ML050670395
| ML050670395 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/2005 |
| From: | Gordon Peterson Duke Energy Corp |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML050670395 (22) | |
Text
a - Duke GARY R. PETERSON OrPowere Vice President McGuire Nuclear Station A Duke Energy Company Duke Power MGOIVP / 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078-9340 704 875 5333 704 875 4809 fax grpeters@duke-energy. corn February 24, 2005 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Subject:
McGuire Nuclear Station - Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370 Inservice Testing Program Relief Request MC-SRP-NS-01 Request for Additional Information (RAI)
Reference:
(1) Letter from Mr. G.R. Peterson of Duke Power to NRC, dated August 12, 2004, (2) Letter from Mr.
G.R. Peterson of Duke Power to NRC, dated November 18, 2004 After further review, Duke requests approval to use an alternative to Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) instead of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i). The applicable Code requirement imposes hardships without a compensating increase in level of quality or safety. However, the proposed alternative will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety.
Attached is the additional information that was requested by the NRC staff during a telephone conference conducted on February 2, 2005. The NRC staff's requests for information and Duke's responses are stated in the following attachment.
Questions with respect to this matter should be directed to Norman T. Simms of Regulatory Compliance at 704-875-4685.
Very truly ours, G. . Peterson AAgo~
rn t1"? i Attachment www. duke-energy. com
t.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission February 24, 2005 Page 2 xc:
W.D. Travers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St., SW, Suite 23 T85 Atlanta, GA 30303 J.J. Shea (Addressee only)
NRC Project Manager (MNS)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North, MS 08 H12 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 J.B. Brady NRC Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station
P ATTACHMENT Response to RAIs for Relief Request MC-SRP-NS-O1 j
Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commiission Staff Request for Additional Information Relief Request MC-SRP-NS-01 Alternative to ASME OM Code Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Question 1 Have the Containment Spray (CS) Pumps ever been operated at design conditions? If so, provide copies of test data and test conditions.
Response to Ouestion 1 All four CS pumps were run under full flow conditions during preoperational testing. These preoperational tests included testing the CS pumps in two configurations. The first configuration was a recirculation test to the refueling water storage tank (RWST). The second configuration allowed operation at full flow by taking suction from the RWST and discharging from the CS ring headers in containment through temporary piping to a yard drain. The spray header nozzles were plugged for this temporary configuration. These connections are no longer available and re-establishing this full flow test configuration for comprehensive pump testing is not practicable. Table 1 below provides a summary of pump parameters that were recorded during each preoperational test. Bearing temperatures were recorded for only the recirculation test, which included a four hour run time to allow for bearing temperature stabilization. Bearing temperatures were not recorded for the full flow test, since the duration of the full flow test was limited by the use of the 350,000 gallon RWST.
Table 1 - Containment Sray Pum Preoperational Test Data_
Date CS Flow- Diff. Calc. Pump Upper Lower Pump rate Press. Head Shaft Vib Bearing Bearing (gpm) (psi) (feet) (mils) Temp (°f) Temp (fF) 7/8/78 1A 999 178 411.5 1.8 95.4 136.8 8/8/78 1A 3400 167 392.0 7.0 - _
7/24/78 lB 1000 180.5 417.2 1.3 124.2 172.5 8/8/78 l1B 3400 167 392.0 4.0 -
1/18/82 2A 678 191 442.3 1.6 98.3 154.2 1/21/82 2A 3353 167 388.6 0.3 -
1/19/82 2B 672 187.5 434.8 1.7 108.8 Bad Sensor 1/21/82 2B 3450 165 384.7 0.18 -
3/3/82 2B Note 1 Note I Note 1 - 113.6 153.3 Note 1: This test was a rerun of the "initial 4 hr pump run" for pump 2B that was performed on 1/19/82. Test procedure TP/2/A/1200/04 documented a log entry that the "suction pressure, discharge pressure, flowrate consistent with the initial 4 hr pump run."
Relief Request MC-SRP-NS-01 February 24, 2005 Page 2 Ouestion 2 How many hours have the pumps been run since full flow testing: Include test data for all tests performed since the last time the CS pumps were operated at design conditions.
Response to Ouestion 2 The Operator Aid Computer contains data for run times and starts for the four CS pumps from 1993 to present. Based on these 12 years of data the pump run times are as follows: 1A - 162 hrs; 1B - 99 hrs; 2A - 81 hrs; 2B - 72 hrs. Based on this data a conservative estimate of the total run hours on each pump since preoperational testing is less than 400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br />.
The cumulative test data for all IST tests on the IA, 1B, 2A and 2B CS pumps are contained in the attached Tables 3-6 respectively. Note that lower motor bearing vibration data taken prior to 1990 was measured in mils and thereafter in inches per second. Also bearing stabilization temperature measurement data was discontinued after 1989. A summary of the hydraulic data is contained in the response to question number 4 and the description of a modification performed to correct high vibration is described in the response to question number 3. No significant trends or issues have been identified from this data since the initial full flow testing of the pumps that affected pump hydraulic performance.
Ouestion 3 Provide a maintenance and corrective action history for the CS pumps since the last time they were operated at design conditions and provide justification or reasons stating why maintenance and corrective actions have not affected pump performance.
Response to Question 3 Pump and motor preventative maintenance activities are performed. Pump hydraulic data, vibration measurements, and oil sampling are performed quarterly. Motor electrical testing is performed on a 3 year cycle along with lubrication. Stator hi-pot testing is performed every 6 years. Thermography of the motor and switchgear is performed yearly. The motor has a planned replacement every 20 years. As part of a motor refurbishment program, three out of four pumps and motors have been visually inspected in the last seven years, with the motors sent to the OEM for refurbishment. The original impellers stayed with the new replacement motor in the same pump position. The fourth motor is scheduled for refurbishment in October 2006.
A rigorous maintenance history review of the CS pumps and motors (1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) was performed for the period 1/1/1981 to 2/15/2005. During this time period, the pump casings were opened a total of 8 times. A review of the CS pump and motor procedure MP/0/A/7150/01 1 was performed for each pump inspection and the wear ring dimension
Relief Request MC-SRP-NS-01 February 24, 2005 Page 3 summarized in Table 2 below. The recorded impeller wear ring clearances vary between 0.006" and 0.003" on the IA and 2A pumps over a 14 year span. The variations can be explained by measurement errors over the 12.87" internal diameters due to: 1) ambient temperature differences between each pump rebuild, 2) actual micrometer "feel" and errors, and 3) indicator placement differences due to the casings having been elliptically deformed during the original casing weld operation.
Table 2 - Containment Spray Pump Work History Significant Maintenance- PumD Rcmoval and Seal Renlacements CS Date W/o Description of work Impeller wear Pump ring clearance:
Motor replaced with the previously never operated spare motor. Existing pump IA 6/8/1998 97090023 internals reused. 0.029" Seal leak: pulled motor and 1A 5/1/1991 91118884 replaced seal only. 0.029" Seal leak; pulled motor and 1A 10/17/1988 86068311 replaced seal only. 0.023" Motor replaced with a refurbished motor. Existing 1B 3/15/2001 98070397 pump internals reused. 0.027" Motor replaced with a refurbished motor. Existing 2A 4/5/1999 97046124 pump internals reused. 0.026" Seal leak: pulled motor and 2A 6/19/1986 86075174 replaced seal only. 0.027" Seal leak: pulled motor and 2A 2/5/1985 85073349 replaced seal only. 0.024" Seal leak: pulled motor and 2B 2/4/1985 83058996 replaced seal only. 0.026" The CS System has four Ingersoll-Rand 8x2OWD pumps in a clean borated water system with stainless steel impellers and wear rings. No abrasive wear, impeller recirculation erosion, or cavitation damage has been noted or documented. These pumps are estimated to have operated less than 400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> each. The Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System at McGuire has four similar pumps, also Ingersoll-Rand model 8x2OWD pumps, that have operated over 21,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> each at normal and low flow test conditions (Reference McGuire Calculation MCC-1381.05-00-0204 Revision 2) without visible pump impeller or wear ring degradation.
Relief Request MC-SRP-NS-01 February 24, 2005 Page 4 The Ingersoll-Rand model 8x2OWD pumps contain a diffuser with 9 diffuser vanes, reducing radial loads on the impeller and shaft to insignificant values. With the extremely low radial loads, large 2.875" shaft, and large wear ring clearances, no evidence of casing to impeller wear ring rubbing nor wear has been documented, nor is it expected on either the CS or RHR pumps.
In the late 1990's, IA and 2A CS Pumps vibration levels exceeded the alert. When comparing vibration levels between the X and Y directions, a significant delta was noted indicating the operating frequency was at or near a resonance frequency of the structure/component. Modal analysis was performed and the evaluation concluded that each of the CS Pump/Motor assemblies had substantial resonant activity in the 0 - 30 Hz range. Modifications MGMM-8752 (IA Pump), and MGMM-8771 (2A Pump) were implemented to externally stiffen existing supports and CS pump/motor structures to shift the resonance frequency away from shaft rotating speed. Vibration levels at tested flow rate decreased significantly on CS Pumps IA and 2A as a result of stiffening the pump structure and vibration levels for the four CS Pumps are within the acceptance criteria of ISTB. Vibration at full flow conditions is not expected to be adversely affected by the mods.
In summary, there have been no failures or significant corrective maintenance or modifications performed on the four CS pumps since preoperational testing. The CS pumps have not operated long enough, nor have they experienced any internal rubbing which would have altered the as-installed pump performance to any measurable extent.
Question 4 Provide technical justification that shows how operation at lower flow rates equates to the ability to operate at design flow rates. Also discuss how the limiting acceptance criteria at the proposed lower flow rates relate to operations at the higher flow rates.
Response to Question 4 Testing at design flow is important for pumps with characteristic head-flow curves that are flat or gently sloping in the low flow region. In the low flow region, increasing internal recirculation flows may degrade pump performance. Pumps with "flat" curves at low flows should be tested at near design conditions to determine if degraded pump performance has occurred. This situation does not apply to the CS pumps because the pump curve is well sloped at the point of testing and degradation can be detected. Refer to the four OEM pump head curves on Figures 1, 2, 3 & 4. In fact, a comparison of the slope of the head curve at 1000 gpm versus 3400 gpm indicates that degradation in pump performance would be more detectable at the 1000 gpm point.
All of the single point hydraulic data from each of the four CS pumps (attached Tables 3 through 6) falls within 10 percent of the head curve and is thus within the acceptable range for
Relief Request MC-SRP-NS-01 February 24, 2005 Page 5 the Group A/B test (acceptable or alert range for the Comprehensive test) dP acceptance criteria. The average of the single point data for the four pumps is within 2 percent of the head curve (well within the acceptable range for both tests). The tighter hydraulic acceptance criteria of the Comprehensive test is expected to identify any hydraulic problems even at the lower flow condition primarily due to the slope of the curve between test flow and shutoff.
Vibration data is taken on the CS pumps during testing. Since the vertically mounted motor and pump share a common shaft without a coupling, both must be evaluated together. The motor/pump has three bearings, one radial bearing lubricated by grease, and two back to back thrust bearings lubricated by oil. The vibration results can provide predictions for both motor and pump problems. Bearing problems can be seen regardless of flow conditions; these results are solely based on operating speed of the motor. Like bearing problems, impeller looseness and rubbing can also be predicted regardless of flow. Forces at lx operating frequency, such as imbalance, may increase or decrease at various flow conditions. Since all other motor and pump conditions that are verifiable through vibration testing can be predicted at low flow, impeller imbalance is not a concern.
Bearing temperatures are recorded continuously, and monitored during operation. During pump and motor testing, operation time is not long enough to allow the bearing temperatures to stabilize. In addition, as flow increases, thrust loading increases, therefore increasing the temperatures on the motor bearings. As a result, test results at low flow conditions may not be representative of bearing temperature at full flow. However, a comparison can be made to the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pumps. The RHR pumps are similar to the CS pumps in that they are both the same model, Ingersoll-Rand 8x2OWD. The motors are also similar except for bearing locations. The RHR pumps have the thrust bearings located at the top of the motor, with all bearings oil lubricated, while the CS motors have the thrust bearings located at the bottom of the motor. Even with this design difference, thrust loading of the bearings for both motors are essentially the same. A pump thrust curve from Information Notice 93-08 of RHR pumps at Seabrook (has the same pumps and motors as McGuire) shows that the curve is flat between approximately 1200 gpm and 2600 gpm, and then trails off as flow continues to increase. This shape indicates that as flow increases past 1200 gpm, the thrust loading is essentially the same, which in turn would not have an effect on the thrust bearing temperatures. Based on this information, an assumption can be made that the bearing temperatures on the CS pumps would not be much higher at full flow conditions than at current test conditions.
An oil sample from the CS thrust bearings is taken on a quarterly frequency and is screened for particulate, dielectric constant, viscosity, and water. Based on the results, the oil is either sent to another lab for additional testing, or an oil change is performed on the motor. Since these pumps do not operate very much, a quarterly oil sample is a proactive approach to ensuring thrust bearing life.
In summary, testing of the subject pumps utilizing the recirculation flow path provides for substantial flow testing in a stable, well sloped region of the pump curve well above the
Relief Request MC-SRP-NS-01 February 24, 2005 Page 6 minimum continuous flowrate specified by the pump manufacturer. From all available information including oil analysis, vibration analysis, visual internal inspections, and bearing temperatures, low flow testing conditions provide adequate information to predict any problems on the CS pumps and motors that could occur at design flow conditions. Testing of the pumps at reference values established in this region of the pump curve will not cause damage to the pumps and will provide meaningful data to assess pump operational readiness.
Question 5 Provide a basis for relief in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3) (ii) to show that compliance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Operating and Maintenance Code required testing would result in hardship or unusual difficulty with out a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety specifically in regards to installing temporary or permanent modifications needed to perform the comprehensive pump test.
Response to Question 5 Duke is requesting that relief be granted from ISTB-3300 (e)(1) of the 1998 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Operating and Maintenance (ASME OM) Code.
This Code requirement to test at 80% of design flow poses a hardship in that the CS System and supporting Refueling Water System will require modifications to provide such capability.
Duke considered potential modification options and has concluded that permanent modifications would be necessary to comply with this Code requirement. Temporary modifications were determined to not be practical, because the necessary size of connections needed to accomplish the needed flow capacity. A flow area of sufficient size to achieve the specified flow rates would require cutting and welding of new tees into both the CS System and the Refueling Water System. There were no existing flanged or other type connections allowing temporary connection to achieve these flow rates.
A study was completed to determine the most efficient permanent modification option that would allow the Code requirements to be met. Approximately 100 feet of new 8 inch stainless steel piping would be added. The connections would be downstream of the heat exchangers (upstream of valves NS-140 & 141) in the CS System, in a branch line near the RWST supply header (near valve FW-1) in the Refueling Water System. This piping would require about 44 elbows/tees. Four 8 inch manual globe valves would be added for isolation and throttling. New pipe supports would be required and stress analysis models updated for the new piping/valves. The total estimated cost to do both units is $1.5 million. In addition, this modification would increase congestion in areas of the auxiliary building that are already congested. This increased congestion would result in additional maintenance cost over the life of the plant.
Duke proposes that compliance with ISTB-3300 (e)(1) of the 1998 Edition of the ASME OM Code would result in a hardship as a result of these costs. Duke proposes that since the
Relief Request MC-SRP-NS-01 February 24, 2005 Page 7 alternative testing described in this relief request will provide an acceptable and adequate indication of pump performance, this hardship is without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
c
Table 3 1 1A CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp Temp (deg Date (gpm) (psid) (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (mils) (deg F) F) 12/16/2004 1000 180 0.0894 0.0921 0.07615 9/23/2004 995 179 0.0894 0.0825 0.07615 7/1/2004 980 181 0.0938 0.1119 0.09851 4/8/2004 990 180.5 0.1091 0.0979 0.10100 1/15/2004 1000 181 0.0880 0.0840 0.08432 10/23/2003 1000 182 0.0861 0.0901 0.08611 7/31/2003 1000 179.5 0.0854 0.0795 0.08119 5/8/2003 985 181 0.0872 0.0832 0.07832 2/13/2003 1000 181.5 0.0877 0.0872 0.07615 11/21/2002 1000 180.4 0.0845 0.0830 0.07694 8/29/2002 1005 180.5 0.1022 0.0868 0.08717 6/6/2002 1000 179.1 0.0898 0.1028 0.07793 3/18/2002 1000 181.4 0.0836 0.1057 0.08359 12/19/2001 1000 181.5 0.0840 0.0843 0.07391 9/24/2001 1010 182.1 0.0866 0.0966 0.08414 7/5/2001 992.5 180.5 0.0894 0.0925 0.08689 4/1/2001 1000 181 0.0887 0.0901 0.08100 _ X _ _X 1/19/2001 990 181 0.0880 0.1205 0.08005 10/28/2000 999.5 180.65 0.0847 0.0938 0.08119 8/3/2000 1000 180.1 0.0879 0.0914 0.07615 5/12/2000 1003 179.5 0.0918 0.1185 0.07203 2/15/2000 1000 178.65 0.8941 0.1004 0.07773 11/26/1999 1003 179.45 0.0924 0.0904 0.07181 10/17/1999 1000 180 n/a n/a n/a partial stroke for check valve 9/3/1999 1000 179 0.1063 0.0904 0.08378 6/11/1999 984 179.5 0.1102 0.1129 0.07773 3/18/1999 990 179.3 0.0852 0.0868 0.07634 2/15/1999 1000 178.65 0.0894 0.1004 0.07773 12/30/1998 994 179 0.0914 0.1019 0.07773 10/1/1998 1011 180 0.1033 0.0861 0.08976 7/9/1998 1003 174.1 0.0973 0.1110 0.08941 6/19/1998 995 178 0.0840 0.0931 0.09244 4/24/1998 995 176.5 0.1535 0.1353 0.08769 4/16/1998 1007 176.6 0.1428 0.1862 0.11920 _= X X 1/19/1998 991.5 176.75 0.1367 0.1729 0.11400 12/4/1997 1013 175.9 0.1527 0.1920 0.11510 10/28/1997 1006 176.8 0.1419 0.2548 0.13300 9/10/1997 995 176.5 0.1135 0.3508 0.14450 8/5/1997 995 179.5 0.0929 0.3387 0.14230 7/7/1997 1010 177.5 0.0950 0.3522 0.12500 5/24/1997 1003 178.5 0.0997 0.3473 0.14570 _
4/10/1997 997 176.7 0.0934 0.3658 0.14950 1/3/1997 1004 178.5 0.0950 0.3789 0.13120 12/3/1996 1017 177 0.1004 0.3711 0.13670 L 10/28/1996 1015 177.75 0.1065 0.3452 0.13580 9/11/1996 998 178.15 0.0938 0.3394 0.15780 i 8/16/1996 1010 178 0.0963 0.3394 0.13120 7/15/1996 1002 178.1 0.1042 0.3336 0.13120 6/18/1996 1050 177.1 0.0988 0.3373 0.14150
Table 3 2 1A CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp Temp (deg Date (gpm) (psid) (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (mils) (deg F) F) 3/25/1996 1023 179 0.1274 0.2889 0.11740 2/1/1996 1010 178.65 0.1697 0.2873 0.09820 10/12/1995 1042 181.45 0.1060 0.2997 0.12200 9/11/1995 1023 181.1 0.1057 0.2441 0.11160 7/19/1995 1044 181 0.0938 0.2706 0.12480 6/21/1995 1025 181.05 0.1036 0.3322 0.11850 5/25/1995 1020.5 181 0.1019 0.2956 0.11870 4/27/1995 1000 180.4 0.1215 0.2838 0.16500 3/29/1995 1000 181.25 0.1230 0.2548 0.12980 .
2/28/1995 1012.5 181.5 0.1200 0.2204 0.12740 1/3/1995 1042.5 181 0.1362 0.2724 0.12150 11/9/1994 1041 181.65 0.1380 0.2679 0.12480 _
9/29/1994 1040 179.5 0.1148 0.3358 0.11350 7/28/1994 1035 180 0.0908 0.3430 0.10970 6/13/1994 1011 178.1 0.0911 0.3262 0.12000 3/9/1994 1003 175 0.1317 0.2465 0.10540 12/8/1993 1033 181.4 0.1110 0.3022 0.11130 9/7/1993 1030.5 176.9 0.0934 0.3171 0.10990 5/23/.1993 1029.5 177.8 0.0947 0.3038 0.18810 2/3/1993 1000 177 0.1085 0.2470 0.12050 11/12/1992 1050 175 0.1289 0.2085 0.13260 8/27/1992 1010 175 0.0751 0.2715 0.10650 6/25/1992 1020 177.5 0.0941 0.2720 0.10680 3/10/1992 1000 179.45 0.0887 0.2770 0.10130 . . -
11/28/1991 1000 179.17 0.0957 0.2137 0.11130 9/4/1991 1006.7 178.43 0.0937 0.3093 0.09820 8/2/1991 1000 180.63 0.0911 0.3550 0.10800 6/19/1991 1000 176.49 0.1031 0.3507 0.09570 5/7/1991 1000 177.77 0.0960 0.2715 0.09310 3/21/1991 1000 174.61 0.0743 0.2425 0.08820 12/20/1990 1000 175.3 0.0787 0.2359 0.10540 9/26/1990 1025 175 0.0771 0.2560 0.10620 6/21/1990 1000 176.33 0.0714 0.2461 0.09450 4/25/1990 1000 177.33 0.0751 0.2520 0.10900 11/17/1989 1000 177 0.2079 0.1110 0.09250 2.3 8/24/1989 1000 177.5 . 1.75 122.6 150.6 7/5/1989 1000 182 2 4/12/1989 1000 181.5 2.8 2/17/1989 1000 181.5 2.51 11/23/1988 1000 182 1.85 123.3 153 10/5/1988 1000 182 3.5 124 157.2 7/13/1988 1000 170.9 3.2 4/22/1988 1000 171 1.8 2/8/1988 1000 180 2.25 112.4 145.4 11/6/1987 1000 178.67 2.51 8/12/1987 1000 179.3 2.4 _
5/22/1987 1000 180 1.6 2/19/1987 1000 181 2.75 110 153.8 11/20/1986 1000 181 3.25
Table 3 3 1A CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp Temp (deg Date (gpm) (psid) (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (mils) (deg F) F) 8/23/1986 1000 178.3 2.5 3/18/1986 1000 181 2.5 127.6 156.46 12/27/1985 1000 180 0.02 (suspect 2 mils not .02) 9/27/1985 1000 176 2.5 7/12/1985 1000 181 2 4/12/1985 1000 179 2 118.4 147.5 1/25/1985 1000 180 3 _
12/7/1984 1000 181 1 _
9/20/1984 1000 180 2.6 6/29/1984 1000 180 2 X 4/6/1984 1000 180 3 118.13 143.93 12/20/1983 1000 180 1.5 10/4/1983 1000 179 1.6_
7/14/1983 1000 181 2.1 4/13/1983 1000 181 3.2 137.1 160.9 12/7/1982 1000 177 1.5 9/3/1982 1000 179 0.03 (suspect 3 mils not .03) 8/3/1982 1000 178 3.2 7/4/1982 1000 179 3.11 5/28/1982 1000 179 2.6 4/27/1982 1000 179 3.8 4/2/1982 1000 178.3 2.5 3/11/1982 1000 177.3 2.8 2/8/1982 1000 178 0.8 117.3 138.4 1/12/1982 1000 176 0.8 12/15/1981 1000 179 0.95 11/12/1981 1000 178 0.75 10/15/1981 1000 179 0.8 9/14/1981 1000 178 0.86.
8/14/1981 1000 176 2.2 7/16/1981 1000 178 2.5 6/19/1981 1000 171 0.85 5/21/1981 1000 170 0.8 4/22/1981 1000 174 0.8 3/25/1981 1000 175 _ 0.51 2/16/1981 1000 177 1 2.6 108.4 140.93
Table 4 1 1B CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp Temp (deg Date (gpm) (psid) (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (mils) (deg F) F) 11/30/2004 990 187 0.1349 0.1124 0.09600
--- 8/12/2004 _.. . ..995 187.5 0.0894 0.1119 0.08786 5/20/2004 989 185.3 0.0963 0.1119 0.09309
'3/4/2004 - 1000 186.7 n/a n/a n/a 2/26/2004 1000 186.7 0.1200 0.1121 0.09010 12/4/2003 1000 187 0.1048 0.1074 0.09211 9/17/2003 994 187 0.0960 0.1190 0.09342 6/19/2003 1005 186.5 0.0849 0.1033 0.09010a 3/27/2003 990 186.6 0.0825 0.1057 0.09504 1/2/2003 1000 187.5 0.1151 0.1349 0.10000 _ _
10/11/2002 1012 187.5 0.1063 0.1080 0.09144 7/18/2002 1000 186.5 0.0773 0.1083 0.09663 4/25/2002 1000 187 0.0941 0.1225 0.09789 Xl X 1/31/2002 990 187 0.0957 0.1240 0.09407 11/8/2001 1015 186.6 0.1233 0.1543 0.10360 8/16/2001 990 186.5 0.1016 0.1198 0.10190 5/24/2001 1010 187.6 0.1127 0.1482 0.09726 4/2/2001 1000 187.5 0.0979 0.0991 0.07493 3/2/2001 990 186 0.1330 0.1235 0.09758 12/8/2000 992 184.9 0.1362 0.1132 0.08873 9/14/2000 995 186 0.1030 0.0947 0.10510 6/23/2000 995 183.3 0.0710 0.0737 0.07349 3/30/2000 991 182.6 0.0994 0.1083 0.09600 1/7/2000 1010 183 0.1088 0.1016 0.09851 10/18/1999 1010 181.5 0.1105 0.1097 0.07615 7/22/1999 1016 183.6 0.1116 0.1223 0.09913 4/29/1999 995 186 0.1515 0.1161 0.09178 2/4/1999 1004 185 0.1284 0.1151 0.10040 11/12/1998 1014.5 186 0.1445 0.1083 0.10710 8/20/1998 1017.5 184.8 0.1274 0.1121 0.08699 6/19/1998 1009.5 190 0.1415 0.1108 0.08062 5/28/1 998 990 185.5 0.1250 0.1080 0.08769 3/5/1998 1013 187 0.1445 0.1013 0.09944 12/8/1997 997 186.4 0.1635 0.1279 0.10830 9/17/1997 995 185.9 0.1307 0.1145 0.09726 _
6/24/1997 1014 184.8 0.1402 0.1279 0.08664 4/18/1997 997 186.8 0.1562 0.1113 0.09277 1/10/1997 1000 186.5 0.1462 0.1265 0.09440 10/22/1996 1015 186.1 0.1423 0.1161 0.10280 7/31/1996 1005 186.3 0.1293 0.1119 0.08646 5/6/1996 1037 185.5 0.1119 0.1140 0.09407 2/15/1996 1010.5 186.75 0.1393 0.1085 0.08450 11/21/1995 1045 187.4 0.1397 0.1255 0.09663 8/30/1995 1036 184.4 0.1307 0.1349 0.09568 6/7/1995 1000 185.2 0.1335 0.1419 0.05504 3/13/1995 1036 185 0.1340 0.1116 0.09244 _
11/23/1994 1020 185 0.1349 0.1274 0.08396 8/9/1994 1024 183.4 0.1419 0.1255 0.09536 5/18/1994 1050 184.34 0.1428 0.1288 0.09111
Table 4 2 1B CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp Temp (deg Date (gpm) (psid) (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (mils) (deg F) F) 2/16/1994 1019.4 185.4 0.1650 0.1255 0.10130 11/16/1993 1018 185.65 0.1353 0.1243 0.10360 8/17/1993 1035.5 182 0.1127 0.1094 0.08175 5/24/1993 1043 186 0.1255 0.1060 0.07948 1/7/1993 1022.5 185.75 0.1344 0.1274 0.09144 10/8/1992 1025 184.5 0.1367 0.1298 0.10360 7/9/1992 1028 184.67 0.1245 0.1367 0.08769 4/10/1992 1000 184.8 0.1406 0.1105 0.09310 2/14/1992 1015 185 0.1230 0.1360 0.10040; 11/30/1991 1000 185 0.1398 0.2715 0.14330 8/5/1991 1000 184.5 0.0937 0.1159 0.07970 5/21/1991 1000 184.33 0.1264 0.1223 0.09820 2/14/1991 1000 184 0.1437 0.1225 0.09110 11/19/1990 1029 183.83 0.1445 0.1228 0.09600 8/14/1990 1000 174.33 0.1353 0.1966 0.12020 5/5/1990 1014 184 0.1410 0.1460 0.08600 1/4/1990 1000 1861 2.2.
10/4/1989 1000 181.5 2 109.5 168.4 7/5/1989 1000 182 2.5 4/18/1989 1000 182.8 2.5 1/4/1989 1000 183 2.3 10/6/1988 1000 186 2.5 109.5 165.3 7/13/1988 1000 181.5 test gauge dP was 178.6 2.41 4/20/1988 1020 180.5 test gauge dP was 1831 2.5 1/13/1988 990 187.3 1 l 2.4 11/12/1987 1040 185 test gauge dP was 182.57 2.4 111.7 174.8 7/24/1987 1000 186.3 2.5 4/23/1987 1000 187 1.5 1/21/1987 1000 187.5 2 107.7 153.6 10/27/1986 1000 186 3.2 8/23/1986 1000 183.3 2.3 3/18/1986 1000 1861 2 102.03 153.56 12/27/1985 1000 179.5 0.02 (suspect 2 mils not 0.02) 9/27/1985 1000 178 _ 2 7/12/1985 1000 186 1.9 4/12/1985 1000 184.3 2.5 108.4 156.16 1/25/1985 1000 185, 3 1217/1984 1000 184 2 9/20/1984 1000 185.6 2.1 7/3/1984 1000 183.3 2.3 4/6/1984 1000 184 1.7 108.8 151.03 1/12/1984 1020 184_ 1.8 10/5/1983 1000 185 1.8_
7/12/1983 1000 184 1.9 4/13/1983 1000 184 1.5 108.97 159.37 10/28/1982 1000 185 1.6 8/4/1982 1000 185 2.2 7/14/1982 1000 185 1.5 6/7/1982 1000 185 _ 1 2.71
Table 4 3 1B CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp Temp (deg Date (gpm) (psid) (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (mils) (deg F) F) 5/4/1982 1000 185 2.2 4/6/1982 1000 185 1.5_
3/10/1982 1000 185 2.5 2/8/1982 1000 185 0.8 100.5 149.8 1/12/1982 1000 185 0.7 12/14/1981 1000 185 0.5 11/12/1981 1000 185 0.7 10/15/1981 1000_ 186 0.61 9/14/1981 1000 184 0.78 8/17/1981 1000 185 0.68 7/16/1981 1000 182 2.25 6/19/1981 1000_ 186 _ 0.75 5/21/1981 1000 186 0.6 4/22/1981 1000 178. 0.71 3/26/1981 1000 1751 1.751 2/16/1981 1000 186 _ 3 93.57 155.8
Table 5 1 2A CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp (deg Temp Date (gpm) (psid) . (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (mils) F) (deg F) 1/19/2005 990 186.0 0.0849 0.1113 0.07370
-,10/27/2004 1000 180.0 0.0887 0.1274 0.07370 8/4/2004 1000 180.5 0.0963 0.0944 0.07514 5/12/2004 1000 180.0 0.0887 0.1274 0.07370 2/18/2004 1000 182.1 0.0901 0.1225 0.07031 11/24/2003 995 181.1 0.0963 0.1371 0.07031 9/3/2003 1000 180.9 0.0894 0.1195 0.07287 6/11/2003 1000 180.0 0.0814 0.1007 0.06944 3/19/2003 1000 178.1 0.0928 0.1048 0.07160 12/19/2002 990 182.3 0.0944 0.0982 0.07634 10/2/2002 1000 182.0 0.0941 0.1097 0.07554 7/10/2002 1010 181.0 0.0921 0.0991 0.07793 4/17/2002 1000 182.5 0.0970 0.1113 0.07245 1/23/2002 1001 182.0 0.0850 0.1102 0.07453 10/31/2001 1004 180.1 0.0914 0.1102 0.06855 8/9/2001 993 181.0 0.0872 0.1174 0.07574 5/17/2001 1007 180.7 0.0819 0.1039 0.06944 2/22/2001 1000 181.1 0.0741 0.1486 0.07329 12/1/2000 999 179.5 0.0884 0.0988 0.06629 9/26/2000 1002 179.7 0.0801 0.1108 0.07329 6/16/2000 1007 182.2 0.0771 0.0745 0.05284 3/25/2000 989 182.1 0.0911 0.0947 0.07634 12/31/1999 995 182.9 0.0868 0.0823 0.06855 10/8/1999 996 182.4 0.0816 0.1099 0.06536 7/17/1999 996 182.0 0.1051 0.1330 0.07139 5/18/1999 991 182.5 0.0931 0.1097 0.06766 4/7/1999 1000 181.5 0.0982 0.1143 0.07224 2/22/1999 1002 183.2 0.1788 0.5537 0.45390 1/28/1999 1012 184.0 0.1788 0.5116 0.44410 12/28/1998 990 184.5 0.1740 0.5077 0.42850 12/1/1998 997 185.5 0.1620 0.4645 0.39650 11/5/1998 989.5 185.1 0.1642 0.4729 0.39650 10/8/1998 1008 185.0 0.1679 0.4851 0.49210 9/10/1998 1012 184.9 0.1642 0.4901 0.42500 8/13/1998 1008 184.6 0.1646 0.4729 0.43190 7/16/1998 1009 183.0 0.1628 0.5019 0.42620 6/16/1998 995 180.0 0.1639 0.4841 0.42040 5/20/1998 986 185.0 0.1733 0.5135 0.42960 4/21/1998 1001 180.7 0.1782 0.5537 0.45180 _
3/26/1998 1009.5 185.0 0.1582 0.4666 0.39530 2/26/1998 999 181.0 0.1559 0.5097 0.39530 1/27/1998 992.5 183.1 0.1679 0.5116 0.41930 12/29/1997 994 184.1 0.1582 0.4760 0.38780 11/25/1997 1008 183.6 0.1722 0.4645 0.43750 9/10/1997 1004 188.0 0.1768 0.4463 0.41810 8/4/1997 1000 181.2 0.1559 0.4496 0.38270 6/16/1997 1002 188.0 0.1722 0.5116 0.43190 5/12/1997 1000 186.5 0.1661 0.5322 0.43190 3/24/1997 998 181.3 0.1750 0.5210 0.44300
Table 5 2 2A CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp (deg Temp Date (gpm) (psid) (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (mils) F) (deg F) 2/17/1997 993 184.1 0.1750 0.5322 0.45610 12/27/1996 992 188.4 0.1665 0.4656 0.40020 11/8/1996 996 188.3 0.1601 0.4528 0.40740 10/2/1996 982 187.0 0.1690 0.4760 0.40500 9/3/1996 1013 185.0 0.1547 0.4539 0.40980 8/5/1996 1010 186.1 0.1507 0.4624 0.38650 7/10/1996 1027.5 182.8 0.1539 0.4419 0.39030 6/13/1996 1030 186.6 0.1590 0.4474 0.37110 _
5/4/1996 1027 185.0 0.1555 0.4921 0.39280 3/21/1996 1046 183.4 0.1495 0.4134 0.35220 2/22/1996 1027.5 183.7 0.1570 0.4419 0.35900 1/24/1996 1019 184.8 0.1474 0.4319 0.34940 12/26/1995 1020 184.0 0.1668 0.4770 0.38530 Ad 11/30/1995 1031 183.8 0.1466 0.4122 0.36040 10/30/1995 1041 182.7 0.1415 0.4285 0.33290 10/2/1995 1045 183.4 0.1478 0.4539 0.36440 8/11/1995 1040 181.1 0.1605 0.4146 0.35220 7/10/1995 1045 181.5 0.1562 0.3737 0.36170 6/15/1995 1000 184.9 0.1523 0.3953 0.34520 5/15/1995 1007 180.4 0.1478 0.4193 0.34800 3/23/1995 1050 184.0 0.1519 0.4582 0.35630 2/21/1995 1020 181.0 0.1499 0.4614 0.39280 10/4/1994 1010 182.9 0.1701 0.4687 0.37890 8/11/1994 1034 180.2 0.1704 0.4635 0.35900 7/6/1994 1038 183.8 0.1683 0.4911 0.38690 4/11/1994 1023 182.2 0.1672 0.4980 0.38530 1/10/1 994 1040 180.5 0.1601 0.4687 0.38010 10/12/1993 1022 180.0 0.1624 0.5285 0.39530 8/18/1993 1000 187.0 0.1665 0.5154 0.41340 5/24/1993 1023 184.1 0.1453 0.3711 0.34090 3/1/1993 1025 185.9 0.1362 0.3050 0.31870 12/22/1992 1000 179.5 0.1293 0.3164 0.25960 9/24/1992 1010 184.0 0.1108 0.2567 0.24560 6/24/1992 1050 183.3 0.1164 0.2587 0.12100 3/3/1992 1000 180.0 0.1612 0.4145 0.36890 10/17/1991 1000 179.0 0.1467 0.3514 0.32920 7/11/1991 1000 183.2 0.1293 0.2670 0.26050 5/8/1991 1000 176.3 0.1151 0.2126 0.20549 2/8/1991 1000 186.8 0.1110 0.1570 0.16830 12/31/1990 1040 186.7 0.1040 0.1510 0.16200 11/12/1990 1000 182.0 0.1580 0.3600 0.22800 8/29/1990 1010 184.5 n/a n/a n/a invalid vib data during shutdown 5/30/1990 1000 187.3 0.1062 0.2701 0.23480 3/20/1990 1000 183.3 0.2843 0.1570 0.29980 2.5 97.6 161.5 2/2/1990 1000 187.2 0.3182 0.1669 0.27720 2.6 12/20/1989 1000 187.8 0.1335 0.3026 0.27010 2.4 9/12/1989 1000 188.0 2.4 8/8/1989 1000 186.0 1.71 6/6/1989 1000 187.0 2.7 109.9 166.1
C Table 5 3 2A CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp (deg Temp Date (gpm) (psid) -(in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (mils) F) (deg F) 3/9/1989 1000 183.0 2.7 12/5/1988 1010 179.7 1.4 9/9/1988 1000 180.0 2.5 7/14/1988 1000 185.0 3 111.5 167.2 3/23/1988 1000 186.3 2.5 100 163.7 12/23/1987 1000 184.2 2 9/21/1987 1000 184.0 2.3 6/22/1987 1000 180.3 2 3/24/1987 1000 186.0 2 99 162.9 12/23/1986 1000 187.0 2.1 ;
9/24/1986 1000 183.0 2.5 6/24/1986 1000 185.6 ] 1.5 116 173 6/18/1986 1000 172.5 12-20 3/20/1986 1000 170.0 2.5 12/20/1985 1000 172.0 2.5 _
9/23/1985 672 177.0 1.6 9/23/1985 1000 173.0 _1.6 ]_X _
8/20/1985 672 176.0 2 100.5 177.6 8/20/1985 1000 176.0 2 8/9/1985 672 178.0 2.2 8/9/1985 1000 174.0 2.2 6/28/1985 672 174.0 _ 2.3 _
6/28/1985 1000 169.0 2.5 5/14/1985 1000 172.0 2.5 3/30/1985 670 177.3 3 3/30/1985 1000 175.0 3.1 new flow orifice 1/14/1985 1000 190.0 2.5 10/26/1984 1000 192.0 3 8/10/1984 1000 190.0 3 X 5/22/1984 1000 183.0 2 100.3 160.3 2/17/1984 1000 183.0 2.5 12/2/1983 1000 188.0 _ _ 1 _ _ _
7/9/1983 1000 189.8 2.9 6/22/1983 1000 191.0 2 3/17/1983 1000 191.0 1.5 92.1 156.6 Unit 2 flow data prior to 3/30/85 was non-conservatively high due to an undersized orifice bore.
Table 6 1 2B CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp Temp Date (gpm) (psid) . (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (mils) (deg F) (deg F) 12/9/2004 1000 183.9 0.1085 0.2049 0.08839 9/16/2004 990 185.0 0.1582 0.1901 0.08646 6/24/2004 992 183.6 0.1428 0.2187 0.08359 4/1/2004 990 184.2 0.1457 0.1582 0.09077 1/6/2004 1000 184.0 0.1094 0.1445 0.08839 _ _
10/13/2003 995 183.7 0.1250 0.2096 0.08804 7/23/2003 1000 184.0 0.1269 0.1809 0.08664 5/2/2003 989 184.0 0.1200 0.1740 0.08119 2/6/2003 1000 185.0 0.1436 0.1958 0.09504 11/14/2002 1000 181.3 0.1159 0.1284 0.08593 r_
8/21/2002 998 185.0 0.1248 0.1551 0.08873 5/30/2002 1000 185.5 0.1137 0.1402 0.08976 _
4/2/2002 1000 183.1 0.1344 0.1547 0.08752 12/13/2001 1010 185.0 0.1019 0.1628 0.08522 9/17/2001 1000 184.0 0.1436 0.1726 0.08212 _
6/28/2001 1000 180.0 0.1045 0.1620 0.08341 4/5/2001 999 183.0 0.0997 0.1344 0.07890 l 1/11/2001 1000 185.5 0.1091 0.1415 0.08286 10/19/2000 1000 185.0 0.1317 0.1654 0.07948 9/26/2000 1011 183.0 0.1441 0.2079 0.09277 7/26/2000 996 181.9 0.1466 0.1597 0.08341 5/4/2000 1000 183.5 0.1195 0.1668 0.08522 _ _
2/10/2000 1000 182.5 0.1284 0.1868 0.08231 11/16/1999 1010 187.0 0.1177 0.1441 0.09010 8/26/1999 1002 185.3 0.1210 0.1624 0.08156 6/3/1999 1000 186.2 0.1213 0.1822 0.08249 3/8/1999 1009 184.3 0.1750 0.2280 0.07812 12/16/1998 1004 185.5 0.1690 0.2210 0.08558 =
9/23/1998 1017 185.8 0.2037 0.2119 0.08100 _
7/1/1998 1003 186.0 0.1503 0.2148 0.08414 4/8/1998 1006 185.4 0.1601 0.2431 0.08593 3/9/1998 1002 186.0 0.1566 0.2237 0.08664 2/13/1998 998 185.5 0.2323 0.1704 0.10190 1/14/1998 998 186.5 0.1474 0.2043 0.10000 _
11/20/1997 1004 185.9 0.2519 0.3270 0.11160 7/28/1997 1000 185.2 0.1659 0.2055 0.08540 _ X _
5/5/1997 1000 185.0 0.1555 0.2237 0.08901 _ _
2/10/1997 1008 186.5 0.1736 0.2333 0.09277 =
11/14/1996 987 185.1 0.1624 0.2390 0.08231 _
8/22/1996 999 186.4 0.1428 0.2652 0.08249 5/29/1996 1045 184.0 0.2275 0.2981 0.11610 5/4/1996 1007 185.0 0.2359 0.1631 0.08576 =
3/5/1996 1038 185.2 0.1547 0.2067 0.08062 12/14/1995 1025 187.9 0.1849 0.2253 0.09407 . -
9/21/1995 1021.5 185.0 0.1535 0.2328 0.08752 6/27/1995 1026 186.0 0.1582 0.1815 0.09010 4/4/1995 1015 185.0 0.1650 0.2148 0.09277 _
12/29/1994 1020 187.9 0.1367 0.1764 0.08304 11/16/1994 1032 184.1 0.1393 0.1586 0.09375
Table 6 2 2B CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp Temp Date (gpm) (psid) (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec); (mils) (deg F) (deg F) 8/24/1994 1050 182.1 0.1457 0.1782 0.08717 5/23/1994 1010 184.9 0.1335 0.1970 0.09144 _
2/28/1994 1036 187.0 0.1288 0.1939 0.07554 11/29/1993 1035 187.7 0.1397 0.1605 0.08432 8/19/1993 1038 183.0 0.1657 0.2131 0.08839 4/14/1993 1022 186.2 0.1389 0.1719 0.08175 1/20/1993 1010 186.9 0.1135 0.1620 0.08341 10/29/1992 1040 185.0 0.1375 0.1650 0.08414 .
8/25/1992 1010 185.0 0.1185 0.1453 0.08300 5/20/1992 1000 187.7 0.1371 0.1570 0.08120 3/3/1992 1000 186.0 0.1192 0.1523 0.08300 11/13/1991 1000 186.3 0.1639 0.2199 0.08520 8/13/1991 1000 187.0 0.1030 0.1410 0.06700 5/22/1991 1000 186.8 0.1168 0.2107 0.13440 2/20/1991 1000 182.0 0.1260 0.2490 0.08062 11/13/1990 1000 182.3 0.1402 0.2001 0.09001 .
7/25/1990 1017 182.0 0.1344 0.2080 0.08810 4/25/1990 1000 181.5 0.1170 0.2140 0.07700 1/22/1990 1000 184.0 0.1280 0.0944 0.06510 2.75 111.6 164.6 11/8/1989 1000 184.0 0.1260 0.0931 0.05770 2.7 8/16/1989 1000 184.0 2.7 5/4/1989 1000 187.0 . 3.2 1 217/1989 1000 182.3 3.2 115 164.3 11/3/1988 1000 184.0 3.2 8/16/1988 1000 182.0 3.5 _
5/25/1988 1000 183.0 ; 3.2 3/3/1988 1000 185.0 3.5 114.1 162.5 12/22/1987 1000 184.0 2.5 9/24/1987 1000 184.2 3 7/1/1987 1000 179.0 2.75 3/25/1987 1000 182.5 3 112 157.03 12/22/1986 1000 186.0 3.2 9/24/1986 1000 183.3 2.4 7/1/1986 1000 181.0 2.6 3/20/1986 1000 183.0 2.8 112.2 158 12/20/1985 1000 184.0 2.9 9/23/1985 672 189.0 1.9_
9/23/1985 1000 186.0 1.8_
8/9/1985 672 188.0 2.8 _
8/9/1995 1000 185.0 2.8 7/1/1985 1000 184.0 2.5 5/15/1985 1000 184.0 4.2 111.36 152.4 3/30/1985 1000 176.3 3.5 Suction PG Out Of Cal 3/30/1985 670 172.0 3.8 Suction PG Out Of Cal 1/14/1985 1000 177.0 -3 Suction PG Out Of Cal 10/26/1984 1000 185.0 3.2 1 8/10/1984 1000 189.0 0.3 (suspect 3 mils not 0.3) 5/23/1984 1000 184.0 _ 2.5_ 105.17 153.13 2/17/1984 1000 188.0C 3
. I Table 6 3 2B CS Pump Test Data Vibration Vibration Vibration Upper Brg Lower Brg Flow Rate Delta P Radial Radial +90 Axial Disp. Temp Temp Date (gPm) (psid) .. , (in/sec) (in/sec) (in/sec) (mils) (deg F) (deg F) 12/2/1983 1000 183.0 2.8 9/14/1983 1000 187.5 3 ___
6/22/1983 1010 188.0 1 i 2.2 ___
3/16/1983 1000 187.0 _ I 1 1.4 103.7 140.7 Unit 2 flow data prior to 3130/85 was non-conservatively high due to an undersized orifice bore.