ML17229A096

Rev 0 to TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Test Rept - SG Tube In-Situ Hydrostatic Pressure Test Tool Hydro Chamber Pressure Determination

ML17229A096
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	06/12/1996
From:	Fink G, Jennifer Ford, Orsulak R ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY
To:
Shared Package
ML17229A091	List: L-96-273, Forwards SG Run Time Analysis for Cycle 14 of Plant,Unit 1, Which Includes Responses to NRC RAI & Util Contractor Repts Which Demonstrates That All Significant Parameters of Draft Reg Guide Have Been Met ML17229A092 ML17229A093 ML17229A094 ML17229A095 ML17229A096 ML17229A097
References
TR-9419-CSE96-1, TR-9419-CSE96-1101, NUDOCS 9610280101
Download: ML17229A096 (17)

Text

ATIACHMENTA Test Report - STEAM GENERATOR TUBE IN-SITUHYDROSTATIC PRESSURE TEST TOOL HYDRO CHAMBERPRESSURE DETERMINATION 96f0280fOf 96f024 PDR ADOCK 05000335 ii i

PDR

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 1 of 15 Test Report Steam Generator Tube ln-Situ Hydrostatic Pressure Test Tool Hydro Chamber Pressure Determination Report No. TR-9419-CSE96-1101 Rev. 0 ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations Prepared By:

. Orsulak. Consul g En " eer Reviewed By:

G. C. Fink, Principal Engineer Approved By:

. F. Hall.

ipal Cons tant Date:

Approved By:

a J. D. Ford. Manager. Field Quality Operations Date: 6 ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations

9B4 P81 JLN 12 '96 17:27 JlN-12-1996 17: 12 ST LUCrE~

t tC AH'tHi5t~11U't, WSV. U Test Report Steam Generator Tube In4itu'Hydrostadc Pressure Test Too)

Hydro Chamber Pressure 9etermination Report No. TR-94)9<SE96-) )0)

Rsv. 0 ABB Combustion Eapncaiag Nuclear Operations Prepared By:

Date:

Approved By:

1 CL lani, Qaaaye, Hdd Qm&yOyeradcaa Date:

0 ABB CoebusUan En neerin Nuclear 0 rations JUN-12-1996 17: 37 P. 81

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 2 of 15 Table of Contents Section ontents P~ae Nb.

1.0 20 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 Purpose R'eferences Quality Assurance Discussion and Background Limitations Test Description Test Results Conclusions Recommendations Figure I Table 1, Test Pressure Basis 10.

Table 2, Static Pressure Test, Axial Defect Tool Table 3, Static Pressure Test, Circumferential/Axial Defect Tool Table 4, Dynamic Pressure Test, Axial Defect Tool Table 5, Dynamic Pressure Test, Circumferential/Axial Defect Tool 12 13 14 15 Attachment 1

Faxed cover sheet with Review and Approval Signatures Test Procedure (Reference 2.1) and completed raw data sheets Pressure Gauge Calibration Records Pages 1

Pages 23 Pages 5

ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 3 of 15 1.0 Purpose The purpose ofthis test report is to document the results ofthe test performed to determine the relationship between the hydro pump outlet pressure and the seal bladder pressure under flow conditions for the steam generator localized in-situ pressure test tools.

In addition, static testing was performed to establish a baseline relationship under non-flow conditions.

The test was performed in accordance with the procedure listed in Reference 2.1. The data under flow conditions willbe used to ensure that in the event ofa leaking defect indication, the leakage rate is measured at the appropriate pressure(s) within the hydro chamber.

Testing was performed on both the axial and circumferential/axial tools.

2.0 References 2.1 Test Procedure, Steam Generator Tube In-Situ Hydrostatic Pressure Test Tool, Hydro Chamber Pressure Determination, TP-9419-CSE96-2104, Rev.0, dated June 10, 1996.

2.2 QAM-100, Fourth Edition, Revison 4.

2.3 Final Test Report for the Steam Generator Tube In-Situ Hydrostatic Test Tool. TR-ESE-1030, Rev. 00, T. R. No. 83D, dated April 5, 1994.

2.4 ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations Traveler No. PSL-007, In-Situ Hydro Test, Revision 4, dated May 24, 1996.

3.0 Quality Assurance The test results described herein are to be treated as Safety Related, Quality Class 1, in accordance with the requirements in Reference 2.2.

4.0 Discussion and Background Reference 2.3 describes the development and qualification testing for the localized in-situ test tool. The tool described in Reference 2.3 was developed to pressure test primarily circumferential defect indications in steam generator tubes at the tubesheet region. It is also used for the testing ofaxial indications.

The designation of'circumferential tool'sed in this report does not pr'eclude its use for axial indications.

An additional tool was evolved for the testing ofaxial defects which are greater in length than those which can be accommodated by the hydro chamber in the original tool. Since the tool design for the circumferential defects has greater restrictions than those for axial defects, the test report is bounding for the axial tool.

The localized test tool contains two pressure circuits; one for seal and gripper bladders (note that the axial tool is not equipped with grippers), and one for the hydro chamber.

ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 4of15 The hydro chamber circuit is pressurized by an air operated positive displacement pump.

The bladder circuit is pressurized by either an air operated positive displacement pump or a hand pump.

The positive displacement pumps used in the system are able to maintain a precise control at a given static pressure.

Under flow conditions, such as those experienced during a tube leak, the pump discharge pressure fluctuates between a high and low limitwith each pump pulse.

The magnitude ofthis band is a function ofthe flow rate and the restrictions within the hose/tool assembly.

Due to these dynamic head losses, the actual pressure in the hydro chamber willbe less than that observed at the pump discharge.

Reference 2.3 describes testing which was performed under flow conditions to establish the relationship between the hydro pump discharge pressure and the hydro chamber pressure.

This test consisted of measuring the swing ofthe pressure gauge at the discharge ofthe hydro pump at various leak rates at an initial static hydro chamber pressure of4,000 psig as directly measured in a controlled leak test fixture.

Implementation ofthis data in an in-situ field test requires an iterative process as the hydro chamber pressure is not directly measurable.

The process involves matching the pump discharge pressure swing relative to the desired pressure and observe the pump stroke rate as compared to the data in the test report. In addition, the test report explicitly states that the leak rate correction data apply only to the as-tested configuration.

For the testing at St. Lucie Unit I, it was requested that the capability be provided to test in the straight tube portions at elevations well above the tubesheet.

This necessitated the fabrication ofhoses longer than those described in Reference 2.3. For non leaking defect indications, the length ofthe hose does not afFect measuring the desired pressure in the hydro chamber as the system is static and the pressure is equal to that measured at the pump discharge.

For leaking defects, the change in system resistance'due to the change in hose length does have an efFect on the dynamic response ofthe pump discharge pressure gauge and its subsequent relationship to the hydro chamber pressure.

Consequently, for a leaking defect, the actual pressure in the hydro chamber is indeterminate without additional testing.

In order to determine the pressure in the hydro chamber with the current hose configuration, two methods were considered.

I) Hydro pump discharge pressure swing correlation method, and, 2)

Seal bladder pressure intensification method.

Method I is the method described in Reference 2.3. Method 2 is based upon an observation during laboratory testing and field application.

Experience during previous testing has shown that the bladder circuit pressure increases as its initial pre-charge pressure is approached by the increasing pressure in the hydro chamber.

This pressure increase has been termed 'intensification.'nce the bladder pre-charge pressure is ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 5 of 15 reached in the hydro chamber, the bladder pressure willincrease with increasing hydro chamber pressure.

This pressure has been observed to be approximately 200-300 psid under static conditions. It was expected that the relationship would be similar under flow (leak) conditions.

Establishing this relationship willprovide an accurate indirect method ofmeasuring the pressure in the hydro chamber under leaking conditions.

As the bladder circuit is not in a flow path, there are no head losses to consider.

Pulsations were evident in the bladder circuit due to the reciprocating nature ofthe hydro pump. However, these pulsations reflect the true pressure in the bladder circuit independent ofthe head losses experienced by the hydro circuit. By inference, the pressure in the hydro chamber can then be determined.

This test focused on establishing method 2 as the method ofchoice for determining the hydro chamber pressure under flow conditions.

However, additional data was recorded in order to provide for the use ofmethod

1. Method 1 is not evaluated in this report, however, the data obtained have been preserved as attachments to this report for any desired future use.

5.0 Limitations 5.1 The evaluation ofthe test data does not consider method 1. Data were recorded and attached to this report which can support future additional evaluation ofmethod 1. As noted in Section 4, the method 1 correlation is a function of system dynamic resistance.

Use ofthe test results in method 1 correlations is limited to systems with an identical configuration to that tested.

The hose configuration in this test was identical to that in Figure 2 ofReference 2.3 with the exception that the length ofthe 3/16" braided hose has been increased from 30 feet to 50 feet. As a result, the data obtained from this test may be used to qualify method 1 for a 50 A. length of 3/16" braided hose.

6.0 Test Description This testing was performed in support ofplanned steam generator tube in-situ testing at the St. Lucie power plant. The steam generator in-situ test is described in Reference 2.4.

Information from the Hydro Chamber Pressure Determination test reported herein will provide the basis for a revision to Reference 2.4 to incorporate lessons learned.

The protocol for the Hydro Chamber Pressure Determination test was provided in Reference 2.1. The target pressures for this test were based upon those anticipated for the in-situ test as described in Reference 2.4. These pressures are listed in the table below under the column headings Circumferential Indications and Axial Indications. Note that the Row titled 'MSLB', was not included in Reference 2.4 but was generated for the Hydro Chamber Pressure Determination test.

ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 6 of 15 Table l Test Pressure Basis Basis Base Value

( si Circumferential Indications si'"

Axial Indications si Normal Operating dZ 1435 MSLB Pressure 2,500 1.4 x MSLB Pressure"',500 3 xN.O. dZ 4,305 1,744 3,038 4,253 5,231 1,622 2,825 3,955 4,865 Notes:

1)

Pressures were corrected a total of21.5% from the base values for temperature and locked support influences.

,2)

Pressures were corrected 13% from the base values for temperature influences.

3)

The MSLB base pressure is increased by 40% to account for structural design safety margin.

Regarding the MSLB pressure, initially,the test steam generator tube test plan included only 1.4 x MSLB pressure, corrected for temperature and locked supports.

Further review suggests that while this value is an appropriate pressure for testing structural integrity, it is overly conservative with respect to leak rate testing for 10CFR100 release evaluations.

As a result, the MSLB value, without the 1.4 x factor was also considered when choosing target pressures for the bladder/hydro chamber correlation tests.

The correlation test was conducted using both the circumferential/axial and long axial localized in-situ test tools. Testing was carried out using a leak rate fixture in conjunction with the spare hydro pump normally used for in-situ testing.

Bladder pressure was supplied by a hand operated hydraulic pump. The test equipment is depicted in Figure l.

Static Test:

The static test was conducted at two initial bladder circuit pressures; 1,500 psig, and 2,000 psig. The initial bladder pressure of2,000 psig was chosen as this is the normal initial bladder circuit pre-charge.

As the objective ofthis test was to provide a comparison ofthe hydro chamber pressure with that in the bladder circuit for flow conditions, it was necessary to ensure that the initial bladder pressure was below the lowest desired test pressure.

Therefore, the static test also was conducted at 1,500 psig as this is less than the lowest target test pressure of 1,622 psig. Performing the static test at the two pressures allows comparison between the traditional bladder pre-charge pressure of2,000 psig and the planned bladder pre-charge pressure of 1,500 psig.

The static test was conducted at target hydro chamber pressures of 1,500,.1,600, 1,800, 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000 psig for each tool and both bladder pressures.

The 1,500 psig ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 7 of 15 value corresponds to the minimum bladder pressure.

The remaining pressures are rounded values chosen to approximate the proposed test pressures listed in the above table.

The static test was conducted by pressurizing the hydro circuit to the target pressure

+

'00 psig as indicated by the hydro chamber pressure gauge.

The system was observed for leaks and steady pressure readings on all gauges.

Pressure gauge readings were recorded as 'as read'alues on the data sheet.

These pressure values were corrected for calibration differences during data reduction in preparation for this report. The test was repeated for each ofthe target pressures for both tools at both initial bladder circuit pressures.

D f1*Th'dy.ilk<<ddf bh I

ig static bladder circuit pressure of 1,500 psig. The leak rate test was not conducted at an initial bladder pressure of 2,000 psig as this value willnot be used at St. Lucie Unit l.

Target pressures and leak rates were provided in Reference 2.1. The target hydro chamber pressures of 1,700, 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000 psig listed in Reference 2.1 were chosen to approximate the in-situ test pressures for both tools as listed in Table 1. These four values provided a reasonable basis for matching the test pressures while minimizing the number oftests to be conducted.

However, during the conduct ofthe test, substantial pressure fluctuations due to pump pulses were observed.

Consequently, the pressures were changed to be tailored to each tool and therefore to more closely approximate the speciflc target test pressures.

In addition, the 3 x NOdZ value was deleted from the leak test as leak testing at this pressure is not a requirement ofRegulatory Guide 1.121.

Reference 2.1 listed a series oftarget leak rates.

During the conduct ofthe test, some difficultywas encountered in achieving these values, particularly at higher leak rates.

As a result, the nearest achievable leak rate was used.

In addition, the test was expanded to provide additional data at low leak rates.

For the conduct ofthe test, the bladder circuit was pressurized to 1,500 psig + 100 psig.

The hydro circuit was pressurized to the target pressure

+ 100 psig. The test apparatus was observed for leaks and steady pressure readings on all gauges.

Subsequently, the leak rate control valve was opened to establish the desired hydro pump stroke rate while maintaining the target pressure as indicated by the hydro chamber pressure gauge.

This required iterative adjustment ofthe hydro pump air control regulator and the leak rate control valve. Due to the pulsing nature ofthe pump, the pressure gauge readings were fluctuating at a constant amplitude unique to each pressure tap. The adjustments were made such that the target hydro chamber pressure was at approximately the middle'of the swing. Once a steady-state condition was achieved, the pressure readings were recorded on the data sheet.

This process was repeated for each pump stroke rate tested at each of the hydro chamber test pressures for both tools.

ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations H -'1

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 8 of 15 Test Results The test procedure and completed data sheets used for this test are included in this report as an attachment.

The data were reviewed and compiled in a spreadsheet format in Tables 2 through 5 to'show the relationship between the bladder pressure and the hydro chamber pressure.

The data were used as the as-read values.

The pressure readings were not corrected for calibration variance.

The calibration records for the pressure gauges used in this test are attached to this report. For the. pressure gauges ofinterest, those on the hydro chamber and the bladder circuit, the deviation from the standard was identical in the pressure range tested +

50 psig.

As a result, the true LQ'etween these two gauges is identical te the as-read dZ.

Static Test:

The static test was conducted at two initial bladder circuit pressures, 1,500 and 2,000 psig, for both tools. Tables 2 & 3 present the results for the axial and circumferential tools respectively.

For both tools it was noted that a large chamber vs.

bladder dZ was evident until the hydro chamber pressure approached the initial bladder pressure.

Subsequently, the dZ was measured to be 150 to 250 psid. The typical variance between these M's for the same tool, at different initial bladder pressures was 50 psi. The variance between the two tools, at the same pressure, also was approximately 50 psi.

~Di T Th dy '.<<d d

i "ilbldd i ip f

1,500 psig for both tools. The tools were tested at three target hydro chamber pressures corresponding approximately to the N.O.M, MSLB pressure and 1.4 x MSLB pressure at a variety ofleak rates ranging from 3 to 92 strokes/min (1 pump stroke is equivalent to 0.005 gallons). Note that the target test pressures are different for axial vs.

circumferential defects.

The results for the axial and circumferential tools are presented in Tables 4 Ec 5.

Due to the pulsing nature ofthe reciprocating hydro pump, wide swings in all pressure readings were observed.

The hydro pump air inlet pressure and leak rate valve were adjusted such that the midpoint ofthe swing ofthe hydro chamber pressure gauge approximated the target test pressure.

Both the high and low values were recorded.

Additionally, the high and low values for the bladder circuit were recorded.

At each pump stroke rate (simulated leak rate) the true mean values ofthe pressure readings were calculated.

These were then used to calculate the dZ ofthe average pressures in the hydro chamber and bladder circuit. The LP values at each target test pressure were evaluated to calculate a single mean value for the b,P at a given target pressure.

trial Tool The results for the axial tool are presented in Table 4. The results show that for a given target pressure the dZ varied approximately 50 psi with two exceptions.

At the highest pump stroke rate for each target pressure, the dZ was considerably greater than the average ofthe remaining values.

In addition, for the target pressure of2850 psig, the dZ at 4 strokes/min was 200 psid while the remaining low to mid-range leak rates ranged from 275 to 325 psid. When comparing the three average b,P values, one at each target pressure, it was noted that as the target pressure was increased, the average M ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations 4 -IC

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 9 of 15 decreased.

The average dZ for the axial tool ranged from 395 psid @ 1650 psig to 250 psid @ 3950 psig.

Circumferential Tool The results for the circumferential tool are presented in Table 5.

'he results show that for a given target pressure the dZ varied approximately 50 psi with one exception.

At the highest pump stroke rate@ 1750 psig target pressure, the bP was 75 psi greater than the lowest value. This differs from the results observed with the axial tool in that there were no large differences at the higher stroke rate.

Similar to the axial tool, when comparing the three average LP values, one at each target pressure, it was noted that as the target pressure was increased, the average dZ decreased The average dZ for the axial tool ranged from 325 psid @ 1750 psig to 215 psid 4300 pslg.

8.0 Conclusions 8.1 The static test showed that ifthe initial bladder pre-charge pressure is less than the hydro chamber test pressure, large differences willbe observed between the values ofthese two circuits.

8.2 The static test also showed that as the test pressure is increased, the hP between the bladder and hydro chamber decreased.

8.3 Similar to the static test, the dynamic (controlled leak) test showed that as the target pressure was increased, the average dZ decreased.

8.4 The dynamic test showed that the axial tool had a larger average LQ'han the circumferential tool.

8.5 For the axial tool, a value of400 psi is a reasonable correction factor for,determining the hydro chamber average pressure based on the bladder circuit average pressure.

This value

's biased high with respect to increasing pressure and somewhat low at high leak rates (approximately 0.5 gpm). Considering the overall pressure swing in the hydro chamber this value is judged to be a reasonable correction factor.

8.6 For the circumferential tool, a value of300 psi is a reasonable correction factor for detern&ung the hydro chamber average pressure based on the bladder circuit average pressure.

This value is applicable for testing both axial as well as circumferential indications.

This correction factor is tool-specific, not defect-specific.

The value of300 psi biased high with respect to increasing pressure and slightly low at the normal operating dZ. Considering the overall pressure swing in the hydro chamber this value is judged to be a reasonable correction factor.

ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations AII

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 10 of 15 9.0 Recommendations 9.1 Target pressures in the steam generator tube in-situ pressure test as listed in the operating procedure should include a correction factor for pressure gauge deviation from the calibration standard.

9.2 For static, non-leaking defects, the tube test pressure should be directly read from the hydro pump discharge pressure gauge+100, -0 psig.

9.3 For l~eakin defects using the axial tool, the target test pressure in the tube should be achieved by adding 400 psi to the target pressure and ensuring that the average ofthe bladder pressure swing matches this pressure within 100 psi.

9.4 For ~leakin defects using the circumferential /axial tool, the target test pressure in the tube should be achieved by adding 300 psi to the target pressure and ensuring that the average ofthe bladder pressure swing matches this pressure within 100 psi.

ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations

CO 0)

C)0 O

0 fll CD CD CD COz O

CD CO 0

'U CD 0D Hydro Pump Hydro Pump Gauge In-Situ Tool Steam Generator Tube Bladder Pressure Gauge Hydro Chamber Figure 1 Test Apparatus Configuration Hydro Chamber Gauge Leak Rate Control Valve CO O

COrll CO 0) o XI(

C)

Bladder Pump Al (D

CD 0

Ql

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page'12 of 15 Table 2 Static Pressure Test Axial Defect Tool Initial Bladder Pressure - 1500 si Hydro Chamber Pressure (psig) 1500 1600 1800 3000 4000 5000 Hydro Pump Pressure(psig) 1500 1600 1800 3000 4050 5000 Bladder Pressure (psig) 1500 1825 1875 2050 3200 4250 5200 Chamber vs Bladder 1500 325 275 250 200 200 200 Initial Bladder Pressure - 2000 si Hydro Chamber Pressure (psig) 1500 1600 1800 3000 40QQ 5000 Hydro Pump Pressure(psig) 1500 1600 1850 3050 4000 5000 Bladder Pressure (psig) 2000 2150 2175 2275 3250 4250 5200 Chamber vs Bladder 2000 650 575 425 200 250 200 ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 13 of 15 Table 3 Static Pressure Test Circumferential/Axial Defect Tool Initial Bladder Pressure

- 1500 si Hydro Chamber Pressure (psig) 1500 1600 1750 3000 4000 5000 Hydro Pump Pressure(psig) 1500 1600 1800 3000 4000 5000 Bladder.

Pressure (psig) 1500 1850 1900 2050 3150 4150 5150 Chamber vs Bladder 1500 350 300 250 150 150 150 Initial Bladder Pressure

- 2000 si Hydro Chamber Pressure (psig) 1500 1550 1750 2950 4000 5000 Hydro Pump Pressure(psig) 1500 1600 1800 3000 4000 5000 Bladder Pressure (psig) 2000 2300 2300 2350 3200 4200 5200 Chamber vs Bladder 2000 800 700 550 200 200 200 ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 14 of 15 Table 4 Target Pressure 1650 psig Dynamic Pressure Test Axial Defect Tool Pump Rate Hydro Chamber (psi)

Strokes/min Max.

Min.

Avg.

Max.

Bladder (psi)

Min.

Avg.

'vg.

5 18 32 53 91 1700 1600 1650 1800 1450 1625 2050 1450 1750 2300 1400 1850 2400 1100 1750 2050 2150 2350 2500 2650 1950 1900 1950 1900 1800 2000 2025 2150 2200 2225 350 400 400 350 475 j-',:;-':;.:':::;:%ii:::::::::".i Target Pressure 2850 psig Pump Rate Strokes/min Hydro Chamber (psi)

Max.

Min.

Avg Bladder (psi)

Min.

Avg.

4 3000 2800 2900 22 3150 2600 2875 40 3300 2400 2850 54 3350 2300 2825 92 3800 2200 3000 3200 3400 3500 3600 4100 3000 2900 2800 2700 2800 3100 3150 3150 3150 3450 200 275 300 325 450 LI44I4~Jal1I ~I4lllllleYIIAI Target Pressure 3950 psig Pump Rate Strokes/min Hydro Chamber (psi)

Max.

Min.

Avg.

Max.

Bladder (psi)

Min.

Avg.

Avg.

3 18 38 56 80 4000 3850 3925 4400 3900 4150 4500 3500 4000 4700 3500 4100 4600 3100 3850 4200 4550 4600 4900 4800 4050 4125 4150 4350 3700 4150 3700 4300 3900 4350 200 200 150 200 500 ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations p4-Ib

TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 15 of 15 Table 5 Target Pressure 1750 psig Dynamic Pressure Test Circumferential/Axial Defect Tool Pump Rate Strokes/min Hydro Chamber ( si)

Max.

Min.

Avg.

Max Bladder si Min.

Avg.

Avg.

3 15 30 60 90 1800 1900 2000 2300 2450 1700 1750 1550 1725 1400 1700 1200 1750 1300 1875 2100 2150 2250 2450 2700 2050 1900 1750 1700 1800 2075 325 2025 300 2000 300 2075 325 2250 375 lI:Ilia,'",N:::;l'F,-i I'11%11 1 I la 'IIV11 Target Pressure 3050 psig Pump Rate Strokes/min 12 19 33 72 86 Hydro Chamber (psi)

Max.

Min.

Avg.

3250 2850 3050 3350 2800 3075 3500 2750 3125 3600 2400 3000 3800 2200 3000 Bladder (psi)

Max.

Min.

3450 3150 3550 3000 3750 3000 3850 2600 4000 2500 Avg.

Avg.

3300 250 3275 200 3375 250 3225 225 3250 250

!c~j?+2M",Pi:K Vllll4II~ Ol kllllMMIAlltt Target Pressure 4300 psig Pump Rate Strokes/min Hydro Chamber (psi)

Max.

Min.

Avg.

Max.

Bladder (psi)

Min.

Avg.

Avg.

5 20 42 59 84 4400 4250 4325 4750 4100 4425 4950 3800 4375 4900 3600 '250 5300 3500 4400 4600 4450 4950 4300 5100 4100 5100 3800 5500 3800 4525 4625 4600 4450 4650 200 200 225 200 250

~WW!2iS!%!il ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations 817