ML20036B251
| ML20036B251 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1993 |
| From: | Hovey R, Zabielski V Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305180375 | |
| Download: ML20036B251 (10) | |
Text
,
- i. O PSEG Public Service Eiectric and Gas Company P O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge. New Jersey 08038 Hope Creek Generating Station l
May 10, 1993 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.i Document Control Desk' i
Washington, DC 20555 i
i
Dear Sir:
l MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT HOPE CREEK GENERATION STATION UNIT 1 L
DOCKET NO. 50-354 In compliance with Section 6.9, Reporting Requirements-for the
.j Hope Creek Technical Specifications, the operating statistics for April are being forwarded to you with the f
I summary of changes, tests, and experiments that were 1
i implemented during. April 1993 pursuant to the requirements of i
l'l Sincerely yours, i.
-1 i
R. J. Hovey General Manager -
Hope Creek Operations l
DR:pw l
Attachments i
C Distribution j
i f
I I.
16001G y '
(
Y(
The Pnornv Psannie b
{
9305180375 930430 PDR ADDCK 05000354 as~rn w se nree i
R PDR i
9 F
t NUMBER SECTION OF PAGES Average Daily Unit Power Level.
1 Operating Data Report.
2 l
r Refueling Information.
1
}
f Monthly Operating Summary.
1
+
f Summary of Changes, Tests, and Experiments.
3 1
?
)
e i
t i
?
i f
i I
I i
l i
a
i P
i AVERAGE DAILY UNIT POWER LEVEL
^
DOCKET NO.
50-354 UNIT ' Hope Creek DATE 5/10/93 7
COMPLETED BY V.
Zabielski TELEPHONE 15.09) 339-3506 MONTH Acril 1993 DAY AVERAGE DAILY POWER LEVEL DAY AVERAGE DAILY POWER LEVEL
[
(MWe-Net)
(MWe-Net) 1.
1055 17.
1050 1
2.
1065 18.
1065 3.
1054 19.
1048 4.
1068*
20.
1051 5.
1065 21.
1050 6.
1064 22.
1058 7.
1059 23.
1062 8.
1066 24.
1055 l
9.
1051 25.
1035 10.
1053 26.
1035 i
11.
1054 27.
1055 l
12.
1063 28, 1062 13.
1058 29.
1062 14.
1064 30.
1042 15.
1050 31.
HZA 16.
1051
- due to change in time. aver /23 hrs.
I l
l
d OPERATING DATA REPORT DOCKET NO.
50-354 UNIT Hope Creek DATE 5/10/93 r
COMPLETED BY V.
Zabielski TELEPHONE (609) 339-3506 OPERATING STATUS 1.
Reporting Period ADril 1993 Gross Hours in Report Period 112 2.
Currently Authorized Power Level (MWt) 3293 Max. Depend. Capacity (MWe-Net) 1Q2.1 Design Electrical Rating (MWe-Net) 1067 3.
Power Level to which restricted (if any) (MWe-Net)
None 4.
Reasons for restriction (if any)
This Yr To Month Date Cumulative 5.
No. of hours reactor was critical 719.0 2879.0 47,134.6 i
l 6.
Reactor reserve shutdown hours 0.0 0.0 0.0 1
7.
Hours generator on line 719.0 2879.0 46.383.9 8.
Unit reserve shutdown hours 222 22Q 0.0 9.
Gross thermal energy generated 2,364,080 9,423.021 147,636,240 (MWH) 1
- 10. Gross electrical energy 791,710 3,175,790 48,923,844 generated (MWH)
- 11. Net electrical energy generated 758,658 3,043,409 46,745,793 (MWH)
- 12. Reactor service factor 100.0 100.0 84.5
- 13. Reactor availability factor 100.0 100.0 84.5
- 14. Unit service factor 100.0 100.0 83.2
- 15. Unit availability factor 100.0 100.0 83.2
- 16. Unit capacity factor (using MDC) 102.3 102.5 81.3
- 17. Unit capacity factor 98.9 99.1 78 5 (Using Design MWe)
- 18. Unit forced outage rate 222 0.0 4 5 t
- 19. Shutdowns scheduled over next 6 months (type, date, & duration):
None
- 20. If shutdown at end of report period, estimated date of start-up:
N/A
OPERATING DATA REPORT-UNIT SHUTDOWNS AND POWER REDUCTIONS DOCKET NO.
50-354 UNIT Hone Creek
-DATE Zatielski '4/'
5/10/93 COMPLETED BY V.
V TELEPHONE (609) 339-3591 MONTH Acril 1993 METHOD OF SHUTTING DOWN THE TYPE REACTOR OR F= FORCED DURATION REASON REDUCING CORRECTIVE NO.
DATE S= SCHEDULED (HOURS)
(1)
POWER (2)
ACT!ON/ COMMENTS None Summary
~
REFUELING INFORMATION DOCKET NO.
50-354 UNIT Hope Creek DATE _ 5/10/93 COMPLETED BY S.
Hollinasworth TELEPHONE (609) 339-1051 MONTH Anril 1993 1.
Refueling information has changed from last month:
Yes X No 2.
Scheduled date for next refueling:
3/5/94 3.
Scheduled date for restart following_ refueling:
4/23/94 4.
A.
Will Technical Specification changes or other license amendments be required?
Yes 1
No 1
B.
Has the Safety Evaluation covering the COLR been reviewed by_the Station Operating Review Committee?
Yes No X
If no, when is it scheduled?
2/18/94 5.
Scheduled date(s) for submitting proposed licensing action:
Hat scheduled 6.
Important licensing considerations associated with refueling:
- There is a discussion of moving the RBM setpoint out of Tech Specs and into the Core Operating Limits Report.
This would require a Tech Spec change.
7.
Number of Fuel Assemblies:
A.
Incore 764 B.
In Spent Fuel Storage (prior to refueling) 1008 C.
In Spent Fuel Storage (after refueling) 1240 8.
Present licensed spent fuel storage capacity:
4006 Future spent fuel storage capacity:
4005 9.
Date of last refueling that can be discharged 5/3/2006 to spent fuel pool assuming the present (EOC13) licensed capacity:
(Does allow for full-core offload)
(Assumes 244 bundle reloads every 18 months until then)
(Does n21 allow for smaller reloads due to improved fuel)
i HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION l
MONTHLY OPERATING
SUMMARY
l APRIL 1993 Hope Creek entered the month of April at approximately 100% power.
The unit operated throughout the entire month without experiencing any shutdowns or reportable power reductions.
As of April 30, the plant had been on line for 146 consecutive days.
t I
1 I
+
l i
k F
L L
4 P
I h
L f
f 5
i
SUMMARY
OF CHANGES, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS FOR THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION APRIL 1993
The following items 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 3.
If the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced.
The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations showed 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 alter the existing environmental impact.
The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations determined that no unreviewed safety or environmental questions are involved.
I 1
i l
,a.
~
DCE Qescriotion of Safety Evaluation 4EC-3124/01 This DCP installed two sump pumps in the Cooling Tower Valve Pit.
The pumps will prevent the flooding of the pit and the subsequent malfunctioning of the valve actuator and open/close position indicator.
This DCP will not functionally alter the Circulating Water System.
It will decrease the probability of the malfunction of the Cooling Water Makeup Line Valve and associated instrumentation.
Therefore, this DCP does not involve any Unreviewed Safety Questions.
4EC-3161/01 This DCP modified the Solid Radwaste Asphalt Drum Filling Level Monitoring and Control Loops.
This involves the replacement of the ultrasonic level transmitters and modification of the scheme used to select which of the transmitters is in service.
The Asphalt Drum System does not communicate either physically or electrically with any system that is important to safety.
Neither is it used to mitigate or preclude any accident described in the SAR.
Therefore, this DCP does not involve any Unreviewed Safety Questions.
4EC-3384/01 This DCP added a set of contacts in the Service Water Strainer Backwash Valve Control Logic.
The intent of this DCP is to wire the system to block the backwash valve closure signal until the 5 minute timer has timed out.
This DCP incorporated a design that was omitted in the field wiring, but was approved on the design documents.
The DCP contains adequate overlap testing to ensure the system is able to perform its intended function.
Therefore, this DCP does not involve any Unreviewed Safety Questions.
4HE-0033/01 This DCP installed electrical jumpers around failed motor winding temperature sensors on the
'B' and
'C' Turbine Building Chillers.
The jumpers were previously installed under TMRs and cannot be replaced without a major motor overhaul.
The Turbine Building Chilled Water System is not credited with preventing or mitigating any postulated design basis accidents.
The system does not provide any safety related functions other than a containment isolation function at the system Primary Containment penetrations.
Jumpering the trip circuit does not affect any previous analyses or evaluations performed as part of the licensing basis of the plant.
Therefore, this DCP does not involve any Unreviewed Safety Questions.
.