ML20125B657

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rept of Initial Overload Tests of Leakage Rate Determination of Pressure Suppression Vessels, Prepared for Burns & Roe,Inc
ML20125B657
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 03/31/1966
From:
CBI SERVICES, INC. (FORMERLY CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON
To:
Shared Package
ML20125B634 List:
References
TASK-03-02, TASK-03-03.A, TASK-03-07.B, TASK-03-07.D, TASK-3-2, TASK-3-3.A, TASK-3-7.B, TASK-3-7.D, TASK-RR NUDOCS 7912190707
Download: ML20125B657 (22)
v • d • e


Text

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

9 N

Docket No. 50-219 l

l 1

ATTACHMENT J  !

OfSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION INITIAL OVERLOAD TESTS AND LEAKAGE l RATE DETERMINATION OF THE PRESSURE SUPPRESSION VESSELS l

90000260 December, 1979 D

7912,190  :#01

f;lN::

%:=

REPORT OF INITI AL OVERLOAD TESTE AND LEAL'A GE RATE DETERMINAT13N OF TllE PRESSURE SUPPRESSION VESSELS AT Tile JERSEY CENTRAL POWER 6 LIGill COMP.WY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNir #1 OYSTER CREEK, NEW JERSEY FOR BURNS 6 ROE, INCORPORATED l

BY CIIICAGO 'BRIDGE 6 IRON COMPANY MARCll 1966 i

90000261 mm , .

J} L o wJu o .A.\ =

)G?. .

4)

N 9 -

. O p .

gp.

E

. INTRODUCTION The Oyster Creek' Nuclear Power Plant Unit #1 of Jersey Central Power & Light Company incorporates a pressure suppression con- ,

tainnant system with a' Drywell having . interconnecting vent lines to a Suppression Chamber. The system is intended to pro-vide a lech-tight enclosure for the nuclear reactor and any l steam. or gases that might be released. 7 4

The Dryuell and Suppression Chamber were designed, erected, and tested by the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company under a contract -

with, and in accordance with specifications prepared by, Burns  ;

& Roe, Incorporated. The vessels were designed and constructed a in accordance with the rules in Sections Vill and IX of the ASME i Code, with Nuclear Case Interpretations 1270 N-5, 1271 N, 1272 N-5, y and other applicable case interpretations. Each vessel was  ;

stampud, after construction and testing, with the ASME symbol for .

the internal pressure and temperature.  ;

The Drywell concists of a 70 foot diameter sphere with a 33 foot i diameter top cylindrical section capped with a bolted cover. Te-  :

> - - vent lines connected to the 30 foot diameter Suppression Chamber i 4

which encircled the Drywell as a torus on a 101 foot diameter, i One personnel air lock was built into the head of the equipment ,

hatch, which was located in the spherical portion of the Drywell.  !

j The Drywell was constructed on a skirt and the bottom was later ,

embed. led in concrete. The Suppression Chamber was constructed j on permanent steel columns. All plate seams were accessible for -

inspection, inside and outside, before and after the test. All' permaaent connections were welded in place in the shell of each vesset.

At th" time of the tests, the downcomers, designed to pass the re-lease.1 steam and gases from the Drywell into the Suppression Chamber, were capped in order that a separate test could be con-ducted on nach vessel. The Drywell was tested with no pressure in the Suppression Chamber. The Suppression Chamber, however, was .

tested with a balancing pressure in the Drywell to avoid an ex- ,

cessive external pressure on the vent lines and header inside the i Suppression Chunber. At some future date, prior to operation, the caps will be removed. The bolted cover on the top of the Drywell was'left in place at the request of Burns & Roe, Inc.  ;

l l

}

w

C111CAGO DnIDGE & InON COMPANY TABLE OF CONTEh7S

. Page No.

9 INTRODUCT]ON . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.. . . 1 qt

PROCEDURE Get aral . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . .2 .

Pre!.iminary . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .'. 3 .

Ovcuload Tests . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . 4 6

Ler : ace Rate Tests . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .

MEASUREMEN ' 0F LEAKAGE BY INNER CHAMEER MET 110D . . . . . . . . 7 FIG. A. - 7VEluMAD TEST OF DRYWELL ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

. FIG . B. - LEAIMGE RATE TEST OF DRYWELL . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FIG. C. - OVERLOAD TEST OF SUPPRESSION CllAMBER . . . . . . . . 10 FIG D. - LEAKAGE RATE TEST OF' SUPPRESSION CIIAMBER . . . . . . 11 FIG . E. - WET LEAKAGE RATE TEST OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER . . . . 12 RESULTS OF INSPECTIONS AND TESTS Pre 1.iminary Checks . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

. Ovc load Tests and Soapsuds Inspections . . . . . . . . 13 I Lea!: age Rate Test of Drywell(Dry) . . . . .. . . . . . 14

.' Lea: age Rate Test of Suppression Chamber (Dry) . . . . 16 l I

Leal: age Rate Test of Suppression Chamber (Wet) . . . . 17

]

APPENDIX CHECK OF REFERENCE SYSTEM (DRYWELL) . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .A

- CllECK OF Hi'FERE JCE SYSTEM (SUPP. CllAMBER - DRY) . . . . . . . . B' CHECK OF R FERE-4CE SYSTEN (SUPP. CllAMBER - WET) . . . . . . . .C OVERLOAD T' ST CilART (DRYWELL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D OVERLOAD T UT CllART (SUPP. CHAMBER - DRYN . . . . .......E OVERLOAD T8:ST CilART (SUPP CllAMBER - WET) . . . . . . . . . . .F n LdAKACE RFE TE!;T DATA .-(ORYWELL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G LEAKAGE RN E TE:IT DATA (S11PP. Cl! AMBER - 11RY) . . . . . . . . . . 11 LEAKAGE RATE TEST DATA (SUPP. CllAMBER - WET) . . . . . . . . . .I TEST PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..J i

"l ,

p D

- - . a. .

90000263

4 cmcaco anzoor & Inox co.uwxy s

ai=in 13.-

PROCEDURE .

.Generai The procedure for the overload tests fulfilled the require-ments of Section VIII of the ASME Code and Code Case 1272 N-5.

The Drywell was pneumatically tested to a 115 per cent overload.

The Suppression Chamber was also pressurized with air to a ll5 per cent overload in two separate tests, first, with the vessel' empty and second, with.the vessel almost half-filled with water (91,000 cubic feet).

The method used for the leakage rate tests consisted, basically, of comparing the pressure in the Containment Vessel with an air-

. tight' inner chamber which is an integral part of a Reference System. The location of the inner chamber inside of the Contain-ment Vessel and approximately at the center of the air mass en-abled the average temperature of the air in both inner and outer vessels to be reasonably close during the daylight hours and practi-cally equal during the late night hours. Data obtained from prev-om ious ~ test have shown, during.the midnight-to-dawn periods of normal

.( atmospheric conditions, that the air temperature becomes relatively uniform throughout the Containment Vessel and that the temperature at the geometric center represents the average air temperature throughout the vessel.

With negligible difference in average. air temperature between the inner chamber and the Containment Vessel, the possibility of a pressure differential being caused by temperature can be eliminated.

With t he complete Reference System proved to be tight by thorough inspection methods, any relative decrease in Containment Vessel pressure under this temperature condition must be considered to be external leakage . By measuring the difference in pressure between the two air volumes with a water manometer, a high degree of sensi-tivity to this pressure differential can be accomplished.

Page 7 describes the. relationship of the

. differential pressure measurements to the per cent leakage. The leakage test of the Drywel l was conducted with the vessel in the " dry" condition, widi no free water present. The leakage tests of the Suppression Chamber were Jirst conducted with the vessel in the " dry" condition and later with the vessel in In the the

""wet " condition wet" test of with the the vessel Suppression about Chamber, half f n11 of water.

measurements of vapor pressures and temperatures were made and were included in the calculation of leakage.

d'". The s t ops of the preliminary test s , t-he overload tests, and the i leakage rate tests are given in the Test Procedure in Appendix J.

f

  • 90000264

.. . L L

C3nCAGo DnIDGI: & InoN CO.VPANY

=

Preliminarv Chechs.

Before the averload and leakage rate tests c. Oyctuc Creek, preliW nary testing was perfortned in the shop and _.u..ld. All shop-u 1de;J tuauholes and nozzles vert magnaflu::ed uiLor shop stress reliuf. The personnel air los k uas chop assuni>1ed and tested for :tructural adequacy. A t.ghtuess check of the locks uas pe; form d in the shop and includid gasket seals, equal uing valves chait penetrations and noazl,s. The panel Luarus l'or the lie uren e Sy;tems were shop teste d with freon at approximately 71.3 p.;ig.

At the 9yst.r Creek site, each Reference System wou caeched for tightu c, tfter installation, by pressurizing uith :_ eon to about ,.'. 3 ,2cig r.nd using a halide leak det.ector. This was follow.d by a hoJding period with nitrogen at about 71.3 psig when p.essu_es and temperatures were recorded.

The ho; ding period for the Drywell system wac iniciaced on Sept. 29, 1965. Beea me minute leakage was indical.ed by. the huiaing period, a second lte erence System was installed itmnedlately adjacent to the firs t cystei. and the holding period continued with freon. A study of the pres ture-temperature data during the holding priod indicated m that tue preocure in the systems followed the vapuc p..escure of the

.( freon for the measured temperature. The conclusion was that an un-stable cond .tiun existed with probable vaporization and coudensation of the freon vapor.

The syr::ema vere then purged of freon and preucurized again uith nitroge i fo. a holding period. The su> sequent data unowed the de-sired i ess:>re-temperature relationship follouing the gau law, uhich i .c the bouis for comparison du -ing the holdini, peciod. Tlie data f2 na the #1 system was not entirely satisfacto.cj and as a con-sequeneu, this system was not used for any further iuakage rate t e s tin;.. The #2 system was held from Oct. 16 through Nov. 10, 1965, when ai . wau pumped into the Drywell for the overluad test. ,

1 The ho] ding period for the Suppression Chamber " dry" uystem was '

initiated on Jan. 4, 1966 and extended into Jan. 7, unen the over-load tent van started. The holding period for the Suppression Chamber " wet" test was from Jan. '; , into Feb. 25, 1906.

The two gaskets of the bolted openi.ng,n were checked by preusur-Izing the space between gankets and inspecting both gaskets for possib]" le a ka ge . The tightness of the lock was checked in the I field by a soap film. l l

1 g;, 'D D e v 90000265 I l

. anw @ .* @ - - # l 1

l

" i l

C1MCAGO DRIDoC & IRON Co.%8PANY 4-k Overload Tcsts After the scccessful checking of the d2 Reference Uystem in the Drywell, the vessel was closed for the overloaa teuc. No unter uns introduced into the Differential Manometer until the start of the icakcce rute test. Figure A i Llustrates the piping lay-The DryweL1 uns pumped co 5 psig on

.out for the overload test.

Nov. 10 and held over night. On 11ov . 11 the vessel vac inspected with senpsueu. Minor gasket leakage was found at tite A-45 fitting and the bottom manhole. 22 leaks were found in the ceuporary welds on the Jouncumer caps. The pressure was relecued and the leakage elimiurted. On Nov. 12 the pressure uas raised aguiu to 5 psig.

Soapsuca incpection found 11 more leaks at douncomers uhich were repairtu after tha pressure was released.

Startin3 at 5 P.M. on Nov. 12, the pressure uau app icd in in- ,

crement; until the test pressure of 71.3 psig was recched at 5:50 A.M. or Nov. 13. The recording chart slipped on the uvindle'and indicated, erroneously, that the test pressure was reached at .

2:35 A.A.

After -) minutes, the Drywell pressure was reduced to 66 psig. The lock w a then pressurized to 71.3 psj g and held there for 10 minute:. The lock pressure was then reduced to 60 pulg and both

- the lo :k and Drywell were then brought to the desiga pressure of

( 62 psi,;. The soap suas inspection was made at 8 A.M. on November 14 at v2 psig.

The lefcage rate of the Drywell was conducted during Nov. 14 and

15. N> further testing occurred until the Suppreculon Chauber was comp]e 2d, 0:: cept for i:he localized pressure in a box welded to the in :ide of the Drywell over X-13A . pipe which was a check of the repair:d pipe weld.

After the successful checking of the Reference System in the " dry" Supprension Chamber, both the Dryuell and the Suppreusion Chamber were elosed for the overload test. No water was present in either vessel. Air was simultaneously introduced into botn vessels at 10:15 ...M. Jan. 8, 1966. The Drywell was pressuriced at the same time to avoid an external pressure on the veut pipeu and beader in-side of the Suppression Chamber. Figure C 111ustrates the piping layout for the overload test.

To soap test the expansion joint welds on the veut lines the pro-tectiv" steel coverings were removed; during this operation the laut insta) led expansion joi.nt was found to be distorted. The joint was judged adequate for the test, however, periodic checks were made during the pressurization and after the overload test.

,=+

  • 90000266

]ggg g a

I m Overicad Teat 1 (continued)

\.h.& i The soar film inspection at 5 psig was conducted on Jun. 8 and ther. the pressure was increased in intervals to the test cressure of 40.25 psig, which was reached at 11:30 P.H. After k hour holding time, the pressure was reduced to the design pressure of 'fi psig for the final soapnuds inspection and " dry" leakage rate test. The " dry" leakage rate tesr was completed by 10 A.M. of Jan. 10 and the pressure was released from both vessels.

Subsequent te the testing discussed above the distorted expan-sion joint was-replaced. After the ne7 expansiun joint was installed, the Suppression Chamber uas partially filled with water (91,000 cubic feet) for a test o' both Drywell and Suppres-sion Chamber. The lower part of the Sappression Chamber, below the water level, was inspected for tigitness.

The Drywell was pumped up to 5 psig by 3 P.M. on Feb. 25 and the rewelded parts of the new expansion ju:.nt, and the veut pipe, were checked 7ith a soap solution. The pre;sure was increased to the test pressure of 71.3 psig at 4:55 A.M. on Feb. 26 and held for

- 10 minutes to the satisfaction of the ,lartford inspector, Burns &

Roe, General Electric, and the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company.

-a= The prescure was reduced to 62.psig an1 the rewelded parts of the w- new expension joint, ar.d the vent 1.ipe , were again checked with a soap tolution. The Drywell pressure was then lowered to 45 psig.

The manlole on the Suppression Chamber was closed and the pressure increast I to 5 psig, starting at 7 A.M. February 26. The rewelded parts oJ the expansion joint and all cannections that had been opened : 1.n c e the " dry" test (Jan., 196'i,) of the Suppression Chamber, were cht ked with a soap solution. Tlu Suppression Chamber was ,

then punped up to the test pressure of 40.25 psig at 11:15 A.M. on Feb. 26 .ind held for 30 minutes to the satisfaction of the llartford inspector, Burns & Roc, General Electric, Jersey Central Power &

Light, and Chicago Bridge & Iron Company.

The prennure in the Suppression Chamber was lowered to 35 psig on Feb. 26 Cor Ihe hulding period of the Leakage test. The leakage test was completed by 8 A.M. on February 28 and the air pressure re-leased from both vessels.

90000267 o,_ **gmN g g-

'5 78 l

l

\

l

... Lechace Rcre Tests Prior te the start of the leakage rate test of the Drywell, the blot.-off valve at the bottom of the vessel was upened for the purpose of draining off the condensate that might have accumulated during the pressurization. No condensate' was blown off.

At 12:45 P.M. on Nov. 13, oil with a specific gravity of 1.0 was intr)duced into the Differential Munometer of the Reference Sys tem o ,? the Drywell. Additional air was withdrawn from the vessel in order to establish a differential on the manometer.

Fig. B. illustrates the equipment layout for the Drywell.

The preroure and temperature readings were recorded hourly from 1 l'.M. on Nov. 13 until 11 A.M. on Nov. 15. After a re-view of the leakage rate data and acceptance of the test as successful, the pressure was released from the Dryvell on Nov. 15.

The Reference System was then removed from the Dryuell.

The holding period for " dry" leakage rate test of the Suppression Chamber started at 3 A.M. on Jan. 9, 1966 after oil brd been pre-viously introduced into the manometer and a differential estab-lished. The readings continued until 10 A.M. on Jan. 10 when the air pressure was released. A slightly higher pressure was held in the Drywtil during the test in order h- avoid an external pressure on the vent lines and header. The reference system was removed from the Suppression Chamber. Fig. D. Illustrates the equipment layout f>r the " dry" Suppression Chamber.

Readings for the " wet" leakage rate test of the Suppression Chamber vere initiated at 3 P.M. on Feb. 26 after oil had been previous *y introduced into the manometer and a differential estab-lished. The pressure in the Drywell w.~s maintained at about 35 '

psig during the hoJding period. Fig. I illustrates the equipment layout for the " wet" Suppression Chamber.

Internal fans were used in the Suppresrion Chamber for circulation of the air and water vapor in order to obtain a u.. :ormity in the air-vapo, space. To obtain a dew point temperatun (and water vapor pressure), three dew-cells were located about 90 degrees apart (plan view) in the vapor space of the Suppression Chamber. Six re-sistance bulb:. were used for tempera tures . One bulb was located in the watei and one just above the WULer. Three were adjacent to the deweells and one was located near the top of the vessel. These locations are illustrated on Fig. E.

The " wet" leakage rate test of the Suppression Chamber was termin-ated at 8 A.M. on Feb. 28 after the results were accepted by Burns

& Roe, General Elec tric , and Chicago Bridge & 1ron Company.

gj=:

90000268

& l$jQ

caucac,o Dwaecc 7&g EnoNTsrcWPAxy J.,

.. 4

-7 -

T

. MEAELIREMENT OF LF.AKAGE -

if.h - BY THE INNER CHAMBER METHOD V - Geometric Volume of Containment Vessel p

P = Absolute Pressure of Containment Vessel - -

p _

E.A..= Total Expanded Air Content = V x 14,7 '

Loss = Initial Expanded Air - Final Expanded Air

a Int. P P I

Y* 14.7 - Y

  • Fin14.7

_ Initial P - Final P X 100

_ _ _ . B Per Cent Less = Initial P YX . Int. P (as a positive ' ",

Value) 14.7 - -- -

Containment '

A basic preliminary step is the installation Vessel and thorougn check of an Inner Chamber with connecting tubing and instruments to assure (, '

a that the assembly will be an absolutely tight Inner reference system. Chamber m N.

The Inner Chamber Method eliminates tempera- N s ture measurements from the calculations. At ,

f- periods of relatively uniform temperature

, throughout the Containment Vessel and the Inner y

Chamber, usually midnight to dawn,'. the tempera- y ture will cause negligible differential pressure ~

reading on the Manometer. During the uniform temperature periods, however, a leakage of air g e _ .

from the Vessel will be measured on the Ma6ometer bv a decreace in Vessel pressure as compared with 3 -

l tbe leaktight Inner Chamber. This decrease in 4 Differentiel i pressure between the Initial and Final periods of b Manometer  ;

uniform temperature is Final P - Initial P. i j

Hence, Per Cent Loss * = Final dP - Initialo P Int. P x 100 = a positive value.

l IfdPandParemeasuredininchesofwaterandinchesofmercurb,lue, respectively, and the leakage is to be calculated as a negative Then, Per Cent Loss * = Initial dP - Final dF x 100  !

1 Int. P x 13.6 j 1

  • These equations applicable only when the temperature in the i Containment Vessel and Inner Chamber are approximately equal l and the Initial 6 Final temperatures are qpproximately equal.  ;

"S*,

o 90000269 s jA,1Wn l 3

.=

CtDC ACO tRIDGL 1 IROH COMPANY ~

-D OAK BROOK ENGINEERING Z .' ' )

'E --

. .h) .  % Q ,> J z

IfN ~ \ O [,' .

D . ( i,

  • V N

~

C) I r:::::. - a 'd c, y . s , Y) 8

E} '-

(:

~

0 1A l

( l  ;

k k .O ,

P Q R

'H tu %  %. b 5':D

't u .

O t) i UJ WI Uj .S '1 % ' i  ; .sa i l\): Qi h l

).

g t  ;

e Ross I w 9 q s

x y a t s i-Pc b<j .u i Al o:y Oi L. ' ]

9 h-

.* .O- it l

't u.al a; b ,.

kg g q.u

\, .

U 4 l /

~k( \tj M M; s)L

  • toy  % . 14 y O!
0) !

i

'k!i%

Q a ql -

l-q Q!O t k W1 - l x- O!

an OI I%

g .~

.< i- x .s n  : .t o t-y .%

l jNl at

' -l k!

/

L

.M i

l. i

[

Q!

% W!  !,

h-

  • g

'N ,

k.(2 l  :::' N -

b sJi s tx E q) 7 i

e%N 5 0 G' 1-Q

'N 7

N b \-

D- Oc < gd '

w O .

't k tu LL S U

q> c)  %

s' .

ec b

y,y N

N, '\ ' ' $ o

': uN y I]n@

s-,

p ' ..,1,

,/ - la . . : 1 Q

I " b l * * ' ---- ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ' ' ~ ' ' - ~ ' ' * - ~ C a i . -- Da'e -- In r ---- 51.e o f _._

P"

90000270

e n .

.b-l c

$4 A '~ l- l -

~'

iii[

f Tes .'/=cRARy

' HANGEKS t

.3G' U-TuSE AeS T ,

i. ,9 PRES- A ;4 NOMETER ' I R

i a tocire l i / DR Y/A/EZ L O'?7/ <

lO  !

AT R eference S YS rer.1 = 5 M MERC. THE/- MG&M TERS StTS - - A - 2 " 'i *4C' //< CR W* 's! !

. RANGE - 3 0 /~ ro /2O F~ , G - 2 <b x 20'z/ '" /N WNYR'fE E

( T4 YL cR " 2/2cc ) ~

Ic= a e l C-2"* 20 z /u n e n c E.z lQ 7~EMPERA TURE - HUM /C/r Y g

G ' C tA t. PRES. GA GE RECCRC ER l S" I

Rii//G E G To /CD M/G

=

b

~

Gh?A CA 7~/CNS '/2 PS/G 'A;' h AC C'Jf./iC Y '/y Ol' / c/o -

. T.

- yA GAGE L tHG g

l

' M / ~ C, " 4 g i M.

pfg (ccg ll \ AEN /2 ' L cct< Ti ------_1_

\

. ., l '

}

L INE g-- it - _ .34 - . - -

k 'g , f l f' Q *: l t ^ ~

C .c. TijeING T< ^'R E"""'?

+'

e g

./C J ,.sj ' imrar ..A : t uie

[i _.C/ ..

' t

/

pf'M -

F -

g-t ~ "

(,._/ . C

  • HF/."'E[R hfA TER -G

@  :~ ro 8 ~ CHAMiiER O s? g55[pzyotg [ '\

O \

O

-s m O offrERENT/AL / '

N

.f g (C- TveE) VENT N /-/A TER J #

l

)

o

{

/.fANCME rER } CHAMBFR '

fl m v ^G . . U PP.

r;-f;l, f. .'

) C ) HEADER h

) f .

{x 5 j v , -.-.....s- m a

.,. x-o

  • r ( r Ol l 1, : = c/f, P,

~~~/ ,'AKA RF f?A TE~ 7ES7~ OF DRYWFU - - - - - -

- .r OAK BROOK EN[hNEERING e Q' ' ar

  • *~ -

CrilC AGO BKlDGE & IRON COMP ANY I w m a

'[ S. ( >O *

< Y N

00 cy ()!

('

3 T (> gW 6 rs[

, t

's

.h ,

I9 R*LT A T

.c;= ROh 3 8 ,M 6 gt e

% '('l g te w as m  %

N,1 .

n w :0 LE ,

si e

D ,j D! I w)Q ,y g~ ,p ,

ps 3 ,

5 h

l e !

m d  : e N

y. n-ne .

,,; O %) a N

'~ ~

a ,f: - -

<s ,, s 4 (

tu.:

s D (y

.3 Il~ N jb N' '

8.l.LuiE/ I

'h

[

$ W%f f p! k i D j, .hl I e -

. . sa- gi; o q

g 2 *

~'

l <!\ s N

.- . sJ - -s x  ! R_ .

/ w ). N ,

' X' hi (

w v .

u: 1 k \ 1' R ,o o .  : g!!

' I .

V)l k,' ' .

y q' Ch b,'

$j Q

Y R \ N d x s, .

\

, \ ,

' / .

(tr .N- t sx

~~

i

'l Q) t ty d: .

h{ ( j 0)V F! 'r n

!s . '.' y C e n t. .-- .

Dsee l a ..,,. In y e _ ef 2=u no ea 5 ,bleee _._ .. ..-

90000272

i@

~

D ^- .

!j!h{!.

l'Ed n x:

C"1 1 .

A '.R- - - -supFL - - - .Y= = . .

L ust .

7; y

,R n '

i 6 D/A L PRES. GAGE o o

' M '. RANGE O 7 o /Go psig S U P P. CHAM. 3A.qC . tug

  • l It

.w G RA CA rtcus '/. psic . $

A2,, g

\ ;5na.) AccupAcy '/y c,=- / f _,,c ,g, 7, m

k eD .

2 ;J .

s-

? * -

p g.

[ Cg

~

. O u- . -

o, I* SUPPRESS /ON- -

0[7/ 5-<

~ .

_:E12 w,r J- . cwtwgEg -

g,3 _

C N l;... p 2~ 2 ABOuY / FGOY

/'/A TER 1.,g~5 yj q K ,

~

u V Eo I

= RESERVC//tg..

% j r.-' %, Dr'-[: % ,O

_ 2 I ' ~ ~ . .-. - 'g O. D. TUB /NG EXTENOING

, F, ;, .

{ C O NTPL.E TE L Y AROUND C / R COIV1FE R ENCE Of

? ,

' ,S U P P. CHAMBER ON 1

&/ FFEREN 7/A L V E /R 7^.' CEN 7^ER L /NC (u-rues) l V/A TER s a

, N -

m 2

m MA //C /4E TE*R TEMPER A TURE - m o O HUMi& / T Y RECCRDER A

! o >

  • . t-a '

m o

. ~ . 5

- ~ -

.g U .m

. m n

z i

F a O

~ s.

s m

%.a ? F/.G.

, ~.<

-- D.

L. E~A. . K. . A GE RA.7~E' TE3 7

... - . . . . . . - . - - ~ ~ . --.

OF SUP/=. CHAMBBS s' Qe%.

g- --

(f __ ---sililE'S/S TANCE BUL8S I . ;ib z

5 B -/. 7b B-G /NCL . AIR SUPPLY L thME

\

CONNEC TED Yo

{ rE M P. RECORDER SUPP. CHAM. GAGE _ l./NE n-9@  % -

iE '

W ._

\ O R 'A 2"

~ '

.. DEPVCE'L LS D -l Yo \h t2 '

8

5'2J D -3 /NCL. CCf/NECTE N

, .. . .E.

7~O - HUM /D/ 7 y y% _. ,'

r, a _ _ _ ,- y g .y '

VEN7 P/ PES E RE'CORDE*R % \

D-l '

% & G in. O/AL %

D-2 '.** l fB-l B-2 ,

s' O '

g PRES. GAGE / " Cg '

  • n

\)~13 ~;j' ysAcca ,

R' / ~ ' .

ysa o ro loa m .

,_ , / SUPPRESS /ON 4 9 GRAD.= '/s. PS/G .

, CHAMBER 5 ACCUR & OF / p s' '

- ,p' -.

%"g ' B," B-S[ .

%' " 3 rr F?l . . .

2 ,

. WATER n; '

NA TER ) . .. . [ . . .

Bb

. RESER VotR  ! S'JRFACE N&+--hhD

~

j

~

l A You Y p- /3

{ .. . 2 NATER SCHEMArtc -

~

. . Nor Tb c> D/FFEREN r/AL . , SCALE g kVAYER (u- rues ) ,

TEMPORARY

.w (m

MANOMETER.

  • g
. HANGERS t A$ NECESSARf f R-/

CCM *kE TEL Y E h*t. O.D. Tll8/NG B-2 D-2 yf PLAN HO R t z.

V/EN 05 of l W_. B-3 D -3 ALSO INTERNAL AIR MOVERS N

g

, f /

K ARouND C/RCUMFERENCE y 'SUPP.

CHAM. ,1 . FOR 3 LOW 8

. J Q, C/R CUL A T' ton f2 14

~ R ~ Z

  • g3- in. 0.D . TUBtMG N ' / B-! B- y B-5 B-G 5

. . i . D-l .

3

!=

k F/G. E. WE7^ L.EAKAGE' RA TE 7~ES7~ OF SUPR CHAM 8

..c . . .

7. i. . .;. ,.=

.y . .

'_-- i . m.3 . . . .

L - _i .- - ---- =v LM4-a- C .-i - > i a - s LA e-6hi

  • r- -

CI11CAGO DRIDGE & IRoS CO.%iPANY

+.

RESULTS OF INSPECTIONS AND TESTS Preliminary Checks

. The shop and field magnafluxing of the manholes and nozzles did not find any indication of crac'ks or defects. The shop testing of the locks indicated adequate strength and tightne.ss.

The tightness tests of the locks in the field were satisfactory.

No leaks were found in pressurizing the two gaskets of the bolted openings.

The pressure-temperature data for the holding tests of the three Reference Systems is tabulated in Appendices A, B, and C. Com-parisons of the measured pressures, compensated for temperature changes, showed a consistency that indicated a high degree of tightness.

The difficulties with the freon holding period of the Reference Systems for the Drywell have been described earlier in this re-port. The use of nitrogen eliminated the difficulty and enabled a check for tightness by comparison of pressure-temperature data over a holding period. The data in Appendix A does include only

- the holding period with nitrogen. Since the #1 Reference System i in the Drywell was not used, the data has not been included.

Overload Tests and Soapsuds Inspections The minor leakage found during the 5 psig inspection of the Drywell was eliminated by replacing the gasket on the bottom man-hole connection, by tightening the bolts on the X-45 flange, and by rewelding on the temporary welds of the downcomer caps.

Starting with the personnel lock at 62 psig after the overload test of the Drywell, the pressure was reduced to atmosphere, per-mitting opening of the exterior door, in 65 seconds.

The soapsuds inspection,of the Drywell at 62 psig found the follow-ing: .

1. Three minor leaks in temproary welds on downcomer caps.
2. One leak on cap on X-20A connection.
3. Sligh t leakap,e a t the tapped hole provided for testing t.he gaskets of the top head.

/? 4. One of the X-13A pipe connections showed leakage in

":"' the pipe aLLachment weld to the shell plate. Three C3 211 90000275

3

' CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY ,

- ; 14 > . , g sia. .

~

. Overload' Tests and Soansuds Inspections (cont'd.) i s

. . small lesks.were.noted. These leaks were repaired 4 after-completion ofLthe leakage rate test and cere 'l

~

checked by pressurizing a-box, welded to the shell (

plate, over.the connection. 3

'k Infthe overload' tests of both the Drywell and the Suppression Lg Chamber, the vesselsfproved to be adequate for the test pres- 'g sure. .

'The final soap film inspections of the Suppression Chamber.after the " dry" test found no-leakage.

L

~

No leakage or distortion was noted in the. Suppression Chamber L under the water load. The final-soa i Suppression Chamber after the " wet" test.found psuds. inspection of thein no. leakage  ;

any welds or in the replaced expansion joint, including the rewelded parts. A slight leak was found in the 1/8" test hole i of the south manhole of Suppression Chamber, indicating leak-  !

age in part of the inner gasket. A pipe plug.in'the test hole ,

,. stopped the leakage.. After removal of the air. supply piping, j a slight leakage was noted at the air supply valve but a ' blind j flange eliminated the leakage, j 4.- >

1 Leakage Rate Test of Drywell (Dry) l

. . l The hourly data recorded during the Nov. 14-15 leakage rate test j of the Drywell (dry) is tabulated in Appendix G . ,

The atmospheric temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit, th'e Drywell pressures in pounds per square inch absolute, and the differen-tial manometer readings in inches of water, are summarized be-low for the comparative hours used for the calculation of leakage:

90000276

.e e y

s wg L]5 1 Le

= . .

i C111CAGO DRID'GE & IRON. COMPANY 15 -' '

f,- ..:..L

=Leakane-Rate i Test of Drvwell'(Drv) '(continued)

,_NOV. 14, 1965 NOV.'15, 1965 -

7 Drywell' Atmos. Drywei

~

~

' Atmos. Diff. Diff. .

Hours Temp. Pres. -Mano. Temo. Pres. Mano.

LMid. 46 75;77. 8.'00- -32 73.86 9;75 :q l A.M. 46. 75.67. 7.90 30 . 73.56 9.70  ;

2 A.M. 49 75.67- 7.93 28. 73.35 9.75 3 A.M. 50 75.77 7.80 27 '73.05 9.75-  ;

-4 A.M. 49- 75.77' 8.00 27 72.85 9.80 f 5 A .M.. 47 75.77 8.50 26 .72.65 9.80 [

9 75 6 A.M. 45 75.57 8.70- 25 72.45 .

1

,' Aver. = 47.4~ 75.71 psia 8.12 27.9 73.11 psia- 9.76 (154.45 in. (149.14 in.

-- Mercury) Mercury) j

(

Using the average midnight-6 A.M. data from the two successive i periods, the calculated per cent leakage (as a negative value) per  !

24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period is as follows: l s

8.12 -

9.76 x 100 = -0.078 Per Cent Loss =

(154.45) (13.61 (Loss) i l

Values of r,imilar magnitude could be calculated by comparing other hours of the midnight-dawn period, but the midnight-6.A.M. interval includes hours of relatively uniform atmospheric temperatures. The calculated leakage is less than the allowable of 0.2 of 1 per cent.

The resultn were considered acceptable by Burns.& Roe, General

. Electric, und. Chicago Bri'dge & Iron Company.

l 90000277- I m

D_ D

- ~ . - $

I

. . . .. . ~ _ __. _

.w ,7

' CIIICAGO BRIDGE D IRON COMPANY  :

j 9

3 E

g.:g .

'" L,eakage Rate Test of Suporession Chamber (Dry)

. 8 The of thehourly data recorded Suppression Chamber during)the Jan. 9-10inleakage (Dry .is tabulated Appendix rateH.-

test: g

)

.During this holding period, the Drywell was pressurized but the '

't two vessels were not interconnected. 1 The atmospheric temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit, the Suppression j}

Chamber pressures in pounds per square inch absolute, and the dif- .;

ferential manometer readings in inches of water, are summarized be- ,

y low for the comparative hours used-for the calculation of leakage:  ;

JAN. 9, 1966 JAN. 10, 1966 Atmos. Cham. Diff. Atmos. Cham. Diff.

Hours Temo. Pres. Mano. Hours .

,T;e me . Pres. Mano. .

3 A.M. .13 49.79 8.25 1 A.M. 18 50.05 .8.85 )

4 A.M. 13 49.71 8.30 2 A.M. 18 49.95 .8.85 l 5 A.M. 13 49.63 8.38 3 A.M. 18 49.95 .8.80 l 1

Aver. = 13 49.71 psia 8.31 Aver. = 18 49.98 psia.8.83 (101.41 in. .

(101.96 in. i' Mercury) (Mercury) i Using the average of the three hours of uniform ambient temperature  ;

during each period, the calculated per cent leakage (as a negative

-value) per 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period is as follows-94 8 31 - 8 83 '

er Cent Loss =

I _ ._

(101.41) (13.6) ._

x 100 = - 0. 0H1 (Loss) l The calculated leakage is*substantially le.ss than the allowable of i 0.2 of 1 per esne. The results were acceptable to Burns & Roe, General Electric, and Chicago Bridge & Iron Company.

l l

90000278  :

'D cn f~D T0) W Y hi

~

gg.,

' 'J i

GLEAAL '-

k

C1bCAGO DRIDGE & IRON CO.%5PANY - ,

$m.

c5s -

-Leakace' Rate' Test'of Suppression Chcmber'(Wet)

The hourly data recorded during'the February 26-28 leakage rate test ~of the Suppression Chamber, containing 91,000 cubic feet' of -

t water,.is tabulated in Appendix I . During this' test, the Drywell was also p"essurized but the two vessels were not interconnected. .

The circulating fans operated continuously during the test-which helped provide a uniformity in the air-vapor space. The air an'd water temperatures indicate that relatively uniform conditions were obtained. The data during the hours of midnight-6 A.M. in suc-cessive periods are compared below.

The atmospheric temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit, the Suppression.

Chamber pressures in pounds.per square inch, and the differential

. manometer readings in inches of water, are summarized below for the-comparative hours:

FEB. 27, 1966 FEB. 28, 1966 Atmos. Cham. Diff. Atmos. Cham. Diff.

,- Hours Temp. Pres. Mano. Temp. Pres. Mano.

- Mid. 33 49.31 5.96 33 49.37 6.78 1 A.M. 33 49.28 6.02 36 49.37 6.82 2 "

28 49.23 6.00 37 49.40 6.82 3

" 28 49.24 5.98 35 49.40 6.89 4 "

28 49.24 5.94 35 49.38 6.87 5

27 49.15 6.00 36 49.38 6.88-6 24 49.16, 6.00 36 49.38 6.90 l

Aver. = 28.7 49.23 5.99 35.4 49.38 6.~85 (100.43 in. (100.74 in.

Mercury) Mercury)

The change in water vapor pressure in the air-vapor space can be calculated from the tempe,rature and dew point measurements. The

-internal air temperatures, the water temperatures, and the dew point temperatures, all in degrees Fahrenheit, are summarized below "

for the midnight-6 A.M. hours.

90000279 D""

@ T m.

.CW G ..  ::3

+

g

- CI[1CAGO BRIDGE &. RON CO.% /ANY -

18~-

=g;n h

Int. Air . Water Dew Int. Air Water Dew

' Hours Temo. .Temo. Point Temp. Temp. Point Mid. 40.0 46.0' 39.7 40.0 45 0. '39.9 1 A.M.' 40.0 46.0 39.4 40.0 45.0~ '39.9 2 39.2 46.0 39.4 40.0 44.5 3 9. 1 .

3 39.0 46.0 39.1 40.0 44.0 39.1 4- 39.0 46.0 38.9 40.0- 44.0 39.4  ;

5 38.0 46.0 38.1 40.0 44,0 39.7 6 38.0 45.0 37.3 40.0 44.0 38.9 l

Aver. 39.0 45.9 .38.8 40.0 44.4 39.4 )

l From the above average. internal air and dew point temperatures, the relative humidity calculates to be about 97 per cent for the two

., nights. The average water vapor pressures corresponding to the dew

. point temperatures are 0.11609 lbs./sq. in., and 0.11885 lbs./sq.

in., respectively.

Using the above average data (without vapor pressure correc. tion) l from the two successive midnight-dawn periods, the preliminary per l cent leakage (as a negative number) per .24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period is as '

follows:

Per Cent Loss =

(100.63) (13.6) 5.99 - (6.85)(09 50 ) "

l

- 0.0619 (Loss)

Considerine,only the chan~ge in water vapor pressure, the apparent per cent loss (as a negative number) is as follows:

Per Cent Loss = -

4 23 (0.11885)('S0 (0.11609) =

+ 0.0051 g;;;;,.

(Gain) -

$3 20 If1 90000280

~

. CII:CAGO' BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY' g y.

'- 19 -

M

[E ' Combining" the abov'e calculate'd values,- the corrected per cent'

'. loss'(as a negative-number) is as follows:

PerfCent? Loss =. -

0.0619 -0'.0051 =: .0.0670; (Corrected)'. (Loss)

The. correc ted per' cent loss of the " wet" test is higher than the calculated loss from.the." dry" test but still only about 1/3 ofthe: allowable leakage of 0.2 of-1 per cent. Probably-both-of the calculated losses would have been closer if'each test had extended for a longer period rather than between two successive nights. The sensitivity of the measurement-is in~-

dicated by the. average differential shown by the manometer of m the Reference System for the.two successive nights-of each test.

I The-differential for-the " dry" test was 0.52 inches of water and for-the " wet" test was 0.86 inches of water.

The.~ calculated-leakage was acceptable to Burns & Roe, General

..- Electric, and the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company.

4. .

e ClllCAGO BRIDGE & 1RON COMPANY RVM/jl 90000281 e

. .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20125B657&oldid=2911754"