Text

Forwards Draft Summary of 850703 Meeting Re Emergency Relief Decision DD-85-10.Offer to Assist in Selecting Conservative Set of Weighting Coefficients to Obtain Conservative Estimate of Facility Leak Rate Test Ack
	ML20138R128
Person / Time
Site:	Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	10/25/1985
From:	Reytblatt Z; ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CHICAGO, IL
To:	Maura F; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20138R122	List: ML20138R120; ML20138R123; ML20138R125; ML20138R128;
References
	2.206, DD-85-10, NUDOCS 8512300418
	Download: ML20138R128 (69)
	v • d • e

. . ...

i ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Lewis College of Science and Letters Department of Mathematics October 25, 1985 Mr. F. Maura NRC, Region III 799' Roosevelt Rd.(Bldg. 4)

Glen Ellyn, Illinois

Dear Fred:

i I am enclosing a Draft Summary of the meeting and I invite your comments in case I overlooked something or misinterpreted.

I confirm my offer to assist you in selecting the conservative set of weighting coefficients to obtain a conservative estimate of the Zion, 1984 leak rate test.

I can be reached at 312-567-5343.

Thank you very much, again, for hosting and participating in the meeting where your valuable contribution is appreciated.

Sincerely,

[

f Z. Reytblat g 5

h$k D P

llT Center Chicago, Illinois 60616 (312) 567 3162 L

. m 9

Draft RES0LUTION The NRC Staff Meeting with Z. Reytblatt to discuss the emergency relief Decision D0-85 10 of July 3, 1985 (" Decision") has unanimousgly determined that the Decision (1) neither contains calculations, derivations and/or proofs nor indicates references in lieu of those; (2) does not address some of the Petitioner'.s important statements l; (3) contains deceptive statements 2 ,

The Meeting unanimously deceided that the Director's Decision must be amended in view of the following facts:

1. The method of air mass calculations as practiced presently may induce errors exceeding the allowable errors. Recommendation: immediate return to the conventional physics equation.

2. Some of the Zion I weight coefficients are incorrect. Out of 6 "verifi-cation" tests conducted at Zion in 3 years, three failed, two were "suc-cessful" as a part of fraudulent tests ("irrigatio# and " doubling of weight coefficients"), and one was performed in lieu of analyzing the wrong test assumptions. Recommendation: Find the conservative estimate of the Zion I leak rate using conservative assumptions on the weight coefficients; if the leak rate conservative estimate exceeds the allowable leak rate, make repair of leaking paths and retest the containment.

3. The method of obtaining the weight coefficients as practiced presently may induce errors exceeding the allowable errors. Recommendation:

Immediately terminate applir.ation and/or development of new weighting coefficients using unscientific methods.

4. The present " verification" tests may not detect that the test assumptions are wrong. Recommendation: Immediately terminate all the " verification" tests until a reliable technique is introduced.

I For example, the claim that the Zion weighting coefficients are not correct is not addressed; the claim that the Director's Decision of March 16, 1984 is based on fal's statements, fp not addressed; that the same Decision d uses bat numet tes.1 exadies and perjurous (in nature)" Summary", is not addresses 2

For example, the Decision contains a deceptive conclusion that the Volumetrics computer program does not contain a fraudulent option (s).

on the basis that a particular test calculations were correct (obviously, the suspected fraudulent option might not have been called for execution during a particular job).

9 e

4

. m.

5. The Commonwealth Edison computer program contains a fraudulent option for erasing the data and doubling of weight coefficients so that these coefficients may exceed the limit of 0.1 specified in Appendix J to 10 CFR via ANS N45. -72. Similar computer programs (Volumetrics, as an example) are used all over the United States. Recommendation: Immediately suspend the use of suspected software, debug and revalidate. Make avai-lable the listing and validation acts for all the software used for the leak. rate testing.

6. The Directori s Decision of March 16, 1984 on LaSalle contains false statements. Recomrdendation: Make this Decision null and void.

In addition to Dr. Reytblatt's original requests and appeals, the Meeting has considered the stabilization notion. The Meeting unanimously decided that neither the ANS version nor Mr. Huang's version have any scientific merit but may ARP(as the presented examples clearly indicate) either 4@t harmless or mistakenly qualify a good containment as a bad containment or mistakenly qualify a leaking containment as a good one. The meeting, similarly, established that no scientific merits have been found in such means of affecting the environment as irrigating, ventilating, equalizing, etc., whereas on numerous occasions these means were used for cheating.

Recommendation: Immediately terminate equilizing-stabilizing-irrigating-ventilating.

The meeting established that the" diurnal effect" and short duration tests as- the Palo Verde Fall 1982 tests clearly indicate

, j can be used for cheating. Recommendation: Immediately revoke all the exemptions for the short duration tests. No new exemptions shall be granted.

The meeting supports NRC attempts to terminate the reduced pressure tests.

Recommendation: Immediately terminate the reduced pressure testing.

The meeting urges the NRC to comply with 10 CFR and to prepare the full and open to the public response of the present faulty testing practicies to the criticism and the faulty ANSI /ANS standard which was submitted to the NRC by Mr. Z. Reytblatt in his " Report".

4 0

. .. . -.. . - . = . - - . ~ u. ~::n

SUMMARY

l of the meeting of NRC staff with Mr. Z. Reytblatt on October 17, 1985

Background

In January-March,1985, Mr. Z. Reytblatt filed an Emergency Relief Petitior with NRC charging that (1) the mass equation presently used by the industry for leak rate rate calculations is not correct and may induce unacceptable errors; (2) the Zion weighting coefficients are not correct which might have induced unacceptable errors; (3) the Zion computer program either does not add correctly or contains a fraudulent option for doubling of the weight coefficients which m'ay induce unacceptible errors; (4) the " verification" test is meaningless and may" confirm" as acceptable an abnormally high leak rate; (5) there were false statements directly concerning the Petitioner in the Director's Decision of March 16, 1984.

Dr. Raytblatt substantiated his charges by calculations, derivations and proofs and requested the following NRC actions:

(1) immediate return to the conventional physics method for the air mass calculations; (2) determining the conservative estimate of the Zion leak rate, and terminating the use of weight coefficients unless derived scientifica-lly.;

(3) debugging and revalidating the fraudulent Comed sof tware and other suspected software (Volumetrics);

(4) terminating the present meaningless " verification" and introducing a scientifically proven verification test; (5) making the Director's Decision of March 16, 1984 null and void as based on false statements.

The Petition was denied by the Director's Decision of July 3, 1985. The Decision did not contain any calculations, derivations, and/or proofs and it did not address several Petitioner's charges.

The Petitioner, in accordance with 2.202 and 2.206, 10 CFR, complained, and requested that the Director's Decision be not endorsed and that a public hearing with the suspected violator, Commonwealth Edison, be held.

The Meeting with the'NRC Staff was held on October 17, 1985, in lieu of the meeting with CECO with the Petitioner's consent. It is deemed to be justified by the Petitioner's claim that NRC shears resposibility for the deficient testing.

1-

' - N "'

_ ... _ 7 Attendance & Proceedings' l The meeting Chairman was Mr. R. Bernero.Six NRC Staff members and numerous l CECO Staff, several sci.entists and the general public attended the meeting. It was shorthanded and tape-recorded. The present " Summary" is based on tape records and slide presentations.

Agenda & Format The Petition, the Director's Decision and related problems were on agenda.

The proposed format called for slide presentations of Messrs. Shapaker.

Huang, and Maura of NRC with the subsequent Petitioner's discussion and a general discussion. Slides of Messrs. Shapaker and Huang were made available prior to the meeting. Slides of Mr. Maura's presentation were not made available. Petitioner's slides were made available after the presentation.

The proposed fomat was strongly objected by the Petitioner on the ground that Mr. Shapaker's presentation was to describe the Petitioner's requests which he could do himself, without malicious distortions peculiar to Mr. Shapaker who was a preparer of the Director"s Decision of March 16, 1984, containing false and libelious statements. The Petitioner's objections have not been honored by Chairman. The proposed format was not fully implemented: there was no CECO presentation and the general discussion was reduced due to the time limitations.

Presentations

1. Mr. Shapaker's presentation contained neither calculations nor proofs.

His presentation was ignored by all the next speakers and was irrelevant to the discussion. For his slides (which he literally read) with the Petitioner's comments see Exh. A.

2. Mr. Huano addressed claims 1 and 4 of the Petition. He explained that he was an engineer and as such was concerned with " practicability", not with the correctness of calculations. Mr. Huang presented:

a) A " derivation" of the wrong air mass equation used by the industry.

, Unfortunately, the very first line of his " proof" contained a rude mistake which was pointed out to him by Prof. A. Sclar of IIT; b) A numerical example to prove that the error due to the, wrong equation is always small (which can not.be proven by an example). However, the example was either fraudulent or deceptive - only 5 readings were presented instead of 25 (fraud) or, possibly, the averages were used i

for deception instead of the data. It should be noted that examples when the wrong equation induces only a small error are well known and the examples where unacceptable errors have been induced,'are equally well known; c) A numerical example purportedly proving that the weight coefficients do not significantly affect the calculated leak rate. It should be noted that examples where only a small error occurrs are well known and examples where errors are unacceptable are known as well. Even if l correct the example would prove nothing. However, the example was l

fraudulent - changes in we'ighting coefficients are made by subvolumes!

, - ~ ... w a. - .= .- - . . n=~ . - - - = w =:w s'==

i e

, d) A claim that he 'inven'ted a stabilization which would diminish the j

importance of of weight coefficients. Mr. Huang neither defined his l method nor proved his asse.rtion. However, if his method is described in positions 19-20 on the list presented to the ACRS on June 5, 1985 '

L then Huang's stabilization is simply means to justify fraudulent l " erasing" of unwanted data, the technique which was used during the -

1 fraudulent Zion tests; '

4 i e) A claim that the " verification" test is meaningfull because the contain-

.l ment air is required to bleed through the flowmeter during depressuri-4- zation.'However, this Huang's statement turned out to be as false as 1 all his previous claims - a " verification" test may be as short as 45 j minutes! Legally, containments " bleed" only about 1/100,000 of the amount that Huang claims is needed for a meaningful verification.

3. Mr. Maura addressed the first Petitioner's concern. He presented:

1 a) A parametric study purportedly proving that the LaSalle test results are reliable. The leak rate due to the change in weighting coefficients

! is still within the legal limits although the error is about 40% excee-4

? ding the legal limit of 25%. No independent verification of his state-ment is possible because the data from the test have*been illegally j

withheld by the NRC for the last 2 years. Mr. Maura confessed, that the data he used were manipulated by the fraudulent LaSalle program, not j the original data (one data set was " erased" and substituted by a dif- -

j ferent data set);

j b) A parametric study purprtedly proving that the 1983 fraudulent Zion i test results are reliable. No verification to this statement is possible

! because the computer program has been illegally withheld by the NRC despite F0IA requests. There is a substantial evidence'that the computer i <

nrogram used by Mr. Maura contains fraudulent options. There is also

! Mr. Maura's confession that he used altered data (about 25% of the data

was " erased" or doubled).

l Mr. Maura supported the PetitionRon the issue of the wrong equation.

When invited to address the issue of the wrong Zion weighting coefficients, l Mr. Maura said that he believed they were correct..however he could present

, no proof to this nor a reference to any 'such proof being in existence.

1

' 4. The Petitioner claimed that Mr. Shapaker had distorted Petitioner's

! requests and had not addressed some of those in his presentation, for l' ,

example, the issues of the fraudulent options in C0mEd computer programs i

and the wrong Zion weight coefficients. Shapaker provided no technical 4

discussion and substituted the proof of his statements by the opinions j of NRC. Staff. For these reasons the Petitioner feels that Shapaker's

" presentation" should be disregarded and-the Petitioner's complaints

and their treatment in Director's Decision of July 3, 1985must-be i presented. Mr. Reytblatt claimed that in his Petition (s) and Director's Decision thereto,the following issues, complaints, requests and replies had been raised and-considered. ,

a) The wrong gas equation in use. The relief measure was suggested in i form of an immediate return to the conventional physics equation t

~

known for centuries. The Decision provided no technical response to

, this complaint;

! 'o) The we'ight coefficients at Zion are wrong. The Petition sought deter-3-

eswyev.1,9-,,p9-.ysp---%.pn%=9-w-,gg.Mqw-e9.p.,.g%&q.9-y.e.m*.Hym.i--.my-pgn,,e.mumvem wwn9ww--Wwer'- sur pgf.q-iugmi--e3*ep p--y 8

-w*-my *rr--+ya.- m-*-g w w--y

~

! mination of conservative estimates of Zion leak rate. The Decision did not address the issue.' Surprisingly, Mr. Maura did not address the issue.

c) Regulatory documents do not provide any guidance on determining of the weight coefficients nor present; practices give any assurance that these ,

are determined correctly. Given. extreme importance of the weight coef-f ficients,.the relief measure suggested by the Petition was an immediatE

termination of testing with scientifically inconsistent weight coeffi-i cients until such coefficients can be substantiated. The Decision does ,

!, not address the technical issue.

~

d) The predent " verification" tests'are meaningless. As a relief measure, an immediate termination of the practice was sought. The Decision gave no technical response to this.

4 e) The Comed computer programs and other computer programs contain options for fraudulent erasing of the data and doubling of weight coefficients. .

The Petition sought an immediate suspension of all suspected computer programs, their debugging and revalidation. The Decision provided a deceptive response.

f) The Director's Decision of March 16, 1984 on LaSalle was based on false

-statements. As a relief measure, the Petitioner requested that this i

Decision be made null and void. The Decision of July 3, 1985 does not

address the issue.

The Petitioner asks ^h permission to' discuss the issues not covered in his Petition, based on NRC presentation. The permission is granted.to discuss:

g) " stabilizing-equalizing-ventilating-irrigating";

h) " diurnal" effect and short duration tests;

1) reduced pressure tests; '

s . , t j) response to Petitioners Report -submitted 3 years ago which has not

[. been answered by the NRC.

i

The Petitioner proceeds with the discussion after a remark that all the

material to be prsented had already been presented to NRC and had not been i responded.

J

! a) The Petitioner explains that the - first line of Huang's " derivation" of

{ the wrong equation is erroneus because it does.not apply to non-uniform gas state parameters.such as pressure and temperature. The correct l conventional physics equation, known for 200 years ~, is presented. Error analysis of the equation used presently for leak rate calculations is

demonstrated. It shows that any value of the leak -rate can be" determine FROM ANY SET OF THE DATA. This is substantiated by work examples in the Petitioner's Report, by actual test (" negative leak rates"), by an i

example presented by Mr. Maura where leak rate changed from .30% to .42 i

(i.e. by 40%, and only 25% error is allowed!). The. fact that-the.presen equation is wrong has been officially recognized in NUREG-3549. An exampijlonP.48basedontheCooperPlanttestsh,owsthataleak5 time larger'than Zion allowable leak may have been undetected because of the 4-

- , , . - - - - - . --. . . - - - ,2L---- - . - - _ - . .

~

. _ _ l ._ _ . i . _ .. _ __ _. l l ' ~ ' ~ T T ._- --

1 1.

effect,of the wrong equa' tion. ,

At this point Mr. Huang questioned these calculations. They are repeated and proved the Petitioner's point. Mr. Huang explained that he heard somebody telling him taat the ORNL showed the error to be small.

l The Petitioner summarizes the discussfos showing when the wrong equation l

. may be accepted (such cases are few). He shows that Huang's approach to !

l to the problem was wrong because only the conservative estimate method ,

is accepted in nuclear safety. Huang's numerical examples are shown to be

either fraudulent or deceptive. He used only 5 numbers instead of 251 b) The Petitioner claims that the Zion weight coeffi,gigggs gare wrong which can be established by observation. Several m... ... ids whose location lacks any symmetry are assigned the same coefficients. This would be similar to assigning the same area to various European countrie

whereas a quick look at the map reveals that England is larger than i Luxembourg. The Petitioner invites a demonstration that the Zion coef-i ficients make any sense. No such demonstration is presented. The Peti-l tioner claims that the NRC Region III failed to reexamine these coef-i . ficients during the fraudulent 1981 Zion test when two " verification" l tests failed and the third succeeded only after irrigation. Mr. Maura denies that the irrigation-took place during the fraudulent test, however, he failed to provide an explanation of what had happen and why after repeated failures the test "came'out". He also provided no '

explanation why basic test assumptions had not been reviewed after multiple failure of verification tests.

The Petitioner-invites Mr. Maura to obtain a conservative estimate of the Zion leak rate using the same fraudulent computer program that was used during the fraudulent 1983 Zion test. The Petitioner has been denied of the listing of this program which he requested under the FOIA.i 4

Mr. Felton lied stating that NRC did not possess it, as is evident from ,

Mr. Maura examples! The Petitioner requests that Mr. Bernero use his position and provide the listing of the fraudulent program. The Peti- ,

tioner requested that the choice of the weight coefficients for obtai-ning a conservative estimate be agreed upon with the Petitioner since he had done some analyses and had established"a conservative leak rate in excess of the legal limit.

c) To show what consequences may follow from the wrong weight coeffici'nts. e 4

the Petitioner examines a worked example based on the typical LaSalle data. The real data from LaSalle test are illegally withheld despite an F0IA request filed over two years ago. Mr. Felton-lied that the data

-in question were not in NRC possession. However, Mr. Maura's examples

use these data. The. Petitioner requests that Mr. Bernero use his positic' and provide the data for public inspection. Messrs. Maura and Huang inquire about the method by which the Petitioner obtained the weight ;

coefficients he claims are more correct. The Petitioner does not providi l a full explanation. He claims that his computer program was based on i

mathematical algorithms common in quadrature theory. The verisimilitude of.thus derived coefficients is not questioned. Mr. Reyes questions

!. the magnitude of the temperature change at different locations. A spot.

l check confirms that these magnitudes are consistent with the data that i

Mr. Reyes himself had presented on January 5, 1984. The contribution to'the leak rate absolute error from only one wrong weight coefficient was consistent with Mr. Maura's example and was 0.14%/ day (24hr. test).

If the fraudulent program option were executed or Huang's stabilization 5..- !

~JJ ~T~LEL- X

~

_ _. ] l l ' T .: J = T -

then even larger leak rates would have been underestimated (with the error two magnitudes higer than acceptable). ,

I d) The Petitioner claims that in its present form the " verification" test is meaningless. It is impossible to find two unknowns from one

, equation. The relationship which allegedly " verifies" the test i

assumptions contains two unkhowns' to be verified - the leak rate, and a leak rate after a known leakrate has been added. The Petitioner admits that the situattion would be different with the " bleeding"

technique. He invi.tes Mr. Huang to develope this technique. He insists that the present " verification" be terminated immediately until Huang's technique or some other methods are developed.

e) The Petitioner confirms that the fraudulent LaSalle and Byron computer program listings are in his possession. In the LaSalle program, the option is disguised as " renumbering" and may substitute the real data i by a data set from even a different subvolume effectively doubling weighting coefficients with a real possibility of exceeding the 0.1 level. The option in a fraudulent Byron program is, essentially, the same with a more candid title (it is called " erasing"). The Petitioner does not possess the Zion program and considered a remote possibility that the program has " bugs" instead of fraudulent options. Shapaker's example lif ted any doubts. It showed how some data were substituted.

The Petitioner insists that all the fraudulent programs and suspected

programs (such as Volumetrics) be immediately suspended, their listings be made_public in accordance with 10 CFR, Subpart A, Paragraph 9.4, 1

the programs be corrected and revalidated. The Petitioner invites a discussion, however, nobody takes a floor or questions the Petitioner's accusations.

f) Chairman Bernero strongly objects discussion of false statements in Director's Decision of March 16, 1984. He informs the meeting that the

accusations have been conveyed to the appropriate NRC Office and will be responded.

The discussion of issues that have not been covered in the Petition but have been raised by the NRC Staff proceeds. The Petitioner identifies j several methods of " fudging" and describes some of those. .

4 g) " Stabilizing" as practiced today is based on the wrong idea that from j the behavior of the average containment temperature some conclusions

' can be drawn on the behavior of the air mass in the containment. This bizarre idea was shown incorrect in Petitioner's Repdrt on numerical

! examples. The reason for this was explained in several Petitioner's i

letters to NRC copies of which were made available to Mr. Huang. A modified " Huang's stabilization" was declared a prerequisite for good i testing and-is currently advertised as a substitute for scientifically

based testing methods. The Huang's method imposes restrictions on the second derivatives of the average temperature and of; individual sensor

temperatures as fun'ctions of ~ time. The" guilty" readings should be thrown i

out,.says Huang. The method has no scientific basis and Mr. Huang even I not attempted to conceal this. Obviously, since the criteria are irre-

! levant to computation of the air mass, the " Huang's stabilization"may j be harmless (as anything else, including a good prayer). However, as i opposed to a good prayer, the Huang's stabilisation may qualify a good containment as bad, to which the Petitioner presents an example. Mr.

Reyes requests an explanation of the magnitude of the. data in the s I

' example.Itturnsouttgathisowndataconfirmthetemperaturechange for a subvolume as 14.5 which sets the individual sensor temperature changes at values lower and higher than 14.50~(perhaps, sometimes over 200). The example is based on the value of 18 . 0Chairman Bernero remarks that rejecting a good containment is not detrimental to the safety. The Petitioner agrees with this and presents another example where the assumed !

leak rate was four times lar stabilization fraudulently (ger by than Zion out throwing 1 allowable leakdata) inconvenient rate and Huang's i brought i the calculated leak rate to 0! The Petitioner invited comments but there were.none. The Petitioner speculates that the only reason why "stabili-zation" may be needed, is for cheating. The theory that the substantial amounts of air may be absorped, adsorbed or dissolved during the test in an uncontrolled manner turned to be wrong. Although there still exist attempts to use this theory in the form of using the " plateau" pressure l before the test, the expectations of cheaters did not come true - the effec i turned out to be small. The real reason for using the whole arsenal of .

wrong equations, wrong coefficients etc. is that the calculated mass curve +

as opposed to the real mass curve (which is straight line) can be made ,

deviating from the straight line. Then the piece with a large slope is 1 declared to be "stabi.lization" and is thrown out. In many instances, after :

a piece with the acceptable slope, another piece follows with a large !

] slope. This is called the " diurnal effect" and the utility company is allowed by NRC to conduct a short dyration test - an exemption is granted i for.an obviously fraudulent test! A. good example is Palo Verde 1 (test of

Fall,1982), During the initial informal private test, an S-shaped mass decay curve was established. The Arizona Utility Company filed for a short i

duration test cl. aiming " diurnal" effects. There was no time pressure (as I understand, the plant is not being operated even today), but an exemp-tion for a 9-hour test has been granted! Examination of the data that are available cast very serious doubts that the plant would meet the specifi-4 cations should the testwere conducted at normal duration. The Petitioner j refers to his paper published in the Proceedings of ANS for more details.

The Petitioner presents a Draft Resolution of the Meeting. Chairman ;

refuses to discuss the Draft. He presents no Draft resolution of NRC.

i He declares that he does not support the proposed Draft without stating his reasons.

The CECO representative in a short reark disapproved the Draft Resolution

and claimed that the company tried its best to conduct the meaningful tests.

Prof. Nissim-Sabat explained that eliminating of integration of pressure as the present wrong equation seems to do, may not be acceptable. The

, Petitioner explains that under special circumstances when there are no air flow in the containment or when the pressure changes are uniform, the present technique would be acceptable. However, the experimental data show >

i that the pressure changes are not uniform. Presently, two pressure gauge .

readings are taken and those : that would yield a larger " calculated" leak rateare declared " invalid"._Mr. Maura has dealt with a case when two-gages on the same line gave different pressure changes. The Petitioner knows of a case when six gaget all gave different pressure change. Petitioner's proposal-to record readings of at least two gages was sabotaged.

I j Mr. Gogol engages Mr. Huang in a discussion trying to understand Huang's

motivation in" deriving" an obviously wrong equation.

l Meeting terminates.

l v w - , , - * ' - - - + -

.esw++,w-~www-ww,--M*.ww+=ee

JL _ .d. = . T ^1 ~ ~ 2ZZ~

~ ~

- r ~ ~ ,

C 0 N C L U' S I 0 N S l The following fa, cts have been~ firmly established:' j

1. The air mass equation presently used in industry is an approximation l

+

to the equation which is not the conventional physics ideal gas law. !

1 Errors due to this equation may not be acceptable.

2. No evidence has been presented to show that the Zion weight coefficient are correct.

i I 3. No conservative estimates of the Zion leak rate from the 1984 test data has been presented. These are urgently needed to justify the safe

Zion Plant operation.

i 4. A parametric study of the Zion leak rate from the deficient 1983 test

data has been presented. Given that about 25% of the data was arbit-i rarily changed, no conclusion can be drawn out of this study.

i 5. A parametric study of the LaSalle leak rate from the 1982 test data i has been presented. The study confirmed that the calculated leak rate can be changed by 0.12%/ day by changing the weight coefficients. No definite conclusions about the LaSalle real leak rate can be drawn i from the study because some data were arbitrarily excluded from the f

analysis. .

6. Any value of a leak rate can be " determined" from any' set of the data '

4 using the present methodology by changing the weight coefficients. This i is proven theoretically, by examples presented at the meeting and by

, LaSalle parametric study.

J

7. The Zion leak rate computer program is in the possession of NRC, as 4 well as the LaSalle test data.

I

8. The LaSalle and Byron leak rate computer programs contain options for erasing the data and substituting another data.instead (" doubling of weight ccefficients"). There is a strong evidence that the Zion compute program may contain a similar option, that readings of.certain sensors i were thrown out for some time points and then brought back - for other time points (compare sets #45 and #46 from 1984 test. data of 27/7/84).

~

i

9. Whereas a failure of a " verification" test-provides a circumvential evidence that the test assumptionsthave been incorrect, a successful verification test, as conducted today, bears no significance on the test assumptions - they can be either correct or wrong, the test will not discriminate the wrong from the right.

10. Mr. Huang's contribution to improvement of verification test method is appreciated and his further work is encouraged.

,11. No scientific justification for any " stabilizing" has been presented.

l 12. The present stabilization has been shown irrelevant to honest testing.

13. Huang's stabilization may be either irrelevant or qualify a good containment system as bad or qualify a leaking containment as good.

It appears that it - is intended to justify fraudulent-data manipulation -

14. Both, the " stabilization" notion and the " diurnal effect" notion, can be used to misrepresent the test results.

. - . . . . . . . - . . . . . .... . _:- . . =a

15. These notions coupled with the "short duration" tests, as the example of the Palo Verde 1, 1982 test clearly shows, may lead to misrepresentation of true leak rates.

16. As pointed out by Prof. Nissim-Sabat, additional assurances must be provided that the pressure time changes are spatially uniform.

17. Dr. Reytblatt's Report has not been responded publicly by NRC.

=

l t

_- _-_,_.m. - - . , . ., , ,.4_ . ., _ . ,_ .- .. ~_. , e .. _ ,, . - - , - ~ . - - - - - - -,_

. - ~ ... . . . ~ . : - .

. n

~

CECD ZIDH STATION INTEGRATED LEAKRATE TEST . UNIT 1 07/27/84 RAW AND PRIMARY DATA ,

DATASETI 45 TIME: 5.31527778 HRS.

- - RAW DATA ***

PRESSURE DETECTORS Pl= 14.258' P2= 14.432 P.HANUAL= 0 TEMPERATURE CHANNELS 1 TO 36 UNITS =MV. (ST)-->S=SUBVOLUMEeTaTYPE(0-00Sel-WBe2-DB) .

1 (12)= 82 952 2 (22)= 82.931 3 (42)= 72.305 20)= 81.738 5 (32)= B1.872 6 (32)= 81.174 7 (12)= 83.459 8 (22)= 82.722 9 (22)= U1.712 10 (32)= 82.309 11 (32)= 82.139 12 (12)= 83.038 13 (22)r 82.11 14 (22)= 82.034 15 (32)= 81.541 16 (42)= 77.015 17 (12)= 83.061 18 (22)='82.403 19 (22)= 82.237 20 (32)= 82.041 21 (32)= 81.669 22 (42)= 80.119 23 (42)= 75.193 24 (52)r 82.078 25 (52)r 80.043 26 (52)= 80.894 27 (52)= 81.059 29 (31)= 63.816 29 (21)= 42.066 30 (11)= 42.3 31 (11)= 62.759 32 (21)= 63.787 33 (51)= 43.548 34 (21)= 63.273 35 (31)= 63.186 34 (41)= 43.415

- - PRIMARY VALUES ***

SUBVOLUME AVG SUBV. VAPOR PRESSURE 1 .280305652 2 .285403432

~

3 .290037757 4 .289164472 5 .290515992 AVERAGE VAPOR PRESSURE = .28676744 SUBVOLUME AVG. SUBVOLUME TEMP (DEG F.)

1 83.1775 2 82.3355714 '

3 81.821 ,

4 76.158 5 81.0185 AVERAGE CONTAI MENT TEMP = 81.6479379 (DEG F.)

AVERAGE CONTAINMENT DEWPOINT = 63.17574 (DEG F.)

CORRECTED PRESSURES: Pl= 14.444451 PSIA P2m 14.4593027 PSIA AVG. CORRECTED PRESS.= 14.4618749 PSIA CONT. DRY AIR PRESSURE = 14.1751094 PSIA CONT. DRY AIR M A S S == 191918.81 LBS.

fhfkf,ffE DRY ALARM = 10 hk((h EEh5 W/h I f

PRESS ALARM = 10 .

g '7g j

PRESSURE cal 1BRATION CONSTANTS p His 1.0095 B:= .071 M2= .99421 B2= .082 (( //

Ngo/ '? .

. _ __ _ _ i. -_. ._ . . _ .-

l

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

CECO ZION STATION' fHTEGRATED LEAKRATE TEST - . UNIT 1 07/27/84

~

R A(J AND PRIMARY DATA DATASETt 46 ,

TIME: 5.48194444 HRS.

- - RAW DATA *** -

PRESSURE DETECTORS Pl= 14.258 P2= 14.432 P'. MANUAL = 0 TEMPERATURE CHANNELS 1 TO 36 UNITS =MV. (ST)-->S=SOBVOLUMEeTaTYPE(0-00S,1-WBr2-DB) ,

1 (17)= 82.917 2 (22)= 82.952 '

3 (42)= 72.288 4 (22)= 81.831 5 (32)e 81.942 6 (32)= 81.221 7 (12)= 83.718 8 (22)= 82.794 9 (22)= 81.991 to (32)= 82.347 11 (32)= 82.089 12 (12)e 83.01 13 (22)a 82.176 14 (22)= 82.031 15 (32)r Bl.608 16 (42)= 77.043 17 '(12)= 83.017000118 -(22)= 82.412 19 (22)= 82.231000120 (32)= 82.06 21 (32)= 81.692 22 (42)= 80.146 23 (42)r 75 231 24 (52)r 82.113 25 (52)= 80.107 26 (52)= 80.897 27 (52)= 81.092 28 (31)= 43.707 29 (21)= 61.715 30 (11)= 62.397 31 (11)= 62.98 32 (21)= 63.652 33 (51)= 63.45 34 (21)= 63.517 35 (31)= 63.575 36 (41)= 63.444

- - PRIMARY VALUES ***

SUBVOLUME AVG SUBV. VAPOR PRESSURE 1 .281878609 2 .2845?5708 3 .291464322

~4 .289458694 5 . .2895196 AVERAGE VAPOR PRESSURE = .287185406 SUBVOLUME AVG. SUBVOLUME TEMP (DEG F.) ,

1 83.1655 2 82.302625 3 81.8512858 .

4 76.177 5 81.05225 AVERAGE CONTAINMENT TEMP = 81.3496739 (DEG F.)

AVERAGE CONTAINMENT DEUPOINie 43.2171367 (DEG F.)

CORRECTED PRESSURES: Pl= 14.464451 PSIA P2r 14.4593027 PSIA AVG. CORRECTED PRESS.= 11.4618769 PSIA CONT. DRY AIR PRESSURE = 14 1746915 PSIA CONT. DRY AIR M A S S == 191912.535 LBS.

CHAHHELS LOCKED OUT NONE f gi UET ALARM = 10 Y .

I b DRY ALARM = 10 d

PRESS ALARM = 10 Q .

,_ C AL _ _

His 1.0095 B1= .071

__S M2= .99621 B2= .032 u.m2 hk

- - , , - - , -- --e,,,,+m-, -e--,,-~s- ,--m---e y- -,,79m ,,s---n 4-vy -- "y y- -q- -sm n-

1 l

h -

k..

h.,. ;, ,.

M: "} '-

. GBfM*Ef tWM'4NI E ,w. QihM?p ' ,.?

pr\ g .;ys.}*4.' e. '* '

ex, w i 3 . .

- ,.4 .

~

J 7.

~

j .

'. m .

.. b

@ & R M.c . ui(jyy.MS R$p@4%@$s$

M r e2M muumMt NE9$$%

p .

Y

.n

. p.pe,bb.,a c . .. Y.7I

.K ..m S mf .1% ,,*wh . .e -da;1~ ,h. x.n1 m4n.g%. .~ >,c a- ab ! .>g ;p.y.s Q. o.<.

.c. m a . . .

w L. g M ~.:+

,' gb&pWhniiilMMW n

?2.W'"., fa < .w..s.%%..m.n.~.w.Q,(ihi%I5MWM .~$.Qf ~,

'.%y'M s

% Q..N.NfTf[.Y DSI dii ,N .

hd N- .

m&m k [ h ~k.'h. .W. m .

i<

hi!Ek

%1x9m M

.*Wpr.~pnGh $h'Nh.Q'-@h.whri*- fL k %., - h h.s ;ff' h b b L *W4 -Q. .b't y M .c W .p

-Q.W H '

c ;; -

" r.

- @MG6@m M'.n.'hI.Wii.@M.ri a m ( ,',: w..r..s j,-se .c.; v; g. =..,f.

. . .v.

. ..h .,v . x, m

, , a. y,v*::, m-sg.q.,. . .

.:m$$.:... g.g'. Q e.6 e..p.3.@QM .

6 .

,. p. i

'J -

~. ,

8 AY'p2MM N

v p s.'e@ M.N M a.

t S. .v. F. m$

M.. h . .%

$l .- ..., m @n. 3,...@4 n.w:f .V. ..

m .. W . ..

&keY 5hb f.w A@f W. k..u.m

?

[#Yifhh,r..?.A.?.k'a.t M

. .ig.

2 as r%i.ki.g".T iW&fdh.. '

m

' s.& A' ~ c w p . s. .e ~ . = .

'"m ,'n' .

m%sw

%.'.4.p:a.G...m:: -C,M;ai~q, L H C'M % Q T Q@ . O1 %,.

. .M $l7aBy' .' -

m E y, %~hc 6

h7%'

y:? *W? W I kkk M k h k k h b b k n h@Nh5%:p-w5 M%w w r4 s- . .'k m.c - p: ~. g.. 5 : ~.

m ~.: $ w M w, g . a ., n.fc., % . m4s-e m,c g u g.q ,.4.u, 4 W;p u p 3- -

m.* A.cq~ .

p . w >h..y . :.^ . -.4,...7

.;.< ';ew:*yr

% w -; m3. g. g,o r - o. e i. % ,y , .>. .: . - n nr 4 _ ' q@L s n.n w

?'%ydyN'%M

'1. .;M.%

u EW/cMW.'AW m-: -NN.W 9;.cf.p, 4.W*.&-., p A.W,, ,ffE'U .

w

.JV/c rt: ,

4- lM.:<: ri:

N ygd%&~~WR W pf .,a -

w t

@c~ % 8 %'v.

W,r ..

w4w%%$y N& $$=4 gf.y4;;'GM:l x, .

5 *% w W

.4

$ W $ @'

?k h.c*kQ.'(8N-$9.?.,

hD.@h 6 ;

b*W- LYr?Q*

. M*

W i ]W .i & p~h ,f,.i;M"

&**' n N

[

e k '-

y44i E ;1 . -

sv tl.

b. ?

c.g, c",.- N.%. .y&.'"W. . .us' .nc, .u.M- :g...+t., , A N sS [" s p

r ps p .. m,.s*: -@:c. *

.; $s.+4.

u . a.; .i .n s ..M

.w . ~e.W- }

.. 1x. \ n ;

=

a' N -

~ s ,

%'. pc .

._ ~ ,

s .w%. _Wr.. .a9 N hW1b _ 9_ wa _hE

@M..S.. Ey N.h~ 15 5 5 M M_ h E. h 'h*IS

. . . ~ . . . - dW w ...M.,.r W S C. .M.N . .MM.._

j ' "_. ~. 1

~

I* 5 f d kh b W W.. .' @[A d'(f..

MMM .%... .%R;&$M2%e n%[h9 . ,W$5.5? 4. .

'! Q. -l-u. . * +-f.h ~c*

G- __E N. N .'2 W 8,, k5.,.>M. ._&.9y*+f y*i,' M,W [. M$', s. W '.. *%'

v. .

h . T r . Qs. ;T- .~ ;* *; 2*; i. ' * . . *'?.

.y .

M'Wip .o.f-O M d.QGsj[? f W;p: %y 4.<n. .fh [. ...'1 }

.c >::e.. u,.,.a >..p., .w~.pg.e.>:n.'s p m.m. d y.y:% m.'. D j ed ,...;.c::4.jM. .; s- d,-X.T u. O.i

.~; J t

a--

-. v..:.c

.-- -: ; . /* . , . ,

- q., x . . . . :.a :7.e p..,fc.g.hy;sv:&m:.,w..%

. -w .

m. y.

e 3ym

, ay;-.

.p;.m ; s

. :. ,.;4 :3

. - . . ,- 4 <:

., .c -....

h,x,..> ,, s .. ,,. i

. < .n. "",2f.

.. t..1 n.m.., vs

\.,I[ N J

, w ,.

A ..$ , *;f J's , ; w .1 M

4

'. .. T g g.T1 8- d i.

c 4 i

( gj^

l ': Y 5? & Y; &.N ? ?(N & ? & .j,,E W... 'z y $ *qi'2:l$ &j p6%qh.,: Y-1 f

.m..2': p.- -

=-

-^ .,'.Q' w.g%(O' -~ * *Qf.:?.Y/S.E'y-) %%@;;.;y.v 'Q'3 =- w&g&m:n.;&mlByp$2$k ,6

. 1

- c f' e

. . . m .m, ~: . ., . -

.: 3,.w.w W,.3 ~

y,..,.,, k..yw.; s :;mQ,,}w

.p :..: u<m,,- . .

w:' m'**

%r ; .-

.' ;-. %a.:: ,. ' gQ..-.a...

.e. .. -,

- s

%.y&:

,,x.~ p s,. .

...s. ~*

...... 'q q 1 re a: . .f*'. n.~-

e .

m...

< :.. sr.+:

l. w - 1..fr.m; ::.u. 'O:.n:p.,=c. s :- ,p+ %";.y m&n.y,4 cpd nr Lg

W %.uk+ht

.A . n . r p,t .f.-J 4- .. -

. n .,,..% Wk~ . -. ~ -

~ . . . . . :,... .. . ~ . .c .:,:.. . W: u D.'t.. ~ ~.S$$.D!N 6bW 'MC.^ . ~

. l'

Nuclear Plant inspection and Testing 17

4. G. V. CRANSTON, " Testing Criteria for Integrated Leak regarding the minimum standards for load-handling opera.

Rate Testing of Primary Containment Structures for Nu- tions. For example,it establishes a minimum crane crew as a clear Power Plants,' BN-TOP-1, Rev. I (Nov.1972). signalman (in charge and responsible for the lift), a crane operator, a rigger, and a tag-line handler. In addition, for crit-

5. American National Standards Institute, " Containment Sys- ical lifts, a safety observer is stationed with no other duties tem Leakage Testing Requirements," ANS!/ANS-56.8- other than to stop load-handling should an unsafe condition 1981, American Nuclear Society (Feb.1981). develop. The minimum qualification standards are provided

6. " Containment System Leakage Testing," Draft Regulatory for each of these operating stations along with standard com-Guide MS 021-5 (May 1983). munications, daily inspection checksheets, and basic rigging

7. " Criteria for Determining the Duration of Integrated Leak- requirements. N matter how sophisticated, an existing power plant load-handling program may be, an individual respon-age Rate Tests of Reactor Contaiaments," NP-3400 Elec-sible for or in charge of crane operations would gain useful tric Power Research Institute (Dec.1983)* information from the operations guide. ;

8. J. R. DOUGAN, "Esalvation of Containment Leak Rate Closer to the subject of this session is the area of main-Testing Criteria," NUREG/CR3549, ORNL-TM-8909, tenance, inspection, testing, and certification. Although these Oak Ridge National Lab. (Mar.1984). topics are treated separately, they are too interrelated to com-pletely segregate. For example, depending on the nature of a specific material deficiency or maintenance activity, different .

5. Crane Reliability and Safety: A Certification inspection and testing requirements are specified in order to Program, Theodore J. De/Gai o (IVESTEC) regain the certification status of the equipment. Furthermore, for certain types of routine maintenance, certification of the In 1982, the U.S. Navy undertook a project to upgrade crane is retained by employing a " controlled assembly" pro-shipboard rigging and load-handling operations by estabbshing cedure rather than subsequent testing. Controlled assembly is a formal crane certification program. The program, which a repair activity accomplished by a written procedure, using both a primary worker and a checker. Torque values, clear- l incorporated seseral features of the Navy's long successful g submarine safety program, involved procedures for crane ance, and other specific requirements of the maintenance e operation, including operator training and qualification, as activity are clearly identified and serified during performance I well as procedures for main:qnance, inspection, and testing of of the procedure. I rigginF and load-hanJIing equipment. Special orovisions were For purposes of crane certification, a crane component f made for handling of criticallosds, such as nuclear material. certification enselope is defined for each crane. When failures The work culminated in 1984 with the publication of a or other certain deficiencies occur within the envelope, the

" Cranes" chapter to the Naval Ship Technical Manual (Chap. crane is decertified and must be recertified by inspection and ter$89). testing activities following repair or replacement. Inspection The Navy had compiled a substantial amount of accident and testing requirements depend on the type of component data related to load. handling accidents or incidems. These being repaired or replaced (e.g., load-bearing, load-data, much of which were used by the U.S. Nuclear Regula. controlling, safety device, etc.) snd the nature of the deficiency tory Commission (NRC)in promulgatmg NUREG-0612 (Con. (maior or minor). In addition to varying the extent of the trol of Heavy Loads), indicated that some load-handling inspection and testing required for recertification, these same ,

accidents were the result of material failures, but the major, considerations affect the level of authority necessary to autho-ity were the result of personnel errors. Consequently, the cor. rize continued crane operation with deficient conditions (i.e., j rective action program necessarily addressed both upgrading approval of departures-from-specification). !'

miterial conditions (by improved maint' enance, inspection, Just what impact this program will have on crane-related ,?

and testing) and personnel qualifications. Furthermore, the accident statistics in future years is only a subject of conjec-potential consequences of certain load-drop accidents (e.g., ture at this point, since the program has only recently been nuclear material, special weapons, etc.) were such that load. implemented. Contractor engineers and naval authorities are j drop was totally unacceptable and necessitated imposition of currently conducting implementation audits sponsored by the I, formal certification requiremer"s. Atlantic Fleet Submarine Force to ensure that all crane capa-This particular project is quae relevant to the commercial ble units (submarine support ships and drvdocks) have cor- [

nuclear industry. For one thing, the types of critical loads han. rectly implemented the program. Implementation has l died by the Navy and by the commercial nuclear industry are proceeded reasonably smoothly and data gathering has begun. '

quite similar and the consequences of load drop accidents are Regardless of these statistics, there can be little doubt that the also comparable. Second, the Navy intends to rely strictly on oserall effect of such a program on load-handling operations presention of accidents rather than analysis of consequences; will be a beneficial one.

therefore, utilities choosing to analyze load-handling accidents I might consider adopting certain features of the Navy procram. ;

Third, the Navy program incorporated several features o'f cer. 6. Analysis of Errors Affecting the Duration of 8 tain commercial standards, such as ANSI B30.2 series, ILRTs, Z. Reytblatt (Warren Wilson College)

NUREG-0612, and NUREG-0554. Therefore, some of the l

Navy program may resemble load.handlins programs at '

The present integrated leakage rate testing (ILRT) several commercial power plants. Finally, the Navy introduced methodology' calls for measurement of the dry bulb temper-several rather mteresting concepts, such as " controlled assem- ature at selected points, T,, wet bulb temperatures, and pres-bl> ,, to obviate certain inspection or testing requirements after sure, P. These data are used to calculate the air mass, M* -

vtrious types of maintenance and also " departures-from- using the equation:

specification ** to permit continued crane operation (possibly at reduced capacity) under conditions of material deficiencies. Af = kP, EwjT, , O < wj < 0.1 , Iwj = 1 , (1) in general, the initial sections of Chapter $89 were uhere k is a constant and the w,,s are weighting coefficients.

intended for training value and will be of only limited interest The consentional physics ideal gas law states that3 3:

to commercial nuclear stations. However, the next section, the operations guide, should be of considerable interest since it P represents a consensus of a large number of crane operators *# (2) i J. dV 4

d

. , ..a 1

J l

+ 1 18 Nuclear Plant inspection and Testing !

I' !

The leak rate is defined as -(6Af/M)/ day in percent where Eq. (3), which is a substantial improsement of the present '

6 signifies a change. From Eqs. (1) and (2),it can be deter- methodology. The present methodology, as shown above ana- i

mined that: lytically, on worked examples,8 and on the actual data l

(" negative" leak rates)is such that any value of leak rate can 6 1 be " determined" from any set of the raw data from a normal

-] M

, _6f_ +P.E W T j(E w,67,) + e . (3) or short. duration test.

Theoretical analysis shows that if improvements to the cur.

where e denotes the error due to:(a) use of the wrong Eq. (I),

(b) discretization (c) ideal gas law inaccuracy. (d) measure- .nt methodology are implernented, then many of the errors j will be drastically reduced. Listed in the same order as above, p ment errors, (e) errors due to the volume change, (f) errors the expected contributions to what would be an equivalent to 4 due to absorption and adsorption (g) errors due to changes e will be: 0, 022, 0, 022, 021, 0.001, and 0/)01 %. Thus, in air circulation, etc. The conservative estimates of these con-e can be brought down to as low as 0.005%. ,

tributions to e have been determined. Listed in the same order, Similarly, the second term error can be reduced,to 0.02% , ,

they are: 2 I,0.001,0.I,0.3,0.3, and 1%. The total estimate i.f a limit on 6T is imposed and wj are determmed with .

of e = 4% ar.rees well with some actual errors of 2%.

The second term on the right side of Eq. (3)is very sen-the accuracy of 5%. The first term error can be reduced )y to <0.005% by using more than one pressure gauge and sitive to w,(Zion, Unit 1) because, unfortunately, the T,'s are improving the water vapor pressure evaluation procedure.

of different signs. Since the errors in w, may approach 100% With these improvements, the total error m 6M/M will not (LaSalle, Zion), the conservative estimate of this term is 4%. exceed 0.03%. When this is attained, the test duration for -

Fortunately, the above terms are dominant only in the many plants can be as low as 4 h or less (for LaSalle, (0.03/

beginning of the test, whereas the importance of the first n term,6P,/P., is, generally, increasing. This follows from 0.18) x 24 h = 4 h].

the fact that laT,l< 0.15T,, whereas 6P- P when the test '

duration increases. Therefore, the leak rate still can be deter. CONCLUSIONS mined from Eq. (3) providing that the error in the first term The present methodology requires a substantial increase ,

on the right side will remain small when the term becomes .

dominant. Analysis of the data, the procedures for P, cal- in test, duration to keep the errors below legal bounds. Also, ,,

culation, and theoretical considvation confirm that ndeed,

there is a potential for a substantial test duration reduction, q which can be attained only through a drastic improvement m C such an error may not exceed 0.M. With the requirement that the totalleak rate error shou >t not exceed C.02%/ day methodology.

{

(Zion), we determine the minimum (comervative) duration h of the ILRT as (4% +4% +0.5%)/(0.02%/ day) = 425 days. 1. ANSI /ANS.56.8-81 Standard. .

D The phenomenon of dominance shift, observed when the r-

" calculated leak rate" starts to increase after 24 to 48 h of test- 2. Z. V. REYTBLATT, " Critique of ' Containment System s ing, must be used to determine the real Icak rate and to Leak Rate Testing Requirements,'" available from the 5 decrease the effect of the wrong equation, wrong assumptions, PDR of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1983). O E'

etc.

The only realistic means for test duration reduction would 3. 3. DOUGAN, NUREG-3549, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C' be a drastic reduction in e and in errors in the second term of Commission.

O I<

Y Z

v k

't 4

i

[.

t

,e i

L t

5 u

+

4 0

25 v

L

(; ,

NRC FRESENTATION ff

.N I

0 INTRODUCTION /

SUMMARY

- J. SHAPAKER l

l -

ALLEGATION REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS TO BE DEMONSTRATED C o

TECHNICAL DISCUSSION OF ILRT METHODOLOGY - J. HUAN ,G OVERVIEW 0F LEAK-RATE COMPUTATIONAL METHOD ' gehtd Id ^

IMPORTANCE OF STABILIZATION "'0C -

EFFECT OF TEMP. FORMULATION WM EFFECT OF WEIGHT COEFFICIENT SELECTION ;

- M~$lo{ ,

SIGNIFICANCE OF VERIFICATION TEST s _

o PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF ILRT AND DISCUSSION OF INSPECTION E PRACTICES - F. MAURA O 'bartA W e a. allbetM 4 col. .

% %.)?t vio b " 4 4 5 m o[-

p g g 0

SUMMARY

- J. SHAPAKER e M g

r 14/01 hE N-o PLO W /Df.

CECO PERSPECTIVE e OPEN DISCUSSION WITH PETITIONER

'i .

4 INTRODUCTION O PURPOSEOFME5 TING ACCOMMODATEPETITIONER'SR50UESTFORTECHNICALDISCUSSIONOF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 (DD-85-10) 0F JULY 3, 1985 o

PETITIONER'S REQUEST PROMP.TED BY DECISION (DD-85-10) TO DENY THE PETITION (LETTERS DATED MARCH 6, 1985, AND MARCH 8, 1985) SEEKING -

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENT LEAK RATE TESTING.

o THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION IS THAT THE ALLEGATIONS MADE ABOUT CM0 -

ZION 1 CONTAINMENT INTEGRATED LEAK RATE TESTING DO NOT SUPPORT ole M6 +ssf THE CONCERNS UPON WHICH THE PETITION STATEMENTS ARE BASED. Coot ovlM S /$

fbv. D . .

1 3

l

j .

_._(

l i i -

MARCH 6, 1985 PETITION

' t win 5%

o (Lib SOUGHT IMMEDIATE POSTPONEMENT OF ALL CONTAINMENT ILRT'S

/ .

MWidthf'o*C2[h'l.

m o

~ EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER THE DETERMINATION AND CONFIRMATION OF -

WEIGHT COEFFICIENTS USED I'N CALCULATING THE CONTAINMENT ATMOSPHERE WEIGHTED AVERAGE ABSOLUTE DRYBULB TEMPERATURE dW/aAD. W otcMig c

9 e

1- .

,. MARCH 8, 1985 PETITION o

SOUGHT IMMEDIATE BAN ON USE OF THE (VOLUMETRICS OR CECO) COMPUT PROGRAM (I.E.,' SOFTWARE) TO PROCESS RAW TEST DATA, UNTIL IT IS DEBUGGED AND REVALIDATED y

o PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH COMPUTATIONAL VALIDITY #OF SOFTWARE TO 1

AVERAGE TEMPERATURE DATA CLni C/ , <c ---J..y+d;u(

~

s. 4 U' ^~-

k e

a O

O

_ i i

1

, o ALLEGATIONS ABOUT ZION 1 TEST WHICH FORM BASIS FOR PETITIONER'S -

CONCERNS l

1)

ZION 1 SOFTWARE DOES NOT PROPERLY CONPUTE SUBV0LUME >.

TEMPERATURES q(p Qf M, ch '

Q SOFTWARE) ALLOWS FOR THE MANIPULATION OF WEIGHT COEFFICIENTS TO OBTAIN ACCEPTABLE RESULTS , -

I 3)

THE EQUATION USED TO CALCULATE CONTAINMENT AIR MASS IS WRONG 4)

CURRENT PROCEDURE FOR WEIGHT COEFFICIENT DETERMINATION /

VERIFICATION MAY LEAD TO UNDERESTIMATING ABNORMALLY HIGH LEAV, RATES TO THE DEGREE THAT LEAK RATES APPEAR ACCEPTABLE i

e 9

q 2

l

I

i ALLEGATION 1 ,

1 i

f ZION 1 SOFTWARE DOES NOT PROPERLY COMPUTE SUBV0L

,, \

DISPOSITION DATA SET FROM ZION ILRT REFERENCED BY PETITIONER EVIDENCE OF SOFTWARE INABILITY TO ADD AND DIVIDE CORRE i

STAFF CONCLUDED, BASED ON RESULTS OF HAND CALCULATION, TH DOES, IN FACT, PROPERLY COMPUTE SUBVOLUME TEMPERATURES m

P_

il -

d ALLEGATION 1:

ZION 1 SOFTWARE DOES NOT PROPERLY COMPUTE SUBVOLUME TEMPERATURES l-DATA SET 302 0F ZION 1 DECEMBER 1983 TEST CITED IN PETITIONER'S j EXAMPLE

SUBV0LUME 2 H

SENSOR READING (*F) 2 64.71 Tgyg =

]

" 7' 3 65.12 4 /

l} 'nt N

(

8 64.01'hU(,$ 600A f

/g yq , z =-

9 63.71 WHICH IS THE SAME 13 61.99 SUBVOLUME TEMPERATURE 14 -t- ' 'l d .'1 REPORTED ON THE DATA 18 60.23 Ll SHEET 19 64.63 .

443.40

DATA SET SHOWN IN PETITIONER'S EXAMPLE IS NOT NO. 302 NEVERTHELESS, SOFTWARE ACCEPTABILITY CAN BE SHOWN USING ANY DATA SET i i

^

,,. ^ ,- ^ ~~

~.T' --.;

CECO ZION STATION- INTEGRATED LEAKRATE TEST UNIT 1 12/05/83

.3

, RAW AND PRIMARY DATA ATASET6 302 .

ME1 52.3136111 HRS. Ik

- - RAW DATA * * * .., Y '

. ,j jp ggy/(,E PRESSURE DETECTORS Pi= 41.22 P2= 40 97 [ P. MANUAL = 0 TEMPERATURE CHANNELS 1 TO 39 UNITS =MV. ( ST )->S=SUBVOLUMEe T= TYPE ( 0-00S e t-WB g-DB ) 1 1 (12)= 64.69 -->2 (22)= 64 71 +3 (22)= 65.12 --=- 4 120)= 45 21

~

4 (32)= 64.49 5 (32)= 65.41 7 (12)= 42.37 + 8 (22)= 64.01 -*-9 (22)= 43 71 10 (32)= 65.33 11 (32)= 64 05 12 (12)= 62.98 -*13 (22)= 61.99 --*14 .(20)=,44.48 15 (30)= 46.91 l

16. (32)= 65.67 17 (12)= 63.75 --*18 (22)= 60.23 +19 -(22)= 63.63 20 (32)= 63.65 21 (32)= 65.420000122 (42)= 63 36 23 (42)= 67.19 24 (52)= 46 37 25 (52)= 66.89 26 (52)= 42.47 27 (52)= 66.22 - 28 (52)= 65 26 29 (50)= 64 22 33 (11)= 56.51 31 (10)=,8.96 32 (20)= .73 33 (30)= 68 14' ,34I20='56.86 ~ 35 (30)= .28 36 (20)= -3.54 37 (30)= 53 3 38 (41)= 57.52 39 (51)= 55.3

- - PRIMARY VALUES *** ---

1

-- - - \

m SUBVOLUME ' AVG SUBV.. VAPOR . PRESSUNE '. ; , .. ;__"y.r_ ,. 3-[. _. ~

. a.. .U.' ~.C. .._. f: ~ [

w .

~

.m ._I '.22'6133056 '"

' ~

N d'I 2 .229010384 3

4

.229010384

.234523708 N d g W 4 O M 6, 2 PM -

g (//,85 6 8 N 6 6 8 6 ~~

i ***'* '

s SW DF 662V/GG' {bO)

AVERAGE VAPOR PRESSURE = .227856306 e ggEgy/ C,g* f 2,2 )

'SUBVOLUME AVG. SUBVOLUME TEMP (DEG F.)

1 63.4475 L 2 63.3428572 7 3 64.86 .

~ ' -

4 45.275 - * ~~ '

e.

5 65.442 --

s .-

i AVERAGE CONTAINMENT TEMPS E.'2099943 (DEG F.)

AVERAGE CONTAINMENT DEWPOINT = 56.716 (DEG F.)

, tr7RECTED PRESSURES 1 Pl= 41.4260475 PSIA P2= 41 4260475 PSIA -

AVG. CORRECTED PRESS.= 41.4260475 PSIA 3

CONT. DRY AIR PRESSURE = 41.1981912 PSIA i C A8 T . DRY AIR MASS 574354.039 LBS.

3

_____________w______________=_=______________________

j u_WET CHANNELS LOCKED OUTi 4e14e15e29e31e32e33e35e36e37 P1(Pl=P2) aLann= 2 s -N DRY ALARM = .5 \ jpppp4ppus $ -

PRESS ALARM = .1 ;

-e-

.,[v /

1 PRESSURE CALIBRATION CONSTANTS

]M1=1.01489 81= .1611 M2= 1.01489 B2= .1611 C(,[

'l'. ,

l .

.i i

I .

\

ALLEGATION 2 , ,

ZION 1 SOFTWARE ALLOWS FOR THE MANIPULATION OF WEIGHT COEFFICIENTS TO OBTAIN ACCEPTABLE RESULTS g

Y D11 \A)

DISPOSITION AFF CONCLUDE LEAK TESTING PRACTICES IN THE INDUSTRY, COUPLED I

WITH NRC REGULATIONS AND INSPECTION PRACTICES, PROVIDE ADEQUATE '

SSURANCE THAT MEANINGFUL ILRT'S ARE BEING CONDUCTED I

A SUBSEQUENT PRESENTATION BY F. MAURA WILL CHARACTERIZE THE ,

INVOLVEMENT OF NRC INSPECTORS IN MONITORING ILRT'S AND IN PERFORMING INDEPENDENT CALCULATIONS TO ASSURE A MEANINGFUL TEST 4

9 e e asP

ALLEGATION 3 :

~

THE EQUATION USED 0 CALCULATE CONTAINMENT AIR MASS IS WRONG i

DISPOSITION i .

MASS EQUATION USED IN THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD, " CONTAINMENT SYSTEM LEAKAGE TESTING REQUIREMENTS," ANSI /ANS 56,8-1981, IS NOT

" WRONG" MAS ION: W = 144V _Pg - Pyr.g*

9 R Tg .

THEFORMULATIONFORCONTAINMENTTEMPERATURE(Tj)THATSHOULDBEUSED IS AT ISSUE ANSI /ANS 56,8-1981 DOES NOT PRESCRIBE A FORMULATION FOR T 1

ALLEGATION 3 (CONT'D,)

t TWO T FORMULATIONS ARE CURRENTLY IN USE 9 p)f

_ , ai

( (,,

l.}-~

v3C . ,- b EU .C '

f . .

I - !

2) p td30 M. -

. w .

fg ) l 8 e 'b L 6 k!%.f:: . .

STAFFAGREESTHATFIRSTFORMULATIONIShHEMATICALLYMORECORRECT, w was a meosa o v m y. ,

STAFF CONCLUDED THAT WITHIN THE RANGE OF TEMPERATURE PATTERNS EXPERIENCED DURING ILRT'S, THE DIFFERENCE IN LEAK RATE USING THE g

SECOND FORMULATION HAS N0 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE SUBSEQUENT PRESENTATIONS BY J. HUANG AND F. MAURA WILL SHOW THE INPACT OF THE T FORMULATION ON THE CALCULATED LEAK RATE

I ALLEGATION 4 f

i CURRENT PROCEDUf!E F,0R WEIGHT COEFFICIENT DETERMINATION /VERIFICATI0h MAY LEAD TO UNDERESTIMATING ABNORMALLY HIGH LEAK RATES TO THE DEGREE l THAT LEAK RATES APPEAR ACCEPTABLE i

t DISPOSITION l

CURRENT INDUSTRY GUIDANCE ON THE DETERMINATION / VERIFICATION OF WEIGHT COEFFICIENTS IS ADEQUATE CA R 0$ Ve $3

-dh

~~

3

(/ THE NEED FOR A PRECISE KNOWLEDGE OF THE WEIGHT COEFFICIENTS IS ch ((, ,

DIMINISHED BY THE ACKNOWLEDGED IMPORTANCE OF STABILIZATION OF

[g g CONTAINMENT ATMOSPHERE CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT A TEST TO ASSURE THE _

VALIDITY OF THE MASS EQUATION b6 %

SUBSEQUENT PRESENTATIONS BY J. HUANG AND F. MAURA WILL: .

O PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW 0F THE DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE AND THE h REQUISITE _ TEST CONDITIONS, o DISCUSS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VERIFICATION TEST o

PRESENT THE RESULTS OF A PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS (USING ACTUAL TEST

~

DATA) TO SHOW THE IMPACT OF THE WEIGHT COEFFICIENT NETWORK

i l

IMPACT OF T FORMULATION SONGS 1 ILRT OF JUNE 1985 Y

METHOD OF FORM 0F CALCULATED ANALYSIS EQUATION LEAK RATE FOR T (% PER DAY)

MASS POINT &T 0.05169 1 0.05101 W /T

\

TOTAL TIME cv T 0.05065 l (24 HR) ;

1 0,04994 I

& /T

' \'T,

JR O. O.<MM I gm %4 ach% % Dk C itf/.# A -

'd l} :

!! ILRT METHODOLOGY f

d a PROCEDURES FOR COMPUTING CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE RATE O MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS AND PREREQUISITE REQUIREMENTS .

1 1

o VERIFICATION TEST 4

e O

I

EQUATIONS FOR COMPUTING :

CONTAINMENT L$AKAGE RATE Yt@ d') L Q'A .

, lc scl o EQUATION OF STATE (PERFECT GAS LAW) odt 0] W 6 h itt j., P

'\ ,/ bc%d k{ ( ) .

BY MEASURING P AND T%' ',

L,B&1Elctde

(! b) c,ecy1 A( mgetgq[#d'I I s P

(r AND I Y=h .

ASSUMING V CONSTANT, THEN AT ANY TIME. t,-

R ,

FOR ANY , THE LEAKAGE RATE IS~ DEFINED g ,..,',,,

~

5=1 .

ai

4M W n

w mee =e4 4

6

- _ _ _ _ _ --____________l - _ _

I!

J o BECAUSE OF INHERENT DATA-SCATTER, A LINEAR LEAST :

SQUARES ANALYSIS IS USED TO ESTIMATE THE LEAKAGE 1

RATE (MASS POINT TECHNIQUE) !

\ Yl.

At=Atg+B \

AND THE LEAKAGE RATE IS COMPUTED BY ! c

@VLtdf

. Lam (% PER DAY) =-2400 A

. H WHERE, A m SLOPE OF LEAST SQUARES LINE / .

B = INTERCEPT OF LEAST SQUARES LINE j i

o AN UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT (UCL) IS SET SUCH THAT i)

, THERE IS ONLY A 5% CHANCE THAT THE ACTUAL ,

CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE RATE EXCEEDS THE UCL VALUE i i

i 4

[

I 4

4 .

c 1 :

. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS AND PREREQUISITE -

REQUIREMENTS FOR CILRT

~

o STABILIZATION: SPATIAL. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT DURING ,

(

b/ -

[

TEST IS ACCEPTABLE

[ $

RELATIVELY PROVIDED THE SPATIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENT I .

STABLE, I.E., GRADIENT CHANGES OCCUR SLOWLY MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE TREND OF INDIVIDUAL TEMPERATURE SENSORS LLOW THE GENERAL TREND OF THE CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE v- i 0' ;

.- e s

,/ b I

. . =

v y, . <

w.C e .T;

// 3heiLO 3

.. y ,

?L a

s % C l' j.Y ' ' U f a l'

72WPFAA78ME .

e

^

/

o ONLY OE SET OF EIGHT COEFFICIENTS MAY BE APPLIED TO ! '

TE TEST DATA \ /

\ -

i O'

TE DATA MJST BE TAKEN AT REGULAR INTERVALS; NO ,

'bnOf MANIPULATION OR SELECTION OF DATA IS ALLOWED i L

( W1.l:,1[v O SUFFICIENT DATA MJST BE TAKEN FOR A val.ID STATISTICAL '\,,

ANAYLSIS; LEAK RATE CALCULATIONS AE NOT SIIPLE ,

TWD-POINTCALCULATIONS /

(

o TE ACCEPTABILITY OF TE TEST RESULT NST BE VERIFIED BY CECKING TE EASURING CAPABILITY AGAINST A KNOWN LEAK RATE i ,

I

a i

p l -

VERIFICATION TEST TE PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION TEST IS TO VERIFY TE ENTIE CILRT TEST PROCEDUE, INCLUDING SELECTION OF INSTRlPENTATION, LOCATION OF INSTRlPENTATION, ACCURACY OF INSTRPENTATION, CONTAIWENT EIGIT COEFFICIENT ETWORK, CONTAIWENT ATP0 SPHERE

STABLIZATION, COPPUTATION OF TE LEAK RATE, ETC, 4

2 i

i

[ .

a .

TE WAY TO CONDUCT THE VERIFICATION TEST IS TO BLEED TE CONTAIWENT AT A KNOWN LEAK RATE (EASURED FROM A SEPARATE FLOW EASURING DEVICE) Ale THIS Ilf0 SED LEAK RATE ALONG WITH TE EASURED LEAK RATE WILL BE VERIFIED,, ,g Lu

., a n

.i BY THE ILRT C0ff0TATION PROCEDURES 4A L

//

v. s

' ,.#Lu

{

I (4/TO I-C

/ .

i..,

/ ,

m

/ ( Lc.- Lam)

L ;. 4 [.25Lu ,

40% Q a nci Lam ,

nuw & da evt tat .'

Q

(' /

,g.q tob4l

/ e4L^v 1An..t [q. , c.x ta se

'Y

, . } ~

4

a ,

i VERIFICATION TEST PROCEDURE ,

Q)b1 h i If% U'i (.C ' ' f, l:l'ecfQ BLEED lllE CONTAllfENT AT A 1(NOWN LEAK RATE,USING AN AC-CURATE FLOW EASURING DEVICE. EASUREENT OF THE IWOSED LEAK RATE (LI) AND THE COWOSITE LEAK RATE (L ); I.E., IM- .

c POSED PLUS ACTUAL CONTAIMNT LEAK RATE, MJST SATISFY THE

'~ ~

FOLLOWING RELATIONSHIP: ~~ C;Fcg/($ "f ,

(Le - LW - L 260.25 La

/// / s y p ,/ i Wk

<///" / / / //iv ,_,gta l

[ .x It

\dt s a

J M

a EFFECT OF TEFFERATUE ,

EQUATIONS ON ILRT RESULTS MASS IS COPPUTED BY W = PcV an AT ANY TIE ye l

/f Uk

//

.sne T= 1 EQ(A) d og Z "J/r, -

N T.i = Z Q q EQ(B) h4 NOTE: TENERATURE DISTRIBUbON IS NOT NORMALLY UNIFORM INSIDE CONTAIN-ENT DUE TO LARGE SIZE AND PRESENCE OF SUBCOPPARTPENTS. AS AN APPR0XINATION, THE CONTAIWENT IS DIVIDED INTO SUBVOLLPES AW A FINITE NLPBER OF SENSORS ARE USED, TEPPERAlURE IS PONITORED BY

ASSIGED SENSORS.

i.

CONCLUSION ON T E EFFECT ,

OF TENERATUE EQUATIONS o 18 YEARS AG0, F.C. ZAPP (REF. 2), AM), MDE ECENTLY, S. FRANK, k. / ' '. @ b O Ikr)

ET. AL (REF. 8), CONCLUDED THAT EQ(A) AM) E0(B) YIELD COPPARABLE RESULTS FROM THE LEAKAGE RATE CALCULATION, IF CHANGE IN TE Q . [.. j (,ht g , ,j -

Y

. SPATIAL TENERATURE DISTRIBUTION IS INSIGNIFICANT. THE STAFF HAS

[h } 8 /J i, k )

ECOEIRFED THIS CONCLUSION BY PERFORMING LEAK RATE CALCULATIONS P ~

USING ACTUAL TEST DATA. '

D 11 U t* Q'.N f i h ILog (,j,'_g.g >Q o DESPITE THE MINOR IWACT ON THE CALCULATED LEAK RATE FROM USING ..L.s /

t q Q.

-- ^ -

, -- --.. . . , I DIFFERENT TENERATUE EQUATpTE IM)USTRY WILL EM)0RSE TE ._

USE OF EQ(A) SINCE IT IS PURE MATEMATICALLY CORECT,

'; '^ f;) , ,

~~"

]!j .x, ((qdl. 9 t <.oh,f

~

c w r36 nu# e cf. Ma / t

[.

Ii I

f hYF.(f) -

5, Table 3-3 COMPARISON OF SPATIAL AVERAGING HETHODS Averaged Upper j Data Set Parameter Equation Confidence Confidence 2 Leak Rate Interval Limit (UCL)

Number Varied Number (%/ Day) _ (%/ Day)

, (%/ Day) % UCL

~

1 Temperature 3-5 0.036701 0.006917 0.043618 100.0 3-8 0.036326 0.006919 0.043245 99.1 Vapor 3-6 0.035972 0.007044

i. Pressure 0.043015 100.0 3-9 0.036701 0.006917 0.043618 3-10 101.*4

.j 0.035678 0.007070 0.042748 99.4

. I

,1 2 Temperature 3-5 0.296588 0.007249 s 0.303837 100.0 h 3-8 0.299886 0.007002 0.306888 101.0

~

vapori 3-6 0.294953 0.007741 0.302694 Pressure 3-9 100.0 0.296588 0.007249 0.303537 100.4 3-10 0.294060 0.007492 0.301551 99.6

/

i e

O

s J

'l ( ', *

.LQLw!.k(o L/ g [

yli*,( , ,, ,2

& li G '. i*.

~

i h&;v'y{'Q.*3 ) b%h $, ,

't . .

2 / 0^1 - / TES Y , 2>ECEntBER / 9 8 3, DATA SEr 26 & .,. _

?- "l 5t/BvoLun e oc; y(.py g,. ex' N 'Q -,

l U.78 6-23.9575 FM 22 9 3. </38/7+s -ss#

Lj 3

Y' / -'

2- 0. 3% d.8 3. 32.s*/ /67 4L+1 4.//973ey./i*

3 0.34 C.24.278'd / & 7. 9 4 / X. 4.0144482-/o 9

0.07. _ . _ . _ .

S2S.04S 47. M4/ /. 7/4 /3 97. / o'

/. 7/,59z + / / D +

~

5 0.09 625. A 4 + 97. A73 J?

SA' 4./757 /7.o*7742+./5

__ (j EaM 7=y = c.c .+ ./7 43 *e ,p;,,j,3.x .$t,g,&vh; as ctt_c/c@6.

/

50[$ 7~= Z Wj, = s.z,4./7C7 %

s f = o. co i 4# 2, As opp 5EO Tc 7~07A l- 73*Mp. of 524 %

2

s 9

EFFECT OF EIGHT C0EFFICIENTS ON ILRT RESULTS

- 0 lDG R O J.-

hl4.C r 1$

w t = Pc V RTi AT ANY TIE ti ~- /LO D )

WEE / - - .

H

% W [ #0 K ~

T = h o'Fr t

WEE otj IS THE EIGHT COEFFICIENT 'h1 'J NOTE: o A EIGHT COEFFICIENT DEFINES A FRACTION OF TE.

CONTAIWENT VOLIFE WITHIN WICH TE TBFERATUE

- IS ASSifED ESSENTIALLY UNIFORM DURING TE TEST 1 8 A//

0 TE CONCEPT OF USING A SINGLE SET OF EIGHT g4g,-

COEFFICIENTS ASSLES THAT TE SPATIAL TEPPERATURE DISTRIBUTION DOES NOT CHANGE DRAMATICALLY DURING L 7

- t TE TEST o .

k ag c g., 4t,,e a

. L-(N'- r .

a -

,1.

+

O

lk

'i

i i i

CONCLUSIONS EGARDING TE EFRCT .

0F EIGHT COEFFICIENTS J/ Ofl$Y llCY

, o TE CONCEPT OF USING A SINGLE SET.OF EIGHT COEFFICIENTS ELIES ON A STABLE SPATIAL *b1 '$ R 8 f/J, g % '

TEPFERATURE DISTRIBUTION, FOR THIS REASON, THE EGULATION, AS WELL AS Il00STRY-SPONSORED

- $4. Lt ' ~{,14 -

i GUIDANCE, EPFHASIZE STABILIZATION

'O i .

9 i o PARAETRIC ANALYSIS HAS SHOW THAT WITH STABLIZA-Ylb-fk( t.c [f ct

4'b k-c.

~

TION, VARYING EIGHT C0EFFICIENTS HAS ONLY A MINOR i

)Lk Y'UY.f }

h C J y1([ fl

' ' 4Au~y 4

. .N WMtOb?4 (Q , q '

'bRG cf.

l i-hl Seix ch$.r.;',q r MCl YW k-y

." GSte e kkfe,.( f' - :', r. -r~

/YG :/ fe 'h .<

r. u ,h..

h.-

. c. i f; , . . ', , = - - - .

i

'O"*'"8 %" ** w e .,e.- ~m rm _

$k 4*$'e wR q _.

e A d7@d:{l

~

u

\g R. R 'M y rg- 3.) $' N k)

~

K 4 $ . .. 9 ; 1,d 5 e Q th g k C A'

2

'U D . S $) -

-(, 7

d. q O ,, ,,

6 : 8- ,,[

II .

" M y g ,

y

~

3& $

t' %

M x a .

g

.m t'

- w$ toe" O lb

. Y p1 u

~

y, 0 y .e.-c hola s R e ;, e xAg g ,, t g g j

s{ 4 g ,,

M }e g ' g'!

TV

t ! . <c g , a i S h m sN z

% Sg <u O O .

y

'a _. .

s oQ

)

d

~

M*

Dg4.qj

(~L.

I .

l 39 + "*+ " " - -

. . i i

i REFERENCE

1. Reactor Containment In-Service Leakage Testing Criteria, Feb. 1, 1965

2. Testing of Containment Systems Used With Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors, Frank C. Zapp, ORNL-NSIC-26, Aug.1968

3. Air Leakage Rate Studies On the C.S.E. Containment Vessel, M. E.

Witherspoon 7 g. J. Rogers, BNWL-1028, September 1969

4. Leakage Rata Testing of Containment Structures for Nuclear Reactors, ANSI N 45.4 - 1972

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

" 6. Appendix J. Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing For Water-Cooled Power Reactors, Feb. 14, 1973

7. Containment System Leakage Testing Requirement, ANSI /ANS 56.8 - 1981

8. Containment Integrated Leak-Rate Testing Improvements, EPRI NP-2726, Nov.

1982

9. Criteria For Determining The Duration of. Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Tests, EPRI NP-1393-5, June 1983

~ ~ - ---- --- ----- s. a a s _,.._ . _ , , , . ,

~

e g

1 3v e # + .

'; $ N{ p)

E

=

1 *u h s u IIn 4. 29L t{ l 18

$* pl AN p s 0l ie e p!b1'4f +

e f r 1 8. 6 $ *f 4, ay m

,11.) I ho T f E 5 4 4.F '

f3 P.s s W1.I8 s

l i

9 3p j .]f psus .

44b .g,$ J

% 4145'84 E <m

'\

\

l

!@ 4 A oo 3 3 ~s k& b u

5 .

[ :

1 > ,

3 .s 3

N i 15 52

! +

l

,[.6* 4 s?%? 2g g#

. )g $ I E ! s ' s 't

~

lm % .

wj)}d$Y) f sk l .

I . .. . . .-, - - -

h h

k,g Q.,

+ , &

. .. 3 +$

a0 i. .

l ,

b +

! 4' h t p h d .

, "4 g

ra

.~

'hk 1 5 a=a .6 S' l m w,.M} g4 A

b -

k 4w . ;

e_ . . : ~ - - ___ _ __ - _ _ .,_ - ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L

U.

L LEex R&TE TE S TINC l r m m Mourroalmeasons:

! uNrYasNs 4.Vsessace P 1.rsneaaoroas T seen wsta. .

g a,

E -

i INTEGA6L TESTIWS u LOCAL TE STIWC' ,

(TYPE 8,C) ignestonTE civre R) FAULTY

.. OFTswFRSUDN ENT Tueonericas. rocoonriosi orieau anre sunsvaanaar.

~

th u. dV 7 Q

~ ~

1 9= x$ - ens LAW .

14 T T 6 m-m,+ms

~

s ,,

- If w Ma,f+a gA +....)

Tne wnouc equarios:

1 -

L

g p. , _K E'

!n = d,T t c(g73( -

j*T*dy' ;

l

' Soox' tocannple pso(Np(h,,g g y THE TOTAL of goox$ = fo , gg _ ,o ,=S,,

j. ' '*

" Thg wRONC soLUTioat:

i 1

snait '**x AVE RR Ce p g g y '-

~ $bi+ $1& = $250* Torpe.or soons ~_

)

( $50 + $50)

\j j

l u **e #

~

N-is, so : @= /8 doors.

LERM RATE Is THn

\

,.ygg SLOPE OF Mass-TiMG i ;

~ '

Leae q2-a,5.a,G.;2 .

e. cuna,,

(RATE) f TI % .E - s m LL iowewszog: AWy vnwe of L.R. ease

DE TERMINE9" FROM #AfV SETDF DRTR. ~

Sy WOR ME D 6XRMPL E_ S.

YhilD&TED by RCTURL TESTS.

SU8sTRNTJRTED

~

PNe enrzvs i en us "- Oc) -- -- _ - - -

A. - . . . A __._a-m.

O- - -

w t

! $ h E e -

I yh t

N .

4 'l e g ; k ~

s ns

%k o g g g

~4

'm

a, ,

\ .

3

<w 3<

g9 + .

..g.

>g

CL

%g' -

D. ~ .

(4 i .

b4$

W , 1

n

,m -

e 1

l -

1

.M ~N % A -

( g$ ~

\

m Wb Y 9%*D e i

Q *% ,

T5 d,Py'd' 8

ct .1 '2 l t i

3 i ob t 4 .h - <

t {u

\. %k

>g s

'i~ch% ->

I

\ a

&[ D AO

%{ p '

i t

N3 i2 m.3ttkd4 w

}~ % cd U 3

s 6 u v% .AV k [Ys. J Oh .. e

\

$y e

3 . [ v a.p * [ 6 *5

=r-d b -

g x ; fgw 4%$

$* q 4. % * '4.

%. 1T a: t 33h .

i

1 D

o

~

2 Y: .

y w

\

$~ r* O w

i0 9 c

t:5 w w& {

O.

3'

{ b$% -

43 0 E ep q-W W u L 3~ 4.- .., .

i A b M g 5 4 O- t .k 2 i M .

3 s 2 ,T,. ,

ts -; $4 n

'h s h. $

, ,3 0b

=_ _ : - _ _ - .

m3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _

3 .9 -

sommasy 'or me nioscia.Acusszw e

[ 1. % k & een epatim can nob de weeng L

et M. f .= J4 co A & emod we Wsong.

i

9. I

% 7 qustkm[isyses eer>wnes, Siokyj,9tc.) e C AU 6E WR0%. l p=f ~ d Ava s - padh, U- refoe;&, t-t;ne L

is WAou.

3. t, gas etus%m PV = R'P6Mheu P Lo a uni k M b W tt Y~V00sna R-consta rp- uAd ksm ,a4s. temp. a,, cotet4

'I ;

Pesfact ps equaticme)Wkste 9,rPg valnm , is not so%ef. fis termeet equa k gupJ ww pis anasty, g1au,twes?r

t A. f M$c.:.,.$@.e $4$. *

^*kgi

%.N 'gg.g,Gn.%

e. 9r# ..w ,,

y p.y.r.s, f. .y3x. i%.T.A ,-:.P n ,.m.si&r . .a w .4-.h.;; ~

g! p.,. ql:' ,i.s.u.&' M k' ik. e 4. {.,;a9 e9 ,y;;.Alyg'M.g,,g, D@%.y -5kk.3..h* $+4.,

. ss .

e. u. .. ...

f.' a.,;g. ,

e ' ,y .,. . ,. . .J,. : . , s.,;y.%.

.,.. n.> )

b '

lj i l

r. j m .~ .. . . E' &' : ~ . s.. ,. nt ~. ' V,qi.h.f. ~...,yhY.r.5

- ,- s

& ,. ~,& , .zl;o .

.. e j l.y. s.. .h.-l:i.),y;-: s 1y . :k.

3

- Q;.a .L . v.:& % : " .Q,f.)/" ;'* .

t..; .. m '.". . y :.

,: p%',,. f.Q?i7l(?_ .'. :,e.1y.G:y) a; .:.'. &r.fi; <c;.Q. n :.. ..rs,;ru.9. - '

. ,,. g. ,vn.: . .b. &. ,< . ,t..: .g*. ,x.. p: i,,. . t . .;k, g

.pg:4.

, .3 .. . '., ,x.

g.; ,

.v.,

.s

.+, ,

,c

'r>- .nr a.h. m. . e... - . .. .,: r. c: ,!.

. .- 9

. v ., v. . .

.? <

.c.. m. %.e.v.. c ...x,;;

. .; , ,,. .. %.qy .

j' * ' ],

.' .' ' it.ig p*f- '. *y- [],: ,,..;? p y.fji. Q t , e. :a :-

h . . - f' .

i.

,. ' , ,m ,,,S,*..y.{,' @U

l.7.'..'M2 : %y ,hFd.' ,

. 7 L,* * - * (/.,,j >j, @' , . (.~. dj '-

s

p. '. A.Q m -cro0. n 7 a .ft,

.t...cs v. %. .. .;r .g:.,.h, ., p..wm y, ps..l

' ' , N %p . . .w. . ' *- 4.;,4a.

v .

'., .e- End 25 it. <' "'

i 1 ,,. ,

W 1.pe.t,'.

..v.'. Elev.'74dn'ft uu 2 1 r .m,t **i:-2TE-CT005

p %;Ud' 9

. .4 . ,

Qe ... . .x Eme.' M tt > '*g Ai. +'i..r*N., b. , .i leae.,.\.'{ '.V ..

s

,i .

4 h.

. . IME ,CT032. Elev."- 752e ie ,, . .,. .: . ..'?+ .U,. ' . 't u i 3 ,

t.

l Q ,r . ,

,,,, Rad.25ftl,,;Y'.l'*n;,.n,]*.'.,[,g . , f;' .y ,,

..,,.. ure.s. *.,..., i. . %:. n.pf, ,,3K,

' . f.c .P. ,' . * , . '..,n

,3 p~. ,e

, 2

.i 4 .

,i f ' : .. e , . . ,

.' . . . , ,. ,.. .t t 'g ,,', . -'

, ' .. .S, l. ' ,.,'1

,, ; * . l ;g

. g ,

i

. T ' .. ITE-CT006, Elev. 750 f t'i' ; .

l

?;

,. .,, h a d , 2 0 g g .* a ... t I\ *

. ~+?. , . ,

a, i ,, .4 . ,s. #.

i % i

.g. ,, .', . ; '

ag

,;j ,,

, . . = . . , . , . -.- -

..(,*.

9

. .. ~

t'

.~.,.~ .. ,.,;....s**. : . <

.s..... 4,,f. .h.. ,,.. .,., -(e ),.

.v 1,. ,,,.

1.. .

',' =. . 4=* ". .

g . . ; . t * . [ ,' .

d

,, , . g ,, ,_ . 4 : .. . ."..2.L. . ,

. 'e

.- ;.. t u

,.. .4

.. . g g.% ?

- . ^ p..

p

. . . M. . . i p

g ..

. ITE-Cr007. Elev. 754 it, }' r

..".*'r*:

l/80* Ead. 31 f t .. . .

r y

, ...,..,. ,, o, v

.e..... . . .

,. . .. . I a.

. ,. .. .. . > ,.v.. .. .,

m.

,.i 1

~

Fig. 2.7 - Flas View of Seneer Locations, Smirselame 7 * '

?

r 3, , . - . ..

7

(

,, . 's v, j,

) C - ',. *

.. ,' c g

~

' **'- I' w

, q

,b , .- , >,

. J ,

I;

's

. , *f .

i.

.. : : ;?..,-< m, l 42,*

..a.

r.- [

'1 - .. .. , , . ' '

., . . . . . '.. (,*gaa* fd' $,,a r

s.' ,

, ,i ,. , . ' .; 5., '* g, . r. (S pr_ ,'* : . , ,

p

~7 ?r, F,. 4 ., . r . . , .,'. ,, c4.. p. . . . . . . . *.- er

- * ,1 . , s . , 3y.b,* , ,, e . . . ?.N -t , ., . - ,,,.

. :. .i ~ . >

v... . o. . ,/ 4. ? . .s, ."',p

. s

['.55fg ,[ * *j', ' &.h;\'= I.'.Ind'$Eh&'.'O'Q . > ' $,*,.'h*[N(jfi&tLt&*itf4.';y ,

'fh'n ? ;,;,*,

e 'T ;^ g\',y .. ,'. y %

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

NE.

Wteg U' sea 4si,,'e,

\^

Wu O. 10 5 0- 0 7 .

g

*A Wg 0. l0 S O lY

! <' w o. n o s- 0 Of

~ Fig.3 7 % _

g R = 40*

~

,l , AR = --10' i

~

ws.y . c.o w er t.onk. & Sest %b: 0. Il xl0 - 0. ll 19e 0 -0.9 N0 + 0.l410: 0. 7*

O. 7 */soo* = 0. H N,//

(0.]- 0.2b!!? .y'f,gV-'

W gta C reo*

{ .

W y y j60 k d "9 g (9 0 l ~

< fa satsast;ou" , go,. : 2II"9. '

( & % 6Ts.=SYA y y9,l9 p ~ '

,,-----------------------------2,,,,,_.,______._,_,_,,_._,,_#_a____ _2 ,__a____m , - - - , ___ , , _ _ _ , _ -

i

.s N 4d k

0%

88

.3 ?

1 i

9q .

s Q

f 6 .

.1 14 44 .k >

i s tm gS P<l#94 e 4 e '

i4 9 j$ E U c _ e.n i

T s'O $$$

e ..

5 26 e f .

f$ .h

[,$ aE p J se 1514 e soy t l Js d 3 3et 4 g. p .

4 ~0-

_A

~

W -!0- s's .# o' e' ox; x e l O .v *. *i us m :

! kY ! k.v i OY %

QT4 4

1 ,5 (W. a {-[ ' )

Y P h $ , ll ee a6 ,b

-3 %e $ 3 4 m je g Q M em b ' '

ss @

- - j .%

q * -

.+ . .s l

![

D yg*s dU . s.d, k n A

E U I

f f.e*I 's ad d p u %m a

o gs s e n.

g .V kNgk w" I %

E

= 9 N

l '4

~a 0 g .N z g c i P, 3 W W ' '3 d ,f G +. m- g 4=1 '4 4 ,v g.so o

NO W T HEY .FUD GE .1T.

l. ?NSTRUNENT PLRCE NBNT. X 10 A. # 0F JNSTRUNENTs,' CRGBRATIOW. x 10 l 3 OR6$7RhAV RSS UMTloN5 't loc X 10

4. USE OF THEI WReNt EQUh710N -

5. "%siog og i ogaeu3 l ag"Ik**'""'$ x too l

6."1ockNc our"(llgly,f,y",Q x too

7. "Btoexiog loaxing pazifea XbM

8. rwittr vev'peato>> # !

?

~

9. Fos gssy

. l l

O 4

NoW THEY- A B OT R C'E I.

Darn t UNA VR1L A BL E.

A. No nesposse, neerzsics, oiscossi.e.

3 . N o s c r ir o x .

~ '

4. COVE R UP.

~

S. NITHOLDIWC [NFORNRTIoW j 6. GRCCIA/C j, .

7. P a o n I s s s'

8. Lzas, foR GE R Y

9. FAtsE "RESEARCH" l0._lWCRERSE DF ALLOMBLE LE&R RRTES ("PROBAblQST]c' APPROACH-)

Summy -

y

agg4t;g c e 44m% .

~ 4, 8d*4/lio d m aJ pt:ae@ cec -

l N j WNeh A LOA!&sk$

, }( = v 'T' dV l % ffdy ewt!,'9 st a pysg & 7 Tire

&pri, N b e d e lencA MMS 8Ad4ds2L.4),

l CaA&AeCnst o'n ! Atfneth'! . y &O

#hM 0 Y- vyger ugi9g ,

1 hadillg b a /d . rwoST & E THR0WAl ~OUC '

(/) h fTy + $ -37l< 0.5cs)dnd inddAde+A SenML %D h (* 1

{ tw ww w a sam ped . au %se eensequent VM

          'T'o' G' (PA t at 4 %. intavat)
   ~

                                                                     - - ____m..                  ___% _   _ _ . m             . -.2 --g  -_-_m_<     ---,a_._  __    .ma--_ _ _ ___ __..

e Fn afL 30 mrurats Wh0 'O I A ' 3 l3 s t-Is l T*~ soo. soo.si sol.si sos.os .-lsm.og

j. *'b'30 so. co.os so.Is so.so l .j si.s1 pq,;,

                      % uis                          u                   %ang"s%*eghn.                                                                                                       ;
               .      Am h $, lLESK                                                                               R A TE                             =          C

\ . t

                      ]     LWn'q                         9;W0'htd                                                              Cl                  pod               Cart-l I                 -

k in> E d a>s daal

e

g . P= 4 _- , p,, goo a4* a,_ c,,,., t ' I-5 4-IS Ib.to ' Al~30l haut f }$$ f,'h ifl.M jfg douWreA $~[6ovna!Af-30 0 ;

 }   5 00 SIO.Ss      soo M t &            lt) % d akt 3   Goo    .
                                   ' O vtc W M d's t ,   f 'E w d #n         .!
                                  " OA4Vtad & & 4eJtWitt")
                                    &n m            L S u g 16-10 i
       ?

y p m 4dI Muawg4 (.2 ) W # -l 50* S00 ,S00 < 500 1

                                  %g           yn)e a 6' k'uary= o           *
 %t Ina tata=                                       ,&, \soo = 0.17'4 May.

Huomg 's 31I{$ sta &6 S ##(k A ""d" N+ {,, +&,) - Q'$eo! a 4aor cedramhi EA W

a yt we 4's a @ 3 $. . V n Jo k m 1 *e

 %                              #<, /-
                                  ~                             ;

ur y. w . u t 4 d l f3 Y J m N .% \,f. , t ep 9 J O I yi . g 4ll > . T 5 4 . D* k / Je8 , y 4 .. n

                          ~
           ~ ~   %, .
                                                                  -w,w--.vn---,r---o-e-w-,--,r,m--

7 ~ f { O N C LUSI O NS u

l. THE PRESENT TESTIMC T$

FRULTY

1. Au usr resrs nosr se L .

RE VIE WED 3.Tus seo rssrixc Mus'se BANNED IMMEDIATELY. \}}

ML20138R128

Contents

Text

Dear Fred:

SUMMARY

Background

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20138R128

Text

Dear Fred:

SUMMARY

Background

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search