ML20078H230

Reactor Containment Bldg Integrated Leak Rate Test, Jul 1983

ML20078H230
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	07/31/1983
From:	Blessing J, Collins M, Shirk R FLORIDA POWER CORP., GILBERT/COMMONWEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY GILBERT ASSOCIAT
To:
Shared Package
ML20078H228	List: ML20078H224 ML20078H230
References
TAC-51342, NUDOCS 8310140080
Download: ML20078H230 (58)

Text

~

+

3 o,

6 o

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR CENERATING PLANT REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING INTEGRATED LEAK RATE TEST JULY 1983 2alua PREPARED BY:

c n APPROVED BY:

ILRT ENGINEER Gilbert Associates, Inc.

APPROVED Ef:

c-

/ O

~, -

8310140080 831011 PDR ADOCK 05000302 P

PDR

oT 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Item Title Page 1.0 SYNOPSIS 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

3 3.0 CENERAL AND TECHNICAL DATA 4

4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 6

4.1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 6

4.2 SHORT DURATION TESTING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 6

5.0 TEST INSTRUMENTATION 8

5.1

SUMMARY

OF INSTRUMENTS 8

5.2 SCHEMATIC ARRANCEMENT 10 5.3 CALIBRATION CHECKS 11 5.4 INSTRUMENTATION PERFORMANCE 11 5.5 VOLUME WEIGHTING FACTORS 11 5.6 SYSTEMATIC ERROR ANALYSIS 12 5.7 SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFICATION 16 6.0 TEST PROCEDURE 18 6.1 PREREQUISITES 18 6.2 CENERAL DISCUSSION 19 6.3 TEST PERFORMANCE 21 7.0 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 23 7.1 CENERAL DISCUSSION 23 7.2 STATISTICAL EVALUATION 26 8.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 29 8.1 RESULTS AT PA 29 8.2 SUPPLEMENTAL TEST RESULTS 30

9.0 REFERENCES

32 APPENDICIES A.

SCHEMATIC ARRANCEMENT OF TEST INSTRUMENTATION B.

REDUCED LEAKAGE RATE DATA C.

LEAKAGE RATE TEST CRAPHS D.

COMPUTER RESULTS E.

LOCAL LEAK RATE TEST REPORT - 1982 F.

LOCAL LEAK RATE TEST REPORT - 1983 Gdbert/ Commonwealth

1~

10.,

1.0 SYNOPSIS The Crystal River' Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant reactor containment building was subjected to an integrated leak rate test during the period from July 10, 1983 to July 11, 1983.

The purpose of this test was to demonstrate the acceptability of the building leakage rate at an internal pressure of 49.6 psig (Pa).

~

Testing was performed-in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, ANSI N45.4-1972, Bechtel Topical Report BN-TOP-1 and Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant FSAR.

The mass point method of analysis resulted in a measured leakage l

rate of 0.130 percent by weight per day at 49.6 psig. The-leakage.

rate.at the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence interval was 0.142 percent by weight per day. A correction factor of 0.001 percent by. weight per day for two penetrations which were i

not vented for the test must be add 2d to the test results.

1 Therefore, the leakage rate at the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence interval is 0.143 percent by weight per day which is below the allowable leakage rate of 0.187 percent by weight per day at 49.6 psig.

Utilizing the total time method of analysis, the measured leakage rate was found to be 0.126 percent by weight per day and 0.173 percent by weight per day at the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence interval at the 49.6 psig pressure level. The mean of the measured leakage rates based on the total time calculations for the last five hours of the test was 0.170 percent by weight per day. All total time analyses are below the allowable leakage rate of 0.187 percent by weight per day and meet the criteria set forth in Bechtel Topical Report BN-TOP-1 for conduct of a short

.ducation integrated leakage rate test.

An eruivalent leakage rate reduction of 0.005 percent by weight per day was achieved by performing Type B and C tests prior to the

~ integrated leakage rate test.

Therefore, the "as found" reactor Gdhert/Commonweeth

2 t

containment integrated leakage rate is the corrected measured leakage rate of 0.143 percent by weight per-day plus the 0.005 percent by weight per day or 0.148 percent by weight per day. This is well below the allowable "as found" leakage rate of 0.25 percent by weight per day.

The supplemental instrumentation verification test at Pa demonstrated an agreement between measured reactor containment building integrated leakage rates of 19.2 percent, which is within the 25 percent requirement of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Section III A.3.b.

Testing was performed by Florida Power Corporation with the technical assistance of Gilbert Associates Inc.

Procedural and calculatonal methods were witnessed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission personnel.

Gdbert /Commoneesth I

3 o,

s

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The objective of the 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 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 a

0.25 percent by weight per day (L )*

a Testing was performed in accordance with the procedural reouirements as stated in Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Unit 3 Surveillance Procedure, SP-178. This procedure was approved by the Crystal River Unit 3 Plant Review Committee prior to the commencement of the test.

With the exception of valves SFV-18,SFV-19 and DWV-160 all reactor containment isolation valves and penetrations subject to type B and C testing were tested prior to commencement of the integrated leak rate test. Their combined leakage was less than 60 percent of the maximum allowable leakage rate (L ) at 49.6 psig in a

accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J.

Leakage rate testing was accomplished at the pressure level of 49.6 psig for a period of 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />. The 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> period was followed by a 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> supplemental test for a verification of test instrumentation.

Gdbert /Commonwesth

4 o',

3.0 CENERAL AND TECHNICAL DATA 3.1 CENERAL DATA Owner:

Florida Power Corporation Docket No.:

50-302 Location:

Approximately 5 miles north of Crystal River, Florida Containment

Description:

Reinforced concrete structure composed of cylindrical walls (prestressed with a post-tensioning tendon system in vertical and horozontal directions), with a flat foundation mat (conventional reinforcing) and a shallow dome roof (prestressed utilizing a three-way post tensioning tendon system). The inside surface is lined with a carbon steel liner.

Date Test Completed:

July 11, 1983 3.2 TECHNICAL DATA Containment Net 0

Free Volume:

2 x 10 cubic feet Design Pressure:

55 psig tweert/Conunoneesith

E' 5

Design Temperature:

281 F Calculated Accident Peak Pressure:

49.6 psig Calculated Accident Peak Temperature:

281 F i

l l

l t

l I

l Gdbert /Commoneenth l

I 1

L

6 4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 4.1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria established prior to the test and as specified by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, ANSI N45.4-1917 and the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant FSAR, Section 15.4.2.2, Amen.dment 49, are as follows:

a.

The measured leakage rate (Lam) at the calculated design basis accident pressure of 49.6 psig (P ) shall be less than a

75 percent of the maximum allowable leakage rate (L )*

a specified as 0.25 percent by weight of the building atmosphere per day. The acceptance criteria is determined as follows:

La = 0.25%/ day 0.75La = 0.187%/ day b.

The test instrumentation shall be verified by means of a supplemental test. Agreement between 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.

a 4.2 SHORT DURATION TESTING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA In addition to the acceptance criteria mentioned above, the following short duration testing acceptance criteria contained in Bechtel Topical Report BN-TOP-1, Revision 1, dated November 1, 1972 was used:

a.

The trend report based on total time calculations shall indicate that the magnitude of the calculated leak rate is tending to stabilize at a value less than the maximum allowable leak rate (L )-

a Gdbert/Commonweenh

7 e

b.

The end of test upper 95 percent confidence limit for the calculated leak rate based on total time calculations shall be less than the maximum allowable leak rate.

c.

The mean of the measured leak rates based on total time calculations over the last five hours of test or last twenty data points, whichever provides the most data, shall be less than the maximum allowable leak rate.

d.

At least twenty data points shall be provided for statistical analysis.

Gdbert /Conwnoneesth

8 e

5.0 TEST INSTRUMENTATION 5.1

SUMMARY

OF INSTRUMENTS Test instruments employed are described, by system, in the d

following subsections:

5.1.1 Temperature Indicating System Components:

a.

Resistance Temperature Detectors Quantity 22 s

Manufacturer Temtex Type 100 ohm platinum Range, O F 80-120 Accuracy, O F i.25% of reading Sensitivity, O F i 0.1 Quantity 2

Manufacturer Rosemount Type 78-S 100 ohm platinum Range, O F 70-130 Accuracy, O F i 0.1 Sensitivicy, O F i 0.1 b.

Digital Temperature Scanner / Printer Quantity 1

Manufacturer Doric Scientific Corp.

Type

• 210-40-NSR-08-17 Digital Data Logger

,_ +

e,.

s 9

l' o

s i

Accuracy, O F i 0.1 Repeatability, O F i 0.1

• Also equipped with 25 Rosemount Model 401R-4 bridge cards 5.1.2 Dewpoint Indicating System Components:

a.

Dewcell Elements t

Quantity 9

Manufacturer Panametrics Type 2100 M2W Range, O F 0 - 140 l

Accuracy, O F i 3.6 l

• Repeatability, O F NA b.

Dewpoint Readout k

Quantity 2

Manufacturer Panametrics Type 2100 - 151 Range, O F 0 - 140 Resolution, O F i 0.1

\\

Repeatability, O F i 0.9

• Repeatability specification for probe and readout device is the same as each probe / readout channel is calibrated as a unit.

k 7

~,-

Gdbert/Commoneseth

\\

s

• 10 5.1.3 Pressure Monitoring System Precision Pressure Cauges Quantity 2

Manufacturer Texas Instruments Type 145-01 Range, psia 0 - 100 Accuracy, psia 1 0.010% of reading plus 0.002% of full scale Repeatability, psia 1 0.001% of full scale 3enscr Sensitivity, psia i 0.0013% of full scale 5.1.4 Supplemental Test Flow Monitoring System Mass Flow Meter Quantity 1

Manufacturer Volumetrics Model 14326 Range, SLPM 0-600

Accuracy, i 1% of reading 5.2 SCHEMATIC ARRANCEMENT The arrangement of the four measuring systems summarized in Section 5.1 is depicted in Appendix A.

Drybulb temperature sensors were placed throughout the reactor containment vessel volume to permit monitoring of internal temperature variations at 24 locations. Dewpoint temperature sensors were placed at 9 locations to permit monitoring of the reactor containment partial pressure of water vapor. A temperature survey was performed after the sensors were installed which verified there were no large areas of temperature variation.

Geert/Commoneenth

11 5.3 CALIBRATION CHECKS Temperature, dewpoint and pressure measuring systems were checked for calibration before the test as recommended by ANSI N45.4-1972, Section 6.2 and 6.3.

The results of the calibration checks are on file at Crystal River Unit 3.

The supplemental test at 49.6 psig confirmed the instrumentation acceptability.

5.4 INSTRUMENTATION PERFORMANCE During the installation phase of the test equipment one dewcell exhibited erratic behavior and was not used for the test. The remaining nine dewcells, twenty-four RTD's, two precision pressure gauges and mass flow meter performed satisfactorily throughout the performance of the integrated leak rate test and provided more than adequate coverage of the containment.

5.5 VOLUME WEIGHTING FACTORS Weighting factors were easigned to each operable drybulb temperature sensor and dewpoint temperature sensor based on the calculated volume of the reactor containment building each sensing device monitored. Drybulb and dewpoint temperature sensors elevation and weighting factor for the test were as follows:

Elevation Temperature Weighting (Feet)

Elemene.

Factor 100 LR-42-HE

.040 105 LR-20-TE

.024 105 LR-21-TE

.024 105 LR-22-TE

.024 105 LR-41-HE

.050 108 LR-23-TE

.025 108 LR-52-TE

.031 120 LR-44-HE

.062 Geert/Comunenseeth

12 o

c Elevation Temperature Weighting (Feet)

Element Factor 140 LR-24-TE

.045 140 LR-25-TE

.045 140 LR-26-TE

.045 140 LR-27-TE

.031 140 LR-53-TE

.025 140 LR-43-HE

.167 179.5 LR-54-TE

.045 179.5 LR-55-TE

.045 180 LR-29-TE

.045 180 LR-31-TE

.045 180 LR-49-HE

.072 180 LR-50-HE

.072 186.2 LR-28-TE

.045 200 LR-48-HE

.179 215.5 LR-35-TE

.066 215.5 LR-38-TE

.066 215.5 LR-46-HE

.179 215.5 LR-47-HE

.179 220 LR-34-TE

.066 238.7 LR-37-TE

.043 242.7 LR-33-TE

.043 242.7 LR-36-TE

.043 242.7 LR-39-TE

.043 260 LR-30-TE

.043 260 LR-32-TE

.043 5.6 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.

c Geert/Commanuseth l

\\

.,,_._.-.._,...,,..-,_,_____._...,_,-m.,_,

13 Justification of instrumentation selection was accomplished, using manufacturer's sensitivity and repeatability tolerances stated in Section 5.1, by computing the instrumentation selection guide (ISC) formula.

Containment leakage determined by the absolute method requires accurate measurement of small changes in containment pressure with suitable corrections for temperature and water vapor. Since the absolute method utilizes the change in a reading (i.e., pressure and temperature) to calculate leak rate, the repeatability, sensitivity and readability of the instrument system is of more concern than the accuracy. To perform the Instrument Selection Cuide (ISC) calculation the sensitivity error of the sensor and the repeatability error of the measurement system must be used.

Sensitivity is defined as "the capability of a sensor to respond to change." Sensitivity is usually a function of the system measuring the sensor output. When the sensor energy state is raised or lowered an amount equal to the smallest value which the entire system will process, a change of indication will occur. To determine sensitivity for ILRT sensors, it is necessary to analyze the smallest value of the analog sensor output which will cause a one digit change in the digital display.

Repeatability is defined as "the capability of the measurement system to reproduce a given reading from a constant source."

Utilizing the methods, techniques and assumptions in Appendix C to ANS 56.8-1981, the ISC formula was computed for the absolute method as follows:

a.

Conditions L,

= 0.25%/ day P

= 64.3 psia Gdbert/Conwnonwealth

14 T

= 5500 R dcybulb Tdp = 78.80 F dewpoint t

= 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> b.

Total Absolute Pressure:

ep No. of Sensors:

2 Range 0-100 psia Sensor sensitivity error (E ): 2 0.0013% of full scale p

Measurement system error (c ): i 0.001% of p

full scale E '= 0.0013 psia p

p = 0.00100 psia c

(E )2 + (c )21/2 f no. of sensors 1/2 p=i e

p p

p=

0.0013)2 + (0.001) 1/2 2 1/2 e

p = 1 0.00116 psia e

c.

Water Vapor Pressure: epy No. of sensors: 9

• Sensor sensitivity error (Epy): NA

• Sensitivity is not specified for probes by the manufacturer.

Probe / readout device repeatability is specified and considered equal as each probe / readout channel is calibrated as a unit.

GeertICommeneenth

15

+

Measurement system error (cpy), excluding sensor: i 0.90 F At a dewpoint temperature of 78.80 F, the equivalent water vapor pressure change (as determined from the steam tables) is 0.016 psia /0F.

E

= NA py i 0.90 F (0.016 psia /0F) c

=

py 1 0.014 psig c

=

py pyf_no.ofsensorT1/2 e

= i c py 10.014[

1/2 9

e

=

py 1 0.0046 psia e

=

py d.

Temperature No. of sensors:

24 Sensor sensitivity error (E ): i 0.10 F = 1 0.100 R T

Measurement system error (CT), excluding sensor: i 0.10 F r 1 0.10 R eT = i (E ) + (ET) 1/2 f

o. of sensor 1/2 T

eT = 1 0.10)2 + (0.1) 1/2[

24 1/2 eT = 1 0.02890 R Gdhert/CommoneesitA

n-1 16 e.

Instrument Selection Guide (ISG) 1/2 00 b

ISC = 1 2 b+

+2 t

,p p

ISC = i 2400 0.00116 2 0.0046 2 0.0289 1/2 2

+ 2

+2 11 64.3 64.3 550 _

ISC = i 218.18

.509 x 10-10 + 1.024 x 10-8 + 5.522 x 10-1/2 ISC = i 0.028%/ day The ISC formula does not exceed 0.25 L, (0.0625%/ day) and it is therefore concluded that the instrumentation selected was acceptable for use in determining the reactor containment integrated leakage rate.

5.7 SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFICATION In addition to the calibration checks described in Section 5.3, test instrumentation operation was verified by a supplemental test subsequent to the completion of the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> leakage rate test.

This test consisted of imposing a known calibrated leakage rate on the reactor containment building. After the flow rate was established, it was not altered for the duration of the test.

During the supplemental test, the measured leakage rate was Le = Ly' +Lo where Le=

measured composite leakage rate consisting of the reactor containment building leakage rate plus the imposed leakage rate Lo=

imposed leakage rate m ie _ m

r --

17 leakage rate of the reactor containment building during Ls =

y the supplemental test phase Rearranging the above equation, Ls =L

-L y

c o

The reactor containment building leakage during the supplemental test 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 s) was then compared to the measured reactor y

containment building leakage rate during the preceding 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> test (L,,) to determine instrumentation acceptability.

Instrumentation is considered acceptable if the difference between the two building leakage rates is within 25 percent of the maximum allowable leakage rate (L ).

a l

l l

l l

t l-Geert/Commennesith l

L _.

w 18 6.0 TEST PROCEDURE 6.1 PREREQUISITES 1

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

a.

Proper operation of all test instrumentation was verified.

b.

All reactor containment building isolation valves were closed using the normal mode of operation. All associated system valves were placed in post-accident positions.

c.

Equipment within the reactor containment building, subject to damage, was protected from external differential pressures.

d.

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

Pressure gauges were installed on the following systems to e.

provide a means of detection for leakage into these systems:

1.

Purge Supply 2.

Purge Exhaust 3.

Main Steam Loop A l

4.

Main Steam Loop B 5.

Personnel Access Hatch

(

6.

Equipment Hatch Airlock 7.

Personnel Access Hatch Seal 8.

Equipment Hatch Seals f.

With exception of valves SFV-18, SFV-19 and DWV-160 all type I

B and C testing was completed with a leakage value less than 0.6 L,.

However, these valves were lined up in their post accident position for conduct of the ILRT.

j Gest /Comoneenth i

i

19 a

g.

Containment pressurization system was operational h.

Containment recirculation fans were in operation.

i.

Potential precsure sources were removed or isolated from the containment.

j.

A general inspection of the accessible interior and exterior surfaces of the containment was completed.

6.2 CENERAL DISCUSSION Following the satisfaction of the prerequisites stated in Section 6.1, the reactor containment building pressurization was initiated at a rate of approximately 3.0 psi per hour. Vessel pressure, temperature, and the amperage required by the l

l containment recirculation unit fans were monitored hourly. After the containment was stabilized leak rate testing was initiated at the 49.6 psig pressure level. For the duration of the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> leak test and the 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> supplemental test average internal containment temperature remained within a band of i 0.250 F.

During the test the following occured at fifteen minute intervals (see Appendix B - Reduced Leakage Data):

a.

Readings indicated by the two precision pressure gauges were recorded and entered into the computer. The computer program converted this reading, using calibration equations, to psia and computed the average.

b.

Readings indicated by the twenty-four RTD's were recorded and entered into the computer. The computer program calculated the average containment building drybulb temperature by use of a weighting factor that was assigned to each RTD. This value was subsequently converted to degrees Rankine for use in the ideal gas law equation to calculate containment building weight of air.

Geert/Commoneesth

20 c.

Readings indicated by the nine dewpoint temperature sensors were recorded and entered into the computer. The computer program then calculated the average containment dewpoint temperature by use of a weighting factor assigned to each j

sensor. This weighted average dewpoint temperature was then converted to a partial pressure of water vapor.

The use of water vapor pressure (Pwv), temperature (T) and the total pressure (P ) is described in more detail in Section 7.1.

t All original data is on file at Crystal River Unit No. 3.

Data was entered into an Omotron attache micro computer located at the leak rate panel. The ILRT computer program utilized for the test had been previously checked with sample data of known results and certified prior to the test at Crystal River Unit No. 3.

The computer program then calculated the following at fifteen minute intervals:

a.

Total weight of containment air b.

Mass point least squares fit leakage rate c.

Mass point 95 percent upper confidence level leakage rate d.

Observed total time leakage rate e.

Total time mean leakage rate f.

Total time least squares fit leakage rate g.

Total time 95 percent upper confidence level leakage rate A plot of weighted average containment temperature, containment total pressure, containment average dewpoint temperature and weight of air was performed for each fifteen minute data set (see Appendix C).

Immediately following the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> leak test, a superimposed leakage rate was established for an additional 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> period.

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

Gdbert/Commormeelth

21 6.3 TEST PERFORMANCE 6.3.1 Pressurization and Stabilization Phase Pressurization of the reactor containment building was started on July 9, 1983 at 0510..The pressurization rate was approximately 3.0 psi per hour. During pressurization a substantial buildup of pressure was observed between both the purge supply valves and purge exhaust valves. With approximately 8 psig in the containment and between the inboard and outboard purge supply and exhaust valves, operations personnel entered the purge supply and exhaust duct work to determine the leak tightness of the outboard valves. At this time only a small leak was observed on the purge supply valve around one end of the actuator assembly.

When containment internal pressure reached 49.6 psig at approximately 2300 on July 9, 1983, pressurization was secured.

By 0400 on July 10, 1983 chemistry had completed taking a reactor building sample, temperature stabilization criteria had been met and leakage rate data recording, reduction and analysis began.

6.3.2 Integrated Leak Rate Testing Phase Fifteen minute frequency test data showed relatively unstable conditions within containment for the first several hours. From approximately 0900 several data points indicated that containment atmospheric conditions were tending to stabilize compared to the previous data. As a result, it was decided to commence the test starting at 0900 on July 10, 1983.

For the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> period from 0900 on July 10, 1983 to 2000 on July 10, 1983 an acceptable leakage rate of 0.130%/ day with an associated 95 percent confidence interval of 0.012 percent by weight per day was obtained.

GeertICommonwealth

r-22 6.3.3 Supplemental LeakaRe Rate Test Phase Followit.g completion of the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> integrated leak rate test, a leakage rate of 8.79 scfm was imposed on the containment building through the mass flow meter at 2030 on July 10, 1983. Leakage rate data was again collected at fifteen minute intervals for a period of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. With an imposed leak rate of 0.152% per day a measured composite leakage rate of 0.234% per day was obtained.

This results in a containment building leakage rate agreement within 19.2% of L with the results of the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> test, which is a

within the acceptance limit of 25 percent of L,.

6.3.4 Depressurization Phase After all required data was obtained and evaluated, containment

-building depressurization to O psig was started. A post test inspection of the reactor containment building interior at 0 psig was completed with no significant findings.

j -

4 f

Geert/Commemseelth

23 7.0 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 7.1 CENERAL DISCUSSION The absolute method of leakage rate determination was employed during tasting at the 49.6 psig pressure level. The Gilbert Associates, Inc. ILRT computer code calculates the percent per day leakage rate for the mass point and total time methods.

7.1.1 Mass Point Analysis 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 fifteen minute interval:

144 PV y=

_ KP RT T

l l

where, W = mass of air inside containment, Ibn lbm OR - in.2 K = 144 V/R = 5.39831 x 106 P = partial pressure of air, psia T = average internal containment temperature, O R V = 2 x 106 ft3 D - '

R = 53.35 lbm 0 R The partial pressure of air, P, is calculated as follows:

P=PT-Py w

Geert/Commeneenth

24

where, PT=

true corrected pressure by converting pressure gauge readings and averaging, psia partial pressure of water vapor determined by P

=

wy averaging the nine dewpoint temperatures and converting to partial pressure of water vapor, psia..

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

T=

Sum of the products of each RTD x assigned weighting factor + 459.690 R The weight of air is plotted versus time for the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> test and for the 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> supplemental test. The Gilbert Associates, Inc.

' ar 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 o + W t where W1 is the i

slope in Iba per hour and W is the initial weight at time zero.

o The least squares parameters are calculated as follows:

2 IWi - E ti E tt Wi y

E tt Sxx W1 _ N I ti EWi - E ti E Wi Sxx

where, i

S

= N I ti2 - (I ti)2 The weight percent leakage per day can then be determined from the following equation:

=

-2400 W1 l-wt. %/ day =

W l

o i

l M jf M b

25 where the negative sign is used since W1 is a negative slope to express the leakage rate as a positive quantity.

7.1.2 Total Time Analysis The total time method utilizes the following equation to determine the leakage rate of the reactor containment building:

L _ 2400 T1 P2 1-t T2 P1

where, L=

measured leak rate in weight percent per day t=

time interval, in hours, between measurements T,T2=

average internal containment temperature, O R, at 1

the beginning and the end of the test interval respectively.

P,P2=

average containment pressure (corrected for water 1

vapor pressure) at the beginning and end of the test interval respectively.

The mean total time leakage rate is derived from the above individual total time calculations. The equation for the mean leakage rate is in the form:

E L*

i Li n

where, Li = individual total time leakage rates n=

the number of total time leakage rates Geert/CommonwesRh

26

=

o The individual leakage ra*es are then plotted against time for the duration of the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> test. The Gilbert Associates, Inc. ILRT computer code fits the locus of these points to a straight line using a linear least squares fit. The eT.tation is of the form L=Lo+Li t where Li is the slope in peccenc per hour and t is o

the initial leakage rate at time zero. The least squares parameters are calculated as follows:

L

-_ E t(2 ELi - E ti I Li o

Sxx L1 _ N E ti ELi E ti E Li Sxx

where, S,, = N E ti2 - ( E ti)2 7.2 STATISTICAL EVALUATION 7.2.1 Ceneral After performing the least squares fit, the ILRT computer code calculates the following statistical parameters:

Limits of the 95 percent confidence interval for the cass a.

point leakage rate (Cg).

b.

Limits of the 95 percent confidence interval for the total time leakage rate (C ).

L These statistical parameters are then used to determine that the measured leakage rate plus the 95 UCL meet the acceptance criteria.

7.2.2 Mass Point Confidence The 95 percent confidence limit for the mass point leakage rate is calculated as follows:

Gdtet/Commonweeth

27

=

~ N Sxx + (Etl)

Cg = t95 Se S

NS xx xx

where, t95 =

Student's t distribution with N-2 degrees of freedom Se =

Standard error of confidence and is defined as follows:

2 1/2 E Wi - (Wo+W1 ti)

S.,

N-2 where; Wi = observed mass of air (Wo+Wi ti) = least squares calculated mass of air N = number of data point.i This parameter is an expression of ?.he uncertainty in the measured leakage rate. The values of t0.95 used by the ILRT program establish an upper limit for the measured leakage such that there is a 95 percent chance the actual leakage rate is less than the 95 percent upper confidence leakage rate.

7.2.3 Total Time Confidence The 95 percent confidence limit for the total time leakage rate is i

I calculated as follows:

l l

CL=t95 Se

+1+

('~')2 lf2 E (ti-t)2_

n i

where, I

t=

total time interval E = E ti l

n Geert/Commonwesith l-

e 28 ti = time interval for each data point n=

number of individual total time leakage rates

[

i 4

l l

h mjem t

29

)

\\

l 8.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 8.1 RESULTS AT P, 8.1.1 Mass Point Method of Analysis Data obtained during the leak rate test at P, indicated the following changes during the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> test period:

Variable Maximum Change f

PT 0.012 psia P

0.008 psia wy T

0.230 F The method used in calculating the mass point leakage rate is defined in Section 7.1.1.

The results of this calculation is a mass point leakage rate of 0.130%/ day.

(See Appendix D)

The 95 percent confidence limit associated with this leakage rate is 0.012 percent per day. Thus the leakage rate at the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence level becomes UCL = 0.130 + 0.012 UCL = 0.142%/ day 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 0.187 percent per day (0.75 L )-

a Gdbert/Commonuesth

l 30 8.1.2 Total Time Method of Analysis The method used in calculating the total time leakage rates is defined in Section 7.1.2.

The results of these calculations are as follows:

a.

The measured total time leakage rate for the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> test was 0.126 percent by weight per day.

b.

The 95 percent confidence limit associated with this leakage rate is 0.047 percent per day. Thus the leakage rate at the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence level becomes UCL = 0.126 + 0.047 UCL = 0.173%/ day c.

The mean of the measured leakage rates based on the last five hours of the test was 0.170 percent by weight per day.

The total time measured leakage rate, the measured leakage rate at the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence level and the mean of the measured leakage rates based on the last five hours of testing are below the acceptance criteria of 0.187 percent per day.

Therefore, the reactor containment building leakage rate, based on both the mass point method and total time method of analysis, at the calculated design basis accident pressure (P ) of 49.6 psig is a

acceptable.

8.2 SUPPLEMENTAL TEST RESULTS After conclusion of the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> test at 49.6 psig (P,), the mass flowmeter was placed in service and a flow rate of 8.79 SCFM was established. This flow rate is equivalent to a leakage rate of 0.152 percent per day. After the flow rate was established, it was not altered for the duration of the supplemental test. The Geert/Commenmese l

31 measured leakage rate (L ) during the supplemental test was c

l calculated to be 0.234 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 0.010 percent per day.

The building leakage rate during the supplemental test is then determined as follows:

Ls =L

-L y

e o

Ls = 0.234%/ day - 0.152%/ day y

Le = 0.082%/ day y

Comparing this leakage rate with the building leakage rate measured during the 11 hour1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> test yields the following:

lL

-L'l=l(0.130)-(0.082)l=.192 am v

L 0.25% day a

The building leakage rates agree within 19.2 percent of L which a

is below the acceptance criteria of 25 percent of L -a Using the fonnulation of ANS 56.8-1981, (Lo + L m - 0.25 L.) ;E Lc 1 (Lo+ Lam + 0.25 L.)

a (0.152 + 0.130 - 0.0625) ;E Le jE (0.152 + 0.130 + 0.0625) 0.2195 ;E Lc 1 0.3445 Since L was measured to be 0.234 percent per day, this value e

falls within the acceptable range of 0.2195 to 0.3445 percent per day. Therefore, the acceptability of the test instrumentation is considered to have been verified.

• Geert/Cammanusseth

f 32

9.0 REFERENCES

1.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Final Safety Analysis Report.

2.

SP-178, " Containment Leakage Test - Type A, Including Liner

[

Plate".

l i

3.

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

4.

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

5.

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

6.

ILRT, Computer code, Gilbert Associates, Inc.

7.

ANS-56.8-1981, " Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements", American Nuclear Society.

8.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Cenerating Plant Reactor Contair; ment Building Integrated Leak Rate Test", Florida Power Corporation, (September 3, 1980).

9.

BN-TOP-1, " Testing Criteria for Integrated Leakage Rate Testing of Primary Containment Structures for Nuclear Power Plants", Revision 1, November 1, 1972.

seetIcemmennesah

'e 4

APPENDICES 1

l l

i i

1 J

t e

a Geert/r -

e e

e T

)

APPENDIX A SCHEMATIC ARRANCEMENT OF TEST INSTRUMENTATION i

l l

l l

l~

i i

l l

l t

I Gdtert/f-t

APPENDIX A SCHEMATIC ARRANGEMENT OF TEST INSTRUMENTATION N

s Gk 1

I II h

I III II I

III QUADRANT ORIENTATION OTE I

III W

j' IV IV IV

_I I

III III II j

I III IV EE h

IV II x

x II h

IV II (III I

III

'I\\

IV/

\\

/

INST. TAG ELEV.

INST. TAG ELEV.

INST. TAG ELEV.

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-;lE 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-28-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"

• Not used for test.

g 9

A.

m l APPENDIX B REDUCED LEAKAGE RATE DATA Geert/r"

APPENDIX B REDUCED TEST DATA

/

Containment Containment Partial Pressure Containment Weight of Pressure Water vapor Temperature Containment Air Date Time (psia)

(psia)

(OR)

(Ibe) 7-10-83 0900 64.309

.481 549.91 626,578 0915 64.307

.481 549.91 626,553 0930 64.305

.482 549.91 626,534 0945 64.304

.482 549.89 626,535 1000 64.302

.483 549.92 626,483 1015 64.301

.484 549.91 626,481 1030 64.300

.485 549.91 626,451 1045 64.299

.485 549.90 626,460 1100 64.298

.485 549.90 626,445 1115 64.297

.485 549.92 626,412 1130 64.296

.485 549.92 626,404 g

5 1145 64.295

.485 549.91 626,399 1200 64.295

.485 549.93 626,380 i

1215 64.295

.485 549.94 626,375

)

1230 64.293

.485 549.95 626,341 l

1245 64.292

.485 549.95 626,332 l

1300 64.291

.486 549.95 626,314 1315 64.290

.486 549.95 626,302 1330 64.290

.486 549.95 626,298 1345 64.290

.486 549.96 626,287 1400 64.290

.486 549.96 626,287 1415 64.290

.486 549.98 626,270 1430 64.289

.486 549.98 626,249 1445 64.290

.487 549.98 626,254 1500 64.290

.487 550.01 626,227 1515 64.290

.487 550.00 626,228 1530 64.291

.487 550.01 626,231 y

1545 64.291

.487 550.02 626,221 2

1600 64.293

.487 550.04 626,221 1615 64.295

.488 550.03 626,233 1630 64.295

.488 550.06 626,206 0,

1645 64.296

.488 550.04 626,230 m

1700 64.297

.488 550.04 626,243

.3 4

APPENDIX B

_ REDUCED TEST DATA (Cont'd)

Containment Containment Partial Pressure Containment Weight of Pressure Water Vapor Temperature Containment Air J

Date Time (psia)

(psia)

(OR)

(1ba) 7-10-33 1715 64.297

,488 550.08 626,203 1730 64.298

.488 550.09 626,196 1745 64.300

.488 550.08 626,228 1800-64.300

.488 SSO.10 626,208 1815 64.300

.487:

550.10 626,213 1830 64.300

.488 550.12 626,184 1845 64.300

.488 550.12 626,182 1900 64.300

.488 550.11 626,190 1915 64.299

.488 550.11 626,186 1930 64.298

.487 550.09 626,202 g

I

[

1945 64.297

.487 550.09 626,194 2000 64.296

.487 550.10 626,182 l

l SUPERIMPOSED TEST l

7-10-83 2030 64.294

.488 550.09 626,164 l

l 2045 64.291

.488 550.09 626,139 1

2100 64.289

.487 550.06 626,145 2115 64.285

.488 550.04 626,127 l

2130 64.283

.488 550.05 626,103' 2145 64.279

.488 550.02 626,093 l

2200 64.277

.487 550.03 626,071 l

2215 64.274

.487 550.02 626,047 i

2230 64.272

.486 550.01 626,057 l

2245 64.269

.487 550.00 626,020 2300 64.267

.487 550.01 626,002 un 2315 64.264

.488 549.98 625,994 l

2330 64.261

.487 549.96 625,988 2345 64.259

.487 549.96 625,966 w

7-11-83 0000 64.256

.486 549.95 625,957 o

0015 64.254

.487 549.95 625,937 0030 64.252

.487 549.95 625,920

3 4

APPENDIX C LEAKAGE RATE TEST GRAPHS GeertICommennesRA

)

APPENDIX C WEIGHT OF CONTAINMENT AIR AND CONTAINMENT AVERAGE TEMPERATURE VERSUS TIME 626,600

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,N.

626,500 iii iii iii i

- LEAST SQUARES FIT EQUATION '-:

LEAST SQUARES FIT i

EQUATION 626,500 W = 626,493.4 - 33.84 t W = 626,165-61.12 t g-626,400 oo

, o, 7

626,300

]

~~

626,400 WEIGHT OF

/

o, CO T AIR 626,200

/

626,300

- o

.h K

t..

/

ioo l..OHL" o

K I

7 "' "

j

,ono::

626,100

\\

626,200 J$

n, j

' n w.

' A (P i 626,100 626,000 y,

NL i

I 626,000 625,900 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 0

1 2

3 4

4 HOUR 11 HOUR LEAK TEST SUPERIMPOSED LEAK TEST

'"" ~

550.1.

t o

o, 4>4>4>4>

'4>(>,

'" "o,.

550.0.

ooo

>g" g,

o,,

549.9 "

o wi4T AVE.

N'

[>EWPOINT TEMP. uR 549.8 i

3 0

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 0

1 2

3 4

0900 2000 2030 0030 7/10c83 7d 0.83 7/10.83 7/11/83 TIM E (HOU RS)

TIME (HOURS) a

r t

I

. ~..

APPENDIX D COMPUTER RESULTS Geert/Comenuesth

l APPENDIX D COMPUTER RESULTS o

1.

MASS POINT RESULTS A=

SLOPE OF LEAST SQUARES LINE (LBS/IIR) IS -33.8425 B=

INTERCEPT OF LEAST SQUARES LINE (LBS) IS 626,493.4 Lam =

MEASURED LEAK RATE IS 0.1296%/ DAY UCL =

95 PERCENT UPER CONFIDENCE LEAKAGE RATE IS 0.1418%/ DAY 2.

TOTAL TIME RESULTS A=

SLOPE OF LEAST SQUARES LINE (%/ DAY /HR) IS -0.0174 B=

INTERCEPT OF LEAST SQUARES LINE (%/ DAY) IS 0.3176 Lam =

MEASURED LEAK RATE IS 0.1257%/ DAY UCL =

95 PERCENT UPPER CONFIDENCE LEAKAGE RATE IS 0.1728%/ DAY MEAN LEAKAGE RATE FOR LAST FIVE HOURS IS 0.170%/ DAY.

3.

VERIFICATION TEST A=

SLOPE OF LEAST SQUARES LINE (LBS/HR) IS -61.12 B=

INTERCEPT OF LEAST SQUARES LINE (LBS) IS 626,165 Le=

COMPOSITE LEAKAGE RATE IS 0.234%/ DAY Gdhart /Commanussith

g e

. O 8

e 4

APPENDIX E LOCAL LEAK RATE TEST RESULTS - 1982 Geert/Commanusse

TYPE B TEST - REFUEL 3 As Found As Left (SCCM)

(SCCM)

Equipment Hatch Resilient Seals 0

0 Fuel Transfer

^

0 O

Tube Gasket - 3B Fuel Transfer Tube Gasket 0

0

-LRV-44 and Blind Flange 90 90 Chemical Cleaning Penetration Gaskets 119 2

2 Chemical Cleaning Penetration Gaskets 120 2

2

Total Type B 94 94

. LeakRate(Results)DN8-3

j*

TYPE C TESTS - REFUEL 3 NOTE: All leakrate measurements are in SCCM As Found As Left Pen. No.

Valve No.

Valve Path Valve Path 329 DHV-93 52 52 52 52 DHV-91 2

2 439 CAV-1 50 50 CAV 60 60 CAV-126 3200 3310 3200 3310 CAV-2 80 80 206 CIV-41 73 73 73 73 h

207

.CIV-40 8000 8000 2

2 366 CIV-34 2

2 2

2

.367

.CIV-35 389 389 389 389 117 DWV-162 2540 2540 2540 2540 DWV-160 407 407 333 MUV-40 15 23 15 23 MUV-41 8

8 MUV-49 2

2 377 MUV-258 2

2 MUV-259 2

2 MUV-260' 2

2 MUV-261 29 29 MUV-253 30 35 30 35 339 WDV-3 780 780 780 780 WDV-4 120 120 349 WDV-60 0'

0

-WDV-61

>20000

>20000 2

2

~ LeakRate(Results)DN8-3

o m

As Found As Left Pen. No.

Valve No.

Valve Path Val ve Path 354 WDV-405 440 440 WDV-406 481 481 481 481 374 WDV-94 20 20 20 20 WDV-62 19 19 315 WSV-3 100 100 WSV-4 110 110 110 110 332 WSV-5 2

2 WSV-6 41 41 41 41 356 WSV-1 37 37 37 37 WSV-2 33 33 347 SFV-18

>20000

>20000 37026 27026 SFV-19 0

0 373 CFV-19 1490 1490 CFV-25 1984 1984 1984 1984 123 CFV-20 607 607 CFV-28 689 689 689 689 350 CFV-18 7050 7050 1050 7050 CFV-26 6150 6150 124 CFV-17 7140 7140 7140 7140 l

CFV-27 5904 5904 351 CFV-16 9

12 9

12 CFV-15 3

3 CFV-29 2

2 352 CFV-11 3

3 CFV-12 5

8 5

8 CFV-42 3

3 LeakRate(Results)DN8-3

W g?C,,

As Found As Left

. Pen. No.

Val ve. No.

Val ve Path Val ve

' Path 355 NGV-62 1655 1655 1655 1655 372 NGV-82 130 130 130 130 1101

.SAV-24

>20000

>20000 2-SAV-122 3670 3670 3670 SAV-23 111 IAV-28 2688 2688 2688 2688 116 LRV-45 2

2 LRV-46 55 55 55 55 121'

-LRV-50 1656 1656 LRV 2158 2158 2158 2158 122 LRV-51' 12491 4112 4112 LRV-35

>20000

>20000 2

LRV-47 125 LRV-49

>20000

>20000 2

LRV-38 2916 2916 2916-LRV-52 113 AHV-1C 11065 11065 45 AHV-1D 0

45 45 357 AHV-1A

>20000

>20000 140 AHV-1B

>3000 140 140 430 FSV-262 NA NA 5320 5320 FSV-261 NA 1600 Total ~ Type C 170,527 84,695 LeakRate(Resul ts)DN8. _ _

+

.o 3

LOCAL LEAK RATE TEST REPORT APPENDIX E-2 LLRT'S PERFORMED BETWEEN REFUELING OUTAGES As Found Retest As Left Date Description SSC/M SCC /M SCC /M Tested AHV-1C/D 61,327 N/A 290 12/17/80 AHV-1A/B 894 0

0 2/6/81-2/11/81*

.THV-1C/D 0

N/A 0

2/12/81 AHV-1C/D

• • 285,000 24,276 24,276 3/2/81*

CFV-15/16 330 N/A 330 3/5/81 AHV-1C/D 72 N/A 72 3/11/81*

AHV-1A/B 19,890 N/A 19,890 4/4/81 AHV-1C/D 35 N/A 35 3/20/81*

AHV-1C/D

• • 2.2 X'106 2,732 2,732 4/4/81*

AHV-1C/D 0

N/A 0

4/9/81*

AHV-1C/D 686 N/A 686 4/15/81*

AHV-1C/D 0

N/A 0

4/24/81*

AHV-1C/D 0

N/A 0

5/1/81*

CAV-2 230 N/A 230 6/7/81 AHV-1C/D

• • 522,778 0

0 6/26/81*

AHV-1A/B 0

N/A 0

6/26/81 AHV-1C/D 0

N/A 0

6/29/81 AHV-1C/D 658 N/A 658 7/1/81 AHV-1C/D

• • 5.2 X 105 1,253 1,253 7/8/81*

• Series of tests run to insure operability of valves.

• • See appendix E-3 for analysis of failures.

LeakRate(Results)DN8-3

p APPENDIX E-3 AHV 1A & B One failure on 5/10/79. Leakage greater than.6La.

Valves subsequently passed after adjustment of discs and EPR seat.

No failures since.

AHV-IC & D Failure on 1/5/80 - valve sealed after four hour period.

Failure on 12/16/80 - valve sealed after 20 minutes.

These two failures were diagnosed as being temperature related.

Low

. ambient air would cool the seals causing shrinkage and distortion. From 1/5/81 through 2/12/81 a series of tests were run to determine the temperature sensitivity of the seats.

A large number of these tests were " failures,"- but this was due to the dif ferent test conditions (i.e., low temperature).

A temperature of approximately 85 was deter-mined to be the minimum temperature that would still allow sealing.

Valves were tested and failed on 3/1/81, after being reset from 90* to 65*.

This was after a forced outage during which valves had been opened

to 90.

Valves were tested after maintenance,. not in their "as found" condition.

Valves tested on 4/4/81, again after a forced outage during which they had been opened to 90, and also after maintenance had been performed.

Another ' failure."

Valves tested on 6/25/81, after being reset from 65 to 55.

Failure attributed to testing after naintenance.

Valves tested 7/7/81 after being reset to 90*.

Failure attributed to testing after maintenance.

Current Program:

1.

Maintain 95* with purge heaters.

2.

Obtain "as found" condition - test prior to maintenance.

3.

Test every 6 months - will be increased to every 3 months.

Have had no failures since 7/7/81.

LeakRate(Results)DN8-3

s,

- e-e APPENDIX F LOCAL LEAK RATE TEST RESULTS - 1983 Geert/Commeneesth l

ay :n TYPE B TEST - REFUEL 4 As Found As Left (SCCM)

(SCCM)

Equipment Hatch Resilient. Seals 4.1 9.9 Fuel Transfer Tube Gasket - 3B 2

-2.41 Fuel Transfer '

Tube Gasket 2

2.0 LRV-44 and Blind Flange 88.0 28.6 Chemical Cleaning Penetration Gaskets 119 2

2 Chemical Cleaning Penetration Gaskets 120 2

52 Total Type B 100.1 96.91

/

at LeakRate(Results)DN8-3

TYPE C TESTS - REFUEL 4 NOTE: All leakrate measurements are in SCCM As Found As left Pen. No.

Valve No.

Valve Path Valve Path 329 DHV-93 6

6 6

DHV-91 2.8 7.2 7.2 439 CAV-1 95 2

CAV-3 6

i CAV-126 1730 1831 2

CAV-2 238 238 238 440 CAV-4 3.6 3.6 CAV-6 151 151 151 151 441 CAV-5 2

530 2

CAV-7 530 530 530 439 CAV-424 NA NA 2520 2520 CAV-431 1069 439 CAV-430 NA NA 801 CAV-432 2780 2780 425 CAV-433 NA NA 2

2 CAV-43"-

2 425 CAV-434 NA NA 2

CAV-436 2

2 206 CIV-41 838 838 838 838 207 CIV-40 4460 4460 1945 1945 366 CIV-34 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 367 CIV-35 122.5 122.5 122.5 122.5 LeakRate(Results)DN8-3

n Th a 76 As Found As Left Pen. No.-

Valve No.

Val ve Path Val ve Path

-117 DWV-162 1805 1805 1805 DWV-160 1040 6260 6260 333 MUV-40 4.1 2.0 MUV-41 1375 1379.1 9200 9202 MUV-49

.459 459 377 MUV-258 2

148.2 154.2 MVV-259 2

2 MUV-260 2

2 MUV-261 6.75 12.75 2

MUV-253 2

2 121 LRV-50 195.3 195.3 LRV-36 358 358 358 358 122.

LRV-51 89.6 89.6 LRV-35 LRV-47 11240 11240 1841 1841

.125 LRV-49 412 412 412 412 LRV-38 LRV-52 202 202 116 LRV-45 2.5 2.5 LRV-46 1394 1394 1394 1394 305 LRV-70 NA NA 36.5 36.5 LRV-72 NA 9.8 306 LRV-73 NA 3.1 3.1 LRV-71 NA NA 2

123 CFV-20 424 424 424 424 CFV-18 350 350 373 CFV-19 314 148.5 CFV-25 1597 1597 189 189 LeakRate(Results)DN8-3

q;

~a.

As Found As left Pen. No.

Val ve ' No..

Val ve Path Val ve Path 124 CFV-17 3070 3070 179.9 CFV 1178 558 558

.350

=CFV-18 3420.

3420 101.6 CFV-26 157.6 4190 4190

-351 CFV 2 2

CFV-16 26.1 28.1 2

CFV-29 6.3 2

4 352 CFV-11 2.7 33.8 35.8 CFV-12 2.0 2.0 CFV-42 26.6 26.6 2.0 355 NGV-62 150.3 150.3 150.3 150.3 372 NGV-82 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 317~

NGV-81 517 517 517 517 110-SAV-24 1000 1000 SAV-122 SAV-23 2300 2300 2300 2300 111-IAV-28 89.5' 89.5 89.5 89.5 339 WDV-3 2

5.24 5.24 WDV-4 69.9 69.9 2

349 WDV-60 NA 0

11.1 11.1 WDV-61 NA 2

'354 WDV-405 24.6 24.6 3.1 WDV-406 21.2 7.2 7.2 374 WDV-94 2

2 WDV-62 2

2 170 170 LeakRate(Results)DN8-3

A

,4 As Found As Left Pen. No.

Valve No.

Val ve Path Valve Path 315 WSV-3 70 21.1 21.1 WSV-4 72 72 5.6 332 WSV-5 52.4 2

WSV-6 189 189 27 27 356 WSV-1 51.1 51.1 51.1 51.1 WSV-2 48.5 48.5 356 WSV-34 NA NA 14.4 14.4 WSV-35 NA 2.8 l

356 WSV-30 NA NA 19.6 19.6 WSV-31 NA 4.5 356 WSV-38 NA NA 3.47 WSV-39 NA 3.5 3.5 306 WSV-28 NA NA 14.96 14.96 WSV-29 NA 4.67 306 WSV-26 NA NA 4.85 WSV-27 NA 5.3 5.3 306 WSV-32 NA NA 11.05 WSV-33 NA 11.66 11.65 376 WSV-41 NA NA 2

WSV-40 NA 2

2 WSV-42 NA 2

WSV-43 NA NA 2

2 113 AHV-1C 1600 802 AHV-1D 357 AHV-1A 690 590 AHV-1B LeakRate(Results)DN8-3

,eevo As Found As Left Pen. No.

Val ve Nc.

Val ve Path Val ve Path 112 IAV-29 594 594 594 594 347 SFV 28000 28000 34000 34000 SFV-19 12340 9310 430 FSV-262 1980 1980 1980 1980 FV-261 25 25 316 MSV-114 106 106 106 106

.320 MSV-132 132 132 132 132 318 MSV-128 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 314

-MSV-146 1740' 1740 1740 1740 427

.MSV-130 189 189 189 189 428 MSV-148 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 Total Type C-71,658.85 77,810.65 NOTE: All "As Found" leakage rates with NA in the column are due to modi-fications during Refuel IV.

The valves did 'not exist prior to shut-

_down for Refuel IV.

LeakRate(Results)0N8-3 f

7.

, or o APPENDIX F LLRT'S PERFORMED BETWEEN REFUELING OUTAGES As Found Retest As left Date Description.

SSC/M SCC /M SCC /M Tested WDV-94 15.0 N/A 15.0 3/3/82 SAV-23/122 3670 N/A 3670 3/26/82 AHV-1C/1D 14.0 N/A 14.0 5/18/82 AHV-1A/1B 480.1 N/A 480.1 5/18/82 AHV-1C/1D 0.0 N/A 0.0 10/26/82 AHV-1A/1B 1856.0 N/A 1856.0 10/26/82 WDV-60/61 0.0 N/A 0.0 10/29/82 Equip. Hatch Resilient Seals-0.0 N/A 0.0 11/29/82 CAV-1~

640.0 0.0 0.0 12/2/82 MuV-40/41

>20,000 11104.0 11104.0 12/3/82 AHV-1A/1B 2893 N/A 2893 12/18/82

-AHV-1C/1D 346.0 N/A 346.0 12/18/82 Equip. Hatch Resilient Seals 0.0 N/A 0.0 12/18/82 MVV-49 330 N/A 330 12/19/82 PHAL'(airlock) 41.41 N/A 41.41 6/25/82 EHAL (airlock)

~427 N/A 427 6/22/82 PHAL (airlock)

' 2220 N/A 2220 1/21/83 EHAL (airlock) 10330 N/A 10330 1/25/83 LeakRate(Results)DN8-3

__