ML12313A203

Attachment 1, NMP2 Extended Power Uprate, Power Ascension Test Report

ML12313A203
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	10/26/2012
From:	Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, EDF Group, Nine Mile Point
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC ME1476
Download: ML12313A203 (86)

Text

ATTACHMENT 1 NMP2 EXTENDED POWER UPRATE POWER ASCENSION TEST REPORT Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC October 26, 2012

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................. .2

2. Power Ascension Test Program Description .................................... .2 2.1. Overview ................................................................................. .2 2.2. Test Plan Scope .............................................................. ......... 3 2.3. Test Conditions ......................................................................... 4 2.4. Acceptance Criteria .................................................................... 5

3. Conduct of Testing ........................................................................... 6 3.1. Test Procedures ......................................................................... 6 3.2. Review and Approval ................................................................. 8

4. Summary of Test Results ............................................................... 9 4.1. Overview ................................................................................. .9 4.2. Individual Test Results .................................................................. 10

5. Critical Piping/Component Vibration and Steam Dryer .............. 19 5.1. Critical Piping/Component Vibration .......................... 19 5.2. Steam Dryer ........................................................................... 19

6. References ................................................................................... 22

7. Attachments 7.1. Summary of Testing Performed for Extended Power Uprate 7.2. Summary of Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction 7.3. Summary of Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Page 1 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report

1. Introduction This report provides an overview of the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (NMP2) Extended Power Uprate (EPU) test program and summarizes the results of the EPU power ascension testing through 100% EPU rated thermal power (EPUTP) of 3988 MWth.

By letter dated May 27, 2009, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC (NMPNS) submitted an Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request (LAR) for NMP2 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90 (Reference 6.2). The LAR proposed to increase the power level authorized by Operating License Condition 2.C.(1), Maximum Power Level, from 3467 megawatts-thermal (MWth) to 3988 MWth. The new maximum power level represents an increase of 20 percent from the Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP) level of 3323 MWth and an increase of 15 percent from the Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP) level of 3467 MWth.

On December 22, 2011, the NRC issued Amendment No. 140 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-69 for NMP2 (Reference 6.3). This amendment consisted of changes to the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications consistent with the EPU LAR. The amendment increased the authorized maximum steady-state reactor core power level to 3,988 MWth.

The EPU Power Ascension Test Program is described in Attachment 7 of the NMP2 EPU LAR and was developed and implemented in accordance with License Amendment No. 140.

The test program began prior to startup from the 2012 refueling outage, N2R1 3, and NMP2 reached full licensed EPU thermal power for the first time on July 21, 2012. Final testing was completed on July 28, 2012.

2. Power Ascension Test Program Description 2.1 Overview The purpose of the NMP2 EPU test program was to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components (SSC) will perform satisfactorily in service at the EPU licensed thermal power level in accordance with applicable design criteria. The test program described herein Page 2 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report consisted of a slow and monitored approach to the EPU licensed thermal power level, verification of adequate plant performance and transient testing necessary to demonstrate that plant equipment will perform satisfactorily at the maximum licensed thermal power level.

Steady-state data was taken at points from 90% up to 100% of CLTP rated thermal power.

System performance parameters were projected for EPU conditions before the CLTP was exceeded. EPU power increases above 100 percent CLTP were made along an established flow control/rod line in increments of equal to or less than 5 percent power.

Routine measurements of reactor and system pressures, flows, and vibration were evaluated at each measurement point, prior to the next power increment. Radiation measurements were made at selected power levels to ensure the protection of personnel.

Control system tests were performed for the reactor feedwater/reactor water level controls and pressure controls. These operational tests were made at the appropriate plant conditions for that test at each of the power increments, to show acceptable adjustments and operational capability.

NMPNS also performed instrument calibrations, post-modification testing, and normal surveillances, as required, to ensure that systems will operate in accordance with their design requirements at EPU conditions.

2.2 Test Plan Scope NEDC-33004P-A, Revision 4, "Constant Pressure Power Uprate," Class III, July 2003 (also referred to as CLTR) was approved by the NRC as an acceptable method for evaluating the effects of Constant Pressure Power Uprates (CCPU). Section 10.4 of the CLTR addresses the testing required for the initial power ascension following the implementation of CPPU.

Based on the analyses and GEH BWR experience with uprated plants, a standard set of tests was established for the initial power ascension steps of EPU (Reference 6.1).

Page 3 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report The scope of the EPU power ascension test program as shown in Attachment 7.1 was the result of input from numerous sources. The CLTR required operational tests for systems that have revised performance requirements because of the extended power uprate. In addition, a review of the original NMP2 start-up test and stretch power uprate test specifications was performed and tests were selected based on the changes resulting from the extended power uprate. Finally, test requirements were added based on engineering judgment, discussion with plant personnel, and lessons learned from other plant power uprates. The full set of EPU power ascension tests are described in the EPU LAR, . (Reference 6.2)

NMPNS completed the necessary modifications to achieve a 115 percent increase above 3467 MWth (CLTP) prior to the conclusion of the 2012 refueling outage, N2R13. Post modification testing associated with the proposed modifications included functional performance checks, equipment calibrations and component performance measurements.

2.3 Test Conditions The EPU power ascension test program was divided into the following test conditions:

1. Mode 4 and 5 Test Condition - Mode 4 and 5 tests were performed prior to plant startup in accordance with the refueling outage schedule.

2. Startup to 3467 MWth (100% CLTP/86.9% EPUTP)

3. 3467 MWth to 3553 MWth (102.5% CLTP /89.1% EPUTP)

4. 3553 MWth to 3640 MWth (105% CLTP /91.3% EPUTP)

5. 3640 MWth to 3727 MWth (107.5% CLTP/93.5% EPUTP)

6. 3727 MWth to 3813 MWth (110% CLTP/95.6% EPUTP)

7. 3813 MWth to 3900 MWth (112.5% CLTP/97.8% EPUTP)

8. 3900 MWth to 3988 MWth (115% CLTP/100% EPUTP)

Within the test conditions identified above, holds were established above CLTP at intermediate power increments of 1 percent and 2.5 percent of 3467 MWth (CLTP) to perform data collection and specified testing.

Page 4 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report 2.4 Acceptance Criteria To assist in the evaluation of proper plant performance from the test results obtained, a set of acceptance criteria for each test was developed. These criteria are a result of a combination of factors such as safety analysis assumptions, engineering analysis, and regulatory commitments. Level 1 criteria are based on safety considerations while Level 2 criteria are based on performance considerations. Level 1 and Level 2 criteria, and required actions in the event and acceptance criterion is not met, are defined as follows:

Level 1 Acceptance Criteria Level 1 criteria are associated with plant safety.

If a Level 1 criterion is not satisfied, the test in progress is aborted and the plant is placed in a suitable hold condition that is judged to be satisfactory and safe based on prior testing.

Plant operating or test procedures or the Technical Specifications may guide the decision on the direction taken. Resolution of the problem is immediately pursued by appropriate equipment adjustments or through engineering analysis. Applicable test exceptions must be resolved to verify that the requirements of the Level 1 criterion are satisfied prior to resuming testing.

Level 2 Acceptance Criteria Level 2 acceptance criteria are associated with design performance or plant parameters that are not expected to be exceeded while implementing this procedure and are a value that is not immediately adverse to plant or equipment safety.

If a Level 2 criterion is not satisfied, the plant is placed in a suitable hold condition that is judged to be satisfactory and safe based on prior testing. The limits stated in this category are usually associated with expectations of system performance whose characteristics can be improved by equipment adjustments. An investigation of the measurements and of the analytical techniques used for the predictions is initiated. Applicable test exceptions must Page 5 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report be resolved to verify that the requirements of the Level 2 criterion are satisfied prior to resuming testing.

Acceptance Criteria Not Identified by Level NMP2 surveillance and other test procedures do not identify acceptance criteria by level.

Acceptance criteria that are not identified by a Level 1 or Level 2 designation are treated as Level 2 acceptance criteria.

Test exceptions were evaluated using the station corrective action program. Condition Reports were initiated to identify and track to resolution the test deficiency. Test deviations from acceptance criteria required evaluation and corrective action, as applicable, prior to continuation of power ascension.

3. Conduct of Testing 3.1 Test Procedures Procedure N2-EPUPA-MASTER, "EPU Master Test Procedure", was used to confirm and document acceptable plant performance following EPU related changes performed in Refueling Outage N2R1 3 and for operation at the extended power uprate power level of 3988 MWth in accordance with License Amendment No. 140. This procedure:

1. Ensured that license requirements and regulatory commitments were completed, as required, to increase power above 3467 MWth.

2. Established organizational roles and responsibilities and administrative controls for the EPU Power Ascension (EPUPA) Test program implementation including; (a) performance of each test; (b) tracking and verification of station and NRC acceptance of test data; and (c) authorization to proceed through power ascension.

3. Implemented EPU power ascension testing and documented successful completion of the required procedures that establish power ascension test acceptance criteria to allow operation with reactor power above 3467 MWth up to 3988 MWth.

The master test procedure established the prerequisites for commencing power ascension testing and governed the execution of required tests at each power increment prior to Page 6 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report proceeding to the next power level. Associated test procedures included verification of the following key safety functions:

• Plant piping system structural integrity - Tests documented the performance of the piping vibration analysis and provided for actions if indications or analysis results were unsatisfactory or deviated from anticipated values (procedure N2-EPUPA-100A).

• Steam dryer structural integrity - Tests documented the performance of the steam dryer stress analysis and provided guidance for the actions required if indications or analysis results were unsatisfactory or deviated from anticipated values (procedure N2-EPUPA-100B).

• Scram avoidance margin during surveillance testing (MSIVs and Turbine Stop and Control Valves) - Tests determined the maximum power at which surveillance testing can be performed without a scram or isolation (procedures N2-EPUPA-24A, N2-EPUPA-24B).

" Core thermal margins and operating characteristics - Tests were performed that confirmed the core thermal limits are maintained within design limits at various stages of the plant startup through 100% EPUTP (procedure N2-RESP-001).

" Reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity (Chemistry) - Tests were conducted to confirm that reactor water chemistry is maintained within acceptable limits as defined by the Chemistry program (procedures N2-CSP-GEN-D100, N2-CSP-2V).

" Confirmation of assumptions used in accident analysis and transient analysis - Power-dependent performance parameters of systems and components affected by the EPU power change were monitored and evaluated to ensure they remain within the design limits (procedures N2-EPUPA-1 01, N2-MFT-1 84, N2-MFT-302).

" Radiation Dose - Dose rates were monitored at the EPU conditions to assure that personnel exposures are maintained ALARA, that radiation survey maps are accurate, and that radiation zones are properly posted (procedure S-RPIP-10.9).

Page 7 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report

• Gaseous effluent release rates - Tests confirmed that the off-gas release rate is below acceptable limits and the fuel reliability index (FRI) does not indicate the presence of a fuel element defect (procedures N2-CSP-OFG-M333, N2-CSP-OFG-S330).

• Plant control system stability (feedwater level control and reactor pressure control) -

Tests were conducted to verify the feedwater control system has been adjusted to provide acceptable reactor water level control, and confirm the adequacy of the settings of the pressure control loop for EPU operating conditions (procedures N2-EPUPA-22A, N2-EPUPA-22B, N2-EPU-23A).

EPU power increases were made in predetermined increments of < 5% power starting at 90% CLTP Reactor Thermal Power (RTP) and system parameters were projected for EPU power before the CLTP was exceeded. Operating data, including fuel thermal margin, were obtained and evaluated at each step. Piping vibration and steam dryer strain gage data was obtained at 1% increments and evaluated at every 2.5% increment above CLTP.

The Outage Control Center (OCC) was staffed throughout power ascension to support test activities. Personnel from various functional areas, together with senior managers, provided continuously available resources to address issues that arose during the performance of the program. In addition, staff in the OCC ensured that personnel for vendor support, additional peer assessments and reviews of test data were available, as required.

3.2 Review and Approval Administrative hold points were instituted to assure that test results were reviewed and approved by the responsible senior manager prior to further increases in power level.

Administrative hold points placed at the completion of the following test conditions required Plant Operating Review Committee (PORC) review and Plant General Manager approval of the test results prior to further increases in power level:

Page 8 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report

1. Mode 4 and 5 Test Condition

2. Startup to 3467 MWth (100% CLTP/86.9% EPUTP)

3. 3553 MWth to 3640 MWth (105% CLTP/91.3% EPUTP))

4. 3727 MWth to 3813 MWth (110% CLTP/95.6% EPUTP)

5. 3900 MWth to 3988 MWth (115% CLTP/100% EPUTP)

Regulatory hold points were observed at 105% and 110% of 3467 MWth (CLTP) for NRC review of test results for piping vibration and steam dryer performance. Following PORC review and station approval of the test results at the regulatory hold points, steam dryer and piping vibration performance data were provided to the NRC. Further testing was placed on a mandatory 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> hold for NRC review in accordance with the applicable License Conditions. Once NRC review was confirmed and 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> had elapsed, power ascension to the next test plateau resumed.

During the Power Ascension Test Program, the Shift Manager (SM) maintained 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 activity and the SM had the authority to stop the test(s) at any time. The SM's approval was also required to continue testing if a test was terminated or placed on hold for any reason.

4. Summary of Test Results 4.1 Overview A list of the power uprate power ascension tests and the EPU thermal power at which each test was performed can be found in Attachment 7.1. All activities in each of the Test Conditions were completed satisfactorily to allow continued operation at the full EPU licensed thermal power of 3988 MWth.

During the 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> hold at the initial 110% CLTP power plateau, NMP2 experienced a reactor scram on July 12, 2012 due to loss of condenser vacuum. Power ascension testing was temporarily suspended until restart of the unit. At the request of the NRC, NMPNS Page 9 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report repeated steam dryer strain gage testing at the 100% CLTP, 105% CLTP and 110% CLTP power plateaus.

4.2 Individual Test Results A description of the results for each individual test performed during power ascension and conformance to applicable acceptance criteria are summarized in the following table.

Additional discussion of test criteria and exceptions is provided in subsections referenced in the table. Steam dryer and piping vibration test results are described in more detail in Section 5.

Procedure Description' Results N2-RESP- Core Operating Limits This test confirmed that core limits are maintained within 001 Verification the design limits at various stages of the plant startup from 23% of rated power through 100% power. Thermal limits at all test conditions remained within design limits. Test complete and satisfactory through 115% CLTP.

S-CAP-1 00 Steam Quality Analysis This test measured the steam dryer performance based on the moisture carryover fraction. The test results confirmed that the moisture carryover fraction is below the design value of 0.1%. The test result for 110% CLTP is 0.012%, and for 115% CLTP is 0.026% (low core flow) and 0.014% (high core flow).

N2-EPUPA- Key Plant Parameter This test collected data on reactor core and plant 101 Monitoring and performance at previously attained power levels and Evaluation extrapolated performance at uprated conditions as required by EPU LAR, Attachment 7. Data was collected at pre-determined plateaus up to 100% EPUTP. See Section 4.2.1.

N2-MFT-302 High Pressure Turbine The Turbine Stop and Control Valve Closure Scram Power Ascension Bypass did not clear as expected. Investigation revealed Monitoring, Attachment 8, that the correlation between reactor power and turbine first Main Turbine First Stage stage pressure at low power conditions over-predicted the Pressure SCRAM/EOC first stage pressure by approximately 16 psig. This was RPT Bypass Verification confirmed by field measurements. The trip settings were revised prior to reaching 26% reactor power to ensure the bypass clears prior to exceeding 26% reactor power.

(CR-2012-005693)

N2-MFT-184 Feedwater Pump Runout The maximum flow portion of this modification functional Flow Testing test was performed at approximately 85.2% EPUTP. Each pump was tested by manually raising flow in one loop with the other loop in automatic. Flow was raised in steps until the maximum attainable flow was achieved without exceeding any of seven pre-established criteria. Final flow achieved was consistent with factory tested performance curves and confirmed maximum runout flow is within design criteria.

Page 10 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report N2-EPUPA- Turbine Valve This test determined the maximum power level at which 24A Surveillance Test Power the turbine valve surveillance test can be performed.

Level Determination Based on the testing performed, the maximum power level to perform this test is 85% EPUTP.

N2-EPUPA- Main Steam Isolation This test determined the maximum power level at which 24B Valve (MSIV) the MSIV partial closure test can be performed. This Surveillance Test Power testing determined that MSIV partial stroke test may be Level Determination performed at rated power under 100% EPUTP.

N2-OSP- Recirculation System This test collected Reactor Recirculation flow data and RCS- Performance other parameters that are then used to develop the jet R@001 pump performance curves needed to ensure continued structural integrity of the jet pump assembly during plant operation in Modes 1, 2, and 3. The testing determined that changes to the existing performance curves were required. This was an expected condition due to the jet pump inlet mixer replacement. The data collected indicates that the jet pumps are operating in conformance with design expectations.

GAI-REL-09 Jet Pump Performance This test confirmed jet pump performance against design Monitoring and Cleaning / expectations. The jet pumps are performing as expected Maintenance for the newly installed clean configuration.

Determination N2-REP-22 Core Flow and Recir This test determined the gain adjustment required to Pump Flow Gain ensure that core flow and recirculation pump flow Adjustment Calculation instrumentation is accurate. An Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) flow gain adjustment was required as determined by this test. The gain change was expected and the calculated value is consistent with the newly installed jet pump inlet mixers.

N2-REP-14 Traversing Incore Probe This test determined the total TIP uncertainty, and (TIP) Uncertainty optionally, the random noise TIP uncertainty, and (by Calculation statistical subtraction) the geometric TIP uncertainty, based upon diagonal-pair TIP traces and common channel TIP traverses. The total TIP uncertainty obtained by averaging the uncertainties for all the data sets met acceptance criteria.

N2-RESP-4 Local Power Range This procedure satisfactorily calibrated the LPRM to Monitor (LPRM) account for uranium burn up and gas equalization in the Calibration detector at 100% EPUTP.

N2-ISP-NMS- LPRM/APRM Channel 1 This test calibrated the Channel 1 NUMAC LPRM/APRM.

R001 Calibration The only portion of this test that was required to be performed is to implement the percent flow gain determined by N2-REP-22.

N2-ISP-NMS- LPRM/APRM Channel 2 This test calibrated the Channel 2 NUMAC LPRM/APRM.

R002 Calibration The only portion of this test that was required to be performed is to implement the percent flow gain determined by N2-REP-22.

N2-ISP-NMS- LPRM/APRM Channel 3 This test calibrated the Channel 3 NUMAC LPRM/APRM.

R003 Calibration The only portion of this test that was required to be performed is to implement the percent flow gain determined by N2-REP-22.

Page 11 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report N2-ISP-NMS- LPRM/APRM Channel 4 This test calibrated the Channel 4 NUMAC LPRM/APRM.

R004 Calibration The only portion of this test that was required to be performed is to implement the percent flow gain determined by N2-REP-22.

S-RPIP-10.9 Shield Integrity Checks, This test established baseline radiation levels, determined Reference gamma and neutron radiation levels and performed a Measurements, and shield integrity check to ensure shielding is adequately Trending Surveys protecting personnel and equipment from radiation. Dose rates, in general, tracked well below acceptance criteria.

See Section 4.2.2.

N2-CSP- Reactor Water/Auxiliary This testing confirmed that the chemistry of balance of GEN-D100 Water Chemistry plant process systems such as condensate, feedwater Surveillance and heater drains is within acceptable limits. The parameters of interest include conductivity, dissolved oxygen, chloride and metals. The test confirmed that the chemistry of the balance of plant process systems is within acceptable limits.

N2-CSP- Offgas Monthly This test calculated Offgas system release rates OFG-M333 Surveillance (gaseous effluent discharge) and Fuel Reliability Index (FRI). The test confirms that the Offgas release rate is below acceptable limits (353 uCi/sec) and the FRI does not indicate the presence of a fuel element defect. The calculated FRI is <1.

N2-CSP- Offgas Shiftly This procedure verified the function of Offgas system OFG-S330 Surveillance instrumentation and confirmed that the Offgas alarm and trip setpoints are consistent with Offgas system flow rates.

This test also confirmed Offgas pre-treatment release rate and hydrogen concentration are within acceptable limits defined by the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM)

TRSR 3.7.8.1 and Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.4. The testing confirmed satisfactory performance of the Offgas system at 100% EPUTP.

N2-EPUPA- Pressure Regulator This test demonstrated that the Reactor Pressure 22A Transient Test Electronic Hydraulic Control (EHC) System can satisfactorily control reactor pressure vessel (RPV) pressure during normal operation. It confirmed the adequacy of the settings of the pressure control loop by inducing transients in the reactor pressure control system using the pressure regulators, and demonstrated the takeover capability of the backup pressure regulator via a simulated failure of the controlling pressure regulator. The final test condition for pressure setpoint step testing was 100% EPUTP (+0/-5%), See Section 4.2.3.

N2-EPUPA- Feedwater Control This test demonstrated that the Feedwater Flow Control 23A System Testing System can satisfactorily control reactor vessel water level when small perturbations occur while at power. The final test condition for level setpoint change testing was 100%

EPUTP (+0/-5%), See Section 4.2.4.

Page 12 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report N2-EPUPA- Pressure Control This procedure demonstrated that the Reactor Pressure 22B Incremental Regulation EHC System meets the specified requirements for the Check allowable variation of incremental regulation and is thus capable of maintaining adequate pressure control over the plant operating range. Satisfactory results were achieved for variation of incremental regulation (IR) at each of the specified flow ranges.

N2-EPUPA- Piping Vibration Test This test procedure documented the performance of the 1OA piping vibration analysis. See Section 5.1.

N2-EPUPA- Steam Dryer Stress This test demonstrated that the steam dryer loads at EPU 100B Analysis conditions remain within analysis assumptions. See Section 5.2.

4.2.1 Key Plant Parameter Monitoring and Evaluation; N2-EPUPA-101 Test Objective The objective of this test was to collect data at power levels defined by N2-EPUPA-MASTER during power ascension testing to ensure plant performance remains within design and to predict plant performance for the next power plateau above CLTP to ensure plant performance will remain within design throughout power ascension.

Results Summary Data was collected at pre-determined plateaus up to 100% of EPU rated power (115%

CLTP).. Except as noted below, all parameters were within design values.

Test Exceptions

1. EPU Main Steam Line Pressure Drop Greater Than Expected (< 44 psi) at EPU Conditions; identified at 105% CLTP (CR-2012-006416)

General Electric-Hitachi (GEH) provided an evaluation that concluded that a pressure drop up to 52.5 psi is acceptable and the thermal limits analysis (operating limit minimum critical power ratio and thermal/mechanical overpower) performed for NMP2 Cycle 14 remains applicable. The value at 110% CLTP is 46.18 psi, and the value at 115% CLTP (dome pressure at 1020 psig) is 50.32 psi.

Page 13 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report

2. Feedwater Heater 6B Outlet Temperature Reading Lower Than 6A and 6C Heaters (CR-2012-006608)

The final feedwater temperature at EPU conditions is between 430'F and 431'F, which is below the expected value of 4350 F. Although the final feedwater temperature is below the expected value, it remains above the minimum allowable feedwater temperature, 420.50 F.

3. Total Steam Flow is less than rated at 115% CLTP by approximately 3%.. (CR-2012-007118)

Modification functional testing associated with the new high pressure (HP) turbine identified two test exceptions related to reduced turbine steam flow: (1) The expected turbine control valve #4 (CV#4) position is low compared to the expected value (36.5% versus the nominal expected value of 47%); and (2) The expected HP turbine exhaust pressure at 100%

Turbine Load (TL) ,or cold reheat pressure, is 11 to 12 psi below the design heat balance (HB) expected value. (CR-2012-007003 and CR-2012-007007) In addition, first stage turbine pressure at 115% CLTP is approximately 26 psi below the rated turbine first stage pressure (667 psia) per N2-EPUPA-101 data. (CR-2012-007118) The turbine first stage pressure is a strong function of the turbine steam flow, which depends primarily on thermal power and final feedwater temperature.

The measured reactor total steam flow is reduced by approximately 1.4% as a result of the reduced final feedwater temperature discussed above in item 2. The remaining variation in steam flow is attributed to fouling of the feedwater flow venturis. NMPNS has previously used an ultrasonic flow.meter factor ranging from -0.8% to -1% to correct indicated feedwater flow. The fouling condition biases the indicated feedwater flow above actual flow resulting in lower steam flow.

The NMPNS implementation plan for the power ascension test program conservatively set the feedwater ultrasonic flow meter-based correction factor to 1.0 for the test program because the Leading Edge Flow Meter (LEFM) requires re-validation for the EPU operating flow and temperature conditions. Validation of the LEFM for EPU conditions requires re-Page 14 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report establishing the expected baseline operating conditions at EPU rated power. Completion of the LEFM validation will be considered following completion of the benchmark of the balance of plant feedwater heater and moisture separator reheater (MSR) performance and the assessment of operating margin for all EPU equipment. Use of the LEFM correction factor at EPU conditions would be implemented as a plant improvement separate from EPU.

Additional Test Results At 90% CLTP, Main Steam Line Lead tunnel temperature margin to the isolation setpoint was less than the 10°F acceptance criterion. The setpoint was recalibrated for summer operation and the required margin was restored for the remainder of power ascension testing. (CR-2012-006009)

After reaching the initial 101% CLTP test plateau, a discrepancy was identified in the process computer core thermal power calculations. An incorrect feedwater flow correlation was being used in the calculation that resulted in a 0.4% positive bias. This bias was within

+ 2% as stated in N2-REP-23, N2-RESP-001 and N2-EPUPA-1 01. Therefore, there was no adverse impact on core thermal margins or plant testing. Corrective actions were implemented to resolve the deficiency. (CR-2012-006183)

At the 102.5% test plateau, feedwater flow differential between Loop A and Loop B exceeded the initial test acceptance criterion of 0.8%. GEH provided an evaluation that concluded a difference between the feedwater loop flow rates of up to 2% of the total rated feedwater flow rate was acceptable. (CR-2012-006339)

After initially reaching 115% CLTP (100% EPUTP), reactor dome pressure and main steam line header pressure were slightly below the design values of 1020 psig and 991 psig, respectively. The potential need for a pressure setpoint adjustment was anticipated; therefore, it was not considered a test exception. As part of the power ascension test program, a final adjustment to the pressure regulator setting was implemented per operating procedures. As a result of this adjustment, reactor dome pressure was raised from 1014 psig to 1020 psig. Based on independent measurements of turbine throttle pressure, the measured 115% CLTP throttle pressure is nominally 984 psig versus the design predicted Page 15 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report 991 psig. Subsequent to this adjustment, a final EPU data set was obtained and evaluated for all pressure-dependent test parameters.

4.2.2 Shield Integrity Checks, Reference Measurements, and Trending Surveys; S-RPIP-10.9 Test Objective The objective of this test was to establish baseline gamma and neutron radiation levels and to perform a shield integrity check to ensure shielding is adequately protecting personnel and equipment from radiation Results Summary Radiation surveys were performed throughout the plant at pre-determined test plateaus established in the EPU start-up test procedure N2-EPUPA-MASTER. Dose rates, in general, tracked well below acceptance criteria with two exceptions.

Test Exceptions While performing'procedure S-RPIP-1 0.9, exceptions to the acceptance criteria were observed at the following two plant locations.

1. The first location (R3-10) is on Reactor Building elevation 215 at the reactor water clean-up pump room. This elevated dose rate was due to a liner containing sludge from the Suppression Pool remaining from the refueling outage and was unrelated to operation at EPU conditions. Dose rates are expected to return to lower than acceptance criteria following removal of the liner.

2. The second location (R5-13) was above Reactor Building elevation 261 near the penetration 20 feet above the Emergency Escape Hatch. Due to multiple small bore pipes, a scaffold could not be erected. The survey was conducted with a small diameter extendable GM detector (telepole). Due to the difference in GM detectors and Ion Chambers, the expected dose rates with a telepole are higher than with an ion chamber.

This area is above the normally surveyed area of the plant and would not result in any changes in the area postings.

Page 16 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report The two survey base point locations cited in the above test exceptions were also identified at the 105% and 110% CLTP test plateaus and documented in Condition Report CR-2012-006418. The readings taken at 115% CLTP were the same or lower than the readings taken at 105% CLTP.

4.2.3 Pressure Regulator Transient Test; N2-EPUPA-22A Test Obiective The objective of this test was to confirm the adequacy of the settings of the pressure control loop by inducing transients in the reactor pressure control system using the pressure regulators, and to demonstrate the takeover capability of the backup pressure regulator via a simulated failure of the controlling pressure regulator. The allowable percent power range for performing this test was rated power +0 /-5%.

Results Summary Satisfactory results were achieved for pressure controller response to setpoint changes for both A and B pressure regulators. Testing was performed at 112.5% CLTP as allowed by the test program to account for expected changes in core reactivity during the performance of this test. Satisfactory margin to both APRM and reactor vessel pressure scram setpoints was demonstrated.

Test Exception During the performance of N2-EPUPA-22A at 110% CLTP, Level 2 acceptance criteria was exceeded for reactor steam dome pressure scram avoidance as projected to 101% rod line.

Upon further analysis by GEH, test results at 110% CLTP were found to be acceptable. The Level 2 acceptance criteria margin evaluation in N2-EPUPA-22A was revised for the 112.5%

CLTP test. Using the improved methodology for calculating scram avoidance margins, the Level 2 acceptance criteria were met at both the 110% and 115% test plateau. (CR-2012-006604)

Page 17 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report 4.2.4 Feedwater Control System Testing; N2-EPUPA-23A Test Objective The responses of Feedwater Level Control System related variables were evaluated as a result of the introduction of level setpoint and manual feedwater flow control valve changes.

Testing occurred at various power levels as defined by N2-EPUPA-MASTER during power ascension leading up to full EPU rated power. The allowable percent power range for performing this test was rated power +0 /-5%.

Results Summary After the plant scram on July 12, 2012, EPU power ascension was completed with Feedwater Pumps 2FWS-P1A and 2FWS-P1C. Previous tests were performed with 2FWS-P11B and 2FWS-P1C up to the 110% CLTP test plateau. Final testing was performed at 112.5% CLTP as allowed by the test program to account for expected changes in core reactivity during the performance of this test.

While performing two pump manual flow step change testing, the initial response from 0% to 10% and peak overshoot at 112.5% CLTP met Level 2 criteria.

Valve response time from 10% to 90% was similar to past testing plateaus that exceeded Level 2 criteria (see below).

Level 2 Test Criteria The 10% to 90% valve response times for feedwater flow control valves 2FWS-LV1 OA and 2FWS-LV10C at 112.5% CLTP did not meet Level 2 criteria. (CR-2012-005996)

Criteria: < 2.7s (seconds)

Actual: Up to 4.28s The results of previous response time testing (using flow control valves 2FWS-LV10B and 2FWS-LV1OC) were:

• 110% CLTP - Actual was 4.6s,

• 105% CLTP - Actual was 3.72s

• 100% CLTP - Actual was 4.04s Page 18 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report The purpose of this test criterion was to ensure that the feedwater flow control valves have adequate response characteristics to: (a) allow the master feedwater control system to control reactor level without excessive level limit cycles; and (b) prevent excessive level deviations during normal reactor power and flow changes and transient conditions. Actual system response demonstrated that these response characteristics have been achieved. In all cases, the required settling time of less than 14 seconds was satisfied with the maximum recorded settling time of 10.2 seconds.

5. Critical Piping/Component Vibration and Steam Dryer 5.1. Critical Piping/Component Vibration The piping and component vibration testing was performed under station test procedure N2-EPUPA-100A that ensured close monitoring of piping and component vibration during the Extended Power Uprate power ascension. Detailed test summaries including trend plots are included as Attachments 7.2 and 7.3.

Evaluation of vibration data shows that no Level 1 or Level 2 acceptance criteria were reached or exceeded from 100% CLTP to 115% CLTP. The overall results show that the vibration levels are trending consistent with the expected increase with the steam flow velocity through 115% CLTP (100% EPUTP).

5.2. Steam Dryer 5.2.1 Steam Dryer Modification and Repair Implementation Summary Steam dryer modifications that were required to support EPU are described in Reference 6.6. In addition, repairs of known intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) indications were required as defined in the LAR. These modifications and repairs were implemented in the 2012 refuel outage prior to EPU implementation. The Reference 6.6 report describes the final as-built modification details. In the 2012 refueling outage, the required repairs were implemented as per the LAR commitment. The steam dryer also required baseline inspection per the guidance of BWRVIP-1 39 prior to service. The pre-EPU service inspections were completed during the 2008, 2010 and 2012 refueling outages. The results of the 2008 and 2010 inspections were summarized in the EPU LAR. The 2012 inspections identified two additional IGSCC indications associated with the steam dryer skirt Page 19 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report vertical seam weld. These IGSCC indications were repaired in 2012 using the same methods as defined for the other IGSCC indications described in the EPU LAR. These locations will be inspected in accordance with License Condition 2.C(20)(f).

5.2.2 Power Ascension Test Result Summary The steam dryer testing was performed under station test procedure N2-EPUPA-100B. This procedure ensures close monitoring of reactor steam dryer performance and integrity during the EPU power ascension. All Level 1 and Level 2 acceptance criteria were satisfied at the power ascension test plateaus.

Reference 6.5 provides the final steam dryer stress evaluation report based on measured EPU loads from the Reference 6.4 load definition.

The full 100% EPU power (1115% CLTP) stress evaluation shows that the limiting alternating stress ratio (SR-a) on the steam dryer with all modifications implemented is 2.49 and occurs on the inner vane bank welded side plate/end plate junction. The LAR indicated that the EPU limiting alternating stress ratio based on Reference 6.6 predicted velocity squared scaling would be 2.05.

During power ascension testing, NMPNS identified two off-normal loading conditions associated with the operational lineup of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) system.

(CR-2012-007239) The stress analysis has concluded that both of these off-normal configurations result in an acceptable alternating stress ratio.

1. The first off-normal condition is related to the RCIC steam supply line drain configuration. When the RCIC system drains are in an alternate configuration with steam traps bypassed or isolated, a 92.5Hz acoustic peak was observed on Main Steam Line B (MSL-B). The monitoring of this signal has demonstrated that this frequency, when present, scales with the velocity in the MSL-B. Separate acoustic circuit analysis of the piping has concluded that this content is related to the vortex shedding at the 10" RCIC steam supply line connection to the MSL-B. The Reference 6.5 stress analysis has considered this off-normal condition at 115%

Page 20 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report CLTP conditions. The alternating stress ratio under these off-normal conditions is reduced from 2.49 to 2.39.

2. The second off-normal conditions is related to operation with the RCIC steam supply line isolated at the primary containment isolation valve (21CS*MOV128). Operation in this lineup is limited to 14 days in accordance with NMP2 Technical Specifications.

This lineup resulted in an 89.25Hz acoustic peak observed on Main Steam Line B (MSL-B). The monitoring of this signal has demonstrated that this frequency, when present, scales with the velocity in the MSL-B. The separate acoustic circuit analysis of the piping has concluded that this content is related to the vortex shedding at the 10" RCIC steam supply line connection to the MSL-B. This is the same source as the 92.5Hz content modified by the change in the RCIC steam line length. The resulting limiting alternating stress ratio in this condition is shown to be 2.05.

5.2.3 Impact of EPUPA-101 Test Exception for Steam flow The EPU steam dryer analysis is based on the EPU design basis reactor rated heat balance which defines the normal rated reactor steam flow as 17.636E6 Ibm/hr. This steam flow represents 117.56% of the previous rated steam flow defined for CLTP and assumes optimum feedwater heater performance, with a reactor inlet final feedwater temperature of 4400 F. During power ascension testing at the EPU rated thermal power of 3988 MWt, the maximum measured steam flow was 17.33E6 Ibm/hr (115.5% of CLTP steam flow). The reduced steam flow at EPU rated thermal power is primarily the result of a lower than expected final feedwater temperature of 430.50 F. As stated in the 60-Day EPU test report (Reference 6.7), the impact of this reduced steam flow has been addressed and the results are summarized below.

Based on the results of the EPUPA-101 testing, it is possible that the actual steam flow is approximately 2.5% to 3% below the design rated flow rate, which includes the 1.4%

feedwater temperature effect discussed in Section 4.2.1, test exception 3. The final feedwater temperature deviation of approximately 10 degrees is not fully recoverable. A best estimate calculation indicates that 5 degrees is recoverable by improving the performance of the 6 th point B heater, which is under-performing as compared to the A and C 6 th point Page 21 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report heaters. This represents approximately a 0.7% steam flow increase above the current tested value. In addition, it may be possible to recover between 0.8% and 1% steam flow based on validation of the LEFM feedwater venturi fouling correction. Thus, approximately a 2%

increase in steam flow is feasible if corrective measures are taken for the feedwater heaters and an approximate 1% feedwater flow venturi fouling bias is confirmed and corrections implemented.

Based on the final stress analysis in Reference 6.5, sufficient margin exists to accommodate the increased steam flow for the normal operating condition. The exception is operation with the RCIC steam supply line isolation valve 21CS*MOV128 closed. If main steam flow is increased above the current tested value, then operation in this configuration would require additional actions to assure that adequate steam dryer design margins are maintained (e.g.,

perform additional testing and evaluation to demonstrate the acceptability of the steam dryer, or impose an operational power restriction when operating with the RCIC system isolated). This issue is being tracked and managed in accordance with the NMPNS corrective action program.

6. References 6.1. GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy EPU Task Report T1005, Startup Test Specifications, Revision 0, September 2008, Doc. No. 0000-0070-3271.

6.2. Letter from K.J. Poison (NMPNS) to NRC, "License Amendment Request (LAR)

Pursuant to 1 OCFR50.90: Extended Power Uprate", dated May 27, 2009.

6.3. License Amendment Number 140 to Operating License Number NPF-69; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 - Extended Power Uprate, issued by NRC letter dated December 22, 2011.

6.4. Acoustic and Low Frequency Hydrodynamic Loads at 115% CLTP Target Power Level on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer to 250 Hz Using ACM Rev. 4.1, September 2012, CDI Report No.12-20P (submitted by NMPNS letter dated September 26, 2012).

6.5. Stress Evaluation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer at 115% CLTP, CDI Report No.12-18P (see Attachments 2 and 4 to this submittal).

6.6. Stress Evaluation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Steam Dryer Using ACM 4.1 Acoustic Loads, CDI Report No.11-04P (submitted by NMPNS letter dated June 13, 2011).

Page 22 of 23

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report 6.7. Letter from K. Langdon (NMPNS) to NRC, Submittal of Extended Power Uprate Steam Dryer Power Ascension Testing Information in Accordance with Operating License Conditions 2.C.(20)(b)5 and 2.C.(20)(e), dated September 26, 2012.

Page 23 of 23

Attachment 7.1 Summary of Testing Performed for the Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Program

NMP2 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report Attachment 7.1 Summary of Testing Performed for the Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Program

.4 N

-T n-f T-r-n-I-T1-,1r T-r-t-,-T~t1lTlT z I oV N, On~ f)) 0.

St St St 'a 0 St St m c:

IV a)i 0

In

-.1

r -4 as St  ! -J N

-4 ho W

Z5 :r Co 10 EPU Pv*arl= =rn 3 Fuel loading and core verification performed N2-FHP-13.2 per plant procedures N2-REP-008 x 12, 35 APRMCalibratlon/Funclonal Test N2-ISP-NMS-ROO1, LPRM/APRM Channel 1 Calibration N2-ISP-NMS-R002, LPRM/APRM Channel 2 Calibration X x N2-ISP-NMS-R003, LPRM/APRM Channel 3 Calibration N2-ISP-NMS-R004, LPRM/APRM T/S I MSIVIsolation on MSLFlow - High Allowable N2-lSP-MSS-QO02 Value x T/S 2 SLCPump and Relief Valve Surveillance Test N2-OSP-SLS-Q.01 T/S 3 TSV/TCV Closure Scram Bypass Verification N2-ISP-MSS-R10S Surveillance Test and TSV/TCVClosure EOC-RPTBypass Verification Surveillance Test S Control Rod Speed Testing/Adjustment (scram N2-OSP-RMC- @001 timing). CRDdynamic friction determined to N2-RESP-11 be within Technical Specification limits with N2-RESP-8 x acceptable scram times 4 Full Core Shutdown Margin Test N2-RESP-10, Subcooled Critical

_omoarlson 22B Pressure Regulator Incremental Regulation N2-EPUPA-22B Check x K 22C Scram/EOC RPTBypass- First Stage Pressure N2-MFT-302, High Pressure Turbine Power Ascension Monitoring, . , X Attachment 8, Main Turbine First Stage Pressure SCRAM/EOC RPTBypass 12B APRM Gain Adjustment N2-OSP-NMS-@004 X X X 19 Core Operating Limits Verification N2-RESP-001 initial, then per N2-OP-IOIA X K X X x I

NMPZ Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report Attachment 7.1 Summary of Testing Performed for the Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Program K

i K

t,.

> K SR '#0 z #0 *0 9; SR SR K a SR 0 '05 (0 (0.

4w a

N

-4

!C 9

bK

-4 C-a N

C SR

-4

'4 so Os O~. K K K K K IV Kr 00 0 -S EPU Toot t flonDerintion Pronoduro 77, 100A Piping VibrationTesting: N2-EPUPA-100A, Piping Vibration Test MS, FW, and other key systems

> 100% CLTP: x X X X X X X X X X X

• Data Collection Every 1%

• Data Evaluation Every 2.5%

100B Steam Dryer Stress Analysis N2-EPUPA-1OOB, Steam Dryer Stress

> 100% CLTP: Analysis X X X X X X X

• Data Collection Every 1%

• Data Evaluation Every 2.5%

22A Pressure Regulator Transient test N2-EPUPA-22A Pressure set "step testing" x X x X X X 24A Turbine Valve Surviellance Test Power Level N2-EPUPA-24A Determination X X X Subsequent Tests based on evaluation of Previous tests.

11 LPRM Calibration N2-RESP-4 X X X X 101,75, Key Parameter Monitoring NZ-EPUPA-101 19 X X X X X X X X x X 12,19 Core Performance Operating Limits N2-RESP-001, Power Distribution Limits Verification Verification K x X X X X X X X X 74 Offgas System Performance N2-CSP-OFG-S330 Data Collection X X K X X 23C Max Feedwater Runout N2, MFT-184, Feedwater Pump.Min Data Collection Flow Valve Testing X 23A FW Flow "step testing" N2-EPUPA-23A, Feedwater Control

• Manual Flow Changes System Testing 1 element level changes X

• 3 element level changes 102 Reactor Recirculation System Performance and N2-OSP-RCS-R@001 Jet Pump Monitoring and GAI-REL-09 X K X x Cleaning/Maintenance Determination 12,35 Recirc Drive Flow Gain Adjustment Calibration N2-REP-22 K X 2

NMPZ Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Report Attachment 7.1 Summary of Testing Performed for the Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Program 0

us - to it' -~ N to q N WW St St St St St r 0 N

en -4 to 0i 0

Set K K

-J K N

0 -4 K

oK 0 ~ K K K K K I

0) -c

5) 00 ii~

0-EPU a:

Ts~t a, nlarintlnn Pr*r*rlHr*

1A,74 Chemical and Radlochemical N2-CSP-GEN-DO00 Water Chemistry and Gaseous Effluent Data N2-CSP-2V X x Collection N2-CSP-OFG-M333 N2-CSP-OFG-S330 2 Radiation Measurements S-RPIP-10.9 Measure radiation levels at selected locations In the plant. Shield integrity checks, reference X X X X measurments and trending surveys.

24B Main Steam IVSurveillance Test Power Level N2-EPUPA-248 Determination X X X X X 18 Steam Dryer/Separator Performance, Moisture S-CAP-1O0, Steam Quality Analysis Carryover X X X X X X X 18 TIPProbe Uncertainty NZ-REP-14 X 10 IRMOverlap N2-OP-101C, Plant Shutdown First Controlled Shutdown After EPU (if IRM adjustments are required THEN Implementation N2-ISP-NMS-Q109, Intermediate Range Monitor Channel Calibration Is also Included to perform channel functional Itesting)

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table of Contents 1.0 INTRO D U CTION ...................................... ..................................................... ........ 3 2.0 MONITORING APPROACH .................................................................................. 3 2.1 Acquisition Parameters ................................................................................. 3 2.2 Sensor Status ................................................. ............................................. 5 3.0 DATA REDUCTION METHODOLOGY ....................................... I...8 ..

4.0 R E SU LT S ................. ........................................................................................... 1.........

11 4.1 General Processing ...................................................................................... 11 4.2 Characterization of Vibration Levels for Invalid Sensors .............. I1......

4.3 RC IC Testing .................................................. .............................................. 12 5.0 SU MM A RY ................................................................................................................. 16 APPENDIX A PROCESSED TREND PLOTS .................................................................. 17 Page 1 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction LIST OF TABLES Table 1: NMP2 RB Accelerometer Channel Names and Location Descriptions ................. 4 Table 2: Data Files Recorded during Power Ascension and Associated Data Sets .............. 5 Table 3: Status of Recorded Signals during Data Set Recording ........................................ 6 Table 4: Time Domain Restrictions by Data Set and Channel .......................................... 10 Table 5: Invalid Sensor Locations and their Computed or Compared Values ................. 13 Table 6: Vibration Response and Corresponding Allowable ............................................ 14 Table 7: Percentage of Level-2 Allowable ......................................................................... 15 List of Figures Figure 1: 60 Hz Electrical/Structural (Left) vs. Filtered Electrical (Right), Data Set 10 .......... 8 Figure 2: Peaks in Displacement Waveform Chl4 (Left) and Acceleration Waveform Ch4O (R ight), D ata Set 6 and 8.................................................................................... 9 Page 2 of 24,

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

During the 1 2 th refueling outage (2R12) at Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (NMP2), 42 accelerometers were installed on various piping systems in the reactor building (RB). The intent of the installation was to confirm that steady-state vibration levels are acceptable at Extended Power Uprate (EPU) operating conditions.

Vibration data was collected and compared to allowables from the RB sensors during the EPU power ascension in June and July of 2012. The purpose of this calculation is to process raw accelerometer data, generating spectral response plots and tables of overall values.

2.0 MONITORING APPROACH 2.1 Acquisition Parameters RB measurement locations were selected by Sargent & Lundy. A list of channel names is provided in Table 1, along with a description of each monitoring location.

The accelerometers were connected to a 48-channel model of Structural Integrity's Versatile Data Acquisition System (SI-VersaDASTM) located in the NMP2 Control Building (CB). Data snapshots were collected at various reactor power levels during the NMP2 EPU power ascension. Each recording was 120 seconds in length, obtained at a sample rate of 1024 samples per second. A hardware-based low-pass filter was applied prior to analog-to-digital conversion to prevent signal aliasing.

During initial connection and checkout of the accelerometers and SI-VersaDASTm, an invalid response was observed on Channel 13. The problem was attributed to the SI-VersaDAS TM , so the signal for Channel 13 was moved to the next available input, Channel 43. For continuity purposes, the "empty" signal on Channel 13 was maintained in data recordings. Therefore, all files contain 43 columns of data in binary format, where each column represents one channel.

Table 2 contains a list of processed files that were recorded during power ascension.

Page 3 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 1: NMP2 RB Accelerometer Channel Names and Location Descriptions n Steam Loop "A" Elbow Upstream of Safety Relief Valves (SRV's)

Steam Loop "C" Elbow Upstream of SRV's 7

1 19 17/2-FWS-O12-54-IIX I X l

20 7/2-FWS-O12-54-1/Y 21 7/2-FWS-O12-54-1/Z l

Y Z

I Feedwater Loop "B" 12-inch Lead 2

26 9/2-MSS*PSV120/X X 9 326 9/2-MSS*PSV120/Y Y Main Steam Valve PSV-120 27 9/2-MSS*PSV120/Z Z 28 11/2-MSS*PSV129/X X 31 11/2-MSS*PSV129/Y 11 Main Steam Valve PSV-129 33 11/2-MSS*PSV129/Z Z 37 13/2-MSS*AOV6A/X X 13 38 13/2-MSS*AOV6A/Y T Main Steam Valve AOV-6A I j 1-31-1 ItACC*Af%%IC-ApI- 7 Page 4 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 2: Data Files Recorded during Power Ascension and Associated Data Sets Note: Data Set 0 represents previous baseline data analyzed in 2010 up to 400 Hz.

2.2 Sensor Status During the power ascension, a number of channels exhibited non-steady state behavior during various data file recordings. The observed symptoms ranged from infrequent transient peaks causing minor increases in levels to major signal degradation rendering the data for a particular channel invalid. To avoid presenting analysis results based on unreasonable inputs, each data set was examined in units of acceleration and displacement, and a matrix of sensor conditions was developed (Table 3). The following four classifications were used:

1. Sensors with a good signal, reasonably free of transient peaks. Overall values for these channels are reported as-is.

2. Sensors with a reasonable signal, free of large peaks or electrical problems, but including moderate-amplitude peaks above the typical steady-state response. Root-mean-square (RMS) overall values and spectral responses are largely unaffected for these channels; peak-peak (Pk-Pk) results may appear higher than for channels with a better classification.

3. Sensors with a questionable signal, due to large-amplitude transient peaks. In most cases, the RMS values are reasonable, but the Pk-Pk levels may be skewed (and thus may not be presented in tables of overall values). The spectral responses may be excluded from waterfall plots.

Page 5 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction

4. Sensors with an invalid signal, in most cases due to electrical problems. Overall values will not be presented for channels with this classification, and the response spectra will be excluded from waterfall plots.

Note: Several data sets contained channels with one-time transient peaks, resulting in less-than-optimal rankings in Table 3. However, in certain cases, a subset of time history can be selected such that the peak is excluded, as described in Section 3.0. For such channels, two status levels are provided, describing the pre- and post-processing state of the data.

Table 3: Status of Recorded Signals during Data Set Recording

• Ownsel WOtgoo sWWa; relat~yely ffreeqof nlqWUarntpeaks Q) Chwnw with reinanwle slpi; may kxkded clankWalrueft pek (potefitla toaft

~ mo-pe* overall vuluesj

• Cwmel wit fuequsfti umipeaksof slpdfcartanyllbade (zweuuedcvell vakues wHilbe arlfirally Inflated)

• wumel wIth tmusae sipi 4dktmnected aWdor electrical proNemap Page 6 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 3: Status of Recorded Signals during Data Set Recording (Continued)

O Charnel wir Me sinl; nmy indue ocxasional trmient peaks (potential to affect zero-peak overall S Chanel witM re*nt -t pea Of *Wsincai anipide (eM-peak overall values will be artfically kflated)

• d wrnl with unuable signa (dicornected wndor ellectucal problems)

Page 7 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction 3.0 DATA REDUCTION METHODOLOGY The SI-VersaDASTM data files were reduced using UniPro 2.6.2, a custom software package developed in MATLAB. The monitoring locations being analyzed in this calculation span several plant piping systems. Consequently, it was not possible to globally apply a uniform set of processing parameters to all channels. The following paragraphs describe the various processing operations performed on the data sets.

Allowable vibration levels for valves (Ch. 25-42) were computed using excitation through 400 Hz. For that reason, overall vibration values calculated during this data reduction maintained all content through 400 Hz. Piping locations (Ch. 1-24) also used the same cut off frequency which demonstrated little to no effect on displacement values (Pk-Pk) used for comparing with allowable.

A majority of the RB accelerometer channels exhibited electrical line noise, with visible spectral peaks at 60 Hz. All channels where filtered at 60 Hz to remove this content in all data sets. In addition, Channel 38 (13/2-MSS*AOV6A/Y) showed multiples of the 60 Hz response with content at 120, 180, and 300 Hz. These peaks were also removed from all data sets. Many channels exhibited valid responses near 60 Hz, with some occurring as close as 58.5 Hz. Figure 1 provides an example of the similarity between electrical and structural responses for channel 18 (6/2-MSS-750-350-2/Z).

S0.a. Rot. = 1024 ops a o. Dote: 0-Sep.2012 F-pe Sann0e Rote = 1024 sps Pr.qu9 p.6vm Mynq PI@ Roc. DMt*:05-Sp-2012 TfmeDo*oetob= 120 s3C Fi: 2012072114205.dts Timo.Durat = 120 efc Flte 2012072114200.dta

.10" NM2 Accelesronters.DS #10 (115.0% R0P),&2-MSS-750-350-2/Z,Ch.18 . 10." NM NP2 A.cWe n #10 (115.0% R

.e.tDS #P),/2-AMSS-760-350-2/1Z, C18

. ..8.

.9 r~t - *-

FS0.002U3 --;  ;--- -

AC - -"**--

tch kRot$Off - - -ooo08-r- - - - FA

- L- 759 ------

.. - - AC IbIOSFkenO.

- -- -,o~,",* o --

. . . . .-. .~~~~

. ~ ~~~

.* - . . l - . . . . ~~~

II - I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I P*II . I. T -T -- i - ] I -- -It - -- E . . . - I T ..-I I . . . I 4- .. . - . - -* . - 4 -- . --.-.. .-.- .-.. . -

0 0 0 10 20 30 40 s0 00 70 0 10 20 30 40 s0o 0 70 Freqseocy [-J( Fre ncy [Pt(

Figure 1: 60 Hz Electrical/Structural (Left) vs. Filtered Electrical (Right), Data Set 10 In order to prevent electrical noise from influencing the overall results, 6th-order Chebyshev Type-I digital band-stop (notch) filters were applied. The filters were applied with a 1 Hz stop band width, and a 0.1 dB pass band ripple. In cases where both electrical and structural peaks were present near 60 Hz, electrical was filtered, with minimal decimation of valid data. For example, in Figure 1 filtering displacement content near 60 Hz with a structural frequency at 58.5 Hz had the overall effect of altering the displacement RMS value by 0.62% and Pk-Pk by 0.42%.

Page 8 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction In addition notch filters at the vane pass pump frequencies (VPF) of 149 and 298 Hz were also filtered from Ch 26 (9/2-MSS*PSV120/Y).

The data was double-integrated to transform the recorded signals from units of acceleration (g) into units of displacement (inches or mil). A 5th-order Chebyshev Type-I digital high-pass filter was applied when performing the integration, to prevent low-frequency noise from being amplified and distorting the integrated spectra. The filter was applied at 5 Hz, based on a lack of appreciable acceleration content below this frequency.

When reviewing the data in units of displacement and acceleration, several large peaks were evident in the time history waveforms for select channels (see Figure 2). The units for allowable vibration are in displacement for piping locations and acceleration for valve locations. For this reason, displacement and acceleration excursions in the time history were filtered if the content was determined to be not representative of steady state vibration.

04 2012 Sa5ple Rete = 1024 sp t7me HIliwyPIft roc. Date: 04-8.w2012 Swple Rde - 1024 sps ThaleHisftmPlot .

Phoc Dt: -SP Tkm Iutbn = 120 sýc Fe 20120830105003dAt. Tkm D-fiun - 120.a= Fk: 201207101#805Mdta NIV2 R8 Amcebonmmst,DS f8 (105.0% RF(),512-MS-0S2-45-I/Y, (h14 I4LP2 RB Accromoc60....t8 #(110.0% FO0G).l4/2-ICS*MDf128fl((140 04 . 0 - -----------oh FR-.. -1 Ac I6U-0.0=o40331 ýACMNtch~lb.,s0 0.3 0.5124 03 I 1.5 I I Ii i I

- - L~~~ - - - - - - -- - --- - - -

A 0

-0.4I I I I I I I I I I

I I S0.5

-0.3 0 1 i i~ 7 i-- 1 7 7-- 4i 1 - "

-0.1 ----- - ---- --- -- --- -

)f,

-0.1 -t-----l- ---- *-l--- - ---

S I I I I II I I 0 --- ---- - - - -

- - - ,---- I

--- ----. T ---

-0,2 -+ -- A-t- - -- +--I -- - -- -t+- - -- - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I !I I I I I

-0.5 - I I

• II I I I I I i

- - 7 -! TI I I I El I I I I I I I I 7 I I I I I I I

-0.4 I I I I I II I i I 10 20 30 40 50 I0 70 80 go 100 110 120 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Thrn *l TkIs)

Figure 2: Peaks in Displacement Waveform Chl4 (Left) and Acceleration Waveform Ch40 (Right), Data Set 6 and 8 In certain cases, these excursions of the displacement signals were merely amplifications of low-frequency noise or were caused by intermittent electrical spikes. In such instances, the time history data was sliced to remove the affected regions; Table 4 contains a complete listing of the channels which were processed in this manner.

Page 9 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 4: Time Domain Restrictions by Data Set and Channel DS #0 (100.0%)40-100s 20, 21 DS #3 (90.0%) 55-120s 38 DS #4 (100.0%)40-100s 14 DS # 6(105.0%) 0-50s 14 DS #7 (107.5%)90-114s 14 DS #8 (110.0%) 0-110s 40 0-54s 14 DS #13 (115%)70-120s 40 The filtering operations can produce a "ringing" effect at the beginning portion of the processed time history data, as the digital filters attempt to track the target signals from an unknown initial condition.

Therefore, prior to calculating each channel's overall values and frequency response, three seconds of waveform data was truncated from the beginning of each channel, to remove any potential ringing effects. After truncation, the RMS, 0-Pk and Pk-Pk values for each data set were obtained from the processed time histories.

The time history data was then converted to the frequency domain using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm with a Hanning window. A frequency resolution of 0.25 Hz was applied, resulting in multiple waveform data blocks of 4-second duration. The blocks were overlapped by 50%, increasing the total number of data blocks for spectral averaging. After the FFT algorithm was applied to each block, the blocks were summed together and divided by the number of blocks analyzed, providing a linearly averaged frequency spectra.

Page 10 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 General Processing The data sets identified in Table 2 were processed according to the methodology in Section 3.0. Overall vibration levels were computed from the processed time history waveforms, in units of acceleration and displacement. The RMS, 0-P, and Pk-Pk overall values are provided in units of acceleration and displacement in Table 6. The units selected for each channel correspond to the units of allowable vibration at each location. The percentage of Level-2 vibration (measured / allowable) is shown in Table 7.

The RMS overall values in units of acceleration and displacement (Table 6) were used to generate processed trend plots, illustrating the change in vibration levels during power ascension. These plots are included in Appendix A.

All channels were included in the results, regardless of their signal quality (refer to Table 3 for information about sensors with invalid signals).

4.2 Characterization of Vibration Levels for Invalid Sensors During the on-site data reduction during EPU power ascension, several of the RB frequency spectra exhibited significantly less content than the baseline data collected at 100% CLTP during the 2010 power ascension. The large discrepancies in magnitude indicate channels that are not providing valid data, which calls into question whether the adequate sensing capability required is being achieved.

Invalid channels, 11, 12, 27, 28, 34, 35, 36, and 43, were present on all data sets through EPU power ascension. In addition, channel 9 did not provide a valid data set for analysis for 75% CLTP but remained valid for remaining data sets.

Locations with invalid sensors were evaluated to estimate the flow-induced vibration (FIV) in the monitored lines by two different methods dependent on whether two valid sensors existed at the location or if less than two valid sensors existed at the location.

The first method can be applied to channels 9, 27, 28, and 43 where each location is providing valid data for two of the three orthogonal directions. The overall vibration levels for an invalid sensor can be extrapolated from valid sensors at the same location by calculating a scaling factor from 2010 baseline vibration levels and the current data set and then applying it to the invalid sensor for 2010 baseline data.

For example, if the Z-direction sensor at particular location is invalid, the X- and Y-direction ratios are obtained as Rx = Xcurrent /X2010 and Ry = Ycurrent/Y 2 01o. The maximum calculated ratio is used to scale the 2010 baseline overall value for the invalid channel. For this example, the formula would be max Zcurrent = Rraax Z2o1o. The estimated value calculated (Zcurrent) is compared to the allowable vibration criteria for the invalid channel. In order to apply this scaling factor a comparison of frequency content Page 11 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction was preformed between the 2010 baseline data and each EPU data set. Table 5 summarizes the estimated vibration levels for these sensors at all power levels.

The second method can be applied to channels 11, 12, 34, 35, and 36, where each location has invalid sensors for two or more orthogonal directions. At RB Location #4 (Channels 10-12), the X-direction (Channel 10) is the only one providing valid data for all power levels. Vibrations levels for this location have not exhibited an appreciable change in low frequency content or energy when compared to 2010 baseline data. For example, the measured overall value of vibration was 8 mils (115% CLTP, 2012) and 5.97 mils (100% CLTP, 2010); the former is approximately 31% of Level-2 allowable vibration. This location experienced a linear increase (no resonance conditions) in vibration levels reaching the maximum at 115% CLTP. It is expected that this change would be reflected in some manner on all axes.

At 100% CLTP in 2010 vibration levels were 7.9 and 2.7 mils or 40% and 19% of Level-2 allowable vibration in the Y- and Z-direction, respectively. Given the similarity of the frequency spectra and overall values for Channel 10 over power ascension, it is reasonable to conclude that vibration in the Y-and Z-directions has not increased significantly over the 2010 baseline condition.

At RB Location #12 (Channels 34-36), all three sensors are providing invalid signals for all power levels. The sensors in question are installed on PSV-133 on MSL-C; PSV-129 is also located on MSL-C and instrumented with three accelerometers, each provided valid signals at all power levels. The PSV-120 and PSV-123 valves on MSL-A are also monitored. Review of the data for the valid PSV channels shows a very consistent level of energy in all measurement directions. The valves on MSL-A appear to be experiencing slightly higher levels of vibration than the valves on MSL-C. At 115% CLTP, the maximum percentage of the Level-2 allowable on MSL-A was approximately 82%, on Channel 25.

Conversely, the maximum percentage of the Level-2 allowable on MSL-C was approximately 64%, on Channel 32. Given that none ofthe remaining PSV's exhibit vibration levels of concern, and that full sensing capability on MSL-C is available at PSV-129, it is reasonable to conclude that the vibration at PSV-133 is not a concern at all power levels. As shown in Table 5, vibration levels did not increase significantly as EPU power ascension progressed, and no sensor failures occurred on PSV-129; therefore, it is reasonable to use the measurements on Channels 31-33 in lieu of actual measurements on Channels 34-36. For Channels 31-33, no resonance conditions were observed and all vibration remained below Level-2 allowables.

4.3 RCIC Testing Once 115% CLTP was achieved additional testing was conducted on the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system. This testing included two tests: (1) closing the steam line isolation valve MOV-128; and (2) isolation of the steam trap.

RCIC steam trap testing did not result in an appreciable response on any channels when compared to the baseline condition. The comparison during the RCIC MOV128 testing showed a response of varying amplitude at 89 Hz. This response was most apparent On channels 1, 4, 5, 18, 26, 29, and 40-42. The largest response occurred in the y-direction (channel 41) with a 0.04 g-RMS peak. A less significant response was observed on channels 2, 3, 6, 10, 16, 20, 25, 30, 33 and 34. In addition, a small shift in Page 12 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction frequency content was observed on channel 14 and 15, where the frequencies centered around 164 Hz in the baseline test were shifted to 171 Hz during the MOV128 testing.

Table 5: Invalid Sensor Locations and their Computed or Compared Values 7 JfeW&-UZPUL-Wil EllA IVip. IIXWf wt# I~Y IA "I^ EVA Elf A Il AI$ EllA% I 11A imI. "L 103 4,-MSS-02&45-X Dsp. Max-1Mn 2.221 5.265 5.6 C094 &153 7.062 7.343 7.737 7.693 8.00 25.6 32 27 9/-2MSSVPSV12/Z Native RI4S 0.027 0 02B 0.363 0.050 0.052 0.055 0058 0.049 0.070 0.073 0.12 0.15 23 1012hM*PSV123/X Native O 0.021 0.022 0.025 0.037 0.038 0.042 0.044 0.041 0.050 052 0.12 0.15 31 11/2-MSS*PSV129f Native RLIS 0.09 0.2 0.037 0.035 0.035 0.036 0.035 0.037 0036 0.038 0.1 0.15 32 12/2-MSSOPSV29/Y Native Rti 0.067 0.061 0.0.5 0.056 0.066 0.057 M0611 0.069 0.0711 0092 0.1 M18 33 Ui/2-MSS*PSV129/Z Native RRS 0.047 0.048 0.053 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.053 0.055 0.054 M057 1 0.15 43 15/2-tiSS-026.45-1/XI DiSp. Max-Min 1 M200 2 7.300 2.900I 25.900I Z7.5001 25.8001 28.900 I25.M00 16.600 1&.500 3MA N3 Page 13 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 6: Vibration Response and Corresponding Allowable 2 112412"3-/f Dip. Max-r M.71 0.92 1.31 145 1L50 1.75 1.56 1.63 1.92 1.89 10.4 13 3 1IZ-MSS-&2&43-1/Z Disp. Max-Min 1.25 1.58 2.09 2-56 2.83 2.69 3.16 3.04 3.68 3.53 19.2 24 4 2/2-MSS-026-43-1X isW Max-Min 2-50 4.71 6.67 6.93 7.86 7.84 8.11 8.38 7.49 7.80 34A4 43 5 2/2-MS-02.43-1ft DIWsMax-n 1.91 2.81 3.92 4.6 4.87 5.63 5.12 6&22 5.54 6.18 32 40 6 212-MS42&43-1/Z sp. Max- L95 Ln 3.85 5.18 5.55 6.65 6L18 6.18 6.51 7.09 7.72 72 90 7 31/2-MSs-02-415-U1 D qMax-.Iu#n 1.90 3.34 4.24 5.53 5.97 6.02 6.25 7.01 7.01 6.85 21.6 27 8 3l2MA 12645-IIY DMIp Max-INf 1.13 L95 2.35 2.80 2.94 3.52 3.27 3.56 3.36 3.60 12.8 16 9 3/2-MS-026-45-1/Z Disp. Max-bMn 0.92 N/A 2.22 6.52 4.01 3.74 3.26 3.15 3.28 3.46 17.6 22 10 4/2-MSS,-0)-4I51/X DIsp. Max-Min 2-22 5.26 5.58 6.09 6.15 7.06 7.34 7.74 7.69 8.00 25.6 32 U 4(2-MMs02645-1/Y Disp. Max-MAin N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 25 12 4/2-IMSWS-45-I1Z DIsp. Max-Min N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14.4 18 14 5*/2-MSS 1/Y Disp. Max-Min 3.99 5.92 5.44 5.66 6.01 5.65 6.32 5.53 3.62 3.62 22.4 28 15 5/2-MSS-02-45-1/Z Disp. Max-Min 1.20 2.31 2-55 3.12 3.26 4.22 4.74 4.74 4.13 4.74 10.4 13 16 6/2-,MSS-750-350-2/X Native 0-Peak 0.296 0.237 0.290 0.411 4 0.492 0.444 0.506 0.458 0.582 1.472 1.84 17 6/2-M5-750-350-2/V Native0-Peak 0.215 0.221 0.354 0.355 0.461 .5 0.40 0.483 0.591 0.629 1.28 1.6 18 6/2-MSS-75WJO30-2/Z Native0-Peak 0.243 0.283 0.365 0.442 0.469 0464 0A450 0.519 0.512 0.600 1472 1.84 19 7/2-PFW-12-54-1IX Disp Max-n 1.80 2.83 4.05 5.28 5.73 6.17 5.73 6&23 7.00 6&91 23.2 29 20 7/2-.FWS-12-54-.V DispT Mu- 1. 1.61 1.82 2.22 2.48 2.86 2.L5 2.71 3.26 2.63 16 20 21 7/2-PWS-2-54-1/Z Disp. Max-Min 1.07 1.35 1.73 2.09 2.37 2.43 2.58 2.65 2.65 3.13 16.8 21 22 8/241110524* 4-1/X Disp. Max-MWn 0.84 1.36 1.36 1.94 L9 2.02 2.09 2.22 919 2.50 16 20 23 8/2*W"-24-WIY Disp. Max-MNn 0.57 0.93 1.07 1.37 1.06 1.39 1.20 1.46 1.66 1.65 12.8 16 24 /2-FWS-4 1/z Disp. Max n 111 1.78 2.63 2.93 3.07 3.38 3.26 3.30 3.43 3.73 16 20 25 9/2-MSS*PSV12WX Native R0S 0.033 0.033 0.044 0.067 0.073 0.06 0.085 0.067 0.95 0.096 0.12 0.15 26 9/24MSS9'SV120/Y Native RMS 0.038 0.039 0.051 0.070 0.073 0.077 0.081 0.064 0.098 0.103 0.144 0.18 27 9/2-MOSS V2I20/Z Native RMS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.12 0.15 2B 10/2-MSS*PSVI23/X Native RMS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.12 0.15 29 10/2-MSS'PSVI23/Y NativeMS 0.39 ( 0.048 0067 070 0077 0. 0.0o4 0.090 0.095 0.144 0.18 30 10/2-MSPSVI23/Z Native RMS 0.033 0.032 0.045 0.599 0.061 0.05 0.01 0.071 0.075 0.077 0.12 0.15 31 U1/2-MSS*PSV129/X Native RMS 0.019 0.023 0.037 0.035 0.035 0.036 0.035 0.037 0.036 0.038 0.12 0.15 32 11/2-MS*PSV129/Y Native AS 0.067 0.061 0.065 0.0L 0.066 0.067 0.06 0.069 0.078 0.092 0.144 0.18 33 11/2-IMSSPSVI29/Z Native RMS 0.047 0.048 0.053 0.051 0.051 0.051 0.093 0.055 0.054 0.057 0.12 0.15 34 12/2-MSS*PSV33/X Native RMS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.12 0.15 35 12/2-MSS*PSV133/V Native RUS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.144 0.18 36 12/2-MSSPSV133/Z Native RMS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.12 0.15 37 13/2-MSS*AOV/X Native RMS 0.029 0.035 0.053 0.070 0.078 0.078 0.064 0.09 0.093 0.095 0.12 0.6 38 13/2-MSSAOV6A/Y Native RMS 0.09 0.018 0.027 0.042 0.050 0.062 0.080 09 0.112 0.097 0.15 0.6 39 13/2-MSSAOV6A/Z Native RMS 0.041 0.052 0.102 0.165 0.196 0.219 0.256 0.304 0.324 0.285 0.37 0.6 40 142-ICS*MOV12S/X Native RMS 0.015 0.017 0.023 0.031 0.030 0.029 0.030 0.031 0.031 0.032 0.064 0.06 41 14/2-ICSM0V128( NatveRMS 0.009 0.009 0.012 0.014 0.013 0.013 0.03 0.014 0.013 0.014 0.032 0.04 42 14/2-CSMOVlM/ Native RMS 0.015 0.O23 0.O33 0.043 0.044 0.o43 0.041 0.0 0.044 0.046 Mo04 0.08 43 V2AftS42&,-I5/X IDisp. Max-iMlln N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 34.4 43 Note: Cells marked with "NA" indicate an overall value that was excluded due to an invalid signal. Refer to Table 3 for more information.

Page 14 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 7: Percentage of Level-2 Allowable 4 2/2-MSS-412S-43-l/X Drsp. Max-MIn 7.23% 13.68% 19.36% 20.15% 22.86% 22.79% 23.57% 2435% 21.76% 22.69%

5 2/2-MSS-026-43-I/Y Iasp. Max-Mn 5.96% 8.78% 12.25% 14.38% 15.21% 17-59% W6.00% 19.43% 17.32% 19.31%

6 2/2-MSs-02&-43-1/Z 015p. Max-Min 2.71% 5.34% 7.19% 7.70% 9.24% &.56% 8.56% 9.05% 9.35% 1).72%

7 3/2-MSS-.26.45-1/X Drsp. Max-Mn &81% 15A4% 19.64% 25.61% 27.64% 7.89% 2%6% 32.44% 32.45% 3L709%

8 3/2-MS50645-f1/Y Disp. Max-Mi L.86% 15.24% 16L32% 22,86% 22.96% 27.50% 25..M% 27.79% 26.2-% 28.14%

9 3/2-MSS-02645-1/Z DI0p, Max-Min 5.25% N/A 12.5.% 37.06% 22.76% 21.25% 16.53% 17.66% 11.61% 19.68%

10 4/2-MSS-026-45-1/X Disp. Max-Min &66% 20.57% 2181% 23.80% 24.04% 27.59% 28.68% 30.22% 30.05% 31.25%

11 41/2-MsS.-I2645-.Y Disp. Max-Min N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 4/2-1MSS-02645-1/Z Disp. Max-Min N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 5/2-Mss-2&-4S-1I Disp. Max-Min 17.81% 26.42% 24.27% 25.28% 26.85% 25.20% 2  % 24.70% 16.17% 16.15%

15 5/2-M1SS-026.451/Z Disp. Max-Min 11.5% 22.18% 24.55% 29.97% 31.39% 40.62% 45.62% 45.54% 39.72% 45.55%

16 6/2-MSS-750-350-2/X Natve 0-Peak 20.11% 16.07% 19.70% 27.89% 27.49% 33.39% 30.13% 34.51% 31.06% 39.56%

17 6/2-MSS-750-350-Z*Y Native0-Peak 16.78% 17.26% 27.62% 27.77% 35.99% 35.81% 36.74% 37.76% 46.14% 49.11%

18 6/2-MSS-70-350-2/Z Native0-Peak 1652% 19.21% 24.77% 30.05% 3L15% 31.54% 30.56% 35.29% 34.76% 40.78%

19 7/2-FWS-012-54-1/X sp Max-Mn 7.75% 12.21% 17.4I % 22.77% Ln% 2659% 24.69% 6 % 30.16% 29.77%

20 7/2-*WS-2-54-I/v Dhsp Max-Min 6.76% 10.09% 114% 1&" 15.52% 17.87% 16.14% 16.96% 20.35% 1646%

21 7/2-FWS-012-54-1/Z Disp. Max-Min 6.38% L104% 10.30% 12-23% 14.10% 144% 15.33% 15.74% 15.75% 16.64%

22 8/2-FWS-02W A1/XDisp. Max-Mi 5.23% 8.52% 8.47% 12.10% 12.39% 12.65% 13.09% 13.90% 12.36% 15.63%

23 8/2-FVwS.024.01/Y oIsp. Max-Min 4.45% 7.29% 8.34% 10.69% 8.43% 10.86% 9.39% 11.37% 12.96% 12.03%

24 8/2-FWS-0V524- /Z 0rsp. Max-Min 6.92% 11.14% 16.42% 1630% 19.16% 21.12% 20.39% 20.63% 2143% 23.33%

25 9/2-MSS'PSVI20/X NaUveIEMS 27.83% 27.23% 36.61% 55.77% 6.g96% 66.95% 70.73% 72.57% 79.33% 18149%

26 9/2-MSSPVI NativeMS 26.72% 26.83% 3M.4O% 4L6% 50.75% 53.59% 56.32% 58.67% 67.86% 71.39%

27 9/2-,M*PSS IZWgV Native RMS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 28 11/2-MSSPSV123/X Native IMS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 29 1:0/2-MLUS V23/Y Native WMS 2694% 211.% 33.19% 46.50% 48,43% 53.57% 5.25% .58.61% 62.79% 65.70%

30 10/2-MSS*PSV123/Z Native EMS 27.31% 26.33% 37.74% 49.21% 50.53% 53.96% 56.37% 59.52% 62.75% 64.05%

31 U/2-MSS'PSM"V12 Native MS 15.93% 19.47% 30.66% 28.80% 29.40% 29.99% 29.16% 30.51% 30.35%1 31.39%

32 11/W2M PSV29/Y Native EMS 46.44% 42.41% 45.03% 45.93% 46.14% 46.35% 47.16% 47.90% 53.95% 63.87%

33 11/2-MSSIPS29/Z NativeiEMs 31.76% 39,4% 44.06% 42.23% 42.31% 42.16% 43.91% 46.02% 44.85% 47.57%

34 12/2-M$S*S'V133/X Native ES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 12/2-MI5SPV133/Y Native EMS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 36 12/2-MSSOPSV133/Z Native EMS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 37 13/2-MSSAW VA/X Native RMS 23.95% 26.92% 44.51% 558.20% 64.66% 64.69% 69.77% 73.78% 7.48% 79.56%

38 13/2-MSSoAOV6A/Y Native EMS 6.14% 12.05% 16.13% 28.29% 33-56% 4.L26% 53.07% 63.78% 74.62% 64883%

39 13/2-MSS*AOVAZ Native RMS 10.96% 14.03% 27.59% 44"52% 53.03% 59.25% 69.25% 82.11% 87.A9% 76.97%

40 14/2-lCS*MV12S/X Native EMS 23.91% 26.70% .96% 49.18% 47.53% 45.64% 4621% 48.54% 48.22% 5&.56%

41 1A/2-ICSM*OV129/Y Nave EMS 29.01% 29.27% 36.25% 42.57% 39.90% 41.13% 41.6% 4244% 42.13% 44.00%

42 140-CSMOVI25/Z Native EMS 2.00% 3.65% f52.07% 66.94% 67.96% 6.59%] 64.77% 5303% 6895% 7.80%

43 /2-SMSS-026-45-1/X Disp. Max-Min N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: Cells marked with "NA" indicate an overall value that was excluded due to an invalid signal. Refer to Table 3 for more information.

Page 15 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Reactor Building Accelerometer Data Reduction 5.0

SUMMARY

During the EPU power ascension in June and July 2012, dynamic acceleration data was collected from 42 accelerometers mounted on various piping systems in the NMP2 RB. The data was processed according to the methodology in Section 3.0 of this calculation, and results are given in the form of tables of overall values and waveform and spectral plots. Data collection spanned 50% to 115% CLTP.

Additional RCIC testing was also conducted following 115% CLTP.

The following general observations are offered based on a review of the processed data:

1. Comparison of 2010 and 2012 100% CLTP and 2012 100% and 115% CLTP frequency spectra did not reveal any marked differences in content or exhibit any resonance condition. Increases in amplitude generally followed a linear trend with power ascension with no values exceeding Level-2 vibration criteria.

2. In general, the vibration levels measured on the NMP2 RB piping (Channels 1-24) were low in amplitude. The maximum percentage of Level-2 allowable is 49.1% (Channel 17 at 115%

CLTP). Consistently, the smallest Level-2 allowable margin, albeit greater than 50%, was located at Location #6 (Main Steam "A" Sensing Line) and in the Z-direction for Location #5 (Main Steam "C" Risers).

3. The allowable margin for the instrumented valves was lower than the RB piping. The maximum percentage of Level-2 allowable is 87.5% (Channel 39, 112.5% CLTP). Consistently, the smallest Level-2 allowable margin, less than 30%, occurred at Location #9 (PSV-120, MS "A")

and Location #13 (AOV-6A).

4. Vibration levels on the RB piping generally increased in direct proportion with reactor power. In nearly all cases, the highest measured levels occurred in Data Set 10, when NMP2 reached steady-state operating conditions near 115% CLTP.

5. Several sensors were identified as having invalid signal quality at various power levels (Table 3).

Characterization for those vibration levels was achieved using the methodology discussed in Section 4.2 of this calculation and showed no concern for exceeding the location based allowables.

Page 16 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Appendix A PROCESSED TREND PLOTS Page 17 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Appendix A Wend Plot (overall Vaues) 6.000 a.

-IL pp -4 1/2-MSS-026-43-1/X

-'*1/2-MASS-026-43-1/Y

-2/2-KOS-026-43-2/a

~2.000 m LOW0 0.000 50.0 55.0 60.0 6S5O 70.0 75.0 80.0 BSA) 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Lwe (%0 Trend Plot (Overull Vdues) 9.000

.4 a.

E 46 '11--ý,,ý 2/2-MVS.26-43-1/X 2fl24=U-026-43-1/Y

• 34.00 -2/2-MSS-026-43-1/Z aM I3.00 VW..k*J 50.0 55.0 60.0 650 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 95.0 9S.0 100 105.0 110.0 115.0

,w* . Level w4% I,"

Page 18 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Appendix A fron Plo (Overal Vdues) 8.000 7.000 AJ 6.000

,, 5.OOO IX'

-Z/ 2&st' EEE-45EI 2.000 IL 3.00 /

21MO r 0D000III+ IIl 50.O 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75J0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Pawa.Lwd (%M*P)

W~end Meo (Overall Muss) a.5D

-we 3 D -*--4/2-MSS026-45-lflC TL 4/2-RASS.026-45-1/Z 3.00 __

LOW0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 7.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 10.0 1050 110.0 115.0

ýweLwd %M.)

Page 19 of 24

ATtachment 7.2 Appendix A wend Plot (Overall Vhlues) 7.000 r A

6-0O 5.OO N

eý ---

2.OO 5/2-MSS-026-45-1/Z

- 5/2-MSSO26-45-1/X 1.0o0 o0.0o 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Prwm Lwid (%O)

Trend Plot (Overal Vdues) 0.700 0.600 0"

6/2-NO5-750-350-2A 0.500 --*-6/24A55-7S0-350-2f1 6/24ASS,-7S0-350-2/Z O.IX 0.200 0.10 50.O 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 750 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 PrwurLu I,(%nU Page 20 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Appendix A lbnd Plot (Overhll Values) 8.00 ___ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ ---------

6.000 7/2-WS-022-54-2/X 3M

-e0-7/2-WS-022-54-2/Y 7/2-fWS.022-54-2/Z 2.000 50.0 55A0 60.D 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 A). 95.0 100.0 105A0 110.0 115.0 Paow Laval (%RP)

Wemd Pot (OverdilVd.s) 4.000 3.500

.35SJO000 IL

,* 2.500 23W a.

E

-0b-312-F'WS-024-f60-2/X U/2-FWS.024-60-1IY 81-FWS-024-40-2/Z

• 05 13 o, W 1500 ......

o.000 50.0 550 60.0 65. 70.0 75.0 80.0 85) 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 PawrLoavai(% n Page 21 of 24

ATtachment 7.2 Appendix A ibnd Plot (Oveall Values) 0120 0100 0.060

• .. 9/2-MSS-PSY1Z0/X(

-- 9/2-MSS*PSV12O/Y

-, -,,z 9/2-MSS*PSVIZO/Z 0.020

.0 55.0 60D. 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100D. 105.0 110.O 115.0 Poww Levi (l m Wrend Plot (Overall Volues) 0.10 1-0090 Om0 +

0.070 7

00.06O 0/-MSS*PSV123/X OJD400 10/2-MSS-PSV123fV 1Q/24MSSPSYI3/Z 0JD30 0.020 0.010I O0.00 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 10.0 75.0 n 0. 85.0 90. 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 PrwurLavd NJ Page 22 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Appendix A WwWn Hot (Overal Vaks")

0.100 p

00B70 ------------

OJD

.90.060

-- 4b--1112-MSS-PSVIYQ/X

-*-11/24W5S-PSV129/Y

~~ 1/2-MSS-PSV1Z9/z 0j~M 0.020 0.010 ODm 50.0 550 60.0 65.0 70.0 7750 5.0 55.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105D 110D) 115.0 TWend Pot (Overall Wues) 0.350 0300 A 0250 4-013/2-MSS5AOV6A/X

-4 13/24MSSADWSA/Y

-- 13/24MSS-ADWA/Z o.5o 0.(000 50.0 551 60.0 651) 70.0 75D 010B S550 90.0 95.0 1001) 105.0 110.0 11510 pwwsr LaWO(% am Page 23 of 24

Attachment 7.2 Appendix A wwePOt (Overi~lVues) 0.050 0.045 0040 -----

~omo O.30 14/2-IcSMDVIZ8IXC 0 ~14124IcsMOV1291Y 0.020

-*-1412-IcSMMv281l 0.000 50.0 55. 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105-0 110.0 115.0 Pew.' L"ve (Y% RP)

Page 24 of 24

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................................................................................... 3 2.0 MONITORING APPROACH ................................................................................... 3 2.1 Acquisition Parameters ................................................................................. 3 2.2 Sensor Status .................................................................................................. 6 3.0 DATA REDUCTION METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 9 4 .0 R E SU L T S ................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 G eneral Processing .......................................................................................... 11 4.2 Characterization of Vibration Levels for Invalid Sensors .......................... 15 4.3 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System Testing ............................ 18 5.0 SU MM A RY ................................................................................................................. 18 APPENDIX A PROCESSED TREND PLOTS ................................................................. 19 Page 1 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction List of Tables Table 1: NMP2 TB Accelerometer Channel Names and Location Descriptions ................. 4 Table 2: Data Files Recorded during Power Ascension and Associated Data Sets .............. 6 Table 3: Status of Recorded Signals during Data Set Recording ........................................ 7 Table 4: Invalid Channels and Processed Time History Ranges ........................................ 10 Table 5: Vibration Response and Corresponding Allowable, Level-I ............ ................... 12 Table 6: Vibration Response and Corresponding Allowable, Level-2 (Continued) ....... 14 Table 7: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 100% RPX ................................................. 16 Table 8: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 102.5% RPX ............................................ 16 Table 9: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 105% RPX ................................................. 16 Table 10: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 107.5% RPX ............................................ 17 Table 11: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 110% RPX ................................................ 17 Table 12: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 112.5% RPX ............................................ 17 Table 13: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 115% RPX ....................... 17 List of Figures Figure 1: Peaks in the Raw Data, Channel 5 at 100% RPX (Data Set 4) ............................. 9 Figure 2: Processed Acceleration and Displacement, Channel 5 at 100% RPX (Data Set 4). 10 Page 2 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

During the 12th refueling outage (2R1 2) at Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (NMP2), 56 accelerometers were installed on various piping systems in the plant turbine building (TB). The intent of the installation was to collect baseline (BL) steady-state vibration data on the piping. In addition, NMP2 replaced 3 feedwater pumps to support Extended Power Uprate (EPU). To monitor the conditions of the pumps, 12 new sensors were added to the Turbine Building Data Acquisition System (DAS). This resulted in 68 accelerometer channels all together as shown in Table 1.

EPU was completed in July, 2012, and the data from the 68 channels was used to confirm that steady-state vibration levels are acceptable at EPU operating conditions. The purpose of this calculation is to process the raw accelerometer data, generate spectral response plots and tables of overall values to compare them to different acceptance criteria.

2.0 MONITORING APPROACH 2.1 Acquisition Parameters The accelerometers were connected to a 68-channel model of Structural Integrity's Versatile Data Acquisition System (SI-VersaDAS). Data snapshots were collected at various reactor power levels during the NMP2 power ascension to EPU. The following power levels were processed: 50%, 75%,

90%, 100%, 102.5%, 105%, 107.5%, 110%, 112.5% and 115%. Each recording was 120 seconds in length, obtained at a sample rate of 1024 samples per second. A hardware-based low-pass filter was applied prior to analog to digital conversion to prevent signal aliasing. The files contain 68 columns of data in binary format, where each column represents one channel. Table 2 contains a list of files recorded during power ascension to EPU.

Page 3 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 1: NMP2 TB Accelerometer Channel Names and Location Descriptions 1 1/2-MSS-028-5-4/X x Main Steam Loop "C" Riser Downstream of 1 2 1/2-MSS-028-5-4/Y Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) 3 1/2-MSS-028-5-4/Z z 2 S 4 I 2/2-MS-0,6-/

2/2-MSS-028-6-4/Y xX Main Steam Loop Turbine Lead 2D5 o/wnstream of Control Valve 1 (CV-1)

____ 6 2/2-MSS-028-6-4/Z Z 7 3/2- MSS-028-8-4/X X

- XMain Steam Loop Turbine Lead 3 8 3/2-MSS-028-8-4/Y Y' Downstream of Control Valve 3 (CV-3) 9 3/2-MSS-028-8-4/Z Z 10 4/2-MS-018-34-4/X X 4 11 4/2-MSS-018-34-4/Y Y 18 Inch Line to Turbine Bypass Chest

_____ 12 4/2-MSS-018-34-4/Z Z 13 5/2-FWS-020-39-4/X X "B" 6 TH Point Feedwater (FW) Heater Inlet 14 5/2-FWS-020-39-4/Y Y Line 6 1 6/2 024-10-4/X X FW Pump "B" Discharge Une

_ 16 62-FWS-024-10-4 Z ...

17 7/2-FWS-030-42-4/X X 7 18 7/2-FWS-030-42-4/Y Y 6TH Point FW Heater Outlet Header 19 7/2-FWS-030-42-4/Z Z 8 20 8/2-FWS-020-41-4/X X "C' 6T Point FW Heater Inlet Une 21 8/2-FWS-020-41-4/Z Z .... _....

22 9/2-FWS-024-27-4/X X 9 23 9/2-FWS-024-27-4/Y Y FW Loop "A" Supply Header 24 9/2-FWS-024-27-4/Z Z 10.......... 25 X FW Loop "B" Supply Header

______ 26 10/2-F WS-024-28-4/Z :Z _______________

27 11/2- FWS-020-40-4/X x 11 28 1 11/2-FWS-020-40-4/Y IY "C" 6CH Point FW Heater Inlet Line 29 11/2-FWS-020-40-4/Z z Page 4 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 1: NMP2 TB Accelerometer Channel Names and Location Descriptions (Continued) 33 13/2-CNWM020-40-4/X X Condensate Booster Pump "B" Discharge 13 34 13/2-CNM-020-40-4/Y f Y Line 35 13/2-CNWM020-40-4/Z z 14 36 14/2-CNW /X X CNZM Header Between CD and CB Pumps

_____ 37 14/2-CKM-030-22-4/Z Z _____________

38 38 15/2-ESS-O12-9-4/X X , T 15/2_____0___9__/__ X- Extraction Steam to "C"6T Point FW 15 39 15/2-ESS-012-9-4/Y YHeater 40 15/2-ESS-012-9-4/Z Z 16.41 . /.. ESS-16-16-4/ X Extraction Steam to "A"5' Point FW

___ 42 16/2-ES501616-4/Z Z Heater 43 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/X X 17 44 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/Y Y Heater Drain Pump "B" Discharge Line 45 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/Z Z 46 18/2-HDL-0U2-50Z-4/X X Heater Drain From "A"5 TH Point FW Heater 18 -

___ 47 18/2-HDL-012-502-4/Y Y to "A" 4~Point FW Heater 48 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/X X 19 49 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/Y Y Main Steam Valve AOV-7A 50 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/Z Z 51 20/F WR-flne/X X 20 52 20/FWR4Ine/Y Y 2-FWR-0104-4 (Upstream of 2FWR-FV2A) 53 20/FWR-line/Z z 54 21/FWR-actuator/X X 21 55 21/FWR-actuator/Y Y 2FWR-FV2A Actuator 56 21/FWR-actuator/Z Z 223 68 66 23/2-FWR-FV-2B/Y 23/2-FWR-FV2C/X Y X 2FR 02FW-FV2 (Up treamtof Fr-V 59 23/2-FWR-FV-2B/Z Z 60 25/2-FWR-FV2C/X X 25 67 25/2-FWR-FV2C/Y Y 2FWR-FV2C Actuator 68 25/2-FWR-FV2C/Z Z Page 5 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 2: Data Files Recorded during Power Ascension and Associated Data Sets Note: Data Set 0 represents previous baseline (BL) data analyzed in 2010 up to 400 Hz.

2.2 Sensor Status During the power ascension, a couple of channels exhibited non-steady state behavior during various data file recordings. The observed symptoms ranged from infrequent transient peaks causing minor increases in levels to major signal degradation rendering the data for a particular channel invalid. To avoid presenting analysis results based on unreasonable inputs, each data set was examined in units of acceleration and displacement, and a matrix of sensor conditions was developed (Table 3). The following four classifications were used:

1. Sensors with a good signal, reasonably free of transient peaks. Overall values for these channels are reported as-is.

2. Sensors with a reasonable signal, free of large peaks or electrical problems, but including moderate-amplitude peaks above the typical steady-state response. Root-mean-square (RMS) overall values and spectral responses are largely unaffected for these channels; peak-peak (Pk-Pk) results may appear higher than for channels with a better classification.

3. Sensors with a questionable signal, due to large-amplitude transient peaks. In most cases, the RMS values are reasonable, but the Pk-Pk levels may be skewed (and thus may not be presented in tables of overall values). The spectral responses may be excluded from waterfall plots.

4. Sensors with an invalid signal, in most cases due to electrical problems. Overall values will not be presented for channels with this classification, and the response spectra will be excluded from waterfall plots.

Page 6 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 3: Status of Recorded Signals during Data Set Recording 0

2 1/2-1VISS-028-5-4/Z 0

0 0 0 3

4 2/2-NISS-028-6-4/X 0 5

2/2-NISS-028-6-4/X 0C 0 0 2/2-MSS-028-6-4/Z 6

3/2-MSS-028-8-4/X

• 0 0 0 0 0 7

8 3/2-MSS-028-8-4/X 0 0 9

3/2-MISS-028-8-4/Y 0 0 10 3/2-MISS-028-34-4/X 50 0 0 0 11 4/2-MSS-018-34-4/Y

• 0 S 0 4/2-NtSS-OIB-34-4/Z 12 4/2-FWS-020-39-4/X 13 5/2-F WS-02D-39-4/X * *

• 0 0 14 5/2-F WS-024-39-4/X 00

• 0 0 15 16 6/2-FWS-024-10-4/X o) 0 0 -U 0 17 6/2-F WS-024-10-4/Z Q

• 0 0 0 18 7/2-F WS-030-42-4/X

• 0 0 0 0 7/2-F WS-030-42-4/Y 19 7/2-F WS-020-41-4/Z 0 0 0 20 21 8/2-F WS-02D-41-4/X

• 0 0 0 22 9/2-F WS-024-41-4/Z *

• 0 01 23 9/2-F WS-024-27-4/Y *

• 0 24 9/2-F WS-024-27-4/Z *

• 0 0 25 90/2-F WS-024-28-4/X 0 26 10/2-FWS-024-28-4/X 0 10/2-F WS-020402-4/X 27 11/2-FWS-020-40-4/Y 0 0 28 29 11/2-F WS-020-40-4/Z 0 0 0 0 W

30 12/2-CNM-020-64-4/X 0 31 12/2-CNM-020-64-4/Y 40

• 0 0 32 7 12/2-CNM-020-64-4/Z 1 0 1 Explanation:

• Channel with good signal; relatively free of infrequent transient peaks O Channel with reasonable signal; may indude occasional transient peaks (potential to affect zero-peak overall values) 0 Channel with frequent transient peaks of significant amplitude (zero-peak overall values will be artificially inflated) 0 Channel with unusable signal (disconnected and/or electrical problems)

Page 7 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 3: Status of Recorded Sigals durin Data Set Recordin Continued 33 13/2-CNM-020-40-4/X 34 13/2-CN M-020-40-4/Y

• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 13/2-CNM-020-40-4/Z

• S 0 0 36 14/2-CNM-030-22-4/X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 14/2-CNM-030-22-4/Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 15/2-ESS-012-9-4/X 0 0 0 0 39 15/2-ESS-012-9-4/Y 0 0 40 15/2-ES5-012-9-4/Z 0 0 0 04 0 0 0 0 41 16/2-ESS-016-1&-4/X

• S 0 0 42 16/2-ESS-016-16-4/Z

• 0 0 0 43 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/X 0 44 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/Y 0 0 0 0 45 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 46 18/2-HDL-012-S02-4/X 0 0 0 47 18/2-HDL-012-502-4/Y S 48 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/X 0 0 0 0 0 010 49 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/Y 0 0 0

• 50 19/2-VSS'AOV7A/Z S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 20/FWR-A-line/X 0 0 52 20/FWR-A-Iine/Y 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 53 20/FWR-A-line/Z 0 10 09 0 54 21/FWR-A-actuator/X

• 00 55 21/FWR-A-actuator/Y 56 2/FFWR-A-actuator/Z 00 00 0 0 0 57 22/2-FWR-10-2-4/X 0 0 0 58 22/2-FWR-10-2-4/Y T 1 0 0 0 59 22/2-FWR-10-2-4/Z 0 60 23/2-FWR-FV2B/X 0 0 0 0 61 23/2-FWR-FV2B/Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 23/2-FWR-FV2B/Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 24/2-FWR-10-3-4/X 64 24/2-FWR-10-3-4/Y 0 0 0 0 65 24/2-FWR-10-3-4/Z 0 0 0 0 0 66 25/2-FWR-FV2C/X 0 0 0 67 25/2-FWR-FV2C/* 0 68 25/2-FWR-FV2C/Z S Explanation:

• Channel with good signal; relatively free of infrequent transient peaks o Channel with reasonable signal; may include occasional transient peaks (potential to affect zero-peak overall values) 0 Channel with frequent transient peaks of significant amplitude (zero-peak overall values will be artificially inflated) 0 Channel with unusable signal (disconnected and/or electrical problems)

Page 8 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction 3.0 DATA REDUCTION METHODOLOGY The SI-VersaDAS data files were reduced using UniPro 2.6.2, a custom software package developed in MATLAB. The monitoring locations being analyzed in this calculation span several plant piping systems. The goal was to use uniform and conservative parameters when the data was processed and satisfy the acceptance levels.

UniPro filter settings were applied for all accelerometer data processing as follows: Chebyshev Type I digital filters with a 0.1 dB peak-to-peak ripple in the passband were applied in the forward direction. An 8th-order band-pass filter was applied to the channels with a pass band of 2-400 Hz. The 2 Hz lower limit helps to prevent low-frequency noise from biasing the overall values. The 400 Hz upper limit was chosen to sufficiently capture the frequencies of interest. Due to electrical noise, 60 Hz was removed from the data using 6th-order notch filters with a 1 Hz bandwidth.

The data was double-integrated to transform the recorded signals from units of acceleration (g) into units of displacement (inches or mil). A 5th-order Chebyshev Type-I digital high-pass filter was applied when performing the integration to prevent low-frequency noise from being amplified and distorting the integrated spectra. The filter was applied at 5 Hz, based on a lack of appreciable acceleration content below this frequency.

When reviewing the data in units of acceleration and displacement, several large peaks were discovered in the raw data, for example, Channel 5 at 100% CLTP (Figure 1).

100 0I

.0- - - -I I I

- - - - -20 III I3-I

- - - - L J 0 20 4 60 80 100 120 lime [sec]

Figure 1: Peaks in the Raw Data, Channel 5 at 100% RPX (Data Set 4)

If the processed data included these peaks, it would not represent the real conditions as shown in Figure 2 where the complete recorded time history was processed. In order to avoid the effect of these peaks and unrealistic transients, certain sections of the data sets were processed for individual channels.

Page 9 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Swniole Rte 1024spe TIM* Hiabr plot oroc.Dt.: 05-Oot-2012 San~,le Rde 1024SpS Time His"~Plat hoc.Date: 05-Oct-2012 Thu (Dation= 120sec Fie:20120618230622Ad. T"u D-~tion =120 sec FE.:20120018230822.dts TSAcc.1.cnul.wl20# 4(100%lX),212-MSS-025-6-4/y. CN5 NALV2 NA2TB AcOSIwoyumae,00#4 (100% RP)2I2-K&%028&6-4N, 1215 ii0- .7iOM 04-I- ACNthFA*O FACNtcbthFftm On]

2I I I~l~-Pl42.207I 'IBed Ffeud 2to 400 t IS - - --- - _- - -__--

iI I II I 0 I t I - - -

L 05 1 L J 11 io I II I i I II D - -

-2 I II I I I I I I I II I I I I

-1 5 I I I J 10 20 30 40 50 00 80 50 90 100 110 120 10 20 30 40 50 00 70 80 90 100 110 120 Thu [a) T"h[a]

Figure 2: Processed Acceleration and Displacement, Channel 5 at 100% RPX (Data Set 4)

These processed time history sections with the invalid channels are listed in Table 4.

Table 4: Invalid Channels and Processed Time History Ranges Note: ed.

Page 10 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction The filtering operations can produce a "ringing" effect at the beginning portion of the processed time history data, as the digital filters attempt to track the target signals from an unknown initial condition.

Therefore, prior to calculating each channel's overall values and frequency response, three seconds of waveform data was truncated from the beginning of each channel to remove any potential ringing effects. After truncation, the RMS, 0-Pk and Pk-Pk values for each data set were obtained from the processed time histories.

The time history data was then converted to the frequency domain using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm with a Hanning window. A frequency resolution of 0.25 Hz was applied, resulting in multiple waveform data blocks of 4-second duration. The blocks were overlapped by 50%, increasing the total number of data blocks for spectral averaging. After the FFT algorithm was applied to each block, the blocks were added together and divided by the number of blocks analyzed, providing a linearly averaged frequency spectra.

4.0 RESULTS 4.1 General Processing The data sets identified in Table 2 were processed according to the methodology in Section 3.0. Overall vibration levels were computed from the processed time history waveforms in units of acceleration and displacement. The RMS and Pk-Pk overall values are compared to allowable levels in units of acceleration and displacement in Table 5 and Table 6. The units selected for each channel correspond to the units of allowable vibration at each location. The percentage of Level- 1 vibration (measured /

allowable) is shown in Table 5 and the percentage of Level-2 vibration is shown in Table 6. In these two tables, the invalid channels are greyed out.

The RMS and Pk-Pk overall values in units of acceleration and displacement were used to generate processed trend plots, illustrating the change in vibration levels during power ascension. These plots are included in Appendix A.

Page 11 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 5: Vibration Response and Corresponding Allowable, Level-i 4 2/2-MSS-028-6-4/X mils, pk-pk N/A N/A 20.1% 32.5% -34.9% 35.6% 40.0% 42.2% 42.1% 48.3% 91.2 114.0 5 2/2-MSS-028-6-4fY mils, pk-pk N/A N/A N/A 30.4% 32.2% 33.8% 39.0% 38.1% 38.1% 52.2% 43.2 54.0 6 2/2-MSS-028-6-4/Z mils, pk-pk N/A N/A 33.1% 31.63A 29.8% 27.4% 28.3%

• 29.9% 30.8% 33.8% 40.8 51.0 7 3/2-MSS-028-8-4/X mils, pk-pk N/A N/A N/A 8.4% 12.1% 15.5% 16.0% 14.9% 17.7% 21.0% 220.8 276.0 8 3/2-MSS-028-8-4/Y mils, pk-pk N/A N/A N/A N/A 24.8% 27.8% 28.0% 27.8% 36.8% 40.9% 53.6 67.0 9 3/2-MSS-028-8-4/Z mils, pk-pk N/A N/A N/A 42.4% 19.9"/. 16.2 24.3% 19.4% 21.5% 29.2% 28.0 35.0 10 4/2-MSS-018-34-4X mils, pkk 5.0% 8.9% 10.4% 19.5% 23.5% 23.5% 24.1% 33.0% 22.2% 29.0% 59.2 74.0 11 4/2-MSS-018-34-4/Y mils pk _ 3.1% 4.9% 6.5% 9.2% 9.0% 8.9% 9.2% 9.61 9.7% 98' 44.8 56.0 12 4/2-MSS-018-34-4/Z mils, pk-pk 3.5% 5.9% 7.!% 15.5% 18.4% 17.6% 19.1% 27.2% 17.7% 229%. 0.0 100.0 13 5/2-FWS-020-39-4/X mils, pk-pk 10.0% 11.0% 14.5% 13.4% 14.1% 15.9% 16.2% 14.9% 19.7"A 19.5% 69.6 87.0 14 5/2-FWS-020-39-4/Y mils, pk-pk 26.6% 36.8% 41.2% 44.5% 59.0% 62.9% 66.3% 70.4% 47.6% 44.6% 26.4 33.0 15 6/2-FWS-024-10-4/X mils, pk-pk N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 6/2-FWS-024-10-4/Z mils, pk-pk 2.2%A 4.2% 4.3% 4.5% 4.5% 5.2% 5.3% 5.2%/ 2.5% 2.5% 169.6 212.0 17 7/2-FWS-030-42-4/X mils, pk-pk 4.4% 6.5% 8.5% 8.6% 8.0% 9.9% 9.0% 8.9% 10.0% 10.2%/ 37.6 47.0 18 7/2-F WS-030-42-4/Y mils, pk-pk 8.9% 7.6% 9.7% 11.7% 11.0% 11.8% 11.9% 12.0% 19.2% 20.5% 29.6 37.0 19 7/2-F WS-030-42-4/Z mils, pk-pk 32.3% 7.6% 8.6% 10.4% 47.6% 23.5% 10.8% 11.5% 11.2% 12.2% 23.2 29.0 20 8/2-FWS-020-41-4/X mils, pk-pk 2.4% 2.3% 2.8% 2.7% 3.8% 3.4% 4.2% 4.5% 3.5% 3.8% 94.4 118.0 21 8/2-FWS-020-41-4/Z mils, pk-pk 12.9%A 6.5% 6.3% 6.65/o 6.7% 7.4% 8.7% 9.5% 9.0% 9.3% 37.6 47.0 22 9/2-FWS-024-27-4/X mils, pk-pk 0.9% 1.6% 2.0% 2.0% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 3.0% .3.1% 3.4% 225.6 282.0 23 9/2-FWS-024-27-4/Y mils, pk-pk 1.1% 1.89A 2.6&A 2.7% 2.4% 4.5% 3.0% 3.4% 3.3% 3.0% 92.8 116.0 24 9/2-FWS-024-27-4/Z mils, pk-pk 0.7% 1.1% 1.69/. 1.6% 1.5% 1.8%. 1.4% 1.9%A 1.8% 1.7% 152.8 191.0 25 10/2-FWS-024-28-4/X mils, pk-pk 4.9% 6.2% 6.8% 9.99A 7.4% 9.2% 8.8% 9.7% 9.6% 10.1% 72.8 91.0 26 10/2-FWS-024-28-4/Z mils, pk-pk 5.2% 5.5% 6.4% 8.7%/6 6.3% 7.2%A 7.3% 7.5% 7.1% 7.2% 72.8 91.0 27 11/2-FWS-020-40-4/X mils, pk-pk 17.4% 18.1% 21.2% 21.7% 29.4% 28.4% 27.8% 28.4% 30.2% 30.3% 48.0 60.0 28 11/2-FWS-020-40-4/Y mils, pk-pk 21.5% 19.0% 21.8% 27.2% 26.0% 28.8% 30.5% 28.3% 30.4% 30.2% 48.0 60.0 29 11/2-FWS-020-40-4/Z mils, pk-pk 27.2% N/A 35.1% 25.3% 29.9% 27.8% 29.8% 27.2% 30.7% 31.3% 48.0 60.0 Page 12 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction 34 13/2-CN M-020-40-4/Y mils, pk-pk 8.1% 17.5% 10.9% 8.9% 8.9%4 9.1% 8.2% 9.2% 10.0% 83% 72.0 90.0 35 13/2-CNKM-020-40-4/Z mils, pk-pk 14.6%A 31.1% 20.9% 19.2% 17.6% 16.8% 16.9% 17.2% 17.31A 15.9% 32.8 41.0 36 14/2-CNM-030-22-4/X mils, pk-pk 1.1% 2.3% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.4% 192.8 241.0 37 14/2-CNM-030-22-4/Z mils, pk-pk 1.7% 4.2% 2.3% 2.2%A 2.4% 2.2% 2.1% 1.8% 1.6% 2.0% 96.8 121.0 38 15/2-ESS-012-9-4/X mils, pk-pk 5.5% 4.4% 6.4% 7.3% 6.5% 545% 5.6% 6.0% 9.0% 8.0% 204.8 256.0 39 15/2-ESS-012-9-4/Y mils, pk-pk 3.7% 11.3% 16.3% 16.6% 16.5% 14.6% 14.2% 15.5% 19.7% 18.0% 70.4 88.0 40 15/2-ESS-012-9-4/Z mils, pk-pk 13.2% 34.4% 44.1% 39.9% 34.2% 30.6% 25.9% 31.5% 36.8% 46.9% 33.6 42.0 41 16/2-ESS-016-16-4/X mils, pk-pk 4.6%? 5.9% 6.8% 7.6% 7.0% 7.35A 6.9% 7.0% 7.0% 8.1% 81.6 102.0 42 16/2-ESS-016-16-4/Z mils, pk-pk 0.7% 1.0% 1.2% 1.5% 1.3% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.6% 1.7% 422.4 528.0 43 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/X mils, pk-pk 14.0% 14.8% 18.0% 15.2% 15.0%r 16.9%A 14.8% 16.7% 15.6% 16.5% 193.6 242.0 44 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/Y mils, pk-pk 48.9% 54.7% 58.6% 51.6% 58.1% 52.2% 59.7% 58.8% 54.2% 60.8% 41.6 52.0 45 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/Z mils, pk-pk 5.0% 9.5% 8.1% 8.9% 9.9% 10.6% 9.8% 12.31A 9.91A 10.6% 228.8 286.0 46 18/2-HDL-012-502-4/X mils, pk-pk 19.6% 24.4% 25.7% 29.5% 27.3% 24.75% 26.0% 29.4% 36.6% 35.4% 35.2 44.0 47 18/2-HDL-012-502-4/Y mils, pk-pk 9.9% 14.0% 12.9% 11.1% 10.3% 12.7% 10.9% 11.0% 11.69/ 12.9% 123.2 154.0 4 19/2-MSS'AOV7A/X g,RMS 1 3.4% [5.8% 114.1% 23.4% 3042% J33.9% 136.4% 37.2% 43.6%A 39.8% [ 0.39 0.60 49 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/Y g, RMS 2.1% 35% 6.2% 9.3% 11.0% 12.5% 13.5% 13.8% 13.9% 14.1% 0.14 0.60 S 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/Z g, RMS 6.3% - 8.% 24.1% 34.4% r 38.7% 39.6% 42.3% 44.9% 54.0% 5143% 0.36 0.60 51 20/FWR-A-line/X mils, RMS 26.1% 11.4% 9.6% 8.7% 27.0'A 26.2% 27.3% 29.1% 35.3% 36.4% 12.87 16.09 52 20/FWR-A-line/Y mils, RMS 20.0% 13.7% 5.9%A 5.5% 18.2% 17.95A 20.1% 20.2% 28.1% 29.0% 14.28 17.85 53 20/FWR-A-line/Z mils, RMS 20.6% 9.0% 7.1% 6.9% 14.2% 15.4% 15.8% 15.9% 28.4% 29.3% 10.18 12.73 54 21/FWR-A-actuator/X mils, RMS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 17.96 22.45 55 21/FWR-A-actuator/Y mils, RMS 5.3% 1.4% 2.2%r 2.1% 4.7% 44% 4.8% 5.2% 6.7% 6.4% 28.57 35.71 56 21/FWR-A-actuator/Z mils, RMS 17.4% 6.2% 6.8% 6.3% 13.0%A 133% 12.6% 12.9% 25.7% 24.1% 10.74 13.43 57 22/FWR-10-2-4/X mils, RMS 41.4% 44.5% 48.7% 44.9% 44.5% 47.9% 51.0% 52.7% 44.6% 42.89% 3.96 4.95 58 22/FWR-10-2-4/Y mils, RMS 15.4% 30.5% 28.9% 23.7% 26.3% 28.2% 30.5% 30.7% 14.3-A 13.4% 11.88 14.85 59 22/FWR-10-2-4/Z mils, RMS 3.3% 5.8% 5.5% 5.3% 6.(0% 6.3% 645% 6.6% 4.5% 4.4% 27.15 33.94 60 23/FWR-FV2B/X mils, RMS 5.8% 9.0% 11.4% 11.4% 10.4% 10.8% 10.8% 11.5% 11.39A 11.5% 25.31 31.64 61 23/FWR-FV2B/Y mils, RMS 3.8% 5.7% 5.9% 5.0% 5.2N 5.6% 5.9% 6.0% 4.91% 4.8% 22.34 27.93 62 23/FWR-FV2B/Z mils, RMS 37.1% 54.9% 56.6%A 56.3% 58.7% 65.1% 65.9% 68.4% 35.4% 35.39A 5.66 7.07 63 24/FWR-10-3-4/X mils, pk-pk 11.0% 32.0% 28.5% 31.6% 27.9% 27.4% 39.9% 37.7% 34.1% 31.4% 52.80 66.00 64 24/FWR-10-3-4/Y mils, pk-pk 13.2% 13.9% 14.4% 16.0% 19.0% 17.5% 20.2% 19.2% 19.1% 17.4% 94.40 118.00 65 24/FWR-10-3-4/Z mils, pk-pk 6.2% 21.3% 19.9% 20.1% 23.4% 25.4% 24.1% 26.1% 26.8% 23.9% 83.20 104.00 66 25/FWR-FV2C/X mils, pk-pk 16.0% 27.2% 31.0% 40.7% 51.4% 47.7% 61.5% 39.4% 31.3% 36.3% 30.60 101.00 67 25/FWR-FV2C/Y mils, pk-pk 8.8% 22.4% 19.6% 24.9% 29.0% 28.65A 33.2% 28.0% 26.6% 30.8% 37.60 47.00 68 25/FWR-FV2C/Z mils, pk-pk 12.3% 34.0% 27.85A% 26.6% 32.4% 1 36.9% 1 38.0% 36.4% 33.0% 36.2%A 48.80 61.00 Note: Cells marked with "N/A" indicate an overall value that was excluded due to an invalid signal.

Page 13 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 6: Vibration Response and Corresponding Allowable, Level-2 6 2/2-MSS-028- 6-4/Z mils, pk-pk N/A N/A 41.4% 39.5% 37.2% 34.3% 35.4% 37.4% 38.5% 42.3% 40.8 51.0 7 3/2-MSS-028-8-4/X mils, pk-pk N/A N/A N/A 10.4% 15.1% 19.3% 20.0% 18.7% 22.1% 26.3% 220.8 276.0 8 3/2-MSS-028-8-4/Y mils, pk-pk N/A N/A N/A N/A 31.0% 34.7% 35.0% 34.8% 46.0% 51.2% 53.6 67.0 9 3/2-MSS.028-8-4/Z mils, pk-pk N/A N/A N/A 52.9% 24.8% 20.3% 30.3% 24.3% 26.8% 36.5% 28.0 35.0 10 4/2-MSS-018-34-4/X mils, pk-pk 6.3% 11.1% 13.0% 24.4% 29.4% 29.4% 30.1% 41.3% 27.8% 36.2% 59.2 74.0 11 4/2-MSS-018-34-4/Y mils, pk-pk 3.8% 6.2% 8.2% 11.4% 11.2% 11.2% 11.6% 12.(0% 12.1% 12.4% 44.8 56.0 12 4/2-MSS-018-34-4/Z mils, k- 4.4% 7.4% 98% 193% 230% 220% 239% 340% 222% 286% 800 1000 13 5/2-FWS-020-39-4/X mils, pk-pk 12.6% 13.7% 18.2% 16.8% 17.6% 19.9% 20.2% 186% 24% 244% 696 870 14 5/2-FWS-020-39-4/Y mils, pk-pk 33.2% 46.0% 51.5% 55.6% 73.7% 78.6% 82.8% 88.0% 59.5% 55.8% 26.4 33.0 15 6/2-FWS-024-10-4/X mils, pk-pk N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 6/2-FWS-024-10-4/Z mils, pk-pk 2.8% 5.3% 5.4% 5.6% 5.6% 6.5% 6.6% 6.5% 3.1% 3.2% 169.6 212.0 17 7/2-FWS-030-42-4/X mils, pk-pk 5.5% 8.1% 10.6% 10.8% 10.0% 12.4% 11.2% 11.1% 12.4% 12.8% 37.6 47.0 18 7/2-FWS-030-42-4/Y mils, pk-pk 11.2% 9.6% 12.1% 14.6% 13.7% 14.7% 14.8% 15.0% 24.0% 25.7% 29.6 37.0 19 7/2-FWS-030-42-4/Z mils, pk-pk 40.4% 9.6% 10.8% 13.0% 59.5% 29.4% 13.5% 14.4% 14.0% 15.3% 23.2 29.0 20 8/2-FWS-020-41-4/X mils, pk-pk 3.1% 2.9% 3.5% 3.4% 4.7% 4.3% 5.3% 5.6% 4.4% 4.8% 94.4 118.0 21 8/2-FWS-020-41-4/Z mils, pk-pk 16.1% 8.1% 7.9% 8.2% 8.3% 9.2% 10.9% 11.9% 11.2% 11.6% 37.6 47.0 22 9/2-FWS-024-27-4/X mils, pk-pk 1.2% 2.0% 2.4% 2.5% 2.9% 2.7% 2.7% 3.7% 3.8% 4.2% 225.6 282.0 23 9/2- FWS-024-27-4/Y mils, pk-pk 1.4% 2.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.0% 5.6% 3.8% 4.3% 4.1% 3.7% 92.8 116.0 24 9/2-FWS-024-27-4/Z mils, pk-pk 0.9% 1.4% 2.0% 2.0% 1.8% 2.2% 1.8% 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 152.8 191.0 25 10/2-FWS-024-28-4/X mils, pk-pk 6.2% 7.7% 8.5% 12.4% 9.3% 11.5% 11.0% 12.1% 11.9% 12.6% 72.8 91.0 26 10/2-FWS-024-28-4/Z mils, pk-pk 6.5% 6.8% 8.0% 10.9% 7.9% 9.0% 9.2% 9.4% 8.8% 9.1% 72.8 91.0 27 11/2-FWS-020-40-4/X mils, pk-pk 21.8% 22.6% 26.5% 27.1% 36.8% 35.5% 34.5% 35.6% 37.8% 37.9% 48.0 60.0 28 11/2-FWS-020-40-4/Y mils, pk-pk 26.9% 23.7% 27.0% 348% 32.5% 36.1% 3.1% 35.3% 38.1% 37.7% 48.0 60.0 29 11/2-FWS-020-40-4/Z mils, pk-pk 34.0% N/A 43.9% 31.6% 37.4% 34.7%/. 37.2% 34.0% 38.4% 39.1% 48.0 60.0 Page 14 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 6: Vibration Resnonse and Corresn Allowable. Level-2 (Continued) 31 mils, pk-pk mils, pk-pk 17.!

14.8 82 T 1.7

~'"

25.4%

TI 51 25.2% 21.l1% 19.!E 1.9 03 222 113.6 28% 14.

142.0 32 mils, pk-pk 20.1% 1 24.0% 26.5% 26.4% 1 28.9% 28.5% [ 28.8% 29.6%- 2 24.5%

9.01A 134.4 168.0 33 40-4IX mils. ok-ok 1 7.9% 1 11.5% 1 9.2% 1 9.5% - 9.7% 9.3% 1 9.2% 1 7.4% 115.2 144.0

- , i " I 34 I in 1% 1 21 9% 1 i~6% I 112% I 111% I 11.4% I 10.2% I 115% I 12.S% I 10.4% I 72.0 90.0 34.mi. *k. .... .. .. . ..... p. . . . 219

. .. . . . . 11.. 2 . . . 1. .4.... . 2..... ...... . 5.... .4.....0.. .

35 13/2-CNM-020-40-4/Z mils, pk-pk 18.3% 38.8% 26.1% 24.0% 21.9% 21.0% 21.1% 21.5% 21.6% 19.8% 32.8 41.0 36 14/2-CNM-030-22-4AX mils, pk-pk 1.4% 2.9% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.5% 1.7% 192.8 241.0 37 14/2-CNM-030-22-4/Z mils, pk-pk 2.2% 5.3% 2.9% 2.8% 3.0% 2.7% 2.6% 2.3% 2.0% 2.5% 96.8 121.0 38 15/2-ESS-012-9-4/X mils, pk-pk 6.9% 5.5% 8.0% 9.2% 8.1% 6.9% 7.1% 7.5% 11.2% 10.0% 204.8 256.0 39 15/2-ESS-012-9-4/Y mils, pk-pk 4.6% 14.1% 20.4% 20.8% 20.6% 18.2% 17.8% 19.4% 24.6% 22.5% 70.4 88.0 40 15/2-ESS-012-9-4/Z mils, pk-pk 16.5% 43.0% 55.1% 49.9% 42.7% 38.3% 32.4% 39.4% 45.9% 58.6% 33.6 42.0 41 16/2-ESS-016-16-4/X mils, pk-pk 5.8% 7.4% 8.5% 9.5% 8.8% 9.1% 8.6% 8.7% 8.7% 10.2% 81.6 102.0 42 16/2-ESS-016-16-4/Z mils, pk-pk 0.9% 1.3% 1.5% 1.9% 1.6% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 2.0% 2.1% 422.4 528.0 43 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/X mils, pk-pk 17.5% 18.5% 22.5% 19.0% 18.7% 21.2% 18.5% 20.9% 19.5% 20.6% 193.6 242.0 44 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/Y mils, pk-pk 61.1% 68.3% 73.2% 64.5% 72.6% 65.2% 74.7% 73.5% 67.8% 76.0% 41.6 52.0 45 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/Z mils, pk-pk 6.3% 11.8% 10.1% 11.1% 12.2% 13.2% 12.3% 15.3% 12.3% 13.2% 228.8 286.0 46 18/2-HDL-012-502-4/X mils, pk-pk 24.5% 30.5% 32.1% 36.9% 34.1% 30.9% 32.5% 36.7% 45.8% 44.2% 35.2 44.0 47 18/2-HDL-012-502-4/Y mil, k-pk 12.2% 17.5% 16.0% 13.9% 12.8% 15.9% 13.6% 13.7% 14.5% 16.1% 123.2 154.0 48 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/X , RMS 5.3% 8.9% 21.7% 36.1% 46.5% 52.1% 56.1% 57.2% 67.1%. 61.3% 0.39 0.60 49 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/Y g, RMS 1 9.0% 15.0% 26.6% 39.7% 47.1% 53.4% 57.9% 59.2% 59.5% 60.3% 0.14 0.60 50 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/Z o, RMS 10.5% 14.7% 40.2% 57.3% 64.5% 66.0%/ 70.6% 74.9% 90.0% 85.4% 0.36 0.64 51 20/FWR-A-line/X mils, RMS 32.7% 14.2% 12.0% 10.9% 33.8% 32.8% 34.2% 36.3% 44.2% 45.5% 12.87 16.09 52 20/FWR-A-line/Y mils, RMS 25.0% 17.1% 7.4% 6.9% 22.7% 22.3% 25.1% 25.2% 35.2% 36.3% 14.28 17.85 53 20/FWR-A-line/Z mils, RMS 25.7% 11.3% 8.9% 8.6% 17.8% 19.2% 19.7% 19.9% 35.4% 36.7% 10.18 12.73 54 21/FWR-A-actuator/X mils, RMS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 17.96 22.45 55 21/FWR-A-actuator/Y mils, RMS 6.7% 1.8% 2.8% 2.6% 5.9% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5% 8.4% 8.0% 28.57 35.71 56 21/FWR-A-actuator/Z mils, RMS 21.7% 7.7% 8.5% 7.9% 16.3% 16.6% 15.8% 16.1% 32.1% 30.2% 10.74 13.43 57 22/FWR-10-2-4/X mils, RMS 51.7% 55.6% 60.8% 56.1% 55.6% 59.8% 63.7% 65.9-A 55.7% 53.5% 3.96 4.95 58 22/FWR-10-2-4/p mils, RMS 19.2% 38.1% 36.1% 29.7% 32.9% 35.2% 38.1% 38.4% 17.9% 16.8% 11.88 14.85 59 22/FWR-10-2-4/Z mils, RMS 4.1% 7.2% 6.8% 6.6% 7.4% 7.9% 8.1% 8.3% 5.7% 5.5% 27.15 33.94 60 23/FWR-FV2B/X mils, RMS 7.3% 11.3% 14.2% 14.3% 13.0% 13.5% 13.5% 14.4% 14.1% 14.4% 25.31 31.64 61 23/FWR-FV2B/Y mils, RMS 4.7% 7.1% 7.3% 6.2% 6.5% 6.9% 7.4% 7.5% 6.2% 5.9% 22.34 27.93 62 23/FWR-FV2B/Z mils, RMS 46.4% 68.6% 70.8% 70.4% 73.4% 81.3% 82.4% 85.6% 44.3% 44.1% 5.66 7.07 63 24/FWR-10-3-4/X mils, pk-pk 13.7% 39.9% 35.6% 39.5% 34.9% 34.2% 49.8% 47.1% 42.7% 39.3% 52.80 66.00 64 24/FWR-10-3-4/Y mils, pk-pk 16.5% 17.4% 18.0% 20.1% 23.7% 21.8% 25.3% 24.0% 23.9% 21.8% 94.40 118.00 65 24/FWR-10-3-4/Z mils, pk-pk 7.8% 26.7% 24.8% 25.2% 29.3% 31.7% 30.1% 32.7% 33.5% 29.9% 83.20 104.00 66 25/FWR-FV2C/X mils, pk-pk 20.0% 34.0% 38.8% 50.9% 64.2% 59.7% 76.9% 49.3% 39.1% 45.4% 30.80 101.00 67 25/FWR-FV2C/Y mils, pk-pk 11.0% 28.0% 24.5% 31.1% 36.2% 35.7% 41.5% 35.0% 33.2% 38.4% 37.60 47.00 68 25/FWR-FV2C/Z mils, pk-pk 15.4% 42.5% 34.7% 33.2% 40.5% 46.1% 47.5% 45.6% 41.3% 45.2% 48.80 61.00 Note: Cells marked with "N/A" indicate an overall value that was excluded due to an invalid signal.

4.2 Characterization of Vibration Levels for Invalid Sensors During the on-site data reduction during EPU power ascension, Channel 54 (21/FWR-A-actuator/X) of the TB frequency spectra exhibited significantly less content than the baseline data collected at 100%

CLTP during the 2010 power ascension. The large discrepancies in magnitude indicate channels that are not providing valid data, which calls into question whether the adequate sensing capability is being achieved. The invalid channel 54 was present on all data sets through EPU power ascension.

Locations with invalid sensors were evaluated to estimate the flow-induced vibration (FIV) in the monitored lines by two different methods dependent on whether two valid sensors existed at the location or if less than two valid sensors existed at the location.

Page 15 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction At the locations of Channel 54, Channel 55 and Channel 56, valid data are provided in the orthogonal directions of Y and Z. The overall vibration levels for the invalid sensor can be extrapolated from valid sensors at the same location by calculating a scaling factor from 2010 baseline vibration levels and the current data set then applying it to the invalid sensor for 2010 baseline data. For example, if the Z-direction sensor at particular location is invalid, the X- and Y-direction ratios are obtained as Rx =

Xeu.t /X 20 10 and Ry = Ycurrent/Y2010. The maximum calculated ratio is used to scale the 2010 baseline overall value for the invalid channel. For this example, the formula would be max Z.nt = Rm. Z20 10.

The estimated value calculated (Zcurrt) is compared to the allowable vibration criteria for the invalid channel. In order to apply this scaling factor, a comparison of frequency content was performed between the 2010 baseline data and each EPU data set. The calculations and comparisons can be found in Table 7 through Table 13.

Table 7: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 100% RPX Invalid Channel #154 2I/PWR-A-actuator/X 54 55 56 X Y Z Level 1Allowable 22.45 35.71 13.43 2.53305 Level 2 Allowable 17.96 28.568 10.744 2010 100% CLTP (mil-RMS) 2.7225 0.9165 0.9157 14.104%

100 Combined (100%) (miI-RMS) 0.7361 0.8519 Table 8: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 102.5% RPX Invalid Channel #154 21/FWR-A-actuatorlX 54 55 56 X Y Z Level 1Allowable 22.45 35.71 13.43 5.19218 Level 2 Allowable 17.96 28.568 10.744 2010 100% CLTP (mil-RMS) 2.7225 0.9165 0.9157 28.910%

102.5 Combined (102.5%) (mil-RMS) 1.6803 1.7463 Table 9: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 105% RPX Invalid Channel#154 1. .. FWR-A-ac.uator/X 54 55 56 X Y Z Level 1Allowable 22.45 35.71 13.43 I 5.29586 Level 2 Allowable 17.96 28.568 10.744 2010 100% CLTP (mil-RMS) 2.7225 0.9165 0.9157 29.487%

105 (105%) (mil-RMS) 1 1.5778 1.7811 Page 16 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction Table 10: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 107.5% RPX Invalid Channel #5S4 ____ ___ 1FWR-A-actuator/X X y z Level 1Allowable 22.45 35.71 13.43 5.06769 Level 2 Allowable 17.96 28.568 10.744 2010 100% CLTP (mil-RMS) 2.7225 0.9165 0.9157 28.217 107.5 (107.5%) (mil-RMS) 1.7059 1.6976 Table 11: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 110% RPX Invalid Channel #54 - 21/FWR-A-actuator/X S4 55 56 X y z Level 1Allowable 22.45 35.71 13.43 5.48908 Level 2 Allowable 17.96 28.568 10.744 2010 100% CLTP (mil-RMS) 2.7225 0.9165 0.9157 30.563%

110 (110%) (mil-RMS) 1.8477 1.7254 Table 12: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 112.5% RPX Invalid Channel #154 _ __ ___ 21/FWR-A-actuator/X 54 55 56 X y z Level IAllowable 22.45 35.71 13.43 10.25807 Level 2 Allowable 17.96 28.568 10.744 2010 100% CLTP (mil-RMS) 2.7225 0.9165 0.9157 57.116%

1125 (112.5%) (mil-RMS) 1 2.4006 3.4500 Table 13: Extrapolated Value of Channel 54 at 115% RPX Invalid ChannelE 5j4 _____ - A-acator/X FWR.

54~ 56 X y z Level 1Allowable 22.45 35.71 13.43 9.63221 Level 2 Allowable 17.96 28.568 10.744 2010 100% CLTP (mll-RMS) 2.7225 0.9165 0.9157 1 53.631%

115 (115%) (mil-RMS) 2.2809 3.2396 Page 17 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Nine Mile Point Unit 2 EPU Turbine Building Accelerometer Data Reduction 4.3 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System Testing Once 115% CLTP was achieved additional testing was conducted on the RCIC system. This testing included:

(1) closing the RCIC steam line isolation valve 21CS-MOV128; and (2) isolation of the steam trap. A frequency spectra analysis was conducted for each test condition and compared to a baseline, post RCIC test condition. Pre and post data was taken. The comparison of the pretest, during test and post test data sets show essentially the same frequency content with no measurable 92.5Hz or 89.5Hz peak in the TB data sets.

5.0

SUMMARY

During the EPU power ascension in June and July 2012, dynamic acceleration data was collected from 68 accelerometers mounted on various piping systems. The data was processed according to the methodology in Section 3.0 of this calculation, and results are given in the form of tables of overall values and waveform and spectral plots. Data collection spanned 50% to 115% CLTP.

The following general observations are offered based on a review of the processed data:

1. Comparison of 2010 and 2012 100% CLTP and 2012 100% and 115% CLTP frequency spectra did not reveal any marked differences in content or exhibit any resonance condition. Increases in amplitude generally followed a linear trend with power ascension with no values exceeding Level-2 vibration criteria.

2. The allowable margin for the instrumented valves was lower than the TB piping. The maximum percentage of Level-2 allowable is 90% (Channel 50, 112.5% CLTP).

3. Vibration levels on the TB piping generally increased in direct proportion with reactor power. In nearly all cases, the highest measured levels occurred in Data Set 10 when NMP2 reached steady-state operating conditions near 115% CLTP.

4. Channel 54 was identified as having invalid signal quality at all power levels. Characterization for those vibration levels was achieved using the methodology discussed in Section 4 of this calculation and showed no concern for exceeding the location based allowables.

5. At 115% power level, RCIC tests were completed to investigate the presence of the 92.5Hz in the TB data sets. The frequency spectra of the three data sets are similar and none of them shows the presence of the 92.5Hz.

Page 18 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A PROCESSED TREND PLOTS Page 19 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values)

-eS 1/2-MSS-028-5-4/X - 1/2-MSS-028-5-4/Y - 1/2-MSS-028-5-4/Z 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 0.

12.0 18.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Trend Plot (Overall Values) 2/2-MSS-028-6-4/X -- 2/2-MSS-028-6-4/Y 2/2-MSS-028-6-4/Z 60.0 50.0 40.0 C,

3.

-20.0 10.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 20 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values) 3/2-MSS-028-8-4/X .-- 3/2-MSS-028-8-4/Y -.- 3/2-MSS-028-8-4/Z 70.0 60.0 50.0 0.

40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0. 1 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Trend Plot (Overall Values)

--4,-4/2-MSS-018-34-4/X -,-14/2-MSS-018-34-4/Y .-- 4/2-MSS-018-34-4/Z 30.0 25.0 A

.X 20.0 A C,

15.0 L.

10.0 5.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 21 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values)

-5/2-FWS-020-39-4/X 5/ 2-F WS-020-39-4/Y 25.0 20.0 --e4 C. 15.0 7

= 10.0 0.

E 5.0 0.0 1 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Trend Plot (Overall Values)

-,- 6/2-FWS-024-10-4/X 6/2-FWS-024-10-4/Z 12.0 10.0 8.0 a.

A 6.0

<E 4.0 2.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 22 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values)

---

7/2-FWS-030-42-4/X 7/2-FWS-030-42-4/Y --7/2-FWS-030-42-4/Z 16.0 14.0 12.0

.* 10.0 8.0 o6 6.0 E

4.0 2.0 0.0 50.0 55,0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Trend Plot (Overall Values) 8/2-FWS-020-41-4/X --- 8/2-FWS-020-41-4/Z 7.0 6.0 5.0 9.

u~4.0 3.0 E

2.0 1.0

.nn UU 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 23 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values) 9/2-FWS-024-27-4/X 9/2-FWS-024-27-4/Y 9/2-FWS-024-27-4/Z 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 0a

a. 6.0

- 5.0 S4.0

• 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Trend Plot (Overall Values) 10/2-FWS-024-28-4/X - 10/2-FWS-024-28-4/Z 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 C.

5. 6.0

- 5.0

• 4.0 -

E 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 24 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values)

-,-,11/2-FWS-020-40-4/X - 11/2-FWS-020-40-4/Y ---- 11/2-FWS-020-40-4/Z 25.0 20.0 CL

a. 15.0 10.0 CL E

5.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Trend Plot (Overall Values)

- 12/2-CNM-020-64-4/X  : 12/2-CNM-020-64-4fY - 12/2-CNM-020-64-4/Z 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 C.

= 25.0 20.0 E 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 25 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values)

S 13/2-CNM-020-40-4/X 13/2-CN M-020-40-4/Y .-e--13/2-CNM-020-40-4/Z 18.0 16.0 14.0 C.

.~12.0 S10.0 E

8.0 e0ol-S6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Trend Plot (Overall Values)

-- 14/2-CNM-030-22-4/X  : 14/2-CNM-030-22-4/Z 6.0 5.0 4.0 ,-,00 a.1 CL 3.0 '0,00000 00e S2.0 1.0 0.0o4 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 26 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values)

--. 0-15/2-ESS-012-9-4/X -- 15/2-ESS-012-9-4/Y -- 0-15/2-ESS-012-9-4/Z 25.0 20.0 J.

a. 15.0 -I- oo. - -4 %

727

- 10.0 E

5.0 r,000-Anf 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Trend Plot (Overall Values)

- 16/2-ESS-016-16-4/X 16/2-ESS-016-16-4/Z 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 06 CL 6.0

- 5.0

• 4.0 E

4 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 27 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values)

-e.- 17/2-HDL-012-424-4/X - 17/2-H DL-012-424-4/Y 17/2-H DL-012-424-4/Z 50.0 45.0 40.0 A dw V No,--

35.0 0.1 cL 30.0 A.

- 25.0 06 15.0 20.0 5.0 0.0I 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (%RP)

Trend Plot (Overall Values) 18/2-HDL-012-502-4/X p018/2-HDL-012-502-4/Y 25.0 20.0 06 cL 15.0 10.0

<C E

5.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110,0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 28 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values)

- 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/X -.-- 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/Y --- 19/2-MSS*AOV7A/Z 0.4 0.3 0.3

~/r§./

0.2 U.L 0.1 0.1 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Trend Plot (Overall Values) 20/FWR-A-line/X -e-20/FWR-A-line/Y --6--20/FWR-A-Iine/Z 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 V

B3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 5OO.

• .0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 1155.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 29 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values)

-,I--21/FWR-A-actuator/X -,- 21/FWR-A-actuator/Y -21/FWR-A-actuator/Z 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 CL1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Trend Plot (Overall Values)

--- 22/FWR-10-2-4/X -- 0-22/FWR-10-2-4/Y -- 22/FWR-10-2-4/Z 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 S3.0 2.5 I

i 0100" CL2.0 1.5 V 1.0 t 0.5 0.0 1 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 30 of 32

.3 Appendix A Page 31 of 32

Attachment 7.3 Appendix A Trend Plot (Overall Values)

-- 0-25/FWR-FV2C/X -- 25/FWR-FV2C/Y .-- 25/FWR-FV2C/Z 70.0 60.0 50.0 C,

40.0 "0

3 30.0 E

20.0 10.0 0.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0 Power Level (% RP)

Page 32 of 32