ML20207H740

Performance Indicators Rept for May 1999

ML20207H740
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	05/31/1999
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20207H737	List: LIC-99-0066, Forwards Fort Calhoun Performance Indicators Rept for May 1999 ML20207H740
References
NUDOCS 9907200170
Download: ML20207H740 (70)

Text

I- , _ _

9

• y e8 e D OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION 1

l 15 .

a . ...N

.;.yn.sl1';'.l'.;ra y.

h :;w. . , :.Ny$Y05'YYf k h.g.

 ::.0$ff,. .. . . ,r . a . . . 3 ,^.' . .b 'iS'. 5 i[-Yf5i,fkMhiNI$hUIf,

• d ' *, g.g;w%[w,7'

. ). ?j MO 172 , hi[* '.rl-l,:k_, [,'.[y'[s(,:3. [ ! ,

s. +3wm., o . ..y u, n. :w ./ - m .s.3w:n. . . g.. . aa.a. x. : ::.is, ;i;. .c. , .

e. , ' i [. ' . _N f't D e am. *E ( f .j h .,'t

, t 'J. ' f'h,t h mac,f*g.vs...t. .,:W: 2% 7 hp .-- ,. isp,Pg,I. ittq W fiS%rbc-iM:r ;  ? f,9 A h}.:qjp.1 y;,79A/ . ~ N;p *aq y :c,:, r,py ;  ;, I ('*i e4. **' [ ,' - .' r l' !:i 1.i', 8 lV m. l; t, , '.# a ' ._. ., *gy i I $3 .lll!!le j . E' lj;;' T- . ~'i g.- f. 7.e i . 'p .g M; =fN, i .m d .a . ,d ._ a um u h X m.' ., ,b s .t }'_ W9 ty s . a a PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1 MAY 1999 ) L 9907200170 990707 i PDR ADOCK 05000285 R PDR 5 l

3. .. .

= I OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION I 1 . T::' .'J. ,_ , c._M;:'y!,*p,;ic ;.'y.  :,ri; :li ? .r. . . .m . h,Nh:hk h hN!Ib b ,j ... _i?.fPby9%$'Gfdf'.kNi;GS$,',! 7 7 e m m y&I? g u[. ' . :, :f.b k ,mwewIf h {iih @ $$$se}. wa;[eI ;:N s!!,)$$$! j i T.y!:Q.>v.y , 1, JiS@': ~'7' " ~ . .g]r; . ::-.+ L'%jp%j'hy. M:l'Ny&SW'% .. Jh W . ;.C.s}@m',e', .Nf,;i.:,;.gg%.1gEngl> ji b y ' i ~ f-Yaa%b$h W 'Af + - - v[, ' 3 E1 I 75 % .lgf c - [ [' :,; j li:

4 ..

L. J 1 J.w. 2.~nr Qs 4iT . Yd !![ ,.- --. "I i b 2 8p' # ~ "jhr J l- W, l fJ ' ~- IBW$ .F- 3. y' l l . . . ---hsijp},R N . j :E _ -- 7.. i . -- - - ~d, ~- s um - a " 4;; ) ., 1 @ t a ?4'; . l E .a PERFORIV ANCE INDICATORS I MAY 1999 eb I 9907200170 990707 PDR ADDCK 05000285 R PDR i . - OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION f~**T'i k i 14.:.;b  ? ., . _._A. '

• 6P* *. ,,* ,

-- w ~ s r -+ - . . . . . . - ..=... Q p,.,... .r' . - w .- - b . i, M .a , [>, s .. < , ,, ,. l . !l___s. .Lm.. . . . _ ~ 'a ? s

~

'a f, .e , 'i e s D PERFORMANCE INDICATORS MAY 1999 r- r .L ,E FORT CALHOUN STATION --- THE MAIN THING I Safe - Event Free Nuclear Production of Electricity Being the Best is A Matter Of: C ritical Self-Assessment -) H uman Performance is Exemplary I O perations are event free ,

l 4

I nitiatives in high visibility areas have strong performance

i C orrective Actions are Broad and Lasting 4

E xcellance in materiel condition Get Back to Basics!  ! VALUES  ; . Safety Conscious i . Individual Respect  ; . Integrity . Accountability . Teamwork . Simplicity ) . \ DO THE RIGHT WORK - AT THE RIGHT TIME - THE RIGHT WAY y --FOLLOW THE RIGHT PROCESS-- I Table of Contents Page TAB LE OF C ONTE NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 MONTHLY SU MM ARY REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

SUMMARY

REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 INPO PERFORMANCE IN DEX TREN D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 INPO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 7

~

WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Unit Capability Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ....................... ............. 9 Unpianned Capability Loss Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Unplanned Automatic Reactor Scrams per 7000 Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 High Pressure Safety injection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Auxiliary Feedwater System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Emergency AC Power System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Thermal Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Fuel Reliability Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Secondary System Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 l Collective Radiation Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 j industrial Safety Accident and Disabling injury / Illness Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Volume of Low Level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 NRC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS NRC Model For Evaluating FCS Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 NOTE

OPPD subcategories within the NRC green monitoring band have been developed as follows: Top 1/3 of NRC green band is OPPD green, Middle 1/3 of NRC green band is OPPD white, Bottom 1/3 of NRC green band is OPPD yellow, initiating Events Unplanned Scrams per 7000 Critical Hours (Automatic and Manual Scrams) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Scrams with Loss of Normal Heat Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 Unplanned Power Changes Per 7000 Critical Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1

m Table of Contents Mithantion Systems East Safety System Unavailability, Emergency AC Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Saf3ty System Unavailability, High Pressure injection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Safety System Unavailability, AFW System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Safety System Unavailability, Low Pressure Safety injection (Residual Heat Removal) . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 29 Safety System Functional Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Barriers Reactor Coolant System Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Reactor Coolant System Leakage ..................... .................................. 32 Containment Lea kage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Emercancy Preparedness ERO Drill / Exercise l arformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Emergency Response Organization Drill Participation . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , 35 Alert and Notification System Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Occupational Exposure Control Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Public Radiation Safety RETS / ODCM Radiological Effluent Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Physical Protection Protected Area (PA) Security Equipment Performance Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Personnel Screening Program Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ....... ...... . ....... 40 Fitness - For Duty (FFD) Personnel Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 CHOICE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CriticalSelf Assessments Problem identification Rates (Self & Site) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 44 Self Assessment Quality index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 2

1

)

Table of Contents liuman.Parformance.ls.. Exemplary East Average Days for Resetting the Site Wide Event Clock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Departmental Noteworthy Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Individual Error Human Performance LERs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Organizational / Programmatic Error LERs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Operations Are Event Free INPO identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... .... 52 initiatives in High Visibility Areas Have Strong Performance initiatives and High Visibility lssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Corrective Actions Are Broad and Lastina Recurring or Repetitive Condition Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 l

In Progress Condition Reports (Level 1-4) Total and > 6 Months Old . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Open Action items (Level 1-4) Total and > 6 Months Old . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 j Number of Repeat Maintenance Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 l

Excellence Achieved in Plant Materiel Condition Number of Plant Transients > 20% Caused by Equipment Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 ,

1 Number of Temporary Modifications Caused by Materiel Condition Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Number of Open Condition Reports (Level 1,2,3) Caused by Equipment Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 j l

Number of Operator Work Arounds Caused by Materiel Condition Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 '

Number of On-Line Control Room Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Non-Outage Corrective Maintenance Backlog . . . . . ...................... .. .............. 67 Current Production and Operations Records"/ Station Operating Cycles and RFO Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 i

3 i 1

m FORT CALHOUN STATION Monthly Summary OPERATIONS During the month of May 1999, the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) operated at a nominal 100% power. Normal plant maintenance, surveillance and equipment rotation activities were performed during the month.

WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The overall WANO Performance Index was 85.6% during the 1st Quarter of 1999. Significant percentage point losses are attributed to the WANO Performance Indicators (decreasing order of loss) below:

1. The Unplanned Capability Loss Factorindicator, calculated over the previous 24 months.

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

3. The Unit Capability FactorIndicator, calculated over the previous 24 months.

4. The Thermal Performance, calcula'ad over the previous 12 months.

5. The Collective Radiation Exposure, calculated over the previous 24 months.

4

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

SUMMARY

REPORT POSITIVE TREND REPORT INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT A performance indicator with data representing three consecutive months of improving performance or three consecutive months of performance that is superior to the stated goal is exhibiting a positive OPPD 9oalis defined as "Needing increased Management Attention" per NOD-QP-37. The trend per Nuclear Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-QP-37). The following following performance indicators need increased performance indicators exhibited positive trends for management attention; the reporting month:

Thermal Performance (Page 15)

Industrial Safety Accident Rate (Page 19)

RCS Activity (Page 31)

ERO Drill / Exercise Performance (Page 34)

ADVERSE TREND REPORT Individual Error Human Performance LERs (Page 49)

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 NOD-QP-37. A manager whose performance indicator exhibits an adverse trend by this definition may specify in written form (to be published in this report) why the trend is not adveme. The following performance indicators exhibited adverse trends for the reporting month.

There are no adverse trends this month.

5

, 1 INPO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND

-e-IndexMedian - IndexBestOuartile -t- Index%rst Quartie --o-Fort Calhoun (89) (93)

^

95 r 5555 90

$k 801 e'- ---

~

~ ~ E = -M i$

75 I "

~ '

3-s-t^ h -Ad l 75 70 A -*--',A^a's ^a~ 70

^

65 65 60 ,  : -+u , , +- !  ; +-+  : ,,,

60

~

e

!e 3 e

e 8 s@e e

8 e

e e

8 $

e e

e i

i Calendar Quarter Fort Calhoun index Calculation First Quarter 1999 Overall Performance indicator Weight Value Index Product Unit Capability Factor (2yr) 0.16 85.2 90.4 14.5 Unpl. Cap. Loss Factor (2yr) 0.12 8.0 46.7 5.6 Unplanned Auto Scrams (2yr) 0.08 0.0 100.0 8.0 Safety System Performance:

PWR High Press. Inj. (2yr) 0.10 0.001 100.0 10.0 PWR Aux. Feedwater (2yr) 0.10 0.002 100.0 10.0 Emergency AC Power (2yr) 0.10 0.028 55.0 5.5 l Thermal Performance (1yr) 0.06 99.7 85.0 5.1 Fuel Rel. (Most recent qtr) 0.08 3.2E-04 100.0 8.0 Chemistry Perf. Ind. (1yr) 0.07 1.13 96.7 6.8 '

Collective Rad. Exposure (2yr) 0.08 132 89.4 7.2 Ind. Safety Acc. Rate (1yr) 0.05 0.16 100.0 5.0 Totalindex 65.6 l An audit of the information on this page discovered that the data being displayed was not correct. The data has been recovered from original sources an:i checked for accuracy for l

l fourth quarter 1998 and first quarter 1999. Changes from the audit are as follows:  !

n t reporting the power rampdown in 1997 and 1998 as planned power j UCF losses. (14.6 to 14.5) i UCLF errors in recording the data in the spreadsheet. (6.5 to 5.6)

Thermal errors in recording the data in the spreadsheet. (6.0 to 5.1)

Performance reporting two fault exposures that had not been previously reported. (8.5 to EACP 5.1) The fault exposure occured in June / July of 1997 and will not contribute to the indicator in the fourth quarter calculation. ,

6

INPO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND INDICATORS mM AXIMUM V ALUE nFouthQr 98 nFirst Qr 99 8

1a.m .

MO,y g 14.00 - ni ooo ooo o

~

12m . aa aaa a 10.00- OOO " " " " " " "

000 o o ooo 8.00 S SS ORo ka* oo o am i i i i i i i i i i i LIF UQF UA7 IPSI ARA / EACP TPI FR CPI CE ISAR 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 MAXIMUM / ACTUAL VALUES QTR. TREND UCF Unit Capability Factor 16/14.50 Neutral UCLF Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 12/ 5.60 Neutral UA7 Unplanned Auto Scrams / 7000 Hours 8/ 8.00 Neutral HPSI High Pressure Safety injection 10/10.00 Neutral AFW Auxiliary Feed *: ster 10/10.00 Neutral EACP Emergency AC Power 10 / 5.50 Neutral CRE Collective Radiation Exposure 8/ 7.20 Neutral CALCULATED OVER A 12 MONTH PERIOD TPl Thstmal Performance Indicator 6/ 5.10 Negative 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 l

l 7

1

D WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS l

l l

h 1

8

UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR i i Monthly Unit Capability Factor a

-e- Factor

-t- 24 Month U.S.1 Unit Capability year Median (87.0  %)

100%)- _

- - - - b"'fb 90%

• 1 - _ _ - - - _ = , _

. _ , - ';w =u  :  :  : = -

7 -~

80% . 1---

L' -

r -

%h--( - -

- 8 70%

60% 4 50% -

40% . 1998 RFC 30% -

20% -

10% -

0% ,- - -- -

r- r - ,-,- r-5 S S S S S $ $ $ 8 E S $ 8 8 8 E 8 8 8 8 8 8 bhhbhhkhhkhkbhhbhhkbbhh UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (PERCENT)

ANNUAL GOAL 83.6 96.0 87.5 84.3 95.9 85.5 82.2 95.9 YTD PERFORMANCE 78.1 90.1 81.4 99.7 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 83.9 82.5 83.2 INDUSTRY MEDIAN 82.8 83.6 >85.1

( 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:

The 24 month calculation of the INPO indicator was 14.5 points out of 16 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 14.5 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 14.7. The reduction in points was a result of the power reduction associated with inoperability of AFW pump FW-10 in February. The three months dropping off the indicator were all 100% power months. Next quarter's data may significantly improve with the dropping off of April and May 1997 data at 69.5% and 43.7% capability factors respectively.

7' ' . . .

Manager Jim Tills Data Source Ruth Bilau 9

UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR ,

1 1

Monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor -,e- 24-Month Rolling Average l Fort Calhoun Goal (3.0%) -*- U.S.1 year Median (3.9%) I j

50% - I 45% -

40% -

35% -

30% -

25% ' -

1998 RFO 20% -

15% -

10% - _ _ _

5% -

. . . M - "- - T - - -%

0% , , , , , , .

EEESEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

' <; AA- d z: -8, eaa s - a s =

, w a < z , ' <; A d z: $ ,:

a meat <zr l

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

ANNUAL GOAL 3.0 1.5 3.5 3.0 4.1 3.0 3.1 4.1 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 7.9 9.9 3.8 0.3 THREE YEAR AVG. 6.6 9.3 7.2 Definition:

Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (UCLF) is defined 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 calculation of the INPO UCLF indicator was 5.6 points out of 12 ponts. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 5.6, which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 5.7. The only unplanned capability loss during 1999 occurred in February when a unit shutdown was initiated following expiration of a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> LCO on FW-10. Next quarter's data is expected to improve as the April and May 1997 poor performance will not be included, assuming continued good performance this year.

Manager Jim Tills Data Source Ruth Bilau 10

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7000 HOURS CRITICAL

= 12-Month Rolling Average

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

+U. S.1 year Median (O. )0)

-*- FCS Reactor Scrams 97-1998 (-

2 --

1--

0 :: = = = = r = == = = = = r = = = = = = = =

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7000 HOURS CRIriCAL 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1 i

ANNUAL GOAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.48 0.31 0.00 Definition:

Unplanned Automatic Scrams per 7000 Critical Hours (UA7) is defhed 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 number of unplanned automatic scrams by the total hours critical in the same tirne period and dividing by 7000.

Analysis:

The 24 month calculation of the UA7 indicator was 8.0 points out of 8 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 8.0 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 8.0.

M3NITr7M Manager Ross Ridenoure Data Source Ruth Bilau 11

s l

HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM l SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Monthly HPSI System Hours Unavailable

-e - 24 M onth Rolling Average Fort Calhoun Goal (0.003)

+ U.S.1 year M edian (0.004) 0.006 - _

0.005 -

0.004 - ____ _ _ _ _ _

0.003 0.002 - / \- /

0.001 - _ _ _

0.000 --',~, ,

=

,A, ,=,=,A,',A, ,A, ,

~

,A,a, ,',

5$EE E%%$$E%E$$E$$$$$$$$@

kR R$8EEk$EEEk4EE8!Ek@EEE l

HPSI SAFETY (SP1) 24 MONTH 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 )

ANNUAL GOAL 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 24 MONTH ROLLING AVERAGE 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 HREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.000 0.001 0.000 Definition:

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

Analysis:

The availability of the HPSI system remains high due to excellent equipment reliability. Surveillance testing is well planned and executed resulting in an absolute minimum of equpment unavailability. The frequency of Preventative Maintenance activities are based on a conservative balance of EPRI guidelines and observed equpment performance. The HPSI pumps are dedicated to the ECCS function (e.g., they do not serve a dual role as charging pumps).This places FCS as one of the best performers in the industry for this indicator. The 24 month calculation of the SP1 indicator was 10.0 points out of 10 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 10.0 which compares to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 10.0.

,'NMd4 . Manager ' Mort Core Data Source Chuck Schaffer 12

AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability

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

-*-- U.S.1 year Median (0.004) 0.040 -- ,

0.035 --

. 0.030 --

0.025 -

0.020 --

0.015 --

0.010 _

1. I ?  ;  ;  ;  ; "I' I I TI T TT I T T fT i' i

!!)l111111tili1111111111 i AFW SAFETY SYSTEM (SP2) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ANNUAL GOAL 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.005 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 0.001 0.001 0.002 Definition:  ;

Auxiliary Feedwater Saf ety System (SP2) is defined as the sum of : 1) the known (planned and unplanned) l unavailable hours and 2) the estirnated fault exposure unavailable hours for the auxiliary feedwater system for the reporting period, divided by 1) the critical hours for the reporting period and 2) by the number of trains in the auxiliary feedwater system.

Analysis:

In May 1999, a scheduled outage of 2.2 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 was completed. Both trains of AFW passed quarterfy performance testing in May with no deficiencies. The 24 month calculation of the SP2 i hdicator was 10.0 points out of 10 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 10.0 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 10.0.

,DNN Manager . Mori Core Data Source Russ Cusick 13

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

--e- 24 Month Rolling EACP Unavailability Fort Calhoun Goal (0.024)

--e-U.S.1 year M edian (0.010)

U'08 '

"Z"-,.- - "" -M

_ ___- ~~~ "=====

0.025 - i J

0.02 - '

O.015 -

0.01 - -

o.cOS - 2 _ _ _ _ _ ; ; ; _ _ _ _ /

o . . . . .

E B B B k E E 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 i 8 8 & 8 8 8 8 kb$$$hbbhh$hkb$$bhbEhh$h EMERGENCY AC POWER SAFETY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 SYSTEM (SP5)

ANNUAL GOAL 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 0.010 0.015 0.017 0.008 Definition:

Emergency AC Power Performance (SP5) is defined as the sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and the estimated fault exposure unavailable hours for the emergency AC power system for the reporting period and divided by the number of hours in the reporting period hours for the number of trains in the emergency AC power system.

Analysis:

Less than 10% of the total unavailable hours were for unplanned maintenance. Approximately half of the total unavailable hours stem from " fault time exposure

• hours due to a DG-1 field flash failure in September 1997.

The remaining unavailable hours were for planned maintenance. The 24 month calculation of the SP5 indicator was 5.5 points out of 10 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 5.5 which compares to j the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 5.5 This parameter is currently under review for previous reporting discrepancy.

MINN[d Manager Merl Core Data Source Rich Ronning 14

THERMAL PERFORMANCE

Monthly Thermal Performance

-Ar 12-Month Rolling Average Fort Galhoun Goal (99.7%)

--- U.S.1 year Median (99.7%)

100% - i i i is . .

g..

~ _. A

/ . ,

i 99% , , ,

f k I k 5 $ $ $ $ k I THERMAL PERFORMANCE (TPf) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (percent)

ANNUAL GOAL 99.6 99.6 99.7 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 99.7 99.9 100 99.4 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 99.7 99.9 99.9 Definition:

Thermal Performance indicator (TPI) is define d as the ratio of the average adjusted actual gross heat rate best achievable gross heat rate egressed as a petcentage.

Analysis:

The Thermal Performance indicator had a decreasing trend from October of 1998, until March of 1999. Major equpment issues that contributed to that trend include circulating water system outages (planned maintenance) and leakage through the heater drain tank high level dump valve. Investigations are in progress to identify any additional equpment deficiencies that may be having an adverse affect on plant Thermal Performance. The 12 month calculation of the TPIindicator was 6.0 points out of 6 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 5.1 which comparad to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 5.7. A 24 month calculation of the TPIindicator was 5.1 points out of 6 points.

Yellow Manager Mori Core Data Source Kevin Naser 15 k

FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR i iFuel Reliability (E-04 Microcuries/ Gram)

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

U.S.1 year Median (2.30 E-04Microcuries/ Gram)

-m-3 Month Rolling Average E

h 100 -

I*

'o -

1-

A 8

.E 0.1 -

lE g 0.01 m Jan Feb Mar Apr May I

FUEL RELIABILITY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 )

(FRI)(xE-04 Micro curies / Gram)

ANNUAL GOAL - 147 17.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 MAY ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 1.7 99 5.2 2.0 Definition: j Fuel Reliability (FRI) is defined as the steady-state primary coolant 1-131 actMty, corrected for the tramp l uranium contribution and power level and normalized to a common purification rate, and average linear heat generation rate.

Analysis:

Elimination of the initial Westinghouse fuel design, which resulted in spacer grid induced fretting of numerous l fuel rods in Cycles 15-17, was completed for Cycle 18. Additional improvements originally implemented in Cycle l 18 will continue to be used for Cycle 19. Coolant actMty data through May 1999 shows the presence of thirteen t defective fuel rods. This is an increase from eleven failed rods through April. The increase is attributed to an increase in Xe-133 activity, in May the FRl value was 2.0 E-04 ucl/gm compared to 83.0E-04 uci/gm at the same i time point in Cycle 17. The May FRI value was smaller then the previous month's value. This decline in FRl is a i result of statistical difficulties when dealing with large amounts of tramp material (1-134)in the core compared to the amount of I-131 which is coming out of the failed fuel rods. The recent quarterly calculation of the FRi 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.

White Manager Ruben Hamilton Data Source Susan Baughn 16

SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY Monthly Chemistry indicator 1999 Fort Calhoun Goal (1.2)

--*--.U.S.1 year M edian (1.04) 1.6 --

1.4 - 1.29 3 og 1.16 1.12 1# W 1.2 -_ 1.1 1,og 1.1

,_ . . . . . . ./

0.s --

0.6 --

0.4 --

0.2 --

0  :  :  :  :  : , l l l . ,

h $ $ $ b h b b 5 k $

l SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (CPI)

ANNUAL GOAL 1.4 1.4 1.1 <1.2 <1.2 <1.15 <1.15 <1.15 i MAY ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 1.26 1.33 1.16 1.16 Definition: 1 Secondary System Chemistry (CPI) is defined as a calculation based on the conceritration of key impurities in the l secondary side of the plant. These key hipurities are the most Ikely cause of deterioration of the steam generators. Criteria for calculating the CPI are: 1) the plant is at greater than 30 percent power, and 2) the power is changing less than 5% per day.

Analysis:

At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 6.8 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 6.6. Value increased due to abandonment of in-line instrumentation. Data collecting instrumentation now being used has a higher detection lirnit.

YeNow Manager Ruben Hamilton Data Source Mark Ostion 17

COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE Monthly Radiation Dose (S RD)

YTD Accumulated Dose based on Otr.TLD readings lE 10 --

tu g 8--

g 6-- 4.618 s a m 8 E g-~ $ k 6i 0 -

-l l l  : l l l  ;  ;  ;  ;

Jan- Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 99 COLLECTIVE RAD EXPOSURE (CRE)

(PERSON-REM) 1996 1997 1938 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ANNUAL GOAL 1380 38.0 *

• 224.0 200.0 *

• YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 226.0 40.8 223.8 9.305 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 117.0 138.0 163.2 INDUSTRY MEDIAN 3 YEAR AVG 145.0 144.0 116.0

• Annual goal is established on a yearly basis by an ALARA subcomittee based on projected work in RCA.

Definition:

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

Analysis:

The collective radiation exposure as of May 31,1999 is 9.305 person-Rem. This is approximately 5% of the 200 person-Rem goal for 1999. This collective radiation exposure is below the exposure amount of 12 person-Rom projected by the Radiation Protection Department for the specified time frame. The 24 month calculation of the CRE indicator was 7.2 points out of 8 points. At the end of the First Quarter 1999 the FCS Value was 7.2 which compared to the Fourth Quarter 1998 value of 7.1.

Manager Mark Puckett Data Source Ann Nieland 18 I

w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE

1998 YTD Industrial Safety Accident & Disabling injury / Illness Rate 1999 YTD Industrial Safety Accident & Disabling injury /11l ness Rate Year 2000 WANO Industry and FCS Goal (<0.40)

+US 1 Year Median (<0.23) 0.70 -

0.60 -

0.50 -

• ^

0.40 -

0.30 - * */  ;

+

0.20 - Y 7 - 1 1 0.10 -

0.00 -- , , , , , , , , , , , ,

,E S a

E 2 k f 4 E I E S u; h 8 z 8 o

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ACCIDENT RATE (ISAR)

ANNUAL GOAL <0.5 <0.5 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 YTD ACTUAL 0.29 0.00 0.18 0.00 PERFORMANCE Definition:

Industrial Safety Accident Rate (ISAR) is defhed as the number of accidents for all utility personnel permanently assigned to the station. Involving days away from work per 200,000 person-hours worked (100 person-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.

Analysis:

There have been no lost time accidents in 1999 and the last one occurred in October 1998. The 12 month calculation of the ISAR indicator was 5.0 points cut 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.

Mh$!ks Manager Ron Short Data Source Duane Booth l

j l l t

I I

19

. l

f.

VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

! Monthly Volume of LLRW (cu. meter)

- m-- Year-to-Date Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried .

--*-- US 1 year Median (35cu. meter)

{

Fort Cahoun Goal (23 cu. meter) j 40 - I as . - - - - - - - - - -

f W 30 - j h 25 - j 20 - e j ie a u 15- $  ; $

10 - M =

5-0 o

= -.

h h f Jan-99 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE (RWV) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ANNUAL GOAL 18.6 34.0 <23.0 <23.0 <15 TBD TBD TBD YTD ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 18.38 22.20 17.09 12.26 Definition:

Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) is defined as the volume of low-level solid radioactive waste actually i shpped for burial. l Analysis:

The volume of radioactive waste buried as of May 31,1999 is 12.26 m3. The high volume shipped for burial this year is due to the possible closing of the Bamwell, South Carolina waste repository f acility. The LLRW indicator is no longer calculated as part of the INPO Pl Index.

.[1Nkkk+ Manager .

Mark Puckett Data Source Ann Nieland

,,g,, _,, . .. .

NRC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS I

21 I . .

NRC MODEL FOR EVALUATING FCS PERFORMANCE I

ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE - FCS Response Band

. Cornerstone objectives fully met

. Nominal Risk / Nominal Deviation From Expected Performance

. ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE -Increased Regulatory Response Band

. Cornerstone objectives met w/ minimal reduction in safety margin

. Outside bounds of nominal performance

. Within Technical Specification Limits

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

. 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 UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE - FCS not normally permitted to operate within this band

. Plant performance significantly outside design basis

. Loss of confidence in ability of plant to provide assurance of public health and safety w/ continued operation

. Unacceptable margin to safety

~

l UNSAFE PERFORMANCE 22

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

Unplanned Scrams per 7.000 Critical Hours (4 quarter rolling sum) ouarter 10/98 20/98 30/98 4Q/98 1Q/99 20/99 5

10 -

Indicator f5-20 -

25 Definition:

The number of unplanned scrams during the previous four quarters, both manual and automatic, while critical per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />.

Analysis:

No unplanned scrams occurred during the previous four quarters.

Nif$$N$ Manager Ross Ridenoure Data Source Ruth Bilau l

I

\

23

/

" INITIATING EVENTS Scrams with Loss of Normal Heat Removal Scrams with a Loss of Normal Heat Removal (12 quarter romng sum) 1Q98 2 0/90 30/98 %"I* f 4CV96 1Q99 20/99 bdicator 12 16-20 Definition:

The number of unplanned scrams while critical, both manual and automatic, during the previous 12 quarters that also involved a loss of the normal heat removal path through the main condenser.

Analysis:

No unplanned scrams occurred during the previous twelve quarters.

--nts:wcr.mt Erick Matzke

. _ .20'SiEE Manager Ross Ridonoure Data Source i

24 i

9

" INITIATING EVENTS" Unplanned Power Changes per 7000 Critical Hours Uncianned Power Chances per 7000 Critical Hours (4 quarter romng sum) 1Cb98 2OS8 3CV98 Quarter 40/98 1 0/99 2Q/99 o - -

. 1 i

~

2 i

4 Indicator .

6 8

10 Definition:

The number of unplanned changes b reactor power of greater than 20% full-power, per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of critical operation em:luding manual and automatic scrams.

Analysis:

The changes indicated in the first and second quarter of 1998 are carryovers f rom 1997. The change indicated in the first quarter of 1999 was a result of surveillance test failure of steam driven auxiliary feedwater pump (FW-

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

h hh Manager Ross Ridenoure Data Source John Drahota 25

MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Safety System Unavailability, Emergency AC Power Safety System Unevailability Emeroency AC Power (12 quarter roning average) 1 0/98 2Q/98 3Q/98b "I G 8 1CF99 2 0/99 Uhavaltability 7.G i 4-10.o%

Definition:

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

Analysis:

Less than 10% of the total unavaHable hours were for unplanned maintenance. Approximately half of the total unavaHable hours stem from " fault time exposure" hours due to a DG 1 field flash faHure in September 1997. The remaining unavagable hours were for planned maintenance.

M[$$2h Manager Mori Core Data Source Rich Ronning 26

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Safety System Unavailability, High Pressure injection System l Safety System Unavailability. HP injection. HPSl(12 quarter romng awreg )

1096 20/96 3098 Quarter 4098 1 099 2CV99 ,

UnaveMobWty 6.o% -

8.0%

10.0%

Definition:

High Pressure Safety System for the NRC Safety System performance is defined as three year running average of sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours, and 2) the estimated fault exposure  !

unavaHable hours for the high pressure safety injection system for the reporting period, dNided 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 high due to exce81ent equpment reliability. Surveillance testing is well planned and executed resulting in an absolute mhrnum of equpment unavailability. The frequency of Preventative Maintenance actNities are based on a conservative balance of EPRI guidelines and observed equpment performance. The HPSI pumps are dedicated to the ECCS function (e.g., they do not serve a dual role as charging pumps).

i.MYMk Manager Mori Core Data Source Chuck Schaffer 27

9

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Safety System Unavailability, AFW System (12 quarter rolling average) 10/98 2Q/98 3Q/98 ouarter 40/98 1Q/99 2Q/99

~

% 0 unavailability 8.0%

10.0%

12.0 %

Definition: ,

AuxHiary Feedwater Safety System for the NRC safety system performance is defined as the three year running average sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavaHable hours and 2) the estimated fault exposure unavagable hours for the auxHiary feedwater system for the reporting period, divided by 1) the critical hours for the reporting period, and 2) the number of trains in the auxHiary feedwater system.

Analysis:

In May 1999, a scheduled outage of 2.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for FW 10 surveHlance testhg was completed. Both trains of AFW passed quarterly performance testing in May with no deficiencies.

.,Z

'I Managet Mori Core Data Source Russ Cusick 28

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Safety System Unavailability, Low Pressure Safety injection System ,

(Residual Heat Removal)

Safety System U navailability. R H R (12 quarter romng awrage) 10/98 2Q/98 3Q08Quarter 4CV98 1Q/99 2Q/99 un. van.bmey 6.0% -

8.o% --

10.0 %

Definition:

Residual Heat Removal System for the NRC safety system performance is defined as the three year running average sum of: 1) the known (planned and unplanned) unavailable hours and 2) the estirnated 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 traus in the Residual Heat Removal System.

Analysis:

The avaBabHay of the LPSI system remains hk$ duo to excellent equpment reliabHity. SurveHlance testing is well planned and executed resulting in an absoluh min' mum of equpment unavailabHity. The frequency of Preventative Maintenance actbGs are based on conservative balance of EPRI guidelines and observed equpment performance.

.iM2hkh Manager Mori Core Data Source Chuck Schaffer 29 I

" MITIGATION SYSTEMS" Safety System Functional Failures Safety System Funetional Failures (4 quarter rolung sum) 1Q98 2CV98 3O980uarter 40/98 1Q99 2Q/99 0

2 =

x. .

d .-

l Indicator 6

8 10 Definition:

The number of events or conditions that have been reported in LERs that prevented, or could have prevented, the fulfilment of safety functions specified h NEl-99-02 in the previous four quarters.

Analysis:

Performance is showing a strong positive trend. The last SSFF LER reportable Rem occurred in the 4th quarter 1998.

[Mk3[5h] Manager Ralph Phelps Data Source Erick Matzko 30 l

I J

1

" BARRIERS" Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Activity RCS Specific Activity (MontwyMaximum)

Month

1. # # f f e r s t / ~4 4 #

"O Definition:

The maximum monthly RCS activity h micro-Curies per gram ( Ci/gm) dose equivalent lodhe 131 per the technical specifications, and egressed as a percentage of the technical specification limit.

Analysis:

Current Delis at about 3% of Technical Specification Limit. If we were to trip DEI could be expected to reach 80% to 90% of lirnit after this point in time, it is projected that TS lirnit will be exceeded at the end of the operating cycle for a rapid shutdown.

flhMhfM Manager Ruben Hamilton Data Source Jim Hoffnun 31

" BARRIERS" Reactor Coolant System Leakage RCS Identified Leak Rate (Monthly Maximum)

Month o

h hh k hh h kh 20 40

% Tech Spec UmR so ao 100 Definition:

The maximum RCS Identified Leakage in gallons per minute each month per the technical specifications and expressed as 2.5% (0.253 gpm)of the tachnical speellication limit.

Analysis:

RCS leakage continues to be a small fraction of the allowable Tech Spec Imit.

)

%$f!N$N Manager Ross Ridenoure Data Source John Drahota D

32

s

" BARRIERS" Containment Leakage Containment Leakane (Monthly Maxknum)

Month s s e e e m e m o

s 4

&N -

y 40 . . ,

% La .

?

eo so too Definiffon:

Con 5inment Leakage is the monthly maximum total Type B and Type C leakage as a percentage of the design bc a leak tale (L.), as determined in accordcnce with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J.

Analysis:

The " running total" containment leakage, based on the most recent Local Leak Rate Test, continues to trend well withh acceptable limits. FCS has implemented option 'B' to appendix J. This results in extended containment localleakage rate testhg performance intemals. Allleakage rate tests are currently scheduled for outage periods. Leakage rate testing may be performed on line to assess an emergent problem or address area of potential leakage. Current level of leakage is low. The anomaly of a higher Isakage was as a result of

'as found' testing during the last refueling outage.

[, Manager Merl Core Data Source Glenn Miller l

1 l

33 I

" EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS "

ERO Drill / Exercise Performance ERO Drill / Exercise Performance (e quarter romno average) 100.0 %

90.0 %

80.0 %

Successful opportunities 70.0 %

60.0% <

50.0 %

10/98 2CV98 30/98 Quarter 4Q/98 10/99 2099 Definition:

The percentage of all drill, exercise, and actual opportunities that were performed timely and accurately during the previous eight quarters.

Analysis:

ERO Drill Exercise Performance needs improvement. This indicator is in the white level of performance. The last dress rehearsal indicated a deficiency b this area. Increased attention in this area is warranted. The next opportunity will be the June 29,1999 dress rehearsal.

Manager John Sofick Data Source Carl Simmons l

1 34 l-

)

" EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS" Emergency Response Organization Drill Participation E RO Drill Participation (%perticipation of Key personneiduring previous a quarters) 100.0 %

90.0 %

80.0 %

70.0 %

Participation 50.0% .

40.0%

30.0 %

1Q/98 2CF98 3CF98 4 0/08 10/99 2Q/99 Quarter Definition:

The percentage of key ERO members that have particpated in a drHI, exercise, or actual event durng the previous eight quarters, as measured on the last calendar day of the quarter.

Analysis:

DrHI partichation is currently very good.

Manager John Sofick Data Source Carl Simmons 1

1 35

" EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS" Alert and Notification System Reliability Alert & Notification System Reliability (4quarterroitingaverage) )

Reliability 88.0% -

86.0% -

84.0% -

82.0% -

80.0%

1Q98 2Q/98 3O/98 4Q/98 1Q/99 2Q/99 Quarte r Definition:

The percentage of ANS sirens that are capable of performing their function, as measured by periodic siren testing in the previous 12 months.

Analysis:

Siren reliability has been steady between 97- 98%. No adverse trends have been identified h this area.

k[khhYh Manager John Sofick Data Source Carl Simmons

i 1

" OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION " .

)

Occupational Exposure Control Effectiveness 1 Occupational Exposure Control Effectiveness (12 quarter roising eien) 1Q90 20/98 30/98 Quarter40/98 1CV99 2Q/99 occurr.ne..

12 14 -

Definition:

The performance indicator for this comerstone is the sum of the following, Technical Specification high radiation i crea occurrences, very high radiation area occurrences and unintended exposure occurrences, over the previous l 12 quarters. j Analysis:

Two events have affected the Occupational Exposure Control Effectiveness Performance Indicator. The events are associated with TS Restricted High Radition Area (dose rates greater than 1000 mr/hr/). The first event i occurred in April 1998. The second event occurred in April 1999. A Root Cause Analysis (RCA) has been  ;

completed and corrective actions are in progress.

, ,1 .jds4.) [h Manager Mark Puckett Data Source Ann Nieland 37

k "PUBLIC RADIATION SAFETY" RETS/ODCM Radiological Effluent Occurrence R ETS/ODCM Radiolonical Effluent Occurrences (4 quarter romng sum) 1Q98 2Q/98 3CV98 40/98 10/99 2Q/99 occurr.ne..

4<

S Definition:

Radiological effluent release occurrences per reactor unit over the previous 4 quarters.

Analysis:

Current goals would not exceed 10% of the threshold values.

((',Mh,k, Manager Huben Hamilton Data Source Bruce Reneaud i

38

T

" PHYSICAL PROTECTION "

Protected Area (PA) Security Equipment Performance Index PA Security Eauipment Performance index (4 quarter romng awrage) 1Q98 20/98 30/98b"I'I 4Qf98 1CV99 20/99 Indicator 02 1 1 Definition:

PA Security equpment performance is measured by an index that compares the amount of the time Closed Circuit Television and interjected Detection System are unavailable, as measured by compensatory hours, to the total hours h the period. A normalization factor is used to take hto account site variability in the size and complexity of the systems.

Analysis:

Performance conthues to be acceptable h this area.

AN Manager John Sofick Data Source Don Lieber I 39

" PHYSICAL PROTECTION "

Personnel Screening Program Performance Personnel Screenina Procram Performance (4 quarter rolling sum)

ICV 98 2O 98 30/98 Quarter 4cygg jog 9 2099 4

7 l Definition:

The number of reportable fagures to property implement the regulatory requirements, over the previous 4 quarters.

Analysis:

Performance conthues to be acceptable h this area.

[h[kkY[2If Manager John Sofick Data Source Don Lieber 40

" PHYSICAL PROTECTION "

Fitness-For Duty (FFD) Personnel Reliab'lity '

FFD/ Personnel Reliability Proaram Performance (4 quarter rosna sum) 1 0/98 2 O/98 3CV98 Quarter 4CV98 10/99 20/99 l

47 l Definition:

The number of reportable failures to properly implement the requirements of 10 CFR Part 26 and 10 CFR 73.56, i over the previous 4 quarters.

1 Analysis:

Performance continues to be acceptable h this area.

N[$hfh$fIkh Manager John Sofick Data Source Don Lieber 41

1

\

CHOICE 4

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 42

r, CRITICAL SELF-ASSESSMENT Strategic Objective: To promote a leaming organization and to continuously strive toward 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:

Problem identification Rates (Self & Site)

. Self-Assessment Quality Index Key Actions Taken to date:

Critical Self-Assessment Leadership session given to MTM Human Performance Day on Critical Self-Assessments Held first Joint Corrective Action /Self-Assessment advisory meeting Revised Self-Assessment Guideline (FCS-G4)

Developing formal Self-Assessment Training for Managers, Supervisors and Team Leaders-September Definition:

Emphasis on the conduct of Formal Self-Assessments in 1997 and 1998 has contributed toward impruved station performance.

Improved focus on the completion of post job critiques to capture operating experience and to identify and track performance problems.

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

Process for performing self assessments is being improved by revising procedure. One of the changes is allowng for smaller assessments as opposed to team approaches to the assessment process. training of personnel on how to conduct assessments is being scheduled, staring in September. Current status is that assessments cre finding the same problems that previous assessments have identified. More work is needed in this area.

White Manager Jim Chase 43 1

l PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION RATES (Self & Site) .

i f

and of quarter data 100.0 90.0 30.0 70.0 -

- A 60.0

~

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 1996 1997 1998 1999 0.0

% of Sef-Identified Proidems  % of Site-Identried Problems

% of Self identified Problems:

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (YTD) l Target Performance N/A N/A N/A 85.0 TBD TBD TBD TBD ]

Actual Performance 68.8 61.0 68.8 83.9

% of Site identified Problems:

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (YTD)

Target 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 identify problems intemally. The first ratio (% of Self-identifed Problems) represents the percentage of Condition Reports identified by the Work Group. The second ratio (% of Site-ldentifed Problems) represents the percentage of Condition Reports identified by the Work Group, Non Oversite Work Groups, and Oversite Work Groups (does not include NRC or INPO identifed problems).

The Goals are to continue to increase the number of self-identified problems and reduce the number of extemal identifed problems. _

Analysis:

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

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

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

White Manager Del Trausch Data Source Ken Steele 44 l

SELF-ASSESSMENT QUALITY INDEX 100% -

90% -  :

, 80%4A;

$ 70% -

80% .

lE 50% -

40% -

E 30% -

20% -

10% -

0%-  :. , , . . , ,

S k- $

2 k hx ha $

a -

A $ 5 b E 5 $ b i

-o,

- o-Engineering + Operations Wintenance -e-Plant Support 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 j ANNUAL GOAL WA WA WA 85 90 90 90 90 ACTUAL PERFORMANCE N/A WA WA 74 Definition:

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

Assessment qualty is evaluated by the NSRG through the use of a self-assessment scorecard. Data is provided as 12 month Rolling Averages.

Analysis:

Year-end Projection: an improving trend is expected. Further efforts were planned to improve the 'Ser Assessment' cuture Year to date Performance: due to a lirnted number of ser assessments in the first quarter (2) no trend can be determined at this time.

Yellow Manager Del Trausch Data Source Ken Steele 9

45

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

. Departmental Noteworthy Events

. Individual Error Human Performance LERs

. Organizational / Programmatic Error LERs Key Actions Taken to date:

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 super <isory oversight focused on the prevention of error-likely situations.

Weekly Leadership Sessions and routinely scheduled discussions among managers on issues involving the improvement of leadership skills.

Training of Shift Technical Advisors and other selected personnel on the INPO " Human Performance Fundamentals" course. Training of engineering and operations personnel on the INPO " Excellence in Human Performance document" (Titanic training).

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

Analysis:

Over all human performance trends are positive, however, there are four noteworhty departmental events which could be a precurser to a site wide event. Therefore continued site wide emphasis on human performance is essential.

White Manager Mary Tesar i

i 46

AVERAGE DAYS FOR RESETTING THE SITE WIDE EVENT CLOCK i

60.0 50.0 -

'.2

[

40.0 -

30.0 - 1999 Goal >40 Days 3 20.0 -

4 10.0 -

0.0 , , , , , , . . , ,

E E E E E E @ @ $ $ $

'b $ h b $ h , h h $ h AVERAGE DAYS FOR RESETTING 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 THE SITE WDE EVENT CLOCK ANNUAL GOAL N/A N/A N/A 40 50 60 90 90 MAY ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 20.6 17.3 38.7 43.1 Definition:

The site wide event clock is reset following the occurance of a signficant condition report (Level 1 or 2) that adversely affects plant operathg status or safety margh and which was withh the organization's ability to prevent.

This indicator tracks a 12 month rolling average of the number of days between succeeding event clock resets.

Analysis:

Trend for this hdicator remains stable above the 1999 goal. Wah no additional SignWicant Condition Reports FCS wNl meet the 1999 goal.

2 k[ Manager Mary Tesar Data Source John Kollams 47 U _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

DEPARTMENTAL NOTEWORTHY EVENTS.

Department - 1999 Months Since Last Event

' Chemistry 0 10' Emergency Preparedness 3 0 Industrial Safety 1 0-Maintenance 6 2 Nuclear Engineering Division 2' 1 1 Operations 0 5 Planning and Scheduling 0 13 Radiation Protection 3 0 Security 1 0 l

- Other ' 0 NA Definition:

Departmental Noteworthy Events are significant events or precursors to these events. if comprehensive corrective actions are taken for these events, future significant events can be avoided. Each department defines the definition and threshold for their department. In most cases they laclude level 1,2, and 3 condition reports along with some level 4 precursor events as specified by the department manager.

Analysis:

Four Noteworthy Events occurred in May:

! Deficiency identified in Emergency Preparedness on evaluation and issuance of protective action recommendations.

! Negative trend in failures of patrolling officers to accurately complete their assigned patrols.

Actions unsuccessful in minimizing bird droppings in the area of the main transformers.

Radiation Protection personnel directed electricians to use an inappropriate RWP to enter an airborne area.

White Manager - Mary Tesar Data Source Jim Tills l l

l l

48

INDIVIDUAL ERROR HUMAN PERFORMANCE LERS

--+--Total LERs

--o-Preventable LER 12 Month Totals 30 - --*--Personnel Error LERs 25 - V 20 --

15 15 15

^

15 g4

^ 15

^

15 94 g

94 4 4 #

3 8 5!

2 2 - -

s-

=

e

_y? =  ; -

5 , _ 4-

' 3 ' '

0

$ g $ 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 $ $ )

$ A R $ $ 8 h A k k E $ )

I

)

NUMBER OF HUMAN 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 l

PERFORMANCE LICENSEE EVENT 1996 1997 REPORTS ANNUAL GOAL 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 2 4 4 1 Definition:

LERs caused by personnel error such as inappropriate action by one of more individuals, as opposed to being attrbuted to a department or general group. LERs f aling 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 hdicated by the failure of more than one defensive barrier.

Analysis:

Human Performance trends show an overall decline h the number and percentage of causal factors attrbuted to human performance errors in several categories.

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

Yellow Ma .eger Mary Tesar Data Source Erick Matzke 1

49 m

ORGANIZATIONAL / PROGRAMMATIC ERROR LERS Performance Related LERs b2 s

1 i

o

)

1

'a y n ~l

• lr $  ?>

N; y 4 ,

i$

% ' $" d  ;

O , , , . , , , , , , , ,

May-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 Aup98 Sep-98 Oct-98 No+98 Dec-98 Jan-99 Feb-99 Mar-99 Apr-99 NUMBER OF ORGANEATIONALI 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 PROGRAMMATIC ERROR LERs ANNUAL GOAL N/A N/A N/A 5 4 4 3 3 l

ACTUAL PERFORMANCE 9 5 5 1 Definition:

Thb performance indicator monitors organizational / programmatic performance error LERs where the root cause j b personnel error such as a department or general group, as opposed to being attrbuted to inappropriate action i by one or more individuals. LER's fallbg 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 faaure of more than one defensive barrier.

Analysis:

The trend for 1999 is very positive.

YNUNY Manager Mary Tesar Data Source Erick Matzke 50

7 l

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

Performance Indicators: l

. INPO Identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events (Choice indicator) j

= Departmental Noteworthy Events (Choice indicator) {

. Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (WANO indicator)

. Transients per 7000 Critical Hours (NRC indicator)

. Unplanned Reactor Scrams per 7000 Hours (NRC indicaior) j l

Key Actions Taken to date:

Enhanced formality in Operations, including annunciator response and self checking. i Completed two " behavior based" Operations self-assessments. l Operations procedures are being revised to address human performance issues.

Scorecard Observatior. Process continues. Significant improvement. Realized in area of pre-job briefings. Additional focus needed in use of OE.

Noteworthy event definition, setup for all station departments / divisions.

Strategic agreements between line organization and Training that require review of Condition Reports, Operating Experience and Human Performance errors. f i

Use of focus instructors and focus managers in the simulator. Continued use of focus managers in the l field.

Actions underway to improve use of operating experience in the field for both on-line and refueling.

l Radiological posting information made easier for radiation workers to utilize.

Switchyard activity control strengthened by use of FCS engineering management involvement and shift manager /PRC approvals. Management notifications used to involve entire organization, in resolving critical activities such as system bus loading concems and control room air conditioning operability issues.

Use of condition reporting process used to trade post job critiques.

Analysis:

The reason this area is not green was felt to be due to the WANO Indicator for unit capability loss factor, the February down-power and departmental Noteworthy Events.

White Manager Jim Tills Si

INPO identified Significant/ Noteworthy Events a Significant O Noteworthy E Historical OTotal(Significant+

E Uurrent Emnts TotalNoteworthy) (Total - His torical) 16 16 - 14 N: 1010 11 10 10 10 l!iUi,li,1,: 1, h, 9

0 i i 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 INPO SIGNIFICANT EVENTS 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 FCS COAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FCS ACTUAL 2 1 0 - - - - -

WPO NOTEWORTHY EVENTS 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 FCS GOAL N/A N/A N/A 7 6 5 5 5 FCS ACTUAL 14 9 9 - - - - -

Definition:

FCS events are screened and designated tw 8NPO as signifcant events if they exhibit one or more of the folkming characteristics: 1) severe or unusual transients,2) safety system rm;; unctions or improper operations,3) rnajor equipment damage caused by lengthy unplanned outages or signifcant reductions in power levels, replacement of or extensive repairs to major equipment, fuel rod failures requiring a shutdown, and 4) other events invoMng nuclear setety and plant rehability. Noteworthy events are determined to be not %ignificant," but indcative of (i.e indcales the existence of precursore) maintenance, operations, administrathe or management problems. Historical Events are events classified by OPPD as caused by cond%ns greater than eightoon months old.

,; Analysis:

• Signifcarit Events for 1999:

. None Noteworthy Events for 1999:

. Fast transfer of safety-related buses due to switchyard cable being cut during excavabon work.

. Surveillance procedure defciency leads to entry into techncal specifcahon required shutdown due to auxikary feedwater inoperabihty.

Notewor1hy Historical Events for 1999:

. None l - h Manager Jim Tills Data Source Donna Guinn 1

52

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

1) Safe and Event Free Nuclear Production of Electricity 2). Being Successful in a Competitive Environment

3) Buildin] and Maintaining Trust with Regulators, Employees and Customers Performance Indicators:

Milestone schedules for high visibility areas will be monitored. These aress are:

. Resolution of INPO findings (Frans)

. RAMS Project (Chamberlain)

. Work Management Process (Wylie)

. Improvements in Preventive Maintenance and Predictive Maintenance Programs (Swearngin)

+ 1999 Graded Exercise (Simmons)

+ 1999 Refueling Outage Milestones (Wylle)

• Y2K (Henry)

. Switchyard Modifications (Short)

Zebra Musselinitiative (Hamilton)

• Training Accreditation Renewal & Operator Hot License (Westcott)

' Whte Project is generah on schedule; however some M Project Plan is developed and on schedule. milestones have been missed or rescheduled.

Yellow Project Plan has not been developed and is not No project plan has been developed to date and is overdue or the project is behind schedule. E overdue.

Note:

Analysis provided for each high visbility item lisfri White Manager Sudesh Ce41bhir i

53

r..

INITIATIVES AND HIGH VISIBILITY ISSUES Resolution of If@O findinge lFrans Tw o action requests (26939 and 26944) have been issued to FCS management to provide descrptions of the action plans, status of irrpiemontatson of the action plans, and any results-to-date for each of the 19 NO 1999 plant evaluation f bdings. The due dates for these action requests are W25/99, f or AR 26939, to alow the action plans, status, and results to be presented at the 7/23/99 SARC meeting, and 8/20/99, for AR 26944, to provide the 6 rrenth status to N'O duo on or bef ore 9/17/99.

White l Rams Project lCharrt>ertain Rogress is being rnade on resolving RAW issues. Some of the biggest open issues include; bulding proficiency in use of RAMS; report w rting continues to be a concern although progresa has been made; and resolution of some of the terra is behind schedule,like PQD.

Whle l Work Management Process lWyle An acton plan to address NPO f uldmg WM.1-1 on w ork management durmg the 1999 evaluation, has been revsew ed and approved. A total of seven action tems are included M the plan w th one action completed, four in progress and one w th no proDress. The action plan is scheduled to complete by December of 1999 and w 10 resut h an overal reduction in corrective and non-corrective malntenance backlog and buprovement in the plant's materialcondition and reliabilty. Therofore, portormance on this issue w il remain w hhe untilthe remaining Roms on the action plan ano completed and elf actNeness is montored.

Whte l Improvemente in Preventive Maintenance and Predictive Maintenance Programs lSw eamgin The Prodctive Mantenance hprovement Action Ran is proceedng w ell, a de-brief on the EPRI assessment and E&T lettrix w as conducted this w eek (5-20-99). The window is w hite due to continued problems in the Preventive Maintenance area due to the krpact of RAW on processes and resources. A review by NSRG was requested by System Engineerbg and has affirmed many of the issues already identified by a teamorganized by the Manager-Planning & Scheduling. An action plan has been developed, and is proceeding; how ever,it is too early to assess Rs of f octiveness at addresshg the problems.

1999 Gradod Exercise lSirrmons Exercise scenario submtted 3 days ahead of schedule to filC and FEM 4 on June 8,1999. Dress rehearsal scheduled for June 29,1999. One deficiency and several w eaknesses w are identified during fAny 6,1999, dress rehearsal. Type B root cause by NSRG is in progress for the deficiency.

White l 1999 Refueling Outage Milestones lWylie During the s econd quarter of 1999, four pre-outage milestone dates were m et. Previously,the milestone date for requesting parts on the froren maintenance work was m et. However, recent parts tracking reports indicate that a considerable numberof contingencyparts have been ordered since the May 29,1999 milestone date, in addition, the milestone date (August 21,1999) for all RFO parts on site will not be m et based on current delivery dates for sixitems. However,the deliverydate for these items is currentlybefore the start of the RFO. Acondition report j was identified to document this decline in performance. The impactof these parts requests and subsequent '

deliverydates is in the process of being evaluated for effect on the related RFO work scope. Therefore,for the month of June the performance of this activitity will remain white since a milestone date was missed.

54

INITIATIVES AND HIGH VISlBILITY ISSUES Switchyard Modifications lShort Enhanced processes and controls put in place folow ing the January 21,1999, fast transfer event continue to be effective as no chalenges to the plant have occurred since January 21,1999. The project is on schedule to be conpleted June 28,1999.

Zebra Mussel Controlinitiative lHarriRon Chemetry is currently on track w th the Zebra Mussel acton plan tnat w as approved in 1995. I w as revew ed and considered )

appropriate. The plan wII be updated and reissued w th edtorial changes. The determnations of EAR 95-059 are considered valid. Chertistry intends to provide recogniten training to personnel w ho frequently w ork in the intake structure.

1 White l Training Accreditation Renewal & Operator Hot License lWestcott Operator programs w are successfuty reaccredted in March 1999. Bforts are underwmy to prepare for reaccredtaton of the remaining prograns (ESP, Chans RP, Maintenance) under the irrproved accredtston process in 4th quarter 2000.

l 1

)

WhRe l Y2K l Henry Biorts contriue to complete software dotated assessments wth three assessments rernmining to be for revewed. Masion critical conponent testing and remediation work continues to meet the June 30 date for subnittal of our response to Generic Letter 98-01. An intial draft of the integrated Y2K contingency plan has been conpleted and is being review ed.

1

\

55

1 l

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE BROAD AND LASTING l Strategic Objactive: 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 recurrence.

To address the fundamental causes of problems rather than the symptoms.

Performance Indicators:

. Recurring or Repetitive Condition Reports

= In Progress Condition Reports (Level 1-4), Total and >6 Months Old

. Open Action items (Level 1-4), Total and >6 Months Old

. Number of Repeat Maintenance Activities Key Actions Tairen to date:

Development of a

• Graded" RCA process. l l

Philosophy and procedural changes to Corrective Action program implementatbn. Completed Site-training for l

personnel, INPO just-in-time OE web page.

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

Training was provided to CR owners / responders on CA development.

Development of a methodogy1or use at CR system for post-job critiques.

Analysis:

Although a number of performance indicators have been developed, they don't adequately reflect the organization's ability to document and fix identified problems. Most people do not realize that the f undarnental activity required of them is to find and fix problems. The CR system is our focus, although three are often systems that track problems.

A clear definition of what is an excellent corrective action program needs to be developed.

Yellow Manager Joe Solymossy l

l i

56 s

RECURRING OR REPETITIVE CONDITION REPORTS Level 3 CRs written per month 16 - -

u  :

12 l'

10 --

e-- -

6--

4 - .

2 - -

0 , , , , , , , , ,

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 4 4 I k 8 I $ 4 $ $ k I ,

Definition:

The number of repeat or sirnilar events as indicated in the CR database. These are identified as Level 3 Condition Reports (CRs).

Analysis:

A change in management philosophy caused a significant reduction of level 3 CRs in August 1998. The trend has been relatively steady since, in April 1999, another philosophy and procedural change occurred which also has the potential to lirnit the number of level 3 CRs. The criteria for a level 3 CR is more selective, but also requires the performance of a Root Cause Analysis for prevention of recurrence. No target goal has yet been defhed for this indicator.

White Manager Joe Solymossy Data Source Mike Burggraf I

i 57

9 4

IN PROGRESS CONDITION REPORTS (LEVEL 1-4)

TOTAL AND > 6 MONTHS OLD Level 1 -4 CRs in progress m Total m> 6 Months 800 y 600 E "

400 E - E E " "" - - "

0 i 3 E 8 8 8 8 a 8 8 8 a k b $ $ b h b b h b $ $

Definition:

This indicator shows the total number of in-Progress Condition Reports (Level 1-4) and the total number of in-Progress Condition Reports (Level 1-4) greater than 6 months old, Analysis:

.A concerted offort was made in mid 1998 to reduce the CR backlog. Most actions were essentially done. The documentation had just not been completed. Shce that true, the trend for CRs and Action items has been steady. Target goals have not yet been detned for this indcator.

White Manager Joe Solymossy Data Source Mike Burggraf i

58

OPEN ACTION ITEMS (LEVEL 1-4)

TOTAL AND > 6 MONTHS OLD O p e n A c tio n ite m s Total and > 6 M onths Old v

DTotal m > 6 Months 700 q 600 -

500--

N:~ .l l ] l D i 2 8

E E- E- B-8 E-8 E b E [B- EE i 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

,$ $ s'

< j j $

z o ,$ 4 a s

$ k s

Definition:

This hdicator shows the number of Open Action items on Level 1-4 Condition Reports, and the number of Open Action items greater than 6 months old on Level 1-4 Condition Reports .

Analysis: \

A concerted effort was made h mid 1998 to reduce the CR backlog. Most actions were essentially done. The documentation had just not been completed. Since that tirne, the trend for CRs and Action items has been ,

steady. Target goals have not yet been established for this indicator. i White Manager Joe Solymossy Data Source Mike Burggraf 59 l-

NUMBER OF REPEAT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 16 -

14 -

E6-RAMS Data is not Available.

4-2- l 0 ,

Mar 96 Sep-96 Mar-97 Sep-97 Mar-98 Sep-98 Definition:

The number of corrective maintenance activities that were re-performed (i.e., repeated) within 12 months of the hitial performance of the task. Indicator is being changed from 12 months to 60 days.

Analysis:

RAMS data is not yet avaiable. Data will be available in June.

White Manager Rich Clemens Data Source Mark Ellis  !

60

EXCELLENCE ACHIEVED IN PLANT MATERIEL CONDITION Strategic Objective: To review existing programs and policies, along with equipment histories and provide process improvement and equipment repairs / upgrades that will assure excellent materiel condition through decommissioning and beyond.

Performance Indicators:

• Number of Plant Transients > 20% Caused by Equipment Performance

• Number of Temporary Modifications Caused by Materiel Condition Problems, I greater then 1 fuel cycle. I

- Number of Open Condition Reports (Levels 1-3) Caused by Equipment Problems i I

e Number of Operator Work Arounds Caused by Materiel Condition Problems

• Number of On-Line Control Room Deficiencies

. Non-Outage Maintenance Backlog i

. WANO Performance Indicators (UCLFIHPSIlEACP/FRl/ CHEM) pages 10,12,14,16,17

. Thermal Performance Key Actions Taken to date:

Formed Reliability Engineering Dept. to focus on preventive maintenance, predk:tive rnalnienance and Maintenance Rule programs. l Developed action plan under Maintenance Rule.

l Reviewed Preventive Maintenance processes.

l Results Achieved:

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

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

Maintenance Rule (e)(1) list of equipm6nt exceeding performance criteria reduced from 16 at the beginning of 1998 to 6 items awaiting corrective action completion.

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

Analysis:

Although general plant giaterial condition continues to be good, concems continue due to maintenance backlog and plant thermal performance.

White Manager Mori Core 61

p l

l l NUMBER OF PLANT TRANSIENTS >20%

l CAUSED BY EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE l

l l 3 Monthly Equipment Performance i O Fort Calhoun Goal 0 5-4-

3-2-

1-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , , , , , , , ,

June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan-99 Feb March April May l

Definition:

Number ci Plant Transients > 20% Caused by Equpment Performance is defried as any down-power > 20%

power caused by equpment materiel condition problems. Not included in this hdicator are down-powers >20%

due to human performance errors.

Analysis:

Equpment has not caused a down-power > 20% over the past 12 months. The last down-power of 20% power was on February 2,1999, and was attributed to a human perfonnance error. Additionally, there are no significant equipment outages or concems at this tirne that challenge this indicator.

hNhI$!hhk$ Manager Merl Core Data Source Russ Plott I I t

l 62 I

a L

NUMBER OF TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS CAUSED BY MATERIEL CONDITION PROBLEMS GREATER THAN 1 FUEL CYCLE Ternporary Modif 6catbns >1-f uelcycle old e Ternporary Modif 6catons hstalled as Result of MaterialConditon

- Forf Calhoun GoalTemporary Modificatons 0 8-7 6-5 4

3 2-O O OO O O OO OO OO OO O l 1 - - - - t-----'U ---r- O -----l"'---"' l'--- ' 1 - '- - t j

l 1 $ k I } S $ $

1 l

Definition:

Any Temporary Moddication installed due to equpment deficiencies. Not included in this indicator are procedural temporary modifications that are installed due to equpment calbration, weather conditions, design deficiencies,etc.

Analysis:

The goal for this indicator is 0 temporary modifications installed for greater than one f uel cycle. Currently there are seven temporary modifications installed due to equipment problems. These include, LT-106/LT-101X cross-tie, TIP bypass on security x-ray machine, TE3123 RTD Jumper, FW-161 pin retainer, FW-468 Furmanite, Rubber patch on C/RP building drain header, and removed flow element FE-417.

M h! h Manager Mori Core Data Source Russ Plott 63

NUMBER OF OPEN CONDITION REPORTS (LEVEL 1,2,3)

CAUSED BY EQUIPMENT PROBLEMS Level 1,2,3 Condition Reports Fort Calhoun Goal 20 20 -

18 -

16 -

12 14 - 12 12 -

10 -

8-6-

4-2-

0 i i- e i i i i ., ,

April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Definition:

The indientor is intended to trend open level 1,2, or 3 condition reports that have RS (Reliability) or UF (Unemected failures) in the "Cause" field. Not included in this indicator are maintenance rule condition reports as they are separately trended. Goal for this indicator is less than 20.

Analysis:

There are currently 12 open Level 1,2, or 3 condition reports caused by materiel condition deficiencies. There i were no condition reports added to the list durbg the month of May 1999. Many of the condition reports are historical in nature and reflect equpment problems from many months past and are close to being closed out.

Many of these older condition reports aro waiting on one action item to close.

h[hh Manager Merl Core Data Source Russ Plott 64

i NUMBER OF OPERATOR WORK AROUNDS CAUSED BY MATERIEL CONDITION PROBLEMS 1

OW As Caused by Materiel Condition Deficiencies Fort Calhoun Goal < 5 12 -

10 -

8-6- 4 4 4-2-

0 , , , , , , , , ,

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l

Definition:

An equ'pment materiel condition deficiency that requires compensatory operator actions or complicates plant operations. This is a subset of the established OWA list maintahed by the Operations Department. Not included in this indicator are design deficiencies or other OWAs not directly caused by equ'pment deficiencies.

Analysis:

There are currently 4 OWAs caused by materiel condition deficiencies. The four OWAs include 98-08, draining leakage past deluge valves; 98-06, CH-208 leaks by; 99-08, P.C.-827 controller;99-17, East upper electrical penetration A/C not cooling. During this month, OWA 99-16,AC-7 resin, was removed as an OWA.

hNkkkh Manager Meri Core Data Source Russ Plott i

65

NUMBER OF ON-LINE CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCIES CRDs Caused by Materiel Condition Deficiencies Fort Calhoun Goal < 10 on line CRDs > 15 days old 1

16 -

14 -

12 -

10 -

8- 7 6-2:

0 i i i i i i i i - i Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Definition:

The number of control room deficiencies, as hdicated on the Operations Department CRD list that are caused by materiel condtion problems This is a subset of the established CRD list maintained by the Operations Department. Not hcluded in this indicator are design deficiencies or other CRDs not directly caused by equpment deficiencies. I Analysis:

There are currently 7 CRDs greater than 15 days old caused by a materiel condition deficiency. The goal for this hdicator is 10 or less on-line CRDs that are greater than 15 days old. Of the 7 CRDs three are ready to work, two need configuration changes, one is waithg on ABB/CE for circuit board repair, and one is awaiting disposition. This indicator definkion may change due to program enhancements being considered by the Operations Department.

hMI@MEkN Manager Merl Core Data Source Russ Plott I l

1 se i

NON-OUTAGE MAINTENANCE BACKLOG m Corrective Maintenance O Non-Corrective Maintenance v

800 -- 715 746 693 700 --

600 - SH 547 624 488

~~

448 g 363 .2 0 l l I i l i l l l l l l l f k b $ k I k k Non-OutaRa_RalDtanane W ork Doc.untajit_jlinilag Definition:

This indicator shows how effective and how iniety we are at keeping our plant equpment in excellent working condtion. The data represents the number of backlogged activities at any one time and includes all work requests and work orders.

Analysis:

The goal for this backlog is 200. The actual unplanned back log (not ready) is 387 since 299 documents are ready to print or ready to validate. The backlog is high relative to industry standards and is resource (planner) dependent in most cases. Refuelbg outage work plannbg is currently a high priority. The goal is to have the RFO backlog addressed by June and then resources will focus on the on-line backlog.

White Manager Rick Wylie Data Source Martin Johnson l

l l

l 67

5 '.

Fort Calhoun Station Operating ,

Cycles and Refueling Outage Dates OUTAGE YTD DATE RANGE l PRODUCTION l CUMULATIVE 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 01/16186-03/07/87 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 11/25/96-04/01/98 5,183,108 71,815,678 Cycle 18 06/04/98-10/02/99 l

CURRENT PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS " RECORDS" First Sustained Reaction August 5,1973 (5:47 p.m.)

First Electricity Supplied to the System August 25,1973 Commercial Operation (160,000 KWH) September 26,1973 Achieved Full Power (100%) May 4,1974 Longest Run (477 Days) June 8,1987 September 27,1988 Highest Monthly Not Generation (364,468,800 KWH) October 1987 Most Productive Fuel Cycle (5,451,069 MWH Cycle 13) May 29,1990-February 1,1992 Shortest Refueling Outage (53 days) February 20,1995-April 14,1995 October 4,1996-November 27,1996 68