ML19308D701

Reactor Containment Bldg Preoperational Integrated Leak Rate Test.

ML19308D701
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	12/09/1976
From:	BAHRAIN
To:
References
GAI-1927, NUDOCS 8003120842
Download: ML19308D701 (48)

Text

. ..

7 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING PREOPERATIONAL l

INTEGRATED LEAK RATE

, TEST FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION I

L Gilbert /CommonweaPth ENGINEERS / CONSULTANTS Reeding,pA/Jackes.% al

/

DECEMBER 10, 1976 GAI REPORT NO. 1927 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION PREOPERATIONAL INTEGRATED LEAK RATE TEST OF THE REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC.

P.O. Box 1498 Reading, Pennsylvania If603 r

Gert/r - h

u,

,n TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Item Title Page 1.0 SYNOPSIS 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

3 3.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 5 4.0 TEST INSTRUMENTATION 6 4.1 Summary of Instruments 6 4.2 Schematic Arrangement 8 4.3 Calibration Checks 9 I 4.4 Instrumentation Performance 9 4.5 Systematic Error Analysis 10 4.6 Supplemental Verification 13 5.0 TEST PROCEDURE 15 5.1 Prerequisites 15 5.2 General Discussion 16 5.3 Test Performance 18 6.0 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 21 6.1 General Discussion 21 6.2 Statistical Evaluation 23 7.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 25 7.1 Results at P 25

- 7.2 Supplemental

• Test Results 26

~

8.0 REFERENCES

28 a

Appendices A. INSTRUMENTATION SCHEMATIC l l

B. REDUCED LEAKAGE RATE DATA C. WEIGHT OF CONTAINMENT AIR AND AVERAGE CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE VERSUS TIME

~

D. COMPUTER PRINTOUT m

Gdbart/Commanuseth

---e,- - - , - - -

1.0 SYNOPSIS .

1

,_- The Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant reactor containment building was subjected to a preoperational integrated leak rate test during the period from November 5, 1976 to l

November 6, 1976. The purpose of this test was to demonstrate the l

acceptability of the building leakage rate at an internal pressure

_ of 49.6 psig (P ). Testing was performed in conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J. ANSI N45.4-1972 and Crystal

~~

River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant FSAR. ,

l The measured leakage rate based on the mass point method of analysis was found to be 0.057 percent by weight per day at 49.6 psig. The leakage rate at the upper bou.nd of the 95 percent confidence l 1

interval is 0.061 percent by weight per day which is well below the s

allowable leakage rate of 0.187 percent by weight per day at 49.6 psig.

The demineralized water system outside containment isolation valve,

_ DWV-160, could not be closed using its normal mode of operation due 1 to a burn out of the motor operator. The inside containment isolation purge supply valve, AHV-lC, was manually closed during the pressurization phase of this test. The addition of the local leakage rate of these two valves, determined subsequent to the integrated leakage rate test, must be considered. The combined l 1

leakage rate of both of these isolation valves, determined by local testing, is O.000005 percent per day. The addition of this negligible value does not change the measured integrated leakage rate.

~

t r-

, The supplemental instrumentation verification at P,was 10.4 percent,

_ well within the 25 percent requirement of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Section III A.3.b.

All testing was performed by Florida Power Corporation with the technical assistance of Gilbert Associates, Inc. Gilbert Associates, Inc. has previously supplied technical direction for ten integrated leak rate tests.

P Procedural and calculational methods were witnessed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission persorrael and a NELPIA representative.

> eme Y*

I @

W

.w v.

Pe's -

$4 b

.. ~

A g.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

- The objective of the preoperational integrated leak rate test was the establishment of the degree of overall leak tightness of the reactor containment building at the calculated design basis accident pressure of 49.6 psig. The allowable leakage is defined by the e

design basis accident applied in the safety analysis in accordance with site exposure guidelines specified by 10 CFR 100. For Crystal River Unit 3, the. maximum allowable integrated leak rate at the

[~ design basis accident pressure of 49.6 psig (P,) is 0.25 percent by we'ight per day (L,).

Testing was performed in accordance with the procedural requirements as stated in Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Unit 3 Test Procedure, TP 7 1 150 2. This procedure was approved by the Crystal River Unit 3 Test Working Group and Plant Review Committee prior to the commencement of the test.

Prior to the accomplishment of the preoperational integrated leak

- rate test, the structural integrity test was performed at the peak internal containment building pressure of 63.3 psig. The results of

~

the structural integrity test are presented in a separate document (GAI Report No. 1930).

The combined local leakage ratas from the reactor containment j 1

building' isolation valves and penetrations which are required to be l tested under 10 CFR 50, Appendix J was less than 60 percent of the maximum allowable leakage rate (L,) at 49.6 psig prior to the commencement of the integrated leak rate test.

I Geert/eW

\

( Leakage rate testing was accomplished at the pressure level of H 49.6 psig for a period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period was followed by a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> supplemental test for a verification of test instrumentation.

?"

~

?

p, i -

ns e

. l 1

l l

s.

m.

b-lieert/Conunensesth

?*

3.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria established prior to the test and as specified by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, ANSI N45.4-1972 and the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant FSAR, Section 15.4.2.2, Amendment 49, are as follows:

a. The measured leakage rate (L,,) at the calculated design basis accident pressure of 49.6 psig (P,) shall be less than 75 percent of the maximum allowable leakage rate (L ,), specified as 0.25 percent by weight of the building atmosphere per day.

. The acceptance criteria is determined as follows:

L,= 0.25%/ day

~

0.75L,= 0.187%/dav

b. The test instrumentation shall be verified by means of a cupplemental test. Agreement be' tween the containment leakage measured during the Type A test and the containment leakage measured during the supplemental test shall be within 25 percent of L,.

4 k.d l

)

)

sser - ,

1 H

4.0 TEST INSTRUMENTATION 4.1 Summary of Instruments l l

Test instruments employed are described, by system, in the following subsections:

4.1.1 Temperature Indicating System Overall system accuracy: 1 0.25% of reading plus 0.1 F Overall system repeatability:  ! 0.25% of reading plus 0.1 F Components:

a. Resistance Temperature Detectors Quantity 24 Manufacturer Temtex Type 100 ohm platinum Range, F 75 - 125 Accuracy, F  ! .25% of reading

b. Digital Temperature Scanner / Printer Quao? tty 1 i

- Manufacturer Doric Scientific Corp.

Type

• 210-40-NSR-08-17 Digital Data Logger Accuracy, F 1 0.1 Repeatability, F  ! 0.1

• Also equipped with 25 Rosemount Model 401R-4 bridge cards e-se Esert/P-

t i

h 4.1.2 Dewpoint Indicating System Overall system accuracy: ! 1.65 F Overall system repeatability: 1 1.50 F

~

a. Dewcell Elements Quantity 10

!sanufacturer Panametrics Type MHDX (Special)

Range, F 50 - 100 Accuracy, F i1 Repeatability, F i1

<- b. Dewpoint Readout Quantity 2 Manufacturer Panametrics Type 2000-132 (Special)

Range, F 50 - 100 Accuracy, F 1 0.65 Repeatability, F 1 0.50

- 4.1.3 Pressure Monitoring System Overall system accuracy: 1 0.010% of reading plus 0.002% of full scale Overall system repeatability: 2 0.001% of full scale i Precision Pressure Gauges Quantity 2 Manufacturer Texas Instruments Type 145-01 Range, psia 0 - 100

_ enart/r-i Accuracy, psia 2 0.010% of reading plus 0.002% of full scale r

Repeatability, psia 1 0.001% of full scale 4.1.4 -Supplemental Test Flow Monitoring System Overall system accuracy: 1 1% of full scale Flow Meter Quantity 2 Manufacturer Brooks Type 1100-08 Range, scfm 0.756 - 7.56 Accuracy, scfm 2 1% of full scale 4.2 ' Schematic Arrangement The arrangement of the four measuring systems summarized in Section 4.1 is depicted in Appendix A.

Temperature sensors were placed throughout the reactor containment building volume to permit monitoring of internal temperature variations at 24 locations. A temperature survey was performed after the sensors were installed which verified there were no large areas of temperature variation. Dewcelle were placed in 10 locations, Placement of temperature sensors and dewcells was as follows:

No. of Temperature Location Indicators No. of Dewcells Elev. 100' O 1 j Elev. 105' 3 1

. Elev. 108' 2 0 i

Elev. 120' O 1 i

Eidhet fr-1 No. of Temperature Location Indicators No. of Dewcells

>e Elev. 140' 5 1 Elev. 179'-6" 2 0 Elev. 180' 2 2 Elev. 186'-2" 1 0 Elev. 200' O 1 Elev. 215'-6" 2 2 Elev. 220' 1 0 Elev. 238'-8" 1 0 Elev. 242'-8" 3 1 Elev. 260' 2 0 These 34 sensors, p. aced as indicated, made possible representative measurements of reactor containment building internal atmospheric conditions. Continuous mixing of tr atmosphere was accomplished by operation of the reactor building recirculation units.

4.3 Calibration Checks s

Temperature, dewpoint and pressure measuring systems were checked for calibration before the test as reconsnended by ANSI N45.4-1972, Section A.2 aad 6.3. The supplemental test at 49.6 psig confirmed l l

the instrumentation acceptability. l l

4.4 Instrumentation Performance Prior to the test, two dewcell probes were found to be reading incorrectly. They were replaced with two spare dewcell probes but the problem was not corrected. Initial investigation suggested that

[

a possible short existed in the cables for these probes. The eight Georg/remmensenth

r l-7

'deweells used during the test performed well and were more than

- - adequate for coverage of the containment. Approximately three hours into the test, one R"_0 started fluctuating. No cause could be ietermined to account for this RTD's response and it was then d:scovered'that this RTD had responded similarly during pressurization. It was decided to eliminate this RTD reading from k

>- the data collected to this point since its response was suspect and to eliminate it from future readings. The remaining twenty-three RTD's performed well and provided more than adequate coverage of the containment. No problems were experienced with the precision

~

pressure gauges or the flowmeters.

4.5 Systematic Error Analysis Systematic error, in this test, is induced by the operation of the temperature indicating system, dewpoint indicating system and the pressure indicating system.

Justification of instrumentation selection was accomplished, using

- manufacturer's accuracy and repeatability tolerances stated in Section 4.1, by computing the figure of merit as follows:

a The leakage rate, in weight percent per day (%/ day), based on an

. interval of measurement of 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> duration is P T 24 L = 100 [1 p ] %/ day o 24 where:

P, = PTo - P,, , psia = partial pressure of air at start P 24 " T24 - vv24. Psia = partial pressure of air at finish b 5 4

'Ibert/Cammemmunk r ,

l 1

7

( T, = building mean ambient internal temperature at start, R

w. T 24 =guildingmeanambientinternaltemperatureatfinish, R

The chango, or uncertainty level, in L due to uncertainties in the systematic measured variables is given by 6L = 100 TP24) +( TP,) +( TT,) +( TT24) 24 o o 24 -

e where T is the systematic error for each variable. The error in L after differentiation is P24 24 o *Po 24 *To ,

24T ,eT24 e = 100 +

b Yo T 24 ) + kP o T24 / o 24 P T o 24 -

wheret

- *Po o

'P24 " I 24 e = TTg h

'T24 " I 24 Since the values of T, and T24 are essentailly the same, within 1.06 F, and P, and P24 are essentially the same, within 0.099 psia, let T, = T24, P o =P24' *Po " "P24 " "P ""d "To " *T24 " "T*

systematic error in L then reduces to ,

1/2 3 2 e 2 '

e = 141.4

[eo +

f o (1) where the error in pressure (e )pmay be expressed as ep = (e p 2+e p 2)1/2 a b To calculate the maximum systematic error, the maximum values of l

pressure and temperature reached during the 24, test were used in l determining e p-and e * '

T

_ 1 i

Geert/h a -

?

t e.

t

1. - ep = error induced by the precision pressure gauges, or ep = 1 (0.00010) (64.632) + (0.00002) (100) psia a (2)gjy ep = 1 0.00598 psia a

and ep = error induced by the dewcel.ls, or b

1.65 o

" F I~ *P b (8)1/2 ep = 0.583 F From steam tables, at a dewpoint of 58.08 F, the pressure equivalent to 1 0.583 F is ep = 1 0.00501 psia Therefore, (0.00501)2)1/2 p,g, ep = [(0.00598)2 +

ep = 1 0.00780 psia The error in temperature (e )T may be expressed as

+ 0.0025(79.80) + .1 o

'T "

(23)1/2

... eT = 0.0624 F Hence, for values at 49.6 psig, P,= 64.533 psia T,= 538.43 R and substitution into equation (1) yields 2  ! -

e = 141.4 [(0.00780 + (0.0624 64.533 538.43 e = 2 0.024 %/ day lieert/r-I I'

The maximum expected systematic error (figure of merit) of the test

- instrumentation is e g.

If equation (1) is solved using previously stated repeatability values, the figure of merit is calculated to be e = 1 0.019 %/ day Containment leakage rate computations are a function of changes in temperature and pressure relative to each other, not absolute values.

Therefore, the repeatability error analysis is more meaningful.

A conclusion reached from the above calculation was that the instrumentation selected yielded an error value approximately ten times less than the allowable leakage rate value of 0.25 percent per day and that the instrumentation combination was of sufficient sensitivity for this test. The e values are not based on a statistical analysis of leakage rate calculations and are used strictly for instrumentation selection.

4.6 Supplemental Verification In addition to the calibration checks described in Section 4.3, test instrumentation operation was verified by a supplemental test subsequent to the completion of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> leakage rate test. This i

test consisted of imposing a known calibrated leakage rate on the reactor containment building. After the flow rate was established, l

it was not altered for th: duration of the test.

l During the supplemental test, the measured leakage rate was L =L,+L g c v o Gert/r - I

> I j

5- .

1 I

I where,-

L = measured composite leakage rate consisting of the reactor building leakage rate plus the imposed leakage rate L,= imposed leakage rate  !

L , = leakage rate of the reactor building during the supplemental test phase Rearranging the above equation, v' " c

~

o The reactor containment building leakage during the supplemental test r

can be calculated by subtracting the known superimposed leakage rate from the measured composite leakage rate.

The reactor containment building leakage rate during the supplemental test (L ,)y was then compared to the measured reactor containment building leakage rate during the preceding 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test (L,,) to determine instrumentation acceptability. Instrumentation is considered acceptable if the difference between n.e u.o '. tiding leakage rates is within 25 percent of the maximum allowable leakage rate (L,) .

yd a

k

m.

r i

C

- 5.0 TEST PROCEDURE r . 5.1 Prerequisites i

Prior to commencement of reactor containment building pressurizatien, the following prerequisites were satisfied:

j

a. Proper operation of all test instrumentation was verified.

b. All reactor containment building isolation valves were closed using the normal mode of operation with the exception of demineralized water system outside containment isolation valve DWV-160. This valve was hand closed as the motor operator had been burned out prior to the start of pressurization. The valve

, was manually closed and local leakage rate tested prior to the i

i start of pressurization. The local leakage rate measured was

' zero. Subsequent to the integrated leakage rate test, the motor operator was repaired, the valve was closed using its normal mode and locally leakage rate tested.

c. Equipment within the reactor containment building, subject to damage, was removed or protected from external differential I

(, pressures.

d. Portions of fluid systems, which under post-accident conditions become extensions of the containment boundary, were drained and vented.

e. Pressure gauges were installed on the following systems to provide a means of detection for leakage into these systems:

1. Purge Supply

2. Purge Exhaust 9

Geert/r-

i

3. Main Steam Loop A

4. Main Steam Loop B

5. Personnel Access Hatch

6. Equipme.c Hatch Airlock

f. Local leak rate testing of containment isolation valves and 4

penetrations was concluded.

g. Containment recirculation fans were operational and baffle plates were installed to prevent motor overload at the peak 7-SIT test pressw.s.

c-L h. Potent:ial pressure sources were removed or isolated from the F containment.

i. The structural integrity test had been satisfactorily (;>?leted.

j. A general inspection of the accessible interior and exterior a surfaces of the containment structures and components was completed.

5.2 General Discussion

- Following the satisfaction of the prerequisites stated in Section 5.1 the reactor containment building pressurization was initiated at a rate of approximately 3 psi per hour. Building internal temperature ,

l increased slowly at approximately 0.04 F/hr. Building pressure I

and temperature and the amperage required by the recirculation  ;

t unit fans (AHF-1A, 1B and IC) were monitored half hourly. Leak rate testing was initiated at the 49.6 psig pressure level. Four

[ hours of stabilization elapsed between reaching the 49.6 psig l

l pressure level and the taking of official data.

V i

l GeertF-h- , _ . _ _ . _ . . - ,

h.

(

, During the test the,following occured at half-hour intervals (See Appendix B):

a. Pressures indicated by each of the two precision gauges were recorded and the average calculated.

b. The twenty-three RTD temperatures were recorded and the average calculated.

c. The eight dewpoint values were recorded. The average of the eight valuen was converted to vapor pressure using steam tables.

~

This permitted correction of the total pressure to the partial pressure of air by subtracting the vapor pressure.

The use of vapor pressure (P ), average temperature (T) and the total pressure (P ) is described in more detail in Section 6.1.

T The plot of average temperature and weight of air ras performed half hourly. (See Appendix C)

When convenient, the available half-hourly values of P y, T and P T were transmitted via on-site portable computer terminal to the

~

Gilbert Associates, Inc. home office for analysis using the CLERCAL computer program. Computer program results, including a least squares fit of the data, were returned to the site via the terminal.

A final computer run was made after data for a full 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period was available.

u Gdtert/r-

f~

7 Lumediately following the 24th hour of the test, a superimposed leakage rate was established for an additional 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period.

During this time, temperature, pressure and vapor pressure were monitored as described above.

5.3 Test Performance Pressurization of the reactor building containment was started on November 3, 1976 at 1620. The pressurization rate was approximately 3 psi per hour. During pressurization of the reactor containment building, a buildup of pressure between the purge supply valves

~

- AHV-1C and AHV-1D was noted. Building pressure was 2.5 psig and pressurization continued, while the gauge installed between the

! valves was monitored. With building pressure at approximately

'3.;S psig, pressurization of the building was terminated. Purge supply valve AHV-1C was cycled from the control room in an attempt to properly seat the valve by normal operation and the pressure between the purge supply valves was bled off. Pressure buildup continued and it was agreed to enter the reactor containment and manually seat purge valve AHV-1C. Subsequent to the integrated

\

leakage rate test, purge supply valve AHV-1C was repaired and locally tested. When containment internal pressure reached 49.6 psig, at 1515 on November 4, 1976 the compressors were , cured. Temperature control was initiated by throttling valve SWV-42 as required on the l

discharge side of the service water to recirculation fan unit l

I o AHF-1A cooling coil.

' u#

Gdhrt/r-r -.

i e-1 t

After waiting 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, leak rate testitF was started. Temperature

,. had stabilized at approximately 80 F. Approximately three hours' into the test, the average reactor containment building temperature l^ was continuing to increase slightly even though flow to the recirculation fan units cooling coils was increased. It was then discovered that the plant staff had secured the nuclear services sea water system which provides cooling to the service water system s supplying the recirculation fan unit cooling coils. The nuclear services sea water system was placed in service which quickly cooled the service water system and resulted in a drop in the average reactor l'

containment building temperature and pressure. The nuclear services sea water system was secured. Since the reactor containment building j pressure had dropped to approximately 49.6 psig, it was decided tc repressurize to between 49.7 and 49.8 psig as required by the approved test procedure. Pressurization was initiated at 0100 on November 5,1976 and terminated at 0145 on November 5,1976. An i

additional four hcur stabilization period was observed and the '

integrated leakage rate test was started at 0600 on November 5, 1976.

~

To avoid further temperature excusions, no cooling water was supplied 1

- l to the recirculation fan unit cooling coils. As a result of the small heat input from the recirculation fan unit motors, the average reactor containment building temperature increased at approximately 0.04 F per hour. This had no adverse effects on the test as discussed in Sect' ion 7.0.

b-.p Gibert /P-

, . _ , , _ y. - ' - - -,e.- y w w 7 *T'--~

e After 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of leakage rate data was obtained and evaluated and r the leakage rate found to be acceptable, a known leak rate was

~

imposed on the building through a calibrated flowmeter for a period of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.

After all required data was obtained and evaluated, depressurization was started. A post test inspection of the building revealed no unusual findings.

p=e W

j r4 4 Geert/r-J l

Y*

6.0 W

_ETHODS OF ANALYSIS 6.1 General Discussion The absolute method of leakage rate determination was employed during testing at the 49.6 psig pressure level. The three calculational methods which can be used in computing the leakage rate from a reactor containment building are the mass point method, point-to-point method and the total time method. The latter two methods are described in ANSI N45.4-1972.

The Gilbert Associates, Inc. CLERCAL computer code calculates the  ;

. percent per day leakage rate for the mass point, point-to-point and total time methods. The results based on the point-to-point method and the total time method are presented for informational purposes only. The official results are based on the mass point method.

The mass point method of computing leakage rates uses the following ideal gas law equation to calculate the weight of air inside containment for each half hc.ur:

W = 144 PV ,]G>_

RT T where.

W = mass of air inside containment, Ibn 6 lba - R - in.

K = 144 V/R = 5.39831 x 10 3 P = partial pressure of air, psia T = average internal containment temperature, R ,

The partial pressure of air, P, is calculated as follows:

P= T1 + T2 -P 2

r l<

~

Geert/r-

r-Y*

where, PTl = true corrected total pressure from PI-1, psia

- P = true c rrected total pressure from PI-2, psia T2 P

yy = partial pressure of water vapor determined by averaging the eight dewpoint temperatures and converting to vapor pressure with the use of steam tables, psia 7

The average internal containment temperature, T is calculated as follows:

T = sum f 23 23 RTD's + 459.69 R

. The weight of air is plotted versus time for the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test and for the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> supplemental test. The Gilbert Associates, Inc.

CLERCAL computer code fits the locus of these points to a straight line using a linear least squares fit. The equation of the linear least squares fit line is of the form W = W + Wy t where Wy is the slope in Ibm per hour and W, is the initial weight at time zero.

The least squares parameters are calculated as follows:

Et g 2 E "1 - Et g It gW g W =

o S XX nit g W g - It gEW g 1" S XX

where, S = nit - (E t )

The weight percent leakage per day can then be determined from the following equation:

-2400 W y wt. %/ day = g

._ o Geert/r-

y.

e-t where the' negative sign is used since Wy is a negative slope to express the leakage rate as s positive quantity.

6'. 2 Statittical Evaluation P'

Atter performing the least squares fit, the CLERCAL computer code 7

calcula;:es the following statistical parameters:

a. Standard error of confidence for the curve fit (S,).

s b. Liditsofthe95percentconfidenceintervalforthecurvefit.

P

c. Limits of the 95 percent confidence interval for the leakage

, - . rate (C ).

L The significance of the measured leakage rate can then be evaluated s in view of the number of data points exceeding the limits of the 95 percer.t confidence interval and the magnitude of the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence interval for the leakage rate.

Standard error of confidence is defined as follows:

12

[W g - (W, +W 1 t g)]

, S, = N-2 where, Wg = observed mass of air (W,+ Wg .1) = least squares calculated mass of air N = number of data points This parameter is an expression of the difference between an observed and a calculated (least squares) mass point. The 95 percent confidence interval of the fit is twice the standard error of confidence (2S,). The " degree-of-fit" is evaluated by determining the number of data points, Wg , not falling in the interval

~

(Wo + W1 t) 12Se .

Geertr -

a

?-

l The 95 percent confidence limit for the mass leakage iate is i

calculated as follows:

1/2 S + (E tt) T

=t 8 +

L 95 e S, NS xx where, t = Student's t distribution with N-2 degrees of freedom g5 This parameter is an expression of the uncertainty in the measured leakage rate.

Y*

k

.i me.

W b

?

7.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

,, 7.1 Results at P, Data obtained during the leak rate test at P, indicated the following changes during the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test period:

Variable Maximum Change P 0.099 psia T

P 0.013 psia T 1.06 F The method used in calculating the mass point leakage rate is

- defined in Section 6.0. Results of these calculations are as 2

follows:

Method Leakage Rate Mass Point 0.057 %/ day Point-to-Point 0.063 %/ day (mean value)

Total Time 0.061 %/ day (mean value)

Based on the mass point method of calculations, the leakage rate

- (L,,) was 0.057 %/ day. (See Appendix D).

The 95 percent confidence limit associated with this leakage rate is 0.004 percent per day. 'Ehus the leakage rate at the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence level becomes L,,= 0.057 + 0.004 L,,= 0.061 %/ day

= arm i

enm/r-g .._ . _ - - - _ _ _

p. ',

)

3 Y

j The measured leakage rate and the measured leakage rate at the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence level are well below the acceptance criteria of .187 percent per day (0.75 L,). A comparison of each of the observed weights with the weight calculated using the least squares line reveals only two of the forty-nine data points do not lie within the 95 percent confidence interval. Therefore, reactor containment building leakage at the calcu?ated design basis accident pressure (P,) of 49.6 psig is considered to be acceptable.

a.

[ 7.2 Supplemental Test Results After conclusion of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test at 49.6 psig (P ), flowmeters FI-4 and FI-5 were placed in service and a combined flow rate of 12.32 SCFM was established. This flow rate is equivalent to a v

leakage rate of 0.206 percent per day at pressure 49.6 psig. After v

the flow rate was established, it was not a..tered for the duration

, of the supplemental test.

The measured leakage rate (Lc ) during the supplemental test was

, calculated to be 0.289 percent per day using the mass point method of analysis. (See Appendix D). The upper bound of the 95 percent confidence limit associated with this leakage rate is 0.008 percent per day. Only one of the 25 data points did not lie within the 95 percent confidence interval.

Geert/Canuunused g

E l-r The building leakage rate during the supplemental test is then determined as follows:

L,=L ~

y c o Ly, = 0.289 %/ day - 0.206%/ day Ly, = 0.083 %/ day Comparing this leakage rate with the building leakage rate measured during the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test yields the following:

t' l am - v'! " (0.057)-(0.083)l l

I' L, 0.25%/ day 1

The building leakage rates agree within 10.4 percent of L,which is well below the acceptance criteria of 25 percent of L,. Therefore the acceptability of the test instrumentatian is considered to have been verified.

I i

e h*

Geert /r-

8.0 REFERENCES

1. TP 71 150 2, "Init'ial Reactor Building Integrated Leak Rate Test", Florida Power Corporation Test Procedure.

2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, Appendix J.

(1-1-75).

3. ANSI N45.4-1972, Leakage Rate Testing of Containment Structures for Nuclear Reactors, American Nuclear Society, (March 16, 1972).

4. Steam Tables, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, (1967).

5. CLERCAL, Computer Code, Gilbert Associates, Inc.

1 i

O Ghert/r -

L APPENDICES

>W 9

e W

emert/W l

_ _ ~ '

7 APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTATION SCHEMATIC e~

d we lieerttr-

APPENDIX A SCHEMATIC ARRANGEMENT OF TEST INSTRUMENTATION

/

- w x s @ @ /

61

@ t' "/

@@ I III n

QUADRANT ORIENTATION

@@ I III g h

• @w

@ X X

@I @ @ - - --q)-

III III 49 50 II

- iv F1-4 F1-5 I W -- --

00 @@ @ x x XE I III h' h IV II i

IV x  : @*  : x II (III I III IV II

• hIy

• INOPERATIVE DURING TEST

' INST. TAG ELEY. INST. TAG ELEV. INST. TAG ELEY.

LR-20-TE 105'-0" LR-32-TE 260'-0" LR-41-HE 105'-0" LR-21-TE 105'-0" LR-33-TE 242'-8 " LR-42-HE 100'-0" LR-22-TE 105'-0" LR-34-TE 220'-0 " LR-43-HE 140'-0" LR-23-TE 108'-0" LR-35-TE 215 '-6 " LR-44-HE 120'-0" LR-24-TE 140'-0" LR-36-TE 242'-8" LR-45-HE 242'-8" LR-25-TE 140'-0" LR-37-TE 238'-8" LR-46-HE 215'-6" LR-26-TE 140'-0" LR-38-TE 21 5 '-6 " LR-47-HE 215 '-6 "

LR-27-TE 140'-0" LR-39-TE 242'-8" LR-48-HE 200'-0" LR-28-TE 186'-2" LR-52-TE 108'-0" LR-49-HE 180'-0" LR-29-TE 180'-0" LR-53-TE 140'-0" LR-50-HE 180 '-0 "

LR-30-TE 260'-0" LR-54-TE 179'-6" LR-31 TE 180'-0 " LR-55-TE 179'-6"

I l

4 i

l i

APPENDIX B REDUCED LEAKAGE DATA

)

I o

't e

&#l Geert/r-

, . . . ~ _ _ . - _ ~. _

l Sheet 1 of 4 APPENDIX B l

l

' REDUCED TEST DATA l

Average Partial Pressure Average Containment of Containment Partial Pressure Containment Weight of Pressure Water Vapor of Containment Temperature Containment Time (psia) (psia) Air (psia) (OR) Air (Ibs)

! 11/5/76 0600 64.533 0.226 64.307 538.43 644,743.27 0630 64.536 0.227 64.309 538.45 644,739.38 0700 64.538 0.227 64.311 538.46 644,747.45 0730 64.540 0.227 64.313 538.47 644,755.53 0800 64.542 0.228 64.314 538.50 644,729.64 0830 64.544 0.230 64.314 538.54 644,681.75 0900 64.546 0.229 64.317 538.55 644,699.85 0930 64.544 0.229 64.317 538.57 644,655.86 1000 64.546 0.229 64.317 538.59 644,651.97 1030 64.548 0.230 64.318 538.65 644,590.18 1100 64.552 0.230 64.322 538.64 644,642.24 9

1130 64.554 0.230 64.324 538.68 644,614.41 1200 64.557 0.232 64.325 538.69 644,612.47 1230 64.560 0.231 64.329 538.72 644,616.65 1300 64.564 0.231 64.333 538.75 644,620.84 1330 64.566 0.230 64.336 538.80 644,591.08 1400 64.570 0.230 64.340 538.82 644,607.23 1430 64.574 0.231 64.343 538.85 644.601.39 1500 64.576 0.231 64.345 538.87 644,597.50 1530 64.580 0.231 64.349 538.90 644,60s.69 1600 64.581 0.232 64.349 538.94 644,553.85 1630 64.583 0.232 64.351 538.97 644,538.00

y

_ m_

_ __ q Sheet 2 cf 4 APPENDIX B (Cont'd)

REDUCED TEST DATA Average Partial Pressure Average Containment of Containment Partial Pressure Containment Weight of Pressure Water Vapor of Containment Temperature Containment Time _ (psia) (psia) Air (psia) (OR) Air (Ibs) 1700 64.585 0.233 64.352 538.99 644,524.10 1730 64.588 0.233 64.355 539.01 644,530.23 1800 64.590 0.233 64.357 539.04 644,514.39 1830 '64.592 0.232 64.360 539.05 644,532,48 1900 64.594 0.234 64.360 539.09 644,484.65 1930 64.596 0.232 64.364 539.08 644,536.66 2000 64.598 0.233 64.365 539.11 644,510.81 2030 64.600 0.232 64.368 539.11 644,540.85 2100 64.603 0.235 64.368 539.13 644,516.94 2130 64.604 0.235 64.369 539.15 644,503.04 2200 64.606 0.234 64.372 539.17 644,509.17 2230 64.608 0.234 64.374 539.19 644,505.29

'2300 64.609 0.234 64.375 539.22 644,479.44 2330 64.611 0.235 64.376 539.22 644,489.46 2400 64.612 0.235 64.377 539.27 644,439.71 11/6/76 0030 64.614 0.235 64.379 539.29 644,435.83 0100 64.616 0.236 64.380 539.28 644,457.79 0130 64.618 0.236 64.382 539.30 644,453.91 0200 64.620 0.236 64.384 539.32 644,450.03 0230 64.621 0.237 64.384 539.34 644,426.13 0300 64.623 0.237 64.386 539.38 644,398.36 0330 64.624 0.238 64.386 539.38 644,398.36

, ,_, . . _ - . ~ . - , - , - - . . , _ _ - - _,

_.q She:t 3 cf 4 APPENDIX B (Cont'd)

REDUCED TEST DATA Average Partial Pressore Average Containment of Containnent Partial Pressure Containment Weight of Pressure Water Vapor of Containment Temperature Containment Time (psia) (psia) Air (psia) (OR) Air (lba) 0400 64.626 0.238 -

64.388 539.39 644,406.43 0430 64.628 0.238 64.390 539.45 644,354.77 0500 64.629 0.238 64.391 539.44 644,376.72 0530 64.630 0.238 64.392 539.46 644,362.84 0600 04.632 0.239 64.393 539.49 644,337.01 SUPERIMPOSED TEST 0630 64.630 0.239 64.391 539.49 644,317.00 0700 64.628 0.240 64.388 539.51 644,263.10 0730 64.626 0.241 64.385 539.52 644,221.14 i 0800 64.626 0.240 64.386 539.55 644,195.32 0830 64.624 0.240 64.384 539.58 644,139.50 0900 64.622 0.241 64.381 539.55 644,145.30 0930 64.620 0.241 64.379 539.59 644,077.54 1000 64.620 0.241 64.379 539.60 644,065.60 1030 64.618 0.241 64.377 539.61 644,033.66 1100 64.616 0.241 64.375 539.64 643,977.85 1130 64.615 0.242 64.373 539.68 643,910.11 1200 64.614 0.241 64.373 539.69 643,898.18 1230 64.612 0.242 64.370 539.72 643,832.38 1300 64.612 0.242 64.370 539.74 643,808.53 1330 64.610 0.242 64.368 539.77 643,752.74

Shrst 4 cf 4 APPENDIX B (Cont'd)

REDUCED TEST DATA -

Average Partial Pressure Average Containment .of Containment Partial Pressure Containment Weight of~

Pressure Water Vapor of Containment Temperature Coutainment Time (psia) (psia) Air (psia) (oR) Air (1bs) 1400 64.610 0.242 64.368 539.76 643,764.67 1430 64.610 0.242 64.368 539.80 643,716.97 1500 64.610 0.242 64.368 539.83 643,681.19 1530 64.608 0.243 64.365 539.86 643,615.42 1600 64.606 0.244 64.363 539.90 643,537.74 1630 64.604 0.242 64.362 539.89 643,549.66 1700 64.602 0.244 64.358 539.91 643,485.83 1730 64.600 0.243 64.357 539.93 643,452.00 1800 64.599 0.243 64.356 539.96 643,406.25

4 9 4

-1.

9 i

l .

i r

APPENDIX C

._ WEIGHT OF CONTAIN1ENT AIR AND AVERAGE l

! CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE VERSUS TDE

(.

L v.

L i

s.

Gdbert/Camousseth O

-g ---9

_r._, . _ . . ~_ _, ,_. _ ._.. -m _.

I

.L APPENDIX C WElGHT OF CONTAlHMENT AIR AND AVERAGE CONTAlHMENT TEMPERATURE VERSUS TIME 24 HOUR INTEGRATED LEAK RATE TEST 111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIi i IIIIIIII g LEAK RATE = 0.0577./ DAY- ----

-L1 u l'w -

( gi L 4_ c  % , ,-.

i e% '

y. , ..

UPPER BOUND 95T. CONF lDENCE INTERYAL I

E ' '

2 W *700 " w'w y s '

. m r e

en . m ,,,g% , ,

h

--2 ' ,

_= '

N  % .

,, [ --

_9 --

% ,, s ,

LEAST SQUARES FIT EQUATION o a) u '-  %

q -

j W = 644,726.79 - 15.21t o 644,600 ( ,,

% n ,,&3y4, , ,

u -

% f su o~ .,'%m -- -

. J O s' .'% m me.

p J II  % m.-

mf hn

< ham'%  % - ..s.-

x . .. a ,m u u 'a '

o iy__p-m - %_

o e '%. e .

y

, u '

-E ---. LOWER BOUND 95P. CONFIDENCE INTERVAL '

", 'D ,, ' ' ,n O n 644,500 ,

e ,,

_'%an '% , ,, u  %

w

%ar -

..'% .- u itp.___'

'  : m ~

v n _'% . '

'% I  % .'m m-

-w ' i --( )  %.

_]h, 644,400 n, .,

%. -- .. ia m j ,,

o U

~

%- n

'-~

E' 80.0 O

q.q4 n <> a O____

n. , p' n ,

'dW '

3 79.5 '?

'kO4'O '#

' T  !

F <> n g . n n 0-0 z I ei dh <1 58 4' "

' ' ~

o 79.0 tB gn

\T3' "

u _- ek () () %Ii.

r tu U U U U

> a l I

i

, # 78.5 ' 24 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 TIME (HOURS)

-_ )

APPENDIX C WElGHT OF CONTAINMENT AIR AND AVERAGE CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE VERSUS TIME 12 HOUR SUPERIMPOSED LEAK RATE TEST 644,400 w n g:5_

g6 I ,

e 644,300 ' '

s

-( -

,, m x

L E A K R AT E = 0.289%/ DAY'--~~

sc -

m x

.m svu '

644,200 M s ))%, hm%

UP,PER BOUND 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL

.. .m

%gf ' ,

d?

,, m [

, m m; 644,100 ,

s ,

e ' s .r

~

' LEAST SQUARES FIT EQUATION -----

^

,7%dI' '

M,W = 644,353.43 - 77.66t 2 %_, g  %

,gf ;f %_ #

$ 644,000 .

g w

-% 's'u

~'% .,

,'t

..' % 2 P e

/

__<  % w .,

, _ e

-e n1% _'t e F 643,900 ,.t x 'r z x v O , '%m x'%

.x- cn v ,-  %

u-

,, t x o 643,800 x

>r-N

't i

m _' p E_m_

o m

r- _'%m'-di' 1 ' ' '

s m ,6 o'- m p 643,700 r '

y jy ,

4 9 , , ,

i r ' '

'h-N 643,600 LOWER BOUND 95% CONFIDING INTERVAL- ' - n ' '

s ,%

g s ____._

s %D.ZN 11 ._

m L'%m 'C 643,500 '

%-D s ^x

%_ U

% /m 643,400 '

643,300

n. 80.5 1

w

,D h fl E7

< ~~

<k~'~

g u. -- " ^ ' U,~~"~~

ot., 80.0 m sy__4s '

at n u '

()

j U q )-_y).__..( ) I3 E3

w i >

< 79.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 di 12 l TIME (HOURS) _ - _ _ . - _ _ _ - _ . --- _ ---__ _ - - - - - - _ - _ - -

W' T '*

k r-6 ri f

b

(

l I

i r

r l

APPENDIX D COMPUTER PRINTOUT L.

P" bw m ie - ,

,-wemr

--r n -. , 7

APPENDIX D COMPUTER PRINTOUT CR3 ILRT 24 HOUR TEST - DELTA T = 0.5 HOUR - START TIME 11/5/76, 0600 r

LEAST SQUARES RESULTS BASED ON 49 DATA POINTS 95% CONFIDENCE LIMIT TIME OBSERVED WEIGHT MINUS CALCULATED PLUS OBS. MINUS CALC.

-PERIOD (LB) (LB) (LB) (LB) (LB) 0.0 644743.34 644677.99 644726.79 644775.60 16.55 0.5 644739.45 644670.38 644719.19 644767.99 20.26 1.0 644747.52 644662.78 644711.58 644760.39 35.94 1.5

• 644755.60 644655.18 644703.98 644752.79 51.62 3.0 644729.71 644647.57 644696.38 644745.18 33.33 2.5 644681.82 644639.97 644688.77 644737.58 -6.95 3.0 644699.92 644632.37 644681.17 644729.98 18.75 3.5 644655.93 644624.76 644673.57 644722.37 -17.63

- 4.0 644652.04 644617.16 644665.96 644714.77 -13.92 4.5

• 644590.25 644609.56 644658.36 644707.17 -68.11 I 5.0 644642.31 644601.95 644650.76 644699.56 -8.45 5.5 644614.48 644594.35 644643.15 644691.96 -28.67 c 6.0 644612.54 644586.74 644635.55 644684.35 -23.01 6.5 644616.72 644579.14 644627.95 644676.75 -11.22

'7.0 644620.91- 644571.54 644620.34 644669.15 0.57 7.5 644591.15 644563.93 644612.74 644661.54 -21.59 8.0 644607.30 644556.33 644605.14 644653.94 2.16 3.93

[ 8.5 9.0 644601.46 644597.57 644548.73 644541.12 644597.53 644589.93 644646.34 644638.73 7.64

{ 644601.76 644533.52 644582.33 644631.13 19.43 9.5 10.0 644553.92 644525.92 644574.72 644623.53 -20.81 10.5 644538.07 644518.31 644567.12 644615.92 -29.05 11.0 644524.17 644510.71 644559.52 644608.32 -35.34 11.5 644530.30 644503.11 644551.91 644600.72 -21.61 13.0 644514.46 644495.50 644544.31 644593.11 -29.85 12.5 644532.55 644487.90 644536.70 644585.51 -4.16 13.0 644484.72 644480.30 644529.10 644577.91 -44.38 13.5 644536.73 644472.69 644521.50 644570.30 15.24 16.0 644510.88 644465.09 644513.89 644562.70 -3.01 16.5 644540.92 644457.49 644506.29 644555.10 34.63 15.0 644517.01 644449.88 644498.69 644547.49 18.32 15.5 644503.11 644442.28 644491.08 644539.89 12.03 16.0 644509.24 644434.68 644483.48 644532.29 25.76 16.5 644505.36 644427.07 644475.88 644524.68 29.48 17.0 644479.51 644419.47 644468.27 644517.08 11.24

c. 17.5 644489.53 644411.87 644460.67 644509.48 28.86 18.0 644439.78 644404.26 644453.07 644501.87 -13.29 18.5 644435.90 644396.66 644445.46 644494.27 -9.56 19.0 644457.86 644389.05 644437.86 644486.67 20.00 19.5 644453.98 644381.45 644430.26 644479.06 23.72 20.0 644450.10 644373.85 644422.65 644471.46 27.45 20.5 644426.20 644366.24 644415.05 644463.85 11.15 21.0 644398.43 644358.64 644407.45 644456.25 -9.02 31.5 644398.43 644351.04 644399.84 644448.65 -1.41 22.0 644406.50 644343.43 644392.24 644441.04 14.26 32.5 644354.84 644335.83 644384.64 644433.44 -29.80 33.0 644376.79 644328.23 644377.03 644425.84 -0.24 33.5 644362.91 644320.62 644369.43 644418.23 *

-6.52 24.0 644337.08 644313.02 644361.83 644410.63 -24.74

• - INDICATES VALUE OUTSIDE OF 95% CONFIDENCE w

THE LEAST SQUARES EQUATION IS W = WO + W1

• T WO = 644726.79 LB W1 = -15.21 LB/HR '

95% CONFIDENCE LIMIT FOR WO = 13.46 LB

'95% CONFIDE' ICE LIMIT FOR W1 = 0.97 LB/HR

. STANDARD ERROR OF CONFIDENCE = 24.40 LB 95% CONFIDENCE LEAKAGE RATE = 0.004% PI5L DAY LEAKAGE RATE _ = 0.057% PER DAY , f

f~

I APPENDIX D r COMPUTER PRINTOUT CR3 SLRT 12 HOUR TEST - DELTA T = 0.5 HOUR - START TIME 11/6/76, 0600 L

LEAST SQUARES RESULTS BASED ON 25 DATA POINTS I

, 95% CONFIDENCE LIMIT TIME OBSERVED WEIGHT MINUS CALCULATED PLUS OBS. MINUS CALC.

PERIOD (LB) (LB) (LB) (LB) (LB) 0.0 644337.08 644314.46 644353.43 644392.39 -16.34 I 0.5 644317.07 644275.63 644314.59 644353.56 2.48

[ 1.0 644263.17 644236.80 644275.76 644314.73 -12.60 1.5 644221.21 644197.96 644236.93 644275.90 -15.72 2.0 644195.40 644159.13 644198.10 644237.07 -2.71 2.5 644139.57 644120.30 644159.27 644198.24 -19.70 3.0 644145.37 644081.47 644120.44 644159.41 24.93 3.5 644077.61 644042.64 644081.61 644120.5d -4.00 4.0 644065.67 644003.81 644042.78 644081.75 22.89 r 4.5 644033.73 643964.98 644003.95 644042.92 29.78 i 5.0 643977.92 643926.15 643965.12 644004.09 12.80 5.5 643910.18 643887.32 643926.29 643965.26 -16.11 6.0 643898.25 643848.49 643B87.46 643926.43 10.79 6.5 643832.45 643809.66 643848.63 643887.60 -16.17 7.0 643808.60 643770.83 643809.80 643848.77 -1.20 7.5 643752.81 643732.00 643770.97 643809.94 -18.15 8.0 643764.74 643693.17 643732.14 643771.11 32.60 8.5 643717.04 643654.34 643693.31 643732.27 23.73 9.0 643681.26 643615.51 643654.48 643693.44 26.79 9.5 643615.49 643576.68 643615.64 643654.61 -0.15 10.0

• 643537.81 643537.85 643576.81 643615.78 -39.00 10.5 643549.73 643499.01 643537.98 643576.95 11.75 11.0 643485.90 643460.18 643499.15 643538.12 -13.25 11.5 643452.07 643421.35 643460.32 643499.29 -8.26 12.0 643406.32 643382.52 643421.49 643460.46 -15.17

_ * - INDICATES VALUE OUTSIDE OF 95% CONFIDENCE THE LEAST SQUARES EQUATION IS W = WO + W1

• T

~

WO = 644353.43 LB W1 = -77.66 LB/HR 95% CONFIDENCE LIMIT FOR WO = 15.65 LB 95% CONFIDENCE LIMIT FOR W1 = 2.24 LB/HR STANDARD ERROR OF CDNFIDENCE = 19.48 LB 95% CONFIDENCE LEAKAGE RATE = 0.008 % PER DAY LEAKAGE RATE = 0.289 % PER DAY

>