ML20084R271
| ML20084R271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1984 |
| From: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084R267 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-55053, NUDOCS 8405220262 | |
| Download: ML20084R271 (16) | |
Text
- _ _
e i
MOISTURE MONITOR INJECTION TESTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH FORT ST. VRAIN TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION LCO 4.9.2
SUMMARY
Fort St. Vrain Technical Specification LCO 4.9.2
" Plant Protection System Dew Point Moisture Monitor Tests During Phase 2" require the performance of response time tests on the Plant Protective System dew point moisture monitor system. The tests were to be conducted at 55, 255 and 100% of rated reactor thermal power. The tests at 55 and 25%
of rated power were previously completed as tests T-5A and T-6C, respectively. The results of these tests were reported to the NRC in Reference 2.
Justification for performing the moisture injection tests at 705 reactor power rather than at 1005 reactor power was provided in Reference 3 This same reference also provides the acceptance crite-rica with regard to response times for 705 power testing. NRC, t
Reference 4, concurred that satisfactory tests conducted at 705 power will fulfill this commitment (in lieu of moisture injection tests at 1005 power).
Moisture monitor injection test T-159 performed at 705 reactor power verifies the performance of the dew point moisture monitor (DPMM) system at high reactor powers. The tests for T-15Y were performed for each of the high and low level detectors with an unrestricted sample flow and for several of the high and low level detectors with a restricted sample flow.
Tables 1-3 show the results of the T-159 test. Because of low moisture concentrations in the helium samples, the test response times are adjusted for sample-to-mirror concentration difference. The adjusted response times given in Tables 1-3 show that all adjusted response times lie within or below the acceptance criterion times of Raf. 3.
Figure 3 shows the adjusted response time for the unrestricted sample tests plotted as response time versus circulator AP. This figure is a duplicate of Fig. 3 from Ref.1. The figure includes curves of the expected response times for unrestricted sample flows for the high and low level monitors up to 1005 reactor power. The acceptance bands for test.T-159 from Ref. 3 are also included in Fig. 3 The T-159 test data fall within or below the acceptance bande indicating satisfactory DPMM response times.
Table 5 provides a summary of the 55, 255 and 70% of rated reactor thermal power moisture monitor injection response time tests. Also included in this table is an evaluation of unrestricted versus restricted monitor sample flow. Of egnoern regarding the latter is the coolant loop containing the leaking steam generator has low level moisture monitors with unrestricted flow. Primary coolant with a partial mixture of moisture in the subsequent pass around the primary coolant circuit could potentially trip the monitors in the non-leaking loop prior to the trip of the monitors in the leaking loop. It is concluded that 15 soc /seo minimum monitor sample flow rate evaluated b7
~
0 P
PDR t
L.
i for the 55 and 255 reactor power moisture injection response time tests is satisfactory. It is further concluded based on testing at 705 reactor power the monitor minimum sample flow rate of 40 acc/second used during the testing be increased to 50 sec/second in the revised Technical Specification for minimum sample flow for reactor powers from L
30 to 100% of rated. Note (t) to Technical Specification LCO 4.4.1 ourrently specifies 50 sco/see minimum sample flow for 705 reactor power operation.
INTRODUCTION The dew point moisture monitor (DPf91) test RT-355C (Ref. 1), conducted in 1975, was an extensive checkout of the DPlet system at prestartup conditions. As part of this test, response times were measured under i
simulated 5-1005 reactor operating conditions. The results of this test indicated the DPitt system would have satisfactory response times for actual 5-1005 reactor operating conditions. Moisture injection test T-5A (Ref. 2), performed in 1976 at 55 reactor power, did demon-i strate satisfactory response times at actual 55 reactor power, and
[
similarly with test T-6C (Ref. 2) performed in 1977 at 255 reactor, I
power.
i
)
Moisture injection tests were to be performed at 1005 reactor operating conditions. Reference 3 provides a basis for performing such tests at 705 reactor power. NRC (Ref. 4) concurred that satisfactory tests
}
oonducted at 705 reactor power would fulfill the Technical Specifica-I i
tion LCO 4 9 2 requirement for moisture injection tests at 1005 reactor j
power. The current test T-159 is the moisture injection tests at 705 i
j reactor power and were performed in early 1981.
t l
The objective of test T-159 is to show satisfactory performance
[
I regarding the response times of the DPitt system at 705 reactor power.
Satisfactory response times at 705 reactor established in Ref. 3 are also listed on Tables 1, 2 and 3 and in Figure 3 Overall system 1
performance is to be demonstrated by showing adequate response times j
for the following individual tests:
i j
a.
Base tests test each of the six low-level and two high-l
]
level monitors.
J j
b,.
Show repeatability: test each of the two high-level monitors f
l twios more.
(The base time of the six 1
low levels will demonstrate repeatabil-i
]
ity.)
l l
o.
Restrioted flow test: Test separately one low level sonitor j
from each loop and one high level monitor with a detector flow of
{
40 see/see and the bypass valve at the minimum step position.
l 1
h 2
t
,.f s
p,,y,.,
p
,g--
-,,--+,W--p.*--=1 w--
wtoM'*p+*m--ev M.
(
l I
Important in each test is to have the correct inlet supply flow from i
the rake pickup to the bypass valve junction, the correct sample flow f
j from the bypass valve junction to the detector, and a reasonable i
sample-to-mirror moisture concentration difference. The inlet supply flow and sample flow govern the transit times from the rake to the i
dueetor head. The sample-to-airror moisture concentration difference i
Soverns the mass transfer to the detector mirror and thus the mirror j
fogging time. The transit time plus the fogging time constitute the
{
DPtet response time.
(See Ref.1, Appendix A3 for a description of these part times and the total response time.)
i TEST ARRAlt0EMDIT j
The schematic diagram of the DPtet and moisture injection piping arrangement is illustrated in Figure 1.
The injection apparatus, which l
has been used in previous DPitt response testing, is illustrated in Figure 2.
f j
In the 55 and 255 reactor power tests, one test difficulty was to t
I achieve satisfactorily high moisture concentrations in the helium 'at the injection rake. This difficulty would be augmented in the 701 j
remotor power tests due to the higher helium flow rates through the l
l j
DPitt system. To achieve high moisture concentrations in the helium DPlet supply flow, the test procedure was defined as:
j l
1.
Test only one detector at a time.
2.
Inject only into one rake for a given detector test.
3.
Valve off the supply lines from the injected rake to all other cetectors excluding the test detector.
4
}
4.
Valve off the other supply lin's of the test detector from i
rakes other than the injected take.
i
}
5.
Set the trip setting for all !natruments to 00F to increase the
,t 1
sample-to-airror concentration difference.
(The normal i
settings are 270F for the low-level instr aents and 670F for l
l the high-level instruments.)
Using the valve arrangement as described above, the moist helium from i
the bubbler flows to the test detector only and the test detector
{
receives supply helium from only the injection rake.- (Valving off=all i
I but one supply line to a test detector does'not appreciably alter the i
i inlet line transit time nor the sample flow to the deteetor relative to j
the conditions when there is flow in all of the supply lines. Since the flow resistance of the inlet line dominates the total inlet-bypass-i return line flow resistance, the supply flow in the open supply line is essentially unchanged whether other supply lines to the detootor are open or valved off. The test response times are adjusted for the j
ebange in the supply flow and inlet transit time due to valving off all but one supply line.)
6
- t-
(
TEST PROCEDURE The details of tha test procedure are given in the Request for Test T-159 (Ref. 5). A brief description of tne test procedure is given here.
The tests were run at nominally 70% reactor power. As long as this power was indicated, all other reactor conditions (primary system pressure and temperature and circulator pressure rise) were accepted as typical 705 reactor power operating conditions.
To prepare a detector for test, it was first placed in the trip /
indicate mode, and its mirror setting was lowered to 00F.
In the trip / indicate mode the detector trips at the specified mirror setting and then switches to the indicate mode to track the moisture concentra-tion in the helium sample. The trip signal and tracking signal were recorded on a strip chart recorder. The sample-to-mirror oncentration difference could then be calculated from this recorded data. The valving line-up specified in T-159 was followed to isolate the test detector and to isolate the one supply line from the injection rake.
The proper sample flow and bypass valve setting were insured. For a nominal unrestricted test the bypass valve was set to achieve a sample flow of 62.5 sec/sec. For a restricted flow test the bypass valve was closed to the minimum stop position. The sample line block valve labeled V-11XXX-1 in Fig. I was then closed until a sample flow of 40 soc /see was achieved.
Just prior to initiating an injection test the data measurements indicated on the Data Sheet of T-159 were taken. These measurements
" included primary system pressure, reactor inlet temperature, circulator speeds and AP, and detector sample flow. The injection supply line from the helium bubbler to the isolation valve (Fig. 2) was then flushed with moist helium (isolation valve closed). Closing the injection valve and the flush line valve and opening the isolation valve prepared the system for start of injection. The strip chart recorder was turned on. At a signal to indicate start of injection the injection valve was opened and a tick mark was made on the moving strip chart. A detector trip was indicated by the pen movement on the strip chart and a switch to indicate mode. The moisture injection and strip chart were continued until a peak indicating temperature was achieved on the chart recording or for a maximum of 2 minutes. The injection flow was secured and the detector was prepared for another test or returned to its nominal operating status.
TEST RESULTS The measured response times are given in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
Tables 1-3 also give the sample-to-mirror concentration differences, adjusted response times, and a range of acceptance response times from Ref. 3.
The adjusted response times lie within the acceptance range or slightly below the lower limit of the acceptance range indicating satisfactory performance of the DPPM system.
4-i
r Tables'l-3 show sample-to-airror concentration differences generally between 50_vpm and 1600 vpa. The acceptance response times of Ref. 3 assume concentration differences of 1300 vpm for the low level detectors and 1000 vps for the high level detectors. The difficulty experience in past injection tests in achieving consistently high sample concentrations was also experienced in this test. Note in i
particular that the test runs 6, 22 and 24 have very low sample-to-i mirror concentrations; i.e. less than 50 vpe. Detector MT-1118, which corresponds to Run 6 and the concentration difference of 8 vps, also had two runs with concentration differences greater than 1000 vpa.
This illustrates the erratio behavior of the moisture bubbler system.
Because of the low sample-to-mirror concentrations during the tests, the measured response times given in Tables 1-3 were adjusted for concentration. The method for adjustment is described in Appendix A.3 of Ref. 1.
Essentially the method consists of first calculating the inlet line and sample line transit times using the reactor test conditions and the known line flow-resistance characteristics (Ref.1).
These transit times art subtracted from the measured response time to obtain a fogging time. Since the fogging time is inversely propor$-
tional to the sample-to-airror concentration difference (Ref. 1),,the fogging time is corrected according to the ratio actual --=le-to-airror concentration difference criteria sample-to-airrce concentration difference The adjusted response time is determined by adding the adjusted fogging time to the inlet transit times.
(In calculating the inlet line i
transit time, the helium supply flow rate from the injected rake to the bypass junction was adjusted slightly because of valving off all but one of the inlet supply lines.)
The measured response times for Runs 22 and 24 were not adjusted since the measured response time was less than the calculated inist transit times.
(This condition would yield a negative fogging time.)
The response data for the unrestricted runs are also plotted in Fig. 3 as a function of response time versus circulator AP. This figure is a duplicate of Fig. 3 from Ref.1. The curves in Fig. 3 represent the expected response of the high level and low level DPWt's due to a design basis steam leak socident where the sample-to-mirror concentra-tion difference would be in the range of 2000-5000'vps at 705 reactor
- power. The data plotted from T-159 are adjusted only to the 1000-1300 vpm range. The neceptance bands from Ref. 3'are also shown in the figure. As illustrated by the figure, the T-159 data fall within or lower than the neceptance bands indicating good response.
For record purposes the response data are given in Table 4 along with the primary system pressure, the core inlet temperature, the oirou-lator AP and the sample flow rate.
p 4
t i
EVALUATION OF 70. 25 AND 55 REACTOR POWER MOISTURE INJECTION TEST RESULTS AND MINIMUM DETECTOR SAMPLE FLOW RATE Table 5 shows a suasary comparison of the response time moisture monitor injection testing at 70, 25 and 55 reactor thermal power.
There are three requirements which establish the upper limit response times for the dew point moisture monitor system. These are discussed in Refereace 6 and are (1) not lifting the PCRV pressure relief valve, (2) limiting oxidation of the hottest fuel element to 15, and (3) initiating the trip by the moisture monitoring system before the trip would occur by the diverse backup high PCRV pressure trip thus best assuring isolation and dump of the correct (leaking) loop. The required moisture monitor response time to prevent the PCRV relief valve from lifting assuming a design basis leak is 207 seconds at 1005 power, 320 seconds at 705 power, and 590 seconds at 255 power. The valve will not lift at less than 135 power operation. To limit the hottest fuel element oxidation to 15 with a design basis steaa leak, the required response time is 850 seconds at 1005 power,1,550 seconds at 705 power, 4,250 seconds at 255 power. Oraphite oxidation is insignificant at the lower t.esperatures which occur at 55 power. The high PCRV pressure trip assuming a design basis steam leak is 95 seconds at 1005 power,112 seconds at 705 power, and 113 seconds at 605 and lesser remotor power levels. The sensured response times during testing, including restricted monitor sample flows, satisfy all the above response time requirements.
Another purpose of the response time moisture injection tests was to establish minimum dew point moisture monitor sample flow rates. The sample flow rate is a function of the circulator pressure rise, the proper operation of the bypass regulating valve and th9 degree of filter clogging which increases flow resistance to the monitor. The concern is that the coolant loop with the leaking steam generator module has one or more low level noisture monitors with restricted sample flow rate (slower response) while the low level noisture monitors in the non-leaking loop have normal unrestricted sample flow rates (faster response).
Table 5 presents a conservative evaluation of obtaining correct identification of the leaking steam generator loop. It is conservative in that it assumes the low level monitors in the non-leaking loop will be sampling primary coolant with the same moisture content as being
. sampled by the low level ponitors with restricted sample flow in the leaking loop. At worst with total mixing, the moisture concentration would be one half that being sampled in the leaking loop. Specifically the evaluation is ande by adding the primary ooolant loop transit time to the range of response time test results obtained for low level senitors with unrestricted sample flow rate. This-establishes the range of time in which the low level monitors in the non-leaking loop oculd trip. These times are then compared to the range of response time tests obtained for low level monitors with restricted sample flow.
This comparison is judged to support -the adequacy of 15 soo/see minism semple flow evaluated for the 5 and 255 remotor power response time moisture monitor injection testing. The restricted sample flow rate of 40 soo/seo employed for the 705 reactor power tests resulted in an j'
6
upper value of 16 seconds for the moisture monitors in the leaking loop to trip as opposed to a lower value of 14 seconds for scisture monitors in the non-leaking loop to trip.
The minimum monitor sample now rate of 40 t
sec/sec is thus judged not to be adequate at high reactor power levels.
Increasing the minimum sample now rate to 50 sec/sec reduces the response time at 705 reacter power for restricted sample now nonitors by 2.2 seconds.
It is concluded that the minimum sample now of 50 sec/sec currently specified for 705 reactor power in Note (t) of LCO 4.4.1 be retained.
ROISTilRE MONITOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVISION Minimum sciature monitor sample now rates are specified dependent upon reactor power level in Note (t) of Technical Specification LCO 4.4.1.
The preposed rvvision to Note (t) of LCO 4.4.1 for minimum sample now are:
Rameter Peuer Ranna Minimum Samnie Finw i
2-55 1 soc /sec
~
5 - 305 15 soc /see 30 - 405 30 soc /sec 40 - 505 40 sco/see 50 - 1005 50 sec/sec The 1 soc /see minimum now for reactor powers between 2 and 55 is consis-tent with prior sutniittals, References 7 and 8.
The 15 soc /see minirman flow for reactor powers totween 5 and 305 is supported by noisture monitor inj sec/ection tests conducted at 5 and 255 reactor power.
The 30 and 40 see minimum now for reactor pwers between 30 and 505 provides a i
transition to the minimum sample now determined by testing to be required at higher power levels.
The 50 sec/see minima ancple now for reoctor powers between 50 and 1005 is supported by the moisture injection testing conducted at 705 power.
d 0
a 0
0 l
e l '
?.
(
REFERENCkS 1.
Del Bene, J. V., et. al., " Fort St. Vrain Dew Point Moisture Monitor System Post-Modification Test Results (RT-355C)," General Atomic Report GA-A13823, February 9,1W6.
2.
J. K. Fuller to R. P. Denise, PSC letter P-T/144 dated June 30,1977, subject - DPW H 0 Injection Tests.
2 3.
F. E. Swart to R. P. Denise, PSC letter P-78092 dated June 2,1W8, subject - Dowpoint Moisture Monitor Response Testing.
~
4.
T. P. Speis to J. K. Fuller, NRC letter (G-78080) dated July 25,1W8, subject - FSV Dewpoint Moisture Monitor Response Testing.
5.
PSC Pequest for Test T-159, " Testing the Dew Point Moisture Response at a Reactor Power Level of 705 Instead of 1005."
6.
Project Staff, " Test and Evaluation of the Fort St. Vrain Dow Point Moisture Monitor System," General Atomic Report GA-A13677, October 10 1W5.
7.
C. K. Millen to R. P. Denise, PSC letter P-77192 dated September 13, 1977, subject - DPm Technical Specification.
1 C. K. Millen to R. P. Denise, PSC letter F-77228 dated November 16, 1977, subject - Proposed Changes to Technical Specification.
8 O
8 e
a v
[
-g-
. O7.
m J
. 0.. '.O d 4
~
~ Table 1 Response Times fo-toop I Im Level Moisture Monitors MT-1116 MT-1117 MT-1118 T-153 Restricted Unrestricted Unrestricted Restricted Mh trictM Flw FIw F1w FIw Floor (%2 sec/sec)
(4 0 sec/sec)
(%2 sec/sec)
(%2 sec/sec)
(40 sec/sec) ame Number 1
2 3
16 17 18 4
5 6
7 Sample-to-69 72 94 92 55 106 1639 1636 8
1066 Concentration Difference, vyn measurement 7.0 8.2 148.1 17.0 Response Times, 23.3 17.4 29.5 10.6 20.0 40.0
. sec.
Adjusted "S*
^
6.3 S.6 6.6 S.2 S.3 11.1 7.6 9.2 S.6 15.7 Tzae,sec.
Criteria
Response
7.0-13.0 10.0-18.5 7.0-13.0 7.0-13.0 10.0-18.5 Time, sec.
L
.o.
~
Table 2 Response Times for Loop II Low Level h isture Monitors d
NT-1120 MT-1121 MT-1122 T-159 threstri:ted UnrestrictcJ 7M hr Unrestricted Flow Restricted Flow Flow Flow
( 2 sec/sec)
(MO sec/sec)
(%2 sec/sec)
(% 2 sec/sec)
Dun Number 8
22 9
10 23 24 25 Sample-to-62.3 4%
89 182 92 92 93 Concentration Difference, vpn Measured
Response
7.8 4.6 11.4 21.2 16.4 5.2 17.1 Time, Sec.
Aljusted
Response
5.9 4.63 5.1 7.1 5.4 5.23 8.0 Time. Sec.
Criteria
Response
7.0-13.0 10-18.5 Time. Sec.
1.
Measure:I response time not adjusted since measured value is less than calculated sample transit time.
Table 3 Response Times for liigh Level Moisture Monitors l} Gr d
[i MT-lll5 MT-ll19 f0fPower.-.
Unrestricted Restricted Unrestricted Flow Flow Flow
(% 2 sec/sec)
(40 sec/sec)
(%2 sec/sec)
- 4 Run Nusber.
11 12 13 14 15 19 20 21 v/$
. Sampie-to-Mirror 147 162 122 91 140 59 16 15 Concentration Difference, vpm Measured Response 44.0 20.6 29.4 66.1 27.6 13.6 51.5 76 Time, sec Adju' /sted' Response
/
10.9 7.7 8.1 13.4 11.5 5.8 5.9 6.3 Time', sec.
J Criteria Response 8.5-16.0 13.0-24 8.5-16.0 Time, sec.
i
- /.
5
+
'l
(
6
%E s
9-
ti s
I Table 4 Tabulation of T2159 Test Data i
l SdurLE CRITERIA SE7EC7em fit.78R Stat PRIfttRY SYS Cent INLE7 CtaC SP SAMPLE FLeif MIRROR CONC MAS RESP ASJUSTED AESP. TI M
)
P MSS (PSIA) 7pP (SEF) (PSIS)
(9CC/SEC)
DIFF (UPM) 7IM (SEC) 73M (SEC) RefeSE (SEC) l tile tastESTRICTED 3
881.
887.
4.5 88.8 89.
33.3 S.3 7.6-13.0 a
lits 198 RESTRICTED 8 473.
478.
4.4 St.9 78.
17.4 S.S 7.0-13.9 tits t#eRESTRICTES 3 688.
874.
4.5 88.9 94.
89.5 S.S 7.9-13.0 i.
1117 t#tRESTRICTED 4-SSt.
674.
4.4 88.5 1839.
7.0 7.8 7.9-13.0 1888 tRIRESTRICTED 5 Sea.
493.
4.7 68.9 1638.
S.S 3.3 7.e-13.0 1118 tReRES1RICTED 8 870.
879.
4.4 88.5 S.
148.1 5.8 7.0-13.0 i
1118 NESTRICTED 7
SSS.
494.
4.7 40.0 test.
17.0 15.7 10.0-18.5 4
1120 UNRESTRICTED 8 869.
593.
4.7 62.9 623.
7.8 S.9 7.0-13.0 1822 t#tRESTRICTED 9 681.
878.
4.5 68.0 89.
11.4 5.1 7.e-13.e l
tlta t#GESTRICTED 10 Ste.
$79.
4.4 68.9 182.
31.3 7.1 7.e-13.0 1185 UNRESTRICTED 11 SSO.
485.
4.0 88.9 147.
44.0 10.9 3.5-18.0 1885 tNGRESTRICTED 18 477.
700.
4.8 68.0 152.
20.8 7.7 S.5-18.0 till UhRESTRICTED 13 678.
SSS.
5.0 88.0 123.
29.4 S.1 S.5-18.0 1815. AESTRICTED 14 485.
885.
4.9 35.0 St.
SS.1 13.4 13.0-24.9 1115 RESTRICTED 15 473.
SSE.
5.0 40.0 140.
37.8 11.5 13.0-24.0 1818 t#tRESTRICTED 18 SSG.
885.
4.0
, 81.0 65.
29.0 5.3 7.0-13.0 42.0 98.
10.8 S.E 7.e-13.0 1818 t#tRESTAICTED 17 857.
875.
4.7 Alle AESTRICTED 18 SSI.
700.
5.0 48.5 108.
40.0 11.1 te.e-IS.5 1819. UNRESTRICTED 19 678..
885.
4.8 St.0 59.
13.8 5.8 S.5-16.9
)
1819 tasRESTRICTED to 870.
485.
5.3 62.0 18.
51.5 5.9 S.5-18.9 1819 UNRESTRICTED 81 874.
SSS.
4.7 80.0 15.
78.0 S.3 S.5-18.0 i
1821 UNRESTRICTES 38 SSS.
SSS.
4.9 82.0 45.
4.8 5.9 7.0-13.0 1128 LptelEST841CTED R3 878.
885.
5.1 88.0 38.
18.4 5.4 7.0-13.9 i
1828 AESTRICTED 84 878.
SSS.
5.1 40.0 St.
5.3 7.0 10.0-18.5 1158 HESTRICTED E5 889.
700.
4.7 44.0 93.
17.1 0.0 10.0-13 5 1
.j.
1 1
}'
i l
i 2
1 I:-
1 4
i
1 7
s
+
TABLE 5 3
RANGE OF RESPONSE TIMES FROM MOISTURE MONITOR INJECTION TESTING Time-Seconds Reactor Power (Test Saquence) 70% (T-159)(1) 25% (T-6C)(2) 55 (T-5A)(2)
Unrestricted Monitor Sample Flow Low Level Monitors Trip 5-9 8-12 18-24 High Level Monitors Trip 6 9-10 23-33 Restricted Monitor Sample Flow (3) i -
Low Level' Monitors Trip 5-16 29-32 29-38 High Level Monitors Trip 11-13 30-39 32-53 Primary Coolant Loop Transit 9
24 38 Non-Leaking Loop Low Level 14-18 32-36 56-62 Monitor Trip (Unrestricted monitor flow trip plus
~
. primary coolant transit)
(1) Monitors tested individually. Range of response times are for all monitors.
(2) Monitors tested as a system. Range of response times for low level monitors are based upon first two of three monitors in a loop to trip. Response time for high level monitors are based on first of the two mGnito.'s to trip.
(3) Restricted detector riows are 40 sec/seo. ror 705 power test and 15 sec/see for 25 and 55 power tests.
1 l
(
MOISTURE r 1 INJECTION b
C0%n U.TM'?.
C 2101
..;;- ?;. -
'l "
LOOP 1
.-!M.:: :....
C 2102 toy:.
?.' -.
ly.3 pj}.?,!!9?
C 2103
' LOOP 2
~g:::@.
C 2104
..:g.'C
-:.'<:I.:.'.:
- 5!
r-1 I
- i.i:41:
y.11XXX lr1
).'C.'2IO1 ;
4 V 11XXX 1 I
M 1
.c*.C;21c2 v.:1Xxx
~
x-
,V.11XXX 2 i
i L C 2101-J
.:>4 v.11X X X MT
.i<C 2103 - --['
X
>r v.itxxx 11XX CIRCULATO R "A" y 219.4
- C; PICK UP RAKE
- if J+.
FV 11XX FE 25 (BYPASS VALVE) f gxX p--
V 11XXX
}/j-).b, V 11XXX 2
- +-l V 11XXX 1 CIP.CULATOR
. ;..'i:N INLET PLENU'.1 LOOP 1
@. f.
ii.$[ff'.
' et -
li M PCRV 1
Fig. 1.
Schematic diagram of DPMM system O
t c
.,_-r
l i
INJECTION PRESSURE PRESSURE (P4)
REGULATOR INJECTION P
(V 14)
VALVE (V 8) 8
[)
FLOWMETER (FM-2)
U l
l l THERMOMETER HELIUM HELIUM I
SUPPLY BUBBLERQ BOTTLE
-a 53.1
,N.ig,}g.,g HEAT TAPED OR He i
l INJECTION LINE TRAILER d@
.n WATER v gu
.c
_ HEATER f,,,?g,,g,(,
n, l
,c LMCtcMaanNWN
. /
1/2 IN. COPPER TUBING
, i TO CIRCULATOR PENET B6 SUPPLY RAKES Isolation V11786 V11824
[r~JJJ22212121~~'~JJI j' C 2101 l l PENET B 5 l l LOOP 1 V11984 V11819 l l l
f7:::::::::::_:_:_:::.'
C 2102 PENET B 1 v.3 V11777 V11803 M
'[j.:: __; ::_.! :;;
C 2103 sl PENET B 2 LOOP 2 V11781 V11809 l I
'[;
_:1::__:._____:I.
C-2104 MOISTURE INJECTION CONNECTIONS Fig. 2.
Schematic diagram of moisture injection arrangement e
6 w
--j w,
v.-
-wr91
i I
I I I i Il 1
I I
i i i i I l HIGHfRESSURE REACTOR TRIP (FROM G A A13677, FIG. 4-2, REF.1) 100
~
A MT 1115 D MT 1118 80 O MT.1122
-- PRE 01CTED FROM GA A13677. FIG. 5-8 (REF. U 40 g
9 FSAR VALUE AT 25% POWER T-159 Test (RE F. 2)
G e Low Level Detectors -
\\
h High Level Detectors x
Acceptance Band for
- 20
\\
Unrestricted
.. Acceptance Band g
\\
g Low Level for Unrestricted Detectors High Level Detectors
=
g
\\' /
FSAR VALUE AT s N 100% POWER g%
q (REF. 2) 10
.I'
. -a W"
S 8
qi y> =
O 6
4 REACTOR POWER
- 5% 11%
25%
50%
100%
I
' ' ' 'i I
I
' ' ' I i 2
SA 03 OJ 1.0 2
4 8
8 to 20 CIRCULATOR AP (P
- Reactor powers are f_SIO)or a higher flow resistance equilibrium core.
Fi's. 3.
Adjusted total response times from test data
~-
-.,w-
-eg...
g