|
|
| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:FloridaPov!er5Ligh>>Co.,St.LuciePlantUnit-.":2DocketHn.50-389CVi-2ee(L}ComprehensiveVibrationAssessmentPrnoramFinalSummarReortFebruary1983Combustion"-ngineering,Inc.:NuclearPou,'erSystemsPowerSystemsGroup!!indsor,Connecticut060958303i50538830310PDRADOCK05000389EPDR | | {{#Wiki_filter:FloridaPov!er5Ligh>>Co.,St.LuciePlantUnit-.":2DocketHn.50-389CVi-2ee(L |
| 'L~llk>~til TAP>LEOFCO<'lTEl!TS1.ItlTRODUCTI0,'lSUtUQRYANDCO."iCLUSIOl'lS3.VIBRATIOilAiNLYSISPROGRAll4.VISUALIl(SPECTIOilPROGPAW2of9 FloridaPowerandLightCn.,St.LuciePlantUnit;-2ComprehensiveVibrationAssessmentProgramIHTROOUCTIOllTheComprehensiveVibrationAssessmentProgram(CVAP;occasionallyreferredtoasthePrecriticalVibration!lonitoringProgram,PV!1P)reportedhereinsatisfiestheHPCRegulatoryGuide1.20(Reference1),requirementsforverifyingthestructuralintegrityofthereactorintmalsforflowinducedvibrationspriortocommercialoperation.TheCVAPprnvidehconfirmation,baseduponprototypePVhPprograms,ananalyticalprogranandaninspectionprogram,thatthehydraulicexcitationsandstructuralresponsesoZtheFloridaPowerandLight,1St.LuciePlantUnit2reactorinternalsarewithindesignestimatesandareacceptableforallnormalsteadystateandtransientmodesofreactorcoolantpumpoperation.AsstatedinReference2,Section3.9.2.4,theilaineYankeandFortCalhounreactorsaredesignatedjointlyastheValidPrototypefortheSt.LuciePlantUni.2CVAP,withSt.LuciePlantUnit2designatedasa!ion-PrototypeCategory1reactor.Reference3{Section3.9.2.3)statesthatthe.'lRCstaffhasaccept-edtheSt.Lucie2programprovidedthat"theapplicantsubmitsacorrelationoftheSt.Lucie2observedvibrationalcharacteristicswiththeresultsfromtheprototypereactors".Reference1requiresthatanaralysisprogramandameasurementorinspectionprogrambeperformedfortheCVAPfor!!on-PrototypeCateqory1reactors.TheanalysisprogramforSt.LuciePlantUnit2CVAPwasreportedinReference2,Section3.9.2.6.AvisualinspectionprogramwithphotographicdocumentationwasperformedforSt.LuciePlantUnit2inlieuofameasurementprogram.ThisreportsummarizestheresultsoftheSt.LuciePlantUnit2CVAPandprovidesanevaluationofthoseresults.2.SUi!l'!ARYAi'l0CO!lCLUSIOl!STheSt.Lucie2CVAPwassuccessfullycompletedinaccordancewiththerequirementsof.'lRCRegulatoryGuile1.20,Revision2{Reference'1).3of9 Thevibrationanalysisprogram,performedinaccordancewithregulatorypositionC.3.1.1ofReference1,providedsufficientevidencetosupporttheclassificationofSt.Lucie2asNon-Prototype,Category1,withthoValidPrototypedesignatedjointlyasViaineYankeeandFortCalhoun.ComparisonoftheSt.Lucie2resultswiththos.fromtheprototypereactorswasfavorable,nocorrectiveactionwasrequiredandnoindicationswereobservedthatwouldnecessitatereactorintmalsmodificationsonSt.Lucie2.TheSt.Lucie2vibrationinspectionprogram,perfor.",edinaccordancewiththeguidelinesnfreoulatorypositionC.3.1.3andC.2.3ofReference1,includedinspectionsoftheSt.Lucie2reactorinternalsbothpriortoandfollowingpre-corehotfunctionaltesting.Thepre-corehotfunctionaltestingincludedallsteady-stateandtransientmodesofreactorcoolantpumpoperation.Heither,realnordurityfuelassemblieswereinpositionforthetesting.ItwasshownbyanalysisthatthoabsenceoffuelassemblieswouldyieldconservativeresultsfortheCVAP.ofreactorinternals.ThecriticalreactorinternalscomponentwiththelowestnaturalfrequencyistheCoreSupportBarrel(CSB).BasedupontheminimumsignificantresponsefrequencyoftheCSB,thecriticalreactorinternalsconponentswersubjectedtoapproximately8.6X106cycles.ofvibrationduringthepre-corehotfunctionaltesting.t(OTE:RegulatoryGuide1.20Revision2recommends,aminimumof1X196cycles.Theinspectionprogramwasperformedwithoutdeviationfromthespecifiedoperatingconditions.Hounanticipatedobservationsorinspectionanomolieswereencountered.Theinspctionsoft"..eSt.Lucie2reactorinternalsrevealednodefects;evidenceofunacceptablemotion,orexcessiveorunduewear.Theinteriorofthereactorvesselwasvisuallyinspectedafterthepre-corehotfunctionaltestingandfoundtobeabsentofanyloosepartsorforeignmaterial.Insummary,theSt.Lucie2CVAPinspectionprogramwasentirelyconsistentwiththeP'/llPoftheHaineYanf:ee.andFortCalhounreactorsandv)iththeSt.Lucie2CVAPanalysisprogram.EvaluationoftheresultsoftheSt.Lucie2CVAPconcludesthatasignificartmarginof.safetyforthestructulalintegrityoftheSt.Lucie2reactor4of9 V | | }Comprehensive Vibration Assessment PrnoramFinalSummarReortFebruary1983Combustion |
| internalswillbemaintaineddurinoallnormalsteady-stateandtransientconditionsofreactorcoolantpumooperation.VIBRATIO!IAHALYSISPROGR,"JlThef1aineYankeeandFortCalhounreactorstogetherconstituteaValidPrototypeforthepurposeoftheSt.Lucie2CVAP.TheSt.Lucie2Plantreactorin-ternalsconfigurationhassubstantiallythesamearrangement,design,size'ndoperationconditionsastheValidPrototype.Hominaldifferencesinarrangement,design,sizeandoperatingconditionshavebeenshnv!nbytestoranalysistohavenosignificanteffectonthevibratoryresponseandex-citationofthosereactorinternalsimportantto,safety;forthesereasons,theSt.Lucie2reactorisdesignatedWon-Prototype,Category1,fortheCVAP.AsmentionedinReference2,Section3.9.2.4,theoreticalpredictionanalyseswereperformedfor,ilaineYankeo(Reference5)andFortCalhoun(Reference6)toestimatetheamplitude,time,andspatialdependencyofthesteady-stateandtransienthydraulicandstructuralresponsestobeencounteredduringprecriticaltesting.ThePVl/Pforf)aineYankeeandFortCalhoundemonstratethatthetheoreticalpredicationmethodsusedprovidedaccurateestimates1ofthesteady-stateresponseofthecoresupportbarrelsystem,whenrasonablebestestimatevaluesforthemagnitudeoftheinletpressurefluctuationsareused.Itwasconcludedfromtheseprogramsthatflov!,inducedvibrationsofthe!laineYankeeandFortCalhounreactorinternalsarewellwithindesignallowablesandareacceptableforallnormalsteady-state,andtransientflowmodesofreactorcoolantpumpoperation.Reference2,Table3.9-4,presentsasugaryofthesignificanthydraulicandstructuraldesignparametersfortheSt.Lucie2,HaineYankeeandFortCalhounreactordesigns.Theeffectsofthesestructuralandhydraulicparametersontheflov!-inducedvibratoryresponseofthereactorinternalsarepresentedinReference2,Section3.9.2.6,whereitisshownthatthenominaldifferenceshavenosignificanteffectsonthestress1vels.Ingeneral,theanalysisoftheSt.Lucie2Unitdemonstratsthat:A.ThepredictedstructuralresponsesoftheSt.Lucie2reactorinternalsarewellwithindesignallowablesandareacceptableforallnormalsteaRy-stateandtransientflov!modesofprimarycoolantpumpoperation.5of9 Lr
| | "-ngineering, Inc.:NuclearPou,'erSystemsPowerSystemsGroup!!indsor, Connecticut 060958303i50538 830310PDRADOCK05000389EPDR |
| ~~B.Theprototypeprecriticalvibrationmonitoringprograms.or)/aineYankeeandFortCalhounadequatelyaccountforthespecificdesignfeaturesoftheSt.Lucie2UnitwhicharesharedbytheValidPrototypereactordesigns.VISUALIl(SPECTIOllPROGRAMTheSt.Lucie2CVAPinspectionprogramwasperformedpertheprocedureofReference4,whichmeetstheintentofregulatorypositionsC.3.1.3andC.2.3ofReference1.Theinspectionprogramincludesphotographicdocument-ationoftheconditionoftheSt.Lucie2reactorin.ernals,bothpriortoandafterpre-corehotfunctionaltesting.Theinspectionwasconductedintwophases.Thefirstphase(baselineinspect-ion)wascompletedonApril22,1982.Thesecondphase(post-hotfunctional,pre-core,inspection)wascompletedonJanuary10,1983.Peference1requiresthatthereactorinternalscriticalcomponentsbesub-jectedtoatleast10cyclesofvibrationpriortotheCVAPfinalinspec,ion,baseduponthecomponent'scomputedminimumsignificantresponsefrequency.TheSt.Lucie2CoreSupportBarrel(CSB)wascalculatedtohavethelowestnaturalfrequencyofthecriticalreactorinternalscomponents.Duringpre-corehotfunctionaltesting,theSt.Lucie2reactorinternalsweresubjectedto1.19X10sec.ofcol'dflow(below350'F)and1.61X106sec,ofhotflow(above350'F).BasedupontheminimumsigniicantresponsefrequencyoftheCSB,theinternalscriticalcomponentsweresubjecttoapproximately8.6X10cyclesofvibration..")eitherrealnorRummyfuelassemblies!vereincludedinthe.hotfunctionaltesting.Thelackoffuelservestoprovidegreaterflowvelocitiesandforcesonreactorinternalscomponentsand,therefore,yieldsconservativeresultsfortheCVAP.Thedetailedinspectionproceduropreparedinaccordancewith'Reference4requiresphotographicdocumentationand'descriptionsofconditionsobservedduringbothphases,inadditiontocommentaryonchangesfromthebaselineinspection.Theinspectionswereperormedandqualityassuredbyqualifiedinspectors.Theinspectionproceduresprovidethetabulationafallreactorinternalscomponentsandlocalareasinspected,whichincludes:6of9 A.Allmajorload-bearingelementsofthereactorinternalsreliedupontnretainthecoresupportstructureinposition.B.Thelateral,vertical,andtorsionalrestraintsprovidedwithinthevessel.C.Thoselockingandboltingcomponentswhosefailurecouldadverselyaffectthes.tructuralintegrityofthereactorinternals.0.Thosesurfacesthatareknowntobenrmaybecomecontactsurfacesduringoperation.E.Thosecriticallocationsnnthereactorinternalcomponentsasidentifiedbythevibrationanalysis.F.Theinteriorofthereactorvesselforevidenceofloosepartsorforeignmatter.Theanalysisprogram(Peference2,Section3.9.2.5)identifiedthecoresupportbarrelupperflangeregiontohavethemaximunstressintensity.Thisregionwas,includedintheSt.Lucie2inspectionstovrifytheresultsofthevib-raionanalysis,thatthemaximumstressintensitiesarebelowallowablestresscriteria.Acomparisonofthebaselinesuraceconditionswiththoseofthepost-hotfunctionalinspec.ionindicatedthatnoabnormallow-inducedvibrationhadoccurredandthatnoreductioninthestructuralintegrityoftheinternalscomponents,closureheadorreactorvesselhadoccurred.Therewereindicat-ionsofnormalamountsofrelativethermalgrowthbetweenthestainlesssteelinternalsandthecarbonsteelvessel.Atareaswherecontactoccurredbetweencoresupportbarrel(CSB)snubbers,guidelugs,andalignmentkeys,littleornowearwasindicated,butclosefi;swereevidentbydiscolorationandsomesurfaceburnishing.Contactbetweenthereactorvessel,upperguidestructureflange,CSBflange,andclosureheadappearedunifnmwithnowear.Allstructuralthreadedfastenersandlockbarsappearedsecureandshowednoindicationsofloading.ThegirthweldsontheCSBallappearedsoundasdidthecoreshroudwelds.Duetolackofindicationofabnormalmovementandcalculationalresultsbasedonpost-hotfunctionaldimensions,itisconcluderlthattheinternalswereprovidedwithadequatelateralan4axialsupport.Inoeneral,allin-ternalscomponentswerefoundtobeinverygoodcondition,theircontact'of9 II areasallappearednormalandasexpectedfollowinghotfUnctional4testingandcomparedfavorablywiththeprototypeinspections.Bof9 | | 'L~llk>~til TAP>LEOFCO<'lTEl!TS 1.ItlTRODUCT I0,'lSUtUQRYANDCO."iCLUSIOl'lS 3.VIBRATIOilAiNLYSISPROGRAll4.VISUALIl(SPECTIOil PROGPAW2of9 FloridaPowerandLightCn.,St.LuciePlantUnit;-2Comprehensive Vibration Assessment ProgramIHTROOUCT IOllTheComprehensive Vibration Assessment Program(CVAP;occasionally referredtoasthePrecritical Vibration!lonitoring Program,PV!1P)reportedhereinsatisfies theHPCRegulatory Guide1.20(Reference 1),requirements forverifying thestructural integrity ofthereactorintmalsforflowinducedvibrations priortocommercial operation. |
| | TheCVAPprnvidehconfirmation, baseduponprototype PVhPprograms, ananalytical progranandaninspection program,thatthehydraulic excitations andstructural responses oZtheFloridaPowerandLight,1St.LuciePlantUnit2reactorinternals arewithindesignestimates andareacceptable forallnormalsteadystateandtransient modesofreactorcoolantpumpoperation. |
| | AsstatedinReference 2,Section3.9.2.4,theilaineYankeandFortCalhounreactorsaredesignated jointlyastheValidPrototype fortheSt.LuciePlantUni.2CVAP,withSt.LuciePlantUnit2designated asa!ion-Prototype Category1reactor.Reference 3{Section3.9.2.3)statesthatthe.'lRCstaffhasaccept-edtheSt.Lucie2programprovidedthat"theapplicant submitsacorrelation oftheSt.Lucie2observedvibrational characteristics withtheresultsfromtheprototype reactors". |
| | Reference 1requiresthatanaralysisprogramandameasurement orinspection programbeperformed fortheCVAPfor!!on-Prototype Cateqory1reactors. |
| | TheanalysisprogramforSt.LuciePlantUnit2CVAPwasreportedinReference 2,Section3.9.2.6.Avisualinspection programwithphotographic documentation wasperformed forSt.LuciePlantUnit2inlieuofameasurement program.Thisreportsummarizes theresultsoftheSt.LuciePlantUnit2CVAPandprovidesanevaluation ofthoseresults.2.SUi!l'!ARY Ai'l0CO!lCLUSIOl!S TheSt.Lucie2CVAPwassuccessfully completed inaccordance withtherequirements of.'lRCRegulatory Guile1.20,Revision2{Reference'1). |
| | 3of9 Thevibration analysisprogram,performed inaccordance withregulatory positionC.3.1.1ofReference 1,providedsufficient evidencetosupporttheclassification ofSt.Lucie2asNon-Prototype, Category1,withthoValidPrototype designated jointlyasViaineYankeeandFortCalhoun.Comparison oftheSt.Lucie2resultswiththos.fromtheprototype reactorswasfavorable, nocorrective actionwasrequiredandnoindications wereobservedthatwouldnecessitate reactorintmalsmodifications onSt.Lucie2.TheSt.Lucie2vibration inspection program,perfor.",ed inaccordance withtheguidelines nfreoulatory positionC.3.1.3andC.2.3ofReference 1,includedinspections oftheSt.Lucie2reactorinternals bothpriortoandfollowing pre-corehotfunctional testing.Thepre-corehotfunctional testingincludedallsteady-state andtransient modesofreactorcoolantpumpoperation. |
| | Heither,real nordurityfuelassemblies wereinpositionforthetesting.Itwasshownbyanalysisthatthoabsenceoffuelassemblies wouldyieldconservative resultsfortheCVAP.ofreactorinternals. |
| | Thecriticalreactorinternals component withthelowestnaturalfrequency istheCoreSupportBarrel(CSB).Basedupontheminimumsignificant responsefrequency oftheCSB,thecriticalreactorinternals conponents wersubjected toapproximately 8.6X106cycles.ofvibration duringthepre-corehotfunctional testing.t(OTE:Regulatory Guide1.20Revision2recommends,a minimumof1X196cycles.Theinspection programwasperformed withoutdeviation fromthespecified operating conditions. |
| | Hounanticipated observations orinspection anomolies wereencountered. |
| | Theinspctionsoft"..eSt.Lucie2reactorinternals revealednodefects;evidenceofunacceptable motion,orexcessive orunduewear.Theinteriorofthereactorvesselwasvisuallyinspected afterthepre-corehotfunctional testingandfoundtobeabsentofanyloosepartsorforeignmaterial. |
| | Insummary,theSt.Lucie2CVAPinspection programwasentirelyconsistent withtheP'/llPoftheHaineYanf:ee.and FortCalhounreactorsandv)iththeSt.Lucie2CVAPanalysisprogram.Evaluation oftheresultsoftheSt.Lucie2CVAPconcludes thatasignificart marginof.safetyforthestructulal integrity oftheSt.Lucie2reactor4of9 V |
| | internals willbemaintained durinoallnormalsteady-state andtransient conditions ofreactorcoolantpumooperation. |
| | VIBRATIO!I AHALYSISPROGR,"Jl Thef1aineYankeeandFortCalhounreactorstogetherconstitute aValidPrototype forthepurposeoftheSt.Lucie2CVAP.TheSt.Lucie2Plantreactorin-ternalsconfiguration hassubstantially thesamearrangement, design,size'ndoperation conditions astheValidPrototype. |
| | Hominaldifferences inarrangement, design,sizeandoperating conditions havebeenshnv!nbytestoranalysistohavenosignificant effectonthevibratory responseandex-citationofthosereactorinternals important to,safety; forthesereasons,theSt.Lucie2reactorisdesignated Won-Prototype, Category1,fortheCVAP.Asmentioned inReference 2,Section3.9.2.4,theoretical prediction analyseswereperformed for,ilaine Yankeo(Reference 5)andFortCalhoun(Reference 6)toestimatetheamplitude, time,andspatialdependency ofthesteady-state andtransient hydraulic andstructural responses tobeencountered duringprecritical testing.ThePVl/Pforf)aineYankeeandFortCalhoundemonstrate thatthetheoretical predication methodsusedprovidedaccurateestimates 1ofthesteady-state responseofthecoresupportbarrelsystem,whenrasonablebestestimatevaluesforthemagnitude oftheinletpressurefluctuations areused.Itwasconcluded fromtheseprogramsthatflov!,inducedvibrations ofthe!laine YankeeandFortCalhounreactorinternals arewellwithindesignallowables andareacceptable forallnormalsteady-state, andtransient flowmodesofreactorcoolantpumpoperation. |
| | Reference 2,Table3.9-4,presentsasugaryofthesignificant hydraulic andstructural designparameters fortheSt.Lucie2,HaineYankeeandFortCalhounreactordesigns.Theeffectsofthesestructural andhydraulic parameters ontheflov!-induced vibratory responseofthereactorinternals arepresented inReference 2,Section3.9.2.6,whereitisshownthatthenominaldifferences havenosignificant effectsonthestress1vels.Ingeneral,theanalysisoftheSt.Lucie2Unitdemonstratsthat:A.Thepredicted structural responses oftheSt.Lucie2reactorinternals arewellwithindesignallowables andareacceptable forallnormalsteaRy-state andtransient flov!modesofprimarycoolantpumpoperation. |
| | 5of9 Lr |
| | ~~B.Theprototype precritical vibration monitoring programs.or)/aineYankeeandFortCalhounadequately accountforthespecificdesignfeaturesoftheSt.Lucie2UnitwhicharesharedbytheValidPrototype reactordesigns.VISUALIl(SPECTIOll PROGRAMTheSt.Lucie2CVAPinspection programwasperformed pertheprocedure ofReference 4,whichmeetstheintentofregulatory positions C.3.1.3andC.2.3ofReference 1.Theinspection programincludesphotographic document-ationofthecondition oftheSt.Lucie2reactorin.ernals, bothpriortoandafterpre-corehotfunctional testing.Theinspection wasconducted intwophases.Thefirstphase(baseline inspect-ion)wascompleted onApril22,1982.Thesecondphase(post-hot functional, pre-core, inspection) wascompleted onJanuary10,1983.Peference 1requiresthatthereactorinternals criticalcomponents besub-jectedtoatleast10cyclesofvibration priortotheCVAPfinalinspec,ion, baseduponthecomponent's computedminimumsignificant responsefrequency. |
| | TheSt.Lucie2CoreSupportBarrel(CSB)wascalculated tohavethelowestnaturalfrequency ofthecriticalreactorinternals components. |
| | Duringpre-corehotfunctional testing,theSt.Lucie2reactorinternals weresubjected to1.19X10sec.ofcol'dflow(below350'F)and1.61X106sec,ofhotflow(above350'F).Basedupontheminimumsigniicantresponsefrequency oftheCSB,theinternals criticalcomponents weresubjecttoapproximately 8.6X10cyclesofvibration. |
| | .")either realnorRummyfuelassemblies |
| | !vereincludedinthe.hotfunctional testing.Thelackoffuelservestoprovidegreaterflowvelocities andforcesonreactorinternals components and,therefore, yieldsconservative resultsfortheCVAP.Thedetailedinspection proceduro preparedinaccordance with'Reference 4requiresphotographic documentation and'descriptions ofconditions observedduringbothphases,inadditiontocommentary onchangesfromthebaselineinspection. |
| | Theinspections wereperormedandqualityassuredbyqualified inspectors. |
| | Theinspection procedures providethetabulation afallreactorinternals components andlocalareasinspected, whichincludes: |
| | 6of9 A.Allmajorload-bearing elementsofthereactorinternals reliedupontnretainthecoresupportstructure inposition. |
| | B.Thelateral,vertical, andtorsional restraints providedwithinthevessel.C.Thoselockingandboltingcomponents whosefailurecouldadversely affectthes.tructural integrity ofthereactorinternals. |
| | 0.Thosesurfacesthatareknowntobenrmaybecomecontactsurfacesduringoperation. |
| | E.Thosecriticallocations nnthereactorinternalcomponents asidentified bythevibration analysis. |
| | F.Theinteriorofthereactorvesselforevidenceofloosepartsorforeignmatter.Theanalysisprogram(Peference 2,Section3.9.2.5)identified thecoresupportbarrelupperflangeregiontohavethemaximunstressintensity. |
| | Thisregionwas,included intheSt.Lucie2inspections tovrifytheresultsofthevib-raionanalysis, thatthemaximumstressintensities arebelowallowable stresscriteria.Acomparison ofthebaselinesuraceconditions withthoseofthepost-hotfunctional inspec.ionindicated thatnoabnormallow-induced vibration hadoccurredandthatnoreduction inthestructural integrity oftheinternals components, closureheadorreactorvesselhadoccurred. |
| | Therewereindicat-ionsofnormalamountsofrelativethermalgrowthbetweenthestainless steelinternals andthecarbonsteelvessel.Atareaswherecontactoccurredbetweencoresupportbarrel(CSB)snubbers, guidelugs,andalignment keys,littleornowearwasindicated, butclosefi;swereevidentbydiscoloration andsomesurfaceburnishing. |
| | Contactbetweenthereactorvessel,upperguidestructure flange,CSBflange,andclosureheadappearedunifnmwithnowear.Allstructural threadedfasteners andlockbarsappearedsecureandshowednoindications ofloading.ThegirthweldsontheCSBallappearedsoundasdidthecoreshroudwelds.Duetolackofindication ofabnormalmovementandcalculational resultsbasedonpost-hotfunctional dimensions, itisconcluderl thattheinternals wereprovidedwithadequatelateralan4axialsupport.Inoeneral,allin-ternalscomponents werefoundtobeinverygoodcondition, theircontact'of 9 |
| | II areasallappearednormalandasexpectedfollowing hotfUnctional 4testingandcomparedfavorably withtheprototype inspections. |
| | Bof9 |
|
| |
|
| QEFEREHCES1."ComprehensiveVibrationAssessmentPrograr.forReactorVesselInternalsDuringPreoperationalandInitialStartupTesting.",IIRCReoulatoryGuide1.20,Revision2,datedhay1976.'I2."FinalSafetyAnalysisReport,St.LuciePlantUnit2",DocketI'!o.50-389.3."SafetyEvaluationReportbytheOfficeof!uclearReactorRegulation,U.S.HuclearRegulatoryCornission,RelatedtotheOperationofSt.LuciePlantUnit2",DocketHo,50-389andHUREG-0843.4."PrecriticalVibrationt'ionitoringProgramStandardProcedureforVisualIn-spectionofReactorVesselInternalsfor3410iypePlants",SpecificationHn.00000-RCE-413,Revision00,dated6/12/805."AnalysisofFlow-InducedVibrations:ilaineYankePrecriticalVibration11onitoringProgramPredictions",CombustionEngineering,Inc.CEHPD-55,.iiay30,1972.6."AnalysisofFlow-InducedVibrations:FortCalhounPrecriticalVibrationI/onitoringProgram",CombustionEngineering,Inc.,CE~!PD-85,January1973.e7."'!aineYankeePrecriticalVibrationilonitoringProgram,FinalReport",CombustionEnginering,Inc.,CE.'IPD-93,February1973.8."OmahaPrecriticalVibrationlionitoringProgram,FinalReport",CombustionEngineering,,Inc.,"0~CEil-70,Iiey1974.9of9 0V(}}
| | QEFEREHCES 1."Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Prograr.forReactorVesselInternals DuringPreoperational andInitialStartupTesting.", |
| | IIRCReoulatory Guide1.20,Revision2,datedhay1976.'I2."FinalSafetyAnalysisReport,St.LuciePlantUnit2",DocketI'!o.50-389.3."SafetyEvaluation ReportbytheOfficeof!uclearReactorRegulation, U.S.HuclearRegulatory Cornission, RelatedtotheOperation ofSt.LuciePlantUnit2",DocketHo,50-389andHUREG-0843. |
| | 4."Precritical Vibration t'ionitoring ProgramStandardProcedure forVisualIn-spectionofReactorVesselInternals for3410iypePlants",Specification Hn.00000-RCE-413, Revision00,dated6/12/805."Analysis ofFlow-Induced Vibrations: |
| | ilaineYankePrecritical Vibration 11onitoring ProgramPredictions", |
| | Combustion Engineering, Inc.CEHPD-55, |
| | .iiay30,1972.6."Analysis ofFlow-Induced Vibrations: |
| | FortCalhounPrecritical Vibration I/onitoring Program", |
| | Combustion Engineering, Inc.,CE~!PD-85, January1973.e7."'!aineYankeePrecritical Vibration ilonitoring Program,FinalReport",Combustion Enginering,Inc.,CE.'IPD-93, February1973.8."OmahaPrecritical Vibration lionitoring Program,FinalReport",Combustion Engineering,, |
| | Inc.,"0~CEil-70,Iiey1974.9of9 0V(}} |
|
|---|
Category:TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS & TEST REPORTS
MONTHYEARML17309A9961999-06-30030 June 1999
Rev 35 to HP-90, Emergency Equipment.
ML17309A9941999-06-17017 June 1999
Rev 1 to COP-06.06, Guidelines for Collecting Post Accident Samples.
ML17241A3541999-06-0101 June 1999
Proposed Tech Specs Section 3.5.2,allowing Up to 7 Days to Restore Inoperable LPSI Train to Operable Status
ML17309A9951999-05-27027 May 1999
Rev 0 to COP-06.11, Establishing Remote Lab for Analyses of Accident Samples.
ML17241A3451999-05-24024 May 1999
Proposed Tech Specs 3/4.5.1 Re Safety Injection Tanks
ML17229B0711999-03-19019 March 1999
Proposed Tech Specs Pages Requested by NRC for Use in Issuance of Proposed License Amend Re SFP Storage Capacity, Per Soluble Boron Credit
ML17229B0441999-03-0202 March 1999
Cycle 11 Reactor Startup Physics Testing Rept. with 990304 Ltr
ML17229B0201999-02-23023 February 1999
Proposed Tech Specs 3/4.1.2.9 Re Reactivity Control sys- Boron Dilution
ML17229B0361998-12-22022 December 1998
Rev 20 to Procedure C-200, Odcm.
ML17229A9551998-12-16016 December 1998
Proposed Tech Specs Pages Revising Administrative Controls & Incorporating Specific Staff Qualifications for Multi- Discipline Supervisor Position
ML17229A9161998-11-25025 November 1998
Proposed Tech Specs Pages,Replacing Insert-A,attachment to 971231 Submittal & Revises LCO 3.4.9.11 & Associated Bases
ML17229A9251998-11-22022 November 1998
Proposed Tech Specs Revising Thermal Margin SL Lines of TS Figure 2.1-1 to Reflect Increase in Value of Design Min RCS Flow from 345,000 Gpm to 365,000 Gpm & Change Flow Rates Stated in Tables 2.2-1 & 3.2-1
ML17229A9131998-11-19019 November 1998
Proposed Tech Specs,Revising Administrative Contols TS 6.3, Unit Staff Qualifications & Incorporating Specific Staff Qualifications for Multi-Discipline Supervisor (MDS) Position
ML20155C3061998-10-29029 October 1998
Proposed Tech Specs Pages Revising Terminology Used in Notation of TS Tables 2.2-1 & 3.3-1 Re Implementation & Automatic Removal of Certain Reactor Protection Sys Trip Bypasses
ML20153G0781998-08-26026 August 1998
Rev 19 to Plstqp, Guard Training & Qualification Plan
ML17229A8441998-08-24024 August 1998
Proposed Tech Specs Removing Obsolete License Conditions & Incorporating Revs Which Clarify Component Operations That Must Be Verified in Response to Containment Sump Recirculation Actuation Signal
ML17229A7731998-06-15015 June 1998
Proposed Tech Specs Pages 6-20,6-20a & 6-20c,correcting Info Supplied by Fuel Vendor Relative to Titles of Approved TRs That Are Referenced in Proposed TS 6.9.1.11.b
ML17229A7601998-06-0303 June 1998
Proposed Marked Up TS Pages Modifying Explosive Gas Mixture Surveillance Requirement 4.11.2.5.1 to Provide for Use of Lab Gas Partitioner to Periodically Analyze Concentration of Oxygen in Svc Waste Gas Decay Tank
ML17229A7441998-05-27027 May 1998
Proposed Tech Specs Providing for More Efficient Use of on- Site Mgt Personnel in Review & Approval Process for Plant Procedures
ML17229A7481998-05-27027 May 1998
Proposed Tech Specs Section 3.5.1,removing Requirement for SITs to Be Operable in Mode 4,which Will Minimize Potential for Inadvertent SIT Discharge During RCS Cooldown/ Depressurization Evolutions
ML17229A7511998-05-27027 May 1998
Proposed Tech Specs Section 6.2.2.f,revised to Allow for Use of Longer Operating Shifts of Up to Twelve Hours Duration by Plant'S Operating Crews
ML17229A6751998-03-27027 March 1998
Cycle 15 Reactor Startup Physics & Replacement SG Testing Rept. W/980402 Ltr
ML17229A6501998-03-0303 March 1998
Proposed Tech Specs 3.4.7 Re RCS Chemistry/Design Features/ Administrative Controls
ML17229A6381998-02-12012 February 1998
Rev 19 to C-200, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.
ML17229A6151998-01-12012 January 1998
Rev 0 to ISI-PSL-1, St Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit 1 ISI Plan.
ML17229A6141998-01-12012 January 1998
Rev 0 to ISI-PSL-1, Third Interval ISI Program for St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 1.
ML17229A5691997-12-31031 December 1997
Proposed Tech Specs Pages Modifying TS 5.6.1 & Associated Figure 5.6-1 & TS 5.6.3 to Accomodate Increase in Allowed SFP Storage Capacity
ML17309A9131997-12-29029 December 1997
Proposed Tech Specs Modifying Specifications for Selected cycle-specific Reactor Physics Parameters to Provide Reference to St Lucie Unit 2 COLR for Limiting Values
ML17229A5851997-12-12012 December 1997
Rev 0 to ADM-29.01, IST Program for Pumps & Valves.
ML17229A5491997-12-0101 December 1997
Proposed Tech Specs Revising Units 1 & 2 EPP Section 4, Environ Conditions & Section 5, Administrative Procedures to Incorporate Proposed Terms & Conditions of Incidental Take Statement Included in Biological Opinion
ML17309A9171997-11-26026 November 1997
Rev 0 to PSL-ENG-SENS-97-068, Spent Fuel Pool Dilution Analysis.
ML17229A5931997-09-26026 September 1997
Rev 4 to Procedure QI-5-PSL-1, Preparation,Rev,Review/ Approval of Procedures.
ML17229A5921997-09-18018 September 1997
Rev 0 to Procedure ADM-17.11, 10CFR500.59 Screening.
ML20211Q5841997-09-10010 September 1997
Rev 18 to Training & Qualification Plan
ML17229A4621997-08-22022 August 1997
Proposed Tech Specs Pages,Revising Specification 4.0.5 Surveillance Requirements for ISI & Testing of ASME Code Class 1,2 & 3 Components,To Relocate IST Program Requirements to Administrative Control Section 6.8
ML17229A4341997-08-0101 August 1997
Proposed Tech Specs,Extending semi-annual Surveillance Interval Specified in Table 4.3-2 for Testing ESFAS Subgroup Relays to Interval Consistent W/Ceog Rept CEN-403,Rev 1-A for March 1996 & Associated SE
ML17309A8951997-06-11011 June 1997
Rev 0 to PL-CNSI-97-004, Transportation & Emergency Response Plan for St Lucie Unit 1 SG Project.
ML17229A3601997-05-29029 May 1997
Proposed Tech Specs Incorporating Administrative Changes That Improve Consistency Throughout TSs & Related Bases
ML17229A2981997-03-0606 March 1997
Final Analysis of Radiological Consequences of Main Steam Line Break Outside Containment for St Lucie Unit 1 NPP Using NUREG-0800 Std Review Plan 15.1.5 App A.
ML17229A1831996-12-20020 December 1996
Proposed Tech Specs Re Safety Limits & Limiting Safety Sys Settings
ML17229A1611996-12-0909 December 1996
Proposed Tech Specs 1.9a Re Core Operating Limits Rept
ML17229A1191996-10-31031 October 1996
Proposed Tech Specs 6.0 Re Administrative Controls
ML17229A1111996-10-30030 October 1996
Proposed Tech Specs 3/4.9.9 Re Containment Isolation Sys & 3/4.9.10 Re Water level-reactor Vessel
ML17229A1061996-10-28028 October 1996
Proposed Tech Specs 1.6 Re Channel Functional test,1.7 Re Containment Vessel integrity,1.8 Re Controlled leakage,1.9 Re Core alteration,3/4.6 Re Containment Systems & 3/4.6.1 Re Containment Vessel
ML17229A1091996-10-28028 October 1996
Proposed Tech Specs Rev to Allow Type A,B & C Containment Leakage Tests to Be Conducted at Extended Intervals Determined by performance-based Criteria
ML17229A0951996-10-24024 October 1996
Rev 0 to 00000-OSW-16, In-Situ Pressure Test Results for St Lucie Unit 1 Spring 1996 Outage.
ML17229A0861996-10-18018 October 1996
Startup Physics Testing Rept. W/961018 Ltr
ML17229A2441996-09-23023 September 1996
Rev 18 to Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (Odcm).
ML17228B5641996-07-15015 July 1996
Revised Tech Specs Re Core Alteration Definition
ML17229A0961996-06-12012 June 1996
Rev 0 to TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Test Rept - SG Tube In-Situ Hydrostatic Pressure Test Tool Hydro Chamber Pressure Determination.
1999-06-30
[Table view]
Category:TEST/INSPECTION/OPERATING PROCEDURES
MONTHYEARML17309A9961999-06-30030 June 1999
Rev 35 to HP-90, Emergency Equipment.
ML17309A9941999-06-17017 June 1999
Rev 1 to COP-06.06, Guidelines for Collecting Post Accident Samples.
ML17309A9951999-05-27027 May 1999
Rev 0 to COP-06.11, Establishing Remote Lab for Analyses of Accident Samples.
ML17229B0361998-12-22022 December 1998
Rev 20 to Procedure C-200, Odcm.
ML20153G0781998-08-26026 August 1998
Rev 19 to Plstqp, Guard Training & Qualification Plan
ML17229A6381998-02-12012 February 1998
Rev 19 to C-200, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.
ML17229A6151998-01-12012 January 1998
Rev 0 to ISI-PSL-1, St Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit 1 ISI Plan.
ML17229A6141998-01-12012 January 1998
Rev 0 to ISI-PSL-1, Third Interval ISI Program for St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 1.
ML17229A5851997-12-12012 December 1997
Rev 0 to ADM-29.01, IST Program for Pumps & Valves.
ML17229A5931997-09-26026 September 1997
Rev 4 to Procedure QI-5-PSL-1, Preparation,Rev,Review/ Approval of Procedures.
ML17229A5921997-09-18018 September 1997
Rev 0 to Procedure ADM-17.11, 10CFR500.59 Screening.
ML20211Q5841997-09-10010 September 1997
Rev 18 to Training & Qualification Plan
ML17309A8951997-06-11011 June 1997
Rev 0 to PL-CNSI-97-004, Transportation & Emergency Response Plan for St Lucie Unit 1 SG Project.
ML17229A2981997-03-0606 March 1997
Final Analysis of Radiological Consequences of Main Steam Line Break Outside Containment for St Lucie Unit 1 NPP Using NUREG-0800 Std Review Plan 15.1.5 App A.
ML17229A2441996-09-23023 September 1996
Rev 18 to Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (Odcm).
ML17229A0971996-06-10010 June 1996
Rev 0 to TP-9419-CSE96-2104, Steam Generator Tube In-Situ Hydrostatic Pressure Test Tool Hydro Chamber Pressure Determination.
ML20137P3651996-05-20020 May 1996
Rev 5 to Procedure 1-1220055, Calibration of Area Radiation Monitoring Sys (Arms)
ML17228B4921996-04-22022 April 1996
FPL St Lucie Unit 1 SG Program.
ML20137P3381996-03-0404 March 1996
Rev 0 to Procedure 1-1400207, Calibr of Containment Process Monitor
ML20137K6111995-12-0707 December 1995
Auxiliary Feedwater Pump 1C Disassembly Insp & Reassembly Mechanical Maint Procedure for St Lucie Plant,Unit 1
ML17228B3461995-11-16016 November 1995
Rev 0 to Plant Administrative Procedure 2-0010024, Inservice Testing Program for Pumps & Valves.
ML20137P3061995-08-31031 August 1995
Rev 2 to Procedure 2-1220057, Functional Testing of RM-80 Power Supply Assemblies
ML17228B0491995-02-0303 February 1995
Rev 0 to Subsequent Inservice Exam Plan for Pressurizer Instrument Nozzles.
ML17228B0171995-01-0606 January 1995
Rev 5 to Second 10-Yr ISI Interval IST Program for Pumps & Valves St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1.
ML17228A8811994-09-28028 September 1994
Rev 0 to PSL-200-AOA-94-1, St Lucie Nuclear Plant,Unit 2 ISI Interval Request for Authorization of Alternative Exam. W/Attachment Re Implementation of Reg Guide 1.150
ML20137M1611994-09-15015 September 1994
Rev 2 to Procedure 1-1220053, Calibr of Control Room Outside Air Intake Monitors
ML20080M4881994-06-14014 June 1994
Rev 15 to Chemistry Procedure C-200, Odcm
ML20080M4791994-01-14014 January 1994
Rev 14 to Chemistry Procedure C-200, Odcm
ML17228A4621994-01-14014 January 1994
Rev 4 to Second Ten-Yr ISI Interval IST Program.
ML17228A2471993-07-24024 July 1993
Rev 0 of PSL-201, St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 2 Second ISI Interval ISI Selected Component Schedule.
ML17228A2461993-07-24024 July 1993
Rev 0 of PSL-200, St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 2 Second ISI Interval Program Plan & Schedule from 930808- 200808
ML20137P3551993-03-0808 March 1993
Rev 1 to Procedure 1-1220055, Calibration of Area Radiation Monitoring Sys (Arms)
ML17227A6011992-08-11011 August 1992
Rev 2 to JNS-PSL-204, First Ten-Year Inservice Inspection Interval Inservice Testing Program for Pumps & Valves, St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 2.
ML20141M4901992-07-30030 July 1992
Rev 14 to Training & Qualification Plan
ML20137P3431992-04-10010 April 1992
Rev 1 to Procedure 1-1220053, Calibration of Control Room Putside Air Intake Monitors
ML17223B2931991-10-10010 October 1991
Rev 3 to JNS-PSL-203, Second 10-Yr Inservice Insp Interval Inservice Testing Program for Pumps & Valves,St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 1.
ML20137P2971991-07-0303 July 1991
Rev 1 to Procedure 2-1120070, Containment High Range Radiation Monitor Calibration
ML20070T9761991-03-12012 March 1991
Rev 10 to Training & Qualification Plan
ML17223A5771990-03-0707 March 1990
Rev 10 to Emergency Procedure 1-0030143, Total Loss of Ac Power.
ML17223A4501989-12-15015 December 1989
Rev 2 to JNS-PSL-203, Second 10-Yr Inservice Insp Interval Inservice Testing Program for Pumps & Valves.
ML17308A1901988-08-24024 August 1988
Vols 1 & 2 to Rev 0 to JNS-PSL-100, St Lucie Plant Unit 1 Second 10-Yr Insp Plan.
ML17221A7041988-04-0404 April 1988
Rev 0 to Pump & Valve Inservice Test Program.
ML17342B0641987-12-30030 December 1987
Rev 1 to Independent Mgt Appraisal Program Plan for Florida Power & Light Co.
ML17308A1831987-09-0202 September 1987
Rev 0 to Inservice Insp Second 10-yr Summary Program.
ML17221A3781987-08-11011 August 1987
Inservice Testing Program,Section I,Valve Test Program & Section Ii,Pump Test Program.
ML17221A3961987-01-28028 January 1987
Rev 1 to St Lucie Unit 1,Extraction Steam Piping Insp Program Guidelines.
ML17347A2241986-12-22022 December 1986
Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures,Including Procedure 1101, Duties of Emergency Control Officer,Offsite Emergency Organization & Procedure 1102, Duties of Recovery Officer,Offsite Emergency.... W/861222 Ltr
ML17216A6651986-06-17017 June 1986
Rev 4 to Maint Procedure 2-0910053, 12-Month Test of Automatic Load Sequence Relays.
ML17216A6661986-03-26026 March 1986
Rev 5 to Maint Procedure 2-2200063, 2B Emergency Diesel Electrical Insp.
ML17216A6671986-03-26026 March 1986
Rev 4 to Maint Procedure 2-2200062, 2A Emergency Diesel Electrical Insp.
1999-06-30
[Table view] |
Text
FloridaPov!er5Ligh>>Co.,St.LuciePlantUnit-.":2DocketHn.50-389CVi-2ee(L
}Comprehensive Vibration Assessment PrnoramFinalSummarReortFebruary1983Combustion
"-ngineering, Inc.:NuclearPou,'erSystemsPowerSystemsGroup!!indsor, Connecticut 060958303i50538 830310PDRADOCK05000389EPDR
'L~llk>~til TAP>LEOFCO<'lTEl!TS 1.ItlTRODUCT I0,'lSUtUQRYANDCO."iCLUSIOl'lS 3.VIBRATIOilAiNLYSISPROGRAll4.VISUALIl(SPECTIOil PROGPAW2of9 FloridaPowerandLightCn.,St.LuciePlantUnit;-2Comprehensive Vibration Assessment ProgramIHTROOUCT IOllTheComprehensive Vibration Assessment Program(CVAP;occasionally referredtoasthePrecritical Vibration!lonitoring Program,PV!1P)reportedhereinsatisfies theHPCRegulatory Guide1.20(Reference 1),requirements forverifying thestructural integrity ofthereactorintmalsforflowinducedvibrations priortocommercial operation.
TheCVAPprnvidehconfirmation, baseduponprototype PVhPprograms, ananalytical progranandaninspection program,thatthehydraulic excitations andstructural responses oZtheFloridaPowerandLight,1St.LuciePlantUnit2reactorinternals arewithindesignestimates andareacceptable forallnormalsteadystateandtransient modesofreactorcoolantpumpoperation.
AsstatedinReference 2,Section3.9.2.4,theilaineYankeandFortCalhounreactorsaredesignated jointlyastheValidPrototype fortheSt.LuciePlantUni.2CVAP,withSt.LuciePlantUnit2designated asa!ion-Prototype Category1reactor.Reference 3{Section3.9.2.3)statesthatthe.'lRCstaffhasaccept-edtheSt.Lucie2programprovidedthat"theapplicant submitsacorrelation oftheSt.Lucie2observedvibrational characteristics withtheresultsfromtheprototype reactors".
Reference 1requiresthatanaralysisprogramandameasurement orinspection programbeperformed fortheCVAPfor!!on-Prototype Cateqory1reactors.
TheanalysisprogramforSt.LuciePlantUnit2CVAPwasreportedinReference 2,Section3.9.2.6.Avisualinspection programwithphotographic documentation wasperformed forSt.LuciePlantUnit2inlieuofameasurement program.Thisreportsummarizes theresultsoftheSt.LuciePlantUnit2CVAPandprovidesanevaluation ofthoseresults.2.SUi!l'!ARY Ai'l0CO!lCLUSIOl!S TheSt.Lucie2CVAPwassuccessfully completed inaccordance withtherequirements of.'lRCRegulatory Guile1.20,Revision2{Reference'1).
3of9 Thevibration analysisprogram,performed inaccordance withregulatory positionC.3.1.1ofReference 1,providedsufficient evidencetosupporttheclassification ofSt.Lucie2asNon-Prototype, Category1,withthoValidPrototype designated jointlyasViaineYankeeandFortCalhoun.Comparison oftheSt.Lucie2resultswiththos.fromtheprototype reactorswasfavorable, nocorrective actionwasrequiredandnoindications wereobservedthatwouldnecessitate reactorintmalsmodifications onSt.Lucie2.TheSt.Lucie2vibration inspection program,perfor.",ed inaccordance withtheguidelines nfreoulatory positionC.3.1.3andC.2.3ofReference 1,includedinspections oftheSt.Lucie2reactorinternals bothpriortoandfollowing pre-corehotfunctional testing.Thepre-corehotfunctional testingincludedallsteady-state andtransient modesofreactorcoolantpumpoperation.
Heither,real nordurityfuelassemblies wereinpositionforthetesting.Itwasshownbyanalysisthatthoabsenceoffuelassemblies wouldyieldconservative resultsfortheCVAP.ofreactorinternals.
Thecriticalreactorinternals component withthelowestnaturalfrequency istheCoreSupportBarrel(CSB).Basedupontheminimumsignificant responsefrequency oftheCSB,thecriticalreactorinternals conponents wersubjected toapproximately 8.6X106cycles.ofvibration duringthepre-corehotfunctional testing.t(OTE:Regulatory Guide1.20Revision2recommends,a minimumof1X196cycles.Theinspection programwasperformed withoutdeviation fromthespecified operating conditions.
Hounanticipated observations orinspection anomolies wereencountered.
Theinspctionsoft"..eSt.Lucie2reactorinternals revealednodefects;evidenceofunacceptable motion,orexcessive orunduewear.Theinteriorofthereactorvesselwasvisuallyinspected afterthepre-corehotfunctional testingandfoundtobeabsentofanyloosepartsorforeignmaterial.
Insummary,theSt.Lucie2CVAPinspection programwasentirelyconsistent withtheP'/llPoftheHaineYanf:ee.and FortCalhounreactorsandv)iththeSt.Lucie2CVAPanalysisprogram.Evaluation oftheresultsoftheSt.Lucie2CVAPconcludes thatasignificart marginof.safetyforthestructulal integrity oftheSt.Lucie2reactor4of9 V
internals willbemaintained durinoallnormalsteady-state andtransient conditions ofreactorcoolantpumooperation.
VIBRATIO!I AHALYSISPROGR,"Jl Thef1aineYankeeandFortCalhounreactorstogetherconstitute aValidPrototype forthepurposeoftheSt.Lucie2CVAP.TheSt.Lucie2Plantreactorin-ternalsconfiguration hassubstantially thesamearrangement, design,size'ndoperation conditions astheValidPrototype.
Hominaldifferences inarrangement, design,sizeandoperating conditions havebeenshnv!nbytestoranalysistohavenosignificant effectonthevibratory responseandex-citationofthosereactorinternals important to,safety; forthesereasons,theSt.Lucie2reactorisdesignated Won-Prototype, Category1,fortheCVAP.Asmentioned inReference 2,Section3.9.2.4,theoretical prediction analyseswereperformed for,ilaine Yankeo(Reference 5)andFortCalhoun(Reference 6)toestimatetheamplitude, time,andspatialdependency ofthesteady-state andtransient hydraulic andstructural responses tobeencountered duringprecritical testing.ThePVl/Pforf)aineYankeeandFortCalhoundemonstrate thatthetheoretical predication methodsusedprovidedaccurateestimates 1ofthesteady-state responseofthecoresupportbarrelsystem,whenrasonablebestestimatevaluesforthemagnitude oftheinletpressurefluctuations areused.Itwasconcluded fromtheseprogramsthatflov!,inducedvibrations ofthe!laine YankeeandFortCalhounreactorinternals arewellwithindesignallowables andareacceptable forallnormalsteady-state, andtransient flowmodesofreactorcoolantpumpoperation.
Reference 2,Table3.9-4,presentsasugaryofthesignificant hydraulic andstructural designparameters fortheSt.Lucie2,HaineYankeeandFortCalhounreactordesigns.Theeffectsofthesestructural andhydraulic parameters ontheflov!-induced vibratory responseofthereactorinternals arepresented inReference 2,Section3.9.2.6,whereitisshownthatthenominaldifferences havenosignificant effectsonthestress1vels.Ingeneral,theanalysisoftheSt.Lucie2Unitdemonstratsthat:A.Thepredicted structural responses oftheSt.Lucie2reactorinternals arewellwithindesignallowables andareacceptable forallnormalsteaRy-state andtransient flov!modesofprimarycoolantpumpoperation.
5of9 Lr
~~B.Theprototype precritical vibration monitoring programs.or)/aineYankeeandFortCalhounadequately accountforthespecificdesignfeaturesoftheSt.Lucie2UnitwhicharesharedbytheValidPrototype reactordesigns.VISUALIl(SPECTIOll PROGRAMTheSt.Lucie2CVAPinspection programwasperformed pertheprocedure ofReference 4,whichmeetstheintentofregulatory positions C.3.1.3andC.2.3ofReference 1.Theinspection programincludesphotographic document-ationofthecondition oftheSt.Lucie2reactorin.ernals, bothpriortoandafterpre-corehotfunctional testing.Theinspection wasconducted intwophases.Thefirstphase(baseline inspect-ion)wascompleted onApril22,1982.Thesecondphase(post-hot functional, pre-core, inspection) wascompleted onJanuary10,1983.Peference 1requiresthatthereactorinternals criticalcomponents besub-jectedtoatleast10cyclesofvibration priortotheCVAPfinalinspec,ion, baseduponthecomponent's computedminimumsignificant responsefrequency.
TheSt.Lucie2CoreSupportBarrel(CSB)wascalculated tohavethelowestnaturalfrequency ofthecriticalreactorinternals components.
Duringpre-corehotfunctional testing,theSt.Lucie2reactorinternals weresubjected to1.19X10sec.ofcol'dflow(below350'F)and1.61X106sec,ofhotflow(above350'F).Basedupontheminimumsigniicantresponsefrequency oftheCSB,theinternals criticalcomponents weresubjecttoapproximately 8.6X10cyclesofvibration.
.")either realnorRummyfuelassemblies
!vereincludedinthe.hotfunctional testing.Thelackoffuelservestoprovidegreaterflowvelocities andforcesonreactorinternals components and,therefore, yieldsconservative resultsfortheCVAP.Thedetailedinspection proceduro preparedinaccordance with'Reference 4requiresphotographic documentation and'descriptions ofconditions observedduringbothphases,inadditiontocommentary onchangesfromthebaselineinspection.
Theinspections wereperormedandqualityassuredbyqualified inspectors.
Theinspection procedures providethetabulation afallreactorinternals components andlocalareasinspected, whichincludes:
6of9 A.Allmajorload-bearing elementsofthereactorinternals reliedupontnretainthecoresupportstructure inposition.
B.Thelateral,vertical, andtorsional restraints providedwithinthevessel.C.Thoselockingandboltingcomponents whosefailurecouldadversely affectthes.tructural integrity ofthereactorinternals.
0.Thosesurfacesthatareknowntobenrmaybecomecontactsurfacesduringoperation.
E.Thosecriticallocations nnthereactorinternalcomponents asidentified bythevibration analysis.
F.Theinteriorofthereactorvesselforevidenceofloosepartsorforeignmatter.Theanalysisprogram(Peference 2,Section3.9.2.5)identified thecoresupportbarrelupperflangeregiontohavethemaximunstressintensity.
Thisregionwas,included intheSt.Lucie2inspections tovrifytheresultsofthevib-raionanalysis, thatthemaximumstressintensities arebelowallowable stresscriteria.Acomparison ofthebaselinesuraceconditions withthoseofthepost-hotfunctional inspec.ionindicated thatnoabnormallow-induced vibration hadoccurredandthatnoreduction inthestructural integrity oftheinternals components, closureheadorreactorvesselhadoccurred.
Therewereindicat-ionsofnormalamountsofrelativethermalgrowthbetweenthestainless steelinternals andthecarbonsteelvessel.Atareaswherecontactoccurredbetweencoresupportbarrel(CSB)snubbers, guidelugs,andalignment keys,littleornowearwasindicated, butclosefi;swereevidentbydiscoloration andsomesurfaceburnishing.
Contactbetweenthereactorvessel,upperguidestructure flange,CSBflange,andclosureheadappearedunifnmwithnowear.Allstructural threadedfasteners andlockbarsappearedsecureandshowednoindications ofloading.ThegirthweldsontheCSBallappearedsoundasdidthecoreshroudwelds.Duetolackofindication ofabnormalmovementandcalculational resultsbasedonpost-hotfunctional dimensions, itisconcluderl thattheinternals wereprovidedwithadequatelateralan4axialsupport.Inoeneral,allin-ternalscomponents werefoundtobeinverygoodcondition, theircontact'of 9
II areasallappearednormalandasexpectedfollowing hotfUnctional 4testingandcomparedfavorably withtheprototype inspections.
Bof9
QEFEREHCES 1."Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Prograr.forReactorVesselInternals DuringPreoperational andInitialStartupTesting.",
IIRCReoulatory Guide1.20,Revision2,datedhay1976.'I2."FinalSafetyAnalysisReport,St.LuciePlantUnit2",DocketI'!o.50-389.3."SafetyEvaluation ReportbytheOfficeof!uclearReactorRegulation, U.S.HuclearRegulatory Cornission, RelatedtotheOperation ofSt.LuciePlantUnit2",DocketHo,50-389andHUREG-0843.
4."Precritical Vibration t'ionitoring ProgramStandardProcedure forVisualIn-spectionofReactorVesselInternals for3410iypePlants",Specification Hn.00000-RCE-413, Revision00,dated6/12/805."Analysis ofFlow-Induced Vibrations:
ilaineYankePrecritical Vibration 11onitoring ProgramPredictions",
Combustion Engineering, Inc.CEHPD-55,
.iiay30,1972.6."Analysis ofFlow-Induced Vibrations:
FortCalhounPrecritical Vibration I/onitoring Program",
Combustion Engineering, Inc.,CE~!PD-85, January1973.e7."'!aineYankeePrecritical Vibration ilonitoring Program,FinalReport",Combustion Enginering,Inc.,CE.'IPD-93, February1973.8."OmahaPrecritical Vibration lionitoring Program,FinalReport",Combustion Engineering,,
Inc.,"0~CEil-70,Iiey1974.9of9 0V(
