ML20207F329

FCS Performance Indicators for Jan 1999

ML20207F329
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	01/31/1999
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20207F326	List: LIC-99-0023, Forwards FCS Performance Indicators for Jan 1999 ML20207F329
References
NUDOCS 9903110223
Download: ML20207F329 (68)

Text

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ___ -

I

!I i

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT II

I

. 4-n.

C 4 l .

o.-

l . . . . . -

Uj ~~

I

~

2 -

I i

I FORT CALHOUN STATION 1

i r

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS g

JANUARY 1999 in the near future, the FCS Performance Indicator Report (PIR) will be reduced in content to: 1) WANO I Indicators,2) NRC Indicators and 3) CHOlCE Indicators. Each division or department will maintain organizationalindicators. This edition of the PIR is a comtbation of some of the previous PIR indicators and many of the new indicators for the above three areas. NRC Indicators are appearing here for the first time, as are some of the CHOICE Indicators, when availablo, or the proposed CHOICE Indicators.

I 9903110223 990301 PDR R

ADOCK 05000285 PDR

~

ll ll OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT

I

!I 3 .

~

. _g ., u:

e.. +

yi '

• L.~, m.

W g y- m. 4..,

jl k g g g; j

l -

i I

ll I

I FORT CALHOUN STATION I

ll

! PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ll g JANUARY 1999

In the near future, the FCS Performance Indicator Report (PIR) will be roduced in content to: 1) WANO i indicators,2) NRC Indicators and 3) CHOICE Indicators. Each division or department will maintain j organizationalindicators. This edition c! the PIR is a combination of some of the previous PIR indicators

! and many of the new indicators for the above three areas. NRC Indicators are appearing here for the first time, as are some of the CHolCE Indicators, when available, or the proposed CHOICE Indica.. ors.

ADOC 00 5 R PDR i

}

! l

_ = _

l!

FORT CALHOEN STATION I

THE MAIN THING Safe - Event Free Nuclear Production of Electricity I

Being the Best Is A Matter Of: l C ritical Self-Assessment  !'

i H uman Performance is Exemplary g O perations are event free I nitiatives in high visibility areas have strong performance g C orrective Actions are Broad and Lasting E xcellance in materiel condition Get Back to Basics! I VALUES I

. Safety Conscious l,

. Individual Respect g

. Integrity

. Accountability i l  !;

! . Teamwork i

. Simplicity ll l 1

I! 1 I

ll

( Table of Contents

[

l l Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ........... .. ... ... ............ ........ . .... ..... ..1 l MONTHLY

SUMMARY

REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ............. 4 l

l PERFORMANCE INDICATORb

SUMMARY

REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS WANO Performance index Trend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ .. .7 WANO Performanco lndex lndicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Unit Capability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .. ............ 9 l

l Unplanned Capability loss Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. . 10 Unplanned Automatic Reactor SCRAMS per 7000 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 l

High Pressure Safety injection System . . . . . . . ... ... . . ...... ...... ............. 12 l Auxiliary Feedwater System . . ......... ................ ... . . ... .. ......... 13 1

l Emergency AC Power System . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ... ............ ........ .. . 14 l

I Thermal Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... 15 l Fuel Reliability Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ....................... ....... ... 16 i

l Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 i

! Collective Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1

Industrial Safety Accident and Disabling injury / Illness Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ........ 19 Volume of Low Level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . .,... . . . .. ....... .. ... . .. 20 f

NRC PERFORMANCE INDICATOR NRC Model For Evaluating FCS Performance . ... .... ............ .... ...... ....... 22

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

Mitigation Systems" Emergency Power Unavailability . . . . . . . .... ..... .. ... .. .... ................ 26 LPSl (RHR) Unavailability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 AFW U navailability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1

1

1 LI Table of Contents HPSI Unavailability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Safety System Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

" Barriers" Fuel Cladding - Reactor Coolant System (RCS) specific activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Reactor Coolant . RCS Leak Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 System Containment - Containment Leakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS : CHOICE CRITICAL SELF ASSESSMENIS Problem identification Rate (Self & Site) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Self Assessment Quality index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 HUMAN PERFORMANCE IS EXEMPLARY i'

Individual Error Human Performance LERs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 A

4 Organizational / Programmatic Error LERs ........ ....... .... .... ................. .. . . . 39 i

j Average Number of Days Between Human Performance Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 l

] Radiological Work Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. ...... .......... 41 s

! QPERATIONS ARE EVENT FREE l lNPO ldentified Significant/ Noteworthy Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 j Document Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ............... .......... ...... .... ...... .... 44 1

l Security incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ................ ...................... ... ... 45 l

INITIATIVES IN HIGH VISIBILITY AREAS HAVE STRONG PERFORMANCE 1999 0utage schedule Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ..... ... ......... 47 i Cents Per Kilowatt Hour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................. ................ 48 Licensed Operator Requalification Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 49  !

l I i i

l l

I

1 1

I i

l Table of Contents License Candidate Exams 1999 . . . . . . . .. .... . .... ... .... ...... ..... . .... ... 50

MWO Planning Status (Cycle 19 Refueling Outage) ......... .... ..... .......... ........... . 51 Component Testing /Special Services 1999 Outage Project Status . . . . . . . . . ......... . ....... 52 1999 Refueling Outage Modification Progress (Cycle 19) . . . . . . . . .. . .. . ....... .. ... . 53 1999 Refueling Outage Modification /ECNs Added After Freeze Date (Cycle 19) . .... . ... . . 54 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE BROAD AND LASTING Condition Reports identification of Repeat or Similar Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 )

Condition Reports identifying Less than Effective Use of Operating Experience . . . . ..... .... ... ... 57 Condition Reports >6 morms old (Level 1-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . .. ..... . .... . 58 Condluon Reports identifying Repetitive Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . 59 i

EXCELLENCE ACHIEVED IN PLANT MATERIEL CONDITION l i

Non-Outage Corrective Maintenance Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . ....... 61  !

Ratio of Preventative to Total Maintenance & Overdue Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 l 1

Temporary Modificatien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ..... .................... 63

!" Maintenance Rule SSC Unavailability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ..... .. ...... ...... ... . 64 1999 0n-Line Modification Planning Progress . . . . . . . . . . . .... .......... ....... ... ........ 65 i Monthly Performance Indicator Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 ,

Current Production and Operations" Records"/ Station Operating Cycles and RFO Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 l

I i

I i

l i

3

g FORT CALHOUN STATION Monthly Summary OPERATIONS I During the month of January 1999, the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) operated at a nominal 100% power. Normal plant maintenance, and equipment rotation activites were performed.

WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The overall WANO Performance Index was 88% during the 4th Quarter of 1998. Significant percentage poir.1 losses are attributed to the WANO Performance Indicators listed below:

1. Yhe Unit Capability FactorIndicator, calculated over the previous 24 months, contributed to a 1.3 I point loss as a result of unplanned energy losses associated with the 1997 extraction steam p(> upture 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 er.ergy losses associated with 1997 extraction steam pipe rupture event and the 1998 Refueling outage exceeding its planned duration.

3. The Collective Radation Exposure indcator, 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.

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

5. The Chemistry Performance Inder indesfor, calculated ovee the previous 12 months, contributed to a 0.4 point loss, which is due to copper tubes in heat exchangers and restart from the "98 Refueling outage.

I I ,

4

i PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

SUMMARY

REPORT l 1

ADVERSE TREND REPORT POSITIVE TREND REPORT A performance indicator wth data representing three A performance indicator wth data representing three I

consecutive months of declining performance or three consecutive months of improving pe formance or three consecutive months of performar. e that is trending consecutive months of performance that is superbr to toward declining as determined by the Manager -

the stated goalis exhbting a postive trend per Nuclear Nuclear Licensing, constRutes an adverse trend per Operatbns DMobn Qualty Procedure 37 (NOD 4P- Nuclear Operations DMsbn Quality Procedure 37 37). The following performance indicators exhbted j (NOD 4P-37). A supervisor whose performance i postive trends for the reporting month: Indicator exhbts an adverse trend by this definition may ;

specify in wrtten form (to be published in this report) i Unt Canability Factor (Page 9) why the trend is not adverse.The foibwing performance I indicators exhbited adverse trends for the reporting Unolanned Canability Loss Factor (Page 10) month.

Unolanned Automatic Reactor Scrams (Page 11) Temocrary Modifications (Page 63)

Hiah Pressure Safety Inlectica System Safety System INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED Performance (Page 12) MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT Aur Feed Water System Safety Svstom Performanca A performance indicator wth data for the reporting (Page 13) period that is inadequate when compared to the OPPD goalis defined as "Needing increased Management Thermal Performarq(Page 15) Attention" per (NOD 4P-37).

Industrial Safety Accident & Disablina inlundlliness Emeraency AC Power (Page 14)

(Page 19)

Document Review (Page 44)

IndMdual Error Human Performance LERs (Page 38)

RadiobalcalWork Practices (Page 41)

Cents Per Kilowatt Hour (Page 48)

MWO Plannino Status (Page 51)

Nonoutaae Correcthro Maintenance Backloa (31)

Preventive Maintenance Overdue (Paae 62) l l

5

il

I 4

4 ll 4

.I I

>I ll WANO  !

I g PERFORMANCE

l INDICATORS

{ .

i l

I I

I I

, I i 6 lI

I WANO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND II i I

-s- Index Mdan -+- Index Best Chariile --*- IndexWxst Chartile --o- Fort Calhoun

(@ (4 100-- -

100 95 - . .

- -- - 95 3

i 90- a : :  % M' -- 90

.A 0 ;

hA i 80 75 -

70 .

- -.A. - - . L- I .:. = =-- 75

__ /0 65-+, -

-- 65 00 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 60 8885888088808889888W8885

$$$$$$$$$kkk$$$$nnn$$$$$

Fort Calhoun hdexCalculation Dec-98 '

OVERALL PERFOIWIANCE INDICATOR WEGHT VALUE NDEX- PRODUCT Unit CapabiliN Factor (2yr) 0.1s 85.8 91.6 14.7 Unpl. Cap. Loss Factor (2yr) 0.12 6.9 54.0 6.5 Unplanned Auto Scrams (2yr) 0.0a 0.0 100.0 s.o Safety System Performance:

PWR Hiah Press. Inl. (2yr) 0.10 0.000 100.0 10.0 PWR Aux. Feedwater (2yr) 0.10 0.002 100.0 10.0 Emeroency AC Power (2yr) 0.10 0.016 85.0 8.5 Thermal Performance (1yr) 0.06 100.0 100.0 s.o Fuel Rel. (Most recent atr) 0.08 1.5E-04 100.0 s.o Chemistry Perf. Ind. (1yr) 0.07 1.15 94.4 s.s

.g Collective Rad. Exposure (2yr) 0.08 223 58.9 4.7 E bd. Safety Acc. Rate (ivr) 0.06 0.17 100.0 5.0 TOTALINDEX 88.0 l

7 i

WANO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND INDICATORS i

j 18.00 $

16.00-E ^ ^ E. Third Otr '98 3 Fourth Otr '98 1 14.00 $ I

~

12.o0 8 a a 8.8 a ?

ooo ooo "g

og} g 10.o0

• gp gg g

• *** "d* 8 8.o0 s "' d*

88 o  ! $ 888 I I I I  ! I I I i l l UCF UCLF HPSI AFW EACP CRE UA7 FRI CPI TPI ISAR

! i

l J

l This graph shows the difference between Third Otr 18 and Fourth Qtr 48 actual values achieved by Fort Calhoun. These values are updated quarterly.

l CALCULATED OVER A24 MONTH PERIOD _MAKIMUM/ACIUALVILUES TREND UCF Unit Capability Factor 16/14.70 Positivo UCLF Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 12 / 6.50 Positivo

,I i HPSI High Pressure Safety injection 10/10.00 Positive l AFW Auxiliary Feedwater 10/10.00 Positive i i EACP Emergency AC Power 10/ 8.50 Negative  ;

UA7 Unplanned Auto Scrams /7000 Hours 8 / 8.00 Positive  !

CRE Collective Radiation Exposure 8/ 4.70 Neutral CALCULATED OVER A 12 MONTH PERIOD TPl Thermal Performance Indicator 6/ 6.00 Positive CPI Secondary Chemistry indicator 7 / 6.60 Positive ISAR Industrial Safety Accident Rate 5/ 5.00 Positive C ALCULATED OVER A QUARTERLY PERIOD FRI Fuel Rel.iability indicator 8/ 8.00 Positive I

UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR y Monthly Unit Capability Factor l

-e- Factor 1

-a- WANO 24 Month UnitMedian Industry Capability (85.3%)

I 130.0% - g g 120.0% - o o 8

g g o o g g

o ogo g o og g g o g # # # o o o

• et R '" 8 8 8 g g g ,

i 5 58 $g$ jf C85 8 y8@88888g 110.0% - j 100.0 %

90.0% ,  ; . . . .

g g5 E E ".

a-m '-

=

sES OkI C C N

-* g-*u-: : :

80.0 %

a - ,

ty:  :  :

NA :

4 -A-6-o

, n_n -

70.0% - -

60.0% l I 50.0% -

40.0%

30.0%

1998 RFC 20.0% - g g I 10.0% j 0.0% .

+ ,

EbS$55E"$5*8888EEEEEEEE8 r - - r r o o

, r r r

, L _ , r. ,-

I hbk$kb$ 5h khbk kb$hbhhk _

?.. Year to Dels; 12ISonth M Rionth 38Ilonth 100% 81.4 % 85.8% 83.2 %

UNIT CAPABILTY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 002 2003 FACTOR (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 81.4 100 %

THREE YEAR AVERAGE 83.9 82.5 83.2 83.2%

INDUSTRY MEDIAN 82.8 83.6 >87.0

( 3 Year Average)

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:

I The 24 Month UCF value remains at a steady. FCS steady performance continued through January of 1999. 24 month calculation of the WANO UCF indicator was 14.70 points out of 16 points. At the end of the Fourth Quartar 1998 the FCS Value was 14.70 which compares to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 12.30.

I

+

9

UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR or alhou G oal (3. ) - .sh- Industry $a (5.6 % )

60% - $

60% -

4 'J % - p 30% - -

I 20% -

10% - N ~

g - - -

1998 RFo p

M

_ . _ _ $ . . . . . . . n = = =

0%

,=,=. , ,

,= .. . . . .

j IIIjj%I{%E w

M%%

, ' A $ $% %,j j 4 I II I,j '{ 4((5$&

a j A

$ I {j Year to Datel t 12 Ilonth '

24 Ilonth 38 tionth

0.0% 3.8% 6.9% 7.2%

) UNPLANNED CAP. LOSS FACTOR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ANNUAL GOAL 3.0% 1.58 % 3.5% 3.0% 4.1% 3.0% 3.1 % 4.1%

ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 7.9% 9.9% 3.8% 0.0%

. THREE YEAR AVG. 6.6 % 9.3 % 7.2% 7.2%

4 Definition:

~

2 Unplanned CapablNty Loss Factor (UCLF) is calculated, as the ratio of Unplanned Energy Lossas during a given perbd of time to l Reference Energy Generation. Unplanned Energy Loss is defined as energy not produced such as: unscheduled shutdowns, outago extensbns, or bad reductbns due to causes under plant management control If they are not scheduled at least four weeks in advance.

Analysis:

The 24 Month UCLF value remains at a steady but level and will not improve until April, assuming continuing 100% capability performance. FCS has performed wellthroughout the year of 1998 and January 1999. The FCS 24-month UCLF of 6.9%

exceeds the 5.6% median for the industry. A 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 compares to the Third Quarter value of 5.40.

I 10 6.

d 1

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS l PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL 1

l

-e--.12 M onth Rolling Avera ge

--+-- FC S Re a c tor S c ra m s P e r 7,0 0 0 H o urs critic a l fo r la s t 3 6 m o nth s Fort Calhoun Goal (0.0)

--e- W ANO Industry M edia n (0.6) j l --as- FC S R e a c to r S c ra m s - 1997 98

2 --

4 i

1--

~ ~

O ::

Feb Mar Apr

=

M e y- June

[=

J uly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 99 I

Jan 1

i 4

- Year to Date 12 Month ' 24 ISonth 36 Month 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0,0%

l 1

UNPLANNED Automatic 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003  ;

, Reactor Scrams per 7000 i

Hours Critical

{

? l

ANNUAL GOAL 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%  !

ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% l l THREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.48 % 0.31 % 0.0% 0.0%

1 a

Definition

1

' UnplannM 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 mutplying the total of

automatic scrams by the total hours critical in the same timo period and dividing by 7000.

J J

s Analysis:

FCS continues to perform in the upper industry quartile with Automatic Trp Free Operation. The last event at FCS, that resuted from an automatic trip, was in August 1995. A 24 month calculation of the UA7 indicator was 8.0 points out of 8 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 8.0 which compares to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 8.0.

I 11

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

lI

g HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM lu SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 5lEll3 Monthly HPSI System Unavailability Value

-*- 12 Month Rolling Average Fort Calhoun Goal (0.003)

-o--- W ANO Indu s try M edia n (0.0 04) 0.0 2 - -

0.01s -- l 0.01 --

0.035 -- _ _ _

= = =

0  : : : : : : : : ::::::::::::::::  :  :

$ 5 5 x k $ $ $ E $ $ k 2

I 12 Month 24 Month '  : 36 Month Yearto Date 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

HPSI SAFETY 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 %

ACTUAL 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PERFORMANCE THREE YEAR 0.0% 0.001 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

AVERAGE ll l" Definition:

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

g and 2) the estimated faut exposure unavailable hours for the high pressure safety injectbn system for the reporting perbd, dMded by

1) the crtical hours for the reporting perbd and 2) the number of trains in the high pressure safety injection system.

l Analysis:

The availabRy of the HPSI System remains at 100 percent due to high equipment reliability and judicbus planning and I scheduling of maintenance. This places FCS as one of the best performers in the industry for this indicator. A 24 month calculatbn of the SP1 indicator was 10.0 points out of 10 points. At the end of the Four+h Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 10.0 which compares to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 10.0.

I

,I l'

i

AUXILIARY FEEDWATER I SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE i i

I l

)

Monthly AuxBiary Feedwstor System UnavaHabitty  ;

-e-12 Month Rolling AFW Unavailabinty )

I Fort Calhoun Goal (0.01)

---

WANO Industry Median (0.004) 0.014 --

0.012 --

0.01 0.008 --

0.004 --

0.004 -- - -------

0.002 --O O _ _

_f N - 0 f I

~ ~

0 l , l Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 99 Jan I Veer to Dato'- 12 blonIh N tienth 38 R$onth 0.00 % 0.01 % 0.002 % 0.002 %

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 %

ACTUAL PERFORMANCE o.002 % 0.004 % 0.001 % 0.00 %

I THREE YEAR AVERAGE o.001 % 0.001 % 0.002 %

Definition: l Auxiliary 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 crhical hours for the reporting p eriod and 2) by the number of trains in the auxiliary feedwater system.

Analysis:

I in January 1998, scheduled outages of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for FW 10 surveillance testing and 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> for FW-6 breaker maintenance were completed. In September, during a 9 hour1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> outage, the speed Emiting governor was adjusted. A 24 month calculation of the EP2 indicator was 10.0 points out of 10 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 10.0 which compares to the Third Quarter 1996 value of 10.00.

I I

13

'g EMERGENCY AC POWER lu SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE gammes M o n th ly E m e rg e n c y A C P o w e r U n a va lla b ility Va lu e l

-m- Y e a r-to D a te E rn e rg e n c y A C P o w e r U n a va ila b ility V a lu e  !

F o rt C a lh o u n G o a l (0.0 2 4 ) I

.a. W A N O in d u s try M e d ia n (0.010 )

0.07 - @

0.06 -

g i 0.05 o l 3 - -

h

"' - s--

g~

0 e--

N a-a,4=4:s'

. n,m m -a- --I'm- -

t l

I E $ E E E E E E $ $ 8 8 E l h b k h k b h h b h h k  :

1 6 i IAonthly Emergency AC Power Unavalletdlity Planned Hours DG-1 Hours DG-2 Hours Total Hours Total Hours YTD Unavailability 3.3 9.0 12.3 12.3 Unplanned Hours DG-1 Hours DG-2 Hours Total Hours Total Hours YTD Unavailability 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EMERGENCY AC POWER 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 SAFETY SYSTEM (SP5)

ANNUAL GOAL 0.024 % 0.024 % 0.024 % 0.024 % 0.024 % 0.024 % 0.024 % 0.024 %

ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.010 % 0.015 % 0.017 %

Definition:

Emorgency AC Power Performance (SPS) is defined as 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 for 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. The 1998 performance goal was achieved .

This performance places FCS at the median of the industry for this indicator. A 24 month celculation of the SP5 indicator was 8.5 points out of 10 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 8.5 which compares to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 8.8.

LI I

14

THERMAL PERFORMANCE Monthly Thermal Performance 12-Month Rolling Average Fort Cahoun Goal (99.7%)

W ANO Industry Median (99.7%)

h i *I a am  !  ! !e G g g e

""*r smr - -

B- E- E- B-

• im- ar a-r i r-I 98 %

w l

a l

E l

P z

l z

E l

E l

E g

l -

y l

z l

j l

e l

4 Year to Date 12 R$onth 24 R$onth as R$onth 100 % 100 % 99.9 % 99.9 %

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

ANNUAL GOAL 99.6 % 99.6 % 99.7 % 99.7 % 99.8 % 99.8 % 99.8 % 99 8 %

I ACTUAL PERFORMANCE THREE YEAR 99.7 %

99.7 %

99.9 %

99.9 %

100 %

99.9 %

100 %

AVERAGE Definition:

I Tharmal 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.

l Analysis:

FCS continues to perform at the expected thermal eff' cies. Variations b the monthly Thermal I Performance are the result of environmental factors, w..ch are seasonally dependent. Unplanned equpment outages or degradation has not affected the units efficiency. Thu performance places FCS as h the 3rd quartie of performance h the hdustry for this hdicator. A 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 I which compares to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 5.7. A 24 month calculation of the TPIindicator was 6.0 points out of 6 pohts. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 6.0 which compares to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 5.7.

I I

15

d J

FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR Fuel Reliability (E-04 Microcuries/ Gram) j A End of1998 Goal (17.3 E-04 Microcuries/ Gram)

+ WANO Industry Median (0.25E-04 Microcuries/ Gram) y i

g 100 -

5.2 10 - 4.7 5.4 A l

i 1-b" u

j 3 0.1 -

l

$ 0.01 0.01 0.01 j m 0.01 ,

l Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 99-Jan I

- Year to Dels' 12RAonth '24blonth 36 RIonth 6 1.7 3.7 9.6 FUEL RELIABILITY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 l (FRI)

ANNUAL GOAL I47 17.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 ACTUAL 99 5.2 6.0 PERFORMANCE Definition:

Fuel Reliability (FRI) is defined as the steady-state primary coolant 1-131 activity, corrected for the tramp I uranium contribution and normalized to a common purification rate.

I Analysis:

I Elimination of the initial Westinghouse fuel design which resulted in spacer grid induced fretting of numerous fuel rods in Cycles 15-17, has been successfulin reducing RCS activity in Cycle 18. Additional I

improvements originally implemented in Cycle 18 will continue to be used for Cycle 19. Coolant activity data through January 1999 shows the presence of two defective fuel rods. Through January, the FRI value was 6.0 E-04 uci/gm compared to 35.1 E-04 uci/gm at the same time point in Cycle 17 however presence of two failed pins does not meet industry standards and OPPD policy of zero fuel I defects and therefore this area needs increased management attention. The most recent quarterly calculation of the FRi indicator was 8.0 points out of a possible 8.0 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 8.0 which compares to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 8.0.

I 16

SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY m Monthly Chemistryindicator 1998 Fort Calhoun Goal (1.1)

-e--WANO industry Median (1.04) 1 6 1 29 4

I 1.2 -

1-1.11

,g

+

1.21 1.12 1.1 1.09 1.1 1.07 0.8 -- -

0.6 0.4 0.2 -- 0 0 0 1 i i 1- I  ! i l , o H Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-99 I

JYear to Date , L 12 R$onth 24RAonth , 38 R$onth 1.07 1.28 1.3 1.3 SECONDARY SYSTEM 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003  :

CHEMISTRY (CPI) I ANNUAL GOAL 1.4 1.1 <1.1 <! .2 <1.15 <1.15 <!.15 i ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 1.33 1.16 1.07 I Definition:

i Secondary 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:

Following the 1998 Refueling Outage, the CPI, as expected, ran high due to Normal Startup outage l recovery. There were no unusual or unanticipated chemistry events during 1998. The 1998 CPI l

performance goal was met and the 1999 CPI goal has been set to a lower value. Note: The theoretical I 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. 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 compares to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 6.6.

>I 17

I g COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE m M onthly R adiation Dose (S R D )

- a-- W ANO M edian (113000) l

- YTD Accum ulated Dose based on SRD reading 250000 - g 200000 &

5 150000 -

l 100000 - ,  !

80000 0 i-r== ,-

S

!khh@ , -r,, ,

h0 r- r-E A 2 N

k 2

@ 7 E 4 E

< m E D O

5 z 2 6

E 6

4 J Year to Dets* 112 IAonth 24 Monti <

38 Month 223.855 REM 219.97 REM 132.03 REM 162.33 REM COLLECTIVE RAD EXPOSURE 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 l (CRE)(MAN-REM)

ANNUAL GOAL 138.0 38.0 224.0 200.0 TBD TBD TBD TBD I ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 226.02 40.8 223.856 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 117.0 138.0 163.28 I INDUSTRY MEDIAN 3 YEAR AVG.

145.0 144.0 113.0

• TBD - To Be Detennined 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:

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 achieving 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. Thio performance places FCS in the lowest quartile of plants for this indicator.

A 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 compares to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 4.7.

I I

18

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE m Y T D Industrial Safety Accident & Disabilng injury / illness Rate

, . ---dr- 12 M onth Rolling Average FCS Year End Goal (<0.40)

-s- Ye ar 2000 WANO industry Goal (<0.40)

-g--- WANO industry M edlan (<0.28) 5 1.5 -

< E 1.4 -

1.3 -

1.2 -

l 1.1 1-8:1: :a

. 8:i:

0.5 -

q o

a o

o 8 n n 5 M

• a o 6 d g.4 -

:: a i:

. s E 8'1 -

!g

< 0 m

j Fe b Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 99 4 Jan i

4

.i Year to Detsi .12 RBonth 24 RBonth 36 88onth 0.0 0.31 0.16 0.21 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 l ACCIDENT RATE (ISAR)

ANNUAL GOAL <0.5 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 l

ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.29 0.0 0.18 0.0 Definition:

Industrial Accident Safety Rate (ISAR) is defined as the number of accidents for all utility personnel permanently I assigned to the station, involving days away from work per 200.000 man-hours worked (100 man-years). The I purpose of this indicator is to monitor progress in improving industrial safety performance Sr utility persunnel permanently assigned to the station. Contractor work-hours are not included in this indicatm Analysis:

The 1998 ISAR goal was achieved. Two lost time accidents occurred in 1998, one in March and a second in October. 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. The 12 month value of the indicator will remain constant through March 1999 assuming no accidents occur. A 12 month calculation of the ISAR indicator was 5.0 points out of 5.0 points. At the end of the Fourth Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 5.0 which compares to the Third Quarter 1998 value of 5.0.

19

VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE Monthly Volume of LLRW (cu. meter)

uI m Year-to-Date Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried

-n-- WANO Industry Median (28cu. meter) 4 Fort Cahoun Goal (28 cu. meter) i 60.00 -

50.00 40.00 f

U 30.00

_ _ l 20.00 0 E E E ,- m w Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-99

I Year to DL ' .12 Month 24 Month 36 Month 0.0 75 68 53

, 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 ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 18.38 22.20 17.09 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 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 radioactive waste buried in 1998 was higher than desired due to the Cycle 17's high RCS activity 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.

I 20

I I

I I

I I

I I NRC g PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I

I I

I I

I I

I II 21

ll NRC MODEL FOR EVALUATING

! FCS PERFORMANCE iI I I 1

I Ig ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE -Increased Regulatory Response Band lu . Cornerstone objectives met w/ minimal reduction in safety margin l . Outside bounds of nominal performance l

l . Within Technical Specification Limits

. Changes in performance consistent w/ changes of Core Damage Frequency l

l g (CDF)<E-5 ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE - Required Regulatory. Response Band -

l g

. Cornerstone objectiss met w/significant reduction in safety margin

~

. Technical Specification limits reached or exceeded -

l . Changes in performance consistent w/ changes of CDF<E4 I

lI

,3. 3 ONSAFE' PERFORMANCE 2

,I

. I fl 22 i

I L __ .___ _ . . _ . _ _ - , _ _ . . _ . .. - .. _ , _ - __

I " INITIATING EVENTS" Unplanned Scrams Per 7000 Critical Hours (Automatic And Manual Scrams) 4 l  !

l 8 8 8 8a $ 8 e 8 8 8 4

I 0.00 a

4 4 u

s s ,

?

4 v) o s

8 z

$ ,s l

l 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 I 2.50 -

3.00 LCENSEE RESFONSE (3) ._

, + , >. , c. w u

-~,,m,- .a -

m. _ _m-m_.._- .-& --o------

7.. - ~ - -

3.50 -

I Definition:

I This measure is a count of the events that upset plant stability and challenge safety functions. The indicator is 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 indicator does not count scrams directed by normal operation or test procedures but includes scrams occurring during procedures with high probability of scram but the scram was not planned.

Analysis:

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

I I

I '

23

"lNITIATING EVENTS" Risk-Significant Scrams Per 3 Years M onths 8 8 g g $ 8 4 8 3 8 { $ g

, - E k E $ k $ $ $ 9 8 ,5 0

0.5 1.5 2- -

2.5 3 ^ --

3.5 i p---,----,-r.,-.-,,,,,-,...-m-..,-,,,---.

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:

! . Scrams with LOCA,SGTR, LOOP, Totaltoss 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.

Analysis:

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

l I

i 4

24

g " INITIATING EVENTS" Transients per 7000 critical hours Month E k k- 8 8 8 8 8 g I 0.00 -

E s

A E s

8e 8

s

?

g ,

s 8

h h b k ,

/

I 1.00 -

2.00 - _.

3.00 -

4.00 -

5.00 -

I 6.00 -

7 00 -

~

^

,, 1 I

9.00 -

V Definition:

This indicator counts unplanned events (excluding scrams) that could, it' certain plant conditions, challenge I safety functions. It may be a leading indicator of risk-significant events. The indicator includes uncontrolled 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 lafore the end of the s weekend the discovery of an off-normal condition.

Analysis:

I Through January,1999, FCS continued to operate base loaded without transients. The last transient greater than 20% occurred in September of 1997.

I I

?

l 25 l '

I ' ' " "

I I " MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Emergency Power Unavailability

-+- Monthly Ernergency AC Power Unavailability Value  !

-e- 24 month Emergency AC Power Unavailability Value l

I 8 8 8 Fort Calhoun Goal (0.024) 4 8 g E E E E E E 0-

$ h - -

k k Y h -

l

! 0.01 * - -

N_ /_  ; _X I p- i

" 1

,2 0.04 --

0.05 0.06 - - --

0.07 -

l Definition:

! Emergency AC Power Performance (SP5) is defined as 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 for the number of trains in the emergency AC power system.

Analysis:

l To maintain outage DG cvailability, 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 waterJacket 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.

I Note: The data reported for this indicator is currently under review to eliminate reporting of " Surveillance Test" hours as " Unavailable" hours.

I i

I I

!I I

I 26

3 l

^

l MITIGATIOU i?vSTEMS" l 1

LPSI(RHR) System Unavailability l m Monthly LPSISystem Unavailability Value

--*- 24 Month Rolling Average YTD LPSl unavailability Value )

. -x- Fort Calhoun Goal (0.003) l 99 . , 9 Apr I July Feb Mar May June Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

, 0 -

0.005 l s

1 0.01 -- A LICENCEE RESPONSE (0.015) 0.015 -

0.02 --

I Definition:

The LPSI Unavailablity is defined as the sum of : 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and

2) the estirnated fault egosure unavaHable hours for the LPSI system for the reporting period; divided by: 1) the 4 number of hours h the reporting period and 2) the number of trains in the LPSI system.

- Analysis: I

~

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

I i

I I

27

I

I

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" l AFW System Unavailability l Monthly Auxiliary Feedw ster System Unavailability

--e-12 Month AFW Unavailability Fort Calhoun Goal (0.01) 4 e o m & E d g a > 4 af 2 2' 2 4 4 < $ b $ b 81 o - . .

u - . . . _.a _ _1_ a 0 0 0_, _ -0,,_.1_ E - __g _

i 0.002 - -

~

~

i 0.004

. O.006 0' 6

! 0.008

• 0.01 - _

0.012

, 0.014 I' 2

a _ _ _

4 Definition:

1. i

Auxiliary Feedwater Safety System (SP2) is defined as the sum of

1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and 2) the estimated fault exposure unavailable hours for the auxilian, 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 l Analysis:

1 In January 1998, scheduled outages of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for FW-10 surveillance testing and 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> for FW-6 breaker maintenance were completed. In September, during a 9 hour1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> outage, the speed limiting governor was adjusted.

I I

28

)

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" HPSI System Unavailability I m Monthly HLPSI Sy stem Unavailabihty V alue

--m- 12 M o n th R o llin g A v e r a g e

-e- Y T D H PS I U n a v a ila bihty V a lu e Fort Calhoun Goal (0.003) 99 Feb Mar Apr May June J uly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 0 = = = = = = = = = = = =

x ,:  ::

0.005 0.01 d' j

~

0.015 - _

0.02 V _

Definition:

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

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 indicator.

I 29

I " MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Safety System Failures I ESSF/QTR m SSF/Last 4 Quarters 97-4 98--1 98-2 98-3 0 ' ' a 6

V I 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 componerits. For systems consisting of multiple redundant trains, failure of all trains is necessary for a safety system failure. The indicator also counts failures that cause at least one independent 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 failures in the last four quarters are summed (a four-quarter moving sum). Because the NRC currently classifies Safety System Faihn es based on LER information, there is a time lag for this indicator due to the analysis and publication of resub I

I  !

I 30

II

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

!A onth - 1998/99 k $ k< b b o O ,$

u. < v> 0 z a l 0.0001 g 0.001 - - - - -

1 i

t I 3 g

0.01 n

I y LICENSEE RESPONSE (0.60) )

E ' - -=

.i INCREASED REGULATORY RESPONSE I~ ~

REQUIRED REGULATORY RESPONSE (1.0) -

10 -

Definition:

e i This performance indicator provides an objective means of measuring fuel cladding integrity. The indicator is the

maximum calculated activity level (mico-curies per gram dose equivalent lodine-131) recorded each month.

l Analysis:

Monthly Dose Equivalent lodine (DEI) transient peaks were observed during the power tamp downs prior to the l 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-insertion of previously discharged ABB fuel during the refueling outage resulted in marked improvement in fuel cladding integrity. At the end of January 1999, two fue! ,

. pins were estimated to be leaking.

31

l l

i I " BARRIERS" Reactor Coolant - RCS Leak Rate I M onth 1998/9 z co e m > z _a o n. H > c g 4 2 1  % 1 a a 52 W 8 8 8 ,

l 8 s 1 0- ---

- ' - '-- ' . - c ->

l 1

_ 2 A

~

k 4 3 LICENSEE RESPONSE (5) f

.w 6 ^

3 8 INCREASED REGULATORY RESPONSE 10 - ~ ~ - - - --

" ,~' . . ~ -

I 12 y REQtARED REGULATORY RESPONSE (10) i 1

I Definition:

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

Analysis:

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

I i I

lI

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

l I I i 10 -

20 -

30 40 a

50

. _ jf  ?.

..,%y;j'~l

, l~" _ ~_ ff } ~, ;ya&: ._._ 'l

. . _ jf [ ~ . .[ ?

60

- ~ '

1 70 -

t Definition:

The " running tota!" 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 conditions. It is computed using the I 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 Refueling Outage, continues to trend well within acceptable limits.

33

CRITICAL SELF-ASSESSMENT  !

Strategic Objective: To promote a learning organization and to continuously strive towards improving safety and operational performance. Self-Assessments compare actual

, I performance to industry standards of excellence and management expectations to identify and correct areas needing improvement.

l Performance Indicators: I 1

I 111dicators being developed by CHOICE Teans, Problem identification Rates (Self & Site)

. Self-Assessment Quality index Exisling. Indicators beingssed.

None Key Actions Taken to date:

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

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

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 aimed at providing real time feedback conceming performance.

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

Results Achieved:

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

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

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

4 34

i s

l PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION RATE (self & site) l l

j Self Identincation Ratios (1998 CR Data) j 100 % / - - --- --- - -

m / - -.- -

. 60 % / ~ - -

l , / _ - . . -

2o% /

i o%

i Calendar

! @Me

{ (1998) l E% Work Roup Identined u % Non-Oversite &oup IdentlRed

! 5% Oversite Soup IdentlRed u% Externalidentined i

i

!  % of Selfidentified Problems:

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 i Target Performance N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Actual Performance 69.2 61.9 63.6 4

% of Stie Identified Problems:

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Target Performance N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD l

I Actual Performance 98.6 97.5 97.1 i

l Definition:

l This is a measure of our ability to identify problems intemally. The ratios represent the percentage of Condition j Reports identified by the Work Group, Non-Oversite Work Groups, Oversite Work Groups, and External Work Groups (defined as: Self Revealing, NRC, or INPO).

The Goals are to continue to increase the number of self-identified problems and reduce the number of External j identified problems.

{ Analysis:

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

35

SELF-ASSESSMENT QUALITY INDEX Performance Indicator Under Development 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 l Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Actual Performance N/A N/A N/A D_efinition:

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

Analysts:

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 l evaluation. I i

i I

36

I HUMAN PERFORMANCE IS EXEMPLARY l

l Strategic Objective: To promote a high quality, well-motivated work force willing to l work together as a team to increase productivity while also reducing the probability for

l. human error through the utilization of high quality work practices related to organizational,

! leadership and individual human performance behaviors.

Performance Indicators:

ludicators being developed by CHOICE Team.

lg

. Individual Error Human Performance LERs l

o Organizational / Programmatic Error LERs o Average Number of Days Between Human Performance Errors a Supervisory Presence in Field 1 Existiug.ludicaints_heingitsett i

. Individual Error Human Performance LERs e Radiological Work Practices I

i 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.

Increased training and routinely scheduled discussions among managers on issues involving the improvement ofleadership skills.

Weekly Leadership Sessions.

I Training of Shift Technical Advisors and other selected personnel on the INPO " Human Performance Fundamentals" course. Training of e":;;5aering and operations personnel on the INPO " Excellence in Human Performance document" (Tltanic trascing).

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

!I I

INDIVIDUAL ERROR HUMAN PERFORMANCE LERS

--+-Total Events l 35 - -e- Preventable

--*-Personel Error 12 Month Totals 30 -

25 -

20 -

18 15 i 16 18 +

37 10 - 6 7 13 6 6 6

4 5I I I 2 2 3 3 5

0 5

5

+

5 i 4 2

- -m:

-+

f M" 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 k h 5 h h k b $ h b h h

I 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number of Human Performance Licensed Events Report Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A 2 1 1 0 0 Actual Performance 2 4 4 l

l 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.

l Analysis:

Human Performance trends as indicated in the quarterly trer.d report show an overall decline in the number and l percentage of causal factors attributed to human performance errors in several categories. Trends related to the number of significant condition reports, wh;ch are attributed to human error causal factors has declined significantly 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.

l 38 l

ORGANIZATIONAUPROGRAMMATIC ERROR LERS 1

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 cause is personnel error such as a department or general group, as opposed to being attributed to l

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

r

,I L

ll AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEN HUMAN l PERFORMANCE ERRORS I

l Performance Indicator Under Development l

l Number of days 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 l

Annual Goal N/A N/A N/A 40 50 60 90 90 Actual Performance 20.6 17.3 38.7 -- --

Definition:

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.

Analysis:

under development l

I l

I l

l 40

j f

I l RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES I 8 i

m Monthly Poor Radiation Worker Practices j mTotal PRWP Y TD 1998 Fort Calhoun Goal (<20) 25 y

]

i V 0

18 18 18 18 18 15

15 14 l 11

10 f 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 4-- -+--- + ~+- + + -+-- -+ M w Feb Mar Apr May June Juh Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Definition:

I The number of identified poor radiological work practices (PRWPs) for the reporting month.

Analysis

i During the month of January there was 1 PRWP identified.

. There is a total of 1 Poor Radiation Worker Practice in 1999.

The 1998 FCS goal is <20 PRWPs, the 1997 goal was <15 PRWPs.

The Radiological Work Prachces Program Indicator shows the number of Poor Radiological Work Practices (PRWPs)  !

which were identified during the reporting month. )

l The number of PRWPs which are identified each month should indirectly provide a means to qualitatively assess

{

supervisor accountability for their workers' radiological performance.

i 4

41

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

! Performance Indicators: l l Existing Indirotors bebig used.

l INPO identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events

. Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams per 7000 Hours (page-11)

Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (page-10)

! . Document Review

. Security Incidents 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. ,

1 Development of Scorecard Observation Process.

Establishment of Pre-job Briefing Expectations.

I 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 identify, I

i

!I 42

M

, INPO identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events a Significant D Noteworthy m Historical 4 OTotal(Significant+

m Current Events Total Noteworthy)

(Total - His torical) 16 16 - 14 j 1010 11 10 10 10 g

o

,1 o o o

. 1 o ooooo 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Definition:

FCS Events, are screened and designated by INPOas Signficant events that exhbit one or more of the following characteristics: 1) severe or unusual transients,2) safety system matunctions or improper operations,3) major equpment damage caused by lengthy unplanned outages or signticant reductlons in power levels, replacement of or

" extensive repairs to major equpment, fuel rod faBures requiring a shutdown, and 4) other events involving nuclear safety and plant reliability. Noteworthy events are determined to be not "Signficant," but indicative of (i.e indicates the J existence of precursors) maintenance, operations, administrath/e or management problems. Historical Events are i events classfied by OPPD as caused by condtions greater than eighteen months old.

j Analysis:

4 SigniBoant Events for January 1999-.

d

. none 3

Noteworthy Events since start of N@O Cycle.

3 i'

. inadvertent Fire Detection Pensi Alarm During Fire System Testing Results in Discharging Carbon Dioxide into the Generator Exetter

. Emergency Temporary Modification to Ventnadon System Places Plant in Unanalyzed Concation.

Transformer Fault and Loss of Off-site Power Whilo Shutdown Due to inadvertent Actuation on Transformer Deluge System.

. Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Overspeed and Over pressurization of System Piping

. Reactor Coolant Pump Cavitdon During Planned Pressure Reduction Notamorthy Historical Events since start of DFO Cvcis-.

. Under voltage Relays declared inoperable because Uninstalled Relay Covers invalidated Seismically Qualified.

. Inappropriate Emergency Diesel Generator Operability Criteria.

. Waste Disposal System Valves suscepuble to over pressurization during post accident sampling che to potential ve!ve failure not considered during System Design.

. Containment Hydrogen Panel Components Exceed Qualified ufe Due to incorrect Calculation Assumptions.  ;

. Degraded Steam Generator Tube Left in Service Due to Personnel Error.

43

I DOCUMENT REVIEW

! i i

E Docum ents Scheduled for Review

!E E Docum ent Reviews com plate during m onth O Docum ents Overdue 200 -- '

i 150 --

100 --

50 --

0-- --+- i -+ + + + + --+ -+ -+ -+ -1 l Feb Mar Apr May June J uly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-99 l 1998-1999 Definition:

! The Document Review Indicator shows the number of documents reviewed, the number of documents

{ scheduled for review, and the number of document reviews that are overdue for the reporting month. A f document review is considered overdue if the review is not complete within six months of the assigned due

date.  ;

l Analysis:

) During January 1999, there were 137 document reviews scheduled, while 46 rev'ews were completed. At the

) end of the month, there were O document reviews more than 6 months overdue. There were 4 new documents initiated during January 1999.

4 i

I I

44

SECURITY INCIDENTS g

3s - . _

30 - --- --

1 25 - -

2a . - - . :. . - - -. -. _ _ . . _ . - -

J.-

I  ;/ y-is \; /- -. - -

-\

\.

so V' ' A4 -

" / '\ .</

g s- \./ .

.p . . . ,y . -

$ s.,

wj  !

0~ . i i i i  ; 7 r 1 T i T JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC E 99 Loggable 99 Non-Loggable

-e 98 Loggables - + - - 98 Non-Loggables 1

! Definition:

q The total number of security incidents for the reporting month depicted in two graphs. l 1

Analysis:

The Loggable and Non-Loggable incident (Security) Indicators are depicted in the chart above. The chart depicts the total number of loggable and non-loggable human error events and system failures which

occurred during the reporting month, j i

! During the month of January 1999, there were twenty-one (21) loggable incidents and eleven (11) non- )

4 loggable incidents identified (excluding access denials). Of all incidents identified this month five (5) were I

human error events. Of loggable events, three (3) were human performance errors and eighteen (18) were system failures. There were three (3) human performance errors attributed to the security department in January. There was one (1) access denial during the reporting period. A Focus Group was organized by the security department to address human performance issues. Implementation of their recommendations is ongoing.

I I

45

. l l

g INITIATIVES IN HIGH VISIBILITY AREAS HAVE STRONG PERFORMANCE

, Strategic Objective: To ensure that initiatives in high visibility areas have strong performance. Areas of interest are defined as an issue, area, initiative or activity that has major l impact on:

1) Safe and Event Free Nuclear Production of Electricity l

jg 2) Being Successfulin a Competitive Environment ,

.l 3) Building and Maintaining Trust with Regulators, Employees and Customers i Performance Indicators:  ;

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

. Work management Process (Herman) e 1999 Refueling Outage (Herman) i e improvements in Preventive Maintenance and Predictive Maintenance Programs (Swearngin)

. Operations Training Accreditation Renewal (Westcott)  ;

,3 a Y2K(Henry) l g = Rams (Henry)

= Switchyard Modifications (Short)

I

=

1999 Graded Exercise (Simmons) e Resolution of INPO findings l Existing Indicators being used.

. 1999 Refueling Outage Milestones

. NRC Licensed Operator Requalification i

. Licensed Operator Requalification Training e Licensed Candidate Exarns 1999

. M WO planning Station

'E - componant T*Stin9 /Special Services 1999 Odage Project Status E

• 1999 Refueling Outage Modification Progress

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

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

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

. The 1998 Refueling Outage safety goals were met and the plant has operated for over 200 days following completion of the refuoling outage.

. High integrty Containers Shhment- The handling and shpment of three Hgh Integrity Containers containing spent resin shpments were successfuby completed.

. Resolution of Fuel ReliabRy 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-completed the project on schedule. SeN-assessment confirmed that SAMGs can be implemented per NRC commtment date.

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

. Preparations for the 1999 Refueling Outage-Wth the exception of the first milestone (identification of modification and ECN list) al mRestones have been met.

46

7 I

g 1999 Outage Schedule Milestones Olf7 AGE MILESTONE WEEKS PRIOR MILESTONE OWNER STATUS l t TO START DUE DATE I

1. Mod. ECN. A Project (approved for plasming) Freen Date 79 03/14/98 Phelps i

l 2. System Wladow Structure Flaallud 63 07/04/98 Stading l 3.* Backbone" Schedule Developed A issued 60 07/26/98 Stading

4. Mod A ECN (spproved for accomplichaient) Freen Date 62 09/19/98 Phelps

5. Special Project (epproved for accomplishment) Freen Date 44 11/14/98 Wylie l

4

6. PMO and ST Frecu Date 40 12/12/98 Stading I

7. Preliminary Project Schedule Due Date (au Outage Projects) 34 01/23/99 Phelps I

l l 8. AH Parta Requests Subsmitted to Procurement for Mods /ECNS 26 03/20/99 Skilos i

\

i 9. Modification Final Desige Package Due Date 26 03/20/99 Skilos l5 'l I 10.OveraH Outage Scope Freen Date 26 03/20/99 Herman l ?l

11. Modification & ECN Plan & Schedule Due Date 16 06/29/99 Skilos l l

12. Project Plan A Schedule Due Date 16 06/29/99 Core /Skilos l l

13. Submit Material & Parts Requests for Frous Outage Scope 16 06/29/99 Gomer/Skilos l l l 14. Preliminary Outage Schedale issued 12 06/26/99 Stading l l

15. Outage Management Team Identified 12 06/26/99 Herman l l

16. Modification AECN Construction Work Order Due Date 9 07/17/99 Wylie l l

17. Resource Availability Identified 8 07/24/99 Clemens l l l

18. Malateessee Work Orders " Ready to Work" 8 07/24/99 Gomez l l W 19 Issue Final Detailed Outage Schedule for Review 6 08/07/99 Stading l l 2d. AH Materid and parts for the Frous Outage scope On-Site 4 08/21/99 McCormick l l

21. Management Meeting to Approve Final Outage Schedale 4 08/21/99 Herman l l l 22. NSRG and Operations Review (and approval) of Schedule 4 08/21/99 Trousch l l

23. Complete au Reload Englaeerlag Analyses 3 08/28/99 Skilos l

24. Modification AECN Construction Work Order Due Date 09/11/99 Gebers l t

1 l

25. Breakers Opea . Orignaal Outage Start Date 0 09/18/99 Ridenoure Breakers Open - Revised Outage Start Date n/a 10/02/99 Ridenoure EEY:

green E Milestone Met l

I red N Milestone Not Met and currently completed black M Milestone Not Met and currently Not completed yellow a Milestone Approaching within 60 days I

47

^

\

CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR J

12 Month Rolling Average 4.00 -- Actual --et-- Budget y 3.60 3.00 ,g b b b

~

2.50 I 2.00

1.50 1.00 + + + + + ~ a 4 s a a a y a a

a a a a a a j

,$ $ $ $ $ 4 $ $ 1I4 4 II $ $ $

i Definition:

i The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economical operation of Fort Calhoun Station. The cents per

kilowatt hour indicator represents the budget and actual cents per kilowatt hour on a twelve-month average '

for the current year. The basis for the budget curve is the approved yearly budget. The basis for the actual j curve is the Financial and Operating Report.

Analysis:

, The December 31 amounts are also shown for the prior years 1993 through 1997. The basis for the dollars 1 are the Nuclear Long Range Financial Plan and the 1998 Corporate Planning and Budget Review. The basis

for the generation is provided by Nuclear Fuels.

The 12-month rolling average unit price period of ( January 1997 through December 1998) averaged above I budget due to the extended refueling outage and less generation during the period. The 12 month rolling average is 3.27 cents per kilowatt hour.

The year-to-date (YTD) average is trending in a positive direction.

Cents per KWH Jan Feb Mar Anf Mav Jun Jul Auo Sen Oct Nov Dec 2.84 2.67 3.07 4.75 4.52 4.04

. I Budget YTD Actual 2.96 2.85 3.00 3.16 4.16 4.39 3.76 3.53 4.03 3.77 3.42 3.33 3.69 3.40 NOTE: This information lags by a month due to the short turn around required for processing.

3.22 3.13 3.32 3.27 48

Licensed Operator Requalification Training i

a Total Requalification Training Hours a SimulatorTraining Hours n Non4toqualificationTrainingHours a Number of Exam Failures 35 ,

32 32 33 '

32 32 31 I 20 -

25 Y l

i i '

20 20 -

a i

15 14 4 4

2 2 4

10 - g g 8

g gg g 8

7

' I 5a 4 2

0 0 0 000 0

O 4- r- r- -v ,- ,- -- -

, l j Cycle 97-7 Cycle 98-1 Cycle 98 2 Cycle 98-3 Cycle 98 4 Cycle 98-5 Cycle 98-6 Cycle 98 7 l . _ _ . _ _ _ ______,.______._.__._____._____.._.__._.__J Definition:

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

Analysis: l

~l Exam failures are defined as failures in the written, simulator, and Job Performance Measures

(JPMs) segments of the Licensed Operator Requalification Training.

) Note: All examination failures were remediated without impacting the operations shift schedule.  !

i i

k 49

l l

} LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS 1999 i

E SRO Exams Administered 1 i E SRO Exams Passed '

< E RO Exams Administered  ;

20

18 18 18 18 18 7

15 -

l 122 122 1 21 1 21 12 i i

l 5 10 - 0 I i

i i

i 5- 44 44 g

0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 j 0 ,

H -+-- l + + + + l a j Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan I

i I

Definition:

l l This indicator shows the number of Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Reactor Operator (RO) l 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.

]

l Analysis:

l January 1999, there were 9 (SRO) exams administered and 3 (RO) exams administered. 9 SRO j exams were passed and 3 RO exams were passed.

1 lI i

l 50

,-w

f MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 19 REFUELING OUTAGE) hW O 'S m t.1 W R 'S N OLD NOT YET PROCESSED 1

700 -.

600 -

500 - 403 i 30 5 200 - "N 4 s

100 0

gjg -

j N o v-9 8 D e c -9 8 J a n -9 9 1

l Definition:

This indicator shows the total number of Maintenance Work Requests (MWRs) and

, Maintenance Work Orders (MWOs) that have been approved for inclusion in Cycle 18 RFO.

j Analysis:

This graph indicates

i Parts Holds - Planning Complete, Awaiting Parts i -

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 trom DEN.

1

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

a k

i 1

51

i l

COMPONENT TESTING /SPECIAL SERVICES 1999 OUTAGE PROJECT STATUS  !

l l

l l

l 3 LAST FEPORT E THS REPORT O FOR SCHEDULE A

100 - i 90 - g 80 -

70 -

60 -

50 - 44 40 -

36 M MM MM 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 32 O

{ !s!g 30 3P i 3*? is 3 3.

59 _3 8

1.[ 1 8

1 as. g5s si ar e  !!s 6 >4 :sg3 8

me *8 8

80se m 3 q om ,E m -

s Definition:

l Analysis:

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

High Integrity Containers Shipment -The handling and shipment of three High integrity Containers containing spent resin shipments were successfully completed.

Rooolution 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 Manage (nont Guidelines (SAMG) implementation-Completed the project on schedule. Self-assessment confirmed that SAMGs can be implemented per NRC commitment date.

Switchyard Modification The project is on schedule for completion by June 1999.

Preparations for the 1999 Refueling Outage-With the exception of the first milestone (identification of modificat!on and ECN list) all milestones have been met.

52

1999 REFUELING OUTAGE MODIFICATION PROGRESS (CYCLE 19) 1999 Re fueling Outa ge M ods a PRC Approved - M arch 21,1999 {

, {

120% - 100%

95 % 90% 95 %

100% - _

8 8 '/. - ,__.

li 80% - o 3 80% -

k 40% _ 30% 30%

1 25% 20%

20% - * '

] q 0%

0% . . . . .

.,i >

5 5 5 5 h h h 9 h k E s i a a = = = = = = =

M o difica tio n s a Percent Complete Definition:

This indicator shows the status of Modifications approved for installation during the Cycle 19 Refueling Outage.

Analysis:

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

53

i 1999 REFUELING OUTAGE MODIFICATIONIECNS ADDED AFTER FREEZE DATE (CYCLE 19) l There Have Been No MODS or ECNs j added since Freeze Date  !

PROGRESS OF CYCLE 19 OUTAGE

MODS AND ECN'S ADDED TO 1999 REFUELING OUTAGE AFTER I FREEZE DATE il Definition:

This indicator will show the status of Modifications and ECN's approved for installation during the l Cycle 19 Refueling Outage. The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages PRC l approved by their target date.

l

.Analtisis:

.'arget date was September 25,1998.

1 January 1999 l

Modifications /ECN's Added = 0 Deleted = 0  ;

l 4

1 J

l I

54

Il 1

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS i

are Broad and Lasting

) Strategic Objective: To proactively identify, evaluate, take corrective action and j monKor results of problems, potential problems and non-consequential events. To 1 identify the root causes, the generic implications and the appropriate corrective actions to i prevent a recurrence. To address the fundamental causes of problems rather than the j symptoms.

i ll Performance Indicators:

\ Indicators beine develoved bu CHOICE Team l . Condition Reports identification of Repeat or "Similar" Events J

. Condition Reports identifying "Less than Effective Use of Operating Experience" l

l'

. Conditions Reports >6 months old (Level 1-4) j i

Repeat Maintenance Performance lndicator lI l Existing Indicators being used.

i None

! Key Actions Tak.en to date:

? l l Common Cause Analysis (CCA) completed to identify Programmatic and Organizational leeues.

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

I implementation of a "7-week" maintenance pinnning cycle. ,

i i The Training Department has developed a Self-Evaluation Report (SER) database.

t

) At the access to the radiologically controlled area, the role of Radiation Protection Shift '

Technicians have changed from information providers to information verifiers.

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

j  ;

I i

3 8

s i

55

1 CONDITION REPORTS IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT OR "SIMILAR" EVENTS i r

l Performance Indicator Under Development I

i 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 FCBU AnnualGoal WA WA WA TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD FCBU Performance WA WA WA Definition:

The number of repeat or similar events as indicated in the CR da*. abase. Definitions of repeat and similar events are under development.

I Analysis:

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

I I l I l 1

J 56

CONDITION REPORTS IDENTIFYING A LESS THAN EFFECTIVE USE l OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE Performance Indicator Under Development Repeat or"Similar" Events:

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 FCSU AnnualGoal WA WA WA TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD FCBU Performance WA WA WA Definition:

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

Analysis:

under development I

~

-l I

d 4

57

C"ONDITION REPORTS >6 MONTHS OLD (LEVEL 1-4) i

Performance Indicator Under Development l CR's Relating to Less Then Effective use of Operating Experience

19M 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 j

i FCBU AnnualGoal WA WA WA TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD FCBU Performance WA WA WA Definition: j y under development Analysis:

under development l l

I I

58

l I

CONDITION REPORTS IDENTIFYING

g REPETITIVE MAINTENANCE

Performance Indicator Under Development i

18 :

l 18 :

4-Mar-96 Sep-96 Mar-97 Sep-97 Mar-98 Sep-98 Repeat Maintenance Performance Indicator: .

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 FCBU Annual Goal WA WA WA TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD FCBU Performance WA WA WA 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 Maintenance Rule (a)(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.

I I

59

I u

Excellence in Materiel Condition J

l Strategic Objective: To review existing programs and policies, along with equipment l

histories and provide process improvement and equipment repairs / upgrades that will l assure excellent materiel condition through decommissioning and beyond.

! Performance Indicators:

! Indicators beine develoved bu CHOICE Team ~

i . 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 ExistingIndicators beingJosetL WANO Performance indicators (HPSI/LPSI/OGIUCLF/CHEMIFRI)

. Capacity Factor

. Thermal Performance

. Non-Outage Corrective Maintenance Backlog I .

Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Overdue Status .

Temporary Modification Status Maintenance Rule SSC Unavaliability j

)

. 1999 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.

ResultsAchieved: ,

a improved reliability and availability of diesel driven AFW pump and instrument #<

compressors.

. No Maintenance or operational unave / ability of equipment during 1998 which resulted in exceeding Maintenance Rule performsace 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 I .  :.EC x.Mr. of new process to review preventive maintenance programs established for plant systems.

60

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

J  !

I NON-OUTAGE CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG i

g Corrective Maintenance m Preventive Maintenance i jg Non-Corre ctive/Pla nt im prove m e nts Corrective Maintenance Goal (200) ]

} l I

l 900 -- Y 808 773

$ II k i E I, E y o *

u. m a z < A" z a ,E l

I Nnn-Quiaga_Maintenanst_E9rk Documint. Bas.kloo 1

i Definition:

This indicator shows how offective 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:

l The 1998 goal for this indicator is 200 non-outage corrective maintenance MWOs.

i

• information for this graph is not available this month due to Rams conversion.

I l

II i.

II c

)

i 61 iI

_ - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . . _ __ _ . . . _ _ . _ ._ _ .__..____.._____.m RATIO OF PREVENTATIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & OVERDUE STATUS m Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance Fort Calhoun Goal 65%

100%

93% l 90% - l l

80% 75% 75% 77% 76% l 78% 77 % 1 74% 72 %

79% - E SW 5W N { g 60% - g ]

60% - l

- 5 g '

{

40% -

h ,'

I I 30% -

20% -

l l

k 1

I

[ '_  ! t  : $ 'm _, . !d Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Preventive Maintenance items Overdue Fort Calhoun Goa32%

6.02 %

6%--

4.01 %

4% "

3.50%

2.60 % 2.60%

3%__2.04 % 2.40 %

2%--

1 % .._ 0.80% 0.50%

0% 1 I l l l l l 1 i I l I Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Definition:

The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total -

l completed non-outage maintenance. The ratio of preventive to total maintenance was 77% for the month of DecemlLor 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 (November 15th thru December 15th) there were 17PM's that were completed late or not completed out of 484 ocheduled. The 1998 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for the percentage of

.I '

preventive maintenance items overdue is a maximum of 2%.

Analysis:

• Information for this graph is not available for January 1999 due to Rams conversion.

I 62

TEMPORARY MODIFICATION Tenporary WdifIcations >1-f uel cycle old (RFO required f or terroval)

Tenporary Edifications >6 months old (Renovable on-ine)

- Fort Omihoun Goals f or both Tenporary Edifications' categories (0) 8-7 7 7-6 6 6 6-5 I

4 4-3 3- '

2 2 2 2 2--

1--

O O- 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 I 0 Feb Wr Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Definition:

This indicator provides Information on the number of Temporary Modifications (TMs) greater than c.ee 'sel cycle old requiring a refueling outage (RFO) for remcyal and the number of TMs removable on-line that are greater than six months old.

AnalysL.

I M the end of January 1999, there were no TMs that were greater than one-fuel cycle old requiring an outage for removal.

M the end of January 1999, there were six (6)) TM's installed that were greater than six months old which could be removed on-line. DCN #0006121 (TM 96-039), Railroad Siding / Corridor 26 Door, was installed November 1,1996. DCN #0006164 ( TM 97 021), CCW corrosion monitor, was installed February 18,1998. DCN #0006186 (TM 98-003), FI-1112, FW-54 Suction Flow Indicator, was installed March 16,1998. DCN #0006187 (TM 98-004), TPCW System Corrosion Monitor was installed March 24,1998. DCN #0006188 (TM 98-005), Yli 6286 A&B Yli 6288 A&B was installed February 27,1998. DCN #0006197 (TM 9M14), FW-10 Speed Control Loop, was installed May 29, 1998.

At the end of January 1999, there was a total of twelve (12) TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station. Four (4) of the twelve (12) installed TMs require a RFO for removal and eight (8) are removable on-line, in 1999, a total of one (1) new TM has been installed. At the end of January 1999, there were five (5) procedural or maintenance configuration alterations (PMCAs) (a special I classification of TM) installed in the Fort Calhoun Station using PRC approved procedures which are controlled by Standing Order O-26.

63

MAINTENANCE RULE SSC UNAVAILABILITY

.I MAINTENANCE RULE UNAVAILABILITY PERFORMANCE 8

M #SSCs Exceeding Unavailability Criteria -*-% Exceeding Unavailability Criteria 73 j 7- .+. Goal < 4% Exceeding Criteria

- 6.0%

3 6-5.0%

$ 5-3 g -

:  :  :  :  :  :  : 4 m.

4-

' 8" 3-

^

2- -

- - 2.0%

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O 0.0%

i i i i i i , ,

4-96 1 97 2-97 3-9'7 4-97 1-98 2-98 3-98 4-98 i QTR Definition

l This inv8icator measures the percent of the total SSC's monitored (63), which are exceeding the 3 year j Maintenance Dule 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 year unavailability performance criteria. Performance is indicative of success in Maintenance, Planning & Scheduling, and Operations efforts to control equipment out of service time.

4

)

64

i ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING PROGRESS i

jg Progress of on-line Modifications i5 m Percent Complete a Target Approve Date j' 102% -- , -- 11/21/98 1 100 % - -- 11/1/98 a l 98% - m -- 10/12/98 1 96% - -- 9/22/98

94% - -- 9/2/98

( 92% - -- 8/13/98

! 90% - -- 7/24/98 l 88% - -- 7/4/98 i

! 86% - -- 6/14/98 l I 84 %  ;;l ;l  ; l l l l l l ; l l l l 5/25/98 5"EE$53 i !8888 2988888 wwwww Definition:

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

I 1

Analysis:

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

i January 1999 MODECN Added:0 Deleted:0 l l

l l

I I

65

-- - _.___ _ _. . - . - ~ . . . - . . _ . . . _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ . + - - . -. ... .- -

I ^

MONTHLY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SOURCES I WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ARE IN BLUE t

Indicator Source Extension INPO Noteworthy /Significant Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Donna Guinn 6937 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Craig Fritts 6554 Emergency AC Power System Safety System Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rich Ronning 6887 Thermal Performa nce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kevin Naser 6889 Fuel Reliability Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susan Baughn 7215 l l

Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Ostien 7109 l l

Industrial Safety Accident Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duane Booth 6558  ;

1 Collective Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colette Williams 7163 Volume of low-Level Radioact've Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Breuer 7193 l

l 2

66 i

l

Fort Calhoun Station Operating Cycles and Refueling Outage Dates l l 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 07/12/84-09/28/85 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 OPERATIONS " RECORDS" First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5:47p.m.)

First Electricity Supplied to the System August 25,1973 Commercial Operation (180,000 KWH) September 26,1973 Achieved Full Power (100%) May 4,1974 Longest Run (477 Days) June 8,1987-September 27,1988 Highest Monthly Net Generation (364,468,800 KWH) October 1987 Most Productive Fuel Cycle (5,451,069 MWH-Cycle 13) May 29,1990-February 1,1992 l Shortest Refueling Outage (53 days) February 20,1995-April 14,1995 l October 4,1996-November 27,96 67