%

hh5 55S 5 5 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $

5E $ b k & $ e' E' b 4 k $ k k h k&$a'$$$$

k4k 1

<w w 1 1

< w w 1 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 TMEE YEAR AVERAGE 83.9 82.5 83.2 83.2 INDUSTRY MEDIAN 82.8 83.6

>85.1

( 3 Year Avera08)

Definition:

Unt 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 baue. As of 3/31/99,24 month calculation of the WANO UCF indicator was 14.60 points out of 16 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 14.60 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 14.70.

Manager Jim Tills Data Source Mike Edward / Ruth Bilau/Bart Shawe 9

UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR o rt alhoun G oal (3.

)

A In d st y ear odlan (3.9% )

~

40%

30% -

1998 RFO 20% -

10% -

\\

Z r

2 2

F%-

v w w==;=

111111111111111111111111 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 UNPLANNED CAP. LOSS FACTOR (Percent)

ANNUAL GOAL 3.0 1.5 3.5 3.0 4.1 3.0 3.1 4.1 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 7.9 9.9 3.8 0.6 THREE YEAR AVG.

6.6 9.3

7.2 Definition

Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (UCLF) is calculated, 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 if they are not scheduled at least four weeks in advance.

Analysis:

The 24 Month UCLF value remained steady but level, with the exception of the brief down power for the FW-10 surveHlance testing issue. This wil not improve until April, assuming continuing 100% capability performance.

FCS has performed well throughout the year of 1998 and throughout March 1999. The FCS 24-month UCLF of 6.9% exceeds the 3.9% median for the industry. As of 03/31/99, the 24 month calculation of the WANO UCLF indicator was 6.50 points out of 12 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 6.50, which

~

compared to the Fourth Quarter 1996 value of 6.50.

Manager Jim Tills Data Source MikeEdward/RuthBilau/BartShawe 10

I I

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 1000 HOURS CRITICAL

-e-24-Month Rolling Average I

--+- FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical for last 36 months Fort Calhoun Goal (0.0)

-e-- W ANO industry 1 year Median (0.0)

-m-FCS Reactor Scrams 2 --

1--

l 0=

= = =========== = = = = = = = =

I l

l UNPLANNED Automatic Reactor 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Scrams per 7000 Hours Critical ANNUALGOAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I

YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.48 0.31 0.00 I

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 hours0.081 days <br />1.944 hours <br />0.0116 weeks <br />0.00266 months <br /> of critical operation. The value is calculated by multiplying the total of automatic scrams by the tctal hours critical in the same time period and dividing by 7000.

Analysis:

FCS continues to perform in the upper industry quartile with Trp' Free Operation. The last event at FCS, that resulted from an automatic trip, was in August 1995. As of 03/31/99, the 24 month calculation of the UA7 bdicator was 8.0 points out of 8 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 8.0 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 8.0.

Manager Ross Ridenoure Data Source MikeEdward/RuthBilau/BartShawe 11

HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE m Monthly HPSIS stern Hours Unavailable

+ 24 Month Rollin Ave rage Fort Calhoun G at (0.003)

+ WANO lndustry 1 year Modlan (0.004) 0.007 -

0.006 -

0.005 -

0.004 2

=

0.003 -

0.002 -

l;ol ~

,2,=

=,2,=,2,=,2 2,2,2,

=

I 45454 E E k 3 I a{ 8 E E 5 8 E E E k 4 5 5 8 E 8 5 8 E%544544 I

HPSISAFETY SYSTEM 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (SP1)

ANNUAL GOAL 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 I

YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 Definition:

I High Pressure Safety System (SP1)is defined as the sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavalable hours and

2) the estimatad faut exposure unavanable hours for the high pressure safety injection system for the reporting period, dMded by 1) the crkical hours for the reporting period and 2) the number of trains in the high pressure safety injection system.

Analysis:

I The availabRity of the HPSI System remains high due to high equ' ment reliability ar.J judicious planning and scheduling of p

maintenance. This places FCS as one of the best performers b the hdustry for this indicator. As of 03/31/99 the 24 month calculation of the SP1 indicator was 10.0 points out of 10 points. At the end of the First Quader 1999 the FCS Value was 10.0 which compares to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 10.0.

Manager Mori Core Data Source Chuck Schaffer E

~

12

i

(

AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE l

m Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability

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

--- W ANO induetry 1 year Median (0.004) 0.045 --

l 0.040 --

0.035 --

0.030 --

0.025 --

I 0.020 -

O.015 -

0.010 I

l 0 00 '- C'T~ N ~E~f~f~

?-F-? TY E ~f ~% -

aah viet esvs esist 8&EAh&EE$,ag visage5 8&Ekw kEa aR

<I AFW SAFE Y SYSTEM 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (SP2)

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 0.004 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 estirnated fault exposure unavailable hours for the auxiliary feedwater system for the reportog period, divided by: 1) the critical hours for the reporthg period and 2) by the number of trains in the auxiliary feedwater system.

Analysis:

On February 2,1999, FW-10 pump was declared inoperable during performance of a surveillance tost. 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 I

operable on February 3,1999. The plant reached 59% power before FW 10 was declared operable. As of 03/31/99, 24 month calculation of the SP2 indicator was 10.0 points out of 10 points. At the end of the First

@uarter 1999 the FCS Value was 10.0 which compared to the Fourth Quar 1er 1998 value of 10.00.

Manager Merl Core Data Source Russ Cusick I

13

EMERGENCY AC POWER SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE m Monthly Emergency AC Power Safety System

+24 Month Rolling EACP Unavailability Fort Calhoun Goal (0.024)

--*- WANO Industry 1 year Median (0.010) 0.07 -

0.06 -

0.05 -

0.04 -

0.03 -

E 0.02 -

eae e

!- "f!iibu-lismEE

"'~

O k k k B k k k k k 8 E E $ 8 E R R $ R E E R $ $

hhkb$$bh khbhhk

$hbhbkkb EL'ERCENCY AC POWER 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 SAFETY SYSTEM (SPS)

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 0.001 Definition:

Emergency AC Power Performance (SPS) is def hed as the sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unava3able hours. 2) The estrnated fault egosure unavailable hours for the emergency AC power system for the reporting period, divided by the: 3) Number of hours h the reporting period hours for the number of trains h the emergency AC power system.

Analysis:

To mahtain outage DG avalabbity, planned on-line DG maintenance outages were conducted h July and August. The scope and duration of these outages proceeded as planned. In December 1998, failure of the watir 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 unavaRabHity. The 1998 performance goal was achieved. This performance places FCS at the median of the hdustry for this indicator. As of 03/31/99 the 24 month calculation of the SP5 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 valuo of 8.5. This parameter is currently unjer review for previous reporting discrepancy.

Manager Merl Core Data Source Rich Ronning 14

i THERMAL PERFORMANCE Monthly Therm al Perform a nce Fort Calhc oSI( 9W

~

W ANO Industry 1 year Median (99.7%)

i00%]

j g

=

=

h 98 RFO 99%

4 r

1

-i--r---

r 4

L 8

I E

R

~

S g

d 2

I

.g 6

. u.

a THERMAL PERFORMANCE (TPI) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (percerg I

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.

Analnisis:

Unplanned equipment outages or degradation has not affected the units efficiency. This performance places j

FCS in the 3rd quartile of performance in the industry for this indicator. As of 03/31/99, the 12 month calculation of the TPI indicator was 6.0 points out of 6 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 6.0 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 6.0. A 24 month calculation of the TPI indicator was 6.0 points out of 6 points.

Manager Merl Core Data Source Kevin Naser I

l 15 i

I l

l I

I FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR I

I m Fuel Reliability (E-04 Microcuries/ Gram)

A End of 1999 Goal (5.0 E-04 Microcuries/ Gram) j

--+- WAN O Ind us try 1 year Median (2.30 E-04Microcu rie s /G ram )

{

~ 3-Month Rolling Average y

E 100 -

l

\\

0.01 i

m Sep Oct Nov Dec Ja n-99 F eb-99 M a r-99 i

FUEL RELIABILITY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (FRl)(xE.C4 Micro curies / Gram)

ANNUAL GOAL 147 17.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 99 5.2

7.8 Definition

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

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

i l

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 implemented in Cycle 18 will continue to be used for Cycle 19. Coolant activity data through March 1999 shows the presence of ten i

defective fuel rods. This is an increase from four failed rods through February. The increase is attributed to an i

increase in Xe 133 activity. In March the FRI value was 11.8 E-04 uci/gm compared to 61.0E-04 uci/gm at the same time point in Cycle 17. The 03/31/99 recent quarterly calculation of the FR1 Indicator was 8.0 points out of a possible 8.0 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999, the FCS Value was 8.0, which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 8.0.

l I

Manager Ruben Hamilton Data Source Susan Baughn I

16 I

I SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY m Monthly Chemistry Indicator 1999 Fort Calhoun Goal (1.2)

--et--W ANO Industry 1 year M edia n (1.04)

=

=

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 o

m. _ e

_v

_s

_.e

+

_s

._ s

_r.

_s

_.s y

h b

b 1

I SECONDARY SYSTEM 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 200'.

2003 CHEMISTRY (CPI)

ANNUAL GOAL 1.04 1.01

<1.02

<1.02

<1.15

<1.15

<1.15 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 1.33 1.16 1.05 D finition:

f E, <ondary System Chemistry (CPI)is defined as a calculation based on the concentration of key impurities in the secondary side of the plant. These key impurities are the most likely 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 power is changing less than 5% per day.

Analysis:

The theoretical minimum 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 Polishing & Blowdown Recovery systems. This performance places FCS in the lowest quartile of plants for this indicator. As of 03/31/99 the 12 month calculation of the CPI indicator was 6.8 points out of 7 poir'ts. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 6.8 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 valm of 6.6.

Manager Ruben Hamilton Data Source Mark Ostien 17

I COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE M Monthly Radiation Dose (SRD)

-*-- WANO 3 year Median (116 -4th qtr.98)

-o-- YTD Accumulated Dose based on SRD reading V

FSC Goal 250 q

200j E5 E 100 -

3 50,

3 5

g 0N 6m j

N 4m a

2 i

COLLECTIVE RAD EXPOSURE 1996 1997 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 228.0 40.8 223.8 5.191 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 117.0 138.0 163.2 INDUSTRY MEDIAN 145.0 144.0 116.0 3 YEAR AVG.

I

• 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 dosimeter (TLD). Collective radiation exposure is reported in units of person-rem.

Analysis:

i As of 03/31/99,24 month calculation of the CRE indicator was 7.1 points out of 8 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 7.1 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 7.1.

Manager Mark Puckett Data Source Gary Collett i8

l lNDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE 1998 Y-T-D Industrial Safety Accident & Disabling hjurylliness Rate

- m-1999 Y-T-D IndustrialSafety Accident & Disabing hjury/liness Rate I

--se-Year 2000 WANO bdustry and FCS Goal (<0.40)

-w.

WANO Industry 1998 Median (<0.23) 1 0.8,

0.7 d 0.6 0.5 lr===-9 N

/

8 7

0.2 I

v 0.1 0

-v

,",, r E

S E

k D

8 9

D 5

}

a 2

4 0

z 2

1 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

<0.4

<0.4 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.29 0.00 0.18 0.00 l

Definition:

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

Analtisis:

l The 12 month value of the indicator will remain constant through April 1999 assuming no accidents occur. As of I

03/31/99, the 12 month calculation of the ISAR indicator was 5.0 points out of 5.0 points. 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.

Manager Ron Short Data Source Duane Booth k

[

19

~

U I

l VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Monthly Volume of LLRW (cu. meter) usumi Year-to-Date Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried WANO Industry 1 year Median (28cu. meter)

--m-Fort Cahoun Goal (23 cu. meter)

V 60.00,

50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 6

j o

M, E,.

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-99.eb Mar I

VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 RADIOACTIVE WASTE (RWV)

ANNUAL GOAL 18.6 34.0

<23.0

<23.0

<15 TBD TBD TBD YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 18.38 22.20 17.09 3.72 Definition:

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 I

storage, the amount of radioactive oil that has been shipped 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 fuel processing Analysis:

The volume of radicactive waste buried in 1998 was higher than desired due to the Cycle 17's high RCS activity I

created by failed fuel. Cycle 18's fuel performance improvements are expected to reduce waste generation. This performance places FCS in the worst quartile of plants for this indicator. The LLRW indicator is no longer calculated as part of the WANO PI Index by INPO.

Manager Mark Puckett Data Source Mark Breuer I

I I

20

I I

I

'I I

I I

NRC l

PERFORMANCE g

INDICATORS I

I I

I I

I I

I I

21

I I

NRC MODEL FOR EVALUATING g

FCS PERFORMANCE I

I ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE -Increased Regulatory Response Band I

. Cornerstone objectives met w/ minimal reduction in safety margin

. Outside bounds of nominal performance

. Within Technical Specification Limits l

. Changes in performance consistent w/ changes of Core Damage Frequency (CDF)<E-5 l

ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE - Required Regulatory Response Band g

. Cornerstone objectives met w/significant reduction in safety margin

. Technical Specification limits reached or exceeded

. Changes in performance consistent w/ changes of CDF<E-4 I

I I

UNSAFE PERFORMANCE I

I I

i l

22

I g

"lNITIATING EVENTS" Unplanned Scrams Per 7000 Critical Hours (Automatic And Manual Scrams)

I INITIATING EVENTS: Unplanned Scrams Per 7000 Hrs Critical

{

g 8

E 4

8 5

i 4

% IA8 4

0.00

/

0.50 rJ I

1.00 f

1.50 2.00 2.50 --

LCENSEE RESFUNSE Ak I

NCREAsED REO kTORY REEPONSE 3.50 -

Definition:

This measure is a count of the events that upset plant stablity and challenge safety functions. The hdicator is I

the number of manual and automatic scrams per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical for the last 12 month period. The hdicator does not count scrams directed by normal operation or test procedures but hcludes scrams occurrbg durbg, performance of procedures of scram but the scram was not planned.

I Analysis:

FCS continues to perform with trip free operation. The last automatic trip was b August 1995. The last I

manualtrip was b April 1997.

Manager Ross Ridenoure Data Source MikeEdward/RuthBilau/BartShawe 23

"lNITIATING EVENTS" Risk-Significant Scrams Per 3 Years l

l M on th s k

E 8

5 2

E k

E k

i!

E 8

E E

k k

w 0 i l

o.5 1

1.5 I

2 2.5

^

3 3.5

,,, m _, m 4

INCR EASED REGUL ATORY R ESPONSE 4.5 M

Definition:

This measure is a count of the events that upset plant stability and challenge safety functions. Risk significant I

scrams is a count of risk-irnportant scrams occurring over a moving three year period.

Risk-Significant Scrams are:

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

Analvsis:

FCS has not emerlenced a Risk-Significant Scram event in the last three years. FCS last emerienced a Risk Significant Scram June 24,1993 when a loss of load was caused by an inadvertent actuation of a breaker failure lock-out relay h the switchyard during switchyard work.

Manager Ross Ridenoure Data Source Erick Matzke 24

I "lNITIATING EVENTS" Transients per 7000 Critical Hours M onth R

E E

g E

R E

k

$5

$E k

k

? $$

$ $k 0 00 -

1.00 -

2.00 -

3.00 s

4,00 -

5.0 0 =

6.00 -

7.00 -

8.00 -

INCRE ASED REG ULATO RY 9.00 -

Definition:

This indicator counts unplanned events (excluding scrams) that could, in certain plant conditions, challenge safety functions. It may be a leading hdicator of risk signWicant events. The hdicator includes uncontrolled excursions of more than 20% h 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 nf the weekend the discovery of an off-normal condition.

Analysis:

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

"cr+;+:

Ross Ridenoure Data Source John Drahota 25

J

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Emergency Power Unavailability 36 M onth Rolling Average E

E k?55$54

$$8

$$k?5 O.00 O.01 0.02 0.03 --

LICENSEE RESPONS E (o.038) au

=.m

- ~ e=w

c. a

aae n,

..u a;

~.g n,94 _y weremmemu+xwwwwmmwwwwwmmnmew:xmmsmnm INCREASED REGULATORY RESPONSE (.05) 0.05 Definition:

Emergency AC Power Performance (SPS) is defhed as the three year running average of the sum of: 1) The known (planned and unplanned) unavaiable hours. 2)The estinated fault egosure unavalable hours for the emergency AC power system for the reporting period, divided by the: 3) Number of hours h the reporting period hours, and 4) the number of trans in the emergency AC power system.

Ar<alysis:

To maintah outage DG avaBabuity, planned on-line DG mantenance outages were conducted h July and August. The scope and duration of these outages proceeded as planneo.

Manager Mori Core Data Source Rich Ronning i

26

I I

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" LPSI(RHR) System Unavailability l

36 M onth Rolling Average E

i 3

F t

B 8

S 2

l

,5 I

m o

z o

8 2

a s

i 0

O.01 ~

LICENS EE RESPONSE (.02)

,.,~...

.....,.....,,a,n 0.02 -?"N""*TF"t" W N N WF""9?N""?TT N FU N W""'$

NCREASED REGULATORY RESPONSE I

0,03 0.04 I

Definition:

The LPSI Unavagability for NRC Safety System Performance is defhed as the three year runnhg average of the sum of : 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and 2) the estimated f ault egosure unavailable hours for the LPSI system for the reporthg period; divided by: 1) the number of hours in the reporthg period and 2) the number of trahs b the LPSI system.

Analysis:

1 LPSI System availability romahs at essentially zero due to the low hours of unavailablity.

i I

Manager Mori Core Data Source Chuck Schaffer i

i I

1 i

1 l

f 27

I

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" AFW System Unavailability I

36 Month Rolling Average 0

8 h

a g

5 g

8 e

n s

4 4

il m

z 0

L

-t O.004 0.008 I

0.012 0.016 -- l.icens ee R es pons e (0.02) 00 4 0.028 --

0.032 0.036 I

0.04 Definition:

AuxHiary 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) unavaHable hours and 2) the estimated fault exposure unavaHable 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.

I Analysis:

On February 2,1999, FW 10 pump was declared inoperable during performance of a surveillance test. The I

pump faHed the surveHlance test and remahed 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.

Manager Mori Core Data Source Russ Cusick

!I 28

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" HPSI System Unavailability 36 M onth Rolling Average E

g

^

s, 8'

4 s

B m

o z

,i 4

s s

a s

0 O.005 I

0.01 0.015 LICENSEE RESPONSE (0.02) 0.02 I

Definition:

High Pressure Safety System (SP1) for the NRC Safety System performance is defined as the three year runnhg average of sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and :2) the estimated fault egosure unavaHable hours for the high pressure safety injection system for the reporthg period, dMded by: 1) the critical hours for the reporting period and 2) the number of trabs in the high pressure safety hjection system.

Analysis:

The availabHity of the HPSI System remains at 100 percent due to high oqupment reliability and judicious plannhg and scheduling of maintenance. This places FCS as one of the best performers b the industry for this indicator.

Manager Merl Core Data Source Chuck Schaffer I

I E

~

29 4

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Safety System Failures a S SF/QTR 98-2 98-3 98-4 99-1 0

j 2

l 3

a 4

LCENSEE RESPONSE (5) a

....,s.

l 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 consisthg of mult' le redundant trains, failure of all trains is necessary for a safety system f ailure. The bdicator p

I also counts failures that cause at least one hdependent train or channel to become hoperable in multiple systems.

l Analysis:

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

Calculational Method The number of safety system failures in the last four quarters are summed (a four-quarter l

moving sum). Because the NRC currently classifies Safety System Failures based on LER information, there is a this lag for this indicator due to the analysis and publication of results.

Manager Ralph Phelps Data Source Erick Matkre I

30 r

_,,,_m

" BARRIERS" Fuel Cladding - Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Specific Activity E

E k

3

?

?

8 b

?

5 0.0001 O.001

^

0.01 g

01

' k

.9 f

LICENSEE RESPONSE 10,50) -

m 1

INCHF AE FD RFt:III ATORY RFEPOMEF

/

REQUIRED REGULATORY RESPONSE (1.0) 10 Definition:

This performance hdicator provides an objective means of measuring fuel cladding integrity. The hdicator is the maximum calculated activity level (micro-curries per gram dose equivalent lodine 131) recorded each month.

Analysis:

Monthly Dose Equivalent lodhe (DEI) transient peaks were observed during the power ramp downs prior to the 1998 Refueling Outage in March and April of 1998. Replacement of fuel assemblies containing leaking fuel pins with assemblies of a new spacer grid design and re-hsertion of previously discharged ABB fuel during the rsfueling outage resulted h marked improvement in fuel cladding htegrity. At the end of March 1999, ten fual pins were estimated to be leaking.

Manager Ruben Hamilton Data Source Tim Dukarski 31

g

" BARRIERS" Reactor Coolant - RCS Leak Rate I

1 a

a s

s 8

a s 1a a

l o

1

^

2 LIC E N S E E R E S PO N S E (5)

I d

a NCREA SED REGUL A TORY RESPONSE 1P 8

REQUIRED REGUL'ATORY RESPONSE (10)'

' ' ~

1o I

12 --

1 I

Definition:

This performance hdicator provides an objective means of measuring the RCS integrity. The hdicator is the maximum calculated leakage rate (gallons per mbute) recorded for a given calendar month: Identified {known) plus unidentified (unknown}

Analysis:

Maximum monthly RCS Leak rates hdicate the RCS boundary is performing as expected. These maxirnum monthly values are 150% to 200% higher than routine daily measured values.

Manager Ross Ridenoure Data Source John Drahota I

32

l

" BARRIERS" System Containment - Containment Leakage Quarter 2nd Qtr 98 3rd Qtr 98 4th Otr 98 1st Qtr 99 0

R 10 20 0

30 40 -

LIC EN SEE R ESP O NSE 50-(,..

60 70 I

Definition:

The " running total" of Local Leak Rate Test results provides an indication of the leak-tight integrity of the I

containment banier. This indicator is thw expected total local leakage (fraction of the design basis leak rate, La) from containment valves and penetrations under design basis accident conditions. It is computed using the Minimum Pathway Leakage Rate (MNPLR) total of all Type B and Type C penetrations. Note: The " Licensee Response" threshold is shown at Technical Specification Limit <60% of La.

Analysis:

The " running total

• containment leakage, based on Local Leak Rate Test at the conclusion of the 1998 Ref uelhg Outage, conthues to trend well within acceptable l' nits.

r Manager Mori Core Data Source Chuck Bloyd I

33

I I

I I

I I

I CHOICE I

PERFORMANCE I

INDICATORS I

I I

I I

I I

I I

34

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.

Performance Indicators:

l Indicators being developed bu CHOICE Teant Self-Assessment Quality index Existing Indicators being used.

Problem Identification Rates (Self & Site)

Key Actions Taken to date:

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

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

The 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-assessments that have performed well.

Plant " Scorecard" system is an assessment tool abled at providing real time feedback concemhg p:rformance.

1 360 Degree Performance Feedback process conducted with many station managers has hfluenced Leadershp behaviors.

Results Achieved:

. Emphasis on the conduct of Formal Self Assessments b 1997 and 1998 has contrbuted towards I

improved station performance.

improved focus on the completion of Post Job Critiques to capture operating emerience, identify and e

track performance problems.

The formal self assessment process is recognized as an industry strength h the latest INPO I

=

evaluation.

I L

35 a.--i.

___m__

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION RATES (Self & Site) a

=

m. _.m m

w m_..

a gon,o w

w w

w w

w w

w w

w no.o

-Mp, so.o

/

a 7u

-s\\

=

60.0 Y=

su do.o 30.o 20.0 10.o teos 1997 1998 1000 g

-g o/ eof Set-Identmed RcNems

-*-%of Site-Identmed ProMems

% of Self Identified Problems:

1996 1997 1998 1999 (YTD) 2000 2001 2002 2003 Tcrget Performance N/A N/A N/A 85.0 TBD TBD TBD TBD Actual Performance 68.8 61.0 83.9

% cf Site identified Problems:

1996 1997 1998 1999 (YTD) 2000 2001 2002 2003 Terget Performance N/A N/A N/A

>98.0 TBD TBD TBD TBD Actual Performance 98.6 97.8 97.3 98.5 Definition:

This is a measure of our ability to identry problems internally. The first ratio (% of Self-identried Problems) represents the percentage of Condnion Reports identified by the Work Group. The second ratio (% of Site-Identified Problems) represents the percentage of Condtion Reports identried by the Work Group, Non Oversite Work Groups, and Oversite Work Groups (does not include NRC or INPO identified problems).

The Goals are to continue to increase the number of self-identried problems and reduce the number of Externalidentified problems.

Analysis:

Annunciator Color: GREEN Yur-end Projection: An improving trend is expected. Further efforts are planned to improve the "Self-Evaluation" culture.

Yxr-to-date Performance: During the first quarter of 1999, the Self-identification rate has increased by approximately 15%

indicating a positive trend. The Site-identrication rate continues to be high.

Manager Jirn Tills Data Source Ken Steele i

36

SELF-ASSESSMENT QUALITY INDEX Performance Indicator Under Development 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 Definition:

This performance indicator is based upon evaluation of individual area self-assessment activities. Self-assessment activities are grouped into the areas of Operations, Maintenance, Engineering and Plant Support.

Assessment quality is evaluated by the NSRG through the use of a self-assessment scorecard.

Analysis:

Self-assessment Quality Measurements will be made beginning April 30,1999 and back fit for assessments conducted after October 1998. No quality data is currently available.

Manager Del Trausch Data Source Ken Steele I

I 37

4

(

HUMAN PERFORMANCE IS EXEMPLARY Strategic Objective: To promote a high quality, well-motivated work force willing to work

[

together 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

. Organizational / Programmatic Error LERs Key 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.

f increased 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 Parformance document"(Titanic training).

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

[

[

[

38

AVERAGE DAYS FOR RESETTING THE SITE WIDE EVENT CLOCK 60.0 50.0 -

I. 4 0.0 -

~

8 30.0 -

2 20.0 -

10.0 -

0.0 I

i I

4 5

8 4

s

^

z o

a s

1 Number of Human Performance 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 200 Licensed Events Report 3

i Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A 40 50 60 90 90 ActualPerformance 20.6 17.3 38.7 48.5 l

Definition:

The site wide event clock is reset following the occurance of a significant condition report (Level 1 or 2) that adversely affects plant operating status or safety margin and which was within the organizations ability to prevent. This indicator tracks a 12 month rolling average of the number of days between succeeding event clock resets.

Anals/ sis:

Trends for this hdicator continue to show improvement in the lower frequency of

• preventable" events. Based upon the data available through April, the 1999 goal for averaging greater than 40 days between events should be exceeded Manager Mary Tosar Data Source John Kollams 1

I

[

39

INDIVIDUAL ERRCe MUMAN PERFORMANCE LERS

-+-Total Events 35 -

+ Proventable

--*-Personel Error 12 Month Totals 30 -

26 -

i PO-15 7

^

15 15 15 15 15 10 -

7 6

)

4 d

5l 2

2 3

3 U

{N 2

3=

5 5

-4 0

8 8

8 8

8

[R 8

8 8

8 8

k k

l k

k k

k k

k l

Number of Human Performance 1996

'1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 L iconsed Events Report Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A 2

1

.1 0

0 j

Actual Performance 2

4 4

1 Definition:

LERs caused by personnel error such as inappropriate action by one of more hdividuals, as opposed to being attributed to a department or general group. LERs fallbg 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 bdicated by the failure of more than one defensive barrier.

Analysis:

Human Performance trends as indie,ated h the quarterly trend report show an overall decline in the number and percentage of causal fac+ ors attrbuted to human performance errers in several categories.

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

Manager Mary Tesar Data Sour:n Erick Matzke

?

40

ORGANIZATIONAUPROGRAMMATIC ERROR LERS Performance Related LERs r

I i2 E

k I

1 k

< j;1 7:;

f 1

Vf

r[

O

~

s s

p; Mar-98 Apr-98 May-98 h98 Jul-98 Aug-98 Sep-98 Oct-98 Nov98 Dec-98 Jert99 Feb99 I

Number of Organizational /

) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Programmatic Errore I

Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A 5

4 4

3 3

Actual Performance 9

5 5

1 Definition:

Th5 performance hdicator monitors organizational / programmatic performance error LERs where the root cause b pIrsonnel error such as a department or general group, as opposed to behg attrbuted to inappropriate action by one or more indmduals. LER's falling in this category would bclude those events which can be shown to have I

been created or driven by an underlying organizational or programmatic weaknest. These are typically indicated t,y the failure of more than one defensive barrier.

Analysis:

under dert.lopment Manager Mary Tesar Data Source Erick Metzke

[

[

{

c 41 r

OPERATIONS are EVENT FREE Strategic Objective:

To ensure that weak barriers are identified and strengthened to prevent events.

Performance Indicators:

I Transients per 7000 Critical Hours e

INPO identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events l

Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams per 7000 Hours Unplanned Capability Loss Factor l

Key Actions Taken to date:

Enhanced Formality in Operations.

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

Operations procedures reviewed prior to use during the Refueling Outage.

De..-

nent of Scoreerd Observation Process.

Estaulishment 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 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 ide'ntify, l

42 r

INPO Identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events BSignificant O Noteworthy m Historical DTotal aCurren(Significant+ Noteworthy) t Ewnts Total (Total minus Historical) 16 -

14 N

100 11 10 10 10 9

j o$oS o

o o

o o

I I

I I

I I

i 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 g

Definition:

FCS Events, are screened and designated by INPO as Signficant events that exhbit one or more of the foBowing 1

1) severe or unusual transients,2) cafety system marunctions or improper operations,3) major equpment chnacteristics:

d mage caused by lengthy unplanned outages or signficant reductions in power levels, replacement of or extenske repairs to m:Jor 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 IndicatNe of (i.e indicates the existence of precursors)

I milntenance, operations, administratko or management problems. Historical Events are events classified by OPPD as ciused by condtions greater than eighteen months old.

Analysis:

Significant Evente for February 1999.

None I

Noteworthy Events since start of NFO Cycle:

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

I Sunmiliance Procedure Deficiency Leeds to Entry into Technical Specification Required Shutdown due to tandliary Feedwater Inoperability.

~ ^ ^ ' -

' E _- ' in start of 590 Cvels:

None l

g u,

arn rm.

on. soore.

oonn. ooinn l

i

.:3

INITIATIVES IN HIGH VISIBILITY AREAS HAVE STRONG PERFORMANCE Strategic Objective: To c.,nsure that initiatives in high visibility areas have strong performance. Areas of interest are defined as an issue, area, initiative or activity that has majorimpact 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:

Indicators being develoved hu CHOICE Team Cliostone schedules for high visibility areas wHi be monitored. Ther 2 trees are:

Work management Process (Herman) 1999 Refueling Outage (Herman) e improvements in Preventive Maintenance and Predicthre Maintenance Programs (Sweemgin) e Training Accreditation Renewal (Westcott)

I

.*e Y2K(Henry)

Ranu(Henry)

Switchyard Modifications (Short)

= 1999 Graded Exercise (Simmons)

Ie Resolution of INPO findings (Frans)

Existing Indicators beine used.

• 1999 Refueling Outage Milestones Key Actions Taken to date:

I 1998 Refueling Outage-Outage Safety Goals met. Plant has operated >200 days foHowing completion of the outage.

Resolution of FuelRetablityissue Severo Accident Management Guidelines implemented Maintenance Rule inspection /implemer!tatbn SuccessfulINPO Evaluation Results Achieved:

e The 1998 Refusing Outage safety goals were met and the plant has operated for over 200 days following completion of the I

refuebng outage.

. High Integrty Containers Shhment The handling and shpment of three High IntegrRy Containers containing spent resin shpment? were successfuHy completed

. Resolution of Fuel Rollabilty issue-Compared to last cycle when we had approxrnately 100 failed pins, we have only 2 faued pins E-209 days into the cycle.

. Severe Accident Management Guidelines (SAMG) implementation-completed the project on schedule. Self-assessment confirmed that SAMGs can be implemented per NRC commitment date.

E

. Switchyard Modrication-The project is on ec5edule for completion by June 1999.

E

= Preparations for the 1999 Refusing Outage-With the exception of the first milestone (identfication of modification and ECN list) al miootones have been met.

I!

c L_

44

1999 Outage Schedule Milestones OUTAGE MILESTOE WEEKS PRIOR MILESTOE OWER STATUS TO START DUE DATE I. Mod, ECN, A Project (appreved for pisaming) Freeze Date 79 03/14/98 Phelpe 2.systsam Whidowstructure Flmmused SS 0744/96 Stading 3.' Backbone" Schedule Developed & luted 60 07/25/98 Stading

4. Mod A ECN (approved for ace-

-d) Freese Date 52 09/10/98 Phelpe

3. Spectal Project (approved for +--,

1)Freem Date 44 11/14/98 WylPr

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

7. Prehudmary Project Schedmie Due Date (all Outage Projects) 34 01/23/99 Phelpe

8. AB Parts Respnesis Sebedsted to Procarveneet for Mode /ECNS 26 03/20/99 6/11/99* Msyberry D. MoWh Mmmi Design Package Dee Date 26 03/20/99 7/19/99*

Sadlee

19. Overas Outage Scope Freeze Date 26 03/20/09 Wylie

11. Mediscaties A ECN Plan & Schedule Due Date 16 06/29/99 Mayberry l

l

12. Project Pine & Schedule Dee Date 16 06/29/99 CorefSidies l

13. Subsmit Materkd & Parts Regeests for Fresen Outage Scope 16 06/29/99 Gomer/Wylie l

l

14. ProMaulnery Outage Schedule Issued 12 06/26/99 Stading

15. Detage Managesment Temum Idendsed 12 06/26/99 Wylie l

l

10. ModlScatism AECN Construction Work Order Due Date 9

07/17/99-8/20/99*

Mayberry l

l l

l 17.Orsource Avsamhetty Identined 8

07/24/99 Clemene 16 Mahntenance Wort Orders " Ready to Work" 8

07/24/99 Gomer 19 Isome Final Detmated Ostage Schedule for Review 6

08/07/99 Stading l

l l

28. AM Materbil sad parts for the Fresen Ostage Scope On-Site 4

06/21/99 McCormick

21. Managemeent Meeting to A;7 prove Outage Sc,*mhsle 4

08/21/99 Wylie l

l

22. NSRG - Operations Review (approvaD of Schedule 4

08/21/99 Trausch l

23. Cosuplete a5 Reland Fagineertag Analyses 3

08/28/99 Skiloe l

24. AI. ARA Red Work perunits and Tagoats Cesap.

1 09/11/99 Gobere

25. Breakers Open Original Detage Start Date 0

PS/18/99 Ridenoure l

Bremhers Open Revised Outage Start Date n/a 1M2/99 Ridenoure l

KEY:

green 5 M5estone Met black E Milestone Not Met and currently Not completed yolkm ~: MBestone C::z"ig red W Milestone Not Met and currently completed

(* Musetone Due Date Change)

Manager Joe Solymossy Data Source Dennis Stading

[

r 45

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS are Broad and Lasting Strategic Objective: To proactively identify, evaluate, take corrective action and monitor results of problems, potential problems and non-consequential events. To identify the root causes, the generic implications and the appropriate corrective actions to prevent a recurrsnce. To address the fundamental causes of problems rap.ra than the symptoms.

Performance Indicators:

l Indicators being developed by CHOICE Team Recurring or Repetive Condition Reports Condition Reports >6 Months Old (Level 1-4)

Number of Repeat Maintenance Activities l

Existing Indicators being used.

N ne Key Actions Taken to date:

Cornmon cause Analysis (CCA) completed to identify Programmatir: and Organizational issues.

Operating Experience categories and packages developed fe r resueling outage tasks.

hiplementation of a "7-week" maintenance planning cycle, rhe Training Department has developed a Self-Evaluation 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.

[

[

c 46 I

RECURRING OR REPETIVE CONDITION REPORTS i

l Performance Indicator Under Development i

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:

1 The number of repeat or similar events as Indicated in the CR database. These are Identified as Level 3 Condition Reports (CRs).

Analysis:

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

I Manager Rich Clemens Data Source Jeff Spilker I

I I

I I

[

r' 47 I

CONDITION REPORTS >6 MONTHS OLD (LEVtil 1-4) 1 Performance Indicator Under Development I

CR's Relating to Less Than Effective use of Operating Experience:

1996 1997 1993 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 total number of outstanding (i.e.,) Level 1-4 Condition Rep 9 orts greater than C months old.

Analysis:

under development Manager Rich Clemens Data Source Jeff Spilker i

I I

I

[

[

r' 48 I

[

NUMBER OF REPEAT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

[

[

Performance Indicator Under

[

Development

(

16 -

14 -

12 -

[

10 -

8-6-

4-2-

0 Mar-96 Sep 96 Mar 97 Sep 97 Ma r-98 Sep 98

[

R! peat Maintenance Performance Indicator:

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

(

FCBU AnnualGo.1 MA WA WA TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD FCBU Performance WA WA WA Definition:

The number of corrective maintenance activities that were re-performed (i.e., repeated)within 12 months of the

{

initial performance of the task.

Analysis:

(

No Maintenance Rule (a)(1) Structure, Systems or components (SSCs) dispositioned to category (a) (2) in 1997 were retumed to (a)(1)in 1998 due to ineffective corrective actions.

[

Manager Rich Clemens Data Source Mark Ellis

(

{

I r

49

Excellence in Materiel Condition l

Strategic Objective: To review existing programs and policies, along with equipment hl: tories and provide process improvement and equipment repairs /upgrados that will c sure excellent materiel condition through decommissioning and beyond.

Performance Indicatora:

hIdicators being developed by CHOICE Teans

• N3 Plant transients >20% caused by equipment performance l

e* Number of Temporary Modifications caused by materiel condition problems Number of Condition Reports (Levels 1-3) caused by equipment problems l

• e Numberof OperatorWork Arounds Number of Control Room Deficiencies (on-line)

• Nan-outage maintenance backlog Existingimlicators being_twaL e WANO Performance Indicators (HPSl/LPSI/DG/UCLF/ CHEM /FRI)

Thermal Performance 1

e* N:n-Outage Corrective Maintenance Backlog i

Key Actions Taken to date:

Fermed Reliability Engineering Dept. to focus, on preventive maintenance, predictive maintenance cnd Maintenance Rule programs.

Developed action plan under Maintenance Rule.

R: viewed Preventla Maintenance processes.

Results Achieved:

improved reliability and availability of diesel driven AFW pump and Instrument Air compressors.

No Maintenance or operational unavailaUlity of equipment during 1998 which resulted in I

cxceeding 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 I

cystems.

{

r 50 i

NON-OUTAGE CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG m Corrective Maintenance m Other Maintenance O Non. Corrective / Plant im provem ents MM 900 808 773 V

723 732 7H 739 800 896 700 800 522 518 499 500 5

332 400 j

300 200 -

I 100 0--

-+-

+

- + - -

+

+

- - + -

+

+

, - +

- + - -

+

4 u.

Non_ Outage. Maintenance _W ork Docum ent BackJog j

Definition:

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

Analysis:

I Manager Rick Wylie Data Source Martin Johnson I

I I

I I

E 51

MONTHLY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SOURCES WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ARE IN BLUE I

Indicator Source Extension INPO Noteworthy /Significant Events....................................................... Donna Guin.

6937 I

Unit Capability Factor Unplanned Capability Factor Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams per 7000 Hours Critical................................ Mike Edwards 6929 High Pressure Safety injection System Safety System Performance............................ Chuck Schaffer 6830 Auxiliary Feedwater System Safety System Performance....................................... Russ Cusick 6554 Emergency AC Power System Safety System Performance................................... Rich Ronning 6887 Th:rmal Performance................................................................... Kevin Naser 6889 Fu el Relia bility in dica to r............,................................................. Susan Baughn 7215 Secondary System Chemistry............................................................ Mark Ostlen 7109 Industrial Safety Accident Rate........................................................... Duane Booth 6568 Callective Itadiation Exposu re........................................................ Colette Williams 7163 VLlume of Low-Level Radioactive Waste................................................... Mark Breuer 7193 I

I I

I L

[

52 r

I L.

a

[

Fort Calhoun Station Operating j

Cycles and Refueling Outage Dates l OUTAGE YTD EVENT l

DATE RANGE l PF:ODUCTION(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 07/12/84-09,28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 Cycle 10 01/16/86-03/07/87 4,:!56,753 36,834,646 Cycle 11 06/08/87-09/27/88 4,936,859 41,771,505 f

Cycle 12 01/31/89-07/17/90 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 3

Cycle 17 11/25/96-04/01/98 5,183,108 71,815,678 Cycle 18 06/04/98 10/02/99 CURRENT /RODUCTION AND OPERATIONS " RECORDS" First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5:47p.m.)

Fir;t Electricity Supplied to the System August 25,1973 Crmmercial Operation (180,00f KWH)

September 26,1973 p

f Achi:ved Full Power (100%)

May 4,1974 Lengest Run (477 Days)

June 8,1987-September 27,1988 Highist Monthly Not Generation (364,468,800 KWH)

October 1987

(

M ;t Productive Fuel Cycle (5,451,069 MWH-Cycle 13)

May 29,1990-February 1,1992 Shrrtest Refueling Outage (53 d:.ys)

February 20,1995-April 14,1995 October 4,199P-November 27,96

(

53

.