ML20199E727

Monthly Operating Rept for Dec 1998 for Hope Creek Generating Station,Unit 1.With

ML20199E727
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	12/31/1998
From:	Bezilla M, Ritzman R, Todd F Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
LR-N99034, NUDOCS 9901210066
Download: ML20199E727 (6)

Text

.

l 7'OPSEG Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-0236 Nuclear Business Unit JAN 141999 LR-N99034 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-354 in compliance with Section 6.9, Reporting Requirements for the Hope Creek Technical Specifications, the operating statistics for December 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 December 1998.

Sincerely, j / . ~

Mark B. Bezilla t General Manager-

, r;3 Hope Creek Operations RAR/mw Attachments C Distribution QL j g 9901210066 981231 7 PDR ADOCK 05000354.

R PDR a

, .Theguerisin >uirharxk 95 2168 REV 694

e.

INDEX NUMBER

,SECTION OF PAGES Ope rating Data Repo rt... . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .... .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................1 Monthly Operating Summary.......... ..... .... ........ ......... . . .. ... . . . . . .. ...... . .. 1 Summary of Changes, Tests, and Experiments................ .. . ............. 2 l

t e

s. ~

DOCKET NO.: 50-354 UNIT: Hope Creek DATE: 01/08/99 COMPLETED BY: F.Todd TELEPHONE: (609) 339-1316 Reporting Period December 1998 l

OPERATING DATA REPORT i

l Design Electrical Rating (MWe-Net)

Maximum Dependable Capacity (MWe-Net) 1031 Month Year-to-c to Cumulative No. of hours reactor was critical 744 l 8589 l 89129 l No. of hours generator was on line (service 744 l 8539 87609 hours) l Unit reserve shutdown hours 0 l0 l0 l Not Electrical Energy (MWH) 776767 l 8700369 l 88597521 l l UNIT SHUTDOWNS NO. DATE TYPE DURATION REASON METHOD OF CORRECTIVE ACTION /

F= FORCED (HOURS) (1) SHUTTING COMMENT l S= SCHEDULED DOWN THE REACTOR (2) l l

r (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 I G - Operational Error (Explain)

(

H - Other i

DOCKET NO.: 50-354 UNIT: Hope Creek DATE: 01/08/99 COMPLETED BY: R. Ritzman TELEPHONE: (609) 339-1445 Summary Of Monthly Operating Experience

. Hope Creek entered the month of December at approximately 100% reactor power.

• On December 13 and December 19, power was reduced for rod pattern adjustments.

. On December 21, power was reduced for waterbox tube leak repair. Power was restored to approximately 100% reactor power on December 22.

• At the end of the month, Hope Creek had completed its 37* day of continuous power operation.

1 .

DOCKET NO.:50-354 UNIT: Hope Creek DATE:01/08/99 COMPLETED BY:R. Ritzman TELEPHONE: (609) 339-1445

SUMMARY

OF CHANGES, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS FOR THE HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION .

l MONTH DECEMBER 1998 The following items completed during December 1998 have been evaluated to i 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 environmentalimpact. The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations determined that no unreviewed safety or environmental questions are involved.

Design Changes Summary of Safety Evaluations There were no reportable changes in this category implemented during December 1998.

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

a s Procedures Summary of Safety Evaluations Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 17. The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) was revised to add information for the Circulating Water Dewatering Sump Radiation Monitoring instrumentation and controls and added the Circulating Water Dewatering Sump to the release rate for liquid effluents. This revision also added information relative to the radiation detection and release through the Circulating Water ,

Dewatering Sump.

- Two 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations were prepared to discuss these changes to the ODCM. One of the 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations was to establish a radiological monitoring and reporting program for the Circulating Water Dewatering Sump. The other 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation was to address the continued use of the Circulating Water Dewatering Sump with tritiated water.

Administrative controls have been established to ensure that the potential tritium effluent discharge is controlled, monitored, and reported appropriately. These administrative controls are similar to the administrative controls for the previously i identified liquid release pathways, and will ensure continued compliance with the licensing and design basis.

The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations demonstrate that neither the continued operation of the Circulating Water Dewatering Sump nor the compensatory measures taken to address the tritium contamination will affect the operation of any safety-related

. equipment. In addition, the dose received by members of the public during either normal operations or in an accident condition is not impacted by these proposals.

Therefore, this proposal does not increase the possibility or consequences of any accident or malfunction, does not reduce the margin of safety, and therefore, does not involve an Unreviewed Safety Question.

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

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

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

, , - , , ,,>n----- . -