ML070920025

Slides for Summary of March 2, 2007 Meeting with PSEG Nuclear LLC on an Application for Extended Power Uprate for Hope Creek Generating Station Regarding Steam Dryer Margin

ML070920025
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	03/02/2007
From:	Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Hoch, Joseph NRR/DORL 415-3635
Shared Package
ML070930464	List: ML070800430 ML070920025
References
TAC MD3002
Download: ML070920025 (19)

Text

MEETING PRESENTATION MARCH 2. 2007 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATON STEAM DRYER MARGIN

GENERATING S TATIO N0

=

Background===

Margin Recovery Report Validation of In-Plant Data Steam Dryer Power Ascension Test Plan

,HopeCreek, 2

EPU LCR Submitted November 2005 Withdrawn February 2006 NRC - PSEG Meeting March 2006 Reviewed acceptance issues NRC - PSEG Pre-submittal Meeting July 2006 Status update 3

EPU LCR Re-submitted September 2006 EPU LCR Supplement - October 10, 2006 Demonstrated conservatism in ACM loads Described substitution for missing strain gage data EPU LCR Supplement - October 20,- 2006 HC - QC2 ACM loads comparison NRC.- PSEG meeting November 2006 Submittal overview IlbeG rC-ek;,

4

EPU LCR Supplement - February 28, 2007 Margin recovery results Updated HC - QC2 ACM loads comparison

,(HGOperek 5

Key Steps Re-benchmarked the Scale Model Tests a More realistic estimate of EPU loads Refined Finite Element Analysis for EPU

% More realistic stress ratios

,*beCreký (3ENERATING srATIOýN.;

6

SMT Re-benchmarking September 2006: 1/8th SMT predicted SRV resonance onset between 80% and 90% CLTP o In-plant data showed no resonance at or below CLTP o 1/5th SMT predicted no resonance until above CLTP Early 2007 re-benchmarking results:

Initial 1/8th SMT - 1.16 of target reactor power Over predicted loads Rebenchmarked SMT predicts on-set of SRV resonance just above CLTP Now consistent with plant data and 1/5th scale (HopeCreek]

7

EPU Finite Element Analysis Refined EPU analyses uses revised SMT loads As before: Frequency shifts to +/-_ 10% at 2.5% intervals Credited additional weld on middle hood to end plate and inner hood to end plate connection

,HOpe Creek.

8

Ratio at nominal Ratio at limiting Limiting Peak Stress (all are welds) frequency frequency frequency Inner hood to outlet end plate 1.53 1.53 0%

Skirt to upper support ring 1.54 1.46

+2.5%

Outer hood to cover plate 1.96 1.77

+2.5%

Alternating Stress (all are welds)

Middle hood / reinforcement strip

>2.0

> 1.90

-10% to + 7.5%

1.33

+10%

Drain channel to skirt (at bottom) 1.96 1.62

+2.5%

Outer hood to cover plate 2.00 1.80

+2.5%

Steam outlet end plate to middle hood

>2.0 1.76

-10%

Steam outlet end plate to inner hood

>2.0 1.86

-10%

cHopeCreekt 9 --_ "MO&IMMM I

MMMMMMW V ý ý ý.1111ý

EPU Conclusions Without crediting any SMT conservatism:

All non-weld locations stress ratios > 2.0 p At welds, alternating stress ratios at nominal frequency

> 1.96 At welds, limiting alternating stress ratio occurs at +10%

frequency shift (GH.

10 "T

Compared docketed (September 2006) to recent

2007 in-plant data Performed steam dome pressure monitoring

,,HopJeCmek;~

11 SM ell ý -

I _-, MMM MRRIBERM

CLTP Plant Data v September 2006 load definition based only on "A" and "B" MSL strain gages o With algorithm to bound loads using only 2 MSLs Early 2007: Restored all strain gage channels to service o Taken at 100% CLTP More accurate since does not rely on algorithm

,MHoeCreek/

12

-7V-7

CLTP In-Plant Data Compared September 2006 to early 2007 loads Low resolution loads 2007 dPs lower at all steam dryer nodes Original prediction of peak dP (at outer hood) was - 33% higher than the 2007 data predicts Confirmed: No indication of SRV standpipe resonance on any MSL 13

Low resolution loads comparison: 2007 plant data compared to SMT at CLTP SMT dPs higher at all steam dryer nodes a SMT peak dP (at outer hoods): 0.158 psid.

o Plant data peak dP (at outer hoods): 0.124 psid.

SMT 27% higher at outer hoods than plant data HopeCreek 14

RPV Steam Dome Monitoring am September 2006 loads excluded the 80 Hz load Early 2007: Collected steam dome pressure data w No significant 80 Hz load present in HCGS steam dome o Consistent with HCGS SMT steam dryer measurements

.*HopeCrneek 15

Data collection

• MSL and SRV strain gages

• MSL accelerometers

,24 Moisture carryover Power ascension limited to 1% per hour Hourly (during power increases) strain gage and accelerometers data 2.5% power step o Review data 5.0% power plateau Review data Walkdowns of accessible areas Report to management and NRC.

Level 1: criteria exceeded, reduce power Level 2: above 80% of acceptance, reevaluate.

pHopeCreekI 16

CLTP - more than 100% margin on all alternating stress ratios 2007 in-plant data confirmed inputted loads were conservative EPU - SMT predicts positive stress ratios at every location a SMT rebenchmark removed excess conservatism a SMT comparison to plant data at CLTP shows SMT loads conservative Power ascension-will verify adequate margin maintained Hbe Crek 17

ACM CLTP dP EPU FEA HC, HCGS MSL QC2 RPV SMT SRV Acoustic Circuit Model Current Licensed Thermal Power 3339 MWt differential pressure (psid)

Extended Power Uprate 3840 MWt Finite Element Analysis Hope Creek Generating Station Main Steam Line Quad Cities 2 Reactor Pressure Vessel Scale Model Test Safety Relief Valve CH-peýreek.

GrVRATtfAiNG STATION-,"

18 717 -2=21292MEM