Table Of ContentIAEA-TECDOC-1098
XA9951766
Evaluatingd nai mproving
nuclear power plant
operating performance
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGEN\AC/ Y
UZr^AL
July 1999
3 0 - 35
The IAEA does not normally maintain stocks of reports in this series.
However, copf ietohs ese repn omrotsi crn oeifli ecrchoter oe onbbic tan fioanrcemd from
IMS Clearinghouse
International Atomic Energy Agency
Wagramer Strasse 5
001 xoPB.O .
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.iaea.org/programmes/inis/inis.htm
Orders shoue ldab ccompaniey dpb repaymenf oAt ustrian Schillings 100,-
e hft onira m cfo heqe hftu oni errom f o IAEA microfiche service coupons
which may be ordered separately from the INIS Clearinghouse.
e hoTriginating Sectionf ot his publicatioe hInt Ani EA was:
Nuclear Power Engineering Section
International Atomic Energy Agency
Wagramer Strasse 5
P.O. Box 100
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
EVALUATING AND IMPROVING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
OPERATING PERFORMANCE
IAEA, VIENNA, 1999
iAEA-TECDOC-1098
ISSN 1011-^289
©IAEA, 1999
Printed by the IAEA in Austria
July 1999
FOREWORD
During the last decade, there have been significant improvements in the worldwide
operating performance of nuclear power plants. The world energy availability factor grew
from n ai1 b9% n o8oa21it9u 7b9 %t 9o87u7.t Although some plants have consistently high
energy availability, others have remained below the international averages. There are a
number of countries, utilities and plants that have shown consistently high availability
practically since ehst tarf too peration, while others have remained consistently below average
d na some utilities have improved their operation managementd na thereby increasedeht
energy availability factor.
This report aims to provide the basis for improvements in the understanding of nuclear
power plant operations and ideas for improving future productivity. The purpose of the project
was to identify good practices of operating performance at a few of the world's most
productive plants. This res papowrret pared througa hs er fieocs onsultants meetingas,
specialists n mAaed edvtniinsaog ry Group meeting with participat fiooenx perts f3ro2m
Member e rSehts pabn Totisaereos stl e.fd- assessf mhoa eadnlo f tzen plants that have been
chosens a representativesf o different reactor types as nim any different countrieehst dn,a
view danass sessm ephetn afort ticipann tgos ood practices influencing plant performance.
Three main areas that influence nuclear power plant avaid larenbliialaitby ility were
identifiede ht ni discussions:) 1( management practices,) 2( personnel characteristics,)3( dna
working practices. These areas cover causes influencing plant performance under plant
management control. In each area the report describes factors or good practices that positively
influence plant availability.
The case studies, presented in annexes, contain the plant self-assessment of areas that
influence their availabilid tnryae liabilitx yipS. lane trsar epresene thect ndai se studie)s1(:
Dukovany (WWER, 1760 MW) in the Czech Republic; (2) Blayais (PWR, 3640 MW) in
France; (3) Paks (WWER, 1840 MW) in Hungary; (4) Wolsong 1 (PHWR, 600 MW) in the
Republf iocK ore) 5a(T; rill1 o( PWR, n i1S )W0) p66M(La6 di innma; erick (BWR,
e Uhnti tneid )SWt2af A2tMoe2ms 0 erica.
e phTreparae phttir oefons ent rep soainwrit tiated withe fihrnta mee wIhAto frEok A's
programme for nuclear power plant performance assessment and feedback.
The IAEA wishes to thank all participants and Member States for their valuable
contribution. The IAEA is also grateful to M. Ibanez for the preparation of this report and to
. GRothwell rofc hairinge ht meetingse h.TI AEA officer responsibler of overall co-ordination
and preparatio. nR sSaw piegelberg-Planee hrt Dfo ivisionf o Nuclear Power.
EDITORIAL NOTE
In preparing this publication for press, staff of the IAEA have made up the pages from the original
manuscrip evhtsiTe).w s exprt oennse scoeedds sarily reflect thosee I hAotf e EghAto, vernmehetn fots
nominating Member States or the nominating organizations.
Throughout the text names of Member States are retained as they -were -when the text -was
compiled.
The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the
publishee rht,I Ae htEl oetA sga, al statuf sos uch countrier so territoriesf o, their authoritiednsa
institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries.
The mention of names of specific companies rop roducts (whethet on riron dicateds a registered)
does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement
or recommendation on the part of the IAEA.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
2. WORLDWIDE PERFORMANCE BASED ON AVAILABILITY AND
UNAVAILABILITY RESULTS.....................................................................................2
3. PRESENTATE CHIOTA FNSO E STUDIES ......................................................................4
3.1. Overview of the case studies ......................................................................................4
3.2. Plants characteristics ..................................................................................................5
4. IMPROVING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE..........................................6
4.1. Management practices................................................................................................7
4.1.1. Organizational structure...................................................................................7
4.1.2. Strategy and goals.............................................................................................8
4.1.3. Management involvement and communication................................................9
4.1.4. Managing quality............................................................................................01
4.1.5. Relationship with contractors.........................................................................11
4.1.6. Budget and resource allocation...................................................................... 12
4.2. Personnel.................................................................................................................. 12
4.2.1. Personnel characteristics.........................................................................2...1... .
4.2.2. Personnel developmed ntnrat aining..............................................................13
4.2.3. Personnel behaviour and attitudes..................................................................14
4.3. Working practices.....................................................................................................14
4.3.1. Plant status control .........................................................................................14
4.3.2. Operations......................................................................................................15
4.3.3. Maintenance..................................................................................................5.1
4.3.4. Technical support and other activities............................................................ 16
4.3.5. Interaction between work groups ...................................................................16
5. MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................... 17
ANNEXES A-G
An: nACexa se study guidelines ..............................................................................................21
Annex: B Dukovany case study ...............................................................................................27
Annex C: Blayais case study....................................................................................................45
Annex D: Paks case study........................................................................................................61
Annex E: Wolsong case study .................................................................................................79
Anne: FxT rillo case study.......................................................................................................94
An: nGLeixm erick case study.......................................................................................4...1..1.. .
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW............................................................151
1. INTRODUCTION
Currently, about 17% of the world's electricity generation is produced by nuclear power
plants. Nuclear power plants which exhibit good operational performance provide a reliable
and economic supf poellye ctrical energy consistent with high standaf ropddus nbalic
employee sa dfpneartoy te ehectnt vifooirn onme ehancTht. ievemef olnot nger term good
operational performance requires reliable equipment, good management and proficient staff
supporte ydeb ffective procedured nnsa ecessary services.
The purpose of this report is to summarize operational principles, practices and
improvements which have contributed to good operating performance at a few of the world's
most productive plants. Six plants have been chosen as representatives of different reactor
tys pame nsia ny different countriee hpsT.l ant's self-assessment were complemenehtte ydb
viewsf o participantsa fo seriesf o consultants, specialistsd na Advisory Group meetings held
e IhAtEa tA aimo ipntrg oe vbr hiioamdtsfe ips roe vuhentmd eenrnsittas ndf nionug clear
power plant operatd iiond rneaiomsa fs proving future productivity.
Evaluating technical performs ainbn crsioe caod pe. Apar et hteftrcohmn ical
productivity, i.e. the ability of the plant to produce energy, as measured by the energy
availability factor (EAF)d na unit capability factor (UCF), other areas muste b consideredot
give a clear picture of the technical behaviour of a plant. Such areas are, for example,
environment impacts, industrial safety, radiological protection, safety indicators, scram rate,
thermal effid cfinuenealc y r,eliability. Mf toohse tse de oWhme ctraooai rvnyldes bred
Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) performance indicators. The availability and
unavailability indice acrtooarvs y eWrbedA NO (UCF, Ued ChmnLn toadF irye)e pbth
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) withe ht Power Reactor Information System
(PRIS).
s ig tIenerally considered that good technically-performing plants have consistently good
l rlaearse unalsite .s c hEotrv rfeeinl ation betw lelteahne se facts oiarnsg ,redir egonoftos d
performance, is not obvious, there seems to be a link between them, if an overall trend is
detected. The diffusion effect for actions or good practices from one area to another depends
on numerous factors and is of course difficult to quantify.
Good prae cbot ifnctaeecns described through qualitative informas tiiso etnIl.d om
possibo ldte escribe them through quantitative parameo ittd ererons tify correlations between
tren nadIds d.ie tcihoutnm ,ulative efff evocatrs ious actions cannot allow identifaic aftioon
clear productivity efficiency rato ieto af cothh ese actior nogs ood practie chienTse. rtfioa
these actions is another difficulty. Identifying quantitatively the contribution of one good
practice htie omt provemenf to plant energy availability facto sri extremely difficult, because
all else me uhbset ld constant, t wophnoi scssihe i pbhelTerf. ormance indicatr toohrfis s study
e heatnree rgy availability fac etohprtl a n(dEnneAadF ) (d PnuUnaFp) lanned energy
unavailability factors (UUF).e hT cumulativee ht ro( FAE unit capability factor, UCF)a si
good indie c"hast tufoocr cea w sp ysfleoea"f an tAalrte(s. ast thrr efoeo e unrare) cessaoryt
be able to build a clear picture of the productivity at each plant.
The publication focuses on short- and medium-term actions and results, and the best
practicee csb o tnhnaascit dereo pdt articipd acntoae ntribuo tteth em.
This report contains five sections. This introduction contains preliminary remarks.
Section 2 presents a review of worldwide performance indicators. Section 3 is a presentation
ofe ht case studies.e hT overviewe ht fo nuclear power plants management practices,
personnel characteristics and working practices implementation covered by the case studies
e bf noacunn diS ectio fotn 4h is report. Specific conclusione rspa resentedn i SecteihoT n.5
basr boefos th Se5 wc dteniroaen 4ws ritten collece tahivute etychhlbatyo sfreos studdineas
the participe aAhnt dftosv isory Group Meetin nEog valuatiof oPn lant Technical Performance
hen lJdi une 1n 9Vi97i enna. These sections presee chnott nsensf uotsh ese experts regarding
best com rimnodoin vidual good pe turnabsaueccd t ilnceeaasr tpchoaw t er plantes hwtith
o t miaimprove their performance ni relation with operational safetyd na availability.
. 2WORLDWIDE PERFORMANCE BASEN ADOV AILABILIDTNYA
UNAVAILABILITY RESULTS
The basic performance indicators for this study are the energy availability factor (EAF)
and the planned (PUF) and unplanned energy unavailability factors (UUF). The energy
availability factor is the ratio of the actual energy generation (net) in a given period, expressed
as a percentage of the maximum energy that could have been produced during that period by
continuous operatie horte tnaf erence capacity. Energy lossee rsca onsider ebep odlt annedfi
te hsrecayh edult ealde ast four ween kaids vance. Planned energy lose screaosn siedbe roetd
under plant management cond tirnnoacl lude lo otps elsuaedns ned outagr oerfes fuelling,
maintenance, testing, etc. Unplanned energy losses include losses due to unplanned outages
for maintenance, testing, repad airlns, oae tcin. ,clude energy losses through causes beeyohntd
controf lo management.
An analysis of the data available in the IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS)
indicates that there has been a steady improvement in the world average energy availability
factor since 1980s a shownn i FigurF AeE eghT .1 rew from aboun it %27 1989o t about%87
in 1996.
on
•70
™
"7C ~ «
74 -
n •.;•. •—
£ li
\Z 70- :\:
<LU co !•"•"< - & :. •i^' .^:
!=•_• •::. t ; '$ : :"'-'- .;;:
66-
64 - •••::. : ': :,; {&! •:.-;'•
'.'.<•• ; ; |:
G*y $
^:
60- -4- -f- •+- -f- -4- -t- -t- -+- •+- -f- -+- -f- -+- .4- -f- -+-
o§ ceon CCeMOn CCoOO> TC0Of) iConO> <C0Oo5 P%~- eCCOOn eCCOnn Oeon> o0>> CO0M5) §CO Sen io0n5 (OCOB3
FIG .1.W orld Average Energy availability factors.
e hTnumber fo plants presenting high energy availability factors (greater than 75%) also
has increass esahd own Fini gu.2re
• 70-79% • 80-89% n >90%
OOUn ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
70-
60-I
in
o 50-
O
| 40-
"5 30-
5?
20-
10 -
- 0 _i_ _!_ 1 _L _L _L J--i — i-+ _L _L J_ J. I. J. J. J_ J. 1 L
M"* C O- sI h-r-- r ^ C-Dr ^0-0 c oOc o CcNo •c* o cto o oco> oo > oC>M O)Tt- co
O O 5 O5 O O ) O> O > O5 O > O > O > O > O > O5
FIG. 2. Distribution of reactors with high availability factor.
e hcTumulative world energy availability fao ctt1 pou9r 96, since beginninf ogc ommercial
operation and for non-prototype reactors is 73%, while the planned energy unavailability
factor (PUF) is 17.4%.
There is a steady decrease in both planned and unplanned energy unavailability factors over
the last years indicating a continuing improvement in plant maintenance management (Figure
3). The average planned energy unavailability factor for the period 1988-1990 was about
19%. This value decreaseo t aboute ht ni %51 period 1994-1996.e hT improvementeht ni
unplanned energy unavailability factor was also significant.
55% 50%
35
14 17 20
UrplcmedEUFi
FIG. 3. Average availability and unavailability factors (1988-1990, 1991-1993, 1994-1996).
These improve emba etntnarcitbs a upt oertdo cef oslse arning from experience.
Howevera , numbef roi nitiatives take ehMt nyb ember Stae thIte Adnsa EA havea significant
role eht ani chievementf o sustained improvemene htt oni verall performance eht pfo lants.
Survey by reactor type
A survey yrb eactor type shows that thea r cesi onsiderable increae hast nevi ailabilitfyo
R uWnitsP i mR euphGnrTe ioteAhsvn .eted rdgny aav RaiWlabPiBlWityR ,factor from
72% (average between 1988-1990) to 80% (average between 1994-1996). The BWR units
increasee dhet nergy availability factor fro% m(86a verage between 1988-1990o )ta bo%u77t
(average between 1994-1996). The PHWR units kept the level of performance, achieving
74.5% in the period 1994-1996. The WWER and LWGR units presented a decrease in the
availability, showia nte rglo eahrnesttcdt e onyavhevieaTa rrisl a.bif lWoity WER unsiats ,
e LhwtW ser aGlRol R(B MK) type reactors shoe iwe hmbhts atp cfakocft ittd ionntgahs er
maintenance programmes since 1990.
Figure 4 presents the average energy availability and unavailability values in last three
years period (1994-1996y r)b eactor type.
35
AGR
14 17 20
UrptaTeciEUF(59
. A4FvIaGi .ld aubnnialaivtya ilability facy rtbeoarsc tor type (1994-1996).
3. PRESENTATION OF THE CASE STUDIES
3.1E .C AOHSVETE SR TFVUIODEWIE S
e hTcase studiese ht fo plants coveredy b this report followe ht contentsf o Annex,A
Case study guidelines.
e ghootSd of mpoee rforming plaf dnoitfs ferent reactor type were invio tpetad rticipate
ine ht creationa foc ase study survey ni dnpa reparinga case studyf o their plants.
