ML20030A441
| ML20030A441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1974 |
| From: | Sewell R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101090512 | |
| Download: ML20030A441 (10) | |
Text
.
- g..
cy.
- i. -
CORSumBIS POVlBr
,~
Company cone,.i omee.: :n2 wesi v1emo n 4.env..a.cx.on. u.cmaan 4920. Are. cooe si7 78s-osso September 23,-1 W G~ K (p a - L!c.q
,.x
.. M,, h( Xe3
- ie 1'.e.,
,M N,
t i e
{.k
.s
~
97.) b p
. ~.
Directorate of Licensing Re: Docket 50-l$5 S/
h Big Rock Poi k, Plant g'" d, /
License DPR 6.'
.~
US Atomic Energy Commission Washington, DC 205h5 VM Errata SR 17 Gentlemen:
Attached are corrected pages to be inserted in SR 17 " Reactor Containment Building Integrated Leak Rate Test" dated August 2, 1974.
These corrected pages are:
5; 6; Appendix E; Appendix F; Appendix G, Page 2; Table I; Figure h; and Figure 5.
Please destroy the original pages after inserting these revised pages in their proper crder.
Yours very truly, -
?k x<
o WGF/mel Ralph B. Sewell Nuclear Licensing Administrator CC: JGKeppler, USAEC
/
mp L.-
.u.. ' 2 6 74
~
l 5
~
rycann'.'
7
' ' ~ >
A.
r:y. C.CTW4 N
b/
6 D.3X,.ilCLU.Ki g 1
l b #) t y 3
e fil $ 1 4 7 0 5 7 Q
7-73 7 - - r " rw gv l~
Gl-/5V
.f
$l7f g
i
{
1 Measured Technical Specifications Method' Leakage Rate Allowed Leakage Rate s
Point to Point (avg least square fit of 11 concurrent 2h-hour riods).
0.037 %/ Day 0.175 %/ Day Total Time east squares fit to 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> - 58 data sets).
C.075 %/ Day 0.175 %/ Day The d a from the Total Time Method was subject to the instru-mentation error a alysis outlined in Appendix B.
To the 95% confidence limit, this analys yielded an instrumentation error of 0.0h7%/ day.
Hence, to the 95% co ridence limit, the maximum measured leakage rate is 0.123%/ day, less than.131%/ day, the Acceptance Criteria specified in 10 CFR 50 Appendix J o 75% of the Technical Specifications allowed leakage rate.
Supplemental Test At the end of the se,ond hold test, a controlled leakage of 3
1.08 ft / min (approximately equ to the Technical Specifications allowed leakage rate) vas superimposed to 2h hours on the as-found leakage. The leakage was measured by an integra d gas meter calibrated to 10.2%. Since the test lasted for only 2k hours, a.
analytical technique was used that was appropriate for the absolute method ( t least square line to total leakage and determined slope of line to determi e leakage rate, refer to Figure 9).
The results of data analysis follow (see ppendix E):
Measure' Leakage Rate Through Method Leakage Ra.
Gas Meter Total Time (least squares fit to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> h8 data sets).
0.197 %/ Day 0.166 %/ Day The difference between the measured leaka e rate and the leakage through the gas meter is 0.037 %/ day. The leakage r te determined from the second hold test by the Total Time Method is 0.07 %/ day. Since these numbers correspond within 13%, the Acceptance Criteria f 125% in 10 CFR 50 Appendix J has been met.
Variance From Specifications of 10 CFR 50 Appendix Listed below are three specifications in the Federa code with which the 1974 Big Rock Point Containment Leak Rate Test did n.
comply due to plant design and construction occurring approximately 12 ears prior to the development of 10 CFR 50 Appendix J.
1.
Paragraph II.G.1.
" Type B Tests" Local leak tests of components at Big Rock Point do r.ot inc ude testing of the electrical penetrations. The design of the electrical
(
6 penetrations is such that component testing is impossible. The present containment testing schedule is five times in a 10-year period versus three times in a 10-year period required by 10 CFR 50 Appendix J.
Any plan to replace the electrical penetrations to permit component testing is uneconomical when the unit downtime for penetration replacement is compared to the downtime associated with six additional containment leak rate tests over the next 30 years.
2.
Paragraph III.A.d.
" Systems Vented During the Containment Leak Rate Test" The clean-up system resin sluice isolation valves were not vented to containment pressure during the 1974 Containment Leak Rate Test. Such action would entail removing the clean-up system from service and draining the demin tank. Since the component leak test of these valves at 20 psig has always been successful and since the valves are open only a few hours each year under hot primary conditions, it is not deemed essential that III.A.d. be complied with in this case.
3.
Paragraph III.D.2.
" Type B Retest Schedule" The containment air locks at Big Rock Point are leak tested every six months rather than after every opening. The containment building is designed to permit personnel access during power operation. The person-nel lock is operated many times each day and the equipment lock is often in service several times each week or more. The requirement of leak test--
ing these after each opening is totally impractical.
Conclusion The results of the 1974 Containment Leak Rate Test depended greatly on atmospheric conditions. The same has been true for all past tests and should be expected throughout the life of the plant. However, the relocation of one reference chamber has had a positive effect as the data now more closely represents the conditions of the overall contain-ment.
The atmospheric variations are clearly displayed by the point-to-point calculational method which shows vide scatter of data from hour to hour (see Figure 7). Although the reference vessel metbod analysis was successful for the hold test, a least square fit analysis of calculated leak rates was inadequate for the controlled leak-off test (Figure 8).
This analytical method is not recommended for short tests. Results of the
" Total Time" calculation method (Figure 8), on the other hand, show much less scatter and for this reason are reported as the measured leakage rate.
1 1
9
~'(},
y h ndix E Determination of Superimposed Leakage Rate 0.175.5/ day.
=.
Technical Specifications allowed leakage rate @ test pressure (from Appendix E).
3 940,000 ft Free volume of containment building.
3 940,000 x 0.00175 16h5 ft / day-
=-
3 1.lh2 ft 7,1,
=
3 3
Superimposed leakage rate was initially set at 1.154 ft 7,13 (1 fg leakage in-52 seconds).
3 During the controlled leak test, the average time for a 1 ft leakage was 55 7 seconds which translates into an average leak rate of 0.165%/ day or-3 1.08 ft / min.
I l
(
i Appendix F Analysis of Imakage Rate: Corrected for Supply Vent Valve Repair Imak rate th./ough vent valve (before repair) 107 lbc/6..y
=
Leat rate through vent valve (after repair) 11 lbs/ day
=
0.107 %/ day (8 20 psig) 176 lbs/ day Difference
=
=
l 0.075 %/ day (G 13 Fig)
Leakage rate masured from containment leak
=
rate test Both values must be extrapolated to design pressure of 27 psis.
I 2 I
Im =
Lg Pe_ - 1 pt_
P*-l E"
t l
j For differential before and after vent valve repair 27 7 lb.7 7
'I '
1 1*
(.107)
Im =
g 20 + 14.7f4 171.6 j
\\
14.7
_y) t 0.175 %/ day (8 design pressure of 27 psig)
Ie =
For Centainment Ient Rate Test 2
27 + ik.7
(.075)
Im =
26.5 29.441 T.'
~1 29.44 0.21% %/ day (8 design pressure of 27 poig)
Im =
0.389 ! 0.047 5/ day SUM =
P00R ORIGINAL I
f.
)
1 As reported in the previous section, a leak was discovered at the flange of the new butterfly vent valve which exceeded the Technical Specifications allowed leakage rate. It was impossible to detect this leak through local leak testing because the local-leak test method is to pressurize between the swing and butterfly valve and the leaking flange was on the' sphere side of the butter-fly valve seat. However, because the new -valve was installed only a few days prior to conducting the leak rate test and no other caintenance had been per-
' formed on the supply vent valves since the 1972 Containment Leak Rate Test,-it is reasonable-toLassume that the leak was not present prior to the valve-replace-ment. An investigation is presently under way to improve the component leak test method to detect similar leaks in the future.
Data taken during the Containment Leak Rate Test revealed that the but-terfly valve on the containment exhaust vent line was leaking through so that the swing valve was cupporting the test pressure. However, the component tests show
- that the leakr 6e has not progressed to the severity of that on the supply vent line prior installation of the new butterfly valve. Present plans call fer I.
rebuilding et the butt'erfly valve removed from the supply line and it is recom-mended that this valve-be installed in the exhaust vent line prior to the 1976
-Containment Leak Rate Test.
The seven containment isolation valves (main steam, main steam drain, reactor and fuel pit drain (2), and clean-up resin sluice (3)) have been tested with water during each refueling outage at a mininum pressure of 20 psig. The Technical Specifications limiting leakage through each of these valves to drops /
second has been met at each test.
The eleven confainment isolation valves (main steam, main steam drain, reactor and fuel pit drain (2), clean-up resin sluice (3), clean sump (2) and dirty sump (2)) have been tested with water during each refueling outage at a minimum pressure of 20 psig. The Technical Specifications limiting leakage through each of these valves to drops /second has been met at each test.
I
~
p
(
Table I Stanmary of leak Rate Tests - Big Rock Point Ple.nt Containment Test Date Pressure Measured Leak Rate A11 cued Icad Rate 1/61(*
27 psig 0.036 %/ day 0 5 %/ day 6/62 10 peig 0.021 5/ day 0.121 %/ day h/64 10 paig 0.037 1 0.034 0.321 %/dny h/66 10 psig 0.077 1 0.025%/ day 0.121 %/ day 7/68 10 psig 0.061 1 0.017%/ day 0.121 %/ day 3/70 10 poig 0.084 1 0.030%/ day 0.121 5/ day h/72 12 peig 0.028 0.cT2%/ day 0.149 %/ day Nd) h/Th 13 psig 0.037 + 0.086%/ day 0.131 %/ day
" Included pneumatic overlond test at 33 75 psig.
In e.ccordanco with 10CFR50 Appendix J, thic number oquels 75% of the Technical Specifications allowed leak rate extrapolated to the teet pressure.
c) Leak rate measured after repairs, d 95% confidence level evaluated for "one-sided" confidence limit.
P00R BRlBlE f
t
\\
OC VM t
l
~
~
3 AGE
=
3J__ED A\\ O. mmmm NO. OF PAGES d maf3 REASON O PAGE ILLEGIBLE.
O HARD COPY FILED AT.
/
.1 O BETTER COP ( REQJESTED ON hAGE 100 LARGE TO RLM.
[HARD COPY RLED AT: h CF OTHEr<
MED ON APERTURE CARD NO $/O/09d8/A-f i
(
AEC DISTRIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL (TEMPORARY FORM)
CONTROL NO:
9391._
FILE:
FROM: Consumers Power Company DATE OF DOC DATE REC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHER Jackson, !!ichigan 49201 Ralph B, Sewell 9-23-74 9-76-74 X
TO:
DL 1 signed SENT LOCAL PDR CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCKET NO:
XXXXX 43 50-155 D5SCRIPTION:
ENCLOSURES:
Ltr re their 8-2-74 ltr...... trans the Corrected pages to be inserted in Special following:
Report # 17, " Reactor Containment Building Integrated Leak Rate Test", dtd S-2-74.
J.
( 40 cys rec'd)
["~4
"~
PLANT NAME:
Big Rock Point Plant FOR ACTION /INFORMATION 9-26-74 AB _
BUTLER (L)
SCHWENCER (Lj/ZIEM ANN (L)
REG AN (E)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/9 Copies W/ Copies CLARK (L)
STOLZ (L)
DICKER (E)
LEAR (L)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies PARR (L)
VASSALLO (L)
KNIGHTON (E)
W/ Copics W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies KNIEL (L)
PURPLE (L)
YOUNGBLOOD (E)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies 7p INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
/41EG FI TECH REVIEW DENTON LIC ASST A/T IN D
/OGC, ROOM P-506A SCHROEDER GAMMILL AIGGS (L)
SALTZMAN MUNTZING/ STAFF MACCARY K ASTN ER GEARIN (L)
B. HURT CASE KNIGHT BALLARD GOULBOURNE (L)
GIAMBUSSO PAWLICKl SPANGLER KREUTZER (E)
PLANS BOYD SHAO LEE (L)
MCDONALD MOORE (L) (BWR)
STELLO ENVIRO M AIG RET (L)
CHAPMAN DEYOUNG (L) (PWR)
HOUSTON
~MlULLEii REED (E)
DUBE w/ input SKOVHOLT (L)
NOVAK DICKER SERVICE (L)
E. COUPE
- GOLLER (L)
ROSS KNIGHTON SHEPPARD (L)
P. CO L LINS IPPOLITO YOUNGB LOOD SLATER (E)
D. THOM;' 7N (2)
DENISE TEDESCO REGAN SMITH (L)
KLECKER REG OPR LONG PROJECT LDR TEETS (L)
EISENHUT
/ FILE & REGION (&
MORRIS BENAROYA HAR LESS WILSON (L)
STEELE VOLlMER h
O l kl l I f
gg EXTERN AL DISTRIBUTION
/1 - LOCAL PDR__.Charlevoix, MI.
C7
/1 - TIC (ABERNATHY) (1)(2)(10) - N ATION AL LABS 1 - PDR SAN /LA/NY
/1 - NSIC (BUCHANAN) 1 - ASLBP(E/W Bldg. Rm S29) 1 - BROOKHAVEN NAT LAB 1 - ASLB 1 - W. PENNINGTON, Rm E-201 GT 1 - G. ULRIKSON, ORN L 1 - Newton Anderson 1 - B&M SWINEBROAD, Rm E-201 GT 1 - AGMED (RUTH GUSSMAN)
[G-ACRS ItOt;DtNG SENT TO 7 - CONSU LTANTS Rm B-127 GT LIC ASST. R. DICGS NEWM ARK /BLUME/AG B ABI AN 1 - R. D. MUELLER, Rm E-201 GT