ML20064H510
| ML20064H510 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1994 |
| From: | Hovey R, Zabielski V Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9403180039 | |
| Download: ML20064H510 (10) | |
Text
_ _
B PSEG l
- Public Service Electric and Gas Cornpany P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge New Jersey 08038 Hope Creek Generating Station 1
March 15, 1994 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT HOPE CREEK GENERATION STATION UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-354
Dear Sir:
In compliance with Section 6.9, Reporting Requirements for the. Hope Creek Technical Specifications, the operating statistics for-February are being forwarded to you with the summary of-changes,.
tests, and experiments.that were implemented during February ~1994 l
pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.59(b).
.i Sincerely yours,
}
I R. J. Hovey-General Manager -
g Hope Creek Operations
_ Y>L DR:WS:JC Attachments C
Distribution
.. i t
l 9403180039 940228
-I PDR ADOCK 05000354
/
s- ! l-R PDR
/
- 4-
[
The Energy People R
'180001
""""" "" j
INDEX E
NUMBER SECTION OF PAGES Average Daily Unit Power Level.
1 r
Operating. Data Report 3
Refueling Information.
1 Monthly Operating Summary.
1 Summary of Changes, Tests, and Experiments.
2 9 F f
1 y
y
1 OPERATING DATA REPORT DOCKET NO.
50-354 UNIT Hgpe Creek DATE 3/9/93 COMPLETED BY V. Habielski TELEPHONE (609) 339-3506 OPERATING STATUS 1.
Reporting Period February 1994 Gross Hours in Report Period 122 2.
Currently Authorized Power Level (MWt) 3293 Max. Depend. Capacity 1031 Design Electrical Ratin(MWe-Net) g (MWa-Net) 1912 3.
Power Level to which restricted (if any) (MWe-Net)
None 4.
Reasons for restriction (if any)
This Yr To ligD.1;h DAtg Cumulative 5.
No. of hours reactor was critical 672.0 1416.0 54239.0 6.
Reactor reserve shutdown hours 0.0 0.0 922 7.
Hours generator on line 672.0 1416.0 53448.5 8.
Unit reserve shutdown hours 922 212 paa 9.
Gross thermal energy generated 2206305 A548183 170611552 (MWH)
- 10. Gross electrical energy 743740 1567840 56531794 generated (MWH)
- 11. Net electrical energy generated 214667
_1506851 54034535 (MWH)
- 12. Reactor service factor 100.0 100.0 H522
- 13. Reactor availability factor 100.0 100.0 86.0
- 14. Unit service factor-1.00.0 100.0-RA22
- 15. Unit availability factor 100.0 100.0 8 4, 7.
- 16. Unit ~ capacity factor (using MDC) 103.2 103.2 83.1
- 17. Unit capacity factor 99.7 99.7 80.3 (Using Design MWe)
- 18. Unit forced outage. rate D22 922
,_1.tl j
- 39. Shutdowns scheduled over next 6 months '(type, date,.& duration):
H 5th refueling outage, March 5, 49 days
- 20. 1r ehstdown at end of report period, estimated date of start-up:
i N/A i
~!
.~
d OPERATING DATA REPORT UNIT SHUTDOWNS AND POWER REDUCTIONS DOCKET NO.
50-354 UNIT Hone Creek DATE 3/9/94 COMPLETED BY V. Zabielski TELEPHONE (609) 339-3506 MONTH February 1994 METHOD OF SHUTTING DOWN THE TYPE REACTOR OR F= FORCED DURATION REASON REDUCING CORRECTIVE NO.
DATE S= SCHEDULED (HOURS)
(1)
POWER (2)
ACTION / COMMENTS
- None*******
i i
i
AVERAGE DAILY UNIT POWER LEVEL DOCKET NO.
50-354 UNIT Hone Creek DATE 3/9/94 COMPLETED BY V. Zabielski TELEPHONE (609) 339-3506 MONTH February 1994 DAY AVERAGE DAILY POWER LEVEL DAY AVERAGE DAILY POWER LEVEL (MWe-Net)
(MWe-Net) 1.
1076 17.
1068 2.
1076 18.
1068 3.
1069 19.
1060
'4.
1067 20.
1050 5.
1qsjli 21.
1056 6.
1053 22.
1036 7.
1068 23, 1057 8.
1QQ8 24.
1066 9.
1071 25.
1036 10.
1021 26.
LQ2.33 11.
1071 27.
1054 12.
1064 28.
1071 13, 1076-29.
nLa 3
14.
1050 30.
n/a 15.
1074 31.
nig-16.
1064 j
l l
A
REFUELING INFORMATION DOCKET NO.
50-354 UNIT Uone Creek 1 DATE 3/10/94
'1 COMPLETED BY J.Haun TELEPHONE (609) 339-1267 MONTH February 1994 1.
Refueling information has changed from last month:
Yes No X i
2.
Scheduled date for next refueling:-
3/5/94 3.
Scheduled date for restart following refueling:
A123/94 4.
A.
Will Technical Specification changes or other license amendments be required?
Yes No X
B.
Has the Safety Evaluation covering the COLR been reviewed by the Station Operating Review Committee?
Yes X No If no, when is it scheduled?
5.
Scheduled date(s) for submitting proposed licensing action:
U125 6.
Important licensing considerations associated with refueling:
i ULh 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:
4006 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 ngt allow for smaller reloads due to improved fuel) i 1
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION MONTHLY OPERATING.
SUMMARY
February 1994 Hope Creek entered the month of February at approximately 100%
power.
The unit operated at full power through the end of the-month without any major power reductions or plant trips.
As of February 28, the plant has been on line for 84 consecutive days.
f
SUMMARY
OF CHANGES, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS
-l FOR THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION February 1994 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.
s l
-NFU 145 RV 1 Summary 91 Safety Evaluation This Nuclear Fuels Safety Evaluation describes changes to the Fuel Cycle 5 coast down rate.
Power coast down with increased flow of 105%
can be used to extend the cycle operation.
Safety analysis has been performed to insure that the safety criteria are still met for the extended cycle operation.
The limiting transients previously evaluated during cycle 5 operation have been re-analyzed for the anticipated coastdown.
The analysis has been done for a four-week extended operation.
A revised set of core operating limits is generated and documented in the Core Operating Limits Report which is referenced in the Technical Specifications.
The nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics for extended operation of the reload core are the same as those for normal operation.
Therefore, there are no new (or different type) accidents or malfunction created for the extended cycle operation.
The limiting transients previously evaluated in Chapter 15 of the SAR have been re-analyzed for the Hope Creek Cycle 5 coastdown.
These analyses were performed with the methods previously approved by the NRC staff.
Therefore, this change to the power coastdown rate does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously described in the SAR and does not involve a1 Unreviewed Safety Question.
HCT-8-002/
Summary 21 Safety Evaluation NFS-0090 This safety evaluation addresses the impact of Hope Creek reload core design on the cycle 6 operation.
There will be a discharge of 232 fuel assemblies at end of cycle-5 operation.
r The safety analyses for the reload are reviewed.
The limiting transients previously evaluated in Chapter 15 of the SAR have been re-analyzed for the Hope Creek cycle 6 / reload 5 design.
A new set of core operating limits is generated and documented in the Core Operating Limits Report which is referenced in the Technical Specification.
This analysis was performed with methods previously reviewed and approved by the NRC staff for reload design and analysis purposes.
The replaced fuel bundles have the same nuclear design and minor axial zoning change..The minor axial zoning change has economical benefits while maintaining the same nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics.
The zoning change takes advantage of the large shutdown margin available for cycle 6 and therefore relax the zoning requirement for shutdown consideration.
Based on the GE projected cycle performance, all aspects of the fuel thermal-mechanical bases have been reviewed.
The projected cycle 6 core design and operation will not. violate any fuel thermal-mechanical design criteria Therefore, this Safety Evaluation does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously described in the SAR and does not involve an Unreviewed Safety Question.