ML20090G696

Natural Circulation Demonstration Comparison Between VC Summer Station & South Carolina Electric & Gas Training Simulator

ML20090G696
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	07/16/1984
From:	SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20090G693	List: ML20090G688 ML20090G696
References
NUDOCS 8407250177
Download: ML20090G696 (23)

Text

m

c i e* *.

?

{~ 4 g l. 6, r y.. if -

y

', f l

t t

f NATURAL CIRCULATION' DEMONSTRATION COMPARISON BETWEEN THE V. C. SUMMER STATION AND THE SCE&G TRAINING SIMULATOR l

8

{

e f

I k

r h

0 1

P 4

-.,,n..

.,n.,

.,.,.,n

.,,+,,.>,.---,-,,cn.,..-.,,n,.,n,,

nn,__,,,--.

e

. 01,..,..,

o-A,,'

NATURAL CIRCULATIOil DEM0tlSTRATI0tl COMPARIS0?1 TABLE OF C0tlTEllTS SUBJECT PAGE 1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 - Objective 2

3.0 Comparison of Natural Circulation Demonstration 4

.4.0 Comparison of Pressurizer Spray and Heater 9

Capability 5.0 Comparison of Core Cooling With A Simulated 12 Loss of Onsite and Offsite AC Power 6.0 Comparison of Station Electrical Blackout 16 7.0. References-19 i

r:

a '.

.* ' l> -

c NATURAL CIRCULATION DEMONSTRATION COMPARISON

_ LIST OF TABLES NO.

TITLE PAGE 1

-Natural Circulation Comparison Initial Conditions 5

2

_ Natural Circulation Comparison Final Conditions 6

3 Natural Circulation Sunnary Data 7

4 Station Electrical Blackout Initial Conditions 17 5

Station Electrical Blackout Final Conditions 18 f.

f 1

11

,,w

.w.,-,ea,-w,

,y

.e

,,,,r

,,,-n pa-w,-----.=

n-,,,eewe-,

-,e-------,

,---m,-

p-a=

NATURAL CIRCULATI0tl DEtt0NSTRATION COMPARIS0tl LIST OF FIGURES NO.

TITLE PAGE 1

AT Limit Vs. Reactor Power 8

2 Response To Opening Of Both Pressurizer Spray 10 Valves,' Plant Versus Simulator 3

Response To Activation Of All Pressurizer 11 Heaters,. Plant Versus Simulator 4

Typical Steam Generator Response.To A 13 Simulated Loss Of Onsite And Offsite AC Power 5-Pressurizer Response To A Simulated Loss Of 14 Onsite And Offsite AC Power 6

Tavg Response To A Simulated Loss Of Onsite 15 And Offsite AC Power iii O

.?-

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared to meet the commitment of Condition (23)b. of the Virgil C. Summer Station, Unit No. 1 Facility Operating License.

Specifically, Condition (23)b., Special

_ Low Power Testing and Training, requires that:

~

- Within twelve months following completion of the startup

. test program, SCE&G shall provide a report describing the results of a comparison of the actual plant data taken during the natural circulation test program to the simulator responses described in the SCE&G letter, T. C. Nichols, Jr.

to H. R. Denton dated March 31, 1982."

This report provides that comparison.

1

9 2.0' OBJECTIVE The objective of this report is to compare the results of the actual data from the V. C. Summer Station Natural Circulation Demonstration Program to the corresponding data from the Factory Acceptance Tests of the V. C. Summer Training Simulator.

The same acceptance criteria was used in both cases.

The program includes the following tests.

1.

Natural Circulation Demonstration 2.

Pressurizer Spray and Heater Capability 3.

Core Cooling with a Simulated Loss of Onsite and Offsite AC Power 4.

Station Blackout The simulator tests developed for the Natural Circulation and the Core Cooling tests were adapted directly from the corresponding plant test procedures.

The Pressurizer Spray and Heater Capability Test was adapted from the applicable portions of the plant test.

The Station Blackout test comparison is based upon a repeat of the actual plant test performed on the simulator following delivery to SCE&G.

This was necessitated since the Station Blackout test performed during the simulator Factory Acceptance Test was done from a 100% Steady State Full Power, BOL, Xenon Equilibrium condition.

The Station Blackout test at the plant was performed with the reactor at 11% of full power.

It was decided to perform an exact repeat of the plant test to obtain a more direct comparison. The relationship of these tests is shown on the

-following page.

2 L

m

,7 z- _

)

?.y ;y w; ;.- u i ci ;-

Ir

. PLANT TEST SIMULATOR TEST ZPT-9.1 14.4.6.13

~ HST-7 14.4.6.3 ZPT-9.2 14,4.6.14 POT.-ll POT-il Those critical parameters based upon engineering, operations

~

~

tand training considerations are the basis for comparisons made in

' this' report.

h a

.)

,s s

4

.. +

M

- :.e 9

3 3

5

. -, -., _ -. _, _..- -,,. - _. ~, _ _,..,..,

V, 3.0 COMPARIS0N OF NATUP.AL CIRCULATION DEMONSTRATION 3.1 The Natural Circulation Demonstration test was performed on the V. C. Summer simulator as part of the normal Factory Acceptance Test. The simulator test procedure was directly adapted from the plant procedure (ZPT-9.1). The simulator and plant tests were both performed with reactor power at 3 + 1/2 percent. All operational

' steps were the same and were performed in the same sequence. The simulator initially indicated less tnan desired AT.

Subsequent simulator tuning resulted-in extremely close correlation of plant and simulator data.

Tables 1 and 2 indicate the actual readings of

.t e initial and final conditions obtained from the plant and simulator h

instrumentation. Table 3 provides a summary of initial and final temperatures and reactor power for the plant and simulator. Any difference in pressures and levels are due to inherent differences in operator control of emergency feedwater.

Figure 1, calculated from the V. C. Summer FSAR, indicates the resultant oT for the plant and the simulator. The comparison of actual plant and simulator data is ex-tremely close. Operator training for natural circulation operations can be accomplished using the simulator.

3.2 Acceptance Criteria 3.2.1 The highest loop AT is less than the assumed value in the safety analysis for the power level at which the test was conducted.

3.2.2 Natural Circulation has been demonstrated.

4 t

'?'

.s TABLE 1 NATURAL CIRCULATION COMPARISON INITIAL CONDITIONS Plant Simulator Parameter Loop _

Source Value Value

.. Wide. Range THot ( F)

A TR-413 555 556 B

TR-413 555 556 C

TR-413 555 556 Wide Range TCold ( F)

A TR-410 560 556 B

TR-410 F60 556 C

TR-410 550 556 RCS Loop Flow (%).

A FI-414 105 102 8

FI-424 107 102 C

FI-434 110 102 Steam Generator Level (%)

A EI-474 31 36 B

LI-484 37 38 C

LI-494 37 38 SteamGeneratorPressure(Psig)

A PI-474 1060 1100 B

PI-484 1060 1100

- C PI-494 1080 1100 Steam Flow (MPPH)

A FI-474

.30

.50 B

FI-484

.25

.50 C

FI-494

.10

.50 Emergency Feed Flow-(GPM)

A FI-3561 220 230 8

FI-3571 170 235 C

FI-3581 140 230 Pressurizer Level (%)

N/A LI-459 26 28 Pressurizer Pressure (Psig)

N/A PI-444 2220 2225 N/A PI-455 2220 2225

- 5 i

t r

~

y c

-,,.-,m, c.

,y.,-.

m

w TABLE 2 NATURAL CIRCULATION COMPARISON FINAL CONDITIONS Plant Simulator Parameter Looo Sour:e Value Value Wide Range THot ( F)

A TR-413 587 590 B

TR-413 595 590 C

TR-413 587 590 Wide Range TCold ( F)

'A TR-410 559 557 B

TR 410 559 557 C

TR-410 549 557 RCS L'aop Flow (%)

A FI-414

<10 10 B

FI-424 0

0 C

FI-434 0

5 Steam Generator Level (%)

A LI-474 36 34 B

LI-484' 36 39 C

LI-494 38 40 Steam Generator Pressure (Psig)

A PI-474 1060 1100 8

.PI-484 1060 1100 C

PI-494 1080 1100 Steam Flow (MPPH)

.A FI-474

.10

.05 B

FI-484

.25

.05 C.

FI-494

.10

.05 Emergency Feed Flow (GPM)_

A FI-3561 120 240-B FI-3571 150 235 C

FI-3581 130 235 Pressurizer Level (%)

N/A

_LI-459 34 39-

.PressurizerPressure(Psig)

N/A PI-444 2260 2240 N/A -

PI-455 2255 2240 T

6 5

~

.;9' TABLE 3 NATURAL CIRCULATION

SUMMARY

DATA-INITIAL CONDITIONS.

)

Plant' Simulator

.s WR Test P.ccorder Data-Corrected (1)c

. R Data W

Loop

.T T

AT AT T

'T Hot Cold Hot

- Cold AT A

560 560 0

2.087

.556 556 0

B 560 560 0

1.576.

556-556 0

C 553 553 0

0.0(2) 556' 556 0

Average Plant T = 1.83*F Average Simulator T = 0*F' 2.86%

Reactor Power

= 2.95%

Reactor Power

=

FINAL CONDITIONS Plant Simulator WR Test Recorder Data Corrected (I)

WR Data Loop T

T

&T AT T

T JL T Hot Cold Hot Cold A

595 560 35 37.1 590 557 33 B

588 567 21 22.6 590 557 33 C

588 546 42 42.0(2) 590 557 33 Average Plant T = 33.9'F

_ Average Simulator T = 33.0*F Reactor Power

+ 2.86%

Reactor Power

= 3.00%

(1) This wide range AT was corrected for the initial condition offset between wide range and narrow range AT.

(2) The narrow range AT instrument out of service.

7

o

+

. FIG.,

"iT LIMIT' VS. REACTOR POWER

~

....:_. 7 :..... = 5 5 7 c y.... _... _ _. _.......

Cold Pressure.=-2300 Psia

- -~:

- - --- - -j 60.0- --

References FSAR Table 15.2-4

- FSAR TabTe 4.4.1 5o~.0 ASM.E Steara. Tables ZPT-9.1,.ATT. VI n..

.0 u.

g r==9 O

w a

,,J s

.40.0 g

.... _...a.

35.0

r

..6 PLANT FINAla T

._.O...S I MU.L A..T..O R.. F I N AL A T

~ ~_ :

3.00

~

i s.

1

".? 0

-. " i1D

---

20

- - - - - '30

- - 4 0 - - --- " - - m i "..

.. _ Reactor Power [.f of 2775 MW ]

.... - - _ =

t

._w es

..m.*.-*..*

._.s

..-e

.e

..m *e.

...-z.IB**

W6 g

a Ol n,

~

4.0 COMPARISON PRESSURIZER SPRAY AND HEATER CAPABILITY 4.1 The pressurizer Spray and Heater Capability test was performed on the V. C. Summer simulator'as part of the normal Factory Acceptance Tes t.-.The simulator test procedure was adapted from Sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the plant' procedure (HST-7). The simulator and plant tests were both performed from a Hot Standby (Mode 3) condition. All operational steps were the same and were performed in the same sequence.

The plant and simulator response to opening of both pressurizer spray vavles is consistent with the NSSS expected behavior except for the first 15 seconds. During the conduct of the spray test

- for the plant an elevated pressure, above the upper limit, was indicat-

~

ed for the first 15 seconds.

The simulator exhibited this identical anomaly.

Evaluation by Westinghouse (Reference 7.11) concluded that,

" changes in the pressure response of this magnitude are not considered significant".

If should be noted that this anomaly has been sub-stantiated and is reflected in the results of the simulator test as indicated on Figure 2.

The remaining subsequent response of both the plant and simulator closely parallel the expected nominal response.

The response of the plant and simulator to the activation of all pressurizer heaters are within the expected limits. The response of the simulator more closely parellels the expected response, since the simu-

'lator was based on design data.

The overall response of the simulator pressurizer spray and heater capability test confirms and reinforces that which is pre-dicted and expected by the operator trainee.

Figures 2 and 3 indicate the response of both the plant and simulator tests.

4.2

. Acceptance Criteria 4.2.1 The observed pressurizer pressure response to full pressu-rizer spray activation falls between the limits shown on Figure 2.

4.2.2 The observed pressurizer pressure response to full pressu-rizer heater activation falls between the limits shown on Figure 3.

9

..e

.e

.a a

=

..... ~... -

+..

.c

.... ~. -

^"

.C.....

~. - * '

.a.

1,

.g...._

n.

C.

.m-M 1

m w

y J

g s /

C p

Mz D

.....~.......:-.

e.,

w.

Li M

cn N

m,,

.~

ct <

~

.C U m.. y

=

-.. -. =...

vy w

2 y

wm.....-....

<c =

"CQ C.

W C

M v1-W

=

LJ

.......'..'C'..*....

= r.,,

...y r=. O

.C.

g g

N c.

.em.

c, EM.

. O.

.Mc -.. =

.. " ~' '. e _7..

..M

.- Q:

-y

-._.._m.g-....

M.

m y

=

c:

6--

M Cr:

- t.

C C

... a.....

..... V,

, cp

...,,,,a. m

.e.

c a

g T

y 9,

o..n.y-

.. c.

p.

. <[

n _.-.

g..

=

( *'

-f.a.

~,

c.

i.

y

..... _.~

a_

c.

+J m.

C C

F

=,.

_./. -,

.:r.

mq.

t.u

'/

_J

,e U"'

• ,l

\\

/

........ 1,..

,/

o.

c.

.:. s C

m J

_ m W

/

- m.

.i M

./

......./

/

. _..../..

c..

/ :-

/

N.,

..:....... s..

~..

.. _.~

o m-

. L.

i.

A 4

L i

.L J

A i

[

_ m.'..

.C m;...

.c in..

C....

m.. -

.O O

C">.

'm.'.."..

.-' M '

.N

'CQ

• m'

~

~

O O

c M

m.

CQ tc

(""7 m

CO

'7 N

-N--

m O.

O a

Q

,N.

_ N. -

N_

tu

-ty

.....N.

-.c;

-- N.-.. N...-. C1. _

.(.6..L.Sd ) B..J.n.s..s.a.J d..Ja z..t a n.s sa. a g.........

....m

....1

~.

10

{

.o

/

FIGtlilE 3 RESP 0?iSE TO ACTIVATI0ff 0F All. PRESSURIZER llEATER Pl.AflT VERSllS ACTUAL 1

i 1.

.I 8

!V..C. SUMMfR t

i i

~ i 8 T b'. i i

I

. 2335l. '

l i.

i a

].

e'

.I 4

1:-

I l I

i

.I:: 2325!.' -

,i t

I

!~

i I

'.i.

1

. i.

l l'

[

l i

.I;.,i I

i i

.j l

i i

a c

.'., 5!--

i..

3 i

231 I

1 i

L :l

r. 'Vppe.r l,iint t.r i..

i i

3 l

i

-lA i

i l

l 4

s i

.p::

.. p1. t i

i.

I i

I

.t.

.!.m i

i

j 2'05 :.. -

1

i. '-

-t 1

S,imulator Response.

.I i

m i

.i i.

.; c.

i l

1 l.

.I i

i t

i i

~ l j

g l

'fl.2295; -

i

,- n I

.F

+

i

,i s i

i

+w.

1 i

.i m,

i i

r 1

i I

I

-o i

e i

I i

es.

l 5-i

2285 ; -r t,

i -

i-i i

C-4

i...

l'L ls.

i.

4 i.

1 i;.':

1 Plant Resp'onse :

i I. n 1

I r

m I

r u

1E 2q75 i -

!;I s

s

.I a.

i j

1 i

i i

+

m.

8 i

e.

,m

~;

I cs 4

l l

I o,

g-i 2,.2265 1

~

, J. t -

g l

i...

?.

i, w

i i

i l

s i

3 i

1 e

I 3

i f

t t

I l

!..'y' j

l, l.

l'

. 2255 i-g l

U i l.

I l

"l >

]

l-I g.

. Li 1

i.

't l.ower J.imit !

.I i

l l

l j'

l.'.;.

I i

t s

i i

-l:

i i

t i

e '

2245. -

.i.:

r i

?

i i

e i

l..

5-i i.

f.

ir

,t i-

'l

['F 'l I'..

l. h.

I j

l t

j.;' j I

't I.

1I;,'[;

22N5.l '

i

. l

. l'

,l

. :. b

.. I p.I

~

I

]

I I

i.I.'

. l

llI

p Lij h.

.0 :: 2tl :; :41. p:60:

8 1 il,100':.120.p1F.. i]60 i180 200. 220. 240 "1 I:.1'. /,

. 7. : y.. i. I

1..,.

lt

i. 1 t.r e

'i

• l

.i l

i i.

-I

..]

b.

.,.l.i.,

.g-Tiiiie (Seconds). l

..I

.,... 3.... i -

e,

g.

5.0 COMPARIS0N OF CORE COOLING WITH A SIMULATED LOSS OF ONSITE AND 0FFSITE AC POWER

' 5.1 The Core Cooling with a Simulated Loss of Onsite and Offsite AC Power test was performed on the V. C. Summer simulator as part of the normal Factory Acceptance Test. The simulator test procedure

.was directly adapted from the plant procedure (ZPT-9.2). The simulator and plant tests wer,e both performed from a Hot Shutdown condition with T,yg being maintained at approximately 557cF.

The purpose of the tests was to demonstrate the capability of removing decay heat utilizing manual control of the Turbine Driven Emergency Feedwater Pump. The ability to maintain Steam Generator Levels and Pressure,

- Figure 4, and Pressurizer Level and Pressue, Figure 5, was also demonstrated. The results of both tests reflect the operators ability to maintain these parameters. Any differences in pressures and levels are due to inherent differences in operator control of emergency feed-water flow. However, in both cases it can be seen that complete and consistent control was achieved at approximately 35 minutes into the evolutions. Figure 6 iadicated the ability to maintain and/or decrease T,yg using only the Turbine Driven Emergency Feedwater Pump. Operator training can successfully be accomplished using the simulator.

5.2 Acceptance Criteria 5.2.1 Core cooling can be maintained while maintaining steam gene-rator' levels with the Turbine Driven Emergency Feedwater Pumps (simulated loss of onsite and offsite power).

9 12 U.S..

.d.

+.

__E_reUo.c. 4 a..

_ TYPICAL STEAM GENERATOR RESPONSE TO

=

..._ _.. si,..utA_ D - LO SS-O r-Od, S I _i c r n, D-OF r_ n-. _ _et-----.

,c C

r,-

WC.

._..__._.. v _ c.... S UMM ER- - - - ---- --- -- ----

c-- - -

..._.S EAM G NERATOR A LEVEL

.. r_

. c i

c

...__.. Plant g

- L-- R--i

...4 5.._..-.

. i.

p w..... _

....N Simulator- -

~

c

. as..... 3 5 _

a u__..:

l i

i

.I i

i e

i 1

i

. 0.

. c.;.....~ 't O _-. _.15.. 2 O... 25...' ' G _. ' 5 40. _45

...,. e. h.n n+ e s._... _.._. __..

i

. _ =_- _

. s_. _..

n

-.s.

c ce L..a..,

t

.n r_w__1. 2c..

g

~

~....

a n..

c...

.i f

e 1200 n- " - - - -

7------.----.__....-..1._....

u x

.n....

.m

a. -

.u _. 3

.a.

. Simul ato r_

.2

_.a..

.i.

i

..i--...

4

0...u.

5.:

.10.. _2 15 20 225-_.30- --35 40 = :.- 4 5.- =. =.,

._..s

.. _.+....,

T me. ABi nute

=_

e e

=

M __4_'s

^

qMmqM

g M.

_.M

...-13 W.M M e gq Q Q aqqq q

• _W*

G 7

,--.v.-.

... _....... ~.. _ _ _. _.

-.,..., e 3.

f* l b UK.

v PRESSURIZER RESPONSE TO A SI."ULATED

_.c.._....._

LOSS.0F.Gt4 SITE At1D OFFSITE AC POWER s

~

h-

..._. _. 4 0. _... _.. __......... V.-C. SUMM ER

_...c-....

P R e..e. v.. t Z =.=. L =.u. =,

-.L

. 35..-. _......... _...

.__ -~

Plant

~ ~ ~

30._

s

=

.= o

.25

. _ _.p,.mulater

.u

.c.

g

_a

.6 e

i i

i i

i i

u c_ 0. 2.. 5:..10. 15 20 25 -

30 35 40 45 T.ime -(Minutes )

i

.-------=

e g

.. _. r..:.. _. ::..._ PRESSURIZER PRESSURE

.. - 2,,00 _....... ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _.... _ _....

r

.m.

...J.......

. ~.

e en

.. Plant

.....".:~.

5

. Q -.2250 --.

7 _ __ h

_......-...-..4....-

r e

~

~

t E

/

.._.,.._ 2 2 00. -.... _. _.. _... _... _ _...

y c *@

,%. Simulator

. _... _. _ =.

u

...c._2350--

.[-

L=

e.

2100 c

=

I I

i e

i i

8 3

g 0 - ; 5..-10 15 25 30

35 40-

--45 :2= g.

E i

Time Minutes)___....._..

V.

=

i

=

.... ~..

^

.. - ~. _ -........ -

.z 14 J

~r.

o se

-.. FIGURE 6.

T....... RESPONSE TO'A SIMULATED LOSS L.... r....i.

~

.6.

p

.... _.. _. _. - ~ ~ ~ ~.

-OF ONSITE"AND' 0FFSIT$~AOdWER" ~ ~ -

..=..... :.5 c.

1 S7.

~..._.....

. a. V. _. -

,s.6 d6o,. -

A -Plant -

'~- - -

^

~_

o i_

..%. 5602-u s

. u..

e

. c,.

...... Simulator:

2- -

. _.. 555..,

... -.._ /

x

.... __55 0..

=.

..... i..

. l.

t t

.t-i i

i L.....

.. _0:. _:5_.-_210. u.15.. 20 n25:-.1 30 -.: 35-

40 - - --.:-

,t

.... _ =

~ -....

... _ _= -

........i m.

=. _. _.

2

.s.

g e

._.a.

. e

.....e......

...i.....

M6 g

e ep_.e_....

.......u.

+

e.-.....

_Gg..-

.O'

'M-h....._

_, g. _ w. M p W h.6_____

15

6:0~

COMPARIS0N OF STATION ELECTRICAL BLACK 0UT 6:1~

The Station Electrical Blackout Test was performed on the V. C. Summer simulator after delivery to the SCE&G Nuclear Training Center. The simulator test utilized the actual plant Station Electrical' Blackout test procedure (P0T-11). This was necessitated because the Station Blackout test procedure performed during the simulator Factory Acceptance Test was performed from a 100% Full Power condition while the plant test was performed at 11% of full power.

Repeating the test on the simulator at 11% of full power provides a better comparison of initial and final conditions, Tables 4 and 5, between the plant and the simulator.

The results of this test demonstrate that the necessary equipment, controls and' indications are available to remove decay heat using only emergency power supplies.

In tccordance with the: test; procedure, Hot Standby conditions were maintained on the simulator and the plant when the test was performed. The plant test indicated a RCS cooldown, and resultant increased AT and RCS flow rates. Any difference in pressure ano levels are due to inherent differences in operator control of Emergency Feedwater Flow. T.he overall results of this com-parison indicate that operator training for the Station Electrical Blackout scenario can be successfully accomplisned using the simulator.

6.2 Acceptance Criteria 6.2.1 The Hot Standby condition is acheived and maintained for at least thirty minutes using only emergency onsite power sources.

16

c

.=

J:.

')

TABLE 4 STATION ELECTRICAL BLACK 0UT INITIAL CONDITIONS Plant Simulator Parameter Source Value Value PressurizerPressure(Psig)

PR-444 2240 2250 Pressurizer Level (".)

LR-459 28 31 Turbine First Stage PI-446 60 75 Pressure (Psia)

T,yg (*F)

TR-408 564 564 Loop A aT (%)

TI-4118 13 12 Loop 8 aT (%)

TI-4218 14 14 Loop C AT (%)

TI-4318 16 11 Power Level (".)

NR-45 11 11 RCS Flow Loop A (%)

FI-415 105 102 RCS Flow Loop B (%)

FI-425 108 103 RCS F1,ow Loop C (".)

FI-435 112 102

-Main Steam Header PI-464C 1060 1110 Pressure (Psig)

S/G A Steam Pressure (Psig)

PR-475 1090 1120 S/G B Steam Pressure (Psig)

PR-?75 1090 1100 S/G C Steam Pressure (Psig)

PR-475 1090 1100 GeneratorLoad(MW,)

EHC 100 90 S/G A Level (%)

LR-478 55 40 S/G B Level (".)

LR-488 40 39 S/G C Level (%)

LR-498 40 38 S/G A Feedwater Flow (MPPH)

• FR-478

.4

.4 S/G A Steam Flow (MPPH)

FR-478

.4

.4 S/G B Feedwater Flow (MPPH)

FR-488

.4

.6

~

S/G B Steam Flow'(MPPH)

FR-488

.6

.6 S/G C Feedwater Flow (MPPH)

FR-498

.6

.5 S/GCSteamFlow(MPPH)

FR-498

.4

.5 17

l a

TABLE 5 STATION ELECTRICAL BLACK 0UT FINAL CONDITIONS Plant Simul ator Parameter Source Value Value PressurizerPressure(Psig)

PR-444-2200 2240 Pressurizer Level (%)

LR-459 22 21 Turbine First Stage PI-446 N/A 20 Pressure (Psia)

T,yg(*F)

TR-408 530 548 Loop A aT (%)

TI-4118 23 5

Loop B AT (%)

TI-421B 34 6

Loop C aT (%)

TI-431B 25 4

Power Level (%)

NR-45 0

0 RCS Flow Loop A (%)

FI-415 10 0

RCS Flow Loop B (%)

FI-425 15 0

RCS Flow Loop C (%)

FI-435 10 0

Main Steam Header PI-464C 780 818 Pressure (Psig)

S/G A Steam Pressure (Psig)

PR-475 800 815 S/G B Steam Pressure (Psig)

PR-475 800 800 S/GCSteamPressure(Psig)'

PR-475 800 800 Generator Load (MW,)

EHC 0

0 S/GALevel.(%)

LR-478 52 34 S/G B Level (%)

LR-488 40 34 S/G C Level (%)

LR-498 29 34 S/G A Feedwater Flow (MPPH)

FR-478 0

0 S/G A Steam Flow (MPPH)

FR-478 0

.2 S/G B Feedwater Flow (MPPH)

FR-488 0

0

. S/G B Steam Flow (MPPH)

FR-488

.4

.2 S/G C Feedwater Flow (MPPH)

FR-498 0

0 S/G C Steam Flow-(MPPH)

FR-498 0

.2 18

(e-e,.

.;o

7.0 REFERENCES

7.1 ZPT-9.1, Natural Circulation Demonstration, Revision 0, dated May 25, 1982.

'7.2 V. C. Summer Training Simulator Natural Circulation Demonstration, Test 14.4.6.13, Revision 1, dated 6/83.

7.3 HST-7, Pressurizer Spray and Heater Capability and Continuous Spray Flow Settings, Revision 3, dated October 8, 1982.

7.4 V. C. Summer Training Simulator Pressurizer Spray and Heater

- Capability, Test 14.4.6.3, Revision 1, dated 6/83.

7.5 ZPT-9.2, Core Cooling With a Simulated Loss of Onsite and Offsite AC Power, Revision 0, dated June 6, 1982.

7.6 V. C. Summer Training Simulator Core Cooling With a Simulated Loss of Onsite and Offsite AC Power, Test 14.4.6.14, Revision 1, dated 6/83.

7.7 POT-ll, Station Electrical Blackout, Revision 1, dated May 6,1982.

7.8 EPS-1, Station Blackout Malfunction Test Procedure 14.4.7.6.1, Revision 1, dated 7/11/83.

7.9 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1 Amended Operating License.

7.10 Summary Startup Test Report, prepared by Five O Consulting Engineering ~ Services, Inc., dated 7/19/83.

7.11 Letter J. C. Miller of Westinghouse to B. G. Croley of SCE&G, CGE-83-565 dated February 21, 1983.

19