INADVERTENT SI ACTUATION WITH
AUTOMATIC REACTOR TRIP

Plant Status Report

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), January 20, 2000

Answers

Paging John Krempasky .......

What's our tally now?

>"<

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.tree), January 20, 2000.

Spider,

Thank you for the post! =)

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 20, 2000.

This is Event 36602. Also check out the loss of phone service due to 'offsite problems' event 36601.

INADVERTENT SAFETY INJECTION DUE TO ELECTRICAL FAULT AND REACTOR TRIP Technicians were performing a modification to the vital inverter 2-IV when a safety injection signal was generated due to an electrical problem on vital instrument bus 2-IV. When the technicians were lifting a lead on the sync signal input to the inverter 2-IV in accordance with the modification, an inadvertent safety injection signal was generated. When the safety injection actuated, only Train 'A' safety injection occurred. The cause of the reactor trip is unknown at this time though it is expected with a safety injection. The operators followed the emergency procedures and started the Train 'B' safety injection and residual heat removal pumps; the train 'B' centrifugal charging pump started automatically (reason unknown and being investigated). The 2A-A motor-driven auxiliary feedwater pump tripped for unknown reasons. The #2 steam generator atmospheric relief valve controller appears to have failed, which required operators to take manual control and close the relief valve. An event investigation has been initiated, and all problems will be answered before the unit is restarted.

The plant is currently stable in Mode 3 with heat removal via the atmospheric reliefs and feedwater via the 2B-B motor-driven and turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pumps. All rods fully inserted. The safety injection signal was from the 'Low Steam Generator Pressure' section, and the main steam isolation valves closed automatically. The plant has no steam generator tube leaks. The licensee notified the NRC Resident Inspector.

Event 36601- this is at the Palo Verde plant.

EVENT TEXT LOSS OF COMMERCIAL TELEPHONE SERVICE The licensee reported that all U.S. West commercial telephone service to the site (including the ENS) has been lost due to a problem offsite. The licensee is attempting to contact U.S. West to determine the cause of the problem and estimate time to restore. The NRC resident inspector will be informed of this event by the licensee. ******************** UPDATE AT 1916 ON 01/18/00 FROM DAN MARKS TO LEIGH TROCINE ******************** The following text is a portion of a facsimile received from the licensee: "The following event description is based on information currently available. If through subsequent reviews of this event, additional information is identified that is pertinent to this event or alters the information being provided at this time, a followup notification will be made via the ENS or under the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.73." "NOTE: THIS ENS WORKSHEET IS A FOLLOW-UP TO ENS ID 36601, PERFORMED AT 09:41 MST. SINCE U.S. WEST LINES WERE AFFECTED, THE INITIAL CALL WAS MADE VIA A CELLULAR TELEPHONE." "On January 18, 2000, at approximately 0925 MST, Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3 determined that the ENS telephones were inoperable. This was related to the offsite damage to a 200-pair telecommunications cable affecting Palo Verde. The initial call was placed from the Nuclear Regulatory Affairs Director's cellular telephone, and that phone number was also provided to the [headquarters operations officer] if followup was necessary prior to restoration of the ENS." "The current prognosis for full restoration of the ENS is approximately 2400 MST. If the Palo Verde Units 1, 2, or 3 cannot be reached via the ENS, [commercial] ... phone numbers are available. [Call the NRC operations officer for site contact numbers.] ..." "Emergency Plan notification system backups for communication with State and County agencies were confirmed to remain operable; therefore, this notification was only for the loss of ENS and did not reflect a loss of emergency assessment or notification capability." "There is no corresponding 10 CFR 50.73 reporting requirement. Palo Verde does not expect to followup this report with a Licensee Event Report (LER)." "Palo Verde [plans to] complete a followup notification when full capability is restored." The licensee notified the NRC resident inspector. The NRC operations officer notified the R4DO (Smith). * * * UPDATE 0006EST ON 1/19/2000 FROM BRAD ROBINSON TO S.SANDIN * * * The ENS phones have been restored to complete functionality at 2206MST. The licensee notified the NRC resident inspector. Notified R4DO(Smith).

++++++++++++

Notice the phone problem was due to a cable being damaged.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 20, 2000.

Well, with 12 days left in my predictive challenge and 13 having gone by (1/07-1/31) we've had 4 shutdowns:

Limerick 1/08 Byron 1/13 Calvert Cliffs 1/14 Sequoyah 1/18.

Still on a pace for my prediction to be successful :-)

Checking the daily status reports, the number of plants at 90% power is truly remarkable....

And the number of plants below 90% power for reasons other than refueling is simply amazing....

Only Sequoyah 2 (0%), Arkansas 1 (72%), and River Bend 1 (30%) are below 30% for maintenance/problem reasons.

Having looked at a lot of the Daily report archives, I'm pretty certain that there have never been more plants at 100% or fewer plants with maintenance problems in the past 4 years or so than now.

-- John H Krempasky (johnk@dmv.com), January 20, 2000.

RIVER BEND 1 --- 30%
Power Operation
REDUCED POWER FOR REACTOR WATER CHEMISTRY ABNORMALITIES

Same link as above.

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), January 20, 2000.

John,

Are you forgetting Catawba, Duane Arnold
and Peach Bottom?

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), January 20, 2000.

And there were two at Limerick. And what
about Byron, Oconee, Palisades, South Texas
and Vogtle? Let's quit with the obfuscations.

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), January 20, 2000.

Now, aint i the one that said "i saw it on headline news" ?

and i dont get the credit........

-- Electman (vrepair1@tampabay.rr.com), January 20, 2000.

Spider,

I listed all the shutdowns occuring within my predictive period. Not ones occuring before it.

1/07-1/31. I made the prediction on 1/06.

And all of those plants withs shutdowns prior to the predictive period, and all but Sequoyah that occured in the period (Duane Arnold, Catawba, Calvert Cliffs, Limerick etc.) are at full power now.

-- John H Krempasky (johnk@dmv.com), January 20, 2000.

Mr. K,

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a knee-jerk anti-nuc. I believe that nuclear power offers a viable alternative to fossil fuel- powered electrical generation, if handled properly. I watch the the nuc plant status because the reports are available publicly, thanks to the NRC requirements. The same cannot be said of other power or chemical industries. It begs the question: if the (highly regulated) nuclear power industry is having problems this month, could the less regulated fossil-fuel plants be any better?

Mr. K, from the tone and frequency of your posts, you appear to be a "man on a mission". If the nuclear power industry is not paying you, than they should be. This is not a flame, exactly. I admire consistancy.

However, I believe that you are being, shall we say, "selective" in your data analysis. Here's why:

From the Plant Status Reports, Daily Events Reports, and Headquarters Reports, here is my count of January 2000 reactor shutdowns for reasons other than refueling outages (apologies in advance if the format is screwed):

1/3/2000 Oconee 3: Hot Standby, Reactor Trip, 0% power

1/5/2000 Duane Arnold 1: Hot Shutdown, Reactor Scram, 0% power

1/5/2000 Paulo Verde 2: Hot Standby, Maintenance Outage, 0% power

1/6/2000 Salem 1: Hot Standby, Manual Reactor Trip, 0% power

1/7/2000 Arkansas Nuclear 1: Hot Shutdown, Maintenance Outage, 0% power (see note below)

1/8/2000 Cooper 1: Cold Shutdown, Aux cooling system leak, 0% power (see note below)

1/8/2000 Limerick 2: Hot Shutdown, Automatic Reactor Scram, 0% power

1/9/2000 Seabrook 1: Hot Standby, reason not listed, 0% power. (see note below)

1/13/2000 Byron 2: Hot Standby, generator trip/turbine trip/reactor trip, 0% power

1/14/2000 Calvert Cliffs 1: Hot Standby, Reactor Trip, 0% power

1/18/2000 Sequoyah 2: Hot Standby, Reactor Trip, 0% power.

About Arkansas Nuclear 1:

From http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/DAILY/000111mr.htm (Headquarters Report):

(snips)

"Subject: SHUTDOWN OF ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE (ANO), UNIT 1, FOR WORK ON REACTOR COOLANT PUMP (RCP) D

Discussion:

On January 7, 2000, ANO, Unit 1, was shutdown to repair a small lubricating oil leak on RCP D. On January 8, RCP D was secured for work on the lube oil system. When the pump was secured, the Senior Resident Inspector observed the pump shaft rotate in the reverse direction for about 3 seconds until a relatively loud noise was heard, and then the pump shaft stopped. The noise coincided with the engagement of the anti-rotation device. Subsequently, broken parts of the anti-rotation device were found by the licensee. ANO Unit 1 remains shutdown pending installation of a temporary alteration on the RCP. This alteration will be designed to prevent pump rotation in either direction. Installation of the alteration will allow the licensee to restart the unit operating only 3 of the 4 RCPs. The unit is licensed and has performed the appropriate accident analyses for operation in this configuration. In addition, training of the on-shift crews has begun for this abnormal plant configuration."

About Cooper 1:

From http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/DAILY/000110mr.htm (Headquarters Report):

"Subject: SHUTDOWN TO REPAIR REACTOR EQUIPMENT COOLING SYSTEM LEAK

Discussion:

At about 11:00 a.m. on January 7, Cooper operators began a controlled power reduction to 12 percent power in response to increasing leakage from the reactor equipment cooling system. On January 8 at 1:30 a.m., operators entered containment but could not locate the leak. The operators continued the planned shutdown by manually scramming the reactor just before noon on January 8, 2000. After the shutdown, workers found the leak in the 'C' containment fan cooler, one of four containment fan coolers, and isolated its supply of reactor equipment cooling, leaving three coolers in service. The containment fan coolers do not perform any safety-related function, and licensee analysis of operating requirements for containment cooling supports operation with as few as two of the four coolers. Plant management planned to restart the unit upon completion of repairs."

(unsnips)

About Seabrook 1: Although listed in the Plant Status Report, dated 1/10/99, I can find no other information on this event in either the Daily Events Report or the Headquarters Report. Since the event occured over a weekend, I suppose the report could have slipped through the cracks of NRC beauracracy. I am including it because it does not appear to be a planned shutdown.

In addition, I have not completed the count of non-refuel related shutdowns for the past year, but here is what I have counted:

Dec98: 9 shutdowns

Jan99: 7 shutdowns

Feb99: 4 shutdowns

Mar99: 6 shutdowns

(break)

Dec99: 8 shutdowns (including 3 between 12/28 and 12/31)

Jan00: 11 shutdowns as of 1/20/2000

Admittedly, I may have missed a few, and all of the data is not in yet. But at first glance, Jan00 appears to be a banner month for unplanned nuclear plant shutdowns. And, although I haven't done the statistical analysis to back it up yet, it appears to me that a "cluster" of failures has occured from 1/5 to 1/9. Any stats wizzes out there?

I will continue the monthly count of shutdowns as time allows, and will report the results here as soon as I can. Unless someone wants to beat me to it. Feel free!

Spindoc'

-- Spindoc' (Spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), January 21, 2000.

"If you live within 50 miles of a nuke plant, you're toast"

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 21, 2000.