LR-N08-0224, Attachments 3 and 4 - Hope Creek Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report and Affidavit

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Attachments 3 and 4 - Hope Creek Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report and Affidavit
ML083100827
Person / Time
Site: Hope Creek PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 10/31/2008
From:
Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
LR-N08-0224
Download: ML083100827 (45)
v • d • e


Text

LR-N08-0224 Attachment 3 Hope Creek Generating Station Facility Operating License NPF-57 Docket No. 50-354 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report

\I ~I1" HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION EXTENDED POWER UPRATE POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT OCTOBER 2008 Approved By: Z UstM~na er EPU Test Dv/ector HCGS Plant Ma g HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Table of Contents T able of C ontents ......................................................................................

2.1.0 In tro du ction .....................................................................................

3 2.0 Plant D escription

.........................................................

.......4 3.0 Power Ascension Test Plan (PATP) Description

............................

5 3.1 O verview ..............................................................

5 3.2 T est Plan Scope ......................................................

.... 6 3.3 Test Plateaus ..........................................................

7 3.4 Test Acceptance Criteria ............................................

7 4.0 Conduct of Testing ........................................................

8 4.1 Review and Approval ................................................

8 4.2 Test Procedures

..................................

9 5.0 Summary of Test Results................................................

10 5.1 O verview ...............................................................

10 5.2 Individual Test Results ..............................................

11 6.0 Steam Dryer and Critical Piping Vibration Testing ............

35 Attachment A -EPU Test Organization Chart Attachment B -Test Milestones

& Chronology Attachment C -Test Deficiencies

& Resolutions Page 2 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Amendment No. 174 to the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) Operating License NPF-57 dated May 14, 2008, increased the station's authorized maximum power level by approximately 15 percent, from the previous licensed thermal power of 3,339. megawatts thermal (MWt) to the current 3,840 MWt.The purpose of the test plan was to confirm acceptable plant performance for operation at an extended power uprate (EPU) power level up to 3840 MWt or approximately 115%above the previous licensed power level. Integrated testing of EPU-related changes began on November 8h , 2007 during the startup and power ascension following Refueling Outage (RF) 14. Operation at 3840 MWt was successfully achieved and evaluated as satisfactory on August 2 8 th, 2008. The duration of active testing above 3339 MWt was approximately 35 days.This report summarizes EPU Power Ascension Testing performed at the Hope Creek Generating Station during the period following RF 14 through August 2008 up to and including operation at 3840 MWt. This Test Summary report is prepared to satisfy the requirements of Technical Specification Section 6.9.1.1 and Facility Operating License Condition 2.C.(22)6.

The Power Ascension Testing focused on a number of objectives including steam dryer and critical piping integrity, control and knowledge of reactor coolant chemistry, maintaining personnel exposures ALARA, measurement and evaluation of core thermal power and fuel thermal margins, and testing the digital feed-water level and electro-hydraulic control systems for proper level and pressure control. Balance of plant system monitoring was accomplished via detailed System Monitoring Plans. All testing was conducted in accordance with the Hope Creek Extended Power Uprate Implementation

&Power Ascension Test Plan (PATP), provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and described in License Change Request H05-01, Attachment 23.Section 5.0, Summary of Test Results, presents a summary description of each test, including measured values of operating parameters obtained during, the test,, and a comparison of these values with specific test acceptance criteria.

Corrective actions that were required to obtain satisfactory operation are also described.

Section 6.0, Steam Dryer and Critical Piping Vibration Testing, provides a summary of the steam dryer and critical piping vibration monitoring results and the final steam dryer structural integrity report. Other sections of the report provide descriptions of the PATP and summarize the conduct of the plan.Page 3 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT 2.0 PLANT DESCRIPTION The Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), owned by PSEG Nuclear, is a one-unit nuclear power plant. The unit is located on the southern part of Artificial Island on the east bank of the Delaware River in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The station is on a 700-acre site that is shared with the two-unit nuclear Salem Generating Station.The HCGS nuclear steam supply system is a General Electric BWR/4 product line direct-cycle boiling water reactor (BWR) designed to operate at an original rated core thermal power of 3293 MWt. In License Amendment 131 in July of 2001, the station performed a power uprate that increased the thermal output of the station to 3339 MWt based on the installation of a Crossflow ultrasonic flow measurement system and its ability to achieve increased accuracy in measuring feedwater flow. The generator has a capacity of 1,373.1 MVA at a 0.9375 power factor. The primary containment is a drywell/pressure suppression type, designated as Mark I. It is comprised of a steel shell, enclosed in reinforced.

concrete, and interconnected to a torus-type steel suppression chamber. The architect/engineer and constructor was Bechtel Power Corporation.

The EPU uprate project was supported by GE-Hitachi, using NRC approved constant-pressure power uprate criteria with the project objective to increase electrical generation by 101 to 135 MWe. This was accomplished through a combination of thermal power increase and thermal efficiency improvements.

With the approval of License Change Request (LCR) H05-01, HCGS demonstrated that it can' safety operate at a reactor thermal power as high as 3840 MWt (115% of the previous licensed power level).The Technical Evaluations that support the design and licensing bases for EPU operation were performed at a minimum of 3840 MWt. The evaluation results are summarized in the Hope Creek Power Uprate Safety Analysis Report (PUSAR), NEDO-33076, Revision 2. The approach taken to EPU implementation and preparation of the PUSAR was based on the GE Constant Pressure Power Uprate (CPPU) licensing topical report (NEDC-33004P, Rev. 4). Plant design conditions associated with the previously licensed power level, the current Cycle 15 performance, and expected performance conditions at EPU are presented in Table 2-1.Page 4 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Table 2-1, Previous, EPU and Cycle 15 Plant Operating Conditions Parameter Previous EPU.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .......... .e a .o e .....°; .rv ~ ........................

3 9 0 0 ......................................

3 4 0 i ° .....................................................

...........

M a ..............

r...e p s ~a ......................................................

0.....................................................................................

.....o ..... .....Thermal Power (MWt) / (% Previous Power) 39/0%3840/115%

Maximum Nominal Dome Pressure (psia) 11020 No Change i "Full" Power Core Flow Range (Mlb/hr) and [76.6 to 105.0 9%Rated [(MELLLA)

9. t"Full" Power Vessel Steam Flow (Mlb/hr) I 14.404 16.773..................................................................

...........

......................

............................................................

.............................................

------...

.. .. ......... .... .....................................................................................

..................."Full" Power Feedwater Flow (Mlb/hr) 14.372 16.741"Full" Power Feedwater Temperature (oF) 422.6 1431.6.............

a.r.e p er.e i ; .....................................................

I4 .........................

..........

..... ..... 4 3..6 .................................................--

-.-- -- -- ---.------

-- -- -- -- -- --- -------- -- -- .........................................................

.... .....3.0 POWER ASCENSION TEST PLAN DESCRIPTION 3.1 Overview The Hope Creek Extended Power Uprate Implementation

& Power Ascension Test Plan (PATP) was established to administratively and operationally control all testing activities associated with EPU implementation and the performance of EPU-related testing. The Test Plan governed operation above 3339 MWt and was in compliance with planned actions described in the PUSAR and LCR H05-01. The test execution itself was.governed by Hope Creek Operations procedure HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q), Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Testing. The PATP and implementing test procedure were supplemented by ten System Monitoring Plans which were performed throughout power ascension activities to ensure EPU-affected system parameters remained within expected limits and operating bands.To facilitate preparation for and the conduct of the PATP, a Test Organization was formed including members of various technical departments and senior management.

The Test Organization reported to the HCGS Plant Manager and is shown in Attachment A. The roles and responsibilities of each of the positions shown were similar to that established during the Initial Startup Test Program (ISTP), with the exception of titles which were changed to be more consistent with the current plant organization.

Consistent with normal plant operations, the Shift Manager (SM) had responsibility for the safe operation of the plant at all times. The SM's approval was required prior to performance of any test or power ascension activities, and the SM had the authority to stop the test at any time.Page 5 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT 3.2 Test Plan Scope Implementation of EPU at HCGS followed the guidelines contained in the NRC-approved GE Nuclear Energy (GENE) Licensing Topical Reports (LTRs) for extended power uprate (EPU) safety analysis:

NEDC-33004P-A, "Constant Pressure Power Uprate," (CPPU); NEDC-32424P-A, "Generic Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate," (ELTR1); and NEDC-32523P-A, "Generic Evaluations of General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Extended Power Uprate," (ELTR2). A detailed summary of the results of all significant evaluations performed justifying uprating the licensed thermal power at Hope Creek is contained in the Power Uprate Safety Analysis Report (PUSAR), NEDO-33076, Revision 2, and in HCGS EPU Implementation Design Change Package 80048085.The HCGS EPU Implementation and Power Ascension Test Plan (PATP) was prepared in accordance with Section 10.4, Required Testing, of the Safety Analysis Report.Acceptance criteria contained in l0CFR50, Attachment B, Criterion XI, Test Control;Standard Review Plan 14.2.1, Guidance for EPU Test Plans; and Regulatory Guide 1.68, Initial Test Plans, were also considered in the development of this program.The PATP composed of phases characterized by differences in plant and test conditions.

Major portions of the plan included Preparation, Implementation, and Power Ascension Testing. This report summarizes the results of the power ascension testing portion of the Test Plan. In addition, the PATP included a. detailed power ascension monitoring and analysis program to trend steam dryer and critical piping system performance.

This was accomplished through the monitoring of main steam line strain gauges, piping accelerometers, and moisture carryover.

Details associated with this aspect of the program are incorporated into the Test Procedure, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q), and are described in Attachment 23 to LCR H05-01, Revision 1. Results are .presented in Section 6.0 of this report.The power ascension testing was comprised of two major phases; startup from RF14 to the previous licensed thermal power (3339 MWt, also referred to as CLTP), and power ascension from CLTP to the EPU condition of 3840 MWt (115% CLTP). The actual testing sequence is identified in the Hope Creek Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Procedure, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004, developed during the preparation phase described above.The tests themselves, plant operating conditions (Test Conditions) at which particular power ascension tests were performed and testing approach are described in Section 5.0 of this report. In general, the recommended testing sequence had all tests performed at a particular Test Condition (increment or plateau) or completed prior to proceeding to the next Test Condition.

Page 6 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT 3.3 Test Plateaus The power ascension process utilized an incremental approach and followed guidance outlined in ELTR-1, Attachment L, Section L.2 "Guidelines for. Uprate Testing." Baseline data was taken at 90% and at 100% of the previous licensed power level. Power was then increased with a constant rod pattern in incremental steps of 2.5% power, with significant holds at the 105%, 110%, and 111.5% CLTP interim power plateaus.

Present methods used to calculate core thermal power and fuel thermal limits were utilized during the power ascension.

Indicated core power was re-scaled to the EPU power level prior to the commencement of power ascension testing above 3339 MWt. Routine measurements of operating performance parameters were evaluated at each power level and new projected values provided prior to continued power ascension.

The. PATP was considered complete upon achieving the EPU power level of 3840 MWt (115%). The main turbine Warranty & Contract Demonstration run was deferred to a later date, and is not summarized in this report.The approach taken ensured a careful, monitored approach to the EPU power level and maintained a consistent confirming technique for monitoring the power dependent parameters in each power increase increment.

The dates for achievement of each 2.5%power increment and 5.0% power plateau are as shown in Attachment B, Test Milestones

& Chronology.

3.4 Test Acceptance Criteria Similar to original startup testing each test's acceptance criteria is developed from several considerations such as safety analysis assumptions, engineering expectations and/or in some cases contractual commitments.

The following paragraphs describe the degree of each kind of test criterion used, and the actions to be taken if an individual criterion is not satisfied.

Level 1 Criteria associated with plant safety. If a Level 1 test criterion is not satisfied, the test is terminated and the plant placed in a condition that is judged to be satisfactory and safe, based upon prior testing. Plant emergency, abnormal, operating or test procedures, or the Technical Specifications, may guide the decision on the direction to be taken. Resolution of the problem must immediately be pursued by appropriate equipment adjustments or through engineering support if needed. Following resolution, the applicable test portion must be repeated to verify that the Level 1 requirement is satisfied.

A description of the problem resolution must be included in the report documenting the successful test.Page 7 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Level 2 Criteria associated with design or desirable performance.

If a Level 2 test criterion is not satisfied, the test is placed on hold and the plant stabilized.

The limits stated in this category are usually associated with expectations of system transient performance, where performance can be improved by equipment adjustments.

An investigation of the related parameters, as well as the measurement and analytical methods, is performed.

Following the evaluation and resolution of the Level 2 test criterion failures, the applicable test portion must be repeated or evaluated to verify that the Level 2 requirement is satisfied.

Level 1, Termination and Level 2, Hold Criteria were specifically defined in Sections 2 and 4 of the implementing test procedure, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q).

During the test program, no Level 1 Termination criteria were exceeded and there were six (6) instances where testing was placed on Hold (two of which occurred upon achievement of EPU power). A summary listing of power ascension-related test deficiencies which resulted in testing holds is provided in Attachment C. Conditions that resulted in not meeting Level 2 test criteria are described in detail in Section 5.0.4.0 CONDUCT OF TESTING 4.1 Review and Approval The Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) was responsible for reviewing the test procedure, results, significant deficiencies, plant terminations or holds, and test plateau escalation, and recommending approval of these items as appropriate during the power ascension test. Per the test procedure, PORC approval was required 1) prior to commencement of EPU implementation, 2) prior to sending steam dryer and critical piping vibration data to the NRC upon reaching each power plateau, and 3) upon final completion of all testing at each power plateau prior to the authorization to continue power ascension to the next power level. The dates and PORC meeting numbers associated with these milestones are as shown in Attachment B. Overall, there were thirteen (13) PORC meetings directly related to power ascension test activities.

The Test Manager with assistance from the Test Team and Infrequent Plant Activity (IPA) coordinator approved individual test results, resolutions, and subsequent actions of all result deficiencies during the actual test. The HCGS Plant Manager approved commencement of the Test Plan, operation for the first time above 3339 MWt, and escalation in power to each next power plateau. In accordance with License Condition 2.C(22)l.b, HCGS provided a 96-hour hold at the 105% and 110% power plateaus for outside stakeholder review (NRC) prior to proceeding to the next power step.For each power plateau including the 90% and 100% baseline data, Technical Evaluations were prepared in accordance with station procedures to document steam Page 8 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT dryer integrity and other test results, and justify further power increases.

Technical Evaluations prepared to support power operation above 3339 MWt were reviewed by PORC.4.2 Test Procedures As stated above, power ascension testing was governed by HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004, Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Testing. The procedure supplemented existing Operations procedures to provide direction to maneuver the plant from startup to 3840 MWt. Changes to the procedure during testing were accomplished as either an on-the-spot change or procedure revision in accordance with station procedures.

The Test Procedure revision history is as shown below in Table 4-1.Table 4-1, PATP Test Procedure (HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

History Revision Description Effective Date 0 Initial procedure issue. Reviewed by HC PORC on 11/3/07 10/02/07 (Meeting No. 2007-15).......................................................

ng ----200 ---- ------------------------..............--...........................................................................

I Minor Revision -allowed individual steps to be deferred 11/7/07 with prior approval by the Test Manager..... .. .......................

.. ..... ... ... ... .. .... ....w ..t.h ....- P. .......... .ra p -r v .- ... ..-.. -.h -..-..t.. ... .....M a. n.. .e L ......... ..... .. .......... .. ........ ..... .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. ... ....... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. ......2 Major Revision -revised to reflect lessons learned during startup from RF14, added additional technical guidance, and re-formatted to reflect on-line EPU implementation.

4/29/08 Reviewed by HC PORC on 4/24/07 (Meeting No. H2008-... ......4 .......................................04 ) .3 Minor Revision -incorporated two on-the-spot changes associated with procedure compliance.

Other minor 5/16/08 techn ical and editorial chang-es m ade. ...............................

......................................................................

4 Minor Revision -incorporated three on-the-spot changes clarifying procedure steps. Other minor technical and 6/18/08......................

...............................

... .... ....... ........ h. .. ...... ........................................................................................................

..........---

...................................................................................................................

5 [Major Revision -revised to allow power ascension to 3840 MWt or to a 40% open Turbine Control Valve #4, 8/21/08.......w ic e vr.s.i...............

...... -w- .is.tin g .... ...................................................

...................

....................................................................................................

Test procedure data was primarily obtained from plant instrumentation, Control Room Information Display System (CRIDS), the plant process computer, and the General Electric Transient Analysis Recording System (GETARS).

Steady-state data was generally obtained from all sources, whereas GETARS was used for transient data. The GETARS high-speed digital data acquisition system can directly digitize measurements every millisecond, allowing data to be sampled and recorded in real time at 1000 samples per second per channel.Page 9 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT 5.0

SUMMARY

OF TEST RESULTS 5.1 Overview The PATP was successfully implemented and operation at an extended power uprate (EPU) power level of 115% was achieved and evaluated as satisfactory on August 28th, 2008. The duration of active testing above 3339 MWt was approximately 35 days.Overall, all Level 1 test criteria were met and there were several cases where established Level 2 criteria were not met, resulting in a total of six (6) test holds. In all cases, either the condition was corrected or evaluated as satisfactory in a PORC approved Technical Evaluation consistent with station procedures.

A Power Ascension Control Center (PACC) consisting of qualified individuals from Operations, Engineering and other support organizations was staffed at all times during active testing activities.

Overall, no significant unexpected plant occurrences were associated with power ascension activities to 3840 MWt. There were no plant events, no Level 1 criteria exceeded, no reactivity anomalies, no need to reduce reactor power, and no significant unanticipated occurrences regarding plant systems or components.

The most significant challenges to the Test Organization involved the need to perform Reactor Feed Pump tuning to optimize performance during testing, analytical work associated with Steam Dryer vibration testing and analyses, failure of a turbine valve to re-open during GE optional testing, and the identification of several CRIDS computer alarm points which required re-scaling due to new operating conditions.

No deficiency or challenge to the Test Organization or plant during testing was deemed to have any safety-significance on structures, systems or components important to safety.A milestone summary and chronology of power ascension testing at Hope Creek is provided as Attachment B. A summary of the results of each power ascension test performed during this program is presented in the following section. Note that test numbers correspond to tests performed during original startup testing. Since only selected tests were re-performed for EPU, test numbers are not sequential.

The PATP evaluated and determined which original startup tests would be repeated for EPU.Page 10 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT 5.2 Individual Test Results 5.2.1 Test No. 1 Chemical and Radiochemical (Attachment 8, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

Objective:

The objective of this test was to maintain control of and knowledge about the quality of the reactor coolant chemistry during power ascension.

Routine reactor water samples were collected and analyzed for conductivity, sulfates, and chlorides.

Offgas and reactor water were sampled for gamma isotopic activity.

Condensate and feedwater samples were analyzed for conductivity, iron and dissolved oxygen content. Acceptance criteria were based on Technical Specification limits.Acceptance Criteria: Level 1: 1. Chemical factors defined in plant procedures must be maintained within the limits specified.

2. The activity of gaseous and liquid effluents conforms to license limitations.
3. Water quality is known at all times and remains within the requirements of the chemistry program procedures.

Level 2: None.Discussion:

Chemistry data during power ascension activities was taken on a once per shift, daily or other frequency as specified in Attachment 8 to HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q).

Formal evaluations of selected data were performed at each power plateau. During the testing, all results remained within procedural limits. There were no chemistry excursions, no indications of a fuel detect, no abnormal results or adverse trends identified.

A summary of critical chemistry data acquired during power ascension testing is provided in Table 5-1.No test deficiencies were identified during power ascension activities associated with chemistry performance.

Page 11 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Table 5-1 Water Chemistry Test Results PARAMETER 3339 3422 3506 3589 3673 3723 3840 Limit MWt MWt MWt MWt MWt MWt MWt RWCU INLET Conductivity (uS/cm) 0.117 0.108 0.115 0.121 0.113 0.118 0.116 <0.3 pH 7.72 7.70 7.73 7.66 7.68 7.70 7.68 5.6<pH<8.6 Chloride (ppb) < 0.22 < 0.22. < 0.22 < 0.22 < 0.22 < 0.22 0.32 < 5 Sulfate (ppb) 0.51 0.58 0.56 0.68 0.70 0.92 0.99 < 5 Dissolved 02 (ppb) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.26 Solids (NTU) < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 <0.1 < 0.1 <0.1 REACTOR RECIRC Conductivity (uS/cm) 0.127 0.114 0.118 0.104 0.094 0.123 0.108 < 0.3 Dissolved H 2 (ppm) 0.257 0.256 0.252 0.247 0.252 0.274 0.264 Dissolved 0 2 (ppb) 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.86 RWCU EFFLUENT A Conductivity(uS/cm) 0.056 0.055 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.056 O/S < 0.08 B Conductivity(uS/cm) 0.070 0.067 0.067 0.072 0.069 0.055 0.058 < 0.08 FEEDWATER Conductivity (uS/cm) 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 .0.055 < 0.065 Dissolved H 2 (ppm) 0.182 0.185 0.189 0.196 0.199 0.196 0.201 Dissolved 0 2 (ppb) 43 42 40 44 44 41 56 30<02< 200 CONDENSATE CDI Conductivity (uS/cm) 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 < 0.10 Dissolved 02 (ppb) 38 35 42 55 38 38 41 30<02< 200 Page 12 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT 5.2.2 Test No. 2 Radiation Measurements (Attachment 5, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

Objective The purpose of this test was to monitor area radiation levels during power ascension at selected power levels to assure that personnel exposures are maintained ALARA, radiation survey maps are accurate, and that radiation zones are properly posted.Acceptance Criteria Level 1: The radiation doses of plant origin and the occupancy times of personnel in radiation zones shall be controlled consistent with the guidelines of the Standard for Protection Against Radiation outlined in 10 CFR 20.Level 2: Radiological Boundaries and postings have been established IAW site procedures following the power uprate to the specified MWt level.Personnel dose monitoring and appropriate ALARA controls have been implemented in accordance with site procedures following power uprate.Radiation levels remain below design basis projected levels for Area and Gaseous Radiation Monitors.Discussion:

At each power plateau, contact and general area dose rate measurements were taken at 53 locations throughout the turbine, radwaste, and reactor buildings.

All dose rates were within expected values in accordance with station procedures and ALARA practices.

All Level 1 and 2 acceptance criteria were met, no, changes were made to any Radiation Zones, and there were no significant test deficiencies during the test. Tables 5-2 and 5-3 provide the survey test results at each of the power ascension test plateaus by building and survey location in mrem/hr. Contact dose rates at the specific survey point are shown in the tables. General area dose rates were typically either the same or slightly less.Those points shown with a <.2 mR/hr were measured below the detectable limit of the hand-held instrumentation used. Dose rates varied not only because of reactor power changes but also due to changes in Hydrogen Water Chemistry Injection (HWCI) flow-rates (e.g., varied between 7 and 10 scfm during the test). Note that the last column of the tables shows survey results taken during the performance of HWCI Benchmark Test HC.CH-PT.AX-0001, Post NobleChem Hydrogen Injection Rate Determination.

During the test HWCI flow-rates were maximized (approximately 15 scfm) to establish bounding radiation surveys for EPU operation.

Page 13 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Table 5-2 Radiation Survey Test Results in MR/Hr (Turbine Building)3005 3339 3506 3673 3723 3723 3840 Description MWt MWt MWt MWt MWt MWt MWt 90% 100% 105% 110% 111.5% 111.5%* 115%Plant Roof (H07A) 14 30 34 38 24 42 42 Turbine 54' South (H 11A) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Turbine 54' South (HI.11) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Turbine 54' South (HI IM) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 .2 <.2 .2 Turbine 54' South (H I1L) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Turbine 77'-87' (H12B) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Turbine 77'-87' (H12J) <.2 .2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 .2 Turbine 77'-87' (H12K) <.2 .2 .2 .2 .2 <.2 .2 Turbine 77'-87' (H12S) .3 .4 .5 .5 .4 .5 .4 Turbine 77' Area (H120) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Turbine 77' Area (H12P) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 .<.2 Turbine 102' Area (H13D) .2 .2 .2 .4 .5 <.2 .4 Turbine 102' Area (H13V) <.2 .2 .2 .2 .5 <.2 .4 Turbine 102' Area (H13W) <.2 .2 .2 .2 .2 <.2 .2 Turbine 102'-111' (H13G) <.2 .2 <.2 .2 <.2 <.2 .2 Turbine 102'-111' (H13H) .2 .4 .5 .6 .8 .2 .6 Turbine 102'-111' (H13M) .2 .4 .4 .5 !.6 .2 ..6 Turbine 102'-111' (H13P) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Turbine 102'-111' (H13T) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 .2 Turbine 120' (H14B) <.2 .2 .2 .2 <.2 <.2 .4 Turbine 120' (H14F) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Turbine 137' (H15B) .2 .4 .4 .4 .2 .4 .5 Turbine 137' (H15M) .2 .4 .4 .4 <.2 <.2 .4 Turbine 137' (H150) .4 .6 .8 1.0 .8 .6 .8 Turbine 137' (H15R) .4 .5 .6 .6 .6 * .5 .8 Turbine 137' (H15V) .4 .5 .6 .6 .8 .6 .6 Turbine 137' (H15W) .2 .4 .6 .6 .2 .5 .6 Turbine 137' (H15X) .2 .5 .6 .6 .6 .5 .6 Turbine 137' (H15F) .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 <.2 .4 Turbine 137' (H15E) .4 .5 .6 .6 .8 .5 .8 Turbine 137' (H15D) .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 <.2 .4 Turbine 137' (H15K) .2 .3 .4 .4 <.2 .2 .5 Turbine 137' (H15T) .4 .5 .6 .6 .6 .5 .6 Turbine 171' (H17A) .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.4 Turbine 171' (H17B) .4 .6 .8 .8 .6 .8 1.0 Note:

  • Results during performance of HC.CH-PT.AX-0001, Post NobleChem Hydrogen Injection Rate Determination where HWCI flow-rates were maximized.

Page 14 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Table 5-3 Radiation Survey Test Results (Radwaste

& Reactor Building)3005 3339 3506 3673 3723 3723 3840 Description MWt MWt MWt MWt MWt MWt MWt 90% 100% 105% 110% 111.5% 111.5%* 115%Machine Shop (H33A) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Machine Shop (H33D) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Solid Radwaste (H31L) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Solid Radwaste (H3 1A) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Solid Radwaste (H31M) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Solid Radwaste (H3 1B) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 S/RW 124'(H34A)

<.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 S/RW 124' (H34B) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 RX 54' (H41A) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 RX 54' (H41B) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 RX 102' (H43A) .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 <.2 .4 RX 102' (H43B) <.2 <.2 .2 <.2 .2 <.2 .2 RX 102' (H43G) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 RX 102' (H43J) .3 .4 .4 .4 .4 <.2 .4 RX 132' (H44A) .5 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 RX 132' (H44B) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 RX 132' (H44G) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 RX 132' (H44H) <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 Note:

'Hydrogen Injection Rate Determination where HWCI flowrates were maximized.

Tables 5-2 and 5-3 above show that power ascension between 3339 MWt and 3840 MWt had a small effect on contact and general area dose rates. In general, all areas trended as expected trending up as reactor power and HWCI injection flow rates increased.

Several points did not follow this trend but they were found to be typically near the lower points of detection, and were attributed to variations in survey practices or instruments used.The Turbine Building plant roof, survey point H07A, was found to exhibit the most variation resulting from EPU implementation.

Dose rates increased slightly more than expected (not directly linear with power) and may have varied somewhat due to survey practices and the specific location taken; nonetheless, dose rates for the plant roof and all survey points were considered acceptable and there were no challenges to analyzed limits or the limits outlined in 10 CFR20.In addition to radiation surveys, the test recorded selected process radiation monitors for evaluation at each power plateau. The final radiation readings versus pre-established EPU alarm values for these monitors are as shown in Table 5-4.Page 15 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Table 5-4 Radiation Monitor Test Results Serial Service Grid EPU Unit Final Test Reading No. Icon Alarm 3840 MWt Value 1 Personal Airlock Area 9RX700 2.50E+00 mR/hr 2.04E-2 mR/hr 2 Motorized Equipment Hatch Area 9RX701 2.50E+00 mR/hr 1.33E-1 mR/hr 3 Open Equipment Hatch Area 9RX702 7.50E+00 mR/hr 1.85E-1 mR/hr Spent Fuel Pool & Demin Equip 9RX703 5.OOE+00 mR/hr 6.77E-1 mR/hr Area 5 Safeguard Instrument Room 9RX704 1.50E+01 mR/hr 2.50E-2 mR/hr 6 Equipment Airlock Area Room 9RX705 2.50E+00 mR/hr 4.59E-2 mR/hr RWCU Demineralizer System 9RX706 2.50E+00 mR/hr 2.55E-1 mRJhr Equip Room 8 Spent Fuel Storage Pool Area 9RX707 1.38E+O1 mR/hr 3.92E-1 mR/hr 9 Radwaste Drum Shipping Area 9RX709 1.00E+03 mR/hr 5.2 1EO mR/hr 10 Main Control Room 9RX710 2.50E+00 mR/hr 1.77E-2 mR/hr 11 Chemistry Lab Sample Area 9RX711 2.50E+00 mR/hr 8.92E-3 mR/lhr 12 Auxiliary Hatch Area 9RX712 2.50E+00 mR/hr 3.5 1E-2 mR/hr 13 Restricted Machine Shop 9RX713 2.50E+00 mR/hr 1-77E-5 mR/hr 14 Restricted Machine Shop 9RX714 2.50E+00 mR/hr 8.47E-3 mR/hr 15 FRVSV LRP Area 9RX720 2.50E+00 mR/hr 3.48E-2 mR/hr 16 FRVSV Skid Area 9RX721 2.50E+00 mR/hr 5.3 1E-2 mR/hr 17 Outside of Reactor Bldg Sample 9RX723 2.50E+00 mR/hr 3.48E-2 mR/hr Station 18 Offgas Treatment Control Room 9RX724 2.50E+00 mR/hr 8.97E-2 mR/hr 19 Liquid Radwaste Control Room 9RX722 2.50E+00 mR/hr 8.85E-3 mR/hr 20 Offgas Vial Sample Station 9RX716 2.50E+00 mR/hr 6.13E-2 mR/hr 21 Technical Support Center 9RX620 0.50E+00 mR/hr 1.01E-2 mR/hr 22 Inside of Reactor Building Sample 9RX708 5.OOE+01 mR/hr 5.55E0 mR/hr Station 23 Radwaste Sample Station 9RX717 1.00E+01 mR/hr 1.72E-1 mR/hr 24 New Fuel Storage Area 9RX612 6.54E+00 mR/hr 6.99E-2 mR/hr 25 New Fuel Storage Area 9RX613 6.54E+00 mR/hr 5.88E-2 rnR/hr 26 Outside TIP Room 9RX698 1.00E+02 mR/hr 7.39E-1 mR/hr 127 Inside TIP Room 19RX699 4.OOE+04 mR/hr 2.23E1 mR/hr Page 16 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT One Test Deficiency was identified during testing associated with radiation monitoring.

Test Deficiency 0020 was written to document spiking which occurred during power ascension on the Offgas Vial Sample Radiation Monitor (serial no. 20, Table 5-4 above).After investigation, it was determined that the spiking was an existing plant issue previously identified in the corrective action program. The issue was captured in station Notification 20368415.

No other deficiencies or test anomalies were identified associated with radiation protection.

5.2.3 Test No. 10 Intermediate Range Monitor (IRM) Performance (Attachment 13, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

Objective The purpose of this test is to adjust the Intermediate Range Monitor System to obtain an optimum overlap with the Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) system. The existing plant surveillance program, which assures compliance with the TS limits, is utilized to satisfy this requirement.

Acceptance Criteria Level 1: Technical Specification Requirements for IRM to APRM Overlap are met.Level 2: None.Discussion In accordance with DCP 80048085, adjustments to the Intermediate Range Monitors (IRM), if necessary, will be made during the first controlled shutdown following APRM Calibrations for EPU (note this activity is part of the Phase IV, Post EPU On-Going Monitoring Program, and not part of the test itself).IRM to APRM overlap data was taken during the startup from RF 14 on November 14, 2007, prior to EPU implementation.

The data was acquired in accordance with Step 5.1.4 of HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q) and overlaps ensured per Step 5.3.40 of HC.OP-IO.ZZ-0003.

Data obtained is as shown in Table 5-5.Page 17 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Table 5-5 IRM/APRM Overlap Test Data IRM Range 3339MWt EPU No. Test Data Projected A 9 17.3 N/C B 9 14.2 N/C C 9 13.1 N/C D 9 Inoperable N/C E 9 15.4 N/C F 9 19.4 N/C G 10 23.1 N/C H 10 24.1 N/C APRM A 100% 7.8% 6.8%B 4-100% 8.1% 7.0%C 4-100% 8.1% 7.0%D 4-100% 7.7% 6.7%E 4-100% 8.5% 7.4%F 4-100% 8.2% 7.1%Note: N/C = No Change Based on the data shown in Table 5-5 above, there should be no need to adjust IRM/APRM overlaps during the shutdown from Cycle 15 or subsequent startup.In accordance with station integrated operating procedures and Technical Specifications, a '/2 decade overlap is required and is demonstrated by ensuring all IRMs read less than 50 on Range 10 (on scale and no upscale or downscale alarms) while APRM average power is above the downscale set-point of 4% reactor power. As can be seen from the above table, the small relative change in APRM power (at low power) due to EPU does not adversely impact nuclear instrumentation overlap. IRMs will be on-scale (read less than 50 on Range 10) with APRM's on-scale (i.e., above 4% indicated power); thus, overlaps can be established.

Nonetheless, nuclear instrumentation overlap is procedurally required to be demonstrated for each startup and shutdown and as stated above, the need to optimize overlap data will be determined at a later date. Any required adjustment will be performed via station procedure HC.IC-GP.SE-0011(Q), IRM/APRM Overlap Adjustment.

Page 18 of' 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT 5.2.4 Test 12 APRM Calibration (Section 5.2.7 and Attachment 6, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

Objective The purpose of this test is to calibrate the APRMs to the power uprate level. The existing plant surveillance program, which assures compliance with the TS limits, was utilized to satisfy this requirement.

Additionally, calibration checks and adjustments were made periodically during the approach to the final EPU power level.In addition to the above, testing was also performed of the new Turbine 1" Stage Pressure Bypass trip set-point to ensure compliance with Technical Specification limits. This feature ensures a turbine trip will result in reactor protection system (RPS) actuation above a pre-set established reactor power level. The new set-point was determined via GE analyses (associated with the new HP turbine installed in RF 14), but due to manufacturing and other deviations, the set-point required confirmation via testing.Acceptance Criteria Level 1: 1) Calibrate APRM system based on heat balance data consistent with Technical Specifications.

2) The Turbine 1st Stage Pressure Bypass trip units N652A, B, C and D must be clear prior to exceeding a reactor power of 24% (after EPU implementation) in accordance with Technical Specification requirements.

Level 2: The Turbine ist Stage Pressure Bypass trip units N652A, B, C and D must clear prior to exceeding an Analytical Value of 125.3 psig as determined in the GE "pre-test" set-point calculation.

Discussion APRM channels B, D, and F were re-scaled to reflect an extended power uprate rated thermal power of 3840 MWt on 5/18/08. APRM channels A, C and E were satisfactorily recalibrated to technical specification requirements by 5/19/08. After APRM re-calibration, plant process computer heat balance data was evaluated and verified satisfactory in accordance with Step 5.2.9 of HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q) on May 21, 2008, prior to raising power above 3339 MWt for the first time. In addition, during power ascension, Reactor Engineering personnel verified all inputs to the heat balance were satisfactory at each of the power plateaus per the Test Procedure.

No test deficiencies were associated with APRM calibration, NI performance, or heat balance inputs, throughout the power ascension activities.

Page 19 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT The "pre-test" GE Turbine First Stage Pressure set-point calculation concluded that the new HP turbine Technical Specification Turbine First Stage Bypass Permissive (TFSP)relationship to reactor power would be as follows: Tech. Spec. It Stage Pressure EPU Power CLTP Power Analytical Value 125.3 psig 24% 27.6%Allowable Value 112.3 psig <24% <27.6%Nominal Trip Setpoint 104.2 psig <24% <27.6%Since the "pre-test" calculation had a potential.error because of turbine manufacturing tolerances, the purpose of the test was to validate the heat balance for the turbine at reduced power used to establish the above limits, and based on measured values to determine if a "bias" needed to be applied to the "pre-test" estimate as determined in the set-point calculation.

The results of testing performed during power ascension from RF 14 (Attachment 6 to HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004) yielded an as-tested trip set-point of 26% CLTP power (versus a technical specification requirement of <30% RTP at the time of testing) at a 104 psig turbine Ist stage pressure.

This set-point corresponds to 22.6% EPU thermal power (i.e., 26% x 3339/3840).

This is below the post-EPU technical specification requirement of 24% rated thermal power and meets both established Level 1 and 2 acceptance criteria.The as-tested set-point was evaluated as satisfactory and no need was identified to make any additional set-point adjustments or to apply any "bias" to the as-found set-point.

5.2.5 Test 19 Core Performance (Attachment 7, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

Objective The purpose of this test is to measure and evaluate the core thermal power and fuel thermal limits to ensure a careful, monitored approach to the power uprate level. Existing calculation methods are utilized to ensure TS compliance.

Fuel thermal margin values were predicted for the next power level to show the expected acceptable margin to Technical Specification limits prior to the next power increase.Acceptance Criteria Level 1: Acceptance criteria included maintaining all thermal limits less than 1.0 in accordance with technical specification limits. Core flow was required to be less than 105 Mlbm/hr and operation at all times was required to be within the allowable boundaries as shown on the HCGS Power to Flow Map.Level 2: None.Page 20 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Discussion Table 5-6 below demonstrates that thermal limits were satisfactory at all times during power ascension to 3840 MWt. Operation at each power plateau was confirmed to be within allowable regions of the Power to Flow Map by reactor engineering per the test procedure.

No deficiencies or anomalies were identified with thermal limits, core performance or the heat balance; thus core performance was as expected.

Core flow ranged between 82.5 Mlbm/hr to 99.6. Mlbm/hr during power ascension activities.

Table 5-6 Predicted vs. Actual Core Performance Thermal Limit MFLCPR MAPRAT MFLPD 90% (3005 MWt) Predicted/Actual 0.828/0.818 0.610/0.598 0.777/0.766 100% (3339 MWt) 0.936/0.931 0.644/0.651 0.831/0.836 105% (3506 MWt) 0.936/0.930 0.679/0.686 0.849/0.859 110% (3673 MWt) 0.929/0.929 0.707/0.724 0.861/0.883 111.5% (3723 MWt) " 0.863/0.882 0.773/0.773 0.901/0.901 115% (3840 MWt) 0.914/0.914 0.790/0.788 0.891/0.888 As shown above, MFLCPR was relatively unaffected during power ascension activities due to the constant rod pattern (use of the reactor recirculation system to raise power).MAPRAT and MFLPD trended upwards as expected.

Note that a small Control Rods for Core Flow maneuver was performed during the two week period after achieving 111.5%for the first time without the Crossflow system in service. This was required in order to regain core flow margin and occurred within 1% of the final target power level. This is why MFLCPR was reduced at the end of the 111.5% power plateau testing. Final results reflect an additional rod pattern adjustment and almost two months of core exposure.5.2.5 Test No. 22 Pressure Regulator (Attachment 12, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

Objective The purpose of this test was to determine the response of the reactor and the turbine governor system to the operating pressure regulator.

The pressure control system was tested to verify proper dampening of induced perturbations in the system.Acceptance Criteria Level 1: Throttle Steam Pressure Decay Ratio approaching or exceeding 1.0 or Failure to Control Reactor Pressure.Level 2: Throttle Steam Pressure response must meet a decay ratio of 0.25.Margin to scram of 7.5% or less Reactor Pressure approaches or exceeds 1016 psig Time from initiation of step change to peak inlet pressure exceeds 10 seconds.Page 21 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Discussion The purpose of this test is to demonstrate adequate DEHC pressure control in response to pressure step changes as large as +/- 6 psig.The tests were performed at 40%, 90%, 100% (CLTP), and at the 105% and 110% power plateaus.

The test is not required at 115% since it is performed within 5% of EPU conditions per GE test specifications.

The final pressure regulator testing in accordance with Attachment 12 of the test was performed at 110% reactor power (CLTP) on May 28, 2008. The peak negative pressure step change was (-) 6 psid and the peak positive pressure step change was (+) 6 psid during the test. All Level 1 and Level 2 acceptance criteria were met. A reactor power scram avoidance margin (peak APRM neutron flux -APRM Neutron scram set-point) of 18.33% was maintained during the test. Peak reactor pressure during the test was 992 psig compared to an initial condition of 986 psig.Reactor Pressure scram margin was 34 psid. Time from initiation of step change to peak inlet pressure was 2.02 seconds. The worst case decay ratio was determined to be 0.16, for GETARS signal No. 145, Main Steam Pressure A.There were no test deficiencies associated with pressure regulator system performance or testing.5.2.6 Test 23 Feedwater System (Attachment 11, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

Objective RFP Flow Demand and Reactor Water Level Step Changes The purpose of this test was to demonstrate

1) that each reactor feed pump (RFP)controller operates properly in response to feedwater flow step changes at EPU conditions (small 2000 gpm and large 4000 gpm flow steps), and 2) that the digital*feedwater control system has acceptable response to reactor water level setpoint changes up to 4-inches in 3-element control and up to 2-inches in single element control at EPU conditions.

Feedwater Runout Data Collection and Evaluation The purpose of this test is to gather RFP data during power ascensionto prove two things 1) that the assumption used in the UFSAR Chapter 15 Feed-water Controller Failure of 136.5% rated feed-water flow is conservative and 2) that the -system retains a minimum of 5% of excess capacity (post-EPU, 10% prior to EPU) at all times to accommodate plant transients.

In theory, since the RFP high-speed clamps which are set at 5480 rpm were not changed for EPU, this prediction should only vary by small variations in the pump performance curves or due to system resistance changes.Page 22 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Acceptance Criteria RFP Flow Demand and Reactor Water Level Step Changes Level 1: Reactor Water Level Decay Ratio approaching or exceeding 1.0 or Failure to Control Reactor Water Level.Level 2: 1) Reactor Water Level (level step changes) or RFP parameters that exhibit an oscillatory response must meet a decay ratio of 0.25.2) Margin to scram of 7.5% or less, or receipt of APRM Upscale Alarms 3) 5 Inch Overshoot during Water Level Step Changes 4) RFP Speed Criteria: Time to 10% of Step Change T 10 < 1.1 Seconds (small step)Time 10% to 90% of Step Change T90 <1.9 Seconds (small step)Settling Time Tset <14 Seconds (small step)Overshoots

<15% (small step)Average Rate of Response 10-25% Rated Pump Speed/Second (large step only)Feedwater Runout Data Collection and Evaluation Level 1: Maximum feedwater runout capacity shall be less than 22.9 Mlbm/hr (assumes controller failure resulting in all RFPs at 5480 rpm) following EPU implementation.

Level 2: Excess feedwater flow capacity shall be at least 5 % greater than normal EPU feedwater flow or 17.6 Mlbm/hr following EPU implementation.

Discussion RFP Flow Demand and Reactor Water Level Step Changes The tests were performed at 90%, 100% (CLTP), and at the 105% and 110% power plateaus.

The test is not required at 115% since it is performed within 5% of EPU conditions per GE test specifications.

Tuning of Reactor Feed Pumps was required throughout power ascension testing activities.

While all Level 1 acceptance criteria were met, certain Level 2 criteria were not met for the RFPs during testing. In each case either tuning or evaluations were performed.

The final test results were as follows: Page 23 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Reactor Feed Pump Step Changes At 110% reactor power, all three RFPs were found to meet the large step (+/-4000 gpm)average-rate-of-response criteria of 10-25% of rated pump speed per second. The 'A'RFP showed an average response of (-4000/ 18.9% & +4000/ 12.3%), the 'B' RFP averaged (-4000/ 22.4 % & +4000/ 12.3%), and the 'C' RFP averaged (-4000/ 18.9 % &+4000/ 13.6%). Thus, all three RFPs would be expected to provide satisfactory response to a large or design basis transient.

No challenges to reactor water level, other RFPs, or any other systems were identified associated with the large (4000 gpm) flow steps.The 'A' 2000 GPM steps did not fully pass established acceptance criteria for T90. The positive (+) steps had a T90 of 2.7 seconds, however the negative (-) step was acceptable with a T90 of 1.6 seconds. A tuning adjustment on the 'A' RFP was performed with a gain change from 2.4 to 2.5. The results were that the (+) 2000 GPM step change T90 improved to 1.6 seconds which meets the acceptance criteria of 1.9 seconds. All other parameters met the acceptance criteria as well. Therefore, the response of the 'A' RFP was acceptable.

The 'B' RFP 2000 GPM steps did not fully pass established acceptance criteria for Overshoot.

The positive (+) 2000 GPM steps had an initial overshoot of 20% versus a 15% limit. All other parameters met the acceptance criteria.

A retest was performed with no tuning adjustment because the elevated overshoot was determined to be caused by the dynamic response of the 'A' RFP. The subsequent test had an overshoot of 15.48% with all other parameters still meeting acceptance criteria.

Based on the variability of the overshoot due to dynamic response of the 'A' RFP, the fact that all other parameters meet acceptance criteria and the minimal deviation from the overshoot acceptance criteria, no additional tuning was required and the result was determined to be acceptable.

Having this one tuning parameter outside of the established criteria was discussed with both GE and Woodward Governor personnel.

It was concluded that not meeting the overshoot by 0.48% would have negligible effect on either individual RFP or system performance, and given the overall performance of the system at this power level, and other considerations such as reactor water level response, additional tuning was not recommended.

The Test Team concurred with these recommendations.

The 'C' RFP small 2000 GPM step changes were satisfactory on the first test and therefore no tuning was required.It was noted during the testing that the 'A' RFP exhibits an oscillatory behavior and tends to hunt around its set-point.

To a lesser extent, some oscillatory behavior was seen in the'B' RFP as well. The magnitude of the oscillations were slightly greater than previous steady state conditions and made it challenging to assess certain parameters such as overshoot and settle time. This is seen both before and after the transient tests, however, plots support that this behavior has been occurring for a period of. time. This was discussed with both representatives from GE and Woodward Governor.

Based on these discussions it was concluded that such a condition would have no affect on the RFP's Page 24 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT ability to respond to a transient.

This behavior may ultimately result in premature wear or long-term reliability concerns.

This issue is documented in the corrective action program (notification 20370905).

Reactor Water Level Step Changes Level step changes up to (+/-) 4 inches in 3-element and (+1-) 2 inches in single element DFCS modes were performed at the 110% CLTP reactor power. All Level 1 and 2 established acceptance criteria were met. The worst-case decay ratio for any step change was determined to be essentially 0 for reactor water level. A peak APRM flux of 96.5%and an overshoot of 1.3 inches was recorded for the (+/-) 4-inch 3-element step change.The results of the (+/-) 2-inch single element step changes were a peak APRM flux of 96.6% and an overshoot of 0.9 inch.In summary, four (4) test deficiencies were associated with failure to meet established Level 2 test criteria which resulted in test Holds (i.e., all associated with RFP step changes).

Refer to Attachment C of this report for additional details associated with these test deficiencies.

Feedwater Runout Data Collection and Evaluation The feed-water controller failure -Maximum Demand event is considered a potentially limiting event per UFSAR chapter 15.1.2 and is re-analyzed for each reload. The transient is postulated on the basis of a single failure of a control device. The feed-water controller(s) are forced to the upper limits (5480 clamp speeds) at the beginning of the transient.

The assumed run-out flow for the FWCF is 136.5% of rated flow for CLTP and LPU;thus the limits are: CLTP 1.365 x 14.372 Mlbm/hr = 19.618 Mlbm/hr LPU 1.365 x 16.741 Mlbm/hr = 22.851 Mlbm/hr Therefore, if at any time all RFPs suddenly received a spurious full demand signal, and they all went to the high speed stops (5480 rpm); the system shall not deliver more than the above stated flow-rates; otherwise -the accident analysis assumption would be not conservative and no longer bounding.Thus, the above is the basis for this test's Level 1 termination criteria.

Per Section 7.4.2 of the PUSAR, the feed-water system at EPU conditions is required to have a minimum of 5% excess capacity to accommodate transients.

It is previously 10% at CLTP. While this is not a safety-related item, it is a design commitment, thus the Level 2 (hold) criteria in the test is established as follows: Page 25 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT CLTP 1. 10 x- 14.2 Mlbm/hr = 15.7 Mlbm/hr LPU 1.05 x 16.8 Mlbm/hr= 17.6 Mlbm/hr Testing at each power plateau gathered various condensate and feedwater system parameters from installed plant instrumentation.

The data was then input into the existing Proto-Flo thermal-hydraulic model of the condensate and feed-water system documented in design calculation AE-0026 to evaluate both the run-out flow and excess capacity of the system. The model has previously been benchmarked to actual plant data and* had been proven in other EPU analyses to accurately predict system performance, similar to other models such as THOR-BOP and FATHOM.*As each set of plant data was taken (from Attachment 10 of the test procedure, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004) a partial model benchmark was conducted centering on RFP parameters (suction pressures, temperatures, and pump speeds). The model was then run to predict total feed-water mass flow rate and determine whether or not the model under or over-predicted total flow. Assuming the model over-predicts" flow (and thus is conservative with respect to max run-out flow), RFP turbine speeds are then raised to the high-speed stops (5480 rpm) and the run-out flow predicted and compared to acceptance criteria.

If the model under predicts any current flow condition, the performance offset is input into each of the three RFP pump curves contained in the model. The process of raising RFP speed is then repeated to determine the run-out flow. The reverse process was applied to the excess-flow capacity check; if the model over-predicted flow, the difference in delivered flow is subtracted from the final excess flow determination.

RFP speeds are then increased in the model to the stops, and excess flow capacity predicted.

If the model under-predicts flow, there was no need to change anything since the excess flow determination is conservative.

This method relies upon the following assumptions;

1) that RFP and turbine performance will generally follow the shape of their existing curves, and that 2) any over-performance condition or degradation would appear or behave as a shift of the performance curve (i.e., at a given flow-rate, TDH will shift by an amount and be offset the same amount over the pump curve).The test and evaluation was successfully performed at each power plateau. No unexpected results were obtained, nor were either of the two assumptions discussed above challenged or invalidated.

Table 5-7 presents the results of the Feedwater Runout Data Evaluation.

Page 26 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Table 5-7 Feedwater Runout Data Evaluation Results Reactor 3339 MWt 3506 MWt 3673 MWt 3723 MWt 3840 MWt Limit Power 100%CLTP 105% CLTP 110% CLTP 111.5% CLTP 115% CLTP Runout 19.55 19.53 19.49 19.43 19.45 <22.9 Mlbm/hr Mlbm/hr Mlbm/hr Mlbm/hr Mlbmrhr Mlbm/hr Min. 19.31 19.23 19.19 19.17 19.32 >17.6 Capacity Mlbm/hr Mlbm/hr Mlbmlhr Mlbm/hr Mlbm/hr Mlbm/hr No test deficiencies were associated with the feedwater runout testing or evaluation.

5.2.7 Test 100 Main Steam/Feedwater Piping Vibration (Attachment 4, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

Objective The purpose of this test was to ascertain the vibration measurements on the Main Steam and Feedwater system piping inside and outside the drywell to evaluate the vibration stress effect during power ascension.

Increased steam flows and feedwater flows have the potential to increase vibration levels. Data was collected at lower power levels to provide baseline information for comparison to the uprated values. The data collected at higher power levels was analyzed to ensure no adverse effects are encountered.

In addition to the critical piping vibration measurements, FIV walk-downs of balance of plant piping were performed at each power plateau by teams containing engineering and Operations personnel.

The method of evaluation used was visual; thus, an acceptance criterion is subjective and relied on the expertise of the team members.Acceptance Criteria Critical piping specified in Table 4-1 to HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q):

Level 1: Vibration level exceeds 100% of ASME allowable limits.Level 2: Vibration level exceeds 80% (but less than 100%) of ASME limits.Non-instrumented piping: Level 1: Vibration levels are both significant and have increased significantly above the vibration at the previous power level.Level 2: Vibration levels have increased significantly above the vibration at the previous power level and further increases would be viewed as raising a serious concern.Page 27 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Discussion While raising reactor power above 3339 MWt, critical piping vibration data was collected at a minimum of every 33 MWt or 1% power increase.

The 1% data was taken for trending; whereas data taken at each 2.5% power increments and the power plateaus required formal evaluation and comparison to acceptance criteria.

At each power plateau PORC reviewed the data obtained and approved the transmission of the' critical piping vibration data prior to sending it to the NRC.All vibration levels for the monitored locations remained below Level 2 limits (80% of the allowable criterion) for the entire duration of power ascension activities.

Overall, the majority of piping measurements at the final 115% CLTP power level with the Crossflow system applied were less than 20% of the allowable criterion.

All exceptions

(>20%) to this are tabulated below in Table 5-8 from the highest to the lowest reading and compared to their 100% CLTP reading. The lowest margin of safety remained above 3.0.Table 5-8 Critical Piping Vibration Results, Channels >20% of Allowable Limits Building Channel Monitoring Point 100% 115% CLTP Change Between 100%Location CLTP and 115% CLTP DW 36 SRV J -Axial 25.0% 30.1% 1.20 TB 10 Main Steam B 29.2% 29.9% 1.02 TB 20 ES near 6B FWH 24.4% 27.6% 1.13 TB 5 Main Steam A 27.5% 26.8% 0.97 TB 6 Main Steam A 20.9% 24.8% 1.19 TB 17 ES near 6B FWH 19.4% 23.4% 1.21 DW 35 SRV J -vertical 15.9% 21.0% 1.32 During testing four of the fourteen (14) Safety Relief Valves (SRV) were provided with accelerometers for vertical, axial, and lateral vibrations.

Values which exceeded 20% of the allowable criterion at the final 115% CLTP power level are tabulated below in Table 5-9 from highest to lowest reading and compared to their 100% CLTP reading. The lowest margin of safety at 115% CLTP remained above 1.5.Page 28 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Table 5-9 SRV Vibration Results, Channels >20% of Allowable Limits Channel Monitoring Point 100% 115% CLTP Change Between 100% and 115%CLTP CLTP 35 SRV J- vertical 41.0% 64.7% 1.58, 32 SOV A- vertical 32.7% 47.4% 1.45 38 SRV B- vertical 35.9% 42.1% 1.17 41 SRV P -vertical 40.6% 36.9% 0.91 37 SRV B -lateral 14.5% 34.4% 2.37 39 SRV B -axial 24.4% 29.5% 1.21 31 SRV A- lateral 16.6% 28.0% 1.69 42 SRV P -axial 23.6% 26.4% 1.12 Non-critical piping walkdowns and visual inspections were performed at each power plateau by three-member teams consisting of individuals from Engineering, Operations, and Radiation Protection.

Specific locations were inspected in the primary and secondary condensate pump rooms, RFP room and surrounding piping areas, the No. 3, 4, 5 and No.6 FW heater rooms, and selected areas in the condenser bay. At each power plateau, all areas listed for non-critical piping were Satisfactory and no Level 1 or Level 2 limits were reached.During the final walk-down, it was identified that the some non-critical pipes have minor movement along the pipe axis or lateral to the pipe axis. These were noted throughout power ascension activities.

Nothing observed was considered to be significant by the team. The piping was all non-safety related and the supports (as observed) were for dead weight and do not provide lateral resistance.

Some motion can therefore be anticipated given the configuration.

The vibration levels were consistent throughout power ascension and none exhibited greater movement at increased power levels.No test deficiencies were identified associated with critical piping vibration monitoring or the vibration walkdowns performed during power ascension activities.

5.2.8 Test 101 Steam Dryer Performance

& Moisture Carryover (Attachments 3 and 9, HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

Objective The purpose of this test was to monitor the performance and integrity of the steam dryer during power ascension activities.

This testing is described in detail in Attachment 23 to LCR H05-01 and is incorporated into the test procedure.

Page 29 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Steam Dryer Performance The results of this testing is described separately in Section 6.0 of this report.Moisture Carryover Moisture carryover was obtained and evaluated every 2.5% during power ascension activities above 3339 MWt. The data and trend was used as a secondary means to provide indication of any potential steam dryer issues. It is also monitored to ensure it remains below GE analyzed limits.Acceptance Criteria Level 1: Moisture carryover shall remain less than 0.30% (GE maximum evaluated level).Level 2: Moisture carryover shall be less than or equal to 0.10% or between .0.10 and 0.30% only with an approved engineering evaluation that supports continued plant operation or increases by >50% over the average three previous readings if over 0.10%.Discussion Moisture carryover was sampled every 2.5% power and upon reaching 115% reactor power with Crossflow applied and final pressure set adjusted.

Moisture carryover was determined in accordance with HC.CH-SA.ZZ-0004 and Attachment 9 of HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q). As shown below in Table 5-10, all Level 1 and Level 2 acceptance criteria associated with this test were met with considerable margin.Table 5-10, Moisture Carryover Results% CLTP 100 102.5 105 107.5 110 111.5 114 115 w/Xflow w/Xflow w/Xflow Moisture Carryover

.00357 .00409 .00780 .01073 .01600 .01832 .02245 .02406 Note: w/Xflow Feedwater measured by the Crossflow ultrasonic flow instrumentation As is discussed in Section 6.0, dryer performance data met all limit curves and no data anomalies or deficiencies were identified.

No abnormal spikes, shifts or deviations in narrow range water level or reactor pressure were observed.

Thus, the moisture carryover data in conjunction with other dryer data and indications supports that dryer integrity is maintained throughout power ascension testing..Page 30 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT 5.2.9 System and Equipment Performance Data (System Monitoring Plans-Attachment 14 to HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

Objective The purpose of, this test was to monitor EPU affected systems and ensure system parameters remained within expected design limits as power ascension proceeded.

These tests were performed at each 2.5% power increment until 3840 MWt was reached.Acceptance Criteria Level 1: There are no Level 1 criteria associated with these plans.Level 2: Level 2 hold criteriaare contained within each plan.Discussion The EPU System Monitoring plans were successfully completed and evaluated on 8/26/08 at 115% reactor power with application of the cross flow correction factor, final pressure set, and a 4-hour plant stabilization period. The data was reviewed and no significant unresolved system performance related issues were identified.

Overall, the plans identified the following minor issues during EPU power ascension which were entered in the corrective action program: Notification 20367320 -'C' Primary Condensate Pump (PCP) Motor Temp Differs Post RF14 Notification 20349868 -5C FWH Level Indication Swings Notification 20362600 -Hydrogen Purity Meter Indicating

>100%Notification 20368037 -CRIDS Point HC.A2140 is Not Functional Notification 20355628 -'B' Cond Prefilter Low Flow Alarm Notification 20370821 -LP Turbine C 9th stage extract transmitter drift Notification 20371580 -Bad CRIDS point HC.A2109 Notification 20372070 -Offgas H2 Analyzer CRIDS Point Failed Notification 20374798 -CRIDS Point HC.A2126 -Bad Input Each of the above notifications was reviewed and determined to have no significant effect on operation at 3840 MWt.Apart from the above insignificant notifications, between the 110% to 115% power levels the system monitoring plans identified that the following system performance monitoring points exceeded their specified ranges or actions levels: Page 31 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Deviations 110-111.5%

Rated Thermal Power" In System AC, the reactor feed pump turbine (RFPT) Steam Pressures A, B, and C were found above the expected 111.5% RTP range of 180-185 psig. The values were found at 191, 190 and 190 psig. These values are acceptable since they trended with the power increase and did not make any step changes. The action level was not exceeded (192 psig).* In System AC, the low pressure turbine (LPT) Stage #13 pressure (HC.A2111) was found above the expected 111.5% RTP range of 3 -4.5 psia. The actual value was found at 4.8 psia. This value is acceptable since it trended with the power increase and did not make any step changes. The action level was not exceeded (>5.2 psia).* The main generator (MG) field amps exceeded the specified operating range. The increase is expected due to increase in MVARS. As long as the MG field amps and MVARS trend together there is no concern. The MVARS and MG field amps trends are not EPU dependent.

They are grid dependent.

In System AD, the B PCP Run Temp (HC.A2289) x as found above the expected 111.5% RTP range of 200-210'F.

The actual value was found at 211 0 F. This value is acceptable since it trended with the power increase and did not make any step changes. The action level was not exceeded (>215'F).

Notification 20371490 was prepared to document this issue.* In System AF, the FWH 3A Shell Pressure (HC.A2154) was above the expected 111.5% range of 40 -45psig. The actual value was found at 45.15 psig. This value is acceptable since it trended with the power increase and did not make any step changes. The action level was not exceeded (>50psig).

  • In System AE, the "C" RFP axial vibrations were found close to the upper limit.The limit was +/-7mils and the actual value was found -6.86mils.

The vibration data was reviewed and the data indicated that prior to EPU the "C" RFP axial vibrations were in the same range of operation.

The thrust bearing temperature data was reviewed and no abnormalities were identified.

Hence no further actions were required.* The C primary condensate pump amperage was found above the expected 111.5%range of 140-150A.

The amperage was found at 152A. This was evaluated as acceptable.

The Level 2 action level is set at >190 amps.Page 32 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Deviations at 111.5-115%

Rated Thermal Power* The A and C reactor feed pump discharge flows exceeded the EPU specified action levels. The system performance monitoring plan specified the action level for A RFP discharge flow as >12600 gpm, B RFP as >14000 gpm and C RFP as>12500 gpm. Actual values for the A RFP flow were 12779.5 gpm, B RFP flow was 13885.4 gpm and C RFP flow was 12530.5 gpm. All were evaluated as satisfactory and within the preferred operating range of 9,800 gpm to 16,800 gpm for each pump.* Three CRIDS points went out of range or were found to have bad input at higher power levels. Notifications 20381265, 20381292, and 20381314 document these conditions and will change the ranges as necessary.

No automatic or procedural functions were associated with these CRIDS points and the alarm values were expected and not indicative of system performance issues.* At 3840 MWt, the B feedwater line flow, total feedwater flow, and the C RFP discharge flow showed signs of fluctuating and at times exceeded the action levels specified in the System Monitoring Plans. Each of these conditions were evaluated and found to be acceptable and within the band of instrument uncertainty associated with these instruments.

No significant performance deficiencies were identified by the system performance monitoring plans.5.2.10 GE Optional Testing (Attachment 16 to HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004)

Objective Testing in this category which included optimization of turbine valve testing (turbine control valve, stop, combined intermediate and bypass valves) and partial MSIV closure testing is not a requirement to safely implement the test plan and as such, activities in this area were not specifically part of the EPU PATP, but were performed as part of the power ascension testing.Acceptance Criteria As specified in HC.OP-FT.AC-0006 and Attachment 16 to HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004.

Discussion At 3339 MWt, the turbine bypass valves and stop valves, and MSIVs were capable of being full-stroked closed then open at the former 100% reactor power (MSIVs are only partial stroked closed). As part of the test program, the most limiting turbine valve from each grouping; the #9 main turbine bypass valve, #1 main turbine stop valve and the 'A'Page 33 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Outboard MSIV (partial closure) were successfully stroked at up to 115% reactor power with crossflow applied and pressure set adjusted and data. obtained.

Results were satisfactory, however, total feedwater flow became oscillatory and then converged during the following tests:* A MSIV partial stroke at 111.5%, 110%, and 100%* #9 BPV test opening at 105% and 115%The oscillations were not observed during the 95%/, 105% or 115% partial stroking of the A MSIV or the 95%, 100%, 110% and 111.5% test opening of the #9 BPV. The likely cause is the tuning performed on the RFP's between 90% and 110% reactor power.Reactor vessel level was steady (level oscillations

< +/-1.0") during the feedwater flow oscillations indicating the feedwater control system maintained reactor level in the desired band. This was evaluated as not presenting a concern, and will be monitored during future testing. Scram Avoidance Margins are such that testing of bypass valves, main turbine stop valves and MSIVs (partial closure) can be conducted at up to 3840 MWt (100% CTP).Turbine control valve testing was performed at up to and including the 100% baseline (3339 MWt). The limiting turbine control valve #1 was successfully stroked at 87% EPU reactor power (3339 MWt) in accordance with HC.OP-FT.AC-0006.

The limiting margin was 20% on simulated heat flux (5% allowable).

Testing above this power level was not performed.

During turbine valve testing, one significant Test Deficiency was identified at 95%CLTP. Testing was placed on Hold when the #4 combined intercept valve (CIV) would not reopen following stroking it closed at 95% reactor power. While not specifically part of EPU power ascension testing, the Hold was entered to ensure Attachment 16 valve testing of other turbine valves (i.e., TSV, BPV and MSIVs) did not proceed. The #4 CIV subsequently opened while reducing power to 88% to support other down power activities.

Notification 20368326 documents this issue.The results of testing performed concluded that the turbine bypass valves, stop valves and partial MSIV closure testing can be safely performed at 3840 MWt. Quarterly testing of both turbine control valves and CIVs will require a station down power to conduct these tests.Page 34 of 35 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT 6.0 STEAM DRYER & CRITICAL PIPING VIBRATION TESTING In accordance with the test plan overview in LCR H05-01, Attachment 23, while raising reactor power above 3339 MWt, main steam line strain gauge and accelerometer data was collected at a minimum of every 33 MWt or 1% power. The 1% data was taken for trending; whereas data taken at each 2.5% power increment and power plateau required formal evaluation and comparison to acceptance criteria.

PORC approved transmission of all dryer data prior to sending it to the NRC and prior to further power ascension at each of the power plateaus.In all cases, dryer data was obtained within one hour of reaching each next intended steam dryer power plateau. Data was promptly evaluated and in all cases supported continued power ascension to the next power plateau and the structural integrity of the steam dryer. Steam dryer limit curves were updated at 105%, 110% and 111.5% CLTP.CDI Report No.08-29P, Stress Assessment of Hope Creek Unit 1 Steam Dryer documents the steam dryer flow-induced vibration load fatigue margin for the facility at 111.5% CLTP. It concludes that results obtained show that at 111.5% CLTP, the smallest alternating stress intensity stress ratio (SR-a) is 2.69. The most limiting maximum stress ratio (SR-P) anywhere on the steam dryer is 1.62.The final stress assessment report documenting the flow-induced vibration load fatijue margin of the steam dryer at the as-tested condition of 115% CLTP will be forwarded under separate cover.Page 35 of 35 0 P5EL ATTACHMENT A -TEST ORGANIZATION CHART EPU Implementation

& Test Team IPA Coordinator Implementation Lead Power Ascension Lead Team Member Chemistry/Radiation I Team Member Pressure Reg/Feedwater Team Member Vibration Monitoring GE StartUp Consultant HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT October 2, 2007 November 8, 2007 November 9, 2007 November 14, 2007 November 15, 2007 November 18, 2007 November 22, 2007 April 24, 2008 April 29, 2008 April 30-May 1, 2008 May 2, 2008 May 4, 2008 May 14, 2008 May 15-16, 2008 May 16-20, 2008 May 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT B Test Milestones

& Chronology PORC Approves Revision 0 to Test Procedure HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q) in PORC Meeting No. H2007-15 Commenced Test Procedure HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q)

Startup from Refueling Outage 14 IRM/APRM Overlap Data Test #10 Main Generator Synchronization

&Turbine Valve Scram Bypass Set-point Test 40% (35% EPU) Power Pressure Regulator Test #22 Achievement of 100% Reactor Power (3339 MWt)Test Procedure Suspended for Receipt of EPU License PORC Approves Revision 2 to Test Procedure allowing On-Line EPU Implementation (H2008-04)

Recommenced Test Procedure HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q)

Performance of 90% CLTP EPU Baseline Tests 95% CLTP Main Turbine and Other Valve Testing Restoration to 100% Reactor Power (3339 MWt)Receipt of the EPU SER and Technical Specification Amendment No. 174 PORC (H2008-05)

& HCGS Plant Manager Approval for EPU Implementation EPU Implementation

-Final Setpoint & Scaling Adjustments PORC (H2008-06)

Approval of Power Ascension Steam Dryer Limit Curves Performance of 100% CLTP EPU Baseline Tests May 21-22, 2008 HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT ATTACHMENT B Test Milestones

& Chronology (Cont.)May 22, 2008 May 22, 2008 May 23, 2008 May 23, 2008 May 24, 2008 May 27, 2008 May 27, 2008 May 28, 2008 May 28, 2008 May 29, 2008 June 1, 2008 June 1, 2008 June 3, 2008 June 1-22, 2008 June 20, 2008 June 23, 2008 July 1, 2008 HCGS Plant Manager Permission to Exceed 3339 MWt Achievement of the 102.5% Power Increment (3422 MWt)Achievement of the 105% Power Plateau (3506 MWt)PORC Approval of Steam Dryer Data (H2008-07)

PORC Approval of All 105% Testing (H2008-08) and Revised Steam Dryer Limit Curves Power Ascension Continues Following 96 Hours Achievement of the 107.5% Power Increment (3589 MWt)Achievement of the 110% Power Plateau (3673 MWt)PORC Approval of Steam Dryer Data (H2008-09)

PORC Approval of All 110% Testing (H2008-10)

Power Ascension Continues Following 96 Hours Achievement of the initial 111.5% Power Increment Without Crossflow System Applied (3723 MWt)PORC Approval of Steam Dryer Data (H2008-12)

Determination of the Final Crossflow Correction Factor PORC Approval of Revised Steam Dryer Limit Curves (H2008-14)

Achievement of the 111.5% Power Plateau With Crossflow System Applied (3723 MWt)PORC Review of Test Results at the 3723 MWt Power Plateau (H2008-13).

HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT ATTACHMENT B Test Milestones

& Chronology (Cont.)August 8, 2008 August 22, 2008 August 26, 2008 August 28, 2008 PORC Approves Revision 5 to Test Procedure HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004(Q) in PORC Meeting No. H2008-19 Allowing Further Power Increases to 3840 MWt.Power Ascension Testing Resumes and the 114% CLTP Power Increment is Achieved.Achievement of the EPU 115% Power Plateau (3840 MWt)PORC Approves all Testing and Authorizes Remaining at EPU Rated Thermal Power in PORC Meeting No. H2008-20.

HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT ATTACHMENT C Test Deficiencies (Holds) & Resolutions 0015 & 16 Test was placed on HOLD during the performance of the Attachment 11 DFCS flow step changes due to the inability to perform the demand step changes from the EWS (the second deficiency was related to receiving a "Bad Pick" message in DFCS associated with the same issue). Resolution:

Per evaluation by the Test Team, it was identified that an additional step was needed to Attachment 11 of FT.ZZ-0004 to allow the EWS to be put into Manual prior to initiating the step changes. The test procedure was changed via OTSC No. 2B and performed successfully.

Notification 20368069 documents closure of these issues.0017 Data analysis for the 4000 gpm flow step change on 'A' RFP indicated a slow, dampened response to step changes and results did not meet the Level 2 criteria of the procedure.

The test was placed on HOLD per the guidelines of HC.OP-FT.ZZ-0004.

After lifting of the hold per the procedure, subsequent flow step testing of the 'B' and 'C' RFPs at 2,000 gpm showed that Level 2 criteria were not satisfied for these pumps as well. Resolution:

As discussed in detail in Section 5.0 of this report, RFP tuning was performed throughout power ascension activities.

This issue is documented in Notification 20368162., 0018 Testing was placed on HOLD when the #4 CIV would not reopen following stroking it closed at 95% reactor power. While not specifically part of EPU power ascension testing, the HOLD was entered to ensure Attachment 16 valve testing of other turbine valves (i.e., TSV, BPV and MSIVs) did not proceed. Resolution:

The #4 CIV subsequentlyopened while reducing power to 88% to support other down power activities.

Notification 20368326 documents this issue which is discussed in Section 5,0 of this report.0021 This deficiency was written when the IPA coordinator placed testing on HOLD for step 5.4.6 RFP 2000gpm flow step changes at 3506 MWt. T90 test response for "A" and "B" RFP was 2.3 seconds against the Level 2 acceptance criteria of a maximum of 1.9 seconds and the T90 test response for"C" RFP was 3.0 seconds. Resolution:

The "C" RFP was tuned (governor gain was adjusted from 2.0 to 2.11) and retested SAT for T90. The "A" and"B" RFPs were evaluated as-is as satisfactory per a GE criteria clarification letter which accepts a maximum value for T90 of 2.3 seconds. Failure to meet an initial Level 2 acceptance criteria was evaluate by PORC...

HOPE CREEK EXTENDED POWER UPRA TE PROJECT POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT 0024 Upon achievement of EPU power, the B feed water line flow was observed to be fluctuating between 8.5-8.65 Mlb/hr. This exceeded the Level 2 action level (HOLD criteria) specified in the system monitoring plan of 8.6 Mlb/hr.After evaluation it was determined that the condition is acceptable and the limit did not take into account loop uncertainty or normal process noise; thus, there is no concern for plant operation at EPU conditions (Notification 20381916).

0025 Upon achievement of EPU power, the total feed flow was observed to be fluctuating between 16.5-16.8 Mlb/hr. This exceeded the Level 2 action level (HOLD criteria) specified in the system monitoring plan of >16.7 Mlb/hr.After evaluation it was determined that the condition is acceptable and the limit did not take into account loop uncertainty or normal process noise; thus, there is no concern for plant operation at EPU conditions (Notification 20391914).

LR-N08-0224 Attachment 4 Hope Creek Generating Station Facility Operating License NPF-57 Docket No. 50-354 Affidavit for Withholding C.D.I. Technical Note No.08-22P and C.D.I. Report No.08-21P from public disclosure QContinuum Dynamics, Inc.(609) 538-0444 (609) 538-0464 fax 34 Lexington Avenue Ewing, NJ 08618-2302 AFFIDAVIT Re: Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Technical Note No.08-22P "Limit Curves with ACM Rev. 4 for 115% Power Level Basis at Hope Creek Unit 1" Revision 0; and Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Report No.08-21P "Final Stress Assessment of Hope Creek Unit 1 Steam Dryer at 115% CLTP Conditions," Revision 1 I, Alan J. Bilanin, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows: 1. I hold the position of President and Senior Associate of Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as C.D.I.), and I am authorized to make the request for withholding from Public Record the Information contained in the documents described in Paragraph

2. This Affidavit is submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(a)(4) based on the fact that the attached information consists of trade secret(s) of C.D.I. and that the NRC will receive the information from C.D.I. under privilege and in confidence.
2. The Information sought to be withheld, as transmitted to PSEG Nuclear LLC as attachment to C.D.I. Letter No. 08191 dated 24 October 2008 Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Technical Note No.08-22P "Limit Curves with ACM Rev. 4 for 115% Power Level Basis at Hope Creek Unit 1," Revision 0; and Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Report No.08-21P "Final Stress Assessment of Hope Creek Unit 1 Steam Dryer at 115% CLTP Conditions," Revision 1.3. The Information summarizes: (a) a process or method, including supporting data and analysis, where prevention of its use by C.D.I.'s competitors without license from C.D.I. constitutes a competitive advantage over other companies;(b) Information which, if used by a competitor, would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product;(c) Information which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection.

The information sought to be withheld is considered to be proprietary for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) above.

4. The Information has been held in confidence by C.D.I., its owner. The Information has consistently been held in confidence by C.D.I. and no public disclosure has been made and it is not available to the public. All disclosures to third parties, which have been limited, have been made pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in C.D.I.'s Nondisclosure Secrecy Agreement which must be fully executed prior to disclosure.
5. The Information is a type customarily held in confidence by C.D.I. and there is a rational basis therefore.

The Information is a type, which C.D.I. considers trade secret and is held in confidence by C.D.I. because it constitutes a source of competitive advantage in the competition and performance of such work in the industry.

Public disclosure of the Information is likely to cause substantial harm to C.D.I.'s competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability of profit-making opportunities.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true and correct to be the best of my knowledge, information and belief.Executed on this <__9/ day of d_)0/7-0 15-i1- 2008.Alan J. Bilaninv" -Continuum Dynamics, Inc.e5-/ c::206d Subscribed and sworn before me this day: ,Eileen P. Buriter, Notary Public EILEEN P. BURMEISTER NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY MY COMM. EXPIRES MAY 6, 2012

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=LR-N08-0224,_Attachments_3_and_4_-_Hope_Creek_Extended_Power_Uprate_Power_Ascension_Test_Report_and_Affidavit&oldid=993013"