LR-N980247, Monthly Operating Rept for Apr 1998 for Hope Creek Station, Unit 1

Monthly Operating Rept for Apr 1998 for Hope Creek Station, Unit 1

ML20247L691
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/30/1998
From:	Bezilla M, Todd F Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
LR-N980247, NUDOCS 9805260047
Download: ML20247L691 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

e, s;

O PSEG Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-0236 Nuclear Business Unit MAY 151998 LR-N980247 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-354 Gentlemen:

In compliance with Section 6.9, Reporting Requirements for the Hope Creek Technical Specifications, the operating statistics for April 1998 are being forwarded. Also being forwarded to you, pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.59(b), is the summary of changes, tests, and experiments that were implemented during April 1998.

I Sincerely,

1. .A /

Mark B. Bezilla V/

General Manager -

Hope Creek Operations RAR/mw 7f Attachments C Distribution 9805260047 980430 4 DR ADOCK 0500 The powerisin your hands.

95 2168 REV 694 L_____________________________________ _ . _ _ . _ . . . _m

j l

l

-INDEX 1

NUMBER SECTION OF PAGES Operating D ata Repo rt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -

Monthly Operating S u mmary... ... ....... ... ....... .... . .... . ... ... ... ... . . . . .... .... ... ... ... . 1 Summary of Changes, Tests, and Experiments.............................. .... 2 1

L I

I l

l i

l

^

I DOCKET NO.: 50-354 UNIT: Hope Creek DATE: 05/12/98 COMPLETED BY: F.Todd TELEPHONE: (609) 339-1316 Reporting Period April 1998 OPERATING DATA REPORT Design Electrical Rating (MWe-Net)

Maximum Dependable Capacity (MWe-Net) 1031 Month Year-to-date Cumulative No. of hours reactor was critical 719 l 2879 83419 l No. of hours generator was on line (service 719 2879 81949 hours)

Unit reserve shutdown hours 0 l0 0 l Net Electrical Energy (MWH) 706533 l 2976106 82873258 l UNIT SHUTDOWNS NO. DATE TYPE DURATION REASON METHOD OF CORRECTIVE F= FORCED (HOURS) (1) SHUTTING ACTIONICOMMENT S= SCHEDULED DOWN THE REACTOR (2)

N/A l

(1) Reason (2) Method A- Equipment Failure (Explain) 1 - Manual B - Maintenance or Test 2 - Manual Trip / Scram C - Refueling 3 - Automatic Trip / Scram D - Regulatory Restriction 4 - Continuation E - Operator Training / License Examination 5 - Other (Explain)

F Administrative l G - Operational Error (Explain) l H - Other l

e DOCKET NO.; 50-354 UNIT: Hope Creek DATE: 05/12/98 COMPLETED BY: R. Ritzman TELEPHONE: (609) 339-1445 Summary Of Monthly Operating Experience e Hope Creek entered the month of April at approximately 100% reactor power.

• Hope Creek operated throughout the month without expe.'encing any shutdowns. On April 20th, power was reduced for scheduled maintenance a the hydraulic control units. Power was returned to 100% on April 29.

• At the end of the month, Hope Creek had completed its 138th consecutive day of continuous power operation.

DOCKET NO.: 50-354 UNIT: Hope Creek DATE: 05/12/98 COMPLETED BY: R. Ritzman TELEPHONE: {609) 339-1445

SUMMARY

OF CHANGES, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS FOR THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION MONTH APRIL 1998 The following items completed during April 1998 have been evaluated to determine:

1. If the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased; or

2. If a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report may be created; or 1

3. If the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.

The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations 3howed that these items did not create a new safety hazard to the plant nor did they affect the safe shutdown of the reactor. These  !

items did not change the plant effluent releases and did not altri the existing environmentalimpact. The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations determined that no unreviewed safety or environmental questions are involved.

Design Changes Summary of Safety Evaluations 4HE-0039, Package 2, Air injectior at the Bottom of Mixed Bed Vessel. This design change replaced a 3-inch diaphragm drain valve with a 3-inch ball valve in the Demineralized Water system. This change will improve the mixing of water and resin by allewing for intermittent air injection to the bottom of the mixed bed tank. The intermittent air injection will create a positive force in an upward direction, which will improve the mixing.

The changes implemented by this design change will not affect the design basis of the Demineralized Water systems. The components affected by this design change are non-safety related. This design change did not increase the probability or consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety, create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different type than previously evaluated in the SAR, or reduce the margin of safety for any Technical Specifications. Therefore, there are no unreviewed safety questions associated with this design change.

L.-

H*74028, Package 1, Replacement of the Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup and Torus Water Cleanup Flow Control Valves. This design change replaced the 6-inch plug valves used as the Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup Flow Control Valve and the j Torus Water Cleanup Flow Control Valve with 3-inch globe valves. The new valves are intended to be more reliable and to reduce cavitation induced vibration and noise.

l The changes implemented by this design change will not affect the function or integrity of the Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup or the Torus Water Cleanup systems. The components affected by this design change are non-safety related. This design change I did not increase the probability or consequences of a malfunction of equipment j important to safety, create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different l type than previously evaluated in the SAR, or reduce the margin of safety for any Technical Specifications. Therefore, there are no unreviewed safety questions associated with this design change.

! Temporary Modifications Summary of Safety Evaluations 3 There were no reportable changes in this category implemented during April 1998.

Procedures Summary of Safety Evaluations There were no reportable changes in this category implemented during April 1998.

UFSAR Change Notices Summary of Safety Evaluations There were no reportable changes in this category implemented during April 1998.

Deficiency Reports Summary of Safety Evaluations There were no reportable changes in this category implemented during April 1998.

Other Summary of Safety Evaluation There were no reportable changes in this category implemented during April 1998.

l l

4 l

l l

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _