ML20203F161
| ML20203F161 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1986 |
| From: | Davant G, Megan Wright MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203F123 | List: |
| References | |
| 1C88-ST04, 1C88-ST4, NUDOCS 8607300117 | |
| Download: ML20203F161 (28) | |
Text
_ _ _
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 STARTUP TEST REPORT l
Test Number: IC88-ST04 Test Condition: Heatup thru TC-6 i Test
Title:
BOP System Piping Vibration Monitoring Program l
Criteria ,
( ) Satisfied
( ) Leve'l 1 Not Satisfied (X) Level 2 Not Satisfied 12/13/85 l Report Prepared By: Jack D. Southers Date:
MP&L Test Supervisor /GE STD&A Engineer Results Reviewed By: b M. Date: 4/ze /8(,
14P&L S6artup Test Group Leader ,
Date: ikida MP&l"Startdp Supervisor m_
- - k, Date: 3 -} A-SCp GE Lead STD&A Engineer
? e f
Results Accepted By: f j )
~
J.)
e vs Date: -
pqc j 8607300117 860723 PDR ADOCK 05000416 P PDR y .ww. - -- , s.m,.y w...,, , - . , , , , , ,,,,,,_.,,7-,,,,.g 7,,,,,,y---_,..m
.,,,__,,,_.,_,,,,__.y,, _ , , _ _ - , , , , _ . , _ , _ , , _ . - _ _ _ , , , _ _ _ _ , _ - _ . %
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1C88ST04
1.0 PURPOSE
The objective of this procedure was to provide the means of formally documenting an instrumented operational vibration testing program. This program consisted of monitoring Non-NSSS safety related piping systems designated as class 1, 2, or 3 under the ASME III Code and the supports and restraints for these systems.
This test complimented the visual vibration walkdown testing conducted, primarily, during the preoperational phases, under test IC88-ST01.
Vibration monitoring testing'was conducted during startup, functional and power ascension tests under this procedure, to determine if piping deflections were within acceptable limits. Vibration measurements were obtained during operational steady state conditions. Dynamic measurements were obtained during loading conditions such as fast valve closures and relief valve openings.
By comparing pipe deflections measured at selected locations to the expected deflection.at these points, these tests verified that the piping systems, restraints, components and support had been adequately designed to withstand flow induced dynamic loadings under the steady state and transient conditions anticipated during service.
1.1 BOP PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING " STEADY STATE VIBRATION"
! The purpose of this section was to verify that the piping vibrations experienced during Operational Steady State Conditions were within the allowable design limits during various specified steady state operating conditions.
1.2 BOP PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING " DYNAMIC LOADING" The purpose of this section was to verify piping system components and supports had been adequately designed to withstand flow induced Dynamic Loading under transient conditions anticipated during service, by comparing pipe deflections measured at selected locations to the expected deflection at these points.
2.0 CRITERIA
2.1 STEADY STATE VIBRATION The Acceptance Criteria is that the measured amplitude in each direction shall not induce a stress in the pipe more than one-half the endurance limit of the pipe material. Material endurance limits have been obtained from the ASME Code, Sgetion III.
Appendix I. A stress level corresponding to 10 cycles has been used as the endurance limit.
1
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM IC88ST04 The stress level has been converted into an equivalent displacement value using the beam #1.exure formula and are compared to the ,
actual measured displacement, these values are given as expected l deflection limits. Acceptable deflection limits are based on 140% l of the expected deflection limits or 0.020 inches (peak-to-peak), I whichever is greater.
The measured deflections shall not exceed the expected limits specified by Bechtel Engineering and provided in the GGNS Steady State Vibration Special Test Procedure. If the measured deflection is greater than the expected limit but is less than or equal to the acceptable deflection limit given in the Special Test Procedure, the testing may continue and the results may be evaluated for acceptance.
The measured deflections shall not exceed the acceptable limits i specified by Bechtel and provided in the Special Test Procedure. I If the test measurements exceed the acceptable deflection, testing may continue, pending engineering evaluation. If the evaluation determines that the measured deflection is unacceptable, the system or the affected portion shall be isolated and secured. Testing shall be continued or repeated after corrective actions have been Laplemented.
2.2 Transient Vibration I The total stress due to dynamic loading, plus all other combined stresses, shall not exceed ASME Section III or ANSI B31.1 allowable stresses.
For those cases where transient events have been analyzed, the expected deflectior limits are based on the analysis, and the acceptable deflections are based on the existing stress margins.
For those cases where transient events have not been analyzed, only the acceptable deflection limits are provided based on the eststing stress margin.
For pump start /stop events, the acceptable deflection limit (0.125 inches peak-to-peak) is based on the available stress margin.
The measured deflections shall not exceed the expected limits specified by Bechtel Engineering and provided in the GGNS Dynamic Vibration Special Test Procedure. If the measured deflections exceed the expected limits but are less than the acceptable limits, the testing may continue, provided the measured deflections are evaluated.
2
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM IC86ST04 The dynamic movements measured during transient loading shall not i exceed the acceptable limits specified by Bechtel and provided in ,
the Special Test Procedure. If the measured deflections exceed the '
acceptable deflection limits, the plant shall be placed into a mode of operation that would minimize the potential of repeating the ,
transient until such time as an engineering evaluation has been l completed.
3.0 PLANT CONDITIONS:
3.1 BOP PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING " STEADY STATE VIBRATION" 3.1.1 25 Z Main Steam System Flow Dcte: November 16, 1984 Thermal Power: 924.26 We Generator output: 239.39 We Dome Pressure: 971.32 PSIA Core Flow: 39.80 MLB/hr Steam Flow: 24.85%
3.1.2 50 Z Main Steam System Flow Date: November 28, 1984 Thermal Power: 2114.75 W t Generator Output: 608.91 We Dome Pressure: 1038.81 PSIA Core Flow: 65.06 MLB/hr Steam Flow: 52.1%
3.1.3 75 Z Main Steam System Flow Date: May 1, 1985 Thermal Power: 2838.25 We Generator Output: 817.88 We Dome Pressure: 1003.20 PSIA Core Flow: 77.39 MLB/hr Steam Flow: 70.3%
3.1.4 100 I Rated Main Steam System Flow Date: May 16, 1985 Thermal Power: 3668.8 We Generator Output: 1181.25 We Dome Pressure: 1029.44 PSIA Core Flow: 111.05 MLB/hr Steam Flow: 95.2%
3
B0P SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM IC88ST04 3.1.5 Main Stes.n Bypass System Operation Date: April 29, 1985 Thermal Power: 486.04 Wt Generator Output: 0 We Dome Pressure: 964.20 PSIA Core Flow: 32.72 MLB/hr Total Steamline Flow: 1.95 MLB/hr Average Bypass Valve Position: 29%
3.1.6.1 Rated RHR Flow - Heat Exchangers Bypassed (A Loop)
Date: November 16, 1983 Thermal Power: 0 Wt Generator Output: 0 We Dome Pressure: 14.70 PSIA Core Flow: 33.94 MLB/hr "A" RHR Flow: 5154 GPM "B" RHR Flow: O GPM "A" RHR Suction Temp: 100'F "B" RHR Suction Temp: 100*F 3.1.6.2 Rated RHR Flow - Heat Exchangers Bypassed (B Loop)
Date: July 13, 1984 Thermal Power: 0 Wt Generator Output: 0 We Dome Pressure: 14.70 PSIA Core Flow: 27.70 MLB/hr "A" RHR Flow: 5041 GPM "B" RHR Flow: 5053 GPM "A" RHR Suction Temp: 153*F "B" RHR Suction Temp: 159'F 3.1.7 Rated RHR System Flow through Heat Exchangers (A Loop)
Date: July 29, 1985 Thermal Power: 3664.97 Wt (95.6%)
Generator Output: 1145.8 We Core Flow: 109.27 M1b/hr Dome Pressure: 1032 PSIA "A" RHR Flow: 7800 GPM "B" RHR Flow: 0 GPM "A" RHR Suction Temp: 80*F "B" RHR Suction Temp: 128'F 4
B0P SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM IC88ST04 3.1.7.1 Rated RHR System Flow Through Heat Exchangers (B Loop)
Date: July 30, 1985 Thermal Power: 3115.5 MWt Generator Output: 948.9 MWe Dome Pressure: 1014 PSIA l Core Flow: 112.8 M1b/hr l "A" RHR Flow: 0 GPM "B" RHR Flow: 8000 GPM "A" RHR Suction Temp: 81*F "B" RHR Suction Temp: 129'F 3.1.8 RCIC System Piping Date: January 3, 1985 Thermal Power: 1890.13 MWt Generator Output: 539.16 Mwe Dome Pressure: 988.20 PSIA Core Flow: 74.44 MLB/hr RCIC Turbine Speed: 4172 RPM RCIC Discharge Flow: 800 GPM (100%)
RCIC Discharge Temp: 119.2*F 3.1.9 Rated RWCU System Flow:
Date: November 8, 1983 Thermal Power: 12.43 hut Generator Output: 0 MWe Dome Pressure: 411.8 PSIA Core Flow: 27.77 MLB/hr RWCU Pump A Flow: 0 GPM I
RWCU Pump B Flow: 185 GPM (102%)
Recire B Suction Temp: 440*F 3.1.10 Condensate /Feedwater Piping at 25% Main Steam Flow Date: November 17, 1984 Thermal Power: 811.17 MWt Generator Output: 188.44 MWe Dome Pressure: 969.45 PSIA l Core Flow: 39.00 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 4.0 MLB/hr (24.2%)
Condensate Flow: 3.64 MLB/hr Condensate Pump Suction Temperature: 85'F "A" Feedwater Pump Flow: 0 MLB/hr "B" Feedwater Pump Flow: 2.93 MLB/hr (3716 RPM)
Feedwater Header Temp: 305'F 5
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1C88ST04 3.1.11 Condensate /Feedwater Piping at 50% Main Steam Flow Date: November 28, 1984 Thermal Power: 2114.75 MWt Cenerator Output: 608.91 MWe Dome Pressure: 1038.81 PSIA Core Flow: 65.06 EB/hr Total Steam Flow: 8.66 EB/hr (52.48%)
-Condensate Flow: 5.88 Eb/hr Condensat'e Pump Suction Temperature: 101.1*F "A" Feedwater Pump Flow: 4.24 EB/hr "B" Feedwater Pump Flow: 3.80 MLB/hr Feedwater Header Temp: 363.6*F 3.1.12 Condensate /Feedwater Piping at 75 % Main Steam Flow Date: May 1, 1985 Thermal Power: 2838.25 MWt Cenerator Output: 817.88 MWe Dome Pressure: 1003.20 PSIA Core Flow: 77.39 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 11.6 MLB/hr (70.3%)
Condensate Flow: 11.7 MLb/hr Condensate Pump Suction Temperature: 121*F "A" Feedwater Pump Flow: 6.06 EB/hr (3945 RPM)
"B" Feedwater Pump Flow: 5.61 MLB/hr (4039 RPM)
Feedwater Header Temp: 384*F 3.1.13 Condensate /Feedwater Piping at Rated Main Steam Flow Date: May 13, 1985 Thermal Power: 3669.97 MWt Generator Output: 1148.06 MWe Dome Pressure: 1028.31 PSIA Core Flow: 108.42 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 15.9 MLB/hr (96.4%)
Condensate Flow: 11.1 MLB/hr Condensate Pump Suction Temperature: 125'F "A" Feedwater Pump Flow: 7.95 MLB/hr (4006 RPM)
"B" Feedwater Pump Flow: 7.90 MLB/hr (4355 RPM)
Feedwater Heater Temp: 405'F j .
- i 6
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1C88ST04 3.1.14 Maximum Condensate Pump Recirculation Flow Date: April 20, 1984 Therisal Power: 0 Wt Generator Output: 0.0 We Dome Pressure: 14.70 PSIA Core Flow: 46.62 MLB/hr Condensate Flow: 1.39 Mlb/hr Condensate Pump Recirc Flow: 5.04 MLB/hr -
Condensate Pump Suction Tempt 85.4*F 3.1.15 Small Bore Piping and Instrument Lines at 25% Main Steam Flow Date: November 27, 1984 Thermal Power: 923.98 Wt Generator Output: 212.19 We Dome Pressure: 969.45 PSIA Core Flow: 39.59 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 3.55 M1b/hr (21.5%)
3.1.16 Small Bore Piping and Instrascent Lines at 50% Main Steam Flow Date: November 28, 1984 Thermal Power: 2114.75 W t Generator Output: 608.91 We Dome Pressure: 1038.91 PSIA Core Flow: 65.06 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 8.6 M1b/hr (52%)
3.1.17 Small Bore Piping and Instrument Lines at 75% Main Steam Flow Date: May 5, 1985 Thermal Power: 2838.25 Wt Generator Output: 817.88 We Dome Pressure: 1003.20 PSIA Core Flow: 77.39 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 11.852 Mlb/hr (71.8%)
3.1.18 Small Bore Piping and Instrument Lines at Rated Main Steam Flow Date: May 16, 1985 Thermal Power: 3665.62 Wt Generator Output: 1180.69 We Dome Pressure: 1029.44 PSIA Core Flow: 111.42 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 15.881 Mlb/hr (96.2%)
7
B0P SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM 3C88ST04 3.1.19 Maximum Recirculation Pump Flow on IIMG Set Date: January 4, 1985 Thermal Power: 1305.72 Wt Generator Output: 351 We Dome Pressure: 978.45 PSIA Core Flow: 41.95 MLB/hr (B) Recire Flow: 10,700 GPM (B) Recire Suction Temp: 500.9'F 3.1.20 Minimum Recirculation Pump Flow at Fast Speed Date: January 4,1985 Thermal Power: 1500.50 Wt Generator Output: 384.85 We Dome Pressure: 979.95 PSIA Core Flow: 45.33 MLB/hr (B) Recire Flow: 12,300 GPM (B) Recire Suction Temp: 511.9*F 3.1.21 75 % Recirculation Pump Flow Date: April 23, 1985 Thermal Power: 2514.34 W t i
Generator Output: 721.69 We Dome Pressure: 994.95 PSIA Core Flow: 91.17 MLB/hr (B) Recirc Flow: 37,700 GPM (B) Recire Suction Temp: 523*F i 3.1.22 Rated Recirculation Pump Flow l
Date: May 16, 1985 Thermal Power: 3663.13 W t Generator Output: 1180.69 We Dome Pressure: 1029.06 PSIA Core Flow: 111.0 MLB/hr (B) Recire Flow: 43,925 GPM (B) Recirc Suction Temp: 528.4P"?
l 8
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM IC88ST04 3.2 BOP PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING " DYNAMIC LOADING" 3.2.1 Turbine Control Valve Closure (TC-2)
Date: January 9, 1985 Thermal Power: 1219.17 w t (31.8%)
Generator Output: 276.75 We Dome Pressure: 975.45 PSIA Core Flow: 41.55 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 4.966 MLB/hr 3.2.2 Turbine Stop Valve Closure (TC-3)
Date: April 25, 1985 Thermal Power: 2754.34 Wt (71.8%)
Generator Output: 826.88 We Dome Pressure: 1001.70 PSIA Core Flow: 108.28 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 11.4 MLb/hr 3.2.3 Turbine Control Valve Closure (TC-6)
Date: May 17, 1985 Thermal Power: 3814.50 W t (99.5%)
Generator Output: 1225.69 We Dome Pressure: 1035.06 PSIA Core Flow: 109.73 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 16.7 MLB/hr 3.2.4 Relief Valves (F047D and F051D)
Date: January 3, 1985 Thermal Power: 2040.22 Wt (53.2%)
Generator Output: 555.75 We Dome Pressure: 1015.20 PSIA Core Flow: 75.56 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 8.2 MLB/hr 3.2.5 Relief Valves (F041A and F041C)
Date: August 16, 1985 Thermal Power: 3681.9 W t (96.1%)
Generator Output: 1140.7 We Dome Pressure: 1034 PSIA Core Flow: 102.56 MLB/hr Total Steam Flow: 16.11 MLB/hr i
9
- - , - - - , - . . - - .-. ------, - , -. . - - , - . - ~ . - - . . - . - - --
B0P SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM IC88ST04 3.2.6 Full Core Scram Date: January 5, 1985 Thermal Power: 1068.38 Wt (27.9%)
Generator Output: 244.12 We Dome Pressure: 973.57 PSIA Core Flow: 40.88 MLB/hr 3.2.7 Single Rod Scrass Date: November 5, 1984 Thermal Power 712.43 Wt (18.6%)
Generator Output: 174 We Dome Pressure: 969.00 PSIA Core Flow: 38.6 Mlb/hr 3.2.8 RCIC Pump Start Date: October 26, 1983 Thermal Power: 13.35 Wt Generator Output: 0 We Dome Pressure: 968.39 PSIA Core Flow: 16.90 MLB/hr RCIC Turbine Speed 0 - 2287 RPM RCIC Pump Discharge: 0 - 343 GPM RCIC Discharge Temp: 94'F 3.2.9 RCIC Pump Trip Date: November 5, 1983 Thermal Power: 14.25 Wt Generator Output: 0 We Dome Pressure: 967.5 PSIA Core Flow: 15.56 MLB/hr RCIC Turbine Speed 2119 - 0 RPM RCIC Pump Discharge: 389 - 0.GPM RCIC Discharge Temp: 99'F
~
3.2.10 Reactor Feed Pump (A) Start l
Date: December 24, 1984 Thermal Power: 2111.09 W t (55%)
Generator Output: 583.59 We Dome Pressure: 989.32 PSIA Core Flow: 73.78 MLB/hr "A" Feedwater Pump Flow: 0 - 4.2 MLB/hr "A" RFP Turbine Speed: 0 - 2509 RPM "B" Feedwater Pump Flow: 8.4 MLB/hr "B" RFP Turbine Speed: 3862 RPM 10 l
l
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM IC88ST04 3.2.11 Reactor Feed Pump (A) Trip Date: December 24, 1984 Thermal Power: 2111.09 Wt (55.1%)
Generator Output: 583.59 We Dome Pressure: 969.3 PSIA "A" Feedwater Pump Flow: 7.96 - 0 MLB/hr "A" RFP Turt.ine Speed: 4111 - 0 RPM "B" Feedwater Pump Flow: 8.26 MLB/hr "B" RFP Turbine Speed: 4424 RPM 3.2.12 Condensate (B) Pump Start Date: April 17, 1984 Thermal Power 0 Wt
- Condensate Flow: 0 MLB/hr Condensate Pump Suc. tion Temp: 71.7'F 3.2.13 ' Condensate (B) Pump Trip Date: April 17, 1984 Thermal Power: 0 Wt
- Condensate Flow: 0 MLB/hr Condensate Pump Suction Temp: 71.7'F
- No flow is seen at this point because the plant was not in long cycle clean-up (i.e. flow bypasses sensor).
3.2.14 MSIV Closure Test not performed. Refer to Section 5.2.14.
4.0 RESULTS
- he vibration monitoring data obtained throughout this program was derived from an assortment of specially installed sensors. Specifically, FRA-MAR Displacement Vibration Transducers (Lanyard Pots), Columbia Model #832-1 Uni-Axial Accelerometers and Resistance Temperature Detectors (RTDs) were installed at preselected points on process piping i
and instrument piping systems. These points were established by Bechtel l Power Corporation prior to fuel loading, for both vibration and thermal expansion testing programs.
l Data obtained from the lanyard pots were recorded on the GETARS Transient l
Recorder (a high speed data processor) using a Validyne HD-310 High Speed Data Acquisition System. Validyne BA-332 Signal Conditioning cards were used, set up with a 45 Hz low pass filter to remove extraneous 60 Hz electrical noise.
11
1 BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION HONITORING PROGRAM IC88ST04 1
I Data obtained from the accelerometers (used on small bore piping and instrument lines) was conditioned through a remote charge converter, Endevco Model 2652M14, and line driver, Endevco Model 4479.1, and recorded on an FM Magnetic tape recorder. The recorded data was analyzed by WVle Laboratories, utilizing thei- Advanced Data Analysis and Reduction System (ADARS), using a 2Hz hir's ass digital filter and a 200 Hz low pass analog filter. The data re i .on program integrated the accelerometer output as a function of' time to obtain velocity and displacement information. The displacement values wire then compared to the test criteria.
Test data was submitted to MP&L's Nuclear Plant Engineering, Piping Analysis group, for evaluation /resolu' tion of failures. Documentation of the resolutions were transmitted to the Startup Group under memo (PMI).
Section 4.1 lists the steady state vibration results by sensor and subsection.
In this section one sensor, IE12G17402VAY, exceeds the expected limit, which was evaluated and accepted by Nuclear Plant Engineering. All other values were below the expected limits. (
Reference:
PMI 85/6195)
Section 4.2 lists the Dynamic Vibration Results by sensor and test subsection. In this section 13 sensors exceeded the expected limit, 9 of which exceeded the acceptable limit. NPE, through a more detailed evaluation and analysis of each individual exceedance, has determined them to be acceptable. (Ref: PMI 85/4178, 85/6195, 85/0884, 85/2139 and 84/15270)
NOTES PERTAINING TO TABLE 4.1 AND 4.2 (a) Sensor IE12G17402VAY exceeded the expected limit. Through evaluation, NPE determined it to be acceptable since no design stress limits were exceeded; reference PMI-85/6195.
(b) Sensor IN11G00101MLX exceeded the expected limit. NPE analyzed vibration data recorded during SU-27-2 (Generator Load Rejection within Bypass Capacity) and determined its movement to be acceptable; reference PMI-85/4178.
(c) Sensors IN11G00102MLY, IN11G00103MLY, IN11G00101MLX and IN11G00301MLZ exceeded the expected limits. NPE analyzed vibration data recorded during SU-27-3 (Turbine Trip) and determined the movement to be acceptable; reference PMI-85/4178.
(d) Seven sensors exceeded the criteria limits, two sensors on SRV tail pipes exceeded the " acceptable" limit and one sensor on the SRV tail pipe and four sensors on main steam lines in the Turbine Building exceeded their respective " expected" limits but were within " acceptable" limits. NPE has reviewed these recorded vibration data and found them to be acceptable. For the two values that had exceeded the acceptable limits, a review of calculated acceptance limits was performed and a revised 12
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1C88ST04 expected and acceptable limit has been determined. Table 4.1 gives the recorded data along with the corresponding acceptance limits. The sensors which exceeded the " expected" limits are determined to be acceptable since no design stress limits are exceeded.
Based on the above, NPE has concluded that the recorded vibration data is acceptable; reference PMI-85/6195.
, (e) Plant Staff requested and received permission from NPE to eliminate the MSIV closure vibration test; reference PMI-85/4142. Elimination of this test was approved by the NRC based on the fact that a full power Generator Load Rejection test would be performed. Refer to Section 5.2.14 for further information.
(f) Sensor IB21G02301MLA exceeded its acceptable limit and IB21G02303 MLL exceeded its expected limit. NPE evaluated and determined them to be acceptable; reference PMI-85/0884.
(g) Sensors 1,C11G00101MAZ, IC11G00103 MAX and IC11G00104 MAX exceeded the expected and/or acceptance values. The CRD piping was analyzed utilizing recorded data by Bechtel. The piping stresses and support loads were within allowable limits; reference PMI-84/15270.
(h) The maximum peak-to-peak displacements calculated at the four accelerometer locations were compared with the corresponding criteria values for Full Core Scram specified in Reference 4. For the recorded displacement data, the CRD piping was analyzed to determine the acceptability of stresses. As per Reference 2, the pipe stresses are within the allowable stress margin.
Therefore, the recorded CRD vibration data for the Full Core Scram condition are acceptable. The piping analysis results are documented as calculation STR-84, Rev. A at GFD, references MPT 85/0296, PMI-85/2139 and Bechtel Specification 9645-M-275.0.
(i) Expected and Acceptable limits were revised for sensors IB21G02301MLA, 2303 MLL and 2401 MLA per PMI-85/6195; also, see Note (d).
(j) Sensor N19G00101VLX exceeded its acceptance limit. NPE evaluated the piping displacements due to pump start /stop as recorded by the lanyard pots N19G00101VLX and VLY in the condensate system. The evaluation
, consisted of comparing the available stress margins to the stresses due to transient pump start /stop load case. The calculated margins of 8500 psi will accommodate the pipe deflections due to pump start /stop and therefore would not cause pipe overstress.
l l
\
13 l
1 I
t l
-_-_o
f 80P SYSTEM PIPING l VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM .
, IC88ST04 1
I4.1 RESULTSVERSUSCRITERIA-STEADYSTATEVIBRATION(INCHESPEAK-TO-PEAK)
I SUBSECTIONS I SENSOR A B A B
, IDENTIFICATION 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6.1 3.1.6.2 3.1.7 3.1.7.1 3.1.8 3.1.9 EXPECTED ACCEPTABLE l IB21G0310lVLX .0055 .00732 .005 .0183 .540 .756 i IBZlG0310ZVLY .0018 .00366 .037 .0347 .626 .876 IB21G03103VLX .0018 .00915 .011 .0201 .562 .787 IB21G03104VLY .0037 .00549 .004 .0128 .654 .916 I IB21G1890lVAY .00465 .00773 .0162 .0067 .236 .330
) IMllG0030lVLZ .0165 .584 .818 i IM11G00401VLX .0055 .042 .059 i lE12G0100lVLX .0037 .0092 .0036 .0073 426 .596
- IE12G0100lVLY .0000 .0018 .0018 .0018 .010 .020 j IE12G0100lVLZ .0018 .0293 .0018 .0018 .426 .596 4
IE12G0100ZVLZ .0018 .0018 .0018 .0036 .010 .020
) IE1200120lVLY .0055 .0055 .0036 .0018 .012 .020 l 1E12G01202VLZ .0037 .0037 .0018 0.0 .010 .020
- IE51G0010lVLZ .0037 .020 .028 l lE51G00201VLX .0055 .014 .020
! IE51G00202VLY .0037 .030 .042 i IE51G12401VAX .0043 .052 .073 i lE51G12402VAZ .0114 .052 .073 IE51G16801VAZ .0111 2.000 2.800 IE51G16802VAY .0058 .800 1.12 lE51G16901VAZ .0108 494 .692 IB33G0240lVLY .0036 .474 .664 IB33G0240lVLL .0036 .474 .664 l
i I
i 1
14
(
1
~
80P SYSTEM PIPING ..
i VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM i
IC885T04 4.1 RESULTSVERSUSCRITERIA-STEADYSTATEVIBRATION(INCHESPEAK-TO-PEAK)
SUBSECTIONS SENSOR IDENTIFICATION 3.1.10 3.1.11 3.1.12 3.1.13 3.1.14 3.1.15 3.1.16 3.1.17 3.1.18 EXPECTED ACCEPTABLE i IN21G00102VLY .0091 .0073 .013 .0128 .112 .157
- TN21G0010ZVLZ .0018 .0018 .004 .0054 .076 .106 IB2150260lVLY .0055 .199 .279 IB21G0260ZVLX .0183 .41 .574 IB21G02604VLY .0018 .116 .162 IM19G0010lVLX .022 .0256 .029 .0275 .049 .536 .750 IN19G00101VLY .0037 .0054 .002 .0037 .040 .142 .199
, IN19G0020lVLX .0146 .0219 .022 .022 .0036 .052 .073
- IN19G0030lVLX .0018 0.0 .002 .0018 .536 .750
! IN19G0030lVLZ .0256 .0128 .022 .0256 .310 434
, IN19G0040lVLZ .0018 .0018 .009 .0018 .460 .644
- IN19G0040lVLY .0018 .0054 .002 .011 .156 .218 *
! IE12G1740lVAL .0049 .0075 .0081 .0116 .016 .022 i
lE12G17402VAY .0042 .0062 (a).017 .0086 .016 .022
) 'TIG1290lVAY .0046 .0061 .007 .0036 .290 .406
! lE12G1290ZVAL .0022 .0031 .0128 .0053 .138 .193
! lE22G13401VAX .0038 .0071 .00055 .0045 .086 .120 i lE22G13402VAZ .0032 .0138 .001 .0046 .652 .913
! IB21G1200lVAY .0057 .0069 .0125 .002 .720 1.008 i IB21G12002 VAL ~ ~~
.0047 .0072 .0014 .0101 .536 .750
! IB21G1210lVAY .0139 .0165 .0063 .0027 .078 .109 l IB21G1490lVAY .0061 .0055 .0028 .0022 _ .848 1.187 2.453
~
I IB21G1490ZVAL .0059 .0037 .0081 .0047 1.752 IB21G1500lVAY .0114 .055 .0076 .0095 .892 1.249 l La) See note l
l
! 15
l BOP SYSTEM PIPING V!BRATION MONIT03ING .*ROGRAM IC885T04 i
l l 4.1 RESULTS VERSUS CRITERIA - STEADY STATE VIBRATION (INCHES PEAK-TO-PEAK)
! SUBSECTIONS
! SEM50R 3.1.19 3.1.20 3.1.21 3.1.22 EXPECTED ACCEPTABLE l IDENTIFICATION i IB33G24201VAX .0012 .0174 .0037 .0092 1.228 1.719 IB33G2430lVAZ .0039 .0038 .0098 .0018 .738 1.033 IB33G2440lVAY .0D31 1 .0065 .0044 .0017 .980 1.372 l i i
4 d
l i
1 i
i I
1
} 16 3
i . _ . _ __
d I 80P SYSTEM PIPING i VISRATION MONITORING PROGRAM
- 1C88ST04 4.2 RESULTSVERSUSCRITERIA-DYNAMICVIBRATION(INCHESPEAK-TO-PEAK) 4 SUBSECTI0h5 LANYARD POT F051D** F047D** F041A** FD41C** l 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.14t0 3.2.4 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 EXPECTED' ACCEPTABLE ACC. SENSORS .038 .287 IM11G00102MLY .017 (c;l.068 Ld).079 .348
.038 j IN11G00103MLY .016 LcJ.048 Ld).097 .529
.084
- IMllG0010lMLX (b).086 (c;I.156 Ld).184 .252 .516 INllG0040lMLK .035 .242 Ld).761 075 .174 .356 l INllG0030lMLZ .025 (c).192 .065
.0021 .0228 .0065 .0151 .007 0.0102 0.0073 --
l IB21G4010lMAY .100 IBZlG40102 MAX .0098 .0183 .0034 0184 .010 0.0095 0.018 --
- .130 IB21G3970lMAZ .0021 .0056 .0128 .0084 .006 0.0086 0.0108 --
j .045 IB21G39702MAY .0006 .0023 .0023 002 .001 0.0084 0.006 --
i
.0088 .012 .006 0.0158 0.008 -- .030
! IBZlG4190lMAL .0049 .0009
.0026 .007 .008 0.0086 0.0079 -- .165 IB21G41902MAY .0012 .001 l
IB21G0230lMLA .002 .005 (d).128 N/A (f).109 (1) 064 (1).183 j
.010 .020
.060 N/A .043 .075 .215 j IB21GU2302MLL 0.0 .009 IB21G02303MLL 0.0 .003 (d).054 N/A (f).045 (1).036 (1).103
- .090
.030
.002 .003 (d).106 .096 N/A .050 (1).106
- IB21G0240lMLA .095 l
.041 .085 N/A .105 .215 l IBZlG02402MLL .002 .005
.046 .041 N/A .190 .385 l' 1B21G02403MLL 0.0 .003 NORM.060 .070 IC11G0010lMAZ (h).224 (g).260 5/U.100 .140 NORM .50 1.5 ICllG00102MAZ (h).054 (g).065 5/U .90 1.5 NORM.156 .215 5
IC11G00103 MAX (h).223 (g).230 5/U .224 .385 NORM.002 .040 IC11G00104 MAX 5/U .006 .065 (h).103 (g).lll
~5RVs (b) See Notes (e) See Notes (h) See Notes l
l (c) See Notes (f) See Wates (i) See Notes j (d) See Notes (g) See Actes 17
!8
B0P SYSTEM PIPING i VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM l IC885T04 j 4.2 RESULTS VERSUS CRITERIA - DYNAMIC VIBRATION (INCHES PEAK-TO-PEAK)
SUBSECTIONS
! LANYARD POT
- ACC. SENSORS 3.2.8 3.2.9 3.2.10 3.2.11 3.2.12 3.2.13 EXPECTED ACCEPTABLE l lE51GD010lVLZ .034 .D07 -- .125 lE51G0020lVLX .003 .003 -- .125 IE51G00202VLY .005 .003 -- .250 IN19G0050lMLX .009 -- .080 i IN19G0050lMLZ .005 -- .075 l IN21G0010lMLZ .003 -- .340
- IN21G0010lMLY .012 -- 1.000 1 IB21G0260lMLY .005 ~
-- .190 IB21G02602MLX .009 --
.245 INllG0040lMLX .005 .
.252 .516
- IMllG00301MLZ .012 .174 .356 l IN19G0010lVLX .048 (j).170 --
.125 i IM19G0010lVLY .004 .060 --
.125 l1,j)SeeNotes i
i i
4 i.
1 i
1 18
~ - - - _ . -- -
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1C885T04 5.0 DISCUSSION 5.1 Steady State Vibration Monitoring 5.1.1 25% Main Steam System Flow A total of (5) sensors were monitored for this test; two lanyard i on a main steam, two on B main steam and one accelerometer on the B steam flow instrument piping. The test was performed 11/16/84 All of the lanyards monitored showed less than 5 mils peak-to-peak displacement. But due to the lack of a reliable software program to perform the double integration required to convert the acceleration units to displacement, Wyle Laboratories was later contracted to collect the acceleration data and perform the required double integration The test was reperformed on 11/27/84 with all criteria met.
5.1.2 50% Main Steam System Flow
' The 50% Main Steam test was performed on 11/28/84. The same points were monitored as in the 25% testing. A maximum peak-to-peak displacement of 9 mils was recorded on the lanyard pots and 7.7 mils on the accelerometer which were well within the expected limits.
5.1.3 75% Main Steam System Flow The 75% Main Steam test was performed on 5/1/85. The same points were monitored as in the 25% testing. A maximum peak to peak displacement of 37 mils were recorded on the lanyards and 16 mils on the accelerometer which was well within the expected limits.
5.1.4 100% Rated Main Steam System Flow The Rated Main Steam test was performed on 5/16/85. The same points war - monitored as in the 25% testing. A maximum peak to peak displacement of 24 mils was recorded on the lanyards and 6.7 mils on the accelerometer which were, once again, well within the expected limits.
5.1.5 Main Steam Bypass System operation The Main Steam Bypass test was performed on 4/29/85 with the bypass valves open 29% with total steam line flow of 1.95 M1b/hr and reactor pressure of 964 psia. The single monitoring point recorded less than 16 mils peak-te-peak which was well within the expected limits.
19
BOP SYSTEM PIPING V.IBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM IC88ST04 !
5.1.6 Rated RHR System Flow - Heat Exchangers Bypassed l
The Rated RHR System Flow Test with Heat Exchangers I bypassed was performed in two sections. Loop A was tested '
on 11/16/83. RHR (A) flow was 5154 gpm. For all points )
monitored a maximum displacement of 5.5 mils was recorded. l Loop (B) was tested on 7/13/84 with RHR (B) flow at 5053 gpm. )
For all points monitored a maximum displacement of 29 mils i was recorded. All values recorded for both tests were well within the expected limits.
5.1.7 Rated RER System Flow - Through Heat Exchangers The Rated RHR System Flow - Through Heat Exchangers was performed in two sections. Loop (A) was tested on 7/29/85 with RHR (A) flow of 6225 gpm. For all points monitored a maximum displacement of 3.6 mils was recorded. Loop (B) was tested on 7/30/85 with RER (B) flow of 6617 gpm. For all points monitored a maximum displacement of 7.3 mils was recorded. All values recorded for both tests were well within the expected limits.
5.1.8 RCIC System Piping The RCIC System Piping test was performed 10/26/83 with the pump discharge flow at 781 gpm. Due to the lack of software programs to convert acceleration data to displacement, only the lanyard data was recorded. On 1/3/85, the acceleration data was recorded and reduced by Wyle Labs. All data recorded were well within the required limits.
5.1.9 Rated RWCU System Flow The RWCU System test was performed on 11/18/83 with RWCU Pump (B) flow at 4730 gpm. A maximum of 3.6 mils was recorded for points monitored, which was well within the required limits.
5.5.10 Condensate and Feedwater System Piping at 25% Main Steam Flow '
The 25% Main Steam Flow test was performed on 11/17/84. The total steam flew was 3.9 Mlb/hr with condensate system flow at l 3.57 M1b/hr. A maximum of 25.6 mils was recorded for all points '
monitored which is well within the required limits.
5.5.11 Condensate and Feedwater System Piping at 50% Main Steam Flow ;
The 50% Main Steam Flow test was performed on 11/28/84. The total i steam flow was 8.66 M1b/hr. A maximum peak to peak displacement of 25.6 mils was recorded for all points monitored which is well within l
the required limits. j 20
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM IC88ST04 5.1.12 Condensate and Feedwater System Piping at 75% Main Steam Flow The 75% Main Steam Flow test was performed on 5/1/85.
The total steam flow was 11.6 Mlb/hr with condensate system flow at 11.7 Mlb/hr. A maximum of 28 mils peak-to peak displacement was recorded for all points monitored which is well within the required limits.
5.1.13 Condensate and Feedwater System Piping at Rated Main Steam System Flow The 100% Main Steam Flow test was performed on 5/1/85.
The total steam flow was 15.9 Mlb/hr with condensate system flow at 11.1 M1b/hr. A maximum peak-to-peak displacement of 27.5 mils was recorded for all points monitored which was well within the required limits.
5.1.14 Maximum Condensate Pump Recirculation Flow The Maximum Condensate Pump Recire Flow test was performed on 4/20/84. The condensate pump flew was 5.04 Mlb/hr with condensate system flow of 1.39 Mlb/hr. A maximum peak-to-
. peak displacement of 49.43 mils was recorded for all points monitored which was well within the required limits.
5.1.15 Small Bore Piping and Instrument Lines at 25% Main Steam Flow The 25% Main Steam (small bore piping) test was performed on 11/27/85. Twelve points were monitored on small bore piping and instrument lines for this test. A maximum peak-to peak displacement of 13.9 mils was recorded which was well within the required limits.
5.1.16 Small Bore Piping and Instrument Lines at 50% Main Steam System Flow The 50% Nain Steam testing was performed on 11/28/84 monitoring the same 12 points as the 25% testing. A maximus. peak to peak displacement of 55 mils was recorded which was well within the required limits.
5.1.17 Small Bore Piping and Instrument Lines at 75% Main Steam System Flow The 75% Main Steam system testing was performed on 5/1/85. The same points were monitored as in 25% testing. The recorded accelerometer data of 0.017 inches for sensor IE21G17402VAY 21
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1C88ST04 j located on the B LPCI test connection line exceeded the expected limit of 0.016 inches. Exception FP27 was written and forwarded to NPE. Upon completion of NPE's review, it was determined to be acceptable (PMI-85/6195). All other points monitored were well within the required limits.
1 5.1.18 Small Bore Piping and Instrument Lines at Rated Main Steam Flow The 100% Main Steam testing was performed on 5/6/85. The same points were monitored as in 25% testing. A maximum peak to peak displacement of 11.68 mils was recorded which was well within the required limits, including sensor E21G17402VAY (failed at 75%) which measured 8.6 mils peak-to-peak.
5.1.19 Maximum Recirculation Pump Flow on LFMG Set The Maximum Recirculation Flow on LPMG was performed 1/4/85 with the B Recirculation pump at 10,700 gym on low speed.
A maximum peak to peak displacement of 3.91 mils was recorded which was well within the required limits.
5.1.20 Minimum Recirculation Pump Flow at Fast Speed The Minimum Recirculation Flow at Fast Speed test was performed on 1/4/85 with the B Recirculation pump flow at 12,300 gpm. A maximum peak-to-peak displacement of 17.49 mils was recorded which was well within the required limits.
5.1.21 75% Recirculation Fump Flow The 75% Recirculation Drive Flow test was performed on 4/23/85.
B Recirculation flow was 37,000 gpa. A maximum peak to peak displacement of 4.42 mils was recorded for all points monitored which was well within the required limits.
5.1.22 Rated Recirculation Pump Flow The 100% Recirculation Drive Flow test was performed on 5/16/85.
B Recirculation flow as 43,925 gym. A maximum peak to peak displacaent of 9.24 mils was recorded for all points monitored which was well within the required limits.
22
BOP SYSTDi PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING PROGRAM IC88ST04 5.2 BOP Piping Dynamic Events Monitoring various subsections of IC88ST04 BOP System Piping Vibration Monitoring Program were performed in conjunction with the following startup tests at various power levels and plant conditions throughout the power ascension program:
1-C11-SU-05-H, CRD System 1-000-SU-23-6, Feedwater Gystem 1-000-5U-27-2, Generator Load Rejection within Bypass Capacity 1-321-SU-26-2, Relief Valves 1-000-50-27-3 Turbine Trip 1-000-SU-27-6, Generator Load Rejection 1-E12-SU-71-6, RHR System i 1-E51-SU-14-B, RCIC System 5.2.1 Turbine Control Valve Closure (TC-2)
This Subsection was performed in conjunction with section 4.2 of 1-000-SU-27-2, Generator Load Rejection within Bypass Capacity.
No SRV's initiated during the test resulting in a very mild transient. Exception MP114 was written for one sensor that exceeded its expected limits (see Note b). On completion of NPE evaluation, the exception was cleared. All other criteria was met.
5.2.2 Turbine Stop Valve Closure (TC-3) l This subsection was performed in conjunction with section 4.1
- of 1-000-SU-27-3 Turbine Trip. No SRV's initiated as bypass valve activa lon occurred to control reactor pressure.
Exception MP115 was written for four sensors thst exceeded expected limits (See Note c). On completion of NPE evaluation, the axeeption was cleared. All other criteria was set.
5.2.3 Turbine control valve closure (TC-6) i l
This subsection was performed in conjunction with Section 4.1 of 1-000-SU-27-6 Generator Load Rejection. A total of 6 SRV's i were activated during this step, as well as bypass valve quick opening. A total of seven sensors for SRV and Main Steam Piping asceeded the criteria limits specified (See Note d). ,
On completion of evaluation by NPE, it was concluded that the l recorded data for four of the sent. ors was acceptable and that I the Bechtel criteria for the remaining three locations were too conservative and were revised clearing the exception.
l
. All other criteria was met.
23
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING SYSTEM IC88ST04 5.2.4 Relief Valves (F047D and F051)
Relief Valves (F041A and F041C)
SRV's F047D and F051D were actuated in accordance with Section 4.1 of 1-B21-SU-26-2. Two lanyards exceeded the acceptable limits and one exceeded the expected limit. Based on the NPE evaluation this test exception MP43, was cleared. Accelerometer data was accumulated in conjunction with lanyard data but was raduced at Wyle Laboratory in Huntsville. When it was completed and returned-to site and analyzed, one accelerometer was found to have exceeded the acceptable limit. Test Exception MP-72 was written to document the failure. Wyle Labs later discovered an error.in the data reduction of this test; when it was corrected no criteria violation occurred. Exception MP-72 was cleared and all other criteria was set.
5.2.6 Full Core Scram (Normal Scram)
The Full Core Scram was performed in conjunction with startup test 1-000-SU-28-2 (Shutdown from Outside the Control Room). The recorded data of the four accelerometers monitored exceeded the expected and/or acceptable limits for both CRD's monitored (20-61 and 28-45). The CRD piping was further analyzed utilizing the recorded data by Bechtel and the piping stresses were determined to be acceptable, clearing test exception MP-66.
5.2.7 Single Rod Scram (Startup Scram)
The actuation of control rods 20-61 and 28-45 were performed in conjunction with Section 4.3 of 1-C11-SU-05-H (Control Rod Drive).
Two accelerometers exceeded allowable limits and one exceeded expected limits. The data was analyzed by NPE/Bechtel and was determined acceptable based on pipe stress and support design loads. All other criteria were met.
5.2.8 R'CIC Pump Start The RCIC Pump Start was performed at rated pressure in conjunction with Startup Test 1-E51-SU-14-H. All applicable acceptance criteria were satisfied.
5.2.9 RCIC Pump Trip The RCIC Pump Trip was also performed in conjunction with 1-E51-SU-14-H se rated pressure. All applicable criteria were satisfied.
5.2.10 Reactor Feed Pump (A) Start Reactor Feed Pump A was selected for this section and was started normally in accordance with System Operating Instruction 04-1-01-N21-1. All criteria pertaining to this test were satisfied.
24
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING SYSTEM IC88ST04 5.2.11 Reactor Feed Pump (A) Trip The Reactor Feed Pump trip test was performed in conjunction with Feedwater Startup Test 1-000-SU-23-6. Data was compared with acceptance criteria with satisfactory results. During j the test, one sensor was found to be inoperable. Test )
Exception FP-91 was written to document the failed lanyard. l NPE/Bechtel evaluated the transient and determined that the failed lanyard pot was not necessary to acceptably analyze the transient thus closing the exc6ption FP-91. l 5.2.12 Condensate (B) Pump Start i 5.2.13 Condensate (B) Pump Trip The Condensate Pump test was performed in accordance with System Operating Instruction 04-1-01-N19-1 on completion of pump start.
Data was compared with acceptance criteria with satisfactory results. E:vever, on the pump trip one sensor exceeded the acceptable Ifuit. Test Exception EU-85 was written to document this violation. NPE/Bechtel evaluated the transient pump
. start /stop load case, and determined there was no pipe overstress thus clearing exception HU 85. All other criteria were met.
5.2.14 MSIV Closure The full power MSIV Closure test was eliminated in Test -
Condition 6 due to the occurrence of an inadvertent MSIV l
closure / scram during 75% testing. Sufficient data had been recorded by the automatic functioning of the GETARS Transient Recorder to satisfy the reactor performance criteria of the full power startup test. However, no piping vibration data was recorded. Discussions between MP&L General Electric, and the NRC resulted in NRC approval to eliminate the 100% Power MSIV closure test, recognizing the fact that the piping vibration data would not be obtained. This was justified because NPE and General Electric determined that the full power Generator Load Rejection would be a more severe piping transient. The Load Rejection (Turbine Control Valve Fast Closure) induces the more severe transient on the main steam lines due to the relative speed with which the turbine valves close (within 0.2 seconds) compared to the slower main steam isolation valves (3 second closure).
The load rejection transient pressure spike was determined to be much more rapid, and would have a more severe impact on the piping systems outside the containment. The hSIV closure transient has a minimal effect on the Steam Piping outside the l Containment (due to the location of the MSIV's) and since the steam piping covered in this test only includes outside containment piping, supplied by the AE this was considered to be an acceptable test elimination. Refer to attached NRC letter documenting approval of the test elimination.
25
BOP SYSTEM PIPING VIBRATION MONITORING SYSTEM 1C88ST04 6.0 PERTINENT DATA
- 1) Attachment I - NRC letter, T. M. Novak to J. B. Richard; dated May 13, 1985;
Subject:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1
- Change to Initial Test Program a
t 26
I ic88-sTo+
k UNITED STATES
( NUCLEAM REQULATORY COMMISSION guASHit.eTON, D. a. 20008
(.....)
Docket No,. 50 416 May 13. 1985 l
i l Mr. Jackson B. Richard Senior Vice President. Nuclear Mississippi. Power & Light Company P.O. Box 23054 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 .
Dear Mr. Richard:
$Wbject: Grand Gulf Nur.1nr Station (GGNS) Unit 1 - Change to Initial Test program ,
By letter dated April 23,1985 MississippipowerandLight(MP&L) Company requested NRC approval for a change to the GGNS Unit 1 initial test program in accordance with License Condition 2.C.(31). The change would delete the requirement for conducting Startup Test No. 258, Full Reactor Isolation, at 100 percent power. The justification for the change was that an unintentional full reactor isolation at about 755 power adequately met the objective of -
Test No. 258. MP&L 1etters dated April 23 and May 7,1985, provided an analysis of the data resulting from the unintentional isolation and an extrapolation of the data to a full rsector isolation at 100 percent power.
The NRC staff has reviewed the justification and analyses provided in NP&L letters dated April 23 and May 7. 1985. The staff's safety evaluation is enclosed. The staff concludes that, for GGNS Unit 1. the unintentional full reactor isol.ation at about 75 percent power and the associated safety analyses demonstrate that acceptable transient behavior would result from full reactor isolation at 100 percent power. Accordingly, the staff approves the deletion of the requirement to run Startup Test No. 258, Full Reactor Isolation, at 100 percent power in GGNS Unit 1.
The test procedure in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 14 should not be changed as indicated in the April 23, 1985 letter since the FSAR is applicable to both Units.1 and 2 of GGNS. In the updated FSAR, reference may be made to this letter approving the use of the unintentional isolation at 75 percent power to fulfill the objective of Startup Test No. 258 for Unit 1.
- Sincerely.
7 77 Thomas M. Novak. Assistant Director DN7 Div sie ensing
Enclosure:
As, stated cc:__See_next page__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
GRAND GULF Mr. Jackson B. Richard i
Senior Vice President. Nuclear Mississippi Power & Light Company P.O. Box 33054 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 cc: Robert B. McGehee. Esquire The Honorable William J. Guste. Jr.
Wise. Carter Child. Steen and Caraway Attorney General P.O. Box 651 Department of Justice Jackson, Mississippi 39205 State of Louisiana Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70804 Nicholas 5. Reynolds, tsouire 81 shop. Libeman, Cook. Purcell Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley. Jr.
and Reynolds Vice President. Nuclear Operations 1200 17th Street N.W. Mississippi Power & Light Company Washington, D.'C. 20036 P.O. Box 23054
. Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mr. Ralph T. Lally Manager of Quality Assurance Middle South Servjees. Inc.
P.O. Box 61000 New Orleans. Louisiana 70161 Mr. Larry F. Dale. Director Nuclear Licensing and Safety Mississippi Power & Light Company P.O. Box 23054 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Mr. R. W. Jackson. Pro,1ect Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation 15740 Shady Grove Road Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760 Mr. Ross C. Butcher Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
' Route 2. Box 399 Port Gibson, Mississippt 39150 J. Nelson Grace.. Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Region II 101 Marietta Street. N.W., Suite 7900 Atlanta Georgia 30323 Mr. J. E. Cross. General Manager -
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station' Mississippi Power & Light Company P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson Mississippi 39150
1 INCLOSURE
, SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT MODIFICATION TO INITIAL TEST PROGRAM GRAND GULF UNIT 1 DOCKET N0. 50-416 INTRODUCTION By letter dated April I3.1985. MP&L requested NRC approval of their proposed elimination of Startup Test 258 (Test 258), Full Reactor Isolation at 100% full power FP . in the Initial Test Program for Grand Gulf Unit 1. As back a full (rea)ctor isolation event at 755 full power occurred 1985.
on April With the exception of main steam header vibration, this transient event was fully instrumented. The transient data were reviewed by MP&L and extrapolated
- to 1005 FP. Based on this analysis and extrapolation, MP&L concluded that the '
objective of Startup Test 258 was fulfiled and requested the NRC to accept the 755 FP trip event in place .of the scheduled 2005 FP test.
- EVALUATION The NRC reviewed the April 23. 1985 submittal and requested additional infoma-tion and substantiation by letter dated May 3,1985. A response to the May 3 request was received from MP&L dated May 7.1985. Sufficient detail and sub-stantiation was received to enable the staff to complete its review.
~0ne consideration in the staff's evaluation is thct the 75% FP data cor.servatively extrapolated to 1001 FP compares favorably with data taken from other BWR-6's.
The staff's original acceptance of the Initial Test Program was based in part on operating experience and test results at similar plants.*
Another consideration is that the 755 FP data extrapolated to 1001 FP indicate that the test objective and the acceptance criteria of $tartup Test No. 25B were met. The pressure transient was conservat'ive with respect to the original pre-diction. The feedwater system provided good water level control during the 75%
FP event and no significant difference is expected for a full power event.
Another consideration is that Startup Test 27 (Test 27). a turbine trip and generator load rejection is scheduled to be perfomed at 100% FP. Although this test does not replicate all aspects of the full reactor isolation test at
'See Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Grand Gulf Nuclear i
Station. Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0831. September 1981. Chapter 14 " Initial Test
%@O0?[900S }ffL --
15:23 NU.W1W ces
, 05/13/85 Page 2 Enclosure 2005 FP, it will provide additional verification of the plant's capability to respond to operational transients at 1005 FP. Test 27 will provide data regard-ing the pressure transient and feedwater level control that may be as severe as the transient expected by performing Test 258. In addition to reactor process variables, main steam header vibration will be monitored during Test 27 so that dynamic loading on the main steam pipe can be assessed.
Another consideration in staff's evaluation is that the full reactor isolation test at 1005 FP is an unnecessary challenge to plant safety systems.
- One final consideration in the staff's evaluation of MP&L's proposal is that all components, instrumentation, and actuation logic associated with full reactor isolation have been tested previously during the preoperational startup program.
These components will continue to be surveyed periodically to verify correct performance.
CONCLUSION Based on its review, the staff concludes that the analysis of results from the full reactor isolation event at 755 Fp demonstrates acceptable transient behavior for full reactor isolation at 1005 FP. Accordingly the staff approves the elimination of Startup Test No. 258, full reactor isolation at 100% FP from the Initial Test Program for Unit 1.
9 e
O 1
i
- - - - . - - . - - .- -. _ - _ - - - - - - _ . _ - . - - .-- -. _. ._- - .. -