ML20216C299

Forwards Examples of Industry Average Performance Indicators Generated by Ofc of Analysis & Evaluation of Operational Data

ML20216C299
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/05/1998
From:	Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Luxton S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 9805190196
Download: ML20216C299 (5)

Text

i g6 UNITED STATES

_y ,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

%, * * * * * ,o l

Commissioner May 5,1998 u

Citizens Regulatory Commission Attn: Ms. Susan Perry Luxton -

180 Great Neck Road Waterford, CT 06385

Dear Ms. Luxton:

During our meeting on April 6,1998, we discussed the indicators that an electric utility could use to track its plant performance and benchmark against the industry average. For your 1 information, I have enclosed examples of industry average Performance Indicators generated by NRC's Office ,for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD) and the Performance Indicators generated by the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO). We also discussed that some plants that have the best safety records also operated economically I want to provide you with two examples from NUREG/CR-6577, "U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Operating Cost and Experience Summaries" that have relatively low operating costs and high cumulative capacity factors, namely, Monticello and North Anna Unit 2 (annual unit production cost around $80 million and capacity factors at 76% and 78%, respectively). These two nuclear stations not only operated economically but also have excellent safety records as reflected in their recent Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (S' ALP) reports.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and I hope you find the above information helpful.

l Sincerely, /

s ,

3 Nils J.

Enclosure:

As stated cc:PDR NJD396 (p (prA tA' I

'(fAlY 9805190196 990505'~ -

PDR COP 996 NRCC C,ORRESPONDENCE PDR

/ h) k,/ ] N J

l l

\li ll t!

5 7 i 9 - 7 3

0 E 9 1

9 9

8 . 1 3 E 0

• 7 5 .

S 4 0- E 9

9 5

9 E .-

1 9 1 h ge u

o u r

G 2 5

0 e r s o

A s n

o 9

3 r

u s

ht p

x R i t

a 0

7 9 9

1 ol pt r 3

4 2

9 9

3 6E 9

9 no E u a Ev xe .

1 1

,it V r.

t c nl e 7

.3 1 a 8 i A O oe 2 rd e a A

.. i it 1 r t a n r bR m 9 a ie 5 1 9 a o e e ' 9 e dC 5 t c v Y t s

y 1

Y a -

Rno 2

. 1 Y 9 e Oi r c t

e R S " ee v r 8

3 3

flol aC o T t y

e 1 9

i t

cP e(

e 2

9 t

a D79 S f a

3 1

8 9 l l

o 3

3

. 8 9 9 U

1 S .-

C . 1 71 3 8 9 e 9

D 2 1

8 3

• 1 r T h

N o .

1 7 0 7 f s I

5 8 9 1 8 n e u 1 4 9 wl ho v a 1

.- . 1 L 9 0 1 s7 A 2 0

5 e9 r 9 a1 U 7 4 5 8

9 5

7

. 5 8

s r e

u e a N 2 1 5 9

1 l a y vl a N 3 gj i o 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 r s a c A 4 38.g$ ei 4 2 yf 5 E l d a n

- sc a i6 S 4 7 0 - 97 F9 9

R 5 E 0

9 9

0" 1

9 1

6 1 9 r 9 ae O l 1

8  !

.- 1 9 0"

0 1

y T a c 0

. 95 h

ga r ud a A 2 i

5 .- 5 o r nt a t 1 i

r 9 9 9 0 9 0 1 hled C

I C

l e 0 4

.- 1 2

1 t

5 c o 8h af s

i 0 9 t oer D h W 3 1

1

.- 3 9

6 2

3 9

9 1

r b tr ona 7

9 N s 1

.- 1 9

0 0 1 fi u nd q 9

1 I 3 wde ee m 4 2 t r

a 0 o u r o E r c 2 i

.- 1 r t

s n 8 1 r hl h s ct n

p e

C S r

5 1

.- 1 9 a 9 e Y E e

v 0 2 9 a 9

1 e

Y eim r

a reor R

l a

N t o

c e.

t n

a I s e a f u7 e

,d u

n A a e .,5 .- 9 ic f 7 9 l

a9 v9l a t

A n

MR i

8 n 7 8 9 r1 o,p D 9 ig 0 1 a c .- 1 S 8 e1 a r O E

R i t

a 2

2 8 8 0

y3t r r x a e e A O m o

0 6

.- 7 8

5 8

7 8

9 db n

e mi e u s

e e

c F t u 3

.- 1 9 0 .

1 l

a c Cel o r

u R A 0 5

6 6 ' Dv a S

E 1

4  :

8 5 8 .- 5

I P . 5 2 I 8 9

1 2

2

. ~

1 8

9

~ - - 5 2 6 1 5 0 2 I' 0 O 4 2 .

0

{h f51 }lz 5

ll

1997 WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Unit Capability Factor "

m ,,,

9 Unit capability factor is the percentage of matmum energy generation that a plant is capable of supplying to the electri- [3 E7

.7 ,, 7u cal grid, limited only by factors within the control of plant 3

]

g management. A high unit capability factor indicates effective j g[,G

. plant programs and practices to mmimi7e unplanned energy j, losses and to optimize planned outages. The 1997 value, 8 g@

' although a slight decline from recent performance levels, remsms a marked improvement over performance in the g

zo g

mid-1980s. ' h amm a im e a tu in im g Unplanned Capability Loss Factor "

,a Unplanned capability loss factor is the pscwuge of maxi- 12 m mum energy generation that a plant is not capable of supply- ,@ _ in ing to the electncal grid because of unplanned energy losses, 5.H "

such as unplanned shutdowns or outage extensions. A low "

value indicates important plant equipment is well maintained j and reliably operated and there are few outage extensions.

Since 1980, the industry has made steady progress in control-g~4 u ling unplanned shutdowns and outage length. The 1997 value p

represents a continuation of that trend. '

~

a m2 m a im m 1m a in a g 3

Unplanned Automatic Scrams '

u The unplanned automatic scrams per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical y #

g b 8 indicator tracks the median scram (automatic shutdown) mte for approximately one year (7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />) of operation. j .g s u Unplanned automatic scrams result in thermal and hydrau- )

gj4 ss lic transients that affect plant systems. The scram rate has been significantly reduced since 1980. g'j 3

~

u hi " "

u u ggu g

' a.-

sam m me a 1m m is im g Safety. System Performance j e ,,

The safety system performance indicator monitors the

ge k avadability of three important standby safety systems to mitigate off-normal events. The industry's goalis to

} h

.g e encourage a high state of readiness, with at least 85 t percent of these systems meeting specific 2000 goals for j #

amilability in excess of 97 percent. The 85 percent target j allows for normal year-to-year variations in individual 2'

$ {r/

system performance. The 1997 value represents strong performance well exceeding that target.

j, b m in m a is m a tm inn g

, i

== '*

Thermal Performance ic e , _ 10 3 penn21 performance monitors how efSciently a plant ,

converts thermal energy into electrical output. A low gross { iors ion 3ea ' " toim .

be2t rate indicates high efficiency. Plants also measure thenn21 performance by comparing the best achievable

{g '"

heat rate to the heat rate actually attained. Using this y me2sure, the actual 1997 industry median value is an a em l pent over the 1996 year-end performance. 3 J Confirming this, the grapL shows an improving trend in j industry gross heat rate. m '

12o 1K 1964 126 138 1990 1992 1994 1996 1997 s:: l Ii'5idT NN. .$1 Reliability 4 Thefuct reliabihty indicator monxtors progress in peo ng 3

. '" M

, as is rdefects in the metal cbdding that surmunds fuct The long-term $ ao 5

": fodustry goalis that units should stdve to operate with zero fuel j so 58 i

% chading defects, enn though minor defects pose no e minenne 3 4 * " 4 i e

]: safety concem and are difficult to eHrniete ennrely. 'Ibe graph 5 ,

shows the percentage ofplants with no eboding defects - I

$2pparent dunng steady state operation. The percentage has t[ improved *r inenntly since 1989, and the industry is using f2 9.h ~ py sophisticated monitoring to detect the smallest 8 in, issa is,, 3m ,,a 3,,, 3 ,5 isg. ,, me

$Id5: cts and take appropriate corrective action. "

$M$ - -

i:N

,.. . . :y dChemistry Performance .e 5 9'Ihe

~; chemistry performance indicator monitors operational g ,,

.. chemistry control efectiveness as measured by the concen- 8 m

".tration of important impurities and corrosion products. In

'. boiling water reactors, the indicator focus is on reactor

{*

j g a 8

sor trns a:iceer

' ' coolant chemistry control In pressurized water reactors, g m,or mig

_ the focus is on secondary system chemistry. This graph j, -

. shows the percentage of units achieving specific 2000 goals 'g .

.thatvary according to plant design. 5

, , 1994 1715 1995 1957 g ~

h

~ ;,.

9-e 4

n.

. . . ;; b. ; -

M '.';;M i 3.; AdNOM.: D +,eM

~i- ~.{ U .f .I,L.c 3 E N, : -:ih $. h [ 3[%~h i d54 [ M ; "'% V h

Collective Radiation Exposure m e neceve ramation aposure inecator monitors the eiYectiveness of personnel radiation exposure controls for pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors.

Low exposure indicates strong management attention to radiological protection. Worker exposure has been reduced significantly over the past decade, and in 1997, the BWR czposure met the industry year 2000 goat a tm

-m j

3 PWR Plants fa s m BWR Plants 1 ~

1-t 1 ~

I- lihm.I!

a m tw a ms is a im a w g I. line a tu m tses as a tu tm is in g Volume of Solid Radioactive Waste Ms indcal r m nit n the volume of solid rado2cdve waste produced per unit for pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. MinimMng radioactive waste reduces storage, transportation and disposal needs, lessen-ing the cuvhopentalimpact of nuclear power. The 1997 values continue to be much better than the year 2000 goals.

u "

, , .in a B i m ix m =

g , , l g PWR Plants BWR Plants I

3rm 1sm a

i,ll~ " il 4 1a s 1a a s = m EEm = .7 ERm " m a

3 , EEn&2 A 3,  : =44 m

== ... . . . =

Industrial Safety Accident Rate "

The industrial safety accident rate tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work thue, restricted work or j

6 un fatalities per 200,000 worker hours.The nuclear industry j ,,

continues to provide one of the saferindustrial work environments.

g*

g ,

5 ga "* w y 0

b

.. ..... . .. =

-