ML17229A096
| 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: |
| References | |
| TR-9419-CSE96-1, TR-9419-CSE96-1101, NUDOCS 9610280101 | |
| Download: ML17229A096 (17) | |
Text
ATIACHMENT A Test Report - STEAM GENERATOR TUBE IN-SITU HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE TEST TOOL HYDRO CHAMBER PRESSURE DETERMINATION 96f0280fOf 96f024 PDR ADOCK 05000335 ii i
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: Date:
. F. Hall. ipal Cons tant 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: Date:
1 CL lani, Qaaaye, Hdd Qm&y Oyeradcaa 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 Purpose 20 R'eferences 3.0 Quality Assurance 4.0 Discussion and Background 5.0 Limitations 6.0 Test Description 7.0 Test Results 8.0 Conclusions 9.0 Recommendations 10.
Figure I Table 1, Test Pressure Basis Table 2, Static Pressure Test, Axial Defect Tool 12 Table 3, Static Pressure Test, Circumferential/Axial Defect Tool 13 Table 4, Dynamic Pressure Test, Axial Defect Tool 14 Table 5, Dynamic Pressure Test, Circumferential/Axial Defect Tool 15 Faxed cover sheet with Review and Approval Signatures Pages 1 Test Procedure (Reference 2.1) and completed raw data sheets Pages 23 Pressure Gauge Calibration Records Pages 5 ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations
TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 3 of 15 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this test report is to document the results of the 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 will be used to ensure that in the event of a 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 of axial 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 of axial 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 limit with each pump pulse. The magnitude of this band is a function of the flow rate and the restrictions within the hose/tool assembly. Due to these dynamic head losses, the actual pressure in the hydro chamber will be 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 of the pressure gauge at the discharge of the hydro pump at various leak rates at an initial static hydro chamber pressure of 4,000 psig as directly measured in a controlled leak test fixture.
Implementation of this 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 of hoses longer than those described in Reference 2.3. For non leaking defect indications, the length of the 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 of the 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 will increase 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 will provide an accurate indirect method of measuring 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 of the hydro pump. However, these pulsations reflect the true pressure in the bladder circuit independent of the 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 of choice for determining the hydro chamber pressure under flow conditions. However, additional data was recorded in order to provide for the use of method 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 of the test data does not consider method 1. Data were recorded and attached to this report which can support future additional evaluation of method 1. As noted in Section 4, the method 1 correlation is a function of system dynamic resistance.
Use of the 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 of Reference 2.3 with the exception that the length of the 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 of planned 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 Circumferential Axial Indications Indications
( si si'" si Normal Operating dZ 1435 1,744 1,622 MSLB Pressure 2,500 3,038 2,825 1.4 x MSLB Pressure"',500 4,253 3,955 3 xN.O. dZ 4,305 5,231 4,865 Notes: 1) Pressures were corrected a total of 21.5% 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 of 2,000 psig was chosen as this is the normal initial bladder circuit pre-charge. As the objective of this test was to provide a comparison of the 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 of 2,000 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 +
psig as indicated by the hydro chamber pressure gauge. The system was observed for
'00 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 D f1*Th'dy .ilk<<ddf each of the target pressures for both tools at both initial bladder circuit pressures.
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 will not 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 of tests to be conducted. However, during the conduct of the 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 of Regulatory Guide 1.121.
Reference 2.1 listed a series of target leak rates. During the conduct of the test, some difficulty was 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 of the 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 of the hydro pump air control regulator and the leak rate control valve. Due to the pulsing nature of the 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 of interest, 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
'.<<d variance between the two tools, at the same pressure, also was approximately 50 psi.
~Di T Th dy 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 of leak 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 of the 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 of the swing of the 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 of the pressure readings were calculated. These were then used to calculate the dZ of the 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 of the remaining values. In addition, for the target pressure of 2850 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.
results show that for a given target pressure the dZ varied approximately 50 psi with
'he 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 will be observed between the values of these 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 of 400 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 of 300 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 of 300 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 A II
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 of the 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 of the bladder pressure swing matches this pressure within 100 psi.
ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations
CO 0)
Figure 1 C) 0 Test A p paratus Configuration CO O O CO rll 0 Hydro Pump Hydro Chamber CO 0) fll Gauge Gauge CD o CD Steam Generator CD XI Tube CO In-Situ Tool (
z C)
O CD CO Hydro 0
'U CD Pump 0 Hydro D Bladder Pressure Gauge Chamber Leak Rate Control Valve Bladder Al (D
Pump 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 Hydro Pump Bladder Pressure (psig) Pressure(psig) Pressure (psig) Chamber vs Bladder 1500 1500 1500 1500 1825 325 1600 1600 1875 275 1800 1800 2050 250 3000 3000 3200 200 4000 4050 4250 200 5000 5000 5200 200 Initial Bladder Pressure - 2000 si Hydro Chamber Hydro Pump Bladder Pressure (psig) Pressure(psig) Pressure (psig) Chamber vs Bladder 2000 2000 1500 1500 2150 650 1600 1600 2175 575 1800 1850 2275 425 3000 3050 3250 200 40QQ 4000 4250 250 5000 5000 5200 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 Hydro Pump Bladder.
Pressure (psig) Pressure(psig) Pressure (psig) Chamber vs Bladder 1500 1500 1500 1500 1850 350 1600 1600 1900 300 1750 1800 2050 250 3000 3000 3150 150 4000 4000 4150 150 5000 5000 5150 150 Initial Bladder Pressure - 2000 si Hydro Chamber Hydro Pump Bladder Pressure (psig) Pressure(psig) Pressure (psig) Chamber vs Bladder 2000 2000 1500 1500 2300 800 1550 1600 2300 700 1750 1800 2350 550 2950 3000 3200 200 4000 4000 4200 200 5000 5000 5200 200 ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations
TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 14 of 15 Table 4 Dynamic Pressure Test Axial Defect Tool Target Pressure 1650 psig Pump Rate Hydro Chamber (psi) Bladder (psi)
Strokes/min Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. 'vg.
5 1700 1600 1650 2050 1950 2000 350 18 1800 1450 1625 2150 1900 2025 400 32 2050 1450 1750 2350 1950 2150 400 53 2300 1400 1850 2500 1900 2200 350 91 2400 1100 1750 2650 1800 2225 475 j-',:;-':;.:':::;:%ii:::::::::".i Target Pressure 2850 psig Pump Rate Hydro Chamber (psi) Bladder (psi)
Strokes/min Max. Min. Avg Min. Avg.
4 3000 2800 2900 3200 3000 3100 200 22 3150 2600 2875 3400 2900 3150 275 40 3300 2400 2850 3500 2800 3150 300 54 3350 2300 2825 3600 2700 3150 325 92 3800 2200 3000 4100 2800 3450 450 LI44I4~ Jal1I ~ I4lllllleYIIAI Target Pressure 3950 psig Pump Rate Hydro Chamber (psi) Bladder (psi)
Strokes/min Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Avg.
3 4000 3850 3925 4200 4050 4125 200 18 4400 3900 4150 4550 4150 4350 200 38 4500 3500 4000 4600 3700 4150 150 56 4700 3500 4100 4900 3700 4300 200 80 4600 3100 3850 4800 3900 4350 500 ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations p4- Ib
TR-9419-CSE96-1101, Rev. 0 Page 15 of 15 Table 5 Dynamic Pressure Test Circumferential/Axial Defect Tool Target Pressure 1750 psig Pump Rate Hydro Chamber ( si) Bladder si Strokes/min Max. Min. Avg. Max Min. Avg. Avg.
3 1800 1700 1750 2100 2050 2075 325 15 1900 1550 1725 2150 1900 2025 300 30 2000 1400 1700 2250 1750 2000 300 60 2300 1200 1750 2450 1700 2075 325 90 2450 1300 1875 2700 1800 2250 375 lI:Ilia,'",N:::;l'F,-i I'11%11 1 I la 'IIV11 Target Pressure 3050 psig Pump Rate Hydro Chamber (psi) Bladder (psi)
Strokes/min Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Avg.
12 3250 2850 3050 3450 3150 3300 250 19 3350 2800 3075 3550 3000 3275 200 33 3500 2750 3125 3750 3000 3375 250 72 3600 2400 3000 3850 2600 3225 225 86 3800 2200 3000 4000 2500 3250 250
!c~j?+2M",Pi:K Vllll4II kllllMMIAlltt
~ Ol Target Pressure 4300 psig Pump Rate Hydro Chamber (psi) Bladder (psi)
Strokes/min Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Avg.
5 4400 4250 4325 4600 4450 4525 200 20 4750 4100 4425 4950 4300 4625 200 42 4950 3800 4375 5100 4100 4600 225 59 4900 3600 '250 5100 3800 4450 200 84 5300 3500 4400 5500 3800 4650 250
~WW!2iS!%!il ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Operations 8 17