This is from Garden State Environet. No mention of Y2K, but the "safety systems" got my attention. - Judy

HOPE CREEK: SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURE

Date: 990920

From: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/DAILY/der.htm

Daily Events Report

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Operations Center

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Power Reactor Event Number: 36200

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

FACILITY: HOPE CREEK REGION: 1 NOTIFICATION DATE: 09/19/1999

UNIT: [1] [] [] STATE: NJ NOTIFICATION TIME: 17:13[EDT]

RXTYPE: [1] GE-4 EVENT DATE: 09/19/1999 -----------------------------------------EVENT TIME: 16:30[EDT]

NRC NOTIFIED BY: JOHN MILLER LAST UPDATE DATE: 09/19/1999

HQ OPS OFFICER: LEIGH TROCINE ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------PERSON ORGANIZATION

EMERGENCY CLASS: N/A NIEL DELLA GRECA R1 10 CFR SECTION: AIND 50.72(b)(2)(iii)(D) ACCIDENT MITIGATION NLCO TECH SPEC LCO A/S

----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNIT SCRAM CODERX CRITINIT PWR INIT RX MODE CURR PWR CURR RX MODE

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 N Y 100 Power Operation 100 Power Operation

----------------------------------------------------------------------

EVENT TEXT

----------------------------------------------------------------------

FAILURE OF A SINGLE TRAIN SAFETY SYSTEM (HIGH PRESSURE COOLANT INJECTION)

The following text is a portion of a facsimile received from the licensee:

"At 1630 on 09/19/99 after the I&C Department was unable to successfully complete a scheduled surveillance activity, the high pressure coolant injection system was declared inoperable. Initial troubleshooting indicates that a card failure has resulted in a sealed-in trip signal. Hope Creek is currently at 100% power with no other systems inoperable. Actions to restore the high pressure coolant injection system to an operable status are underway."

The licensee stated that surveillance was being performed on one of the trip signals and that one of the cards that regulates voltage for this trip signal appears to have failed in a semi-energized state. This signal provides just enough of a voltage to keep the trip signal in. As a result, the licensee is in the process of obtaining a replacement card. This event places the unit in a 14-day technical specification limiting condition for operation.

The licensee plans to notify the NRC resident inspector and the Lower Alloways Creek Township.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1999

Answers

Well Judith, Here's an example of a nuclear safety system doing exactly what it was designed to do - fail to the "trip" (failsafe) condition. This happens all the time in the industry. With redundant channels, lots of circuit cards, somethings going to fail every once in a while. The design is to have failures go to the trip condition. If a card is found during testing to have a problem that would cause the channel to be inoperable, the channel is then placed in the trip condition manually if needed.

No offense, but if you start posting these events, we will be drowned here with nuclear trivia (I did think your earlier post was a good discussion).

Regards,

Regards,

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1999

FactFinder,

No offense taken ... I appreciate the explanation, and will keep it in mind when reading these in the future. Am glad to learn this was routine.

Best wishes,

Judy

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1999

The thought occured to me that one reason we see a lot of posts on nukes here is that the daily reports are easy for anyone to obtain, and I think thats great for all of us. If a Y2K problem of significance occurs at a nuke, you might just see it here first - like the Peach Bottom Y2K testing problem.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1999

FactFinder,

Whoa there hoss, slow down. It *is* interesting that these reports are so quickly a part of public information. While there probably wasn't a lot of outside interest in these things before, Y2k has made them into a happy hunting ground. A lot of people have discovered that things are not quire so hunky dorry in the nuke sector. Now, why is this matter causing an official report, if it's routine, and "happens all the time" as you say? Also, what's this business, in the above report, about restoring the high pressure coolant system to an operable status? It's not operable now? What's the 14 day limiting condition referred to? And why is the operator planning to notify the NRC and local Township. Wasn't that done already, or was this like the TMI situation where they hoped to contain the problem and not alarm the natives? FactFinder, I'm sorry this whole nuke world is such a sore spot and embarrassment to you that you feel you have to not only make lame exuses for them, but even chastise our poster for mentioning this matter.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1999

Gordon, They entered an LCO, a degraded condition. They have another redundant train of high pressure injection that is still operable. This is not an alert, it's notification of the degraded condition. They have to fix it within 14 days or shut down.

And Gordon, I did "chastise" Judy, nor did she take it that way - see her reply above. I only attempted to put this report in perspective compared to the Indian Point Unusual Event. On any day you can find reports of lower signficance like the one above, but a plant on a low level alert is in a much more serious situation.

Gordon, you know fully well that anyone is free to post what they wish that is considered acceptable to the forum host, even if appears to, in the eyes of some, "embarass" me. No one has ever stopped you, have they? ;)

Regards,

Regards,

-- Anonymous, September 22, 1999

The above post should read 'I did NOT "chastise" Judy', not I DID chastise Judy. Now THAT's embarrassing, I would never chastise Judy without her consent ....lol.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, September 22, 1999

I will accept some limited amount of chastisement on one condition ... will someone please explain to me what "LOL" means? Thanks. - Judy, the chastised.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 1999

laughing out loud

-- Anonymous, September 22, 1999

FactFinder,

Well, I think that chastise statement, the way you did it, was just a Freudian slip. ;-)

-- Anonymous, September 22, 1999