ML20204B681
| ML20204B681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1996 |
| From: | Brooks L, Riccio J Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204B667 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9903220209 | |
| Download: ML20204B681 (82) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - _ - _ Nudear Lemons An Assessment of America's Worst Commercial Nudear Power Plants Fifth Edition by Jim Riuio with Lisa Brooks kh L' *"J CriticalMass Energy Project jM**88NH88ga
Nudear Lemons An Assessment of America's Werst Commercial Nedear Power Plants Fifth Edition by Jim Riuio with Lisa Brooks his project was produced through the generous assistance of the Educational Foundation of America
o i Copyright @ l996 by Public Citizen. ' All rights reserved. No part of this document may be repro-duced or utilized in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photography, recording or by information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the au-thors. ISBN 0-937188-58-1 Public Citizen is a nonprofit membership organization in Washington, D.C., dedicated to advancing consumer rights through lobbying, litigation, research, publications and information services. Since its founding by Ralph Nader in 1971, Public Citizen has fought for consumer rights in the market-place, for safe and secure health, for fair trade, for clean and safe energy sources, and for corporate and government accountability. Public Citizen publications are available at a discount when purchased in bulk for special premiums - and sales promotions, as well as for fundraising and educational use. Additional copies of this document are available for $40. For details, please contact the Publications Manager at 1600 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009. Public Citizen 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington, D 20003 Other titles by Public Citizen's CriticalMass Energy Project Renewable Energy Sourcebook: A Primer for Action / Section I- State Profiles Renewable Energy Sourcebook: A Primer for Action / Section II - Wind and Ocean Energy Power for the People: A Public Interest Blueprint for Electricity Restructuring A Roll of the Dice: NRC's Efforts to Renew Nuclear Reactor Licenses Abuse of Discretion: NRCs Non-Enforcement Policy The Renewable Source: A National Directory of Resources, Contacts and Companies Twenty Years After the Embargo: The Costs of US OilImport Dependence
1 l l TABLE OF CONTENTC 1 1 Introduction - 1 l l Summary of Findings - - 2 Lemons and NRC's Watch List- l l 5 i l Methodology 11 1 Nuclear Lemons Criteria ! l Capacity Factors - - 14 1 1 Enforcement Discretion- 16 : Forced Outage Rates . - - - - 18 1 Licensee Event Reports - - - 20 i l Operations and Maintenance Costs- 22 Safety System Actuations. - 24 Safety System Failures - - - - 26 Scrams . 28 Significant Events - .- - - 30 Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance 32 Violations - 34 Worker Exposure to Radiation 36 Recommendations and Conclusions - - - 38 Appendix l l
P 1 l 1 l I i 1 l l l l 4 i I I 1 i I I 1 I 4
/
l
$$ Nucina LEMONS i l
l l J
INTRODUCTIC " After the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl, the U.S. House of Representatives' Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee for Energy Conservation and Power asked the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide a list of the worst nuclear plants in the country. The NRC responded with a preliminary list of sixteen reactors, the NRC's first " watch list." These problem plants would receive greater regulatory attention in the form of additional inspections in an effort to improve their performance. Every six months NRC Senior managers meet with regional administrators and deter-mine which reactors will be placed on the watch list. Public Citizen submitted a Freedom of Infor-mation Act request in an attempt to gain access to the documents used to develop the list. The NRC replied that there were no such documents.' Unfortunately, the NRC has not explained the criteria used to create their list and the meeting where such determinations are made is closed to the public. Nuclear Lemons offers the public a method for assessing relative reactor safety which can be discussed, debated and improved upon. Identifying the worst reactors in the country is important for several reasons. First, NRC funds for nuclear reactor inspection and enforcement are limited; if the worst reactors are identified, scarce j resources can be allocated appropriately. If these reactors are shut down, then limited funds for
]
nuclear regulation may be directed to other problem plants. Second, as competition in the electricity i industry pushes utilities toward a phaseout of nuclear power in the United States, the worst reactors i should be the first retired. Third, organizations other than the NRC like the Federal Emergency l Management Agency, state regulatory agencies, and Congress should be made aware of problem plants. Finally, citizens have a right to know any and all threats that nuclear power poses to their health, families, homes, and communities. Public Citizen has produced Nuclear Lemons based on the conviction that the public has a right to know not only which nuclear reactors are the worst in the nation, but also the methods by which this
)
assessment is made. . 1 l Notes
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter from Donnie H. Grimsley. Director, Division of Rules and Records.
NRC FOIA-86-433. Aug.1,1986. l O
~
INTRoDUCFloN
- e,[ ]
i
l
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS 1 To determine which reactors are the lemons of the nuclear industry, Public Citizen has ranked every , reactor in the nation based on twelve performance indicators. Nuclear Lemons are reactors with the l worst overall performance from 1993 to 1995. I PunuC CmZEN'S NUCLEAR LEMONS CAPACITY REACTOR LOCATION MAKER TYPE (Net MDC) RANK Salem-1 Salem, NJ W PWR 1106 1 l Wash. Nuclear-2 Richland, WA GE BWR 1066 2 i Millstone-2 Waterford, CT CE PWR 873 3 ! River Bend-1 St. Francisville, LA GE BWR 936 4 { Dresden-3 Morris, IL GE BWR 773 5 { Quod Cities-2 Cordova, IL GE BWR 769 6 l Sequoyah-1 Daisy, TN W PWR lill 7 l Salem-2 Salem, NJ W PWR 1106 8 South Texas-1 Matagorda County, TX W PWR 1251 9 Perry-1 North Perry, OH GE BWR 1166 10 Cooper Station Brownville, NE GE BWR 764 11 j LaSalle-1 Seneca, IL GE BWR 1036 12 j Dresden-2 Morris, IL GE BWR 772 13 l Fitzpatrick bcriba, NY GE BWR 774 14 Fermi-2 Millstone-1 Newport, M1 Waterford, CT GE BWR l085 15 ] GE BWR 641 16 South Texas-2 Matagorda County, TX W PWR 1251 17 Hoddam Neck Haddam Neck, CT W PWR 560 18 Indian Point-3 Buchanan,NY W PWR 965 19 Quad Cities-1 Cordova, IL GE BWR 769 20 j Palisades South Haven, MI CE PWR 730 21 l Brunswick-1 Southport, NC GE BWR 767 22 i Pilgrim-1 Plymouth, MA GE BWR 670 23 Sequoyah-2 Daisy, TN W PWR 1106 24 Zion-1 Zion, IL W PWR 1040 25 l MAKER: GE= General Electric W= Westinghouse CE= Combustion Eng'neering i . l TYPE: BWR= Boiling Water Reactor PWR= Pressurized Watu Reactor CAPACITY: MDC=Maxirnum Dependable Capacity 2 .i: NOCLEAR LEMONS
l NuclearIemons is an overall ranking based on twelve categories. While reactors that are particularly poor performers in only one category may not rank as Nuclear Lemons, their poor performance is no less noteworthy. For this reason, the worst reactors in each of the twelve categories are listed below. CATEGORY REACTOR UTILITY Capacity Factors Browns Ferry 1 Tennessee Valey Authority Enforcement Discretion Zion 1 Commonwealth Edison Forced Outage Rates indian Point 3 New York Power Authortty Ucensee Event Reports MEstone 2 Northeast Utttles Opedions and Maintenance Costs Maine Yankee Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. ; Safety System Actuations Umerick 2 Phladelphia Electric Co. Safety System Falures Mastone 2 Northeast Utttles Scroms Cook 2 indiana / Michigan Power Co. Significant Events Hoddam Neck CT Yankee Atomic Power Co. 1 Systematic Assessments Quod Cities 1 and 2 Commonwealth Edison ] Violations Browns Ferry 2 Tennessee Valey Authority l Worker Exposure Washington Nuciear 2 Washington Pubic Power I Since NRC began the " watch list," thirty-seven reactors operated by eighteen utilities have been designated as problem plants a total of 211 times. The utilities with the most reactors on the " watch list" have been Illinois' Commonwealth Edison and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Six of the twelve Commonwealth Edison reactors have appeared on the " watch list." The record of the Tennes-see Valley Authority is even more abysmal. Every reactor owned by TVA, with the exception of the newly licensed Watts Bar reactor, has been designated as a problem plant and placed on the NRC's
" watch list."
1 Historically, there has been a strong correlation between Public Citizen's Nuclear Lemons and the NRC's " watch list." Over the past ten years and five editions of Nuclear Lemons, only one nuclear l plant placed on NRC's " watch list" failed to rank as a Lemon. The findings in this edition of Nuclear Lemons indicate that many of the worst nuclear reactors in the nation have failed to pull themselves up from the bottom of the industry rankings, despite increased scrutiny from the NRC. As the NRC has designated fewer reactors as warranting additional scrutiny, the agency has missed significant safety problems that have eventually resulted in extended reactor shutdowns. The last two editions I of Nuclear Lemons indicated that the Millstone reactors in Connecticut were in trouble. However, the subjective determination of NRC's senior management has resulted in regulatory inaction, which l constitutes an abrogation of the NRC statutory responsibility to protect the public health and safety. ; While the NRC has the means of assessing safety and performance problems, it apparently lacks the will to rectify the situation. The NRC has allowed problem plants to continue to operate, despite the ; fact that they have failed to improve their safety performance. The perpetually poor performance of ; Commonwealth Edison's Dresden and the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry indicates that NRC oversight and regulation is inadequate and that the " watch list" process is a failure. Public Citizen finds that in several performance categories any improvements are more a function of changes in reponing requirements or NRC policies than actual improvement in the operation of nuclear power plants. This is true for six of the twelve performance indicators used in this repon, J including: capacity factors, enforcement discretion, licensee event reports, safety system actuations,
SUMMARY
oF FINMNGs $ 3
systematic assessments oflic:nsee performance and scrams. Additionally, the database that tabulates violations is so inaccurate as to be almost useless for any in-depth comparisons over time. This leads I us to question how NRC can implement performance-based regulation when it is incapable of deter-mining the actual performance of the nuclear reactors it purports to regulate. 1 1 I l l i I i 0 4 $$ NUCI.".AR LEMONS
LEMONS AND NRC's WATCH Lisr After three accidents in 1985 at Ohio's Davis Besse and Califomia's Rancho Seco and San Onofre power plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission established the senior management meeting process and the resultant " watch list" to improve its methods for assessing nuclear power plant safety. Over the past decade, Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Preiect has prodded the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reveal the method by which NRC senior managers determine which nuclear reactors will be placed on the " watch list." Since the NRC failed to provide any objective criteria, Public Citizen published its own list based I upon measurable standards. Five editions of Nuclear Lemons have identified the worst nuclear l reactors in the U.S. and, unlike the NRC, have provided citizens with a basis for this determination. ) Not surprisingly, there has been a strong correlation between the NRC's " watch list" and Public l Citizen's Nuclear Lemons. Since NRC began the " watch list", thirty-seven reactors operated by eighteen utilities have been designated as problem plants a total of 211 times. The utilities with the most reactors on the " watch list" have been Commonwealth Edison in Illinois and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Six of the twelve Comn.onwealth Edison reactors have appeared on the " watch list" while another two reactors ! have received "? rending letters." The record of the Tennessee Valley Authority is even more abys-mal. Every reac tor owned by TVA, with the exception of the newly licensed Watts Bar reactor, has j been designat;d as a problem plant and placed on the " watch list." i Over the last ten years and five editions of Nuclear Iemons, only one nuclear plant placed on NRC's
" watch list" failed to rank as a Lemon. Maryland's Calvert Cliffs, was only placed on the NRC " watch list" after inadequate control of maintenance practices resulted in the asphyxiation death of a worker.
While the NRC refuses to rank reactors, a defacto ranking has developed. In June 1991, NRC decided to identify not only problem plants but also those reactors that had performed well. In June 1993, the NRC began the practice of issuing " trending letters" to senior utility management. The letters informed utilities that their reactors were at risk of being placed on the " watch list" unless the adverse trends identified by NRC were reversed. Several reactors have received trending letters since the practice was initiated: June 1993 Perry January 1994 Cooper, Quad Cities 1 & 2 June 1994 LaSalle 1 & 2 January 1996 Hope Creek While not specifically ranking reactors, NRC places them in different categories based upon their performance. However, absent specific criteria, Congress, the public and the media are asked to accept these categorizations based upon the subjective opinions of NRC senior managers. Over the past several years the Commission has been attempting to make the process by which reactors are placed on the " watch list" more transparent. In 1995, NRC Chairman Ivan Selin began to pressure NRC staff to open up the process. Selin stated that: LuoNS AND NRC's WATCH List $' 5
r there's a great deal of interest in what the overall process is and I think it would be useful to illuminate not so much what happens at the senior management meeting, that's relatively straightforward, but how plants get on the agenda in the first place because that's more of a staff function than it is the high-level function that the discussions lead to.' Chairman Selin then suggested that the staff reveal the criteria used by NRC's senior managers to determine which reactors are placed on the " watch list." Selin commented that: it's important to lay out at the next level of discussion some of the indicators that are used to say these are plants that we should discuss. Obviously the discussions them-selves are hard to quantify since they are senior people with a great deal of experience comparing the same set ofinformation.2 The Commission has finally, after a decade and four editions of Nuclear Lemons, required the NRC staff to establish objective criteria upon which to base the " watch list." In a Staff Requirements Memo dated February 8,1996, the Commissioners requested that the staff:
- Clearly communicate the overall plant evaluation process to industry and the public
+ Be explicit about NRC assumptions and evaluations for placing a plant on the Watch list or sending a trending letter
+ Develop additional structure that can be used to enhance the objectivity of problem plant identification
+ Address criteria and actions to be taken when a plant remains on the Watch List for an ex tended period
+ Incorporate criteria to be used in determining when a plant may be removed from the Watch List
+ Conduct a historical review of the indicators of safety performance for those plants that have been placed on the Watch List in the past
+ Continue and accelerate efforts to ensure as much consistency as possible among the regions in the plant evaluation process 5 However, at the NRC's last " watch list" briefing, on June 25,19%, the Commissioners' attempts to open up the process and require quantifiable standards encountered resistance from the staff. Again, Commissioner Kenneth Rogers asked whether the staff had standardized criteria for placing problem plants on the " watch list." William Russell, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, responded that "we don't have numerical or explicit criteria to use. It's essentially a judgment between the Regional Administrator and myself as to whether this is an appropriate facility to discuss" (emphasis added).' Commissioner Greta Dieus followed up on Mr. Russell's response:
COMMISSIONER DICUS: I get the sense from your comments that perhaps you 6 f$ Noct.r.Am LEMONS
1 l don't think there should be set criteria or the process somewhat formalized. Would that be a fair statement? MR. RUSSELL: That is correct.5 Russell's reticence is alarming in light of the recent findings of the NRC Inspector General (IG) regarding the NRC's mishandling of the Millstone reactors and the delay in placing them on the
" watch list." The NRC's IG found that despite declining performance at Millstone since 1991, NRC had not placed Millstone on the " watch list." NRC's Executive Director for Operations James Taylor, Region I Administrator Tim Martin and Russell all told the IG that, given the poor perfor-
. mance at Millstone, the NRC should have taken more aggressive action including placing Millstone i on the NRC " watch list" as early as 1993.5 Unfortunately, the Inspector General's findings only beg the question: If, in hindsight, Taylor, Russell and Martin all determined that Millstone should have been placed on the " watch list," why wasn't it? Why hadn't Millstone received even a trending letter? Why didn't the process work? l Seemingly, the staff's inability to manage the process supports the Commissioners' call for more explicit criteria. Public Citizen supports the Commission's attempts to require criteria and formalize the " watch list" process. NuclearIemons can provide a starting point for the establishment of objective criteria upon which to base NRC's " watch list." i Notes
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Periodic Briefing on Operating Reoctors and Fuel Focilities, January 27, 1995.p,13.
2.11of p.13.
- 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission, Guidance for Senior Monogement Meeting and Plant Evoluotion Processes, SECY-9M)93, May 1,1996, p. 2.
- 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Periodic Briefing on Operating Reactors and Fuel Focilities, June 25, 1996 p.6.
5.11of p. 8.
- 6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office of the inspector General NRC Stoff Actions to Address Northeost Utilities System (Nln 1991 S9tf Assassenents. Cose No. 9602S, May 31,1996, p. 3.
LuoNs AND NRC's WATCH List $' 7
NRC SENIOR MANAGEMENT MEETING - PROBLEM PLANT HISTORY 4 i REACTOR 4/86 10/86 6/87 11/87 6/88 12/88 5/89 1/90 6/90 1/91 6/91 Pooch Bottom 2 & 3..- M. mw ux 2_M,,3 _-
.9 r7.3 %n 3.1 4 3._v. _1 1.2 % sl'r- _a._A_ ~ , W,~ _ m., . Pilgrim w 2 3 3 3 -3 2 1 n , Turkey Point 3_& 4- < nw:m,. w .L.n ,m__ 2.n r
x ,2 2 _m +.2.v . n 2 ,m +w 2 _ ,4 4 a w. e n. ,. _ w .
. ,w.~1
,x n,an .,, ,a l Fermi 2 .n. , .
w 2 2 ,2 2 2,1 _ ,, , , ,~ _~.
,., ,,,,aj .La. SoIle 1 & 2,muu,m, .wm - e 1_~n
_ _, ,_#n.,,,,%
~-- se m%m%._ n m m-- msa s
._ _~ .-~
Rancho Seco w 3 3 3 2 1 i v3m m 32. m.,3 m w, a )
%.s w3 m . v_am cu s ea 3,w,3
- Browns For.ryfi_. u _wm_3s,y31 s-
- %~ - 53_m.m3s .n . Browns Ferry 2 w 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 tgowns Fe.rryyym-,-
g g gw g gy g3'" & q"3n"~3~p~g3g'~~3"","w3"g"3"a~3"gg~w3*M, g3 L s i, SequoyohI w 3 3 3 3 2 1 1
~ , , ,,w-- . m_x m . . -. se. sm
-nn-
,Sequoyo_h. m.- 2..-n: ~. a.-nmn, w y y3 n n 3,x,,. ,33 yag2 m..,2 a n 1x. ~l 1m 2em
- n.- - - .
\
Davis-Bes,segm.n,, w 1 n- = ue g' , sodesm m x.a m~o ^ ,a.3 m"m .2 ,a eu"1 +, m, ,,~, _.a e> m....wa~ - a ,, m=.u' ax Fort St. Vrain 3 2 2 1
.Dresden n.~ 2 nnnn n- -- n ,m---mnnen .~ -n
&:3Esaisi 2dsE h2L2we2ne,.,lhw.ca;shwed 4,3
~
Fort Colhoun 2 2 1
;Nine Mile'Poin.t:1FWT6.S_EW?_E2N.
~ . __L n n 2%P2N2N2% ?2A1D ~ a Nine Mile Point 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 y- e7,3,yg gmmmwwwmmpw n w wm mn s;ngu m gan.m. w e m2;w 2aegn;nga sg w,he aryn.a Surry 1 & 2 2 2 1 LZion wwunahmut
- '1 &'2RM NNN m m m NMWN" . m u.n w"WF"P u =a a w a k a w a "N"2""52 u m a w. & ~a Mn u.s h a Fitzpatrick
. Br. unswichi_lr .&_2_, u Mr em.,_-m.w,m.__w:._a_
--..~m_. m iw _e., ._'
,w m_ we_x.n
_a_.e w-_w. -,m n
.-_m_,m- ._M mo Indian Point 3 x cmy 4
y ,- ,- -" _ , - ' South Texas. _1 &.2 .wm mmv.n :
-su u- zo - m w- ._1. n- - n. .
a -J a n'--aaaan- rn vn W. , Millstone 1 Millstone.2e; Millstone 3 4
- u. c~4mv~nmwnwnn%w_mnwng:
a A ~ mm_e, w_ w-_ m
. w _.-. mw _wwwwemy-_p u wm_ _e _- %m. x ;.gww,
_m ~ . . , .m .- Notes w: The first Senior Management Meeting produced a Watch Ust, Indicated by *w.' Categories were developed for the 10/86 meeting. 1: Plant placed in Category 1, Plants removed from the Watch Ust. 2: Plant ploced in Category 2, Plants authorized to operate that the NRC will monitor closely. 3: Plant placed in Category 3, Shutdown plants requiring NRC outhorization to operate and which the NRC will monitor closely. Reactor shutdown with no reopening date. 8 $ NUCLEAR LEMONS
1/92 6/92 1/93 6/93 1/94 6/94 2/95 6/95 1/% 6/96 REACTOR
, ' s,.
Peach Bottom 2 & 3
- 1 Pilgrim
~qfpw.. . r, ,- .~ Turkey _ Point 3 & 4 Fermi 2
@, DMEr$filJx ^k
- J ,_ LaSalle 1 & 2 Rancho Seco 3D13?idM3gj73@ J31531 (3; -;J3' tif . . Browns Ferry 1 2 i {
Browns Ferry 2
'3F ? , 3 7"?
. ~ m. 3m 9
a c"e7_/.3 _i T_._3.7a M ."31 ?3?
, .- 3 9 "',3
- ' 1. ~ ~
~
LBrowns Ferry 3 l _. m <.m .y .
..Sequoyoh1 yo
~
. u n' - ,
..h2 .
; ~
.. Davis-Besse j 5 . J ". . . . Polisades l Fort St. Vrain !
- 2L '2L, 121 , : 2 .f 2'; ;2; ~l2 2: 4
.2: -2; "Dresden 2 & 3 Fort Calhoun
- u. .
;Nine Mlle Point 1 Nine Mile Point 2
_' 1' 1' 1 a!:z - '
, y. .
Cotiert: Cliffs 1 & 2 Surry 1 & 2 2L" 2: 'llE J .
> 7
~? '
^
12 Zion 1.& 2 2 2 .2 2 1 -Fitzpatrick 2 21,L2'2 -2L' 1 . .
. .Brunswich 1 & 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 indian Point 3
..m . 2l c2V 2; ,1 L _
.. Soutti Texas'1_& 2 2 3 Millstone 1 2 A .,;1 Millstone 2 2 3 Millstone 3 LEMONS ann NRC's WATCH LIST h[' 9
6 9 S9
- N1 O5 )
2 n MN 9 r k EIO91 a e 2 1 s io t 2c31 s et s 2 LT- 3 lc2d 1 s1 e a a anne 1 sk hy u e n 3ih 1 RD9I x t 2k x ioi it ni rc S e emPCec1 a t A E (9 i a 1 E 1 1Nn e n C y2 Te r eeet2nTa dw i LH A mhtoBerddu o mhoyaspml pl daiothda s i u ndasmo1 _ I
. l CTT esseaiv l s eu o qletur r oSezrl st udiainrug adulori eio qn UFA a l l eaoe art eio l NFD I
SWMRDQSSSPCLDFFMSHInQPBPSZ i r i d 3 9 t e 1 9 2 c S - r a l l e NN e o OO2 ) lc 1 2 2 3 c MI9T9 u t n t n m 2mta EI 1 N n i o i o to kld1 so a LD- 0 n 2 1 u 1 P P 2t eos 1 d R E9 o k2kkd o ene 13 atiet t h e e eBo o i r rt AH1 9 t c nir cc ensh al CAieebC i B e g el I yi l i n Cnn h re i _ Mo h1 i ET( LRA in hn wewtB da sdsa aChoM 1 endoo a w dc h t r CUT sansnpeitt r s cuqne n et cr ytsaott lsst o a o ajueuz nllsar f l UOA o r r ri ioo t v l r a eioi eeyuuiiau l l e d T s NFD WTBDBFRPFHSNZNMPPODQMMCQP r i i o r i e L p _ H 1 e 9 C S 19 t m. T N g A O0N) 2 1 n t MO9 9 i W EI LT-1 2 m o kinor3 e Pe1 ld o 3 t n d o n e kr n2i o I 9 t s RD8 9 kc so 1 t r eih v 2 1 s p s
' AE1 E iaB Cil R ,c i n eicAnoP ir r esy d e1 e C wsh1 rMlawmde2nu t r yaG annie pabkr 1ni am r
L D (A s n e etsnr o CIRT si R na c r yt ar s ynyulger sr jcz s e c r u ro i l l UHA uk r r eu i r t uo uiooa e N NTD BAPSONCBPDSTMFDRTZPS ri h t D n N 9 8 i t s A 9 1 i L S S - h N NN) t c _ O OO8 32 2 t k a M MIT98 3 kmm o 4 n c1 d W . E EI 1 LD- t n tt eoo c1 2t n i o P1 2uNane ne so l 1 - L RE89 7 iett eh C's iehho hi o x rd AD1 or oo PCBB So oP1 icchmeAr R _ R 2oy y l l e N A yrhh homoyeMwwssCdhn iaaTeV1 y ete ccmcuiuetn n _ E E LO N (A i l o L CCT ksaar r qrg qk ge n n t ud t aor l r r _ oirnuur r o o o uoe r UEA u yeeeaeieu . C NSD TOPPFRSPSTVNBBFHSDPP l t o _ U c a N e r S s 8 8 e
'N S9 N1 t
a E c Z O6 ) 32 i d I T MN8 E O9- o mm k 231 1 a432 i n I I 1 oo yyy in2 nt t t L T4 c e1 rr rr rr e e nnnn2 D C RID9 8 S e tt t t oo eheees2 r s ah r f o n rd saooon ii i 3 L O C A E (1 E o BB CoFFF 2r ysssBee.y1 n en 1Vo e ehPPPo B deyyn se n B u LTA hmhh e onnn sdl t o nd : e ciccmt uwwwisa Su qonOr r n e iau qk eeais i l s s CST r ngaar sqooo v eSr t k i b e t o u UR A alieee yer r r ar aoeyaiouuuv sr rdor l N P NFD I RPPPFOSBBBDDLFSBSRPSTTInRD EgEPhr{
i METHODOLOGY Nuclear Lemons identifies the nation's most dangerous commercial nuclear reactors by rating them in each of a dozen safety, performance and economic areas. This study incorporates data on nuclear reactor safety-related systems collected by NRC. Other performance indicators are used because they serve as indirect measures of plant safety. Poor reliability, high maintenance expenditures and high worker exposures to radiation often indicate serious safety problems. NUCL. EAR LEMONS CRrrERIA The following criteria are used in this edition of Nuclear Lemons to rank each nuclear reactor in the United States.
- 1. Capacity Factor- The rate at which the reactor was producing power.
- 2. Enforcement Discretion - The number of times NRC waived regulations to allow the re actor to operate.
- 3. Forced Outage Rate - The percentage of the time for which a given reactor was forced to shut down due to abnormal conditions.
- 4. Licensee Event Reports - The number of mishaps reported to the NRC.
- 5. Operations and Maintenance Costs - The cost of operating and maintaining the nuclear plant using mills / Kilowatt hour as the ranking determinant. One mill is equivalent to one tenth of one cent.
- 6. Safety System Actuations - The number of manual and automatic activations of the nuclear reactor's safety systems.
- 7. Safety System Failures - The number of events or conditions that could prevent the j fulfillment of the safety function of reactor structures or systems, t
- 8. Scrams -The number of automatic emergency shutdowns.
- 9. Significant Events - The number of accidents that the NRC identifies as having presented an actual or potential threat to the public health and safety.
- 10. Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance - The average scores from the NRC's last two efforts to rate plant management performance.
I 1. Violations - The number of reported violations of federal regulations at a nuclear plant.
- 12. Worker Exposure to Radiation - The aggregate amounts of radiation to which nuclear power plant workers were exposed.
Mrruonotoor $$ 11
l NUCLEAR LEMONS DATA NuclearIemons is based primarily on government and industry documents. These include records from the U.S. Department of Energy, NRC, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, government l contractors, and trade publications. Records were also obtained from agency libraries, by direct j request or purchase, and through Freedom ofInformation Act requests to the agencies themselves. l l RANKING THE WORST NUCLEAR REACTORS To determine which reactors have the worst overall records, Public Citizen ranked each of the nuclear reactors operating between 1993 and 1995 based on its performance in twelve categories, j These rankings were then averaged to provide an overall measure. Final rankings are based on this l average rank, which includes all twelve categories. The methodology does have some limitations. First, equal weight is given to each of the dozen criteria. This does not mean that all are equally responsible for plant safety. They are not. Readers l may draw their own conclusions as to which categories are the most significant. Additionally, the rankings do not account for special safety problems that have not been quantified. For example, they do not reflect safety problems relating to poorly designed containment systems, the integrity ( : reactor's spent fuel pool, inadequate evacuation plans, or a reactor's proximity to, a major geologic fault. I l l 1 I l
)
1 l 1 l 12 Ef,' NUCLEAR LEMONS
l NUCLEAR LEMONS CRrfERIA l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l fI=J,13 l l l l
CAPACITY FACTORS The capacity factor of a nuclear power reactor is a measure ofits reliability. Specifically, it measures the amount of energy produced by a reactor over a given time period as a percentage of what the { reactor was designed to produce. For example, if a reactor designed to produce 1,000 megawatts of I electricity functioned at full power for half the year and was shut down for the other half, it would l have a fifty percent capacity factor. The same reactor operating at half power (500 megawatts) for ! the full year would also have a fifty percent capacity factor. Industry and government use several slightly different means of measuring ~ capacity factors; Public Citizen employs one of the most common, maximum dependable capacity.' l When nuclear reactors were first designed and constructed, they were intended to operate with j capacity factors of 70% to 80% 2 However, industry-wide averages have fluctuated around 65% over the past decade.' Capacity factors first exceeded 60% after the NRC began its ill-advised practice of enforcement discretion - allowing reactors to violate regulations in order to continue operating. The industry average only reached 70% after the NRC acquiesced to the dangerous practice of perform-ing maintenance while the reactor is operating.' While capacity factors have risen slightly over the past few years, one must question whether reactors are operating more efficiently or whether the NRC isjust regulating less. Low capacity factors drive up the cost of electricity to the consumer in two ways. First, when nuclear reactors do not operate, consumers must pay for both the cost of maintenance and the cost of replace-ment power. Second, unreliable reactors create a need for larger reserve margins, thereby forcing utilities to provide back-up power that would not be necessary if more reliable sources of electricity were used. The table on the following page lists the reactors with the lowest average capacity factors for 1993, 1994 and 1995.5 Notes
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Ucensed Ooerotina Reactors: Status Summarv Reoort. NUREG-0020.
- 2. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy information Administration, Projected Costs of Electricity from Nuclear and Coal-Fired Pianti DOE /EIA-0356/2, November 1982, p. 46. f i
S. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Information Dioest ,1995 Edition, NUREG-1350, Vol. 7. March 1995, p. 28. l
- 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, inspection Manual, Port 9900. Technical Guidance 'Mointenance -
Voluntary Entry into Umiting Conditions for Operation Action Statements to Perform Preventative Molntenance,* 1991.
- 5. Capacity Factor dato provided by the Nuclear information and Resource Service compiled from U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ucensees Monthly Operating Reports 1993,1994 and 1995. i 14 @j; NUCLEAR LEMONS
CAPACITY FACTORS - WORST REACTORS Capacity Average REACTOR LOCATION (Net MDC) 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK Browns Ferry-1 Decatur, AL 1065 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 Indian Point-3 Buchonon,NY 965 14.1% 0.0% 17.1% 10. ,% 2 Browns Ferry-3 Decotur. AL 1065 0.0% 0.0% 70.4% 23.5% 3 Dresden-2 Morris,IL 772 45.0% 60.2% 27.5% 44.2% 4 Solern-2 Salem, NJ 1106 57.2% 57.8 % 20.1 % 45.0% 5 Quod Cities-2 Cordova, IL 769 46.2% 59.6% 37.1 % 47.6% 6 Sequoyoh-1 Daisy, TN 1111 12.6% 62.7% 70.1% 48.5% 7 { So!ern-1 Salem, NJ 1106 60.5% 59.3 % 26.0% 48.6% 8 Dresden-3 Morris, IL 773 73.3% 24.0 % 51.2% 49.5% 9 Cooper Station Brownville, NE 764 55.5% 33.3 % 61.7 % 50.2% 10 Ferml-2 Newport, MI 1085 87.2 % 0.0% 66.9% 51.4 % 11 Millstone-2 Waterford, CT 873 82.3% 47.8% 35.5% 55.2% 12 Moine Yankee Wiscosset, ME 860 76.2% 88.0 % 2.6% 55.6% 13 Sequoyoh-2 Daisy, TN 1106 21.0 % 60.2% 91.7 % 57.6% 14 Perry-1 North Perry, OH 1166 38.9% 45.0% 89.2% 57.7% 15 Brunswick-1 Southport, NC 767 -1.0% 88.6% 86.0% 57.9% 16 ] Quod Cities-1 Cordova, IL 769 74.9 % 24.8% 87.4 % 62.3% 17 1 Zion-2 Zion, IL 1040 58.1 % 67.5% 65.0% 63.5% 18 l Zlon-1 Zion, IL 1040 77.1 % 45.5% 71.0 % 64.5% 19 1 Polo Verde-2 Wintersburg. AZ 1221 47.9% 61.5 % 84.4 % 64.6% 20 INDUSTRYAVERAGES 73.5 % 75.0% 78.7% 75.7% i Browns Ferry-1 l I Indian Point-3 . . Browns Ferry-3 1 ; Dresden-2 I . Salem-2 l l Ouad Cities-2 l . Seouoyah-1 l l w Salem-l l . h Dresden-3 1 , 4 Cooper Station I g Fermi-2 Millstone-2 1 l
=g l c3 Maine Yankee l ,
h Sequoyah-2 li l Q Perry-1 . Brunswick-1 1 Quad Cities-1 l Zion-2 l Zion-1 l Palo Vestle 2 , l
. i . i i 0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 %
Industry Average l CAPACfrY FACTORS Ey] 15
ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION l For the last decade the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has allowed violations of its own regulations at l nuclear power plants across the country, i As early as 1985, members of the NRC staff recognized that regional administrators were allowing nuclear reactors to violate the terms of their licenses without following the procedures for granting license amendments ! cstablished by the Atomic Energy Act. Rather than requiring that reactors follow the law, the Commission l created a pohey to incorporate the non-enforcement of regulations. The NRC called this practice a Temporary l Waiver of Compliance. The NRC staff recognized that the policy of allowing nuclear reactors to operate in literal I violation of the terms of their licenses should be subject to a rulemaking process.2 Yet, on the advice of NRC's Executive Legal Director, no rule was ever promulgated.' ' Although this policy for been in effect for the last decade, the Commission has never been comfortable with its legality. In February 1992, the Commission received SECY-92-043," Exercise Of Discretion Not To Enforce Compliance With License Conditions," from NRC General Counsel William Parler. The document raised legal j questions about the NRC's ability to temporarily waive safety regulations. Public Citizen obtained the document l through the Freedom Of Information Act, but large portions had been deleted. The document outlined a policy to change the NRC practice of temporarily waiving compliance with regulations. Instead, the Commiss; a would merely choose not to enforce its regulations by issuing a notice of enforcement discretion. Whether the NRC " waives" the conditions of a license or merely chooses not to enforce them, the mah is the same. The NRC knowingly allows nuclear reactors to operate in violation of the terms of their licenses. To her credit, current NRC Chairman Shirley Jackson has severely limited the use of enforcement discretion; only a handful of requests have been granted in 1996.' However, there is very little difference between non-enferce-ment and deregulation. Rather than not enforcing regulations, Jackson's NRC is busy wiping them out. The new standard technical specifications which govern reactor operation result in a 40% reduction in the regulations requiring reactor shutdown. These regulations are known as " limiting conditions for operations" (LCOs).5 Nuclear reactors will no longer need to request enforcement discretion because the LCO requiring that the reactor be shut down has been eliminated. The NRC's Enforcement Discretion policy allows nuclear power plants to restart and continue operation when regulations require that the nuclear reactor be shut down. The NRC claims that Enforcement Discretion is used to promote the e.fest course of action by the licensee. Public Citizen is unconvinced. Allowing a nuclear reactor to split atoms cannot pose less risk to public health and safety than keeping the reactor shut down until it meets regulations. The following table shows those reactors that have been granted the largest number of requests for enforcement discretion by the NRC in 1993,1994 and 1995.6 Notes
- 1. Memorandum from Harold R. Dentert Director. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and James M. Taylor, Director, Office of inspection and Enforcement. To: Regiond Administrators T.E. Murley, J.N. Grace, J.G. Keppler, R.D. Martin, J.B. Martin, Re: Relief from )
Technicd Specificotton LCO's. July 15,1985, p.l.
- 2. Memorandum from WlHlom J. Dircks. Executive Director for Operations. To: James M. Toytor, Director. IE, Harold R. Denton, Director, NRR. Guy Cunnbgham. Executive Legal Director, Regarding Po8cy For Granting Temporary Relief From Technicd Specification Requirements. Attoched to Memo of August 26,1985.
- 3. Note to Vic SteDo. DEDROGR. From Guy H. Cunningham lil, Executive Legd Director, Re: Prosecutorld Discretion, August 26.1985 p.1.
A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Administrative Letter 95-05: Revisions to Stoff Guk1once for implementing NRC Policy on Notices of Enforcement Discretion, November 7,1995.
- 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Information Conference Break out session on New Standard Technied Specifico-tiort April 10 and 11,1996.
- 6. Pubic Cittzen obtained data on enforcemerit discretion from the NRC through the Freedom of information Act, FOIA 96-79, February 23.1996.
16 f$ NUC1. EAR LEMONS
ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION .; WORST RFACTORS Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK Zion-1 Zion, IL 3 1 5 3.00 1 Point Beech-2 Two Creeks, WI 4 2 1 2.33 2 Point Beach-1 Two Creeks, WI 3 2 1 2.00 3 Washington Nuclear-2 Richland, WA 3 2 1 2.00 3 Zion-2 Zion, IL 1 2 3 2.00 3 Peach Bottom-2 Peach Bottom, PA 0 3 2 1.67 6 Salem-1 Salem, NJ 2 2 1 1.67 6 Sequoyah-1 Daisy, TN 2 2 1 1.67 6 Broldwood-2 Broldwood, il 1 3 0 1.33 9 Byron-1 Byron, IL 0 3 1 1.33 9 Clinton-1 Clinton, IL 1 2 1 1.33 9 Diablo Canyon 2 Diablo Canyon, CA 1 2 1 1.33 9 Millstone-2 Waterford, CT 1 3 0 1.33 9 Millstone-3 Waterford, CT 3 1 0 1.33 9 North Anna-2 Mineral, VA 2 1 1 1.33 9 River Bend-1 St. Francisville, LA 1 3 0 1.33 9 South Texas-1 Matagorda County, TX 3 1 0 1.33 9 Surry-2 ' Gravel Neck, VA 3 1 0 1.33 9 INDUSTRYAVERAGES 0.74 0.71 0.47 0.64 Zion-1 Point Beach-2 I Zion-2 I Washington Nuclear-2 I Point Beach-1 l l g Sequoyah-1 l l
,$ Salem-1 _
I i . Q Peach Bose-2 I , l g Surry-2 I ' d) South Texas-1 I . . . b River Bend-1 I O North Anna-2 I ' ! . Millstone-3 l l l l c Millstone-2 I ' ' W Diablo Canyon-2 l l l Clinton-1 l Bymn-1 l Braidwood-2 . l l , l l i . . . i 0 O.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
- Industry Average l ENFORCEMFMT DISCREDON $ 17
I FORCED OUTAGE RATEC l l Forced outage rates measure the percentage of time a nuclear reactor is forced off-line due to an abnormal condition. It is calculated by "the number of forced outage hours divided by the sum of unit service hours (i.e., generator on-line hours) and forced outage hours."' According to the NRC, a forced outage is any " outage required to be initiated no later than the l weekend following discovery of an off-normal condition."2 Forced outages,like capacity factors, are an indication of the reliability of a nuclear reactor. The rates are based on data provided by the l utilities in monthly operating reports. l One problem with this performance indicator is that it can produce conflicting and seemingly con-
]
tradictory results. Often a reactor that has been shut all year will have a 100-percent forced outage I rate. For example, Browns Ferry 1 and 3 had 100% forced outage rates in 1990,1991 and 1992. j However, due to creative utility accounting, some outages are not considered " forced outages." l Occasionally, a reactor that has been shut down all year will report a zero percent forced outage rate j even though it did not operate at all. For example, Browns Ferry I did not operate in 1993,1994 or ) 1995 but reported a forced outage rate of zero percent. l { The table on the following page lists those reactors with the highest forced outage rates.3 Notes --
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Performance Indicators for Otn 2tino Commerclol Nuclear Powgr Reactors. Data throuch Sectember 1995. Port II. Office for Analysis or. : 'oluotion of Operational Data, p. 4.
- 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Ucensed Operating Reactors: Status Summary Report, NUREG-0020 (Note: NRC hos stopped publishing NUREG 0020.)
l
- 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, performance Indicators for Ooerotino Commerclol Nuclear Reactors. ;
Doto throuch Sectember 1995. pp.128 ond 129. l I 18 $f: NUCLEAR LEMONS
l 1 1 l FORCED OUTAGE RATES - WonsT F 1 croas 1 1 j Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK Indian Point-S Buchanan,NY 84.5% 100.0% 80.8% 88.4% 1 South Texas-2 Matagordo County, TX 87.3% 42.3% 1.8% 43.8% 2 l Ferml-2 Nawport, MI- 4.3% 100.0% 24.8% 43.0% 3 l South Texas-1 Matagorda County, TX 92.3% 22.3 % 2.5% 39.0% 4 Salem-2 Salem, NJ 35.3 % 7.5% 69.5% 37.4% 5 i Sequoyah-2 Daisy, TN 74.5% 1.5% 8.0% 28.0% 6 ! CooperStation Brownville, NE 1.8% 65.3% 14.3% 27.1 % 7 Salem-1 Salem, NJ 9.8% 25.8% 44.5% 26.7% 8 Quod Cities-2 Cordova, IL 28.8% 34.0% 15.3% 26.0% 9 { Dresden-3 Morris, IL 19.8% 0.0% 40.3% 20.0% 10 : Dresden-2 Morris, IL 11.0% 33.5% 9.5% 18.0% 11 ) Sequoyah-1 Daisy, TN 35.8% 4.8% 10.0% 16.8% 12 l Quad Cities-1 Cordova, IL 15.8% 24.8% 9.3% 16.6% 13 Robinson-2 (H. B.) Hartsville, SC 23.5% 22.0% 1.5% 15.7% 14 River Bend-1 St. Francisville, LA 29.5% 15.8% 0.8% 15.3% 15 Palisades South Haven. MI 6.8% 33.5% 4.0% 14.8% 16 Perry-1 North Perry, OH 33.3 % 1.8% 6.8% 13.9% 17 McGuire-1 Cowans Ford Dam, NC 22.8% 14.8% 3.5% 13.7% 18 Beaver Valley-1 Shippingport, PA 13.5% 20.3% 5.8% 13.2% 19 Pilgrim-1 Plymouth, MA 4.8% 24.3% 7.5% 12.2% 20 INDUSTRYAVERAGE 8.48% 8.44% 5.95 % 7.63 % l l Indian Point-3 l South Texas-2 I , l I Fermi-2 South Texas-1 Il l . y Salem-2 I* ' ' y Sequoyah-2 I , Z I Cooper Station I I q) Salem-1 , , , I ' ' Quad Cities-2 ',
+* Dresden-3 I . , ,
I' ' Dresdem2 , l ', , I Sequoyah-1 . . . . I ' ' ' Quad Cities-1 l I . {. Robinson-2 (H. B.) . . . O River Bend-l - E Palisades I , l l l I ' ' Perry-1 ', l , I McGuire-1 - , , . . I ' ' ' Beaver Wiley-1 ' Wpwl I . , i . . 0% 20 % 40 % 60% 80% 100% l
} - Industry Average FORCED O'rrAGE RATES $f$ 19 j
LICENSEE EVENT REPORT 2 A Licensee Event Repon (LER) is filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) each time there is a failure or breakdown of nuclear power plant systems or procedures. Events for which an LER must be filed inclu.de: conditions outside the design basis of the plant, phenomena that pose an actual threat to the safety of the nuclear power plant, and events that result in the degradation of the , plant's principal safety barriers.8 Licensee Event Reports provide the NRC with the details of perfor- I mance and safety problems which may later be recorded as safety system actuations, safety system failures, scrams and significant events. Accidents such as steam generator tube ruptures or station blackouts are first identified as LERs. The r uclear industry has argued that licensee event reports reflect harmless or otherwise trivial eveats. However, NRC reporting guidelines state that these repons provide " detailed narrative description (s) of potentially significant safety events" - mishaps or conditions that "might lead to serious accidents." According to the NRC, LERs provide "a basis for assessing the performance trends of the industry as a whole and those ofindividual licensees."2 Licensee event reports et ', .od do vary in safety significance; non-violent demonstrations at a reactor site are treated the same as a direct hit by a hurricane that causes a station blackout. However, a large number of LERs indicate that a reactor has suffered numerous mishaps which could have endangered the reactor,its employees, and the general public. The table on the following page, which ranks reactors by the average annual number of LERs occur-ring in 1993,1994 and 1995, is compiled from NRC data.3
- Notes,
- 1. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.10 CFR 50.73.
- 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Annual Reoort 1988. Vol. 5 NUREG-ll45, June 1989, p. 48.
- 3. Data is compiled by Public Citizen from o computer printout run by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room.
20 $ Nucuan LEMONS
I l t l LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS - WORST REACTORS l Average l REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK l Millstone-2 Waterford, CT 41 48 53 47.3 1 Indian Point-3 Buchonon,NY 65 30 31 42.0 2 Washington Nuclear-2 Richland, WA 77 34 14 41.7 3 l Dresden-2 Morris, IL 50 43 31 41.3 4 Cooper Station Brownville, NE 45 52 25 40.7 5 Millstone-1 Waterford, CT 28 38 39 35.0 6 , River Bend-1 St. Francisville, LA 47 45 12 34.7 7 l Dresden-3 Morris, IL 33 29 29 30.3 8 Hoddam Neck Hoddam Neck, CT 24 31 34 29,7 9 Fitzpatrick(James A.) Scribo, NY 41 23 19 27.7 10 Salem-1 Salem, NJ 26 22 31 26.3 11 Vermont Yankee Vernon, VT 24 22 33 26.3 11 Diablo Canyon-1 Diablo Canyon, CA 27 31 20 26.0 13 South Toxos-1 Motagordo County, TX 31 31 14 25.3 14 Millstone-3 Waterford, CT 31 18 22 23.7 15 Brunswick-1 Southport, NC 27 18 25 23.3 16 Sequoyah-1 Daisy, TN 35 17 18 23.3 16 Hope Creek 1 Salem, NJ 16 19 33 22.7 18 Maine Yankee Wiscosset, ME 23 24 20 22.3 19 Seabrook-1 Seabrook, NH 32 25 10 22.3 19 INDUSTRYAVERAGES 17.0 14.9 12.1 14.65 l Millstone-2 l Indian Point-3 l Washington Nuclear-2 I t/) Dresden-2 I W Cooper Station l O uiiistooe., i , y River Bend-l l l
% Dresden-3 j'
l . w Haddam Neck _Fitzpatrick (James A.) l p Vermonty* ee l , ,
% Salem-1 Diablo Canyon-l l
g l O South Texas-1 l I Millstone-3 l l l O Sequoyah-1 l
' s Brunswick-1 l [ [
l M Hope Creek 1 l Seabrook-1 , Maine Yankee I o 10 20 30 40 50 Industry Average l LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS 3a ' 21
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are the routine day-to-day expenses necessary to operate a nuclear power plant. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), about 67 percent of O&M costs is spent on labor and the remainder on maintenance materials and supplies.8
^
It is important to note that O&M costs do not include fuel costs or the expense of major repairs. O&M costs as reported by utilities also do not include some expenses which the DOE generally considers to be operational, such as insurance costs, regulatory fees and some payroll taxes and fringe benefits.2 The DOE has calculated that actual O&M costs could be up to 30 percent higher than utilities report.8 Public Citizen calculated the O&M costs based on 1993,1994 and 1995 data. Utilities usually report data on a plant-site basis rather than on a per-reactor basis because many costs are shared by all the reactors at the plant. The reactors with the highest operation and maintenance costs are listed in the table on the following page.' Notes
- 1. U.S. Department of Energy, An Ancivsis of Nuclear Power Plant Ooerotino Costs: A 1995 Uodate. SR/OIAF/95-01, April 1995, p. 3.
- 2. U.S. Department of Energy, An Anofvsis of Nuclear Power Plant Ooeratina Costs: A 1995 Undote. SR/OIAF/95-
- 01. April 1995, p. 4.
- 3. Id. p. 4.
- 4. Inside NRC. June 10,1996,p.4.
l i , I i i I i i 22 8f Nucuan LEMONS
1 l OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS - WORST REACERS - 4 Average Average Average Capacity 1992 1994 1993 1995 1992 1995 REACTOR LOCATION (Net MDC) Mills /kWH Mills /kWH Mills /kWH RANK i Maine Yankee Wiscosset, ME 860 15.48 212.36 113.92 1 South Texas-1 Matagorda County, TX 1251 80.89 81.26 81.08 2 South Texas-2 MatagordoCounty,TX 1251 80.89 01.26 81.08 2 Indian Point-3 Buchanan,NY 965 63.07 _90.2/ 76.67 4 I Big Rock Point-1 Big Rock Point, M1 67 72.16 '59.38 65.77 5 l l Perry-1 North Perry, OH 1166 46.64 46.01 46.33 6 Brunswick-1 Southport, NC 767 52.33 33 15 42.74 7 Brunswick-2 Southport, NC 754 52.33 33.15 42.74 7 River Bend-1 St. Francisville, LA 936 50.91 33.11 42.01 9 Salern-1 Salem, NJ 1106 28.41 42.13 35.27 10 l Salern-2 Sok.n,NJ 1106 28.41 42.13 35.27 10 l Millstone-1 Waterford, CT 641 35.46 33.06 34.26 12 Millstone-2 Waterford, CT 873 35.46 33.06 34.26 12 Dresden-2 Morris,IL 772 31.24 36.66 33.95 14 Dresden-3 Morris, IL 773 31.24 36.66 33.95 14 Oyster Creek-1 Torns River, NJ 619 34.49 32.37 33.43 16 Quad Cities-1 Cordova, IL 769 32.06 31.67 31.87 17 l Quod Cities-2 Cordova, IL 769 32.06 31.67 31.87 17 j l Fort Colhoun-1 Fort Calhoun, NE 478 31.88 30.06 30.97 19 i l Pilgrirn-1 Plymouth, MA 670 28.87 30.81 29.84 20 INDUSTRYAVERAGES 24.32 25.52 24.82 Maine Yankee l South Texas-2 i . Q) South Texas-1 l Indian Point-3 l , l d Big Rock Point 1 l Perry-1 l . , , w Brunswick-2 l
, Brunswick-1 l . . .
O River Bend-l l g Salem-2 l * . . g r/) Salem-1 l l l l l C Millstone-2 l d Millstone-1 l l l
, l Dresden-3 l C) Dresden-2 l . , , , *O I
Oyster Creek-1 l h Quad Cities-2 l [ Quad Cities-1 l l ', Port Calhoun-1 l . . . . Pilgnm-1 I l l l ; I 4 I ) I o 20 40 60 80 100 120 Industry Average l OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS $ 2.3
SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS Safety System Actuations are manual or automatic activations of NRC-specified compenents of reactor emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) or emergency power systems.' The ECCS is the main safety back-up system in a reactor. It is intended to provide emergency cooling of the reactor's core should the reactor experience a loss-of-coolant accident. This indicator is similar to one employed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) called Unplanned Safety Systems Actuations. According to INPO," fewer actuations indicate greater care in plant operation, which contributes to a higher margin of safety."2 The NRC has eliminated reporting requirements for certain safety system actuations. NRC regula-tions require that nuclear power plant licensees report any event or condition that involves the actua-tion of any engineered safety feature (ESF). ESF actuations account for approximately 40% of Licensee Event Reports (LERs). The NRC's deregulatory effort is expected to reduce the number of events reported by 5% to 10%.3 Therefore, reductions in the number of safety system actuations do not indicate an increase in safety, but rather a decrease in regulation by the NRC. The NRC is planning to replace both safety system actuations and safety system failures with system reliability trends for risk. The risk-important systems that NRC will look at include: diesels, auxil-iary feed-water systems, reactor protection systems, the high pressure injection systems for both BWRs and PWRs and the low pressure safety injection systems.' The tables on the following page lists the reactors that had the highest number of safety system actuations in 1993,1994 and 1995.8 Notes
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Performance Indicators for Ooerotina Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors Data throuah Sectember 1995. Part II. Office for Analysis and Evoluotion of Operational Data, p. 2.
- 2. Institute of Nuclear Power Operoflons, Performance Indicators for the U S Nuclear Utility industrv. March 1990.
- 3. James Taylor. Executive Director for Operations. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reaulatorv Rev's SECY-92-141. April 17,1992 Appendix B. issue 3.
- 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Commission Briefing on Changes to the Performance Indicator Fyo-gram, August 22,1995, pp.18 and 19.
- 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Performance Indicators for Ooerotina Comercial Nuclear Power Reactors. Data throuah Seotember 1995. pp.122 and 123.
24 $ NUCLEAR LEMONS
SAFETY SYSTEM AcrUATIONS - WORST REACTORS Total Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 RANK Umerick-2 Pottstown, PA 4 1 2 7.0 2.3 1 Ginna (R. E.) Ontorio, NY 0 3 3 6.0 2.0 2 Beaver Valley-2 Shippingport, PA 3 2 0 5.0 1.7 3 indian Point-2 Buchonon,NY 3 1 1 5.0 1.7 3 Nine Mlle Point-2 Scribo, NY 4 0 1 5.0 1.7 3 St. Lucle-1 Fort Pierce, FL 0 4 1 5.0 1.7 3 Brunswick-1 Southport, NC 1 1 2 4.0 1.3 7 Calvert Cliffs-1 Lusby, MD 1 3 0 4.0 1.3 7 Calvert Cliffs-2 Lusby, MD 1 3 0 4.0 1.3 7 Grand Gulf-1 Port Gibson, MS 1 0 3 4.0 1.3 7 LaSalle-2 Seneca. IL 1 0 3 4.0 1.3 7 Polisades SouthHaven MI 1 0 3 4.0 1.3 7 Perry-1 North Perry, OH 1 0 3 4.0 1.3 7 Salem-1 Salem, NJ 3 1 0 4.0 1.3 7 Salem-2 Salem, NJ 2 2 0 4.0 1.3 7 INDUSTRYAVERAGES 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 l Limerick-2 l Ginna (R. E.) l m St. Lucie-1 l l Nine Mile Point-2 l l 5 Indian Point-2 l , b U Beaver Valley-2 l . ( Salem 2 l . . g Salem-1 l Perry-1 l h Palisades l ' ' W . . LaSalle-2 l ; ; Grand Gulf-1 l l d Calvert Cliffs-2 l ; ; Z ' Calvert Cliffs-1 l , I ' Brunswick-1 l l . . . , l . l . o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Industry Average l SAFETY SysTr.M AcrUATIONS $ 25
l SAFE'1T SYSTEM FAILURES l 1 Safety systems function to prevent or mitigate accidents that would otherwise seriously damage the l reactor and result in catastrophic releases of radiation into the environment. The failure of these systems is thus an important indicator of nuclear reactor safety. Safety System Failures include events or conditions that could prevent the successful functioning of I safety structures or systems.' Among the twenty-six safety systems, subsystems, and components 1 monitored for this indicator are: l l
- reactor trip systems and associated instrumentation
- radiation monitoring instrumentation coolant systems '
- accident monitoring instrumentation safety valves afeedwater systems
*on-site emergency AC and DC power supplies essential or emergency service water supplies
- containment coolant systems
- fire detection and suppression systems
- residual heat removal systems.2 The NRC specifies that for systems consisting of" multiple redundant subsystems or trains, failure of all trains constitutes a safety failure." Conversely, the failure of some, but not all, of a set of redun-dant trains is not counted as a safety system failure.' As with safety system actuations, the NRC p!1ns to replace this performance indicator with system reliability trends for risk.'
The table on the following pages list reactors that had the highest number of safety system failures in 1993,1994 and 1995.5 Notes
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Performance Indicators for Ooeratina Commercial Nuclear Power Recetors Data throuah Seotember 1995. Part II. p. 4.
- 2. M. of pp. 4 - 5.
- 3. M. of p. 4.
I
- 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Commission Briefing on Changes to the Performance Indicator Pro-gram, August 22.1995, pp.18 and 19, {
i
- 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Performance Indicators for Ooeratina Commercial Nuclear Power Reactort Data throuah Seotember 1995. Part 11. pp.126 127.
26 f$ NUCLEAR LEMONS i ___ _ -_ J
( SAFETY SYSTEM FAIWRES - WORST REACTORS Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK Millstone-2 Waterford, CT 7 8 9 8.0 1 Cooper Station Brownville, NE 11 8 4 7.7 2 indian Point-3 Buchanan,NY 13 4 5 7.3 3 Quod Cities-2 Cordova, IL 13 4 5 7.3 3 Dresden-3 Morris, IL 7 5 9 7.0 5 Quod Cities-1 Cordova, IL 8 7 5 6.7 6 Dresden-2 Morris, IL 8 9 2 6.3 7 Haddam Neck Hoddam Neck, CT 7 4 8 6.3 7 Muistone-1 Waterford, CT 6 7 6 6.3 7 Pilgrim-1 Plymouth, MA 9 4 4 5.7 10 Pa"sades South Haven, MI 4 6 6 5.3 11 Salem-1 Salem, NJ 1 3 11 5.0 12 Washington Nuclear-2 Richland, WA 11 3 0 4.7 13 LaSalle-1 Seneca, IL 8 3 2 4.3 14 LaSalle-2 Seneca, IL 6 5 2 4.3 14 Salem-2 Salem, NJ 2 3 8 4.3 14 Vermont Yankee Vernon, VI 6 4 3 4.3 14 Fitzpatrick(James A.) Scriba, NY 9 2 1 4.0 18 River Bend-1 St. Francisville, LA 4 4 4 4.0 18 Crystal River-3 Red Level, FL 1 2 7 3.3 20 Diablo Canyon-1 Diablo Canyon, CA 3 2 5 3.3 20 Duane Arnold Palo,IA 4 3 3 3.3 20 Fort Calhoun-1 Fort Calhoun, NE 6 2 2 3.3 20 Hope Creek 1 Salem, NJ 4 1 5 3.3 20 Peach Bottom-3 Peach Bottom, PA 5 4 1 3.3 20 INDUSTRYAVERAGE 3.2 2.0 1.9 2.4 Millstone-2 i Cooper Station i , i Quad Cities-2 , g Indian Point-3 1 i
- 6 Dresden-3 i '
Q Quad Cities-1 i Millatone-1 Zg Haddam Neck I i . Dresden-2 4 Pilgrirn-I I * ' I Palisades l h Salem-1 I . bCh Washington Nuclear-2 Verrnont Yankee I 1 . I h Salem-2 W ussiw2 r : I . . LaSalle-1 e hy River Bend-1 Fitzpatrick (James A.) 1 I Puch Bottom-3 i 4s ' d Hope Creek 1 I . i ' Z Fort Calhoun-1 I ' '
=
Duane Arnold ' I Diablo Canyon-1 l l Crystal RJver-3 1 ( , O 2 4 6 8 10 l - Industry Average l SAITTY SYSTEM FA!WRES ft$ 27
SCRAMS - EMERGENCY PLANT SHUTDOWNS - When a nuclear reactor shuts down under normal conditions, the power level is decreased slowly by the gradual insertion of" control rods" into the reactor core. The control rods stop the fission process ' by absorbing the neutrons that maintain the nuclear chain reaction. 1 1 Sometimes, however, the reactor must be shut down immediately. To do this, control rods are inserted rapidly into the core, a practice called a " scram." Scramming a reactor is like suddenly slamming on the brakes in a car-it is a sudden, violent shutdown of a nuclear reactor. Scrams can be either manual or automatic. The NRC's Performance Indicator Program tracks only automatic scrams. The NRC does not incorporate manual scrams into its Performance Indicator Program fearing that reactor operators may hesitate when a manual scram is appropriate.' However, as the NRC acknowledges, " transients involving manual scrams can have actual or poten-tial safety significance and, thus, are reportable events pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73."2 While automatic scrams have remained relatively constant over the past three years, manual scrams have almost doubled from 1994 to 1995.8 As with Safety System Actuations and Failures, NRC plans to change this performance indicator in the future. NRC proposes to use data provided by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO).d Although in the past INPO has resisted dissemination of their reports, the NRC claims the data will be made publicly available. The table on the following page lists the reactors with the most manual scrams in 1993,1994 and 1995.5 Unfonunately NRC's performance indicator only provides half the story. Absent the inclusion of manual scrams, the data shows little deviation between reactors. If manual scrams were included, this indicator would be more effective in assessing relative plant safety. Notes
- 1. Letter from James Taylor, Acting Executive Director for Operations. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss!on to Zock Pote, President, Institute for Nuclear Power Operations Oct. 27,1989; enclosure, p. 2.
- 2. Id. of p. 2.
- 3. Hart, Kathleen, "Monual Scroms At Nuclear Plants Up Considerably ' Inside N R.C October 16,1995, pp. 5-6.
- 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Briefing on Changes to the Performance indicator Program, August 22, 1995,p.13.
- 5. U.S. Nuclect Regulatory Commission, Performance Indicators for Ooerotina Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors: Data throuch Sectember 1995. Part II. pp. 116-117.
28 $.' NUCLEAR LEMONS
SCRAMS - WonsT REACTORS Total Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 RANK Cook-2 (Donald C.) Bridgman, MI 2 3 4 9 3.0 1 Calvert Cliffs-2 Lusby,14D 1 4 2 7 2.3 2 i Comanche Peak-1 Glen Rose,TX 3 2 2 7 2.3 2 Grand Gulf l Port Gibson, MS 1 1 5 7 2.3 2 Nine Mile Point-1 Scriba, NY 2 4 1 7 2.3 2 Salem-1 Salem, NJ 3 4 0 7 2.3 2 Surry-2 Gravel Neck, VA 5 0 2 7 2.3 2 Browns Ferry-2 Decatur, AL 0 3 3 6 2.0 8 Catawba-2 Lake Wylie, SC 1 3 2 6 2.0 8 Dresden-3 Morris,IL 2 1 3 6 2.0 8 Fermi-2 Newport MI 4 0 2 6 2.0 8 Hope Creek 1 Salem, NJ l 5 0 6 2.0 8 Limerick-2 Pottstown, PA 2 1 3 6 2.0 8 Quad Cities-2 Cordova,IL 4 1 1 6 2.0 8 Washington Nuclear 2 Richland, WA 3 0 3 6 2.0 8 Comanche Peak-2 Glen Rose,TX 2 1 2 5 1.7 16 Farley-2 (Joseph M.) Dothan, AL 1 2 2 5 1.7 16 Hatch-1 (Edwin I.) Baxley,GA 3 2 0 5 1.7 16 LaSalle-1 Seneca,IL 1 3 1 5 1.7 16 i Millstone-2 Waterford, CT 5 0 0 5 1.7 16 l Oconee-2 Seneca SC 2 2 1 5 1.7 16 l Oconee-3 Seneca, SC 1 3 1 5 1.7 16 Sequoyah-1 Daisy TN 1 2 2 5 1.7 16 , South Texas-2 Matagorda County, TX 2 1 2 5 1.7 16 j St. Lucie-1 Fort Pierce, FI. 0 4 1 5 1.7 16 Vogtle.I Waynesboro, GA 2 2 1 5 1.7 16 l INDUSTRY AVERAGE 1.11 1.02 0.93 1.02 Cook-2 (Donald C.) ! S urry-2 1 j S ale rn- 1 l Nine Mile IN> int- 1 1 Gran<i Gul -I } Cornanche Peak. I Calvert Cliffs-2 Wanahan srton Nuclear-2 med citie.-2 [ lenesick-2 ione Creek 1 Term -2 .
)te ncen-3 rme=wba-2 i Browns Ferry-2 Voartle-I I .
St. Lucie- 1 I e South Texas-2 1 Seouoyah-1 1 l
-Oconee-3 l Oc n nn~ -2 .
Millatone-2 . I 2. E alle- I i
- 7ME~n (Edwin I.) 1 Farley-2 (Joseph M.)
Cornanche Peak-2 i e i j O 1 2 3 l l Industry Average l SCRAMS 29
l SIGNIFICANT EVENTS - Significant Events are those that present an actual or potential threat to the health or safety of the . public.' The initial screening process includes the daily review of all reported operating reactor events, as well as additional operational data such as tests and construction activities.2 Some of the events that NRC classifies as significant include:
*degraduion of important safety equipment *a major transient or an unexpected plant response to a transient
- degradation of fuel integrity, the primary pressure boundary, or important associated structures
*a reactor trip with complications *an unple.nned release of radiation exceeding plant technical specifications (TS) or regulations
- operation outside of the technical specifications (TS) limits
*other events that are considered significant $
The table on the following page lists those reactors having the most significant events in 1993,1994 and 1995.4 Notes
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisslort Performance Indicators for Ooerotina Commerclol Nuclear Power Reactors. Data throuah Sectember 1995. Part it p. 3.
- 2. jd. p. 3
- 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conwdrs 6 Office of Analysis and Evoluotion of Operational Doto. Annual Reoort
.12Z1, NUREG-1272. Vol. 8. No.1, (November 1994) p.13.
- 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Performance Indicators for Ooerotina Commercial Nuclear Reactors.
Octa throuch Sectember 1995. Part il pp. 124-125. 30 $ NUCLEAR LEMONS
r i l SIGNIFICANT EVENTS - WORST REACTORS i , Average l REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK Hoddam Neck Hoddam Neck, CT 1 2 1 1.33 1 ) Beaver Valley-2 Shippingport, PA 3 0 0 1.00 2 l Millstone-2 Waterford, CT 1 1 1 1.00 2 l Salem-1 Salem, NJ 0 1 2 1.00 2 Salem-2 Salem, NJ 1 0 2 1.00 2 South Texas-1 Motagordo County, TX 2 0 1 1.00 2 l i Crystal River-3 Red Level. FL 1 1 0 0.67 7 LaSalle-1 Seneca,IL l 1 1 0 0.67 7 LoSols-2 Seneco,ll {' 1 1 0 0.67 7 Millstone-1 Waterford, CT 0 2 0 0.67 7 Peach Bottom-2 Peach Bottom, PA 0 2 0 0.67 7 Son Onofre-2 San Clemente, CA 1 0 1 0.67 7 South Texas-2 Matagordo County, TX 2 0 0 0.67 7 Washington Nuclear-2 Richland, WA 0 1 1 0.67 7 , Waterford-3 Taft, LA 0 1 1 0.67 7 INDUSTRYAVERAGES 0.26 0.20 0.12 0.19 l l 1 Haddam Neck l SouthTexas 1 l l Salem-2 l l m Salem-1 l l w Millstone-2 l l { ' Beaver Valley-2 l , u Waterford-3 l l ,' l Washington Nuclear 2 l l ', O ' C South Texas-2 l , l l b San Onofre-2 l 60 '
*y Peach Bottom-2 l ', ,'
Millstone-l l l l LaSalle-2 l l l LaSalle-1 l l l Crystal River.3 _ _ _ l l l l 4 I I i i I 0 0.2 0,4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 f l Industry Average l SicmnCArrEvrxrs @)? 31
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP) When the NRC first attempted to rate over-all plant management at each of the nation's nuclear mwer plants, licensees were rated "above average," " average," or "below average."' Naturally, ma sy owners of"below average" plants received adverse publicity. The NRC quickly revised its procedure.t so that such designations are no longer officially made. In its place, the NRC introduced the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performan:e (SALP) pro-gram which rates each area of plant management with a score of 1,2 or 3, representing " superior",
" good" and " adequate" levels of performance. The ratings are based on periodic inspections of nuclear facilities by NRC personnel and on overall reviews of management performance.
Originally the S ALP rated plant management in eleven functional areas.2 By the end of 1988, the l NRC had reduced the number of functional areas to seven. These areas, which are basically a reshuf-fling and consolidation of the eleven earlier ones, include:
- plant operation
- radiological controls
- maintenance / surveillance
- emergency preparedness
- security
- engineering / technical support
- safety assessment / quality verification.3 The nuclear industry claims that the SALP program is subjective and can damage a company's public and financial reputation. A poor S ALP score can affect a company's bond rating and have an adverse financial impact on the nuclear power plant owner. For this and other reasons, the nuclear industry has recommended that NRC eliminate the SALP program.4 In response to industry pressure, the NRC has again reduced the functional categories from the previ-ous reven down to four: operations, maintenance, engineering and plant support.5 Plant support would incorporate those categories deleted from the SALP process. However, categories such as security or emergency preparedness will no longer adversely affect SALP scores because they will be averaged with other areas of plant support.
The table on the following page lists the reactors with the worst average SALP scores in the industry.' SALPs are generally given for each piant site, whereas Public Citizen's rankingiin this report are based on individual reactors. Therefore, Public Citizen assigns the SALP score of a plant to each reactor at that plant site. Notes
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Con nission, NRC Uconsee Assessments. NUREG-0834. August 1981.
- 2. Id
- 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiasion. Historied Data Summarv of the svrtemate Assessment of Uceruse Performance.
NUREG-1214. Revision 11. February 1993. NOTE: NRC hos stopped publishing this report.
- 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Systematic Assessment of Ucensee Performance. SECY-9605. January 5.1996. p. 3.
- 5. William T. Russell. ' Systematic Assessment of Ucensee Performance / NRC Regulatory information Conference Proceedings.
May 4,1993, p. 89.
- 6. Public Citizen prepared this dato by reviewing each nuclear plant's SALP reports from 19931996.
32 $fNuclearLemons
l SALP AVERAGES -. WORST REACTORS-- SALP1 SALP1 SALP2 SALP2 Average REACTOR LOCATION Date Average Date Average SALP RANK Dresden-2 Mords, IL - 2.50 4/95 2.50 2.50 1 Dresden-3 Morris, IL - 2.50 4/95 2.50 2.50 1 Quod Cities-1 Cordova,IL 2/94 2.75 9/95 2.25 2.50 1 Quod Cities-2 Cordova,IL 2/94 2.75 9/95 2.25 2.50 1 ; Cooper Station Brownville, NE 6/93 2.14 8/95 2.50 2.32 5 i Washington Nuclear-2 Richland, WA 2/93 2.14 9/% 2.50 2.32 5 Millstone-2 Waterford, CT . 5/93 2.00 8/94 2.50 2.25 7 Palisodes South Haven, MI 12/93 2.50 7/95 2.00 2.25 7 LaSalle-1 Seneca, IL 7/93 1.86 12/94 2.50 2.18 9 LaScSe-2 Seneca,IL 7/93 1.86 12/94 2.50 2.18 9 : River Bend-1 St. Francisville, LA 3/94 2.50 8/95 1.75 2.13 11 l Robinson-2 (H. B.) Hartsvitie, SC 2/94 2.25 7/% 2.00 2.13 11 Soauoyah-1 Daisy, TN 12/93 2.25 2/95 2.00 2.13 11 Sequoyah-2 Daisy, TN 12/93 2.25 2/95 2.00 2.13 11 Zion-1 Zion, ii. 7/94 2.00 2/96 2.25 2.13 11 Zion-2 Zion, IL 7/94 2.00 2/96 2.25 2.13 11 Indian Point-3 Buchonon,NY - 1.93 4/96 2.25- 2.09 17 Ferrni-2 Newport, M! 5/94 2.00 5/96 2.00 2.00 18 Fitzpatrick (Jornes A.) Scriba, NY - 5/94 2.00 12/95 2.00 2.00 18 Millstone-1 Waterford, CT 5/93 2.00 8/94 2.00 2.00 18 Millstone-3 Waterford, CT 5/93 2.00 8/94- 2.00 2.00 18 Palo Verde-1 Wintersburg, AZ 5/93 1.86 1/% 2.00 1.93 22 Polo Verde-2 Wintersburg, AZ 5/93 1.86 1/95 2.00 1.93 22 Palo Verde-3 Wintersburg, AZ 5/93 1.86 1/95 2.00 1.93 22 Perry-1 North Perry, OH 1/93 1.86 2/95 2.00 1.93 22 INDUSTRYAVERAGE 1.62 1.56 1.59 l ouma ca.<- -2 Ouad Cities 1 Drenten-3 D&--==-2' W=-hi== tan Nanc h-2 ~] Cocoor Station i g p-n. a , g Willa mas -2 am. -: , l g , g 2.u- - Q a ion.'.; l 5cas- 1 1
=aanava3-2 I anuovat.] I
~
tahinson-2 (H. B.) l Uvar 3 =ad-1 I
'si-a 'oint-3 I yi an. 3 i Mi =.ana-1 i v.. .-.m a.- w Parrni-2 Pm tv- 1 I e Pmo Vana-3 I e Pa o Vercm-2 l Pa'o Verte-1 I O O.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Industry Average l SYsTEMAUC AsssssMurr Or LICENSEE PERFORMANCE Sfl 33
VIOLATIONS l The NRC possesses a number of means by which to enforce its regulations governing reactor design, construction, and operation. First, the agency may simply warn a nuclear utility to correct a violation of NRC rules. In more serious cases, the NRC may impose a civil penalty (i.e., a fine) against the offending utility. Finally, if the violation is severe or recurrent, the NRC may put restrictions on, or even revoke, a plant's operating license.' Enforcement of NRC regulations is a multi-step process involving inspection, investigation, assess- l ment, and negotiation between the licensee and the NRC. When a violation has occurred, the NRC determines its severity and categorizes it accordingly. Based on this rating and circumstances such ; as a plant's enforcement history or its response to past violations, the agency determines whether to j fine the utility.2 However, the majority of violations do not result in NRC fines levied against nuclear power plant licensees. According to the NRC, violations are under-reported due to errors in NRC's database. The NRC claimed to be repairing this problem three years ago when Public Citizen last released Nuclear Lemons. However, the corrected data are still not available. In telephone conversations with agency officials, the NRC has acknowledged that as much as one-third of the data are missing and half of what has been entered regarding severity levels are incorrect. When repairing the data,if the NRC cannot match a paper copy of the violation to the computer record, the computer record will be deleted. This leads us to question how N'RC can implement performance-based regulation when it is incapable of determining the actual performance of the nuclear reactors it purports to regulate. For this reason, Public Citizen has not incorporated information on severity level of the violation into this report. The table on the following page lists those reactors with the most violations in 1993, 1994 and 1995.8 Notes
- 1. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations,10 CFR 2.201,56 FR 40684. Aug.15.1991.
- 2. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.10 CFR 2.205. 36 FR 16896. Aug. 26,1971, os amended at 52 FR 31608, Aug. !
81,1987; 54 FR 53315. Dec. 28,1989. 1
- 3. Computer printouts obtained from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission through the Freedom of Inforrno-
{ tion Act. NRC FOIA-96 078. ; l l 1 34 $ NUCLEAR LEMONS
VIOLATIONS - WORST REACTORS I Average , REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK I 1 Browns Ferry-2 Decatur, AL 40 30 63 44.3 1 Browns Ferry-3 Decatur, AL 41 30 61 44.0 2 ; Browns Ferry-1 Decatur, AL 40 30 59 43.0 3 l Brunswick-1 Southport, NC 61 36 29 42.0 4 Brunswick-2 Southport NC 61 36 28 42.0 4 Byron-1 Byron, IL 14 24 9 41.7 6 Sequoyah-1 Daisy, TN 56 41 28 41.7 6 Sequoyah-2 Daisy, TN 56 40 28 41.3 8 Millstone-1 Waterford, CT 35 41 34 36.7 9 Mllistone-2 Waterford, CT 35 36 38 36.3 10 Washington Nuclear-2 Richland, WA 47 30 31 36.0 11 Polo Verde-1 Wintersburg, AZ 45 36 25 35.3 12 Palo Verde-2 Wintersburg, AZ 45 36 25 35.3 12 Polo Verde-3 Wintersbug, AZ 44 36 25 35.0 14 Millstone-3 Waterford, CT 33 37 34 34.7 15 Oconee-1 Seneca,SC 31 39 25 31.7 16 Oconee-2 Seneca,SC 31 39 25 31.7 16 Oconee-3 Seneca,SC 31 39 25 31.7 16 Arkansas-2 RusselMile, AR 36 28 29 31.0 19 South Texas-2 Matagorda County, TX 40 31 22 31.0 19 Vermont Yankee Vernon, VT 31 32 30 31.0 19 Arkansas-1 RusselMile, AR 36 27 29 30.7 22 South Texas-1 Matagorda County, TX 40 30 22 30.7 22 San Onofre-2 San Clernente, CA 37 26 27 30.0 24 , San Onofre-3 San Clemente, CA 37 26 27 30.0 24 INDUSTRYAVERAGES 28.2 25.9 20.8 25.2 Browns Ferry-2 1
~6ns Ferry-3 I Browns Ferry-1 i Brunswick-2 i Bruns wick-1 I Seouoyah- 1 I
._B_vron- 1 __ __1 Seo uov ah-2 1 M M ai- an.-l I ,
C Min **a-2 l e C Washineton Nuclear-2 i ag Pale Verde-2 i , g Palo Verde-I I . y=-t Palo Verde-3 1 C* Minaanne-3 l Oconee-3 I l Oconee-2 I . Oconee- 1 i e _Verrnant Y =u- i South Texas-2 l Arkansas-2 I . South Texas-1 I . Arkansas-1 I San Onofre-3 San Onofre-2 i i i O 10 20 30 40 50 Industry Average l VIOtADONS $ 35 L
1 WORKER EXPOSURE TO RADIATION Worker exposure to radiation represents one of the on-going but hidden costs of nuclear power. Recent studies have demonstrated that no radiation exposure, no matter how small, can be consid- ) ered risk-free.' 1 The National Research Council's Committee on the Biological Effects ofIonizing Radiation reports ) that low-level radiation is significantly more dangerous than previously believed. Specifically, it found that people exposed to low levels of radiation are three times more likely to die of cancer of the breast, stomach, lung, ovary, and other organs and four times more likely to die of leukemia than it had estimated in its 1980 report.2 A recent study of workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory revealed that leukemia mortality was / 63% higher than expected. For those workers who had at one time been monitored for internal radionuclide contamination, leukemia mortality was 123% higher. These findings indicate a radia-tion risk ten times greater than those based on Hiroshima and Nagasaki data.8 Limiting workers' exposure to radiation is not the only reason to track this indicator. The NRC has long considered worker exposure to radiation to be a good indicator of a reactors' performance. Then NRC Chairman Ivan Selin noted that high rates of worker exposure "are a clear sign of management inattention. There's absolutely no reason in the world that a reactor should have such - any reactor should have such poor radiological performance other than toleration of poor performance."' Com-missioner Rogers recently echoed the former chairman's sentiment, stating that "it tells you how assiduously they are conforming to procedures and the care which they're taking in their every day activities, so that by itselfit's a sensitive indicator."5 The table on the following page provides data on the plants where workers were exposed to the most radiation in 1993,1994 and 1995.6 Notes
- 1. U.S. National Research Council National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Biological Effects of lonizing Radiation Health Effects of Exoosure to Low Levels of lonizina Radiation (Dec.1989),2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20418.
l
- 2. jd.
- 3. Wing, S., ' Mortality Among Workers at Ook Ridge National Laborotory," Journal of the Arnerican Medical Association. Vol. 265, No.11, p.1397, March 20.1991.
l t
- 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coninisson, Periodic Briefing on Operating Reoctors and Fuel Focilities, January 24, 1994,p.39.
- 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Periodic Briefing on Operating Reactors and Fuel Focilitiet January 31, 1996,p.35.
- 6. U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Performance Indicators for Ooeratina Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors. Data throuah Sectember 1995. Part il p.134 and 135. Office for Analysis and Evoluotion of Opero-tional Data. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, p. 3.
l 36 ftf NUCLEAR LEMONS
WORKER EXPOSURE TO RADIADON - WORST REACIOPE i Collective Collective Collective Average Exposure / Exposure / Exposurt/ Exposure / f Reactor Reactor Reactor Reactor (Rems) (Rems) (Rems) (Rems) REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK Washington Nuclear-2 Richland, WA 483 861 433 592.3 1 . Dresden-2 Morris, IL 828 416 343 529.0 2 ! ! Dresden-3 Morris, IL 828 416 343 529.0 2 l l Oyster Creek-1 Toms River, NJ 418 845 68 443.7 4 l l Quod Cities-1 Cordova, IL 425 563 326 438.0 5 Quod Cities-2 Cordova, IL 425 563 326 438.0 5 Brunswick-1 Southport, NC 436 521 304 420.3 7 Brunswick-2 Southport, NC 436 521 304 420.3 7 Indian Point-2 Buchanan,NY 675 48 521 414.7 9 Pilgrim-1 Plymouth, MA 441 218 463 374.0 10 LaSalle-1 Seneca, IL 428 363 241 344.0 11 LoSolle-2 Seneca, IL 428 363 241 344.0 11 Perry-1 North Perry, OH 278 689 37 334.7 13 Hoddam Neck Hoddam Neck, CT 409 134 435 326.0 14 Maine Yankee Wiscosset, ME 377 84 501 320.7 15 Browns Ferry-2 Decatur, AL 289 462 210 320.3 16 Monticello Monticello, MN 498 394 33 308.3 17 Browns Ferry-3 Decatur, AL 289 358 242 296.3 18 Hatch-1 (Edwin 1.) Boxley, GA 334 435 112 293.7 19 Hatch-2 (Edwin 1.) Boxley, GA 334 435 112 293.7 19 INDUSTRYAVERAGES 240.8 202.6 149.8 197.8 Washington Nuclear-2 l C Dresden-3 l Dresden-2 l Oyster Creek-1 l . Quad Cities-2 l g Quad Cities 1 l , g Brunswick-2 l
"'""** l
- O W Indian Point-2 l
Pilgrirn-1 l ' ' y LaSalle-2 l . . LaSalle-I . . J Perry- I l l
.Q Haddasu Neck .
X e l
% Maine Yankee [ ,
6 Hrnwns Ferry-2 l Monticello 'l [ l w Browns Ferry 3 j' '
- O Hatch-2 (Edwin I.) l ll Hatch-l (Edwin I.) ',
O 100 200 300 400 500 600 Industry Average l WORKER ExrOsune TO RADIATION N'[ 37
I RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS Public Citizen has identified the worst commercial nuclear reactors in the United States based on a range of economic and safety criteria. Historically, Public Citizen's assessment of the worst reactors in the country has captured those reactors placed on NRC's " watch list." The objective criteria used in Nuclear Lemons have identified all but one reactor that NRC has placed on the " watch list" over the last decade. Additionally, Nuclear Lemons has identified reactors that have been overlooked by NRC's senior management. The findings in this edition ofNuclearIemons indicate that many of the worst nuclear reactors in the nation have failed to pull themselves up from the bottom of the industry rankings despite increased scrutiny from the NRC. The fact that reactors such as Illinois' Dresden 2 and 3 and Alabama's Browns Ferry 1,2 and 3 have languished on NRC's " watch list" indicate that NRC's oversight and regulation are inadequate and that the " watch list" process is a failure. While the NRC has the means to assess safety and performance problems, it apparently lacks the determination to rectify the situa-tion. The NRC has allowed these problem plants to continue to operate despite the fact that they have failed to improve their safety performance. Since nuclear power is an inherently dangerous and unforgiving technology, NRC's inability to improve safety performance is ominous. It demonstrates either bureaucratic ineptitude or a lack of will, neither of which is tolerable. As the NRC has designated fewer and fewer reactors as warranting additional scrutiny, the agency has missed significant safety problems that have eventually resulted in extended reactor shutdowns. The objective criteria used in the 1993 edition of Nuclear Lemons indicated that the Millstone reactors were in trouble. However, the subjective determination of NRC's senior management resulted in regulatory inaction and abrogated the NRC statutory responsibility to protect the public health and safety. The Commission must hold the NRC staff accountable; the use of objective criteria in the " watch list" process would be a good first step. Public Citizen supports the Commission's attempt to force the NRC staff to incorporate objective criteria into the " watch list" process. Objective criteria for placing a reactor on the " watch list" would provide a means of assuring regulatory consistency across NRC regions. Additionally, the use of objective criteria would provide the Commission with a basis for holding NRC staff accountable for its regulatory inaction. The retrospective confession to the NRC's Inspec-tor General that NRC senior management should have placed the Millstone reactors on the " watch list" as early as 1993 is telling. It constitutes a tacit acknowledgment that, again, the " watch list" process has failed. I - The NRC should develop a method and objective criteria to determine when a nuclear mactor poses such a threat to the public health and safety that it should be shut down. The regulctory debacle at Northeast Utilities' Millstone reactors highlights the need for NRC action. Additionally, the indica-tors used by the agency should remain stable over time so that claims ofimproved performance can be verified. Public Citizen's findings indicate that in several performance categories improving trends are more a function of changes in reporting requirements or NRC policies than actual im-provement in the operation of nuclear power plants. This is true for six of the twelve performance 38 S$ NUCLEAR LEMONS l
indicators used in this report including: capacity factors, enforcement discretion, licensee event reports, safety system actuations systematic assessments oflicensee performance and scrams. j Congress must be more aggn:ssive in dealing with both the NRC and the worst nuclear reactors in ! the industry. Congress has held very few NRC oversight hearings in recent years, and there has been i little or no follow up since it fint received the NRC's " watch list" over a decade ago. ! I l Congress should require the NRC and the Department of Energy to develop a list of the least com- i petitive nuclear reactors. This analysis should not only compare nuclear reactors to one another, but also against other sources of electricity. This analysis would be particularly useful to state utility l commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as competition in the electric-l ity industry accelerates the phase-out of nuclear reactors iri the U.S. Finally, federal and state regulators, as well as concerned citizens, should closely examine Public Citizen's list of the worst reactors in the nation and the criteria upon which this determination has l been based. The risk of a major accident is greatest at, although not limited to, these nuclear reactors l and they should be targeted for shutdown. l l I 1 I i I l RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSloNS 8%' 39
l l i 1 1 I b 1 i l I 1 1 1 l l l 40 $1,' NbCLEAR LEMONS
I I l l 1 I I APPENDLX I i I l l l l M l l
1 l l l l l I i 1 l l l l 1 ( I l Eyl Arrzmnx 1
CAPACfrY FACTORS - ALL REACTORS Capacity Average REACTOR LOCATION (Net MDC) 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK Arkanecm 1 RusselMile, AR 836 83.7% 98.3% 81.6 % 87.9% 91 Arkcneas2 RusselMile, AR 858 97.7% 89.5% 75.6% 87.6% 89 BeaverValey-1 Stiippirs;rportPA 810 61.4% 77.6% . 76.7% 71.9% 27 BeaverValey-2 StippinwportPA 820 72.4% 97.8% 84.1 % 84.8% 72 BigRockPoint 1 BigRockPointMI 67 72.6% 69.9% 88.0 % 76.8% 42 Brddwood 1 Braidwood.ll 1120 88.6% 75.3 % 67.2% 77.0% 43 Italdwood-2 Braidwood ll 1120 74.9% 67.6% 97.2% 79.9% 55 BrownsFeny-1 Decatur,AL 1065 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 BrownsFerry-2 Decatur,AL 1065 61.9 % 78.7% 98.6% 79.7% 54 BrownsFerry-3 Decatur,AL 1065 0.0% 0.0% 70.4% 23.5% 3 Brunswick-1 SouthportNC 767 -1.0% 88.6 % 86.0% - 57.9% 16 Brunswick-2_ SouthportNC 754 60.2% 72.8% 94.1 % 75.7% 37 Byron-1 Byron, IL 1105 76.0% 70.2% 79.5% 75.2% 34 Byron-2 _ Byron, IL 1105 78.8% 98.2% 84.5% 87.2% 87 { Cct: mot 1 . Fulton, MO 1115 85.5% 102.4% . 83.7% 90.5% 105 l CaNertCIffs-1 Lusbt MD . 835 101.1 % 64.3 % 96.1% 87.2% 87 CalvertCBfh2 Lusby,MD 840 68.6% 89.8% 80.3% 79.6% 52 N1 LakeWyle,SC 1129 76.6% 98.9% 88.2% 87.9% 91
%2 LakeWylie,SC 1129 82.5% 77.6% 80.3% 80.1% 57 Cinton-1 Clinton ll 930 72.2% 91.0% . 75.0% 79.4% 51 i CcrncrohePeck1 GlenRose,TX 1150 71.0% 93.0% 77.5% 80.5% 59 CommchePeck-2 GlenRose,TX 1150 82.8% 52.2% 91.0 % 75.3% 36 Cook-1(DonddC.) Bi W ncr5MI- 1030 100.0% 65.7% 61.6% 75.8% 38 Cook-2(DonddC.) Bridgman,MI 1100 81.3% 38.0% 92.6% 70.6% 23 CooperStation Brownville, NE 764 55.5% 33.3% 61.7% ^ 50.2% 10 CrystdRiver RedLevelFL 818 84.5% 82.9% 101.0 % 89.5%- 103 Dculs-Besse-1 OakHarbor.OH 868 79.2% 84.0 % 100.5% 87.9% 91 DrtaloCanp>1 DiabloCanyon,CA 1073 96.0% 78.4% 79.2% 84.5% 70 DiabioConyon-2 DiabloCanyortCA 1087 81.8% 82.9% 92.6% 85.8% 77 Dresderv2 Morris, IL 772 45.0% 60.2% 27.5% 44.2% 4 Dresder>G Morris, IL 773 73.3% 24.0% 51.2% 49.5% 9 DuaneArnold Polo.lA 515 71.7 % 91.1% 82.8% 81.9% 62 i Farley-1(JosephM.) Dothan,AL 812 96.6% 85.2% 82.8% 88.2% 97 !
H21ey-2(JosephM.) DothartAL 822 72.7% 99.3% 70.7% 80.9% 60 Ferrni-2 NewportMI 1085 87.2% 0.0% 66.9% 51.4 % 11 Rt2paltick(JamesA.) Scriba,NY 774 69.5% 73.3% 70.7% 71.2% 25 FortCahoun 1 FortCdhourt NE 478 74.1% 98.4 % 80.4% 84.3% 69 Ginna(R.E.) Ontorio,NY 470 85.0% 81.9 % 88.4% 85.1% 74 GrandGulf-1 PortGibeort MS 1143 78.9% 96.0% 79.2% 84.7% 71 H nNeck H i.t-nNeck,CT 560 76.2% 77.4% 79.2% '77.6% 44 Hatch 1(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 741 76.7% 84.8% 99.6% 87.0% 84 Hatch-2(Edwint.) Bcedey,GA 765 75.4% 78.7% 75.0% 76.4% 40 HopeCreeki SalernH) 1031 97 7% 78.9% 78.2% 84.9% 73 IndianPoint-2 BtdiencisNV 951 72.0% 92.8% 59.3% 74.7% 33
. IndianPoint-3 BuchancriNY 965 14.1% 0.0% 17.1% 10.4% 2 Kswanse Cortton,WI 511 85.3% 88.5% 84.7 % 86.2% 78 LaScie 1 Seneca,ll 1036 79.3% 54.2% 92.2% 75.2% 34 I r***-2 Senecctil 1036 64.4% 92.9% 65.8% 74.4% 32 Urnerick-1 Potistown,PA 1055 94.6% 85.0% 88.2% 89.3% 99 Umerick-2 PottstowrtPA 1055 80.8% 92.7 % 86.2% 86.6% 82 MdneYcolee WiecasetME 860 76.2% 88.0% 2.6% 55.6% 13 CAPACITY FACIDRS $ A1
CAPACfrY FACTORS - ALL REACTORS (CONT'D) Capacity Average ! , REACTOR LOCATION (Net MDC) 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK f McGure-1 CowansFordDamNC 1129 55.8% 69.5% 89.6% 71.6% 26 McGuire2 CowansFordDamNC 1129 68.8% 87.5% 91.9% 82.7% - 64 j Mestone-1 WctesdCT 641 93.9% 58.5% 77.6% 76.7 % 41 MWstone 2 WOMudCT 873 82.3% 47.8% 35.5% 55.2% 12 Mastone-3 WOWedCT 1137 65.1% 94.5% 80.2% 79.9% 55 i McMgde Montk:elo,MN 536 82.3% 84.3 % 101.3 % 89.3% 99 NineMuePoint 1 Scriba.NY 565 88.0 % 99.4 % 87.0% 91.5 % 106 l NineMile Point-2 Scriba,NY 994 82.6% 96.0% 78.1% 85.6% 76 NorthAnna-1 MineralVA 900 ' 73.1% 86.2% l 99.8% 86.4% 81 ! NorthAnno-2 Mineral.VA 887 78.3 % 96.4 % _ 77.2% 84.0% - 68. j Oomee-1 SenocoSC 846 88.0% 82.1% 85.8% 85.3% 75 Occrise2 SenscuSC 846 84.1 % 83.0% 94.1 % 87.1% 86 ] OcenseG SenocoSC 846 99.8% 76.5% 87.3% 87.9% 91 OysterCreek-1 ' TomsRiver,NJ 619 87.3% 67.8% 81.2% 78.8% 49 Fh SouthHaven.MI 730 55.4 % 70.6% 76.0% 67.3% 21 ! PaloVerde1 Wintersburg, AZ 1221 70.3% 91.4 % 79.3% 80.3% 58 PdoVerde.2 Wintersburg. AZ 1221 47.9% 61.5% 84.4 % 64.6% 20 PaloVerde3 Wintersburg.AZ 1221 87.8% 63.8 % 87.1% 79.6% 52 PeachBoHom2 PeachBottomPA 1093 83.4% 77.8% 97.8% 86.3% 79 F%ochBoHomG PeachBottomPA 1035 69.6% 97.8% 78.0% 81.8% 61 Perry-1 NorthPerry OH 1166 38.9% 45.0% 89.2% 57.7% 15 PHgrim-1 Plymouth,MA 670 74.0% 65.2% 76.4% 71.9 % 27 PointBeach-1 TwoCreeks,WI 485 89.5% 91.9% 79.7% 87,0% 84 FdniBecdr2 TwoCreeks.WI 485 90.5% 88.3% 88.9% 89.2% 98 Prolrielsland-1 Redwing, MN . 513 98.9% 82.7% 100.6% 94.1% 109 Prdrielsland-2 Redwing,MN 512 85.0% 101.5 %' 88.5% 91.7% 107 QuodClllee 1 Cordovut 769 74.9% 24.8 % 87.4% 62.3% 17 QuadCities 2 Cordomt 769 46.2% 59.6% 37.1% 47.6% 6 RiverBend-1 St.Francisville,LA 936 64.1% 59.6% 96.7% 73.5% 31 Robinson-2(H.B.) HartsvWie,SC 683 70.0% 77.7% 86.1 % 77.9% 47 Sdem1 SdemNJ 1106 60.5% 59.3% 26.0% 48.6% 8 Sdem Sdembu 1106 57.2% 57.8% 20.1% 45.0% 5 SanOnofre-2 SanClemenle,CA 1070 81.6 % 99.3% 69.1% 83.3% 66 : SanOnofre 3 SanClemente.CA 1080 75.2% 97.0% 79.3% 83.8% 67 { Sechook-1 Seulwok NH 1150 89.8% 61.6% 83.1 % 78.2% 48 l Segayh-1 Daisy, TN ~ 1111 12.6% 62.7% 70.1% 48.5% 7 Secpyh-2 Daisy, TN 1106 21.0% 60.2% 91.7% 57.6% 14 . f ShearonHarris-1 BonsaLNC 860 99.2% 80.4% 79.2% 86.3% 79 - SouthTexas 1 MulcwwduComty,TX 1251 61.0% ' 75.3% 81.9 % 72.7% 29 SouthTexas 2 MulucydvComty,TX 1251 63.0 % 54.7 % 90.6% 69.4% 22 St.Lucie-1 FortPierce,FL 839 73.9% 84,1 % 74.9% 77.6% 44 St.Lucle-2 FortPlerce.FL 839 64.1% 76.3% 71.9% 70.8% 24 Summer 1 Jenkinsvte.SC 885 78.7% 57.3% 97.5% 77.8% 46 Surry-1 GraveiNeckVA 761 91.1% 71.4% 83.6% 82.0% 63 Surry 2 GrcwelNeckVA 781 66.4% 91.5% 80.1% 79.3% 50 99dano-1 Berwick PA 1040 57.0% 92.4% 78.8% 76.1% 39 99 dianno-2 Berwick PA 1094 91.2% 72.8% M.5% 83.2% 65 ThreeMileIsland 1 Middletowrt PA 786 86.6% 95.7% 92.8% 91.7% 107 TurkeyPoint-3 FloridaCity,FL 666 97.0% 84.4 % 89.5% 90.3% 104
' TurkeyPoint-4 FloridaCity,FL 666 81.4% 83.0% 99.4% 87.9% 91 VermontYanlose Vernon.VT 504 76.4% 97.7% 86.7 % 86.9% 83 A2 $$ AFFt.NDIX
Capacity Average REACTOR LOCATION (Net MDC) 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK Vogtle-1 Waynesboro,GA 1169 65.7% 86.1 % 96.1% 89.3% 99 Voglie-2 Waynesboro,GA 1169 87.1% 91.2 % 90.0% 89.4% 102 Wcd-u giccNuclear-2 Richland,WA 1066 75.0% 70.8% 72.5% 72.8% 30 Waterford-3 Taft, LA 1075 97.0% 84.2% 82.4% 87.9% 91 WolfCree.k-1 Burlington,KS 1160 79.6% 84.7 % 98.7% 87.7% 90 Zion-1 Zion, IL 1040 77.1% 45.5% 71.0% 64.5% 19 Zion-2 Zion, IL 1040 58.1% 67.5% 65.0% 63.5% 18 INDUSTRY AVERAGES 73.5 % 75.0 % 78.7 % 75.7% d CAPACITY FAcroas $' A3
ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION - ALL REACTORS Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK Arkanscrri RusselMlle, AR 0 0 1 0.33 54 Arkcrn:rr2 RusselMile, AR 1 1 0 0.67 32 BeaverVciey-1 ShippingportPA i 1 0 0.67 32 BeamrValey-2 ShippingportPA 1 2 0 1.00 19 BigRockPoint-1 BigRockPoint,MI O O O 0.00 91 Braidwood-l Bradwood,ll 1 1 0 0.67 32 Braidwood-2 Braidwood.lL 1 3 0 1.33 9 BrownsFerry-1 Decatur.AL 0 0 0 0.00 91 BrownsFerry-2 Decatur,AL 1 0 1 0.67 32 BrownsFerry-3 Decatur,AL 0 0 0 0.00 91 Brunswick-1 SouthportNC 0 1 0 0.33 54 Brunswick 2 SouthportNC 0 0 0 0.00 91 Byron-1 Byron, IL 0 3 1 1.33 9 Byrory2 Byron, IL 0 2 0 0.67 32 Cciaway-1 Fulton,MO O O O 0.00 91 CdvertCiffs-1 Lusby,MD 1 0 0 0.33 54 Cc&ertCilffs-2 Lusby,MD 0 0 0 0.00 91 Cdtuk:a1 LakeWylie,SC 1 0 0 0.33 54 Cdcubc>2 LakeWyue,SC 1 0 0 0.33 54 Cinton-1 Clinton,IL 1 2 1 1.33 9 CcmcrchePeck-1 GlenRose,TX 0 0 1 0.33 54 COTOTiePeck-2 GlenRose,TX 0 1 0 0.33 54 Cook-1(DonaldC.) Bridgrnan,M1 0 0 0 0.00 91 Cook-2(DonaldC.) Bridgman,MI 1 1 0 0.67 32 CooperStation Brownville, NE O 1 0 0.33 54 CrystalRiver-3 Red Level,FL 0 1 0 0.33 54 DavirrBesr+1 OakHarbor,OH 0 1 0 0.33 54 DiabioCanyon-1 DiabloCanycnCA 1 0 2 1.00 19 DiabloCanyory2 DiabloCanycnCA 1 2 1 1.33 9 Dresder>2 Morris, IL 0 1 0 0.33 S4 Dresderh3 Morris, IL 1 1 0 0.67 32 DuaneAr,ioid Pdo,lA 2 0 0 0.67 32 I Farley-1(JosephM.) Dothan,AL 0 0 1 0.33 54 g Fcriey-2(JosephM.) DothanAL 1 0 1 0.67 32 j Fermi-2 NewportM1 2 0 1 1.00 19 j Rt2 patrick (JamesA.) Scriba.NY 0 0 1 0.33 54 FortCdhcu>l Fe* Cdhoun,NE O O O 0.00 91 , Ginna(R.E.) Ontario,NY 0 2 0 0.67 32 GrandGulf-1 HaddcrnNeck PortGibson,MS HaddamNeckCT 2 0 1 0 0 0 1.00 0.00 19 91 l j Hatch-1(Edwint.) Bcodey,GA 0 0 0 0.00 91 Hotet>2(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 0 0 0 0.00 91 ; HopeCreeki SdernNJ 0 0 1 0.33 54 l IndonPoint-2 BuchanartNY 1 0 2 1.00 19 IndanPoint-3 BuchancnNY 1 0 1 0.67 32 i N w2; nee Cartton,WI 1 0 1 0.67 32 i LaSalle-1 Senecctil 1 2 0 1.00 19 ! LaSalle-2 Senecct!L 0 1 G 0.33 54 l Limerick-1 PottstowrtPA 1 1 0 0.67 32 l Limerick-2 Pottstown,PA 1 1 0 0.67 32 i ManeYankee Wiscosset,ME O O O 0.00 91 A4 $ APPENDIX i
l Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK McGuire CowansFordDam,NC 1 0 0 0.33 54
- McGure-2 CowansFordDarnNC 0 0 1 0.33 54 l Millstone-1 Waterford,CT 1 0 0 0.33 54 l Millstone-2 Waterford.CT 1 3 0 1.33 9 Millstone-3 Waterford,CT 3 1 0 1.33 9 Monticelo Monticello,MN 0 0 0 0.00 91 Nine MllePoint-1 Scriba,NY 0 0 0 0.00 91 NineMile Point-2 Scriba,NY l 2 0 1.00 19 NorthAnno 1 Minerd VA 0 0 1 0.33 54 l NorthAnna-2 MineralVA 2 1 1 1.33 9 Oorse-1 Senea2SC 1 0 1 0.67 32 Octnee2 SenecaSC 0 0 1 0.33 54 Oconee3 SenecaSC 0 0 1 0.33 54 OysterCreek-1 TomsRiver,NJ 0 2 0 0.67 32 Pohcdes SouthHaven,Mi 1 0 0 0.33 54 PaloVerde-1 Wntersburg, AZ 1 0 2 1.00 19 PaloVerde-2 Wintersburg,AZ 1 1 1 1.00 19 PaloVerded Wntersburg,AZ 1 0 1 0.67 32 FbachBottom-2 PeachBottornPA 0 3 2 1.67 6 PeachBottoma PeachBottornPA 0 0 3 1.00 19 Perry-1 North Perry,OH 0 2 0 0.67 32 Pilgrirn-1 Plymouth,MA 0 1 0 0.33 54 PointBeach-1 TwoCreeks,WI 3 2 1 2.00 3 PointBeach-2 TwoCreeks.W1 4 2 1 2.33 2 Prairielsland-1 Redwing,MN 1 0 0 0.33 54 PrairieIsland-2 Redwing,MN 1 0 0 0.33 54 QuadCmes-1 CordcNall 0 1 0 0.33 54 QuaaCmes-2 CordcNall 0 1 0 0.33 54 RiverBend-1 St.Francisville,LA 1 3 0 1.33 9 Robinson-2(H.B.) Hartsville,SC 0 1 1 0.67 32 Sdem-1 SalernRJ 2 2 1 1.67 6 Salem-2 SalernRJ 1 0 1 0.67 32 SanOnofre-2 SanClemente,CA 1 0 0 0.33 54 SanOnofre-3 SanClemente,CA 0 0 0 0.00 91 Seabrook-1 SeabrookNH 1 0 0 0.33 54 Sequc:ytv1 Daisy, TN 2 2 1 1.67 6 Secycy1>2 Daisy, TN 1 1 0 0.67 32 ShecronHams-1 Bonsd,NC 0 0 1 0.33 54 SouthTexarrl MotagordaCotnty,TX 3 1 0 1.33 9 SouthTexas-2 Mci @duCounty,TX 1 0 0 0.33 54 St.Lucie-1 FortPierce FL 2 1 0 1.00 19 St.Lucie-2 FortPierce,FL 1 0 0 0.33 54 Summer-1 Jenkinsvdie,SC 1 0 0 0.33 54 Surry-1 GrcuelNeckVA 1 0 0 0.33 54 Surry-2 GravelNeckVA 3 1 0 1.33 9 Suquehcnna-1 Berwick PA 0 0 0 0.00 91 Suquehtnna-2 Berwick PA 1 1 1 1.00 19 ThreeMileIsland-l McidletownPA 0 2 0 0.67 32 TurkeyPoint-3 FloridaCity,FL 0 0 0 0.00 91 TurkeyPoint-4 FloridaCity,FL 0 0 0 0.00 91 VermontYcnkee Vernon,VT.
1 0 0 0.33 54 ENMRCEMENT DISCRE110N $p A5
ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION - ALL REACTORS (CONT'D) l Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK I l Voglel Waynesboro GA 0 1 0 0.33 54 l Vogtb2 Waynestno,GA 0 0 0 0.00 91 WcahingtonNuclear-2 Rk:hland,WA 3 2 1 2.00 3 {, WaterrordG Taft LA 1 1 1 1,00 19 WolfCreek-1 Burlington,KS 0 0 1 0.33 54 l Zion-1 Zion, IL 3 1 5 3.00 1 7Jon-2 Zion, IL 1 2 3 2.00 3 INDUSTRY TOTALS 81 77 51 70 INDUSTRY AVERAGES 0.74 0.71 0.47 0.64 l I l l I i l A6 Sp APPENDIX
FORCED OUTAGE RATES - ALL REACTORS l Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK Arkansm-1 RusselMile, AR 3.0% 1.3% 1.8% 2.0% 76 Arkansarr2 RusselMlle, AR 0.5% 0.0% 8.5% 3.0% 58 Beo#'aley-1 ShippingportPA 13.5% 20.3 % 5.8% 13.2% 19 Beavei v'atey-2 St M gpoitPA 3.3% 3.3% 0.5% 2.3% 67 BigRockPoint-1 Big RockPoint,MI 0.0% 5.3% 5.8% 3.7% 52 Brcx:lwood.1 Bradwood.ll 7.5% 1.5% 2.0% 3.7% 52 l Bradwood-2 Bradwood.lL 2.8% 15.3% 2.0% 6.7% 32 l BrownsFerry-1 Decatur,AL 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 108 BrownsFerry-2 Decatur,AL 0.0% 2.3% 1.5% 1.3% 87 l BrownsFeny-3 Decatur,AL
- 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 105 l Brunswick-1 SouthportNC 0.0% 0.3% 1.8%. 0.7% 95 Brunswick-2 SouthportNC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 108 Byron-1 Byron, IL 1.3% 5.3% 0.0% 2.2% 70 Byron 2 Byron, IL 1.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.7% 95 C d o m /-1 Fulton,MO 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 1.0% 89 CdvertCliffs-1 Lusby,MD 1.8% 15.3% 3.0% 6.7% 32 CdvertCliffs-2 Lusby,MD 3.0% 7.8% 3.3% 4.7% 45 Cdtwea1 LakeWylie,SC 4.0% 0.5% 0.8% 1.8% 80 Cdtwtn2 - LalaWylie.SC 0.5% 2.5% 11.0% 4.7% 45 Clinton-1 Clinton,lL 11.0% 0.3% 3.3% 4.8% 42 n n d = Rack-1 GlenRose,TX 3.5% 1.3% 3.0% 2.6% 61 N-2 GlenRose,1X 0.8% 17.8% 1.8% 6.8% 31 Cook-1(DonaldC.) Bridgman,MI 0.0% 0.0% 22.5% 7.5% 30 Cook-2(DonaldC.) Bridgman,MI 3.5% 21.5% 5.5% 10.2% 23 CooperStaton Brownville, NE 1.8% 65.3% 14.3% 27.1% 7 CrystdRiver-3 RedLevelFL 0.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.8% 92 ;
Davls-Besse-1 OakHarbor,OH 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 100 i DiabloCanyon-1 DobloConyonCA 1.5% 6.8% 5.3% 4.5% 48 ! DiabioCanyon-2 DobloCanyonCA 1.3% 6.3% 3.5% 3.7% 52 Dresder>2 Morris, IL 11.0% 33.5% 9.5% 18.0% 11 Dresder>3 Morris, il 19.8% 0.0% 40.3% 20.0% 10 DuaneArnold Polo,lA 1.3% 2.5% 1.3% 1.7% 82 Farley-1(JosephM.) DothartAL 2.8% 0.0% 4.8% 2.5% 63 Farley-2(JosephM.) DothartAL 10.5% 1.0% 5.3% 5.6% 39 Fermi-2 NewportMI 4.3% 100.0% 24.8 % 43.0% 3 Rtzpatnck(JamesA.) Scriba.NY 13.8% 0.0% 4.5% 6.1% 37 FortCahoun 1 FortCdhoun,NE 1.8% 0.5% 3.5% 1.9% 77 Ginno(R.E.) Ontario,NY 1.8% 5.3% 0.5% 2.5% 63 GrandGulf-1 PortGibson,MS 12.3% 5.5% 10.3% 9.3% 25 HaddtmNeck HaddcmNeck,CT 2.0% 22.8% 1.8% 8.8% 28 Hatch-1(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 4.8% 1.8% 0.0% 2.2% 70 Hatch-2(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 11.8% 2.0% 5.3% 6.3% 35 HopeCreeki SalernNJ 2.8% 6.8% 6.8% 5.4% 40 IndanPoint-2 BuchananNY 3.3% 0.0% 8.0% 3.8% 50 indianPoint-3 Buchman,NY 84.5 % 100.0% 80.8% 88.4% 1 Veaanse Cartton.W1 0.8% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 100 LaSdle-1 SenecclL 13.0% 14.3% 6.0% 11.1% 21 LaSalle-2 Senecall 0.0% 4.3% 2.3% 2.2% 70 LJmerick-1 Pottstown,PA 1.5% 1.3% 5.0% 2.6% 61 Limerick-2 Pottstown,PA 5.0% 1.0% 3.0% 3.0% 58 FORCED OurAGE RATES $ A7 i j
m FORCED OUTAGE RATES - ALL REACTORS (CONT'D) Average REACTOR LOCATION -1993 1994 1995 : 1993-1995 RANK McheYcrilee Wiscosset,ME ' 2.0% 11.5% 17.8% 10.4% 22 McGuire-1 CowansFordDanNC 22.8% 14.8% 3.5% 13.7% 18 McGure-2 . CowansFordDcunNC 5.0% 1.8% 4.0% - 3.6% - 55 MHistone-1 WctMudCT 3.5% 3.8% 4.3% 3.8% 50 Vastone-2 WGiMwdCT 11.5% 10.3% . 4.5% 8.8% 28 Muistone-3 WaterfordCT 3.5% - 3.8% 0.0% 2.4% 66 Monticeto Monticello,MN 2.3% 2.8% 0.0% 1.7% 82= NineMile Point-1 Scriba.NY 1.0% 4.0% 2.5% 2.5% 63 NineMile Point-2 Scriba.NY 4.8% 6.0% 7.3% 6.0% 38' NorthAnno1 Minerd,VA 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1 % 105 NorthAnna-2 Minerd.VA 2.8% 2.8% ' O.3% 1.9% 77 Oocnse-1 SenscuSC 2.3% 0.5% 3.5% 2.1% 75 Oomee-2 SensooSC 0.5% 5.5% 5.8% 3.9% 49 Oconee3 SensooSC 0.3% 11.8% 3.3% ' 5.1 % 41 OysterCre%-1 TomsRiver,NJ 0.0% 3.8% 2.8% 2.2% 70. Pren*= SouthHaven.MI 6.8% 33.5% 4.0% 14.8% 16 PdoVerde1 Wintersburg AZ l .3% 1.3% ~ 2.3% 1.6% 84 PdoVerde-2 Wintersourg.AZ 2.0% . 6.0% 0.5% 2.8% 60 PaloVerde-3 Wintersburg.AZ 2.8% 0.8% 0.0% 1.2% 88 F%achBottom-2 PeachBottornPA 5.5% 1.5% 0.0% 2.3% 67 PeachBottorn3 PeachBottornPA 9.3% 2.0% 3.0% 4.8% 42 Perry-1 North Perry,OH 33.3% 1.8% 6.8% 13.9% 17 Pligrim-1 Plymouth,MA 4.8% 24.3 % 7.5% 12.2% 20 PGdBecciel TwoCreeks.WI 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.4% 98 PG JB&.a i r2 TwoCreeks.WI 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 104 Prairieisland-l Redwing,MN 0.3% 2.0% 0.0% 0.8% 92 Prairieisland-2 Redwing,MN 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 105 QuadCities 1 Cordovall 15.8% 24.8 % 9.3% 16.6% 13 QuadCitlerr2 Cordovall 28.8% 34.0% 15.3% 26.0% 9 RiverBend-1 St.Francisville,LA 29.5% 15.8% 0.8% 15.3% 15 R0binson-2(H.B.) Hartsville,SC 23.5% 22.0% 1.5% 15.7% 14 Sdem-1 SdernM) 9.8% 25.8% 44.5% 26.7% 8 Sdem-2 SdernNJ 35.3% 7.5% 69.5% 37.4% 5 SanOnofre Scr1Clemenle,CA 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 1.0% 89 SanOnofreG SanClemente.CA 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 98 Sectrook-1 SeabrookNH 7.8% 6.5% 4.5% 6.3% 35 Secpyh1 Daisy, TN 35.8% 4.8% 10.0% 16.8% 12 Secpyh2 Daisy, TN 74.5% 1.5% 8.0% 28.0% ( ShearonHarris-1 Bonsd,NC 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 1.8% F, SouthTexas Wuwvi&Comty,TX 92.3% 22.3% 2.5% 39.0% 4 SoutnTexas-2 Wuwur& County,TX 87.3% 42.3% 1.8% 43.8% 2 St.Lucie-1 FortPlerce,FL 1.5% 5.3% 21.0 % 9.3% 25 , St.Lucie-2 FortPlerce,FL 24.0 % 2.3% 2.0% 9.4% 24 ! Summer-1 Jenkinsvele,SC 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% . 0.6% 97 Surry-1 GravelNeckVA 1.5% 0.3% 2.5% 1.4% 86 Surry-2 GravelNeckVA 7.8% 0.0% 6.3% 4.7% 45 9 m mherro-1 Berwick PA 14.5% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 42 9 m ahmno-2 BerwickPA 7.8% 1.0% 1.8% 3.5% 56 ThreeMHelsland-l Middletown.PA 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 100 TurkeyPoint-3 FloridaCity,FL 1.8% 2.0% 0.8% 1.5% 85 A8 ftp AMNDEX
l L,0 CATION M'N' REACTOR 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK TurkeyPoint4 FloridaCity,FL 3.5% 4.3% 1.5% 3.1% 57 VermontYcnkee Vernon.VI 4.8% 1.0% 0.8% 2.2% 70 VogNe-1 Waynesboro.GA 1.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.9% 91 Vogtle-2 Waynesboro,GA 0.3% 5.0% 0.5% 1.9% 77 WashingtonNuclear-2 IBchland WA 7.3% 3.0% 9.5% 6.6% 34 - WaterfordG Taft,LA 1.0% 0.5% 5.3% 2.3% 67 . WolfCreek-1 Burlington,KS 0.0% 0.8% 1.5% 0.8% 92 , Zion-1 Zion, IL 0.8% 27.0% 0.0% 9.3% 25 j Zion-2 Zion, IL 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.3% 100 INDUSTRY AVERAGE 0 40% 8.44% 5.95% 7.63 % i 1 l l i \ FoncEn OUTAGE RATES $*)? A9 l A
LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS - ALL REACTORS Average j REACTOR. LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK Arkmsm1 RusselMile, AR 10 7 11 9.3 76 Arkansarr2 RusselMile, AR 2 6 6 4.7 102 BeaverValey-1 SWigport,PA 16 11 8 11.7 53 l BeaverValey-2 Shippingport,PA 16 12 7 11.7 53 { BigRockPoint-1 Big RockPoint,MI 15 12 8 11.7 53 Braidwood-1 Braidwood.lL 5 15 15 11.7 53 Bradwood-2 Braidwood,ll 7 9 7 7.7 82 BrownsFerry-1 Decatur,AL 5 3 1 3.0 107 Brownsferry-2 Decatur,AL ~ 10 14 14 12.7 48 1 BrownsFerry-3 Decatur,AL 2 2 6 3.3 106 Brunswick-1 Southport,NC 27 18 25 23.3 16 Brunswick-2 Southport,NC 19 10 3 10.7 67 Byron-1 Byron, IL 4 16 11 10.3 71 Byron-2 Byron, IL 7 4 4 5.0 100 Cckmo/-1 Fulton,MO 5 6 8 6.3 88 CdvertCliffs-1 Lusby, MD 12 11 6 9.7 75 CalvertCRffs-2 Lusby,MD 4 8 6 6.0 91 Cdadn1 LakeWyhe,SC 11 11 6 9.3 76 Cdadn2 LakeWylie,SC 4 8 5 5.7 93 Cinton-1 Clinton,ll 5 11 10 8.7 81 ComcnchePeck-1 Glen Rose,TT. 14 7 7 9.3 76 Cuin diePeck-2 GlenRose,T( 10 23 6 13.0 46 Cook-1(DorddC.) Bridgrnan,M 7 13 17 12.3 51 Cook-2(DonaldC.) Bridgrnan,N I 14 8 11 11.0 63 CooperStahon Brownville, NE 45 52 25 40.7 5 CrystalRiver-3 RedLevel,FL 18 16 29 21.0 24 DavirrBesse 1 OakHarbor,OH 9 8 2 6.3 88 DicbioCanyon-1 DabioCanyortCA 27 31 20 26.0 13 DrJbloCanyon-2 DiabloCanyortCA 16 11 7 11.3 59 Dresden2 Morris, IL 50 43 31 41.3 4 Dresderh3 Morris, IL 33 29 29 30.3 8 DuaneArnold Polo,lA 16 16 10 14.0 42 Farley-1(JosephM.) Dothan,AL 4 4 9 5.7 93 Farley-2(JosephM.) DothartAL 4 2 10 5.3 97 Fermi-2 Newport,MI 14 16 9 13.0 46 Rtzpatrick(JamesA.) Scriba NY 41 23 19 27.7 10 FortCdhoun-1 FortCdhourt NE 25 14 10 16.3 35 Gnna(R.E.) Ontario,NY 9 14 8 10.3 71 GrandGulf-1 PortGibson,MS 29 20 14 21.0 24 HaddcrnNeck HoddamNed'CT 24 31 34 29.7 9 Hatch-1(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 15 17 6 12.7 48 Hatch-2(Edwini.) Baxley,GA 13 9 6 9.3 76 HopeCreeki Salerrttti 16 19 33 22.7 18 IndianPoint-2 BuchanartlW 15 6 23 14.7 40 IndianPoint-3 BuchtnartNY 65 30 31 42.0 2 Kex2 nee Cartton,WI 21 8 6 11.7 53 LaScie 1 SenecctIL 24 16 22 20.7 26 LaSc2e-2 SenecctlL 11 12 15 12.7 48 Urnerick-1 Pottstown,PA 23 15 11 16.3 35 Umerick-2 PottstowrtPA 12 10 13 11.7 53 A10 $f: Arrzrerx A _ _ __ _ ____J
Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK ManeYcrikee Wiscosset,ME 23 24 20 22.3 19 McGuire-1 CowansFordDom.NC 17 12 11 13.3 44 McGuire-2 CowansFordDornNC 7 4 3 4.7 102 Millstone-1 Waterford,CT 28 38 39 35.0 6 Millstone-2 Waterford.CT 41 48 53 47.3 1 Millstone-3 Waterford,CT 31 18 22 23.7 15 Monticello Monticello,MN 20 23 9 17.3 33 Nine MilePoint-1 Scribo,NY 9 7 5 7.0 86 Nine MilePoint-2 Scriba, NY 13 8 12 11.0 63 NorthAnno-1 Mineral,VA 20 7 5 10.7 67 l NorthAnno2 Mineral,VA 8 8 3 6.3 88 Oconee-1 SeneccEC 14 9 11 11.3 59 Occriee-2 SeneccSC 7 5 3 5.0 100 OconeeG SeneccSC 2 3 2 2.3 109 i OysterCreek-1 TornsRiver,NJ 14 27 9 16.7 34 l Pdisodes SouthHoven,MI 19 26 15 20.0 27 PoloVerde-1 Wintersburg, AZ 20 16 22 19.3 28 PoloVerde-2 Wintersburg, AZ 12 9 11 10.7 67 PoloVerde 3 Wintersburg. AZ 5 8 3 5.3 97 i PeachBottom-2 PeacnBottornPA 16 12 6 11.3 59 ' PeachBottorn3 PeachBottornPA 10 7 3 6.7 87 l Perry-1 North Perry, OH 24 29 11 21.3 23 l Pilgrim-1 Ptyrncuth,MA 34 7 13 18.0 30 PointBeach-1 TwoCreeks,WI 15 11 6 10.7 67 PointBecrb-2 TwoCreeks.WI 6 7 3 5.3 97 PrairieIsland-1 Redwing,MN 20 13 15 16.0 38 PrairieIsland-2 Redwing,MN 4 3 5 4.0 105 QuadCities-1 Cortbxtil 28 19 6 17.7 31 QuadCitiet2 CordcNall 27 16 10 17.7 31 RiverBend-l St.Francisville, LA 47 45 12 34.7 7 Robinsorr2(H.B.) Hartsville,SC 24 36 5 21.7 01 Sderrel SalernNJ 26 22 31 26.3 11 Sdern-2 SdernNJ 16 20 11 15.7 39 SanOnofre-2 Scr1Clernente,CA 13 14 17 14.7 40 SonOnofre-3 SanClernente,CA 5 5 3 4.3 104 Seabrook-1 Seabrook,NH 32 25 10 22.3 19 Secpyh-1 Daisy, TN 35 17 18 23.3 le Secpyh-2 Daisy, TN 10 10 7 9.0 Bu SheoronHanis-1 Bonsal,NC 12 8 10 ~ 10.0 73 SouthTexas-1 Mutugy& County,1X 31 31 14 25.3 14 SouthTexas-2 MotagordoCounty,1X 26 10 13 16.3 35 St.Lucie-1 FortPierce,FL 9 11 13 11.0 63 St.Lucie-2 FortPierce,FL 9 9 5 7.7 82 l Summer-1 Jenkinsville,SC 8 4 5 5.7 93 l Surry-1 GravelNeck,VA 16 12 13 13.7 43 Surry-2 GravelNeck.VA 6 4 7 5.7 93 Stmpehcmo-1 Berwick,PA 18 19 18 18.3 29 SuqJehanro2 Berwick,PA 9 11 16 12.0 52 ThreeMilels!and-1 Mddletown PA 10 8 5 7.7 82 TurkeyPoint-3 FloridaCity,FL 7 6 9 7.3 85 l LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS 'i$ All l
I LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS - ALL REACTORS (CONT'D) l l Average 1 REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK { l TurkeyPoint-4 FloridaCity,FL 3 6 NA 3.0 107 VermontYankee Vernon.VT 24 22 33 26.3 11 Vogtle-1 Waynesboro,GA 12 11 7 10.0 73 ; Vogtle-2 Waynesboro.GA 8 5 5 6.0 91 WashingtonNuclear-2 IBehland,WA 77 34 14 41.7 3 , Waterford3 Ta't, LA 11 25 4 13.3 44 I WolfCreek-1 Burlington,KS 17 10 6 11.0 63 f Zion-1 Zion, IL 19 20 26 21.7 21 j Zion-2 Zion, IL 6 19 9 11.3 59 j INDUSTRY TOTALS 1850 1620 1322 1597.33 INDUSTRY AVERAGES 17.0 14.9 12.1 14.65 I l l l A12 sp Arrrmnx
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSIs - ALL REACTORS Average Average Average Capacity 1992 1994 1993 1995 1992 1995 REACTOR LOCATION (Net MDC) Mills /kWH Mills /kWH Mills /kWH RANK Arkcructrl RusselMile, AR 836 18.82 16.07 17.45 77 Arkcruarr2 RusselMile, AR 858 18.82 16.07 17.45 77 BeaverVdley-1 ShippingportPA 810 24.46 24.61 24.54 33 BeaverVciey-2 ShippingportPA 820 24.46 24.61 24.54 33 BigRockPoint-1 BigRockPoint MI 67 72.16 59.38 65.77 5 Braldwood 1 Braidwood.ll 1120 14.25 14.14 14.20 100 Braidwood-2 Bradwood,lL 1120 14.25 14.14 14.20 100 BrownsFerry-1 Decatur,AL 1065 27.03 25.1 26.07 25 BrownsFerry-2 Decatur,AL 1065 27.03 25.1 26.07 25 BrownsFerry-3 Decatur.AL 1065 27.03 25.1 26.07 25 Brunswick-1 SouthportNC 767 52.33 33.15 42.74 7 Brunswick-2 Southport NC 754 52.33 33.15 42.74 7 Byron-1 Byron, IL 1105 13.97 13.85 13.91 104 Byron-2 Byron, IL 1105 13.97 13.85 13.91 104 Cckwo/-1 Fulton,MO 1115 15.82 15.52 15.67 91 CdvertCiffs-1 Lusby,MD 835 19.64 18.57 19.11 70 CdvertCliffs-2 Lusby, MD 840 19.64 18.57 19.11 70 Cbtutx>l LakeWylie,SC 1129 15.71 16.16 15.94 89 Caltukn2 LakeWylie,SC 1129 16.71 16.16 15.94 A9 Cinton-1 Clinton,Il 930 26.24 24.44 25.34 31 CcmmcheNck1 GlenRose,TX 1150 20.35 18.82 19.59 65 CommchePeck-2 Glen Rose,TX 1150 20.35 18.82 AM 65
-' Bridgman,MI 1030 26.89 D 2-1(DonddC.) 19.77 3's
" cok-2(DonaldC.)
, Bridgrnan.MI 1100 26.89 19.77 23.x 39 CooperStation Brownville, NE 764 27.58 31.93 29.76 ei CrystdRiver-3 RedLevel FL 818 23.32 20.03 21.68 49 Davis-Besse-1 OakHarbor,OH 868 21.o1 21.13 21.87 48 DiabloConyon 1 DiabloConycnCA 1073 18.85 18.96 18.91 72 DiabloCanyon-2 Diabio"eCA 1087 18.85 18.96 18.91 72 Dresden-2 Morris, IL 772 31.24 36.66 33.95 14 Dresden3 Morris, IL 773 31.24 36.66 33.95 14 DuaneArnold Polo.IA 515 23.45 24.35 23.90 36 Farley-1(JosephM.) Dothon. AL 812 17.71 16.8 17.26 80 Fariey-2(JosephM.) Dothan,AL 822 17.71 16.8 17.26 80 Fermi-2 Newport,MI 1085 25.18 30.33 27.76 23 Fitzpatrick(JamesA.) Scriba.NY 774 27.61 26.06 26.84 24 FortCdhouryl FortCdhoun.NE 478 31.88 30.06 30.97 19 Ginno(R.E.) Ontario,NY 470 23.06 22.33 22.70 42 GrandGulf-1 PortGibson.MS 1143 19.12 18.53 18.83 74 HaddarnNeck FkaddamNeck.CT 560 28.4 28.69 28.55 22 Hatch-1(Edwint.) Bcxley,GA 741 21 20.63 20.82 54 Hatch-2(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 765 21 20.63 20.82 54 HopeCreek1 SalernNJ 1031 20.67 21.28 20.98 53 IndianPoint-2 BuchancnNY 951 25.23 25.23 25.23 32
'ndianPoint-3 Buchanartff( 965 63.07 90.27 76.67 4 i
Vmonee Cartton,WI 511 18.58 17.7 18.14 75 laSase-1 Senecall 1036 17.31 15.94 16.63 85 LaSalle-2 Senecall 1036 17.31 15.94 16.63 85 Umerick-1 PottstowrtPA 1055 16.66 15.34 16.00 87 Umerick-2 PottstowrtPA 1055 16.66 15.34 16.00 87 OPERATIONS AND MAWIY. NANCE COSTS $ A13 1 i
l OPERAMONS AND MANTENANCE COCIs - Au,REACIORS (CONT'D) i Average Average Average i Capacity 1992-1994 1993 1995 1992 1995 REACTOR LOCATION (mw der) Mills /kWH Mills /kWH Mills /kWH RANK ! MoneYankee Wiscosset,ME 860 15.48 212.36 113.92 1 CowansFordDorn,NC McGuire-1 McGuire-2 1129 17.52 16.71 17.12 83 ) CowansFordDornNC 1129 17.52 16.71 17.12 83 Millstone 1 Waterford.CT 641 35.46 33.06 34.26 12 Millstone 2 Waterford.CT 873 35.46 33.06 34.26 12 Minstone-3 Waterford,CT 1137 20.4 19.59 20.00 61 Monikerc Monticello,MN 536 18.39 17,71 18.05 76 Nine Mile Point-1 Scribo.NY 565 25.57 25.57 25.57 28 Nine Mile Point-2 Scribo,NY 994 25.82 22.25 24.04 35 NorthAnno 1 Mneral VA 900 12.88 11.96 12.43 108 NorthAnno-2 Mnerd,VA 887 12.88 11.98 12.43 108 Oconee-1 SeneoctSC 846 14.78 14.75 14.77 94 Ooonse-2 SeneccSC 846 14.78 14.75 14.77 94 OconseG SereccSC 846 14.78 14.75 14.77 94 OysterCreek-1 TorasRiver,NJ 619 34.49 32.37 33.43 16 P@cx.ies 300thHoven.MI 730 23.19 24.55 23.87 37 PoloVerde-1 Wintersburg, AZ 1221 21.49 20.59 21.04 50 PaloVerde2 Wintersburg, AZ 1221 21.49 20.59 21.04 50 PaloVerdeG Wntersburg. AZ 1221 21 A9 20.59 21.04 50 PeachBottom-2 PeachBottornPA 1093 22.83 20.98 21.91 46 PeachBottornG PeachBottornPA 1035 22.83 20.98 21.91 46 Perry-1 North Perry,OH 1166 46.64 46.01 46.33 6 Pilgrim-1 PigTicuth.MA 670 28.87 30.81 29.84 20 PtkitBeach-1 TwoCreeks WI 485 14.31 14.34 14.33 98 PointBeach2 TwoCreeks WI 485 14.31 14.34 14.33 98 PrdrieIsland-1 Redwing,MN 513 14.9 13.22 14.06 102 Prairiek' od-2 Redwing.MN 512 14.9 13.22 14.06 102 Qum % 1 Cordovall 769 32.06 31.67 31.87 17 Quo: , a Cordovall 769 32.06 31.67 31.87 17 Rivertsnd ' St.Francisville,LA 936 50.91 33.11 42.01 9 Robincorr4 ..o.) Hartsville.SC 683 23.52 21.26 22.39 43 Sdem-1 SdernNJ 1106 28,41 42.13 35.27 10 Sdem-2 Salernto 1106 28.41 42.13 35.27 10 SonOnofre-2 SanClemente,CA 1070 19.77 19.94 19.86 62 { SanOnofre3 SonCli.zT&de,CA 1080 19.77 19.94 19.86 62 Seabrook-1 Seabrook,NH 1150 22.19 18.79 20.49 58 Sequcyh1 Daisy, TN lill 26.31 24.73 25.52 29 Secp:y:h2 Daisy, TN 1106 26.31 24.73 25.52 29 { l SheoronHorris-1 Bonsal,NC 860 17.09 17.22 17.16 82 SouthTexas-1 MutwdcCounty,TX 1251 80.89 81.26 81.08 2 l SouthTexas-2 MutuuvdcCotnty,1X 1251 80.89 81.26 81.08 2 St.Lucie-1 FortPierce,FL 839 20.6 20.8 20.70 56 j St.Lucie-2 FortPierce,FL 839 20.6 20.8 20.70 56 ) Summer-1 Jenkinsvlie,SC 885 19.67 19.11 19.39 67 Surry-1 GravelNeck.VA 761 15.02 15.43 15.23 92 Surry-2 GrovelNeck,VA 781 15.02 15.43 15.23 92 SLK pehrrro 1 Berwick,PA 1040 19.31 18.95 19.13 68 Staquehcm>2 Berwick,PA 1094 19.31 18.95 19.13 68 ThreeMilelsland-l Mddletown,PA 786 19.41 20.24 19.83 64 A14 $ APPENMX I
Average Average Average Capacity 1992-1994 1993 1995 1992 1995 REACTOR LOCATION (NetMDC) Mills /kWH Mills /kWH Mills /kWH RANK TurkeyPoint-3 FloridaCity,FL 666 23.46 20.63 22.05 44 TurkeyPoint-4 FlorldcCity,FL 666 23.46 20.63 22.05 44 VermontYmkee Vernon.VT 504 23.75 23.29 23.52 38 Vogtb1 Wayncsboro.GA 1169 13.37 12.52 12.95 106 Vogtb2 Waynesboro,GA 1169 13.37 12.52 12.95 106 WasnrigtonNuclear-2 Richland,WA 1066 24.92 21.38 23.15 41 WutefuTJG Taft, LA 1075 17.4 17.16 17.28 79 WolfCreek-1 Burlington.KS 1160 14.74 14.56 14.65 97 3cn-1 Zion, IL 1040 21.12 19.07 20.10 59 Zion-2 Zion, IL 1040 21.12 19.07 20.10 59 INDUSTRY TOTALS INDUSTRY AVERAGES 24.32 25.32 24.82 l l OPERADONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS $j? A15
L . l SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS - ALL REACTORS Total Average i REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 RANK ! l Arkmscm1 RusselMile, AR 2 1 0 3.0 1.0 16 Arkcrisarr2 RusselMile, AR 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 BeaverVctey-1 Shippingport PA 1 0 1 2.0 0.7 37 BeaverVciey-2 BigRockPoint-1 Shippingport PA Big RockPoint,MI 3 2 2 0 0 5.0 3.0 1.7 1.0 3 ( 1 16 Bradmod-1 BradwoNill 0 1 0 1.0 0.3 57 Brak1 wood 2 Braidwood.lL 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 BrownsFerry-1 Decatur,AL 2 0 0 2.0 0.7 37 l 1 BrownsFerry-2 Decatur,AL 2 0 0 2.0 0.7 37 BrownsFerry-3 Decatur,AL 2 0 1 3.0 1.0 16 l Brunswick-1 Southport NC 1 1 2 4.0 1.3 7 l Brunswick-2 Southport,NC 2 1 .0 3.0 1.0 16 Byron-1 Byron, IL 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 Byror>2 Byron, IL 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 Ccto m y1 Fulton,MO O O O 0.0 0.0 84 CalvertCliffs-1 Lusby, MD 1 3 0 4.0 1.3 7 CdvertCliffs-2 Lusby,MD 1 3 0 4.0 1.3 7 Cdtwtol LakeWylie,SC 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 Cdturn2 LakeWylie,SC 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 Clinton-1 Clinton,IL 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 CommchePeck-1 GlenRenTX 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 CcmmchePeck-2 Glen r.ose TX 2 0 0 2.0 0.7 37 Cook-1(DonaldC.) Bridc/non,MI O O O 0.0 0.0 84 Cook-2(DonaldC.) BridgmanMI O O O 0.0 0.0 84 CooperStahon Brownville, NE 1 1 0 2.0 0.7 37 CrystalRiver-3 RedLevelFL 2 0 1 3.0 1.0 16 DcMs-Besse 1 OakHarbor,OH 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 DiabioConyorv1 DiabioCanycnCA 0 2 1 3.0 1.0 16 DiabloCanyory2 DiabioCanyon,CA 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 Dresder>2 Morris, IL 0 2 0 2.0 0.7 J7 Dresder>3 Morris, IL 0 2 0 2.0 0.7 37 DuaneArnold Polo,lA 3 0 0 3.0 1.0 16 Fariey-1(JosephM.) Dothan, AL 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 Fariey-2(JosephM.) DothanAL 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 Fermi-2 Newport,Mt 1 1 1 3.0 1.0 16 Rtzpatrick(JarresA.) Scriba,NY 1 0 1 2.0 0.7 37 FortCalhoun-1 FortCdhoun,NE 2 1 0 3.0 1.0 16 Ginno(R.E.) Ontario,NY 0 3 3 6.0 2.0 2 GrandGulf-1 Prf ' 'on, MS 1 0 3 4.0 1.3 7 HadimNeck H.N 3ar . Neck,CT 2 0 1 3.0 1.0 16 Hatch-1(Edwini.) L ay,G'A 2 1 0 3.0 1.0 16 Hatch-2(Edwint.) Bowy,GA 0 1 1 2.0 0.7 37 HopeCreek1 SalernfC 2 0 1 3.0 1,0 16 incianPoint-2 BuchananNY 3 1 1 5.0 1.7 3 indianPoint-3 BuchancnNY 0 0 2 2.0 0.7 37 VeM:mee CarttonWI O O O 0.0 0.0 84 La$ die-1 Seneca,L 3 0 0 3.0 1.0 16 LaSalle-2 SenecciIL 1 0 3 4.0 1.3 7 j Limerick-1 Pottstown,PA 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 ! Limerick Pottstown,PA 4 1 2 7.0 2.3 1 A16 9f APPENDIX l _-- - - --- a
I l l Total Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 RANK i i l ManeYankee Wiscosset ME O O O 0.0 0.0 84 I McGuire-1 CowansFordDarn,NC 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 ! , McGuire-2 CowansFordDarnNC 3 0 0 3.0 1.0 16 l Millstone-1 Waterford.CT 0 1 0 1.0 0.3 57 j Mdistone-2 Waterford.CT 0 2 0 2.0 0.7 37 l Millstone-3 Waterford.CT 0 0 1 1.0 0.3 57 l' Monticello Monticello,MN 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 NineMile Point-1 Scriba,NY l 1 0 2.0 0.7 37 Nine MilePoint-2 Scriba,NY 4 0 1 5.0 1.7 3 NorthAnna-1 MineraLVA 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 NorthAnrn2 Mineral,VA 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 Ooonse-1 SenecaSC 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 Octnee-2 SenecaSC 1 0 1 2.0 0.7 37 OcmeeG SeneccSC 0 0 1 1.0 0.3 57 OysterCreek-1 TornsRiver,NJ 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 Pttcx$es SouthHaven,Mi 1 0 3 4.0 1.3 7 PoloVerde-1 Wintersburg, AZ 1 0 1 2.0 0.7 37 PoloVerde-2 Wntersburg, AZ 1 0 2 3.0 1.0 16 PaloVerde-G Wintersburg, AZ 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 PeachBottorn2 PeachBottornPA 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 F%achBottorno PeachBottornPA 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 Perry-1 North Perry,OH 1 0 3 4.0 1.3 7 Pilgrirn-1 Plyrnouth MA 2 1 0 3.0 1.0 16 PointBeach1 TwoCreeks,W1 1 0 1 2.0 0.7 37 PointBeach-2 TwoCreeks.WI O 2 1 3.0 1.0 16 PrairieIsland-l Redwing,MN O O O 0.0 0.0 84 Prairielsland-2 Redwing,MN O O O 0.0 0.0 84 QuadCthes-1 Cordovall 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 QuadClhes-2 Cordovall 0 0 1 1.0 0.3 57 RiverBend-1 St.Francisville, LA 1 2 0 3.0 1.0 16 Robinson-2(H.B.) Hartsville,SC 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 Sdem-1 SalernbU 3 1 0 4.0 1.3 7 Salern-2 SalernNJ 2 2 0 4.0 1.3 7 SanOnofre-2 ScnClernente,CA 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 SanOnofre 3 SanClemente,CA 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 Sechook-1 Seabrook,NH 0 1 0 1.0 0.3 57 Secpyh-1 Dalsv, TN 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 Sequyt>2 Daisy, TN 1 1 0 2.0 0.7 37 ShecronHarris-1 BonsalNC 1 0 2 3.0 1.0 16 SouthTexas-1 Mu@dcCotnty,1X 0 1 1 2.0 0.7 37 SouthTexas-2 MatagordaCotnty,TX 0 1 0 1.0 0.3 57 St.Lucie-1 FortPierco,FL 0 4 1 5.0 1.7 3 St.Lucie-2 FortPierce,FL 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 Surrrner-1 Jenkinsville,SC 0 0 1 1.0 0.3 57 Surry-1 GrwelNeck,VA 2 0 1 3.0 1.0 16 Surry-2 GravelNeck,VA 0 0 1 1.0 0.3 57 Sustpehanrni Berwick.PA 1 0 0 1.0 0.3 57 Suquehcrtn2 Berwick,PA 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 ThreeMileIsland-l Mddletown,PA 0 1 0 1.0 0.3 57 TurkeyPoint-3 FloridaCity,FL 0 1 0 '1 0.3 57 i SAFETY SYSEM AcrUADONS $f A17
r SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS - ALL REACTORS (CONT'D) Total Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 RANK TurkeyPoint-4 FloridaCity,FL 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 84 VermontYcnkee Vernon VI O O 1 1.0 0.3 57 Vogt41 Wapeboro,GA 2 1 0 3.0 1.0 16 Vogtle-2 Wcrgeboro.GA 0 0 1 1.0 0.3 57 WadngtonNuclear-2 Rchland,WA 1 1 0 2.0 0.7 37 WatefudG Taft, LA 0 0 1 1.0 0.3 57 WolfCreek-1 Burlington, KS 1 0 1 2.0 0.7 37 Zion-1 Zion, IL 1 0 1 2.0 0.7 37 Zion-2 Zion, IL 0 1 0 1.0 0.3 57 INDUSTRY TOTALS 91 55 53 199.0 INDUSTRY AVERAGES 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 l I A18 !);i.' APPENDIX l
l SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES - ALL REACTORS Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK. Arlonsca.1 RusselMile, AR 2 0 0 0.7 93 Menscrr2 RusselMile, AR 1 1 1 1.0 79 BeaverValey-1 SiippirigportPA 1 1 0 0.7 93 BeaverValey-2 ShippiiigportPA 3 1 0- 1.3 62 BigRockPoint-1 BigRockPoint,MI 2 1 1 1.3 62 - Brchod1 Brckiwood.ll 2 4 1 2.3 38 Brakfwood-2 Braidwood.ll 2 3 2 2.3 38 BrownsFerry-1 Decatur,AL ' O O O 0.0 108 BrownsFeny-2 Decaltr,AL 1 3 2 2.0 48 BrownsFerry-3 Decolur,AL' O O O 0.0 108 Brunswick-1 SouthportNC- 1 3 3 2.3 38 Brunswick-2 SouthportNC 3 3 1 2.3 38 Byron-1 ' Byron, IL _ 1 3 0 1.3 62 Byron-2 Byron, IL 1 2 1 1.3 62-Cciaway1 Fulton,MO 3 1 0 1.3 62 CalvertC8ffs-1 Lusby,MD 2 2 0 1.3 62 CalvertCRffs-2 Lusby,MD 2 0 1 1.0 79 N1 LakeWylie,SC 3 1 2 2.0 48 h2 LakeWylie,SC 3 1 2 2.0 48 Canton-1 Cilnton,IL 0 2 1 1.0 79 COTJd-Peck-1 GlenRose TX 0 1 1 0.7 93 COTgn=Reck-2 ' GlenRose,TX 0 1- 1 0.7 93 Cook-1(DonaldC.) BridgmartMI O 2 3 1.7 54 Cook-2(DonaldC.) BridgmcnMi 0 1 0 0.3 104 CooperSlallon Brownville, NE 11 8 4 7.7 2 CrystalRiver-3 Red Level,FL 1 2 7 3.3 20 l Davirr8 esse-1 OakHarbor,OH 1 1 1 1.0 79 i DiabloCanyon-1 DiabloCanyortCA 3 2 5 3.3 20 DiabloCanyon-2 DiabloCanyortCA 5 2 2 3.0 26 Dresden-2 Morris, IL 8 9 2 6.3 7 Dresder>3 Morris, IL 7 5 9 7.0 5 i DuaneArnold Palo,lA 4 3 3 3.3 20 Farley-1(JosephM.) DothattAL 1 0 2 1.0 79 Farley-2(JosephM.) DothartAL 1 0 1 0.7 93 Fermi-2 NewportMI 3 1 1 1.7 54 Rtzpatnck(JamesA.) Scriba.NY . 9 2 1 4.0 18 FortCahoun-1 FortCct.oun,NE 6 2 2 3.3 20 j Ginna(R.E.) Ontario,NY 2 1 0 1.0 79 ! GrendGulf-1 PortGibson,MS 6 1 1 2.7 34 4 b aa TiNeck HaddarnNeckCT 7 4 8 6.3 7 : Hatch-1(Edwint) Baxley,GA 2 3 2 2.3 38 Hatch-2(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 4 2 1 2.3 38 HopeCreeki SalerrtRJ 4 1 5 3.3 20 l IndianPoint-2 BuchancnNY . 4 0 2 2.0 48 j indianPointo BucharartNV 13 4 5 7.3 3 ! KeM2 nee CarttortWI 2 0 0 0.7 93 LaSale-1 Senecall 8 3 2 4.3 14 LaSc2e-2 Senecall 6 5 2 4.3 14 Limerick-1 oottstowrtPA 1 0 1 0.7 93 Limerick-2 ttstowrtPA 1 0 0 0.3 104 l l 1 SAFErY SYSTEM FAIMRES $ A19 \ J
4 SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES - ALL REACTORS (CONT'D) i Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK MoineYonlee Wiscosset ME 2 1 6 3.0 26 McGuire-1 CowansFordDom,NC 6 0 1 2.3 38 McGuire-2 CowansfordDornNC 4 0 1 1,7 54 I Millstone-1 Waterford,CT 6 7 6 6.3 7 Millstone-2 Waterford.CT 7 8 9 8.0 1 MIDstone-3 Wateiford,CT 4 1 4 3.G 26 Monticeto Monticello,MN 5 2 2 3.0 26 NineMilePoint-1 Scribo,NY 0 1 1 0.7 93 . Nine MilePoint-2 Scribo,NY 3 0 1 1.3 62 I NorthAnno-1 Mineral,VA 3 0 0 1.0 79 NorthAnrn-2 Mineral,VA 3 0 0 1.0 79 Oconee-1 SeneccSC 5 2 2 3.0 26 Ooonse-2 Senecx2SC 6 1 1 2.7 34' OooneeG SenscoSC 6 2 1 3.0 26 DesterCreek-1 TomsRiver,NJ 1 3 1 1.7 54 Pthcxies SouthHaven,MI 4 6 6 5.3 11 , PoloVerde-1 Wintersburg, AZ 1 0 1 0.7 93 PoloVerde-2 Wintersburg,AZ 1 2 2 1.7 54 PoloVerdeo Wintersburg,AZ 1 0 1 0.7 93 Pecx:hBottom 2 PeachBottornPA 6 3 0 3.0 26 PeachBotterr>3 PeachBottornPA 5 4 1 3.3 20 Perry-1 North Perry, OH 4 4 0 2.7 34 Pilgrim-1 PMMA 9 4 4 5.7 10 PointBeach-1 TwoCreeks.WI 4 3 0 2.3 38 ' PcotBeach-2 TwoCreeks.Wi 5 2 1 2.7 34 Prairielsland-1 Redwing,MN 0 1 2 1.0 79 ProineIsland-2 Redwing,MN 1 1 2 1.3 62 QuadCities-1 Cordovall 8 7 5 6.7 6 QuadCities-2 Cordovall 13 4 5 7.3 3 l RiverBend-1 St.Francisvilb, LA 4 4 4 4.0 18 Robinson-2(H.B.) Hartsville,SC 2 3 0 1.7 54 Solarn 1 SalernNJ 1 3 11 5.0 12 Salem-2 SalernNJ 2 3 8 4.3 14 SonOnofre-2 SanClemente,CA 1 0 1 0.7 93 SonOnofred SanCim nah,CA 2 0 3 1.7 54 Seabrook-1 SeabtookNH 4 0 0 1.3 62 l Secp ytvl Daisy, TN 4 0 0 1.3 62 { Sequtyf>2 Daisy, TN 4 1 0 1.7 54 ShecronHarris-1 Bonsd,NC 3 1 0 1.3 62 SouthTexas-1 Muivwun.iuCcmty,TX 5 4 0 3.0 26 SouthTexas-2 Mutuwcr&Comty,TX 4 2 0 2.0 48 , St.Lucie-1 FortPierce,FL 1 1 2 1.3 62 l St.Lucle-2 FortPlerce,FL 0 0 0.3 104 Summer-1 JenkinsvWe,SC 1 0 1 0 0.3 104
)
i Surry-1 GravelNeckVA 2 0 1 1.0 79 Surry-2 Grove lNeckVA 1 0 2 1.0 79 Su qJehorTx11 BerwickPA 0 2 2 1.3 62 Fmy s*mrn2 BerwickPA 0 3 1 1.3 62 ThreeMileIsland-1 Mddletown PA 1 2 0 1.0 79 TurkeyPoint-3 FloridaCity,FL 2 2 3 2.3 38 l l l A20 !If APPENMX
i Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK TurkeyPoint4 FloridaCity,FL 1 1 2 1.3 62 I VermontYankee Vernon,VI 6 4 3 4.3 14 Vogtle1 Waynesboro.GA 1 1 1 1.0 79 Vogtle 2 Waynesboro,GA 2 0 2 1.3 62 WashingtonNuclear-2 Richland,WA 11 3 0 4.7 13 WuiubCr3 Taft, LA 3 1 0 1.3 62 WolfCreek-1 Buriington,KS 3 2 1 2.0 48 Zion-1 Zion, IL 1 4 2 2.3 t Zion-2 Zion, IL 1 1 1 1.0 '/?- 1 INDUSTRY TOTAL 349 215 209 258 l INDUSTRY AVERAGE 3.2 2.0 1.9 2.4 l l l l l I l f SAITry SYSTEM FAIWRES $ A21
SCRAMS - ALL REACTORS Total Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 RANK Arkansas-1 RusselMile, AR 1 1 2 4 1.3 27 Arkansas-2 RusselMile, AR 0 0 2 2 0.7 61 BeaverValey-1 ShippingportPA 1 2 0 3 1.0 44 BeaverValey-2 Shippir,gportPA 1 1 1 3 1.0 44 BigRockPoint-1 BigRockPoint,MI O O 1 1 0.3 81 Bradwood-1 Brakiwood ll 1 1- 1 3 1.0 44 Bn:xfMxd2 Braidwood lL 1 2 0 3 1.0 44 BrownsFerry-1 Decatur,AL 0 0 0 0 0.0 101 BrownsFerry-2 Decatu,AL 0 3 3 6 2.0 e BrownsFerry-3 Decatur,AL 0 0 0 0 0.0 101 Brunswick-1 SouthportNC 0 0 2 2 0.7 61 Brunswick-2 SouthportNC 0 0 0 0 0.0 101 Byrorwl Byron, IL 0 1 0 1 0.3 81 Byrord2 Byron, IL 2 1 0 3 1.0 44 Ccho/1 Fulton MO O O 2 2 0.7 61 CalvertCtffs-1 Lusby,MD 1 3 0 4 1.3 27 CakertCtffs-2 Lusby,MD 1 4 2 7 2.3 2 Oturni LakeWybe,SC 2 1 0 3 1.0 44 Otukn2 LakeWylie,SC 1 3 2 6 2.0 8 Clinton-1 Clinton,ll 0 0 0 0 0.0 101 CuTgdePeck-1 GlenRose,TX 3 2 2 7 2.3 2 CurgdeRok-2 GlenRose,TX 2 1 2 5 1.7 16 Cook-1(DonaldC.) Bridgman,MI O O 1 1 0.3 81 Cook-2(DonaldC.) Bridgman,MI 2 3 4 9 3.0 1 CooperStahon Brownville, NE 1 1 0 2 0.7 61 CrystalRiver-3 Red Level,FL 1 0 0 1 0.3 81 DoverBesse-1 OakHarbor,OH 2 0 0 2 0.7 61 DobioCanyon-1 DiabioConyon,CA 1 1 1 3 1.0 44 DiabloCanyon-2 DiabloCanyortCA 1 1 0 2 0.7 61 Dresderv2 Morris, IL 0 0 0 0 0.0 101 D esder>3 Morris, IL 2 1 3 6 2.0 8 DuaneArnold Polo,1A 1 0 1 2 0.7 61 Farley-1(JosephM.) DothcnAL 0 0 1 1 0.3 81 Farley-2(JosephM.) Dothor1AL 1 2 2 5 1.7 16 Fermi-2 NewportMI 4 0 2 6 2.0 8 Atzpahick(JamesA.) Scriba,NY 3 0 1 4 1.3 27 FortCalhoun-1 FortCalhourtNE 2 1 1 4 1.3 27 Ginna(R.E.) Ontario,NY 2 1 0 3 1.0 44 GrandGulf-1 PortGibson,MS 1 1 5 7 2.3 2 HaitrnNeck HaddamNeck.CT 1 1 0 2 0.7 61 Hatch-1(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 3 2 0 5 1.7 16 Hatctd2(Edwint) Bcodey,GA 0 1 1 2 0.7 61 HopeCreek1 Salernbu 1 5 0 6 2.0 8 IndianPoint-2 BuchanartNy 0 0 2 2 0.7 61 IndianPoint-3 Buchanartif/ 0 0 0 0 0.0 101 lhames Carlton.W1 2 0 2 4 1.3 27 LaSape-1 Senecall 1 3 1 5 1.7 16 h2 Seneca!L 0 4 0 4 1.3 27 Limerick-1 PottstowrtPA 1 0 1 2 0.7 61 Umerick-2 Pottstown,PA 2 1 3 6 2.0 8 A22 ff,' AFFF.NMX
Total Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 RANK MoneYcrikee Wscasset,ME O 1 0 1 0.3 81 McGuire-1 CowansFordDarnNC 1 1 1 3 1.0 44 McGuire-2 CowansFordDarnNC 1 0 0 1 0.3 81 Millstone-1 Waterford,CT 1 0 0 1 0.3 81 l Millstone-2 Waterford,CT 5 0 0 5 1.7 16 ! Millstone-3 Waterford,CT 1 0 0 1 0.3 81 I Monticelo Monticello,MN 2 2 0 4 1.3 27 Nine Mile Point-1 Scriba,NY 2 4 1 7 2.3 2 NineMilePoint-2 Scriba,NY 1 1 0 2 0.7 61 , NorthAnno1 Mineral,VA 0 0 1 1 0.3 81 l NorthAnna-2 Mineral,VA- 1 1 1 3 1.0 44 i Oconee-1 SenecaSC 1 1 0 2 0.7 61 Ooonee-2 SeneccSC 2 2 1 5 1.7 16 Ocmee3 SenecoSC 1 3 1 5 1.7 16 ; OysterCreek-1 TornsRiver,NJ 0 2 1 3 1.0 44 l Ptiscdes 0 SouthHaven Mi 0 0 0 0.0 101 PoloVerde-1 Wintersburg, AZ 0 0 3 3 1.0 44 PaloVerde2 Wintersburg,AZ 1 2 1 4 1.3 27 PaloVerdeo Wintersburg, AZ 1 2 0 3 1.0 44 l PeachEbttem2 PeachBottomPA 1 1 0 2 0.7 61 1 PeachBottomG PeachBottornPA 1 1 2 4 1.3 27 i Ferry-1 North Perry,OH 0 0 3 3 1.0 44 Pilgrirn-1 Plyrnouth,MA 3 1 0 4 1.3 27 PointBeach-1 TwoCreeks.WI O O 1 1 0.3 81 PointBeach-2 TwoCreeks.WI 1 0 1 2 0.7 61 PrairieIsland-1 Redwing,MN 1 0 0 1 0.3 81 PrairieIsland-2 Redwing,MN O 1 0 1 G3 81 QuadCtherrl Cordovall 1 0 0 1 0.3 81 QuadCities-2 Cordovall 4 1 1 6 2.0 8 RiverBend-1 St.Francisville,LA 2 2 0 4 1.3 27 Robinson-2(H.B.) Hartsville,SC 0 0 1 1 0.3 81 Salern 1 SalernNJ 3 4 0 7 2.3 2 Salen>2 SalernNJ 1 1 1 3 1.0 44 SonOnofro-2 SanClemente,CA 0 0 0 0 0.0 101 SanOnofre3 SanClemente,CA 2 0 0 2 0.7 61 Seabrook-1 Seabrook,NH 3 1 0 4 1.3 27 -{ Sequoyctyl Daisy, TN 1 2 2 5 1.7 16 l Seque/cf>2 Daisy, TN 1 0 3 4 1.3 27 ; SheoronHarris-1 Bonsal,NC 0 0 2 2 0.7 61 ! SouthTexas-1 MatagordaCounty,TX 0 1 3 4 1.3 27 j SouthTexas-2 MatagordaCounty,TX 2 1 2 5 1.7 16 St.Lucie-1 FortPierce,FL 0 4 1 5 1.7 16 l St.Lucie-2 FortPierce,FL 0 1 1 2 0.7 61 ! Summer-1 Jenkinsvule,SC 1 0 0 1 0.3 81 i Surry-1 GravelNeck.VA 2 0 1 3 1.0 44 l Surry-2 GravelNeck,VA 5 0 2 7 2.3 2 l Suscpehcono1 Berwick,PA 1 0 0 1 0.3 81 j Surpshcmo-2 Berwick,PA 0 1 1 2 0.7 61 : ThreeMileIsland-1 MddletownPA 1 0 0 1 0.3 81 ! TurkeyPoint-3 FloridaCity,FL 0 1 0 1 0.3 81 TurkeyPoint-4 FloridaCity,FL 2 2 0 4 1.3 27 i l ScRAMSsp;A23
SCRAMS - ALL REACTORS (CONT'D) Total Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 1993-1995 RANK VermontYmkee Vernon.VI O 1 1 2 0.7 61 Vogtle-1 Waynesboro.GA 2 2 1 5 1.7 16 Vogt42 Waynesboro.GA 1 2 1 4 1.3 27 WczhingtonNuclear-2 RicNand,WA 3 0 3 6 2.0 8 Waterford3 Taft, LA 2 1 1 4 1.3 27 WolfCreek-1 Buriington.KS 0 0 1 1 0.3 81 Zion-1 Zion, IL 1 2 0 3 1.0 44 Zion-2 Zion. IL 0 0 0 0 0.0 101 INDUSTRY TOTALS 121 111 101 333 INDUSTRY AVERAGES 1.11 1.02 0.93 1.02 i 1 l l A24 ilf APPENDIX j i
I SIGNIFICANT EVENTS - ALL REACTORS Average l REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK l l Akanscrri RusselMile, AR 1 0 0 0.33 16 i Arkmsar2 RusselMile, AR 0 0 0 0.00 42 BeaverValey-1 Shippingport,PA 1 0 0 0.33 16 BeaverValey-2 Shippingport.PA 3 0 0 1.00 2 BigRockPoint-1 Big RockPoint,MI O O O 0.00 42 Bra &ood 1 Braidwood,ll 0 0 0 0.00 42 Bradwood2 Braidwood.ll 0 0 1 0.33 16 BrownsFerry-1 Decatur,AL 0 0 0 0.00 42 BrownsFerry-2 Decatur,AL 0 0 0 0.00 42 BrownsFerry-3 Decatur,AL 0 0 0 0.03 42 Brunswick-1 Southport,NC 0 0 0 0.00 42 Brunswick-2 Southport,NC 0 0 0 0.00 42 Byron-1 Byron, IL 0 0 0 0.00 42 Byron-2 Byron, IL 0 0 0 0.00 42 Ccicuo/1 Fulton,MO O O O 0.00 42 CalvertCBffs-1 Lusby, MD 0 1 0 0.33 16 CalvertCliffs-2 Lusby,MD 0 0 0 0.00 42 Cabdn1 LakeWylie,SC 1 0 0 0.33 16 Cdtuin2 LakeWylie,SC 1 0 0 0.33 16 Cinton-1 Clinton,ll 0 0 0 0.00 42 CornmcheF%ck-1 GlenRose,TX 0 0 0 0.00 42 CmncnchePeck-2 GlenRose,TX 0 0 0 0.00 42 l Cook-1(DonaldC.) Bridgman,MI O O O 0.00 42 Cook-2(DonaldC.) Bridgman,Mi 0 0 0 0.00 42 3 CooperStation Brownville, NE O 1 0 0.33 16 l CrystalRiver-3 Redlevel,FL 1 1 0 0.67 7 i Davis-Besse-1 OakHarbor,OH 0 0 0 0.00 42 I DiabioCanyon-1 DiabloCanyortCA 0 0 0 0.00 42 DiabloCanyon-2 DiabloCanyortCA 0 0 0 0.00 42 Dresden2 Morris, IL 0 0 0 0.00 42 Dresdena Morris, IL 0 0 0 0.00 42 DuaneArnold Palo,lA 0 0 0 0.00 42 i Foriey-1(JosephM.) DothartAL 0 0 0 0.00 42 l Farley-2(JosephM.) DothartAL 0 0 0 0.00 42 ! Fermi-2 Newport,MI 1 0 0 0.33 16 : Rtzpatrick(JamesA.) Scriba,NY 0 0 0 0.00 42 : FortCalhoun-1 FortCalhoun,NE O 1 0 0.33 16 l Ginna(R.E.) Ontario NY 0 0 0 0.00 42 GrandGulf-l PortGibson,MS 0 0 0 0.00 42 HaddamNeck HaddamNeckCT 1 2 1 1.33 1 j Hatch-1(Edwinl.) Bcodey,GA 0 0 0 0.00 42 i Hatch-2(Edwinl.) Baxley,GA 0 0 0 0.00 42 l HopeCreek1 SalernNJ 0 0 1 0.33 16 IndianPoint-2 BuchanartNY 0 0 0 0.00 42 l i IndianPoint-3 Buchanan,NY 1 0 0 0.33 16 Me mtnee Carlton.WI O O O 0.00 42 ; LaScie-1 SeneccL 1 1 0 0.67 7 ] LaSalle-2 Senecall 1 1 0 0.67 7 i Umerick-1 Pottstown,PA 0 0 I 0.33 16 Umerick-2 PottstowrtPA 0 0 0 0.00 42 i SiamncarEvmrs $f A25 l
1 SIGNIFICANT EVENTS - ALL REACTORS (CONT'D) Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK j MaheYankee Wiscosset,ME O O O 0.00 42 l McGuire-1 CowansFordDarn,NC 0 0 0 0.00 42 McGure-2 l CowansFordDarnNC 1 0 0 0.33 16 Millstone-1 Waterford,CT 0 2 0 0.67 7 Millstone-2 WaterforciCT 1 1 1 1.00 2 Millstone-3 Waterford,CT 0 0 0 0.00 42 Monticeio Monticello,MN O O O 0.00 42 NineMile Polnt-1 Scriba,NY 0 0 0 0.00 42 Nine Mile Point-2 Scriba,NY 0 0 0 0.00 42 -l NorthAnno-1 Minerd,VA 0 0 0 0.00 42 NorthAnno 2 Mineral,VA 0 0 0 0.00 42 Ooanse-1 SenecaSC 0 0 0 0.00 42 , Oconse.2 SenecaSC 0 0 0 0.00 42 OcmeeG SenecaSC 0 0 0 0.00 42 OysterCreek-1 TornsRiver,NJ 1 0 0 0.33 16 Pctsades SouthHaven,MI 1 0 0 0.33 16 PaloVerde-1 Wintersburg. AZ O O O 0.00 42 PaloVerde-2 Wintersburg,AZ 1 0 0 0.33 16 PdoVerde-3 Wintersburg,AZ 0 0 0 0.00 42 PeachBottorn-2 PeachBottornPA 0 2 0 0.67 7 F%achBottom3 PeachBottornPA 0 1 0 0.33 16 Perry-! North Perry, OH 1 0 0 0.33 16 Pilgrirn-1 Plyrnouth,MA 0 0 0 0.00 42 PointBeach-1 TwoCreeks.WI O O O 0.00 42 PointBeach-2 TwoCreeks.WI O O O 0.00 42 ! PrdrieIsland-1 Redwing,MN O O O 0.00 42 Prdrielsland-2 Redwing,MN O O O 0.00 42 QuadCiterrl Cordova,ll 0 1 0 0.33 16 QuadCities-2 Cordovall 1 0 0 0.33 16 i RiverBend-1 St.Francisville,l.A 0 1 0 0.33 16 Robinson-2(H.B.) Hartsville,SC 0 0 0 0.00 42 Sderni SalernNJ 0 1 2 1.00 2 Sdern-2 SalernNJ 1 0 2 1.00 2 SanOnofre-2 GanClernente,CA 1 0 1 0.67 7 SanOnofre-3 SanClemente,CA 1 0 0 0.33 16 Seatrook-1 SeabrookNH 0 0 0 0.00 42 Sequoy@-1 Daisy. TN 0 O O 0.00 42 Seqtxyh2 Daisy, TN O O O 0.00 42 ShearonHarris-1 Bonsd,NC 0 0 0 0.00 42 SouthTexas-1 Wi@&Ccmty TX 2 0 1 1.00 2 SouthTexas-2 Wi@& County,TX 2 0 0 0.67 7 i St.Lucie-1 FortPlerce,FL 0 0 0 0.00 42 St.Lucie-2 FortPierce,FL 0 0 0 0.00 42 Summer-1 Jenkinsville SC 0 0 0 0.00 42 Surry-1 GravelNeckVA 0 0 0 0.00 42 Surry-2 GravelNeckVA 0 0 0 0.00 42 Smcpehmna-1 Berwick PA 0 0 0 0.00 42 1 9 ry semna-2 Berwick,PA 0 0 0 0.00 42 l Three MileIsland-1 MiddletownPA 1 0 0 0.33 16 i TurkeyPoint-3 FloridaCity,FL 0 1 0 0.33 16 A26 @" Arrrarx
r f Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK TurkeyPoint-4 FloridaCity,FL 0 1 0 0.33 16 VermontYcnkee Vernon,VT 0 0 0 0.00 42 Vogtle-1 Waynesboro,GA 0 0 0 0.00 42 l Vogtie-2 Waynesboro.GA 0 0 0 0.00 42 l WashingtonNuclear-2 Richland,WA 0 1 1 0.67 7 WaterfordG Taft, LA 0 1 1 0.67 7 WolfCreek-1 Burtington KS 0 1 0 0.33 16 Zion-1 Zion, IL 0 0 0 0.00 42 Zion-2 Zion, IL 0 0 0 0.00 42 1 ! INDUSTRY TOTALS 28 22 13 INDUSTRY AVERAGES 0.26 0.20 0,12 0.19 i i t l l l l Siamncar Eymrs !"PK A27
SYS'rEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP) - AIL REACIORS SALP1 SALP1 SALP2 SALP2 Average REACTOR LOCATION Date Average Date Average SALP RANK Arkanscs-1 RusselMlle, AR 983 1.43 285 1.25 1.34 75 Arkanscs-2 RusselMile, AR 983 1.43 285 1.25 1.34 75 BecuerValey-1 ShippingportPA 284 1.50 765 1.50 1.50 51 BeaverValey-2 ShippingportPA 284 1.50 785 1.50 1.50 51 BigRockPoint-1 BigRockPoint MI 684 2.00 186 1.75 1.88 28 Bradwood-1 Brddwood.il 384 1.50 11/95 1.75 1.63 44 Bradwood-2 Braidwood,ll 3R4 1.50 1165 1.75 1.63 44 BrownsFerry-1 Decatur,AL 1163 1.50 N/A N/A 0.75 108 BrownsFerry-2 Decatur,AL 11/93 1.50 4RS 1.75 1.63 44 BrownsFerry-3 Decatur,AL 1163 1.50 N/A N/A 0.75 108 Brunswick-1 SouthportNC 12/93 1.50 685 1.00 1.25 81 Brunswick-2 SouthportNC 12/93 1.50 685 1.00 1.25 81 Byron-1 Byron, IL 4R3 1.14 984 1.00 1.07 101 Byron-2 Byron, IL 483 1.14 984 1.00 1.07 101 Ccim/1 Fulton,MO 1063 1.25 685 1.00 1.13 96 CdvertCliffs 1 Lusby, MD 11/93 1.50 785 1.50 1.50 51 CdvertCliffs-2 Lusby, MD 1163 1.50 785 1.50 1.50 51 Cdadn1 LakeWylie,SC 1163 1.75 1185 2.00 1.88 28 O*utn2 LakeWylie,SC 1183 1.75 11/95 2.00 1.88 28 4 Clinton-1 Clinton,ll 1/94 1.50 885 1.50 1.50 51 CcmmchePeck-1 Glen Rose,TX 684 1.50 1295 1.25 1.36 68 CcmcrchePeck-2 GlenRose,TX 684 1.50 1285 1.25 1.38 69 Cook-1(DonaldC.) Bddgrnan,MI 493 1.57 1284 1.25 1.41 64 Cook-2(DonddC.) Bridgman,MI 483 1.57 12/94 1.25 1.41 64 CooperStation Brownville, NE 683 2.14 895 2.50 2.32 5 CrystdRiver-3 Red Level,FL 484 1.50 1165 1.75 1.63 44 DcMs-Besse-1 OakHarbor,OH 983 1.29 365 1.00 1.14 93 DiabloConyon-1 DiabloCanycnCA 283 1.14 984 1.00 1.07 101' DiabloCanycn2 DiabloCanyon,CA 283 1.14 9/94 1.00 1.07 101 Dresden-2 Morris, IL - 2.50 485 2.50 2.50 1 Dresderb3 Morris, IL - 2.50 495 2.50 2.50 1 DuaneArnold Pdo,lA 484 1.50 12RS 1.25 1.38 69 Farley-1(JosephM.) Dothan.AL 11/93 1.25 5R5 1.25 1.25 81 Farley-2(JosephM.) Dothan,AL 11/93 1.25 585 1.25 1.25 81 Fermh2 NewportMI 594 2.00 5/96 2.00 2.00 18 Fdzpatnck(JamesA.) Scribct NY 584 2.00 12R5 2.00 2.00 18 FortColhouryl FortCdhoun,NE 884 1.50 386 1.50 1.50 51 Ginna(R.E.) Ontario,NY 1183 1.50 5/95 1.50 1.50 51 GrandGulf l PortGibson,MS 484 1.00 3/96 1.25 1.13 96 HoikmNeck HaddamNeck,CT 283 1.14 11/94 1.75 1.45 64 Hatch-1(Edwini.) Baxley,GA 184 1.50 7/95 1.75 1.63 44 Hatch-2(Edwini.) Baxley,GA 164 1.50 785 1.75 1.63 44 , HopeCreek1 SalernNJ 10R3 1.14 695 1.75 1.45 64 IndianPoint-2 BuchanartNY 584 1.25 10/95 1.50 1.38 69 IndianPdnt-3 BuchanartNY 1.93 4/96 2.25 2.09 17 Ke n nee Ccriton,WI 763 1.50 3R5 1.00 1.25 81 LaSalle-1 Seneccill 763 1.86 1284 2.50 2.18 9 - LaSdle-2 SenecctlL 783 1.86 12/94 2.50 2.18 9 Umerick-1 PottstowrtPA 11/93 1.50 595 1.00 1.25 81 Umorick-2 Pott: town.PA 11/93 L50 585 1.00 1.25 81 A28 $ APPENDIX
l SALP1 SALP1 SALP2 SALP2 Average REACTOR LOCATION Date Average Date Average SALP RANK MoneYcr*ee Wiscosset,ME 364 1.50 1065 1.50 1.50 51 McGuire-1 CowansFordDornNC 384 2.25 985 1.50 1.88 28 McGuire-2 CowansFordDornNC 394 2.25 985 1.50 1.88 28 ! Millstone-1 Waterford.CT SS3 2.00 884 2.00 2.00 18 l Millstone-2 Waterford.CT SS3 2.00 864 2.50 2.25 7 i Millstone-3 WaterforciCT SS3 2.00 864 2.00 2.00 18 Monticelo Monticello,MN 6S3 1.00 165 1.25 1.13 96 Nine Mile Point-1 Scribo,NY 963 1.75 365 1.75 1.75 33 Nine Mile Point-2 Scribo.NY 963 1.75 385 1.75 1.75 33 NorthAnno-1 Minerol,VA 6S3 1.14 265 1.00 1.07 101 NorthAnno-2 Mer'erU., VA 683 1.14 265 1.00 1.07 101 Octnee1 SeneccSC 963 1.57 12/94 1.75 1.66 41 Oconee-2 SeneccSC 983 1.57 1284 1.75 1.66 41 Ooonee3 SenecoSC 983 1,57 1284 1.75 1.66 41 OysterCreek-1 TomsRiver,NJ 164 1.75 895 1.50 1.63 44 Pohades SouthHoven,MI 12/93 2.50 765 2.00 2.25 7 PoloVerde-1 Wintersburg, AZ 583 1.86 165 2.00 1.93 22 PoloVerde-2 Wintersburg, AZ SS3 1.86 165 2.00 1.93 22 PoloVerdeG Wintersburg, AZ 583 1.86 185 2.00 1.93 22 l PeachBottorn-2 PeachBottornPA 6S4 1.7F 12/95 1.25 1.50 51 l PeachBottorna PeachBottornPA 6S4 1.75 1285 1.25 1.50 51 l Perry-1 North Perry, OH 163 1.86 265 2.00 1.93 22 PDgrirn-1 PlymouttiMA 483 1.43 11/94 1.25 1.34 75 PointBeach 1 TwoCreeks.W1 363 1.71 1084 1.75 1.73 39 , PointBeach-2 TwoCreeks.W1 363 1.71 1064 1.75 1.73 39 l PrairieIsland-1 Redwing.MN 8S4 1.25 396 1.25 1.25 81 PrairieIsland-2 Redwing,MN 8S4 1.25 386 1.25 1.25 81 QuodCititz 1 Cordcwall 2B4 2.75 985 2.25 2.50 1 QuadCities-2 Cordcwo.lL 264 2.75 9/95 2.25 2.50 1 RiverBend-1 St.Francisville,LA 384 2.50 865 1.75 2.13 11 l Robinson-2(H.B.) Hartsville,SC 2/94 2.25 765 2.00 2.13 11 l Sdern-1 SolernNJ 10/93 1.57 165 2.25 1.91 26 Solen >2 SolernNJ 10/93 1.57 165 2.25 1.91 26 , SonOnofre-2 SonClernente,CA 884 1.50 2S6 1.50 1.50 51 l SonOnofre3 SonClemente,CA 864 1.50 266 1.50 1.50 51 l Sechook-1 Seabrook,NH 1163 1.50 265 1.50 1.50 51 Secpy:h 1 Daisy, TN 1263 2.25 285 2.00 2.13 11 l Secpy:h2 Daisy, TN 1263 2.25 265 2.00 2.13 11
- SheoronHorris-1 Bonsal,NC 564 1.00 4/96 1.00 1.00 107 SouthTexas 1 MotagordoCototy,TX 1094 2.00 SSd 1.50 1.75 33 SouthTexas-2 MutcyxcicCcmty,TX 10/94 2.00 SS6 1.50 1.75 33 St.Lucle-1 FortPlerce.FL 2S4 1.00 266 1.50 1.25 81 St.Lucle-2 FortPierce,FL 2/94 1.00 2S6 1.50 1.25 81 Summer-1 Jenkinsv81e,SC 4/93 1.29 385 1.25 1.27 78 Surry-l GravelNeck,VA 963 1.29 265 1.25 1.27 78 Suny-2 GrcuelNeck VA 983 1.29 265 1.25 1.27 78 Suquehcono-1 Berwick,PA 464 1.25 985 1.00 1.13 96 Slaquehcono-2 Berwick,PA 494 1.25 995 1.00 1.13 96 Three M;lelsland-1 Mddletown,PA 1083 1.25 3/95 1.25 1.25 81 SYSTEMMC ASSESSMFET OF LICENSEE PERFORENCE $ A29
i 1 i l SALP - ALL REACTORS (COfdD) { SALP1 SALP1 SALP2 SALP2 Average 1 REACTOR LOCATION Date Average Date Average SALP RANK j i TurkeyPoint-3 FloridoCity,FL 183 1.29 1064 1.00 1.14 93 1 TurkeyPoint-4 Florida City,FL 163 1.29 1064 1.00 1.14 93 ; VerrnantYcrikee Vernon.VI 2B4 1.75 895 1.75 1.75 33 i Vogtb1 Wo/nesboro,GA 884 1.50 3S6 1.25 1.38 69 l Vogtb2 Waynesboro.GA 884 1.50 3/96 1.25 1.38 69 ! WcmhingtonNuclear-2 Rchland.WA 2R3 2.14 985 2.50 2.32 5 l Waterford-3 Taft, LA 1283 1.50 585 1.25 1.38 69 WolfCreek-1 Burlington, KS 584 2.00 1085 1.50 1.75 33 Zion-1 Zion. IL 7S4 2.00 2S6 2.25 2.13 11 i Zion-2 Zion, IL 784 2.00 2S6 2.25 2.13 11 INDUSTRY AVERAGE 1.62 1.56 1.59 A30 Lij.' Arrrmix
l l VIOLATIONS - ALL REACTORS Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK Arkansm 1 RusselMile, AR 36 27 29 30.7 22 Arkansm2 RusselMile, AR 36 28 29 31.0 19 BeaveiValey-1 Shippingport PA 28 30 15 24.3 58 BeaverValey-2 Shippingport,PA 30 31 15 25.3 52 BigRockPoint-1 BigRockPoint,Mi 21 15 10 15.3 98 Bradwood-1 Brak1 wood.ll 19 27 18 21.3 73 Bradwood-2 Brakfwood.lL 19 27 18 21.3 73 BrownsFerry-1 Decatur,AL 40 30 59 43.0 3 BrownsFeny-2 Decatur,AL 40 30 63 44.3 1 BrownsFerry-3 Decatur AL 41 30 61 44.0 2 Brunswick-1 Southport,NC 61 36 29 42.0 4 Brunswick-2 Southport,NC 61 36 28 42.0 4 Byron-1 Byron, IL 14 24 9 41.7 6 Byron-2 Byron, IL 14 23 9 15.3 98 Cchq-1 Fulton,MO 21 12 14 15.7 97 CalvertCiffs-1 Lusby, MD 30 32 11 24.3 58 CalvertCaffs-2 Lusby,MD 30 31 11 24.0 63 0: h tr>l LakeWylie,SC 31 31 25 29.0 30 O
- ntx>2 LakeWylie,SC 31 31 25 29.0 30 Clinton-1 Clinton,ll 24 21 11 18.7 82 CommcheNck-1 GlenRose,1X 23 20 24 22.3 71 CcmmchePeck-2 GlenRose,TX 28 21 24 24.3 58 Cook-1(DonaldC.) Bridgmart Mt 22 23 14 19.7 79 Cook-2(DonaldC.) Bridgman,MI 22 22 14 19.3 80 CooperStahon Brownville, NE 19 27 17 21.0 76 CrystalRiver-3 Red Level,FL 30 24 21 25.0 55 Dcuis-Besse-1 OakHarbor,OH 22 12 8 14.0 104 DiabloCanyon-1 DiabloCanyon,CA 34 31 15 26.7 46 DobioCcriyor>2 DobioCanyortCA 33 32 15 26.7 46 Dresden-2 Morris, IL 38 16 9 21.0 76 Dresden-3 Morris, IL 36 16 9 20.3 78 DuaneArnold Paio.lA 22 18 10 16.7 93 Farley-1(JosephM.) DothartAL 29 28 25 27.3 34 Fariey-2(JosephM.) Dothart AL 29 28 25 27.3 34 Fermi-2 Newport,MI 26 17 15 19.3 80 Rtzpatnck(JamesA.) Scriba,NY 34 32 11 25.7 49 FortCaboun-1 FortCcdhoun NE 12 20 22 18.0 84 Ginno(R.E.) Ontario,NY 15 8 16 13.0 106 GrandGulf-1 PortGibson,MS 24 22 18 21.3 73 HcdirnNeck HaddamNeck.CT 27 26 28 27.0 44 Hatch-1(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 27 30 27 28.0 33 Hatch-2(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 26 30 27 27,7 34 HopeCreek1 SalernNJ 26 29 16 23.7 66 IndonPoint-2 BucionartNY 14 9 14 12.3 108 IndonPoint-3 BuchanartNY 24 18 11 17.7 87 hamee Cortion.WI 20 15 9 14.7 101 LaSalle-1 Senecc!L 27 15 9 17.0 90 LaSalle-2 SenecciL 29 15 9 17.7 87 IJmerick-1 Pottstown,PA 19 17 19 18.3 83 timerick-2 Pottstown,PA 18 17 19 18.0 84 ViotmONS $,' A31
~- VIOLATIONS - ALL REACTORS (CONT'D) Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 '1995 1993-1995 RANK MdneYankee Wecasset,ME 22 21 25 ' 22.7 69 l McGuire-1 CowansFordDam,NC 25 29 28 27.3 34 McGuire-2 CowansFordDarnNC 25 29 28 27.3 34 Millstone-1 WaterforclCT 35 41 34 36.7 9 Millstone-2 Waterford,CT 35 36 38 36.3 10 Millstone-3 WaterforciCT 33 37 34 34.7 15 Monticello Monticello,MN 21 13 10 14.7 101 Nine Mile Point-1 Scriba,NY 28 29 25 27.3 34 Nine MilePoint-2 Scriba,NY 27 32 21 26.7 46 NorthAnna 1 Mineral,VA 29 28 16 24.3 58 NorthAnna-2 MineralVA 29 28 18 25.0 55 Oconee-1 SeneccSC 31 39 25 3 i.7 16 Ooonee2 SeneccSC 31 39 25 31.7 16 OccreeG SenecaSC 31 39 25 31.7 16 OysterCreek-1 TomsRiver,NJ 29 30 18 25.7 49 Pahades SouthHaven,M: 18 18 10 15.3 98 PaloVerde1 Wintersburg,AZ 45 36 25 35.3 12 PaloVerde-2 Wintersburg,AZ 45 36 25 35.3 12 PaioVerdeG Wintersburg. AZ 44 36 25 35.0 14 PeachBottom-2 PeachBottornPA 31 31 27 29.7 26 Pecx:hBottorna PeachBottcmPA 31 31 27 29.7 26 Perry-1 North Perry, OH 19 11 6 12.0 109 Pilgrirn-1 Plymouth MA 16 10 17 14.3 103 PointBeach-1 TwoCreeks.WI 17 20 14 17.0 90 PointBeach-2 TwoCreeks.WI 17 20 14 17.0 90 PrairieIsland-1 Redwing,MN 22 19 9 16.7 93 PrairieIsic.nd-2 Redwing,MN 23 20 9 17.3 89 QuadCities-1 Cordovall 20 19 9 16.0 95 QuadCites-2 Cordovall 20 19 9 16.0 95 RiverBend-1 St.Francisville,LA 26 24 31 27.0 44 Robinson-2(H.B.) Hartsville,SC 31 30 26 29.0 30 Sdem-1 SalernNJ 32 35 22 29.7 26 Sdem-2 SalernNJ 31 35 22 29.3 29 Sar Onofre-2 Scr1Clemente,CA 37 26 27 30.0 24 I SanOnofro-3 SanClemente.CA 37 26 27 30.0 24 Seabrook-1 SeabrookNH 22 33 14 23.0 68 Secpyhl Daisy, TN 56 41 28 41.7 6 Secp.y:h2 Daisy, TN 56 40 28 41.3 8 ShearonHams-1 Bonsd,NC 24 24 20 22.7 69 SouthTexas-1 Vuiupn-C. ult /,Ti 40 30 22 30.7 22 SouthTexas-2 Vui@dcCculty,TX 40 31 22 31.0 19 St.Lucie-1 FortPiercc,FL 30 25 21 25.3 52 St Lucie-2 FortPierce FL 30 25 21 25.3 52 Surrmer-1 Jenkinsville,SC 24 30 20 24.7 57 Surry-1 GravelNeckVA 27 31 25 27.7 34 l Surry-2 GravelNeck VA 27 31 25 27.7 34 i Suquehairo-1 Berwick,PA 23 25 23 23.7 66 l' Suquehmno-2 Berwick,PA 23 27 23 24.3 58 Three MileIsland-l Mddletown,PA 25 26 14 21.7 72 TurkeyPoint-3 Florida City,FL 26 25 21 24.0 63 A32 $$ APPENMX l J
F l Average REACTOR LOCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993 1995 RANK TurkeyPoint-4 FloridaCity.FL 26 25 21 24.0 63 VermontYankee Vernort VI 31 32 30 31.0 19 Vogtle-1 Worr=5tcTs.GA 27 29 27 27.7 34 Vogtle-2 Waynesboro,GA 27 29 27 27.7 34 WashingtonNuclear-2 Rchland.WA 47 30 31 36.0 11 Waterford3 Taft, LA 31 25 21 25.7 49 WolfCreek-1 Burlington.KS 18 17 19 18.0 84 Zion-1 Zion, IL 11 16 13 13.3 105 Zion-2 Zion, IL 10 16 13 13.0 106 INDUSTRY TOTALS 3076 2825 2269 2750 INDUSTRY AVERAGES 28.2 25.9 20.8 25.2 r-VIOLAMONS ![p,' A33
WORKER EXFOSURE lo RADLGON - AIL REACIORS Conective CeBective Co5cctive Average l Frpnergf Fvpnere/ Exposure / Exposun/ l Reactor Reactor Reactor Res or (Rems) (Rems) (Rems) (Rems) REACTOR IDCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK Arkansm 1 RusselMile, AR 214 18 209 147.0 69 l Arkansarr2 RusselMile, AR 42 152 72 88.7 97 { BeaverValey-1 ShippingportPA 415 37 273 241.7 28 BecuerValey-2 ShppingportPA 206 8 176 130.0 79 l BigRockPdnt-1 BigRockPoint M: 157 129 39 108.3 90 Braldwood-1 Braidwood.ll 137 150 29 105.3 92 Brddwood-2 Braidwood.lL 137 150 29 105.3 92 BrownsFerry-1 Decatur,AL 289 35 25 116.3 83 ; Brown 3 Ferry-2 Decatur,AL 289 462 210 320.3 16 BrownsFerry-3 Decottr,AL 289 358 242 296.3 18 Brunswick-1 SouthportNC 436 521 304 420.3 7 Brunswick-2 SouthportNC 436 521 304 420.3 7 Byron-1 Byron, IL 217 140 85 147.3 66 Byron-2 Byron, IL 217 140 85 147.3 66 Ccho/-1 Fulton, MO 224 42 166 144.0 72 CalvertCliffs-1 Lusby, MD 203 229 114 182.0 - 42 CdvertCBffs-2 Lusby,MD 203 229 114 182.0 42 Cchba1 LakeWyue,SC 198 103 204 168.3 53 Cdodn2 LakeWylie,SC 198 103 204 168.3 53 Clinton-1 Clinton,ll 498 63 293 284.7 23 ComcrchePeak-1 GlenRose,TX 109 45 81 78.3 103 CommchePeak-2 GlenRose,TX NA 45 81 42.0 109 Cook-1(DonaldC.) Bridgman,Mi 22 242 81 115.0 84 Cook-2(DonaldC.) Bridgman,MI 22 242 81 115.0 84 CooperStahon Brownville, NE 390 83 58 177.0 50 CrystdRiver-3 RedLevelFL 62 227 5 98.0 94 DcMs-Besse-1 OakHarbor,OH 359 152 5 172.0 51 D6abloCanyor>1 DobioCanyortCA 133 289 12 144.7 70 DobioCanyon2 D6abloCanymCA 133 289 12 144.7 70 Dresder>2 Morris, IL 828 416 343 529.0 2 Dresder>3 Morris, IL 828 416 343 529.0 2 DuaneArnold Polo,lA 406 119 348 291.0 21 Farley-1(JosephM.) DothanLAL 166 125 156 149.0 63 Farley-2(JosephM.) DothmAL 166 125 156 149.0 63 Fermi-2 Newport MI 35 213 18 88.7 97 Fitzpatrick(JamesA.) Scriba, NY 232 323 310 288.3 22 FortCdhcon 1 FortCdhoun,NE 158 24 264 148.7 65 Ginna(R.E.) Ontario,NY 192 148 133 157.7 58 GrandGulf-1 PortGibson,MS 333 58 333 241.3 29 HattrnNeck HaddamNeck.CT 409 134 435 326.0 14 Hatch-1(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 334 435 112 293.7 19 Hatch-2(Edwint.) Baxley,GA 334 435 112 293.7 19 HopeCreek1 Salem,NJ 99 380 53 177.3 49 IndianPoint-2 Buchanart NY 675 48 521 414.7 9 IndianPdnt-3 BuchanmNY 53 58 58 56.3 105 Vawmee Cartton,WI 106 73 107 95.3 95 LaSdie-1 SenecctlL 428 363 241 344.0 11 A34 :f.' ArrENMX
i ramar*ive CeBective canar*ive Avenge Frpneuer Frpnnwer Frpamav/ Exposun/ Reactor Reactor Reactor Reactor (Resas) (Rens) (Ress) (Rans) REACTOR LOCNI1ON 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK LaSdle-2 Senecoll 428 363 241 344.0 11 Urnerick-1 Pottstown,PA 33 250 53 112.0 86 umerick-2 Pottstown,PA 175 50 201 142.0 73 ManeYankee WiscossetME 377 84 501 320.7 15 McGuire-1 CowansFordDarnNC 232 198 42 157.3 59 McGuire-2 CowansFordDarnNC 232 198 42 157.3 59 Millstone-1 Waterford.CT 77 387 46 170.0 52 Millstone-2 Waterford,CT 69 171 128 122.7 82 Millstone-3 Waterford,CT 451 25 233 236.3 31 Mordiceiic Monticello,MN 498 394 33 308.3 17 NineMilePoint-1 Scriba,NY 400 66 35 167.0 55 NineMile Polnt-2 Scriba, NY 359 83 385 275.7 24 NorthAnno 1 MineralVA 488 98 181 255.7 25 NorthAnna-2 MineralVA 488 98 181 255.7 25 Oa nee-1 SenecaSC 79 179 75 111.0 87 Octnee-2 SenecaSC 79 179 75 111.0 87 OctneeG SeneccSC 79 179 75 111.0 87 OysterCreek-1 TomsRiver,NJ 418 845 68 443.7 4 Pthodes SouthHaven,MI 287 61 366 238.0 30 PoloVerde 1 Wintersburg, AZ 197 152 201 183.3 41 PaloVerde2 Wintersburg, AZ 197 152 53 134.0 78 PaloVerdeG Wintersburg,AZ 197 152 56 135.0 77 PeachBottom-2 PeachBottornPA 276 289 118 227.7 33 PeachBottomG PeachBottornPA 276 289 118 227.7 33 Perry-1 North Perry,OH 278 689 37 334.7 13 Pilgrim-1 Plymouth,MA 441 218 463 374.0 10 PointBeach-1 TwoCreeks.WI 93 99 57 83.0 101 PointBeach-2 TwoCreeks.WI 93 99 57 83.0 101 PrairieIsland-1 Redwing,Mr4 54 57 50 53.7 106 PrairieIsland-2 Redwing MN 54 57 50 53.7 106 QuadCities 1 CordcNail 425 563 326 438.0 5 QuadCthes-2 CordcNult 425 563 326 438.0 5 RiverBend-1 St.Francisville,LA 179 515 51 248.3 27 Robinson-2(H.B.) Hartsville,SC 368 114 211 231.0 32 Sdem1 SalernW 292 22 128 147.3 66 Sdem-2 SalernN 114 173 35 107.3 91 SanOnofre-2 SanClemente,CA 256 18 218 164.0 56 SanOnofreG Scr1Clemente,CA 256 18 218 164.0 56 Seabrock-1 SeabrookNH 6 112 11 43.0 108 Sequcgtv1 Daisy, TN 320 162 102 194.7 40 Sequo#>2 Daisy, TN 44 131 102 92.3 % ' ShearonHarris-1 Bonsd,NC 30 223 165 139.3 76 SouthTexas-1 MatagordaCounty,1X 87 19 146 84.0 100 SouthTexas-2 MatagordaCountyTX 164 33 8 68.3 104 St.Lucle-1 FortPierce,FL 230 252 54 178.7 47 St.Lucie-2 FortPierce,FL 230 252 54 178.7 47 Surrmer-1 Jenkinsville,SC 296 373 10 226.3 35 Surry-1 GrcuelNeckVA 195 190 159 181.3 44 WORKER Exrosuus To RADIADON E$,' A35
WORKER EXPOSURE 'Io RADIADON - ALL REACIORS (CONT'D) Co5ective Co5ective Co5ective Average Frpnmirg/ Frpneare/ Frpa= ire / Exposure / ) Reactor Reactor Reactor Rwtor (Rems) (Rems) (Rens) (Rems) REACTOR IDCATION 1993 1994 1995 1993-1995 RANK Surry-2 GrwelNeck,VA 195 190 159 181.2 44 9 rry h1 Berwick,PA 167 222 201 196.7 38 SLaquehanrn2 Berwick,PA 167 222 201 196.7 38 , ThreeMilelsland-l Middletown,PA 206 41 174 140.3 75 ! TurkeyPoint-3 FloridaCity,FL 138 234 99 157.0 61 1 TurkeyPoint-4 FloridaCity,FL 138 234 99 157.0 61 ; VermontYmkee Vernon.VT 213 38 173 141.3 74 l Vogtle-1 Wo/nesboro,GA 183 108 96 129.0 80 ! Vogtle-2 Waynesboro,GA 183 108 0 '. 129.0 80 l WashingtonNuclear-2 Richland,WA 483 861 433 592.3 1 WaterfordG Taft, LA 14 187 52 84.3 99 , WolfCreek-1 Burlington, KS 182 344 16 180.7 46 Zion-1 Zion, IL 320 154 176 216.7 36 Zion-2 Zion, IL 320 154 176 216.7 36 INDUSTRY TOTALS 26,248 22,088 16,332 21,556 INDUSTRY AVERAGES 240.8 202.6 149.8 197.8 1 I i A36 SC APPE.NDIX
e c. mc- en c c a a "": S . E ~
'v T " .
A *l l ,.. t s-T : . . t S y4eD"""'p'i 8 D ,
' a "a 8"
0 a ,
. ,=
,6 E * ., ,
wP.11g
., , v 7 T
I
;, re A
e
' g t' N a.s
, A i e u
v r.
- m. , o
. p u
U ,,,_t - s 4
* ,1
, o
,- t E " p H " r a*
T . u e s
~
I 1 N e m A _ y M I a a e w,,,A , I R n i
. g r sne 1
S 3. y wW a
=
x
=
=
;A S
L w\ E fo 1 3 R = =
= , _;, A o
.n
=
O ,
" i " 'i '
=
e m ne T "
- s r_
'* l
.p
' r
- e. e
^
C o . D. i a. 1 -
.m A9 " d.' r.8'
= s a
~SU Z E9 a r a a e
s A (", R1 R . 8"A C i o
=
=
r= m s u o RE *
- t. A w
= n.=
a t E B . o i a M _s ee WE = , a P va' s a OC g .
=
e P E D .
=
^
R1 A m x D' A
.A
= "
A3 A o *
* = A
=
E = L m o "
" =
C n
- U '
N p i L
%Nc,__~-
o e A I o = m
. =
C = A = - n R o r
= = n e
s E m '- ,: ;00
, 0 a
s s M e
',5e 0 s
,, 1 e 5 e l , i. 3. 3, 0, E ,
, : 27 su u
M 1
" E F
' 1 1 s p
. es O
O ** P s
* ~r . " R ae P :
C :00 0 s
= i":,00 l
T 0
% S 8 5 e.s I 1 e
- a' U9 9 f. s 8
9 s e n 0tt e a 8 f WE TM ""2s ' 9 1 1 en y s, i)
%g
*a T
AR t E 7 C ME f 0 E 1 n-a e^ c u
^
i m ee a c. ep m me
- a. S(
s5 O3 es T . e 5 m~ T; mR
= R - n o
. e -
s0
. A .
o
= .
E L
': .ceus n o
. s20 -
ee82
- c K, .
. c c a I 0 sT - 4 2
'=dn ro o a' .f au eS1 m
c - M 9 es mC0 a E, 29 s
>c -
eOE sDD 5teO l}}