ML20216D015
| ML20216D015 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/05/1998 |
| From: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Beachy L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9805190477 | |
| Download: ML20216D015 (5) | |
Text
F UNITED STATES e
'l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 o
CoMMISSICNER ggg i
u I
I Mr. Uoyd Beachy c/o City Manager -
City of New London i
181 State Street I
New London, CT 06320
Dear Mr. Beachy:
During our meeting on April 6,1998, we discussed the indicators that an electric utility could used to track its plant performance and benchmark against the industry average. For your 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. 1 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 i
cost around $80 million and capacity factors at 76% and 78%, respectively). These two nuclear stations not only operated economically but also have excellent iafety records as reflected in their recent Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) reports.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and I hope you find the above information helpful.
Sincerely,
,}
f q
l-Nils J.
$$3
Enclosure:
As stated cc:PDR l
NJD397 an
[ h O b.
9805190477 900505
//
PDR COtW1S IWtCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR p)
[j@)5d X o kf -5 bn,
cpvu
ll il{j llI llll j
l IiI ll 5o0 Zbj g$
0 2
s 6
0 2
}
o 5
1
~
2 5
1 1
9 5
,i; 9
2 P
8 2
6 3
5 5
8 8
E 1
S vD*
A R
6 o
a u
l e C 0
u 1
u c a 1
3 F
0 9
t rc e e le 9
e imn 6
8 8
6 o
bd m
O s
7 5
7 0
2 e e a 0
a A
x r r 2
t R
8 E
r 3y 8
t i
6 c
a e
S O
p
,1 M
D o1 r 9
gi 1
a 1
0 9
R l
8 7
n 8
8 9a i
e A
a9v 9
7 i
9 A
f a
t l
c n
e,7 u 0
a E
c n
d n
8 t
e 4
N u
a s 6
t 3
o rfr a
E Y
1 oe a Y
0 v
e 9 1
r l
1 5
S C
E r
R mie e
9 E2 e
a 9 n
a 9 e
t c s r
1 8
n r
1 2
c E
p hl h s
1 r
t o
r u o 0
a
,t eedw E.
r e
4 3
q dn 0
3 m
IN 1
s 1
1 uif 0
9 9
ano 9
E2 W
9 9
r r
9 D
t b 3
0 3
3 7
e o1 1
h r
t 9
0 i
s h8 m2 0
I le oc 5 1
0 C
C 4
fa t
1 de h 1
a r
9 0
9 r
l A
no 9
1 9
9 i
tadu 5,
2 5.
0 c
5 t
i T
ag h
0 a
r y
_ 0 8
l O
e 9
1 1
a 9 1
.,50 R
1 0
r 9 9
9 96 1
^
9 5
1 97,- 0 7.,
4 9F S
6i s ac na dl o
g fy Y
}4 A
ie 2
,4 6
s a 0
0 0
N-c r o
0 0
0 0
3 a
v l
y a N
e ul 1
1 9
5 9
2 a e 8
7 U
8 7
r s 5
5 5
4 1
a 9r 7s 0
A 9e 5
2 0
a o L
1 vh 9
1 w
9 4
1 l
1 u
9 I
e n 8
1 8
5 N
7 0
,s f
7 1
o r
T' h1 D
1 9
2 e
8 9
3 U
97 C
a 1
1 S
9 8
3 o
1 9
1 9
a l
S 3
l 7D 9
2
(
e 8
3 f
Pc 9
1 e
T.
Ca t
t t
o a 3
ei y
r v R
l f
3 se S
el o 8
c r o
y nR s
Y "O
Y 1
- a Y
e 9 2
1 t
Cd e
9 c
M t
a 9 5
e ei 1
5 a
a 9
o r
m A
Rb t i A
n r
1 t
a e l
dr 2
s o V
o 6
i n
ia,I 7
e c
i vE
,7 t
t E
u o1 1
ex a
n9 9
2 rp 1
4 t
9
.o 9
9 3
9 7
o R
t
) o i
E,6 s
3 x
3 A
t u
n poh r
s r
e 0
s o
eg G
u 5
u r
2 1
E h
9 1
0 9
9 S
5 ;
5 7
9 4
0 1 ;
U38 9
1 0
9 9 53 7
9 7
5 l
j 1
r 1997 WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS i
k
@b h
Unit Capability Factor su
,s 3 m3,,,
Unit capability factor is the percentage of mnMmum energy
{
g7 m 89 4 M genention that a plant is capable of supplying to the electri-27 t'
g management. A high unit capability factor indicates effective 5
@4*>
cal grid, limited only by factors within the control of plant
]
N' plant programs anc practices to mmtmi7e unplanned energv.
5 losses and to optimize planned outages. The 1997 value, although a slight decline from recent performance levels, 5
8 N
rminim a marked improvement over performance in the S
. j f
19s0 1982 1984 tsu 1sas to tes2 tsu to tss7 g
Unplanned Capability Loss Factor tu Unplanned capabdity loss f2ctor is the pa%e of maxi-12 tu mum energy generation that a plant is not capable of supply-j to ing to the electrical grid because of unplanned enegy losses, p{,
8' g
such as unplanned shutdowns or outage ntmsions. A low value indicates important plant equipment is well maintained f.g a s4 u 4,
and reliably opented and there are few outage extensions.
d Since 1980, the industry has Inade steady progress in control-u
(%
2 ling unplanned shutdowns and outage length. 'Ibc 1997 value 2
represents a continuation of that trend.
~
taso iss2 tse4 ises tsee tse tu m tsse w g
i Unplanned Automatic Scrams n
The unplanned atttomatic scmms per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical
]
indicator tracks the median scram (automatic shutdown) u o
8 rate for approximately one year (7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />) of opention.
g{g j
s u
Unplanned automatic scrams result in thermal and hydrau-4 c
is lic transients that affect plant systems. The scram rate has
{~]2 been significantly reduced since 1980.
g 2
o j
h" " B M u u u u
?
R 0
1980 1982 1sB4 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1997 g Safety 5ystem Performance s"
s The safety system performance indicator monitors the u
g se availability of three important standby safety systems
}
jn}
to mitigate off-normal events. The industry's goal is to i
e encounge a high state of readiness, with at least 85
'n percent of these systems meeting specific 2000 goals for
}"
$2 j
y1 availability in excess of 97 percent. The 85 percent target
'f i
allows for normal year-t > year variations in individual 3
4 system performance. Th.:.1997 value represents strong ij performance well exceeding that target.
~)
I JJ 1sas isso :ss, in im s e e
- M
Dermal Performance
, 'm
==
iust am Itennal performance monitors how efHciently 2 plant m3 tu s,a am **
converts thermal energy into electrical output. A low gross E
st:s he2r rate indicates high efficiency. Plants also measure f '"
thennal perfornunce by comparing the best achievable i
heat rate to the heat rate actually nrrntned. Using this j
me2sure, the actual 1997 industry median value is an
=m
. Improvement over the 1996 year <nd performance.
3 Confinmng this, the gnph shows an hnproving trend in c 'indtstry gross heat rate.
m 1180 1982 1984 128 128 1990 1992 1994 1996 1357 t.-..:
SW wu INel Reliability Mfuel reliability indicr.or momtors progress in piorJag
$e n
ndefecs in the metal ebadmg that surrounds fuci. Tne long-tenn T
7' m
Yindustry goal is that units should strive to operate with zero fuel j s0 Ecfadf.ing defects, even though minor defects pose no dp6ennt
]
[Jshdws the percentage of plants with no ebdding defects safety concem and are difficult to enmimte entheir. Tbc graph i
5 e
$@t during steady-state operanon. The pw cm qe has f2 f frnproved egniMe,nt y since 1989, and the industryis using ic ~ ity sophisticated momtonng to detect the emnes
'8
$ defects and take.ippivpd.ite corrective action.
S8 fMi$
R..s..i e
g
{ Chemistry Performance a
[1Ne chemutry performance indicntor monitors opentional g
l pchemistry control effectiveness as measured by the concen-k
{,tretion of important impurities and corrosion products. In f,,
_ boiling water reactors, the indicator focus is on reactor t
earins ascaer 8
i 3
{ccolant chemistry control. In pressunzed water reactors, g
IN D N)
, the focus is on secondary system chemistry. This graph f,
i shows the percentage of units achieving specfic 2000 goals thu vary according to plant design.
))
'i 1an tu in tw
' i?
..c
- h.
':..e
,7 *i*
/
4 I
e M
3
$.LYWjW4l+$$Y?lWS[.y.ll.
. ; j 1' l
- i. 2
..: T..t, a ~ '
1
>Sa<3 ~ -)
a,_,.
.3 '.
...... - L.l, : '
..s
' ' ^ Micl
'u.
.l:I O 5.j[lll&7;Q if:u. QS CollectiYe Radiation Exposure
- c H*cd'* '252 don *m inec2r r monitors the effecuveness of personnel radiation exposure controls forpressurized water reactors and boiling wuter reactors.
{
Low @urc indicates strong management attention i
to radiological protection. Worker ez)osure has been i
reduced *nifimely over the past decade, and in 1997, i
the BWR exposure met the industry year 2000 goat m
3 n
j 8
p w g piant, m
BWR Plants m
i 1-o =
= -
E 2 -
'E rs re m 1
c.,
g.
m_ _ _ _ _ _
g Vclume of Solid Rad.ioact.ive Waste This indicator monbrs the volume of solid radioactive waste predhced per unit for pressurized w2ter reactors and boiling water reactors. Minimbing radioactive waste reduces storage, transportation.and disposal r eeds, lessen-ing the environment 21 impact of nuclear pov r. The 1997 values contintie to be much better than the year 2000 goals.
300 j
i.M
., _h g-J-
aY 11 m
ag =
31*
g-
=
& du g,,
q,*g b uis
=
Industrial Safety Accident Rate The industrial safety accident rate tracks the number of l
accidents that result in lost work time, restricted work or j
m fatalities per 200,000 worker-hours.'Ibe nuclear industry g*
"~
w continues to provide one of the safer industnal work g
m environments.
g*
E Ly ta oc w
,g
_ _ ______ _ _