ML20248E282
| ML20248E282 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/05/1998 |
| From: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Concannon T CONNECTICUT, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9806030259 | |
| Download: ML20248E282 (5) | |
Text
I
&- L p~
'f UNITED STATES e
4 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
,y WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
[
U=CE!Ybb I
gi) 's 14 13 7: 50 COMMISSIONER May 5, fy 00MW M The Honorable Terry Concannon Nuclear Energy Advisory Council Room 4035 -
Legislative Office Building Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106
Dear Representative Concannon:
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 580 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 (SALP) reports.
Again, ! appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and I hope you find the above information helpful.
Sincerely, f.,\\
/
i Nils J.
2 Enclosure As stated
/cc:PDR I
NJo394
.)
y 9006030259 980500 I
M,
,( @)r PDR COMMS NRCC
.y CORRESPONDENCE PDR N /j C
t f,W Com s f
E9 0
o 9
E 2
h 1
1 g
2 u
G 5 !
3 o
0 r
0 e
s r
2 h
A u
' 3 6
n 3
s t
R o
9 3
o) 9 9
i 9
t 4
9 9
t pr 2
1 a
1 E
x e 1
u E v t
e 7
I V
c nl 6
r o s 2
e A
r t
i it A
m 0
1 n
r o
b 9
a a
5 1
ie 9 a t
0 5
c 9
e dC 2
9 e
e Y
O 1
Y Y
a -
t 1
1 s
Rn r
y 0
o 6
o R
f S
0 es 3
v 3
a r
1 e
T y
it t
cP a
t 1
9 8
le(
2 9
D e
S f
3-9 l
3 9
3 8
a 1
1 o
U S
C 1
71 9
3 8
9 2
8 1
D
~
3 1
ro N
f 7
0 7
8 8
n 1
I 9
4 9
w 1
1 o
h L
9 1
2 5
s 0
0 e
A ar U
5 s
4 5
5 8
7 8
e 7
9 u
2 5
9 l
N 1
1 av N
3 2
0 0
0 0
0 r
0 0
0 a
6 3
2 e
Bk%
g$
y A
{
jyg a
l c
i s
S
- 7 0,
0"-
7 4
9 6
R 5 E9 1
9 9
9 1
0 9
O
- 1 9
1 0"
1 0
h 8
l g
T a
0 u
c 2
, 5 i
- 5 9
o 1 m9 5
A t
rh 9
9 i
9 0
r 1
t 0
C
- 1 C
1 5
- 2. E 4
8 e
0 0
9 I
l D
i 1
- 3 1
h 6
3 r
2.59 9
3 o
W 1
9 0
1 9
f N
s
- 1 n
1 0
I m
3E w
3 4
0 o
a 1'
s h
E r
t 8
1 r
s c
2
- 1 r
n 9
a 25 9 e
e 9 a e
C S
5 r
9 e v
0 1
r
- 1 Y
E Y
a 1
s N
t o
3 n
eu 6
a t
l c
ic A
a f
7 9
v a
- 9 i
7 5
8 e
n 9
r M
8 8
R 9
ig 0
1 a
e c
6
- 1 S
8 y
8 R
r i
2 0
a ta 2
db 5
7 n
O m
- 7 8
0 8
o 6
0 1
le 8
9 9
a F
t 3
Ce u
- 1 6
R A
6 1
E
- 5 3
8 8
5 9
P I9 8
2 1
1 5
5 2
5 1
2 1
0 4
2 0
h2j
$o3EZ
l.
1997 WANO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS i
U FOR X1404 NMity ilim blem
.,,,7
. ; h
(
Unit Capability Factor r,
so 7u Unit capability factor is the percentage of mnimum energy j
e4 y
,3 generation that a plant is capable of supplying to the electn-3 82 7 #8 cal grid, limited only by factors within the control of plant
]
g; management. A high urut capability factor indicates effective 5
y:
plant programs and practices to minimize unplanned energy
}
a losses and to optimize planned outages. The 1997 value,
[
k NA although a slight decline from recent performance levels, 5
8 j
remains a marked improvement over performance in the E
mid-1980s.
,e im a m
,a m in m 3.
mr Unplanned Capability Loss Factor Unplanned capability loss factor is the percentage of maxi-
'2 mum energy generation that a plant is not capable of supply-j _1a ing to the electrical grid because of unplanned energy losses, g.g,
ai such as unplanned shutdowns or outage extensions. A low h'
value indicates imponant plant equipment is well maintained and reliably operated and them are few outage extensions.
g ~) 4 o
y u
Since 1980, the industry has made steady progress in control-gy; ling unplanned shutdowns and outage length. The 1997 value VS represents a continuation of that trend.
ma a a m a a 3m a a a g
Unplanned Automatic Scrams n
The unplanned automatic scrams per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> critical
]
u indicator tracks the median scram (automatic shutdown) b rate for approximately one year (7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />) of operation.
j{ s u
Unplanned automatic scrams result in thermal and hydrau-g54 38 lic transients that affect plant systems. The scram rate has p,~
been significantly reduced since 1980.
g r
a i
o, u
u umu G zg m ma m me aaa m x Safety System Performance j,
- The safc7 system performance indicator monitors the g so h;
availability of three important standby safety systems g,
[3 to mitigate off normal events. The industry's goal is to
]
{j{;
so encourage a high state of readiness, with at least 85 3
g$
p rcent of these systems meeting specific 2000 goals for E
availability in excess of 97 percent. The 85 percent target I
f allows for normal year-to year variations in individual 3
s} stem performance. The 1997 value represents strong g
performance well exceeding that target.
d m
- m m1 mz e a e 26 5'
v l
u
'^
. J. ^. !$5 I
-[ _
" To m l
Thermal Performance
,=
" 1031 Thermal performance monitors how effic.iently a plant 3en,g,,g, converts thermal energy into electrical output. A low gross
}
4eu heat ste indicates high efficiency. Plants also measure j '"
thermal performance by comparing the best achievable j
heat rate to the heat rate actually attained. Using this j
measure, the actual 1997 industry median value is an y
920 mprovement over the 19% year-end performance.
3 Confirmmg this, the graph shows an itoproving trend in industry gross heat rate.
m 1E 1982 19M 1986 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1997 fuel Reliability The fuel rehabdity indicator monitors progress in prernting
_E n
defects in the metal cladding that surrounds fuet ne long<erm j
7' 5
andustry goalis that units should strive to opemte with zero fuel j
e se claddmg defects, even though minor defects pose no significant 3
4 safe.f concern and are difScult to ehmmate entirely. The graph i e shows the percentage ofplants with no chadmg defects 3
epparent during steady 4 tate operation. The percentage has j
to improved significantly since 1989, and the industry is using 8
faceasingly sophisticated monitoring to detect the smallest
,,,,,,,,,3 3,
- 33 5*
defects and take appropriate correcthe action.
Chemistry Performance g"
He chemistry performance indicator monitors operational g
chemistry control effectiveness as measured by the concen-R, tration ofimportant impurities and corrosion products. In j
boiling water reactors, the indicator focus is on reactor j
for una:ator 28 3
pnorm tm coolant chemistry control. In pressurized water reactors, g,
the focus is on seccndary system chemisuy. This graph 3
shows the percentage of units achiesing specific 2000 goals
]
that vary according to plant design.
2 19 9 in is,a l
l
-I
'l
~
.[
s
.l
.hyhk l
Collective Radiation Exposure The conecce radiation expoetre indicator monitors the effectiveness of personnel radition exposure controls for pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors.
Low exposure indicates strong management attention to radiological protection. Worker exposure has beca reduced significantly over the past decade, and in 1997, the BWR exposure met the industry year 2000 goal.
g 1000 900 859 PWR Plants aco BWR Plants h"
sa 3
"E 1
1-g-
g g
n a n E
g m
5 ns m
m 1u a
s a tm a 1988 is iso: e im w g
1980 m 1984 1985 1988 1m im 1*
g Ms hidicat r m nit n thnolume of soud radioache Volume of Solid Radioactive Waste waste produced per unit for pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. Afinimi7ing radioactive waste reduces storage, transportation and disposal needs, lessen-ing the emironmentalimpact of nuclear power. The 1997 values continue to be much better than the year 2000 goals.
se m
a
}
E sa s
a
=
y E
PWR Plants 3
BWR Plants s g no E& a 5 3 il a
h=
ala o
IE as e
m m
3 442A 3
= m 5
am 15 = = = = * *
'"7 a m im a m 1m a e a e g
Industrial Safety Accident Rate m
The industrial safety accident rate tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work time, restricted work or y
i so fatalities per 200,000 worker-hours.The nuclear industry g
' 3d continues to provide one of the safer industrial work g
3.a ernimnments.
g 12 g
g w
a no ads o ss o sa m m m m m
,m a m m e e
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _