Text

Performance Indicators, for Mar 1998
	ML20247E451
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	03/31/1998
From:	; OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20247E442	List: LIC-98-0069, Forwards Fort Calhoun Station Performance Indicators, for for Mar 1998; ML20247E451;
References
	NUDOCS 9805180349
	Download: ML20247E451 (59)
	v • d • e

_ ,_.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ - - . - - - -

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION 1

, . ;; 1 . -

I - .

' ' ^~

g - , ;. .

i N N'I

~

cy . . _.

. frv-B PERFORMANCE INDICATORS MARCH 1998 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COST EFFECTIVENESS 7885 188M 3*888883 R PDR

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION

.. e. '

Jw .

y

-L a. .

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS MARCH 1998 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORM.ANCE EXCELLENCE COST EFFECTIVENESS

~~

"J " T d a o'

J L R PDR

i i

1 l Table of Contents / Summary P_ age l TABLE OF CONTENTS /

SUMMARY

. . . . . . . .. . 1 MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT . .. . .. .. .. . . . , . .. .4 WANO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND . . . . .. . . . 5 l WANO PERFORMANCE INDEX INDICATOR .. .. . .. ... . ... . 6 j FORT CALHOUN STATION REPORT

SUMMARY

. .. . . .. 7 l WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Unit Capability Factor . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .9 Unplanned Capability Loss Factor . .. . .. . ... . . .. . . . . . 10 Unplanned Automatic Reactor SCRAMS per 7000 Hours . .. .. . ....... 11 High Pressure Safety injection System . . . .. .. . . . . 12 Auxiliary Feedwater System ... . . . .. . . .... .... . 13 Emergency AC Power System .. .. . .... .. . ... ... ... . .... . 14 Thermal Performance . . . ... ... . .. ... ... ...... . .. 15 Fuel Reliability indicator . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . 16 Secondary System Chemistry . .. ... . . .. . . . . . . . 17 Collective Radiation Exposure .. ... . ... . . .. . ... 18 Industrial Safety Accident Rate .. .. . .. . . . . . 19 Volume of Low Level Radioactive Waste .. .. .. .. . 20 l

SAFE OPERATIONS Disabling injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . .. . .. ... . 22 Recordable Injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate .. . .. ... . . . .. 23

[ Clean Controlled Area Contaminations l >1,000 Disintegrations / Minute per Probe Area . . . . . . . . 24 1

Table of Contents / Summary i

Preventable / Personnel Error LERs .. .. . ... . . . .. . 25 Licensee Event Report (LER) Root Cause Breakdown .. . ... . . 26 Violation Trend .. . .. ... . . . . . . . .. .. . 27 COST ,

l Cents Per Kilowatt Hour . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . 29 1

DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage) . .. .. . . .. . 31 Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintensnee .. .. . .. . . .. ... . . 32 Procedural Noncompliance incidents .. .. .. . .. .... .. . 33 ;

1 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area .... . .. .. . .. 34 l 1

I Radiological Work Prr.ctices Program .. . .. . .. .. .... . . 35 '

Document Review . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . 36 Security incidents . . .. .. . . .. .... ... . . . . . . . . 37 Temporary Modifications . ... . .. . . . . ..... . .. .. .. 38 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . .. .. . 39 Engineering Change Notices Status . . . . . . .. . .... .. . . 40 Open part 1 . . . .. . . .. . . 41 Open part 2 . . . .. . . .. . 42 Licensed Operator Requalification Training .. ..... .. . . 43 License Candidate Exams . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 44 Cycle 18 Refueling Outage MWD Planning Status .. . . . . .. . . 45 Component Testing Department. Special Services Engineering Department 1998 Outage 46 l

Progress of 1999 Refueling Outage Modifications Cycle 19 . . . . 47 Progress of Cycle 19 Outage MODS and ECte Added to 1999 Refueling Outage After Freeze 48 i

I l

i 2

u____----_----

f l

Table of Contents / Summary l

l Progress of 1998 On-Line Modification Planning . . . .... . . . 49 ACTION PLANS. DEFINITIONS. SEP INDEX & DISTRIBUTION LIST Action Plans . . . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . . 51 Performance Indicator Definitions . ... . .. . . 52 Safety Enhancement Program Inoex .. . ... . .. 57 Report Distribution List . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 59 I

3

FORT CALHOUN STATION Monthly Summary Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) operated at a nominal 100% power level during the month of March 1998, until March 24,1998 at 1402 hours0.0162 days 0.389 hours 0.00232 weeks 5.33461e-4 months when a power reduction to 70% was commenced. This reduction was a part of the two step power reduction plan to minimize radiological hazards during the upcoming refueling outage. Reactor power reached 70% on March 25,1998 at 1845 hours0.0214 days 0.513 hours 0.00305 weeks 7.020225e-4 months . Reactor power remained at a nominal 70% until March 28,1998 at 0100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months when a power reduction to 30% was commenced.

Reactor power reached 30% on March 28,1998 at 2230 hours0.0258 days 0.619 hours 0.00369 weeks 8.48515e-4 months . On March 31,1998 at 2140 hours0.0248 days 0.594 hours 0.00354 weeks 8.1427e-4 months the Main Generator was taken Off Line and on April 1,1998 at 0135 hours0.00156 days 0.0375 hours 2.232143e-4 weeks 5.13675e-5 months the Reactor was sub-critical, starting the 1998 Refueling Outage.

WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The overall WANO Performance indensas 80% during the 1st Quarter of 1998. Significant percentage point losses are attributed to the following WANO Performance Indicators listed below:

1. The Unit Capability FactorIndicator, calculated over the previous 24 months, contributed to a 2.4 point loss as a result of unplanned energy losses defined on page 9.

2. The unplanned Capability loss FactorIndicator calculated over the previous 24 months, contribute ( . 6.4 point loss as a result of unplanned energy losses defined on pages 9 and 10.

3. The Fuel Reliability Indicator; calculated over the previous 3 months, contributed to a 8.0 point loss due to increased reactor coolant activity caused by fuel defects on page 16.

4. The 7hermal Performance Indicator, calculated over the previous 12 months, contributed to a 0.9 point loss due to thermal energy losses experienced during reactor power changes and forced oubges defined on Pages 9 and 15.

5. The Collective Radiation Exposure Indicator; calculated over the previous 24 months, contributed to a 1.0 point loss, which was attributed to fuel failures and recent high exposure jobs such as resin shipment and work on AC-7, " Storage Pool Demineralized" on page 18.

6. The Emergency AC PowerIndicator, calculated over the previous 24 months, contributed to a 0.6 point loss, which was a result of on-line maintenance and replacement of relays under ECN95-347, Replace Relays for Seismic Adequacyon page 14.

7. The Chemistry Performance InderIndicator, calculated over the previous 12 months, contributed to a 1.4 point loss, which is due to copper tubes in heat exchangers and mechanical shock to systems in the past year from forced outages defined on page 17.

4

i Fort Calhoun index value

-dr-- Industry Median Index value WANo Median is 86.4%

f FCS GOAL 90 l

91.0 --

88.9 --

86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.8 -- ; ; ; ;

84.7 --

82.6 --

j

~

t 80.5 --

h 78.4 --

)

76.3 -- ,

j 4 74.2 -- ~

f 72.1 -- g .

S 70.0 ' M l 3

l 97/2 97/3 97/4 98/1 WANO PERFORMANCE INDEX TREND The Wano Performance Index Trend calculation is made up of eleven variables, each value is weighted to arrive at an overallindex value. WANO calculates the performance Index value based on the industry reporting the information each quarter. The variables are calculated over a defined period of time as listed below.

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR WEIGHTED FACTOR TIME Unit Capability Factor 16 24 Months Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 12 24 Months High Pressure Safety injection 10 24 Months Auxiliary Feedwater 10 24 Months Emergency AC Power 10 24 Months Unplanned Auto Scrams /7000 Hours 8 24 Months Collective Radiation Exposure 8 24 Months Thermal Performance Indicator 6 12 Months Secondary Chemistry Indicator 7 12 Months industrial Safety Accident Rate 5 12 Months Fuel Reliability Indicator 8 Quarterly 5

18.00 8 16.00 - g 14.00 - N 8 E MAXIMUM VALUE E Fourth Otr '97 E First Otr '98 12.00 - 888 888 8 des dds djy 8 888 8 a 00 =88 ===

8 6.00 - .

kkk

. I I I I I i I I I i UCF UCLF HP31 AFW EACP CRE UAS7 FRI CPI TPI ISAR WANO PERFORa ANCE INDEX INDICATORS This graph shows the dfference between Fourth Qtr 97 and First Qtr 98 actual values achieved by Fort Calhoun.

CALCULATED OVER A 2 YEAR PERIOD MAXIMUM VALUE TREND UCF Unit Capability Factor 16 Increase UCLF Unplanned Capability Loss Factor 12 increase HPSI High Pressure Safety injection 10 No Change AFW Auxiliary Feedwater 10 No Change EACP Emergency AC Power 10 No Change UAS7 Unplanned Auto Scrams / 7000 Hours 10 No Change CRE Collective Radiation Exposure 8 No Change CALCULATED OVER A 12 MONTH PERIOD TPI Thermal Performance Indicator 6 increase CPI Secondary Chemistry indicator 7 Increase ISAR Industrial Safety /weidsnt Rate 5 No Change CALCULATED OVER A QUARTERLY PERIOD FRi Fuel Reliability Indicator 8 Decrease l

l 6

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

SUMMARY

REPORT ADVERSE TREND REPORT POSITWE TREND REPORT A performance indcator wth data representing three A performance indcator wth data representing three cor:secutive consecutive months of declining performan or three consecutive months ofirnproving performance or three consecutive months of months of performance that is trending toward dechning as determined performance that is supenor to the stated goal is exhibning a postive by the Manapr Nuclear Lcensing, constdutes an adverse trend per trend per Nuclear Operations Division Quality Procedure 37 (NOD. Nuclear Operations Drvision Quality Procedure 37 (NOD-OP-37). A QP-37). The following performana indcators exhibned postive supervisor whose performance indicator exhibts an adverse trend by trends for the reporting month: this defintion may specify in written form (to be published in this report) why the trend is not adverse.The following performance Unolanned Automate Reactor Scrams indicators exhibited adverse trends for the reporting month.

(Page 11)

Fuel Rehability Indcator (Page 16)

Hiah Pressure Safety Iniedion Systeer S3fety System Performance (Page 12)

INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED MANAGEMENT Aux Feed Water System Safety Svstem Performance ATTENTION REPORT (Page 13)

A performance indcator wth data for the reporting period that is induttnai Safety ArrMent Rate inadequate when compared to the OPPD goalis defined as Needing (Page 19) Increased Management Attention"per (NOD-QP-37).

Dsablina Inturvalliness Freauency Rate Maintenance Workload Backloo (Page 31)

(Page 22)

Ratio of Pmventnm to Totaf Maintenance Preventive Make ~

ftems OverdJe(Page32)

Contaminated Radiaton Controhed Area (Page34) Temocrary Modme.ations (Page 38) i 7

_ -__ _- i

l l

l WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 8

C Canthg Unit C]:bilitg Frctar N95 Fort eth u al(87.

+ Year 2000 WANO Industry Goa (87%)

100.0% 100.0%

100 % -- - - 96.4% 88.0 %

69 6 % 74 6%g 70% -- -

~

= C 60% -

60% -- #3*I%

~""

40% --

30% --

20% --

10% -- 1 0% ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

1 Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Fe b Mar !

l l

l UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR UCF is defined as the ratio of the available energy generation ever a given period of time to the reference energy ,

gIneration over the same time period, expressed as a percentage. l l

I

UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR AVERAGES: + o Year to Date 12 Month 24 Month 36 Month I

95.8 % 93.8% 80.4 % 81.1 %

Enerov Losses:

Forced Outage-Condenser circulating valve repairs and leakage on Condenser "B" Ev:nt Period: September 10, thru13,1997.

Power Reduction- Faculty Manual Transfer switch on instrument inverter "A" Event Period: August 26,28,1997.

l Forced Outage- Circumferential cracking of a weld down stream of a moisture separator due to high system stresses EvInt Period: May 28, thru May 29,1997.

( Forced Outage- Steam leak in the fourth stage extraction steam system

! Event Period: April through mid May 1997.

l Tha Year 2000 WANO industry goal is 87.7% and the current industry median value is approximately 83.6%. The l mc.ximum index point value for this indicator is 16.00. At the end of the First Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 13.6 which compares to the Fourth Quarter 1997 value of 13.5.

l Dita Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability Chase Trsnd: None 9

l L-_________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

m Monthly Unplanned Capability Loss' Factor

-+- 12-Month Rolling Average Fort Calhoun Goal (3.5%)

-*-- Year 2000 WANo Industry Goal (3.00%)

5& 30 %

60% -- .,

50% --

40% --

30.50 %

30% " 24.50 % i 0.00 % a00% a00%

0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 %

0 0.0'0% 050% O.00 %

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

UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR I This indicator shows the plant monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (UCLF), a rolling '

12-month average, the OPPD goal, and the Year 2000 WANO goal. UCLF is defined as the rctio of the unplanned energy losses during a given period of time, to the reference energy gsnnration expressed as a percentage. Unplanned energy loss is defined as energy not produced as a result of unscheduled shutdowns, outage extensions, or load reductions due to causes under plant management control. Energy losses are considered to be unplanned if they are not scheduled at least four weeks in advance.

UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR AVERAGES >

Year to Date 12 Month 24 Month 36 Month 0% 9.8% 8.7% 7.5%

Tha Year 2000 WANO industry goal is 3.0% and the industry current best quartile value is approximately 3.2%. The maximum index point value for this indicator is 12.00. At the end of ths First Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 5.6 which compares to the Fourth Quarter 1997 value of 5.4.

Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Trcnd: None 10 L _ -_- ___ _.

r 12 Month Rolling Average

--o-- FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Critical for last 36 m onths Fort Calhoun Goal (0.0)

I .- ~~99.7%. The Year 2000 WANO industry goal is 99.6%.~~

~~The maximum index point value for this indicator is G.0. The First Quarter 1996 the FCS Value was 5.7 which compares to the Fourth Quarter 1997 value of 5.5.~~

~~l Data Source: Phelps/Naser(Manager / Source)~~

~~Accountability: Phelps/Naser Trend: None s~~

15

~~m Fuci R:llibl!!ty (E 04 Micracurls:/Grcm)~~

~~-e- Year 2000 WANO Goal (5 E-04 Microcuries/ Gram)~~

~~A End of 1998 Goal (17.3 E-04 Microcuries/ Gram) 250 _~~

~~238 2u b~~

~~o 200 --~~

~~D j 150 - 131 100 --~~

~~E g 50 --~~

~~0 -- -~~

~~, . -o -, -- k ,,~~

~~e .o u >, c -~~

~~en m. ~ > o A E $ 5' $ 5 E $ $ b E $~~

FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR Th3 monthly FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR (FRI) for March 1998 was 214 E-04 microcuries/ gram based on steady state data at 100% power. NOTE: The end of 1997 goal was 147 E-04 microcuries/ gram, and the end of 1998 goal for this indicator is 17.3 E-04 microcuries/ gram.

Coolant activity data through March 31,1998 shows the presence of 33 leaking rods at core average power. If the le: king rods are at 70% or 50% of core average power, the number of leaking rods changes to 56 and 92, r;spectively. The increase in predicted failures from January is primarily due to the increase in Xenon-133. The Cesium data indicates the leaking fuelis most likely in the second and third bumed fuel regions (Batches S and T) which have the original grid design. These batches will be permanently discharged from the reactor core during the spring 1998 refueling outage. However, unusual RCS activity data from early December may indicate the presence of one high power failure from the new fuel region (Batch U) with the new grid design. Confirmation of the fuel region (s) with failures cannot occur until the fuel inspection campaign during the spring 1998 refueling outage.

Tha Cycle 17 monthly FR1 is trending slightly lower than the Cycle 16 FRI at the same time in the fuel cycle due to the large contribution of the lodine-134 from the " tramp" Uranium. The lodine-134 activity is released to the coolant from the tramp activity that is plated out on fuel assembly sudaces due to fuel failures in prior cycles In the FRI equation, the lodine-134 activity is subtracted from the lodine-131 activity. This cycle, the tramp activity is trending two times higher than Cycle 16 while the lodine-131 is trending similar to the Cycle 16 values at the same point in the cycle.

~~ThIreft re, the Cycle 17 calculated FRI value is trending lower.~~

~~Tha p' ant is currently in Action Level 4 Standing Order S0-0-43, " Fuel" Reliability Action Plan", based on the current 33 cor e average power failures.~~

~~Tha macimum index point value for this indicator is 8.0. The First Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 0.0 which compare 3 to the Fourth Quarter 1997 value of 0.3.~~

~~D:ta Source: Guinn/Roenigk (Manager / Source)~~

~~Accountability- Chrse/Stafford Tr;nd: Adverse 16~~

~~E:lllll3 C$nthly Chsml try Indicator 1998 Fort Calhoun Goal (1.01) t 3 --~~

~~2.5 --~~

5

~~'2-l 1.5 -- 1.32 1.32 9 1.14 1.13 ,- 4' 1.05 1. 1 11 1.04 1 5 1 '~~

~~7 d $[l- I -~~

~~, w ,~~

g *

~~?? (% j N /$ d f !6 I )@! % (f7~~

~~& 4( @ 11 $ !;~~

~~8'" ;$ M k $i[ k{~~

~~$ s 1 f a w w g r$ t@~~

~~x y g t 9@ 5 A~~

0 Apr May June Juy Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Fe b Mar SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY Steady state plant conditons required for calculating the Secondary System Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) are as follows:

~~February was consistent with recent trends. Morpholine injection continues and the evaluation on iron reduction continues.~~

The CPI for March 1998 is 1.04. The CPI value for the past 12 months (April 1997 through March 1998) was 1.23. The CPI value in the industry's upper quartile is 1.17. Six parameters cre used in the CPI calculation. Four of the parameters were below the WANO mean value .

~~which are as follows: 1) steam generator chlcride, 2) sulfate, 3) feedwater iron, and condensate pump discharge dissolved oxygen. Slight increase in CPI observed this month due to power~~

~~- reduction for work on Stator Cooling Heat Exchangers. Morpholine injection began this month for iron reduction. Results of analysis are inconclusive at this time. Trending continues.~~

~~The maximum index point value for this indicator is 7.00. The First Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 5.60 which compares to the Fourth Quarter 1997 value of 5.0.~~

~~Data Source: Hamilton /Ostien (Manager / Source)~~

~~Accountability Hamilton~~

~~. Trend: None 17~~

~~Q CRE Par sonn21 Bassd on TLD OTRS m Monthly Personnel Redi: tion Exposurs(ED)~~

~~FCS Goal 224 REM - CRE Based on ED Reading I~~

~~Z5 9" $~~

~~a-l 13, 7 -~~

~~6~g $~~

~~125 5 .O 4 .~~

~~E. 3 -~~

~~2 -~~

~~n .~~

-25 1 2 3 4 .kn Fe Mr 4r My .Ln .U Aq Sp Q:t Nw De COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE The 1998 goal for Collective Radiation Exposure (CRE) at Fort Calhoun Station was established for a Total Dose of 224.0 person-rem, based on TLD readings. Dose is tracked monthly by obtaining Electronic Dosimeter (ED) readings, until the Quarterly TLD readings are obtained. The exposure for March 1998 was 7.660 Person-rem (SRD).

~~Dose FCS Goal Person-Rem First Otr. Second Qtr. Third Qtr. Fourth Otr.~~

Total Person-Rem 224.0 15.302 The total 3 year CRE value, from the First Quarter 1996 through the Fourth Quarter of 1997, w s 405.090 Person-Rem which averages out to 135.030 Person-Rem per year. The Year 2000 WANO industry goal for Collective Radiation Exposure is 107 person-rem per year. The m2ximum index point value for this indicator is 8.00. The First Quarter 1997 the FCS CRE Vclue was 7.0 compared to the Fourth Quarter 1997 CRE Value of 7.0.

~~Data Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source)~~

~~- Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP54 18~~

E

~~-+-- Monthly Indotrial Accident Rate~~

~~-e- 12 Month Robing Average l FCS Year-Eind Goal (<0.40)~~

~~--er - Year 2000 WANO Industry Goal (<0.40) 1.2 ,-~~

~~1.1 L 1--~~

~~0.9 --~~

~~0.8 --~~

~~0.7 --~~

~~0.6 -~~

~~. : : : : : : : : 0 8:1 - # N-0.1 E a -~~

~~0 e 5 c 5 m~~~

c -= = = = - o Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE 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 the indicator. This indicator is defined as the number of accidents per 200,000 work-hours worked for all utility personnel permanently assigned to the station that result in any of following:

+

~~one or more days of restricted work (excluding the day of the accident.)~~

+

~~One or more days away from work (excluding the day of the accident.)~~

~~Fatalities.~~

~~ISAR = (number of restricted-time accidents + lost-time accidents + fatalities) x 200.000 (number of station person-hours worked)~~

Tha Fort Calhoun Station industrial safety accident rate at the end of March 1998 was 0.63. The 12 month rolling cverage (April 1997 through March 1998) was one. The year to date value was 1 at the end of March 1998.

~~There was one restricted-time and one lost-time acccient in March 1998. The 1998 Fort Calhoun year-end goal is 50.40.~~

~~The Year 2000 WANO industry goalis 50.40.~~

~~l The maximum index point value for this indicator is 5.0. The First Quarter 1998 the FCS Value was 5.0 which compares ;~~

~~to the Fourth Quarter 1997 value of 5.0. l Data Source: Sorensen/Blumenthal (M anager/ Source)~~

~~Chase / Booth (Manager / Source)~~

~~Accountability: Chase /Short j Trend: Positive 19~~

~~a Monthly Volume of LLRW(cu.ft.)~~

~~E Year-to-Date Cumulative Radioactive Waste Buried 400 --~~

~~l 300 --~~

~~5 m~~

~~g 200 -- , g ,~~

~~a m .~~

~~8 $~~

~~I 100 -- !~~

~~l I~~

~~O; I : l l l l Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l~~

l VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE This indicator shows the volume of the monthly Radioactive Waste buried and the cumulative y:ar-to-date radioactive waste buried. The Fort Calhoun goal is 800 cu.ft.

~~8 l Ft 8 _m .~~

Amount of solid radwaste shipped off-site for processing during current month : 0.0 0.00 Volume of solid radwaste buried during March 1998 : 3.1 0.09 Cumulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1998 : 147.3 4.17 Amount of solid radwaste in temporary storage : 00.0 0.00 The Year 2000 WANO industry goal is 30 cubic meters (1,071 cubic feet) per year. The industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 27.33 cubic meters (965.3 cubic feet) per year.

~~D:ta Source: Chase /Breuer (Manager / Source)~~

~~Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP54 20 L_____----------------------_--_----.-~~

~~l 4~~

~~1 I~~

~~l l~~

~~l SAFE OPERATIONS Goal: A proactive, self-critical and safety conscious culture is exhibited throughout the nuclear organization.~~

~~Individuals demonstrate professionalism through self-ownership and personalinitiative and open communication. ,~~

~~l 21~~

~~l w- Monthly Disabling injuryllliness Frequency 1998 F.C.S. Year to Date Goal (0.4) 2-1.6 -~~

~~1.2 -~~

~~0.8 -~~

~~0.4 -~~

~~til 0 , ,~~

~~Jan Fe b Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE (LOST-TIME ACCIDENT RATE)~~

~~This indicator shows the March 1998 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate. For the month of March 1998 the disabling injury / illness frequency rate was 0.63. There was ;~~

one disabling injury / illness case reported for March 1998. An employee was performing i Ultra-Sonic Testing underneath some piping in the plant. While working in an awkward position, the person experienced muscle spasms in the lower back. The employee received prin medication for treatment of the injury. 1 1

1 The 1998 Fort Calhoun Station year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum value of l 0.4. j D;ta Source: Sorensen/Blumenthal (Manager / Source)

~~Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: Positive SEP 25,26 & 27 l~~

~~L 1~~

22

~~Monthly Recordable Injury /lbess Frequency Rate~~

~~-+-- 1998 Fort Cahoun YTD Goal (1.5) 3-2.5 -~~

~~2-1.5 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1~~

~~1 0.5 -~~

~~0 0 m 0 : : : : : : : : : : :~~

Jm Feb IWr Apr lWy Jun Jul Aug S@ Oct Nw Dec RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE This indicator shows the monthly Recordable injury / Illness Frequency Rate. A recordable injury / illness case is reported if personnel from any of the Nuclear Divisions are injured on the job and require corrective medical treatment beyond first aid.

~~The recordable injury / illness case numbers for the month of March 1998 were one. The 1998 Fort Calhoun Station year-to-date goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 1.5.~~

~~Data Source: S orensen/Blu menthal (Manager / Source)~~

~~Accountability: Gebers Trend: None SEP 15,25,26 & 27 l~~

23

~~i l~~

~~4 l~~

~~3 Contamination Events (Monthly) '~~

~~s Contamination Events (YTD) 70 - i l~~

~~60 -~~

~~1 l~~

~~60 -~~

~~l l~~

~~40 l l~~

~~30 - j i~~

~~23 I I~~

20 - l 15 10 - 88 0 ,- , , , , , , , , ,

~~Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec j~~

CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS >1,000 DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE AREA This indicator shows the Personnel Contamination Events in the Clean Controlled Area for contaminations >1,000 umntegrations/ minute per probe area for March 1998.

~~There were 8 personnel contamination events in March 1998. The total year-to-date of P;rsonnel events is 23 at the end of March 1998.~~

~~Data Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source)~~

Accountability : Chase /Gebers T'and: None SEP 15 & 54 24 L_______________.____._________. _ . . _ . . _ __. _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

35

~~_ -+-Mal Evenh '~~

30

~~--o- Preventable 18 Month Totals -~~

~~~ /~~
25 - -*- Personal Error 20
'5 '
~
10 ? N _ .
r- x_ ; ;s- -
sj 0
Sep- Oct. Nov . Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May. Jun- Jul-97 Aug- Sep- oct. Nov- Dec- Jan- Fetr 96 .96 96 96 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 98 98 I PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERs This indicator depicts 18-month totals for numbers of " Preventable" and " Personnel Error' LERs.
L Tha graph shows the 18-month totals for preventable LERs, the 18-month totals for Personnel Error LERs, and the Personnel Error totals for each month. The LERs are trended based on the l LER event date as opposed to the LER report date.
l
in February 1998, there were two events which was subsequently reported as LERb. No LER6 o .were categorized as " Preventable" and No LERs were categorized as " Personnel Error' during the l month of February. The total LERs for the year 1998 are two. The total Personnel Error LERs
! for the year 1998 are zero.
Tha year-to-date goal for this indicator is that the year-end values for the 18-month totals not to cxceed 5 Preventable and 2 Personnel Error LERs. ,
NOTE: Due to the way LERs are tracked & reported, this indicator lags by one-month, i l
l D:ta Source: Tills /Matzke (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Chase Trcnd: None SEP 15 i 25
Misc 10%
Th0'
'N r ,hg Admin
[fh.h
.p . ..
g.
OY.
l l' Y/"
c Design .
h 30 % E l
l V;
a t :'
Lo Err.
13%
Maint.
7% other Err. g 10%
LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN This indicator shows the LERs by event date broken down by Root Cause Code for each of the l past eighteen months from September 1,1996, through February 28,1998. To be consistent I with the Preventable / Personnel Error LERs indicator, this indicator is reported by the LER event date, as opposed to the LER report date.
Ths cause codes are intended to identify possible programmatic deficiencies. For detailed l descriptions of these codes, see the " Performance Indicator Definitions" section of this report. l l
NOTE: Due to the way LERs are tracked & reported, this indicator is one-month behind. !
Th:re were two events in February 1998 that resulted in LERs. There were no missed !
surveillance tests resulting in LERs during February 1998. The 1998 Fort Calhoun monthly )
go:1 for this indicator is 0. l l
Data Source: Tills /Matzke (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Chase j l Trend: None SEP 60 & 61 ;
l 26
i l
sem anen j SNP m FCSCatedViola6ons(Monthly) J O' '
} SN.P m FCS Non44ted Vloistions (Monthly) 14 -y 3 0-12 -f w_
C -L 12 I e i D -
k 8- l 6 -ri -
8 -
y 5 E 4 _f ( _.
8' - - d 3
~~: .g.~~
m o
oos,c
~~; i , , , ,~~
.i 3 12 VIOLATION TREND This indicator depicts twelve months of violation data for Fort Calhoun Station. Illustrated monthly are Cited Violations and Non-Cited Violations. The current SALP cycle began on ,
August 3,1997 and ends on Jcnuary 30,1999. l The following inspection reports noting violations were received during March 1998:
]
Violation Level IER Na Title IV (2) 98-02 Quality Assurance Program Inspection (3/25/98)
NCV (2) 98-03 Security (3/27/98)
To date, OPPD has received twenty seven violations for inspections completed in the current SALP cycle.
Level lll Violations 1 Level IV Violations 15 Non-Cited Violationt 11 Total 27 The 1998 Fort Calhoun Station Goal for this performance indicator is to be at or below the cited violation trend for the top quartile plants in Region IV.
D:ta Source: Tills /Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Tills Trcnd: None 27 l -
\
\
COST S
Goal: Operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as an economically viable contribution to OPPD's bottom line.
Cost consciousness is exhibited at all levels of the organization.
28
12 Month Rolling Average
-+-- Actual -e- Budget -o- Plan 3.50 -
a 3.00 -
~~= =+= =~~
2.50 -
2.00 -
1.50 -
1.00 444444j4444444444EE5E EEEEEN2 EkEEE?$5EE CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR February 1998 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 12-month rolling average for the current year. The basis for the budget curve is the approved 1998 revised budget. The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating Report.
Tha December 31 amounts are also shown for the prior years 1993 through 1997. In addition, the report shows the ptn amounts for the years 1999 through 2002 for reference. The basis for the dollars 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-rnonth rolling average unit price period of ( March 1997 through February 1998) averaged above the budget due to 12-month rolling expenses exceeding the budget and the 12 month budgeted generation also exceeding the budget. The 12 month rolling average (03/97 through 02/98) is 2.75 cents per kilowatt hour.
The year-to-date average is trending in a positive direction.
Cents ner KWH Jan Feb haar Anr May Jun Jul Aun Sen Oct Nov Dec Budget Y T D 3.02 2.85 3.16 4.03 3.71 3.45 3.28 3.12 3.03 2.98 2.91 2.85 Actual Y-T-D 2.96 2.85 NOTE: This information lags by a month due to the short tum around required for processing.
Data Source: Lounsberry/Belek (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Lounsberry Tr;nd: None 29 t
f L_ ---- - - - - -
DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS !
Goal: Achieve high standards at Fort Calhoun Station resulting in safe, reliable and cost effective power production.
l 30
m Corrective Maintenance m Preventive Maintenance i i Non-Corrective /PlantImprovements Fort Calhnun Goal (200) 800 -- 713 674 636 644 700 -- 630 592 571 538 600 -- 557 500 --
400 --
300 --
200 -
100 --
0 , . , , , , , , , ,
$ $ b Non-Outage Maintenance Work Document Backlog N TalidlMQi PERCENT oF MWD'S PAsT GOAL BY PRIORITY N g PRI - 2 PRI - 3 SD- 0% 69.8%
e.
$ 2 83 T._ i M i , w i Roh Roh Roh Roh Roh PRI - 4 1 2 3 4 5 52 %
PR l 1 0%
MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOG This indicator shows the backlog of non-outage Maintenance Work Documents remaining open ct the end of the reporting month. It also includes a breakdown by maintenance classification and priority. The 1998 goal for this indicator is 200 non-outage corrective maintenance MWDs.
The current backlog of corrective MWDs is 303 to ensure that the MWD backlog is worked in a timely manner, non-outage maintenance completion goals have been established as follows:
GQAl Priority 1 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months Priority 2 7 days Priority 3 30 days Priority 4 90 days Priority 5 As resources permit The Corrective Maintenance workload backlog goal is 200 for 1998.
Data Source: Chase / Johnson (Manager / Source) '
Accountability: Chase /Clemens Trcnd: Needing increased Management Attention SEP 36 31
R atio of Pre ve n tiv e to Total M ainte n a nce 100% - 84% 90%
74% 77% 74 % 76% +79%
80% - 75% 75%
e 0% - i i i i i i i i i k $ k $ $ b h b b h m Preventive Maintenance items Overdue Fort Calhoun Goal 2%
7% --
6.02 %
6% -- 5.50 %
5% --
4% --
~~3. ED 3% -- 2.50% 2.40%~~
2.04%
I 2% --
1% - 0.56 % 0.56% 0.30 %
0.20%
0% E I I I
" i I I I I I I I I I I j k I I 5 $ $ .4 $ $
RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE ,
The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total i completed non-outage maintenance. The ratio of preventive to total maintenance was 75% for l the month of March 1998.
The lower grs shows the percentage of scheduled preventive maintenance items that were l not completec. Jy the late finish date. From the period of February 15th thru March 15th l there were 30 PMk that were completed late or not completed out of 487 scheduled.
The 1998 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for the percentage of preventive maintenance items overdue is a maximum of 2%.
D;ta Source: Chase / Johnson (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Chase /Clemens Trend: Needing increased Management Attention SEP 41 & 44 32
Human Performance CRs (Maintenance) 2 0 --
18 --
16 --
14 14 - -
$ 12 --
4 g 10 --
o o 8--
d 6 2 6--
1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I
> e -
A a a - > u e g -
E' & 8 a & o & 8 A u. Q PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS 1 (MAINTENANCE)
This indicator shows the number of Condition Reports related to procedural noncompliance incidents assigned to the Maintenance Department.
Data Source: Clemens/Burgg raf (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Chase /Clemens l
Trcnd: None SEP 15,41 & 44 33
m Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area 1998 Fort Calhoun Goal (5'/4 6% --
5% - 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%
4%--
3% --
2% --
1%--
0% i i i I I i 1 1 l l 1 I Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA This indicator shows the percentage of the Radiologically Controlled Area (RCA) that is contaminated based on the total square footage of 70475. At the end of March 1998, the total contaminated area was 3383 square feet which is 4.8 percent of the RCA . The monthly FCS goal for 1998 is a Maximum of 5% Contaminated Area.
I D:ta Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Chase /Gebers i Trend: Positive SEP 54 I
l 34 i
_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
m Montnly Poor Radiation Worker Practices e Total PRWP for 1998 1998 Fort Calhoun Goal (<20) 25 -
20 -
15 10 5 3 0 0' O
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June JuV Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM The Radiological Work Practices Program Indicator shows the number of Poor Radiological Work Practices (PRWPs) which were identified during the reporting month.
The number of PRWPs which are identified each month should indirectly provide a means to qualitatively assess supervisor accountability for their workers' radiological performance. This indicator needs increased management attention due to a 3 month increasing trend of poor radiation worker practices based on YTD.
During the month of March, there was O PRWP identified.
There have been a total of 3 Poor Radiation Worker Practices in 1998.
The 1998 FCS goalis <20 PRWPs, the 1997 goal was <15 PRWPs.
Data Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Chase /Gebers Trend: None SEP52 3!,
3 Documents Scheduled for Review I 3 Document Reviews complete during month O Documents Overdue 350 --
300 --
0 i i -
4 Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Fe b Mar 1997-1998 DOCUMENT REVIEW The Document Review indicator shows the number of completed, scheduled, and overdue (greater than 6 months past the scheduled due date) biennial reviews for the reporting month.
The documents reviews are performed in-house and include Special Procedures, the Site Security Plan, Maintenance Procedures, Preventive Maintenance Procedures, and the Operating Manual.
During March 1998, there were 147 document reviews scheduled, while 122 reviews were completed. At the end of the month, there were 73 document reviews more than 6 months overdue. There were 15 new documents initiated during March 1998.
Data Source: Ponec/Plath (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Ponec Trend: None SEP 46 36
35 3o _
( 25 -
20 - l. .
.f*'.., l .
~~Y ~*s, N.~~
~
Y 5-0 , , i i ; ;
i i i ; i i JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NoV DEC 98 Loggables E 98 Non-Loggables 97 Loggables ---+ - 97 Non-Loggables SECURITY INCIDENTS The Loggable and Non-Loggable Incident (Security) Indicators are depicted in tl:e following chart.
The chart depicts the total number of loggable and non-loggable human error events, syste m failures and access denials which occurred during the reporting month.
During the month of March 1998, there were 30 loggable incidents and 22 non-loggable incidents identified. 31% of allincidents recorded this month were human error events. 29% percent of all incidents were access denials. Of loggable events,27% were human performance errors and 53%
wsre system failures. 38% of the loggable system failures were enviro nmental. There were sixteen (16) human error events, eleven (11) being intemal. There were eight (8) security force erro r events during the reporting period, two (2) of which were loggable. Internal human error event s continue to be an organizational focus.
This indicator provides information on security performance for Safety Enhancemen t Program (SEP)
Item No. 58.
Data Source: Sefick/ Clark (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Sefick Trend: None SEP 58 37
m Temporary Modifications >1-fuel cycle old (RFO required for removal) m Temporary Modifications >6 months old (Removable on-line) l - Fort Calhoun Goals for both Temporary Modifications' categories 3.5-3 3-2.5 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 2-1.5 -
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-0.5 -
0 -
l Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nw Dec Jan Feb Mar TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS This indicator provides information on the number of Temporary Modifications (TMs) greater than one fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage (RFO) for removal and the number of TMs removable on-line that are greater than six months old. The 1998 Fort Calhoun monthly goals for both of the TM categories are zero.
At the end of March 1998, there were two (2) TMs that were greater than one-fuel cycle old requiring an outage for removal. TM 96-014, Reactor Coolant Gas Vent Line Pressure High Alarm, was installed April 22,1996. Repairs for this TM were completed during the 1996 RFO, but the reactor coolant gas vent line pressure is stin high. MR-FC 011 was initiated to solve this problem and currently DEN is planning the modification. MR-FC-97-011 is expected to be completed during the 1998 RFO. TM 96-018, Equipment Drain Header Soft Rubber Patch was installed June 16, 1996. MWO 963468 has been written to replace the piping and is currently scheduled for the 1998 RFO.
At the end of March 1998, there was one (1) TM installed that was greater than six months old that could be removed on-line. TM 96-039, Railroad Siding / Corridor 26 Door, was installed November 1,1996. EAR 97-219 will close this TM. EAR 97-219 requires Component Testing review and approval. EAR 97-219 is expected to be completed by May 1,1998.
At the end of March 1998, there was a total of twenty (20) TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Station. Thirteen (13) of the twenty (20) installed TMs require an RFO for removal and seven (7) are removable on-line. In 1998, a total of alght (8) TMs have been installed. At the end of March 1998, there were seven (7) procedural or maintenance configuration alterations (PMCAs) (a special classification of TM) installed in the Fort Calhoun Station using PRC approved procedures which are controlled by Standing Order 0-25.
Data Source: Phelps/ Frank (Manager / Source)
Accountability- Phelps/ Core Trend: Needing increased Management Attention SEP 62&71 38
50 -- E A R s R eq uirin g En gin ee rin g Clos e c ut . Not in Clo se c u t de--
l 30 -- 20 26 25 0 -
I l
t I -
1 Jan Feb M ar Jan Feb M ar Jan Feb M ar Jan Feb M er 0 3 M ontna 3 6 M onthe 612 M o nth s >12 M onths O Engineering Response E Closeout (SE) 30 - 25 20 --
l12 10 10 -
1 3 1 1 3 0 '
1 1 o
1 o o '
Pdority 0 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 8 Closeout " 4e's ns e e.
'";;"" 'se.::::
164%
ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST BREAKDOWN This indicator shows a breakdown of the number of EARS assigned to Design Engineering and System Engineering. The 1998 year-end goal for this indicator is a maximum of 120 outstanding EARS.
The Total EAR breakdown is as follows:
EARS opened during the month 17 EARS closed during the month 25 Total EARS open at the end of the month 117 Dcta Source: Jaworski/Uvingston (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Phelps/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 62 39
30 86 344 CLOBEOUT DEN o3 3,
6 M o n th a 9% 20% M o n th a b6 s to ECN STATUS - OVERALL BACKLOG E Backlogged Q Received a Com pleted 3 03 htrif1s 160 .126 112 102 100 s2 es M 34 Oct Nov Dec Jan Fe b M ar E DESIGN ENGINEERING m Backlogged 3 Received c Com ple ted 1 3-6 Months 90 - 77 74 74 to 8.6%
!! hIr1.,l..A 10 - Oct Nov Dec L
Jan Feb M er
'#"D be SYSTEM ENGINEERING m e..ni..... c3 n....... . c.......
300 ggg ggs $31 338 337 24S see sa m iss '
65 ese is se - '*
' 8 8 * '
g _
o.: a.. o.. a.. e.. m., 2.s weares PROCUREMENT / CONSTRUCTION 87M OO - 40
. ......... o ....... o c....... ,,;>,,,, ,
44 g 3 g.0 % 3 Ste. nth.
3, 7 O 13 o.: n.. o.. a.. F. e M., :
6blonths 56.4 %
DRAFTING / CLOSEOUT ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager / Source)
Accountability Jieworski/Phelps Trend: None SEP62 40
81 98 Priority Priority 79 97 5&6 42 DC TYPE 18% 22 %
F C TYPE 262 P SRI M E Total Open ECNs = 438 Tota lOpen E CNs=438 Engmmg M 5
117 120- 114 107 101 25 67F/o 19 17 12 16 21 t 41 42 3 #*
60 2 4 $$
1 1 40- 4 RonlyS86 20- 4 45 42 38 41 0 l I I I I I Od Pty Dec Jan Feb ihr Fec%ChangeIKNsOpen ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN Data Source: Jaworski/Livingston (Manager Source)
Accountability- Phelps/Jaworski Trend: None SEP62 41
SibeALhRephimnerthECNsOpen aN 300' TcafFCEENsCinn 52 2 10 -
8 5 0 175 E 5 50 -
27 3 25 3 3 y 3 M 2
Ckt M ftwe7 Dec M An48 RN18 Mur-08
gem 8'3"._Y4%EIm x 2 Tcal M PHority 586 g Oct Itw Dec Jan Feb Mar ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN So J ki/L ston (Manager Source)
Trend: None SEP 62 42
I or einin ours D Non Requellfication Training Hours E Num bor of Exem Fellures 38 -- 34
_33 g, 30 --
28 --
22 20 -- q, 16 '-- 4 4 2 2 2 0
=10 ~ 8 8 i g g g ,
" ~
e 3
8 e a
~
o 0 0 0 Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle C ycle Cycle C y cle Cycle Cycle 98 7 97 1 97 2 97 3 97 4 97 6 97 6 97 7 98 1 LICENSED OPERATOR REQUAllFICATION TRAINING This indicator provides information on the total number of hours of training given to each crew during each cycle.
Tha simulator training hours shown on the graph are a subset of the total training hours. Non-Requalification Trcining Hour:: are used for AOP/EOP verification & validation, INPO commitments, GET, Fire Brigade, Safety Meetings, and Div!sion Manager lunches.
Ex:m failures are defined as failures in the written, simulator, and Job Performance Measures (JPMs) segments of the Licensed Operator Requal?"ication Training.
Note: Rotation 97-6 was the Annual Licensed Operator Regentification Examination rotation for 1997. There were Three (3) individual and one (1) crew sirnulator exam failures during rotation 97-6. All remediations were completed prior to the end of the exsm week.
Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)
Accountability: Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 l
43 1
I 1 . ..
5 SRO Exams Administered a SRO Exams Passed D RO Exams Administered D RO Exams Passed 10 --
77 77 5-0 0
0 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS - 1998 This indicator shows the number of Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Reactor Operator (RO) quizzes and exams trtn and passed each month. These intemally administered quizzes and exams are used to plot the SRO and RO candidates' monthly progress.
During the month of March 1998, there were no (SRO) or (RO) training classes in session. The next license class is scheduled to begin in July,1998.
Data Source: Conner /Guliani(Manager / Source)
Accountability- Conner /Guliani Trend: None SEP 68 44
ERandymWrk OTawog MWD M1[B soso pg seaa.. ses sss
% ,174
~~4 g}4 uno- '" ,~~
5m.. 1 >
g m 818 d",
Od47 tbO7 Doo47 .lan418 Fat >98 Mar 48 MWD PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 18 REFUELING OUTAGE)
This indicator shows the total number of Maintenance Work Requests (MWRs) and Maintenance Work Documents !
(MWDs) that have been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 18 Refueling Outage. This graph indicates:
1 Parts Holds - Planning Complete, Awaiting Parts System Engineering Holds - Awaiting System Engineering input to Planning Planner Holds - Maintenance Planner has not completed planning the work ptsckage.
- ECN Hold - Awaiting Substitute Replacement items ECN from DEN.
- in Review - Planning Complete awating SE, ISI and QC review.
D;ta Source: Chase / Johnson (Manager / Source)
Accountability. Chase / Herman Trend: None SEP 31 1
45
ELAST DTHIS O FOR SCHEDULE 8
8"8 88 8 88 8 8 8 8 100 .. g" ""
g" "I "
gr g.
8 "_
90 - g N 8 8 80 -- R 70 --
g 60 --
E 50 --
0 S 40 .
30 --
20 --
10 --
0 W E -
I = 3F 5 I 53 % a- ! si .]g Ei i
=
" h{
E
$w
!G t 8 bg o*
5 y '$ & i G9 2 COMPONENT TESTING DEPARTMENT AND SPECIAL SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1998 OUTAGE PROJECTS STATUS REPORT Dita Source Phelps/Bloyd/Boughter (Manager / Source)
Accountability; Phelps/Bloyd/Boughter Trend: None SEP 31 46
~~ENe a TargetEcue 6'15/99 Seem sea .~~
4/16/99 -
32M9-E a a a a e e a a a a m 3 rim 2/15/99 ' ' ' ' '
s s e e - " e s x s a 2
55 2
m 2
a 2
a l l 2a 2
a 2
o 2a 2
5
. PROGR.ESS OF 1999 REFUELING OUTAGE MODIFICATIONS CYCLE 19 Thb indicator shows the status of Modifications approved for installation during tre Cycle 19 Refueling Outage (September 1999).
The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages which were identified prior to March 31,1998, PRC approved by March 18,1999.
I l
March 1998 Modifications added: 0 Deleted = 0 Data Source: JaworskiiWalling (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 l
l 47 L___
NO DATA AVAILABLE k
PROGRESS OF CYCLE 19 OUTAGE MODS AND ECNS ADDED TO 1999 REFUELING OUTAGE AFTER FREEZE DATE This indicator will show the status of Modifications and ECNb approved for installation during the Cycle 19 Refueling Outage. The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages PRC approved by their target date.
March 1998 Modifications ECN6 /dded = 0 Deleted = 0 I
Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 33 l
I k
48 l
g
I I
1 I
. Actual PRC Date a Target PRC Date i
l l
7/30S 8 - a i
6/30S 8 - a a i 5/31/98 -
5/1/98 -
4/1S8 -
3/2S8 - ;
l 1/31/98 E 8 8 I 222 PROGRESS OF 1998 ON-LINE MODIFICATION PLANNING l l
This indicator shows the status of modifications approved or in review for approval for on-line installation during '
1998.
The goal for this indicator is to have all modification packages PRC approved by their scheduled date.
March 1998 Modifications Added: 0 Deleted: 2 Data Source: Jaworski/ Walling (Manager / Source)
Accountability: Gambhir/Jaworski Trend: None SEP 31 I
i l l 49 i i
'O .
4 L 1
ACTION PLANS SEP INDEX &
DISTRIBUTION i LIST 50
[
ACTION PLANS This section lists action plans that have been developed for the performance indicators cited as Adverse Trends during the montn preceding this report. Also included are Action Plans for indicators that have been cited in the preceding month's report as Needing increased Management Attention for three (3) consecutive months.
In accordance with Revision 5 of NOD-OP-37, the following performance indicators would !
require action plans based on three (3) consecutive months of performance cited as "Needing Increased Management Attention":
1
. Fuel Reliability Indicator (page 16)
Based on the current number of predicted fuel failures and expectation that future fuel failures will be identified, Fuel Performance functional area performance is considered to be POOR for 1st quarter of 1998. The plant is currently in " Action Level 4" in accordance with Standing Order 0 43," Fuel Reliability Action Plan," based on the current number of core average power failed rods (33).
i l
l 1
I l 51
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITONS & SEP INDEX j i
l l
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR INDEX push-buttons) provided in the main control )
room. !
This indicator index is calculated from a weighted combination of eleven performance indicator values, 4) Critical means that during the steady-state which include the following: Unit Capability Factor, condition of the reactor prior to the scram, the Unp?anned Capability Loss Factor, HPSI, AFW, effective multiplication (k ,,) was essentially
)
j Emergency AC Power System, Unplanned Automatic equal to one Scrams, Collective Radiation Exposure, Fuel Reliability, ( Page 11)
Thermal Performance, Secondary System Chemistry, ,
and Industrial Safety Accident Rate. HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM l
( Page 6 ) SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE l UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) I unavailable hours and the estimated unavailable hours {
The ratio of the available energy generation over a for the high pressure safety injection system for the j given time period to the reference energy generation reporting period divided by the critical hours for the
{
(the energy that could be produced if the unit were reporting period multiplied by the number of trains in the l operated continuously at full power under reference high pretsure safety injection system. '
cmbient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage. ( Page 9 ) INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE - INPO UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR This indicator is defined as the number of accidents per 200,000 man-hours worked for all utility personne!
The ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given permanently assigned to the station that result in any of period of time, to the reference energy generation (the the following:
Energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient 1) One or moie days of restricted work (excluding conditions) over the same time period, expressed at a the day of the accident);
percentage. ( Page 10 ) 2) One or more days away from work (excluding the day of the accident); and UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REA0 TOR SCRAMS PER 3) Fatalities.
7,000 CRITICAL HOURS Contractor personnel are not included for this indicator. l (Page 12 )
This indicator is defined as the number of unplanned tutomatic scrams (RPS logic actuations) that occur per AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months of critical operation. PERFORMANCE The value for this indicator is calculated by multiplying The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) the total number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams unavailable hours and the estimated unavailable hours in a specific time period by 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months , then dividing foi the auxiliary feedwater system for the reporting that number by the total number of hours critical in the period divided by the critical hours for the reporting same time period. The indicator is further defined as period multiplied by the number of trains in the auxiliary follows: feedwater system.( Page 13 )
i
1) Unplanned means that the scram was not an EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY l anticipated part of a planned test. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
~~2) Scram means the automatic shutdown of the The sum of the known (planned and ur, planned) ,~~
reactor by a rapid insertion of negative unavailable and the estimated unavailable hoursfor the l reactivity (e.g., by control rods, liquid injection emergency AC power system for the reporting period system, etc.) that is caused by actuation of the divided by the number of hours in the reporting period reactor protect %n system. The signal may multiplied by the number of trains in the emergency AC have resulted from exceeding a set point or power system.( Page 14 ) !
spurious. j j 3) Automatic means that the initial signal that THERMAL PERFORMANCE
) caused actuation of the reactor protection j system logic was provided from one of the The ratio of the design gross heat rate (corrected) to the sensor's monitoring plant parameters and adjusted actual gross heat rate, expressed at, a conditions, rather than the manual scram percentage. ( Page 15 )
switches or, manual turbine trip switches (or l
52
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITONS & SEP INDEX FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR Collective radiation exposure is reported in units of person-rem. This indicator tracks radiological work l This indicator is defined as the steady-state primary performance for SEP #34. ,
coolant 1-131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium ( Page 18 )
contribution and normalized to a common purification -
r-te. Tramp uranium is fuel which has been deposited INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE on reactor core intemals from previous defective fuel or is present on the surface of fuel elements from the The purpose of thir, indicator is to monitor progress in manufacturing process. Steady state is defined as improving industrial safety performance for utility cocinuous operation for at least three days at a power personnel permanently assigned to the station.
level that does not vary more than + or-5%. Plants Contractor work-hours are not included in this indicator, should collect data for this indicator at a power level (Page 19 )
(bove 85%, when possible. Plants that did not operate at steady-state power above 85% should collect data VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE for this indicator at the highest steady-state power level WASTE cttained during the month.
This indic; tor is defined as the volume of low-level solid The density correction factor is the ratio of the specific radioactive waste actually shipped for burial. This volume of coolant at the RCS operating temperature indicator also shows the volume of low-level radioactive (540 degrees F., Vf = 0.0217) divided by the specific ' waste which is in temporary storage, the amount of volume of coolant at normal letdown temperature (120* radioactive oil that has been shipped off-site for F ct outlet of the letdown cooling heat exchanger, Vf = processing, and the volume of solid dry radioactive 0.0163), which results in a density correction factor for waste which has been shipped off-site for processing.
FCS equal to 1.33. ( Page 16 ) Low-level solid radioactive waste consists of dry active waste, sludges, resins, and evaporator bottoms SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY generated as a result of nuclear power plant operation PERFORMANCE INDEX and maintenance. Dry radioactive waste includes contaminated rags, cleaning materials, disposable The Chemistry Performance index (cpl) is a calculation protectfve clothing, plastic containers, and any other based on the concentration of key impurities in the material to be disposed of at a low-level radioactive secondary side of the plant. These key impurities are waste disposal site, except resin, sludge, or evaporator the most likely cause of deterioration of the steam bottoms. Low-level refers to all radioactive waste that is generators. Criteria for calculating the CPI are: not spent fuel or a by-product of spent fuel processing.
This indicator tracks radiological work performance for
~~1) The plant is at greater than 30 percent power; and SEP #54. ( Page 20 )~~
~~2) the power is changing less than 5% per day. DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE (LOSS TIME ACCIDENT RATE)~~
The CPI is calculated using the following equation:
This indicator is defined as the number of accidents for CPI = ((sodium /0.79) + (Chloride /1.52) +(Sulfate /1.44) + all utility personnel permanently assigned to the station, (Ir"n/3.30)
. + (Copper /0.30)+(Condensate 02/2.90))/6 involving days away from work per 200,000 man-hours worked (100 man-years). Thit. does not include Where: Sodium, sulfate, chloride and condensate contractor personnel. This indicator tracks personnel d3 solved performance for SEP #25,26 & 27. (Page 22 )
oxygen are the monthly average blowdown RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES concentrations in ppb, iron and copper are monthly time FrtEQUENCY RATE weighted average feedwa;er concentrations in ppb.
The denominator for eaof the five factors is the INPO The number of injuries requiring more than normal first median value. If the monthly average for a specific aid per 200,000 man-hours worked. This indicator p:rameter is less than the INPO median value, the trends personnel performance for SEP #15,25 and 26.
median value is used in the calculation. ( Page 23 )
( Page 17 )
l CLEAN CONTROLLED AREA CONTAMINATIONS t I COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE 1,000 DISINTEGRATIONS / MINUTE PER PROBE ,
AREA {
Collective radiation exposure is the total extemal whole- J body dose received by all on-site personnel (including The personnel contamination events in the clean contractors and visitors) during a time period, as controlled area. This indicator tracks personnel measured by the thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). performance for SEP #15 & 54. ( Page 24 )
53
- - - - - )
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITONS & SEP INDEX PREVENTABLE / PERSONNEL ERROR LERa calibration and radiallon protection.
Th's indicator is a breakdown of LERs. For purposes of LER 5) Design /Constructionlinstallation/ Fabric cvent classification, a " Preventable LER" is defined as: ation Problem - This cause code covers a full range of programmatic deficiencies An event for which the root cause is personnel error (i.e., in the areas of design, construction, inappropriate action by one or more individuals), inadequate installation, and fabrication (i.e., loss of administrative controls, a design construction, installation, control power due to underrated fuse, installation, fat;rication problem (involving worts completed by equipment not qualified for the or supervised by OPPD personnel) or a maintenance environment, etc.).
problem (attributed to inadequate or improper upkeep / repair of plant equipment). Also, the cause of the event must have 6)- Equipment Failures (Electronic Piece-occurred within approximately two years of the " Event Date" Parts or Environmental-Related specified in the LER (e.g., an event for which the cease is Failures) - This code is used for spurious attributed to a pmolem with the original design of the plant failures of sixtronic piece-parts and would not be considered preventable). failures due i meteorological conditions such as lightning, ice, high winds, etc.
Fer purposes of LER event classification, a " Personnel Error" Generally, it includes spurious or one-time LER is defined as follows: failures. Electric components included in this category are circuit cards, rectifiers, An event for which the root cause is inappropriate action on bistables, fuses, capacitors, diodes, !
the part of one or more individuals (as opposed to being resistors, etc. I attributed to a department or a general group). Also, the in addition this indicator reports SEP # 6 & l Inappropriate action must have occurred within 61,(Page 26) approximately two years of the " Event Date" specified in the I
LER. Additionally, each event classified as a VIOLATION TREND this indicator is defined as Fort
' Personnel Error" should also be classified as Calhoun Station Cited Violations and Non-Cited
" Preventable." This indicator trends personnel Violations trended over 12 months. Additionally, performance for SEP ltem #15. ( Page 25 ) CitedViolations for the top quartile Region IV plant istrended over 12 months (lagging the Fort l LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE CalhounStation trend by 2-3 months). It is the BREAKDOWN FortCalhoun Station goal to be at or below the cited violation trend for thetopquartileRegion IV plant. l This indicator shows the number and root cause code ( Page 27 ) I
. for L!censee Event Reports. The root cause codes are I es follows: CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR
1) Administrative Control Problem - The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the Management and supervisory deficiencies economical operation of Fort Calhoun Station. The that affect plant programs or activities (i.e., cents per kilowatt hour indicator represents the budget poor planning, breakdown orlack of and actual cents per kilowatt hour on a twelve-month adequate management or supervisory average for the current year. The basis for the budget control, incorrect procedures, etc). carve is the approved yearly budget. The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating Report.
~~2) Licensed Operator Error- This cause ( Page 29 )~~
~~code captures errors of omission / commission by licensed reactor operators during plant activities.~~
3) Other Personnel Error- Errors of omission / commission committed by non-licensed personnel involved in plant activities, i i
4) Maintenance Problem - The intent of this I cause code is to capture the full range of l
, problems which can be attributed in any I l way to programmatic deficiencies in the i maintenance functional organization, j Activities included in this category are i maintenance, testing, surveillance, i 54 i i
Y- _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ . _ _ _
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITONS & SEP INDEX MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD BACKLOGS PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS This indicator shows the backlog of non-outage (MAINTENANCE)
M;intenarve Work Documents remaining open at the end of the reporting month. Maintenance classifications The number of identified incidents conceming tra defined as follows: maintenance procedural problems, the number of closed irs retr.ted to the use of procedures (includes Corrective - Repair and restoration of equipment or the number of closed irs causod by procedural components that have failed or are malfunctioning noncompliance), and the number of closed procedural End ars not performing their intended function. noncompliance irs. This indicator trends personnel performance for SEP #15,41 and 44. ( Page 33 )
Preventive - Actions taken to maintain a piece of equipment within design operating conditions, CONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED AREA prevent equipment failure, and extend its life and are performed prior to equipment failure. The percentage of the Radiation Controlled Area, which includes the auxiliary building, the radwa'te building, Non-Corrective / Plant improvements - Maintenance and areas of the C/RP building, that is contaminated cctivities performed to implement station based on the total square footage. This indicator tracks improvements or to repair non-plant equipment. performance for SEP #54. ( Page 34 )
Maintenance Work Priorities are defined as: RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM Emergency - Conditions which s!gnificantly degrade The number of identified poor radiological work station safety or availability. practices (PRWPs) for the reporting month. This i indicator tracks radiological work performance for SEP f immediate Action - Equipment deficiencies which #52. ( Page 35 ) i significantly degrade station reliability. Potential for unit shutdown or power reduction. DOCUMENT REVIEW (BIENNIAL)
Operations Concern - Equipment deficiencies which The Document Review Indicator shows the number of hinder station operation. documents reviewed, the number of documents scheduled for review, and the number of document
. Essential- Routine corrective maintenance on reviews that are overdue for the reporting month. A cssential station systems and equipment. document review is considered overdue if the review is ,
not complete within six Non-Essential - Routine corrective maintenance on months of the rassigned due date. This indicator tacks l
non-essential station systems and equipment. performance for SEP #46. ( Page 36 )
Plant improvement - Non-corrective maintenance SECURITY INCIDENTS cnd plant improvements.
The total number of security incidents for the reporting This indicator tracks maintenance performance for month depicted in two graphs. This indicator tracks SEP #36. ( Page 31 ) security performance for SEP #58. ( Page 37 )
RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS i
& PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE l The number of temporary mechanical and electrical !
The ratio of preventive maintenance (including configurations to the plant's systems. l surveillance testing and calibration procedures) to the !
sum of non-outage corrective maintenance and 1) Temporary configurations are defined as preventive maintenance completed over the reporting electrical jumpers, electrical blocks, I period. The ratio, expressed as a percentage, is mechanical jumpers, or mechanical blocks calculated based on man-hours. Also displayed are the which are installed in the plant operating percent of preventive maintenance items in the month systems and are not shown on the latest that were not completed or administrative!y closed by revision of the P&lD, schematic, the scheduled date plus a grace period equal to 25% of connection, wiring, or flow diagrams.
the scheduled interval. This indicator tracks preventive maintenance activities for SEP #41. ( Page 32 ) 2) Jumpers and blocks which are installed for Surveillance Tests, Maintenance Procedures, Calibration Procedures, i
1 55 L-_-_--_-------------------_------_------
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITONS & SEP INDEX I
Special Procedures or Operating LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS 1 Procedures are not considered as temporary modifications unless the jumper This indicator shows the number of SRO and/or RO or block remains in place after the test or quizzes and exams that are administered and passed procedure is complete. Jumpers and each month. This indicator tracks training performance blocks installed in *est or lab instruments for SEP #68.
are not considered a.5mporary ( Page 44 )
modifications.
MWD PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 18 REFUELING
3) Scaffold is not consideroJ a temporary OUTAGE) modification. Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for which Mrs have been This indicator shows the total number of Maintenance submitted will be considered as temporary Work Requests (MWRs) and Maintenance Work ,
modifications until final resolution of the Documents (MWDs) that have been approved for l MR and the jumper or block is removed or inclusion in the Cycle 18 Refueling Outage. This is permanently recorded on the drawings. indicator tracks performance #31 This indicator tracks temporary ( Page 45) modifications SEP #62 and 71.
( Page 38 ) SPECIALSERVOES ENGINEERING 1998 OUTAGE PROJECTS STATUS REPORT ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR)
CREAKDOWN This indicatgr tracks performance for SEP # 31.
( Page 46)
This indicator shows a breakdown, by age and priority of the EAR, of the number of EARS assigned to Design PROGRESS OF 1998 REFUELING OUTAGE Engineering Nuclear and System Engineering. This MODIFICATIONS CYCLE 18 indicator tracks performance for SEP #62. ( Page 39 )
This indicator shows the status of Modifications ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) STATUS approved for installation during the Cycle 18 Refueling Outage The nunt,er of ECNs that were opened, ECNs that ( March 1998). This indicator tracks performance for w:re completed, and open backlog ECNs awaiting SEP # 31. ( Page 47 )
completion by DEN for the reporting month. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #62. ( Page 40 ) PROGRESS OF CYCLE 18 OUTAGE MODS AND ECN'S ADDED TO '98 REFUELING OUTAGE AFTER ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICES OPEN FREEZE DATE This indicator breaks down the number of Engineering This indicator will show the status of Modifications and Change Notices (ECNs) that are assigned to Design ECN's approved for Installation during the Cycle 18 Engineering Nuclear (DEN), System Engineering, and Refueling Outage. This indicator tracks performance for Milntenance. The graphs provide data on ECN Facib SEP #33. ( Page 48 )
Changes open, ECN Substitute Replacement items open, and ECN Document Changes open. This Progress of 1997 On-Line modification Planning indicator tracks performance for SEP #62.
( Page 41 &42)) This indicator shows the status of modifications approved or in review for approval for on-line LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION installation during 1997. This indicator tracks TRAINING performance for SEP # 31.
( Page 48 )
The total number of hours of training given to each crew during each cycle. Also provided are the simulator training hours (which are a subset of the total training hours), the number of non-REQUAllFICATION training hours and the number of exam failures. This indicator tracks training performance for SEP # 68. ( Page 43 )
l L
l 56 I
I L--_-____-_____
SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM lNDEX The purpose of the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Performance Indicators index is to list performance indicators related to SEP items with parameters that can be trended.
SEP Reference Number 15 East e increase HPES and IR Accountability through use of Performance Indicaters Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) ..... . . ..... . . .. . . 33 Recordable injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate .... .... .... .. . . .. . .. .. 23 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations ?.1,000 Disintegratims/ Minute Per Probe Area . . , . .. 24 Preventable / Personnel Error LERs ... ... .. . . . . ...... .... .. . . .... 25 SEP Reference Numbers 25. 26. & 27
~~Training Program for Managers and Supervisors implemented~~
. Evaluate and implement Station Standards for Safe Work Practice Requirements e implement Supervisory Enforcement of Industrial Safety Standards Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate . . . . ... . ........ . . .. ...... .. . .. .. 22 Recordable Irjury/ Illness Cases Frequency Rate .. . .. ....... . . . . . .. . . 23 SEP Reference Number 31 e Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Manual and Conduct Project Management Training MWD Planning Status (Cycle 18 Refueling Outage) ..... .. .... . .. ... ... . .... 45 Component Testing Department, Special Services Engineering Department 1998 Outage Projects . . . . . 46 Progress of 1999 Refueling Outage Modifications Cycle 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ............. 47 Progress of 1998 On-Une Modification Planning . . ... .. . .. ... .. .. .... ... . . 49 eAP_Referenceliumbat33
Develop On-Line Maintenance and Modification Schedule Progress of Cycle 19 Outage MODS and ECN6 Added to99 Refueling Outage After Freeze Date . ... 48 SEP Reference Number 36 e Reduce Corrective Non4utage Backlog Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... .... 31 SEP Reference Numbers 41 & 44
Develop and implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule e Compliance With and Use of Procedures Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue . .. .. ... . 32 l
Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) .. . .. ..... .. . . 33 SEP Reference Number 46 Design a Procedures Control and Administrative Program Document Review .... .. .... . ... . ... ........ ......... .... ... ..... . ..... 36 l 1
j 57 f
i I
SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM lNDEX SEP Reference Number 52 Eaan e Establish Supervisory Accountability for Workers Radiological Practices Radiological Work Practices Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 SEP Referenca Number 54 e C+mfi implementation of Radiological Enhancement Program Collective Radiation Exposure . ..... ... ........... .................................... 18
. Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Clean Controned Area Disintegrations >:,1,000 Counts / Minute Per Probe Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area . ... ................................... ....... 34 SEP Reference Number 88 e Revise Physical Security Training and Procedure Program Security inedents ......... ....................... ......... . ......................... 37 SEP Reference Numbers 80 & 81 e Impeuve Controls Over Surveillance Test Program
. Modify Computer Program to Correctly Schedule Surveillance Tests licensee Report LER Root Cause Breakdown Number of Missed Surveillance Tests resulting in Licensee Event Reports ...... ...... ....... . 26 SEP Reference Number 82
. Establish interim Systsm Engineers Temporary Modifications ...................... .. .... .. .............................. 38 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Engineering Change Notice Status ...... .... ..... . ...... ................... ....... 40 Engineering Change Nobces Open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., 42 SEP Reference Number 88
. Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Training and establish means to monitor Operator Training License Operator Requalification Training ................... .. . ...... ... ... .. ........ 43 License Candidate Exams .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 SEP Reference Number 71 e improve Controls over Temporary Modifications Temporary Modifications ... .. ............... .. ...... .. . ... ...... ...... 38 58
REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST D. J. Bannister J. K. Kellams K. L. Belek R. L. Jaworski G. C. Bishop J. W. Johnson C. E. Boughter D .D. Kloock C. J. Brunnert J. B. Kuhr (11 Copies)
C. A. Carlson L.T.Kusek J. W. Chase S. A. Lindquist R.G. Conner B. R. Livingston ,
J. E. Cook T. J. Mcivor i J.R. Goodell K. A. Miller M.R. Core R. J. Mueller J Pat Cronin R. L. Phelps T. R. Dukarski R. L. Plott j M. L. Ellis W.J.Ponec R. P. Clemens R. T. Ridenoure S. K. Gambhir D. G. Ried J. K. Gasper M. J. Sandhoefner W.G. Gates F. C. Scofield S. W. Gebers H. J. Sefick M. J. Guinn R. W Short R. H. Guy R. D. Spies (2 Copies)
A. L. Hale K. E. Steele B. R. Hansher D. E. Spires R. K. Hamilton M. A. Tesar K. R. Henry J. J. Tesarek ;
J. B. Herman J. W. Tills R.P.Hodgson D. R. Trausch C. K. Huang L. P. Walling G. R. Williams 59 r.
SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM lNDEX The purpose of the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Performance Indicators index is to list performance indicators related to SEP items with parameters that can be trended.
SEP Reference Number 15 Eagg
Increase HPES and IR Accountability through use of Performance Indicators Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . ........ .. ....... . .... . . 33 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . ... . . .. ...... . ........ 23 Clean Controlled Area Contaminations >.1.000 Disintegrations / Minute Per Probe Area
. . . .. . . 24 Preventable / Personnel Error LERs . ........ .. . ........ ... . ..... . ... .... . . 25 SEP Reference Numbers 25. 26. & 27
Training Program for Managers and Supervisors implemented e Evaluate and implement Station Standards for Safe Wost Practica Requirements e implement Supervisory Enforcement ofindustrial Safety Standards Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate . ... .. .. ....... .. .... ....... ....... . ... 22 Recordable injury /lliness Cases Frequency Rate . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... .... ... ....... 23 l
SEP Reference Number 31 e Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Manual and Conduct Project Management Training ;
MWD Planning Status (Cycle 18 Refueling Outage) ........... ... .... ......... .......... 45 I Component Testing Department, Special Services Engineering Department 1998 Outage Projects . . . . . 46 j Progress of 1999 Refueling Outage Modifications Cycle 19 . ....... .. ......... .. . ........ 47 Progress of 1998 On-Line Modification Planning ...... .. ..... .......... ... ..... ..... 49 l
SEP Reference Number 33
. Develop On-l.ine Maintenance and Modification Schedule Progress of Cycle 19 Outage MODS and ECN6 Added to99 Refueling Outage After Freeze Date ...... 48 SEP Reference Number 36
Reduce Corrective Non-Outage Backlog Maintenance Workload Backlogs (Corrective Non-Outage) . . ..... .. ... .... .... .. .. 31 SEP Reference Numbers 41 & 44
. Develop and implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule a Compl'ance With and Use of Procedures Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue .. . ..... 32 Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .... 33 SEP Reference Number 46 Design a Procedures Control and Administrative Program Document Review . ........ . .. ...... ..... .... . ... ... . .... .... .............. 36 57
i SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM lNDEX SEP Reference Number 52 Eagg ,
I e Establish Supervisory Accountability for Workers Radiological Practices Radiological Work Practices Program . . . .. .... ... ... .. . ...... ..... .. .. . . 35 SEP Reference Number 54
. Complete implementation of Radiological Enhancement Program Collective Radiation Exposure . . ...... .. . .. .. ..... . ... . ... . ..... ... 18 i Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Weste . .... . .. . .... . ........ .... ... . .. 20 I Clean Controlled Area Disintegrations ti,000 Counts / Minute Per Probe Area . . . . . . . . . . .... . 24 Contaminated Radiation Controlled Area .............. .. .. ............ ....... ..... 34 SEP Reference Number 58
. Revise Physical Security Training and Procedure Program l Security incidents ...... ...... ....... . ............... . ............ .. . .... . . 37 SEP Reference Numbers 60 & 61 i improve Controls Over Surveillance Test Program
. Modify Computer Program to Correctly Schedule Surveillance Tests licensee Report LER Root Cause Breakdown Number of Missed Surveillance Tests resulting in I.icensee Event Reports .. .... ... . .... .. 26 SEP Reference Number 62
. Establish interim System Engineers Temporary Modifications ......... ... .......... .. . ...... . ..... .. ........ . 38 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown ,... ........ .. ... ... ............. 26 Engineering Change Notice Status ........ .. . ......... .... ..... .. .. .... 40 Engineering Change Nobces Open ...... .. . ...... ... .. . .... .. ..... ...... . 42 SEP Reference Number 68
. Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Training and establish means to monitor Operator Training License Operator Requalification Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . ....... . ........ 43 License Candidate Exams .... ..... ... ... .... ... ......... ...... ....... ... .... 44 SEP Reference Number 71 L
e improve Controis over Temporary Modifications Temporary Modifications ............. ... . .. . ...... .. . ... ... .... . . . . 38 58
REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST D. J. Bannister J. K. Kellams K. L. Belek R. L. Jaworski G. C. Bishop J. W. Johnson C. E. Boughter D .D. Kloock C. J. Brunnert J. B. Kuhr (11 Copies)
C. A. Carlson L.T.Kusek J. W. Chase S. A. Lindquist R.G. Conner B. R. Livingston J. E. Cook T. J. Mcivor J.R. Goodell K. A. Miller M.R. Core R. J. Mueller Pat Cronin R. L. Phelps T. R. Dukarski R. L. Plott M. L. Ellis W.J.Ponec R. P. Clemens R. T. Ridenoure S. K. Gambhir D. G. Ried J. K. Gasper M. J. Sandhoefner W.G. Gates F. C. Scofield S. W. Gebers H. J. Sefick M. J. Guinn R. W Short R. H. Guy R. D. Spies (2 Copies)
A. L. Hale K. E. Steele B. R. Hansher D. E. Spires R. K. Hamilton M. A. Tesar K. R. Henry J. J. Tesarek J. B. Herman J. W. Tills R.P.Hodgson D. R. Trausch C.K. Huang L. P. Walling G. R. Williams i
i l
1 l
59
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . __ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ML20247E451

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

= =+= =

Navigation menu

Search