ML20058H599
| ML20058H599 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1990 |
| From: | Hill H BCP TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., SENTRY EQUIPMENT CORP. |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058H566 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-04-87-373, CON-NRC-4-87-373 NUDOCS 9011210046 | |
| Download: ML20058H599 (58) | |
Text
, . - _ . . -. - - - . - _ _ . .. - . - . -
e,
- f. t ~
~1, i
I-
. ANALYSIS OF E.1. HATCH UNIT 2 INTEGRATED LEAKAGE RATE TESTING DATA USING SBIR ANALYSIS OF STATE OF THE ART METHODS l OF. CONTAINMENT INTEGRATED: LEAKAGE RATE TESTING -
n i
i L
k Prepared By:
LHoward T. Hill ~, PhD BCPl Technical Services, Inc.
and
-+;r,
' Sentry Equipment Corporation Prepared for:
U.S. Nu'elear Regulatory Commission !
1
~<$0it'21'dO46 901115
.PDR ORG NREA
I r
t TABLE OF CONTENTS l
i I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 i
211. Summary and Conclusions . . . -. , . . . . -. . . . . . -. . Page 2 - 4 III. Discussion . . .c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5 - 11
~1V. ' Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . Page 12 V.. Ref erence s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . Page 13 Table' 1 - Hatch-Type A Test - Mass Point Calculation.- Rates
. Data Point Interval, Minutes
) Table ~ 2 - Hatch Type A Test - Mass Point Calculation - UCL's 1 Data Point Interval, Minutes ;
Table 3 - Hatch-Type A Test - Mass Point Analysis - Rate /UCL -
i Rates and UCL's. calculated for a data point interval of.15 minutes
. Table .4 --Hatch Type A Test - Mass Point Analysis - Rate /UCL Rates and UCL's' calculated for'a data point interval of 5 minutes
- Table 5 - Hatch Type A Test Mass Point Analysis - Rate /UCL -
Rates and UCL's calculated for a data point interval of.1 minute Table' 6 - Hatch Type A Test - Mass Point Analysis - Rate /UCL
Rates and'UCL's calculated for a data point-interval of 0.25 minutes, j
. Table 7 - Hatch Type A Test - Total Time Calculation - Rates-Data Point Interval, Minutes .
-Table '8 - Hatch Type A Test - Total Time Calculatiot - UCL's Data Point. Interval, Minutes ;
, . Table 9 - Hatch Type A Test - Total Time Analysis - Rate /UCL Rates and UCL's calculated for a data-point interval of.15' minutes Table 10 - Hatch Type A Test - Total Time Analysis - Rate /UCL Rates and UCL's calculated for a data point interval of 5 minutes >
b
,m ,
I-Table of Content (cont'd)
. Table 11 - Hatch Type A Test - Total Time Analysis - Rate /UCL Rates and UCL's calculated for_ a data point interval of 1 minute
- Table 12 - Hatch Type A Test - Total Time Analysis - Rate /UCL "
Rates and UCL's calculated for a data point interval of 0.25 minutes Table 13-- Hatch Type A Test - Regulatory Guide Inequality Analysis Data Point Interval = 15.00 minutes Table 14 - Hatch Type A Test - Regulatory Guide inequality Analysis Data Point Interval = 5.00 minutes
-Table 15 - Hatch Type A Test - Regulatory Guide Inequality Analysis Data Point Interval = 1,00 minute Table 16 - Hatch Type A Test - Regulatory Guide Inequality Analysis Data Point Interval = 0.25 minutes Table'17 - Hatch Type A Test - Regulatory Guide Inequality Analysis Variation in Eq. 1.1 ratio
} Table'18 - Hatch Type A Test - Regulatory Guide Inequality Analysis Variation in C' Table 19 - Hatch-Type'A Test - Regulatory Guide Inequality Analysis
-Variation in Eq. 1.2 ratio Table-20 . Hatch Type A Test - Regulatory Guide !nequality Analysis '
Variation in Eq. 2.1 ratio Tabl'e 21 - Hatch Type'A Test - 50%' Sliding Window Analysis Data Point Interval = 15.00 and 5.00 minutes .
-Table'22 - Hatch Type A Test - 50% Sliding-Window Analysis Data Point Interval = 1.00 and 0.25 minutes Table 231 EHatch Type A Test - Predictor Analysis DataPoint~ Interval =15.00and5.00Mnutes-Table 24 - Hatch Type A Test - Predictor Analysis-Data Point Interval = 1.00 and 0.25 minutes Table 25 - EPRI Criterion - Equation 6 and 7 Table 26 - Hatch Verification Test - Mass Point anJ' Total Time Calculation -
4 Rates - Data Point Interval, Minutes Table'27 - Hatch Verification - Regulatory Guide Inequality Analysis
_) Data' Point Interval = 15.00 and'1.00 minutes
1 Table of Content (cont'd)
Figure 1:- Temperature vs. Time Figure 2 Pressure vs. Time Figure 3 - Vapor Pressure .vs. Time .
Figure 4 - Air Mass vs. Time
-Figure 5-- Air Mass vs. Time - Verification' Test Figure.6 - Total Time Leakage Rate t
i L);
t s
4
l ANALYSIS'0F E. I. HATCH UNIT 2 INTEGRATED LEAKAGE RATE TESTING DATA USING SBIR ANALYSIS OF-STATE OF THE ART METHODS OF CONTAINMENT INTEGRATED LEAKAGE RATE TESTING r
f I. ' INTRODUCTION
-The data collected during a containment integrated leakage rate test must '
provide a high degree of assurance that the leakage rate does not exceed the maximum ~ permissible value. Generally this assurance can be provided by a test with a very long duration since errors of measurement as well as those '
resulting_from.1nadequate sampling of containment atmospheric conditions become insignificant when averaged over a sufficient length of time. Since- <
tests with very long durations are not practical, other methods of assuring-the adequacy of test results are needed. Numerous methods have been proposed..
One consists of simply recording test data at very closely spaced time
' intervals. The others apply various numerical' criteria to data scatter and o trends.: This report, which is one of a series prepared by Sentry Equipment Corporation for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, presents and discusses the l-results obtained when'the following methods were applied to data collected
'.) during:the November,1 1989 integrated leakage rate test-on the Plant E. 1.
Hatch Unit ~2 containment.
- Data collection interval variation
- Mass point analysis ,
- Total time' analysis.
- Draft Regulatory Guide MS 021-5 analysis l
- 50% sliding window analysis-
- Predictor' analysis '
- EPRI analysis L~ The data used in the analyses-described in this. report were recorded by Sentry during the Hatch test. The data were supplied through a second serial port on ,
the acquisition system-used by the utility to obtain the official test data.
The methods listed above were also applied to data collected during leakage rate tests-at other plants.- Those results are-presented and discussed in the other reports included in this series.
Page 1 q
II.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS Containment atmospheric condition data were recorded at 0.25 minutes intervals during the Hatch integated leakage rate test. Air mass values calculated using this raw data follow an almost linear trend with relatively little scatter. The air mass plot shows a slight tendency to flatten with increasing time which is relatively typical and probably results from the slow stabilization of pressures in penetrations, concrete void spaces and other volumes with minute openings. The air mass data were analyzed in various ways using the methods listed in the Introduction. Each analysis was performed four times - once for air mass intervals of 15 minutes, once for intervals of 5 minutes, once for intervals of 1 minute and finally for intervals of 0.25 minutes. Each of these calculations was repeated for test durations increasing in 15 minute increments. These data point intervals and time increments were sufficient to establish the presence or absence of trends.
Results of the analyses are summarized below.
Mass Point Analysis - Mass point calculated leakage rates varied by relatively little over the 1 to 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> duration range and the 15 minute to 0.25 minutes data point interval range. Maximum and minimum rates were 0.7865 and 0.7440, respectively (all rates are expressed in percentage loss of initially contained air per day). Rates do decrease slightly over the full 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> test duration for all analysis intervals (15, 5, 1 and 0.25 minutes) but the trend ,
as duration increases from I hour to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> is neither smooth nor consistent
) among data point intervals. There is no consistent trend between mass point calculated rate and data point interval. Mass point upper confidence limit (UCL) decreases with increasing test duration and tends to decrease with decreasing intervals between data points. The latter trend is not nearly so pronounced as the former.. Mass point UCL's vary from 0.7444 (8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> duration) to 0.8038 (1 hourduration). All UCL's are below the acceptance limit of 0.9 (0.75 La).
Total Time Analysis - Total time calculated leakage rate also varies by relatively little over the range of durations and data point intervals.
Maximum and minimum rates are 0.7596 and 0.7164, respectively. Rate shows no consistent trends. Overall the rate decreases with increasing test duration l when calculated for 15, 5 and 0.25 minutes data intervals. It increases slightly when calculated for a 1 minute interval. There is a significant decrease in rate between the 5 min and 1 min intervals. The rates calculated for 15 min and 5 min intervals are essentially the same as are those calculated for 1 and 0.25 minutes intervals. Total time UCL decreases with increasing test duration for all time intervals. For a given test duration, the UCL calculated for a 5 min interval is always the smallest. The UCL increases as the interval is changed to 15, 1 and 0.25 minutes (maximum rate). For a given test duration the smallest total time UCL exceeds the largest mass point UCL, This is expected since the total time UCL is Total time UCL's vary from calculated using a very) conservative 0.7889 (8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> duration to 1.0242 (1 approach.hourduration). For test durations of 3.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> or more, all UCL's are below the 0.9 acceptance limit.
Page 2
II. Sununary and Conclusions (cont'd)
Regulatory Guide Analysis - Equation 1.1 always exceeds the allowable ratio of 1 for a test duration of 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> or more and increases significantly with duration over this last hour. Also over this last hour, ratio increases dramatically as interval decreases. Otherwise there are no consistent trends to the Eq. 1.1 ratio. The coefficient of the quadratic term, C', is always positive for test durations of 5.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> or more. This is expected since the mass plot does show a slight flattening as duration increases. For durations of less than 5.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br />, C' exhibits some negative values. The Eq. 1.2 ratio is less than 1 for test durations of 4.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> or longer. There are no other marked trends to this ratio (the acceptance limit for the Eq. 1.2 ratio is 1 in the tables in this report - the left hand side of Eq. 1.2 is multiplied by 4 in the calculation). The Eq. 2.1 ratio is between .75 and .80 for all test durations of one hour (the smallest duration used in the calculations) or more and for all intervals.
50% Sliding Window Analysis - The maximum 50% window rates are somewhat greater than the calculated mass point rates as expected. The maximum window rates are calculated for test durations of 2 through 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> in 0.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> increments, and window widths of 1 through 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> in 0.25 hour2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> increments.
The window is advanced through the test duration in 15 minute steps. All window rates are less than the acceptance limit. There are no marked trends to the 50% sliding window results.
Predictor Analysis - The predictor analysis is run for test durations from 5 to 8. hours in 15 minute increments. All predictor values are less than 3, which is well below the acceptance limit of 25. There is general trend for 3redictor values to decrease with interval for test durations of at least 5.5 lours. Also, about 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />. predictor This is avalues ten' ce consequ- to be a minimum of the for test durations gradual flattening of of the mass
. plot. -
-EPRI Analysis - EPRI Eq. 6 is satisfied for all intervals with no observable trends. EPRI Eq. 7 is satisfied subject to the qualification that the small
- fluctuations in the differences between !!CL and rate are not significant.
There is a pronounced trend for the difference between UCL and rate to decrease with decreasing interval.
The 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> verification test data follow an essentially linear trend with little scatter. Both mass point and total time verification rates are close to the expected values and well within the +/- 25% La acceptance band. Since the verification test mass plot is quite similar (except for slope) to the Type A test mass plot, no further analysis is performed on the verification tast data (an MS 021-5 calculation is included for reference).
l Page 3
L II. Summary and Conclusions (cont'd)
Based on the results of all the analyses performed, it is concluded that it makes relatively little' difference which of the above listed methods are used to evaluate the Hatch data. The test meets all of the criteria in under 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. This-could easily be predicted after an examination of the air mass plot. No-one criterion seems to impose a more severe limitation than any other. This is a consequence of the nature of the test data. Calculated air masses follow an almost linear trend and exhibit relatively scatter about the trend line. Thus, the mass point, total time, sliding window and predictor analyses are all expected to yield results which could be approximated by scaling the slope of the air mass vs. time plot. Since the slope of the air mass plot tends to flatten slightly over time, MS 021-5 Eq. 1.1.1 is expected to be satisfied (C' > 0). Since the scatter is small, MS 021-5 Eg. 2.1 is expected to be satisfied. Since the leakage rate is essentially invariant with time, it is expected that EPRI Eq. 6 would be satisfied. EPRI Eq. 7 is a special case since it includes no lower limit on the variation in the difference between UCL and calculated rate. If a reasonable lower limit is assumed, then it is expected that the criterion imposed by Eq. 7 would also be met.. The expected results are, in f act, attained in the analyses.
MS 021-5 Eq 1.1 has a tendency to pass poor test data and reject good data.
This feature of Eq. 1.1 is-covered in Section 5 of the Discussion, i
Page 4 4
l III. DISCUSSION The following paragraphs describe the Hatch leakage rate test, the test data and data analysis and results. Leakage rate and upper confidence limit on rate are always calculated using the mass point method described in Section 3 unless the total time method of calculation is specified. Rates and UCL's are reported as the percentage of initially contained air lost over a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period.
- 1. Test Description The Hatch Unit 2 integrated leakage rate test, which provided the data for the analyses described in this report, was conducted on November 12 and 13, 1989.
Hatch is a General Electric boiling water reactor plant with steel Mark I containments. The Unit 2 containment has a drywell free air volume of about 154000 cu. ft and a suppression chamber free air volume of about 124000 cu.
ft. Combined volume for the reactor and suppression pool water levels prevailing during the test was 277400 cu. ft. The containment was pressurized to 58 psi in just a few hours. An 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> Type A test commenced following a stabilization period of 4.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br />. The calculated air mass exhibited a solid linear trend beginning early in the stabilization period. A 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> verification test was performed following the Type A test. There was a 1.25 hour2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> period between tests - 15 minutes to establish the verification flow and.
a one hour stabilization period to comply with the requirements of BN-TOP-1.
') There were no unusual events during the test.
~ Containment atmospheric conditions were measured by 10 RTD's and 5 chilled mirror dew point sensors in the drywell and 4 RTO's and 1 chilled mirror dewpoint sensor in the suppression pool (which was vented to the drywell through 2 blocked open vacuum breaker valves). Pressure was measured using 2 vibrating cylinder precision manometers. The RTO's, chilled mirror dew)oint sensors and manometers were monitored by a data acquisition system whici was set'to scan at 15 and 0.25 minutes intervals. The 0.25 minutes interval data was recorded on disk by Sentry. The 15 minute interval data was recorded by the utility and used in the formal leakage rate calculation. The 0.25 and 15 minutes interval data were transmitted through separate system serial ports.
- 2. Test Data Drybulb and dewpoint temperatures and )ressures generally var.ied smoothly with time. Temperature sensor No. 10, whici was located in the drywell head space, had periods of erratic behavior but did not indicate deviations from trend such as to warrant its deletion from leakage rate calculations. Since this sensor occupies a small, isolated volume, its contribution to average temperature is relatively minor.
1 Page 5
III. Discussion (cont'd)
Average tem)erature volume weigiting was factors anddetermined byproducts.
summing the multiplyingAverage individual temperatures vapor pressure by(a correction to measured total pressure) was determined by first converting individual dewpoint temperatures to vapor pressures and then volume weighting.
Figures 1 through 4 show the variations in average temperature, pressure indicated by manometer No. 1, average vapor pressure and air mass with time during the Type A test. These variables all change smoothly with time except for a consistent scatter in the temperature, vapor pressure and mass plots.
The average temperature plot has a scatter band width of approximately 0.03 deg. F which is equivalent to an air mass scatter of about 5.5 lbm.-(100000 i lbm. x 0.03/540 deg. R) The vapor pressure plot has a scatter band width of l approximately 0.001 psi which is equivalent to an air mass scatter of about 1.4 lbm., a contribution considerably less than that of the temperature scatter. This is consistent with the air mass scatter band width of about 6 lbm. The air mass plot follcws an almost linear trend which is expected if~
the containment has a constant leakage rate. There is actually a slight decrease in the slope of the plot with time. This is typical and probably results from the gradual stabilization of pressures in penetrations, concrete voids and other volumes with minute openings.
Figure 5 shows the variation in air mass during the verification test. The ,
trend is almost linear with a slight decrease in slope with increasing time.
) 'The air mass exhibits some scatter as is the case for the Type A test.
The plots in Figures 4 and 5 provide a basis for the conclusions that leakage rate-is reasonably constant and that a confidence limit on the calculated rate is quite close to that rate. The analyses presented in subsequent parts of this report bear out these conclusions.
- 3. Mass Point Analysis If the air mass plot is linear, or reasonably so, the mass point calculation provides the best measure of true leakage rate. The calculation consists of fitting a line to the mass and time-data by the method of-least quares and dividing the slope of the line by the intercept to establish leakage rate in terms of fraction of originally contained air lost over a unit time interval.
Rate is typically converted to and expressed as percent ner day. Leakage rates and 95% up)er confidence limits (UCL's) were calculated for test durations of 1 tirough 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> in 0.25 hour2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> increments and for intervals between mass / time data points of 15, 5, 1 and 0.25 minutes. The calculated rates and UCL's-are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The rate is reasonably constant with both test duration and interval between data points for durations greater than about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. The rates calculated for very short durations and for data point intervals of 15 and 5 minutes are not especially meaningful since so few data points are used to define the slope and intercept of the'line, f
l Page 6 l
I
-III. Discussion (cont'd)
However, since the data scatter is small, even these rates are close to the rates for an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> duration are less than other thosevalues in thedurations.
for shorter table. Overall,is This expected because of the gradual flattening-of the mass plot.
-Mass point UCL's (Table 2) decrease with both increasing test duration and
' decreasing intervals between data points. This is expected since UCL is a function of both data s;atter and number of points used in the calculation.
For_a fixed mean square scatter, UCL decreases with number of points. Tables 3-6 show that UCL converges rapidly to calculated rate and that convergence is more rapid as the number of data points used in the calculation increases.
~ Rapid convergence is expected since the mass plot is essentially linear and has a reasonably small scatter. All UCL's listed in the table are below the acceptance limit of 0.9 (0.75 x La). Mass point results are presented in tabular form since the differences between the various table entries are so small that these would not be apparent on a plot.
4 Total Time Analysis The formal calculation of the Hatch leakage rate and UCL was-done using the BN-TOP-1 total time-method. This method does not calculate true leakage rate but it does provide a very conservative upper bound on the rate. The method is described in detail in Reference 1. Total time-rates and UCL's were calculated.for the same durations and intervals as were the mass point rates and UCL's. These are listed in Tables 7 through 12. 'The rates do not show a
. consistent-trend with either duration or data )oint interval. Overall the rate decreases with increasing test-duration w1en calculated for 15, 5 and 0.25 minutes intervals. It increases slightly when calculated for a 1-minute intervale For a given test duration there is significant decrease in rate
-when the interval changes from 5 minutes to 1 minute. Rates calculated for the 15 minute and 5 minute intervals are essentially the same as are those calculated fo'r the l' and'0.25 minutes intervals. Since the total time
~
calculated rate is quite sensitive to.the choice if initial point as well as
-to'the variation in data scatter during the early part of the test it is not surprising that the rates listed in Table 7 show no-consistent trend.
The total time UCL (Table 8 and Figure 6) shows a consistent decrease with increasing test duration but exhibits no consistent trend.with data point interval. The 5 minute interval results in the smallest UCL. The largest UCL is for the 0.25-minutes interval, while that'ior +he 1 minute interval is larger than~that for the 15 minute interval. .This, again, is the result of o the sensitivity of the calculation to initial air mass and the variation in
-scatter'during the early part of the test. -For a given test duration, the smallest total. time UCL is greater than the largest mass point UCL. This is expected since the total time UCL is calculated as the.97.5% up>er confidence limit on measured-leakage rate-(as defined in Reference 1) at t1e final' data point.and not as the CE%-UC' on calculated rate at the same point in time.
Total time ~UCL is always less than the acceptance limit for test durations of 3.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> or more.
Page 7
i I
III. Discussion-(cont'd)
Tables 9-12 list total time rates and UCL's for data point intervals of 15, 5, ;
1 and 0.25 minutes. UCL's converge more slowly to calculated values than do i the mass point UCL's. This is the expected result of the conservative way in L which the total time UCL is calculated. l, Total time calculated rates are reasonably close to mass point calculated !"
rates as is expected for air mass values which have a straight line trend and minimal scatter. The air mass plot (Figure 4) rather clearly demonstrates that the calculated leakage rate should be essentially constant with '
increasing test duration. The results of both the mass point and total time calculations verify that this is the case. The mass point calculation provides the better measure of rate since it is based on the premise that rate J is constant and uses accepted statistical principles to determine that rate, i But, for the data evaluated in this report, it makes relatively little i difference as to which method is used to calculate rate. However, it would be l very significant as which method is used to calculate UCL if the rate were somewhat larger. The mass point UCL at the end of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> would probably be {
under the 0.9 acceptance limit for a calculated rate as large as 0.89, it is y rather unlikely, based on the data presented in Tables 1-12, thet the total time UCL (for a calculated mass point rate of 0.89) would fall below the acceptance limit even'at the end of 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> (a practical-limit to the duration of a BN-TOP-1 Type A test) since the UCL converges at a rapidly l diminishing rate as test duration increases. ,
- 5. Draft Regulatory Guide MS 021-5 Analysis The Hatch data were used as input to MS 021-5 (Reference 2) Equations 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2 and 2.1. Calculations were performed for the same durations and I intervals used in the mass point analysis. Results are presented in Tables 13 - 20. Tables 13 through 16 list the MS 021-5 parameters for data point intervals of 15, 5, 1 and 0.25 minutes, rerpectively. The remaining tables list the four parameters, respectively, for all data point intervals. These tables contain several significant trends which'are discussed below.
Eq. 1.~1 is a measure of (V.line-V parabola)/V parabola, where-V.is the variance of the data about the noted best fit line or parabola. As shown-in the tables, this ratio varies somewhat erratically over the shorter durations but-tends to increasino large values for durations in excess of 6 or 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />.
The Eq. 1.1 test is acceptable if the listed ratio is less than 1. It appears ;
that Eq. 1.'1 will always approach large values if the air mass plot is essentially linear and has little scatter. This is because real leakage test 1 data will always have a slight curvature for the reasons discussed above.
Therefore,'a parabola will always fit the data just a little better than a straight line and the variance about the parabola will be less than that about.
the line. As a result, the numerator (V line - V parabola) will have some small, but still finite, value. On the other hand, if the data scatter is quite small and the mass time trend has a monotonically decreasing slope, then the-denominator (V parabola) can be an extremely small number and (V line -
V parabola)/V parabola, a correspondingly large number.
Page 8
v III. Discussion (cont'd)
If the scatter is large and/or the mass vs. time trend tends te meander, the L variances about both line and parabola will be large and the (V line - V L parabola)/V parabola ratio will be small. The end resJ1t of this is that Eq.
1.1 could easily pass poor test data and reject good test data.
1.1 ratio listed in the tables is the variance ratio described above The-E multi lied by the number of data points (less 3) and divided by the F stati tic. Since the F statistic decreases with increasing number of data points, the Eq. 1.1 ratio is expected to increase almost without limit as the number of data points increases. This expected trend is confirmed by the results listed in the tables.
Eq. 1.1.1 requires that the coefficient of the second order term (time squared) of the fitted parabola be positive. This insures that leakage rate is-decreasing with time. This condition is applied to end of test data which do not meet the Eq. 1.1 criterion. Since the tables show that C' is positive for all test durations of 5.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> or more, the Hatch data meet the MS 021-5 requirements on curvature. The tables show that C' does not vary J significantly with data point interval if duration is at least 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. -This is expected since the sha)e of the mass plot is well defined by four hours of data and is not affected )y data point interval.
MS 021-5 defines another criterion (Eq. 1.2) which must be met if neither of
, the previous criteria (Eqns. 1.1 and 1.1.1) is satisfied. As stated in MS 2400 times the absolute value of the ratio (24 x C') /(B' x (La -
021-5}must'belessthan0.25(B'istheinterce)tofthefittedparabola).
rate}
In the tables this ratio is multiplied by 4 so tlat it is acceptable so long as the value is less than 1. As noted in the tables, the ratio is less than 1 for all durations in excess of 4.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />. This ratio has no readily identifiable trends other than the expected variation with the absolute value of C'.
MS 021-3 imposes a limit on data scatter as definite in Eq. 2.1. The left hand side of Eq.'2.1 is the coefficient of determination which is the square of~the coefficient of correlation. For essentially linear data with-little scatter the value of this coefficient is almost one.- The right hand side of Eq. 2.1 is always less than one since is has the form A/(A + B) with A and B )ositive.
-The ratio of the ri ht 0 hand side to the left hand side must ce less tian one.
_ The-tables confirm that this is the case for all test durations as expected.
.The only notable trend to the Eg. 2.1 results is that the ratio does not vary significantly with either duration or data point interval.
M Page 9 m
I III. Discussion (cont'd) ,
- 6. 50% Sliding Window Analysis The 50% slicing window analysis (Reference 3) was performed for test durations of 2 through 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> in 0.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> incremente.- For each duration a window of half that duration was advanced through the data in 15 minute increments. The maximum window rate was retained and paired with the rate for the full duration. This was repeated for data point intervals of 15, 5, 1 and 0.25 minutes. The results are presented in Tables 21 and 22. There are no evident trends to the data. Maximum window rates and calculated rates all fall within a fairly narrow band. This is expected since the air mass values lie on an essentially straight line. All calculated leakage rates, regardless of start and end times, have about the same value.
- 7. Predictor Analysis The predictor (Reference 4) provides a method to assess the probability of passing the verification test using the variation in leakage rate over the last four-hours of the Ty)e A test. If the value of the )redictor is less than 25, then there is.a ligh degree of confidence that tie verification test can be successfully completed. The lower the value of the predictor the higher the degree of confidence. Tables 23and24listpredictorvaluesfor the final three hours of the test and for data point-intervals of 15, 5, I and 0.25 minutes, respectively. Predictor values are all less than 3, a very low number. This is expected since the calculated leakage is essentially constant regardless of test duration and since there is a very small spread between-
. rate and UCL, There are no particular trends evident in the predictor values.
- 8. EPRI Analysis The EPRI criteria (Reference 5) consist of 2 equations (actually inequalities) which set limits on the variations in leakage rate and upper confidence limit over the last hour of the test. Table 25 lists the results of the EPRI analysis. The left hand-side values of Eq. 6 must be less~than 10, and all are. The difference values listed under the Equation 7 heading.must not n increase as. test duration increases. -The EPRI report sets no threshold limit on increase. The difference between rate and UCL is essentially constant over the last hour of the test. However, listed values of the difference fluctucte due to various random and roundoff errors. The fluctuations may be positive or negative. If fluctuations of 0.001 are set as a threshold limit, then the Hatch data easily pass the EPRI Equation 7 criterion. Since the FPR; analyses in effect set limits on the small differences of large numbers. trends are not considered meaningful.
Page 10
III. _ Discussion (cont'd)
- 9. Verificatior 'est following the completion of the Type A test, an additional containment leakage of 1.2 (La) was induced by venting air through a flow meter. After the leakage was imposed, conditions were allowed to stabilize for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> as required by BN-TOP-1. The one hour stabilization was followed by a four hour verification test. Test results are summarized in Table 26. All calculated rates are close to the expected value which is, nominally, 0.7 + 1.2 = 1.9.
Air mass values calculated using the verification test data are plotted in Figure 5. The mass varies almost linearly with time and shows little scatter about the trend line. The pressure indicated by manometer #1 exhibited a departure from trend in verification data set 156 (38 minutes and 45 seconds into the test). The air mass calculated using the manometer #1 data for this time was approximately 90 lbm off the trend line. To avoid the analysis complications posed by this single spurious item of data, verification test air masses were calculated using data from manometer #2.
The results of an MS 021-5 analysis of the verification test data are listed in Table 27.
Page 11
i IV. CONCLUSIONS The data collected during the 1989 integrated leakage rate test on the Plant E. 1. Hatch Unit 2 containment was analyzed using a number of different techniques. All analyses led to essentially the same conclusion, which is that a simple mass Joint calculation provides all the significant numerical information obtainaale from the data. The calculated air masses varied essentially linearly with time and exhibited a very small scatter.- A scaling of the slope and scatter of the air mass plot leads to the expectation'that mass point and total time rates, mass point and total time UCL's, 50% sliding
- window results and predictor results will all be within acceptance limits.
Subsequent analyses justify this expectation. Since the mass characteristic shows a slight flattening with increasing time, it is expected that the MS 021-5 coefficient C' will be positive at the end of an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> test. This is in fact the case. Since the scatter is observed to be small, it is expected that the MS 021-5 inequality 2.1 will be satisfied. This is also the case.
The EPRI criter.ia and the MS 021-5 inequality 1.1 are not necessarily satisfied by even the best of data nor by an extended test duration. This is covered in detail in the Discussion.
Decreasing the interval between data >oints does not greatly change test results. However, it does provide a ligh degree of confidence that the trend and scatter of the air mass are adequately defined. Often data-recorded at the usual 15 minute intervals leaves some doubt as to the true nature of the
' mass / time characteristic. For this reason it is concluded that data should be taken at more' closely spaced intervals than is customary.- While 0.25 minutes
- data provides excellent definition of the mass / time characteristic, the sheer quantity of data accumulated at this rate would tax the storage capacity and calculational ability (to generate timely reports) of most of the computers used in leakage rate tests. An intermediate rate of perhaps 3 to 5 minutes should provide a good compromise.
A final-conclusion is'that there is no substitute for quality-data. Given data that adequately defines air mass / time trends, it is relatively straight forward to calculate a credible ieakage rate. If the data exhibits highly improbable trends, then no amount of analysis will lend credibility to the leakage rate calculation. 4 i
Pagp 12
V. REFERENCES l
I 1. .Bechtel Cor> oration, Topical Report BN-TOP-1, Testing Criteria for L Integrated .eakage Rate. Testing of Primary Containment Structures for
- Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, 1972..
(Reference for development of the total time calculation)
- 2. United: States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Regulatory Guide and Value/ Impact Statement - Containment System Leakage Testing, Task MS 021-5, October, 1986.
(Reference for development of.the MS 021-5-inequalities)
, ' 3.- September 17, 1987 letter (including attachment) from Hal B. Tucker of Duke Power Company to the U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Subject:
-Oconee/McGuire/ Catawba - Short Duration Mass-Point Testing Termination Criteria.
(Reference for development of-the 50% sliding window method)
- 4. -Brown,.T._M. and L. F. Estenssoro, Suggested Criteria for a Short Duration
[- Leakage Rate Test ; Paper presented at-the First Workshop on Containment
-Leakage Rate Testing sponsored by the American-Nuclear Society Reactor Operations' Division, 1982.
L(Reference for development of the predictor analysis) 5.- Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI NP-3400/ Project 1393-5, Criteria
) for Determining the Duration of Integrated Leakage Rate Tests.of Reactor Containments, December, 1983.
~(Reference for development of the EPRI criteria)
Miller,,lrwin and John E. Freund, Probability and Statistics for 6,
Engineers, Prentice-Hall, 1965.
< (General reierence for curve fitting and statistical enalysis-of data)
Page 13 Em
-u_ ws w wv m,w w +~mn-p wam- >e-mu aamn-==u s v se .c %> m aunau> uyuvwn ,,
- .i
- g .-
f f
' b; j
k TABLES ,
I (1thru27) 16 g ..
V N
h.
D.
t 4'
r LL i
b' fv 5, ,-
E= '
R. .
a_e D+
- 7. .
i, .
t
- i. 1 b
y g.
t, I n li- 4 1
I i
r I.
i-1'
(
I.
I
- t. ' EQ*)"c-.'g-'
L-i m
ff g',q. 'DW'S
_ .. - -- - - - ~ ~ - ^ - - -
.i i
HATCH TYPE A TEST - MASS POINT CALCULATION - RATES Data Point Interval, Minutes Hours From Start. 15' 5 1 0.25 1.0000 0.7487 0.7740 0.7827 0.7865-1.2500 0.7578 0.7667 0.7742 0.7733 1.5000 0.7485 0.7591 0.7638 0.7631 1.7500 0.7511 0.7557 0.7598 0.7590 2.0000 0.7590 0.7548 0.7556 0.7543
-2.2500 0.7566 0.7535 0.7549 0.7545
, 2.5000 0.7476 0.7473 0.7499 0.7501 2.7500 0.~7462 0.7437 0.7451 0.7448 3.0000 -0.7477 0.7448 0.7459 0.7458 3.2500 0.7484 0.7462. 0.7462 0.7461 3.5000 0.7525 0.7498 0.7486 0.7486 3.7500 0.7545 0.7514 0.7501 0.7501 4.-0000 0.7568- 0.7541 0.7529 0.7529 4.2500 0.7563 0.7550 0.7541 0.7541
.4.5000 0.7563 0.7554- 0.7546- 0.7547 4.7500 '0.7562 0.7551- 0.7541 3.7539 p 5.0000 0.7543- 0.7542 0.7542 -0.7543 5.2500' O.7547- 0.7546 0.7538 0.7537- +
5.5000 0.7542- 0.7537 0.7535 0.7534 5.7500 0.7528' 0,7526 0.7524 0.7523 6.0000 0.7516 0.7518 0.7516 0.7514 !
6.2500 0.7507 0.7519 0.7519 0.7517 1
'6.5000 0.7504 0.7505 0.7504 . 0.7503 6.7500 0.7503 0.7501 0.7500 1 0.7499' 7.1000 0.7487 0.7488 -0.7485 - 0.7485-7.2500- 0.7466- 0.7472- 0.7471- 0.7472 7.5000 0.7459 0.7462, 0.7459 0.7459 7.7500 0.7449 .0.7451 0.7446 0.7446 ;
,8.0000 0.7440 0.7444 .0.7440 0.7440-l
.i Table 1 I
.m -
. HATCH TYPE A TEST - MASS POINT CALCULATION - UCL'S Data Point Interval, Minutes Hours From Start 15 5 1 0.25 1.0000 0.8276- 0.8026 0.7949 -0.7927 1.2500 0.8059 0.7855 0.7828 0.7778 1.5000 0.7824 -0.7738 0.7706 0.7665
! 1.7500 0.7757 0.7669 0.7651 0.7617 2.0000 0.7794 0.7642 0.7601- 0.7567 2.2500 0.7728 0.7616- 0.7586 0.7565 2.5000 0.7637 0.7548 -0.7533 0.7518 2.7500 0.7596. 0.7505 0.7482 0.7464 3.0000 0.7590 0.7507 0.7485 0.7471 3.2500 0.7580 0.7513 0.7486 0.7473 3.5000 0.7618 0.7547 0.7507 0.7497 3.7500 0.7629 0.7558 0.7520 0.7511 4.0000' O.7645 C.7582 0.7547 0.7539 4.2500 0.7631 0.7587 0.7558 0.7550 4.0000E 0.7624 0.7587 0.7561 0.7554 4.7500i 0.7617 0.7581 0.7555 0.7546 5.0000' O 7596 0.7569 0.7555' O.7549-4 5.2500: 0.7595 0.7571- 0.7549 0.7543 T):
0.7561 0.7545 0.7539 5.5000- 0.7586 5.7500 0.7570 0.7548 0.7534 0.7528 6.0000 0.7557 0.7540 0.7526 0.7519 6.2500 0.7546- 0.7539 0.7528 0.7522 6.5000 0.7540 0.7526 0.7513 0.7508-6.7500 0.7536 0.7521 3.7508 0.7503 7,0000- -0.7522 0.7508 4 7494 0.7490
-7.2500' 0,7504 0.7493- 0.7480 0.7477 7.5000 0.7496 .0.7482 0.7468 0.7463 7.7500 0.7485' O.7471 0.7455 0.7451 8.0000 0.7475 0.7463 0.7449 0.7444
)
Table 2 i
HATCH TYPE A TEST - NASS POINT ANALYSIS RATE /UCL Rates and UCL's calculated for a data point interval of 15 minutes Hours From Start Rate UCL 1.00 0.7487 0.8276 1.25 0.7578 0.8059 1.50 0.7485 0.7824 1.75 0.7511 0.7757 2.00 0.7590 0.7796 2.25 0.7566 0.7728 2.50 0.7476 0.7637 2.75 0.7462 0.7596 3.00 0.7477 0.7590 3.25 0.7484 0.7580 3.50 0.7525 0.7618 3.75 0.7545 0.7629 e 4.00 0.7568 0.7645 4.25 0.7563 0.7631 4.50 0.7563 0.7624
') 4.75 0.7562 0.7617 5.00 0.7543 0.7596 5.25- 0.7547 0.7595 5.50 0.7542 0.7586 5.75 0.7528 0.7570 6.00 0.7516 0.7557 6.25 0.7507 0.7546 6.50 0.7504 0.7540 6.75 0.7503 0.7536 7.00 0.7487 0.7522 7.25 0.7466 0.7504 7.50 0.7459 0.7496 7.75 0.7449 0.7485 .
8.00 0.7440 0.7475 !
Table 3
L
.r.
N!
/
kN_
HATCH TYPE A TEST - MA$$ POINT ANALYSIS - RATE /UCL Rates and UCL's calculated for a data point interval of 5 minutes 4
Hours from-Start. Rate UCL 1.00 0.7740 0.8026 1.25 0.7667 0.7855 1.50 0.7591 0.7738 1.75 0.7557 0.7669 e ' 2.00 0.7548 0.7642 2.25 0.7535 0.7616 2.50' O.7473. 0.7548 2.75 0.7437 0.7505 3.00- 0.7448- 0.7507 3.25 0.7462' O.7513
'3.50 0.7498 0.7547
. 3.75. 0.7514 0.7558
.4.00: 0.7541 0.7582 4.25 0.7550 0.7587
-4.50 0.7554. 0.7587 L).- 4.75 0.7551 0.7581-5.00- 0.7542 0.7569.
5.25 0.7546 0.7571 5.50 0.7537. 0.7561 5.75 0.7526 .0,7548
-6.00 0~7518.
. .0.7540 6.25 0.7519 0.7539 6.50 0.75051 0.7526
.6.75- 0.75011 0.7521.
7.00 ~0.7488 0.7508 7.25- 0.7472. 0.7493 r 7.50 0.7462 0.7482 c
7.75 .0.7451- 0.7471 8.00 0.7444 0.7463 h
').
Table 4-I
i!ATCH TYPE A TEST - NASS POINT ANALYSIS - RATE /UCL Rates and UCL's calculated for a data point interval of 1 minute Hours From Start Rate UCL 1.00 0.7827 0.7949 1.25 0.7742 0.7828 1.50 0.7638 0.7706 1.75 0.7598 0.7651 2.00 0.7556 0.7601 2.25 0.7549 0.7586 2.50 0.7499 0.7533 2.75 0.7451 0.7482 3.00 0.7459 0.7485 3,25 0.7462 0.7486 3.50 0.7486 0.7507 3.75 0.7501 0.7520 4.00 0.7529 0.7547 4.25 0.7541 0.7558
. 4.50 0.7546 0.7561 4.75 0.7541 0.7555 5.00 0.7542 0.7555 5.25 0.7538 0.7549 5.50 0.7535 0.7545 5.75 0.7524 0.7534 6.00 0.7516 0.7526 6.25 0.7519 0.7528 6.50 0.7504 0.7513 6.75 0.7500 0.7508 7.00 0.7485 0.7494 7.25 0.7471 0.7480 7.50 0.7459 0.7468 7.75 0.7446 0.7455 8.00 0.7440 0.7449
)
Table 5 l
HATCH TYPE A TEST - MASS POINT ANALYSIS - RATE /UCL Rates and UCL's calculated for a data point interval of 0.25 minutes i
Hours From Start Rate UCL 1.00 0.7865 0.7927 1.25 0.7733 0.7778 1.50 0.7631 0.7665 1.75 0.7590 0.7617 2.00 0.7543 0.7567 2.25 0.7545 0.7565 2.50 0.7501 0.7518 2.75 0.7448 0.7464 3.00 0.7458 0.7471 3.25 0.7461 0.7473 3.50 0.7486 0.7497 3.75 0.7501 0.7511 4.00 0.7529 0.7539 4.25 0.7541 0.7550 4.50 0.7547 0.7554
) 4.75 0.7539 0.7546 5.00 0.7543 0.7549 5.25 0.7537 0.7543 5.50 0.7534 0.7539 5.75 0.7523 0.7528 6.00 0.7514 0.7519 6.25 0.7517 0.7522 6.50 0.7503 0.7508 6.75 0.7499 0.7503 7.00 0.7485 0.7490 7.25 0.7472 0.7477 7.50 0.7459 0.7463 7.75 0.7446 0.7451' 8.00 0.7440 0.7444 1
Table 6
h HATCH TYPE A TEST - TOTAL TIME CALCULATION - RATES Data Point Interval, Minutes Hours From Start 15 5 1 0.25 1.0000 0.7410 0.7596 0.7263 0.7292 1.2500 0.7418 0.7511 0.7266 0.7266 ;
E 1.5000 0.7317 0.7436 0.7232 0.7228 1.7500 0.7317 0.7395 0.7225 0.7220 l 2.0000 0.7371 0.7376 0.7211 0.7200 2.2500 0.7355 0.7360 0.7219 0.7214 2.5000 0.7290 0.7312 0.7196 0.7194 2.7500 0.7277 0.7280 0.7169 0.7164 3.0000 0.7286 0.7282 0.7178 0.7175 3.2500 0.7292 0.7289 0.7187 0.7183 i 3.5000 0.7324 0.7315 0.7210 0.7207 3.7500 0.7344 0.7329 0.7228 0.7226 4.0000 0.7366 0.7352 0.7256 0.7254 4.2500 0.7369 0.7363 0.7274 0.7271 4.5000 0.7375 0.7372 0.7286 0.7285 4.7500 0.7380 0.7374 0.7292 0.7288 F 5.0000 0.7371 0.7373 0.7301 0.7299 5.2500 0.7378 0.7380 0.7305 0.7303 5.5000 0.7379 0.7378 0.7309 0.7307 5.7500 -0.7372 0.7374 0.7308 0.7306 6.0000 0.7367 0.7372 0.7308 0.7305 6.2500 0.7363 0.7375 0.7315 0.7312 6.5000 0.7303 0.7367 0.7309 0.7307 6.7500 0.7364 0.7367 0.7310 0.7308 7.0000 0.7354 0.7360 0.7304 0.7302 7.2500 0.7341 0.7350 0.7298 0.7296 7.5000 0.7337 0.7344 0.7292 0.7290 ,
7.7500 0.7331 0.7337 0;7285 0.7283 !
8.0000 0.7324 0.7332 0.7283 0.7281 1
1 I l
l Table 7 l
1
)
i HATCH TYPE A TEST - TOTAL TIME CALCULATION - UCL'S Data Point Interval, Minutes Hours from Start 15 5 1 0.25 ,
1.0000 0.9231 0.8820 0.9959 1.0242 1.2500 0.9261 0.8586 0.9709 0.9940 1.5000 0.8856 0.8415 0.9479 0.9695 1.7500 0.8754 0.8312 0.9326 0.9528 2.0000 0.8762 0.8255 0.9193 0.9379 2.2500 0.8640 0.8206 0.9105 0.9289 2.5000 0.8466 0.8115 0.8994 0.9175 2.7500 0.8392 0.8053 0.8891 0.9061 3.0000 0.8363 0.8042 0.8841 0.9006 3.2500 0.8331 0.8037- 0.8797 0.8955 3.5000 0.8345 0.8060 0.8775 0.8928 3.7500 0.8339 0.8063 0.8752 0.8900 4.0000 0.8339 0.8080 0.8744 0.8887 4.2500 0.8311 0.8081 0.8727 0.8865 4.5000 0.8290 0.8077 0.8706 0.8841 4.7500 0.8271 0.8066 0.8679 0.8803 5.0000 0.8236 0.8050 0.8658 0.8786
) 5.2500 0.8223 0.8047 0.8633 0.8758 '-
5.5000 0.8204 0.8032 0.8611 0.8733 5.7500 0.8176 0.8016 0.8584 0.8704 6.0000 0.8152 0.8002 0.8560 0.8676 6.2500 0.8131 0.7997 0.8546 0.8659 6.5000 0.8116 0.7978 0.8518 0.8630 6.7500 0.8104 0.7969 0.8499 0.8609 7.0000 0.8079 0.7952- 0.8472 0.8581 7.2500 0.8050 0.7932 0.8447 0.8554 7.5000 ~'0.8034 0.7917 0.8422 0.8528 7.7500 0.8015 0.7902 0.8398 0.8502 8.0000 0.7997 0.7889 0.8380 0.8482 i
Table 8
HATCH TYPE A TEST - TOTAL TIME ANALYSIS - RATE /UCL Rates and UCL's calculated for a data point interval of 15 minutes Hours From Start Rate UCL 1.00 0.7410 0.9231 l
1.25 0.7418 0.9261 1.50 0.7317 0.8856 1.75 0.7317 0.8754 2.00 0.7371 0.8762 2.25 0.7355 0.8640 2.50 0.7290 0.8466 2.75 0.7277 0.8392 1
3.00 0.7286 0.8363
- 3. 7.5 0.7292 0.8331 3.50 0.7324 0.8345 3.75 0.7344 0.8339 4.00 0.7366 0.8339 4.25 0.7369 0.8311 4.50 0.7375 0.8290 l' 4.75 0.7380 0.8271 5.00 0.7371 0.8236 5.25 0.7378 0.8223 5.50 0.7379 0.8204 5.75 0.7372 0.8176 6.00 ' O 7367 0.8152 6.25 0.7363 0.8131 6.50 0.7363 0.8116 6.75 0.7364 0.8104 7.00 0.7354 'O 8079 7.25 0.7341 0.8050 7.50 0.7337 0.8034 7.75 0.7331 0.8015 8.00 0.7324 0.7997 i
TABLE 9
HATCH TYPE A TEST - TOTAL TIME ANALYSIS - RATE /UCL Rates and UCL's calculated for a data point interval of 5 minutes Hours .
From Start Rate UCL 1.00 0.7596 0.8820 1.25 0.7511 0.8586 1.50 0.7436 0.8415 1.75 0.7395 0.8312 2.00 0.7376 0.8255 2.25 0.7360 0.8206 2.50 0.7312 0.8115 2.75 0.7280 0.8053 3.00 0.7282 0.8042 3.25 0.7289 0.8037 3.50 0.7315 0.8060 3.75 0.7329 0.8063 4.00 0.7352 0.8080 4.25 0.7363 0.8081 3
4.50 0.7372 0.8077 4.75 0.7374 0.8066 5.00 0.7373 0.8050 5.25 0.7380 0.8047 5.50 0.7378 0.8032 5.75 0.7374 0.8016 6.00 0.7372 0.8002 6.25 0.7375 0.7997 6.50 0.7367 0.7978 6.75 0.7367 0.7969 7.00 0.7360 0.7952 7.25 0.7350 0.7932 7.50 0.7344 0.7917 7.75 0.7337 0.7902 8.00 0.7332 0.7889
)
Table 10
HATCH TYPE A TEST - TOTAL TIME ANALYSIS - RATE /UCL Rates and UCL's calculated for a data point interval of 1 minute Hours from Start Rate UCL 1.00 0.7263 0.9959 1.25 0.7266 0.9709 1.50 0.7232 0.9479 1.75 0.7225 0.9326 2.00 0.7211 0.9193 2.25 0.7219 0.9105 2.50 0.7196 0.8994 2.75 0.7169 0.8891 3.00 0.7178 0.8841 3.25 0.7187 0.8797 3.50 0.7210 0.8775 3.75 0.7228 0.8752 4.00 0.7256 0.8744 4.25 0.7274 0.8727
) 0.7286 0.8706 4.50 4.75 0.7292 0.8679 5.00 0.7301 0.8658 5.25 0.7305 0.8633 5.50 0.7309 0.8611 5.75 0.7308 0.8584 6.00 0.7308 0.8560 6.25 0.7315 0.8546 6.50 0.7309 0.8518 6.75 0.7310 0.8499 7.00 0.7304 0.8472 7.25 0.7298 0.8447 7.50 0.7292 0.8422 7.75 0.7285 0.8398 8.00 0.7283 0.8380
)
Table 11
HATCH TYPE A TEST - TOTAL TIME ANALYSIS - RATE /UCL Rates and UCL's calculated for a data point interval of 0.25 minutes i
Hours From Start Rate UCL 1.00 0.7292 1.0242 1.25 0.7266 0.9940 1.50 0.7228 0.9695 1.75 0.7220 0.9528 2.00 0.7200 0.9379 2.25 0.7214 0.9289 2.50 0.7194 0.9175 2.75 0.7164 0.9061 3.00 0.7175 0.9006 3.25 0.7183 0.8955 3.50 0.7207 0.8928 3.75 0.7226 0.8900 4.00 0.7254 0.8887 4.25 0.7271 0.8865 4.50 0.7285 0.8841
) 4.75 0.7288 0.8808 5.00 0.7299 0.8786 5.25 0.7303 0.8758 5.50 0.7307 0.8733 5.75 0.7306 0.8704 6.00 0.7305 0.8676 6.25 0.7312 0.8659 6.50 0.7307 0.8630 6.75 0.7308 0.8609 7.00 0.7302 0.8581 7.25 0.7296 0.8554 7.50 0.7290 0.8528 7.75 0.7283 0.8502 8.00 0.7281 0.8482 i
Table 12
HATCH TYPE A TEST - REGULATORY GUIDE INEQUALITY ANALYSIS Data point interval = 15.00 minutes i
End Time Ratio 1.1 C' Ratio 1.2 Ratio 2.1 1.00 0.51 7.42 37.88 0.80 1.25 0.04 1.83 9.53. 0.79 1.50 0.14 1.67 8.54 0.77 1.75 0.05 0.62 3.19 0.77 2.00 0.02 -0.26 1.34 0.77 2.25 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.76 '
2.50 0.24 0.59 3.00 0.76 2.75 0.26 0.46 2.33 0.76
- 3.00 0.09 0.22 1.13 0.75 3.25 0.04 0.12 0.60 0.75 3.50 0.05 -0.12 0.61 0.76 3.75 0.18 -0.18 0.93 0.76 '
4.00 0.45 -0.23 1.21 0.76 4.25 0.26 0.15 0.79 0.76 4.50 0.21 .12 0.60 0.76 4.75 0.16- -0.09 0.46 0.76 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.76 5.25 0.01 -0.01 0.07 0.76
) 5.50 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.76 5.75 0.13- 0.05 0.27 0.76 6.00 0.37 0.08 0.40 0.76 :
6.25 0.65 0.09 0.47 0.76 i 6.50 0.69 0.08 0.43 0.76 6.75 0.65 - 0.07 0.37 0.76 7.00 '1.47 0.10 0.53 0.76 7.25 2.83 0.14 u0.73 0.75 7.50 3.24 0.14 0.70 0.75 7.75 4.11 0.14 0.72 0.75 8.00 5.14 0.14 0.73 0.75 l
L i
t i
i Table 13 l
HATCH TYPE A TEST - REGULATORY GUIDE INEQUALITY ANALYSIS Data point interval = 5.00 minutes End Time Ratio 1.1 C' Ratio 1.2 Ratio 2.1 1.00 0.29 2.82 15.27 0.77 1.25 0.37 1.66 8.83 0.76 1.50 0.71 1.45 7.58 0.76 0.76
]l 1.75 0.76 0.99 5.15 2.00 0.36 0.53 2.74 0.76 2.25 0.29 0.36 1.88 0.76 2.50 1.52- 0.64 3.24 0.76 2.75 2.00 0.60 3.01 0.76 3.00 0.77 0.32 1.60 0.76 3.25 0.22 0.14 0.70 0.76 3.50 0.11 -0.09 0.45 0.76 3.75 0.43 -0.14 0.73 0.76 4.00 1.47 -0.22 1.16 0.76 4.25 1,73 -0.20 1.06 0.76 4.50 1,67 -0.17 0.89 0.77 4.75 1.01 -0.12 0.61 0.77 5.00 0.30 -0.06 0.30 0.77 5.25 0.44 -0.06 0.31 0.77
-) 5.50 0.05 -0.02 0.09 0.77 5.75 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.77 6.00 0.38 0.04 0.21 0.77 6.25 0.26 0.03 0.16 0.77 6.50 1.31 0.07 0.35 0.77 6.75 1.50 0.07 0.34 0.77 7.00 3.39 0.09 0.47 0.77 7.25 6.36 0.12 0.61 0.77 7.50 8.72 0.13 0.65 0.77 7.75 11.60 0.13 0.68 0.77 8.00 13.72 0.13 0.68 0.77 i
Table 14
HATCH TYPE A TEST - REGULATORY GUIDE INEQUALITY ANALYSIS Data point interval = 1.00 minutes End Time Ratio 1.1 C' Ratio 1.2 Ratio 2.1 1.00 0.01 -0.18 1.00 0.78 1.25 0.34 0.77 4.14 0.78 1.50 2.61 1.32 6.95 0.78 1.75 2.96 0.94 4.94 0.78 2.00 3.53 0.77 3.99 0.78 2.25 2.54 0.48 2.50 0.78 2.50 7.51 0.65 3.30 0.78 2.75 13.59 0.68 3.47 0.77 3.00 5.85 0.39 1.98 0.77 3.25 3.28 0.24 1.23 0.78 3.50 0.15 0.04 0.23 0.78 3.75 0.19 -0.04 0.22 0.78 4.00 3.56 -0.16 0.82 0.78 4.25 5.50 -0.17 0.86 0.78 4.50 5.65 -0.15 0.75 0.78 4.75 3.02 -0.09 0.48 0.78 5.00 2.69 -0.08 0.39 0.78
- 5.25 1.16 -0.04 0.23 0.78
-0.02 0.12 0.78 5.50 0.43 5.75 0.28 0.02 0.09 0.78 6.00 1.49 0.04 0.19 0.78 6.25 0.60 0.02 0.11 0.78
. 6.50 5.44 0.06 0.32 0.78 6.75 6.93
- 0.06 0.33 0.78 7.00 16.61 0.09 0.48 0.78 7.25 29.04 0.12 0.59 0.78 7.50 43.84 0.13 0.67 0.78 7.75 60.95- 0.14 0.72 0.78-8.00 64.34 0.14 0.68 0.78 i
Table 15
HATCH TYPE A TEST - REGULATORY GUIDE INEQUALITY ANALYSIS Data point interval = 0.25 minutes End Time Ratio 1.1 C' Ratio 1.2 Ratio 2.1 1.00 0.57 -0.90 5.00 0.80 1.25 2.44 1.06 5.70 0.79 1.50 11.62 1.41 7.46 0.79 1.75 12,47 0.99 5.18 0.79 2.00 15.39 0.84 4.36 0.79 2.25 8.43 0.46 2.40 0.79 2.50 23.08' O.59 3.02 0.79 2.75 48.14 0.68 3.43 0.79 3.00 19.71 0.37 1.88 0.79 3.25 11.24 0.23 1.16 0.79 3.50 0.22 0.03 0.14 0.79 3.75 1.11 -0.05 0.27 0.79 4.00 15.19 -0.17 0.86 0.79 4.25 22.88 -0.17 0.89 0.79 4.50 24.11 -0.15 0.79 0.79 4.75 9.99 -0.09 0.45 0.79 5.00 11.43 -0.08 0.41 0.79 5.25 4.51 -0.04 0.23 0.79
) 5.50 1.69 -0.02 0.12 0.79 '
5.75 0.97 0.02 0.09 0.79 6.00 6.90 0.04 0.21 0.79 6.25 2.80 0.02 0.12 0.79 6.50 21.42 0.06 0.33 0.79 6~75
. 27.17 0.06 0.33 0.79 7.00 62.53 0.09 0.47 0.79 7.25 108.51 0.11 0.57 0.79 7.50 169.72 0.13 0.66 0.79 7.75 239.01 0.14 0.72 0.79 8.00 255.21 0.14 0.69 0.79
}
l l Table 16 l
HATCH TYPE A TEST - REGULATORY GUIDE INEQUALITY ANALYSIS Variation in Eq. 1.1 ratio Data Point Interval, Minutes End Tine 15 5 1 0.25 1.00 0.51 0.29 0.01 0.57 1.25 0.04 0.37 0.34 2.44 1.50 0.14 0.71 2.61 11.62 1.75 0.05 0.76 2.96 12.47 2.00 0.02 0.36 3.53 15.39 2.25 0.00 0.29 2.54 8.43 2.50 0.24 1.52 7.51 23.08 2.75 0.26 2.00 13.59 48.14 3.00 0.09 0.77 5.85 19.71 3.25 0.04 0.22 3.28 11.24 3.50 0.05 0.11 0.15 0.22 3.75 0.18 0.43 0.19 1.11 4.00 0.45 1.47 3.56 15.19 4.25 0.26 1.73 5.50 22.88 4.50 0.21 1.67 5.65 24.11 j .4.75 0.16 1.01 3.02 9.99 5.00 0.00 0.30 2.69 11.43 5.25 0.01 0.44 1.16 4.51 5.50 0.00. 0.05 0.43 1,69 5.75 0.13 0.09 0.28 0.97 6.00 0.37 0.38 1.49 6.90 6.25 0.65 -
0.26 0.60 2.80 6.50 0.69 1.31 5.44 21.42 6.75 0.65 1.50 6.93 27.17 7.00 1.47 3.39 16.61 62.53 7.25 2.83- 6.36 29.04 108.51 7.50 3.24 8.72 43.84 169.72 7.75 4.11 11.60 60.95 239.01 8.00 5.14 13.72 64.34 255.21
-1 Table 17 1
HATCH TYPE A TEST - REGULATORY GUIDE INEQUALITY ANALYSIS Variation in C' Data Point Interval, Minutes End Time 15 5 1 0.25 1.00 7.42 2.82 -0.18 -0.90 1.25 1.83 1.66 0.77 1.06 1.50 1.67 1.45 1.32 1.41 1.75 0.62 0.99 0.94 0.99 2.00 -0.26 0.53 0.77 0.84 2.25 0.02 0.36 0.48 0.46 2.50 0.59 0.64 0.65 0.59 2.75 0.46 0.60 0.68 0.68 3.00 0.22 0.32 0.39 0.37 3.25 0.12 0.14 0.24 0.23 3.50 -0.12 -0.09 0.04 0.03 3.75 -0.18 -0.14 -0.04 -0.05 4.00 -0.23 -0.22 -0.16 -0.17 4.25 -0.15 -0.20 -0.17 -0.17 4.50 -0.12 -0.17 -0.15 -0.15
)- 4.75 -0.09 -0.12 -0.09 -0.09 5.00 0.00 -0.06 -0.08 -0.08 5.25 -0.01 -0.06 -0.04 -0.04 5.50 0.00 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 5.75 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 6.00 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 6.25 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.02 6.50 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 6.75 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 7.00 0.10- 0.09 0.09 0.09 7.25 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 7.50 0.14- 0.13 0.13 0.13 7.75 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 8.00 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14
.)
Table 18 ,
HATCH TYPE A TEST - REGULATORY GUIDE INEQUALITY ANALYSIS Variation in Eq. 1.2 ratio Data Point Interval, Minutes 0.25 End Time 15 5 1 1.00 -37.88 15.27 1.00 5.00 1.25 9.53 8.83 4.14 5.70 1.50 8.54 7.58 6.95 7.46 1.75 3.19 5.15 4.94 5.18 2.00 1.34 2.74 3.99 4.36 2.25 0.09 1.88 2.50 2.40 2.50 3.00 3.24 3.30 3.02 2.75 2.33 3.01 3.47 3.43 3.00 1.13 1.60 1.98 1.88 3.25 0.60 0.70 1.23 1.16 0.45 0.23 0.14 3.50 0.61 3.75 0.93 0.73 0.22 0.27 4.00 1.21 1.16 0.82 0.86 4.25 0.79 1.06 0.86 0.89 4.50 0.60 0.89 0.75 0.79 4.75 0.46 0.61 0.48 0.45 I
5.00 0.01 0.30 0.39 0.41 5.25 0.07 0.31 0.23 0.23
.5.50 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.12 5.75 0.27 0.12 0.09 0.09 6.00 0.40 0.21 0.19 0.21 6.25 0.47 -
0.16 0.11 0.12 6.50 0.43 0.35 0.32 0.33 6.75 0.37 0.34 -0.33 0.33 7.00 0.53 0.47 0.48 0.47 7.25 0.73 0.61 0.59 0.57 7.50 0.70 0.65 0.67 0.66 7.75 0.72 0.68 0.72 0.72 8.00 0.73 0.68 0.68 0.69 Table 19
l HATCH TYPE A TEST - REGULATORY GUIDE INEQUALITY ANALYSIS .
t Variation in Eq. 2.1 ratio Data Point Interval, Minutes End Time 15 5 1 0.25 1.00 0.80 0.77 0.78 0.80 1.25 0.79 0.76 0.78 0.79 1.50 0.77 0.76 0.78 0.79 1.75 0.77 0.76 0.78 0.79 2.00 0.77 0.76 0.78 0.79 2.25 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.79 2.50 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.79 2.75 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.79 3.00 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.79 3.25 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.79 3.50 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.79 3.75 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.79 4.00 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.79 4.25 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.79
) 4.50 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 4.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 5.00 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 5.25 '
O.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 5.50 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 '
5.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 6.00 0.76 -
0.77 0.78 0.79 6.25 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 6.50 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 6.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 7.00 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 !
7.25 0.75 0 77
. 0.78 0.79 7.50 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.79 7.75 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.79 8.00 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.79
)
Table 20 t
====gn= -e-HATCH TYPE A TEST - 50% SLIDING WINDOW ANALYSIS Data point interval = 15.00 minutes i
Test Duration, Hr. Calculated Rate Maximum Window Rate 2.000 0.759 0.791 2.500 0.748 0.774 3.000 0.748 0.760 3.500 0.752 0.755 4.000 0.757 0.769 4.500 0.756 0.772 5.000 0.754 0.768 5.500 0.754 0.763 6.000 0.752 0.763 6.500 0.750 0.761 7.000 0.749 0.761 7.500 0.746 0.760 8.000 0.744 0.758 Data point interval = 5.00 minutes J
Test Ouration, Hr. Calculated Rate Maximum Window Rate 2.000 0.755 0.774 2.500 0.747 0.767 3.000 0.745 0.759 3.500 0.750 0.759 4.000 0.754 0.772 4.500 0.755 0.776 5.000 0.754 0.770 5.500 0.754 0.766 6.000 0.752 0.764 6.500 0.750 0.762 7.000 0.749 0.760 7.500 0.746 0.759 8.000 0.744 0.757 1
Table 21
t HATCH TYPE A TEST - 50% SLIDING WINDOW ANALYSIS Data point interval = 1.00 minutes Test Duration, Hr. Calculated Rate Maximum Window Rate 2.000 0.756 0.783 2.500- 0.750 0.774 3.000 0.746 0.764 3.500 0.749 0.760 4.000 0.753 0.769 4.500 0.755 0.774 5.000 0.754 0.768 5.500 0.753 0.766 6.000 0.752 0.762 6.500 0.750 0.761 7.000 0.749 0.759 7.500 0.746 0.757 8.000 0.744 0.756
)
Data point interval = 0.25 minutes Test Duration, Hr. Calculated Rate Maximum Window Rate 2.000 0.754 0.786 2.500 0.750 0.773 3.000 0.746 0.763 3.500 0.749 0.759 4.000 0.753 0.769 4.500 0.755 0.775 5.000 0.754 0.768 5.500 0.753 0.766 6.000 0.751 0.762 6.500. 0.750 0.761 7.000- 0.749 0.759 7.500 0.746 0.758 8.000 0.744 0.756 I
Table 22
HATCH TYPE A TEST-PREDICTOR ANALYSIS Data point interval = 15.00 minutes End lime Leakage Rate UCL Predictor 5.0000 0.7543 0.7596 1.7715 5.2500 0.7547 0.7595 1.6112 5.5000 0.7542 0.7586 1.6544 5.7500 0.7528 0.7570 1.5004 6.0000 0.7516- 0.7557 1.3737 6.2500 0.7507 0.7546 1.3897 6.5000 0.7504 0.7540 1.3686 6.7500 0.7503 0.7536 1.1287 7.0000 0.7487 0.7522 1.1330 7.2500 0.7466 0.7504 1.4588 7.5000 0.7459 0.7496 1.6143 7.7500 0.7449 0.7485 1.7229 8.0000 0.7440 0.7475 1.7899
) Data point interval = 5.00 minates End Time Leakage Rate. UCL Predictor 5.0000 0.7542 0.7569 2.2647 5.2500 0.7546' O.7571 1.4502 5.5000 0.7537 0.7561 1.1242 5.7500 0.7526 0.7548 1.2372 6.0000 0.7518 0.7540 1.2837 6.2500 0.7519 0.7539 1.3197 6.5000 0.7505 0.7526 1.3476 6.7500 0.7501 0.7521 1.2037 7.0000 0.7488 0.7508- 0.8909 7.2500. 0.7472 0.7493 0.8906 7.5000 0.7462 0.7482 1.1153 7.7500 0.7151 0.7471 1.2868 8.0000 0.7444 0.7463 1.3937 1
Table 23
HATCH T'PE A TEST-PREDICTOR ANALYSIS
< Data point interval = 1.00 minutes End Time Leakage Rate UCL Predictor 5.0000 0.7542 0.7555 2.8577 5.2500 0.7538 0.7549 1.8824 5.5000 0.7535 0.7545 1.0661 5.7500 0.7524 0.7534 0.7777 6.0000 0.7516 0.7526 0.8870 6.2500 0.7519 0.7528 0.9500 6.5000 0.7504 0.7513 0.9860 6.7500 0.7500 0.7508 0.9321 7.0000. 0.7485 0.7494 0.6955 7.2500 0.7471 0.7480 0.6064 7.5000 0.7459 0.7468 0.8516 7.7500 0.7446 0.7455 1.0578 8.0000 0.7440 0.7449 1.1922
)
Data point interval = 0.25 minutes End Time Leakage Rate UCL Predictor
>' 5.0000 0.7543 0.7549 2.8718 5.2500 0.7537 0.7543 1.6935 5,5000 0.7534 0.7539 0.8929 5.7500- 0.7523 0.7528 0.7317 6.0000 0.7514 0.7519 0.8324 6.2500 0.7517 0.7522 0.8831 6.5000 0.7503 0.7508 0.9134 6.7500 0.7499 0.7503 0.8686 7.0000 0.7485 0.7490 0.6184
-7.2500 0.7472 0.7477 0.5327 7.5000 0.7450 0.7463 0.7765 7.7500 .0.7446 0.7451 0.9804 8.0000 0.7440 0.7444 1.1171
.)
Table 24 4
__m.____m_________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .____ . _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l I
EPRI CRITERION - EQUATION 6 Left Hand Side Values for Data Point Interval Noted Data Point Interval, Minutes Test Dura-tion, Hrs 15 5 1 0.?
7.00 3.01 2.83 2.88 2.88 7.25 2.22 2.40 2.65 2.74 7.50 2.44 2.31 2.44 2.44 7.75 2.31 1.80 1.54 1.54 EPRI CRITERION - EQUATION 7 Data Point Test Dura-Interval, Min tion, Hrs UCL Rate Difference
) 15 7.00 .7522 .7487 .0035 ,
15 7.25 .7504 .7466 .0038 15 7.50 .7496 .7459- .0037
.7449 .0036 15 7.75 .7485 15 8.00 .7475 .7440 .0035 5 7.00 .
.7508 .7488 .0020 5 7.25 .7493 .7472 .0021 5 7.50 .7482 .7462 .0020 5- 7.75 .7471 .7451 .0020 5 8.00 .7463 .7444 .0019 1 7.00 .7494 .7485 .0009 l' 7.25 .7480 .7471 .0009 1- 7.50 .7468 .7459 .0009 1 7.75 .7455 .7446 .0009 1 8.00 .7449 .7440 .0009 7.00 .7490 .7485 .0005
.5 7.25 .7477 .7472 .0005 0.25 7.50 .7463 .7459 .0004 0.25 7.75 .7451 .7446 .0005 0.25 8.00 .7444 .7440 .0004 i'
Table 25
1 HATCH VERIFICATION TEST - MASS POINT CALCULATION - RATES Data Point Interval, Minutes Hours from Start 15 5 1 0.25 1.0000 1.9315 1.9244 1.9092 1.9092 1.2500 1.9223 1.9214 1.9130 1.9126 1.5000 1.9118 1.9134 1.9045 1.9035 1.7500 1.9136 1.9055 1.8966 1.8963 2.0000 1.9096 1.9040 1.8986 1.8982 2.2500 1.9013 1.8936 1.8881 1.8883 2.5000 1.8889 1.8881 1.8855 1.8859 2.7500 1.8885 1.8847 1.8805 1.8806 3.0000 1.8890 1.8859 1.8813 1.8814 3.2500 1.8877 1.8850 1.8826 1.8825 3.5000 1.8884 1.8853 1.8827 1.8830 3.7500 1.8874 1.8830 1.8811 1.8816 4.0000 1.8859 1.8840 1.8823 1.8828 HATCH VERIFICATION TEST - TOTAL TIME CALCULATION - RATES
)
Data Point Interval, Minutes l Hours From Start 15 - 5 1 0.25 1.0000 1.9238 1.9112 .1.9480 1.9811 1.2500 1.9147 1.9072 1.9354 1.9615 1.5000 1.9048 1.9004 1.9201 1.9415 1.7500 1.9045 1.8929 1.9078 1.9264 2.0000 1.9006 1.8905 1.9040 1.9203 2.2500 1.8934 1.8819 1.8928 1.9078 2.5000 1.8830 1.8767 1.8876 1.9013 2.7500 1.8810 1.8729 1.8812 1.8935 3.0000 1.8802 1.8726 1.8793 1.8906 3.2500 1.8784 1.8712 1.8784 1.8887 i 3'5000
. 1.8781 1.8708 1.8771 1.8869 3.7500 1.8769 1.8689 1.8749 1.8843 4.0000 1.8754 1.8692 1.8748 1.8836 1
?
I' Table 26 i
s ,
HATCH VERIFICATION - REGULATORY GUIDE INEQUALITY AN\ LYSIS Data point interval = 15.00 minutes End Time Ratio 1.1 C' Ratio 1.2 Ratio 2.1 ,
1.00 0.01 0.95 3.00 0.96 1.25 0.09 1.31 4.19 0.96 1.50 0.51 1.55 5.03 0.96 1.75 0.14 0.63 2.03 0.96 2.00 0.37 0.64 2.09 0.95 2.25 1.43 0.95 3.14 0.95 2.50 3.68 1.37 4.61 0.95 2.75 1.65 0.91 3.06 0.95 3.00 0.83 0.58 1.94 0.95 3.25 0.83 0.46 1.56 0.95 3.50 0.46 0.30 1.00 0.95 3.75 0.53 0.26 0.87 0.95 4.00 0.77 0.26 0.86 0.95 Data point interval = 1.00 minutes
)
End Time Ratio 1.1 C' Ratio 1.2 Ratio 2.1 1.00 1,46 2.79 9.09 0.96 1.25- 0.16 0.54 1.74 0.96 1.50 1.62 .
1.04 3.42 0.96 1.75 4.61 1.18 3.92 0.96 2.00 1.32 0.46 1.54 0.96 2.25 9.91 1.00 3.36 0.96 i 2.50 10.23 0.79 2.65 0.96 1' 2.75 17.43 0.79- 2.69 0.96 3.00 8.28 0.47 1.58 0.96 3.25 3.13 0.24 0.82 0.96 3.50 2.02 0.16 0.55 0.96 3.75 4.07 0.19 0.65 0.96 4.00 1.07 0.08 0.29 0.96-l
}
Table 27
.. . - ~ ~ - . - - - - . ~ . - - - ~ . - -
s
~
t 47 l
s E
.+
I f
T;? ..
FIGURES i (1thru6) 8 m
) b S
(
!+
s A-r v
w i
+,;-
6.*
t 4
k - +~-~~ n. _ - - ,_. .~ .;.--._._-___, ~~... --. . .~. ~ . , n. , n , _ .- ,e-.rm?
,,.n------- - - - - - , -- - . ~ ,,- . ,. .n
\<! n 7 4 i (7 1 im h P 1-s,. r
-4
(
" t r
.IGURE 1
' Temperature vs. Time t i
9 E c C
~[
?
t b 5 s i, b t h, . 1 P i, k e jf '? C h ? p: r- E
- t. L
- i. '
^ t-MM'Nd'" "
reWeev%wv"ww^&vW_-' - -e;-*4' wevW'- -- - #m'e h*e N '"'"M*'**'""*~"#*"" " ' *~" ' "-" ' " ' ' ' '
,Au u A.-4-W* -*** ""% *'
- w - *>w""^" = r"Jw'+' 'm u*"* =~-uww " ' '"" ^vm "" =n'
- v w b_,,,_,,,,
f
- 4 4.
k m am 1 , s 4 f i w l e ( FIGURE 2 L c Pressure vs. Time l f f r 1 k P I u e I r I 3 I y h EN**h*WMJM%%
.aAwk,owm m, .m wwnn e - m y ,m wwch. 9,nes%,- seAov -a, n.. , m a-m "r MW-BM'Ta w wamT'F '- Fr- MW'l-qYf9E T-(
- i PMH-
-= __ - - - -
s u n p N l
.O a" a
m 1 E l g - m l l (/) s
> o a
E
- s o
1
.c
& g L _ cn
- ,E_
B. > I i 1 O 5 o 1 L,
. 1 O O_ i
(-- i -b C o z Q w "x I--- bl l J e l L
.i i i I I i O O O O O O o o o, o, o,, o, Of os os os oo
? ? ?
cl
'l4 j 'eJ n4DJedW9,L 2- .r _ _ = = , - _ __-.v
....,---..-.-.--,,--.1
_ .i
^
1 i Pressure vs. Time
.s 4
,2.** - f s h g \
12 4 - . . . ,% 3 . ' ** 1 g: c ,2.30 - u
'e ,* i
\
\
- qi.
\
e
\
i o
- 5 e
* =- .
.\
E 1136' gg.3* '
.\ - g2.3% \ s- s s r- s s 1 20
\
\ %6 g1 g6 %9 %i 1% $)
$\TO goon i
T
- - y ^ ,-
_ -. ' ' ' ~- - - .
FIGURE 3 Vapor Pressure vs. Time O
c._ L Vaaor 3 ressu re vs. ~im e
- l 1
l 0.432- -- LEGEND ' { 0.431 - , y3 a .f h n. 0.430 - - l E 0.429 -
- .s "
i E, ., I L. ' I a. 0.428 - , I- .
- t. a o .i. ;
O. ; I O 0.427 - '= ! ,1 0.426 - -*
,,i ll .
j 0.425 ," , , , , , , , 23 16 17 18 19 20 21 '22 j 1 Time,. hours
. _ . _ .e
~
.j e
1 i
=
er e t e r 5 m
'f k
t g. FIGURE 4 n-
- Air Mass vs. Time-4 h
N ,f. , f! 'l ( 's l[: ?! t: N' t ll . w ,4 ik , h y bs t 3 j
. s y:-
p- ? av tv:, , i 3-L y n. j! )h.iI ; h t 4 k - s 4 3.- i
%.' . , os - - . ~ - - . - ~ ~ _ _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . - - , , , -nn, ,. ,"
'~
Air Mass vs. Time o 100000 j LEGEND -
'l 99950- y4 l u
999 *~ E \
.a i J .i
' l kU 99850-i h
! < 99800-99750- '
l l 99700 , , , , , , , ,
-16 17. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Time, . hours
FIGURE 5 Air Mass vs. Time Verification Test
;)'
4
i T e m D N E G y 4 E s L - v i3 s s _ M i a r h s r u o A , 2 e i m
- T t
s - ' e T -
, 1 n
i o t a m
=
i c f 0 i - - - - - - - r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 5 6 9 0 6 9 5 5 9 0 5 9 5 4 9 0 4 9 5 3 9 0 3 9 5 2 9
- V 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2ms_. EU2 ' <
' l l l \!l1 lllllllllll
FIGURE 6 Total Time Leakage Rate ()J 4 1 1 _- , . - - - - - . _ . . - . . - - - _ . - . - - --_.--_-__-__.--_.L_____.---- - -.----_-- - _.-- - -. - _ - __
l 4 Total Time UCL vs. Time . 1.05- = -- - - - = - - - - == LEGEND k
- 15 minute dato point interval
>- 1.00- \*
0 = 5 minute dato point .interval V N
.\,
. * ... 1 minute dato point .interval
+ +
c . .,,,== .25 minute dato point interval l
- 0.95-
- m .
e
- n. *,s*%+
+** .
* *% * *'=
-I 0.90-
- O D . . . * * =. * * = = = = = .""**"
= = . . . . . . * * = = .. , ", *=* * =. === = .
3
.,**===....,,*** ===.
- g *'""== .
5 0.85-
- W s
'6 ** %
F 0.80-
**,..,,,.a=a'""""======.,,,,,,,* *==== j 0.75 , , , ,
8 2 3 4 5 6 7 1: Time, hours
~~~ -}}