Text

Performance Indicators Rept, Jul 1993
	ML20056G531
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	07/31/1993
From:	; OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20056G527	List: LIC-93-0233, Forwards Fort Calhoun Station Performance Indicators Rept, Jul 1993; ML20056G531;
References
	NUDOCS 9309030235
	Download: ML20056G531 (97)
	v • d • e

-

_un. ramerstrares::::m = ra FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS cv Ill www.

h Jiiiig JULY 1993 SAFE OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE EXCELLEMCE COST EFFECTIVENESS P KO 85 R PDR .

i

[

kud of eunHana w aav audnh,... l d tau >dns wisden, wnd sowndjudg anal... l il w a, bjden, canwu 'n ng cenandsawal... l e

dwa,way,g?p,...dwdo&ng,Ljob \

91l L /Asl 6, weuj, 6. <9l w !

tavns-dimhd, ul & mull of eizhnad, ;

g_ _,aw _ ge _ & s. ;

an, am wnd L pnub, wnd solb,%lian, thal cens lnen, kng L 914 knd of l pean,, uljud in, dn&ng L 9hl thiaup. l Jaa- ). o'e-. l l

l l

.------_-A

OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT I

Prepared By:

Production Engineering Division System Engineering Test and Performance Group l

l JULY 1993 l

l f

FORT CALHOUN STATION JULY 1993 MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT OPERATIONS SUMMAPl -

Nominal full power operation continued through the month of July. The station was moderately impacted by high Missouri River level throughout most of the month due to abnormally high rainfall amounts. On July 9,1993, the river level was high enough to flow into both the east and west chemical lagoons. Portions of the parking lot were also flooded. The river dropped below lagoon level on July 11. On July 16, the river level again reached that of the chemical lagoons.

By July 19, the river receded and remained below lagoon level for the rest of the month. No nuclear safety related functions were threatened.

On July 8, OPPD was notified that 10 of 10 candidates passed the NRC license examinations.

This resulted in the addition of five (5) new RO licenses, three (3) Instant SRO Licenses and two (2) SRO Upgrade Licenses.

The stan of the next refueling outage has bee-n deferred one week because of the June 24,1993 ;

reactor trip. Breakers are now scheduled to open on September 25,1993. l The following NRC inspections were completed during this reponing period:

IER No. Descriotion 93-05 Annual Emergency Preparedness Exercise 93-11 Monthly Resident Inspection 93-12 Special Inspection on June 24,1993 Plant Trip ;

The following LERs were submitted during this reporting period:

LER No. Description ;

i 93-010 Failure to Address low Halon Tank Pressure Following Surveillance Test ,

934)11 Reactor Trip on Loss of Load During Switchyard Maintenance Source: Nuclear Licensing & Industry Affairs 1

l l

i

, 12 Month Valu' Performance Cateoorles I

j LUnplannedj Unplanned LAutomatici . Thermal Q Performance in Industry Upper 10% and better Unit jCapability.^ Scrams /7,0000 i; Performance .. than 1993 OPPD goal Capability Loss Factor; Hours'Criticali Factor

' ii Performance Better Than

! i 1993 OPPD Goal l

l ii 'I ii!'

AfiW d'af4ty- EDG Safety - '

Fu'bi Performance Not Meeting l HPSI Safety $yspnj l System Re INi)lly -

System l 1993 OPPD Goal or '

l Pefformache l Performance Ipdicaldr i Industry Median Performance li i I (M#nidnihs ! ,

l l '

! I l

Volume of i

t l Chemsttg Collective tow.teve, Lindustrial - April May Je Ihdei Fladiation Radioactive ,

" 33 33 3 l Exposure Waste x Acht:

(1993 months uly 1993 1

' ~

only) 12 Month i Value :

Performance !

INPO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Performance for the twelve months from August 1,1992 through July 31,1993.) l e

e

.--w--_ . --. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _-e. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ -, --e. -, -,-- _-w..-..___+_e.._--n, - - _ _

,,-.--_--r-. , - - . . . _ _ . . . . _ . _

I 7 Auto 1 i : Scrams ;

j i); 12 Month Value Performance Cateaories 3 Performance Better Than Peer Average Trend 1 Safety;. ~ Significant :

System:: ; Events 1- ,

Actuations;: _l Performance Better Than 1993 OPPD Goal m .

Performance Not Meeting 1993 OPPD Goal or Peer Average Trend S

System Forcedi Failures Autage -

(. Rate .-

April May June 3

%l? (lNl} , 7 (E@lpmen'tj uly 1993

Forced e Collective

{Ostages/1,000i Val Radiation Performance

. Crits Hrst Exposure NRC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (Safety System Failures and Significant Events ratings are averages for April 1991 through March 1993. All other indicator values are for the twelve months a from August 1,1992 through July 31,1993.)

i FORT CALHOUN STATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS REPORT JULY 1993'-

SUMMARY

1 POSITIVE TREND REPORT INDICATORS NEEDING INCREASED MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REPORT l' The Positive Trend Report highlights Performance Indi- .

Th.is section lists the in. dicators which show inadequacies i

! cators with data representing continued performance when compared to the OPPD goal.

above the stated goal and indicators with data represent- ,

l ing signifcant improvement in recent months.

The following indicators have been selected as exhibiting Number of Control Room Eeulement Deficiencies a positive trend for the reporting month: p The total number of control room equipment deficiencies '

for the reporting month (59) exceeds the 1993 monthly ;

- Thermat Performance g alof a mamum of 45. !

(Page 30)

J Thermal performance values have been better than the Vblations Per 1000 insoec' ion Hours 1993 goal for three consecutive months.

Py @ l Secondary System Chemistry The number of violations per 1,000 inspection hours for !

the 12 months from 7/1/92 through 6/30/93 is 1.80, which i exceeds the 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals of a

.e s ndary system chemistry performance index vah maximum of 1.5. j ues have been better than the 1993 goal for three con-secutive months.

Forced Outace Ra's .

(Page 22) [

The forced outage rate for the twelve months from 8/1/92 l through 7/31/93 (5.2%) is above the 1992 and 1993 Fort {

End of Positive Trend Report Calhoun goals of a maximum of 2.4% i Unofanned Automatic Reac'or Scrams ner 7.000 Hours Critica!

(Page 26) !

. The number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams per l

ADVERSE TREND REPORT 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical for the reporting month (1.44) ex- g coeds the 1993 goal of 0. t

A Performance Indicator which has data representing

! three (3) consecutive months of declining performance Unclanned Sa'etv System Aduations (NRC Definition)

-{

constitutes an adverse trend. The Adverse Trend Report (Page 28) explains the conditions under which certain indicators The number of NRC unplanned safety system actuations

{

i are showing adverse trends. year-to<! ate (2) exceeds the 1993 Fort Calhoun goal of f O.

l l

4 The following indicator exhibited an adverse trend for tha Percent of Comoleted Scheduled Maintenance Activities J reporting month. fall Crats) }'

(Page 50)

Number of Pers,onnet Errors Resorted in LERs The percent of completed scheduled maintenance activi- l

, (Page 5) ties for all crafts for the reporting month (69.9%)is less An adverse trend is indicated based on 3 consecutive than the 1993 rnonthly goal of 2851 months of increasing values for the percentage of total =

LERs submitted year-to-date that have been attributed to in-Line Chemistrv instruments Out-of-Service -

personnel error. (Page 51) -

The number of in-line chemistry instruments out-of-ser- 7 End of Adverse Trend Report. vice for the reporting month (17)is above the 1993 j monthly goal of a maximum of 5.

Encineerino Assistance Recuest Breakdown (Page 60) l The total number of EARS open at the end of the report- !

ing month (155) exceeds the 1993 Fort Calhoun goal of i 150. !

End of Management Attention Report.

f IV f l

t

+

e. -

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REPORT IMPROVEMENTS / CHANGES This section lists significant changes made to ths report ,

and to specific indicators within the report,since the pre-vious month.

INPO and NRC annunciator windows (Pages ii and lii)

Rectangles have been added to indicate past months 12 month value performance categories. Categories have been revised.

Number of Control Room Ecuioment Deficiencies (Page 14)

The graphs, text and goals for this indcator have been revised. ,

Percentace of Tota

MWOs Comoleted Per Month identi-fied As Rework (Page 47) '

This indicator has been added to the report.

MWO Plannino Status fCvele 15 Refuelino Ou' ace) l (Page 67)

The graph and text for this indcator have been resed j for clarity.

e End of Performance indicator Report improvements / ,

Changes Report i

t I

i 1

e i

i l

l v

l

Table of Contents / Summary :

1 I

' l GOALS ...

-X I

i SAFE OPERATONS Efgf5 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACCIDENT RATE / DISABLING INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE. 2 ;

RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES '

FREQUENCY RATE.. . . . . .. . . . .3 CONTAMINATONS >5.000 DPM/100 CM8_.._ - _ . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ .4 NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ERRORS REPORTED IN LERs .. . . - ...........5 SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES - .-

.. .6 SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY:

INJECTON SYSTEM - . . . . - . . . . . . . .7 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM 8 EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.9 FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR 10 !

EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY . . . . . . . . . 11 .

EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR RELLABILITY (25 DEMANDS) - . . . . .. . .. . 12 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY . .13 NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES _ . . . . .14 COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE (persaremb 15 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATON EXPOSURE (mrem)-- .. .. . 16 VOLATONS PER 1,000 INSPECTON HOURS . ..

. - - .17 SIGNIFICANT EVENTS - - - - . . -18 NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RESULTING IN LERS . _ _ . . . . .19 i PERFORMANCE f2GE 1

I 21 STATON NET GENERATON (10.000 Mwh) .. . . . . .

FORCED OUTAGE RATE. - 22 i

Vi 1

i

. i

. .. l l

PERFORMANCE (continued) f%E EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR- . . . . 23 UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR... -24 UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR . . . . - . . . 25 UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 HOURS CRITICAL ,... .. . . - . . . 26 i UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(INPO DEFINITION)- - . . . . - . . . 27 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(NRC DEFINITION) -- - . - . . . . .. . 28 GROSS HEAT RATE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 THERMAL PERFORMANCE.. - . . . .. . 30 DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT (Mwth) . . . . 31 EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS . ... . .. . .. . 32 COMPONENTFAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

.. ... .. .. . 33 REPEAT FAILURES - . . . . . . . . ... .- . 34 CHECK VALVE FAILURE RATE .. ... . . 35 VOLUME OF LOW. LEVEL SOUD RADIOACTIVE WASTE toube to. . . . . . . . . . .. - . 36 PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERCENT OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT . .. . 37 P

CHEMISTRYINDEX/ SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . , . .. . 38 AUXILLARY SYSTEM (CCW) CHEMISTRY PERCENT OF HOURS OUTSIDE STATION LIMITS.. . . . . - . . , . . 39 COST fME CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR . . . - . . . - . . . .. 41 STAFFING LEVEL ..-.. . . . . - .. .. 42 SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE -.. . 43 DIVISION AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PAGE MAINTENANCE WORK ORDER BREAKDOWN (CORRECTIVE NON-OUTAGE).. . ... 45 vii L

~

DIVISON AND DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (continued) EAGE i

RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE l 8 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE = .. .46 i PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL is1 VOs COMPLETED PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK.. . _ .. .. 4 7 MAINTENANCE OVERTIME . .

.. 48 )

PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE

. . . . .._ ,. 4 9 i INCIDENTS (MAINTENANCE). . . . .

PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES (ALL MAINTENANCE CRAFTS).. ..._.. . . . . . . _ . . ,. .50 IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT.OF-SERVICE . .. .. ..~. . 51 l HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED (Kg) . . .52 DECONTAMINATED RADIATION l CONTROLLED AREA.. .. .. .. . .. .. . 53 RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM . . . . .. .. 54 NUMBER OF HOT SPOTS., . . . , . . . . 55 i DOCUMENT REVIEW . . . . . . 56 LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE [

INCIDENTS (SECURITY) . . . . .. . 57 TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS.. ... .. . ... . . . . 58 OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS . . . _ . . . . . . .59 ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE l REQUEST (EAR) BREAKDOW'l . ._ . . . .. . 60 ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTCE STATUS - .. . . . _ . 61 ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE BREAKDOWN. .. .. . 62 LER ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN . . . - .. . . . . .. 63 LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFCATION TRAINING. ..- . .. . ... . . . . . . . 64 LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS .. . . . . . . 65 OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORTS AND INCIDENT REPORTS ... .. . . ~ . . .. 66 MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 15 REFUELING OUTAGE) .. .

. . - 67 (WERALL PROJECT STATUS (CYCLE 15 REFUELING OUTAGE) _ .. . ... . . . 68 PROGRESS OF CYCLE 15 OUTAGE MODIFICATION PLANNING . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . 69 viii r

PAGE !

ACTON PLANS. DEFINITONS. SEP INDEX a DISTR!BUTION LIST ACTON PLANS FOR ADVERSE TRENDS. .. . 70 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITONS _ . . _ . . . 72 SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX.. . . . . . _ . . 79 REPORT DISTRIBUTON LIST . .. _.. . .. . . . _ . . 81 i

I 1

ix

OPPD NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION GOALS Vice President - 1993 Priorities

-l MISSION l The safe and reliable generation of electricity for OPPD customers through the professional use of nuclear technology. The Company shall conduct these operations prudently, efficiently and effectively to assure the health, safety and pmtection of all personnel, the general public and the environment.

GOALS Goal 1: SAFE OPERATIONS To ensme the continuation of a " safety culture" in the OPPD Nuclear Program and to provide a professional working environment, in the control room and throughout the OPPD nuclear organi-zation, that assures safe operation.

1993 Priorities:

Improve SALP ratings.

Impmve INPO rating.

Reduce 1993 NRC violations with no violations more severe than level 4.

No unplanned automatic reactor scrams or safety system actuations.

Goal 2: PERFORMANCE To strive for Excellence in Operations utilizing the highest standards of performance at Fort Calhoun Station that result in safe reliable plant operation in power production.

1993 Priorities:

Impmve Quality, Professionalism, and Teamwork.

Improve Plant Reliability.

Meet or exceed INPO key parameters and outage performance goals.

Reduce the number of human performance errors.

fin 3131 COSTS '

Operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as a viable source of electricity.

1993 Priorities: :

Maintain total O & M and Capital expenditures within budget.

Streamline work processes.

Goals Source: Scofield (Manager)

X

l l

SAFE OPERATIONS l l

Goal: To ensure the continuation of a " safety culture" in the OPPD Nuclear Program and to provide a professional work-ing environment in the control room and throughout the ,

OPPD Nuclear Organization that assures safe operation.

1

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

I i

. 4 1993 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate .j l

-M- 1992 Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate 1.6 - .

-O- Fort Ca!houn Goal ( 0.50) l GOOD l !

1.4 - ,

V i

--b- 1995 INPO Industry Goal . l l

1-f 0.8 - [

0.6 -

C G----G----C 3 D ,

' l 0.4 -

, 0.2 - !

" 4 4 ^ l 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct - Nov Dec93 DISABLING INJURY / ILLNESS FREQUENCY RATE (LOST TIME ACCIDENT RATE)

This indicator shows the 1993 disabling injury / illness frequency rate. The 1992 dis- ;

abling injury / illness frequency rate is also shown. l The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for January through July 1993 was 0.45. '

There were no lost time accidents reported for the month of July. The total number of lost time accidents that have been reported during 1993 is 2. The 1993 disabling injury / i illness frequency rate goalis a maximum value of 0.50. The 1995 INPO Industry goalis ;

5;0.50.

~

The disabling injury / illness frequency rate for the past twelve months is 0.52.

The industry upper ten percentile disabling injury / illness frequency rate for the twelve months from 1/92 through 12/92 is approximately 0.14. ,

Data Source: Sorenson/Skaggs (Manager / Source) ;

Accountability: Chase / Richard Adverse Trend: None SEP 25, 26 & 27 .

r

l 5- 1993 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency Rate

--X- 1992 Recordable injury / Illness Frequency Rate 4.5 -

IGOODI

-O- 1993 Foft Calhoun Goal ( 2.0) y 3.5 -

3-2.5 -

2- C C C C C C C C C C C C i X

1.5 -

,_ fy 0.5 -

0 , , , , , , , , , , , , ;

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FREQUENCY RATE This indicator shows the 1993 recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate. The 1992 recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate is also shown.

A recordable injury / illness case is reported if personnel from any of the Nuclear Divi-sions are injured on the job and require corrective medical treatment beyond first aid.

The recordable injury / illness cases frequency rate is computed on a year-to-date basis. i The recordable injury / illness rate for January through July 1993 was reported as 1.80. ,

There were 4 recordable injury / illness cases reported for the month of July. The cases were: a knee injury, a finger laceration and 2 cases of burns on hands. There have ,

' been 8 recordable injury / illness cases in 1993. !

The recordable injury / illness rate for the past twelve months is 1.95.

The 1993 goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 2.0.

i Data Source: Sorenson/Skaggs (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Richard Adverse Trend: None SEP 15,25,26 & 27 ,

3 -

l

. . .j l

Personnel Contamination Rate ,

t O Outage Goat (1.5) ,

. --O- Non-Outage Goal (0.4) l l

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO' l g 1.4- l 2 6

$1.2- )

n.

3 1-e ,

h 0.8-0.6 -

y 0.4 - ;

O i Q- 0.2 - t

-?

O l 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 !

CONTAMINATIONS >5,000 DPM/100 CM2 This indicator shows the Personnel Contamination Rate for contaminations >5,000 dpm/ .

100 cm2 for the reporting month. 2 contaminations occurred during July 1993. The !

contaminations were: 1) An individual received a skin contamination while kneeling {

when watching the CCW flush and performing a closeout inspection of the pipe. A i particle was believed to have come from the PCs; and 2) An individual received a skin and clothing contamination'while bringing tools into the RCA. ,

There has been a .atal of 27 contaminations >5,000 dpm/100cm2in 1993. 24 of these l' contaminations were classified as non-outage and 3 were classified as outage contami-nations. -

There was a total of 273 contaminations >5,000 dpm/100cm'in 1992. There was a total ;

of 55 contaminations >5,000 dpm/100cm2 in 1991. j The 1993 goal for contaminations >5,000 dpm/100 cm2 is 0.4 PCR/1,000 RWP hours (non-outage) and 1.5 PCR/1,000 RWP hours (outage). !

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

Accountability: Chase /Lovett i Adverse Trend: None SEP 15 & 54 !

?

4 3

@ Licensee Eysnt Reports 40- D Personnel Errors Reported in LERs 32 33 Curnulative Licensee Event Reports 33

~

L -+- Curnulative Personnel Errors Reported in LERs 20-15 8 10-

"I I N 0 '

'89 '90 '91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov oec93

% of Total LERs that are Attributed to Personnel Error (Year-to-cate)

-O-- 1993 Fort Calhoun Year-End Goat ( 12%)

60%-

f 50% -

E ~

2h 10%- C O O O

/ O O- C O O O O O

'89 '90 '91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov oec03 NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ERRORS REPORTED IN LERS The top graph shows the number of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) submitted during each month in 1993, the LERs attributed to personnel error for each month and the cumulative totals for each item. The bottom graph shows the percentage of total LERs submitted that have been attributed to personnel error. The year-end totals for the four previous years are also shown for both graphs.

In July there were 2 LERs reported, both of which were attributed to personnel error.

The following LERs were submitted during this report period:

LER 93-010: Failure to Address Low Halon Tank Pressure Following Surveillance Test LER 93-011: Reactor Trip on Loss of Load During Switchyard Maintenance The percentage of total LERs submitted year-to-date that have been attributed to per-sonnel error was 38.5% at the end of July.

The 1993 goal for this indicator is that a maximum of 12% of the total LERs submitted will be attributed to personnel error.

Data Source: Short/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: An adverse trend is indicated based on 3 consecutive months of increasing values for the percentage of total LERs submitted year-to-date that have been attributed to personnel error. SEP 15 5

I l

O Safety Systern Failures l Fort Calhoun Trend ,

i

--C}- Peer Plant Average Trend g ^

Industry Average Trend

, E 3 3 l

23- ,

E Wsyk. 7 g W 4 2

g 2- -

,y ""

l x +4_.,.,. ? ,

y ' I

4; m .g 1 -i

, : .: ,3 },., b ._,,,_ _

E ' $7 j ,

I',

^^qEje o o o o o , , , , , , , ,

91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 i

Year - Quarter SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES This indicator illustrates the number of NRC Safety System Failures as reported by the Nuclear j Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual

Performance indicators for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" report. !

The following NRC safety system failures occurred between the second quarter of 1991 and the l first quarter of 1993:

Second Quarter 1091: 1) Failure of high energy auxiliary steamlines in various equipment ,

rooms could renoar equipment vital for safe shutdown inoperable. 2) All 4 channels of the pressurizer pressure low signal trip could have been nonconservatively calibrated due to an :

inadequate calibration procedure. 3) A steam generator blowdown was performed while the ,l radiation monitor was inoperable. This was caused by the mode selector switch on the monitor being left in the calibrate position. I Third Quarter 1991: 1) Both EDGs could have been rendered unable to perform their design )

function due to radiator exhaust damper failure. The dampers had cracked pins in their cou- !

plings. 2) The station batteries were declared inoperable due to cracks developing in the cell l casings. This was caused by inadequate design of the terminal post seals. 3) An error in an operating procedure could cause improper manipulation of nitrogen backup bottles for instru-ment air. This could cause a loss of the containment spray system. l First Quarter 1992: 1) Defective control switches in the 4KV switchgear could have rendered safety equipment inoperable. 2) All 4 channels of the SG DP trip for RPS had been calibrated nonconservatively. This occurred due to an incorrect procedure which specified a tolerance band that was too wide.

i Second Quarter 1992: Fuse and breaker coordination problems for the DC buses could cause l a loss of the entire bus if a fault occurred on one of the loads, j

l '

Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 6

1

1993 Monthly High Pressure Safety injection System g Unavailability Value i 1993 High Pressure Safety injection System Unavailability Value Year-to-Date

-O- Fort Calhoun Goat l GOOD l 1995INPOIndustryGoal(0.02) V 0.025-0.02 - A A A A A A A A A A A A 0.015 -

C C C C C C C C C C C C 0.005-U 0 i "I i"i i i e i i i i i i 4 1992 Unavailability Value Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the High Pressure Safety injection System unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the report-ing month.

The High Pressure Safety injection System unavailability value for the month of July 1993 was 0.00087. There were 1.95 hours0.0011 days 0.0264 hours 1.570767e-4 weeks 3.61475e-5 months of planned unavailability for surveillance tests during July. The 1993 year-to-date HPSI unavailability value was 0.00034 at the end of July. The average monthly value for the last 12 months is 0.00029.

There have been a total of 4.98 hours0.00113 days 0.0272 hours 1.62037e-4 weeks 3.7289e-5 months of planned unavailability (for surveillance tests) and no hours of unplanned unavailability for the HPSI system year-to-date.

The 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals for this indicator are a maximum of 0.008. The 1995 INPO industry goal is 0.02 and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the three year period from 1/90 through 12/92) is approximately 0.0011.

Data Source: Jaworski/Schaffer Accountability: Jaworski/Schaffer Adverse Trend: None 7

i t

E Monthly Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailabiltty Value l

1993 Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value !

Year-to-date

--O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 0.n1) 1

- 1995 INPO Industry Goal ( 0.025)

-O- Industry Upper 10% (0.0039) 0.025 - A a a a a a a a a a a a 0.02 -

0.015 -

^

0.01 - C O O O O O O O O O O 0.0062 i Oh k -

Q O D O O O O

, , 0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1992 Unavailability Value Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM :

SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability value, as defined by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting month. ,

The Auxiliary Feedwater System Unavailability Value for July 1993 was 0.00047. There

. were 0 7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months of planned unavailability for surveillance tests during the month. The ;

1993 year-to-date AFW unavailability value was 0.0027 at the end of July. The average !

i

, monthly value for the last 12 months is 0.00428.

i There was a total of 26.15 hours1.736111e-4 days 0.00417 hours 2.480159e-5 weeks 5.7075e-6 months of planned unavailability for surveillance tests from l January through July 1993.

The 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun year-end goals for this indicator are a maximum value of 0.01. The 1995 INPO industry goal is 0.025 and the industry upper ten percentile i value (for the three year period from 1/90 through 12/92) is approximately 0.0039. [

Data Source: Jaworski/Nay ,

Accountability: Jaworski/Nay ,

Adverse Trend: None j i

3 8

1 i

E Monthly Emergency Ac Power unavailability Value Emergency AC Power unavailability Value Year-to-Date

-O- Fort Cathoun Goal (0.023) 0.06 - -l W 1995 INPO Industry Goal (0.025) -l 0.05-

--O- Industry upper 10% (.005) ,

0.04 -

IG0001 O.03 - y ;

0.02- ,

i 0.01 -

~

0.001 - - 3 O O C C C i i O- , , , , , , , , , ;

1992 unavailability Value Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec93 i EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM ,

I SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the Emergency AC Power System unavailability value, as defined i by INPO in the Safety System Performance Indicator Definitions, for the reporting :

month. ;

i The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value for July 1993 is 0.0. There were no hours of planned or unplanned unavailability for the month. The Emergency AC Power System unavailability value year-to-date is 0.0038. The value for the last 12 months is 0.0028.

In June there were 5.6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months of unplanned unavailability for DG-1 for bus 1 A1 trouble-shooting. There were no hours of unplanned or planned unavailability for DG-1 and DG-2 during May and April. There were no (0) hours of unplanned unavailability and :

16.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months of planned unavailability for a diesel maintenance outage for DG-1 in March.

Ten MWOs were worked during this one day outage. There were no (0) hours of planned or unplanned unavailability for DG-2 in March. ,

i There were no (0) hours of unplanned unavailability and 16.6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months of planned unavail-ability for a diesel maintenance outage for DG-2 in February. There were no (0) hours of planned or unplanned unavailability for DG-1 during the month. There were no (0) ,

~

hours of planned or unplanned unavailability for DG-1 and DG-2 in January 1993.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is s0.023. The 1992 goal was s0.024.

The 1995 INPO industry goalis 0.025 and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the three year period from 1/90 through 12/92) is approximately 0.005.

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Adverse Trend: None 9

i i

l

. . . __ --~ . . . . --

i l

jt E Fuel Reliability indicator 1995 INPO Industry Fuel Defect Reference (5 X 10-4 Microcuries/ Gram) lGOODI }

E --O- 1993 & 1992 Fort Calhoun Goals 5 10-h 8- n a n n n g f A A A A A A

{

b 3-6 0 ; ; 4 g i 4 M i mm ;

i-Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 ,

Beginning in Jan. 93 FRI uses INPO's revised calculaton rnethod [

FUEL RELIABILITY INDICATOR The Fuel Reliability indicator (FRI) for July 1993 was 2.133 X 10d microcuries/ gram. This FRI ,

value continues to indicate a defect free core. The monthly FRI is a calculated value based on !

fission product activities present in the reactor coolant. Its purpose is to monitor industry :

progress in achieving and maintaining a high level of fuelintegrity.

The plant tripped on June 24th and retumed to 100% power on July 2,1993. The plant oper-ated at 100% power from July 2nd through July 31st. Only the data from July 5th through 31st at an average of 100% power was used for the calculation of the monthly FRI value. This is in accordance with the INPO guidelines which state that data from steady-state power levels above 85% for the month should be used when possible. Steady state is defined as continuous [

operation for at least three days at a power level that does not vary more than 15%.

The July 1993 FRI value of 2.133 X 10d microcuries/ gram is an increase from the June FRI i value of 0.653 X 104 microcuries/ gram. The higher FRI value is typical of the FRI values _!

l calculated when the plant was at full power operation during January and February. There is no power correction affect in the INPO FRI calculation method when the average plant power is l 4 100 %. l i

Fission product activity data from the month of July shows no Xe-133 activity increases and no i iodine spiking present. This indicates a defect free core. The last detected fuel failure was ;

during Cycle 13.

l 4

The FRl value, using the latest INPO calculation methor* is expected to be below the 1993 goal of 7 5 X 10d microcuries/ gram for the remainder of Cycle 14, with no fuel failures. ,

The INPO September 1992 Report " Performance Indicators for U.S. Nuclear Utility industry-(INPO No.92-011) states that "...the 1995 industry goal for fuel reliability is that units should !

strive to operate with zero fuel defects. A value above 5.0 X 104 microcuries/ gram indicates a :

high probability of unit operation with one or more fuel defects. The determination of current !

defect-free operation requires more sophisticated analysis by utility reactor engineers." The l value of 5.0 X 10d microcuries/ gram is not an INPO industry goal. It is defined as a

Fuel Defect Reference" number or a "Zero Leaker Threshold". Each utility will calculate whether the ,

core is defect free or not. l Data Source: Holthaus/Guliani l Accountability: Chase /Spijker Adverse Trend: None 10 I

1

@ Number of Failures /20 Demands Trigger Values for 20 Demands j O Number of Failures /50 Demands -V- Trigger Va!ues for 50 Demands B Number of Failures /100 Demands - - Trigger Values for 100 Demands i 8- !

l GOOD l

+ !

6-Y Y Y Y Y Y Y V V V V V 4 4 4 4 j 4- .

3- _ _ _ , , , ,

j 2 2 2 2 1 2- g l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f f 5 3 l O

I O

I 00 I

OOL 00 I

I 00 ! I 00 _

I 00 3 I

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 ,

EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABILITY ;

This bar graph shows three monthly indicators pertaining to the number of failures that f were reported during the last 20,50, and 100 emergency diesel generator demands at ;

the Fort Calhoun Station. Also shown are trigger values which correspond to a high level of confidence that a unit's diesel generators have obtained a reliability of greater !

than or equal to 95% when the failure values are below the corresponding trigger val- l ses. The Fort Calhoun 1993 goalis to have fewer failures than these trigger values.

The demands counted for this indicator include the respective number of starts and the j respective number of load-runs for both Diesel Generators combined. The number of i start demands includes all valid and inadvertent starts, including all start-only demands l and all start demands that are followed by load-run demands, whether by autornatic or manualinitiation. Load-run demands must follow successful starts and meet at least one of the following criteria: a load-run that is a result of a real load signal, a load-run test expected to carry the plant's load and duration as stated in the test specifications, and a special test in which a diesel generator was expected to be operated for a mini-mum of one hour and to be loaded with at least 50% of design load (see exceptions and other demand criteria in the Definition Section of this report).

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Adverse Trend: None 11 i

O DG-1 Failures /25 Demands l GOOD l N DG-2 Failures /25 Demands 5- O Failure Trigger Value for 25 Demands / Fort Calhoun Goal 4- C O O O O O O O O O O O 3-2-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (25 DEMANDS)

This indicator shows the number of failures experienced by each emergency diesel generator during the last 25 start demands and the last 25 load-run demands. A trigger value of 4 failures within the last 25 demands is also shown. This trigger value of 4 failures within 25 demands is the Fort Calhoun goal for 1992.

It must be emphasized that in accordance with NUMARC criteria, certain actions will take place in the event that any one emergency diesel generator experiences 4 or more failures within the last 25 demands on the unit. These actions are described in the Definitions Section of this report. A System Engineering Instruction has been drafted for the Fort Calhour, Station to institutionalize and formally approve / adopt the required NUMARC actions.

Diesel Generator DG-1 has not experienced any failures during the last 25 demands on the unit.

Diesel Generator DG-2 has not experienced any failures during the last 25 demands on the unit.

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Adverse Trend: None 12

1 l

. . l l

8 DG-1 Unreliability Value l O DG-2 Unreliability Value l GOOD l

-+- Station Unreliability Value t l 0.003 -

Industry Upper 10% (0.002 for l 0 0025- a Three Year Average) 0.002 - O O O O O O O O O O O O 0.0015 -

0.001 -

0.0005-0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 ,

0 . . . , , , . ,v i . . . , , , , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DeC93 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABILITY The purpose of this indicator is to monitor the likelihood that emergency AC power generators will respond to off-normal events or accidents. It also provides an indication of the effectiveness of maintenance, operation and test practices in controlling genera-tor unreliability.

The year-to-dato station EDG unreliability value for July 1993 was 0.0.

For DG-1: There was 1 start demand for the reporting month with no failures.

In addition, there was 1 load-run demand with no failure.

For DG-2: There were 2 start demands for the reporting month with no failures.

In addition, there was 1 load-run demand with no failure.

Emergency diesel generator unreliability is calculated as follows:

value per DG = SU + LU - (SU x LU) where SU = Start Unreliability = number of unsuccessful starts number of valid start demands LU = Load-run Unreliability = number of unsuccessfulload-runs number of valid load-run demands Station Value = average of DG-1 and DG-2 values l

Data Source: Jaworski/Ronning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Ronning Adverse Trend: None 13 l

Control Room Equipment Deficiencies Repairable On-Line O Total Number of Control Room Equipment Deficiencies !

-O- Fort Cdhoun Goal For Total Equipment Deficiencies !

80- ,

70- _

~

60- - -

50- C O Q Q A

~

4 -

g 4

4 40- 7' Y E 30- y ) ! I $

[ l 20- k [ '

': k [ '

{

10- ;

g ;f fi l

I f

I . I 1 4 i I i e I 6 I ,

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 j D Operator Work Around items Repairable On-Line G Total Number of Operator Werk Around itoms

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal for Total Operator Work Around items 10-8-

^****"' '

tracked orior to .,,

6- November 1992 A 4-C O O O O : O O

7 O

O 7

C m

a

? $ X 2- b k

~

o , . . , , , . . . . , ,

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 ,

NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCIES This indicator shows the number of control room equipment deficiencies that are repair-able during plant operations (on-line), the total number of control room equipment defi-ciencies, the number of Operator Work Around (OWA) Items repairable on-line, the total number of OWAs and the 1993 Fort Calhoun goals. -

There was a total of 59 control room equipment deficiencies at the end of July 1993. 38 of these deficiencies are repairable on-line and 21 require a plant outage to repair. l l

There were 5 identified Operator Work Around items at the end of the month. 4 of these OWA items are repairable on-line and 1 requires an outage to repair.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun monthly goals are to have a maximum of 45 control room equip-

ment deficiencies (total) and a maximum cf 5 OWAs (total).

Data Source: Chase / Tills (Manager / Source) .

Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None l 14

~

O Monthly Personnel Rad;ation Exposure Personnel Cumulative Radiation Exposure (Person-Rem)

-O- Fort Calhoun AnnualGoal

--A- 1995 INPO Industry Goal (185 Person-Rem)

~ '" * "" "O 276 _

lGOODI y

! 200- C O O O O O O O O O O O A A A A A a a a a a a a 100-52 i 4 i i 0 90 '91 S2 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE During July 1993,1.082 person-rem was recorded by TLDs worn by personnel while working at the Fort Calhoun Station. The year-to-date exposur? is 11.579 person-rem.

The exposure for the last 12 months is 30.726 person-rem.

The Fort Calhoun goal for collective radiation exposure for 1993 is a maximum of 200 person-rem.

The 1995 INPO industry goalis 185 person-rem per year. The industry upper ten percentile value (w the three year period from 1/90 through 12/92)is approximately 110 person-rem per year. The three year average for Fort Calhoun Station from 1/90 through 12/92 was 194.5 person-rem per year.

Data Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP 54 15 1

i O Highest Exposure for the Morith (mrem) i O Highest Exposure for the Year (mrem) 5000- '

OPPD 4500 mrem /yr. Limit l

4000- 1 i

3000 - ;

I 2000 -

Fort Calhoun 1500 mrem /yr. Goat 1000 -

572 96 ;

~

O ,.

July 1993 l

MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE !

During July 1993, an individual accumulated 96 mrem, which was the highest individual exposure for the month. ;

The maximum individual exposure for the year was 572 mrem ;

The OPPD limit for the maximum yearly individual radiat , egr . ., N 4,500 mrem /

year. The 1993 Fort Calhoun year-end goalis a maxirr_ d ~.,600 mrem. ,

Date Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source) ,

Accountability: Chase /Lovett i

Adverse Trend: None i a

16 i

n,-,,,,

Violations per 1,000 Inspection Hours E -O- Fort Calhoun Goal y V

? 3- ,

2.3 N L .

g x 1.2 C O O O O O O O O O O O

[ f

e

[-- ,- - ,j0 i , , , , , , , , , , ,

90 '91

> Jcl92 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun93 VIOLATIONS PER 1,000 INSPECTION HOURS This indicator displays the number of NRC violations cited in inspection reports per 1,000 NRC inspection hours. This indicatoris one month behind the reporting month due to the time involved with collecting and processing the data.

The violations per 1,000 inspection hours indicator was reported as 1.80 for the twelve months from July 1,1992 through June 30,1993.

The following inspectioris ended during this reporting period:

IER No. Ill!g No. of Hours 93-06 Monthly Resident inspection 464 93-09 Fire Protection 40 93-10 Confirmatory Measurements 40 93-14 Maintenance 128 l

To date, OPPD has received a total of 4 violations in 1993:

Level 111 Violations (0) :

LevelIV Violations (3)

Level V Violations (0)

Non-Cited Violations (NCV) (1) :

l The 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals for this indicator are a maximum of 1.5 viola-tions per 1,000 inspection hours.

Data Source: Short/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source) i Accountability: Short Adverse Trend: None g l l

l

O NRC Significant Events Fort Calhoun Trend

<- Industry Average Trend 1.2 - 1 1 0.9 -

O.6 - ,

7 o~, o ,

J ,

m m,

91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93 1 Year - Quarter 3- @ INPO Sionificant Events (SERs)

~$:

1.5 - 3 3

$ VNA WEA 91-2 91-3 91-4 92-1 92-2 92-3 92-4 93-1 Year - Quarter SIGNIFICANT EVENTS This indicator illustrates the number of NRC and INPO Significant Events for Fort Cal-houn Station as reported by the Nuclea.- P.egulatory Commission's Offica for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data in the biannual" Performance Indicators for Operat-ing Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors" report and INPO's Nuclear Network.

The following NRC significant events occurred between the second quarter of 1991 and the first quarter of 1993:

Second Quarter 1991: Safety related equipment was not adequately protected from a high energy line break.

Third Quarter 1992: The failure of a Pressurizer Code safety valve to reseat initiated a LOCA with the potential to degrade the reactor coolant pressure boundary.

The following INPO significant events, as reported in Significant Event Reports (SERs),

occurred between the second quarter of 1991 and the first quarter of 1993: ,

Second Quarter 1992: Personnel and accessible building areas were contaminated i

.vith transuranic, alpha-emitting radionuclides.

Third Quarter 1992: The failure of a nonessentialinverter during troubleshooti q caused a turbine load rejection. This resulted in a high reactor coolant press a w.to-matic scram and the opening of the pressure relief valves and one of two pres .;izer safety valves. One pressurizer safety valve subsequently reopened at a lower reactor coolant system pressure and remained partially open, resulting in a release of reactor coolant to containment via the pressurizer quench tank.

Data Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission & INPO ,

Accountability: Chase l Adverse Trend: None l 18 j l

l

l 3- ;

I

@ Number of Missed STs Resulting in LERs i

2-

.l t

t 1- , . ;

l l

0 : 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O ,

i0 i i , , , . , , , , , , , , .

'91 '92 Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 I NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS !

RESULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS l

' This indicator shows the number of micsed Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in Lic- !

ensee Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting month. The graph on the left shows !

the yearly totals for the indicated years. ;

There were no missed surveillance tests resulting in LERs during July 1993. i i

During the month of January 1993 it was discovered that during December 1992 an !

ASME Section XI Code required surveillance was not completed nor corrective mainte- !

nance performed as a result of AC-10A falling into the " Alert Range" (LER 93-003 Fail- i ure to Satisfy inservice Testing Requirements for Raw Water Pump).. l l

The 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals for this indicator are zero. l l

Data Source: Monthly Operating Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs) l Accountability: Chase /Jaworski :

Adverse Trend: None SEP 60 & 61 19 i

, , _ _- a

l 1

PERFORMANCE :

l Goal: To strive for Excellence in Operations utilizing the i highest standards of performartce at Fort Calhoun Station that result in safe, reliable plant operation in power produc-tion. '

b b

t 20

1 E Net Generation (10,000 Mw hours) 40-

"3.18 l 35.95 f 36.12 35.03 32.51 32.14 31.21 f y30- 28.01 N.2 E !

21.99 o

8 '

o )

l l

10- .

1 1

~

- " ' " I 0-Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut 93 l STATION NET GENERATION During the month of July 1993 a net total of 350,270 MWH was generated by the Fort j Calhoun Station. Unplanned energy losses for the month were attributable to rampup from a forced outage that began on June 24 when the inadvertent jarring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine and reactor trip. The plant returned to i 100% power on July 2nd.

Planned energy losses for the month of April were the result of a maintenance outage and operating at 77% power to conserve fuel.

l Unplanned energy losses for the month of September 1992 were attributable to the i forced outage which began on 8/22/92 when an AC/DC converter failed in the Turbine l 4

Electro Hydraulic Control system. Pressurizer safety valve RC-142 then opened prior to l l reaching design pressure and the plant tripped on TM/LP. The generator was brought. ,

on-line at 2101 hours0.0243 days 0.584 hours 0.00347 weeks 7.994305e-4 months on 9/5/92. i Unplanned energy losses during August 1992 were the result of the forced outage on 8/ i

. 22/92 (described above) and the forced outage that began on 8/5/92 when a feeder j breaker to the 125V DC panel Al-41 A failed resulting in a controlled shutdown to Mode i

2. The turbine generator was synchronized to the grid on 8/6/92.

Data Source: Station Generation Report Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None

{ 21

. . 1 Forced Outage Rate GOOD

-O- 1993 & 1992 Fort Calhoun Goals 20%-

l 15%-

9.3 10%-

1.4 l

'89 '90 91 l5%-

, 0%

C O O O O Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb O O O Ha' O O O O Apr May Jun Ju!93 FORCED OUTAGE RATE The forced outage rate (FOR) was reported as 5.2% for the twelve months from 8/1/92 to 7/31/93. The decline in the FOR from June to July 1993 is due to the exclusion of 462.6 forced outage hours that occurred in July 1992 from the twelve month calculation.

There was one forced outage during the month of June 1993. This outage, which ,

occurred when the inadvertent jarring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine and reactor trip, lasted 70.6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months .

Forced outage hours for September 1992 were due to the forced outage that began on 8/22/92 when an AC/DC converter failed in the Turbine Electro Hydraulic Control sys-tem. Pressurizer safety valve RC-142 then opened prior to reaching design pressure and the plant tripped on TM/LP. The generator was brought on-line at 2101 hours0.0243 days 0.584 hours 0.00347 weeks 7.994305e-4 months on 9/

5/92.

i During the month of August 1992 forced outage hours were due to the forced outage on 8/22/92 (described above) and the forced outage on 8/5/92 when the turbine was taken off-line to replace a feeder breaker to the 125V DC panel Al-41 A. The turbine generator was synchronized to the grid on 8/6/92.

The 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals for the Forced Outage Rate are a maximum of 2.4%.

Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & NERC GAD Forms Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 22

O Monthly EAF 1993 Year-to-Date Average Monthly EAF 4

-+- 1992 Year-to-Date Average Monthly EAF l GOOD l 100% - - - -

S1S 80%- _

60.8 -

56.6 - 60% -

g- 4

/ W4 40%-

20%- c

?

i i i 0% i , , , i , , i i i i i

'90 '91 '92 Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut 93 EQUIVALENT AVAILABILITY FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF), the year-to-date average monthly EAF for 1993, and the EAF for the previous 3 years.

The EAF for July 1993 was reported as 96.3%. Energy losses during July 1993 were due to rampup from the forced outage that occurred in June when the inadvertent jar-ring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine trip and a reactor trip.

The year-to-date average monthly EAF was reported as 91.7% at the end of July.

The September 1992 energy loss results from an outege that began on 8/22/92 when an AC/DC converter failed in the Turbine Electro Hydraulic Control System and the subsequent early lift of RC-142.

Decreased EAF in August 1992 results from two forced outages: one is described above and one occurred on 8/5/92 when a feeder breaker to the 125V DC panel Al-41 A failed.

Data Source: Dietz/Parra (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 23

E Monthly Unit Capability Factor Year-to-Date Unit Capability Factor

-+- 36 Month Average Unit Capability Factor 4

--O- 1993 & 1992 Fort Calhoun Goals l GOOD l 1995 INPO Industry Goal (28o%)

t Industry Upper lo% (84.9% for a Three Year Average) taitt1DIIII Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 i

This indicator shows the plant monthly Unit Capability Factor (UCF) value, the 1993 and 1992 year-to-date UCFs, the goals, the 36 month average UCFs, the 1995 INPO industry goal and the approximate industry upper ten percentile value. UCF is defined as the ratio of the available energy generation over a given period of time to the reference energy generation (the energy that could be produced if the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conditions) over the same time period, expressed as a percentage.

The UCF for July 1993 was reported as 99.0%. Energy losses for the month were due to rampup from a forced outage that began in June. The year-to-date unit capability factor was reported as 922%. The 36 month average UCF was reported as 78.6% at the end of July. The average monthly UCF for the last 12 months is 90.4%.

The UCF for June 1993 was reported as 82.6%. Energy losses for the month were due to Moderator Coefficient Testing and a forced outage from June 24 through June 27.

4 The UCF for May 1993 was reported as 88%. Energy losses for the month were due to the ,

maintenance outage that began on April 24 and continued through May 1 and the subsequent ,

rampup.

The UCF was reported as 77.1% for the month of April 1993. Planned energy losses for the month were the result of the maintenance outage from April 24 through 30. ;

The 1995 INPO industry goal is 80% and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the three !

year period from 1/90 through 12/92) is approximately 84.9%.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for Unit Capability Factor is 74.1%. The basis for this goal is 56 days for the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage,20 days rampup (10 full power equivalent days),

unplanned loss of 11.5 full power equivalent days, and 10 day ramp up (5 full power equivalent days), mini outage of 7 full power equivalent days, and 10 day ramp up (5 full power equivalent l days). Based on the station operating record through 7/31/93; assuming no forced outages and 1 the 56 day outage with 20 day rampup; the maximum possible 1993 UCF is 77.4%. l Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None 24

E Monthly Unplanned Capability Loss F +

-M- Year-to-Date Unplanned Capabiliiy Loss Factor ;

- O -- 1993 & 1992 Fort Calhoun Goals (s4.5%) lGOODI 1995 INPO Industry Goal (54.5%)

60%- ,

Industry Upper 10% (1.68% for a Three Year Average) 4o%-

20%-

0,. ,

Aug92 Sep Oct

=

Nov Dec Jan

, a,=,a, Feb Mar Apr J,

May Jun o

Ju!93 i

L UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR This indicator shows the plant monthly Unplanned Capability Loss Factor (UCLF), the 1993 and 1992 year-to-date UCLFs, the goals, the 1995 INPO industry goal and the approximate industry upper ten percentile value. UCLF is defined as the ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a ;

given period of time, to the reference energy generation (the energy that could be produced if -

the unit were operated continuously at full power under reference ambient conc;itions), ex- i pressed as a percentage.

4 The UCLF was reported as 1.0% for the month of July 1993. Unplanned energy losses for the l month were the result of rampup from a forced outage that began in June. The year-to-date !

UCLF for 1993 is 2.5%. The 36 month average UCLF was reported as 11.5% at the end of July. The average monthly UCLF for the last 12 months is 6.5%.

r The UCLF was reported as 16.6% for the month of June 1993. Unplanned energy losses for the i month were the result of a forced outage that occurred as a result of the inadvertent jarring of a !

345 KV fault relay in the switchyard.

The UCLF was reported as 22.5% for the month of September 1992. Unplanned energy losses for the month were a result of the forced outage that began on 8/22/92 when an AC/DC con- l verter failed in the Turbine Electro Hydraulic Control system.

The UCLF was reported as 38% for the month of August 1992. Unplanned energy losses for the month were a result of the 8/22/92 forced outage (described above) and the forced outage on 8/5/92 when a feeder breaker to the 125V DC panel Al-41 A failed.

The 1995 INPO industry goal is 4.5% and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the three 1 year period from 1/90 through 12/92)is approximately 1.68%. I The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for Unplanned Capability Loss Factor is 4.5%. The basis for this goal is an unplanned loss of 11.5 full power equivalent days and 10 day rampup (5 full power equivalent days).

Data Source: Generation Totals Report & Monthly Operating Report Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None l

i

- - _ ._ ~ _ _

- FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Cntical(Year to-date)

--$- FCS Reactor Scrams Per 7,000 Hours Cntical(for the last 36 months)

--O- 1993 & 1992 Fort Calhoun Goals

--6-- 1995 lNPO Industry Goal f

-D- Industry Upper 10% (0.58 per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months entical over a 36 month time period) 7-6- !

5- le 4-3- ;

(

0 i

9 r-U i

i i i Mi U-T.U.U.E i i i i i i

. E!same W 3 r-8 i l

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 ,.

e 5- !

4- E Numberof FCS Reactor Scrams l 3

7 3-2 2- i j

1 1 0 0 0 1- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

, , , , 0 i , , , , , , , , , , ,

'89 '90 '91 '92 Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 [

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER 7,000 HOURS CRITICAL [

The upper graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months i critical (as defined in INPO's 11/91 publication " Detailed Descriptions of Intemational Nuclear .i Power Plant Performance Indicators and Other Indicators") for Fort Calhoun Station. This value is calculated by multiplying the total number of scrams in a specified time period by 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months , l then dividing that number by the total number of critical hours in the same time period. The ]

lower graph shows the number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams that occurred during each month for the last twelve months.

The year-to-date station value is 1.44 for the month of July 1993. The value for the last 36 .}

months is 1.30. The value for the last 12 months is 1.71. j An unplanned automatic reactor scram occurred on June 24,1993 when the inadvertent jarring .i of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine and reactor trip. ,

i An unplanned automatic reactor scram occurred on August 22,1992 as a result of the failure of !

an AC/DC converter in the Turbine Electro Hydraulic Control system. Pressurizer safety valve l RC-142 then opened prior to reaching design pressure and the plant tripped on TM/LP.

The 1993 and 1992 goals for unplanned automatic reactor scrams per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical have !

. been set at zero. The 1995 INPO industry goalis one unplanned automatic reactor scram per [

7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical. The industry upper ten percentile value is approximately 0.58 scrams per l 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months critical for the 36 month time period from 1/90 through 12/92. !

j Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs) !

Accountabr Chase Adverse Tro. v; None 26 !

3-9 Safety System Actuations (INPO Definition)

O 1993 & 1992 Fort Calhoun Goals

O Industry Upper 10 Percentile 2-1 1 q -

4 i f i li 0 I i ii1 0 O i O i O i O i O i O i O i O i O i O i O , 0--)

'90 '91 '92 Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 ,

i UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS-(INPO DEFINITION)

There were no unplanned safety system actuations during the month of July 1993. 1 There was one unplanned safety system actuation during the month of July 1992 due to the loss of an inverter and the subsequent reactor trip on 7/3/92.

The 1993 and 1992 goals for the number of unplanned safety system actuations are zero. t Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs) .

Accountability: Jaworski/Foley/Ronning l

Adverse Trend: None !

i 1

l i

1 27

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

12 Month Running Total SSAs (NRC Definition) I

--+-- Critical Hours O Safety System Actuations (NRC Definition) i 10- ,

1000 000 7 y e- 800 700 e i

'i 6- 600 8

'! 4 5 500 5

! - y4- 400'h

' 2 '

g 300 0 32- 200 7

90 91 92

- , - , o . .R ASONDJ FMAMJJ-ASONDJ FMAMJ J A @ @ Q O i

1991 1992 1993 UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS -(NRC DEFINITION)

This indicator shows the number of unplanned safety system actuations (SSAs), which includes !

i the High and Low Pressure Safety injection Systems, the Safety injection Tanks, and the Emer-gency Diesel Generators. The NRC classification of SSAs includes actuations when major ;

equipment is operated and when the logic systems for those safety systems are challenged. I The last unplanned safety system actuation occurred during June 1993 when the inadvertent jarring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine and reactor trip.

An unplanned safety system actuation occurred on April 30,1993 when a non-licensed operator mistakenly opened the wrong potential fuse drawer causing a low voltage alarm on bus 1 A1, a !

loadshed on bus 1 A1 and an auto start of an EDG.

9 An unplanned safety system actuation occurred on August 22,1992 due to the failure of an AC/ -

DC converter in the Turbine Electro Hydraulic Control system. Pressurizer safety valve RC 142 -

then opened prior to reaching design pressure during a plant transient and trip.

Two unplanned safety system actuations occurred in July 1992: 1) On July 3 there was an inverter failure and the subsequent reactor trip: 2) On July 23 there was an unplanned diesel generator start when an operator performing a surveillance test inadvertently pushed the normal start button instead of the alarm acknowledge button.

An unplanned safety system actuation occurred on May 14,1992 when the turbine generator -

tripped on a falso high level moisture separator trip signal which caused a simultaneous reactor trip and subsequent anticipatory start signal to both diesel generators. ;

There have been 0.75 unplanned safety system actuations/ quarter for the last 12 months. The _ :

1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals for this indicator are 0.

Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

~

Accountability: Jaworski/Foley/Ronning Advers9 Trend: None 28 l

l

._ .- .. _ . _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ - . . . . _ _ .__- _.-___ - J

12- !

5 Monthly Gross Heat Rate ,

-A- Year-to-Date Gross Heat Rate

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal '

g V ;

s i ai11-8 e :

10560 10304 10300

~

- 1 '

e : _ .- ,

10- .

'89 l~l.g_

'90 '91 Aug92 Sep Oct - Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr .May Jun Jul93 GROSS HEAT RATE This indicator shows the Gross Heat Rate (GHR) for the reporting month, the year-to-date GHR, the 1993 goal and the year-end GHR for the previous 3 years.

3 The gross heat rate for the Fort Calhoun Station was reported as 10,352 BTU /KWH for !

the month of July 1993. The GHR varies with fluctuations in river water temperature. In :

general, the GHR improves during the winter months and degrades during the summer. ;

This is because the gross heat rate is not normalized to the design river water tempera-ture of 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

The year-to-date gross heat rate was reported as 10,207 BTU /KWH at the end of July. l The 1993 year-end gross heat rate goalis a maximum of 10,168 BTU /KWH.

Data Source: Holthaus/ Gray (Manager / Source)

-i Accountability: Chase /Jaworski ;

Adverse Trend: None l 29

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

O Monthly Thormal Portormance

-M- 1992 Yeardo-Data Averago Monthly Thermal Performance

-+- 1993 Year-to Dat4i Averago Monthry Thormal Performanco 4

l GOOD l

-O- 1993 & 1992 Fort Cathoun Goals

-A- 1995 INPO Industry Goal (99 5%)

@ Industry Upper 10% (99 8%)

l C C C C C C C C C O. O.. O p .. M . ;; -= - -c u O O @ :

g5g l 99% ~

gp g

I g ss y y N'J y 4 G- **

,[ h g N

% value not -

~

% h ph q required or trendablo

[{$hy h[ 2:4 h

A s N

n k

g;y Mi gg

&4 M gc. g twow Q;ss a 4 s s

9 7 *.~ '

gg } g y i fly

'7 00 %

'E a gl Mi '

x, g $ power @

96 % i , , , i i , , , , , i Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Doc Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 THERMAL PERFORMANCE This indicator shows the Thermal Performance value for the reporting month, the year-to-date average thermal performance value, the 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals, the 1995 INPO industry goal and the approximate industry upper ten percentile value.

The thermal performance value for the month of July 1993 was 99.8%. The average monthly thermal performance value from January through July (excluding April) was 99.3% The average monthly value for the last 12 months is 99.3%.

The thermal performance value for April 1993 could not be calculated (per INPO guid- '

ar. :e) because the plant was operated at less than 80% power from April 1 through 23 pnar to the maintenance outage.

The decline in thermal performance values through Maich was attributed to circulating water flow reductions possibly caused by condenser fouling and/or circ. water pump degradation. Inspection of CW-1B during the "B" cell outage on 4/93 showed no abnor-mal degradation of the pump impeller. Inspections during the April maintenance outage indicated considerable fouling of condenser tubes, a leaking divider plate gasket in FW-4B , and a tom backwash valve seat. The condenser was cleaned and equipment repairs made. Preliminary results show significant improvement in thermal perior-mance.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal for this indicator is a minimum of 99.4%. The 1992 goal was a minimum of 99.3%. The 1995 INPO indus'.cy goalis 99.5% and the industry upper ten percentile value (for the one year period from 1/92 through 12/92) is approxi-mately 99.8%

Data Source: Jaworski/Popek Accountability: Jaworski/Popek Positive Trend 30

I l

I

=

Thermal Output l 4

-O- Fort Calhoun 1495 MW Goal {

i

- Tech Spec 1500 MW Limit I 1500- - ---m

~ ___ w . _am _ _:m_ _ - -- -gg - -- - - -o wpqwm&wn - ~ : wmw~2 ggg ,

gg;g$gp g p a p q' ^m/gdig:dfWi@gw 4.:u--:4.ac.?

w. -

gg %,W p..w.s+9p:7.:%yn p i @@ww.,.g@g@ tic g hs>y ~, 4c g;dw 4e+.,4 9 y ds Q- w@m;M y#M.::t

w -

M W@d w2

+ wnam,.mm.a2 we VZ s- r

m/:.C/wwn.;N.eJ4 f.e%.w mg.d:; .

.$.p;#; weep;%:Wy:fD74R #'c.k

-fc mpqws m 4 t9q'4h Dg?#

s w.rp#a:

vM XWM+:% : y .*p~ .M 4%ewiLO

i. 7dj:WffSSM@NM C, ik4,d e45Yd..bS. mn N- YT" 7M4 ^M[MW.

.nn -me;A M NrMI%W c w ,

sh%.x.e vwm4a.S

+

n. n n ..%~1+

s:wweg.a. wd:~% ! m;pwp * "> ve% sx WQg+.5 4 nMpg , g=h ' @d dWMr

.m%wew'e,a.t Wm Ms+ N A6 1450- meow

':a m.MY&p

@M.h::?C'hhD.N 3..h N x[MMEN

m..p&i a ewmm:

p @wAw Nlf Y h M, N.mfMm:;m:N

+.W

- swx~ .w m

www.:%p@m:. v - yp xx. .m a g w :q.w w h < ,+=

M.: 4 ~.::p M g SS i i.L pe: ~6 M b .Wk

MQ .? %:C'.t Ws@ SiW 4fMi:

A,~v:.w@ga m.4

~ wen %ws#.AtiA wng p a.g::mm:g e on%gbj n q%~+?M"w:.m c~ g%4,w%s; e .. m + + ww q.

gpx ~ Aw pm ny ppgMkw ;:w. .: :: an <

NWLd WERMRgheM I 1400-w 4

it w. Me

%yijWir$4g*:'Q.@

m u y:

.w.

'n$

P E M-

.5 m w

h.m _.~ ~ ,edgmm&@: N w w gy@ kw%Xsh a +%w x ~ n m .,[v% * (,.g.:.v.(

h ?-^

e.-sc

m 4 h d n .~WM W 1. ,%

,u

NN d?M n nme v.

m d'WQ x t

j s .. m -- x._ :d %. _

x-4 i.

. Y n-:hl h $h 'l:k.: % .. ? .hl:$

< vwmum i

.m g

..nM a.+c%mq R.stAe 4Ws.c. eg. .;. . w,h Wn:.eg,a,.A g g m

b g wmb M w t w u.p w -' T.e n.n m.a M

Y W Wy+1 , m.n w .:

@.m.,.,E , -c rww.vg b . aw$wg 6.na& fJ y- m >a g gs &.M,G:--5 tu :m w k w m.

P

.wwg e44.a%

n 4 :w:@g;m.n m#.ehWit% 1:b. . -

N bh. k N:Ne $D~b-D. kh N 5 .h MN $

wmmmtmwned%mmen:ta ^

E e

'.mO saw

. s m ww'.uc - -

u%nw>mmim.

%gy&I&.YWi$)$$$w@)N.: n.w a.y.a p dim;;.!dt.

hy 7 F W;ms,m cn e >:e;pw ~

eghgg? Y )44:y$

+

%g*e*Qtf&cQ

s1350 - Qwww p

"Wgy ;- en.

EC u.y %

i gyd www yM g g% g gW g. g g w:g i uJ3pWm ss *w%w.6 ,'mu.n.mw C M M M fw

$egn mum my:ssw.w s- AWt 73p%W#. y gd;,

p fib.

e w" Y % EM p - %g' W hyd n.+,

M %q M:

W:

O

,%m. $$p-f he - ~ w yW Y*g$M.N$

em p WY w s%~Any% gycpON u c _#hW Y:

.yc:M&M$s##,G:WiM-.

Oh m ' Y*.

@p%A%%we'4We@MM~h~:?DM&h.m,ew&_N %: ~ 4 N Y. e ?N?a(QMs..&@

p, a 4P:! e g e nJ:@t%g e w FWD V$'% %.Ww;m p ME%a.M:m e m ag w mm:$?N Y:&

. .;r m.:<

M W e e d x.w:a. gM e.Wafw$@V%sy-:.w ..

yny%

Mexe . S.s. m wfm.: x:%.wmy::m:umy .bww:: 4 g&h-q..

1300-94

^v y~dw&AMs.shdW%MMw;ew%gg ~

WW"WaT -*^w .dvW M::eMsW*

v@ ,u:w p ~W p:.~n~ w.wbw:us3ss;p.:e.

W~Q~M m 3%WT y ~4 W f~#w~nwn* NfMMFR?M Me~m"m"p~MAM$NM@9WWMNSG$iRW@MbWS::dAu.N SE @s@

$$dgM>W.:kh:ta

$ W WO Cp.%-

d I

-4 <s.%EhD s Ch&::34:#

fkNbh f5

%%:@N:ohyp:n#.gWTca m$ x4N%

Mb

< ,:c

.f!Ede. .d.

'WA MyM.

U.NND %g hlm)M> / n?, M..~:w.g M Wyes:yu.:@. %.cQ. xvk Y h d h :Nv h ~

h ;n..d.r.y Yh.N%:. h'94 5p M[J$ kw.hl k h W N:

s~vy;m&..h[t.&y.

t v.sn -N.M)<, W Mi %.

-u,.

mn ww u gm

+

..w mp 4 sv m

n n

r. ..

7 .

w 16%%%% JN m m.m e$ % %a%w%d Abd &;qw

%%6%mm$WMMMki&&pu: w% m q;9ehgml?n%fMs dRikw P 1250- #3*M*MD~W*F em

AMWW * ~# *~t "

th e b'w '~

MM"W%'

puw+am#2i+#@@m*m"%%**MWsr%*Cig"MWeNN"e*%mm u%aw mmy m&enkwem%wwayww?%G@w =%% N ,'mw%m .u RsQMMM ff%nMMM m WMQCWWQM m.wwemmw :;. m. n c; w:qmw% w

- s%_gewegewe:p a .ae

%n n M.anWM ap%%,WM4WK@y%%xne%mg&ng%4hMWed~MvhpMy na hn u v w-r- ~p M mm%~Mm :b4% m gr we Maws. ::

4-w:s+,a 4 ,&.

ngm . w. ue4-v a i w.4,.

" @4 @eud*Aw:+WVM42M4Mr d 2:w:. m J %.+c w*WhWMcAm sm*%m s - -w: e' -A w QAp a

W

.w+ae<e$um.#

Mken vM nSg;t lpm / %$~Myf ft mpy.ge ~m z.ma.u%gW/tM.f s KC g@m$iM54%%MblSW$wm 9% m w;C.W WCMj#W&,3 w~ ,

RM a A wn%naOS +,% C f G:DQ4+vL 1200- %:.4h%TWh= L.a 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT .

i The above thermal output graph displays the daily operating power level during July !

1993, the 1500 thermal megawatt average technical specification limit, and the 1495 i thermal megawatt Fort Calhoun goal. ,

l On July 1,1993 the plant was ascending to 100% power after a forced outage that ,

i began on June 24 when the inadvertent jarring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard i caused a turbine trip and a reactor trip.

i I

Data Source: Holthaus/ Gray (Manager / Source) :

Accountability: Chase / Tills ,

Adverse Trend: None '

31 ]

l l

l

~

Equipment Forced Outage Rate /1,000 Critcal Hours

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal ( 020) 0.86 O.75-0.53 0.5 0.5 -

025-C O O O O O O O O i i i i 0 90 91 92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 i

EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRITICAL HOURS l The equipment forced outage rate per 1,000 critical hours was 0.20 for the months from January through July 1993. The value for the last 12 months is 0.36.

An equipment forced outage occurred on June 24,1993 when the inadvertent jarring of a 345 KV fault relay in the switchyard caused a turbine and reactor trip. The turbine generator was synchronized to the grid on June 27.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for this indicator is a maximum value of 0.20.

Data Source: Monthly Operations Report & Plant Licensee Event Reports (LERs) !

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Adverse Trend: None 32 z_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _

of Component Categories 3

40- -+- # of Application Categories 35- Total # of Categories g30- l 5 25-20- l O

O

&=~ "

5-u_ ' = -

0 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

F92 M A M J J A S O N D92 J93 F M A M J J93 i

5 WearOut/ Aging G Other Devices ;

Q Manufacturing Defect O uaintenance/ Testing O EngineeringOesign @ Error 50.0 % 0.0%

l 12.0%

Percent of Total Failures During the !

Past 18 Months .

1.0% i

/

l j/

26.0 % !

11.0hllll 1

COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR)

SUMMARY

The top chart illustrates the number of component categories, application categories and total '

j categories in which the Fort Calhoun Station has significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) fa. ure rates than the industry failure rates during the past 18 months (from November 1991 through April 1993). Fort Calhoun Station reported a higher failure rate in 10 of the 87 compo- ;

nent categories (valves, pumps, motors, etc.) during the past 18 months. The station reported a j higher failure rate in 10 of the 140 application categories (main steam stop valves, auxiliary / j emergency feedwater pumps, control element drive motors, etc.) during the past 18 months.

The pie chart depicts the breakdown by INPO cause categories (see the

Definitions" section of this report for descriptions of these categories) for the 152 failure reports that were submitted to INPO by Fort Calhoun Station during the past 18 months. Of these, the failure cause was known for 137. The pie chart reflects known failure causes.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Dowdy (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/ Dowdy Adverse Trend: None 33 1

i i

Components With More Than One Failure !

I GOOD l 25- -X- Components With More Than Two Failures V !

21 !

20 20 1 20-19 -

18 !

17 ;

15 15 15- = 'i 14

i 1_1 1_1 1_1 10- i 5

,3 3 3 3 3, ,3 2ps a n n /

0 +

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 L

REPEAT FAILURES The Repeat Failures Indicator (formerly called the " Maintenance Effectiveness" perfor-mance indicator) was developed in response to guidelines set forth by the Nuclear .

Regulatory Commission's Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (NRC/ !

AEOD). The NRC requirement for a Maintenance Effectiveness Performance Indicator has been dropped, but station management considers it useful to continue to track repetitive component failures using the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS).

This indicator shows the number of NPRDS components with more than one failure i during the last eighteen months and the number of NPRDS components with more than i two failures during the last eighteen months. j

-i During the last 18 reporting months there were 11 NPRDS components with more than ;

1 failure. 3 of the 11 had more than two failures. The tag numbers of the components j with more than two failures are AC-10C, RC-142 and CH-1B. Recommendation's and !

actions to correct these repeat component failures are listed in the quarterly Component Failure Analysis Report.

i Data Source: Jaworski/ Dowdy (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None 34 1

i

i i

I 10-I Calculated Check Valve Failure Rato per Million Component Hours g_

Industry Check Vake Failure Rate per Million Component Hours I 8- !

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal 7-l GOOD l .

6- g 9 5-w 4-A A A A A A 2- C O O O O O O O O O O O 1 1 1

\

90 '91 '92 Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ju!93 No. of Check Valve Failures CHECK VALVE FAILURE RATE This indicator shows the calculated Fort Calhoun check valve failure rate, the Fort Calhoun goal and the industry check valve failure rate. This rate is based upon failures during the previous 18 months. The number of check valve failures at Fort Calhoun ,

i Station for the previous three years are shown on the left.

The data for the industry check valve failure rate is three months behind the reporting month due to the time involved in collecting and processing the data.

For April 1993, the Fon Calhoun Station reported an actual check valve failure rate of 1.18 E-6, while the industry reported an actual failure rate of 2.4 E-6. At the end of July 1993, the Fort Calhoun Station reported a calculated check valve failure rate of 0.0.

The 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals for this indicator are a maximum failure rate of 2.00 E-6. ,

Data Source: Jaworski/ Dowdy (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Jaworski/Rollins Adverse Trend: None SEP 43 3

35 t

25000- - Cumulative Dry Active Waste Sent For Processing (in cubic feet) 20000-15000 -

10000- ,

5000- _

o -

, -T , , , ,

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun 3 Radioactive Waste Buried This Month (in cubic feet)

Cumulative Radioactive Waste Duried

- -C)- Fort Calhoun Goal For Waste Buried

- 1995 INPO Industry Goal (3,884 cubic feet)

-O- Industry Upper 1o% (1,769.2 cubic feet) 4000- a a a a a a a a a a a a

- - ~

2278 3334 y jr.] 2000- D-O-O-O-O-O-O D-O-O-O-O 1000- C O

'91 '92 Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 Year end Total VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE WASTE The upper graph shows the volume of dry radioactive waste sent for processing. The lower graph shows the volume of the monthly radioactive waste buried, the cumulative annual total for radioactive waste buried, and the year-end totals for radioactive waste buried the previous 2 years.

The Southeast Low Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission has voted to refuse waste shipped from Nebraska, and the 4 other states in the Central Interstate Low Level Radioactive waste compact, at the Bamwell, South Carolina repository beginning July 1,1993.

Cumulative amount of solid radwaste shipped off site for processing (cubic feet) 4.160.0 Amount of solid radeaste shipped off-site for processing during July (cubic feet) 0.0 Volume of Solid Radwaste Buried during July (cubic feet) 0.0 Cumulative volume of solid radioactive waste buried in 1993 (cubic feet) 478.9 Amount of solid radioactive waste in temporary storage (cubic feet) 00 The 1993 For1 Calhoun goal for the volume of solid radioactive waste which has been buried is 1,000 cubic feet. The 1995 INPO industry goal is 110 cubic meters (3,884 cubic feet) per year.

The industry upper ten percentile value from 1/90 through 12/92 is approximately 50.12 cubic meters (1,769.2 cubic feet) per year.

1 Data Source: Chase /Breuer (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP54 36

'l l

. t 5%- i E Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit ,

^

l GOOD l 4%-

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal $ ,

3%-

^

O O O O 2%- O O O O O 1%-

0o,ru ;. ; i ; ; ; ; ; i , ; i Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 :

PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERCENT OF HOURS OUT OF LIMIT i The Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit indicator tracks the pri- ;

mary system chemistry performance by monitoring six key chemistry parameters. The key parameters are: lithium, dissolved oxygen, chlorides, fluoride, hydrogen and sus- i pended solids.100% equates to all six parameters being out of limit for the month. t The Primary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Out of Limit was reported as 0.0% for l the month of July 1993. l The 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun monthly goals for this indicator are a maximum of 2% [

Hours Out of Limit. j i

Data Source: Glantz (Source) l Accountability: Chase / Smith Adverse Trend: None j i

l l

37

5 Secondary System CPI

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal l GOOD]

1995 INPO Industry Goal (0.30) Y 1.5 - l Secondary System CPI Umit i

-C}- Industry Upper 10% (0.167) 1- l l l l ; ; ; l l l l l i i i0 i i i i i i i i i : i i 90 St Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 2%-

D % of Hours Chemistry is Outside OG Guidelines lGOODI 1%- k 0%, , , m, ,

M, , ,

M, ,

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY The top graph, Secondary System Chemistry Performance Index (CPI), is calculated using the following three parameters: cation conductivity in steam generator blowdown, sodium in steam generator blowdown, and condensate pump discharge dissolved oxygen. The bottom graph shows the percent of total hours of 13 parameters exceed-ing the Owners Group (OG) guidelines during power operation.

The CPI was reported as 0.490 for the month of July 1993. The average monthly CPI for the last 12 months is 0.531. The percent of hours outside the OG guidelines was reported as 0.0% for the month.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun monthly goal for the CPI is a maximum value of 0.60. The INPO 1995 Industry goalis 0.30. The Fort Calhoun goalis based on site specific chem-istry treatment, i.e. morpho!ine. The INPO goal does not consider the influence of morpholine and the by-products of morpholine from thermal decomposition.

The industry upper ten percentile value for this indicator was approximately 0.167 for i the twelve months from 1/92 through 12/92.

Data Source: Giantz (Source)

Accountability: Chase / Smith Positive Trend 38 l

E % of Hours Auxiliary Systern (CCW) Chemistry is Outside Station Limits j 10% - .

I l GOOD l 8%- -

y i

L 6%-

4%-

Ylo - ,

0% i i , , i i , , i i i i ;

Aug92 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar ' Apr May Jun Jul93 i

AUXILIARY SYSTEM (CCW) CHEMISTRY PERCENT OF HOURS OUTSIDE STATION LIMITS l

The Auxiliary System Chemistry Percent of Hours Outside Station Limits indicator tracks l the monthly percent of hours that the Component Cooling Water (CCW) system is l outside the station chemistry limit. :

The auxiliary system chemistry percent of hours outside station limits was reported as j 0.0% for the month of July 1993. The high value (8.8%) reported for November 1992 l was attributabM to nitrites, which were lower than specifications. Prior to November !

1992, the last outside of station limits condition occurred in June 1991 and was due to a low nitrite levelin CCW coolant. [

Data Source: Giantz (Source) l l'

Accountability: Chase / Smith Adverse Trend: None ;

i l

i i

39

COST !

Goal: To operate Fort Calhoun Station in a manner that ;

cost effectively maintains nuclear generation as a viable source of electricity.

[

i t

I i

40

4_ --N- Actuals -O- Budget a Plan 3.75-3.5 -

I 3

I 3.25- ,

1:

8 '

3-i 2.75-2.5 i , i i , , i i i i i i i i i i , ,

D91 D92 J93 F M A M J J A S O N D93 D94 D95 D96 D97 Months CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR 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 kilo-watt hour on a 12 month rolling average for the current year. The basis for the budget curve is the approved 1993 budget. The basis for the actual curve is the Financial and Operating Report.

The December 31 amounts are also shown for the prior years 1991 and 1992. In addi-tion, the report shows the plan amounts for the years 1994 through 1997 for reference.

The basis for the dollars are the Nuclear Long Range Financial Plan and the 1993 Corporate Planning and Budget Review. The basis for the generation is provided by Nuclear Fuels. ,

The unit price is averaging higher than budget due to the forced outages experienced in July and August 1992. The increase in June 1993 is due to the forced outage. Unit price should h9 equal to, or lower than, budget in September when the 1992 forced outages are not in the 12 month average.

Data Source: ScofieldNirgillito (Manager / Source) !

Accountability: Scofield Adverse Trend: None 41

I i

O Actual Division Staffing i

x Authorized Divisior Staffing 500 -

460 468 8 E 5$3 1$hf$ l 400- EMdy I ge;g;:f

v. c.. < gg

.n Jr24 4 300- ?h %d g

; n

.:u,

,a:q h....' d

[.t: :ffh 193 194

. <4 J . ..%m

! h$.0% h" -

. ;g .mr '

i%gd j

! ? 118 122 r em sj $ .z. #

100- fe"nF ""N

.. Ab

&lil +h l

g?}ll k :

w :,4 g . w y n.%: O:% k a l 9; daw':1 yIL a .t ? g; O , , ,

Nuclear Operations Production Engineering Nuclear Serv'ces STAFFING LEVEL The authorized and actual staffing levels at the end of July 1993 are shown for the three !

Nuclear Divisions.

Data Source: Ponec (Manager & Source)

Accountability: Ponec AdverseTrend: None SEP 24 r

I 42

- Spare Parts inventory Value ($ Million) 16-i 15- . l N !

i 14- ,

t 13- '

12- ;

t 11 - ;

10 l , , , , , , 3 i , , , , !

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jur93 I SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE !

i The spare parts inventory value at the Fort Calhoun Station at the end of July 1993 was i reported as $14,465,666. :

Data Source: Steele/Huliska (Manager / Source) i Accountability: Willrett/McCormick i i

Adverse Trend: None

]

43 l

. .l l

l DIVISION AND i DEPARTMENT l PERFORMANCE l INDICATORS !

These indicators may be deleted from this report if the responsible group con- l tracts the Manager- Station Engineering to request their removal. Indicators ;

referencing SEP ltems require documentation to ensure that the original intent l and scope of the SEP ltem will not be altered by removal of the indicator from this l report. !

l l

i 44 l

l 6000 - Total MWOs 6000-5000 -

5000-g 000- 3183 &

3 4000-o 3022

3000 -

g 1977

$3000-e 2407 2427 2 2000 - 2 2000- 1695 : ,

1000 - 1000- >

0 , , , 0 -" - ,'"- - , -"----i May '93 June 33 July 93 May '93 June'93 July 93

. Safety MWOs Safety MWOs >3 Months Oid 1200- 1104 1200-1000 - B52 .I'

[ hj 1000- 850 850 g 800- '

/,, ;9',, j';jjj: y 800- ; e ~ '-'

2 600- 'I'I'I'I'I 'I'IOI'5' 2 600- \ h g %?;y :O;?Z g Nx : -

2 400 - 318 ,;,7,;,;,', ..l,;,;,;,;.. s 400 _ 318 g .,

200 - hhhhh:

/,,',1,',

hh[hI

'u //,

hhh[

':/,%:<:

200 - [x N I \, y[

May 93 June '93 July 33 May '93 June '93 July 93 D High Prionty MWOs 80 - 75 i e 71QFn$El 60 -

m 40- i ew ?

2 *

$4 h go_ l-;My 0

h h. 0 0 j

, , i May '93 June'93 July 93 i

MAINTENANCE WORK ORDER BREAKDOWN (CORRECTIVE NON-OUTAGE) !

This indicator shows the estimated manhours for corrective non-outage MWOs remain-ing open at the end of the reporting month, along with a breakdown by several key categories. ,

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None SEP 36 45

l

. . I l

l l

O Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance j 100% - _ ;

90%- '

l 80%- -

70%- ~

60%- -

50%- -

40%-

30%- !

20%- !

10% -

0%

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut 93 2%-

O Preventive Maintenance items Overdue GOOD t

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal y l 1%-

o O O a O O 2-- o -o-o--c 0 i l

I t 0% , I I i i , , , i i i , i i i !

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 I

RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE & PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE The top graph shows the ratio of completed non-outage preventive maintenance to total completed non-outage maintenance.

1 The ratio of preventive to total maintenance was 91.07% in July 1993. !

l The lower graph shows the percentage of preventive maintenance items overdue.

During July 1993,606 PM items were completed.1 of these PM items (0.16% of the total) was not completed within the allowable grace period.

The 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals are to have less than 0.5% per month of the

preventive maintenance items overdue.

1

l Accountability: Chase /Bobba Data Source: Chase /Schmitz/Brady(Manager / Sources)

Adverse Trend: None SEP 41 l

I 46

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

E ' Rework As identified By Planning or Craft l 1

-O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Goal (<4.0%)

i

) 4%- O O O O O O -

i !

U

$ 3.13% f h3%- 2.83 % f y 2.56 % l I

l' 3:

l 2

1.95 % 2.0% {

3

~ 2%- 1.82 % ;

09. ; i ; g i ; ;

Feb93 Mar Apr May Jun Juf93 j

?

^

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER MONTH IDENTIFIED AS I REWORK i i i This graph indicates the percentage of total MWOs completed per month identified as !

rework. Rework activities are identified by maintenance planning and craft. l r

1

' I The 1993 goal for this indicator is to maintain less than 4% rework per month. l Data Source: Bobba/Schmitz (Manager / Source) l l .

4 Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None i

1 i

47 (

. . 4 Maintenance Overtime ;

80%- ,

lGOODI j

--X-- 12 Month A:sge Maintenance Overtime t '

70%- _o.- Fort Calhoun "On-Line* Goal j l

60%- ;

-i l

50%- !

40%- l 30%- .

_ ji 20%- x x g X g u

)

i 10%- C

^

._ .O.

^

3 --C. ^

O O N F1 r r Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 l f

MAINTP1ANCE OVERTIME .

-[

The Maintenance Overtime Indicator monitors the ability to perform the desired mainte- ,

nance activities with the allotted resources. l The percent of overtime hours with respect to normal hours was reported as 2.0% for ,

the month of July 1993. The 12 month average percentage of overtime hours with [

respect to normal hours was reported as 8.0% at the end of the month. j i

August 1992 overtime was high due to a forced outage. ;

i The 1993 and 1992 Fort Calhoun goals for the "on-line" percentage of maintenance i

overtime hours worked are a maximum of 10%. !

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source) f Accountability: Chase / Bobba Adverse Trend: None ,

i k

48 i

t

w 8 Open irs Related to the Use of Procedures (Maintenance) ,

@ Closed irs Related to the Use of Procedures (Maintenance)

O Procedural Noncompliance irs (Maintenance) 4- t t

3-2-

1 1 1 1 1~ 5 7 E ,

b s t E N :

0 ; OO h0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 000 000 E 00 000 000 .

1 0

4 i i i i i i i i i i i Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 :

PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS (MAINTENA.NCE)

This indicator shows the number of open Maintenance incident Reports (irs) that are related to the use of procedures, the number of closed irs that are related to the use of procedures, and the number of open and closed irs that received procedural noncom-pliance cause codes for each of the last twelve months.

There were no procedural noncompliance incidents for maintenance reported for the month of July 1993.

Data Source: Chase / Keister (Manager / Source) ,

1 Accountability: Chase /Bobba Adverse Trend: None SEP 15,41 & 44 I 49

]

I E Completed Scheduled Activities (AllCrafts)

D Numberof Emergent MWOs Completed O Fort Calhoun Goal (85%) l t

- 110 l 100 % -

' 90

~

g O O O _

72.7 % 80 y 71.0 % 69 M g 70%- 70 3 3 l

O ;

.E 60%- - 60 3: i j 52 2 i y 50%- ,,f, 47 50 E f o //,. si O i 3 40%~ //' ,'/< - 40 9 >

A $ '/ f l E 30%-

O 26 ((' , $(( - 30 tu [

20% ~

22

'//

//s hh:

'/l

'// 20 d o (

l o / '// j,// '//

-10 2

fo10%- , :hh fj Sh{ i l' '// l' '//

O 0%-

"- '/' -0 !

April'93 May June July '93 i i

1 PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES (ALL MAINTENANCE CRAFTS)

This indicator shows the percent of the number of completed maintenance activities as compared to the number of scheduled maintenance activities concerning all Mainte-nance Crafts. Maintenance activities include MWRs, MWOs, STs, PMOs, calibrations, :

and miscellaneous maintenance activities. The number of emergent MWOs completed l for the month is also shown.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun Station monthly goal for the percent of completed scheduled l i maintenance activities is a minimum of 85%. i Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source) !

Accountability: Chase /Bobba j j i Adverse Trend: None ,

SEP 33 ,

50 l 1

l

@ Number of Instruments Out-of-Service

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal 24_ 23 20- 8 17 17 17 17 16 .

16- 5 '

14 -

7 ^

l l 5

12- :

L ' [ l j !

8- ;

[ ! i '

y _ _

' ' ' - '- " ' ' ~' ' ~ --~~ 5 O

~

, , , , i , i , , i , i Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 IN-LINE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT-OF-SERVICE !

This indicator shows the total number of in-line chemistry system instruments out-of-service at the end of the reporting month. The chemistry systems involved in this indi-cator include the Secondary System and the Post Accident Sampling System (PASS). :

At the end of July 1993 there was a total of 17 in-line chemistry instruments out-of-service. Of these 17 instruments,15 were from the Secondary System and 2 were from PASS.

The trend for PASS instruments for this reporting period has not changed. The trend for Secondary instruments this reporting period has not changed. The Al-125 data logger has been replaced and calibrations are in progress. 2 pH and a dissolved oxygen instrument at the secondary panel are out of service due to failure of weekly functional tests and awaiting repair. However, allinstruments remain out-of-service until the Al-125 data logger is operable. 2 instruments are out of service on Al-107 because of recorder failure and 2 are out-of-service because of failed function checks and awaiting repair.1 instrument is out of service on Al-105 because of malfunction.

The entire instrument channel is considered inoperative if: 1) the instrument is inopera-tive, 2) the chart recorder associated with the instrument is inoperative, or 3) tho alarm function associated with the instrument is inoperative. If any of the functions listed above are not operational, then the instrument is not performing its intended function.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goal for the number of in-line chemistry system instruments that are out-of-service has been set at a maximum of 5. The 1992 goal was a maximum of

6. Six out-of-service chemistry instruments make up 10% of all the chemistry instru-ments that are counted for this indicator. ;

I Data Source: Chase /Renaud (Manager / Source) l Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Adverse Trend: None !

51 l i

@ Monthly Waste Produced (Kilograms)

Yearly Waste Produced (Kilograms)

-ff- Year-to-Date Monthly Average Waste Produced (Kilograms)

-O- Fort Calhoun Monthly Average Goal

- - + - Federa! & State Monthly Limit (Max. of 1,000 Kg) 1000 - ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 0 800-E 600 -

2 b"

g 400-200- I C

E C

Z C

C

" Q--O w+w 2 C

S C

C 5;5 0 , , i i "N, m r

m , , , , , ,

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED This indicator shows the total amount of hazardous waste produced by the Fort Calhoun ;

Station each month, the monthly average goal and the year-to-date total for hazardous

waste produced. This hazardous waste consists of non-halogenated hazardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other hazardous waste produced.

6 During the month of July 1993, O kilograms of non-halogenated hazardous waste was produced, O kilograms of halogenated hazardous waste was produ6ed, and 0 kilograms of other hazardous waste was produced. The yearly total for hazardous waste pro-duced is 149.5 kilograrns. The year-to-date monthly average for hazardous waste produced is 21.4 kilograms. l Hazardous waste is counted based upon a full drum of waste.

The 1993 and 1992 monthly average goals for hazardous waste prodt.eed are a maxi-mum of 100 kilograms.

I Date Source: Chase /Henning (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Henning ;

Adverse Trend: None l

52

)

100% - E Decontaminated Radiation Controlled Area

+

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal (non-outage months) l GOOD l 90%- -

l 80%- l l

I I

I l

, 70%- l

-l

'l 60%- !

I 50% '!

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 i

-l DEOONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTP.0LLED AREA i

j This indicator shows the percentage of the RCA that is decontaminated (clean) based j on the total square footage. The 1993 non-outage goalis a minimum of 88% decon- l taminated RCA and the outage goalis a minimum of 85% decontaminated RCA. The !

1992 non-outage goal was a minimum of 88% decontaminated RCA. l At the end of the reporting month,89% of the total square footage of the RCA was not I contaminated. ,

I i

, Date Source: Chase /Gundal(Manager / Source) j Accountability: Chase /Lovett l Adverse Trend: None SEP 54 53

20- Nurnber of identified PRWPs O Fort Calhoun Goal 15- l 10- C O O O O O O O O O O O 5

5-3 I

1 1 O ' '. . .' '. . . . . . . . .

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec93 RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM The Radiological Work Practices Program Indicator shows the number of Poor Radio-logical Work Practices (PRWPs) which were identified during the reporting month. The PRWPs are identified through supervisory review of the Radiological Occurrence Re-ports and Personnel Contamination Reports written 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. ;

During the month of July 1993, no PRWPs were identified.

The 1993 monthly goal for the number of PRWPs is a maximum of 10 per month. ;

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

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None SEP 52 l

l 54

E TotalNurnberof Hot Spots O Nurnber of Additional Hot Spots identified ,

@ Rernovat Planned

-+- Cu,rnulative Hot Spots Rernoved (Year-to-Date)

-O- Fort Calhoun Goal for Hot Spots Removed (1/rnonth) ;

80 60 t

40 ;

a 20 ,

0 f ," D , _o .- O--O - O --

0 ," " , -, , q , , , , ,

Jan93 Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec93 ,

t NUMBER OF HOT SPOTS This indicator shows the total number of hot spots which have been identified to exist in the Fort Calhoun Station and have been documented through the use of a hot spot identification sheet. A hot spot is defined as a smalllocalized source of nigh radiation. i A hot spot occurs when the contact dose rate of an item or piece of equipment is at least 5 times the General Area dose rate and the item or piece of equipment's dose rate is equal to or greater than 100 mrem / hour in rad areas.

At the end of July 1993, there was a total of 62 hot spots identified. There were no new '

hot spots identified during the month.

4 hot spots were removed during the month. 3 of the 4 were removed as a part of the boronometer modification and the remaining hot spot was a planned removalinitiated '

by ALARA.

Removalis planned for 16 hot spots.

There has been a total of 10 hot spots removed in 1993.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun goalis to remove three hot spots per quarter and achieve a net reduction of one hot spot per quarter.

Data Source: Chase / Williams (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Lovett Adverse Trend: None 55

r Documents Scheduled for Review 800-Documents Reviewed 700 - O Overdue Documents 600 - 7 500- %

400- _

300-200- ,

-:2 g 100-f h 7

P 7

' 7 r~ d h

h -'

h rs o i 4 4 4

1 im_ 6 L _rf 4 I I

I I i 1

i Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ju!93 DOCUMENT REVIEW This indicator shows the number of completed, scheduled, and overdue (greater than 6 months past the scheduled due date) biennial reviews for the reporting month. These document reviews are performed in-house and include Special Procedures, the Site Security Plan, Maintenance Procedures, Preventive Maintenance Procedures, and the Operating Manual.

During July 1993 there were 124 document reviews completed while 94 document reviews were scheduled. At the end of July, there were no document review more than 6 months overdue.

There were 45 new documents reviewed in July.

The 1993 monthly goal for this indicator is no (0) documents more than 6 months over-due.

Data Source: Chase / Keister (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Jaworski Adverse Trend: None SEP 46 i

56

i

)

5 Non-System Failures l GOOD l V

10 10- 9 ,

p 8- 6

3 y g 6- 4 4 '

4- W I 3 ,

2-0

[ ,

i i , , i ; i i i i i i Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93

@ System Failures l GOOD l I

80- T 70 -

60 -

47 50 - ,

40- 34 !

30 31 33 26 : 5 25 25 27 30- m'4 ,

21 m -

ja- j fm/4 p 0 ,

. -'- ~ ~ ~ -- ---- --'-

-~~~ --

0

, "- , , i , , , i , i i Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 LOGG ABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY)

The Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Security) Indicator is depicted in two separate graphs. The top graph depicts the total number of loggable/ reportable non-system failures concerning Security Badges, Access Control and Authorization, Security Force Error, and Unsecured Doors. The bottom graph shows the total number of loggable/

reportable incidents concerning system failures which occurred during the reporting month.

During the month of July 1993, there were 37 toggable/ reportable incidents identified. l System failures accounted for 27 (73%) of the loggable/ reportable incidents, and only 11 (41%) of these were environmental failures. Inclement weather continued to be the major cause of the environmental failures. The recent bad weather has also caused several microwave failures due to condensation. Non-System failures increased signifi-cantly during the reporting month due to an increase in lost / unattended security badges.

Data Source: Sefick/Woerner (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Sefick Adverse Trend: None SEP 58 57

. _ _ _ .- _ . _ _ _ . - ,. m -

E Temporary Modifcations >1 cycle old (RFO required for Removal) 6- Temporary Modifcations >6 months old (Removable on-line) i

--O-- For1 Cathoun Goal for Temporary Modifications >1 cycle old (0) ;

5-4 h/

/////

/I 3 bbbb'

'////

$Ihi!:

/////

2 2 '//// ///// ;

2- ,... . ... '//// /////

hhhh hhhh: 'hhhh hIhh:

'/ / / / / ,' '//// ///// ;

1- '/ I

////<

I !

// ////s '/ '//

5hh9

hhhh hhhh:l :h/hh 0 O , 'fff/: 0 ,f/ff- 0 , 'fff/ ,(i //,/

0 m i w i w i w i August '93 May '93 June'93 July '93 TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS l i

This indicator provides information on the number of temporary modifications greater ,

than one fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage (RFO) for removal and the number ;

of temporary modifications removable on-line that are greater than six months old. Also i provided is the Fort Calhoun goal for temporary modifications.

There are currently no temporary modifications that are greater than one fuel cycle old requiring a refueling outage to remove. In addition, at the end of July 1993 there were 4 j temporary modifications installed that were greater than six months old that can be -

removed on-line. These were: 1) PTZ camera 51 power supply, in which DEN electri- .

cal has a commitment completion date of 9/01/93 for ECN 93-113; 2) Camera and :

mounting bracket removal, which is awaiting completion of MWO 924757, scheduled !

start date 1/17/94; 3) Localindication for BAST CH-11 A and CH-118,in which Ucens-ing is to issue an FLC, and the NRC is to approve the FLC;. and 4) Installation of pro-j gram changes in PC-51 A,in which DEN electricalis to respond to ECN 93-050. j At the end of July 1993, there was a total of 28 TMs installed in the Fort Calhoun Sta-tion.16 of the 28 installed TMs require an outage for removal and 12 are removable-on-line. In 1993 a total of 30 temporary modifications have been installed. l.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Turner (Manager / Source)

I Accountability: Jaworski/Gorence '

Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 & 71 58 l

i l

. . l l

0- l 337 ,

)

E Total Modification Packages Open 300- - -O- 1993 Fort Calhoun Monthly Goal ( 150) 264 250- l 200- l i

160 148 146 145 150- C O O O O O 136 133 127 127 126 125 126 >

i i i i 100 ,

III;;;

3 i ; , i j

'90 '91 '92 Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ju!93 OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS This indicator shows the total number of outstanding modifications (excludino outstand-ino modifications which are orocosed to be cancelled). ,

~

Cateaorv

~

Renortino Month Form FC-1133 Backlog /in Progress 1 Mod. Requests Being Reviewed 8 Design Engr. Backlog /in Progress 47 ;

Construction Backlog /In Progress 40 Design Engr. Uodate Backloa/In Progress 17 Total 113 .

At the end of July 1993,11 additional modification requests had been issued this year and 61 modification requests had been cancelled. The Nuclear Projects Review Com-mittee (NPRC) had completed 156 backlog modification request reviews this year. The Nuclear Projects Committee (NPC) had completed 45 backlog modification request i reviews this year.

The 1993 Fort Calhoun monthly goalis a maximum of 150 total outstanding modifica- j tions.

Data Source: Jaworski/ Turner (Manager / Source)

Scofield/Lounsbery (Manager / Source) i Accountability: Scofield/Phelps 1 Adverse Trend: None 59

I EARa Requiring Engineering CI:secut- Nst in Clasecut l

O DEN E SE !

50- 50- 50- 50- j Data 40- Data 40- Data 40-30- 30- Data -

30- -

Not - 30- Not 20- 20- . Not _ 20- Not 10- Available 10- ] Available[~] po_ 10- Available 10- Available ;

O , , ,0 , , , 0 , , i 0 , , , i May June July May June July May June July May June July :

I 0-3 months 3-6 months 6-12 months >12 months July '93 Overdue EARS O Closeout O Engineering Response 4 - mgyn 30- WM 20- ~

'g- , .

i 1 Priority 0 Priority 1 Pr6ority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6 O Priority 1 & 2 --

Priority 3 lotal Open EARS 200 -

150 - .# ~

De 100 - --

50- ;j. E[ 5 2 3 Aval ble h i e i i e i e i e i e i Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 O SO Overdue Respnoes 33 61 EARS Hosolved and in Clomeout 3 So overdue Clomeouts i

a .. e4n. neoui,ino no.oon.e a ,y,_m ,

~'

s e.a s ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST BREAKDOWN This indicator shows a breakdown of the number of EARS assigned to Design Engineer-ing and System Engineering. The 1993 goal for this indicator is a maximum of 150 outstanding EARS.

Total EAR breakdown is as ;ollows:

EARS opened during the month 11 EARS closed during the month 15 Total EARS open as of the end of the month 155 Data Source: Phelps/Pulverenti (Manager / Source)

Accountabiiity: Jaworski/Phelps Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 60 1

E ECNs Backlogged in DEN 350-- O ECNs Received During the Month

@ ECNs Completed During the Month 300 -

250 -

200 -

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut 93 i

ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE STATUS ;

This indicator shows the number of Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) awaiting completion by DEN, the number of ECNs opened during the reporting month, and the number of ECNs completed by DEN during the reporting month.

At the end of July 1993, there was a total of 148 DEN backlogged open ECNs. There ;

were 47 ECNs received by DEN, and 92 ECNs completed during the month. .

Although the number of open ECNs is currently high, activities are in progress to reduce the backlog of open ECNs.

Data Source: Phelps/Pulverenti(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Jaworski AdverseTrend: None SEP 62 61 !

O DEN - Engineering not complete

@ System Engineering - Engineering complete, response under review

@ Maintenance / Construction - MWO/CWO scheduled, but work not complete E Maintenance /Cgnstruction - MWO/CWO complete, awaiting closecut ,

115 120-100-80-60- 44 2 0 3 0 l l1 0 1 g

0 - 3 months 3 - 6 months > 6 rnonths ECN FACIL-lTY CHANGES OPEN O DEN - Engineering not complete D System Engineering - Engineering complete, response under review

@ Maintenance / Construction - MWO/CWO scheduled, but work not complete E Maintenance / Construction - MWO/CWO complete, awaiting closeout 53 U M 60-11 10 16 2 5 I ' ' - I -' '

0 i i i 0 - 3 months 3 - 6 months > 6 months ECN SUBSTITUTE REPLACEMENT ITEMS OPEN O DEN - Engineering not complete

@ System Engineering - Walkdown or confirmation not complete 62 60- --

40- 29 N

\

~

0 , ,

O ,

0 , , i 0 - 3 months 3 - 6 months > 6 nuan:i::

ECN DOCUMENT CH ANGES OPEN ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE BREAKDOWN This indicator shows a breakdown of the number of Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) that are assigned to Design Engineering Nuclear (DEN), System Engineering, and Maintenance or Construction for July 1993. The graphs provide data on ECN Facility Changes Open, ECN Substitute Replacement items Open, and ECN Document Changes Open.

Data Source: Phelps/Pulverenti (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Phelps/Jaworski Adverse Trend: None SEP 62 62

O Administrative Control Problem O Licensed Operator Error

@ Maintenance Problem E Design / Construction / installation / Fabrication Problem 5-t, @ Equipment Failures 4-3- i i

2- , , -

i 1- '- -

=

= - = . ;

m :

$ 2 : E i s : : , : , ,

i' :

~

0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul93 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE BREAKDOWN f i

This indicator shows the LERs by report date broken down by Root Cause Code for f each of the past twelve months from August 1,1992 through July 31,1993.

i The cause codes are intended to identify possible programmatic deficiencies. For detailed descriptions of these codes, see the " Performance Indicator Definitions" section !

of this report. l I

There were 2 LERs submitted in July 1993. !

Data Source: Short/Cavanaugh (Manager / Source) j Accountability: Chase Adverse Trend: None i

F 60 - O Total Requalification Training Hours O simutatorTrainin9 Hours O Non-Requalification Training Hours E Number of Exam Failures 40-33 33 33 30- E E 27 25 20 -

f 3 313 3 11 3 7 10-

~

e $ k 3

2 4 4 2 4 S' 3 2 2 , 23 k 2 o

I-50 o ko' kW' k ,

k',

k-Cycle 92 5 Cycle 92-6 Cycle 92-7 Cycle 93-1,, Cycle 93-2 Cycle 93-3 Cycle 93-4

Note: The Simulator was out of-service for maintenance and modifications during Rotation 92-7.

LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING This indicator provides information on the total number of hours of training given to each crew during each cycle. The Simulator training hours shown on the graph are a subset of the total training hours. Non-Requalification Training Hours are used for AOP/EOP verification & validation, INPO commitments, GET, Fire Brigade, Safety Meetings, and Division Manager lunches.

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

There were two written exam failures during Cycle 93-4. There were no simulator exam failures. One individual who failed the written exam was removed from shift for l remediation. Remediation was completed, and that individual has subsequently been returned to shift. This other individual who failed the written exam was reme'diated without impacting shift operations.

Data Source: Gasper /Guliani (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gasper /Guliani Adverse Trend: None SEP 68 i 64 l i

O SRO Exams Administered ,

O SRO Exams Passed j E RO Exams Administered 30-O RO Exams Passed l

20-4

" i 10- ' i

NRC Exams ,

4 0

i r

Aug92 Sep i

Oct i

Nov i

m Dec i

Jan i

Jif11 Feb i

Mar i

Apr i

May i

Jun i

Jul93 i

LICENSE CANDIDATE EXAMS i This indicator shows the number of Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and Reactor Opera- 1 tor (RO) quizzes and exams taken and passed each month. These internally adminis-tered quizzes and exams are used to plot the SRO and RO candidates' monthly progress. ;

There were no OPPD Reactor Operator or Senior Reactor Operator exams adminis-tered during July 1993.

There were no Reactor Operator or Senior Reactor Operator candidate NRC exams administered in July. '

The next Hot License class will start in December 1993.

Data Source: Gasper /Guliani(Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gasper /Guliani Adverse Trend: None SEP 68 g i

O To:aiOpenCARs 9 TotalOpen irs G Open CARS > Six Months Old g Open irs > Six Months Old 150- -.

150 2

120- I I 120 Z 2 90- -

; 90 60- ~

60 r

~

k '

30- - ': ,',

_ 'l

, 30 l j ;' l <

l ,

/

/ /

a'

, , ; n ?

c ,

, / ..

9 i a i i i i a i i , , , O Aug92 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun . Ju!93 f

50 - ;

40- E Open Significant CARS O Open Significantins 30- 25 E I 21 -

20- -

7 1

2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 0 , , , , , , , , , , , ,

AugS2 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ju!93 OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORTS AND INCIDENT REPORTS ;

This indicator shows the total number of open Corrective Action Reports (CARS), CARS ;

>6 months old, the total number of Open irs, irs >6 months old, the number of open ;

significant CARS and the number of open significant irs.

At the end of July 1993 there were 68 open CARS. 24 of these CARS were greater than 6 months old. There were 2 Open Significant CARS at the end of the month.

Also, at the end of July there were 147 open irs. 44 of these irs were greater than 6 months old. There were 28 Open Significant irs at the end of the month.

The 1993 monthly goal for the number of CARS greater than 6 months old is a maxi- ;

mum of 30. i l

Data Source: Orr/Gurtis (Manager / Source) & CHAMPS i Accountability: Andrews/Gambhir/ Gates Adverse Trend: None ss

0 Engineering Hold -+- Planning Complete

--O- Planning Hold -et- Ready

-V-- Part Hold -e- Total 1000 - .

900 - N gr i

800 - i 700 -

I

g 600- l 500 - ,

3 400- l 300-2 . -

- ~

~ M f 12-px ;; e -: ; 5 ; +

0 i e a i i i e i i i i e a i e i Jun92 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Har Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep93 i

MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 15 REFUELING OUTAGE)

This indicator shows the total number of Maintenance Work Requests (MWRs) and 1 Maintenance Work Orders (MWOs) that have been approved for inclusion in the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage. This graph indicates: ,

- Part Holds (part hold removed when parts are staged and ready for use) ,

- Engineering Holds (Engineering hold removed when appropriate engineering ;

paperwork or support is received for the package)

- Planning Holds (Planning hold removed when planning is completed to the point i when package is ready or other support is necessary to continue ,

the planning process)

- Planning Complete (status given when only items keeping the job from being ready ;

to work are parts or engineering support) .

- Ready (status when all planning, supporting documentation, and parts are ready to go) [

t i

Data Source: Chase /Schmitz (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Chase /Johansen Adverse Trend: None SEP 31 1 67 ,

$ >>0

o. p n>

n) c "cr> Hr >

o.

2H e7

% Complete

a *'

E cE m w a m m s e e o

$,8 eM 5 o_ m o e o m3-a o o o to oi o i o o oi o t o m

co an o *m o D3 3 =

3 o-i t i i db e e=8 ua, h o c, o O

All Projects

............i 3q.. 87- E m

c. . . -eE n> n> m

zmEc uc) {8 =m 5' 3 o :r P

2

Steam Generator Services

' - - - - - ^ ' - '- ' "

5' E F 9 (n o.

oEo E

S gh, F '-

S0k a & o, 1 3 S 3 Balance of Plant ECT wM og = e, o CD E oe c e m-- e n,> m+ c Erosion Corrosion c E o, - e m ,sssss ss,,,,s s s ,sss , ,s .s,, a co c

$*m-3 70 $ o" h

~

h EI 3

83$

2 o, 5.

co (n

y Snubber Testing s s s ss s ssss s s s ,.ss s s s s s s ss s ,

EE o q

g * 'o Containment ILRT h m e 3, 3 5 u- W - e , 8 m M

$ O.

o e y>

[foI o O ISIExams hh 3 3 -m h

o. -*

O v v- O

O o "

! g3 Y o c < 7 e a $q 8o .R

-+

oo=r S -

m a

System Pressure Tests

.xxxxsxxxxxxxxxxs.ssx.xxxxx' v 3 g h- m.4 o

w (D g- K D) o m - e 3 3 m.4 98 eg g-h $ Relief Valve Testing x s. .s s x. s. x x s. x x s. s ssssx.x- '. x1 g 'g h o, CV oS 5- ~

O 0 :p c_ "*

C .

M-h y e 5 3E A C

Check Valves cx x c . a w . s x - -

$5 Q o

e ,o_, m 1ax-a .- o eo g -

cr RCP Mainten&nce

$* 8 o C 3

g 9

e y Motor Operated Valves (MOVs) xx m sv x m m xx m x m l g _

Snr m o

o a RV Surveillance Capsule m .o y g ms s , s s , m s , s s, m s m e '< n> "

u a c_ cr G w c F Boric Acid Inspection co, x_

, , ,,,,,,,,.,,,,.s,,,,,,,,,.. .

b

. . - - - . , , ,__s_ ,_ - ,% .-. , - - - . . . , , . - - -..--.,m-----.--..-.,-.-r w - , , - , - - . . - - * - - , . , , , . - - _ ~ , ,- - - - .--__m___________m_._____ ___.-__me-

I O Baseline Schedule for PRC Approval O Projected' Actual Schedule for PRC Approval

- Final Design Package issued l Total Modification Packages (22) (2 under review to cancel or move) 25 -

R

$ il;!!!!;::: : lllllll;llllllll lllllllllllllll'1 ^ .. pd

, is 20

$f-f a e 15-bh 0- o 3E 10_

$E E3 -

C E

a m en I 5-

~

Q CCCC

...-a..nnnnn s nn .wwwwwvvvv-0 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

N e-Q) C 9 M C @ M M @

$ 5 2 3 9 [ - {d N $ $" 5 E 5

PROGRESS OF CYCLE 15 OUTAGE MODIFICATION PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 24 MODIFICATIONS)

This indicator shows the status of modifications approved for installation during the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage. The data is represented with respect to the baseline schedule (established 6/19/92) and the current schedule. This information is taken from the Modification Variance Report produced by the Design Engineering Nuclear group.

The goal for this indicator was to have all modification packages PRC approved by June 30,1993.

All BASELINED modification packages were PRC approved by June 23,1993.

The indicator goal was met.

All BASELINED and NEW modification packages were PRC approved by July 8,1993.

Data Source: Phelps/Ronne (Manager / Source)

Accountability: Gambhir/Phelps Adverse Trend: None SEP 31 69

i i

N e

1 l

I i

ACTION PLANS FOR ;

ADVERSE TRENDS l M

i 4

[

a

i i

l

- 1 I

! l i

70

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

4 4 +4 _ -~_e a q 3 m - ,.a

+~ w;r ACTION PLANS FOR ADVERSE TRENDS 'j l

The following action plan has been developed for the performance indicator cited as exhibiting an adverse trend during the last three months-

~

I l

t Percent of Comoleted Scheduled Maintenance Activities (All Maintenance Crafts)

Problems: 1) Increasing Emergent Work ,

A) Amount of Pre-Outage work j B) Weather Related Activities j C) Activities related to Shutdowns or created as a result of Shutdowns t

2) Resource Constraints l A) Amount of Overtime Allowed :

B) Not at current or approved Staff Level !

C) Amount of Staff available to support emergent work / pre-outage work and scheduled work is not sufficient !

i Goal; The 1993 OPPD monthly goalis to complete a minimum of 85% of the monthly l scheduled maintenance activities. l l

Action: To oe determined. i i

f i !

l l

l 71 l i

~

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM Errors - failures attributable to inwrrect procedures that PERFORMANCE were followed as written, improper installation of equip-The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavail- ment, and personnel errors (including f ailure to follow able hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the procedures properly). Also included in this category are auxiliary feedwater system for the reportirfg period di- failures for which the cause is unknown or cannot be as-vided by the critical hours for the reporting period multi- signed to any of the preceding categories. ,

pied by the number of trains in the auxiliary feedwater syrem. CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR l The purpose of this indicator is to quantify the economi- !

AUXIUARY SYSTEMS CHEMISTRY PERCENT OF cat operation of Fort Calhoun Station. The cents per HOURS OUTSIDE STATION LIMITS kilowatt hour indicator represents the budget and actual The cumulative hours that the Component Cooling Water cents per kilowatt hour on a 12 month rolling average for system is outside the station chemistry limit. The hours the current year. The basis for the budget curve is the are accumulated from the first sample exceeding the limit approved 1993 budget. The basis for the actual curve is until additional sampling shows the parameter to be back the Financial and Operating Report. -

within limits.

CONTAMINATIONS >5,000 DPW100 CM2 CHECK VALVE FAILURE RATE Reportable skin and clothing cx)ntaminations above Compares the Fort Calhoun check valve failure rate to background levels greater than 5.000 dpm/100 cm2 This the industry check valve f ailure rate (f ailures per 1 million indicator tracks personnel performance for SEP #15 &

component hours). The data for the industry f ailure rate 54.

is three months behind the Pl Report reporting month.

This indicator tracks performance for SEP #43. DAILY THERMAL OUTPUT -

This indicator shows tha daily core thermal output as COLLECTIVE RADIATION EXPOSURE measured from computer point XC105 (in thermal mega-Collective radiation exposure is the total extemal whole- watts). The 1500 MW Tech Spec limit, and the unmet body dose received by all on-site p9rsonnel(including portion of the 1495 MW FCS daily goal for the reporting contractors and visitors) during a time period, as mea- month are ob Mwn.

sured by the thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD). Col-lective radiation exposure is reported in units of person- DIESEL GENERATOR REUABluTY (25 DEMANDS) rem. This indicator tracks radiological work performance This indicator shows the number of failures occurring for for SEP #54. each emergency diesel generator during the last 25 start demands and the last 25 load-run demands.

COMPONENT FAILURE ANALYSIS REPORT (CFAR) l

SUMMARY

DECONTAMINATED RADIATION CONTROLLED The number of INPO categories for Fort Calhoun Station AREA with significantly higher (1.645 standard deviations) fail- The percentage of the Radiation Controlled Area, which ute rates than the rest of the industry for an eighteen includes the auxiliary building, the radwaste building, and month time period. Failures are reported as component areas of the C/RP building, that is decontaminated based (i.e. pumps, motors, valves, etc.) and apphcation (i.e. on the total square footage. This indicator tracks perfor-charging pumps, main steam stop valves, control ele- mance for SEP # 54.

ment drive motors, etc.) categories "ailure Cause Categories are: DISABUNG INJURY /lLLNESS FREQUENCY RATE '

Wear Out/ Aging - a f ailure thought to be the conse- (LOST TIME ACCIDENT RATE) quence of expected wear or aging. This indicator is defined as the number of accidents for Manuf eturing Defed - a f ailure attributable to inad- all utility personnel permanently assigned to the station, i equate assembly or initial quality of the responsible com- involving days away from work per 200,000 man-hours ponent or system. worked (100 man-years). This does not include contrac-EngineerinWDesign - a f ailure attributable to the inad- tor personnel. This indicator tracks personnel perfor-equate design of the responsible component or system. mance for SEP #25 & 26.

Other Devices - a f ailure attributable to a failure or misoperation of another component or system, including DOCUMENT REVIEW (BIENNIAL) associated devices. The Document Review Indicator shows the number of Maintenance / Testing - a f allure that is a result of im- documents reviewed, the number of documents sched-proper maintenance or testing, lack of maintenance, or uled for review, and the number of document reviews personnel errors that occur during maintenance or test- that are overdue for the reporting month. A document ing activities performed on the responsible component or review is considered overdue if the review is not com-system, including f ailure to follow procedures. plete within 6 months of the assigned due date. This indicator tracks performance for SEP #46.

72

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS (cont'd)

EMERGENCY AC POWER SYSTEM SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE E) A f ailure to start because a portion of the starting sys-The sum of the known (pla.sned and unplanned) unavail- tem was disabled for test purpose, rl fol lowed by a suc- r able and the estimated unavailable hours for the emer- cessful start with the starting system in its normal align-gency AC oower system for the reporting period divided m ent.

by the number of hours in the reporting period multiplied Each emergency generator failure that results in the gen-by the number of trains in the emergency AC power sys- erator being declared inoperable shouki be counted as tem. one demand and one failure. Exploratory tests during corrective maintenance and the successf ul test that fol-EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNIT RELIABIL- lows repair to verify operability should not be counted as ITY demands or f anures when the EDG has not been de-This indicator shows the number of failures that were clared operable again.

reported during the last 20. 50, and 100 emergency die-seigenerator demands at the Fort Calhoun Station. Also EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR UNRELIABluTY shown are ingger values which correlate to a high level This indicator measures the total unreliabikty of emer-of confidence that a unit's diesel generators have ob- gency diesel generators, in general, unrehabihty is the i tained a reliability of greater than c equal to 95% when ratb of unsuccessful operatons (starts or load-runs) to the demand f ailures are less than the trigger valuws. %e number of valid demands. Total unrehability is a

1) Number of Start Demands: All valid and inadvertent combinaton of start unrehability and load-run start demands, including all start-only demands and all unrehability. t start demands that are followed by load-run demands, l whether by automatic or manualinitiation. A start-only ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE REQUEST (EAR) ,

demand is a demand in wnich the emergency generator BREAKDOWN l is started, but no attempt is made to load the generator. This indicator shows a breakdown, by age and pnonty of j

2) Number of Start Faaures: Any f ailure within the emer- the EAR, of the number of EARS assigned to Design En- ,

j gency generator system that prevents the generator from gineering Nuclear and System Engineering. This indica- 5 achieving specrf ed frequency and votage is classified as tor tracks performance for SEP #62. '

a valid start failure. This includes any condition identifed ;

in the course of maintenance inspections (with the emer- ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) BREAK- ,

gency generator in standby mode) that definitely would DOWN !

have resulted in a s. tart f ailure if a demand had occurred. This indicator breaks down the number of Engineenng i

3) Number of Load-Run Demands: For a valid load-run Change Notices (ECNs) that are assigned to Design demand to be counted the load-run attempt must meet Engineering Nuclear (DEN), System Engineering, and one or more of the folbwing criteria: Maintenance. The graphs provide data on ECN Facility A) A load-run of any duration that results from a real au- Changes open, ECN Substitute Replacement Parts tomatic or manualimtiation. open, and ECN Document Changes open. This indicator B) A load-run test to satisfy the plant's load and duration tracks performance for SEP #62.

i as stated in each test's specifcations.

C) Other special tests in which the emergency gererator ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE (ECN) STATUS is expected to be operated for at least one hour while The number of ECNs that were opened. ECNs that were loaded with at least 50% of its design bad. completed, and open backlog ECNs awaiting completion

4) Number of Load-Run Failures: A bad-run failure by DEN for the reporting month. This indicator tracks should be counted for any reason in which the emer- performance for SEP #62.

gency generator does not pick up load and run as pre-deted. Failures are counted during any valid bad-run EQUIPMENT FORCED OUTAGES PER 1,000 CRIT 1-demands. CAL HOURS

5) Exceptions: Unsuccessf ul attempts to start or load-run Equipment forced outages per 1000 cntcal hours is the should not be counted as valid demands or f ailures when inverse of the mean time between forced outages they can be attributed to any of the fotbwing: caused by equipment failures. The mean time is equal i A) Spurous trips that would be bypassed in the event of to the number of hours the reactor is critical in a perod an emergency. (1000 hours0.0116 days 0.278 hours 0.00165 weeks 3.805e-4 months ) divided by the number of forced outages B) Malfunction of equipment that is rot required daring caused by equipment failures in that perod.

an emergency. i C)Intentionaltermina:on of a test because of abnormal conditions that would not have resutted in major diesel generator damage or repair.

D) Malfunctions or operating errors which would have not ;

prevented the emergency generator from being restarted and brought to bad within a few minutes. ,

3 73 4

t

1 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS (Cont'd)

EQUIVALAfT AVAILABluTY FACTOR HIGH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM This indcator is defined as the ratio of gross available SAFETY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE generaton to gross maximum generaton, expressed as The sum of the known (planned and unplanned) unavail-a percentage. Available generaton is the energy that able hours and the estimated unavailable hours for the can be produced if the unit is operated at the maximum high pressure saf ety injection system for the reporting power level permated by equipment and regulatory limi- period divided by the critcal hours for the reporting pe-tatons. Maximum generaton is the energy that can be nod multiplied by the number of trains in the high pres-produced by a una in a given pared if operated continu- sure safety injection system.

ously at maximum capacity.

IN-UNE CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTS OUT OF SER-FORCED OUTAGE RATE VICE This indcator is defined as the percentage of time that Total number of in-line chemistry instruments that arc the unit was unavailable due to forced events compared out-of-service in the Secondary System and the Post to the time planned for electrical generaton. Forced Accident Sampling System (PASS).

events are failures or other unplanned condstons that require removing the unit from service before the end of UCENSE CANDIDATE EXA10S the next weekend. Forced events include start-up fail- This indcator shows the number of SRO and'or RO quiz-zes and exams that are administered and passed each ures and events initiated while the unit is in reserve shut-down (i.e.,the unit is available but not in service). month. This indcator tracks training performance for SEP 868.

FUEL REUABluTY INDICATOR This indcator is defined as the steady state primary cool- UCENSED OPERATOR REQUAUFICATION TRAIN-ant I-131 activity, corrected for the tramp uranium mntri- ING buton and normalized to a common purification rate. The total number of hours of training given to each crew Tramp uranium is fuel which has been deposited on re- dunng each cycle. Also provided are the simulator train-actor core internals from previous defectrve fuel or is ing hours (which are a subset of the total training hours),

present on the surface of fuel elements from the manu- the number of non-requalification training hours and the facturing process. Steady state is defined as mntmuous number of exam f ailures. This indicator tracks training operaton for at least three days at a power level that performance for SEP 868.

does not vary more than + or - 5% Plants should collect data for this indicator at a power level above 85% when UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) ROOT CAUSE possible. Plants that ded not operate at steady-state BREAKDOWN power above 85% should collect data for this indicator at This indicator shows the number and root cause code for the highest steady-state power level attained during the Licensee Event Reports. The root cause codes are as month. follows:

The density correcon f ador is the ratio of the specife 1) Administrative Control Problem - Management and volume of coolant at the RCS operating temperature supervisory defciencies that affect plant programs or (540 degrees F., Vf . 0.02146) divided by the specif c actrvities (i.e., poor planning, breakdown or lack of ad-I volume of coolant at normalletdown temperature (120 equate management or supervisory control, incorrect degrees F at outlet of the letdown cooling heat ex- procedures, etc.)

changer, Vi = 0.016204), which results in a densrty cor- 2) Licensed Operator Error This cause code captures rection factor for FCS equal to 1.32. errors of omission / commission by Icensed reactor opera-tors during plant activities.

GASEOUS RADIOAC11VE WASTE BEING DIS- 3) Other Personnel Error - Errore of omission /commis-CHARGED TO THE ENVIRONMENT sion committed by non-licensed personnel involved in This indcator displays the total number of Curies of all plant activities.

gaseous radioactive nuclides released from FCS. This 4) Maintenance Problem - The intent of this cause indicator is included in the report when new data is avail- code is to capture the full range of problems which can able, i e., every 6 months. be attributed in any way to programmatic defeiencies in the maintenance functional organization. Activities in-GROSS HEAT RATE cluded in this category are maintenance, testing, surveil-Gross heat rate is defined as the ratio of total thermal lance, calibraton and radiation protection.

energy in British Thermal Units (BTU) produced by the 5) Design / Construction / Installation /Fabricaton Problem reactor to the total gross electrical energy produced by - This cause code covers a full range of programmatic the generator in kilowatt-hours (KWH). defciencies in the areas of design, construction, installa-ton, and f abrication (i e,, loss of control power due to HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED underrated fuse, equipment not qualified for the environ-The total amount (in Kilograms) of non-halogenated haz- ment, etc.).

ardous waste, halogenated hazardous waste, and other 6) Equipment Failures (Electronic Pece-Parts or Envi-hazardous waste produced by FCS each month. ronmental-Related Failures) - This code is used for spuri-ous failures of electronic piece-parts and 1ailures due to meteorologeal conditions such as lightning, ice, high 74

i 1

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS (Cont'd) winds, etc. Generally, it includes spunous or one-time A plant component which is defcient or inoperable is f ailures. Electric mmponents included in this category considered an " Operator Work Around (OWA) Item" d are circuit cards, rect fiers, bistables, fuses, capacitors, some other action is required by an operator to compen- ,

dodes, resistors, etc. sate for the coadition of the component. Some examples of OWAs are: 1) The control room level indcator does l UQUID RADIOACTIVE WASTE BEING DISCHARGED not work but a local sightglass can be read by an Opera-TO THE ENVIRONMENT tor out in the plant; 2) A deficient pump cannot be re-This indicator displays the total number of curies from all paired because replacement parts require a long lead i liquid releases from FCS to the Missouri River. This time for purchase / delivery, thus requiring the redundant indcator is included in the report when new data is avad- pump to be operated continuously; 3) Special actions able, i.e. overy 6 months. are required by an Operator because of equipment de-sign problems. These actions may be described in Op- i LOGGABLE/ REPORTABLE INCIDENTS (SECURITY) erations Memorandums, Operator Notes, or may require The total number of secunty incidents for the reporting changes to Operating Procedures. 4) Deficient plant rnonth dspicsed in two graphs. This indcator tracks se- equipment that is required to be used during Emergency cunty performance for SEP #58. Operating Precedures or Abnormal Operating Proce-dures. 5) System indication that provides entcal infor-MAINTENANCE OVERTIME mation during normal or abnormal operations.

The % of overtime hours compared to normat hours for maintenance. This includes OPPD personnel as well as NUMBER OF HOT SPOTS contract personnel. The number of radiological hot spots which have been identified and documented to exist at FCS at the end of MAINTENANCE WORK ORDER BREAKDOWN the reporting month. A hot spot is a smalllocalized This indicator is a breakdown of the manhours associ- source of radiation. A hot spot occurs when the cx>ntact ated corrective non-outage maintenance work orders by dose rate of an item is at least 5 times the General Area several categories. This indicator tracks maintenance dose rate and the item's dose rate is equal to or greater performance for SEP #36. than 100 mrem / hour.

MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL RADIATION EXPOSURE NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ERRORS REPORTED IN The total maximum amount of radiaton received by an LERS individual person working at FCS on a monthly, quarterly. The number of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) attributed and annual basis. to personnel error on the original LER submrttal. A Per-sonnel Error is an event for which the root cause is inap-MWO PLANNING STATUS (CYCLE 15 REFUELING propriate action on the part of one or more specified indi-OUTAGE) viduals (as opposed to being attnbuted to a department The total number of Maintenance Work Orders that have or a general group). Also, the inappropriate action must been approved ior incluson in the Cycle 15 Refueling have ocx:urred within approximately two years of the Outage and the number that are ready to work (parts " Event Date* specified in the LER. This indcator trends staged, planning complete, and all other paperwork personnel performance for SEP #15.

ready for field use). Also included is the number of MWOs that have engineering holds (ECNs, procedures NUMBER OF MISSED SURVEILLANCE TESTS RE-and other miscellaneous engineering holds), parts hold, SULTING IN LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS (parts staged, not yet inspected, parts not yet arrived) The number of Surveillance Tests (STs) that result in and planning hold (job scopo not yet completed). Main- Licensee Event Reports (LERs) during the reporting tenance Work Requests (MWRs) are also shown that month. This indcator tracks missed STs for SEP #60 &

have been identifed for the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage 61.

and have not yet been converted to MWOs.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET NUMBER OF CONTROL ROOM EQUIPMENT DEFl- The year- to date budget compared to the actual expen-CIENCIES ditures for Operatons and Maintenance departments.

A mntrol room equipment deficiency (CRD) is defined as any component which is operated or controlled from the OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORTS & INCIDENT Control Room, provides indication or alarm to the Control REPORTS Room, provides testing capabilities from the Control This indicator displays the total number of open Correc- >

Room, provides automatic actons from or to the Control live Acton Reports (CARS), the number of CARS that are Room, or provides a passive function for the Control oider than six months and the number of open signifcant Room and has been identified as deficient,i e., does not CARS. Also drsplayed are the nurnber of open incident perform under all conditions as designed. This definiton Reports (irs), the number of irs that are greater th'an six also applies to the Alternate Shutdown Panels Al-179, months old and the number of open signifcant irs.

Al-185, and Al-212.

4 75 ,

4

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS (Cont'd)

OUTSTANDING MODIFICATIONS PRIMARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY % OF HOURS OUT The number of Modification Requests (MRs)in any state OF UMiT between the issuance of a Modication Number and the The % of hours out of limit are for six primary chemistry completion of the drawing update. parameters divided by the total number of hours possible

1) Form FC-1133 Backlog /in Progress. This number rep- fcr the month. The key parameters used are: Lithium, i resents moddcation requests that have not been plant Chloride, Hydrogen, Dissolved Oxygen Fluoride, and approved during the reporting month. Suspended Solids. EPRI limits are used.

2) Modification Requests Being Reviewed. This category includes: PROCEDURAL NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS A.) Modification Requests that are not yet reviewed. (MAINTENANCE) 8.) Modifcaton Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear The number of identified incidents concerning mainte-Projects Review Committee (NPRC). nance procedural problems, the number of closed irs C.) Modifcaton Requests being reviewed by the Nuclear related to the use of procedures (includes the number of Projects Committee (NPC) closed irs caused by procedural noncompliance), and These Moddcation Requests may be reviewed several the number of closed procedural noncomphance irs.

times before they are approved for accomphshment or This indcator trends personnel performance for SEP cancelled. Some of those Modifcation Requests are #15,41 & 44.

retumed to Engineenng for more information, some ap-proved for evaluation, some approved for study, and PROGRESS OF CYCLE 15 OUTAGE MODIFICATION some approved for planning. Once planning is com- PLANNING (FROZEN SCOPE OF 24 MODIFICA-pleted and the scope of the work is clearly defined, these TIONS)

Moddcaton Requests may be approved for accomphsh- This indicator shows the status of moddicatons ap-ment with a year assigned for constructon or they may proved for completion during the Cycle 15 Refuehng Out-be cancelled. All of these ddierent phases require re- age.

view.

3) Design Engineering Backlog'In Progress. Nuclear RADIOLOGICAL WORK PRACTICES PROGRAM Planning has assigned a year in which construct.on will The number of identified poor radological work practces be mmpleted and design work may be in progress. (PRWPs) for the reporting month. This indcator tracks

4) Construction Backlog /In Progress. The Construction radiological work performance for SEP #52.

Package has been issued or constructen has begun but .

the modification has not been accepted by the System RATIO OF PREVENTIVE TO TOTAL MAINTENANCE &

Acceptance Committee (SAC). PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ITEMS OVERDUE

5) Design Engineering Update Backlog /In Progress. PED The ratio of preventive maintenance (including surveil-a has received the Modificaton Completion Report but the lance testing and calibration procedures) to the sum of drawings have not been updated. non-outage corrective maintenance and preventrve main-The above mentoned outstanding moddicatons do not tenance mmpleted over the reporting period. The rato, i include modications which are proposed for cancella- expressed as a percentage, is calculated based on man-tion, hours. Also displayed are the % of preventive mainte-nance items in the month that were not completed by the OVERALL PROJECT STATUS (CYCLE 15 REFUEL- scheduled date plus a grace period equalto 25 % of the ING OUTAGE) scheduled interval. This indcator tracks preventive This indicator shows the status of the projects whch are maintenance activities for SEP #41.

in the scope of the Cycle 15 Refueling Outage.

RECORDABLE INJURY /lLLNESS CASES FRE-PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MWOs COMPLETED PER QUENCY RATE MONTH IDENTIFIED AS REWORK The number of injuries requiring more than normal first The percentage of total MWOs comp!sted per month aid per 200,000 man-hours worked. This indicator identified as rework. Rework acsivities are ident fied by trends personnel performance for SEP #15,25 & 26. 'i maintenance planning and craft.

REPEAT FAILURES PERCENT OF COMPLETED SCHEDULED MAINTE- The number of Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System NANCE ACTIVITIES (NPRDS) mmponents with more than 1 failure and the The % of the number of completed maintenance acG s- number of NPRDS components wrth more than 2 f ailures ties as compared to the number of scheduled mainte- for the last eighteen months.

nance activities each month. This % is shown for all maintenance crafts. Also shown are the number of emergent MWOs. Maintenance activities include MWRs, MWOs, STs, PMOs, calibratons, and other miscella-i neous activrties. This indicator tracks Maintenance per-formance for SEP #33.

I 76 l

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS (Cont'd)

SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES Safety system f ailures are any events or conditions that 4) Scram with complicaton; 5) Unplanned release of could prevent the fulfillment of the safety fundions of radioactivity; 6) Operation outside the limits of the Tech-structures or systems. If a system consists of multiple ncal Specifications; 7) Other.

redundant subsystems or trains, failure of alltrains con- INPO significant events reported in this indcator are stitutes a safety system failure. Failure of one of two or SERs (Signifcant Event Reports) which inform utilities of more trains is not counted as a safety system failure. significant events and lessons learned identified through The c'efinition for the indicator parallels NRC reporting the SEE-IN screening process.

requirements in to CFR S0.72 and 10 CFR 50.73. The folbwing is a list of the major safety systems, sub- SPARE PARTS INVENTORY VALUE systems, and components monitored for this indicator: The dollar value of the spare parts inventory value for Accident Monitoring instrumentation Auxiliary (and FCS during the reporting period. l Emergency) Feedwater System, Combustible Gas Con-trol, Component Cooling Water System, Containment STAFFING LEVEL and Containment isolaton, Containment Coolant Sys- The actual staffing level and the authonzed staffing level tems, Control Room Emergency Ventilation System, for the Nuclear Operations Division, the Production Engi-Emergency Core Cooling Syste ns, Engineered Safety neering Division, and the Nuclear Services Division. This Features instrumentation, Essential Compressed Air indicator tracks performance for SEP #24.

Systems Essential or Emergency Servce Water, Fire Detection or Suppression Systems, Isolation Condenser, STATION NET GENERATION Low Temperature Overpressure Protecton, Main Steam The net generaton (sum) produced by the FCS dunng Line Isolation Valves, Onsite Emergency AC & DC the reporting month.

Power wOistribution, Radiaton Monitoring instrumenta-tion, Reactor Coolant System, Reactor Core isolation TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS ;

Cooling System, Reactor Trip System and Instrumenta- The number of temporary mechanical and electrical con-ton, Recirculaton Pump Trip Actuation instrumentation, figurations to the plant's systems.

Residual Heat Removal Systems, Safety Valves. Spent 1) Temporary configuratons are defined as electreal Fuel Systems, Standby Liquid Control System and Ulti- jumpers, electrical blocks, mechanical jumpers, or me-mate Heat Sink. chanical blocks which are installed in the plant operating systems and are not shown on the latest revision of the SECONDARY SYSTEM CHEMISTRY PERFORMANCE PalD, schematic, mnnection, wiring, or flow diagrams.

INDEX 2) Jumpers and blocks which are installed for Surveil-The Chemistry Performance Index (CPI) is a calculaton lance Tests, Maintenance Procedures Calibration Pro-based on the concentration of key impunties in the sec- cedures, Special Procedures, or Operating Procedures ondary side of the plant. These key impurities are the are not considered as temporary modifcations unless the .

most likely cause of deterioration of the steam genera- jumper or block remains in place after the test or proce-tors. The chemistry parameters are reported only for the dure is complete. Jumpers and blocks installed in test or period of time when the plant is operated at greater than lab instruments are not considered as temporary modifi-30 percent power. cations.

The cpl is calculated using the fotbwing equaton: CPI - 3) Scaffolding is not considered a temporary modifica-(Ka/0.8) + (Nar20) + (0,/10) / 3 where the following are tion. Jumpers and blocks which are installed and for monthly averages of: Ka - average bbwdown catbn which MRs have been submitted will be considered as conductivrty, Na - average blowdown sodium concen- temporary modifcations until final resolution of the MR tration, O, - average condensate pump discharge d's- r and the jumper or block is removed or is permanently solved oxygen concentration. recorded on the drawings. This indicator tracks tempo-rary modifcations for SEP #62 & 71.

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Significant events are those events identified by THERMAL PERFORMANCE NRCstaff through detailed screening and evaluation of The ratio of the design gross heat rate (mtrected) to the ;

operating experience. The screening process includes adjusted actual gross heat rate, expressed as a percent-the daily review and dscussion of all reported operating age.

reactor events, as well as other operational data such as special tests or construction activities. An event idents- UNIT CAPABILITY FACTOR find from the screening process as a significant event The ratio of the available energy generation over a given candidate is further evaluated to determine if any actual time period to the reference energy generation (the en-or potential threat to the health and safety of the public ergy that could be produced if the unit were operated was involved. Specife examples of the type of criteria continuously at full power under reference ambient con-are summarized as follows: 1) Degradaten of important ditions) over the same time penod, expressed as a per-safety equipment; 2) Unexpected plant response to a centage.

transient: 3) Degradation of fuelintegrity, primary cool-ant pressure boundary, important associated features; 77

4 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DEFINITIONS (Cont'd)

UNPLANNED AUTOMATIC REACTOR SCRAMS PER UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS(NRC 7,000 CRITICAL HOURS DEFINITION)

This indicator is defined as the numbst of unplanned au- The number of safety system actuations which include tomatic scrams (reactor protection system logic actua- (pdy.) the High Pressure Safety injection System, the tions) that occur per 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months of critical operaton. Low Pressure Safety injection System, the Safety injec-The value for this indicator is calculated by multiplying ton Tanks, and the Emergency Diesel Generators. The the total number of unplanned automatic reactor scrams NRC classificaton of safety system actuatons includes in a specrfc time period by 7,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months , then dtviding actuations when major equipment is operated AM when that number by the total number of hours critical in the the logic systems for the above safety systems are chal-same time parod. The indcator is further defined as lenged.

follows:

1) Unplanned means that the scram was not an antici- VIOLATIONS PER 1,000 INSPECTION HOURS pated part of a planned test. This indicator is defined as the number of violations sited

2) Scram means the automatic shutdown of the reactor in NRC inspection reports for FCS per 1,000 NRC in-by a rapid insertion of negative reactivity (e.g., by control specton hours. The violations are reported in the year rods, liquid injection system, etc.) that is caused by ac- that the inspection was actually performed and not based tuation of the reactor protection system. The scram sig- on when the inspection report is received. The hours nal may have resulted f rom exceeding a setpoint or may reported for each inspection report are used as the in-have been spurious. specton hours.

3) Automate means that the initial signal that caused actuation of the reactor protection system logic was pro- VOLUME OF LOW-LEVEL SOLID RADIOACTIVE vided from one of the sensors monitoring plant param- WASTE eters and conditions, rather than the manual scram This indicator is defined as the volume of low-level soled swetenes or, in manual turbine trip switches (or push-but- radioactive waste actually shipped for burial. This indca-tons) provided in the main control room. tor also shows the volume of low-sevel radioactive waste

4) Critical means that during the steady-state condition of which is in temporary storage, the amount of radcactive the reactor pror to the scram, the effective multiplication oil that has been shipped off-site for processing, and the factor (k,) was essentialty equal to one. volume of solid dry radioactrve waste which has been shipped off-site for processing. Low-level solid radioac-UNPLANNED CAPABILITY LOSS FACTOR tive waste consists of dry active waste, sludges, resins, The ratio of the unplanned energy losses during a given and evaporator bottoms generated as a result of nuclear period of time, to the reference energy generation (the power plant operation and maintenance. Dry radioactive energy that could be produced if the unit were operated waste includes contaminated rags, cleaning materials,

continuously at full power under reference ambient con- disposable protective clothing, plastic containers, and j ditions) over the same time period, expressed as a per- any other material to be disposed of at a low-level radio-centage. active waste disposal site, except resin, sludge, or evaporator bottoms. Low-level refers to all radioactive UNPLANNED SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS - waste that is not spent fuel or a by-product of spent fuel (INPO DEFINITION) processing. This indicator tracks radiological work per-l This indicator is defined as the sum of the following formance for SEP #54. ,

l safety system actuations:

l 1)The number of unplanned Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) actuations that result from reaching an ECCS actuation setpoint or from a spurioushnadvertent ECCS signal.

l 2) The number of unplanned emergency AC power sys-l tem actuations that result f rom a loss of power to a safe-guards bus. An unplanned safety system actuaton oc-l

curs when an actuation setpoint for a safety system is reached or when a spurious or inadvertent signal is gen-erated (ECCS only), and major equipment in the system '

is actuated. Unplanned means that the system actuaton was not part of a planned test or evolution. The ECCS actuations to be counted are actuations of the high pres-sure injecton system, the low pressure injecton system, I or the safety ingion tanks.

t 78

I SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX l The purpose of the Safety Enhancement Program (SEP) Performance indicators Index is to list perfor- !

mance indicators related to SEP items with parameters that can be trended. !

l SEP Reference Number 15 Eqgg l Increase HPES ard IR Accountability Through Use of Performance Indicators l Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) . .. . 49 )

Contaminations >5,000 DPM/100 CM2 4 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . .. . .3 Number of Personnel Errors Reported in LERs . . . . . .5 SEP Reference Number 24 Complete Staff Studies Staffing Level . . .42 SEP Reference Number 25 Training Program for Managers and Supervisors implemented Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate . .2 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . .3 SEP Reference Number 26 Evaluate and implement Station Stardards for Safe Work Practice Requirements Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate . .2 Recordabla injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . .3 SEP Reference Number 27 Implement Supervisory Enforcement of Industrial Safety Standards Disabling injury / Illness Frequency Rate . .2 Recordable injury / Illness Cases Frequency Rate . . . .3 SEP Reference Number 31 Develop Outage and Maintenance Planning Manual and Conduct Project Management Training MWO Planning Status (Cycle 15 Refueling Outage).. . 67 Overall Project Status (Cycle 15 Refueling Outage) . . 68 Progress of Cycle 15 Outage Modification Planning . . . 69 SEP Reference Number 33 Develop On-Line Maintenance and Modification Schedule Percent of Completed Scheduled Maintenance Activities (All Maintenance Crafts) . . . . . . . 50 SEP Reference Number 36 Reduce Corrective Non-Outage Backlog Maintenance Work Order Breakdown (Corrective Non-Outage) . . . . . . .45 SEP Reference Numbar 41 Develop and implement a Preventive Maintenance Schedule Ratio of Preventive to Total Maintenance & Preventive Maintenance items Overdue. . . 46 Procedural Noncompliance incidents . . . . 49 SEP Reference Number 43 Implement the Check Valve Test Program .

Check Valve Failure Rate.. . .._.. . . . .. . .35 79 i

=

SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INDEX (continued)

SEP Reference Number 44 ESQR Compliance With and Use of Procedures Procedural Noncompliance incidents (Maintenance) .. . . .. .: .49 o SEP Reference Number 46 Design a Procedures Controland Administrative Program Document Review. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 56 SEP Reference Number 52 Establish Supervisory Accountability for Workers Radiological Practices Radiological Work Practices Program. . . .. ... .. . . . ..S4 SEP Reference Number 54 Complete implementation of Radiological Enhancement Program Collective Radiation Exposure . . . .. ... . . _ . . . . .15 Volume of Low-Level Solid Radioactive Waste. .... .. . . 36 Contaminations >5.000 DPM/100 CM' 4 Decontaminated Radiation Controlled Area. . . . . . . . . . 53 SEP Reference Number 58 -

Revise Physical Secunty Training and Procedure Program Loggable/ Reportable incidents (Seaarity) . ... .. . . . . .57 SEP Reference Number 60 Irmrove Controic Over Surveillance Test ProDram Number of Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in Licensee Event Reports . . .19 SEP Reference Number 61 Modify Computer Program to Correctly Schedule Surveillance Tests Number of Missed Surveillance Tests Resulting in Licensee Event Reports. .. . .19 SEP Reference Number 62 Establish interim System Engineers Temporary Modifcations . ... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . .. . 58 Engineering Assistance Request (EAR) Breakdown... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Engineering Char.ge Notice Status . . . .. .... . .. . . . . . . .... .. . 61 Engineering Change Notice Breakdown .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62 SEP Reference Number 68 Assess Root Cause of Poor Operator Training and Establish Means to Monitor Operator Training Licensed Operator Requalification Training . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . 64 License Candidate Exams.. ... .. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. . . 65 SEP Reference Number 71 Improve Controls over Temporary Modifications Temporary Modifications. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 58 80

REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST i R. L. Andrews G. E. Guliani C. W. Norris G. L. Anglehart K. B. Guliani Nuclear Licensing W. R. Bateman E. R. Gundal & Industry Affairs K. L. Belek Fr. H. Guy J. T. O'Connor r T. G. Blair R. M. Hawkins W. W. Orr B. H. Biome M. C. Hendrickson L. L. Parent C. N. Bloyd R. R. Henning T. L. Patterson J.P.Bobba K. R. Henry R. T. Pearce C. E. Boughter J. B. Herman R. L. Phelps M. A. Breuer G. J. Hill W. J. Ponec C. J. Brunnert K. C. Holthaus L. M. Pulverenti M. W. Butt C.K. Huang T. M. Reisdorff '

C. A. Carlson L. G. Huliska A. W. Richard J. W. Chase C. J. Husk R. T. Ridenour G. R. Chatfield R. L. Jaworski D. G. Ried ,

A. G. Christensen R. A.Johansen G. K. Samide A. J. Clark W. C. Jones T.J.Sandene i O. J. Clayton J. D. Kecy M. J. Sandboetner R. P. Clemens J. D. Keppler B. A. Schmidt J. L. Connolley D. D. Kloock S. T. Schmitz G. M. Cook J. C. Knight F. C. Scofield [

J. E. Cook D. M. Kobunski H. J. Sefick ;

M. R. Core G. J. Krause J. W. Shannon [

S. R. Crites L T. Kusek R. W. Short l t

D. W. Dale L.E. Labs C. F. Simmons R. C. DeMeulmeester M. P. Lazar E.L.Skaggs D. C. Dietz R. C. Learch J. L. Skiles K.S. Dowdy R. E. Lewis F. K. Smith J. A. Drahota R. C. Liebentritt R. L. Sorenson T. R. Dukarski D. L. Lippy J. A. Spilker R. G. Eurich B. Lisowyj D. E. Spires H. J. Faulhaber B. R. Livingston K. E. Steele M. A. Ferdig D. L. Lovett W. Steele M. T. Frans J. H. MacKinnon H. F. Sterba H. K. Fraser G. D. Mamoran G. A. Teeple J. F. W. Friedrichsen J. W. Marcil M. A. Tesar S. K. Gambhir N. L. Marfice J. W. Tills J. K. Gasper R. D. Martin D. R. Trausch W. G. Gates D. J. Matthews P. R. Turner M. O. Gautier J. M. Mattice J. M. Uhland S. W. Gebers T. J. Mcivor C. F. Vanecek J. M. Glantz K. S. McCormick J. M. Waszak J. T. Gleason R. F. Mehaffey G. R. Williams L. V. Goldberg K. G. Meistad S. J. Willrett D. J. Golden K. A. Miller W. C. Woerner D. C. Gorence D. C. Mueller R. E. Gray R. J. Mueller M. J. Guinn M. W. Nichols 81

FORT CALHOUN STATION

, a ,

OPERATING CYCLES AND REFUELING OUTAGE DATES Event Date Range Production (MWH) Cumulat!ve (MWM)

Cycle 1 09/26/73 -02/01/75 3,299,639 3,299,639 1st Refueling 02/01/75 -05/09/75 Cycle 2 05/09/75-10/01/76 3,853,322 7,152,961 2nd Refueling 10/01/76 -t2/13/76 Cycle 3 12/13/76 - 9/30/77 2,805,927 9,958,888 3rd Refueling 09/30/77 -12/09/77 Cycle 4 12/09/77-10/14/78 3,026,832 12,985,720 4th Rafueling 10/14/78-12/24/78 Cycle 5 12/24/78-01/18/80 3,882,734 16,868,454 5th Refueling 01/18/80 - 06/11/80 Cycle 6 06/11/80 - 09/18/81 3,899,714 20,768,168 6th Refueling 09/18/81 - 12/21/81 Cycle 7 12/21/81 - 12/06/82 3,561,866 24,330,034 7th Refueling 12/06/82 - 04/07/83 Cycle 8 04/07/83 - 03/03/84 3,406,371 27,736,405 8th Refueling 03/03/84- 07/12/84 Cycle 9 07/12/84 - 09/28/85 4,741,488 32,477,893 9th Refueling 09/28/85 - 01/16/86 Cycle 10 01/16/86 - 03/07/87 4,356,753 36,834,646 10th Refueling 03/07/87 - 06/08/87 Cycle 11 06/08/87 - 09/27/88 4,936,859 41,771,505 11th Refueling 09/27/88 - 01/31/89 Cycle 12 01/31/89 - 02/17/90 3,817,954 45,589,459 12th Refueling 02/17/90- 05/29/90 Cycle 13 05/29/90- 02/01/92 5,451,069 51,040,528 13th Refueling 02/01/92- 05/03/92 Cycle 14# 05/03/92-09/25/93 (Planned Dates) 14th Refueling 09/25/93-11/20/93 Cycle 15 11/20/93 - 03/11/95 15th Refueling 03/11/95 - 05/06/95

FORT CALHOUN STATION CURRENT PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS " RECORDS" First Suctained 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-Sept. 27,1988 Highest Monthly Net Generation (364,468,800 KWH) October 1987 Most Productive Fuel Cycle (5,451,069 MWH)(Cycle 13) May 29,1990-Feb.1.1992 i

ML20056G531

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search