ML20247J821

Forwards Examples of Industry Average Performance Indicators Generated by NRC Office of Analysis & Evaluation of Operational Data & Performance Indicators Generated by World Association of Nuclear Operators

ML20247J821
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	05/05/1998
From:	Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Schuman L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 9805210418
Download: ML20247J821 (6)

Text

_____ _-__ _ __-_ _-_________ - __- _ -_ - _____ - _ ___ _ _ _

[/grw%k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q2 Y F UNITED STATES

{

WASHINGTON, D.c. 20555 g7)g Jf.,

%,g* *4 /

W-Y2 3 COMMISSIONER May 5,1998 l

- Ms. Lucy Schuman Millstone Advisory Committee 7 West Main Street Niantic, Ct. 06357

Dear Ms. Schuman:

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 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 Ucensee Performance (SALP) reports.

On April 3,1998, you faxed a letter to me with the following question:

Q. In the code ofFederalRegulationsparagraph 50.7 the Rules ofProtectedActivities are described. These rules as written essentially take away the licensees ability to manage his organization. What ifanything can or will the NRC do to assist the licensee in dealing-with this protectedactivity?

The NRC's employee protection rule is essentially mandated by an Act of Congress for protection of employees from discrimination for raising safety concems to their employers or the

[

NRC (a statutory provision found at Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended). The Congress and the NRC recognize rightly that employees must be free to raise i

safety concems.

[/@/

I disagree with the premise that the rules as written take away the licensee's ability to manage his organization. NRC rules acknowledge that adverse actions against an employee can be predicated on non-discriminatory grounds, and an employee's engagement in protected activities does not automatically render him or her immune from discharge or discipline for legitimate reasons.

9905210418 990505 PDR COMMS MtCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR 37 Onnj m cy - @

y

2 The NRC's Office of Investigation (01) finds discrimination ir. about 11-13 percent of the cases investigated. After 01 makes a finding of discrimination, the finding is reviewed by the NRC Enforcement Staff, the Office of General Counsel and Regional Management before enforcement action can be initiated. Ucensees also have an opportunity to present information at a pre-decisional enforcement' conference. If the NRC moves forward and issues a notice of violation and proposed enforcement action, a licensee still has an opportunity to challenge the action and obtain a hearing. Therefore, I believe fair processes are in place. However, the NRC endeavors to provide a fair process and due process for all parties and periodically reviews the process to find ways to make it more efficient and effective.

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

Sincerely, J

Nils J.

Enclosure:

As stated cc:PDR NJD395

E 2

h 9

G 1

ge 2

5 3

u 0

e 0

o r

A u

t s

r 2

h n

3 s

3 R

o 9

3 6,

o) 9 9

i t

9 t

4 pr a

2 9

9 1

E x e 1

u Ev 1

e 7

V tc nl 6

I a

rd A

o i 2

e A

m i t 1

n bR r

t r

9 a

a 5

1 o

i e 5

9 a

t e

9 e

dC 2

9 e

c Y.

t 1

s Y

a -

Y Oi 1

Rn y

o 6

ol r

R S

ee 3

fl r

v 3

T i e a

y t

t t

cP a

1 9

e 8

e(

2 9

D7 S

3 f

l 3

8 9

a 1

3 9

.9 l

U 1

o S

C 9

1 71 3

8 2

9 D

8 1

1 3

r N

o 1

7 f s 0

7 5

8 1

8 n

I 9

1 4

9 wl 1

o L

1 9

h 1

0 0

s7 A

a1 2

5 e9 r9 U

4 5

5 5

s 7

8 7

8 e

9 2

5 9

u N

1 1

la vl N

3 0

0 0

0 0

r 0

0 0

a 6

4.

2 ei A

4 8

yf 5 E.

45 l

d a n 3

c s

iF S

l 7

0

'7 R

0" 9

61 9

1 9

9 r 9

1 O

l 1

9 a 9

1 1

00" 8

l h r T

a ga 0

i l

5 2

5 ud c

A t

5 9

o n 0"

1 r

9 9

i 9

r l 9

1 h

C C

0 l

1 t

1 5 c 4

2M e

8 h 0,

0 9

I l

i 1

D h

b 1

W l

3 6

3 r

9 2

9 3

9 on N

1 9

0 1

fi u 1

s nd I

m l

1 l

03 wd 3

4, 0

o a

E r

1 s

h c

2 l

1 r

n 8

1 r

s l

t 9

a 9 a e

2 9

e i

e C

S 5

r 9

e v

0 Y

a 1

Y E

1 r

l 1

N s

o 3

tn e

8 a

t u7 c

A l

c 1

i 7

- 9 v9l a9 a

l 9

if e

8 8

n 7

MR l

1 iS 8

a 1

9 r

9 g

0 1

e1 a c

8 y3 R

8 i

r r 2

0 a e ta 2

- 7 n

O m

l 7

db 5

0 8

8 8

e 9

o 6

l F

9 0

1 a

t 3

R A

1 Cel u

8 D

6 1

E

5 3

8 8

' 5 P

j i, I9 9

8 2

1 1

5 2

5 5

0 1

2 1

0 4

2 0

{

oj o

1997 WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS M &hiRl5 $$5sNNSMFPEn%N858$DNki& &n281 l Unit Capability Factor y

a Unit capability factor is the percentage of m:mmum energy j

ns h,g 3

.7

,, a4 70 generanon that a plant is capable of supplying to the e.lecni-82 8 g

$s4 cal grid, limited only by factors within the control or plant

]

W management. A high unit capabil#y factor indicates effective E

Si plant programs and practices to mtmmf7e unplanned energy 2

[4 losses and to optimize planned outages. The 1997 value, a!:hcugh a slight decline from recent performance levels, l

2. l g

remnim a marked improvement over performance in the "l

h mid-1980s.

im ne:

,m as im im is m.

is, er g

Unplanned Capability Loss Factor

,r.

Unplanned capability loss factor is the pccuuge 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 energy losses, s3 as 85 p]!,

such as unplanned shutdowns or outage extensions. A low value indicates important plant equipment is wc!! maintained and reliably operated and there are few outage extensions.

-74 o

Since 1980, the industry has made stcady progress in control-u g

ling unplanned shu downs and outage length. The 1997 value 5;s rveresents a c=tinuation of that uend.

,g

,a im,,

m, im

,a e,

,e m7 g

Unplanned Automatic Scrams n

The unplanned automatic scrams per 7,000 nous critical

]

indicator tracks the median scram (automatic shutdown)

D rate for approximately one year (7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />; of operation.

jg{g s

Unplanned automatic scrams result in thermal and hydrau.

4 u

lic tmnsients that affect plant svstems. The scram rate has been significantly reduced since 1980.

{~]3 g

g u

5 i

e.a u

E =.s as.

m.

0 198. 12C 1984 1'J 19s8 12 1m 1994 1996 1997

+

Safety System Performance g"

The safety system performance indicator monitors the availability of three important standby safety systems ga g

g 7

to mitigate off-normal events. Tbc industry's goal is to

]

a d.

p$;

encourage a high state of readiness, with at least 85 2

percent of these systems meeting specific 2000 goals for j#

E$-

avadability in excess of 97 percent. The 85 percent target E

allows for normal year-to-year variations in individual fif 3

system performance. The 1997 value represents strong g

l performance well exceeding that target.

1 1m im 1991 tm 1m me is im its g

l n

-..+.

,. [:$ib

[ : bi

.cN.

'hh hb b d hN kNtiIhkh

.; j W

'" c er Thermal Performance 1=

f

.Itermal Performance monitors how efUciently a plant

'" tori cone thermal energy into electrical output. A low gross g

ion,,,,,, " 1a m heat rate indicates high efSciency. Plants also measure g'"

l thermal performance by comparing the best achievable g

i l

beat rate to the heat rate actually atMned. Using this j

me2sure, the actual 1997 industry median value is an ssao pent over the 1996 year-end performance.

ConSrming this, the graph shows an improving trend in industry gross beat rate.

m 12 1s82 ts54 1s96 1s88 1%D 1s02 1sse 1s96 1s97

.n.:

' MI Reliability a

a lg The fuc[ g@ indacator monitors pfO pm in yssvm J

g t

,,, defects in the metal chaarne that surrounds fuel. The long<ctm j

j iindasuy goalis that units should strive to operate with zero fuel

}]

C,+ sing defects, even though minor defects pose no ha -

$a

! / safety concern and are dif5 cult to enminste ennrely. The graph i

e 3

shows &c puwe of plants with no chading defects j

3

, d ajiparent durmg steady-state operation. The puuuw has 8

g

%ved =ignMmnry since 1989, and the industry is using d

I i lacrrmingty so,nhicimted monitoring to detect the unsile<t 9

tsis isso tesi ist vss: 1994 1sse 1ses iss7 moo I

ifdefects 2nd take appropriate COucuivs action.

' g:f

,EM i ;; Chemistry Performance s

a

. _ s.

g l ?ihe chennstry performance indicator monitors operational l

g

.. chemistry control effectiveness as measured by the concen-E,

! ; tration ofimportant impurities and corrosion products. In j,

ghoiling water reactors, the indicator focus is on reactor j

ena mes:w 8

j coolant chennstry control In pressurized water reactors, g,

8"" 2 1994) l. the focus is on secondary system chennstry. This graph

{

l showJ the percentage of units achieving specific 2000 goals

]

that Tary according to plant design.

2

,s...

l 5

i j

, *)

l l,h l

s i

+

, q.

3 ac >.

'y...b '

.,l $..

Si.Y S

n.:,,

+ 1l l - -

I^['*

'l_ ; ;j - l Collective Radiation Exposure The c nectae ramaem ap sure hiccator niorziton the effectiveness of personnel radiation exposure controls for pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors.

Low cIposure indicates strong mamarment 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 800 1000

- m PWR Piants soo BWR Plants si

's rao st7 a

i

=

s I"

litheeeii i lite i tm m im nas nas im ism nos 1sm im g

g 1sso a iss4 tses ism im a im ism im Yelume of Solid Radioactive Waste

• " " ' " "i' "'h " i""* "d'** ^*"'*

waste produced per unit for pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors.1Winim*g radioactive wast,e reduces storage, transportation and disposal needs, lessen-ing the 6vhcumentalimpact of nuclear power. The 1997 values contintic to be much better than the year 2000 goals.

m Y

.m a

E

.s a

3h

?y a

=

m,,,

PWR Plants g

B W R Plants Es a 1

m

31..

m gs.

g5

-m

=

o n

I E

=

or I E m

m m

s ds.L A d $s E

'i nio m im me ma m im is is im g

ism im us4 tm im is in 1m is a g

1 l

Industrial Safety Accident Rate The Industnal safety accident rate tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work thne, restricted work or a

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

continues to provide one of the safer industrial work g*

envuonments, g

a

=

j aso i '" u cc l}E

.5 D

1geo 1982 1984 1986 1956 1990 1992 1994 1996 19N