ML20086S551

SR-S2-76-01 Re Summary of Analysis & Interpretation of Type A,B & C Containment Leak Rate Test Results Obtained During Refueling Outage.No Evidence of Structural Deterioration Found

ML20086S551
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	08/17/1976
From:	Stallings C VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:	Reid R, Rusche B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20086S556	List: ML20086S551
References
SR-S2-76-01, SR-S2-76-1, NUDOCS 8403020426
Download: ML20086S551 (33)

Text

r

. o v

e o

v VIRGINIA EI.EcTalc Axo Powna Coi4rANY Rxcrsx own.Vr aorxxA nocet August 17, 1976 g co" Mr. Benard C. Rusche Serial No. 183 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation P0&M/ALH:c1w U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccca.ission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docket No. 50-281 License No. DPR-37 Attn: Mr. Sobert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 4

Dear Mr. Rusche:

In accordance with Technical Specification 6.6.3.e we hereby sube.it a copy of SR-S2-76-01 summarizing the containment leak rate testing which was conducted during April 1976.

Very truly yours, f '//

C. M. Stallings Vice President-Power Supply N

and Production Operations cc: Mr. Norman C. Moseley Mr. M. B. Winestine q- ,

NELPIA >

/ - >

S

1. s$

l 8403020426 760817 PDR ADOCK 05000281 S PDR

o

' ~ '

. . O I

i S

SR-S2-76-01 1

4 j

SUMMARY

REPORT OF CONTAINMENT LEAK RATE TESTIIIG i

3 SURRY POWER STATION e

UNIT NO. 2 i

i DOCKET NO. 50-281 LICENSE NO. DPR-37 i

4 AUGUST 1976 i

t l

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY i

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

1

_1_ i l

e .

1

1. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to present a summary analysis and inter-pretation of the Type A, B, and C containment leak rate test results obtained on Unit No. 2 during the refueling outage commencing April 22, 1976. The report is submitted as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Paragraph V.B.

II. DISCUSSION A. Type "A" Test

1. Discussion A periodic Type "A" containment integrated leak rate test was performed during the period from April 24, 1976 to April 27, 1976.

Testing was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of 10 C7R 50, Appendix J, dated February 14, 1973, proposed Appendix J to 10 CFR 50, dated August 1971, and ANSI N45.4 dated March 16, 1972. An inspection of the accessible interior and exterior surfaces of the containment -

l ~ ~

structure and components was conducted prior to the test. The in-spection yielded no evidence of structural deterioration. Initial conditions were established within the containment to simulate post accident conditions. The reactor coolant loop stop valves were closed and the loops were drained. The reactor coolant loops and the pressurizer were vented to the containment at.nosphere and the .

containment sump was flooded prior to and during the test. Contain-ment isolation valves were closed by their normal modes of actuation and without any preliminary exercising or adjustments. Four valves, as listed in Section C and Table 3, were isolated for this test.

Five (5) r2mporary air compressors, rated at a total capacity of 5700 cfm, were utilized to pressurize the containment. The leak rate-l l

l e.*am enm asume= en h ,p - , p , . ,=g,,

&- e ne'ae e e same - 6 m e e,+ee m een-<

PM- e

i test was conducted at 39,2 psig (peak accident pressure). A log of major events is contained in Appendix A.

The leakage rate measurement system is described in Appendix B and the accuracy of the instrumentation and an instrument error analysis are included in Appendix C. The reference volume system was used to measure containment leakage. An initial differential pressure was established between the containment and the closed bulb system. Changed

in this differential pressure were measured to determine the contain-ment leak rate. Bottled dry air (Dewpoint of -97 F) was used in the reference bulb system to eliminate any inaccuracies resulting from humidity in the reference bulb leg of the differential manometer. Cal-culations of leak rate were also made using the less accurate absolute method to substantiate the results based on the reference volume method.

~

AdescriptionofthismethodandtheresultsarecontainedinAppendix}, .

Upon completion of the test, a supplemental test was performed to verify the accuracy of the Type "A" Test. This test consisted of bleeding a metered amount of air into the containment and measuring the amount of air used for makeup based on the reference volume method.

The results of this supplemental test are acceptable provided the cor-relation between the supplemental test data and the Type "A" test data demonstrace an agreement within plus or minus 25 percent of the maximum allowable leakage.

The maximum allowable leak rate specified by the Technical

~

Specifications is 0.1 weight percent per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at 39.2 psig.

Appendix J, 10 CFR 50, requires that the limit for testing be established at 75% of the maximum allowable leakage. The acceptance l

l t

_ _ _ _ _ ___. - _ _ l criteria for the Type A test is therefore 0.075 weight percent per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at the design basis accident pressure.

+

2. Test Results Performance of the Type "A" Test yielded unsatisfactory results.

The measured leakage rate was greater than the acceptance criteria stated above. An effort was made to determine' the source of leakage from the containment. Several containment isolation valves were leak-ing excessively, indicating repdirs would be required. The Type "A" integrated leak rate test was continudd as allowed by Technical Specifications. . Local leakage tests were to he subsequently conducted to measure leakage reductions achieved by repairs of individual' leaks. The measured leakage reductions could then be applied to reduce ,

the containment's overall measured leakage rate. . -- .

~~" ~

• Accordingly, the leak rate by the reference volume method was -'

determined to be .2989% weight /24 hr. from at least - squares fit analysis of 24 hourly calculations of mass (ib.) of air in the contain-dent. The 95% confidence factor band was determined to be .0081% wt/

24 hr., giving an overall result of : L = .2989 + .0081% wt./hr.

Observed data and converted data are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

For verification, 5198 cu.ft. of air-(@ 39.2 psig) was bled into .

the containment. The mass represented by this volume is 1420 lb. The mass change based on the reference volume method of testing was 1438 '1b.

This yields a percent error based on the reference volume method of 1.3%, which is acceptable.

. . TABLE 1 Observed Data Sucunarv - 39.2 psig CONTAINMENT DIFFERENTIAL CONTAINMENT ABSOLUTE MANOMETER DEWPOINT TEMPERATURE PRESSURE READING TEMPERATURE TIME ( R) (in.Hg) (in.011) (OF) '

H=0 1400 4-26-76 561.470 110.003 28.86 49.281 1500 561.362 110.005 28.82 49.843 1600 561.491 110.025 28.92 50.719 1700 561.428 109.994 28.66 50.844 1800 561.327 109.970 28.38 50.625 1900 561.247 109.944 28.16 50.719 l 2000 561.148 109.910 27.91 50.906 I_ 2100 561.198 109.942 28.07 50.531 2200 561.870 110.002 _

27.91 50.500 2300 561.424 109.862 27.22 50.406 2400 561.407 109.895 27.43 50.343 0100 4-27-76 561.889 109.945 27.51 50.218 H=12 0200 562.075 109.935 27.03 50,156 0300 562.073 109.900 26.75 49.906 0400 561.936 109.845 26.45 49.344 0500 561.852 109.800 26.23 49.187 0600 561.757 109.760 25.95 48.780 -

, 0700 561.660 109.720 25.73 48.840 0800 561.531 109.690 25.53 49.187' -

' - ~ ~ ~

0900 561.482 109.674 25.57 49.187 1000 561.397 109.632 25.30 49.312 1100 561.264 109.600 25.13 49.031 1200 561.156 109.573 25.00 49.500 1300 561.045 109.546 24.90 49.844 H=24 1400 560.939 109.520 24.78 49.844 Verification 17e6 4-27-76 560.550 109.738 28.33 49.968 1313 560.548 110.058 32.52 49.843 l

~ ~ ~ ~~ ^ ~

_S.

TABLE 2 Converted Data Summary - 39.2 psig CONTAINMENT DIFFERENTIAL CONTAINMENT ABSOLUTF. MANOMETER VAPOR AIR MASS TIME TEMPERATURE PRESSURE READING PRESSURE Q(REF)

TIME (OR) (in.H90) (in.H90) (in.H90) (lb) 1400 4-26-76 561.470 1493.841 30.014 4.794 465,457 ,

1500 561.362 1493.868 29.973 4.896 465,601 l 1600 561.491 1494.140 30.077 5.059 465,584 1700 561.428 1493.719 29.806 5.082 465,492 1800 561.327 1493.393 29.515 5.041 465.413 1900 561.247 1493.040 29.286 5.059 465,336 2000 561.148 1492.578 29.026 5.094 465,243 2100 561.198 1493.012 29.193 5.024 465,317 2200 561.870 1493.827 29.026 5.018 465,268 2300 561.424 1491.926 28.309 5.000 465,049 2400 561.407 1492.374 28.527 4.988 465,121 0100 4-27-76 561.889 1493.053 28.610 4.965 465,154 0200 562.075 1492.917 23.111 4.954 465,002 0300 562.073 1492.442 27.820 4.906 464,926 0400 561.939 1491.695 27.508 4.805 464,860 0500 561.852 1491.084 27.279 4.777 464,796 0600 561.757 1490.541 26.988 4.704 464,728 0700 561.660 1489.998 26.759 4.715 464.653

~

l 0800 561.531 1489.590 26.551 4.777 464,568 .. :_

0900 561.482 1489.373 26.593 4.777 464,581 1000 561.397 1488.803 26.312 4.799 464,486 1100 561.264 1488.368 26.135 4.749 464,446 1200 561.156 1488.001 26.000 4.833 464,378 1300 561.04$ 1487.635 25.896 4.896 464,325 1400 560.939 1487.282 25.771 4.782 464,322 Verification 1706 4-27-76 560.550 1490.242 29.46 4.918 465,433 1813 560.548 1494.587 33.82 4.896 466,806 I

. _ . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . . - . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .......m . . .

Calculations The following equations, based on the perfect gas law, were used to determine the mass of air in the containment each hour.

5 Qo = 1.7558 x 10 (P o -P y )

T o

3 Q = Qo - 1.7558 x 10 (P d - Pd ) - (P y -P) y o o .

T WHERE: Q = Mass of air in containment - lb.

P = Containment absolute pressure - H 2O P d = Differential cancmeter reading - in. H 2O P.y = Vapor Pressure in. H 2O T = Containment Temperature - R.

Subscript "o" indicates initial value.

The least-squares fit analysis of the hourly calculations of .

- = -

mass are based on the following equations.

Q t s,= ax + b m = NExy - ExEy NEx' - (Ex)*

b = EyEx2 _ gxgxy NZx' - (Ex)'

WHERE: (Q)t,3, = Mass in containment based on least-squares fit analysis, m = slope of least-squares fit line l

b = y-intercept of least-squares fit line x = hour number I

l y = Q (Hourly calculation of the mass of- air in containment)

N = Number of sets of data

-==_____ _

The 95 percent confidence factor was calculated using the

(_ ,'ving equations. .

N S =I [(Q)f - (Qg,3,)i]

i=1 c =

So N-2 -

a = a m

j[Ix 2

_ (gx)2 N

WHERE: S, = Variance c = atandard deviation a ,= standard deviation of the slope of the graph of mass versus time Verification

" ~ ~

Data from makeup flow integrator:

,, INTEGRATOR OUTLET OUTLET TQ1F, READING PRESSURE TEMPERATURE 1706 684333 76 psig 730F j 1813 687422 76 psig 73 F Difference = 1.117hr. 3089 cu.f t.

Converting to 39.2 psig and 680F 0

l 3089 cu.ft. x 76.0 + 14.7 528R 53.9 (533oR) = 5149.2 cu.f t.

i Determining !! ass:

1 5149.2 cu.ft. x 53.9 x 1 = 1420 lb ,

14.7 13.3 l Determining liass based by reference volume method:

(AQ) ,f = 466,806 - 465,433 + leakage during the makeup air test Leakage during makeup test = ( 58.01b/hr x 1.117 hr) = 65 lb.

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

~8-Where 58.0 lb/hr. equals the leak rate determined from the slope of the least-squares fit of the hourly calculations of t, ass in the containment.

(AQ) ref = 1373 + 65 = 1438 lb.

% Error = 1420 - 1438 = 1.3%

1420 4

The acceptance criterion is that the results correlate within plus or minus 25%, of the maximum allowable leakage.

This corresponds to an error range of + 120.1 lbs. mass for the makeup mass added. The measured error of 18 lbs. is well within this range.

Plot of Mass of Air vs. Time A graph of the hourly calculations of mass of air in the 4

containment vs. time based' on the reference volume method is t shown in Figure 1. The least-squares fit line is also.sho,wn .

on this graph. The slope of the least-squares fit line gives the leak rate from the containment in pounds per hour.

1 I

i

• ,kfI.

v, 7,- ~afc

)

. e

.o

. .( e. . . .3aW..H"'._..

.. _o.

[.;

., . ,Ill.

lgS.l, a.

_. . . ~

a_

. . a. .,.

. . . . ... a. . . . . . a.. .

a... .

. .... .am

. m .1 .- ..

... .1 . _.

m.

k.... .

t. . . . . , .

j._....  ;.. .,

i... . .

. . .:i . 7 ... .. .... . , . . ,

t.._,.

.. ..N.i. ...

.*.goo . =.I.. . . g. . _ .

. }.,

. 2,

t. . J. .

.i.._

a..

. !i.2. .

. /

. + .-.. .. e

. g 4

.E .

2 t(

l.. . .. ,.i.... ss.

o... . . . . ..a i..p-

.. .. .2 _... .._ t..g . 44 Pi . . t . . .

... s ... . ..

. T.. ..

.i_ ..%.i.

... }

ol.n...m.

- . i. . ..

.t, i.

i

!iu.

., o,i ..,..6 us 1 .

._. . . .I.

.. . .u . .

.w .._

u..p .... ... l. .

m. , a.

i..o., . . ..

,t. i.I

.j .

sti.. .

.. . .v ..

i.

. u..

_ .., ss... ...w a. ..._

.i... .

. .. t

. 4.

,1 . m....

j.

.I.. p1. ., .

. g!

, ..t, .,1. .

. i.

.2 .( . . . . , ty.. ".:i .

NL .

, . , . u . i. . .i.. . 1i. ... .. .b ... . .

..p .; .

2 i.

.. .ua.,. .L . .. . o..

..s .,.d. .um. .. . , .

i.a_ . .

q 64 ...: .... .

,. t. .. . . . ... . ..., . l t.

t,. l l. ,L- .

e.1...

i..

l.wo .

..,, . y. L4. r. o o~...

.t. !sl ..

. . , . - ... !l . e.4;a ..

g

.44. . . ,  : .

l' . . .bJ . .

.ni.a. gu .,. a ., .. . a.sg.. . ,p.J ... . ..

l._....

.a,..1 s

. . 1 p.tu .

_.. . 9.. o _.n.

.JJ . . .

il8i.Iu . i ..

..l i.,. . . 4l .

.u!

a ...%

... .,.! ,..... a_ . , . . .o.

,.t..... l1s. -

.t l.1 v . m..

g!jl

...r

,  ;.. I; i6 }. . . . .,1 . . . . . . 1.. . .,

4

/...

..i. i!* , ..

.o., .! ,1 . . .... i..

teId.{ . p,i.. .  ;.....

u. r. ..a.. .. , .

. . , .,T . .. . .ii.. . i.. .. . , . ....

...p . . . . . . .

t., .1.

,.t.

.i. .,k. l. +.]!l ... . e...

J . ...i

...g . ., . .. i.

.i 1g.o. i ,..i

,l..

... .

i .

.. g1

~ . dp'. . o

/.. .

a;. , .i.......i.i. ag..... . ....

. . ..,. l,6 sl. . .,... . .,.. , ,. .

fi.; , ii.6. .. .1 . .. .!' . -.... . ... . .

1

, l.. , e

.a. ) .9o...r.

.;., ,u. .

q2..a. ...

l **

.,. 6. !

.... g...! .

. 2a i..

,gl m !

.l

. ! . .aI.

./....

/

4: p.i

• to.

. I4I.I1 .I tI.. .,. .. . . . i. - . a. .i

.i .

ql6 g.j .l g.. gt. .g. .

~._.ll. .4..:

,l n. ..6.ie 1 .1 t. .

.i ito.1,.-

.!I

%. i. .i .

. ..! .si.. , e  !... .g. .

.9 .

iI. t. l l t.

/.....

u ....

_;.. i . ,.

-~ ...t. ll t.. t..

n. i

.t.

. . g,.

.l.

.l i.

,.i4

... l.

i.. .

1.,I;..

l t.

l, ti.

! t 3 t.1.I 4 ...: ,, . i.;. .... , lt. 4. . .. ....

~u.h .5 y.. ./ . .... .

au1

. . .p... .j ! _2..:. u.ug ,,L.

. i.s. l.

~

l 1-..,3 1..

i t.

j l3 iL y. l 1 -l..

..I,  :. , . ... ..

,. . . - f.i.. . ....

3..e. _ .

.::.. .... j .. . .

. . .; , , A . ..i 4e..

.... {

.p

. u. . . ..

A i-

. .. /, .s. .

7.il.g ,..o ... t i!l

.ai.. ,. . . . ., . . ,.i .. l ..

g,. g eo _. ,, i .

.l ...  ;. . .. . . ,

t

.. * " .mi. .. .a .

./.

...t.

-,l.4, .... ,1 , .... , . .

94l .l., .

a. ~..

.. . I.. .1, ... ..I .... i.. a6.... .. . ., . . . . . . .

.E.. ..

.I..,g1 1 u.. M !61.,t.

s.,

,.1.!.J y. u14.!t. 1

.(i. .

~

1

u. u.,...... 4l 2..

g.

g4pL.l. .

. n. f.t ..o. o.. / .

4 ml.6:.s.o.

.1 ... .. . . . , ..

t.

.. ,9 . . . . _.

_i...

,g y.,. .

2f.

..I

. 4.., ..u;.

.t 2....

. ./ ./

,l,. . .

po;. ., ..

.. ... _,Io .ia

. .t . i .

. ail

,. a.. .

s.

y_ a .;.iM1-

. t .t 3.4. . .4.p .. ,.. ,..

, i .

.!._l..

aJ.y

.ay aI.,

t1. .

4, g.t n... ,1

}

i!. - l. 1.. p,3 n.1 .1

.i

.y .. ...

..i..

t4]l 1. ee.. i 1 ~ . ./ .

_ .. . L. . ,

n.I l .,

L. g .. .s.. g , . .1  !. i...

,.tu.q,a.a lo..Qll- 24a n.la. ., ..

1  !

< t. l.

j * %1 .

. . 1  ;.l

. .l gg I .il.

t,O . ...1 l_ . 1._ a .. . m' . .!*

J., . q. . - . . .. _ _,i. . . W ...

ji,y .

ggl.g.-.;.

, g 3o.4, 1 f...

,:1:3.

,. . . g .

!au 1_ .

1i '. l 1. i j

t t.

il1t'

. l f. _ e

.,. .,t  !

31.

, , i

. .11

, :4

_m .

e l..

• . 1.

.li

, .- 1.. ' . ,o

• .4et

. . lt.. 4.L. .;. l11

[t-

.g.v.i .

6.%"..Np,n

.." ! Li ..

1a

.1.

.. .l.,..

t.

il l2 a- a9d.1

!1, W

.i.I.

p. . ,t..pi L 1

,l Ii - .

- . y1 .

' 2j . J ja ,. . ...

.ej

.1_ ..+. ,14 o.

yigR. 1. .

^gt 1

.s1,.

1.. i:p e.. .

. .,., .v.. . . .

- u.

u- . j-1 .p.m3.! u .,)

gg. ......; i _q4.1

. . l..

g. l32i

. io,1 1.

l.e .g a,I_ .

+!u t . s. . l. 4. .

. .i b.

4, , .

. . . . 1 i. { al t,

. 1 . .; . t:. .... .,4. .! .

-1.,.

i . .s l" { .. .;.;-

.r .u... .u.

...i s  : .. t 1._

1 ....

i. t. ..t. .

2e.. .

.o4.p.u. 1atu . d..

m1* 4t  ; .. .

s..!.! _...,

4a .s.ph. .2.. M._n.

..I. ..

s. L.

..g_

. t.N.1

. . .. . .. .. g ^

...t, . .. . . . .... . . . . . .

..t. -

cj. i

. ........ a

..... ...g . . . _ .99..

6

., .a . .s... .

~ j -

-2 .

_ .1... . .a...

. . , ... ;u.u. 3 .. . m_

4.

C _o ..

._o H ..Ne,; ..T..;,.. 4' 1.u1 u. _..

.i.

p f. . . . . . ..c.

. - _._ y.. 4 . - . .

i uuu 9.

.g 4 . .1. .. .I.

.&... .t.. . . t . , . .. 4.] ., . a. ,,. a. . . - . .

.yg l

i

. _. . .._y

. . - ..:. . . . . ..,._ .. - . . t

... . ..m.

. . .... ..-.. ..t - ..

m_ _

.... .._ . . a. ..

..t.. ._.. . . . _. y.

_. ... 1' .

- ..i" .. .. . . .

- ._a.. . a_..L.......

.. _ .. .~ . .. .

W.J.(. .

m. .,. 7 .._ ... _..

..~ .

_.. m....

~

m... . . . . .

Q.

aa. ..m.

. . aa . . .; .... ... - ._ . ... . . ... .. ..~

. . . . . . . .. _ .. .. 7 .... . .. .

. .T .

.%. ... . . . o _.

..m. m__.

4.. . . _. .. .A.

'._. m..a . .. . . .. .= -_. ... ...

.~.

2 e..Ta_

3 u... .

_. _ . ... ._s._. .. . . . ....._ ._....~~- _ -. . . . . .

r .. .o_ ... ......

a.. . . . . . - . . . .. . ..

i.

. ._ . _. m.. .

,,~

. . .* .T- ..

t

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

..~ .

. .~

. .~ m.. -_ . . . .

~ ..

.. . . . . . . . . ' . . . .~ .

.C

.. p

. p . . .

. 0 .. .

. r....

-. 0 ..~ - . . .

n.

0 =

. . - . . p . ._.

.l+ ,

l. .I.il 9;. y/ . .

.s.

.  ;.5'. l .

e...

,I.  ;

~

. . . .9. _

9 . . . . . . . . . .

_. - . m.

. p_

i .

- p - . . . . - ' .

g,.,,, , .i ,-( g *..,).e. :.,.n s. n ne- t 1

( B. Type "B" Testing

1. Discussion Type "B" Tests were conducted following the Types"A" Test to detect local leaks and to measure leakage across each pressure containing containment penetration. The testing was conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 and ANSI-N45.4. Periodic Test PT-16.2 was completed.to measure the leakage through all containment piping and electrical penetra-tions. In addition, PT-16.6 was completed to measure any leakage through the equipment hatch and PT-16.5 was completed to detect

.1

! and measure any leakage through the personnel air lock.

A sweated fitting in a 2" service air line into the containment was found to be leaking during the performance of the containment air test. The leaking fitting was lef t as found for the duration of the.

.y - - " '

Type A test. Following ccmpletion of the Type A test, a special' test (ST-47) was performed to measure the leakage through the defective fitting.

During the performance of the Type A test, air luakage was apparent through the blowdown line from "C" steam generator. This leakage was later determined to be in through the packing of the -

inside isolation valve and by the seat of the outside isolation valve.

A special test (ST-48) was performed to measure the leakage through these valves.

Inspection of "A" Recirculation Spray Heat Exchanger revealed a leaking tube. In order to measure the leakage through the defective j tube, a special test (ST-49) was performed.

l l -

l l

l

2. Ruults O 0 l

a. PT-16.2 Containment Penetration Local Leakage ,

Local leakage tests conducted to measure the leakage by welds between piping penetrations'and the containment liner 1 yielded the following results:

Total Leakage = 0.0816 SCFH Local tests e.onducted to measure the leakage by welds between the electrical penetrations and the containment liner yielded the following results:

Total Leakage = 0 Total Leakage (PT-16.2) = 0.0816 SCFH

b. PT-16.5 - Personnel Air Lock Leak Test Local Type "B" tests to determine the leak rate through the personnel air lock revealed leakage of 1.73 SCFH.

.. Total Leakage (PT-16.5) = 1.73 SCFH -

.?

' ~ ~ ~ "~~~

c. PT-16.6 - Equipment Hatch Leak Iest Local Type "B" tests to determine the leak rate through the equipment hatch revealed no leakage.

Total leakage (PT-16.6) = 0 SCFH

d. ST Service Air Fittingt Leakage Sweated fitting in Line 2"-ASC-CL-21B downstream of valve 2-SA-82 at the containmaat wall. ,

.. Total Leakage (ST-47) = 93 SCFH Following the leakage measurement, the fitting was rapaired,"

reducing the leakage to zero.

e. ST Leak Check of Blowdows Trip Valves TV-BD-200E & TV-BD-200F Local leakage tests revealed leakage through the packing

( of TV-BD-200E and past the seat of TV-BD-200F.

l l Valve No. Leakage TV-BD-200E 148.60 SCFH TV-BD-200F 201.85 SCFH

l, (^)

C:)

Following the leakage measurement, these. valves were

~

repaired, reducing the leakage.to zero for.each' valve.

f. ST Leakage Check of "A" Recirculation Spray Heat Exchange Total Leakage = 575 SCFH Following the leakage measurement, the failed tube was plugged.

The heat exchanger was then retested indicating zero leakage.

C. Type "C" Testing

1. Discussion Type "C" Tests were conducted following the Type "A" Test to measure containment isolation valve leakage races. The testing was

~

conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Appendix J.

l to 10 CFR 50 and ANSI 45.5. Several valves were repaired in order to j reduce the leakage rate to acceptable levels. Leakage rates were measured both before and after maintenance in order to determine the amount of leakage reduction.

The acceptance criteria for Type "B" and "C" Tests is that the combined leakage rate of all penetrations and valves shall be less than 0.60 of the maximum allowable leakage rate of 0.1 we %/24 hr. or I

165 SCFH. The leakage rate through lines that penetrate the containment is considered to be the leakage rate through'the valve with the highest measured leakage rate.

2. Results The results of the Type "C" tests are given in Table 3. All valves with excessive leakage were repaired to reduce leakage. Leakages before and af ter repairs are listed in Table 3. Valves which required repaits are as follows:

I a- *

.! w

. - _ . _ , ~-

-....-w_ . . . . .

%w . . . _ . . . . . . . _y . . - - -

(

TV-SS-202B Outside isolation valve - sampling line SS-474-1-C-N8.

TV-SS-201A Inside isolation valve - sampling line RC-351-1502.

TV-SS-201B Outside isolation valve - sampling line RC-351-1502. .

TV-2519A outside isolation valve - primary grade water inlet.

2-RC-160 Inside isolation valve - primary grade water inlet.

2-RL-3 Inside isolation valve - reactor cavity purification.

2-RL-5 Outside isolation valve'- reactor cavity purification.

MOV-CS-201C Outside isolation valves - discharge of containment MOV-CS-201D spray pump 2-CS-P-13.

MOV-CS-201A Outside isolation valves - discharge of containment MOV-CS-201B spray pump 2-CS-1A.

2-RS-ll Inside check valve - discharge of outside containment recirculation spray pump 2-RS-P-23.

MOV-RS-256A Outside isolation valve - discharge of outside contain-ment recirculation spray pump 2-RS-P-23.

2-VA-9 Inside isolation valve - aerated vent line from primary vent pot. _ - . _ -_ _ _ _ _ . .

TV-Sl-201A Inside isolation valve - nitrogen vent line from accumulators.

TV-Sl-2013 Outside isolation valve - nitrogen vent line from accumulators.

1-RM-3 Inside isolation valve - containment radiation monitor return line.

TV-RM-200B Inside isolation valve - containment radiation monitor suction line.

2-CV-2 Outside isolation valve - steam air ejector flow.

2-CV-12 Inside isolation valve - steam air ejector flow.

MOV-2867C Outside isolation valve - Boron Injection tank MOV-2867D outlet.

1-S1-150 FCV-2160 Outside isolation valve - Loop fill header. -

~

(<

a

. O

~

MOV-RS-255A Outside isolation valves - suction of outside MOV-RS-255B containment recirculation spray pumps, 2-RS-P-2A and 2-RS-P-2B.

MOV-2860A Outside isolation valves - suction of Low Head MOV-2860B Safety Injection pumps 2-SI-P-1A and 2-SI-P-1B "V-SI-200 Outside isolation valve - nitrogen supply header.

Totaling the leakage measured af ter repairs for Type "B" and "C" Tests: -

Measured Leakage (Type "B" Tests) = 1.812 SCFH Measured Leakage (Type "C" Tests) = 107.750 SCFH Instrument error (5.4% Appendix C) = 5.916'SCFH Total (Type "B" & "C" Tests after repairs) = 115.478 SCFH Since the total measured leakage af ter repairs for Type "B" and "C" tests is less than 165 SCFH, the leakage rate has been reduced to acceptable limits. ,_ ,

i l

l 1

I i i l

TYPE "C" TEST RESULTS l '. i l LEAKAGE LEAKAGE LEAKAGE LEAKAGE IIIGilEST llIGHEST  !

l OUTSIDE RATE RATE INSIDE RATE RATE LEAKAGE RATE LEAKAGE R/.TE '

, ISOLATION AS FOUND AS LEFT ISOLATION AS FOUND AS LEFT AS FOUND AS LEFT l

VALVE (SCFil) (SCFl() VALVE (SCFil) (SCFil) (SCFil) (SCFil) j MOV-2289A 2-C11-309 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 TV-2204 IICV-2200A, B, C 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 TV-SS-204B TV-SS-204A TV-SS-200B TV-SS-200A l TV-S - 6B b b- TV- S- A --

b b-l TV-SS-201B 0.63 TV-SS-201A 74.4 74.40 jlh>

1 TV-DG-208B 2.34 2.34 TV-DG-208A .95 .95 2.34 2.34 TV-2519A 149.73 1-RC-160 238.08 7.81 238.08 7.81 2-RL-5 2.28 2-RL-3 .591 2.28 2-RL-15 0.19 0.19 2-RL-13 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 MOV-CS-201C,D 40.92 2-CS-24 40.92 MOV-CS-201A,B 327.36 12.39 2-CS-39 327.36 12.39 MOV-RS-256B 9.75 9.75 2-RS-ll 502.2 0.67 502.20 9.75 l MOV-RS-256A 55.80 1.67 2-RS-17 55.80 1.66

! TV-DA-200B TV-DA-200A TV-VG-209B TV-VG-209A 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 e 2-VA-9 2.17 2-VA-1 2.17 [

TV-SI-201B 12.95 4.38 TV-SI-201A 13.39 0.16 13.39 4.38 8 1-IA-704 2-IA-864 2-IA-704 0.79 0.79 2-IA-868 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 2-SA-82 1-SA-81. TV-RM-100A 1-RM-3 4.49 4.33 4.49 4.33 TV-RM-200C TV-RM-200B 37.2 37.2 l MOV-VS-200B HOV-VS-200A - '

MOV-VS-200D 0.87 0.87 MOV-VS-200C 0.63 0.63 0.87 0.87 TV-CS-250B TV-CV-250A TV-CS-250D TV-CV-250C l 2-CV-2 13.32 1.97 IICV-CV-200 3.90 1.3.90 13.32 3.90 i TV-SV-202 2-VP-12 '230.64 1.12 230.64 1.12 TV-LM-200B TV-LM-200A TV-LM-200D TV-LM-200C , TV-LM-200F TV-LM-200E TV-LM-200ll TV-LM-200G MOV-2381 1.10 1.10 i 1.10 1.10 1-C11-323 1-Cll-333 ' 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.36 1-Cll-349 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 MOV-2890A 1.97 1.97 f. 1.97 1.97

l TYPE "C" TEST RESULTS ,

l

~

(CONTINUED)

LEAKAGE LEAKAGE LEAKAGE LEAKAGE IIIGilEST llICllEST OUTSIDE RATE RATE INSIDE RATE RATE LEAKAGE RATE LEAKAGE RATE ISOLATION AS FOUND AS LEFT ISOLATION AS FOUND AS FOUND AS FOUND AS LEFT VALVE (SCFil) (SCFli) VALVE (SCFil) (SCFil) (SCFil) (SCFil)

MOV-2890B: 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 MOV-2890C 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21 MOV-2842 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 MOV-2869A&2-SI-174 MOV-2869B et0V-2867C&D&2-SI-150 34.41 11.90 34.41 11.90 g

FCV-2160 93.0 9.30 2-SI-32 2-SI-73 TV-SS-203 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 MOV-Ril-200 11.60 11.60 11.60 11.60 MOV-RS-255A&B* >509.64 >509.64 MOV-2860A&B** >509.64 9.0 >509.64 9.0 TV-SI-200 50.64 2-SI-234 50.64 f. ,

Tv-Un-201A g TV-LM-201B ~

8 2-GW-166 2-GW-175 TOTAL - >2,781 78 107.75 9

0 MOV-RS-255A&B were blank flanged during the Type A test., The existing valves were'known leakers and were replaced during the refueling outage.

New valves had zero leakage.

(* MOV-2860A&B were blank flanged during the Type A' test to allow modifications to Safety Injection System Piping.

8 4

f i

es .

U O%

D. Correlation of Type "A", "B" and "C" Test Results Proposed Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 dated August 27, 1971 and specified in the Technical Specifications, indicates that if repairs are necessary to meet the acceptance criteria of the Type "A" Test, the test need not be repeated provided local measured laakage reductions achieved by repairs reduce the containment's overall measured leak rate sufficiently to meet the acceptance criteria. From the Type "A" Test results, the leakage rate was determined to be .2989 + .0081 %wt./24 hr. corresponding to 821 +

22 SCFH., The acceptance criteria for the Type "A" test is 0.075%wt/24 hrs.

corresponding, to approximately 206 SCFH.

The recirculation spray heat exchanger leakage as determined by special test ST-48 can be applied directly toward reduction of the overall integrated leak rate. Therefore, leakage reduction as a result of tube repairs to "A" recirculation spray heat exchanger was 575 SCFH. ,

The service. air fitting leakage as determined by special test ST-47 - -

can be applied directly toward reduction of the overall integrated leak rate. Therefore, leakage reduction resulting from repairs of the service air fitting was 93 SCFH.

Leakage by penetration welds measured during Type "B" Tests could be applied directly toward reduction of the overall integrated leak rate.

However, .no repairs were made on these components; therefore, leakage reduction was O SCFH.

Leakage through containment isolation valves that connect the containment atmosphere with open systems outside the containment can be applied directly toward reduction of the overall integrated leak rate test through the valve with the lowest measured leakage rate before repairs. The valves in which the lowest measured leakage rate was not zero before repairs are listed below.

I .-

LOWEST . LOWEST LEAKAGE LEAUGE LEAKAGE LEAKAGE OUTSIDE RATE INSIDE RATE RATE RATE ISOLATION ~AS FOUND ISOLATION AS FOUND AS FOUND AS LEFT VALVE (SCFH) VALVE (SCFH) (SCFH) (SCFH)

TV-SI-201B 12.95 TV-S1-201A 13.39 12.95 0.16 TV-BD-200F 201.85 TV-BD-200E 148.60 148.60 0 TOTAL 161.55 0.16

.'. Leakage Reduction = 161.55

.16 161.39 Leakage through containment isolation valves, as measured by Type "C" Tests, that leak to closed systems outside the containment or had a water seal during the Type "A" Test, may not he equal to the leakage which existed during the containment integrated leak rate because of differences in test conditions. Type "C" tests use air as

~

the test medium and the systems are drained and vented downstream of

. - . - . =- :.

the isolation valves. Pressurization of closed systems outside of the containment may result in a lesser pressure differential across isolation valves than existed during the Type "C" test. Therefore, the leak rate through these valves during the Type "A" integrated leak rate test may be somewhat less than that measured during the Type "C" Tests. These valves are listed below. ,

LOWEST LOWEST LEAKAGE LEAKAGE LEAKAGE LEAKAGE OUTSIDE RATE INSIDE RATE RATE RATE ISOLATION AS FOUND ISOLATION AS FOUND AS FOUND AS LEFT VALVE (SCFH) VALVE (SCFH) (SCFH) (SCFH)

TV-SS-201B 0.63 TV-SS-201A 74.40 0.63 0-TV-2519A 149.23 2-RC-160 48.36 48.36 7.81 2-RL-5 2.28 2-RL-3 0.59 0.59 0 MOV-RS-256B 502.20 2-RS-11 9.75 9.75 .67 TOTAL 59.33 8.48

. Leakage Reduction: 59.33

- 8.48

. 50.85 d

' ~

~

19-O. O CORRELATION OF TEST RESULTS:

(1) Integrated Leak Rate (821 SCFH) i plus confidence band ( 22 SCFH) + 84 3 (2) Leakage reduction - Recirculation Spray Heat Exchanger Repair -

575

! (3) Leakage reduction thru containment

! isolation valves in systems connecting l the containment. atmosphere with.open; systems outside the containment - 161 -

(4) Leakage reduction thru containment isolation valves in systems connecting the containment atmosphere with closed systems outside the containment -

51 (5) Leakage reduction - service air fitting repair - 93 (6) Type C Test error ,

5.4%.'for itemi. 2,3,4.and 5 + 48

+ 11 SCFH 1

' '- ~ "-

III. CONCLUSIONS The Type "A" integrated leak rate test conducted at the beginning of the refueling outage with the containment in the "as is" condition yielded unsatis-1 factory results. Major sources of leakage were a failed tube in "A" recircu-lation spray heat exchanger, two isolation valves in the blow-down line from "C" steam generator, and a leaking fitting in a service air lire. Local leakage measurements made after the Type "A" Test indicate that leakage reductions achieved by repairs to these components reduce the containment"s

}

overall leak rate sufficiently to meet the acceptance criteria. The results l of the tests conducted were satisfactory and the requirements of the Technical Specifications have been satisfied.

The Type "B" and "C" Tests conducted during this outage were initially

, 4 1

,,--t - - . - . - . _

--* y a -- ,-p w <

e ,

r

, , m .

., . U O unacceptable since the leakage through these components was much greater than 165 SCFH. Repairs made to containment isolation valves have reduced

,h the leakage measured by Type "B" and "C" tests to an acceptable level.

The major source of leakage identified by Type "B" and "C" testing was caused by leaking valves. Valves in closed systems, specifically the low head safety ~ injection system and recircpation spray system, are open following an accident, therefore, the high leakage was .not significant.

Relatively large leakage rates for valves of this size and type are common. _

The correlation of the "before" and "after" data for the tests conducted confirms that the sources of leakage contributing to the high leakage measured {

in the Type "A" integrated test have been identified and corrected. Correcting )

I the Type "A" test results for leakage through penetrations covered by Type "B" I and "C" indicates that there is essentially no leakage from the containment structure..

The test results confirm that the integrity of the containment boundary.. . . _ _ .

has not experienced any significant degradation and the conditions specified in Technical Specification 4.4 have been satisfied.

t

O

~

O

~

APPENDIX A LOG OF EVENTS DATE TIME EVENT 4-21-76 1600 Inspection of interior and exterior surfaces of containment completed. '

4-25-75 0905 Commenced pressurization of containment 1445 Secured compressors. Held pressure at 15 psig to check for excessive leakage. Leak check satisfactory.

1615 Commenced pressurization.

1900 MOV-VS-200A tripped shut. Secured 2 of 5 air Compressors.

1925 MOV-VS-200A opened. Proceeding with pressurization.

4-26-76 0535 At pressure (54.3 psia). Compressors secured and isolated.

0935 Placed leakage monitoring system in service.

1400 Established as "0" hour for calculations. "- " ~ ~ -

Atmospheric temperature is 68*F.

1900 Cold front arrival begins. Atmospheric temperature is 65'F.

2100 Atmospheric temperature is 55'F. Hydrogen reco.:biners turned on to reduce rate of containment temperature drop.

2200 Hydrogen recombiners secured. Atmospheric temperature is 51*F. ,

2300 Hydrogen recombiners turned on.

0200 Hydrogen recombiners secured. Atmospheric temperature is 46*F.

0800 Atmospheric temperature is 41*F.

1000 Atmospheric temperature is 46*F.

1200 Atmospheric temperature is 54*F.

- e, - - -

o

~

os APPENDIX A (Con' t.)

DATE TIME EVENT

,, 4-27-76 1400 Final set of hourly data. Atmospheric j temperature is 54*F.

1500 Begin makeup air test for verification. -

1540 Makeup test secured dua.co failed pressure control valve.

1700 Begin makeup air test for verification.

1815 Makeup air test complete. -

1900 Start depressurization.

GO V4 E

a O

• N, ee es.eew - -.

- -g - .- -- - , . . m - ..y, , ,-w, f y- , y

. .. . O O APPENDIX 3 ,

, LEAKAGE RATE MEASURESENT SYSTEM ,

a a The Leakage Monitoring System piping consists of two (2) headers: "Open and YClosed". The open header is connected to taps which are open to the containment i

atmosphere. The servomanometer is connected to this header to measure the absolute pressure in the containment. The closed header is connected to closed reference-bulbs which are located throughout the containment. One leg of the differential I

4 manometer is connected to the open header while the other leg is connected to the l 1 I closed header. An initial differential pressure can thereby be established so that '

small changes in containment pressure can be seen as changes'in the differential pressure. t Additional instrumentation is installed to measura those parameters for which corrections must be made to the pressure or

• pressure changes' read by the manometers.

The average of 18 RID's (weighted for location) is used to measure containment ta.m - ' .x perature and calculate corrections using the perfect gas laws. Dew point temperature is determined by averaging the readings of two dew cells, Corrections for the par-tial pressure of water vapor can be made.from the dew point temperature determined from the dew cells.

A gas flow' indicator is used to measure the total volume of air put into the

! containrant atmosphere from the service air system as a verification of the manometer readings used to determine leak rate.

Weather information is gathered from installed and portable instrumentation to note any effects on the measured parameters caused by weather conditions.

l .

Figure B-1 is a simplified sketch of the Leakage Monitoring System.

l -

l .. .

. _ . , . . _ , . . _ ,. . .. ~ , . , . , . _ . . . 4, , , _ , ,

[. ..

~

1

. . . . 64 -. -.h . . . , . . . _ . . . . . _ ._ .. U 6.w ' - 6-.. . - . . . . .- - - - . - .T a OuTSIDE REACTOR INSIDE REACTOR ~. T. .

T8 valve Trio circuit ~-~~~~--~~~-----------------m

" ' " " " "#'""" -E Ano tuoiuttuco ----------------------------s \

N

j. sartcuaRDs CiRcu T ~ ~ - ~ ~ "_ . ~_~__,._._ _ _ _ _ _ _,_ _ _ ___ , m.xs s

\s , ,

c,m

\ \

\s

\

{ p TV TV TV TV g

TV TV TV TV Plc PC PC P i D

OPEN PRESSURE TAPS 7

I II II E S 1 3 1 3

~

sEuTo DC >C MANOME TEN DC DC J L *

• 4G DG TV TV ---

e o b ... m

"' F~ p 1 BARdMETER s L \ '

V H +4 W 8 MA M E SEALED ' P'R'ESSditE SYSTEM I. ii TI Tl CV . 3 la Tl i [ -

i RTD RTD RTD RTO RTO j V I DEW FOINT DEW POINT i

{

MANOMETER i (DIFFERENTIAL) .

i

, LEAKAGE MONITORING SYSTEM DONE DRY , SURRY POWER STATION AIR CYLINDER /

l 1

4

o

-Cl-O APPENDIX C 1

INSTRIRfENTATION 1

Equipment Descriptions 4

The differential pressure between the reference bulbs and the containment 1

}

atmosphere was measured with a 0-60 inch U-Tube manometer, Marian Instrument Model 20CB10. The fluid used was an oil with a epecific gravity of 1.04. .

Accuracy was to 0.01 inches with repeatibility. to 0.0025 inches of oil.

The absolute pressure of the containment atmosphere was measured with a 0-120 inch mercury manometer, Exaccel Model 500. Digital readout and accuracy f were to 0.001 inches of mercury with repeatibility to .00025 inches of mercury.

1 2

Containment temperature was measured with 18 RTD's, Electric Thermometer Inc. Model P-B2155. Individual RTD accuracy was to 0.1'F. An additional error

! of .05'F is inherent in computer analog to digital conversion. Therefore accur-acy is to 0.15'F with reproducibility of 0.04'F.. " ~ ~

Vapor pressure was determined using two dew cells, Foxboro Model 2711AG.

1 Accuracy, including computer error was to 0.55%, repeatib'ility to .14%. This corresponds to .05 in H2 O and .01 in H2 0, respectively.

i The makeup air flow meter used for verification was an Americta Meter Controls, Inc. Model AL2300 with an accuracy of 0.5%,

Instrument Error Analysis Both the reference and the absolute method of leakage determination require 1 an hourly calculation of the mass of air in the containment. The leakage rate is then determined by a least squared fit of the calculated masses over a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period. The uncertainty in the mass calculation for each method is estimated as follows.

l l

- - . ~ . . . =-. . - - . .. . . _ _ . .. .

V

-2 9 9 Reference Method - uncertainty in' mass calculation.

The reference method mass calculation is by the formula:

5 Q = Qo - 1.7558 x 10 PD 0 _ PD ) - (2V, Py

l. T -

WHERE: Q = quantity of air in containment at time, ti; lb mass.

Q, = quantity of air in containment at time, to; lb mass.

i P = man meter differential pressure at time,' ti; in H 20.

D P Do = manometer differential pressure at time, to; in H20.

P y = containment vapor pressure at time, ci; in H20.

Py = contain=ent vapor pressure at time, to; in H20.

T = average containment temperature at time, ti; 'R.

The change or uncertainty in Q due to uncertainties in th'e measured variables is given by: 1 E 2 2.

1 $9 5 YdG.5Phba.5P o d_G.1Vo Ida.JV + ISS U l bq = 1.1558 x' 10 g p,  ; fp 9 ) (dV, } )V l.f ) _1 The formula assumes that all errors ar's systematic rather than random in nature. The error in Q after differentiating is: 2, IE Pn I O.Po

• 6ve et (((Po:-Pol-(P 3

AT / tT/ (T)

'Q t ( T^ /-

EP D D " *P D 0 0 D JVo=$V=eyo= ey = .05 in. H2O JT = e7 = o.15/ [ = .035*R O

e W- = *

• v

e

-C3-O

. .. . O Combining equivelant terms:

2 z f' ya 2 /e1e2 + 2 1Iev2l + l o 4 e = 1.7558 x 10 ~

5 Q _(T/ sT>

P ,- Po-1 2 P) 4 Pv' ,T)l

~

2-Y2

= 1.7559 x 10 5 2[0I\g -05,3

\St 5/ + 2['565 / ,((so.oi4-25.171 4.794+4.7s

\ W 565 x 565 / /

5~ ~10 ~8 -/3 ' V2

= 1.7558 x 10 6.3 410 r /.6 </O + 2.2 x /c

- .)

eq= 22.6 lb mass Absolute Method - uncertainty in mass calculation.

The absolute method mass calculation is by the formuir.

7dERE: Q = 1.7558 x 10 Pa = 1.7558 x 105 (p_py)

T T Q = quantity of air in containment, Ib mass.

P, = containment absolute pressure, in. H 2O P = containment pressure, in H 20 Pv = containment vapor pressure, in. H O 2 _ , , _ _

T = containment average temperature, 'R The change or uncertainity in Q due to uncertainties in the measured

. variables is given by: . 3 1 3 1 2 k 5 + Ida A Py t + /JA .3Tl .,

$Q = 1.7558 ,jp x 10 ][da.5P

) Jp q' J y j, The formula assumes that all errors are systematic rather than random in character. The error in Q after differentiating is:

1 2-,b e q = 1.7558 x 10,7e; + ll-evT +hT)"p-W 2 s;/ .

e p

= .001 #Hg = 'H 2O ey = .05 H0 e = .15'R + .035*R T

h l .. -

• - - + e _w

-C4-e = 1.7558 x 10 5 ~l .0136 + I.05 2

,(1492.5-4.2).035 4 565j /,

,t 15653 (565x565 / )

~

5 -10 -9 -8 1/2 l

= 1.7558 x 10 5.8 x 10 + 7.8 x 10 + 2.7 x 10 ,

= 1.7558 x 10 5

-8 W (3.54x10 e = 33 lb. mass t

Repeati/ility Error Analysis ,

Using the same formulas as above, the repeatibity error for the two methods is estimated as follows:

Reference method:

g [ep, eg eq = 1.7558 x 10 5

tT/ T/ s PD.- T '-Po - Pv,4 Pv ,T[

Instrument repeatibility ep = .0025 HO2 e = .0100 "H O ,

2

~ ~ ^ ~ #-"~~ '

e7 = .007'R eQ = 1.7558 x 10 5

2[.002 .+2[.01h2+ 30.014-2 5.771-4. 794+4.792) .007 2' W g ( 564 / 565) f 565 x 565 )

. 5' -11 -10 -15 1/2

= 1.7558 x 10 3.9 x 10 + 6.0 x 10 + 8.6lx 10

- l

~

5

= 1.7558 x 10 x 2.53 x 10 eq= 4.44 lb. mass.

Absolute method: g 2.

~ f2 1

5 IIP-Pde, e = 1.7558 x 10 '[ k +{~6v.T+h T2j _

i l

i 1

1

I

-CS- ,

. .. . O O ,

l Instrument repeatibility: -

ep = .00025 "HgG = .0034 HO 2

6 e = .01 H0 V 2 e = .04 'R = .009 ~

= 1.7558 x 10' + 1492-4.2 ) .00k e

9 f.0034 2+[.01)2

, N565 4 (565/ (565x565 / /

= 1.7558 x 10 3.61 x 10-11 + 3.00 x 10-10 + 1.86 x 10-9

= 1.7558 x 105 x 4.68 x 10

= 8.21 lb. cass.

Leakage rate error due to instrument error.

As.shown on pages 6 and 7 of th,is report, the '1eakage rate' is.

determined by c. least squares fit analysis of the hourly calculations of mass

! over the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test period. The effects of systematic instrument error are diminished by this method of analysis rendering repeatibility error the predom '

inent source of instrument uncertainty. The effects of errcrs in individual ~

mass calculations on the overall leak" rate may be estimated by the formula.

e, = e.,

EX* - (EX)

• N Where e,= error in slope in ibm /hr For the reference nethed, the instrument repeatibility traaslates to an error in leakage rate as follows.

e = 4.44 m

/ Ex'- (EX)'

-V N

• cw= .06 6 E"/hr-e, = .0003 wt % h4 hr. .

. . . . .. . . ._-.. _ . . . - . . _ _ . . . . _~ - - -__ _ .- . . - _ _-. .

O O

For the absolute method, i

e = 8.21 m

IX -(EX)'

> = .'l2M1b/hr

= .0006 we%/24 hr.

Type B and C tests are performed using rotameters of various ranges manufactured by the Brooks Instrument Co. All are accurate to i 5%. Flow pressure corrections are made based on a 0-50 psig Ashcroft pressure gage of i 2% accuracy. Commutation of these uncertainties yields an overall error of 5.4%.

e = ((.05)2 + (.02) ]E i

e = .054 = 5.4%

l, . . . s._._.

I 1

i I

1 4

I i

S J

l

. - (

y ..

- ~

rn i e s ,, V

APPENDIX D ABSOLUTE METHOD Calculations of the containment leak rate during the Type "A" Test were also performed using the absolute method of testing to substantiate the results obtained by the reference volume method. The mass of air in the containment was calculated each hour as follows:

Q = 1.7558 x 105 {p _ p T

Where: Q = Mass of air in containment - lbs.

P = Containment absolute pressure - in. H O 2

Py = Vapor pressure - in. H O 2

T = Containment Temperature "R The leak rate was determined to be 0.4308% by we./24 hr. from a least -

squares fit analysis of the 24 hourly calculations of mass :(lb) of air in the containment. The 95% confidence factor was determined to be 1 0.0170%/24 hr.,

giving an overall result of: L = 0.4308 1 0.0170% wt./24 hr.

A review of the absolute method mass calculations indicates an anomalous response to the rapid atmospheric temperature drop which occurred during the second quarter of the test period. The mass calculations during this period trended above the least squares fit line, returning gradually to the fit line as the. temperature leveled off. For the first 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and the last 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, the slopes of the absolute method results and the reference method results are in close agreement. However, the high calculated mass losses which occurred during hours 6 through 12 distorted the absolute method slope, yielding a more negativea slope than the reference method results. The close correlation which existed between the two methods during the first quarter and the second half of the l

test substantiates the accuracy of the reference method results.

.